social anthropology of the central eskimo

Social anthropology of the central

DAVID DAMAS

Eskimo

The study of social organization has moved from a peripheral to a central position in the burgeoning literature of the Eskimo. Presentations of Eskimo kinship systems have had an important impact on attempts at classifying kinship terminologies and kinship has become a major preoccupation of field workers in the Central Eskimo regions in recent years.

Less well explored but still significantly represented in the recent literature are such topics as family and local organization, authority structure, alliance mechanisms, and cultural ecological explorations of features of society.

Future work in the social anthropology of the area will be affected strongly and limited by conditions of change and the study of social change itself is rapidly becoming the focus of the social anthropology of the Central Eskimo.

The literature on the Eskimo is probably the most extensive of that devoted to any people traditionally studied by anthropologists. Begin- ning with Boas (1888). the Eskimo area has been the scene of numerous ethnographies. The overwhelming corpus of data presented in the Reports of the Fifth Thule Expedition (10 vols) and the formidable series of Jenness (10 vols) form a strong base of information on the Cana- dian Eskimo. Rasmussen (1908), Holm (1914). Birket-Smith (1924). and Holtved (1951, 1967) document the cultures of the Eskimo of Green- land. For the western part of the area, the work of Murdoch (18921, Nelson (1899), and, more recently, that of Lantis (1946), Spencer (1959), VanStone (1962), and Oswalt (1967) comprise notable ethnographic contributions. Together these writings make up a body of material rich in cultural detail and they provide lively descrip- tions of a broad sweep of Eskimo life.

T H E O R E T I C A L O R I E N T A T I O N S I N

E S K I M O R E S E A R C H

Although ‘the deliberate aversion to systematization’ (Lowie I937:152) attributed to Boas in particular among the Arctic ethnologists might not be an entirely accurate picture of the major Rev. canad. SOC. &Anth./Canad. Rev. SOC. & Anth. I

ethnographies of the Eskimo, certainly excur- sions into interpretation or explanation comprise only a minor part of their content. How- ever, early in the history of Eskimo ethnology European scholars began to ask questions about the rapidly expanding body of information on that people. Specifically, being influenced by the kulturkreise body of theory, they began to speculate about Eskimo origins. Sollas (1911) in his Ancient Hunters used ar- tifactual and skeletal resemblances to support his view that the Eskimo represented survivors of the Chanceladen-Magdalenian people of Europe. Gudmund Hatt( 1914)compared material culture traits from Siberia and North America to develop his theory of circumpolar cultural affinities while Steensby (1917) built on Hatt’s work and expanded it to hypothesize three stages of Eskimo culture. Birket-Smith (1929b) combined the circumpolar theory of Hatt with the culture stage theory of Steensby and viewed the Caribou Eskimo as remnants of an earlier stage which had migrated to coastal areas. With Mathiassen’s (1927) challenge of inland origins based on archaeological dis- coveries in the Central Arctic, the quest for Eskimo origins has shifted from such compari- sons of ethnographic traits as those of Hatt, Steenby, and Birket-Smith to archaeology.

N 3 ) 1975

Social anthropology of the central Eskimo I 253

More recently Dumond (1965) has combined linguistic and archaeological approaches in out- lining Eskimo culture history.

Concern with Eskimo personality or psychology has been another important focus of research among the Eskimo. It might be well to mention here Lantis’ (1960) study of Eskimo socialization and personality, Parker’s ( 1962) exploration of Eskimo psychopathology, Lubart’s (1969) study of Mackenzie Delta Es- kimo undergoing the trauma of rapid change, and Briggs’ (1970) portrayal of emotional ex- pressionism among the Back River Eskimo.

Overwhelmingly, the recent literature on the Eskimo has been concerned with change. Using a North Alaskan example, Chance (1960) questioned the assumption that rapid change brings on disorganization or disintegration of native societies. Vallee (1962) was concerned with emerging status distinctions among Keewatin region Eskimos which reflected differential acculturation. Honigmann, et al. (1963) focused on changes in community patterning among Es- kimo and northern Indians. Kleivan (1969170) dealt with special problems of ethnic identity among Greenlanders. Hughes (1965) surveyed the burgeoning literature on Eskimo acculturation while setting his analysis in the framework of transactional theory. Paine (1971) extended the broker-patron conception of interaction developed elsewhere in the world to the eastern Canadian Arctic. I have mentioned only a few of the many studies and the various approaches to acculturation among the Eskimo here and will return to a consideration of selected aspects of change in a later section of this paper.

The other main area of interest, which had a slow beginning but has emerged recently as a major concern of Eskimologists, is that of social organization. During the early ethnographic period of Eskimo anthropology, which extended from Boas’ pioneering Baffin Island expedition of 1882-3 through the Fifth Thule Ex- pedition of 1921-4, sociological data were usually treated as plainly descriptive and were presented in the same categorized fashion that was used in handling linguistics, mythology, or material culture. Nevertheless, some early attempts at systematization are notable. Morgan’s (1871) use of Eskimo kinship terminologies gathered by whaling captains formed a part of his broad scheme of the worldwide distribution of kinship systems. Mauss and Beuchat (190415) used early ethnographic material to support their thesis of two distinct social entities among the Eskimo: the

summer society and the winter society. The important beginning to the study of Eskimo kinship established by Morgan was carried forward by Spier (1925) and Murdock (1949) who incor- porated Eskimo kinship material as ‘Eskimo types’ in their typologies of kinship systems. Murdock also expanded the ‘Eskimo type’ to encompass a social organizational form.

Linton’s (1936) classification of the Eskimo family with that ofwestern society as ‘conjugal’ as opposed to the ‘consanguineal’ family of most of the rest of the world, together with the cousin classification of Spier and Murdock (a term common to all cousins, but separate from siblings), became stereotypes of Eskimo family organization and kinship which have persisted until very recently.

While Mauss and Beuchat, Spier, Murdock, and Linton can be regarded as the fathers of the social anthropology of the Eskimo in that they began in that area the search for regularity in social phenomenan which is the essence of social anthropology, they were all handicapped in making generalizations by their distance from the field situation, and by their reliance on eth- nographical material which seldom focused on problems of social organization. The advent of the ‘modern inquirer’ who is ‘ethnographer and social anthropologist in one’ (Nadel 1951:26) is more recent in the Eskimo area. Beginning in the late 1950s and extending to the present, such workers as Heinrich, Graburn, Guemple, Hughes, Burch, Stevenson, and the present writer represent this latter orientation.

The aim of this paper is to review recent work in the social anthropology of the Central Es- kimo on the backdrop of this brief survey of the history of ethnological research in the Ameri- can Arctic and in the wider context of studies of the social organization of the Eskimo. For purposes of this paper ‘Central Eskimo’ refers to the Copper, Netsilik, Iglulik, Caribou, and Baffinland Eskimo. The treatment will proceed as an examination of research on the following topics: kinship systems, the kindred, family structure, authority structure, alliance mechanisms, local organization, cultural ecology, and social change.

