388 REVIEWS

USE WEAR ANALYSIS ON BONE AND ANTLER TOOLSOF THE MACKENZIE INUIT. By GENEVIEVE M.LeMOINE. Oxford, England: John and Erica Hedges, 1997.BAR International Series 679. ix + 146 p., map, b&willus., bib., appendices. Softbound. 40.00.

Functional studies of stone tools are now fairly common.They employ a variety of competing techniques: some aremainstream; others, such as residue analysis, rather con-troversial. Applications of these techniques to bone andantler are rare, however: hence the importance of thismonograph to technological studies in archaeology. Asstated in chapter 1, the major objectives of the study are (1)to develop criteria for identifying the traces of manufac-ture and use of bone tools, (2) to apply experimental resultsto the analysis of archaeological specimens from severalprehistoric Inuit sites in the Mackenzie Delta, and (3) toreconstruct the design system for the manufacture and useof bone and antler implements. The latter is considered tobe culture-specific and thought to represent the choicesmade by artisans making implements, as well as aspects oftool morphology and symbolic representation. Also intro-duced in this chapter is the concept of tribology, a branchof engineering that deals with the study of friction, lubri-cation and wear. Although tribology is usually applied tometals, the author believes that the theory can be usedeffectively to enhance understanding of the developmentof wear on all materials (p. 1).

Chapter 2 begins with a brief summary of methods forthe study of use wear as applied by other investigatorsworking in the Mackenzie Delta, northern Yukon, andBanks Island, and outlines study techniques. The authorclaims that, unlike her analysis, which deals only withtools, previous studies of bone/antler technology focusedon debitage. I find this statement curious, since my ownstudy of Late Prehistoric Athapaskan bone/antler technol-ogy (Le Blanc, 1984) covered the entire reduction se-quence from raw material acquisition, through blankproduction, to finished tools. Background material is fol-lowed by a more detailed discussion of tribology, whichthe author believes allows researchers to determine howand why wear occurs [thus providing] a sound theoreticalbasis for the identification of use wear patterns on prehis-toric tools (p. 5). Aspects of friction, wear, and polishingare described, and applications to archaeology are men-tioned. Im sure there are some truly frightening math-ematics underlying the theoretical basis of tribology, butthankfully this has been hidden from the reader. Thechapter ends with a consideration of the theoretical model,which discusses its design, style, and cognitive aspects.

Methods and results of the experimental programmeare treated in the next two chapters. For the latter, severaltools were replicated (crooked knives, chisels/gravers,adzes, drills) and used in a variety of cutting, scraping,chopping, and drilling experiments to work various mate-rials. The working part of the tool was also duplicated indifferent materials (chert, copper, iron, and slate). In

addition, the actions of grinding and polishing, sawing,and filing were performed. The experiments generated usewear patterns on the functional elements of the tools.These patterns are illustrated by 16 excellent quality glossyphotomicrographs in the appendix. On the basis of animpressive number of experiments, the author concludesthat the material being worked on is a far more significantfactor in the production of microscopic wear patterns thanthe type of tool or the manner of its use (p. 30). She alsocomments that wear patterns follow tribological princi-ples and so are to some extent predictable (p. 40). Auseful table is provided, which summarizes wear patternsby material being worked.

This section on replication relies on previously madetypological definitions and assumed functions for the suiteof tools that were selected. By and large, this may be anacceptable procedure for prehistoric Mackenizie Inuit ar-tifacts, since there is considerable ethnographic informa-tion on tool function for historic Inuit tool categories,some of which may be applicable to the prehistoric period.Indeed, such reliance follows a long-held tradition in lateprehistoric Inuit studies. Some discrepancies should beanticipated, but do not seem to have been considered. Forexample, the crooked knives (p. 23 25) that are illustratedlook much like simple cutting knives, and their presumedmanner of use deviates from that which many Subarcticspecialists would identify. The schematic (Fig. 4.2) showsa knife being used in a downward motion, held much asone would hold a modern kitchen or pocket knife. Crookedknives typically have L-shaped handles designed so thatthe thumb can be used to exert force on the horizontalextension of the L, with the blade extending out the bottomof the hand adjacent to the smallest finger. The knife isused in a drawing motion toward the user. One wonders ifthe difference in motor patterns could in fact result in adifferent type of wear.

The results of archaeological analysis of collectionsfrom several sites in the Mackenzie Delta are considered inchapters 5 and 6, the former dealing with use-wear, thelatter with the analysis of manufacturing technique, asexhibited by traces on bone and antler tools; several tablesand charts are used to present the results. Not too unex-pectedly, the analysis was frustrated by the survivingcondition of the tools. Bone-surface erosion was the criti-cal factor here, since this obliterates evidence that can beused to identify wear patterns. My only problem hereregards the use, once again, of typological identifications.The most specific deals with so-called daggers (p. 50). Incommenting on wear traces on these objects, LeMoinestates categorically that they show so little sign of use[that this] is perhaps the strongest evidence that they areindeed daggers, intended as weapons for use against otherpeople, rather than any other sort of tool (p. 51). Some ofthose illustrated (e.g., Fig. 5.6, two on the left) are frag-mentary distal sections that likely represent the functionalends of what other investigators working in the widerMackenzie Delta region have identified as barbed

REVIEWS 389

arrowheads (McGhee, 1974: Plate 18d; Morrison, 1990:Plate 10) or harpoons (McGhee, 1974: Plate 21c, d).Similar objects have been found in other prehistoric Es-kimo contexts (Giddings, 1952: Plate 27) along the KobukRiver in western Alaska, and in interior Late PrehistoricAthapaskan contexts (Morlan, 1973: Plate 12b). These areconsidered weapons for hunting rather than for interper-sonal warfare. Since no hunting weapons were consideredin this study, there are no comparative data; had there beensuch data, a different interpretation might have been made.

