Polar Record 29 (168): 1-12 (1993). Printed in Great Britain. 1

Bowhead whale bones and Thule Eskimo subsistence-settlement patterns in the central Canadian ArcticAllen P. McCartneyDepartment of Anthropology, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR 72701, USAJames M. SavelleDepartment of Anthropology, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec H3A 2T7, Canada

Received April 1992

ABSTRACT. Bowhead whale bones in prehistoric Thule Eskimo contexts have been examined since 1975 in the centralCanadian Arctic. Approximately 10,500 bones, representing almost 1000 animals, have been counted on the shores ofsix adjacent islands. Comparisons of Thule-derived bowhead samples with live Beaufort Sea samples and EarlyHolocene samples indicate that Thule Eskimo hunters selected yearlings and two- to three-year-old subadults, to thealmost complete exclusion of calves and adults. Almost all bowheads found at Thule sites measure 7-10 m in length,estimated by regression analyses based on Alaskan bowhead skeletons of known size. Archaeological bowhead bonesrepresent several stages of past hunting and processing behavior, including selective hunting, beach flensing and meal/blubber caching, winter house construction, and bone re-use from house ruins. The availability and abundance ofbowheads were primary determinants of Thule subsistence-settlement patterns in this region. Archaeological whalebones arc a nonrenewable cultural resource of the New World Arctic that deserve study and protection.

ContentsIntroduction 1Relevance of bowhead whale studies 1A survey of Thule whale bone sites - 1975 2Excavation of whale bone houses -1976 4Whale bone measurements — 1978 4Southeastern Somerset Island: a whaling

locale-1980 6Expansion of measured bowhead samples

-1988 7Naturally stranded bowhead whales: a

comparison-1990 7Program summary 10Acknowledgements 10References 11

Introduction

Bowheads or Greenland right whales (Balaena mysticetus;Eschricht and Reinhardt 1866), the only true Arctic baleenwhales, were the focus of commercial whaling for 300years. Significant portionsof the European and Americaneconomies during the seventeenth, eighteenth, and nine-teenth centuries were based on oil, baleen, and otherproducts of these mighty animals. By the early twentiethcentury, however, bowhead populations had been reducedto less than 10% of their precommercial whaling numbers(Reeves and Leatherwood 1985), to a point where theycould no longer sustain the whaling industry. From about12,000 animals prior to extensive whaling, the easternCanadian Arctic population currently numbers no morethan a 'few hundred' (Mitchell and Reeves 1982; Reevesand others 1983), with the only notable modern summerconcentration being found at Isabella Bay, northeasternBaffin Island (Finley 1990). This decimation began withcommercial whaling in Davis Strait during the mid-seven-teenth century and expanded north into Baffin Bay in theeighteenth and nineteenth centuries. The Hudson Bayfishery flourished in the latter half of the nineteenth cen-

tury, but all commercial whaling in the eastern CanadianArctic ended during the period 1910-1920 (Ross 1979a,1979b). Given the small numbers of bowheads thatsurvive, it is difficult to study them in the region today.

In contrast to this scarcity of live bowheads, however,the archaeological record of the past millennium repre-sents a rich source of information about the species. Theskeletal remains of bowheads occur at many prehistoricThule Eskimo (about AD 1000-1600) sites throughout thecentral and eastern Canadian Arctic, and generally corre-spond to the known historic and modern bowhead distribu-tions (Fig. 1). This paper describes our research onarchaeological bowhead remains in the central Arcticsince 1975, presenting the context and history of theseinvestigations and summarizing major results to date.

Relevance of bowhead whale studies

Western Arctic or Bering Sea bowhead whales have re-ceived much scientific and historical attention in recentyears, principally because of their abundance. Recentestimates place this stock at between 2000 and 4400animals (Bockstoce 1977,1986; Braham and others 1980;Breiwick and others 1981 ;Nerini and others 1984;Reevesand Leatherwood 1985; Mitchell and Reeves 1986). Inorder to manage this stock on an international basis, it hasbeen necessary to ascertain both its currentand nineteenth-century size and distribution; basic biological parameters;possible interference by such intrusions as shipping, fish-ing, and oil drilling and spills; and the effects of modernEskimo subsistence whaling. Biological studies of thistype have been rather limited in the eastern Arctic becauseof the comparatively small population remaining. Instead,historical studies based on documentation of early com-mercial whaling have been more common (Ross 1979a,1979b; Mitchell and Reeves 1982; Reeves and others1983).

MCCARTNEY AND SAVELLE

\1

Fig. 1. Map of the central Canadian Arctic, showing the location of somemajor Thule Eskimo winter sites (dots) containing bowhead whale bonesand examined by the authors during the course of this project. Theprobable contemporaneous summer bowhead range is indicated byhatched lines.

Archaeologists investigating prehistoric Eskimo sites,especially Thule sites, are faced with a number of interre-lated issues that are more cultural than biological. Forexample, a central or eastern Arctic Thule winter settle-ment of several stone house ruins will typically contain anumber of scattered whole or broken bowhead bones (Fig.2). There are usually insufficient bones found in one ofthese ruins to construct a roof over it, and only rarely arepartial superstructures found that show how bones werefitted together as rafters and latticework to support a peatblock covering. Assuming that superstructures were,indeed, framed of bowhead bones, which is reasonablegiven the lack of driftwood in most coastal locales, thequestions become: where did the original whale bonescome from and what happened to them after the houseswere abandoned?

A second archaeological issue has to do with theimportance of bowheads in the past Eskimo diet. Becauselarge bowhead bones served as building materials as wellas indicators of dietary use, because the enormous size ofthese animals makes them difficult to incorporate into adietary reconstruction based on animal meat weight con-tribution, and because bowhead bones are too large to beremoved to a southern laboratory and included in typical

faunal analyses of excavated animal re-mains, archaeologists traditionally ignorebowheads in dietary studies. This occursdespite the large size of bowheads suggest-ing that they were the most, rather than theleast, important contributor to coastal Es-kimo subsistence in many parts of the Cana-dian Arctic.

Third, archaeologists have shown littleinterest in the potential role that bowheadsmay have played in determining site size,placement, and density within Thule settle-ment patterns. Rather than studying a Thulesite in isolation — be it a winter village, atemporary camp, or a butchering and meatcaching locale — such sites can be viewedas part of a long-term adaptational responseto the seasonal availability of bowheads inthe central and eastern Arctic.

