Traditions of Sucker Exploitation in the Pit River System: an Ajumawi Example

UC Merced Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology

Title Traditions of Sucker Exploitation in the Pit River System: An Ajumawi Example

Permalink https://escholarship.org/uc/item/8k53r4nn

Journal Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology, 12(1)

ISSN 0191-3557

Author Evans, Nancy H

Publication Date 1990-07-01

Peer reviewed

eScholarship.org Powered by the California Digital Library University of California Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology Vol. 12, No. 1, pp. 48-59 (1990).

Traditions of Sucker Exploitation in the Pit River System: An Ajumawi Example NANCY H. EVANS, California Dept. of Parks and Recreation, P. O. Box 942896, Sacramento, CA 94296.

X HE avowed significance of riverine-focused AJumawf cultural adaptations in northeastern California Territory ----\ notwithstanding, little is understood regarding the use of specific fish species, the variability Terrllory in harvest strategies, or the relative dietary Y Redd ... V-^ values of the resources. Recent ethnographic o research on traditional sucker fishing practices 0 100 mi. among the Ajumawi division of the Pit River Indians provides a specific illustration of a -J. I, ° 100 km 1 significant resource used in prehistoric times 'O V • Sac/amenlo ^ • and continuing through historical accommoda tion to the middle of the twentieth century. The perpetuation of sucker use survives to the I \ present and is attributed in part to historical Fig. 1. Pit River Indian territory. residence patterns and continuous availability, but also to the dietary significance of this tributary to the Pit River. Ajumawi foraging traditional resource. territory (sensu Binford 1980) extended well to the north across the vast lava fields (Fig. AJUMAWI LAND USE: 1848-1950 1). Winter villages were clustered tightly The Ajumawi, whose name means "river along the banks of the Pit River and scattered people" (Olmsted and Stewart 1978), are one about the edges of Fall and Tule rivers, in of eleven bands constituting small territorial Little Hot Springs Valley, and along the shore divisions along the Pit River and its tributaries of Big Lake (also known as Tule Lake) in northeastern California (Fig. 1). Two (Kniffen 1928:map 2; Voegelin 1974; Gas- closely related Palaihnihan (Hokan stock) saway 1977). languages distinguished the nine bands of White settlement of Fall River Valley Achumawi-language speakers and two foUowed quickly upon the opening of Lassen's Atsugewi-speaking bands (Olmsted 1954, 1848 and Noble's 1852 emigrant trails to 1966). Recognized today as the Pit River California, both of which coursed along the Indians, they have shared a similar cultural Pit River through Ajumawi territory (Hoover and settlement orientation to the multiplicity et al. 1966). When Fort Crook was estab of resources along the Pit River, its lished near present Fall River Mills in 1857, tributaries, and adjacent land forms (Voegelin ensuring the settlers protection from the 1974; Garth 1978; Olmsted and Stewart 1978). Indians, the valley rapidly developed agricul The Ajumawi band occupied Fall River tural, lumbering, and commercial activities Valley, a lush well-watered vaUey replete with (F. CaUison 1965:39; M. CaUison 1965:67). ponds, marshes, and numerous streams The most favorable lands for agriculture were TRADITIONS OF SUCKER EXPLOITATION 49 located adjacent to Fall and Pit rivers, on the had no able-bodied wage earner (Gillahan and south and west sides of the valley (F. CaUison Shaffer 1921). 1965:39), so that by the early 1880s, the Budy (1990) identified several allotment Ajumawi were restricted from many of their clusters (i.e., groups of from 2 to 27 different, primary winter village sites. Further, this but contiguous, aUotment parcels) in Ajumawi displacement limited their access to important territory originally listed in the 1880s and fisheries on Fall and Pit rivers while wheat 1890s. These clusters were located in the lava fields supplanted oak groves and epos (Peri- at the head of Fall River, north of Eastman deridia sp.) root meadows in the valley proper. Lake, on both sides of the Little Tule River, In the period between 1860 and 1880, the north and east of Big Lake, and on the slopes Ajumawi maintained residence at several of Saddle and Soldier mountains (Fig. 2). traditional village sites at the periphery of the Many allotments remain in Ajumawi owner valley on lands unsuitable for agriculture. ship today, notably those located in the lava Settlers' accounts describe large "rancherias" to the north and adjacent to important sucker immediately north of the lava beds (Lorenzen fisheries. Continued Indian residence through 1965:48) and in the vicinity of Big Lake (Tule the early historical period to this day is one Lake) including its eastern side and in the reason that sucker fishing traditions have marshy area to the south (Kniffen 1928:321; persisted. M. CaUison 1965:68; Gassaway 1977:5). Fishing traditions also have persisted These accounts further attest to the continued because of the dietary value of this resource use of native resources such as tule, fish, during the difficult period of economic waterfowl, and roots taken with traditional transition. The previously abundant and procurement methods. storable resources, particularly acorn and Historic Indian residence patterns are salmon, generally were unavailable to the further reinforced by the locations of Indian Ajumawi in any large or predictable quantities land aUotment applications filed under the after the 1880s. The primary oak groves, Indian Land Patents Act of July 4, 1884 (Budy located in areas considered essential for 1990). The 1884 Act permitted Indians to file agricultural development, were the first areas for up to 160 acres of land, this being held in to be settled (M. CaUison 1965). Further, the trust for 25 years, after which the applicant total array of potential foods was reduced: (or his heirs) could apply for fee patent. The grass seeds were given up to grazing livestock, intent of the legislation appears to have been roots were plowed into wheat fields, marsh to make farmers of the Indians and to plants and waterfowl were depleted by engender a sense of private land ownership; drainage canals, and salmon were reduced by however, since good agricultural land already non-Indian economic development. was in the hands of white settlers, California Salmon once migrated up the Pit River as Indians filed mostly on agriculturally marginal, far as Pit River FaUs, a 65-foot scarp a few heavily timbered, or arid desert parcels mUes south of the confluence of the FaU and (Kelsey 1906:132-133). By the 1920s, some Pit rivers. Ajumawi access to salmon was Ajumawi were employed in wage labor as limited to this important location on the Pit sheep shearers, hay stackers, and harvesters, River where large weirs were constructed and more labored in highway construction and across the river below the faUs (Kniffen at the Pacific Gas and Electric plants, but 1928:319; Voegehn 1942:173). most work was intermittent and many families The salmon yield throughout the Sacra- 50 JOURNAL OF CALIFORNIA AND GREAT BASIN ANTHROPOLOGY

