2003
DOI: 10.1086/345688
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Ulu Knife Use in Western Alaska: A Comparative Ethnoarchaeological Study

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
37
1

Year Published

2009
2009
2015
2015

Publication Types

Select...
4
2

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 29 publications
(38 citation statements)
references
References 5 publications
0
37
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Harp (1964:63) called these tools bevelled knives and Gracie (2004) identified them as scrapers on the basis of their edge attributes and comparisons with the ethnographic literature. These tools would have required constant re-sharpening, like the slate uluit in replication experiments, which became blunt very easily when used to fillet salmon (Frink et al, 2003). Therefore it must have been useful to have one or two sets of reverse bevels on the bevelled-edge tabular slate tool so that the skin worker could blunt two or four edges before stopping to re-sharpen.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Harp (1964:63) called these tools bevelled knives and Gracie (2004) identified them as scrapers on the basis of their edge attributes and comparisons with the ethnographic literature. These tools would have required constant re-sharpening, like the slate uluit in replication experiments, which became blunt very easily when used to fillet salmon (Frink et al, 2003). Therefore it must have been useful to have one or two sets of reverse bevels on the bevelled-edge tabular slate tool so that the skin worker could blunt two or four edges before stopping to re-sharpen.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Oakes (1987) and Rankin and Labrèche (1991:110) describe the edge as unifacial. However, the ulu was multi-purpose, and in other contexts had a bifacial edge (Rankin and Labrèche, 1991;Frink et al, 2003). Long bone and scapula scrapers were commonly used at this stage of the process (Boas, 1888;Birket-Smith, 1929, 1945Lemoine, 1997).…”
Section: Ethnographic Contextmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In the past two decades, a loud and diverse chorus of scholars has increasingly challenged the mainstream processualist perspective; they consider-and in many cases privilege-the role of underlying social and ideological dimensions of preindustrial technologies (e.g., contributors in Chilton 1999; Dobres and Hoffman 1994;Frink et al 2003;Kingery 1993;Lemonnier 1986;Loney 2000;Schiffer et al 2001;Torrence 1989). Social constructionists begin by considering the broader cultural contexts within which technologies arise and develop (or are resisted) and by problematizing technology within its social and cultural milieu (Ehrhardt 2005, p. 5;Loney 2000, pp.…”
Section: Archaeological Perspectives On Culture Contact Technologicamentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The reaction to a new technology may stem from perceived quality, political motivations, or a complex admixture of emic and etic factors. Among Arctic Alaskan groups, women decoratively attached imported steel thimbles upon their parkas and continued to sew with their seal skin versions which Eskimo seamstresses considered superior (Frink et al 2003). Used beyond their intended use, the thimbles may have instead been manipulated for display and social brokering, possibly reconceived of as "holders of special powers" (Rogers and Wilson 1993, p. 4).…”
Section: Contectualizing Identity and Technological Changementioning
confidence: 99%
“…A tool or suite of tools such as domestic or harvesting tool kits (though there can be overlapping of use [Jarvenpa and Brumbach 2006]), are often cross-culturally associated with a gendered group (Crown 2000;Frink 2009;LeMoine 2003). For example, the semi-lunar knife (or ulu), which by all archaeological, historical, and indigenous accounts, is strongly associated with Arctic women's production and their repertoire of tools (Frink et al 2003). This does not mean that Eskimo men never use this form of knife (see Barker 1993, p. 83), nonetheless women use this class of blade on a daily basis and the knife is symbolically connected to women and thus robustly identity-demarcated.…”
Section: Arctic Identity and Technologymentioning
confidence: 99%