In closing chapter 6, the author highlights a problem inworking with tools for assessing manufacturing tracesrather than debitage or a combination of the two: differentstages of tool manufacture and use obscure evidence of theproduction traces. She comments further that investigatorsworking at some of the sites whose collections she usestended to neglect the collection of debitage in favour offinished tools (p. 78). This has been my experience as well,with one senior Arctic specialist answering my queryabout slate debitage by stating that we just throw that junkaway. There may have been good reasons at the time forthis kind of selective collection, but unfortunately, it canand does limit future research questions and results.

The design system model is evaluated in chapter 7 andagain in the concluding chapter. Four patterns are identi-fied: the manufacture of (1) drills; (2) highly finishedtools [such as] knives and daggers, needles and snowknives; (3) picks and miscellaneous items; and (4) awlsand spatulas (p. 93). The overall design system involvesgeneralized blank extraction by grooving, followed bygrinding into shape. An important objective of the study,namely, determining if the Mackenzie Inuit used one ormore design systems, is satisfied in noting that all groupsmanufactured and used tools in the same way. I feel this isnot too surprising, given the circumscribed area inhabitedby the Mackenzie Inuit, the fairly narrow time span (500years), and the vagaries of sampling and preservationproblems. It might have been very instructive to comparethe results obtained on the prehistoric Inuit assemblageswith at least one of the available collections from theinterior Athapaskan region, such as the Late Prehistoriccomponents of the Klo-kut or Rat Indian Creek sites alongthe Porcupine River. Differences here might have helpedto identify manufacturing traditions (design systems), orstandard production procedures that are inherent in thematerial being worked and stand apart from morphologi-cal or symbolic aspects. This seems to be a logical step inthe continuation of this valuable area of research.

Like the former Jenness volumes in the CanadianMuseum of Civilization Diamond Jenness Memorial Mer-cury Series volumes, this monograph is, in the authorswords, a minimally revised version of her Ph.D. disser-tation. Thus there are some typos here and there, includingthe figure references. There are also some organizationaldifficulties that, on more than one occasion, made thestudy difficult to follow: for example, it would seem morelogical to have chapter 6 on manufacturing traces precede

chapter 5, which deals with use wear evidence. On the plusside, BAR is to be commended for publishing the plates ofuse wear (SEM and Light microscope); they provide auseful complement to the experimental part of the studyand provide a valuable record for other researchers. Set-ting aside my minor criticisms, this is an innovative studythat makes a significant contribution to a long-standinggap in technological and functional analysis of archaeo-logical materials. The author should be highly commendedfor carrying out such an ambitious research programme.The resulting monograph should be on the bookshelf ofany specialist who deals regularly with bone and antlerartifacts, and certainly all northernists would do well toadd this study to their collection.

REFERENCES

GIDDINGS, J.L. 1952. The Arctic Woodland Culture of the KobukRiver. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: The University Museum,University of Pennsylvania.

Le BLANC, R.J. 1984. The Rat Indian Creek Site and the lateprehistoric period in the interior Northern Yukon. MercurySeries, Archaeological Survey of Canada, Paper No. 120. Ot-tawa, Ontario: National Museum of Man.

McGHEE, R. 1974. Beluga hunters: An archaeological reconstruc-tion of the history and culture of the Mackenzie DeltaKittegaryumiut. Newfoundland Social and Economic StudiesNo. 13. St. Johns, Newfoundland: Institute of Social andEconomic Research, Memorial University of Newfoundland.

MORLAN, R.E. 1973. The later prehistory of the Middle PorcupineDrainage, northern Yukon Territory. Mercury Series, Archaeo-logical Survey of Canada, Paper No. 11. Ottawa, Ontario:National Museum of Man.

MORRISON, D. 1990. Iglulualumiut prehistory: The lost Inuit ofFranklin Bay. Mercury Series, Archaeological Survey of Canada,Paper No. 142. Hull, Quebec: Canadian Museum of Civiliza-tion.

Raymond J. Le BlancDepartment of Anthropology

University of AlbertaEdmonton, Alberta, Canada

T6G 2H4

NORTHERN PASSAGE: ETHNOGRAPHY AND AP-PRENTICESHIP AMONG THE SUBARCTIC DENE.By ROBERT JARVENPA. Prospect Heights, Illinois:Waveland Press, 1998. 210 p., maps, b&w illus., bib.,study guide. Softbound. US$11.50.

In the acknowledgements to his book, Jarvenpa creditsCornelius Osgoods 1953 retrospective account of his1928 29 field season at Great Bear Lake as stimulus forhis own foray into retrospection. Like Osgood, Jarvenpadescribes his earliest field excursions in northern Canada