OPPORTUNISTICWHALE HUNTING ON THE SOUTHERN NORTHWEST COAST: ANCIENT DNA, ARTIFACT, AND ETHNOGRAPHIC EVIDENCE

Robert J. Losey and Dongya Y. Yang

Two modes of whale use have been documented on the Northwest Coast of North America, namely systematic whale hunt ing and whale scavenging. Ethnographic ally, systematic hunting was practiced only by Native groups of southwestern Van couver Island and the northern Olympic Peninsula of Washington State. This hunting was undertaken with technology specifically designed for the task. Other groups on the Northwest Coast reportedly did not hunt whales but did utilize beached animals. Here we present archaeological evidence of whaling from the northern Oregon coast site of Par-Tee in the form of a bone point lodged in a whale phalange. This hunting likely occurred 1,300 to 1,600 years ago. Ancient DNA extracted from the phalange proves it to be a humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliaej. DNA recovered from the bone point indi cates that it is made from elk (Cervus elaphus) bone, and the point's DNA sequence is identical to that from unmodified elk bone from Par-Tee, suggesting the whale was locally hunted. We present ethnohistoric data from the southern Northwest Coast describing opportunistic whale hunting with a variety of technologies. We argue that many groups along the west coast of North America likely occasionally hunted whales in the past and that this hunting occurred using nonspecialized technologies.

Dos maneras de utilizacion de las ballenas se han documentado en la costa Noroeste de Norteamerica. Estas son, la caceria sistemdtica y la utilizacion de ballenas encontradas muertas en la playa. Etnogrdficamente, la caza sistemdticafue practicada unicamente por grupos Indigenas del sur-oeste de la Isla de Vancouver y la Peninsula Olimpica del estado de Washington. Esta caceria se realizaba con tecnologia especialmente disehada para dicha actividad. Se sabe que otros grupos etnicos de la costa noreste de Norte America no cazaban, sino que utilizaban los restos de ballenas encontradas sin vida en la playa. Una punta de hueso alojada en parte de la estructura osea digital de una ballena, encontrada en Par-Tee, en la costa norte de Oregon, representa la evidencia arqueologica de la caceria de ballenas en este lugar. Esta caceria posiblemente ocurrio hace 1,300 a 1,600 anos. Muestras de ADN antiguo extraido de la estructura osea digital de la ballena sugiere que se trata de una ballena jorobada (Megaptera novaeangliae). El ADN proveniente de la punta de hueso encontrada revela que estafue hecha de hueso de ciervo (Cervus elaphus). En este trabajo de investigacion, presentamos informacion etnohistorica de la costa noroeste de Norteamerica describiendo la caceria de ballenas "oportunista ", la cual incluye diversas tecnologias. Segun nue stro estudio, muchos grupos de la costa Noroeste de Norteamerica seguramente de vez en cuando cazaban ballenas en el pasado, y dicha caceria se realizo mediante la utilizacion de tecnologia no-especializada.

Two modes of whale use have been docu 1983; Curtis 1916; Drucker 1951; Gunther 1942; mented on the Northwest Coast of North Jonaitis 1999; Kool 1982; Koppert 1930; Reagan America (following Kroeber 1939), namely 1925; Sapir et al. 2004; Swan 1870) (Figure 1). systematic whaling and whale scavenging. The first These groups systematically hunted whales off use was on a canoes mode of whale limited in its distribution shore seasonal basis using seaworthy during the ethnographic period to a few groups of and hunting technology exclusively designed for the central Northwest Coast, namely theNuu-chah the task. Neighbors of these groups, including the nulth and Ditidaht peoples of western Vancouver Clallam of the Strait of Juan de Fuca and the Island, British Columbia and the Makah of the Quileute and Quinault of the western Washington Olympic Peninsula inWashington State (Arima coast also hunted whales (Hajda 1990:507; Pow

Robert Losey 13-8 Tory Building, Department of Anthropology, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB T6R 3H8, Canada. ([email protected]) Dongya Yang Department of Archaeology, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, BC V5A 1S6, Canada. ([email protected])

American Antiquity, 72(4), 2007, pp. 657-676 Copyright ?2007 by the Society for American Archaeology

657 658AMERICAN ANTIQUITY [Vol. 72, No. 4,2007]

QueenWL m^^^^^H|n|H|ift' Charlotte^m ySBSBBt^B^BS^^^A Islands^ wRf^^^^^BBBBBBBmlm

Whaling j))^H[j^^^^^H Groups?^a?^K9|^^^H Sound Barkley \^^K^^H Ozette\i^U^^H

PacificOcean _ _ Par-Tee j^^^^^H^ fl^^^^H Alsea/YaquinaJ^^^^H| a Siuslaw^^^^HH /, Coos/Coquille^^^^hRI =^==0 125 250km Tolowa^^^^^1 ^^^^^H|

Figure 1. Northwest Coast culture area with the distribution of ethnographically documented systematic whaling groups encircled. Other ethnographic groups and locations mentioned in the text also indicated. REPORTS659

ell 1990:431; Suttles 1974:166-168; Suttles, ed. of wealth that could be stored, traded, and given 1990:458). Whaling was adopted by the Quileute away (Drucker 1951), and were one of the means from the Makah in the 1800s (Frachtenburg through which individuals could self-aggrandize. 1921:322), and the Quinault reportedly practiced Whaling was often high risk but came with sub whaling to a lesser extent than the Quileute (Olson stantial rewards, particularly in the form of pres 1967:44). The second mode of whale use has char tige. To counterbalance risk and to help ensure acterized all other culture groups on theNorthwest success, ethnographic whaling on the Northwest Coast, who reportedly utilized beached or drifting Coast was often associated with complex ritual whales but never hunted them (but seeAcheson and preparation (Curtis 1916; Drucker 1951; Gunther Wigen 2002; Blackman 1981). Whale hunting 1942; Jonaitis 1999;Waterman 1967). Beyond this, groups also regularly scavenged drifting and whaling involved a set of cultural practices associ stranded whales (Drucker 1951:39, 255-256). ated with the act of hunting whales, the behavior Archaeological evidence for use of whale prod of whalers' families while crews were at sea, the ucts on the Northwest Coast, consisting of whale butchery of whales, and the distribution of their bones in cultural contexts, extends back at least products. Whaling was clearly a group activity, 4,000 years (Monks et al. 2001). Definite evidence often involving several households or entire settle for whale hunting, including the presence of ethno ments, and not just individuals in canoes pursuing graphically documented whaling tools (reviewed whales. Whales found dead or dying on the shore below) and strike marks on whale remains in sites, (drift whales) potentially involved many of the appears as early as 3000 B.P. and has been entirely same cultural behaviors, but certainly lacked the limited to the Nuu-chah-nulth and Makah area risks associated with active whaling. Possession of (Monks et al. 2001). Arguments also have been drift whales was often highly contested. At least made for precontact whale hunting on the Queen among some groups, obtaining drift whales was not Charlotte Islands based on ethnohistoric data and a passive process, but depended on an individual's the relative abundance of whale bone in sites (Ache spiritual power to draw dead or dying animals on son andWigen 2002). However, most researchers shore (Drucker 1951:171-173; Jacobs 2003: working beyond the region where whaling is ethno 182-183; Kroeber and Barrett 1960:122-126; graphically documented have been reluctant to use Sapiretal. 2004:147-163,189-203). Whales were as such information evidence for precontact whale also important mythological figures for virtually hunting. This is likely because no whale hunting every ethnographic Northwest Coast group (Sut technology similar to that described ethnographi tles 1990). cally has been found outside the Nuu-chah-nulth Whales and whaling were clearly important and Makah area of the Northwest Coast, and even among some groups on the Northwest Coast dur rare there it is (McMillan 1999:134; Monks et al. ing the ethnographic period, and it is reasonable to 2001:66). Also, it is often impossible to determine inquire if other groups in the region hunted whales if or scav whale bone in sites represents hunted at some point in the past and how such hunting was enged animals. Difficulties involving the archaeo accomplished. Presented here is evidence for the are use a logical identification of whale hunting common of previously undocumented form of whal even elsewhere, where whaling remains a strong ing harpoon or lance on the southern Northwest living tradition (Black 1987; Freeman 1979; Krup Coast. This evidence consists of the tip of a bone nik 1993; McCartney 1980, 1995; Mulville 2002, point lodged in a large whale phalange recovered 2005; Savelle and McCartney 1991; Whitridge from the Par-Tee site (35CLT20) on the northern 1999). Oregon coast, dating from 800 to 2300 cal. B.P. extent Documenting the and diversity of pre Mitochondrial DNA extracted from the point iden contact on whaling practices the Northwest Coast tified it as being made of elk (Cervus elaphus) bone, is reasons. important for several Large whales can a species found along much of the North Ameri an provide abundance of food and tool-making can Pacific coastline from roughly Vancouver materials and as such could have been important Island southward to near Point Conception, Cali subsistence and technological resources (Huels fornia (Bryant and Maser 1982:24). The DNA beck Whale were sources 1988). products potential sequence of the point suggests its ultimate origin 660AMERICAN ANTIQUITY [Vol. 72, No. 4,2007]

