Amaknak Bridge Site Data Recovery Project Final Report

South Channel Bridge Project No. MGS-STP-BR-0310(S)/52930 Amaknak Bridge Site Data Recovery Project Final Report

October 1, 2004

Richard Knecht, Museum of the Aleutians Richard Davis, Bryn Mawr College

Abstract

The Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities (ADOT&PF) in cooperation with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) is proposing to replace an existing bridge between Amaknak and Unalaska Island. The South Channel Bridge project includes a realignment of Henry Swanson Drive, which will have an adverse effect on the Amaknak Bridge site (UNL-50). To mitigate impacts on the site, a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) was formalized and recorded between the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), and concurred by the Ounalashka Corporation (OC), the Qawalangin Tribe of Unalaska (Tribe), the Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities (ADOT&PF), the Unalaska Historical Commission (Commission), and the Museum of the Aleutians (Museum) on April 29,2003.

As stipulated in the MOA, an archeological data recovery plan for the Amaknak Bridge site was developed by the Museum, pursuant to Section 110(b) of the National Historic Preservation Act, and was developed in consultation with and accepted by FHWA, SHPO, OC, Tribe, Commission, and ADOT&PF. This report summarizes the findings of the data recovery project undertaken in the summer of 2003 by the Museum. The report addresses four research questions that were pursued through the excavation and analysis of the Amaknak Bridge Site to advance the current state of knowledge of Eastern Aleutian prehistory: (1) culture history, (2) subsistence ecology, (3) household archaeology, and (4) adaptation to environmental change.

2 Table of Contents

1 Project Overview...... 15 1.1 Introduction ...... 15 1.2 Cultural and Historical Background ...... 21 1.3 History of Research ...... 26 2 Research Methods ...... 33 2.1 Research Design ...... 33 2.2 Phase I – Site Preparation ...... 36 2.3 Phase II – Excavation and Recording ...... 38 2.4 Laboratory Analysis ...... 41 2.5 Public Outreach ...... 43 3 Chronology, Stratigraphy, and Settlement Structures ...... 45 3.1 Radiocarbon Dating ...... 45 3.2 Stratigraphy ...... 46 3.3 Structures ...... 50 3.4 Other Features ...... 88 4 Artifacts ...... 89 4.1 Chipped Stone ...... 89 4.2 Chipped Stone Industry Summary ...... 99 4.3 Bone and Ground Stone Artifacts ...... 100 5 Preliminary Analysis of the Vertebrate Fauna (Susan J. Crockford)...... 113 5.1 Introduction ...... 113 5.2 Methods of Collection ...... 113 5.3 Methods of Identification ...... 113 5.4 Chronology of EU 8/83 and Stratigraphic Units ...... 114 5.5 Vertebrate Species Identified ...... 115 5.6 The Identified Sample ...... 119 5.7 Season of Exploitation and Habitats Utilized ...... 160 5.8 Evidence of Neoglacial Climate ...... 163 5.9 Summary and Future Analysis ...... 164 6 Culture History of Amaknak Bridge ...... 165 6.1 Amaknak Bridge In Time ...... 165 6.2 Comparison to the Margaret Bay Site (UNL-48) ...... 167 6.3 Change Within the Amaknak Bridge Site Over Time ...... 172 6.4 Amaknak Bridge in the Unalaskan Archaeological Sequence ...... 173 7 Household Archaeology ...... 175 7.1 Domestic v. Special Purpose Structures ...... 175 7.2 Evidence for Behavioral Patterning Within the Structures ...... 178 7.3 Structures and Social Organization ...... 183 8 Cultural Ecology……………………………………………………………………………..185 8.1 Climate Change in Aleutian Prehistory……………………………………….....185 8.2 The Neoglacial…………………………………………………………………...186 8.3 Subsistence at the Amaknak Bridge Site……………………………………...…188 8.4 Archaeological Correlates of Climate Change at the Amaknak Bridge Site….…189

3 8.5 Social Organization…………………………………………………………………192

9 Conclusions and Recommendations……………………………………………………..…..195 9.1 Site Significance and Research Potential ...... 195 9.2 Site Volume ...... 196 9.3 Recommendations for Future Research ...... 197 9.4 Acknowledgements ...... 199

Appendix Faunal Remains………………………………………………………………………201 References………………………………………………………………………………………...267 Plates

List of Figures

1.1.01 Project location map...... 17

1.1.02 Project location map...... 18

1.1.03 Aerial view of the southern tip of Amaknak Island. Arrow points to the Amaknak Bridge site...... 19

1.1.04 1941 photograph of Expedition Island...... 19

1.1.05 Captains Bay and the current South Channel Bridge...... 20

1.1.06 View of the Amaknak Bridge site...... 20

1.2.01 Detail from 1946 map of the Naval Operating Base in Dutch Harbor...... 24

1.3.01 Glenn Bacon’s estimate for site (top). Disturbance by WWII era construction (bottom)...... 29

1.3.02 Excavations at UNL-50 during the 2000 season...... 29

1.3.03 Dwelling remains from the 2000 the field season...... 30

1.3.04 Remains of Structure 1 at the base of the knoll...... 31

1.3.05 Site boundaries of UNL-50 following the 2000 site boundary survey project...... 32

2.1.01 Contour map of the Amaknak Bridge site...... 35

2.1.02 Excavation units from 2003, 2000 and 1977 seasons...... 36

2.2.01 WW II access road in section...... 37

2.2.02 Section exposed by WWII road cut...... 38

2.3.01 Water screens in action at UNL-50...... 39

2.3.02 Faunal recovery was excellent in many areas of the site...... 39

2.3.03 Total station crew in action at UNL-50...... 40

2.3.04 Hand-drawn maps of features supplemented total station data...... 41

2.4.01 The archaeological laboratory at the Museum of the Aleutians...... 42

2.4.02 Faunal material on the Museum grounds...... 42

2.5.01 Crew member Simeon Snigaroff from Atka explains finds to vistors...... 43

2.5.02 Channel 2 News cameras in the museum laboratory...... 44

3.2.01 Barnacles had once been attached to this sub-angular cobble...... 46

3.2.02 East excavation block, surface of level 1 after removal of WWII overburden and bedded tephras...... 48

3.2.03 Multiple house walls filled the east excavation block...... 48

3.2.04 Excavations in progress in the west excavation block...... 49

3.2.05 UNL-50 excavation squares and locations of major soil profiles...... 50

3.3.01 Location of major house features at UNL-50...... 51

3.3.02 Bedded tephra soils in the Structure 2 housepit...... 52

3.3.03 Floor plan of Structure 2. Grey shaded area is a sub-floor hearth channel...... 53

3.3.04 Structure 2 house floor and associated features...... 55

3.3.05 Partially collapsed remains of chimney feature in Structure 2...... 55

3.3.06 Slab covered storage pit in the floor of Structure 2...... 56

3.3.07 Structure 2 storage pit feature after excavation...... 56

3.3.08 Forelimb bones of a small whale inside Structure 3...... 57

3.3.09 Structure 3 floor plan and associated features...... 58

3.3.10 Walls and exposed house floor of Structure 3...... 59

3.3.11 Cache of cooking stones in situ on the floor of Structure 3...... 60

3.3.12 Cached albatross long bones on the floor of Structure 3...... 60

3.3.13 Remains of slab hearth feature in Structure 3...... 61

3.3.14 Floor plan of Structure 4...... 62

3.3.15 West wall of Structure 4 after removal of the floor deposits...... 63

6 3.3.16 Internal wall or storage feature in Structure 4...... 63

3.3.17 Whale vertebra post support on the floor of Structure 4...... 64

3.3.18 Hearth feature in Structure 4...... 64

3.3.19 Floor plan and features in Structure 5...... 66

3.3.20 Wall sods collapsed inside of Structure 5...... 67

3.3.21 Partially collapsed wall of Structure 5...... 67

3.3.22 Living floor surface in Structure 5...... 68

3.3.23 Hearth pit feature in Structure 5...... 68

3.3.24 The west wall of Structure 6 (arrow) as it appeared following the removal of the floor in Structure 4...... 69

3.3.25 Floor Plan of Structure 6...... 70

3.3.26 Hearth channel feature in floor of Structure 6...... 71

3.3.27 Floor plan and major features of Structure 7...... 73

3.3.28 Structure 7 from eight meters above, looking west...... 74

3.3.29 The main room wall of Structure 7. Soil between the courses of stone represent the remains of sod blocks used in construction...... 75

3.3.30 The original house pit of Structure 7 dug into earlier midden deposits...... 75

3.3.31 Chimney and hearth channel complex on the east end of Structure 7...... 78

3.3.32 Main room chimney feature of Structure 7 before (left) and after excavation (right)...... 79

3.3.33 A variety of house post supports on the floor of the central room (left) included four modified whale vertebrae (right)...... 79

3.3.34 The south wall of Structure 7’s main room had collapsed and been replaced with a new wall in front of the old...... 80

3.3.35 Remains of wooden supports preserved on the compacted soil floor in the main room of Structure 7...... 80

3.3.36 Entryway into the southwest side room from the main room of Structure 7...... 82 .

7 3.3.37 Living floor and walls of the southwest side room of Structure 7 after the removal of the burials found above the floor...... 82

3.3.38 Stone oil lamp (left) and harpoon point (right) in situ on the floor of the southwest side room, Structure 7...... 83

3.3.39 Walls and floor of the northwest side room, Structure 7...... 84

3.3.40 Stone oil lamp in situ in the north east corner of the northwest side room, Structure 7...... 84

3.3.41 Chimney opening in the wall separating the northwest and west side rooms of Structure 7 (long arrow)...... 85

3.3.42 The heavily charred surface of the floor in the west side room of structure 7...... 87

3.3.43 The west side room of Structure 7 after excavation had exposed sub-floor hearth channels and other features...... 87

3.4.01 Pit feature on the surface of level 1...... 88

3.4.02 Ocher grinding activity area in level 1...... 88

4.1.01 Lithic Raw Materials at Amaknak Bridge, UNL – 50...... 90

4.1.02 Raw Material Usage for Selected Major Tool Categories, UNL-50...... 91

4.1.03 The Lithic Industry from Amaknak Bridge UNL-50, 2003 Season...... 92

4.1.04 Chipped Stone Industry by Weight, UNL-50, 2003 Season...... 92

4.1.05 Breakage Pattern of Cores, Utilized/Retouched Pieces, and Shaped Tools at UNL-50...... 93

4.1.06 Weights of Unbroken Projectile Points, Amaknak Bridge...... 97

4.3.01 Broken root pick in situ, as found in the wall sods of Structure 7...... 103

4.3.02 Decorated root pick, UNL50.6272 (Drawing by Maria Charette)...... 105 . 4.3.03 Microscope view of a drilled needle eye of remarkably small diameter...... 107

4.3.04 Dorsal, ventral and side views of ivory pendant...... 109

4.3.05 Dorsal, ventral, and side view of ivory pin UNL50.66...... 111

5.6.01Preliminary mammal NISP (EU 8/83) frequencies, splitting undistinguished Phocids, Otariids, Pinnipeds, and Delphinids...... 129

5.6.02 Northern fur seal thoracic vertebra with shallow butchering cuts...... 135

5.6.03 Northern fur seal axis vertebra with deep cuts to neural arch...... 135 5.6.04 Bearded seal fibula plus glued epiphysis with cut marks...... 137 5.6.05Long-finned pilot whale radius & proximal epiphysis...... 139 5.6.06 Unknown medium-sized whale radius, fetal/newborn...... 140 5.6.07 Unknown medium-sized whale radius, proximal epiphysis...... 140 5.6.08a Unknown large whale radius, proximal epiphysis articular surface...... 141 5.6.08b Unknown large whale radius, proximal epiphysis underside...... 142 5.6.09 Red-face cormorant, L. humerus (distal) with cuts...... 148 5.6.10a Shorttailed albatross, L. ulna distal end, scored and cut...... 150 5.6.10b Shorttailed albatross, L. ulna distal end, (#500718), another aspect...... 150 5.6.11 Eagle femur with apparent ochre staining, from S3_Hfloor, Quad A...... 158 6.1.01Radiocarbon chronology of Amaknak Bridge, UNL-50 and Margaret Bay, ...... 166 6.2.01 Margaret Bay, UNL-48 Structure 1...... 167 6.2.02 Comparison of Raw Material Utilization at UNL-50 and UNL-48……………………..169 6.2.03 Major Chipped Stone Tool Types from Amaknak Bridge, and Margaret Bay...... 170 6.2.04 Amaknak Bridge, UNL-50 Ground Stone Tool Major Types...... 171 6.2.05 Margaret Bay, Level 2, UNL-48 Ground Stone Tool Major Types...... 172 7.1.01 Structure Chronology at Amaknak Bridge, UNL-50...... 176 7.2.01 Point Provenienced Tools, Structure 7...... 181 7.2.02 Point Provenienced Tools, Structure 3...... 182 7.2.03 Proint Provenienced Chipped Stone major Tool Classes, Structure 7...... 183 8.2.1 Global temperatures show a steep drop after 3,000 BP...... 187 8.2.2 Comparison of Pollen-based reconstructions of climate change at three coastal sites: Olympic Peninsula, British Columbia, and Icy Cape, Alaska……...187

9.2.01 Relative position of houses encountered and estimated base of the site………………..197

9.3.01 Amaknak Bridge Site Crew, July 2004...... 198

Tables

Table 1.2.01 Prehistoric Phases in the Eastern Aleutians (Knecht and Davis 2001)...... 25

Table 3.1.01 Amaknak Bridge Site (Unl-50) C-14 Dates...... 45

Table 3.2.01 Major Stratigraphic Units at the Amaknak Bridge Site and Numbers of Radiocarbon Samples and Artifacts Recovered...... 47

Table 4.1.01 UNL50 Chipped Stone Recovery, 2003 Season...... 89

Table 4.1.02 Lithic Terminology Used in This Report...... 89

Table 4.1.03 Major Shaped Tool Types by Percent, UNL-50, 2003 Season...... 95

Table 4.3.01 Summary tables of bone and ground stone artifacts from UNL-50...... 100

Table 5.5.01 EU 8/83 Taxa confidently identified to family/superfamily or higher (>20)...... 117

Table 5.6.01 EU 8/83 Vertebrate fauna, NISP/NSP totals and relative frequencies...... 120

Table 5.6.02 EU 8/83 Relative success of identification per major taxon...... 123

Table 5.6.03 EU 8/83 Frequency per major taxon, NISP, including EU 83 fish...... 124

Table 5.6.04 EU 8/83 Dominant taxa, NISP totals/family and relative frequency...... 124

Table 5.6.05 EU 8/83 Mammal relative frequency per major (selected) strata of NISP, per taxon (minor strata omitted). NISP totals are not site totals...... 125

Table 5.6.06 EU 8/83. Bird relative frequency per major (selected) strata, of NISP per taxon (minor strata omitted); NISP totals are not site totals...... 126

Table 5.6.07 EU 83 Fish relative frequency per major (selected) strata, of NISP per taxon (minor strata omitted); NISP totals are not site totals...... 127

Table 5.6.08 EU 8/83 Summary of mammals identified to species, relative frequency NISP...... 131

Table 5.6.09 EU 8/83 Northern fur seal and Northern sea lion sex frequencies, frequency of the total NISP of each taxa (adult & adult/subadult) that could be assign to either sex with equal confidence...... 132

Table 5.6.10 EU 83 Age class summary for Northern fur seal, Northern sea lion, Bearded seal, Ringed seal, and Harbor/Largha/Ribbon seals (together), as a proportion of total NISP of age-estimated specimens...... 132

Table 5.6.11 EU 8/83 estimated age class breakdown for young Northern fur seal, as a frequency of all specimens with an estimated age (based on comparison to elements of known-aged individuals)...... 134

Table 5.6.12 EU 8/83 Whale element representation and distribution...... 142

Table 5.6.13 Family Alcidae, size summary and frequency of occurrence...... 145

Table 5.6.14 Family Anatidae, size summary and frequency of occurrence...... 146

Table 5.6.15 EU 83. Measurements of shorttailed albatross bones...... 151

Table 5.6.16 EU 8/83 Bird body part representation, Short-tailed albatross vs. all other species combined, frequency per unit, all elements included...... 156

Table 5.6.17 EU 8/83 Bird body part representation, by dominant family NISP per unit (excluding vertebrae, fibulae, phalanges and pelvic elements)...... 156

Table 5.6.18 EU 83 Measurements of Eagle remains from a single individual (S7_Hfill)...... 157

Table 5.6.19 EU. 83 Pacific Cod size categories by major strata, relative frequency of size-estimated elements, NISP...... 159

Table 5.6.20 EU. 83 Halibut size categories by major strata, relative frequency of size-estimated elements, NISP...... 160

Table 5.7.01 Summary of seasonal (exclusive *) and habitat indicators...... 162

Table 7.1.01 Structure Interior Areas and Dimensions...... 177

Table 7.2.01 Floor Artifacts Point Provenienced with the Total Station...... 179

11 1 Project Overview

1.1 Introduction

The proposed South Channel Bridge project includes a realignment of Henry Swanson Drive. The centerline of the planned realignment goes through the middle of the Amaknak Bridge site (UNL- 50). Consequent earthmoving and construction would eliminate the site entirely. To remedy this adverse effect on the site, a data recovery plan was developed by ADOT&PF in consultation with FHWA, the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), the Ounalashka Corporation (OC), the Qawalangin Tribe (Tribe), the Unalaska Historical Commission (Commission), and the Museum of the Aleutians (Museum).

The Data Recovery Plan (4/30/2003) outlined the significance of the site, the methodology for excavation, and the research questions which would be addressed. The site had been tested in 1977 and more fully in 2000. These preliminary excavations revealed that the site was a substantial occupation with multiple stone lined semi-subterranean domestic structures. Further, the excavations revealed that the site was deeply stratified (more than 2 meters of deposit on the northern exposure), extended over an area of approximately 1,050 sq meters, was dated by by two radiocarbon (C-14) determinations between 3300 and 2700 radiocarbon years before present, and had excellent faunal preservation in extensive shell middens. In cultural historical terms, the site fitted into the late Margaret Bay phase of Eastern Aleutian prehistory. The Margaret Bay Phase is a unique manifestation in the eastern Aleutians and represents a link between the older Anangula phase (beginning around 9000 years ago) and the later Amaknak and Aleutian phases which lasted up until contact with the Russian traders. The Margaret Bay Phase is known only from the Amaknak Bridge site and from the Margaret Bay site (UNL-48) located across Iliuliuk Harbor from Amaknak Bridge.

Based on the prior excavations and additional field observations, we estimated that the Amaknak Bridge site had a remaining volume of 600 cubic meters. The Data Recovery Plan proposed removing a 20% sample or 120 cubic meters. The design of the excavation was to include large excavation blocks which would give extensive horizontal exposure for structures and features encountered at the site. The excavation area was also selected to contain faunal middens which would yield well preserved organic artifacts and food remains. We estimated in the Data Recovery Plan that we would recover on the order of 25,000 lithic and bone tools and 100 Hollinger boxes of faunal remains. The actual excavation of the site during the 2003 field season removed an estimated 264 cubic meters - more than twice the proposed volume.

We selected four research questions to guide the excavation, analysis, and reporting of the site:

12 Culture History The Amaknak bridge site gives us the opportunity to study the range of variation in type and style of artifacts and features of the Margaret Bay Phase. Basically we can try to understand the cultural similarities and differences between the two sites known sites (Margaret Bay and Amaknak Bridge) which overlapped significantly in time. The Amaknak Bridge site allows us to answer questions about continuity, variation, and cultural change during a poorly known period of Aleutian prehistory.

Household Archaeology The 2000 excavations revealed three-quarters of one stone lined semi-subterranean household structure. Ground penetrating radar survey in 2000 revealed evidence of two other structures and a possible third. Because we had only one other complete structure from this time period at the Margaret Bay site, we predicted that excavations at Amaknak would provide valuable data on household organization. A current major area of study is household archaeology, the study of domestic living space. From a close analysis of house floors and associated features our research question is to discern patterns of family organization, behavioral patterns, gendered activity, and overall social structure of the community.

Subsistence Ecology The preliminary excavations in 2000 revealed that the site had several shell middens from nearly every level of the site. These shell middens had excellent preservation of mammal, fish and bird food remains as well as of bone tools. Because the Margaret Bay site had no well preserved middens from the Margaret Bay Phase, subsistence activities were not well known. Thus the research question became “ what technologies were employed for marine subsistence, and what species and in what proportion were taken to the site”?

Adaptation to Environmental Change The Amaknak Bridge Site was occupied during an important period of climate change – the end of the Neoglacial and the onset of post Neoglacial warming. The Neoglacial is a widely known period of cooling which began after c.4000 before present (BP). Based on faunas known from the Late Anangula phase at Margaret Bay, we can see that the Neoglacial was cold enough locally to create pack ice which connected most of the Fox Island group of the Eastern Aleutians to the Alaskan Peninsula. Presence of walrus, ringed seal, polar bear all testify to a sea ice habitat (B. Davis 2001). The question to pursue is, “what does the fauna and artifact assemblage from Amaknak Bridge inform us about changes in environment and adaptation to new conditions”? The well preserved faunal record in the middens of the Amaknak Bridge Site allow us to pursue this question. It was also apparent from our previous work that during the Margaret Bay phase and the following Amaknak phase there was a significant change in technology. The lithic blade and microblade tools which were the basis for the projectile and cutting tool technology gave way to a much elaborated bone tool assemblage during the Amaknak phase. We have not been able to observe this technological transition in full before, because of the poor bone preservation at the Margaret Bay site. The excellent preservation conditions at the Amaknak Bridge site, however, allowed us to pursue the question of technological change in response to a changing environment.

13 The Museum of the Aleutians (Museum) played an important role in the data recovery effort. The Museum, located approximately 900 meters from the Amaknak Bridge site, was the center of operations during the field season. Museum equipment and facilities were integral to the success of the project. The archaeological laboratory was used continuously throughout the entire project to clean, process, record and catalogue artifacts. All of the site collections will be permanently stored at the Museum. The quantity of the data recovered from the Amaknak Bridge site required a full time laboratory coordinator and assistants.

This report presents a description and analysis of the data recovered during the course of the project. Although preliminary, it is already clear that the Amaknak Bridge site data has provided extraordinary new insights to our understanding of regional prehistory.

Chapter 1 and 2 provide an overview of the site’s context, research history, and the methods employed during the past season’s data recovery project. Chapters 3 through 5 deal with the substantive results of the project in describing the stratigraphy, chronology, features, artifacts, and faunal material. Those chapters integrate the results of the 2000 season with the 2003 season’s excavation. The research questions are presented and discussed in Chapters 9 through 8. Chapter 9 provides a brief summary of the project with recommendations for future research. An appendix provides tabular and additional data on the fauna sample. Finally, artifact plates of chipped stone, ground stone, bone tools as well as art works and decorative items are at the end of this report. Separate, supplemental reports have been submitted to ADOT&PF which describe the human burials found in Structure 7, an expanded fish and mammal faunal report, and a shelled faunal report

Figure 1.1.01 Project Location Map

Figure 1.1.02 Project location map. (ADOT&PF 2004)

The Amaknak Bridge site (UNL-50), is located on Amaknak Island, a large island that dominates Unalaska Bay (Figures 1.1.01, 1.1.02). The site is situated on a knoll overlooking the narrowest point of South Channel which separates Amaknak and Unalaska Islands, (Figure 1.1.03).

Prewar photographs show that the knoll abutted a narrow rocky beach before road construction by the military during WWII deposited large amounts of fill on top of the former beach and tidal zone (Figure 1.1.04). Today’s Airport Beach Road and Henry Swanson Drive rest on this fill, and intersect just north and east of the site (Figures 1.1.05, 1.1.06).

Figure 1.1.03 Aerial view of the southern tip of Amaknak Island. Arrow points to the Amaknak Bridge site. (ADOT&PF 2004)

Figure 1.1.04 1941 photograph of Expedition Island, with the Amaknak Bridge (arrow). (Museum of the Aleutians Collection)

Figure 1.1.05 Captains Bay and the current South Channel Bridge, locally known as ‘the bridge to the other side’. View south from the top of Haystack Hill, The Amaknak Bridge site on the far side of the channel in the foreground.