K I N S H I P S Y S T E M S

The early ethnographic period in the Eskimo area was an era when kinship remained a peripheral interest in the ethnographic accounts. This contrasts to the contemporary

254 / DavidDamas

period when kinship has become a consuming concern for anthropologists working with the Eskimo. Hughes (1958) first noted an important aberration to the earlier posed 'Eskimo types' on St Lawrence Island and related the patterning of that system to the existence of patrilineal descent groups, a feature which had not been reckoned with in the classic Eskimo types of social organization. Heinrich's (1960, 1965) work with Alaskan terminologies also revealed variation from Spier's and Murdock's typologies, as did Graburn's (1964) material from the eastern Hudson Bay area.

In works focusing on the Central Eskimo as defined above, one finds significant variation in terminologies (Damas 1963:203-I I ) . It is especially noteworthy that, in considering both the wider picture of Eskimo kinship as it rapidly fills in as well as the material from the Central Es- kimo, the cousin terms which have themselves been hailed as diagnostic of the 'Eskimo type' and of the systems of typologies themselves seem to be the single most variable set of kin categories in the Central Eskimo area. This fact casts serious doubts on the validity of the use of cousin classifications to characterize bilateral systems. If the cousin terminologies of the Baffinland Eskimo (Stevenson, 1972), Caribou Eskimo (Arima, ND) , the Iglulik Eskimo (Damas, 1963), and the Netsilik and Copper Eskimo (Damas, 1969b) show significant variations, does this mean that they are paralleled by structural-functional differences in the societies? In another paper (Damas, 1969b) I have attempted to explain the distribution of cousin terms as reflecting marriage practices. Among the lglulik Eskimo the identification of cross-sexed cousins with cross-sexed siblings appears to have functional consistency with prohibitions against cousin marriage. For the Copper Eskimo separation of these categories can be regarded as consistent with frequent marriage between cousins. However, the picture for the Netsilik Eskimo is ambiguous for marriage was often practised between terminological brothers and sisters (actual cousins) in that group. The material from the Caribou Eskimo (Arima, ND) suggests similar ambiguity.

My earlier hypothesis, that the Netsilik de- mography changed from a situation of evenly balanced sex ratios to one skewed by female infanticide and, consequently, presented a situation where marriage choices would be severely limited by exogamic practices, could possibly

be posited for the Caribou Eskimo as well. One might conjecture that the now recognized late movement of this latter group into the interior of Keewatin (Arima, ND) may have paralleled economic and demographic changes and concomitant alterations in marriage patterns. It appears to be fairly clear that the practice of female infanticide among the Caribou, Netsilik, and Copper Eskimo groups conspired against exogamic practices which were viable among the Iglulik Eskimo and probably among the Baffinlanders as well. In those latter regions the more evenly balanced sex ratios provided a more expansive universe of marriage opportunities. What is particularly interesting in the Caribou and Netsilik cases is that cousin terminologies have not changed to accommodate probable changes in marriage practices, a circumstance which raises interesting questions regarding internal consistency and conser- vatism in kinship systems in general.

The terminological categories in the first as- cending generation reflect more consistently the marriage practices. Lumping of consanguines and affines on that generation was highly developed among those groups (Copper, Caribou, Netsilik) where marriage between rel- atives was widely practised, with consequent double relationships developing. Resolution of the duplication was made in favour of consan- guinea1 designations. Among the lglulik Eskimo and northern Baffinlanders separation of affines and consanguines is complete in the parental generation, an occurrence which is again consistent with the exogamic marriage practices which were ideal in those regions.

The earlier posited (Damas, 1963) explanation of the Iglulik system according to the principles of affectional closeness (unp ryuq ) and obedience or dominance-subordinance (narrlaqtrrq) appears to apply to Baffinland as well (Stevenson, 1972). The ncrcrlaqruq axis ap- plies to the Netsilik but ungayuq does not. The dominance-subordinance dimension appears only latently, that is, in terminology, not behaviour, among the Copper Eskimo. The picture is not clear for the Caribou Eskimo. The comprehensive exposition of the kinship system which was possible for the Iglulik Eskimo did not bear such ripe fruit for this writer in working with Netsilik and Copper groups, though Stevenson's (1972) analysis of the Clyde River Baffinlanders gives promise of extensive explanatory possibilities. The latter's detailed exploration of ideal and actual norms of be-

Social anthropology of the central Eskimo / 255

haviour between members of kinship based dyads is an important contribution to Eskimo kinship studies and represents an approach which should be more fully pursued in other regions.

T H E K I N D R E D

With the absence of descent groups which by and large formed the basis of orientation for conventional social anthropological analysis (Fortes, 1953), the social anthropologist working with the Central Eskimo finds his attention being directed to the kindred as a conceptual anchor. The term ilugiit comes into play in the Central Arctic as the native referent category which shows similarities with the kindred as conceived in the theoretical literature. Two chief usages are in evidence in the regions under consideration in this paper. Ilugiit can refer to a locally focused narrow circle of kin or to ‘rela- tives’ in general. In both instances affines as well as consanguines are grouped under the term. For the Pelly Bay Netsilik, Balikci (1964) refers to the ‘restricted ilugiit’ for the former entity and Stevenson (1972) has adopted his usage for northern Baffin Island. I (1963) have focused on the concept of the extended family as a local segment of the kindred and expanded that conceptualization in larger groupings to the idea of overlapping localized kindred segments.

Focusing as they have on the local groupings which are mobilized from the ilugiit in the larger sense, Stevenson and Balikci as well as Arima (for the Caribou Eskimo) have not cir- cumscribed the ilugiit in its broader sense. In my attempts to do so some interesting regional anomalies have emerged. Among the Iglulik Eskimo there seems to be a steep gradient beyond second cousins and their spouses while for the Copper Eskimo terminological tracing can reach as far as fourth cousins. This is in direct contrast to the far greater development of kinship directives and the general greater importance accorded to kinship in social organization among the Igluliks as compared to the Cop- per Eskimo. There appears to be merit in argu- ing for consistency with marriage practices in this case. With exogamy the ideal as in the Iglulik Eskimo regions, some mechanism, such as narrowing the kindred, seems to be a likely accompaniment, while in the case of the Copper Eskimo where cousin marriage may have some preference (though this is not clearly stated by informants), one would expect expansion of the

kindred in order to include a larger reservoir from which to choose potential mates.

F A M I L Y O R G A N I Z A T I O N

Occurrence of extended family organization with a patrilocal slant has been documented for Baffin Island (Graburn, 1963; Stevenson, 1972), Iglulik Eskimo (Damas, 1963), the Netsilik (Steenhoven, 1962, Balikci, 1964), and the Caribou Eskimo(Vallee, 1962;Arima, ND). This picture does not prevail for the Copper Eskimo who alone among the Central Eskimo ‘tribes’ represent the isolated nuclear family which has been identified with the Eskimo in general since the time of Linton’s characterization. Indeed, in a survey of the Eskimo area, using criteria of kinship, residence, economic factors, and factors of leadership and mutual aid, the present author (1971) concluded that only the Polar Es- kimo and the Copper Eskimo could be characterized fairly as examples of groups whose family structure could be regarded as ‘isolated nuclear’ or ‘conjugal.’