Beyond the Arctic, archaeologicalbowhead data are germane to Pleistoceneand recent megafaunal studies worldwide.Human predation on terrestrial megafauna,such as ancient mammoths and mastodonsor historic elephants and giraffes, involves anumber of biological characteristics andhuman behaviors that parallel those ofbowhead predation. These include: (a) herdanimals, (b) animal migrations and seasonalavailability, (c) enormous animals and food/material abundance, (d) possibly dangerousattacks to immobilize and kill animals, (e)collective human efforts to butcherand trans-port meat and materials from carcasses at

kill sites, and (0 storage and/or processing of large foodmasses (McCartney and Mitchell 1988).

Accordingly, a focus on bowheads and their humanexploitation during the precommerical whaling period isvery relevant to understanding Arctic Eskimo adapta-tions. Why, when, where, and how the progenitors ofThule Eskimos spread from western and northern Alaskainto the central and eastern Arctic are matters often linkedto bowhead exploitation. More attention to these largestof Arctic mammals would seem to be an appropriatearchaeological goal. In addition, bowhead data associatedwith Thule Eskimo sites may well be relevant to studiescarried out by cetacean biologists and historians of com-mercial whaling. Bowhead ranges, numbers, osteologicalvariations, ages, and animal sizes can be determineddirectly for various periods between approximately AD1000 and 1600. Indirectly, these data may suggest popu-lation size, population structure, human predation rates,and climatically driven fluctuations (temperature/sea ice)for the Baffin Bay-Davis Strait stock.

A survey of Thule whale bone sites -1975

In 1975 McCartney directed a survey project to determ ine

the nature and extent of damage to archaeological sites

BOWHEAD WHALE BONES

Fig. 2. Aerial view of a classic Thule winter site, theLearmonth site (PeJr-1), southeastern Somerset Island.Bowhead bones and boulders, originally used in houseconstruction, are shown scattered around several housedepressions.

that resulted from bowhead whale bone collecting bymodern Inuit carvers. This project, the Thule ArchaeologyConservation Project, was sponsored by the Archaeologi-cal Survey of Canada (Canadian Museum of Civilization)and the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs(McCartney 1979a).

The project was in direct response to the increasing useof archaeological whale bone by carvers, which in turn wasitself a direct result of the increasing popularity of whalebone carvings on the world market (Mitchell 1968;Bromfield 1969; Wilford 1974). These carvings rangedfrom small figurines to entire carved crania. Because thegreatest concentrations of Canadian bowhead whale bonesare found at Thule Eskimo winter dwelling sites (Fig. 2)and associated flensing beaches with caches (Fig. 3), thesesites became the primary sources for whale bones. Eco-nomic development and arts and crafts officers of theDepartment of Indian and Northern Affairs actively en-couraged whale bone carving at this time in order toenhance the economy of Canadian Arctic communities.On the other hand, the Archaeological Survey of Canada,which was responsible for protecting cultural sites onCanadian federal lands, was concerned about the damagecaused to Thule sites as nonrenewable resources. Thus, theuse of archaeological whale bones during this periodbecame a complex management issue.

Typically, Inuit carvers would visit Thule sites andcollectcrania, vertebrae, and mandibles, the most commonbowhead elements found at these localities. These boneelements would be lifted from the old house ruins, if theywere not frozen in the permafrost, or chopped or sawed offat ground level if they were embedded. At least onecommunity chartered aircraft to haul plane loads of bowheadbones from Thule sites. An estimated 40 tons of whalebones were being removed annually between 1969 and1973 (McCartney 1979a). Once bones are taken from theirsite context, they cannot be counted, measured, or identi-fied by type, and thereby potentially important informa-tion is lost about Thule Eskimo behavior.

The Thule Archaeology Conservation Project fieldedthree survey teams during the summer of 1975 on south-eastern Baffin Island, northwestern Baffin Island, andsoutheastern Somerset Island-northern Boothia Penin-sula. These teams located more than 100 Thule sitescontaining whale bones by surveying coastlines on foot,by boat, and with aircraft. Further, they ascertained theamount of whale bones present at these sites and the degreeof damage caused by the recent extraction of carvablebones. As might be expected, sites closer than 100 km toInuit communities were affected the most. From these sitesurveys, analysis of previously reported sites, and use ratecalculations, wedetermined that: (a) more than 90% of allCanadian Arctic bowhead bones are found at Thule wintersites, (b) essentially all original winter sites in the centraland eastern Canadian Arctic (approximately 400 invento-ried by us) are detectable by air or ground surveys, sincehouse depressions with boulders and some whale bonesare not buried or covered with shrubs or trees, (c) wintersites with whale bones are characteristically found on lowshores with southern exposures along channels that havesummer open water: these channels correspond to thehistoric bowhead range, (d) density of whale bone sitesvaries by region, but ranges between 9 and 95 coastline kmper site, while average houses per site range between 4.4and 14, (e) Thule winter sites are usually situated next tofreshwater ponds or well-watered areas where peat accu-mulations can be cut for roofing blocks, and (0 SomersetIsland and Cumberland Sound (Baffin Island) appear tohave the largest concentrations of whale bones at Thulewinter sites, making them the most susceptible to recentInuit bone collecting (McCartney 1979a).

Unrelated to this whale bone study was a ban on theimportation of whale bone products into the United Statesintheearly 1970s. The Marine Mammal Protection Actof1972 and the Endangered Species Act of 1973 effectivelystopped the importation of whale bone carvings into theUnited States, because the enforcing agencies chose tolimit all marine mammal imports rather than discriminatebetween materials from modern animals, such as walrus

Fig. 3. A surf ace cache located at site PeJr-2, southeasternSomerset Island. An embedded cranium is seen in thecenter; other bowhead bones and boulders remain of theoriginal cache. Scale: 1 m.