Figure 1.1.06 View of the Amaknak Bridge site with excavation in progress, showing its proximity to Airport Beach Road and Henry Swanson Drive. Photo taken from Haystack Hill looking south.

17 1.2 Cultural and Historical Background

Despite a history of research that extends back to the 1870’s, the prehistoric cultural sequence of the Aleutian Islands remained poorly defined until very recently. The research history of the islands has been characterized by numerous large scale, but often unsystematic excavations, coupled with meager reporting of the results. Investigators had a tendency to seek out sites mentioned by earlier workers and thus kept digging in the same late prehistoric sites. This helped lead to the mistaken impression of extraordinary long-term stability and little change in material culture over long time spans in the Aleutians.

McCartney’s (1984) summary in the Smithsonian Handbook of American Indians outlined two components: the Anangula Blade Tradition, then known from a single site on Umnak Island, and the Aleutian Tradition which spanned the 4500 years prior to Russian Contact. The Aleutian Tradition or Midden Period was largely based on the chronology of the Chaluka Mound site, also on Umnak Island. Research carried out over the past seven field seasons by the Museum of the Aleutians changed that picture and defined a prehistoric cultural sequence that subdivided what is essentially a single Aleutian tradition spanning 9000 years. Archaeological phases of the eastern Aleutian sequence were defined by Knecht and Davis (2001) and are summarized in Table 1.2.01. Sites representative of each phase in the sequence can be found within 3 km of the Amaknak Bridge site.

The prehistoric sequence begins with the Early Anangula Phase, first encountered at the Anangula Blade site where deposits dated to at least 9000 calendar years BP (Laughlin 1975). Two additional Anangula phase sites of equally ancient age were later investigated on Hog Island in Unalaska Bay (Dumond and Knecht 2001). No bone artifacts or remains are preserved in these earliest sites; however lithics are abundant and dominated by core and blade technology with ties to early stone tool industries of Paleolithic Asia. Large prismatic blades and microblades are common in the Early Anangula sites, along with transverse burins, retouched blades, and endscrapers. Unifacial retouch is exclusively used in tool production, with both projectile points and bifaces curiously absent from these assemblages. Substantial semi-subterranean dwellings with post molds and wall trenches were been found in association with Early Anangula settlements on Hog Island during the 2002 field season.

For many years the Early Anangula Phase remained represented by the type site of Anangula, with no other core and blade evidence at other sites in the Aleutians. William Laughlin maintained that there was cultural continuity between Anangula and the rest of the Aleutian prehistoric cultures, but archaeological evidence for this was very thin. Beginning in the 1980’s however other core and blade sites were discovered in Unalaska Bay (Bacon 1983, Veltre et al. 1984, Yesner 1988). Excavations at the Margaret Bay site produced core and blade artifacts in association with later cultures, finally linking Anangula to the rest of the sequence (Knecht and Davis 2001).

The Late Anangula Phase from about 7000 BP to 4000 BP adds bifacial technology onto the Anangula tool kit, with all the basic elements of the earlier tradition persisting. This pattern of adding new tools to an already existing foundation seems to be a theme throughout the sequence. Some technologies are eventually discarded through time, but in general prehistoric Unangan cultures are very conservative, yet seem increasingly quick to adopt new innovations. The earliest bone artifacts so far recovered in Aleutian sites are the bilaterally barbed harpoons with cruciform line guards, and eyed bone needles from the Late Anangula phase levels at Margaret Bay.

The Margaret Bay Phase, (c. 4000 to 3000 BP) was been defined in Unalaska Bay from a series of sites in found on marine terraces representing a fossil shoreline perched about two meters above current mean sea level. Core and blade technology remained in use, but was greatly diminished until it became relatively rare late in the phase. Traces of contact with the Alaska Peninsula and Kodiak area appear in the form of occasional finds of ground slate points and ground jet jewelry. The Margaret Bay phase is also distinguished by finely chipped stone tools including beaked endscrapers, polished adzes, fine pressure flaking, and other characteristics often associated with the Arctic Small Tool tradition (ASTt) (Knecht, Davis, and Carver 2001). The connections between Aleutian prehistory and ASTt, a tradition that stretches north to the Arctic coasts as far as Greenland are intriguing, but not yet fully understood. Dwellings were larger and more substantial than the preceding phases, measuring about 7 m in diameter, embedded into the earth as deep as 75 cm, and the house pit lined with a stone wall.

The Amaknak Bridge site was occupied at a time of transition between the Margaret Bay and succeeding Amaknak Phase which occurred around 3000 years ago. The Margaret Bay phase is the primary archaeological culture represented at the site, however some stylistic and decorative attributes of the Amaknak phase are also present in the collection. The chronology of the Amaknak Bridge site makes it particularly valuable as a window into the possible causes for cultural shifts that we have observed in the archaeological record in Unalaska Bay.

Prior to the 2003 data recovery project, the site was the scene of a preliminary archaeological ADOT&PF study by Glenn Bacon (1977), a preliminary excavation by Knecht and Davis in 2000, and a site boundary survey by Knecht in 2001. These preliminary studies revealed that the site was deeply stratified (more than 2 meters of deposit on the northern exposure) extended over an area of approximately 1,050 sq meters, was dated by C-14 by two determinations between 3300 and 2700 radiocarbon years before present, had excellent faunal preservation in the middens, and fitted into the late Margaret Bay phase of Eastern Aleutian prehistory. The Margaret Bay Phase is a unique manifestation in the eastern Aleutians and represents a link between the older Anangula phase (beginning around 9000 years ago) and the later Amaknak and Aleutian phases which lasted up until contact with the Russian traders. The Margaret Bay Phase is known only from the Amaknak Bridge site and from the Margaret Bay site (UNL-48) located across Iliuliuk Harbor from Amaknak Bridge.

The Amaknak Phase (c.3000- 1000 BP) represented the fluorescence of the Aleutian tradition in terms of the variety and complexity of the tool kit. Elements of the ancient Anangula phase; core and blade technology, burins, and the use of stone bowls of volcanic tuff had finally disappeared by this time. In its stead was a new toggling harpoon technology, along with a wide array of knives and scrapers, stylistically exuberant barbed points, decorated hunting equipment, and other artwork. Umqan, gigantic V-shape earthworks possibly used for food storage or as burial features were constructed on the hillsides above village sites.

The Late Aleutian Phase, began around 1000 BP and lasted up until Russian contact in the mid-18th century. Late Aleutian Phase occupations are often found on top of large midden mounds first formed in the Amaknak or earlier phases. Deep excavations into these multi-component middens tended to blur the distinctions between late prehistoric phases and contributed to the mistaken impression of the unchanging nature of the Unangan prehistory.

19 The late Aleutian tool kit is distinguished by the appearance of abundant ground slate tools, primarily ulu blades. The appearance of ethnographically known longhouses in a variety of configurations occurs sometime during the Late Aleutian Phase, with some house depressions measuring over 70 meters long. Defensive sites, such as fortified sea stacks and refuge rocks were also used during this time, evidence of long-distance warfare and inter-village raiding as coastal niches filled with growing populations along the Pacific coasts. (Knecht and Davis 2001). In Unalaska Bay the Late Aleutian Phase is best known from excavations at the Amaknak Spit site (UNL-55) or Tanaxtaxak, where a large collection of stone and bone tools were recovered dating from 560 +/- to 360 +/-70 BP (Knecht and Davis 2001).

Russian fur-hunters had reached Unalaska by 1760 (Coxe 1780). The village of Iliuliuk, known in the American era as Ounalaska (1888) and finally as Unalaska (1898) was occupied by at least some Russians continually for the next century (Orth 1967). Introduced diseases, violent conflict, and disruption of subsistence combined to drastically reduce the Unangan population which caused a steady contraction of the numbers of occupied villages throughout the Aleutian Islands (Laughlin 1980, Veniaminov 1984).

Based on survey work over the past few years, we estimate that at the time of Russian contact there may have been as many as six permanent and several more seasonal village settlements in Unalaska Bay, including several on Amaknak Island. Russian accounts indicate that three village sites on Amaknak Island had been abandoned by the 1820s, a time of rapid de-population of the Fox Islands (Veniaminov 1984).

During the 19th century the sheltered waters of Dutch Harbor presented an attractive anchorage for increasing numbers of visiting vessels which arrived following the American purchase of Alaska in 1867. By 1892 the North American Commercial Company or NACC had constructed a cluster of wharves, warehouses, dwellings, coaling bins and other structures on the southwest shore of Dutch Harbor (Yarborough 2002). The settlement boomed for a short period with the onset of the Nome gold rush of 1899, but fell into disuse shortly afterward. The older settlement of Unalaska persisted as the largest settlement in the Aleutian Islands. During the 1920’s a herring fishery developed, with several herring salteries operating in the South Channel area in the years preceding the Second World War (Swanson 1982). A set of standing structures across the channel north and east of the Amaknak Bridge site are the best preserved historic buildings representing this industry in Unalaska.

Figure 1.2.01 Detail from 1946 Map of the Naval Operating Base in Dutch Harbor, showing the Navy installations on and near the Amaknak Bridge Site. (Museum of theAleutians Collection).

With the onset of WWII Unalaska Bay became the scene of large scale military construction projects, beginning with the construction of the Dutch Harbor Naval Operating Base in 1940 with a Naval Air Station added in 1941 (Denfeld 1987). The Amaknak Bridge site lies at the base of a hill dominating the south end of Amaknak Island that the military called ‘Hill 400”. Today it is called Bunker Hill after the concrete bunker on its summit. This was a coastal defense installation with four 155mm guns along with the bunker observation post, plotting room and living quarters for the garrison. Many of the hilltop installations remain intact, however the majority of the support structures around the base of Hill 400 were torn down by the Army Corps of Engineers in a 1985 cleanup project.

None of the four WWII era Navy support buildings near the Amaknak Bridge site still exist (Figure 1.2.01). Building 1050 was dilapidated but still standing on the site, and appears in the background of photographs taken by the 1977 archaeological crew. In excavating Bacon’s 1977 trench we found in backfilled with WWII debris probably associated with that building. Building 1050 was used as ‘secured Chief Petty Officer Quarters’ (NOB Map 1946). Building 1056 located a short distance to the south was the Chief Petty Officer Mess. West of the site along modern Airport Beach Road, building 1032 was a ‘Chief Petty Officer Club’, while buildings 1040 and 1042 were ship salvage warehouses.

Table 1.2.01 Prehistoric Phases in the Eastern Aleutians (Knecht and Davis 2001).

Phase Approximate Type Sites in Diagnostic Artifacts Chronology Unalaska Bay and Features 1000-200 BP Tanaxtaxak (UNL-55), Abundant ground slate, Late Aleutian Eider Point (UNL-19) ulus, limited chipped Reese Bay (UNL-63) stone inventory, Morris Cove (UNL-9) Multiple-room and

Bishop's House (UNL-59) longhouses, fortified refuge rocks. 3000-1000 BP Summer Bay (UNL-92) Appearance of Amaknak Cahn' s Site 'D' (UNL-18) stemmed, notched Amaknax (UNL-54) lithics, elaborate barbing on bone hunting implements, toggling harpoons, asymmetrical knives, spall scrapers, umqan. Rectangular houses? 4000-3000 BP Margaret Bay (UNL-48) Blades, ASTt-like Margaret Bay Levels 2,3. tools, stone bowls, Amaknak Bridge (UNL- plummets, angle and 50) polished burins. First Tanaxtaxak, basal level, appearance of labrets, unilateral barbs on Agnes Beach, (UNL-46) harpoons, bone socket upper level. pieces, net sinkers, exotic lithics. Stone walled houses. 7000-4000 BP Margaret Bay, Levels 4,5 Abundant blades, Late Anangula Agnes Beach, lower level, stemmed points, Airport site (UNL-105) bilateral barbed Powerhouse site (UNL- harpoons with line 114) guards, first bifacial Cahn site 'K' (UNL-47) tools. Shallow semi- subterranean houses. 9000-7000 BP Hog Island Blade Site Abundant blades, Early Anangula (UNL-115), unifacial tools, transverse burins, large Oiled Blade Site (UNL- end scrapers, grooved 318) cobble sinkers, ocher grinders, stone bowls, oil lamps. Tent-like houses on shallow depressions?

1.3 History of Research

Unalaska Bay is dominated by Amaknak Island, which was the focus for many of the early archaeological investigations of the Aleutian Islands. The French adventurer and ethnographer Alphonse Pinart first collected wooden carvings and human remains from a burial cave once located in the Margaret Bay area of Amaknak Island in 1871 (Pinart 1872). This was followed by more systematic excavations by William Healy Dall in the early 1870s. Dall was a gifted natural scientist with training in paleontology and was then employed in Unalaska by the U.S. Coastal Survey. He and fellow workers excavated at seven midden sites in the area, including several on Amaknak Island. His notes on specific sites were sketchy. Dall outlined his field methods in a description that today’s archaeological practitioners might find chilling:

When stormy weather prevented surveying work, we would muster six or eight men with picks and shovels, clad in storm-proof rubber-coats, boots, and sou’westers, and attack a shell heap. Having if possible, detected the kashim, one party would enter the pit which represented it, and dig away the embankments from the inside…I do not doubt that we moved half a ton of debris for every specimen found. Thirty specimens from all sources we considered a good day’s work…(Dall 1876:7).

Dall’s collections eventually were shipped to the Smithsonian Institution where they remain today, distinguishable by the large painted lettering on each piece. Data from his work was used to support his three-state evolutionary model for Aleutian prehistory, which was a pioneering but eventually discredited attempt at establishing a regional sequence (Dall 1877:41-91).

Russian anthropologist Valdemar Jochelson and his wife and co-worker Dina Brodsky followed in 1909 with work at three sites in Unalaska Bay, including two on Amaknak Island, the Amaknak Spit site (UNL-55) and the Amaknak site (UNL-54) (Jochelson 1925). Jochelson supervised the excavations by shovel wielding gang laborers recruited from Unalaska, often completing large sized excavation blocks in a day or two. Deep rectangular depressions marking the sites of their excavations can still be clearly seen at two other sites in Unalaska Bay.

Aleš Hrdlička, a physical anthropologist and Departmental head of the Smithsonian Institution followed Jochelson’s lead and worked on at least one of the Amaknak Island sites in 1937 and 1938, removing a number of human remains and artifacts (Hrdlička 1945). Hrdlička’s excavations on Amaknak Island focused on UNL-54, a site on the opposite side of Amaknak, which he called the Amoknak Island Site (Hrdlička 1945:247-250). Among Hrdlička’s crew members in 1938 was William Laughlin, who would return to the Aleutians after WWII to lead his own research on Umnak Island (Laughlin 1980).

The rapid construction of defenses and support structures in WWII impacted nearly all of the prehistoric sites on Amaknak Island and Unalaska Bay. Navy officer Alvin Cahn had been a professor of zoology before the war, and recognized the need to preserve data and artifacts from the sites being exposed by construction work. He took basic notes on the location and extent of sites and sent substantial collections of artifacts to the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago and the American Museum of Natural History in New York (McCartney 1998).

23 Helge Larsen, an archaeologist with the Field Museum followed up on Cahn’s work in 1945 and spent two months excavating at UNL-18, another site on Amaknak Island. After the war Ted Bank, a botanist with a keen interest in Aleutian prehistory excavated and surveyed many of the sites in Unalaska Bay from 1950 to the mid-1970s (Miraglia 1986). Bank accumulated large collections, but his field methods were questionable and his field notes brief or even non-existent.

Until the 1990’s most of what was known about Aleutian prehistory was generated by a series of excavations by William Laughlin and his co-workers in the Nikolski Village area of Umnak Island, west of Unalaska Island (Denniston 1966, Aigner 1970, 1983, Laughlin 1983). Work at the Anangula Blade site and the Chaluka mound established that the archaeological record extended back some 9000 calendar years. The details of the prehistoric sequence remained unknown. Beginning in the 1970s small scale archaeological contract projects were undertaken at the Amaknak Bridge site (Bacon 1977) and at Margaret Bay (Yarborough 1988, Yesner and Mack 1993). Former Laughlin crew members Doug and Mary Veltre, Jean Aigner, and Allen McCartney conducted an archaeological survey of Unalaska Bay in 1984 and tested several sites (Veltre et al. 1984).

A historic site near Reese Bay, just west of Unalaska Bay was excavated for several seasons by Veltre, McCartney, Aigner, and Black in 1987-89. Beginning in 1996, the authors of this report began a series of excavations and surveys in the Unalaska Bay area in a long term effort to better define the prehistoric cultural sequence. Excavations were undertaken at the Margaret Bay Site (Knecht, Davis, and Carver 2001), Hog Island (Dumond and Knecht 2001), Summer Bay (Knecht and Davis 1999), and the Amaknak Bridge site (Knecht and Davis 2001). Taken together, these sites have provided an outline for the prehistoric sequence described earlier in this report.

The Amaknak Bridge site was first recorded by the WWII survey of Alvin Cahn as ‘site F’, where it may have come to his attention after midden soils were exposed by the Navy’s construction of installations on the site. Cahn provided no further topographic or stratigraphic details about the site and apparently made no collections there (McCartney 1967:50). Ted Bank apparently visited the site during one of his periodic forays into the Aleutians from the 1950s-70s, and collected a single projectile point that lacks a tip (McCartney 1967:461, 514).

Serious archaeological attention to the Amaknak Bridge site began in the mid-1970s after a bridge was proposed to link Amaknak and Unalaska Islands. The site was examined in May of 1977 under the auspices of the Alaska State Historic Preservation Office by E. James Dixon, curator of the University of Alaska Museum in Fairbanks (Bacon 1977, Dixon 1977). It was first thought to be a small remnant of a larger site destroyed by military construction. Dixon described the site as a midden deposit five meters long and two meters thick:

A recent exposure of the material about 1.5 meters in length and fifty centimeters in height revealed shell, bone and preserved fish parts which appeared to be the remains of a once more extensive midden, or, may be redeposited material from previous construction activity in the area. (Dixon 1977).

Dixon’s assessment of the disturbed nature of the midden he observed was correct. Much of the deposit he examined came from WWII bulldozer activity when the top of the knoll was leveled to provide a flat surface for the petty officers’ quarters. His estimate of the relative size of the site however was clearly an underestimate.

Investigations continued by the University of Alaska Museum under contract with ADOT&PF between July 18 and August 23, 1977, under the direction of Glen Bacon (Bacon 1977). Bacon’s excavation began with a series of one meter wide trenches into disturbed middens at the base of the knoll, which he found to be mixed with WWII era glass and fragments of dimensional lumber. This seemed to confirm the assumption that the site was a disturbed remnant and they expected that the deposits would not extend very far uphill. Further work however, revealed that intact midden layers existed, and only deepened as they excavated up into the knoll. Deposits suggesting a former marine environment were also found around the base of the knoll.

After two weeks of excavation, it became evident that the site was much larger than anticipated. It became clear that more than two meters of artifact-rich deposit was present which contained stratified faunal middens within a tephra soil matrix. The estimated size of the site was revised upward to 1,350 square meters, which was thought to curve along the side of the slope (Figure 1.3.01). The thick deposit of rocky overburden precluded an excavation on top of the knoll. The question was to determine how far the site extended into the knoll. A truck mounted drilling rig was in the area making test borings on and off shore as part of the studies for the bridge design. Bacon arranged for “additional test borings near the site when the drill rig was to be moved on shore.” The test borings were not extensive at the site, and Bacon interpreted the results of the core log as “the archaeological site may not extend more than five meters further up the hill than the uphill limit of our text excavations.”

Bacon’s work resulted in the recovery of about 1000 artifacts of chipped stone, bone, and ivory. Ground stone bowl fragments were also recovered, which were tentatively interpreted by Bacon as incised pottery. A stone-walled house structure was mapped in profile and the excellent preservation of faunal material and even wood was noted. Bacon’s team estimated a minimum age of 3000 years for the site, but held out the possibility of much older components based on the presence of core and blade technology. Two C-14 dates were obtained from the ‘middle levels’ of the site; 3360 +/-95 and 3070 +/-95 (Bacon 1980). Bacon (1980) suggested that the assemblage could shed light on the origin of Norton culture and that several elements of Arctic Small Tool related cultures such as Choris were present. Analysis of Bacon’s collection was originally considered as part of the data recovery project, however upon review of the 1977 work, it became clear that most of Bacon’s material was recovered from disturbed soils that had been pushed and eroded to the base of the knoll in the wake of WWII construction (Figure 1.3.02). It was therefore decided that re-analyzing the material was unnecessary for the purposes of the present project.

Figure 1.3.01 Bacon’s 1977 Excavation and Site Boundary Estimation (Bacon 1977)

Figure 1.3.02 Detail of Bacon’s 1977 Excavation. (Bacon 1977). Doug Veltre’s 1984 archaeological survey of Unalaska, in view of the 1977 investigations, determined not to test the site, but to focus instead on lesser known localities (Veltre, McCartney,

26 M.Veltre & Aigner 1984). They examined the ground surface and erosion faces of the Amaknak Bridge, but made no collections. They measured the site and found it to be 46 m around its curving base along the road and 8 m above the surface of the road that was later named Henry Swanson Drive. They noted the alterations to the original configuration of the site by WWII era construction of the road and building 1050, and concluded that “getting at remaining undisturbed portions of the site will be very difficult” (Veltre, McCartney, M.Veltre & Aigner 1984: 38).

In 2000, Knecht and Davis directed test excavations at the Amaknak Bridge site (Knecht 2000, Knecht and Davis 2001). The work was undertaken for two reasons, the first being the expected impact to the site by the Unalaska South Channel Bridge Relocation Project. In June 2000 planning had not progressed to the point that ADOT&PF could authorize funding an archaeological project, but nevertheless we decided that it would be prudent to begin data recovery. Our goal, in consultation with the Ounalashka Corporation, was to insure that the site could be excavated and data recovered to the fullest extent possible. The other purpose in excavating was that the chronology and preservation at the Amaknak Bridge site made it essential to our ongoing effort to reconstruct the prehistoric cultural sequence of Unalaska Bay (Knecht and Davis 2001).

Work on the Amaknak Bridge site in the 2000 field season began on June 15 and finished on August 15. Thirteen 2x2 meter excavation units were installed into the northeastern edge of the site (Figure 1.3.03). We encountered the clearly marked 1977 excavation walls left by Glen Bacon’s team, which partially overlapped ours by about 16 square meters. Like the 1977 team, we found that the overburden on top of the knoll was far too dense to allow excavation with hand tools and began the difficult task of installing our squares on the very steep gradient of the hillside. Most squares could be only partially excavated to insure that safe limits of soil wall heights were not exceeded. Only four sq. meters were excavated to reach sterile, non-cultural deposits in the 2000 season. We removed about 30 cubic meters of midden, leaving at least 20 additional cubic meters of unexcavated within our excavation block (Davis and Knecht 2000).

Figure 1.3.03 Excavations at UNL-50 during the 2000 Season.

Figure 1.3.04 Remains of Structure 1 Dwelling at the Base of the Knoll Uncovered during the 2000 Field Season at the Amaknak Bridge Site.

We uncovered the remainder of Structure 1, a prehistoric stone lined semi-subterranean house first encountered by the 1977 excavators (Figure 1.3.04), which was similar to the house we had recorded at the Margaret Bay site in 1997. A preliminary ground penetrating radar study suggested the presence of stone walled structures within the mound south of the 2000 excavation block. In general, the midden appeared to be thicker on the southern portion of the excavation block, suggesting that the richest and deepest portions of the site were yet to be uncovered. Thanks in part to the use of water screens, we recovered more than 3,000 artifacts and 40 Hollinger boxes of faunal material during the 2000 season. Several fragmentary human remains were recovered from the WWII era fill and 1977 backdirt, but none were found in undisturbed deposits.

