LATE PREHISTORIC SUBSISTENCE IN THE REGION OF

THE NORTHWEST COAST

Diane Kay Hanson

A.A. Anchorage Community College 1975

B.A. Western State College 1977

M.A. University of Alaska, Fairbanks 1981

THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF

THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

In the Department

0 f

Archaeology

@Diane K. Hanson

SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY

April 1991

All rights reserved. This work may not be reproduced in whole or in part, by photocopy or other means, without permission of the author.

Abstract Zooarchaeological data reported from twenty-two Developed horizon (1500 years before present to European contact) sites in the southern Strait of Georgia region were compared with subsistence information from regional ethnographies in an attempt to discover whether the ethnographic record is an accurate portrayal of 1ate prehistoric subsistence. Additional data coll ected during the 1984 and 1985 excavations from DeRt 1 on Pender Island, were included in the comparisons. Cluster analyses of the zooarchaeological data showed that sites excavated in a similar manner tended to fall in the same cluster, indicating that archaeological methods were strongly i nfl uenci ng perceptions of regional subsistence patterns. Mammal assembl ages were dominated by ungulates and canids. The dominance of wapiti on main1 and sites contradicts the ethnographic record, which stated that wapiti were a staple only on . Sea mammals were a minor component of the mammal assemblages. Not surprisingly, waterfowl were the most commonly identified birds recovered from the sites. As predicted from the ethnographic record, salmonids figured prominently, and were identified in all Strait of Georgia sites. In sites in which column samples were taken and sediments screened through fine-mesh screens, herring appeared to be more common than indicated from assembl ages coll ected using coarser screens. She1 1fish frequency data were not usually provided.

iii While the ethnographic records were useful for understanding general subsistence patterns, there were some differences between the ethnographic and the archaeological record. The greatest differences were between ethnographic accounts of fishing activities and the archaeological fish assembl ages. True cods, scul pins and perches were more important in some sites than expected based on the ethnographic information, while ha1 i but was less important. This suggests that there was a change in the economic importance of these species associated with the introduction of the commercial fishing

industry which emphasized salmon. The focus on salmonids in the

Northwest Coast 1i terature has apparently obscured the contribution of other animals which may have played a larger part in the subsistence of late prehistoric Southern Strait of Georgia people. Acknowledgments

Many people have contributed to the completion of this project and I am deeply indebted to each of them. Volunteers and workers who collected, processed and sorted columns, and numbered bones include Bryan Snow, Tony Boggis, Avrom Digance, Teresea Doucette, Dave Maxwell, Wayne Hood, Dietmar Stoll, John Breffitt, and Denise Lauritano in no particular order. Tina van Gaalen has contributed a significant amount of her time to this project and her diligence was appreciated. Rebecca Wigen, at the University of Victoria, and Darlene Bal kwi 11 of the Zooarchaeol ogi cal Identification Centre, National Museums of , gave permission to use the collections, freely gave advice when it was needed and helped with puzzling identifications. Other people who gave permissions to use the collections for which they were responsible were Maria Rutzmoser, Curator of Mammals, Raymond A. Paynter, Curator of Birds and Karsten Hartel, Curatorial Associate of Fishes all of the Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard University, David Nagorsen of the Royal Museum of British Columbia, and Dick Cannings of the Vertebrate Museum at the University of British Columbia. Ingrid Nystrom and Andrew Barton have been of particular assistance in obtaining materials, funding, and space to work. Intellectual aid for this project has come from Pam Ford, Karla Kusmer, Murielle Nagy, Brian Chisholm, Wendy Unfreed, Joanna Casey, Larry Titus, Beth 0' Leary and many of the people already mentioned above. The Department of Sociology and Anthropology at New Mexico State University helped by providing office space as I was writing. Jan Wilson helped with some of the editing. Bob Furilla provided extensive he1 p with editing, drafting, computer crises and financi a1 aid. A1 len F. and Kay D. Hanson have also provided considerable financial aid during the final part of this project. Funding during the excavations and laboratory work came from the Presidents Research Grant, and the Graduate Stipend from Simon Fraser University and research assistantships. Funding for the excavations came from the Programmes of Excellence at Simon Fraser University and the Heritage Conservation Branch, Victoria. I owe a special debt of gratitude to Dr. Jonathan C. Driver for his continued assistance throughout this study. I thank Dr. Roy L. Carlson for providing the opportunity to work at Pender Canal. I also thank Dr. Knut R. Fladmark for his help during this study. Finally, I thank Dr. David R. Yesner and Philip M. Hobler for their assistance in reviewing this manuscript. -

Table of Contents Approval i i Abstract iii Acknowl edgements v Table of Contents vii List of Tables xi ii List of Figures xv i

Chapter 1: The Study of Regional Subsistence Analysis of subsistence in the Strait of Georgia Ethnographic and ethnohistoric analogy Interassembl age vari abil i ty Non-cul tural sources of variation Taphonomy Cultural sources of variabil i ty Archaeological Sources of variability The Site Recovery Techniques Analysis and Quantification Purpose

Chapter 2: The Southern Strait of Georgia Cl imate Biogeography Prehistory Ethnography

vii History

Chapter 3: Developed Coast Salish Phase Sites Vancouver Is1 and Fort Rodd Hi 11 (DcRu 78) Esquimalt Lagoon (DcRu 2) DcRt 1 Cowichan Bay (DeRv 107) Gulf and San Juan Islands Montague Harbour (DfRu 13), Galiano Island Georgeson Bay (DfRu 24), Gal iano Island

Helen Point (DfRu 8), Mayne Island Pender Canal (DeRt l), Pender Island Fossil Bay (45 SJ 105b), Sucia Is1 and Cattle Point (45 SJ I), San Juan Island Jekyll 's Lagoon (45 SJ 3), San Juan Island Moore (45 SJ 5), San Juan Island Mackaye (45 SJ 186), Lopez Is1 and The Main1 and Belcarra Park (DhRr 6), Indian Arm Cates Park (DhRr 8), Burrard Inlet St. Mungo (DgRr 2), Tait Farm (DhRt 36), Fraser River Delta Crescent Beach (DgRr l),

Tsawwassen (DgRs 2), Fraser River Delta

viii Semi ahmoo Spit (45 WH 17), Semi ahmoo Bay 45 WH 9, Birch Bay Discussion

Chapter 4: Pender Island Pender Canal Archaeological Investigations Methods Processing the fauna Stratigraphy and chronology Unit 18 Chapter 5: Results of faunal analyses from Pender Canal (DeRt 1) Mammal s Birds Fish Shel 1fish Col umn samples Unit 18 contexts Shel 1 contexts Ash contexts Dark midden contexts Subsistence at DeRt 1 Chapter 6: Mammals Insectivores Lagomorphs Rodents Sciuridae

Voles (Mi crotus sp. ) Peromyscus sp.

House mouse (& musculus) Beaver (Castor canadensi s) Muskrat (Ondatra zi bethicus) Porcupine (Erethi zon dorsatum) Carnivores Canidae Bears (Ursus sp.) Raccoon (Procvon lotor) Mustel ids River Otter (Lutra canadensis) and Sea Otter (Enhydra 1utra) Mink and Weasels (Mustela spp.) Marten and Fishers (Martes spp.) Skunks Fel idae Ungulates Deer (Odocoi 1eus sp .) Wapiti or Elk (Cervus ela~hus) Moose (Alces alces) Mountain Goat (Oreamnos americanus) Ungulate remains from archaeological sites Sea Mammals Pi nni peds (seal s) Cetaceans (Whales, Dolphins and Porpoises) Discussion

Chapter 7: Birds Waterfowl Diving Birds Dabbl i ng Ducks Perch i ng Ducks Swans, Geese and Whistling Ducks Wading Birds Gulls and Terns Ocean Birds

Birds of Prey Grouse and Ptarmigan Forest Birds Discussion

Chapter 8: Fishes Chondrichthyes - the cartilaginous fish Sturgeons Herring, sardines, anchovies, smelt and eul achon Salmon, Trout and Char Batrachoidi formes True cods Perci formes Pl euronect i formes Archaeological remains

Chapter 9: Shellfish The Molluscs Bivalves (cl ass Pel ecypoda) Gastropods (cl ass Gastropoda) Chitons (class Amphineura) Tusk Shel 1s (cl ass Scaphopoda) Octopuses and squids (cl ass Cephal opoda) The Crustaceans Barnacl es (order Thoraci a) Crabs (order Decapoda) The Echinoderms Sea Urchins (class Echinoidea) Ethnographic information Shel 1fish remains from Archaeological Sites

Chapter 10: Summary and Di scussi on

Appendix 1

Bi bl i ography

xii List of Tables Developed Coast Salish sites used in Faunal Comparisons 59 Radiocarbon dates from samples collected at DeRt 1 9 1 Levels from trench units separated into associated phases Mammals recovered from DeRt 1 trench and Unit 18 102 Beaver elements identified from DeRt 1 Microtus elements identified from DeRt 1 Canid elements identified from DeRt 1 109 Ungulate elements identified from Unit 18 and the trench of DeRt 1 113 Deer bones showing butchering marks from DeRt 1 117 Delphinid elements identified from DeRt 1 118 Seals identified from DeRt 1 Birds identified from DeRt 1 Fish identified from DeRt 1, Unit 18 Fish identified from DeRt 1, Unit 18 Shellfish from DeRt 1 133 Shell fish from Unit 18 level bags 137 Vertebrates from Unit 6 column (8-mm mesh screen) 140 Vertebrates from Unit 6 column (5.6-mm mesh screen) 141 Vertebrates from Unit 6 column (4-mm mesh screen) 142 Vertebrates from Unit 6 column (2-mm mesh screen) 143 Vertebrates from Unit 6 column (I-mm mesh screen) 144 Vertebrates identified from Unit 18, column 1 (6.4-mm mesh) 145

xiii Vertebrates identified from Unit 18, column 1 (2-mm mesh screen) 146

Vertebrates identified from Unit 18, column 1 (1-mm mesh screen) 147

Insectivores, 1agomorphs and rodents 175

Carnivores 184

Canid elements identified from Strait of Georgia Sites 191

Bear elements from Strait of Georgia Sites 195 Ungulates 2 17

Ungul ate elements identified from Strait of Georgia Sites 220

Sea Mammals 235

Diving Birds of the Northwest Coast 257

Dabbling ducks and perching ducks of the Northwest Coast 266

Swans, Geese and Whistling Ducks of the Northwest Coast

Frequencies of Loons, Grebes and Cormorants for Strait of Georgia Sites 274

Frequency of Alcids from Strait of Georgia Sites 2 76

Frequency of Diving Ducks from Strait of Georgia Sites

Frequency of Dabbling Ducks from Strait of Georgia Sites 280

Frequency of Swans and Geese from Strait of Georgia Sites 282

Frequency of Herons and Cranes from Strait of Georgia Sites 284

Frequency of Gulls from Strait of Georgia Sites 286

Falconiformes of the Northwest Coast 289

xiv Owls of the Northwest Coast Frequency of birds of Prey from Strait of Georgia Sites Frequency of Grouse and Ptarmigan in Strait of Georgia Sites Frequency of Flickers and Passerines Fish assemblages from Strait of ~eor~iaSites Fish assemblages from Strait of Georgia Sites (continued) Shellfish from Strait of Georgia sites She1 lfish from Strait of Georiga Sites (continued) List of Figures The Strait of Georgia Southern Strait of Georgia Location of Salish groups Strait of Georgia Site locations Pender Is1 and Pender Canal Units Excavated on DeRt 1 Soil Profile of the 1984 Trench Soil Profile of Unit 18 Cervid elements from DeRt 1 Canid elements Cervid elements Deer el ements from wol f scavenged carcasses Cluster analysis of sites based on the presence and absence of mammalian taxa Relative frequency of mammalian taxa from DeRt 1 Relative frequency of mammalian taxa from all sites Relative frequency of mammalian taxa from all sites (continued) Cluster analysis of sites based on the presence and absence of avian taxa Relative frequency of avian taxa from a1 1 sites Bird elements identified from DeRt 1 and DcRu 2 Cluster anal sysis of sites based on the presence and absence of fish taxa Cluster analysis of sites based on the presence and absence of she1 1f i sh data Chapter 1 The Study of Regional Subsistence

In studies of the Northwest Coast region, many assumptions of social, political and re1 igious life are based on knowledge of ethnographic subsistence patterns and zooarchaeol ogical analyses. Few regional subsistence studies have been conducted in the Northwest Coast area. Results of analysis from individual sites have been used to validate the ethnographic record, and were in turn explained by the same documents. The southern Strait of Georgia is probably the most extensively excavated area of the Northwest Coast, and can potenti a1 ly provide the greatest amount of prehistoric subsistence data (Figure 1.1). The project of understanding late prehistoric subsistence in the Strait of Georgia region was designed to test the following assumptions. First, since the ethnographic record was gathered after significant changes had occurred in population distribution and l ife- ways, the ethnographic record was probably not a true picture of late prehistoric subsistence patterns. Next, since the Gulf region is not a homogeneous environment, a homogeneous subsistence pattern should not be expected across the area. Generalizations about an overall subsistence pattern for the entire region would be misleading: river delta occupations should appear different from island sites, and so on. Finally, since archaeological practices affect what is recovered, as we1 l as what sites are excavated, archaeological excavation and recovery techniques should a1 so affect our perceptions of subsistence. Subsistence practices are not always so obvious that an accurate picture will emerge, regardless of the recovery methods and analysis. To test these assumptions when dealing with the problem of regional subsistence in the Strait of Georgia, faunal data from a number of late prehistoric sites from various environments including the river deltas, bays, island archipelagoes, and sites other bordering the straits were required. Because different techniques were used to excavate and analyze these sites, there is a wide disparity in the levels of information avail able. To determine the effect of the archaeologist on the information, excavation methods used at the sites were examined, including screen size, methods of collection, and use of column samples. New data were a1 so collected from the late prehistoric component at the Pender Canal site (DeRt 1) on Pender Island, and these data were integrated with those from previous faunal reports. To compare the archaeol ogi cal data with ethnographic accounts, ethnographic records specific to the Strait of Georgia were consulted (Barnett 1955, Jenness n.d., Stern 1969, and Suttl es 1974).

Analysis of subsistence in the Strait of Georsia The earliest archaeological reports of the Strait of Georgia contain informati on about fauna recovered from sites. Harlan I. Smith (1907) conducted archaeological surveys and excavations from 1897 to 1899, and many of his descriptions include lists of shell fish and tentative bone identifications. However, little effort was made to develop hypotheses about prehistoric subsistence based on this information. Some of the earliest work in which fauna were analyzed for the express purpose of understanding prehistoric subsistence was associated with the analysis by King (1950) of the 1946 and 1947 excavations at Cattle Point, on San Juan Island. In King's (1950:90-92) study, the fauna recovered were listed and changes in mammalian and molluscan assemblages over time were discussed. Carlson (1954) analyzed collections from San Juan Island archipel ago sites. Fauna from these sites were compared, a1 though because of differences in coll ecting methods only extremely general comparisons could be made. Little additional work has been published for that region since the time of Carlson's (1954) thesis. Kidd (1964, 1969) excavated several other San Juan Island sites, the more useful of which, for the purposes of this study, was the Fossil Bay Site (45 SJ 105b). Kidd (1964, 1969) presented 1 ate prehistoric component faunas and discussed them as they related to ethnographic practices. Mi tchell (1968, 1971) excavated Montague Harbour (DfRu 13) in 1964 and 1965, but faunal samples were not collected from this site for quantitative analysis. Identified remains were presented as species lists for each component of the site, and general discussions were made of changes through time. During the period from the 1940's to the mid-196OYs, the focus of archaeologists was on technology and compari sons with the ethnographic record. Fauna were not collected systematically for quantitative analyses. During this period, if fauna were collected or analyzed the data were usually presented as species lists in appendices. Occasionally all fauna from the site were presented in a single table, rather than being divided by phase or component. Faunal studies were not an important focus during this period of archaeol ogi cal research. In the late 1960's and 197OYs,there was a growing interest in the interaction of environmental and cultural systems (Mitchell and Donald 1988). During this time, faunal studies became a standard practice, and several studies focused on prehistoric subsistence. In 1968 and 1969, Boehm (1973) conducted one of the first thorough quantitative analyses of faunal remains in the Strait of Georgia region. Boehm's (1973) report focused on artifacts and faunal materials from the St. Mungo Cannery site (DgRr 2) on the Fraser River. She noted that small sample size was a major source of error for artifact and faunal assembl ages (Boehm 1973: 73). Immamoto (1974) completed a thesis on fauna from the Glenrose Cannery site excavations of 1972 and 1973. In 1976 the Glenrose Site report was pub1 ished, six chapters of which dealt with subsistence and environmental information obtained from organic remains (Matson 1976). In 1976, Boucher presented her thesis on "Prehistoric subsistence at the Helen Point Site", a Gulf Island site, in which she analyzed fauna collected from the 1968 excavations. Montgomery (1979) also conducted a study on subsistence at Semiahmoo Spit, Washington from data collected during excavations in 1977. After these important studies, faunal reports became an expected part of salvage projects, which were common in the 1970's and early 198OYs, as well as more intensive, long term projects. The number of quantitative faunal analyses in archaeological reports to the Heritage Conservation Branch of British Columbia increased markedly in the late 1970's. Ham's (1982) dissertation examined site development, different subsistence strategies employed at the site, and changes in 1 ocal environment at the Crescent Beach Site (DgRr 1). The excavation methods were designed for optimal recovery of faunal remains. After this, greater attention was paid to collection methods, such as column sampling, influencing the recovery of faunal remains during the 1984 and 1985 excavations at Pender Canal. Work at the British Camp Site on San Juan Island, also focused on the re1 ati onship between coll ecti on techniques and the integration of midden development and subsistence (Stein 1988, Ford 1987, 1988). Regional syntheses of subsistence information have generally been superfici a1 , partly because until recently, detai 1ed information has not been avail able, and partly because historic and ethnographic records were considered adequate descriptions of late prehistoric Coast Sal i sh 1 ife (Boucher 1976, Mi tchell and Donald 1988). Of course, historic Northwest Coast cultures went through many changes in adapting to the devastating and traumatic events resulting from contact with Europeans. They were affected by a rapid influx of settlers, epidemics, resettlement, and environmental changes re1 ated to 1 umbering, commerci a1 fishing, farming, cities, mining, and industry. Ethnographies of Salish subsistence were not written until after these events altered the culture of the indigenous people. If ethnographies are used as a source for analogies without recognizing the difficulties of the assumption of cultural continuity, or acknowledging the many changes caused by historic events, they could distort our understanding of precontact subsistence (Ford 1988, 1989, Tro 1976).

Ethnoqra~hicand ethnohistoric analoqy The strongest analogies are be those derived from descendant communities or cultures related to the group being studied (Wylie 1985:70, Watson in: Gould and Watson 1982:359). The assumption is that parts of the prehistoric culture will be present in the descendant cultures as a result of historical continuity and adaptational similarities. This is the cornerstone of the direct historical approach to archaeology, and has been a major part of archaeological research on the Northwest Coast (Carl son l983a: 28, Willey and Sabloff 1980, Charlton 1981). Despite their apparent strength, these analogies are acceptable only after they have been tested (Watson in: Gould and Watson 1982:359). Prehistoric cultures were not necessarily 1i ke those of their historic descendants. Cultural systems can change rapidly in response to historic events such as culture contact, the introduction of new technology and ideas, disease, and population changes and movement. People may respond differently under the same conditions, so that predicting behavior would be difficult even if all the variables could be known. The concept of uniformitarianism, used to understand natural processes, cannot be easily applied to cultural systems. Watson (in: Gould and Watson 1982:358) noted that archaeologists will continue to have problems applying the principle of uniformitarianism to cultural material "until they possess such a well worked out theory of cultural dynamics that they can establish a principle of generic uniformity for present and past cultural systems. " Independent lines of evidence such as ethnographies, histories, bi 01 ogi cal and archaeol ogi cal data, strengthen and test interpretations and hypotheses of past 1 ifeways (Leone and Pal kovich

1985:427). Ethnographic data alone are not solid evidence for late prehistoric subsistence. It is important to test assumptions of cultural continuity which are often implicit in descriptions of southern Strait of Georgia cultures.

Interassemblase Vari abi 1 i tv Reconstructing subsistence patterns from faunal materi a1 is compl icated by interassembl age vari abi 1 i ty. Paleontologists attribute assembl age variation to taphonomi c processes or biogeography, whi 1 e archaeologists have traditional ly be1 ieved that diverse cultural behaviors explain interassemblage variability. More recently, studies of archaeological methods have shown that sampl ing techniques can a1 so a1 ter assemblage composition. Analytical procedures and methods of data presentation can create additional differences. There are numerous sources of variation at all levels of an object's or site's history which can confound the archaeologists' interpretations of past events (Binford and Bertram 1977, Gilbert and Singer 1982, Maltby 1985).

Non-cultural sources of variation

Animal geographic distribution and population density will affect the species present in a site. Vegetation zones reflect cl imatic variation and herbivorous terrestri a1 animals distribute themselves in a pattern which conforms with plant distributions. Predatory animals, if they are generalists, can exploit prey species found in a number of different habitats so long as their food, shelter and water requirements are met. Catastrophic events such as fires or clearing can also change vegetation patterns, and the distribution of animals dependent on associated plants (Pielou 1979). Migrating birds and mammals move seasonally from one geographic region to another to meet their requirements. Marine fauna are also i nfl uenced by food resources, and physical conditions including water temperature, salinity, current strength, depth, suitable spawning streams, ocean floor matrices, as well as shelter (Albright et a1 . 1980a and 1980b, Carefoot 1977, Ricketts et al. 1985). Sea level changes during the late Holocene might have altered local environments. In general, it appears that sea levels in the Strait of Georgia and the Puget Sound have been slowly rising during the 1 ate Holocene (Eronen & a. 1987). The changing sea 1 eve1 s might submerge some habitats and open others. Sand or mud beach erosion can expose rocky substrates, or remove protective spits from bays, or create wide sandy beaches or bars within a short period of time (Carefoot 1977). Some species, such as edible or blue mussels (Mvtil us edul is) , have a wide to1 erance for different environmental conditions (Seed 1968). Other species might be particularly sensitive to environmental stress. Present animal distributions on the Northwest Coast do not necessarily reflect distributions or abundance before Euro-American settlement . Vegetational patterns have been a1 tered by 1 oggi ng, farming practices and the introduction of non-indigenous plants. Animal communities have been affected by the decreasing diversity of plant communities, and alien animals brought in as domesticated farm animals, pets and pests (A1 bright et a1 . 1980a, Carl and Guiguet 1972). Native animals have been heavily hunted, particularly large herbivores and predators. Marine life has been similarly affected by over-hunting, over-fishing, modification of coastal and riverine environments by construction, draining, sewage and other toxins, and the alteration of local water temperatures. The introduction of foreign species affected shellfish populations and distributions (A1 bright et a1 . 1980a and 1980b, Angel 1 and Bal comb 1982). Cl imat i c changes and current waste disposa1 pract ices continue to alter modern animal distributions. Taphonomy Taphonomy is the study of the shift of animals from living beings to their inclusion in sediments and all the forces which affect their remains during the metamorphosis (Efremov 1940). Taphonomic processes are a source of variability in assemblage composition, and cultural factors can also be a part of these processes (Lyman 1987:97). The effect of carnivores on faunal assemblages has been the subject of intense investigation (Binford and Bertram 1977, Binford 1981, Brain 1981, Haynes 1982, Hill 1976, Kl ipple et a1 . 1987). The most common carnivore associated with human habitations and activities in is the canid. On the Northwest Coast, dog (Cani s fami 1 i ari s) , wolf (Cani s 1 uous) , and coyote (Cani s latrans) are present. Binford and Bertram (1977) noted that all bones given to dogs did not have an equal chance of surviving to burial, and the assemblage proportions collected after carnivore gnawing did not reflect the number of elements before gnawing (Binford and Bertram l977:79). Depending on the conditions, canids can be a highly destructive taphonomic agent, Most investigators have used ungulate remains to determine the effects of canids on bone (Binford 1978, 1981, Binford and Bertram 1977, Haynes 1983, Snyder 1988, Klipple et al. 1987). Less attention has been paid to their effect on small mammals, birds and fish / carcasses. It is generally assumed that smaller animals are more likely to suffer from attrition because the bones are less dense, and being smaller, are easier for the dogs to chew and swallow (Binford 1981, Lyman 1984). Payne and Munson (1985) fed squirrel (Sciurus spp.) and cotton- tai 1 rabbit (Syl vil aqus floridanus) carcasses to two adult Redbone Coonhounds. Few bones were recovered. Most of the bone collected was highly fragmented, and the surfaces were. eroded from digestive acids. If the matrix had not been waterscreened through a fine mesh, the

"number of squirrels would be seriously underestimated on the basis of the recovered bones (14, as compared with 37 originally fed to Ruby), and a zoo-archaeologist dealing with a sample of this kind from an archaeological context might, on the basis of the relative abundance of teeth and phalanges, have wrongly concluded that this was a 'processing' context, and that all the meat-bearing parts had been taken elsewhere" (Payne and Munson l985:33).

When in Peru, Lyon (1970) noticed that medium sized dogs chewed and swallowed fish, small bird and mammal bone. She suggested that the only identifiable remains from the site would be from- medium and large animals. Casteel (1971) pointed out that bone ingestion does not necessarily lead to bone destruction because fish and other small bones can be recovered from feces. There is no question, however, that dogs seriously affect small animal representation (Casteel

Other North American mammals can a1 ter the death assemblage. Bears gnaw on bones, break them, and occasionally remove them from the kill site (Haynes 1982:277, 1983:168-169). Ermines (Mustela erminea), wolverines (Gulo qulo), porcupines, small rodents and ungulates have all been observed removing bone from carcasses, and gnawing or breaking bone (Haynes 1982, Brain 1980, Sutcliff 1973, 1977). Predatory birds such as owls and hawks primarily affect assemblages of the smaller animals (Hoffman 1988, Mayhew 1977, Kusmer 1986, 1990). Trampl ing by humans and animals breaks 1arge or thin bones into small pieces, and can aid in the burial of small bones, increasing the likelihood of their preservation (Gifford 1981:415). The extent of damage depends on weathering, element strength, and trampling frequency. Bones deposited on a path are more subject to damage and dispersal than the same elements lying off the path. Material can be pushed as much as 10 cm or more below the ground surface into earlier strata (Gi fford-Gonzal ez et a1 . 1985). Trampl i ng, therefore, can affect not only the survival of bones, but the strata in which they are recovered and their horizontal distribution. Weathering is "the processes by which the original microscopic organic and inorganic components of a bone are separated from each other and destroyed by physical and chemical agents operating on the bone in situ, either on the surface or within the soil zone" (Behrensmeyer 1978: 153). Weathering rates can be i nfl uenced by sun1 ight, temperature, humidity and sediment pH. Variations in the intensity of these weathering agents can influence the rates of bone weathering among sites, within one site, or even on a single bone. Variation of bone weathering can be caused by bone size, and structural differences associated with animal classes and development (Gifford 1981, Behrensmeyer 1978). The destruction of the collagen or organic portion of a bone will cause it to become chalky and break easily into small fragments. In extreme cases the bone will be reduced to dust and a few fragments (Hare 1980). The organic component of bone, normally 20-25% of the bone weight, is destroyed by the leaching of soluble proteins. Hydroxyapatite [Ca5(P04)30H], the mineral or inorganic component of bone, is less soluble in a1 kal ine environments. Acidic matrices destroy the mineral component of bone by removing PO4 ions, and hydrogen ions replace the calcium in the hydroxyapatite which is leached away (White and Hannus 1983:316). If either the organic or the inorganic portions of a bone are removed or destroyed, bone hardness and strength are diminished (Hare 1980). Since these attributes of bone are important to its survival, the reduction of either component decreases the likelihood that the bone will survive to coll ect i on. As sediment pH decreases, bone destruct ion increases (Gordon and Buikstra 1981, Chaplin 1971). Acidic matrices tend to occur in areas of high rainfall because rain causes calcium and magnesium to be washed from the sediments (Crozier 1981). In calcium rich sediments, including she1 1 middens, the calcium from the sediments replaces protons in the bone mineral, and weathering is slowed (White and Hannus 1983:316). Linse (1988) proposed that highly a1 kal ine conditions may chemically weather bones more rapidly than is expected in sites with high pH matrices. While hydroxyapatite is increasingly soluble at a pH below 6, and decreasi ngly solubl e between 6 and 7.88, it is again increasingly soluble at a pH above this (Linse 1988). Soils in British Columbia have a pH of 4 to 10 (the pH scale ranges from 1 to 14; Crozier 1981:43). T he pH level of middens in southwestern British Columbia, the adjacent is1 ands and the main1 and of Washington have values falling between 6.0 and 9.0; a range generally conducive to bone preservation (Sawbridge 1970, Sawbridge and Be1 1 1972, Nel son

--et al. 1986, Stein 1985, Ham 1982). Organic sediments not associated with midden or lying over midden usually have a pH below 6 indicating that chemical weathering can be a significant component in bone and shell attrition. The chemical weathering of shell causes calcium carbonate to be leached into soil solution, raising pH, and increasing the preservation of organic remains in the sediments (Muckle 1985:45). Weathering of shellfish remains can also affect our perceptions of the contribution of different mollusks to the diet. Thin shells and highly fragmented shells are more prone to destruction than are thicker, 1 arger she1 1 s (Muckl e 1985:47). Fragmentation, and therefore weathering, will be increased where there has been considerable tramp1 i ng activity (Muckl e 1985: 47). Characteristics of the bone itself influence its survival. It is generally believed that bone density affects bone survival in the archaeological record (Binford and Bertram 1977, Binford 1981). Density, as it is used in the archaeological literature, would more properly be called bone composition. Bone composition is the ratio of spongy to compact bone (Shipman 1981:23-25). Lyman (1985:226) found that the bulk density of bone, or the ratio of weight to volume including pore space, is associated with the probability that bone will survive taphonomic forces to collection. Bone density is affected by age, sex and nutritional status of the animal. Western (1980) found bone size was also associated with bone durabil ity, and bones from large animals are more likely to survive than from small animals. Shell density and size also affects survival. Shape also influences fragmentation and subsequent decay (Muckle 1985).

Cul tural sources of vari abi 1 i ty As Yellen (1977) remarked, since most animal remains are on a site because people brought them there, and because these materials have passed through a "cultural filter", they can provide cultural information. Differences in assemblages have traditionally been attributed to variation in cultural groups, site use, season and duration of occupation, mode of site abandonment, and curation. The assumption is that different traditions involving their relation to the environment, ideas about space, and religious obligations to the spirits of the animals, and the proper way animals were to be used, manifest themselves through patterns which can be recovered and interpreted by the archaeologists (Carrillo 1977, Ijzereef 1989). Humans can also create similarities or differences in faunal assemblages which are not necessarily reflections of cultural variation. Dissimilarities between sites may reflect diverse activities by members of the same group and unrelated cultural groups performing the same activities can leave behind similar remains (S.R. Binford 1968, Plew 1988, Binford 1978, Bunn et a1 . 1988). Sources of cul tural variation in faunal assembl ages i ncl ude different butchering patterns, the transport of parts from the butchery site, the use of bone for artifacts, different food processing methods, different food consumption 1ocations, distribution of meat packages, destruction of bone for marrow or grease, general distribution of site activities, and food preferences (Binford 1978, Yellen 1977). A number of ethnoarchaeological studies have demonstrated that these different sources of variation can occur within a single group (Binford 1978, B inford and Bertram 1977, Yellen 1977, Bunn et a1 . 1988). Binford (1978) noted that hunting -gathering people will use the same animals in different ways depending on the season. For example, ethnographic records from the Northwest Coast report that female deer were hunted in the winter when they were fat, but males were hunted in the late spring and summer while they were in peak condition (Suttles 1974, Stern 1969, Barnett 1955). The species sought can also vary depending on the season. Certain animals are either valuable only at restricted times (e.g., fur bearers), or they congregate or become more accessible, a1 1owing more efficient exploitation (e.g., salmon). Migrating animals may also be unavailable at certain times of the year. Some species are exploited more heavily when they are more nutritious, or are used as a buffer against hunger when other resources are not available. Monks (1981:178) wrote, "Environments commonly exhibit spatial and temporal variations, which in turn influence the quantity and quality of potential subsistence resources." As an animal's desirability, concentration or presence varies during the year, regions will be exploited differently depending on the season. Scheduling decisions depend on proximity of the animals, numbers of animals avail able, and other options open to the group. These cr iteria vary by location, and year, causing people to make different decisions depending on the circumstances. The determination of seasonality from a single animal is a reflection only of the season of exploitation for that resource (Monks 1981:223). To identify the season of occupation of a site, it is necessary to consider information from a number of sources including plant and animal biology, ethnographies, analogies, and settlement patterns (Monks 1981 :227). The use of few independent sources of seasonal information are likely to lead to errors in estimating the season of site use or stratum deposition (Monks 1981:230). Seasonality should be determined for natural strata of a site, rather than attempting to establ ish a common seasonality for the site as a whole. "If one uses a whole site component as the unit of analysis, then an averaged seasonality estimate will be forthcoming. The smaller the analytic unit, the more specific will

be the seasonality estimate" (Monks 1981:223). A general seasonality estimate from a complex midden will lead to erroneous conclusions if spatial and temporal differences in occupation and use are not considered. The seasonality estimate of a layer or feature would be more meaningful than for the site as a whole. Variation in the duration of occupation can also create different site assemblages. Binford (1978:483) noted that assemblages accumulated over a long period of time ("coarse-grained assemblages") are accumul at ions associated with 1 ow mobi 1 i ty, and are the product of all the events which occurred during the occupation. "Fi ne-grai ned assembl ages" are accumul ated over a short period of time and are the result of a restricted range of activities. Binford (1978: 483) suggested that the more fine-grai ned the assembl ages, the

greater would be their variation, unless the same sets of events or activities occurred at each of these short-term occupations. Faunal assemblages from several short-term occupations should show greater variation than among long term occupation sites such as village sites. The process of site abandonment is another source of intersite variabil i ty often not considered during analysis. Sites purposefully left may be heavily curated. Useful tools or materials will be carried off if there is no intent to return. However, materials may be cached if the intent was to return. These sites will differ from sites hurriedly left with little or no planning, in which valuable personal goods, stored food, clothing, &. are all left behind (Schiffer 1987).

Archaeological Sources of Variability

"One must be constantly vigilant to avoid mistaking patterns that result from archaeological procedures for patterns of past human behavior" (Schiffer 1987: 339)

The Site As noted earlier, variation among sites is affected by their uses which also creates differences in site distribution and visibility. Small hunting sites are less likely to be recovered or recorded than 1ong term habitation sites. Large habitation sites tend to be located near stable resources. Sites are also more apt to be identified if they are in areas easily accessible to archaeologists, such as shorel ines, roadways, and cleared fields. Surveys which do not include all areas may locate sites of similar use, creating a biased site inventory. Surveys that are restricted to the coast will discover only coastal sites. The amount of variability in any assemblage is also partly the result of the size of the assemblage; therefore, intersi te vari abil i ty increases as more sites are discovered (Schiffer 1987:341). Most sites recorded and excavated in the southern Strait of Georgia are large shell middens along the present shorel ine and are, therefore, readily located and identified. Consequently, most assemblages analyzed probably had similar functions sites and the full range of subsistence activities were not represented.

Recovery Techniques Excavation techniques also have an impact on the variability of site assemblages. For instance, excavation of units in arbitrary levels tends to make sites appear homogeneous. Natural matrices or strata are mixed, and their contents combined in bags, resulting in a 1oss of contextual information. Informati on about site seasonal i ty, cultural events and site formation processes is also blended and the value of the data are reduced when trying to interpret specific subsistence practices. Ideally, a site should be excavated in natural 1ayers to provide the most useful information on subsistence, and few Strait of Georgia sites have been excavated in that way. Excavation of units by shovel tends to create more bone fragments, breakage and trauma of large bone than does excavation by trowel. Bones are also more likely to be broken while dry screening than by wet screening. Watson (1972:221) cautioned that sites excavated differently should not be compared. "two sites with identical faunal assemblages but excavated to different standards wi 11 produce different results, while two sites with different assembl ages may produce the same results. " Watson (1972) attempted to compensate for different excavation methods by analyzing the sizes of unidentified bones in assemblages. Watson also suggested that this technique would provide better estimates of small er species. Unfortunately, figures for unidentified fragment sizes are rarely presented in site reports. Recording methods a1 so affect results . If three-dimensional provenience is recorded for recovered bones, the qua1 i ty of spatial distribution information improves dramatically, and activity or event locations can be discussed. On Northwest Coast sites, faunal remains are plentiful, and layers may consist only of shell and bone. Remains are usually recorded to level or layer. Natural 1 ayers are not necessarily homogeneous because several activities can contribute to the same stratum. Provenience by layer simply combines evidence of the activities associated in the formation of that layer. Bones bagged together by arbitrary 1 eve1 provide even 1 ess i nformat i on because mu1 tiple strata may be merged. Subsistence studies and environmental reconstructions are not credible unless fauna are collected in a systematic fashion. The depiction of subsistence and environment can change, in some cases markedly, depending on the recovery techniques. One method used to make systematic coll ecti ons i s sieving or screening a1 1 sediments through a uniform sized mesh. Payne (1972) sieved sediments which had already been inspected during excavation through a 118-inch (3- mm) wire mesh. Screening the matrices created a noticeable change in the contributions of various animal s to the archaeological assemblage. Small animals increased in importance, and the number of small elements such as phalanges, carpals and tarsals, parti cul arly from small animals, increased. These el ements were miss ing from previous assembl ages not because of butchery techniques or food processing, but because they were not recovered. Payne (1972:61) concluded that without sieving, "smaller animals will tend to be under-represented in re1 ation to 1arger animals, and that small er bones will be more affected than the larger bones." Sieving not only increases the number of items recovered, but also increases the numbers of species represented, the types of.elements recovered and the relative abundance of each (Payne 1972, Ball and Bobrowsky 1987). Ericson (1987:70) observed that wing elements from birds were proportionately more common in unsieved collections than in sieved material. Sieving sediments from Dorestad, in The Netherlands produced an "explosive" increase in the number of fish elements (Clason and Prummel 1977:173). Similar results have been reported by Jones (1982) and Bullock (1990) for the recovery of herring bones in other European sites. Thus, apparent differences in subsistence or taphonomic processes may simply be the result of differences in the screen size used. Recovery methods, therefore, need to be standardized to simplify interassemblage comparisons. To compensate for large screen sizes used during the excavation of their sites, some archaeologists take column samples from units, and later process them through a smaller mesh. Columns can be taken by removing all sediments within a specified area in arbitrary levels, or by natural layers, removing part of the column area, or removing it as a whole using a monolith sampler (Evans 1972, Meighan --et al. 1958). Casteel (1976a) compared col umn-sampl e materi a1 with the un fauna excavated at the Glenrose Cannery site (DgRr 6) in British Columbia. The study showed that the relative frequencies of fish were similar between the unit material and the column samples, but he noted that unit samples contained more large animals than did the col umns (Casteel (l976a: 195). Wigen and El den (1987) were concerned . . with the methods used to integrate information derived from the column samples and that from the rest of the unit. They proposed that column samples, because of their smaller size, may not capture the bones occurring in low density, a1 though columns normally can be screened more finely than the unit sediments (Wigen and Elden 1987:l). Taxa found in the columns but not in the excavation units were the smaller species, or small elements from larger taxa. Small fish occurring at high densities in the two sites were well represented in the column samples, but rare in the 114-inch screens (Wigen and Elden 1987). Kusmer et a1 . (1987) took samples from pit features at Keatley Creek (EeRl 7) near Li 11ooet, British Columbia. Different samples recovered from within the same stratum showed differences in content Kusmer et al. (1987) stated, "To increase reliability and decrease sampling error, a number of samples should be collected from each area and should be compared for internal consistency and an estimate of reliability should be obtained before data between strata and/or pits are compared" (Kusmer et a1 . 1987:6).

Therefore, multiple samples should be taken from layers to compensate for horizontal heterogeneity. Column samples were collected from units at DeRt 1 to determine the extent of bias created by using a 114-inch mesh screen. The results are compared to Casteel's (1976a), and Wigen and Eldenys (1987) studies in Chapter 5.

Analysis and Quantification Faunal analysts must also consider other effects of variation that they may create themselves. These can result from factors such as the fauna chosen for identification, the analyst's level of expertise, the comparati ve coll ecti on used, quantification methods and the way data are presented in reports. The taxonomic level to which a bone is identified also depends on the condition of the bone, the skill of the analyst and the qua1 ity of the comparative collection. The first factor is beyond the zooarchaeol ogist's control . Bone condition is dependent on the bone's physical attributes, and the forces which acted on the bone before and during excavation. The second factor can, of course, be improved by experience and education (Kl ei n and Cruz-Uri be 1984: 18). Analyses by beginning students and experienced zooarchaeologists may yield different results from the same assemblage, even when using the same comparative coll ection. This individual variation cannot be control 1ed during intersi te comparisons unless only sites analyzed by one person are studied, and even then, her or his increasing experience over time can create inconsistencies. Not all analysts identify material in the same manner. Some will not analyze fish, or will look at only fish head bones; others will analyze all fish remains except spines, ribs and fins, and still others will try to analyze every fragment. It is important to know which elements were identified since it can affect rank order. Lyman (1979) suggested that such variation in the level of identification can make intersite comparisons nearly impossible. The comparative collection is an essential part of the analysis, but not a1 1 such collections have complete assemblages of the necessary fauna. An element may be unidentified because the required species was missing from the comparative collection. Some elements may be identified to only a general level, or even to too specific a taxon, because the analyst was not able to study the full range of variabil ity within a taxon. Some analysts will consult several collections, although this is not an option available to everyone. The task of adequately quantifying faunal material and correctly interpreting the results has created much concern among zooarchaeologists, because even at that stage of an analysis, artificial variation can be created. The most simple level of assemblage description is the species list, which is no more than a list of those animals represented in the assemblage. It provides no information about common or rare animals, and little subsistence or cultural informati on. Lyman (1986) noted, however, that taxa 1 i sts can be used to indicate avai 1abl e resources, environment , cl imat i c changes and major changes in subsistence practices. The most common quantification method is the tally of identified elements or fragments called the "Number of Identified Specimens" (NISP). The advantage of NISP is its ability to be calculated during assemblage analysis. As more bones are recovered in following years, or later seasons, the new information can simply be added to the old. However, there are some problems with NISP:

"(1) the unit is affected by butchering patterns; (2) numbers of identified specimens vary from species to species; (3) usage assumes that all specimens are equally affected by chance or deliberate breakage; (4) the unit may be affected by differential preservation; (5) the unit may be affected by collection techniques; (6) entire skeletons may skew abundances based on this measure; (7) the unit may differentially exaggerate sample sizes across taxa; (8) the unit supports fewer analytic procedures than does the unit based on the minimum number of individuals; (9) meat weights are of greater importance in getting at past economies; (10) probl ems rai sed by el ement interdependence invalidate further statistical manipulation; and (11) because of such problems, the unit does not allow valid intersite comparisons" (Grayson 1979:201).

Grayson (1979, 1984) felt that these criticisms are not reason enough to dismiss NISP as a quantification method. He suggested that many of the problems of intersite comparisons might be solved if the field methods were standardized. Specimen interdependence is one of the greatest problems when using NISP. Certain fragments may have come from the same element, and some elements from the same animal. It is difficult to determine which bones have been contributed by a single animal and which are truly independent. A complete skeleton can create a serious over-representation of the relative abundance of a species in an assemblage. Because of the problems of interdependence, and in order to determine the amount of meat each animal contributed to the diet, many researchers began quantifying archaeological fauna using "Minimum Numbers of Individuals" (MNI) or the minimum number of animals that could have contributed to the assemblage. This is probably not the actual number of animals which contributed to the archaeological assemblage and it is even less 1i kely that it is the number of animals brought to the site or used by the inhabitants of the site (Allen and Guy 1984:41). Investigators compute MNI in a number of ways, and each method can provide different MNI counts, making it difficult to compare results among investigators unless the raw data and methods used are also provided. MNI also varies with the way the analyst groups or divides the assemblage. "If all the faunal material from the site is to be treated as a single large aggregate, the most abundant element will be defined once per taxon for that collection. As the collection is'divided into smaller and smaller aggregates of faunal mater a1 - for instance, by subdividing the collection according to the strata or vertical excavation units from which it came - the number of separate s~ecificationsof most abundant elements will increase. Thus, dividing a faunal collection i nto a smaller number of larger faunal aggregates will 1ead to the definition of small er absolute minimum number values then (sic)will dividing the same collection into a larger number of smaller aggregates" (Grayson 1984:Zg). If each pit or each stratum were quantified separately the MNI would be higher than if the site was quantified as a whole. Grayson (1978:59) also observed that the size of the sample or assemblage can affect the MNI calculations for each species. He noted that the MNI value was inflated or exaggerated in small assembl ages when compared to 1arge assembl ages. Dividing samples in a site into increasingly smaller assemblages raises the MNI relative to the number of elements represented. Despite this variation related to sample size, "For any qiven fauna, MNI values can normal 1v be tiqhtl y predicted from NISP counts ..." (Grayson 1984:67, emphasis Grayson's). Grayson (1978, 1984) suggested that MNI might provide ordinal scale data about the relative abundance of fauna on a site. Rank orders are not seriously affected by aggregation, nor by the different methods used to determine MNI, and NISP figures can also be rank ordered. Taxa at the higher end of the ranked distribution were most likely those of greater economic importance, while rare species were probably not economically important. "Taxa at the lower end of the distribution are so poorly represented that it is questionable whether they should be treated in anything other than a nominal, presencelabsence sense" (Grayson 1984:98). Those species poorly represented probably do not accurately reflect rank order abundances (Grayson 1984:99). MNI and NISP will provide the same taxa rank order when the taxa abundances are widely separated. NISP and MNI rank orders can be very different however, if there is a great deal of specimen interdependence

(Grayson 1984). The quality of available analyses makes comparative studies

difficult. Maltby (1985:35) noticed that, "It is impossible to make use of many published faunal reports for comparative purposes because there is no indication of the methods of analysis used. Detai 1 s of sample preservation, skel eta1 composition, fragmentation, butchery, and ageing evidence may be required to analyze specific causes of variability, but this information is rarely pub1 ished in detail."

As observed above, the method of collecting, analyzing and quantifying bones can create differences in the results presented. If these methods are not reported, one cannot determine whether the primary source of variation originates with the archaeol ogist/analyst or has its origins in the archaeological deposits.

Driver (1982) stated that zooarchaeological reports should minimal ly include information on sampl ing techniques, and on the criteria used to make identifications of difficult elements such as shaft fragments, rib fragments, and species which are difficult to separate. All reports should contain a tabulation of basic data such as taxon, el ement, element portion, fusion, provenience, measurements and modifications. Grigson (1978) suggested that site data incl uding cultural affi 1i ation and age, pH of sediments, recording methods, and the storage 1 ocation of the bones should a1 1 be a part of any report. All of these data are rarely provided, although they are important while making intersite comparisons. The quality of data presented varies considerably, making interpretations difficult.

Pur~ose Clearly, there are many problems associated with the use of faunal remains for regional prehistoric subsistence studies. The primary aims of this study are to investigate subsistence practices in the southern Strait of Georgia during the late prehistoric horizon (1500 BP to contact), and to understand the role of archaeologists in shaping the image of prehistory. These objectives are broken down into a series of smaller goals. A portion of one site, the Canal

Site on Pender Island (DeRt l), British Columbia was excavated by stratigraphic layers to examine fauna associated by stratum. Fauna from column samples of this unit were compared with fauna collected during the excavation to determine the effect of screen size on the interpretations of subsistence data at DeRt 1. Subsistence information from Pender Is1 and was then integrated with faunal reports from other late prehistoric sites of southwestern British Columbia and northwestern Washington to examine 1 ate prehistoric subsistence at the regional level. The relationship of sampl ing methods with patterns of subsistence in the Strait of Georgia region was also examined. Finally, based on the assumption that the popul at i on movements, epidemics, changes in economic strategies, and ideology associated with European contact changed native subsistence activities, the archaeological record of subsistence was compared to ethnographic and ethnohistoric records and discrepancies between the two sources of information discussed. Chapter 2

The Southern Strait of Georgia

The southern Strait of Georgia is part of a large basin called the Georgia Depression altered by a series of glaciers; the last glacier, the Vashon stadial, reached its peak about 14,500 years BP

(Hicock and Armstrong 1985, Easterbrook 1976). This depression is surrounded on three sides by mountain ranges, the Vancouver Island

Ranges, forming the backbone of Vancouver Is1and, the Cascade and Coast Ranges on the mainland, and the on the Olympic Peninsula of Washington. Extending westward between the

Olympic Peninsula and Vancouver Island to the Pacific Ocean is the

Strait of Juan de Fuca. Puget Sound branches to the South between the Olympic Peninsula and the mainland, while the Strait of Georgia, a1 so called the Gulf of Georgia, continues northward between

Vancouver Island and the main1 and through a myriad of is1ands before reaching Johnstone Strait (Figure 2.1).

The boundaries used to define the region under investigation are those used by Mitchell (1971) to identify his southern "Gulf of

Georgia" cultural subarea. This corresponds to the "Fraser River salmon run" portion of the Gulf Islands biotic area, the location used historically by the river mouth and straits reef-net fishing people, and the "Fraser River Delta" and "Southern Gulf Archipelago" archaeological areas (Mi tchell 1971: 44). This region encompasses a1 1 Figure 2.1: Southern Strait of Georgia. of the archipel ago of the Gulf and San Juan Is1 ands, the Fraser River Delta, the northwestern main1 and of Washington, and the southeast coast of Vancouver Island (Figure 2.1). Mitchell (1971:18) noted that the Gulf of Georgia subarea, as he defined it, differs from surrounding areas in cl imate, bi 01 ogy, and cul ture.

Cl imate Current climates in the are mild, with high precipitation usually in the form of rain. The Gulf and San Juan Islands 1ie in a rainshadow created by the Vancouver Island Ranges and Olympic Mountains (Phil1 ips 1974). These mountain ranges a1 so serve to protect the archipelago from winter storms (Phillips 1974:937). Climatological maps show a mean annual precipitation for the San Juan Islands and the mainland near Peninsula of 18-30 inches (.46-.76 m), while the mainland averages 32-35 inches (.81-.88 m) annually (Phillips 1974:937, Scott and DeLorne 1988). Most of the rain occurs in December and January, during which rain or snow will fall 20-25 days each month. Snowfall is rarely more than 6-15 inches (.15-.38 m) deep and melts quickly. The mean temperature in January i s approximately 35 degrees Fahrenheit (1.7 degrees Cel si us), and in July is 60-65 degrees Fahrenheit (15.5 to 18.3 degrees Celsius; Phi 11 ips 1974, Scott and DeLorne 1988). During the period between 1850 and 1869, mean annual precipitation on the Northwest Coast was 10-20 percent higher in the fall through spring, and 20-30 percent higher in the fall than at present (1931-1960; Bryson and Hare 1974:44-45). Mean temperatures were 0-2 degrees Fahrenheit lower during this period (Bryson and Hare 1974: 42-43). Graumlich and Brubaker (1986) reconstructed climatic fl uctuations for Western Washington during the period between 1590- 1979 using tree rings. They concluded that the mean temperature increased after 1900, signaling the end of the Little Ice Age (Graumlich and Brubaker 1986:230). During the period from 1590 to 1913, the mean temperature was 6.3 degrees Celsius (36.5 degrees Fahrenheit), while the temperatures during 1914 to 1979 averaged 7.2 degrees Celsius (37.4 degrees Fahrenheit). A period of warmth similar to modern temperatures occurred in 1650-1690 (Graumlich and Brubaker 1986:230). Cool periods exi sted between 1600-1650, 1700-1760 and 1860-1900. Based on their tree ring data, Graumlich and Brubaker (1986:232) believed that the 1700-1760 interval was a "prolonged period of very cool temperatures." The summers between 1840 and 1900 were warm with thick winter snow accumulations at higher elevations. Historic records show winter precipitation in 1850-1860 was 10 percent higher than at present (Grauml ich and Brubaker 1986:232-233). Bryson and Hare (1974:46) suggested that "the 'normal periody of 1931-1969 was the most abnormal thirty-year period in the last thousand years." Therefore, present climatological information may not be an accurate representation of conditions during the Developed Coast Sal i sh horizon . Variations in temperature, rainfall, and snow accumulations may affect seasonal migration patterns of animals, breeding times, times when animals will congregate or have the greatest fat deposits. Because climatic conditions affect the animals being exploited, the behavior of the people exploiting the animals, and the interpretations of the zooarchaeologist can also be affected. This information on climate may also affect the deta gathered by the ethnographers since historic people would also be affected by these changes.

Bi oqeoqraphy The waters of the Strait of Georgia provide numerous habitats which influence the distributions of fish and invertebrates in the region. The fresh water from the Fraser River and smaller rivers pouring into the strait dilutes ocean waters, and provides waters rich in nutrients and debris on which fish and microorganisms feed and in turn become food for higher level predators (Hart 1980). Invertebrates a1 ong the shore1 i ne are affected by sal i ni ty, wave action, shore matrix or substratum, exposure, temperature and tidal fluctuations (Ricketts et al. 1985). Animals able to prevent dehydration, such as barnacles, snail s, mussels and 1impets, can 1ive in higher zones than soft bodied animals such as sea cucumbers and sea anemones. Animals that can withstand desiccation are also more likely to tolerate extreme temperature fluctuations associated with exposure. Even reduced sal ini ty caused by rainfall during low tides can be harmful to intertidal fauna (Ricketts et al. 1985). The intensity of these forces is influenced by the duration of exposure. As a result, zones of species distribution occur on the beach (Ricketts et a1 . 1985). Acorn barnacles (Bal anus ql andul a), small snails such as Littorina spp. and some 1impet species are found at the upper tide line on rocky shores. As the tide falls, hermit crabs, shore crabs, mussels, and other species of limpets and snails appear. Anemones, chitons, and large barnacles are found in the middle intertidal zone. Abalone, urchins, a variety of large crabs, sea stars, snails, the 1arge gumboot chi ton (Crwtochi ton stel 1eri ) , scallops, octopus, clams and small fish in tidal pools are found in the low intertidal zone (Ricketts et al. 1985). As was discussed in Chapter 1, rising sea levels in the region might also affect local shellfish species abundance. Fish distributions are a1 so affected by environmental conditions. Moulton (1977) studied the ecology of four fish species 1iving along the rocky shores of the San Juan Islands and observed that there were seasonal fluctuations in species abundance. The fish were less numerous in the fall and winter than during the rest of the year, possibly because they were less active, and therefore less noticeable, or because they moved into deeper waters. Fish abundance and distribution can vary seasonally with temperature and 1ight, food supply variation associated with the changing photoperiod, and spawning cycles (Moul ton 1977). Moul ton (1977) also noticed a stratification in the distribution of fish living along rocky shores. This distribution was related to floor relief and current patterns. Other fish are more suited to living along sandy floors or swimming in open waters. Sea mammals in the southern Strait of Georgia can be found in most parts of the region. They are attracted by schooling fish and invertebrates such as shrimp, and may closely follow the seasonal migrations of these animals. Seals and sea 1 ions may also be found near areas which offer protection and suitable space for rookeries and haul out sites (Angel 1 and Bal comb 1982). Just as water, daylight, temperature, salinity and floor matrix affect the distributions of animals in the sea, so do temperature, rainfall and sunlight affect the distributions of plants and animals on land. Biotic areas are identified on the basis of plant, mammal and bird distributions (Cowan and Guiguet 1978). The Puget Lowlands biotic area covers the Fraser River Delta as far north as the Burrard Inlet and the lowlands south into Washington (Cowan and Guiguet l978:U). The region typically has cool summers, mild winters and relatively heavy rainfall. The Strait of Georgia is in the western- hem1 ock zone with cl imax forests consisting of cedars, spruce, hemlock, cypress, and firs. Deciduous trees of the area are red alder, western birch, broad1 eafed mapl e, vine mapl e, dogwood, cascara and black cottonwood (Cowan and Guiguet 1978, Scott and De Lorne 1988). The Gulf Is1 ands Biotic area encompasses the Gulf and San Juan Islands and the southeast coast of Vancouver Island (Cowan and Guiguet 1978: 26). In contrast to the Puget Sound Low1 ands, the Gulf Islands have a more Mediterranean climate being warmer and drier. There are no mammals restricted to just this biotic area. Climax forest trees are generally the Garry oak (Quercus sarrvana) and Madrona (Arbutus menziesii), although in some places coniferous trees predominate (Cowan and Gui guet 1978: 26-27). Carnivores such as canids, cougars, eagles, killer whales and seals exploit a number of different habitats. Their distribution in a region is limited primarily by the availability of prey and shelter. Seals, for example, can follow anadromous fish from the ocean, up rivers to inland lakes. Mammals common in these biotic areas are deer, wapiti, bear, raccoon, mink, marten, river otters and bear. The most common birds are the waterfowl. Environments tend to accommodate communities of interdependent animals. For example, mud and sand beaches of the Gulf and Puget Sound attract and support herring, crabs, flatfish, sturgeon, diving and dabbling ducks and geese, grebes, loons, gulls, seals, killer whales, and small shore birds such as sandpipers. Bivalves include cock1 es, and soft-she1 1ed cl ams. Shore predators incl ude raccoons, bears, canids, mustelids and humans. The exploitation of these communities can be demonstrated by the presence of these interdependent species in archaeological sites. Prehistorv The earl iest identified prehistoric period for the south coast is the Old Cordilleran or Late Pebble Tool tradition dated between 5,500 and 9,000 BP (Fladmark 1982:107, Carlson l983b). Old Cordill eran components of southwestern British Col umbi a are "...characterized by leaf-shaped and occasionally contracting stem bifaces and points; a flake tool and core industry, i ncl uding 1arge bl ade-1 i ke flakes and a variety of retouched forms; cortical spalls and rare abrasive stones. Negative traits include the apparent absence of a definite microblade industry, any significant pecked or ground stone, and stone sculpture" (Fl admark 1982: 107).

Abraded soft stone and slate artifacts are rarely found (Fladmark 1982:107). The most typical artifacts of the tradition are unifacial pebble-tool s and leaf-shaped bifaces (Carlson l983b: 18). Early components of southern British Columbia have "pebble tools, fol iate bifaces and various casually flaked stone tools" (Carl son l983b: 18). Mitchell (1971:60) stressed that more faunal and site distribution information was needed to reconstruct fully subsistence during this early phase. Early sources (e.g. Bryan 1957, Borden 1975, King 1950) indicated that there was a greater dependence on land resources than sea foods, with which Mitchell (1971) tentatively agreed. Two sites containing faunal remains from this period have since been excavated, the Glenrose cannery site and Bear Cove on the northeastern tip of Vancouver Island, west of Port Hardy (Fladmark 1982:107). Component I11 of the Glenrose site on the Fraser River Delta contains almost no shell, but elk, deer, canids, beaver, mink, rodent and seal are present (Immamoto 1974). Fish in the Old Cordi 11eran component were sticklebacks, eul achon, salmon, herring and flatfi sh (Casteel 19766). At Bear Cove the primary mammal s were delphinids (80%), though seals, sea lions, otters and some land mammals were also present. Rockfish were the dominant fish (72%), followed distantly by salmonids (10%) and other fish species. Birds include loons, gull s and murres. This faunal assemblage indicates an early marine adaptation (C. Carlson 1979:188-189). However, the scarcity of early sites and associated fauna generalizations about early subsistence practices difficult (Fladmark 1982). Fl admark (1982) defined the Developmental Stage as that period between 5,500 BP and contact, encompassing phases during which large shell middens developed. The Charles or Mayne phase of the Gulf of Georgia dates from 5,500 to 3,500 BP. The oldest ground stone tools appear during this phase. Microbl ades, harpoons, bone points, awls, pendants, 1abrets, wedges, adzes and artwork are a1 so found in these sites (Fl admark 1982). Fauna, including she1 1fish, are more common in these sites than during the Late Pebble Tool tradition. Following the Mayne or Charles Phase is the Locarno Beach Phase (3,500 to 2,500 BP). Associated with this phase are ground stone tools, 1abrets, earspool s and other personal ornaments, net sinkers, and stone wedges (Fl admark 1982). Mi tchell (1971 :57-58) suggested that more work needed to be conducted to determine the extent of subsistence variability. Stiefel's (1985) analysis of three mainland Locarno Phase sites indicated that land mammals, especially deer and el k, were economically more important than sea mammal s. Waterfowl were also common. Salmon were the primary fish recovered, although deep water fish were also present (Stiefel 1985:153-154). Locarno Phase site distributions, Mitchell (1971:57) observed, "do not, at the present, suggest that the populations had direct access to the Fraser River salmon runs in the river itself, a1 though some sites are located along the salt-water approaches from the south." The Marpole Phase (2,500 - 1,500 BP) is typified by flaked stone triangular stemmed projectile points, the occasional large biface with serrated edges, ground slate points, adzes, chisels, artwork of bone and antler, labrets, earspools, native copper, and skull deformation (Burley 1980, Carlson 1983b:28-29, Mitchell 1971). Hand mauls were introduced during this phase and seated human figure bowls appear (Burley 1980, Fladmark 1982). Burley (1980) reported that faunal materials from four Marpole Phase sites indicate that the kinds of animals exploited are the same as those of the historic period, a1 though shellfish use might have been less extensive before AD 1 (Burley 1980). "As a result, we may conclude that, at least in types of resources being procured, Marpol e peopl es differed 1i ttle from their historic counterparts" (Burley 1980: 55). Burl ey (1980:56) uses ethnographic information, particularly that for salmon fishing, to interpret Marpole Phase subsistence practices and economy, arguing that salmon was a major component of resource scheduling. Mitchell (1971:52) inferred that salmon may have been a more important part of Marpole economy than in the later phase, based on the apparent distribution of Marpole phase sites. Unfreed (1989) stated that, based on her analysis of Point Grey (DhRt 5) Marpole components, there was no re1 iance on a single resource such as salmon. Rather, the peopl e expl oi ted a parti cul ar environmental zone, in this case the tidal flats, which provided a number of associated fauna. Her work indicates that the Northwest Coast subsistence cycle may be more complex than the "Sal ish as salmon fishers" model provided by the ethnographic record. The succeeding culture is the Developed Coast Salish horizon (approximately 1500 BP to contact), which is composed of several local variants including the San Juan Phase, the Gulf of Georgia culture type, and the Stselax Phase (Carlson 1960, Mitchell 1971, Fladmark 1982). This is the horizon on which this study focuses. It is generally assumed that the Developed Coast Sal ish horizon evolved from the Marpole culture (Fl admark 1982, Burley 1980, Mitchell 1971). Investigators have noted a decrease in the diversity of the artifacts recovered. Most stone tools are ground, and the most common artifact are bone barbs used to outfit fishing hooks, herring rakes, etc. Missing are the pecked stone figures typical of the Marpole Phase. "Throughout all sites the emphasis (with the exception of antler for wedges) is on bone for the manufacture of artifacts: unilaterally barbed points for arrows and duck spears; small pointed bone barbs for use on composite fish hooks; awls of various sorts; blanket pins; and bird bone tubes. Small, composite socketed, harpoon heads for salmon and 1arger ones for sea mammals are common as we1 1. Fl anged spool -shaped hand maul s, small tri angul ar slate points, thin ground slate points, thin ground 1ate knives and sawn and polished nephrite adze blades are the typical stone artifacts of the period" (Carl son 1983b: 18).

No longer found in Developed Coast Sal ish components are the elaborately decorated stone bowls, and chipped stone points are rare when compared with previous phases (Carlson 1983b318). Fortification sites appear during this late prehistoric phgse (Fladmark 1982). The ethnographic record is used almost as a cultural overlay for the prehistoric data on the Northwest Coast (Carlson 1960, 1983b, Ham 1982, Mitchell 1971). Ham (1982:93) stated that the Developed Coast Sal ish is "synonymous" with the ethnographic accounts. Mi tchell (1971:48) echoed this sentiment when he wrote, "The cultural reconstruction is based primarily on ethnographic information as it is felt (a1 though admittedly not demonstrated) Gul f of Georgia culture and Coast Salish culture are essentially the same." Subsistence models of the Developed Coast Salish are based on the same data.

Ethnosraphv The people living historically in the southern Straits of Georgia were Sal ish speaking people, divided into the Hal komelem and the Straits Sal i sh (Suttl es 1974). Hal komelem people occupied the area from Nanaimo to the Saanich Inlet on the east coast of Vancouver Island, Gabriola, Valdes, Thetis, Kuper, part of Gal iano and part of Sal tspring Islands, and the mainland from Point Grey to Boundary Bay and Crescent Beach on the Fraser River Delta (Figure 2.2). Groups Figure 2.2: ~ocationof Salish groups. identified as Hal komelem Sal ish speakers include the Malahat, Cowi chan, Penel ekuts, Musqueam and Tsawwassen (Suttl es 1974: 6). Straits Salish people include the Sooke, Songish, Saanich, Lummi, , and Semiahmoo. They occupied the southeastern tip of Vancouver, the southern Gulf Islands, the San Juan Islands and the mainland from Semiahmoo Spit near the current international boundary, south to Bellingham Bay (Suttles 1974:6). Straits Salish people are distinguished from the Salish on the basis of language and the Straits Salish "greater adaptation to life on salt-water channels than that of their Salish neighbors, with an emphasis upon reef- netting for sockeye salmon in the channels" (Suttles 1974:6). Ethnographies of the Salish of the Gulf of Georgia invariably focus on the importance of salmon to the subsistence economy (Hill-Tout 1907, Drucker 1955). Fishes were caught using nets, hooks, lures, rakes, spears, or were captured by hand, and herring roe was gathered from the eel grass. She1 1fish were readily avail able on the shores. Bivalves shellfish, gastropods, barnacles, octopus, sea cucumbers, sea urchins and crabs were gathered by searching the shore at low tides, or digging into the rocks and sand with a stick. Birds were taken using nets above ground and under water, bows and arrows, spears and underwater snares (Curtis 1970, Suttles 1974, Stern 1969). Deer, one of the most common of the large land mammals, were taken in nets, pits, drives, with bows and arrows, snares and run onto stakes set in deer trails (Suttles 1974, Curtis 1970, Barnett 1955, Stern 1969). Land mammals were particularly valuable, providing not only food but furs for robes, shirts, moccasins, to be woven into the fabric of cloaks, and bone and antler for manufacturing tools and artwork. Seals and porpoises were hunted with harpoons, and seals were also entangled in nets near their haulout rocks or at the mouths of rivers (Curtis 1970, Suttles 1974). Fladmark (1975:50) listed the following resources in the order of their relative importance to Coast Sal ish subsistence based on information from Barnett (1955). He recognized the order might be influenced by ethnographic bias. 1. Salmon (5 sp.) 2. Shellfish 3. Herring 4. Halibut 5. Trout 6. Eulachon 7. "Other fish" 8. Bear 9. Deer 10. Wapiti 11. Small 1and-mammal s 12. Sea-mammal s 13. Water fowl (Fl admark 1975: 50)

4 Ethnographic accounts of Salish subsistence in the Gulf of Georgia will be discussed more fully in succeeding chapters. A number of different plants in the region were collected for manufacturing mats, baskets, bowls, clothing, housing and food. Plants were an important supplement to the primarily meat based diet (Turner and Bell 1971:90). Camas was the most important of the bulb plants. It was traded to other coastal people 1iving where it was not so common as it was on the islands of southern Georgia Strait and southeastern Vancouver Island (Turner 1975:79). Other bulbs were collected from clover, ferns, a wild carrot, and 1il ies (Turner 1975, Suttles 1974:58-59). There were numerous berries available, i ncl uding bl ackberries, bl ackcaps, salmonberri es, sal a1 berries, and elder berries, which were eaten fresh or dried (Curtis 1970, Turner 1975, Suttles 1974:63). Many young shoots and growth were eaten, including nett1 es, ferns, cattai 1s, and salmonberry stal ks (Turner 1975, Turner and Be1 1 1971, Suttl es 1974). Sea weeds were a1 so collected for food and materi a1 s (Turner 1975). Plants were eaten raw, steamed, boiled and dried, and served with meals of fish and meat (Turner and Bell 1971). Permanent houses inhabited by Coast Sal i sh people during historic times were described as large multifamily dwellings with a a 0 sing1 e pitched roof (Suttl es 1974). Inside the house were platforms used as beds and for storage (Drucker 1955:70, Suttles 1974:258). Families were separated from one another by mats or planks at the periphery of the house, and the central floor was left open (Suttles 1974). These houses would be dismantled, and temporary habitations built from the planks at seasonal camps. The frame on which these planks had been attached were left behind at the winter village. Vancouver visited a village at Point Roberts that was probably left in this way (Menzies in:Newcombe 1923:60):

"Here they landed to dine near a large deserted Village capable of containing at least 4 or 500 Inhabitants, tho it was now in perfect ruins - nothing but the skeletons of the houses remaind, these however were sufficient to shew their general form structure & position, Each house appeard distinct & capacious of the form of an oblong square, & they were arrangd in three separate rows of considerable length; the Beams consisted of huge long pieces of Timber placed in Notches on the top of supporters 14 feet from the ground, but by what mechanical power the Natives had raisd these bulky beams to that height they could not conjecture. Three supporters stood at each end for the longitudinal beams, & an equal number were arranged on each side for the support of smaller cross beams in each house." Newcombe (in: Jenness n.d.:26-27) noted that.the variability in Coast Salish house structure was influenced by geographic features. The # interior of the structure was in turn influenced by the size of the house. Temporary she1 ters were also examined by the early explorers. At Restoration Point in the Puget Sound, Menzies (in: Newcornbe 1923:42) visited families living in small dwellings described as huts

or sheds "formed of slender Rafters & covered with Mats." Four or five families were met on Orcas Island living in

"a few temporary huts formd in the slightest & most care1 ess manner by fastening together some rough sticks & throwing over them some pieces of Mats of Bark of Trees so partially as to form but a very indifferent shelter from the inclemency of the weather" (Menzies in: Newcombe 1923: 58). Two huts were also noticed at Jervis Inlet (Menzies in: Newcornbe 1923: 58). Temporary mat houses bui 1t at camps are a1 so recorded in 70). f ethnographic descriptions (Drucker 1955: On the coastal mainland, Coast Salish were reported to have used sweat lodges and i semisubterranean houses more typical of interior and northern groups k i F (Drucker 1955: 72). Descriptions of social organization for Coast Salish people are similar to those for other north Pacific American groups. Coast Salish society may have had three primary divisions. There was a weal thy class possessing titles, houses and the resources to present potlatches. The "middle class" people were not able to afford titles and were free people or freed slaves. They may have come from other villages and therefore did not have the privileges of local families. Slaves had no privileges, no titles, and were owned, traded and sold by members of the upper class. Slaves did most of the unpleasant or tedious work, such as getting water, haul ing wood, and 1ater, farming and prostitution (Suttles 1974:305). Villages appear to have been loosely organized in the Coast Salish region (Curtis 1970, Drucker 1955, Jenness n.d.). Curtis (1970:67) and Drucker (1955) noted that the extended family was the unit of affiliation. Alliances with other families, ownership of resources, legends, and songs were passed down through the extended family. The enemy of one household might be the ally of the next. This 1ack of unity occurred among villages as well as among households (Curtis 1970: 67). "Faced with a common danger, as from war parties of Comox or Kwakiutl Indians, all the households in a village united in self defense; and they coll aborated at certain feasts and ceremonies; but as soon as the emergency or special occasion passed they immediate1 (sic)dissolved this temporary union and lapsed into their customary independence" (Jenness n.d.: 37). i People might assume the role of leaders if they organized a potlatch, or a warrior might become a temporary leader during a battle, B however, the union and leadership role would end when cooperation was no 1onger required (Suttl es 1974: 277). Tri bal names, therefore, may be a recent development used to describe where people had lived, rather than representing a cohesiveness usually associated with the term tribe (Suttles l974:287). Tribal affiliation was more 1i kely a tool for European and American administrators than a social real ity. This loose organization extended into the family structure. There were no moieties, clans or lineages, nor were there strict rules to determine the family association of offspring. Rights and privileges could be inherited through the mother's or father's family (Drucker 1955:lZl). Alliances between households and villages were formed primarily through ties of marriage (Suttles 1974:289). Religious practices will be discussed in later chapters only as they relate to animals being exploited or avoided, or if religious beliefs affect the way the faunal remains were disposed.

