Distal Condylar
Axis
SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY I
NUMBER 2 0
Distal
Condylar Width
FIGURE 9.—Seal humerus showing the distal condylar width and articular length.
As juvenile variability would skew the result, only the bones of adult animals were used. Also the bones had to be complete. Both of these features reduced the sample size to the following: humerus—Birnirk (40), Early T h u l e (14), Late T h u l e (12); femur—Birnirk (66), Early T h u l e (22), Late T h u l e (0); tibia—Birnirk (32), Early T h u l e (5), and Late T h u l e (14).
Notch Length
Distal
Condyle Axis
Distal
Condylar Width
FIGURE 10.—Seal femur showing distal condylar width and notch length.
)• Diaphyseal Length
FIGURE 11.—Seal tibia showing diaphyseal length.
T h e means of the measurements of the humeri widths are 2.39 cm (Birnirk), 2.39 cm (Early Thule), and 2.38 cm (Late T h u l e ) . T h e lengths are 9.42 cm (Birnirk), 9.26 cm (Early T h u l e ) , and 9.47 cm (Late Thule). T h i s indicates that the humerus width did not vary in the three phases examined. However, there is a high correlation between the lengths of the Birnirk and Late T h u l e lengths, while the Early T h u l e lengths are significantly different from the other two. This may indicate that suckling periods for seals during the Birnirk and Late T h u l e ages may have produced seals that were longer than those of the Early T h u l e period.
T h e mean femur width for Birnirk is 3.6 cm, while for Early T h u l e is 3.7 cm. T h e length mean was 7.63 cm for Birnirk and 7.7 cm for Early T h u l e , respectively.
T h e tibia diaphyseal lengths for Birnirk had a mean of 15.4 cm, while for Early T h u l e the mean was 14.44 cm. Late T h u l e was again longer with a mean of 15.7 cm. Here, as in the measurements for the
humerus, we see that the Birnirk and Late T h u l e seals appear to be longer than those from the Early T h u l e levels. It should be pointed out that the slight tendency of correlation of longer seal humeri in the Birnirk a n d Late T h u l e levels does correlate with cooler climatic periods and the lowering of the sea level. However, this may be insignificant, as the sample is small. T h e other problem that, must be considered is that n o work has been done on the osteological remains of modern seals from various localities to see if in fact the bones reflect the body size as reported by McLaren (1962), and Usher and Church (1969).
DOG SKULL MEASUREMENTS.—The measurements
of dog skulls from the Birnirk levels at Walakpa indi- cate that there is a possible bimodality in the dog population. T h e most common size of dog is quite small as compared to modern Greenland sledge dogs.
On ten selected adult animals the condylo-basal length ranges from 15.8 to 17.7 cm. T h e zygomatic breadth ranges from 10.7 to 9 cm. T h e palatal lengths range from 9.1 to 7.9 cm, and the upper carnassials range from 1.9 to 1.6 cm. They are probably the same type of dog as those at Ipiutak, b u t are slightly smaller. They fall into the range of Siberian dogs and Samoyeds. However, a single Birnirk-age specimen, which may be a wolf, has a condylo-basal length of 23 cm. This dog compares more favorably to the size of Greenland sledge dogs and those from Labrador as measured by Olaus Murie (in Larsen and Rainey,
1948:255-259).
NUMBER OF ANIMALS PRESENT.—In order to deter- mine the minimum number of individual animals of each species from each occupation level, the maxi- mum number of animals represented by the absolute number of each skeletal element was calculated.
Special attention was paid to the number of right and left sides and distal and proximal ends of bones with maximum possible pairs being calculated. T h e ele- ment with the largest number per level was taken to represent the minimum number of accountable indi- vidual animals present in each occupation level.
I believe this estimate of minimum numbers of individuals per species is fairly accurate; however, it may be that the number of individuals was higher.
Whole bodies or body parts may have been removed to other campsites, or there may have been errors in recovery. T h e important point, however, is that the basic calculation is on the low conservative side.
A n a l y s i s b y A r c h e o l o g i c a l L e v e l a n d C u l t u r a l U n i t s
T h e analysis of the horizontal distribution of the bones in the various levels was not particularly useful.
Most bones were found in association with trash middens, which were irregularly structured with ele- ments introduced from discarded portions of meat when the animal was butchered and from choice meat packets when they were either consumed or processed for the drying racks. There was little evidence that the middens were disturbed by dogs or wolves. Few bones showed extensive scars from being chewed by these animals. T h e evidence suggests that dogs were present at the site and were staked out in an area that was not excavated.
As seal and caribou make u p the primary animals utilized by the Walakpa inhabitants, the elements of these animals have been grouped into "meat packets."