The 2000 excavations had provided very useful data about the nature and extent of the midden deposits at UNL-50, as well as the logistics that might be involved in any future excavations at the site. Because we were unable to penetrate the overburden on top of the knoll, the true extent of the site remained unknown. To remedy this ADOT&PF contracted with the Museum of the Aleutians for a boundary survey project (State Project No. 52930). In March 2000 a series of backhoe trenches and shovel tests were done under the supervision of Knecht (Knecht 2001).

The study found that the boundaries of the Amaknak Bridge site extended less to the south and further to the west than expected. The cultural layers seemed to taper off toward the west side of the site, where the preservation of faunal midden also declined. An average of 1.5 m of disturbed midden soils and WWII era fill was found on top intact cultural layers of the site. The site was found to extend about 200 feet north-south and 250 feet east-west. The southern edge of the cultural deposits was found to be bounded by subsurface bedrock which rises to within nearly a meter of the surface (Figure 1.3.05).

Figure 1.3.05 Site boundaries of UNL-50 Determined by the 2000 Site Boundary Survey Project. (Knecht 2001)

2 Methods

2.1 Research Design

In consultation with FHWA, SHPO, OC, the Tribe, the Commission, and ADOT&PF, the Museum of the Aleutians developed a data recovery plan intended to recover 20% of the estimated volume of intact archaeological material remaining at the Amaknak Bridge site. Four research question areas were chosen to integrate this project with the current state of knowledge of Eastern Aleutian prehistory: culture history, subsistence ecology, household archaeology, and adaptation to environmental change.

In reconstructing Unangan culture history, the site provided us an opportunity to study the range of variation in type and style of artifacts and features of the Margaret Bay Phase. The two known Margaret Bay Phase sites, Margaret Bay, (UNL-48) and the Amaknak Bridge site, overlap in time. We also knew from our previous work that the Amaknak Bridge site extended into the following Amaknak Phase and that we will be able to see signs of this transition. Thus, on a cultural historical plane, the Amaknak Bridge site allows us to answer questions about continuity, variation, and cultural change during a poorly known period of Aleutian prehistory.

It was also clear that the Amaknak Bridge site could provide important new data about changes in subsistence ecology. Preliminary excavations in 2000 had revealed deep shell middens spanning the entire stratigraphic section of the site. The presence of shell chemically modifies the naturally acidic tephra soils, thus helping preserve ancient bone artifacts as well as mammal, fish and bird food remains. Bone preservation in early prehistoric sites is rare and often patchy within a site. The Amaknak Bridge bone artifact assemblage is the only one from its time period in the Aleutians. We expected to recover a variety of artifacts; harpoons, awls, needles, fish hooks and artwork, never before seen from this time period. Secondly, the food remains from the midden promised to inform the question of how ecosystems and subsistence may have changed during the Margaret Bay Phase which occurred during the Neoglacial, a time of climatic cooling in the northern hemisphere.

Another research question we wanted to address through the data recovery project was household archaeology, the study of domestic living space through analysis of house floors and associated features. We had recovered a significant portion of one household structure during our 2000 excavations, and were confident that several other structures still awaited discovery at Amaknak. Ground penetrating radar survey in 2000 on the knoll top had suggested the presence of two other structures and a possible third. We had previously recorded only one other complete structure from this time period, found at the Margaret Bay site (Knecht and Davis 2001a).

Lastly, we hoped that the archaeological record at the site would shed light on the way prehistoric Unangan peoples adapted to the environmental changes that periodically occur in the Bering Sea ecosystem. We already knew that the Amaknak Bridge site had been occupied during an important period of climate change known as the Neoglacial, a period of

45 cooling throughout the northern hemisphere around 3000 years BP. At the Margaret Bay site, we recovered the bones of animals normally associated with the ice-edge, such as walrus, ringed seal, and even polar bear (B. Davis 2001). This material dated from about 4500 BP, during the Late Anangula phase at Margaret Bay, by which time some pack ice must have been at least seasonally present.

Our initial expectations were that during the subsequent Margaret Bay phase the climate ameliorated and certainly must have had an effect on the local subsistence base. Hence the well preserved faunal record in the middens of the Amaknak Bridge site took on major importance. We hoped be able to trace the mode of subsistence change during this important transitional period. Our previous work showed that during the Margaret Bay phase and the following Amaknak phase there was a significant change in technology (Knecht and Davis 2001). The lithic blade and microblade tools which were the basis for the projectile and cutting tool technology had given way to a much elaborate bone tool assemblage during the Amaknak phase. We have not been able to observe this technological transition in full before, because of the poor bone preservation at the Margaret Bay site. With the addition of a large sample from the Amaknak Bridge site, however, we hoped to document aspects of this technological change.

The research themes that we proposed were intended to address issues that were relevant in the public interest as well as academia. As we shall see in the following chapters, the data recovery project undertaken during the 2003 season confirmed that the Amaknak Bridge site’s anticipated potential. In fact, the site produced a considerably greater amount and variety of data that we had anticipated.

The primary field excavation plan was to open large, horizontal, block excavation units. This strategy was intended to uncover intact large features such as household structures and to reveal the pattern of artifact and feature distribution. This strategy had earlier been effectively employed at the Margaret Bay site where a contiguous block of 18 2 x 2 meter excavation units had exposed an entire stone-lined house. At the Amaknak Bridge site we opened at two large block excavations (Figures 2.1.01, 2.1.02). The larger eastern block in the northeast corner of the site was linked to the 2000 excavations. A second block excavation on the western edge the site was installed in an area structural remains had been discovered during the boundary survey. This placement of excavation units proved highly effective in providing a meaningful sample of the structures, midden and artifact remains of the Amaknak Bridge site.

46 Bridge 150

Airport Road

140

5 130

120 10

15 110 East Block 20 West Block

100 site datum 25 12.0 m asl

60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130

0 10 20 30

meters contour interval = 1 meter

Figure 2.1.01 Contour map of the Amaknak Bridge site showing placement of excavation blocks in the 2003 data recovery project.

Figure 2.1.02 Square layouts at the Amaknak Bridge site showing placement of excavation blocks in 2003, 2000 and 1977.

2.2 Phase I- Site Preparation

A Notice to Proceed was received from ADOT&PF on June 4, 2003. Phase I of the project entailed the removal of the WWII overburden covering the site. It was undertaken by our subcontractors, Northern Mechanical. A backhoe was used to remove WWII era shot rock and gravels under the supervision of the co-principal investigators who stood by in the field and directed the equipment operators. As predicted, the overburden was 1 to 2 m deep and would have been impossible to remove with hand tools. A bulldozer pushed the material south of the site, where it was stored on top of the knoll. There proved to be ample room to store the overburden on the knoll top without removing it to another location. The overburden was removed down to 10-30 cm above the cultural layer, which was not impacted by the backhoe.

We were surprised at the depth of WWII road bed material under the access road leading up to the top of the knoll. On the surface it appeared to be a simple two-track of packed soil. Instead we found that the WWII crews had removed 2-3 meters of the original soils and replaced it with a layer of heavy shot rock followed by fine pea gravels. Apparently the road was intended to support very heavy vehicles if necessary. Thus the WWII roadway

48 contributed far more to the disturbance of the site than anticipated (Figure 2.2.01) The condition and extent of surviving cultural deposits still existing under the WWII access road is difficult to ascertain, but from the profiles they appear to be about a meter thick on the eastern edge of the roadway and they probably lens out quickly toward the west. We were able to expose the original road cut left by the construction of the WWII access road on the western, uphill side. The vertical exposure left by the road cut was troweled to cleanly expose a 12 meter long profile was subsequently mapped and photographed during the excavation phase (Figure 2.2.02). About 50 cm of cultural levels are exposed as well as another 75 cm or so of sterile bedded tephras.

Figure 2.2.01 WW II access road in section. The Structure 7 West surface extends underneath the roadbed

Although we were disappointed by the extent of disturbance under the roadway we were pleased to find that the subsurface disturbance of the site in the area east of the WWII access road was minimal. The WWII overburden in this area had been simply been dumped then pushed over the existing soil column. The cultural levels had been cushioned during that construction by 30- 40 cm of sterile bedded tephras that had steadily accumulated on the occupation over the three millennia following its abandonment. The weathered tephra soils are brown and silty in texture, easily distinguishable from the black stony soils that characterize the cultural deposits on the site. The tephra soils thus provided us with a convenient horizon marker to monitor the stripping of overburden from the site. In guiding the backhoe as it removed the WWII era overburden, our aim was to leave behind a 10-20 cm buffer zone of sterile soils above the cultural deposits. When the excavation phase began the crew subsequently removed this with flat shovels and trowels to expose the intact surface of the site.

Figure 2.2.02 Section exposed by WWII Road Cut

Soil profiles along the edge and the steep sides of the knoll made in the 2000 field season had revealed a layer of disturbed midden just below the surface. After the overburden was stripped away it became apparent that the disturbed midden soils we observed had most likely been removed from the cut made for the access road and pushed over the edge by a bulldozer. Four bottles were encountered during the site preparation phase, probably associated with the WWII era use of the site. They were recovered and cataloged with the rest of the collection.

2.3 Phase II- Excavation and Recording

Phase II of the project was initiated by June 11 as the crew hand cleared the remaining soils above the cultural layers with shovels and trowels. A block of 20 2 x 2 meter excavation units was installed in the east end of the site, the deepest and best preserved area. Another block of six 2 x 2 meter units was installed on the west side of the site (Figure 2.1.02). All surveying points were shot in with a total station. Ten water screens with ¼ inch mesh were constructed and placed along the north edge of the knoll (Figure 2.3.01). Water for the screens was provided by a connection to a city-owned fire hydrant provided to us by special permit.

All sediments removed from excavation units were carried in five gallon plastic buckets to a line of water screens along the northern edge of the knoll. The same methods were used with good effect by us in previous excavations at both the Amaknak Bridge site and the Margaret

50 Bay site. We found that recovery of small artifacts greatly increased when the dirt was rinsed off in the screen. Water screening had additional advantages in that it gives faunal remains and lithics a good preliminary cleaning, substantially decreasing the amount of time spent cleaning in the lab. Ten screens, each with ¼ inch wire cloth, were each equipped with a garden hose. A designated screen supervisor was in charge of the wet screening operation throughout the workday. In previous work we found that finer mesh would clog with the remains of decomposed mussel shell, and that ¼ inch screen allowed us to recover small fragments of bone needles, lithics, and faunal material (Figure 2.3.02). The water source was a City-owned hydrant a short distance away. Backdirt and slurry were channeled into the low area on the north edge of the site, where previously only sterile shot rock had existed. Thanks to this loose shot rock base, water drainage was efficient and the low area never flooded.

Figure 2.3.01 Water screens set up on the northern edge of the knoll at UNL-50.

Figure 2.3.02 Faunal recovery was excellent in many areas of the site.

All corner stakes on the excavation grid were shot in with the total station positioned over the site datum. Features, samples, and artifacts were point-provenienced with the same instrument (Figure 2.3.03). Information punched into the total station data recorder was subsequently downloaded into computers in the museum lab. Point provenience data was supplemented by hand-drawn maps of features (Figure 2.3.04).

Figure 2.3.03 Total station Crew in Action at UNL-50

Bulk samples were taken 10 cm intervals within 1 m quadrants within faunal middens in order to recover fish and marine invertebrate remains. As many mammal and bird bones as possible were retained by excavators and screeners. Diagnostic tools found in situ were point-provenienced and given an individual field number to facilitate distributional analysis. Non-diagnostic lithic artifacts and debitage was bagged by square and level. Special attention was paid to mapping and photography of features on the site, particularly when we encountered human remains and dwellings.

Most photographs were taken with digital equipment, using conventional film to record details of profiles, features, and human remains as needed. Photography and even visual access to human remains was highly restricted as stipulated in the MOA. Digital photographs have been printed so hard copies could be retained by the museum even as computer hardware continues to evolve over the years. Copies of photos are also on a series

52 of CDs. Several thousand images have been cataloged from the 2003 field season, taken with three designated field cameras as well as four cameras owned by senior field crew. Field notes and associated documentation are accorded the same care in terms of cataloging and curation as other parts of the collection.

Figure 2.3.04 Hand-drawn Maps of Features Supplemented Total Station Data.

2.4 Laboratory Analysis

Based on our previous work at the site, we planned for a large recovery of artifacts, samples, and faunal remains. One full time laboratory staff member and an assistant drawn on a rotating basis from the field crew worked in the Museum of the Aleutians laboratory during the excavation phase. In addition, the excavation crew worked in the laboratory under the direction of the laboratory staff during periods when inclement weather prevented field work at the site (Figure 2.4.01). Here artifacts and faunal material were cleaned and sorted in preparation for further analysis (Figure 2.4.02). During the analysis phase the laboratory staff will put catalogue numbers on artifacts, do preliminary sorting of faunal material, and help with data entry. The laboratory workers were drawn from members of the field crew and were supervised by Knecht at the Museum of the Aleutians, and by Davis at Bryn Mawr College.

Figure 2.4.01 The archaeological laboratory at the Museum of the Aleutians was one of three locations where collections were processed. Pacific Identifications Inc., a university based firm in Victoria B.C. was sub-contracted by the Museum of the Aleutians for the task of analyzing the faunal remains from the Amaknak Bridge site. The faunal analysis is being directed and reported by Susan J. Crockford. For the purposes of this report, faunal material from an excavation unit from the 2003 season and one from the 2000 season tests were combined to form a column sample of more than 21,000 pieces. Analysis of the remaining units as well as bulk samples are included in the supplemental faunal report. NRF Taxonomic Services under the direction of Nora Foster in Fairbanks has analyzed the shellfish in the collection.

Figure 2.4.02 Faunal material was cleaned and sorted on the Museum grounds.

Chipped stone tools were analyzed using the typology developed in Unalaska over the last seven years (Knecht, Davis, and Carver 2001). Lithics were catalogued in an Access data base, digitally imaged, weighed and measured. This operation was carried out at the

54 archaeological laboratory, Department of Anthropology, Bryn Mawr College by the Co-PI Davis during the winter of 2003-04. Bone tools as well as ground stone and others were analyzed by Co-PI Knecht at the Museum of the Aleutians using methods and typology developed in Unalaska over the last seven years.

2.5 Public Outreach

The Amaknak Bridge site is perched on a knoll top adjacent to Unalaska’s busiest roadway and our fieldwork there was highly visible. Public and media interest in the project was high and numbers of visitors stopped to see the site during the workday. This afforded an opportunity for public educational outreach, as well as a source of volunteer temporary labor on the site. Media coverage was heavy, from local radio and public television as well as Anchorage based television stations and three international film crews (Figure 2.5.01). Print media also covered work at the site. Stories were run in local and state newspapers as well as in American Archaeologist, a national magazine issued by the non-profit Archaeological Conservancy. Tour groups ranging from the youth from Camp Qungaayux to state legislators and their staffs came to the site throughout the field season (Figure 2.5.02).

Figure 2.5.01 Crew Member Simeon Snigaroff from Atka Explains Finds to Vistors.

A university level field school was held at the site under the auspices of the Museum of the Aleutians and Bryn Mawr, with credits awarded by the University of Alaska Fairbanks. There were two sessions: June 15-July 15, and July 15- August 15. In all 12 students from off-island and Unalaska participated in the 3- credit program. Direction of the field school students was shared by the three PhD crew members, with Dr. Katharine Woodhouse-Beyer of Bryn Mawr College served as the primary field instructor Volunteers were allowed to work on the water screens, but not within the excavation units. Several hundred hours of volunteer time were contributed during the course of the field season.

Figure 2.5.02 Channel 2 News Cameras in the Museum Laboratory.

3 Chronology, Stratigraphy and Settlement Structures

3.1 Radiocarbon Dating

A total of 205 C-14 samples were recovered from the Amaknak Bridge Site. Radiocarbon samples were primarily taken from wood charcoal, but also included unidentified charred material and decayed wood from house floors. Not surprisingly, wood charcoal in the Aleutian archaeological sites is uncommon compared to areas closer to standing forests. Driftwood was occasionally burned as fuel, but seems to have been conservatively utilized. About half of the samples obtained during the 2003 season fall between the 10 and 30 gram (gm) sample size recommended by Beta Analytic for processing by the standard radiometric technique, although many would require an extended count. The remaining C-14 samples are smaller, and would need to be analyzed through AMS, or Accelerator Mass Spectrometry, which is equally accurate, but more than twice as expensive. We also hope that the charcoal from the site can be employed in wood identification analysis in future studies.

Nine C-14 samples have so far been run from materials recovered during the 2003 excavation (Table 3.1.01). They are consistent with other dates run from the site, which yield a mean date of 3016 years BP. Although it seems certain that the site was occupied for several centuries before and after 3000 BP, no major differences in the artifact assemblages or tool types have been observed so far in our analysis of various levels at the site. Consequently, we view UNL-50 as an essentially single component prehistoric site.

Table 3.1.01 Amaknak Bridge Site (Unl-50) C-14 Dates

Field Stratigraphic Radiocarbon Calibrated Age Reference Number Unit/Feature Age 2 sigma, 95% Number probability 2003 Season (Knecht & Davis) Sq. 170, #395, 433 Structure 3, fill 2 2540 +/-60 BC 820-420 Beta-184635 Sq. 171D, #862 Structure 3, hearth 2590 +/-90 BC 910-420 Beta-181341 Sq. 174, #1947 Structure 4, fill 2670 +/-70 BC 940-780 Beta-184638 Sq. 171C, #3623 Structure 7, main rm. 2840 +/-90 BC 1280-820 Beta-184636 Sq. 113, #808 Structure 5, fill 2970 +/-60 BC 1390-1000 Beta-181339 Sq. 113C, #2909 Structure 5, floor 3000 +/-70 BC 1410-1010 Beta-184634 Sq. 174, #1788 Level 1 3240 +/-90 BC 1720-1320 Beta-184637 Sq. 86, #1117 Structure 2, floor 3370 +/-60 BC 1770-1520 Beta-181340 Sq. 78, #3152 Structure 7, w. side rm. 3470 +/-70 BC 1950-1620 Beta-184633 2000 Season (Knecht & Davis) Sq. 9 Level 2 2780 +/-70 BC 1110-810 Beta-151119 Sq. 10 Level 4- base of site 3310 +/-110 BC 1880-1390 Beta-151120 1977 Season (Bacon) UA-77-71-2 ‘middle levels’ 3070 +/-95 Teledyne347 UA-77-71-1 ‘middle levels’ 3360 +/-95 Teledyne348

3.2 Stratigraphy

Excavation at the Amaknak Bridge Site was primarily done using natural levels. Major stratigraphic units and the relative numbers of artifacts recovered from them are summarized in Table 3.2.01. Level 1 was defined as the top surface of the intact archaeological deposits encountered under the WWII overburden and bedded sterile tephras that lay above. Both the East or West excavation blocks were placed entirely within undisturbed prehistoric deposits. Eventually the East block was expanded until it bordered WWII era disturbances on the very edge of the knoll to the east and the road cut to the west.

Level 1 was a very dark silty soil heavily mixed with deposits of gravel, cobbles, and small boulders. The rock common to Level 1 and other levels at the site all derived from the various cultural practices of the prehistoric inhabitants. Gravel appears to have been used in cooking and was found in heaviest quantities mixed with fishbone middens. Considerable quantities of beach gravel were present at the site- a typical 5-gallon bucket of backdirt usually yielded 1-2 quarts of gravel when screened. Gravel from the bulk faunal samples has been retained for study. Larger cobbles and small boulders appear to have been carried to the site for use in construction, primarily walls of houses. Most of these are sub-angular and appear to have been carried up from the beach that once surrounded the base of the knoll, as evidenced by barnacles and other marine growth still present some 3,000 years later (Figure 3.2.01). Preservation of bone artifacts in Level 1 was less commonplace than in deeper levels, with the notable exception of artifacts recovered in association with several large lenses of faunal midden. The middens were exposed, mapped, and removed as a unit.

Figure 3.2.01 Barnacles previously attached to sub-angular cobble at UNL-50.

Table 3.2.01 Major Stratigraphic Units at the Amaknak Bridge Site and Numbers of Radiocarbon Samples and Artifacts Recovered

STRATIGRAPHIC UNIT C-14 CHIPPED BONE AND GROUND SAMPLES STONE IVORY STONE ARTIFACTS ARTIFACTS ARTIFACTS Level 1 35 494 150 413 Level 1, Faunal midden 1 2 5 114 26 Level 2 40 688 632 396 Level 2, Faunal midden 1 2 8 40 22 Level 2, Faunal midden 2 9 33 137 95 Level 2, Pit Feature fill 2 19 112 43 Level 3 2 295 131 94 Structure 2, House pit fill 6 55 1 30 Structure 2, House floor 8 51 0 19 Structure 2, Floor pit feature 1 5 0 1 Structure 3, House pit fill 1 0 4 47 8 Structure 3, House pit fill 2 2 8 36 6 Structure 3, House floor 15 64 85 100 Structure 4, House pit fill 3 54 76 48 Structure 4, House floor 1 42 59 26

58 Structure 5, House pit fill 17 57 3 56 Structure 5, House floor 2 68 0 23 Structure 5, House sub-floor 3 10 0 5 features Structure 6, House fill 0 8 23 3 Structure 6, House floor 1 9 66 13 Structure 7, Main room fill 9 39 214 87 Structure 7, Main room floor 5 134 59 48 Structure 7, Main room sub- 0 1 48 19 floor Structure 7, Hearth channel fill 1 2 14 8 Structure 7, Southwest room 0 1 8 1 fill Structure 7, Southwest room 9 23 41 12 floor Structure 7, Northwest room 2 8 13 7 fill Structure 7, Northwest room 1 4 6 7 floor Structure 7, West room fill 3 21 66 50 Structure 7, West room burned 5 0 2 4 floor Structure 7, West room floor 4 32 21 7 Structure 8, House fill 0 8 28 18

Figure 3.2.02 East excavation block, surface of level 1 after removal of WWII overburden and bedded tephras.

Level 2 soils were similar to those of Level 1, but were a lighter brown color. In general the brownish cast of the soils at the site increased with depth presumably from the greater admixture of tephra soils. Sterile brown tephras lie below the cultural layer, and were also brought into the site in the form of sod blocks used as mortar between layers of rock in the

59 construction of house walls. Both excavation blocks were dominated by house pits and stone house walls. Precious little stratified deposit existed between the houses, and what there was tended to be heavily reworked by repeated excavation of house pits by the prehistoric occupants of the site. Stratified soil deposits were sometimes found in housepits, which seem

Figure 3.2.03 Multiple house walls filled the east excavation block.

to have served as refuse pits after abandonment and collapse of the house structure. Deposits within encircling stone walls, but above the floors of houses were categorized as separate stratigraphic units. We departed from our use of natural levels with Level 3, which was arbitrarily differentiated from Level 2 when it extended past the house walls of Structure 7.

Stratigraphy in the west excavation block differed somewhat from that in the east block, Structure 2, which dominated the block, had been excavated by its prehistoric builders into sterile bedded tephras. Level 2 was missing from the east block, where the cultural deposits were found in a matrix of weathered tephras (Figure 3.2.04). Very little faunal material and few bone artifacts were recovered from the acidic tephra soils in this area of the site. The deposits in the east block are among the chronologically oldest encountered on the site. Similarly early deposits probably exist in the tephra sediments another meter or so underneath the limit of the 2003 excavations in the west block, which lies downhill of the east block.

Figure 3.2.04 Excavations in progress in the west excavation block.

The excavation blocks were large, but no wall was permitted to exceed the maximum 48 inches stipulated by OSHA standards. The block layout was designed to maximize the number of house structures and extra excavation units were added to the blocks as necessary to expose as much of the structures as we possibly could. Soil profiles were thus limited in size. In the west block sediments that had accumulated in the house pit of Structure 2 were photographed and drawn, then removed. Because of the extremely friable nature of the tephra sediments maintaining balk walls was not practical. The largest profile we were able to record in the 2003 season was Profile 1, located along the western edge of the profile exposed by the WWII roadcut (Figure 3.2.05).