Hi story There has been speculation that the earliest contacts with Northwest Coast people were by Chinese and Japanese people based on early Asian coins reported in the ethnographic record and recovered from archaeoqogical sites. McCormick (1984) suggested that the coins came from Chinese crew members on 18th century European ships, or later when workers from Asia settled on the Northwest Coast. The first recorded exploration of the southern Strait of Georgia was in July 1790 by the crew of the Spanish ship Princess Real, under the pilot Manuel Quimper. Quimper explored the area around present day Victoria and the southern shore of the . A1 though he saw channels leading northward and eastward he did not explore them (Pethick 1980). During their explorations, they traded furs with the Indian people, but the primary purpose was exploration. They observed, however, that sea otters were-rare within the straits (Cook 1973). Quimper and the crew noticed that the Indian people wore earrings made from English, Portuguese and Chinese coins (Pethick 1980:29). In June of the following year, Juan Pantoja y Arriaga took the ship Santa Saturna to explore and map the San Juan and Gulf Islands. In 1792 the Spanish heard that Captain was in the Gulf, and another expedition was quickly sent to Rosario Strait to establish firmly their claim to the region (Pethick 1980). The Spanish crew encountered Captain Vancouver's officers near Point Roberts and the Fraser River Delta. The following week, the leaders of the two expeditions met near Point Grey (Pethick 1980). During Vancouver's explorations of the Gulf of Georgia, he and the crew interacted with the inhabitants. While in the Puget Sound, they observed families drying and smoking clams, and they traded for salmon, flatfish and furs (noting that there were no sea otter skins). The inhabitants wore iron Chinese coins, and some of the individual s were pock-marked, indicating that a1 though these groups may not have had direct contact with explorers and traders, their influence had been felt. Farther up the coast in the Gulf of Georgia, Vancouverys crew traded for sturgeon, eul achon, ha1 i but, and clams (Menzies in: Newcombe 1923). In Burrard Inlet, it was noted that the inhabitants had no European goods (Vancouver in: Meany 1942). Simon Fraser, an explorer with the Northwest Company, entered the Gulf region in 1808 from the mainland by.descending the river that now bears his name (Duff 1969). The Hudson's Bay Company merged with the Northwest Company and in 1827 established a post at . They moved their main post from the Columbia River to Fort Victoria on the southern tip of Vancouver Island in 1843, Settlers had been moving into the Oregon Territory since 1832, and on the British side of the border after 1849 (Bancroft 1887, Duff 1969). A number of events which severely affected the indigenous people of the Gulf, occurred in the 185OYs, and resulted in the a rapid influx of settlers. Coal was discovered in Bellingham Bay, and Vancouver Island in 1852-1853. In 1858, there was a gold rush to the Fraser River and the vast majority of the 30,000 prospectors entered British Columbia through Victoria. All but 3,000 of these speculators had 1eft by the foll owing January (Bancroft 1887:358). Meanwhi 1e, the Sal i s h popul ati on was decreasing as dramatically. A smallpox epidemic had eliminated a large part of the Saanich popul ation by 1780 (Jenness n.d. :48). After the population had already been severely reduced by disease, the estimated population in British Columbia of Coast Sal ish people in 1835 was 12,000 (Duff 1969:39, Norton 1985:34, Suttl es 1974:358, 1977: 1-2). Within the next 50 years, the population fell to 5,525, partly because plagues spread through the Northwest Coast, particularly the smallpox epidemic of the 1860's. After a low population of 4,120 in 1915, the British Columbia Coast Sal ish population increased rapidly (Duff 1969:44). Because of these epidemics and associated decimation, villages were abandoned, and the remaining people moved to forts and a few large settlements. This in turn made Indian people more readily avai 1able as 1aborers in various European economi c enterprises such as fur trade, 1umbering, commerci a1 fishing, agriculture, business and clerical work so long as the number of settlers remained low (Norton 1985:35). There were 25 sawmills in Puget Sound by 1855, which took timber from Indian lands, and the commercial fisheries expanded to take advantage of the increasing numbers of settlers, gold prospectors and visiting ships. Indians living in the state of Washington were assigned to reservations in 1859. The fisheries industry again expanded in 1877, with the introduction of cold storage and the railroad to transport the product eastward more cheaply than by ship. Salish people were making more wages by participating in the salmon industry than through any cash alternative. As commercial fishing became more costly and more competitive, and cheap labor was imported, the Sal ish people were rapidly separated from the industry. By this time, they had also lost access to their traditional fishing territories (Boxberger 1988, Dept. of Fisheries Canada 1956). Between approximately 1800 and 1900 there were a number of disturbing events which altered Salish culture. The population had been reduced by approximately 50% within 50 years. Traditional subsistence rounds and technology had been replaced by a cash market, commerci a1 fishing, 1umbering and some farming. Vi 11 ages had been abandoned or new vill ages formed from the people remaining in depopul ated areas. The people consulted by ethnographers for information on prehistoric lifeways had grown to adulthood during these upheavals and were adapted to very different conditions from their grandparents and ancestors. Chapter 3

Developed Coast Salish Horizon Sites i Sites used for regional subsistence data and subsequent i compari sons have a Developed Coast Sal i sh component, faunal data with a minimum of a species list, and are within the physical boundaries described in Chapter 2. Some reports from the region include detailed faunal data, but chronological affil iations are not clear, while others have only general faunal information at the Class leve These reports were excluded. The following sites were used in this analysis (see also Figure 3.1, and Table 3.1).

VANCOUVER ISLAND ---Fort Rodd Hill (DcRu 78) This was a small midden with a single component of late prehistoric age. Five 2 x 2-m units were excavated by trowel, and the matrix was sieved through a 1/5-inch (5-mm) mesh screen (Mitchell 1972, 1981). Fauna were collected from each level and a column was taken. The site is in the Esquimalt Harbour area of southern Vancouver Island. Vertebrate and invertebrate fauna were analyzed and quantified (Mitchell 1981). Figure 3.1: Strait of Georgia site locations. Table 3.1: Developed Coast Salish sites used in faunal comparisons

screen column Site Name Site No. level interval technique screening size samples Mama1 Bird Fish Moll usc References

J VANCOUVER ISLAND: Fort Rodd Hill DcRu 78 Trowel dry 115" Y n n n n Mitchell 1972, Mitchell 1981 Esquimalt Lagoon DcRu 2 arbitrary 1 Ocm I none none none s Oliver 1972 Esquimalt Lagoon DcRu 2 arbitrary lOcm Trowel , 114" n,e e n,e s Blacklaws 1979, Stevenson 1978 I DcRt 1 arbitrary 5cm Trowel water 115" none none n none Mi tchell 1983 Cowichan Bay DeRv 107 natural dry 114" n e n s Yip 1982

GULFjSAN JUAN ISLANDS: Montague Harbour DfRu 13 nat/arb. 6" Trowel 114" S S Mitchell 1968, 1971 Georgeson Bay DfRu 24 arbitrary 20-40cm Shovel /Trowel 114" S S Haggarty and Sendy 1976 Helen Point DfRu 8 arbitrary lOcm Shovel /Trowel most 114" S s McMurdo 1974 Helen Point DfRu 8 arbitrary 1 Ocm Shovel /Trowel most 1/4" n n,e Boucher 1976 Pender Canal DeRt 1 arbitrary 1Ocm Trowel dry 114" Y n,e n,e Chapter 3. Pender Canal DeRt 1 natural Trowel dry 114" Y n,e n.e Chapter 3 Fossil Bay 45SJ105B arbitrary 20cm Shovel /Trowel most 114" S none Kidd 1964,1969 Cattle Point 45SJ1 arbitrary 6" none none King 1950 Cattle Point 45SJ1 S S Carlson 1954, 1960 Jekyl 1 's Lagoon 45553 S S Carlson 1954. 1960 Moore 45SJ5 S s Carlson 1954. 1960 Mackaye 4535186 S S Carlson 1954, 1960

MAINLAND: St. Mungo DgRr 2 natural Trowel dry 114" Y n n s none Boehm 1973 St. Mungo DgRr 2 Shovel /Trowel drylwater 114" Y n,wt,m n,wt,m n,wt,m none El dri dge 1985 Be1 carra Park DhRr 6 arbitrary 1Ocm Y n n none none Charl ton 1977 Cates Park DhRr 8 arbitrary 1Ocm 1/4" n,e n n n Williams in Charlton 1974 Tai t Farm DhRt 36 arbitrary 1Ocm water 1.59m n n n n Ham 1987 Crescent Beach DgRr 1 natural Trowel water 1.45mn n,wt,e n,wt,e wt wt Ham 1982 C Y Tsawwassen DgRs 2 natural Trowel water 6.35mn Y n n n wt Kusmer 1989 Semi ahmoo Spit 45WH17 arbitrary 1 Ocm Shovel /Trowel 1/4" Y n,wt ,m n,wt ,m none none Montgomery 1979 (Birch Bay) 45WH9 n.e,m none none S Gaston and Grabert 1975

wt=weight, n=NISP, m=MNI s=speci eb l i st none=no faunal i nformation Esquimalt Laqoon (DcRu 21 Esquimal t Lagoon is in the same area as Fort Rodd Hi 11, and contained a Devel oped Coast Sal i sh component (01 i ver 1972). Fourteen 1 x 2-m units were excavated, and sediment samples taken. Faunal samples were coll ected from each 10-cm 1eve1 . She1 1fish were identified, but vertebrate material was not discussed. Esquimalt Lagoon was again excavated by Blacklaws (1979), and the data presented in his M.A. thesis. The Esquimalt Lagoon I11 component dated to the Developed Coast Salish horizon. Material was excavated by trowel, and screened through 114-i nch (6.4-mm) mesh hardware cloth. Cultural materi a1 s associated with artifacts were bagged by 10-cm levels (Blacklaws 1979). Three 2 x 2-m units were analyzed for fauna primarily from the Developed Coast Sal ish component. Stevenson (1978) discussed the mammal i an species, and identified elements. Domestic mammals were found, indicating an historic component. Birds were identified to element only, but not to taxon. Fish were identified to taxon using vertebrae only, and shellfish were identified to taxon (Stevenson 1978).

DcRt 1 DcRt 1 is on the eastern shore of McNeill or Shoal Bay, Vancouver Island. The 1983 excavations at DcRt 1 were conducted partly for the purpose of sampling the wide variety of fauna that had been noted in earlier excavations (Mitchell 1983:l). Two 1 x 2-rn units were excavated by trowel, and the materi a1 was water-sieved through 1/5-inch (5-mm) mesh screens. Faunal materi a1 was coll ected from each 5-cm level. Fish remains were analyzed, and the results were presented as the number of identified specimens for each species. These data did not include the elements identified. Other fauna were not analyzed.

Cowichan Bay (DeRv 107) The Cowichan Bay site is on the north side of the Koksilah River at Cowichan Bay. Eight 1 x 1-m units were excavated in 5-cm arbitrary levels within the natural layers (Yip 1982). Sediments were sieved through 114-i nch (6.4-mm) mesh screens. Vertebrate remains were coll ected from each 1eve1 , and "representative" she1 1 samples were taken. Molluscs were described in a species list. Mammal and fish remains were presented in a table, listing the number of bones recovered from the unit and level, the animals identified from those bones, and occasionally an element or modification was mentioned. Avifauna were identified only to element but not to taxon. Deposits were dated to the Developed Coast Salish horizon

(Yip 1982 - addendum).

----GULF AND SAN JUAN ISLANDS Montaque Harbour (DfRu 13). Gal iano Is1 and DfRu 13 is on the northern shore of Montague Harbour on western Gal iano Island. Three units were excavated in 1964, and three additional units were excavated in 1965 by Mitchell (1968, 1971). Test cut 1 was 5 x 15 feet (1.5 x 4.6 m), and test cuts 2 and 3 were 5 x 5 feet (1.5 x 1.5 m); excavation unit 1 was an eastlwest trench 5 x 35 feet (1.5 x 10.8 m) and a northlsouth cross trench 5 x 40 feet (1.5 x 12.3 m) with adjacent units. Excavation unit 2 was 20 x 10 feet (6.15 x 3 m) and unit 3 was 10 x 10 feet (3 x 3 m). Units were excavated by trowel in 6-inch (15 cm) arbitrary levels and natural 1ayers, and screened through 114-i nch (6.4-mm) hardware cloth during both seasons (Mitchell 1968). Montague Harbour 111 is the Developed Coast Sal ish component at DfRu 13. Fauna were collected from each 5 x !&foot (1.5 x 1.5 m) area and level within natural layers (1968:83). Mi tchell (1971: 149, 1968:245) stated, "Quantitative analyses of food remains at the Montague Harbour site were not undertaken nor were faunal remains collected with such analyses in mind. What was kept were samples of each species encountered, and where a species was particularly plentiful , more specimens were coll ected as a rough indication of the re1 ati ve abundance. "

Faunal information was presented in the form of a species list.

Georqeson & (DfRu 241, Gal i ano Is1 and Georgeson Bay is at the western end of Active Pass on southwestern Gal iano Is1 and, across from He1 en Point (DfRu 8). Georgeson Bay I1 is the Developed Coast Sal ish component at DfRu 24. The site was excavated during the summer of 1968 in 20- and 40-cm arbitrary levels, and the sediments were sieved through 114-inch (6.4-mm) mesh screens (Haggarty and Sendy 1976). Vertebrate remains were collected from each level, and "random" shellfish samples were gathered from each 1evel . A three-dimensional provenience was recorded for articulated skeletons. The site was excavated in arbitrary levels through sloping layers, and there was some difficulty in quantifying fauna by component (Haggarty and Sendy 1976). Identified vertebrate and invertebrate species were listed by component, but were not quantified.

--Helen Point tDfRu 8L Mavne Island The site of Helen Point is at the western end of Active Pass across from Georgeson Bay (DfRu 24) on the northwestern tip of Mayne Island. In 1968, an excavation was conducted by the British Columbia Provincial Museum in 10-cm arbitrary levels, and site matrices were screened through 1/4-i nch (6.4-mm) mesh (McMurdo 1974). Vertebrate fauna were coll ected from each 1evel . "Representative samples of shel 1fish were coll ected and quantified as abundant, present, rare, and absent by species and component" (McMurdo 1974:132). Vertebrate fauna were also 1isted by species, and quantified in the same way as were shel 1f i sh (McMurdo 1974). Carl son (1970) a1 so excavated the shallow midden in 1968 on the eastern side of the site. Units were 2 x 2 m, and were excavated by shovel and trowel in 10-cm arbitrary levels. Most of the troweled midden were sieved through 114-inch (6.4-mm) mesh screens (Carl son 1970). The He1 en Point I I I component has been identi f ied as Developed Coast Salish materials. Stratum I11 dates from AD 1200 to contact (Carlson 1970). The number of identified specimens for each species information on elements for mammals, birds and fish were provided

(Boucher 1976). A small sample of moll uscs was coll ected from each level, and a list of species was provided (Boucher 1976).

Pender Canal (DeRt 1LPender Is1 and Information on the excavation of the ~enderCanal site is presented in Chapter 4 and 5 of this dissertation..

Fossil &y (45 SJ 105b), Sucia Island The Fossil Bay sites are on an isthmus between Fox Cove and Fossil Bay on Sucia Island, a small island north of Orcas Island. Trenches were excavated in 1960 by shovel in arbitrary 20-cm intervals. Levels were measured from the ground surface rather than from a horizontal datum (Kidd 1969). Most sediments were sieved through a 1/4-inch (6.4-mm) mesh screen. "All bones and bone fragments that could be recovered without exorbitant expenditure of time were saved" (Kidd 1964:4). Shell samples were also collected and located to level. Some fauna were identified from the Late Component, a Developed Coast Salish component. The animals identified were supplied in a short species list (Kidd 1964, 1969).

Cattle Point (45 SJ 1L San Juan Island Cattle Point is on the southwestern shore of San Juan Island where Haro Strait meets the Strait of Juan de Fuca. Carlson (1954:31) called it the most aberrant of the San Juan sites: "The location offers no protection from the prevailing winds which sweep over the area." The Old Beach area of Cattle Point was identified by Carlson (1960) as a San Juan phase or Developed Coast Salish component, and by King (1950) as the Late Phase. The site was

excavated by King (1950) in 1946. The midden was divided into 5 x 5- foot units (1.5 x 1.5 m) and excavated in six-inch (15 cm) arbitrary levels. No mention was made of screening the sediments. Only fauna recovered in 1946 were identified, and the number of mammals

identified in each component was presented. A species 1 ist for the Late component (Developed Coast Salish) was provided. Some birds were identified, but their cultural affiliation was not stated, and no fish were identified (King 1950). Cattle Point material from the 1948 excavations was analyzed by Carl son (1954, 1960). Carl son (1960: 582) identified King's (1950) Late Phase as being the same as the San Juan phase or the Developed Coast Salish horizon. Mammals from these excavations were quantified, but elements were not provided. She1 1 fish were itemized in a species list. King (1950) did not provide information on birds and fish, while Carlson (1954) provided a species list for these animal s.

Jekvll's Laqoon (45 SJ 3). San Juan Island Based on the artifact assemblage, Carlson (1954:67, 1960:577) suggested that Jekyll 's Lagoon was a temporary summer camp of the

65 late Developed Coast Salish horizon. 45 SJ 3 is in a small enclosed 1 agoon south of Friday Harbor, Washington, on the northeast shore of

Griffen Bay, San Juan Island. A narrow gravel spit protects the lagoon. Unfortunately, the level bags from the main trench were missing, so faunal counts are lower than that actually collected. The trench measured 4 x 5 feet (1.2 x 1.5 m), and seven test pits were a1 so excavated (Carl son 1954, 1960). Mammal s analyzed were quantified, and birds, fish and molluscs described in a species list.

Moore (45 SJ 5). San Juan Is1 and The Moore site received its name from the owner of the property on which it was found. Carlson (1954) analyzed the excavated materials and concluded that the site was a recent, single component, camp site. Subsistence information was provided in the same way as for Jekyl 1 ' s Lagoon.

Mackave (45 SJ 1861, Lopez Island: The Mackaye site is on the eastern-most shore of Mackaye Harbor on Lopez Island. The material analyzed by Carlson (1954), was from three 15 x 5-foot (4.6 x 1.5 m) and one 5 x 5-foot (1.5 x 1.5 m) pit. Carlson (1954:llO) stated that this was also a late prehistoric temporary camp site. Birds, fish and molluscs were described in a species 1i st, whi l e mammal frequencies were provided. -THE MAINLAND Considerably more work has been done on the mainland than in the island archipelago or on Vancouver Island. The work that has been done has also tended to be more detailed, particularly the fauna1 studies.

Belcarra Park Site (DhRr G), Indian Arm This site is 12 miles (19 km) south of the Coast Mountains and on the east shore of Indian Arm, a branch of Burrard Inlet (Charlton 1980). Belcarra Park I1 component from stratum zone C in the Belcarra Park Site is identified as a Developed Coast Salish component (Charl ton 1977). Fourteen 2 x 2-meter units were excavated in 10-cm arbitrary levels, and one unit was excavated in 1971 in natural layers (Charl ton 1977). A short preliminary vertebrate faunal study was conducted by Galdi kas-Brindamour (l972), and another study, which concentrated on Belcarra Park I1 fauna, was conducted in 1974 on two units. Fish were not analyzed because of time constraints. The number of identified specimens for each species was presented, but no data on elements represented were provided. Based on the fauna recovered, Charl ton (1980:51) suggested that the site was occupied during the 1ate fall and winter. ---Cates Park Site (DhRr 8L Burrard Inlet Cates Park is on the northwestern shore beside the junction of Indian Arm and Burrard Inlet. Units were excavated at Cates Park in 1974 in 10-cm arbitrary levels, and sediments were sieved through 114-inch (6.4-mm) meshed screens (Charlton 1974). Fauna were studied by Williams (in: Charlton 1974). She considered the fish to have been incompletely studied. Salmon (Oncorhvnchus sp.) were identified

and quantified from vertebrae, whi 1e rockfish (Sebastes sp. ) were identified and quantified from skull fragments. No other fishes were identified. Birds were identified to taxon, and the mammal taxon and elements were provided. Molluscs were identified, and seasonality information attempted from i ncremental growth patterns vi si bl e in cross-sections of the shell.

-St. Munqo (DqRr 2)- Fraser River The midden associated with the St. Mungo Cannery was on the

8I southern shore of the south arm of the Fraser River across from b E.1 Annacis Island. Most of the site was destroyed by construction of b the Annacis Island Bridge, River Road, a railroad, houses and the 1' 1' cannery. The St. Mungo site has undergone a number of excavations 1 re1 ated primarily to the construction activities. Excavations in 1968 and 1969 by Boehm (1973) were conducted to compare temporal re1 ationships between fauna and artifact variation. Fauna were analyzed from six pits measuring 10 x 10 feet (two 3 x 3 m units), 10 x 9 feet (one 3 x 2.8 m unit), 5 x 9 feet (one 1.5 x 2.8 m unit), and 5 x 5 feet (two 1.5 x 1.5 m units) excavated in natural layers. Soi 1s were screened through 114-inch (6.4-mm) mesh. Fauna provenience was recorded by layer (Boehm 1973). Component I11 was identified as the Developed Coast Sal ish horizon strata. Percentage distributions of the species represented were provided by component, and numbers of identified specimens of fauna by component and excavation unit. The recovered elements were not discussed (Boehm 1973). The 1982 and 1983 excavations were of Charles Phase materials, and the faunal data are not applicable to this study. Excavations in 1984 by Eldridge (1985) included Marpole Phase and Developed Coast Salish horizon deposits. Seven 1 x 1-meter units were excavated during 1984 by trowel and shovel. A1 1 materi a1 s were screened dry and with water through 114-inch (6.4-mm) mesh. Column samples were taken, but have not been analyzed. Layer A was identified as Developed Coast Sal i shy fa1 1ing between Boehm's (1973) middle and upper components (Eldridge 1985). Numbers of specimens and the bone weight contributed by each species were presented. Element information was not provided.

---Tait Farm Site (DhRt 36). Fraser River Delta Excavations took place at DhRt 36 in 1987 under the direction of Ham (1987). This is a Developed Coast Salish and historic site on the northwestern corner of Lulu Island. Two 50 x 50-cm test units were excavated in 10-cm arbitrary levels. All sediments were water- sieved through 1.59-mm mesh screen (Ham 1987). Fauna were 1isted as present, number identified, or absent for each test unit. Ham (1987) suggested that it is a spring sturgeon/eulachon fishing camp.

Crescent Beach (DqRr l), Boundary Bay In 1977, Ham (1982) and others excavated the Crescent Beach site to determine subsistence, and to isolate stratigraphic layers. The methods used to excavate the site were more complex than those at other sites in the region. A narrow slit trench was excavated around a 4 x 7-meter area. Soils from the trench were removed by shovel to a depth of 60 cm, and screened through 114-inch (6.4-mm) mesh. The isolated area was then divided into 28 1 x 1-m units excavated in natural layers. Soil samples were removed, and the remaining midden was water-screened through 1.45-mm mesh except Layer A and part of Layer B which contained many roots. These layers were dry-screened using a 6.35-mm (114-inch) mesh screen. Layer A was an historic deposit. The upper portion of the midden, Layers B through Dl, dated between 200 and 650 BP, while the lower layers dated from 850 to 1550 BP (Ham 1982:210), placing the site within the Devel oped Coast Sal i s h horizon. Samples of shellfish and fish bones were identified and weighed. All bird and mammal bones collected were ident ified. Information incl uded were animal taxon, contribution by weight, general element i nformat ion (e.g., head, wing, body, and leg elements), and specific el ement information. Ham (1982:344) concluded that the Crescent Beach site was occupied in February and March for shellfish gathering and herring fishing.

Tsawwassen (DqRs 2L Fraser River Delta The Tsawwassen Site is on either side of the ferry causeway north of Point Roberts. Recent salvage excayations at Tsawwassen have uncovered a Developed Coast Salish horizon in Area A of the site (Arcas Associates 1988). A radiocarbon date of 210 + 55 BP was associated with the assemblage from this area. Fauna were water- sieved through 6.35-mm meshed screens, dried and bagged (Kusmer 1989). Flotation samples were taken from designated units to collect fish and shellfish remains. Soils were water-sieved through a 1-mm mesh, and the light material floating on the surface of the water was collected with a 0.5-mm mesh screen. The materials remaining in the 1-mm screen were dried and screened through nested sieves of 11.2 mm, 5.6 mm, 4.0 mm, 2.0 mm, and 1.0 mm (Kusmer 1989). Layer A of area A is an historic component in disturbed sediments and is not compared with the other sites. Kusmer (1989) also reported that Layer C is probably not a cultural deposit. Therefore, only fauna from Layer B of her analysis is used. Kusmer (1989) provided frequency data for mammal, bird, fish and shellfish species from this site. Semi ahmoo St>it (45 WH 17). Semi ahmoo Bay On a narrow spit of land between Drayton Harbor and just to the south of the International Border are several sites, one of which is 45WH17 or the Semiahmoo Spit site. Component I11 of the Semiahmoo Spit site is a Developed Coast Salish occupation dating from AD 1120 - 1600. Most of the site is associated with this horizon (Montgomery 1979). Soils were shoveled and troweled by 10-cm arbitrary levels or natural layers, and screened through a 1/4-inch (6.4-mm) mesh screen. Soil samples were collected, and samples were floated. Forty-four 2 x 2-m units were excavated (Grabert et al. 1978). Mammal s and birds were identified to taxon (Montgomery 1979). The number of bones for each species and the weight of those bones were presented for each component. An estimate of the number of juvenile to adult animals and MNI were also determined. Elements present for the taxa were provided for mammals by component (Montgomery 1979). No fish or shellfish were analyzed.

--A45 WH 9 -Birch & 45 WH 9 is on the southern shore of Birch Bay, at the mouth of Terrell Creek. This may be the site mentioned by Vancouver and his officers during their stay at Birch Bay:

"I accompanied the party who 1anded on the South side of the Bay where we saw the scite of a very large Village now overgrown with a thick crop of nettles and bushes, we walked along the Beach to a low point between us & the bottom of the Bay where we found a delightful clear & level spot cropt with Grass & wild flowers & divided from the forest by a winding stream of fresh water that emptied itself into the bottom of the Bay ..." (Menzies in Newcombe 1923 :53).

Salvage excavations were conducted by Gaston, Swanson and Griffen in 1975 (Gaston and Grabert 1975). Twenty-six 1 x 1-m units and two 2 x 2-m units were excavated. There is no discussion of screening or screen size. One charcoal sample was taken and dated to 848 + 108 BP placing this site within the Developed Coast Salish horizon (Gaston and Grabert 1975: 59, 93). Mammal ian faunal information included the number of specimens identified, elements identified and the minimum number of individuals for each species. Bird and fish information were not reported, and a list of the most common molluscs observed during excavation was provided (Gaston and Grabert 1975).

Discussion Most of the material from the sites used in this study were sieved through at least a 1/4-inch (6.4-mm) mesh screen, with the exception of Cattle Point, Jekyll 's Lagoon, Moore, Mackaye, and 45 WH 9 at Birch Bay, for which this information was not available. A smaller meshed screen was used at four sites: DcRt 1, Fort Rodd Hill, Tait Farm, and Crescent Beach. Most sites were also troweled or

- troweled and shovel ed. There is greater variability in the methods used for faunal analysis than in site excavation. This variability, particularly in what was analyzed and how the results were reported, has caused difficulty in making compari sons. Even the taxonomic and element categories used are not standard, making statistical analysis difficult. Chapter 4 Pender Is1 and

Pender Island is in the Gulf Island archipelago between Vancouver Island and the mainland. It was a single island until a cana1,was dredged at the beginning of this century, between Port Browning and Bedwell Harbour (Figure 4.1). Both halves of the island are hilly with numerous streams and several lakes. The shoreline includes sand and gravel beaches, shallow bays and cliff faces bordering deep water. There are few ethnographic references to Pender Island. A village was established on the west shore of Saanichton Bay on the Saanich Peninsula by Salish people from Ganges Harbour, Active Pass, and Pender and Stuart Islands, which suggests that there may have been a permanent village on Pender Island (Suttles 1974). The people of this village had summer reef-netting stations at Stuart Island, Pender Island and Point Roberts. A plank house was built on the shore of Egeria Bay in Bedwell Harbour by a reef net station owner during the 1ast part of the 19th Century (Suttl es 1974: 26) . The reef-netting station was near Peter Cove, at the entrance to Bedwell Harbour (Suttles 1974:196). There was another reef netting location south of Mouat Point owned by a Saanichton Bay person, who was originally from Stuart Island (Suttles 1974:196).

Barnett (1955:20) stated that the Saanich went to South Pender Island to fish for salmon. The Cowichan people went to the Fraser River to fish for salmon, but went to North Pender Is1 and to fish for herring, and halibut, and hunt porpoise and seal. This conflicts with statements by Jenness (n.d.:8) that the Cowichan had no fishing rights on the mainland, and stayed in the Gulf Islands to fish, while the Saanich moved to the Fraser River during the summer to catch sockeye salmon. The people from Duncan, near Cowichan Bay, were said to fish for sockeye salmon off the shores of Pender Island (Jenness n.d.). People who fished on the Fraser River reportedly returned to permanent villages on the west side of the Gulf of Georgia for the winter because the weather there was milder, and the resources more varied (Duff 1961:4). Several Euro-canadi an settlers remembered people from the Hay Point reserve digging for clams at Mortimer Spit or the Browning Harbour area. Mrs. Grimmer (in: Moon 1985:32) said native people from Duncan dug clams across from DeRt 2. Clam beds in the Bedwell Harbour and Mortimer Spit areas were especially rich, but decl ined in the 1930's with the influx of tourists (Moon 1985:19). Mary Hamilton, descendant of an early pioneer family of Pender Island, recorded a legend she heard as a child about the formation of the land bridge between the North and South Pender Island:

"At one time there was a pass between the two great harbours (Bedwell and Browning). It happened that two Indian tribes had a fierce battle in near- by waters. Some, escaping for the (&) 1 ives, made their way to the head of Bedwell and through to Browning. To delay their pursuers they rolled big stones into the narrow passage and made off. Over the years silt gathered about the boulders. Plants and trees closed in and soon no one even remembered that at that spot the waters of the two great harbours had joined" (Hamilton in: Moon 1985:43- 44).

Pender Island was first seen by Europeans when Juan Pantoja y Arriaga in 1791 piloted the ship Santa Saturpa into Haro Strait on the instruction of Francisco Eliza, the Spanish commandant of Nootka. Pantoja passed between Saturna and Pender Islands, entered the Gulf of Georgia, then turned into Rosario Strait (Pethick, 1980:54). Pantoja named Pender Island "Sayas" or "Zayas." Eliza later renamed the island "Isla San Eusebio" (Wagner 1937). El iza's chart (in: Whitebrook 1959) documents this island well, compared with the sketchy out1 ines of adjacent islands. The chart provides water depths, anchorage spots, and clearly shows Bedwell Harbour and Port Browning. It was not until the British occupation that the island received its modern name. A number of domestic animals were brought onto the island during various commercial ventures in the early 190OYs, including sheep and oxen (Hami 1ton 1961). Spaulding (1961 :148-149) stated that there were elk, wolf and beaver on the island in historic times, but are now absent. Wolves were hunted to extinction by the 183OYs, and beavers were gone by the late 1800's. Spaulding (1961) saw elk skeletons as a small boy on Pender Is1 and, but he did not know when the last elk was killed. He also noted that domestic cats were affecting the grouse population. Quail and Hungarian partridges were introduced, but both populations became extinct.

Pender Canal The area connecting North and South Pender Island was described as a large mudflat or freshwater swamp not flooded by the tides. Boats had to be hauled from one side to the other using skids. Traces of this trail can still be seen to the south and west of DeRt 1. Mortimer Spit was present but shorter, wider and not so swampy as it is today. Log dumping and modern boat traffic has changed its appearance (Moon 1985). None of the settlers interviewed for historic accounts could remember Indian people living on the canal area, although the reserve at Bedwell Harbour was seasonally occupied. Meetings and picnics between settlers of Saturna and South Pender Island were held there during historic times (Grey 1961:79). Pender Island was split in two in 1903 by a canal. While bifurcating the island, the canal also cut through two large shell middens. A road and a bridge was built in the 1950's between the sites, reconnecting North and South Pender Island. This created four remnants of what might have been a single large site. These pockets of midden are DeRt 1, DeRt 2, DeRt 18 and DeRt 19 (Figure 4.2). DeRt 3 is a midden site on Mortimer Spit north of DeRt 1 and DeRt 18. There is also a fortification site on Ainslie Point to the south of DeRt 2. Pender Canal

North Pender Island South Pender

F==--l 0 IOOmeters

Be dwe// Horbour (~ortificationSite I 123" 15'30" Leqend @ midden Base Map- Plans- Gulf Islands (Pender Conol) a cliffs 3477 Canadian Hydrographic Service 1986 [3.... beach at Lowest Normal Tide

Figure 4.2: Pender Canal. Shark Cove, north of DeRt 1, has a narrow entrance protected by Aldridge Point and Mortimer Spit. Shark Cove was described in the British Columbia Pilot before the excavation of Pender Canal (Hydrographic Office 1898:997):

"The best anchorage is in the centre just above Shark Cove, which is a convenient creek, with 4 fathoms in it, on the southern side of the harbour, three-quarters of a mile within the entrance; here a ship might beach and repair on a sandy spit." "Shark cove is separated from Bedwell harbour by an isthmus 150 yards wide, across which the natives launch their canoes."

Low tides expose mud, sand and gravel beaches in Shark Cove. At the southern entrance of the canal, offshore of DeRt 2, is a small bay connected to Bedwell Harbour. The entrance of this bay is constricted by Ainslie Point, the fortification site. The outer portion of the bay is rocky, but the interior of the bay has a gravel and mud floor. Before the excavation of the canal, the bay was probably 1-2 m deep during the Lowest Normal Tide. The location is consistent with ethnographic descriptions of village sites. Jenness (n.d. : 3-4) noted that Saanich vill ages tended to be adjacent to bays with sandy or gravel beaches, with forested lands behind the villages. During raids, village residents sought protection in fortified sites nearby. Jenness (n.d. :4) described the fortification sites as "rocky headlands impregnable on three sides, and protected on the fourth by a ditch and an artificial rampart of earth." This is similar to the fortification site on Ainslie Point. Suttles (1974:46) stated that winter villages were stationed along sand or gravel beaches, where they were protected from cold northeast winds and rainy southwest winds. DeRt 1 and DeRt 2 were protected from storms by enclosed bays to the north and south, and by the hills of the island on the east and west. Spits and promontories provided look-out and defense locations on Bedwell Harbour and Port Browning. The land bridge allowed easy escape to the opposite bay. Mud, sand and gravel bay shores provided a habitat for bivalves and beaches for the canoes. There were fresh water streams near the site. Based on these features, the area now known as Pender Canal was ideal for a permanent or semi-permanent village.

Archaeoloqical Investiqations

In August of 1955, Wilson Duff went to Pender Island to view soapstone artifacts recovered from DeRt 2 and other Gulf Island sites by private collectors (Duff n.d.). This visit initiated archaeological excavations on the Pender Canal Sites in 1957 and 1958 by Wilson Duff and Michael Kew (Kew n.d.). A five foot square (1.5 x 1.5 m) unit was excavated on the southern edge of DeRt 2. This portion of the site no longer exists, having since washed away, although the original datum was still present in 1984 (Carlson 1985:49). This unit was located on what was later called Mound 2 during the 1984-1986 field seasons (Carlson 1985:49). The unit was excavated by shovel and trowel to a depth of seven to eight feet (2.15 - 2.5 m) below the surface. Materials were sieved through a 114-inch (6.4-mm) mesh screen. Materials were from the Developed Coast Sal i sh horizon and Locarno Beach Phase (Kew n .d., Carl son 1985). A second 15 x 3 foot (4.6 x .9 m) pit was excavated in 1958 by Michael Kew and J. Sendy (Duff n.d.). The outlines of the unit were still visible in Mound 2 in 1984 (Carlson 1985:49). The fauna recovered in these early excavations were reported as a list of species present. Excavations on DeRt 1 at the north end of the canal were conducted in 1971 by John McMurdo (n.d.). Two 2 x 2-m test pits, one 1 x 2-m test pit, and another pit of unspecified size, were excavated on the site. Initially the site was excavated in natural layers, but this approach was abandoned, and the units were excavated in 10-20 cm arbitrary 1eve1 s by trowel and shovel . Bi rute Gal di kas analyzed fauna col 1ected by McMurdo (Gal di kas-Bri ndamour 1972).

Methods Excavations were continued on DeRt 1 and DeRt 2 from 1984 to 1986 under the direction of Roy 1. Carlson and Philip M. Hobler. The site with the most extensively excavated Developed Coast Sal i sh component is DeRt 1. Only fauna from DeRt 1 is used in this dissertation. Philip M. Hobler directed excavations at DeRt 1 in 1984, and Dr. Roy L. Carlson directed excavations at this site in 1985 and 1986. A north/south trench was excavated in 1984 at 27-28 m west and 6 m north to 8 m south in 2-meter long units (Figure 4.3). A 20-cm baulk was left between each unit to provide a reference to strata. These units were given arbitrary numbers (Units 2 through 9). Unit 9 was established at 8-10 m south, 27-28 m west, but was not excavated. Unit 13 was excavated beside the trench at 0-2 m north, 26.2-27 m west to expose a feature uncovered in Unit 4: Two units were also excavated into the beach at 11-12 m north, 20-22 m west (Unit 11) and 11-12 m north, 22-24 m west (Unit 12). Trench units were excavated by trowel in arbitrary 10-cm levels. Vertebrate fauna from each level were bagged dnd artifacts recorded three dimensionally. The levels were described on faunal forms and in field notebooks. A1 1 materi a1 s were dry-screened through 114-inch (6.4-mm) mesh screens. All vertebrate fauna were collected from each level for that unit, and stored in paper bags. Matrices were water- screened only in the lowermost levels of Units 2 and 3 because these levels were water saturated and difficult to dry-screen. Unit 13 soi 1s were removed by shovel in 10-cm arbitrary 1eve1 s. Recording methods were the same as those used for the trench units. Profiles were drawn for each wall in the trench units. Units 11 and 12 were excavated by trowel and shovel in 10-cm arbitrary levels. All materi a1 s from these were water-screened. Excavation was stopped when water seeping under ground caused the wall s to coll apse. DeRt 1 sampled area /= column numbers 24 = unit numbers

yLY' beoch's edge r column sample j////, sample area 0 I 2

-scale (m.)

Figure 4.3: Units excavated on DeRt I.

85 A column was taken in the north-northwest wall of each of the trench units, including Unit 13, to sample invertebrate and vertebrate fauna. No columns were taken from Units 11 and 12. The 10-cm wide columns were taken 15 cm to 35 cm from the west wall in the north baulk of each unit. Samples 10-cm thick, matching the arbitrary levels used during the excavation, were then removed from the ground surface to the base of the excavated unit. Material from each 10-cm interval was bagged separately, and if more than one matrix occurred within an interval, they were a1 so bagged separately. Photographs of the wall from which the columns were removed were taken to augment information from the wall profiles, and excavators' descriptions. Column samples were transported to the laboratory and dried, weighed and screened. Units 3, 5, and 7 were water sieved through nested 6.4-mm (114-inch), 2-mm and 1-mm screens. Units 2, 4 and 6 were dry-screened through 8-mm, 5.6-mm, 4-mm and 1-mm nested screens. All materials retained in the screens were bagged for 1 ater sorting. Dry-screened materials less than 1 mm were kept. In 1985, units were placed beside and to the east of the 1984 trench. Excavation methods were the same as those used in the previous year. Units were excavated by trowel or shovel in 10-cm intervals, except in those cases in which major strata were removed as a single layer (Carlson 1986). All materials were sieved through 114-inch (6.4-mm) mesh screens. Wet screening was used only when the matrix was too damp to allow the materials to pass through. Forms with level, matrix and faunal information were filled out in the

L' L' 86 field. Features were mapped and photographed, and profiles of standing walls were drawn after the unit was excavated. All artifacts were given numbers, measured three dimensionally, and recorded in the field notebooks and on artifact forms. Column samples were taken every 2 meters, allowing for systematic sampling if the baulks were left standing. In units which had no baulks, a 10 x 20-cm column was left to be removed as the unit was excavated. (See Figure 4.3 for column locations.) Unit 18 was a special unit excavated in 1985 expressly for the purpose of collecting faunal remains in natural layers for subsistence information. The location and methods are described later in this chapter. No fauna from the 1986 excavations were analyzed for this report. Units were excavated by shovel in arbitrary 10-cm levels and major stratigraphic levels. Sediments were sieved through 114-inch (6.4-mm) mesh screens, and vertebrate remains from 1eve1 s and screens were kept and bagged. No faunal forms were used or columns taken in 1986. Faunal information from the 1986 season was taken from Garvin's (1987) report of fauna from Unit 30. Garvin's (1987) analysis concentrated on the identification of mammal remains. Birds were identified only to family, and fish were identified as salmonid or other fish. This information will be included in succeeding chapters.

Processinq the fauna In the 1aboratory, vertebrate remains were cataloged before analysis.

87 Each item received a color and number code either on its surface or on the bag or vial in which it was contained. This code provided the initial identification and location information. The first color represents the site from which the bone came; white is DeRt 1 and black DeRt 2. The second color represents the major taxon determined by the catalogers. The first number is the unit number, the second

' number the level, or in the case of Unit 18, the layer or context number, and the third number is the bone number within that site, unit and level.

[I [I 14 - 5 Site color Taxon color I Unit number Level number Bone number

In this way, each bone had an individual catalog number which also provided locational data. This allowed several catalogers to work at the same time, and also decreased the number of cataloging errors which would have occurred if each bone were given a sequential number. Each bone was also recorded on a cataloging sheet with remarks by the excavator and comments from the cataloger. Numbering each individual specimen allowed bones to be retrieved for reanalysis and veri f i cati on. Faunal remains from baul ks were catal oged as if they were from the north or west of a particular unit. After the bones from the 1984 and 1985 seasons were cataloged, the bones were removed from the level bags, and elements were sorted and identified. This method made identification much more rapid since an element was identified with all like elements. Pathologies were more readily noticed, as were patterns of breakage, butchering and burning. Mammals were identified to the most specific taxon possible, based on all elements and fragments of elements, except shaft fragments and podials. Birds were identified using all elements and fragments of elements. Some vertebrae have been set aside for additional work. Fishes were identified from elements other than spines, ribs, rays, branchials, pterygiophores and scales, except dogfish dorsal spines. Molluscs were identified from whole and fragmented specimens. Fishes and molluscs were identified only

for Unit 18 in DeRt 1. Descriptions of each bone were recorded using numerical codes modified from Wessen (1983), Redding et a1 . (1978) and Meadow (1978). The codes record the identified taxon, bone element, portion of the element, degree of epiphyseal fusion, side,

modifications, burning, butchering marks, path01 ogi es, re1 i abi 1 i ty of the identification, comments, associated bones and the matrix from which the bone came. Associated bones are numbered fragments which were part of a single element. Bones were analyzed from column

samples taken from Unit 6, and column one of Unit 18. Many of the small fish bones were not identified. All shell remains from these two col umn samples were analyzed. The codes were entered and sorted with an IBM compatible personal computer using SuperCalc4 (Computer Associated International Inc., San Jose, California) . Occasionally, invertebrate remains were a1 so placed in the level bags. These were

89 also recorded and described, but most of the information on invertebrate remains came from column samples. Comparative coll ecti ons from the Zooarchaeol ogy Laboratory of the Department of Archaeology at Simon Fraser University, the Department of Anthropology at University of Victoria, the Biology Collection at the Royal British Columbia Museum, the mollusc collection of the Invertebrate comparative museum in the Department of Zoology at the University of British Columbia, the Comparative Vertebrate Museum at Harvard University, and the Zooarchaeological Identification Centre of the Canadian Museum of Civilization, were used to identify the materi a1 s.

Stratiqraphv Chronoloqv Carlson identified six strata from DeRt 1. These strata were dated from samples prepared by D.E. Nelson, J.S. Vogel and J.R. Southon (Table 4.1; Carlson 1990). At the base of the site is glacial till designated Stratum I after the 1986 excavations had been completed. The glacial till slopes from south to north where it descends below the tide line (Figure 4.4). Above the glacial till is a grey colored midden soil containing shell and fire-cracked rock along the beach, north of the site. This has been labeled Stratum IIa and dates between 3000 and 2500 years BP. A 1iving floor of dark soil with some crushed shell and fire- cracked rock occurs over the glacial till and Stratum IIa, and dates Table 4.1: Radiocarbon dates from samples collected at DeRt 1

DeRt 1 dates from Carlson 1990: Tree ring Cal ib Horizontal Layer Lab Years BP Date Provenience Number Association Depth (cm) Material No.

AMS Radiocarbon Dates determined by the RIDDL Lab: 480+/- 170 519 4.40N1 27.15W 4,516 Hearth, Level 16 160 DBS, 222DBD Charcoal 200 650 +/- 110 668 4.25N1 27.50W 4,5,6 Dark Midden, Level 16 160 DBS Charcoa 1 197 1330 +/- 140 1280 Unit 6 6 Level 22 Charcoal 110 1430 +/- 150 1321 10.87Nr 23.08W 6 277 cm DBS Charcoal 109 to 1630 +/- 140 1534 1.47N1 2.52W 5a Level 14 167 DBD Charcoal 198 l-' l-' 1710 +/- 190 1632 4 Burial 85-1 Bone 267 2390+/-140 2355 2.60N,27.40WrUnit3 4 Level 19-20 187-192 DBS, 2.33-2.38 DBD Charcoal 219 2390 +/- 170 2355 Unit 11 3 Level 36 Top of intertidal zone Charcoal 113 2460+/- 90 2612 Unit5,S.end 4/5a Level 24, interface of Charcoal 112 midden and sterile 2570+/- 180 2744 11.8N,21.4W,Unit11 3 Level 32, intertidal 370 DBD Charcoal 199 2650+/- 140 2771 11.67Nr21.9W,Unit11 3 Level 34, intertidal 340 DBS Charcoai 111 2660 +/- 350 2767 3.46Nr 27.42U1 Unit 3 3 Level 30 295 DBS, 341 DBD Charcoal 20 1

Conventional Radiocarbon Dates: 360+/-200 464 1.41S,27.48W,Unit5 6 Layer 6 6.4 DBS Charcoal SFU 399 370 +/- 55 470 Unit 25 Level 14, stone ki1 ler whales Charcoal SFU 599 2130 +/- 80 2125 Unit 12 3 Below high tide 350 DBS Charcoal SFU 407 2190 +/- 60 2242 2 House floor, Charcoal SFU 597 Slab Hearth on floor between 2500 and 2000 BP. This has been 1abeled Stratum IIb, and is associated with the Locarno Beach Phase. Over this is Stratum 111, a Marpol e Phase deposit of burnt shel 1, ash and other burnt materi a1 dating between 2242 and 1632 BP (Carlson 1990). Stratum IV is a dark soil and crushed shell layer dated to 1632 years BP. Stratum Va is a burnt shell layer with a date of 1534 years BP, and Stratum Vb, at the western end'of the site is described as a black humus layer, and in the east, it consists of shell and charcoal lenses and fire-cracked rock (Carlson 1990). Stratum VI consists of many fine layers of whole and crushed shel 1 and dark soil intermingled with hearths and fire-cracked rocks. The oldest dates are 1321 and 1280 BP and the most recent 464 and 470 BP, placing this deposit in the Developed Coast Salish horizon (Carl son 1990). These deposits are roughly identifiable by color and content. For the purpose of analysis, it was necessary to separate each level into associated cultural horizons (Table 4.2). It was assumed that deposits from each phase were the result of numerous activities and occupations; therefore, subsistence data from each of these major 1eve1 s represent only major differences between cultural phases. Because the arbitrary levels did not follow the natural contours of the matrices, soils and sampled fauna from different cultural phases were occasionally included in the same level. Table 4.2: Levels from trench units separated into associated cultures.

Culture Level Number by Unit: 2 3 4 5 6 7 D.C.Sa1 ish 1-17 1-12 1-8 1-11 1-13 1-12 Marpol e 18-23 13-19 9-20 12-22 14-end 13-end Locarno 24-end 20-end 21-end 23-end Fauna from different matrices within single arbitrary levels were separated in the associated column samples to provide stricter controls over stratigraphic associations.

--Unit 18 During the 1984 excavations, it was apparent that the strata sloped toward the north, and that the arbitrary 10-cm levels were crosscutting the strata. To maintain control over faunal associations with particu7ar strata or depositional events, one 3.2 x 3.0-m unit was excavated in 1985 in natural stratigraphic 1ayers. Unit 18 was located at 0.00 - 3.15 m north, 23.00 - 26.20 m west, to the immediate north of the secondary datum. A 20-cm baul k was retained to the west until wall profiles for Units 13 and 15 were drawn. The western baul k was then removed to the level then being exposed, after which it was excavated with the other layers in the uni t . Unit 18 was excavated by trowel. The layers or contexts were identified by content, color, density, and in some cases, shell orientation. Each context was assigned a number. These numbers do not reflect the sequence of deposition or excavation, but serve only as a tool to name and identify each deposit. All excavated material was removed by bucket, and sieved through a 114-inch (6.4-mm) mesh screen. The material was dry-screened unless the matrix was too damp to screen adequately. The damp sediments were water-screened through a 114-inch (6.4-hm) mesh screen in the nearby canal. Water-screened contexts were recorded in case differences in the data resulted because of a change in field methods. Vertebrate remains col 1ected during excavation and from the screens were bagged by context. Matrix samples were taken from 1.85-1.95 m N., 23.65-23.85 m W. (Column 1) , and 1.85-1.95 m N., 25.65-25.85 m W. (Column 2) to collect invertebrate and micro- vertebrate remains. These samples were removed after the context was excavated. Unlike column samples from the trench, they were not taken every 10 cm but to the base of the natural layer. These samples were bagged and later water-screened in the laboratory through 114-inch (6.4-mm), 2-mm and 1-mm nested screens. All materials from the 114-inch (6.4-mm) and the 2-mm mesh were sorted by species or major taxon. Ten percent of the material by weight from the 1-mm screen was examined for vertebrate remains. The results of these examinations are provided with the results of the other Pender Island fauna in the following sections. Artifacts found during excavation were located three dimensionally and by context number. Those found in the screen and in columns were located by context number. All artifacts were turned over to the project, and their analysis is not a part of this study. The extent of the deposition was determined after the layer was excavated, soil samples taken, and artifacts recorded. Each map records the base of the context, except the ground surface which was mapped before excavating. A 50-cm grid was strung across the unit, and the shape of the base of the context was'drawn onto a field form grid. The depth of the context below datum was determined using a Kern (Kern Instruments, Inc., Brewster, New York) DK2 360 Degree Optical Theodolite and a rod. When working alone, a tape and 1ine level were used to map the contexts. A description, date of mapping, and excavators' names were also recorded on the mapping form. A faunal form was also completed for each context giving the above information, artifacts recovered, and mi scell aneous comments. At the end of the 1985 season, a profile was drawn of the remaining north wall, the remaining east wall, and the south wall. No west wall remained, a1 though this information is provided by sections drawn for the east walls of Units 15 and 13. In the 1aboratory, an IBM compatible personal computer and the software mapping package, SURFER (Golden Software, Inc., Golden, Colorado), were used to produce topographic maps of each context on a Hew1 ett Packard (Cupertino, Cal i forni a) HP 7470A x/y plotter (see appendix 1). Contours are in intervals of 3 cm and every other contour line is labeled. Features were also drawn by hand from the original field maps. A Harris diagram (Harris 1975, 1979a, 1979b) was developed using the single layer plans drawn in the field to describe the stratification of the unit. The Harris diagram is schematic drawing which is used to illustrate the sequence of sediment deposition; the most recent layers are at the top of the diagram and the oldest layers at the bottom of the diagram. The size of the layer is not important, only the order. There are only three relationships a layer can have with another in this diagram: older than, younger than, or contemporaneous with other layers (Harris 1975:113). Harris diagrams for Unit 18 are included in appendix 1. Unit 18 was excavated in stratigraphic layers to identify formation processes, identify associated activities, identify and describe strata and to quantify zooarchaeological materials in a meaningful manner. The portion of Unit 18 excavated in 1985 was entirely within Stratum VI, the Developed Coast Salish component, dating between 1200 and 500 BP, in which eighty-seven contexts or natural l ayers were identified. Shel l fish formed the primary distinguishing ingredient of deposits. The excavations showed that stratum VI was a complex series of interlayered deposits, and not a single homogeneous sheet extending across the site (Figure 4.5). Few of the layers excavated in the 3 x 3.2-m unit extended across the entire unit. Deposits varied from dark sediments with crushed shell to ash and pebbles and l ayers with only she1 1. Shel l l ayers were generally concentrated down-hill in the northern and northeastern DeRt I, Unit 18, Wall Profile

SOUTH'WALL (0.15m. N) Legend a dark soil 8 crushed shell @ dark soil 8, some shell crushed shell- predom. mussel B whole shell-clam whole 8 crushed shell urchin limpets 8 grovel

gravel

@ humus I[TIB littermat @ burnt shell

yellow ash

I grey ash a pebbles Profiled ; @ rock L - @ bone a root charcoal NORTH WALL EAST WALL

Figure 4.5: Soil profile of Unit 18. edge of the unit. Urchin spines tended to be associated with mussel lenses, a1 though concentrations were found in other shell lenses. In addition to artifacts and vertebrate fauna, fecal remains (probably canid), and bone and antler shavings were collected. A dental ium shell and a pecten shell were the only shell artifacts collected. Context 84 was the last level excavated before the unit was closed for the season, and contains at least three layers; therefore, information from this context is not considered representative of a single depositional unit. The analyses of fauna are presented in succeeding chapters. The Harris diagram and topographic maps for each context are included in appendix 1. Schiffer (1983:678, 1987:265) called the deposit the unit of analysis for formation processes. He defined a deposit as a "three-dimensional segment of a site (or other area of analytical interest) that is distinguished in the field on the basis of observable changes in sediments and artifacts. It is widely believed that a deposit ... is an entity created by some minimal unit of deposition either cultural or noncul tural " (Schiffer 1987:265).

The materials in a deposit are part of a one depositional event (Stein 1987:340). The depositional event being "the result of the collection of sediments from one or many sources, the transport of that material by any competent agent or group of agents, and the deposition of the sediments whenever and wherever the competency of the transport agent is reduced and where a suitable 'basin' is located. Each deposit represents one depositional event during which time the sources, transport agents, and environment of deposition remained the same. The duration of such a depositional event is not often known. A single deposit may represent either continuous or abrupt deposition over either long or short periods of time" (Stein 1987:340). 'Natural layersy and 'strata' are also frequently used in the archaeological literature to refer to deposits (Stein 1987:346). Facies is a geological term used for "the products of any one depositional event" (Stein 1987:349). During the 1985 excavations of Unit 18, DeRt 1, the term context was used to refer to each depositional unit or facies. "For archaeology, context imp1 ies a four- dimensional, spatial-temporal matrix that comprises both a cultural and non-cul tural environment" (Butzer 1980:418, 1982:4). These deposits are homogeneous because they are "a group of particles that look more like themselves than they look like the group of particles above or below them" (Stein 1988:6). Deposits, facies, contexts, layers, or strata are identified by certain sedimentological attributes, including color, composition (cultural and natural components), sedimentary structures (patterns and features of bed surfaces), size class or grain size of the particles, particle shape and roundness, grain orientation, and post depositional changes (Hassan 1987, Nelson et al. 1986, Schiffer 1987, Stein 1987). These attributes provide clues to the cultural and non- cultural formati on processes. Chapter 5

Results of Faunal Analyses from Pender Canal (DeRt 1)

Mammal s Rodents recovered included Microtus sp., Mus musculus, unidentified small rodents, and only one potentially economically important species, the beaver (Castor canadensis; Table 5.1). Beaver remains were not common. Three elements were recovered from the upper levels of Units 2 and 3 from the trench. Two cheek teeth came from levels 3 and 5 of Unit 3, and a fused right femur came from level 3 of the adjacent unit (Table 5.2). The femur showed gnawing on the shaft as well as possible butchering marks on the distal third of the element. From Unit 18, one element each was recovered in contexts 3, 5, and 7. In context 3 a left ilium was found, in context 5 a fused left distal humerus, and in context 7 a distal phalanx also with a fused epiphysis was recovered. The ilium and distal phalanx both show gnawing marks. The phalanx may have come from fecal materi a1 . The only beavers recovered from the late prehistoric strata of the trench or Unit 18 were all in the top-most layers. Three of the six elements show gnawing, and no element is duplicated. These elements could be from the same animal. In Unit 18, contexts 3 and 5 meet in the center of the unit, and context 7 meets context 5. Table 5.1: Mmals recovered from DeRt 1 trench and Unit 18 (NISP)

Unit 18. Contexts: Mannal: Trench C-1 C-3 C-4 C-5 C-6 C-7 C-8 C-9 C-10 C-11 C-12 C-13 C-14 C-15 C-16 C-17 C.18 C-19 C-20 C-21 C-22 C-23 C-24 C-25 C-26 C-27 C-28 C-29 C-30 C-31 C-32 C-33 C-34 C-35 t-36 C-37 C-38 C-39 C-40 C-41 C-42 C-43 C-44 C-45 Castor canadensis (beaver) 3 1 I' 1 Microtus sp. (voles) 3 1 nus m~sculus(house mouse) Rodent sp. (small)

~elphinidae(porpoise Sp.) 1 544 1 7 6 3 1 1 4 1 1 1 Sm. cetacean (porpoise size) I 1 1

Canis sp. (med) 331 11 2 1 1 1 Procyon lotor (racoon) 1 Marten/f isher I: Mustele vison (mink) 1 Lutra canadensis (river otter) 1 Mustel id (med) Carnivore sp. (small) 2 1 1 Carnivore sp. (medim) 1 1 1 1 1 1 carnivora 15

Callorhinus ursinus (fur seel) Ewtopias jubata (northern sea lion) Zalophus californianus (California sea lion) I Ematopias/Zalophus (see lions) Otari idae (eared seals) Phoca vitulina (harbor seal) 15 12 2 1 2 4 2 10 4 1 2 11 2 Phocidae (true seals) I 2 Pi~ipediasp. (large seals) 1 Pinnipedia sp. (mall seals) 1 1 2 1

Artiodactyla 1 Cervus elaphus (uapiti) 1 1 ojocoileus sp. (deer) 31:I 123 732 312 15 710 713 1 351 1 1 2 1 1 Wocoi ieus hemionus (mite deer) Large Cervidae sp. 1 1 1 1 Sm. Cervidae sp. (deer sized) 12 I 521 5 2 2 10 4211 2 2 1 2 1 1 Cervidae (deer, wapiti) 30 1 1 1 Oremos anericanus (mountain goat) Ovis sp. (mountain sheep) Small ungulates 14 9 1 2 1 1 7 3 2 I '1 11

Sea mama1 4 1 2 1 1 4 1 3 1 Med. sea mamnal (seal-porpoise size) 11 18 1 2 3 339 232 3- 1 1 Large sea mamnal (uhale sized) Lrg. land mamnal (greater than dog) 41: 29 25 20 7 106 32 13 1 26 41 1 53 23 123 2 59 24 7 5 11 9 1 3 47 6 2 21 16 1 3 13 2 30 10 3 8 512 Sm. land mamnal (ma1 ler than cat) 17 1 2 2 1 2 1 1 1 Land mmal 295 1 34 22 17 4 148 70 7 "C 76 7645 66 456 2 245 40 37 22 32 5 3 6 115 13 10 41 29 1 6 13 2 57 161013 139 3 4 Mmal (large) 1511 12 1 1 10 6 2 1 1 1 Unid. mmal 2: 1 11 2 1 8 1 1 3 1 111 Unid. animal 1

Total 947 1 1 69 51 49 17 322 122 31 2 123 145 2 213 102 662 5 337 75 63 35 45 18 6 12 186 24 12 66 46 3 11 33 4 70 0 31 17 28 1 3 16 4 9 3 Table 5.1: Hmals recovered fran OeRt 1 trench and Unit 18 (NISP) (font inued)

Unit 18, Contexts: Total Mamna l : C-46 C-4 c-48 C-49 C-50 C-51 C-52 C-53 C-54 C-55 C-56 c-57 C-58 C-59 C-60 C-61 C-61 C-63 C-64 C.65 C-66 C-67 C-68 C-69 C-70 C-71 C-72 C-73 c-74 C-75 C-76 c.n C-78 C-79 C-80 C.81 C-82 C-83 C-85 C-86 Total 18 Total OeRt Castor canadensis (beaver) 3 6 Hicrotus sp. (voles) 1 1 Z2l2 5 32 35 Hus wsculus (house mouse) 1 11 Rodent sp. (small) 46 46 46

Oelphinidee (porpoise Sp.) I 40 43 Sm. cetacean (porpoise size) 2 2 I I Canis sp. (med) 1 I1 1 1 1 1 1 22 75 Procyon lotor (recoon) 11 Martenlf isher 0 1 Mustela vison (mink) 0 0 Lutra canadensis (river otter) I 11 Mustelid (med) 1 1 Carnivore sp. (small) 1 5 5 Carnivore sp. (medim) 11 88 Carnivora 0 15

Callorhinus ursinus (fur seal) I 0 0 Ewtopias jubata (northern sea Lion) 0 0 Zalophus californianus (California sea Lion) 0 0 Eunatopias/Zalophus (sea 1 ions) Ii 0 0 Otar i idee (eared seats) 0 2 Phoca vi tul ina (harbor seal) 1 1 1 1 47 62 Phocidae (true seals) 2 4 Pinnipedia sp. (large seals) 11 Pinnipedia sp. (small seals) 1 j 6 6

Articdactyla 12 Cerws elaphus (wapiri) 2 4 Cdocoi leus sp. (deer) 2 4 11, 91 122 odoco i leus hemionus (rule deer) I 0 0 Large Cervidae sp. 1 I 5 5 Sm. Cervidae sp. (deer sized) 11 1 1 1311 63 75 Cervidae (deer, uapi t i) 1 4 34 Oreamwe americanus (mountain goat) 0 0 Dvis sp. (mountain sheep) 0 0 Small ungulates I 30 44

Sea mmal 1 1 I 16 20 Med. sea mamnal (seal-wrwise size) 1 1 1 56 62 Large sea mmal (whale s'ized) 0 0 Lrg. land mmal (greater then dog) 541141621 11411 128 148 11173821 7,2 1 3 912 1326 Sm. land mmal (smaller than cat) 1 23 I 34 51 Land mmal 14 241733 '7 2 2 13 1 7 8 1322125 121 22 1 21 5 2022 2317 Hmal (large) 1 1 36 40 Unid. mmat 1 3 1 28 48 ' 'I 1 Unid. animal I

Total 110 8 3 526 6 9 4 3 0 0 0 3 14.22 140 11018 0 2 248 4355010314 122 0 013 35194466 Table 5.2: Beaver elements identified from DeRt 1

Unit 18 Trench Unit 30 Unit 30 + Strat.VI Strat.Vb Skul 1 1 Mandi bl e Teeth Vertebra Cervical Thoracic Lumbar Sacrum Caudal Sternum Rib Scapul a Humerus 1(C-5) Ulna Radi us Carpal Metacarpal Innominate 1(C-3) Femur Tibia Fi bul a Metatarsal Metapodi a1 Tarsal Sesamoid/Podial Phal anx Prox. Phal anx Med. Phal anx Di st. Phal anx 1(C-7) Metapod/Phal anges Possibly particles moved down by percolation, or turbation by rodents and earthworms. Unfortunately, unless faunal elements are found articulated, it is difficult to determine interdependence, and the separation of the elements in Unit 18 probably indicates that these are from different animals. In Unit 30, Garvin (1987) identified 5 beaver elements from Stratum 6, and 1 element from Stratum 5B. he elements were not from the top-most layers. Two incisors (left and right), a maxilla fragment, a left radius and a right ulna, all from mature animals

came from Stratum 6. One incisor came from Stratum 5B. All beaver longbone elements from the trench, Unit 18 and Unit 30 were fused, indicating that adult animals were taken. Carnivore chewing may have been a source of attrition since only teeth, and a distal humerus, innominate, femur shaft, radius and ulna were recovered. These tend to be dense elements with relatively thick cortical bone. Some elements a1 so showed carnivore gnawing and one may have come from fecal matter. Human intervention is suggested by the presence of a possible butchering mark on a femur, and the inclusion of the bones in the site matrix. The smaller rodents are more useful for environmental information, and as indicators of site disturbance than for subsistence data. The only indigenous rodent identified to genus was the vole (Microtus sp.). In the trench, three elements were identified as vole (Table 5.3). All three came from nearly the same Table 5.3: Microtus elements identified from DeRt 1

Unit 30 Unit 30 Trench Unit 18 sm. rodent Strat.VI Strat-Vb C- 8 C-64 C- 77 C- 79 C- 79 C-80 C-86 Sku1 1 1 Ifrag. Ifrag. Ifrag. 1 Mandible 1LI2R 3L,IR 1R 1L IL, 1R 1 L 1 L 1 R Teeth 2 2 2 2 3 Vertebra 1 Cervical Thoracic Lumbar Sacrum Cauda 1 Sternum Rib Scapu 1 a Humerus U Lna Radius P Carpal 0 Q Metacarpal Innominate Femur Tibia Fibula Metatarsal Metapodial Tarsal Sesamo id/Pod i a 1 Phalanx Prox.Phalanx Med.Phalanx Dist.Pha1anx Metapod/Pha langes level 5, and a cheektooth came from Unit 5, level 7. These were the only small rodent remains from the trench. In Unit 18, most Microtus elements come from the lower layers Table 5.1, 5.3). A left mandible with teeth came from context 8, and a left femur came from context 64. All other rodent remains came from context 77 and lower. In context 77 an anterior skull with teeth was recovered. Most elements came from context 79. A total of 69 small rodent remains were recovered. Microtus el ements (n=22) represented at least one articulated female skeleton. The same individual is probably included in the "small rodent" category. A sing1 e right mandible of a house mouse (mmuscul us) is included in this assemblage. The house mouse is not an indigenous species and since context 70 is unquestionably a prehistoric layer it may have fallen in from burrows dug by voles. Microtus remains were a1 so identified in context 80 by a left mandible and two cheekteeth, and in context 86 by a right mandible, maxilla and 3 cheekteeth. The number of small rodent remains recovered from Unit 18 was inflated by the inclusion of at least one articulated skeleton in context 70, and individual cheekteeth which may have separated from associated mandibles or maxillae. The skeleton in context 79 was not screened through the 114-inch (6.4-mm) mesh screen at the site but recovered in the matrix and bagged, so even the smallest foot bones were retrieved further increasing the bone count. In Garvin's (1987:90) analysis of Unit 30, 10 rodent bones came from Stratum 6, and 9 from Stratum 5B. Microtus remains from Stratum 6 included 1 left and 2 right mandibles, 2 cheekteeth, 1 left and 2 right femurs, and 1 left and 1 right tibia. In Stratum 5B, 1 maxilla fragment, 3 left and 1 right mandibles, 1 left innominate, 1 left femur and 1 1eft tibi a were recovered (Garvi n 1987: 93, 95). Elements are primarily the larger bones such as the major longbones, mandibles and skull portions. Cheekteeth were probably separated from mandibles and maxi1 1ae in the level bags. Smaller bones were most 1i kely lost through the 114-inch (6.4-mm) mesh screens. The only exception was context 70 from which the bones were bagged with the dirt in which they were embedded, allowing for the inclusion of small phalanges, carpals and tarsals, ribs, and unfused epiphyses. Attrition of small rodents was most 1i kely because of coll ecti ng methods, unl i ke the circumstances described earl i er for beaver, a larger rodent. Carnivores collected from units excavated in 1984 and 1985 included the canids (Canis spp.), raccoon (Procvon lotor), marten or fisher (Martes americana or Martes pennanti), and the river otter (Lutra canadensis). Garvin (1987) a1 so identified mink (Mustel a vison) from late prehistoric deposits. The most commonly identified carnivore in all units were the canids. Because of the difficulty of distinguishing dog (Canis famil i ari s), coyote (C.1 atrans), wolves (C. 1upus), and any hybrids of these three species, all canids are identified only as Canis sp. From the trench, 53 canid elements were recovered (Table 5.4). Twenty-seven of these bones came from Unit 5, levels 3 and 4. Two Table 5.4: Canid elements identified from DeRt 1

Stratum 6 Stratum 5b Trench Unit 18 Unit 30 Unit 30 TOTAL Sku1 1 Mandi bl e Teeth Vertebra Cervical Thoracic Lumbar Sacrum Caudal Sternum Rib Scapul a Humerus Ulna Radius Carpal Metacarpal Innominate Bacul um Femur Tibia Fibula Metatarsal Metapodi a1 Tarsal Sesamoid/Podi a1 Phal anx Prox. Phal anx Med .Phal anx Di st. Phal anx Metapod/Phal anges other bones came from levels 5 and 6 of the same unit. Because the elements come from nearly the same area horizontally and vertically, and no elements are duplicated, they are probably from the same individual, although no mention is made of this on the faunal forms for this unit. Unfused tibiae, skull fragments, and vertebrae are included, indicating that this was an immature individual. The bones showed no gnawing, burning, butchering or other modification. The fourth cervical vertebra had a bone growth on the left ventral transverse process. The first thoracic vertebrae and about the fourth thoracic vertebra (3 to 5) both had healed fractures and a left scapula also had a healed fracture, suggesting that the animal suffered an injury to the back and left side. Axial and appendicular elements were both we1 1 represented. In Unit 7, level 6 has a smaller assemblage of canid elements, consisting of skull bones, a ri by scapula and ulna. Of these, only the rib is fused, indicating that this was a young animal. In all other units and levels of late prehistoric deposits in the trench, isolated canid elements were recovered. About half of these i elements, for which information is available, are unfused. Only one i f bone was burned.