This conclusion differs from that of Guemple (1972b) who infers that the isolated nuclear family was typical of most Eskimo groups. The latter author used basically the same body of literature as myself in arriving at this conclusion but employed only the criterion of average number of occupants to a dwelling to delineate family structure. Both of us have been handicapped in our wider surveys by lack of conclu- sive data on family structure in much of the area, but for the regions that are the focus of this paper enough evidence is available to substan- tiate the picture given here. Dunning’s (1966) conclusions in this regard for the region under consideration are consistent with my own.

L O C A L O R G A N I Z A T I O N

Reconstruction of charts of maximal aggregations which were based on the censuses of the Fifth Thule Expedition and which 1 have designated as bands (1969a) shows a remarkable similarity in kinship composition for these groupings of Iglulik, Netsilik, and Copper Es- kimo. The general continuity of primary kinship ties and the pronounced ‘male oriented’ (Helm, 1969) slant to the bands are their chief distin- guishing characteristics. This similarity occurs despite contrasts in family structure. The prom- inence of male-male ties within the Iglulik and Netsilik Eskimo bands is consistent with the

256 / DavidDamas

strong development of the patrilocally slanted extended family in those groups but, in the Copper Eskimo case, with the isolation of the nuclear family such an emphasis was unex- pected on the band scale. Perhaps common demographic factors which are not clear at this time account for this similarity.

However, the variation in family structure which has been noted above is clearly related to organization of the smaller local groups which I have designated as hunting groups after Rogers (1963). In the cases of the Netsiliks and the lglulik Eskimo the extended family formed the main summer groupings or at least their core. With the Copper Eskimo the traditional summer groupings appear to have been less regular in their composition with various kinship link- ages, formalized partnerships, and simply for- tuitous factors being involved in the formation ofthe hunting groups. Such a situation is consistent with the lack of emphasis on kinship in general and the independence of the nuclear family for the Copper Eskimo.

The Baffinlanders showed the same sort of pattern of aggregating in large winter sealing villages and then splitting into hunting groups during the bulk of the year (Boas, 1888; Steven- son, 1972) but there is no material available on kinship composition of aborginal groups to compare with the material which the author has gleaned from the Fifth Thule censuses. Arima has reconstructed northern Caribou Eskimo group composition based on Rasmussen’s (1930:22,37) census of 1925 and found the de- cided slant towards male oriented bonds which 1 have reported for other Central Eskimo groups.

The writings of Julian Steward (1955) and Elman Service (1962) have stimulated considerable interest in the problems of classification of local groupings of hunting and gathering peoples including the Eskimo. Steward thought of the Eskimo as being organized on the ‘family level of organization’ implying highly amorph- ous and fragmented sorts of local groups, while Service characterized Central Eskimo groupings as ‘composite bands’ without marriage rules and lacking continuous kinship linkage. Service posited an earlier ‘patrilocal band stage for the Eskimo which had broken down due to contact-produced depopulation.’

Steward’s conceptualization clearly does not apply to the Central Eskimo, for in each of the regions treated in this paper the sources amply document aggregations of substantial size. For

the Copper, Netsilik, and lglulik Eskimo, 1 found that aggregations averaging IOO connected with winter sealing were regular occur- rences. Boas (1888:425) felt that groups of 200 were common during the early nineteenth century for the Eskimo of the Cumberland Sound region on Baffin Island, while the average maximal local groupings for the Caribou Eskimo appear to have been about 50 persons (Birket- Smith 1929a:74). The pervasiveness of primary kin ties reported by myself for the three coastal groups and by Arima (ND) for the Caribou Es- kimo are additional evidence that integration must have occurred above the level of the nu- clearfamily; andthearguments which have been advanced to support the widespread appear- ance of the extended family also serve to refute Steward’s position.

Turning to Service’s models, it would appear that depopulation was heavy in the southern Baffin Island region but we have no genealogical material to test out his hypothesis regarding band organization from that region. I (1969b) have argued against any appreciable decline in population for the Copper, Netsilik, and Iglulik Eskimo during the nineteenth and early twen- tieth centuries but Birket-Smith (1929a:68) felt that there was extensive population loss among the Caribou Eskimo due to famine prior to his visit in 1922-3. However, as Guemple (1972b) points out reconstitution can occur under aboriginal conditions of depopulation as well as those brought on by culture contact. In general it is more usefui to look at the material based on genealogical reconstructions than it is to speculate the probable effects of depopulation where it did occur. According to the generalizations posed above (kinship connectedness and male-oriented slant) it would appear that com- positeness is not an appropriate designation for the Central Eskimo bands. 1 prefer the characterization of ‘bilateral band with male-oriented slant.’ Even though a patrilocal bias is noted in these essentially kin-connected groupings, the substantial number of female-female or male- female ties would upset the neat sort of unilocal picture given in Service’s model. However, a close approach to Service’s patrilocal band can be found on the hunting group level among the Netsiliks, Igluliks, Caribou Eskimo, and perhaps the Baffin Islanders where, ideally, a patrilocally organized bloc of kindred com- prised the groups which ranged in size from 10

to 25 persons. Demographic fluctuations often upset this ideal unilocal assemblage but it did


imply some of the characteristics outlined in Service’s model, that is, reciprocal exogamy (though not necessarily between two such groupings) and the virilocal marital mode (Ser- vice 1962:66-7). The feature of cross-cousin marriage cited by Service did not apply.

Guemple (1972b) has regarded composite- ness as a traditional Eskimo band form while discounting not only patrilocality but also the efficacy of kinship factors in general ih group composition. Rather, he sees extra kinship or ‘ancillary kinship’ factors to be in the ascen- dancy here. This latter picture has its best application among the bands of the Copper Es- kimo where kinship does recede when one considers their narrow scope of behavioural directives and fragmented family organization. However it is significant to note again that the Copper Eskimo bands display the same general continuity of primary kinship links at the times of greatest aggregation and that these links show the same definite structure in their strong male-orientation. These facts taken together with the existence in the terminology ofpattern- ing according to the naalaqtuq system which is manifest in behaviour further east must imply some sort of latent blueprint for behaviour according to kinship principles. For the other Central Eskimo tribes treated here kinship factors are indubitable in band organization and the patrilocal tendency is evident on the levels of family, hunting group, and band.