U D

I I Attolrticnl Land

^^ Fi:h liap Ajcas

McAnhui •

Fig. 2. Ajumawi allotments and fish trap areas. Allotments after Budy (1990). mento River system began to decline soon tric facility at the Pit River FaUs in 1922, the after non-Indian settlement. Probably Ajumawi salmon fishery had severely dimin beginning as early as 1860, salmon fisheries ished. By 1945, when Shasta Dam was were affected by stream pollution from the completed, salmon had disappeared from the many lumber mills on tributaries to the Pit Pit River system. River (cf. Gassaway 1977). Artificial salmon Apart from large mammals, for which no propagation for national distribution began at data are recorded, the only reliable, seasonaUy a federal fishery at Baird in 1872, and briefly abundant, highly nutritious, and storable at Hat Creek, but soon was discontinued. It faunal resource available to the Ajumawi then resumed in 1888 for local distribution in throughout the historical period was the an attempt to enhance the salmon fishery Sacramento sucker (Catostomus occidentalis). (Clark 1929). The twenty canneries on the In fact, Sacramento suckers were important Sacramento River and in the San Francisco fare in the Ajumawi diet between 1900 and Bay area were discontinued by 1919, further 1950, and may have been critical to the health evidence that the salmon were rapidly of the people (GUlahan and Shaffer 1921). By disappearing. By 1929, Clark (1929) estimat the early 1950s, most of the elders who ed that 80% of the salmon spawning grounds previously had organized the communal had been cut off by power and irrigation dams fishing had become infirm or died, although in the Sacramento-San Joaquin river systems. individuals continued to fish for suckers. With the construction of the Pit 1 hydroelec TRADITIONS OF SUCKER EXPLOITATION 51