I' From Unit 18, 22 canid elements were recovered. The numbers 1.I 1 were probably not inflated because of complete or articulated skeletons. The greatest number of canid elements recovered from any 1k context in Unit 18 was three. In seven of these contexts, only teeth were recovered. Of the nine teeth, all but one were deciduous, and 6t could represent teeth lost during the maturation of young animals. Again, most elements were from juvenile animals. From Unit 30, Garvin (1987:90) identified 31 canid elements from

Stratum 6, and 11 from Stratum 5B. Garvin (1987:93) identified only two elements from immature animals in Stratum 6. The other elements were from mature animal s, and incl uded maxi 11a fragments (3), canines

(3), premol ars (4), mol ars (3), vertebrae (5), innomi nates (3), scapula (I), radius (l), ulna (I), metapodial (2), and first phalanges (4). Ten of these elements came from level 10. From Stratum 5B, two maxilla fragments were judged to be from immature animals. The remaining elements, including a premolar, scapula, radius, two metapodials and two first phalanges, were classified as mature animals (Garvin 1987:95). Nine elements from this stratum came from level 17 (Garvin 197:90). The greatest discrepancy between Garvin's (1987) study and the present one is the apparently greater representation of juvenile animals from the trench and Unit 18. The abundance of canids when compared with other carnivores, the presence of young animals, and the frequency of isolated deciduous teeth indicates that young animals were kept alive at the site, suggesting that the canid remains are from domesticated or tamed canids from the later prehistoric occupations at DeRt 1. Other carnivores are not common. A single river otter (Lutra canadensis) came from context 3 of Unit 18, but none were found from 1ate prehistoric deposits in the trench or Unit 18. A marten or fisher astragalus came from Unit 2, level 19 of the trench. Garvin (1987) identified two mink elements in Stratum 6. A single mustelid thoracic vertebra was identified from context 47 in Unit 18. A more general category of "small carnivore" was used for Unit 18 assemblages, and may include mustelids. Two of these elements, a thoracic and a cervical vertebra, came from context 7. One mustel id element came from context 26 (incisor), context 29 (deciduous incisor), and context 75 (canine). The "medium carnivore" category is more likely to include dog-sized carnivores. Four of these elements are unidentified proximal phalanges (contexts 5, 8, 44, 521, one is a medial phalanx (context 12), and one is a caudal vertebra (context 18). A premaxilla (context 26), thoracic vertebra (context 5l), and a canine (context 75) were a1 so recovered. Canids are not present in all of these contexts, and in some of the contexts no other carnivore elements are present. The most frequently identified fauna from DeRt 1 were artiodactyls or ungulates. Deer (Odocoileus sp.) and wapiti (Cervus elaohus) were identified from DeRt 1 faunal assemblages (Table 5.5). Identifications of wapiti were rare. A right wapiti distal femur fragment was recovered from Unit 3, level 4, and a left mandible fragment from Unit 4, level 4. The mandibular condyle was burned black on the ventral side and had butchering marks on the buccal side. In Unit 18, context 19, a right mandible was recovered, and from context 33 a right naviculo-cuboid was recovered. The mandible had carnivore chewing and the naviculo-cuboid showed butchering marks. Large cervid remains were probably also wapiti. The antler Table 5.5: Ungulate elements identified from Unit 18 and the Trench of DeRt 1

Unit 18 \ Trench Sma 1 1 Large Small Artio- Deer Uapit i Cervidae Cervidae Cervidae Ungulate dactyla Antler 2\0 1\4 0\4 Sku1 1 2\0 1\1 Mandible 2\3 0\1 Teeth 1\6 1\2 Vertebra 0\1 Cervical 1\1 Thoracic 0\1 Lumbar Sacrum Cauda 1 Sternum Rib 3\0 Scapula 1\3 Humerus 0\2 U Lna 1\0 Radius 3\1 Carpal 14\4 Metacarpal 5 \3 Innominate 2\0 Femur Tibia 2\1 Metatarsal 6\1 Metapodial Tarsal 9\4 Sesamoid/PodiaL Access.Metapod. 1\0 Access. Phalanx Access.prox .Ph. 4\0 Access.med. Ph. 2\0 Access.dist.Ph. Phalanx Prox.Phalanx 16\0 Med.Phalanx 9\1 Dist-Phalanx 7\0 Unidentified

TOTAL 91\31 portion from context 5 was chopped at the base near the pedicle. A medial phalanx with the edges rounded came from context 16. In context 27 a portion of a thoracic vertebra was burned to a white color. Context 33, which had wapiti naviculo-cuboid, also had a scapula from a 1arge cervid. An antler fragment which was burned black, had eroded edges, and had the base of a barnacle attached, came from context 75. The eroded edges and barnacle indicates that this fragment came from the beach, and had been submerged in the water for some time. Four wapiti bones came from Unit 30, Stratum 6, and none from Stratum 5B (Garvin 1987:90). One was a rib fragment, two were left innominate fragments and one was a second phalanx (Garvi n 1987: 94).

Deer (Odocoi 1eus sp. ) remains were far more common. Categories such as "Cervidae", "small Cervidae" and "small ungulate" are most 1i kely deer as well, a1 though the elements could not be identified as deer without question. Deer axi a1 s kel eta1 el ements appear under- represented relative to the appendicular bones (Figure 5.1). Even when the other categories are included. The number of appendicular elements are elevated, although these elements are still not common. This pertains to the elements from the trench and Unit 18. Garvin's (1987) data shows a similar pattern. This pattern is similar to other assemblages known to be heavily influenced by carnivore damage (Binford and Bertram 1977, Kl ipple et a1 . 1987, Snyder 1988). Inspection of the small cervid bone modifications from the trench and Unit 18 shows that carnivore gnawing was a common feature. NUMBER OF IDENTIFIED SPECIMENS - N - N - N 0 0 0 0 0 0 Antler Skull Mandible Teelh Vertebra Cervical Thoracic Lumbar Caudal Slernum Rib Scapula Humerus Ulna Radius I-' Carpal I-' UI Melacarp. Innominale Femur Tibia Tarsal C Sesamoid 5 Acess.Melap. --4 Acess. Phol. a Pr0x.Acess.R Med.Acess. I? Dis1.Acesr. f? ------Phalanx Proh. Phal. Med. Phal. Disl. Phal. Approximately 34 percent of the deer or other small cervid bones from Unit 18 showed gnawing marks, not including bones for which possible erosion by digestive acids was noted. From the trench, about 17 percent of the small ungulate bones showed carnivore chewing. This supports the supposition that element proportions at DeRt 1 were greatly affected by attrition from carnivores. As was discussed earlier, the most common carnivore recovered from the site was the canid; therefore, canids are the most likely source of attrition by carnivores. Few bones were burned. From Unit 18, context 8, a cannon bone or metapodial, was burned and showed butchering marks. In context

23, an atlas was burned black, probably from a burned root; therefore, it was probably not a cultural modification. In context

55, a radius was burned white. The bones from context 23 and 55 also showed gnawing marks. In the trench, only six bones showed any burning. In Unit 4, level 2, a metapodial with gnawing marks was burned black; in Unit 5, level 7, an occipital bone with gnawing was burned black; in Unit 5, level 4 an antler was burned black and a distal humerus with gnawing marks was carbonized; in Unit 7, level 3, an ulna was burned to a grey color, and in level 4 an antler was burned black. Evidence of butchering was not common. To study butchering patterns, a sample from a larger part of the site should be taken, and the exact location of the cut marks should be noted. Because that was not the purpose of this study, only a general impression can be gained from the material in Table 5.6.

Table 5.6: Deer bones showing butchering marks from DeRt 1:

Trench : Unit 18: Uni t-Level El ement Context El ement 2-5 Radius 8 Metatarsal 3-4 Mandible 11 Radi us 5-5 Cal caneus 15. Metacarpal 6-2 Scapul a 16 Sesamoid (behind the metapodi a1 ) Metatarsal Astragal us 7th Cervical Cal caneus Radius Mandible

The butchering marks are apparently concentrated on the leg, particularly the lower legs, and on bones which usually have 1ittle flesh covering them such as the mandible. The dominance of leg bones with butchering marks is understandable because of the preponderance of lower leg elements in the assemblage. Sea mammal s i ncl ude cetaceans or whal es, ki 11er whal es, do1 phins and porpoises, and the pinnipeds or seal and sea lions. No whale sized cetaceans were recovered. Only small del phinid size animal s were identified. From the trench units only three Delphinidae elements were recovered in late prehistoric matrices. An auditory bull a came from Unit 2, level 2 and a petrous portion of the bone came from Unit 2, level 3. These elements were both from the same side and may have come from the same animal. The third element was an epiphysis from a vertebra in Unit 4, level 3 (Table 5.7). Table 5.7 Delphinid elements identified from DeRt 1

DeRtl , Unit 18: Element :

Context 4 skull, petrous Context 7 Vertebra epiphysis Context 7 mid. element Context 7 skull, petrous Context 7 skull, aud. bulla Context 8vertebrae, 2 epiph., 1 centrum Context 8 wid. element Context 9 Vertebrae - epiphyses Context 12 Vertebra epiphysis Context 16 Vertebrae - epiphyses Context 18 Vertebrae - epiphyses Context 18 wid. element Context 19 Vertebrae - epiphyses Context 22 Vertebra epiphysis Context 24 Vertebra epiphysis Context 26 Vertebrae - epiphyses Context 26 wid. element Context 27 Vertebra epiphysis Context 29 Vertebra epiphysis Context 33 skull, aud. bulla Total : DeRtl , Trench : level Unit 2 2 Skull, aud. bulla 1 Unit 2 3 Skull, petrous 1 Unit 4 3 Vertebra 1 Total : 3 Delphinidae remains were more numerous in Unit 18. Most of the elements identified were incomplete vertebral epiphyses, Because even mature sea mammals can have unfused epiphyses, this is not an indication that only young animals were hunted or used. The other elements identified were the very dense ear bones. Forty elements were recovered from Unit 18. All Delphinidae remains came from context 33 and above (Table 5.7). Seal remains were more common in assemblages from the trench than were delphinid remains. Fifteen harbor seal (Phoca vitul ina) elements were recovered from the trench (Table 5.8). Four of the identified elements were teeth and six were phalanges. One bone came from the skull. The remaining elements were from the legs. Large seal remains identified as Otariidae or from Eumeto~iasjubata or Zaloohus californianus consisted of two skull fragments from Unit 2, level 3 and Unit 7, level 11. None of the phocid or otariid remains from the trench showed cut marks, and only one left ulna from Unit 2, level 3 was burned. In Unit 18, of 46 elements identified as harbor seal, 24 were teeth (Table 5.8). Most harbor seal elements came from context 7. Of the 13 harbor seal elements from this context, 8 were unidentified cheekteeth, two were skull fragments, one was a humerus shaft, and one was a front phalanx. One unidentified element was from a small pinniped. Only the humerus had gnawing. No seal bones from context 7 were burned or had cut marks. Of ten elements identified in context 16, six were teeth; there was a left auditory Table 5.8: Seals identified from DeRt 1

small large Phoca vitul ina Pinniped Pinniped Phocidae Otari idae Otari idae Eumatopias Trench Unit30 Unit18 Unit18 Unit18 Unit18 Trench Unit 30 Trench Sku1 1 1 3 6 1 1 1 Mandible 1 3 Teeth 4 3 24 Vertebra Cervical Thoracic Lunbar Sacrum Cauda 1 Sternum Rib Scapula Humerus Ulna Radius Carpal Metacarpal Innominate Femur Tibia Metatarsal Metapdial Tarsal Sesamoid/Podial Phalanx Prox-Phalanx Med-Phalanx Dist.Phalanx Unidentified TOTAL bulla and left petrous bone, a left humerus and left patella. A cervical and a lumbar vertebra were identified from this same context as small pinniped. None of these bones showed gnawing, burning or had cut marks. In any other context, there were not more than four elements, and if seal bones were present, there were only one or two. Few of the remaining bones were gnawed (n=4), and none were burned or showed cut marks. Seal remains became increasingly rare in the lower 1ayers. The largest category is the unidentified materials. These are elements or fragments of bone identified as sea mammal, medium sea mammal (seal /porpoi se sized), 1arge 1and mammal (1 arger than canid), small 1and mammal (smaller than a domestic cat), 1and mammal, 1arge mammal, unidentified mammal and unidentified animal . This unidentified category comprises 80.25 percent of the material' by number from the trench assemblage, and 89.10 percent of the material \ from Unit 18. Unidentified sea mammal bones are only a minor component of the unidentified material, mirroring their representation i n the i dent i f i ed assembl age.

Birds Bird rema ins are not common in the late prehistoric assemb 1ages analyzed from DeRt 1. Unidentified bird remains made up 59.15 percent of the total avian assemblage (n=70) and 61.36 percent of the total bird assemblage (n=44) from Unit 18. While a large percentage of bones were identified in the bird assemblages compared with the mammal assemblages, there were fewer bones to identify compared with the mammals; therefore, less information is available. Not all bird vertebrae were identified to taxon although they are potentially identifiable. The most commonly identified birds were the waterfowl (Table 5.9). In the trench assemblage, the common loon (Gavia immer), the Arctic loon or the red throated loon (Gavia arctica or Gavia stel 1ata) , a teal, buff1 ehead (Bucephal a a1 be01 a), an unidentified Bucephal a sp., scoters (Me1 ani tta sp. ) and unidentified ducks were identified. Of these, the unidentified ducks and scoters were the most common. Modification included two burned scoter elements (distal tibiotarsus and ulna), and one unidentified duck tibiotarsus. One unidentified medium sized bird element was also burned. A common loon distal ulna had cut marks and the Arctic or red-throated loon ulna had gnawing marks on it. Other birds identified from the trench included fl icker (Col aptes auratus) , great bl ue heron (Ardea herodi as), and the golden eagle (Aauila chrvsaetos). A right radius (Unit 5, level 3), a left front digit I (Unit 5, level 6), and a left carpometacarpus (Unit 6, level 8), all wing elements, were identified from the golden eagle. The carpometacarpus showed heavy cut marks. The bird elements identified from the trench were primarily wing bones. Fewer bird bones were found from Unit 18. Waterfowl were also common in this unit, but the other bird remains were unlike those recovered from the trench. Mergi nae, 1oons (Gavi a sp. ) , scoters Table 5.9: Birds identified from DeRt 1

Trench Unit 18

Unit-Level Taxon element: Context: Taxon: element : Gavia imner ulna - distal 3 Merginae premaxilla Melanitta sp. ulna - distal 3 Cathartes aura humerus - proxmial Bucephala sp. radius - distal 6 Gavia sp. tibiotarsus - shaft Melanitta sp. radius - proximal 14 Melanitta sp. radius - proximal Melanitta sp. ulna - complete 18 duck humerus - proximal Bucephal a sp . radius - complete 18 duck scapula - distai 20 Melanitta sp. carpometacarpus - proxima 1 Gavia imner tibiotarsus-prox. 2 1 Dendragapus sp. carpometacarpus - proximal duck f urculucm 47 duck ulna - shaft Colaptes auratus radius - distal 47 Melanitta sp. radius - whole (Left) 47 Melanitta sp. radius - whole (right) Ardea herod ias cervical vert. 66 duck ulna - proximal Gavia imner carpometacarpus - prox. 67 Podicipedidae ulna - proximal duck pollex - whole 75 duck coracoid - incomplete tea 1 carpometacarpus - incomplete 75 Melanitta sp. sternum - coracoid facet Bucephala albeola ulna - complete 75 Larus sp. radius - proximal 82 Melanitta sp. ulna - distal Aqui la chrysaetos radius - proximal Melanitta sp. quadrate Aqui La chrysaetos pollex - whole duck Axis vert duck ulna - shaft

Gavia arctica/steltata tibiotarsus - distal Melanitta sp. coracoid - proximal Aquila chrysaetos carpometacarpus - distal duck tibiotarsus - distal

duck tibiotarsus - distal duck tibiotarus - proximal Melanitta sp. quadrate - complete (Melanitta sp.), ducks, and grebes (Podicipedidae), were the waterbirds identified. One scoter sternum had chewing marks, but no other bones showed modification. Scoters and unidentified ducks were the most common birds recovered. Wing bones were again most frequently recovered.

Other birds recovered from Unit 18 included a humerus from a turkey vulture (Cathartes aura), the carpometacarpus of a grouse

(Dendraqa~ussp.), and a gull (Larus sp.) radius. A complete description of these elements is provided in Appendix 1. Bird bones were most frequently found from context 75 (n=ll). Unfortunately, with the exception of a medium sized duck coracoid, a scoter sternum, and a gull radius, the remaining elements were longbone fragments and one element from an unidentified bird.

Fish Fish were the most frequently identified vertebrate from the

DeRt 1 faunal assemblages. The fish identified from DeRt 1 were all from Unit 18. No attempt was made to identify spines, rays, ribs, pterygiophores or branchial s. Unidentified totals have not been i nc1 uded because a number of bones considered i dent i f i ab1 e have been set aside until more extensive comparative fish collections can be consulted. Perch (Embiotocidae) outnumbered a1 1 other taxa by far, followed distantly by the Clupeidae (herring and sardines), then Sebastes (rockfishes), and the Gadidae (true cods; Table 5.10). Less common, in order of abundance, were Oncorhvnchus sp., sharks and Table 5.10: Fish identified from DeRt 1, Unit 18

TAXON NISP Shark or Ray 7 Squalus acanthias 146 All Sharks and Rays: Hydrolagus colliei 19 ALL Chimaeridae:

C Lupe i dae Clupea harengus ALL Clupeidae:

Oncorhynchus sp. ALL Salmonidae:

Gadidae Gadidae - Large Gadus rnacrocephalus Merluccius productus Microgadus proximus All Gadidae:

Perciformes Unidentified Perciformes:

Embiotocidae Embiotoca Lateralis Rhacochilus vacca Perch - not Rhacochilus Perch-not Rhacochilus or Ernbiotoca All Embiotocidae:

Stichaeidae All Stichaeidae:

Sebastes sp. ALL Scorpaenidae:

Hexagramnidae Hexagramnos sp. Hexagramnos stelLeri Ophidon elongatus A1 L Hexagramnidae:

Cott idae 53 Cottidae - Large 15 . Cottidae -small 1 Enophrys bison 1 Hemilepidotus hemilepidotus 8 Leptocottus armatus 33 Leptocottus or Enophrys 4 Myoxocephalus sp. 1 Scorpaenichthys marrnoratus 10 Hemilepidotus or Scorpaenichthys 1 All Cottidae: Scorpaenidae/Cottidae/Hexagrarmidae 2 Scorpaenidae/Cott idae/Hexagramnidae:

Pleuronectidae Flatfish Plat ichthys stel latus All flatfish:

Total Identified Fish Total Unidentified fish

ALL fish analyzed I Table 5.11: Fish identified from DeRt 1, Unit 18 I ' I

Bones from Level bags Context Number: Taxon : 123456 Shark or Ray Squalus acanthias Hydrolagus colliei clupeidae

Oncorhynchus sp. 1222171 1 2 21152 12 4 5 1 5 3 1 1 Gadidae 1 1 1 I 2 Gadidae- Large Gadus macrocephalus Mer lucc ius productus i.licrogadus proximus Perc iforines 1 Embiotocidae 127 81727 830 249 20 20 6 8 1 31 Enbiotoca Lateralis 2 4 1 12 Rhacoch i lus vacca 1 11118 13 245 1 Perch-not Rhacochilus 2 1 1 11312 1 Perch-not Rhacochi lus or Ehiotoca Stichaeidae sebastes sp.

Hexgrmidae 6 1 Hexagrams sp. 3 1 1 1 1 2 Hexagramnos stel leri 1 Lphidon elongatus 1 Cottidae 1 1 222 4 Cott idae- large 1 1 1 Cottidae-small Enophrys bison Hemitepidotus hemilepidotus Leptocottus armatus 1 4 Leptocottus or Enophrys Myoxocephalus sp. Scorpaenichtys marmoratus Hemi lepidogus or Scorpaenichthys Scorpaenidae/Cott idae/Hexagrmidae P Leuronect idae Flatfish 1 Platichtys stellatus C

Total 1 017 6 15 15 48 38 10 14 51 275 40 63 11 21 54 Table 5.11: Fish identified from DeRt 1, Unit 18 (continued)

Bones from level bags Context Number: Taxon: 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 Shark or Ray 1 2 1 12 7 Squalus acanthias 11 .14 3 1 4 19 18 1 2 16 15 146 Hydrotagus cot 1 iei 6 2 2 2 1 19 C Lupe idae 24222710852011 221 21 417213 1 245 3 3 2 1 106 28 4 96 2 27 1 6 554

Oncorhynchus sp. Gadidae Gadidae- Large Gadus rnacrocephalus Mer luccius productus Microgadus proximus Perciformes 1 Errbiotocidae 11 4 4 36 9 33 13 34 28 12 6 8 4 1 7 5 2 14 12 3 21 37 1 2 2 2 367 1 49 30 250 4 61 29 18 1544 Embiotoca Lateralis 2 13 2 1 1 1 1 112 1 12 1 12 2 1 1 68 Rhacochilus vacca 2 1 1 1 1 15 3 12 1 1 78 Perch-not Rhacochi lus 11 13412 1 111 11 ,4 1 18 2 4 3 85 Perch-not Rhacochilus or Embiotoca 11 Stichaeidae 1 1 Sebastes sp. 32310313664152 1 216 6 22 1 55 71 39 31 1 2 55 1 11 396

Hexgramnidae Hexagramnos sp. Hexagrams stel leri Ophidon elongatus Cottidae Cottidse-large Cottidae-small Enophrys bison Hemilepidotus hemilepidotus Leptocottus armatus Leptocottus or Enophrys Myoxocephalus sp. Scorpaenichtys marmorarus Hemi lepidogus or Scorpaeni chthys Scorpaenidae/Cott idae/Hexagramnidae Pleuronectidae FLatf ish Platichtys stellatus

Total 52 19 31 94 65 49 24 65 53 28 11 15 14 3 16 15 15 19 39 1 3 0 6 49 87 O lo 621 2 245 116 479 6 79 163 2 0 0 63 3578 rays, Cottidae, and Hexagrammidae. Rarely identified taxa were Hydro1 asus coll iei , the flatfishes and Stichaeidae. Bones identified to taxon numbered 3578, and 3244 fish bones were unidentified. Oncorhvnchus sp. was the most common species only in context 3, which was, in most places, just underneath the 1ittermat (Table 5.11). A metal nail was recovered from context 3. If this nail was not pushed into the soil by tramp1 ing or moved in by worm or rodent activity (worm castings were identified from that layer), then this would be an early historic deposit. In context 19, of 5 bones, two were salmonid and 1 each of Sebastes, Embiotocidae and Clupeidae. In context 72, there were nearly equal numbers of cod (n=3), salmon (n=2), herring (n=2), perch (n=2), and rockfish (n=l) . In context 16, salmon were the second most common species after perch. Although fewer bones were recovered in context 18 (n=21), salmon were the second most abundant species (n=5), and again fecal remains were recovered. Salmon were most abundant in small assemblages, except in context 16, and possibly the historically deposited context 3. The dominance of salmon in the small assemblages is probably the result of sample size and ease of identification. The true cods were dominant in context 41, 42, 45, and 48 and were the second most abundant species in context 47. Although matrices were different, these 1ayers were either in contact, or on a soil associated with another. All were in the northern middle half of Unit 18, suggesting that there was a greater emphasis on cods, particularly Merl ucci us productus, when these 1ayers were deposited. The hake are primarily nocturnal feeders, preying on tomcod (Microaadus ~roximus), herring, shrimp, anchovy and smelt. It is interesting that in context 48, tomcod were a1 so present, and herring were the second most abundant species in contexts 41, 42, and 48 suggesting that the cod were caught along with the herring on which they feed. Contexts 44 and 46, also in the same part of the unit, have a predominance of herring. In context 39, the numbers of herring, hake and perch were nearly evenly represented, and in context 37, cods were the third most common fish after perch and herring. It appears that the hake might have been caught along with their prey. Juvenile tomcod live in shallow waters in shallow bays in the summer and autumn, but adult fish live in deep water (Lamb and

Edge11 1986). Herring spawn in the later winter and spring, into the summer (Hart 1980). The striped sea perch feeds on herring eggs as we1 1 as crustaceans and invertebrates. This combination of identified taxa suggests that fish associated with herring spawning activities were being exploited from the winter to the summer. Sebastes sp. or rockfish were the most common fish in contexts 78 and 82, two adjacent contexts, and the second most common fish after seaperch in context 77, which 1 ies over contexts 78 and 82. It is only in these lower 1 ayers that the rockfish were common. Seaperches were also common in each of these contexts. Sebastes are year around inhabitants of the Strait of Georgia, generally occupying waters near rocky shores. They were usually caught with hook and line, although some species school.

129 In all other contexts, sea perch was the most common fish, usually with herring second in abundance. They are usually found near rocky shores in shallow waters. However, they tend to move to deep waters in the winter (Somerton and Murray 1976). Striped perch (Embiotoca lateral is) and sometimes pile perch (Rhacochil us vacca) travel in schools. They are found near the shore during the summer, and could probably be caught using a hook and line or a spear. Pile perch reach 44.2 cm long, while the smaller striped perch can be as long as 38cm. The abundance of seaperch suggests a late- spring/summer/early-fall occupation of the site. A1 1 species identified from Pender Canal, except salmonids, cods, flatfishes and Stichaeidae, are occupants of the rocky nearshore habitat (Moulton 1977). The flatfishes and Stichaeidae are uncommon in the Pender Canal collection. In the rocky nearshore environment near San Juan Island, Washington, the most common fishes were the kelp greenl ing and the yellowtail rockfish (Sebastes fl avidus), foll owed by the black rockfish (S.me1 anops) . Both rockfishes are schooling fish. Lingcod were also abundant (Moulton 1977:36). Based on Moul ton's (1977) study, it appears that the rocky nearshore habitat was the primary environment exploited by the Pender Canal inhabitants. The greatest number of species were present in the rocky habitat in the summer from May to September. Solitary species showed less seasonal fluctuation, however, particularly the 1 ingcod and kelp greenl i ng (Moul ton 1977). The decrease in species abundance may have been related to a reduced activity level of the rockfish or movement into deeper waters. Rockfish returned to shallow water in the spring and summer (Moulton 1977). The exceptions to a rocky nearshore habitat are the rare occurrence of flatfish in contexts 23, 33, 34, 37, 45, 68, 76, 78, and 79. In each case, three or fewer bones were present, and may have come from the stomach contents of other' fish, or the occasional sole or flounder caught in a mud or sand bay. Salmon and herring can be found associated with a variety of habitats as they swim through the straits.

Shellfish Shellfish analyzed from Pender Canal came from soil samples taken from column 1 of Unit 18. Material presented in this study was waterscreened through nested 114-inch (6.4-mm), 2-mm, and 1-mm meshed screens and materials were weighed. Muckle (1985) also used a column sample from Unit 6 of DeRt 1. He compared materials from 8.6- mm, 5.6-mm, 4-mm and 2-mm dry-screened soils. Muckle (1985:89) observed that 100 percent of the butter clams (Saxidomus qiqanteus) were recovered in 5.6-mm meshed screens or greater. Approximately 85 percent of the 1ittleneck samples came from 5.6-mm meshed screens or larger, and slightly more than 90 percent came from 4-mm or larger meshed screens. Just over half of the cockle shells identified came from the 5.6-mm mesh screen, and 60-70 percent came from 4-mm mesh screen. The blue mussel from the 5.6-mm mesh was under-represented. Only 10 percent of the total shell weight from the samples came from 5.6-mm mesh screens or larger, and 20-30 percent came from the 4-mm or larger mesh screen. Muckle (1985:93) emphasized that the lack of representation of blue mussel shells in sites may be related to recovery methods. The mussels fragment into smaller pieces than do clam shells. "Accordingly, the observation that among a1 1 she1 1 particles larger than 5.6 mm, Mvtilus edulis shells comprise a significantly smaller proportion of the samples than the shells of Protothaca staminea, Saxidomus giqanteus, and other species can be partly explained by the fact that a larger percentage of Mvtilus edulis shells passed through the 5.6 mm sieve" (Muck1 e 1985:94).

Based on Muckle's (1985:94) research, mussel shells collected from a 1/4-i nch (6.4-mm) meshed screen shoul d be most under-represented followed by cockle, then littleneck, with butter clams being least biased. This distortion extends to easily fragmented or very small shells of other species such as the urchins or small land snails. At DeRt 1, in Unit 18, not all matrices were sampled, only those which were intersected by column 1. The most commonly represented species were the bivalves (Table 5.12). In the layers above context 47, the clams were most common. Weights were usually dominated by the littleneck clam, a species that is usually found fairly close to the ground surface in mud, sand and gravel beaches. The only exceptions to the dominance of Protothaca in the assemblage is in context 18 where weights are nearly evenly split between the 1 ittleneck clam (48 gm) and mussels (46 gm) . If mussels are being Table 5.12: Shellfish from DeRt 1

C Shellfish from columns samples water-sieved through 1/4-inch mesh screens Shell weight in grams Context: Species: 3 5 9? 12 14 16 18 23 29 32 35 37 38 42 47 48

Saxidms giganteus Protothaca staminea Clinocardiun nuttallii Tresus capax

Hacoma nasuta Macma sp. wa SP. Soft shell ctm Tell ina sp. wtilus edulis Small bivalve (Pelecypoda) Pe 1 ecypoda

Nucella lawllosa Nucella emarginata Nucella canaliculata Nucella Lima Nucella sp.

Searlesia dire Nassarius sp. Littorina sitkana Littorina scutulata Bittiun estrichtii mall marine snails

Tectura persona .4 .3 Tectura scutun I 3.5 q. 1 Lottia pelta .9 .2 1 1 -2 .5 3 mid. Lirpet <.1 .3 <.I q.l .I .3 .I 2.3 .3 .3 fialpotrema sportella (sm. land snail) .1 <. 1 <. 1 .1 Little white Land snails <.I <.1 <. 1 I e.1 <. 1

Cryprochiton stelleri Katharina tunicata mid. chiton Cancer productus Cancer sp. small crab frag. mid. crab

Belanus glandula 4 9.7 6.2 24.7 4.2 17.7 22.8 1.6 10.4 11.9 8 4, 19.5 12.9 20.5 Balanus cariosus 38.2 29.4 .2 1.3 .7 3.5 1.7 4.2 .7 .5 3.4 .4j 4.7 1.6 1.9 .7 Strongylocentrotus droebachiensis <.1 8.9 1.7 1.6 Strongytocentrotus sp. <. 1 .1 .1 .3 1 .2 .4 2.6 1.8) 1.5 3.9 2.5 big urchin .I .2 Serpuia vermicularis (marine worm tube) .2

I Identifiable shell .I Unidentified shell 37.6 80.3 7.9 1.3 4;2 18.2 2.4 3.7 1.3 9m4 '-13 5.1 2.7 13.3 6.2 8 bones and scales .3 .6 .I 3.8 1.6 5.7 .9 1 5.6 41 .5 .1 .2 .I Insects <. lrnn 29.6 3.5 18.3 5 3.7 12.2 9-8 4.8 1.7 2.3: .7 6.2 1.7 2.8 4.4 11.4 5.6 5.3 5*3 18-7 1.3 .2 2.2 1.1 1 charcoal 8 roots 17.3 15.1 1.6 8.8 .7 1: dirt 28.1 49.8 rocks 353.7 55.8 22.3 76 562 127.8 28.l 261.3 TI'9 134.3 15. 223.4 45.7 86.1 Table 5.12: Shellfish from DeRt 1 (continued)

P Shellfish from colms samples water-sieved through 1/4-inch mesh screens Shell ueight in grms

Species : 5 1 53 55 62 66 72 73 74 75 77 84Y 842 86

Saxidomus giganteus Protothaca staminea Cl inocardiun nuttall i i Tresus capax

Macuna nasuta Macuna sp. Mya sp. Soft shell clam Tell ina sp. Mytilus edulis Small bivalve (Pelecypoda) Pe lecypoda

Nucella lmellosa Nu ema555Y Nucella canaLiculata Nucella Lima Nucella sp.

Searlesia dira Nassarius sp. Littorina sitkana Littor ina scutulata Bittiun estrichtii small marine snails

Tectura persona .5 Tectura scutun 1.6 .1 <. 1 Lottia pelta 4.9 4.4 .3 unid. limpet 2.1 1.2 Halpotrema sportella (sm. Land snail) Little white land snails <.I <.I

Cryptochiton stelleri Katharina tunicata mid. chiton Cancer productus Cancer sp. small crab frag. unid. crab I Bal anus glandula 12.1 10.8 18.6 30.5 3.6 4.7 4.5 3.6 84.1 58.6 48.4 17.3 22.9 1 Balanus cariosus .8 .2 .4 4.7 2.5 13.7 8.5 & 4.7 3.8 Strongylocentrotus droebachiensis .8 4.8 3.9 . 4.1 20.4 5.2 30.4 3.2 Strongylocentrotus sp. .1 6.3 1.3 .I big urchin ' , ~er~levermicular is (marine worm tube)

Identif iabl'e shell Unidentified shell bones and scales Insects <.lmn charcoal & roots dirt rocks under-represented in these contexts, they probably dominate the assemblage when the total soil sample is processed. The other layer in which littlenecks do not dominate the assemblage is context 32. Butter clams are more common. The butter clam is a larger clam and burrows deeper into a sand or gravel substrate than does the 1 i ttl eneck. Mussels are only moderately abundant between the surface and context 47, although in contexts 12, 18, 38 and 42 they outweigh all bivalves except the littleneck. After context 47, the large clams become less common, and blue mussel dominates the assemblage. In contexts 47, 48, 51, 53, 55, 62, 66, 72, 75, 77, 84z and 86, mussels from the 114-inch (6.4-mm) mesh screen outweigh any other species identified. In context 73, the fri 11 ed dogwinkl e (Nucell a lamellosa), a gastropod, is more common, and in context 74 the dogwinkl e and 1 impets are most common. Mussels, dogwinkles and 1 impets a1 1 1 ive along rocky shores, and are pried or plucked from the rocks. It appears, based on this small subsample of the site, that there was a shift in subsistence sometime between the time context 47 and 42 were occupied. This suggests that there was a change in the activities occurring at the site or in that portion of the site, or a change in the environment associated with the site. It may be that the bay associated with DeRt 1 began filling in, providing more gravel and sand beaches necessary for clam beds. Work is continuing in an attempt to determine if this pattern is unique to Unit 18, or if it is observed in other parts of the site. Muckle (1985:88) showed a decreasing abundance of blue mussel in the deeper parts of the site below the Developed Coast Salish component, but this may be related to the greater effects of chemical weathering on the thin mussel shells. Barnacles are not abundant in any level, but they show greater representation re1 ative to other species in context 18 (where mussels also show greater abundance) and in levels from context 42 and deeper. There is a decrease in abundance in contexts 66, 72, 73 and 74. Other rocky shore species show an increase as well. The most abundant barnacles are small barnacles, probably Bal anus slandul a, and may have been brought to the site attached to other shellfish or on rocks. B. cariosus the large barnacles outweigh the smaller species only in contexts 3 and 5. Urchins are rare in all levels except in context 74 and 77. In context 74, urchins are nearly equal in weight to the dogwinkle. Urchins, also a rocky shore inhabitant, are usually exploited for their gonads. Gonad weight is greatest in mid to late march (Carefoot 1977: Ill), and their abundance indicates a spring exploitation of these animals. Re1 ative abundance of the urchins would probably be greater if weights from the smaller screens were i ncl uded. Land snai 1s are only occasional ly represented. Three 1arge 1and snai 1s came from 1eve1 bag sampl es from context 44 (Tab1 e 5.13). The land snails were probably included in the site because they occurred there naturally rather than being brought in as a subsistence item. Table 5.13: Shellfish from Unit 18 level bags

Level : species : 1 Cancer productus 1 Cancer productus 1 Cancer productus 4 Decapoda (mid. crab) 8 Polinices lewisii 8 Searlesia dira 18 Strongylocentrotus sp. 22 Bittium eschrichtii 29 Cryptochiton stelleri 29 Cryptochiton stelleri 3 2 Saxidomus giganteus 3 3 Tresus capax 38 Amphissa sp. 44 Hinites giganteus 44 Hinites giganteus 44 ~onadeniafidelis (lg. land snail) 46 Cancer productus Cryptochiton stelleri Balanus cariosus Balanus glandula Balanus glandula Balanus glandula Balanus glandula Balanus glandula Balanus glandula Balanus glandula Balanus glandula 51 Chlamys hastata 5 1 Clinocardium nuttalii 5 1 Clinocardium nuttallii - 51 Mytilus edulis 51 Protothaca staminea 55 Balanus glandula 55 Katharina tunicata 62 . Cancer magister 6 2 Cancer productus 6 2 Cryptochiton stelleri 62 Cryptochiton stelleri 64 ~trongylocentrotussp. (red or purple) 70 Pododesmus cepio 71 Lottia pelta 71 Mytilus edulis 71 Tectura scutum 75 Balanus glandula 75 Littorina scutulata 75 Macoma nasuta 77 Saxidomus giganteus 81 Nucella lamellosa 82 Unidentified shell Chitons are also relatively rare. The gumboot chiton is only slightly better represented in context 55 and 62. Gumboot chiton shells were collected and placed in level bags from contexts 29 (n=2), 47 (n=l) and 62 (n=5). The black katy or leather chiton was also represented at the site. Identified crab fragments come from the red rock crab, a rocky beach inhabitant. A dungeness crab claw came from a level bag for context 62. Few sand or mud substrate inhabiting clams occur on the site. Species which could be classified as rarities came from the level bags for Unit 18 (Table 5.13). A moon snail, strictly a sand or mud beach inhabitant came from context 8. A scallop (Chlamys hastata), usually cataloged with artifacts, came from context 51, and probably had no importance to subsistence.

Col umn sampl es A column sample from Unit 6 and column 1 of Unit 18 were collected to sample small vertebrates and small elements as we1 1 as shellfish. The only information about shellfish (except exotics collected during the excavation of the unit) came from the column samples. Therefore, results of materials from level bags or context bags cannot be compared to the results of analysis of column samples collected from these same levels or contexts. Vertebrate data, however, can be compared. Mammal remains from the Unit 6 column were rare. None of the mammal fragments were identified to a more specific taxon. All identified mammal remains came from screen sizes of 2-mm mesh or greater (Tables 5.14, 5.15, 5.16, 5.17, 5.18) . Two unidentified fragments may have been bird bone fragments. Two pieces were bone or antler shavings, and one had a cut mark. For information about mammals or birds the columns were nearly useless when compared to the material in the level bags from the same unit. One interesting item from the column was a vertebra from a reptile. It has tentatively been identified as a snake vertebrae, but requires further study. No reptile remains were recovered from Unit 6, the other trench units, or Unit 18 late prehistoric matrices. Column 1 of Unit 18 was not used to sample all contexts excavated in the unit, but only those which it intersected. Mammal remains were recovered in all sized meshes including 1-mm mesh, particularly when there was much bone in the total sample. Other than large or small mammal categories, the only mammals identified were "cervid" from ant1 er shavings 1eft from manufacturing, and phocidae from a cheek-tooth fragment in context 14 (Tables 5.19, 5.20, 5.21). Occasionally a fragment was identified as "bird or mammal " . No cut marks were identified. Other modifications identified were burning, root etching, and erosion. Little information about mammals on the site came from the column samples. Fish elements from the two column samples were more plentiful and informative than were remains of higher vertebrates. Fish bones were a1 so more 1i kely to be identified because they are smaller and are more 1i kely to be whole when found in the smaller meshed screens. Table 5.14: Vertebrates identified from Unit 6 colm (8-mn mesh screen)

DeRt 1, Unit 6 8-n mesh screen Bag No: Taxon: 12345 Vertebrate mid. Mmal, unidentified Large mmal Med. marmat Sm. mmal Bird or marmat unid. Cervid (antler frag.) Phocidae Rept iLe

cartilaginous fish Shark or Ray Raja sp. Spralus acanthias Hydrolagus cot L iei

Clupe idae Oncorhynchus sp. Gadidae Cadidae- large Gadus macrocephalus Hertuccius productus Microgadus proxim~s

Perciformes Enbiotocidae Erbiotoca lateralis Rhacochilus vacca Perch-not Rhacochilus Perch-not RhacochiLus or Enbiotoca St ichaeidae

I Sebastes sp. Hexgrmidae I Hexagrms sp. Hexagrms steller i Ophidon elongatus

Cott idae Cott idae- large Cottidae-mall Enophrys bison Hemi lepidotus hemi lepidotus Leutocottus armatus Leptocottus or Enophrys 1 Myoxocephalus sp. 1 Scorpaenichtys marmoratus Hemi lepidogus or Scorpaenichthys C Scorpaenidae/Cottidae/Hexagrannidae

PLeuronect idae Flatfish PLatichtys stellatus hid. fish (scales) hid fish ShelLf ish Seed Root/wood/charcoaL Rock wknwn Table 5.15: Vertebrates identified from Unit 6 colm (5.6-mn mesh screen)

DeRt 1, Unit 6 5.6-mn mesh screen C Taxon: Vertebrate mid. Nmal, unidentified Laroe mmal ~ed: mmal Sm. mmal Bird or mmal unid. Cervid (antler frag.1 Phocidae Reptile cartilaginous fish Shark or Ray Raja sp. Squalus acanthias Hydrolegus colliei

Clupe idae Oncorhynchus sp. Cedidae Cedidae- large Cadus macrocephalus Herluccius productus Nicrogadus proxims

Perciformes Enbiotocidae Embiotoca lateralis Rhacochilus vacca Perch-not Rhacochi lus Perch-not Rhacochilus or Wiotoca Stichaeidae

Sebastes sp. I Hexgramnidae Hexagramnos sp. Hexagramnos stel leri Ophidon elongatus

Cottidae Cott idae- large Cott idae- wall Enophrys bison Hemi lepidotus hemi lepidotus Leptocottus ermatus Leptocottus or Enophrys Myoxocephalus sp. Scorpaenichtys marmoretus Hem1lepidogus or Scorpaenichthys Scorpaenidae/Cott idaelHexagrannidae &

Pieuronectidae Flatfish Platichtys stellatus Unid. fish (scales) Unid fish Shellfish Seed Rootluood4charcoal Rock unknoun Table 5.16: Vertebrates identified from Unit 6 colurn (4-~rmmesh screen)

DeRt 1, Unit 6 4-rrm mesh screen r Bag No.: Taxon:.- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 vertebrate unid. ~mal,unidentified Large manna1 Med. mmal SRI. mmal Bird or rnmat unid. Cervid (antler frag.) phoc idae Reptile

cartilsginws fish Shark or Ray Raja sp. sgualus acanthias Hydrolagus coliiei

Clupeidae Oncorhynchus sp. Cadidae Gadidae-large Cadus rnacrocephalus Herluccius productus Microgadus proxirms

Percifoms Embiotoc idae Embiotoca Lateralis Rhacochi lus vacca Perch-not Rhacochilus Perch-not Rhacochilus or Enbiotoca St ichaeidae

Sebastes sp. Hexgrmidae Hexagremnos sp. Hexagrms steller i Ophidon elongatus

Cott idae Cottidaa- large Cottidae-mall Enophrys bison Hemilepidotus hemilepidotus Leptocottus armatus Leptocottus or Enophrys Hyoxocephalus sp. Scorpaenichtys marinoratus Hemilepidogus or Scorpaenichthys Scorpaenidae/Cott idae/Hexsgrmidae

Pleuronect idae Flatfish Platichtys stellatus Unid. fish (scales) Unid fish Shellfish Seed Root Rock Table 5.17: Vertebrates identified fran Unit 6 colwn (2-nn mesh screen)

DeRt 1, Unit 6 2-mn mesh screen (9W10X semple) Bag No: Taxon: 12345 vertebrate unid. I/- manna(, unidentified I/- Large rnamnal 9/- ned. rnannal m. mamnal Bird or mmal unid. cervid (antler frag.) phoc idae ~epti le

cartilaginous fish 1/- Shark or Ray Raja sp. -/1 I/- squatus acanthias Hydrolagus col l iei - ctupeidae 2/1 31/2 4/2 2/- 10/4 51/7 24/2 39/3 3/- 4/- 4/- 2/- 1111 51. 17/3 51- 5/2 -12 2/- 61- mcorhynchus sp. 2/- I/- 4/- 6/- 4/- 11- ~adidae Gadidae- large adu us rnacrocephalus Her luccius productus H icrogedus proxirrus

Perciformes Enbiotocidae Embiotoca lateralis Rhscochilus vacca Perch-not Rhacochilus 2/- Perch-not Rhacochilus or Embiotoca st ichaeidae \. - Sebastes sp. Hexgramnidae Hexagramnos sp. I/- Hexagrms steller i Ophidon elongatus 2/ 1 - Cott idae Cottidae- large Cottidae-mall Enophrys bison Hemilepidotus hemilepidotus Leptocottus armatus I Leptocottus or Enophrys Hyoxocephalus sp. Scorpaenichtys marnwratus Hemilepidogus or Scorpaenichthys Scorpaenidae/Cott idae/Hexagrm idae # Pleuronect idae Flatfish Plat ichtys stel latus Unid. fish (scales) Unid fish Shellfish Seed Root or uood Rock unknown Table 5.18: Vertebrates identified frm Unit 6 colum (I-mn screen)

DeRt 1, Unit 6 1-mn mesh screen (10% scmple) Bag No: (100%) Taxon: 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 Vertebrate mid. 2 fimal, unidentified Large mammal ~ed.mmal sm. mmal Bird or mmal unid. cervid (antler frag.) phoc idae Rept iLe

cartilaginous fish Shark or Ray Raja sp. sqalus acanthias Hydrolagus c6L 1iei

Clupeidae 3 12 5 2 1 1 2 5352 2 mcorhynchus sp. 1 Gadidae Gadidae- Large adu us macrocephalus Mer luccius productus fiicrogadus proximus

Perciforrnes I Enbiotocidae 1 1 Embiotoca lateralis Rhacochi lus vacca Perch-not Rhacochilus Perch-not Rhacochi lus or Embiotoca St ichaeidae i.

Sebastes sp. Hexgrmidae Hexagrams sp. Hexagrms stel leri Dphidon elongatus

Cottidae Cottidae- large Cottidae-small Enophrys bison Hemi lepidotus hemilepidotus Leptocottus armatus - Leptocottus or Enophrys Hyoxocephalus sp. Scorpaenichtys mamratus Hemilepidogus or Scorpaenichthys Scorpaenidae/Cott idae/Hexagramnidae c. Pleuronect idae Flatf ish Platichtys stellatus Unid. fish (scales) Unid fish Shellfish Seed Rwt/uood/charcoal ' Rock unknwn Table 5.19: vertebrates identified fran Unit 18, colm 1 (6.4-mn mesh)

DeRt 1, Unit 18 1/4- inch mesh colm 1 Taxon: Vertebrate mid. Manna(, unidentified Large marmal Hed. mamal Bird or manna1 unid. Cervid (antler frag.) Phocidae

cartilaginous fish Shark or Ray Raja sp. Squalus acanthias Hydrolagus colliei

Clupe idee Cncorhynchus sp. Gadidae Gadidae- large Gadus macrocephalus Mer luccius productus Microgadus proxim~s

Perciformes Enbiotocidae 11 Embiotoca lateralis Rhacochi [us vacca Perch-not ~hacochi lus Perch-not Rhecochilus or Embiotoca Stichaeidae

Sebastes sp. 3 3 Hexgramidae Hexagrrmras sp. 1 Hexagrms stel ler i ophidon elongatus

Cott idae ? 1 Cott idae- large 1 Cottidae-mall Enophrys bison Hemilepidotus hemilepidotus Leptocottus armatus Leptocottus or Enophrys )*/oxocephalus sp. Scorpaenichtys mamratus Hemi lepidogus or Scorpaen ichthys Scorpaenidee/Cott idee/Hexagrmnidae

Pleuromctidae Flatfish Platichtys stellatus Mid. fish (scales) 1 4 27 21 Unid fish 3 5 22 10 9 18 8 16 42 184 146 Shellfish 2 Table 5.20: Vertebrates idmtified fra Wit 18. colum 1 (2.m mesh scrm)

DeRt 1, wit 18 2nrn mesh colm 1 Taxon: 3 5 12 14 16 18 32 35 42 47 48 55 62 M 75 76 TI 8LZ &y 86 Vertebrate mid. 2 3 1 uml, unldentifled 1 26 8 5 1 5 Large mai rred. maWn3i 1 Sn. mal 39 1 Bird or mmal mid. 13 Cervid (antler frag.) Phoc idse

cartilaginous fish Shark or Ray Raja sp. 1 1 %palus acsnthias 1 Hydrolagus coliiei

Clupeidee 1 6 21 3 2 1 21 O-corhynchus ap. 1 2 Cad idae Gadidae. Large G&s macrocepha(us - Herluccius prDductus Uicrogsdus proxlnus

Perciformes Wiotoc id= Ghiotoca lateralis Rhscochilus vacca Perch-rot Rhacochi [us Perch-not Rhscochilus or Wiotoca Stichaeidae

Sebastes sp. Hexgramidae Hexsgrms sp. Hexagramas rte\leri Cphidar elongatus

Cot t idse Cottidsc- lar~e Cottidse-maLi Enophrys bison Hanilepidotus hemilepidotus ~eptocottusarmatus Leptocottus or Enophrys myoxocephalus sp. Scorpaenichtys mannoratus Hanilepidogus or Scorpaenichthys scorpamidae/Cott idse/ttexagrannidae

Pleuronect idae Flstf ish Platichtys stellatus Mid. fish (scales) 7 24 5 37 71 91 53 36 Mid fish 8 22 49 108 35 39 43 134 shellfish 2 231 4 1 1 Seed 1 Rock 1 Table 5.21: Vertebrates identified fra Unit 18. colum 1 (1.m mesh screen)

DeRt 1, Ihit 18 lm mesh colum 1 Taxm: Vertebrate mid. Mml, midentified Large mam101 W. ma1 sn. mermsl Bird or rnamrsl mid. Cervid (antler frag.) Phoc idae

cartilapincus fish Shark or Ray Raja sp. Sq~alusacanthias Hydrolaws colliei

Cl~pidae mcorhynchus sp. Gdidet Gadidee- large Ga5s macrocephalus Mrluccius probctus Micropc&s proxinus

Percifoms Wiotoc idae Wiotoca lateralis Rhacoch ilus vacca Perch-not Rhscochi lus Perch-not Rhacochilus or Wiotoca Stichacidbc

Sebsstes sp. Hexgramidbc Hexsgramos fp. Hexagrms stelleri widon elmgatus

------

cott idlv Cottidse- large Cottidae-mall Encphrys bison Hemilepidotus hemilepidotus LeptOcOttUS armatus Leptocottus or Enophrys HyoxocephaLus sp. Scorpemichtys marmratus Henilepidogus or Scorpeenichthys Scorpaoidse/Cottid~/Hexagramidae

Plevr~ncctidbc TIatfirh Platichtyr steltatus mid. fish (scales) 2 16 3 5 1 9 3 Wid fish 5 25 4 34 3 5 46 Shellfish seed Root 1 Rock One of the obstacles to identifying elements was locating comparative materials of the small species, and their identification will be continued at another lab. No attempt was made to identify branchials, rays, ribs, spines and scales to taxon. The most common fish from the columns was herring. The only new species identified was the skate or ray, although its presence had been suspected from unidentified vertebrae of a cartilaginous fish in the level bag materi a1 . The column material from Unit 6 was dry-screened by Muckle (1985) through 8-mm, 5.6-mm, 4-mm, 2-mm and 1-mm mesh screens using a mechanical sifter. Little material was recovered in the 8-mm mesh screen (n=4). One large mammal bone came from level 200-210 cm DBS, a salmonid vertebra came from level 230-240 cm, a sea perch superior pharyngeal plate came from level 60-70 cm. and a large fish vertebra came from level 110-120 cm. The material collected from a screen of this size provides little information about prehistoric subsistence practices. The 5.6-mm mesh is slightly smaller than the screen used at the site (6.4-mm) , but re1 ati vely 1i ttle was recovered. Mammal bones (n=5) and sea perch (Embiotocidae; n=3) were most common. The only other bone identified was from an unidentified fish. By combining the information from the 8-mm and 5.6-mm mesh screens, it appears that mammals were most common, followed by sea perch, although the mammal species could not be determined. As the screen size decreased, the number of fish elements increased. In the 4-mm meshed screen, the number of species also increased. While perch elements dominated the assemblage (n=8), rockfish (Sebastes sp. ) , green1 i ng (Hexasrammos sp. ) , and 1i ngcod (O~hidonel onqatus) each provided a sing1 e element. Unidentified fish a1 so increased (n=25). The interpretation of subsistence patterns changes dramatically in the assemblages collected from the 2-mm screen. It is in this screen size that herring (Cl upeidae) elements first appear, and dominate the assemblage. Even if all the bones from the 8-, 5.6- and 4-mm mesh screens were added, herring would still be most common. Evidence of salmonids increases in this screen size largely because of fragments of vertebrae which are identifiable even when broken into small pieces. Elements of an unidentified ray also appear in the 2-mm screens. The 2-mm screen material was separated into 10 percent and 90 percent samples by weight. Although herring still dominate in the 10 percent sample, they are absent in some levels, and salmonidae disappear completely as does the greenling. Only 1 mammal bone and a bird or mammal bone represent the higher vertebrates. In some level s the 10 percent sample produced no bone. The reduced sample size caused some loss of information, particularly in those levels, or for those species with few bones. The results of the analysis of the 10 percent samples from the 2-mm mesh are informative because only a 10 percent sample was analyzed for all material from the 1-mm mesh screens. A 10 percent sample was selected because the time involved in sorting and identifying the small material was prohibitive. The only commonly identified species was herring. One salmonid element and two perch elements were also identified. The number of unidentified fish bones and scales was nearly as high as for the total assemblage from the 2- mm screen. Information may also have been lost by taking a 10 percent sample from the 1-mm materi a1 . ~lements removed by 1arger screens also caused a reduction in the representation of large fishes in the 1-mm screen assemblage. Results of the analysis of fauna from the Unit-6 column indicates that herring were probably more important than would be inferred from the level bag material collected from the 1/4-inch (6.4-mm) mesh screens used during the excavation of DeRt 1. Fish from the trench units were not analyzed, therefore they were not compared with the column sample. The results from the column suggests that at least a 2-mm meshed screen is necessary to sample for subsistence information from DeRt 1, and a 1-mm meshed screen would provide a better representation of herring and small intertidal fishes than does the larger 6.4-mm screen used in bulk screening of the units. Fish remains in the level bags from Unit 18 were analyzed as were the fish from the column sample. The column from Unit 18 was processed differently from the Unit-6 column. Column one from Unit 18 was water-screened through nested 114-inch (6.4-mm), 2-mm and 1-mm meshed screens. Although the results from context 84Y and 842 are provided for the column, context 84 was not analyzed from the bulk screened unit material because several layers were mixed during the excavation of this "context." From the 114-inch (6.4-mm) meshed screen, more species were present than from Unit 6, and herring dominates the assemblage. This is different from Unit-6 assemblages collected from the 5.4-mm and larger meshed screens from which few species were collected, and the assembl ages were dominated by 1arger fish. Species represented from the Unit-18 column in the 114-inch (6.4-mm) mesh include rays (Raja sp.) , ratfi sh (Hydro1 aqus coll iei) , herring (Cl upeidae) , salmonids

(Oncorhynchus sp. ) , the Pacific tomcod (Mi croqadus ~roximus), sea perch (Embiotocidae), rockfish (Sebastes sp.), greenling (Hexawammos

sp. ) , and scul pi ns (Cott idae) . Fewer species were present in the 2-mm meshed screens. Of the remaining species, herring and perch showed a slight increase in the number of el ements ident i f i ed. The contexts in which the increases occurred di ffered . For exampl e, in context 32, 62, and 77, herring are present in the 1/4-inch (6.4 mm) mesh, but in the 2-mm mesh no herring elements were identified from these contexts, while in contexts 35, 42, and 842 herring elements appear for the first time.

It may be that the size of the fish bones being discarded were different in these contexts. The number of elements unidentified increased markedly in the 2-mm mesh material. Ten percent samples of the 1-mm column material were taken by weight, and the bones were removed from these samples. Only two perch bones were identified, a1 though the number of unidentified bones is high for a 10 percent sample. Again, it appears that at least a 2-mm mesh screen should be used to sample for subsistence information. The column sample from Unit 18 shows different results than that from Unit 6. More small species appear in the 6.4-mm mesh at Unit 18 than were present in the 5.6-mm mesh of Unit 6. Herring showed a clear dominance in the 6.4-mm mesh, which was not apparent until the 2-mm mesh in Unit 6. Besides the location of the column and the size of the larger screens, already discussed, the primary difference between the columns is the method of screening. Unit 6 was dry- screened using a mechanical agitator for 10 minutes, while the column from Unit 18 was water-screened only until the smaller material was washed through. The water-screening appears to have been more gentle to the smaller more delicate fish bones, allowing for the recovery of smaller bones in larger screens. When the column material is compared with the fish identified from the level bag material (which was dry-screened through 114-inch or 6.4-mm mesh screens), a different interpretation of prehistoric subsistence emerges. In general, herring are more common than perch in the columns, while in the bulk sieved material from the contexts, perch were more common overall. In context 3, salmonids were more common, but none appeared in the column sample. In context 16, salmonids were more common, followed closely by perch, but no perch were represented in the column. In context 42, Pacific hake (Merluccius productus) were most common but not recovered in the column, and in context 48, Pacific tomcod (Microqadus proximus) and Pacific hake were most common, and neither appeared in the column sample. This shows that not all species which appear in the level will be captured in the limited area of the column sample, and that even common species will not necessarily be represented. This might, in part, be re1 ated to the heterogeneity of the 1ayer as well as the wider or more dispersed distribution of larger objects. In any event, the columns provide valuable information. It appears, based on the column material that the herring are a more important subsistence item than would be suspected from the material collected during bulk sieving through 6.4-mm meshed screens. A number of other zooarchaeologists have also investigated the importance of collecting column samples from coastal sites. Casteel (1976a, 1976b) was one of the first to compare the column samples to unit material in the Strait of Georgia region at the Glenrose Cannery Site (DgRr 6). Casteel's (1976b) samples were 10 x 7 x 6 cm and water-screened through 2-mm, 1-mm and 0.5-mm mesh sieves, then compared with hand coll ected materi a1 from the units. Casteel (1976b:83) observed that the unit material showed a greater representation of 1arge animal s when compared with the col umn samples. With the exception of a dogfish spine and vertebrae of an unidentified cartilaginous fish in the unit material, the column sample contained the same species and three species not found in the unit sample (eul achon, herring, and stickleback; Casteel 1976b:83- 84). Casteel (1976b383) concluded that other than dogfish from the unit material, the work involved in analyzing 4,418 bones from the unit added nothing to the information provided by the 456 bones from the column sample. Casteel (1976a: 195) concluded, "Given that (a) the analysis of field-sorted faunas from entire units proved 9 times more time consuming that the analysis of comparable column samples, (b) the field-sorted samples were highly biased against smaller individuals and species, and (c) the column samples provided a more complete representation of the ichthyofauna, it appears that column sampling is a highly accurate, efficient, and clearly justified approach for ichthyofaunal and micro-faunal sampling in archaeological sites."

Wigen and Elden (1987) were also interested in the relationship of col umn sampl e information to unit materi a1 screened through 1arger screens. Wigen and Elden (1987) conducted their experiments on soils from the Puddleduck site (DkSf 26), a midden on Vancouver Is1 and, and Hopetown (EfSq 2) on Watson Island on the central coast, both in British Columbia. Material in the field was sieved through 114-inch (6.35-mm) meshed screens. Columns were sieved through 2-mm screens and fauna were identified by Wigen (Wigen and Elden 1987). They reported that "if you used the column to create a species 1ist for our sites, you would lose over half of the taxa identified. Mamma and bird taxa were affected very severely" (Wigen and Elden 1987:3 One of 36 bird taxa and three of 12 mammal taxa identified from the Hopetown site were present in the columns. They obtained similar results from other columns (Wigen and Elden 1987:3-4). Wigen and Elden (1987) suggested that column samples are inadequate for sampling taxa occurring in low densities. Animals with fewer than 5 bones per cubic meter were not as likely to appear in column samples as those animals represented at a greater density (Wigen and Elden l987:4). Species found in the columns but not represented in the unit material were small animals, or small elements from 1arger species. The volume of sediments sampled by the columns is also much smaller than the volume sampled by the units. This would also cause fewer large species to be represented in the column samples since the sampling size is smaller. If smaller screens were used for the units the number of small fish species, and small elements would also increase. Therefore, screens size as well as volume size is affecting the results, and not just the screen size. Meighan et al. (1958:4) suggested that-column samples should be collected from middens to reduce the work of analyzing the midden, taking care to collect from homogeneous layers, and avoiding concentrations of ash and shell. They stated, "The analysis of small samples is based on the assumption that the mound components are evenly distributed, abundant, and finely fragmented" (Meighan et a1. 1958:4). It is now generally known that Northwest Coast midden sites, as other sites, are not homogeneous, and materials are not evenly distributed. Erl andson (1989) suggested that the California middens may have been homogenized by rodent activity. Kusmer et a1 . (1987) proposed that several samples should be taken within the same stratum to control for spatial changes in content. It is apparent that one of the advantages of column sampling is the opportunity to screen the midden matrix through finely meshed screens. Casteel (1972:385) noted that there was a severe attrition of freshwater fish remains through 1/4-inch (6.4-mm) mesh. He concluded that mammals weighing over 25 kg appeared to be satisfactorily sampled using a 1/4-inch mesh, but that otoliths from marine fishes were lost using as finely meshed a screen as 0.5 mm (Casteel 1972:386). Payne (1972) conducted experiments with various sized screens and also observed that smaller animals and small elements were considerably under-represented when using large screens, creating a misleading picture of subsistence (Payne 1972:61). Jones (1982) recommended a 0.5-mm mesh for the recovery of smelt and stickleback. In general, a 1-mm meshed screen should be used for bul k sampl ing and small er samples should be screeied through the 0.5-mm screen (Jones 1982:82). More recently, Bullock (1990) attempted to determine the most \ efficient screen size for the recovery of fish remains. She sieved bones through 2-mm, 1-mm, and 0.5-mm meshed screens. Twenty-six percent of the sample was collected from the 2-mm mesh, 31 percent collected from the 1-mm mesh, and 43 percent of the bone came from the 0.5-mm meshed screens. The greater number of identified fish were from the 2-mm screens (43 percent), followed by the 1-mm (33 percent), then the 0.5-mm (24 percent) meshed screens. Bullock (1990:5) concluded that it took much longer to sieve material through the I-mm mesh and although, "some fish bone did pass through the lmm mesh, the information it provided was negligible. The majority of fragments collected from the finer fraction were unidentifiable. Those that were identified comprised elements which are rarely distinguished to species, for example fin rays, branchial bones and gill rakers. The information that can be gleaned from these elements does not warrant the amount of time and effort required to obtain the finer fraction."

Therefore, in Bullock's (1990) estimation, the 1-mm mesh screens were effective and most efficient for sampling fish remains. At the Pender Canal site, 2-mm mesh appeared to be optimum for shell and fish recovery, not because of the time involved in the screening process, but because of the time it took to sort and identify the shell and fish remains in the 1-mm mesh screens. Wet- screening samples also appeared to be more suitable for the recovery of small, del icate bones. The process of subsampling caused some problems. The smaller size of the column when compared with the unit size caused the omission of widely dispersed or less densely deposited fauna from the column sample as was observed by Wigen and Elden (1987) and Erlandson (1989). Rarely was a mammal element identified to a taxon more specific than class, and no bird bones were identified. Even large fish were more rare than would be expected from the unit material. In the 1-mm screen assemblage there appears to have been a significant loss of information through the identification of only 10 percent of the total sample. A 10 percent sample might have been large enough had the original material sampled a 1arger portion of the 1eve1 , but because the number of remains was small , not much was learned by reducing the size by 90 percent. If time were not a factor in the sampling procedure the total sample would have been analyzed. In the unit 6 column, 5 fish bones were recovered in screens with 5.6-mm or greater mesh size. In screens with smaller than 5.6- mm mesh 723 fish bones were recovered. Since only 10% of the total sample from the 1-mm meshed screen was analyzed, the number of bones from the 1-mm meshed screen (n=325) was multiplied by 10. This raised the estimated number of bones from screen sizes less than 5.6- mm to 3653 fish elements. If this estimation is accurate, then 99.86% of the fish bones from this dry screened column fell through the 5.6-mm mesh sieves. From the unit 18 column, 509 fish bones were found in the 6.4-mm meshed screen, 840 in the 2-mm, and 163 in the 10% sample from the 1- mm meshed sieve. Again multiplying the number of elements from the 1-mm meshed screen by 10, brings the estimated total of fish bones which fell through the 6.4-mm meshed screen to 2470. If this is also an accurate approximation, then 82.91% of the fish bones in the assemblage wet screened from column 1 of unit 18 fell through the 6.4-mm (1/4 inch) meshed screen. These data illustrate two things. First, at least 80% of the subsistence information on fish is being sieved out of the assemblages collected on the site. In the case of Unit 6 it could be as much as 99%. Second, dry screening appears to create greater attrition of fish bone than wet screening, particularly in the larger screens.