Dunning (1966) sees situational factors overriding whatever tendency towards unilocal residence that may exist among the Central Es- kimo. Elsewhere I (1963:59-114) have ex- amined lglulik Eskimo residence situations and found, indeed, that several factors were involved in determining residence choices. Chief among these were sex imbalances and the tendency for brittleness of male sibling ties after the death of the father. But these situational factors, if they may be called such, operated on a firm base of favoured patrilocal residence. As far as I am able to determine from my own field work and the literature that has been cited above this same picture obtains for other Cen- tral Eskimo groups with, again, the Copper Es- kimo exception.

While the hunting group and the band comprise the chief local units there seems to be justification for designating a larger though non- localized unit which for lack of a better term has been referred to as the tribe (Damas, 1969a). This is the marriage universe which in turn

closely conforms to the Copper, Netsilik, and Iglulik designations of the fifth Thule workers (Rasmussen, 1925; Mathiassen, 1928: I , Bir- ket-Smith, 1945:15) which were based on cultural differences. Apparently, however, the Caribou Eskimo situation is more complex with several groups which approach the deme level of genealogical separateness representing the area(Arima N D ; Burch pers. comm.)

A U T H O R I T Y S T R U C T U R E

In considering the occurrence of a native authority figure in the Central Eskimo area the term isumataaq (ihumtitoaq in some dialects) is drawn into the discussion. Steenhoven (1962) has produced anexcellent exposition of the op- eration of the ihumarticiq institution among the Pelly Bay Netsilik in that each male individual usually stood in a position of subordinance or dominance within a patrilateral and seniority scheme of succession within the kindred. This in fact is t h e n a h q t u q system alsoobserved by this writer among the Netsilik and the lglulik Eskimo(Damas 1963). According to this system one is ihumataoq to younger male siblings and to sons and nephews related through younger male siblings while one regards as ihumtrtaaq older siblings, father and his brothers.

The term however, has more specific refer- ents. For the Netsilik, (Steenhoven, 19621, the Iglulik Eskimo (Damas, 1963), northern Baffin Island (Stevenson, 1972), southern Baffin Is- land (Graburn, 1963), and the Caribou Eskimo (Steenhoven, 1962; Birket-Smith, 1929), this designation applied to the leader of the extended family unit which is usually organized along the lines of patrilateral succession outlined here and in Steenhoven. For the Netsilik this seems to have been the most expansive application of the term, while each of the au- thors listed above designate that it was often applied to the outstanding family head in a multi-extended family camp or assemblage. In examining the data from the lglulingmiut area I (1963:149) found that the individual usually so designated was the head of the largest segment of close kindred, and, generally, connections with other extended family units in the group formed a continuous link clustered around himself as the nucleus of the aggregation. This pattern cannot be confirmed in detail for elsewhere in Central Eskimo regions.

The powers of the isumataaq seem to have been fairly clear. The head of the extended fam-

258 / DavidDamas

ily unit controlled decisions such as those regarding adoption and sharing of possessions and products of the hunt and trade: he also made decisions as to the hunt and the move- ments of his groups. The extent to which these powers could be exercised over a larger local group seems to have depended upon the personality of the isrrrncrtcrtrq and the willingness of the others to cooperate. As far as I was able to judge from more contemporary situations, a wide range in the effectiveness of leadership on the village level could be expected to have occurred. To the extent to which this effectiveness was built on personality factors, it would appear to me that actual ability in killing animals has been overstressed. However, if by ‘ability in the hunt’ is meant organizational skills then that quality can be cited as being very important. Other qualities which contributed to the effectiveness of the isrrnirrttroq were above all generosity, as well as wisdom in regulating sharing of goods and food, a nonaggressive personality, and a sense of community duty.

The isrrmtrtrrcrq institution did not occur in any of its forms among the Copper Eskimo.

Another sort of man could wield influence of sorts. This would be the feared one, a man who often possessed unusual physical strength, and who was inclined to violence and general ag- gressiveness and who would take special privileges for himself like stealing the wives of others, bullying and beating up other men, perhaps also ignoring sharing rules or stealing from caches.

Among the Netsilik the term inrrbadltzk is used to designate such a person, while Freeman (1971:47) refers to an eastern Arctic usage of rrttrniq in this context, though that term seems to be roughly synonymous with isirrnatriaq elsewhere. The Central Eskimo seem to have an amazing tolerance for such individuals and withdrawal was probably the most common sort of adjustment to abusive men. In the last resort, when the presence of such individuals became unbearable, it is certain that execution was practised.

A L L I A N C E M E C H A N I S M S

Alliance exists both within the kinship system and outside it. Guemple (1972a) draws together a series of papers dealing with material on alliance mechanisms from a large part of the Es- kimo area. In a chapter in that series, I (1972b) have summarized the data on alliance for the

Copper, Netsilik, and lglulik groups. On the basis of informant recall material it was possible to document a reasonably complete series of such mechanisms, which usually operated on a dyadic basis similar to the emphasis within the kinship system. Spouse-exchange partners, child betrothal mates, adoptive pairings, name avoidance pairs, rough-joking partners, mock antagonists, seal-sharing partnerships, age mate alliance, trading partners, dancing partners, and namesake relationships together comprise important elements of the social structure of these Central Eskimo tribes.

For the Caribou Eskimo, Arima reports the widespread Eskimo alliance practices of adoption, spouse exchange, and child betrothal but generally discounts the role of voluntary relationships such as reported from coastal dwelling Central Eskimo groups, while attesting that the society was organized chiefly on the basis of kinship. Stevenson (1972) reports a network of relationships associated with spouse exchange for the Baffinlanders of the Clyde River district which he terms the iligiit. This system is reported to complement the iltrgiit. Stevenson sees the spouse-exchange relationship developing to cement advantageous cooperative alliances especially in a local context. The concept of expanding cooperative relationships is in harmony with Spencer’s (1958; 1959) view of the spouse exchange mechanism.

Jenness ( 1922:87) cites the spouse-exchange relationship as comprising a valuable means of insuring safety in travel through a wide area especially where kinship connections were not likely to be found. Indeed, my own information would tend to support the thesis that spouse- exchange partners in the aboriginal period tended to be contracted between pairings who did not normally share a locality, who would meet perhaps once during the year’s cycle or even less frequently. This finding would tend to run counter to Spencer’s and Stevenson’s in- terpretations, but in the former case regional variation is probable and in the latter accultura- tive forces may have been at work. 1 also have the distinct impression that spouse-exchange arrangements were not contracted unless the element of significant sexual attraction was present between each of the opposite sexed members of the pairings involved.

Along with spouse exchange, adoption has been the focus of considerable interest among anthropologists working with the Eskimo. Dunning’s (1962) examination of material from


Southampton Island Aivilingmiut (Iglulik Es- kimo) raised some interesting points about adoption and espoused the ‘demographic hypothesis.’ That view of adoption stresses the functional utility of reordering number and sex of children between families. More recently Stevenson (1972) has reexamined Eskimo adoption on the basis of his northern Baffinland material. While finding support for the demographic hypothesis he also explored the ‘status differential hypothesis’ which Dunning had also cited. This conception of Eskimo adoption in- volves the desire t o surround oneself with a large number of offspring even beyond what reproductive capacity provides. Stevenson found some support in his region for this view of adoption as well. With regard t o the ‘kin- extension hypothesis’ developed by Spencer (1959:87-92) which involved the idea ofextend- ing cooperative ties beyond the kindred, Stevenson’s material does not support that formula since the majority of adoptives came from within a group of close kindred.

