•
UNILESTE
Prévia do material em texto
<p>Molly Lee and Gregory A. Reinhardt</p><p>Foreword by Andrew Tooyak, Jr.</p><p>U N I V E R S I T Y O F A L A S K A P R E S S a n d U N I V E R S I T Y O F A L A S K A M U S E U M ~ F a i r b a n k s</p><p>iv</p><p>© 2003 University of Alaska Press</p><p>International Standard Book Number: 1-889963-22-4</p><p>Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data</p><p>Lee, Molly.</p><p>Eskimo architecture : dwelling and structure in the early historic period /</p><p>Molly Lee and Gregory A. Reinhardt ; foreword by Andrew Tooyak, Jr.</p><p>p. cm.</p><p>Includes bibliographical references and index.</p><p>ISBN 1-889963-22-4 (cloth : alk. paper)</p><p>1. Eskimo architecture. 2. Eskimos--Dwellings. 3. Vernacular</p><p>architecture--Arctic regions. 4. Architecture, Domestic--Arctic</p><p>regions. I. Reinhardt, Gregory A. II. Title.</p><p>E99.E7 L4174 2002</p><p>728'.089'971--dc21</p><p>2002012706</p><p>This publication was printed on acid-free paper that meets the minimum</p><p>requirements for American National Standards for Information Sciences—</p><p>Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials, ANSI z39.48-1984.</p><p>Publication of this book was supported in part by a fund established to honor</p><p>Tom English, in gratitude and respect for his scientific acumen, instructional</p><p>skills, and capacity to inspire research and researchers, by students who stud-</p><p>ied under his direction.</p><p>Book and cover design by Dixon J. Jones, UAF Rasmuson Library Graphics.</p><p>Endsheet drawings of Eskimo oil lamps by Stoney Harby.</p><p>v</p><p>To Nelson Graburn, friend and teacher</p><p>—ML</p><p>To Karen, Allison, and Eric, with love</p><p>—GAR</p><p>To James W. VanStone—Jim—with fond remembrance</p><p>—ML AND GAR</p><p>vi</p><p>CONTENTS</p><p>FOREWORD, IX</p><p>PREFACE, XI</p><p>INTRODUCTION, 1</p><p>Igloos and Accuracy ~ Scope and Definitions ~ Physiography, Prehistory,</p><p>and Seasonality</p><p>1 G R E E N L A N D , 9</p><p>WINTER HOUSES, 9</p><p>East and West Greenland Stone Communal Houses ~ Polar Eskimo Stone</p><p>Houses ~ Alternative Winter Dwellings ~ Aspects of Winter House Life</p><p>TRANSITIONAL DWELLINGS, 22</p><p>SUMMER DWELLINGS, 22</p><p>East and West Greenland Large Single-Arch Tents ~ West Greenland</p><p>Double-Arch Tents ~ Northwest Greenland Tents ~ Aspects of Summer</p><p>Tent Life</p><p>SPECIAL USE STRUCTURES, 28</p><p>ASSOCIATED RITUALS AND BELIEFS, 30</p><p>NOTES, 32</p><p>2 C E N T R A L A R C T I C , 3 5</p><p>WINTER HOUSES, 36</p><p>Labrador Eskimo Stone Communal Houses ~ Canadian Eskimo Snow</p><p>Houses ~ Sallirmiut Stone Houses ~ Alternative Winter Dwellings ~</p><p>Aspects of Snow House Life</p><p>TRANSITIONAL DWELLINGS, 52</p><p>Central Arctic Stone/Bone/Turf Autumn House ~ Iglulik and Netsilik Ice</p><p>Autumn House</p><p>SUMMER DWELLINGS, 55</p><p>Ridge Tents ~ Conical Tents ~ Sallirmiut Double-Arch Tents ~</p><p>Alternative Summer Dwellings ~ Aspects of Central Eskimo Tent Life</p><p>SPECIAL-USE STRUCTURES, 66</p><p>Lesser Structures ~ Birth, Menstrual, and Death Huts ~</p><p>Ceremonial Houses</p><p>ASSOCIATED RITUALS AND BELIEFS, 69</p><p>NOTES, 71</p><p>vii</p><p>3 N O R T H W E S T A R C T I C A N D B E R I N G S T R A I T, 7 3</p><p>WINTER HOUSES, 73</p><p>Mackenzie Delta Wooden Houses ~ North Alaska Coast Wooden</p><p>Houses ~ Pole-and-Turf Houses ~ Kotzebue Sound Wooden</p><p>Houses ~ Seward Peninsula Wooden Houses ~ Bering Strait Islands</p><p>Stone Pit-Houses ~ Alternative Winter Dwellings</p><p>TRANSITIONAL DWELLINGS, 93</p><p>SUMMER DWELLINGS, 94</p><p>Short-Pole Conical Tents ~ North Alaska Interior Dome Tents ~</p><p>Kobuk River Bark Houses ~ Bering Strait Island Stilt Houses ~</p><p>Alternative Summer Dwellings</p><p>SPECIAL-USE STRUCTURES, 104</p><p>Lesser Structures ~ Birth, Menstrual, and Death Huts ~</p><p>Burial Structures ~ Ceremonial Houses</p><p>ASSOCIATED RITUALS AND BELIEFS, 113</p><p>NOTES, 116</p><p>4 S O U T H W E S T A L A S K A , B E R I N G S E A ,</p><p>S I B E R I A , A N D G U L F O F A L A S K A , 1 1 9</p><p>WINTER HOUSES, 119</p><p>Mainland and Insular Alaska Men’s and Women’s Houses ~</p><p>Siberian Yupik Houses ~ Alutiiq Houses ~ Alternative Winter Dwellings</p><p>TRANSITIONAL DWELLINGS, 144</p><p>SUMMER DWELLINGS, 145</p><p>Norton Sound Wooden Houses ~ Norton Sound Dome Tents ~</p><p>Yukon River Wooden Houses ~ Siberian Eskimo Double-Arch Tents ~</p><p>Alutiiq Grass Huts ~ Prince William Sound Plank Huts ~</p><p>Alternative Summer Dwellings</p><p>SPECIAL-USE STRUCTURES, 152</p><p>Lesser Structures ~ Birth, Menstrual, and Mourning Huts ~</p><p>Burial Structures ~ Southwest Alaska and Alutiiq Ceremonial Houses</p><p>ASSOCIATED RITUALS AND BELIEFS, 154</p><p>NOTES, 156</p><p>5 S U M M A R Y A N D C O N C L U S I O N S , 1 5 9</p><p>CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE STUDY OF ESKIMO ARCHITECTURE, 159</p><p>Similarities Shared by Dwellings Across the Arctic ~ Primary Summer and</p><p>Winter Dwelling Types</p><p>POSSIBILITIES FOR FURTHER RESEARCH, 162</p><p>FUTURE INQUIRIES, 164</p><p>Classification of Types ~ Gender Studies ~ Spatial Analyses ~</p><p>Meaning and Symbolism ~ Subsistence, Settlement, and Mobility ~</p><p>Energy Requirements ~ Ethnographic Details</p><p>CULTURAL DIMENSIONS, 168</p><p>NOTES, 170</p><p>APPENDIX, 171</p><p>REFERENCES, 183</p><p>NAMES INDEX, 203</p><p>SUBJECT INDEX, 206</p><p>viii</p><p>ix</p><p>FOREWORD</p><p>WHEN I WAS A BOY, I USED TO RUN FROM ONE HOUSE TO THE NEXT IN THE</p><p>cold North wind, on my way to school. All the houses that I knew at the time</p><p>were the wooden-framed houses built above ground. I do recall going to</p><p>Nannie’s house, though, when my mother visited the little old lady. It was a</p><p>sod house on the western side of the village. A long, dark entrance hall led to</p><p>a small, well lit, one-roomed home.</p><p>The house has collapsed on itself now, but the whalebone roof supports are</p><p>visible, where the hallway still stands. The supports are made of jawbone and</p><p>scapula, each pair representing one bowhead whale. I was asked once, “What</p><p>is the significance of those whalebone standing over in the distance?” My</p><p>answer was “clothesline,” because, I thought, that is what whalebone was</p><p>used for. Now I know a little better, thanks to the research represented by this</p><p>book.</p><p>When I think of all the bone that washed out to sea during the fall storms</p><p>from “Igloogroaks” (the place where we have our meat cellars), I can now</p><p>appreciate the amount of work that went into building a shelter like the one</p><p>that Nannie lived in. I have since learned that there may have been as many</p><p>as 4,000 pieces of bone washed out from shore.</p><p>Outside the village in places such as Jabbertown, Singigraok, Kuukpuk,</p><p>Itivlaagruk, and Kuunnuuk, the houses are made with driftwood and sod,</p><p>the more abundant material. I have seen the house where my father was</p><p>born, as have I seen the house where I was born. The difference between the</p><p>two homes may represent just a millennia. I have lived amongst structures—</p><p>ingeniously made—by the Inuit: the real people.</p><p>ANDREW TOOYAK, JR.</p><p>x</p><p>S U M M E R D W E L L I N G</p><p>�</p><p>When cold gives place to summer’s glow,</p><p>And sun dissolves the ice and snow;</p><p>When verdure lies upon the ground,</p><p>And mosses, plants, and flow’rs, are found;</p><p>The Tribe forsake their winter haunt,</p><p>No more distress’d by pinching want.</p><p>Upon the plain, they bend their way,</p><p>While sledge, and dogs, their goods convey:</p><p>Onward they trudge, in merry mood,</p><p>At every step secure of food;</p><p>And when at night, fatiqued and spent,</p><p>They shelter all beneath the tent.</p><p>This is composed of walrus' skin,</p><p>Supported by a pole within;</p><p>Of broken spears, of bone and horn,</p><p>Or iv’ry, from the Unicorn;</p><p>While stones outside are scattered round,</p><p>The tent to fasten to the ground.</p><p>—Anonymous 1825</p><p>xi</p><p>M O L LY L E E :</p><p>I first discovered indigenous architecture in a seminar taught by African art</p><p>historian Herbert M. Cole while I was pursuing my M.A. studies in art his-</p><p>tory at the University of California, Santa Barbara. For a symbolic</p><p>anthropologist, the rich correspondences between Yoruba house form and</p><p>culture—the topic of my seminar paper—opened up a new and unexpected</p><p>avenue of research.</p><p>During my second year at the University of California at Berkeley, Peter</p><p>Nabokov, one of my fellow graduate students, taught the Native American</p><p>architecture course through the Native American Studies Department. This</p><p>1985 class was the true genesis of the study reported in the following pages.</p><p>At that time, Nabokov and Robert Easton were researching and writing</p><p>their seminal</p><p>Rear view of erqulik [double-arch] tent.</p><p>From Birket-Smith 1924:fig. 118.</p><p>CHAPTER 1— GREENLAND 27</p><p>Still, the atmosphere in a tent was less oppressively warm than inside a house,</p><p>even though as many as twenty inhabitants sometimes shared it (Crantz 1767:1:142;</p><p>Nansen 1894:84).</p><p>N O R T H W E S T G R E E N L A N D T E N T S</p><p>Two Polar Eskimo tents are known but only one seemingly had local aborigi-</p><p>nal roots. Both appear transitional between the Greenlandic single-arched</p><p>version to the south and east and the Central Eskimo ridged tents found</p><p>much farther to the south and west. The Polar Eskimo tupeq qanisaling (“a</p><p>tent with a front compartment”) contrasts with those already described. Dif-</p><p>fering in design and name, it compares structurally with the double-arched,</p><p>northern West Greenland erqulik, and so suggests a nonlocal10 origin (Holtved</p><p>1967:29–30).</p><p>The Polar Eskimo tupeq (fig. 30) shows greater aboriginal affinity with</p><p>East and West Greenland single-arch forms. In this territory, where wood11</p><p>was scarcer than elsewhere in Greenland, a tent measured about fifteen feet</p><p>front to back and twelve feet side to side. Lacking any designated antecham-</p><p>ber, it had a ridgepole that dropped to the ground at the back. Other poles</p><p>leaned against this ridge rather than having all the poles flare out from the</p><p>crosspiece (fig. 31; Birket-Smith 1928; Ekblaw 1927–28:162). Stone slabs</p><p>delineated sleeping and side platforms, which replicated those found in win-</p><p>ter houses designed for two families, while a translucent doorflap or a borrowed</p><p>house window (in more recent times) brightened the inside.</p><p>As of the early twentieth century, Greenland groups were changing over to</p><p>European-style, A-frame ridge tents, which they covered with canvas in the</p><p>south and with sealskins farther north. A thong functioned as the ridge con-</p><p>necting upright front and rear poles (Birket-Smith 1924:160). By this time,</p><p>small iron stoves supplied most heat, which led to the use of smaller-sized</p><p>lamps necessary only for illumination (Birket-Smith 1924:162).</p><p>A S P E C T S O F S U M M E R T E N T L I F E</p><p>Women played a central role in Eskimo culture with regard to tents as well as</p><p>winter houses. Most important, Eskimo women were in charge of skin prepa-</p><p>ration and sewing the cover.12 Sealskin, because of its fatty texture and the</p><p>low temperatures at which it is used, does not require extensive tanning. After</p><p>being soaked in the householders’ (usually children’s) urine, skins were scraped</p><p>and staked out on the ground to dry, then worked again with a scraper and</p><p>softener. Next they were cut with an ulu and sewn with a bone needle, usually</p><p>made from the leg of a gull or arctic hare. For this, women used the blind</p><p>stitch, a sewing technique that only partly perforated the skins’ thicknesses,</p><p>creating waterproof seams. They made sinew thread by shredding caribou,</p><p>seal, or, in parts of Greenland, narwhal tendon. Moreover, women were the</p><p>engineers in Eskimo societies: It was they who erected these shelters upon</p><p>arrival at each new summer encampment, setting up the frame, stretching the</p><p>tent-skin over it, and securing the cover’s skirt with stones against inclement</p><p>weather. When the summer camps were abandoned, women usually dismantled</p><p>the tents (Ekblaw 1927–28:161, 174–175; Holtved 1967:134–136, 140–141).</p><p>FIGURE 30</p><p>Idealized Polar Eskimo arched tent.</p><p>After Holtved 1967:fig. 20; Steensby 1910:figs.</p><p>17–20, 22.</p><p>FIGURE 31</p><p>“A friendly ‘tupic’ and its inhabitants,” prob-</p><p>ably a small version of the Polar Eskimo</p><p>single-arch tent. Note that the tent-cover sides</p><p>do not droop toward the center.</p><p>From Diebitsch-Peary 1893:168 ff.</p><p>28 ESKIMO ARCHITECTURE</p><p>During the twenty-four-hour daylight of northern summers, interior illu-</p><p>mination of the tent was less critical than in the winter house. Both East and</p><p>West Greenlanders suspended a gut curtain from the doorframe crossbar.</p><p>Polar Eskimos substituted a curtain made from the inner, translucent layer of</p><p>split sealskin, or membranes from walrus penis or gullet (Birket-Smith 1928:84;</p><p>Holtved, 1967:140–141; Thalbitzer 1914:364).</p><p>Interior space in summer tents reflected the same basic pattern seen in the</p><p>winter houses. Lamp platforms stood within the doorway, either on both</p><p>sides (figs. 21D, 30) or centered (fig. 32). The elevated, sod-and-wood, or</p><p>stone-paved sleeping and living platform took up the rear in a space demar-</p><p>cated by either wood or stones. The West Greenland erqulik had additional,</p><p>narrow platforms along the sides (Birket-Smith 1924:154–158).</p><p>“A tent . . . when warmed with lamps, makes a very pleasant place to live</p><p>in” (Holm 1914:42). In fact, the attraction of the tent was so great that</p><p>Eskimos sometimes vacated their winter houses sooner than was safe:</p><p>When the people of Angmagsalik moved into tents in the spring, they were</p><p>erected on the snow. In fact some people said that the first night after they</p><p>had moved into tents they had literally frozen . . . as the platform was raised</p><p>only six inches above the ice. When we hear that at this time it was 10 de-</p><p>grees below zero [Celsius, or 14˚F] at night, and that the natives notwithstanding</p><p>this stripped to the skin as usual, although the lamps had not warmed up the</p><p>tent in the day time, we cannot help wondering at the hardiness of these</p><p>people. (Holm 1914:42)</p><p>SPECIAL-USE STRUCTURES</p><p>IN CONTRAST TO DWELLINGS—OR HOUSE FORMS TYPICALLY USED FOR</p><p>sleeping and living activities—nondomestic special-use structures are defined</p><p>here as ceremonial buildings, most windbreaks, and any built space not nor-</p><p>mally intended for sleeping (Reinhardt 1986:38). The ceremonial men’s house</p><p>(qagsse)13 is the most important of these. Common to most Eskimos, the</p><p>ceremonial house had disappeared from Greenland before Danish coloniza-</p><p>tion. Thalbitzer (1941:656–658) hypothesizes, however, that the windowless,</p><p>long-passaged “summer playing house” reported by his Ammassalik infor-</p><p>mants may have been based on the prehistoric qagsse. No historic-era</p><p>Greenlanders built a qagsse, instead engaging in qagsse-related activities in</p><p>their regular houses (figs. 33–34). However, Birket-Smith (1924:135, 144)</p><p>notes prehistoric examples from West Greenland, spatially associated with</p><p>summer camps rather than winter villages. The Ammassalik sometimes con-</p><p>structed small replicas of winter dwellings, complete with miniature lamps,</p><p>outside their dwellings for their children’s amusement (Holm 1914:41). Curi-</p><p>ously, the name for this playhouse, (n)erteelät, is synonymous with a meeting</p><p>house (hence, a qagsse), variously intended for whale hunters or for sexual</p><p>liaisons between young people (Thalbitzer 1941:656–658).</p><p>CHAPTER 1— GREENLAND 29</p><p>FIGURE 32</p><p>“Interior of Esquimaux Summer Tent,</p><p>Uppernavik. Aug. 24–23–51” [sic], repro-</p><p>duced in Kane (1854:431) as “Interior of a</p><p>Native Hut.” In this tent American explorer</p><p>Elisha Kent Kane “superintended the manu-</p><p>facture of a dish of coffee” (1854:432). A</p><p>dog sleeps near the entrance, uninterested</p><p>in a seal’s ribcage before the doorway. Rest-</p><p>ing on its low platform, the traditional stone</p><p>lamp heats a Western coffee pot as well as a</p><p>man (squatting, right). A woman (seated, left)</p><p>scratches her head, perhaps, while another</p><p>(standing, right) warms her hands as a baby</p><p>rests in her parka.</p><p>From Kane 1854:431; courtesy of Andreas Zust.</p><p>FIGURE 33</p><p>“Building a wind-break.” Six Polar Eskimo</p><p>men cut and set the snowblocks; the third</p><p>man from left and the right man hold snow</p><p>knives.</p><p>From Whitney 1910: 288.</p><p>FIGURE 34</p><p>“Wind-break of snowblocks.” Three Polar</p><p>Eskimo men (left, center, and right) wear tra-</p><p>ditional pants of polar bear fur (of the three</p><p>other, one is reclining out of view and evi-</p><p>dent only by his boot soles). Note snow knife</p><p>stuck in a snowblock (left), a bottle and cans</p><p>as litter (foreground), and a dogsled and part</p><p>of its stanchion (right).</p><p>From Whitney 1910:93.</p><p>30 ESKIMO ARCHITECTURE</p><p>Kaalund notes that small tents were occasionally</p><p>erected for childbirth, one</p><p>in the bow of an open skin boat, or umiak (Kaalund 1983:166). The Ammassalik</p><p>Eskimos lacked a separate birth hut,14 but, when weather permitted, a preg-</p><p>nant woman was expected to leave the house or tent during delivery or even</p><p>beforehand (Holm 1914:61–62).</p><p>Greenland Eskimos assembled snowblock shelters: windbreaks for Polar</p><p>Eskimos (figs. 35–36), huts for Ammasslik ice fishing and (possibly) work-</p><p>shops, and huts for fox trappers and windbreaks for seal hunters among West</p><p>Greenland Eskimos (Crantz 1767:1:72; Holm 1914:42; Holtved 1967:27,</p><p>31; Ostermann 1938:25; Porsild 1915:132).15 Polar Eskimo windbreaks shel-</p><p>tered people or protected their cooking fires outdoors. If storms persisted,</p><p>such a semicircular wall might be expanded into a snow house. Greenlanders</p><p>sometimes slept directly on the snow in milder weather (Holtved 1967:27,</p><p>31; Steensby 1910:287). One Ammassalik structure was a dome-shaped “dog</p><p>kennel” (Thalbitzer 1941:fig. 222).16 Among the more durable special-use</p><p>structures were “large store houses of stone” used in East Greenland as fish</p><p>caches (Ostermann 1938:25). One or more additional structures could be</p><p>found in association with Polar Eskimo houses. “Small stone rooms” (Ekblaw</p><p>1927–28:172), or auxilliary caches, for “skin clothing, tools, and the like”</p><p>(Holtved 1967:26) were often built nearby (figs. 16–17). (Another choice was</p><p>simply to widen the house passage’s outer entryway into a storage space.)</p><p>Polar Eskimos also erected “stone pedestals for the protection of meat” (Kane</p><p>1856:2:159). These pillars were roughly three feet wide and five feet high,</p><p>putting their tops beyond the reach of dogs. Blubber drippings further solidified</p><p>the structure over time (fig. 14; Steensby 1910:311).</p><p>Some writers refer to special-use structures built for hunting. Polar Eskimo</p><p>hunters made use of unmodified caves and cliff niches (Holtved 1967:33;</p><p>Steensby 1910:287–288). Another ancillary structure type occurred among</p><p>West Coast hunters, who built seal-hunting blinds of sod and turf after rifles</p><p>became available (Birket-Smith 1924:321–322, fig. 233; Porsild 1915:138).</p><p>These allowed hunters to kill seals from shore, a method that would have</p><p>been impossible with aboriginal harpoons.</p><p>ASSOCIATED RITUALS AND BELIEFS</p><p>GREENLANDIC ESKIMOS HAD MANY RITUALS AND BELIEFS ASSOCIATED WITH</p><p>housing. Kaalund (1983:54) reports that [unspecified] Greenlanders recited a</p><p>ritual formula on moving from the summer tent into the winter house: “The</p><p>skin of my face have I covered and I am wearing a mask.”17 Kaalund also</p><p>illustrates a house mask (representing tutelary spirits) that East Greenlanders</p><p>placed on the wall of a dwelling to prevent strangers from seeing household</p><p>members when they entered (Kaalund 1983:56–57). Moreover, among some</p><p>Greenland Eskimos a raven skin—complete with head, beak, and claws—</p><p>might be attached to a house wall or tent to ensure good hunting or to protect</p><p>against sorcery (Kaalund 1983:19).</p><p>CHAPTER 1— GREENLAND 31</p><p>Still other Greenlandic beliefs associated with housing centered around death.</p><p>In the Egedesminde district of West Greenland, people smeared the house</p><p>ridgepole with lamp black to prevent the death of a family or its members</p><p>(Birket-Smith 1924:149). Polar Eskimos reportedly deserted a house or tent</p><p>as quickly as possible if one of its occupants died, believing that the house had</p><p>been contaminated with evil (Gilberg 1984:587; Steensby 1910:308).18 To</p><p>prevent symbolic pollution of their normal entrance-exit route, house resi-</p><p>dents either jostled the corpse unceremoniously through a hastily punched</p><p>hole in the back wall or removed it by way of the window. Upon disposing of</p><p>the corpse, Polar Eskimo corpse handlers stuffed one of their nostrils with</p><p>grass19 (men the right nostril, women the left), removing the plugs only “when</p><p>entering one of the huts” (Bessels 1884:877).</p><p>FIGURE 36</p><p>“An angakoq [shaman] séance developing in</p><p>the hut. We see the front wall of the room</p><p>facing the beach. The shaman is sitting with</p><p>his face turned towards the dried sealskin</p><p>hung up in front of the inner door opening</p><p>(katak) to the house passage; over which is</p><p>seen a small window (over the passage ex-</p><p>tending between the two larger ones). His</p><p>hands are tied on his back; on the left his</p><p>drum. On each of the two platforms by the</p><p>window is seen one of the angakoq’s assis-</p><p>tants (young boys).” Like struggling with</p><p>spirits while being covered (cf. fig. 35), dem-</p><p>onstrating magical feats while hand-bound</p><p>allowed shamans to demonstrate their</p><p>prowess. Performing in a house arguably trans-</p><p>formed the structure temporarily into a qagsse</p><p>of sorts.</p><p>From Thalbitzer 1941:fig. 225.</p><p>FIGURE 35</p><p>“This house interior (a drawing by Kaarle)</p><p>shows an examination by a qila-qucercer, a</p><p>man or woman who is consulting his or her</p><p>private familiar spirit (qila). . . . It is the</p><p>method where the patient sits up on the plat-</p><p>form in the neighboring stall . . . with his back</p><p>turned towards the room, while the consult-</p><p>ing ‘doctor’ lies on his back on the inmost</p><p>part (kile) of the platform covered by a seal-</p><p>skin.” Apart from showing Ammassalik</p><p>house-construction details and the lampstand-</p><p>lamp-drying rack arrangement, this image</p><p>illustrates the use of houses for shamanistic</p><p>rituals (cf. fig. 36), much as the qagsse/qaggqi/</p><p>qasgiq might assume such role in other parts</p><p>of the Arctic.</p><p>From Thalbitzer 1941:fig. 224.</p><p>32 ESKIMO ARCHITECTURE</p><p>Eskimo ideas of spiritual pollution due to death coincided with dwelling</p><p>taboos and rituals adhered to faithfully. For example, Ammassalik practices</p><p>surrounding death indicate the pervasiveness and seriousness of such pro-</p><p>scriptions:</p><p>Everybody had to take their possessions out of the house before the death;</p><p>after it the house itself had to be cleaned and all those living in it had to wash</p><p>their whole bodies. A man who had to attend to a corpse had to remain at the</p><p>rear of the [sleeping] platform fully clad, with even his hood turned up and</p><p>his face averted, for three days. This is regarded, not without reason, as a</p><p>veritable torment in the oppressive [heat] of the house. (Birket-Smith 1936:158–</p><p>159)</p><p>Finally, the love of hearth and home is a recurrent theme in Greenlandic</p><p>Eskimo folk tales. “To the [Eskimo] his dwelling place is more than a place</p><p>where he happens to carry on his trade; it is his real home. No more heartfelt</p><p>hymn can be imagined than the simple legend of the hunter from Aluk, whose</p><p>heart burst when once again he saw the sun rising over the sea at his own</p><p>dwelling” (Birket-Smith 1928:187).</p><p>CHAPTER 1 NOTES</p><p>1 The only wood available in most of the Eskimo area was driftwood. The main</p><p>source in the eastern American Arctic was the Mackenzie River, which origi-</p><p>nates in interior Canada well south of treeline. From the Mackenzie delta driftwood</p><p>spread across the Canadian Archipelago and as far east as Greenland by a</p><p>complex series of currents. Both hard- and softwoods from the Mackenzie were</p><p>carried on these currents (Dyke et al. 1997).</p><p>2 Most descriptions of this cooking area (Birket-Smith 1924:151; Nansen 1894:82;</p><p>Rink 1877:177) suggest that it was not so much a chamber as a tunnel alcove</p><p>(e.g., the left-side tunnel bulge in fig. 5F).</p><p>3 Jenness reports one example of a prehistoric Copper Eskimo dwelling with</p><p>cantilever construction, although it might have been of English origin (Jenness</p><p>1922:57–58).</p><p>4 Small houses were the rule among the Polar Eskimos, in whose territory sizable</p><p>driftwood was in very short supply; the roofs of the larger communal houses of</p><p>East and West Greenland, where wood was more plentiful, required wood in</p><p>quantity.</p><p>5 Peary (1898:2:431) states that the Polar Eskimo snow house could be inhab-</p><p>ited for up to three months, but his design (1898:2:fig. 111) seems more like</p><p>Baffin Island-type snow houses (Holtved 1967:31).</p><p>6 Eskimo lamps came in different sizes and shapes. Those from Greenland to</p><p>northwestern Alaska were mostly</p><p>large, semilunar in top view (i.e., having a</p><p>curved back edge and a straight to very slightly curved front edge), about two</p><p>inches thick, and carved from soapstone. In southwest Alaska, they were small</p><p>ceramic saucers, while along the Gulf of Alaska they were thick, midsized, and</p><p>stone-pecked objects (see endpapers). On St. Lawrence Island and at East Cape</p><p>Siberia they were mid-sized pottery basins, their outlines rectangle to ellipse</p><p>shaped, with two raised lamp-wick ridges running lengthwise across the middle.</p><p>CHAPTER 1— GREENLAND 33</p><p>7 Holtved (1967:28, 111–112) distinguishes the qarmaq from a less substantial,</p><p>more temporary shelter.</p><p>8 Central Eskimos arrayed poles similarly as rafters for certain stone-walled houses</p><p>(Boas 1888:figs. 498–499).</p><p>9 In winter, skins and gut tanned by exposure to the elements turned white, whereas</p><p>summer tanning at higher temperatures yielded darker results.</p><p>10 Two other Polar Eskimo tent types mentioned in the literature are rare, if not</p><p>unique. The first, photographed by Peary circa 1898, is a ridge-type example</p><p>resembling Labrador and Copper Eskimo tents (Peary 1898:2:547). Possibly</p><p>the design was borrowed from the immigrant Baffin Island Eskimos (Boas 1888:figs.</p><p>504–506). The second was seen in the unusual case of an old widow who</p><p>survived abandonment by her community, living alone in a tiny tent of her own</p><p>devising (Steensby 1910:32–326, fig. 18).</p><p>11 Polar Eskimos often used narwhal tusks as poles because of the wood shortage</p><p>in their region (Peary 1894:44).</p><p>12 Some land-focused groups relied on caribou hides but the great majority used</p><p>seal hides for tent covers.</p><p>13 Called qagsse in Greenland, the ceremonial house was known as qaggiq (also</p><p>qaggi) in Canada, qargi in Northwest Alaska, and qasgiq or qaygiq in South-</p><p>west Alaska. Kashim is a Russo-Anglicized term no doubt derived from the</p><p>Yup’ik word (i.e., qasgiq). In southwest Alaska, on the other hand, the qasgiq/</p><p>qaygiq served regularly as a men’s dormitory. Thus, in chapter 4, some men’s</p><p>houses are listed under Winter Houses rather than Special Structures.</p><p>14 Death huts, special-use structures built expressly for those expected to die soon,</p><p>are reported widely throughout the Arctic (Reinhardt 1986); we discuss them</p><p>further in chapters 2–4 (see sections on Special-Use Structure). Rasmussen mentions</p><p>one compelling example from the Polar Eskimos. A woman was walled up in a</p><p>snow house for not having disclosed a miscarriage. People blamed her nondis-</p><p>closure for a subsequent game shortage. Entombed with no food or bedding,</p><p>she was in effect sentenced to freeze or starve to death. However, the game re-</p><p>appeared, after which her husband released her still alive (Rasmussen 1975:30).</p><p>15 West Greenland fox and raven traps consisted of stones piled up with a hole at</p><p>the peak through which the fox would fall (Birket-Smith 1924:351, fig. 9; Crantz</p><p>1767:1:72; Egede 1745:62; Thalbitzer 1914:406–407; 1941:658).</p><p>16 A similarly designed building also served as a bird and fox trap. The trapper</p><p>actually sat inside this cramped structure. Once the prey alighted on the trans-</p><p>lucent roof it was yanked inside the building (Thalbitzer 1914:406–407, 1941:</p><p>658–659).</p><p>17 A remarkably similar ceremony was reported at Wales, on the western tip of the</p><p>Seward Peninsula, Alaska, in the early twentieth century (see Thornton 1931:226).</p><p>18 See note 14 above.</p><p>19 In other parts of the Arctic, Eskimos made nostril plugs for the same purpose</p><p>from materials such as caribou fur, caribou skin, grass, cotton grass, down, etc.</p><p>(e.g., Boas 1888:614; Parry 1824:325).</p><p>Miles</p><p>Kilometers</p><p>0</p><p>0</p><p>300</p><p>500</p><p>Arct</p><p>ic</p><p>Circ</p><p>le</p><p>60˚</p><p>90˚</p><p>60˚</p><p>90˚</p><p>Greenland</p><p>(Kalaallit Nunaat)</p><p>Baffin Bay</p><p>D</p><p>avis Strait</p><p>Labrador Sea</p><p>Labrador</p><p>Quebec</p><p>Ungava</p><p>Peninsula</p><p>Southampton</p><p>Island</p><p>Chesterfield Inlet</p><p>Baker Lake</p><p>Wager Bay</p><p>Th</p><p>elo</p><p>n River</p><p>Hudson Bay</p><p>Belcher</p><p>Island</p><p>Great Slave Lake</p><p>M</p><p>ack</p><p>en</p><p>zie</p><p>R</p><p>iver</p><p>Great Bear Lake</p><p>Mackenzie Delta</p><p>Victoria</p><p>Island</p><p>Igloolik</p><p>Baffin Island</p><p>(Qamanittuaq)</p><p>(Igluligaarjuk)</p><p>(Iglulik)</p><p>Devon Island</p><p>Grinnell</p><p>Peninsula</p><p>Cape Dorset</p><p>(Kinngait)</p><p>FIGURE 37</p><p>Map of Central Arctic.</p><p>Produced by Robert Drozda.</p><p>CHAPTER 2—CENTRAL ARCTIC 35</p><p>FIGURE 38</p><p>Meeting between the Netsilik and Sir John</p><p>Ross’ exploring party. Small semilunar spots</p><p>in the domes are ice-pane windows; larger,</p><p>lower apertures are tunnel entrances; upright</p><p>poles with circles at top are probably ice</p><p>scoops for fishing; and apparent “ladders”</p><p>are dogsleds. The archer’s bow (center, main</p><p>group of people) is exaggerated in size.</p><p>From Ross 1835a:248 ff.</p><p>THE DOMED, SNOWBLOCK IGLOO THAT IS UNIVERSALLY BUT INAPPROPRIATELY</p><p>associated with all Eskimos (fig. 38) was limited as a primary dwelling type to</p><p>the Central Arctic, mainly in the area of Canada between Baffin Island and</p><p>the Mackenzie Delta. The designation Central Arctic is problematic,1 of course,</p><p>as this is a region of architectural transitions. On the eastern end of this cul-</p><p>tural continuum, for example, Labrador Eskimos, like the Greenlanders, favored</p><p>stone-walled dwellings over snow houses.2 Estimates for the nineteenth-</p><p>century population of the Central Arctic Eskimos range from a conservative</p><p>2,000–3,000 (Boas 1888:426; Damas 1984a:359–475; Stefánsson 1914:61)</p><p>up to 9,000 (Oswalt 1979:314–315, map 1).</p><p>Could one imagine the Lilliputs living in flat</p><p>candy jars with drumhead covers, he would have</p><p>a fair miniature representation of an ice village.</p><p>(Schwatka 1883:216–217)</p><p>2</p><p>CENTRAL ARCTIC</p><p>36 ESKIMO ARCHITECTURE</p><p>WINTER HOUSES</p><p>L A B R A D O R E S K I M O S T O N E C O M M U N A L H O U S E S</p><p>During the historic era Labrador Eskimos constructed a turf-covered,</p><p>semisubterranean stone (or wood) communal house (iglu or igluqsuaq) of</p><p>moderate capacity (fig. 39). Critical details are scarce for this structure, and</p><p>our reconstruction is based on a combination of ethnographic and archaeo-</p><p>logical sources. The principal feature distinguishing Labrador houses from</p><p>the Greenlandic types was their roofing, which differed in at least four ways.</p><p>First, the roof of the Labrador Eskimo winter communal house tended to</p><p>pitch more steeply to front and rear (figs. 40, 42); second, it sloped down to</p><p>the sides as well as the front and rear (i.e., a hip roof); third, the outermost</p><p>material of the roof was turf (not stone); and fourth, Labrador communal</p><p>house roofs had one or two wood-framed seal-gut skylights rather than gut</p><p>windows (figs. 40–42; Taylor 1984:fig. 6).</p><p>Nevertheless, these Labrador dwellings recall Greenlandic communal houses</p><p>in other respects, particularly in the large number of people (an average of</p><p>twenty, or about five familes) they were apt to house (Schledermann 1976b:28,</p><p>fig. 2–3; Taylor 1984:513). Furthermore, in contrast to the stones used for</p><p>Greenland house tunnels, after historic contact at least the Labrador house</p><p>had a lengthy entry tunnel made of wood or bone (fig. 41). Labrador Eskimo</p><p>winter houses also had a window, possibly in the front wall (figs. 41–42;</p><p>Packard 1877:68); stone floors; large sleeping platforms at the rear; smaller</p><p>side platforms, central wood posts to support a ridgepole, and skin or whale</p><p>scapulae over the roof (Hawkes 1916:60–61; Hutton 1912:38, 308; Taylor</p><p>1984:513–514).</p><p>Archaeological examples confirm that the Labrador communal house had a</p><p>rectangular floorplan, in contrast to the more trapezoidal design of Greenlandic</p><p>communal houses. Long, wide tunnels usually remained lower than the stone-</p><p>flagged floor, penetrating the main chamber near the center of the front wall</p><p>(Bird 1945:fig. 4, 128, 179; Schledermann 1976b:figs. 2–3, 28). The Labrador</p><p>examples also had as many as five platforms for lamps and hence cooking.</p><p>Each one jutted forward roughly three to six feet from a broad sleeping plat-</p><p>form at the rear and, in one case, from the narrower side platforms. In all</p><p>likelihood, inhabitants would have set simple bridges (boards or stone slabs,</p><p>perhaps) between these outthrust</p><p>lamp platforms, thereby converting the in-</p><p>terstices into storage recesses. Similarly, whenever families shared a house, they</p><p>likely partitioned off the sleeping platform (Kleivan 1966:27; Packard 1877:68).</p><p>Earlier precontact Labrador houses were small, round, and evidently meant</p><p>for single families, but probably because of socioeconomic stress about A.D.</p><p>1700 this house type expanded into a rectangular multifamily structure (Bird</p><p>1945:figs. 3–4; Kleivan 1966:26; Schledermann 1976b:31–32, 36; Taylor</p><p>1984:513). The Labrador communal house evolved immediately before the</p><p>influx of Euro-American pioneers and missionaries and therefore was short-</p><p>lived (Bird 1945:fig. 4, 128, 179). Soon after, the Labrador house shrank back</p><p>FIGURE 39</p><p>Idealized Labrador Eskimo winter stone com-</p><p>munal house. The hip roof (bottom) and</p><p>skylight (top, and dashed line, bottom) are</p><p>features distinct from Greenlandic houses.</p><p>After Hutton 1912:40 ff, 308 ff, 314 ff; Taylor</p><p>1984:figs. 5–6. Reinhardt and Lee 1997:1803,</p><p>courtesy of Cambridge University Press.</p><p>CHAPTER 2—CENTRAL ARCTIC 37</p><p>FIGURE 41</p><p>“Old iglos at Hebron.” This late 1800s-era</p><p>turf-covered house (center), with modern</p><p>window frame (but formerly glazed with</p><p>seal gut) in its front wall and a stove pipe,</p><p>has a semisubterranean passage with wooden</p><p>superstructure.</p><p>From Hutton 1912:308 ff.</p><p>FIGURE 42</p><p>“An elaborate snow porch [right]. As soon</p><p>as winter comes the Eskimos build snow</p><p>porches to their doors to keep their houses</p><p>warm.” Early 1900s-era house (left) has a</p><p>framed window in a side wall and a stove-</p><p>pipe; such porches were no doubt more</p><p>modern innovations.</p><p>From Hutton 1912:314 ff.</p><p>FIGURE 40</p><p>“Old Tuglavi’s iglo. It is a gloomy little hut</p><p>of turf and stones, floored with trampled</p><p>mud.” A 1900s-era house probably with a</p><p>turf-covered surface passage (darkened en-</p><p>trance on right, between two children). The</p><p>house itself (left) has a turfed-over hipped</p><p>roof, with a skylight, all held down by stones;</p><p>exterior wall stones are roughly assembled.</p><p>From Hutton 1912:40 ff.</p><p>38 ESKIMO ARCHITECTURE</p><p>FIGURE 43, A–Q</p><p>Steps in constructing a snow house, photo-</p><p>graphed during the Stefánsson-Anderson</p><p>Canadian Arctic expedition. Women and</p><p>children are absent from this group.</p><p>Rauner Special Collections, Dartmouth College</p><p>Library.</p><p>A, B: Cutting and placing snowblocks.</p><p>C, D: Diagonal cut through part of first</p><p>course, allowing start of upward spiral.</p><p>E: Setting first blocks of second-course</p><p>spiral.</p><p>F: Continuing spiral to third “level.”</p><p>G: Trimming a block with the snow knife.</p><p>H: Cutting doorway.</p><p>to its former one- or two-family size (possibly because of the Protestant mis-</p><p>sionaries’ culture-bound concerns about promiscuity; see Kleivan 1966:34). As</p><p>of 1914, these habitations had become “gloomy little huts” of stone, mud floored</p><p>and “indescribably dirty” (Hawkes 1916:ix, 61). By then the low tunnel had</p><p>long since evolved into a surface windscreen or porch (figs. 40–42), sometimes</p><p>with a door, clearly a response to missionary complaints about cramped crawlways</p><p>(Kleivan 1966:33).3 Apparently at least some tunnels had an attached ante-</p><p>chamber or porch (fig. 42). In Northeast Labrador, “the old Eskimo tribes”</p><p>(early contact era?) used whale bones in houses similar to their communal houses,</p><p>but later switched to snow houses as their primary house-type (Hawkes 1916:61–</p><p>62), whereas the more recent all-wood walls recall missionary modernity.</p><p>C A N A D I A N E S K I M O S N O W H O U S E S</p><p>Four interrelated environmental circumstances led most Canadian Arctic</p><p>Eskimos of the ethnographic-era (i.e., the late 1500s to early 1900s) to live in</p><p>snow houses. First, they had to be near their food supply (usually seals), which</p><p>meant they needed to live on or near the sea ice. Second, hunters found it</p><p>efficient to cooperate in simultaneous hunts and to share the resulting food.</p><p>Third, due to an easily exhausted food supply, people often had to move</p><p>every few days to weeks. Finally, snow houses normally required little time</p><p>and effort to build, which made them easy to abandon when the inevitability</p><p>of the next move presented itself.</p><p>The antiquity and origin of the snowblock igloo is uncertain (Birket-Smith</p><p>1936:30; Kuznetsov 1964:239) and hard to trace archaeologically because</p><p>A B</p><p>E F</p><p>CHAPTER 2—CENTRAL ARCTIC 39</p><p>snow, the abandoned building material, disappeared with the next spring</p><p>thaw (Savelle 1984). In the early historic period, the Central Eskimos made</p><p>stone-and-sod winter houses like those of their Thule forbears. By the mid-</p><p>nineteenth century, however, all but the Labrador Eskimos had adopted the</p><p>snow house (Boas 1901).</p><p>West of Canada’s Mackenzie Delta the spiral-built technique (described</p><p>below) was unknown, though some Alaskan Eskimos made rectangular</p><p>snowblock houses when traveling (Brown 1956:n.p.; Stefánsson 1914:61). It</p><p>is certainly no accident that snow houses developed in the localities where</p><p>driftwood is scarcest. The merit of this creative adaptation cannot be overem-</p><p>phasized: “Without the snow house, winter traveling in [the Central Arctic]</p><p>would be practically impossible; that the earlier [English] discoverers up there</p><p>were so immobile in winter is principally [because] they had not learned to</p><p>build snow houses” (Mathiassen 1928:118).</p><p>Site Location and House Construction—By late November or early</p><p>December enough snow had settled to make snow house building feasible. In</p><p>areas where they proliferated, Eskimo winter settlements would hold as many</p><p>as sixty-four people (Ross 1835a). One Iglulik community consisted of “five</p><p>clusters of huts, some having one, some two, and others three domes, in which</p><p>thirteen families lived, each occupying a dome or one side of it” (Lyon 1824:115).</p><p>People usually established their villages—sets of domed structures—on the</p><p>sea ice after freeze-up. To avoid the dangers of snowdrifts the villages were</p><p>situated out of the prevailing wind on east- or south-facing slopes. Proper</p><p>snow conditions always limited house locations; if the snow was too solid it</p><p>C D</p><p>G H</p><p>40 ESKIMO ARCHITECTURE</p><p>FIGURE 43 (continued)</p><p>I, J: Proceeding toward center of dome; sec-</p><p>ond man (right) fills cracks with snow</p><p>chunks.</p><p>K, L: Setting steeper in-curving blocks.</p><p>M, N: Completing passage (left), and set-</p><p>ting last overhead blocks.</p><p>O: View of passage (left), yet to be finished.</p><p>P: Shoveling snow against exterior.</p><p>could not be properly cut, if too soft it would fall apart. Snow from a single</p><p>snowfall was ideal. For determining its consistency men generally used a long,</p><p>slender probe made of steam- or heat-straightened caribou antler (Birket-</p><p>Smith 1929:1:76, 78; Schwatka 1883:218; Stefánsson 1944). However, the</p><p>Sallirmiut (of Southampton Island in Hudson Bay) “often simply stamped on</p><p>the snow to test its firmness” (Mathaissen 1927a:270).</p><p>After probing for snow of the proper feel (a fairly deep drift, not too pow-</p><p>dery, not too icy), which could take several hours (Schwatka 1883:218), the</p><p>first step in raising a snow igloo was to inscribe a circle for its perimeter with a</p><p>snow knife of bone, ivory, antler, wood, or baleen. House building ideally re-</p><p>quired two men, one to cut blocks, and the other to position them (fig. 43). The</p><p>cutter, who might wear specially made flexible gauntlets for this purpose, some-</p><p>times worked inside the house, removing the snow in sections (approximately</p><p>30 by 20 by 6–8 inches) from what would become the floor. Cutting the blocks</p><p>from within had the advantage of creating a floor below the snow surface level.</p><p>Consequently, once the house was completed, the floor was lower than the</p><p>sleeping platform, keeping cold air below that main activity area.</p><p>The builder worked from either inside or outside the structure (fig. 43A, B).</p><p>Blocks were cut on edge if possible and had a slightly curved shape. Upon</p><p>cutting each one, the cutter stomped on its surface to work it loose, then,</p><p>removing it, handed it to the builder, who placed</p><p>the first row side by side</p><p>along the inscribed circle (fig. 43C, D), trimming the blocks so that each</p><p>tightly abutted its predecessor (fig. 43E, G).</p><p>I J</p><p>M N</p><p>CHAPTER 2—CENTRAL ARCTIC 41</p><p>Once he finished the first circular row, the builder went back and cut</p><p>down a part of it diagonally, facilitating the upward, in-curving spiral to</p><p>follow (fig. 43C, D). In Labrador, men built the principal dome spirally</p><p>from east to west, or “as the sun goes down” (Hawkes 1916:59). Caribou</p><p>Eskimos built their domes upward counterclockwise, but left-handed men</p><p>followed the sun’s path (clockwise). By contrast, Copper Eskimos did not</p><p>always build spirally, especially when they began their house by digging</p><p>into a snow drift (Jenness 1922:59, 61; Stefánsson 1914:63). As the igloo</p><p>rose in its winding ascent and, as the dome neared completion (fig. 43H,</p><p>M), the builders sometimes cut larger and larger blocks, some weighing as</p><p>much as thirty pounds (Steltzer 1981). Snowblocks were trapezoidal in outline,</p><p>except for the final one, which was multisided and beveled so that its smaller</p><p>inner surface would be held up by all the opposite-beveled blocks ringing it.</p><p>The man inside first pushed this block sideways through the hole in the top,</p><p>then rotated it overhead, trimmed it with his snow knife to suit the aper-</p><p>ture, and lowered it horizontally into its seat (fig. 43N). This was not a true</p><p>keystone block, as the dome could stand without it (Birket-Smith 1929:1:81;</p><p>Kroeber n.d.).</p><p>Upon setting the last block in place, the team cut out an air vent near the</p><p>dome’s crest and removed a section from its side for a temporary entrance</p><p>(fig. 43H). As soon as the women had crawled through with their lamps and</p><p>other household possessions, this entrance was sealed to trap heat as they set</p><p>up housekeeping. Lamps not only warmed the space but also glazed the dome’s</p><p>interior surface with a windproof shell of ice. To maximize protection from</p><p>K L</p><p>O P</p><p>42 ESKIMO ARCHITECTURE</p><p>FIGURE 43 (continued)</p><p>Q: Finished snow house, probably built in</p><p>one hour.</p><p>FIGURE 44</p><p>Cross-section of a Netsilik snow house, illus-</p><p>trating an unusually low dome and high</p><p>platform, compared to the more vaulted de-</p><p>sign of most Eskimo snow houses (dashed lines</p><p>indicate higher dome and lower platform).</p><p>After Schwatka 1884b:fig. 4.</p><p>the cold, the men sometimes did not cut the door—an oval aperture in the</p><p>bottom tier of blocks—until they had completed the tunnel (fig. 43L, Q).</p><p>They also cut another oval hole higher up and inserted the precious window</p><p>of freshwater ice, removed late the previous autumn and hauled along by sled</p><p>from camp to camp all winter long.4 Ideally, windows faced south, to maxi-</p><p>mize sunlight, and were fitted in over the entryway (e.g., fig. 38).</p><p>Finally, while someone inside stomped down the floor and indented or</p><p>built up a platform and others outside built a tunnel, women and children</p><p>chinked any remaining holes in the walls with scraps left from block-cutting</p><p>(fig. 43I, J). The dwelling was further insulated by shoveling snow against its</p><p>exterior (fig. 43M–Q). Once the lamp was lit the snow house stood “daz-</p><p>zlingly bright” (Hutton 1912:37) and ready for use.5</p><p>The speed with which a snow house rose is astounding. Two accomplished</p><p>workmen took forty-five minutes to an hour to build a snow house eight feet</p><p>in diameter, housing five to six persons. The literature suggests that, overall,</p><p>main dome diameters were commonly larger, twelve to fourteen feet, and gen-</p><p>erally high enough to allow a six-foot-tall man to walk upright within them</p><p>(Hawkes 1916:59; Hutton 1912:36). One striking exception was the very low-</p><p>domed Netsilik house. This configuration speeded up heating the interior and</p><p>also conserved heat by enveloping less air volume within (fig. 44).</p><p>Snow House Design Variations—Tunnels were the last structural part added</p><p>to a snow house. Some were domed like the house proper (figs. 45–46), while</p><p>others employed two straight walls about three feet across and four to five</p><p>feet high, horizontally roofed (fig. 47). They were not always below the snow</p><p>surface level but could slope downward from the outside entrance, then up</p><p>again to the house’s low entryway (fig. 46). Two or more connected sleeping</p><p>domes might share a common tunnel, or side-by-side domes might have ei-</p><p>ther parallel or converging tunnels (Jenness 1922:65–79). People sometimes</p><p>reduced drafts by constructing the tunnel as a series of progressively smaller</p><p>antechambers leading to the main dome or domes (fig. 46). At other times,</p><p>they put up a snowblock windscreen to divert cold blasts from the tunnel</p><p>Q</p><p>CHAPTER 2—CENTRAL ARCTIC 43</p><p>FIGURE 45</p><p>Idealized Caribou Eskimo snow house: (A)</p><p>floor plan (dashed line indicates window</p><p>overhead); (B) exterior front view (vent hole</p><p>near peak, elliptical window below it)—</p><p>snowblocks in foreground are smaller than</p><p>they should appear; (C) skin roof over dome</p><p>walls, held down by snowblocks (springtime</p><p>option); (D) cross-section through house and</p><p>tunnel, showing positions of window, vent</p><p>hole and plug, and snowball at peak to ab-</p><p>sorb drips (kitchen dome is left of sleeping</p><p>chamber; sleeping platform is raised with</p><p>snowblocks and shoveled snow).</p><p>After Boas 1888:figs. 491–492; Franklin</p><p>1823:267; drawn by Jeanne E. Ellis. Reinhardt</p><p>and Lee 1997:1795, courtesy of Cambridge</p><p>University Press.</p><p>FIGURE 46</p><p>Idealized Iglulik snow house . Note pole edge</p><p>along front of central sleeping platform, stor-</p><p>age niche below it, and other two-family</p><p>sleeping platform and lamp platform alter-</p><p>natives. A snowball “sponge” absorbs water</p><p>near the vent hole (top).</p><p>After Boas 1888:figs. 492 and 495–497,</p><p>1901:fig. 140; Mathiassen 1928:fig. 77.</p><p>FIGURE 47</p><p>Idealized Copper Eskimo snow house. The</p><p>larger central dome is for communal dances;</p><p>the smaller one for two families’ daily activi-</p><p>ties. Lamp platforms and sleeping platform</p><p>are raised above snow surface-level by means</p><p>of snowblocks, and a snowball “sponge”</p><p>soaks up water near the vent hole (top).</p><p>After Jenness 1922:figs. 12–25, Pls. 3A–B;</p><p>Stefánsson 1913:pls. opp. pp. 170, 256.</p><p>44 ESKIMO ARCHITECTURE</p><p>entrance (figs. 45, 48–49), while a snowblock door kept wind out of the</p><p>sleeping chamber. Copper Eskimos even angled their tunnel entrances 90˚</p><p>leeward (fig. 47), or they diagonally offset the tunnel by about one tunnel</p><p>width (for three feet or so near its opening), to baffle the wind (Jenness 1922:fig.</p><p>19). Caribou Eskimo doors made of boards, which were used to block main</p><p>dome entrances (Birket-Smith 1929:1:83), are presumably a modern feature.</p><p>Frequently, residents appended small anterooms for storage and other uses</p><p>(figs. 45–47), but Caribou Eskimos are the only Central Arctic group</p><p>known traditionally to have had a kitchen outside the main snow-house dome</p><p>(fig. 45). Sleeping platforms and smaller storage spaces also diverged in their</p><p>designs. For example, Labrador builders cut and removed snowblocks from</p><p>the floor area, thereby creating raised platforms for sleepers and lamps, whereas</p><p>the Iglulik sometimes stacked the back and side platform areas with one to</p><p>five tiers of blocks, leaving the floor at the original surface level (fig. 46;</p><p>Mathiassen 1928:122; Nourse 1879:73; Rasmussen 1929:15). Caribou Eski-</p><p>mos built their main platforms with both blocks and loose snow (fig. 45), and</p><p>an optional pole in Iglulik houses sometimes reinforced sleeping platform</p><p>edges (fig. 46).</p><p>Sometimes two Iglulik families shared a dome such that their sleeping plat-</p><p>forms virtually faced each other, and the edges of both were cut out to divide</p><p>a tiny lamp zone (near the chamber doorway) from the sleeping spaces (fig.</p><p>46, top of lower illustration; Mathiassen 1928:fig. 78). Copper Eskimos kept</p><p>goods in the gap between their lamp and sleeping platforms (fig. 47), capping</p><p>the space with a board when necessary (Jenness 1922:61). Alcoves, which</p><p>were larger than niches, were easy to install and attach to existing domes.</p><p>Caribou</p><p>Eskimos reportedly used their alcoves to separate the types of things</p><p>stored there, e.g., house sweepings, offal, food, etc.</p><p>The longevity of a snow house depended in part on the temperature inside</p><p>and out; in the coldest part of winter it could last a month to six weeks.</p><p>Adding a skin lining, which trapped cold air and formed an extra layer of ice</p><p>on the dome, could prolong the igloo’s life expectancy to an entire winter</p><p>(figs. 48, 50). This technique was used mainly by Baffin Island Eskimos (Birket-</p><p>Smith 1936:126), although the Polar Eskimos had adopted the idea by the</p><p>end of the nineteenth century and the Iglulik by the 1920s (Boas 1888:543–</p><p>544; Hayes 1885:243–244; Mathiassen 1928:128; Mauss and Beuchat 1979:fig.</p><p>4). Another means of extending the usable life of a snow house was the addi-</p><p>tion of low external walls, which kept winds from eroding the more vertical</p><p>(i.e., the more severely buffeted) aspects of the dome. Copper and Labrador</p><p>Eskimos, for example, buttressed their main domes with a row of snowblocks,</p><p>packing the interstices with shoveled snow (fig. 47). Of course, shoveling</p><p>snow about the base of an igloo afforded still simpler protection (figs. 43Q;</p><p>45D; 46, top; 49); this diverted the wind flow upward with ever-decreasing</p><p>erosive effect as it blew over the domes.</p><p>Snow houses are strong and stable enough to support much weight (fig. 41).</p><p>Except during spring thaws, when the domes weakened, people could even</p><p>dance on the rooftop if they cared to (Mathiassen 1928:124; Parry 1824:148,</p><p>410). The structural integrity is easy to explain, inasmuch as one sharp rap</p><p>CHAPTER 2—CENTRAL ARCTIC 45</p><p>FIGURE 48</p><p>“Snow house of Davis Strait [Baffin Island],</p><p>sections.” Note storage niches (front edge</p><p>of the sleeping platform—top and bottom),</p><p>vent hole and window (center; apparent gut-</p><p>strip panel probably should appear as an</p><p>ice-slab window—cf. fig. 50) and vent hole</p><p>(center); skins lining the interior (black space</p><p>above skins is cold air—top and bottom);</p><p>and curved snowblock wind break at outer</p><p>end of tunnel.