MCCARTNEY AND SAVELLE

Fig. 4. An excavated Thule winter house at the Learmonth site (PeJr-1),southeastern Somerset Island. Bowhead mandibles and ribs may beseen in the collapsed entrance tunnel to the right of the stone-flooredhouse. Otherbowhead bones have been removedfromthecentral houseduring excavation.

ivory, sealskins, and baleen, and from animals that hadbeen dead for hundreds or thousands of years (Abrahamson1976; McCartney 1979a). Canada ratified the Conventionon International Trade in Endangered Species of WildFauna and Flora (CITES) in 1975. Initially, whale bonecarvings were subject to some form of regulation underthis convention, but by 1979 such carvings came understrict permit requirements (Mitchell and Reeves 1986).The US ban, the CITES restrictions, and overproductionby native carvers during the 1970s were factors in adecision made by Canadian Arctic Producers Ltd., thegovernment-sponsored wholesaler for much of the Cana-dian Arctic native arts and crafts at that time, to discouragewhale bone carving on the part of northern artisans.

Some 15 years later, however, whale bone carvingsare still produced and sold in Canada, and carvers continueto use archaeological whale bones as their raw material.These carvings are commonly seen in museum exhibits ofInuit art and in Inuit art shops throughout the country.

Excavation of whale bone houses -1976

A second phase of the Thule Archaeology ConservationProject was the excavation of Thule winter dwelling ruinsthat contained abundant whale bones. The purpose ofthese excavations was to determine the quantity of whalebone that might be revealed by excavating semi-subterra-nean houses (McCartney 1979a). Once analyzed, thesebones could then be recycled by carvers into art pieces. Ofcourse, a related result of these excavations was the acqui-sition of artifact collections, detailed information relatingto dwelling construction and use, and associated Thulesubsistence patterns.

Three excavation teams worked atCumberland Sound,the eastern Baffin Island coast near Broughton Island, andSomerset Island. The richest excavations, from the per-spective of whale bones, were those at three houses each at

Cape Garry and Creswell Bay on southeast-ern Somerset Island (Fig. 4). These sites arelocated on Prince Regent Inlet, near thewestern terminus of the bowhead summerrange. Eight hundred and 1200 whale bones,respectively, were counted and inspected atthese sites (McCartney 1979b, 1979c). Thenon-cetacean faunal assemblage wasanalyzed by A. Rick (1980), and a smallsample of metal artifacts (McCartney 1988)and stone vessels (McCartney and Savelle1989) have also been analyzed. A fullreport on the Cape Garry and Creswell Bayexcavations is in preparation. The houseswere radiocarbon-dated to the eleventh tothirteenth centuries, and are considered tobe classic Thule winter houses of the typethat Mathiassen (1927) originally describedfor theeastem Canadian Arctic (see Morrison[1989] for a synthesis of Thule culture ra-diocarbon dates).

Several useful kinds of whale bone in-formation came from the Somerset excavations: (a) be-cause of the large size of many bowhead elements found inwinter house ruins (crania, mandibles, scapulae, etc.),many of these project above the ground surface or arescattered on the surface nearby and, thus, may be counted,identified, and sometimes measured without excavation;surface whale bones represent approximately 40% of totalwhale bones at sites undisturbed by modern collecting(Creswell Bay), but only about 20% of total bones atcollected sites (Cape Garry), (b) whale bones buried inpermafrost, covered by wet vegetation, or even exposed onthe surface decay very slowly in this cold environment,and therefore bowhead bones have not 'disappeared' overtime due to natural decay, (c) there was no natural processfor burying whale bones, once sites were abandoned, otherthan light vegetation growth, and whale bones are too largeand heavy to be moved about the site by nonhumananimals or erosion, and (d) at Cape Garry, a site that hadbeen collected by Inuit carvers, we determined that theaverage weight of whale bones per excavated house wasapproximately 1770 lb (805 kg) per house, whereas atCreswell Bay, which had not been collected, an average of2400 lb (1090 kg) per house was found.

Although the excavations provided much useful ar-chaeological data, as an experiment in whale bone 'pro-duction' they were less successful, due to the high logisticaland field costs and the time necessary to carefully excavatewhale bones from house ruins.

Whale bone measurements -1978

A derivative study of archaeological whale bones wasconducted in 1978, under the sponsorship of the NorthernEnvironmental Protection Branch of the Department ofIndian and Northern Affairs (McCartney 1978, 1980b).Prior to the surveys of the Thule Archaeology Conserva-tion Project, archaeologists paid relatively little attention

BOWHEAD WHALE BONES 5

CraniumCervical Vertebrae

MandibleScapula

Fig. 5. The bowhead skeleton, showing fourelements counted and measured at central Canadian Arctic archaeologicalsites (after Eschricht and Reinhardt 1866).

to bowhead whale bones found at Thule sites, insteadfocusing primarily on artifact collections and, to a lesserdegree, on architectural information. The bowhead re-mains, however, as indicated above, potentially representan additional database that can provide significant infor-mation about many other aspects of Thule culture, notablyhunting patterns, importance of large whales in the diet,meat storage patterns, use and reuse of whale bones inhouse construction, settlementpatterns, and sociopoliticalstructure. What was required was basic information aboutbowhead bones such as their numbers, types, and sizes.

Accordingly, Dr Edward Mitchell (Arctic BiologicalStation, Ste-Anne-de-Bellevue, Quebec), a cetacean bi-ologist, assisted the archaeologists in the research. Hevisited the Somerset Island excavations during 1976, in-troduced the field crew to bowhead osteology, and deviseda measuring schedule for ascertaining the sizes of bowheadcrania, mandibles, scapulae, and cervical vertebrae (Fig.5). These elements are common at Thule winter housesites, and their numbers can easily be translated into theminimum number of individuals (MNI) represented by thebone assemblages.

The large crania with curved maxillary andintermaxillary bones of the upper, bowed jaw or rostrumwerecommonly set upright along the walls in order to formrafters that met near the center of the house roof. Follow-ing abandonment, the rostral bones separated from thecrania, often leaving the crania in place but the maxillarybones on the house floor. Mandibles, the longest elementsin the whale skeleton (measuring about 25-30% of thetotal whale length), are log-like and extremely strongbones. They were also used in roof construction and as rawmaterial from which long strips of sled runner shoeingwere cut Wide, flat scapulae were probably used asshingles to partially cover the roof and support peat blocks.Such blocks would provide an insulated cover for thehouse. Cervical vertebrae (fused together to form a block-like bone mass) were possibly used much like boulders inlower wall construction.

