The Material Culture of Iupiat Whaling: An Ethnographic and Ethnohistorical Perspective

Anne M. Jensen

Abstract: Whaling has long been the organizing focus of coastal North Slope Iupiat culture. Many scholars believe that whaling was important in Thule culture prior to the Thule migration. Despite this, abundant evidence for whaling has not been found at many Western Thule sites. I examine the material correlates of current and historic modern Iupiat whaling, primarily in Barrow through interviews with active whaling captains and their wives, as well as historic data. I look at the items that are associated primarily with whaling and where these items are used and stored. Although modern whaling appears on the surface to have changed markedly, it is suggested that the basic activities are relatively similar and therefore the associated patterns of material culture can be of assistance in detecting past whaling. I also briey describe a locus at the Nuvuk site that appears to have been associated with whaling activities at the very beginning of the modern whaling period.

Introduction
The hunt for bowhead whales (Balaena mysticetus) has been described as the organizing focus for both past and present Iupiat society, at least on Alaskas North Slope (Sheehan 1985). Certainly, it has attracted the attention of nearly every explorer, trader, and social science researcher working on the coastal North Slope (e.g., Bodenhorn 2003; C. Brower 1942; Galginaitis 1990; Lantis 1938; Maguire 1988; Murdoch 1892; R. Nelson 1969, 1981; Rainey 1947; Worl 1980) and further south (e.g., Ray 1975; E. Nelson 1899; Thornton 1931). The advent of more-than-casual whaling is considered by most arctic archaeologists to be one of the dening traits marking the transition from the Birnirk culture to Thule culture (Mathiassen 1927b; Savelle and McCartney 1994:282;

Stanford 1976: 113114). Indeed, the Thule culture was originally dened based on large whaling village sites in the Canadian Arctic (Mathiassen 1927a, 1927b). There are oral histories and documentary accounts of whaling from the Bering Strait (Ray 1975:111; Thornton 1931:165171) east to Hudson Bay and Davis Strait (Freeman et al. 1998; Rink 1877:121), indicating this activity was once widespread rather than being conned to Alaska. It seems likely that the cessation of active bowhead whaling by residents of the coastal areas of the eastern Arctic was primarily due to intensive commercial whaling, which led to whales becoming skittish and hard to hunt. Subsequently, commercial whaling led to the near extirpation of rst the Spitsbergen stock, which was greatly reduced in

Anne M. Jensen, UIC Science, LLC, PO Box 577, Barrow AK 99723; anne.jensen@uicscience.org

ARCTIC ANTHROPOLOGY, Vol. 49, No. 2, pp. 143161, 2012 ISSN 0066-6939 2012 by the Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System

144 coastal waters by the early 1700s (Braham 1984:47; Hacquebord 1999:379; Reeves 1980; Rugh et al. 2003:268269), and then the Davis Strait and Hudson Bay stocks of bowheads (Braham 1984:47; Rugh et al. 2003:269270; Rugh et al. 2003:270; Rugh and Shelden 2009; Shelden and Rugh 1995). The results of the intensive hunting, perhaps coupled with effects from climate change (Hacquebord 1999), would have reduced the likelihood of whaling success to such a degree that pursuing other game was a preferable strategy. In Alaska, however, the tradition remains strong, and bowhead hunting is still undertaken in coastal villages from Kaktovik to St. Lawrence Island (Bodenhorn 2003; Freeman et al. 1998; Galginaitis 1990; Jolles 2003; Noongwook et al. 2007). Presently, all coastal villages on the North Slope whale in spring, fall, or both though Point Lay has only recently resumed this activity. Despite the tradition of whaling, most contemporary coastal villages in the Northwest Alaska (NANA) region do not practice bowhead whaling (Fig. 1). Kivalina is currently the only NANA-area village that is a member of the Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission and has apparently been the only village in the area to hunt whales regularly for the past 200 years (Burch 2006:156 161). It has generally been held that the Thule residents of the region initially practiced whaling, but that the residents of most locations abandoned the practice fairly early in the sequence because it did not offer a good return for the effort expended, perhaps because area villages were not
180 176 172 168 164

Arctic Anthropology 49:2

well situated to take whales. Available archaeological evidence from such locations does not contradict this idea (e.g., Giddings and Anderson 1986). Recently there have been new excavations of the major sites at Cape Krusenstern and Cape Espenberg but the resulting data are still under analysis (Shelby Anderson, personal communication 2011; Christyann Darwent, personal communication 2012; Owen Mason, personal communication 2011). The relative paucity of whaling technology among the artifacts recovered from these recent excavations and earlier work has raised the possibility that the Thule residents of these sites did not hunt bowheads and what baleen and whale bone is present is the result of scavenging of stranded carcasses. McCartney and Savelle have addressed this topic in response to suggestions by Freeman (Freeman 1979; McCartney 1980). However, their conclusionswhich suggest that most of the whale bone in sites of the area were present due to scavenging (Savelle and McCartney 2003)were equivocal for some Alaskan sites because they were only able to measure exposed bones, which tended to be from large whales that were not likely to have been intentionally taken because hunters traditionally prefer small whales. Given the documented presence of whaling in coastal Inuit societies across North America at or after the time of contact (e.g., Maguire 1988; Murdoch 1892; Rainey 1947; Rink 1877; Thornton 1931), as well as in adjacent Chukotka (Krupnik 1987), and the fundamental place that whal160 158 154 150 146

68
Chukchi Sea
Point Hope

Nuvuk Utqiavik Walakpa Wainwright

Ar

Barrow Cross Island

Point Lay

cti

c P lain

s
No

Kaktovik
rth
Slope

Tikiaq

Br

ook

ko

tk

Kivalina

s Ran ge
Community Archaeological Site Whaling Camp

Cape Krusenstern ape EspenbergK

g St i ra t

68

NANA

64
r Be

otz So ebue un d

in

Arctic Circle
S ew ard Pe n i ns u l a

Gambell Savoonga
Nome

iver Yukon R

No r to

n S oun d

St. Lawrence Island

50

100 150 200 250 km

172

168

164

160

158

154

150

146

Figure 1. Map of Northwest Alaska with place names mentioned in the text (map prepared by John Darwent).

Jensen: The Material Culture of Iupiat Whaling: An Ethnographic and Ethnohistorical Perspective

145

ing plays in the denition of the Thule culture,1 assumptions concerning whaling should be examined carefully. This especially is the case because they rest almost entirely on the absence of certain types of artifacts in the assemblages recovered from houses. As a zooarchaeologist, I am aware that certain categories of artifacts (e.g., food remains) are not well represented in houses, although they may be the most common artifacts at a residential site (cf. Ford 1959; Jensen 1990; Sheehan et al. 1991; Stanford 1976). My casual personal observations as a resident of the modern whaling community of Barrow for the past 16 years suggested that excavations focused almost entirely on winter houses might result in an underrepresentation of artifacts associated with whaling. Such items are used on the ice, where they vanish from the archaeological record if lost, and spend most of the year stored or being worked on in a variety of places other than housesdespite the fact that modern houses are much larger than houses were built even 50 years ago or than earlier houses which have been excavated (Ford 1959; Kilmarx 1990a, 1990b, 1990c; Lothrop 1990; Newell 1984; Sheehan 1997). Ernest S. Burch, Jr.s work made explicit use of an ethnohistorical method called upstreaming (Burch 2003:15; 2006:15; Fenton 1962), which he noted (Burch 2003:417; 2006:29) is directly analogous to what archaeologists call the direct historical approach (Steward 1942).2 In essence, upstreaming involves moving from the known present to the unknown past (Fenton 1962:12), making links between patterns observed in the present to available information about earlier patterns. The idea is not to take modern conditions and assume that they existed in the past but rather to move back in time trying to detect changes in various aspects of a culture, putting the changes into an overall context (including particular factors which might have inuenced that culture). It is not mere ethnographic analogy, although the two approaches are often conated. As Burch (2003, 2006) points out, as a purely ethnohistorical endeavor, this process has its limits, since the oldest informants who worked with the early ethnographers (e.g., Rasmussen 1952; Stefansson 1913, 1914) only possessed detailed information, learned directly from those who had experienced it for themselves, reaching back to about A.D. 1800. Although Burch was not an archaeologist, he was interested in archaeological data and was eager to see archaeologists address questions of social change for times prior to the periods that can be accessed through oral history (Burch 2003:18, 2006:1516, personal communication 2009). In fact, he felt that once one had reached the earliest period attainable through oral and written historical sources, any information of what