</p><p>From Boas 1888:fig. 492.</p><p>FIGURE 49</p><p>Netsilik snow houses, King William Island,</p><p>1904–1905. Note leeward-curved wind-</p><p>deflecting snowblocks at entrance to tunnel,</p><p>and pole tools or weapons stored upright</p><p>next to domes.</p><p>Photograph by Roald Amundsen or someone of</p><p>his crew, courtesy of the Ethnographic Museum,</p><p>University of Oslo.</p><p>46 ESKIMO ARCHITECTURE</p><p>FIGURE 52</p><p>“Kuk. House ruin III with the fallen-in roof</p><p>removed [during archaeological excava-</p><p>tion].” One slightly elevated lobe, or family</p><p>area, within the house appears here, plus the</p><p>lower, stone-lined entryway (center fore-</p><p>ground) and an apparent storage niche</p><p>(center, left).</p><p>From Mathiassen 1927a:fig. 75; cf. fig. 53;</p><p>courtesy of the Arctic Institute, Danish Polar</p><p>Center.</p><p>FIGURE 50</p><p>“Section and interior of snow house” of</p><p>Baffin Island design. View toward the front</p><p>half of the main dome. Observe the lamps,</p><p>pots, and drying racks—and their support-</p><p>ing structures—on both sides of the fore-space</p><p>(leading to the tunnel), the skin liner held in</p><p>place with large toggles (outside the dome)</p><p>tied by thongs to smaller toggles within, and</p><p>a gut-strip panel to transmit daylight through</p><p>the ice-pane window (cf. fig. 48, center). Dark</p><p>space at top of dome is unheated air outside</p><p>the skin liner.</p><p>From Boas 1888:fig. 493.</p><p>FIGURE 51</p><p>Four men, standing on a snow house,</p><p>demonstrate its strength.</p><p>Probably photographed during the Stefánsson-</p><p>Anderson Canadian Arctic expedition;</p><p>courtesy of Dartmouth College Library.</p><p>CHAPTER 2—CENTRAL ARCTIC 47</p><p>FIGURE 53</p><p>“House Ruin III; Kuk.” Plan view indicates</p><p>two larger sleeping platforms with niches</p><p>below (top and right), a presumed storage</p><p>space (upper left), a smaller platform (center</p><p>left), and a stone-lined passage (bottom left).</p><p>From Mathiassen 1927a:fig. 76; cf. fig. 42.</p><p>fixes each block hard against its neighbors: “each blow instantaneously melted</p><p>the ice crystals at the point of contact through pressure and this momentary</p><p>creation of water immediately froze again to cement the two blocks together”</p><p>(Graburn and Strong 1973:149). Friction from the blows also adds vertical</p><p>strength, an effect enhanced by gravity’s added force on all blocks below.</p><p>The ability of a snow house to withstand external pressure is also the result</p><p>of its unique shape. Most domed structures are hemispherical; consequently,</p><p>their ring stress subjects them to collapse. The steeper-sided catenary arch of</p><p>Eskimo snow houses, like an eggshell’s long axis, prevents caving in and bulg-</p><p>ing, thus enhancing the structure’s stability (Handy 1973:276–277). The</p><p>catenary arch is the only kind not requiring an external scaffold during con-</p><p>struction (Kroeber n.d.:2).</p><p>S A L L I R M I U T S T O N E H O U S E S</p><p>The Sallirmiut of Southampton Island, whose cultural patterns deviated mark-</p><p>edly from most other groups, built a winter house that seems to have been</p><p>unique in the Eskimo culture area. Many of their winter houses, which they</p><p>usually planned for two to four families, incorporated whale bone extensively</p><p>and “had the unique feature of supporting pillars of limestone slabs” (Damas</p><p>1984b:396). The walls for each rounded sleeping area consisted of upright</p><p>stones and, sometimes, whale skulls. With the exterior turfs removed, they</p><p>looked something like a miniature Stonehenge (figs. 52–53).</p><p>Sallirmiut houses evidently had two to three stone-covered sleeping areas,</p><p>each about sixteen inches higher than the paved floor and each boasting two</p><p>lateral lamp platforms. Floor plans with three sleeping spaces sometimes re-</p><p>sembled a clover leaf (fig. 53). Slabs set on edge alternated with horizontally</p><p>laid ones, producing shallow storage niches around the house perimeter; larger</p><p>ones occurred under the platforms. The roof, doubtless sealed with turf except</p><p>at the vent hole, was made of supporting materials such as whale skulls, jaws,</p><p>ribs, baleen, and vertebrae, as well as caribou antlers and more limestone slabs.</p><p>48 ESKIMO ARCHITECTURE</p><p>A few central pillars supported these roof beams. Roughly square storerooms</p><p>abutted some of the sleeping platform walls (fig. 53, upper left). Without their</p><p>ice-slab extensions in winter, which could be six feet high, stone-sided tunnel</p><p>entrances were only about six feet long. Finally, for more light there was an</p><p>animal-membrane or ice-pane window over the doorway (Mathiassen</p><p>1927a:227–229, 253, 269, figs. 74–76, 82).</p><p>A LT E R N AT I V E W I N T E R D W E L L I N G S</p><p>From Labrador in the east (Taylor 1984:514; Turner 1894:225) to Victoria</p><p>Island in the west (Jenness 1922:60, 64), Central Eskimos occasionally built</p><p>smaller snow houses for themselves as individuals, for hunting parties, or for</p><p>their whole families. They used these dwellings only as short-term protection</p><p>when traveling between snow house settlements. Figure 54 demonstrates how</p><p>simplified the Caribou Eskimo travelers’ shelters might be, compared with</p><p>their more elaborate long-term dwellings (cf. fig. 45).</p><p>More southerly Labrador Eskimos constructed snow houses only when</p><p>they traveled. Temporary snow houses of the Caribou Eskimos ordinarily</p><p>lacked a passage but could have a sleeping platform (Birket-Smith 1929:1:83,</p><p>84). In Iglulik construction, the transient snow house’s size was diminished</p><p>and, when built by men journeying alone, sometimes it had no platform.</p><p>Neither separate storage alcoves nor windows figured into the design, and a</p><p>wall replaced the tunnel (Mathiassen 1928:129). Less elaborate still were</p><p>Sallirmiut snow houses, which lacked a doorway and often had no raised</p><p>platform (Mathiassen 1927a:270). Copper Eskimo travelers’ snow houses</p><p>had a very short tunnel (almost an awning) and they lacked the low protective</p><p>outer wall circumscribing more permanent domes. Instead, they relied on</p><p>loose snow tamped against the dome’s base and seams (Jenness 1922:60, 64).</p><p>A S P E C T S O F S N O W H O U S E L I F E</p><p>Until lampblack</p><p>sooted the glistening, sugar-like interior of an igloo’s main</p><p>chamber, some sun- and moonlight penetrated the snowy dome and shone a</p><p>bit more brightly through an ice pane over the doorway (figs. 55–56). Those</p><p>illumination sources, coupled with lamplight and the dome’s reflective white</p><p>interior, meant that seeing indoors was seldom a problem. Nor were snow</p><p>houses as damp as one might imagine. Moisture escaped through the vent</p><p>hole (qihaq) of the house (figs. 45B, D, C; 47, top; 48b–c; Mathiassen 1928:129)</p><p>by the same ventilation principles as in Greenland houses.</p><p>As lamp tenders, Central Eskimo women were forever seeking an equilib-</p><p>rium between oxygen-rich fresh air (always cold), and the ideal level of oil in the</p><p>lamp (otherwise the flame burned too high or low); and worked constantly to</p><p>maintain a balance between a dome thinly glazed with ice and one that was</p><p>melting. If an existing vent hole proved inadequate to the task of controlling the</p><p>dripping from an overheated ceiling, and if an impromtu second hole (punched</p><p>through the dome) failed, someone might mold a snowball,6 touching it to the</p><p>wet spot until it froze into place. This created a temporary sponge (figs. 45D, 46</p><p>and 47, top). When these sponges failed, the drip-points might be chipped away</p><p>CHAPTER 2—CENTRAL ARCTIC 49</p><p>FIGURE 56</p><p>“Ig-loos or snow village at Oo-pung-ne-</p><p>wing,” illustrating daily life in a winter village.</p><p>Note people and dogs around the village,</p><p>dogsleds and kayak stored atop igloos (left</p><p>and upper center), the close spacing of main</p><p>domes (and consistent orientation of their</p><p>ice window panes), evidence of successful</p><p>seal hunts (foreground), and walrus skulls</p><p>stored on house passageways (lower center</p><p>and far right).</p><p>From Hall 1864:269.</p><p>FIGURE 54</p><p>Idealized Caribou Eskimo travelers’ snow</p><p>house: (A) floor plan; (B) exterior view;</p><p>(C) cross-section through house (left, kitchen</p><p>dome; center, sleeping chamber with raised</p><p>platform; right, storage niche).</p><p>Drawn by Jeanne E. Ellis.</p><p>FIGURE 55</p><p>Small snow-house settlement with five domes</p><p>showing assorted orientations and sizes of</p><p>ice window. Two passages (left) consist of</p><p>multiple, descending domes that end at in-</p><p>curving upright walls built as wind deflectors.</p><p>C. M. Cato photograph f21, #162, the British</p><p>Museum.</p><p>A</p><p>B</p><p>C</p><p>50 ESKIMO ARCHITECTURE</p><p>FIGURE 57</p><p>“Interior of an Eskimaux snow-hut. Winter</p><p>Island 1822.” A face-tattooed Iglulik woman</p><p>nurses her child while sitting on furs on the</p><p>platform (left) as another woman (tattooed</p><p>arm and hand at upper right, partially ob-</p><p>scured by wooden pole) stirs food cooking</p><p>in a large, rectangular hand-carved soapstone</p><p>pot. Semilunar lamps on wooden stands (be-</p><p>low the carved pots) are tipped at an extreme</p><p>angle but show how sea mammal fat (lamp</p><p>centers) renders into oil. Bentwood or bent</p><p>baleen vessels rest on the platform, and</p><p>webbed drying racks rest above the pots. An</p><p>ice-sealing harpoon leans against the right</p><p>rack, supported by another harpoon inserted</p><p>into the dome wall, while one upright for</p><p>the other rack is a caribou antler.</p><p>From Parry 1824:160 ff.</p><p>to redistribute the melt-water so that it flowed down the dome walls; such</p><p>chipping eventually pitted a dome’s interior (Jenness 1922:63).</p><p>Without a lamp, body heat could still raise indoor temperatures typically to</p><p>24˚ or 26˚F if enough snow was shoveled against the dome outside, but as</p><p>outside temperatures lowered to –20 to –50˚F the air inside would be only ten</p><p>degrees warmer (Birket-Smith 1929:1:92–93). Between floor and ceiling in</p><p>lamp-lit houses, temperatures could vary as much as 70˚F, at times rising above</p><p>100˚F if the space was crowded and a skin lining was in place (figs. 48, 50).</p><p>Even without such a lining, the people, dogs, and lamps could increase the heat</p><p>inside to temperatures of around 37 to 39˚F for a while without weakening the</p><p>dome. Toward the walls, temperatures dropped by fifteen degrees. This is still</p><p>significantly warmer than the temperature outdoors (Jenness 1922:70; Lyon</p><p>1824:124; Mathiassen 1928:131; Parry 1824:412). Birket-Smith says of the</p><p>impressive temperature gradient in an igloo: “[I]t is actually possible to experi-</p><p>ence all the climatic belts of the world at once: at the feet temperature is still</p><p>arctic, waist-high the surrounding air is almost temperate, and the head some-</p><p>times projects a good way into the tropics” (1936:126–127).</p><p>The configurations of a snow village expressed in material form the social</p><p>structure of a community at a given moment. A single dwelling could, and</p><p>often did, stand alone, but just as regularly the igloo served as the basic unit of</p><p>a larger complex of structures conjoined by a central domed space with a</p><p>common passageway to the outdoors (e.g., fig. 46 ). Iglulik houses might have</p><p>four or more such chambers spread as satellites around a central anteroom.</p><p>As group size waxed and waned throughout the winter social season an exist-</p><p>ing igloo wall could be cut through and a new dome added, or the doorway</p><p>could be closed off with minimal effort (Jenness 1922:63; Mathiassen 1928;</p><p>Schwatka 1883).</p><p>Short passages made it possible to link an entire settlement with a network</p><p>of domes (figs. 38, 49, 55–56, 45; cf. Hawkes 1916:58–60; Mathiassen 1928:fig.</p><p>CHAPTER 2—CENTRAL ARCTIC 51</p><p>FIGURE 58</p><p>Netsilik snow house interior, King William</p><p>Island, 1904–1905. Note the vertically-set</p><p>snowblock platform edge, the side lamp plat-</p><p>form, and arrangement thereon of lampstand,</p><p>lamp, and strut-supported drying rack with</p><p>mittens and clothes on it. Two pairs of snow</p><p>goggles hang from the rack’s right edge.</p><p>Photograph by Roald Amundsen or someone</p><p>of his crew, courtesy of the Ethnographic</p><p>Museum, University of Oslo.</p><p>79), shaping them into a changeable, fluid “little hive of human beings com-</p><p>fortably established below” the drifting snows of winter (Parry 1824:147–148).</p><p>Glowing ice-pane windows here and there might be the sole means of distin-</p><p>guishing such a community from natural landscapes in the arctic night. In</p><p>fresh-built domes, winter’s dim light shone through “in most delicate hues of</p><p>verdigris green and blue” (Lyon 1824:111).</p><p>Spatial arrangements inside the Central Arctic snow house replicate those of</p><p>Eskimo winter houses everywhere (figs. 57–58). The platform occupied about</p><p>half the floor of a dwelling and frequently had cut-outs underneath to provide</p><p>additional dry, above-floor storage (figs. 45D, 46, 48; Birket-Smith 1929:1:83;</p><p>Boas 1888:545). For warmth, platforms were covered with such materials as</p><p>stones, paddles, tent poles, and whale scapulae, and then insulated with a</p><p>mattress of baleen strips or birch (Betula sp.) and heather (Cassiope sp.) sprigs</p><p>and covered with layers of skins (Mathiassen 1928:142, fig. 85; Parry 1824:411).</p><p>Families used side platforms (figs. 45–47, 50, 58) for storage and lamps (Birket-</p><p>Smith 1936:126; Jenness 1922:61; Schwatka 1883:304). Wooden pegs or poles,</p><p>antlers, etc., might be driven into the floor and walls to provide additional</p><p>hanging storage (fig. 57). For their lamp shelves, Copper Eskimos inserted an L-</p><p>shaped board into the house wall between snowblocks during construction</p><p>(Stefánsson 1914:67). Above the lamp, the ubiquitous cooking pot and drying</p><p>rack either hung from poles set into the ceiling or rested on supporting frame-</p><p>works (figs. 50, 57–58). The only exception to this pattern is the Caribou Eskimo</p><p>habit of cooking over a brush-fueled fire in a kitchen-like antechamber just</p><p>outside the main dome (fig. 45A, D) and of using lamps for light only (Birket-</p><p>Smith 1929:1:83; Franklin 1823:265–267; Rasmussen 1930:45).</p><p>Snow houses are no longer made for habitation although the knowledge of</p><p>how to construct them is still part of Inuit culture. In the 1950s the Inuit of</p><p>Cape Dorset experimented with the weathering capacities of styrofoam igloos</p><p>(Dickie 1959:117). During the winter of 1987, in the same community, Nelson</p><p>52 ESKIMO ARCHITECTURE</p><p>FIGURE 60</p><p>“Plan and sections of</p><p>qarmang or house made</p><p>of whale ribs.” Cross-sections ab and cd in-</p><p>dicate the roof vaulting that curving whale</p><p>ribs made possible. Note the low floor rela-</p><p>tive to the platforms at side and back of house.</p><p>From Boas 1888:fig. 502.</p><p>Graburn and Molly Lee photographed a tiny igloo built to shelter a litter of</p><p>newborn puppies (fig. 59), and, in April of 1990, residents of Igloolik erected</p><p>the largest snow house ever reported, built to celebrate the signing of the</p><p>Tungavik Federation of Nunavut agreement-in-principle (Inuit Art Quarterly</p><p>1990–91:cover and p. 6). Nor has the versitility and drama of the snow house</p><p>been lost on non-Native outdoors enthusiasts (e.g., Browne 1946): It was—</p><p>and remains—the Eskimo icon.</p><p>TRANSITIONAL DWELLINGS</p><p>BEFORE ADEQUATE SNOWDRIFTS HAD ACCUMULATED IN AUTUMN, AFTER THE</p><p>ice had begun to thaw in spring, or when tents had been cached at some</p><p>distance, Central Eskimos lived in transitional houses called qarmat. The Iglulik</p><p>inhabited theirs from late September to late December, once the chill drove</p><p>them from tents but before snow had formed drifts deep enough for them to</p><p>make snow houses. Witnesses describe two types of qarmaq.</p><p>C E N T R A L A R C T I C S T O N E / B O N E / T U R F A U T U M N H O U S E</p><p>The more common qarmaq form was a semipermanent, small, family-sized</p><p>structure with walls of stone, turf, and whale bones, a stone platform, a skin</p><p>roof, and a gut window framed with whale rib (figs. 60–61). Usually, these</p><p>were used for several years, so that the people merely cleared, cleaned, and</p><p>reoccupied them intermittently. They had either straight or slightly inward-</p><p>spiraling walls three feet high and an elliptical to circular floor plan upwards</p><p>of twelve by fourteen feet (Ross 1835a:389), although one report mentions a</p><p>rectlinear-plan house (Parry 1824:230, 290). Birket-Smith hypothesizes that</p><p>the Central Eskimo qarmaq derived from the Thule-type prehistoric winter</p><p>house (Birket-Smith 1945:136).</p><p>Descriptions of early travelers give us some details about the qarmaq. Whale</p><p>half-mandibles or ribs presumably acted as rafters, thereby giving the roof a</p><p>bowed or rounded appearance (fig. 60; Dawson 2001). The skin-covered</p><p>roof admitted some light, which was enhanced by a gut window. Occupying</p><p>one-third to one-half of the house’s rear was a sleeping platform paved with</p><p>flagstones and raised by turf blocks about two feet above floor level. A lamp</p><p>platform no doubt sat on either side. When two or more families shared a</p><p>FIGURE 59</p><p>A small snowblock doghouse, built at</p><p>Cape Dorset in 1986 for a bitch and her pup-</p><p>pies, indicates continuity of the snowhouse</p><p>tradition into modern times in the Canadian</p><p>Arctic.</p><p>Photograph courtesy of Nelson H. H. Graburn.</p><p>CHAPTER 2—CENTRAL ARCTIC 53</p><p>FIGURE 61</p><p>“Plan and sections of qarmang or stone</p><p>house.” This design lacks whale ribs, rely-</p><p>ing exclusively on poles (or possibly whale</p><p>mandibles cut lengthwise) for the roof su-</p><p>perstructure. Note the flat roof (b–d), the</p><p>long, low tunnel (a–b), and the step-downs</p><p>(b) from sleeping platform (left) to tunnel</p><p>entrance (right).</p><p>From Boas 1888:fig. 498.</p><p>qarmaq, they divided the sleeping platform using sealskins pinned to the ceil-</p><p>ing. Stones formed a short, low, turf-covered entrance tunnel about ten feet</p><p>long and two feet high (fig. 61), the bottom of which was typically littered</p><p>with bones and other refuse (Parry 1824:230). Sometimes an ice-slab exten-</p><p>sion or antechamber was attached to the tunnel’s entrance.</p><p>I G L U L I K A N D N E T S I L I K I C E A U T U M N H O U S E</p><p>Far less common was the qarmaq made with large, rectangular fresh-water</p><p>ice-slab walls (fig. 62). These were set vertically and cemented with a snow-</p><p>and-water slush; smaller slabs produced a flat-roofed tunnel. An ice house</p><p>required few building blocks, but it could not be worked as easily as snow</p><p>because of the weight of the blocks and the difficulty of trimming them to fit.</p><p>Slabs had to be cut from bodies of fresh water and hauled by dogsled to the</p><p>village. Given the requirement for flat, limpid ice slabs from ponds or lakes,</p><p>the need to live near the sea to hunt seals, and the location of fresh water</p><p>pools on land, this house-type probably was built mainly on land but near</p><p>shore.</p><p>An ice-slab qarmaq required a skin or fur roof (fig. 62) because an ice roof,</p><p>despite its integrity, would have been much riskier to live under, due to the</p><p>warmth that could concentrate inside. Before attaching the cover, builders</p><p>grooved the walls high up at the points where joined ice slabs met. Now the</p><p>skin could be spread over tent poles or fish spears stuck into the wall slabs,</p><p>with the excess cover draping down the walls. People then cinched the cover</p><p>tight, into the wall grooves, using a sealskin thong wound around the upper</p><p>walls (not shown in fig. 62), the same idea used in constructing Eskimo tam-</p><p>bourine drums. Gravel was scraped and heaped toward the rear of the house</p><p>to form a low sleeping platform and presumably side platforms, too. Flag-</p><p>stones substituted for the gravel at times (Mathiassen 1928:138–140, fig. 83).</p><p>54 ESKIMO ARCHITECTURE</p><p>FIGURE 62</p><p>“Eskimaux house, built of ice. Igloolik</p><p>1822.” The structure of an octagonal-sided</p><p>house and square-framed passage are made</p><p>of ice slabs (center), as are kayak rests (up-</p><p>per center and right) and a doghouse (center</p><p>right). Note the slightly rounded skin roof</p><p>over the house. A child with dog-whip and</p><p>tether cows one of the dogs near a dogsled</p><p>(foreground).</p><p>From Parry 1824:358 ff.</p><p>The ice qarmaq had an octagonal floor plan and a room arrangement</p><p>similar to that of snow houses. However, because of its transparency, increased</p><p>by the glare from snow and ice during this season, it needed no windows</p><p>(Birket-Smith 1945:82; Boas 1888:551; Jenness 1922:77, 79; Mathiassen</p><p>1928:138–139). According to Schwatka (1883:216–217), before snow blan-</p><p>keted an ice qarmaq, the structure was practically transparent. The glow of</p><p>lamplight from a qarmaq settlement at night, he notes, was “one of the most</p><p>beautiful sights I have ever witnessed. Could one imagine the Lilliputs living</p><p>in flat candy jars with drumhead covers, he would have a fair miniature rep-</p><p>resentation of an ice village” (Schwatka 1883:216–217).</p><p>Another kind of dwelling, possibly late prehistoric but likely not earlier</p><p>than the 1700s, was reported from an abandoned village on Prince Albert</p><p>Island in the northern Canadian archipelago (Belcher 1855:1: 94–96). This</p><p>house form seems comparable to the qarmaq, although it might have been a</p><p>winter dwelling. Its floor, dug some three feet below ground level, was stone-</p><p>paved, elliptical, and about ten by twelve feet across. Particularly unusual</p><p>was the wall lined with stone slabs, within which was a second ellipse of slabs</p><p>(the space between the ellipses being “filled in with fine clay and gravel”).</p><p>Piercing one end of the house’s double-wall was a stone-sided tunnel, which</p><p>descended away from the house. The tunnel’s inner doorway had a stone-slab</p><p>lintel, which spanned the wall and created an opening only three feet wide by</p><p>two and a half feet high (Belcher 1855:1:95).</p><p>Another recurring theme in Central Eskimo transitional housing is adapt-</p><p>ing domed snow houses to the warming weather in early spring, roughly</p><p>April to May. Groups such as the Netsilik (Ross 1835a:384) and Caribou and</p><p>Labrador Eskimos (Birket-Smith 1929:1:84; Graburn 1969:43) elected to stay</p><p>CHAPTER 2—CENTRAL ARCTIC 55</p><p>in a snow house—despite its dripping, weakening, or even collapsing roof—</p><p>because snow walls insulated better than single-layer tents covers. These groups</p><p>compromised in favor of comfort, removing the crest of the snow dome and</p><p>replacing it with tent skins as a roof (fig. 45C). To keep the pliable skins,</p><p>which inevitably had soaked edges, in place, householders weighed them</p><p>down with snowblocks stacked around the cut-back rim of the dome. Cop-</p><p>per Eskimos, on the other hand, held up their tent</p><p>skins with poles to create</p><p>either flat or gable roofs (Stefánsson 1914:66). Until the crown of the dome</p><p>actually caved in, however, the odd melt-hole here and there might be stuffed</p><p>with fur (Turner 1894:226).</p><p>Finally, Iglulik hunters sometimes assembled a shelter of stones and cov-</p><p>ered it with furs, and they built into the back end an elevated headrest. This</p><p>was typically an overnight arrangement, seemingly like the Sallermiut qarmaq</p><p>(Mathiassen 1927a:270). Its floor shape could be either curvilinear or recti-</p><p>linear (Mathiassen 1928:129).</p><p>SUMMER DWELLINGS</p><p>IN A PATTERN THAT EXISTED ACROSS THE ARCTIC, EACH CENTRAL ESKIMO</p><p>household made the decision to move into its summer tent independently</p><p>from the rest of the community; the date depended on weather conditions</p><p>(Jenness 1922:77). Like winter settlements, summer encampments usually</p><p>conformed to natural features of the landscape rather than any prescribed</p><p>order (Birket-Smith 1929:1:74). One consideration was the proximity of heather,</p><p>the preferred fuel for summer cooking (Stefánsson 1914:71). As a protection</p><p>against unfriendly Indians, Copper Eskimo summer settlements were frequently</p><p>located on hilltops, where the hair-out skin tent covers—often bicolored and</p><p>randomly patterned—blended with the rocky landscape, providing a natural</p><p>camouflage so convincing that the tents could not be detected from as little as</p><p>one-quarter mile away (Stefánsson 1914:71).</p><p>R I D G E T E N T S</p><p>Central Arctic Eskimos used tents (singular tupiq) of two basic types, those</p><p>with a ridge and those shaped like a tepee. Ridged examples generally con-</p><p>sisted of a raised horizontal piece (either a thong or pole) that connected</p><p>standing poles at the front with varying upright arrangements at the rear.</p><p>Some groups employed two pairs of socketed, obliquely slanted legs; others</p><p>might opt for a wood-saving single pole at each end of the tent. Most Central</p><p>Arctic Eskimos used a conical arrangement of several poles fanned out at the</p><p>back and, sometimes, at the front, which added vertical and horizontal space</p><p>and gave the tent an apsidal or bell-like plan view. Tent pegs were rare; usu-</p><p>ally stones, snow, or other weights spread and anchored the tent skirt.</p><p>Labrador Thong- or Pole-Ridge Tents—Labrador Eskimos began their tents</p><p>by lashing two poles into a rear bipod and sometimes a front bipod (fig. 63). If</p><p>there was only one front pole, it fit into a pocket sewn in the tent cover, but in</p><p>either case the tent needed a guyline to hold up the front end. Either a thong</p><p>56 ESKIMO ARCHITECTURE</p><p>FIGURE 63</p><p>Idealized Labrador Eskimo thong-ridged tent.</p><p>After Hawkes 1916:Pls. 11B, 12; Hutton</p><p>1912:pls. opp. pp. 60, 254; Taylor 1984:fig. 5,</p><p>right; Turner 1894:Pl. 37.</p><p>(fig. 63) or a pole (fig. 64) formed the tents’ median ridge by connecting these</p><p>uprights at their peaks. Other poles, stacked against the rear uprights and</p><p>along the pole-type ridge, reduced sagging by bolstering the sides. This spread-</p><p>ing arrangement resulted in a near-apsidal ground plan, with a conical back</p><p>and parallel sides. The tent cover consisted of two parts, one made of fur, the</p><p>other of translucent depilated skins (see Saladin d’Anglure 1984:482); the two</p><p>sides were laced together horizontally, starting from the back, then overhead</p><p>along the ridge line. A door flap was made of another fur or skin. Loose skins</p><p>were thrown over the first layer to seal any gaps (Turner 1894:226–227). Cov-</p><p>ers were made from caribou, seal, beluga, or salmon, depending on the preferred</p><p>or available local medium (Taylor 1984:514). Inside the Labrador tent, a stick</p><p>or pole created a symbolic division between the raised-earth or -turf sleeping</p><p>platform at the rear and the space at the front (fig. 63), where other activities</p><p>took place. Guests or distant relatives might occupy sleeping places along the</p><p>sides of the tent (Turner 1894:228). A similar Labrador tent had a rectangular</p><p>outline, bisected into nearly square halves, with each half open on one side</p><p>(Hawkes 1916:pl. 11B).</p><p>There is some disagreement in the literature about how Labrador Eskimo</p><p>tents were heated. Some sources state, or imply, that the traditional oil lamp</p><p>was used exclusively (Hawkes 1916:fig. 11, 1A; Hutton 1912:32; Kleivan</p><p>1966:39). However, Turner (1894:228) claims the tent’s “central portion is</p><p>reserved for a fireplace for cooking and heating.”7</p><p>Ungava Peninsula (Québec) Ridge Tents—Tents of this region occurred in</p><p>two varieties. Coastal ones evidently were similar to the ridged Labrador</p><p>tents with apsidal plans. Ten to fifteen skins of bearded seal (Erignathus barbatus,</p><p>a large species) went into making their covers, which incorporated sides made</p><p>from thinned, translucent skins that increased the lighting inside. Where bearded</p><p>seals were lacking, women sewed their covers from the skins of ringed seals,</p><p>beluga whales, or even salmon (Saladin d’Anglure 1984:482).</p><p>Baffin Island Pole-Ridge Tents—Tents from Baffin Island varied in design</p><p>details but essentially employed a half-cone arrangement of poles at the back</p><p>and a pole bipod at the front. The islanders probably used a single ridgepole</p><p>(fig. 65) more often than two poles (fig. 66). Another conspicuous difference</p><p>in construction is that in some tents the rear poles extended above the cover</p><p>(figs. 65–66) whereas in others they did not (fig. 67). As reported elsewhere,</p><p>sleepers lay at the back, an area set off by a log (fig. 65).</p><p>Iglulik Ridge Tents—Smaller than other Central Arctic ridge tents, the Iglulik</p><p>(fig. 68) designs had a center pole with a short, stout crossbar on top and a</p><p>thong or pole ridge. However, they lacked accessory rear and lateral poles. A</p><p>bipod held up the fore end while a single vertical pole on a stone footing</p><p>elevated the back. When wood was scarce the Iglulik and Netsilik ingeniously</p><p>assembled center poles from sections of antler (softened by soaking, then</p><p>straightened), wood or bone, broken spear shafts, or narwhal tusk (Lyon</p><p>1824:229; Rasmussen 1927:168; Taylor 1974:122). Given the short ridge</p><p>thongs and small tent openings that Parry depicts in one settlement (Parry</p><p>1824: 271 ff; cf. fig. 73), the front area in Iglulik tents seems to have been</p><p>inconsequential compared to the front of Labrador and Copper Eskimo</p><p>CHAPTER 2—CENTRAL ARCTIC 57</p><p>FIGURE 65</p><p>Baffin Island pole-ridged tent, possibly with</p><p>de-haired sides. The ground plan suggests</p><p>raised sleeping spots for three (rear), and the</p><p>two “seats” of like size might have doubled</p><p>as extra sleeping places.</p><p>From Bilby 1923:73.</p><p>FIGURE 64</p><p>“Eskimos of Great Whale River, Labrador.</p><p>Taken 1896” shows a horizontal ridgepole</p><p>projecting from the tent’s front support poles.</p><p>From Hawkes 1916:189.</p><p>FIGURE 66</p><p>“Plan and sections of tupiq or tent of</p><p>Cumberland Sound.” This tent from east-</p><p>ern Baffin Island had a wider floor area and</p><p>broader center, overhead, due to the dual</p><p>ridgepoles, which must have been lashed to</p><p>the front and rear lateral uprights.</p><p>From Boas 1888:fig. 504.</p><p>58 ESKIMO ARCHITECTURE</p><p>FIGURE 67</p><p>Side view of a ridge tent, probably with one</p><p>ridgepole, from eastern Baffin Island. Note</p><p>the overlapping arrangement of hair-on seal</p><p>furs (left and right), apparently de-haired</p><p>skins (center), and the breadth of the back</p><p>end (right). A cleaned fish dries near the</p><p>entrance (left), next to a harpoon that leans</p><p>against the side.</p><p>Courtesy of The Field Museum, negative</p><p>#CSA66425, from the Rawson-MacMillan</p><p>expedition, 1927–28.</p><p>FIGURE 68</p><p>Idealized Iglulik thong-ridged tent with “T”</p><p>center-pole. The tent cover rear consists of</p><p>seal furs, turned hair-side out, the front of</p><p>de-haired hides (admitting more light).</p><p>After Boas 1888:fig. 505; Mathiassen</p><p>1928:figs. 80–81 and 84; Parry 1824:pl. opp.</p><p>p. 271; Rasmussen 1929:fig. opp. p. 225.</p><p>Reinhardt and Lee 1997:1796, courtesy of</p><p>Cambridge University Press.</p><p>specimens. The crossbar formed a T that spread the cover laterally. This slightly</p><p>increased head and shoulder room within the tent.8</p><p>At certain</p><p>Iglulik sites a low rock wall, sometimes set up in a collapsed</p><p>qarmaq depression, substituted for the usual stones or gravel that weighted a</p><p>tent’s edges (Parry 1824:73, 300–301). Inside, the sleeping area was distin-</p><p>guished by a stone border. Inhabitants slept on either the hard ground or on</p><p>heath (Ericaceae family, Cassiope sp., or generic woody brush), warmed by a</p><p>bedding of furs (Parry 1824:223). To stop drafts, they might stuff openings in</p><p>the tent cover with bunches of feathers (Lyon 1824:233). Just inside the entryway</p><p>was a general housekeeping section where a lamp and other cooking accou-</p><p>trements mingled with the remains of daily butchering, blubber scored and</p><p>rendered for lamp oil, bones, feathers, and other meal debris.</p><p>Netsilik Ridge Tents (probably more modern)—Turn-of-the-century pho-</p><p>tographs indicate that at least some Netsilik Eskimos had come to favor</p><p>pole- and thong-ridged tents (figs. 69–70; Eek 1998:fig. 8). It may be that</p><p>both ridge designs used only a single pole or bipod to support the front and</p><p>back ends of the cover. Netsilik ridge tents seem much like Iglulik ones in</p><p>construction details.</p><p>Copper Eskimo Pole-Ridge Tents—Among Copper Eskimos, men and</p><p>women erected tents cooperatively (Jenness 1922:78). Their tents began as a</p><p>pair of tripods or bipods, stacked subsequently with more poles to round out</p><p>a conical rear section, so that the floor plan was semicircular at the back and</p><p>rectangular in front (fig. 71). Bridging these uprights was a wooden ridge-</p><p>pole, with lighter side poles placed against them. As many as five more poles</p><p>splayed out from the rear support, and six or seven others angled diagonally</p><p>to the ground from points along the ridgepole, thus supporting the sides (Jenness</p><p>1922:fig. 26). A pair of tent-cover sheets, pieced together from caribou or</p><p>sealskins, met and were laced along the ridge. Little care went into securing</p><p>this cover tightly against rain, although pliable objects at hand (e.g., skin</p><p>CHAPTER 2—CENTRAL ARCTIC 59</p><p>scraps, mittens) could be stuffed into the cover’s ridge seam. Unlike the care-</p><p>fully sealed Iglulik tent (above), the Copper Eskimo version sometimes left its</p><p>ridge line and the apex of its rear poles exposed.</p><p>C O N I C A L T E N T S</p><p>Every ridge tent mentioned above is a modified cone with a ridge that draws</p><p>out the circular floor plan in one direction (figs. 63–67). Arguably, then, coni-</p><p>cal tents might be the more basic Central Arctic form. These tents resemble</p><p>North American Plains Indian tepees in general features, including a half-</p><p>round covering and sizable poles, some or all of which extended far above the</p><p>peak of tent, hence the term long-pole conical tent. In contrast, short-pole</p><p>conical tents have poles of more uniform length that do not erupt beyond the</p><p>cone’s apex.</p><p>At least the long-pole conical tents may have been borrowed conceptually</p><p>from the Central Eskimos’ Algonkian Indian neighbors (Klutschak 1887:137;</p><p>Rasmussen 1929:79). Unlike Plains Indian tepees, however, conical Central</p><p>Eskimo tents were comparatively wider and more squat in outline and more</p><p>constricted at the apex of the poles. This narrow opening at the top not only</p><p>minimized drafts, but Stefánsson gives another reason why this design would</p><p>have been advantageous: in the bug-ridden arctic summers “one of the best</p><p>points [about the tepee shape] is that the draft [from the fire] sucks in mosqui-</p><p>tos and sends them up with the smoke—likely scorched but at any rate expelled”</p><p>(Stefánsson 1944:208).</p><p>Québec Eskimo Long-Pole Conical Tents—On Belcher Island (southeast</p><p>Hudson Bay), Québec Eskimos made an unridged tent: a broad version of</p><p>tepee-style tents, called nuirtaq. Here the covers consisted of hair-on seal furs,</p><p>while interior Eskimos on the mainland used dehaired caribou skins in theirs</p><p>(Saladin d’Anglure 1984:fig. 2, 482). These low structures seem very much</p><p>like the Caribou Eskimo tents detailed below.</p><p>FIGURE 69</p><p>(above left) Netsilik pole-ridged tent, King</p><p>William Island, 1904-1905. Rather small and</p><p>seemingly not well made, this caribou fur</p><p>tent uses a bipod to support the front (the</p><p>back is not visible). The doorway is off-cen-</p><p>ter, even if the doorflap is folded back (to</p><p>the right).</p><p>Photograph by Roald Amundsen or someone of</p><p>his crew, courtesy of the Ethnographic</p><p>Museum, University of Oslo.</p><p>FIGURE 70</p><p>(above right) Netsilik thong-ridged tents in</p><p>sparse arctic terrain, Gjoahaven, King Will-</p><p>iam Island, 1904–1905. Moored is probably</p><p>the ship Gjoa, viewed from a camp of at least</p><p>two tents—likely with sealskin covers.</p><p>Photograph by Roald Amundsen or someone of</p><p>his crew, courtesy of the Ethnographic</p><p>Museum, University of Oslo.</p><p>60 ESKIMO ARCHITECTURE</p><p>FIGURE 71</p><p>Idealized Copper Eskimo pole-ridged tent.</p><p>After Jenness 1922 figs. 26–30 and 55, pls. 4A,</p><p>4C; Stefánsson 1913:pl. opp. p. 266.</p><p>Caribou Eskimo Long-Pole Conical Tents—In summer, Caribou Eskimo</p><p>women erected a large conical tent, or tupeq (fig. 72). To raise a tent, two</p><p>women first hoisted a bipod (either poles or sled runners, lashed together)</p><p>while others in the family positioned several loose poles in the crotch of the</p><p>bipod and fanned them out to make a circle. The bipod had to incline rear-</p><p>ward, because its poles marked the sides of the tent’s entrance. In order to</p><p>stabilize this frame, they then wrapped the bipod’s lengthy thong a few times</p><p>around the apex, where the poles converged. Next, a caribou-fur tent cover</p><p>was drawn over the tent frame; its doorflap could be closed when needed.</p><p>Two skin strips, pierced with eyelets and sewn as reinforcement into the cover’s</p><p>front edges, helped cinch up this sheet about the frame (fig. 72C; Birket-Smith</p><p>1929:1:84–87, figs. 15–18). A circle of stone tent-cover weights and a sepa-</p><p>rate door flap completed each tent’s complement of essentials.</p><p>These tents were often structures of considerable size, requiring as many as</p><p>thirteen caribou skins (Gabus 1961:108). Tent covers had the fur left on,</p><p>except at the very front, where the hair was removed to allow more light</p><p>through the hide. In daytime or in breezy weather, a short upright pole might</p><p>prop open one flap to increase ventilation9 and lighting (fig. 72B).</p><p>Netsilik Short-Pole Conical Tents (probably more traditional)—Just west</p><p>of the Igluliks, the Netsiliks made tents that were simpler in design, “raised</p><p>into a conical form by means of a central pole, from which lines are extended,</p><p>and surrounded at the base by circles of stone” (Ross 1835b:23; see also</p><p>Parry 1821:283). Because no poles erupted above the tent’s apex, we call this</p><p>a short-pole conical tent. Presumably, each radiating line (thong) originated</p><p>near the tip of the pole and terminated in a loop around an anchoring rock.</p><p>The Netsilik configuration resembled a very drooping cone (given that they</p><p>lacked poles to support the sides of the cover), with the addition of a short</p><p>door thong attached to a pole outside (fig. 73). While this dwelling might be</p><p>FIGURE 72</p><p>Idealized Caribou Eskimo long-pole conical</p><p>tent: (A) floor plan (circles indicate pole place-</p><p>ments); (B) cutaway view; (C) detail, lacing</p><p>of tent cover.</p><p>After Birket-Smith 1929:1:figs. 15–18 and 108;</p><p>drawn by Jeanne E. Ellis.</p><p>CHAPTER 2—CENTRAL ARCTIC 61</p><p>considered typologically a thong-ridge tent, it seems more conservative to call</p><p>it essentially conical. The fore area seen in larger Central Arctic ridge tents</p><p>also seems to have been absent from Netsilik examples (see Balikci 1970:26).</p><p>In any case, the floor outline was more circular than apsidal. Missing from</p><p>Ross’s description is the T-forming crossbar that topped the pole, which ap-</p><p>pears in an early 1900s Netsilik tent (Taylor 1974:122). That modification</p><p>(fig. 68) appears to have been borrowed later from the Iglulik (Balikci 1970:26).</p><p>S A L L I R M I U T D O U B L E - A R C H T E N T S</p><p>Mathiassen’s reconstruction of the Sallirmiut double-arch tent type is superfi-</p><p>cial but it clearly demonstrates, as in the case</p><p>Native American Architecture (Nabokov and Easton 1986).</p><p>Because I had already declared a circumpolar specialty for my graduate</p><p>work, Nabokov asked me to do my class project on Eskimo architecture.</p><p>For the research, I plundered the riches of Berkeley’s vast northern holdings.</p><p>How well I remember sitting day after day in my carrel on the top floor of</p><p>Doe Library, surrounded by books, each older, heavier, and moldier than</p><p>the last. That winter, I literally marched across the Arctic in my pursuit of</p><p>every last house type, only occasionally glancing out the dormer window at</p><p>the Golden Gate Bridge, its spans poking out of the fog in the distance.</p><p>Compared with the daily demands now placed on me as a professor and</p><p>curator, that time was a luxury, one that has served me well in my subse-</p><p>quent research and teaching. I require my own graduate students to make</p><p>the same forced march across the Arctic, whatever their topic.</p><p>PREFACE</p><p>xii</p><p>As I was completing my research, which formed the basis of the Eskimo</p><p>chapter in Nabokov and Easton’s book, Peter Nabokov told me about a</p><p>young graduate student who was filing a dissertation on the same subject at</p><p>University of California, Los Angeles, under the supervision of Wendell Oswalt.</p><p>That young student was Gregory A. Reinhardt.</p><p>During the spring semester of 1986, in order to complete my research on</p><p>Eskimo architecture, I took a seminar with Jean Paul Bourdier in the Depart-</p><p>ment of Architecture at Berkeley. Studying with Bourdier, a talented draftsman</p><p>who specialized in African architecture, made me aware that my paper lacked</p><p>the drawings and photographs that would bring it to life. Some time later,</p><p>having seen Greg Reinhardt’s meticulous drawings in his dissertation, I called</p><p>and asked if he would be interested in co-authoring an article about Eskimo</p><p>dwellings. To my delight he accepted. The amount of information turned out</p><p>to be too voluminous for an article, and the book, along with Greg and his</p><p>wife Karen’s daughter, Allison, was born. Nine years—and one Reinhardt</p><p>son, Eric—later, and after many changes in my own life and latitude, we have</p><p>brought the project to completion. I am grateful for the countless hours that</p><p>Greg has devoted to the book, not only in contributing drawings and infor-</p><p>mation, but also in rounding up endless historical photographs and illustrations.</p><p>I look back with pleasure on our collaboration from start to finish. I cannot</p><p>imagine an Eskimo Architecture without him.</p><p>G R E G O R Y R E I N H A R D T:</p><p>Like Molly Lee, my academic focus had narrowed to the Arctic by the end of</p><p>my graduate career and four summer field seasons in northern Alaska. In</p><p>1985, while Molly Lee was taking her Native American architecture class at</p><p>Berkeley, I was living in Indianapolis and working on my dissertation, the</p><p>topic of which was Eskimo dwellings. Despite my archaeological experi-</p><p>ences, I nevertheless saw (and still see) myself as a generalist in anthropology.</p><p>About 1985, I met Peter Nabokov at Indiana University, where he was</p><p>giving a talk about Native American architecture, subject of the book he</p><p>had in press with architect Robert Easton. As a result of our meeting and</p><p>discussions of my dissertation, Peter asked me to review the Arctic chapter</p><p>of his and Easton’s book. When it was published, there I was—alongside</p><p>Molly Lee and Nelson Graburn—in the acknowledgments although with</p><p>my name inexplicably transformed into “Gotfried Reinhard.” I had known</p><p>of Molly Lee, of course, through her publications. The most prominent of</p><p>them, to me, was her book on baleen baskets, a subject relevant to my</p><p>northern Alaska research focus.</p><p>With the patient support of my wife, Karen Friss, and my mentor, Wendell</p><p>H. Oswalt, I filed my dissertation in 1986. In preparation for the book I</p><p>intended to publish subsequently, 90 pages of dwelling descriptions became</p><p>190, and I redrew some of my illustrations and created new ones. At the 1990</p><p>Alaska Anthropological Assocation meetings I was asked to referee Molly’s</p><p>article-length manuscript on Eskimo architecture for Arctic Anthropology.</p><p>Once Molly had read all the reviews, she invited me to co-author a revised</p><p>version. Eventually we realized we had a book on our hands.</p><p>xiii</p><p>At this point the project languished for several years until Molly had been</p><p>hired at Fairbanks. When the Alaska Anthropological Association meetings</p><p>were held there in 1996, Molly and I met face to face for the first time, and</p><p>took the book to the University of Alaska Press acquisitions editor, Pam</p><p>Odom, who expressed interest in the project. We submitted our first draft in</p><p>July of 1996 and, after more reviews, our final draft in May 1999.</p><p>Molly and I came to Eskimo Architecture by different routes, but this</p><p>book would have been impossible without her guidance. She breathed life</p><p>into my dry architectural details, kept us going with her cheery enthusiasm,</p><p>found archival materials, and edited with finesse, care, and civility. Because</p><p>of Molly, this is more than just a book on indigenous architecture: it is about</p><p>the people, too.</p><p>Acknowledgments—The authors wish to thank the many people who have</p><p>contributed to this work in past or present form, including Nezar AlSayyad,</p><p>Mary Beth Bagg, Margaret Blackman, Ernest S. Burch, Jr., Jennifer Collier,</p><p>Philip N. Cronenwett, Aron Crowell, Judy Dunlop, Ann Christine Eek, Bob</p><p>Finch, Nelson H. H. Graburn, Lawrence Kaplan, John MacDonald, Tho-</p><p>mas Ross Miller, Lisa M. Morris, Peter Nabokov, Pam Odom, Wendell H.</p><p>Oswalt, Kenneth Pratt, David P. Staley, Kesler E. Woodward, and three anony-</p><p>mous reviewers. James W. VanStone advised on many relevant issues and</p><p>topics, Jeanne E. Ellis produced and/or modified some illustrations, and Tammy</p><p>Greene assisted with bibliographic editing. Some material originally appeared</p><p>in a dissertation (Reinhardt 1986); the contributions toward that work by</p><p>Wendell H. Oswalt and the rest of Reinhardt’s Ph.D. committee (Rainer Berger,</p><p>Clement W. Meighan, Murray Milne, and Frank H. Weirich) are gratefully</p><p>acknowledged.</p><p>INTRODUCTION 1</p><p>INTRODUCTION</p><p>IGLOOS AND ACCURACY</p><p>EXPANDING THE DEFINITION OF ARCHITECTURE TO INCLUDE THE NONPEDIGREED</p><p>has opened for investigation a broad spectrum of the world’s building prac-</p><p>tices, including those of small-scale societies (Rudofsky 1964). Given the scholarly</p><p>attention paid to indigenous1 housing in other parts of the world over the past</p><p>two decades (e.g., Bourdier and Alsayyad 1989), a comprehensive appraisal of</p><p>Eskimo2 dwellings is long overdue.</p><p>Those outside the small circle of arctic specialists, however, are sure to greet</p><p>such a survey with surprise, if not dismay, for it challenges one of Westerners’</p><p>most cherished misconceptions about Eskimos. Thanks to the wide dissemina-</p><p>tion of nineteenth-century accounts of travel among Canadian and Greenlandic</p><p>Eskimos (e.g., Boas 1888; Kane 1856; Lyon 1824; Parry 1824; Peary 1898),</p><p>the snowblock “igloo” was cemented into our collective consciousness as a</p><p>key symbol of Eskimo culture. In reality, however, the domical snow house</p><p>associated with that term (igloo, or, more properly in the Inuit Eskimo lan-</p><p>guage, iglu, is a generic term for “house” in most Eskimo languages) was built</p><p>by only a small minority of Eskimos. Four hundred years of arctic literature</p><p>make clear that Eskimo architecture was anything but monolithic.</p><p>Entrenched though the igloo may be in the Western imagination, it was by</p><p>no means the first Eskimo dwelling type to be illustrated or described. This</p><p>honor belongs to a fanciful recreation of some Greenland summer tents adorning</p><p>a map published by Olaus Magnus in 1539 (Oswalt 1979:21, figs.1–2). Nei-</p><p>ther does the earliest-known written description of an Eskimo dwelling refer</p><p>In each house [the Eskimos] have only one room. . . .</p><p>One-half the floor [is] raised with broad stones . . .</p><p>whereon, strewing moss, they make their nests to sleep.</p><p>(George Best, 1577)</p><p>2 ESKIMO ARCHITECTURE</p><p>to an igloo,</p><p>of their winter houses, that</p><p>Sallirmiut architecture deviated from that of other Central Eskimo groups.</p><p>The whale-bone supports for this structure “consisted of two four-sided, up-</p><p>right frames, connected by two horizontal cross pieces [overhead?].” As</p><p>Mathiassen describes the tent, it appears that the entire frame described all</p><p>but two connected edges of a cube. However, this description seems partly</p><p>nonsensical, inasmuch as the tent must have had a shed roof, probably with a</p><p>pitch to the rear and some pole reinforcement of the roof’s center (cf. West</p><p>Greenland Double-Arch Tents, chapter 1; Siberian Eskimo Double-Arch Tents,</p><p>chapter 4). Otherwise, Murray Milne points out, as in wet weather the occu-</p><p>pants would have lived inside a large animal-hide water filter because the roof</p><p>center would sag with rain and soon drain water onto the floor and people</p><p>below (Milne, personal communication, 2001).</p><p>A sealskin cover, hair side out, draped over the frame, giving it a flat roof</p><p>and, compared to other Central Arctic tents, adding head room within. When</p><p>families conjoined two tents, they entered from one long side (presumably in</p><p>the middle), and skin partitions separated the left and right halves. A line of</p><p>stones delineated the unelevated sleeping areas inside from the rest of the floor</p><p>FIGURE 73</p><p>Netsilik-style conical tent with short poles.</p><p>Anonymous 1825:22, based on a drawing of an</p><p>Iglulik tent in Parry 1824: 271 ff.</p><p>62 ESKIMO ARCHITECTURE</p><p>(Mathiassen 1927a:270). Whether the tent had vertical, box-like sides, or needed</p><p>guy lines (two would be suitable, four even more stable), is unspecified. Flat</p><p>vertical sides would more readily catch the wind than diagonally spread out,</p><p>weighted-down sides (in contrast to the northern West Greenland erqulik de-</p><p>sign), but the relative stability of a solid, cubical framework might compensate</p><p>adequately for that.</p><p>A LT E R N AT I V E S U M M E R D W E L L I N G S</p><p>Hawkes (1916:63) describes the Labrador Eskimos’ long-pole conical tent, or</p><p>qanak (“tent pole”), as “more modern,” so we do not consider it to be the</p><p>primary indigenous type for Labrador. An ivory comb excavated from a Sallirmiut</p><p>archaeological site (fig. 74) is of long-pole conical—rather than double-arch—</p><p>form. Mathiassen thought it “strange to find pictures of such tents on an old</p><p>comb on Southampton Island” (Mathiassen 1927a:260). Of course, physical</p><p>location is not the same as cultural ascription: The comb may have originated</p><p>elsewhere or might depict another Eskimo (or even Indian) group’s tents.</p><p>Copper Eskimos, the westernmost of the Central Eskimos, typically used</p><p>ridgepole tents, although the short-pole conical tent with no smoke hole (char-</p><p>acteristic of coastal Eskimos farther west in Canada and Alaska) was known</p><p>there (Birket-Smith 1929:1:79; Jenness 1922:79–80; fig. 27). A tripod of wood</p><p>poles provided the central frame; for further stability a number of other poles</p><p>rested in the three crotches and rounded out a circle. This conical tent varia-</p><p>tion, described in the next chapter, differed from the squat hide cones found</p><p>dotting the Central Arctic tundra.10</p><p>For summertime protection while traveling, Copper Eskimos assembled a</p><p>skin-covered lean-to (fig. 75). To form the basic wind break, a canted row of</p><p>poles was anchored in the ground, then furs or a tent were draped over them.</p><p>A sturdier alternative required two bipods or tripods set some distance apart.</p><p>Slender ridgepoles, resting on the lateral uprights as well as medial bipods,</p><p>were positioned between these yokes. Long sticks leaned against this cross-</p><p>piece to complete the framework, across which the same kinds of siding were</p><p>hung (Jenness 1922:58, 131).</p><p>FIGURE 74</p><p>(above left) Incised ivory hair comb (miss-</p><p>ing at least three teeth) from a Sallirmiut</p><p>archaeological site, reworked to smooth its</p><p>lateral edges and showing two long-pole</p><p>conical tents. Is this an earlier Sallirmiut tent</p><p>design, or does the comb originate from an-</p><p>other place or people?</p><p>From Mathiassen 1927a:pl. 73,10.</p><p>FIGURE 75</p><p>(above right) “Sleeping under a wind-break,</p><p>Colville Hills, S.W. Victoria Island 1915.”</p><p>From Jenness 1922:pl. V, C.