T h e meat packets are differentiated by the amount of available meat occurring on unit cuts. T h e unit cuts are large meat packets (upper fore and hind limbs), small meat packets (lower fore and hind limbs, trunk and certain head portions), and waste packets (hooves, feet and certain head portions). T h e presence or absence of these parts in each occupation level was tabulated as a basis for establishing the minimum number of individual animals represented. When the minimum number of animals is known, the maximum number of possible elements can be deter- mined. T h e percentage of the number of bones re- covered, calculated with respect to the expected num- ber of bones found in a single animal, and multiplied by the estimated number of animals, should indicate what portions of the animals are present or absent.
It is important to consider several variables when discussing the meaning of the occurrence or non- occurrence of bones representing meat packets, be- cause they reflect to a great extent the time of year during which the animal was killed; therefore they are potentially significant. T h e variables are (1) the type of camp, i.e., a base camp or hunting camp; (2) the distance from the camp to the kill or kills; (3) the number of animals in the kill or kills; (4) the num- ber of people available to process the meat; (5) the mode of transportation available to carry the meat back to camp, i.e., sled, boat, pack dog or by hand/
foot; (6) weather conditions, e.g., windy, icy, snowy;
(7) ice and snow conditions; (8) whether or not the meat was frozen when butchered; (9) what the ulti- mate destination might be, i.e., immediate or near- future consumption by man a n d / o r dogs, storage for later consumption, drying or ice-cellar freezing;
(10) season of animal year (if antler or hide is not suitable for artifact manufacture due to seasonal changes, it will be discarded).
Several assumptions based on these variables and on observations of Eskimo butchering practices have been made about the significance of meat packets.
76 S M I T H S O N I A N CONTRIBUTIONS T O A N T H R O P O L O G Y N U M B E R 2 0
One assumption is that if the animals were killed at or near the site, most, if not all of the elements, will be represented at some time at the site. Whereas, if the animals were killed far from the site, many waste portions such as the feet and certain head elements will not be taken back to the camp. If antlers, tongues, brains, and noses were desired, they would be extracted in the field. This would eliminate the necessity of carrying many extra pounds back to the camp. This is particularly likely when there is no transportation available, or when the number of animals killed exceeds the capacity of a sled or boat.
In this case, even large meat packets will be dis- carded. In some cases, meat will be cut from the bones in the field leaving heavy elements such as humeri or femurs at the kill site.
When a level represents a base camp, most of the elements from the large meat packets should be present. Irregularities in the numbers of elements found in a base camp probably represent meat con- sumed, dried, or fleshed out at the hunting camps, or stored in ice cellars to be consumed later. Waste cuts found in the base camp probably represent an oc- casional animal killed near the base camp a n d / o r portions introduced for dog food.
T h e evidence also indicates that when dealing with a hunting camp, particularly a seasonal task-specific hunting camp, the bones found in extraordinary numbers represent that specific activity, while bones from other species found in small quantities were introduced into the hunting camp from the base camp. T h a t is, provisions were brought from the base camps to sustain the hunter for the duration of the encampment or until he obtained fresh meat. Certain elements may also have been introduced to provide raw materials for the manufacture of tools.
Base camps should be central collection points with meat being imported from various task-specific hunt- ing camps. Although these camps are considered as primarily winter sites, bones should represent ani- mals that are killed during all seasons of the year.
SEALS
From examining the occurrence of seal elements from Walakpa, we find two general trends (Figures 12-16). T h e first is found in levels A-1 through B-8.
Here we see a low percentage of skulls, relatively low percentage of the trunk bones and high percentages of leg and flipper bones. In levels B-9 and B-10 we see nearly the reverse of this trend, with skulls, lumbar vertebrae, and ribs being high. T h e larger leg meat packets are also high in relationship to -the smaller meat packets, and the flippers are extremely low. It
is also observed that the n u m b e r of individual seals in levels A - 1 through B-8 is very low, while in B-9 and B-10 it is extremely high. This has been inter- preted to mean that the upper levels are hunting camp sites of brief duration, while the lower levels represent base camps.
T h e scarcity of skulls from the levels that represent hunting camps could be explained by the fact that the skull is prized for both the brain and eyes (Spencer, 1959:373). These are apparently taken back to the base camp. Thirty-three to 58 percent of the skulls from the m i n i m u m n u m b e r of seals killed were found in the base camp levels. T h i s is extremely high and supports the hypothesis expressed above. T h i s is also affirmed by Murdoch (1892:434), who indicates that skulls are usually brought home and regarded as sacred.
T h e trunk, as represented by the lumbar vertebrae and ribs, does not figure significantly in the hunting camp levels, but a relatively high percentage of these were found in the base camp levels. Spencer (1959:
373) indicates that the choicest portions of seals are the heart, liver, and shortribs. T h i s would account for absence of lumbar vertebrae and ribs from the hunting camps and their presence in the base camp levels.