The Mitchell schedule consisted of 16 cranial, 12mandibular, five scapular, and five cervical vertebral meas-urements. These were designed specifically for smallbowheads that we found at Thule house sites. An articledescribing these measurements and their 1978 applicationto Somerset Island whale bones is currently in preparation.

While some measurements were taken on bowheadbones during the 1976 excavations at the Cape Garry andCreswell Bay sites, a small team returned in 1978, incooperation with Mitchell, specifically for the purpose ofcounting and measuring bowhead bones at nine southeast-ern Somerset Island winter house and flensing sites, in-cluding the two house sites excavated in 1976. The teamrecorded a total of 1312 crania, mandibles, scapulae, andcervical vertebrae. Of these, 217 crania, 327 mandibles,110 scapulae, and 47 cervical vertebrae were completeenough for measurement using the Mitchell schedule(McCartney 1978). We calculated an MNI of 545 based onthe recorded crania and mandibles.

One of the primary tasks confronting us was to estimatethe original sizes of the bowheads from which thedisarticulated whale bones came. Estimation of the sizes ofthe original animals was important if we were to under-stand Thule whale hunting and subsistence. We knew ofno complete Canadian bowhead skeleton to study, but wedid locate a series of 14 Alaskan bowhead skeletonsassembled in the Los Angeles County Museum. Dr FloydDurham of the museum staff had collected these skeletonsduring the late 1960s and early 1970s. They wereof small,immature animals, of the same general size as thoserepresented at our Thule sites and of known live size.McCartney measured these skeletons in 1980 with Dur-ham's assistance, using the Mitchell measurements, andmultiple linear regression models were derived that wouldestimate the length of individual live bowheads from thecranial, mandibular, scapular, and cervical vertebral meas-urements (Fig. 6).

Using mandibles, the most frequently measured ele-ment, to derive whole animal length, we found that the

MCCARTNEY AND SAVELLE

Fig. 6. Dr Floyd Durham standing next to an immature Alaskan bowheadskull at the Los Angeles County Museum (1980). Unlike the Canadianarchaeological specimens, these recent Alaskan skulls have the rostralbones of the upper mouth still attached to the cranium. These Alaskanskulls are fromsimilar sized animals asthose found at Thule Eskimo sites.

mean estimated live whale length for Somerset bowheadswas 8.5 m and the range was 7.2-11.4 m. A total of 94%of the Thule animals ranged between 7.0-10.0 m (Fig. 7).Using the measures of 4-6 m for calves, 6-9.4 m foryearlings, 9.4-12 m for subadults, and 12+ m for adults(Braham and others 1980; Nerini and others 1984), ourdata therefore indicate that most of the Somerset bowheadswere yearlings (first full-year animals) and a few weretwo- to three-year-old subadults. Thus, Thule whalehunters appear to have consistently selected bowheads ofsmall size. We also noted that paired bones (mandibles andscapulae) were found in roughly equal numbers (91 % and95% correspondence between sides respectively), sug-gesting that these elements tended to be removed fromcarcasses in pairs, rather than collected singly from natu-rally beached and disarticulated skeletons.

6<h

50-

U> 40-

Ec<

O

Z

30-

20-1

10-

6.5 7.5rr

8.5 9.5 10.5 11.5

Whale Length (m; midpoints)

The 1978 study demonstrated thatbowhead whale bones, in and of themselves,could be useful in suggesting the numbersand sizes of bowheads utilized by prehis-toric Thule Eskimos and, thus, the impor-tance of (a) bowhead meat, blubber, andentrails in the Thule Eskimo diet, (b) activehunting as a mechanism in selecting uni-formly small animals, and (c) similar sizedbones as structural elements used in winterhouse superstructures.

Southeastern Somerset Island: awhaling locale -1980

In 1980 Savelle and a small field teamconducted a foot survey of the entire south-eastern coast of Somerset Island (shorterfoot and aerial surveys were also conductedon other parts of the island). During thesesurveys, all visible archaeological whalebones were counted and identified, as weretheirspatial relationships with various Thulesite types, including winter dwelling sites,

autumn whaling and other temporary residential camps,and flensing and caching sites. Much of the southeasternSomerset shore of raised beach ridges was identified as awhale flensing area, based on the arrangement of summer/fall tent ring camps, associated meat caches, and scatters ofbeached whale bones. Savelle also led a site survey onBoothia Peninsula and King William Island in 1981 and1982, and found that bowhead bones were scarce in theseareas. These site data were combined with McCartney'searlier survey records to informally differentiate 'whaling'from 'nonwhaling' Thule Eskimo settlement patterns(McCartney and Savelle 1985). Subsequently, these dataformed the basis of a formal model of Thule Eskimobowhead whale-based settlement systems (Savelle 1986,1987; Savelle and McCartney 1988,1990).

According to this model, large winter villages consist-ing of whale bone houses servedas the primary territorial centersfor individual Thule Eskimo so-cieties. Associated with each ter-ritory were a number of special-ized sites occupied or used on aseasonal basis. These includedlarge late-summer whaling campswith ceremonial or 'festival'houses, whale flensing sites, andwhale blubber and meat cachingsites.

Fig. 7. Length distributions ofThule-period bowhead samplesmeasured in 1978 on SomersetIsland; based on regression mod-els for mandibles. N = 325.

—i—r~\—i12.5

i i i i13.5

BOWHEAD WHALE BONES

A decrease in the abundance and predictability ofbowheadwhales.beginningabout AD 1200-1400 (McGhee1969-70; McCartney 1977), resulted in substantial changesin this pattern. Winter settlements became smaller and lesspermanent (they were probably used less frequently, andfor only part of the winter), and individual group territoriesbecame less well defined.

The number and distribution of whale bones sug-gested to us several stages of selection, use, and depositionof bowheads and their bones (cf. McCartney and Savelle1985). These are outlined as follows:

(a) small bowheads were selectively hunted from thePrince Regent Inlet bowhead population during theopen-water season (mid-summer and fall),

(b) whales hauled to the ice edge or shore were partlystripped of blubber and meat and were sectioned forbeaching,

(c) of landed segments, further processing occurredwherein meat and blubber were reduced in size forcaching or transporting to winter villages and somebones were disarticulated,

(d) the beached bone sample was divided betweenthose associated with meat caches (vertebrae) andthose stockpiled for future structural/ manufactur-ing use (mandibles, crania),

(e) bones from the structural bone sample, especiallythose of more or less uniform size, were periodi-cally selected for winter house construction atnearby winter house sites, and

(0 once individual winter houses were abandoned,bones were subsequently removed for housebuildingelsewhere or for sled shoe and implement manufac-ture, thus relegating the old houses to 'quarry' sitesfor reusable bone.

