A Critical Review of the Pre-Dorset/Dorset Transition

Nagy, Murielle

doi:10.2307/j.ctv16qdx.7

Cited by 7 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…J-C. ne sont pas assez précises. Pour les décrire autrement que par des dates absolues, Grønnow et Sørensen (2006: 59) Le concept de période de transition tel que je l'avais défini (Nagy 1994(Nagy , 2000a ne peut s'appliquer aux sites Pita et Ohituk puisqu'ils contiennent des mélanges d'occupations. Cette situation est probablement courante en archéologie de l'Arctique.…”

Section: Discussionunclassified

See 1 more Smart Citation

Nouvelle chronologie de deux sites paléoesquimaux d’Ivujivik (Nunavik)

Nagy

2016

etudinuit

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Cet article présente les résultats de 36 nouvelles datations au radiocarbone obtenues pour déterminer si les sites Pita (KcFr-5) et Ohituk (KcFr-3A) d’Ivujivik font partie de la période dite de transition entre le Prédorsétien et le Dorsétien, tel que conclu lors de recherches antérieures, ou représentent des occupations lors des périodes correspondant à ces deux cultures. En considérant ces datations et celles obtenues auparavant, il apparaît que ces sites furent effectivement occupés entre 800 et 400 av. J.-C. Toutefois, le site Pita a surtout été visité pendant la période prédorsétienne et une de ses datations est la plus ancienne obtenue jusqu’ici pour le Nunavik. Quant au site Ohituk, il fut aussi occupé pendant toute la période dorsétienne. Les datations des deux sites couvrant plus de trois millénaires, force est de constater que les vestiges archéologiques proviennent d’un palimpseste d’occupations et ne représentent pas une période de transition.This article presents the results of 36 new radiocarbon dates obtained to determine whether the Pita (KcFr-5) and Ohituk (KcFr-3A) sites of Ivujivik belong to the so-called Pre-Dorset/Dorset transition period, as concluded from previous research, or represent occupations during periods corresponding to either culture. Taking into consideration these dates and those obtained earlier, it appears that the sites were indeed occupied between 800 and 400 BC. However, the Pita site was mainly visited during the Pre-Dorset period and one of its dates is the oldest one obtained so far for Nunavik. As for the Ohituk site, it was occupied throughout the Dorset period. Because the dates from both sites cover a period of over three millennia, it is concluded that the archaeological remains come from a palimpsest of occupations and cannot represent a transition period

show abstract

Section: Discussionunclassified

“…Cette période de transition présume une continuité culturelle entre le Prédorsétien et le Dorsétien. Pour être démontrable, elle implique des éléments culturels qui se sont développés au Prédorsétien et d'autres qui ont émergé durant une période de transformations (Nagy 1994). Toutefois, elle ne fait pas l'unanimité.…”

Section: Résumé De L'articleunclassified

Nouvelle chronologie de deux sites paléoesquimaux d’Ivujivik (Nunavik)

Nagy

2016

etudinuit

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…2). 1 The greater Foxe Basin region has long been considered an important biogeographic and cultural hub for many cultural groups, largely as a result of the so-called "Core-Area" model, which suggests that the resource-rich region was the locus of the emergence, substantive development, and regular replenishment of all Canadian Paleo-Inuit cultures (Maxwell 1976;McGhee 1976;Nagy 1994;Ryan 2016;Savelle and Dyke 2014). Desjardins (2018) has suggested that the region was similarly crucial to later Thule Inuit populations.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

In the Eye of the Beholder

Siebrecht,

Desjardins

2023

Arctic Anthro.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

How archaeologists classify and categorize artifacts has the potential to direct and bias interpretations before analysis has taken place. A clear example of this phenomenon in arctic archaeology is the analysis of material culture classified as "art" attributed to premodern Tuniit peoples (Late Dorset Paleo-Inuit, ca. AD 500-1300). Often, analyses of Tuniit art pieces are restricted by the use of customary typologies that can impose modern assumptions of how Tuniit groups would have perceived their material culture. In this study, we address this problem by focusing not on the meaning embodied in the finished objects but on the identification of decision-making patterns of the object carvers and users as reflected through microscopic traces of manufacture and use. We argue that through such trace-focused observation, certain newly observed patterns may suggest greater diversity in decision-making processes (with regard to manufacture and use) than would be suggested by traditional typological grouping alone. This work has wide-ranging implications for how arctic archaeologists approach artifact classification and typological organization.

show abstract

“…The influence of social and cognitive archaeology can be seen in the eastern Arctic scholarship that emerged during the 1990s. An example is the research on the tenuous Pre-Dorset/Dorset transitional period by Murielle Nagy (1994Nagy ( , 1997Nagy ( , 2000. This research was firmly based in a critique of arbitrary culture-historical descriptions and explanations of the origins of the Early Dorset in the eastern Arctic.…”

Section: Explorations Into the Social Realities Of The Early Dorsetmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assembling Arctic Lifeways: a relational approach to lithic assemblages from the Greenlandic Dorset period

Roe¹

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A big thank you also goes to Arctic Centre colleagues Maarten Loonen, Annette Scheepstra, Frits Steenhuisen, and Sean Desjardins.xiv Acknowledgements Additional thanks to Sean for his generosity and patience through years of being barraged with impromptu queries on anything related to eastern Arctic archaeology. Whereas the Arctic Centre has been my primary base of operations, the Ethnographic Collection and Archives at the National Museum of Denmark holds a special significance as a second home of sorts for me through these years. My research stays and visits here have been rewarding and enjoyable experiences, to which I owe the colleagues working there. My sincere gratitude therefore goes to Martin Appelt, Ulla Ødegaard, Peter Andreas Toft, Anne Birgitte Gotfredsen, Ditlev Mahler, and the other staff members that have been present there during my stays. My thanks also go to Mikkel Sørensen and Jens Fog Jensen, who graciously shared their deep knowledge and experience in the study of lithic technology and the Greenlandic Dorset period with me. Your support was immensely helpful, especially during the early stages of my analyses in Copenhagen. During my years of PhD research, I have also had the additional privilege of participating in archaeological fieldwork both in Greenland and Norway. A big thank you to my friend and fellow PhD candidate Asta Mønsted who brought me along to assist her in the surveying of Thule Inuit sites near Ilimanaq in Qeqertarsuup Tunua during the summer of 2019. This gave me my first and memorable experience of archaeological fieldwork in Greenland. Much gratitude goes to Charlotte Damm and Marianne Skandfer, who kindly invited me to participate during the workshops and fieldwork of the Stone Age Demographics research project

show abstract

A Critical Review of the Pre-Dorset/Dorset Transition

Cited by 7 publications

References 0 publications

Nouvelle chronologie de deux sites paléoesquimaux d’Ivujivik (Nunavik)

Nouvelle chronologie de deux sites paléoesquimaux d’Ivujivik (Nunavik)

In the Eye of the Beholder

Assembling Arctic Lifeways: a relational approach to lithic assemblages from the Greenlandic Dorset period

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About