happened before must come from archaeology (Burch 1998:18, 2003:18). The direct historical approach has limitations. Foremost is the requirement that one be able to follow a specic group back through time step by step, from a known present (or ethnographically recorded present) into the unknown past. If there is no ability to directly connect the ethnographic and historic record of a group to sites, then a true direct historical approach is impossible, and the best one can do is ethnographic analogy. Even in cases where such connections can be made, the data can be used for simple ethnographic analogy, where the past and present are assumed to be similar rather than taking a direct historical approach. The logic of ethnographic analogy relies on an assumption that the past was highly similar to the present and thus tends to impose a somewhat ahistorical, static interpretation on the past (e.g., Wylie 1982, 1988; Lightfoot 1995). It is clear that this is not what was intended by those who developed the direct historical approach. Stewards formal exposition (1942) was explicitly written as a reaction against the trend in American archaeology toward taxonomic schemes (e.g., the Midwestern Taxonomic Method) that tended to obscure cultural change by creating timeless and spaceless categories (Steward 1942:339). The ultimate goal was study of cultural change, process or dynamics that would only be possible with specic data sets generated through culture histories of specic people (Steward 1942:339340). The question of where whaling gear was stored in communities, and therefore where it could enter the archaeological record,3 is wellsuited to upstreaming, or, if you will, the direct historical approach. Using a combination of ethnography and archaeology advocated by Burch (2003:18; 2006:1516; 2010:132133,137; personal communication 2009) as a means of learning about periods beyond the temporal reach of oral history or documentary evidence, it should be possible to assess our ability to detect whaling given archaeologists current excavations methods. There are currently many active whalers in Barrow who can be interviewed and observed, so it is possible to determine what are the current material correlates of whaling and where they are stored, whether in the house or not. In addition, written and photographic documentation exists from the time in the late 1800s when contact with Yankee whalers4 led to some limited technological changes in the gear used for whaling (Bockstoce 1986; C. Brower n.d., 1942). Both ethnographic and modern data indicate that whaling practices tend to be persistent, in part because of the continuing belief that whales choose to give themselves to captains and crews who are acting properly (as perceived by the whales), so that changes might jeopardize a crews

146 whaling success. We also have archaeological data from sites (such as Utqiag vik) that are accepted as whaling sites, which can be linked to modern people through oral history.

Arctic Anthropology 49:2

Modern Iupiat Whaling in Barrow

Modern Iupiat whaling has deep traditional roots. Different villages vary to some degree in their customs and techniques. The ethnographic present2010described in this paper presents bowhead whaling primarily as practiced in Barrow, although mention is also made of some practices in other North Slope communities. It should be noted that the focus of the ethnographic portion of this paper is specically storage practices for whaling gear. Whaling as a whole is far more complex than can be described here, interwoven as it is with the very fabric of Iupiat culture; a brief description of Barrow whaling, primarily based on personal observation, is given here to orient readers who may not be familiar with the practice in northern Alaska. Whaling in many communities has been thoroughly documented by a large number of ethnographers (e.g., Bodenhorn 2003; Galganaitis 1990; Jolles 2003; Krupnik 1987; Larson 2003, 2004; R. Nelson 1969, 1981; Noongwook et al.2007; Rainey 1947; Spencer 1959; Thornton 1931; Worl 1980), to whom the reader is referred for additional information. Bowhead whaling as practiced on the North Slope and elsewhere involves a great deal of complex technology. The equipment currently in use in Barrow is a combination of Iupiat and Yankee whaling technologies, with some modern updates. There is an ongoing process of technological substitutions as better alternatives become available (Bodenhorn 2003; Mitchell and Reeves 1980; R. Nelson 1969). Aspects of the hunt and weaponry used are dictated by international treaty and regulation (IWC 2008). The various issues are complex and well beyond the scope of this paper, but in general the involvement of outside agencies appears to have favored retention of traditional technology, with the exception of substitution of penthrite bombs for the Yankee black-powder bombs. Barrow is generally considered the only village that regularly whales in both spring and fall, which is possible because the whales are nearby in both seasons. However, St. Lawrence Island whalers now are catching whales over a much longer period of time than has historically been the case. They customarily whale in spring (Jolles 2003:316; Noongwook et al. 2007:50), but they have taken whales in winter since 1990 (Noongwook et al. 2007:51), which now seems to be an established practice (Igor Krupnik, personal communication 2011). Spring whaling in most areas takes place in leads using the shorefast ice as a platform

(cf. Druckenmiller et al. 2010; Gearheard et al. 2006:208), although Saint Lawrence Island crews hunt from umiat (pl.; umiaq, sing.) due to the sea conditions in the area (Freeman et al. 1998:74; Jolles 2003:316). Crews establish camps on the ice close to the lead, pulling the camp back whenever the wind and weather close the lead or make the shorefast ice likely to break off. The boats used in Barrow are traditional umiat, covered with bearded seal hides (Fig. 2), or walrus hides in Point Hope. Similar boats are used in Wainwright and now in Point Lay after a 70-year gap. A few captains in Barrow have experimented with a berglass covering for their umiat, since the berglass will not rot, but the boats are heavier, and this innovation has not been generally adopted. Fall whaling, which is an open-water hunt, takes place using aluminum boats with motors (Fig. 3). Kaktovik and Barrow go whaling from the

Figure 2. Umiat set for the start of July 4th umiaq race, Barrow (photograph by Anne M. Jensen, 2004).

Figure 3. Quvan boat by home of Quvan crew captain Herman Ahsoak (photograph by Anne M. Jensen, 2011).

Jensen: The Material Culture of Iupiat Whaling: An Ethnographic and Ethnohistorical Perspective

147

village; crews from Nuiqsut travel over 90 miles to Cross Island on the Beaufort Sea, which they use as a base and for the initial cutting-in stage of whales being processed after being taken. After a whale is killed in the spring, it is pulled onto the ice using block and tackle and people-power. In the fall, the whales are towed to the butchering site on shore and cut up there. Today, Barrow uses heavy equipment to help move the whales from the shore to an abandoned U.S. Navy Marston mat runway (Fig. 4), although they seem to have used tundra in the past but switched to gravel beaches (eventually covered with plastic sheeting) when the tundra became inaccessible due to development (Bodenhorn 2003:289291). The whales are butchered (Fig. 5) using cutting-in geara variety of long-handled knives and cut-

Figure 4. A large whale, caught by the Sag g an crew, being brought onto NARL runway (photograph by Anne M. Jensen, 2006).

Figure 5. Butchering a whale taken by George Ahmaogaks crew on NARL runway in the fall of 2009 (photograph by Anne M. Jensen, 2009).

ting spades made by members of the community and divided into shares, which are removed for storage. The whaling captains wife and her helpers serve hot drinks and uunaalik (fresh boiled maktaksee Table 1) during the butchering, and then they head to her home to start cooking a variety of whale parts (e.g., maktak, meat, intestines, kidneys), as well as rolls and siig aq (a dish made from dried fruit that has an applesauce consistency). As soon as they are done, which is usually within 24 hours, the captains ag goes up over his house, and it is announced over the VHF radio that they are serving. Everyone in the community is welcome to come to the house and receive a portion. Successful captains are expected to hold a nalukataq, which is a celebration of the successful catch of a whale (the name actually refers to the blanket toss that is a major part of the festivities) after the season is over, usually in June. For this, the crew is expected to serve not only the items served after the catch, but also mikigaq (fermented whale meat, maktak, and blood), ipper, goose and duck soup, and as many other delicacies as they can manage. Holding the celebration involves hunting trips to catch geese, as well as cutting a good deal of stored whale into smaller pieces suitable for distribution. It also involves much preparation and sewing of clothes for crew members to wear. After the feasting, which goes on for hours in Barrow, there is the blanket toss using the mapkuq (blanket), which is made from an umiaq cover. Similar celebrations are held in Wainwright and Point Lay by successful captains. In Point Hope, the celebration is much more complex (Larson 2003; Rainey 1947:262263), lasting three days and involving both qalgik (groups of people associated by whaling crew membership and family ties). Traditionally, when a Barrow captain takes his rst whale, the cover of the boat is taken off and made into a mapkuq. A Point Hope captain can lose much more than a boat skin after his rst whalepeople can ask him for anything he has and he is obligated to give it to them (Steve Oomittuk, personal communication 2011; see also Larson 2004:36). Successful captains are also expected to prepare and distribute whale at the Thanksgiving and Christmas feasts. By spring, the captain is supposed to have emptied the large ice cellar of the previous harvest, and it must be made clean out of respect for a possible future whale to be harvested. Whaling captains are responsible for providing equipment for their crew members to use during whaling, as well as at least some of the equipment used to butcher whales. In addition, the captains wife and her helpers have to provide clothing for the crew and cook for hundreds of people on several occasions after the taking of a whale.

148

Arctic Anthropology 49:2

Table 1. Whaling-related Iupiaq terms used in this paper, as used in Barrow unless specied otherwise. Spellings follow MacLean 1980, except for siig aq, which was provided by Muriel Hopson. Iupiaq mapkuq maktak mikigaq nalukataq qalgi qargi siig aq umialik ulu umiaq uunaalik Denition Blanket for blanket toss, made from boat cover. Whales skin with some blubber attached. Fermented whale meat, maktak and blood celebration of the successful catch of a whale; the name actually refers to the blanket toss that is a major part of the festivities Groups of people associated by whaling crew membership and family ties (Point Hope). Also Point Hope dialect for structure known as qargi in Barrow. Ceremonial center/whaling captains workshop (Barrow dialect) A dish made from dried fruit that has an applesauce consistency Whaling captain, boat owner (Barrow dialect) Womans knife, semilunar in shape. Today the blades are made from circular saw blades; in the past the blade was usually slate. Traditional skin boats with bearded seal or split walrus hide covers, on wooden frames Boiled fresh maktak

What material culture is specic to modern whaling?