</p><p>CHAPTER 2—CENTRAL ARCTIC 63</p><p>Compared with ridge and conical tents, other summer options from the</p><p>Central Arctic seem meager and slipshod. For instance, the simple Labrador</p><p>Eskimo shelter used by those “too poor to own a skin tent” (Turner 1894:226)</p><p>consisted of a caribou blanket over a few wooden supports, and it might</p><p>compare with the Copper Eskimos’ “triangular shelter” (Stefánsson 1914:66).</p><p>As its name indicates, this pyramidal Copper Eskimo structure consisted of</p><p>tent-cover furs wrapped around a tripod, quadripod, or some other simple</p><p>frame (Jenness 1922:58, 80, 134). Still more destitute Labrador Eskimos slept</p><p>behind stone windbreaks (Turner 1894:226), which may equate with “camp-</p><p>ing houses” that also served as hunting blinds (Hawkes 1916:62–63). Caribou</p><p>Eskimos had a short-term shelter “erected in the form of a wind-screen of</p><p>skin supported by three or four poles” (Birket-Smith 1945:191); perhaps it</p><p>was a lean-to. Traveling Iglulik hunters built similar retreats with round to</p><p>rectangular floor plans (Mathaissen 1928:129). Additionally, Copper Eski-</p><p>mos made an emergency shelter from caribou furs covering a space between</p><p>rocks, and one old woman built a rude, fur-covered rock structure for herself</p><p>(Jenness 1922:59).</p><p>In Copper Eskimo territory Stefánsson (1914:228) spotted a round or</p><p>square tent-ring (i.e., stone outlines remaining after people pull up their tents</p><p>and depart) with a diameter of eight feet. That is, the design did not reflect a</p><p>typical ridge tent. Among a different series of elliptical tent-rings at an aban-</p><p>doned encampment was one measuring nine by ten feet that had been cross-cut</p><p>by a line of stones—probable evidence for a sleeping area border (Jenness</p><p>1922:82, fig. 29). Hawkes (1916:fig. 11.1)—and Packard (1885:557) also</p><p>mention abandoned circular tent rings in Labrador.</p><p>A S P E C T S O F C E N T R A L E S K I M O T E N T L I F E</p><p>Central Eskimo women, who made the tents and usually erected them, sewed</p><p>tent covers from the skins of commonly hunted animals, normally either cari-</p><p>bou or seal. The number of skins required varied according to size. For instance,</p><p>seal-hunting Labrador Eskimos needed ten to fifteen sealskins to house “a</p><p>good sized family” (Turner 1894:227). Some tent covers, such as those of the</p><p>Iglulik, combined different types of skin. For example, at the back a cover</p><p>might be made of fur for warmth and, for transmitting light, the front might</p><p>employ a split walrus hide or other depilated skins (fig. 68). At times, people</p><p>made double-size tents by “joining the mouths of two single ones, and mak-</p><p>ing the opening on one side” (Lyon 1824:229), so that two families could</p><p>share them. In such instances, the entrance was in the center of one long side</p><p>(Jenness 1922:81, 85, 131, fig. 30; Lyon 1824:229). Boas illustrates tandem</p><p>tents from southeast Baffin Island that are joined near their separate entryways</p><p>so as to share about half of one tent-side apiece between them (1888:553, fig.</p><p>506), an economical adaptation.</p><p>One major determinant of regional variations was the availability of wood.</p><p>For example, the so-called “summer tent” of the Iglulik and Netsilik appears</p><p>to be a simplified version of their ridge tents but using less wood (Damas</p><p>1984a:405; Jenness 1922:80-81). In the event of shortages, whale bones or</p><p>narwhal tusks could be substituted for the crosspieces (T-bars) or spliced</p><p>64 ESKIMO ARCHITECTURE</p><p>together into uprights, and a heavy thong or whale bone might act as the ridge</p><p>(Boas 1888:551–552). The size of ridgepole tents varied accordingly. Ridge-</p><p>poles for Copper Eskimo tents were five feet above the ground and seven feet</p><p>long, extending the floor’s effective length to about nine feet (Stefánsson 1914:66).</p><p>Iglulik tents had seven-foot tent poles and ranged in size from ten</p><p>to fourteen</p><p>feet across for round to oval floor plans, or seven to nine feet wide by seven-</p><p>teen feet long for rather apsidal plans (Lyon 1824:229; Parry 1824:271).</p><p>Arctic tents must have been cold in early spring.11 Paradoxically, however,</p><p>snow could be used to lessen the dwellers’ discomfort (fig. 76). When the</p><p>snow was still deep enough Copper Eskimos sometimes cut snowblocks</p><p>and fashioned a foundation of them, seating the tent cover’s skirt on this</p><p>platform. More blocks created an encircling barrier against windy weather,</p><p>the interstices between wall and cover being filled with loose snow. Near the</p><p>typical doorflap entryway, an ice pane lit up an added-on surface passage of</p><p>snowblocks. Snow also served to make sleeping platforms and side platforms</p><p>during this period (Jenness 1922:76, 78–79, fig. 27).</p><p>For seminomadic peoples such as the Central Eskimos, a heavy tent cover was</p><p>usually the most burdensome piece of equipment to move; thus, they devised</p><p>endless methods for transporting it. Caribou Eskimos did not use dogsleds in</p><p>summer, so they had to carry the single-layer cover and the dozen or more poles</p><p>on foot, whereas the East and West Greenland tents, though much heavier, re-</p><p>mained practical because those campers hauled their dual-layer covers and many</p><p>poles by umiak. The eastern Netsilitk showed even greater ingenuity in solving</p><p>the transportation dilemma. Following freeze-up, the tent cover could be trans-</p><p>formed into a sled by cutting it in two, wetting each cover-half and rolling it</p><p>around frozen fish, quickly sculpting the rolls into sled runners as they froze,</p><p>coating the undersides with moss and ice to prevent erosion of the runners when</p><p>in service, and lashing ladder-like slats (bones, antlers, etc.) to their top sides</p><p>(Balikci 1970:48–49; Faegre 1979:127; Hantzisch 1931–32:63).</p><p>As with countless other dimensions of Eskimo culture, house construction</p><p>encoded seasonal and gender complementarity (Giffen 1930). Men built iglus;</p><p>women pitched tupiks. Here again, the procedure was much the same every-</p><p>where across the Arctic. The first step was to lay out large, flat anchoring</p><p>FIGURE 76</p><p>“Prince Albert Sound—spring house, sled,</p><p>and dogs” presents a Copper Eskimo tent</p><p>reinforced with snowblocks, including a</p><p>carved doorway.</p><p>From Stefánsson 1913:300 ff.</p><p>CHAPTER 2—CENTRAL ARCTIC 65</p><p>stones in the shape of the intended floor. (Anything else of mass might be</p><p>substituted: snowblocks, gravel, wood, turf, etc.) Next, the cover was spread</p><p>out and adjusted. For ridge tents, the rear section was secured and crosspieces</p><p>inserted through pockets (if any) sewn to the inside of the cover. Any</p><p>additional pieces to the frame were added, and the guylines drawn taut. The</p><p>cover was then weighted with the stones. After this, the crosspieces were</p><p>raised and the ridgepole inserted into sockets at the apex of the crosspieces.</p><p>Poles at the front were then fanned out and positioned, along with any addi-</p><p>tional pieces or supports to the frame. Finally the cover was laced to the</p><p>ridgepole, then tightened, anchoring it with the ring of stones on the ground,</p><p>which would thereafter indicate an earlier settlement (Jenness 1922:78; Low</p><p>1906:154; Mathiassen 1928:135).</p><p>Ways of pitching conical tents or the conical portions of ridge tents could</p><p>deviate in some respects. When tents relied on a lone centerpole, a stone foot-</p><p>ing for it was usual. Women might lean all additional cone-forming poles</p><p>against the rear bipod or tripod before raising the cover, the halves of which</p><p>some groups tied to poles at the rear. To prevent sagging at the midpoint,</p><p>ridgepoles could be propped up with an extra bipod (fig. 77, left tent; Birket-</p><p>Smith 1929:1:84–86; Turner 1894:227).</p><p>Setting up housekeeping in a tent differed from group to group. A raised</p><p>platform usually sat at the rear, lamps at the front, and sometimes a</p><p>fireplace at the front but more often outside (fig. 77, center tent; Birket-Smith</p><p>1929:1:86; Leechman 1945:39). Again, a physical divider usually separated</p><p>the two spaces, front from rear; poles (figs. 63, 65, 72) or stones (fig. 68) were</p><p>typical separators. In Labrador Eskimo tents, piled turf approximated the</p><p>raised sleeping platform of winter houses (fig. 63). Copper Eskimos even used</p><p>snowblocks for the same purpose at times. Occasionally they stacked them to</p><p>form low walls outside—or tunnels leading into—their tents (fig. 76), as noted</p><p>above, but they did not use any platform in warmer weather (Jenness 1922:79,</p><p>fig. 27). For similar walls, the Iglulik built up a few courses of stone onto</p><p>those anchoring the tent covers (Parry 1824:90).</p><p>Despite the tent’s darkness, Eskimo women across the Arctic sat inside</p><p>during the day sewing without the annoyance of ubiquitous mosquitoes.</p><p>FIGURE 77</p><p>“A summer camp on the prairie, Copper</p><p>Eskimos.” A bipod supports the left tent’s</p><p>ridgepole at its midpoint, the center tent</p><p>appears to have a windbreak to its right (pos-</p><p>sibly protecting a hearth just right of the</p><p>standing figure), and, beside the right tent,</p><p>meat strips (caribou?) dry on a low thong</p><p>or pole(s).</p><p>From Stefánsson 1921:opp. 371.</p><p>66 ESKIMO ARCHITECTURE</p><p>Men, too, carried out “various small tasks” indoors (Birket-Smith 1929:1:75).</p><p>On entering some tents, the first thing one would encounter would be a stone</p><p>hearth lying just inside and next to the family cooking equipment.12</p><p>SPECIAL-USE STRUCTURES</p><p>L E S S E R S T R U C T U R E S</p><p>In the Central Arctic other structures coexisted with the principal snow dwell-</p><p>ings. An example is the Iglulik children’s miniature snow house, possibly like</p><p>Ammassalik playhouses. One can presume its similar use because a child</p><p>“[would beg] a lighted wick from her mother’s lamp to illuminate the little</p><p>dwelling” (Parry 1824:434). Copper Eskimo children built miniature snow</p><p>houses, too (Jenness 1922:115). These tiny structures, however, may have</p><p>been more comparable to the toy dollhouses of Western children.</p><p>Associated utilitarian structures in Iglulik winter villages included separate</p><p>little snow houses built to store equipment, house dogs, and serve as latrines</p><p>(Mathiassen 1928:129), plus ice slabs or snowblocks (stood on end) to keep</p><p>kayaks and dogsleds above the reach of dogs (fig. 62; Birket-Smith 1929:1:75).</p><p>Smaller ice slabs were also cemented into cube-like doghouses (fig. 62). The</p><p>Sallirmiut built limestone salmon caches and other storage structures, the</p><p>latter being short, conical, and looking like “tower traps” (Mathiassen</p><p>1927a:225). Stone stacks were probably universal, wherever stones were ac-</p><p>cessible, for storing kayaks and sleds out of dogs’ reach. Finally, many Central</p><p>Eskimos built fish weirs, or dams, to trap migrating species such as salmon</p><p>and char as they swam upstream to spawn.</p><p>Stone and skin “camping houses” in Labrador also “served [the hunter] as</p><p>a blind” (Hawkes 1916:62–63). Circular structures with rock walls were con-</p><p>structed in high places as lookouts, windbreaks, and shelters. These or related</p><p>structures were also employed by Copper Eskimos (Stefánsson 1914:71) and</p><p>by populations as far away as the Bering Sea (Hawkes 1916:62). The Iglulik,</p><p>Netsilik, and some Caribou Eskimos turned snowblocks into windbreaks while</p><p>they waited to hunt seals at their breathing holes (Parry 1824:172 ff). Crouched</p><p>out of the numbing airstream, men sat patiently on a small snowblock seat</p><p>(Parry 1824:143), probably with a pad of fur underfoot (Birket-Smith</p><p>1929:1:128). Hunters would “sometimes sit ten or twelve hours in this man-</p><p>ner, at a temperature of 30 or 40 degrees below zero, without hearing a seal”</p><p>(Lyon 1824:331). In summer, windbreaks of skins or bundled brush, which</p><p>eventually became fuel for the fire, shielded women against the wind as they</p><p>sat or cooked outside their tents (Birket-Smith 1929:1:75, fig. 10; Mathiassen</p><p>1928:135).</p><p>B I R T H , M E N S T R U A L , A N D D E AT H H U T S</p><p>Less common special-use structures include those related to taboos; we call</p><p>them</p><p>birth, menstrual, and death huts (after Reinhardt 1986). Birth and men-</p><p>strual huts generally were used for sleeping and therefore technically qualify</p><p>CHAPTER 2—CENTRAL ARCTIC 67</p><p>as a type of dwelling, but because of their association with ritualized restric-</p><p>tions we feel they are better classified as special-use structures. All three hut</p><p>forms are more common in the Western Arctic, but do appear in the Central</p><p>Arctic (e.g., Boas 1888:610; 1901:159). Postpartum Sallirmiut women had to</p><p>stay indoors until they were “clean.” During menstrual periods a woman was</p><p>“not to go out through the same door as the others but had her own opening</p><p>in the tent;” if in a house at that time, she could not leave it at all (Mathiassen</p><p>1927a:282). A sort of mourning tent—perhaps atypical—sheltered one Cop-</p><p>per Eskimo woman whose child had died recently (Jenness 1922:164 n2).</p><p>The Iglulik built a death hut, the term we use to define special-use struc-</p><p>tures meant to house those seen as especially sick (Boas 1888:610) or terminally</p><p>ill. One snowblock example had a ten-foot tunnel and a dome six feet broad</p><p>by four to five feet high (Lyon 1824:357, 389–390; Parry 1824:408–409);</p><p>inside, a weak lamp lit this windowless chamber. With the hut closed tightly,</p><p>the lamp’s flicker, at first smoky and choking, may have bestowed a humane</p><p>end by carbon monoxide suffocation. A Copper Eskimo song suggests that</p><p>death huts occurred in their territory, too (Reinhardt 1986:115):</p><p>Here I lie, recollecting</p><p>How stifled with fear I was</p><p>When they buried me</p><p>In a snow hut on the lake. . . .</p><p>A block of snow was pushed to . . .</p><p>That door-block worried me. . . (Rasmussen 1932:136).</p><p>On the other hand, Jenness (1922:174) states that the bodies of Copper</p><p>Eskimos who died in winter were surrounded by snowblock windbreaks to</p><p>protect them from the elements. Clearly, some confusion remains. Does the</p><p>song refer to a true death hut, into which a dying person is sealed, or does it</p><p>refer to a corpse recalling some other postmortem burial chamber?</p><p>C E R E M O N I A L H O U S E S</p><p>Outside Greenland the Eskimo qaggiq/qargi/qasgiq13 was virtually ubiqui-</p><p>tous in the historic period. Among the Central Eskimos it served both genders</p><p>(for ceremonies and more secular dances) and was usually nonresidential in</p><p>any real sense. Boas (1888:597, 600–603) refers to the qaggiq as a “singing</p><p>house,” and a place for feasting and dancing as well. Taylor (1990) has con-</p><p>structed a thorough account of the Labrador qaggiq complex, which had all</p><p>but disappeared by the nineteenth century. The Labrador Eskimo snowblock</p><p>qaggiq had a tunnel that led from an antechamber and adjoined the main</p><p>dome (Hawkes 1916:59). On Baffin Island, light was provided by one or</p><p>more lamps, which sat on an ice pillar (fig. 78; Bilby 1923:217–219), and by</p><p>a window of ice in the side of the dome.</p><p>Every Caribou Eskimo qaggiq was “merely an ordinary snow house built</p><p>on a larger scale” (Birket-Smith 1929:1:269–270); one seen near Iglulik terri-</p><p>tory was twenty-five feet across and twelve feet high. A Labrador qaggiq, or</p><p>“pleasure-house,” built in 1777 stood sixteen feet vertically and, astound-</p><p>ingly, seventy feet diametrically (Packard 1885:478)! Among other Central</p><p>68 ESKIMO ARCHITECTURE</p><p>Arctic groups the courtyards of snow house settlements were domed over to</p><p>become dance houses. This architectural approach to satisfying community</p><p>needs had an economic advantage as well: It conserved energy—labor as well</p><p>as lamp fuel. The Baffin Island qaggiq (fig. 78) was</p><p>generally built upon the usual round plan of the igloo, sometimes three being</p><p>grouped together, apse and transept fashion, with a common entrance (nave).</p><p>The company disposes itself in concentric rings round the house, married</p><p>women by the wall, spinsters in front of them, and a ring of men to the front.</p><p>Children are grouped on either side of the door, and the singer or dancer,</p><p>stripped to the waist, takes his stand amid them and remains on the one spot</p><p>all the time. (Bilby 1923:217–218)</p><p>On a single night one dual-domed Copper Eskimo house-with-qaggiq</p><p>accommodated twelve dogs and twenty-five young people, then sixty people</p><p>during a festival (Rasmussen 1932:129; Stefánsson 1914:62, 65). Obviously</p><p>temperatures would skyrocket in such circumstances.</p><p>The Copper Eskimo qaggiq was “never a separate structure standing by</p><p>itself” (Jenness 1922:112). As few as two Copper Eskimo families would build</p><p>FIGURE 78</p><p>“A kagge or singing house [side and plan</p><p>views],” with an entrance passage or tun-</p><p>nel. This Baffin Island structure had a central</p><p>roof-supporting pillar on which celebrants</p><p>placed lamps at varying heights.</p><p>From Bilby 1923:218–219.</p><p>CHAPTER 2—CENTRAL ARCTIC 69</p><p>a dance dome, ordinarily placing it between the tunnel exit and the smaller</p><p>sleeping-chamber dome(s) (fig. 47, large dome in center). Stefánsson mentions</p><p>a Copper Eskimo dome measuring ten yards across and holding a hundred</p><p>people for a celebration (Birket-Smith 1936:126). Another qaggiq sheltered</p><p>forty party-goers and still left a five-foot circle open in its center; peak heights</p><p>of nine to ten feet were not uncommon (Rasmussen 1932:129; Stefánsson</p><p>1914:62). The Iglulik sometimes required two snow domes for their qaggiq</p><p>activities (Mathiassen 1928:131; Nourse 1879:90). At a prehistoric Iglulik-</p><p>area site with fifteen abandoned dwellings stood a stone edifice, very likely a</p><p>qaggiq related to whaling ceremonies. Its walls (large limestone slabs) were</p><p>about three feet high and its floor was some fifteen feet in diameter. Slabs,</p><p>polished through use, formed a concentric bench within this circle, and in the</p><p>center sat another bench-like stone (Lyon 1824:448; Parry 1824:362–363).</p><p>ASSOCIATED RITUALS AND BELIEFS</p><p>CENTRAL ESKIMOS OBSERVED RITUALS IN CONNECTION WITH SNOW-HOUSE</p><p>building. For instance, to ensure good luck for their children, they removed</p><p>from the house any chips left over from fitting the blocks together. For the</p><p>same reason the initial sloped block for a new tier had to be cut out from the</p><p>snow (rather than poked loose), and the softest end of the dome’s final, over-</p><p>head block had to face the rear of the house. When a family hoped for a son,</p><p>they believed this last block should be made larger than the block preceding it</p><p>(Birket-Smith 1929:1:82). If a child was born in the winter house, its after-</p><p>birth had to be removed through a special hole in the wall and a new house</p><p>built within five days (Rasmussen 1931:505). Around western Hudson Bay,</p><p>new mothers could “re-enter the hut a few days after delivery, but must pass</p><p>in by a separate entrance” (Boas 1888:611), and they could not enter another</p><p>house for two months.</p><p>Nonempirical factors were major determinants in the placement of Eskimo</p><p>settlements (e.g., Burch 1971). Birket-Smith points to one such example, an</p><p>island in Baker Lake that would have made an ideal summer site. Caribou</p><p>Eskimos avoided the spot, however, because it was thought to be inhabited by</p><p>spirits—several people had disappeared there in the past (Birket-Smith 1929:1:73).</p><p>In the Central Arctic the dwelling figured in many rituals and beliefs associ-</p><p>ated with death. According to Boas, for example, when a death occurred</p><p>“everything that had been in contact with the deceased must be destroyed”</p><p>(1888:610); this explains the isolation of the terminally ill in a special death</p><p>hut. As another example, mothers of recently deceased infants could not en-</p><p>ter a house until all the men had first withdrawn from it (Boas 1888:612).</p><p>According to Netsilik custom, furthermore, no frost could be scraped from</p><p>the window for several days after a death. Finally, to ensure that game ani-</p><p>mals would not leave the vicinity, platform bedding was not to be rearranged</p><p>during periods of mourning (Rasmussen 1931:505; cf. Boas 1901:147).</p><p>Folk beliefs also linked dwellings with other occupations. Killing seals re-</p><p>quired some gesture of respect, thus when a seal carcass was dragged into a</p><p>70 ESKIMO ARCHITECTURE</p><p>house the women could do no other work until it was butchered. Related</p><p>taboos governed the consuming, storing, and handling of sea mammal meat</p><p>indoors when caribou meat was present (Boas 1888:595). Another ritual linked</p><p>to dwellings was the prohibition of sewing winter clothing in a summer tent.</p><p>This taboo was hard to enforce in a year when winter came late, because</p><p>sewing needed to begin before there was enough snow for winter house build-</p><p>ing. The Netsilik solved the problem by erecting a transitional qarmaq, an</p><p>acceptable substitute because it had a base of snowblocks and not an earthen</p><p>(summer) floor (Rasmussen 1931:503). This belief also “[forced] them to</p><p>look for the earliest snows of the fall,” at which spot they would shovel to-</p><p>gether enough to build a rudimentary house until heavier snowfall produced</p><p>drifts from which to cut proper snowblocks (Rasmussen 1926:409). Another</p><p>reported belief was that a pair of caribou antlers could be put over the door-</p><p>way of a house as a sign for travelers of good hunting in the region (Rasmussen</p><p>1931:328 ff.). Also, for hunting luck, house occupants would clear bones</p><p>from the floor before abandoning it and, if traveling far, would bury some</p><p>clothing. Furthermore, when many people moved from a village, those who</p><p>stayed would build fresh snow houses (Boas 1888:596).</p><p>Both winter houses and tents (and household equipment such as lamps)</p><p>appear prominently in string figure games (e.g., Jenness 1924:75, 78, 83,</p><p>110), and the Iglulik word for rainbow, kataujak, literally means “entrance to</p><p>an igloo” (MacDonald 1998:159). The Iglulik have one story about a snow</p><p>house that could fly off with its inhabitants on dark nights (Rasmussen 1929).</p><p>Nevertheless, Eskimos, unlike other native North Americans, lack any char-</p><p>ter myths to account for the origins of house form (Boas 1904).</p><p>CHAPTER 2—CENTRAL ARCTIC 71</p><p>CHAPTER 2 NOTES</p><p>1 Even the notion of geographic divisions of Eskimo societies varies. For ex-</p><p>ample, Oswalt (1979) refers to Greenlanders as “Eastern Eskimos,” to most</p><p>Canadian groups as “Central Eskimos,” and to Canada‘s Mackenzie Delta</p><p>Eskimos and all Eskimo peoples in Alaska, the Bering Sea and Strait, and Sibe-</p><p>ria as “Western Eskimos.” In contrast, Burch (1988) simply divides the Eskimo</p><p>culture area in half, Greenland and Canada (east of the Mackenzie Delta) sub-</p><p>sumes “Eastern Eskimos” and, west of there, all are “Western Eskimos.”</p><p>2 At the western end of this region, the Mackenzie Delta Eskimos (Inuvialuit)</p><p>built small snowblock houses when hunting on the ice (Smith 1984:349) but</p><p>made their primary winter dwellings of cribbed logs (allying the Inuvialuit stylis-</p><p>tically with the Iñupiaq Eskimos of Northwestern Alaska).</p><p>3 Oddly, as early as the 1890s, local Eskimos could not explain the reason for</p><p>having abandoned the traditional subterranean tunnels (Turner 1894:228).</p><p>4 “According to Ross . . . [the Netsilik] make the [ice] slab by letting water freeze</p><p>in a sealskin” (Boas 1888:542).</p><p>5 Snow-house construction is also described by Birket-Smith (1929:1:78–83,</p><p>1936:125), Boas (1888:540), Forbin (1926), Gabus (1940, 1944:60–73, 1947),</p><p>Gibson and Comack (1940), Jenness (1922:61–62, 64, 76), Mathiassen (1928:120–</p><p>123), Michea (1957), Rowley (1938), and Wulsin (1949:4–9).</p><p>6 Snowballs also served as venthole plugs.</p><p>7 Hearths and lamps need not be mutually exclusive, though. One may provide</p><p>mainly heat (and mosquito-repelling smoke), the other one light.</p><p>8 Hall observed a different type of Iglulik tent, made with many poles, at a site</p><p>between Chesterfield Inlet and Wager Bay (Nourse 1879:68–69). It seemed to</p><p>drop to the rear as if lacking the rear-end structure of ridged tents.</p><p>9 Birket-Smith (1929:1:86–87) treats this arrangement as a windbreak, yet it</p><p>would not have been as effective as lowering the flap.</p><p>10 Labrador Eskimos also raised conical tents, much like Caribou Eskimo ex-</p><p>amples, though they evidently borrowed the idea from nearby Indians (Hawkes</p><p>1916:63; Saladin d’Anglure 1984:482).</p><p>11 According to Jenness: “a tent in which the flame of the lamp extended about</p><p>eighteen inches [of wick length, not flame height] gave a temperature of 43</p><p>degrees F . . . though the thermometer outside stood at zero” (Jenness 1922:79).</p><p>12 Weather permitting, however, women preferred to cook outdoors (Birket-Smith</p><p>1929:1:fig. 10).</p><p>13 See chapter 1, note 13 for a discussion of the varied Eskimo spellings of the</p><p>ceremonial house.</p><p>152˚</p><p>Arctic</p><p>Circle</p><p>152˚</p><p>0</p><p>0</p><p>200</p><p>300</p><p>Miles</p><p>Kilometers</p><p>Historical Site</p><p>Contemporary Village</p><p>Norton Sound</p><p>B</p><p>er</p><p>in</p><p>g</p><p>Se</p><p>a</p><p>Arctic Ocean</p><p>RiverKotzebue</p><p>Sound</p><p>Klikitarik</p><p>(Qikiqtagruk)</p><p>St. Michael</p><p>(Taciq)</p><p>Cape</p><p>Nome</p><p>Diomede</p><p>Islands</p><p>B</p><p>er</p><p>in</p><p>g</p><p>St</p><p>ra</p><p>it</p><p>Cape Prince</p><p>of Wales</p><p>Seward Peninsula</p><p>Kivalina</p><p>Point</p><p>Hope</p><p>Icy Cape</p><p>Wainwright</p><p>Barrow</p><p>Point Barrow</p><p>Hotham Inlet</p><p>IslandKing</p><p>Alaska</p><p>Y</p><p>u</p><p>k</p><p>o</p><p>n</p><p>Canada</p><p>T</p><p>errito</p><p>ry</p><p>Mackenzie</p><p>Delta</p><p>Keewalik</p><p>(Kivalliq)</p><p>Brooks Range</p><p>River</p><p>Kobuk</p><p>Noatak</p><p>River</p><p>Yuko</p><p>n</p><p>Chukchi Sea</p><p>FIGURE 79</p><p>Map of Northwest Arctic and Bering Strait.</p><p>Produced by Robert Drozda.</p><p>CHAPTER 3— NORTHWEST ARCTIC AND BERING STRAIT 73</p><p>THE NORTHWEST ARCTIC AND BERING STRAIT, HOMELAND OF INUVIALUK-</p><p>Iñupiaq speaking Eskimos, extends westward from the Mackenzie Delta in</p><p>Canada to the southeastern part of the Seward Peninsula in Alaska; it also</p><p>includes King Island and Little and Big Diomede Islands in Bering Strait (fig.</p><p>79). Compared to the populations of the Eastern and Central Arctic, the re-</p><p>gion-wide aboriginal population here was high, approaching 13,000 (Oswalt</p><p>1979:314 ff).1 Sometimes called the Western or Northwestern Arctic, this</p><p>region differs from the Central and Greenlandic Arctic in its seasonal surfeit</p><p>of driftwood. As a result, wood replaced the snow, bone, and stone that were</p><p>standard building materials farther east.</p><p>WINTER HOUSES</p><p>BY AND LARGE, NORTHWEST ARCTIC AND BERING STRAIT ESKIMOS</p><p>constructed three types of turf-covered, semisubterranean winter house: (1)</p><p>cross-shaped dwellings of the Mackenzie Delta; (2) rectangular dwellings in</p><p>the vicinity of Barrow and Point Hope; and (3) farther southwest, pole- or</p><p>timber-built variants2 of the rectangular plan with central fireplaces, differ-</p><p>ently placed sleeping platforms, and shorter tunnels and/or passageways.</p><p>M A C K E N Z I E D E LTA W O O D E N H O U S E S</p><p>As North America’s second-largest water course, the Mackenzie River sup-</p><p>plied Eskimos of the Mackenzie Delta and, indeed, much of the western Arctic</p><p>coast, with abundant driftwood from forested riverbanks south of treeline,</p><p>The [skin tent] was built of willow poles . . .</p><p>the warmth inside had caused the buds on [their]</p><p>tiny twigs to leaf out a soft pale green. . . .</p><p>(Oliver 1989)</p><p>3</p><p>NORTHWEST ARCTIC AND BERING STRAIT</p><p>74 ESKIMO ARCHITECTURE</p><p>FIGURE 80</p><p>Idealized Mackenzie Eskimo winter wooden</p><p>house (Reinhardt and Lee 1997:1798, cour-</p><p>tesy of Cambridge University Press). A</p><p>snowblock winter passageway leads to a hole</p><p>in the pitched “floor” at the entrance to the</p><p>house itself (left wing, bottom). The three re-</p><p>maining wings or alcoves (bottom) would have</p><p>accommodated one to two families each.</p><p>After Petitot 1970:figs. 28–29; Stefánsson</p><p>1914:figs. 87–88.</p><p>FIGURE 81</p><p>Side and plan views of a Mackenzie Delta</p><p>wooden house.</p><p>From Petitot 1876:14; 1970:164.</p><p>CHAPTER 3— NORTHWEST ARCTIC AND BERING STRAIT 75</p><p>deep in Canada’s interior (Dyke et al. 1997). Few Eskimo populations could</p><p>boast comparable access to wood, although this important building material</p><p>becomes more available as a whole from the Mackenzie River westward. In</p><p>this area, the winter house dates back some 400 to 500 years (McGhee 1974:93)</p><p>and has an uncommon cross-shaped floor plan (figs. 80–82).</p><p>Mackenzie Eskimo wooden iglus were reached through a curved, surface-</p><p>level snowblock passageway (figs. 80–81) rather like the tunnels of Copper</p><p>Eskimo snow houses immediately to the east (fig. 47). Ethnographic</p><p>and ar-</p><p>chaeological assessments conflsealkinether the house floor was excavated much</p><p>below ground level (fig. 80; McGhee 1974:23; Petitot 1876:13; Stefánsson</p><p>1914:160). The squarish focal room was made of logs and planks, and four</p><p>tall forked posts rose from its corners. In the crotches of these posts lay four</p><p>short rafters, which shouldered horizontal roof boards and a cribbed central</p><p>roof. Old drawings of a Mackenzie Eskimo house (figs. 81–82) show posts</p><p>with large, perfectly Y-shaped forks, but people also made do with inverted</p><p>tree trunks. In the middle of the roof was a skylight that consisted of either an</p><p>ice pane (only in very cold weather) or an oiled membrane made from gull</p><p>necks, sealskin, polar bear intestines, or beluga stomachs (e.g., Petitot 1970:160;</p><p>1981:31; Stefánsson 1922:133).</p><p>An important feature of the Mackenzie house was its four roof wings. They</p><p>projected at right angles from the central roof, slanting down to rest on stringers,</p><p>which sat in the crotches of paired posts. These shorter posts marked the two</p><p>back corners to each alcove of the house (fig. 80). At the foot of the descend-</p><p>ing roof wings were probably poles, planks, or scrap wood, stacked vertically</p><p>against the back wall stringers to form the four low, rear alcove walls of the</p><p>building. It appears that the structure had very little vertical back-wall height</p><p>except behind the doorway (contrary to figure 82), and there, perhaps, only</p><p>because occupants needed extra headroom for entering. Between each alcove,</p><p>logs simply leaned from the ground up against the slanting roof-wing edges,</p><p>creating diagonal side walls for that alcove (fig. 83). Consequently, the string-</p><p>ers that run from the center posts to corner posts in Petitot’s depiction (fig. 81)</p><p>were likely superfluous (cf. fig. 80; Mauss and Beuchat 1979:fig. 3). Men</p><p>finished the interior surfaces of crib-roof logs and floor and wall planks using</p><p>stone- and, later, steel-headed adzes.</p><p>FIGURE 82</p><p>“Interior of the igloo of Noulloumallok.”</p><p>Stylized view of one sleeping area within the</p><p>house, indicating leaned timbers for the back</p><p>wall. Heavy Y-shaped posts uphold part of</p><p>the frame (inaccurately drawn) supporting</p><p>the central roof (with skylight). Note the</p><p>slightly raised sleeping platform, soapstone</p><p>lamps (also misdrawn) on lateral wooden</p><p>stands (with drying racks—evidently</p><p>floating—above them) that sit on the cen-</p><p>tral floor, and a general clutter of utensils,</p><p>vessels, and weapons about the house.</p><p>From Petitot 1887; 1981:40.</p><p>FIGURE 83</p><p>“Mackenzie River house in summer. The</p><p>doorway to the forty-foot alleyway is at the</p><p>left of the picture.” Note the rude stacking</p><p>of timbers, some vertical, others horizontal.</p><p>From Stefánsson 1913:60 ff.</p><p>76 ESKIMO ARCHITECTURE</p><p>Three alcoves of the house served as family areas. According to Petitot</p><p>(1876:15; 1981:40) one family would occupy one side of each low (only slightly</p><p>higher than floor level) platform. This suggests that a wooden iglu normally</p><p>housed six families (Stefánsson 1914:166).3 Each family’s lamp sat on a small</p><p>stand (rather than a sizeable lamp platform) composed of a stone or of sticks</p><p>somehow arranged to elevate the lamp slightly (fig. 82). Occupants occasion-</p><p>ally used the trap-door entryway (the fourth alcove) for additional living space.</p><p>In the middle of the house, lower than the platforms, was a square communal</p><p>floor (figs. 80–82). The interior room measured about ten feet deep and</p><p>twelve feet wide. Simple logs functioned as subfloor joists to level the floor</p><p>boards (McGhee 1974:31). To the right of the door stood a small platform for</p><p>an extra lamp, and, to the left, another platform “on which is a recipient</p><p>serving an all together different purpose,” as Petitot delicately described the</p><p>wooden urine bucket (Petitot 1970:168).</p><p>People came and went by means of a low entryway about two feet in height.</p><p>This doorway could be either a squared aperture (figs. 80–81) or a pair of</p><p>thick boards, which, when juxtaposed, left an oval opening between them</p><p>(Stefánsson 1914:159–160).4 Above the trap door was an ice window set into</p><p>this wing of the roof. Exactly how the builders of this fourth wing achieved</p><p>this angled floor, supported it from beneath, and made it articulate with the</p><p>vertical front wall remains unclear (fig. 80).</p><p>With the wooden structure completed, men blanketed the entire building in</p><p>turf (cut sods), then banked both passageway and house with a mixture of</p><p>earth and snow cemented together with water. Once enough snow was avail-</p><p>able they assembled from snowblocks a passageway, with an exit that curved</p><p>away from the prevailing wind (Murdoch 1892:77; Petitot 1970:160–168).</p><p>In early spring the passage gave way to a tepee-like addition (itsark), which</p><p>served as both kitchen and dog kennel (Petitot 1970:fig. 18). When snows</p><p>deepened, the skylight in the roof became the house entryway.5</p><p>In an arctic wooden house, comfort depends significantly on the warmth-</p><p>retaining qualities of wood, but the insulating properties of the enveloping</p><p>turf is equally if not more valuable. Fortunately turf is flexible enough to</p><p>conform to most house contours. When that fails, blocks of turf can be stacked</p><p>like bricks in a wall. To retain heat further in Mackenzie houses, people mixed</p><p>water with moss, lichen, or clay as a caulking compound and forced it into</p><p>ceiling or roof crevices. Earth or gravel smothered the turf, and over this came</p><p>an insulating coat of snow.</p><p>One early twentieth-century house type in the Mackenzie area deviates</p><p>from the norm in a number of ways. For one thing, it had a stone-lined hearth.</p><p>More peculiarly, ice windows had been inserted into its walls. These inch-</p><p>thick panes could stay frozen, although the thermometer read 70˚F inside,</p><p>because it was –30˚F outdoors. Comparatively warm days forced the resi-</p><p>dents to curtain off the windows to prevent their melting. Another feature</p><p>that might have been equally modern (or at least a simplification of the cook</p><p>tent) was a kitchen with a snowblock chimeny in the passage that stood about</p><p>five feet high (Stefánsson 1914:125–126, 175). Also, Smith (1984:fig. 2b)</p><p>CHAPTER 3— NORTHWEST ARCTIC AND BERING STRAIT 77</p><p>FIGURE 84</p><p>“Native house at Point Hope, Alaska.” This</p><p>house mound rises slightly above the sur-</p><p>rounding terrain. Scattered about its tunnel</p><p>entrance (left) are whale half-mandibles,</p><p>which also constitute the scaffold posts (right);</p><p>underneath this structure is the sod-covered</p><p>semisubterranean house, with logs and short</p><p>posts evidently stabilizing the exterior.</p><p>From Merrill 1889:46 ff.</p><p>FIGURE 85</p><p>“Scene in Uglaamie [Barrow].” Three houses,</p><p>marked by adjacent storage scaffolds, the left</p><p>of which shows how sods were stacked out-</p><p>side the house (behind wooden scaffold) and</p><p>sloping tunnel entrance (left of scaffold), and</p><p>how walrus mandibles were attached as</p><p>hooks for holding horizontal crosspieces</p><p>(whale bone scaffolds, right; wood scaffolds,</p><p>left). An umiak lies on its side (foreground).</p><p>From Ray 1885:42 ff.</p><p>shows a house from 1914 that seemingly has a short surface passage instead</p><p>of the half-submerged entrance alcove.</p><p>Several variants on these general designs appear in the literature. In 1906,</p><p>Stefánsson saw a long and narrow house with a long sleeping alcove at the</p><p>back, a small auxiliary side platform with a dog-kennel alcove opposite, and</p><p>no entrance alcove whatsoever (Stefánsson 1914:fig. 87). Finally, Rasmussen</p><p>reports for the Mackenzie area the substantial house of an important man,</p><p>which had “an elegant log cabin very like a villa,” with a “living room”</p><p>measuring twenty-three feet long, sixteen feet wide, and ten and a half feet</p><p>high (Ostermann 1942:33).</p><p>N O R T H A L A S K A C O A S T W O O D E N H O U S E S</p><p>West of the Mackenzie River, around Point Barrow, as the days shortened and</p><p>families returned to the coast from summer fish camps inland, they pitched</p><p>their tents among the sunken houses in the settlements until freeze-up, when</p><p>the dwellings were no longer damp and soggy.6 Before the snow flew, these</p><p>semisubterranean houses were visible as randomly placed grassy mounds bulging</p><p>from the ground. Come winter, the mounds would be completely concealed</p><p>by snowdrifts. Then the only noticeable traces of a settlement were the el-</p><p>evated storage scaffolds erected behind every dwelling (figs. 84–85).</p><p>78 ESKIMO ARCHITECTURE</p><p>One or two North Alaska Coast Eskimo, or Tagiugmiut, families occupied</p><p>each dwelling (fig. 86). As is typical of most Alaskan Eskimo winter homes,</p><p>these semisubterranean houses had a rectangular main chamber connecting</p><p>with a deeply dug entrance tunnel. Unlike Greenlanders, Western Eskimos</p><p>generally excavated downward instead of tunneling horizontally into hill-</p><p>sides because the Alaska coastal terrain was so flat. Tagiugmiut builders made</p><p>their central residential room entirely from hewn planks or split logs, as did</p><p>most other Western Eskimos. From Barrow to Point Hope, though, people</p><p>sometimes used whale mandibles as storage rack posts (figs. 84–85, 88–89;</p><p>Hooper 1881:38) and struts for tunnel rafters (fig. 86D–E). Whale bones</p><p>were particularly plentiful in Point Hope houses, inside and out (figs. 84, 87–</p><p>89). The house floor was rectangular (fig. 86), and reportedly measured twelve</p><p>to fourteen feet long, eight to ten feet wide, and five to seven feet high (Murdoch</p><p>1892:73–74; Simpson 1855:931). However, in the archaeological record smaller</p><p>examples are even more common (see Appendix). 7</p><p>House construction in the Point Barrow vicinity differed considerably from</p><p>that of Mackenzie Delta dwellings to the east. Four wall sills bordered the</p><p>floor of a house (fig. 86D, F). The length of available logs, usually trimmed at</p><p>the ends so that their corners met at right angles, often determined floor size</p><p>[Smith (1990:fig. 10–10)]. Deeply grooving or splitting out a lengthwise quar-</p><p>ter-section from each sill log (by means of maul, wedge, and adze) provided a</p><p>flat surface on which to stand upright wall planks or split logs (below right</p><p>wall plank, fig. 86D, F; Slaughter 1982:145, fig. 4b). These walls rose verti-</p><p>cally, giving the roof its only supportive framework. To prevent collapse, the</p><p>structure relied on two natural agencies, vertical and lateral stablilty. Gravity</p><p>transmitted from the turf envelope of the house, by way of its roof and walls,</p><p>provided vertical stability to the walls and sills. For lateral stability, the wall</p><p>and roof timbers relied on permafrost, which enabled them to freeze firmly</p><p>against the turf blocks and the subtending soil enclosing them. The floorboards</p><p>of the dwelling lay ei ther directly on the ground within the sills or upon floor</p><p>joists (transverse logs) installed to level them (fig. 86F).</p><p>The roof of the northern Alaska coast house responded to local environ-</p><p>mental conditions and cultural preferences. Tipping from a ridgeple about six</p><p>to seven feet high, its off-center gable formed two flat planes, usually with a</p><p>north and south pitch. Mounted in the longer and lower south-facing roof</p><p>slope, the square skylight stood out both literally and figuratively from other</p><p>Eskimo window and skylight designs, most of them flat (e.g., fig. 88). The</p><p>two-foot-square Tagiugmiut model was “Covered over by thin, transparent</p><p>[w]hale [m]embrane [or seal gut], [k]ept up in an arched form by two pieces</p><p>of [baleen] bent upwards from opposite corners, and crossing in the center”</p><p>(Bockstoce 1988:114), making it rather like a squat, rounded pyramid (fig.</p><p>89). Under the longer and lower south pitch of the gable roof (fig. 86B–D), a</p><p>sleeping platform, about thirty inches high and four to five feet deep, filled the</p><p>north (back) end of the room (fig. 73D, F). It sloped backwards slightly, and</p><p>occupants slept with their heads toward the door (Murdoch 1892:72–75).</p><p>The vacant floor space beneath it served as storage for bedding and clothing,</p><p>or could be used as a sleeping spot for extra guests (fig. 86F).</p><p>CHAPTER 3— NORTHWEST ARCTIC AND BERING STRAIT 79</p><p>People entered the tunnel into the house by dropping down a short, square-</p><p>framed shaft at its outer end (fig. 86D). A whale skull on the tunnel floor,</p><p>below the entrance, sometimes acted as a step. Roofed with wood or whale</p><p>ribs, the tunnel descended gradually toward the dwelling (fig. 86D–E). It nar-</p><p>rowed and ended abruptly beneath the house floor, further discouraging</p><p>drafts. The circular entrance (katak) from the tunnel into the sleeping</p><p>chamber consisted of two very wide boards, each with a half-circle cut from it</p><p>(Ford 1959:fig. 25; Reinhardt and Dekin (1990:figs. 4–3 to 4–5). To get into</p><p>the house itself, people had to hoist themselves straight up and onto the</p><p>floor, apparently without the aid of a step.</p><p>Many houses from the Barrow vicinity had slightly excavated storage spaces</p><p>directly beneath the sleeping platform (fig. 86D, F). A gap between two floor</p><p>boards, created by setting the two weight-bearing posts for the sleeping plat-</p><p>form into the ground below, granted access to this space (Crowell 1988:fig.</p><p>247; Reinhardt 1983; Reinhardt and Dekin 1990:40–46, pls. 4–2, 4–5; cf.</p><p>Spencer 1984a:fig. 3). Southwest of Barrow, at the Pingasugruk site and in the</p><p>Point Hope area, a cavity in one house-wall may have substituted for the</p><p>subfloor pit (Reinhardt, unpublished field notes; VanStone 1977:56, 84).</p><p>Excavations of prehistoric houses from Barrow and Pingasugruk have re-</p><p>vealed yet another concept of inside storage. Niches between wall planks</p><p>along the sills were used to hold small articles (Reinhardt, n.d.; Reinhardt and</p><p>FIGURE 86</p><p>Idealized North Alaska Coast winter wooden</p><p>house from Pt. Barrow: (A) floorplan (long</p><p>tunnel has storage recesses on both sides,</p><p>kitchen off to right, and leads to rectangular</p><p>floor); (B) details of south pitch to roof</p><p>(ridgeple at right, vent hole in adjacent board,</p><p>and square skylight); (C) skylight (left, ba-</p><p>leen crosspieces; right, possible layout of gut</p><p>strips before final sewing); (D) longitudinal</p><p>cross-section through house and tunnel; (E)</p><p>transverse cross-section through tunnel and</p><p>kitchen; (F) sleeping platform, floor, and</p><p>subfloor details (Reinhardt and Lee</p><p>1997:1798, courtesy of Cambridge Univer-</p><p>sity Press)</p><p>After Murdoch 1892:figs. 9–12; drawn by</p><p>Jeanne E. Ellis.</p><p>80 ESKIMO ARCHITECTURE</p><p>Dekin 1990:46, 73, pls. 4–3, 4–4). Outside the main chamber, larger food-</p><p>and gear-storage recesses were scooped out from tunnel walls (fig. 86A, E;</p><p>Murdoch 1892:72–75; Simpson 1855:931).</p><p>The Tagiugmiut added one feature uncommon to the basic northern Alaska</p><p>Eskimo design: a separate kitchen (fig. 86A, E). Raised slightly above the</p><p>tunnel floor and at right angles to it, this tiny subterranean alcove had bare</p><p>earth walls and a conical wooden or whale-scapula roof (Polglase 1990; Simpson</p><p>1855:931). Women would cook here rather than in the main chamber, as was</p><p>typical among Eskimos east of the Mackenzie Delta, and used locally made</p><p>jar-shaped pottery vessels, instead of the soapstone pots of Canada and</p><p>Greenland.</p><p>Another feature differentiating Tagiugmiut kitchens from those of more</p><p>eastern Eskimos was their use of wood to fuel kitchen hearths (Murdoch</p><p>1892:63). Some archaeological kitchens from Barrow contained assorted storage</p><p>niches and a large rock used as an anvil for pounding blubber and processing</p><p>foods (Polglase 1990; Sheehan 1990). As one approached the main chamber</p><p>by crawling through the tunnel, the kitchen usually was on the right (fig.</p><p>86A), but it could be off to the left, especially when two houses stood side by</p><p>side (Reinhardt, unpublished Pingasugruk field notes).</p><p>Providing the main chamber’s heat and light was a large, semilunar lamp.</p><p>These carved soapstone basins were imported from the east and measured up to</p><p>a remarkable four and a half feet long.8 They rested on pieces of flat board</p><p>toggled into the walls of the house, usually to the left of the katak as one entered</p><p>from the tunnel (Simpson 1855:931).</p><p>Above the lamp dangled a ladder-like</p><p>wooden clothes-drying rack made up of several tenoned slats that fit into two</p><p>mortised side pieces. A skin funnel or a hollowed whale vertebra vented spent</p><p>air through a roof hole near the ridge, while walrus hides, wood, a snowblock</p><p>or ice closed the tunnel hatch and house entrances (Rainey 1947:261; Simpson</p><p>1855:931–932). From outside, a wooden (or hide?) shutter might shroud the</p><p>skylight in the dead of winter, preserving warmth within. A scrap of paper</p><p>tipped into Murdoch’s original artifact catalog indicates the level of warmth</p><p>indoors during winter: “Temperature in Eskimo igloo/ On floor 46.5 [degrees</p><p>F]/ On bed platform 52.5 [degrees F]/ 3 persons in house” (Murdoch n.d.).9</p><p>P O L E - A N D - T U R F H O U S E S</p><p>INTERIOR NORTH ALASKA HOUSES</p><p>The mountain-dwelling interior north Alaskan Eskimos, or Nunamiut, are</p><p>the only Eskimo group to have lived away from the coastline year round since</p><p>before European contact. With a population estimated at 300 in 1900 (Gubser</p><p>1965:20), the Nunamiut pose a challenge to Eskimo architectural studies be-</p><p>cause they had two radically divergent forms of winter habitation. As a result</p><p>of their winter mobility, which increased through time (Hall 1976:129–134),</p><p>the late prehistoric Nunamiut seem to have adopted a tent as their primary</p><p>year-round house type, but in earlier times they had built more permanent</p><p>turf-covered dwellings (Corbin 1976). Reversing his earlier opinion, Reinhardt</p><p>(1986:135) now argues against classifying the turf house as the primary</p><p>CHAPTER 3— NORTHWEST ARCTIC AND BERING STRAIT 81</p><p>FIGURE 88</p><p>“Native house at Point Hope, Alaska.” Rare</p><p>photograph of a skylight showing the gen-</p><p>eral pitch of the sod-covered gabled roof and</p><p>a close-up view of a whale-mandible scaf-</p><p>fold hung with various objects. Lower edges</p><p>of the roof sods are reinforced with wood</p><p>and whale bones, using similar posts as re-</p><p>tainers. A modern cask rests on a dogsled</p><p>near bentwood vessels and other artifacts</p><p>(lower right).</p><p>From Healy 1889:20 ff.</p><p>FIGURE 87</p><p>Interior of a Point Hope house (looking to-</p><p>ward the entrance passage), occupied until</p><p>1942–43 by the Tooyak family. Andrew</p><p>Tooyak, Sr., was born in this house in 1927.</p><p>Virtually all structural members are whale</p><p>half-mandibles; shallow passages such as this</p><p>one (rather than subterranean tunnels) are a</p><p>twentieth-century Western-influenced phe-</p><p>nomenon (cf. fig. 173).</p><p>Photograph by Molly Lee, 1997.</p><p>FIGURE 89</p><p>“Native House, Point Hope.” Rare photo-</p><p>graph of a pyramidal skylight (left), in this</p><p>case under a high wooden scaffold (as com-</p><p>pared to the whale bone scaffold, right).</p><p>People congregate between the high comb-</p><p>ing to the tunnel entrance (right) and a conical</p><p>tent (center). Note the extensive use of bones</p><p>(and stones?) to stabilize the sods about the</p><p>combing; this implies sandy soil, which has</p><p>a poor “grip.”</p><p>Thetis Album, Accession #66–46–10, Archives,</p><p>Alaska and Polar Regions Dept., Rasmuson</p><p>Library, University of Alaska Fairbanks.</p><p>82 ESKIMO ARCHITECTURE</p><p>FIGURE 90</p><p>Idealized old-style North Alaska Interior</p><p>winter pole-and-turf house.</p><p>After Ingstad 1954:160.</p><p>Nunamiut winter residence. Even so, if turf houses had also been built in</p><p>recent times, as the Nunamiut claim, they should be included here. For</p><p>consistency’s sake, however, we describe Nunamiut tents in the section on</p><p>summer dwellings.</p><p>The old-style Nunamiut winter house (ivrulik) embodied simplicity of con-</p><p>struction, which consisted of a willow-pole framework built on heavier, forked</p><p>uprights. Although lacking the heavier driftwood logs and planks found along</p><p>the coast, these buildings bring to mind Mackenzie Eskimo wooden houses</p><p>(fig. 90; cf. fig. 80).</p><p>Shared by all Nunamiut house design variants (Ingstad 1954) were four</p><p>forked center-post uprights, cut from spruce trees found to the south and</p><p>connected (once set in place) by horizontal stringers (fig. 90). To set the poles,</p><p>builders would position them upright, place stringers on adjacent pairs of</p><p>posts, “shove soft snow and dirts” around each post’s base, and then wait</p><p>overnight—evidently for the foundations to consolidate by freezing (Campbell</p><p>1998:pl. 17). Floors took shape according to how the builders arranged an</p><p>outer set of shorter forked posts, also topped with stringers. The sloping roof</p><p>consisted of long poles that stretched between the lower and upper stringers.</p><p>Shorter poles leaned inward against the lower set and rested on the ground,</p><p>thereby creating a slightly flared wall, hence a rather rounded overall shape</p><p>to the building. An abrupt surface passage built in similar post-and-stringer</p><p>fashion provided storage space and completed the structure, which was then</p><p>sheathed with turf or frozen moss (Gubser 1965:71; Ingstad 1954:159–160).</p><p>A square gut skylight (made from bearded seal traded from the coast) covered</p><p>the middle of the flat central roof (fig. 90). Directly below, the occupants</p><p>cooked over an open hearth in the floor (Gubser 1965:71; Ingstad 1954:158–</p><p>159; Larsen 1958:575–576), a trait linking them to Eskimos farther south</p><p>and west in Alaska. After closing the skylight at night (left open earlier in the</p><p>evening to let out smoke), the latent fireplace heat kept a house warm until</p><p>morning (Campbell 1998:pl. 16).</p><p>Entering a Nunamiut house through the fur door flap that covered the por-</p><p>tal, one walked quickly through the passage into a central room (Campbell</p><p>1962:50; Ingstad 1954:158–159). It may be that a horizontal stick tied to the</p><p>the door flap (outside, at middoor height) served as a sensible door handle (cf.</p><p>Campbell 1998:pls. 16, 20). The ubiquitous Eskimo sleeping platform was</p><p>absent from Nunamiut houses; instead, the shallowly excavated floor was paved</p><p>with rocks and comfortably spread with moss and willow boughs. Household-</p><p>ers also used flagstones or cobbles to line the family fireplace (Corbin 1976:162).</p><p>Ethel Oliver, who took the first Nunamiut census in 1947, vividly described</p><p>construction and heating of the ivrulik as well as an unanticipated result of</p><p>the heat and moisture in the dwelling:</p><p>Frank [the pilot who flew with Oliver] pulled aside the bear skin, and I stepped</p><p>down into the long narrow room. It seemed quite large in comparison to</p><p>[Simon Paneak’s] compact tent, although it was only about eighteen feet long</p><p>and no more than ten feet wide. It too, was built of willow poles. They came</p><p>together at the top like an inverted V. A series of these inverted V’s were held</p><p>CHAPTER 3— NORTHWEST ARCTIC AND BERING STRAIT 83</p><p>together with horizontal poles lashed to them at intervals, forming small</p><p>squares. The squares were packed solidly with sod and moss. Since the green</p><p>poles had not been barked, and the igloo newly built the previous fall, the</p><p>warmth inside had caused the buds on the tiny twigs to leaf out a soft pale</p><p>green and spring fragrant (Oliver 1989:4).