No mention is made by either Spencer or Murdoch of the leg and flipper cuts. It appears from our data that the back leg bones are introduced into the base camp more frequently than the front leg bones. Ap- parently the back leg and flippers are either con- sumed or left at the hunting camp.
In former days dogs were fed blubber and seal entrails (Spencer, 1959:374). Rarely was a dog given seal meat; but the blubber was an important source of dog food, as it took little of it as compared to either seal meat or caribou meat to sustain a dog.
T h e archeological significance of the change in size of seal elements between the lower B levels and the upper B levels can only be assessed by examina- tion of the population dynamics of modern seals.
McLaren's (1962) work on seals in the eastern Canadian Arctic has profound implications for the seal analysis at Walakpa. Even though there is a pos- sible bimodality of seal sizes at Walakpa, I believe that these animals are all the Phoca hispida or ringed seal. T h e ringed seal is the most common seal found in these northern latitudes, and is the only species of small seal that currently resides the full year in these waters (Burns, 1970:447). T h e size variation is not only influenced by sex and age, but also by ice conditions. T h e size of adult seals from high arctic localities averages 15 percent longer than that of adults from southeast Baffin Island, while those from
a
LEVEL A - 1 MINIMUM NUMBER OF ANIMALS 13
1 0 0 - 99 - 9 0 -
8 3 -
8 0 .
7 5 -
7 0 .
6 5 "
6 0 -
5 5 -
5 0 -
4 3 -
4 0 -
3 5 -
3 0 - 25 - 20 - 15 - 1 0 -
3 -
PERCENTASE RECOVERED
BONES EXPECTED
NUMBER HEAD
MANDIBLE ATLAS
0 0 26
23.
3 13
TRUNK
AXIS
23.
3 13
CERVICAL
12.
8 65
THORACIC LUMBAR
8.
15 195
22.
14 65
SACRAL
3.
1 39
RIBS
UPPER FRONT LEG
SCAPULA PROXIMAL HUMERUS DISTAL HUMERUS LOWER FRONT LEG
PROXIMAL RAOIUS DISTAL RAOIUS UPPER REAR LEG
PELVIS PROXIMAL FEMUR DISTAL FEMUR LOWER
REAR
< LEG
-<
DISTAL TIBIA FOOT OR FLIPPER
8.
30 364
50.
13 26
27.
7 26
31.
8 26
58 15 26
1 3B.
10 26
15 4 26
23 6 26
19 5 26
W*
22 26
50 13 26
0 0 988
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
b
LEVEL A - 2 MINIMUM AN1"MBALS°FH
100- 95 - 9 0 -
65 - 8 0 -
7 3 -
7 0 -
6 5 -
6 0 -
3 5 -
3 0 -
4 5 .
4 0 .
35 - 3 0 -
25 - 20 -
10 - 5 -
PERCENTAGE RECOVERED
./SONES EXPECTED
NUMBER HEAD
MANDIBLE ATLAS
14.
3 22
27.
3 11
TRUNK
9.
1 11
<
9.
5 55
THORACIC LUMBAR
12.
19 165
15.
8 55
SACRAL
2 UPPER FRONT LEG
SCAPULA PROXIMAL HUMERUS DISTAL HUMERUS LOWER FRONT LEG S 3 j=
UPPER REAR LEG
PELVIS PROXIMAL DISTAL FEMUR LOWER
REAR LEG
£<
DISTAL TIBIA gi
1.
2 33
10.
32 308
36.
8 22
18.
4 22
36.
8 22
86.
19 22
6R
15 11
23.
5 22
45.
10 22
50.
11 22
73.
16 22
68.
15 49.
4 1 0
22 836
-
- - - -
c
LEVEL A-3 MINIMUM NUMBER OF ANIMALS 6
1 0 0 - 9 5 -
9 0 -
B S -
8 0 -
7 5 -
7 0 -
6 5 -
6 0 -
5 5 -
3 0 - 4 5 -
4 0 .
3 3 -
3 0 -
25 - 2 0 -
13 - 1 0 -
3 -
PERCENTAGE RECOVERED
BONES EXPECTED
NUMBER HEAD
I ATLAS
2 5 .
3
12
n
n
6
TRUNK
AXIS
33
? 6
CERVICAL
3 9 30
THORACIC LUMBAR
12.
11 LiS.
20 ft 30
SACRAL RIBS
6.