The quantity of material culture that a typical Barrow whaling captain (umialik) and his family has is considerable. Obviously, much of it has no unique association with whaling and can be found at almost any home in Barrow, and therefore it is not particularly relevant to the question at hand. Certain classes of material culture now used in whaling, such as electronic equipment (e.g., VHF radios, GPS), did not exist until recently and thus are less helpful in understanding where whaling gear was stored in the past. Many items in the inventory of an umialiks family are used for other activities in addition to whaling. As such they are not diagnostic of whaling, and their presence or absence can tell us little about whether a family is involved in whaling. Certainly, a complete absence of all of these items might suggest that a family is not involved in any sort of subsistence pursuits. However, this lifestyle option has only been available in the recent past and would not apply to understanding an archaeological site. Every umialik has general hunting equipment, as do most Iupiat households with an adult male in residence, which includes items such as snow machines, sleds, heavy clothing, GPS receivers, boats and skiffs, a variety of weapons (e.g., ries, shotguns, handguns, and harpoons), and light line or rope. Snow machines are direct replacements for dog teams and are used for all off-road travel during the winter, both on land and sea ice,

which includes hunting for caribou, fur-bearing animals, and sea mammals and scouting the sea ice for sites for whaling camps (an activity often combined with hunting). In spring and summer, some people also use them on damp tundra. In Barrow, the switch from dog teams to snow machines happened quite rapidly in 1965 (Masaak Akpik, personal communication 2001). Sleds are used for hauling gear, either to campsites during the winter or when traveling or hunting at any distance from town. Almost everyone who hunts, camps, or travels during the winter has at least one snow machine with a sled. Given the winter temperatures in Barrow and other northern communities, almost everyone owns heavy clothing. Today, people generally own a variety of garments. Men generally have white snow shirts or parka covers for hunting, which are usually replaced by the umialiks wife at the beginning of the spring whaling season. Red-colored clothing is avoided on the ice as it is believed to repel whales. Most modern hunters use GPS, although it is not something to be relied on in the view of more senior hunters. It is, however, helpful in traveling in the dark or whiteouts, and it can also be useful on the ice if it shows that the camp is in motion. Many people carry cell phones, although they usually lose signal before one gets very far away from town (usually less than ten miles [14 km] from Barrow). Most households have a VHF radio base station, and although marine band radio is supposed to be reserved for marine and ship-to-shore communication, it is far more effective than other

Jensen: The Material Culture of Iupiat Whaling: An Ethnographic and Ethnohistorical Perspective

149

means available over the long distances involved, so most hunters carry handheld VHF radios. Most campers take a base station with an antenna with them or keep one at their cabin; the author has seen trucks and even ATVs tted with VHF radios. A variety of boats and skiffs are used in Barrow, from very small boats used for retrieving seals (and self-rescue in the event that the shorefast ice breaks free) while hunting on the ice and for setting and picking nets, to open skiffs with outboard motors. The latter are used for travel to camps or hunting grounds, spring hunting of marine mammals as soon as the ice permits, and even fall whaling. Some people also own quite large boats with enclosed cabins, heat, and elaborate electronics. However, since none of the North Slope villages has a dock, the boats must be small enough to be transported and launched from a trailer, so a length of 32 ft. (10 m) or so seems to be the current upper limit. All hunters have a good supply of light line or rope, used for everything from lashing on sled loads to attaching boat anchors. Most households that own hunting gear also have camping gear. There are a few individuals who may only have time to hunt near a village who might not have the full range of gear, but given the harsh environment, people are likely to travel with camping gear even if they do not plan on camping on that trip. At its core, a campinggear inventory includes a tent of some sort. Generally, some sort of canvas wall tent is favored, often with a tarp or two strategically deployed to increase resistance to wind or rain, but people also have experimented with insulated tents like the Arctic Oven and with mountaineering tents. The wall tents are generally white, which means they are somewhat camouaged except in summer when the snow is gone. Camping gear also includes a supply of staple foods and ingredients, as well as kitchen gear, most of which is stored and transported in the grub box, usually a homemade chest. A camping stove, usually a Coleman stove or the like, is also an essential. For trips that occur at any time of year other than summer, it is necessary to have some type of light, either Coleman lanterns or battery-powered lights. Most people planning to be away from town for any length of time will carry a VHF radio. Handheld models are sometimes used on day trips, but for longer trips or lengthy stays a base station operated on 12V battery power is more common. With the use of so many items that operate on electric power, the use of portable generators is becoming more popular. Obviously, this is not ultralight camping. Every household has a supply of food preparation and serving equipment, which includes items like cooking pots, ladles, coffee pots, teapots, zip-lock bags, and ulus (semi-lunar womens

knives, generally made locally from circular-saw blades). Households also have a supply of vegallon buckets, which are used for food storage and preparation and cleaning (obviously not the same buckets). Most households with an adult female member have at least minimal sewing equipment, including needles, thimbles, ulus, and thread. Many households also have at least one sewing machine. Given that all the equipment listed above can be used in whaling as well as in many other activities, what items actually signal whaling? Logically, these would seem to fall into two categories: 1) items that are used only for whaling or whalingassociated tasks, and 2) items that are used in most households but are used in larger quantities or in extra-large sizes by whaling captains wives. I interviewed a number of whaling captains and their wives about what items they had to acquire when they began their own whaling crews and what they already had on hand as active hunting households. The most informative interviews were those with middle-aged or younger couples who had started their own crews (as opposed to being cocaptains on a relatives crew, a stage which many of them had gone through), since they had dealt with this relatively recently and in some cases still had a few items which they wished to add to their inventory. The interviews conrmed my observations regarding equipment that almost all families would have, as well as highlighting items specic to whaling. It should be noted that, although whaling is an activity carried out by groups of people, the gear is not owned by the crewsit belongs to the whaling captain and/or his wife, as individuals. All whaling captains who participate in the spring whale hunt in Barrow must have an umiaq, which is the traditional skin-covered boat with a hand-made wood frame. They are still preferred for spring whaling because they are quiet, light, and exible in comparison to similarly sized skiffs and can carry much greater payloads. An umiaq is made up of several parts, which are not always together when not in use. The frame is made by hand and can last for many years if properly maintained. Umiat are often seen without covers around communities. The cover, which in Barrow is made from specially prepared bearded-seal skins, requires nearly nine months to prepare including hunting the seals at a specic season, preparing the hides in the proper fashion, sewing the cover, and nally covering the boat. Covers only last for a few years, even if they are not converted to a mapkuq, although their use life seems to be shortening with climatic warming (see Jensen 1987). In Barrow, an umiaq is paddled by hand. Paddles were traditionally made by hand but today some are purchased ready-made. An umiaq

150 can also be sailed, which is a practice that is still used by whalers on St. Lawrence Island (Noongwook et al. 2007:5152). Before skiffs were readily available, some people would t an umiaq with a small motor. Umiat are generally transported onto the ice on special short freight sleds and, because of their light weight and small size, can be loaded on to such sleds and moved almost instantly when there is danger on the ice or portaged easily over large ice oes in the lead. Whaling requires a variety of specialized weaponry. The toggling whaling harpoon is an ancient design, consisting of a detachable harpoon head with attached line and drag oat mounted on a foreshaft that is inserted into a long heavy shaft. These harpoons are still manufactured locally, although the wood for the shaft is often bought rather than being driftwood collected from the beach. The heavy harpoon line is commonly purchased instead of being made from bearded seal or walrus hides as it was in the past. Before each season the line is inspected and stretched, so that it will not stretch while in use. Today, commercial shing oats are used instead of inated marine mammal hides. The former are far more visible and perform as needed without requiring large investments of labor to produce. In addition to the traditional harpoon, Iupiat whalers use a variety of Yankee whaling gear, which they rst adopted in the late 1800s (Bockstoce 1996; C. Brower n.d., 1942; Jensen 2009:166 179, 208; Rainey 1947:280). This gear includes the shoulder gun, the darting gun, and bombs for the guns. The brass shoulder guns are still manufactured exclusively for use in Iupiat whaling using molds from the Yankee whaling days by a family rm, the Naval Company Inc. of Doylestown, Pennsylvania, Until recently, the bombs were all black powder but there is on-going research into a more effective explosive that kills more quickly (and humanely), which consequently reduces the chance that a whale will escape before dying and be lost (IWC 2008). Iupiat whalers are adopting penthrite as an explosive; however, this is a gradual process because captains must receive training to use penthrite effectively (Eugene Brower, personal communication 2004; Lewis Brower, personal communication 2011; IWC 2008:45). The bombs are stored and transported in a bomb box, which is designed to minimize the chances of the explosives being set off accidently. In addition to weaponry, whaling boats need to carry some cutting-in gear, since the ukes need to be trimmed for towing, and a window needs to be cut in the maktak in the belly region in order to keep the whale from overheating prior to butchering, which would result in spoilage. Each whaling crew also has the captains ag with them that will accompany a messenger sent back to town to notify peo-