Unit 18 contexts As was discussed in Chapter 4, Unit 18 was excavated in natural 1ayers. These 1ayers were distinguished by matrix color, content, density, grain size and particle angle. An attempt was made to determine if anything could be learned about the activities which led to the formation of these contexts, and if the layers which appeared to be similar were the result of similar activities. Fauna recovered were used to interpret these events. A list of artifacts recovered from the unit was provided by Philip Hobler, and came from personal field notes taken during the 1985 excavations of Unit 18. Matrix descriptions used in the field were divided into three categories; whole and crushed shell layers, ash layers and dark midden layers.

She1 1 contexts Only context 49 from Unit 18 was composed primarily of barnacle. Bal anus cariosus and Bal anus ql andul a were identified, a1 though other species of barnacles may have been present. No bird, two unidentified land mammal fragments, and one longbone fragment of a large land mammal was identified. No artifacts were recovered from this context. Other than the barnacles, the most common bones were from fish, with perch dominating that assemblage. Perch were identified either as Embiotoca lateralis or "not Rhacochilus" or not Pile perch. Perch elements include head and body elements. E. lateral is is commonly found along rocky shores in the summer (Lamb and Edge11 1986). Other fish found in this level include Sebastes sp. (n=l), Hexasrammos sp. (n=l) and herring or sardine (n=8). These fish, except the herring, are found near rocky shores. The greatest concentrations of herring occur between February and April, and into July (Hart 1980). The period of greatest availability of the perch and herring suggests that this deposit was the result of a spring/summer exploitation of a rocky shore. Contexts 27, 41 and 68 had matrices composed primarily of sea urchin remains. Other shell included in the matrix mussel, clams, and barnacles. Context 41 was a small layer and contained no artifacts, 2 herring, 6 Pacific hake, 1 perch, and 3 unidentified land mammal elements. Contexts 27 and 68 were larger. Artifacts from context 27 included bone or antler shavings and a worked bone fragment. Dogfish (l), perch (20), rockfish (I), unidentified bird (I), Delphinidae (l), deer (I), large cervidae (I), small cervidae (l), and unidentified mammals (20) were found in this context. In context 68, fauna included herring (5), salmonids (8), hake (I), perch (40), rockf i sh (22), green1 i ng (6), staghorn scul pin (4), flatfish (l), unidentified bird (I), small cervid (I), and unidentified mammals (17). Artifacts included a fish hook barb, and an abrader from neighboring Unit 26. The gonads, the edible portion of the urchin, weigh the most in the spring just before urchins spawn (Carefoot 1977:lll). Perch dominate fish assemblages in contexts 27 and 68. The Pacific hake appears in contexts 41 and 68. The hake rises to shallow waters at night especially in the summer , making them more readily avail able (Lamb and Edgell: 1986). The cervid elements were fused, providing no age or seasonal information. As with the other shell layer, these may have been a spring/summer deposit based on the dominant fish and she1 1fish recovered. Pelvic or vertebral el ements from salmonids were in context 68, and might be from dried fish consumed at the site. Urchins 1ive on rocky shores as do mussels and barnacles. The only indication of the exploitation of sandy shores is the presence of one flatfish element in context 68. Cervids were the primary land mammals identified, except one delphinid element. Contexts dominated by mussel included those with a high proportion of sea urchin remains, those mixed with whole and crushed clams, and those with little other shell. The layers with little shell other than mussel were contexts 62, 70 and 72. These contexts were each deposited in the northern and/or eastern edges of Unit 18. Column samples were taken from context 62 and 72. Edible or blue mussel s overwhelmingly dominate these assembl ages from the 1/4-inch (6.4-mm) meshed screens. Artifacts were uncommon. A bone point was recovered in contexts 62 and 72. No fish came from the column sample from context 72, only from the 114-inch (6.4-mm) mesh in context 62. From context 62, 74 fragments, were recovered and one ratfish, 3 herring and a tomcod were identified. Perch and herring dominated the bulk screened material from the level bags. In the other contexts, no single species of fish dominated the assemblage. No birds were found in any of the contexts. Only unidentified land mammal fragments were found, except in context 62, in which an immature canid humerus, and a pinniped skull fragment were recovered. Since the humerus could be from a domestic dog, the fusing time does not provide seasonal information. In context 70 a jingle shell (Pododesmus ce~io)was identified, confirming the exploitation of a rocky environment, where mussels normally occur in large numbers. In context 62, rock crabs (Cancer productus) and gumboot chiton shells (Crvptochiton stelleri) were found. Both species require a rocky habitat. Contexts 37 and 46 contained primarily mussels, with a high proportion of sea urchin shell. A column sample from context 37 was composed primarily of little neck clams (Protothaca staminea) in the 1/4-inch or 6.4-mm mesh screens, rather than mussels; urchins are a minor component. Either the field description of this context was not accurate, or the smaller sea urchin and mussel elements fell through the 1/4-inch (6.4-mm) screen. No bone was identified from the column sample. In context 37, herr ng, hake and perch were most common, and in context 46, herring were most common. A rock crab element was found in context 46. These species also suggest a spring to summer exploitation of a rocky shore One identified mammal came from context 46. Twenty-eight unidentified 1and mammal s, one unfused small ungulate calcaneus epiphysis, an unfused rib, an unfused tibia epiphysis from a small cervid came from context 37. The unfused cervid elements indicate a spring/summer/early fa1 1 exploitation of the materials contained in context 37.

Four contexts (8, 19, 26 and 71), were primarily a blue mussel matrix, mixed with whole and crushed clams. No column samples were taken from any of these layers. Three bird elements came from context

8, and the other three layers contained no bird remains. Perch clearly dominated the fish assemblage in context 8 and 26. The fish assemblage from context 19 and 71 was too small to discern a pattern. Of the mammals, delphinids are more common than observed in other layers. Delphinidae elements were identified in context 8 (n=4), context 19 (n=3) and context 26 (n=4). Two harbor seal (Phoca vitulina) elements each were also identified in context 8 and 26. Cervid elements were also common. Context 71 had 7 land mammal, and one sea mammal elements. Artifacts from these layers included an antler wedge (context 8), bone or antler shavings, and a bone point (context 26). Contexts dominated by mussel shells indicate, in general, a spring/summer exploitation of rocky shore environments with fishing of true cods, herring, perch and rocky shore inhabiting fishes. Mammals provide little information except the juvenile animals identified in context 37, suggesting that those animals died in the spring to fall. Sea mammals appear with greater frequency than normally observed in three of the layers identified as mussel with cl am matrices. Most shell layers were dominated by clams, particularly the butter clams (Saxidomus qiqanteus) or the 1ittle neck clams (Protothaca staminea). Unfortunately, no cross-sections were taken of these species, so no indication of the season of death from shell growth-rings was obtained. The whole and crushed shell category a1 so grades into those layers with dark soil containing whole and crushed shell. Field descriptions of contexts 3 and 13 state that these matrices were made up primarily of butter clams. However, the column sample indicates that for context 3 little neck clams were the most common species, and will be discussed with similar contexts in which little necks were most frequent. Context 13 had a small faunal . assemblage, reflecting the size of the layer. Only two perch and one deer element were recovered. No artifacts were found in this layer. More commonly, whole and crushed shell layers were dominated by little neck clams. These included contexts 3, 35 and 51. In context 3, the salmonids were the most frequently identified fish from the level bags. All salmonid remains were vertebrae, suggesting that the fish were processed elsewhere and brought to the site. A metal nail was found in this layer, so context 3 may be an historic layer, or contaminated by historic materials. A Merginae, and a turkey vulture element came from this layer, as did a beaver, river otter, pinniped, and deer, providing a small but varied assemblage. The majority of little neck is confirmed for context 35 by a column sample, but in context 51, the column sample indicates that mussels were more common. Also present in both of these contexts were butter cl ams, cock1 es, barnacl es and whel ks (Nucell a sp. ) . Perch dominate the fish assemblage in both contexts, and is followed in frequency by the true cods in context 35, and by herring in context 51. Herring, however, show a greater frequency in the column sample from context 35. Only context 35 contains bird remains (3 unidentified elements) . Contexts 9, 10, 11, 15, 18, 20, 22, 23, 32, 44, 48, 55, 61, 77, 81, and 82 were characterized as whole clam, or whole and crushed shell layers. Some of these layers had a great deal of fish bone (contexts 44, 48, 77, 81, and 82), and mammal bone appeared to be much less common. Of these layers, only context 44 had an artifact, which was identified as a harpoon valve. Column samples indicated that mussels were more common in context 48 and 77, and field notes indicated that they were numerous in context 81. Gravel or pebbles were recorded in contexts 48 and 81. In contexts 44 and 48, herring, perch and true cods were most frequent. In contexts 77 and 81, perch were most numerous, while in context 82, rockfish then perch dominated the fish assemblage. In all matrices, perch are an important component. Most mammals are unidentified in these components. Deer or cervids were identified in context 44, 48 and 77, and canids in context 44, and 48. In the remaining whole and crushed shell matrices, artifacts were not common. Bone shavings were collected from context 22 and 28, and a worked bone point came from context 18, and possible fecal samples were collected from context 18. Generally, there were few fish bones in these contexts. Bird remains were recovered from context 18 (two duck bones), context 20 (one scoter bone), and context 61 (one unidentified bird). Perch were most frequently identified in these small fish assemblages, except in context 9 which had one herring bone, context 11 which had no fish bone, and context 22 in which three dogfish elements dominated a fish assemblage of 5 bones. Mammals were most common in contexts 9, 11, 15, 18, 20, 22, and 28. Bones were rare in context 10, and ;ere infrequent in contexts 32, 55, and 61. Contexts 54 and 59 were identified as crushed or whole and crushed shell with some dark soil, and have been included in this section. In context 54, perch dominated the fish assemblage, and one small cervid and one medium canid bone was identified. Bone shavings were the only artifacts recovered from context 59, and one sea mammal and two land mammal bones were recovered. Perch (n=7) and hake (n=6) were the most common fish in context 59. In general, the whole and crushed shell show only superficial similarities. There is a trend toward a dominance of perch and an absence of artifacts, illustrative of the unit as a whole. Shellfish indicate the exploitation of a rocky intertidal zone, where urchins are present, possibly a spring exploitation. The presence of perch supports this proposition, but additional information is required from these layers.

Ash contexts Ash layers tended to be small and is01ated. Thirteen contexts were identified as ash, or ash and burned shell layers. Only contexts 69 and 80 were primarily ash. Context 69 was 1ight and "fluffy" in texture, and contained no fire cracked rock, no bones, nor shell. Context 80 contained fire cracked rock, pebbles, ash and some sediments. Dogfish (I), perch (4), rockfish (I), two unidentified mammal longbone fragments, and a vole mandible and teeth came from this layer. Contexts composed of ash, shell and fire cracked rock included 5, 14, 31, 34, 40, 52, 57, 63, 65, 76, and 83. Contexts 5, 14 and 52 contained more sediment than just ash. Perch dominated the fish assemblage in each of these matrices. Contexts 5 and 14 contained bird and deer remains, context 14 had two harbor seal elements, context 5 had a beaver element, and contexts 5 and 52 had canid elements. Only context 14 had artifacts (two worked bones). In contrast, the other ash and fire cracked rock matrices were small, is01 ated lenses containing few bones, and no artifacts. The greatest number of bones identified for the remaining ash contexts was 7, and the fewest was none. Because of the lack of bone associated with the ash deposits, 1ittle subsistence information was acquired from these matrices.

Dark midden contexts The littermat, context 1, had few bones (one perch, and one large land mammal). The only shellfish identified from this layer was the rock crab (Cancer ~roductus). Context 2, directly underneath the littermat, had no bone or artifacts identified. Context 56 was described as dark midden with 1ittle or no she1 1. No artifacts were collected from this layer. Herring (n=2), hake (n=4), perch (n=6) and rockfish (n=2) were identified. No mammal or bird bones came from this 1ayer. This layer was described as a hard packed, rich, almost humic soil, with finely crushed shell. Only the edge of this layer, at the southern end of unit 18, was excavated. This may be a highly trampled, compacted layer, but it is difficult to interpret because so little was excavated. The largest category of sediments was described in the field as dark midden with shell. Thirty-three layers fall under this description and there is a great deal of variability in content, including shell species present. Interpretations of the contexts would have been easier had column samples been taken from each 1ayer. In the upper layers for which shell content information was available, little neck or little neck and butter clam were most common, until approximately context 47. At context 47 mussels tend to dominate the shell content in the dark midden layers. Two exceptions to the dominance of mussels in the dark midden 1ayers were in context 73, in which whelks (Nucella sp.) were most common, then mussels, and in context 74, which was directly beneath context 73, in which 1impets (Tectura scutum, and Lottia pel ta) and whelks dominate. These are both small lenses with few fish, or mammal elements. Context 73 a1 so contained many pebbles. Whel ks, 1impets and mussel s are found in rocky, upper intertidal environments. The small pebbles may have been attached to the invertebrates brought up from the beach. In these dark midden and shell matrices, as in other layers, the most common fish species were generally perch, except context 23 where salmonid (2), true cod (2) and flatfish were recovered, contexts 42 and 45 where hake dominate, and context 60 where herring are more common. There does not seem to be a correlation between matrix and vertebrate faunal content. There is a change in fauna from little neck clam to mussel, indicating either a shift in area exploited, or that the mussels which fragment into smaller pieces have percol ated downward. If percol ati on occurred, then the representation of other small or easily fragmented faunae would be expected to increase in the 1 ower 1 eve1 s as we1 1. Herring frequencies generally increase beginning in context 37, which is later than the clam/mussel shift. Urchin layers or urchin with mussels a1 so do not appear until context 37. It is somewhat misleading to assume whole or 1 arge shell fragments are found at the top of Unit 18, and small shell toward the base of the area excavated in 1985, since context 77 was identified as a whole clam 1 ayer. Muckle (1985) showed that in Unit 2, mussels decreased in relative frequency at the bottom of the pit and showed the greatest relative frequency toward the top. In addition to percolation, a change in environment, season of site use, or area exploited may expl ain this phenomenon. Bone or antler shavings from manufacturing were identified in eight contexts with dark midden (contexts 16, 29, 30, 38, 47, 66, 75, and 78). These shavings were not limited to dark midden contexts, since they were also recovered in matrices with little soil (contexts 22, 26, 27, 38, 51, and 59). Contexts 16, 22, 26, 27, 28, 30 and 38 were deposited nearly sequentially.

Subsistence at DeRt 1 Based on the fauna recovered, fur bearing mammals were not common, nor do sea mammals appear to have been an important subsistence item at DeRt 1. Most mammal remains identified were deer and canids. An analysis of the proportion of deer elements recovered and modification of individual elements indicated that carnivores had a large effect on the ungulate assemblage. Canids appear to have been domesticated, based on the number of juvenile animals and isolated deciduous teeth recovered. Independent analyses by Digance (1987) for earlier components at DeRt 2 support this inference. Bird remains were rarely recovered. Most were species associated with the coast, except the flicker, grouse, golden eagle, and turkey vulture. Most bird elements were from the wing, which may reflect that more meat was available from the pectoral girdle, that wings were desired for the feathers and as trade items, or that wing bones were more durable than other bird elements. Birds were uncommon, and did not provide much seasonal information. Perch were the most common fish, although analysis of column samples indicates that herring may have been more common had a smaller meshed screen been used in the bulk screening. Salmonid bones were, with only rare exceptions, from the body. The lack of head bones, and the low frequency of bone recovered, indicates that the fish were probably not processed at the site unless all bone was being discarded at the beach, or the bones were specially treated. The presence of tomcod indicates that these fish were taken between the winter and summer, and hake bones suggests a nocturnal exploitation of that fish. Most of the fish are those associated with a rocky coast-1 ine. Only rarely was a fish identified that inhabits sand or mud substrates. Primarily rocky or rock and sand shorelines were exploited. Rock dwell ing animal s i ncl uded barnacles, urchins, mussel s, 1impets, and whelks. Little neck and butter clams from beaches composed of rock with sand or mud were present. These species were frequently a common component of the contexts. Shellfish such as moon snails, bent nosed clams, or fish such as flatfish, which require sand or mud substrates, were rarely included in the faunal assemblages from DeRt

1. The excavation of Unit 18 in natural 1ayers was valuable for the purposes of faunal analysis. While the matrices did not show remar ka ble differences, it showed that exploitation patterns were generally similar. If there were major differences in site use, these would have been isolated by deposit. If shellfish are later analyzed for seasonal information, associated fauna and artifacts can be studied. Using the faunal information collected from the trench and Unit 18, it appears that during the late prehistoric period, the western side of DeRt 1 was occupied primarily in the late-winter, spring, and summer. This conclusion is based on the presence of perches, which are more readily available in the spring and summer, the predominance of herring which are at their greatest concentration in the spring and summer, cods which are more available in the spring and summer, and urchins whose gonad'weights peak in the spring. Salmonid remains are overwhelmingly body elements, suggesting that only dried or already processed fish were brought to the site. More attention should be paid to fishes other than salmonids, and their role and contribution to prehistoric subsistence strategies in the Strait of Georgi a. Chapter 6

Mamma 1s

The Strait of Georgia region has a wide variety of large mammal s. There are three 1arge ungul ate species, wolves, bears, seal s, sea 1ions, do1 phi ns, whales, porpoi ses, and ki 11 er whales. Fur bearers include mink, otter, marten, fisher, beaver, muskrat and wild cats. However, not all available animals were used by the native peoples. For example, ethnographic records indicate that whales were generally ignored by most historic Sal ish groups unless a carcass happened to wash ashore. Very small animals such as shrews or voles offer 1ittle to humans with so many accessible 1arge animals. These small mammals were probably included in the site as the remains of former occupants, or as meal detritus from a carnivore, rather than having passed through "the cultural filter. " Biological information can a1 so provide some useful clues about subsistence practices. Knowledge of animal breeding times, migration cycles, and periods of antler growth and shedding, season of greatest fat content, coat shedding, or pelt thickness can indicate the preferred season of human use. Preferred habitats of the animals used ref1 ect 1ocal environmental conditions or the environments exploited. Certain animal behaviors, such as solitary or gregarious population patterns, can also suggest hunting techniques necessary for their regular capture. This applies to other classes of animals to be discussed, as well as mammals. Between 8 and 23 percent of the mammal bone assemblages in the Strait of Georgia region were identified to a category more specific than simply "1 arge" or "small land mammal", or "sea mammal " (this includes the "tentative" identifications for Belcarra Park and Cates Park). While it may seem that little is being identified, this ratio is not particularly unusual for Northwest Coast midden sites. Basic midden sediments are conducive to bone preservation and the small bone chips left by tramp1 ing, manufacturing, gnawing or excavation methods survive and are recovered along with the larger more easily identifiable fragments. The identified elements, although less abundant, provide extensive information about site activities and subsistence.

Insectivores The only insectivore identifications in the sites compared were the Soricidae, or shrews, and Scapanus orarius, the coast mole (Table 6.1). These very small animals were not economically important to native people. Shrews are found in marshy areas, wooded 1ands, 1ake or stream edges and variable vegetation covers. Without a species name, however, little more information about the environment can be provided. Two shrew bones were recovered from Crescent Beach (Ham

1982), reflecting the small mesh size used to screen the soils at the x site. Mamne l : soricidae (shrews) 2 Scapanus orar ius (Coast mole) 3 Lepus emer icanus (snoushoe hare) 1 . -

Sciuridae (squirrels) 1 Tamiasciurus spp. (squirrels) Temiasciurus hudsonicus (red squf rel) 36 2 Glaucomys sabrinus (northern flying squirrel) 1

Castor canadens is (beaver) 335 3 2x8231 3 3 46 4 5(1) 1 X XXX 2 Ondatra zibethicus (wskrat) 4 2 Nicrotus spp. (voles) 332 32 5 7 2 4 3 Microtus townsendi i (Townsend's vole) 6 2

Peromyscus spp. (deer mice) Peromyscus maniculatus (deer muse) Ereth izon dorsatcnr (porcupine) Mus rmsculus (house mouse) Rodent Rodent spp. (small) Nuridae (Mice & voles) Three Sca~anusorarius bones were identified from Tsawwassen (DgRs 2; Kusmer 1989). These little animals are particularly common in gravely soi 1s, di sturbed ground, second-growth forests and mature conifer forests (Cowan and Guiguet 1978:60). Moles live primarily underground and their remains could easily be included into the site matrix, post-depositionally.

Lasomorphs Belcarra Park (DhRr 6) provided a single hare bone (Charlton 1977). Lews americanus, the Snowhoe Hare, is found on the mainland in forests with open patches (Cowan and Guiguet 1978). Suttles (1974:97) stated that rabbits, a related Lagomorph, were not used by the Sal ish people. Suttles (1974) may have been referring to hares, because the only rabbit in the Fraser River area is an introduced species, the Eastern Cottontail (Sylvil aqus floridanus; Cowan and Guiguet 1978). The first specimens of this species were not collected in British Columbia until 1952. Suttles' (1974) observation is supported by the scarcity of rabbit or hare remains from archaeological assembl ages.

Rodents Sci uri dae Squirrels, chipmunks and marmots are all members of the family Sciuridae. Cates Park (DhRr 8) had a single sciurid bone, not identified to species (Williams in: Charlton 1974). Squirrels identified from late prehistoric sites in the Strait of Georgia area were Tami asci urus hudsoni cus, the red squirrel , and Gl aucomvs sabrinus, the flying squirrel. Tamiasciurus hudsonicus is found on Vancouver Is1 and and the northern Bri tish Col umbi a coast whi 1e the coastal mainland and western Washington is occupied by the closely re1 ated Doug1 as squirrel , Tami asci urus douql asi i (Cowan and Guiguet 1978, Kri tzman 1977). Both are associated with coniferous forests. Esquimal t Lagoon (DcRu 2) had a left femur from prehistoric levels, and Crescent Beach (DgRr 1) had two bones identified as Tamiasciurus hudsonicus (Stevenson 1978, Ham 1982). These animals may have been accidentally included in the site. Glaucomvs sabrinus a1 so contributed a single element to the assemblage at Crescent Beach (Ham 1982). The flying squirrel is found throughout most of British Columbia, except Vancouver Island, and lives in most parts of Washington. They too inhabit forested areas.

Voles (Mi crotus sp. ) Suttles (1974:97) reported that smaller rodents were not used by the Coast Sal ish. Microtus species occurring in the southwestern area of British Columbia incl ude M. townsendi i (Townsend's vol e) , -M. 1onqicaudus (1 ong-tai 1ed vole) , and M. oreqoni (creeping vole) . All of these voles burrow underground, especially during the construction of nests. All of the Microtus species in British Columbia are usually found in grass1 ands, a1 though they a1 so inhabit other niches (Banfield 1974, Johnson and Johnson 1982). Microtus remains were identified at Pender Canal (DeRt 1) , Crescent Beach (DgRr l), St. Mungo (DgRr 2), Semiahmoo Spit (45 WH IT), Cattle Point (45 SJ l), Helen Point (DfRu 8) and Tsawwassen (DgRs 2). Microtus townsendii was identified at Esquimalt Lagoon (DcRu 2) and Fort Rodd Hill (DcRu 78), which is well within their historic range. Microtus elements from DeRt 1 were primarily mandibles and teeth, except in context 79 which contained the remains from at least one articulated female Microtus. Some of the elements from this context identified as small rodent were from the same animal. Coincidentally, this is the same context from which a house mouse (bmuscul us) mandible came. Head and hind 1imb elements were identified from Unit 30 (Garvin 1987). Microtus elements from Crescent Beach (DgRr 1) were generally head and 1eg bones coll ected from 1ayers A, B and F4 Ham (1982 :269). "Many of these elements were found together, which supports the contention that these species lived on the site" (Ham 1982:269). Elements from Esquimalt Lagoon (DcRu 2) were a mandible and a tooth, and Semiahmoo Spit (45 WH 17) Microtus bones were a skull fragment and a tooth (Stevenson 1978, Montgomery 1979). Being burrowing animals, their inclusion in area sites is not surprising.

Peromyscus sp.

A single Peromvscus element was identified from the Tsawwassen Site (DgRs 2; Kusmer 1989) and another was identified at Fort Rodd Hill (DcRu 78). Peromvscus maniculatus, the deer mouse, is the most widely distributed of the white-footed mice. They are found in the Strait of Georgia region, including the Gulf and San Juan Islands. The deer mouse, occupies a wide range of habitats, and often uses human habitations to forage for food and for homes (Cowan and Guiguet 1978). Nests are usually in protected areas above ground or in shallow burrows (Kritzman 1977, Cowan and Gujguet 1978). The only other Peromvscus species which could over-lap in the southern Northwest Coast is P. oreas, the Cascade deer mouse. Cowan and Guiguet (1978:190) argued that P. oreas is a separate species from P. manicul atus, although it had been classified as a subspecies.

The primary differences appear to be that P. oreas has a longer-tail, is more arboreal, and has shorter and wider nasal bones (Cowan and Guiguet 1978, Kritzman 1977). Its range is concentrated more in coniferous forests associated with mountain areas, and not on the coast where P. maniculatus predominate.

House mouse (bmusculus) The house mouse originally came from Old World grasslands, and were introduced to North America. Banfield (1974: 224) stated that they are found in moist forested areas associated with human habitations while Cowan and Guiguet (1978:236) stated that the house mouse is not found in wooded or forested areas. These mice are gregarious animals that tend to travel above ground and build nests in grasses, a1 though they will use the tunnels of Microtus species or burrow when in fields (Banfield 1974). One right mandible of a house

179 the articulated Microtus skeleton, and may have trickled down, or been brought into the layer from historic soils by voles digging into the site.

Beaver (Castor canadensis) The beaver is the largest indigenous rodent in North America, and is found throughout British Columbia and Washington. Cowan and Guiguet (1978:170) reported that beavers will swim in salt water, and have inhabited the coastal islands of British Columbia. Spaulding (1961: 148) stated that his father, who moved to Pender Island in 1886, knew of a pair of beavers who lived in Little Cow Swamp, on Wall ace Point, North Pender Is1 and. Ashton Ross-Smi th (in: Moon 1985:35-36) reported beaver dams in central Pender Is1 and, and said that most of the land on which his farm stands had once been flooded because of beaver damming activity. Beavers live in slow moving bodies of water, in lakes or marshes. They need deciduous trees such as willow, alder, and aspen, and water plants for food (Banfield 1974). Beavers were trapped historically by the Lummi for meat and furs (Stern 1969:50). One Saanich person said that they did not eat beaver (Suttles 1974:96). The trap used was similar to that used for mustel ids and bears. Bows and arrows, harpoons, and 1ater, guns were a1 so used to hunt beaver (Suttl es 1974:96). Beaver incisors were used for ornaments, game pieces and tools. Beavers were the most common of the 1arge rodents recovered from the southern Northwest Coast sites. All sites but Esquimalt Lagoon

(DcRu 2), Tait Farm (DhRt 36), Cattle Point (45 SJ l), Jekyll's

Lagoon (45 SJ 3), Mackaye (45 SJ 186) and 45 WH 9 had beaver remains. Frequencies are generally low, except at Belcarra Park where 46 elements were identified (Table 6.1). At DeRt 1, one bone each was recovered from contexts 3, 5 and 7 of Unit 18. Two cheek teeth and a right femur came from the trench. Unit 30 had teeth, 2 forelimb elements and a maxi 11 a fragment (Garvin 1987). At Crescent Beach (DgRr I), 8 beaver elements were apparently recovered, but only 7 were discussed in the text (Ham 1982:267, Table V-XI, p. 265). Elements identified were a left ulna and four caudal vertebrae from two animals in layer B, a caudal vertebra from layer F3, and an i nci sor fragment from 1ayer D3 (Ham 1982 :267) . Montgomery (1979) identified one humerus at Semiahmoo Spit (45 WH 17).

Muskrat (Ondatra zi bethicus) Muskrats are found in southern British Columbia and east of the Coast Range, in Washington, and they have been introduced onto Vancouver Is1 and. They are primari ly nocturnal, 1iving in marshy areas near lakes, ponds and rivers, feeding on plants, scavenging carcasses and eating fresh-water molluscs. Sometimes they share 1odges with beavers (Cowan and Guiguet 1978: 229, Kri tzman 1977). There is little mention of muskrats in the ethnographic literature for the Coast Sal ish. They were probably trapped by deadfalls in the same way as for other small fur bearers (Suttles 1978:97). Their fur was used by the Salish in historic times. Muskrat was identified in only two mainland sites: Crescent Beach (DgRr 1) and St. Mungo (DgRr 2). Four muskrat elements came from layers B and D of Crescent Beach. Ham (1982:269) suggested that muskrats may have lived on or near the site,.and the remains were not necessarily brought to the site by humans. Two muskrat elements were recovered from layer A of the 1984 excavations at St. Mungo (Eldridge 1985:40). Muskrats do not seem to have been important, based on the number of remains collected from south coast sites.

Porcupine (Erethizon dorsatum) The only site with porcupine remai ns is Be1 carra Park (DhRr 6). Galdi kas-Brindamour (1972) identified 11 elements from this site. The porcupine is less common on the coast than inland, but it is found throughout the Northwest Coast except on Vancouver Island and the Queen Charlotte Islands (Kritzman 1977, Cowan and Guiguet 1978). Porcupines were particularly valuable for their quill s and meat in the interior, but there is little discussion of the animal in Straits Salish ethnographies.

The insectivore and lagomorph remains were not particularly informative. The presence of small rodents indicated forested environments with patchy openings, as would be expected on Northwest Coast sites. One anomalous item is the house mouse in DeRt 1 deposits, but that may be the result of contamination of upper levels by other burrowing rodents. The bones of Tamiasciurus hudsonicus, an island species, at Crescent Beach may be Tamiasciurus douqlasii, the mainland squirrel. The distinction is unimportant, however, with respect to information about environment or culture. Economically important rodent species are the larger animals; the beaver, muskrat and porcupine. Their remains are not plentiful, however. The importance of the fur bearers may have increased with the introduction of the historic fur trade in the straits region by the Hudson's Bay Company.

Carnivores Carnivores are land mammals which subsist primarily on the flesh of other animals. One species which has proven particularly useful to humans is the dog. Other carnivores such as bears, wolves and mink, had a special place in Northwest Coast spiritual be1 iefs. The furs were particularly valuable to humans for warmth, protection from rain and wind, and for decorative uses. Therefore, while carnivores are less common than rodents and ungulates, they are actively sought by many societies (Table 6.2). Table 6.2: Carnivores

H&ma 1: Canis latrans (coyote) Csnis lupus (wolf) Canis fami liaris (dog) Canis sp. (med) Vulpes vulpes (fox)

Ursus sp. (Bear) Ursus americanus (black bear) Ursus arctos (Grizzly bear) Procyon lotor (racoon)

Marten/f isher Martes anericana (marten) Mustela ermina (short-tailed ueasel) Mustela frenata (long-tailed ueasel) Mustela vison (mink) Skunk spp. Spilogale graci [is (spotted skunk) Lutra canadensis (river otter) Enhydra lutris (sea otter) Mustelid (me&

Felis domesticus (domestic cat) Fe lis conco lor (cougar) Lynx rufus (bobcat) Lynx lynx (Lynx)

Carnivore sp. (mall) Carnivore sp. (medium) Carnivora Can i dae There are three spe cies of wild canids occurring in this region, and Coast Salish people also owned domesticated canids. The three wild species are the coyote (Canis 1atrans), the wolf (Canis lupus) and the red fox (Vulpes vulpes). The red fox is found throughout British Columbia except along the coast north of the Fraser River Delta. Its presence on Vancouver Island is the resu It of an accidental introduction (Banfield 1974, Cowan and Gu iguet 1978). The coyote is found throughout British Columbia except the coast north of the Fraser River Delta, Vancouver Island, and the Gulf Islands. It lives in many different habitats but seems to prefer open lands. Coyotes can interbreed with domestic dogs and wolves, and produce viable offspring (Banfield 1974, Cowan and Guiguet 1978, Bekoff 1982). The present range of the gray wolf (Canis lupus) is severely reduced from its original range. At one time, it was found throughout most of North America in many different environments. The wolf is still found in all of British Columbia except the Fraser River Delta where it has become extinct. Wolves will breed with domestic dogs and produce viable offspring (Cowan and Guiguet 1978, Banfield 1974, Paradiso and Nowak 1982).

Wolves were reported on Pender Is1 and by Spaulding (1961 :148). Based on a story told to his father by a Salish man, it seems that the last wolf on Pender Island was killed in the 1830's: "The story he told was that he and his father were hunting deer, near where the canal and the bridge are now (Harry was just a small boy at the time). His father shot a small deer, and after cleaning it, they went on to look for another one. They had no luck, so returned to pick up the one they had shot. When they got there, they found a wolf dragging it away, so his father shot the wolf, and this was believed to be the last." Wolves were also present on Saltspring Island in the 186OYs, but were no longer living there during the present century (Walter

Suttles (1974:97) stated that wolves sometimes drove deer and wapiti into the water, and Salish hunters would take advantage of the situation and shoot the animal in the water. Wolves caused problems by coming into villages at night and killing the dogs (Suttles 1974: 97). Wol ves were not ki 11ed because, as ski 11ed hunters, they were desirable supernatural helpers (Barnett 1955:93). "Wolves were people. They should never be killed. If a wolf was shot, all its fellows would quickly surround the killer. If the killer was repentant and talked soothingly to them, they went away crying; if not they killed him. Connected with these beliefs was the conviction that sea hunters became killer whales at death, while land hunters were reincarnated as wolves" (Barnett 1955:93). Suttles (1974:102-103) stated that the Straits Salish had only one kind of dog, a small dog with woolly hair. Barnett (1955:96) stressed that the hunting dog was as valuable as the wool dog, but did not know whether they here separate breeds. His informants were unable to decide as well. Suttles (1974: 103) suggested the dog had

become extinct before his informants were born, but Jenness (n.d. : 33) said that he had seen a dog in 1936, "an old creamy white dog on the East Saan ich reserve wh ich seemed to carry some of the old strain its owner had sheared it every autumn and sold the hair to a relative on the mainland, who knitted it into mittens (sic)."A Saanich informant said their dogs were not used for hunting because they only had the wool dogs. A Westholme man, however, used the wool dogs in deer drives. Near the Fraser River a larger dog was used in deer and wapiti drives (Jenness, n.d. :lo). These wool dogs appear to have been restricted to the Strait of Georgia, Puget Sound and Strait of Juan de Fuca area of the Northwest Coast (Howay 1918:91). This dog was described as larger than the European Pomeranian of the 18th and 19th century and was white, or white and black (Howay 1918). Historically, dogs were owned by men, and deer hunters owned three or four. They were housed in small wooden structures, or small caves dug into a hillside (Barnett 1955, Suttles 1974). During the fishing season, the Saanich would bury fish on islands and leave their dogs on the islands to fend for themselves until they were retrieved (Barnett 1955, Jenness n.d.). This appears to have been practiced elsewhere. Menzies (in Newcombe 1923:44) observed in late May of 1792, that dogs had been left on Gedney island, near what is now Everett, Washington. Dogs were given names, and as they got old they were kept as pets. Menzies (in: Newcombe 1923) reported the use of muzzles on the dogs kept by Sal ish people *on Orcas Is1 and. When they died, they were buried. In one historic case, a coffin was made for a pet dog, and a watch was placed with the body (Barnett 1955, Suttles 1974). Dogs were not killed, nor were they eaten (Suttles 1974:105). Dogs were used to chase or frighten deer and wapiti toward hunters, or into pits or water, where the animals could be shot by hunters. They were also used to flush grouse, and to keep bears occupied so hunters could kill the bear or flee (Barnett l955:97). It is generally assumed that the canids found in prehistoric sites were not eaten but were kept as pets, for wool or hunting. Dogs have been recovered from under cairns, and associated with human burials (Montgomery 1979, Digance 1987). Canid bones have also been recovered with butchering marks (Montgomery 1979, Digance 1987). Digance (1987) believed that the cut marks observed on a Canis mandible from DeRt 2 were not from butchering because the cuts were very deep and not near a major muscle. Cut marks have been observed on this mandible and two others from DeRt 2. They appear to be very similar to butchering or skinning marks observed on mustel id remains from DeRt 1. In other studies, skinning marks tend to be observed frequently under the mandibular symphysis and on the mandible at the massi ter muscl e attachment (Binford 1981: 107). Binford (1981) suggested that "excessive" cuts on bone might be caused by muscle rigor causing difficulty in butchering. Kusmer (1989) stated that while no butchering marks were observed on canid bones from Tsawwassen she did record gnawing, indicating to her that those dog bones were not buried. Carnivore chewing was also observed on canid remains from Pender Canal. This suggests that perhaps these particular dog remains were not treated with so much care as is suggested from the ethnographic record, and that some dogs may have been eaten, or at least skinned. It is difficult to distinguish between the different species of the genus Canis on the basis of osteological features. Attributes of the skull, particularly a complete skull, can make such a separation possi bl e, but post-crani a1 el ements provide fewer cl ues . Montgomery (1979) proposed that the Semiahmoo Spit canids were domesticated because of a large number of bones from immature animals (suggesting that the animals were bred in camp), the few butchering and burning marks on the bones, and tooth wear characteristic of domestic dogs. After analyzing 42 elements Montgomery (1979:142) concluded that the dog popul ati on was heterogeneous indicating the presence of more than one type of dog. She suggested that no wild canids were present at Semiahmoo spit (Montgomery 1979). Since wolves and coyotes have been observed in the area, it is uncertain that only domesticated dogs are being recovered from the archaeological sites. In fact, wolf remains (Cani s 1 u~us)were recorded at three sites: Cowichan Bay (DeRv 107), Belcarra Park (DhRr 6), and Cattle Point (45 SJ 1). At Cattle Point, Canis qiqas, that King (1950) calls the "Puget Sound wolf", was identified from 5 bones. Cowan and Guiguet (1978:285) stated that the three wolf subspecies of British Columbia show minor differences that are not well supported. This, and their statement that "wolves are so variable in size, pelage, colour, and size and shape of skull, and so prone to 1 ong-di stance movements" suggests that an identification to wolf species or subspecies may be overly optimistic. Ten wolf bones were identified by Galdi kas-Brindamour (1972) for Be1 carra Park, for an MNI of one animal. The Cowichan Bay Site also provided Canis 1u~us bones from the upper 1ayers of Units 1, 2, 9 and a lower 1ayer of Unit 10. All the sites contained either Canis familiaris or a Canis sp., and in all instances where frequency data were available, canids were the most common carnivore and the second most common mammal identified. At Esquimal t Lagoon (DcRu 2), St. Mungo (DgRr 2) , Cates Park (DhRr 8), Semiahmoo Spit (45 WH 17), Tsawwassen (DgRs 2) and 45 WH 9 (at Birch Bay), canid remains were more common than any other mammal (Table 6.3). At Esquimalt Lagoon, 113 of the 192 dog bones were from the skull (Table 6.3, Figure 6.1). Of these, 108 sku1 1 bones were from a sing1e unit and 1eve1 (Stevenson 1978). No other site, from which element data are available, had such a large number of skull fragments, suggesting that the numbers may be inflated by a highly fragmented skull or skulls. Other than this one Vancouver Island site, all other sites with canids dominating the assemblages are on the mainland.

Bears (Ursus sp.) The black bear (Ursus americanus) and the grizzly bear (Ursus arctos) were once found throughout British Columbia and Washington, but their present range is much reduced (Banfield 1974, Craighead and Mitchell 1982, Pel ton 1982). Black bears generally 1 ive in forested areas and swamps. Black bears hibernate during the winter in Table 6.3: Canid elements identified from Strait of Georgia sites

Canid elements DcRu2 DhRr8 45WH9 Sku1 1 113 5 Mandi bl e 3 3 13 Teeth 33 16 17 Vertebra 2 5 Cervical 1 Thoracic Lumbar 1 Sacrum Caudal Sternum Rib Scapul a Humerus Ulna Radius Carpal Metacarpal Innominate Bacul um Femur Ti bi a 2 1 Fibula Metatarsal Metapodi a1 4 7 Tarsal Sesamoid/Podi a1 Phalanx 2 Prox. Phal anx Med. Phal anx 2 Di st. Phal anx Metapod/Phal anges TOTAL 162 36 Esquimalt Logoon, DcRu 2 1 30 I I (Stevenson 1978) I I I I I 11 I 2 0 I I I1I I I I I I 10- I I I I ' I I I I I n 1 n n I ~n I n

, Belcarra Pork, DhRr 8

'"1 m I : (Williams in: Chariton 1977)

20 f w I ! (Goston 6 Grabert '1975) E I" I I- I - I I I I 0 10 8 I I W I 18 I a. 1 nn1, nrnn: n V) n W - , DeRt I -LL ; Unit 30

Slratum Vb B VI 10 (Garvin 1987

0 n: n

, DeRt I 1984 Trench

DeRt I I : Unit I8 ;

ELEMENTS

Figure 6.1: Canid elements northern areas but on southern Vancouver Island some bears are active year around (Cowan and Guiguet 1978:291). Grizzly bears generally hibernate between November and March, although occasional individuals will not den until December. While grizzly bears are presently found along the coast, they are not on any of the coastal islands of British Columbia (Banfield 1974, Cowan and Guiguet 1978, Craighead and Mitchell 1982). Suttles (1974:92) believed that the Straits Salish people probably knew of, but rarely encountered grizzly bears. Black bears were found on Vancouver Island and the mainland, but not on the San Juan nor the Gulf Islands, according to ethnohistoric accounts (Suttles 1974:92). The meat tasted best in June when the animals eat fruit and berries, and in the fall when they eat salmon. In the spring, bears eat skunk cabbage, and in August they eat ants and the flesh did not taste good so they were not hunted at those times (Suttles 1974:92-93). Bears were hunted with bow and arrow, often at salmon streams (Suttles 1974:93). Bears would also be smoked from winter dens and then shot. Deadfalls were reportedly used, but Suttles' (1974) informants did not know how they worked. The only groups Suttles (1974:94) had information for were the Semiahmoo and the Saanich. While Jenness (n.d.) stated that bears were common in Cowichan 1ands, he did not discuss whether the bears were hunted nor how they were hunted. Stern (1969:50) reported that the Lummi hunted bear on the mainland by using deadfalls. The hides were used to make clothing, the oil saved, the meat eaten, and the bone was used to make projectile points (Barnett 1955: 101, Stern 1969). On the mainland, bear hunters put the head and pelt on a pole facing to the east. The head of the animal was also set into the fork of a tree and not eaten (Barnett 1955:106). Barnett (1955:107) stated that beliefs and rituals related to bear hunting and treatment of the carcass were "either absent entirely or weakly developed on the island." Archaeological evidence indicates that if bears were not present on the Gulf and San Juan Islands prehistorically then their remains must have been brought to the sites from Vancouver Island or the main1 and. However, bear bone frequencies were low in the archipel ago (Table 6.4). Esquimal t Lagoon (DcRu 2) had twelve black bear elements in the historic component of Unit 17, but none in the Developed Coast Salish component, and Cowichan Bay (DeRv 107) had a single bear bone identified as U. americanus. The greatest number of bear bones came from Be1 carra Park on the mai n1 and. Gal di kas- Brindamour (1972) identified 59 black bear bones, an additional 5 bones were identified 1ater as black bear remains, and 2 were tentatively identified as bear (Char1 ton 1977). Unfortunately, no information about the elements identified was provided. At Semiahmoo

Spit, 19 black bear bones were identified. Fifteen of these bones came from the foot, primarily hind feet, and one humerus, a tibia and two teeth completed the assemblage (Montgomery 1979). Cates Park (DhRr 8) had six bones from the feet and head of a bear (Table 6.4). One animal was believed to be between 1 and 4 years old based on Table 6.4: Bear elements from Strait of Georgia Sites Ursus elements 45WH17 45WH9 DhRr6 Sku1 1 Mandi bl e Teeth Vertebra Cervi cal Thoracic Lumbar Sacrum Caudal Sternum Rib Scapul a Humerus Ulna Radi us Carpal Metacarpal Innominate Femur Tibia Fibula Metatarsal Metapodi a1 Tarsal Sesamoid/Podi a1 Phalanx Prox. Phal anx Med. Phal anx Dist. Phalanx MetapodIPhal anges TOTAL features of the mandible (Williams in: Charlton 1974:18). At 45 WH 9 a humerus and podia1 were identified (Gaston and Grabert 1975). Two bones were identified as bear from Helen Point (DfRu 8) and Cattle Point (45 SJ l), but the elements were not reported (Boucher 1973, King 1950). Bear bones were reported at Montague Harbour (DfRu 13), but quantities and elements were not given (Mitchell 1972). Bear remains are not common in Developed Coast Salish components. Where element information is available, the bones are generally from the feet or the head. The scarcity of remains indicates that bears were not heavily exploited until the fur trading period; or, that the carcasses were stripped of their furs in the woods and left; or, that the bones were treated in some way that they would not be recovered from archaeological sites. However, Suttl es' (1974:lOl) informant knew of'no special treatment of bear bones in historic times. The evidence available from the information used in this study supports Suttles' (1974:94) statement that "Bear meat was probably never eaten to the extent that venison or elk was, nor were bear skins used to the same extent ... It seems likely that bear hunting was stimulated by the market for skins offered by the Hudson's Bay Company."

Raccoon (Procvon 1otor) The raccoon is found in southern British Columbia and throughout Washington. They are found near marshes and swamps and will forage a1 ong marine beaches (Kaufmann 1982). Raccoons are excel 1 ent swimmers and have been known to swim rivers and lakes 300 m wide (Kaufmann 1982:575). Despite the raccoonsy swimming ability, the abundant food supply on Pender Island, and the presence of raccoons on the other Gulf Islands, they were not noticed on Pender Island during the 1984/1985 field seasons. Raccoons were reported on neighboring Saltspring Island, but were absent by the latter part of the 19th century (Wilson in: Walter 1959:53). Procvon lotor vancouverensis is reported to be found on Vancouver Island, Sal tspring Is1 and, Saturna Is1 and, and Pender Is1 and (Cowan and Guiguet 1978:300). Raccoons were kill ed by the Sal i shy and the meat prepared by roasting, steaming and boiling (Barnett 1955: 63, Suttles 1974:96). Raccoons were also trapped for their furs using a deadfall (Suttles l974:96). Jenness (n.d. :34) reported that the Saanich made caps of the fur. Raccoons appear to have been more popular farther upriver , than they were on the coast (Suttles 1974:97). Raccoon bones were not common at Pender Canal (DeRt 1). Galdi kas-Brindamour (1972) identified a nearly whole skeleton from the materials excavated in 1971 by McMurdo (1971). Garvin (1987) identified a tibia from Unit 30 and a tarsus was identified in the Unit 18 assemblage. The bones identified in 1985 and 1986 may be from the same animal identified by Galdi kas-Brindamour (1972). Raccoon bones were recovered from nearby Helen Point (DfRu 8), Georgeson Bay (DfRu 24) and Montague Harbour (DfRu 13). The greatest number of bones came from Belcarra Park. Galdikas-Brindamour (1972) identified 64 bones and and 7 bones as raccoon, and 1ater an additional 2 bones were identified as possibly P. lotor (Charlton 1977). No more than 3 raccoon bones were identified from all other sites (Table 6.2).

Mustel ids Mustelids are small to mid-sized carnivores with long bodies and short legs. The most distinctive characteristic of these animals is their scent gland, the most noxious being those of the skunks.

River Otter (Lutra canadensis) and Sea Otter (Enhydra lutris) River otters 1 ive along rivers, lakes, swamps, marine bays and coastal shore1 ines. When inhabiting coastal areas, there is usually a pond or freshwater stream nearby (Cowan and Guiguet 1978:331). Otters seen in the Gulf and San Juan Islands, Vancouver Island and the adjacent mainland coast are most likely river otters (Angel1 and Balcomb 1982). During the early historic times sea otters occupied the length of the North American Pacific Coast but after over- hunting, they became extinct from Prince William Sound to Baja California. Modern sea otter (Enhydra lutra) populations found on the outer coast of Vancouver Island and Washington are from animals transplanted from Alaska in the 1960's and 1970's (Riedman and Estes 1988:ll). While many sources show that the historic range of sea otters includes the entire British Columbian coast, there is some evidence that they were never a common resident of the Gulf of Georgia. Cook (1973:283) reported that sea otters were seldom found in the Strait of Juan de Fuca as early as 1790. The outer coast of

198 Vancouver Island had been heavily harvested by 1790, and by 1792, sea otters were rare (Mozino 1970:48), but the Gulf Islands had not been explored or exploited by Europeans until 1791. Menzies (in: Newcombe 1923) observed that few sea otter skins were found among the inhabitants of the Strait of Georgia or Puget Sound in 1792.

"We saw but few Sea Otter Skins amongst them which shews that these Animals do not much frequent the interior Channels & perhaps only straggling ones at particular Seasons, for the Fur of the few pieces we saw was of a very inferior quality to those found along the exterior edge of the Coast" (Menzies in: Newcombe 1923:82-83).

Barnett (1955:92) stated that sea otters were extremely rare and were not sought, while land otters were considered difficult to trap and required much skill. Mayne (1969) said he observed sea otters being eaten by Indians while he was in southern British Columbia during the late 185OYs, but he may been referring to river otters. Only Fossil Bay (45 SJ 105b) on Sucia Island, had sea otter bones identified in the assemblage. Sucia Island is well inside the archipelago. If this is not a misidentification it indicates trade with the outer coast or the capture of a stray animal. It would be interesting to see if the absence of sea otters extends to earlier horizons . All other sites with otter remains have bones of only the river otter. One river otter rib was identified from DeRt 1, Unit 18 in context 3, an upper level just below the 1ittermat. It could be the result of recent animal activity since evidence of a modern otter's presence was found on the site during its clearing, and the animals were seen entering and leaving the water in the woods adjacent to DeRt 1. The only other island site reporting the presence of L. canadensis was Georgeson Bay (DfRu 24) (Haggarty and Sendy 1976). On Vancouver Island, Cowichan Bay (DeRv 107) and Fort Rodd Hill (DcRu 78) also had river otter (Yip 1982, Mitchell. 1981), and on the mainland, the two Burrard Inlet sites had river otter bones. Galdi kas-Brindamour (1972) identified 25 bones from Be1 carra Park (DhRr 6) as river otter, but the elements were not reported. At

Cates Park (DhRr 8), also on Burrard Inlet, two river otter bones were found.

Mink and weasels (Mustela spp.):

The mink (Mustela vison) is found in most of subarctic Canada (Banfield 1974; Li scombe, Kinl er and Aul erich 1982). Mink 1ive near water, including 1akes, streams, swamps, rivers, tidal flats and coastal marshes (Banfield 1974; Li scombe, Kinl er and Aul erich 1982). Two other Mustela species were identified from Strait of Georgia sites: the ermine or short-tailed weasel (Mustela errninea) and the 1ong-tailed weasel (Mustel a frenata) . The short-tai led weasel has been observed historically on Vancouver Is1 and, Sal tspring Is1 and and the main1 and (Cowan and Guiguet: 1978). Cowan and Guiguet (1978:311) stated that they were introduced "recently" to Pender Island, and were probably present on other Gulf Islands. They usually inhabit forests and fields at low elevations (Cowan and Guiguet 1978, Banfield 1974). These animals burrow underground, or live in hollow logs and under roots or trees (Banfield 1974). The 1ong-tailed weasel s (Mustel a frenata) are sl ightly 1arger than the short-tailed weasels, and live in nearly the same habitat, but with a greater tendency to occupy grasslands and live near waterways (Cowan and Guiguet 1978, Banfield 1974). Currently, long- tailed weasel distribution is limited to the mainland. More sites contained mink remains than weasel bones, but still in low numbers. One mink mandible and one tooth came from Stratum 6

of Unit 30 on DeRt 1 (Garvin 1987). Two others were identified by Galdi kas-Brindamour (1972) from McMurdoYs (1972) excavations. At Belcarra Park (DhRr 6), a nearly whole skeleton was identified by Gal di kas-Brindamour (1972) and an additional 17 bones were identi f i ed in a later analysis (Charlton 1977). One mink bone was identified from Helen Point (DfRu 8) and at Fort Rodd Hill (DcRu 78; Boucher 1976, Mi tchell 1981). Mustela frenata was identified from 17 bones in layer L4 at Crescent Beach (DgRr 1; Ham 1982). These elements were from a right front foot which Ham (1982:269) be1 ieved may have been associated

I with other "exotics", including owl, gull, goose and Barrow's , goldeneye duck remains. This suggested to him that these animals had

re1 igious significance. A Mustel a erminea bone came from Cowichan Bay (DeRv 107) (Yip 1982). Marten and Fi sher (Martes sp. ) Marten (Martes americana) once occupied all of British Columbia and most of Washington (Banfield 1974:317). Strickland et al. (1982b:599) showed current distributions of marten limited to the Olympic Peninsula, the Puget Sound Coast and northward. Marten populations from the Fraser River Delta are now extinct (Banfield 1974:317). Cowan and Guiguet (1978:301) reported marten inhabiting the larger coastal islands, including Vancouver Island and the Queen Char1 otte Is1 ands. Marten are nocturnal animals which inhabit coniferous forests, and spend much time in trees (Banfield 1974). Fishers (Martes pennanti) are larger than marten and do not spend so much time in trees. These mustelids are also solitary animals. Fishers are usually found near streams and other water bodies (Banfield 1974, Strickland et al. 1982a). Fishers occupy almost all of British Columbia, except the northwest corner (Strickland et al. 1982a, Banfield 1974). Populations in the southernmost part of the province are now extinct (Banfield 1974). Fishers are found along the Washington coast from the northern border to the Olympic Peninsula (Strickland et a1 1982a). One eroded left astragalus fragment from the 1984 trench at DeRt 1 was identified as Martes sp. No other marten or fisher was identified from late component assemblages at DeRt 1. Galdikas-Brindamour (1972) identified Martes americanus remains from Belcarra Park (DhRr 6). Another bone was tentatively identified as marten in later analyses (Charlton 1977). Helen Point also had a single identified marten

202 bone (Boucher 1976).

Skunks Two species of skunks occur in the Strait of Georgia Region: Spiloqale qracilis or spotted skunk, and Mephitis mephitis or the striped skunk. Both produce an offensive smelling oil from their anal gland. The spotted skunk has a discharge described as a "highly concentrated onion extract" while the striped skunk scent elicits much more emphatic descriptions (Banfield 1974). The spotted skunk (S~ilogaleqracilis) lives along the mainland coast, sleeping in burrows during the day and hunting and foraging at night (Cowan and Guiguet 1978). Spotted skunks tend not to live in heavily forested or swampy areas (Banfield 1974). The striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis) is slightly larger and lives in open lands, marshes, mixed terrain and forests (Cowan and Guiguet 1978, Banfield 1974). They too forage at night, but they are more active during the day than the spotted skunk (Banfield 1974). These skunks are found on the mainland, and individuals have been recovered from Nicomen Island (Cowan and Guiguet 1978:329). Four skunk bones were identified from Semiahmoo Spit (45 WH 17) from the mandible (n=3) and the femur (n=l; Montgomery 1979). Twelve Spiloqale qracilis or spotted skunk bones were recovered from Belcarra Park (DhRr 6) but produced MNI of one (Galdikas-Brindamour 1972). None of the other sites had skunk remains. River otters, mink, fishers and marten were trapped historically for their pelts by the Salish using deadfalls (Suttles 1974:96). The deadfall was usually a box with one open end and a weight on top; as the animal took the bait, the weight fell on its back. Stern (1969:50) also stated that a deadfall was used by the Lummi to kill otter and mink for the hides. Mayne (1969) reported vermin traps like stone boxes with two open ends which were placed on a trail. As the animal passed through, the trap fell on it. Otters, minks and other mustelids were generally considered vermin by Europeans (Mason and MacDonald 1986:122-123). Barnett (1955:63) reported that mink, among other animals, were not eaten by the Coast Salish because of their mythological associations. Saanich religious practitioners used mink furs at ceremonies associated with a girl's transformation to adulthood (Jenness n.d. :58). Banfield (1974:340) stated that skunks were good to eat based on "their remains in kitchen middens," but the lack of skunk bones from southern Northwest Coast middens indicates that late prehistoric Straits people had a different opinion. Ethnographic reports of Coast Salish hunting techniques or subsistence patterns also tend to ignore these mustel ids.

Fel i dae : The presence of wild cats were reported for only two sites. DgRr 1 (Crescent Beach) had three Lynx rufus bones and DfRu 13 (Montague Harbour) had Fel is concol or remains. The bobcat (Lunx rufus) is found today along the southern coast of British Columbia and well into the interior, generally at lower elevations (Cowan and Guiguet 1978). They do not, however, inhabit Vancouver Island and the Gulf archipelago. The bobcat is about twice the size of a domestic cat, although some adults can reach 69 pounds (31 kg; Banfield 1974, McCord and Cardoza 1982). The bobcat sheds twice yearly and the winter coat is longer than the summer coat and more grey in color (Banfield 1974). Coat length may have affected the time of year the animal was sought. The cougar or mountain lion (Felis concolor) is a larger cat, weighing up to 180 pounds (82 kg) in the interior of British Columbia (Cowan and Guiguet 1978). Elsewhere males have reached 124 kilograms (Banfield 1974). The cougar also inhabits a variety of environments from the coast to the mountains (Banfield 1974, Cowan and Guiguet 1978). Their current distribution includes Vancouver Island and the mainland. There were reports of cougars on Saltspring and Quadra Islands historically. Cougar and bobcat meat was eaten by Salish people, although it was avoided by some (Barnett 1955:63). These predators were apparently killed incidentally while other animals, such as ungulates, were being hunted (Barnett 1955:63). Suttles (1974:97) reported that "bobcats, and cougars were rarely if ever used before the fur trade." This statement appears to be supported by the archaeological evidence from Developed Coast Sal i sh sites. The most commonly identified carnivores from these late prehistoric sites are canids. Despite historic statements that the animals were not eaten, butchering marks have been reported from prehistoric components of Strait of Georgia sites. Of course such cut marks may a1 so indicate that the animals were skinned or specially treated before burial, rather than being eaten. Dogs may have also had an attritional effect on the remains of food animals brought to a site. They might also have aided in hunting animals rather than being a food animal, or they may have provided manufacturing materials in the form of wool, or provided companionship. A study of the roles of dogs in prehistoric Northwest Coast society would be a worthwhile project on its own. Other carnivores are not nearly so common in the sites. Bear remains identified to species are black bear and the majority of these came from the mainland, with very few bear bones found on i sl and sites. Raccoon, mustel id and wild cat bones were 1 i kewi se infrequent. This suggests that these fur bearers were not so popular prehistorically as they were when historic fur trapping became a major economic enterprise on the Northwest Coast.

Ungulates Ungulata is an old order no longer in use by taxonomists, however it is still a useful classification to zooarchaeologists. Indigenous ungulates of the Northwest Coast are all artiodactyls, including deer, wapiti, and mountain goat. These are usually, but not always, the most common mammals found in Developed Coast Salish sites.

Deer (Odocoileus sp.) The coast, mu1 e, or bl ack-tai 1 ed deer (Odocoi 1eus hemionus) is found throughout Washington and most of British Columbia (Banfield 1974:389). Present populations of Odocoileus virqinianus, or the white-tailed deer, are found in eastern British Columbia. They also occupy the eastern and southwestern part of Washington, extending to the southern edge of Puget Sound (Banfield 1974:394, Hesselton and Hessel ton 1982:878). Burt and Grossenheider (1976: 217) showed modern distributions along southern Puget Sound, not including the Olympic Peninsula or the coast north of Seattle. Livingston (1987) identified white-tailed deer in prehistoric sites in Washington well outside the historic range of this species. In sites outside of the modern range for white-tailed deer, and where black- and white-tailed deer were both in the faunal assemblage, the white-tailed deer remains were more common. Livingston's (1987) study did not include the Strait of Georgia region, but does emphasize the need for caution while assigning a specific taxon to the Odocoileus remains. Deer in the Pender Island sites were identified to genus since prehistoric Odocoileus species distributions are unknown. White-tailed deer are more solitary than black-tailed deer (Banfiel d 1974:389). Bl ack-tai 1ed deer congregate in small groups in the summer, and larger, mixed groups form in the winter. Occasionally, other cervids such as wapiti (Cervus elaphus) are found with winter deer herds (Banfield 1974:389). Only male deer have antlers. Antlers grow through the summer, the velvet is rubbed off in the early fall, and the antlers are shed between January and April (Banfield 1978:388, Nowak and Paradiso 1983:1213). Young are born from March to November, although most are born in June, but females may give birth more than once each summer (Nowak and Paradiso 1983:1215, Banfield 1978:390). Because of the wide range of birth times, aging data from juvenile remains do not provide much information on season. Fetal animals from archaeological sites could indicate a spring, summer and/or a fall occupation. The deer are fully mature by their second fall rutting season (Cowan and Guiguet l978:376). Both species of deer are most active in the early morning and in the evening (Nowak and Paradiso 1983:1213). This might indicate the best time for hunting the animals. 0. hemionus can adapt to a wide variety of habitats ranging from the foothills to coastal islands, and grass1 ands to dense coniferous forests, but their preferred habitats are edges of streams in young coniferous forests (Mackie

-a1 . 1982). The highest deer populations in coniferous forests are associated with areas of 10-30 year old re-growth, a1 though high populations also occur in mature forests (Mackie et al. 1982:870). Odocoileus swim very well and there are numerous reports of deer swimming from one island to another (Cowan and Guiguet 1978:368). Historic accounts often noted the abundance of deer in the Strait of Georgia area. Mayne (1969:39) remarked that deer on Orcas Is1 and very pl enti ful . On Vancouver Is1 and, while travel i ng from Alberni to Nanaimo, he shot a wapiti and two deer, and three or four other wapiti were spotted along the way (Mayne 1969). Suttles (1974:82) reported that male deer were best hunted in the late spring and early summer while they were heaviest. Females were lean because they had given birth and were still suck1 ing fawns. Most hunting was done in the early summer for the winter stores. Does were hunted for immediate use in the winter while they were fat, and the bucks were lean from the rutting season (Suttles 1974:82, Stern 1969:48, Barnett 1955:95). On Vancouver Island, deer were numerous enough to be hunted all year and not just during the preferred seasons (Jenness n.d.:8). This was probably also true for the Gulfisan Juan Islands and the mainland. Informants from Pender Island remembered native people hunting for deer whenever meat was needed (Moon 1985: 35). Bows and arrows, nets and pits were the primary methods used to hunt deer. The hunter going out alone or with dogs usually used the bow and arrow, and the deer were shot as encountered (Jenness n.d., Suttles 1974, Barnett 1955, Stern 1969). Dogs could be used to help chase deer into the water or into deep snow to make the animal an easier target. Torches were also used to shine into the eyes of animals grazing along beaches. The reflection from the eyes revealed the deer to the hunter, and the animals were shot. Hunters also attracted deer to them by whistling with a blade of grass and making a noise like a fawn (Suttles 1974, Jenness n.d.). Nets of sinew or plant fiber were strung across a narrow neck of land bound on each side by water, or across a deer trail, or natural pass. The mesh was wide enough for a deer's head to go through. As the deer were chased to the net by several people, others waited at the net to club or shoot the animals tangled in the net. Dogs were occasionally used in these drives (Jenness n.d. :10, Suttles 1974:87- 88). Bucks with antlers were most easily tangled in the nets. Suttles (1974:87) reported that "The Samish went to Blakely and Cypress Islands, the Lummi to Lummi and Orcas, the Saanich and even Songish to Mayne, Pender, and Saturna" for deer drives. Winifred Grey, (1961: 79), an early visitor to Pender Island, went to the portage or what is now the Pender Canal, for a picnic. Grey (1961:79) said, "The first thing we saw, on running up the bank from the beach, was two dead bucks, their horns interlocked, and both entangled in a fisherman's net, which had been strung over posts to dry." The Pender Island portage would have been ideal for a deer drive, and it would have been interesting to know if it were a fishing net or a deer net set to catch deer. Menzies (in: Newcombe 1923:42) reported that a deer caught in a net at Vashon Island by the people of Puget Sound was brought to the ship in trade for copper. Dri ves were a1 so conducted wi thout nets. Peopl e frightened deer toward hunters waiting with bows and arrows, and more recently, with guns. Such drives took place on Pender and San Juan Is1 ands in historic times (Suttles l974:89). Barnett (1955:97) stated that there were no deer or wapiti fences, and that drives did not seem to have been a common occurrence. Pits requiring few people were more often used. Pits large enough to hold the entire body of the deer were excavated, and a sharpened stake planted in the bottom. The hole was covered with brush and a log or low bushy wall set before it on the deer trail. When the animal jumped the obstacle it plunged through the over brush and onto the stake (Ekrnett 1955:97, Suttles 1974: 89). Pit size and depth varied with the soil depth. A man from Duncan reported that his father usually killed two deer a week in his p t (Jenness n.d.:9). Dogs were sometimes used to frighten the deer toward the pits or people chased deer toward them (Barnett 1955:98, Stern 1969:48). A s milar device was described to Suttles (1974:90) by a Saanich and Lumm informant. Stakes were set in a trail and a log or brush placed before the stakes. As the deer jumped over this short barrier they fell onto the sharpened stakes on the other side. A noose made of cedar fibers was also used to catch deer by hanging it from a tree over a steep trail (Suttles l974:gO). Bones from the deer were not discarded intact, but underwent additional modifications after the flesh was removed. A number of elements were used for artifacts. Antlers were used in carving and tool manufacturing, and lower 1eg bones were preferred for projectile points (Suttles 1974:91). Stern (1969:48) noted that Lummi hunters saved the feet of deer for special processing. The feet were boiled, and the hooves removed as decorative objects and were traded. The 1ong bones from spri ng-time hunts were cracked for marrow (Suttl es 1974: 91) . Barnett (1955: 106) reported that deer bones were thrown into the water to protect them from dogs. Because deer and wapiti were so numerous and required 1ittle effort to kill, "lures, ceremonial preparation, and taboos were superfluous," except apparently for the woman married to the hunter (Barnett 1955:104). Her behavior was less important, however, than was the behavior of the wives of sea mammal and goat hunters.

Wapiti or Elk (Cervus ela~hus) At one time wapiti (Cervus elaphus) were found throughout southern British Columbia. Modern population ranges are severely reduced from the early historic distributions, and they are no longer found in the Gulf Islands. While wapiti appear to prefer open lands with grasses and low bushes as their primary foods, they also browse on willows, map1 es, and berry plants in coniferous forests in lowlands as well as mountainous regions (Peek 1982, Banfield 1974). ~aturema1 es shed ant1 ers in March and Apri 1, but younger animals sometimes do not shed until May and June (Cowan and Guiguet 1978:358). Females do not grow antlers. The severity of the winter season and nutritional status of the animal can also affect the time antlers are shed. Antlers are shed sooner after mild winters and by animals in good condition. Antlers grow again through the summer, and the velvet is rubbed off in August (Peek 1982:852). Calves are born about late May or early June (Peek 1982). Cows and their calves aggregate into herds for the summer, and by the early fall, these herds decrease in size, and adult bulls join the smaller groups (Peek 1982:857). Females and males separate again during the winter. Wapiti bulls, like male deer, were hunted by the Salish in the spring (Suttles 1974). Wapiti were said to be easier to capture in nets because they were heavier and clumsier (Suttles 1974:91). Barnett (1955:103), however, stated that nets were not used because the wapiti were too large. Bows and arrows were used, but wapiti required more arrows to bring down than did deer. Mainland groups used only the bow and arrow (Suttles 1974:91-92). Barnett (1955:92) stated that wapiti were a staple food only on Vancouver Island. Wapiti once lived on Pender Island, and skeletal remains were seen there by the first white settlers. It is not known when the last wapiti were killed (Spaulding 1969). An informant told Suttles (1974:91) that wapiti were seen swimming from Cypress to Fidalgo Island. Some were shot on Moresby Island, and it was be1 ieved that they swam there from Pender Island (Suttles 1974:91).