spawning impulse appears to be triggered by SUCKER HABITAT AND BEHAVIOR a sudden warming of flowing water (Moyle Sacramento suckers are distributed widely 1976:215). In Ajumawi territory, spawning throughout the Sacramento-San Joaquin River suckers appear to be attracted to the many system, and they are one of the most common springs emerging from the lava scarp and species in the Pit River system. Suckers are forming the headwaters of FaU and Tule most abundant in clear, cool streams, although rivers. This may account in part for the adults prefer large bodies of water such as striking number of stone fish traps located in lakes and reservoirs (Moyle and Daniels this area (M. CaUison 1965; Evans 1987; 1982). Commonly, suckers occur together with Dreyer 1988). Sacramento squawfish (Ptychocheilus grandis), Sucker spawning generaUy occurs between called "pike" by early ethnographers, hard late February and June in the Sacramento head {Mylopliarodon conoceplialus), speckled River system (Moyle 1976). Observations at dace (Rhinichthys osculus), and Pit sculpin Thomes Creek (Tehama County) were (Cottus pitensis). In contrast, rainbow trout recorded in December with peak spawning in {Oncorhynchus mykiss) and suckers generaUy early March (VUla 1985). At Big Lake in the occupy different habitats within the Pit River FaU River VaUey, sucker spawning was system. Next to rainbow trout and Pit sculpin, reported in January, and more frequently in Sacramento suckers and speckled dace are the February (Stewart 1954; Evans 1987). most abundant species resident in the Pit TRADITIONAL SUCKER USE River system (Moyle and Daniels 1982). Suckers are bottom-browsers that feed on Sucker exploitation is reported for aU the algae, detritus, and invertebrates. Although Pit River groups (Kniffen 1928; Voegelin they eat continually, they are most active at 1942; Garth 1953), but its relative value as night. They have a particularly weU-developed compared to other fish species use undoubt sense of hearing and fear scents (Moyle edly varied from group to group. The 1976:212; Taylor 1987). These characteristics importance of the sucker also is apparent may be related to some Ajumawi nocturnal among the Klamath of southeastern Oregon fishing practices. (Voegelin 1942:57). While the Ajumawi Maturity and spawning behavior among procured several species of fish, including suckers may begin between the ages of four salmon, some Ajumawi indicated a preference and seven years; more commonly it occurs at for suckers over salmon, saying that salmon about six years. GeneraUy, adult suckers were less flavorful (Evans 1987). range in size from 33 to 58 cm. (13 to 23 in.) The prehistoric significance of sucker use fork length with an average weight of 730 g. in the Pit River area is unknown at present. (ViUa 1985). Observations at Big Lake (Tay Archaeological excavations near Lake Britton lor 1987) and Hat Creek (Brauer 1971) sug yielded a smaU coUection of fish remains, gest an older, therefore heavier, resident comprising less than 9% of the total archeo- population in some areas of the Pit River sys fauna, but fish are thought to have been tem. Scoppettone (1988) confirmed longer life under-represented due to poor preservation spans among catostomids than previously sup and other factors (Wirth Environmental posed, which may increase the average weight. Services 1987:255). Nonetheless, identifiable Suckers spawn in streams, over gravel cyprinid remains outnumbered salmonid riffles, and in lakes and reservoirs; the remains at two sites, and were comparable at JOURNAL OF CALIFORNIA AND GREAT BASIN ANTHROPOLOGY

another, while some catostomid remains also creeks of rapidly flowing waters, once teeming were identified. with fish of many species. ... In this shallow, swift flowing water, wings of rocks were so Downriver Achumawi bands, to whom placed that the fish coming down stream could salmon was readily available in spring and fall, be funneled through a narrow opening below may have relied less on suckers, but for which was placed a willow basket from which groups with limited access to salmon, such as the fish could not escape. A group of Indians, wading in the water, would drive the fish toward the Ajumawi, suckers most likely comprised the trap. a significant proportion of the fish diet. Further, suckers were abundantly available in The best-documented fish traps are from the critical winter season at a point when studies conducted by Dreyer (1988) on the stored food supplies might often be depleted. north side of Horr Pond, and the north end Even the downriver groups had sucker "holes" of Big Lake within the boundaries of Ahju that they used in winter (Stewart 1954; Wirth mawi Lava Springs State Park in Shasta Environmental Services 1985:5). At the county. Dreyer (1988) recorded ten stone junction of Hat Creek and the Pit River, traps (two clusters of four traps each and two Beck"\vith, in 1857, noted fish traps even isolated traps) along a distance of approxi though "the salmon season had not arrived" mately 7,000 to 8,000 m. of shoreline. His (Voegelin 1974:69). drawings and descriptions indicate consider Ajumawi territory, with its extensive able variabUity in size and structural complexi streams, ponds, and marshes, is prime habitat ty; most match VoegeUn's (1942:173) descrip for suckers, and it is likely that suckers tion of the typical Ajumawi trap, "circular composed a significant dietary component 'corral' buUt of rocks, with single opening in throughout Ajumawi prehistory. One indi center on downstream side." Other traps cation of the importance of suckers to the recorded by Dreyer (1988) suggest smaU Ajumawi is the large number of preserved containment ponds along stream sections or stone traps in streams, ponds, and springs at spring outlets that could have served as forming the headwaters of Fall and Tule individual shore-based spearing stations year rivers weU beyond the extent of the salmon round. run (Evans 1987; Dreyer 1988). Although the Stone traps are located also on the east traps may have functioned for catching other side of Big Lake, on Eastman Lake and fishes, the more appropriate and traditional Spring Creek, and at Rainbow Springs and method for catching smaller fish was in Thousand Springs (Evans 1987). Floyd basketry traps daily placed in the water close Buckskin (personal communication 1989) to home. Trout frequently were taken as a observed 11 traps, three of which were visited smaU percentage of a sucker (spawning) by the author, on Lava Creek, which feeds catch, but the low rock waUs of the traps do Eastman Lake from the northwest. The not contain most disturbed trout for long. proximity of Indian land aUotment clusters to The primary use of the stone traps in the late these weU-preserved stone traps provides historical period was for sucker capture further supporting evidence of continued use (Evans 1987). of traditional fishing stations weU into the M. CaUison (1965:68), a local settler, historical period (Fig. 2). As MacGregor provided a description of how stone traps (1939:9) observed for the Pit River Indians: were used historicaUy on FaU River: Little trained in agriculture and having a strong Where the waters of Fall River, at its source, emotional attachment to the sites where they emerge in large springs, they form sizeable were raised and their forefathers had lived, they TRADITIONS OF SUCKER EXPLOITATION 53