61 Figure 3.2.05 UNL-50 excavation squares and locations of major soil profiles.

3.3 House Features

The Amaknak Bridge Site yielded an unexpected number of structures with excellent preservation of associated features. In the 2000 season we had encountered about two-thirds of a stone walled house that had been truncated by marine erosion at the base of the knoll. In the 2003 season six additional houses and partial segments of walls representing at least six others were encountered in the portion of the site we sampled (Figure 3.3.01). The multiple room floor plan employed in Structure 7 predates others from Unangan/Inuit culture areas by at least 2,000 years. Of the six hearth features we recorded within the various houses, all were located on the eastern side of the house in the direction of the rising sun. The hearths were located adjacent to the house wall and were associated with specialized features such as sub-floor heating channels and chimneys. This complex of hearth features is the first of their kind to be recorded in the North American Arctic.

The houses at the site were distinguished by their stone walls, made of multiple courses of large cobbles and small boulders. Courses of rock were often separated by blocks of sod, represented by 5-10 cm of culturally sterile tephra soils, apparently cut from sods off site. The heights of house walls averaged about 70 cm, but occasionally were as high as 1.5 meters. House floors were often covered by wall rocks that had collapsed inward in the years after the house had been abandoned. Abandoned house pits presented convenient places for rubbish disposal and seem to have been filled fairly rapidly, thus helping preserve house walls and other interior features. The houses were found in close vertically and horizontal proximity each other. The maze of stone walls and rooms we uncovered in the east excavation block was visually reminiscent of pueblo sites in the American Southwest (Figure 3.2.03). Not all of the houses had been occupied at the same time, and with careful attention to the relative stratigraphic superposition of the houses we were able to determine a probable sequence of occupation. Structures were numbered in order of their discovery, and are discussed below in the same order.

62 S7-NW S3 S7-W S 7 S7-M -S S6 W

S5 S2 S4

West Block

Datum East Block

10 meters

Figure 3.3.01 Location of major structures at UNL-50.

Structure 2 The western excavation block, located somewhat uphill from the top of the knoll, was found to be nearly free of WWII overburden. Most of the 60 cm or so of accumulated bedded tephra soils above the cultural levels were cleared by hand. Sub-angular boulders were found protruding from the cultural levels and it immediately became clear that a probable house structure was present. The house pit of Structure 2 had been excavated into a culturally sterile tephra matrix and the edges were clearly defined. Unlike the other structures encountered at the site, the post-collapse house pit had not been filled with prehistoric refuse, but had gradually filled with air-fall tephras (Figure 3.3.02). Defining the house floor entailed careful troweling through bedded tephras as well as the possible remains of collapsed roof sods.

Figure 3.3.02 Bedded tephra soils in the structure 2 housepit.

The walls of Structure 2 were lined with a single row of standing flat slabs of stone (Figure 3.3.04). A similarly constructed semi-subterranean dwelling wall had been observed at the Margaret Bay site, in a context that yielded a conventional radiocarbon date of 3630 +/-70 BP. Charcoal recovered from the floor of Structure 2 dated from 3370 +/- 60 BP, suggesting that house walls with a single row of stone supports were replaced by much more substantial stone walls of multiple courses sometime around 3000 BP, perhaps as a response to the onset of the cooler Neoglacial climate.

Well defined holes remained in some places where some wall rocks had been removed, perhaps for reuse in other structures. Stratigraphic evidence suggests that the wall stones had protruded from the ruined house for many years after abandonment, inviting salvage during later occupations. One of the wall supports in Structure 2 was a large piece of whalebone, now represented only by bone shadow. Preservation of bone was poor to non-existent in Structure 2. Flat stones and a whale vertebra found on the house floor may have been used to anchor roof supports, a practice reflected in the other houses encountered at UNL-50.

Figure 3.3.03 Floor plan of structure 2. Grey shaded area is a sub-floor hearthchannel. (Drawing by Kevin M. Porter)

65 Once located, the floor of Structure 2 was well defined by charcoal stains, artifact inclusions, and its densely packed texture (Figure 3.3.04). The floor slanted at about a 5 degree angle downhill toward the east, presumably for drainage, although geological factors should not be ruled out.

Structure 2 possessed a remarkable complex of features representing the remains of a remarkably sophisticated heating system. The hearth was relatively small in area, but had been deeply excavated to about 40 cm below the level of the house floor. Above the hearth we uncovered the partially collapsed but unmistakable remains of a chimney made from flat stone slabs (Figure 3.3.05). The chimney passage was nearly 70 cm long and had once been clearly vented outside of the house walls. How high the exterior chimney structure may have been remains unknown, however at least one house chimney elsewhere in the site had an exterior vent of stones and whalebone representing a stack at least 70 cm high. Chimney structures have no analogues in the archaeological record of North American Arctic, and very few in the rest of prehistoric America. The chimney in Structure 2 was the smallest of the three chimneys uncovered at the Amaknak Bridge Site.

Two shallow channels led out of the hearth area in a wishbone configuration (Figure 3.3.03). The left channel was a meter long and covered with stone slabs. The hearth channel on right led for about 4 m, nearly reaching the west wall of the house. We at first assumed that the channels were intended for drainage, but were puzzled by the fact the channels led into a deeply installed fire hearth. However as the season progressed, better preserved and more elaborate heating complexes were uncovered in other structures, and function of the features became more clear. The hearth channels funneled heat, perhaps even steam, upwards from the hearth under the floor. While no prehistoric analogues are lacking in North America, a virtually identical system of sub- floor heating, known as ondol was used in Neolithic Korea and the Russian Far East by 700 BC (Bale 1999, V.Shubin, Personal Communication 2004). We had earlier found V-shaped hearth channels in house floors at the Margaret Bay site (Knecht, Davis and Carver 2001), however they were not as well preserved and their purpose eluded us until the discoveries at the Amaknak Bridge Site.

Another prominent feature in the floor of Structure 2 was a large sub-floor storage pit which was found covered with stone slabs (Figure 3.3.06, 3.3.07). The pit was located between near the hearth, between the hearth channels. Similar sub-floor storage pits were found in a house floor at Margaret Bay (Knecht ,Davis and Carver 2001: 45) dating to about 3280 +/-70 BP. Interestingly, sub-floor storage features are much smaller or entirely absent from the later structures found at the Amaknak Bridge Site. It is possible that an alternative feature or method of food storage was developed sometime around 3,000 BP.

The artifact assemblage recovered from Structure 2 is primarily represented by lithics because of the poor preservation conditions present here, as elsewhere on the western periphery of the site.

Figure 3.3.04 Structure 2 house floor and associated features.

Figure 3.3.05 Partially collapsed remains of chimney feature above hearth area in Structure 2.

Figure 3.3.06 Slab covered storage pit in the floor of Structure 2.

Figure 3.3.07 Structure 2 storage pit feature after excavation.

Structure 3

Structure 3 was found high in the stratigraphic column at the site, and yielded the most recent radiocarbon dates of any house at UNL-50. Refuse filling the housepit dated to 2540 +/-60 (uncalibrated), while wood charcoal from the hearth dated to 2590 +/-90. Although Structure 3 is the youngest house encountered at UNL-50, it is clear from the housepit fill that the site was still being occupied for at least some years after the house had collapsed. A large faunal midden feature (Faunal midden #1) associated with Level 2 was found lying on top the stone walls and inside the house pit of Structure 3 (Figure 3.3.08). A well preserved faunal deposit 30-50 cm deep comprised the top layer of the house pit fill, followed by another 20-30 cm of reworked soils and possible roof sods deposited on top of the house floor. The respective house fills were analyzed as separate stratigraphic units. None of the other house fills encountered in the 2000 season were as neatly stratified as that of Structure 3.

Figure 3.3.08 Forelimb bones of a small whale in situ among the faunal midden fill inside Structure 3.

The house walls in Structure 3 were very substantially constructed from a row of angular rock slabs up to 60 cm high, followed by multiple courses of small boulders of rounded stone. Remains of a collapsed whale mandible roof support was found resting against the inside of the northwest portion of the wall. The house was located on the northeastern corner of the excavation block, near the edge of the knoll, and the northeast portion of the house wall had been lost to erosion at some point in the past. Enough rocks from the missing wall present to determine that the house floor just inside had likely been preserved intact. Structure 3 was the smallest of the houses recorded at the site, a single roomed house measuring under 4 m in interior diameter

69 (Figure 3.3.09). Given its small size, it is also possible that Structure 3 may have in fact been a side room attached to a larger structure lost as the knoll eroded.

Figure 3.3.09 Structure 3 floor plan and associated features. (Drawing by Kevin M. Porter)

Figure 3.3.10 Walls and exposed house floor of structure 3.

The floor of Structure 3 was well defined in most areas, composed of charcoal stained, tightly packed soils with abundant artifacts and faunal material (Figure 3.3.10). An unusual number of in situ artifacts were found on the floor of this house, suggesting that abandonment and subsequent infilling of the house pit had followed in fairly rapid succession. A cluster of 37 egg-sized stones was found along the northwest wall, probably representing a cache of cooking stones (Figure 3.3.11). A flat rock nearby with two stones on top may have functioned as a work surface. Another cache of three pebbles was recovered in the southern portion of the floor. Near the base of the southern interior wall we found a bundled cached of albatross long bones, possibly intended for the manufacture of needles (Figure 3.3.12).

A hearth constructed of buried stone slabs was partially intact along the eroded edge of the wall (Figure 3.3.13). The hearth had been planted 35 cm below the level of the house floor and was filled with thin layers of charred soil but little else. Only a single remnant of a hearth channel was present, consisting of a meter long line of covered uprights leading southwest from the hearth. The slab upright elements were later found to be part of the wall of Structure 6, partially beneath Structure 3, and had evidently been used opportunistically in constructing the hearth channel.

The roof of Structure 3 had been supported by a cluster of centrally located posts, evidenced by two post molds, a whale vertebra, and slab. Base supports for posts in the form of stone slabs and whale vertebrae were found in association with all the houses at the Amaknak Bridge site. Post molds, by contrast were relatively rare.

Figure 3.3.11 Cache of cooking stones in situ on the floor of Structure 3.

Figure 3.3.12 Cached albatross long bones on the floor of Structure 3.

Figure 3.3.13 Remains of slab hearth feature in Structure 3.

Structure 4

Structure 4, like Structure 3 to the north, was found fairly close to the surface of the site. Charcoal from house pit fill yielded a C-14 date of 2670 +/-70, indicating that Structures 3 and 4 were contemporaneous, or at least nearly so. Structure 4 was a round house about 4m in diameter with a massive stone wall that in some areas exceeded 1 m high (Figure 3.3.14). A row of large flat slabs formed the bottom of the wall, followed by irregularly placed course of small boulders and large cobbles (Figure 3.3.15). A jumbled but distinct rock alignment stretched southward from the north wall for about a meter, possibly representing the remains of a room divider or interior storage feature (Figure 3.3.16). Structure 4 was located on the edge of the knoll and about 2 meters of its eastern wall, along with an adjacent sliver of house floor had been lost to erosion. The south wall was constructed as if a passage way had once existed, and the top of one stone wall (Structure 9) seemed to be attached to Structure 4. It is possible that Structure 4 in fact represented a portion of a multiple roomed structure which lies beneath unexcavated portions of the east excavation block.

Reworked middens, rock and sediment had filled the house pit to a depth of about 50 cm. The northern portion of the wall was in poor condition and had been knocked down. The northern wall had probably been exposed on the surface longer after abandonment than the well preserved western wall embedded deeper in the site and more quickly buried by refuse. A chipped stone asymmetrical knife blade was found stored in a niche between wall rocks on the western side of the houses.

The house floor in Structure 4 was excavated in two equal halves in an effort to map floor stratigraphy, however the 25 cm of floor deposits had no visible stratification. No sub-floor storage features were found in Structure 4, possibly because the house floor lay on top of loose faunal deposits that were unsuited for the purpose. The hearth,

73 located inside the northeast wall, was made up of a wall of cobbles embedded 35 cm below the level of the surrounding house floor (Figure 3.3.18). No hearth channel features were found in association with Structure 4. Two whale vertebrae on the house floor may have served as supports for house posts (Figure 3.3.17).

Figure 3.3.14 Floor plan of Structure 4. (Drawing by Kevin M. Porter)

Figure 3.3.15 West wall of Structure 4 after removal of the floor deposits.

Figure 3.3.16 Internal wall or storage feature in Structure 4.

Figure 3.3.17 Whale vertebra post support on the floor of Structure 4.

Figure 3.3.18 Hearth feature in Structure 4

76 Structure 5 Structure 5 was only partially excavated. Located on a corner of the east excavation block the house wall had been truncated by the excavation for the WWII roadway on the west, and extended into unexcavated portions of the site on the south. Because the WWII disturbance had already removed a portion of the structure, there seemed little to be gained in expanding the excavation block any further only to uncover a thin remnant of the house. Assuming a round floor plan similar to Structures 3 and 4, we estimate that we uncovered about 75% of the original house floor in Structure 5. Whether Structure 5 was a single room dwelling or a side room of a larger multiple room house remains unknown at this point. The fill of this structure yielded a good quantity of wood charcoal representing the remains of one or two charred logs that were discarded along with other refuse. A radiocarbon date of 2970 +/-60 BP was obtained from the charcoal. Another date was obtained from charcoal on the house floor of Structure 5; 3000 +/-70, suggesting that infilling of the abandoned house was relatively rapid.

Structure 5 had the most robust stone wall of any of the structures encountered on the site, measuring nearly 1.5 m high and a meter thick on the relatively intact northern side (Figure 3.3.19). Sods had also been used in construction of the roof and walls, collapsing inward and sideways into the house in such a way that the stratigraphy of the various sod blocks was visible (Figure 3.3.20). As in other houses on the site, thin layers of sooty charcoal staining were found in the tan tephra sediments of former sods, suggesting that they represented remains of the roof. Soot stained sods were found about 1 m south of the hearth. The top half of the eastern wall had also collapsed inward on top of the house floor before the subsequent deposition of the house fill sediments and midden (Figure 3.3.21). The wall of Structure 5 partially covered the earlier wall of the southeast side room of Structure 7.

The living floor of Structure 5 was well defined by oily charcoal staining on its compacted surface (Figure 3.3.22). Bone preservation was generally poor both in the fill and on the floor of this house. Preservation in Structure 5 as elsewhere in the site was a product of the relative quantity of shell-rich middens deposited or mixed with the soil matrix. Several small post molds and slab post supports indicated that roof supports were located near center of the house. The hearth feature had been covered by the inward collapse of the eastern wall, but otherwise resembled other hearth features in the site in that it was deeply embedded and lined with stone slabs (Figure 3.3.23). The hearth had been installed against the buried rock wall of the southwest side room of Structure 7, which had been occupied earlier in time. Heat from the hearth had cracked and damaged the base of the side room wall which contributed to its partial collapse as Structure 7 was excavated. Human remains and other contents of the side room were unaffected by heat from the Structure 5 hearth.

Sub-floor hearth channels lead out from the hearth of Structure 5, however the channels were not lined with rock slabs and their outlines were poorly preserved. The hearth channels in this house may have originally been lined with wood. Rock slabs which probably covered the hearth channels at one time were found in disarray on the house floor.

Figure 3.3.19 Floor plan and features in Structure 5. (Drawing by Kevin M. Porter)

Figure 3.3.20 Wall sods collapsed inside of Structure 5.

Figure 3.3.21 Partially collapsed wall of Structure 5.

Figure 3.3.22 Living floor surface in Structure 5.

Figure 3.3.23 Hearth pit feature in Structure 5.

80 Structure 6

Structure 6 was a partial remnant of a stone-lined house pit (Figures 3.3.24, 3.3.25). The approximate southern one-half of Structure 6 had been truncated by Structure 4. The eastern wall and adjoining house floor of Structure 6 had been lost to erosion of the knoll top. The northern wall had been removed except for the basal row of upright slabs by the builders of Structure 3. The existence of Structure 6 first became evident after the removal of the Structure 3 house floor. Some of the wall slabs had been used opportunistically by the occupants of Structure 3 in constructing their sub-floor hearth channels.

No charcoal samples large enough for a conventional radiocarbon date were obtained from the relatively small section of intact house floor that remained in Structure 6. An approximate age bracket for this house can be determined based on its stratigraphic relationship to the other houses. Structure 6 was earlier than both Structure 3 and Structure 4 above, however the floor of Structure 6 extended over the house fill and wall of the west end of the main room of Structure 7. Therefore we can safely assume that Structure 6 was occupied between the radiocarbon years of 2590 +/-90 (Structure 3 hearth) and 2840 +/-90 (Structure 7, main room).

The house floor of Structure 6 seemed to be thinner than other house floors encountered at the site, seldom exceeding 10 cm in depth. Flecks and stains of bright red ocher were present throughout the section of floor that remained, which we estimate to represents about a third of its original extent. The hearth area appears to have been lost to erosion, however a 1 m section of a slab covered hearth channel was uncovered, indicating that the hearth was originally located on east side of the house (Figure 3.3.26). At least one whale vertebrae had been used as a structural element in building the house wall of Structure 6.

Figure 3.3.24 The west wall of Structure 6 (arrow) as it appeared following the removal of the floor in Structure 4.

Figure 3.3.25 Floor plan of Structure 6. (Drawing by Kevin M. Porter)

Figure 3.3.26 Hearth channel feature in floor of Structure 6.

Structure 7

Structure 7 represents the remains of a well preserved 4-room dwelling and was the most complex and informative of all the remarkable features encountered at the Amaknak Bridge site (Figures 3.3.27, 3.3.28). The carefully constructed stone walls averaging nearly a full meter in height were separated by the remains of sod blocks which were evidently cut off site, for the sods are artifact-free bedded tephra soils (Figure 3.3.29). The walls were constructed inside of a pit dug at least a meter deep into the midden deposits left by earlier residents of the site, and a well defined edge of the original housepit can be seen along many places in the wall of Structure 7 in the form of a line between the shell fish rich midden soils and the tan tephras of the wall sods (Figure 3.3.30).

Structure 7 consisted of a large semi-rectangular main room with three smaller rooms attached to its western side. A southwest side room was entered through an interior step-up entryway. A similar step-up entry was used to enter a northwest side room. The interior entry route, if there was one, to the largest side room on the west end of Structure 7 could not be determined. The exterior entryway to Structure 7 was not obvious; a roof or sidewall entryway remain equal possibilities. As the excavation progressed we were continually amazed at the various archaeological features contained within Structure 7. There were two hearth, sub-floor channel and chimney complexes, one in the main room, the other in the west side room. The southwest side room had been used as a burial place for at least six individuals. The various rooms and associated features are discussed and illustrated individually in the following pages.

Figure 3.3.27 Floor plan and major features of Structure 7. (Drawing by Kevin M. Porter)

Figure 3.3.28 Structure 7 from eight meters above, looking west.

Figure 3.3.29 Main room wall of Structure 7. (Soil between the courses of stone derives from the remains of sod blocks used in construction)

Figure 3.3.30 House pit of Structure 7 Showing cut into earlier midden deposits. The outline of the ancient excavation was visible along the east (left) and south (right) walls of the main room.

Structure 7: Main Room

The sub-rectangular main room of Structure 7 has interior dimensions of roughly 6 m by 4 m. Structure 7 was first encountered in the form of a large midden filled depression associated with Level 2. Measuring about 4 m in diameter, and more than 1 m deep at the center, the pit was located above what was later revealed to be the main room of Structure 7. Many of the abandoned and collapsed houses at the Amaknak Bridge site had been subsequently filled with refuse, however we didn’t recognize what the pit represented at first because of its large size. Only when the tops of stone walls were revealed around the edge of the depression did its association with Structure 7 become clear. Within the walls of the main room was an additional level of fill; reworked soils lightly mixed with faunal material that seem to have been deposited fairly quickly into the house pit. The relatively rapid infilling of Structure 7 probably contributed to the excellent preservation of both the stone house walls and interior features. The house was also buried deeply enough to escape being disturbed by the subsequent construction of other pit houses in the same location in later centuries.

The stone walls lining the main room seem to have been built with more care than the later houses on the site, although this could have also been a product of better preservation. Perhaps walls of abandoned houses left exposed on the surface were targets of opportunity for salvage in the construction of newer houses and features. An exception seemed to be a 4 m section of the main room’s south wall which was in good alignment but was shorter and less solidly constructed (shaded in Figure 3.3.27). This section of the wall leaned inward at a precarious angle (Figure 3.3.34). We eventually learned that there was another wall about 50 cm behind this, representing the base of the original house wall, the top courses of which had fallen and been repaired. Episodic wall collapses may have been a drawback of stone-walled houses in a region prone to frequent earthquakes as well as slope failures that occur when the tephra soils become waterlogged.

The floor of the main room was defined by its compact nature as well as the ocher and charcoal staining and artifact inclusions common to all the house floors on the site. While the compacted top surface of the floor was easy to expose, it was more difficult to discern where the floor stopped and the reworked midden soils below the floor began. The relative positions of stone wall slabs and floor features were an aid to excavators in this regard. The floor deposits averaged about 15 cm deep and preservation conditions were excellent throughout the main room. A thin but readily identifiable film of rotten wood was uncovered on the very top surface of the floor (Figure 3.3.35), perhaps representing the remains of former roof beams. Although slices of the wood were barely recoverable, it remains a remarkable case of good preservation for a house floor more than three thousand years old.

An alignment of upright rock slabs in the south east corner of the main room proved to be the remains of yet another (unnumbered) house structure that had been truncated by the construction of Structure 7. The uprights had been left in place and apparently used as part of an interior storage structure or even room divider. A jumble of wall rocks lay just east of the uprights as if the feature had been dismantled shortly before the abandonment of the house.

The most spectacular feature of the main room was the extensive hearth, chimney and sub- floor hearth channel complex that extended under at least a third of the entire floor. The chimney had once extended upward from the surrounding ground surface outside the house wall for at least 40 cm and was first uncovered as a pile of leaning whalebone uprights and stone slabs (Figure 3.3.32). We were startled to find that beneath this was a yawning chimney hole, only very loosely filled with soil and extending down 150 cm to the hearth built into the wall of the main room. A series of horizontal whalebone ribs braced the west side of the chimney vent, and a u-shaped wall of stacked stone supported the remainder. It was clear from the shape of the housepit cut that the chimney vent was part of the intended design of the house and not installed as an afterthought. The hearth box built into the east wall of the main room led into a rounded slab lined pit about 50 cm in diameter, which in turn led into a pair of wide hearth channels that extended into the main room in Y shaped configuration (Figure 3.3.31). The channels averaged about 10 cm deep and were covered by flat slabs of rock. An adjacent pair of flat rocks located nearest the hearth were the largest used in the entire house, measuring up to 70 cm long. When excavated the northern hearth channel was found to be somewhat shorter, deeper and narrower than the longer and wider channel on the south. The base of the southern hearth channel was hard packed, well defined, and heavily mottled with red ocher staining. The largest number of stone beads found in any single context at the Amaknak Bridge site were those recovered from inside the hearth channels were they seem to have accumulated after being lost.

The roof of the main room of Structure 7 was supported by two parallel lines of wooden and/or whalebone posts located about 1 m inside the walls (Figure 3.3.33). Post molds were not existent, however the locations of the posts is evident from the position of flat stone and whale vertebrae supports. Similar post supports have been reported from proto- historic Unangan longhouses on Unalaska, where they evidently helped keep the wooden ends of timbers from rotting as a result of sustained contact with damp soil (Veltre and McCartney 2001).

Figure 3.3.31 Chimney, hearth, and hearth channel complex on the east end of Structure 7 main room (top), and hearth channels after excavation (bottom).

Figure 3.3.32 Main room chimney feature of Structure 7 before (left) and after excavation (right).

Figure 3.3.33 A variety of house post supports on the floor of the central room in Structure 7 (left), detail of whale vertebrae support (right).

Figure 3.3.34 The south wall of Structure 7’s main room had collapsed and been replaced with a new wall in front of the old.

Figure 3.3.35 Remains of wooden supports preserved on the compacted soil of the floor in the main room of Structure 7.