</p><p>Ingstad (1954:158) illustrates three distinctive floor plans for old-style</p><p>Nunamiut houses, each with its own name. The two with polygon-shaped</p><p>floors had passages to their octagonal akilligii (fig. 90).10 Passages in the</p><p>stretched-out hexagonal sivunmuktaq, however, broke through one apical</p><p>end of the house. The third and smallest floor plan, the iglupiaqtalik, was</p><p>rectangular and asymmetrical inasmuch as its passage breached the left side</p><p>of one long wall. Despite these variations, the components and construction</p><p>were apparently alike for all three designs, which had sleeping areas along the</p><p>sides (only on one side in iglupiaqtaliks), rather than at the back.</p><p>KOBUK RIVER HOUSES</p><p>Up the Kobuk River from Kotzebue Sound, the Kuuvanmiut constructed a</p><p>house (ukiivik) that strongly resembled the old-time Nunamiut type (fig. 91). In</p><p>historic times, the Kuuvanmiut built these houses only for early winter, leaving</p><p>to pursue subsistence acitvities elsewhere as soon as the ground froze enough to</p><p>facilitate travel.11 Between Kuuvanmiut and Nunamiut house forms, material</p><p>disparities</p><p>are minor (spruce instead of willow poles), but construction differ-</p><p>ences are more pronounced (cf. fig. 90). Unlike the Nunamiut house, a</p><p>Kuuvanmiut house had a truly semisubterranean main chamber and descending</p><p>tunnel (not a surface passage) overlaid with turf, then moss or earth (fig. 91).</p><p>Most singular about Kuuvanmiut houses was their means of construction.</p><p>The ground was frozen some one to two feet deep before people ever started</p><p>a house (sometimes by mid-October; they abandoned it in February or later).</p><p>Ingenious excavation then preceded actual construction. To start, men mapped</p><p>out the house floor, marking a rectangle on the ground and starting a fire at</p><p>one side of it. After that patch of earth thawed, spruce logs were used to lever</p><p>up the soil, block by block, and set it aside. Leverage continued until all but a</p><p>central block remained. Shoveling smoothed out this house pit and its three-</p><p>to-five-foot-high edges (Giddings 1956:29–30).</p><p>Once the pit had been dug the four center posts of the house were embed-</p><p>ded in a long rectangular pattern, paralleling the tunnel’s axis. House floors</p><p>were wider than they were long, relative to this axis. Four corner posts, which</p><p>were nearly as tall as the center posts, shouldered stringers like those connect-</p><p>ing the central uprights. Completing the superstructure of a Kuuvanmiut house</p><p>were willow poles, set between the upper stringers, that spanned the width of</p><p>the center rectangle. This arrangement created a broadly flat-topped hip roof</p><p>with an uncovered, square opening in the middle (i.e., a skylight). Diagonal</p><p>poles ran between the medial and lateral stringers to form three equal pitches</p><p>(on the roof’s front and side edges) and a sharper-rising rear pitch. Finally</p><p>came poles that stood on the floor-pit’s rim. These leaned almost vertically</p><p>against the lateral stringers. When the house was finished, people then packed</p><p>FIGURE 91</p><p>Idealized Kobuk River pole-and-turf winter</p><p>house.</p><p>Reinhardt and Lee 1997:1797, after Giddings</p><p>1952:figs. 6–7; Stoney 1900:pl. opp. p. 40;</p><p>courtesy of Cambridge University Press.</p><p>84 ESKIMO ARCHITECTURE</p><p>all the earthen blocks removed earlier, moss side down, against the exterior.</p><p>Finally, the residents pulverized the large remaining block of soil within the</p><p>house, heaving the debris up through the roof hole so it would cascade over</p><p>the whole house, presumably for added insulation.</p><p>Each Kuuvanmiut winter house had a caribou-gut skylight measuring four</p><p>feet on a side and framed so it “could be removed or tilted” to double as a</p><p>smokehole (Giddings 1961:126). Underneath the skylight, a log crib or stones</p><p>bordered the sleeping area on both sides of the house. At the outer entrance</p><p>to the tunnel, fur or a few logs kept out the cold; a separate skin hung at the</p><p>inner doorway. People did not use these in-sloping tunnel floors for</p><p>storage. Rather, that part of the house floor opposite the doorway was de-</p><p>voted to storing the family’s effects. The sleeping areas had a willow-withe</p><p>covering demarcated by poles (fig. 91) and overlain with a soft bedding of</p><p>willow boughs and caribou fur; the remaining floor surface was bare.</p><p>Like most northwestern Alaska Eskimos in the interior, the Kuuvanmiut used</p><p>pottery (or occasionally sandstone) lamps rather than soapstone. These were</p><p>small, hand-molded saucers, about six to eight inches across, that had shallow</p><p>basins and only an encircling edge to support a wick (see Oswalt 1953). Be-</p><p>cause fireplaces were integral to their houses, people did not need the long</p><p>ribbons of lamp-flame to heat the interior, as was common to northern and</p><p>eastern Eskimos’ comparatively gigantic lamps. Women used stone-boiling as</p><p>the general cooking method. This technique involved heating the contents of</p><p>birch-bark or bent-sprucewood containers (or bear stomachs “in ancient times”)</p><p>with red hot stones (Cantwell 1889b:87–88; Curtis 1907–1930:208).</p><p>Cantwell’s first impression of Kuuvanmiut houses, in 1884, typifies West-</p><p>erners’ disdain of Eskimo housekeeping: “All the clothing of these tribes, and,</p><p>in fact, everything they wear or use capable of harboring life, abounds in</p><p>vermin. Their houses are so filled with [lice] that after one sad experience I</p><p>never entered a winter habitation” (Cantwell 1889b:84). However, he trans-</p><p>gressed the next year when he inspected a vacated house and reported on the</p><p>efficiency of the fireplace: “We set fire [in the hearth] to a few dry sticks, and</p><p>the smoke shot up in a straight column through the opening in the roof,</p><p>showing that defective flues are a source of annoyance not yet known to the</p><p>natives” (Cantwell 1887:26). Once abandoned, a Kuuvanmiut house slowly</p><p>returned to nature, “and when deserted for a year or two, and overgrown</p><p>with grass and mosses, looks like a mound, identified as having been a human</p><p>habitation only by some tumble-down fish-racks on the river bank near by. . .”</p><p>(Townsend 1887:86).</p><p>Variants in early Kuuvanmiut floor layout are known from archaeological</p><p>investigations. Earlier sleeping areas consisted of a slight mounding of earth,</p><p>certainly no more than two feet high (Curtis 1907–1930:208; Giddings 1952).</p><p>Houses tended to have two sleeping areas, one on each side, although some-</p><p>times there might be one, or, less frequently, three. Tunnels in houses of the</p><p>early historic period were generally one to two feet lower than house floors in</p><p>prehistoric times. In plan view, however, Kobuk River houses changed little</p><p>over the last seven centuries, the most notable difference being that earlier</p><p>tunnels occasionally diverged into a small chamber or side passage (Giddings</p><p>CHAPTER 3— NORTHWEST ARCTIC AND BERING STRAIT 85</p><p>1952). Upriver, Giddings measured fifteen mid-eighteenth-century houses</p><p>averaging sixteen feet side to side, and eleven feet from entry to rear, with</p><p>tunnels about nine feet long (Giddings 1952:14–19).</p><p>K O T Z E B U E S O U N D W O O D E N H O U S E S</p><p>Not far from Kuuvanmiut territory, and downriver, the Malemiuts of Hotham</p><p>Inlet in the eastern part of Kotzebue Sound erected yet another wooden house</p><p>type (Oswalt 1967:97). Simpson (1855:930) was the first to describe and</p><p>illustrate the Malemiut house, showing both plan and isometric views (fig.</p><p>92). The attributes might be seen as a blend of other Northwestern Arctic</p><p>mainland Eskimo house types. Like Mackenzie Eskimo houses, the Kotzebue</p><p>Sound wooden house had three sleeping areas (two lateral, one rear), four-</p><p>center-post construction with a cribbed central roof and square center-hole,</p><p>roof-wings pitching in four directions, wooden floors, and a forward entryway</p><p>(cf. fig. 80). However, among the distinguishing features of the Malemiut</p><p>house was a floor hole (a trap door, leading to an underground tunnel) akin to</p><p>North Alaska Coast houses (fig. 86). The Kotzebue house also had a central</p><p>floor area, containing a hearth, a movable skylight that doubled as the</p><p>smokehole, canted walls, and no sleeping platforms, traits found in Kuuvanmiut</p><p>and Nunamiut houses (cf. figs. 90–91). Beyond this, it also compared with</p><p>Kuuvanmiut houses in that it used logs, not only as headrests but also to</p><p>delineate sleeping and cooking spaces (cf. fig. 91).</p><p>FIGURE 92</p><p>“Ground Plan [and] Interior of Esquimaux</p><p>Winter Hut at Hotham,” near Kotzebue</p><p>Sound.</p><p>From Simpson 1855:930.</p><p>86 ESKIMO ARCHITECTURE</p><p>FIGURE 94</p><p>House from Wales, Alaska. A large ante-</p><p>chamber with person on top (upper center)</p><p>precedes a passage/tunnel leading to the house</p><p>proper (upper right, with scaffold above it).</p><p>Note use of vertical posts, with some diago-</p><p>nal bracing, to hold together horizontal</p><p>exterior wall logs.</p><p>Ben B. Mozee Collection, Accession #79-26-180,</p><p>Archives, Alaska and Polar Regions Dept.,</p><p>Rasmuson Library, University of Alaska,</p><p>Fairbanks.</p><p>FIGURE 93</p><p>Wooden houses surround a canvas wall tent,</p><p>circa 1899–1900. The two largest structures</p><p>(left and right of tent) are likely anterooms,</p><p>connected to the house proper via a tunnel</p><p>or passage.</p><p>Main chambers are probably</p><p>beneath the storage scaffolds.</p><p>USRC Bear Collection, Accession #95-264-31N,</p><p>Archives, Alaska and Polar Regions Dept.,</p><p>Rasmuson Library, University of Alaska,</p><p>Fairbanks.</p><p>FIGURE 95</p><p>Frost collects overhead inside an anteroom,</p><p>looking down the passage toward the house</p><p>entrance. Extensive array of stored goods</p><p>includes several deep bentwood vessels (left),</p><p>another vessel full of fish (right), bundles of</p><p>cloth and furs (left and right), and snow-</p><p>shoes (right). Floorboards appear to be of</p><p>milled lumber.</p><p>Lomen Family Collection, Accession #72-71-</p><p>713N, Archives, Alaska and Polar Regions</p><p>Dept., Rasmuson Library, University of Alaska,</p><p>Fairbanks.</p><p>CHAPTER 3— NORTHWEST ARCTIC AND BERING STRAIT 87</p><p>S E WA R D P E N I N S U L A W O O D E N H O U S E S</p><p>At Ublasaun, a reindeer-herding village of the 1920s, the local style of sod-</p><p>covered semisubterranean house resembled that from the North Alaska coast</p><p>in many features. Design similarities include a step-up from the tunnel onto a</p><p>rectangular housefloor, a wooden sleeping platform raised on posts at the</p><p>rear of the house, upright wall timbers, a storage nook or bedroom, or both,</p><p>recessed into at least one side wall, and a gable roof—with a skylight in the</p><p>roof-pitch nearer the tunnel (Fair et al. 1996:90–93; Gerlach 1996:102–103).</p><p>The Ublasaun house differed from those of the North Alaska coast in four</p><p>ways, however. First, it had a large entrance alcove with a rectangular door in</p><p>its front wall and a skylight overhead. Second, the tunnel rose toward the</p><p>house itself and led to a rectangular inner doorway instead of a katak (floor</p><p>hole). Third, the floor’s long axis was perpendicular to the tunnel. Last, heavy</p><p>posts supported the ridgeple. This is not aboriginal construction (e.g. it had</p><p>Western-style doors) but is consistent with regional architecture. Earlier houses</p><p>probably differed little from these.</p><p>Houses at Cape Prince of Wales (westernmost Seward Peninsula) outwardly</p><p>seem to have incorporated two sets of timbers. The inner set probably stood</p><p>upright, forming the walls of the main chamber, tunnel or passage, and</p><p>anteroom(s), while the outer set was stacked horizontally and held in position</p><p>using upright posts (figs. 93–94). Commodious anterooms (fig. 95) were linked</p><p>by a tunnel or passage to the main chamber(s). Outdoors, a large wooden</p><p>storage scaffold stood over the house itself (figs. 93–94). This may be essen-</p><p>tially the same construction as that of a qargi12 from St. Michael (Nelson 1899:fig.</p><p>76) and houses from the lower Yukon (Nelson 1899:pl. 82). In all these cases,</p><p>turf is in little evidence as an exterior building or insulating material.</p><p>On the south side of Seward Peninsula, Eskimos around Cape Nome built</p><p>houses with large, high-walled anterooms at the tunnel entrance, which the</p><p>occupants entered by a ladder or notched log (fig. 96, top). The plan of the</p><p>house was unusual and consisted of two discrete sleeping quarters and a size-</p><p>able kitchen. Piercing three walls of the antechamber were tunnels leading to</p><p>each room (fig. 96, bottom). Access to the sleeping quarters was by means of</p><p>a hole set low in the front (near) wall. Evidently, people had to climb up onto</p><p>the floor after crawling through the tunnel. Inside, on the back wall, was a</p><p>raised sleeping bench. There was no hearth in the wooden floor. Overhead,</p><p>the roof, which was gabled with two unequal pitches, held a skylight. These</p><p>roof features compare with the roofing of Tagiugmiut houses (see above).</p><p>B E R I N G S T R A I T I S L A N D S S T O N E P I T- H O U S E S</p><p>Inhabitants of the Bering Strait islands (King Island and Big and Little Diomede</p><p>Islands) exploited an abundant supply of walruses for meat, as well as skin and</p><p>ivory for raw materials, but otherwise, island life was far from ideal there.</p><p>“King Island is a rugged mass of granite rising sheer from the water for hun-</p><p>dreds of feet on three sides, and on the fourth side, where the village is located,</p><p>it is very difficult to make a landing” (Nelson 1899:255). On King Island and</p><p>the Diomede Islands, where sod was extremely scarce, inhabitants made their</p><p>FIGURE 96</p><p>Ground plan [and] “section” (facing page)</p><p>of house at Cape Nome” indicates a large</p><p>anteroom, two sleeping chambers, and a</p><p>kitchen—all discrete rooms.</p><p>From Nelson 1899:figs. 82–83.</p><p>88 ESKIMO ARCHITECTURE</p><p>winter dwellings in pits excavated from the hillside rocks. At a distance, the fifty</p><p>or so winter houses on King Island seemed to “rise like heaps of stones among</p><p>heaps of stones” and were “entered by tunnels” (Muir 1917:120).</p><p>The islanders maintained separate winter and summer villages. The King</p><p>and Little Diomede Islanders shored up their winter housepits with a wood</p><p>frame, but despite the plenitude of driftwood here, they made exterior walls</p><p>of stone, insulated (if that is the most accurate term) with granite fragments</p><p>and earth. Little Diomede Island residents selected uniform-sized beach cobbles</p><p>for their outside walls (fig. 97), laying them in horizontal courses, whereas</p><p>King Islanders built more rugged-faced walls and tunnels (fig. 98; Muir</p><p>1917:218; Nelson 1899:255; Sczawinski 1981).</p><p>The interior and the sleeping platform of the Bering Strait island winter</p><p>house were walled and floored with driftwood planks. Inhabitants filled any</p><p>gaps between the upright wall planks with earth. One entered by passing</p><p>through a square-framed doorway, ascending a long, arched stone tunnel that</p><p>often had an anteroom for storage, and coming into the residential chamber</p><p>through a floor hole. Roofs were flat (and at least sometimes pitched down-</p><p>hill, too) to reduce snow buildup (fig. 98). A narrow, whale-liver membrane</p><p>skylight brightened the interior. Leaving little medial space, platforms</p><p>perhaps bordered three of the four walls. Interior dimensions of the always-</p><p>square Little Diomede dwellings ranged from six to twelve feet. Sczawinski’s</p><p>detailed plans of a Little Diomede qagri (qargi) probably give the best surviv-</p><p>ing approximation of the old pit-houses (Sczawinski 1981).</p><p>The negligible historical record suggests that Big Diomede Islanders also</p><p>had stone-walled houses, very likely excavated. However, they built these</p><p>houses amid their summer dwellings, roofing them with skin and covering the</p><p>whole with gravel, a seemingly poor insulator. Diomede Islanders arched their</p><p>tunnels but made them shorter than those found on the other islands; they</p><p>also built whale-bone scaffolds on which to store umiaks away from their</p><p>FIGURE 97</p><p>View of Diomede village, Little Diomede</p><p>Island. Old stone houses, with carefully set</p><p>stone walls and almost flat gabled roofs,</p><p>remain amid 1930s-era houses and the</p><p>ubiquitous scaffolds. The large foreground</p><p>stone house is a qargi (cf. fig. 98).</p><p>Charles Menadelook Collection, Accession #82-</p><p>1-12A, Archives, Alaska and Polar Regions</p><p>Dept., Rasmuson Library, University of Alaska</p><p>Fairbanks. Published with permission of Eileen</p><p>Norbert.</p><p>CHAPTER 3— NORTHWEST ARCTIC AND BERING STRAIT 89</p><p>dogs (Bogojavlensky 1969:103; Hawkes 1913a:379–382; Muir 1917:36, 120,</p><p>218; Nelson 1899:255–256; Sczawinski 1981).</p><p>A LT E R N AT I V E W I N T E R D W E L L I N G S</p><p>This part of the Arctic is extremely rich in architectural diversity. In other</p><p>chapters, we discuss the most common forms first, and then return to less</p><p>significant types. However, the northwest region includes so many alternative</p><p>dwelling types that it is easier to address them according to the groups that</p><p>constructed them.</p><p>MACKENZIE DELTA</p><p>Snow Houses—Mackenzie Eskimos were the westernmost regular builders</p><p>of domed snowblock houses, the iglo-riyoark (Stefánsson 1914:61). The</p><p>Mackenzie snow house, except for its curving, flat-roofed tunnel (possibly</p><p>shorter than that leading into the wooden winter house) resembles those of</p><p>Central Eskimos: it was built mainly on sea ice and in relation to seal hunt-</p><p>ing (see Petitot 1970:167; Richardson 1852:207–208). At other</p><p>times</p><p>Mackenzie Delta snow houses were built on river ice (Petitot 1876:11, cap-</p><p>tion A) but in either instance people might stay in them for days to months</p><p>away from their mainland villages. That shift from wooden house to snow</p><p>house took place in January or February,13 when stored foods began to</p><p>dwindle, the sun had barely returned, and river and lake fishing was again</p><p>feasible (McGhee 1974:24).</p><p>These snow houses were unremarkably basic, with single or multiple sleep-</p><p>ing domes, antechambers, short entrance tunnels or entryway windbreaks,</p><p>and ice windows. Those used for brief sojourns might call for shortening or</p><p>completely dispensing with a tunnel. Although peeking above the floor by only</p><p>one foot, the sleeping platform spilled across three-quarters of a dome’s inte-</p><p>rior. It consisted of either packed snow or long snow slabs (Petitot 1876:10–11).</p><p>FIGURE 98</p><p>Stone-walled winter houses contrast with</p><p>summertime stilt houses on King Island. The</p><p>dry masonry of winter-house walls is less</p><p>artful than that of Little Diomede houses</p><p>(cf. fig. 97).</p><p>USRC Bear Collection, Accession #95-264-20N,</p><p>Archives, Alaska and Polar Regions Dept.,</p><p>Rasmuson Library, University of Alaska</p><p>Fairbanks.</p><p>90 ESKIMO ARCHITECTURE</p><p>On the right side of the dome near the entrance sat a snowblock lamp plat-</p><p>form, and on the left a chamber pot.</p><p>Certainly among the most intriguing-sounding aspects of Mackenzie-style</p><p>snow houses involved water. Drawn from beneath the ice, water was essential</p><p>to house construction in several ways. First, water came in handy to cement</p><p>snowblocks together; this was brought about by the builders’ squirting it by</p><p>mouth into the joints between snowblocks. Second, water was flung onto the</p><p>snowy envelope of the structure as an instant coating. Then the builders tossed</p><p>chunks of soft snow upon the building’s surface, which, on impact, burst over</p><p>the dome (Petitot 1981:16). The end result was a little “crystal palace” (see</p><p>Petitot 1876:9, 10), “which by melting on the inner surface [would] become</p><p>milky like an opal” (Petitot 1981:23). Finally, water was judiciously poured</p><p>over the snow to form an ice barrier against winds from without and heat</p><p>leaks from within. Once insulated, a Mackenzie Eskimo house purportedly</p><p>maintained temperatures around 41 to 59˚F even before the lamps were lit</p><p>(Petitot 1876:15, cf. 1981:38).</p><p>While the Mackenzie Eskimos were on sea ice, if they ran out of powdered</p><p>moss, the normal Eskimo lamp wick material, they would substitute wicks of</p><p>skin (Petitot 1876:11). Heat from these lamps could make household air stuffy,</p><p>in which case the inhabitants might pierce their dome with extra vent holes.</p><p>Even this airing could not rid a house of its pervasive smells, however. Petitot,</p><p>like other Western visitors, had difficulty acclimating to the air inside Eskimo</p><p>winter houses: “These offensive odours are a plague which attaches itself to</p><p>the snow walls, is incrusted on them by melting and is resistant to the most</p><p>intense cold. Only the melting away of the whole fragile edifice purifies this</p><p>filth, as the fires of purgatory purify the sinful soul” (Petitot 1981:23).</p><p>Mackenzie Delta travelers’ houses consisted of either a circular snowblock</p><p>wall or a true vaulting dome.14 For the wall-only design, a fur roof came into</p><p>play; rafters may have prevented the furs from sagging. It could be that these</p><p>flat-roofed dwellings used snowblocks (in place of furs), like Tagiugmiut snow</p><p>houses, which would need rafters even more. Other salient features were a</p><p>snowblock door and windscreen wall that replaced the passage. The door</p><p>then became vital protection against cold and wind. To enhance its efficacy</p><p>builders used the same arched piece they had cut out from their portal. Once</p><p>everyone had entered, someone reinserted this door and sealed its seam</p><p>with water.15</p><p>Other Houses—Three winter dwellings do not fit comfortably with other</p><p>Mackenzie Eskimo types, and it may be that they have north Alaskan Eskimo</p><p>origins.16 The first of these dwelling types strongly approximates a Nunamiut</p><p>or Kuuvanmiut turf-covered house. Its log skeleton and pole walls are very</p><p>similar, although the one Stefánsson describes (1914:178) was rectangular</p><p>and “stretched” lengthwise. The second is a hemispherical, framed, willow-</p><p>withe structure covered with moss and brush (Stefánsson 1922:93, 173). Third</p><p>is a dome-shaped tent; its fabrication recalls the moss-covered willow shelter</p><p>(described below) that was the Mackenzie Eskimos’ second-choice dwelling.</p><p>Coincidentally, these putative tents housed those without relatives, that is,</p><p>“orphans, though mostly old people,” much like the similarly small-sized</p><p>CHAPTER 3— NORTHWEST ARCTIC AND BERING STRAIT 91</p><p>dwellings of northern Greenland (Stefánsson 1922:92, 166). A fourth dwell-</p><p>ing does not suit our terminology in that it was a natural cave—and probably</p><p>one-of-a-kind. This small hollow in a cliff face measured seven by ten by five</p><p>feet, wherein planks apparently leveled its floor (Ostermann 1942:20).</p><p>NORTH ALASKA COAST SNOW HOUSES</p><p>Another snow house design, the apuyyaq, safeguarded north Alaska coast</p><p>Eskimo—Tagiugmiut—village visitors, winter travelers, and hunters stationed</p><p>near game grounds (Murdoch 1892:82). Snow houses throughout Alaska</p><p>were not erected as spiraled vaults, although Russian explorer A. F. Kashevarov</p><p>vaguely refers to domed ones. However, Kashevarov simultaneously confuses</p><p>this context with the idea and function of hunters’ snowpits, dug to trap</p><p>caribou (VanStone 1977:86, 94n13).</p><p>Modeling snow houses after their wooden homes, the Tagiugmiut raised</p><p>vertical walls around an excavated rectangular room some six feet by twelve.</p><p>Finding deep snowdrifts, such as those along riverbanks, meant less work in</p><p>shoveling snow and cutting blocks. Wood rafters upheld the main chamber’s</p><p>flat ceiling (presumably made of tent furs before canvas became standard), and</p><p>people buried this roof under loose snow. For extra lighting indoors, builders</p><p>brought their distinctive arched skylight assembly, or at least the gut portion,</p><p>from their wooden iglu to install above the doorway (Murdoch 1892:81).</p><p>Whether for one or two families, Tagiugmiut floor plans differed between</p><p>iglu and apuyyaq. For example, the sleeping quarters boasted broad plat-</p><p>forms of snow, situated to the side as one entered. These platforms stood</p><p>roughly eighteen inches high and were overlain by boards and undercut for</p><p>storage niches. As another deviation from wooden houses, a low lamp plat-</p><p>form ran across the back wall. Pegs stuck into the snow walls permitted objects</p><p>to be hung indoors, one of which would have been a drying rack over the</p><p>lamp. Canvas door flaps no doubt replaced more traditional skins or furs</p><p>(Murdoch 1892:81).</p><p>A straight tunnel ten feet long communicated with this room and also, via</p><p>short passages, with a kitchen and a storeroom. Faithful to the wooden house</p><p>layout, a tiny snow-house kitchen opened off to the tunnel’s right side. Women</p><p>hooked cooking pots on a stick pushed into a kitchen wall. This entire ar-</p><p>rangement was walled and roofed in snowblocks. In smaller snow houses,</p><p>though, kitchens apparently did not couple with the main chamber and conse-</p><p>quently carried roofs that doubled as hatches to the outside (Simpson 1855:932).</p><p>The Tagiugmiut also built up a little snowblock wall around the tunnel en-</p><p>trance, probably to reduce drafts. A dogsled, set on its end and braced with</p><p>spears, substituted for the wooden iglu’s huge storage scaffold.</p><p>A teacher assigned to government schools on Alaska’s North Slope during</p><p>the early 1900s describes a rectangular snow house resourcefully adaptated</p><p>to modern cloth wall tents:</p><p>In the deep snow a space sixteen feet square was excavated by removing the</p><p>packed snow in blocks about three feet thick. The blocks were stacked up</p><p>around the excavation, making the total wall height eight or nine feet. Inside,</p><p>92 ESKIMO ARCHITECTURE</p><p>a tent twelve by fourteen [feet]</p><p>but to a transitional autumn or spring dwelling (qarmaq or qarmah).3</p><p>In 1577, an English sailor on the Frobisher expedition wrote,</p><p>From the ground upward [the Baffin Island Eskimos] build with whale</p><p>bones, for lack of timber, which, bending one over another, are handsomely</p><p>compacted in the top together, and are covered over with seal skins, which,</p><p>instead of tiles, fence them from the rain. In each house they have only one</p><p>room, having one half of the floor raised with broad stones a foot higher than</p><p>the other, whereon, strewing moss, they make their nests to sleep on. (Best</p><p>1867:138; spelling modernized)</p><p>In the interim, countless travelers have attested to the considerable variation</p><p>that is the norm in Eskimo dwelling types from Greenland to Siberia. Never-</p><p>theless, even today, when the snow house has for all practical purposes melted</p><p>into the past, comic strips, cartoons, and advertisments continue to reinforce</p><p>the igloo as emblematic of Eskimo culture.</p><p>SCOPE AND DEFINITIONS</p><p>THE INTENT OF THIS STUDY IS TO DESCRIBE THE VARIETIES OF HOUSES AND</p><p>other buildings that constitute indigenous Eskimo architecture of the early</p><p>historic period, when, we assume, it was closest to traditional, that is, the</p><p>precontact built form. We use “early historic” to mean the roughly fifty-year</p><p>period immediately following a group’s first contact with the West, irrespec-</p><p>tive of the date that first contact occurred (Nelson H. H. Graburn, personal</p><p>communication). At best, however, this is a heuristic device. It would be im-</p><p>possible to pinpoint the moment when Western influence first appeared in</p><p>any group, particularly because in many cases Western goods, such as canvas,</p><p>reached the Arctic through trade and were incorporated into local structures</p><p>well before the arrival of the first non-Natives into a particular area. More-</p><p>over, not only the date of contact but also the rate of modernization varied</p><p>from group to group (Reinhardt 1986:56). Since the Eskimos interacted fre-</p><p>quently with other Native peoples before the historic period, it is also important</p><p>to stress that house types of any period were by no means static. Thus the</p><p>early historic period of any group is more accurately an era of accelerated</p><p>adaptation, borrowing, and innovation, not the time when culture change</p><p>began. For want of a more precise scheme, this overview focuses on the pe-</p><p>riod between Frobisher’s 1577 expedition and the first half of the twentieth</p><p>century, after which Eskimo groups began replacing their indigenous dwell-</p><p>ings with Westernized housing (e.g., Collignon 2001; Duhaime 1985).</p><p>Of necessity, this study is object oriented (Upton 1983). It seeks to describe</p><p>house types rather than theorize about them. We endorse Rapoport’s (1969)</p><p>position that architecture evolves in response to aesthetic, spiritual, and social</p><p>requirements as much as to physical needs, but taxonomy, in our opinion,</p><p>must precede interpretation. Though at least one brief survey of Eskimo ar-</p><p>chitecture has been undertaken (Nabokov and Easton 1989:188–208), and</p><p>studies of specific features of Eskimo housing (e.g., Reinhardt 1986), and of</p><p>INTRODUCTION 3</p><p>FIGURE 1</p><p>The Eskimo cultural area.</p><p>After Damas 1984b:ix; courtesy of Smithsonian</p><p>Institution Press, Washington, D.C.; produced</p><p>by Robert Drozda.</p><p>house form in a particular Eskimo group (e.g., Ray 1960) are known, the</p><p>literature lacks a comprehensive survey of built form covering the entire Es-</p><p>kimo area. This volume is intended to fill the gap.</p><p>Our survey concentrates on Eskimos who live above latitude 60 degrees</p><p>north (fig. 1). It excludes the closely related Aleuts (e.g., Jochelson 1933), a</p><p>distinction contrary to Burch’s recent merging of these two linguistically</p><p>separate cultures (Burch and Forman 1988). Moreover, it somewhat under-</p><p>emphasizes the Alutiiq (formerly known as the Chugach Eskimo and the Koniag;</p><p>e.g., Birket-Smith 1953; Knecht and Jordan 1985) because environmental</p><p>conditions, Aleut and Northwest Coast Indian influence, and lack of adequate</p><p>ethnographic details set these groups apart.</p><p>We begin by discussing geography, climatology, and ethnography as they</p><p>relate to Eskimo architecture, and then address housing in four geographic</p><p>subregions. We consider the winter and summer dwellings of each subarea,</p><p>briefly mention transitional-season dwellings (those of spring and autumn)</p><p>and special-use structures and, finally, summarize certain beliefs, rituals, and</p><p>customs as they relate to architecture. In the concluding chapter, we classify</p><p>Eskimo dwellings along systematic lines and suggest future avenues of reserach.</p><p>The appendix compiles data on floor area and numbers of occupants for</p><p>selected Eskimo dwellings.</p><p>100˚</p><p>A</p><p>rctic Circle 60˚</p><p>Alaska</p><p>Yukon</p><p>Territory</p><p>Northwest</p><p>Territories</p><p>Nunavut</p><p>Siberia</p><p>Labrador</p><p>Quebec</p><p>Pacific Eskimo</p><p>Nunivak</p><p>Eskimo</p><p>St. Lawrence</p><p>Island</p><p>Eskimo</p><p>Bering</p><p>Strait</p><p>Eskimo</p><p>Kotzebue</p><p>Sound</p><p>Eskimo</p><p>Interior</p><p>N</p><p>orth A</p><p>laska Eskim</p><p>o</p><p>North Coast Alaska</p><p>E</p><p>sk</p><p>im</p><p>o</p><p>M</p><p>ackenzie Delta Eskim</p><p>o</p><p>Copper</p><p>Eskimo</p><p>Netsilik</p><p>Sallirm</p><p>iut Labrador Coast Eskimo</p><p>Baffinland</p><p>E</p><p>sk</p><p>im</p><p>o</p><p>Iglulik</p><p>Polar</p><p>Eskimo</p><p>West Greenland</p><p>Eskim</p><p>o</p><p>G</p><p>reenland</p><p>E</p><p>sk</p><p>im</p><p>o</p><p>East</p><p>Siberian</p><p>Eskimo</p><p>Mainland</p><p>Southwest</p><p>Alaska</p><p>Eskimo</p><p>Caribou</p><p>Eskimo Inuit</p><p>of</p><p>Quebec</p><p>Arctic Ocean</p><p>Hudson Bay</p><p>North Pole</p><p>Pacific Ocean</p><p>Miles0 300</p><p>Kilometers0 500</p><p>4 ESKIMO ARCHITECTURE</p><p>PHYSIOGRAPHY, PREHISTORY, AND SEASONALITY</p><p>THE ESKIMO HOMELAND STRETCHES EASTWARD FROM EAST CAPE, SIBERIA,</p><p>through northern Alaska and Canada to Greenland, and southward along</p><p>the Alaska coast to Prince William Sound (fig. 1). The north is a region of</p><p>intense climatic contrasts. During deep winter, which lasts from October to</p><p>February, the sun does not clear the horizon. At midwinter sunshine disap-</p><p>pears altogether for some 70 days in north Alaska and West Greenland, over</p><p>100 days in northwest Greenland (Steensby 1910:285), yet not at all in places</p><p>south of the Arctic Circle. Nevertheless, in winter daytime north of the Arctic</p><p>Circle, the brilliance of stars, reflection of light from snow and ice, the circling</p><p>moon, and the sun’s noontime glow from below the horizon create perpetual</p><p>twilight more than profound darkness. In January, the average minimum daily</p><p>temperature at Iqaluit (Frobisher Bay) in Canada’s Northwest Territories is</p><p>–30.6˚ C (–23.1˚ F).</p><p>Arctic summers are brief but intense. During May, June, and July, the sun</p><p>never dips below the horizon, allowing plants to flourish from round-the-</p><p>clock photosynthesis while animals fatten themselves on this extravagant</p><p>bounty. Because of the sun’s low slant, however (in July, it is only somewhat</p><p>higher in Iqaluit than in New York at midwinter), the maximum average</p><p>temperature at Iqaluit rises to only 11.6˚ C, or 52.9˚ F (Dawson 1983:22;</p><p>Ekblaw 1927–28:163–164).</p><p>The Arctic coastline was settled as early as 3,000 B.C., although an uninter-</p><p>rupted linkage between those pioneer populations and modern Eskimos is a</p><p>matter of conjecture. The immediate progenitors of today’s Eskimos were the</p><p>Thule people, who perhaps migrated across the Bering Sea about A.D. 1000</p><p>and worked their way eastward, reaching Greenland around A.D. 1200. With</p><p>respect to house form, archaeological evidence suggests that features charac-</p><p>teristic of indigenous Eskimo architecture—southerly or seaward orientation,</p><p>semisubterranean house floors, raised sleeping platforms, cold-trap tunnels or</p><p>passageways, domed snow houses, and tents—derive from a Thule base</p><p>(McGhee 1983). Through time, Thule peoples in the eastern and central Arctic</p><p>changed their winter house designs from small sod/stone/wood houses, to snow</p><p>houses and autumn stone/bone/turf houses (qarmaqs), and finally, in East and</p><p>West Greenland and Labrador, to multifamily homes (Schledermann 1976a).</p><p>Their broad geographical spread notwithstanding, Eskimos enjoyed a re-</p><p>markable degree of cultural homogeneity (Schweitzer and Lee 1997). In this</p><p>generally treeless environment, they used</p><p>was put up, and then a drill covering was</p><p>stretched over the top of the snow walls, thus sheltering the tent beneath”</p><p>(Van Valin 1941:118–119).</p><p>Steps descended to this tent’s floor and, following traditional practices, a snowblock</p><p>tunnel (attached to the chamber’s front wall) housed built-in storage recesses.</p><p>Should a full-blown snow house be too much to construct while traveling,</p><p>the Tagiugmiut would hunker down in smaller shelters burrowed into snow-</p><p>drifts. Once excavated, walls and a roof of snowblocks probably completed</p><p>the chamber. Some kind of door would have been expedient, too.</p><p>NORTH ALASKA INTERIOR SNOW HOUSES</p><p>The Nunamiut apparently had two kinds of snow house. Confusion regard-</p><p>ing names for the two dwellings (cf. Gubser 1965:29, Ingstad 1954:39, and</p><p>Larsen 1958:576) probably extends to their structural features as well. The</p><p>aniguyyaq truly had walls of snow and a fur roof and was an emergency and</p><p>overnight shelter (Gubser 1965:72, 236; Ingstad 1954:39). It could even aug-</p><p>ment one’s own full-size tent in camp. The other Nunamiut snow house (apuyyaq</p><p>or aputyaq) was a tiny, temporary domed tent blanketed with snow instead</p><p>of furs. People would weave willow boughs or spruce branches closely to-</p><p>gether, a reinterpretation of the wide-gapped, willow-pole frame typifying</p><p>their dome tents. Using snowshoes as shovels, they would next apply snow to</p><p>the exterior. Afterward, heated stones would be brought in to glaze the snow</p><p>(Campbell 1998:pls. 22–23). A fur or parka became a door flap and freshwa-</p><p>ter ice served occasionally as a window. Larsen (1958:576) considers this</p><p>dwelling “more simple” than the snow-walled house. Its name and use of</p><p>windows recalls the more complex Taremiut snow house.17</p><p>KOBUK RIVER DWELLINGS</p><p>The Kuuvanmiut had several dwellings other than their primary winter and</p><p>summer ones. Chief among winter forms was the “moss house” or ivrulik, a</p><p>short-term shelter (Giddings 1961:126–127). Quite basic, it employed a simple</p><p>A-frame of two forked uprights and a ridgepole, with many willow poles</p><p>inclining against the ridge and ends. People also covered one end with a skin</p><p>or fur door flap and cooked over a hearth built beneath some sort of smokehole.</p><p>Turf and reindeer moss acted as both sealant and insulator, thus giving this</p><p>shelter a name akin to the Nunamiut pole-and-turf house. In the Brooks Range</p><p>mountains “several families” could live in this kind of structure, or something</p><p>similar, which they covered with snow. Its floor shape was “irregular, gener-</p><p>ally long, low and narrow” (Stoney 1900:46).18 There were evidently hearths</p><p>inside for each family and ice windows at the ends.</p><p>While hunting, a Kuuvanmiut man by himself might erect “a small, circular</p><p>shelter, with a frame of willow hoops, the whole covered with moss” (Curtis</p><p>1907–1930:209). It was obviously a traveler’s dwelling and its description</p><p>suitably coincides with another that Giddings recorded. This version incor-</p><p>porated willows still rooted in the ground. Men bent the boughs toward a</p><p>midpoint, tied or wove their tips together, and tossed a sewn cover of caribou</p><p>CHAPTER 3— NORTHWEST ARCTIC AND BERING STRAIT 93</p><p>furs on top (Giddings 1956:43). Its overnight or short-term nature, tiny ca-</p><p>pacity, and (exclusively?) moss sheathing are reasons why we classify this</p><p>dwelling separately rather than merely as a simplified version of their adapt-</p><p>able, domed echellek (see next section).</p><p>TRANSITIONAL DWELLINGS</p><p>NORTHWEST ARCTIC AND BERING STRAIT ESKIMOS HAD FEWER TRAN-</p><p>sitional housing types than the Central Eskimo groups, but more than those</p><p>living in Greenland. The autumn qarmaq as it was known farther east evi-</p><p>dently existed in the Mackenzie Delta (Ostermann 1942:22–23), but not west</p><p>of there. Of all Alaskan Eskimos, the Kuuvanmiut built the most innovative</p><p>transitional house. In spring, summer, and fall they opted for a highly adapt-</p><p>able, domed, willow-framed structure (echellek), which was smaller than their</p><p>main summer dwelling. Builders would drive home six or so willow poles</p><p>into a circular outline and weave them together, basket-fashion, to supply the</p><p>framework. However, the coverings changed from season to season, as did</p><p>the presence of hearths (Cantwell 1889a:62–63, 60 ff, 1889b:80; Curtis 1907–</p><p>1930:208–209; Giddings 1952:11; 1956:5, 7, 23, 43; 1961:48; Stoney 1900:46).</p><p>In fall, the Kuuvanmiut willow frame supported a water-resistant skin cover,</p><p>made from a dozen or so dehaired caribou pelts. This structure had a smokehole</p><p>(hence a hearth), whereas about half as many caribou furs made up the spring-</p><p>time cover. For extra warmth in colder circumstances, people piled snow on the</p><p>outside of the house. Because interior hearths would have been unnecessary in</p><p>summer, the covering consisted of lashed-down spruce bark overlaid by moss,</p><p>an ideal protection during the rainy season. On the other hand, Cantwell (1889a)</p><p>depicts a “summer fishing village” of hemispherical houses, but their covers look</p><p>more like skins or furs than bark, and they lack a mossy sheathing (fig. 99).</p><p>FIGURE 99</p><p>“Summer fishing village, Kowak [Kobuk]</p><p>River.” Tents with skin-like covers house</p><p>summer fishers, whose catches hang from</p><p>drying racks. These Kuuvanmiut boats (not</p><p>the steam-powered vessel) were, as depicted,</p><p>more like American Indian canoes than</p><p>Eskimo kayaks.</p><p>From Cantwell 1889a:61 ff.</p><p>94 ESKIMO ARCHITECTURE</p><p>With spring at its warmest, the Kuuvanmiut might build a miluq. To do so,</p><p>one looked for a large live spruce and then chopped down a series of spruce</p><p>saplings to place upright in a circle about this big tree (Giddings 1956:48,</p><p>1961:46). People assembled the miluq in spring time as a short-term dwelling</p><p>before settling into their fish camps for the summer. In late fall to early winter,</p><p>Kuuvanmiut families lived in “a simple lean-to” of unspecified design, instead</p><p>of “a temporary itchalik,” while they prepared their wooden winter house</p><p>(Giddings 1956:28).</p><p>At the border with Yup’ik (Southwestern) Eskimo territory, probably in the</p><p>Kauwerak Eskimo area, people erected a simple cone-shaped wooden shelter</p><p>during spring and summer to accommodate fishers and marmot hunters in</p><p>season (Nelson 1899:253). This structure began as a lashed-pole tripod. Logs</p><p>were leaned against this tripod to round out a roughly conical wall. The</p><p>interior included a sleeping platform raised on short posts, and an entrance</p><p>much like that of a conical tent (that is, a triangular gap from which wall</p><p>material was absent). The presence of sleeping platforms would have allowed</p><p>for storage beneath.</p><p>SUMMER DWELLINGS</p><p>PRIMARILY TWO NORTHWEST ARCTIC-BERING STRAIT ESKIMO TENT TYPES,</p><p>either conical or dome-shaped, were in use during summer. Most coastal popu-</p><p>lations from the Mackenzie River to the Seward Peninsula lived in conical</p><p>tents, a type that may have originated in Asia (Birket-Smith 1936:130). North-</p><p>east of Cape Nome, people used short-pole conical tents in summer, although</p><p>a few groups (probably the former riverine populations) preferred dome</p><p>varieties (Nelson 1899:260; Ray 1885:106, 130, 173; Thornton 1931:225–</p><p>226). Going to another seasonal extreme were the Nunamiut, who lived in</p><p>the mountains of Alaska’s Brooks Range and, in the contact phase of the early</p><p>historic period, relied on dome tents all year long.</p><p>S H O R T- P O L E C O N I C A L T E N T S</p><p>A short-pole conical tent (figs. 100–101) is sealed at its peak instead of having</p><p>tepee-style poles extending above it. As cooking was done outdoors in the</p><p>summer, such tents lacked a hearth, thus needing no smokehole. Variability in</p><p>short-pole conical tent designs depends mostly on the layout of their interiors.</p><p>Following the usual habit of Eskimo settlement, conical tent openings faced</p><p>south or away from the water (fig. 101). In 1826, Thomas Elson, a member</p><p>of English explorer Frederick W. Beechey’s expedition, cruised northeastward</p><p>along the Arctic Ocean coast and made contact with Point Barrow Eskimos.</p><p>Documenting the people and this tent type for the first time, he wrote that</p><p>“they resided in tents, the frames of which were made of poles, and covered</p><p>with sealskins: the bottom or floor was merely a few logs laid sidewise on the</p><p>ground: inside there was a second lining of reindeer skin, which did not reach</p><p>quite to the top: this constituted the whole of their dwelling” (Elson in Beechey</p><p>1831:1:432).</p><p>FIGURE 100</p><p>Idealized North Alaska Coast short-pole</p><p>conical tent: cutaway view (top); Mackenzie</p><p>Delta floor plan, with pole-covered sleeping</p><p>area (bottom).</p><p>After Murdoch 1892:fig. 15.</p><p>CHAPTER 3— NORTHWEST ARCTIC AND BERING STRAIT 95</p><p>Eskimos could erect and dismantle their tents with astonishing speed, as an</p><p>early twentieth-century writer observed: “[Eskimos from Point Hope] arrived</p><p>last evening at a camping ground. . . . They had eight tents and all the food,</p><p>canoes, arms, dogs, babies, and rubbish [of] the village. The encampment</p><p>looked like a settled village that had grown by enchantment. Only one [tent]</p><p>was left in the morning “ (Muir 1917:147).</p><p>MACKENZIE DELTA</p><p>Petitot portrays a camp of at least six tents (tupiqs) on a Mackenzie Delta</p><p>riverbank, with large European-made iron cauldrons suspended from tripods</p><p>over hearths set between some of them (Petitot 1970:170, fig. 19). As usual,</p><p>women put up the tents (fig. 100). Four or five twelve-foot poles were cinched</p><p>together about six inches from the top, the point at which each pole had been</p><p>drilled to receive a thong. Women spread them out to begin shaping a cone</p><p>twelve to fifteen feet in diameter.19 At a height of four to six feet, the women</p><p>braced these main poles by lashing on a horizontal wooden hoop that they had</p><p>dropped over the apex to stabilize the tent (fig. 100, top). Shorter poles leaned</p><p>against this hoop, which served the additional purpose of interior storage rack.</p><p>Requiring some six seal or caribou skins apiece, each of two tent-cover</p><p>halves had a sewn-in pocket that fit over the top of the poles. After women set</p><p>the poles into these pockets, they draped the two halves one over the other so</p><p>that the covers overlapped, and then either secured them to the frame with</p><p>long thongs wound around the exterior, or laced them shut (Murdoch 1892:84;</p><p>Nelson 1899:261; Simpson 1855:933). Before canvas and drill became avail-</p><p>able from Yankee whalers and traders, Mackenzie people made tents of sealskins</p><p>with the hair left on and turned outwards (Hooper 1853:228). More recently</p><p>they used caribou skins and faced the covers hair-side-in.</p><p>A doorflap separated inside and outside domains of Mackenzie Delta tents</p><p>(Petitot 1981:fig. 19). Given the opacity of fur-on tent covers, when the door</p><p>was shut, lamps would have been necessary for undertaking tasks that</p><p>FIGURE 101</p><p>“Scene from Uglaamie [Barrow]. Tent with</p><p>natives at work. Summer camp.” The coni-</p><p>cal tent has a translucent material around</p><p>the doorway to admit more light. Someone</p><p>works on a kayak’s cockpit while children</p><p>sit near its stern. Bentwood vessels and other</p><p>artifacts lie about, and tools and weapons</p><p>lean against the tent.</p><p>From Ray 1885:38 ff.</p><p>96 ESKIMO ARCHITECTURE</p><p>required strong light. The sleeping area apparently was not raised like the</p><p>platforms or benches in winter houses. Nevertheless, a layering of sticks in</p><p>that area separated it symbolically and practically (fig. 100, bottom) from the</p><p>remaining interior space (Petitot 1970:170).</p><p>NORTH ALASKA COAST</p><p>Point Barrow people moved out of their wooden houses in early July and stayed</p><p>in tents, sometimes erected in the same villages (fig. 89), until late September</p><p>(Murdoch 1892:76). The Tagiugmiut conical tent, or tupiq, was quite similar</p><p>to that of Mackenzie Eskimos. A photograph from the International Polar Ex-</p><p>pedition (fig. 101; Murdoch 1892:cover of 1988 reprint) was the template for</p><p>Murdoch’s (1892:fig. 15) line drawing of a tent, which shows a rounded peak</p><p>(fig. 100, top). Tagiugmiut tents sometimes used two hoops, instead of one,</p><p>doubly ensuring the stability of the conical framework. Another possible dis-</p><p>tinction is that the Tagiugmiut lined the inside, probably from hoop to ground,</p><p>with caribou skins (see Elson’s quote above). Also, either the Tagiugmiut tent</p><p>cover or door flap had a panel missing higher up, which was replaced by a</p><p>window-like swatch of processed seal gut to improve lighting within. During</p><p>the low-sunlight night hours and on cold days, occupants sometimes tossed a</p><p>fur over this window. Again, no one lit a lamp indoors for light or heat (Murdoch</p><p>1892:85); perhaps enough summer sunlight beamed through on its own. In</p><p>any event, women cooked outdoors the way Mackenzie Eskimo women did.</p><p>Boards and poles floored the Tagiugmiut tent’s posterior sleeping area, fur-</p><p>ther demarcated by a floor-dividing log (Murdoch 1892:85). Under proper</p><p>conditions, the doorway led outside by way of a snowblock tunnel that could</p><p>have an appended snowblock kitchen. Sometimes a short snow wall also</p><p>anchored the cover and long objects (spears, paddles, etc.), resting against the</p><p>sides, could serve as further anchoring devices (fig. 101).</p><p>As a final comment on Tagiugmiut tents, an old ivory ulu handle from the</p><p>Pingasugruk site (fig. 102) has a motif on both sides that looks like a long-</p><p>pole conical tent (Reinhardt 1997). The same element occurs on both sides of</p><p>the handle and differs from north Alaskan whale-fluke motifs on other arti-</p><p>facts from Pingasugruk and elsewhere. Assuming this element is a tent, and</p><p>that the handle originated from Pingasugruk, it indicates that prehistoric conical</p><p>tents in the area were not short-poled.</p><p>NORTH ALASKA INTERIOR</p><p>The Nunamiut sometimes traveled with a short-pole conical tent (nappaqtaq).</p><p>Like Mackenzie Eskimo and Tagiugmiut versions, those of the Nunamiut</p><p>were indeed aboriginal (Campbell 1998:pls. 20–21). Still, given their location</p><p>inland, they undoubtedly favored caribou fur over sealskin tent covers. More-</p><p>over, the short-pole conical tent was certainly secondary to the better known</p><p>Nunamiut summer dwellings, and for the most part its use was limited to</p><p>summer trading jaunts to the coast (fig. 103; Ingstad 1954:39; Larsen 1958:577).</p><p>Another distinction was the possibility of extremely large frame heights and</p><p>diameters, and the use of four horizontal, concentric hoops to stabilize the</p><p>tent poles (Campbell 1998:pl. 21).</p><p>CHAPTER 3— NORTHWEST ARCTIC AND BERING STRAIT 97</p><p>FIGURE 102</p><p>Detail of prehistoric ivory ulu handle from</p><p>Pingasugruk, showing an incised long-pole</p><p>conical tent motif—the same image appears</p><p>on both sides.</p><p>Photograph by Carlos Zambrano; cf. Reinhardt</p><p>1997:slide 40.</p><p>FIGURE 103</p><p>“Noyatog [Noatak] River Innuits, met at</p><p>Hotham Inlet [near Kotzebue Sound].” Tall,</p><p>narrow conical tents, apparently cloth-cov-</p><p>ered, the nearest having a fur door flap, are</p><p>probably part of an annual Eskimo trading</p><p>festival on the coast.</p><p>From Hooper 1881:40 ff.</p><p>98 ESKIMO ARCHITECTURE</p><p>KOBUK RIVER AND BERING SEA COAST</p><p>In addition to their other dwellings,20 the Kuuvanmiut pitched conical tents</p><p>when they met downriver at Kotzebue Sound for midsummer trade fairs, at</p><p>which they bartered with Yankee sailors, neighboring Eskimos, and Siberians</p><p>alike. Kuuvanmiut tent peaks stood ten feet high, and about half a dozen</p><p>sewn caribou furs, hair-side-out, covered the poles. By the late nineteeth cen-</p><p>tury, these tents were covered by an additional layer of imported canvas or</p><p>calico (fig. 103). To keep the multiple-layer Kuuvanmiut tent cover from flap-</p><p>ping open, thongs were wound around the canvas (fig. 103; Cantwell 1889b:86</p><p>ff; Nelson 1899:261–262, pl. 83b, figs. 88, 89). Willow withes possibly floored</p><p>these tents, the general Kuuvanmiut practice. Along the coast in this region</p><p>Eskimos pitched tents in dry places on hilltops or beaches and sometimes</p><p>among the semisubterranean winter houses in a settlement (Hooper 1853:227).</p><p>N O R T H A L A S K A I N T E R I O R D O M E T E N T S</p><p>At some point in Nunamiut</p><p>prehistory, the people became too mobile for</p><p>their earlier pole-and-turf houses. As a result, the Nunamiut, unlike other</p><p>Western Eskimo groups, adopted a willow-frame skin tent (itchalik) in which</p><p>they could live all year long. Of all the Eskimo tent types, this one is perhaps</p><p>most distinctive (fig. 104). As if its year-round usage were not unusual enough,</p><p>the domed tent had two terms associated with it, both having numerous or-</p><p>thographic renderings throughout the historic period. Native words reproduced</p><p>as itjerlik, itsalik, iccellik, and itchelik refer to the tent itself while qalorwik,</p><p>qalurwigaq, and kalukvik—correctly spelled qaluugvik (Lawrence Kaplan,</p><p>personal communication to Lee 1999)—indicate the frame (Ingstad 1954:159;</p><p>Larsen 1958:575; Petitot 1970:169; Rausch 1951:159; Spencer 1959:44).