OPPORTUNISTICWHALE HUNTING ON THE SOUTHERN
NORTHWEST COAST:ANCIENT DNA, ARTIFACT,
AND ETHNOGRAPHIC EVIDENCE
Robert J. Losey
and Dongya Y. Yang
on the Northwest
Coast of North America,
namely systematic whale hunt
of whale use have been documented
Van
ally, systematic hunting was practiced
only by Native groups of southwestern
Ethnographic
ing and whale scavenging.
couver Island and the northern Olympic Peninsula
State. This hunting was undertaken with technology
of Washington
Two modes
Coast reportedly did not hunt whales but did utilize beached
specifically designed for the task. Other groups on theNorthwest
evidence of whaling from the northern Oregon coast site of Par-Tee in the form of
animals. Here we present archaeological
a bone point lodged in a whale phalange.
This hunting likely occurred
1,300 to 1,600 years ago. Ancient DNA extracted
DNA recovered from the bone point indi
it to be a humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliaej.
from the phalange proves
elk
cates that it is made from elk (Cervus elaphus) bone, and the point's DNA sequence
is identical to that from unmodified
data from the southern Northwest
the whale was locally hunted. We present ethnohistoric
bone from Par-Tee,
suggesting
We argue that many groups along the west
Coast describing
whale hunting with a variety of technologies.
opportunistic
coast of North America
in the past and that this hunting occurred using nonspecialized
hunted whales
likely occasionally
technologies.
Dos maneras
de utilizacion
de las ballenas
se han documentado
en la costa Noroeste
de Norteamerica.
Estas
son, la caceria
en la playa. Etnogrdficamente,
la caza sistemdticafue
practicada
unicamente por grupos Indigenas del sur-oeste de la Isla de Vancouver y la Peninsula Olimpica del estado de Washington.
Esta caceria se realizaba con tecnologia especialmente
disehada para dicha actividad. Se sabe que otros grupos etnicos de la
costa noreste de Norte America no cazaban, sino que utilizaban
los restos de ballenas encontradas
sin vida en la playa. Una
sistemdtica
y la utilizacion
de ballenas
encontradas
muertas
en Par-Tee, en la costa norte de
alojada en parte de la estructura osea digital de una ballena, encontrada
de la caceria de ballenas en este lugar. Esta caceria posiblemente
ocurrio hace
representa la evidencia arqueologica
de ADN antiguo extraido de la estructura osea digital de la ballena sugiere que se trata de una
1,300 a 1,600 anos. Muestras
ballena jorobada
El ADN proveniente
de la punta de hueso encontrada
revela que estafue hecha
(Megaptera novaeangliae).
de hueso de ciervo (Cervus elaphus). En este trabajo de investigacion,
de la costa
presentamos
informacion etnohistorica
punta
de hueso
Oregon,
noroeste
la caceria de ballenas
de Norteamerica
describiendo
"oportunista ", la cual incluye diversas
stro estudio, muchos grupos de la costa Noroeste
de Norteamerica
de vez en cuando
seguramente
la utilizacion de tecnologia no-especializada.
pasado, y dicha caceria se realizo mediante
modes of whale use have been docu
mented on the Northwest Coast of North
America (following Kroeber 1939), namely
systematic whaling and whale scavenging. The first
mode of whale use was limited in its distribution
during the ethnographic period to a few groups of
the central Northwest Coast, namely theNuu-chah
nulth and Ditidaht peoples of western Vancouver
Two
1983; Curtis 1916; Drucker 1951; Gunther 1942;
Jonaitis 1999; Kool 1982; Koppert 1930; Reagan
1925; Sapir et al. 2004; Swan 1870) (Figure 1).
These groups systematically hunted whales off
shore
Losey
Canada.
(robert.losey@ualberta.ca)
of Archaeology,
Yang
Department
Dongya
13-8 Tory Building,
Department
of Anthropology,
?2007
a seasonal
University
Simon Fraser University,
American
Copyright
on
basis
using
canoes
seaworthy
and hunting technology exclusively designed for
the task. Neighbors of these groups, including the
Clallam of the Strait of Juan de Fuca and the
Quileute and Quinault of the western Washington
coast also hunted whales (Hajda 1990:507; Pow
Island, British Columbia and the Makah of the
State (Arima
Olympic Peninsula inWashington
Robert
tecnologias. Segun nue
cazaban ballenas en el
of Alberta,
Burnaby,
BC V5A
72(4), 2007, pp. 657-676
Antiquity,
by the Society for American Archaeology
657
Edmonton,
AB T6R
1S6, Canada.
3H8,
(donyang@sfu.ca)
AMERICAN
658
ANTIQUITY
72, No. 4,2007]
[Vol.
QueenWL m^^^^^H|n|H|ift'
Charlotte^m ySBSBBt^B^BS^^^A
Islands
^
wRf^^^^^BBBBBBBmlm
Whaling j))^H[j^^^^^H
Groups
?^a?^K9|^^^H
Sound
Barkley
\^^K^^H
Ozette\i^U^^H
PacificOcean
_
/,
0 125250km
=^==
_
Par-Tee j^^^^^H^
fl^^^^H
Alsea/Yaquina
J^^^^H|
a Siuslaw^^^^HH
Coos/Coquille
^^^^hRI
^^^^^1
Tolowa
^^^^^H|
of ethnographically
Coast culture area with the distribution
Figure 1. Northwest
in the text also
encircled. Other ethnographic
groups and locations mentioned
documented
indicated.
systematic
whaling
groups
REPORTS659
ell 1990:431; Suttles 1974:166-168;
Suttles, ed.
was
the
1990:458). Whaling
Quileute
adopted by
in the 1800s (Frachtenburg
from the Makah
1921:322), and the Quinault reportedly practiced
whaling to a lesser extent than theQuileute (Olson
1967:44). The second mode of whale use has char
acterized all other culture groups on theNorthwest
of wealth
that could be stored, traded, and given
away (Drucker 1951), and were one of themeans
through which individuals could self-aggrandize.
Whaling was often high risk but came with sub
stantial rewards, particularly in the form of pres
tige. To counterbalance risk and to help ensure
success, ethnographic whaling on the Northwest
Coast, who reportedly utilized beached or drifting
whales but never hunted them (but seeAcheson and
Coast was often associated with complex ritual
preparation (Curtis 1916; Drucker 1951; Gunther
1981). Whale hunting
Wigen 2002; Blackman
groups also regularly scavenged drifting and
stranded whales (Drucker 1951:39, 255-256).
evidence for use of whale prod
Archaeological
ucts on the Northwest Coast, consisting of whale
1942; Jonaitis 1999;Waterman 1967). Beyond this,
whaling involved a set of cultural practices associ
ated with the act of hunting whales, the behavior
of whalers' families while crews were at sea, the
butchery of whales, and the distribution of their
products. Whaling was clearly a group activity,
often involving several households or entire settle
bones
in cultural
contexts,
extends
back
at
least
4,000 years (Monks et al. 2001). Definite evidence
forwhale hunting, including the presence of ethno
graphically documented whaling tools (reviewed
below) and strikemarks on whale remains in sites,
appears as early as 3000 B.P. and has been entirely
limited to the Nuu-chah-nulth
and Makah area
(Monks et al. 2001). Arguments also have been
ments, and not just individuals in canoes pursuing
whales. Whales found dead or dying on the shore
(drift whales) potentially involved many of the
same cultural behaviors, but certainly lacked the
risks associated with active whaling. Possession of
drift whales was often highly contested. At least
for precontact whale hunting on the Queen
Charlotte Islands based on ethnohistoric data and
the relative abundance of whale bone in sites (Ache
son andWigen 2002). However, most researchers
among some groups, obtaining drift whales was not
a passive process, but depended on an individual's
spiritual power to draw dead or dying animals on
shore (Drucker 1951:171-173;
Jacobs 2003:
made
working beyond the region where whaling is ethno
graphically documented have been reluctant to use
such information as evidence for precontact whale
hunting. This is likely because no whale hunting
technology similar to that described ethnographi
cally has been found outside the Nuu-chah-nulth
and Makah
area
of
the Northwest
Coast,
and
even
there it is rare (McMillan 1999:134; Monks et al.
2001:66). Also, it is often impossible to determine
if whale bone in sites represents hunted or scav
enged animals. Difficulties involving the archaeo
logical identification of whale hunting are common
elsewhere,
even
where
whaling
remains
a strong
living tradition (Black 1987; Freeman 1979; Krup
nik 1993; McCartney
1980, 1995; Mulville 2002,
2005; Savelle and McCartney
1991; Whitridge
1999).
the extent and diversity of pre
Documenting
contact whaling practices on the Northwest Coast
is important for several reasons. Large whales can
provide an abundance of food and tool-making
materials and as such could have been important
subsistence and technological resources (Huels
beck 1988).Whale products were potential sources
182-183;
Kroeber
and Barrett
1960:122-126;
Whales were
Sapiretal. 2004:147-163,189-203).
also important mythological
figures for virtually
Northwest
Coast group (Sut
every ethnographic
tles 1990).
and whaling were clearly important
Whales
some
among
groups
on
the Northwest
Coast
dur
ing the ethnographic period, and it is reasonable to
inquire if other groups in the region hunted whales
at some point in the past and how such hunting was
accomplished.
use
of
a
Presented here is evidence
previously
undocumented
form
for the
of whal
ing harpoon or lance on the southern Northwest
Coast. This evidence consists of the tip of a bone
point lodged in a large whale phalange recovered
from the Par-Tee site (35CLT20) on the northern
Oregon coast, dating from 800 to 2300 cal. B.P.