Structure 7: Southwest Side Room

The southwest side room of Structure 7 was entered through a step-up through a low notch placed near the center of the west wall of the dwelling’s main room (Figure 3.3.36). The floor of the side room was elevated about 40 cm above that of the adjoining main room, suggesting that it may have been intended as a sleeping chamber with the lower main room floor acting as a kind of cold trap. The exterior walls of the southwest side room were much more robust than the interior walls, which were constructed of relatively small cobbles. At least two massive stone ocher pallets had been utilized in building the exterior west facing wall. The exterior wall was stoutly constructed and stood 75 cm to 1 m high (Figure 3.3.37).

As excavators neared the base of the house fill of the southwest side room, human remains were discovered. At first it appeared that the scattered skeletal elements may have been deposited as part of the fill, perhaps following accidental excavation of a burial during the construction of a housepit. However it soon became clear that several individuals were present and we followed the protocols outline in the MOA designed for the event of the discovery of human remains in burial context. A full description of the burials and human remains can be found in a following chapter of this report. Six individuals and associated grave goods were found in the side room, which seems to have been used as a grave only after it had ceased being used as a side room in Structure 7. The burials were found several cm above the living floor.

The floor of the side room was well packed and characterized by more red ocher flecking than was common elsewhere in Structure 7, except perhaps around the hearth of the main room. It may be that red ocher flecking reflects the more heavily trafficked areas of the house, where it gradually accumulated after falling from the clothing, bodies, or objects used by the occupants. Several complete artifacts were found lying on top of the house floor, suggesting fairly rapid abandonment and preliminary infilling of the room before the burials were placed there (Figure 3.3.38).

Figure 3.3.36 Entryway into the Southwest Side Room from the Main Room of Structure 7.

Figure 3.3.37 Living floor and walls of the Southwest Side Room of Structure 7

93 after the removal of the burials found above the floor.

Figure 3.3.38 Stone oil lamp (left) and harpoon point (right) in situ on the floor of the Southwest Side Room, Structure 7.

Structure 7: Northwest Side Room

The northwest side room of was the most casually constructed of all the sections in Structure 7. The north facing, exterior wall consisted of a single row of stone slabs slanting inward toward the floor. The room had been excavated about 70 cm into the midden and the earthen wall simply topped with the slabs (Figure 3.3.39). Barely two meters across, the room may been a storage or food processing area. A large flat boulder was found embedded in the floor where it may have functioned as a seat or perhaps a processing surface. An oil lamp was found in situ on the slab wall, where it apparently was a light source (Figure 3.3.40).

The opening of the chimney associated with the hearth complex of the west side room is part of the west wall of the northwest side room. The chimney may have vented on the roof between these side rooms, or alternatively may have directed smoke or steam into the northwest side room itself. A small boulder, apparently a chimney plug, was found next to the chimney opening (Figure 3.3.41). The floor soils in the northwest side room didn’t yield the number of artifacts common elsewhere in the house, and were blackened with soot and charcoal stains. It seems possible that the northwest side room may have been used for smoke curing of fish and meat.

Figure 3.3.39 Walls and floor of the Northwest Side Room, Structure 7.

Figure 3.3.40 Stone oil lamp in situ, northeast corner of Northwest Side Room, Structure 7.

Figure 3.3.41 Chimney opening in the wall separating the northwest and west side rooms of Structure 7 (long arrow). Sub-floor hearth channels in the west side room can be seen on the right, 150 cm below the top of the wall. The large rock just right of the opening may have functioned as a cap or plug.

Structure 7: West Side Room

The west side room was the largest of the three side rooms of Structure 7, measuring roughly 4 m square. The stone walls of the west side room were the most elegantly constructed of any seen on the Amaknak Bridge site (Figure 3.3.42, 3.3.43). Each rock seemed to have been carefully selected for size and fit. The first row was a line of upright slabs, followed by a row of horizontal slabs, then a row of similarly sized small round boulders. The angular slabs probably came from bedrock outcrops near the site, while the rounder rock was carried up from the surrounding beach. The north, west, and south walls stood a uniform 60 to 70 cm high. The east wall opposite the northwest side room was the most robust and exceeded 120 cm in height.

The top surface of the floor in the west side room was heavily stained with charcoal and ash (Figure 3.3.42). Charred remains of a number of whale ribs that may have supported the structure were also evident. The largest quantity of wood charcoal found at the site so far was recovered from the remains of burned logs on the floor. The date of 3470 +/- 70 is more than 600 years earlier than a date run on charcoal from the main room of Structure 7. We believe that the newer date (2840 +/- 90) is a more accurate age for Structure 7, based

96 on the relative dates from other house floors nearby, and that this early date is a product of old wood effect and/or perhaps contamination by sea mammal oil.

A pile of flat slabs was found against the east wall and when removed revealed a V-shaped hearth channel, with the V terminating under a chimney vent that lead up into the wall for 150 cm. The chimney vent was found filled with loose soils, and well lined with stone slabs and horizontally placed whale ribs. The hearth channels in the floor were lined with rock slabs. The northern hearth channel was over 1 m long, excavated to a depth of 40 cm below the surrounding floor and lined with three courses of stone. The southern channel was of equal length, but shallower and less well defined. The channels were loosely filled with soil and yielded very little else. No concentrations of charcoal were found in the hearth channels or at the point where they joined under the chimney.

A line of upright stone slabs near the west wall of the side room protruded 10-20 cm above the floor, where they apparently formed the front of a low earthen bench. The slabs were originally part of an earlier house wall partially truncated by the construction of the side room. Roof uprights in the west side room were supported by at least one flat stone slab and a whale vertebra. A flat boulder was found on the floor mid-way between the hearth channels where it may have functioned as a post support, working surface, or seat.

The west side room was incompletely excavated; the westernmost corner of the room extended under a deep layer of WWII road gravels which made further expansion of the excavation block problematic. We cannot be entirely certain that the west side room represents the last western extension of Structure 7’s side rooms. Similarly at least one rock alignment in the northwest side room seemed to extend northward into unexcavated portions of the site. The multiple room floor plan of Structure 7 also calls into question our previous assumptions that the stone walls we encountered at both the Amaknak Bridge site and the Margaret Bay site all represented single room houses. On the contrary, given their positions near the edge of excavation blocks any or all of them could just as easily have been side rooms of larger multiple roomed houses. Had we installed a smaller excavation block at the site over any of these rooms, we could have made the same mistake in the case of Structure 7.

Figure 3.3.42 Heavily charred surface of the floor in the west side room of Structure 7.

Figure 3.3.43 The west side room of Structure 7 after excavation had exposed sub-floor hearth channels and other features.

3.4 Other Features

At least six other rock alignments representing the partially exposed sections of house walls were encountered on the site. Houses were so densely placed on the site that there was little soil that hadn’t been reworked at some point and relatively little space between houses where other surface features could be preserved. The few non-house related features we did find were on the very top surface of the site, on Level 1. A round pit 30 cm deep at the center was found on the surface of the site, where it had evidently been left to become gradually filled by tephra (Figure 3.4.01). Elsewhere on the east excavation block, also near the surface of Level 1 we found six ocher grinders and an ocher pallet along with abundant red ocher stains (Figure 3.4.02).

Figure 3.4.01 Pit feature on the surface of Level 1.

99 Figure 3.4.02 Ocher grinding activity area in Level

4 Artifacts

4.1 Chipped Stone Lithics The 2003 Excavations at the UNL-50 Amaknak Bridge site revealed a large chipped stone industry. For this report, the chipped stone recovered from the 2000 test season have been included in the analysis. Combining all of the excavations produces a very large sample of tools. Not only its size is noteworthy, but also the recovery contexts are especially valuable. As can be seen in Table 4.1.01 the sample size of catalogued artifacts in 2003 is ten times that of the 2000 season. The table also shows a large sample of artifacts were point provenienced with the total station in 2003 which gives them their 3 dimensional coordinates to the nearest centimeter, and there was also a sizeable sample of chipped stone artifacts recovered from structure floors and floor features.

Table 4.1.01 UNL50 Chipped Stone Recovery, 2000 and 2003 Seasons

Provenience of Chipped Stone 2003 2000 Artifacts Season Season 1. Point Provenienced 1409 59 2. Provenience Categories: Surface 69 10 Structure Floors 1011 21 Square and Level 6911 722 Total Chipped Stone Artifacts 7991 753 3. Debitage Structure Floors 7799 na Floor Features 1417 na Structure Fill 14204 na Wall Fill 1679 na Total Debitage 25099

Table 4.1.02 Lithic Terminology Used in This Report

Artifact Lithic modified or shaped by retouch or use. Also includes cores blades, and microblades Debitage Unretouched flakes and chipping debris Chipped Stone Lithics which show evidence of percussion or pressure flaking Major Tool Class Shaped tool descriptive category based on morphology and manufacture

100 The raw materials used for the manufacture of chipped stone tools consisted of three main varieties: basalt, chert, and obsidian. Basalt and chert are locally available in Unalaska, but obsidian sources used archaeologically are as yet unknown. The nearest probable source for obsidian is the Okmok volcano on Umnak Island. Basalt, chert and obsidian were used as the basic chipped stone raw materials throughout the eastern Aleutian archaeological sequence beginning with the Anangula phase at 8000 BP until the the contact period some 260 years ago. Basalt is represented in a variety of grades and is clearly the most abundant locally available raw material. Some of the fine basalts are so homogeneous that they are visually hard to distinguish from obsidian. Many small projectile points were made of this material, and they exhibit exceptionally fine parallel lamellar removals on both the dorsal and ventral surfaces. Chert appears in several colors, but the vast majority of artifacts were made from a green variety. There was no convincing evidence of heat treating to prepare the raw materials for flaking. Evidence for thermal fracture was rare.

Other 2%

Obsidian 17%

Basalt 47%

Chert 34%

Figure 4.1.01 Lithic Raw Materials at Amaknak Bridge, UNL – 50

The pattern of raw material utilization at Amaknak Bridge varies by only + 3 percentage points from the slightly earlier and nearby site of UNL-48 Margaret Bay, Level 2. Raw material was used differentially for various major tool classes. As can be seen in Fig. 3.3.02 below, points were made almost exclusively from basalt and obsidian. Chert, particularly a green colored variety known to be present in Beaver Inlet less than 10 km

101 distant, was used for nearly two-thirds of all the scrapers. Obsidian was used in all of the major tool categories, but was utilized in the highest proportion for points.

100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% points scrapers retouched flakes knives basalt chert obsidian other

Figure 4.1.02 Raw Material Usage for Selected Major Tool Categories, UNL-50

There is no simple explanation for the variation in raw material use. Chert certainly can be used to make projectile points as well as basalt. Similarly basalt would do fine for making scrapers. Polished/Ground adzes were almost exclusively made from chert (95%), and that high degree of selection suggests a conscious choice of raw material. Chert may have a higher tenacity than basalt (and certainly than obsidian), and so its selection for the manufacture of a high use wood working tool might have a functional explanation. The small, canted endscrapers were made from a variety of brightly colored cherts. It is possible that this was an aesthetic choice, but, of course, that is a difficult explanation to demonstrate. The Amaknak Bridge site provides an excellent opportunity to seach in depth for the determinants of raw material use.

The basic divisions of a lithic industry are cores, utilized/retouched flakes and blades, shaped tools, and debitage. Figure 4.1.03 shows the industrial divisions from Amaknak Bridge.

102

80% 76%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20% 15% 8% 10% 1% 0% Cores Utilized/Retouched Shaped Tools Debitage Chipped Stone Industry

Figure 4.1.03 The Lithic Industry from Amaknak Bridge UNL-50

Debitage by frequency made up fully three fourths of all the recovered lithic remains. By weight, however, it comprises less than half as can be seen in Figure 4.1.04

Cores, Ret/Util, & Shaped Tools Debitage 43.788 Kilograms

41.503 Kilograms

Figure 4.1.04 Chipped Stone Industry by Weight, UNL-50

103 The average weight of a non-debitage chipped stone artifact was 5.1 grams while the average debitage piece was only 1.7 grams. These figures reveal that while debitage was frequent on the site, it consisted mainly of small flakes from the reworking of artifacts and not from primary core reduction. This observation is supported by sorting of debitage by size classes. Debitage was divided into those pieces whose major axis was greater than 2cm and those less than 2 cm. Further divisions were made on those pieces with and without cortex. For the site as a whole, only about 10% of the debitage flakes were longer than 2cm and had cortex. The vast majority of all debitage was less than 2 cm and had no cortex. The above observations indicate clearly that primary working of raw materials (nodule and core reduction) was done off site. We conclude that at the Amaknak Bridge Site itself, working of chipped stone was mainly involved finishing, reworking, and rejuvination of stone tools.

The reason for discard of non debitage lithics at the site, i.e. shaped tools, retouched pieces, and cores, was undoubtably the result of many factors. Fig 3.3.05 shows the breakage pattern of non debitage lithics.

40%

35%

30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

0% complete proximal mid section distal lateral broken

Figure 4.1.05 Breakage Pattern of Cores, Utilized/Retouched Pieces, and Shaped Tools at UNL-50

More than a third of the retouched pieces were unbroken and essentially in “useable” condition. The high discard rate of unbroken, retouched and shaped tools perhaps reflects the abundance of local raw materials and the relative ease new chipped stone tools can be manufactured. As a further illustration of this phenomenon, nearly half (47%) of all points recovered in the excavation were unbroken. The vast majority of these points were well crafted bifacial tools.

104 The lithic reduction sequence at Amaknak Bridge produced a variety of major tool types and also a significant proportion of utilized and retouched flakes. The latter might well be thought of as expedient tools, because their fabrication required literally no more than a minute. Below we briefly discuss the reduction sequence from cores to flakes/blades to shaped tools to discards.

Cores were relatively rare at Amaknak bridge; they comprised only about 2% of the non- debitage industry. The flake cores were small remnants of larger cores, and only a small number of bladelet cores were found. As discussed above, the small number of cores suggests most of the core reduction took place away from the site. Microblade cores (Plate 1) were the most abundant variety of core forms at Amaknak. They do not conform to any consistent pattern. No wedge shaped microcores were found. The microblade cores typically had 2 to 5 microblade removal scars and were frequently bipolar. Their platforms generally resembled the edge of a large biface. That is, removals were most likely made by pressure along the long axis of a flake from both the ventral and dorsal surfaces. The final result took on a wedge shaped appearance, but unlike the typical wedge shaped core, the wedge was at the proximal, not the distal end. They were almost all made from chert. Microblades (Plate 2: C) were extremely rare at Amaknak which suggests they were used and discarded off site.

Blades (Plate 2: A, B, D) are generally small and not uniform. The illustrated examples are perhaps the prismatic in the collection. Blades are not the basis of the Amaknak Bridge chipped stone industry. Rather, flake/blades and flakes form the vast majority of blanks which were used, modified and shaped into tools. Amaknak Bridge differs in this regard to Margaret Bay Level 2 which had a more expressed blade component (Knecht, Davis, and Carver 2001).

Archaeologists often use shaped chipped stone artifacts to identify temporal/spatial cultural units in the archaeological record. Shaped artifacts also convey considerable functional/behavioral information as well as manufacturing/technological information. Table 4.1.03 presents the relative percentages of shaped tools recovered from the excavations.

105

Table 4.1.03 Major Shaped Tool Types by Percent, UNL-50

Adze 2% Biface 29% Burin 0% Chisel 1% Graver 2% Knife 6% asymmetrical 6% bifacial 2%

flake 9%

square 1%

Microblade 1%

Notch/Denticulate 1% Piece esquille 2%

Piercer 2% Point 8% tapered/straight base 5% stemmed 12% Scraper 2% end 4% side 2% thumbnail 0% Uniface 2%

Bifaces were the most numerous category of shaped artifact at Amaknak Bridge. This is a generic category and in reality masks a lot of technological and functional variation which might be teased out with further study. Bifaces included pieces which were probably preforms for projectile points, broken pieces discarded during manufacture of other bifacially shaped tools, and cutting tools which we did not classify as bifacial knives. In fact, the shaped tools at Amaknak are substantially bifacial. Bifacial retouch is the predominant mode for working lithics at the site.

Knives are probably the most distinctive chipped stone artifact forms at Amaknak can be seen in knife major tool class. Asymmetrical forms are perhaps the most characteristic (Plate 3). There are bifacial and unifacial types, as well as stemmed and unstemmed varieties. Their defining characteristic is the clear asymmetry of the lateral edges which ranges from very pronounced (Plate 3:J) to more subtle (Plate 3: D). Some of the less asymmetrical forms grade into the point major tool class. The high frequency of stemmed asymmetrical knives suggests that this artifact type was generally hafted into a handle. Functionally it was probably both a cutting and a piercing tool. The retouched edges are frequently serrated and the lateral edges converge into a sharp point.

106

Bifacial knives take on an even wider variety of forms than Asymmetrical ones but their frequency is considerably lower. Plate 4 illustrates several examples. As in the asymmetrical type, both stemmed and unstemmed occur, and the edges are often serrated. These most likely functioned as cutting tools.

Square knives have orthoginal intersections of the lateral and transverse margins. They are not frequent at Amaknak Bridge, but are well known from the earlier Margaret Bay Level 2.

Flake knives are the most frequent. This category, however, probably masks a lot of variation. As discussed by Giddings (1964:223-227) they could be used for a variety of cutting tasks, but also many could have been used as scrapers. In our preliminary analysis we classified flakes and flake/blades that had acute, continuous, lateral and /or transverse, contoured retouch as flake knives. “Contoured” in this case means edges which have a distinct form (e.g. convex or straight). Plates 5 and 6 illustrate several flake knives. Some (e.g. Plate 6:c) may be functional analogs to the much later “ulu.”

Beside bifaces, points are the most numerous category of shaped chipped stone tools at Amaknak Bridge. Chipped stone points are known to be effective weapons for hunting, and there is no doubt that this was well recognized by the hunters who lived at the Amaknak Bridge site. Plates 8 –12 represent a good sample of the variety of points found in our excavations. Significant point attributes which we will briefly consider here include size, stem, retouching, raw material and shape.

Size is an important functional attribute which may be related to the type of projectile the point was hafted to. Archaeological and ethnographic studies of projectiles have suggested size differences can be correlated with use as an arrow point or as a dart point (Cattelain 1997, Shott 1997). As a first order approximation to identify significant variability in the Amaknak projectiles, a sample of 411 unbroken specimens was weighed. The resulting histogram is shown in Figure 3.3.07 The immediate picture revealed is that the great majority of points are quite light weight, only 2- 3 grams, and a second group of points averaging about 11 grams is much lower in frequency. The points weighing less than 3 grams are almost all less than 4 cm in length. Examples of these small points are shown in Plates 8 and 9. Although detailed metric studies of the Amaknak projectiles has not yet been undertaken, preliminary measurements of length and shoulder width show a clear similarity to the arrow point characteristics described by Shott and Cattelain.

107

200

100

Std. Dev = 2.01 Mean = 3.1 0 N = 411.00 1.0 3.0 5.0 7.0 9.0 11.0 13.0 15.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 16.0

WEIGHT Figure 4.1.06 Weights of Unbroken Projectile Points, Amaknak Bridge.

Stem characteristics vary considerably. In the sample of complete points analyzed above, 59% were stemmed and the rest not. Stemming is a sure sign of hafting, and thus we are confident that we have a large sample of true projectile points. Stems are generally straight with flat or slightly concave bases (e.g. Plate 8: A, E, G, H). Tapered stems are also common (e.g. Plate 8: D, F, I; Plate 9: B, G).

Retouching varies from parallel lamellar flaking most likely accomplished by pressure flaking (Plate 8: C; Plate 11 C) to controlled percussion flaking which leaves a pattern of relatively broad retouch scars (Plate 8: A, B, D,G – L). With rare exception the finer parallel lamellar flaking was found on the obsidian points. Frequently points had fine serrated edges (Plate 8: C, E, I; Plate 9 G, H, I) which were probably intended to make them more effective at cutting larger wounds. Stem grinding was quite frequent (Plate 12). This is a technique we had not encountered before in the Unalaska Bay archaeological sequence. We presume that the grinding was designed to fit the projectile stem precisely into the endblade slots of bone lance tips and similar weapons.

Raw Materials used for the manufacture of points is predominantly basalt (71%), and obsidian (24%). Chert was used for less than 5% of the points. It is hard to explain this

108 exclusion of chert. Perhaps obsidian and basalt are slightly more brittle, which would cause them to break after impact thus resulting in a more traumatic wound.

Shape is not easy to define for projectile points, but it is a favorite topic for archaeologists. At Margaret Bay, Level 2 which is only two or three hundred years earlier than Amaknak Bridge, there was an abundance of small, non-stemmed, straight or slightly tapered edged points with flat bases; what we termed qaxax points (Knecht, Davis, and Carver 2001). Surprisingly they were quite rare at Amaknak Bridge where stemmed points predominated. The reason for this variation in shape types is a challenging question, and will require more research.

Scrapers consist of two main varieties: side scrapers and end scrapers. Scrapers are unifacial tools. As discussed above in relation to knives, some artifacts we have classified as flake knives may have been used as scrapers. They form an intergrading series. We define the difference between knives and scrapers as primarily functional (the former cuts, the latter scrapes by moving it perpendicularly to its working edge). The simple criterion we have used is the retouched edge angle, and we have classified this as an ordinal variable with two values: acute and steep. Further study is needed to refine these variables. The most distinctive forms we found were the canted endscrapers and several of them are illustrated in Plate13. These have steeply retouched distal ends which are sharply angled relative to the long axis. They are stemmed and relatively thick

Piercers are a small group in the Amaknak tool kit, and they take on a variety of forms as illustrated in Plate 14. Their defining characteristic is a prominence which is retouched or ground around its entire cross section. Grinding was, in fact, rare, and the specimen illustrated in Plate 14: C is unique. Functionally these artifacts serve as perforators. Piercers are distinguished from gravers which are unifacially retouched, and functionally were used to cut or score a surface. Piercers and gravers were infrequently stemmed.

Chisels are a unique artifact category to the Amaknak Bridge site. We do not know of any other site in the eastern Aleutians which has this type. Plate 15 illustrates several examples. They are exclusively made out of chert. Unbroken specimens have a beveled chisel tip retouched at both ends. The chisel cross section is circular or semi circular, and the surface is partially or sometimes completely ground. They appear to be chisel bits which would have been hafted into a handle. The width of the chisel working end ranges from 3mm to 10mm. The longest is less than 5 cm. They may have been used for working bone tools. There are virtually no burins in the Amaknak chipped stone inventory, and these chisels may have served a similar purpose. It is remarkable that the Amaknak Bridge site is the only known source of these tools. Their discovery demonstrates the value of large scale excavations with water screening.

Adzes at Amaknak Bridge (Plate 16) show a great deal of uniformity. With few exceptions they are made out of fine, green chert. Their shape is square or rectangular with a slight taper to the proximal end, although there are a few examples with flaring sides (Plate 16: E) which recall the slightly earlier forms known from the Margaret Bay, Level 2 occupation. The adzes are all ground on their ventral surfaces. The grinding is usually extensive and extends over the ventral surface entirely. The adze bevel is steep and not ground. The dorsal side is retouched over the entire surface and shows no

109 grinding. There is no obvious shaping for hafting other than the slight taper. Numerous small broken chisel fragments were found at the site which provides testimony to their use.

4.2 Chipped Stone Industry Summary

Excavations at the Amaknak Bridge UNL-50 site have revealed a large chipped stone industry. The excavation methods used have allowed the recording of detailed provenience data for the chipped stone tools. This three-dimensional and contextual record is essential for the behavioral, functional, chronological and cultural interpretation of the industry. The collection will provide the basis for many more detailed studies and analyses in the years to come. Chipped stone tools were a significant component of the material culture inventory at Amaknak Bridge. They were key elements in subsistence (e.g. projectile points) and in the manufacture of other items of daily use (e.g. bone tools and wooden boat frames).

Our analysis shows that there were abundant local raw materials (especially chert and basalt) which could be shaped into a variety of tools. Most of the primary core reduction and flake production was done off site. The debitage on site reflects chiped stone maintenance, use and ultimately discard.