In my view, adoption can be seen as fulfilling a number of functions according to situations. One may conjecture that both spouse exchange and adoption may originally have had their roots in ecological-demographic circumstances of some antiquity (since these practices are known throughout the Eskimo area) but once having become parts of the main body of the cultural heritage, they may take on other functions, readapting to a wide variety of situations including those created by acculturation.

In considering Central Eskimo alliance mechanisms it is important to ask the question: what relationship does alliance have with the kinship system? It is obvious that betrothal pairings and consequent marriage serve to directly expand the kinship system. With regard to spouse exchange a similar if not identical pro- cess occurs. What is crucial here is whether or not offspring of each of the pairs involved in exchanges are reckoned as being true siblings to one another or rather as pseudo-siblings. My own inquiries in this regard have produced ambiguous results and I d o not think that the evidence of other anthropologists working with this question has yet resolved it.

In this regard with respect to the kinship involvement of the adoption system, 1 find that since more often than not the adoptive already has a close kinship connection with the adoptive parents, reinforcement of kinship is indicated. When adoption of unrelated children oc-

curs a special terminological status occurs between the original parents and the adoptive parents which in effect accomplishes an extension of the kinship system.

Another class ofassociations can be regarded as being essentially kinship derived. This in- cludes avoidance and joking relationships which clearly stem from behavioural norms specified between kin but are extended as well to unrelated pairings. Namesake associations also overlap the boundaries of kinship and clearly have their roots within a kinship context.

The structured seal-sharing partnerships of the Copper and Netsilik Eskimo d o not extend kinship but rather bridge the gaps between family groups for economic purposes (Damas, I972b).

Other alliances also specifically exclude kindred. Trading partnerships, dancing partnerships, and the mock antagonism partnerships all fall into this category. None of these associations occur between kin and they pro- duce an entirely different sort of relationship, one that cannot be considered within a kinship context.

Accordingly, there is a fair range of association to dissociation with kinship in the organization of the dyadic alliances which comprise such an important part of Central Eskimo social structure. The occurrence of these alliances among the Eskimo suggests that social anthropologists working elsewhere in the world may well be advised to shift their focus from an overwhelming concern with kinship to similar sorts of associations when considering the social structures of nowWestern peoples.

C U L T U R A L E C O L O G Y

T h e expansion of the social anthropologist’s interest into the area of cultural ecology has become widely accepted as a legitimate concern and has produced a number of fine studies from various parts of the world. lndeed the association of physical o r environmental factors with factors of Eskimo settlement and society have been explored beginning with Boas’ (1888) association of Central Eskimo settlement with areas of land-fast ice which dispersed annually and which provided the arena for breathing- hole sealing. Extending this association somewhat, an argument can be made for the influence of winter sealing with settlement size. The expediency of a large number of hunters

260 / DavidDamas

being on hand is evident when one considers that the number of breathing holes that can be covered in a given circle of sea ice must bear a direct relationship to success in the hunt. This circumstance appears to be the chief basis for the larger aggregations which gathered each winter in the aboriginal period in most Central Eskimo regions.

Another example of environmental effects on social life might well be the high incidence of blood feud killings reported by Rasmussen (1932:16-18) for the Copper Eskimo. The un- derlying factor in this case was the low subsistence level which dictated extreme population control measures, in particular, female infanticide. This circumstance stimulated rivalry for women which Rasmussen believed set off ven- dettas.

The preference for patrilocal residence noted for much of the area under consideration, can be interpreted as reflecting a widespread pattern in hunting and gathering groups and could highlight a basic ecological feature in such societies which is at the roots of male-slanted importance in division of labour. 1 have also cited the demographic hypothesis in adoption which may well be interpreted as reflecting conditions of subsistence general to much of the Eskimo area, which in turn influence infant mortality even though in a haphazard manner. Also cited above is the hypothesis regarding marriage practices and their relationship to demographic factors which in turn were probably structured by environmental-economic factors.

The present author’s attempts to assess the importance of ecological factors on Eskimo society (Damas, 1969b) have been handicapped by the necessity to reconstruct not only the social conditions of an aboriginal period but also by factors of ecology which have changed as well, including game frequencies and distributions, and the changing efficiency of hunting methods. The same problem confronts the anthropologist who attempts to apply the detailed material produced in the reports of geog- raphers (Brack, 1962; Anders, 1966; Crowe, 1969; Villiers, 1969; Kemp, 1971) who have carried out studies of game distributions, hunting techniques, and input-output analyses in a number of Canadian Arctic localities.

C H A N G E

The exposition and generalizations of the preceding parts of this paper are based on attempts

to delineate an aboriginal social structure. This endeavour presents serious difficulties when one takes into account the long period of contact with explorers and whalers, particularly on Baffin Island and Roes Welcome Sound region of northwestern Hudson Bay.

Stevenson (1972) depicts changes in settlement pattern going back well into the nineteenth century related t o the whaling influence and Robinson’s (1973) work on whaler’s logs for northwest Hudson Bay shows similar changes beginning perhaps as early as the 1x60s for that region. The unpublished sources for the whaling-exploratory period are only now beginning to be tapped for their general ethnographic usefulness but these sources will, in general, leave the social anthropologist frus- trated in his quest for information of kinship, alliance, local organization, leadership, etc. In- formation which represents a close approach to aboriginal Central Eskimo society (Damas, 1969a) that is more useful, can be gleaned from the work of such early ethnographers as Boas, the members of the Fifth Thule Expedition, and Jenness. These sources together with informant recall material collected during the 1960s have formed the background for the preceding sec- tions of this paper.

For the fur-trade-police-missionary era, which has been designated as contuct- trrrditionrrl (Helm and Damas, 1963), informant recall has proved to be the most feasible approach to the sort of material which is central to the social anthropologist’s interests. The contact-traditional phase of Central Eskimo history began in the period 1920 to 1925 and endured until 1955-65. The original characterization for the Eskimo area was based on field work around Iglulik. Subsequent field work in other regions and the more recent work of other anthropologists makes it possible to develop a broader base of conceptualization at this time. Certainly the programmatic statement that the contact-traditional horizon ‘has been a period of prescribed, stabilized and regularized relations between native and white persons and institutions’ can be fairly applied throughout the regions of concern in this paper. The picture of the Point-of-Trade being the focus of travel and of periodic assemblages is also a general one. Eskimos were frankly discouraged from settling around the post-mission-detachment installations and employment opportunities were few.