is not Vancouver Island, where roughly contem The whaling harpoon is consistently described poraneous evidence of whaling previously has been as a large thrusting implement several meters in identified, but somewhere further south along the length tipped with a three piece toggling head (Fig Pacific coast. Its DNA sequence was found to be ure 2). Attached to the head was a line several identical to that obtained from unmodified elk meters long leading to a seal skin float that produced remains recovered from Par-Tee. DNA from the drag upon the struck whale. The shaft and foreshaft phalange proves it to be humpback whale of the harpoon were constructed of yew (Taxus bre a common (Megaptera novaeangliae), species vifolia) wood. All sources describe the cutting tip found in other Northwest whale bone archaeolog of the head as formed from a large mussel (pre ical assemblages, and a commonly hunted whale sumably Mytilus californianus) shell blade ground of the ethnographic period. This is the first direct to a broad sharp point and having a deeply concave evidence of whaling in the archaeological record base. Koppert (1930:60) describes it as five inches of the Northwest Coast found outside of the area long by two inches (~ 5.1 x 12.7 cm) wide. During where systematic whaling was ethnographically the historic period, metal blades were sometimes documented. Also, the tool and its position within substituted for shell. The blade fit between two the body of the whale do not directly match whale valves or "barbs" of elk {Cervus elaphus) bone or hunting technologies and practices documented antler, or whale bone (Drucker 1951:28; Koppert ethnohistorically. 1930:60). These were about 14 cm long (5.5 in) While itmay be impossible to determine defin (Koppert 1930:60, width not provided). When fit itively if the humpback whale was hunted by the ted together, the tip of the joined valves formed a inhabitants of Par-Tee, the matching DNA slot into which the blade was inserted; the pieces sequences and contextual evidence from the site, were bound together with line and secured with including numerous large harpoons and abundant resin. The opposite end of the two bound valves whale bone, suggests this was entirely possible. formed a socket into which the foreshaft was Furthermore, we present little-known ethnographic inserted. The valves were often decorated with and ethnohistoric data from the southern Northwest incised designs (Drucker 1951:28; Koppert Coast describing opportunistic whale hunting with 1930:60; Sapir 1922:314; Sapir et al. 2004:24), a variety of technologies. We argue that any num some of which represented Lightning Snake (or ber of hunting weapons used by Pacific coast Lightning Serpent), a mythological figure associ indigenous groups could have been employed for ated with the whaling activities of Thunderbird occasional opportunistic whale hunting. Many (Sapir 1922:314; Swan 1870:7-8). In total, the har groups here potentially hunted whales in the past poon head was probably about 18 cm (7 in long). on an opportunistic basis, but the evidence for such When a harpoon head struck a whale, it ideally whale hunting will likely be difficult to decipher detached from the shaft and remained embedded from the archaeological record. in the whale. Waterman (1967:32) comments that the valves held the harpoon in the whale, with the mussel shell blade primarily performing the task Ethnographic and Archaeological Whaling of cutting for penetration. and Whaling Equipment Whales were apparently often not killed outright Many aspects of systematic whaling, here defined by harpoons and floats, which instead mostly tired a as the recurrent hunting of whales with technology the animals so they could be dispatched at close specifically tailored for the task, are well described distance (Drucker 1951:53). Given that the killing we in Nuu-chah-nulth and Makah ethnographic and of awhale would be extremely dangerous, spec ethnohistoric literature.While an array of technol ulate itwas undertaken only on nearly dead or inac ogy was used by these groups in whaling (Curtis tive animals. Drucker (1951:53) details the killing 1961:16-17, 27; Drucker 1951:27-31; Koppert process: "When the time came for the kill, the first 1930:56-62; Olson 1967:44; Scammon 1874; paddler took the lance with the broad, flat blade to Swan 1870:19-22; Waterman 1967), we focus here cut themain tendons controlling the flukes, so that on that used for striking and killing whales, namely they dropped down useless. When the whale had the same man drove the other harpoons and lances.1 thus been hamstrung, REPORTS 661

Figure 2. Schematic of the whaling harpoon head used by systematically whaling Northwest Coast groups during the ethnographic period, modified from Waterman (1967:33); right, the paired antler or bone barbs; center, the shell cutting glade; left, the assembled harpoon head with attached line.

lance in under the flipper." Elsewhere Drucker Curtis (1916:18) provides a somewhat contra (1951:31) describes two lances used in this process: dictory description of whale killing: "A pair of lances with long barbless elkhorn points, When the wounded whale becomes quiescent, one tapered to a sharp point for killing, the other the canoemen paddle up closer and throw into with a wide flat chisellike blade (a inmod "spade," his head small with small floats of was harpoons ern whalers' terms) that used for hamstring hair-seal skin on two feet of sinew line, in order ing, were very important parts of the whaler's to the head and render easier. outfit." The term "elkhorn" refers to elk buoy up towing presumably come The whale being almost exhausted, they antler. We are unaware of any illustrations of these alongside and hurl into his body harpoons lances. without lines or floats, recovering the shaft by Scammon (1874) observed native whaling on means of a short line; and when the animal theNorthwest Coast in the 1860s, and both provides crew ceases to struggle, the first draws its line, a brief description and illustration of a whaling leaving only the length of the sinew line and lance. His description of the lance differs from that its float attached to the harpoon blade. of Drucker: "The cutting material of both lance and spear was formerly the thick part of a mussel Curtis provides no description of the "small har shell, or of the 'abelone'" (Scammon 1874:30). poons" and does not mention the cutting tools doc Scammon's (1874:plate IV) illustration depicts the umented by Drucker and Scammon. The last clause lance as tipped with a broad shell blade fixed to a in his description may indicate the harpoons were shaft. His description and illustration of the whal fitted with cutting blades. ing harpoon is identical to that described by Large toggling harpoon valves, including spec Drucker, Koppert, and others cited above. imens with incised designs similar to those 662AMERICAN ANTIQUITY [Vol. 72, No. 4,2007]

described ethnographically, have been found in nate the assemblages (83 percent of the total), but Vancouver Island sites and in the well-known wet gray, minke (Balaenoptera acutorostrata), and site of Ozette on the Olympic Peninsula ofWash right whales were also present (Monks et al. ington State (Dewhirst 1980; Huelsbeck 1994:280; 2001:72-73). McMillan 1999:133; Monks et al. 2001:66). All We are unaware of any direct archaeological these occurrences of probable whaling technology evidence for prehistoric whaling south of Ozette seem to fall within the last 1,200 years or so (Monks along the west coast of North America, even in et al. 2001:66). Where construction material is areas where itwas documented historically. We are reported, most are of whale bone, although a few also unaware of any direct archaeological evidence are of antler (Dewhirst 1980:300; McMillan and for the use of bone, stone, or wood harpoon heads St. Claire 2005:51). Strike marks in the form of or lances inwhale hunting anywhere on theNorth embedded mussel shell blades or probable shell west Coast. The wet site of Ozette is the only site blade impact marks also have been found at sites on the Northwest Coast to produce whaling har in this area (Fisken 1994:367; Huelsbeck poon shafts, head sheaths, lines, and other possi 1994:280-1; Monks et al. 2001:65). At Ozette, mul ble whaling paraphernalia, including a wood tiple whale bones with mussel shell strike marks representation of awhale "saddle," a highly valued have been found (Huelsbeck 1994, number not whale portion around the dorsal fin (Huelsbeck specified). The site of T'ukw'aa on Barkley Sound, 1994:280). Vancouver Island has produced four whale bones et with mussel shell blade strike marks (Monks al. The Par-Tee Site 2001:66). The nearby site of Ch'uumat'a contains a humpback scapula with a possible strikemark dat Par-Tee (35 CLT 20) is a large shell midden in Sea ing as early as 2500 to 3000 cal B.P. (Monks et al. side, Oregon (Figure 1). Seaside is at the southern 2001). In these sites, scapulae are the most com end of a sandy beach that extends 22 km northward monly struck elements, but several vertebrae, a to the Columbia River mouth. Just to the south is maxilla, intermaxillary, and rib also show strike Tillamook Head, a basaltic headland that rises a narrow marks. One humpback whale scapula from Ozette steeply from the Pacific. Today small and is embedded with threemussel shell blade tips each estuary flows through Seaside, but a more sub from separate harpoon heads (Fisken 1994:367), stantial estuary was probably present during the late while all other specimens from Ozette and else Holocene (Connolly 1992,1995). Par-Tee and sev eral other Seaside-area sites were excavated where apparently have only single strike marks. by The gray whale (Eschrichtius robustus) is the George E. Phebus and Robert M. Drucker in the most commonly mentioned large cetacean in the 1960- 1970s, with assistance from the avocational a amount ethnographies of Northwest Coast whaling groups, Oregon Archaeological Society, and small where but other species were reportedly hunted or recog of funding from the Smithsonian Institution, nized (Arima 1988; Curtis 1916:18; Drucker Phebus was employed. Phebus and Drucker (1979) 1951:49; Kool 1982; Monks et al. 2001:70-71; published only a short preliminary report (-20 Swan 1870:19; Swanson 1956; Waterman pages) on their work at Par-Tee. Nearly all recov 1967:42). Whale bone from the sites of Ozette, ered materials were curated by the Smithsonian. T'ukw' aa, and Ch'uumat' a in theMakah and Nuu While Phebus and Drucker (1979) report exca a their chah-nulth areas has been identified to species. At vating around 434 m2 at Par-Tee, review of that Ozette, gray and humpback whales accounted for fieldnotes and photographs suggests nearly were themost exten around 96 percent of the identified whale bone, 550 m2 sampled. It is probably on Coast south with gray whale bone slightly outnumbering hump sively excavated site theNorthwest x ft back (Huelsbeck 1988:4,1994:271). Other identi of Ozette. Excavations were carried out in 5 5 one with sediments fied large cetaceans at Ozette include finback units and foot levels, being over mesh sieves. (Balaenopteraphysalus), right (Eubalaenajapon screened 1/4 inch Nearly 6,300 ica), killer (Orcinas orca), and sperm (Physeter tools2 were recovered during their excavations, At T'ukw'aa and Ch'u for well over half of all artifacts macrocephalus) whales. accounting yet on the umat'a, humpback whales overwhelmingly domi recovered through controlled excavations REPORTS663