Arctic Anthropology 49:2

ple of a successful catch, even though most people already will be aware due to the VHF radios. Spring whaling involves setting up a tent camp on the ice. The captain is responsible for providing the camping gear including the tent or tents, bedding, and stoves. Since the group may be larger than a typical household (over eight individuals) the tent used may be larger than the typical family tent. Caribou hides are still used for sleeping, particularly as a base, since they are generally considered superior to any commercially available mattresses, provided weight is not an issue. Setting up a camp also requires cutting a trail across the shorefast ice, sometimes through miles of broken ice and pressure ridges (Druckenmiller et al. 2010), to move all the gear to the chosen campsite and to bring the harvested whale home. Almost all of this work is done with hand tools (mostly picks). After the whale is dispatched, it has to be butchered. If the lead is large, the whale may need to be towed to a suitable butchering spot. Today, in spring, small motor skiffs may be used in certain circumstances in Barrow for this task; however, in the past, umiat with sails were sometime employed (Hadley 1915). Once at the edge of the lead, a block-and-tackle fastened to holes cut in the ice is used to haul the whale up onto the ice for butchering. If a whale is very large, or the ice is unusually thin, some of the butchering may have to take place while it is still in the water. This practice seems to have been more common in the past, perhaps before the block-and-tackle was available, when a sort of Spanish windlass made of ice and line was used [C. Brower n.d., 1942; Hadley 1915], or when communities were smaller. To assist with the butchering in proximity to the water, there was even a special waterproof bearded seal-skin suit that was worn by those who worked on the whale (Fair 2003:376377). It covered all but the face, resembling survival suits used by modern commercial shermen, and was partly inated so that the wearer would oat and could be shed out of the water if he fell in. The butchering process requires a large amount of cutting-in gear because the goal is to reduce the whale to a pile of bones in as short a time as possible. The whale is cut up under the supervision of a senior man (not the captain who took the whale) following a prescribed pattern of butchering that differs somewhat from community to community (cf. Jensen et al. 2009:632; Jolles 2003:332337; Van Stone 1962; Worl 1980). Shares are given out with specied parts going to specied individuals (the captain, the harpooner), the boat (itself, although the boat owner obviously gets to further distribute this share), and crews who assisted in catching and towing the whale. All individuals from the community are welcome to come

Jensen: The Material Culture of Iupiat Whaling: An Ethnographic and Ethnohistorical Perspective

151

and help, and they will earn a share for doing so. Those assisting include a number of people who cut up the whale and many more who use blubber hooks and lines to pull slabs of meat or maktak off the whale and drag them to piles for the shares. As discussed previously, once a whale is caught and butchered, a whaling household has responsibilities for hosting several celebrations, as well as for distribution of whale (usually maktak and meat) at Thanksgiving and Christmas feasts. The captain and the boat5 get quite large shares, so almost all whaling captains have ice cellars to store whale parts (including meat, maktak, ipper, tail, gum, intestines, and kidneys). These cellars are large and hand dug in the permafrost, which keeps the whale and other game frozen year round. When it comes time to serve the community, the captains wife is responsible for providing the cooking equipment used to prepare all the food. These celebrations necessitate ownership of large numbers of very large cooking pots, teapots and coffee pots, and stoves to heat them on. To produce all the hot tea and coffee needed for butchering and nalukataq, as well as cooking uunaalik to serve during butchering, several camp stoves are needed. Given the amount of cooking needed to prepare for serving after a successful catch, as well as to prepare for a nalukataq, many whaling captains wives have a second stove in their houses if they can manage it (Kate Brower, personal communication 1986). The captain also needs to have several copies of his ag to y after the catch and at nalukataq, and he needs a mapkuq.

Figure 6. A whaling captains backyard in Barrow. The shed where the gear and bomb box are stored is on the left, snow machines and sleds in the middle, and an umiaq on the right (photograph by Anne M. Jensen, 2011).

Where are whaling items stored?

I interviewed a number of whaling captains and their wives about whaling gear.6 One question I asked about each item they identied was where they stored it out of season. For almost everything the answer was, Not in the house. For obvious reasons of safety, the bomb box is stored in a shed away from the house (Fig. 6) along with other portable gear that includes the paddles, ice picks, cutting tools, tarps, lines and ropes, and camp gear (e.g., sleeping bags and sleeping skins). The umiaq is usually stored inverted on a rack or two 55-gallon drums (Fig. 7). If the cover is being replaced, only the frame may be stored, and although it may be stored near the captains house, some captains store their umiaq at a considerable distance from their houses. Some of the equipment that the captains wife uses only for whaling is also stored in the shed but separately from the captains gear. Each spouse has their own sphere of responsibility and owns the equipment pertaining to it, but they work as a team (Kate Brower, personal communication 1983). In some cases, weatherproof

Figure 7. An uncovered umiaq in front of house in Barrow (photograph by Anne M. Jensen, 2011).

items such as large pots and the like can be seen stored underneath the house (houses in Barrow are generally on pilings due to the permafrost), to be taken out only when needed (Fig. 8).

Where is whaling gear worked on?

Another question I asked the whaling captains and their wives was where gear was worked on. Again, the answer was, Not in the house except for small items. Many items were worked on outside the house, near the storage shed. This has the advantage of being close to the house for warm drinks and bathroom breaks, while the captains tools are generally handy. Within the limits imposed by a city laid out in rectangular lots the captains generally seem to have built the sheds with prevail-

152

Arctic Anthropology 49:2 boats or kaiaks [sic], skins, food, &c., above the height to which the snow may be expected to bank up in the winter, and beyond the reach of dogs.

Figure 8. Some large containers used to prepare for serving stored under the whaling captains wifes house (photograph by Anne M. Jensen, 2011).

ing winds in mind, so that there is some protection from the wind in these areas. A number of the captains have access, whether ofcial or not, to shops or warehouses. A few of these buildings are owned by the captain or a member of the captains extended family, and others belong to various commercial or government entities. These spaces are sometime put to temporary use for indoor construction or repair of umiaq frames, building of sleds, and repair of snow machines. When the North Slope Borough built the Iupiat Heritage Center, they included a well-equipped Traditional Room where people can practice traditional crafts. It was made large enough to build an umiaq frame, and to sew the cover on an umiaq. The ventilation system is separate from that for the rest of the building, which is important, as the process used to prepare the waterproof hides for the cover produces a rather malodorous end product.

What did whaling look like at the time of contact?

There are a number of sources of information about contact-period whaling gear (e.g., Bockstoce 1986; C. Brower n.d., 1942; Maguire 1988; Murdoch 1892; Simpson 1855). In addition to photographs, which often are not clear enough to identify individual items and lack detailed information on subject and sometimes on location, there are a number of documentary sources which address where items were kept when not in use. Unfortunately there is little information on why the storage locations were chosen. According to Simpson (1855:527),
behind each [winter house] are placed a number of tall posts of driftwood, with others fastened across them, to form a stage on which are kept small

In other words, the racks essentially served the same role as is currently played by the shed. Simpson was reporting on whaling prior to the adoption of Yankee technology, so there was no powder involved that would have required particular protection from the weather. Because a conscious decision was made by adults not to transmit the traditional spiritual knowledge to younger people in order to avoid conicts with Christianity, and very little was recorded about these beliefs by ethnographers, it is only possible to speculate about whether there were other than purely practical reasons to store whaling gear away from the house. Simpson did not address the necessity for separation from housing from a safety standpoint, since to the Western eye traditional whaling gear is in no way dangerous. However, traditional whalers prior to the adoption of Christianity used a variety of nonempirical modalities (charms, whaling chants, rituals, amulets in the umiaq) in whaling, practices which were continued by at least some of those who had grown up with them into the 20th century (Kate Brower, personal communication 1986). These devices were regarded as very powerful, and it seems likely that the users would have regarded them as at least as dangerous as black-powder bombs. It could have been considered equally necessary to separate them from the family living space for safety reasons, although the nature of the threat has changed through time. Traditional racks, as described by Simpson, were well suited to keep items up where loose dogs could not eat them and in a relatively dry situation away from possible standing water, but they were not workspaces (Fig. 9; see also Fair 2003:366, Fig. 3, for an excellent illustration). If one considers the logistics, building a sled or an umiaq in a semi-subterranean house would be an endeavor tantamount to building a ship in a bottle, with the signicant difference that the ship will be used in the bottle, and the umiaq or sled could not be used in the house. One might also consider that modern whaling captains have houses that may have up to ten times the square footage of the precontact and traditional postcontact houses, yet they generally do not use them as workspaces. So where did whaling captains and their crews work on their gear? According to Murdochs (1892:83) observations:
Other temporary structures of snow, sometimes erected in the village, serve as workshops. One of these, which was built at the edge of the vil-

Jensen: The Material Culture of Iupiat Whaling: An Ethnographic and Ethnohistorical Perspective

153

Figure 9. A traditional rack at a campsite on Chukchi Sea coast between Point Belcher and Point Franklin. The rack is visible to left of the red rubber boat (photograph by Anne M. Jensen, 2005) lage in April, 1883, was an oblong building long enough to hold an umiak, giving sufcient room to get around it and work, and between 6 and 7 feet high. The walls were of blocks of snow and the roof of canvas stretched over poles. One end was left open, but covered by a canvas curtain, and a banquette of snow ran along each side. It was lighted by oblong slabs of clear ice set into the walls, and warmed by several lamps. Several men in succession used this house for repairing and rigging up their umiaks, and others who had whittling to do brought their work to the same place.