often selected as allotments good living sites on A sucker-fishing expedition required both high knolls, perhaps near the river or a spring leadership and planning. Prior to fishing, plans were developed based on observations In the case of the Ajumawi, good living sites of sucker spawning by one or more individu were close to good fishing places. als. Then, on a selected evening, men congre gated with their gear, and often their families, SUCKER PROCUREMENT STRATEGIES at a home convenient to the fishing areas. Data on Ajumawi sucker-fishing strate Two areas typicaUy were used, one below gies, coUected during fieldwork from 1986 to the Pit 1 Powerhouse on the Pit River, the 1989, were recorded from individuals who other at various locations on Horr Pond/Big participated in or observed these practices Lake. In the Horr Pond/Big Lake vicinity, at directly (cf. Evans 1987). Little information about 9 or 10 p.m.-weU after dark-the men was avaUable on the use of other fishes, whUe loaded into dugout canoes or slender, sucker fishing accounts were numerous and homemade flat-bottomed boats and paddled detaUed. This bias toward suckers, to the near to the shallows edging the lava scarp where exclusion of other species, in part relates to the stone traps were buUt. The men poled the the long tradition of communal night fishing boats, sometimes with spear handles, by the for suckers, a practice occurring regularly until light of pitch-covered wooden torches or flares as late as 1950. Its significance no doubt was but more recently a pitch-filled metal mesh reinforced by the social aspects of the activity. box caUed a "jack" mounted on the boat. At the same time, however, the perpetuation Boats were said to be unusable at the Pit 1 of a communal resource gathering activity into Powerhouse because the Pit River was too the recent past relates to the nutritional shaUow at this location. significance of suckers, notably in the Each fisherman was equipped with one or historical adjustment period, but probably in more wooden-handled spears caUed lonii (cf. the prehistoric past as weU. Olmsted 1966). The handle or shaft might be For the Ajumawi, the sucker-fishing made of Buck Mountain lodgepole pine, season was defined as the spawning period, Soldier Mountain fir, or a commercial fir beginning in January and continuing through pole. Spears were of different lengths, as early March in a dry year, and untU late May measured with the gig: the 14-16-ft. pole for foUowing sufficient January rain. Winter was shore or canoe use, and the 11-12-ft. short the occasion for organizing communal night pole for the wading fisherman. The short fishing, whUe individual fishing was a daytime pole was adequate for the shaUow Crystal activity conducted throughout the year. Springs sucker trap at Ahjumawi Lava Springs Communal fishing aUowed for a rapid harvest State Park. The gig portion of the sucker of large quantities, usuaUy destined for drying spear could have two or more fixed bone and storage, and avaUable to several famUies. points (Voegelin 1942). Barter (1990) Individual fishing was considered able to observed a sucker spear from the Hudson provide a meal or two for a famUy. Two coUection (ca. 1906), with tv\'o wUlow prongs explanations commonly heard for dependable and bound deer-bone barbs. More recent nocturnal and communal sucker harvest were Achumawi barbed gigs are welded locaUy or the preoccupation of suckers with spawning beaten cold from an iron three-tined hay fork and their attraction to the fishermen's (Evans 1987). Most men owned at least two torchlight (Evans 1987). spears and also supplied them for their sons. 54 JOURNAL OF CALIFORNIA AND GREAT BASIN ANTHROPOLOGY and in one case, a daughter. Earher equip TTie span of actual fishing time was ment included blinders, tule sandals, and relatively short; the action was fast and leggings (Barter 1990), and specialized net furious. Each fisherman poised his gig bags (Curtis 1924); local whites mention underwater and aimed a rapid jab to pierce a wearing rubber waders. Although the sucker behind the gUJs. Once struck, the Atsugewi reported using fish poisons on upper sucker was flipped onto the bank for boys to Hat Creek, the Ajumawi stated that they gather, string, and load. In plentiful runs, never used poison for suckers. men, women, and even chUdren jumped into The approach to the stone trap was the water and grabbed suckers by hand. directed by a male elder who either had trap Certain Ajumawi were noted for their rights or most famUiarity with the trap. This spearing expertise, but even a novice could elder placed a board, stored at the site, or less spear one or two suckers. A catch of approx frequently, a canoe prow, into the trap imately 100 suckers for a smaU group in a entrance and directed the net arrangement couple of hours reportedly was not unusual. inside the stone enclosure. Required behavior These fishing expeditions might occur two to during this process was quiet and orderly, with three times-or up to six times-per season, no conversation or laughter. Once the fisher and camping near the springs for a day or so men were in place and the first sucker struck, was common. Sometimes the men closed or most often by the elder, sUence no longer was boarded the trap entrance, returning the next necessary. Numerous tales, some with humor, day to collect the fish. were recounted about the weather changes, Processing the fish usuaUy took place after mishaps, and punishments accrued from the fishermen returned to the home where incorrect behavior at the sucker traps during they had congregated. Most frequently, the the approach. One Ajumawi woman said per processing was the women's responsibUity. haps women were excluded from most sucker Suckers were scaled, gutted, and a portion of expeditions because of their occasional the taU removed. The head was cleaned and inabUity to remain quiet (Evans 1987). washed. Women who did not scale suckers Ajumawi agreed that nocturnal and were considered novices or lazy. Removing communal sucker fishing primarily was a male large bones could be done at this time or activity. Boys were aUowed to participate by later, just prior to drying (Evans 1987). about 10-12 years of age, their primary Formerly, drying suckers took place on a responsibUity being to carry and load the stick in the sun, in shade, or in the sweat- suckers. After the fishing, if a barbecue was house (Voegelin 1942); more recently it was planned, women and smaUer chUdren might done on a fence, house roof, clothesline, or on walk, or arrive by buggy or canoe at the trap a back porch. ChUdren might be responsible with coffee and extra food (Evans 1987). for keeping insects away for a week or more Sucker fishing at the Pit River, below of drying time, depending on the weather. Pit 1 Powerhouse, could be more spontane Dried suckers were stored indoors. They ous. It might include women and children were edible for several months, untU the since the location was easily accessible by middle of summer. horse-drawn buggy or automobUe. They could Several other fishing techniques were wade in and gather suckers by hand. An ex employed year round by an individual or by pert female spearer might spear her own two persons working together. In the daytime suckers at this and other easily accessible locales. during spawning season, one might visit a TRADITIONS OF SUCKER EXPLOITATION 55

