“If Only It Makes Them Pretty”: Tattooing in “Prompted” Inuit Drawings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Tattooing was a widespread cultural practice amongst Inuit women for millennia before the first Europeans arrived in the Arctic. However, by the nineteenth century, colonial, imperial, and missionary mechanisms led to the decline of many pre-contact Inuit belief systems and practices, including tattooing. Although tattooing had begun to disappear from Inuit bodies by the late nineteenth century, it did not vanish altogether. Beginning in the early twentieth century, a number of Inuit, aided by newly introduced Western materials, transferred their knowledge of tattooing from skin to paper to create pictorial records of the pre-contact custom. This article begins by establishing an early precedent for post-contact Inuit drawing through the examination of work depicting tattooing collected by Reverend Edmund James Peck and Diamond Jenness. It then moves on to consider a group of twelve drawings collected by Danish-Inuk explorer and anthropologist Knud Rasmussen during the Fifth Thule Expedition. These drawings occupy a precarious place alongside other types of Inuit visual culture as they were originally collected as ethnographic artifacts, thus denying their aesthetic importance and interior Inuit cultural value. When reconsidered, these early drawings demonstrate the Inuit ability to appropriate Western materials as a form of both cultural endurance and record. Consequently, I argue that such drawings allowed tattooing to persist, albeit pictorially, despite the overall decline of the practice in its bodily form.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".