Oregon coast (Lyman 1991:23). Despite the size nated by sea mammals, with pinnipeds, sea otters, of the collection, only 7 pages of description and and cetaceans accounting for nearly 65 percent of 1 page of tool illustrations were published by Phe the assemblage by meat weight contribution. The bus and Drucker (1979). Unit and level informa mesh size of the screens employed during excava tion is available for the vast majority of tools and tion likely results in small fauna such as fish being faunal remains. No count is available for the fau underrepresented in these calculations. Of the 945 nal remains recovered, but an inspection of the col sea mammal specimens identified to family level, lection suggests at least 100,000 vertebrate remains 154 (16.3 percent) are cetaceans. Those identified = are present. Later analyses of the Par-Tee fauna in this subsample include minke whale (NISP 4), = include Colten's (2002) description of a sample of harbor porpoise (Phocoenaphocoena; NISP 25), the non-fish vertebrate remains and Losey and pan tropical spotted dolphin (Stenella attenuata; = Power's (2005) examination of the shellfish. NISP 1), and bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops trun = Human remains from Par-Tee have been described catus; NISP 4). Forty-six undifferentiated Del by Arbolino et al. (2006). In 2003, Losey analyzed phinidae specimens are also present, and additional the tools from the site curated at the Smithsonian. unidentified cetacean remains are subdivided into = Today, Par-Tee is roughly 200 m from the open large ("whale-sized"; NISP 61) and undifferen = Pacific Ocean coast, but the beach has likely tiated (dolphin or porpoise-sized; NISP 13) cat accreted westward since the site was abandoned. egories (Colten 2007). Minke whale is the largest Phebus and Drucker's photographs of the site exca of the identified cetaceans, with amaximum length vation reveal midden deposits resting on cobble of 10.1 m and weight of 9,000 kg (Minasian et al. ridges, which are likely storm beach deposits 1984:54; Stewart and Leatherwood 1985). These stranded by the westward accreting beach whales are fast swimmers and commonly inhabit (Darienzo 1992; Rankin 1983). Shellfish remains inland waterways such as Puget Sound and areas from Par-Tee are strongly dominated by estuarine of the continental shelf. The dolphins and porpoise clams, although a small portion of this unsystem identified are much smaller on average, with the atically collected assemblage consists of species largest of the three being the bottlenose, which can such as razor clam (Siliqua patula) and California reach a maximum size of about 4 m and 650 kg mussel (Mytilus californianus) that prefer high (Minasian et al. 1984:125). All are very fleet swim marine environments. This of shell mers and can enter energy pattern inland saltwater waterways. fish use is consistent with other partially contem At least 350 modified whale bones are in the Par sites in the Seaside area CLT Tee tool poraneous (35 47, 35 assemblage. These include several large CLT all were on an estu 13), suggesting situated unbarbed bone points, two barbed harpoon heads, but coast environments were a ary, open relatively rod-shaped fragments, possible spindle whorl, close Elk were the most identified a or a by. commonly ornaments, platter large dish, zoomorphic terrestrial mammal and sea otters (Enhyrda lutris) atlatl weight, and portions of over 20 atlatls con themost sea commonly identified mammal in the structed entirely of whale bone. Numerous modi Par-Tee fauna (Colten 2002:20). Phebus and fied whale bones too fragmentary to classify were Drucker obtained 25 radiocarbon dates for the site, also present. No large toggling harpoon valves of and 6 additional dates were obtained for this study. whale bone or other material were identified, but These dates indicate the primary site occupation 148 smaller valves of terrestrial mammal bone and from around cal B.P to spanned 2300 800 cal B.P antler (~ 1cm wide, 3.5 to 11 cm long) are present. These are of two forms, one of Whale Use at Par-Tee general consisting two symmetrical valves armed with a bone pin, the The use of whale at Par-Tee is evidenced other a products self-armed variety formed by two asym its faunal and materials used by assemblage in tool metrical valves. Many bone pins likely used to arm construction. Colten a (2002) presented brief dis the first form of toggling harpoon are present. No cussion and basic quantification data (NISP) of ground slate or mussel shell points are present in fauna from six of the units excavated at Par-Tee (~7 the assemblage. of the units totalNISP of sea percent excavated; 6,362). Use of mammals is also suggested through His data the vertebrate remains are domi the of numerous suggest presence single-piece barbed har 664AMERICAN ANTIQUITY [Vol. 72, No. 4,2007] poon heads and "fixed" barbed points (those with suggesting itwas recovered at least two feet below out line attachment holes or projections; Figures the surface. Excavator's notes indicate that 11 other 3a and 3b). A total of 324 complete and fragmented tools were recovered from this unit and level, but harpoon heads are present, some being quite large. it is unclear if they were directly associated with Fourteen are of terrestrial mammal bone, two of the phalange. cetacean bone, and the remainder of antler. Only The base of the point in the phalange was appar one harpoon head in the collection has a tip slot ently snapped off when the tool was relatively fresh, ted for an end blade; all others with intact tips are leaving an irregular cross section exposed. A few self-armed. The longest harpoon is just over 20.5 centimeters of thewhale bone itself have crumbled cm long and 15 others are over 15 cm long, many away where the point entered the phalange; it is of them incomplete specimens. The widest in the therefore impossible to determine if the phalange collection is 3.8 cm and 49 others are over 2 cm had healed around the embedded tool. The tool wide. None are as wide as the blades of the whal itself is oval in cross section, clearly of dense cor ing toggling harpoons described by Drucker and tical bone, and its exposed end is 1.6 x .8 cm in Koppert, but over 15 were likely as long or longer maximum dimensions. The small exposed portions than the whole whaling toggling harpoon heads of its lateral edges were well rounded and no (valves and blade together) they describe. Ten of embellishments were evident on its faces. A CT the harpoon heads were embellished with simple scan of the phalange (Figure 4) reveals the point cross-hatched or parallel incised lines (see Figure fragment is about 3-4 cm long, sharply pointed, 3a); six of the ten embellished specimens were of composed solely of bone, lacked barbs, and nearly bone, the other four were of antler.Many unbarbed penetrated through the phalange. Attempts were bone and antler tools with sharply pointed tips were made to refit the point fragment to fragmented bone also present, but whether they functioned as hunt tools of similar size in the collection, but no match ing implements or other forms of piercing tech was found. However, many of the harpoon heads nologies is unclear. and other bone implements in the collection have Obviously, none of these characteristics of the intact tips of roughly the same size and shape. Par-Tee assemblage definitively indicate whales DNA Analyses were hunted by the site's inhabitants. All cetacean bones could have derived from drift whales and the Many species of whale in the Pacific migrate long seas harpoons could have been used for hunting pin distances, some traveling from arctic to the nipeds, sea otters, and other fauna.3 The best evi tropics.We considered the possibility the phalange a dence for whale hunting at Par-tee was found while was from a whale struck by harpoon somewhere scanning the uncatalogued faunal remains at the else in the Pacific that by random chance washed Smithsonian for tools missed by Phebus during ini up near Par-Tee and then was scavenged. One goal tial cataloguing of the collection. Hundreds of mod thus was to identify the species of whale repre access a ified bones were found, including 84 pieces of sented. Lacking to cetacean comparative whale bone (included in figures above). Among skeletal collection, we sought to identify the pha these items was a whale phalange (SI catalog lange to species through sampling of its DNA. A a #A556355; Figure 4) 16.5 cm long with a bone second goal was to try to determine if local ani point deeply embedded in it near its distal end. The mal was used to produce the bone tool lodged in phalange was excavated from level 4 of unit 2IF the phalange. a in the southwest portion of the site. Charcoal sam Because extracting ancient DNA is destruc ples from the same level in two adjacent 5-x-5-ft tive process, the Smithsonian sampling committee units were dated by Phebus and Drucker and pro suggested we first sample unmodified faunal duced ages of 1195 ? 80 (SI-4967) and 1295 ? 70 remains from the site to determine whether ancient (SI-4966), suggesting the phalange likely was DNA might be preserved in the tool and phalange. were deposited between cal A.D. 650 and 950.4 Unfor Three unmodified elk metapodial fragments tunately, no profiles for this area of the site are sampled for DNA extraction and PCR amplifica available. Tools were collected from two 1 ft lev tion in the dedicated ancient DNA laboratory of the els immediately above that containing the phalange, Department of Archaeology at Simon Fraser Uni REPORTS 665

trjm aij

Figure 3a (upper). A selection of unilaterally barbed harpoon heads from Par-Tee. The fifth specimen from the right is embellished with an incised cross-hatched design. Figure 3b (lower). Three of the larger bilaterally barbed harpoon head fragments from Par-Tee. 666AMERICAN ANTIQUITY [Vol. 72, No. 4,2007]