Mitochondrial DNA extracted from the point iden
tified it as being made of elk (Cervus elaphus) bone,
a species found along much of the North Ameri
can Pacific coastline from roughly Vancouver
Island southward to near Point Conception, Cali
fornia (Bryant and Maser
1982:24). The DNA
the
of
sequence
point suggests its ultimate origin
660
AMERICAN
ANTIQUITY
is not Vancouver Island, where roughly contem
poraneous evidence of whaling previously has been
identified, but somewhere further south along the
Pacific coast. Its DNA sequence was found to be
identical to that obtained from unmodified elk
remains recovered from Par-Tee. DNA from the
it to be humpback whale
proves
phalange
(Megaptera
a common
novaeangliae),
species
found in other Northwest whale bone archaeolog
ical assemblages, and a commonly hunted whale
of the ethnographic period. This is the first direct
evidence of whaling in the archaeological record
of the Northwest Coast found outside of the area
systematic whaling was ethnographically
documented. Also, the tool and its position within
the body of the whale do not directly match whale
hunting technologies and practices documented
where
ethnohistorically.
While itmay be impossible to determine defin
itively if the humpback whale was hunted by the
DNA
of Par-Tee,
the matching
inhabitants
sequences and contextual evidence from the site,
including numerous large harpoons and abundant
whale bone, suggests this was entirely possible.
Furthermore, we present little-known ethnographic
and ethnohistoric data from the southern Northwest
Coast describing opportunistic whale hunting with
a variety of technologies. We argue that any num
ber of hunting weapons used by Pacific coast
indigenous groups could have been employed for
occasional opportunistic whale hunting. Many
groups here potentially hunted whales in the past
on an opportunistic basis, but the evidence for such
whale hunting will likely be difficult to decipher
from
the archaeological
record.
and Archaeological
Ethnographic
and Whaling
Equipment
Whaling
Many aspects of systematic whaling, here defined
as the recurrent hunting of whales with technology
specifically tailored for the task, arewell described
and Makah ethnographic and
in Nuu-chah-nulth
ethnohistoric literature.While an array of technol
ogy was used by these groups in whaling (Curtis
27; Drucker 1951:27-31; Koppert
1961:16-17,
Olson
1874;
1967:44; Scammon
1930:56-62;
Swan 1870:19-22; Waterman 1967), we focus here
on that used for striking and killing whales, namely
harpoons
and
lances.1
[Vol.
72, No. 4,2007]
The whaling harpoon is consistently described
as a large thrusting implement several meters in
length tipped with a three piece toggling head (Fig
ure 2). Attached to the head was a line several
meters long leading to a seal skin float that produced
drag upon the struck whale. The shaft and foreshaft
of the harpoon were constructed of yew (Taxus bre
vifolia) wood. All sources describe the cutting tip
of the head as formed from a large mussel (pre
sumably Mytilus californianus) shell blade ground
to a broad sharp point and having a deeply concave
base. Koppert (1930:60) describes it as five inches
long by two inches (~ 5.1 x 12.7 cm) wide. During
the historic period, metal blades were sometimes
substituted for shell. The blade fit between two
valves or "barbs" of elk {Cervus elaphus) bone or
antler, or whale bone (Drucker 1951:28; Koppert
1930:60). These were about 14 cm long (5.5 in)
(Koppert 1930:60, width not provided). When fit
ted together, the tip of the joined valves formed a
slot into which the blade was inserted; the pieces
were bound together with line and secured with
resin. The opposite end of the two bound valves
formed a socket into which the foreshaft was
inserted. The valves were often decorated with
incised
1951:28; Koppert
(Drucker
designs
1930:60; Sapir 1922:314; Sapir et al. 2004:24),
some of which represented Lightning Snake (or
figure associ
Lightning Serpent), a mythological
ated with the whaling activities of Thunderbird
(Sapir 1922:314; Swan 1870:7-8). In total, the har
poon head was probably about 18 cm (7 in long).
When a harpoon head struck a whale, it ideally
detached from the shaft and remained embedded
in the whale. Waterman (1967:32) comments that
the valves held the harpoon in the whale, with the
mussel shell blade primarily performing the task
of cutting for penetration.
Whales were apparently often not killed outright
by harpoons and floats, which instead mostly tired
the animals so they could be dispatched at a close
distance (Drucker 1951:53). Given that the killing
of awhale would be extremely dangerous, we spec
ulate itwas undertaken only on nearly dead or inac
tive animals. Drucker (1951:53) details the killing
process: "When the time came for the kill, the first
paddler took the lance with the broad, flat blade to
cut themain tendons controlling the flukes, so that
they dropped down useless. When the whale had
thus been hamstrung, the same man drove the other
REPORTS
2. Schematic
of the whaling
harpoon
from Waterman
period, modified
ethnographic
glade; left, the assembled
harpoon head with
Figure
the
used by systematically
Coast groups during
whaling Northwest
(1967:33); right, the paired antler or bone barbs; center, the shell cutting
attached
line.
head
lance in under the flipper." Elsewhere Drucker
(1951:31) describes two lances used in this process:
"A pair of lances with long barbless elkhorn points,
one tapered to a sharp point for killing, the other
with awide flat chisellike blade (a "spade," inmod
ern whalers'
ing,
were
that was
terms)
very
important
used
parts
for hamstring
of
are unaware
of any
illustrations
of
these
lances.
Scammon (1874) observed native whaling on
theNorthwest Coast in the 1860s, and provides both
a brief description and illustration of a whaling
lance. His description of the lance differs from that
of Drucker: "The cutting material of both lance
and spear was formerly the thick part of a mussel
shell, or of the 'abelone'" (Scammon 1874:30).
Scammon's (1874:plate IV) illustration depicts the
lance as tipped with a broad shell blade fixed to a
shaft. His description and illustration of the whal
ing harpoon is identical to that described by
Drucker,
Koppert,
and
others
cited
Curtis (1916:18) provides a somewhat contra
dictory description of whale killing:
When
whale
the wounded
the canoemen
paddle
becomes
up closer
above.
quiescent,
and
throw
into
his head small harpoons with small floats of
skin on
hair-seal
two feet of sinew
the whaler's
outfit." The term "elkhorn" presumably refers to elk
antler. We
661
to buoy
up
The whale
the head
being
and
almost
render
exhausted,
line,
in order
towing
easier.
they come
alongside and hurl into his body harpoons
without lines or floats, recovering the shaft by
means
ceases
of
a short
to struggle,
line;
and when
the first
crew
the animal
draws
its line,
leaving only the length of the sinew line and
its float attached to the harpoon blade.
Curtis provides no description of the "small har
poons" and does not mention the cutting tools doc
umented by Drucker and Scammon. The last clause
in his description may indicate the harpoons were
fitted with cutting blades.
Large toggling harpoon valves, including spec
similar to those
imens with incised designs
662
AMERICAN
described ethnographically, have been found in
Vancouver Island sites and in the well-known wet
site of Ozette on the Olympic Peninsula ofWash
ington State (Dewhirst 1980; Huelsbeck 1994:280;
McMillan
1999:133; Monks et al. 2001:66). All
these occurrences of probable whaling technology
seem to fall within the last 1,200 years or so (Monks
et al. 2001:66). Where construction material is
reported, most are of whale bone, although a few
are of antler (Dewhirst 1980:300; McMillan
and
St. Claire 2005:51). Strike marks in the form of
embedded mussel shell blades or probable shell
blade impact marks also have been found at sites
in this area (Fisken
Huelsbeck
1994:367;
1994:280-1; Monks et al. 2001:65). At Ozette, mul
tiple whale bones with mussel shell strike marks
have been found (Huelsbeck 1994, number not
specified). The site of T'ukw'aa on Barkley Sound,
Vancouver Island has produced four whale bones
with mussel shell blade strike marks (Monks et al.
2001:66). The nearby site of Ch'uumat'a contains
a humpback scapula with a possible strikemark dat
ing as early as 2500 to 3000 cal B.P. (Monks et al.
2001). In these sites, scapulae are the most com
monly struck elements, but several vertebrae, a
maxilla, intermaxillary, and rib also show strike
marks. One humpback whale scapula from Ozette
is embedded with threemussel shell blade tips each
from separate harpoon heads (Fisken 1994:367),
while all other specimens from Ozette and else
where
apparently
have
only
single
strike marks.
ANTIQUITY
nate the assemblages
gray,
minke
72, No. 4,2007]
[Vol.
(83 percent of the total), but
acutorostrata),
(Balaenoptera
and
right whales were also present (Monks et al.
2001:72-73).
We are unaware of any direct archaeological
evidence for prehistoric whaling south of Ozette
along the west coast of North America, even in
areas where itwas documented historically. We are
also unaware of any direct archaeological evidence
for the use of bone, stone, or wood harpoon heads
or lances inwhale hunting anywhere on theNorth
west Coast. The wet site of Ozette is the only site
on the Northwest Coast to produce whaling har
poon shafts, head sheaths, lines, and other possi
ble whaling
including a wood
paraphernalia,
representation of awhale "saddle," a highly valued
whale portion around the dorsal fin (Huelsbeck
1994:280).
The Par-Tee
Site
Par-Tee (35 CLT 20) is a large shell midden in Sea
side, Oregon (Figure 1). Seaside is at the southern
end of a sandy beach that extends 22 km northward
to the Columbia River mouth. Just to the south is
Tillamook Head, a basaltic headland that rises
steeply from the Pacific. Today a small and narrow
estuary flows through Seaside, but a more sub
stantial estuary was probably present during the late
Holocene (Connolly 1992,1995). Par-Tee and sev
eral
other
Seaside-area
sites
were
excavated
by
The gray whale (Eschrichtius robustus) is the
most commonly mentioned large cetacean in the
ethnographies of Northwest Coast whaling groups,
but other species were reportedly hunted or recog
nized (Arima 1988; Curtis 1916:18; Drucker
George E. Phebus and Robert M. Drucker in the
1960- 1970s, with assistance from the avocational
Oregon Archaeological Society, and a small amount
of funding from the Smithsonian Institution, where
Phebus was employed. Phebus and Drucker (1979)
1951:49; Kool 1982; Monks et al. 2001:70-71;
Swanson
Swan
1956; Waterman
1870:19;
the
sites of Ozette,
bone
from
Whale
1967:42).