Other researchers commented on this topic. Charles Brower (1942:138139) describes such temporary structures as well. Rainey (1947:258) describes a similar snow house used in Point Hope for working on skin boats, and Larson (2004:32, 3435) states that such snow houses were considered to be qalgit even when proper permanent qalgit existed, and were considered to be for working on equipment. In addition, Rainey (1947:244) refers to working on smaller items in the qalgi, to which they were brought from wherever they were stored. For example, the whaling harpoons were brought to the qalgi for repairs on a particular day before spring whaling started (Rainey 1947:258). Unfortunately, he does not mention where the whaling gear was kept.

The Archaeology of Early PostContact Period Whaling The Nuvuk Peat Locus
There are few known archaeological features dating from the early postcontact period that can reasonably be interpreted as being related to whal-

ing activity areas such as those described by Murdoch (1892:83) and Charles Brower (1942:138 139; see also Rainey 1947:258). An exception is a set of features encountered during excavations at the Nuvuk site, which were located some distance away from the main site area at Point Barrow (Jensen 2009:166179). The majority of the cultural material in this area is the result of a postcontact occupation that took place after a layer of peat began to form. Since peat only forms in wet conditions, it seems probable the use of the location took place in seasons when the ground was frozen. It would have been quite wet when it was warm enough for water to be liquid, making it an unlikely choice for a summer activity area, especially given the proximity of a large open space of well-drained gravel. The main feature was an area that contained a variety of items of both Iupiaq and EuroAmerican manufacture. The ground surface at the time of occupation of the activity area had two parallel depressions in it of approximately equal length that suggests that they were made by humans and were most likely trenches. The artifacts almost all occur outside the area between the trenches, which suggests a functional difference between the space within the trenches and that without. Among the artifacts were a slate whaling-harpoon endblade and a bent iron Yankee toggle-iron from a harpoon head of an early type (Jensen 2009), which was rapidly superseded and thus fell out of use by Yankee whalers. It is possible the outdated stock could have been used for trade with the Iupiat after this date (Fig. 10). This suggests that the activity area dates from the short period after A.D. 1888 when the Iupiaq whalers of Nuvuk were adopting some Yankee whaling technology (C. Brower 1942:124). The activity area around the two trenches also contained large amounts of worked whale bone and worked wood. In addition to typical manufacturing debris, the worked whale bone also included a large trough-like object manufactured from a hollowed-out bowhead whale mandible section (Fig. 11). Other artifacts that were originally introduced as trade items included a bent gun barrel, metal adze bladeswhich appeared to have been reworked from axes, modied cans, and a tool bag manufactured from part of a canvas souwester hat. Together, these items and their distribution suggest that this may have been a work area used by an umialik and his crewmembers, perhaps for preparations for spring whaling. There were a number of very large (greater than 1 m) bowhead whale rib and mandible sections that had been sawn or otherwise modied, modied vertebral sections (including one which was essentially hollowed out), and a few sizable logs concentrated within the area dened by the

154

Arctic Anthropology 49:2

Figure 11. PEATLO (Peat Locus) Level F with some Level E artifacts projecting from wall. One of the troughs is at lower center, and ribs are partially exposed to the left of it. A modied can is visible to the right of the north arrow, which is misaligned. View North (photograph by Anne M. Jensen, 2006).

Figure 10. A slate endblade tip and Yankee toggle iron recovered from the Peat Locus occupation at Nuvuk (photograph by Anne M. Jensen, 2009).

two trenches. At least one of the mandible sections has very evident lashing marks on it. This scatter appears to be the remnants of some type of structure, perhaps a windbreak or a rack, which collapsed after it fell out of use. The trenches could either have been dug to set uprights in or to improve the drainage of the area between them. The structure, whatever its exact nature, may have kept the people working there out of the area under it, resulting in the observed artifact distribution.

What would Precontact whaling look like?

Again, there is only a limited amount of archaeological evidence that can be directly and

unequivocally connected to sustained whaling. Savelle and McCartney (2003) examined whale bone from most coastal north and northwest Alaskan sites, and they make a convincing argument that the size distribution of whales represented by the faunal remains indicates a targeted hunting strategy focused on smaller (younger) whales. Conversely, the relatively rare remains of larger whales were likely the result of scavenging stranded carcasses. Finds of whaling gear are much clearer evidence that people were engaged in whaling regardless of whether they were successfully taking them. There are a number of sites (e.g., Nuvuk, Utqiag vik, Point Hope) that are generally considered to have been whaling villages based on the presence of large amounts of whale bone in structures and baleen and whale bone in the middens, in addition to oral history and documentary evidence. The Utqiag vik site is unusual for the Alaskan Arctic because it was excavated in the early 1980s at the height of the New Archaeology (Binford 1962, 1991) and explicit attention was paid to sampling strategy, which included substantial excavation outside the houses (Dekin 1990; Newell 1990). The results show some denite patterns. The site, as is the case with most coastal Thule or Iupiat winter-house village sites, is composed of a group of mounds (see Ford 1959 for several other examples and a number of excellent maps), each of which may contain multiple houses. Nevertheless, these houses are not necessarily all contemporaneous, even if they are not superimposed (Dekin et al. 1990; Hall and Fullerton

Jensen: The Material Culture of Iupiat Whaling: An Ethnographic and Ethnohistorical Perspective

155

1990). Excavations on Mound 1 (Reynolds 1990a), Mound 7 (Kilmarx 1990b), Mound 8 (Smith 1990), Mound 17 (Kilmarx 1990c), Mound 34 (Sheehan 1989, 1990, 1997), Mound 37 (Lothrop 1990) and Mound 44 (Dekin et al. 1990; Newell 1984) all resulted in nds of hunting equipment in houses and associated storage pits, baleen and whale-bone personal-use artifacts in houses and associated storage pits, and baleen and whale-bone refuse in middens; however, no whaling gear was found. External to households and directly related features, on Mound 8 a single whaling harpoon head was found outside the apparent boundaries of the house (Reynolds 1990b). Similarly, on Mound 6, a whaling harpoon head was found in what was interpreted as a cache, but the relationship of this feature to the structure on the mound was apparently unclear from Kilmarxs (1990a) descriptions. Intermound and extramound tests (Newell 1990) resulted in the identication of concentrations of debris and associated tools at locations away from the houses. The nearby site of Walakpa (Stanford 1976) contains only a few winter houses and was apparently a small settlement; as such, it would not usually be considered as a possible whaling site. However, all levels of the middens contained baleen and whale bone, and a whaling harpoon head was recovered from an upper level considered by Stanford (1976:23, 195) to be Late Thule in age. It should be noted that in modern times usually at least one crew from Barrow goes spring whaling in the Walakpa vicinity because there is usually a good lead and safe ice there. This factor of local geography might explain the presence of whaling gear at such a relatively small settlement. The former village of Nuvuk, located at the tip of Point Barrow, is known to have been a whaling village from oral history (T. Brower 1986), documentary sources (Beechey 1831; C. Brower n.d., 1942; Maguire 1988; Murdoch 1892), and archaeological nds (Carter 1953a, 1953b, 1962, 1966; Jensen 2009). Here whale bone was used in house construction, for securing tents, making tools, and, at least for the past 1200 years, in the construction of graves (Jensen 2009). On Kotzebue Sound, Early Western Thule sites are reported to have contained both whale bone and baleen (Giddings and Anderson 1986). Notably, three whaling harpoon heads (one a blank), and a brow-band with a whale-tail motif were recovered in the House 7 and House 8 area at Cape Krusenstern (Giddings and Anderson 1986:7885, Plate 42b, Plate 47v). It should be noted that some whaling gear was reworked into other items. For example, quite a number of slate ulu blades that the author has examined show clear evidence of having been faceted, indicating they have been reworked from

whaling harpoon endblades (Jensen 2009:334335; Sheehan 1990:278279, 1997:166).