Moose (Alces alces) Moose are not found in the region today, but are still included with the other ungulates because bones from Cattle Point (45 SJ 1) were identified as moose (King 1950), although this is probably a misidentification. The distribution of moose has changed rapidly during this century. Ritcey (1982:4) and Cowan and Guiguet (1978:378) reported that there were almost no moose south of Prince George and Hazelton, British Columbia before 1920. "They reached Barkerville and Bowron Lake in 1901, Horsefly and Likely by 1912, Williams Lake by 1923, and Clinton in the following year. In the meantime they had fanned out westerly to the Nazko and Chilcotin and easterly to Wells Gray Park. They had reached Adams Lake by 1931, Merritt and Nicola by 1932, Vernon and Princeton a few years afterwards. Today moose are found in suitable range almost as far south as the United States border, some 500 miles south of the areas they inhabited in earlier times" (Ritcey 1982:4).

Coady (1982:903) suggested that the historic range may have expanded because more people were moving into the moose ranges and reporting sightings. Ritcey (1982:4), however, noted that the people most familiar with the region, the Cariboo and Chilcotin Indians, did not have a name for the moose in their own language. Cowan and Guiguet (1978:379) plotted the current distribution at the head of Howe Sound, but otherwise moose are found we1 1 in1 and, away from the shores of the Strait of Georgia. There is no mention in the ethnographic literature of moose hunting by Coast Salish people.

Mountain Goats (Oreamnos americanus) The mountain goat is a member of the family Bovidae. It is found along the Coast Range and Rocky Mountains of British Columbia. The mountain goat is usually found above the tree 1 ine but along the Coast Range, deep snow may cause the animals to move to sea-level in the winter. They need to live where snow is not too deep, and are often found on southern or western slopes where snowfall is low or winds keep the snow from accumulating (Cowan and Guiguet 1978, Banfield 1974). Wigal and Coggins (1982:lOlO) stated that the mountain goat is the only large mammal in temperate North America with a white coat. The coat has hair almost seven inches long on the back and legs, while the underfur is very dense (Wigal and Coggins 1982:lOlO). These qualities and the horn and bone would make the mountain goat a desirable animal to prehistoric people. The hair begins to molt in April and May, and the pelt is in peak condition again by November (Wigal and Coggins 1982). The combination of sea level or low altitude foraging and peak pelt condition in the winter may indicate the season of year the animals were preferred. Some Coast Salish were believed to have hunted mountain goats, although it required considerable effort to reach the hunting grounds. Jenness (n.d.:7) stated that mountain goats were hunted by the Saanich in August, which is contrary to expectations since they would be high up in the mountains at that time. Later he wrote that the Saanich hunted goats on the mainland after the salmon runs were over, using bows and arrows, although this might have been an historic practice (Jenness n.d.:12). Barnett (1955:95) stated that goats were also hunted after the snow was already on the ground, although he also reported that the goat hunter would "steam himself at dawn for a month in the spring, and after each steaming, he dived into a creek of cold water" to direct his power (1955:104). These statements suggest that the animals were hunted year around. The goats were caught with nooses set on the trail or driven by dogs, until the goat was cornered and a noose could be slipped over the , goat's head. Hunters avoided shooting the animal because they did not want to soi 1 the wool by getting blood on it (Goddard 1924: 79). Stern (1969:50) said the value of goat wool was equal to that of eagle feathers. The meat was eaten, but the wool was more important. Hides were traded to Vancouver Island by the Squamish, and the hides were sheared there (Suttles 1974:95).

Ungul ate remains from archaeological sites

Ungulates other than wap iti and deer identified in archaeological sites were the mountain goat (Oreamnos ameri canus), moose (A1 ces a1 ces) , Bas sp., Ca~rasp. and pig (& sp.; Table 6.5). One bone identified as Sus scrofa was recovered from the top 10 cm of the Belcarra Park site, (Charlton 1970:227). Crescent Beach (DgRr 1) also had a pig bone (& sp.). This bone was from the historic layer, Layer A, as were bones (n=6) of Bas sp., identified as a domestic cow. One Bas sp. bone was a1 so found in the upper six inches of the Fossil Bay site (45 SJ 105b). Esquimalt Lagoon (DcRu

2) had six bones from domestic Bas sp., two Ovis sp., and one Caara sp. bone. All bones from these domestic animals were recovered from levels 1-11 of Unit 17 (Stevenson 1978). This is consistent with historic artifacts recovered from levels 1-8 in Unit 15, level 1-12 Table 6.5: Ungulates

LLLL LLWLLLL CC.cCoooa Mermal: Artiodactyla Cerws elaphus (mapi t i) Alces alces (moose) Wocoi leus sp. (deer) Mocoileus hemionus (mule deer)

Large Cervidae sp. Sm. Cervidae sp. (deer sized) Cervidae (deer, moose, uapit i)

Capra sp. (goat) Oreannos americanus (mountain goat) \ Ovis sp. (sheep) Bos sp. (cattle) Sus sp. (pig) Sus scrofa (domestic pig) Small ungulates of Unit 17 and levels 1-7 of Unit 20. Approximately half of each unit at Esquimalt Lagoon, appears to have been deposited dur ing the historic period, or at least contaminated by historic materi als. Sixteen Bas sp. bones were also recovered from near the surface of 45 WH 9 at Birch Bay (Gaston and Grabert 1975). Moose (Alces alces) was identified from only one site. Nine bones from Cattle Point (45 SJ 1) were classified as moose. King (1950) reported moose in all but one phase. This is somewhat unusual since it is the only Strait of Georgia site with this large ungulate, and it is well outside of the historic distribution of moose. Cowan and Guiguet (1978:378) stated that before 1920 moose were found primarily in the northern half of British Columbia, but current distribution maps showed populations into Washington, touching the coast only at the head of Howe Sound (Cowan and Guiguet 1978). Burt and Grossenheider (1976: 219) showed moose on Vancouver Is1 and, but other sources did not display a similar distribution. If distributions changed as rapidly before contact as they have in the past 100 years, it is possible that moose would be found on San Juan Island, but evidence of their presence in other sites in the area would be expected. It is generally assumed that the southward migration of moose was associated with historic land clearing (Ritcey 1982). Unless the bones were brought in from elsewhere, the moose identified in this site might be a misidentification. The most common ungulates found in Strait of Georgia sites are deer, wapiti and mountain goat (Table 6.5). Deer outnumber wapiti in sites on Vancouver Island and the archipelago. On the mainland, wapiti outnumber deer, except in those sites where mountain goats are present. The only exception is at Tsawwassen where 2 wapiti and 3 deer bones were identi f i ed (Kusmer 1989). Thi s 1one exception may be a function of the small assemblage size from this site. Mountain goats were found at Belcarra Park and Cates Park, both near Eagle Mountain, Mt. Seymour and other mountains on the north side of Burrard Inlet, within the historic range of mountain goats. Georgeson Bay had one phalanx from a mountain goat in Component 11. It may represent a trade item or other exotic associated with furs, hooves, or meat brought to the island. Element descriptions of deer and wapiti come from Esquimalt Lagoon (DcRu 2), Pender Canal (DeRt I), Cates Park (DhRr 8), Semiahmoo Spit (45 WH 17) and Birch Bay (45 WH 9; Table 6.6, Figure 6.2; Stevenson 1978, Williams in: Charlton 1974, Montgomery 1976, Gaston and Grabert 1975). A general division of head, body and leg elements was provided for Crescent Beach (DgRr 1; Ham 1982). Two ungulates were identified from DeRt 1, wapiti (Cervus el aphus) and deer (Odocoi 1eus sp. ) . Odocoil eus was by far the most numerous in a1 1 analyses. Gal di kas-Brindamour (1972) reported 72 deer and 2 wapiti bones from McMurdoys (1971) excavations. Garvin's (1987) analysis of Unit 30 produced a similar pattern. In levels associated with stratum VI, deer were represented by 61 elements and wapiti by 4 elements, while stratum Vb, dating between 1534 and 1321 Table 6.6: Ungulate elements identified from Strait of Georgia Sites

Ungulates DcRu2 DcRu2 DhRr8 DhRr8 45WH17 45WH17 45WH9 45WH9 Deer Wapiti Deer Wapiti Deer Wapiti Deer Wapiti Ant1 er 14 Sku1 1 1 2 9 Mandible 5 3 1 Teeth 9 2 1 2 1 Vertebra 24 39 8 17 Cervical Thoracic Lumbar Sacrum Caudal Sternum 3 Rib 33 20 2 Scapula 11 6 7 8 Humerus 14 6 3 Ulna 3 3 4 1 Radius 5 4 3 1 Carpal 20 2 1 Metacarpal 3 1 Innominate 6 6 3 Femur 7 12 1 2 Tibia 11 14 2 3 Metatarsal 3 2 Metapodi a1 11 2 0 5 4 Tarsal 7 25 Sesamoi d/Podi a1 3 4 Access. Metapod. Access. Phalanx Access.prox. Ph. Access.med.Ph. Access .di st.Ph. Phal anx 14 43 10 4 Prox. Phal anx Med. Phal anx Di st.Phal anx Unidentified TOTAL 181 252 53 60 wilhoul C_. ehp) C, CIOD~US from Layer L4 from Layer L4

Crescent DgRr l L EGENo (Ham 1982 0 Odocoileus sp. a Cervus elophus

vYO--0:0 v%

I. , Semiohmoo Spit, 45 WHI? : (Montgomery 19791

n 20 : (Gosfon and Groqert 1975) -W i L. 10 zI- 'W b I- rH

LL 0 Cotes Park, DhRr 8 2 0 i (Williams in: Chorlton 1974) OZ I w 10 I m I E - rn 3 Z

Esquimalt Lagoon, DcRu 2 I (Stevenson 1978)

ELEMENTS

Figure 6.2:Cervid elements BP, provided 21 deer bones and no wapiti bones (Garvin 1987:90). In the 1984 trench, 31 deer bones and 2 wapiti bones from late prehistoric levels were identified. Bone recorded as small cervid (n=12), small ungulate (n=14) and Cervidae (n=30) were also from Odocoileus. No bones were identified as large cervid. Un it 18, which in 1985 was excavated entirely within stratum VI, yielded 91 deer bones and 2 wapiti bones. Elements identified as small Cervidae (n=65), Cervidae (n=4) and small ungulate (n=28) were also probably from Odocoileus. Large cervidae provided 5 bones which are probably from C. el a~hus(see Table 6.5). Odocoil eus sp. and ungulate remains were scattered throughout the layers, although there is a tendency for ungulate remains to be from the upper layers. The upper 1ayers of Unit 18 had more mammal bone in general . In a1 1 cases, deer out-numbered wapiti and ungulates outnumbered all other major categories of mammal s . Ungulate elements from the 1984 trench, Unit 30 and Unit 18 are primarily from the foot: metapodials, podials and phalanges. With the exception of teeth, axial skeletal elements are not so common. This is not surprising, since these elements are dense, composed primarily of compact bone, while the axial skeletal bone is more cancel lous. Therefore, the dense bone is more 1i kely to survive crushing, gnawing and other destructive processes. Metapodi a1 shafts a1 so provide ideal manufacturing material and marrow. Carnivore chewing was also observed on ungulate remains. Semiahmoo Spit (45 WH 17) has a more equal distribution of Odocoi 1eus sp. elements than found at Pender Canal (DeRt 1). Relatively more upper limb bones are present than foot bones or podials, metapodials and phalanges. Phalanges and vertebrae are slightly inflated because Montgomery (1979) used a single category for all phalanges, rather than separating proximal, medial and distal toe bones. A large number of ribs were identified. At Cates Park (DhRr 8) the most abundant deer bones were phalanges and teeth (Williams in: Charlton 1974). Tarsals and carpals were also common. One femur, three scapulae, two ulnae and four radii and a single mandible were ident fied. No axial elements other than the teeth and mandible were ident fied. At Esquimal t Lagoon (DcRu 2) phalanges were again numerous but as at Cates Park and Semiahmoo Spit, the forelimbs were more common (Stevenson 1978). An occasional axi a1 element was a1 so pri sent. The most prevalent element appears to be antler, but this is because each antler fragment was recorded. There was an emphasis on deer leg bones at Crescent Beach, compared with body or head elements (Ham 1982:268). Another small assemblage comes from 45 WH 9, the Birch Bay site. The eveness of the distribution of elements at this site indicates that it is similar to Semiahmoo Spit. Axial elements are present at nearly the same proportion to appendicular elements, except the scapula and phalanges. There also appear to be more forelimb elements than bones from the hind1 imb. The number of surviving phalanges in each example is high, as if they were carnivore damaged assemblages (Bi nford 1981, Binford and Bertram 1977, Snyder 1988, Kl ippl e et a1 . 1987). Snyder (1988) studied the effect of the gray wolf (Canis lupus) on four white- tai 1ed deer (Odocoi 1eus vi rqi ni anus) carcasses. A1 1 of the mandibles and seven of the innominates survived. The distal humerus, proximal radius and proximal ulna joints, and the compact epiphyses of limbs, and shafts were also well represented (Figure 6.3). Those bones that showed greater attrition i ncl uded the proximal humerus, proximal femur, and vertebrae; while the carpals, tarsals, and phalanges were swallowed whole. Fifty percent of the chips in wolf scat containing bone larger than 1/4 inch, were from vertebrae, ribs, and costal cartilage. Phalanges and sesamoids made up 36.5% of identified bone, and carpals and small tarsals made up 6% of the bone recovered from wolf scats (Kl ipple et a1 . 1987:157-158, Snyder 1988:4). Bone from the feces showed erosion, or thinning of the cortical portion from digestive acids (Kl ipple et a1 . 1987: 157-158, Snyder 1988). Small fragments of these elements are difficult to identify to species from an archaeological site, and would not necessarily show up on a tally sheet. Evidence of carnivore activity, other than gnaw marks on the bone and thinning of the cortical bone, includes the presence of canid remains. Cates Park had 36 canid and 59 deer bone identified, or 68 deer and 87 canid elements if tentatively and positively identified specimens are combined (Wi 11 i ams in: Char1 ton 1974). There are 192 canid bones at Esquimalt Lagoon, outnumbering the 141 Elements from four scavenged Odocoileus virginionus carcasses LEGEND 0 expected observed

I I 1 , Elements from scats

(Klipple, Snyder 8 Parrnalee 1987:158-159, Snyder 1988:6-7)

Figure 6.3 : Deer elements from wolf scavenged carcasses deer bones identified (Stevenson 1978). At Semiahmoo Spit, 894 canid bones were identified, compared to 181 deer bones (Montgomery 1979). At DeRt 1 160 deer and 125 canids were identified from Unit 30, the 1984 trench, and Unit 18 (Garvin 1987, and Table 6.5). Fecal remains from an unidentified animal were also collected from DeRt 1. It is believed they are canid, based on the gnawed and crushed bone they contain. Bones with eroded edges and thinniog of the cortical bone were also observed. Based on the above observations, and a comparison of Figures 5.1 and 6.2 with with Klipple et al.'s (1987) and Snyder's (1988) results in Figure 6.3, it is suggested that canids are seriously affecting these assemblages. Humans, of course, also alter the expected frequencies of elements. Suttl es (1974:91) stated that ungulate metapodial s were a preferred source of bone for tool making and were cracked for marrow in the spring. Deer feet were also set aside and boiled to remove the hooves for decorative and musical items. Barnett (1955:lOl) also reported that deer and wapiti bones were favorite materials for making bone projectile points. Each of these factors could explain the increased numbers of lower limb bones in sites. Lugg (1986) inspected 282 mammal bone artifacts from the 1972 excavations at Crescent Beach (DgRr 1). She discovered that most of the artifacts which could be identified to taxon were from deer and wapiti metapodials, ribs, ulnae, tibiae and radii (Lugg l986:8). Metapodials provided most of the material from deer and wapiti. Thirty-three deer metapodials and 12 other deer elements were identified, and 5 wapiti metapodials and one other element were identified in Lugg's (1986) study. This confirms Suttles' (1974) statement, and also indicates that human non-subsistence activities are seriously modifying the assemblages that zooarchaeologists use to decipher subsistence patterns. Wapiti remains were used in ways similar to deer bones. Wapiti are a large animal and the bones are less prbne to destruction than those of deer. Wapiti are rare at DeRt 1, providing only an occasional element, so patterns are not discernible. This is also true for Esquimalt Lagoon where only two tarsals were recovered. The situation is different for the two mainland sites. At Cates Park (DhRr 8), the most common wapiti elements were teeth, carpals, tarsals, and phalanges (Table 6.6, Figure 6.2; Will iams in: Char1 ton 1974). Present, although in small numbers, are mandibles (2), vertebrae (2), a scapula (I), a radius (I), and tibiae (2). The most common elements were the small dense bones, but some axial elements were also present. Semiahmoo Spit has a more uniform distribution of elements, i ncl udi ng axi a1 and appendi cul ar bones (Tab1 e 6.6, Figure 6.2) (Montgomery 1979). Here the distribution of elements seems less affected by attritional forces than at other sites. This is interesting since Semiahmoo Spit has the greatest number of canid bones. This indicates that something different was happening at Semiahmoo Spit, either through the choice of body parts brought back, or in the way the bones were treated by human or non-cultural agents after they were brought to the site. Crescent Beach wapiti (Figure 6.2) also show a pattern unlike that for deer. More bones came from the body than from the legs. If the assemblage from layer L4 is removed, leg bones are the most common elements. Layer L4 consists primarily of body elements, and the bones from Layer L4 may have been from a carcass only slightly disturbed by carnivores or humans.

At 45 WH 9, on the southern shore of Birch Bay, the distribution of wapiti bones is roughly similar to that of deer, except that there are fewer phalanges. This is unusual compared with the other sites for which such data are available.

Sea Mammals Sea mammals are set apart in archaeological reports because their bone appears obviously different from land mammal bone, making it possible to assign that classification without indentifying the element any further. In ethnographic reports, sea mammals are set apart because they 1 ive in a different medium from land mammals, tools required to catch the sea mammals are more like those used to catch fish (e.g., harpoons, nets, floats, boats), and sea mammal hunters form a different set of specialists and have different sources of power than do land mammal hunters. The two primary categories of sea mammals are the pinnipeds (seals and sea lions) and the cetaceans (whal es, porpoises and do1 phins) . Pi nni peds (seal s) Harbor seals or hair seals (Phoca vitulina) live off-shore in inlets, bays, near deltas, mudflats, near reefs and coastal rocks. They will go upriver following runs of anadromous fish such as salmon. Harbor seals also occupy lakes such as Harrison Lake in British Columbia (Banfield 1974: Ronald et a1 . 1982). Harbor seals eat a variety of fish, including salmon, flatfish, cod, herring, rockfishes, scul pins, perch, ratfish, 1ing cod and mackerel. Ninety-four percent of the seal's diet is fish, the remainder being moll usks and other invertebrates (Banfield 1974, Ronald, et a1 . 1982) .

Harbor seals live in groups of 30 - 80 individuals when they are on shore. Females with young, and molting animals tend to stay on shore, while others will come to shore if the weather is stormy and the water rough. Harbor seals tend to search for food alone (Banfield 1974; Ronald et al. 1982). The northern sea lion or Stel1erYssea lion (Eumatopias jubata) is a large seal of the family Otariidae. They are found from California to Alaska in the summer, then the southern animals move northward and the northern animals move south for the winter and inhabit shallow waters (Ronald et al. 1982). During the breeding period of June and July, they haul out on beaches in large groups (Ronald et al. 1982:797). They have been known to swim upriver during salmon, herring and eulachon runs, but usually sea lions are found near the river mouths (Banfield l974:356). The northern fur seal (Callorhinus ursinus) is only rarely seen within the Strait of Georgia, (Cowan and Guiguet 1978, Banfield 1974). Specimens have been occasionally reported frgm Langara Island, Goose Island, the Fraser River mouth, and Courtenay, and the Campbell River, but these seals are most commonly found on the outer coast of Vancouver Island (Cowan and Guiguet 1978:347). The fur seals migrate south from the waters of northwest Alaska in October. Mature males tend to remain in Alaskan waters, while females and immature animals migrate as far south as southern California. The return north begins in March (Ronald et a1 . l982:8OO). Fur seals eat herring, eulachon, salmon, squid, cod, rockfishes and occasionally birds (Banfield 1974, Cowan and Guiguet 1978, Ronald et a1 . 1982). There are occasionally reports of California sea lions (Zalo~hus californianus) and northern elephant seals (Mirounqa anqustirostris) in British Columbian waters. Both of these animals are found primarily in the waters off California, and in the outer waters of the Northwest Coast of North America. Occurrences of these animals in the Strait of Georgia are rare and involve few individuals. In the spring, the Cowichan hunted seal in the waters around Mayne, Prevost and North Pender Islands (Barnett l955:22). Seals and

. sea 1 ions were also found in Cowichan Bay (Jenness n.d. :8). Seals and . sea lions were abundant in April in the waters around Saltspring Island while the herring were spawning (Jenness n.d. :8). The Saanich hunted seals in March, and seals and sea lions from September through November (Jenness n.d.:8). Seals were also hunted off DYArcy Island, Chatham Island and Discovery Island by the Saanich (Barnett 1955:ZO). Seals were hunted using a harpoon, floats, lances and clubs. To hunt seal with a harpoon, two or three people would set out in a canoe at dusk or dawn. Moonlit nights were also considered a good time to hunt. The paddles used were specially cut to reduce noise and to attract magical powers. In the dark, a seal could be located in the water by the phosphorescence produced by disturbed microorganisms. When a seal was speared and the animal dived, floats might be attached to the harpoon lines to tire it. The seal was then brought to the side of the boat and killed with a club (Barnett

1955:99, Jenness n.d. :13, Suttles 1974: 107). People hunted seals and sea 1 ions on shore by making call s 1 i ke baby seals, approaching the herd carefully and clubbing them. They would also frighten animals to the water where they were clubbed or harpooned by hunters blocking the way. The best time to approach the animals on shore was when the tide was out. Samish and hunters used to go to Smith Island to club seals (Barnett 1955:99, Suttles 1978:108). Seals were a1 so taken in 1arge-meshed nets (10-inch or 25.4-cm mesh) made with willow bark fiber, with cedar floats at the top, and anchored at the ends with large rocks (Suttles 1974:108). These nets tangled the seal under water until it drowned or hunters could arrive and club it. Sometimes nets were placed around a favorite rock with floats held under water by the anchor stones. The submerged net allowed the seal to swim over it to the rocks. As the seal swam back to open water the hunter could release the net from the anchor stones by pulling a line (Barnett 1955:103). Barnett (1955:103) stated that seal nets were used primarily by the northern Salish, but Suttles (1978: 108) reported that seal nets were used by all Sal ish groups, and he specifically names the Songish, Samish, and Saanich. Seals could also be harpooned from the shore:

"A seal hunter sits on the rocks and shakes his foot in the water stirring up the phosphorus and at the same time makes the noise of a groaning seal. As the seal comes toward the surface and becomes visible by the glow of his eyes which shine through the water, the hunter spears him" (Stern 1969:51- 52).

Since seals followed fish up river and into lakes, people living inland took advantage of the opportunity to hunt these animals (Suttles 1987). Seals were clubbed or harpooned in the in1 and waters. Sea lions were a more dangerous animal, and Suttles' (1987:236) informants equated it with "an angry bull ." Between Valdes and Gal iano Islands, at Porl ier Pass, sea 1ions were hunted during the spring by the Penelekuts from villages on Kuper and Valdes Is1 ands (Suttles 1987:236). The body of the sea lion was divided between the people in the hunting party: "The first man to strike the animal received the rear portion and the head. The second got one flipper, the third the other flipper, the fourth the back, the fifth the neck, and the rest got pieces of the belly. Each harpooner then divided his share with his paddler" (Suttles 1987:237).

No special powers were required to hunt seals although such powers were helpful (Jenness n.d.:13, Suttles 1974:llO). Sea lion hunters required more spiritual preparation before a hunt. The Saanich did not hunt sea lions often; the animal was apparently not common in the area. Saanich sea lion hunters.inherited the privilege as well as the songs and power associated with hunting sea lions. If the appropriate rituals were not observed before a hunt, the hunter would probably be injured or drowned during the endeavor (Jenness n.d. :l4). The Penelekuts of Kuper Island were reported by Suttles (1987:237, 1974:llO) to be the only Straits Salish who hunted sea lions on a regular basis. They, like the Saanich, used magic and songs to keep the animals calm. Stern (1969:52) stated that few Lummi hunters went out to hunt sea 1ions. Those that did needed to know the proper magic and songs to prevent the sea lion from overturning the canoe. Suttles (1974) recorded one account of elephant seal hunting by the , but noted the story's mythical aura:

"The Becher Bay informant HCh said that the Klallam on rare occasions got sea elephants. According to him, this animal sleeps in the water on his back with his long nose on his chest. He can be heard snoring for a great distance. When the Klallam heard the noise made by one they put out, approached him quietly, and had to raise his nose before they could spear him in the chest. The name of this animal, !!i-hy ,os, may mean "sl eepy-head" since a person who sleeps a great deal is called that" (Suttles 1974:113). Most of the sea mammal bones identified at DeRt 1 were from Phoca vitulina, Phocidae, and small pinnipeds (Table 6.7). Most of these came from Unit 18. Teeth make up most of the harbor seal elements, foll owed by sku1 1 fragments and phalanges. Appendicul ar bones are mostly front limb elements. In the 1984 trench, front phal anges out-numbered a1 1 other elements, fol 1owed by teeth. Two hind 1imb elements were recovered. Axi a1 skel eta1 elements are' missing from the record because they have been included in a more general, "small pinniped", category. Most of the small pinniped elements were ribs and vertebrae. Elements were scattered throughout the different layers, except in context 7 and context 16. In both of these contexts, the numbers were inflated by the quantity of identified teeth. Unit 30 contained 1 skull fragment, 1 mandible, 3 teeth and 2 carpals from Phoca vitulina (Garvin 1987). This is similar to the reports of headlforelimb elements from other DeRtl units. Phoca vitulina remains are identified in all other sites compared, except Moore (45 SJ 5), Tait farm (DhRt 36), and Georgeson

Bay (DfRu 24). At 45 WH 9 (Birch Bay) all sea mammal bones including seals, sea 1ions, porpoises and whales were combined in a single category. The lack of seal bones is somewhat surprising at Georgeson Bay and Moore, two island sites, where no sea mammal bones were identified. At most sites harbor seal bones are a minor m -1 .NVl Y 5 2 co .c Ee, iga 6 2 2 MO' izszfG 2?5nqmues-N422shm A= 2, 6 m - .- *am .-.;;sLg 3.ti~~~c5~0~E~prrrrx 2 .; .; .; .; b~~~.~~~~~;pe~a~-rs:mmcc --wL >sDZZWYUU32DD-1++U33U~z ~ZCUW~~ZZ

Table 6.7: Sea rnamnals

Hmal: Callorhinus ursinus (fur seal) Eunetopias jubata (northern sea lion) Zalophus californianus (California sea Lion) Eunatopias/Zalophus (sea 1 ion) Otariidae (eared seals) Phoca vitulina (harbor seal) Phocidae (true seals) Pi~ipedia(seals, sea Lions) Pinniped sp. (large) - Pinniped sp. (small)

Orcinus orca (killer uhale) Phocoena phocoena (harbor porpoise) ' Phocoenoides dall i (Dell's porpoise) Delphinidae (porpoises, dolphins) 3 40 Eschrichtius robustus (grey whale) Hegaptera novaeangliae (hlsrpback uhale) Sm. cetacean (porpoise size) 2 Cetacea (uhales, dolphins, porpoises) component of the assemblages. An exception is Cattle Point where it is the third most common animal (King 1950, Carlson 1954). This pattern may be associated with its geographic location, which Carlson (1954:31) described as "aberrant" because of its lack of protection from winds comming from the Strait of Juan de Fuca. Angel 1 and Balcomb (1982) showed modern haul-out sites on nearby Lopez Island, and offshore of southern San Juan Island. It is also a major salmon migration route where the fish split to move up Haro Strait or to the east (Mitchell l97l:l7), which in turn attracts sea mammals, sea birds and people.

Belcarra Park (DhRr 6) also had a large number of seal remains, more than wapiti and mountain goat, but fewer than deer and dog. Based on its relative abundance, seals were probably an important animal for the people at the site. In contrast, nearby Cates Park had few seal remains. The pattern of seal and sea lion elements from Crescent Beach (DgRr 1) is similar to the Pender Canal assemblage. Ham (1982:267) observed that most of the bones were carpals and phalanges. He suggested that this was an indication that the carcasses were butchered off the site. At Esquimalt Lagoon (DcRu 2) only two bones were recovered below the historic levels. These were a right mandible and a phalanx (Stevenson 1978). At Semi ahmoo Spit (45 WH 17) harbor seal bone identified were one element each from the skull, maxilla, rib, ulna, innominate metatarsal, metapodial, and tarsal. Four Phoca vi tul ina vertebrae were a1 so recorded (Montgomery 1979). Unlike the other assemblages, forelimb elements do not seem to dominate this coll ection. Sea 1 ions (Eumetopias jubata), otari ids, and 1 arge pinnipeds are much less commonly identified than the small phocids at Strait of Georgia sites. At DeRt 1, Galdi kas-Brindamour (1972) identified one element as possibly Eumetopias. One bone from Unit 18 was identified as a large pinniped, and from Unit 30, one otari id rib fragment was

identified (Garvin 1987). A single Eumetopias jubata bone was found in layer A, or the historic layer, at Crescent Beach. Two bones were identified at Esquimalt Lagoon (DcRu 2) from the prehistoric levels, including one left humerus and one phalanx (Stevenson 1978). Fort Rodd Hill (DcRu 78) provided a single bone (Mitchell 1981). At Semiahmoo Spit (45 WH 17) Northern sea lion remains (n=29) outnumbered those of the harbor seal (n=ll). This is the only site displaying this pattern, with most sites having no sea lion bones. Elements identified from Semi ahmoo Spit were: skull (I), vertebra (4), sternum (I), rib (7), scapula (I), humerus (3), radius (l), carpal (I), innominate (2), tibia (I), tarsal (2), metapodi a1 (3), and phal anx (2; Montgomery 1979). Eumetopi as jubata remains were also identified from Helen Point (DfRu 8; McMurdo 1974, Boucher 1976). Belcarra Park is the only site with identifications of Call orhi nus ursinus, the northern fur seal (Galdi kas-Brindamour 1972). This is not unusual since occassional sightings have been documented around the Fraser River area. Based on its absence in a1 1 other sites compared, it was probably still a rare visitor prehistorically. This could indicate at least a fall or spring period of site use, based on the migration patterns of these animals.

Cetaceans (Whales, Dolphins Porpoises) Delphinids, the most common family of cetaceans in the Gulf of Georgia region, i ncl ude the ki 11er whale (0kinus orca) , Ri ssoys dolphin or grey grampus (Grampus sriseus), the Pacific or short- finned pilot whale (Globicephal a macrorhyncha) and the Pacific white- sided do1 phin (Lasenorh~nchusobl iauidens) . Two members of the family Phocoenidae, the harbor porpoise (Phocoena ~hocoena)and Dall's porpoise (Phocoenoides dalli), are also common in Puget Sound and Strait of Georgia waters. The killer whale is common in all the waters of the Northwest Coast. They have been reported swimming into the mouth of the Fraser River foll owing fish runs and seal s (Angel 1 and Bal comb 1982: 120). Killer whales eat salmon, rockfish, herring, sharks, squid and sea mammal s . The Pacific whi te-sided dolphin and the short-finned pilot whale enter the Strait of Juan de Fuca in the summer and early fall, but limit their movements to the western part of the strait. The Pacific white-sided dolphin has been occasionally sighted in Haro and Rosario Straits, and the short-finned pilot whale has been spotted off the shore of San Juan Island (Angel1 and Balcornb 1982:120). Risso's dolphin is occasionally seen in the Strait of Juan de Fuca, although they normally stay on the outer coast. Porpoises were probably the most common cetacean sought by Salish people. The harbor porpoise is a year around occupant of the Strait of Georgia. They eat small fish such as herring, and will also eat squid. Dall's porpoises are common in the Strait of Juan de Fuca, and less so in the Strait of Georgia. They are also year around residents. Dall 's porpoises eat squid and small fish (Angel1 and Bal comb 1982: 123). Menzies (in: Newcombe 1923:58) reported landing on the north side of Orcas Island, in June of 1792, and visiting people living in a temporary camp. Hanging in one of the shelters was porpoise meat which, based on his comments, was a preferred food. Porpoises were harpooned in the ear using the same equipment used to hunt seals. Meat was steamed or dried, and the oil was saved (Suttles 1974:109). No special powers or inherited positions were required, and anyone could hunt porpoises (Jenness n.d.:13, Suttles 1974:llO). Certain people, however, were be1 ieved to have had special powers, and were, therefore, better hunters (Suttles 1974). Barnett (1955:63, 93) stated that killer whales were not eaten because of mythological associations, or because they were desirable supernatural he1 pers. It was also believed that sea mammal hunters were reincarnated as killer whales just as land hunters became wolves after death (Barnett l955:93). Large whales that come into the Strait of Georgia and into Puget Sound include the minke whale (Bal aenoptera acutorostrata) , fin whale (Bal aeno~teraphvsal us), blue whale (Bal aeno~teramuscul us), humpback whale (Meqaptera novaeanqliae) and the California gray whale (Eschrichtius qibbosus or F. robustus). The minke whale is seen regularly among the islands of the Gulf of Georgia where they feed on herring and other fish (Angell and Balcomb 1982:114). The California gray whale is also a visitor to the Gulf of Georgia in November/December and from Apri 1 to June during their migrat i ons north and south. They prefer shallow mud bottomed bays up to 40 meters deep (Angell and Balcomb 1982:117). The fin whale and blue whale rarely enter the protected waters of the Strait of Georgia today. They may have been more common prehistorically before the excessive exploitation of cetaceans associated with modern whaling. The humpback whale used to be common, and a commercial whaling station was established near Victoria to process these animals (Angell and Balcomb 1982:115). Humpback whales are usually observed in the summer but presently they are rarely seen in Strait of Georgia waters (Cowan and Guiguet 1978:270). Most of Suttles' (1974) Salish informants said they did not hunt whales, a1 though if a whale washed on shore it would be used. There was a story of a Saanich man who hunted a whale in the Saanich Arm. The whale was finally beached on Moresby Island (Suttles 1974:lll- 112). Songish informants said they did not hunt whale (Suttles l974:lll), although Jenness (n.d. :14) stated that Songish and sometimes Saanich men could inherit the position. Regarding this discrepancy, Suttles (1974:112) stated: "It may be that the Songish have not whaled for so long that my informants are ignorant of it altogether. Yet I cannot avoid the feeling that this is primarily an account of Nootka practice which informants gave to fill into what they know of the Saanichton whaler." Barnett (1955:92) stated that whales were not hunted by the Coast Salish. Drift whales were used when they floated to the beach in the Victoria area, but in other places they were not eaten (Barnett 1955). The most commonly identified cetacean remains in archaeological sites are from delphinids. Most of the late prehistoric delphinid remains from the Strait of Georgia are from DeRt 1, and Unit 18, and all of the elements in Unit 18 came from context 33 and above. Most of the remains were the epiphyses of the centrum of vertebrae, foll owed by auditory bull ae and petrous bones from the sku1 1. The ear bones are particularly dense bones. The epiphyses from the vertebrae can be identified from fragments which may serve to inflate the count. Two ear bones from the same side in adjacent levels of Unit 2 and a vertebra were identified from the trench material. No delphinid remains were recovered from Unit 30 (Garvin 1987). Galdi kas-Brindamour identified a single del phinid bone from McMurdoYs (1972) unit. Other sites for which delphinid or Phocoena phocoena (harbor porpoise) remains were reported were Belcarra Park (DhRr 6), Cates Park (DhRr 8), Semiahmoo Spit (45 WH 17), Montague Harbour (DfRu 13) and Helen Point (DfRu 8). Site 45 WH 9 had a combined category of sea mammals which included Phocoena spp. At 45 WH 17, 1 skull element and 3 vertebrae were identified. In no other site are delphinids numerous. Cetacea is a more general category which includes whales, dolphins and porpoises. Garvin (1987) identified 14 rib fragments from a whale. Two small cetacean remains, probably delphinidae, came from Unit 18. Other sites with cetacean bones were Semiahmoo Spit (45 WH l7), Cattle Point (45 SJ l), and Helen Point (DfRu 8). The cetacean element at Semiahmoo Spit was identified as a vertebra (Montgomery 1979). 45 WH 9, at Birch Bay, had a sea mammal category in which Rhachianectis spp. was included (Gaston and Grabert 1975). Rhachianectis qlaucus was the former scientific name for the gray whale, Eschrichtius qibbosus. It is not known to what extent this animal was represented at 45 WH 9. Gray whales have been observed feeding at Bell ingham Bay (Angel1 and Balcomb 1982: 117). Birch Bay is much shallower but the whales may have exploited the waters just outside Birch Bay and Boundary Bay. Whale bone need not have come from hunting. In historic times the Sal ish traded for whale bone from the and Nootka (Suttles 1974: 110). The small number of whale remains indicates that these animal s were probably not actively hunted prehi stori cally. In Suttles' (1974:106) introduction to sea hunting, he said "The . re1 ative importance of sea hunting was probably greater than the amount of data I have would indicate." The relative importance of sea mammal hunting seems no greater in the archaeological record. The porous and oily attributes of sea mammal bone may have made it more susceptible to attrition than the compact limb bones of land mammals, yet the scarcity of evidence suggests that sea mammal hunting was not commonpl ace.

Discussion Mammal s A single linkage cluster analysis was run using the software package STATGRAPHICS (STSC, Inc., Rockvill e, Mary1 and) against species list data. The results of the analysis are provided in a dendrogram (Figure 6.4). Sites which were most similar, based on the traits selected for the analysis, were joined first and those least similar joined to the dendrogram last. The relationships do not indicate the source of the similarities. Culture, geography or excavation methods could all contribute to the clustering. It is, however, a tool to investigate affinities. In this case, the traits selected were the mammals present at the Developed Coast Salish sites (Table 3.1). In some cases, identifications had to be merged into more general taxa because materials were not always categorized in the manner. Only presence and absence data were used from each site. Frequency data were not used. If more than one analysis was conducted for a site, the results were combined. Two clusters are apparent from the dendrogram (Figure 6.4). One cluster is composed of Pender Canal (DeRt l), Fort Rodd Hill (DcRu Pender Canal, De Rt I

Fort Rodd Hill, Dc Ru 78

Cowichan Bay, DeRv 107 St. Mungo, D'g Rr 2

Helen Pt., DfRu 8 A ISemiahmoo Spit, 45WH17 rl IMontague Harbour, DfRu I3 I' Cotes Park, DhRr 8 I 7-Jekyll's Lagoon, 45SJ3

Tait Farm, DhRt 36

45WH9

11 --I Moore, 45SJ5 Esquirnalt Lagoan, DcRui?

Fossil Bay, 45SJ 1058 IGeorgeson Bay, DfRu 24 - Cattle Paint, 45SJI

Tsawwassen, Dg Rs 2

Crescent Beach, DgRrl

Belcarra Pork, DhRr 6

Figure 6.4:Cluster analysis of sites based on the presence and absence of mammalian taxa. 78), Cowichan Bay (DeRv 107), St. Mungo (DgRr 2), Helen Pt. (DfRu 8), Semiahmoo Spit (45 WH 17), Montague Harbour (DfRu 13) and Cates Park (DhRr 8). This cluster shows greater variety of mammals represented in the assemblages. All sites in the first cluster have between 9 and 13 taxa. Six taxa were found in all of the sites. These were beaver, canids, raccoons, harbor seals, wapiti and deer. A1 1 but two sites, Pender Canal and Fort Rodd Hi 11, had bear, and a1 1 but two sites, Cates Park and Montague Harbour, had small rodents. In contrast, the sites in the second cluster had between 3 and 7

taxa. Sites most closely clustered in this second group had only 3 or 4 mammal taxa, and included Jekyll's Lagoon (45 SJ 3), Mackaye (45

SJ 186), Tait Farm (DhRt 36), 45 WH 9 and Moore (45 SJ 5). These sites all had canids and deer. Two sites, Tait Farm and Jekyll 's Lagoon, did not have wapiti. The more distant members of the second cluster were Esquimalt Lagoon (DcRu 2), Fossil Bay (45 SJ 105b) and Georgeson Bay (DfRu24). They too had canids, wapiti and deer.

The sites most different from other sites were Cattle Point (45 SJ I), Tsawwassen (DgRs 2), Crescent Beach (DgRr 1) and Belcarra Park (DgRr 6). These sites have between 8 and 17 species. While they contain most of the species found in the other sites they also contain more rare species than do the other sites. Belcarra Park (DhRr 6) has more different species in its assemblage than any other site. Clustering associated with the amount of variability or the kinds of animals present still does not provide information about the sources of this variability. Variability could be associated with seasonal i ty, site use, cultural group, taphonomy, sample size, and sampling or analytical methods. Some interesting observations, however, come from the associations. Pender Canal, He1 en Point and Semiahmoo Spit were all carefully studied for subsistence information, and results of these investigations were presented as theses or independent reports (Boucher 1976, Montgomery 1979, Hanson 1985, 1986, 1987, Garvin 1987). Cates Point and Fort Rodd Hill were a1 so studied by experienced zooarchaeol ogi sts who were prone to detailed analyses. The collections also tend to be larger than from other sites, and are all members of the first group. Montague Harbour data were presented as a species list, and was not a focus of the report, nor were fauna systematically collected, yet it is associated with the more carefully sampled sites. The similarity in this instance may be due to factors other than sampling. Tsawwassen, Crescent Beach and Belcarra Park were a1 so analyzed by experienced zooarchaeologists, and show more rare species than sites of the first cluster. Members of the second group are primarily sites which were excavated earlier than the other sites, and fauna were not an important focus of the research. Exceptions are Esquimalt Lagoon, Georgeson Bay and Tait Farm. A detailed report based on a careful analysis came from Esquimalt Lagoon. The assemblage is not particularly small and the screen mesh size was the same as for other sites. This suggests that the differences may not have been created by the archaeologists. The Tait Farm assemblage was small since only two .5 x .5 m units were excavated. Jekyll's Lagoon also had a small assemblage because the level bags from the main trench were missing. Grayson (1984: 132) noted that 1arger assemblages have greater potential variabil i ty or "species richness". Screen size and other

collecting criteria can also affect the number of species - use of a smaller mesh size leads to the collection of more animal species and a larger assemblage size. In four of the five sites in this second group, screen size was not discussed, and in fact, a screen may not have been used. This would explain the exclusive presence of medium to large mammals in these sites. Tait Farm soils were water-screened through 1.59-mm mesh screen which would encourage recovery. The Tai t Farm site is the only one of the five closely related sites in the second cluster with small rodent remains. The presence and absence data provide no information about which species were most economically important. Frequency information from DeRt 1 was graphed as ordinal data. As discussed in Chapter 1, the rare species were probably not economically important, and do not reflect rank order abundances. The taxa at the higher end of the distribution were probably economically important. The distances between categories do not reflect the degree of importance. Again, the graphs are a tool used to indicate which species were important. At DeRt 1 (Figure 6.5), Odocoileus and Canis were the two most numerous species, except in Unit 18 where there were fewer Canis than d 15 V) Unit 18 Q) V) 0 V) Q) u 3 - .- Q) 10 7 - 2-J - c. .- 3 a Q) 0 0 U crc 5 - 0 Sf E -0 =o * 0 0 0 r-Lnl ,,,, ,,a,m, ,,,, ,,,,, 100 150 200 250 300 350 50 0, * 0 3 I0 O 1- oQ)Q)d > Trench

5 -

wo V) 0 -b. --, !I!7 , ,n , , 8 , , , , , , , , 8 8 , , , , 8 , , , , 8 0 , W- 50 100 150 200 2 50 300 350

Unit 30 stratum Vb

1971 excavation

NUMBER OF IDENTIFIED ELEMENTS

Figure 6.5: Relative frequency of mamma lian taxa from DeRt I Microtus sp. and Phoca vitulina. Microtus representation was i nfl ated because of the presence of arti cul ated skel etons and Phoca vitulina representation was inflated because of the number isolated and easily identi fed teeth. In the trench Canis outnumbered Odocoileus, but not when all small cervid bones were combined. Unit 30, stratum VI and Vb (Garvin 1987), and the material from the unit excavated by McMurdo (n .d. ) and analyzed by (~aldi kas-Bri ndamour 1972) show Odocoileus and Canis as the more important species. The data from all the studies were combined, and Canis and Odocoileus were clearly separated to the right of all other taxa. Other sites which had frequency information were graphed on an ordinal scale data (Figure 6.6.1, 6.6.2). Sites containing only data on species presence were not used in these comparisons. The primary difficulty with the Strait of Georgia sites with MNI data is that the numbers are so low it is difficult to discern patterns. For example, at St. Mungo (DgRr 2) where MNI was used, the difference between the most abundant and least abundant species is only 3 individuals. As can be seen in Figures 6.6.1 - 6.6.2, it is more difficult to distinguish between important and rare species when assembl ages are small . Data from 14 sites were graphed. At Cattle Point (45 SJ 1;

Figure 6.6 A & B), Phoca vitul ina, which assumed relatively minor importance at Pender Canal, is as numerous or more so than Canis. This may be partially explained by the site's proximity to modern snqdola4 snAJa3 snqd ola snhla3 0 " Q'I 1 0 V) + V) Esquima l t Lagoon 0 10 n -w5 LL - I- -K. z 5 0 100 150 200 5 0 100 W n - 45SJ3 ~ekyll'sLagoon10 Moore (Carlson 1954) 45SJ5 Odocoileus, Canis spp., (Carlson 1954) Cervus elaphus, Castor canadensis LL -Odocoileus, Canis spp. o M.

Mackaye Hill 45s Jl86 (Carlson 1954) 1981

50 100 15 0 50 100 NUMBER OF I DENTI FI E D ELEMENTS

Figure 6.6.2: Relative frequency of mammalian taxa from a ll sites (continued) haulout sites and major salmon migration routes. At Crescent Beach (DgRr 1; Figure 6.6 C), 45 WH 9 (Figure 6.6 D), Semiahmoo Spit (45 WH 17; Figure 6.6 E) and St. Mungo (DgRr 2; Figure 6.6 F) Cervus el aphus is the most common ungulate. As was discussed earlier, this contradicts the statement by Barnett (1955:92) that Cervus ela~hus was less numerous on the mainland than on Vancouver Island. At Tsawwassen (DgRs 2; Figure 6.6 G), the small' sample size makes the relationship between the two ungulates difficult to determine. All of these are mainland sites, but two other mainland sites, Belcarra Park (DhRr 6; Figure 6.6 H and I) and Cates Park (DhRr 8; Figure 6.6 J), do not demonstrate this pattern. They also have an additional ungulate - the mountain goat (Oreamnos americanus), but deer are most common. Canids, not necessarily a subsistence animal in terms of being a major source of food, are particularly numerous at Esquimal t Lagoon (DcRu 2; Figure 6.6 K), St. Mungo (DgRr 2; Figure 6.6 F), 45 WH 9 (Figure 6.6 D), Tsawwassen (DgRs 2; Figure 6.6 G), Cates Park (DhRr

8; Figure 6.6 J) and Semiahmoo Spit (45 WH 17; Figure 6.6 E). Most of the canid remains come from a single level at Esquimalt Lagoon. All other sites are mainland sites. In each case, if we disregard canids, ungulates are the most important species on the sites. If one were to use only the evidence provided by mammal remains from the Strait of Georgia sites it would appear that hunting patterns were land oriented and deer were the staple mammal i an meat. The deer's importance probably extended to I, its supply of hides, antler, bone, marrow and hooves. Sea mammals appear to be a minor component of Strait of Georgia subsistence. However, mammal rema ins are not the only evidence of subsistence practices. Chapter 7

Birds

In a1 1 assemblages, Aves are a minor component. While more bird than mammal taxa are represented, few elements are identified from each taxon. This is partially a result of bird bone being extremely fragi 1 e and more susceptible to destructive processes. Not all bird bones suffer from attrition in the same way, and bone structure can influence the process. Diverticula from airsacs and tympanic membranes invade some of the bones rep1 acing marrow. This process is called pneumatization and occurs during early development (Harrison 1964, Jones and Furilla 1987). Pneumatization can occur in appendicular and axial bones. The extent of pneumatization is not the same in all birds, and even animals in the same order can have different patterns of hollow to dense bones. The ratio of pneumatization for any one element can differ as can the

kinds of elements which show pneurnatization. Harrison (1958)

compared 68 species of waterfowl and found that pneumatization was much more extensive in geese, swans, and dabbling ducks than in

diving ducks. Harrison (1958:195) suggested that the additional buoyancy caused by the entrapped air would be a disadvantage to an animal working to stay under water while feeding. Birds that plunge

' from the air into the water also show less skull pneumatization (Thomson 1964). In general, birds that forage under water have denser bones than birds that hunt during flight or feed on land (Be1 1airs and Jenki n 1960). Eagles, a1 batrosses, and hornbi 11 s have most of their bones pneumatized, including the sternum, coracoid, and in some birds, the vertebrae. Small birds have fewer pneumatized bones than do large ones (Bellairs and Jenkin 1960). Although gulls are not diving birds, they have 1ittl e post-crani a1 pneumatization (Be1 1airs and Jenkin 1960). The variabil ity in pneumatization 1eads to differences in bone density and bone survival. This variation in bone mass can result in observed differences between anatomical parts or numbers of animals recovered. Some bird distributions vary seasonally with migrations to and from breeding grounds. This has been used to determine the season of use of prehistoric sites. Birds were used for meat, the feathers for decorative objects, and the bones for artifacts. Bones and wings of seasonally available birds could be transported to sites occupied at a different time of the year from than season in which the animal was killed. Therefore, the presence of a single bone of a migratory bird in a small assemblage is not necessarily indicative of the season of site use. Non-breeding birds of many species will also stay behind while the adults move on.

Waterfowl Waterfowl usually includes only the swans, geese and ducks. Other birds which paddle on the water surface and dive for their food, such as loons, grebes, cormorants and alcids, have a1 so been included in this section. This is the category of birds to which ethnographers have given the most attention, and zooarchaeologists have most extensively analyzed. The osteological identification of ducks does not always allow for distinctions between diving and dabbl i ng ducks.

Diving Birds Diving birds are waterfowl that habitually dive and swim underwater for their food. They have less pneurnatization or fewer pneumatized bones, an elongated body and more ribs than non-diving waterfowl. Some divers also have no external nares, and extremely specialized divers such as the loons and grebes have greatly elongated cnemial processes on the leg to facilitate underwater swimming (Jones and Furill a 1987, Boyd 1964). If the bones are not so hollow in diving ducks as in dabbling ducks, or "terrestrial" birds, then the bones of these animals are more likely to survive burial. No cormorant bones are pneurnatized, except a portion of the skull and the humerus. The skull of a diving duck contains fewer pneumatic cavities than do dabbl ing ducks or geese (Bellairs and Jenkin 1960, Harrison 1958). Birds grouped into the category of diving birds are listed in Table 7.1 The family Gaviidae includes the loons. Loons are common diving birds in southwestern British Columbia and northwestern Washington. Table 7.1: Diving birds of the Northwest Coast Gaviidae (the Loons): Season: Gavia stellata Red Throated Loon winter/rare summer --Gavia arctica Arctic Loon winter/some summer Gavia oacifica Pacific Loon winter --Gavia immer Common Loon permanent Podicipedidae (the Grebes) : Podilvmbus ~odice~sPied-billed Grebe winter, coast/summer, 1 akes Podiceos auri tus Horned Grebe winter Podiceps qriseqena Red-necked Grebe winter/some summer Podiceps niaricollis Eared Grebe winter Aechmophorus occidentalis Western Grebe winter Phalacrocoracidae (Cormorants): Phalacrocorax auritus Double crested Cormorant winter, some summer Phalacrocorax ~enicillatus Brandt's Cormorant permanent Phal acrocorax pel aqicus Pelagic Cormorant winter

Aythyini (Bay Ducks) : Avthva valisineria Canvasback Oct .-Apri 1 Avthva americana Redhead 0ct.-March Avthva collaris Ring-necked scaup winter Avthva marila Greater scaup winter Avthva affinis Lesser scaup Oct .-April Mergini (Sea Ducks): Somateria spectabil is King Eider rare winter Somateri a moll i ssima Common Eider rare winter Histrionicus hi strionicus Harlequin duck permanent Cl anqul a hvemal is 01 dsquaw winter Melanitta niqra Black scoter Sept .-May Me1 anitta perspicill ata Surf scoter Aug .-May Melanitta fusca White-winged scnter Aug .-May Buceohal a cl anqul a Common Go1 deneye 0ct.-April Buceohal a i sl andi ca Barrow's Goldeneye Nov.-April Bucephal a a1 be01 a Buff1 ehead Sept .-May Lophodvtes cucull atus Hooded Merganser permanent Meraus serrator Red-breasted Merganser Aug .-May Mersus mersanser Common Merganser permanent Oxyurini (Stiff-tailed Ducks) : Oxvura jamaicensis Ruddy Duck 0ct.-April Rall idae (Rails, Gall inules and Coots): Ful ica americana American Coot Sept.-Dec. Alcidae: -Uria aalqe Common Murre winter --Uria lomvia Thick-billed Murre winter/some summer Ceoohus col umba Pigeon Guillemot permanent Brachvram~usmarmotus Marbled Murrel et permanent Svnthl i boramohus anti auus Ancient Murrel et Aug .-May Ptvchorarnphus aleuticus Cassins' Auklet rare winter/summer Cerorhinca moncerata Rhinoceros Auklet rare winter/summer Fratercul a ci rrhata Tufted Puffin rare winter/summer Fratercula corniculata Horned Puffin winter (Godfrey 1986, Jewett et d. 1953, Bellrose 1976, Angel1 and Balcomb 1982)

257 The common loon (Gavia immer) occupies most of Canada and is found well into Washington. These animals spend summer and winter in the waters of Puget Sound and the Strait of Georgia (Jewett et al. 1953, Godfrey 1986). They tend to prefer inshore protected areas rather than the open ocean (Godfrey 1986). The Pacific loon (Gavia pacifica) winters in British Columbia (Godfrey 1986). G.pacifica was formerly included with G. arctica, the Arctic loon, and is another winter visitor. The arctic loon has been seen on the Washington Coast in the summer, between their spring and fall migrations throughout the region. Jewett et al. (1953) reported that the red-throated loon (Gavia stellata) is a common migrant in the spring and 1ives in the Puget Sound during the winter, but is absent or rare in the summer. Loons are present in Puget Sound and the southern Strait of Georgia from September to May, with the greatest concentrations in February and March (Angell and Balcomb 1982). Some immature loons stay through the summer (Angell and Balcomb 1982, Jewett et a1 . 1953, Godfrey 1986). Grebes (Podicipedidae) are smaller, but have a body similar to loons (Godfrey 1986). Grebes are present year around in the waters of the Strait of Georgia, with large concentrations from November through March, and the greatest numbers in December, January, and February, when species such as the western grebes increase the popul ation (Angel 1 and Bal comb 1982). The pi ed-bi 11ed grebe

(Podilvmbus ~odice~s)lives in estuaries, marshes and bays of the southern Northwest Coast in the winter, and in the summer occupies ponds and lakes (Godfrey 1986, Jewett et al. 1953). The horned grebe (Podice~sauritus) commonly spends the winter on the coast of British Columbia and Washington. The red-necked grebe (Podice~sqriseqena) is sometimes seen in the San Juan Islands and the coast near Bellingham in the summer, but it is much more common in the winter from November to May (Jewett et al. 1953). The eared grebe (Podice~s nisricollis) is smaller than the red-necked grebe. It winters in southern British Columbia and coastal Washington (Godfrey 1986, Jewett et al. 1953). Another grebe which winters on the west coast is the western grebe (Aechmophorus occidentalis) which is about the size of a loon. Cormorants are also about the same size as loons, but have long s-shaped necks, sharp beaks and a black bodies. Like loons, their diet consists primarily of fishes. The double-crested cormorant (Phalacrocorax auritus) breeds on southern Vancouver Island and the outer coast of Washington, and winters in the strait and Puget Sound. There have been summer recordings of cormorants on San Juan Is1 and (Jewett et a1 . 1953). Godfrey (1986) reported that the subspecies P. auritus albociliatus (the Farallon double-crested cormorant) breeds on Bare Island, near Sidney, Vancouver Island, and winters in the same area. In Washington, breeding populations have been observed on Matia Is1 and and Lopez Island (Jewett et a1 . 1953). Brandtys cormorant (Phal acrocorax ~enici 11atus) i s a common animal, breeding on the outer coast and in the San Juan Islands (Godfrey 1986, Jewett et al. 1953). Some birds will live through the year in the area. The Brandt's cormorant is common around Be1 l ingharn Bay throughout the year (Jewett et a1 . 1953:84). The pelagic cormorant (Phalacrocorax ~elaqicus)is a smaller cormorant which breeds along the coast of southern British Columbia and the coast of Washington.

There are breeding colonies in the Gulf/San Juan Is1ands as well as on the eastern coast of Vancouver Is1and. Breeding colonies include Ridge Island near Duncan, British Columbia, and Lopez Island,

Washington. Angel 1 and Bal comb (1983) noted that cormorants are present in the area year around, with peak populations in December and January.

The Anatidae are the swans, geese and ducks. Of the ducks (subfamily Anatinae), only the genus Anas , the dabbling ducks, and m, the wood duck or perching ducks, do not habitually dive (Be1 1rose 1976) and therefore have a sl ightly different skel eta1 anatomy from the diving ducks. Bay ducks are a1 1 members of the genus Avthva and sea ducks include eiders (Somateri a and Po1 vsticta) , harlequin ducks (Histrionicus), Oldsquaw (Clanqula), scoters

(Me1 ani tta) , buff1eheads and go1 deneyes (Buce~hala) , and mergansers (Mersus; Bellrose 1976). The genus Ox~urais a separate genus of diving ducks called the stiff-tailed ducks.

Bay ducks 1ive near fresh water while breeding, but are otherwise on saltwater (Godfrey 1986). Most of these birds migrate through southern British Columbia and western Washington, but do not necessarily breed on the west coast. Birds which migrate through, or winter in the Strait of Georgia include the canvas back (Avthva valisineria), redhead (Avthva americana), ring-necked duck (Avthya coll ari s) , greater scaup (Avthva mari 1 a mari 1 oides) , and lesser scaup (Avthya affinis). Generally they are found in shallow ponds, lakes, drainage ditches and bays, although the lesser scaups also forage in deep waters. The most common bay ducks in the Strait of Georgia are the scaups (Angel1 and Balcomb 1982, Bellrose 1976). Non-breeding scaups will occasionally stay through the summer (Jewett et a1. 1953). Sea ducks (tribe Mergini) have a bill with a hooked end to help capture and hold fish. The king eider (Somateria s~ectabilis) and common eider (Somateri a moll i ssima) are probably only accidental visitors in the winter. Their presence has rarely been recorded in the Puget Sound (Jewett et al. 1953). The harlequin duck (Histrionicus histrionicus) is a year around resident of the Strait of Georgia, breeding inland on fresh water and returning to the coast in the winter. The oldsquaw (Clansula hvemalis) winters in Northwest Coast lakes and streams beginning in the late fall, leaving for arctic breeding grounds in the spring. Some individuals, however, remain through the summer. Scoters (Melanitta spp.) are common diving birds on the Northwest Coast. The black (Melanitta niqra), surf (M.- pers~icillata) , and whi te-winged (M. fusca) scoters a1 1 occur in Puget Sound and Strait of Georgia waters. White-winged and surf scoters are most common, wintering on the Northwest Coast from August through May. Immature animals may sometimes stay on the coast rather than flying to the breeding grounds in the interior. The black scoter popul ations are 1ess numerous, and popul ations usually stay from September to May (Angell and Balcomb 1982, Jewett et a1 . 1983). Buffleheads (Buce~halaalbeola) begin entering Northwest Coast waters in September, and populations peak in November and December. A second peak occurs in 1ate March and April when younger birds migrate through, and by May, they leave for breeding grounds in the interior (Bell rose 1979, Angell and Balcomb 1982, Jewett et a1 . 1953). Barrowys goldeneye (Buce~hala i sl andica) a1 so winters on the coast from November to April, and breed in the interior during the summer months. Peak populations occur in late November and early December (Be1 1rose 1979). Scoters, scaups and go1 deneyes frequent herring spawning grounds (Angel 1 and Bal comb 1982 :46). Mergansers (Merqus sp.) have a thin, hooked bill, different from other ducks. Some taxonomists have put them in a tribe separate from other sea ducks. The hooded merganser (Lo~hodvtescucull atus) 1 ives year around on the Northwest Coast and on lakes and streams associated with the coast (Angell and Balcomb 1982, Jewett et al. 1953, Be1 1rose 1976). The red-breasted merganser (Merqus serrator) is found in the region from August through to May, leaving for the arctic and sub-arctic to breed in the summer. Herring roe is heavily exploited in the winter by this bird. Other than roe, red-breasted mergansers eat small fish and crustaceans (Angell and Balcomb 1982, Jewett et a1 . 1953). The common merganser (Merqus mersanser), like the hooded merganser, also lives permanently on the coast, breeding on lakes and rivers, and moving to bays and protected waters during the winter. They eat small fishes and salmon eggs (Bellrose 1976, Jewett et a1 . 1953, Angel 1 and Bal comb 1982). The only bird visiting the Strait of Georgia from the tribe Oxyurini is the ruddy duck (Oxvura jamaicensis). A tribe is a taxonomic division between the genus and family based on behavior, plumage, structure, and physiology (Be1 lrose 1976: 29). The ruddy duck is an excellent diver, feeding on bottom vegetation, crustaceans and she1 lfish, 1iving in the region from October to March or April, (Be1 1rose 1976). Occasional nesting birds have been observed in Puget Sound, but they prefer to breed inland during the summer (Jewett et a1 . 1953). The American coot (Fulica americana) is not a duck but a member of the order Grui formes (family Rall idae) . It is a common waterbird of the Northwest Coast from September to December. They are diving birds and will forage in estuaries and around mudflats for plant foods. Alcidae (order Charadri iformes) are another family of diving birds, which include the puffins, murres, guillemot and auklets, all of which generally eat fish. The common murres (Uria aalse) breed on the outer coast, but winter in the Strait of Georgia, beginning in August. Occasionally, a thick-billed murre (Uria lomvia) is seen in southern British Col umbia (Rogers 1974: 174). The pigeon guillemot (Cep~huscolumba) lives year around on the southern Northwest Coast with a number of breeding sites in the Gulf/San Juan Islands and adjacent shores. The marbled murrel et (Brachyram~husmarmotus) and the ancient murrelet (Svnthl i boramphus antiauus) are most common in the winter. The marbled murrelets live in the area year around, while the ancient murrelet is present only from August to May (Jewett et al. 1953, Angell and Balcomb 1982). There are two auklets in the Strait of Georgia: Cassins's (Ptvchoram~husaleuticus) and the rhinoceros aukl et (Cerorhinca monocerata) . These aukl ets are generally found on the outer coast during the winter with only occasional visitors to the more protected waters of the Strait. Both birds have been observed in the region during the summer (Angell and Balcomb 1982). The tufted puffin (Fratercula cirrhata) sometimes breeds in the Puget Sound and Strait of Georgia area in the summer, and spends the winter on open water, although an occasional bird is sometimes spotted in the Strait area (Angell and Balcomb 1982, Rogers

The number of diving birds in the Strait of Georgia is extensive. These birds have a number of different food and habitat requirements, and different seasonal population patterns. In general, diving ducks and grebes are most common at mid-winter, loons in late winter, and alcids in the mid-summer. Coot populations peak in the spring and fall (Angell and Balcomb 1982:127).

Dabbl i ng Ducks Dabbling or surface feeding ducks are all members of the genus -Anas. They feed by dipping their upper body below the water, leaving their tail up in the air rather than submerging the entire body. Dabbling ducks will dive to forage for food, escape danger, and during courtship and bathing, to depths of as much as 2.15-3.08 meters (7-10 feet; Furilla and Jones 1987, Kutz 1940, Mylne 1954, Bourget and Chapdelaine 1982, Kear and Johnsgard 1968). This is probably common in young ducks but less so in adults (Kutz 1940). They appear to require more effort to submerge and to stay underwater, and dive times are short (Furilla and Jones 1987, Mylne 1954). Dabbling ducks also "nibble" on food' floating on top of the water and on vegetation on the shore. Because of their mode of feeding, they are commonly found in shallow water. These ducks are primarily vegetarian, but also eat molluscs, crustaceans, and small insects living in the mud, waterweeds, and grasses (Angel1 and Balcomb 1982, Bellrose 1976). Most of these species prefer freshwater habitats to saltwater, but they will live in protected coastal waters. The blue-winged teal (Anas discors) and the gadwall (Anas strepera) are rarely found in saltwater environments (Godfrey 1986). Of the nine dabbling ducks listed in Table 7.2, all but the two wigeons breed in the Strait of Georgia area. The European wigeon breeds in northern Europe, Asia and Iceland and winters in the Mediterranean, Middle East, and southern Asia. These animals occasionally visit North America, but not in large numbers. Individuals may fly with flocks of other ducks (Bell rose 1976). In the Strait of Georgia area, it is commonly seen with flocks of American wigeons (Anas americana; Angel 1 and Bal comb 1982). The American wigeon is very abundant in the winter, but leaves to breed Table 7.2: Dabbling and Perching ducks of the Northwest Coast

Dabbl i ng Ducks: Anas penelope European Wigeon Oct 1-Mar 31 Anas americana American Wigeon 0ct.-March Anas strepera Gadwall Oct-Apri 1 Anas crecca American green-winged teal late summer-Apr. Anas ~l atvrhvnchos Ma1 1 ard permanent --Anas acuta Pintail winter Anas di scors Bl ue-wi nged teal winter Anas cvanoptera se~tentrionalium Cinnamon Teal summer Anas cl vpeata Northern Shoveler winter/some summer

Perching Ducks: -Aix sponsa Wood Duck summer/some winter

(Godfrey 1986, Jewett et a1 . 1953, Bellrose 1976, Angel1 and Balcomb 1982) in the north and interior (Bellrose 1976, Jewett et al. 1953). An occasional nest is found in the Puget Sound area, but this is unusual. These birds are most numerous on the Northwest Coast from November to March. While the other birds breed in the Strait of Georgia, not all live in the area year around. The gadwall (Anas strepera), pintail (Anas acuta) , and green-wi nged teal (Anas crecca) are a1 1 found in the region in the winter. In the spring and fall, pintails and blue- winged teals pass along the Northwest Coast during their migrations (Angel1 and Balcomb 1982). The mallard (Anas platvrhvnchos) is a year long inhabitant with peak populations occurring in the fall (Be1 1rose 1976).

Perching ducks The only perching duck in North America is the Wood Duck (m sponsa; Table 7.2). This is primarily a summer inhabitant of the Northwest Coast, a1 though some animals stay year around. Peak populations in the Northwest Coast occur from March into late October (Bell rose 1976). This animal nests in hollows of trees and 1ives near swamps, lakes and ponds, but is not a coastal bird. Wood ducks eat acorns, seeds, plant and insects (Godfrey 1986). They have been observed diving under water, but they are normally surface and shore feeding ducks (Kear and Johnsgard 1968). Swans, Geese and Whist1 ing Ducks Swans and geese are members of the tribe Anserini. Swans have longer necks and feed on water plants more than do geese, which will also forage on land (Bellrose 1976:30). Both feed by dabbling much like the dabbling ducks, but do not dive. The whistling duck is from the tribe Dendrocygini and is goose-like with a long neck and legs. Osteol ogi cal attributes of these ducks are a1 so goose-1 i ke (Be1 1rose 1976). The only whistling duck in the Northwest Coast is the fulvous whi st1 ing-duck (Dendrocvqna bicol or) which is rarely seen. Individuals in western Washington and southwestern British Col umbi a have been observed in September and October. The two indigenous swans are the whistling swan (Cvqnus columbianus) and the trumpeter swan (Cvqnus buccinator; Table 7.3). Both feed on water plants, molluscs and insects, as well as grasses in open lands, and are seen in the area during the fall and winter. Historically, the trumpeter swan populations have been reduced almost to the point of extinction. Populations dropped noticably during the mid-180OYs, and by 1950 they were rarely seen in Washington (Jewett --et al. 1953, Angel1 and Balcomb 1982). The trumpeter swan is most commonly seen on fresh water. The whist1 ing swan is more common, and slightly smaller than the trumpeter swan (Godfrey 1986). The whistling swan lives along estuaries, deltas and lakes. Two genera of geese are found in the Northwest Coast (Table 7.3). The emperor goose (Anser canaqicus) is rarely in the Strait of Georgia, while the whi te-fronted goose (Anser a1 bi frons) and the snow Table 7.3: Swans, Geese and Whistling Ducks of the Northwest Coast

Whist1 ing Duck: Dendrocyqna bi 1color he1 va Ful vous Whi st1ing Duck rare

Swans : Cvsnus columbianus Whistling Swan Oct-Mar . Cyqnus buccinator Trumpeter Swan fall & winter

Geese:

Anser a1 bifrons Whi te-fronted goose spring & fall Anser caerulescens Snow Goose Oct .-Apri 1 Anser canaqicus Emperor Goose rare Branta berni cl a Brant fa1 1 & spring/some winter Branta canadensis Canada goose permanent

(Godfrey 1986, Jewett et a1 . 1953, Balcomb and Angel1 1982, Bell rose 1976) goose (Anser caerulescens) are more common. The white-fronted goose passes through the Strait of Georgia in April and May, and again in September and October during migrations to and from the arctic and Mexico, Texas, and Cal i forni a (Be1 1rose 1976, Angel 1 and Bal comb 1982, Godfrey 1986). The snow goose is found in the region from October to April, living in bays, on deltas, marshes, and lakes, preferring open land, and avoiding forests (~odfrey1986, Angel1 and Bal comb 1982). The most familiar member of the genus Branta is the Canada goose (Branta canadensis), which is found throughout most of North America, except the high Arctic. Populations on the Northwest Coast peak in December, decline in March and peak again in April when gosl ings hatch, but they are year long residents (Bell rose 1976). They occupy shallow bays, marshes, mudflats, open lands, lakes and ponds, and they breed on lakes and other bodies of freshwater. Brants (Branta bernicla) can be found year around in Puget Sound and the Strait of Georgia since a few individuals stay through the summer, but more commonly they are spring and fall migrants and winter residents (Jewett 1956). Peak populations are associated with migrations through the region in the late winter and spring (Bellrose 1976). In the fall, most of the birds fly from the Aleutian Islands directly to Baja Cal i fornia, bypassing the Northwest Coast (Be1 1rose 1976). Nevertheless, an increase in population density is seen in September to November (Angel 1 and Bal comb 1986). The brant 1 ives in bays, estuaries, and lagoons, near eel grass beds and sea lettuce sources, and gravel beaches (Angel 1 and Balcomb 1982). The classification used above to describe these water birds may seem peculiar to a taxonomist, but it is not unprecedented in the ethnographic record. To the biologist, waterfowl refers specifically to swans, geese and ducks. Suttles (1974:70) described the cl assification for waterfowl used by a Semi ahmoo/Lummi man:

"He classified them as 'diving ducks' (including mergansers, scoters, grebes, loons, cormorants, etc. ) , '1 arger marsh ducks' (swans, geese, brants) , 'smaller marsh ducks' (mallards, pintails, spoonbil Is, etc.) and snipe."