T'ukw' aa, and Ch'uumat' a in theMakah and Nuu
chah-nulth areas has been identified to species. At
published only a short preliminary report (-20
pages) on their work at Par-Tee. Nearly all recov
ered materials were curated by the Smithsonian.
While Phebus and Drucker (1979) report exca
Ozette, gray and humpback whales accounted for
around 96 percent of the identified whale bone,
with gray whale bone slightly outnumbering hump
Other identi
back (Huelsbeck 1988:4,1994:271).
fied large cetaceans at Ozette include finback
right (Eubalaenajapon
(Balaenopteraphysalus),
ica), killer (Orcinas orca), and sperm (Physeter
macrocephalus)
whales.
At
T'ukw'aa
and
umat'a, humpback whales overwhelmingly
Ch'u
domi
vating around 434 m2 at Par-Tee, a review of their
fieldnotes and photographs suggests that nearly
550 m2 were sampled. It is probably themost exten
sively excavated site on theNorthwest Coast south
of Ozette. Excavations were carried out in 5 x 5 ft
units and one foot levels, with sediments being
screened over 1/4 inch mesh sieves. Nearly 6,300
tools2
were
recovered
during
their
excavations,
over half of all artifacts yet
accounting
recovered through controlled excavations on the
for well
REPORTS663
Oregon coast (Lyman 1991:23). Despite the size
of the collection, only 7 pages of description and
1 page of tool illustrations were published by Phe
bus and Drucker (1979). Unit and level informa
tion is available for the vast majority of tools and
faunal remains. No count is available for the fau
nal
remains
but an inspection
recovered,
of
the col
lection suggests at least 100,000 vertebrate remains
are
present.
Later
include Colten's
the
non-fish
the Par-Tee
of
analyses
fauna
(2002) description of a sample of
vertebrate
remains
and
and
Losey
Power's
of the shellfish.
(2005) examination
Human remains from Par-Tee have been described
by Arbolino et al. (2006). In 2003, Losey analyzed
the tools from the site curated at the Smithsonian.
Today, Par-Tee is roughly 200 m from the open
Pacific
accreted
Ocean
coast, but the beach
since
westward
site was
the
has likely
abandoned.
Phebus and Drucker's photographs of the site exca
vation reveal midden deposits resting on cobble
ridges, which are likely storm beach deposits
stranded by the westward
beach
accreting
(Darienzo 1992; Rankin 1983). Shellfish remains
from Par-Tee are strongly dominated by estuarine
clams, although a small portion of this unsystem
atically collected assemblage consists of species
such as razor clam (Siliqua patula) and California
mussel (Mytilus californianus)
that prefer high
energy
marine
environments.
This
pattern
of
shell
fish use is consistent with other partially contem
poraneous sites in the Seaside area (35 CLT 47, 35
CLT 13), suggesting all were situated on an estu
ary,
but
open
coast
were
environments
relatively
close by. Elk were the most commonly identified
terrestrial mammal and sea otters (Enhyrda lutris)
themost commonly identified sea mammal in the
Par-Tee fauna (Colten 2002:20).
Phebus and
Drucker obtained 25 radiocarbon dates for the site,
and 6 additional dates were obtained for this study.
These dates indicate the primary site occupation
spanned from around 2300 cal B.P
to 800 cal B.P
The use of whale products at Par-Tee is evidenced
by its faunal assemblage and materials used in tool
construction. Colten (2002) presented a brief dis
cussion and basic quantification data (NISP) of
fauna from six of the units excavated at Par-Tee (~7
percent of the units excavated; totalNISP of 6,362).
data
suggest
the vertebrate
the assemblage by meat weight contribution. The
mesh size of the screens employed during excava
tion likely results in small fauna such as fish being
underrepresented in these calculations. Of the 945
sea mammal specimens identified to family level,
154 (16.3 percent) are cetaceans. Those identified
in this subsample include minke whale (NISP = 4),
harbor porpoise (Phocoenaphocoena; NISP = 25),
pan tropical spotted dolphin (Stenella attenuata;
NISP = 1), and bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops trun
catus; NISP = 4). Forty-six undifferentiated Del
phinidae specimens are also present, and additional
unidentified cetacean remains are subdivided into
=
large ("whale-sized"; NISP
61) and undifferen
tiated (dolphin or porpoise-sized; NISP = 13) cat
egories (Colten 2007). Minke whale is the largest
of the identified cetaceans, with amaximum length
of 10.1 m and weight of 9,000 kg (Minasian et al.
1984:54; Stewart and Leatherwood
1985). These
whales are fast swimmers and commonly inhabit
inland waterways such as Puget Sound and areas
of the continental shelf. The dolphins and porpoise
identified are much smaller on average, with the
largest of the three being the bottlenose, which can
reach a maximum size of about 4 m and 650 kg
(Minasian et al. 1984:125). All are very fleet swim
mers
remains
are domi
can
and
enter
inland
saltwater
waterways.
At least 350 modified whale bones are in the Par
Tee
tool
These
assemblage.
include
several
large
unbarbed bone points, two barbed harpoon heads,
fragments,
a
platter
rod-shaped
ornaments,
atlatl weight,
structed
a
or
possible
large
dish,
whorl,
spindle
a
zoomorphic
and portions of over 20 atlatls con
entirely
of whale
bone.
modi
Numerous
fied whale bones too fragmentary to classify were
also present. No large toggling harpoon valves of
whale bone or other material were identified, but
148 smaller valves of terrestrial mammal bone and
antler (~ 1cm wide, 3.5 to 11 cm long) are present.
These
Whale Use at Par-Tee
His
nated by sea mammals, with pinnipeds, sea otters,
and cetaceans accounting for nearly 65 percent of
are of
two
general
forms,
one
of
consisting
two symmetrical valves armed with a bone pin, the
other
a self-armed
variety
formed
by
two
asym
metrical valves. Many bone pins likely used to arm
the first form of toggling harpoon are present. No
ground slate or mussel shell points are present in
the assemblage.
Use of sea mammals
the presence
of numerous
is also suggested through
single-piece
barbed
har
664
AMERICAN
ANTIQUITY
poon heads and "fixed" barbed points (those with
out line attachment holes or projections; Figures
3a and 3b). A total of 324 complete and fragmented
harpoon heads are present, some being quite large.
Fourteen are of terrestrial mammal bone, two of
cetacean
bone,
and
the
remainder
of
antler.
Only
one harpoon head in the collection has a tip slot
ted for an end blade; all others with intact tips are
self-armed. The longest harpoon is just over 20.5
cm long and 15 others are over 15 cm long, many
of them incomplete specimens. The widest in the
collection is 3.8 cm and 49 others are over 2 cm
wide. None
are as wide as the blades of the whal
ing toggling harpoons described by Drucker and
Koppert, but over 15 were likely as long or longer
than the whole whaling toggling harpoon heads
(valves and blade together) they describe. Ten of
the harpoon heads were embellished with simple
cross-hatched or parallel incised lines (see Figure
3a); six of the ten embellished specimens were of
bone, the other four were of antler.Many unbarbed
bone and antler tools with sharply pointed tipswere
also present, but whether they functioned as hunt
ing implements or other forms of piercing tech
nologies
is unclear.
Obviously, none of these characteristics of the
Par-Tee assemblage definitively indicate whales
were hunted by the site's inhabitants. All cetacean
bones could have derived from drift whales and the
harpoons could have been used for hunting pin
nipeds,
sea
otters,
and
other
fauna.3
The
best
evi
72, No. 4,2007]
[Vol.
suggesting itwas recovered at least two feet below
the surface. Excavator's notes indicate that 11 other
tools were recovered from this unit and level, but
it is unclear if they were directly associated with
the phalange.
The base of the point in the phalange was appar
ently snapped off when the tool was relatively fresh,
leaving an irregular cross section exposed. A few
centimeters of thewhale bone itself have crumbled
away where the point entered the phalange; it is
therefore impossible to determine if the phalange
had healed around the embedded tool. The tool
itself is oval in cross section, clearly of dense cor
tical bone, and its exposed end is 1.6 x .8 cm in
maximum dimensions. The small exposed portions
of its lateral edges were well rounded and no
embellishments were evident on its faces. A CT
scan of the phalange (Figure 4) reveals the point
fragment is about 3-4 cm long, sharply pointed,
solely of bone, lacked barbs, and nearly
penetrated through the phalange. Attempts were
made to refit the point fragment to fragmented bone
tools of similar size in the collection, but no match
composed
was found. However, many of the harpoon heads
and other bone implements in the collection have
intact tips of roughly the same size and shape.
DNA Analyses
species of whale
Many
some
distances,
in the Pacific migrate
from
traveling
arctic
tropics.We considered the possibility
seas
long
to
the
the phalange
dence for whale hunting at Par-tee was found while
scanning the uncatalogued faunal remains at the
Smithsonian for tools missed by Phebus during ini
tial cataloguing of the collection. Hundreds of mod
ified bones were found, including 84 pieces of
was
(included in figures above). Among
these items was a whale phalange (SI catalog
#A556355; Figure 4) 16.5 cm long with a bone
point deeply embedded in it near its distal end. The
phalange was excavated from level 4 of unit 2IF
in the southwest portion of the site. Charcoal sam
skeletal collection, we sought to identify the pha
lange to species through sampling of its DNA. A
second goal was to try to determine if a local ani
mal was used to produce the bone tool lodged in
whale
bone
ples from the same level in two adjacent 5-x-5-ft
units were dated by Phebus and Drucker and pro
duced ages of 1195 ? 80 (SI-4967) and 1295 ? 70
(SI-4966),
suggesting the phalange likely was
cal A.D. 650 and 950.4 Unfor
between
deposited
no
profiles for this area of the site are
tunately,
available. Tools were collected from two 1 ft lev
els immediately above that containing the phalange,
from
a whale
struck
up near
Par-Tee
thus was
sented.
by
a
harpoon
somewhere
that by random chance washed
else in the Pacific
and
then was
scavenged.
