Journal of and Anthropology Vol. 7, No. 2, pp. 176-182 (1985)

The California Salmon Fly as a Food Source in Northeastern California

MARK Q. SUTTON

HE importance and extent of aboriginal T use of insect resources in California is \ poorly understood. Specific data on insect utilization are uncommon in the anthropo­ \ ^^—^^ logical literature, although several genera have I .si. J * ' ) \ been discussed in some detail (cf. Fenenga I r /\5vi ^^ and Fisher 1978; Swezey 1978; Fowler and \ V. I c cr^ Walter 1985). The purpose of this paper is to discuss one such possible insect resource, j \d Y^ . 100 ml. . Pteronarcys californica Newport (Plecoptera: Pteronarcidae), first noted by Aldrich (1912). This species of stonefly (not a true fly) is commonly known as the California salmon fly, or the willow fly. This stonefly may have been used as food by a number of groups in northeastern Cahfornia (Fig. 1), a possibility briefly discussed by Essig (1931: 33-35, Figs. 27 and 28) and more fully explored here. In the early 1900s, while investigating the Fig. 1. Some groups which may have used the Cali­ aboriginal use of Ephydrid flies (Diptera) in fornia salmon fly {Pteronarcys californica) (after Kroeber 1925). (A) Achumawi; (B) At- the western United States, J. M. Aldrich (an sugewi; (C) Yana; (D) Wintu. (l)Town of entomologist) sent a letter of inquiry to Lookout; (2) Town of Canby. Indian agencies in the West requesting data on "Koo-chah-bie," the pupae of the shore fly an elderly Modoc, Ben Lawver, and a Pit Hydropyrus hians (formerly Ephydra [Cres- River (Achumawi) Indian, William Turner son 1934: 216]) in Mono Lake and other Jackson, both then living in Yainax, Oregon. lakes in the western Great Basin. From one of Their statements were transcribed (and no the responses, he learned of an insect, almost doubt edited) by Joseph Garber, the official certainly a stonefly and quite possibly Pteron­ in charge of the Yainax subagency, who then arcys californica, that had been eaten by the forwarded them to Aldrich. Pit River (Achumawi) and Modoc Indians of Garber's account of Ben Lav^er's descrip­ northeastern California (Aldrich 1912). This tion of the processing of the insect was information was obtained from statements of published in full by Aldrich: Mark Q. Sutton, Dept. of Anthropology, Univ. of California, About forty years ago when the Indians used Riverside CA 92521. the Koo-chah-bie as food, they would go to

[176] THE CALIFORNIA SALMON FLY AS A FOOD SOURCE 177

Pitt [sic] River in Modoc County, Califor­ be cut into slices with a knife [Aldrich nia, at a point about ten miles down the 1912: 160]. river from where the little village or town of Canby now is. The time for gathering the flies was some time in the early summer. The Additional data on the capture and prepa­ Indians would place logs across the river in ration of this insect were provided to Aldrich about the same manner that a present-day by Jackson (also through Garber). He remem­ log or lumber boom is constructed. They bered that, during his boyhood, sometime would then go up stream and shake the flies around 1870, large numbers of insects were off the willow bushes growing along the banks of the river. The flies falling on the gathered about eight to ten miles northeast of water would float down stream and lodge the town of Lookout. against the logs in great quantities. As many as a hundred bushels could be gathered this These flies were gathered there sometime in way in a single day. The Indians used a kind the month of May, and could be gathered by of basket to dip the flies from the water and the tons. The trees, bushes and rocks were carry them to the place where they were to covered with them in places to a depth of be prepared for food. five or six inches [probably an exaggera­ tion] . Hence it was no trouble to gather A pit was dug in the ground about IVi to 2 them, for they could be scraped off the feet deep and about 2 feet or more square. rocks and trees into great heaps. They would Then two layers of stones were placed in the alight on the Indians until they were literally bottom of the pit, each layer being about covered with them. three inches thick. A wood fire was built on these stones and more stones were put The time of gathering them was in the cool around and over the fire. When the fire was of the morning when they were all settled burnt out and the stones were hot, all the and too cold to fly. In the heat of the day stones were removed except the bottom the air would be so filled with them as to layer. Then green tules or green coarse grass exclude the sun and one could see but a was spread out on the bottom layer of rocks. short distance [an unusual occurrence for P. The walls of the pit were lined with hot californica since they generally don't fly rocks also, and this inclosure[sic] lined with very much].... tules or grass. The oven-like inclosure [sic] was then filled with the flies. These were A large pit was dug in the ground and the covered with green coarse grass and the same materials used in constructing the oven whole covered with more hot stones. Water as those mentioned in the Ben Lawver was then poured on the hot stones of the statement [quoted above]. But before the walls of the pit, the hot stones converting it flies were put into the oven they were into steam. dumped into large baskets and mashed up and kneaded like a housewife works her As soon as the water was poured on, dirt was paste when preparing to bake bread. The hurriedly thrown over all to a depth of mass is made into loaves like bread and several inches. The flies were allowed to placed in the oven side by side. There may cook in this manner until the heat was be a half dozen or more layers of these pretty well expended. The dirt and grass loaves in one oven with the hot stones were then removed from the top and the between the layers. A great quantity could mass allowed to cool. When sufficiently be cooked or baked in one oven in this cooled the product was taken from the oven manner. When this product was baked and and was ready for use. In this state it was dried it could be sliced from the loaf and called by the Modoc and Pitt [sic] River used as food. Indians 'Koo-chah-bie.' When cold Koo- The food was called at that time and place chah-bie is about the consistency of head­ by the Pitt [sic] Rivers 'Why-hauts.' When cheese, having a reddish brown color and can the Indians had gotten as much of the 178 JOURNAL OF CALIFORNIA AND GREAT BASIN ANTHROPOLOGY