Expansion of measured bowhead sample -1988

In 1988 we sought comparative whale bone measure-ments and site distribution data from areas surroundingsoutheastern Somerset Island, in order to determine if thebone assemblages, derived whale lengths, and whalingsettlement patterns were typical of Thule sites in other

60T

Whale Length (m; midpoints)

parts of the central Arctic. Accordingly, foot and aerialsurveys were carried out on the northern and eastern coastsof Somerset Island, eastern Prince of Wales Island, south-eastern Bathurst Island, southern Cornwallis Island, andnorthwestern and southwestern Devon Island (Fig. 1). Wealso returned to measure the bowhead bones previouslycounted on southeastern Somerset beaches, located be-tween winter sites.

A total of 8855 bowhead bones were recorded duringthe 1988 surveys, of which 861 crania, mandibles, scapu-lae, and cervical vertebrae were measured (Savelle 1989).As was the case in the southeastern Somerset Island area,most recorded bones were incorporated into winter housesas structural materials, with lesser numbers found at flensingand caching sites. In addition, the bowheads representedat the Thule sites are small, similar to the yearling size/ageof the southeastern Somerset sample, although some larger,adultanimalsoccuras well (Fig. 8). The presence of largerbowheads at the more northerly sites may tentatively beinterpreted as the result of a different set of selectionstrategies. That is, because the northernmost andwesternmost of these sites are located on channels wheresummer ice clearing is less frequent and thus in areaswhere bowheads were more frequently ice-blocked, hunt-ing of small whales only may have been maladapti ve. Anywhales found swimming along the coasts of these periph-eral areas, whatever their sizes, may have been pursued.

The whaling settlement patterns characteristic of south-eastern Somerset Island were also evident in most of theadjacent areas surveyed. That is, large winter villages ofwhale bone dwellings centered a group's territory, andwithin this territory were located major late summer-fallwhaling camps, bowhead flensing sites, and blubber andmeat caching sites. However, some of these site clusterswere relatively weakly defined, with only a few smallflensing and caching locales, while winter house sitescontained fewer whale bones than did their Somersetcounterparts. The winter house sites were also those thattended to have the largest whales represented. Taken

together, there appears to be con-siderable variation in whalingintensity between areas.

Naturally stranded bowheadwhales: a comparison -1990

One of the consistent patternsnoted to this point was thatbowheads at Thule sites wereprimarily smaller, youngerwhales. We interpreted this pat-tern to indicate that Thule Eski-

Fig. 8. Length distributions ofThule-period bowhead samplesmeasured in 1988 in the centralCanadian Arctic; based on re-gression models for mandibles.N = 435.

MCCARTNEY AND SAVELLE

Fig. 9. An almost complete Holocene-aged bowheadskeleton found and measured at Fitzgerald Bay, BrodeurPeninsula. Both mandibles are seen in approximate ana-tomical position. This skeleton was stranded in shallowwater and was subsequently raised above sea level byisostatic rebound.

mos were actively selecting and hunting smaller whales.However, not all archaeologists were in agreement, sug-gesting that evidence of active whale hunting, as opposedto the opportunistic scavenging of stranded carcasses, wasequivocal (see our summaries of these arguments inMcCartney [1980a] and Savelle and McCartney [1990,1991]). In order to address this problem properly, weneeded to know the age/size profiles of bowheads not onlyrepresented at Thule sites, but also at natural strandingsites. The argument could be made, for example, thatThule Eskimos were only selecting elements from smallerwhales, simply because these were the only whales con-sistently stranded on Arctic coastlines (by 'stranded' werefer to carcasses of dead animals that drifted ashore). Thiscould be due either to high mortality rates among younganimals, or to age/size segregation such that only younger,smaller animals visited the coastlines where they weresubsequently stranded (cf. Finley 1990).

Since the eastern Arctic whale stock has been severelydepleted by commercial whaling, we cannot use twentiethcentury stranding records as an accurate reflection ofprecommercial whaling stranding rates and age/size pro-files. However, there are comparative prewhaling remains

of naturally stranded bowheads in Early Holocene depos-its on Prince of Wales Island, Somerset Island, and BrodeurPeninsula, northwestern Baffin Island, which lie withinthe study area. These bones were deposited at or near thecontemporaneous shore and were eventually uplifted overtime. They predate whales acquired by Thule Eskimos inthe eastern Arctic by up to 9000 years, and thus allow anassessment of age/size profiles of naturally strandedbowhead populations. These bones were originally re-corded and studied in detail by Dr Arthur Dyke of theGeological Survey of Canada. Dyke examined relativeabundances and spatial distributions of the various boneelements, radiocarbon-dated many of them, and collecteda preliminary series of measurements to determine origi-nal whale size (Dyke 1979, 1980; Dyke and Morris 1990).His primary interest was radiocarbon-dating the bones inorder to date uplifted beach ridges and, thus, to establishisostatic emergence curves for the central Canadian Arc-tic. Part of this reconstruction involved the determinationof the relationship between Holocene environments (in-cluding sea-ice cover) and whale abundance. The resultsof these geological investigations can profitably be em-ployed in our archaeological studies.

Using unpublished information provided by Dyke, in1990 Savelle, McCartney, and Elisa Hart relocated ap-

Fig. 10. A small yearling skull (ventral view) of earlyHolocene age, McBean Bay, Brodeur Peninsula. Thisspecimen is almost complete but is missing the proximalends of the rostral bones.

