Article Figures & Data
Figures
- Figure 1.
Description of categories most often used during analysis in previous studies of art. Artifact images courtesy of the Canadian Museum of Nature (NiHg-1 and NgHd-1), Cambridge Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology (1950), Susan Lofthouse (NgFv-6/7/8), and Avataq Cultural Institute (JlGu-3).
- Figure 2.
Map of the Foxe Basin and northern Hudson Bay regions of Nunavut, including the sites used in the present study.
- Figure 3.
An overview of relevant definitions for the traits included during the first stage of analysis. Artifact images courtesy of the Canadian Museum of Nature (NiHg1 and NgHd-1), Cambridge Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology (1950), Susan Lofthouse (NgFv-6/7), and Avataq Cultural Institute (JlGu-3).
- Figure 4.
An overview of relevant definitions for the traits included during the second stage of analysis. Artifact images courtesy of the Canadian Museum of Nature (NiHg1 and NgHd-1), Cambridge Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology (1950), Susan Lofthouse (NgFv-6/7), and Avataq Cultural Institute (JlGu-3).
- Figure 5.
An overview of the relevant definitions for the traits included during the third stage of analysis. Artifact images courtesy of Cambridge Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology.
- Figure 6.
New sets created through a trace-focused analysis sharing 100% similarity in certain traits (specified within each set description). Set 1: 100% similarity in a high level of wear in the hole, presence of handling traces, presence of polish and striations, and biconical perforation. The material of the objects is ivory, apart from 1950-370N, which was classified as “unidentifiable.” Set 2: 100% similarity in scraping technique, shaping first, partially faceted surface, plain decoration, high level of wear in holes, biconical perforation, and the presence of handling traces. The material is ivory. Set 3: 100% similarity in facetted surface, no wear in holes, biconical perforation, absence of handling traces, plain decoration. Material is ivory, apart from NgFv-8:17, which is walrus tooth. Set 4: 100% similarity in plain decoration, V-shaped grooves, and triangular-shaped dots. Material is ivory apart from NgFv-7:133, which is antler. Artifact images are courtesy of the Canadian Museum of Nature (NiHg-1 and NgHd-1), Cambridge Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology (1950), Susan Lofthouse (NgFv-6/7/8), and Avataq Cultural Institute (JlGu-3).
Tables
- Table 1.
Types of carvings present in the five site assemblages investigated in this study and the number of realistic versus stylized carvings.
Typology Needle Point Qulliapik Avvajja Kapuivik Pingiqqalik Total Number Spatula 1 — 18 — — 19 Pendant 1 1 — 4 — 6 Disc — — — 2 1 3 Bear — — 3 1 — 4 Seal — 1 8 1 — 10 Bird — — 8 1 — 9 Walrus — — 3 — — 3 Fox or weasel — 1 1 — — 2 Caribou — — 3 — — 3 Human 2 — 2 — — 4 Bilobate — — 3 — — 3 Decorated tools 1 1 2 1 1 6 Total number 5 4 51 10 2 72 Stylized — 2 13 2 — 17 Realistic — — 13 1 — 14 - Table 2.
The percentage of similarity within groups of traits related to style/design, technical stages of manufacture, and use-wear.
Category Number of Pieces (n) Similarity per Category (%) All Traits Traits of Manufacture Usewear Traces Hole and Handling Decoration Spatula 19 28 16 55 58 12 Pendant 6 36 31 57 65 22 Disc 3 19 14 33 42 22 Bear 4 38 45 30 33 11 Seal 10 27 15 44 47 17 Bird 9 29 27 39 38 31 Walrus 3 38 33 53 67 11 Fox or weasel 2 79 71 100 100 67 Caribou 3 45 38 53 67 11 Human 4 14 19 10 13 22 Bilobate 3 31 19 60 67 33 Decorated tools 6 17 18 21 20 24
In this issue
Jump to section
Related Articles
Cited By...
- No citing articles found.