Nets were used by the Salish to catch waterfowl. Nets up to 31 meters long were spread between poles, and set at the mouth of a creek or on a gravel spit over which the birds would normally fly. The nets were raised up as much as 10 meters in the air. When the birds hit the net, they either became entangled, or fell stunned to the ground or into the water, where they were gathered and then killed. These nets were usually used just before sunrise or sunset when it was difficult for the birds to see the net, but while the birds would still fly. Lines attached to the nets allowed the nets to be raised and lowered on the poles (Suttl es 1974, Stern 1969, Barnett 1955). Suttl es (1974:72) stated, "Waterfowl ranging in size from geese to widgeon were taken in this kind of net. Teal were too small and got through, while swans flew too high for it and herons could see it and flew over." Nets were a1 so set underwater in eel grass beds during the spring herring runs when ducks were feeding on fish and their eggs (Suttles 1974). The net was between 4.6 and 185 meters long and 1.2 meters wide. The longer nets may have been a series of shorter nets set end to end (Suttl es 1974).

Another use of the duck net was described by Stern (1969:42). A fire was set in a canoe at night which attracted the ducks. A net was raised by one of the people in the canoe. When the ducks were frightened and flew up, they got caught in the net which was then dropped into the water, and the ducks were gathered and killed. A net could also be cast over the flock (Suttles 1974, Barnett 1955). Ducks attracted to the fire built in the bow of the boat were also hunted with multi-pronged spears. The ducks tried to hide in the shadow of the canoe or a shield held up by the hunters. This brought the animals within easy spearing distance (Suttles 1974, Barnett 1955). Ducks and loons were also shot with bows and arrows from blinds set up in the canoes (Stern 1969, Suttles 1955). Swans were hunted with bows and arrows from the shore. Suttles (1974:80) reported the use of a sling for killing ducks and other water birds from the shore, and the use of snares to capture dabbling ducks by the neck. Waterfowl were eaten, but tended not to be stored (Stern 1969). Suttles (1974:80) said that the meat could be preserved by cooking then drying. Mallards were considered to be so easy to capture or

272 kill that they were not a valuable food. Feathers were used in decoration and entwined in the cord used for clothing. The Helen Point site in Active Pass has remains of loons, grebes and cormorants (Table 7.4) and Georgeson Bay, also in Active Pass has loons in the assemblage. Active Pass, between Gal i ano and Mayne Is1 ands, is reported to have large numbers of cormorants and Arctic loons in the winter (Manuwal et al. 1979). In the 1978 survey of marine b ird populations, loons and grebes were not recorded in Active Pass during the summer, but they were recorded in other straits waters (Manuwal et al. 1979). Cormorants, however, were observed in the pass during the summer. The most numerous water birds recorded in Active Pass were Arctic loons (Gavia arctica), Brandt's cormorants (Phalocrocorax oenicillatus) and Bonaparte's gulls (Larus phi 1adel ohi a; Vermeer 1977). Other than Helen Point, the only sites with these three diving birds were Fort Rodd Hill and Semiahmoo Spit. Cormorant bones were numerous at Sem iahmoo Spit, compared with other birds identified from that assembl age . The doubl e-crested cormorant (Phal acrocorax auritus) provided 73 elements, indicating that this bird was a common species in the bay (Montgomery 1979). This confirms Hobson and Driverys (1989: 171) suggestion that modern increases are the result of recolonization of the straits area rather than a recent expansion of the range. Large numbers of loons and other divers live offshore of the bays near Crescent Beach and Semiahmoo Spit in the winter, but - L D: Pm

uN a: C n

N L D: Pm

-mc .5 2 :t= m h a P

mQu a: .cn

VLm 2 I tn*I Y D: r0

9 e z0

5 I .jIn

N a: Pm

Q a: Y-P

5

Y-a: .. -0 0) u 44 D: '-Inn U have been observed in the area during other seasons (Manuwal 1979). A single cormorant bone was identified at St. Mungo (Boehm 1973). Fort Rodd Hi 11 had Phal acrocorax auri tus and P. penicill atus elements. P. auritus currently breeds and winters near southern Vancouver Island. The eared grebe, Podiceps niqricollis, was identified here, but at no other site. Currently, the eared grebe is not a common bird on the Strait of Georgia waters, and tends to feed farther from the shoreline than other grebes (Angel1 and Balcomb 1982). Podiceps auritus, a winter grebe, was identified from Cates Park in Burrard Inlet and Podiceps qriseqena at Semiahmoo Spit. P. griseqena is also primarily a winter species. The most commonly identified grebe was Aechmophorus occidental is at He1 en Point and Fort Rodd Hill, also indicative of a winter occupation. Loons were identified from Pender Canal, Helen Point, Semiahmoo Spit, Fort Rodd Hi1 1, Georgeson Bay and Crescent Beach. Gavi a immer, the most frequently identified bird is a permanent resident. G. arctica and G, stellata are both primarily winter inhabitants. One rallidae element was found at Tsawwassen, but it was not identified to species. Alcids were identified from Helen Point and Fort Rodd Hill. These included Uria aalqe, a winter resident, Brachvram~husmarmoratus, a year long resident, and an unidentified auklet; auklets are primarily summer residents. Uria aalqe was the most common alcid identified at Helen Point and Fort Rodd Hill (Table 7.5). At Jekyll's Lagoon (45SJ3) a puffin (Fratercula sp.), also a summer inhabitant was identified (Carl son 1954). Table 7.5: Frecpency of Alcids from Strait of Georgia Sites

(King) DeRtl DfRul3 DfRuB DgRs2 45UH17 DhRr8 DhRr6 45UH105E DhRt36 DcRu78 45SJ1 DgRr2 DfRu24 DgRrl Alcidae Uria aalge Uria lomvia

Cepphus colunba Erachyremphus marmoratus Synthl iobrirrphus ant iquun Erachyrampus/SynthL ioborampus Ptychorsnphus aleutica Cyclorrhynchus psittacula Aethia cristatella Cerorhinca monocerata Auklet

Fratercula cirrhate fratercula corniculata Diving ducks (Aythyini, Mergini, and Oxyurini) were the most common divers identified from the Strait of Georgia sites (Table 7.6). More taxa were represented, and in most cases, more elements were identified overall. There is some deflation of the NISP because of the difficulty of identifying Anatinae to species, and many elements were put into an unidentified duck category. Of the diving ducks, the scoters (Melanitta sp.) were most common. Scoters, presently one of the most common diving ducks in the region, were a1 so common in the archaeological sites. Scoters are primarily fall, winter and spring inhabitants of the coast. Sites containing scoters include Pender Canal, Helen Point, Tsawwassen, Semiahmoo Spit, Cates Park, Belcarra Park, Fort Rodd Hill and Crescent Beach. Fort Rodd Hill and Semiahmoo Spit had the greatest variety of 1 diving ducks. The sites also had loons, grebes, and cormorants. Fort Rodd Hi1 1, Semi ahmoo Spit, and He1 en Point had the greatest number of diving birds of all kinds. Bay ducks (Aythya spp.) were less commonly identified. Scaups were identified at Helen Point, Semiahmoo Spit, Fort Rodd Hill and Crescent Beach. These are all winter residents in the Puget Sound and Strait of Georgia. Buce~hala cl anqul a, B. is1 andica, and B. a1 be01 a were i dent i f i ed from Pender Canal, Tsawwassen, Semi ahmoo Spit, Cates Park, Belcarra Park, Fort Rodd Hill and Crescent Beach, and are also winter species. Mergansers were the least commonly identified birds in this group. Sites with mergansers were Tsble 7.6: Frequency of Diving Ducks frm Strait of Georgia Sites (King) DeRtl DfRul3 DfRu8 DgRs2 45UH17 DhRr8 DhRr6 45UH1050 DhRt36 DcRu78 45SJ1 DgRr2 DfRu24 DgRrl Anser Iformes 1 X Anat idae 1 2 X X X

Aythyini Aythya Aythya val isinaria Aythya anericnna Aythya collaris Aythya mrila Aythya aff inis Aythya mrildaffinls

Merginl Scanateria soinateria moll issima SaMteria 6pectabilis Eider (mid.) HIatrionicus histrionicus Clmgula hyanalis klanitta klmitta nigra Uelanitta prspicillata klnnltta fusca Scoter

Bucephala 2 Bucephala clengula Bucephala ialandica Bucephala clmgula/islanjica Bucephala alkola 1

Mergansers krws Lophodytea cucul laws Mrgus merganser Mer~sserrator

Oxyur inI Oxyura Jane icens is

Small diver . W. diver Large diver Anat inaelAythyinae Wet. M. duck UKfe t . med . duck Udet. Irg. duck Tsawwassen, Semi ahmoo Spit, and Fort Rodd Hi1 1. Semi ahmoo Spit a1 so had ruddy ducks (Oxvura jamaicensis) , the only member of the tribe Oxyurini. This is also a winter bird. No diving ducks were identified at St. Mungo, a river shore site, and Tait Farm, Cattle Point and Georgeson Bay also had no diving birds. It should be remembered, however, that these latter three assemblages did not undergo detailed analyses. The greatest number of diving ducks came from sites that also had other diving birds . Dabblers (Anas sp.) are not so common in the assemblages, but they are also represented by fewer species (Table 7.7). At Crescent Beach, dabbling ducks (28%) slightly outweighed diving duck elements identified (24%). Unidentified geese and ducks made up 26% of the assemblage. Loons and gulls combined contributed only 1% by weight. The most commonly identified species was Anas platvrhynchos, the mallard. Mallards are year long residents. Anas acuta. Anas clvpeata, Anas crecca, Anas carolinensis, Anas strepera, and Anas ameri cana, a1 1 winter residents, were a1 so identi f i ed. Be1 carra Park had the greatest variety of species. All sites with dabblers identified to species had mallards, and most had pintails (Anas acuta) . Compared with diving birds, dabblers have 1ighter, more pneumatized bone, which probably reduce the survivabil i ty of the elements from these animals, so taphonomic processes could account XX XXX for some differences in representation. Again, pneumatized bones are likely to be more easily crushed into small, unidentified fragments by gnawing.

Few geese or swans were recovered (Table 7.8). One Cvqnus bone

was identified from Tsawwassen (Kusmer 1989) and a trumpeter swan (Cvqnus buccinator) element was identified from Fort Rodd Hi 11

(Mitchell 1981). Of the geese, the Canada goose (Branta canadensis was by far the most frequently identified. Other geese identified were Anser a1 bifrons at Helen Point and Branta bernicla at Fort Rodd

Hill. Geese identified from Crescent Beach made up 1% of the bird

bone by weight (Ham 1982:260). An unspecified goose identified at

Jekyll 's Lagoon is not included in Tab1 e 7.8 (Carl son 1954). Members of the genus Anser occur in the spring and fall, or the spring through the fall. Sites with Anser sp. were all on the Fraser River delta or associated flatlands, except Helen Point. Branta sp. were more widely distributed throughout the Gul f/San Juan Is1 ands, on southern Vancouver Is1 and and Burrard In1 et.

Wadins birds Waterfowl are by no means the only birds which exploit the waters of the Strait of Georgia. Along the shore are numerous species of long legged stalking birds which stand above the water rather than sitting on it, searching for small fish, insects, and crustaceans. Such wading birds range from the large herons and cranes to small sandpipers and dowitchers. Teble 7.6: Freqoencies of Swans and Geese from Strait of Georgia Sites

(King) DeRtl DfRul3 DfRu8 DgRs2 45WH17 DhRr8 OhRr6 45WH105B DhRt36 DcRu78 45SJ1 DgRr2 DfRu24 DgRrl Anser i forms 1 X Ana t idae 1 2 X X X

Dendrocygnini Dendrocygna bicolor

Cygnini Cygnus Cygnus colmbianus Cygnus buccinator

Anserini Anser Anser dbifrons Anser caerulescens Anser roes i i Anser canag icus Branta Branta bernicta Branta canedensis Branta

Unid Unid. Yned., Unid. Few of these animals have been identified from archaeological sites in the region (Table 7.9). At Crescent Beach, Great blue heron (Ardea herodias, order Ciconiiformes) bones from the right wing, and bones of other birds identified as exotics came from layer L4 (Ham l982:26l). Heron bones formed 5% of the bird assemblage by weight. Fifteen Great Blue Heron Bones were. identified from Semiahmoo Spit, Pender Canal, and Georgeson Bay (DfRu 24), on both sides of the Strait of Georgia (Haggarty and Sendy 1976). The Great Blue Heron lives throughout the year in the southern Northwest Coast, stalking fish along the shores of coastal bays and tidal flats as well as lakes and river shores (Angel1 and Balcomb 1982). No other herons have been identified from Developed Coast Salish components in Strait of Georgia Sites. Cranes look similar to herons, but are in the order Gruiformes. Grus canadensis was identified in the assemblage from Cattle Point (45SJ1), although no comparative collection was available (King 1950). Grus canadensis is the Sandhi11 Crane, a tall, wading bird, which is not so numerous as it once was. It used to be seen on the Northwest Coast in the summer, and in the mid 1800's they were common along the Strait of Juan de Fuca in April (Jewett et a1 . 1953:234). Cranes live near swamps and lakes and breeding animals have been recorded on Lul u Is1 and (Godfrey 1986). Table 7.9: Frewencies of Herons end Cranes from Strait of Georgia Sites

(King) DeRtl DfRul3 DfRu8 DgRs2 45UH17 DhRrB DhRr6 45UH105B DhRt36 DcRu78 45SJ1 DgRr2 DfRu24 DgRrl Ciconi iformes Arde idae Ardea Ardea herodias

Grui forms Gruidae Grus Grus canadensis Grus emericana ---Gulls and Terns Gulls and terns (Laridae) are familiar birds to coastal inhabitants. The kittiwake is also a member of this family. These birds all have poorly pneumatized bones (Bellairs and Jenkin 1960), which are also easily identified to family or genus. Most sites have some Larus sp. identified, particularly at Fort Rodd Hill. Species identified from the Strait of Georgia sites include Larus phi lade1 uhia, L. heermani, L. qlaucescens and Rissa tridactvla (Table 7.10).

Gull s (Larus sp. ) are scavengers, foraging along the tide1 ine, and stealing food captured by other birds. Large numbers are attracted by school ing fishes and invertebrates. L. ql aucescens is a year long resident, L. philadeluhia is present in the straits region from March to May and from July to October, whi 1e L. heermani is a summer and fall resident, arriving in June and leaving in November (Angel 1 and Bal comb 1982). Gull s were cooked by roasting, steaming or boi 1ing, and eaten by Coast Sal i sh people (Barnett 1955: 63). The black-legged kittiwake (Rissa tridactvla) is a rare visitor to the southern Georgia Strait. It is more commonly seen on the outer coast, searching for small fishes on open waters (Angel 1 and Bal comb 1982). Adverse weather occasional ly causes some birds to move into the straits area. Four kittiwake bones were identified from Helen Point. No terns (Sterna sp.) were identified, although tern bones may be included in the more general family classification. Table 7.10: Frequency of Gulls from Strait of Georgia Sites

(King) DeRtl DfRul3 DfRu8 DgRs2 45WH17 DhRr8 DhRr6 45UH105B DhRt36 DcRu78 45SJ1 DgRrZ DfRu24 DgRrl Lar idae 1 X Lar inae

Larus Larus sm. Larus med. Larus lrg.

Larus minutus Larus phi ladelphia Larus heermanni Lerus canus Larus delewarensis Larus californicus Larus argentatus Larus occidental is Larus glaucescens

Rissa tridactyla 4 --Ocean Birds The albatross is the only soaring ocean bird recovered from a strait site. One element of Diomedea sp. was identified from the Fort Rodd Hi1 1 faunal assemblage, and a left ulna from the artifact assembl age, probably from Di omedea a1 batrus .(Mi tchell 1987). Three albatrosses have been observed offshore of British Columbia and Washington. Diomedea a1 batrus was once a common visitor to the west coast from April to June, but is near extinction now, and is rarely seen (Godfrey 1986, Jewett et al. 1953). Diomedea niqri~es is commonly seen offshore of the outer coast from March to October or

November (Godfrey 1986, Jewett et al. 1953). A few individuals appear to remain throughout the year. A winter visitor, Diomedea immutabilis is not seen often, but a few of these birds are observed offshore throughout the year (Godfrey 1986).

--Birds of Prey Raptors are members of the order Falconiformes, which includes vul tures (Cathartidae) , Ospreys (Pandionidae) , hawks and eagl es (Accipi tridae) and fa1 cons (Falconidae) . Owl s are another raptor in the order Strigiformes, which includes the family Tytonidae (barn

. owls) and Strigidae (typical owls). All of these birds of prey have . sharp claws and hooked beaks for holding down animals and tearing away the flesh, and will also scavenge carcasses. The turkey vulture (Cathartes aura) is a scavenger that breeds in southern British Columbia (Table 7.11). There are reports of nests at Comox and on Pender Island, and individuals also winter near Comox (Godfrey 1986). The California Condor (Gvmnoqv~s californianus) is another member once found in British Columbia. Two condors were observed near Burrard Inlet in 1880 (in: Godfrey 1986, Jewett et al. 1953). Sprunt (1955) noted that they were occasionally seen in Oregon and Washington, and Jewett et a1 . (1953) reported spring and fall occupations. Northwest Coast condor populations are now extinct, and the last record of a condor in Washington was in 1897. Ospreys (Pandion haliaetus) are primarily fish eaters, although birds, amphibians and snakes are occasionally taken (Sprunt 1955). They are present in the Puget Sound area from spring through fall, and they breed in May and June. Nests have been reported at San Juan Island. Two species of eagles found in the region are the bald eagle (Hal i aeetus l eucocephal us) and the golden eagle (Asui 1a chrvsaetos) . At one time, the gray sea eagle or white-tailed eagle (Hal iaeetus albicilla) was believed to have visited the coast (Godfrey 1986). The -bald eagle and the golden eagle are year long residents of the Northwest Coast. They hunt for small mammals and fish, and feed on carrion. Large numbers of these birds congregate along rivers to feed on spawning fish. A number of hawks are found along the Northwest Coast (Table 7.11). Of the hawks, only the Swainson's hawk (Buteo swainsoni) and B Tab1 e 7.11 : Fa1 coni formes of the Northwest Coast i Cathartidae: Cathartes aura Turkey vulture permanent Gymnosyos cal i forni anus Cal i forni a condor fa1 1 /winter??

6 Pandionidae: Pandion ha1 i aetus Osprey summer

Accipitridae: Hal i aeetus 1 euce~halus Bald Eagle permanent Hal i aeetus a1 bi ci 11 a Gray Sea Eagle rare Asuilla chrvsaetos Golden eagle permanent Circus cyaneus Marsh Hawk permanent Accipiter striatus Sharp-shi nned Hawk permanent Accipiter cooperii Cooper's Hawk permanent Accipiter sentilis Northern goshawk permanent Buteo ,jamaicensis Red-tailed Hawk permanent Buteo swainsoni Swainson's Hawk migrant & summer Buteo 1aqopus Rough-1 egged Hawk migrant & winter

Fa1 coni dae : Fa1 co sparveri us American Kestrel March to November Fa1 co col umbari us Merl in Oct. to March (rare) Fa1 co ~eresrinus Peregri n Fa1 con Oct. to April Fa1 co rust i col us Gyrfalcon winter

(Godfrey 1986, Jewett et al. 1953, Sprunt 1955) I the rough-legged hawk (Buteo laqopus) are not permanent residents of the Northwest Coast. Swainson's hawk breeds on the Northwest Coast, and is a summer resident from March to October. Rough-legged hawks winter on the Northwest Coast between October and April (Jewett &

-al. 1953, Godfrey 1986). The falcons (Falco spp.) are not so common as hawks (Table 7.11). The merl i n (Fa1 co col umbari us) and the peregrine fa1 con (Falco perinqrinus) are reported by Jewett et al. (1953) and Godfrey (1986) as permanent residents, a1 though Angel 1 and Bal comb (1982) reported that both are present only from October until March. The gyrfalcon (Falco rusticolus) is also present during the winter, but it is not a common bird in this area. The American kestrel (Falco sparverius), is resident in the area between March and November (Jewett et al. 1953). Few of these birds stay in the area during t winter. Falcons eat birds, insects, rodents and other small mammals.

The peregrin and American kestrel prefer open land, while the other two falcons are found in a variety of habitats (Jewett et al. 1953, Godfrey 1989).

Owls (Strigi formes) are nocturnally adapted birds of prey. Owl feathers are specially adapted to decrease fl ight noise, and they have large eyes set forward in the face, and asymmetric ear holes (Guiguet 1973). As many as twelve species may be in the region at least part of the year (Table 7.12). Table 7.12: Owls of the Northwest Coast habitat active size Tytonidae: period Tvto a1 ba Common Barn-owl 0 N 18" resident Strigidae: -Otus kennicotti Western Screech Owl W N 9" resident -Bubo virqinianus Great Horned Owl V D/Cr/N 22" resident Nvceta scandi aca Snowy Owls Sh D 25" Oct. - April Surina ul ul a Northern Hawk Owl W D 15" Sept. - Dec. Gl aucidi um qnoma Northern Pygmy Owl W D 7" resident Athene Mcularia Burrowing Owl 0 D/Cr 9" winter Strix occidental is Spotted Owl C N 20" resident --Strix varia Barred Owl C N 20" rare-visitor --Asio otus Long earred Owl C N 15" resident -Asio fl ammeus Short-eared Owl 0 D/Cr/N 15" resident Aeqol i us acadi us Northern Saw-whet Owl W Cr/N 8" resident

(Guiguet 1973, Godfrey 1986, Sprunt 1955, Jewett et a1 . 1953.)

0 = open 1 ands or grass lands N = nocturnal W = wooded including deciduous D = diurnal V = varied forest and open Cr = crepuscular C = dense coniferous forest Sh= shorelines & sandspits The common barn owl (Tvto alba) is the only member of the family Tytonidae. This owl prefers open country, and eats rodents, rabbits, bats, small birds, small reptiles and amphibians, and insects (Guiguet 1973, Godfrey 1986). It is a year around resident of British Columbia. All other owls are members of the family Strigidae. Most of the owls listed in Table 7.12 are permanent residents. The snowy owl (Nvceta scandi aca)' visits the Northwest Coast in the winter about every four years when arctic rodent populations are low (Godfrey 1986). They tend to concentrate around is1ands, shore1 ines, sandspits, mudfl ats and estuaries, taking prey as 1arge as 1oons, gull s and ducks (Jewett et a1 . 1953, Angel 1 and Bal comb 1982, Godfrey 1986). The burrowing owl (Athene cuni cul aria) is also seen on the Northwest Coast during harsh interior winters (Guiguet 1973, Sprunt 1955). It has been seen on Lulu Island, the Gulf Is1 ands and southern Vancouver Is1 and (Guiguet 9173). The northern hawk owl (Surina ulula) is another winter visitor, living in mixed woodlands (Jewett et al. 1953, Guiguet 1973). The barred owl is also a rare owl which inhabits dense coniferous forests near streams and marshes (Godfrey 1986). Its apparent rarity may be attributable to its preferred habitat and nocturnal activity. All of the owls eat rodents and other small mammals. The smaller birds eat insects, and larger birds include rabbits, grouse, ducks, squirrels, reptiles, amphibians and fish in their diet. Indigestible parts of the food swallowed are regurgitated in a pellet. Not all of these birds are nocturnal hunters. Several are active during the day, including the snowy owl, the northern hawk owl, the burrowing owl and the northern pygmy owl (Glaucidium cmoma; see Tab1 e 7.12).

Historically, eagles were associated with power by the Coast

Salish. The Cowichan tell of a boy who received power from an eagle, and whose family members were the ancestors of one village (Barnett

1955:Zl). The supernatural affiliation apparently did not protect the animals from being hunted. Eagles were shot with bow and arrow and the Nanaimo used a "foot hook" on a long pole to catch the birds

(Barnett 1955, Jenness n.d.). A hunter, hiding behind brush, hooked the feet of birds scavenging on dead fish set out for them. They were cooked and eaten by roasting, steaming, or boiling, and the feathers were used for ceremonial dress and paraphenalia (Barnett

1955:63, 98).

Owls were not eaten because of their mythological associations

(Barnett 1955:63). The Salish believed that owls were ghosts, but the kind of owl was not agreed upon in ethnographic accounts. Some thought the soul became a small owl, while others thought the soul became a 1arge owl and the shadow a small owl (Jenness n. d. : 80-81).

Owls were often a source of power for doctors (Suttles 1974:337).

Suttles (1974) thought that because of the association of owls with ghosts it may have been the same as "ghost power."

No raptor was found in great numbers. The most frequently identified bird of prey from the Strait of Georgia sites was the bald eagle, Hal i aetus 1eucoce~hal us (Table 7.13). Other falconiformes identified were Cathartes aura, Pandion haliaetus, Acci~itersentilis and Aauila chrysaetos which are summer or permanent residents in the area. An osprey, a permanent resident on the coast, was identified at Semiahmoo Spit. Turkey vulture (Cathartes aura) and golden eagle remains (Aauil a chrvsaetos) were identified at two is1 and sites. At Crescent Beach, eagle and hawk elements were a1 1 from the foot which might indicate ritual significance (Ham l982:26l). An eagle was a1 so identified from Mackaye (45SJ186; Carl son 1954). However, the Mackaye site bird assemblage was not completely analyzed because of a 1ack of comparati ve materi a1 . Golden eagle (Aaui 1a chrysaetos) elements from the DeRt 1 trench were from the wing and the turkey vulture element from Unit 18 on DeRt 1, was a humerus. Only two Strigidae species were recovered from the Strait of Georgia sites, the great horned owl (Bubo virsinianus), from Fort Rodd Hill and Crescent Beach, and the Western screech owl (Otus kennicotti), from Helen Point. Ham (1982:261) reported that there were "minimally two right and three left feet identified as great horned owl" from layer L4 at Crescent Beach, associated with other "exotic" species. This suggested to him that these remains were from talismans or of ritual use, as was previously noted. Table 7.13: Frequencies of Birds of Prey frcm Strait of Georgia Sites (King) DeRtl DfRul3 DfRu8 DgRs2 45UH17 DhRr8 DhRr6 45uH105B DhRt36 DcRu78 45SJ1 DgRr2 DfRu24 DgRrl Falconiformes Cathart idae Cathartes Cathartes aura Gymogyps cal i fornianus

Accipitridae Pandion haliaetus Hal iaeetus leucocephalus Circus cyaneus Accipiter Accipiter striatus Accipiter cooperii Accipiter gentilis Accipiter striatus/cooperi i Buteo Buteo swainsoni Buteo jamaicensis Buteo regal is Buteo lagopus Aquilla chrysaetos Aquila/Haliaeetus

Falconidae Falco Falco sparverius Falco columbarius Falco peregrinus Falco rusticolus Undet. Falco Undet. Falco Undet. Falco

strigiformes Tytonidae Tyto alba

Strigidae Otus kennicotti Bubo virginianus Nyctea scandiaca Surina ulula Glaucidiun gnoma Athene cunicularia strix occidentalis Strix varia Asio otus Asio flqpneus Aegolius acadius small owl med ouk large owl Grouse & Ptarmiqan Grouse and ptarmigan found in the region include spruce grouse (Dendragapus canadensi s), bl ue grouse (Dendrasa~usobscurus) , wi 11ow ptarmigan (Lasows laqo~us),white-tailed ptarmigan (Laqo~us 1eucurus) , and ruffed grouse (Bonasa umbel 1us). The will ow ptarmigan and white-tai led ptarmigan are normally found at high elevations, above the timber1 ine, but in the winter, they descend into the forests. The spruce grouse is not currently found on the Gulf and San Juan Island archipelago, nor on Vancouver Island, a1 though blue and ruffed grouse ranges include the coastal islands (Godfrey 1986). Spruce and blue grouse are quite tame and easily approached, and they can be killed with stones or sticks. The grouse live in mixed forest habitats, in open areas along the forest edge. Suttles (1974:81) reported that the blue and ruffed grouse were hunted by the Coast Salish, using arrows with one or two bone points. He also recorded a Lummi man making traps for grouse. Snares and slings were also used to kill land birds (Barnett 1955:98,99, Jenness n.d. :D). Their lack of fear may have made specialized weapons superfluous. Grouse were hunted during a1 1 seasons (Jenness n .d. :8). Ethnographies emphasize that these were not economically important animals because water birds were more numerous and concentrated (Suttles 1974, Jenness n.d.) . The relative lack of economic importance of grouse is reflected in the archaeological assemblages (Table 7.14). Only Helen Point had more than a single Tetraoninae element from all the sites in which frequencies were reported. Pender Canal and St. Mungo had only one Tetraoninae bone, and Georgeson Bay had Tetraoninae present (Boehm 1973, Haggarty and Sendy 1976). Helen Point had Dendraqapus obscurus, Bonasa umbellus and Laaopus sp. (Boucher 1976). The identification of ptarmigan at Helen Point is unusual since they are primarily high a1 titude birds. Perhaps they' were brought from the mai nl and.

Forest Birds The only Piciformes recovered were from Colaptes auritus, the Northern flicker. It usually prefers open woodlands and other open environments. A left radius was identified from the Pender Canal trench, two elements were identified from assemblage 14 of Helen Point and one element from Fort Rodd Hi 11. Few passeriformes were recovered in any of the sites compared. One robin (Turdus migratorius) came from Crescent Beach. The robin is a permanent resident on the southern Northwest Coast, living in a forest habitat.

All sites containing passerines had members of the genus Corvus, except Crescent Beach (Table 7.15). Ravens (Corvus corax) and crows (Corvus caurinus and Corvus brachvrhvnchos) are common permanent residents of the Northwest Coast. The northwestern crow (C. caurinus) is the crow most commonly associated with the coast Table 7.15: Frequency of Flickers and Passer ines (King) DeRtl DfRul3 DfRu8 DgRs2 45UH17 DhRr8 DhRr6 45UH105B DhRt36 DcRu78 45SJ1 DgRr2 DfRu24 DgRrl Piciformes Picidae Cotaptes furatus 1 2 1

Passer iformes Corvidae Corws Corws brachyrhynchos Corws caurinus Corws corax Turd inae Turdus migrator ius Small passerine med. passerine Large passerine undet. small forest bird (Godfrey 1986, Jewett et al. 1953). These birds forage along the shore for m~lluscs,crustaceans, fish, eggs, dead animals washed ashore, and other available foods. Ravens were identified at Helen Point and Georgeson Bay. The northwestern crow was identified at Cates Park and Fort Rodd Hi 11, and the common crow (C.- brachvrhvnchos) at He1 en Point (Tab1 e 7.15). Barnett (1955:63) reported that ravens were also not eaten because of mythological associations .

Discussion The overwhelming number of winter species at these sites does not necessarily mean that the sites were occupied only in winter. It probably does mean that those sites were occupied at least a part of the time between the fall and the spring. These sites could also have been occupied in the summer. Most of the waterfowl are winter migrants; therefore, winter birds are likely to dominate the assemblages. Other evidence would be required to more firmly establ ish the seasons of a site's occupation, including information from shellfish, fish and mammal incremental growth studies. A single-1 inkage cluster analysis was performed on species 1ist data from birds (Figure 7.1). It appears that a combination of archaeological methods and environment affected site clusters. The first four sites had parti cul arly small assembl ages, were incompletely analyzed, or were part of a salvage excavation. These Montague Harbour, Df Ru 13 - Fossil Bay, 45SJ 1056 Tait Farm, DhRt 36

I - Cattle Point, 45SJ I - . Belcarra Park, DhRr6 St. Mungo, DgRr 2 - Crescent Beach, DgRr I

Tsawwassen, DgRs 2 7 - Semiahmoo Spit, 45WH 17 - Cotes Park, DhRr8

Pender Canal, +DeRt 1

Georgeson Bay, Df Ru 24

Helen Point, Df Ru 8

1 Fort Rodd Hill, DcRu 78

Figure 7.1: Cluster analysis of sites based on the presence and absence of avian taxa. were Montague Harbour (DfRu l3), Fossil Bay (45WH105b) Tait Farm (DhRt 36) and Cattle Point (45SJl). It is tempting to suggest that they are similar because all but one is an island site; however, the collecting and analysis methods appear to have a greater effect on the assemblage characteristics. The island sites of this aggregation do not cluster near other island sites.

The next six sites are Belcarra (DhRr 6), St. Mungo (DgRr 2), Semiahmoo Spit (45WH17) and Cates Park DhRr 8). It is interesting that the most closely clustered sites are those closest in geographical space, except Cates Park. Caies Park aligned closer with Semiahmoo Spit and the Gulf Island sites. The primary difference appears to be the presence of grebes at Cates Park and goose at Belcarra Park. The Gulf Island sites of Pender Canal (DeRt 1) and Georgeson Bay (DfRu 24) followed the mainland sites in the cluster. Helen Point (DfRu 8) and Fort Rodd Hill (DcRu 78) were grouped separately. The way in which the sites clustered appear to show two things. First, the method of collection and analysis has a greater influence on the appearance of the assemblage than all other factors. Second, the presence of bird species in the sites is strongly affected by geographic region and environment, except possibly Cates Park. The number of elements identified for each taxa were plotted from the seven sites from which frequency data were provided (Figure 7.2). These sites were Pender Canal (DeRtl) , He1 en Point (DfRu 8), NUMBER OF IDENTIFIED TAXA - N - N

- 0

N

W 0

P 0 Ln017 Tsawwassen (DgRs 2), Semiahmoo Spit (45WH17), Cates Park (DhRr 8), Fort Rodd Hill (DcRu 78) and St. Mungo (DgRr 2). If more than one analysis was conducted for the same site, the results were combined. At St. Mungo and Cates Park all taxa were represented by five or fewer elements; therefore, these sites provide little information on economically important species. It also does not indicate the source of variation for Cates Park fauna from other'mainland sites. At Pender Canal, Semiahmoo Spit, and Tsawwassen, ducks (scoters in particular) are the dominant species. Semiahmoo Spit and Tsawwassen are both mainland sites near extensive mudflats. Semiahmoo Spit also encircles a bay. Pender Canal is in the Gulf Islands, but prehistorically, the site straddled a landbridge separating two protected bays. Semiahmoo Spit is somewhat unusual because of the large number of cormorant bones in the assemblage. Helen Point and Fort Rodd Hill are more like each other than they are like the others. Both have a predominance of grebes, gulls and murres, although ducks, especially diving ducks, are also numerous. This similarity supports the cluster generated in Figure 7.1. The re1 ative frequency of bird species supports Ham's (1982) statement that waterfowl were the only birds consistently used for food, particularly at Tsawwassen, Semiahmoo Spit and DeRt 1. Other important uses for these birds could also have been for skins or feathers. There are a large number of Larus spp. remains associated with the assemblages at Helen Point and Fort Rodd Hi 11. Larus, therefore, may also have been a subsistence item not given much attention in the ethnographic record. The ratio of wing bones to body and leg bones has received much consideration in the study of bird remains from archaeological sites. Ham (1982:261) noted that almost all of the duck elements from Crescent Beach were from the wing or breast. He suggested that the rest of the body was not being brought back to the site. Kusmer (1989) reported a similar pattern, with wing (48%) and body (32%) comprising the overwhelmingly greater part of the bird assembl age. Wing bones outnumbered leg bones for dabbling and diving ducks at Crescent Beach. At Pender Canal, Garvin (1987:75) reported a simi pattern, with wing elements (49.5%) again outnumbering body (3.1%) and leg (19.4%) bones. Element frequencies were provided by Stevenson (1978) for Esquimal t Lagoon, but avian taxa were not recorded (Figure 7.3). Her data showed wing elements again outnumbering leg elements. The most numerous elements were the ulna, radius and carpometacarpus. These are often more dense than the humerus. The tibiotarsus is also more dense than the femur, particularly the distal tibiotarsus. This pattern is a1 so apparent from the DeRt 1 material of the 1984 trench and Unit 18 (Figure 7.3). There were fewer bones identified from the DeRt 1 assemblage and only the waterbirds are graphed since the greatest number of identified elements fa1 l within this classification. Again the ulna is usually most often 203Ail Birds Esquirnalt Laqoon, DcRu 2

20jGrebes Pender Canal, DeRt l

LOO~S A Pender Canal, DeRt l - 20j

20] Unident. Ducks Pender Canal, DeRt l I

20 3 Diving Ducks Pender Canal, DeRt l

ELEMENTS

Figure 7.3: Bird elements identified from DeRt l and DcRu2 identified. Part of this may be because the shaft of the ulna can sometimes be identified to family. The paucity of axial bones is not surprising because they are more 1 i kely to break into small fragments and not be identified. It is necessary to have large collections to determine if the elements are preserving differently because of pneumatization, or differentially recorded because of ease of identification. Diving birds are the most common birds coming from the sites. This may be because of denser bones associated with this adaptation. Gull s, a1 so having dense bones, are somewhat common. There may a1 so be more diving bird species than any other category, and there may be more individuals present on a seasonal basis than for any other t axon. Ericson (1987) addressed the difference in numbers of wing to leg elements in European sites. He compared bird remains from archaeological sites with non-cultural coastal sites. Ericson (1987:70) noted that recovery techniques influenced the ratio. When faunal samples were not sieved, but were hand collected, wing bones dominated. This is not a factor in the assemblages inspected from the Strait of Georgia sites. He also discovered that "The posterior extremity dominates in the material from the domestic fowl, while in natural 1 y depos i ted and Stone Age materi a1 s the anterior extremi ty dominates" (Ericson l987:7l). He discounted the hypothesis that this was because of a difference in "robustness" of the appendages, or that domestic fowl decomposed differently from wild fowl. Ericson (1987:73) concluded that birds used as food were treated differently from naturally deposited bone, creating a higher ratio of wing bones. This held true for all human sites except Stone Age site assemblages, in which faunal analyses appeared similar to those from natural sites. Ericson (1987:73) suggested that bird bone in Stone Age sites were mixed with naturally deposited material. The bird bone from archaeological sites' in the Strait of Georgia seems similar to the Stone Age and natural sites analyzed by Ericson (1987). Rather than proposing that thLavian assemblages in the Strait of Georgia sites were composed largely of bird remains unaffected by human activity, it may be that there is something different about wild fowl muscle distribution. This might cause different anatomical parts to be preferentially selected and carcasses to be treated differently, or perhaps bone density is different in divers than in domestic fowl. Garvin (1987:74) proposed "In wild birds, and particularly water fowl, the bulk of edible flesh is found in the area next to the wing, being the pectoral muscle. It is standard hunting practice (esspecially (sic) in times of high availability) when dealing with all but the largest birds to remove this muscle, including wings, at the kill site and transport only that portion to camp."

Wings and feathers were also historically used for decoration, ceremonies and trade, and wings may have been set aside and processed separately from the body. The fragile bone of birds might have suffered from attrition simply because people ate them as many do today. The ratio of wing to leg and body elements created by post- depositional processes needs additional investigation as we1 1. The greater number of forelimb elements to other body parts seems to be consistent in sites investigated, and continues to be an interesting source for specul ati on. Chapter 8

Fishes

Fishes are the most abundant vertebrate in coastal midden sites, consequently, identification is laborious. Often subsamples rather than material from the entire site will be analyzed. A single unit, columns, or only particular elements such as the vertebrae may be all that is analyzed. Wilkinson (1981:183) pointed out "it may be misleading to treat fish as a single resource, as the behaviour patterns of species do vary considerably." On the Northwest Coast, some fish school while others are solitary, some migrate seasonally in large numbers and some are present year around. Deep water fishes require different harvesting strategies than do fishes 1 iving in shallow waters. Seasonal variation in water temperatures and nutrients can also create seasonal movements and abundance (Wi 1kinson 1981, Moul ton 1977). If, as was suggested by Wil kinson (l98l:l84), "intensive exploitation of the resource is likely to be concentrated on the times when the fish are present in greatest quantity" then species numbers and diversity can be used to determine the season of site use, and possibly the technology required (Wil kinson 1981). The bi 01 ogi cal 1i terature provides information on the season of species abundance, school ing behavior, migration patterns, tendency to take a prehistoric use of fishes.

Chondrichthyes - the cartilaqinous fish The cartilaginous fish found in the Strait of Georgia include the sharks, rays, skates, and ratfish. The subclass El asmobranchi i > are the sharks and rays. The most common shark, and the species with which most Northwest Coast inhabitants are familiar, is the spiny dogfish (Saualus acanthias). It can reach 160 cm long and can weight as much as 9.1 kg. Anterior to the two dorsal fins are two hard spines. Concentrated populations of dogfish follow herring runs, preying on the migrating fish (Hart 1980). "They also appear to concentrate among the southern Gulf of Georgia islands in the summer when herring are moving into the Strait of Georgia, and they prey heavily on runs of spawning capelin such as in Departure Bay and Hammond Bay near Nanaimo" (Hart l98O:46).

Dogfish are present year around in the Strait of Georgia (Hart 1980). They are found in all kinds of habitats and from shallow to deep waters. They are easily caught with hook and line (Lamb and Edge11

Other sharks found in the Strait of Georgia include the thresher shark (Alo~iasvul~inus), basking shark (Cetorhinus maximus), salmon shark (Lamna di tro~is) , brown cat shark (A~risturus brunneus) , and Pacific sleeper shark (Somniosus ~acificus). Skates and rays are less frequently encountered in the Strait of Georgia than are the spiny dogfish. The Pacific electric ray (Toroedo californica), a ray which can deliver a powerful electric shock to anyone touching it, may be encountered. It is usually seen in sandy or muddy based, shallow waters. Hart stated (1980:51) that it is sporadically common in British Columbia. The Pacific electric ray reaches 91 cm long and can weigh 23 kg (Hart 1980)'. The big skate (Ra.ia binoculata) can be 2.4 m long and can weigh up to 91 kg. It lives in shallow mud or sandy bays. The longnose skate (Ra.ia rhina) is similar in appearance to the big skate. It is found in deeper waters to 680 m with a sandy or muddy substrate (Lamb and Edge11 1986). This fish can reach 1.4 m long (Hart 1980). Other skates found on the Northwest Coast occur in very deep waters or on the outer coast. The ratfish (Hvdrolaqus colliei) is from the family Chimaeridae. Ratfish have incisor-like teeth, giving it a rodent-like appearance. They a1 so have a long slender spine anterior to the dorsal fin, and can be 97 cm long. They eat crustaceans, molluscs and fishes (Hart 1980). Ratfish generally occupy water 92-275 m deep, but will wander into shallow water. The most commonly identified elements of the ratfish are the teeth. Suttles (1974:130) stated that while other sharks enter the Strait of Georgia only the dogfish was sought by the Coast Salish. Dogfish were speared, or caught on a hook with a trolling rig, or on halibut fishing tackle (Suttles 1974, Jenness n.d.). There is some evidence that traps were also used (Suttles 1974). The rough skin was stripped from the body, dried and used as sandpaper, the livers were kept for their copious supply of oil and the flesh squeezed and eaten (Suttles 1974, Jenness n.d.). Skates were probably speared at low tide in shallow bays, and their meat roasted (Suttles 1974:131, Jenness n.d.). During the historic period, dogfish livers were processed for oil to supply mining lamps at Nanaimo, lighthouse lamps, home oil lamps and lubricating oil for machines (Hart 1980). The Sal ish contributed to this enterprise. Suttles (1974: 131) reported that his informant's father and uncle sold dogfish oil in five gallon cans to a mill at Utsal ady for two dollars a can. They would sometimes bring as many as 20 cans with them to sell. Whole fish were sold for two or three dollars for lots of 100 fish (Suttles 1974:131).

Sturqeons Sturgeons (family Acipenseridae) 1ive along the bottom of muddy waters. They have small bony plates or scutes in the skin. There are two sturgeons which occupy the Northwest Coast, the green sturgeon (Aci~ensermedirostris) and the white sturgeon (Aci~enser transmontanus). The green sturgeon can reach 213 cm (7 feet) long and weight up to 136 kg (300 pounds). The green sturgeon is found in salt water more frequently than is the white sturgeon (Eschmeyer and Herald 1983). White sturgeons are primarily fresh-water fish, moving to salt water only occasionally. They are found in the Fraser River and other streams. White sturgeons spawn in the spring and summer, and fish 1 iving in the brackish water at the mouth of the Fraser River and in estuaries, return to spawn upstream (Hart 1980). White sturgeon can reach 6 m (ca. 20 feet) in length and possibly up to 817 kg in weight (1800 pounds; Hart 1980). Suttles (1974) reported that only the Lummi and Semiahmoo people caught sturgeon. He suggested that to the semiahmoo people the

i: sturgeon may have been the second most important fish, after salmon. Sturgeon were harpooned with seal or porpoise harpoons in the spring and summer during low tides or at night (Suttles 1974). They were particularly numerous in May. Jenness (n.d. :16) stated that people 1 iving in the Fraser River region also caught sturgeon with a baited hook and with a net dragged behind two canoes. The fish was skinned and the skin was cooked. The meat was filleted lengthwise and the fillets draped over wooden racks to sun dry or sometimes they were smoked when flies were heavy. Afterwards, it was eaten dried or boiled. The eggs and milt were boiled and eaten while they were fresh (Suttles 1974:122-123). The head received special treatment.

"JCh said it was cooked fresh for a long time; this took the plates off. Then it was sliced thin like bread and eaten. JM said the head was dried until hard, then boiled to soften before using" (Suttles 1974:123).

This practice would reduce the possi bil i ty of head bones preserving in archaeological sites. Herrinq, sardines, anchovies, smelt, and eulachon The family Cl upeidae includes herring and sardines. Pacific herring (Clu~eaharenqus ~allasi)spawn in the late winter with most of the activity occurring in March, although spawning sometimes continues into June and July (Hart 1980). The eggs and the concentrated fish attract many predators, including salmon, dogfish, raptors, gulls, ducks, sea mammals and humans. Young are born in 10 days and again provide food for local animals (Hart 1980). Spawning generally takes place in the intertidal zone where there is a thick vegetation, although eggs are also deposited on rocks and other surfaces (Somerton and Murray 1976), Hart 1980). Sardines or pilchard (Sardino~ssaqax) were once common off the west coast of Vancouver Island. The sardine fisheries failed after 1943, apparently because of a reproductive decline, overfishing, or because the sardines were forced out of their normally occupied niche by the California anchovy (Hart 1980:103). There are records from 1940 of sardines entering the Strait of Georgia (Hart 1980). Sardines were, therefore, potentially available to Strait of Georgia peopl e. The Northern Anchovy (Enqraul is mordax mordax) is in the same order as herring and sardines (Clupeiformes), but it is the only member of the family Engracilidae in the Northwest Coast region. Anchovies spawn in the Strait of Georgia, and school much as do herrings or sardines. In 1940, mixed schools of anchovy, sardine and mackerel (Scomber .ia~onicus)moved up through the Strait of Georgia (Hart 1980). Spawning takes place near the shore during the summer, and in the winter, they move back to open water. Smelts and eulachon are similar in size and appearance. Smelts and eul achon (family Osmeridae) are Salmoni formes, and are, therefore, more closely related to the salmon and trout than to the smaller herring. Smelts and eulachon are easily accessible when they spawn because they can be picked up from the beach and tossed into containers. Smelts found in the Strait of Georgia include the surf smelt (Hv~omesuspretiosus pretiosus), capelin (Mallotus villosus), longfin smelt (mrihchus thaleichthvs), and eulachon (Thaleichthvs pacificus). Surf smelt can be 22 cm long in British Columbia. They spawn throughout the year on shores with little wave action. They are most abundant during the summer when most spawn in the evening at high tide (Lamb and Edgell 1986). Capelin are not so common in the Strait of Georgia. They spawn in September and October during a night at high tide, and are gathered from gravel beaches at that time (Lamb and Edgell 1986, Hart 1980). Longfin smelt are anadromous fish, returning to freshwater lakes and streams between October and December. Land1 ocked 1ongfi n smelt are a1 so present in Harri son Lake, British Columbia, and in Lake Washington and Lake Union, Washington. Eulachon spawn in the spring from mid-March to mid-May on the Fraser River of British Columbia (Hart 1980:149). They reach about 23 cm in length. Salmon, dogfish, halibut, cod, sea mammals and birds feed on this seasonally abundant fish (Hart 1980). Herring were taken in the winter and spring from eel grass beds during spawning (Suttles 1974: 126). Herring rakes were made of a wood shaft and sharpened wood or bone points set into the edge along the far end. During historic times nails were used (Suttles 1974, Stewart 1977). "Holding the rake as one would a paddle, he drew it quickly through the water, impaling with each stroke several fish, which he then dropped into the bottom of the canoe" (Suttles 1974).

Herring roe were also harvested from branches and sea weed where the eggs were laid. Eulachon were also taken with rakes or dip nets. Smelt were gathered as they came to the shores to spawn or they were scooped onto the shore and then picked up (Suttles 1974, Jenness n.d., Stern 1969). Sardines were mentioned as a food fish of the Semiahmoo, but Suttles (1974:128) suggested that it may have been smelt instead. Stern (1969:50) reported that the small fish were strung onto a stick through the gills then hung on a rack about six feet above a fire. Fish were also sun-dried for approximately 10 days (Jenness n.d.), or roasted and eaten while still fresh (Suttles 1974). Eul achon were particul arly valued for oil. Because eul achon ran in very few rivers, groups such as the Comox and Pentlatch traded for the oil with other groups (Barnett l955:67). Salmon, Trout and Char There were eight salmo vai 1able t o Northwest C:oast people. Five of these are salmon, two are trout and one a char. Each of these species are potenti a1 ly anadromous, a1 though not a1 1 trout migrate to the sal twater as fry. Common names used for these fish in this paper are the preferred terms used by Hart (1980). The chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tschawytscha) is found in the waters of the Strait of Georgia year around. "In coastal waters this fish tends to be found near the bottom, usually preferring areas where points of land jut out into the water or where there are sharp breaks in the bottom contours" (Somerton and Murray 1976).

Spawning chinook salmon tend to spawn in smaller coastal rivers throughout the year from the river mouth or well inland (Hart 1980:125). Adult sockeye salmon (0. nerka) migrate into the Strait of Georgia in the summer months, the vast majority (67%) of which move up the Fraser River (Hart 1980). Sockeye salmon return to the Fraser River using one of two possible routes. During years when the ocean waters were warmer than normal, most sockeye salmon moved to the British Columbia coast through the Queen Charlotte Sound into Johnstone Strait between the northern end of Vancouver Island and the mainland, then south through the Strait of Georgia to the Fraser River (Groot and Quinn 1987). When waters were colder in the Gulf of Alaska, the salmon approach the coast near the western shores of Vancouver Island, and enter the Strait of Juan de Fuca, moving into the Strait of Georgia by a southerly route to the Fraser River (Groot and Quinn 1987). Between 1953 and 1977 most sockeye salmon migrated along the southerly route. From 1978 to 1984, increasing numbers entered through Johnstone Strait, with nearly 80% of the run in 1983 entering the Strait of Georgia from the North (Groot and Quinn 1987:455-456). Fluctuations in sockeye salmon migratory patterns

P could have serious consequences to prehistoric people exploiting the Johnstone Strait or the Strait of Juan de Fuca and southern Strait of Georgia waters The other three salmon migrate through the Strait of Georgia to spawning streams in the late summer or fall months. Pink salmon (O. qorbuscha) tend to have heavy runs in a1 ternate years. In Washington, southern British Columbia and the Fraser River, these runs are usually during odd numbered years, but there have been cases recorded elsewhere of shifts in this pattern (Hart 1980:llO). Hart (1980:lll) reported that the pink salmon is the most abundant salmon in British Columbia. Few pink salmon migrate up streams in southeast Vancouver Island (Hart 1980:lll). These salmon begin moving upstream in September and October. The coho salmon (0.kisutch) moves into the rivers and streams along the coast during the late summer and fall (Hart 1980, Somerton and Murray 1976). During the summer, coho salmon eat fishes, and invertebrates. At this time, they are more easily taken by hook and line. The last concentrated migration to the rivers and streams of the British Columbia and Washington coast takes place in late fall and winter by the chum salmon (0. keta). Chum salmon have been observed spawning as late as April at Vancouver Island (Hart 1980). Chum salmon do not have as great a fat content as the other salmon which made drying and smoking the meat more successful. The two indigenous trout found in the Strait of Georgia are the coastal cutthroat trout and the rainbow trout. The anadromous rainbow trout are generally called steelhead trout. In 1988 the generic name was changed from Salmo to Oncorhvnchus (Kendall 1988:389). Cutthroat trout (Oncorh~nchusclarki) are found in estuaries near river mouths, or in shallow bays, year around (Somerton and Murray 1976, Eschmeyer and Herald 1983, Hart 1980, Burns 1985). These trout tend to spawn in small rivers and streams in the winter or spring (Eschmeyer and herald 1983, Hart 1980). The largest spawning runs are in February and March in Canadian waters (Hart 1980). Burns (1985) reported that some cutthroat move up-river with sockeye and pink salmon in July but that they move up coastal streams of southeast Vancouver Island in the fall and winter, and may spawn as late as the spring. After spawning, most adults return to the saltwater (Eschmeyer and Herald 1983). The rainbow or steel head trout (0. mykiss) is commonly found in Puget Sound and Strait of Georgia waters in the summer and the winter. Young steel head stay near the mouth of the Fraser River and in the Saanich Inlet, but adults move well out to sea (Hart 1980). Eschmeyer and Herald (1983:79) reported spawning runs in the fall and winter while Hart (1980:129) mentioned summer and winter runs. The dolly varden trout (Salvelinus malma) is a char which is found in freshwater and saltwater environments. The bull trout (Sal vel inus confl uentus) is occassional ly found in &l twater bays, including Puget Sound, and is similar in external appearance to the dolly varden (Eschmeyer and Herald 1983). The bull trout is more commonly found in freshwater, however. Dolly varden are found year around in Puget Sound, but anadromous fish tend to move to freshwater spawning grounds in the fall and return to the saltwater in the spring (Hart 1980). On the coast, these fish are found near estuaries and in intertidal waters (Somerton and Murray 1976). More has been written on methods used to capture salmon than about subsistence practices for any other Northwest Coast resource Part of this involves assumptions about the importance of these animals to Coast Salish subsistence, cultural development, and soc organization. Part is also, no doubt, insp red by the varied and complex ways in which these fish were taken Oswal t (1976) stated the Eskimos and Northwest Coast peoples had the most complex fishing methods in the world, which he believed ref ected their dependency on salmon. The methods described usually involve the use of intertidal and riverine traps or weirs, nets, spears, and hook and l ine. There is some controversy about the antiquity of some of the methods used. Suttles (1974: 152) stated, "Reef netting was of paramount importance in the aboriginal economy of the Straits Salish." The reef net was used primarily to catch sockeye moving through the Strait of Georgia to the Fraser River. This technique involved suspending a net in the water between two para1 lel anchored canoes.

Head lines were set angling up-current and laterally from the net. A series of side 1 ines were sometimes attached' to the 1ead-1 ine to funnel the sockeye into the net. The net was 1 ifted when people watching for salmon entering the net indicated that the net was full. One side was then pulled into one canoe and the fish poured into the other (Suttles 1974:160). More detailed descriptions of this technique are avail able in Suttles (1974) and Easton (1985). Reef- net stations tended to be along the migrating routes of sockeye, on a reef with a kelp bed that was not far from shore (Suttles 1974). Suttles (1974:155) also noted that reef net stations were often near a headland which created a "backward sweep of the tidal current." The antiquity of this complex fishing method was questioned by Cobb (1911). He stated that Puget Sound Indians "attribute its origin to one of the Hudson Bay Company's employees, who, they say, taught them a long time ago how to catch salmon in this way" (Cobb 1911:32). The prehistoric use of this technology in the Strait of Georgia Region has been supported, however, by Easton (1985). The Smythe Head reef-net station at the southern tip of Vancouver Island had an estimated date of AD 1500 + 50 years based on the rate of anchor stone accumulations, whi 1 e a station in Bedwell Harbour, Pender Island has an estimated date of the late 1700's (Easton 1985:193). Based on physical characteristics and faunal assemblages, Easton (1985: 170) concl uded, "Two sites, Cattle Point and Lime Kiln both on San Juan Island, shows some indication that they were sites of this sort, though in total the evidence remains unconvincing. Two other sites, both on,- Active Pass, Helen Point and Georgeson Bay (especially the latter), show greatear evidence for the possibility that they were reef-net camps during the later period of their occupation, but like the others this cannot be stated with certainty with the information currently avail able."

Gill netting was also practiced by Coast Salish, but again there is some doubt that this was a prehistoric fishing method. Barnett (1955:86) stated that while two informants reported the use of this net, all of his other sources did not, suggesting that it was not used before contact. Suttles (l974:138), on the other had, suggested that gill nets may have been used by Salish people, and the use and associated terms diffused outward. Gill nets are designed to allow k the fish to push their head through the mesh of the net but no 1 i !\ farther. The fish could not back out of the net because the gills Ib 1 would become caught in the mesh. Suttles (1974: 137-138) reported I i; that gill nets were used near the muddy waters at the mouths of rivers and streams and in the Fraser River. Turbid waters obscure the net and the salmon run into the barrier. If the net can be seen, the fish will go around. In the straits waters, the nets were set at night for the same reason. These nets were used to catch chinook and coho salmon during the spring and summer (Suttles 1974). Another net used was a drag net or a seine. It was more like the reef net in that the net was designed only to hold the salmon within, rather than snaring them in the mesh as the gill net did. The net was put into a boat, and someone on shore held onto a line connected to the net. As the boat moved back to the beach, the net was pulled from the boat bit by bit until the boat again reached shore with the other end of the net. It was'then hauled in along with all the fish encircled by the net. Suttles (1974:140) noted that the mainland groups from the Lummi , southward, used this net. He cautioned that this technique may also have been introduced after contact. Nets dragged behind two canoes were used to trawl for steelhead, chinook and trout in rivers and streams. Dip nets were attached to a 3 m (10 foot) long handle (Barnett 1955:87). The opening of the net had a three to 1.8 m (6 foot) diameter. This net was used to scoop salmon out of fish traps or from rivers or streams. Other methods of catching salmon included the use of harpoons in channels cut through kelp beds or in creeks and small rivers. They were also harpooned from canoes at night when salmon came up, attracted by the light from a small fire built on a platform in the canoe. A leister or spear had barbed prongs at the end, and was used to stop salmon moving upstream. Gaffs, or sharpened wooden hooks, were also used to snag salmon in streams (Suttles 1974). Some salmon can be caught with hook and line before they reach the fresh water. Chinook were caught by troll ing the waters of the Strait of Georgia, from winter through summer, and coho were caught in the summer (Suttles 1974). Suttles (1974:135) stated, "It may be, however, that the sale of fish to whites stimulated winter fishing and that in pre-white times trolling was essentially a spring and summer activity." Trolling can be done by an individual paddling in a canoe. The line, sinker, hook and bait (herring) was pulled behind the boat (Suttl es 1974: 136). As the herring' was pulled 'along, it moved oddly and shined, attracting salmon still feeding on small fishes. Again, there is some dispute as to whether this was an aboriginal fishing technique or was introduced by European settlers. Suttles (1974) reported the use of weirs by the Lummi and the Samish, but descriptions were incomplete. Some fish were stopped by a wooden fence structure across the stream where they were gaffed by people in canoes. Others, which moved through openings in the barrier, entered an enclosure where they were gaffed. Surviving fish moved farther along into a trap, which was periodically emptied. These weirs and traps were used in the summer and fall as the salmon were migrating upstream. Another trap with the mouth facing upstream was set in the river in the winter and spring to capture anadromous trout returning to the saltwater (Suttles 1974). The carcass and remains of salmon were treated in a special manner according to the ethnographic record. Sockeye salmon were accorded special treatment because of the belief that it was the most powerful salmon. A special ceremony was initiated upon the capture of the first salmon, at the end of which, uneaten remains were returned to the water (Suttles 1974). Subsequent salmon caught were not treated so carefully. After the fish were caught, they were loaded into baskets and dumped on land (1974). Suttles (1974: 174) described the way fish were cleaned: "A woman held a fish with the head away from her and cut along the back next to the dorsal fin from head to tail, working toward herself, separating the flesh from the bones. Then she cut across the tail but not through the bone. Next she turned the fish over and cut along the other side of the dorsal fin from tail to head, working way from herself. This done, she could separate the head, bones, guts, and tail as a single piece from the flesh."

Other people would prepare the fish by leaving the tails. Sometimes the vertebral columns were saved for the meat still adhering to the bones, but the heads were still cut off. The fish were dried in the sun, then packed into bags to take to the winter home (Suttles 1974). Barnett (1955:89) stated that the bones of salmon had to be thrown into the water, and dogs were absolutely not allowed to eat them. Jenness (n.d. :15) reported that all fish bone was to be returned to the water. Near Duncan, however, the salmon bones were discarded with little regard, and no care was taken to keep them from dogs (Jenness n.d. :84). Hi1 1-Tout (1907:94) stated that the backbone was removed and kept for dog food, but it is unclear whether he is referring to coastal or interior Salish or if there were a difference with regard to this practice. Barnett (1955:62) stated that the salmon heads, tails, fins and bone were set aside to be roasted or stewed and eaten. Boiled salmon heads were sometimes used on the Fraser River to tan deer and elk hides. Interior people of the Fraser River kept the heads to make oil by boiling decaying heads and skimming off the oil (Hill-Tout 1907:95). Thompson Indians and "the tribes near the sea" put about forty to fifty whole fish into a wooden container and left to decay. Water was added, and the mixture was brought to a boil. The oil which rose to the surface was skimmed off (Hill-Tout 1907:95). It is unclear from the descriptions if the Coastal or Straits Salish also produced oil this way.

Batrachoidiformes: The pl ainfin midshipman (Porichthvs notatus) is found under rocks at low tide in the spring and summer during spawning. It is also found in deeper waters, and has been taken in trawl nets from 366 m (1200 feet) deep (Lamb and Edgell 1986). They are common fish within the Strait of Georgia (Hart 1980).

--True cods: Four cod~(family Gadidae) are present in the Strait of Georgia. The Pacific cod (Gadus macrocephal us is most common in the spring when they move into shallow waters, swimming in schools or occasionally swimming alone (Lamb and Edgell 1986, Hart 1980). In the fall and winter, they move back into deep waters. Pacific cod can reach 117 cm (46 inches) in length and weigh 22.7 kg (50 pounds; Lamb and Edgell 1986:41). Pacific hake (Merluccius productus) can be __*

91 cm (36 inches) long (Hart 1980). During the evening and night, hake rise to shallow waters to feed, and during the day, they return to waters as deep as 980 m (Hart 1980, Lamb and Edgell 1986). The Pacific tomcod (Microsadus ~roximus)is a smaller cod, reaching only 30.5 cm (12 inches) in length. They are usually found in waters with sand or mud substrates (Somerton and Murray 1976, Lamb and Edgell 1986). The walleye pollock (Therasra chalcoqramma) is not so common as the other cods. It reaches to 91 cm (36 inches) long. Walleye pollock juveniles will sometimes school with Pacific tomcod. Most often, this cod is found near sandy or mud bottoms (Lamb and Edge1 1 1986, Eschmeyer and Herald 1983). Suttles (1974:124) stated that true cods were not normally caught by the Straits Salish. In other accounts, there is some confusion as to whether reported cod is in fact rockfish or lingcod. The behavior of spawning cod in described Jenness' (n-d.) manuscript seems more typical of 1ingcods.