In some ways, however, the generalizations


based on the Iglulik contact-traditional situation must be modified when considering the Central Eskimo region as a whole for that phase of history. The size of local communities reported by Stevenson (1972) for a comparable period for northern Baffinland and by Arima (ND) and Vallee (1962) for the Caribou Eskimo and also noted in the Netsilik and Copper regions by the present author were smaller than were the average camps in the Iglulik area. Both economic and social factors may account for this disparity.

The focus on the whaleboat crew and its cap- taincy found at Iglulik during the contact- traditional phase was duplicated not only throughout the Iglulik Eskimo area (including Repulse Bay, Chesterfield Inlet, Southampton Island, Pond Inlet) but also down the west coast of Baffin Island, but was unknown in the Net- silik, Caribou, and Copper Eskimo regions. This difference was the basis for important social organizational developments.

It is clear that kinship continued t o be important throughout the area of the Central Eskimo during the contact-traditional period both as the basis for local organization and for much of the interaction that took place between settlements. With the general increased fragmentation of settlement, it should not be surprising that, given the small size and close kinship ties found in most camps, local exogamy became a norm (Graburn, 1962; Vallee, 1962). For the Iglulingmiut I (1963: 109-10, 138, 147) indicated that even in the larger settlements where endogamy could have been practised a clear preference for local exogamy also developed. I have interpreted this trend as functioning to facilitate visiting and mutual aid between members of different villages. These considerations of local endogamy o r exogamy lose much of their significance when one moves t o a situation of greater fluctuation in membership and less permanency of settlement as was true in much of the Copper Eskimo region.

Missionary influence affected marriage practices as well. I had noted that Anglicans and Catholics seldom intermarried in the Iglulik area and the same seems to be the rule for much of the area visited by this writer as well as Stevenson’s (1972) reports of the situation on northwestern Baffin Island and by Vallee (1962) for the Caribou Eskimo. The picture with regard to cousin marriage is more ambiguous. Vallee (1962:94) notes that both churches discouraged marriage between cousins but that

such measures severely limited marriage choices for the minority Catholic group. In the Iglulik-Pond Inlet regions of the Iglulik Eskimo, the solution to this identical problem has been granting of dispensation t o Catholics so that cousin marriage has become common in an area where it was aboriginally discouraged and rarely practised.

Dislocation of Netsilik Eskimos into the region of northwest Hudson Bay, which began in the days of the whalers, did not result in ready absorption of their populations by the resident Aivilingmuit (Iglulik Eskimo) occupants of the area. Indeed, there the tribal separateness has been long in breaking down through intermar- riage. Vallee (1962:94) has noted the same con- servatism in the case of the various groups which moved t o the Baker Lake region. Among the Copper Eskimo, however, both the western Eskimo and the few Netsiliks who entered the area during the 1920s and 1930s were readily absorbed into the marriage universe.

T h e contracting of marriage through the child betrothal system remained in strong force throughout the contact-traditional period in Central Eskimo regions and this practice together with adoption were not discouraged by police or missionaries. This was not the case for spouse exchange. The missionaries in particular frowned on this un-Christian practice. How- ever, there is evidence that this relationship operated underground throughout much of the area during the contact-traditional phase of history.

With regard to other alliance mechanisms, there seems to have been a gradual abandonment of several. This was especially true of the seal-sharing networks of the Copper Eskimo and the Netsiliks. In areas where economy shifted much more to land game as among eastern groups of Copper Eskimo, the partnerships were at times transferred t o new quarry but never encompassed as extensive a network. At Pelly Bay the gradual abandonment of these partnerships as well as other forms of sharing has been attributed (Balikci, 1964:72) to the increased meat production due t o the use of the rifle and specifically t o the productiveness of floe edge sealing and the consequent fragmentation of the hunting party in this form of sealing. For other Netsilik groups, 1 noted that the seal- sharing partnerships continued though the scope of an individual’s network of partners was much more restricted than the ideal four- teen of the aboriginal period. The smaller size of

262 / DavidDamas

the typical contact-traditional settlement as eompared to the larger winter sealing villages of earlier times probably accounts for this attenua- tion.

Working in the 1960s I still saw plenty of evidence of retention of such pairings as name avoidance, rough-joking relationship, and age mate practices but such traditional pairings as trading and dancing partnerships which formerly had served to establish extra-local con- tacts seemed to have disappeared.

With the intrusion of the police, missionaries, and traders, one could expect that whatever patterns of authority that had been present in the aboriginal picture would have to be modified. Certainly the great economic control imposed by the trader cannot be ignored. On the other hand, given the customary physical separation implied by the all-native settlement, subsistence decisions remained in the hands of the Eskimos themselves. It was chiefly in the realm of securing equipment and the few sup- plies that supplemented their still largely game-based diet that the trader’s influence was felt. Other decisions regarding betrothal (though probably not divorce), adoption, and movement of camps were left in native hands and reflected the leadership and cooperative patterns of the particular tribe.

With regard to family organization, I can see little change from the aboriginal emphasis of the regions in question for the contact-traditional period. Stevenson (1972) for Baffin Island, Val- lee (1962) for the northern Caribou Eskimo, and my own and Steenhoven’s (1962) material from the Netsilik as well as my own from various parts of the lglulik Eskimo region. confirm the continuance of the patrilocally slanted extended family as a residential. economic, and mutual aid unit. For the Copper Eskimo region, the fragmentation and fleeting quality of many of the local groupings and their composition reflected the same sort of lack of regularized functioning of an equivalent unit.

I n summarizing the picture of contact- traditional Central Eskimo society, it can be seen that while important economic changes altered the settlement pattern, the main structural features remained largely unchanged. This cannot be said for the more recent, centralized phase of Central Eskimo history.

Because of the late date of revival of the anthropology of the Eskimo, the vast bulk of our literature on that people relates to the centralized phase of their history which began in

Canada in the 1950s and was complete by 1970. For the regions with which this paper has been concerned the series of the Northern Co- ordination and Research Centre (Dailey and Dailey, 1961; Vallee, 1962; Graburn, 1963) and Honigmann and Honigmann (1965) comprise the backbone of the recent material. Much of the data contained in these reports refer to general conditions of cultural change which lie outside the scope of this paper, but a reasonable body of information has accummulated which can be of special interest t o the social anthropologist.

As the new communities grew around old Point-of-Trade sites, DEW line installations, or, in the case of Rankin Inlet, a mine, neighbour- hood organization reflected the places of origin of the various immigrant segments and of course kinship ties were maintained in the local dimension along with the regional identification. Later as government housing projects developed and house assignments were made on grounds of assumed necessity or worthiness rather than regional or kinship considerations, these neighbourhoods usually broke down, though the patterns of visiting continue to reflect kinship and point of origin factors. Where the extended family had been formerly important as a residential unit, western ideas of appropriate household composition together with the expanding size of nuclear families made the latter unit the typical dwelling occupants, though one could often still see the influence of the leader of the extended family.