The Amaknak chipped stone industry was based on flake and flake/blade production. Prismatic blades and microblades are present, but are not a significant part of the inventory. Several distinctive artifact forms including ground chisels, ventrally ground adzes, canted endscrapers, stem ground projectile points and asymmetrical knives make the Amaknak Bridge chipped stone industry an exceptionally valuable and unique record of Aleutian prehistory.

110 4.3 Bone and Ground Stone Artifacts

Artifacts from bone and ground stone will be discussed below by broad functional categories; subsistence related, domestic and manufacturing, and toys and jewelry (Table 4.3.01) Sub-types of various artifacts certainly exist however given the size of the collection and the time constraints of the current project, this level of analysis must await further study. In general there is an impressive level of standardization evident, especially in the fishing and hunting technology used at the site.

Table 4.3.01 Summary tables of bone and ground stone artifacts from UNL-50

Subsistence Related Artifacts Domestic and Manufacturing Artifacts ARTIFACT TYPE N ARTIFACT TYPE N Fish hook shanks 107 Root picks 54 Fish hook barbs 148 Oil lamps 34 Single-piece fish hooks 16 Stone bowl fragments 71 Elongate sinkers 280 Ocher grinders 52 Grooved cobbles 48 Ocher pallets 10 Plummets 4 Hammer stones 165 Pumice floats 6 Knife shaped hones 211 Spear prongs 120 Wedges 105 Harpoons and lances 145 Adze holders 3 Toggling harpoons 8 Flakers 76 Foreshafts 14 Drill caps 15 Throwing board pins 11 Needles 532 Root picks 54 Cut ends- bird bone 137 Awls and sinew splitters 345 Worked bone scrap 470

Toys and Jewelry ARTIFACT TYPE N Labrets 61 Beads 22 Pendants 8 Toy/miniature harpoons 10 Decorated pins 6

Artifacts relating to hunting, fishing, and gathering activities at the Amaknak Bridge site are markedly dominated by those associated with fishing. While we haven’t had the opportunity to do a detailed statistical analysis, the sheer quantity of fishing gear in the assemblage seems much higher than others we have seen from time periods before and after 3000 BP. For example at the Margaret Bay site (UNL-48) we recovered 37 stone sinkers; at the Amaknak Bridge site the number was 280. Margaret Bay yielded 12 fish

111 hooks; Amaknak Bridge 271. Even after allowing for differences in volume and preservation it is clear that fishing activities were far better represented at the Amaknak Bridge site that at Margaret Bay. This may in turn reflect economic shifts by the Unangan in response to the onset of the cooler climate of the Neoglacial. Fish hooks were found in abundance at the Amaknak Bay site, and in varieties of form and size that reflect considerable specialization. Single-piece hooks from bone occur in both large and small sizes, with the smaller, barbless versions far more common (Plate 18). Many of the single-piece hooks are barely 2 cm long, and made from thin bone. The proximal ends are carefully made with a notch and attachment knob for fish line, and appear to be fully functional despite their small size (Plate 18 A-D).

Two-piece composite fish hooks are the most common form used throughout the sequence in Unalaska Bay and the Amaknak Bridge Site assemblage is no exception. A total of 148 barbs and 107 shank components were recovered in a wide variety of sizes (Plates 19-21). When complete, the composite hooks used at the site ranged from less than 2 to 10 cm long, reflecting the wide variety of fish on the prehistoric menu. The hook and shanks at the Amaknak Bridge site exhibit an unusual level of workmanship, with carefully carved attachment features on both distal and proximal ends. Most hook components were made from bone, however a small percentage were made from split sea mammal teeth and/or ivory.

Stone sinkers are another common component of prehistoric assemblages in the Aleutians, however those from the Amaknak Bridge site are unlike any sinkers we have ever seen. The sinkers typical to other assemblages are flat pebbles with a simple notch chipped and ground into each end. At the Amaknak Bridge site the sinkers are nearly all carefully ground into symmetrical shapes with a carefully made groove that encircles the entire sinker. Casually made sinkers are relatively rare in the collection. The most common sinker is an elongate cylindrical form with the grooved around the long axis (Plate 22, 23). Most are made from a hard mudstone of unknown, but probably local origin. Others are made from brightly colored sandstones that outcrop on the east side of Unalaska Bay. Although we recovered hundreds of these sinkers in all levels at the Amaknak Bridge site, we have seen only one other example in any other collection; a miniature version from the Margaret Bay site. Given the high number of fish hook parts, it may be reasonable to assume that grooved elongate sinkers were intended for line fishing instead of nets or seines. Alternatively they could have been tied end to end along the bottom of a seine in the same way a lead line is used today. The round shape would have helped prevent snagging on the bottom during a beach-haul set.

Another sinker form rarely found elsewhere are small grooved cobbles (Plate 24). Fist- sized grooved cobble sinkers are present through most of the sequence in Unalaska Bay, however at the Amaknak Bridge site we see these along with egg-sized versions. Larger grooved cobbles are also present, some with asymmetrically placed grooves that would classify them as plummets. The bottle-shaped plummets present in other early prehistoric assemblages in the Aleutians and Kodiak are curiously absent at the Amaknak Bridge site.

Six pumice chunks have been perforated by holes drilled from either side in such a way that they meet in the middle (Plate 26). This would indicate that they are probably not

112 simple shaft abraders, and that the hole was intended as a means of attachment. The pieces are otherwise unmodified. We have tentatively identified these as floats, probably used in fishing. Pumice floats have not been previously described from the Aleutians.

Unilaterally barbed prongs are abundantly represented by 120 specimens, primarily fragments (Plate 27, 28). Prongs of this type appear on ethnographic fish spears as well as bird arrows. The most common prong form in the Amaknak Bridge collection is triangular in cross-section, and has a distinctive notched base where it was attached to the shaft (Plate 27). They are often decorated with incised lines that run the length of the prong and strongly resemble historically known leisters, or fish spears from the North Pacific.

Sea mammal hunting implements are also common in the collection; 152 harpoons were recovered. Harpoons and lance heads, like the fishing gear, appear to be highly specialized; intended for specific species and situations. Given the presence of ice-edge animals in the faunal assemblage this specialization may reflect ice hunting techniques. Most of the harpoon heads are self-tipped, bi-laterally barbed, and have simply made keystone bases (Plate 29, 30). They range from 5 to 20 cm long. Line holes are rare among the self-tipped harpoons, and feature a centrally placed line hole (Plate 31). The eight toggling harpoons from the Amaknak Bridge site are the earliest dated examples from the Aleutians and may relate to ice hunting of sea mammals (Plate 32). The range from 3.5 to 7 cm long, and have an enclosed socket, end-blade slot, and a single spur. They are carefully made and some are decorated with incised geometric lines. Toggling harpoons are used in conjunction with bone foreshafts which were sometimes found decorated with elaborate geometric designs (Plate 33). Other foreshafts are relatively plain (Plate 34) and with some exceptions (Plate 34:A), tend to be weakly shouldered.

Lance tips, unlike harpoons which merely impede a sea mammal’s escape, were used to deliver a killing blow. Consequently they are more stoutly constructed and longer than harpoons. A complete lance tip was found in association with the burials in the Structure 7 side room. The rest in the collection are represented by smaller fragments. All of the lances at the site are barbed and have substantial end-blade slots. It seems likely that the laboriously ground bases observed on the stone projectile points from the Amaknak Bridge site were used in conjunction with these lances. Most are decorated with heavy geometric lines, some of which may be ownership markings. At least three bone preforms of lance heads were also recovered (Plate 35).

Throwing board pins are placed at the distal end of a throwing board, at the head of the groove that cradles the dart. The bone pin keeps the wooden head of the dart shaft from slipping out during the throw. Despite their simplicity, throwing board pins are time sensitive artifacts in the Aleutians. Eleven small pegs have tentatively been identified as throwing board pins (Plate 37).

Gathering is hugely important to a subsistence economy but is nearly invisible in the archaeological record. An exception to this rule are the 44 fragmentary and 10 complete bone root picks found at the Amaknak Bridge Site which were probably used by as digging tools in the harvest of Kamchatka lily, shellfish, as well as in the construction of house pits. The picks are made from sea mammal ribs, and follow the natural curvature

113 of the bone. They seem to have a handle on their proximal ends, but often feature projections near the center as if the picks were intended to be hafted (Plates 38-40). Root picks were most often recovered in association with house pits, where they apparently were broken and discarded on the spot while excavating (Figure 4.3.01). Hrdlicka recovered similar examples from the Amaknak site, and referred to them as ‘bone dirks’ (1945:458). The relatively small size and dull points of the majority of the root picks found at the Amaknak Bridge Site would seem to preclude their use as weapons, at least against humans. The two largest picks, found in association with the disturbed burial in the southwest side room of Structure 7, may have potentially served as weapons in addition to their utilitarian function.

Figure 4.3.01 Broken root pick in situ, as found in the wall sods of Structure 7.

Most of the root picks have closely similar shapes and decoration, consistent with pattern of standardization that characterizes the Amaknak Bridge assemblage. Most of the root picks are decorated by two pairs of parallel incised lines that run down the center and on the edges of the distal 2/3 or working end of the pick. More complex geometric decorations exist on some pieces (Figure 4.1.1). Handle or proximal end treatments vary from simple knobs to rather phallic looking carvings (Plate 40:A).

A total of 34 ground stone oil lamps are represented in the collection, 6 of them in complete condition (Plate 41-44). Most of the lamps are egg shaped and have rather shallow, plain bottomed bowls and a narrow wick shelf. Three lamps have been decorated with pecked grooves around the rim (Plate 41: C,D, Plate 43, Plate 44). One decorated lamp has an additional shallow basin near the center of the bowl (Plate 41:C). The base of another lamp was pecked with eyes and faintly visible whiskers that appears to be a visual pun on the head of seal emerging from the water (Plate 42: A).

114 Stone bowls are a common diagnostic artifact during the Margaret Bay phase, and disappear from Aleutian inventories shortly after 3000 BP. They are carved from variously textured and colored boulders of volcanic tuff, and often feature exterior surfaces heavily encrusted with charred sea mammal oil. The 71 fragments recovered from the Amaknak Bridge site are a small number when compared to the Margaret Bay site, where we found 434 in a far smaller excavation block. This suggests that the use of stone bowls was already on its way out during the time of the Amaknak Bridge occupation,

At least one bowl and a possible lid was carved by hollowing the vertebra of a small whale (Plate 46). A vertebral disc hollowed to form a ring and perforated with two pairs of large holes may be a lid of some kind, or even a drum head (Plate 46:B).

115

Figure 4.3.02 Decorated root pick, UNL50.6272 (Drawing by Maria Charette)

116 Artifacts relating to manufacturing activities are very abundant at the Amaknak Bridge site. Among the most common in Unalaska sites throughout the prehistoric sequence are abraders; 507 were recovered in the 2003 season alone (Plate 47). Of these 390 were made from pumice, which floats and can be obtained as flotsam on any local beach. Since windblown pumice is also common near beach fronts, only pumice bearing a facet or groove or similar sign of use as an abrader were recovered by excavators and screeners. Other abraders are made of heavier scoria which had to be imported from volcanic deposits such as Red Cinder Cone, a volcanic vent above Eider point, some 7 miles across Unalaska Bay.

Ocher grinders and pallets are also common throughout the prehistoric sequence. The 52 ocher grinders in the collection were identified by virtue of heavy ocher staining, faceting, or both (Plate 48). Ten ocher palettes were recovered at the site, with two others left in place because they were part of the house wall of Structure 7 which was left intact at the close of the field season. Ocher pallets consisted of simple slabs or flat cobbles of basalt bearing one or more ground facets on its surface. The largest ocher pallet recovered from the site is also the largest lithic artifact in the Museum of the Aleutians, weighing well over 40 kg.

An artifact unique to the Amaknak Bridge site are knife-shaped hones (Plate 49). They consist of flat, sub-rectangular pieces of light pastel colored sandstone with one edge ground to a dull, but knife-like angle. They strongly resemble the slightly small hones used by fly fishermen to sharpen hooks. The V-shaped edge fits behind the hook barb for sharpening. It is tempting to ascribe a similar function for the knife-shaped hones at the Amaknak Bridge site, given the large number of fish hooks found at the site. They would have also been useful in sharpening the barbs on harpoons. The hones are abundant; 211 specimens were recovered mostly in fragmentary condition.

Bone wedges, used to split driftwood, are a common component in bone artifact assemblages from Aleutian sites; 105 of them are in the Amaknak Bridge collection (Plate 50, 51). They often feature a socket on one side where a blob of fat was placed to help prevent the wedge from getting stuck in a log (Knecht 1995). Some of the wedges were made by reworking fragments of root picks and still bear traces of incised decoration (Plate 50:A). Most wedges from the site were made from sea mammal bone, however 5 were made from walrus ivory. The wedge collection from the Amaknak Bridge site is unique in that a fairly large proportion of them are small in size, and may have functioned to split bone instead of wood. Several are reworked fragments of bone harpoons (Plate 51: A,C).

Adze holders are pieces of sea mammal bone lashed to the top of a wooden adze handle to hold the ground stone adze blade. Three battered but identifiable examples were found at the Amaknak Bridge site (Plate 53). Bone pressure flakers are used in working stone. Obsidian and staria basalt often used in projectile points seen in Aleutian sites, are particularly amenable to pressure flaking, while local cherts are a good deal less so. Flakers are a simple tool, but surprisingly is a good diagnostic artifact as the form and size of flakers changes over time. Flakers from the c. 4,000 bone assemblage from Margaret Bay are short, thick, and cigar shaped pieces of whale bone. At the Amaknak Bridge site a collection of 76 flakers occur in both long and short varieties. The shorter

117 pieces, all less than 10 cm long, were most likely inserted into a wooden handle (Plate 53). Many are blunted ends of sea mammal carpal bones, others carefully carved lengths of whalebone. The longer flakers are most often made from a trimmed sea mammal rib, although at least one was made from a baculum, or penis bone of a sea mammal.

The use of hand held bow or pump drills at the Amaknak Bridge site is represented by deeply socketed bone drill caps which fit into the palm of the hand (Plate 54). Most are made from bone nearly as dense as ivory, such as found in the ear bone of whales and other large sea mammals. The drill caps in the collection exhibit varying degrees of preparation.

Needles were found at the site in quantity, thanks in part to the use of water screens; only 6% of the needles recovered at the site were found in situ by excavators and point provenienced. . Thus our recovery of needles was heavily dependent on the sharp eyes and experience of the screener. Our most experienced screener recovered more than 200 of the 532 needles recovered during the 2003 season. Of the total collection, 238 were distal fragments, 106 midsections, 116 eyed proximal fragments, and 72 were complete. Complete needles were universally of the eyed variety. One needle even had two eyes. None however had the bobbin ends that were in use by late prehistoric times. Complete needles range from 10 to 2 cm long. The shorter needles may have been reworked versions of the longer ones. Eyes in the needles were sometimes extraordinarily small (Figure 4.3.03). The technology used in drilling eyed needles remains a mystery.

Figure 4.3.03 Microscope view of a drilled needle eye of remarkably small diameter.

Needle blanks and performs were present, but relatively uncommon. Needle manufacturing scrap in the form of the cut ends of albatross and other bird long bones was abundant; 137 cut ends of bird bone were recovered and are now being identified by faunal analysts (Plate 56). Bird bone was also a favored material in the manufacture of awls (Plate 57, 58). At least 345 awls were recovered from the collection, with more likely to be discovered in the course of faunal analysis. One variety of the awl was made from the proximal humeri of one or more species of comorant (Plate 57). Jochelson

118 (1928: 93) asserts that these are chisels used in carving wood. He doesn’t, however, indicate whether this is his interpretation or that of a Native informant. They do seem to have had a different function than other awls, perhaps as sinew splitting tools. The ‘chisel’ awls seemed to have been discarded only after being worked down to a virtual nub. Other awls are simply sharpened bird ulnas and radii (Plate 58). At least one composite awl, made from inserting a radius into a larger bird bone is also present (Plate 58:A).

Items associated with self adornment were surprisingly common at the Amaknak Bridge Site, given its early prehistoric context. Labrets probably signaled status and social information about the owner, and have often linked in the literature to a rise in late prehistoric cultural complexity. We had been amazed to find two labrets at the Margaret Bay site (Knecht, Davis, and Carver 2001) because they were among the earliest ever found on the North Pacific. At the Amaknak Bridge site we found 61 of them (Plates 59- 62).

Tabular labrets are a simple bar form with a flange on either end of the proximal end of the labret (Plate 59, 61). In this regard they resemble the early prehistoric labrets of Kodiak Island (Knecht 1995). They are variously made from bone, ivory, slate and calcite. Figural labrets were carved from stone into various shapes such as stylized bird beaks and trumpet shaped forms (Plate 60). An example of the trumpet shaped form was also recovered from the top levels of the Margaret Bay site (Knecht, Davis and Carver 2001:63). The slight skew in the form of the trumpet shaped labrets suggest that they may have been worn in pairs (Plate 60:B,C). Four figural labrets were carved into the shape of bird beaks (Plate 60: E-G, I).

Calcite is formed as a precipitate around the roots of certain seaweeds, particularly kelp and can be found on Aleutian beaches after large storms, washed ashore still attached to the kelp roots. It may have been used because of its resemblance to freshly carved ivory, and the fact that it is easily carved. It was often made into labrets, beads, and similar ornaments in the Aleutians. Tabular, figural and spike labret forms were also made from calcite (Plate 61). One large tabular labret from calcite has a hole drilled in one corner and may have been worn as a pendant for a time after its use as a labret (Plate 61: G).

Spike labrets required a relatively small incision compared to other labret types (Plate 62). Most are made from bone or ivory. The smaller spike labrets may in fact have been intended as starter labrets for children (Plate 62:B, C). A single labret made from a walrus tusk has an encircling flange and a center hole which probably contained an inset bead or similar decoration (Plate 62: A).

Stone, ivory, and bone beads were surprisingly abundant; 22 of them were recovered. The most common type found at the site were small, apparently natural globular stones of some dark mineral which were drilled to make beads (Plate 63:C-E). Several other beads were simply made from small pieces of pumice and may have been intended for children (Plate 63:H). The most ornate bead in the collection was a carved cylinder of ivory (Plate 63:J). Other beads were simple perforated discs of calcite (Plate 63:I) and other stones.

119 One disc shaped bead was incised with lines radiating from the center as well as around the edge of the disc (Plate 64:B).

Eight pendants in the collection were made from ivory and stone (Plate 64). They range from simply notched or drilled pieces of banded stone (Plate 64: I) to intricately carved siltstone (Plate 64:F). The most elaborate pendant was an ivory specimen in the form of an anthropomorphic face, encircled by a groove (Plate 65, Figure 4.3.04). The eyes on the piece are tiny circle and dot motifs done with some sort of compass tool. An incised line on the forehead may represent a headdress or similar ornament.

120

Figure 4.3.04 Dorsal, ventral and side views of ivory pendant UNL50.13206 (Drawing by Maria Charette)

121

The most spectacular example of prehistoric art in the collection is an ivory pin with an anthropomorphic figure carved on both sides (Plate 66). Subtle differences in the respective faces may indicate that it represents a male and female figure standing back to back (Figure 4.3.05). Two smaller decorated pins represent anthropomorphic and zoomorphic figures (Plate 67). The function of these pins is uncertain. Another art piece of unknown function is represented by a collection of flat fragments of incised bird bone (Plate 68). The pieces were found in close association but may in fact represent two separate bone plaques of some kind. The geometric lines in the fragments are carved only on one side.

Toys and/or miniatures are frequently encountered in prehistoric sites in the North Pacific. Throughout the arctic culture area miniature versions of implements used by adults were made for children as part of teaching social roles. We have previously recorded miniature points at later prehistoric sites of Tanaxtaxak (Knecht and Davis 2003) and at Summer Bay (Knecht and Davis 2001:285). In the Amaknak Bridge collection miniatures include tiny versions of barbed points, socket pieces, and even a toggling harpoon (Plate 69). Miniature oil lamps found elsewhere were curiously absent.

Among the miscellaneous artifacts was a piece of flattened, perforated whalebone that we have tentatively identified as a fragment of plate armor (Plate 70). A number of unusual pieces of worked bird bone objects include variously pointed and perforated tools that are probably associated with sewing (Plate 71:A-E). It is tempting but speculative to classify one perforated fragment of hollowed bird bone as a whistle (Plate 71:F). About 20 bi- pointed slivers of bird bone (Plate 71:G-I) may be gorges used in fishing, or as Jochelson asserts (1928: 92 ), sinew splitters.

Other miscellaneous objects include a pair of tiny bone toggles (Plate 72: A, B). A number of curiously carved segments of hollow bird bone may represent additional toy socket pieces, or some sort of toggle for a harpoon or other attachment system (Plate 72: D-G). They are only known from the Amaknak Bridge site. A curiously carved black stone appears to have been rendered in the shape of a nut, complete with encircling line (Plate 72:C). Oily nuts from the tropics such as the Kukui nut from Polynesia are occasionally carried by wind and current to the beaches of the North Pacific. A fragment of a Kukui nut was found in a late prehistoric context on Kodiak (Knecht 1995). Russian writers tell of a highly valued ‘sea bean’ that was prized by Aleut hunters, and this piece is in fact identical to the appearance of a well-worn Kukui nut. A hat-shaped piece of ivory (Plate 72:H) may be a handle of some kind. A barbed object with a ridged base is of uncertain function (Plate 72:I).

122

Figure 4.3.05 Dorsal, ventral, and side view of ivory pin UNL50.66 (Drawing by Maria Charette)

123 Chapter 5 Preliminary Analysis of the Vertebrate Fauna

5.1 Introduction This report presents the preliminary identification and interpretation of vertebrate faunal remains recovered from site UNL 050 at Amaknak Bridge, a small subsample of the total faunal assemblage collected from the site. A complete analysis of a larger subsample will be completed later this year. Reported here is a preliminary analysis of the fauna from excavation units 83 (excavated in 2003) and 8 (excavated in 2000), which provide material from the full depth of deposits at Amaknak Bridge. Vertebrate fauna from all level samples from EU 83 were identified, plus mammal and bird remains from EU 8. Time constraints prevented analysis of bulk samples collected from EU 83 and the fish level samples from EU 8 in time for this report, but will be included in the final analysis.

5.2 Methods of Collection

All deposits were trowelled and water-screened through ¼” mesh in the field, with all vertebrate faunal remains retained in the screens or found during excavation bagged for identification. Units excavated in 2003 were 2x2 meter squares, while the unit reported here from 2000 (EU 8), was half that size (1x2 meters). None of the numbers reported here have been adjusted to equalize this imbalance.

Collection of suitable samples of fish remains proved problematic in 2003. Field collection of fish was limited to selective samples of large and intact or otherwise “potentially identifiable” remains. All fish remains from house floors were reported collected (as they were for level samples collected in 2000). However, representative bulk samples were collected from most strata during the 2003 excavation. Laboratory sorting of these bulk samples should generate fish assemblages appropriate for use in quantitative analysis of fish. Thus, the samples reported here for fish taxa are not representative for all layers. A more comprehensive and representative analysis of fish remains will be included in the final report.

5.3 Methods of Identification

Identifications to the least inclusive taxon possible were made by Susan Crockford using the comparative faunal collection at the Zooarchaeology Laboratory, Department of Anthropology, University of Victoria, the Smithsonian Institution (Washington, DC; for ursids and true seals) and the Burke Museum (Seattle, WA; for birds, and true seals). Data were recorded directly into a Paradox 3.5 (Borland) database, which translates easily into Microsoft Excel format. Information on element, element portion, sex, age, size class and modifications was recorded. Measurements were recorded where appropriate and some photographs were taken. Confidence codes indicating certainty of identification are used: Code 22 indicating certainty to species (comparable to a designation such as Oncorhynchus keta); Code 21 indicating certainty to at least genus (comparable to a designation such as Oncorhynchus sp. or Oncorhynchus cf. keta); Code

124 20 indicating certainty to family only (comparable to a designation such as “Salmonidae”); Code 10 indicating a limited-confidence identification to a particular family (comparable to a designation such as “cf. Salmonidae”); Code 11 indicating a best guess; Code 00 indicating that confidence assessment is not applicable.