Conclusions
One can apply the method of upstreaming suggested by Burch (2003, 2006, 2010) to draw some conclusionsbased on patterns that exist today and documented to have existed in the past about where whaling gear was located when not in use on and thus where one might expect to nd it during the course of archaeological excavations. The short answer: Not in the house. The exceptions would be most probably in the form of small, personal gear being made or repaired. Even then such activities seem to have taken place in the qargi (Larson 2004:3435; Rainey 1947:244; Sheehan 1997:138139; Simpson 531531), if there was an active one in the settlement. Based on upstreaming modern patterns of whaling equipment storage, larger gear would have been stored on racks, either behind or near the house, and smaller items are likely to be found in workspaces, either qargi structures or workshop locations, which may have had temporary shelters (likely snow buildings) erected on-site. Mens and womens gear would be stored separately. Burch (2010:132133) suggested that ethnographic information could be useful to form hypotheses that archaeologists could then test. He sometimes seemed a bit puzzled, and even frustrated, by what seemed to him an unproductive separation between archaeology and ethnography as practiced in Northwest and North Alaska (Burch 1998:18; personal communication 1995, 2009). Based on the information above and following Burchs methodological guidance, it seems premature at best to decide that whaling was not practiced at a site based on a lack of whaling artifacts recovered in excavations conned primarily to houses, as has been the accepted practice (e.g., Ford 1959; Giddings and Anderson 1986; Hall and Fullerton 1990; Larsen and Rainey 1948). Aside from the adage that absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence, which it is never prudent to disregard in a scientic context, especially in archaeology where preservation issues can complicate matters, it seems evident that whaling gear of any sort was rarely stored or worked on in houses. Thus it is unlikely to be recovered there. The application of the upstreaming method in this case suggests that a more productive approach to determine whether whaling was practiced at a site would be to use the available ethnographic and ethnohistorical information to identify areas outside the houses where whaling gear might be expected to be found, and then employ sufcient testing and other means of prospection (e.g., geophysical techniques, soil chemistry) to locate such areas and excavate them.

156

Arctic Anthropology 49:2

Broader Implications
Although this paper deals specically with the intersection between likely whaling-gear storage locations and common excavation strategies, and how that might impact our ability to detect the presence of whaling at a particular site, it obviously has broader implications, both for arctic archaeology and archaeology in general. For too long arctic archaeology has focused heavily on the excavation of the interior footprint of dwellings, almost to the exclusion of other types of sites and features. Practical considerations suggest that only a limited subset of activities were carried out in the house, which is borne out by modern observations, earlier ethnographic and ethnohistorical data, and archaeological nds. Some things, such as building an umiaq, required more space than was available in a house. Activities that needed good lighting were reportedly moved outside as soon as possible in the spring.7 In the summer, winter houses were essentially uninhabitable due to ooding of the tunnels. Excavation strategies that ignore the areas where an entire range of activities took place can only accidentally recover any data that can address questions involving such activities; consequently, the limitations imposed by such strategies are severe. The focus on dwelling excavation is by no means limited to the Arctic, although the Arctic may represent the extreme. However, it is merely an example of a broader problem in archaeology, that of taking the lack of recovered of evidence for some technology or activity as actual evidence of absence, without taking into account other possible reasons that evidence might not have been found. This should include careful consideration of what might constitute evidence of a particular activity, including things other than artifacts which might be affected by differential handling (e.g., ritual off-site disposal), any taphonomic factors that might have affected such evidence, and the taking of reasonable steps to ensure that one had not merely failed to look in the places where the evidence might be found. Only after all those conditions are fullled should absence of evidence be considered as more than an indication that additional data is needed. Acknowledgements: A great many people contributed to the work that resulted in this paper. The most important were the Barrow whaling captains and their wives, who took the time to answer my questions about their whaling gear and where they keep it. I would especially like to thank Herman and Sylvia Ahsoak, Lewis and Roxanne Brower, and Crawford and Laura Patkotak, for their willingness to answer many questions about their whaling gear. I would also like to thank North Slope Borough Oral Historian Muriel Hopson for

spelling assistance, Glenn Sheehan for discussion, and the Barrow Arctic Science Consortium and the Ukpeag vik Iupiat Corporation for support of the work. The excavation of the whaling captains work area at Nuvuk was supported by the Department of Educations Education through Cultural and Historical Organizations (ECHO) program via a grant to the North Slope Borough, and a grant to the author from the National Science Foundation (ARC0726253). I spent a number of pleasant and stimulating evenings discussing Iupiat social and political organization, particularly as it relates to precontact and contact-era whaling, with Tiger (as he was generally known to his arctic colleagues) Burch and my husband Glenn Sheehan, whose work on the archaeological Utqiag vik qargi (ceremonial center/whaling captains workshop) (Sheehan 1989, 1990, 1997) made much use of Burchs work. Although there was considerable disagreement among the three of us about the interpretation of the data (perhaps in part due to the fact that Burchs Alaskan work focused largely on the Kotzebue Sound area, where whaling was arguably less important by the period accessible to ethnohistorical methods alone, while Glenn and I were more familiar with the whaling-focused North Slope), it was always a pleasure. Despite the fact that Tiger was already a senior scholar and early on we were still in graduate school, he was always willing to consider what we said, and he could even be persuaded to change his mind, provided that one could present sufcient amounts of solid data and a good logically sound argument as to why ones own position was preferable to his. It was rarely possible to actually change his position, mind you, but that was because he had a truly thorough command of the pertinent literature and had thought issues through. The simple fact of Tigers openness to change is a testament to his commitment to scholarship.

Endnotes
1. Culture is used here in the archaeological sense of an identiable complex of material remains associated with a past group of people who are assumed to share a culture in the ethnographic sense. 2. Certainly others before Steward used the directhistorical approach, either implicitly or explicitly (e.g., Collins 1927, 1940; Kidder 1915; Parker 1916; Spier 1917), but Burch himself cited Steward (1942). 3. Whaling gear was actually used either on the ice pack at lead edges or from shore-based boats. Any gear lost in use would have ended up in the ocean, which is covered by ice annually,

Jensen: The Material Culture of Iupiat Whaling: An Ethnographic and Ethnohistorical Perspective

157

and which experiences frequent ice scour events which can gouge the bottom of the ocean to depths of a number of meters, very effectively removing items from the archaeological record. Combined with the difcult conditions for underwater archaeology in the area, for all intents and purposes only land-based activities involving whaling gear are likely to enter the archaeological record. 4. The rst Yankee whaler came through the Bering Strait onto the Alaskan Arctic grounds in 1848. The last bowhead to be taken commercially was in 1921, although the catches were so low in the nal years that some ships switched to hunting and rendering walrus. Most Yankee whaling took place from ships in open water, although Charles Brower and a few others were very successful using Iupiat shore- (or ice-) based methods with Yankee weapons. The impact on Iupiat people was considerable. Hunting became much more difcult due to whales being skittish and even led to starvation as stocks were depleted. The whalers also introduced disease and alcohol, both of which had negative effects on the Iupiat. Interested readers are referred to Bockstoce (1996) and Brower (1942) for a more thorough discussion. 5. There is a share of whale products that is said to belong to theboat. Obviously, the umiaq (i.e., boat) cannot use or distribute its own share; thus, that task falls to the owner of the umiaq, who is usually the captain. 6. A number of informal conversations were conducted in 2010, and three sets of more formal interviews took place in early spring 2011. The age of the interviewees ranged from mid-thirties to mid-fties, although one of the interviewees actually interviewed her own mother, who is slightly older. As this was a busy time for whaling crews, the interviews were carried out mostly by telephone, supplemented by emails. One was actually done by text message, since the respondent had some free time and had access to a cell phone that she did not want to tie up during whaling preparations. These interviews were not recorded. 7. Although it might seem that such outdoor work would be unpleasant, for properly dressed people with a good windbreak, even subfreezing temperatures can be quite pleasant on a sunny day.

1991

The New Archaeology, Then and Now. In Archaeological Thought in America. C. C. Lamberg-Karlovsky, ed. Pp. 5061. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Bockstoce, John 1986 Whales, Ice and Men. Seattle: University of Washington Press. Bodenhorn, Barbara 2003 Fall Whaling in Barrow, Alaska: A Consideration of Strategic Decision-Making. In Indigenous Ways to the Present: Native Whaling in the Western Arctic. Allen P. McCartney, ed. Pp. 277306. Edmonton: Canadian Circumpolar Institute Press. Braham, Howard 1984 The Bowhead Whale, Balaena mysticetus. Marine Fisheries Review 46(4):6569. Brower, Charles D. 1942 Fifty Years Below Zero: A Lifetime of Adventure in the Far North. New York: Dodd Mead and Company. n.d. Charles D. Brower manuscripts. Dartmouth College Library.

Brower, Thomas Paneahtak 1986 Transcripts, life history project. Thomas Paneahtak Brower and Glenn W. Sheehan. Barrow Arctic Sciences Consortium, Barrow, Alaska. Burch, Ernest S., Jr. 1998 The Iupiaq Eskimo Nations of Northwest Alaska. Fairbanks: University of Alaska Press. 2003 The Cultural and Natural Heritage of Northwest Alaska. vol. 6. The Organization of National Life. Kotzebue: NANA Museum of the Arctic and the U.S. National Park Service, Alaska Region. Social Life in Northwest Alaska: The Structure of Iupiaq Eskimo Nations. Fairbanks: University of Alaska Press. The Method of Ethnographic Reconstruction. Alaska Journal of Anthropology 8(2):133140.