T h e patterns ofearly betrothal and early marriage began to break down (Vallee, 1962, has particularly stressed this trend). In general the youth embraces the exciting new quasi-urban existence and dissociates itself from traditional culture including traditional alliance mechanisms, and probably to some extent traditional kinship obligations, though this possible trend needs more careful study in the centralized communities of today.

One contact-inspired group of problems which has been looked at closely by recent workers and which is of special concern to the social anthropologist are those of authority interaction (Dunning, 1959; Balikci, 1960: Damas, 1966; Paine, 1971). With the move t o the centralized community, proximity to the Euro-Canadian agencies would seem to make collapse of native authority and autonomy in- evitable. Compounding this situation is the mul- tiplication of the agencies and agents of the


outside world which has taken place since the police-missionary-trader era, especially with the assumption of greater interest and partici- pation by the Canadian government. While Freeman (1971) and Briggs (1970) have indicated a range of roles that are played by the Eskimo in his interaction with Euro-Canadian authority, they, along with Dunning (1959) see that ultimately the ethnic identity of the out- sider together with his concomitant powers will be the crucial factors in overriding native authority and autonomy. Ultimately as well, the increasing economic dependency of the Eskimo makes him vulnerable to outside domination. Compensating somewhat for the general overwhelming of the Eskimo’s decision-making powers has been the growth of community councils and cooperatives. However, these bodies have usually been organized under Euro-Canadian direction and their autonomy can be questioned on grounds of the usual par- ticipation of outside agents beyond the initial stage. Representation in the Northwest Terri- tory Council also gives some hope of expanding the Canadian Eskimo’s area of influence.

While the more conventional concerns of the social anthropologist, which have been the chief topics treated in this article, offer a field for investigation of the Central Eskimo, it is chiefly through reconstruction that the perti- nent data can be reached. That limitation together with the growing trend of involvement of anthropologists in Canada with native problems indicates that the emphases in future studies of the Canadian Eskimo will be focused on such problems as changes in values, authority interaction, factionalism within the Eskimo community, and gaining a better understanding of the Eskimo’s views of his own roles and his own problems in conditions of rapid change.

REFERENCES

Anders, G. 1966 Baffin Island - East Coast: An Area

Economic Survey. Ottawa: Industrial Division, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development

‘Caribou Eskimo ethnology’ to be published in the Handbook ofNorth American Indians, Vol. V., The Arctic. Washington: Smithsonian Institution

Arima, Eugene N D

Balikci, Asen 1960 ‘Ethnic relations and the marginal man:

a comment.’ Human Organization

1964 Development of Basic Socio-economic 19: 170-1

Units in Two Eskimo Communities. Ottawa: National Museum of Canada Bulletin 202

Birket-Smith, Kaj 1924 Ethnography of the Egedesminde Dis-

trict. Meddelelser om Grgnland, Vol. 66

1929a The Caribou Eskimos, Part I . Report of the Fifth Thule Expedition 1921-4, Vol. 3. Copenhagen: Glydendalske Boghandel

1929b The Caribou Eskimos, Part 1 1 . Report of the Fifth Thule Expedition 1921-4, Vol. 3. Copenhagen: Glydendalske Boghan- del.

Boas, Franz 1888 The Central Eskimo. Washington:

Bureau of American Ethnology, Sixth Annual Report

Brack, D.M. 1962 Southampton Island: Area Economic

Survey. Industrial Division, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Develop- ment

Briggs, Jean L. 1970 Never in Anger. Cambridge: Harvard

Chance, Norman A. 1960 ‘Culture change and integration: an Es-

University Press

kimo example.’ American Anthropologist 62: 1028-44

Crowe, Keith 1969 A Cultural Geography ofNorthern Foxe

Basin, NWT. Ottawa: Industrial Division, Department of Indian Affairs and North- ern Development

Dailey, Robert C., and Lois A. Dailey 1961 The Eskimo of Rankin Inlet: A Prelimi-

nary Report. Ottawa: Northern Coordi- nation and Research Centre, Department of Northern Affairs and National Re- sources

Damas, David 1963 Igluligmiut Kinship and Local Groupings:

A Structural Approach. Ottawa: National Museum of Canada, Bulletin 196

1966 Diversity in White-Eskimo Leadership Interaction. Anthropologica (N .S.)

1969a ‘Characteristics of Central Eskimo band 3:1:45-52

structure.’ In David Damas (ed.) Con-

264 / DavidDamas

tributions to Anthropology: Band Societies. Ottawa: National Museums of Canada, Bulletin 228

kimo society.’ In David Damas (ed.) Con- tributions to Anthropology: Ecological Essays, Ottawa: National Museums of Canada, Bulletin 230

1971 ‘The problem of the Eskimo family.’ In The Canadian Family, K. lshwaran(ed.), Toronto: Holt, Rinehart and Winston

1 9 p a ‘The structure of Central Eskimo associations.’ In Lee Guemple (ed.) Al- liance in Eskimo Society. Proceedings of the American Ethnological Society, Sup- plement 1971

ing.’ Ethnology I I : 220-40

1969b ‘Environnient, history and Central Es-

1 9 p b ‘Central Eskimo systems offood shar-

Dumond, Don E. 1965 ‘On Eskaleutian linguistics, archaeology,

and prehistory.’ American Anthro- pologist 67: I 23 1-57

Dunning, R.W. 1959 ‘Ethnic relations and the marginal man in

Canada.’ Human Organization 18: I 17-22 1962 ‘A note on adoption among the South-

ampton Island Eskimo.’ Man 62: 163-7 1966 ‘An aspect of domestic group structure

among Eastern Canadian Eskimo.’ Man ( N . s . ) 1:216-25

Fortes, Meyer 1953 ‘The structure of unilineal descent

groups.’ American Anthropologist 55: 25-39

Freeman, Milton M.R. 1971 ‘Tolerance and rejection of patron roles in

an Eskimo settlement.’ In Robert Paine (ed.) Patrons and Brokers in the East Arc- tic. Toronto: University of Toronto

Graburn, Nelson 1963 Lake Harbor, N . W . T . Ottawa: Northern

Coordination and Research Centre, De- partment ofNorthern Affairs

ogy. Ottawa: Northern Coordination and Research Centre. Department ofNorth- ern Affairs and National Resources

Guemple, Lee 1972a Alliance in Eskimo Society. Proceedings

1964 Taqagmiut Eskimo Kinship Terminol-

of the American Ethnological Society, I 97 I Supplement

“ D PCamp” hypothesis.’ Arctic Anthro- pology 9:80-I 1 2

1972b ‘Eskimo band organization and the

Hatt, Gudmund 1914 Arktiske Skinddragter i Eurasien og

Amerika. Ksbenhagen: Geografish Tidsskrift 23

Heinrich, Albert 1960 ‘Structural features of northwestern

Alaskan kinship.’ Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 16: I 10-16