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

0 I 2 3 4 5 6

Figure 4. Humpback whale phalange with embedded elk bone point recovered from Par-Tee; (upper) phalange with point exposed near its distal (upper right hand) end; (lower) close-up of embedded bone point. REPORTS 667

were exer versity. Vigorous contamination controls cised throughout the process of the DNA analysis. For decontamination, the bone surface was first polished with a sand paper and was further wet wiped with 100 percent bleach solution using a Q Tip. For each sample, a clean Dremel drill bit was ^HH^^^H^B ;^>r:M^ii?i|:i4^ d^^^^^^^^^n used to drill a hole to generate bone dust for DNA was extraction. DNA extracted using the silica based spin column method (Yang et al. 1998) and polymerase chain reaction (PCR) was used to amplify and analyze an approximately 181 base pair D-loop fragment using forward primer F136 Figure 5. Computed tomography (CT) scan of the hump back whale with embedded bone Scan (5'-TAGTACATTATATTATATGCCCCATGC-3,) phalange point. courtesy of Dr. Bruno Frohlich, Department of and reverse R316 -CGGGTTGCTGGT primer (5' Anthropology, National Museum of Natural History, TTCACG-3'). PCR was set up in a 30 uL reaction Smithsonian Institution. with 2U TaqGold and run for 60 cycles in an Eppen dorf Mastercycler Personal. PCR products were both cytochrome b (Cytb) and D-loop fragments purified using Qiagen's MinElut purification kit were targeted using published primers, Fl and and were subjected to direct sequencing. All three R182 for a 182bp Cytb fragment, and F22 and samples yielded positive PCR amplification and R258 for a 237 base-pair D-loop fragment (Yang the obtained DNA sequences indicate that the and Speller 2006). As expected, both the harpoon metapodials are indeed of elk (Cervus elaphus). and the whale phalange yielded positive PCR With evidence that ancient DNA was present amplifications. The parallel comparison of the two in the Par-Tee fauna, sampling of the bone point sets of samples produced the same DNA sequences, and phalange began. A hole was drilled into the bro strongly indicating the authenticity of the ancient ken face of the point and the resulting bone dust DNA data. was collected. A sterile scalpel was used to cut a The CytB and D-loop mtDNA fragments of the 1.5-X-1.5 cm square of bone from the distal artic whale DNA sample revealed the species to be ular end of the whale phalange for DNA extrac humpback whale. The highly conserved CytB and secure tion. For decontamination purposes, this sample hypervariable D-loop should be adequate to was then subjected to 100 percent bleach solution, a species ID for the whale phalange (Yang and IN HCL and IN NaOH treatments (Yang et al. Speller 2006). Since humpback is a migratory 2004; Yang andWatt 2005), while the dust sample species, the same population potentially can be from the point was rinsed with 100 percent bleach. found anywhere from Alaska to California. We Both the point and whale bone sample were fur could not determine an origin of this particular a ther split into two sets of samples to conduct par whale due to the lack of "region-specific" DNA allel comparisons for reproducibility test. DNA pattern along the Northwest Coast of North Amer extraction and PCR amplification follow the same ica. procedure as used in the processing of metapodial From the twomtDNA fragments, the point could samples. be confidently identified to the species level, was To obtain more informative DNA sequences namely elk. An effort also made to determine from the bone of the point, another mtDNA D-loop subspecies using phylogenetic analysis of the fragment (approximately 170 base pair) of elk was obtained ancient DNA sequences combined with also amplified and analyzed using forward primer those modern reference sequences from GenBank. F54 (5'-TCAAGGAAGAAGCCATAGCC- 3') A phylogenetic tree (Figure 6) shows the point - and reverse primer R217 (5' TTGG ATGTTG AGT DNA is clustered with those of Tule elk (Cervus AGAAAGCTG-3'). This new D-loop fragment elaphus nannodes), Rocky Mountain elk {Cervus was also amplified for the metapodial DNA sam elaphus nelsoni), and even one Manitoban elk ples in order to obtain the equivalent DNA sequence (Cervus elaphus manitobensis), but not with Roo data. For PCR analysis of whale phalange DNA, sevelt elk {Cervus elaphus roosevelti), the only elk 668AMERICAN ANTIQUITY [Vol. 72, No. 4,2007]

C.e.maratobensis-ONTn(AF005197) |~~ C.e.nannodes-TULE4S7(AF016976) . C.e.nannodes-TULE659(AF016977) | ELK-Par-Tee-Point 3 z 27 C.canadensis-nelsoiu(AF291882) g C.e.nelsoni-ROCKY14(AF016963) 4 C.e.nelsoni-YNP2LONG(AF016980) "r ELK-PaKTee-Bone-3 ? 19 ELK-Par-Tee-Bone-1 ELK-Pai^Tee-Bone-2 L C.e.roosevelti-ROOS25(AF016967) r- C.e.roosevelti-ROOS29(AF016969) C.e.roosevelti-ROOS33(AF016971) Ji 48: li-C.e.rooseveW-ROOS23(AF016968) ? L C.e.roosevelti-ROOS32(AF016970) ^ C.e.canadensis-CECCOX2(AF129410) ? 5Q L C.e.nelsoni-YNP1LONG(AF016979) C.e.manitobensis-ONTB6(AF016954) Ce.manitobe nsis-EINP63(AP005199) 65 C.e.manitobensis-RMNP4(AF016958) 41 C.e.manitobensis-RMNP3(AF016957) C.e.manitobensis-ONTB5A(AF005196) - C.e.manitobensis-RMNP7(AF016960) C.e.nelsoni-ROCKY91(AF016966) _ _| C.e.nelsoni-ROCKY23(AF016964) gP C.e.nelsora-ROCKY37(AF016965)

_j C.-nippon-SIKA21S(AF016974) 99"C.-raPpon-SIKA226(AF016975) -Alces-alces-ALCES(AF016951)

I-1 0.01

Figure 6. Phylogenetic analysis of two mitochondrial D-loop DNA fragments from three elk bones and the embedded bone point. The numbers at the nodes indicate bootstrap values after 2000 replications. Low bootstrap values are observed within members of genus Cervus in the North America, indicating unreliable branching pattern in this part of the tree. The Par-Tee DNA samples are clustered with multiple subspecies except C.e.roosevelti, but they all group together. All reference sequences were retrieved from GenBank (accession numbers are within brackets). For some ref erence sequences, the code after the species name in the sequence label is the haplotype code listed in GenBank. The tree (NJ with Kimura 2-parameter) was composed using Mega3 software (Kumar et al. 2004) with moose (Alces alces) as the outgroup. It is difficult to clarify the discrepancy in using different subspecies names for the possible same subspecies. As such, the original GenBank species names were used in the tree.