1 M.
11, 18 168
UPPER FRONT LEG
SCAPULA PROXIMAL HUMERUS DISTAL HUMERUS LOWER FRONT LEG
PROXIMAL RAOIUS DISTAL RADIUS UPPER REAR LEG
PELVIS PROXIMAL FEMUR
i\
LOWER REAR LEG
PROXIMAL TIBIA DISTAL TIBIA FOOT OR FLIPPER
25.
3 12
58, 7 12
67, 9 12
67, 8 12
J i 4 12
17, 2, 12
17, 2 12
0 0 12
v7, a 12
59, 7 12
28.
127
4 5 6
"
- -
"
d
LEVEL A-4 MINIMUM NUMBER OF ANIMALS 10
95 - 9 0 -
85 - 6 0 -
7 5 -
7 0 -
6 5 -
6 0 -
5 5 -
5 0 - 4 5 -
4 0 -
3 3 -
30 - 25 - 20 - 15 - 10 -
»-
PERCENTAGE RECOVERED
BONES EXPECTED
NUMBER HEAD
2 ATLAS
0 0 20
10.
1 10
TRUNK
s
1
THORACIC LUMBAR
10.
1 10
8 4 50
11 16 150
18.
9 50
SACRAL
1
UPPER FRONT LEG
l
O S DISTAL HUMERUS
LOWER FRONT LEG
RAOIUS DISTAL RADIUS UPPER REAR LEG
UJ PROXIMAL FEMUR j £
LOWER REAR
LEG
PROXIMAL TIBIA < -
i- ? FOOT OR FLIPPER
7.
2 30
1.
3 280
25.
5 20
5 5 .
11 20
60.
12 20
70.
14 20
60.
12 20
15.
3 20
1 0 .
6 20
25.
5 20
4 5 .
9 20
4 0 . 8 20
7.
5 4
/60
- - - - - -
- - -
"
FIGURE 12.—The attained percentage of the expected number of bones for the minimal number of recovered seal bones from the Walakpa site: a, level A-1; b, level A-2; c, level A-3; d, level A-4.
78 SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY NUMBKK 2 0
a
LEVEL A - 5 MINIMUM NUMBER OF ANIMALS 12
1 0 0 - 9 5 - 9 0 - 8 5 - 8 0 - 7 5 - 7 0 - 6 5 - 6 0 - 5 5 - 5 0 - 4 5 - 4 0 - 3 5 - 3 0 - 23 - 2 0 - 15 - 10 - 5 -
PERCENTAGE RECOVERED
BONES EXPECTED
NUMBER HEAO
MANOIBLE
I
\
\
13.
3 24
0 0 12
TRUNK
X CERVICAL
0 0 12
10.
6 60
THORACIC LUMBAR
10.
18 180
20.
12 60
SACRAL RIBS
0 0 36
16.
54 336
UPPER FRONT LEG
<
PROXIMAL HUMERUS DISTAL HUMERUS LOWER FRONT LEG
PROXIMAL RAOIUS OISTAL RADIUS UPPER REAR LEG
UJ PROXIMAL FEMUR DISTAL FEMUR LOWER
REAR LEG
PROXIMAL TIBIA DISTAL TIBIA [FOOT OR FLIPPER
46.
11 24
83.
20 24
75.
18 24
58.
14 24
50.
12 24
38.
9 24
21.
5 24
25.
6 24
100.
24 24
88.
21 24
8.
77 912
-
"
- - - - -
b
LEVEL A-6 MINIMUM NUMBER OF ANIMALS 13
100- 95 - 9 0 - 85 - 80 - 7 5 - 7 0 - 6 5 - 6 0 - 5 5 - 5 0 - 4 5 - 4 0 . 3 5 - 3 0 - 25 - 20 - 15 - 10 -
»"
PERCENTAGE RECOVERED
BONES EXPECTED
NUMBER HEAO
MANDIBLE ATLAS
2X.
6 26
15.
2 13
TRUNK
<
0 0 13
CERVICAL
<
LUMBAR
6.
4 8.
16 65 195
8.
5 65
SACRAL
1
0 0 39
2.
9 364
UPPER FRONT LEG
SCAPULA PROXIMAL HUMERUS DISTAL HUMERUS LOWER FRONT LEG
PROXIMAL RADIUS OISTAL RADIUS UPPER REAR LEG
PELVIS PROXIMAL FEMUR
<1
LOWER REAR
LEG
PROXIMAL TIBIA OISTAL TIBIA FOOT OR FLIPPER
35.
9 26
46.
12 26
42.
11 26
1 42.
11 26
42.
|1 26
23.
fi 26
19.