nearby, particularly productive trap, close the too was fried. Dried and pounded, then entrance, and spear approximately 20 suckers cooked, sucker mixed with water as a juice or in 30 minutes. Twenty fish of one and one- soup was administered for colds or pneumo half to two pounds was the catch an individual nia, particularly to chUdren. Pounded dried could easily carry home when walking. suckers mixed with salt and flour as a gravy Sometimes a trap would be boarded up one was served over biscuits or pan bread. day for coUection the next. A smaU net, four One Ajumawi elder said, "suckers were by six feet, also might be left in the trap for our winter food." Another, an Ajumawi several hours. woman, explained, "What rabbits are for Big Another frequently used technique, canoe VaUey people (Atwamsini), suckers are for fishing, required two individuals. A boy or Ajumawi. It is our special food" (Evans woman might propel the canoe whUe the man 1987:26). Thus, contemporary Ajumawi attest speared suckers along the banks of a smaU to the significance of suckers as a traditional stream or in one of the larger traps. Both resource. Certainly, suckers appear to have dugout canoes and spears often were stored, served as a critical nutritional resource in the the former submerged and weighted, near a period of historical adjustment (ca. 1848 to stone trap. 1950). A consideration of the specific sucker Less frequently, two kinds of basket traps food values suggests their prehistoric impor and dip nets were used for suckers. The bow tance as weU. or tent-shaped basket trap was flat and SUCKER NUTRIENT VALUES weighted on the bottom, with the mouth closed by pulling on a handle. This type ap Assessment of sucker nutritional value, as pears to be simUar to the taniichi described by compared to other local fish species, provides Curtis (1924:136). The second type, a conical one parameter for determining its value as a 4-ft. wiUow trap with an inner core, was prehistoric resource. Table 1 (after SidweU placed with the narrow end pointed down 1981) lists nutritional constituents for five stream (Voegelin 1942:173). One Ajumawi species common in the Pit River system. constructed a trap of this sort from chicken Data for Sacramento sucker are unavaUable, wire and used it in FaU River (Floyd Buck but white sucker (Castostomus commersoni) is skin, personal communication 1989). The dip a simUar species (Hubbs and WaUis 1948) and net, a woven mesh suspended from a hard nutrient values should be comparable. wood hoop with a V-shaped opening, was The most significant nutritional difference used. Often, these strategies procured species among these species is in their caloric values; including rainbow trout, Sacramento squaw this is largely a product of the relative differ fish, introduced German brown trout [Salmo ences in fat content. Both trout and salmon trutta), and other, smaUer species, but suckers have much higher caloric values than suckers. were the most common fish caught. Both men Considering that both salmon and trout oc and women used the basket traps and dip curred in great abundance during their re nets, women more commonly than men (Floyd spective faU and spring spawning seasons, Buckskin, personal communication 1989). their significance reported ethnographicaUy is For the Ajumawi, suckers, either dried or not surprising. Suckers, on the other hand, fresh, were considered not only delicious and spawned and were readily avaUable in great nutritious, but also a medicinal remedy. abundance in midwinter, most likely an impor Fresh sucker was barbecued or fried; the roe tant consideration in the total dietary balance. 56 JOURNAL OF CALIFORNIA AND GREAT BASIN ANTHROPOLOGY