subspecies reportedly on theNorthwest Coast dur suggest thatRocky Mountain elk andManitoba elk ing the historic period (Murie 1979:20). However, are likely not genetically distinct enough to be con caution is warranted in taking this distribution at sidered separate subspecies (Polziehn et al. 2000), face value because elk populations were much and Rocky Mountain elk and Roosevelt elk geno depleted in the late 1800s when subspecies' ranges types are currently present in both Oregon, Wash were identified, and it is often unclear how sub ington, and the southwestern mainland of British species designations were made or how many ani Columbia (Quayle and Brunt 2003; Oregon Depart mals were examined when making distribution ment of Fish andWildlife 2003). Only Roosevelt maps. elk are currently present on Vancouver Island and Recent DNA analyses reveal that elk subspecies they are genetically very distinct from other elk are poorly understood, perhaps due to relatively populations, perhaps being separated from them for recent divergence, genetic bottlenecking during the nearly 7,000 years (Polziehn et al. 2000). If other early historic period, and more recent relocation of subspecies of elk were indeed present on Vancou animals outside of their "traditional" ranges. For ver Island during the late Holocene, some trace of example, DNA studies of modern elk populations their presence should have appeared in genetic REPORTS669

assessments of modern elk on the island; such evi A Drift Whale? dence has failed to appear (Polziehn et al. 2000). Could the phalange be from an animal hunted by The DNA sequence from the Par-Tee bone point theMakah or Nuu-chah-nulth that simply washed does not cluster closely with any Roosevelt elk and up near Par-Tee? If the whale was struck near given this the Vancouver Island elk population Ozette, the southernmost whaling village known likely can be excluded as an ultimate source for the archaeologically, itwould have swum or drifted at point. least 275 km south to arrive at Par-Tee.5 Tracking Another approach employed for assessing the of modern humpback whales has documented origin of the Par-Tee elk bone point was to com individuals as much as 250 km pare its DNA sequence with those of the three migrating traveling in a day (Mate et al. 1998). At this rate, even slowly unmodified elk metapodials from the site. The traveling wounded whales could reach Par-Tee sequence comparison shows that they indeed share within a few of being struck the more the identical DNA sequence as the point and thus days by groups. also cluster with the Rocky Mountain/Manitoban northerly whaling If long-distance drift or travel of struck whales and Tule clade. Although sharing the same DNA was common, has evidence for sequence cannot be used as absolute evidence to why archaeological strike marks on whale bones been limited to areas conclude the point was made from local elk bone, where was documented ? it clearly cannot refute such a possibility. More whaling ethnohistorically Two issues may be to blame. First, themost com importantly, the "non-Roosevelt" subspecies iden of on the tification of the remains can now be more confi monly hunted species whales Northwest Coast, grays and tend to sink after dently believed to be an elk indigenous to the humpbacks, dying. This was clearly recognized by native North region. west who took to ensure The DNA data obtained in ancient DNA stud whalers, steps dead and whales afloat Drucker 1951:53; ies have to be carefully authenticated before being dying stayed (e.g., Waterman 1967:44). Commercial whalers on the accepted as valid (Yang andWatt 2005; Yang et al. Northwest Coast of the twentieth century 2005). This is particularly true for our study since early avoided these whales for this reason, and all four elk DNA samples are identical. Hypo hunting harvested them in numbers after the thetically, this pattern can be caused by contami large only of for or rais nation. If all four Par-Tee samples were development technologies suspending struck and whales contaminated from the same source, one would ing submerged (Scammon 1874:45-46; Webb 1988:121-125). expect an identical sequence for all of the analyzed Undoubtedly, some whales would resurface from increased DNA samples. The possibility of contamination buoy ancy due to gasses can be effectively excluded here by the careful developing through decompo sition, but this process was probably unpredictable research design employed and vigorous contami (Webb 1988:123). Therefore, it is thatwhales nation controls: (1) although the Par-Tee elk DNA likely did not drift too far the area where sequence matches some modern DNA references beyond they per ished. (see the tree in Figure 6), it is distinct from other It is that hunted elk DNA sequences previously analyzed in our possible, secondly, distantly whales were used as DNA facility (for example, five other elk bone by many non-whaling groups drift whales, but the taken from them samples from Banff Park were analyzed in a pre products (and in sites) did not include bones with strike vious study but the bones yielded different DNA deposited marks or embedded tools. Processes the sequences [Monsalve et al. 2007]; (2) themetapo involving of whale bone in sites are and dials and the harpoon were analyzed at different deposition complex relate to distances between habitations and times (~ 6 months apart), significantly reducing the likely where whales were landed, uses of chance of cross-sample contamination; and (3) technological contamination controls have been exercised in the bone, oil extraction from bone, meat versus blub ber use, and even the of struck bones SFU ancient DNA lab as demonstrated by the fact display by whalers as (Huelsbeck 1988;Monks that over 400 ancient bone samples have been ana trophies 2001; Monks et al. Monks The use of drift lyzed in the lab with occurrence of few contami 2001; 2003). nations. whales would entail initial processing of animals 670AMERICAN ANTIQUITY [Vol. 72, No. 4,2007] wherever they happen to land and might result in of technology undocumented in the ethnographic less-intensive use of whale products compared to literature. Either is significant, because both poten cases where whales were towed by hunters directly tially expand the scope of knowledge about ancient to habitation sites. The rancid condition of many whale hunting practices. We now present ethno drift whales probably also played a role in whale graphic and ethnohistoric evidence for whale hunt product use; blubber might remain in edible con ing on the southern Northwest Coast beyond the dition long after meat had gone bad (Monks area where it is traditionally viewed as being prac 2003:194). Using whales solely for their blubber ticed and with tools not previously recognized as would likely result in fewer bones being deposited whaling equipment. in sites than would using whale meat and the oil contained in bone. It is also possible that collect Ethnohistoric Whaling on the struck whale bones was not ing generally impor Southern Northwest Coast tant to those scavenging whales; these signs of hunting prowess may not have had the symbolic The Native groups of the Northwest Coast south value they had to those groups actually engaged in of theQuinault region of western Washington State the hunting. are often described inwidely cited ethnographic lit Is the bone point from Par-Tee one of the ethno erature as non-whaling cultures that only made use graphically described whale killing implements, of whale products acquired through trade or from and if so, was it used in amanner described in these stranded animals (Drucker 1937; Elmandorf and accounts? The point is clearly not equipped with a Kroeber 1960:107; Hajda 1990:507; Kroeber and cutting blade as described by Curtis or Scammon. Barrett 1960:122-126; Silverstein 1990:537; Zenk The point is also not the spatulate cutting tool 1990:573). Archaeologists working in this area Drucker describes, but it could be the sharply have generally echoed these statements (Aikens pointed lance he mentions, albeit of bone, not antler. 1993:140; Erlandson et al. 1998:12-13; Gould Drucker described the pointed lance as being used 1975:154; Hall 1995:201; Lyman 1991:150; after whales were "hamstrung." The placement of Tveskov 2000:134). It appears that no ethnogra the lance is specific?"under the flipper" (Drucker phers saw Native peoples of the region engaged in 1951:53), presumably for striking vital organs. whaling, but most ethnographic work occurred here Humpback whales have the longest pectoral fins well into the twentieth century, long after even the relative to body size of any cetacean, reaching Makah and Nuu-chah-nulth had ceased whaling. lengths of up to 5.2 m, or roughly 1/3 the total body An examination of ethnographic and ethnohistoric length (Clapham 1996:21). In the process Drucker accounts, however, reveals that while whale hunt describes, it is conceivable that a lance could ing on the southern Northwest Coast may not have or as become embedded in a phalange, but this does not been as systematic economically and socially seem likely. Given that long flailing pectoral flip important as it was among groups to the north, it one pers would have been very dangerous to whalers was nonetheless occurring and in at least case, in canoes, an experienced whaler would likely stay observed firsthand by outsiders. well away from them and lance a whale only after Accounts regarding whale hunting are brief but it was largely immobile. Strike marks from lanc appear to describe episodes of opportunistic hunt was at For ing would most likely be seen on the anterior ribs ing with whatever equipment hand. and upper limb bones, but might show up on pha example, Elmandorf and Kroeber (1960:107) use "The langes if the flipper had abruptly swung into the describe theTwana's (Figure 1) of whales: in a his path of a lance. Note that all previously identified Twana did not hunt whale, except single strike marks on archaeological whale bone have torical instance when a party of porpoise hunters been found on elements of the head, upper arm, and harpooned a whale. The hunters were unable to to shore until a man was ribs; none are on phalanges. bring the struck whale a We suspect the point in the phalange resulted obtained who knew song from Grays Harbor to from the activities of inexperienced individuals (probably a Lower Chehalis) to drive the whale are not striking a whale in an attempt to capture it, or the the beach." Notably, the Lower Chehalis sources as whale hunters. harpooning by experienced whalers using a form described in ethnographic REPORTS671