One
to identify the species of whale
Lacking
access
to a cetacean
goal
repre
comparative
the phalange.
Because extracting ancient DNA is a destruc
tive process, the Smithsonian sampling committee
faunal
suggested we first sample unmodified
remains from the site to determine whether ancient
DNA might be preserved in the tool and phalange.
Three unmodified elk metapodial fragments were
sampled for DNA extraction and PCR amplifica
tion in the dedicated ancient DNA laboratory of the
Department of Archaeology at Simon Fraser Uni
REPORTS
665
trjm
aij
from the right is
barbed harpoon heads from Par-Tee. The fifth specimen
Figure 3a (upper). A selection of unilaterally
barbed harpoon head
embellished
with an incised cross-hatched
design. Figure 3b (lower). Three of the larger bilaterally
from Par-Tee.
fragments
666
AMERICAN
0
1
3
I
0
Figure 4. Humpback
point exposed near
2
whale
its distal
4
5
2
6
7
ANTIQUITY
8
3
9
72, No. 4,2007]
[Vol.
10
4
11
13
12
14
5
with embedded
elk bone point recovered
from Par-Tee;
phalange
bone point.
(upper right hand) end; (lower) close-up of embedded
15
6
(upper)
phalange
with
REPORTS
contamination
Vigorous
versity.
controls
were
667
exer
cised throughout the process of theDNA analysis.
For
the bone
decontamination,
surface
was
first
polished with a sand paper and was further wet
wiped with 100 percent bleach solution using a Q
Tip. For each sample, a clean Dremel drill bit was
used to drill a hole to generate bone dust for DNA
extraction.
DNA
was
extracted
using
the
(5'-TAGTACATTATATTATATGCCCCATGC-3,)
and reverse primer R316 (5' -CGGGTTGCTGGT
PCR was set up in a 30 uL reaction
TTCACG-3').
with 2U TaqGold and run for 60 cycles in an Eppen
dorf Mastercycler Personal. PCR products were
purified using Qiagen's MinElut purification kit
and were subjected to direct sequencing. All three
samples yielded positive PCR amplification and
the obtained DNA sequences
indicate that the
are
indeed
of
elk
(Cervus
elaphus).
metapodials
With evidence that ancient DNA was present
in the Par-Tee fauna, sampling of the bone point
and phalange began. A hole was drilled into the bro
ken face of the point and the resulting bone dust
was collected. A sterile scalpel was used to cut a
1.5-X-1.5
cm
of bone
square
tion.
For
from
phalange
decontamination
the distal
for DNA
purposes,
this
artic
extrac
sample
was then subjected to 100 percent bleach solution,
IN HCL and IN NaOH treatments (Yang et al.
2004; Yang andWatt 2005), while the dust sample
from the point was rinsed with 100 percent bleach.
Both the point and whale bone sample were fur
ther
split
into
two
sets
of
samples
to conduct
;^>r:M^ii?i|:i4^ d^^^^^^^^^n
silica
based spin column method (Yang et al. 1998) and
chain reaction (PCR) was used to
polymerase
and
amplify
analyze an approximately 181 base
pair D-loop fragment using forward primer F136
ular end of the whale
^HH^^^H^B
par
allel comparisons for reproducibility test. DNA
extraction and PCR amplification follow the same
procedure as used in the processing of metapodial
samples.
To obtain more informative DNA sequences
from the bone of the point, another mtDNA D-loop
fragment (approximately 170 base pair) of elk was
also amplified and analyzed using forward primer
F54 (5'-TCAAGGAAGAAGCCATAGCC3')
and reverse primer R217 (5' -TTGG ATGTTG AGT
This new D-loop fragment
AGAAAGCTG-3').
was also amplified for the metapodial DNA sam
ples in order to obtain the equivalent DNA sequence
data. For PCR analysis of whale phalange DNA,
(CT) scan of the hump
Figure 5. Computed
tomography
with embedded
bone point. Scan
back whale
phalange
of Dr.
Bruno
of
Frohlich,
courtesy
Department
of Natural
National
Museum
History,
Anthropology,
Smithsonian
Institution.
both cytochrome b (Cytb) and D-loop fragments
were targeted using published primers, Fl and
R182 for a 182bp Cytb fragment, and F22 and
R258 for a 237 base-pair D-loop fragment (Yang
and Speller 2006). As expected, both the harpoon
and the whale phalange yielded positive PCR
amplifications. The parallel comparison of the two
sets of samples produced the same DNA sequences,
strongly indicating the authenticity of the ancient
DNA data.
The CytB and D-loop mtDNA fragments of the
whale DNA sample revealed the species to be
humpback whale. The highly conserved CytB and
hypervariable D-loop should be adequate to secure
a species ID for the whale phalange (Yang and
Speller 2006). Since humpback is a migratory
species, the same population potentially can be
found anywhere from Alaska to California. We
could not determine an origin of this particular
whale due to the lack of a "region-specific" DNA
pattern along theNorthwest Coast of North Amer
ica.
From the twomtDNA fragments, the point could
be confidently
identified to the species level,
namely
elk. An
effort
was
to determine
also made
subspecies using phylogenetic
analysis of the
obtained ancient DNA sequences combined with
those modern
reference
sequences
from GenBank.
tree (Figure 6) shows the point
A phylogenetic
DNA is clustered with those of Tule elk (Cervus
elaphus nannodes), Rocky Mountain elk {Cervus
elaphus
(Cervus
nelsoni),
elaphus
and
even
manitobensis),
one
Manitoban
but
not with
sevelt elk {Cervus elaphus roosevelti),
elk
Roo
the only elk
668
AMERICAN
ANTIQUITY
72, No. 4,2007]
[Vol.
C.e.maratobensis-ONTn(AF005197)
|~~
.
C.e.nannodes-TULE4S7(AF016976)
C.e.nannodes-TULE659(AF016977)
ELK-Par-Tee-Point
3
27 C.canadensis-nelsoiu(AF291882)
|
z
g
C.e.nelsoni-ROCKY14(AF016963)
C.e.nelsoni-YNP2LONG(AF016980)
ELK-PaKTee-Bone-3 ?
4
"r
19 ELK-Par-Tee-Bone-1
ELK-Pai^Tee-Bone-2
L
C.e.roosevelti-ROOS25(AF016967)
r- C.e.roosevelti-ROOS29(AF016969)
Ji
C.e.roosevelti-ROOS33(AF016971)
48: li-C.e.rooseveW-ROOS23(AF016968)
?
L
C.e.roosevelti-ROOS32(AF016970)
^
C.e.canadensis-CECCOX2(AF129410)
? 5Q L
C.e.nelsoni-YNP1LONG(AF016979)
C.e.manitobensis-ONTB6(AF016954)
Ce.manitobe nsis-EINP63(AP005199)
65
C.e.manitobensis-RMNP4(AF016958)
41 C.e.manitobensis-RMNP3(AF016957)
C.e.manitobensis-ONTB5A(AF005196)
-
_|
C.e.manitobensis-RMNP7(AF016960)
C.e.nelsoni-ROCKY91(AF016966)
_
C.e.nelsoni-ROCKY23(AF016964)
gP C.e.nelsora-ROCKY37(AF016965)
_j C.-nippon-SIKA21S(AF016974)
99"C.-raPpon-SIKA226(AF016975)
-Alces-alces-ALCES(AF016951)
I-1
0.01
from three elk bones and the embedded
Figure 6. Phylogenetic
analysis of two mitochondrial
D-loop DNA fragments
bone point. The numbers
at the nodes
indicate bootstrap
values after 2000 replications.
Low bootstrap
values are
observed within members
of genus Cervus
in the North America,
in this part of
indicating unreliable
pattern
branching
are clustered with multiple
the tree. The Par-Tee DNA
but they all group
except C.e.roosevelti,
samples
subspecies
are within brackets).
For some ref
from GenBank
sequences were retrieved
(accession numbers
together. All reference
erence sequences,
the code after the species name in the sequence
label is the haplotype
code listed in GenBank.
The tree
was composed using Mega3
software
(NJ with Kimura
(Kumar et al. 2004) with moose
(Alces alces) as the
2-parameter)
It is difficult to clarify the discrepancy
in using different
outgroup.
subspecies names for the possible same subspecies. As
such, the original GenBank
species names were used in the tree.
subspecies reportedly on theNorthwest Coast dur
ing the historic period (Murie 1979:20). However,
caution is warranted in taking this distribution at
face value because elk populations were much
depleted in the late 1800s when subspecies' ranges
were identified, and it is often unclear how sub
species designations were made or how many ani
mals were examined when making distribution
maps.
Recent DNA analyses reveal that elk subspecies
are poorly understood, perhaps due to relatively
recent divergence, genetic bottlenecking during the
early historic period, andmore recent relocation of
animals outside of their "traditional" ranges. For
example, DNA studies of modern elk populations
suggest thatRocky Mountain elk andManitoba elk
are likely not genetically distinct enough to be con
sidered separate subspecies (Polziehn et al. 2000),
and Rocky Mountain elk and Roosevelt elk geno
types are currently present in both Oregon, Wash
ington, and the southwestern mainland of British
Columbia (Quayle and Brunt 2003; Oregon Depart
ment of Fish andWildlife 2003). Only Roosevelt
elk are currently present on Vancouver Island and
they are genetically very distinct from other elk
populations, perhaps being separated from them for
nearly 7,000 years (Polziehn et al. 2000). If other
subspecies of elk were indeed present on Vancou
ver Island during the late Holocene, some trace of
their presence
should have appeared
in genetic
REPORTS669
assessments of modern elk on the island; such evi
dence has failed to appear (Polziehn et al. 2000).
sequence from the Par-Tee bone point
does not cluster closely with any Roosevelt elk and
given this the Vancouver Island elk population
likely can be excluded as an ultimate source for the
The DNA
point.
approach employed for assessing the
the
Par-Tee elk bone point was to com
of
origin
its
DNA
pare
sequence with those of the three
from the site. The
unmodified elk metapodials
that
shows
sequence comparison
they indeed share
the identical DNA sequence as the point and thus
also cluster with the Rocky Mountain/Manitoban
and Tule clade. Although sharing the same DNA
sequence cannot be used as absolute evidence to
Another
the point was made from local elk bone,
it clearly cannot refute such a possibility. More
conclude
the "non-Roosevelt"
importantly,
iden
subspecies
tification of the remains can now be more confi
dently believed to be an elk indigenous to the
region.