Table 1 NUTRITIONAL COMPOSITION OF FISH RESOURCES'

Resource cal./lOO g. Protein Fa I Water

Roach (Cyprinae) 79 16.4 1.1 80.5 Salmon (Oncorhynchus Ishawyiscfm) 182 17.9 11.6 68.0 Squawfish (Plychochcilus grandes) 91 17.0 2.5 79.3 Sucker (Catostomus commersoni) 84 17.7 1.5 80.0 Trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) 154 20.7 6.8 72.0

Adapted from Sidwell (1981). 100 g. of raw muscle measured.

Table 2 FISHING RETURNS FROM DIVERSE TECHNIQUES'

Number Hours Kilogram Hours Return Technique persons pursuit catch'' processing (cal./hr.)

Line fishing 3 1.2 1.76 .3 2,067 Fish drive 5 2.5 6.3 .5 2,192 Spear fishing 2 1.0 2.6 .3 3^33 Cast netting 1 ,12 1.05 .16 3,915 Drag netting 2 1.0 6.97 .20 6.065

Data derived from Raven (1990:253-254). Catch is expressed in kg. of edible meal after processing.

Table 3 FISHING RETURNS FROM AJUMAWI SUCKER CATCH

Number Hours Kilogram Hours Return Technique persons pursuit catch processing (cal./hr.)

Spear fishing^ 4 1.0 5.48 .50 5,689

Data from nocturnal communal fishmj;durin g the winter spawning season.

In prehistoric forager models, developed return rates for various plant and animal from evolutionary biology, it is assumed that species, Simms (1985, 1987) derived a ranking successful foraging depends on capturing of various resource values. sufficient energy to sustain health, reproduc Unfortunately, little cost-energy analysis tion, and further foraging, and that foraging has been conducted for traditional fish (Susan efficiency reaps competitive rewards (Simms Lindstrom, personal communication 1990). 1985, 1987; Stephens and Krebs 1986; Raven The only systematic study reported to date and Elston 1989). Energy capture, measured that compares fish return rates from different as caloric food value, is a means by which to fishing techniques (mixed saltwater species) is ascertain foraging and decision-making from Raven's (1990) ethnographic work on efficiency. Caloric food value, when de Boigu Island in the Torres Strait. Raven's creased by the costs of pursuit and processing, (1990:253-254) data, presented in Table 2, produces a post-encounter return rate, which although not directly comparable to Ajumawi is measured in energy units acquired per unit fishing techniques, provide a range of values of time (Simms 1987:121-122). By comparing for comparison. TRADITIONS OF SUCKER EXPLOITATION 57