</p><p>In inclement weather the Nunamiut domed skin tent21 has several advan-</p><p>tages over a conical tent. First, dome tents could be either stationary or</p><p>transportable. Second, because heat loss is minimal in this kind of structure,</p><p>space is maximized. Third, unless winds are severe, the domed skin tent needs</p><p>no anchoring (Stefánsson 1944:197). These advantages were not lost on sur-</p><p>rounding groups. Toward the end of the nineteenth century, possibly because</p><p>of demographic shifts among the Nunamiut, as well as the observed effi-</p><p>ciency of their dwellings by other Eskimos, the dome shape appeared as far</p><p>east as the Mackenzie River (Stefánsson 1914:173). In at least one instance</p><p>the Tagiugmiut established a village of dome tents on the sea ice near the</p><p>Chukchi Sea coast between Wainwright and Point Barrow (fig. 105; Van Valin</p><p>1941:75),22 and other Eskimo dome tents were spotted around the coast at</p><p>Kivalina, on Kotzebue Sound (Brower 1950:32), and even at Cape Nome, on</p><p>Norton Sound (Ray 1975:149).</p><p>Men and women worked together to set up the Nunamiut tent. First they</p><p>had to level the ground and stamp it flat, and then they laid down two to three</p><p>dozen hefty willow poles in parallel rows. The men drove these poles, each</p><p>twelve to fifteen feet long, into the hard-frozen soil (or snow at midwinter) in</p><p>a circular to elliptical plan. Afterward, the people bent opposing pairs of poles</p><p>(and as many as eighteen additional ones) toward the middle and tied them</p><p>FIGURE 104</p><p>Idealized North Alaska Interior year-round</p><p>domed tent (Reinhardt and Lee 1997:1798;</p><p>courtesy of Cambridge University Press).</p><p>After Larsen 1958:fig. 1; Rausch 1951:fig. 10).</p><p>CHAPTER 3— NORTHWEST ARCTIC AND BERING STRAIT 99</p><p>together. The result was a cross-arching, near-rigid framework, essentially hemi-</p><p>spherical to semi-ellipsoidal and around five to six feet high at its center (fig.</p><p>104). The closest thing to lateral bracing was a lone pole lashed over the door-</p><p>way, centered in one long wall whenever the floor was long rather than round</p><p>(Campbell 1998:pls. 14–16; Gubser 1965:69–70; Rausch 1951:159–160, fig. 10).</p><p>Sheathing the Nunamiut tent dome were hair-on caribou-skin panels,</p><p>swathed in turn by a sheet of ten to twenty dehaired, water resistant skins</p><p>(Larsen 1958:576; Rausch 1951:159). Rausch specifies a named series of in-</p><p>ner-cover panels: six skins as a roof, two three-skin sets closing off the back,</p><p>two more twin-hide leaves around the front, and a single hide next to the</p><p>door (and hearth or stove) (Rausch 1951:159). A ring of turf, moss, or snow</p><p>held the exterior cover’s edges in place. Sewn into this outer layer was a win-</p><p>dow of bear-gut strips or caribou (or caribou calf skin) (fig. 104, top). Overhead,</p><p>the dome tent had a smokehole but no skylight. Next came a door flap of</p><p>prime grizzly bear or caribou fur. “The [bear] hide extended well beyond the</p><p>opening on either side so no cold air seeped in when it was dropped into</p><p>place” (Oliver 1989:2). A recent overview suggests that a log attached to the</p><p>door flap kept it from blowing open (Faegre 1979:134). To seal the entrance</p><p>further, a turf threshold set just inside the doorway, prevented its erosion</p><p>from foot traffic by wrapping it with a caribou skin (fig. 104, bottom). Last,</p><p>thin willow poles or spruce boughs floored the whole interior (Gubser 1965:69–</p><p>70; Ingstad 1954:38–39; Rausch 1951:159–160; Spencer 1959:44–46).</p><p>People evidently shovelled moss or soft snow over the skin-covered struc-</p><p>ture for added insulation, although Rausch refutes this (1951:160) and a</p><p>knowledgeable Nunamiut informant also fails to mention it (Campbell 1998:pl.</p><p>16). At the back, caribou blankets indicated the sleeping area. Sources differ</p><p>as to how the Nunamiut warmed their tents: they most likely had indoor</p><p>hearths (Campbell 1998:pl. 16; Gubser 1965:70, 74; Rausch 1951:159), but</p><p>FIGURE 105</p><p>“Summer village—Point Belcher.” A mixture</p><p>of (cloth-covered?) conical and dome tents</p><p>at or near Nunagiak, once the largest village</p><p>in the area. The large scaffold (right) is ac-</p><p>cessed by a ladder from the roof of a house.</p><p>In the distance is another scaffold (center left),</p><p>plus a whale-oil barrel (far left) probably from</p><p>a Yankee whaling ship.</p><p>Thetis Album, Accession #58-1026-1877,</p><p>Archives, Alaska and Polar Regions Dept.,</p><p>Rasmuson Library, University of Alaska</p><p>Fairbanks.</p><p>100 ESKIMO ARCHITECTURE</p><p>another source states that they heated the tent with stones fired outside and</p><p>then carried indoors (Ingstad 1954:39).23</p><p>In any event, the Nunamiut used sandstone, soapstone, or pottery lamps</p><p>for light, if not heat. Building a fire or using a lamp within caused ice to form</p><p>on the outer surface of the tent skin. Eventually, when the tent dried, there</p><p>was a dead-air space between the skin and the ice, which further insulated the</p><p>structure. Sometimes the tent was removed later, from the inside, and the ice</p><p>dome could then stand on its own (Gubser 1965:70; Ingstad 1954:38–39;</p><p>Stefánsson 1914:205–206).</p><p>Most likely cooking took place indoors in winter and outdoors during</p><p>summer (Campbell 1998:pl. 16). The Nunamiut compare with most Eski-</p><p>mos in that they cooked meat by boiling. However, even though they made</p><p>unfired ceramic cooking pots, 24 they apparently preferred to stew foods by</p><p>dropping heated stones into bentwood containers. Summer allowed women</p><p>to build bigger outdoor fires, over which they roasted meat by dangling it</p><p>(Gubser 1965:74, 233).</p><p>In the 1950s and later, canvas came to replace caribou hides as the pre-</p><p>ferred outer tent covering, although caribou still lined the insides. Similarly,</p><p>framed glass windows and metal stoves displaced their aboriginal counter-</p><p>parts. Ethel Ross Oliver provides a personal glimpse of recent Nunamiut tents</p><p>in winter. The interior features probably differed little from earlier examples:</p><p>Little willow twigs laid close together floored the tent. Placed on them, at the</p><p>rear half of the tent, were caribou skins and bedrolls. Dim light filtered through</p><p>a plastic window, once belonging to an airplane, sewed into the tent at one</p><p>side of the doorway. On the other side, just inside the doorway, stood a tiny</p><p>sheet-iron stove which warmed the tent. The heap of broken, dead willows</p><p>lay in front of it.</p><p>The back half of the stove was covered by a huge round kettle in which</p><p>chunks of clean, white snow melted. From the front half, a big blue enameled</p><p>roaster gave off savory odors. Between the stove and the tent wall, marrow</p><p>bones and a hind-quarter of caribou thawed. Near the stove, toward the</p><p>back of the tent, two wooden gasoline cases piled together made a cupboard.</p><p>An assortment of enameled cups and plates and [a] meager stock of staples</p><p>was kept here. Atop the cupboard sat a battered old battery-operated blue</p><p>table model radio, a Zenith. Over it, tied to the tent frame, hung a single</p><p>burner Coleman gasoline lantern. Hanging against the wall nearby was a</p><p>square of cloth covered by a series of pockets. Other than the human occu-</p><p>pants, this was all the tent contained. (Oliver 1989:3)</p><p>Nunamiut dome tents ultimately gave way to walled canvas tents, sod-</p><p>covered houses, and today’s Western-style houses.</p><p>K O B U K R I V E R B A R K H O U S E S</p><p>Two kinds of summer dwelling are reported for the Kuuvanmiut. A small</p><p>number of people, probably those who lived along the lower Kobuk, pitched</p><p>dome tents (fig. 99), but the majority seem to have chosen the aurivik, an</p><p>entirely different dwelling (fig. 106). Perhaps more durable than a dome tent,</p><p>this gable-roofed summer house was raised on “two end posts and four cor-</p><p>ner posts” (cf. Giddings 1952:11, 1956:19). Women and children were the</p><p>FIGURE 106</p><p>Idealized Kobuk River summer bark house.</p><p>After Giddings 1956:19.</p><p>CHAPTER 3— NORTHWEST ARCTIC AND BERING STRAIT 101</p><p>principle residents. While the men hunted inland or traded downstream at the</p><p>annual fair on Kotzebue Sound, the women and children lived in aurivit erected</p><p>at prime fishing sites along the river (Giddings 1952:11).</p><p>The willow walls of the aurivik were woven into an untidy wattle. The</p><p>roofing and siding material consisted of spruce bark cut into large slabs. Once</p><p>flattened, fifteen of these slabs sufficed for both house and associated fish</p><p>cache (Giddings 1961:35). Anchoring the overlapping roof shingles were poles</p><p>that had been lashed to the roof ridge with thongs or spruce-root cords. One</p><p>important feature of the aurivik was that it was designed to be mosquito</p><p>resistant. Curtis says the roof was sealed with pitch (1907–1930:209). There</p><p>was a door flap of some kind at the front of the dwelling (fig. 106) and the</p><p>rear wall was also sealed off, presumably with pitch (Giddings 1956:7;</p><p>1961:127). Little smudge fires indoors further helped repel mosquitoes,</p><p>although the women cooked outside over open hearths.</p><p>B E R I N G S T R A I T I S L A N D S T I LT H O U S E S</p><p>After snow houses from the Central Arctic, the cube-like envelopes of walrus</p><p>hide that dotted the shoreline cliffs of King Island and the Diomede Islands</p><p>are arguably the most memorable of all Eskimo structures (fig. 107). An-</p><p>chored to the islands’ steep and rocky escarpments with driftwood pilings as</p><p>long as twenty feet (fig. 108), the structures themselves (inipiaq or tuviq)</p><p>consisted of depilated walrus hides lashed to a driftwood frame, which in</p><p>FIGURE 107</p><p>“Walrus skin summer house on King Island.”</p><p>Note the pole framework and pilings, the</p><p>walkway around the house, and the door</p><p>hole facing seaward.</p><p>From Nelson 1899:fig. 84.</p><p>FIGURE 108</p><p>Details of a summer stilt house, King Island,</p><p>circa 1899–1900. Many pilings and cross-</p><p>beams support the house, which lacks walrus</p><p>hide on one side, while other struts run al-</p><p>most horizontally and no doubt strike deeply</p><p>into the hillside.</p><p>USRC Bear Collection, Accession #95-264-</p><p>22N, Archives, Alaska and Polar Regions</p><p>Dept., Rasmuson Library, University of Alaska</p><p>Fairbanks.</p><p>102 ESKIMO ARCHITECTURE</p><p>turn was elevated on a pole platform. Materials for the pilings either drifted</p><p>toward the island seasonally or were towed there from the mainland by means</p><p>of umiaks, or skin boats. The need for lumber was a serious concern, for “the</p><p>islanders are constantly on the lookout for the drifting timber, and put out to</p><p>sea in the stormiest weather for a distant piece, be it large or small. They also</p><p>patrol the coast after a high tide for stray bits of wood” (Hawkes 1914:13).</p><p>Bering Strait island stilt houses terraced upward a good 150 feet above the</p><p>sea (figs. 109–110), and, according to ethnologist Edward W. Nelson, re-</p><p>sembled “a cluster of cliff-swallows’ nests” (Nelson 1899:255) or, in the words</p><p>of another visitor, “daddy longlegs crawling up a wall” (Borden 1928:138).</p><p>One approached the dwelling from a plank walkway, which extended out</p><p>from the cliff and encircled the house (fig. 111). For safety, the back ends of</p><p>the poles that supported this walkway had been anchored well into the boul-</p><p>ders of the forty-degree hillslope behind the house (fig. 108). Around on the</p><p>seaward side was an oval or circular doorway.</p><p>Oiling the skins increased a stilt house’s light transmission and, undoubt-</p><p>edly, its resistance to rain and sea spray. According to naturalist John Muir,</p><p>who visited King Island in 1917, the sun’s rays shining through the oiled skin</p><p>created an eerie, dreamlike effect:</p><p>The skin is of a yellow color, and quite translucent, so that when in[doors]</p><p>one feels as if one were inside a huge blown bladder, the light sifting through</p><p>the skin at the top and all around, yellow as sunset. The entire establishment</p><p>is a window, one pane for the roof, which is also the ceiling, and one for each</p><p>of the four sides, without cross sash-bars to mar the brave simplicity of it all.</p><p>(Muir 1917:218)</p><p>When severe storms blew up, however, the romantic illusion ended. Ac-</p><p>cording to Father Louis Renner, who spent many years on King Island, “At</p><p>times [the house] shakes so violently that [the inhabitants] cannot sleep at all”</p><p>(Renner 1979:71). Still, it may well be that placing walrus-hide drying racks</p><p>immediately before most stilt houses (figs. 98, 110, 112) would deflect the</p><p>wind’s ferocity from the houses themselves. Even without skins in place (figs.</p><p>107–109), it seems likely that the drying-rack poles (and the stilts themselves)</p><p>further mitigated that ferocity much as “special windpoles, which stood in</p><p>front of the house and broke the force of the wind” once did for houses in</p><p>Switzerland (Rapoport 1969:101).</p><p>Measuring eighteen by twenty-four feet, space inside a walrus skin house</p><p>was divided into a long storage anteroom and, behind it, two sleeping rooms</p><p>partitioned off for separate families. Wood framed the rectilinear walls and</p><p>ceiling and was used for the flooring. The two-layer skin cover, insulated with</p><p>dry moss or grass in between the two layers (Renner 1979:71), required about</p><p>thirteen walrus hides. Hides were lashed in place when newly flensed, and</p><p>shrank as they dried (Van Valin 1941:23), thereby tightening their fit to the</p><p>frame. No doubt the last hide attached was for the roof (figs. 108, 112). Both</p><p>kayaks and skin boats were hung directly beneath the house for easy access to</p><p>the water and safekeeping from hungry dogs (Muir 1917:36; Nelson 1899:255).</p><p>CHAPTER 3— NORTHWEST ARCTIC AND BERING STRAIT 103</p><p>FIGURE 109</p><p>“Native village, King’s Island.” Early view</p><p>of summer stilt and winter stone houses,</p><p>showing walrus-hide drying frames before</p><p>most stilt houses (cf. fig. 110) and the steep</p><p>hillside.</p><p>From Cantwell 1889b:82 ff.</p><p>FIGURE 110</p><p>Stilt houses on King Island, circa 1899–1900.</p><p>Same view as in figure 109, but some fifteen</p><p>years later. Summer and winter houses com-</p><p>mingle on the much-trodden semiterraced</p><p>slope; large panels facing the sea (before most</p><p>stilt houses) are walrus hides being stretched</p><p>on drying frames.</p><p>USRC Bear Collection, Accession #95-264-23N,</p><p>Archives, Alaska and Polar Regions Dept.,</p><p>Rasmuson Library, University of Alaska</p><p>Fairbanks.</p><p>FIGURE 111</p><p>“Natives of King Islands [sic].” Note the</p><p>weight capacity of the dual-level gangway</p><p>to this summer stilt house, and the stone walls</p><p>of winter houses (background).</p><p>From Healy 1887:10 ff.</p><p>104 ESKIMO ARCHITECTURE</p><p>A LT E R N AT I V E S U M M E R D W E L L I N G S</p><p>As was true for their transition-season dwellings, Northwest Arctic and Bering</p><p>Strait Eskimos’ summer options were sparse in most places except the Kobuk</p><p>River. Mentioned above is the Kuuvanmiut domical bark-and-moss hut (ivrulik),</p><p>a versatile shield against summer rains when indoor hearths were unneces-</p><p>sary. The Kuuvanmiut and Nunamiut frequently stayed in short-pole conical</p><p>tents while trading at the coast (Ingstad 1954:39; Larsen 1958:577; Nelson</p><p>1899:261–262), where dome tents also appeared among the more common</p><p>cone-shaped type. Lone Kuuvanmiut hunters sometimes set up a small, circu-</p><p>lar moss-covered structure shaped from willow hoops (Curtis 1907–1930:209).</p><p>According to Murdoch, Eskimos living south of Kotzebue Sound25 spent</p><p>their summers in above-ground houses (Murdoch 1892:84). The most south-</p><p>erly of the Northwest Arctic Eskimos had no tents, and relied instead</p><p>on</p><p>“driftwood tipi structures” (Staley 1985). Centering on Seward Peninsula, they</p><p>occurred mainly around the bights of Kotzebue Sound and particularly Norton</p><p>Sound, which was the Iñupiaq/Yup’ik borderland (Staley 1985:map). A wood</p><p>tripod allowed people to add on driftwood until they had roughed out a tall</p><p>cone (Nelson 1899:253); with enough overlapped wood poles, they would</p><p>have been fairly waterproof (Staley 1985:5). An opening in the side became the</p><p>entrance and at the back was an elevated sleeping platform. One large historic</p><p>example measured seventeen feet (in outside diameter) by about ten feet high</p><p>(Staley 1985:6). Apparently these short-term dwellings mainly housed seasonal</p><p>fishers and marmot hunters (Ray 1984:289).</p><p>One Northwest Arctic (and probably Bering Strait) shelter might be regarded</p><p>as a lean-to variant but not as a true dwelling type. During summertime, the</p><p>Kuuvanmiut would sometimes prop up a bark canoe—not a true Eskimo kayak</p><p>(fig. 99)—while other Eskimos would set an umiak on edge (figs. 113–114).26</p><p>In either case, they leaned the boat on one or two oars, paddles, or on forked,</p><p>standing willows about three to six feet long, with the keel facing into the</p><p>wind (fig. 113). Then, people either covered the inboard (leeward) side with</p><p>birch-bark slabs (Cantwell 1889a:opp 69; Giddings 1961:39) or with skins or</p><p>tarps attached to the gunwales (fig. 113; Healey 1887:14 ff), or they left this</p><p>windbreak otherwise unprotected (fig. 114; Nelson 1899:261; Stoney 1900:93).</p><p>SPECIAL-USE STRUCTURES</p><p>L E S S E R S T R U C T U R E S</p><p>Mackenzie Eskimos built semicircular snowblock walls five feet tall as wind-</p><p>breaks at ice-fishing holes. Even without its erosive effect, the wind shifted</p><p>enough so that fresh windbreaks had to be started daily. Returning to the</p><p>same fishing hole, as long as it was productive, still made more sense than</p><p>digging a new one through some thickness of solid ice (Stefánsson 1922:144).</p><p>Mackenzie conical tents sometimes performed as springtime kitchens and</p><p>enclosures for cleaning fish and beluga whales (McGhee 1974:22; Stefánsson</p><p>CHAPTER 3— NORTHWEST ARCTIC AND BERING STRAIT 105</p><p>FIGURE 112</p><p>Walrus hides on drying rack lean against a</p><p>hide-covered summer house, with winter</p><p>houses nearby, on either King or Little</p><p>Diomede Island, circa 1899–1900.</p><p>USRC Bear Collection, Accession #95-264-17N,</p><p>Archives, Alaska and Polar Regions Dept.,</p><p>Rasmuson Library, University of Alaska</p><p>Fairbanks.</p><p>FIGURE 113</p><p>“Esquimo camp at Port Clarence.” Part of</p><p>this umiak lean-to is open (left), while cloth</p><p>drapes down over the midsection and fans</p><p>out to the right. A kayak dries on the gravel</p><p>beside a sealskin float (far left).</p><p>From Healy 1887:14 ff.</p><p>FIGURE 114</p><p>“Family of King Island Eskimos living un-</p><p>der skin boat. Nome, Alaska [1904].” A long</p><p>horizontal pole attached to uprights (top)</p><p>upholds an awning framework made from</p><p>modern-style oars. Trade goods abound (e.g.,</p><p>three rifles, an umiak model, a large tea kettle,</p><p>a basketed bottle, enameled basin, and furs)</p><p>and the people are clothed in a mix of tradi-</p><p>tional and imported materials.</p><p>Edith G. Fish Collection, Accession #73-202-</p><p>20, Archives, Alaska and Polar Regions Dept.,</p><p>Rasmuson Library, University of Alaska</p><p>Fairbanks.</p><p>106 ESKIMO ARCHITECTURE</p><p>1914:fig. 9). Reports from across the Arctic mention miniature tents set up</p><p>for various purposes. Most come from the Northwest Arctic, where Eskimos</p><p>used them for sewing, summer kitchens, housing orphans and old people,</p><p>and for childbirth (Murdoch 1892:83, 86; Ray 1885:39, 46; Steensby 1910:fig.</p><p>18; Stefánsson 1914:328, 166).</p><p>North Alaska Coast Eskimos made snowblock structures for use as work-</p><p>shops. Some were either mere holes that women dug into snow for preparing</p><p>sealskins or “small rude tents” for sewing caribou skins in autumn. Others</p><p>included windows and were big enough to enclose women while they refitted</p><p>umaiks with new skins (Murdoch 1892:83, 86). Seal hunters and fishers used</p><p>snowblocks, and whale hunters iceblocks, as windbreaks (Murdoch 1892:270;</p><p>Rainey 1947:259; Van Valin 1941:103).</p><p>Among the Kuuvanmiut another snowblock structure was used for ice fish-</p><p>ing. In order to net fish through a river-ice hole, which lay over the bottleneck</p><p>to a prebuilt spruce-bough fish weir, Kuuvanmiut men had to see the fish</p><p>approach. Accordingly, they erected an enclosure that provided enough shadow</p><p>to let them look into the river below and so drop their nets effectively over a</p><p>good catch (Giddings 1956:31–32). These tents (Giddings 1961:133–134),</p><p>or possibly another structure in earlier times, also made practical windbreaks</p><p>during ice-fishing vigils.</p><p>Special-use structures are less diverse in the Northwest Arctic and Bering</p><p>Strait region. One worth mentioning is the ever-present storage rack, usually</p><p>positioned immediately behind every dwelling on the north or seaward side</p><p>on the North Alaska coast (figs. 84–85, 88–89, 93–94, 97, 105). This out-</p><p>door scaffold consisted of four to eight vertical posts, generally eight to ten</p><p>feet high. Walrus jaws, lashed high up, sometimes formed the crotches that</p><p>held one or two levels of crossbeams (fig. 85). Umiaks, kayaks, sleds, and</p><p>other gear would be stored here well above ground level to outwit the hungry</p><p>dogs eager to make a meal of thongs and boat skins (Murdoch 1892:75;</p><p>Simpson 1855:931).</p><p>At a spot near the scaffold, each Tagiugmiut family could usually claim a</p><p>supernumerary ice cache. This was an underground storeroom, framed and</p><p>roofed with whale bones, in which permafrost kept meat and blubber freezer</p><p>cold (Murdoch 1892:76). The Kuuvanmiut kept dried fish in “a store-house</p><p>made of heavy pieces of timber stood on end and a flat roof made of small</p><p>poles . . . [and] a rude door . . . ” (Cantwell 1889b:81). Sources differ as to</p><p>whether the Big Diomede Island Eskimos erected a scaffolding of whale bone</p><p>posts and crosspieces (to support their watercraft) or built elevated, walrus-</p><p>hide covered storehouses, which approximated their winter houses on stilts</p><p>(Bogojavlensky 1969:103; Hawkes 1913a:379–382; Muir 1917:36, 121, 218;</p><p>Nelson 1899:255–256; Sczawinski 1981).</p><p>B I R T H , M E N S T R U A L , A N D D E AT H H U T S</p><p>The Western Arctic, subject of this chapter and the next, is where birth huts and</p><p>menstrual huts achieved the greatest cultural prominence. As death huts were</p><p>more widespread in the Central Arctic (chapter 2), we summarize these struc-</p><p>tures only briefly here, focusing more attention on birth and menstrual huts.27</p><p>FIGURE 115</p><p>(Opposite, top) “Eskimo grave, Hotham In-</p><p>let.” At least ten feet high, this cone-shaped</p><p>cluster of logs houses at least four skulls.</p><p>Large horizontal logs (left) suggest a rudi-</p><p>mentary platform within the structure.</p><p>From Cantwell 1889a:66 ff.</p><p>FIGURE 116</p><p>(Opposite, middle) “Point Hope. Esquimo</p><p>graves.” Taller timbers create a near-conical</p><p>effect to the center burial; coffin platforms</p><p>rest on whale mandible frames of others.</p><p>From Healy 1887:12 ff.</p><p>FIGURE 117</p><p>(Opposite, right) “Eskimo grave at Point</p><p>Hope.” Above-ground burial with mortise -</p><p>and-tenon wooden coffin on a wood and</p><p>whale mandible frame.</p><p>From Call 1899:126 ff.</p><p>CHAPTER 3— NORTHWEST ARCTIC AND BERING STRAIT 107</p><p>Just before bearing a child, expectant Tagiugmiut women would be iso-</p><p>lated in a sudliwin. The period of childbirth included a ten-day postpartum</p><p>seclusion in one of two cramped structures, depending on the season. In win-</p><p>ter the hut was of snow but in summer it was tented (Murdoch 1892:86, 415;</p><p>Van Valin 1941:212). While both structures differ, we treat them as one type</p><p>because their design is dictated by their function.</p><p>Nunamiut women bore children within a “small willow frame covered</p><p>with moss and snow.” Informants knew of death huts, too, although these</p><p>were definitely uncommon by the 1960s: “On rare occasions an old person,</p><p>who knew he was going to die, built or had built a small hut so that his death</p><p>would not affect the family</p><p>house” (Gubser 1965:72). Thus, the Nunamiuts</p><p>shared with most other Eskimos the inconvenient taboo against dying at home.</p><p>Remembering the Kuuvanmiut miluq as a short–term or travelers’ shelter,</p><p>it is disorienting to find the same word applied to their birth huts (Giddings</p><p>1956:16). Women moved to these structures for this purpose and they stayed</p><p>there for a ritualized four-day postpartum seclusion. Winter birth huts were</p><p>either small snow creations (Giddings 1961:21) or some other structure cloaked</p><p>in snow. Again, the number of forms, one or two, does not outweigh the</p><p>birth hut’s ritual “decontamination” function. Pubescent Kuuvanmiut girls</p><p>also confined themselves to these huts during menstruation and for the year</p><p>following the onset of their menstrual periods (Giddings 1961:20–21). The</p><p>Kuuvanmiut isolated a woman when menstruating, a state that made her</p><p>quhuq (taboo) then; it was “something to be avoided at all cost,” because</p><p>she was in a state “as though she were dying or giving birth to a child”</p><p>(Giddings 1956:16, 48).</p><p>B U R I A L S T R U C T U R E S</p><p>In different sections of the Northwest Arctic, various Eskimo groups had</p><p>diverse options for housing and remembering the dead (e.g., Garber 1934).</p><p>For example, people sometimes entombed their dead in conical structures</p><p>made of logs (fig. 115). These burial cones, or nuiqsaq, occurred around</p><p>Seward Peninsula, between the bights of Kotzebue and Norton Sounds.</p><p>They are so similar to the local summertime “driftwood tipis” (Staley 1985:1)</p><p>that it is tempting to interpret those used for the dead as symbolic reminders</p><p>of the relatively carefree summer life of the living. Before placement in the</p><p>wooden tepee, the deceased was removed from his or her house through a</p><p>special exit, a round hole punched in the dwelling’s rear wall (cf. Petitot</p><p>1970:169, 207 on the Mackenzie Delta custom). Once inside this tepee, the</p><p>body was placed on a raised platform (fig. 115). From the poles, people</p><p>hung personal effects of the dead person (Beechey 1831:457; Staley 1985).</p><p>Similarly, Point Hope villagers erected for the dead a tall cone or parallel</p><p>rows of timbers or whale half-mandibles (figs. 116–117). Near the top, in</p><p>either configuration of uprights, they constructed platforms upon which</p><p>rested the rough-hewn coffin.</p><p>A century ago, Father Edward Devine witnessed events preceding and fol-</p><p>lowing the death and burial, on a wooden scaffold, of an old Eskimo man</p><p>from Kotzebue Sound (fig. 118).</p><p>108 ESKIMO ARCHITECTURE</p><p>An Eskimo was dying of pneumonia at Keewalik; I found him on a bearskin in</p><p>his igloo and burning with fever. His wife and four children were sitting beside</p><p>him, silent and immoveable (sic), and unable to help him. . . . [He] died a few</p><p>hours later, and the family abandoned the igloo [forever], leaving everything</p><p>behind them. The grief of his little children, who appeared to realize vividly all</p><p>they had lost, was one of the saddest sights I ever witnessed. Great tears rolled</p><p>down their cheeks, and they sobbed as though their little hearts could break.</p><p>The [men] constructed a rude coffin of boards and canvas. . . . The coffin</p><p>was raised to its four posts, six feet above the ground, and the dead man’s</p><p>hunting-knife and rifle were hung alongside. But it was a sad commentary on</p><p>our white civilization to see the friends of the Eskimo breaking the trigger of</p><p>the rifle before they hung it up on the post. They knew by experience that the</p><p>weapon would soon be stolen by white men, if it were worth having. (Devine</p><p>1905:255–257)</p><p>C E R E M O N I A L H O U S E S</p><p>The Western Arctic is also the region in which the men’s ceremonial house</p><p>reached its zenith. At one time the ceremonial house (qargi)28 was common to</p><p>most Eskimos (see Taylor 1990:52–53 for a summary of its distribution), yet</p><p>the qargi/qasgiq assumed its most elaborated form in the Alaskan Arctic,</p><p>where it housed males and served as “the church, the townhouse, workshop,</p><p>and entertainment center, all in one” (Senungetuk 1971:51). According to</p><p>Murdoch, the literal meaning of the word is “circle of hills around a deep</p><p>valley,” used in this case to signify a “circle of people who sit close together”</p><p>(Murdoch 1892:79). There could be several men’s houses simultaneously in</p><p>any sizable community, and at least one on King Island survived into the early</p><p>1900s (Renner 1979:127).</p><p>FIGURE 118</p><p>“Eskimo graves on the Arctic coast.” Prob-</p><p>ably the same elevated grave Devine refers</p><p>to, which would be near Keewalik, on</p><p>Kotzebue Sound. Cloth covers a presumed</p><p>wooden coffin on the platform (right); grave</p><p>goods include a tapered pole (harpoon</p><p>shaft?) leaning against the coffin, a possible</p><p>box or satchel (near right post), and a rifle</p><p>hanging from the platform’s back edge.</p><p>From DeVine 1905:266 ff.</p><p>CHAPTER 3— NORTHWEST ARCTIC AND BERING STRAIT 109</p><p>Owned by males of an extended kin group, qargis were the focal point of</p><p>village life. The community (or a kin group, if there were more than one in a</p><p>village) built and maintained the structures, which could be large enough to</p><p>accommodate the entire village and any visitors. The roof of a qargi usually</p><p>was higher than that of dwellings and, in most places, the square smoke-hole</p><p>could function as a second door, especially during ceremonies. Instead of sleeping</p><p>platforms, benches stretched around two to all four walls of the structure.</p><p>Qargi sizes varied, but some could be huge compared to houses (figs. 120–</p><p>121). One qargi at Cape Prince of Wales was square, about twenty-four feet</p><p>on a side, and reached by a covered entrance forty feet long (Wickersham</p><p>1902:223). On relatively unpopulated Little Diomede Island, qargis report-</p><p>edly measured a mere thirteen feet square (fig. 97; Sczawinski 1981:19).</p><p>However, “when one considers the toil and pain with which [wood] is gath-</p><p>ered, the building of a kásgi becomes an important matter” (Hawkes 1914:13),</p><p>even if the finished structure was small. The King Island qargi was made like</p><p>the stone winter house, although people used it year round (Bogojavlensky</p><p>1969). Even the Nunamiut constructed qargis: more recently they pitched a</p><p>large tent but formerly they had structures akin to their old-time pole-and-</p><p>turf houses (Gubser 1965:168; Larsen 1958:577; Stoney 1900:72).</p><p>Kuuvanmiut men might spend most waking hours in qargis, but they estab-</p><p>lished them only if their village was going to host a trade festival (Giddings</p><p>1961:24–25). Still, Northwest Arctic and Bering Strait Eskimo men and older</p><p>boys used qargis as ceremonial “assembly halls” for the community and as</p><p>male-only “club houses” for more routine activities. The men and boys gen-</p><p>erally remained therein all day long, except in winter (Murdoch 1892:80),</p><p>FIGURE 119</p><p>Four boys practice dance moves in unison</p><p>(note similar positions of right arms) in a</p><p>well-lit qargi around Cape Prince of Wales,</p><p>circa 1892–1902, as three men demonstrate</p><p>the size and handling of the large Eskimo</p><p>tambourine drum. Note the floor entry, or</p><p>katak (lower right).</p><p>Ellen Kittredge Lopp Collection; courtesy of</p><p>Kathleen Lopp Smith.</p><p>110 ESKIMO ARCHITECTURE</p><p>usually returning to their homes only to sleep. In the qargi they chatted, lounged,</p><p>taught the younger males, made and repaired tools, weapons, and so forth;</p><p>they even took their meals there (fig. 119). The qargi’s socializing benefit to</p><p>boys (i.e., learning customs and crafts from their elders) has not been forgot-</p><p>ten by today’s descendants in Barrow, where a move is afoot to re-establish</p><p>qargis as a conceptual tool for teaching male—and female—children about</p><p>traditional culture.</p><p>Southwest arctic groups, the subject of the next chapter, went a step fur-</p><p>ther, virtually living in the qasgiq. Not surprisingly, then, the presence of a</p><p>qargi/qasgiq was so intrinsic to the Western Eskimo conception of cultural</p><p>space that Eskimos frequently resorted to improvised substitutes. As a case in</p><p>point, Cantwell shows a large makeshift qargi seen around 1884 at Icy Cape</p><p>(figs. 120–121). Its span was at least seven by thirty feet and its pitched roof</p><p>was about seven feet high in the middle. Skins or cloth covered both end walls</p><p>and the rafters but left the side walls were mostly exposed. At about the same</p><p>time, a temporary qargi near Icy Cape (the same structure?) was said to have</p><p>eighty caribou skins invested in its “tent cover” (Lantis 1947:105n134).</p><p>MACKENZIE DELTA</p><p>Mackenzie Eskimos used their qargi in the warmer months only, and the</p><p>structures were probably less durable than the Tagiugmiut type (McGhee</p><p>1974:22). Richardson (1852:155) describes Mackenzie Eskimo qargis as having</p><p>an outer wall of beluga whale skulls and a beluga-skin doorflap. These con-</p><p>struction materials attest to how economically pivotal whales were to this</p><p>society. While Mackenzie houses were heated by lamp, their qargi contained</p><p>a hearth for this purpose, along with a big smokehole above. Qargi abandon-</p><p>FIGURE 120</p><p>“Indian [actually, Eskimo] keshagem (Dance-</p><p>house).” Probably an impromptu structure,</p><p>this North Alaska coast qargi consists mostly</p><p>of unmodified driftwood; the roof might be</p><p>cloth. Three people inside provide scale (cf.</p><p>fig. 121).</p><p>From Cantwell 1889a:84 ff.</p><p>CHAPTER 3— NORTHWEST ARCTIC AND BERING STRAIT 111</p><p>FIGURE 121</p><p>“Natives at rendezvous near Icy Cape,</p><p>Alaska.” The same qargi as in fig. 120, with</p><p>its presumed celebrants.</p><p>From Cantwell 1889a:64 ff.</p><p>ment in deepest winter coincides with the time when this heat source and the</p><p>structure’s seeming openness made it too cold to use (Stefánsson 1914:136).</p><p>Considering its implied size (fifty to sixty feet on a side, a good ten to eleven</p><p>feet high in the middle, and at least six feet high behind its wall-skirting benches),</p><p>the amount of fuel consumed—even with driftwood available—must have</p><p>been astronomical as winter approached.</p><p>In 1829, Sir John Franklin saw a qargi tent—large enough to hold forty</p><p>people—west of the Mackenzie Delta (King 1836:vol. 2, 122). It may be, too,</p><p>that Mackenzie Eskimos more recently started putting together a snowblock</p><p>qargi for certain occasions. This would explain Rasmussen’s journal refer-</p><p>ence to a similar structure29 in a sea-ice village: “Farewell feast for us. Large</p><p>dance-house, built on our arrival” (Ostermann 1942:17).</p><p>NORTH ALASKA COAST</p><p>Few specifics have been recorded about the Tagiugmiut qargi (also transcribed</p><p>in the literature as karigi, kudrigi, kudyigi, qalegi). Its gable roof sloped uni-</p><p>formly in both directions but lacked a turf covering. The interior consisted of</p><p>upright plank walls bordered by three or four benches. Two large examples</p><p>around Point Barrow averaged fifteen feet wide by nineteen feet long, the</p><p>bigger of which was seven feet high in its center and held sixty celebrants</p><p>(Murdoch 1892:80; Simpson 1855:933). The one known archaeological qargi</p><p>from Barrow used mainly bowhead whale bones as structural members</p><p>(another allusion to the centrality of whaling). It showed no signs of a tunnel</p><p>(cf. Simpson 1855:933) or even a passage of any length, but it was turf-covered</p><p>[Sheehan (1990)]. Unlike the Mackenzie Eskimo qargis, Tagiugmiut examples</p><p>were used in winter—at least during ceremonies (Murdoch 1892).</p><p>112 ESKIMO ARCHITECTURE</p><p>Tagiugmiut communities often consisted of several extended families and/</p><p>or whaling crews. These larger Tagiugmiut villages often had several ceremo-</p><p>nial houses. For example, the village of Point Hope had at least seven open at</p><p>one time in the nineteenth century (Rainey 1947:244). During the whaling</p><p>season, while men were camped on the ice, an improvised substitute for the</p><p>qargi appeared in the open area at the center of their on-shore whaling camp.</p><p>This extemporized qargi consisted of a square hole dug in the ground, as well</p><p>as four timbers (for benches) lining its sides (Murdoch 1892:80; Simpson</p><p>1855:933). As late as 1900, another men’s house at Barrow had walls of</p><p>upright logs that were five feet high and roof supports that were seven to eight</p><p>feet long (Stefánsson 1914:189).</p><p>NORTH ALASKA INTERIOR</p><p>Gubser (1965:168) treats the Nunamiut qargi as “merely an enlarged caribou</p><p>skin tent, a temporary edifice” and Ingstad (1954:38) points out that, merely</p><p>by spreading willow poles farther between their ground insertion points, domed</p><p>tents could be enlarged sufficiently to house “sixty people at a pinch.” More</p><p>consistent with Stoney’s (1900:72) record, Larsen (1958:577) reports the</p><p>Nunamiut structure somewhat differently. In this second version a qargi con-</p><p>sisted of tripods at four corners, connected by stringers against which people</p><p>leaned willow pole studs at intervals. Sometimes a centerpost replaced hori-</p><p>zontal rafters, but in either case this quadrangular skeleton was fur covered.</p><p>FIGURE 122</p><p>Man sitting on the floor of a probable qargi,</p><p>with broad floor boards and at least one tier</p><p>of raised bench behind him (upper right); he</p><p>wears a fancy split-glass-bead-on-white-stone</p><p>labret (cheek plug) below his mouth and</p><p>holds a Siberian-style tobacco pipe.</p><p>Lomen Family Collection, Accession #72-71-</p><p>2917, Archives, Alaska and Polar Regions</p><p>Dept., Rasmuson Library, University of Alaska</p><p>Fairbanks.</p><p>CHAPTER 3— NORTHWEST ARCTIC AND BERING STRAIT 113</p><p>The men’s house was a cooperative effort shared by several related families,</p><p>and each household provided a few furs. A Nunamiut qargi was occupied</p><p>daily from dawn (Gubser 1965:168), housing men while they ate and worked</p><p>during the day, and the general community during dances at night (Larsen</p><p>1958:577; Stoney 1900:72), but in the 1960s its utility lessened to the carry-</p><p>ing out of public events held “four or five times a year” (Gubser 1965:172).</p><p>KOBUK RIVER</p><p>The Kuuvanmiut seem to have lacked “any very elaborate festal or ceremonial</p><p>rites” (Cantwell (1889b:89). They did, however, erect a qargi if the community</p><p>was hosting a trade fair, as occasionally happened. If so, throughout the preced-</p><p>ing winter the men and older boys not out hunting would spend their waking</p><p>hours working and socializing in this building (Giddings 1961:24)</p><p>Oddly, Kuuvanmiut men constructed their qargi away from the village. Its</p><p>basic design, a bridged pair of high central posts as well as four corner up-</p><p>rights and a moss-coated (then earth-layered) roof of poles, resembled summer</p><p>houses more than winter ones. The doorway, which had no tunnel, was cov-</p><p>ered by a bear skin.30 Inside, a centralized smokehole penetrated the roof</p><p>above a wood- or stone-framed hearth. Poles paved only the middle, while</p><p>drummers’ and guests’ benches lined all four walls. Giddings presents con-</p><p>flicting data on whether lamps or fireplaces heated the Kuuvanmiut qargi</p><p>(Giddings 1956:45; 1961:24).</p><p>ASSOCIATED RITUALS AND BELIEFS</p><p>THERE ARE CONTRADICTORY REPORTS ABOUT OTHER DEATH-RELATED BELIEFS</p><p>associated with houses. Mackenzie Eskimos, for instance, abandoned their</p><p>houses when an occupant died. Similarly, the Kuuvanmiut considered it “un-</p><p>lucky to return to the same house, even though one might set up another in</p><p>the same neighborhood” (Giddings 1952:11). Furthermore,</p><p>the house must be rebuilt each year. This is not because the old one is unin-</p><p>habitable, but . . . [because of] the well being of people and the animals they</p><p>hunt. A former house is like an old shell of one’s self. . . . The house itself is</p><p>evacuated with care. Each member of the family searches closely for personal</p><p>items that may have been dropped inside—hair clippings, bits of torn cloth-</p><p>ing, even willow beds must be removed and thrown out upon the ice of the</p><p>river to be carried away in the spring flood. If any personal thing is left behind</p><p>in the winter house it will be sure to bring bad luck. (Giddings 1956:28, 47)</p><p>Nevertheless, the Kuuvanmiut were not averse to robbing last year’s house for</p><p>this year’s lumber. “No particular harm can come from using old material . . .</p><p>[as long as] the old house is avoided as a unit” (Giddings 1956:28).</p><p>Another set of house-linked beliefs concerns the Tagiugmiut:</p><p>When returning to his winter hut after the summer season, the [Point Bar-</p><p>row] native goes about cutting a small chip off every piece of timber and</p><p>114 ESKIMO ARCHITECTURE</p><p>board that can be reached easily.31 The significance of this is probably to</p><p>break whatever spell the devil may have cast over the abode during the ab-</p><p>sence of its occupants. When deserted in the spring, the window is broken in,</p><p>the entrance-way blocked up, and rubbish thrown in, to give it the appear-</p><p>ance of having been abandoned, probably to throw the devil off the scent.</p><p>(Aldrich 1889:154)</p><p>Although Aldrich’s notion of “the devil” might be imprecise (perhaps “malevo-</p><p>lent spirits” would be more accurate), some sort of customary, formalized</p><p>abandonment-and-reoccupation rituals—no doubt taboo-related—was in ef-</p><p>fect in northern Alaska, at least in the later 1880s.</p><p>The literature records many other house-associated beliefs, rituals, and</p><p>stories. Among Point Barrow Eskimos, for example, part of the celestial con-</p><p>stellation Cassiopeia “is called the ‘house-building’ and represents a few people</p><p>engaged in constructing an iglu, or winter hut” (Simpson 1855:940) or “‘the</p><p>house builder’ from some fancied resemblance to a man in a working atti-</p><p>tude” (Bockstoce 1988:351). However, MacDonald agrees with a more recent</p><p>analysis that the Native name for the same star grouping “might refer to the</p><p>instrument [a triangular-bladed tool used to cut sod blocks] for making</p><p>houses . . . [rather] than to a person building a house” (MacDonald 1998:63).</p><p>The Tagiugmiut also spoke of “a land named Ig’-lu, far away to the north or</p><p>north-east of Point Barrow. The story is, that several men, who were carried</p><p>away in the olden time by the ice breaking under the influences of a southerly</p><p>wind, after many sleeps arrived in a hilly country inhabited by a people like</p><p>themselves who spoke the same language” (Simpson 1855:939). A Nunamiut</p><p>story “tells of the two old women who dragged their turf house and some of</p><p>the frozen ground under it across the tundra” (Ingstad 1954:183). Residents</p><p>of Diomede Island “produced a string-game figure described as ‘Siberian House</p><p>= kochlinee’” that is vaguely reminiscent of the new-style Siberian winter</p><p>dwellings discussed in chapter 4 (Gordon 1906:fig. 22).</p><p>Ritual associations between people, the animals they depended on, and the</p><p>houses they lived in were also important in the cosmology of the Mackenzie</p><p>Delta and northern Alaska. Thus, in an area where whales provided more</p><p>than half a winter’s food supply (Bockstoce 1980; Sheehan 1985), it is not</p><p>surprising to find that whale imagery was incorporated into many domains of</p><p>culture, including the architectural context. To illustrate, one MacKenzie Es-</p><p>kimo qargi was “supported by whale-skulls built round its outside wall”</p><p>(Richardson 1852:155). Around Barrow, moreover, qargis were placed on</p><p>the highest ground, securing the best vantage point from which to scan the</p><p>ocean for bowhead whales (Simpson 1855:933). Tagiugmiut men reportedly</p><p>entered at least one qargi through a roof-hole rather than the tunnel (Simpson</p><p>1855:933). It is possible that this unusual entrace symbolically reiterated the</p><p>all-important spout of water that indicated, to the whale-hunting Tagiugmiut,</p><p>the presence and location of bowhead whales. In addition, an archaeological</p><p>structure at Barrow, interpreted by archaeologists as a qargi, included far</p><p>more bowhead bones than were found in nearby wooden houses. These in-</p><p>cluded a skull, scapulae apparently used as backrests, as well as both an atlas</p><p>CHAPTER 3— NORTHWEST ARCTIC AND BERING STRAIT 115</p><p>(first neck vertebra) and some fluke-end vertebrae, bones that symbolically</p><p>span the whale’s length (Sheehan 1990:240–286). Near the tip of Seward</p><p>Peninsula, one turn-of-the-last-century qargi incorporated walrus skulls into</p><p>its walls, acknowledging that species’ local economic value (fig. 123).</p><p>Finally, qargis were the focus of community life in winter (Hawkes 1913b).</p><p>Here the social status of community members could be discerned by the places</p><p>they occupied on the benches that bordered the inside walls. The end oppo-</p><p>site the doorway was warmest and reserved for the most powerful members</p><p>of the community (Hawkes 1914:14). At the southeastern limit of north-</p><p>western Eskimo territory, Jacobsen points out that status differences in the</p><p>community were replicated in the seating order in a qargi, which had three</p><p>tiers of benches: “On the bottom row against the walls the Eskimo women</p><p>were seated; the second row was for the adult men and guests of honor, where</p><p>we were taken. On the top row above us were the chattering children and</p><p>young boys and girls” (Jacobsen 1977:134).</p><p>At Cape Prince of Wales the door frames of the qargi sometimes were deco-</p><p>rated with flat pieces of ivory (Wickersham 1902:223). Thornton describes</p><p>an “annual housewarming” in autumn (awahpahlazieruktuk), which seems</p><p>much like the Greenlandic tent-to-house transition ceremony noted in chap-</p><p>ter 1 (Kaalund 1983:54). The more elaborate Alaska ceremony involved masked</p><p>boys who assembled outside and growled in imitation of “invisible spirits” of</p><p>animals that the occupants wanted to propitiate during the coming winter.</p><p>They entered the house and devoured food, only to be dismissed by the head</p><p>of the household (Thornton 1931:226).</p><p>FIGURE 123</p><p>A boy and girl look down from the wall of a</p><p>presumed flat-roofed qargi, built of stone and</p><p>turf and integrated with walrus skulls, circa</p><p>1892 to 1902. Note scaffolds, left, and use</p><p>of roof timber (left foreground) to suspend</p><p>nets and lines for repair and/or drying.</p><p>Ellen Kittredge Lopp collection; courtesy of</p><p>Kathleen Lopp Smith.</p><p>116 ESKIMO ARCHITECTURE</p><p>During autumn whaling ceremonies, the walls and ceilings of Point Hope</p><p>men’s houses were hung with carvings (Rainey 1947:247). On Little Diomede</p><p>Island, Diamond Jenness collected a broken wooden mallet with two faces</p><p>(one in the chin of the other) carved on its top; it was “attached to wall of</p><p>medicine man’s house and food offered to it” (fig. 124; Morrison 1991:71,</p><p>fig. 27e). Another piece he acquired was a wooden mask of a man, done in</p><p>typical Northwest Alaskan Eskimo style, that was said to have been “hung in</p><p>dancehouse as the guardian of house” (Morrison 1991:93, fig. 33).</p><p>CHAPTER 3 NOTES</p><p>1 The sparsely populated coastline between the Mackenzie River drainage and</p><p>the vicinity of Point Barrow is atypical of mainland Eskimo settlement patterns.</p><p>2 These rectangular houseplan variants also carry over into areas described in</p><p>chapter 4.</p><p>3 Smith (1984:349) disagrees, stating that one family occupied each sleeping platform.</p><p>Six families per house does seem large.</p><p>4 These doorway options recall Tagiugmiut floor holes (see North Alaska Coast</p><p>Houses) and may have originated from that source.</p><p>5 Having this trapdoor in position would explain why Richardson (1852:206–</p><p>207) regarded the houses as windowless.</p><p>6 In summer, tunnels (the only way in and out of the house) filled with water as</p><p>the permafrost thawed and the snow melted.</p><p>7 Murdoch (1892:fig. 9) suggests that houses were greater in width than length,</p><p>but this seems incorrect more often than not. An archaeologically excavated</p><p>house from Barrow measures seventeen feet wide by twelve feet front to back</p><p>and another, seven by twelve feet (Ford 1959:67–73). However, five other ar-</p><p>chaeological examples from the same site averaged closer to six by nine feet</p><p>(Reinhardt and Dekin 1990:table 4-1). Three from the Pingasagruk site are of</p><p>similar size (six by nine feet) and, like most Barrow ones, are longer than they</p><p>are wide (Reinhardt, unpublished field notes). Spencer’s deceptively round house</p><p>floor (1959:fig. 1), which he subsequently describes in terms of “diameter”</p><p>(Spencer 1984b:327, cf. 1984a:fig. 3), continues to mislead others (e.g., Hunter-</p><p>Anderson 1977:313; Murdock 1967:60).</p><p>8 Copper Eskimos were the main suppliers of these lamps. Pottery lamps were</p><p>also made</p><p>of locally available clay in the Point Barrow region. For a full discus-</p><p>sion see Spencer (1959:470–474).</p><p>9 Simpson (1855:931) mentions even warmer conditions, “seldom below 70</p><p>[degrees F].”</p><p>10 Our reconstructions of the Nunamiut winter dwelling disregard Spencer’s de-</p><p>scription, which include window(s) fixed in the passage walls. These seem otherwise</p><p>unverified, as is his suggestion that lamps alone provided heat for the turf dwelling</p><p>(Spencer 1959:47).</p><p>11 These movements intimate some settlement pattern shift during the last few</p><p>centuries, possibly in response to transportation mode. Archaeological evidence</p><p>(Corbin 1976) points to more annual mobility, and a transition from foot travel</p><p>to using dogsleds. Apparently, the same shift affected the Nunamiut, as well.</p><p>12 See note 13, chapter 1, for an explanation of the varied Eskimo spellings of the</p><p>ceremonial house.</p><p>13 According to Richardson, the move was in March to coincide with seal hunt-</p><p>ing (Richardson 1852:207).</p><p>FIGURE 124</p><p>Top of a wooden mallet from a qargi en-</p><p>trance, Little Diomede Island, collected by</p><p>Diamond Jenness circa 1926. Note a sec-</p><p>ond face below the open mouth and tongue</p><p>of the larger face.</p><p>Catalog no. IX-F-9658, courtesy of Museum of</p><p>Civilization, Ottawa; 4.5 in. (11 cm) long;</p><p>drawn by Stoney Harby.</p><p>CHAPTER 3— NORTHWEST ARCTIC AND BERING STRAIT 117</p><p>14 The basic form seems to have been aboriginal, although we have found no</p><p>mention of it in the literature before Stefánsson described a canvas-covered</p><p>version (Stefánsson 1922:112–113).</p><p>15 Oviously these short-term dwellings were not so well sealed outside or heat-</p><p>glazed inside that they prevented fresh air from entering. Otherwise, the inhabitants</p><p>would have suffocated.</p><p>16 All three dwellings were also used by the Nunamiut, the “caribou-hunting Es-</p><p>kimos” (Stefánsson 1922:95, 152, 173). By the 1920s, “a number of natives</p><p>from Alaska” were trapping foxes and living in the Mackenzie Delta (Ostermann</p><p>1942:18).</p><p>17 To further complicate Alaskan snowhouse taxonomy, one of George Stoney’s</p><p>officers (Howard) describes finding houses with snowblock walls and roofs</p><p>reminiscent of the Tagiugmiut type somewhere in the mountains in neighbor-</p><p>ing Kuuvanmiut (Kobuk River) or Noatagmiut (Noatak River) Eskimo territory,</p><p>immediately south and west of the Nunamiut. This type was dome-like, its</p><p>“roof formed by overlapping the higher layers” (Stoney 1900:67).</p><p>18 The people here began their winter dwellings by “plaiting mountain willow to</p><p>form a frame.” Thus, it might be that Stoney (1900:46) is describing the Kuuvanmiut</p><p>domed tent (or even a Nunamiut version).</p><p>19 In a large settlement upriver from the Delta, Petitot recorded “big tents” that</p><p>averaged twelve inhabitants each (1970:136). Possibly, these were larger than</p><p>normal.</p><p>20 For the Kuuvanmiut, Giddings (1961:127) also mentions a “quick tent” in-</p><p>volving skin-covered “tipi of poles,” known as an auwayyuk.</p><p>21 Coverings were variously of skin, moss and snow, or bark, as noted for in the</p><p>section Kuuvanmiut Transitional Dwellings above, but we focus here on the</p><p>Nunamiut skin variety.</p><p>22 By the early twentieth century, after diseases decimated the north Alaska coast</p><p>population, north Alaska interior Eskimos emigrated to the coast. Thus, it would</p><p>not be surprising that they took their dome tent design with them.</p><p>23 According to Corbin (1976:151–153) indoor hearths were absent from Nunamiut</p><p>tents, but archaeological evidence points unquestionably to the presence of hearths</p><p>in two tent rings from the ethnographic era (Hall 1976:118–120, 128–129).