The DNA data obtained in ancient DNA stud
ies have to be carefully authenticated before being
accepted as valid (Yang andWatt 2005; Yang et al.
2005). This is particularly true for our study since
all four elk DNA samples are identical. Hypo
thetically, this pattern can be caused by contami
nation.
If all four Par-Tee
samples were
from
contaminated
the
same
source,
one
would
expect an identical sequence for all of the analyzed
DNA samples. The possibility of contamination
can be effectively excluded here by the careful
research
design
employed
and
vigorous
contami
nation controls: (1) although the Par-Tee elk DNA
sequence
matches
some
modern
DNA
references
(see the tree in Figure 6), it is distinct from other
elk DNA sequences previously analyzed in our
DNA facility (for example, five other elk bone
samples from Banff Park were analyzed in a pre
vious study but the bones yielded different DNA
sequences [Monsalve et al. 2007]; (2) themetapo
dials and the harpoon were analyzed at different
times (~ 6months apart), significantly reducing the
chance of cross-sample contamination; and (3)
contamination controls have been exercised in the
SFU ancient DNA lab as demonstrated by the fact
that over 400 ancient bone samples have been ana
lyzed in the lab with occurrence of few contami
nations.
A DriftWhale?
the phalange be from an animal hunted by
that simply washed
theMakah or Nuu-chah-nulth
was struck near
near
the
If
whale
Par-Tee?
up
Could
the southernmost whaling village known
archaeologically, itwould have swum or drifted at
Ozette,
least 275 km south to arrive at Par-Tee.5 Tracking
of modern humpback whales has documented
migrating individuals traveling as much as 250 km
in a day (Mate et al. 1998). At this rate, even slowly
traveling wounded whales could reach Par-Tee
within a few days of being struck by the more
northerly whaling groups.
If long-distance drift or travel of struck whales
was common, why has archaeological evidence for
strike marks on whale bones been limited to areas
where whaling was documented ethnohistorically ?
Two issues may be to blame. First, themost com
monly hunted species of whales on theNorthwest
Coast, grays and humpbacks, tend to sink after
dying. This was clearly recognized by native North
west whalers, who took steps to ensure dead and
dying whales stayed afloat (e.g., Drucker 1951:53;
Waterman 1967:44). Commercial whalers on the
Northwest Coast of the early twentieth century
avoided hunting these whales for this reason, and
harvested them in large numbers only after the
development of technologies for suspending or rais
(Scammon
ing struck and submerged whales
1874:45-46; Webb 1988:121-125). Undoubtedly,
some whales would resurface from increased buoy
ancy due to gasses developing through decompo
sition, but this process was probably unpredictable
(Webb 1988:123). Therefore, it is likely thatwhales
did not drift too far beyond the area where they per
ished.
It is possible,
whales
were
used
secondly,
by many
that distantly hunted
non-whaling
groups
as
drift whales, but the products taken from them (and
deposited in sites) did not include bones with strike
marks or embedded tools. Processes involving the
deposition of whale bone in sites are complex and
likely relate to distances between habitations and
where whales were landed, technological uses of
bone,
oil
extraction
from
bone,
meat
versus
blub
ber use, and even the display of struck bones by
whalers as trophies (Huelsbeck 1988;Monks 2001;
Monks et al. 2001; Monks 2003). The use of drift
whales would entail initial processing of animals
670
AMERICAN
they happen to land and might result in
less-intensive use of whale products compared to
cases where whales were towed by hunters directly
wherever
to habitation
sites. The rancid condition of many
drift whales probably also played a role in whale
product use; blubber might remain in edible con
dition long after meat had gone bad (Monks
2003:194). Using whales solely for their blubber
would likely result in fewer bones being deposited
in sites than would using whale meat and the oil
contained in bone. It is also possible that collect
ing struck whale bones was generally not impor
tant to those scavenging whales; these signs of
hunting prowess may not have had the symbolic
value they had to those groups actually engaged in
the hunting.
Is the bone point from Par-Tee one of the ethno
graphically described whale killing implements,
and if so, was it used in amanner described in these
accounts? The point is clearly not equipped with a
cutting blade as described by Curtis or Scammon.
The point is also not the spatulate cutting tool
Drucker describes, but it could be the sharply
pointed lance he mentions, albeit of bone, not antler.
Drucker described the pointed lance as being used
after whales were "hamstrung." The placement of
the flipper" (Drucker
the lance is specific?"under
1951:53), presumably for striking vital organs.
Humpback whales have the longest pectoral fins
to body
relative
size
of
any
cetacean,
reaching
lengths of up to 5.2 m, or roughly 1/3 the total body
length (Clapham 1996:21). In the process Drucker
that a lance could
it is conceivable
describes,
become embedded in a phalange, but this does not
seem likely. Given that long flailing pectoral flip
pers would have been very dangerous to whalers
in canoes, an experienced whaler would likely stay
well away from them and lance a whale only after
itwas largely immobile. Strike marks from lanc
ing would most likely be seen on the anterior ribs
and upper limb bones, but might show up on pha
langes if the flipper had abruptly swung into the
path of a lance. Note that all previously identified
strike marks on archaeological whale bone have
been found on elements of the head, upper arm, and
ribs;
none
are on phalanges.
suspect the point in the phalange resulted
from the activities of inexperienced individuals
striking a whale in an attempt to capture it, or the
harpooning by experienced whalers using a form
We
ANTIQUITY
72, No. 4,2007]
[Vol.
of technology undocumented in the ethnographic
literature. Either is significant, because both poten
tially expand the scope of knowledge about ancient
whale hunting practices. We now present ethno
graphic and ethnohistoric evidence for whale hunt
ing on the southern Northwest Coast beyond the
area where it is traditionally viewed as being prac
tools not previously
equipment.
ticed and with
whaling
Ethnohistoric
Southern
recognized
as
on the
Whaling
Coast
Northwest
The Native
groups of the Northwest Coast south
of theQuinault region of western Washington State
are often described inwidely cited ethnographic lit
erature as non-whaling cultures that only made use
of whale products acquired through trade or from
stranded animals (Drucker 1937; Elmandorf and
Kroeber 1960:107; Hajda 1990:507; Kroeber and
Barrett 1960:122-126; Silverstein 1990:537; Zenk
1990:573). Archaeologists
working in this area
have generally echoed these statements (Aikens
1993:140; Erlandson
et al. 1998:12-13;
Gould
1975:154; Hall 1995:201; Lyman 1991:150;
Tveskov 2000:134). It appears that no ethnogra
phers saw Native peoples of the region engaged in
whaling, butmost ethnographic work occurred here
well into the twentieth century, long after even the
Makah
and Nuu-chah-nulth
had
ceased
whaling.
An examination of ethnographic and ethnohistoric
accounts,
however,
reveals
that while
whale
hunt
ing on the southern Northwest Coast may not have
been
as systematic
or as economically
and
socially
important as itwas among groups to the north, it
was
nonetheless
occurring
and
in at least
one
case,
observed firsthand by outsiders.
Accounts regarding whale hunting are brief but
appear to describe episodes of opportunistic hunt
ing with whatever equipment was at hand. For
and Kroeber
(1960:107)
example, Elmandorf
describe theTwana's (Figure 1) use of whales: "The
Twana did not hunt whale, except in a single his
torical instance when a party of porpoise hunters
harpooned a whale. The hunters were unable to
bring the struck whale to shore until a man was
obtained who knew a song from Grays Harbor
(probably a Lower Chehalis) to drive the whale to
the beach." Notably, the Lower Chehalis are not
described in ethnographic sources as whale hunters.
REPORTS671
This whale was perhaps taken using technology
designed for porpoise hunting.
On theOregon coast two ethnohistoric accounts
mention whale hunting in themid-1800s. The ear
liest account was made by N. Scholfield, an early
and
prospector
on
settler
coast.
central
Oregon's
In
1854 Scholfield was approximately 8 km up the
Siuslaw River (Figure 1) from its mouth and had
just borrowed a canoe at an Indian village:
But
as we
were
a whale
starting,
was
ered, leisurely spouting himself
and
canoe
our
who
was
required
by
to capture
endeavored
this
discov
into notice;
the
Indians,
ichthyology, by shooting, lancing, and other
wise mal-treating him. Being hotly pursued
by
some
half-dozen
left the river [Scholfield
totally disgusted,
1854].
account
This
a chance
describes
encounter
a
with
and an attempt to hunt it with nonspecial
ized technology. A remarkable aspect of this
account is the presence of the whale fairly far up a
narrow estuary; today the Siuslaw River 8 km from
whale
its mouth
is 1 km across at its widest
point. Two
a
in
letter to the
(1856),
hunt
describes
whale
ethnologist George Gibbs,
the
Alsea
of
and
"Yakoner"
ing practices
(Yaquina)
of the central Oregon coast (Figure 1): "They have
very large canoes similar to those in Puget Sound,
go out to sea in them, and do not hesitate to har
years later John J.Milhau
poon whales
and get fast to them and kill them."
account
Milhau's
describes
open-ocean
tribes weren't
in the north.
They
the coast,
ing along
one on the beach.
after a whale
arrows
and
whalers
and
took
that got close
migrat
sometimes
they
They
found
canoes
several
to shore. They
into
harpoons
like the Indians
the whales
watched
the huge
drove
to sea, before
they made
the kills.