5 26
31 R 26
81,
?1 26
42. 12
•11 122 26 988
-
"
-
_ -
c
LEVEL A-7 MINIMUM NUMBER OF ANIMALS 7
1 0 0 - 9 5 . 9 0 - 85 - 8 0 . 7 5 - 7 0 - 6 3 - 6 0 - 5 5 - 5 0 - 4 5 - 4 0 - 3 5 - 3 0 - 25 - 20 - 13 - 10 - 5 -
PERCENTAGE RECOVERED
80NES EXPECTEO
NUMBER HEAD
MANDIBLE ATLAS
A
/
0 0 14
' \
14.
1
/
TRUNK
<x
<
L,
0 0 7 0 0 35
THORACIC LUMBAR
3.
3 105
6.
2 35
5
1
5.
1 21
12.
23 96
UPPER FRONT LEG
SCAPULA PROXIMAL HUMERUS DISTAL HUMERUS LOWER FRONT LEG
PROXIMAL RADIUS DISTAL RAOIUS UPPER REAR LEG
i PROXIMA
L FEMUR OISTAL FEMUR LOWER
REAR LEG I <
DISTAL TIBIA FOOT OR FLIPPER
21.
3 14
36.
5 14
43.
6 14
43.
6 14
7.
1 14
29.
4 14
14.
2 14
21.
3 14
93.
13 14
79.
11 14
9.
47 532
- - - - - -
d
LEVEL B_ , MINIMUM NUMBER OF ANIMALS 7
1 0 0 - 95 - SO- BS ' 8 0 - 7 5 - 7 0 . 6 5 - 6 0 - 5 5 - 5 0 - 4 5 . 4 0 - 3 5 - 3 0 - 25 - 2 0 - 15 - 1 0 - 5 -
PERCENTAGE RECOVERED
BONES EXPECTED
NUMBER HEAD
MANDIBLE ATLAS
7.
1 14
29 2 7
TRUNK
<i CERVICAL
0 0 7
6.
2 35
THORACIC LUMBAR
4.
4 105
0 0 35
SACRAL
0 0 21
1
3.
6 196
UPPER FRONT LEG
SCAPULA PROXIMAL HUMERUS DISTAL HUMERUS LOWER FRONT LEG
PROXIMAL RADIUS DISTAL RADIUS UPPER REAR LEG
PELVIS PROXIMAL FEMUR DISTAL FEMUR LOWER
REAR LEG
S1
DISTAL TIBIA FOOT OR FLIPPER
7.
1 14
50.
7 14
57.
8 14
36.
5 14
29.
4 14
0 0 14
7.
1 14
7.
1 14
29.
4 14
29 4 14
13.
67 532
-
- -
•
- - -
"
FIGURE 13.—The attained percentage of the expected number of bones for the minimal number of recovered seal bones from the Walakpa site: a, level A-5; b, level A-6; c, level A-7; d, level B^l.
a
LEVEL B_2
MINIMUM NUMBER OF ANIMALS g
100- 9 5 -
9 0 -
8 5 -
8 0 -
7 5 -
7 0 .
6 5 -
6 0 -
5 5 -
50 . 4 3 .
4 0 .
3 5 .
3 0 - 25 - 20 - 15 - 10 - 5 - 0 - PERCENTAGE RECOVEREO
BONES EXPECTED
NUMBER HEAD
MANDIBLE 1 ATLAS
r A
1
8.
1 12
33.
2 6
AXIS
\
\
\
\
17.
1 6
TRUNK
CERVICAL
\
\ 0 0 30
THORACIC LUMBAR SACRAL
0 0 90
7.
2 30
22.
4 18
RIBS
UPPER FRONT LEG
SCAPULA PROXIMAL HUMERUS DISTAL HUMERUS LOWER FRONT LEG
PROXIMAL RADIUS DISTAL RADIUS UPPER REAR LEG
PELVIS PROXIMAL FEMUR DISTAL FEMUR LOWER
REAR
<
?5 gl FOO
T OR FLIPPER
4.
6 168
8.
1 12
58.
7 12
67.
8 12
42.
5 12
33.
4 12
0 0 12
8.
1 12
0 0 12
33.
4 12
17.
2 12
11.
49 456
- - - - - - - -
- - -
c
LEVEL B-4 MINIMUM NUMBER OF ANIMALS 17
1 0 0 - 9 3 .
9 0 -
8 5 -
8 0 -
7 5 -
7 0 .
6 5 -
6 0 -
5 3 -
3 0 -
4 5 -
4 0 .
3 3 -
3 0 - 25 - 2 0 -
13 - 10 - 3 - 0 - PERCENTAOE RECOVEREO
BONES EXPECTED
NUMBER HEAD
MANDIBLE ATLAS
\
3.
1 34
\
0 0 17
TRUNK
AXIS CERVICAL THORACIC LUMBAR SACRAL
1
0 0 17
11.
9 85
70.
18 255
37.
31 85
2.
1 51
12.