</p><p>24 Spencer (1958:473) says these vessels were made on the coast and imported.</p><p>25 Alternatively, Ray cites Cape Nome (on the southern, or Norton Sound side, of</p><p>this peninsula) as the terminus (Ray 1975:130).</p><p>26 Farther south Alutiiq travelers almost identically propped up their umiaks for</p><p>use as windbreaks and traveling shelters (see chapter 4).</p><p>27 Among the Western Eskimos the only people for whom we found no reports of</p><p>birth huts are the Mackenzie Delta groups or those immediately to the east of</p><p>them. Some Central and Eastern Eskimos, such as Copper Eskimos (Jenness</p><p>1922:164n2) and the Ammassalik (Holm 1914:62), specifically denied that</p><p>they ever segregated full-term pregnant women. Perhaps the birth hut was more</p><p>widely distributed in earlier times, however.</p><p>28 See note 13, chapter 1, for an explanation of the varied Eskimo spellings of the</p><p>ceremonial house.</p><p>29 These particular snowblock qargi builders were immigrants from Victoria Is-</p><p>land, which is well within Copper Eskimo territory. That would mark the design</p><p>as a Central Arctic creation.</p><p>30 A 300-year-old qargi-like structure unearthed near the mouth of the Kobuk</p><p>River did have a tunnel (Giddings 1952:20, 22–23).</p><p>31 Similarly, the Tagiugmiut refreshed their existing sea mammal hunting equip-</p><p>ment each year by shaving a thin layer from all wooden parts.</p><p>FIGURE 125</p><p>Map of southwest Alaska, Bering Sea,</p><p>Siberia, and Gulf of Alaska.</p><p>Produced by Robert Drozda.</p><p>Beri</p><p>ng</p><p>Sea</p><p>Norton Sound</p><p>B</p><p>er</p><p>in</p><p>g</p><p>K</p><p>otzebue Sound</p><p>K</p><p>us</p><p>ko</p><p>k</p><p>w</p><p>im</p><p>B</p><p>ay</p><p>Bris</p><p>to</p><p>l B</p><p>ay</p><p>G</p><p>ulf</p><p>of</p><p>A</p><p>las</p><p>ka</p><p>K</p><p>us</p><p>ko</p><p>kw</p><p>im</p><p>R</p><p>iv</p><p>er</p><p>Nunivak Island</p><p>Nelson Island</p><p>St. Lawrence Island</p><p>East Cape</p><p>Ala</p><p>sk</p><p>a</p><p>Pe</p><p>nin</p><p>su</p><p>la</p><p>Kodiak Island</p><p>Seward Peninsula</p><p>Diomede</p><p>Islands</p><p>St</p><p>ra</p><p>it</p><p>Crow</p><p>Akulivikchuk</p><p>Kukulik</p><p>Hooper Bay</p><p>Cape Nome</p><p>Chukchi Peninsula</p><p>Razboinski</p><p>Ikogmiut</p><p>Shaktoolik</p><p>Katmai</p><p>Volcano</p><p>R</p><p>iv</p><p>er</p><p>N</p><p>us</p><p>ha</p><p>ga</p><p>k</p><p>Karluk</p><p>Lagoon</p><p>(Saktuliq)</p><p>Yukon</p><p>Rive</p><p>r</p><p>St. Michael</p><p>(Taciq) Klikitarik</p><p>(Qikiqtagruk)</p><p>Village</p><p>(Naparyaarmiut)</p><p>(Kukulek)</p><p>Historical Site</p><p>Contemporary Village</p><p>Siberia</p><p>Prince</p><p>William</p><p>Sound</p><p>Arctic Circle</p><p>160˚</p><p>62˚</p><p>160˚</p><p>62˚</p><p>Miles</p><p>Kilometers</p><p>0 200</p><p>0 300</p><p>CHAPTER 4— SOUTHWEST ALASKA, BERING SEA, SIBERIA, AND GULF OF ALASKA 119</p><p>STRETCHING FROM BERING STRAIT TO THE GULF OF ALASKA, THIS</p><p>architecturally diverse zone includes Yup’ik-speaking groups on the Alaska</p><p>and Siberia mainlands and across the major Eskimo-occupied islands, includ-</p><p>ing Saint Lawrence, Nunivak, and Kodiak. Eskimos here had the highest</p><p>regional population, exceeding 20,000 (Oswalt 1979:314ff), and were the</p><p>most ecologically and culturally diverse.</p><p>On the North American side of the Bering Sea, driftwood was more avail-</p><p>able and the climate less extreme than farther north and east in the Arctic;</p><p>many Central Yup’ik groups (plural Yupiit) from Norton Sound to Bristol</p><p>Bay lived in more or less permanent settlements all year long. The Alutiiq-</p><p>speaking Pacific Yupiit, southernmost of all Eskimos, lived around the Alaska</p><p>Peninsula, Kodiak Island, and Prince William Sound in foggier climes. How-</p><p>ever, warmer seas and weather in the Gulf of Alaska, abundant trees for building</p><p>materials, and more reliably plentiful food resources compensated for the</p><p>weather. Toward the northern end of Bering Strait, homeland of the Siberian</p><p>Yupik,1 Saint Lawrence Island and the eastern fringes of Siberia’s Chukchi</p><p>Peninsula offered comparatively harsher environments.</p><p>WINTER HOUSES</p><p>THE CENTRAL YUPIIT (SOUTHWEST ALASKA) CHALLENGE THE GENERAL NOTION</p><p>of Eskimo dwellings because these groups divided their housing virtually along</p><p>gender lines. In this area, the qasgiq was a community ceremonial building at</p><p>certain times of the year, but men and older boys also stayed in the qasgiq</p><p>SOUTHWEST ALASKA, BERING SEA,</p><p>SIBERIA, AND GULF OF ALASKA</p><p>The [Alutiiq] barabara answers</p><p>the purpose of a court-yard, kitchen,</p><p>and, when requisite, a theatre.</p><p>(Lisiansky 1814:213)</p><p>4</p><p>120 ESKIMO ARCHITECTURE</p><p>virtually all the time. That is, they normally lived there rather than in smaller</p><p>family houses, which were inhabited by women, girls, and younger boys. At</p><p>least among the Nelson Island Eskimos, where boys as young as five moved</p><p>into the qasgiq, the female-focused dwellings (ena) were called “sod houses”</p><p>or even “women’s houses” (Ann Fienup-Riordan, personal communication</p><p>1999). For these reasons we break from</p><p>the format of previous chapters by</p><p>describing men’s houses in this section (rather than in Special-Use Structures).</p><p>MAINLAND AND INSULAR ALASKA MEN’S AND WOMEN’S HOUSES</p><p>East of Bering Strait, Cape Nome is at the southern edge of the range of</p><p>Iñupiaq-speaking Eskimos and of summer tents used during historic times.</p><p>Yup’ik-speaking Eskimos south of there lived in their semisubterranean sod-</p><p>covered winter houses all year long (Ray 1975:130). The southwestern winter</p><p>house found along the mainland coast and inland was essentially a variant of</p><p>north Alaska coast houses.</p><p>NORTON SOUND YEAR ROUND WOODEN HOUSE</p><p>Figure 126 depicts a composite of design variants that typify the northern</p><p>Central Yup’ik area. It represents the Unaligmiut, or Unaleet, dwelling found</p><p>around Saint Michael (Nelson 1899:fig. 74; Ray 1966:32, 47–51, 53), as well</p><p>as another type from the opposite (north) shore of Norton Sound.2 One de-</p><p>sign had neither antechamber nor second platform, but both a tunnel and a</p><p>passage (fig. 126; Nelson 1899:fig. 74). Its occurrence toward the northwest</p><p>edge of Unaligmiut territory insinuates some transitional form drawing partly</p><p>on the Kauwerak (Northwest Arctic) Eskimo type (cf. Nelson 1899:253–</p><p>255). Another Unaligmiut design had an antechamber, near-surface passage</p><p>or tunnel, and two tiers of sleeping platform (fig. 127). The Unaligmiut lived</p><p>in their tunnel-and-passage house (ini) throughout the year (Nelson 1899:243),</p><p>and inhabited their alternative dwellings at times, at the least from October to</p><p>June (Ray 1984:287, 289).</p><p>FIGURE 126</p><p>Composite of idealized Norton Sound year-</p><p>round wooden house, showing both forms</p><p>of entry.</p><p>After Dall 1870:fig. on p. 13; Nelson 1899:figs.</p><p>74, 80–81.</p><p>CHAPTER 4— SOUTHWEST ALASKA, BERING SEA, SIBERIA, AND GULF OF ALASKA 121</p><p>Unaligmiut house construction differed from that of many Eskimos. For</p><p>instance, ends of wall planks might be dovetailed to fit snugly into mortised</p><p>corner uprights (about ten to fourteen feet long). This technique ssuggest</p><p>historic-era Russian influence (Wendell H. Oswalt, personal communication</p><p>with Gregory Reinhardt, 1985), or at least reflects more labor and technical</p><p>detail than ocurs in most Eskimo house construction. In another deviation</p><p>from more northern Eskimo building methods, the walls consisted of logs or</p><p>planks laid horizontally, not set on end.3</p><p>Unaligmiut men dug the housepit some two to four feet deep, then built the</p><p>whole house themselves. By 1900, floors were usually planked (Ray 1966:47),</p><p>but some three decades earlier, evidently before planked floors, houses lacked</p><p>sleeping platforms. In this case, people covered the bare earth with grass or</p><p>spruce, then carpeted it with twined grass mats, dividing the floor lengthwise</p><p>into thirds by laying down two presumably parallel logs (Dall 1870:14). Most</p><p>floors were rectangular but some had oblong or hexagonal outlines (Ray</p><p>1966:47). Typically, houses at Saint Michael rose eight to nine feet in the</p><p>center and stood five feet at the walls (Nelson 1899:243). Floor dimensions</p><p>ranged from seven feet to between twelve and fifteen feet square (Dall 1870:13;</p><p>Jacobsen 1977:125; Michael 1967:115).</p><p>In some Norton Sound houses people came up onto the floor by means of a</p><p>subterranean tunnel, whereas others members of the group entered through</p><p>a higher, ground-level covered passageway that breached the front wall</p><p>(figs. 126–127). Tunnel crawlways emerged either at the middle or in the ante-</p><p>rior section of a house floor. Still other builders chose to incorporate both sorts</p><p>of entryway (fig. 126). In such cases, surface passages would be sealed in win-</p><p>ter, obliging occupants to rely solely on the cramped tunnel and to emerge</p><p>from it face-first before the fireplace. To block the inevitable breezes caused by</p><p>daily traffic through the door, residents hung bear or caribou pelts or grass</p><p>mats from the tops of doorways. They also placed stone slabs on end before</p><p>the hearth (figs. 126–127), which further deflected drafts that would otherwise</p><p>make sparks and cinders blow about the room. People often dug small sleep-</p><p>ing chambers or storerooms into the tunnel’s sides. Along the coast, where</p><p>invasions of Siberian and insular Eskimos posed severe threats, villagers might</p><p>FIGURE 127</p><p>“Section of house[s] at Ignituk.” Top contains</p><p>a surface passage (leading to a doorway in</p><p>the front wall), two levels of sleeping plat-</p><p>form, and a hearth in the central floor. Bottom</p><p>encloses a submerged tunnel (leading to a hole</p><p>in the floor), two levels of sleeping platform,</p><p>and a hearth under removable floorboards.</p><p>From Nelson 1899:figs. 80–81.</p><p>122 ESKIMO ARCHITECTURE</p><p>stockade their winter houses and fortify the outside entrances to passage or</p><p>tunnel by adding a wood-lined shed (Murdoch 1892:78). A notched log served</p><p>as a ladder, allowing access to the outside via a hatch in the ceiling of the small</p><p>main room.4</p><p>For heating and cooking, Norton Sound houses always included a central</p><p>fireplace, from which residents could remove floor planks (if any were there</p><p>to begin with) when they wanted to stoke a bigger fire (fig. 127). Shallow,</p><p>saucer-shaped pottery lamps, about eight inches in diameter, contributed light</p><p>from flat-topped posts whose opposite, pointed ends people embedded into</p><p>or through the floor near the corners of their sleeping platforms (figs. 128,</p><p>135, endpages).</p><p>The most impressive of the north-shore Norton Sound houses were those</p><p>with two-tiered sleeping platforms, with the lower one barely clearing the</p><p>floor and neither evidently allowing much headroom (fig. 127). Platforms</p><p>either stretched across the back wall or skirted both lateral walls; some lower</p><p>platforms were about eighteen inches off the floor. Grass mats partitioned</p><p>platforms into family cubicles, even though the room was not particularly</p><p>large. Inhabitants stored their possessions underneath platforms and along</p><p>the front main-chamber wall. Occasionally, extra storage or sleeping cham-</p><p>FIGURE 128</p><p>A superbly carved wooden qasgiq model</p><p>(lower Yukon River) illustrates the use of</p><p>two black saucer-shaped lamps, which rest</p><p>on tapering posts set into floorboards near</p><p>the left and right centers of the bench. The</p><p>small wooden “slat” rising from each lamp</p><p>represents a flame to light the room. All but</p><p>one man on the benches is nude, indicating</p><p>great warmth indoors, while the central</p><p>floor-hole boards cover a now-extinguished</p><p>hearth beneath. Four shirtless men and a</p><p>fully clothed woman present the “ritually</p><p>correct configuration—four corners and a</p><p>center” (Fienup-Riordan 1996:200) of five</p><p>dancers, who move to the rhythm of four</p><p>drummers.</p><p>Courtesy of Sheldon Jackson Museum, Sitka,</p><p>catalog # II-H-46.</p><p>CHAPTER 4— SOUTHWEST ALASKA, BERING SEA, SIBERIA, AND GULF OF ALASKA 123</p><p>bers were installed midway along house passages (cf. fig. 96). Some houses</p><p>lacked platforms per se although people slept on a wood floor (Dall 1870:14;</p><p>Jacobsen 1977:126).</p><p>Overhead, a flat crib roof of logs narrowed to a square smokehole in</p><p>its center. This opening acted as another doorway to and from the house.</p><p>An unmounted seal-gut or sea mammal or fish-skin skylight (generally</p><p>weighted down) closed off the opening, except when smoke accumulated in-</p><p>side, in which case someone would push it ajar. To keep the roof’s earthen</p><p>envelope from dropping into the house, planks or poles filled any gaping</p><p>spaces between the cribwork timbers. Sea captain Adrian Jacobsen tells</p><p>of watching as one family tried to reduce the smoke level after a meal:</p><p>They tossed out the burning firebrands through the smokehole (sensible</p><p>only in winter), where the embers should have fizzled out in the snow. This</p><p>time, however, they surprisingly set the roof sods on fire (Jacobsen 1977:124).</p><p>In his turn-of-the-century description of Unaligmiut culture, Edmonds</p><p>reacted to household conditions in less than glowing terms:</p><p>The houses of the Eskimos being provided with such small entrances and</p><p>apertures in the</p><p>for building material whalebones,</p><p>caribou antlers, even narwhal tusks, and, where they could find enough of it,</p><p>driftwood. Eskimos were seminomadic and semisedentary peoples with an</p><p>estimated precontact population of about 50,000 (Oswalt 1979:341 ff.). They</p><p>exploited both sea and land animals during the seasonal round of subsistence</p><p>activities, moving from site to site according to the availability of food sources.</p><p>Unlike the diets of most forager societies worldwide, Eskimo subsistence re-</p><p>lied overwhelmingly on animal protein and fat, whereas plant-food consumption</p><p>was notably insignificant (Reinhardt 1986:56–164).</p><p>INTRODUCTION 5</p><p>The classic Eskimo settlement pattern shifted seasonally between concen-</p><p>tration and dispersion. According to Mauss and Beuchat (1979:56), “The</p><p>movement that animates Eskimo society is synchronized with that of the sur-</p><p>rounding life.” In winter, groups congregated in communal dwellings. The</p><p>dark, cold days were a time of visiting, ritual, ceremony, dancing, and story</p><p>telling—activities regenerating the cooperation vital to group survival. Late</p><p>winter was also the season of greatest food stress. Among the Polar Eskimos,</p><p>for example, except in a few very favorable animal-kill locations, families</p><p>were often forced to vacate their winter-house sites after a single season be-</p><p>cause of the dire depletion of nearby game. Ordinarily they would not return</p><p>for two years or more (Peary 1898:2:273).</p><p>By contrast, in summer, groups splintered into nuclear families, living mainly</p><p>in skin tents, and roaming coastline and river, lakeshore and muskeg, moun-</p><p>tain and tundra in search of game. Indeed, seasonal alternation was the</p><p>organizing principle of the Eskimos’ material, social, and ceremonial exist-</p><p>ence. “This opposition between summer life and winter life profoundly affects</p><p>ideas, collective representations and, in short, the entire mentality of the group.</p><p>[These oppositions] are like two poles around which revolves the system of</p><p>Eskimo ideas” (Mauss and Beuchat 1979:60–62). House form supplied a</p><p>major idiom of this pattern. Steensby, for instance, notes that “summer and</p><p>winter bring very different modes of livelihood [to the Eskimos]. We might</p><p>indeed speak of a summer culture and a winter culture. The summer culture is</p><p>characterized by the kayak, kayak hunting and the summer tent, whilst the</p><p>winter culture is characterized by the dog-sledge, hunting on ice and the win-</p><p>ter-house” (Steensby 1910:284).</p><p>The switch from winter house to summer tent constituted a major demo-</p><p>graphic shift. Most Eskimos did not regard houses as private property and</p><p>felt no obligation to return to the same winter settlement year after year (Birket-</p><p>Smith 1924:135). At summer’s end, families who had camped and hunted</p><p>near each other also had frequently cached their food communally and spent</p><p>the winter together. By springtime, when group members had wearied of each</p><p>other’s company, they split into nuclear units, each going its separate way</p><p>(Ekblaw 1927–28: 156, 160, 165; Goddard 1928:194; Jenness 1922:74). Thus,</p><p>residence pattern was as much a product of sociocultural forces as environ-</p><p>mental considerations.</p><p>This winter/summer organizing principle had a purely practical side. As</p><p>winter turned to spring, days grew warmer, the ground began to thaw, and</p><p>many forms of winter housing turned into dripping bogs. During the transi-</p><p>tional season, inhabitants in the Eastern and Central Arctic removed most or</p><p>all of the substantial turf-covered roof, replacing it with a makeshift skin</p><p>cover. This allowed them to air their dwelling and make it habitable until the</p><p>weather was warm enough for them to stow their newly made tent cover in a</p><p>skin boat or on a dogsled (or pack it on their backs) and begin their summer</p><p>travels (Ekblaw 1927–28:166). When summer arrived they tore away even</p><p>the skins, exposing the whole interior to the elements.</p><p>6 ESKIMO ARCHITECTURE</p><p>To summarize, this text is meant as a general introduction to Eskimo</p><p>architecture of the early historic period. Because there is no comprehensive</p><p>survey of this topic, the following four chapters are largely descriptive. Drawing</p><p>on a literature that is the most extensive for any indigenous people anywhere</p><p>(Riches 1990), we will survey built form among the Eskimo peoples from</p><p>Greenland to Siberia. We will argue that the seasonal alternation of winter</p><p>and summer dwelling more accurately characterizes Eskimo housing</p><p>patterns than does the widely held stereotype of the snowblock igloo nor-</p><p>mally associated with them.</p><p>INTRODUCTION NOTES</p><p>1 We use “indigenous” here much as Rapoport used “vernacular building,” to</p><p>mean an architecture characterized by the “lack of theoretical or aesthetic pre-</p><p>tensions; working within the site and micro-climate; respect for other people</p><p>and their houses . . . and working within an idiom with variations” (Rapoport</p><p>1969:5). In other words, we focus on dwellings and other structures made by</p><p>local design and of predominantly local materials.</p><p>2 Today, “Eskimo,” because of its strong connotations of the colonial period and</p><p>the incorrect assumption that it means “eaters of raw flesh;” (see Damas 1984b:5–</p><p>7), is no longer universally accepted among the Eskimo/Inuit people. There is,</p><p>however, no general agreement on a replacement. Many Alaskan Eskimos still</p><p>use the term, but often prefer regional designations such as Yup’ik, Inupiaq, or</p><p>Alutiiq, to give a more precise indication of their language group. Canadian</p><p>groups call themselves Inuit, and Greenlanders want to be known as Kalaallit.</p><p>Loosely translated, these terms mean “people” or “real people,” except for</p><p>Kalaallit, whose origin is uncertain (Lawrence Kaplan, personal communica-</p><p>tion to Lee 1996). To further complicate the issue, the Inuit Circumpolar Conference,</p><p>a political body representing the totality of Eskimo peoples, has adopted “Inuit”</p><p>as a collective replacement. Because this term is meaningless in the Yup’ik/</p><p>Yupik languages of Alaska and Siberia, it is widely accepted only in the politi-</p><p>cal sphere. For want of a better alternative, we shall use the term Eskimo here</p><p>as a collective label but will employ the terms preferred by the various sub-</p><p>groups whenever possible (Schweitzer and Lee 1997:29).</p><p>3 This may seem rather tent-like, due to its skin cover. However, the raised stone</p><p>platform at the rear and the bone structure described here are very similar to</p><p>features of nineteenth-century Eskimo autumn dwellings from the Canadian</p><p>Arctic (Boas 1888:547–549).</p><p>FIGURE 2</p><p>Map of Greenland.</p><p>Produced by Robert Drozda.</p><p>Ammassalik</p><p>Egedesminde</p><p>D</p><p>avis Strait</p><p>B</p><p>affin</p><p>Islan</p><p>d</p><p>Baffin Bay</p><p>Thule</p><p>Iceland</p><p>Arctic</p><p>Circle</p><p>Smith Sound</p><p>(Tasiilaq)</p><p>Elle</p><p>sm</p><p>ere</p><p>Is</p><p>lan</p><p>d</p><p>(Qaanaaq)</p><p>Labrador Sea</p><p>(Aasiaat)</p><p>75˚</p><p>Greenland</p><p>(Kalaallit Nunaat)</p><p>Miles0 300</p><p>0 500Kilometers</p><p>45˚</p><p>Scoresbysund</p><p>(Ittoqqortoormiit)</p><p>Atlantic Ocean</p><p>Greenland Sea</p><p>45˚</p><p>75˚</p><p>CHAPTER 1— GREENLAND 9</p><p>GREENLAND’S ABORIGINAL POPULATION STOOD AT ABOUT 9,000 (OSWALT</p><p>1979). The Greenlandic Eskimos, or Kalaallit, clustered in three geographical</p><p>areas, southeast (Ammassalik), southwest (West Greenland), and northwest</p><p>(Polar, Thule, or Smith Sound). The Ammassalik and Polar Eskimos were</p><p>confined to relatively small stretches of coastline compared to West Greenland</p><p>Eskimos, whose numbers were markedly larger and who were more widely</p><p>dispersed than their eastern and northern co-ethnics (fig. 2, map). Ironically,</p><p>the earliest and latest dates of historic contact between European explorers</p><p>and an Eskimo group occurred in Greenland (even excluding Norse settlers in</p><p>southwest Greenland ca. A.D. 1000). In 1585 the Davis expedition first sighted</p><p>West Greenlanders but Holm did not see an Ammassalik (East Greenlander)</p><p>enclave until 1884 (Oswalt 1979:37–38, 142).</p><p>WINTER HOUSES</p><p>THROUGHOUT GREENLAND THE MOST PRESSING CONSIDERATION FOR</p><p>locating winter settlements was the proximity of fresh water (usually ice from</p><p>a lake or pond).</p><p>roof for light, are easily kept warm by a small fire. Often,</p><p>however, the occupants stay inside when the skin covering is removed from</p><p>the roof hole, and the air inside, unwarmed by any fire, is damp, raw and</p><p>extremely chilly. If the opening is closed and a fire started, the houses soon</p><p>become close and evil smelling, the eyes suffer from the smoke from the</p><p>fireplace, and the tobacco used by everyone; everything is black and sticky</p><p>and there is a general creepy sensation. (Ray 1966:53)</p><p>Despite these seeming discomforts, people used the same houses for years or</p><p>even generations, and, in Eskimo fashion, typically moved out either to build</p><p>a new one or because someone had died within. Abandoned houses, except in</p><p>the case of death, were a handy source of village firewood and undoubtedly</p><p>supplied lumber for other constructions (Ray 1966:49, 52).</p><p>NUNIVAK ISLAND YEAR-ROUND WOODEN HOUSES</p><p>Connected Houses—It may be that this house form (VanStone 1989:21–22,</p><p>figs. 59–65) was the principal type on Nunivak Island (a Cup’ik-speaking area);</p><p>in any case, it differs notably from another model described below. Some</p><p>Nunivaarmiut villages had layouts apparently unique among Eskimos. Each</p><p>house had its own tunnel doorway. However, what makes Nunivaarmiut com-</p><p>munities so noteworthy is the individual tunnels that fed into a shared underground</p><p>channel (fig. 129), which connected all the houses to each other and to the</p><p>qasgiq (Fienup-Riordan 2000:108, top; Himmelheber 1980:6). For an entire</p><p>community, then, there might be only one entryway into this complex. Pratt</p><p>refers to archaeological examples of these communities as “depression com-</p><p>plexes” (U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs ANCSA 1995:1:41–42). Type A complexes</p><p>have a linear tunnel to which housepits are attached; in Type B complexes,</p><p>housepits connect spokelike, via individual tunnels, to a central point or pit. A</p><p>surface doorway led to the main qasgiq tunnel, while lesser conduits fed off</p><p>124 ESKIMO ARCHITECTURE</p><p>toward individual houses. A large whale scapula acted as a door cover—not</p><p>doorway frame—to this entryway (James W. VanStone, personal communica-</p><p>tion with Gregory Reinhardt, 1991).</p><p>Once dug, Nunivaarmiut housefloors were as much as four to five feet</p><p>deep, depending on the height of the walls. Rectangular in shape, the floor led</p><p>to a tunnel cut into one of the narrow end-walls. A short pair of standing logs</p><p>upheld another log lintel, which framed the doorway. A different source (Fienup-</p><p>Riordan 2000:109) indicates that houses could have two entrances, one through</p><p>the front wall (for summer), the other through a floor hole toward the front</p><p>of the main room (for winter), and both originating from a single tunnel to</p><p>the outside (cf. figs. 126–127). Sleeping platforms consisted of split logs placed</p><p>on earth banks, about fifteen inches high, around two or three sides of the</p><p>room. In some houses there were no platforms. Instead, the builders opted for</p><p>a log to delimit each sleeping area and they filled the space between log and</p><p>wall with dried beach grass.</p><p>The Nunivaarmiut house framework began with four center posts, arranged</p><p>in a rectangle. Onto these the builders placed a pair of rafters that paralleled</p><p>the room’s long axis. A crib roof followed: First a pair of crossbeams to span</p><p>the rafters (but set inward from the rafters’ ends), then shorter rafters atop the</p><p>crossbeams (again placed nearer to the center), and finally another set of still</p><p>shorter crossbeams (fig. 129, top). Around the perimeter of the housepit, the</p><p>vertical lower walls were simply the soil sides to the original housepit. On top</p><p>of these walls, four horizontal logs became sills on which rested the in-sloping</p><p>split logs of the upper walls and the ceiling (James W. VanStone, personal</p><p>communication with Gregory Reinhardt, 1991). Their split surfaces always</p><p>faced inward.</p><p>At their upper ends, the split logs of the ceiling leaned against the lower</p><p>level of rafter-and-crossbeam pairs (fig. 129, top). Another, more horizontal,</p><p>course of split logs started higher and reached farther inward toward the roof</p><p>center, which the Nunivaarmiut completed by adding a row of short split logs</p><p>to all but a remaining square central hole. A frame over this hole held the</p><p>skylight, a gut-strip square bordered with fish skin and weighted in place</p><p>with stones (Fienup-Riordan 2000:7, top). Then “a thin, bent stick was arched</p><p>between opposite sides of the frame . . . to keep the gut window from sagging.</p><p>It could be pushed back and forth to knock water and snow from the</p><p>skylight” (VanStone 1989:22). Grass covered the roof, followed by packed-</p><p>down earth and, finally, sod blocks. Most turfed-over Eskimo houses had</p><p>dome-like roofs, although flat at the top, but Nunivaarmiut examples were</p><p>comparatively more hipped in appearance (fig. 129, bottom).</p><p>A hanging grass mat or, less often, “a low plank door” (VanStone 1989:21)</p><p>greeted the Nunivaarmiut at their house entrances. It seems the tunnel and</p><p>house floors were on the same level sometimes, but in other houses the thresh-</p><p>old was higher than the tunnel (James W. VanStone, personal communication</p><p>1991). Upon entering, people stepped across either a few coarse-sand-covered</p><p>planks, on which to wipe their feet (fig. 129, top), or onto a fully planked floor.</p><p>FIGURE 129</p><p>Idealized Nunivak Island winter house (cf.</p><p>Fienup-Riordan 2000:109). Note the under-</p><p>ground channel is on the left side of the</p><p>drawing on top.</p><p>After Collins 1937:fig. 25, VanStone 1989:figs.</p><p>59–64; cf. fig. 111.</p><p>CHAPTER 4— SOUTHWEST ALASKA, BERING SEA, SIBERIA, AND GULF OF ALASKA 125</p><p>A slightly raised hearth, bordered with stone slabs resting edgewise, usually lay</p><p>in the floor’s center. The alternative hearth arrangement was a firepit in the</p><p>center of the room, with an air vent opening into its end nearer the summer-</p><p>and-winter entrances; presumably (as shown in Fienup-Riordan 2000:109) it</p><p>would have been boarded over when not in use. When people opted not to add</p><p>split-log lower walls (probably a later trend), they could line these earthen sides</p><p>of the housepit by draping coarse grass mats in front of them (Fienup-Riordan</p><p>2000:7). The mats (e.g., fig. 130) likely hung from the pit-rimming logs, where</p><p>the ceiling pieces rested (as shown in fig. 129, top right). However, tunnel walls</p><p>were normally faced with upright split logs (not shown in fig. 129).</p><p>Himmelheber intimates that these houses had heating problems:</p><p>The sod house is heated only by the warmth of human bodies. Once a fire is</p><p>lit, the entrance tunnel and the upper window [skylight] must be opened to</p><p>provide the draft needed to funnel the icy wind through the dwelling. There-</p><p>fore, the sod house gets really cold when a fire is started. The structure has to</p><p>be kept very small to retain a comfortable temperature solely through body</p><p>heat. (Fienup-Riordan 2000:7)</p><p>FIGURE 130</p><p>“Pair of masked dancers performing in</p><p>Qissunaq, photographed by Alfred Milotte</p><p>during filming of Alaskan Eskimo, 1946”</p><p>(Fienup-Riordan 1996:110). Although pho-</p><p>tographed on the mainland some 70 miles</p><p>north of Nunivak Island, the image shows</p><p>grass mats probably like those found in</p><p>Nunivaarmiut houses and qasgiqs. Their</p><p>suspension (upper right, woven grass cord-</p><p>age?) is also no doubt similar. Behind the</p><p>two male dancers wearing walrus masks</p><p>and wielding feathered dance fans stands a</p><p>woman who wares a fancy fur parka and a</p><p>beaded and fur-ruffed dance headdress</p><p>(nasqurrun, Fienup-Riordan 1996:135),</p><p>and and waves caribou-fur-trimmed dance</p><p>fans (“finger masks”), next to a man ma-</p><p>nipulating a dance stick (eniraraun,</p><p>Fienup-Riordan 1996:137) and another beat-</p><p>ing on a typical tambourine drum. Note the</p><p>horizontal wall boards (upper right) and their</p><p>articulations with a crossbeam and the high-</p><p>pitched ceiling planks.</p><p>Negative no. 109. Courtesy of Alaska State</p><p>Museum, Juneau.</p><p>126 ESKIMO ARCHITECTURE</p><p>Isolated houses—One of the more recognizable Eskimo dwelling illustra-</p><p>tions</p><p>is the “typical unmodified example” of a Nunivak Island house (fig. 131;</p><p>Collins 1937:258). This second house type occurred on an unspecified part of</p><p>the island, and we describe it as isolated because it was apparently not connected</p><p>either to other dwellings or to the qasgiq in a settlement. It was generally simi-</p><p>lar to the preceding (connected) house-type, but differences in construction</p><p>details are many (cf. fig. 129). It had: (1) a square-floored main chamber; (2)</p><p>less height to the vertical lower walls, with a higher, more steeply pitched di-</p><p>agonal course of timbers above them (the “upper walls”); (3) a very low tunnel,</p><p>especially near the main chamber; (4) a down-sloping roof at the outer end of</p><p>the tunnel, which consisted of a diagonal ridgepole (resting on a square, verti-</p><p>cal log frame, near the outer hatch, and on the lintel timbers above the house</p><p>entryway); (5) split timbers leaned against the ridgepole from its left and right</p><p>sides, forming a tunnel triangular in cross section; and (6) a small, square-</p><p>floored antechamber with a whale skull that might have been used structurally.</p><p>It may be that the diagonally slanted tunnel hatchway, with its square framing,</p><p>was the same entrance found in the other Nunivak house type.</p><p>OTHER CENTRAL YUP’IK WOODEN HOUSES</p><p>At Hooper Bay (a partly Cup’ik-speaking area), up the coast from Nunivak</p><p>Island and near the Yukon River outflow, houses resembled the Nunivak</p><p>isolated house on the outside (VanStone 1984:fig. 4, top). Their roofs were</p><p>noticeably hipped but flat in the center. The external doorways had square</p><p>frames, although they led directly into the houses via a tunnel. These tunnels</p><p>seem to be less deeply excavated—more like a near-surface passage—and</p><p>consisted of almost vertical walls made from logs leaned against the roof</p><p>supports, with some turf covering (Curtis 1907–1930:88 ff).</p><p>At one village (seventeen miles east of St. Michael in the Yukon-Kuskokwim</p><p>Delta), Dall recorded a few settlement observations (fig. 132): “On the right</p><p>side is the casine [qasgiq]. There are several ordinary winter houses, which are</p><p>on the brow of a high bank. Caches are scattered about, and stages, on which</p><p>the kyaks [sic] are elevated out of reach of the dogs” (Dall 1870:128). This</p><p>architecture is externally much like the construction of a St. Michael qasgiq</p><p>(fig. 133): The exterior walls are horizontal logs probably held in place, at</p><p>intervals, with standing posts (the qasgiq posts are tall and connected well</p><p>FIGURE 131</p><p>“Cross-section of an Eskimo house on</p><p>Nunivak Island.”</p><p>From Collins 1937:fig. 25; cf. fig. 129.</p><p>CHAPTER 4— SOUTHWEST ALASKA, BERING SEA, SIBERIA, AND GULF OF ALASKA 127</p><p>above the house with crossbeams). Also, the passages seem rather short and</p><p>their outside entrances were probably cut as an above-ground hole between</p><p>two vertical planks (rather than notched across the base of several upright</p><p>planks). It may be that the crawlways descend behind the entrance (see fig.</p><p>132, left house), making them tunnels rather than surface-level passages.</p><p>Five archaeological examples of historic-period houses at Crow Village on</p><p>the Kuskokwim River show greater connections with Nunivak Island archi-</p><p>tecture than with Norton Sound styles. For example, four of the five give at</p><p>least some indication of four center-post roof construction. For another, none</p><p>shows any trace of a passage that overlies the excavated tunnel in each, and</p><p>four houses clearly had two or three sleeping areas against the back and lat-</p><p>eral walls. These houses differ from the Nunivak style, nevertheless, insofar</p><p>as their walls consisted of horizontal rather than vertical pieces of wood (Oswalt</p><p>and VanStone 1967:13–23).</p><p>Horizontal logs also constituted dwelling walls as far south as the Nushagak</p><p>River. At Akulivikchuk were semisubterranean, four-center-post, central-</p><p>hearthed houses similar to both Nunivak and Crow Village designs.</p><p>Nevertheless, some Nushagak houses differed in notable ways, and might</p><p>have had some of the following characteristics: (1) a forechamber leading into</p><p>the tunnel; (2) a lack of a cold trap at the house end; (3) square floors; and (4)</p><p>one sleeping platform at the rear of the dwelling (VanStone 1970:20–38).</p><p>SOUTHWEST ALASKA MEN’S HOUSES</p><p>The men’s house (qasgiq, alternatively kashgee or, from Russian derivation,</p><p>kashim or casine), so widely distributed in the Western Arctic, reached its</p><p>architectural apogee on the American mainland; yet it was lacking on Saint</p><p>Lawrence Island and in Siberia. It is important to note again that the Central</p><p>Yup’ik qasgiq was the normal residence for all men and boys. This is why we</p><p>deviate from the organization of previous chapters and include it in the sec-</p><p>tion Winter Houses instead of Special-Use Structures.</p><p>FIGURE 132</p><p>“Kegiktowruk in the fall.” Sod-covered win-</p><p>ter houses are on the left, a qasgiq on the</p><p>right; note the scaffold (far right), kayak racks</p><p>(left and center foreground), and a raised</p><p>storage cache (center background).</p><p>From Dall 1870:128 ff.</p><p>128 ESKIMO ARCHITECTURE</p><p>FIGURE 134</p><p>“Khashgii (community house) in use among</p><p>Eskimos on western coast of Alaska, south</p><p>of St. Michael.” Note the near-surface en-</p><p>try way above an abandoned tunnel.</p><p>Anderson and Eells 1935:fig. 7; courtesy of the</p><p>Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior</p><p>University.</p><p>FIGURE 133</p><p>“Kashim at St. Michael.” Generally like some</p><p>Central Yup’ik houses, the construction</p><p>differs in its double-walled make-up. A man</p><p>stands beside the passage/tunnel entrance.</p><p>From Nelson 1899:fig. 76.</p><p>FIGURE 135</p><p>“Section of kashim at St Michael.” Next to</p><p>the sleeping bench (right) is a saucer-shaped</p><p>lamp on a post (cf. fig. 128). The hearth’s</p><p>location is unclear, but there are separate en-</p><p>trances for winter and summer.</p><p>From Nelson 1899:fig. 77.</p><p>CHAPTER 4— SOUTHWEST ALASKA, BERING SEA, SIBERIA, AND GULF OF ALASKA 129</p><p>In this area, the qasgiq used greater-than-normal-sized timbers. When</p><p>Unaligmiut builders started a qasgiq (figs. 133–135), they set the logs upright,</p><p>side by side in a broad trench. Then they reinforced and insulated this seven-</p><p>to eight-foot high inner wall by adding an outer one of horizontal logs, packing</p><p>the interstice with earth, and stabilizing the whole with an external skeleton</p><p>of tall struts and crossbeams (figs. 132–133). Logs for the roof slanted inward</p><p>and upward, usually being cribbed. Across the tops of interior walls, it was</p><p>common to span the corners by laying down horizontal beams diagonally to</p><p>the corners (fig. 134). Doing this eased the addition of subsequent beams that</p><p>went into forming crib roofs (Curtis 1907–1930:9; Fienup-Riordan 2000:109,</p><p>bottom; Himmelheber 1980:7; VanStone 1989:fig. 65) and ensured that a</p><p>qasgiq’s roof rise was dramatically greater than that of women’s houses (e.g.,</p><p>Fienup-Riordan 1996:123, 128). Some nine to twelve feet above the floor, the</p><p>topmost cribbed level left a two-foot-square or larger smokehole, to be shut</p><p>at times by a gut skylight (Michael 1967:115; Nelson 1899:245). On ceremo-</p><p>nial occasions (e.g., the “inviting-in” ceremony) guest villagers would paint</p><p>these skylights with designs reflecting deeds of the painters’ ancestors and</p><p>give the skylights as gifts to the host village (Fienup-Riordan 1996:124–125).</p><p>During Southwest Alaska Eskimo ceremonies, if someone wanted to dem-</p><p>onstrate a trick, or when men wished to take a sweat bath, they would take</p><p>up floor boards from the middle (figs. 135, 138). Without doing this, a fire</p><p>could not be stoked. Men (and, after them, the women5) took sweat baths</p><p>every week to ten days in winter (Maressa 1986; Nelson 1899:245, 287). In</p><p>the course of bathing, temperatures rose to nearly intolerable levels, so sear-</p><p>ing that bathers needed respirators (mouthpieces woven from spruce or willow</p><p>shavings; fig. 139) in order to breathe without burning their lungs; loon-skin</p><p>caps protected their heads. Bathers kept cool by ladling urine—kept in a tub</p><p>beside each person—over</p><p>themselves (Nelson 1899:288, fig. 96).</p><p>Unaligmiut qasgiqs were almost as technologically complex as their winter</p><p>houses and differed from them in some respects. For one thing, they were</p><p>larger, averaging twenty to thirty feet across (Ray 1966:50).6 Apparently, more</p><p>parts went into its roof, which people assembled with “some ingenuity” and</p><p>finished with saddle-jointed timbers (Ray 1966:50).</p><p>Qasgiq bench-style platforms (figs. 134–138) could employ enormous planks,</p><p>sometimes only one to a wall, measuring thirty feet long, two feet wide, and</p><p>four inches thick (Dall 1870:127). Benches skirted the interior walls (figs.</p><p>135–138), sometimes forming two or more tiers (except along the front wall;</p><p>see fig. 114) in Kuskokwim and Yukon River qasgiqs:</p><p>The back of the qasgiq . . . would have benches all the way around . . . called</p><p>ingleret . . . high enough so that a person could sit underneath. People would</p><p>be sitting up there. . . . And the space under the bench would be filled with</p><p>people all the way around. And those down there would have a wooden</p><p>bench in the back too. (Fienup-Riordan 1996:124)</p><p>A shared, structured hierarchy within and between villages dictated indi-</p><p>vidual seating arrangements in the qasgiq (cf. Special-Use Structures, Ceremonial</p><p>Houses, chapter 2):</p><p>FIGURE 136</p><p>Model of qasgiq from St. Michael, Norton</p><p>Sound, Alaska. The two-tiered seating in this</p><p>men’s house is characteristic of Central Yup’ik</p><p>communities on the lower Yukon River. Four-</p><p>teen ivory dancers populate the inner bench,</p><p>waiting for one more to emerge from the</p><p>floor-hole and complete a third five-performer</p><p>trio (five constituting a “ritually significant</p><p>group”—Fienup-Riordan 1996:122); one</p><p>holds a tambourine drum, which obscures</p><p>two of the figures (upper right of inner bench).</p><p>Note the mostly-shirtless wooden viewers</p><p>seated on the outer bench.</p><p>Courtesy of Sheldon Jackson Museum, Sitka,</p><p>catalog # II-H-31).</p><p>130 ESKIMO ARCHITECTURE</p><p>Inside the qasgiq each man had his accustomed place. The rear of the qasgiq,</p><p>the warmest and driest spot, was reserved as the place of honor, while older</p><p>men and inactive hunters occupied the corners to the sides of the door: “The</p><p>elders, especially, would stay closer to the entrance hole. An elder was called</p><p>uaqsigilria [one who is nearing the exit]. . . . And the others stayed further</p><p>inside. . . . (Fienup-Riordan 1996:122).</p><p>Although a qasgiq’s covered surface passage might have been short (figs.</p><p>133–134), it still seemed more substantial than the passages of women’s houses.</p><p>At the inner end of this access, a summer alternative, was a hole in the main</p><p>room’s front wall (figs. 133–135, 138). For winter service, a hole in or near</p><p>the middle of the qasgiq floor (figs. 128, 135–136) led downward to a short,</p><p>deep tunnel that descended below the surface-level passage and reemerged</p><p>somewhere along the passage floor (figs. 134–135).</p><p>FIGURE 138</p><p>“Interior of kashime [qasgiq]—Shageluk [up-</p><p>per Yukon River]/ Illumination from skylight/</p><p>Entrance under the shelf, at the left. The</p><p>object in front of the entrance is the stuffed</p><p>skin of a diver, that figured in some feast.”</p><p>Note the square herringbone fitting of boards</p><p>immediately around the hearth (lower cen-</p><p>ter) in contrast to the uniform orientation</p><p>of floor boards farther right (cf. fig. 128,</p><p>lower right). Over the entrance, two men</p><p>recline on a fairly high bench.</p><p>John Brooks Collection, Accession #68-32-138,</p><p>Archives, Alaska and Polar Regions Dept.,</p><p>Rasmuson Library, University of Alaska</p><p>Fairbanks.</p><p>FIGURE 137</p><p>“Inside a men’s house in Napaskiak, facing</p><p>the entrance covered by a bear’s skin”</p><p>(Fienup-Riordan 2000:7), this photograph</p><p>shows how the skylight beams brightly into</p><p>a lower Kuskokwim River qasgiq. Note the</p><p>bench (a bit higher than the seated boy’s legs,</p><p>left), an angled doorway in the front wall, a</p><p>threshold “ramp” that ends in a worn-down</p><p>log bordering the central (dirt?) floor or</p><p>hearth, wood flooring elsewhere, and struts</p><p>(both sides of the doorway) that might be</p><p>bench supports. Two boys peek from behind</p><p>the bear skin doorflap, while a girl (right)</p><p>faces the camera as well. Behind her is a</p><p>magazine on the bench, and near the boys</p><p>are a pole and metal pail (left), plus a wal-</p><p>rus-tusk pick (behind the seated boy) for</p><p>heavy-duty digging.</p><p>From Fienup-Riordan 2000:7; courtesy of Hans</p><p>Himmelheber.</p><p>CHAPTER 4— SOUTHWEST ALASKA, BERING SEA, SIBERIA, AND GULF OF ALASKA 131</p><p>People sometimes pulled themselves up through the hole in the qasgiq</p><p>chamber’s floor-hold by handles of ivory—on the lower Yukon Delta, at least</p><p>(Nelson 1899:250, fig. 78). Other Yup’ik people report handles of wood and</p><p>a step built into the subfloor:</p><p>[There was a] step inside the qasgiq by the firepit under the floorboards. They</p><p>stepped on that and went up. Short people would lean on the side, swing</p><p>their legs up and, lying down, they would go up. . . . But when children put</p><p>their hands on the side of the entrance, [adults] would go down to</p><p>them and hoist them up. . . . We call [the handles] ayaperyarak [dual, from</p><p>ayaper-, “to lean on one’s hands”]. The entrance to the qasgiq was tradition-</p><p>ally a hole. When you came up through the hole you would find pall’itak</p><p>[two handrails] here on the sides. You would place your hands on them and</p><p>come up into the qasgiq. (Fienup-Riordan 1996:122)</p><p>Another overlooked function of floor-hold handles was to avoid “placing the</p><p>hands on the wet planks at the side of the hole” (Nelson 1899:250). Slippery</p><p>boards would not have been a problem after sweat baths, but entering and</p><p>leaving through this hole was probably a bit more precarious when the hearth</p><p>was cold and people entered wearing boots with wet soles.</p><p>When the sun shone, skylights lit the interior (fig. 137), but at other times</p><p>indoors light glowed from saucer-shaped lamps as much as from the hearth.7</p><p>They rested on two series of broad-topped posts sunk into wood planks. One</p><p>set of posts perforated the floorboards just inside in the wall benches (e.g.,</p><p>figs. 128, 135), while the second set pierced the bench edges themselves (Ray</p><p>1966:51).</p><p>S I B E R I A N Y U P I K H O U S E S</p><p>Before 1850 both the Siberian Eskimos and their close relatives on Saint</p><p>Lawrence Island, fifty miles offshore in the Bering Sea, built semisubterranean</p><p>sod houses in winter. In summer they stayed in bone-framed walrus-hide tents</p><p>(Geist and Rainey 1936:12; Hughes 1984:251). By the 1870s, however, they</p><p>had replaced their traditional winter house with a modified version of the</p><p>Chukchi yuranga (Bogoras 1913; Murdoch 1892:78; Nelson 1899:259).</p><p>OLD-STYLE WOODEN HOUSES</p><p>The more traditional Saint Lawrence Island and Chukchi Peninsula dwelling</p><p>(nenglu) ranged from sixteen to twenty-five feet in its greater dimension (fig.</p><p>140).8 Although normally square, floors could be oblong; one from Kukulik</p><p>was twenty-four by thirteen feet (Geist and Rainey 1936:61). People framed</p><p>their houses with driftwood, stone, or whale bone, using generous thicknesses</p><p>of turf to insulate the entirety. Reminiscent of Bering Strait houses, these needed</p><p>four (or sometimes six) wood or bone uprights to sustain their flat-topped,</p><p>hip roofs. Notching the posts would have allowed residents to climb up to</p><p>reach objects hung above them (Geist and Rainey 1936:62) and could have</p><p>provided an escape route in times of conflict.</p><p>In old-style Siberian houses, a pair of wood or whale-jaw rafters straddling</p><p>the center posts were mortised on their medial faces to receive lighter tenoned</p><p>FIGURE 139</p><p>Woven respirator of wood shavings and grass</p><p>from King Island (see chapter 3). Used to</p><p>protect the throat and nasal passages from</p><p>searing heat in the sweat bath, its wearer</p><p>would bite the wooden bar (below) to hold</p><p>it in place against the mouth and nose.</p><p>Photographs by Gregory A. Reinhardt; object</p><p>#0/24, courtesy of Department of Anthropology,</p><p>American Museum of Natural History.</p><p>132 ESKIMO ARCHITECTURE</p><p>crossbeams over the horizontal central roof</p><p>(fig. 140). On the rafters’ lateral</p><p>faces, additional mortises allowed beams with longer tenons to</p><p>extend from the rafters’ ends downward to the four short corner posts of the</p><p>house (figs. 140–142). Other lateral-face mortises held beams (probably for</p><p>sideways stability) that sloped transversely down to stringers along the room’s</p><p>outer edges. At intervals around the room were additional short posts, cut to</p><p>the height of the corner posts, positioned to hold up the stringers (fig. 140).</p><p>For the ceiling, timbers (probably split logs) bridged the diagonal gap be-</p><p>tween lower stringers and the upper central framework, and more timbers</p><p>spread across the flat medial roof (figs. 140–142). A hollowed-out whale</p><p>vertebra (covered by a vertebral disk) acted as a vent hole in the roof. Upright</p><p>split logs leaned inward against the lower stringers to form the house walls</p><p>(figs. 140–142). Bone pegs, which could include sharpened walrus bacula</p><p>(penis bones), tacked down the floor boards; these pegs sometimes helped to</p><p>secure the structural members of the house (Geist and Rainey 1936:58–64).</p><p>From seventeen to seventy-five feet long and less than three feet high, the</p><p>tunnel of this old-style Siberian Yupik winter house was built entirely under-</p><p>ground and lined with split logs. Like tunnels in many mainland houses</p><p>from the Central Yup’ik area, Siberian Eskimo ones had a stockaded entry</p><p>and were sometimes curved to impede incoming drafts. Stone and/or wood</p><p>normally walled and paved the entryway’s exterior; paving within the tunnel,</p><p>however, was optional. Unlike most Eskimo tunnels, these did not end in a</p><p>trap door or heat-conserving cold trap but simply slanted downward, ramplike,</p><p>to the house floor (Geist and Rainey 1936:59, fig. 14; Nelson 1899:259–260,</p><p>fig. 87; Carius 1979:3).</p><p>FIGURE 140</p><p>St. Lawrence Island and Chukchi Peninsula</p><p>old-style wooden house.</p><p>From Geist and Rainey 1936:fig. 2; courtesy of</p><p>University of Alaska, Fairbanks.</p><p>CHAPTER 4— SOUTHWEST ALASKA, BERING SEA, SIBERIA, AND GULF OF ALASKA 133</p><p>Inside the old-style Siberian Eskimo house sleeping benches lay on three</p><p>sides (fig. 140). The benches appear to have been fairly low, consisting of</p><p>dressed planks that sat on perpendicular joists, in turn sitting on stones to</p><p>raise them off the floor. However, some houses had a second row of sleeping</p><p>platforms, accessible via a notched-log ladder. Vertical split-log walls were</p><p>about five feet high and ceilings rose another two feet or so. The moss-wick</p><p>lamps were “almost two feet long, shallow, with elevated ‘rim’ along two</p><p>sides. . . . Three lamps to a platform . . . were kept burning day and night [and]</p><p>two others for light at the ends of the room” (Collins n.d.). Household goods</p><p>were stored on overhead wall racks around the house perimeter, or in the</p><p>entryway when not in use (Carius 1979:12–13).</p><p>In at least one site from East Cape, Siberia, Nelson saw previously aban-</p><p>doned houses spread among then-occupied ones. Older structures were “similar</p><p>in character to those seen on the Diomede Islands—partly underground, with</p><p>external stone walls” (Nelson 1899:258). Thus, this dwelling form is obvi-</p><p>ously distinct from other Siberian Eskimo houses.</p><p>FIGURE 142</p><p>“Interior view of same [ruined house on</p><p>Punuk Island].” Note the four center posts</p><p>(front left post notched) holding up two cross</p><p>beams (left one wood, right one whale man-</p><p>dible), the roof pitching diagonally from one</p><p>cross beam (left), standing wall timbers (left</p><p>background), collapsing wall timbers (left</p><p>foreground), and heavy wood floor planks;</p><p>a man crouches on the floor amid the four</p><p>posts. The bone with a hole through it, sit-</p><p>ting on the roof, might be the house’s</p><p>whale-vertebra vent hole—perhaps out of</p><p>place (cf. fig. 141).</p><p>From Collins 1935:pl. 10, bottom.</p><p>FIGURE 141</p><p>“Ruined house on Punuk Island, abandoned</p><p>about 50 years ago.” A wood and whale-</p><p>bone framework stands at the floor’s center.</p><p>Two diagonal roof supports stretch from the</p><p>central cross beams to the lateral wall string-</p><p>ers (cf. fig. 142).</p><p>From Collins 1935:pl. 10, top.</p><p>134 ESKIMO ARCHITECTURE</p><p>FIGURE 143</p><p>“Village at East Cape, Siberia.” Some houses</p><p>(center) lack complete walls, while others</p><p>(right) may be occupied (note objects lean-</p><p>ing against the walls).</p><p>From Healy 1887:16 ff.</p><p>FIGURE 144</p><p>“Houses and natives of East Cape, Siberia.”</p><p>Meat dries from a rack (left house), thongs</p><p>are being stretched and air-tanned between</p><p>houses, and wood panels (a door?) frame a</p><p>doorway (right house). Items leaned against</p><p>the sides presumably help to keep the skin</p><p>roof-cover in place.</p><p>From Healy 1887:16 ff.</p><p>FIGURE 145</p><p>“Koara’s home and friends” (cf. fig. 126),</p><p>circa 1899–1900. New-style hide-roofed</p><p>house, giving a sense of capacity and the</p><p>number of walrus hides needed to cover the</p><p>structure, peak to base. A thick horizontal</p><p>thong, about five feet up, anchors the lighter</p><p>roof-hide thongs by being counter-anchored</p><p>(via twisted vertical lines at regular intervals</p><p>around the circumference) to the weights on</p><p>the ground. A toy boat sits on the roof (left);</p><p>behind two boys (center) is an inflated seal-</p><p>skin float for sea-mammal hunting; and in</p><p>the foreground (right) is a wooden vessel</p><p>(steam-bent rim with a concave base).</p><p>USRC Bear Collection, Accession #89-193-</p><p>106N, Archives, Alaska and Polar Regions</p><p>Dept., Rasmuson Library, University of Alaska</p><p>Fairbanks.