Then
they towed thewhale to shorewith their canoes
[Ward 1986:24].
Ward's
statement
suggests
she was
fully
aware
these
However,
authors
cite
G.W.
Hewes's
([1947] in Kroeber and Barrett 1960:125) disser
tation where he reports that "some of the old Tolowa
had spoken of a time when their people went out
to sea in their canoes and harpooned the whale. To
the harpoon line was attached one or two sea-lion
paunches as floats. These floats were sufficient to
prevent,
or
at
least
discourage,
the whale
from
sounding." Kroeber and Barrett (1960:126) argue
that Tolowa whaling was highly unlikely because
they historically lacked oceangoing canoes, and
their harpoons were of insufficient size for whale
hunting. They speculate thatknowledge about such
practices may have been derived through contact
with European, American, and Russian whalers
working along the coast. Given the above accounts
from Washington and Oregon dating to the mid
whaling
one might
consider
their dismissal
of Tolowa
premature.
Discussion
The common perception of whale use on theNorth
west Coast as involving either systematic and inten
sive whale hunting or only whale scavenging is
probably too simplistic. Peoples of many areas of
the coast likely hunted whales at various times in
the past on an opportunistic
basis, a practice
(1999) has termed "low level" whale
Whitridge
hunting. Northwest Coast hunters likely employed
a variety of technologies in this opportunistic hunt
ing, including forms of harpoons, lances, and other
projectiles not utilized by the groups that system
monster
and tried to hit a vital spot. They often went
far out
Finally, Kroeber and Barrett (1960:125-126)
discuss "alleged" accounts of whale hunting on the
northern California and far southern Oregon coasts.
The authors dismiss several accounts regarding
local whaling due to confusion about the location
1800s,
whaling
involving the use of harpoons of unspecified form.
Beverly Ward, a woman of Coos and Coquille
descent (south central Oregon coast; Figure 1) born
in 1909, provides a third description of whale use
on the Oregon coast:
Oregon
poons.
nia.
his whaleship,
canoes,
accounts, this description suggests opportunistic
hunting of nearshore whales using at least two types
of hunting implements, bow and arrow, and har
of the observed whaling?several
of the accounts
almost certainly refer toNative whaling inWash
ington or British Columbia, not northern Califor
of
specimen
practices of more northerly Native
and
she viewed these as distinct from
that
groups
those once employed in Oregon. As in the above
the whaling
of
atically practiced whale hunting (aswhale-hunting
implements). A variety of whaling techniques and
672
AMERICAN
ANTIQUITY
72, No. 4,2007]
[Vol.
technologies were clearly used in the Arctic dur
ing the ethnographic period (Whitridge 1999), and
it is likely that this could have been the case along
pie for six months. Adult humpback whales are
over three times this size (Winn and Reichley
1985:243). A single whale could provide multiple
the west coast of North America.
households with months of food and probably sub
stantial excess for trade, feasting, and other forms
of aggrandizing.
Struck whale bones have yet to be identified in
other sites in the region, perhaps as a result of sev
there
is no
reason
to assume
In other words,
that occasional
whale
hunting would have required the same suite of tools
ethnographically documented among the North
west
Coast's
systematic
whalers.
Why not occasionally hunt whales? Obviously
whale hunting could be a high risk activity, and
would sometimes require seaworthy boats and a
well-prepared and an organized hunting party.Also,
eral factors. First, sample size issues may partially
be to blame. Few sites on the southern Northwest
Coast have been extensively excavated and had
their faunal remains fully analyzed. The current
sample of one struck bone was found inwhat may
a captured whale would require considerable time
to process. However, prior to industrialized whal
ing activities, these animals likely constituted sub
stantial portions of the marine biomass (Evans
1987:293; Schultz 1990:94-95), and it is difficult
be themost-extensively
excavated site in the region.
In other words, struck bones may be present in
other sites, but they have yet to be identified.
Clearly, whale bone has been found in numerous
to believe
other
that nearby animals would have been
totally ignored, especially by cultures reliant to a
large
degree
on marine
resources.
Whale
popula
tions that have recovered from the devastating
effects of industrialized whaling are now often
found
in nearshore
in abundance
waters.
For
exam
ple, of the numerous migrating gray whales that
pass south along theOregon coast inMarch, 40 per
cent can be found less than one mile (~ 1.6 km) from
the shore (Herzing andMate 1984). On their return
northward, 97 percent of the gray whale cow-calf
pairs pass within
beyond
.8km (.5mile) of shore, often just
the surf zone.
If such patterns
existed
in pre
history, literally thousands of whales passed along
the coast well within the reach of even relatively
simple watercraft. Ethnographic and ethnohistoric
accounts also clearly indicate whales occasionally
entered estuaries and other sheltered waterways
where
they
were
even
more
vulnerable
to hunters.
The return rendered in capturing awhale can be
enormous, both in terms of prestige and food. Even
among theNorthwest Coast's systematically whal
ing groups, whaling was the prerogative of a select
few and conferred upon them considerable pres
tige. During the early ethnographic period even the
ability to cause whales to drift ashore was consid
ered an exemplary skill.Much of this prestige may
have related to the risks inherent inwhale hunting,
but some of it also likely related to the potential
food returns. For example, Whitridge (2001:42-43)
estimated that a 6,350 kg (7 ton) bowhead whale
(Balaena mysticetus), if totally rendered for food,
could provide the caloric needs for around 60 peo
sites
on
the southern
Northwest
Coast,
some
times in abundance (e.g., Lyman 1991:150, 273).
Second, struck bones may be very rare to begin
with, especially when the hunting technologies
used were not designed for the purpose. Even in
the core area of ethnographic whaling, only a hand
ful of struck bones have been found outside of the
"wet site" of Ozette.
remarkably well-preserved
most well-studied
in
the
and
largest
Perhaps only
assemblages will they be evident.
Finally, we suspect thatmuch whale bone has
been ignored or little studied when it has been
recovered
from
sites
outside
the
core
of
region
ethnographic whaling. This is likely due to several
factors,
including
the rarity
cetacean
of comparative
skeletal collections
(Monks 2005). Rather than
whale
remains,
investigators appear to
misidentify
be labelling them as cetacean and doing very little
else with them. Also, the heavy reliance inNorth
west Coast archaeology on standard ethnographic
thatwhal
sources may be leading to assumptions
ing
never
occurred
in many
areas,
even
on an occa
sional basis. Many of the standard southern
Northwest Coast ethnographies
(Barnett 1937;
Boas 1923; Drucker 1937, 1939; DuBois
1932;
Elmandorf and Kroeber 1960; Jacobs 2003; Kroe
1960; Olson 1967; Taylor 1974)
interviews with only a few individuals
ber and Barrett
involved
and
lack
any Native
"voice,"
except
when
oral
tra
dition is presented. Dissenting opinions on standard
cultural practices are typically not provided, and a
picture is often presented. These
homogenized
sources
probably present an overly
ethnographic
REPORTS673
narrow picture of past subsistence practices, even
as they existed post-Euro-American
contact.
To better understand whale use on the North
Arima, Eugene Y.
1983 The West Coast
west Coast, additional research is needed on the
25( 1): 16-27.
Anthropology
Barnett, Homer G.
1937 Culture Element Distributions:
VII, Oregon Coast.
of California,
Berkeley.
Anthropological
University
Records l(3):155-203.
Black, Lydia T.
many
faunal
unanalyzed
tool
and
assemblages.
Whale bone assemblages need to be analyzed with
the same level of detail often given to cervid and
pinniped remains. Undoubtedly, problems with the
identification of whale remains from sites will
remain, but the application of ancient DNA tech
niques should go far in resolving basic identifica
tion problems. Definitively proving whale hunting
was occurring anywhere will remain difficult
because there is simply no way of determining from
archaeological data who was actually doing the
hunting and where this hunting was carried out.We
believe
we
have made
a convincing
case
for the pos
sibility of whale hunting outside the core region
where itwas documented ethnographically on the
Northwest Coast. We encourage other investigators
to more fully engage in the study of the region's
numerous
whale
bone
assemblages.
of Alberta Faculty of Arts. Special thanks are
the University
to Mindy
offered
Zeder, Dennis
Stanford, Bruno Frolich,
and
the Anthropology
David
Rosenthal,
Sampling
at the Smithsonian Department
Committee
of Anthropology
for their support
Tveskov
sources
of
provided
on whaling,
this research.
crucial
Scott
information
Byram and Mark
on ethnohistoric
were most appreciated. Thanks
in
Speller for technical assistance
the ancient DNA analysis, to Renee Polziehn who provided
in interpreting our DNA data, and to Ray Le Blanc
assistance
for comments on an earlier draft of this paper. Al McMillan
are also offered
which
to Camilla
on Vancouver
needed
information
provided much
whaling points. Hugo De Burgos graciously provided
lation of the abstract into Spanish and Megan Wilson
errors or omissions
trated figure
2. All
responsibility
of the authors.
References
1988
Island
trans
illus
are of course
the
Notes
British Columbia
No.
6, Victoria.
Arctic
Hunting.
in the Aleutians.
Etudes/Inuit/Studies
Whaling
ll(2):7-50.
Blackman, Margaret B.
1981 Window on the Past: The Photographic
Ethnohistory
of
of theNorthern and Kaigani Haida. National Museum
Man Mercury Series. Canadian Ethnology Service Paper
No. 74, National Museums
of Canada, Ottawa.
Boas, Franz
1923 Notes
Publications
on the Tillamook.
University
of California
in American Archaeology
and Ethnology
20(1):3-16.
Bryant, Larry D., and Chris Maser
1982 Classification
InElk ofNorth Amer
and Distribution.
ica: Ecology and Management,
edited by JackW. Thomas
and Dale E. Toweill, pp. 1-59. Stackpole Books, Harris
burg, Pennsylvania.