2006

2010

Carter, Wilbert 1953a Archaeological Survey of Eskimo, or Earlier, Material in the Vicinity of Point Barrow, Alaska. Final Report. Ofce of Naval Research and Harvard University. Arlington, VA: Ofce of Naval Research. 1953b Archaeological Survey of Eskimo, or Earlier, Material in the Vicinity of Point Barrow, Alaska. Status Report: 1953 Field Activities. Ofce of Naval Research and Arctic Institute of North America. Arlington, VA: Ofce of Naval Research. 1962 Archaeological Survey of Eskimo, or Earlier, Material in the Vicinity of Point Barrow, Alaska. Status Report: 1962 Field Activities. Ofce of Naval Research and Arctic Institute of

References Cited
Beechey, Fredrick W. (Captain) 1831 Narrative of a Voyage to the Pacic and Beerings Strait. vol. 1. London: Henry Colburn and Richard Bentley. Binford, Lewis R. 1962 Archaeology as Anthropology. American Antiquity 28(2):217225.

158
North America. Arlington, VA: Ofce of Naval Research. 1966 Archaeological Survey of Eskimo, or Earlier, Material in the Vicinity of Point Barrow, Alaska. Final Report. Ofce of Naval Research and Arctic Institute of North America. Arlington, VA: Ofce of Naval Research.

Arctic Anthropology 49:2 Freeman, Milton M. R. 1979 A Critical View of Thule Culture and Ecological Adaptation. In Thule Eskimo Culture: An Anthropological Retrospective. Allen P. McCartney, ed. Pp. 378285. Mercury Series, Archaeological Survey of Canada Paper, 88. Ottawa: National Museum of Man. Freeman, Milton M. R., Lyudmila Bogoslovskaya, Richard A. Cauleld, Ingmar Egede, Igor I. Krupnik, and Marc G. Stevenson 1998 Inuit, Whaling, and Sustainability. Walnut Creek, CA: Altamira Press. Galginaitis, Michael, 1990 Subsistence Resource Harvest Pattern: Nuiqsut. Special Report 8. OCS Study MMS 900038. Prepared by Impact Assessment Inc. for the US Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Alaska OCS Region, Anchorage. Gearheard, Shari, Warren Matumeak, Ilkoo Angutikjuaq, James Maslanik, Henry P. Huntington, Joe Leavitt, Darlene Matumeak Kagak, Geela Tigullaraq, and Roger G. Barry 2006 Its Not that Simple: A Collaborative Comparison of Sea Ice Environments, Their Uses, Observed Changes, and Adaptation in Barrow, Alaska, USA, and Clyde River, Nunavut, Canada. Ambio 35(4):204212. Giddings, J. Louis, and Douglas D. Anderson 1986 Beach Ridge Archaeology of Cape Krusenstern: Eskimo and Pre-Eskimo Settlements around Kotzebue Sound, Alaska. Publications in Archeology 20. Washington, D.C.: National Park Service. Hacquebord, Louwrens 1999 The Hunting of the Greenland Right Whale in Svalbard, its Interaction with Climate and its Impact on the Marine Ecosystem. Polar Research 18(2):375382. Hadley, Jack 1915 Whaling off the Alaska Coast. Bulletin of the American Geographical Society 47(12):905921. Hall, Edwin S., Jr., and Lynne Fullerton (eds.) 1990 The Utqiag vik Excavations. Barrow: The North Slope Borough Commission on Iupiat History, Language and Culture. International Whaling Commission (IWC) 2008 Report on Weapons, Techniques, and Observations in the Alaskan Bowhead Whale Subsistence Hunt, IWC/60/21. Santiago, Chile: Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission. Jensen, Anne M. 1987 Patterns of Bearded Seal Exploitation in Greenland. tudes/Inuit/Studies 11(2):91116. 1990 Faunal Remains from the Mound 34 Karigi Interior. In: Glenn W. Sheehan, 1982 Excavations at Mound 34 in the Archaeological Village of Utqiag vik, Barrow, Alaska, Appendix 106.

Collins, Henry B., Jr. 1927 Potsherds from Choctow Village Sites I Mississippi. Journal of the Washington Academy of Science 17(1):259263. 1940 Outline of Eskimo Prehistory. In Essays in Historical Anthropology of North America. Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections, 100. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution.

Dekin, Albert A., Jr. 1990 Research Design and Field Strategies. In The Utqiag vik Excavations. vol. 1. Edwin S. Hall, Jr. and Lynne Fullerton, eds. Pp. 45. Barrow: The North Slope Borough Commission on Iupiat History, Language and Culture. Dekin, Albert A., Jr., and Daniel F. Cassedy, John N. Kilmarx, Raymond R. Newell, Christopher R. Poglase, Gregory A. Reinhardt, and Beth L. Turcy 1990 Excavation of a Prehistoric Catastrophe: A Preserved Household from the Utqiag vik Village, Barrow, Alaska. In The Utqiag vik Excavations. vol. 3. Edwin S. Hall, Jr. and Lynne Fullerton , eds. Barrow: The North Slope Borough Commission on Iupiat History, Language and Culture. Druckenmiller, Matthew L., Hajo Eicken, John C. George, and Lewis Brower 2010 Assessing the Shorefast Ice: Iupiat Whaling Trails off Barrow, Alaska. In SIKU: Knowing Our Ice: Documenting Inuit Sea Ice Knowledge and Use. Igor Krupnik, Claudia Aporto, Shari Gearheard, Gita Laidler and Lene Kielsen Holm, eds. Pp. 203228. Dordrecht: Springer. Fair, Susan W. 2003 Story of a Whale Hunt: Suzanne Rognon Bernardis Photographs and Observations of Iupiaq Whaling, Wales, Alaska, 19011902. In Indigenous Ways to the Present: Native Whaling in the Western Arctic. Allen P. McCartney ed. Pp. 357386. Edmonton: Canadian Circumpolar Institute. Fenton, William N. 1962 Ethnohistory and its Problems. Ethnohistory 9(1):123. Ford, James A. 1959 Eskimo Prehistory in the Vicinity of Point Barrow, Alaska. Anthropological Papers of the American Museum of Natural History, 47 (1). New York: American Museum of Natural History.

Jensen: The Material Culture of Iupiat Whaling: An Ethnographic and Ethnohistorical Perspective In The Utqiag vik Excavations. vol. 2. Edwin S. Hall, Jr. and Lynne Fullerton, eds. Pp. 322325 Barrow: The North Slope Borough Commission on Iupiat History, Language and Culture. 2009 Nuvuk: Point Barrow, Alaska: The Thule Cemetery and Ipiutak Occupation. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Bryn Mawr College.

159

McCartney, ed. Pp. 341355. Edmonton: Canadian Circumpolar Institute. 2004 The Evolution of the Qalgi in Post-Epidemic Point Hope, Alaska. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Brown University.

Jensen, Anne M., Glenn W. Sheehan, and Stephen A. MacLean 2009 Inuit and Marine Mammals. In Encyclopedia of Marine Mammals (second edition). William F. Perrin, Bernd Wrsig, and J. G. M. Thewissen, eds. Pp. 628637. San Diego: Academic Press. Jolles, Carol Zane 2003 When Whaling Folks Celebrate: A Comparison of Tradition and Experience in Two Bering Sea Whaling Communities. In Indigenous Ways to the Present: Native Whaling in the Western Arctic. Allen P. McCartney ed. Pp. 307339. Edmonton: Canadian Circumpolar Institute. Kidder, Alfred V. 1915 Pottery of the Pajarito Plateau and Some Adjacent Regions in New Mexico. American Anthropological Association Memoir 2 (6). Lancaster, PA: New Era Print. Kilmarx, John N. 1990a Archaeological Investigations at Mound 6. In The Utqiag vik Excavations. vol. 2. Edwin S. Hall, Jr. and Lynne Fullerton, eds. Pp. 426. Barrow: The North Slope Borough Commission on Iupiat History, Language and Culture. 1990b The Mound 7 Excavations. In The Utqiag vik Excavations. vol. 2. Edwin S. Hall, Jr. and Lynne Fullerton, eds. Pp.2761. Barrow: The North Slope Borough Commission on Iupiat History, Language and Culture. 1990c The Mound 17 Excavations. In The Utqiag vik Excavations. vol. 2. Edwin S. Hall, Jr. and Lynne Fullerton, eds. Pp. 6184. Barrow: The North Slope Borough Commission on Iupiat History, Language and Culture.