Why-hauts as they needed for winter supply, with varying habits and distributions. It seems they carried it away to their places of living. unlikely that aboriginal utilization of this A great deal of this was used as winter food type of insect was limited to the California [Aldrich 1912: 161-162]. salmon fly. Although the precise distributions Although the term "Koo-chah-bie" (refer­ of the various species of stoneflies are poorly ring to the kutsavi of Mono Lake, [cf. Heizer known, Pteronarcys is widely dispersed in 1950]) was mentioned by native consultants California, inhabiting the Kings, Pit, Sacra­ several times, its use was most likely the result mento, Yuba, Feather, and Mokelumne rivers of the term being supplied to Garber by and Hat Creek in the northeastern part of the Aldrich (in his original letter of inquiry) and state (Richards, Swisher, and Arbona 1980: the fact that Garber (a white) was transcribing 54). the information. He probably just used the Stoneflies generahy lay their eggs in large native term Aldrich had provided him, despite masses in the water of fresh, running streams the fact that it referred to an entirely differ­ or, in the case of P. californica, in rivers ent insect. This seems even more clear since (Elder and Gaufin 1973: 218). The larvae the Achumawi apparently referred to the (Fig. 2a) are aquatic and live under stones or processed insect as "Why-hauts" and that other debris as long as three years (Elder and kutsavi is a Western Numic, not an Achu­ Gaufin 1973: 219). They may prey on other mawi, word. aquatic insects (Jewett 1956: 155), although From the above accounts it appears that this has been questioned (Elder and Gaufin the insects were processed away from the 1973: 219). The larvae emerge (probably en main habitation sites, probably close to the masse) from the water in the late spring and gathering areas. If large earthen ovens were crawl out onto stones (hence the name). They utilized as described, they should be observ­ then ascend nearby vegetation where they able in the archaeological record. Perhaps emerge as adults (Fig. 2b). They are poor some of the pits for which the Pit River was fliers and are usually found on rocks, trees, or named represent such features, and not deer other vegetation close to the stream (Essig traps. 1958: 166). Adult stoneflies tend to be Aldrich provisionally identified the insect nocturnal (Arnett 1985: 109) and some spe­ as a member of the genus Atherix (Diptera: cies (not P. californica) are available through­ Rhagionidae) based on his observations in out the year (Needham and Claassen 1925: Utah and Idaho (1912: 162). E. O. Essig 8). Stoneflies do not take to flight quickly, visited the Pit River area in May for three but can run rapidly to hiding places (Need- years (1927 - 1929) but could not locate any ham and Claassen 1925: 8). Atherix (Essig 1931: 33). Essig surmised that The California salmon fly (P. californica) the insect in question was actually the Califor­ is among the largest of the Plecoptera. The nia salmon fly (Pteronarcys californica), a adult males average between 33 and 40 mm. giant stonefly that occurs in great numbers in in length, the females 41 to 46 mm. (Need- northeastern California (mostly in May), and ham and Claassen 1925: 37). Another, slight­ is now used extensively as bait for trout ly smaller, species, P. princeps, also exists in fishing. northeastern California, generally emerging during the first two weeks in June (Richards, STONEFLY ECOLOGY Swisher, and Arbona 1980: 54). It is possible There are about 480 described species of that this species was also exploited. stoneflies in (Harper 1978) The emergence of these insects is depen- THE CALIFORNIA SALMON FLY AS A FOOD SOURCE 179