Clapham, Phil
1996 Humpback Whales.
Colten, Roger H.
Raincoast
Books, Vancouver,
BC
Prehistoric Marine Mammal Hunting inContext: Two
North American Examples.
International Jour
Western
nal of Osteoarchaeology
12(1): 12-22.
at Seaside, Oregon:
Prehistoric Coastal Adaptations
Vertebrate Fauna from Palmrose and Par-Tee. Manuscript
on file, Department of Anthropology, University of Alberta,
2006
Edmonton.
Connolly, Thomas J.
to Change
1992 Human Responses
in Coastal Geomor
Coast:
phology and Fauna on the Southern Northwest
at Seaside, Oregon. Uni
Archaeological
Investigations
versity of Oregon Anthropological
Papers 45, Eugene.
1995 Archaeological
Evidence for a Former Bay at Seaside,
Oregon. Quaternary Research 43:362-369.
Curtis, Edward
1916 The North American Indian, Vol. 11, The Nootka and
Haida. Johnson Reprint Corporation, New York.
Darienzo, Mark E.
1992 Holocene
in the Seaside Area. In
Geomorphology
to Change in Coastal Geomorphology
Human Responses
and Fauna on the Southern Northwest
Coast: Archaeo
logical
Thomas
at Seaside,
Oregon,
pp. 47-60. University
Papers 45, Eugene.
Investigations
J. Connolly,
edited by
of Oregon
Anthropological
Dewhirst, John
1980 The Indigenous Archaeology
of Yuquot, A Nootkan
Outside Village. The Yuquot Project, Vol. 1, History and
Cited
Steven, and Rebecca J.Wigen
Acheson,
2002 Evidence for a Prehistoric Whaling
the Haida.
Journal
of Northwest
Special Publication
on Nootkan
Sea Mammal
1987
2002
support to conduct this research
Acknowledgments.
was provided by the Smithsonian
Institution through a post
to Losey and by a grant from
doctoral research fellowship
Financial
(Nootka) People.
Provincial Museum
Tradition
among
Anthropology
36(2): 115-168.
Aikens, C. Melvin
1993 Archaeology
of Oregon. U.S. Department of the Inte
rior, Bureau of Land Management,
Portland, Oregon.
Arbolino, Risa D., Erica B. Jones, and Stephen Ousley
2006 Burials and Mortuary
Practices at Par-Tee. Manu
script on file, Department of Anthropology,
University of
Alberta, Edmonton.
39. Parks Canada, Ottawa.
Archaeology
DuBois, Clara A.
1932 Tolowa Notes. American Anthropologist
Drucker, Philip
1937 The Tolowa
34:248-262.
and Their Southwest Oregon Kin. Uni
inAmerican Archaeol
versity of California Publications
3 6(4): 221-300.
ogy and Ethnology
1939 Contributions
to Alsea Ethnography.
University
of
inAmerican Archaeology andEth
California Publications
?o/ogv35(7):81-101.
674
AMERICAN
ANTIQUITY
1951 The Northern
and Central Nootkan Tribes. Smith
sonian Institution Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin
144, United States Government
Printing Office, Wash
ington, D.C.
Elmandorf, William W., and Alfred L. Kroeber
1960 The Structure ofTwana Culture. Washington
State
University, Monograph
Supplement No. 2. Research Stud
ies 28(3), Pullman, Washington.
Erlandson, Jon M., Mark A. Tveskov, and R. Scott Byram
on the
of Maritime Adaptations
1998 The Development
Southern
Northwest
Coast
of North
35(l):6-22.
Anthropology
Evans, Peter G. H.
1987 Natural History ofWhales
Helm, London.
America.
and Dolphins.
Arctic
Christopher
Fisken, Marian
1994 Modifications
of Whale Bones.
In Ozette Archaeo
logical Project Research Reports, Volume II, Fauna, edited
by Stephen R. Samuels, pp. 359-377. Reports of Investi
State
gations 66. Department of Anthropology, Washington
Pullman, and National Park Service, Pacific
University,
Northwest Regional Office, Seattle.
Frachtenburg, Leo J.
Societies
1921 The Ceremonial
of the Quileute
American Anthropologist
23:320-352.
Freeman, Milton M. R.
Indians.
A Critical Review of Thule Culture and Ecological
In Thule Eskimo Culture: An Anthropologi
Adaptation.
cal Perspective,
edited by A. P.McCartney,
pp. 278-285.
of Canada, Archaeological
National Museum
Survey of
Series, No. 88, Ottawa.
Canada, Mercury
Gould, Robert A.
and Adaptive Response Among
1975 Ecology
the Tolowa
Indians of Northwestern
California. Journal of California
2(2): 148-170.
Anthropology
Gunther, Erna
of aWhaler's Wife. Pacific Northwest
1942 Reminiscences
1979
72, No. 4,2007]
[Vol.
vallis.
Jonaitis, Aldona
1999 The Yuquot Whaler's
ton Press, Seattle.
Shrine. University
of Washing
Kool, Richard
1982 Northwest
Coast Indian Whaling:
New Considera
tions. Canadian Journal of Anthropology
3(1):31^4.
Koppert, Vincent A.
to Clayoquot Ethnology. Catholic Uni
1930 Contributions
Series No. 1.Catholic
versity of America Anthropological
of America, Washington,
D.C.
University
Kroeber, Alfred L.
1939 Cultural and Natural Areas of Native North America.
inAmerican Archae
University of California Publications
38.
ology and Ethnography,
Kroeber, Alfred L., and Samuel A. Barrett
1960 Fishing among the Indians of Northwestern
nia. University
of California
Anthropological
21(1):1-210.
Krupnik, Igor
1993 Arctic Adaptations. University
Hanover, New Hampshire.
Califor
Records
Press of New England,
Kumar, Sudhir, Koichiro Tamura, and Masatoshi Nei
2004 MEG A3: Integrated software for Molecular
Evolu
tionary Genetics Analysis and sequence alignment. Brief
5(2): 150-63.
ings inBioinformatics
Losey, Robert J., and Eleanor Power
Shellfish Remains from the Par-Tee Site (35-CLT-20),
Seaside, Oregon: Making Sense of a Biased Sample. Jour
nal of Northwest Anthropology
39(1): 1-20.
Lyman, R. Lee
2005
Prehistory of the Oregon Coast. Academic Press, San
Diego.
Mate, Bruce, Robert Gisiner, and Joseph Mobley
and Migration
1998 Location
Movements
of Hawaiian
Humpback Whales Tracked by Satellite Telemetry. Cana
dian Journal of Zoology 76:863-868.
McCartney, Alan P.
1980 The Nature of Thule Eskimo Whale
Use. Arctic
1991
Quarterly 33:65-69.
Hajda, Yvonne
1990 Southwestern Coast Salish. InNorthwest Coast, edited
of North Ameri
by W. Suttles, pp. 503-517. Handbook
can Indians, Vol. 7,William C. Sturtevant, general editor,
D.C.
Smithsonian
Institution, Washington,
Hall, Roberta L.
33(3):517-541.
McCartney, Alan P. (editor)
the Largest Animals: Native Whaling
in the
1995 Hunting
Western Arctic and Subarctic. Studies inWhaling No. 3,
Occasional
Publication No. 35, Canadian Circumpolar
People of the Coquille Estuary. Words and Pictures
Unlimited, Corvallis, Oregon.
Herzing, D. L., and Bruce R. Mate
1984 Gray Whale Migrations
along the Oregon Coast
In The Gray Whale Eschrichtius
1978-1981.
robustus,
edited by M. L. Jones, S. L. Swartz, and S. Leatherwood,
Press, New York.
pp. 289-307. Academic
of Alberta, Edmonton.
Institute, University
McMillan, Alan D.
the Ancient Her
1999 Since the Time of the Transformers:
and Makah. Uni
Ditidaht,
itage of the Nuu-chah-nulth,
versity of British Columbia Press, Vancouver.
McMillan, Alan D., and Dennis St. Claire
2005 Ts'ishaa: Archaeology
and Ethnography
of a Nuu
Hewes, G. W.
in Northwest
1947 Aboriginal Use of Fishing Resources
ern North America. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Cal
Chah-Nulth Origin Site in Barkley Sound. Archaeology
Press, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, BC
John J.
Milhau,
1856 Letter toGeorge Gibbs, October
13. Box 9, Folder 7,
191-A, Coos, National
Anthropological
Manuscript
1995
ifornia, Berkeley.
Huelsbeck, David R.
of the Central
in the Precontact Economy
1988 Whaling
Northwest Coast. Arctic Anthropology
25(1): 1-15.
1994 The Utilization ofWhales atOzette. In Ozette Archae
ological Project Research Reports, Volume II, Fauna,
edited by S. R. Samuels, pp. 265-303. Reports of Investi
State
gations 66. Department of Anthropology, Washington
Pullman, and National Park Service, Pacific
University,
Northwest
Jacobs, E. D.
Regional
Office,
2003 The Nehalem Tillamook:
William R. Seaburg. Oregon
Seattle.
An Ethnography. Edited by
State University Press, Cor
Smithsonian
Institution, Suitland, Maryland.
Stanley M, Kenneth C. Balcomb, and Larry Foster
The World's Whales. Smithsonian Books, New York.
Monks, Gregory G.
2001 Quit Blubbering: An Examination of Nuu'chah'nulth
Journal
International
(Nootkan) Whale
of
Butchery.
Archives,
Minasian,
1984
11:136-149.
Osteoarchaeology
Whale
of Nuu-chah-nulth
2003 The Cultural Taphonomy
In Emerging from theMist: Studies in
Bone Assemblages.
Northwest Coast Culture History, edited by R.G. Matson,
Gary Coupland, and Quentin Mackie, pp. 188-212. Uni
REPORTS675
versity of British Columbia Press, Vancouver.