56 476
UPPER FRONT LEG
SCAPULA PROXIMAL HUMERUS DISTAL HUMERUS LOWER FRONT LEG
PROXIMAL RAOIUS
+
DISTAL RADIUS
1+
UPPER REAR LEG
PELVIS PROXIMAL FEMUR DISTAL FEMUR LOWER
REAR LEG
!< « 2 FOO T OR FLIPPER
I 1 1 1 1 1
1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1
1 1
I 1
1 l
\ A
i— I A
/ \ / I
/ 1 / \ / 1 / \ / \ / \
I / \ 1 / I
1 2 .
4 34 35.
12 34
35.
12 34
147 50 34
135.
46 34
4 1 . 14 34
35.
12 34 0 0 34
12.
4 34
38.
13 34
4.
59 292
-
_
b
LEVEL B-3 MINIMUM NUMBER OF ANIMALS 5
1 0 0 - 95 - 9 0 - 85 - 8 0 .
7 5 -
7 0 .
6 5 -
6 0 -
5 5 -
3 0 -
4 5 -
4 0 -
3 5 -
30 - 25 - 20 - 15 - 10 -
5"
PERCENTAGE RECOVEREO
BONES EXPECTED
NUMBER HEAD
I ATLAS
30.
3 10
40.
2 b
TRUNK
!
0 0 b
CERVICAL THORACIC LUMBAR SACRAL
1
UPPER FRONT LEG
\ PROXIMAL HUMERUS
£*
LOWER FRONT LEG
PROXIMAL RAOIUS OISTAL RADIUS UPPER REAR LEG
PELVIS PROXIMAL FEMUR DISTAL FEMUR LOWER
REAR LEG 2 « <. ^ "* x
/ 1
^ - - - - -
/ \ "
/ \
/ \ /
S\ 1 \ /
f \ / \ /
8 2 25
13.
10 lb
16.
4 2b
0 0 15
17.
24 140
30.
3 10
70.
7 10
100.
10 10
30.
3 10
20.
2 10
10.
1 10
0 0 10 0 0 10
2 0 .
2 10
7 0 .
7 10
8.
31 380
d
LEVEL B_5
NUMBER OF ANIMALS 6
100- 95 - g o -
es - 60 - 7 5 -
7 0 -
6 3 -
6 0 -
55 - S O - 45 - 4 0 -
3 5 -
30 - 23 - 20 - 15 - 10 -
» •
PERCENTAGE RECOVEREO
BONES EXPECTED
NUMBER HEAO
MANDIBLE ATLAS
17.
2 12
33.
2 6
TRUNK
s
0 0 6
CERVICAL
20.
6 30
THORACIC
9.
8 90
z
33.
10 30
\ "'"
0 0 18
14.
24 168
UPPER FRONT LEG
| PROXIMAL HUMERUS DISTAL HUMERUS LOWER FRONT LEG
PROXIMAL RADIUS DISTIL RADIUS UPPER REAR LEG 2
PROXIMAL FEMUR J 3
S3 LOWER
LEG I < <5
H CD FOOT OR FLIPPER
33.
4 12
50.
6 12 0 0 12
25.
3 12
0 I
0 12
8.
1 12
33.
4 12
0 0 12
7b.
9 12
17.
2 12
12.
53
4 5 6
- - - - -
•
-
-
FIGURE 14.—The attained percentage of the expected number of bones for the minimal number of recovered seal bones from the Walakpa site: a, level B-2; b, level B-3; c, level B-4; d, level
80 SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY NUMBER 2 0
a
LEVEL B-6 MINIMUM NUMBER OF ANIMALS 12
100- 9 5 -
9 0 -
8 5 -
8 0 -
7 5 -
7 0 .
6 5 -
6 0 -
3 5 -
5 0 -
4 5 -
4 0 -
3 5 -
3 0 - 25 - 2 0 -
15 - 10 - 5 -
PERCENTAGE RECOVERED
BONES EXPECTED
NUMBER HEAD
MANOIBLE ATLAS
1 3 . 3 24
17.
2 12
TRUNK
< CERVICAL
25.
3 12
35.
21 60
THORACIC LUMBAR SACRAL
15.
27 180
12.
7 60
12.
40 36
1
UPPER FRONT LEG
SCAPULA PROXIMAL HUMERUS DISTAL HUMERUS LOWER .FRONT LEG
PROXIMAL RADIUS J =
UPPER REAR LEG
PELVIS PROXIMAL FEMUR
l\
LOWER REAR
LEG i <
DISTAL TIBIA FOOT OR FLIPPER
1 . 2 336
13.
3 24
33.
8 24
54.
13 24
46.
11 24
6 3 . 15 24
1 3 . 3 24
38.
9 24
4 2 . 10 24
25.