As a means of estimating the significance fishery data. Robert Hicks offered suggestions on of prehistoric sucker use by the Pit River cartography, and DorolhcaTheodoratus contributed her considerable editing and map-making abiUly. peoples of northeastern California, the I thank you all. Special thanks go to Elizabeth Ajumawi data on communal night-fishing Budy for her editing, humor, patience, and during spawning season were used to factor especially, her insights. return rates. An edible meat weight of 75% REFERENCES of live weight was used. It is slightly higher than that used by White (1953) for mammal Barter, Eloise Richards 1990 Achumawi and Atsugewi Fishing Gear. species, but conservative considering the Journal of California and Great Basin inclusion of bony material and potential roe Anthropology 12:37-47. (e.g., Lindstrom MS). An average adult Binford, Lewis. R. sucker weight is based on the Villa (1985) 1980 Willow Smoke and Dogs'Tails: Hunter- collection of the Sacramento suckers from Gatherer Settlement Systems and Archaeological Site Formation. Ameri Thomes Creek. Caloric values were based on can Antiquity 45:4-20. those Hsted for white sucker (Sidwell 1981). Brauer, Clifford An overall return rate of 5,689 cal./hr. is 1971 A Study of the Western Sucker, Calosto- estimated for an average communal sucker mus occidentalis Ayres, in Lower Hat fishing catch (see Table 3). This return is Creek, California. Areata: Humboldt comparable to cast- and drag-netting methods State University. reported by Raven (Table 2). Budy, Elizabeth E. 1990 Historic Indian Land Allotments in Relative to other species listed by Simms Northeastern California. Report on file (1985:122), sucker returns exceed all values at the U.S. Forest Service, Lassen listed for plants and birds, and are compara National Forest, Susanville. ble to some small mammals. Considering its CaUison, P. M. winter availability and high nutrient content, 1965 Tale of Three Names, One Town; Memories of Glcnburn Pioneers. In: along with moderately high return rates, it is Reminiscence of Fort Crook Historical not surprising that sucker use persisted among Society, pp. 39-40. Fall River Mills: Fort the Ajumawi for such a long time. At the Crook Museum. same time, these data suggest that the CaUison, Merle prehistoric significance of suckers throughout 1965 Recollections of a Third Generation the Pit River system should not be underesti Pioneer. In: Reminiscence of Fort Crook Historical Society, pp. 67-70. Fall mated. River Mills: Fort Crook Museum. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Clark, G. H. 1929 Sacramento River Salmon Fishery. This paper grew out of discussions with Pit California Fish and Game 15:1-10. River Indians concerning the preservation of stone fish traps at Ahjumawi Lava Springs State Park. Curtis, Edward S. Extensive interviewing with Pit River people, mostly 1924 The North American Indian: Being a Ajumawi, was primarily supported by a California Series of Volumes Picturing and Describ Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) ing the Indians of the L'nited States, and Alaska. Frederick W. Hodge, ed., Vol. statewide management program. Project No. 5-45- 13. Norwood, MA: Plimpton Press. 7535-1, designed by Breck Parkman. Floyd Buckskin, cultural resource officer for the Pit River Dreyer, William R. Tribe, was an instrumental field partner. Thomas 1988 Archaeological Investigations of Stone Taylor, Senior Aquatic Biologist at DPR, Susan Fish Traps at Ahjumawi Lava Springs Lindstrom, Archaeologist, and Shelly Raven of State Park, Shasta County, California. Archaeological Research Service provided excellent Report prepared for the California 58 JOURNAL OF CALIFORNIA AND GREAT BASIN ANTHROPOLOGY