</p><p>CHAPTER 4— SOUTHWEST ALASKA, BERING SEA, SIBERIA, AND GULF OF ALASKA 135</p><p>NEW-STYLE HIDE-ROOFED HOUSES</p><p>The newer “Chukchi style” winter house (mangtaha.aq) was situated on a</p><p>level spot on a high sand bar (figs. 143–148). People entered these oval or</p><p>octagonal dwellings, about twenty feet in diameter, through a wooden door</p><p>sometimes placed about two feet above the ground. Builders started the whale-</p><p>bone or driftwood frame by predetermining a floor size, placing uprights</p><p>either side by side or periodically around the circumference, then driving them</p><p>into the ground (fig. 149).9 When positioned side by side, these posts were</p><p>bound together with walrus-hide thongs; when apart, the interstices would</p><p>be packed with turf to the posts’ full height. In both cases, the result was a</p><p>round wall about four to six feet high (figs. 143–148).</p><p>Wood or whale mandible rafters either rested on the wall or, when wall</p><p>posts were periodic, on the posts (or on post-top stringers—see fig. 149).</p><p>They rose inward, supported by a few uprights within the house, to focus on</p><p>an apex well above wall height. Differing in length, the slender wooden rafters</p><p>intersected the uprights from various directions to become a starburst of poles</p><p>at the peak, which was off-center toward the door (e.g., figs. 145, 147). This</p><p>domed or conical roof could be upheld by two to four uprights, each pair</p><p>spanned by a crosspiece (Hughes 1984:fig. 9). Once completed, people roofed</p><p>the house with overlapping sheets of walrus hides that had been sewn to-</p><p>gether and, at times, banked the structure with sod as much as a foot thick.</p><p>Old parkas of feather and fur provided further wall insulation (Cremeans</p><p>1931:129–130; Moore 1923:348).</p><p>Each new-style Siberian Eskimo house had a double wall of walrus hide.</p><p>Another Chukchi innovation was the split-walrus-hide inner room (agra) en-</p><p>closed in the winter house (fig. 150). The agra or polog measured about four</p><p>to five feet tall, twelve to twenty-five feet deep, and about eight to twelve feet</p><p>broad. Forming a kind of “covered square or rectangular box without a bot-</p><p>tom” (Nelson 1899:258) suspended over a slightly raised floor, these hide</p><p>chambers were anchored by inch-wide thongs that passed through the walls</p><p>and toggled outside to boulders, driftwood, whalebones, etc. A network of</p><p>these and other lines held down the roofing (figs. 145–148). Occupants insu-</p><p>lated the floor by layering it with grass and walrus hides. Two vents pierced</p><p>the agra, and its curtain-like front could be opened. Inside the rooms were</p><p>raised sleeping platforms of earth</p><p>and/or driftwood (fig. 151). Each family</p><p>member had a designated sleeping place and slept with his or her head to-</p><p>ward the house door. Chief among the household furnishings were low stools</p><p>of whale vertebrae (Cremeans 1931:130; Kennan 1870; Nelson 1899:258).</p><p>Heating was confined to the inner room, whereas the larger remaining space</p><p>consisted of an enclosed, protected storage area (Carius 1979:21).</p><p>In one Eskimo village at East Cape, Siberia, the houses had “a stone wall</p><p>laid up two or three feet from the ground, in oval form, and continued in the</p><p>shape of an arched or open-top entrance passage three or four yards long”</p><p>(Nelson 1899:257, fig. 85) instead of the usual bone-and-turf or wooden</p><p>walls (fig. 152). The hide roofs were similar in lashing and general appear-</p><p>ance, except that they seem not to have generated the starburst effect of</p><p>136 ESKIMO ARCHITECTURE</p><p>FIGURE 147</p><p>“Eskimo winter hut, Plover Bay, Siberia”</p><p>(Grinnell 1910:172 ff). Smaller example of</p><p>new-style hide-roofed house, circa 1899.</p><p>Walls consist of whalebone uprights with sod</p><p>blocks in between. Part of the roof cover is</p><p>skin (right), the rest cloth (left), and some of</p><p>the cover extends to the ground. A whale</p><p>scapula blocks half the doorway; a wooden</p><p>serving dish rests behind the woman (cen-</p><p>ter), and an unfinished wall stands in the</p><p>background (right).</p><p>Edward H. Harriman Expedition Collection,</p><p>Accession #RBD 0201-163, Archives, Alaska</p><p>and Polar Regions Dept., Rasmuson Library,</p><p>University of Alaska Fairbanks.</p><p>FIGURE 148</p><p>Still smaller new-style hide-roofed house.</p><p>Several sleds lie about (right), and three cari-</p><p>bou or reindeer hides (weighted with rocks)</p><p>dry in the sun (foreground). The child on</p><p>the woman’s shoulder is a boy, with the crown</p><p>of his head shaved (see Nelson 1899:fig. 120).</p><p>Thetis Album, Accession #81-163-59N,</p><p>Archives, Alaska and Polar Regions Dept.,</p><p>Rasmuson Library, University of Alaska</p><p>Fairbanks.</p><p>FIGURE 146</p><p>New-style hide-roofed house that is more</p><p>modern-looking (insofar as its walls are of</p><p>milled lumber), circa 1899–1900. Meat (per-</p><p>haps seal ribs) dries from racks, the posts of</p><p>which allow storage for a sled (right). Note</p><p>the hinged window shutter (left).</p><p>USRC Bear Collection, Accession #95-264-</p><p>28N, Archives, Alaska and Polar Regions</p><p>Dept., Rasmuson Library, University of Alaska</p><p>Fairbanks.</p><p>CHAPTER 4— SOUTHWEST ALASKA, BERING SEA, SIBERIA, AND GULF OF ALASKA 137</p><p>FIGURE 150</p><p>“Ko-ara’s extra wives” (cf. fig. 145), circa</p><p>1899–1900. View of an agra (hide-walled</p><p>inner room), showing large roof braces and</p><p>smaller horizontal poles to which fur-and-</p><p>cloth walls are tied. Doubled-up partitions</p><p>suggest these are the fronts to two separate</p><p>sleeping areas (left and right); daylight shin-</p><p>ing through roof creates glare (above).</p><p>USRC Bear Collection, Accession #89-193-</p><p>108N, Archives, Alaska and Polar Regions</p><p>Dept., Rasmuson Library, University of Alaska</p><p>Fairbanks.</p><p>FIGURE 151</p><p>“Two Eskimos inside dwelling,” or interior</p><p>of new-style hide-roofed house. Light streams</p><p>through the translucent roof hides, supported</p><p>by an extensive network of arching roof poles,</p><p>tied-on crossbars, and heavy, diagonal floor-</p><p>to-ceiling braces. The woman sits by an</p><p>evidently small agra (inner room), lined with</p><p>reindeer furs and raised slightly above the</p><p>house floor. Walls are of horizontally-set</p><p>milled wooden boards, and footwear hangs</p><p>near the wooden door (right), with a seal-</p><p>skin before it on the floor. Fish or meat</p><p>appears to be drying (top, center) from a roof</p><p>brace.</p><p>C. W. Scarborough Collection, Accession #88-</p><p>130-35N, Archives, Alaska and Polar Regions</p><p>Dept., Rasmuson Library, University of Alaska</p><p>Fairbanks.</p><p>FIGURE 149</p><p>“Unfinished winter house, showing frame-</p><p>work of whalebones.” Circular wall of</p><p>new-style hide-roofed house (probably aban-</p><p>doned), Plover Bay, Siberia, with some</p><p>stacked sods in position, circa 1899. String-</p><p>ers (evidently nailed or pegged to the</p><p>whalebone posts) would make the structure</p><p>more sturdy. Long roof poles lie in the fore-</p><p>ground, the left one more curved and</p><p>probably made from a whale mandible; a</p><p>(seal?) skin dries on the ground nearby (right).</p><p>From Grinnell 1910:173. Edward H. Harriman</p><p>Expedition Collection, Accession #RBD0201-</p><p>162, Archives, Alaska and Polar Regions Dept.,</p><p>Rasmuson Library, University of Alaska</p><p>Fairbanks.</p><p>138 ESKIMO ARCHITECTURE</p><p>poles overhead. Rather, they project farther forward toward the entrance,</p><p>and it may be that only one prominent pole (a sawed length of whale man-</p><p>dible?) emerged from the cover (fig. 152). Internally, the people here engaged</p><p>the same agra design for sleeping, the remainder of the interior again being</p><p>used for storage (Nelson 1899:257–258, fig. 85).</p><p>A recollection from childhood on Saint Lawrence Island, circa 1930, illus-</p><p>trates aspects of life in the new-style Siberian house:</p><p>[Linda Womkon Badten’s] earliest memory was of watching her mother scrub-</p><p>bing down the interior walls of this house. By the time she began to “be</p><p>aware,” to use the Yupik phrase, the walrus hide walls had already been</p><p>replaced by lumber walls [cf. fig. 146]. Still, the house in which she spent her</p><p>youth had one main room and an outer room (unheated) which was used</p><p>for storing family belongings. . . . She spoke with nostalgia of the times when,</p><p>as a young child, she was invited to listen to the stories of her grandparents,</p><p>to move from her own nuclear family section of the family home to her</p><p>grandparents’ section. Each segment of the family group had its own as-</p><p>signed place in the room. Her oldest sister, because she was approaching</p><p>adulthood, also had a special place. No one, according to Linda, entered</p><p>another person’s space without some kind of implicit permission. This gave</p><p>each space its own sanctity while reinforcing respect among those who shared</p><p>the home together. (Jolles n.d.:8, 9)</p><p>A L U T I I Q H O U S E S</p><p>Housing of the Alutiiqs (i.e., the Koniag Eskimos of Kodiak Island, Cook</p><p>Inlet, and the adjacent mainland, and the Chugach Eskimos of Prince William</p><p>Sound) is one of the most challenging types to reconstruct from the Eskimo</p><p>literature (fig. 153). Its common name, barabara, comes from the Russians,</p><p>FIGURE 153</p><p>Idealized Kodiak Island year-round house,</p><p>with two lateral sleeping chambers.</p><p>From Reinhardt and Lee 1997:1797; after</p><p>Cook and King 1784:Pl. 58; Griggs 1917:25;</p><p>1920:321; 1922:18, 24, 26; Knecht and Jordan</p><p>1985:fig. 6; Martin 1913:144–146. Courtesy of</p><p>Cambridge University Press.</p><p>FIGURE 152</p><p>New-style hide-roofed house, probably from</p><p>East Cape, Siberia. Roundish stone walls</p><p>distinguish these houses from those at other</p><p>locations. Note the convergence of poles,</p><p>erupting through the front ends of these</p><p>houses, from which meat hangs to dry.</p><p>Whalebones lie against some walls, as people</p><p>sit below the front walls.</p><p>Barrett Willoughby Collection, Accession #72-</p><p>116-40, Archives, Alaska and Polar Regions</p><p>Dept., Rasmuson Library, University of Alaska</p><p>Fairbanks.</p><p>CHAPTER 4— SOUTHWEST ALASKA, BERING SEA, SIBERIA, AND GULF OF ALASKA 139</p><p>who borrowed the word from Siberia. However, the Alutiiqs called it ciqlluaq</p><p>(also written chikliuak, checkhliok, and tsikluak) or naa (Black 1977:90; Knecht</p><p>1995:746; Lisiansky 1814:332; Merck 1980:100). The Koniag occupied these</p><p>houses from late October to the end of March, situating them “behind a</p><p>headland, in the lee of a small island, or in a small embayment” (Clark 1984:191;</p><p>Sauer 1802:178).</p><p>There is an almost total absence of suitably detailed illustrations of Alutiiq</p><p>houses, but even more frustrating is the disagreement among sources, which</p><p>also tend to be vague or ambiguous about their appearance. We know for</p><p>certainthat the ciqlluaq consisted of a rectilinear, mat- or board-lined commu-</p><p>nal room adjoining one or more smaller sleeping chambers that, in historic</p><p>times, doubled as sweatbaths. Reinhardt (1986:162) argues that the Alutiiq</p><p>house is structurally related to Aleut houses (fig. 154). However,</p><p>even the hy-</p><p>pothesized similarity to Aleut houses is uncertain, given the divergence of primary</p><p>sources on this point. For example, one observer says that “[their habitations]</p><p>resemble those of the Aleutians” (Sarychev 1806:18), whereas another states</p><p>that “the dwellings of the [Alutiiqs] differ from those of Oonalashka” [or</p><p>Unalaska, one of the eastern Aleutian Islands] (Sauer 1802:175).</p><p>KODIAK ISLAND YEAR-ROUND WOODEN HOUSES</p><p>The first well-documented archaeological example of a Koniag ciqlluaq is</p><p>from Karluk Lagoon, Kodiak Island, and dates to the mid-1800s (Knecht and</p><p>Jordan 1985). However, this example was built well into the Russian period,</p><p>thus representing two to three generations of colonial influence.10</p><p>Unlike other Eskimo winter houses, the Koniag ciqlluaq had neither tunnel</p><p>nor passage, but simply a wood-framed doorway in one wall (figs. 155–156).</p><p>FIGURE 154</p><p>Interior of a house from Unalaska, Aleu-</p><p>tian Islands of Aleut—not Eskimo—cultural</p><p>affiliation, showing features similar to those</p><p>in Koniag houses</p><p>From Cook and King 1784:Pl. 58; courtesy of</p><p>the Lilly Library, Indiana University,</p><p>Bloomington, Indiana.</p><p>140 ESKIMO ARCHITECTURE</p><p>FIGURE 155</p><p>“Ash-covered barabaras [ciqlluaqs] at Douglas Village, July 14,</p><p>1912.” Mainland Alutiiq house (left; ash came from the Katmai</p><p>volcano). Note the hip or crib roof (its earthen coating likely</p><p>intact) and the doorway. Next to it may be a short passage to</p><p>another house or to a side room (cf fig. 156).</p><p>From Griggs 1922:24</p><p>FIGURE 156</p><p>“A ‘barabara’ [ciqlluaq] buried by the pumice brought down by</p><p>the great flood: Katmai Village.” Mainland Alutiiq house (left) pho-</p><p>tographed three to four years after the Katmai eruption. More of</p><p>the crib roofing is visible (cf. fig. 155), as is the framed doorway to</p><p>the house (left) and another structure (right; a sleeping chamber?).</p><p>From Griggs 1917:25, bottom.</p><p>Koniag men dug their floors about two to three feet below the surface. Four</p><p>tall center posts probably surrounded a hearth in the rectangular or apsidal,</p><p>board- or mat-lined great room. Father Gedeon claimed a typical room size</p><p>was about nineteen by twenty-eight feet (Black 1977:90), consistent with an</p><p>archaeological example about eighteen feet on a side (Knecht and Jordan</p><p>1985:fig. 6). Rising above the posts was a cribbed central roof (figs. 155–156),</p><p>but sleeping chambers could have a crib, flat, or shed roof (Oswalt 1967:fig.</p><p>7), depending on construction materials. Figures 153 and 157 show a shed</p><p>roof, the most complex style.11 As a guess, some rafters were notched so that</p><p>lighter horizontal crossbeams could overlay them without requiring any</p><p>lashings (fig. 157).</p><p>It may be that four four- to six-foot-high posts (or six if the floor was</p><p>apsidal) supported sizable horizontal stringers, which bordered the commu-</p><p>nal area and mainly functioned as roof supports (fig. 158). From these stringers,</p><p>sloping timbers probably rose up to the central roof, while walls might have</p><p>taken form from planks leaned against the stringers from floor level (fig.</p><p>158). Roofing grass was “harvested by bare hands” (Black 1977:93) and, in</p><p>all likelihood, laid in clumps without being tied to the roof. Koniag builders</p><p>covered the whole exterior with grass, then plastered or coated it with earth,</p><p>mud, or clay (fig. 155).</p><p>Most sources describe a square opening, about twenty-eight inches on a</p><p>side, at the peak of the roof (fig. 153), but no source that we consulted men-</p><p>tions any smokehole cover or skylight membrane. However, Koniag qasgiqs</p><p>did employ at least a gut sheet or board to close this hole, and these no doubt</p><p>occurred in houses as well (Crowell et al. 2001:36). Side rooms could have</p><p>their own wood-framed otter-gut or beaver-bladder skylights or windows. It</p><p>CHAPTER 4— SOUTHWEST ALASKA, BERING SEA, SIBERIA, AND GULF OF ALASKA 141</p><p>is reasonable to assume that the distinctive, beautifully pecked Alutiiq stone</p><p>lamps provided supplemental lighting (see rear endpage). Separating the main</p><p>area from each family’s quarters was either a board or a fishskin curtain.</p><p>The main chamber in Koniag houses was floored with grass mats or loose</p><p>grass and warmed by a hearth lined with stones. To come and go people used a</p><p>ground-level doorway, three feet on a side, which they closed with a framed or</p><p>unframed sealskin. Families spent their waking hours indoors either in the middle</p><p>of this room or near one wall, where it seems each group maintained a parti-</p><p>tioned area “like we have stalls in stables for the horses” (Merck 1980:205).</p><p>These spaces were meant for storing family property and for eating. Viewed</p><p>conservatively, upright boards possibly marked the sides of such partitions while</p><p>hanging mats separated and “closeted off” their fronts (Lisiansky 1814:213, in</p><p>Hrdlicka 1975:28; Pierce 1978:120). Again, this configuration has Aleut coun-</p><p>terparts (fig. 154, spaces at edges of main room).</p><p>Other authors also refer vaguely (given varying translations) to storage</p><p>spots, which bordered the walls at floor level, within the main chamber: “closeted</p><p>off places” (Lisiansky in Hrdlicka 1975:28), “cupboards” (Davydov 1977:154),</p><p>“benches” (Davydov in Hrdlicka 1975:27), “storage pits” (Lantis 1938:128),</p><p>and “storerooms” (Sauer 1802:213). Whether partitioned or not, these were</p><p>indeed raised areas (see Knecht and Jordan 1985:fig. 6) and probably were</p><p>associated with specific families.</p><p>Iurii Lisiansky (1814:213) condemns the main chamber as a “filthy hall” but</p><p>still emphasizes its general utility: “[the Koniag] barabara answers the purpose</p><p>of a court-yard, a kitchen, and, when requisite, a theatre. In this room the</p><p>natives dance, build their bidarkas [kayaks], clean and dry their fish, and per-</p><p>form every other domestic office.” Around its walls, anywhere from two to six</p><p>sleeping chambers, containing two or three families apiece, typified a complete</p><p>household (Davydov 1977:154; Hrdlicka 1975:28; Merck 1980:100).</p><p>Narrow doorways admitted families to smaller side rooms, called qawarwiks</p><p>(Knecht 1995:746) or ngloks (zhupans, to the Russians). These were the nor-</p><p>mal Koniag sleeping quarters. Corner posts stood just over two feet high, but</p><p>ethnographic and archaeological data indicate that sleeping chamber floors</p><p>were lower than those of main chambers. Giving us an indirect impression of</p><p>one house’s overall size, Lisiansky (1814:213) notes its qawarwik was thir-</p><p>teen feet, ten inches, by fourteen feet, seven inches. Two nineteenth-century</p><p>bedrooms in one house measured eight to thirteen feet wide by nine to eleven</p><p>feet front to back (Knecht and Jordan 1985:fig. 6). This means the Koniag</p><p>qawarwik was larger than most other Eskimos’ entire house interiors!</p><p>Raised sleeping platforms bordered qawarwik walls but were less than forty</p><p>inches wide. Therefore, typically reclining with their heads toward the middle,</p><p>Koniag adults probably slept in the fetal position. To bolster the inner (earthen)</p><p>borders of these sleeping spaces or platforms, residents laid down logs or</p><p>planks (some decoratively inset with sea otter teeth), which also served as</p><p>headrests. They padded the sleeping surfaces with a bedding of grass mats</p><p>and sealskins. When more than one family slept in the same room, a “slab”</p><p>or “blanket” allegedly divided them (Davydov 1977:154; Davydov in Hrdlicka</p><p>1975:27). During winter, sleeping chambers undoubtedly required lamps to</p><p>142 ESKIMO ARCHITECTURE</p><p>FIGURE 158</p><p>“Interior of a barabara [ciqlluaq] showing</p><p>the construction of the native huts.” This</p><p>corner of a mainland Alutiiq house’s main</p><p>chamber reveals a corner post (left), support-</p><p>ing stringers for two walls (made from split</p><p>logs leaned against the stringers), and a lower</p><p>set of stringers (or wall reinforcing cross-</p><p>beams?). A low opening (center, between</p><p>men) probably leads to a sleeping chamber</p><p>(qawarwik) off the main room.</p><p>From Griggs 1922:26.</p><p>FIGURE 157</p><p>Top: “The desolation of Katmai Village af-</p><p>ter the eruption.” A mainland Koniag</p><p>community</p><p>covered with volcanic ash. The</p><p>shed roofs are partly exposed, with timbers</p><p>showing through the grass of roof sods.</p><p>From Griggs 1922:18.</p><p>Bottom: “A portion of Katmai village four</p><p>years after the eruption.” Virtually the same</p><p>view as above; note how erosion has exposed</p><p>more of the roof superstructure.</p><p>From Griggs 1920:321.</p><p>CHAPTER 4— SOUTHWEST ALASKA, BERING SEA, SIBERIA, AND GULF OF ALASKA 143</p><p>augment the skylight or window lighting. Auxiliary heat within the qawarwik</p><p>came from stones warmed outdoors or in the great room’s hearth, and gravel</p><p>or grass formed a base for receiving them.</p><p>Because Koniag architectural details come almost exclusively from nonpictorial</p><p>sources, their dwellings are singularly hard to consider. One exception to this</p><p>visual lacuna came about as a result of the 1912 eruption of Katmai volcano in</p><p>southwest Alaska. To underscore the depths and subsequent dissipation of vol-</p><p>canic ash, geologists took two diachronic sets of photographs (figs. 155–157)</p><p>of half-buried, mainland Koniag houses (Clark 1984:191). They provide the</p><p>best exterior visual image of the ciqlluaq.</p><p>PRINCE WILLIAM SOUND WOODEN HOUSES</p><p>Mainland Chugach dwellings from Prince William Sound probably resembled</p><p>the Kodiak Island Koniag design insofar as they housed several families. Still,</p><p>they differed in noteworthy ways, resembling Tlingit Indian plank houses (to</p><p>the east and south) more than they did the Koniag structures (Crowell and</p><p>Mann 1998:129–131; Aron Crowell, personal communication with Molly Lee,</p><p>2001). The Chugach apparently built houses more weather proof than those of</p><p>some Northwest Coast Indians (de Laguna 1956:58–59), yet they followed the</p><p>general Eskimo (i.e., non-Northwest Coast) tradition of semisubterranean con-</p><p>struction (Petroff 1884:28). Another obvious difference is that Chugach houses</p><p>combined bark with the grass used for roofs and walls, securing this with tied-</p><p>down poles. A further distinction is that their dove-tailed horizontal log walls</p><p>might postdate Russian contact (Birket-Smith 1953:53–54, 56).</p><p>The more aboriginal Chugach winter houses had two-foot deep floors,</p><p>anywhere from twelve to eighteen feet long by five to twelve feet wide, marked</p><p>by smoothed split-log or plank walls about four to six feet high and held</p><p>together by posts at intervals. Bent poles or withes formed the arching roof,</p><p>which received a covering of turf, soil, and spruce- or cedar-bark slabs, while</p><p>stones kept the bark in position. Inside walls were lined with another course</p><p>of finished planks, and moss chinked any wall cracks. A door stood at either</p><p>side of the house (cf. fig. 128), with a “thatched passage” linking them to</p><p>adjacent summer houses (Crowell and Mann 1998:130–131).</p><p>A LT E R N AT I V E W I N T E R D W E L L I N G S</p><p>In eastern Norton Sound the Unaligmiut fabricated a “so-called snowhouse”</p><p>(Ray 1966:53) that is more accurately described as a snow-blanketed tent.</p><p>Nelson (1899:242) implies these dwellings were contemplated solely for trav-</p><p>eling and supposedly carried the name aniguyuk. Curiously, this is essentially</p><p>the same name as the extraordinarily similar snow-walled Nunamiut form</p><p>from Northwest Alaska (aniguyyak), described in chapter 3, even though the</p><p>respective languages of the Unaligmiut and Nunamiut (i.e., Central Yup’ik</p><p>and Iñupiaq) differ. In any event, they involved snow heaped over a skin- or</p><p>fur-sheathed, dome-shaped willow frame.</p><p>Later on, when the place is abandoned, the tent poles are taken out from the</p><p>inside and then the tent covering separated from its frozen snowy envelope,</p><p>144 ESKIMO ARCHITECTURE</p><p>and pulled out through the entrance. More or less of the outer snowy wall is</p><p>thus left, and travelers coming across the remains imagine they have seen</p><p>snow houses like those made on the Arctic coast [of Canada?]. (Ray 1966:53)</p><p>The Kodiak Island Alutiiqs also constructed multiple houses for themselves:</p><p>Almost every family has its own dwelling, and many have more than one dwelling</p><p>in various places. They settle on the bays and inlets, on the sea shore, and near</p><p>streams, but change their location and dwellings with the season. In the spring</p><p>they usually stay in places where the run of fish from the sea toward the streams</p><p>occurs earliest, and in winter near the shallows where they can find subsistence</p><p>for themselves. (Black 1977:85)12</p><p>TRANSITIONAL DWELLINGS</p><p>IT IS PROBABLY SAFE TO SAY THAT SEASONALLY TRANSITIONAL DWELLINGS</p><p>played little, if any, part in the lifeways of Eskimos from Southwest Alaska,</p><p>the Bering Sea, and Siberia. As expressed in a passage above, however, one</p><p>Russian source claims otherwise for Eskimos on Kodiak Island (that is,</p><p>changing sites and housing seasonally). Portlock (1789:253) mentions the</p><p>one major exception to this region’s lack of transitional lodging; a rectangu-</p><p>lar Chugach house, ten feet long by eight wide, and four to six feet high,</p><p>which may refer to a family’s second-site (and possibly less elaborate) win-</p><p>ter home (see Birket-Smith 1953:55). Labeled “smokehouses” by Chugach</p><p>elders, these buildings</p><p>need not be associated with the smoking of fish at all, as demonstrated by the</p><p>following: “[they] were quite small, perhaps ten feet by twelve feet, and were</p><p>used only for overnight sleeping, not for smoking fish.” To further confuse the</p><p>situation, the elders also occasionally used the term ‘smokehouse’ to refer to</p><p>smaller, more recent structures that were used prinicpally for smoking fish. For</p><p>this reason, it is important when working with Chugach oral history to care-</p><p>fully examine the context in which the word ‘smokehouse’ is used. (Miraglia n.d.:3)</p><p>The Chugach smokehouses were impressive, enveloping enough space to</p><p>shelter several families. Two corner posts and two taller middle posts were</p><p>sunk at each end of the floor, but no side-wall posts, suggesting that the up-</p><p>right wall planks leaned against lateral stringers connecting the front and</p><p>back corner posts. Another set of stringers ran between the higher pairs of</p><p>middle posts, allowing for a flat-topped central roof, which sloped down</p><p>steeply(?) on both sides (not quite like a mansard roof—Murray Milne per-</p><p>sonal communication with Gregory Reinhardt, 2002). Planks formed the roofing</p><p>structure, which the Chugach faced with bark slabs, in turn held down by</p><p>stone weights. A hole in the roof’s middle (at least three feet square) allowed</p><p>smoke to escape and daylight to enter. Lying next to the smokehole-skylight,</p><p>a panel of roof boards would cover the hole when the wind picked up.</p><p>Centered below that hole, between two logs set lengthwise in the middle of</p><p>the house floor, was a slightly sunken hearth, and above that hung a fish-</p><p>CHAPTER 4— SOUTHWEST ALASKA, BERING SEA, SIBERIA, AND GULF OF ALASKA 145</p><p>drying rack. Within the house were separate sleep chambers, sufficiently high</p><p>to stand up in, with wood walls and flat, sturdy roofs, on which dried fish and</p><p>meat could be stored. Each chamber had its own small, square gut window.</p><p>Snuggled under cormorant-skin blankets, sleepers lay on the floor atop grass</p><p>and mountain goat or bear skins. A round door stood at each end of the</p><p>house, next to “a small additional structure used as a bathroom with en-</p><p>trance from the main room” (Birket-Smith 1953:54).</p><p>SUMMER DWELLINGS</p><p>JUDGING FROM THE SEPARATE WINTER RESIDENCES IN THE CENTRAL YUP’IK</p><p>region, it can be hypothesized that summer dwellings were also separate, at</p><p>least on Nelson Island (Ann Fienup-Riordan, personal communication with</p><p>Gregory Reinhardt, 1999).</p><p>N O R T O N S O U N D W O O D E N H O U S E S</p><p>Murdoch implies that none of the Iñupiaq Eskimos of the Seward Peninsula</p><p>and none of the Central Yup’ik of southwestern Alaska pitched summer tents</p><p>(Murdoch 1892:84). Petroff (1884), who was Murdoch’s source, gives incor-</p><p>rect information for the housing of postcontact times, but is probably correct</p><p>in stating that summer dwellings were “generally log structures roofed with</p><p>skins and open in front; no</p><p>fire is made in these houses, and therefore they</p><p>have no opening in the roof, all cooking being done in the open air during the</p><p>summer. They seldom have flooring, but otherwise the interior arrangements</p><p>resemble those of the winter houses” (Petroff 1884:128). An example of this</p><p>summer house type appears in an engraving by John Weber from the folio</p><p>published with the account of explorer James Cook’s last voyage (fig. 159). It</p><p>is probably the first published depiction of a Western Eskimo dwelling. Logs</p><p>or heavy poles compose the walls of this structure; they are laid horizontally</p><p>in the fashion of Unaligmiut winter houses. Nevertheless, Cook’s written de-</p><p>scription of this same house indicates that these houses lacked parallel side</p><p>walls (Cook and King 1784:2:484).</p><p>Considered alongside some of Cook’s other observations, however, the text</p><p>and engraving make it possible to reconstruct a description of Norton Sound</p><p>summer houses. The engraving shows a gable roof of logs meeting roughly</p><p>along the peak and forming short eaves beyond the lateral walls. This sug-</p><p>gests that there was either a ridgepole (and endposts) to support the roof, or</p><p>that the roof timbers were equal enough in length that their ends formed a</p><p>more or less straight line. A “solid layer of poles” covered some roofs, which</p><p>were then finished with earth or mud, and possibly turf. The reference to a</p><p>small hole near the doorway “to let out the smoke” implies that rooftops</p><p>were relatively well sealed (Cook and King 1784:2:484). The ends of the</p><p>dwelling were probably rounded and made of logs leaned against the front</p><p>and back of the roof, thus shaping an apsidal floorplan (Ray 1984:290, fig.</p><p>15). The inhabitants, worried about security in an area where warfare was</p><p>146 ESKIMO ARCHITECTURE</p><p>FIGURE 161</p><p>“Village on the lower Yukon, during the fish-</p><p>ing season.” Basically the same buildings as</p><p>in figure 160, these lack apparent structures</p><p>that would retain the end-wall planks. Low</p><p>racks (right) are sagging with fish being dried,</p><p>while caches on stilts (between houses) are</p><p>the carnivore-protected food repositories.</p><p>From Dall 1870:fig. ff. 228.</p><p>FIGURE 160</p><p>“Winter view of Razbinsky.” A snow-</p><p>covered winter house, with someone look-</p><p>ing into its skylight, is just behind the man</p><p>in foreground. Beyond the people is a line of</p><p>summer homes, their end-wall bracing</p><p>highlighted by a dusting of snow.</p><p>From Nelson 1899:pl. 82.</p><p>FIGURE 159</p><p>“Inhabitants and habitations of Norton</p><p>Sound.” The roof is gabled, the walls of</p><p>stacked horizontal logs.</p><p>From the 1785 French edition of Cook and</p><p>King 1784:Pl. 54.</p><p>CHAPTER 4— SOUTHWEST ALASKA, BERING SEA, SIBERIA, AND GULF OF ALASKA 147</p><p>frequent, sometimes cut little peepholes in the front and sides of the house,</p><p>covering them with hide or wood as small windows or movable shutters. The</p><p>house floor was neither excavated nor paved. On it lay a generic sleeping</p><p>platform, below which may have been a storage space.</p><p>Early accounts suggest that the Norton Sound winter and summer houses</p><p>were alike except for a few features. The floor was bare in the summer house</p><p>(Michael 1967:115), and, even without exact measurements, it is clear that</p><p>summer houses were smaller, and probably intended only for a nuclear fam-</p><p>ily. Other minor inferences from these accounts can be drawn as well. Since</p><p>cooking was undertaken outside, these dwellings probably needed no sizable</p><p>smokehole. From the notes of Russian explorer Lavrentiy A. Zagoskin is it</p><p>reasonable to conclude that there must have been some sort of door hatch at</p><p>the opening in the front wall of the dwelling (Michael 1967:114–115; Ray</p><p>1984:290, fig. 15).</p><p>N O R T O N S O U N D D O M E T E N T S</p><p>Driftwood houses seem to have dominated the southwestern area during much</p><p>of the early historic period (Ray 1966:52). Bering Strait Eskimos also erected</p><p>dome tents for summer travel, although driftwood structures were the pre-</p><p>ferred type “in many permanent campsites” (Ray 1984:290).13 Summer tents</p><p>in this vicinity were “often mere shelters, less than three feet in height,” with</p><p>sealskin covers on a pole frame. They could otherwise contain raised sleeping</p><p>areas and mat- or fur-lined floors (Ray 1966:52; 1984:290), but they prob-</p><p>ably lacked hearths, as people cooked outdoors in summer.</p><p>Y U K O N R I V E R W O O D E N H O U S E S</p><p>Summer houses around Razboinski (the Razbinsky of fig. 160), elsewhere on</p><p>the lower Yukon River, and “throughout this part of Alaska” (Nelson 1899:247)</p><p>deviated from the local winter dwellings in that they incorporated wider planks,</p><p>set upright. Apparently they were covered only minimally by sod at best (figs.</p><p>160–161). The front and back wall planks were stepped, the tallest being at</p><p>the center of each wall, while the side walls were perhaps six feet high and</p><p>laid sometimes vertically (Nelson 1899:248) but more often horizontally. Judg-</p><p>ing from figure 160, the gable roof consisted of planks that ran (from a ridgepole,</p><p>no doubt) to the lateral walls. Bark slabs lay over the roof planks. Square or</p><p>elliptical doorways penetrated the center of the front wall (fig. 161), about</p><p>one foot from the ground outside, the three-foot-high door holes being cut</p><p>across the seam of two adjacent planks. A long, horizontal crossbeam ran the</p><p>width of front and back walls just higher than the doorway, and at least two</p><p>diagonally set struts, or braces, kept these crossbeams in place (fig. 160). The</p><p>crossbeams pressed both the front and back ends of the house against its side</p><p>walls and apparently were essential in stabilizing the whole edifice. In some</p><p>cases, two posts taller than the house were set against the front and back</p><p>walls, probably in such a way that “hewed sticks” would be wedged horizon-</p><p>tally between the posts and the upright wall planks (Nelson 1899:247–248),</p><p>thus holding the end walls in place.</p><p>148 ESKIMO ARCHITECTURE</p><p>Inside, the walls were stabilized by being pegged or tied, using withes, pos-</p><p>sibly connecting interior uprights along the side walls. Across the side walls</p><p>lay rafters, allowing overhead storage between them and the double-pitched</p><p>roof. Accommodating up to three families were wide sleeping platforms ap-</p><p>proximately one to three feet above the floor, sometimes with small square to</p><p>round windows above them. People made little effort to seal wall cracks,</p><p>making these houses rather airy (Nelson 1899:248).</p><p>S I B E R I A N E S K I M O D O U B L E - A R C H T E N T S</p><p>Descriptions of Siberian summer tents (figs. 162–164) are so meager or inac-</p><p>cessible that the following details rely mainly on visual images of these dwellings,</p><p>which are plentiful. According to Hughes, “The typical summer house was</p><p>also basically a walrus-hide (or later, tarpaulin) tent stretched over a wooden</p><p>framework, rectangular in shape with the roof sloping to the rear. Inside the</p><p>house there was a small bed platform often simply suspended on thongs”</p><p>(1984:251, fig. 8).</p><p>Siberian Eskimo tents consisted of two arches, the taller and wider one in</p><p>front. The difference in arch heights created a shed roof that pitched down</p><p>and to the rear at an angle less than 15˚ (figs. 162–164). Each arch evidently</p><p>consisted of two sturdy uprights and used a log lashed on as a crossbar. The</p><p>two arches had to be linked to stabilize the whole frame and prevent bowing</p><p>of the lateral roof edges. For this purpose, builders added two poles that</p><p>connected the front and rear arches at their corners. Moreover, these lateral</p><p>poles had vertical or diagonal struts lashed to them (fig. 163), which further</p><p>supported the weighty tent cover. The cover was also secured with thongs</p><p>weighted down by stones. The print made from a drawing by Louis Choris of</p><p>a Saint Lawrence Island tent interior shows these details (fig. 163).</p><p>In addition, the thicker ends of several long, thin poles—perhaps the same</p><p>“rafters” used in Siberian new-style hide-roofed winter houses—were tied to</p><p>the rear-arch crossbar. No doubt these roof-pole</p><p>ends were set flush with the</p><p>line of the rear crossbar (fig. 163). Jutting forward in parallel fashion, they</p><p>rested on the front crossbar, beyond which they protruded as a ragged mix of</p><p>shorter and longer poles (figs. 162, 164).</p><p>Undoubtedly, Siberian Eskimo tent covers, like their new-style winter-house</p><p>roofs, were made of walrus hide sheets, presumably rubbed with fat to be</p><p>more water-resistant and translucent (cf. fig. 148). A reasonable guess is that</p><p>one sheet covered the front, a second the sides (and possibly the rear as well),</p><p>and a third stretched over the roof. Their boxy shape must have meant that</p><p>they were severely windblown on blustery days. This would explain the mas-</p><p>sive boulders, logs, or whalebones leaned against the tent base and rested on</p><p>the skirt (fig. 164) and thong weights that strapped down the sides (fig. 162).14</p><p>A L U T I I Q G R A S S H U T S</p><p>In summer, the Alutiiqs of Kodiak Island erected a type of grass-roofed struc-</p><p>ture, a shalash (a Russian-language generic for hut, also used to refer to</p><p>Native houses and qasgiqs). Its first mention, seemingly apocryphal as to</p><p>CHAPTER 4— SOUTHWEST ALASKA, BERING SEA, SIBERIA, AND GULF OF ALASKA 149</p><p>FIGURE 163</p><p>“Interior of a house on St. Lawrence Island.”</p><p>The sitting man plays an Eskimo drum and,</p><p>like the other man, wears a waterproof parka</p><p>made from strips of seal or walrus intestine,</p><p>uninflated coils of which are hanging to the</p><p>left. The front and rear arches (left and right,</p><p>respectively) employ upright poles, but the</p><p>side (center) is diagonally braced.</p><p>Choris 1822:pl. 17, Rare Book B0083,</p><p>Archives, Alaska and Polar Regions Dept.,</p><p>Rasmuson Library, University of Alaska</p><p>Fairbanks.</p><p>FIGURE 162</p><p>Double-arched tent, Plover Bay, Siberia, circa</p><p>1899. Boulders hold the tent cover base, a</p><p>larger stone and a log or bone keep thongs</p><p>tight across the roof and sides, and two in-</p><p>flated sealskins hang from roof poles</p><p>(foreground tent). Meat (and a hide?) dry</p><p>from other tents’ poles, while hides hang from</p><p>a line between the two right tents. People</p><p>left of the light-toned tent (with a parka hang-</p><p>ing from a thong across its back) lend a sense</p><p>of scale.</p><p>Edward H. Harriman Expedition Collection,</p><p>Accession #RBD 0201-157, Archives, Alaska</p><p>and Polar Regions Dept., Rasmuson Library,</p><p>University of Alaska Fairbanks.</p><p>FIGURE 164</p><p>“Native summer village, Plover Bay, Sibe-</p><p>ria.” Box-like, double-arched nature of</p><p>Siberian summer tents are in clear view. The</p><p>right tent shows a small doorway in the broad</p><p>front, with a man, woman, and two children</p><p>standing in front of it (and a small child peek-</p><p>ing from the mother’s parka, right). The middle</p><p>tent has a large pelt (bearded seal?) being dried</p><p>and stretched on a hide frame.</p><p>From Healy 1889:26 ff.</p><p>150 ESKIMO ARCHITECTURE</p><p>size, appears in Russian explorer Stephen Glotoff’s (Stepan Glotov’s) account</p><p>of 1763: “Glotoff with ten men proceeded to a village on the shore . . . where</p><p>the natives had begun to reside: it consisted of three summer-huts covered</p><p>only with long grass; they were from eight to ten yards broad, twelve long,</p><p>and about four high. There were about a hundred men” (Coxe 1966:110).15</p><p>During Davydov’s stay on Kodiak, he once slept in a lean-to made of an</p><p>upturned umiak (skin boat) (see Alternative Summer Dwellings below) while</p><p>his comrade spent the night “in a straw lean-to [shalash]” (Davydov 1977:120).</p><p>On the other hand, it is conceivable that this “lean-to” was really an aban-</p><p>doned summer house “made by some islanders when they had been there”</p><p>(Davydov 1977:120).</p><p>Consistent with the absence of information on summertime Alutiiq dwell-</p><p>ings is Clark’s (1984:191) synopsis of Alutiiq life, in which he describes only</p><p>the winter house, and omits any discussion of summer dwellings. Neverthe-</p><p>less, Glottoff records that the grass lean-tos were occupied by nuclear rather</p><p>than extended families. Possibly this discrepancy and the larger size of Glotoff’s</p><p>“summer huts,” which accommodated more people than winter houses, ar-</p><p>gue for huts being an altogether different class of dwelling.16</p><p>P R I N C E W I L L I A M S O U N D P L A N K H U T S</p><p>Early Russian explorers saw small abandoned huts with adz-planed vertical</p><p>planks and interior hearths. They stood about six feet square and high, with</p><p>a smokehole in the bark-covered roof. Inside was a central firepit and a sleep-</p><p>ing or storage area defined by wide, even planks and a window at each end.</p><p>Other summer dwellings were described as poorly consructed and less than</p><p>weather-tight (Crowell and Mann 1998:129–130).</p><p>A LT E R N AT I V E S U M M E R D W E L L I N G S</p><p>Short of building a formal structure, the most common summer shelter in</p><p>southwest Alaska was a tipped-over umiak propped up by oars, forked poles,</p><p>driftwood, and the like at about a 45˚ angle (fig. 165). An illustration from</p><p>1802 depicts such an arrangement in the Chugach Eskimo (mainland Alutiiq)</p><p>area, geographically and culturally close to the Kodiak Islanders. This engrav-</p><p>ing shows three umiak lean-tos, which appear to incorporate bark slabs, skins,</p><p>and planks as out-thrust overhangs with approximately twenty-degree down-</p><p>slopes (Clark 1984:fig. 5).17 All three roofs use three- to four-foot uprights to</p><p>support their lower front edges; their back edges terminate under the umiak’s</p><p>gunwales. The Chugach the Koniags would take planks with them to use as</p><p>roofing (Birket-Smith 1953:53; Davydov 1977:120). The Kuuvanmiut and</p><p>other Northwest Arctic Eskimos occasionally upended their watercraft for this</p><p>same purpose (see chapter 3, Alternative Summer Dwellings).</p><p>Kuskokwim River people (Kusquqvagmiut) maintained summer homes at</p><p>hunting camps on the tundra. Six-foot-high turf walls were roofed with split</p><p>logs (supported by four corner posts), enveloped by turf. Occasionally, these</p><p>camp houses replicated those in winter villages (VanStone 1984:229).</p><p>CHAPTER 4— SOUTHWEST ALASKA, BERING SEA, SIBERIA, AND GULF OF ALASKA 151</p><p>Saint Lawrence Islanders sometimes built what appears to be a summer</p><p>version of the old-style Chukchi winter house. Nelson explains how its super-</p><p>structure was assembled. First, a whale mandible was embedded upright at</p><p>some spot along the intended circumference of the floor; its distal arc was</p><p>pointed inward. Once this bone was in place, its top was flattened so that</p><p>sections of whale mandibles (split or sawn lengthwise) could be added as</p><p>rafters, which were barely planted around the circle. Their upper ends, which</p><p>curved inward, were angled so that some were stacked onto the flat-topped</p><p>mandible and others onto the ribs that had been stacked earlier in the con-</p><p>struction process. Next, whale ribs were added in between the split jawbones.</p><p>These arched up and inward. This arrangement was roofed with walrus hides</p><p>and weighted thongs like the winter dwelling. The result was a roof more</p><p>rounded than that of the winter house and without any externally evident</p><p>rafters (Nelson 1899:257–259, figs. 85–86).</p><p>Besides upended umiaks, some Chugach summer dwellings were elemen-</p><p>tary lean-tos, or “small sheds, made of a few sticks covered with a little bark”</p><p>(Portlock 1789:253). Birket-Smith (1953:54) refers briefly to another Chugach</p><p>dwelling of sorts: “A temporary shelter might also be made by digging into</p><p>the ground and covering it with skins.”</p><p>FIGURE 165</p><p>“South Alaskan Eskimo scene.” Three men</p><p>tand between two umiak lean-tos (left), the</p><p>fore one nearly covered by a tarp, which no</p><p>doubt adds extra shelter to the other side</p><p>and might have covered the adjacent umiak</p><p>as well. People (mostly women and children)</p><p>occupy themselves (background), while two</p><p>memorial poles are visible in the foreground:</p><p>the shorter pole has a person and sea bird</p><p>mounted on its crosspiece; the taller post has</p><p>humans on either side of a raised Eskimo</p><p>drum (the right person possibly holding a</p><p>harpoon), with canines (seated dogs or</p><p>wolves?) beside the humans and smaller</p><p>(land?) birds outside the arch</p><p>on this cross-</p><p>piece.</p><p>Courtesy of The Field Museum, negative</p><p>#CSA8038; photographer unknown.</p><p>FIGURE 166</p><p>“Storehouses at Ikogmut (mission).” Resem-</p><p>bling miniature summer houses from the</p><p>Yukon-Kuskowim Delta (see background),</p><p>these stilt-raised structures have gabled roofs,</p><p>upright board walls, small doors centered</p><p>in the front wall, and crossbeams to hold</p><p>the front and back walls in place (cf figs.</p><p>160–161). Apparently, people reached them</p><p>using notched logs, which dogs cannot climb.</p><p>From Nelson 1899:pl. 81.</p><p>152 ESKIMO ARCHITECTURE</p><p>SPECIAL-USE STRUCTURES</p><p>L E S S E R S T R U C T U R E S</p><p>Northern Central Yup’ik houses were distinguished by one ancillary struc-</p><p>ture, the cache or storage shed, constructed of wood and raised on posts</p><p>about six feet square and some four to five feet above the ground (figs. 132,</p><p>161, 166). Its purpose was to store foodstuffs away from dogs, foxes, wolves,</p><p>and mice, and it also served to elevate sleds, watercraft, and the like. Caches</p><p>looked rather like diminutive houses from the region (Fair 1997; Nelson</p><p>1899:fig. 75).18 Around St. Michael, the Unaligmiut stacked logs horizontally</p><p>to create the cache walls, probably held in place by being fitted into the cut-</p><p>out, inward-facing quarter of each post; its roof appears to have been an</p><p>assortment of scrap wood. The Ikogmiut of the Yukon River used upright</p><p>planks to form cache walls and more planks for the gable roofs and a plat-</p><p>form on all four sides. Notched logs acted as ladders up to the entrance,</p><p>which was a square hole in one corner at St. Michael, and a round, centered</p><p>opening at Ikogmiut (fig. 166; Nelson 1899:fig. 75; Ray 1966:51). At Hooper</p><p>Bay, on the coast midway between the Yukon and Kuskwim River deltas,</p><p>caches probably shared features with both Unaligmiut and Ikogmiut examples</p><p>but had turf added to the roof (Curtis 1907–1930:96 ff). On Nunivak Island,</p><p>traditional caches “were built like houses.” They were either dug into shal-</p><p>lower pits, lacked skylights, and had a hatch in one side of the roof (VanStone</p><p>1989:23), or they were “sheds built above ground” (Fienup-Riordan 2000:7).</p><p>Saint Lawrence Island meat caches were deep pits walled with stone, then</p><p>lined inside with short poles, and roofed with more poles supported by whale</p><p>mandibles (Geist and Rainey 1936:66–72).</p><p>Storage racks appeared alongside houses in southwestern Alaska also. They</p><p>incorporated either simple crosspieces or platforms built onto wooden or</p><p>whale mandible uprights or pairs of X-shaped bipods, tripods, or wide-forked</p><p>poles. Here, as in northwestern Alaska, the racks kept dogs away from dogsleds,</p><p>with their tempting leather lashings, and from skin-covered umiaks and kay-</p><p>aks (e.g., figs. 132, 157A, 159–160; Curtis 1907–1930:114 ff, 122 ff; Nelson</p><p>1899:figs. 85, 88; VanStone 1989:figs. 2, 42–43).</p><p>Like Aleut (and to some extent Central Yup’ik) culture, that of the main-</p><p>land and insular Alutiiqs had been strongly influenced by the eighteenth- and</p><p>nineteenth-century invasions of Russian fur hunters, who had brought with</p><p>them the idea of steam baths.19 Alutiiq steam baths sometimes took place in</p><p>the winter house, but more often the men built separate structures (zhupans).20</p><p>We cannot be certain that they were anything more than sleeping chambers</p><p>temporarily employed as baths, but, by ethnographic analogy, the Central</p><p>Yupiit often erected domed tents and, later, small outlying structures</p><p>dedicated to this purpose (see Merck 1980:100 and Maressa 1986:154). Later</p><p>on, under Russian influences, the Alutiiqs (like the Central Yupiit) had bath</p><p>chambers separated from their houses (Knecht and Jordan 1985:33). Davydov</p><p>(1977:112) identifies another Alutiiq structure as a shooting blind. It stood</p><p>CHAPTER 4— SOUTHWEST ALASKA, BERING SEA, SIBERIA, AND GULF OF ALASKA 153</p><p>about three and a half feet high by two and a third feet square, “was made of</p><p>grass,” and in one case doubled as an overnight shelter (Davydov 1977:112).</p><p>Pratt assembled an exhaustive list of lesser structures from Nunivak Island:</p><p>fox traps, wolf pit-traps, sweathouses, storage pits, trail markers, and “tem-</p><p>porary” shelters (U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs ANCSA 1995:1:50–53).</p><p>B I R T H , M E N S T R U A L , A N D M O U R N I N G H U T S</p><p>The practice of segregating women in birth and menstrual huts was known in</p><p>Southwest Alaska from Norton Sound (Ray 1966:30) to Prince William Sound</p><p>(Birket-Smith 1953:85) on the Alaska mainland, though information about</p><p>them is sparse. Unaligmiut and Nunivaarmiut mothers delivered in birth huts,</p><p>regardless of season, with or without assistance from a midwife (Jacobsen</p><p>1977:152; Lantis 1946:223). This Unaligmiut information, which comes from</p><p>a man raised in Northwest Alaska, might be suspect except that Edmonds,</p><p>who worked in the Central Yup’ik area, is in basic agreement with him. “It is</p><p>not by any means unheard of, even now, for a woman in a traveling party to</p><p>be left behind alone in the morning and have her catch up in the evening</p><p>carrying a new born babe which she alone had attended to—all this in mid-</p><p>winter” (Ray 1966:30).</p><p>The Kodiak Island Alutiiqs built birth huts of reeds or branches and sheathed</p><p>that framework with grass, winter or summer. The entire floor of one birth</p><p>hut measured only three feet long (Hrdlicka 1975:31; Lisiansky 1814:201).</p><p>After giving birth the women withstood postpartum confinement for five,</p><p>ten, or twenty days in the same “small low hovels” (Lisiansky 1814:200–</p><p>201; Pierce 1978:127).21</p><p>Nunivaarmiut women remained isolated in an unheated hut, summer or</p><p>winter, for three days during their first menses and twenty days more in the</p><p>house (Lantis 1946:225). Among the mainland Alutiiqs, menstruation</p><p>required a ten-day confinement in a hut on the first menses and a shorter stay</p><p>every month thereafter (Lisiansky 1814:201).22 Whenever they retreated to</p><p>these huts, Alutiiq women consumed food and drink from separate vessels</p><p>(Black 1977:95).23 Besides birth huts, Lisiansky describes what might be termed</p><p>an Alutiiq mourning hut:</p><p>In one of the small buildings, or kennels, as they may very properly be called,</p><p>was a woman who had retired into it in consequence of the death of her son.</p><p>She had been there several days, and would have remained for the space of</p><p>twenty, had I not entreated the toyon [village head] to permit her to quit it,</p><p>representing that the weather was too bad for continuing long in so disagree-</p><p>able a place. (Lisiansky 1814:184)</p><p>B U R I A L S T R U C T U R E S</p><p>Toward the north, Central Yup’ik groups placed their dead in rectangular</p><p>wooden boxes. These were either elevated by four corner posts (Dall 1870:146,</p><p>227; Himmelheber 1993:figs. 57–58; Nelson 1899:fig. 100, 102,103, pl. 91)</p><p>or set on the ground and partly covered with short crisscrossing logs (fig.</p><p>167). The containers were so small that the dead virtually had to be crammed</p><p>FIGURE 167</p><p>Detail from “an Eskimo grave on St. Michael</p><p>Island, Alaska.” A tepee-like arrangement</p><p>of driftwood logs overlies a small wooden</p><p>coffin.</p><p>From Gordon 1906:pl. 12.</p><p>154 ESKIMO ARCHITECTURE</p><p>inside. Eskimo graveyards up the Yukon River were cluttered with such boxes</p><p>on posts. Nunivak Islanders placed their dead in wood- or stone-lined “burial</p><p>chambers” (U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs ANCSA 1995:45) or shallow pits</p><p>(Lantis 1946:227).</p><p>S O U T H W E S T A L A S K A A N D A L U T I I Q C E R E M O N I A L H O U S E S</p><p>Aside from its function as a male-oriented dwelling, the qasgiq (figs. 133–</p><p>136) operated as “a general workroom, a sort of town hall, a steambath, a</p><p>caravanserai for travelers, and a meeting place for celebrating their annual</p><p>dances and festivals” (Dall 1870:16).24 It has also been labeled a “hotel for</p><p>visitors” (Murdoch 1892:80). Construction details for the Central Yup’ik</p><p>qasgiq appear in the Winter Houses section above.