Fig. 2. Larvae and adult California salmon fly (Pteronarcys californica) (both actual size). (A) redrawn from Jewett 1956; Fig. 6:3; (B) redrawn from Jewett 1956: Fig. 6:1. dent on water temperature, with 50-60 de­ told (in 1922) of salmon fly by James grees (F.) being optimal (Richards, Swisher, Hawkins (born 1901), an Achumawi consult­ and Arbona 1980: 54). This indicates that ant, although aboriginal use was not dis­ insects would hatch first in the lower eleva­ cussed. Harrington noted: tions of the southern extent of their range, liV, salmonfly. These are found along the with the hatch generally moving north and rivers. A bug VA" long [the right size for P. upstream. californica]. They fly. You can fish with The description of the insects given by them. They are easy to catch, you can catch native consultants seems to fit very well with them with your hand [Harrington 1985 :R1. the habits of the California salmon fly, 025, Fr. 0064]. although the species assignment is not com­ Later, in 1931, Rosa Charles, an Achumawi pletely certain. There are many genera of consultant, told Harrington that //'/' was a "big stoneflies throughout California and the Great pink salmonfly" (1985: RL 027, Fr. 582). Basin, including the California salmon fly This reported color is similar to the "reddish- (Needham and Claassen 1925; Richardson and brown" color of the processed insects de­ Gaufln 1971;Cather, Stark, and Gaufin 1975; scribed by Ben Lawyer, a Modoc (Aldrich Sheldon 1979), and many of them could have 1912: 160). been used for food. Unfortunately, there are Garth (1953: 139) reported that the currently no specific data indicating that they Atsugewi utilized salmon flies which were were. plentiful along Pit River and Lost Creek. They were obtained in the spring, being OTHER ETHNOGRAPHIC DATA picked by hand from the banks, in the early Ethnographic data relating to the use of morning, before the wind arose. The wings "salmon flies" are not specific and may refer were removed, and the body was boiled and eaten. to species other than P. californica (such as P. princeps). Salmon flies were noted as being Voegelin (1942) recorded the taking of used by the Achumawi (Kniffen 1928: 302; several insects by the Atsugewi, although Olmsted and Stewart 1978: 228) but no salmon flies were not specifically identified. specifics were given. Harrington (1985) was However, the description of insects being 180 JOURNAL OF CALIFORNIA AND GREAT BASIN ANTHROPOLOGY

"shaken down from trees, or picked off gathering season. Salmon-fly procurement branches" and "hand gathered early in morn­ may have conflicted with the gathering of ing" (1942: 53) is reminiscent of other other foods such as epos (Perideridia), an descriptions of salmon-fly harvesting (and of important winter food also gathered in the some other insects such as grasshoppers). spring by the Achumawi (Olmsted and Stew­ DuBois (1935: 15) reported that the art 1978: 227). The extent and significance of Wintu considered the salmon fly a great such conflicts are not clear since our under­ delicacy. standing of the overall aboriginal economic system is so poor. These insects swarm on the river's edge for a few days in April. They are gathered in the The cost/benefit ratio of salmon-fly pro­ morning before their wings are strong curement was probably quite favorable al­ enough to permit flight. They are either though there are no specific data available. boiled, or, if they are plentiful enough, dried Search and capture time should have been for winter use. minimal but processing time (oven construc­ The Yana appear to have also utilized tion, cooking, etc.) could have been greater. salmon flies. Sapir and Spier (1943: 252) There are no specific nutritional data on reported that salmon flies available. Insect foods, however, are often high-quaUty resources rich in pro­ a small crustacean popularly known as "sal­ tein and other important nutrients (cf. Boden- mon fly" (tc'i''na) is washed up in great numbers from the river onto the willows heimer 1951). along the bank ('llau-, salmon flies are The term applied to the insects by native washed to shore), on which they remain consultants in 1912, Why-hauts (transcribed stuck. When so found, they are gathered, by a non-linguist), appears to be quite similar cooked, and used as food. to wahaj, the Achumawi term for bread The use of the term crustacean is puzzling but (Olmstead 1966: 57, 70). An Achumawi the general description of the species' habits cognate for bread, wa'h'hach, was noted by seems to indicate a type of stonefly. Bauman (1979: 73). Although it is possible that these terms refer only to bread and not DISCUSSION to insects at all, they may indicate that insect While the practice of harvesting salmon resources formed an important part of the flies has not been fully demonstrated, there diet. are several points of interest. Christopher ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Raven (personal communication 1985) point­ ed to a possible west-to-east harvesting I am especially indebted to Christopher Raven schedule (by the Wintu in April, by the for his very useful comments made on an earlier Achumawi near Lookout in May, and at draft of this paper. I also appreciate the comments of nearby Canby in the "early summer"). This E. N. Anderson, Jr., John Pinto, Philip J. Wilke, Robert M. Yohe II, and the reviewers for the Journal. timing correlates with increasing elevation Joel Blumin redrew Figure 2. (although the elevations of Lookout and Canby differ only by about 150 ft.) and presumably, to the emergence of the insect, a REFERENCES phenomenon tied to water temperature (Rich­ ards, Swisher, and Arbona 1980: 54). The Aldrich, J. M. 1912 Files of the Leptid genus Atherix used as procurement of storable food (including Food by the California Indians. Entomologi­ salmon-fly bread?) was begun early in the cal News 23: 159-163. THE CALIFORNIA SALMON FLY AS A FOOD SOURCE 181

