Ethnological results of the Point Barrow expedition: Ninth Annual Report of the Bureau of Ethnology to the Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution, 1887-1888, Government Printing Office, Washington, 1892, pages 3-442Murdoch, John
History
Ethnological results of the Point Barrow expedition: Ninth Annual Report of the Bureau of Ethnology to the Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution, 1887-1888, Government Printing Office, Washington, 1892, pages 3-442
Murdoch, John
Eskimos -- Alaska -- Barrow, Point, Region
That the line connecting the head with the float line is not always so
long in proportion as represented on the two models is shown by Fig.
236, No. 89744 [969], the only specimen obtained with any part of the
line attached. A piece of stout walrus-hide thong 2 feet long is
passed through the line-hole and doubled in two equal parts, which are
firmly stopped together with sinew about 2 inches from the head.
Another piece of similar thong 4 feet 2 inches long is also doubled
into two equal parts and the ends firmly spliced to those of the short
piece thus: The two ends of the long piece are slit and one end of the
short piece passed through each slit. One of these ends is then slit
and through it are passed the other end of the short piece and the
bight of the long piece, and all is drawn taut and securely seized
with sinew. The becket thus formed was probably looped directly into
the bight of the float line.
[Illustration: FIG. 236.--Whale harpoon head with a “leader.” 1/4]
The foreshaft is much larger than that of the model, though of the
same shape. No. 56537 [97], Fig. 237, from Utkiavwĭñ, is of
walrus-ivory and 15.8 inches long with a diameter of 1½ inches at the
butt. The oblong slot at the beginning of the chamfer is to receive
the end of the lashing which secured this to the shaft. This form of
foreshaft is very well adapted to insure the unshipping of the
toggle-head, but lacks the special advantage of the loose-shaft,
namely, that under a violent lateral strain it unships without
breaking. The question at once suggests itself, why was not the
improvement that is used on all the other harpoons applied to this
one? In my opinion, the reason for this is the same as for retaining
the form of toggle-head, which, as I have shown, is of an ancient
pattern.
[Illustration: FIG. 237.--Foreshaft of whale harpoon. 1/4]
That is to say, the modern whale harpoon is the same pattern that was
once used for all harpoons, preserved for superstitious reasons. It is
a well known fact, that among many peoples implements, ideas, and
language have been preserved in connection with religious ceremonies
long after they have gone out of use in every-day life. Now, the whale
fishing at Port Barrow, in many respects the most important
undertaking in the life of the natives, is so surrounded by
superstitious observances, ceremonies to be performed, and other
things of the same nature as really to assume a distinctly religious
character. Hence, we should naturally expect to find the implements
used in it more or less archaic in form. That this is the case in
regard to the toggle-head I think I have already shown. It seems to me
equally evident that this foreshaft, which contains the loose shaft
and foreshaft, undifferentiated, is also the older form.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account