BOWHEAD WHALE BONES

<

O

i 9.5 10.5 11.5 12.5 13.5 14.5 15.5

Whale Length (m; midpoints)

Fig. 11. Estimated length distributions of Holocene-aged bowheadsmeasured at McBean Bay and Fitzgerald Bay, Brodeur Peninsula,northwestern Baffin Island (whale length regressions based prima-rily on cranial measurements). N = 58.

proximately 75 stranded bowhead localities recorded byDyke at McBean Bay and Fitzgerald Bay on BrodeurPeninsula's western shore (Fig. 1). We also found anadditional 25 localities. These whale remains are scatteredamong raised beach ridges that extend up to 3 km inlandfrom the present coast, and they date to as early as 10,000-10,500 years ago. We measured all the bowhead elementsthat we located, according to our measurement schedule(Figs. 9,10). We derived estimated live whale lengths for58 individuals. (In Savelle and McCartney [1991: Fig.11.3], we illustrated a histogram of Holocene strandedwhale lengths based on cranial width measurements takenby Dyke on 129 specimens. The estimated sizes of the 58specimens shown in Figure 9 are based on Mitchell meas-urements taken by us.)

The results of these measurements from the easternshore of Prince Regent Inlet are presented in Figure 11,and the combined 1978-1988 Thule age/size measures

<

6.6 7.4 0.2 9 9.0 10.G 11.4 12.2 13II :u4.1,

13.0 14.6 15.4 16.2 17

Whale Length (m; midpoints)

Fig. 12. Estimated length distributions of hunted bowheads taken byrecent North Alaskan Eskimos (Nerini and others 1984). N =106.

found in the central Canadian Arctic, live popu-lation age/size measures from the Chukchi andBeaufort seas, and recent Eskimo-harvestedbowhead sizes from northwestern Alaska are inFigures 14,13,and 12, respectively. Although ofdifferent periods, the Thule sample and theBrodeur Peninsula Holocene sample came fromthe same bowhead population that entered PrinceRegent Inlet and other central Canadian Arcticchannels annually during periods of open water.The Beaufort Sea live sample represents a rela-tively 'healthy' western Arctic population. Theirprofile was generated from photogrammetricmeasurements made during aerial surveys ofbowheads in the 1980s. Assuming that growthrates of western and eastern Arctic bowheads areessentially the same, the live animal profiles ofcurrent western Arctic bowheads can be consid-ered to represent the profiles of eastern Arcticbowheads extant during the second millenniumAD. It is immediately evident that: (a) the profile

of naturally stranded Holocene whales is very similar tothe live population profile, (b) the Thule profile differssignificantly from either the live or the Holocene profile,and (c) the Alaskan Eskimo harvest profile is intermediatebetween the Thule and the other profiles.

Considering first the naturally stranded and live popu-lation profiles, the close similarities between the twosuggest that natural strandings tend to result primarilyfrom 'catastrophic' events (Caughley 1966, 1977), inwhich the proportion of individuals dying in any age/sizecohort is a direct reflection of their proportion in a livepopulation. In the case of bowhead whales, the most likelycatastrophic profile-producing mechanism is ice entrap-ment (cf. Mitchell and Reeves 1982). It is also apparentthat the Holocene and Beaufort Sea profiles show the fullrangeof bowhead sizes/ages, from calves to mature adults.The largest bowheads on record are reported to be 20 mlong (Reeves and Leatherwood 1985).

Turning now to the Thule profile, it is un-likely that Thule Eskimos were primarily scav-enging stranded whales, since such behaviorwould have resulted in broad age/size profilessimilar to that of the stranded population. In-stead, the comparisons indicate a definite selec-tivity on the part of Thule Eskimos for smallanimals from populations containing full age/size ranges.

Finally, the Alaskan Eskimo hunted bowheadprofile is similar to the Thule profile in that the'yearling' peak (6.0-9.4 m) is the highest. Itdiffers in having a relatively larger representa-tion of subadults and adults (> 9.4 m). Whilethere is a historic explanation for taking smallwhales in Alaska (they are less dangerous tohunt, easier to tow ashore, and taste better; seeMcCartney and Savelle [1985]), larger whalescould be taken from the late nineteenth century to

10 MCCARTNEY AND SAVELLE

V)

E<"o6

40

I<5.5 6.75 8.75 10.75 12.75 14.75 16.755.75 7.75 9.75 11.75 13.75 15.75 >17

Whale Length (m; midpoints)

Fig. 13. Estimated length distributions of live bowheads measuredphotogrammetrically in the Chukchi and Beaufort seas (1981 -1986;estimated figures from Koski and others [1988]). N = 1988.

the present because bomb guns and block and tackle forhauling carcasses onto the ice were introduced during thecommercial whaling era. Obviously, these devices are notcharacteristic of aboriginal whaling and butchery, and wewould expect a pre-1850 Alaskan hunted bowhead sampleto more closely resemble the Thule profiles.

Program summary

Between 1975 and 1990, we conducted a regional researchprogram focused on counting, measuring, and interpretingbowhead bones found associated with prehistoric ThuleEskimos in the central Canadian Arctic. Our target areahas been the islands that form the intersecting channels bywhich Baffin Bay-Davis Strait bowheads enter the centralCanadian Archipelago. The islands include Somerset,eastern Prince of Wales, eastern Bathurst, Cornwallis,Devon, and northern Baffin. The inter-island channels,blocked by pack ice to the west, south, and north, form the

120

E<

o

6.5 7.5 8.5 9.5 10.5 11.5 12.5 13.5 14.5 15.5

Whale Length (m; midpoints)

Fig. 14. Estimated length distributions of Thule-period bowheadsmeasured at central Canadian Arctic sites (combined 1978 and1988 samples; whale length regressions based on mandible meas-urements). N = 760.

western terminus or cul-de-sac for the annualbowhead migration into this central area. This iceblockage exists today, much as itdid during Thuletimes.

To date, we have recorded approximately10,500 bone elements along low beach ridges thatare associated with Thule winter house sites,flensing beaches, and caching sites. We havederived estimated whale sizes from 345 crania,760 mandibles, 213 scapulae, and 120 cervicalvertebrae. We estimate this sample to represent atotal MNI of 963 (based on regional rather thansite groupings). The total bone counts and MNIwould be much higher if all the known Thulehouses were excavated and their buried bonesrevealed.

We have found that Thule Eskimos huntedbowheads whose lengths cluster between 7 and 10m; most of these were first full-year animals andfewer of them were two- or three-year-old ani-

mals. By comparison with Holocene stranded bowheadsthat preceded human bowhead hunting in the region and bycomparison with live Chukchi Sea and Beaufort Seapopulations, the 500- to 800-year-old Thule sample isshown to represent definite selection for such small ani-mals. Presumably, these animals were easier to hunt, towashore, and butcher than were larger bowheads. This smallwhale pattern is found atevery Thule site or flensing beacharea that we have examined.