</p><p>The Alutiiqs sometimes held festivities in their own ciqlluaq great rooms,</p><p>but a few rich men’s qasgiqs survived into the Russian</p><p>Also, to take advantage of leads in the sea ice for hunting,</p><p>settlements tended to be near open water (figs. 3–4). Protected south-facing</p><p>hillsides were ideal; southerly orientation was a long-standing and deep-rooted</p><p>custom both here and in the Western Arctic (Murdoch 1892:79), not only to</p><p>maximize light and shelter but also because elevation was important for spot-</p><p>ting the sea mammals on which the Eskimos depended for food. A related</p><p>consideration was smooth, solid, snow-free sea ice. Predictably, the best</p><p>The Eskimo lamp literally created</p><p>culture, transforming dark into bright,</p><p>cold into hot, raw into cooked.</p><p>GREENLAND</p><p>1</p><p>10 ESKIMO ARCHITECTURE</p><p>FIGURE 3</p><p>Detail from a “View of Lichtenfels,” West</p><p>Greenland. Nine summer tents stand near</p><p>six communal winter houses, all close to the</p><p>shore, while a European mansard roof build-</p><p>ing rises farther inland.</p><p>Frontispiece to the 1820 edition of Crantz 1767.</p><p>FIGURE 4</p><p>“A summer-encampment” by the sea, West</p><p>Greenland. Four women with topknot hair-</p><p>dos stand between two sealskin tents, while</p><p>men lounge by the other. Below, women row</p><p>an umiak as a man in his kayak hitches a</p><p>ride. Note the many individual seal pelts that</p><p>go into constructing each tent cover.</p><p>From Rink 1877:opp. 178.</p><p>locations had long since been identified, and these were inhabited year after</p><p>year; it was more practical to refurbish an existing house than construct a</p><p>new one (Ekblaw 1927–28:156–9). For all the Greenlandic populations the</p><p>use of interior space, materials, and construction techniques were much the</p><p>same, but winter houses in the three subareas differed as to size and shape.</p><p>E A S T A N D W E S T G R E E N L A N D S T O N E C O M M U N A L H O U S E S</p><p>The communal houses of East and West Greenland (fig. 5) stand in marked</p><p>contrast to the snug, small-family dwellings of the Polar Eskimos described</p><p>below. Archaeologists suggest that communal houses evolved at least in part</p><p>as a response to the quick alternation of warming, cooling, and warming</p><p>trends from A.D. 800–1850. During this period, economic pressures (such as</p><p>CHAPTER 1— GREENLAND 11</p><p>reduced whaling prospects owing to sea-ice changes) led people to adapt with</p><p>communal responses in getting and sharing food and fuel (Birket-Smith</p><p>1924:144–148; Frederiksen 1912; Mathiassen 1936:114–122; Schledermann</p><p>1976a).</p><p>Nearly identical on both coasts, East and West Greenland winter commu-</p><p>nal houses (sometimes referred to as long houses in the literature) were large,</p><p>rectangular or oblong semisubterranean communal dwellings usually accom-</p><p>modating four to six families (twenty to thirty persons), or sometimes as</p><p>many as eight to ten families (fig. 5A). A West Greenland house (igdlo/illu)</p><p>might be as large as twelve by seventy-two feet, while one Ammassalik (East</p><p>Greenland) example (itte) measured thirty-three by thirty-six feet (Crantz</p><p>1767:1:139; Thalbitzer 1914:353). With four walls arranged in a rectangular</p><p>to trapezoidal floor plan, East and West Greenland houses were built either as</p><p>free-standing structures (fig. 3; Thalbitzer 1914:fig. 64), or with the back end</p><p>dug into a hillside. When excavated into slopes overlooking prime ocean hunting</p><p>grounds, the top edge of a house’s back wall often stood flush with the slant-</p><p>ing ground surface (fig. 5C; Holm 1914:35, fig. 29). Because of this slant, the</p><p>front end of the main chamber required little digging, but the side and front</p><p>walls and the tunnel walls sometimes had to be built up (fig. 5A, F). Residents</p><p>reached the living area by crawling upslope through a three-foot-high stone-</p><p>and turf-walled tunnel, which ran perpendicular to the house’s long axis (fig.</p><p>5A, C, F; Crantz 1767:1:139; Nansen 1894:80; Thalbitzer 1914:356). Tun-</p><p>nels always penetrated the front wall of the house (fig. 5A, F), sometimes</p><p>breaching it off-center (Thalbitzer 1941:fig. 167).</p><p>Rows of hardwood1 or whale-rib rafters, and loosely arrayed, smaller wooden</p><p>crosspieces held up the roof (figs. 6–7). Each row rested on a continuous</p><p>FIGURE 5</p><p>Idealized Greenlandic stone communal house</p><p>for winter: (A) floor plan (kitchen on left side</p><p>of tunnel, West Greenland only); (B) win-</p><p>dow with peephole (left, gut, peephole patch,</p><p>and border; right, framed window as seen</p><p>from outside; (C) cross section through house</p><p>and tunnel—a line connecting the upper right</p><p>and lower left ground surfaces would indi-</p><p>cate the original ground slope; (D) interior,</p><p>view toward door; (E) interior, view toward</p><p>rear; (F) exterior, view toward front (kitchen</p><p>on left side of tunnel, West Greenland only);</p><p>(G) wall liner (West Greenland only) and</p><p>ridgepole details; (H) lampstand, sleeping</p><p>platform, and partition details.</p><p>After Crantz 1767:1:pl 4; Holm 1914:fig. 31;</p><p>Ostermann 1938:fig. 19; Thalbitzer 1914:figs.</p><p>64–65, 1941:figs. 167, 224–225; drawn by</p><p>Jeanne E. Ellis.</p><p>12 ESKIMO ARCHITECTURE</p><p>FIGURE 6</p><p>Cut-away view of a West Greenland winter-</p><p>house interior. In each partitioned family</p><p>space are a clothes-drying rack and cooking</p><p>pot suspended over a lit lamp on a lampstand.</p><p>Note arrangement of roof timbers, ridgepole,</p><p>and posts to support the superstructure.</p><p>From Crantz 1767.</p><p>FIGURE 7</p><p>“Interior of a rich man’s house” from the</p><p>late nineteenth century. The ridgepole is ab-</p><p>sent and the stove, dish shelves, pictures, and</p><p>finished timbers are not traditional, but most</p><p>other details are reasonably accurate: upright</p><p>posts; lighter ceiling timbers; drying racks</p><p>overhead; back and side platforms; and lamps</p><p>on wooden lampstands.</p><p>From Rink 1877:176 ff.</p><p>FIGURE 8</p><p>“Interior of the house of a very rich man,”</p><p>shows even more non-traditional items of</p><p>material culture than those appearing in fig-</p><p>ure 7. Note the depth of the main platform</p><p>(left) compared to the side and front benches,</p><p>widespread upright posts independent of</p><p>three women’s work spaces, part of a win-</p><p>dow niche in the front wall (right), and</p><p>storage beneath and at the back of the main</p><p>platform. The ridgepole evidently runs trans-</p><p>verse to design expectations.</p><p>From Rink 1875:frontispiece.</p><p>CHAPTER 1— GREENLAND 13</p><p>FIGURE 9</p><p>“Interior of a hut. Part of the platform be-</p><p>tween two props.” In front of the left post,</p><p>a lamp flickers atop its stand while a pot</p><p>hangs off-center above it next to scissors stuck</p><p>into the post. Note the small, apparently</p><p>cramped family space defined by the posts.</p><p>From Holm 1914:fig. 30.</p><p>ridgepole, giving interiors a maximum height of about six and one-half feet</p><p>inside (fig. 5C, E, H). One ridgepole was the rule in West Greenland, but in</p><p>Amassalik territory the addition of a second or third ridgepole permitted ex-</p><p>pandable house-width (Holm 1914:35; Thalbitzer 1914:355). To enlarge a</p><p>house lengthwise, shorter ridgepoles could be lashed together, thereby span-</p><p>ning greater lengths. Blocks of sod were sometimes added around the interior</p><p>walls to enhance insulation.</p><p>Ceilings and outermost roof coverings for West and East Greenland com-</p><p>munal houses consisted of old, fat-rubbed boat- or tent-skins, which were</p><p>laid over the rafters. The skins were weighted with stones, then layered over</p><p>with turf, earth, and more turf as insulators to form a flat or slightly pitched</p><p>roof (fig. 5C). Heavy, vertical posts transmitted the roof load to a bare or</p><p>stone-paved floor (figs. 5C, E, G–H, 6–8). Floorplans were rectangular to</p><p>trapezoidal and wider at the back (Holm 1914:fig. 31), mostly measuring</p><p>twenty-four to fifty feet long by twelve to sixteenfeet wide.</p><p>Two nearly transparent gut windows, made from scraped strips of seal-gut</p><p>membrane, admitted light through the front walls of the Greenlandic com-</p><p>munal house (fig. 5B–D, F; Egede 1745:63–64; Thalbitzer 1914:352). On</p><p>occasion, builders would insert a third window, framed in stone like the oth-</p><p>ers, over the inner doorway (fig. 5D, F; Thalbitzer 1914:356). In West Greenland,</p><p>as among the Polar Eskimos, gut windows included a peephole (fig. 5B; Birket-</p><p>Smith 1924:151).</p><p>The wooden sleeping platforms of Greenlandic</p><p>period. Genuine Alutiiq</p><p>qasgiqs were probably built much like Alutiiq winter houses but slightly big-</p><p>ger, about nineteen by twenty-three feet. The sum of what we have gleaned</p><p>from ethnographies points to Alutiiq qasgiq features such as a large gut win-</p><p>dow or at least a central skylight, wooden benches (probably against three or</p><p>all four walls), and perhaps25 side rooms. As might be expected, only men</p><p>were permitted to build and repair these structures (Black 1977:91, 93; Davydov</p><p>1977:107, 110; Hrdlicka 1975:29; Pierce 1978:120–121).</p><p>ASSOCIATED RITUALS AND BELIEFS</p><p>THE PERVASIVE ESKIMO PRACTICE OF HOUSE ABANDONMENT FOLLOWING THE DEATH OF</p><p>a family member in the house also was known in Southwest Alaska (Ray</p><p>1966:49). In the 1880s, Jacobsen visited Shaktolik in eastern Norton Sound</p><p>and, pestered by villagers to retrieve things for them, “went to an Eskimo</p><p>house that had just been abandoned because of the death of a child. Even</p><p>their longing for tea and pancakes did not overcome their fear of the presence</p><p>of death” (Jacobsen 1977:165). Much as Central Arctic Eskimos removed</p><p>the dead by routes other than the house tunnel or passage, Eskimos in this</p><p>region would extract their deceased through the skylight (e.g., Hawkes 1914:14;</p><p>Lantis 1946:227; Nelson 1899:311). The Alutiiqs went further, actually burying</p><p>the deceased in his or her sleeping chamber in the house before abandoning it</p><p>(Davydov 1977:179; Merck 1980:206). Some Alutiiqs, however, took a more</p><p>pragmatic approach:</p><p>During my stay in Kad’iak in one village in the winter time one poor old</p><p>woman who had no relatives became so ill that her death was imminent. The</p><p>owners of the house in which she was living, in order to save themselves the</p><p>trouble of having to build a new house at such a stormy time of the year, dug</p><p>a hole for the woman, placed her in it and covered it with wood. Three days</p><p>later the unfortunate woman’s cries could still be heard. (Davydov 1977:179)</p><p>Moreover, important Alutiiq men were mummified and, after death, their</p><p>bodies secreted in remote caves, where they were posed like mannequins (Pinart</p><p>CHAPTER 4— SOUTHWEST ALASKA, BERING SEA, SIBERIA, AND GULF OF ALASKA 155</p><p>1873). The many skeletons Geist and Rainey unearthed from one Saint</p><p>Lawrence Island house floor (1936:61) suggest that, at least in earlier times,</p><p>Siberian Eskimos also felt little dread of death.</p><p>Himmelheber catalogs several house-linked practices that involved Nunivak</p><p>Islanders upon someone’s death. These behaviors fall somewhere in between</p><p>the Alutiiqs’ practicality and other Southwest Alaska groups’ deeper fear of</p><p>the dead:</p><p>All villagers . . . must leave their houses and remain in the open until the burial</p><p>is completed. If it is night, they are roused and are not allowed to continue</p><p>sleeping. . . . The [seal gut] skin window-covering of the skylight is lifted some-</p><p>what so that the lechlgach [unseen spirit] can fly away. If a man dies in the</p><p>men’s house, a great sweat bath is organized in which all men participate.</p><p>Afterward everyone gets a stick to chase away the lechlgach. All wood must</p><p>be thrown out of both the family house and storage houes. . . . The corpse is</p><p>lifted outside through the skylight and carried to the coffin accompanied by</p><p>relatives. . . . The spouse or parents [of the deceased] must remain in their</p><p>house for three days . . . [, after which] a man goes to the men’s house and a</p><p>woman washes her hair. . . . From then until the next Bladder Festival . . . rela-</p><p>tives [of the deceased] must pull their parka hoods over their heads when they</p><p>leave the house. . . . A woman may not go in the men’s house to bring her</p><p>husband his meal. . . . Spouses of the recently dead must stand outside during</p><p>the Bladder Festival. . . . Death is not seen as a reason to abandon the family</p><p>house [, however]. (Fienup-Riordan 2000:138, 141–142)</p><p>Firepits in qasgiqs (figs. 134–135, 138) were thought to be the dwelling</p><p>place of the spirits, and people sometimes poured offerings to them through</p><p>cracks in the log floors (Hawkes 1914:15; Michael 1967:123). The Alutiiqs</p><p>apparently felt somewhat differently about qasgiqs, razing them “after a fes-</p><p>tival has taken place” (Davydov 1977:184). This was probably after something</p><p>akin to a Great Festival to the Dead had taken place (cf. Davydov 1977:180).</p><p>Although Alutiiq ceremonialism “was rather weak” (Birket-Smith 1953:108),</p><p>one qasgiq-focused ceremony, the Bladder Festival, was important in South-</p><p>west Alaska. It took place in December and its intent was “to insure a continuing</p><p>supply of sea mammals” (Oswalt 1979:252). A whole village might pack into</p><p>one qasgiq, its ceiling filled with hung-up mechanical effigy animals as well as</p><p>painted, inflated bladders of animals killed during the year (Fienup-Riordan</p><p>1996:126–131). At the crucial point during these activities, everyone paraded</p><p>from the qasgiq—with bladders in hand—to a hole in the ice and immersed</p><p>the bladders. People then predicted future hunting based on the sights and</p><p>sounds emitted as the soggy membranes sank (Michael 1967:123).</p><p>Men and older boys spent their indoor hours in qasgiqs, while women and</p><p>children stayed in separate family-focused houses. On Nelson Island, then, it</p><p>seems predictable that the house was symbolically analogous to female repro-</p><p>ductive organs:</p><p>The reproductive capacity of the women’s house was explicit. In certain con-</p><p>texts, its interior was likened to the womb from which the spirits of the dead</p><p>would be reborn in human form as they entered the world of the living. Elena</p><p>remembers the pregnancy taboos that required her to exit quickly and</p><p>156 ESKIMO ARCHITECTURE</p><p>repeatedly through the doorway so that her unborn child would emerge in a</p><p>similar manner from her body. One story of an unborn child depicts it as it</p><p>first becomes aware of itself in a room inhabited only by a toothless old</p><p>woman. The baby ultimately finds the door and exits. . . . At puberty [girls</p><p>were] confined to the house, their social invisibility approximating a fetus’</p><p>hidden state. (Fienup-Riordan 1990:61–62)</p><p>A similar analogy connected houses of women on Saint Lawrence Island: “[A</p><p>pregnant woman] has rules to follow like when she enters the door, she has to</p><p>let her head out first before her feet so the baby can come out head first”</p><p>(Carius 1979:8).</p><p>Among the Yup’ik, personifications of qasgiqs extended to regarding them</p><p>as sentient beings:</p><p>. . . If a village had two qasgit, they had independent [given] names. . . . Men</p><p>regularly purified their abode by vigorously sweeping the floor and emptying</p><p>the urine and water buckets, accompanying this action with noise and</p><p>drumming to drive off evil influences. During ceremonial distributions, the</p><p>qasgiq might receive gifts in its name, such as a new gut window or clay</p><p>lamp. . . . In some cases [the men] even carved masks to represent and cel-</p><p>ebrate this respected “person.” (Fienup-Riordan 1996:125)</p><p>CHAPTER 4 NOTES</p><p>1 The Siberian and Saint Lawrence Island Yupik do not include the apostrophe</p><p>in the spelling of their name.</p><p>2 Oswalt does a fine job of contrasting these two variations (Oswalt 1967:fig. 4).</p><p>3 Laying planks horizontally may suggest Russian influence as well, but the same</p><p>sideways-laid planks are also found in Unaligmiut qasgiqs without dovetailed</p><p>construction (Nelson 1899:fig. 76; Ray 1966:129–130).</p><p>4 As a rule, house-roof entrances were used only when snowdrifts blocked other</p><p>accesses.</p><p>5 From ethnographic analogy it is reasonable to suggest that women took steam</p><p>baths after the men.</p><p>6 The “largest [ceremonial house] in the country [Southwest Alaska]” boasted a</p><p>floor twenty-five by thirty feet) and a skylight looming fifteen feet high (Dall</p><p>1870:126). Another qasgiq from the Bering Sea region (probably from St. Michael</p><p>rather than the Diomedes) was thirty feet square with a skylight twenty feet</p><p>above floor level (Hawkes 1914:13). Himmelheber describes Nunivak Island</p><p>qasgiqs as being “at least five times as large as a</p><p>communal houses, which</p><p>were about six feet deep and raised a foot and a half above the floor, ran the</p><p>length of the rear wall (figs. 5C, E, G–H, 6, 8). Transverse skin partitions</p><p>divided the platform into an average of six separate family compartments</p><p>three to five feet wide (figs. 5E, 6). Typically, these curtains draped from a</p><p>floor-to-ceiling post in front and a rafter in back. By not tacking the partitions</p><p>to the back wall (fig. 5H), the occupants could cross the length of a house, at</p><p>the back, without leaving the platform. Sometimes the interior walls were</p><p>insulated with skins (fig. 5G), improving comfort—and probably cleanliness,</p><p>as the skins kept wall debris contained. Unmarried men, older boys, and guests</p><p>slept on lesser versions of the main platform built along the side and/or front</p><p>walls (figs. 5D, 7–8; Holm 1914:38).</p><p>Interior furnishings of Greenlandic houses were simple. Each family unit</p><p>kept its own small wooden lampstand on a stone pedestal in front of the</p><p>sleeping platform (figs. 5C, E, G–H, 6–9). This was the focus of women’s</p><p>activities indoors. Residents used driftwood boxes (and the cavities under</p><p>sleeping platforms) for storage, and extra platforms were sometimes added to</p><p>the fore and side walls, thereby increasing the total sleeping and storage space</p><p>(figs. 5D–E, G–H, 6–9).</p><p>Minor design differences between East and West Greenland included the</p><p>occasional absence of outer tunnel doors in the west (fig. 10; Crantz 1767:1:139).</p><p>Skin curtains sometimes served this purpose in the east (fig. 5C–D). West</p><p>Greenland house tunnels could include a tiny kitchen2 (fig. 5A, F; Birket-Smith</p><p>1924:151). Different wall-insulating techniques are reported for the two groups.</p><p>West Greenlanders used seal ribs to attach cast-off tent or boat skins, animal</p><p>14 ESKIMO ARCHITECTURE</p><p>skins, or boards to the walls (fig. 5G), whereas Ammasslik house walls around</p><p>the main platform were covered with skins (fig. 5C, G) and the side walls</p><p>were insulated by pegging turf or heath to them (Crantz 1767:1:139; Thalbitzer</p><p>1914:352).</p><p>After the mid-1800s, multifamily dwellings and tunnels grew less common,</p><p>although people occasionally reoccupied the old communal houses (e.g., Kleivan</p><p>1984:fig. 4), and Thalbitzer mentions smaller, rectangular one-family</p><p>variants in East Greenland (1914:353). In 1870, 613 out of 985 Moravian-</p><p>influenced houses in West Greenland still met two basic criteria for Native-style</p><p>dwellings: “flat roofs and no stoves” (Rink 1877:182). By the 1880s, Euro-</p><p>pean stoves were supplanting lamps for heating (figs. 7–8, 10), yet “the</p><p>indispensible lamps [were] kept burning” for their light (Nansen 1894:83).</p><p>Still more modern times (the 1920s to 1940s) saw communal houses aban-</p><p>doned in the northwest and replaced by small (generally under thirteen feet</p><p>on a side) one-family homes (Birket-Smith 1924:148; Kleivan 1985:fig. 4).</p><p>Even so, the household might include several additions to the nuclear family,</p><p>such as daughters-in-law and grandchildren (Birket-Smith 1924:154).</p><p>P O L A R E S K I M O S T O N E H O U S E S</p><p>Prehistoric Polar Eskimo houses were rectangular in design (Ekblaw 1927–28:167),</p><p>but the one- to two-family stone-walled iglu (alternatively, qarmah or qahma) of</p><p>ethnographic times was roughly pear shaped in plan (fig. 11), and measured</p><p>about 9.5 by 12 feet, narrowing at the back (Birket-Smith 1936:127). Steensby</p><p>describes the form as having “something of the characteristic arching of the</p><p>turtle-shell, [with] the low entrance-passage [analogous to] the neck” (1910:311–</p><p>312). Polar Eskimo houses employed up to three lamps—one per family—for</p><p>illumination and heat, a large one on the main sleeping platform and two smaller</p><p>versions placed on the narrower side platforms.</p><p>Like East and West Greenland houses, those of the Polar Eskimos sloped</p><p>backward at a steep angle and were sometimes partly excavated into a hill-</p><p>FIGURE 10</p><p>“Winter house,” viewed from the front,</p><p>showing realistic-looking stone walls, pairs</p><p>of non-native six-pane windows, and a stove</p><p>pipe in the roof. Boots dry on poles and fox</p><p>furs hang from lines (left), as someone sits</p><p>in the framed entryway to the short tunnel.</p><p>The foreground is littered with (apparently)</p><p>dried beheaded fish.</p><p>From Rink 1875:opp. 11.</p><p>FIGURE 11</p><p>Idealized Polar Eskimo small-family, winter</p><p>stone house. Top, plan view; bottom, side view.</p><p>After Steensby 1917:fig. 2.</p><p>CHAPTER 1— GREENLAND 15</p><p>side, which served as the rear wall. Built of local sandstone slabs, sea mammal</p><p>bones, and turf, house walls were thickest at the base for added insulation</p><p>and roof support (fig. 12). The roof consisted of rather long sandstone slabs,</p><p>set at intervals atop the walls and counterweighted with boulders (fig. 13,</p><p>bottom). These slabs were roofed over with broader ones. On top of the roof</p><p>slabs the men would place an insulating turf layer, held down by more stones.</p><p>This architectural use of the cantilever, or corbel, created a squat but dome-</p><p>like roof that was evidently unique3 to the Polar Eskimos in historic times</p><p>(Holtved 1967:fig. 6; Peary 1898:1:108, 1898:2:271; Steensby 1910:314–</p><p>315). The cantilevered roof could be used only in small houses,4 which had</p><p>minimal span requirements.</p><p>One entered the winter house by stooping or crawling on all fours through</p><p>a low, narrow, dark, semisubterranean tunnel ten to thirty feet long (fig. 14).</p><p>Sloping up toward the house, the tunnel ended abruptly at a squarish trap</p><p>door (called katak, perhaps a reference to “falling”). The main chamber was</p><p>a single room with narrow, elevated stone platforms along the side walls</p><p>(fig. 11). At the rear, distinguished by a line of stones, sat a larger stone-paved</p><p>platform that served as the main living space (figs. 11, 15). Layered with dry</p><p>heather and skins, this platform was a work- and play-space in the daytime</p><p>and at night was converted into sleeping quarters. Additional dry masonry</p><p>produced small stone-lined storage niches set into the main platform’s front</p><p>edge (figs. 11–12, bottom).</p><p>A single window was built into the front wall, above the door (figs. 16–17).</p><p>Windows were glazed with translucent gut strips sewn together and stitched</p><p>into a large panel (Steensby 1910:316). Usually a small sealskin peephole,</p><p>sewn to the gut, pierced the center of the window (Ekblaw 1927–28:168;</p><p>Steensby 1910:318; cf. fig. 5B). Gut, the diaphanous outer intestinal lining,</p><p>mainly of seals, was the normal window covering used throughout the Eskimo</p><p>culture area. It had several material advantages. Collecting little frost, it did</p><p>not rot. Early ethnologists who spent time in Polar Eskimo iglus reported that</p><p>FIGURE 13</p><p>“Plan & section of stone igloo [1894],”</p><p>showing dimensions of the floor (top), walls,</p><p>and ceiling (bottom), and construction of the</p><p>counterweighted cantilevers (bottom).</p><p>From Peary 1898:2:270.</p><p>FIGURE 12</p><p>“Plan and section of Northumberland Island</p><p>igloos,” showing placement of supporting</p><p>cantilever stones (top), center roof slab rest-</p><p>ing on cantilevers, and storage niches beneath</p><p>the sleeping platform (bottom).</p><p>From Peary 1898:1:108.</p><p>16 ESKIMO ARCHITECTURE</p><p>gut was such an efficient light conductor that for most of the year it was</p><p>possible to read and write inside without additional illumination (Hantzisch</p><p>1931–32:63; Steensby 1910:354). The gut window served yet another pur-</p><p>pose: During the dim winter months its glimmer of light functioned as a beacon,</p><p>guiding hunters homeward across the sea ice. Billows of warm moist air, ema-</p><p>nating from the peephole, served as a further indicator of home and warmth</p><p>(Ekblaw 1927–28:167–8).</p><p>The main platform at the rear of Polar Eskimo stone dwellings was the</p><p>central living space (figs. 11, 15). Each member of the household had a spe-</p><p>cially designated place on the ledge; women sat at the outside front to tend the</p><p>lamps, men at the center rear (fig. 15). The Polar Eskimos, like many other</p><p>Eskimos, customarily slept with their heads toward the front wall</p><p>of the house.</p><p>Although the platform was used communally, it was considered the province</p><p>of men (Paulson 1952:65). The front of the dwelling, where cooking and</p><p>other housekeeping chores took place, was the women’s domain.</p><p>Contributing to the Polar Eskimo house’s bulbous floor plan, narrow at the</p><p>rear and widening toward the doorway, were two indented side platforms (figs.</p><p>11–13). Each was intended as a lamp place and storage space for one family,</p><p>although occasionally these were used as additional sleeping platforms. This</p><p>plan thus integrates the notion of dual-family occupancy within a single house.</p><p>Before 1900, when wooden doors came into use in northwest Greenland, air</p><p>circulation could be further regulated by adjusting stone slabs at either end of</p><p>the tunnel (Ekblaw 1927–28:167; Steensby 1910:322). Once warmed, the stone</p><p>walls and floor retained heat. In one instance, the fourteen residents of a house</p><p>drove up the temperature to 90˚F (Kane 1856:2:113). During historic times,</p><p>Polar Eskimos added an inner envelope of skin—often worn-out tent covers or</p><p>clothing—for greater insulation (Ekblaw 1927–28:168–169; Holtved 1967:14).</p><p>As with any type of vernacular architecture, the Polar Eskimo winter house</p><p>was built in many variations. One design had a single tunnel off to one side of</p><p>the main room and a thin wall separating two back-wall sleeping platforms</p><p>(Steensby 1910:fig. 15). In another, two or three houses might be built close</p><p>enough to share one or both lateral walls (Peary 1898:2:268) while apparently</p><p>using separate tunnels. Even as late as the 1930s and 1940s Polar Eskimos</p><p>retained the essential Greenlandic house features described above, preferring</p><p>to refurbish existing houses rather than build new ones (Holtved 1967:2, figs.</p><p>9–16). Here as elsewhere in the Eastern Eskimo culture area, when families</p><p>FIGURE 14</p><p>“The Esquimaux huts,” depicting a long tun-</p><p>nel to a small, windowless house and, nearby,</p><p>a storage platform (right).</p><p>From Kane 1856:1:122.</p><p>CHAPTER 1— GREENLAND 17</p><p>FIGURE 15</p><p>“Life in the Esquimaux igloë,” an idealistic</p><p>view of household activity. The woman at</p><p>left cooks over a non-Eskimo lamp, a pot</p><p>dangling from the drying rack overhead. The</p><p>platforms seem unrealistic, as does the great</p><p>ceiling height.</p><p>From Kane 1856:2:opp. 113.</p><p>FIGURE 16</p><p>“Igloo at Little Omenak and native women.”</p><p>Note the window above a short tunnel (up-</p><p>per center), the tunnel entrance (lower center),</p><p>and apparently a small storage place (right).</p><p>From Senn 1907:106 ff.</p><p>FIGURE 17</p><p>“Esquimaux hut,” like figure 16, depicts a</p><p>short tunnel with a square-framed window</p><p>over it and a storage place or doghouse to</p><p>the right.</p><p>From Kane 1856:1:60.</p><p>18 ESKIMO ARCHITECTURE</p><p>departed the winter house in springtime, the roof was dismantled, thereby</p><p>exposing the lived-in center for the elements to cleanse. If a family did not</p><p>return to the house the next fall, anyone in the group had equal claim to it</p><p>(Peary 1898:2:272–273).</p><p>A LT E R N AT I V E W I N T E R D W E L L I N G S</p><p>Greenlanders in all three regions used secondary and infrequently occupied</p><p>winter dwelling types, which we call alternative housing. Polar and West</p><p>Greenland Eskimos built small but less complete versions of their stone-walled</p><p>winter homes (Holtved 1967:28, 111–112; Rink 1877:182) and, in earlier</p><p>times, West Greenland coastal people contrived a winter-house variant made</p><p>with whale bones (Birket-Smith 1924:144–146). East Greenlanders some-</p><p>times built a smaller house of stone, without turf, when they were “unable to</p><p>reach the usual wintering places” (Holm 1914:41). Even if turf were available</p><p>in winter, its frozen state prevented its convenient removal and use, so build-</p><p>ers of temporary shelters sometimes covered a structure with snow for insulation.</p><p>This might have been a carryover from the prehistoric, one-family stone house</p><p>(cf. Holm 1914:41–42). When traveling, all Greenland groups built small,</p><p>dome-shaped houses of snow (Birket-Smith 1924:148; Thalbitzer 1914:fig.</p><p>222; cf. 1914:406–407, 1941:658–659). The East Greenland name for such</p><p>houses was uttisaawt, “a place (house) where one stays for a day, or for a few</p><p>days” (Thalbitzer 1941:659; cf. Holm 1914:42).</p><p>Hunters sometimes erected simple versions of the stone house while in transit</p><p>(Birket-Smith 1924:149). Among the Polar Eskimos these were very small,</p><p>about four feet by three in ground-plan, and some three feet high. In shape</p><p>they resemble a rude dome. No doubt they are human habitations—retiring</p><p>chambers, into which, away from the crowded families of the hut, one or</p><p>even two Esquimaux have burrowed for sleep. . . . [T]he hardy tenant, muffled</p><p>in furs, at a temperature of –60˚ is dependent for warmth upon his own</p><p>powers and the slow conduction of the thick walls. (Kane 1856:1:122, 458)</p><p>Polar Eskimos made use of snow houses (though not the more sophisti-</p><p>cated type made in Canada) more often than did other Greenlanders and</p><p>occasionally resorted to digging into a snowdrift for shelter (Hayes 1885:243–</p><p>244; Holtved 1967:31). Called iglooyak or igluiya, these hastily erected snow</p><p>houses were temporary5 (Kroeber 1900:271; Steensby 1910:287). Originally,</p><p>this house type was built up from both sides of the doorway and peaked at</p><p>around six feet, although it still took on a “semi-elliptical” to circular plan</p><p>(Kroeber 1900:271). In 1856, visiting Baffin Island Eskimos showed the</p><p>Polar Eskimos how to make the Canadian Inuit spiral-built snowblock dome</p><p>(Holtved 1967:31), and at the same time introduced the subsurface tunnel to</p><p>replace the shorter, covered, surface passage of earlier times (Rasmussen</p><p>1975:32).</p><p>The floorplan of the temporary Polar Eskimo winter house closely resembled</p><p>that of their stone-walled houses (Steensby 1910:fig. 2). At the doorway, a</p><p>large snowblock kept out the cold, but for greater circulation it stood ajar. In</p><p>spring, Polar Eskimos did not cap the dome, roofing it instead with old</p><p>CHAPTER 1— GREENLAND 19</p><p>tent-furs, which they “folded and laid upon poles, then covered with turf and</p><p>snow”; they preferred expendable covers whenever possible (Peary 1898:501–</p><p>502 n1; Steensby 1910:287). Separate antechambers might have been integral</p><p>prior to the time of the large snow house Peary commissioned (fig. 18; Peary</p><p>1898:2:431–432), and Steensby (1910:figs. 1, 2) treats them as aboriginal.</p><p>However, gut (versus ice) window panels and skin linings tacked up inside the</p><p>main chamber probably postdate the 1856 contact with Baffin Islanders (cf.</p><p>Boas 1888:541–542, figs. 492–493; Holtved 1967:31; cf. Kroeber 1900:271).</p><p>A S P E C T S O F W I N T E R H O U S E L I F E</p><p>Generally in Eskimo houses, heat was conserved by the relatively large num-</p><p>ber of people who inhabited a relatively small space (e.g., fig. 9). In Greenlandic</p><p>communal houses, as many as three adults and six to seven children could</p><p>occupy a cubicle four feet wide, although the average was four people (Holm</p><p>1914:37; Nansen 1894:79). Lamp flames, insulated walls, and body heat all</p><p>combined to keep the occupants comfortably warm, if not hot. Thus, Greenland</p><p>inhabitants usually wore no more than the barest underclothes indoors and</p><p>regularly sat on the floor, where it was cooler (Holm 1914:35, 60, fig. 30).</p><p>“Although the many lamps and the many people produce a stifling heat in the</p><p>house, the air is nevertheless by no means as foul as might be expected, when</p><p>one bears in mind that blubber and half-rotten meat as well as urine are to be</p><p>found inside; the fact is, the low passageway ensures a good ventilation, with-</p><p>out preventing the warmth from escaping” (Holm 1914:60). Despite the</p><p>FIGURE 18</p><p>Snow house constructed for Robert E. Peary,</p><p>in design more like Baffin Island Eskimo</p><p>snow houses than traditional Polar Eskimo</p><p>examples.</p><p>From Peary 1898:2:427.</p><p>20 ESKIMO ARCHITECTURE</p><p>naturally upward ventilation flow, some of the humid household air wafted</p><p>down into the tunnel, where it gradually condensed into a thick coat of</p><p>ice on</p><p>all sides (Thalbitzer 1914:357). Consequently, the spring thaw turned this</p><p>crawlway into a sloppy, slippery passage through a fetid miasma.</p><p>From the Western perspective, Eskimo living spaces were disorderly, mal-</p><p>odorous, and frequently stuffy (e.g., Mathiassen 1928:141), yet, in keeping</p><p>with their seminomadic or semisedentary ways of life, Eskimo household fur-</p><p>nishings were spartan. They typically included such necessities as platters, cups,</p><p>bowls, and urine buckets of wood or baleen. There were also various utensils</p><p>generally made from whale bone, baleen, musk ox horn, walrus ivory, caribou</p><p>antler, wood, or stone; these included dippers, one or two spoons or ladles, a</p><p>blubber pounder, and a skewer or fork for cooking meats (e.g., Murdoch 1892:86–</p><p>109; Schwatka 1884a; Stefánsson 1914:67; Thalbitzer 1914:524–561).</p><p>The cornerstone of the Eskimo household—and indeed of life itself—was</p><p>the lamp, or qulliq (Hough 1898a, b). Given to a girl when she married, the</p><p>shallow, semilunar stone lamp, along with the crescentic woman’s knife, or</p><p>ulu, and the similarly shaped parka hood in which an infant spent the first year</p><p>of life, was the ultimate symbol of femininity (Graburn 1972, 1976). There</p><p>was some local variation in lamp form6 (see endpapers) but the general fea-</p><p>tures were much the same (Hough 1898b). On the straight side of the basin, a</p><p>narrow ridge sometimes divided the wick channel from the reservoir for oil,</p><p>usually rendered from blubber. Lamp fuel needed frequent replacement.</p><p>A lamp was easy to operate: the woman tilted it slightly forward, and either</p><p>placed solid blubber (previously pounded to speed up liquifaction) on the</p><p>opposite edge of the lamp basin or suspended it overhead to drip down as it</p><p>was melted by a lit wick of dried and powdered reindeer moss, a lichen (Ekblaw</p><p>1927–28:169). After a lamp was lit its flame’s height had to be trimmed</p><p>constantly, by poking and prodding with a stick; see fig. 19 (a soapstone rod</p><p>might also be used, for example, among the Iglulik [Mathiassen 1928:148–</p><p>149] and Netsilik [Ross 1835a]). Above the lamp hung a wooden drying rack</p><p>from which clothing, soapstone cooking pots, and snow-melting vessels could</p><p>be suspended (figs. 6–9).</p><p>FIGURE 19</p><p>A woman from Cape Prince of Wales, Alaska,</p><p>circa 1892–1902, trims a small lit section of</p><p>lamp wick to adjust its flame on the lamp’s</p><p>front rim.</p><p>Ellen Kittredge Lopp collection; courtesy of</p><p>Kathleen Lopp Smith.</p><p>CHAPTER 1— GREENLAND 21</p><p>Whether warming the air, lighting the house, melting ice for water, drying</p><p>apparel, or beckoning hunters homeward, the Eskimo lamp literally created</p><p>culture, transforming dark into bright, cold into hot, raw into cooked. Not</p><p>only did the warmth of the lamp mediate between life and death; the flame’s</p><p>color also monitored the amount of carbon monoxide in the house. If the air</p><p>was healthy the flame burned white; yellow flames signaled a need for extra</p><p>ventilation. When this happened the grass or turf plug in the roof’s vent-hole</p><p>would be removed (Ekblaw 1927–28:169–70; Steensby 1910:320).</p><p>Female and male roles were both contrastive and complementary in</p><p>Eskimo societies, and household occupations highlight the disparity. It was</p><p>women who built the houses in East and West Greenland, for example, and it</p><p>was they who arranged the interior and cared for the house (Giffen 1930:28,</p><p>31). “Housekeeping includes the care of all clothing (which she helps the wearer</p><p>to remove and which must be dried and softened after each wearing), the clean-</p><p>ing of utensils, the cleaning of the house, its ventilation, the clearing of snow</p><p>from the roof or passageway, and the making of any repairs necessary” (Giffen</p><p>1930:32). Women had other duties, too. Seated next to her lamp in the house,</p><p>a woman could trim the wick as necessary to control its flames (figs. 6–9, 19).</p><p>“Here [she sat] hour after hour preparing skins, twisting sinew thread and cord,</p><p>sewing clothes and doing embroidery . . . [and looking after the children]” (Holm</p><p>1914:60). She could also cook in a soapstone vessel suspended over the lamp</p><p>and monitor clothes as they dried atop a dangling rack, from which the cook-</p><p>pot hung (Thalbitzer 1941:figs. 224, 258). Men’s roles inside the house contrasted</p><p>markedly: “The fathers of families [in East and West Greenland] sit on the</p><p>border of the platform with their feet on the chest in front of it, while the</p><p>unmarried men sit on the window platform. . . . When the men are not working</p><p>at their implements or utensils, they usually do nothing but eat, sleep, relate</p><p>their hunting adventures, [etc.]” (Holm 1914:60; cf. fig. 20).</p><p>FIGURE 20</p><p>“A resting-place for reindeer-hunters on their</p><p>march.” Women collect fuel for the fire, cook,</p><p>serve food, and prepare caribou skins and</p><p>(probably) fish (left, center, and upper right)</p><p>as two men sit in the turf-walled shelter and</p><p>another cleans a rifle.</p><p>From Rink 1877:104 ff.</p><p>22 ESKIMO ARCHITECTURE</p><p>TRANSITIONAL DWELLINGS</p><p>ACROSS THE ESKIMO CULTURE AREA, MANY PEOPLE AVAILED THEMSELVES OF</p><p>what we call transitional dwellings, housing used during the brief between-</p><p>season periods when, for instance, it was too cold to live comfortably in a</p><p>summer tent but too warm or wet to occupy the usual winter house. Transi-</p><p>tional dwellings were often located at sites different from the winter villages.</p><p>So wedded were Greenlandic Eskimos to winter stone houses and summer</p><p>skin tents that even a combined list of their transitional dwelling forms is</p><p>meager. Polar Eskimo hunters made a skin-roofed, one-person version of a</p><p>stone winter house (Holtved 1967:31–33, 108). These may have functioned</p><p>like the low, apparently turf-walled, three-foot-deep rectangular pits that West</p><p>Greenland caribou hunters used in the autumn, with cooking done outside</p><p>(fig. 20). Referring to West Greenland, Rink mentions spring houses, or “sepa-</p><p>rate huts,” built like smaller, simpler versions of winter houses in which the</p><p>sleeping area of some was “nothing but stones covered with moss” (Rink</p><p>1877:182). When traveling, the Ammassalik made small stone houses with-</p><p>out turf, covering the exterior with snow (Holm 1914:41–42).</p><p>Birket-Smith asked a West Greenlander from the Egedesminde District “to</p><p>draw the ground plan” of what may be a similar transitional house (1924:144–</p><p>147, fig. 111). Obviously intended for four families, its trapezoidal floor had</p><p>sleeping platforms on the back and left side walls, but the right side wall’s</p><p>platform was recessed as a semicircular lobe. Near this odd-shaped platform</p><p>was the doorway to the tunnel, which was to the right of center in the front wall</p><p>such that its two windows penetrated the wall’s longer left side. Still earlier, in</p><p>the northern part of West Greenland, people constructed domed houses—probably</p><p>single-family dwellings—using whale bones in place of stone or wood before or</p><p>after moving from the winter house (Birket-Smith 1924:145–146).</p><p>The Polar Eskimos used a second kind of spring and summer stone house,</p><p>the qarmaq. Intended as temporary shelter, this seems to resemble a shelter</p><p>that Kane described as “one of those strange little kennels which serve as</p><p>dormitories when the igloë is crowded” (1856:2:159). A rock- and turf-walled</p><p>circle without a passageway, it had an insulated hide roof held up by stone</p><p>cantilevers.7</p><p>SUMMER DWELLINGS</p><p>TENT IS THE APPROPRIATE TERM FOR VIRTUALLY ALL ESKIMO WARM-SEASON</p><p>shelters, with only infrequent exceptions. Across the North American Arctic,</p><p>however, tent frameworks varied so much that their sole consistent attribute was</p><p>a skin cover (Birket-Smith 1936:130). As discussed in chapter 5, Eskimo tents</p><p>fall into essentially four categories based on general shape and structure: arched,</p><p>ridged, conical, or domed. The summer tents of all three Greenlandic groups</p><p>shared many features and can be divided into two basic arch types. Variations on</p><p>a single-arch design were common throughout Greenland, while the double-</p><p>arch was reported only for the</p><p>west and northwest (Birket-Smith 1928).</p><p>CHAPTER 1— GREENLAND 23</p><p>E A S T A N D W E S T G R E E N L A N D L A R G E S I N G L E - A R C H T E N T S</p><p>The best-known Greenlandic tent design, tupeq (fig. 21), had a truncated</p><p>elliptical floor plan measuring ten to fifteen feet in breadth (fig. 21D). Its</p><p>entryway was vertical (fig. 21C) and its roof line sloped dramatically down,</p><p>leaving little headroom toward the back (fig. 21E). The door frame consisted</p><p>of a tall, sawhorse-like archway: a central, slightly curved crossbar pegged (at</p><p>each end) to the apex of tall, paired uprights (fig. 21A). Long tent poles met</p><p>above this door frame, where they were fastened together with skin thongs in</p><p>front of the crossbar, then fanned out rearward from the crossbar and down</p><p>to the ground (fig. 21B; Holm 1914:42; Thalbitzer 1914:364–365, figs. 66–</p><p>68). The raised sleeping platform’s wooden planks rested on stone and turf</p><p>foundations, and some tents had stone and turf bases for steadying and level-</p><p>ing the poles (fig. 21B–D).</p><p>West Greenland Eskimos occasionally added a simple entryway windbreak</p><p>(fig. 21E). Its framework consisted of either a smaller version of the entrance</p><p>archway (fig. 21E, left) or lashed bipods with a crosspiece resting in their</p><p>crotches (fig. 4). The upright members were placed near the main arch and</p><p>connected to it by two down-sloping poles set atop both frames (fig. 4). This</p><p>outer area acted as “a kind of porch, where they [could] place their stores as</p><p>well as their dirty vessels” (figs. 22–24; Crantz 1767:1:142). The West Greenland</p><p>tent (tupinaq) also differed from Ammassalik ones in having a pair of stone</p><p>lamp-bases, one near each side of the archway, and an edge-upright board at</p><p>the foot of the curtain, used as a threshold (fig. 21C–D). East and West Greenland</p><p>tent fronts evidently varied in shape: some were essentially vertical and flat</p><p>(figs. 4, 21–22), some were in-curved below the peak (figs. 3, 23, 26), and</p><p>others were flat-faced but pitched forward (fig. 25).</p><p>FIGURE 21</p><p>Idealized East and West Greenland arched</p><p>tent: (A) entrance arch and gut curtain de-</p><p>tails; (B) tent frame, rear view; (C) interior</p><p>and exterior details; (D) floor plan (hatched</p><p>circle = pole placements); (E) windbreak</p><p>details and simplified side view.</p><p>Reinhardt and Lee 1997:1804, courtesy of</p><p>Cambridge University Press; after Crantz</p><p>1767:1:Pls. 3–4, 1767:2:Pl 9; Holm</p><p>1914:figs. 23–24; Thalbitzer 1914:figs. 66–</p><p>70, 1941:fig. 173.</p><p>24 ESKIMO ARCHITECTURE</p><p>Over the tent frame were stretched two covers: an outer layer of depilated,</p><p>oiled sealskins and an inner layer, also of sealskin, with their glossy fur facing</p><p>inward. These covers were laced shut at the tent’s opening, then pulled taut</p><p>and weighted at the base with stones, turf, or other heavy objects. An abbrevi-</p><p>ated anteroom was added by pulling down and weighting the covers with</p><p>stones8 some distance forward of the doorway. To set off this little</p><p>“forechamber” from the rear sleeping area, a curtain was fastened to the cross-</p><p>bar (figs. 21C, 22–23). Alternating winter- and summer-tanned seal intestine</p><p>strips produced this artful curtain of light and dark stripes (figs. 22, 24).9</p><p>The double tent coverings deserve further elaboration (fig. 21C). A water-</p><p>repellent outer cover of sealskins was either turned skin-side out, or was depilated</p><p>and then rain-proofed by rubbing blubber into its surface. Inner covers had</p><p>hair facing the interior for greater insulation. Each double tent cover, which</p><p>the women of a household made, required as many as fifty to sixty sealskins</p><p>(fig. 4; Birket-Smith 1928; Graah 1837:69–70; Thalbitzer 1914:365). The</p><p>second (inner) layer of tent covering indicated prosperity, at least in West</p><p>Greenland, especially if it were of caribou rather than seal (Birket-Smith</p><p>1924:157; Crantz 1767:1:141). Only coastal dwellers with umiaks could af-</p><p>ford to transport such dual tent covers; other Eskimos reliant on dogsleds,</p><p>kayaks, and backpacking could not bear this luxurious but weighty comfort.</p><p>W E S T G R E E N L A N D D O U B L E - A R C H T E N T S</p><p>Single-arch tents were the norm everywhere in Greenland, but Birket-Smith</p><p>describes a double-arch-framed variant found in West Greenland’s northern</p><p>Egedesminde District (fig. 27; Birket-Smith 1924:154–156). Presumably it</p><p>was similar to a type that the Polar Eskimos borrowed from visiting Baffin</p><p>Island Eskimos during their 1856 visit (Holtved 1967:29–30; cf. Reinhardt</p><p>1986:83). The double-arch tent, called erqulik (“the one with the rear”) or</p><p>igdlerfiusaq (“that which resembles a box”), looked like “a sugar loaf” (Egede</p><p>1745:117). This type had an arched entrance similar to tents erected farther</p><p>south and in East Greenland, plus a smaller yet otherwise identical frame that</p><p>raised its back end (fig. 28). The front-arch frame consisted of two near-</p><p>vertical side poles connected to a horizontal crossbar. From the crossbar’s</p><p>center, poles sloped downward and rearward, where they were cut flush and</p><p>probably lashed to the sides of the shorter and narrower rear-arch frame</p><p>(Holtved 1967:27, 29; Kroeber 1900:271–272). Both layers of tent cover</p><p>consisted of skins with the hair left on. Another deviation from single-arch</p><p>tents was a separate seal fur panel (erqut) not sewn to the main tent cover,</p><p>closing off the back end (fig. 29; Birket-Smith 1924:157). Sometimes a gut</p><p>window transmitted light through this rear panel.</p><p>Besides weighing down the tent cover all around, “there was sometimes</p><p>quite a wall of sods and stones at the base” (fig. 27; Birket-Smith 1924:156).</p><p>People slept along the side walls on a bed of heather (Cassiope tetragona,</p><p>another Cassiope species, or generic woody plants) covered with furs. Lampstands</p><p>and a rear sleeping platform paralleled the arrangement seen in winter houses,</p><p>although women usually cooked outdoors over a hearth. The advantage of</p><p>this design over single-arch tents is extra headroom toward the back.</p><p>FIGURE 22</p><p>An Ammassalik “tent complete. In the fore-</p><p>ground a man [using bow drill and mouth</p><p>bearing is] about to drill a hole in a harpoon</p><p>shaft.” Note the sheltered space within the</p><p>doorway but in front of the striped curtain.</p><p>From Thalbitzer 1914:fig. 70.</p><p>FIGURE 23</p><p>West Greenland tent depicting a forward</p><p>curve to the front and a small fore-space in</p><p>front of the inner curtain. A woman with</p><p>ulu (knife) and traditional wooden bucket</p><p>prepares to butcher birds, while a baby (who</p><p>should be shown inside the mother’s parka</p><p>hood) clings to her back.</p><p>From Crantz 1767.</p><p>CHAPTER 1— GREENLAND 25</p><p>FIGURE 24</p><p>“A man kindling fire by drilling [with toggle-</p><p>handled drill cord], assisted by a woman</p><p>[holding a two-handed fire-drill bearing], in</p><p>the front room of a tent.” The fire-drill shaft</p><p>is seated in a wooden hearth-hole in which</p><p>friction generates an ember that will be nur-</p><p>tured into a flame. Note the dark-and-light</p><p>striped curtain behind the Ammassalik couple,</p><p>and the relative roominess between curtain</p><p>and outer doorway.</p><p>From Thalbitzer 1914:fig. 69.</p><p>FIGURE 25</p><p>East Greenland tents, the two on the right</p><p>with guy lines, indicating a pronounced</p><p>forward lean at the front ends, from an</p><p>Ammassalik drawing. The large billows</p><p>appear to be smoke from outdoor fireplaces.</p><p>Oswalt 1979:fig. 4–6 (after Thalbitzer 1914,</p><p>redrawn by Partick Finnerty; courtesy of</p><p>Wendell H. Oswalt)</p><p>FIGURE 26</p><p>“Women and children outside the tent</p><p>[1885].” Ammassalik example of a tent with</p><p>in-curving front; note the size of stones hold-</p><p>ing down the tent cover base.</p><p>From Holm 1914:fig. 21.</p><p>26 ESKIMO ARCHITECTURE</p><p>FIGURE 27</p><p>“Sealskin tent of erqulik [double-arch] type.</p><p>Notice windbreak in front.”</p><p>From Birket-Smith 1924:fig. 117.</p><p>FIGURE 28</p><p>Framework for erqulik [double-arch] tent.</p><p>The lower rear arch (left) has two central</p><p>uprights as well as two forward-leaning lat-</p><p>erals, which spread the back considerably</p><p>and provide support for the side-wall poles.</p><p>From Birket-Smith 1924:fig. 119.</p><p>FIGURE 29</p>
- Questionário I Diversidade Linguística e Comunicação Alternativa
- AD2 psicopedagogia CEDERJ UNIRIO
- Consciência Fonológica na Alfabetização
- Imunologia - M02
- Alfabetização Silábica show
- GUIA_ESCRITA_2EF_3EF
- Leitura e produção de texto
- Contos de Mistério-7
- JOGOS_ ALFABETIZACAO E LETRAMENTO
- 1 QUINZENA
- QUEST 2 LÍNGUA INGLESA III
- SONDAGEM LEITURA E ESCRITA
- QUESTIONÁRIO ALFABETIZAÇÃO E LETRAMENTO AULA 07 PEDAGOGIA
- course.content.assessment.attempt.menu Teste Atividade de Autoaprendizagem 4 Atividade de Autoaprendizagem 4 5 de 10 questões restantes Conteúdo d...
- Luria (1976) descreveu dois estágios que podem ser observados quando a criança desenvolve sua habilidade de escrever e as condições que lhe possibi...
- Muitos estudiosos recomendam, para trabalhar a na alfabetização, o uso de parlendas, cantigas, trava-línguas,
- A alfabetização e letramento são conceitos muito importantes para os profissionais alfabetizadores. Dentre os renomados escritores, temos Magda Soa...
- ara ROJO apud SCHNEUWLY (2006, p. 467), os gêneros textuais e os gênero orais têm uma relação: Com base na informação apresentada, avalie as afir...
- Segundo o texto, qual é a definição de língua de acordo com Ferdinand de Saussure?A língua é um produto social que contém um conjunto de convençõ...
- Considerando o conceito de letramento literário, analise o caso fictício a seguir: A professora Carla decidiu trabalhar com letramento literário em...
- A ressignificação do conceito de alfabetização trouxe também a palavra letramento, usada basicamente com o mesmo sentido de alfabetismo funcional. ...
- 1ª) De acordo com Soares (2017), quais são as três principais facetas de inserção no mundo da escrita? a) Linguística, sociocultural e política. ...
- conteúdos abordados no livro-baseMetodologia da Alfabetização, assinale a alternativa que apresenta corretamente um aspecto importante a ser consi...
- A escola deve cumprir com o papel fundamental na formação de cidadãos que precisam desenvolver suas competências linguísticas. Nesse sentido, a e...
- A educadora Magda Soares, em seus estudos relacionados à alfabetização, trouxe o conceito de letramento que se refere ao ato de utilizar as habilid...
- Educação em tempo integral na prática: Questão 5Analise as afirmações a seguir sobre o planejamento do tempo livre na escola de tempo ampliado1...
- Dividing a Segment in Given Ratio - MIR [N M Beskin]
- Avaliação Online 2_ G OUT FSIN 1 - Fundamentos de Sistemas de Informação
Perguntas dessa disciplina
Grátis
Grátis
NEWTON PAIVA
FACAP