Abstract

Robert McGhee argues that the culture of the Thule, a group of inhabitants of the arctic regions of Canada and parts of Greenland, declined due to a variety of environmental influences including exposure to disease, climate change and the decline of the economic welfare as a result. This argument revolves around two main ideas that postulate the decline of the population and transition from a rich culture to a much more simple existence did not just result from adaptations to the environmental changes. Though his argument has some support from his readers, responses, appended to the end of the article, debate the rational for his position for a variety of different reasons.

His argument begins by discussing how earlier ethnographic reports of the Inuit culture depict a culture that was previously undisrupted by outside influences. This culture, termed Thule, is native to Greenland and parts of arctic Canada, had developed technologically sophisticated and efficient way of life that was stable and individual to these artic societies. In comparison to later reports, reports of the Thule culture differed greatly from accounts of Inuit culture reported by later archeological expeditions. Cultural adaptations of a much simpler Inuit society seemed to replace what once was the Thule culture. It is hard to explain how such a rich culture would change so drastically without outside influences. These cultural transitions cannot be attributed to just a simple adaptation to climate change. It has been reported that the Thule had ample opportunities to be influenced the Europeans through repeated exposure as they often sent expeditions to Greenland during the 15th and 16th centuries as well as the Hudson Bay. Archeologists speculate that exposure to disease, climate changes, and environmental factors could all play a large role in the decline of this culture.

Archeological accounts depict that areas where the Thule culture often traded are the areas that started to decline. Reported declines in population could be attributed to exposure through trade with the Europeans to disease such as Tuberculosis as well as other epidemics. However, other factors that may have fueled the epidemics are the Thule’s dense population and biological susceptibility or sensitivity to disease. Although this seems like a sound explanation for the decline of the population, it is only speculation based on indirect evidence. Changes in technology also reflect the vast differences between the Inuit and Thule technology such as the tools being crafted with different techniques or with less detail or care, stylistics changes in the assemblage of tools, and argues changes in the symbolism of the artifacts as well.

Commentary on McGhee’s paper reveals that there are lost of differences of opinion sprouting disagreement with his position on the topic. One reader details her position concerning the interpretation of symbolic archeology and how McGhee’s argument for the “cultural distress” cannot be a distinctive characteristic limited to the Thule culture, but is also seen in a variety of different culture when they change or go through hardships. She argues it is hard to attribute the decline to this type of “evidence”. In addition, another reader suggested that the dramatic changes in the Thule culture may not be as drastic as postulated by McGhee, and argues that we cannot automatically attribute fast change to an outside source. Other readers debated the positions McGhee held on the concept of disease transmission, the European influx in Greenland, and development of epidemics through limited exposure to outsiders. McGhee’s apology refutes some of the responses, and inherently tries to explain his position again by providing responses to the reader’s rebuttals. He provides detailed accounts slow population growth, why he is inclined to think there was a great deal of exposure to the Europeans in Greenland, and how the transmission of the disease in Inuit populations, though not well understood, could have supported the sustained existence of certain epidemics. McGhee did agree with one reader that pointed out the question of how disease would have effected the populations of Greenland like it did the Inuit cultures of Canada and why we don’t see those effects like the in the Inuit culture.


	McGhee, R., Burch Jr. E.S., Csonka, Y., Dumond, D.E., Gullov, H.C., Rowley, S., Schledermannm, P., Smith, E.A., Stenton, D.R., Wenzel, G.W., & Workman, W.B. (1994). Disease and the Development of Inuit Culture. Current Anthropology, (35)5, 656-594.
	Abstract Robert McGhee argues that the culture of the Thule, a group of inhabitants of the arctic regions of Canada and parts of Greenland, declined due to a variety of environmental influences including exposure to disease, climate change and the decline of the economic welfare as a result. This argument revolves around two main ideas that postulate the decline of the population and transition from a rich culture to a much more simple existence did not just result from adaptations to the environmental changes. Though his argument has some support from his readers, responses, appended to the end of the article, debate the rational for his position for a variety of different reasons. His argument begins by discussing how earlier ethnographic reports of the Inuit culture depict a culture that was previously undisrupted by outside influences. This culture, termed Thule, is native to Greenland and parts of arctic Canada, had developed technologically sophisticated and efficient way of life that was stable and individual to these artic societies. In comparison to later reports, reports of the Thule culture differed greatly from accounts of Inuit culture reported by later archeological expeditions. Cultural adaptations of a much simpler Inuit society seemed to replace what once was the Thule culture. It is hard to explain how such a rich culture would change so drastically without outside influences. These cultural transitions cannot be attributed to just a simple adaptation to climate change. It has been reported that the Thule had ample opportunities to be influenced the Europeans through repeated exposure as they often sent expeditions to Greenland during the 15th and 16th centuries as well as the Hudson Bay. Archeologists speculate that exposure to disease, climate changes, and environmental factors could all play a large role in the decline of this culture. Archeological accounts depict that areas where the Thule culture often traded are the areas that started to decline. Reported declines in population could be attributed to exposure through trade with the Europeans to disease such as Tuberculosis as well as other epidemics. However, other factors that may have fueled the epidemics are the Thule’s dense population and biological susceptibility or sensitivity to disease. Although this seems like a sound explanation for the decline of the population, it is only speculation based on indirect evidence. Changes in technology also reflect the vast differences between the Inuit and Thule technology such as the tools being crafted with different techniques or with less detail or care, stylistics changes in the assemblage of tools, and argues changes in the symbolism of the artifacts as well. Commentary on McGhee’s paper reveals that there are lost of differences of opinion sprouting disagreement with his position on the topic. One reader details her position concerning the interpretation of symbolic archeology and how McGhee’s argument for the “cultural distress” cannot be a distinctive characteristic limited to the Thule culture, but is also seen in a variety of different culture when they change or go through hardships. She argues it is hard to attribute the decline to this type of “evidence”. In addition, another reader suggested that the dramatic changes in the Thule culture may not be as drastic as postulated by McGhee, and argues that we cannot automatically attribute fast change to an outside source. Other readers debated the positions McGhee held on the concept of disease transmission, the European influx in Greenland, and development of epidemics through limited exposure to outsiders. McGhee’s apology refutes some of the responses, and inherently tries to explain his position again by providing responses to the reader’s rebuttals. He provides detailed accounts slow population growth, why he is inclined to think there was a great deal of exposure to the Europeans in Greenland, and how the transmission of the disease in Inuit populations, though not well understood, could have supported the sustained existence of certain epidemics. McGhee did agree with one reader that pointed out the question of how disease would have effected the populations of Greenland like it did the Inuit cultures of Canada and why we don’t see those effects like the in the Inuit culture.