The faunal data has been quantified primarily using Number of Identified Specimens (NISP) and Number of Specimens (NSP). In a few instances, where appropriate, Minimum Number of Individuals (MNI) is used (cf. Davis 2001; Wollett et al. 2000).

5.4 Chronology of EU 8/83 and Stratigraphic Units Much of the site area excavated in the summer of 2003 consisted of superimposed layers representing several collapsed and in-filled structures that could be identified as former walls, floors, storage pits, and subfloors, with accumulated material found associated with such structures and as midden in-fill beneath, between, and above them. The lower- most unit encountered during previous excavations (EU 8), lay adjacent to and essentially beneath the structures described above. EU 8 appears to represent deposits that accumulated either before the over-lying structures excavated in 2003 were built and occupied or concurrent with construction and occupation of the lower-most of those structures (e.g. Structure 7).

Materials designated “house fills” represent soils and midden dumped inside a house pit after abandonment and include all soils within the top row of stones lining the pit. Materials designated as coming from “house floors” represent deposits recovered from the packed down soil floor of the various structures; all fauna was retained from house floors, including fish remains. “Subfloor” designations were for soils removed to define features that were embedded into the floor, such as deep hearths, post-molds, wall bases, etc. Deposits excavated in 2003 ended at 3.65 cm below the 2000 datum, just above the point where EU 8 began, at 3.95 cm below the datum.

The total range of dates estimated for the site is fairly narrow, as seen by these examples: - 2540 ± 60 RCYBP (radiocarbon years before present) (Calibrated age, BC 820-420), from “fill 2” associated with Structure 3 in EU 170, a unit adjacent to EU 83. - 2780 ± 70 RCYBP (Calibrated age BC1110-810, Beta 151119) from EU 9, Level 2 (a unit adjacent to EU 8); 2840 ± 90 RCYBP (Calibrated age BC 1280-820, Beta 184536) from the portion of Structure 7 found in EU 171C (a unit adjacent to EU 83); - 3310 ± 110 RCYBP (Calibrated age BC 1880-1390; Beta-151120) from the base of the site area excavated in 2000 at EU 10 (Level 4), one unit removed from EU 8 (note that EU 8 faunal remains extended to Level 3 only).

In summarizing these data for efficient presentation, I have collapsed layers designated as numeric “level” samples together (comprising upper layers of EU 83 and all of EU 8). Layers designated as house floors, subfloors, walls, or pit fill are recorded separately. The fill from EU 83 Structure 3, subdivided during field collection into two components (“S3_Hfill” and “S3_Hfill2”), is reported here as one stratigraphic unit. Some layers contained little faunal material and have been excluded from some of the summary tables (including S7_Subfloor midden and S6 material with no other information).

125 Major strata reported in summary tables are:

EU 83 strata designation in tables Levels 1-2 (combined) Levels 1-2 midden1 midd.1 pit feature fill pit fill Structure 3, House fill1 and fill2 S3_Hfill Structure 3, House floor S3_Hfl Structure 6, House fill S6_Hfill Structure 6, House floor S3_Hfl Structure 6, Wall S6_Wall Structure 7, House fill S7_Hfill Structure 7, House floor S7_Hfl Structure 7, House subfloor S7_Sfl EU 8 strata Levels 1-3 (combined) Levels 1-3

5.5 Vertebrate Species Identified

Table 5.5.01 lists the taxa identified in the sample, which include at least 44 species of birds, 3 species of land mammal, 16 species of sea mammal and 20 species of fish. Appendix A presents a brief description of the natural history of each species recovered, including size information, habitat preference, food habits, seasonal movements and a discussion regarding identification of skeletal material (where appropriate).

Mammals identified include Northern fur seal, Northern sea lion, Walrus, Bearded seal, Ringed seal, Ribbon seal, Largha and/or Harbour seal, Harbour porpoise, and Dall’s porpoise. The only whale bone identified to species so far is a specimen that constitutes the first record of Long-finned pilot whale in the eastern North Pacific and at specimens representing at least two additional species await identification.

Fish species identified include Pacific cod, Pollock, Salmon, Dolly varden, Atka mackerel, Rock and Kelp greenlings, three species of the sculpin known as “Irish lord” (Yellow, Red and Longfin), Frog sculpin, Arrowtooth and Starry flounders, Rock sole, Halibut and a single specimen of Salmon shark.

Birds identified include both Common and Pacific loon, Horned grebe, Shorttailed albatross, Northern fulmar, Sooty and Short-tailed shearwater, and three species of cormorant (Double-crested, Pelagic and Red-faced). Canada and Emperor goose were the only geese identified. Marine ducks of various kinds represented include three species of scoter (Black, Surf and White-winged), Common and Steller’s eider, three species of Goldeneye (Common, Barrow’s and Bufflehead), Oldsquaw, Harlequin and Hooded merganser. A wide variety of alcids were also identified, including Pigeon guillemot, Ancient murrelet, murres (Common and Thick-billed), auklets (Parakeet, Least, Crested, Cassin’s, Rhinocerous), and puffins (Tufted and/or Horned). Also represented are Bald eagle, ptarmigan, Black oystercatcher, at least two species of shorebird and one species of song bird.

126 Table 5.5.01 EU 8/83 Taxa confidently identified to family/superfamily or higher (> 20).

BIRDS Common loon Gavia immer Gaviidae 22 Pacific loon Gavia pacifica Gaviidae 22 Horned grebe Podiceps auritus Gaviidae 22 Shorttailed Albatross Phoebastria albatrus Diomedeidae 22 Northern fulmar Fulmarus glacialis Procellariidae 22 Sooty Shearwater? Puffinus cf. griseus Procellariidae 21 Short-tailed Shearwater Puffinus tenuirostris Procellariidae 22 Double-crested cormorant Phalacrocorax auritus Phalacrocoracidae 22 Pelagic cormorant Phalacrocorax pelagicus Phalacrocoracidae 22 Red-faced cormorant Phalacrocorax urile Phalacrocoracidae 22 Emperor goose? Chen cf. canagica Anatidae 21 Canada goose Branta canadensis Anatidae 22 Surf scoter Melanitta perspicillata Anatidae 22 Black scoter Melanitta nigra Anatidae 22 White-wing scoter Melanitta fusca Anatidae 22 Goldeneye (Common?) Bucephala cf. clangula Anatidae 21 Goldeneye (Barrow's?) Bucephala cf. islandica Anatidae 21 Bufflehead Bucephala albeola Anatidae 22 Oldsquaw Clangula hyemalis Anatidae 22 Harlequin duck Histrionicus histrionicus Anatidae 22 Common eider Somateria mollissima Anatidae 22 Steller's eider? cf. Polysticta stelleri Anatidae 20 Merganser (hooded) Lophodytes cucullatus Anatidae 22 Bald eagle? Haliaeetus cf. leucocephalus Accipitridae 21 Ptarmigan sp.? cf. Lagopus sp. Phasianidae 20 Black oystercatcher Haematopus bachmani Haematopodidae 22 Shorebird (sm) (turnstone?) cf. Phalaropus sp. Charadriiformes 20 Shorebird (med) cf. Arenaria sp. Charadriiformes 20 (phalarope?) Gull (sm) Larus sp. (sm) Laridae 20 Gull (med) Larus sp. (med) Laridae 20 Gull (med/lg) Larus sp. (med/lg) Laridae 20 Gull (lg) Larus sp. (lg) Laridae 21 Gull (vlg) Larus sp. (vlg) Laridae 21 Common murre Uria aalge Alcidae 22 Thick-billed murre Uria lomvia Alcidae 22 Pigeon guillemot Cepphus columba. Alcidae 22 Ancient murrelet Synthliboramphus antiquus Alcidae 22 Parakeet auklet Cyclorrhynchus psittacula Alcidae 22 Least auklet? cf. Aethia pusilla Alcidae 20 Crested auklet Aethia cristatella Alcidae 22 Cassin's auklet Ptychoramphus aleuticus Alcidae 22 Rhinoceros auklet Cerorhinca monocerata Alcidae 22 Puffin Fratercula sp. Alcidae 21 Sm. song bird (bunting? Passeriformes Passeriformes 20

Table 5.5.01 (cont.)

COMMON NAME SPECIES NAME FAMILY ID MAMMALS Arctic fox Alopex lagopus Canidae 21 Polar bear? Ursus cf. maritimus) Ursidae 20 Sea otter Enhydra lutris Mustelidae 22 Fur seal Callorhinus ursinus Otariidae 22 Northern sea lion Eumatopias jubata Otariidae 22 Ringed seal Phoca hispida Phocidae 22 Largha seal? Phoca cf. largha Phocidae 21 Ribbon seal Phoca fasciata Phocidae 22 Harbour seal? Phoca cf. vitulina Phocidae 21 Bearded seal Erignathus barbatus Phocidae 22 Walrus Odobenus rosmarus Odobenidae 22 Harbor porpoise Phocoena phocoena Phocoenidae 22 Dall's porpoise Phocoena dalli Phocoenidae 22 Long-finned pilot whale Globicephala melas scammonii Delphinidae 22 Small/Medium whale sp. Delphinidae/ Delphinidae/ 20 Monodontidae/ Monodontidae/ Ziphiidae Ziphiidae Large whale Cetacea Cetacea 20

FISH Salmon shark Lamna ditropis Lamnidae 22 Dolly varden? cf. Salvelinus malma Salmonidae 20 Salmon Oncorhynchus sp. Salmonidae 20 Pacific cod Gadus macrocephalus Gadidae 22 Walleye Pollock Theragra chalcogramma Gadidae 22 Atka mackerel Pleurogrammus monopterygius Hexagrammidae 22 Rock greenling? Hexagrammos cf. lagocephalus Hexagrammidae 21 Kelp greenling? Hexagrammos cf.decagrammus Hexagrammidae 21 Greenling sp Hexagrammmos sp. Hexagrammidae 21 Rockfish sp Sebastes sp. Scorpaenidae 21 Longfin Irish Lord? Hemilepidotus cf. zapus Cottidae 21 Red Irish lord Hemilepidotus hemilepidotus Cottidae 22 Yellow Irish lord Hemilepidotus jordani Cottidae 22 Irish lord sp Hemilepidotus sp. Cottidae 21 Frog sculpin? Myoxocephalus cf. stelleri Cottidae 22 Great-type sculpin Myoxocephalus sp. Cottidae 21 Arrowtooth flounder Atheresthes stomias Pleuronectiformes 22 Starry flounder Platichthys stellatus Pleuronectiformes 22 Rock sole sp Lepidopsetta sp. Pleuronectiformes 21 Halibut Hippoglossus stenolepis Pleuronectiformes 22 89 5.6 The Identified Sample

The vertebrate faunal assemblage from EU 8 and 83 had a total number of identifiable specimens (NISP) of 21,157. Table 5.6.01 lists the NISP for each taxon identified, by order (bird, mammal, and fish), all layers combined, out of a total number of specimens (NSP) of 28,610.

Of the identified mammals, Fur seal and Ringed seal are the most frequently occurring single species, comprising 17% and 16% of the total sample respectively (NISP 1441 and 1408). Relative abundance of various taxonomic groupings of the true seals are complicated by identification difficulties and are more thoroughly discussed in summary tables in the next section. However, remains of other true seals combined (that includes Largha &/or Harbor seal, Ribbon seal and undistinguished “true seal” add another 15% (NISP 1334) of the total. Bearded seal, the largest member of the true seal group represented here, contribute another 2% to the total (NISP 138). Thus, all true seal remains together make up 34% of the total identified sample, exactly double the frequency of Fur seal. The other common Alaskan otariid, the Northern sea lion, is poorly represented: less than 1% of remains (NISP 55) could be confidently identified as belonging to this species.

All porpoise remains together comprise 7% of the sample (NISP 615), with 3% (NISP 283) of these identified as Harbor porpoise, less than 1% (NISP 19) as Dall’s porpoise. Also present at frequencies less than 1% are Sea otter (NISP 3), Walrus (NISP 1), Arctic fox (NISP 12), tentatively identified Polar bear (NISP 6).

Amongst birds, Common murre is the most commonly occurring single species, comprising 23% of all birds (NISP 1286), while the Shorttailed albatross is second in frequency, representing 9% of the bird sample (NISP 492). However, a much better understanding of relative abundance of various birds can be had by looking at the summary tables, listed in several tables in the next section.

The fish assemblage is strongly dominated by Pacific cod, whose remains make up 87% of all fish (NISP 5846). Halibut comprise another 6% of the total (NISP 373), Salmon 3% and Greenling 2%. All other fish are present at frequencies of 1% or less.

The first summary table, Table 5.6.02, shows relative frequencies of NISP vs. NSP for major taxa by unit (excluding fish), figures that illustrate the success rates of identification: 58% of land mammals, 76% of sea mammal, 55% of birds but only 3% of whale remains were identifiable to at least family level, for an average success in identification rate of 64%. From this table it is also seen that both identified and unidentified sea mammals (excluding whales) constituted 38% of the total sample (NSP 10,969), while all birds examined made up 37% (NSP 10,534). Land mammal species, which include animals such as sea otter and polar bear that have a largely marine-oriented life-style, make up less than 1% of the total sample (NSP 36). An additional 2% of the total sample(NSP 342) were classified as whale. Table 5.6.03 examines NISP relative frequencies when fish remains are added into the totals (total NISP 21,157). Fish from EU 83 comprised 32% (NISP 6,729) of the total examined assemblage from EU 8 and 83 (NB see discussion on sample collection); sea mammals 39%, birds 27%, whales 2% and land mammals less than 1%. 90

Table 5.6.01 EU 8/83 Vertebrate fauna, NISP/NSP totals and relative frequencies.

COMMON NAME SPECIES NAME NISP/NSP % of NISP BIRD Common loon Gavia immer 4 <1 Pacific loon Gavia pacifica 5 <1 Horned grebe Podiceps auritus 2 <1 Shorttailed Albatross Phoebastria albatrus 492 9 Northern fulmar Fulmarus glacialis 15 <1 Shearwater/Fulmar Puffinus/Fulmarus sp. 18 <1 Shearwater sp. Puffinus sp. 1 <1 Sooty Shearwater Puffinus cf. griseus 26 <1 Short-tailed Shearwater Puffinus tenuirostris 310 5 Double-crested cormorant Phalacrocorax auritus 13 <1 Pelagic cormorant Phalacrocorax pelagicus 12 <1 Red-faced cormorant Phalacrocorax urile 138 2 Cormorant sp. Phalacrocorax sp. 24 <1 Emperor goose Chen cf. canagica 147 3 Canada goose Branta canadensis 1 <1 Goose sp. (med) Anserinae (med) 12 <1 Goose sp. (lg) Anserinae (lg) 2 <1 Goose sp. Anserinae 1 <1 Surf scoter Melanitta perspicillata 30 <1 Black scoter Melanitta nigra 81 1 White-wing scoter Melanitta fusca 135 2 Scoter (undet.) Melanitta sp. 66 1 Goldeneye (common) Bucephala clangula 3 <1 Goldeneye (Barrow's) Bucephala islandica 6 <1 Bufflehead Bucephala albeola 1 <1 Oldsquaw Clangula hyemalis 205 4 Harlequin duck Histrionicus histrionicus 61 1 Common eider Somateria mollissima 91 2 Steller's eider Polysticta stelleri 11 <1 Eider sp. Polysticta/Somateria sp. 12 <1 Merganser (hooded) Lophodytes cucullatus 1 <1 Duck (sm) Anatidae (sm) 43 1 Duck (med) Anatidae (med) 276 5 Duck (lg) Anatidae (lg) 459 8 Duck Anatidae 356 6 Bald eagle Haliaeetus cf. leucocephalus 17 <1 Ptarmigan sp. cf. Lagopus sp. 2 <1 Black oystercatcher Haematopus bachmani 1 <1 Shorebird (sm - turnstone?) cf. Arenaria sp. 3 <1 91 Shorebird (med - phalarope?) cf. Phalaropus sp. 1 <1 Gull (sm) Larus sp. (sm) 4 <1 Gull (med) Larus sp. (med) 11 <1 Gull (med/lg) Larus sp. (med/lg) 1 <1 Gull (lg) Larus sp. (lg) 28 <1 Gull (vlg) Larus sp. (vlg) 42 1 Gull sp. Laridae 3 <1 Common murre Uria aalge 1286 23 Thick-billed murre Uria lomvia 65 1 Murre sp. Uria sp. 382 7 Pigeon guillemot Cepphus columba 15 <1 Ancient murrelet Synthliboramphus antiquus 10 <1 Parakeet auklet Cyclorrhynchus psittacula 27 <1 Least auklet cf. Aethia pusilla 9 <1 Crested auklet Aethia cristatella 37 1 Crested-type auklet Aethia cristatell\Cyclorrhynchus sp 368 6 Cassin's auklet Ptychoramphus aleuticus 35 1 Rhinoceros auklet Cerorhinca monocerata 20 <1 Puffin Fratercula sp. 84 2 Alcid (sm) Alcidae (sm) 23 <1 Alcid (med) Alcidae (med) 2 <1 Alcid Alcidae 180 3 Sm. song bird (bunting) Passeriformes 3 <1 Unidentified bird (sm) Aves (sm) 1 <1 unknown TOTAL NISP BIRDS 5720 100 Unident. bird & bird/sm. Aves &/or sm. mammal 4814 mammal TOTAL NSP BIRDS 10534 MAMMALS Arctic fox Alopex lagopus 12 <1 Polar bear Ursus cf. maritimus 6 <1 Sea otter Enhydra lutris 3 <1 Fur seal Callorhinus ursinus 1441 17 Northern sea lion Eumatopias jubata 55 1 Sea lion/fur seal Otariidae 179 3 Bearded seal Erignathus barbatus 138 3 Ringed seal Phoca hispida 1408 16 Largha/Harbour seal Phoca largha/vitulina 245 5 Harbour seal? Phoca cf. vitulina 1 <1 Largha seal? Phoca cf. largha 65 1 Ribbon seal Phoca fasciata 3 <1 Phocid seal, undet. Phocidae 1020 20 Walrus Odobenus rosmarus 1 <1 Pinnepedia Pinnepedia 3174 36 Harbour porpoise Phocoena phocoena 283 5 92 Dall's porpoise Phocoena dalli 19 <1 Porpoise sp. Phocoenidae 313 6 Long-finned pilot whale Globicephala melas scammonii 2 <1 Small/Medium whale sp. Delphinidae/Monodontidae/Ziphiida5 <1 e Whale sp. Cetacea 331 4 Large whale Cetacea 4 <1 TOTAL NISP MAMMAL 8708 100 UNIDENTIFIED MAMMAL Undet.land mammal (vlg) Mammalia 15 Undet.sea mammal Mammalia 2624 TOTAL NSP MAMMAL 11,347 FISH Salmon shark Lamna ditropis 1 0 Dolly varden cf. Salvelinus malma 8 0 Salmon Oncorhynchus sp. 175 3 Pacific cod Gadus macrocephalus 5846 87 Walleye Pollock Theragra chalcogramma 1 0 Atka mackerel Pleurogrammus monopterygius 1 0 Rock greenling Hexagrammos cf. lagocephalus 4 0 Kelp greenling Hexagrammos cf. decagrammus 8 0 Greenling sp Hexagrammmos sp. 157 2 Rockfish sp Sebastes sp. 59 1 Longfin Irish Lord Hemilepidotus cf. zapus 4 0 Red Irish lord Hemilepidotus hemilepidotus 8 0 Yellow Irish lord Hemilepidotus jordani 22 0 Irish lord sp Hemilepidotus sp. 28 0 Frog sculpin Myoxocephalus cf. stelleri 12 0 Great-type sculpin Myoxocephalus sp. 4 0 Arrowtooth flounder Atheresthes stomias 2 0 Starry flounder Platichthys stellatus 14 0 Rock sole sp Lepidopsetta sp. 2 0 Halibut Hippoglossus stenolepis 373 6 TOTAL NISP FISH 6729 100

TOTAL IDENTIFIED BONE NISP 21,157 TOTAL NSP (ALL BONE) 28610

Appendix B is a list of voucher specimens from EU 8 and EU 83 that have been catalogued and retained as a comparative reference collection for future analysis;

Appendix C is a list of the categories used to determine size estimates for fish;

Appendix D is a listing of all species (bird, fish and mammals) contained in the University of Victoria (Anthropology) comparative collection of reference skeletons; 93

Table 5.6.02 EU 8/83 Relative success of identification (to at least family level, NISP) per major taxon, excluding fish.

IDENTIFIED or TAXON IDENTIFIABLE UNIDENTIFIED SITE NSP (NISP) (NSP) TOTAL

LAND MAMMALS (INCLUDING URSUS SP.) 58% 42% 36 SEA MAMMALS (EXCLUDING WHALE) 76% 24% 10,969

WHALE 3% 97% 342 BIRDS (INCLUDING UNID. BIRD/MAMMAL) 55% 54% 10534

SUBTOTAL NSP 14097 7784 21881 OVERALL SUCCESS OF ID 64%

Table 5.6.03 EU 8/83 Frequency per major taxon, NISP, including EU 83 fish.

TAXON SUCCESS SITE NISP % OF OF TOTAL TOTAL ID NISP LAND MAMMALS (INCLUDING 58% 21 <1 % URSUS SP.) SEA MAMMALS (EXCLUDING 76% 8,345 39 % WHALE)

WHALE 3% 342 2 %

BIRDS 55% 5720 27%

EU 83 FISH 100% 6729 32% TOTAL NISP 21,157 100%

A summary of dominant vertebrate taxa (94% of the total NISP, Table 5.6.04) shows that remains of the superfamily Pinnipedia (including true seals, fur seals, sea lion and walrus) are numerically the most common category, together representing 37% of the dominant taxa. Pacific cod (family Gadidae) are the next most common category, representing 29%.

Table 5.6.04 EU 8/83 Dominant taxa, NISP totals/family and relative frequency. 94

TAXON/FAMILY FAMILY NISP % of DOMINANT TAXA NISP Seals & sealions (combined) Pinnepedia 7730 37% Porpoises Phocoenidae 615 3%

Ducks & geese Anatidae 2000 10% Murres, auklets & puffins Alcidae 2543 13% Fulmar & shearwaters Procellaridae 370 2% Short-tailed albatross Diomedidae 492 2%

Pacific cod Gadidae 5847 29% Pacific halibut Pleuronectida 373 2% e

(DOMINANT TAXA NISP) (19,970) TOTAL SITE NISP 21,157 100%

Tables 6.6.05, 6.6.06 and 6.6.07 below summarize the frequency of mammals, birds and fish respectively, according to major stratigraphic layers - note that because a few minor layer totals are not included, the NISP totals listed in these tables often do not correspond to the totals listed in Table 5.6.01.

Table 5.6.05 EU 8/83 Mammal relative frequency per major (selected) strata of NISP, per taxon (minor strata omitted). NISP totals are not site totals.