L

Perci formes : Members of the order perciformes include surf perch, pri ckl ebacks, rockfishes, sabl ef i shes, the green1 i ngs and 1 i ngcod, sculpins, and poachers. This is a particularly large and varied order and contains some of the more economically important species outside of the Salmoni formes and Cl upeiformes. The seaperches, family Emiotocidae, tend to be found in shallow waters (Hart 1980, Lamb and Edgell 1986). The striped seaperch

328 (Embi otoca 1ateral i s) and pi 1e perch (Rhacochi 1us vacca) are caught from shores, jetties and wharfs in the Strait of Georgia. The striped seaperch travel in schools and are usually caught near rocky shores during the incoming tide. Pile perch are more mobile, and sometimes travel in schools or alone near rocky shores (Hart '1980, Somerton and Murray 1986, Lamb and Edgel 1 1986). Two small perches that grow no larger than 22 cm are kelp perch (Brachvistius frenatus), and the shiner perch (Cvmatoqaster aqqreqata) , and modern fishers usually use them as bait to catch larger fish. Other perch are on the open coast or in more southern waters. Perch are easily identified in midden sites because of their unique corn-kernel-shaped teeth and honeycomb-patterned inferior and superior pharyngeal plates. Perch eat mussels and the teeth are developed to crush the shells. Members of the family Stichaeidae are the pricklebacks, a bottom dwelling fishes with long, narrow, almost eel-1 i ke bodies. They have a dorsal fin extending the length of the body and a long anal fin. Xiphister sp. are usually found during low tide in pools on rocky beaches (Lamb and Edgell 1986). Some reach 20-23 inches long (Hart 1980, Lamb and Edgel 1 1986) . Gunnels (Phol idae) includes the wolf eel (Anarrhichthvs ocell atus). Wolf eels eat crustaceans and fish. they are usually caught when fishing rock bottoms down to depths of 226 m (Lamb and Edgell 1986, Hart 1980). Scombridae are the mackerels and tunas and are more likely to be found along the open coast rather than in the protected waters of the Strait of Juan de Fuca or the Strait of Georg i a. Rockfish are members of the genera Sebastes and Sebastolobus. Both are found off the Northwest Coast from the intertidal zone to waters as deep as 2800 m (Hart 1980). There are 37 species,of Sebastes found along the coast of British Columbia, and 24 of these are found in the Puget Sound (Hart 1980, ~omkrtonand Murray 1976). The most commonly encountered rockfishes are $. caurinus, S. maliser,

-S. auriculatus, S. melanoas, S, favidus, S. ruberrimus, S. pinnicrer. Less common are S. nisrocinctus, S. nebulosus and S. paucispinus, primarily because they inhabit deep waters. Unfortunately, little work has been done which would help the zooarchaeologist distinguish the various rockfish species simply because there would be so many species to compare. Many of these fish have specific habitat requirements, and as a result, much information is lost which would be relevant to the technology required, and the habitats exploited by prehistoric people. Fish which are found near to shore, on shallow rocky reefs, require a different fishing strategy than those in deep waters. Most, however, are associated with rocky floors. There i s some con? usi on when searching the ethnographic literature for references to the rockfishes. They are sometimes called cods, a category which can include the true cods, Gadidae, and greenlings and lingcod, or Hexagrammidae. They have also been called perch, a category reserved for the Embiotocidae. While the information is potentially available, it is not useful unless the genus being discussed is made clear. Young sabl efi shes (family Anoplopmatidae) are found in the Strait of Georgia and the Strait of Juan de Fuca, but they move into the deeper waters as adults. In the winter, they occupy deeper waters than during the summer. The fami 1y Hexagrammidae i ncl udes greenl i ngs (Hexaqrammos spp. and Ox.vl ebi us pictus) and 1 ingcod (Ophidon el onqatus). The green1 ings tend to be bottom fishes, occupying intertidal or shallow waters (Hart 1980, Lamb and Edgell 1986). Modern greenling fishing methods include using a hook and line or jigging from the shore, wharfs or from boats. Most greenling inhabit waters with rocky shores. The 1 ingcod can be 145 cm (5 feet) long and 1 ives in waters down to 2,000 m deep. It too is normally caught with jigs or hook and line (Hart 1980, Lamb and Edgell 1986). Oxvlebius pictus, the painted greenling only reaches 25 cm (10 inches) long. This fish lives in shallow waters, with rocky shores. Sculpins, a frequently encountered fish, from the family Cottidae, are a1 so bottom dwellers. The most readily avai 1 able sculpins are small. Sculpins which can reach 30 cm (12 inches) or longer include the prickly sculpin (Cottus asper), the red Irish lord (Hemile~idotushemilepidotus), cabezon (Scor~aenichthvsmarmoratus), great scul pin (Mvoxocephalus pol vacanthoce~halus), buffalo sculpin (Enophrvs bison), and the Pacific staghorn sculpin (Leptocottus armatus; Lamb and Edge1 1 1986). One of the largest sculpins is the cabezon. It can be 76 cm (about 30 inches) long and weigh 11-14 kg (25-30 pounds). Cabezons can be found in shallow water, although they are more common in deeper waters (Lamb and Edgel 1 1986, Hart 1980). The great scul pin also reaches 76 cm in length (Lamb and Edgell 1986, Hart 1980). It too is normally found in moderately deep waters with sandy or silted bottoms. Hart (1980:522) reported that it is caught in the winter from Burrard Inlet beaches. Slightly smaller is the red Irish lord which reaches 51 cm (20 inches) long. It is common along British Col umbi an rocky shores (Lamb and Edgel 1 1986, Hart 1980). The buffalo sculpin 1 ive in shallow waters including the intertidal zone of rocky shores (Lamb and Edgell 1986, Hart 1980). Pacific staghorn sculpins grow to 46 cm (18 inches) in length, and are caught in she1 tered waters having mud and silt bases (Lamb and Edgel 1 1986). These fish are usually caught by hook and line, and can be caught from the shore. The last of the Perciformes to be discussed are the poachers. These are small fish found from intertidal to deep waters (Hart 1980, Lamb and Edgell 1986). The exterior of the body is covered with small bony plates. The largest of the poachers more commonly found on the Northwest Coast can reach 30cm (12 inches) long. They are not normally caught with a hook because their mouths are too small (Lamb and Edgel 1 1986) . Lingcod, green1 ings, perches, and rockfish were caught in a number of different ways by the Coast Salish, including hook and 1ine, lures, and spears. Some people fished with a lure that had a round wooden head and two or three tapered wooden vanes tied behind the head (Stewart 1982, Suttles 1974). The lure was pushed below the water surface with a long pole, and when a lingcod, rockfish or other curious fish followed it to the surface, the fish was sp'eared from the canoe. To catch the lingcod, a greenling was used as bait. A 1ine was tied around the bait, a rock put in' its stomach, the meat was cut from one side and it was lowered to the sea floor (Suttles 1974:125). When the bait was brought back up, it spun or wiggled, attracting predatory fish which were speared as they followed it to the surface. If the lingcod swallowed the bait the lingcod was hauled to the canoe and speared (Suttl es 1974). People troll ing near the bottom also caught fish like the rockfishes or lingcod. Perch were speared, or caught with a dip net, and sculpin were a1 so speared (Jenness n .d., Suttl es 1974). Scul pi n captured from under rocks during 1ow tide were boi 1ed (Jenness n .d. ) . Lingcod and rockfish were steamed, broiled and dried for the winter (Suttles 1974) .

Pl euronect i formes: The flatfishes, including sole, flounder, sanddab, and ha1 i but, are all members of the order Pleuronectiforrnes. There are two families in the Strait of Georgia area, the Bothidae or lefteye flounders, and the Pl euronectidae or righteye flounders (Hart 1980). These are bottom dwelling fishes living on sandy or silty bottoms. There are two members of the family Bothidae. There are Citharichthvs sordidus, the Pacific sanddab, and Citharichthys stismaeus the speckled sanddab. The Pacific sanddab reaches 41 cm (16 inches) long, and the speckled sanddab can be 15 cm long (6 inches; Hart 1980). Both are usually found in shallow waters of the Strait of Georgia but do live at greater depths. Members of the family Pleuronectidae are more commonly encountered. Whi 1e they are call ed the right eye flounders, some Pacific ha1 i but (Hippoqlossus stenolepis) and starry flounder (Platichtvs stellatus) develop eyes on the left side of the face instead. The largest of the flatfish in the Strait of Georgia is the halibut. While the average weight of halibut is 16 kg. (35 pounds) the record for a female ha1 i but is 225 kg (495 pounds) and 267 cm long (105 inches; Lamb and Edgell 1986, Hart 1980). The ha1 i but is most commonly found in waters of 55-422 m deep, but during winter spawning (November to January), they occupy waters 275-412 m deep (Hart 1980). As the fish get older and larger, they descend to waters down to 1100 m. Young fish concentrate in waters about 100 m deep (Hart 1980). The arrowtooth flounder (Atheresthes stomias) reaches 84 cm long. It is generally found in deep waters between 730-900 m (Hart 1980). The petrale sole (Eopsetta jordani) is a deep water flatfish, which reaches lengths of 70 cm and weighs up to 3.6 kg (Lamb and Edgell 1986, Hart 1980). The flathead sole reaches only 44.1 cm (18 inches) in length, and 1ives in shallow waters of 5 m to deeper waters of 366 m (Hart 1980). Butter sole (Io~settai sol e~sis) is also accessible from shallow waters, but also occupies deep habitats to 366 m (Hart 1980). Hart (1980:620) stated that the butter sole is rarely found in the Strait of Georgia. The rock sole (Le~idopsetta bilineata can be as long as 60 cm. They are found from the water surface to 366 m deep. In the summer, the fish move into shallow waters (Hart 1980). Dover sole (Microstomus pacificus) are found in the Strait of Georgia in shallow waters as well as depths to 1100 m. English sole (Paro~hrvsvetulus) exhibit a similar pattern with greater numbers in shallow water in the spring, and a migration to deep waters in the winter. Older individuals are found in waters to 550 m deep. Younger fish tend to occupy shallow waters. The english sole can be 57 cm 1ong (Hart 1980). The starry flounder (Platichthvs stellatus) is often encountered in pools on mudflats or sandflats at low tide in the Strait of Georgia region. From February to April, they spawn in shallow waters, although individuals have been netted at depths of 275 m (Hart 1980). Young starry flounders have been caught in the Fraser River and other rivers or in estuaries (Lamb and Edge11 1986, Hart 1980). Suttles (1974: 114) stated that ha1 i but were probably the second most important fish to Straits Salish except for Semiahmoo people. Men and women fished for halibut north of Orcas Island, south of Point Lawrence, and Rosario Strait during spring and summer. Halibut were caught with hooks made with a bent wood shank and a bone point tied to the end on which the bait was placed (Stern 1969, Sutt1es 1974). The hook was 12-15 cm long and 10 cm wide (Suttles 1974) "The halibut rig usually consisted of a pair of hooks each attached by a short leader to the end of a spreader bar, a sinker attached by a slightly x longer leader to the center of the spreader bar, and a long line connecting the center of the spreader bar and a float" (Suttles 1974:115).

The sinker kept the hook about four inches above the sandy substrate (Stern 1969:51). While large halibut live in waters from 422 m to 1100 m deep, the Samish people fished in waters 30 to 120 m deep (Suttles 1974:115). Fish caught apparently ranged from 15 to 125 pounds (Suttl es 1974: 117). Temporary camps were establ i shed near the fishing grounds where the halibut were processed and dried (Suttles 1974). Barnett (1955:67) reported that halibut were not caught by the Tsawwassen. Some were caught at Cowichan Bay and Nanaimo but not enough to dry and store, and they were eaten fresh. Cowichan people also fished for halibut near Mayne, Prevost and North Pender islands in May (Barnett 1955:22). On June 19th, 1792, probably on Orcas Island, Menzies (in: Newcombe 1923:58) observed fresh ha1 ibut in a temporary camp. Halibut were preserved for later use or eaten fresh. Fresh halibut were baked (Stern 1969). "Halibut were dried in the sun. The fish was cut parallel to the backbone into thin slices each the shape of the whole fish. These were braced with splints and dried with just enough smoke to keep the flies away. The backbone was cooked and eaten fresh" (Suttles 1974: 117). Flounder were speared from canoes or were caught in the tidal pools on sandlfats, and thrown into a canoe floating along side (Stern 1969). Lummi people would probe the muddy substrate at the mouth of a river at low tide with a four- or six-pronged spear. In shallow bays they used a longer handled two- or three-pronged spear (Suttles 1974). Sometimes they would spear flounder at night from canoes (Suttl es 1974). A seine was a1 so used to catch flounder. A net was set in the water, and people splashing and wading through the water frightened the fish into the nets (Suttles 1974:129). Flounders were caught in the fall and winter, and eaten fresh by broiling or smoked (Suttles 1974).

Archaeol oqical remains: Fish assemblages from 13 sites were compared. The San Juan Island area sites of 45 SJ 3, 45 SJ 5 and 45 SJ 186 have not been included in Tables 8.1.1 and 8.1.2 because they were incompletely analyzed. The fish vertebrae were not examined, which might partially explain the absence of salmon remains at the sites. Carl son (1954: 113) stated that rockfish was most frequently identified. Dogfish spines were found in all sites. Cottidae were recovered from 45 SJ 3, 45 SJ 5 and possibly 45 SJ 186. O~hidon elonqatus, the 1ingcod, came from 45 SJ 3 and 45 SJ 5. A skate bone came from 45 SJ 5. At 45 SJ 105B the dogfish, but no other fish was identified. Table 6.1.1: Fish assdlages from Strait of Georgia Sites

TAXON DeRt 1 DcRt 1 DhRr 8 DeRv 107 DcRu 2 DcRu 78 DgRrl DgRr 2 DgRs 2 DfRu 8 DfRu 13 DfRu 24 DhRt 36 Shark or Ray 7 Sqralus acmthias 146 11 X 120 19 X 64 19 X X Skate 1 6 X X

Hydrolagus colliei 19 9 18 3 X

Pices 105

Clupe idae Clupea harengus Sardinops sp.

(hcorhynchus 6p. Eutachon

Gad idae Gedidae - large Gadus macrocepha lus Merlucc ius productus nlcrogsdus proxinua

Perc I forms 1

€ntAotocidw \544 5 Enbiotoca lateralis M) Rhacochi lus vacca 78 perch - not Rhacochilus 85 Perch-not Rhacochllus or Enbiotoca 1

Sttchseidae black prickleback

Sebsstes sp. Sebastes ruberr inus Table 8.1.2: flsh assemblages from Strait of Georgia Sites (continued)

TAXON DeRt 1 DcRt 1 DhRr 8 DeRv 107 OcRu 2 DcRu 78 DgRr .1 DgRr 2 DgRs 13 DfRu 24 DhRt 3

Cottidae Cottidae - large Cottidae -small Enophrys bison Hemilepidotus hemilepidotus ~eptocottusarmatus Leptocottus or Enophrys ltyoxocephalus sp. Myoxocephalus polyacanthocephalus Scorpscnichthys mamratus Hailepidotus or Scorpmichthys

Pleuronect ldac F latf Ish Platichthys stellatus Lepldopsetta bltlncsta Eopsatta Jordanl

ltyllocheiulus caurlnus Sucker

Peaarth Chub Stickleback Porichthys notatus

Total lckntif led f lsh 3578 242 Totel Midentif ied fish 3244 145

All fish 6822 387 The halibut is not represented on the species list of fish from late prehistoric sites. This is an interesting omission, considering the importance it held in ethnographic sources. It may be that the bones were eaten, as was suggested by Suttles (1974), or that the appropriate sites have not been excavated or analyzed. If the faunal subsistence, there would be no evidence of halibut fishing during the late prehistoric occupations of the Strait of Georgia sites. Flatfish were recovered from Pender Canal, DcRt 1, Fort Rodd Hill, Crescent Beach, St. Mungo and Tsawwassen. As would be expected, flatfish remains were more common on the mainland sites. They were absent at Cates Park, which is not associated with the extensive mudflats of the Fraser River. The starry flounder was the most frequently identified flatfish. Sturgeon were identified at mainl and sites associated with the Fraser River Delta or the river itself. It is interesting that Helen Point (n=2) and Montague Harbour in the Gulf archipelago a1 so had sturgeon bones identified, suggesting that there had been some interaction with mainl and groups or the inhabitants participated in fishing of the river area. Skates were identified at DcRt 1, Fort Rodd Hill, Crescent Beach and Tait Farm. Elements identified as shark or ray came from Pender Canal. Skates and rays are a1 so usually associated with sand or mud floored bodies of water. Skates are not a common species in any site. Rockfish, Sebastes sp., were identified in all sites except St. Mungo and Tait Farm, both associated with the Fraser River. Sebastes sp. were the second most frequently identified fish at Helen Point and at Cates Park (after salmon), and the third most common fish at Pender Canal (after seaperch and herring). Carlson (1954) also noted that at the San Juan Island sites of Moore, Jekyll 's Lagoon and Mackaye, the most commonly identified fish remains were Sebastes sp. In the island sites, fish occupying a rocky shore habitat assume a greater importance, in some cases, than the anadromous species. Seaperch (Embiotocidae) were the dominant species only at Pender Canal. Like the rockfish, they too are found along rocky shore lines. Seaperch were identified at only four other sites. The green1 ings and 1ingcod were found only at island sites or on Vancouver Island. They were not present in large numbers in sites where frequencies were provided. Sculpins were recovered from Fraser River de1 ta sites as well as island and Vancouver Is1 and sites. The large numbers of Pacific cod (Gadus macroce~halus)at Esquimal t Lagoon (DcRu 2) suggests at least a spring occupation. Gadidae were identified only at Helen Point, DcRt 1 and Fort Rodd Hi11 on Vancouver Is1 and, and at Pender Canal . The greater number of Merluccius D~O~UC~USelements at Pender Canal also indicates that the hake were probably fished at night when they rise to shallow water to feed. Herring bones are probably under-represented from sites excavated using 1/4-i nch mesh screen. Bull ock (1990) recommended a

341 1-mm mesh screen for the recovery of herring. At Crescent Beach a 1.45-mm screen and at Tait Farm a 1.59-mm meshed screen was used (Ham 1982, 1987). At Crescent Beach, the recovery of herring (22% of the total assemblage by weight) was second only to the flatfishes (25%). Frequencies were not reported for Tait Farm. Where herring frequencies were reported for other sites, frequencies were low, except at DcRt 1, Fort Rodd Hi 11, and ~ender' Canal . Monks (1987) noted that herring are important because of the meat and roe they provide, but also because of the other predatory animals they attract when they spawn. These animals include salmon, rockfish, waterbirds, raptors, sea mammals, and some 1and mammals (Monks l987:122). This created a concentration of available species to humans as we1 1. ".. .herring, while not as pro1 ific as salmon, were harvested not only because of their own abundance but also because of the other economically desirable species that they attracted" (Monks 1987: 134).

Other small schooling fish such as the smelts were not represented in the Strait of Georgia sites. Only one site, Tait Farm, had eul achon remains. The absence of bones of these small fish is again probably the result of a large screen mesh size for collecting fish bones. The Fraser River is one of the few rivers that eul achon spawn, and their presence would be expected from river- edge sites, such as Tait Farm. Oncorh~nchussp. is the only fish identified in all Strait of Georgia sites. Salmon were the dominant species recovered or identified at Cates Park (DhRr 8), Cowichan Bay (DeRv lO7), Esquimalt Lagoon (DcRu 2), Fort Rodd Hill (DcRu 78), St. Mungo (DgRr 2), Tsawwassen (DgRs 2) and Helen Point (DfRu 8). At all of these sites salmon clearly outnumbered all other species except at St. Mungo (DgRr 2). Boehm's (1973) analysis showed that sturgeon were a1 so common. Eldridge's (1985) report for St. Mungo, however, showed a cl ear predominance of salmon . Sites where salmon were not the dominant species included Pender Canal (DeRt l), DcRt 1, and Crescent Beach (DgRr 1). At Pender Canal, the seaperches (Embi otocidae) overwhelmingly dominated the assemblage. At DcRt 1 the red Irish lord (Hemilepidotus hemilepidotus), a member of the sculpin family (Cottidae), was most commonly identified, and at Crescent Beach, the flatfishes (Pl euronectidae) and herring (Cl u~eaharensus) were more common than salmon. Frequencies were not available from other sites. It is often assumed that salmon are the most typical subsistence fish found in the Strait of Georgia sites because of the emphasis placed on this species in the ethnographic record, and the large salmon runs which pass through the region, yet the data from this study do not support this supposition. In three of the ten Strait of Georgia Sites with frequency data, salmon were not the dominant species. Based on the faunal data, it becomes apparent that the fishing economy is more complex than the model of "Salish as salmon fishers". There were many abundant fishes in the Strait of Georgia which were used at sites not adjacent to salmon run routes or spawning streams and ri vers . While all other bony fish had head bones and vertebrae present, at Pender Canal, salmon were represented only by vertebrae and basipterygia (pelvic fin bones). The only bones that were not from the body was a left prootic (context 77), a left quadrate (context 75) and a left suborbital (context 30). vertebrae included the at1 as, and the ultimate vertebrae. Hyperal s were a1 so identified. The head to body element ratio at Pender Canal is not unusual . At St. Mungo, Eldridge (1985) noted a similar pattern and proposed that the heads were thrown away after processing, or were possibly used as bait or for torches. Ham (1987:83) explained the predominance of salmon vertebrae at Tait Farm (DhRt 36) by reporting, "Dried salmon vertebrae played much the same role as 0x0 cubes do today and appear to have been taken everywhere, requiring only the addition of boiling water to make a soup or broth." The same absence of head elements was observed at Crescent Beach (Ham 1982). The only head elements identified were two teeth. Salmon were not a major component at Crescent Beach (Ham 1982). At some sites, it appeared that salmon vertebrae were the exclusive representatives of this species, but it was not clear if an attempt had been made to identify other elements. Salmon vertebrae, even tiny fragments, are so easy to identify that it takes 1i ttle effort to separate vertebrae into "salmon/not salmon" categories. The most obvious explanation for the lack of head elements is that the heads were discarded during processing. Salmon processed for drying do not have the heads left on, although the backbone and the tail might be left in the meat. The easiest place to discard the heads is into the water, whether it is a beach or a river edge. The head elements are not likely, therefore, to be found on the site. Salmon were not necessarily processed at the sites. In those sites where salmon remains are a minor component, the source of bones is probably the dried fish brought back from fish processing camps. Heads were also not likely to have been brought back. If, as was suggested by Hi1 1-Tout (l9O7), Eldridge (l985), and Barnett (l955), the heads had a variety of other uses (i .e. as torches, boiled for oi 1, stewed and eaten), one would also expect that they be missing. Boiling or stewi ng, particularly for long periods of time, causes considerable weakening of the bone. Jones (in: Wheeler and Jones 1989:67) demonstrated that bones of fish boiled for two hours were much more susceptible to destruction than bones boiled for one half hour or uncooked bones. If heads were being boiled, they would be less likely to survive than backbones embedded in sun-dried flesh, or discarded during processing. But1 er (1987) compared salmon el ements recovered from carcasses of fish which had died naturally after spawning to an archaeological assembl age. The natural ly deposited remains were coll ected from a gravel bar on the Cedar River, near Seattle, Washington. the archaeological site, 45KI59, was on the shores of the Black River, 25 km to the northwest of the naturally deposited materials. The culturally deposited material had few crani a1 elements re1 ative to the vertebrae, but the naturally deposited assemblage did not show this pattern. Crani a1 elements were we1 1 represented, indicating that some attribute of cranial elements is not adversely affecting bone survival so severely as to create the strong bias seen in archaeological sites (But1 er 1987). This bias is, therefore, associated with some cultural activity (including possibly domestic dogs chewing the bone). Animals and people ingesting bones can be a significant destructive force. The ethnographic literature has provided contradictory information regarding the disposal of salmon bone to prevent dogs from eating the bone. Barnett (1955) and Jenness (n.d.) reported that all bone was returned to the water although at Duncan the bones were not kept from the dogs (Jenness n.d.). Hill-Tout (1907) stated that the backbone was fed to the dogs, although he may not have been discussing Straits Salish practices. At Pender Canal fecal remains containing a 1arge proportion of bone were recovered. Mammal and fish bone including salmon were found in the feces. It is assumed that these were canid feces because chunks of mammal bone show evidence of gnawing. Salmon vertebrae, which have been crushed, rounded and eroded, with a matrix attached similar to the fecal material, have also been recorded. Based on this evidence it appears that if there had been an attempt to keep the salmon bone from dogs, 1 it was not completely successful. Jones (1986) performed experiments in which fish, with bones included, were eaten by a human, a dog, and other mammals. Herring, mackerel and haddock were fed to the mammals. The bones from the feces were inspected and identified.

From 80 herring bones and 75 haddock bones fed to the dog, 9 herring and 10 mackerel elements were identified from the feces. Nineteen unidentified fragments were recovered. From the adult human male 80 herring elements were ingested and 2 identified and 13 unidentified fragments came from the feces (Jones 1986). From this simple experiment, it can be seen that the attrition of ingested fish bones can be considerable. All identified species from the Strait of Georgia sites were combined into the appropriate families to increase the consistency of identification methods, and a cluster analysis was performed using only the presence or absence of elements (Figure 8.1). In the resulting dendrogram, it is apparent that the most closely clustered sites are DcRt 1, Fort Rodd Hi 7 7, and Pender Canal. DcRt 1 and Fort Rodd Hill are in bays at the southern tip of Vancouver Island and Pender Canal on a Gulf Is1 and. The same kinds of fish are present, showing the wide variety of fish exploited. At DcRt 1 the sculpins (Cottidae) dominate the assemblage, particularly the red Irish 1ord. These fish spawn in shallow water in the spring, usually around March. The next most common fish are the salmonids and the Clupeidae. At Fort Rodd Hill salmonids and herring dominate, and at Pender Canal the most common fish are seaperch and herring. The wide 1- 1- Pender Canal, DeRt l

DcRt i rnFort Rodd Hill, DcRu 78 ICotes Park, DhRr 8 Montague Harbour, DfRu 13

Tsawwassen, Dg Rs 2 rl ICowichan Boy, DeRv 107 rl' Esquimalt Lagoon, DcRu 2 ri ' Helen Point, DfRu 8 Georgeson Bay,. Df Ru 24

-1I ' Crescent Beach, DgRr l

St. Mungo, DgRr2

Tait Farm, DhRt 36

Figure 8.1: Cluster analysis of sites based on the presence and absence of fish taxa. variety of fish exploited may be associated with the rocky environment, or a similar season of si te use - possibly the spring exploitation of local fish. Sites which were most different from a1 1 other sites investigated were St. Mungo and Tait Farm, both associated with the Fraser River. These sites yielded two anadr omous fishes, salmon and sturgeon, as well as eulachon at Tait Farm. No cods, perch or greenlings were present. Both sites had sculpins and St. Mungo also had flatfish. All other sites are intermixed in a cluster and show no strong differences. In general, but not in all cases, they tend not to have cod or perch, but they do have Sebastes present. Where frequency data are available, salmon are the most common fish. Based only on species presence and absence, there are no strong differences. Puzzl ing absences from these assemblages are ha1 i but and smelt, although they were discussed in the ethnographic record. Perhaps the sites where these fish were exploited have not been excavated or analyzed, processing methods or the archaeological methods have affected bone survival and recovery, or the ethnographic records described a subsistence pattern recently borrowed from elsewhere, or used more intensively than in prehistoric economies. It certainly calls for more investigation of a1 ready col 1ected assembl ages, or attention to d ifferent kinds of sites than the commonly investigated she1 1 midden . The ethnographic record also reported that true cod were not deliberately fished, yet at four Gulf Island sites, Pender Canal, Helen Point, Georgeson Bay and Fort Rodd Hill, true cods, though not the most abundantly represented species, were not rare. These small discrepancies indicate that the absolute accuracy of the ethnographic record should not be assumed, and that the archaeological record needs to be consulted for subsistence information as well. Chapter 9

Shellfish

Shellfish were used for food, tools, decoration and possibly as construct i on materi a1 (Bl uki s-Onat 1985) . 1n some 1 eve1 s of Northwest Coast shell midden sites, the matrix consists entirely of whole and crushed shell. The shell also serves to increase soil pH, aiding in the preservation of other organic constituents of the site. The primary focus in this section is the role of marine invertebrates in the subsistence of prehistoric coastal people of the Strait of Georgia, although shellfish remains were useful for more than just the meat they once contained.

Scientific names used are from Kozloff (1987) and Turgeon et al. (1988). In the case of a discrepancy, Kozloff's (1987) terms are used. Scientific names for the limpets (Acmaeidae) are from Lindberg (1986). The preferred common names for molluscs used are those approved by the Committee on Scientific and Vernacular Names of Mollusks of the Council of Systematic Malacologists of the American Ma1 acol ogical Union (Turgeon et a1 . 1988). Occasionally, more familiar local names are also provided. When a common name was not available from Turgeon & a. (l988), names from Flora and Fairbanks (1977) were used. There are five classes of molluscs. These are the chitons (Amphineura) , tusk she1 1s (Scaphopoda), bivalves (Pelecypoda) , snai 1s, 1impets, and abalone (Gastropoda) , and the octopuses and squids (Cephalopoda; Flora and Fairbanks 1977). Other invertebrates commonly discussed with the molluscs are crabs, shrimps, barnacles and sea urchins. All but urchins are in the class crustacea. Crabs and shrimps are members of the order Decapoda, and barnacles are members of the order Thoracia. Sea urchins are in the phylum Echinodermata and the class Echinoidea (Flora and Fairbanks 1977).

The Molluscs Bi val ves (cl ass Pel ecypoda) The butter clam (Saxidomus siqanteus) is found in gravel or sandy beaches in the lower third of the intertidal zone (Flora and Fairbanks 1977). It is smaller than Saxidomus nuttalli, but looks similar (Ricketts et al. 1985). The commonly used name for each is often the same, but the names chosen by the Council of Systematic

Malacologists were butter clam for $. qiqanteus and Washington clam for S. nuttall i (Turgeon et a1 . 1988). $. qiqanteus burrows into the substrate about 30 cm. The shell can be 8 cm. long. The Pacific 1i ttleneck (Protothaca staminea) is usually found in protected bays buried at the mid-tide level about 8 cm below the surface in mud and gravel, along with sand beaches (Ricketts et a1 . 1985, Kozl off 1973, Flora and Fairbanks 1977). Kozl off 1973: 225) observed, "The population density of this species is sometimes SO heavy that several specimens will be turned out in a single shovelful of gravel. Actually, it is hardly necessary to dig for this species, for it can be scratched out." The Pacific littleneck clam is sometimes confused with the Japanese littleneck (Tapes philippinarum, formerly called Venerupis ja~onicaor Protothaca semidecussata). The Japanese littleneck was introduced with the Japanese oyster (Crassostrea qiqas) in the early 1900's (Ricketts et a1 1985, Flora and Fairbanks 1977, Kozloff 1973). The thin-shell littleneck (Protothaca tenerrima) is an uncommon clam usually found at sand and gravel beaches. Tresus capax is locally known as the horse clam but the accepted common name is the fat gaper. The Pacific gaper (Tresus nuttallii) looks similar to T. capax, and it is difficult to distinguish between the two. T. nuttallii has a longer shell, but T. capax is the species more commonly found in the Strait of Georgia region. The preferred habitat of this gaper is mud with gravel or a shell substrate, in protected bays. In a mud beach, they may bury themselves 50 cm below the surface, but in a clay substrate, they may only be able to dig down to 30 crn (Kozloff 1973, Ricketts et al. 1985, Flora and Fairbanks 1977). Cockles, called the Nuttall cockle (Clinocardiurn nuttallii) are easy to harvest from sand flats. Small lumps of sand reveal their presence and they can be quickly scooped out by hand. They are generally found in protected bays with muddy or sandy flats in intertidal to shallow subtidal zones (Kozloff 1973, 1987, Ricketts &

-al. 1985). The soft she1 1ed clams (bspp.) are found in sandy or mud

beaches in the intertidal zone. The indigenous species is ~$KJ truncata, the truncate softshell. It appears similar to MJGJ arenaria, which was first introduced from the east coast to San Francisco in 1879. It subsequently spread up to the Northwest Coast (Flora and Fairbanks 1977, Ricketts et al. 1985). C ams of the genus Macoma sp. are also found in muddy sand. Macoma nasuta, the bent-nose macoma, is able to live in bays or estuar es where the water is brackish, or silty. It is usually buri ed 15 cm (6 inches) to 30 cm (12 inches) below the beach surface from the intertidal zone to about 50 m below the water surface (Flora and Fairbanks 1977). Ricketts et al. (1985:370) observed

"It can stand water so stale that all other species will be killed; hence it is often the only clam to be found in small lagoons that have only occasional communication with the sea. Also, it can live in softer mud than any other species."

Flora and Fairbanks (1977:276) also stated that "its presence is an indication of low oxygen concentration." The Macoma irus is of similar size as the M. nasuta, but it does not have the bent shell. M. balthica, the Baltic macoma, is also . found in muddy bays, but it is less common in the Puget Sound and Gulf and San Juan Archipelago than it is on the outer coast (Kozloff

1973). M. secta, the white sand macoma, can be larger than the bent- nosed macoma, and is also typically found in sand flats, buried to 45 cm below the beach surface (Ricketts et al. 1985). M. inquinata, the stained macoma, is smaller, having a maximum length of only 5 cm. It is also found in mud bays with low oxygen. The tellins (Tellina sp.) are small clams, generally 1-2 cm long, although T. bodeqensis reaches 5 cm. She1 1 color of T. nuculoides, the salmon tell in, is pink, but the others are usually white. The Pacific geoduck (Panopea abru~ta)is the largest clam available in the Northwest Coast region. The shell can reach 20 cm long, and the total weight, including the shell, can sometimes be greater than 12 kg (26 pounds) (Ricketts 1985: 375). A more common weight is 3 kg (6 pounds; Flora and Fairbanks 1977). The shell is too small to enclose the flesh of the clam. Some individuals will dig to a meter below the mud or sand beach surface, or the length of their siphon (Flora and Fairbanks 1977, Ricketts et a1 1985). Because of the depth at which these animals live, considerable effort is required to take a single individual. The indigenous oyster of the Northwest Coast is the Olympia oyster or native oyster (Ostrea lurida). One valve is permanently attached to rocks or pi1 ings usually in clusters or colonies, and the oyster is associated with mudflats. It is usually no more than 5 cm in diameter. The native oyster is becoming increasingly rare. The Pacific or Japanese oyster (Crassostrea siqas) was brought to the West Coast from Japan in 1905 and has been harvested commercially in the Strait of Georgia and Puget Sound (Flora and Fairbanks 1977, Ricketts et al. 1985). The Pacific fa1 se jingle (Pododesmus ce~io)is sometimes 1ocally called a rock oyster, but is in a separate sub-order from the other oysters. The jingle attaches the lower valve to rocks by a byssus or thread-1 i ke material from the foot of the bivalve through a hole in the she1 1. The meat is orange colored. ~heseanimals 1ive along rocky shores from the low tide level to 80 meters below the water surface (Flora and Fairbanks 1977, Kozloff 1973, 1987, Ricketts

-al. 1985). Another common bivalve which attaches to rocks is the mussel (Mvtilus spp.). M. californianus, the California mussel, has heavy shells, and can be as long as 20 cm. The Cal ifornia mussel is usually found between the high and low tide levels on the rocky outer coast where there is heavy surf and wave action (Ricketts eJ dm. 1985). In the San Juan Islands, there are occasional suitable habitats where this mussel is found, but the beds usually have members of the blue mussel (M. edul is) intermixed (Kozloff 1973). The blue mussel has a thinner shell and usually does not attain a

1ength greater than 6 cm (Kozl off 1973). This mussel is usually found in quiet bays with rocky shores, and occasionally on gravel beaches in the middle tidal zone (Flora and Fairbanks 1977, Ricketts

--et al. 1985). It is also able to survive in waters with low salinity (Kozl off 1977) . Scallops are more mobile animals, able to escape predators by moving through the water. The weathervane scallop (Patinopecten caurinus) can reach 15 cm in diameter (Kozloff 1973). It is not found on the beach unless washed up from deep waters (Kozloff 1973). It is usually found in waters 20 m or greater in depth, living on sand, mud, gravel or she1 1 substrates (Kozloff 1973, Flora and Fairbanks 1977). Small er scal 1ops i ncl ude the spiny scal 1op (Chl amys hastata) and the reddish scallop (Chlamys rubida) which reach about 6 cm long. The spiny scallop has small spines which curve up from the ribs while the ribs of the reddish scallop is nearly smooth (Kozloff 1973, 1987). These scallops live below low tide levels. The rock scal 1op (Hi nni tes qi qanteus) , unl i ke the other scallops, has a very heavy shell and attaches one valve permanently to rock. At the hinge is a purple colored patch which permeates the shell (Kozloff 1973). Intertidal individuals reach 15 cm long, but subtidal animals can be 25 cm long (Ricketts et a1 . 1985). Pearls can be found in this sedentary scallop, and the flesh is edible.

Gastropods (class Gastropoda) The gastropods include snails and whelks, abalone, and 1impets. Gastropods have a flat foot which is used to creep along the substrate, although some animals permanently attach to a surface. One of the more common snails in the Strait of Georgia is Nucell a 1amel 1osa, the fri11 ed dogwi nkl e. The Nucell a spp. are carnivorous. Nucell a 1amel 1osa prey primarily on barnacles a1 though mussels are a1 so eaten (Ricketts et a1 . 1985). The snails are commonly found on rocky beaches from middle to low tide (Flora and Fairbanks 1977). There is considerable variation in the physical appearance of this species, which is related to the amount of wave action. Smooth shells are usually found where waters are more turbulent, but in calm waters, projections grow from the surface. They a1 so display a variety of colors (flora' and Fairbanks 1977). Nucell a emarsinata, the emarginate dogwinkl e, a1 so feeds on barnacles, and is associated with rocky beaches, but usually at the low tide level. The file dogwinkle (Nucella lima) is similar in appearance to N. emarqinata, but is not common below northern Vancouver Island (Kozloff 1987). N. lima is found at the middle to low tide zone of rocky beaches, and is smaller than the other Nucella spp. Nucell a canal icul ata, the channeled dogwinkl e, prefers mussel s but will prey on barnacles as we1 1 . The channeled dogwinkl e is most commonly seen at low tide. The dire whelk (Searlesia dira) eats injured invertebrates including worms, other 1impets, chi ton, snails and barnacles (Ricketts et al. 1985, Kozloff 1973). It is found at low tide, and is associated with subtidal sand, mud or rocky shores (Flora and Fairbanks 1977, Ricketts et al. 1985). It is more common in northern British Columbia than in the south (Ricketts et al. 1985). The foliate thornmouth, also called the leafy hornmouth snail (Ceratostoma fol iatum) , is a predator of bivalves and barnacles, and is found on rock and sand beaches (Kozloff 1973, Flora and Fairbanks 1977). Another predatory snail is the moon snail (Pol inices lewisii). This snail 1 ives on sand and mud beaches at low tide to subtidal zones (Flora and Fairbanks 1977). It feeds on clams and oysters. Littleneck clams, butter clams, and bent nose clams are most commonly eaten. The snail will a1 so eat other moon snails, dead fish and sea stars (Ricketts et al. 1985). During the winter, moon snails retreat to deep water, and are rarely' found at low tide. The channeled nassa or channeled basket shell (Nassarius fossatus) and the lean nassa or lean basket shell (Nassarius mendicus) are also predatory snails living subtidally or at low tide.

-N. fossatus is found on mud and sand flats, while N. mendicus lives along rock beaches. They eat dead animals, including dead fish. The Oregon triton (Fusitriton oreqonensis) is the largest snail in the Northwest Coast, reaching almost 15 cm in length (Ricketts et al. 1985). It is found at low tide and subtidally on rock and sand beaches (Ricketts et al. 1985, Flora and Fairbanks 1977). A predatory snail brought in with oyster spat in the 1930's was the Japanese false cerith or the auger shell (Batillaria attramentaria). This shell is usually found on mudflats and in salt marshes, sometimes in great quantity (Kozloff 1987, Ricketts et al. 1985, Flora and Fairbanks 1977). Not all snails are carnivorous. Many feed on plant matter, and are brought up with sea weeds. The Sitka periwinkle (Littorina sitkana), checkered periwinkle (Littorina scutulata) live from the high tide level to the middle-low tide levels on rocky shores. They are usually found in association with small barnacles and blue mussels in quiet waters feeding on algae on the rocks (Flora and Fairbanks 1977, Kozloff 1973, Ricketts et al. 1985). A small shell found attached to eelgrass below the low tide line is the variegate lacuna (Lacuna varieqata). The threaded cerith (Bittium eschrichii) is also found in eelgrass beds and under rocks at low tide where it eats algae and eel grass (Flora nd Fairbanks 1977, Kozloff 1973). Limpets have pyramid shaped shells protecting an algae eating gastropod. The mask or variegated limpet (Tectura persona) and the shield 1impet (Lottia pel ta) are found in the high tide zone of rocky shores (Flora and Fairbanks 1977). Slightly lower in the middle and low tide zone is the plate limpet (Tectura scutum). It has a more flattened shell than Tectura persona or Lottia pelta. The ribbed limpet (Lottia diqitalis) is found from high to mid-low tide levels, while the white cap limpet (Acmaea mitra) is found at low tide. The whitecap 1impet is more common on the outer coast than it is in the Strait of Georgia (Flora and Fairbanks 1977). The pinto abalone, also called the small northern abalone (Hal ioti s kamtschatkana) eats algae, kelp and seaweeds, 1i ke the 1impets. It is occasionally harvested from the intertidal zone although it normally lives subtidally (Flora and Fairbanks 1977). The shell reaches 12 cm long, but is smaller than the California abalones. & kamtschatkana is found in the protected waters and bays of the Strait of Georgia. They are often found in groups (Ricketts --et al. 1985). Chitons (class Amphineura) Chitons have eight shell plates lining the back. These plates are not always visible. Chitons live in clear water associated with rocky shores because their gills become clogged in silty water. They are frequently found under rocks at low tide, but they generally feed on algae and vegetation growing on the rock surface. The Giant Pacific chiton or the gumboot chiton (Crmtochiton stelleri) has eight butterfly shaped shells embedded beneath a thick fleshy mantle. The giant Pacific chiton is the largest of all chitons, reaching 20 cm long (Kozloff 1973). In the spring, they move onto rocky beaches from deep waters to spawn. Not quite so large as the giant Pacific chiton, but still larger than other local chitons, is the black katy, or leather chiton (Katharina tunicata). The black katy reaches 5 cm long and eats vegetal matter at low tide. It is more common on rocky surf-swept environments than it is in protected Strait of Georgia waters (Flora and Fairbanks 1977, Ricketts et a1 . 1985). Members of the genus Mo~alia, the hairy chitons are common intertidal species which can about 5 cm (2 inches) long. Smaller chi tons include the 1ined chi ton (Tonicel 1a 1ineata) and the red chiton (Le~idozonamertensii) which only reach 2 to 4 cm long. Both are found at middle to low tide in calm waters associated with rocky shores (Flora and Fairbanks 1977). Tusk she1 1s (cl ass Scaphopoda) The most common member of this class is the tooth shell (Dentaliurn pretiosum). These are long tubular shells with openings at each end. They are found in deep waters associated with sand, mud, gravel and shell substrates. This shell is usually 4 cm long and about .3 cm wide.

Octopuses and squids (cl ass Cephal opoda) The octopus (Octopus dofleini) is also called the devil fish on the Pacific Coast (Flora and Fairbanks 1977). This species is generally small, usually less than 46 cm long, although there are records of individuals reaching 3 m from the end of one foot to another, and can weigh 45.5 kg (100 pounds; Flora and Fairbanks 1977, Kozloff 1973). It lives among protective rocky substrates below the low tide zone. The octopus has a hard beak which could potentially be preserved in archaeological sites.

-The Crustaceans Barnacl es (order Thoraci a) Barnacles are arthropods which have permanently attached themselves to rocks, pi1 ings, shellfish, boats or other suitable surfaces. The most commonly encountered barnacles at the high tide

zone are Chthamalus dall i, a small barnacle about 1 cm in diameter, and Bal anus ql andul a, the more common species. B. gl andul a is especially common in quiet bays (Ricketts et al. 1985). Balanus crenatus appears similar to B. ql andula, but a1 so occupies the intertidal zone as well as the higher shores (Flora and Fairbanks 1977, Kozloff 1987). The largest intertidal barnacle is the horse barnacle (Semibalanus cariosus). It can be 5 cm high and 4 cm in diameter. It has a rugged external appearance when it is not crowded by other barnacles. Semibalanus cariosus is found at the low tide line. In the Strait of Georgia, the horse barnacle prefers steep shores, with strong water currents and wave-action (Ricketts et a1 . 1985: 270). Bal anus nubi 1us is the 1argest barnacle anywhere and can be 7.5 cm tall and 12 to 15 cm in diameter. It lives at the low tide zone or subtidally on the outer coast rather than in the comparatively quiet Strait of Georgia (Flora and Fairbanks 1977).

Crabs (order Decapoda) The two largest crabs are the dungeness crab (Cancer magister) and the red rock crab (Cancer productus). The dungeness crab can be found in the intertidal zone on sand beaches, but it is more common subtidally (Flora and Fairbanks 1977). They are easily captured in the summer during the mating season at low tide in tidal pools protected by eel grass. They can also be caught with a 1ine and bait in deeper waters. The red rock crab is usually associated with rocky beaches because it is unable to filter the fine particles suspended in waters associated with mud and sand beaches (Ricketts et al. 1985, Flora and Fairbanks 1977). This crab occupies subtidal waters, but can also be found hiding under rocks during the day in the intertidal

1 zone (Ricketts et al. 1985). There are many smaller species of crabs, i ncl udi ng the beach crabs (Hemi sra~sussp. , Lo~ho~ano~eus bellus) which are usually found under rocks and in tidal pools on rocky beaches, and the spider and helmet crabs (Puqettia sp., Telmessus cheirasonus) associated with eel grass and kelp beds (Flora and Fairbanks 1977).

-The Echinoderms Sea Urchins (class Echinoidea) Echinoderms i ncl ude sea stars, sea cucumbers, sand do1 1ars and sea urchins. Sea urchins and sand dollars are both members of the class Echinoidea. The green sea urchin (Stronqvl ocentrotus droebachiensi s) , the giant red urchin (& franci scanus), and the purple urchin (S.purpuratus) are found in the Strait of Georgia. The most common species in the Strait of Georgia region is the green sea urchin. Populations of green urchins appear to be moving into areas historically populated by the purple urchin. Both species are found in the low intertidal to subtidal zones, but the purple urchin is more common in areas where there is heavy surf, and is found in only a few places in the Gulf and San Juan Archipelago (Kozloff 1973). The purple urchin is more common on the outer coast (Ricketts et al. 1985). Spawning of these species takes place in the spring. The green urchin reaches 8 cm wide and the purple urchin can be 6 cm in diameter. In contrast, the giant red urchin reaches 18-20 cm in diameter (Ricketts et al. 1985, Flora and Fairbanks 1977, Kozloff 1973). It is found in subtidal waters.

Ethnoqraohic information Barnett (1955:68) stated that clams "were at a premium near the mouth of the Fraser River, for they could not live in the fresh water from Vancouver to Point Roberts." Lummi people gathered clams after the sockeye fishing season at clam beds on Orcas Island until September or October (Stern 1969:46). "Lummi, Samish and Nooksack all dug clams at Chuckanut Bay; Lummi, Samish and Saanich at West Sound" (Suttl es 1974:67-68). Suttl es (1974:67) stated that shellfish were probably collected throughout the year, but most of the clams were probably collected in the summer when they were dried for the winter. Stern (1969:47), however, reported that clams were not suitable for consumption "when the frogs sing." Clams reported to have been collected by Straits Sal ish people were the butter clams, little neck, cockle and horse clam (Stern 1969, Suttles 1974). Clams were dug out of the substrate with digging sticks. Cockles were scooped out of the sand and did not require a great deal of effort to collect. Clams were steamed open in a pit and the meat removed and pushed onto a stick and tied to the stick. The sticks were supported over a fire and roasted. Afterwards the clams were strung onto a line and dried. The clams were then stored for the winter or traded inland (Suttles 1974, Barnett 1955). Clams were also steamed or eaten raw. Butterclams were preserved for the winter. Suttles (1974:67) thought the cockles and rock clams might have been dried. Stern (1969:47) con f i rmed that the cockles were stored in large quantities by the Lummi, bu t that littlenecks were cooked and eaten fresh. The horse clams cou Id be preserved without first being steamed (Suttles l974:67). Some clams beds were tended by their owners (Stern 1969:47). On Orcas Island, one clam bed was carefully managed, with large rocks removed to make it easier to dig (Stern 1969:47). At a horse clam bed on Samish Island, one woman watched people digging for clams, ensuring that they did not break the shells (Stern 1969). Mussels were collected in sheets and were roasted or steamed. Oysters, chitons, and barnacles were pried off rocks, and whelks, snails and urchins were gathered on rocky shores (Suttles 1974). The eggs or gonads of the sea urchin were eaten raw, or the urchins were first cooked in a fire. Crabs were gathered at low tide and from shallow waters offshore, or they were speared from canoes (Suttles 1974, Stern 1969). Wicker traps were also used to capture crabs. Crabs were steamed or were pierced by sticks and roasted over the fire (Suttles 1974:66, Stern 1969:48). The meat was not stored. Jenness (n.d. :21) stated that crabs and other invertebrates added variety to the usual fare, but were not economical ly important. Suttl es (1974: 65), however, reported that bivalves and crabs were the most important shellfish to the Straits Salish. During Vancouver's voyage through Puget Sound in May and June of 1792, Menzies (in: Newcombe 1923) observed fami 1ies drying and smoking clams on the beach. Near Restoration Point, at a temporary camp, barnacles were being harvested. At Orcas Island they observed dried clams in a temporary camp (Menzies in Newcombe 1923:58). Octopuses were gathered at low tide or speared with a two-pronged spear from a canoe at low tide (Stern 1969, Jenness n.d., Suttles 1974). To spear an octopus from a canoe, the hunter "cruised in 4 to 8 feet of water looking in the rocks for an octopus's den which he recognized by the clam and spider-crab shells around it. With the crooked pole he lured or prodded the creature out where he could spear it" (Suttles 1974:131-132).

Octopuses were cut up for bait and boiled or steamed for food (Suttl es 1974, Stern 1969).

Shell fish remains from Archaeoloqical Sites Shellfish identified from Strait of Georgia sites were usually presented in the form of a species list. In some cases quantification of species was based on the samples which were collected and put into level bags, and the resulting abundance information was not useful. Eighteen sites, other than DeRt 1 were compared (Table 9.1.1 and Table 9.1.2). Only the report on Crescent Beach fauna also provided frequency data (Ham 1982). Williams (in: Charlton 1974:20) stated that whole and nearly whole shells were collected at the Cates Park Site by hand as the Table 9.1.1: Shellfish from Strait of Georgia Sites

est. site ut. (gm) Boucher McMurdo King Carlson Species: DgRr 1 45UH9 DcRu 2 DhRr 8 DeRv 107 45951058 DgRs 2 DfRU 8 DfRu 8 DhRt 36 DfRu 24 DcRu 78 DfRu 13 45SJ1 45SJ1 45SJ3 45S55 4595186 Saxidomus giganteus 438455.18 X X 411 X X X X A X 89 X X 1 1 1 Saxidomus nuttalli X protothaca staminea 198663.78 X X 653 X X' X X R X 89 X X 3 1 1 Protothaca tenerrima 2558.13 A X clinocardiun nuttallii 2887435.59 X X 41 X X X X X X 25 X X X 2 2 Tresus capax 982434 .05 X 25 X X X Tresus nuttall i X X R X X X 3 1 1 Tresus sp. X 46 Panopea abrupta X

Macoma nasuta 327.36 X X X X 9 X 3 2 Macoma, inconspicua X Macoma secta 2126.35 Macoma iris 2 Macma inqinata X , Macoma sp. Mya sp. Mya arenaria 4 Soft shell clam Tellina sp.

Mytilus californianus X X X X 45 X X X 3 3 Mytilus edulis 102794.13 X 12 X X X X X X 22 X X 1 1 2 Mytilus sp. X X Ostrea lurida 324916.32 X R 102 X X 2 Crassostrea gigas 1

Pododesmus macroschisma Patinopecten caurinus Chlemys hastata Chlamys rubidus Hinnites giganteus Small bivalve (Pelecypoda) Pelecypoda

Nucella lamellosa Nucel la emarginata Nucella canaliculata Nucella tima Nucella sp.

Neptunea tabulata Fusitriton oregonensis Searlesia dira Amphissa sp. Tegula sp. Nassarius medicus Nassarius sp. Littorina sitkana Littorina scutulata

Lacuna variegata Lacuna spp. Bittiun attenuatun Bittiun estrichtii Bittiun sp. Olivella sp. Oceanebra interfossa erat to stoma foliatun Homalopoma carpenteri Polinices lewisii Table 9.1.2: Shellfish from Strait of Georgia Sites (continued)

est. site ut. (gm) Boucher McMurdo King Carlson Species: DgRr 1 45WH9 DcRu 2 DhRr 8 DeRv 107 45SJ1050 D~RS2 DfRu 8 DfRu 8 DhRt 36 D~RU24 DCRU 78 D~RU13 45sJ1 45SJ1 45SJ3 45SJ5 45SJ186 Odostmia quadrae 350.6 Bati llaria attramentarie X Crepidula maria 2 Crepidula Lingulata 1.8 Megatebennus bimacul tatus 22.8 . small marine snails

Acmaea mitre Tectura persona ' Tectura scutun Lottia digiralis Lottia instab7lis Lottia pelta wid. Limpet

Halpotrema sportella (sm. Land snail) Helix sp. Land snails 280 Little white land snails

Cryptochiton stel leri 2 Katharina tunicata X X X 56 X 3 3 3 unid. chiton .4 X X X Cancer productus Cancer sp. 1.3 X X R 5 X small crab X mid. crab X

Balanus glardula X X Balanus cariosus X X Balanus cretanus X 6 Balanus carinus 3 Balanus nubilis X X 125 Balanus sp. 736 X X X* X X X X X

Strongylocentrotus droebachiensis Strongylocentrotus pupuratus Strongylocentrotus franciscanus Strongylocentrotus sp. big urchin marine worm tube (Serpula vermicularis units were excavated, and abundance was not a reflection of economic importance. Therefore, the tally is not reliable and should be used as nominal data. She noted that "The concentrations of mollusc shells at Cates Park were relatively sparse in terms of the typical Northwest Coast midden. She1 1 was general ly found in pockets or thin lenses rather than as highly concentrated layers.. ." (Will iams in: Char1 ton l974:2l).

Williams (in: Charlton 1974:21) concluded that DhRr 8 may have only been a temporary camp during the seasonal round, explaining the paucity of shell in the site. She also sectioned shellfish, and suggested that the shellfish were collected during the late summer or autumn and through the winter, based on the growth rings of the samples studied. Although Ham (1987:80) did not provide abundance information for Tait Farm (DhRt36), he did observe that despite the relative lack of shell as compared to other shell midden sites, blue mussels and barnacles were particularly abundant. Frequency information from the San Juan Island sites came from samples in level bags, and should not be construed as indications of overall re1 ative abundance (Carl son

The frequency data from Fort Rodd Hill is biased because excavators col 1ected "representative" sampl es as they excavated. Easily recognized, whole and generally large species tend to be over emphasized when samples are collected in this way (Mitchell 1981). Little neck and butter clams were cross-sectioned and growth patterns inspected. The sections indicated that the shell fish were collected in the spring and early summer (Mitchell 1981:146). The only sites from which dependable frequency data came were Pender Canal (DeRt 1) and Crescent Beach (DgRr 1). The data from Pender Canal have already been discussed. The frequencies at Crescent Beach were expressed as "estimated site weight" of each taxon. As can be seen in Table 9.1.1 and Table 9.1.2 , the most abundant animals are again bivalves, with an emphasis on cockles (Cl inocardium nuttall i i). Littleneck clams (Protothaca staminea and

-P. tenerrima) are the most poorly represented clams. The mussels were a1 so not particularly we1 1 represented. These re1 ationshi ps are not surprising considering that Crescent Beach is presently on the edge of a protected bay with extensive mud and sandflats. Rock and gravel beaches are only a minor part of the local intertidal zone. In this sort of environment, species which prefer the softer substrate should be common. The waters near Crescent Beach are also less saline than at Pender Island because of the proximity of DgRr 1 to the mouth of the Fraser River and other streams emptying into the Strait of Georgia. This would provide an environment attractive to the oysters which are found at Crescent Beach, but not at the Pender Canal site. Oysters are more abundant by weight at Crescent Beach than are 1ittleneck clams or mussels. analysis of growth rings from Crescent Beach shell indicate that the molluscs were gathered in late

February and March (Ham 1982 :206). Since 1ittle frequency data was avail able, other comparisons between sites had to be based on presence and absence data. As was done with the mammals, birds and fish, a cluster analysis was performed on the nominal data provided (Figure 9.1). More tightly clustered are the San Juan Island sites, Jekyll's Lagoon, Mackaye and Moore. They have few species represented, including butter clams, 1ittle neck and horse clams. Cockles and bent nosed clams appear only at Jekyll's Lagoon and Mackaye, suggesting that a sandy beach was exploited more frequently than at Moore. Cal i forni a mussel s are present at Jekyl 1 's Lagoon and Mackaye, but not at Moore. The presence of the Cal ifornia mussels is not particularly unusual because today they inhabit some beaches on San Juan Island, particularly the surf-swept coastline. The mussels are present at all three sites, and the native oyster only at Jekyll's Lagoon. Other species present at all sites are limpets, the black katy, and urchins; all are species associated with rocky beaches. Only Mackaye had barnacles. The association of these sites is not surprising since they were excavated and sampled in a similar manner, and are relatively close to one another. Sample sizes for all three sites are low, explaining the lack of variability in species representation.

The association of Fossil Bay with Tsawwassen, 45WH9 and Tait Farm is puzzling. Initially, it appears that Fraser River Delta sites are cl ustering. The three main1 and excavations were a1 so Fossil Bay, 45SJ 1058

Tsawwassen, DgRs 2

Tait Farm, DhR

~ek~ll'sLagoon,

Mackaye, 45SJ I-_ Moore, 45SJ5 rl ' Georgeson Bay, Df Ru 24 I Esquimalt Lagoon. DcRu2 I I IMontague Harbour, DfRul3 n Cafes Park. DhRrB r-l Cowichan Bay, DeRv I07 Cattle Point, 45SJ I n I rl' Helen Point, DfRu8 ri Fort Rodd Hill, DcRu78 L ' Crescent. Beach, DgRr l

I Pender Canal, DeRt l

Figure 9.1: Cluster analysis of sites based on the presence and absence of shellfish taxa. salvage, or exploratory in nature. Tait Farm had few shellfish represented, but sediments were water-screened through 1 59-mmmesh screens, although only two units were excavated. At Tsawwassen, columns were coll ected and species identified. At 45WH9, more area was excavated. Moll uscs encountered during the excavation were recorded but not necessarily collected. At Cattle Point, screening may not have been conducted. For these sites, there is a mixture of collection methods. Species representation is limited at these sites. The only clam at Tait Farm is the cockle, while the other sites have buttercl am, 1i ttleneck, cock1 es and horse clams. Only Fossil Bay and Tsawwassen have bent nose clams. All four sites have mussels, whelks (Nucell a sp.), and barnacles present. All but Tait Farm have urchins present. Crabs, chitons and 1impets are present only at Fossil Bay, and the Sitka periwinkle is present only at Tsawwassen. None of these sites has species other than the common she1 lfish. This similarity could be related to sampling techniques, (e.g. Cattle Point, 45WH9), species avai 1abi 1i ty (e. g. Tai t Farm), or perhaps site use and composition (possibly Tsawwassen and Tai t Farm). Georgeson Bay, Esquimalt Lagoon and Montague Harbour are the next most closely clustered sites. Again the relationship is not immediately apparent. Esquimal t Lagoon is more closely clustered with Montague Harbour than either is with Georgeson Bay and their assemblages are similar. These three sites have a larger number of taxa than did the sites forming the previously discussed cluster. Besides the standard bivalves present in most sites; buttercl am, 1ittleneck and horse clam, and in the case of Georgeson Bay, Macoma spp., and a1 so mussels, 1impets, whel ks, barnacles and sea urchins,

these three sites contained a few less commonly identified taxa. All three had the weathervane scallop. This scallop was frequently used for shell rattles, and was probably not a subsistence item. Patinopecten caurinus is a deep water dwelling animal, and is normally collected when it washes on shore. 'The rock scallop, also sought for its heavy shell, was recovered at Montague Harbour and Esquimal t Lagoon. The reddish scall op was identified at Georgeson Bay. Few of the Strait of Georgia sites have these species. Of the other bivalves, all three sites have the California mussel which was used in tool-making. Esquimalt Lagoon has oysters, but the other sites do not. Georgeson Bay has more species of bivalves compared with the other sites. All three contain the black katy or leather chiton. Crabs were present at Esquimal t Lagoon and Montague Harbour. These three sites are probably similar because they contain more species collected for their manufacturing value. The various gastropods and chitons confirm the presence of a rocky shore nearby, but are probably not economically important. The remaining sites, Cates Park, Cowichan Bay, Cattle Point, Helen Point, Fort Rodd Hi1 1s, Crescent Beach, and Pender Canal show increasi ngly diverse assembl ages. DeRt 1 and Pander Canal were discussed previously. Cates Park shellfish were collected by hand as units were excavated. Most of the shells collected were littleneck cl ams. A1 so abundant were buttercl ams and whel ks (Nucell a spp. ) . Four samples of the softshell clam & arenaria were identified. This species is an introduced bivalve, and if it came from prehistoric strata, it may in fact be M. truncata, the indigenous species. The Japanese oyster (Crassostrea qiqas) was also identified; therefore, shellfish from a historic component were mixed into the assemblage. At Cowichan Bay the geoduck was identified. This may reflect the presence of the extensive mudflats associated with the area. Supporting the presence of extensive mud habitat for shellfish is the occurrence of such species as the bent nose clams and the moon snai 1. The moon snai 1 is found exclusively in sand or mud substrates. Also present were clams which inhabit firmer beaches, such as the 1ittleneck clam and butter clam, as well as mussel s, whel ks, 1impets, barnacles and urchins. The absence of cockles is also interesting because this bivalve is usually common on sandy beaches. In the cluster, Cattle Point is not found with the other San Juan Island sites. It looks very much 1i ke the other sites reported by Carlson (1954) except that there is more variety in the species of gastropods identified. He1 en Point, Fort Rodd Hi 11, Crescent Beach and Pender Canal are similar because of the general variety of shellfish in these sites. At Crescent Beach and Pender Canal this variability may be attributed to large sample sizes or small-meshed screens used to sample the sites. The sample size at Fort Rodd Hill was also large, although biased, which may account for the greater number of taxa represented. Data from Helen Point came from notes of species identified and from small samples collected in the field. Ironically, shellfish are more common than any other fauna and, in most cases, more common than any other site constituent, but are the most poorly reported taxon from Northwest Coast shell middens. Species list data provided some information on the environments exploited and general surroundings. Without' frequency data, however, even environmental inferences are highly tentative. Associations in the cluster analysis appear to be related more to sample size and collecting methods than with environment or subsistence. Chapter 10

Summary and Discussion Regional archaeological subsistence studies are difficult to perform in the Strait of Georgia because of the scarcity of suitable reports and the inconsistency of field methoas and reporting. However, a number of useful descriptions have been produced, particularly since the mid-1970's. While analyses containing frequency data and element identifications provide the best clues about prehistoric subsistence, species list data helped provide a general interpretation. Information from twenty-one Strait of Georgia sites containing various levels of information about the fauna recovered from the late prehi storic components were compared. To supplement the avai 1 able information, a portion of the Pender Canal site (DeRt 1) was excavated. Analysis of mammals at DeRt 1 showed that large mammals were heavily affected by carnivore chewing. Bones showed gnawing marks, and element frequencies of the assemblage were simil ar to those of carnivore modified assemblages (Binford and Bertram 1978, Kl i ppl e et a1 . 1987, Snyder 1988) . Fecal remains containing what appeared to be carnivore chewed bone were also recovered. Tool making also caused some attrition. The second most common mammal recorded at the site were canids. The frequency of immature bones and isolated deciduous teeth indicates that these were probably domesticated dogs. These were probably also the animals that did the chewing on the other bones. Bird remains were rare at Pender Canal, and were primarily water birds. Wing elements were most commonly recovered. The most common fish recovered were perch, herring, rockfish and true cods, while salmonids were rare. The presence of true cods and herring indicates at least some spring or summer occupations at the site. Some perches are also most accessible during this time. The analysis of column samples indicates that had a smaller meshed screen been used to bulk screen the midden, herring might have been the most commonly recovered fish. Shellfish were primarily rocky beach dwelling species. Occasional layers of urchin or urchin mixed with other shellfish supports the suggestion of a spring occupation, at least during the deposition of those 1eve1 s. Mammals were the most frequently analyzed animals in all Strait of Georgia sites. The only rodents which appeared to have been used for subsistence were beavers, muskrats and porcupines, but the remains were uncommon. Muskrats and porcupines were found only on mainland sites, but beavers do not seem to have been similarly restricted, and were more widely found. The most frequently identified carnivores were canids. As at Pender Canal, most other investigators concl uded that the remains were from domestic dogs. Cut marks on dog remains from two Strait of Georgia sites cast doubt on statements that dogs were not killed, nor eaten (Digance 1987, Montgomery 1979, Suttles 1974). Additional work on this subject is necessary for a better understanding of the re1 ationshi p between dogs and humans. Other carnivores recovered i ncl uded bears, raccoons and mustelids, however, these animals were not particularly numerous. In many sites, the ungulates were most common. As at Pender Canal, the assemblages at other Strait of Georgia sites showed element frequencies suggestive of carnivore modified assemblages. At each of the sites from which ungulate element frequencies could be examined, canid remains were common and at Esquimalt Lagoon and Semiahmoo Spit, canid bones outnumbered those from deer. On Vancouver Island and the island archipelago sites of the southern Strait of Georgia, deer outnumbered all other ungulates, but not on the mainland. Sites associated with the Fraser River Delta contained more wapiti elements than deer. On the northern side of Burrard Inlet, where mountain goats appeared in the assemblages, deer were again the most common ungulate. Sea mammals were not common in most Strait of Georgia sites. Harbor seal remains were found at all sites except Moore, Tait Farm and Georgeson Bay. At most of the sites in which they were found, seals were a minor component of the faunal assemblage except at Cattle Point, where it was the second most commonly identified mammal after deer, and Je kyl 1 ' s Lagoon, where seal i ncl uded five of the ten bones identified. This may be because of the proximity of Cattle Point to a seal haul-out beach. Belcarra Park showed a similar pattern. Sea lions were not so common except at Semiahmoo Spit and Fort Rodd Hill, where there were more northern sea lion remains than harbor seals. Only Belcarra Park had northern fur seal elements. Northern fur seals usually migrate off the outer coast of Washington and British Columbia in the spring and the fall. Small delphinids were the most common cetacean found. They were most commonly identified by ear bones or vertebral epiphyses at Pender Canal. Be1 carra Park, Cates Park, Semi ahmoo Spit , Montague Harbour and He1 en Point a1 so contained elements from these animals. A cluster analysis of the sites based on the presence or absence of mammal species produced two primary clusters. The first, including Pender Canal, Fort Rodd Hi1 1, Cowichan Bay, St. Mungo, Helen Point, Semiahmoo Spit, Montague Harbour and Cates Park, show greater variety in the taxa represented, and sample sizes tended to be larger. The second cluster, which was made up of the remaining sites, tended to have small assemblage sizes or the sampl ing methods were unknown, suggesting that perhaps screens were not used to col 1ect fauna. When the four most common mammals, excluding rodents and domestic animals, are compared from sites for which frequency data are available, the species which occur with greatest frequency are canids and deer, or wapiti on the mainland sites. In the smaller assemblages, the third and fourth most common animals were slightly more difficult to determine. The deer/canid/wapi ti combination is usually followed by or includes harbor seal or sea 1 ion (Pender Canal, Fort Rodd Hill, MacKay, Jekyllys Lagoon, Cattle Point, Semiahmoo Spit, St. Mungo, Belcarra, Cates Park), or a fur animal or carnivore (Esquimalt Lagoon, Helen Point, Moore, Crescent Beach 45 WH 9). For small assemblages, this might be because the animals providing the few bones do not accurately represent rank orders (Grayson 1979). In some of the larger assemblages, however, seal are not part i cul arl y common. Information about birds were examined in a way similar to that described for mammals. At all sites compared in the Strait of Georgia, water birds, including ducks, geese, loons, grebes, cormorants, alcids, and other paddling or diving birds were the most commonly identified birds. Fewer bird assembl ages were analyzed than were mammal assemblages, and of those, even fewer provided frequency data. Most of the water birds were winter species. The loons, grebes, cormorant, bay ducks, and sea ducks, tend to be winter residents, although some, generally juvenile birds, are found in the area during the summer. There are some permanent residents, and summer residents include the coot, and the cinnamon teal (Anas wanoptera). The presence of migratory waterfowl often helps with interpretations of season of site use. A single-linkage cluster analysis was conducted on the species list data for birds recovered from Strait of Georgia sites. Again, sites which were simil arly collected tended to cluster together, then geographic region appeared to affect the order in the cluster. The two sites which were most different from all other sites were Helen Point and Fort Rodd Hill. The only sites with assemblages large enough to 1ist the four most common birds are Helen Point, Fort Rodd Hill and Semiahmoo Spit.