6 24
25.
6 24
5.
42 912
- - - - - - - -
- - - - -
c
LEVEL B.8
MINIMUM NUMBER OF ANIMALS 18
1 0 0 - 95 - 9 0 -
85 - 8 0 -
7 5 -
7 0 .
6 5 -
6 0 -
5 5 -
5 0 -
4 5 -
4 0 -
3 5 -
3 0 -
25 - 20 - 15 - 1 0 -
5 - 0 - PERCENTAGE RECOVEREO
BONES EXPECTED
NUMBER HEAO
<
J
TRUNK
X CERVICAL THORACIC LUMBAR
8 . 3 36
6.
1 18
1 1 . 2 18
2.
23 90
1 6 .
43 270
2 . 2 90
SACRAL
16.
84 54
1
UPPER FRONT LEG
SCAPULA PROXIMAL HUMERUS DISTAL HUMERUS LOWER FRONT LEG S 3
S<
UPPER REAR LEG
> *< tr x 5
i
LOWER REAR
LEG
<
DISTAL TIBIA FOOT OR FLIPPER
0 . 2 1 504
36.
13 36
2 2 . 8 36
0 0 36
4 7 . 17 36
58.
21 36
2 5 . 9 36
5b.
20 36
6 1 . 22 36
6 9 . 25 36
6 7 . 24 36
3 . 42 1368
- - - - - -
b
LfVEL B - 7 MINIMUM NUMBER OF ANIMALS 1 3
100 • 95 - 9 0 -
85 - 8 0 -
75 - 7 0 -
6 5 -
6 0 -
5 5 -
5 0 -
4 5 -
4 0 -
3 5 -
30 - 25 - 20 - 15 - 10 - 5 -
PERCENTAGE RECOVERED
BONES EXPECTED
NUMBER HEAO
<
2 ATLAS
\
\
1 9 . 5 2 6
8 . 1 1 3
TRUNK
AXIS
8 . 1 1 3
<
THORASIC LUMBAR
8 . 5 6 5
1 6 . 3 1 1 9 5
4 9 . 3 2 6 5
SACRAL RIBS UPPER FRONT LEG
SCAPULA PROXIMAL HUMERUS DISTAL HUMERUS LOWER FRONT LEG
PROXIMAL RADIUS OISTAL RAOIUS UPPER REAR LEG
PELVIS PROXIMAL FEMUR DISTAL FEMUR LOWER
REAR LEG
PROXIMAL TIBIA OISTAL TIBIA FOOT OR FLIPPER
4 . 1 2 6
1 7 . 6 1 3 6 4
2 7 . 7 2 6
6 2 . 1 6 2 6
2 3 . 6 2 6
5 4 . 1 4 2 6
4 6 . 1 2 2 6
2 3 . 6 2 6
7 7 . 2 0 2 6
6 2 . 1 6 2 6
1 5 . 4 2 6
1 9 . 5 2 6
4 . 3 9 9 8 8
- -
d
LEVEL B - 9 MINIMUM NUMBER OF ANIMALS 6 8
1 0 0 - 95 - 9 0 -
85 - 8 0 -
75 - 7 0 -
6 5 -
6 0 -
5 5 -
5 0 -
4 5 -
4 0 -
35 - 3 0 -
25 - 20 - 15 - 10 -
'-
0 - PERCENTAGE RECOVEREO
SONES EXPECTED
NUMBER HEAO
Z
<
2 3 . 3 2 L 3 6
2 5 . 1 7 6 8
TRUNK
AXIS CERVICAL THORASIC LUMBAR SACRAL
1
UPPER FRONT LEG
SCAPULA PROXIMAL HUMERUS DISTAL HUMERUS LOWER FRONT LEG
PROXIMAL RAOIUS DISTAL RAOIUS UPPER REAR LEG
PELVIS PROXIMAL FEMUR DISTAL FEMUR LOWER
REAR LEG
PROXIMAL TIBIA OISTAL TIBIA OR FLIPPER
3 2 . 2 2 6 8
1 6 . 53 3 4 0
1 5 . 1 5 4 1020
6 2 . 2 1 1 3 4 0 8 . 1 0 2 0 4
1 6 . 3 1 3 1904
3 4 . 4 6 L 3 6
9 0 . L 2 2 1 3 6
7 9 . 1 0 8 1 3 6
3 7 . 5 0 1 3 6
3 7 . 5 0 1 3 6
2 9 . 4 0 1 3 6
8 5 . 1 1 6 1 3 6
7 2 . 9 8 1 3 6
7 2 . 9 9 1 3 6
6 5 . 8 B 1 3 6
4 . 0 2 1 4 516(
-
. - - - - - - - - - -
FIGURE 15.—The attained percentage of the expected number of bones for the minimal number of recovered seal bones from the Walakpa site: a, level B-6; b, level B-7; c, level B-8; d, level B-9.
