470 AiSTNUAL REPORT SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION, 195 



CJomplications naturally arise when an estimate of prehistoric cul- 

 tures is desired, since we not only have a problem of synchronic levels 

 of culture plus environmental relationships, but also a question of 

 depth in time. In order to present a coherent picture of the past life 

 of man in northern Alaska, the archeology must be equated in terms 

 of other related disciplines. These include geology, climatology, 

 paleontology, and botany. Possible hypotheses arising from various 

 considerations of the problems are many, because at present, in many 

 cases, we can only make guesses. We shall appraise briefly some of 

 the few recognized hypotheses with special bearing on the physical 

 environment of man on the north slope, considering them from both 

 the biological and geographical standpoints. 



We know that in this region, as elsewhere, the environmental factors 

 were continually changing. These changes certainly affected man's 

 ecological background. Thus, hand in hand with the changing arche- 

 ological data must be considered the changing ecological basis of the 

 study. Such a basis is an extremely important one in inland Arctic 

 archeology. In order to understand and evaluate it appreciatively, 

 we must establish the motivating economy. In the region under 

 scrutiny there seems to have been but one practicable economy to 

 follow — that of hunting and foraging. In the face of superimposing 

 conditions of the environment, no other alternative was possible for 

 the natives of the region except migration. Hence, a dynamic ecology 

 played a distinctive role in the prehistory of inland northern Alaska. 



As defined here, ecology is essentially an observational science — 

 the science of communities or the science of relationship of organisms 

 to environment. According to Charles Elton, one of the leading 

 English ecologists, there seems to have been much emphasis upon hu- 

 man ecology, in a restrictive sense, in anthropological work. "Hu- 

 man ecology has been mainly concerned almost entirely with biotic 

 factors, with the effects of man upon man, disregarding often enough 

 the other animals amongst which we live" (Elton, 1939, p. 190) . This 

 may be so, especially in the light of studies of preliterate peoples, 

 the investigation of whose customs, folkways, and other ethnologic 

 features was presumed to shed understanding on the problems of 

 our more complex contemporary societies. For instance, it has been 

 said that primitive cultures are "the only laboratory of social forms 

 that we have or shall have" (Benedict, 1934, p. 17) . The latter theme 

 has been recognized and espoused by anthropologists the world over. 

 Although the environment of the people concerned is usually men- 

 tioned, it seems that the physical background and its biological influ- 

 ences are not accorded the important role that they should be given. 

 This is especially true in reference to long-time changes in plant and 

 animal life and their effects upon man. In this regard, since prehis- 