This whale was perhaps taken using technology the whaling practices of more northerly Native designed for porpoise hunting. groups and that she viewed these as distinct from On theOregon coast two ethnohistoric accounts those once employed in Oregon. As in the above mention whale hunting in themid-1800s. The ear accounts, this description suggests opportunistic liest account was made by N. Scholfield, an early hunting of nearshore whales using at least two types on prospector and settler Oregon's central coast. In of hunting implements, bow and arrow, and har 1854 Scholfield was approximately 8 km up the poons. Siuslaw River (Figure 1) from its mouth and had Finally, Kroeber and Barrett (1960:125-126) just borrowed a canoe at an Indian village: discuss "alleged" accounts of whale hunting on the northern California and far southern coasts. as we were a Oregon But starting, whale was discov The authors dismiss several accounts regarding ered, leisurely spouting himself into notice; local due to confusion about the location canoe whaling and our was required by the Indians, of the observed whaling?several of the accounts who endeavored to capture this specimen of almost certainly refer to Native whaling inWash ichthyology, by shooting, lancing, and other ington or British Columbia, not northern Califor wise mal-treating him. Being hotly pursued nia. However, these authors cite G.W. Hewes's some by half-dozen canoes, his whaleship, ([1947] in Kroeber and Barrett 1960:125) disser totally disgusted, left the river [Scholfield tation where he reports that "some of the old Tolowa 1854]. had spoken of a time when their people went out This account describes a chance encounter with a to sea in their canoes and harpooned the whale. To whale and an attempt to hunt it with nonspecial the harpoon line was attached one or two sea-lion ized technology. A remarkable aspect of this paunches as floats. These floats were sufficient to account or is the presence of the whale fairly far up a prevent, at least discourage, the whale from narrow estuary; today the Siuslaw River 8 km from sounding." Kroeber and Barrett (1960:126) argue its mouth is 1 km across at its widest point. Two that Tolowa whaling was highly unlikely because years later John J.Milhau (1856), in a letter to the they historically lacked oceangoing canoes, and ethnologist George Gibbs, describes whale hunt their harpoons were of insufficient size for whale ing practices of theAlsea and "Yakoner" (Yaquina) hunting. They speculate thatknowledge about such of the central Oregon coast (Figure 1): "They have practices may have been derived through contact very large canoes similar to those in Puget Sound, with European, American, and Russian whalers go out to sea in them, and do not hesitate to har working along the coast. Given the above accounts poon whales and get fast to them and kill them." from Washington and Oregon dating to the mid account Milhau's describes open-ocean whaling 1800s, one might consider their dismissal of Tolowa use involving the of harpoons of unspecified form. whaling premature. Beverly Ward, a woman of Coos and Coquille descent central born (south Oregon coast; Figure 1) Discussion in 1909, provides a third description of whale use on the Oregon coast: The common perception of whale use on theNorth west Coast as involving either systematic and inten Oregon tribes weren't whalers like the Indians sive whale or whale is in the north. hunting only scavenging They watched the whales migrat probably too simplistic. Peoples of many areas of ing along the coast, and they sometimes found the coast hunted whales at various times in one on the beach. took several canoes likely They the on an a after a past opportunistic basis, practice whale that got close to shore. They drove has termed level" arrows Whitridge (1999) "low whale and harpoons into the huge monster hunting. Northwest Coast hunters likely employed and tried to hit a vital spot. They often went a of in this hunt out to variety technologies opportunistic far sea, before they made the kills. Then ing, including forms of harpoons, lances, and other they towed thewhale to shore with their canoes projectiles not utilized the that [Ward 1986:24]. by groups system atically practiced whale hunting (aswhale-hunting Ward's statement was suggests she fully aware of implements). A variety of whaling techniques and 672AMERICAN ANTIQUITY [Vol. 72, No. 4,2007]

technologies were clearly used in the Arctic dur pie for six months. Adult humpback whales are ing the ethnographic period (Whitridge 1999), and over three times this size (Winn and Reichley it is likely that this could have been the case along 1985:243). A single whale could provide multiple the west coast of North America. In other words, households with months of food and probably sub there is no reason to assume that occasional whale stantial excess for trade, feasting, and other forms hunting would have required the same suite of tools of aggrandizing. ethnographically documented among the North Struck whale bones have yet to be identified in west as a Coast's systematic whalers. other sites in the region, perhaps result of sev Why not occasionally hunt whales? Obviously eral factors. First, sample size issues may partially whale hunting could be a high risk activity, and be to blame. Few sites on the southern Northwest would sometimes require seaworthy boats and a Coast have been extensively excavated and had well-prepared and an organized hunting party. Also, their faunal remains fully analyzed. The current a captured whale would require considerable time sample of one struck bone was found inwhat may to process. However, prior to industrialized whal be themost-extensively excavated site in the region. ing activities, these animals likely constituted sub In other words, struck bones may be present in stantial portions of the marine biomass (Evans other sites, but they have yet to be identified. 1987:293; Schultz 1990:94-95), and it is difficult Clearly, whale bone has been found in numerous to believe that nearby animals would have been other sites on the southern Northwest Coast, some totally ignored, especially by cultures reliant to a times in abundance (e.g., Lyman 1991:150, 273). on resources. rare to large degree marine Whale popula Second, struck bones may be very begin tions that have recovered from the devastating with, especially when the hunting technologies effects of industrialized whaling are now often used were not designed for the purpose. Even in found in abundance in nearshore waters. For exam the core area of ethnographic whaling, only a hand ple, of the numerous migrating gray whales that ful of struck bones have been found outside of the pass south along theOregon coast inMarch, 40 per remarkably well-preserved "wet site" of Ozette. cent can be found less than one mile (~ 1.6 km) from Perhaps only in the largest and most well-studied the shore (Herzing andMate 1984). On their return assemblages will they be evident. northward, 97 percent of the gray whale cow-calf Finally, we suspect that much whale bone has pairs pass within .8km (.5mile) of shore, often just been ignored or little studied when it has been zone. sites outside the core of beyond the surf If such patterns existed in pre recovered from region history, literally thousands of whales passed along ethnographic whaling. This is likely due to several the coast well within the reach of even relatively factors, including the rarity of comparative cetacean simple watercraft. Ethnographic and ethnohistoric skeletal collections (Monks 2005). Rather than accounts also clearly indicate whales occasionally misidentify whale remains, investigators appear to entered estuaries and other sheltered waterways be labelling them as cetacean and doing very little were even more to hunters. them. the reliance inNorth where they vulnerable else with Also, heavy The return rendered in capturing awhale can be west Coast archaeology on standard ethnographic enormous, both in terms of prestige and food. Even sources may be leading to assumptions that whal never even on an occa among theNorthwest Coast's systematically whal ing occurred in many areas, ing groups, whaling was the prerogative of a select sional basis. Many of the standard southern few and conferred upon them considerable pres Northwest Coast ethnographies (Barnett 1937; DuBois tige. During the early ethnographic period even the Boas 1923; Drucker 1937, 1939; 1932; Kroe ability to cause whales to drift ashore was consid Elmandorf and Kroeber 1960; Jacobs 2003; ered an exemplary skill. Much of this prestige may ber and Barrett 1960; Olson 1967; Taylor 1974) have related to the risks inherent inwhale hunting, involved interviews with only a few individuals but some of it also likely related to the potential and lack any Native "voice," except when oral tra on standard food returns. For example, Whitridge (2001:42-43) dition is presented. Dissenting opinions are not and a estimated that a 6,350 kg (7 ton) bowhead whale cultural practices typically provided, These (Balaena mysticetus), if totally rendered for food, homogenized picture is often presented. sources an could provide the caloric needs for around 60 peo ethnographic probably present overly REPORTS673