1965 ‘Eskimo type kinship and Eskimo kinship: an evolutionary and provisional model for presenting data pertaining to lnupiaq kinship systems.’ Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Washington

Helm, June, and David Damas 1963 ‘The contact-traditional all-native com-

munity of the Canadian North.’ An- thropologica (N.s . ) 5:9-21

Helm, June 1969 ‘A method of statistical analysis of pri-

mary relative bonds in community composition.’ In David Damas (ed.) Contri- butions to Anthropology: Band Societies. Ottawa: National Museums of Canada, Bulletin 228

Holm, G . 1914 Ethnological sketch of the Angmagssalik

Eskimos. In William Thalbitzer (ed.) The Ammassalik Eskimo. Meddelelser om Grsnland, Vol. 39

Holtved, Erik 1951 The Polar Eskimos. Meddelelser om

Grgnland, Vol. 152 1967 Contributions to Polar Eskimo Ethnog-

raphy. Meddelelser om Grgnland, Vol. 182

Honigmann, John J . et al. 1963 Community organization and Pattern

Change among North Canadian and Alaskan Indians and Eskimos. Anthropologica 0 . S . ) 5

Honigmann, John J . , and Irma Honigmann 1965 EskimoTownsmen. Ottawa: Canadian

Research Centre for Anthropology Hughes, Charles C. 1958 ‘An Eskimo deviant from the “Eskimo

type” of social organization.’ American Anthropologist 60: I 140-7

1960 An Eskimo Village in the Modern World. Ithaca: Cornell University Press

1965 ‘Under four flags: recent culture change among the Eskimo.’ Current Anthropol- ogy 613-73

Jenness, Diamond 1922 The Life of the Copper Eskimos. Ottawa:


Report of the Canadian Arctic Expedition 1912-1918, VOl. XI1

Kemp, William B. 1971 ‘The flow of energy in a hunting society.’

Scientific American 225: 104-15 Kleivan, Helge 1969/70 ‘Culture and ethnic identity.’ Folk

Lantis, Margaret 1946 The Social Culture of the Nunivak Es-

I I-12:209-34

kimo. Philadelphia: Transactions of the American Philosophical Society 25

1960 Eskimo Childhood and Interpersonal Re- lationships. Seattle: University of Washington Press

I970 ‘The Aleut social system, 1750 to 1810, from early historical sources.’ In Mar- garet Lantis (ed.) Ethnohistory in South- western Alaska and the Southern Yukon, Lexington: University Press of Kentucky

Linton, Ralph 1936 The Study of Man. New York:

Appleton-Century-Crofts Lowie, Robert H. 1937 The History of Ethnological Theory.

Lubart, J.M. 1969 Psychodynamic Problems of Adaptation

- Mackenzie Delta Eskimos. Ottawa: Department of Indian Affairs and North- ern Development

New York: Rinehart

Mathiassen, Therkel I927 Archaeology ofthe Central Eskimos, Part

1 1 . Report of the Fifth Thule Expedition, Vol. 4. Copenhagen: Glydendalske Boghandel

1928 Material Culture of the Iglulik Eskimos. Report of the Fifth Thule Expedition 1921-24, Vol. 4. Copenhagen: Glyden- dalske Boghandel

Mauss, Marcel, and M.H. Beuchat I904/5 ‘Essai sur les variations saisonnieres

des societies Eskimos.’ L’Annee Sociologique

Morgan, Lewis Henry 1871 Systems of Consanguinity and Affinity of

the Human Family. Washington: Smith- sonian Contributions to Knowledge

Murdoch, John 1892 Ethnological Results of the Point Barrow

Expedition. Washington: Bureau of Eth- nology, Ninth Annual Report

Murdock, George Peter 1949 Social Structure. New York: Macmillan

Nadel, S.F. 1951 The Foundations of Social Anthropology.

Nelson, Edward William 1899 The Eskimo about Bering Strait.

Washington: Bureau of Ethnology, Eighteenth Annual Report

Oswalt, Wendell H. 1967 Alaskan Eskimos. San Francisco:

Chandler Paine, Robert 1971 Patrons and Brokers in the East Arctic. St

John’s: Institute of Social and Economic Research of Memorial University

Parker, Seymour 1962 ‘Eskimo psychopathology in the context

of Eskimo personality and culture.’ American Anthropologist 64:7696

Rasmussen, Knud 1908 People of the Polar North. London:

Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner I925 ‘The Danish ethnographic and geographic

expedition to Arctic America: a prelimi- nary report of the Fifth Thule Expedi- tion.’ The Geographic Review, October

1930 Observations on the Intellectual Culture of the Caribou Eskimos. Report of the Fifth Thule Expedition 1921-1924, Vol. 7, Copenhagen: Glydendalske Boghandel

kimo. Report of the Fifth Thule Expedi- tion 1921-1924, Vol. 9, Copenhagen: GI ydendal s ke Boghandel

Glencoe: The Free Press

1925, pp. 521-62

1932 Intellectual Culture of the Copper Es-

Robinson, Samuel 1973 ‘The influence of the American whaling

industry on the Aivilingmiut, 1860-1919.’ Unpublished MA thesis. McMaster University

Rogers, Edward S. 1963 The Hunting Group - Hunting Territory

Complex Among the Mistassini Indians. Ottawa: National Museum of Canada Bulletin 195

Service, Elman 1962 Primitive Social Organization. New

Sollas, W.J. 191 1 Ancient Hunters. London: Macmillan Spencer, Robert F. 1958 ‘Eskimo polyandry and social organiza-

tion.’ Proceedings of the Thirty-Second International Congress of Americanists. Copenhagen: Munksgaard

York: Random House

266 / DavidDamas

1959 The North Alaskan Eskimo. Washington: Bureau of American Ethnology, Bulletin 171

Spier, Leslie 1925 ‘The distribution of kinships systems in

North America.’ University of Washing- ton Publications in Anthropology I :69-88

Steenhoven, Van Den, G. 1962 Leadership and Law Among the Eskimos

of the Keewatin District Northwest Ter- ritories. The Hague: Uitgeverij Excelsior

Steensby, H.P. I917 An Anthropogeographical Study of the

Origin of Eskimo Culture. Meddelelser om Grmland, Vol. 53

Stevenson, David 1972 ‘The social organization of the Clyde

River Eskimos.’ Unpublished PhD thesis. University of British Columbia

Steward, Julian H. 1955 Theory of Culture Change. Urbana:

Vallee, Frank G. 1962 Kabloona and Eskimo in the Central

University of Illinois Press

Keewatin. Ottawa: Northern Coordina- tion and Research Centre, Department of Northern Affairs

VanStone, James W. 1962 Pont Hope: An Eskimo Village in Transi-

tion. Seattle: University of Washington Press

Economic Survey. Ottawa: Industrial Division, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development

Villiers, D. 1969. The Central Arctic: An Areal

social anthropology of the central eskimo

Documents