Based on these data, we have suggested that, first, aprimary focus of classic Thule Eskimo subsistence in thiscentral channel region was on the seasonally availablebowheads. Second, long-term settlement in shore-basedwinter villages was made possible by virtue of largequantities of meat and blubber being available year afteryear, the majority of which came from bowheads ratherthan small sea mammals, caribou, and fish. Finally, thisbowhead dependency could continue as long as the sea-

sonal migrations occurred; when northern hemi-sphere temperatures fell during the Little Ice Age(approximately 400-100 years ago), annual seaice would have progressed to the point that someof the central channels were often blocked andbowheads were prevented from reaching theirearlier summer grounds. Without the reliablepresence of bowheads, Thule societies shiftedtheir subsistence-settlement patterns to living onthe sea ice in igloos and hunting seals during thewinter months, a pattern that is well documentedin the eighteenth and nineteenth centuryethnohistoric record.

Analyses of the collected data are continuing,as is the collection of additional counts and meas-urements.

Acknowledgements

We wish to acknowledge the sponsoring institu-tions, the persons who assisted us in the field, and

BOWHEAD WHALE BONES 11

a few of the principal colleagues who have assisted thestudies summarized here. We are indebted to these spon-sors and persons for furthering our knowledge of archaeo-logical whale bones, and thank them all for their contribu-tions.

The Thule Archaeology Conservation Project (1975—1976) was sponsored by the Archaeological Survey ofCanada, Canadian Museum of Civilization, and the Socialand Cultural Development Division, Northern Program,Department of Indian and Northern Affairs. Its goals werefacilitated by W.E. Taylor Jr, G. MacDonald, R. Wilmeth,G. Abrahamson, and M. McDowell. Approximately 40field crew members and Inuit assistants and guides partici-pated in the two-year program; all of these are listed inMcCartney (1979a: 105-106).

The 1978 survey was sponsored by the Northern Envi-ronmental Protection Branch, Department of Indian andNorthern Affairs. In addition to McCartney, the field crewconsistedof A. Clarke, M. McLaughlin.andD. Sudlovenick(Resolute Bay). Field advisors and facilitators were B.Kemp and E. Mitchell.

Savelle's 1980 survey was sponsored by the BorealInstitute for Northern Studies, the Science Advisory Boardof the Northwest Territories, and the Social Science andHumanities Research Council of Canada. In addition toSavelle, the field crew was made up of C. Dignam and F.Piugattuk (Igloolik).

The 1988 field work was conducted under the sponsor-ship of the Social Science and Humanities Research Coun-cil of Canada; in addition to Savelle and McCartney, thefield crew consisted of K. Digby, E. Hart, and T. Manik(Resolute Bay). The 1990 Brodeur Peninsula survey wasfunded by the Geological Survey of Canada and theNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council ofCanada. A. Dyke was instrumental in the design andimplementation of this fieldwork.

The Polar Continental Shelf Project (Department ofEnergy, Mines and Resources, Canada) assisted us during1976,1978,1980,1988, and 1990 with logistical supportand aircraft service; we wish especially to thank the staffof the Resolute PCSP base for their invaluable assistance.Data entry and analysis of the 1988 and 1990 measure-ments were carried out by Brian Schnarch. N. McCartneyread and commented on a draft of this paper.

References

Abrahamson, G. 1976. US embargo on whalebone carv-ings. Inuttituut (Winter): 56-57.

Bockstoce, J.R. 1977. Steam whaling in the western ArcticNew Bedford, MA: Old Dartmouth Historical Society.

Bockstoce, J.R. 1986. Whales, ice, & men: a history ofwhaling in the western Arctic. Seattle: University ofWashington Press.

Braham, H.W., W.M. Marquette, T.W. Bray, and J.S.Leatherwood (editors). 1980. The bowhead whale:whaling and biological research. Marine Fisheries Re-view A2 (9-10): 1-96.

Breiwick, J.M., E.D. Mitchell, and D.G. Chapman. 1981.Estimated initial population size of the Bering Sea stockof bowhead whale, Balaena mysticetus: an interativemethod. Fisheries Bulletin 78 (4): 843-853.

Bromfield, A. 1969. Operation whalebone. A/ort/)16(6):1-7.

Caughley, G. 1966. Mortality patterns in mammals. Ecol-ogy 47:906-917.

Caughley, G. 1977. Analysis of vertebrate populations.London: John Wiley and Sons.

Dyke, A.S. 1979. Radiocarbon-dated Holocene emergenceof Somerset Island, central Canadian Arctic. CurrentResearch, PartB, Geological Survey of Canada Paper79-1B: 307-318.

Dyke, A.S. 1980. Redated Holocene whale bones fromSomerset Island, District of Franklin. Current Research,Part B, Geological Survey of Canada Paper 80-1B:269-270.

Dyke, A.S., andT.F. Morris. 1990. Postglacial history of thebowhead whale and of driftwood penetration; implica-tions for paleoclimate, central Canadian Arctic. Geo-logical Survey of Canada Paper 89-24.

Eschricht, D.F. and Reinhardt, J. 1866. On the Greenlandright whale (Balaena mysticetus, Linn.), with specialreference to its geographic distribution and migrationsin times past and present, and to its external andinternal characteristics. In: Flowers, W.H. (editor). Re-cent memoirs of the Cetacea by Professors Eschricht,Reinhardt and Lilljeborg. London: Publishedforthe RaySociety by Robert Hardwicke, 1-150.

Finley, K.J. 1990. Isabella Bay, Baffin Island: an importanthistorical and present-day concentration area for theendangered bowhead whale (Balaena mysticetus) ofthe eastern Canadian Arctic. Arctic 43 (2): 137-152.

Koski, W.R., G.W. Miller, and R.A. Davis. 1988. Thepotential effects of tanker traffic on the bowhead whalein the Beaufort Sea. Indian and Northern Affairs Canada,Environmental Studies 58.

Mathiassen, T. 1927. Archaeology of the central Eskimo.K0benhavn:GyldendalskeBoghandel. NordiskForlag.