LEVEL B-10 MINIMUM NUMBER OF ANIMALS 162
9 5 - 9 0 - 8 5 - 8 0 - 7 5 - 7 0 . 6 3 - 6 0 - 5 5 - 5 0 - 4 5 - 4 0 - 3 5 - 3 0 - 25 - 2 0 -
15 - 1 0 - 3 .
PERCENTAGE RECOVERED
BONES EXPECTED
NUMBER HEAD
MANDIBLE
59.
191 324
ATLAS
24.
39 162
TRUNK
AXIS
15.
24 162
CERVICAL
12.
94 BIO
THORASIC
10.
241
>430
LUMBAR
35.
280 810
SACRAL
8.
38 186
RIBS
1 8 . 7 94 1536
UPPER FRONT LEG
SCAPULA
57.
185 324
PROXIMAL HUMERUS
73.
>36 324
DISTAL HUMERUS
67.
216 324
LOWER FRONT LEG
PROXIMAL RADIUS
62.
201 324
DISTAL RADIUS
61.
197 324
UPPER REAR LEG
%
26.
84 324
PROXIMAL FEMUR
93.
300 324
OISTAL FEMUR
85.
75 324
LOWER REAR LEG
|<
41.
133 324
OISTAL TIBIA
44.
142 324
FOOT OR FLIPPER
3.
384 1 2 .
m
-
FIGURE 16.—The attained percentage of the expected number of bones for the minimal number of recovered seal bones from the Walakpa site, level B-10.
southern Hudson Bay may be 8 to 10 percent shorter (McLaren, 1962:171). T h e reason for this size dif- ference is that a longer suckling period is permitted in the more northerly localities, which results in larger, more vigorous pups. If the climatic condi- tions during the Early T h u l e occupations were sig- nificantly warmer with longer summer weather con- ditions, the ice would tend to break u p sooner in the spring and seriously shorten the suckling period of the ringed-seal pups. This would in turn cause the seals to be smaller and would account for the size distribution noted above (p. 74).
T h e maintenance of a balanced population size of the ringed seals is of great importance for the suc- cessful exploitation of these animals. Land-fast ice is the most important variable limiting the number of reproducing females. Within the area of land-fast ice, there are limited numbers of sites which are suitable for birth lairs and reproduction is unsuccessful else- where (McLaren, 1962:172). Each seal requires a territory of fixed size so that there is an upper limit to the number of animals inhabiting a given area of ice. McLaren has calculated population densities of seals based on ice types: (1) Within one mile of shore
and surrounded by further ice, there will be approxi- mately 35 seals per square mile of ice. (2) Within one mile of land but exposed to open water on its seaward edge, there will be about 10 seals per square mile.
(3) More than one mile from land, there will be about 5 seals per square mile of ice.
If the Eskimos of a region are successfully to ex- ploit an area for a long period of time, then the mortality rate imposed by hunting and natural causes must not exceed the recruitment into the seal popula- tion. In order to achieve this balance of population, the annual kill should not exceed 10 percent of the total population at the beginning of the seal year (McLaren, 1962:175).
When calculating the minimum number of seals represented by Birnirk level B-10, I find that at least
162 seals were killed. By using optimum modern hunting conditions, with a seal density of 35 indi- viduals per square mile, it is found that 162 seals totally depletes four square miles of ice area. In order to maintain a balance in the seal population, the Eskimos would have had to exploit a minimum of 3.5 seals per mile. If the 162 seals from level B-10 represent this type of minimal exploitation, the Es- kimos would have had to hunt 46 miles of coastline.
Based on element distribution, if our remarks about proximity of kills to the camp site are valid, then a great percentage of the seals were killed locally. We can then assume that the local seal population would have been seriously depleted for several generations and would not support a continued Eskimo habi- tation.
T h e above remarks are based on modern climatic conditions and with the proposed warming trend in the climatic situation correlated with a decrease of suitable pupping areas, the ringed-seal population may actually have been significantly smaller. Given this situation and the fact that I did not calculate any loss of seals due to ice conditions, I feel that a mini- mum exploitative area of 46 coastal miles is not out of line and should possibly be increased several fold.
This is possibly the reason that Birnirk camp sites were of brief duration and moved often. It is also because of this type of maximizing exploitative strategy that we see a rapid spread of Birnirk camp sites.
CARIBOU
T h e same pattern was found in the distribution of caribou elements (Figures 17-21) as occurred with the seals. T h e elements again point to the same type of campsites as indicated by the seal bones. In levels A-1 through B-8 there is a higher incidence of skulls.