Arnett, Ross H. Harper, P. P. 1985 American Insects: A Handbook of the In­ 1978 Plecoptera. In: An Introduction to the sects of America North of Mexico. New Aquatic Insects of North America, R. W. York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company. Merritt and K. W. Cummins, eds., pp. 105-118. Dobugue: Kendall/Hunt. Bauman, James 1979 Pit River Teaching Dictionary. Anchorage: Harrington, John P. University of Alaska, National Bilingual Ma­ 1985 Ethnographic Field Notes, Vol. 2, Northern terials Development Center. and Central California. Washington: Smith­ Bodenheimer, Friedrich S. sonian Institution, National Anthropological 1951 Insects as Human Food: A Chapter of the Archives. [Microfilm edition, Millwood, NY: Ecology of Man. The Hague: W. Junk. Kraus International Publications]. Cather, Mary R., Bill P. Stark, and Arden R. Gaufin Heizer, Robert F. 1975 Records of Stoneflies (Plecoptera) from Ne­ 1950 Kutsavi, A Great Basin Indian Food. Kroe­ vada. The Great Basin Naturalist 35(1): ber Anthropological Society Papers 2: 49-50. 35-41. Cresson, Erza T., Jr. Jewett, Stanley G. 1934 Descriptions of New Genera and Species of 1956 Plecoptera. In: Aquatic Insects of California, the Dipterous Family Ephydridae. XI. Trans­ Robert L. Usinger, ed., pp. 155-181. Ber­ actions of the American Entomological So­ keley: Press. ciety 60: 199-222. DuBois, Cora Kniffen, Fred B. 1935 Wintu Ethnography. University of Cahfornia 1928 Achomawi Geography. University of Califor­ Publications in American and nia Publications in American Archaeology Ethnology 36(1). and Ethnology 23(5): 297-332. Elder, John A., and Arden R. Gaufin Kroeber, Alfred L. 1973 Notes on the Occurrence and Distribution of 1925 Handbook of the Indians of California. Pteronarcys californica Newport (Plecop­ Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 78. tera) Within Streams. The Great Basin Natur­ alist 33(4): 218-220. Needham, J. G., and P. W. Claassen 1925 Plecoptera or Stoneflies of America North of Essig, E. 0. Mexico. Monographs of the Thomas Say 1931 A History of Entomology. : Mac- Foundation of the Entomological Society of millan. America, Vol. 2. 1958 Insects and Mites of Western North America. Olmsted, David L. New York: Macmillan. 1966 Achumawi Dictionary. University of Califor­ Fenenga, Gerrit L., and Eric M. Fisher nia Publications in Linguistics 45. 1978 The Cahuilla use of Piyatem, Larvae of the Olmsted, David L., and Omer C. Stewart White-lined Sphinx Moth (Hyles lineata), as 1978 Achumawi. In: Handbook of North Ameri­ Food. The Journal of California Anthro­ can Indians, Vol. 8, Cahfornia, Robert F. pology 5(1): 84-90. Heizer, ed., pp. 225-235. Washington: Fowler, Catherine S., and Nancy Peterson Walter Smithsonian Institution. 1985 Harvesting Pandora Moth Larvae with the Owens Valley Paiute. Journal of California Richards, Carl, Doug Swisher, and Fred Arbona, Jr. and Great Basin Anthropology 7(2): 155-165. 1980 Stoneflies. New York: Nick Lyons Books.

Garth, Thomas R. Richardson, Jay W., and Arden R. Gaufin 1953 Atsugewi Ethnography. University of Cali­ 1971 Food Habits of Some Western Stonefly fornia Anthropological Records 14(2): Nymphs. Transactions of the American En­ 129-212. tomological Society 97(1): 91-121. 182 JOURNAL OF CALIFORNIA AND GREAT BASIN ANTHROPOLOGY

Sapir, Edward, and Leslie Spier Swezey, Sean L. 1943 Notes on the Culture of the Yana. University 1978 Barrett's Army worm: A Curious Ethno­ of California Anthropological Records 3(3): graphic Problem. The Journal of California 239-298. Anthropology 5(2): 256-262. Sheldon, Andrew L. Voegelin, Erminie W. 1979 Stonefly (Plecoptera) Records from the Ba­ 1942 Culture Element Distributions: XX, North­ sin Ranges of Nevada and Utah. The Great east California. University of California An­ Basin Naturalist 39(3): 289-292. thropological Records 7(2): 47-251.