Fort Rodd Hi11 and Helen Point are most similar. At Helen Point, the most common bird is the gull Larus qlaucescens, a permanent resident in the region. At Fort Rodd Hi 11 Larus sp. are common, and !-.- philadelphia was identified to species. This bird is present in the spring and 1ate summer/early fall. At Helen Point, the second most commonly identified species was Uria aalqe, the common murre, a winter resident. This was also common at Fort Rodd Hill. Grebes were common in both sites, and the loon was a typical bird at Helen Point. At Semiahmoo Spit the assemblage of identified species are winter or fall and winter animals and the common birds was included cormorants and loons. In the other sites, scoters or ducks dominate the assemblage, also suggesting occupations between the fall and winter. However, several of the assemblages are very small. If the sites were not occupied during population peaks they would tend to contain fewer winter species or have smaller bird assemblages. However, absence of evidence is tenuous ground to base a proposed season of occupation. Fish, if reported, tended to be abundant in Strait of Georgia sites. Of thirteen sites with data on fishes, eight had frequency information. In the cluster analysis, the most closely related sites, based only on fish species 1ist data were DcRt 1, Fort Rodd Hi 11 and Pender Canal . St. Mungo and Tai t ~ar: the riverine sites, differed most from a1 1 other sites in the cluster. These two sites contained fish not normally found el sewhere, including sturgeon. Tai t Farm had eulachon and neither sites had all the fish found in other sites, including true cod, perch or green1 ing. Salmonids were found in all sites, but they were not the most common fish in DcRt 1 and Pender Canal. In all other sites, they were overwhelmingly dominant. At Tsawwassen, the Oncorhvnchus sp. bones were associated with herring and flatfish. Herring are in the region from the late winter to early summer during spawning. the flatfish species identified was Platichtvs stellatus which is found in shallow waters from February to April during spawning. It may be that herring and flatfish are being taken during seasons that salmon are not running heavily, i.e. before the sockeye runs or after the chum, coho and pink salmon runs. At St. Mungo, Platichtvs stellatus were also recovered with sturgeon. The white sturgeon begins to move up river in the spring and summer during its own spawning migration. Herring are more frequently identified as a common species, usually only second to salmon. This was true for DcRt 1, Tsawwassen and Fort Rodd Hill. At Fort Rodd Hill, Gadus macrocephalus, the Pacific cod, is more accessible in the spring and summer when it rises to more shallow waters. The Pacific cod was also found associated with salmon at Esquimalt Lagoon. Gadidae were also associated with salmon at Helen Point. The second most common fish after salmonids at He Point and Cates Park, were rockfishes. The red Irish lord (Hemilepidotus hemilepidotus) was the most common fish at DcRt 1, but Oncorhvnchus sp. was the second most abundant fish. All sites with large numbers of salmonid remains had

384 other fish which would normally be most accessible in the late winter to the early summer (except Cates Park, which only had rockfish, and possibly Helen Point). Pender Canal had an assemblage unlike that for any other site reported. Salmonids were a minor constituent, and while herring were common, as at the other sites, the other most frequently identified fish were sea perch (Embiotocidae) and cods (particularly Merl uccius productus or the pacific hake). The data from all sites indicate at least a spring occupation. Crescent Beach did not have fish frequencies available, except as ratios, but flatfishes were most common followed by herring, then salmon. Again, herring were common, but different activities seems to have been taking place at the salmonid dominated sites. Salmonids at Crescent Beach were represented primarily by vertebrae, suggesting to Ham (1982) that dried salmon were brought to the site. The ethnographic and historic records are nearly monopolized by descriptions of the importance of salmonids. Evidence from Crescent Beach, Pender Canal and possibly DcRt 1 show that greater attention should be paid to the role of other fishes in prehistoric economies and seasonal subsistence strategies. These sites are not distant from seasonal salmon run routes. At Crescent Beach, Ham (1982:25) reported that the sockeye salmon run in July and August has historically been one of the most important economic resources in the bay, foll owed in November to May by cutthroat spawning runs. Steel head, coho and chum salmon move into the bay in the late summer and fall to spawn in the Nicomekl, Serpentine and Campbell Rivers adjacent to DgRr 1. DcRt 1 is at the southern tip of Vancouver Island, around which all salmon had to pass when returning by the southern route to the Fraser River or to the Puget Sound rivers. Nearby, Esquirnalt Lagoon and Fort Rodd Hill show no shortage of salmonid remains. DcRt 1, unlike the other two southern Vancouver Island sites, is in a bay which does not have a stream leading to a lake, yet salrnonids were still common. It is only at DeRt 1 that salmonids are rare, yet even here, salmonids are available. Easton (1985) identified an historic reef netting station in nearby Bedwell Harbour. While Pender Canal is not directly on a salmon migration route, salmon were historically caught off shore of Pender Canal by Cowi chan peopl e (Jenness n. d. ) . Salmon a1 so migrated around Pender Island on their way to Active Passage and Boundary Pass enroute to the Fraser River and its tributaries (Mitchell 1971). Evidence from these sites indicates that prehistorians may wish to reconsider assumptions about the primary subsistence pursuits at individual Strait of Georgia sites. The significance of fish other than salmon is underestimated in the ethnographic record, and as archaeol ogi cal recovery met hods improve, the importance of herring may become more apparent. The introduction of the commercial salmon fisheries between 1835 and 1900 formed the early focus of Coast Sal ish participation in the new monetary economy. Most Coastal Salish earned more money through this industry than any other enterprise in the early historic period. By 1900, they lost their jobs to cheaper labor brought in from outside, and by this time, they had also lost access to traditional fishing grounds. In the early 1900'~~ethnographers began

interviewing Sal ish people about traditional ways of 1ife. However, they had already experienced 70 years as participants in the commercial salmon fisheries, and it is not surprising that the ethnographies in turn focus on salmon fishing. Repeatedly, the importance of salmon is emphasized in the archaeological literature. Hill-Tout (1907) stated that salmon was the primary staple of the diet before trade (after noting that most, if not all of the salmon sold and eaten in England came from the Pacific Northwest). Suttles (1974) discussed salmon fishing separately from other fishing methods, stating that the salmonids were the most important source of food for the Straits people. Jenness (n.d.:17) state, "Salmon of one kind or another was the main food of the Saanich, as it was of all other Coast Sal ish Indians." This sentiment has been echoed by archaeologists, who have used the ethnographic data with little testing. More analyses of late prehistoric Coast Salish sites, and earlier sites, are needed to understand the role of other fishes in the economy. Shellfish remains were quantified only at Pender Canal and Crescent Beach. At Pender Canal, abundance was dependent on the

layer in which they were recovered. Generally, /---little neck "-..---clams

,were most common---- in .-the.* .---- upper - portion__p-"_l.r____I_..._-.--__I__--..." of the late prehistoric -

"-,,*-"- site,, .. and mussels in the lower levels. Both are component-- of- the- a"--..------.-- species associated with rocky beaches. ,Urchins, also a rocky coast inhabitant, were often found in the deposits, and indicate a late- _winter to spring exploitation of these animals. At Crescent Beach, cockles, horse clams, butter clams and oysters were the more common species. These animals prefer to live in or along mud and sand beaches although butter clams are also found in gravely and rocky beaches, mixed with sand. Knowledge of environments exploited can give indications of other species which were' available but do not leave direct evidence behind, such as sea cucumbers and other soft bodied invertebrates. Cross-sections of she1 1fish at Fort Rodd Hi1 1 indicate a spring to early summer exploitation of little neck and butter clams (Mitchell 1981). At Cates Park, a late summer through winter harvest of shell fish and a FebruaryIMarch shellfish use at Crescent Beach are indicated by cross-sectioned she1 1s. Menzi es (in : Newcombe 1923) reported that peopl e were col 1ect ing and processing clams in May and June. Suttles (1974:67) stated that shellfish could be gathered any time the tide was low, and some s he1 1f i s h were gathered year around. Most cl ams were col 1ected in .-.--- - ""--" "- I--_m - -- ,-".. --- the summer when they were processed and-~_reservedfor-Geewiinterr. Stern (1969:46) stated that people went to the clam beds after the sockeye season, where they stayed through September and October. Jenness (n.d. :7-8) stated that the Saanich gathered clams in September through November. Information from archaeological, historic and ethnographic sources may lead to the conclusion that some clams were collected year around, and that shell middens are not necessarily indicative of a particular season of occupation. Some sites seemed to cluster consistently with one another. Helen Point on Mayne Island, and Fort Rodd Hill on the southern tip of Vancouver Island, are in the same cluster in mammal assemblages, form their own distinct cluster for birds, and are adjacent in the shellfish cluster. It is only in the fish cluster that they are different. A greater variety of fishes are present at Fort Rodd Hill than at Helen Point. Pender Canal is also usually associated closely with Fort Rodd Hill in the cluster analyses. Like Fort Rodd Hill, Pender Canal has a wide variety of fishes, but unl i ke He1 en Point and Fort Rodd Hill, salmon are a minor component of the faunal assembl age. Main1 and sites do not always show such consistent associations. Tsawwassen, Crescent Beach and Belcarra Park tend to cluster for most fauna, a1 though the Tsawwassen fish assemblage did not cluster with the others. St. Mungo bird and fish assemblages clustered with the other mainland sites, but mammals do not. The greatest variation is in their shellfish collections. Cates Park does not cluster with the other mainland sites. Mammal, fish and shellfish assemblages of Cates Park and Montague Harbour have similar species present, but the bird assemblages are different. Cates Park might be expected to cluster with its neighbor, Belcarra Park, or other mainland sites, because they are in similar environments with similar available animals. The actual association of Cates Park with Montague Harbour may be re1 ated to sampl i ng, the occupying group, site use, or season of occupation, but without quantitative data from both sites the necessary information to make such an assessment is not available. Because of the variability in the way taxa were reported, it is difficult to consider the full complement of animals contained in the site. Information on the four major taxa, mammals, birds, fish and shell fish, were provided only for Fort Rodd Hill, Crescent Beach, Cates Park and Pender Canal. A cluster analysis was not performed on these data because the sites for which most fauna were completely described would appear to be the most similar. If canids, small rodents, and introduced species are removed, Helen Point and Fort Rodd Hill appear most sifiilar. In both, deer, wapiti, gulls,-*the

common murre, and----- loons were common. Sal_mo.~~dominatedthe assembl ages, and true c-a_~-(particul arly Gadus macrocephal us) were present. At Helen Point, r~kf~s~~a~-gee_'~lingwere prme_nJ, but at Fort Rodd Hi 11, herring were .more--common. Esquimal t Lagoon in similar to these sites. Although~dger~,~are~~most~~oPmm~,-m~ar~_e_~~~nd squirrel outnumber wapiti remains. Birds were not identified to ------taxon. The fish assemblage is very like Helen Point and Fort Rodd Hills except that dogfish is the second most common fish at Esquimalt Lagoon. All three sites have species indicative of a winter/spring/summer occupation. Birds are either winter or spring species, a1 though one gull found at Helen Point is a permanent resident. G. macrocephal us and herring are more accessi bl e whi 1e salmon pass through the straits in summer and fall during their migration to the Fraser River. Shellfish examined from Fort Rodd Hill indicate a spring to early summer exploitation of this resource. St. Mungo and Tsawwassen also show similarities. Despite the small assemblage size of Tsawwassen, it appears that deer and wapiti are common at both sites. Murres or loons are also common, and ducks dominate the assemblage. Again, Salmonidae are the most common fish, but flatfish are a1 so abundant in both assemblages. At Tsawwassen, herring were frequently identified, while at St. Mungo, sturgeon were numerous. Herring are most accessible in the late winter to early summer, and the white sturgeon move up the Fraser River in the spring and summer. These might have provided a1 ternative resources to supplement flatfish catches in the spring (February and March), between the main salmon runs. Ducks are most common from the fall through spring, and would have been attracted to the adjacent flatlands of the delta and shallow waters near Tsawwassen. Shellfish were not analyzed for seasonal information. In general, animal species present indicate at least a fall through spring occupation. Cates Park a1 so has deer and wapiti (followed by seal), and ducks dominate the bird assemblage, but rockfish are second to salmonids in abundance. This is may be because the fish assemblage was incompletely analyzed (Will iams in: Char1 ton 1974). Inspection of mollusc growth-rings indicated a later summer through winter occupation, which is consistent with the overwhelming dominance of salmonid elements, and the presence of ducks and scoters. Crescent Beach and Pender Canal were most different from the others because of the fish assemblages. At Crescent Beach flatfish and herring dominated. The few salmonid bones consisted of vertebral elements, indicating that only dried or processed fish were brought to the site. Analysis of the incremental growth lines of molluscs suggests a February/March period of exploitation. In other ways, Crescent Beach resemble the St. Mungo/Tsawwassen association. It may be that the Crescent Beach assemblage represents a shorter term occupation before or after the salmon runs. Pender Canal differs from the other sites for which there is complete information. Like the other sites, deer dominate the mammal i an faunal assembl age, a1 though harbor seal and delphinids are slightly more common, which is similar to the San Juan Island sites and possibly Belcarra Park. Harbor seals are found at most sites. Ducks and scoters are also common in the avian assemblage, like the other Strait of Georgia sites. It is the fish assemblage which is most unique, separating Pender Canal from the other sites. Like other assemblages from the Gulf Islands and Vancouver Island, true cods, in this case Merluccius ~roductus,and herring are common, but perch is the dominant species, not salmonids. Vertebrae were the primary salmonid elements recovered. Like Crescent Beach, the Pender Canal assemblage could represent short term, late winter to spring or summer occupations before the salmon runs. The basic pattern of subsistence described for the southern Northwest Coast in the ethnographic record appears to be supported by the archaeological data but with some discrepancies. Deer and wapiti were the most frequently identified land mammals, and as Suttles (1974:82) a1 so noted, small 1and mammals were virtually ignored. This included the minor contribution of fur animals to archaeological sites. There is not enough evidence to date to determine the season of hunting, although the materials are available in storage to determine this. It appears that deer remains were not so carefully guarded from dog gnawing as was stated by ~arnett(1955:106), rather evidence of carnivore gnawing was commonly found on archaeological deer bones. Wapiti were reported by Barnett (1955:98) to be a staple only on Vancouver Island, yet wapiti remains dominated Fraser River Delta site mammal assembl ages, but not on Vancouver Is1 and. Wapiti were also hunted on the Gulf and San Juan Islands. The predominance of ungulates in the sites supports statements that deer and wapiti were staple foods for people living in the Strait of Georgia area. Fur bearers and carnivores other than dogs, do not appear to have been hunted frequently. In historic components of some sites the number of fur bearers increases markedly. Their importance seems to have increased with the introduction of European fur trade. Dogs were the only animal reported to have been locally domesticated. Butchering marks on some animals indicate that perhaps not all were kept as pets, hunting animals, or wool dogs. Dogs may have been eaten as food, contradicting statements by Suttles (1974). the role of this domesticate in prehistoric economies is not well known, and requires further study. A1 though Suttl es (1974: 106) stated that porpoises and seal s were hunted regularly, he said, "The relative importance of sea hunting was probably greater than the amount of data I have would indicate." The archaeological evidence shows that seal or porpoise remains were usually a minor component of the mammal assemblages. Even in sites in which seals were the second or third most common mammal identified, they were usually a distant second or third, behind the ungulates. Evidence of sea mammal hunting was probably lacking in Suttles' (1974) research because it was not so important as was expected. There was no evidence of whale hunting, supporting Suttles' (1974) and Barnett's (1955:92) statements. Analysis of bird assemblages confirmed Suttles' (1974), Jenness' (n.d.), and Stern's (1969) statements that ducks or waterfowl were the most important birds. At Helen Point and Fort Rodd Hill, gulls, murres, and loons also seemed important and at Semiahmoo Spit cormorants were common. These birds, except the gulls, were probably included with ducks in a larger category of diving birds (Suttles 1974:126), and were caught in the same fashion. Land or forest birds were not important contributors to the faunal assemblages nor was there much information on them in the ethnographic record. Salmon occupy most of the attention in ethnographic records, and there is no question these were important animals, yet other fishes made 1arge contributions to the assemblages. It is sometimes difficult to determine from ethnographic accounts whether true cods are being discussed or if fish such as rockfish, or lingcod, which are locally known as "cods," are being referred to. Suttles (1974:124) stated that true cods were not ordinarily taken by Straits Salish, yet they were the third or fourth most commonly identified species at Pender Canal, Esquimalt Lagoon, Helen Point and Fort Rodd Hill. Jenness (n.d. :6) stated that cod were fished in the winter and spring, but elsewhere his descriptions of cod behavior seemed more like that of lingcod (Jenness n.d.:16). On the island archipelago and southern Vancouver Island, Gadidae appear to have been more important than along the mainland shores, or more than is indicated in the ethnographic record. Other fish described in ethnographic 1i terature include perches, greenling, lingcod, flounder, dogfish, sturgeon, rockfish, herring, eul achon and skates (Suttl es 1974, Jenness n .d., Barnett 1955, Stern 1969). Two fish that were described in the ethnographic literature, but did not appear in the archaeological record, were smelt and ha1 i but. The lack of smelt might be caused by the large screen sizes used to sample many of the sites. If they were present, the small bones probably fell through the mesh, or the bones could have been originally eaten along with the fish, and the evidence was long ago digested. Halibut were reported to have been caught north of Orcas, and near Mayne, Prevost and North Pender Islands (Stern 1969, Barnett 1955). Jenness (n.d.:16) stated that the Saanich fished for this species using a bent wooden hook. Suttl es (1974: 114) recorded, "Halibut were once numerous on banks off the southern shore of Vancouver Island and in Haro and Rosario Straits. After salmon they were probably the most important fish for all Straits groups except the Semiahmoo."

Halibut were not recorded from any of the Strait of Georgia sites, which directly contradicts the historic and ethnographic record. The absence of halibut may reflect a bias in the kinds of sites being excavated, the results of a destructive process such as the bones being ingested or discarded, or the recent adoption of a fishing practice from neighboring groups. Hal i but fishing was a1 so introduced as a commercial enterprise after European contact and ethnographic records may again be recording early commercial fishing activities. It is apparent from these discussions that there are some inconsistencies between the ethnographic record and the archaeological evidence. The most serious differences appear to be between the descriptions of fishing activities and the fish assemblages. The discrepancies suggest that there was a change in the role of certain species in the Coast Salish economy from before contact to the historic period, possibly associated with the commercial fishing industry. It is also possible that archaeologists are only excavating sites associated with certain subsistence activities and the full range of behaviors is not being sampled. The near absence of certain fish species, such as the true cods and sculpins, in the ethnographic accounts also probably reflects the current lack of economic importance for these species. The focus on salmonids in the Northwest Coast literature has obscured the contribution of other animals which apparently had a large part in the subsistence of prehistoric Coast Sal ish people. During the course of conducting the comparisons among the faunal assemblages recovered from Strait of Georgia sites, it became clear that archaeologists are contributing largely to the perceived patterns of regional subsistence. In cluster analyses, sites which had small assemblage sizes, were incompletely analyzed, or were not screened, tended to be grouped together because only large and common species were present, and assembl age vari abi 1i ty was reduced. These sorts of clusters probably do not indicate that real site activities or seasons of occupation were actually similar in those sites. Screen size a1 so served to sort species in the assemblages. Where small meshed screens were used, a larger variety of species were found in the assemblages. Muckle's (1985) work at Pender Canal showed that 114-i nch (6.4-mm) mesh screens were inadequate for sampl ing easily friable shellfish such as mussels. Small molluscs brought up with seaweeds, indicative of site activities, were more 1i kely to be recovered in sites using screens smaller than 114-inch (6.4-mm), or in column samples screened through small meshed, nested screens. Small fish, such as herring were better represented at sites where column samples or small-meshed screens were used, and small rodents and insectivores, which provide information on site disturbance and environment, were also more 1i kely to be collected in these screens. In those sites in which smaller meshed screens had been used, it appeared that a wider range of prehistoric activities had occurred because there was greater diversity in the faunal assemblage. These sites were not necessarily more complex, but provided more information because of the greater faunal diversity, and tended to cluster separately in analyses. Archaeologi sts may a1 so have a1 tered faunal assembl ages by removing elements believed to have cultural significance in addition to subsistence. At Pender Canal, shellfish such as the weathervane scallop, other small scallops, and dentalia, were classified as artifacts. This was probably a similar practice at other sites, although these species were occasionally identified as faunal remains. Bone tools were also removed and not studied by zooarchaeol ogi sts. Lugg (1986) reported that deer and wapiti metapodials, ribs, ulnae, tibiae and radii were used as material for artifacts. The removal of these items to the artifact assemblage from the faunal assemblage reduces the number of identified faunal specimens and information about the source of element patterning. Chi sholm (1986) sampled human bone col 1agen for stab1e-carbon isotopic analyses from remains at DeRt 1 and DeRt 2 at Pender Canal,

DfRs 3 on the Fraser River Delta, DfRu 42 on Vancouver Island, DfRu 8 or Helen Point on Mayne Island, DgRr 1 or Crescent Beach, DgRs 1 or Beach Grove, DhRr 6 or Belcarra Park, and DgRr 2 or St. Mungo.

-...---"percent (Chi.,...,. sholm . 1986: 123). The high proportion of marine protein is not surprising considering the 1arge numbers of fishes and shellfish being recovered from the sites. It is difficult to compare the relative contribution of major taxa (e.g. mammals, birds, fish, she1 1fish) from zooarchaeol ogical analyses, and Chi sholm's (1986) research indicates that land animals were providing a greater proportion of protein on the Fraser River Delta than in the Gulf Is1 ands. Chisholm (1986: 109) a1 so suggested that the values were different because shellfish from the Fraser River Delta beaches "were isotopically lighter due to the presence of terrestrial biogenic carbon in the river outwash, and were eaten in sufficient quantity as to bias the human results." The apparently greater terrestri a1 protein consumption in the Helen Point sample, when compared with other Gulf Island samples is puzzling. Chisholm (1986:107-108) suggested that DfRu 8 was used by people who lived on the Fraser River Delta as part of their seasonal round. Because of quantification problems in zooarchaeol ogy the contribution of different kinds of animals to the diet cannot by accurately assessed. Stable-carbon and other isotopic analyses can help provide some of that information, yet isotopic analysis cannot identify the species used to feed people, or the season, site use, or seasonal rounds. The combination of the two approaches can provide powerful data about prehistoric diets. There are some discrepancies and omissions when the ethnographic record and the zooarchaeological record are compared for the late prehistoric subsistence of the Strait of Georgia. This does not mean that the ethnographic record should not be used, but that it should be used cautiously. To determine better the extent of these differences, more sites need to be carefully excavated and analyzed. It is assumed that the greater the distance in time and space an archaeological culture is from those of the ethnographic record, the greater the differences between those cultures will be. Earlier prehistoric phases should show greater inconsistencies between the historic ethnographic record and the zooarchaeological data, provided recovery and analytical methods are consistent. Only by thoroughly understanding subsistence patterns using all available data, including fauna, isotopic analysis and ethnographies, can we hope to interpret accurately prehistoric Northwest Coast cultural adaptation and changes. Appendix 1

Harris Diagrams for Unit 18, DeRt 1

References Cited

Arcas Associates 1988. Detailed impact assessment, Archaeological Site DgRs 2, Tsawwassen, B. C. Arcas Associates, Port Moody, British Col umbi a. Albright, Rich, Ron Hirschi, Ron Vanbianchi and Claire Vita 1980a. Coastal Zone Atlas of Washington: Urban, agriculture, nonforested up1 ands, forest, water, V.01 ume 1. Department of Ecology, State of Washington, Olympia. Pp. 1-447. 1980b. Coastal Zone At1 as of Washington: Wet1 ands, exposed and other 1ands, appendices, gl ossary, index, Vol urne 2. Department of Ecology, State of Washington, Olympia. Pp. 448-887. Allen, J. and J.B.M. Guy 1984. Optimal estimations of individuals in archaeological faunal assemblages: how minima1 is the MNI? Archaeology in Oceania 19(2):41-47. Angel 1, Tony and Kenneth C. Bal comb I11 1982. Marine birds and mammals of Puget Sound. University of Washington Press, Seattle. Ball, Bruce F. and Peter T. Bobrowsky. 1987. Cost effectiveness and time management evaluation of intensive recovery techniques. Canadian Journal of Archaeology 11 :75-97. Banfield, A.W.F. 1974. The mammals of Canada. University of Toronto Press, Toronto. Bancroft, Hubert Howe 1884. The works of Hubert Howe Bancroft; Volume 27, History of the Northwest Coast, Vol urne 1 ; 1543-1800. A. L. Bancroft and Company, San Francisco. 1887. The works of Hubert Howe Bancroft: Volume 32, History of British Col umbi a 1792-1887. The Hi story Company, Pub1 i shers, San Francisco. Barnett, Homer G. 1955. The Coast Sal ish of British Columbia. University of Oregon, Eugene. Behrensmeyer, Anna K. 1978. Taphonomi c and ecol ogic information from bone weathering. Pal eobi 01 ogy 4(2) :150-162. Bekoff, Marc. 1982. Coyote: Canis latrans In: Wild Mammals of North America: Bi 01 ogy, management, economics. Joseph A. Chapman and George A. Feldhamer, eds. The Johns Hopkins University Press. Baltimore. Pp. 447-459. Bellairs, A. dYA. and C. R. Jenkin 1960. The skeleton of birds. In: Biology.and Comparative Physiology of Birds, Volume 1. A. J. Marshall, ed. Academic Press, New York. Bellrose, Frank C. 1976. Ducks, Geese and Swans of North America. Stackpole Books, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.

Binford, Lewis R. 1978. Nunamiut Ethnoarchaeology. Academic Press, N.Y. 1981. Bones: ancient men and modern myths. Academic Press, N.Y. Binford, Lewis R. and Jack B. Bertram 1977. Bone frequencies - and attritional processes. In: For theory building in archaeolgy: essays on faunal remains, aquatic resources, spati a1 analysis, and systemic model ing, Lewis R. Binford, ed. Academic Press, New York. Pp. 77-153. Binford, Sally R. 1968. Variabil ity and change in the Near Eastern Mousterian of Levellois facies. In: New Perspectives in Archeology, Sally R. Binford and Lewis R. Binford, eds. Aldine Publishing Co., Chicago. Pp.49-60. Bl ac kl aws, Richard W. 1979. Excavations at Esquimal t Lagoon: a contribution to Straits Salish prehistory. M.A. Thesis, Simon Fraser University, ,x Burnaby, British Columbia. Bl uki s-Onat, Astrida 1985. The multifunctional use of shellfish remains: from garbage to community engineering. Northwest Anthropological Research Notes 19(2):201-207. Boehm, Sheila Gay. 1973. Cultural and non-cultural variation in the artifact and faunal samples from the St. Mungo Cannery Site, B.C., DgRr2. i M.A. Thesis, University of Victoria, Victoria, British Columbia. Borden, Charles E. 1975. Origins and development of early Northwest Coast culture to about 3000 BC. National Museum of Man Mercury Series, Archaeological Survey of Canada, Paper No. 45. Ottawa. Boucher, Nicole Diane. 1976. Prehistoric subsistence at the Helen Point Site. M.A. Thesis, Department of Archaeology, Simon Fraser University, ' ': Burnaby, British Columbia. Bourget, Andre and Gi 1 es Chapdel ai ne 1982. Diving by wintering puddle ducks. wildfowl 33:55-57. Boxberger, Daniel L. 1988. In and out of the labor force: the Lummi Indians and the development of the commercial salmon fishery of Northern Puget Sound 1800-1900. Ethnohistory 35(2):161-190. Boyd, H.J. 1964. Swimming and diving. In: A New Dictionary of Birds. A. Lands borough Thomson, ed. Nel son, London. Pp. 795-797. Brain, C.K. 1980. Some criteria for the recognition of bone-coll ecti ng agencies in African Caves. In: Fossils in the Making: Vertebrate taphonomy and paleoecology, Anna K. Behrensmeyer and Andrew P. Hill, eds. University of Chicago, Chicago. Pp. 107- 130. 1981. The Hunters or the hunted? An introduction to African cave taphonomy. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Bryan, Alan L. 1957. Results and interpretations of recent archaeological research in Western Washington with circum-boreal implications. Davidson Journal of Anthropology 3(1):1-16. Bryson, R.A. and F. Kenneth Hare 1974. The Clfmates of North America. In: Climates of North America, World Survey of Climatology, Volume 11. Reid A. Bryson and F. Kenneth Hare, ed. Elsevier Scientific Pub1 ishing Company, Amsterdam. Pp. 1-47. Bullock, Andrea E. 1990. Fine fraction sieving for fish remains. Poster presented at the 6th International conference of the International Council of Archaeozoologists, May 21-25, 1990. Bunn, Henry T., Laurence E. Bartram and El 1en M. Kroll . 1988. Vari abi 1 i ty in bone assemblage formati on from Hadza hunting, scavenging and carcass processing. Journal of Anthropological Archaeol ogy 7:412-457. Burley, David V. II 1980. Marpol e: Anthropological reconstructions of a prehistoric Northwest Coast Culture type. Department of Archaeology Publication No. 8, Simon Fraser University Burnaby, British , I Col umbi a. I I Burns, Ted. 1985. Coastal cutthroat trout in British ~olumbia. Folder I prepared by the British Columbia Fish and Wildlife Branch. I Province of British Columbia, Victoria. Burt, William H. and Richard P. Grossenheider. 1976. A field guide to the mammals, 3rd ed. (The Peterson Field Guide Series). Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston. Butler, Virginia L. 1987. Distinguishing natural from cultural salmonid deposits in the Pacific Northwest of North America. In: Natural Formation Processes and the Archaeological Record. D.T. Nash and M.D. Petraglia, eds. B.A.R. International series, 352. Oxford. Pp. 131-149.

Butzer, Karl W. 1982. Archaeology as Human Ecology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K. 1980. Context in Archaeology: an a1 ternative perspective. Journal of Field Archaeology 7 (4) :4l7-422. Carefoot, Thomas 1977. Pacific seashores: a guide to intertidal ecology. J.J. Douglass Ltd., Vancouver. Carl, G. Clifford and C.J. Guiguet 1972. Alien animals of British Columbia, 2nd ed. British Columbia Provincial Museum, Victoria, British Columbia. Carl son, Catherine 1979. The early component at Bear Cove. Canadian Journal of Archaeology 3:177-194. Carl son, Roy L. 1954. Archaeological investigations in the San Juan Island. M.A. Thesis, University of Washington, Seattle. 1960. Chronology and culture change in the San Juan Islands, Washington. American Antiquity 25(4) :562-586. 1970. Excavations at Helen Point on Mayne Island. BC Studies 6/7:113-123. 1983a. Method and theory in Northwest Coast archaeology. In: The evolution of Maritime cultures on the Northeast and the Northwest Coasts of America. Ronald J. Nash, ed. Department of Archaeology, Publication No. 11. Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C.. Pp. 27-39. 1983b. Prehistory of the Northwest Coast. In: Indian Art Traditions of the Northwest Coast, Roy L. Carlson, ed. Archaeology Press, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C. 1985. Excavations at DeRt 2. In: The 1984 Excavations at the Canal Site (DeRt 1 and DeRt 2), edited by Roy L. Carl son, Department of Archaeology, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C.. 1986. Excavations at DeRt 1. In: The 1985 Excavations at the Canal . Site (DeRt 1 and DeRt 2), edited by Roy L. Carl son, Department of Archaeology, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby,B.C.. / 1990. Personal Communication. Professor, Department of Archaeology, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, British Columbia. Carril lo, Richard F. 1977. Archaeological variability - sociocultural variability. In: Research strategies in historical archaeology, Stan1 ey South, ed. Academic Press, N.Y. Pp.73-89.

Casteel, Richard W. 1970. Core and Col umn Sampl i ng . American Antiquity 35(4) :465-467. 1971. Differenti a1 bone destruction: some comments. American Antiquity 36(4):466-469 1972. Some biases in the recovery of archaeological faunal remains. Proceedings of the prehistoric society 36:382-388. 1976a. Comparison of column and whole unit samples for recovering fish remains. World Archaeology 8(2) :192-196. 1976b. Fish remains from Glenrose. In: The Glenrose Cannery Site, R.G. Matson, ed. National Museum of Man, Mercury Series, Paper No. 52, Ottawa, Ontario. Pp. 82-87. ?/ Chap1 in, Raymond E. 1971. The study of animal bones from archaeological sites. Seminar Press, London. Charlton, Arthur Sydney 1974. Archaeological investigations at the Cates Park Site (DhRr 8). Submitted to the Archaeological Site advisory board of British Columbia, Victoria, B.C. 1977. The archaeology of the Belcarra Park Site: a contribution to Strait of Georgia prehistory. M.A. Thesis, Department of Archaeology, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, British Col umbia. 1980. The Belcarra Park Site. Department of Archaeology, Pub1 icati on Number 9. Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, British Col umbi a. Char1 ton, Thomas H. 1981. Archaeology, ethnohistory and ethnology: interpretive interfaces. In: Advances in archaeological method and theory, vol. 4, Michael B. Schiffer, ed. Academic Press, New York. Pp. 129-176. Chisholm, Brian S. 1986. Reconstruction of Prehistoric Diet in British Columbia using Stable-Carbon Isotopic analysis results. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Archaeology, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C. Clason, A.T., and W. Prummel 1977. Collecting, Sieving and Archaeozoological Research. Journal of Archaeological Science 4(2):171-175. Clifford, Carl G. and C.J. Guiget. 1972. A1 ien Animals of British Columbia, 2nd ed. (Handbook 14). British Columbia Provincial Museum, Victoria. Coady, John W. 1982. Moose: Alces alces. In: Wild Mammals of North America: bi 01 ogy, management, economics. Joseph A. Chapman and George A. Feldhamer, eds. The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore. Pp. 902-922.

Cobb, John N. 1911. The salmon fisheries of the Pacific Coast. Bureau of Fisheries Document No. 751. Department of Commerce and Labor, Washington, D.C. Cook, S.F., and A.E. Treganza 1947. The Quantitative Investigation of Aboriginal Sites: Cornparat i ve Physical and Chemical Analysis of Two Cal i fornia Indian Mounds. American Antiquity 13(2):135-141.

Cook, Warren L. 1973. Flood tide of the empire: Spain and the Pacific Northwest, 1543-1819. Yale Univerity Press, New Haven. Cowan, Ian McTaggart and Charles J. Guiguet. 1978. The Mammals of British Columbia, 7th ed. British Columbia Provincial Museum, Victoria. Craighead, John J. and John A. Mitchell. 1982. Grizzly Bear: Ursus arctos. In: Wild Mammals of North America: biology, management, economics. Joseph A. Chapman and George A. Feldhamer, eds. The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore. Pp. 515-556. Crozier, S. Neal 1981. Analysis and interpretation of archaeological soils. British Columbia Provincial Museum No. 22, Occasional Papers Series, British Columbia Provincial Museum, Victoria. $ Curtis, Edward S. 1970. The North American Indian: Salishan Tribes of the Coast, Volume 9. Johnson Reprint Corporation, N.Y. (original 1913) Department of Fisheries of Canada, and the Fisheries Research Board. 1956. The commercial fisheries of Canada. Royal Commission on Canada's economic Prospects. Ottawa.

Digance, Avrom M. 1987. Canid remains from the Canal Sites. In: Studies of Faunal Remains from the Pender Canal excavations DeRt 1 and DeRt 2. Roy L. Carlson, ed. Report to the Heritage Conservation Branch. Department of Archaeology, Simon Fraser University. Pp. 101- 120. Dri very Jonathan C . 1982. Minimum standards for reporting animal bones in archaeology: Southern Alberta as a case study. In: Directions in archaeology: a question of goals, Peter D. Frances and Eric C. Poplin, eds. The Archaeological Association of the University of Calgary, Calgary. Pp. 199-209. Drucker, Philip 1955. Indians of the Northwest Coast. Natural History Press, Garden City, New York. Duff, Wilson n.d. Untitled Paper. Ms. on file at the Royal British Columbia Museum, Victoria, B.C. 1961. Indians of the Gulf Islands. In: A Gulf Islands Patchwork. Gulf Is1 ands Branch, B.C. Historical Association. Pp. 1-5. 1969. The Indian History of British Columbia: The impact of the White Man, volume 1, 2nd ed. Anthropology in British Columbia, Memoir No. 5, Provincial Museum of British Columbia, Victoria, British Columbia. Easterbrook, D. J. 1976. Quaternary Geology of the Pacific Northwest. In: Quaternary Stratigraphy of North America. Dowden, Hutchinson and Ross, Inc. Stroudsburg, Pennsyl vi ani a. Pp. 441-462. i Easton, Norman 1985. The underwater archaeology of Straits Salish reef-netting. M.A. Thesis. University of Victoria, Victoria, British Col umbi a. Efremov, J.A. 1940. Taphonomy: a new branch of paleontology. Pan-American Geologist 74(2) :81-93. Eldridge, Morl ey 1985. 1984 archaeological excavations at St. Mungo Cannery: DgRr2. Report prepared for the Heritage Conservation Branch, Victoria, x British Columbia. Ericson, Per G.P. 1987. Interpretations of archaeological bird remains: a taphonomic approach. Journal of Archaeological Science 14(1):65-75. Erl andson, Jon. 1989. On reconstructing diets from Cal ifornia she1 1 middens. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, At1 anta, Georgia. Eronen, Matti, Tuovi Kankainen, and Matsuo Tsukada 1987. Late Holocene sea-level record in a core from the Puget Low1 and, Washington . Quaternary Research 27(2) :147-159. Eschmeyer, Wi 11 i am N. and Earl S. Herald 1983. A field guide to Pacific Coast fishes of North America from the Gulf of Alaska to Baja California. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston. Evans, John G. 1972. Land Snails in Archaeology: With Special Reference to the British Is1 es. Seminar Press, London. Fladmark, Knut R. 1975. A Pal eoeconol ogi cal Model for Northwest Coast Prehistory. National Museum of Man Mercury Series, Paper No. 43. National Museums of Canada, Ottawa. 1982. An introduction to the prehistory of British Columbia. Canadian Journal of Archaeology 6:95-156. Flora, Char1 es J. and Eugene Fairbanks 1977. The Sound and the Sea: a guide to Northwestern neritic invertebrate zoology. The Washington State Department of Printing, Olympia, Washington. Ford, Pamela J. 1987. Native Gulf of Georgia subsistence and European contact: can we detect culture change in shells and bones? Paper presented at the 20th Annual meeting of the Canadian Archaeological Association, Calgary, A1 berta. 1988. ,Faunal remains at British Camp, San Juan Island, where 'seasonality' is an ethnographic term. Paper presented at the Annual meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, Phoenix, May 1, 1988. 1989. Archaeological and ethnographic correl ates of seasonal i ty: problems and solutions on the Northwest Coast. Canadian Journal of Archaeology 13: 133-150. Furilla, R.A. and David R. Jones 1987. Cardiac responses to dabbling and diving in the mallard, Anas pl atvrhvnchos. Physiological Zoology 60(4) :406-412. Gal di kas-Brindamour, Bi rute 1972. Faunal materi a1 from eight archaeological sites: a prel imi nary report. In : Sal vage ' 71 : Reports on Sal vage Archaeol ogy undertaken in Bri tish Col umba in 1971. Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C. Pp. 199-205. Garvin, Richard 1987. Vertebrate Remains and Stratigraphic Zone Correlations at the Pender Canal Sites, DeRt-1 and DeRt-2. In: Studies of Faunal Remains from the Pender Canal Excavations DeRt 1 and DeRt 2, edited by Roy L. Carl son. A Report to the Heritage Conservation / Branch, Parliament Building, Victoria, British Columbia, f Department of Archaeology, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C.. Gaston, J. and G.F. Grabert. 1975. Salvage archaeology at Birch Bay Washington. Department of Sociology and Antrhopol ogy, Western Washington State Coll ege, Be1 1 ingham, Washington. Gifford, Diane P. 1981. Taphonomy and paleoecology: a critical review of archaeology's sister disciplines. In: Advances in tK Archaeological method and theory, Vol . 14, Michael 0. Schiffer, ed. Academic Press, New York. Gifford-Gonzalez, Diane P., David B. Damrosch, Debra R. Damrosch, John Pryor and Robert L. Thunen. 1985. The third dimension in site structure: an experiment in tramp1 i ng and vertical dispersal . Ameri can Antiquity 50(4) :803- 818. Gi 1bert ,' A1 1 an S. and Burton H. Singer. 1982. Reassessing zooarchaeological quantification. World Archaeology 14(1) :21-40. Goddard, Pl i ny Earl e. 1924. Indians of the Northwest Coast. American Museum of Natural History, New York. Godfrey, W. Earl 1986. The birds of Canada, revised edition. National Museums of Canada, Ottawa.

Gordon, Claire C. and Jane E. Buikstra 1981. Soil pH, bone preservation, and sampling bias at mortuary sites. American Antiquity 46(3):566-571. Gould, Richard A. and Patty Jo Watson 1982. A dialogue on the meaning and use of analogy in ethnoarchaeol ogical reasoning. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 1 :355-381.

Grabert, G. F., Jacki A. Cressman and Anne Wolverton 1978. Prehistoric Archaeology at Semiahmoo Spit, Washington: A report on Salvage archaeology at 45WH17. Department of Anthroplogy, Reports in Archaeology No. 8, Western Washington University, Bell ingham.

Graumlich, Lisa J, and Linda B. Brubaker 1986. Reconstruction of annual temperature (1590-1979) for Longmi re, Washington, derived from tree rings. Quaternary Research 25(2) :223-234. Grayson, Donald K. 1978. Minimum numbers and sample size in vertebral faunal analysis. American Antiquity 43(1):53-65.

1979. On the quantification of vertebrate archaeofaunas. In: Advances in archaeological method and theory, vol. 2, Michael B. Schiffer, ed. Academic Press, Inc., N.Y. Pp. 199-237

1984. Quantitative zooarchaeology: topics in the analysis of archaeological faunas. Academic Press, Inc., Orlando. Greenwood, Robert a S. 1961. Quantitative Analysis of Shells from a site in Goleta, California. American Antiquity 26(3):416-420. Grey, Wini fred 1961. Extracts from Winifred Grey's Diary. In: A Gulf Islands Patchwork. Gulf Is1 ands Branch, B.C. Historical Association. Pp. 72-80. Grigson, Caroline 1978. Towards a blueprint for animal bone reports in archaeology. In: Research Problems in Zooarchaeology, D.R. Brothwell, K.D. Thomas and Juliet Clutton-Brock, eds. Institute of Archaeology, Occasional Paper No. 3, London. Pp. 121-128. Groot, C. and T.P. Quinn 1987. Homing migration of sockeye salmon, 0nchorh.vnchus nerka, to the Fraser River. Fishery Bull etin 85(3) :455-469. Guiguet, C.J. 1973. Birds of British Columbia: the owls. Handbook No. 18. British Columbia Provincial Museum, Victoria, B.C. Haggarty, James C. and John H.W. Sendy 1976. Test excavations at the Georgeson Bay Site, Gulf of Georgia region, British Columbia. Occasional Papers of the British Columbia Provincial Museum, No. 19, British Columbia Provincial Museum, Victoria. Ham, Leonard 1982. Seasonal ity, she1 1 midden 1 ayers, and Coast Sal ish subsistence activities at the Crescent Beach Stie, DgRr 1. Ph.D. dissertation, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia.

1987. An archaeological heritage resource overview of Richmond, B.C. Report submitted to the Richmond Heritage Advisory Committee, Richmond Museum, Richmond, British Columbia. Hamilton, J.T. 1961. Cattle Ranges and Sheep Runs. In: A Gulf Islands Patchwork. Gulf Islands Branch, B.C. Historical Association. Pp. 125-127. Hanson, Diane K. 1985. Faunal Material from DeRt 1 and DeRt 2. In: The 1984 Excavations at the Canal Site (DeRt 1 and DeRt 2), edited by Roy L. Carl son, Department of Archaeology, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B. C. 1986. Faunal Material from the Pender Canal Excavations of 1984 and 1985. In: The 1985 Excavations at the Canal Site (DeRt 1 and DeRt 2), edited by Roy L. Carlson, Department of Archaeology, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C. 1987. Faunal material from the Pender Canal Site. In: Studies of faunal remains from the Pender Canal excavations DeRt 1 and DeRt 2, edited by Roy L. Carlson, Department of Archaeology, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C. Hare, P.E. 1980. Organic geochemistry of bone and its relation to the survival of bone in the natural environment. In: Fossils in the Making : Vertebrate Taphonomy and Pal eoecol ogy, Anna K. Behrensmeyer and Andrew P. Hill, eds. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Pp. 208-219. Harris, Edward C. 1975. The stratigraphic sequence: a question of time. World Archaeology 7(1) :109-121. 1979a. The 1aws of archaeological stratigraphy. World Archaeology ll(1): 111-117. 1979b. Principles of archaeological stratigraphy. Academic Press, London. Harrison, Jeffery G. 1953. Skull pneumaticity in wildfowl in relation to their mode of life. Annual Report of the Wildfowl Trust 9:193-196. 1964. Pneumatisation of Bone. In: A New Dictionary of Birds, A. Landsborough Thomson, ed . Nel son, London. Pp. 649-650. Hart, J.L. 1980. Pacific fishes of Canada. Fisheries Research Board of Canada, Bulletin 180. Minister of supply and services Canada, Ottawa. Hassan, Fekri A. 1978. Sediments in Archaeology: Methods and implications for paleoenvironmental and cultural anal~sis. Journal of Field Archaeology 5(2) :197-213. i( Haynes, Gary 1982. Uti 1 ization and skeletal disturbances of North American prey carcasses. Arctic 35(2):266-281. 1983. A guide for differentiating mammalian carnivore taxa responsible for gnaw damage to herbivore limb bones. Paleobiology 9(2) :164-172.

Hessel ton, Wi 11 i am T. and RuthAnn Monson Hessel ton. 1982. White-tailed deer: Odocoileus virsinianus. In: Wild mammals of North America: biology, management, economics. Joseph A. Chapman, and George A. Feldhamer, eds. The Johns Hopkins University Press. Baltimore. Pp. 878-901. Hester, James J., and Kathryn J. Conover 1970. Ecological Sampling of Middens on the Northwest Coast. Northwest Anthropological Research Notes 4(1):137-152.

Hester, Thomas R., Robert F. Heizer, and John A. Graham 1975. Field Methods in Archaeology. 6th ed. Mayfield Publishing Company, Pal o A1 to, Cal i fornia.

Hicock, S.R. and J.E. Armstrong / 1985. Vashon drift: definition of the formation in the Georgia \( Depression, southwest British Col umbi a. Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences 22:748-757.

Hill, Andrew P. 1976. On carnivore and weathering damage to bone. Current Anthropology 17(2) :335-336. Hill-Tout, C. 1907. The Native races of the British empire: British North America, I., the Far West: the home of the Sal i sh and Dene. Archibald Constable and Company, Ltd., London. Hobler, Philip M. 1985. Excavations at DeRt 1. In: The 1984 Excavations at the Canal Site (DeRt 1 and DeRt2), edited by Roy L.Carl son. Department of Archaeol ogy, Simon Fraser Uni versi ty, Burnaby, B.C.

Hobson, Keith A. and Jonathan C. Driver 1989. Archaeological evidence for use of the Strait of Georgia by marine birds. In: The ecology and status of marine and shoreline birds in the Strait of Georgia, British Columbia, Kees Vermeer and Robert W. Butler, eds. Sepcial Publication of the Canadian Wildlife Service, Ottawa. Pp. 168-173. Hoffman, Rob. 1988. The contribution of raptorial birds to patterning in small mammal assembl ages. Paleobiology 14(1) :80-90. Howay, F.W. 1918. The dog's hair blankets of the Coast Salish. The Washington Historical Quarterly 9(2):83-92. Hydrographic Office. 1898. The British Columbia Pilot. Hydrographic Office, Admiral ty, London. I jzereef, F. 1989. Social differentiation from animal bone studies. In: Diets and Crafts in Towns: The evidence of animal remains from the Roman to the Post-Medieval periods. D. Serjentson and T. Waldron, eds. British Archaeological Reports, British Series, 199. Pp. 41-53. Immamoto, Shirley Sumie 1974. Analysis and interpretation of faunal remains from a complex site in the Fraser-Del ta region of British Columbia: Glenrose Cannery, DgRr 6. M.A. Thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver. Jenness, D. n.d. The Saanich Indians of Vancouver Island. B.C. Provincial Archives, Ms.

Jewett, Stanley A. Walter P. Taylor, William T. Shaw and John W. Aldrich 1953. Birds of Washington State. University of Washington Press, Seattle. Johnson, Ei1 een 1985. Current developments in bone techno1 ogy. In: Advances in archaeological method and theory, vol 8, Michael B. Schiffer, ed. Academic Press Inc., Orlando. Pp. 157-235.

Johnson, Murray L. and Sherry Johnson. 1982. Voles: Microtus species. In: Wild mammals of North America: bi 01 ogy, management and economics. Joseph A. Chapman and George A. Feldhamer, eds. The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore and London. Pp. 326-354. Jones, Andrew K. 1982. Bul k-sieving and the recovery of fish remains from urban archaeological sites. In: Environmental Archaeology in the Urban Context, A.R. Hall and H.K. Kenward, eds. Council for British Archaeology, Research Report No. 3, London. Pp. 74-85. 1986. Fish bone survival in the digestive systems of the pig, dog and man: some experiments. In: Fish and archaeology: studies in osteometry, taphonomy, seasonal i ty and fishing methods. D.C. Brinkhuizen and A.T. Clason, eds. B.A.R. International Series 294, Oxford. Jones, David R. and Robert A. Furilla 1987. The anatomical, physiological, behavioral, and metabol ic consequences of voluntary and forcced diving. In: Bird Respiration, Volume 11, Timothy J. Seller, ed. CRC Press, Inc., Boca Raton, Florida Pp. 75-125. Kaufmann, John H. 1982. Raccoon and allies: Procvon lotor and allies. In: Wild mammal s of North America: bi 01 ogy, management and economics . Joseph A. Chapman and George A. Feldhamer, eds. The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore and London. Pp.567-585. Kear, Janet and Paul A. Johnsgard 1968. Foraging dives by surface-feeding ducks. Wi 1 son Bull eti n 80(2):231.

Kendall, Robert L. 1988. Taxonomic changes in North American trout names. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 8(4) :389. Kew, Michael n.d. Prel iminary Archaeological Investigations at the Pender Canal Site. Ms. on file at the Royal British Columbia Museum, Victoria, B.C. Kidd, Robert Stuart 1964. A synthesis of Western Washington Prehistory from the perspective of three occupation sites. M.A. Thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Washington, Seattle. 1969. The archaeology of the Fossil Bay Site. Sucia Island, Northwestern Washington State, in relation to the Fraser Delta Seauence. National Museums of Canada Bull et i n 232. ~orkributions to Anthropology VII: Archaeology. ~ttawa. Pp. 32-67. King, Arden R. 1950. Cattle Point: a stratified site in the southern Northwest Coast region. Memoirs of the Society for Ameri ccan Archaeology, NO. 7. Society for American Archaeolgy, Menasha, Wisconsin. Klein, Richard G. and Kathryn Cruz-Uri be. 1984. The analysis of animal bones from archaeological sites. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Kl i ppl e, Wal ter E., Lynn M. Snyder and Paul W. Parmal ee. 1987. Taphonomy and archaeological ly recovered mammal bone from southeast Missouri. Journal of Ethnobjol ogy 7(2) :155-169 Kol osei key A1 an 1970. Costs of Shell Analysis. American Antiquity 35(4):475-480. Kozl off, Eugene N. 1973. Seashore life of Puget Sound, the Strait of Georgia, and the San Juan Archipel ago. University of Washington Press, Seattle. 1987. Marine invertebrates of the Pacific Northwest. University of Washington Press, Seattle. Kritzman, Ellen B. 1977. Little mammals of the Pacific Northwest. Pacific Search Press, Seattle. Kusmer, Karla D. 1986. Microvertebrate taphonomy in archaeological sites: an examination of owl deposition and the taphonomy of small mammals from Sentinel Cave, Oregon. M.A. Thesis, Department of Archaeology, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B. C. 1989. Faunal report of DgRs 2 to Arcas Associates. Ms. Draft. 1990. Taphonomy of owl pellet deposition. Journal of Paleontology 64(4):629-637. Kusmer, Karl a D., Dana Lepofsky and Kenneth Lertzman 1987. Recovery of representative samples from archaeological features. Paper presented at the 20th Annual Meeting of the Canadian Archaeological Association, April 1987, Calgary, A1 bert a. Kutz, Harry Leon 1940. The diving ability of the Black Duck. Journal of Wildlife Management 4(1):19-20. Lamb, Andy and Phil Edge1 1 1986. Coastal fishes of the Pacific Northwest. Harbour Pub1 i shing Co., Ltd. Madeira Park, British Columbia. Leone, Mark P. and Ann M. Pal kovich 1985. Ethnographic inference and analogy in analyzing prehistoric diets. In: The analysis of prehistoric diets, Robert I. Gilbert, Jr. and James H. Miel key eds. Academic Press Inc., Or1 ando, Florida. Pp. 423-431. Lindberg, D.R. 1986. Name changes in the "Acmaeidae." The Veliger 29(2):142-148. Linse, Angel a 1988. Is bone safe in shell middens? Paper presented at the 53rd annual meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, Phoenix. Liscombe, Greg, Noel Kinler and R.J. Aulerich. 1982. Mink: Mustela vison. In: Wild mammals of North America: biology, management and economics. Joseph A. Chapman and George A. Feldhamer, eds. The Johns Hopkins University Press, Bal t imore and London. Pp. 629-643. Livingston, Stephanie D. 1987. Prehistoric biogeography of white-tailed deer in Washington and Oregon. Journal of Wi 1dl i fe Management 51 (3) :649-654. Lugg, Shelley A. 1986. Element and taxon identification of bone artifacts: a case for the zooarchaeologist. The Midden 18(2) :7-10. Lyman, R. Lee 1984. Bone density and differential survivorship of fossil cl asses. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 3 (4) :259-299. 1985. Bone frequencies: differential transport, In Situ destruction, and the MGUI . Journal of Archaeological Science 12(3):221-236. 1986. On the analysis and interpretation of species list data in - zooarchaeology. Journal of Ethnobiol ogy 6(1) :67-81. 1987. Zooarchaeol ogy and t aphonomy : a general cons ideration. Journal of Ethnobiol ogy 7(1) :93-117. Lyon, Patricia J. 1970. Di fferenti a1 bone destruction: an ethnograph ic example. American Antiquity 35(2) :213-215. Mackie, Richard J. Kenneth L. Hamlin and David F. Pac 1982. Mule Deer: Odocoileus hemionus. In: Wild Mammals of North America: biology, management, economics. Joseph A. Chapman and George A. Feldhamer, eds. The Johns Hopkins University Press, Bal t imore. Pp. 862-877. Ma1 tby, J.M. 1985. Patterns in faunal assemblage variabil ity. In: Beyond domestication in prehistoric Europe: investigations in subsistence archaeology and social complexity, Graeme Barker and Clive Gamble, eds. Academic Press, London. Pp. 33-74. Manuwal , David A., Terence R. Wahl and steven M. Speich. 1979. The seasonal distribution and abundance of marine bird populations in the Strait of Juan de Fuca and Northern Puget Sound in 1978. NOAA Technical Memorandum ERL MESA-44, Marine Ecosystems Analysis Program, Boulder, Colorado. Mason, C.F. and S.M. Macdonald 1986. Otters: ecology and conservation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Matson, R.G., ed. 1976. The Glenrose Cannery Site. National Museum of Man, Mercury Series, Paper No. 52. Ottawa. Mayhew, David F. 1977. Avian prediators as accumulators of fossil mammal material. Boreas 6:25-31. McCord, Chet M. and James E. Cardoza 1982. Bobcat and Lynx: Felis rufus and F. lynx. In: Wild Mammals of North America: biology, management, economics. Joseph A. Chapman and George A. Feldhamer, eds. The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore. Pp. 728-766. McCormi c k, Megan 1984. Chinese coins and Pre-Columbian Asian contacts with the Pacific Northwest. In: Western Washington Indian Socio- Economics: Papers in Honor of Angelo Anastasio. Herbert C. Taylor and Gar1 and F. Grabert, eds. Western Washington University, Bellingham. McMurdo, John n.d. Salvage Excavations at the Canal Site, Pender Island. Ms. on f i 1e at the Department of Archaeol ogy, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C. 1974. Archaeology of Helen Point, Mayne Island. M.A. Thesis, Department of Archaeology, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, British Columbia. Meadow, Richard H. 1978. "Bonecode" - a system of numerical coding for faunal data from Middle Eastern Sites. In: Approaches of Faunal Analysis in the Middle East, Richard H. Meadow and Mil inda A. Zeder, eds. Peabody Museum Bulletin No. 2, Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts. Pp. 169-185. Meany, Edmond S. 1942. Vancouver's discovery of Puget Sound. Binfords and Mort, Pub1 i shers, Port1 and, Oregon.

Meighan, C.W., D.M. Pendergast, B.K. Swartz, and M.D. Wissler 1958. Ecological Interpretation in Archaeology: Part I. American Antiquity 24(1):1-23. Mitchell, Donald H. 1968. Archaeology of the Gulf of Georgia area, a natural region and its culture types. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Oregon, Eugene. 1971. Archaeology of the Gulf of Georgia area, a natural region and its culture types. Syesi s 4(Suppl iment 1) :1-228. 1972. Archaeological investigations at site DcRu 78 in Fort Rodd Hill National Historic Park. Report to the British Columbia Provinci a1 Museum, Victoria. 1981. DcRu 78: A prehistoric occupation of Fort Rodd Hill National Historic Park. Syesis 14:129-150. 1985. Report on the 1983 excavations at DcRtOl. Ms. Department of Anthropoplogy, University of Victoria. On file at the Heritage Conservation Branch, Victoria, British Columbia. Mi tchell , Donald and Leland Donald 1988. Archaeology and the study of Northwest Coast Economies. In: Research in Economi c Anthropology : Prehistoric Economies of the Pacific Northwest Coast. Supplement 3. JAI Press, Greenwich, Conn. Pp. 293-351. Monks, Gregory G. 1981. Seasonal i ty studies. In: Advances in Archaeological method and theory, vol. 4. Michael B. Schiffer, ed. Academic Press, N.Y. Pp. 177-240. 1987. Prey as bait: the Deep Bay example. Canadian Journal of Archaeology 11:119-142. Montgomery, Jacki A. 1979. Prehistoric subsistence at Semiahmoo Spit 45 WH 17. M.A. Thesis, Department of Sociology and Anthropology, Western Washington University, Bellingham, Washington. Moon, Heather L. 1985. Ethnohistory of Pender Island. In: The 1984 Excavtions at the Canal Site (DeRt 1 and DeRt 2) , Roy L. Carl son, ed. Department of Archaeology, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C.. Moul ton, Lawrence Laton. 1977. An ecological analysis of fishes inhabiting the rocky nearshore regions of northern Puget Sound, Washington. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Washington, Seattle. Moyle, Peter B. and Joseph J. Cech, Jr. 1982. Fishes: an introduction to Ichthyology. Prentice-Hall, Inc . , Engl ewood Cl i ffs, New Jersey. Muckle, Robert James 1985. Archaeological considerations of bivalve shell taphonomy. M.A. Thesis, Department of Archaeol ogy, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, British Columbia. Mylne, C.K. 1954. Mallard diving for food. British Birds 47:395. Nelson, Margart A., Pamela J. Ford and Julie K. Stein. 1986. Turning a midden to mush: evidence of acidic conditions in a she11 midden. Paper presented at the 51st annual meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, New Or1 eans. Newcombe, C .F. 1923. Menzies' Journal of Vancouver's Voyage: April to October, 1792. Archives of British Columbia, Memoir No. 5. William H. Cullin Printer, Victoria, B.C. Norton, Helen Hyatt 1985. Women and resources of the Northwest Coast: Documentation from the 18th and early 19th centuries. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropol ogy, University of Washington, Seattl e. Nowak, Ronald M. and John L. Paradiso 1983. Walker's Mammals of the World, 4th ed. The Johns Hopkins University Press. Baltimore Oliver, Ernest K. 1972. Preliminary report on the first summer of excavation at DCRU 2, Esquimalt Lagoon. Report submited to the British Columbia Provincial Museum, Victoria, British Columbia. Oswalt, W. H. 1976. The techno1 ogy of salmon procurement. Paper presented at the Northwest Coast Conference. Simon Fraser University, Burnaby. 19pp. Paradiso, John L. and Ronald M. Nowak 1982. Wolves: Canis lupus and allies. In: Wild mammals of North America: biology, management and economics. Joseph A. Chapman and George A. Feldhamer, eds. The Johns Hopkins University Press, Bal ti more and London. Pp . 460-474. Payne, Sebastian 1972. Partial Recovery and Sample Bias: The Results of some Sieving Experiments. In: Papers in Economic Prehistory, E.S. Higgs, eds. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Pp. 49-64. Payne, Sebastian and Patrick J. Munson 1985. Ruby and how many squirrels? The destruction of bones by dogs. In: Pal aeobiological investigations: research design, methods and data analysis, N.R.J. Fieller, D.D. Gilbertson and N.G.A. Ralph, eds. Symposia of the Association for Environmental Archaeology No. 5b. BAR International Series 266. Pp. 31-40. Peek, James M. 1982. Elk: Cervus elaohus. In: Wild mammals of North America: biology, management and economics. Joseph A. Chapman and George A. Feldhamer, eds. The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore and London. Pp. 851-861. Pelton, Michael R. 1982. Black bear: Ursus americanus. In: Wild mammals of North America: biology, management and economics. Joseph A. Chapman and George A. Feldhamer, eds. The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore and London. Pp. 504-514. Pethic, Derek 1980. The Nootka Connection: Europe and the Northwest Coast 1790- 1795. Doug1 as and McIntyre, Vancouver, B.C.. Phillips, Earl L. 1974. The climate of Washington. In: Climates of the states: Volume 2 - Western states including basic climatological data of the United States. By officials of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce. Port Washington, N.Y. Pp. 935-960. Pielou, E.C. 1979. Biogeography. John Wiley and Sons, New York. Plew, M.G. 1988. Archaeological assemblage vari abil ity in fishing 1 ocales of the western Snake River Plain. North American Archaeologist 9(3):247-257.

Redding, Richard W., Me1 inda A. Zeder and John McArdle 1978. Bonesort I1 - A system for the computer processing of identi f i abl e faunal materi a1 . In: Approaches of Faunal Analysis in the Middle East, Richard H. Meadow and Milinda A. Zeder, eds. Peabody Museum Bulletin No. 2, Peabody Museum of Archaeol ogy and Ethnology, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts. Pp. 135-167.

Ricketts, Edward F., Jack Calvin, Joel W. Hedgpeth and David W. Phillips 1985. Between Pacific Tides, 5th ed. Stanford University Press, Stanford, Cal iforni a. Riedman, M.L. and J.A. Estes 1988. A review of the history, distribution and foraging ecology of sea otters. In: The Community Ecology of Sea Otters (Ecological Series: v. 65), Glenn R. VanBlaricom and James A. Estes, eds. Springer-Verlag, Berl in. Pp. 4-21. Ri tcey, Ralph 1982. Moose in British Columbia. Province of British Columbia, Ministry of Environment, Victoria, B.C. Ronald, Keith, Jane Selley and Pamela Heally 1982. Seals: Phocidae, Otariidae and Obodenidae. In: Wild mammals of North America: biology, management and economics. Joseph A. Chapman and George A. Feldhamer, eds. The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore and London. Pp. 769-827. Rogers, John 1974. Shorebirds and Predators: Birds of the Pacific Northwest: Volume 1. 5.3. Douglas, Ltd., North Vancouver, British Col umbi a. Sawbridge, David F. 1970. Vegetation and soils of shell middens in the Knight Inlet area on the coast of British Columbia. M.Sc.Thesis, Department of Biology, University of Victoria, Victoria, British Columbia. Sawbridge, David F., and M.A.M. Bell. 1972. Vegetation and soils of shell middens on the Coast of British Columbia. Ecology 53(5):840-849. Schiffer, Michael B. 1983. Toward the identification of formation processes. American Antiquity 48(4) :675-706. 1987. Formation Processes of the Archaeological Record. University of New Mexico Press, A1 buquerque. Scott, James W. and Roland L. DeLorne 1988. Historical At1 as of Washington. ~niversity of Oklahoma Press, Norman, Oklahoma.

Seed, R. 1968. The ecology of Mvtil us edul is (Lame1 1 i branchi ata) on exposed rocky shores. Oecologia 3:317-350. Shipman, Pat. 1981. Life history of a fossil: an introduction to taphonomy and pal eoecol ogy . Harvard University Press, Cambri dge. Smith, Harlan I. 1907. Archaeology of the Gulf of Georgia and Puget Sound. Jesup North Pacific Expedition, Vol. 2, pt. 6. American Museum of Natural History, New York. Snyder, Lynn M. 1988. A controlled feeding study involving Gray Wolf (Canis lu~us) and Whi te-t ai 1 ed deer (Odocoi 1eus vi rqi ni anus) . Tennessee Anthropological Association Newsletter 13(3) :1-9. Somerton, David and Craig Murray 1976. Field guide to the fish of Puget Sound and the Northwest Coast. The University of Washington Press, Seattle. Spaulding, H.A. 1961. Wild 1 ife - South Pender. In: A Gulf Islands Patchwork. Gulf Is1 ands Branch, B.C. Historical Association. Pp. 148-149. Sprunt, Alexander 1955. North American birds of prey. Harper and Brothers, New York. Stein, Julie K. 1985. Interpreting Sediments in Cultural Settings. In: Archaeological Sediments in Context, Peopling of the Americas, Edited Volume Series: Volume 1 edited by Julie K. Stein, and William R. Farrand. Center for the Study of Early Man, University of Maine, Orono, Maine. Pp. 5-19. 1987. Deposits for archaeologists. In: Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory, Vol . 10, Michael Schiffer, ed. Academic Press, Inc. San Diego. Pp. 337-395. 1988. Deciphering a Northwest Coast She1 1 Midden. Paper presented at the Northwest Anthropol ogi cal Conference, Tacoma Washington. Stern, Bernhard, J. 1969. The Lummi Indians of Northwest Washington. AMS Press, Inc. New York. (Reprint of Columbia University Press, New York. 1934). Stevenson, Ann 1978. Identification of faunal remains from Esquimal t Lagoon. Ms. Stewart, Hi 1 ary 1973. Artifacts of the Northwest Coast Indians. Hancock House Publishers, Saanichton, B.C. 1982. Indian fishing: early methods on the Northwest Coast. Douglas and McIntyre Ltd., Vancouver, B.C. Stiefel, Sheryl Kay 1985. The subsistence economy of the Locarno Beach Culture (3300- 2400 B. P. ) M.A. Thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver.

Strickland, Marjorie A*, Carman W. Douglas, Milan Novak and Nadine P. Hunzi ger 1982a. Fisher: Martes nennanti. In: Wild mammals of North America: bi 01 ogy, management and economics. Joseph A. Chapman and George A. Feldhamer, eds. The Johns Hopkins University Press, Ral t imore and London. Pp. 586-598. 1982b. Marten: Martes americana. In: Uild mammals of North America: bi 01 ogy, management and economics . Joseph A. Chapman and George A. Feldhamer, eds. The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore and London. Pp. 599-612. Sutcl iff, Anthony J. 1973. Simil ari ty of bones and antlers gnawed by deer to human artefacts. Nature 246 (5433) :428-430, 1977. Further notes on bones and antlers chewed by deer and other ungul ates. Deer 4(2) :73-82. Suttles, Wayne P. 1974. The economic life of the Coast Salish of Haro and Rosario Straits. Garland Publishing Inc., New York. 1987. Notes on Coast -Mammal hunting. In: Coast Salish Essays, by Wayne Suttles. University of Washington Press, Seattle. Pp. 233-247. Tro, Roger P. 1976. Ethnohi story and Northwest Coast studies. Paper presented at the Northwest Coast Conference. Simon Fraser University, Burnaby . Turgeon, Donna D., Arthur E. Bogan, Eugene V. Coan, William K. Emerson, William G. Lyons, William L. Pratt, Clyde F.E. Roper, Amel ie Schel tema, Fred G. Thompson, and James D. Will iams. 1988. Common and Scientific names of aquatic invertebrates from the United States and Canada: Mollusks. American Fisheries Society Special Publication 16. Bethesda, Maryland. Turner, Nancy J. 1975. Food plants of British Columbia Indians: Part 1 - Coastal Peoples. Handbook 34. British Columbia Provincial Museum, Victoria. Turner, Nancy Chapman and Marcus A.M. Bell 1971. The ethnobotany of the Coast Salish Indians of Vancouver Is1 and. Economic Botany 25(1) :63-104. Unfreed, Wendy, J. 1989. A faunal analysis of the Point Grey (DhRt 5) Site, Vancouver, B.C. M.A. Thesis, Department of Archaeology, The University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta. Vermeer, Kees 1977. Some observations on Arctic Loons, Brandt's Cormorants, and Bonaparte's Gull s at Active Pass, British Columbia. Murrelet 58: 44-47. Wagner, Henry R. 1937. The Cartography of the Northwest Coast of America to the Year 1800, Vol. 11. Univeristy of California Press, Berkeley, Cal ifornia. Walter, Margaret Shaw 1959. Early Days among the Gulf Is1 ands of British Columbia, 2nd ed. Hebden Printin Co., Ltd. Watson, J.P.N. 1972. Fragmentation analysis of animal bone samples from archaeological sites. Archaeometry 14:221-227.

Wessen, Gary Char1 es 1982. Shell Middens as Cultural Deposits: A Case Study from Ozette. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Washington State University, Pullman, Washington.

Western, David 1980. Linking the ecology of past and present mammals communities. In: Fossils in the making: vertebrate taphonomy and paleoecology, Anna K. Behrensmeyer and Andrew P. Hill, eds. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Pp. 41-54.

Wheeler, Alwyne and Andrew K. Jones 1989. Fishes. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

White, E.M. and L.A. Hannus 1983. Chemical weathering of bone in archaeological soi 1s. American Antiquity 48(2):316-322.

Whitebrook, Robert B. 1959. Coastal Exploration of Washington. Pacific Books, Palo Alto, Cal ifornia.

Wigal, Ronald A. and Victor L. Coggins 1982. Mountain Goat: Oreamnos americanus. In: Wild Mammals of North America: biology, management, economics. Joseph A. Chapman and George A. Feldhamer, eds. The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore. Pp. 1008-1020.

Wigen, Rebecca J. and Alfrieda Elden. 1987. Integrating column sample data with level data; some examples from the Gulf of Georgia. Paper presented at the 20th Annual meeting of the Canadian Archaeological Association, Cal gary . Milkinson, M. 1981. The use of fish in resource scheduling and seasonality studies in temperate 1ati tudes. In: Enviromental aspects of coasts and islands. Don Brothwell and Geoffrey Dimbleby, eds. Symposia of the association for environmental archaeology, No. 1. B.A.R. International series 94. Pp. 181-194.

Willey, Gordon R. and Jeremy A. Sabloff. 1980. A history of American archaeology, 2nd ed. W.H. Freeman and Company, San Francisco. Wyl ie, A1 ison 1985. The reaction against analogy. In: Advances in archaeological method and theory, vol. 8, Michael B. Schiffer, ed. Academic Press, Orlando, Florida. Pp. 63-111. Yellen, John E. 1977. Cultural patterns in faunal remains: evidence from the !Kung Bushmen. In: Experimental archeology, Daniel Ingersoll , John E. Ye1 len and Mil 1 i am Macdonald, eds. Col umbi a University Press, . N.Y. Pp. 271-331. Yip, Arlene J. 1982. Archaeological investigations at the Cowichan Bay Site, DeRv 107, Duncan, British Columbia. Report to the Heritage Conservation Branch, Victoria, British Columbia.