Y. narrow picture of past subsistence practices, even Arima, Eugene 1983 The West Coast (Nootka) People. British Columbia as they existed post-Euro-American contact. Provincial Museum Special Publication No. 6, Victoria. whale use on To better understand the North 1988 Notes on Nootkan Sea Mammal Hunting. Arctic west Coast, additional research is needed on the Anthropology 25( 1): 16-27. Barnett, Homer G. many unanalyzed faunal and tool assemblages. 1937 Culture Element Distributions: VII, Oregon Coast. to Whale bone assemblages need be analyzed with University of California, Berkeley. Anthropological the same level of detail often given to cervid and Records l(3):155-203. Black, Lydia T. remains. Undoubtedly, problems with the pinniped 1987 Whaling in the Aleutians. Etudes/Inuit/Studies identification of whale remains from sites will ll(2):7-50. B. remain, but the application of ancient DNA tech Blackman, Margaret 1981 Window on the Past: The Photographic Ethnohistory should go far in resolving basic identifica niques of the Northern and Kaigani Haida. National Museum of tion problems. Definitively proving whale hunting Man Mercury Series. Canadian Ethnology Service Paper No. National of Ottawa. was occurring anywhere will remain difficult 74, Museums Canada, Boas, Franz because there is simply no way of determining from 1923 Notes on the Tillamook. University of California was archaeological data who actually doing the Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology hunting and where this hunting was carried out.We 20(1):3-16. Bryant, Larry D., and Chris Maser believe we have made a convincing case for the pos 1982 Classification and Distribution. In Elk of North Amer core sibility of whale hunting outside the region ica: Ecology and Management, edited by JackW. Thomas where itwas documented ethnographically on the and Dale E. Toweill, pp. 1-59. Stackpole Books, Harris burg, Pennsylvania. Northwest Coast. We encourage other investigators Clapham, Phil more to fully engage in the study of the region's 1996 Humpback Whales. Raincoast Books, Vancouver, BC numerous Colten, H. whale bone assemblages. Roger 2002 Prehistoric Marine Mammal Hunting in Context: Two Western North American Examples. International Jour Acknowledgments. Financial support to conduct this research nal of Osteoarchaeology 12(1): 12-22. was provided by the Smithsonian Institution through a post 2006 Prehistoric Coastal Adaptations at Seaside, Oregon: doctoral research fellowship to Losey and by a grant from Vertebrate Fauna from Palmrose and Par-Tee. Manuscript the of Alberta of Arts. thanks are University Faculty Special on file, Department of Anthropology, University of Alberta, offered to Mindy Zeder, Dennis Stanford, Bruno Frolich, Edmonton. David Rosenthal, and the Anthropology Sampling Connolly, Thomas J. Committee at the Smithsonian Department of Anthropology 1992 Human Responses to Change in Coastal Geomor and on for their support of this research. Scott Byram and Mark phology Fauna the Southern Northwest Coast: at Seaside, Uni Tveskov provided crucial information on ethnohistoric Archaeological Investigations Oregon. versity of Oregon Papers 45, sources on whaling, which were most appreciated. Thanks Anthropological Eugene. 1995 Archaeological Evidence for a Former Bay at Seaside, are also offered to Camilla Speller for technical assistance in Oregon. Quaternary Research 43:362-369. the ancient DNA to Renee Polziehn who analysis, provided Curtis, Edward assistance in our DNA and to Le Blanc interpreting data, Ray 1916 The North American Indian, Vol. 11, The Nootka and for comments on an earlier draft of this Al McMillan paper. Haida. Johnson Reprint Corporation, New York. provided much needed information on Vancouver Island Darienzo, Mark E. whaling points. Hugo De Burgos graciously provided trans 1992 Holocene Geomorphology in the Seaside Area. In Human to lation of the abstract into Spanish and Megan Wilson illus Responses Change in Coastal Geomorphology and Fauna on the Southern Northwest Coast: Archaeo trated figure 2. All errors or omissions are of course the logical at Seaside, edited responsibility of the authors. Investigations Oregon, by Thomas J. Connolly, pp. 47-60. University of Oregon Anthropological Papers 45, Eugene. References Cited Dewhirst, John 1980 The Indigenous Archaeology of Yuquot, A Nootkan Outside The Vol. 1, and Acheson, Steven, and Rebecca J.Wigen Village. Yuquot Project, History 39. Parks Canada, Ottawa. 2002 Evidence for a Prehistoric Whaling Tradition among Archaeology DuBois, Clara A. the Haida. Journal of Northwest Anthropology 1932 Tolowa Notes. American 34:248-262. 36(2): 115-168. Anthropologist Aikens, C. Melvin Drucker, Philip 1937 The Tolowa and Their Southwest Kin. Uni 1993 Archaeology of Oregon. U.S. Department of the Inte Oregon versity of California Publications inAmerican Archaeol rior, Bureau of Land Management, Portland, Oregon. ogy and Ethnology 3 6(4): 221-300. Arbolino, Risa D., Erica B. Jones, and Stephen Ousley 1939 Contributions to Alsea 2006 Burials and Mortuary Practices at Par-Tee. Manu Ethnography. University of California Publications inAmerican andEth script on file, Department of Anthropology, University of Archaeology Alberta, Edmonton. ?o/ogv35(7):81-101. 674AMERICAN ANTIQUITY [Vol. 72, No. 4,2007]

1951 The Northern and Central Nootkan Tribes. Smith vallis. sonian Institution Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin Jonaitis, Aldona 144, United States Government Printing Office, Wash 1999 The Yuquot Whaler's Shrine. University of Washing ington, D.C. ton Press, Seattle. Elmandorf, William W., and Alfred L. Kroeber Kool, Richard 1960 The Structure ofTwana Culture. Washington State 1982 Northwest Coast Indian Whaling: New Considera University, Monograph Supplement No. 2. Research Stud tions. Canadian Journal of Anthropology 3(1):31^4. ies 28(3), Pullman, Washington. Koppert, Vincent A. Erlandson, Jon M., Mark A. Tveskov, and R. Scott Byram 1930 Contributions to Clayoquot Ethnology. Catholic Uni 1998 The Development of Maritime Adaptations on the versity of America Anthropological Series No. 1.Catholic Southern Northwest Coast of North America. Arctic University of America, Washington, D.C. Anthropology 35(l):6-22. Kroeber, Alfred L. Evans, Peter G. H. 1939 Cultural and Natural Areas of Native North America. 1987 Natural History of Whales and Dolphins. Christopher University of California Publications inAmerican Archae Helm, London. ology and Ethnography, 38. Fisken, Marian Kroeber, Alfred L., and Samuel A. Barrett 1994 Modifications of Whale Bones. In Ozette Archaeo 1960 Fishing among the Indians of Northwestern Califor logical Project Research Reports, Volume II, Fauna, edited nia. University of California Anthropological Records by Stephen R. Samuels, pp. 359-377. Reports of Investi 21(1):1-210. gations 66. Department of Anthropology, Washington State Krupnik, Igor University, Pullman, and National Park Service, Pacific 1993 Arctic Adaptations. University Press of New England, Northwest Regional Office, Seattle. Hanover, New Hampshire. Frachtenburg, Leo J. Kumar, Sudhir, Koichiro Tamura, and Masatoshi Nei 1921 The Ceremonial Societies of the Quileute Indians. 2004 MEG A3: Integrated software for Molecular Evolu American Anthropologist 23:320-352. tionary Genetics Analysis and sequence alignment. Brief Freeman, Milton M. R. ings in Bioinformatics 5(2): 150-63. 1979 A Critical Review of Thule Culture and Ecological Losey, Robert J., and Eleanor Power Adaptation. In Thule Eskimo Culture: An Anthropologi 2005 Shellfish Remains from the Par-Tee Site (35-CLT-20), cal Perspective, edited by A. P. McCartney, pp. 278-285. Seaside, Oregon: Making Sense of a Biased Sample. Jour National Museum of Canada, Archaeological Survey of nal of Northwest Anthropology 39(1): 1-20. Canada, Mercury Series, No. 88, Ottawa. Lyman, R. Lee Gould, Robert A. 1991 Prehistory of the Oregon Coast. Academic Press, San 1975 Ecology and Adaptive Response Among the Tolowa Diego. Indians of Northwestern California. Journal of California Mate, Bruce, Robert Gisiner, and Joseph Mobley Anthropology 2(2): 148-170. 1998 Location and Migration Movements of Hawaiian Gunther, Erna Humpback Whales Tracked by Satellite Telemetry. Cana 1942 Reminiscences of aWhaler's Wife. Pacific Northwest dian Journal of Zoology 76:863-868. Quarterly 33:65-69. McCartney, Alan P. Hajda, Yvonne 1980 The Nature of Thule Eskimo Whale Use. Arctic 1990 Southwestern Coast Salish. InNorthwest Coast, edited 33(3):517-541. by W. Suttles, pp. 503-517. Handbook of North Ameri McCartney, Alan P. (editor) can Indians, Vol. 7,William C. Sturtevant, general editor, 1995 Hunting the Largest Animals: Native Whaling in the Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. Western Arctic and Subarctic. Studies inWhaling No. 3, Hall, Roberta L. Occasional Publication No. 35, Canadian Circumpolar 1995 People of the Coquille Estuary. Words and Pictures Institute, University of Alberta, Edmonton. Unlimited, Corvallis, Oregon. McMillan, Alan D. Herzing, D. L., and Bruce R. Mate 1999 Since the Time of the Transformers: the Ancient Her 1984 Gray Whale Migrations along the Oregon Coast itage of the Nuu-chah-nulth, Ditidaht, and Makah. Uni 1978-1981. In The Gray Whale Eschrichtius robustus, versity of British Columbia Press, Vancouver. edited by M. L. Jones, S. L. Swartz, and S. Leatherwood, McMillan, Alan D., and Dennis St. Claire pp. 289-307. Academic Press, New York. 2005 Ts'ishaa: Archaeology and Ethnography of a Nuu Hewes, G. W. Chah-Nulth Origin Site in Barkley Sound. Archaeology 1947 Aboriginal Use of Fishing Resources in Northwest Press, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, BC ern North America. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Cal Milhau, John J. ifornia, Berkeley. 1856 Letter to George Gibbs, October 13. Box 9, Folder 7, Huelsbeck, David R. Manuscript 191-A, Coos, National Anthropological 1988 Whaling in the Precontact Economy of the Central Archives, Smithsonian Institution, Suitland, Maryland. Northwest Coast. Arctic Anthropology 25(1): 1-15. Minasian, Stanley M, Kenneth C. Balcomb, and Larry Foster 1994 The Utilization ofWhales at Ozette. In Ozette Archae 1984 The World's Whales. Smithsonian Books, New York. ological Project Research Reports, Volume II, Fauna, Monks, Gregory G. edited by S. R. Samuels, pp. 265-303. Reports of Investi 2001 Quit Blubbering: An Examination of Nuu'chah'nulth gations 66. Department of Anthropology, Washington State (Nootkan) Whale Butchery. International Journal of University, Pullman, and National Park Service, Pacific Osteoarchaeology 11:136-149. Northwest Regional Office, Seattle. 2003 The Cultural Taphonomy of Nuu-chah-nulth Whale Jacobs, E. D. Bone Assemblages. In Emerging from theMist: Studies in 2003 The Nehalem Tillamook: An Ethnography. Edited by Northwest Coast Culture History, edited by R.G. Matson, William R. Seaburg. Oregon State University Press, Cor Gary Coupland, and Quentin Mackie, pp. 188-212. Uni REPORTS675

