Thursday, February 21, 2008 — How Far Could They Paddle?

A read­er asked me why I assumed that late mesolith­ic and ear­ly neolith­ic peo­ples could under­take long riv­er and coastal journeys. 

08-02-21 BLOG Thursday, February 21, 2008 - How Far Could They PaddleLet me tell you about a lit­tle place in north­ern Cana­da called Peawanuck. I have writ­ten about it else­where, because it has sen­ti­men­tal impor­tance to me. It also has some impor­tance to the out­side world, because, since 2000 it has been the site of the Peawanuck Neu­tron Mon­i­tor. This is part of a glob­al net­work of neu­tron mon­i­tors strate­gi­cal­ly locat­ed to pro­vide pre­cise, real-time, 3‑dimensional mea­sure­ments of cos­mic ray angu­lar dis­tri­b­u­tion activ­i­ty. If your main inter­est is his­to­ry, you may not know why this is impor­tant, but trust me, it is. Oth­er mon­i­tors are locat­ed at the South Pole, Maw­son and McMur­do Sound sta­tions in Antarc­ti­ca; at Inu­vik, Fort Smith, Nain, and Goose Bay in Cana­da; at Thule in Green­land; on Sval­bard (the arc­tic island which appears in The Gold­en Com­pass); and Apati­ty in north­ern Rus­sia. These loca­tions share an obvi­ous char­ac­ter­is­tic: remoteness.

Peawanuck has a pop­u­la­tion of 300, and it can­not be reached by road, as no road comes any­where near it. It is pos­si­ble to push a truck along a tem­po­rary ice road dur­ing part of the win­ter, but that comes in from Fort Sev­ern in the west, and to reach the near­est real road this way is a dan­ger­ous thou­sand kilo­me­ter trek into Man­i­to­ba. So Peawanuck is remote, by anyone’s stan­dards. The nor­mal access is via a $1600 plane flight from the near­est large town. Before the 1960s, vir­tu­al­ly all trav­el was by foot, canoe, or dog-sled.

The peo­ple of Peawanuck, the Weenusk, form part of the Nish­nawbe-Aski Nation and are gov­erned by the Mushkegowuk Trib­al Coun­cil. Most peo­ple there live by hunt­ing, fish­ing, and trap­ping, or by guid­ing the occa­sion­al adven­tur­ous tourist to see the polar bears and oth­er wildlife, or to fish in the Winisk riv­er sys­tem. It’s a fine lit­tle place. It has some social prob­lems, and young peo­ple must leave to find work, but cul­tur­al­ly, it is strong, and tra­di­tion­al lan­guage and cus­toms thrive.

The rea­son I bring up Peawanuck is that, until the 1950’s, there wasn’t much about life in the vil­lage that would have been out of place in Mesolith­ic Europe. Cer­tain­ly, in the 19th cen­tu­ry, life in Peawanuck would have been almost indis­tin­guish­able from a set­tle­ment in the far north of Europe in 6000 BC. When I look over the maps and site recon­struc­tions in archae­o­log­i­cal reports from, say, the Erte­bølle cul­ture of ancient Scan­di­navia, every­thing about them looks famil­iar. Every­thing is com­pre­hen­si­ble. I have no trou­ble visu­al­iz­ing the lifestyle. That’s why, when I read dis­cus­sions among archae­ol­o­gists about pre­his­toric Europe, some­times they ring true to me, and some­times they don’t.

What rings the most false to me are the assump­tions that pre­his­to­ri­ans make about mobil­i­ty, trav­el, and trade. There is no ques­tion that there was exten­sive trade across pre­his­toric Europe. The dis­tri­b­u­tion of arti­facts shows this. But it is still cus­tom­ary for archae­ol­o­gists to assume that peo­ple didn’t trav­el any sig­nif­i­cant dis­tance, and that trade was “not real­ly” trade. First, dis­cus­sion con­cen­trates on fan­cy objects that had a good chance of being pre­served as grave goods, rather than ordi­nary goods, which obvi­ous­ly would not. Next, it is assert­ed that trade objects only moved from hand to hand in tiny steps, going through a mul­ti­tude of inter­me­di­aries. The impli­ca­tion is that nobody real­ly knew what they were doing: that, say, bits of amber just drift­ed south­ward across Europe in a hap­haz­ard fash­ion, and that nobody involved knew where they came from or where they were going. This is part of a deeply embed­ded mind-set. Euro­pean schol­ars start absorb­ing clichés about immo­bil­i­ty prac­ti­cal­ly from the cra­dle. How often have you been told, for exam­ple, that medieval peas­ants “nev­er trav­eled more than a few miles from where they were born” ― despite the fact that this notion has been repeat­ed­ly dis­proved by genet­ic stud­ies and parish records of births and mar­riages? Not to men­tion the fact that a healthy human being can walk 80 kilo­me­ters in a day (as I have done many times). But this image of a pre-mod­ern, or a pre­his­toric per­son exist­ing in a tiny cocoon of igno­rance, unable to move or think out­side of a few acres, sim­ply doesn’t accord with what I know about a hunt­ing and gath­er­ing lifestyle that still exists, and exist­ed in rel­a­tive­ly pris­tine form, only a short time ago.

We know exact­ly how much Peawanuck­’s peo­ple trav­eled, tra­di­tion­al­ly, and how far. Nor­mal con­nec­tions of trade, fam­i­ly vis­its, friend­ship, and polit­i­cal con­tacts on a per­son­al lev­el extend­ed from the Winisk riv­er (the “home­land”) as far east as west­ern Que­bec, as far west as Nor­way House in Man­i­to­ba, all along the Hudson’s Bay coast as far as the Chippewyan ter­ri­to­ries in the north­west and the Innu­it set­tle­ments in the north­east, and as far south as the height-of land in Algo­ma, and the shores of Lake Supe­ri­or. This is still the rough area with­in which peo­ple are like­ly to have some rel­a­tives, or oth­er per­son­al con­nec­tions. This area is larg­er than France.

Trade with­in this area was exten­sive, and it exist­ed long before any influ­ence by Euro­peans. It was trade, not some mys­ti­cal non-eco­nom­ic “gift exchange”. Hard-head­ed, prof­it-ori­ent­ed, prac­ti­cal, val­ue for val­ue trade. It was not con­fined to “pres­tige objects” or cer­e­mo­ni­al trin­kets. Most of it involved mov­ing ordi­nary, use­ful goods in large quan­ti­ties from places where they were abun­dant to places where they were scarce, in exchange for goods of pro­por­tion­ate val­ue. Lux­u­ry goods, as in most real-life economies, rode pig­gy-back on trade net­works already estab­lished for more prac­ti­cal com­modi­ties. Trade was not dri­ven by, orga­nized by, or for the ben­e­fit of elites. The Weenusk nev­er had any “elites” ― no kings, no pow­er­ful chiefs, nobody who could boss any­one around. Tobac­co import­ed from thou­sands of kilo­me­ters away was for everyone.

Leave a Comment