Department of Parks and Recreation, Lorenzen, Phoebe Interagency Agreement No. 4-100-6377, 1965 Little Hot Springs Valley, Known as Day, Sacramento. has Lively, Colorful Past. In: Reminis Evans, Nancy H. cence of Fort Crook Historical Society, 1987 Traditional Ajumawi Methods of Utiliz pp. 48-49. Fall River Mills: Fort Crook ing Sacramento Suckers at Ahjumawi Museum. Lava Springs State Park, Shasta County, MacGregor, G. California. Limited edition report on file 1939 Report on the Pit River Indians of at the Resource Protection Division, California. MS on file at the U.S. Forest California Department of Parks and Service, Lassen National Forest, Susan Recreation, Sacramento. ville. Garth, Thomas R. Moyle, Peter B. 1953 Atsugewi Ethnography. University of 1976 Inland Fishes of California. Berkeley: Cahfornia Anthropological Records University of California Press. 14(2). Moyle, Peter B., and Robert A. Daniels 1978 Atsugewi. In: Handbook of North Amer 1982 Fishes of the Pit River System, McCIoud ican Indians, Vol. 8, California, R. F. River System, and Surprise Valley Heizer, ed., pp. 236-248. Washington: Region. In: Distribution and Ecology of Smithsonian Institution. Stream Fishes of the Sacramento-San Gassaway, Francis A. Joaquin Drainage System, California, pp. 1977 Pioneers of Yesteryears. Fall River 1-82. Berkeley: University of California Mills: Fort Crook Museum. Press. Gillihan, Allen F., and Alma B. Shaffer Olmsted, David L. 1921 A Survey of the Indians of Northeastern 1954 Achumawi-Atsugcwi Non-reciprocal California as Requested by His Excellen Intelligibility. International Journal of cy, William D. Stephens, Governor. MS American Linguistics 20:181-184. on file at the Boggs Collection, Redding 1966 Achumawi Dictionary. University of Library, Redding, CA. California Pubhcations in Linguistics 45. Hoover, Mildred B., Hero E. Rensch, and Ethel G. Olmsted, David L., and Omer C. Stewart Rensch 1978 Achumawi. In: Handbook of North 1966 Historic Spots in Cahfornia. Third American Indians, Vol. 8, California, edition. Stanford: Stanford L'niversity Robert F. Heizer, ed., pp. 225-236. Press. Washington: Smithsonian Institution. Hubbs, Carl L., and O. L. Wallis Raven, Christopher, and Robert G. Elston 1948 The Native Fish Fauna of Yosemite 1989 Prehistoric Human Geography in the National Park and Its Preservation. Carson Desert, Part I: A Predictive Yosemite Nature Notes 27(12):132-144. Model of Land Use in the Stillwater Kelsey, C. E. Wildlife Management Area. Portland: 1906 Report of Special Agent for California U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish Indians. Carlisle, PA: Indian School and Wildlife SerNace, Region I, Cultural Print. Resource Series No. 3. Kniffen, Fred B. Raven, Michelle Mihran 1928 Achomawi Geography. University of 1990 The Point of No Diminishing Returns: California Publications in American Hunting and Resource Dechne on Boiju Archaeology and Ethnology 12(5). Island, Torres Strait. Ph.D. dissertation, Lindstrom, Susan University of California, Davis. MS Great Basin Fisher People: Optimal Scoppettone, Gary G. Diet Breadth Modeling of the Truckee 1988 Growth and Longevity of the Cui-ui and River Prehistoric Subsistence Fishing. Longevity of Other Catostomids and Dissertation in progress. Department of Cyprinids in Western North America. Anthropology, University of California, Transactions of the American Fisheries Davis. Society 117:301-307. TRADITIONS OF SUCKER EXPLOITATION 59

Sidwell, Virginia D. Villa, Nick A. 1981 Chemical and Nutritional Composition of 1985 Life History of the Sacramento Sucker, Finfishes, Whales, Crustaceans, Mollusks, Catostomus occidentalis, in Thomes and Their Products. U.S. Department of Creek, Tehama County, California. Commerce, NCAA Technical Memoran California Fish and Game 71:88-106. dum NMFS F/SEC-11. Voegelin, Erminie Wheeler Simms, Steven R. 1942 Culture Element Distributions, XX: 1985 Acquisition Cost and Nutritional Data on Northeast California. University of Cali Great Basin Resources. Journal of fornia Anthropological Records 7:47-252. California and Great Basin Anthropology 1974 Pit River Indians of California. Califor 7:117-126. nia Indians III, American Indian Ethno 1987 Behavioral Ecology and Hunter-Gatherer history. New York: Garland Publishing, Foraging. Oxford, England. British Inc. Archaeological Reports, BAR Interna White, Theodore E. tional Series No. 341. 1953 A Method of Calculating the Dietary Stephens, D. W., and J. R. Krebs Percentage of Various Food Animals 1986 Foraging Theory. Princeton: Princeton Utilized by Aboriginal Peoples. Ameri University Press. can Antiquity 4:396-398. Stewart, O. C. Wirth Environmental Services 1954 Pit River Field Notes ca. 1954. MS on 1985 Ethnographic Report for the Pit 3, 4, 5 file at Theodoratus Cultural Research, Project, Shasta County, California Fair Oaks, CA. Contract No. 2-16-0044-84. Pacific Gas Taylor, Thomas and Electric Co., San Francisco. 1987 Sacramento Sucker Age Update. Memo 1987 Archaeological Investigations at Lake to Mr. Steve Moore, March 30, 1987. Britton, California. Pit 3, 4, 5 Project On file at the Resource Protection (License No. 233) Archaeological Site Division, California Department of Parks Testing. Pacific Gas and Electric Co., and Recreation, Sacramento. San Francisco.