versity of British Columbia Press, Vancouver. 1991 Thule Eskimo Bowhead Whale Procurement and 2005 Discussion: Sea Mammals in Zooarchaeology AD Selection. InHuman Predators and Prey Mortality, edited 2002. In The Exploitation and Cultural Importance of Sea by Mary C. Stiner, pp. 201-216. Westview Press, Boul Mammals, edited by G. Monks, pp. 167-173. Oxbow der, Colorado. Books, Oxford. Scammon, Charles M. Monks, Gregory G., Alan D. McMillan, and Dennis E. St. Claire 1874 The Marine Mammals of theNorthwest Coast ofNorth 2001 Nuu-chah-nulth Whaling: Archaeological Insights America. John H. Carmany and Company, New York. into Antiquity, Species Preferences, and Cultural Impor Scholfield, N. tance. Arctic Anthropology 38( 1 ):60-81. 1854 The Siuslaw River. Umpqua Weekly Gazette, May 19, Monsalve, M. V., D. Y. Yang, and E. G. Langemann 1854, Scottsburg, Oregon. 2007 Molecular Analysis of Ancient Cervid Remains from Schultz, Stewart T. Two Archaeological Sites: BanffNational Park and Rocky 1990 The Northwest Coast: A Natural History. Timber Mountain House National Historic Site, Alberta. In Tools Press, Portland, Oregon. of the Trade, Methods, Techniques, and Innovative Silverstein, Michael Approaches in Archaeology, Proceedings of Chacmool 1990 Chinookans of the Lower Columbia. In Northwest Archaeological Conference 2005. University of Calgary Coast, edited by W. Suttles, pp. 533-546. Handbook of Press, Calgary, in press. North American Indians, Vol. 1,William C. Sturtevant, gen Mulville, Jacqui eral editor, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. 2002 The Role of Cetacea in Prehistoric and Historic Stewart, Brent S., and Stephan Leatherwood Atlantic Scotland. International Journal of Osteoarchae 1985 Minke Whale, Baleanoptera acutorostrata Lacepede, ology 12:34-48. 1804. InHandbook ofMarine Mammals, Vol. 3, The Sire 2005 A of a The Whale Problem? Use of Zooarchaeologi nians and Baleen Whales, edited by Sam H. Ridgway and cal Evidence inModern Whaling. In The Exploitation and Sir Richard Harrison, pp. 91-136. Academic Press, Lon Cultural Importance of Sea Mammals, edited by Gregory don. Monks, pp. 154-166. Oxbow Books, Oxford. Stuiver, Minze, and Paul J. Reimer Murie, Olaus J. 1993 Extended 14C Database and Revised CALIB Radio 1979 The Elk of North America. Teton Bookshop, Jackson, carbon Calibration Program. Radiocarbon 35:215-230. Wyoming. Suttles, William (editor) Olson, Ronald L. 1990 Northwest Coast. Handbook of North American Indi 1967 The Indians. of Quinault University Washington Press, ans, Vol. 7, William C. Sturtevant, general editor, Smith Seattle. sonian Institution, Washington, D.C. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife Suttles, William 2003 Elk Oregon's Management Plan, February 2003. Ore 1974 The Economic Life of the Coast Salish ofHaro and of Fish and gon Department Wildlife, Portland, Oregon. Rosario Straits. Coast Salish and Western Washington and Phebus, George E., Robert M. Drucker Indians 1.Garland Publishing, New York. 1979 in Archaeological Investigations Seaside, Oregon. 1990 Central Coast Salish. In Northwest Coast, edited by Seaside Museum and Historical Society, Seaside, Oregon. W. Suttles, pp. 453^175. Handbook of North American Renee Joe Frank F. and Polziehn, O., Hamr, Mallory, Curtis Indians, Vol. 7, William C. Sturtevant, general editor, Strobeck Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. 2000 Microsatellite analysis of North American wapiti Swan, James (Cervus elaphus) populations. Molecular Ecology 1870 The Indians of Cape Flattery. Smithsonian Contribu 9:1561-1576. tions to Knowledge No. 220, 16 (8): 1-108. Powell, James V. Swanson, E. H. 1990 In Northwest edited W. Quileute. Coast, by Suttles, 1956 Nootka and the California Gray Whale. Northwest pp. 431-437. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. Quarterly 47:52-56. 7,William C. Sturtevant, general editor, Smithsonian Insti Taylor, Herbert C, Jr. D.C. tution, Washington, 1974 Anthropological Investigations of the Tillamook Indi James and Kim R. Brunt ans. Quayle, F, In Oregon Indians I, by Herbert Taylor and Robert 2003 The Status of Roosevelt Elk (Cervus elaphus roo Suphan, pp. 25-102. Garland Press, New York. sevelti) in British Columbia. Ministry of Water, Land and Tveskov, Mark Axel Air Protection, Biodiversity Branch, Victoria, BC. 2000 The Coos and Coquille: A Northwest Coast Histori David K. Rankin, cal Anthropology. Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of 1983 Holocene of the Plains Fore Geologic History Clatsop Anthropology, University of Oregon, Eugene. University dune M.S. of Geol Ridge Complex. thesis, Department Microfilms International, Ann Arbor, Michigan. Portland State ogy, University, Portland, Oregon. Ward, Beverly H. Albert 1986 Reagan, White Moccasins. Myrtle Point Printing, Myrtle Point, 1925 of the Whaling Olympic Peninsula Indians of Wash Oregon. ington. Natural History 25:24-32. Waterman, T. T. Edward Sapir, 1967 The Whaling Equipment of theMakah Indians. Uni 1922 The Rival Whalers: A Nitinat Story. International versity of Washington Press, Seattle. Journal of American Linguistics 3:76-102. Webb, Robert L. Edward, Morris Alexander John 1988 Sapir, Swadesh, Thomas, On theNorthwest Coast: Commercial Whaling in the Thomas, and Frank Williams Pacific Northwest. University of British Columbia Press, 2004 The Whaling Indians: Legendary Hunters. Mercury Vancouver. Series Ethnology Paper 139, Canadian Museum of Civi Whitridge, Peter lization, Gatineau, Quebec. 1999 The Prehistory of Inuit and Yupik Whale Use. Revista James and Alan P. Savelle, M., McCartney de A rqueologia Americana 16:99-154. 676AMERICAN ANTIQUITY [Vol. 72, No. 4,2007]

2001 Zen Fish: A Consideration of the Discordance by W. Suttles, pp. 572-579. Handbook of North Ameri Between Artifactual and Zooarchaeological Indicators of can Indians, Vol. 7,William C. Sturtevant, general editor, Thule Inuit Fish Use. Journal of Anthropological Archae Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. ology 20:3-72. Winn, Howard E., and Nancy E. Reichley 1985 Humpack Whale. InHandbook ofMarine Mammals, Notes Vol. 3, The Sirenians and Baleen Whales, edited by Sam H. and Sir Richard 241-273. Aca Ridgway Harrison, pp. 1. The definitions for harpoon and lance follow those used demic London. Press, by Black (1987:27). Yang, Dongya Y, Barry Eng, John S. Waye, J. Christopher 2. Count excludes chipped stone debitage. Dudar, and Shelley R. Saunders 3. It is certainly possible that bone points, both barbed 1998 Improved DNA extraction from ancient bones using and unbarbed, were employed in hunting birds, terrestrial silica- based spin columns. American Journal of Physical mammals, and fish. However, we that those Anthropology 105(4):539-543. suspect points with line attachment features were used on Yang, Dongya Y, Aubrey Cannon, and Shelley R. Saunders equipped aquatic sea 2004 DNA species identification of archaeological salmon animals, particularly fish and mammals. bone from the Pacific Northwest Coast of North America. 4. The radiocarbon dates derive from units SW21G and Journal Science 31 of Archaeological (5):619-631. SW20G and were corrected for isotope fractionation. The Y, Joshua R. Woiderski, and Jonathan C. Driver Yang, Dongya dates are published here for the first time. Data provided 2005 DNA Analysis of Rabbit Remains Archaeological courtesy of Risa Arbolino from the Smithsonian Archives, from the American Southwest. Journal of Archaeological R.U. 387, Box 11. Dates were corrected for isotopic fraction Science 32(4):567-578. ation and were calibrated with Calib 5.0 (Stuiver and Reimer Yang, Dongya Y, and Camilla F. Speller 1993). Calibrated age range is at one sigma. 2006 Co-amplification of cytochrome b and D-loop mtDNA 5. While it is the was fragments for the identification of degraded DNA samples. theoretically possible phalange we are unaware Molecular Ecology Notes 6:605-608. obtained via trade from another group, of any Yang, Dongya Y, and Kathy Watt accounts of the exchange of unmodified whale bone on the 2005 Contamination controls when preparing archaeolog Northwest Coast. Whale bone was certainly a traded item, but ical remains for ancient DNA Journal Archae analysis. of apparently only after it was extensively modified. ological Science 32(3):331-336. Zenk, Henry B. 1990 Siuslawans and Coosans. InNorthwest Coast, edited Received October 16, 2006; Accepted February 1, 2007.