McCartney, A.P. 1977. Thule Eskimo prehistory alongnorthwestern Hudson Bay. Ottawa: National Museumsof Canada. (National Museum of Man, Mercury Series,Archaeological Survey of Canada Paper 70.)

McCartney, A.P. 1978. Study of archaeological whalebones for the reconstruction of Canadian Arctic bowheadwhale stocks and whale use by prehistoric Inuit. Ot-tawa: Preliminary report preparedf or Northern Environ-mental Protection Branch, Department of Indian andNorthern Affairs.

McCartney, A.P. (editor). 1979a. Archaeological whalebone: a northern resource. Fayetteville, AR: Universityof Arkansas. (University of Arkansas AnthropologicalPapers 1.)

McCartney, A.P. 1979b. 1976 excavations on SomersetIsland. In: McCartney, A.P. (editor). Archaeologicalwhale bone: a northern resource. Fayetteville, AR:University of Arkansas, 285-314. (University of Arkan-sas Anthropological Papers 1).

McCartney, A.P. 1979c. A processual consideration ofThulewhale bone houses. In: McCartney, A.P. (editor).Thule Eskimo culture: an anthropological retrospective.Ottawa: National Museums of Canada, 301-323. (Na-tional Museum of Man, Mercury Series, ArchaeologicalSurvey of Canada Paper 88.)

McCartney, A.P. 1980a. The nature of Thule Eskimo whaleuse. Arctic33 (3): 517-541.

McCartney, A.P. 1980b. Study of archaeological whalebones f orthe reconstruction of Canadian Arctic bowheadwhale stocks and whale use by prehistoric Inuit. Ot-tawa: Final report prepared for the Northern Environ-mental Protection Branch, Department of Indian and

12 MCCARTNEY AND SAVELLE

Northern Affairs.McCartney, A.P. 1988. Late prehistoric metal use in the

New World Arctic. In: Shaw, R.D., R.K. Harritt, and D.E.Dumond (editors). The late prehistoric development ofAlaska's native people. Aurora: Alaska AnthropologicalAssociation Monograph Series 4:57-79.

McCartney, A.P., and E.D. Mitchell. 1988. Marinemegafauna: human ecology and Thule Eskimo whal-ing. Paper presented at the annual meeting of theSociety for American Archaeology, Phoenix, AZ, 1988.

McCartney, A.P., and J.M. Savelle. 1985. Thule Eskimowhaling in the central Canadian Arctic. Arctic Anthro-pology 22(2): 37-58.

McCartney, A.P., and J.M. Savelle. 1989. A Thule Eskimostone vessel complex. Canadian Journal of Archaeol-ogy13:21-49.

McGhee, R. 1969/70. Speculations on climatic change andThule culture development. Fo//c11-12:173-184.

Mitchell, E.D., and R.R. Reeves. 1982. Factors affectingabundance of bowhead whales Balaena mysticetus inthe eastern Arctic of North America, 1915-1980. Bio-logical Conservation 22:59-78.

Mitchell, E.D., and R.R. Reeves. 1986. Current status of theBering Sea stock of bowhead whales. Musk-Ox34:57-76.

Mitchell, E.H. 1968. Whalebone carvings. North 15 (6): 8 -11.

Morrison, D. 1989. Radiocarbon dating Thule culture. Arc-tic Anthropology26 (2): 48-77.

Nerini, M.K., H.W. Braham, W.M. Marquette, and D.J.Rugh. 1984. Life history of the bowhead whale, Balaenamysticetus (Mammalia: Cetacea). Journal of Zoology204:443-468.

Reeves, R.R., andS. Leatherwood. 1985. Bowhead whale,Balaena mysticetus Linnaeus, 1758. In: Ridgway, S.H.,and R.J. Harrison (editors). Handbook of marine mam-mals: the sirenians and baleen whales. London: Aca-demic Press, 305-344.

Reeves, R.R., E.D. Mitchell, A. Mansfield, and M.McLaughlin. 1983. Distribution and migration of thebowhead whale, Balaena mysticetus, in the easternNorth American Arctic. Arctic36 (1): 5-64.

Rick, A.M. 1980. Non-cetacean vertebrate remains fromtwo Thule winter houses on Somerset Island. Canadian

Journal of Archaeology 4:99-117.Ross, W.G. 1979a. The annual catch of Greenland

(bowhead) whales in waters north of Canada 1719—1915: a preliminary compilation. Arctic32 (2): 91-121.

Ross, W.G. 1979b. Commercial whaling and Eskimos inthe eastern Canadian Arctic 1819-1920. In: McCartney,A.P. (editor). Thule Eskimo culture: an anthropologicalretrospective. Ottawa: National Museums of Canada,242-266. (National Museum of Man, Mercury Series,Archaeological Survey of Canada Paper 88.)

Savelle, J.M. 1986. Mobility and subsistence-settlement:an archaeological example from the central CanadianArctic. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Department ofAnthropology, University of Alberta.

Savelle, J.M. 1987. Collectors and foragers: subsistence-settlement system change in the central CanadianArctic, AD 1000—1960. British Archaeological Reports.International Series 358.

Savelle, J.M. 1989. Thule Eskimo whaling in the centralCanadian Arctic: a zooarchaeological assessment.Yellowknife: Report submitted to the Prince of WalesNorthern Heritage Centre.

Savelle, J.M., and A.P. McCartney. 1988. Geographicaland temporal variation in Thule Eskimo subsistenceeconomies: a model. Research in Economic Anthropol-ogy10:21-72.

Savelle, J.M., and A.P. McCartney. 1990. Prehistoric ThuleEskimo whaling in the central Canadian Arctic: currentknowledgeandfuture research directions. In: Harington,C.R. (editor). Canada's missing dimension: scienceand history in the High Arctic Islands. Ottawa: CanadianMuseum of Nature, 695-723.

Savelle, J.M., and A.P. McCartney. 1991. Thule Eskimosubsistence and bowhead whale procurement. In: Stiner,M.C. (editor). Human predators and prey mortality.Boulder: Westview Press, 201-216.

Wilford, N. 1974. Spence Bay whalebone carvings. North22 (2): 22-25.

The accuracy of references in the text and in this list is theresponsibility of the authors, to whom queries should beaddressed.