Sea Mammals
in Zooarchaeology
2005 Discussion:
AD
2002. In The Exploitation
and Cultural Importance of Sea
edited by G. Monks,
Mammals,
pp. 167-173. Oxbow
1991
Thule
Selection.
Eskimo
Bowhead
Whale
and Prey Mortality,
edited
Press, Boul
by Mary C. Stiner, pp. 201-216. Westview
der, Colorado.
Books, Oxford.
and Dennis E. St. Claire
Monks, Gregory G., Alan D. McMillan,
2001 Nuu-chah-nulth
Insights
Whaling:
Archaeological
into Antiquity, Species Preferences,
and Cultural Impor
tance. Arctic Anthropology
38( 1 ):60-81.
Scammon, Charles M.
1874 TheMarine Mammals
of theNorthwest
America. John H. Carmany and Company,
Scholfield, N.
Monsalve, M. V., D. Y. Yang, and E. G. Langemann
2007 Molecular Analysis of Ancient Cervid Remains from
Two Archaeological
Sites: BanffNational
Park and Rocky
1854, Scottsburg,
Schultz, Stewart T.
Mountain House National
of the Trade, Methods,
Site, Alberta. In Tools
and Innovative
Techniques,
Historic
in Archaeology,
Approaches
Proceedings
of Chacmool
2005. University
of Calgary
Archaeological
Conference
Press, Calgary, in press.
Mulville,
Jacqui
The Role of Cetacea
2002
in Prehistoric
and Historic
Atlantic Scotland. International Journal of Osteoarchae
ology 12:34-48.
2005 A Whale of a Problem? The Use of Zooarchaeologi
cal Evidence
inModern Whaling.
In The Exploitation
and
Cultural Importance of Sea Mammals,
edited by Gregory
Monks, pp. 154-166. Oxbow Books, Oxford.
Murie, Olaus J.
1979 The Elk of North America. Teton Bookshop,
Jackson,
Wyoming.
Olson, Ronald L.
1967 The Quinault Indians. University ofWashington Press,
Seattle.
of Fish andWildlife
Oregon Department
2003 Oregon's Elk Management
Plan, February 2003. Ore
gon Department of Fish andWildlife,
Portland, Oregon.
Phebus, George E., and Robert M. Drucker
1979 Archaeological
in Seaside, Oregon.
Investigations
Seaside Museum
and Historical Society, Seaside, Oregon.
and Curtis
Polziehn, Renee O., Joe Hamr, Frank F. Mallory,
Strobeck
2000 Microsatellite
analysis of North American
wapiti
Molecular
(Cervus
populations.
elaphus)
Ecology
9:1561-1576.
Powell, James V.
1990 Quileute.
In Northwest Coast, edited by W. Suttles,
pp. 431-437. Handbook of North American
Indians, Vol.
7,William C. Sturtevant, general editor, Smithsonian Insti
D.C.
tution, Washington,
Quayle, James F, and Kim R. Brunt
2003
The Status of Roosevelt Elk (Cervus elaphus roo
sevelti) in British Columbia. Ministry ofWater, Land and
Air Protection, Biodiversity
Branch, Victoria, BC.
Rankin, David K.
1983 Holocene Geologic History of the Clatsop Plains Fore
dune Ridge Complex. M.S. thesis, Department
of Geol
ogy, Portland State University, Portland, Oregon.
Reagan, Albert
of the Olympic Peninsula Indians ofWash
1925 Whaling
ington. Natural History 25:24-32.
Sapir, Edward
1922 The Rival Whalers: A Nitinat Story.
Journal of American Linguistics
3:76-102.
International
John
Swadesh, Alexander
Sapir, Edward, Morris
Thomas,
Thomas, and Frank Williams
2004
The Whaling Indians: Legendary Hunters. Mercury
Series Ethnology Paper 139, Canadian Museum
of Civi
lization, Gatineau, Quebec.
Savelle, James M., and Alan P. McCartney
and
Procurement
InHuman Predators
1854
1990
Coast ofNorth
New York.
The Siuslaw River. Umpqua Weekly Gazette, May
Oregon.
The Northwest
Coast:
A Natural
History.
19,
Timber
Press, Portland, Oregon.
Silverstein, Michael
of the Lower
1990 Chinookans
In Northwest
Columbia.
of
Coast, edited by W. Suttles, pp. 533-546. Handbook
North American Indians, Vol. 1,William C. Sturtevant, gen
eral editor, Smithsonian
D.C.
Institution, Washington,
Stewart, Brent S., and Stephan Leatherwood
1985 Minke Whale, Baleanoptera
acutorostrata Lacepede,
1804. InHandbook
Vol. 3, The Sire
ofMarine Mammals,
nians and Baleen Whales, edited by Sam H. Ridgway and
Sir Richard Harrison, pp. 91-136. Academic
Press, Lon
don.
and Paul J. Reimer
Stuiver, Minze,
1993 Extended
14C Database and Revised
carbon Calibration Program. Radiocarbon
Suttles, William
(editor)
CALIB
Radio
35:215-230.
1990 Northwest
Coast. Handbook of North American
Indi
ans, Vol. 7,William C. Sturtevant, general editor, Smith
sonian Institution, Washington,
D.C.
Suttles, William
1974 The Economic Life of the Coast Salish ofHaro and
Rosario Straits. Coast Salish and Western Washington
Indians 1.Garland Publishing, New York.
1990 Central Coast Salish. InNorthwest Coast, edited by
W. Suttles, pp. 453^175. Handbook
of North American
C. Sturtevant, general
Indians, Vol. 7, William
Smithsonian
D.C.
Institution, Washington,
Swan, James
editor,
1870 The Indians of Cape Flattery. Smithsonian Contribu
tions to Knowledge No. 220, 16 (8): 1-108.
Swanson, E. H.
1956 Nootka
and the California Gray Whale. Northwest
Quarterly 47:52-56.
Taylor, Herbert C, Jr.
1974 Anthropological
Investigations of the Tillamook Indi
ans. In Oregon Indians I, by Herbert
Taylor and Robert
Suphan, pp. 25-102. Garland Press, New York.
Tveskov, Mark Axel
2000 The Coos and Coquille: A Northwest Coast Histori
cal Anthropology.
Ph.D. Dissertation,
of
Department
of Oregon, Eugene. University
Anthropology,
University
Microfilms
International, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
Ward, Beverly H.
1986 White Moccasins. Myrtle Point Printing,
Myrtle Point,
Oregon.
Waterman, T. T.
1967 The Whaling Equipment of theMakah
Press, Seattle.
versity ofWashington
Webb, Robert L.
1988
Indians. Uni
On theNorthwest Coast: Commercial Whaling
in the
of British Columbia Press,
Pacific Northwest. University
Vancouver.
Peter
Whitridge,
1999 The Prehistory of Inuit and Yupik Whale Use. Revista
de A rqueologia Americana
16:99-154.
676
AMERICAN ANTIQUITY
Zen Fish: A Consideration
2001
of the Discordance
Between Artifactual and Zooarchaeological
Indicators of
Thule Inuit Fish Use. Journal of Anthropological
Archae
ology 20:3-72.
Winn, Howard E., and Nancy E. Reichley
of North Ameri
by W. Suttles, pp. 572-579. Handbook
can Indians, Vol. 7,William C. Sturtevant, general editor,
Smithsonian
D.C.
Institution, Washington,
1985
InHandbook
Humpack Whale.
ofMarine Mammals,
Vol. 3, The Sirenians and Baleen Whales, edited by Sam
H. Ridgway
and Sir Richard Harrison, pp. 241-273. Aca
demic Press, London.
J. Christopher
Yang, Dongya Y, Barry Eng, John S. Waye,
Dudar, and Shelley R. Saunders
1998 Improved DNA extraction from ancient bones using
silica- based spin columns. American Journal of Physical
105(4):539-543.
Anthropology
Yang, Dongya Y, Aubrey Cannon, and Shelley R. Saunders
2004 DNA species identification of archaeological
salmon
bone from the Pacific Northwest Coast of North America.
Journal
Science 31 (5):619-631.
of Archaeological
and Jonathan C. Driver
Yang, Dongya Y, Joshua R. Woiderski,
2005 DNA Analysis
of Archaeological
Rabbit Remains
from the American
Southwest. Journal of Archaeological
32(4):567-578.
Yang, Dongya Y, and Camilla F. Speller
2006 Co-amplification
of cytochrome b and D-loop mtDNA
fragments for the identification of degraded DNA samples.
Science
Molecular
Ecology Notes 6:605-608.
Yang, Dongya Y, and Kathy Watt
2005 Contamination
controls when preparing archaeolog
ical remains for ancient DNA analysis. Journal of Archae
ological Science 32(3):331-336.
Zenk, Henry B.
InNorthwest Coast, edited
1990 Siuslawans and Coosans.
72, No. 4,2007]
[Vol.
Notes
1.The definitions
for harpoon
by Black (1987:27).
2. Count excludes
and lance follow
those used
stone debitage.
that bone points, both barbed
in hunting birds, terrestrial
employed
and fish. However, we suspect that those points
mammals,
equipped with line attachment features were used on aquatic
animals, particularly fish and sea mammals.
3. It is certainly
and unbarbed, were
4. The
SW20G
chipped
possible
radiocarbon
and were
dates derive
corrected
and
The
isotope fractionation.
for the first time. Data provided
from the Smithsonian Archives,
are published
here
courtesy of Risa Arbolino
R.U. 387, Box 11. Dates were
dates
ation and were
from units SW21G
for
corrected
calibrated with Calib
for isotopic fraction
5.0 (Stuiver and Reimer
1993). Calibrated age range is at one sigma.
5. While
it is theoretically
the phalange was
possible
obtained via trade from another group, we are unaware of any
accounts of the exchange of unmodified whale bone on the
Northwest
apparently
Received
Coast. Whale
bone was certainly a traded item, but
extensively modified.
only after itwas
October
16, 2006; Accepted
February
1, 2007.