L OF GEOGRA
In a comprehensive overview of evidence for fishing in the Thule period of the eastern North American Arctic, Whitridge (2001) noted that fish bones are either extremely rare or absent in archaeofaunal samples, despite the fact that artifact assemblages typically contain a variety of fishing impleme...
| Main Authors: | , , |
|---|---|
| Other Authors: | |
| Format: | Text |
| Language: | English |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.471.2516 http://rdgs.dk/djg/pdfs/110/2/GEO_110_2_10.pdf |
| Summary: | In a comprehensive overview of evidence for fishing in the Thule period of the eastern North American Arctic, Whitridge (2001) noted that fish bones are either extremely rare or absent in archaeofaunal samples, despite the fact that artifact assemblages typically contain a variety of fishing implements. In this paper, we present new faunal data from two sites on southeastern Victoria Island, Nunavut, which offer a marked contrast to this pattern. The Pembroke site, located just north of Cambridge Bay, is a small Thule site probably occupied during an early migration into the region. The Bell site, located on the Ekalluk River, is a more substantial site, occupied for a much longer duration during the Thule period. These sites are located in areas devoid of many taxa preferred by Thule peoples, which led the sites ’ occupants to rely on caribou and fish for much of their winter subsistence. At the Bell site, storage of caribou and fish was critical for winter survival. However, the occupants of the Pembroke site appear to have been unable to acquire sufficient stores during the fall, and therefore relied on fishing through the ice during winter to supplement their inadequate stores. Although both sites indicate a more important economic role for fish than has been recorded on any other eastern Arctic Thule winter site, the use of fish at the two sites differs markedly, adding nuance to archaeologically known Thule subsistence patterns. |
|---|