Lightfoot, Kent G. 1995 Culture Contact Studies: Redening the Relationship Between Prehistoric and Historical Archaeology. American Antiquity 60(2): 199217. Lothrop, Jonathan 1990 The Mound 37 Excavations. In The Utqiag vik Excavations. vol. 1. Edwin S. Hall, Jr. and Lynne Fullerton, eds. Pp. 5259. Barrow: The North Slope Borough Commission on Iupiat History, Language and Culture. MacLean, Edna Ahgeak 1980 Iupiallu Tanil lu Uqaluisa Il aich/Abridged Iupiaq and English Dictionary. Fairbanks and Barrow: Alaska Native Language Center, University of Alaska Fairbanks and Iupiat History Language and Culture Commission, North Slope Borough. McCartney, Allen P. 1980 The Nature of Thule Eskimo Whale Use. Arctic 33(3):517541. Maguire, Rochfort, Captain 1988 The Journal of Rochfort Maguire, 18521854: Two Years at Point Barrow, Alaska, Aboard HMS Plover in the Search for Sir John Franklin. John Bockstoce, ed. Works issued by The Hakluyt Society, Second Series No. 169. London: The Hakluyt Society. Mathiassen, Therkel 1927a Archaeology of the Central Eskimos: Descriptive Part. Report of the 5th Thule Expedition, 1921 1924 4(1):1327. Copenhagen: Glyndendal. 1927b Archaeology of the Central Eskimos: The Thule Culture and its Position within the Eskimo Culture. Report of the 5th Thule Expedition, 1921 1924 4(2):1201. Copenhagen: Glyndendal. Mitchell, Edward and Randall R. Reeves 1980 The Alaska Bowhead Problem: A Commentary. Arctic 33(4):686723. Murdoch, John 1892 Ethnological Results of the Point Barrow Expedition. Ninth Annual Report of the Bureau of Ethnology to the Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution 188788, by J.W. Powell, Director. Washington: Government Printing Ofce. Nelson, Edward W. 1899 The Eskimo About Bering Strait. Washington D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press. Nelson, Richard K. 1969 Hunters of the Northern Ice. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Krupnik, Igor I. 1987 The Bowhead vs. the Gray Whale in Chukotkan Aboriginal Whaling. Arctic 40(1):1632. Lantis, Margaret 1938 The Alaskan Whale Cult and Its Afnities. American Anthropologist 40:438464. Larsen, Helge and Froelich G. Rainey 1948 Ipiutak and the Arctic Whale Hunting Culture. Anthropological Papers of the American Museum of Natural History, 42. New York: The American Museum of Natural History. Larson, Mary Ann 2003 Festival and Tradition: The Whaling Festival at Point Hope. In Indigenous Ways to the Present: Native Whaling in the Western Arctic. Allen P.

160
1981 Harvest of the Sea: Coastal Subsistence in Modern Wainwright, a Report for the North Slope Boroughs Coastal Management Program. Barrow: North Slope Borough.

Arctic Anthropology 49:2 Rugh, David J., Douglas Demaster, Alejandro Rooney, Jeff Breiwick, Kim E. W. Shelden, and Sue Moore 2003 A Review of Bowhead Whale (Balaena mysticetus) Stock Identity. Journal of Cetacean Research and Management 5(3):267279. Rugh, David J. and Kim E. W. Shelden 2009 Bowhead Whale: Balaena mysticetus. In Encyclopedia of Marine Mammals (second edition). William F. Perrin, Bernd Wrsig, and J. G. M. Thewissen, eds. Pp. 131133. San Diego: Academic Press. Savelle, James M., and Allen P. McCartney 1994 Thule Inuit Bowhead Whaling: A Biometrical Analysis. In Threads of Arctic Prehistory: Papers in Honour of William E. Taylor, Jr. David Morrison and Jean-Luc Pilon, eds. Pp. 281310. Mercury Series, Archaeological Survey of Canada Paper, 149. Hull: Canadian Museum of Civilization 2003 Prehistoric Bowhead Whaling in the Bering Strait and Chukchi Sea Regions of Alaska: A Zooarchaeological Assessment. In Indigenous Ways to the Present: Native Whaling in the Western Arctic. Allen P. McCartney, ed. Pp. 167184. Edmonton: Canadian Circumpolar Institute.

Newell, Raymond R. 1984 The Archaeological, Human Biological, and Comparative Contexts of a CatastrophicallyTerminated Kataliqaaq House at Utqiag vik, Alaska (BAR2). Arctic Anthropology 21(1):552. 1990 The Intermound and Extramound Tests. In The Utqiag vik Excavations. vol. 1. Edwin S. Hall, Jr. and Lynne Fullerton eds. Pp. 174262. Barrow: The North Slope Borough Commission on Iupiat History, Language and Culture.

Noongwook, George, The Native Village of Savoonga, The Native Village of Gambell, Henry P. Huntington, and John C. George 2007 Traditional Knowledge of the Bowhead Whale (Balaena mysticetus) around St. Lawrence Island, Alaska. Arctic 60(1):4754. Parker, Arthur C. 1916 Excavations in an Erie Indian Village and Burial Site at Ripley, Chautauqua County, New York. New York State Museum Bulletin 117. Albany: New York State Museum. Rainey, Froelich G. 1947 The Whale Hunters of Tigara. Anthropological Papers of the American Museum of Natural History 41(2). New York: The American Museum of Natural History. Rasmussen, Knud 1952 The Alaskan Eskimos: As Described in the Posthumous Notes of Dr. Knud Rasmussen. H. Ostermann, ed., assisted by E. Holtved. Report of the 5th Thule Expedition, 19211924 10(3). Copenhagen: Gyldendalske Boghandel, Nordisk Forlag. Ray, Dorothy Jean 1975 The Eskimos of Bering Strait, 16501898. Seattle: University of Washington Press. Reeves, Randall R. 1980 Spitsbergen Bowhead Stock: A Short Review. Marine Fisheries Review 42(4):6569. Reynolds, Georgeanne L. 1990a The Mound 1 Excavations. In The Utqiag vik Excavations. vol. 1. Edwin S. Hall, Jr. and Lynne Fullerton, eds. Pp. 6083. Barrow: The North Slope Borough Commission on Iupiat History, Language and Culture. 1990b Harpoon Heads in the Utqiag vik Collection. In The Utqiag vik Excavations. I. Edwin S. Hall, Jr. and Lynne Fullerton, eds. Pp. 37359. Barrow: The North Slope Borough Commission on Iupiat History, Language and Culture. Rink, Hinrich 1887 Danish Greenland, its People and its Products. London: Henry S. King and Co.

Sheehan, Glenn W. 1985 Whaling as an Organizing Focus in Northwestern Alaskan Eskimo Society. In Prehistoric Hunter-Gatherers. Doug Price and James Brown, eds. Pp.123154. Orlando: Academic Press. 1989 1990 In the Belly of the Whale: An Archaeological Ceremonial Center. Archaeology 42:3:5253, 76. Excavations at Mound 34. In The Utqiag vik Excavations. vol. 1. Edwin S. Hall, Jr. and Lynne Fullerton, eds. Pp. 181325, 337353. Barrow: The North Slope Borough Commission on Iupiat History, Language and Culture. In the Belly of the Whale: Trade and War in Eskimo Society. Aurora, Alaska Anthropological Association Monograph series, 6. Anchorage: Alaska Anthropological Association.

1997

Sheehan, Glenn W., Gregory A. Reinhardt, and Anne M. Jensen 1991 Pingusugruk: A Prehistoric Whaling Village on Point Franklin, Alaska. Anchorage: U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Shelden, Kim E. W. and David J. Rugh 1995 The Bowhead Whale, Balaena mysticetus: Its Historic and Current Status. Marine Fisheries Review 57(34):120. Simpson, John. 1855 Observations on the Western Esquimaux and the Country They Inhabit; From Notes Taken During Two Years at Point Barrow, by Mr. John Simpson, Surgeon, R.N., Her Majestys Discov-

Jensen: The Material Culture of Iupiat Whaling: An Ethnographic and Ethnohistorical Perspective ery Ship Plover. Great Britain. Parliament. House of Commons. Sessional Papers, Accounts and Papers 185455, 35(1898):917942. Smith, Timothy 1990 The Mound 8 Excavations. In the Utqiag vik Excavations. vol. 1. Edwin S. Hall, Jr. and Lynne Fullerton, eds. Pp. 84111. Barrow: The North Slope Borough Commission on Iupiat History, Language and Culture. Spencer, Robert F. 1959 The North Alaskan Eskimo: A Study in Ecology and Society. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press, Spier, Leslie 1917 An Outline for a Chronology of Zuni Ruins. Anthropological Papers of the American Museum of Natural History 18. New York: The American Museum of Natural History. Stanford, Dennis J. 1976 The Walakpa Site, Alaska: Its Place in the Birnirk and Thule Cultures. Smithsonian Contributions to Anthropology 20. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution. Stefansson, Vilhjlmur 1913 My Life with the Eskimo. New York: Macmillan Company. 1914 The Stefansson-Anderson Arctic Expedition of the American Museum: Preliminary

161

Ethnological Report. Anthropological Papers of the American Museum of Natural History, 14 (1). New York: Trustees of the American Museum. Steward, Julian H. 1942 The Direct Historical Approach to Archaeology. American Antiquity 7(4):337343. Thornton, Harrison Robertson 1931 Among the Eskimos of Wales, Alaska, 189093. N.S. Thornton and W. M. Thornton, Jr., eds. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Press. Van Stone, James 1962 Point Hope: An Eskimo Village in Transition. Seattle: University of Washington Press. Worl, Rosita 1980 The North Slope Inupiat Whaling Complex. In Alaska Native Culture and History. Y. Kotani and W. Workman, eds. Senri Ethnological Studies 4. Osaka: National Museum of Ethnology. Wylie, Alison 1982 An Analogy by Any Other Name is Just as Analogical. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 1:382401. 1988 Simple Analogy and the Role of Relevance Assumptions: Implications of Archaeological Practice. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 2:134150.