TAXA EU83 EU83 EU83 EU83 EU83 EU83 EU83 EU83 EU83 EU83 EU83 EU08 TOTAL Levels midd. pit fill S3_ S3_ S6_ S6_ S6_ S7_ S7_ S7_ Levels NISP/ 1-2 1 Hfill Hfl Hfill Hfl Wall Hfill Hfl Sfl 1-3 TAXON FUR 27% 5% 36% 10% 10% 18% 19% 18% 20% 15% 14% 13% 1438 SEAL NORTHERN SEA LION <1 0 2 <1 <1 1 0 0 1 2 1 3 51 OTARIID <1 0 0 1 <1 2 0 0 8 0 0 <1 179 BEARDED SEAL 1 2 0 2 2 1 1 0 2 1 1 2 138 RINGED SEAL 16 36 13 20 22 19 18 8 9 8 14 10 1403 LARGA/ HARBOR/ 5 5 5 6 4 4 10 2 1 2 2 4 313 RIBBON SEAL PHOCID SEAL 8 33 6 19 17 8 10 23 3 6 9 12 1017 UNDETER. PINNIPED 37 17 37 27 41 35 24 47 34 44 36 28 3167 UNDETER. WALRUS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 <1 1 HARBOUR 3 0 1 7 2 5 2 2 5 3 1 2 283 PORPOISE DALL’S 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 19 PORPORISE POPRPOISE/ 95 DOLPHIN SP. <1 0 0 3 1 3 7 0 10 15 7 3 313 WHALE 2 2 <1 5 1 4 7 0 5 6 15 22 342 POLAR 0 0 0 <1 <1 0 0 0 <1 0 0 <1 6 BEAR ARCTIC 0 0 0 <1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 12 FOX SEA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 <1 0 0 <1 3 OTTER % UNIT TOTAL 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 STRATA 1432 83 306 483 3162 223 98 149 1946 144 87 572 8685 TOTAL NISP % OF TOTAL NISP PER STRATA 16% 1% 4% 6% 36% 3% 1% 2% 22% 2% 1% 7% 100%

Table 5.6.06 EU 8/83. Bird relative frequency per major (selected) strata, of NISP per taxon (minor strata omitted); NISP totals are not site totals.

TAXA EU83 EU83 EU83 EU83 EU83 EU83 EU83 EU83 EU83 EU08 TOTA Levels midd. pit S3_ S3_ S6_ S6_ S7_ S7_ Levels NISP/ 1-2 1 fill Hfill Hfl Hfill Hfl Hfill Hfl 1-3 TAXO DUCKS & 29% 68% 20% 41% 30% 21% 44% 49% 31% 21% 2000 GEESE MURRES/ 54 23 75 47 35 49 50 41 45 54 2543 AUKLETS/ PUFFINS ETC. FULMAR & 5 4 1 4 3 24 6 3 15 14 370 SHEARWATERS ALBATROSS 6 1 1 2 27* 3 0 1 4 5 492 CORMORANTS 5 3 2 4 3 2 0 3 4 3 187 GULLS 2 1 1 2 1 1 0 2 1 3 89 LOONS & 0 0 0 1 <1 0 0 <1 1 <1 11 GREBES EAGLE 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 <1 1 <1 17 SHOREBIRDS/ 0 0 0 1 <1 0 0 0 0 <1 5 OYSTERCATCHER PTARMIGAN 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 <1 2 SONGBIRDS 0 0 0 0 <1 0 0 <1 0 <1 3 % UNIT TOTAL 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 STRATA NISP 393 79 122 592 1365 170 78 1538 464 918 5719 % OF TOTAL NISP 7% 1% 2% 10% 24% 3% 1% 27% 8% 16% 100% PER STRATA *This figure represents a feature consisting almost entirely of albatross wing elements, discussed in more detail below .

Table 5.6.07 EU 83 Fish relative frequency per major (selected) strata, of NISP per taxon (minor strata omitted); NISP totals are not site totals.

TAXA EU83 EU83 EU83 EU83 EU83 EU83 EU83 EU83 TOTAL Levels midd. pit S3_ S3_ S6_ S6_ S7_ NISP 1-2 1 fill Hfill Hfl Hfill Hfl Hfill PACIFIC 88% 97% 38% 96% 76% 85% 90% 92% 5847 COD GREENLING 1 0 18 1 5 0 2 1 170 HALIBUT 3 <1 29 1 10 10 4 5 373 OTHER <1 0 0 <1 1 0 0 0 18 FLOUNDERS SALMON & 7 2 3 1 5 2 2 <1 183 TROUT ROCKFISH 1 0 13 0 2 0 1 <1 59 SCULPINS <1 1 0 1 2 0 1 1 78 SHARKS 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 % UNIT TOTAL 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 TOTAL STRATA 352 1216 79 1537 2534 48 142 821 6729 NISP

% OF TOTAL 5% 18% 1% 23% 38% 1% 2% 12% 100% NISP PER STRATA .

Land Mammals

Polar bear With evidence of spring ice provided by other species in the Amaknak Bridge assemblage and their primary prey (Ringed seal and Bearded seal) well represented in the archaeological sample, Polar bears are probably the source of the very large ursid bone present in the assemblage that are scattered throughout the depth of the deposit (NISP 6; Table 5.6.05). The category of unidentified very large land mammal bone (NSP 15), may well represent highly fragmented Polar bear bone as well. However, brown bear cannot be ruled out completely as the source of this material. Brown bears currently live on the Kenai Peninsula and Kodiak Island to the east (Wilson and Ruff 1999) and archaeological evidence from Margaret Bay (Davis 2001) suggests they must have been locally available in the past.

Sea otter Only three pieces of Sea otter were recovered from EU 8/83 - a molar tooth (often used as decorative inlay, this may have been a trade item), and two foot bones (which may have entered the site attached to skins traded from slightly warmer areas). All Sea otter bones, interestingly enough, were found toward the bottom of the deposits, either in EU 8 levels or S7_House fill (Table 5.6.05). 97

Arctic fox Although fox remains were anticipate in reasonable numbers, only a few were found. A cluster of Arctic fox bones were discovered in one layer (S7_Hfill, Table 5.6.05) that appear to be from a single adult individual (NISP 11). A single additional element from an adult or subadult animal was recovered from S3_Hfill.

Commensal Mammals

No commensal mammal remains were recovered. Although remains of domestic dog , the ubiquitous human commensal (Canis familiaris), often represent the most common land mammal recovered from many coastal archaeological sites (Crockford 1997), no definitive remains of dog were identified from these units. Microfauna such as lemmings and voles were expected to be recovered but have not been found so far; these may turn up in bulk samples screened through fine mesh.

Sea Mammals Pinnipeds Overall, Northern fur seal and Ringed seal are the dominant taxa identified to species, with both almost equally common (17% and 16% respectively, as a percentage of total mammal NISP). Larger true seals (Largha/Harbor/Ribbon) are much less common, together making up only 4% of the total. However, because it was often difficult to confidently determine whether fragmentary remains or even intact elements (especially of juveniles and neonates) were Phocids or Otariids, a large contingent of undistinguished Pinnipeds - formerly a distinct taxonomic order but now considered a “superfamily”- make up a significant proportion of the NISP total (36%). One way to deal with this dilemma was suggested by Brian Davis (2001), a method he used in his report on Margaret Bay (Unalaska) mammal remains: partition the undistinguished family NISP totals proportionally among the species confidently identified without changing the NISP total (thus, if fur seals represent 75% of all identified Otariid remains - fur seals and sea lions - one would add 75% of the “Otariids, undistinguished” NISP to the identified fur seal total and 25% to the sea lion total; the NISP total for mammals remains the same).

Re-calculating the preliminary mammal figures for Amaknak Bridge for comparison to Davis’ figures (partitioning for Pinnipeds, Otariids, Delphinids and Phocids) reveals the pattern illustrated in Figure 5.6.01 below: 45% of the remains are ringed seal and 32% are fur seal. Largha &/or harbor seal contribute another 10%, harbor porpoise 7%, cetaceans 4%, bearded seal almost 2% and northern sea lion not quite 1%. All other taxa are represented at frequencies well under 1%. This changes the proportions of ringed seal vs. fur seal slightly, but they are still very similar in frequency.

98 Odobenus rosmarus < 0.1 % phala m. scammonii < 0.1 % Enhydra l utris < 0.1 % Phoca fasciata < 0.1 % Delphi ni dae/Zi phi idae 0.1 % Ursus cf. maritimus 0.1 % Vul pes al opex 0.1 % Phocoena dal li 0.4 % Eumatopi as j ubata 0.7 % Eri gnathus barbatus 1.6 % Cetacea 3.8 % Phocoena phocoena 6.6 % Phoca largha/vituli na 9.8 % Call orhi nus ursi nus 32.0 %

Phoca hispi da. 44.6 %

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55

Figure 5.6.01 UNL 050 Preliminary mammal NISP (EU 8/83) frequencies, calculated as in Davis 2001: 75 (fig. 3.2), splitting undistinguished Phocids, Otariids, Pinnipeds, and Delphinids proportionally among identified species totals.

This pattern contrasts quite strongly with Davis’ results from the ca. 4,500 year old Margaret Bay mammal assemblage, in which the dominant seal species is Harbor seal (50%), 11% Ringed seal and 6% Fur seal. Neither Bearded seal, Largha seal or Ribbon seal were reported from Margaret Bay (the fact that Davis doesn’t mention Largha seal at all makes me wonder if he was considering this animal a subspecies of Harbor seal, as it was formerly classified; see discussion in Appendix A). Other taxa were present at Margaret Bay in higher frequencies than here: 13% Harbor porpoise, 8% Northern sea lion, almost 2% each of Polar bear and Sea otter (all others <1%).

However, a simpler way to deal with the problem of ambiguously identified remains is to calculate the frequency of positively identified taxa only, as a proportion of all specimens identified to species level (Table 5.6.08). This simplifies the data, as compared to the presentation in Table 5.6.01, but it is still abundantly clear that Ringed seal rather than Largha and/or Harbor seal are the dominant phocid in the Amaknak Bridge assemblage and that fur seal remains are almost equally common.

Table 5.608 EU 8/83 Summary of mammals identified to species, relative frequency NISP.

COMMON NAME SPECIES/FAMILY NISP % of DOMINANT NAME TAXA NISP

Fur seal Callorhinus ursinus 1441 39% Ringed seal Phoca hispida 1408 38% Largha/harbor seal complex Phoca largha/vitulina 311 8% Harbor porpoise Phocoena phocoena 283 8% Bearded seal Erignathus barbatus 138 4% Northern sea lion Eumatopias jubata 55 1.5% Dall’s porpoise Phocoena dalli 19 <1% Arctic fox Alopex lagopus 12 <1% Polar bear Ursus maritimus 6 <1% Sea otter Enhydra lutris 3 <1% Ribbon seal Phoca fasciata 3 <1% Long-finned pilot whale G. melas scammonii 2 <1% Walrus 1 <1%

TOTAL IDENTIFIED 3682 100% MAMMALS

Because fur seals as well as sea lions display a dramatic degree of sexual dimorphism (with males several times the size of females), it is often possible to confidently distinguish between skeletal remains of each sex, especially for subadult and adult classes (e.g. Etnier 2002). Table 5.6.09 illustrates this ratio for the two units analyzed together, where it can be seen that male otariids of both species strongly dominate the sample.

100

TAXON EU 08/83 EU 08/ 83 TOTAL NISP MALE FEMALE OTARIIDS MALE & FEMALE N. FUR SEAL 85% 15% 165

N. SEA LION 83% 17% 36 NISP PER SEX, BOTH SPECIES 171 30 201

TAXON N. FUR N. SEA BEARDED RINGED HARBOR/ TOTAL SEAL LION SEAL SEAL LARGHA/ RIBBON AGED NISP EU 83 ADULT/ SUBADULT 18% 62% 18% 2% 22% 298 SUBADULT / JUVENILE 17 21 23 79 40 1123 YOUNG JUVENILE/ NEWBORN 16 18 39 19 30 482 FOETAL/ NEWBORN 49 0 20 <1 8 509 (UNWEANED) % AGED NISP/TAXON 100 100 100 100 100 AGED NISP/TAXON 926 39 127 1028 292 2412

A summary of the pinniped remains that could be attributed to a general age class, calculated as a percentage of all age-estimated specimens for the site for each taxon, is presented in Table 5.6.10. Sea lions are the only taxon for which the highest proportion of remains are estimated as adult/subadult and the only taxon with no newborns represented. Ringed seal have the next lowest proportion represented by newborns, but also have the fewest number of adult/subadults. Bearded seal and the Largha/Harbor/Ribbon seal group remains are represented more evenly by the various age classes, while Fur seals are the only taxon skewed heavily toward newborn age classes. The significance of these age and sex distribution patterns are discussed below, one taxon at a time.

Fur seal A detailed breakdown of age estimates for younger classes of fur seal remains is presented in Table 5.6.11. Fully 61% of all fur seal specimens analyzed for this report were estimated to be 101 less than six months of age. The smallest category of individuals older than six months is the six to nine month group (fully weaned but less than a year old), which comprises only 4% of the total aged sample. Only 9% of the sample are yearling/two-year old size, while 26% are fully adult or nearly so (and as discussed previously, the vast majority of these older animals are male). While these frequencies may shift slightly with a more refined analysis (based on a larger sample of aged animals), the results of this preliminary analysis suggest strongly that the fur seals being exploited by Amaknak Bridge inhabitants had a pattern of seasonal distribution similar to modern populations. That is, animals congregated on rookeries to give birth, mate and nurse offspring during the summer and early fall, making unweaned newborns and newly- weaned pups as well as breeding or nearly-breeding aged adults the most vulnerable to human predation.

Juveniles of both sexes (one to two years olds) would have been potentially available during the summer months but were probably more widely scattered. The also probably spent more time in the water feeding, where they may have been more difficult to hunt. Once males approach sexual maturity (beginning as early as three years of age), they begin to behave more like breeding adults: they will attempt to establish territories and mate with available females, although they are usually too inexperienced and undersized to successful compete with older males in these endeavors. However, subadult males appear to become as driven by their hormones as functionally breeding males and this preoccupation with reproduction probably makes them equally vulnerable to human predation on and around the rookeries.

A more detailed age assessment of juvenile fur seal remains estimated to originate from individuals ca. one year of age or less may be attempted for the final report, using measurements provided by Etnier (2002).However, for the purposes of this preliminary report, the four juvenile fur seal skeletons in the comparative collection used for this analysis comprise sufficient material of appropriate age classes to make reasonably accurate estimates of age for juvenile material. These specimens consist of a 2-4 week old, two 5-8 week old and one 24-32 week old (6-8 months) specimens(see Crockford et al. 2002: 161 for measurements of some elements from these specimens). There were also on hand skeletons of a subadult female (epiphyses unfused, probably 2-3 years old) and a fully adult male (epiphyses fully fused, ca. > 8 years).

The presence in all layers of these units of fur seals of all age groups and both sexes, including newborn and still nursing infants, demonstrates the presence in the general area of pupping grounds (Crockford et al. 2002; Etnier 2002). The presence of newborn fur seals in particular confirms that hunting of these animals occurred, at least part of the time, on breeding rookeries. Today, the breeding/pupping season for fur seals in the Bering Sea is narrowly constrained between early June and mid-July and the primary rookeries are on the Pribolof Islands (Reeves et al. 2002), about 400 km to the north of Unalaska. This is probably farther that residents of the eastern Aleutians would have traveled regularly to hunt seals (Etnier 2002) and suggests that a rookery closer to the site location must have been available at the time the site was occupied. Nearby Bogoslov Island has been utilized in recent times as a breeding rookery by fur seals (Reeves et al. 2002) and is a documented rookery/haul-out for Northern sea lions (Kenyon and Rice 1961); this may well have been true in the past as well. There may also have been a rookery on the island of Unalaska itself or another nearby island.

102 A fair number of Fur seal remains had evidence of butchering (Figure 5.6.02) and in a few instances, evidence of working indicative of tool manufacture (Figure 5.6.03). However, a comprehensive analysis of butchering patterns was not attempted for this report.

Table 5.6.11 EU 8/83 estimated age class breakdown for young Northern fur seal, as a frequency of all specimens with an estimated age (based on comparison to elements of known-aged individuals).

FUR SEAL AGE CLASSES NISP % AGED NISP juvenile/subadult to adult, 255 26% combined (all ca. > 3 yrs old) juvenile 85 9% (ca. 1-2 yr. olds) young juvenile/juvenile 35 4% (ca. 6 to 9 mnths) young juvenile 120 12% (ca. 4 to 6 mnths, prob. just weaned) newborn/young juvenile 254 26% (ca. 2 to 4 mnths, prob. unweaned) newborn (definitely unweaned) 209 22% (ca. 1 to 2 months) foetal/newborn 8 1% (ca. < 2 weeks)

TOTAL NISP 966 100%

103

Figure 5.6.02 Northern fur seal thoracic vertebra (T2; #200248) with shallow butchering cuts

Figure 5.6.03 Northern fur seal axis vertebra (C2; #200240) with deep cuts to neural arch

104

Northern sea lion No clearly newborn-aged sea lion remains were recovered from Amaknak Bridge (the youngest are probably at least 4 to 6 months of age) but adult and subadult males are well represented, suggesting that: 1) hunting took place on breeding rookeries, but before rather than after pups were born (subadult and adult males hunted on rookeries primarily during April and May as they congregated to establish territories, their preoccupation with con-specific competition making them particularly vulnerable to land-based hunters); 2) hunting took place only at haul-out sites, not breeding rookeries; 3) hunting took place during the entire breeding season but newborns not taken.

It seems unlikely that the last option suggested above would have been likely, since newborns were clearly taken in fairly high numbers by Amaknak Bridge inhabitants from fur seal rookeries. Indeed, the distribution pattern of Northern sea lion remains among age and sex classes for Amaknak Bridge contrasts sharply with the pattern reported by Lyman (1989) for the Seal Rock site on the Oregon coast, where at least 6% of the sea lion NISP (59/986) was estimated to be newborn/fetal in age and 75% were adult (breeding) males. It may be that the second option listed above is the most probably: that sea lions were hunted primarily in and around local haul-out sites throughout the year, which suggests either that breeding rookeries were not available nearby or that fur seal rookeries were closer and more easily exploited. The relatively low frequency of sea lion remains, however, is rather puzzling given that they are currently a dominant component of Alaskan fauna. As above, it may have been that fur seals were just closer and more easily accessible but it is also possible that the colder climate that existed at the time of occupation, as suggested by other Neoglacial indicators, limited local sea lion populations.

Bearded seal The material from Amaknak Bridge includes a full range of age classes, from young newborns through just-weaned juveniles to fully adult animals. These remains, although they comprise but a small proportion of the total sample (2%, NISP 138), nevertheless provide very strong evidence that preferred bearded sea breeding habitat (near-shore pack ice) was located close to Unalaska during the spring and early summer. Therefore, bearded seal remains throughout the depth of deposit at this site (Table 5.6.05) provide compelling evidence that during the period of occupation at Amaknak Bridge, pack ice extended south to the eastern Aleutians in the spring and early summer and that Bearded seals were hunted within this environment.

105

Figure 5.6.04 Bearded seal fibula plus glued epiphysis (#200002), with cut marks.

Ringed seal The Ringed seal remains from Amaknak Bridge are quite diminutive - almost delicate - and distinctly smaller than Harbor seals of a similar stage of skeletal development, both in our own comparative skeletal collection and others (see species description, Appendix A). The morphological differences from Harbor seal are so consistent that only such elements as fragmentary bits of skull and vertebrae, ribs and phalanges could not be reliably distinguish and had to be classified in a generic “phocid” category (cf. Davis 2001). In addition, much of the material seems small enough to qualify as distinctly small compared to Ringed seal specimens in most museum collections (ie. presumably taken from land-fast ice populations), suggesting this assemblage may have been harvested from a pack-ice breeding population. However, due to the young age of most of the specimens represented, it may not be possible to substantiate this perception statistically without a huge amount of work.

Although the relative ages estimated for Ringed seal are very tentative, I suggest that the majority of specimens in the Amaknak Bridge faunal assemblage represent YOY, either four to six month-olds taken from open water in the fall or yearlings taken from the pack ice in early summer during the first annual molt. As older subadults (ca. 3 to 5 yrs), fully adult animals and newborn-sized ringed seals are poorly represented in this assemblage, it seems unlikely that hunting for this species took place primarily during the spring pupping season in March and April. If not, why not? Certainly ice-breeding Bearded seals pups were taken.

Amaknak Bridge residents may have been unable to successfully harvest adult and newborn Ringed seals because they appear not to have had dogs: dogs may have been all but essential in locating the lairs and breathing holes constructed by Ringed seal adults (see species description, Appendix A). Alternatively (or in addition), the possibility exists that only pack-ice breeding Ringed seals were available to Amaknak Bridge residents and that hunts for pack-ice dwelling animals around the eastern Aleutians originated from boats rather than from shore (as in most arctic regions). In contrast to older animals, yearlings hauled out for their first annual molt might be more likely to locate themselves closer to the edges of pack-ice flows (the area preferred by Bearded seals), and more likely to lie exposed rather than within snow lairs. This would make 106 yearling Ringed seals as easy to locate and hunt from boats as Bearded seals and thus more available to hunters without dogs than older (or younger) age classes.

Largha/Harbor/Ribbon seal From the EU 8/83 sample reported here, it was determined that at least 65 elements could represent P. largha rather than P. vitulina. Based on the inference of available pack ice habitat during the spring provided by Bearded seal remains, it seems probable that most of the “Largha/Harbor” sized seals are in fact Largha rather than Harbor seal (cf. Davis 2001; only one specimen from Amaknak Bridge was judged to belong to Harbor seal rather than Larha seal, from a fully adult animal). As shown by the breakdown of age classes in Table 5.6.10, the sample of putative Largha seals (“Harbor/Largha) has a much higher proportion of newborn and adult individuals than does Ringed seal and is a pattern that bears a closer resemblance to that demonstrated by Bearded seal remains. Only three specimens from the Amaknak Bridge assemblage were identified as ribbon seal: two were juvenile (ca. 1-2 yrs?) and the other adult/subadult. All could have been taken from pack ice during the early summer (during the annual molt) or later in the summer and early fall from local waters. However, during the cold Neoglacial period, when spring pack ice would have been more extensive in the southern Bering Sea, Largha seals were probably available in the eastern Aleutians from late winter to spring.

Porpoises Only Dall’s and Harbor porpoise were identified in the Amaknak Bridge fauna, and it is likely that the Dall’s porpoise remains all came from one adult individual. While estimating an age for porpoise skeletal remains is problematic, some general categories can be established. I assessed the size and stage of bone development of archaeological remains in relation to age-estimated comparative specimens: our collection contains foetal and newborn animals as well as known juveniles and sexually mature adults (elements were classified as “adult” only if growth epiphyses were fully fused). The presence in the Amaknak Bridge sample of foetal/newborn (all may be newborn, despite a “foetal” appearance) and young juvenile aged harbor porpoise remains (slightly larger & better developed than newborn) suggests they were taken during the summer or early fall.

Many fore limb elements (humerus, ulna, radius) from single individuals were recovered together, a pattern similar to that noted in a site in Japan where porpoises were also exploited (Hiraguchi 1992), which may represent the discard of intact flippers.

Whales Most species of whales, with the probable exception of Right whale, Bowhead and Killer whale, are primarily summer migrants who take advantage of the high productivity of the Bering Sea during the longest days of the year; it would thus appear that whaling is most likely to have been a summer or early fall activity.

Active hunting of whales is a specialized activity requiring unique equipment and skilled hunters, but occasional beached carcasses could be scavenged for bone and baleen by groups which did not normally actively pursue whales. Thus small amounts of whalebone recovered archaeologically does not necessarily indicate that active whaling was practiced by any prehistoric group, although as McCartney and Savelle (1985:41) have noted, very large portions 107 of whales could have been utilized without leaving an archaeological signature. So far, the only species of whale confirmed from the Amaknak Bridge deposits is Long-finned pilot whale, a species known in the North Pacific only from archaeological remains (see Appendix A), although Stejneger’s beaked whale has been very tentatively identified.

Long-finned pilot whale A single complete radius of a juvenile long-finned pilot whale was recovered from EU 83 midden1, with its proximal epiphysis found in S3_House fill deposits. Positive identification of the above specimen was made by Drs. Jim Mead and Charles Potter, using comparative skeletal material housed at the Smithsonian Institution in Washington D.C.; significant shape differences from the short-finned pilot whale were noted, giving us all a high level of confidence in the identification. This species is known in the north Pacific only from archaeological remains (see Appendix A).

This specimen from Amaknak Bridge constitutes the first record of this species in the eastern N. Pacific (a perfect match, see Figure 5.6.05). At least one additional specimen (part of an upper tooth row) may ultimately prove attributable to this species.

Figure 5.6.05 Long-finned pilot whale radius (# 200096) & proximal epiphysis (#200097)

Unidentified medium-sized whale Another two recovered whale specimens appear to represent another medium-sized species, but which is definitely not Beluga (Delphinapterus leucas) but could perhaps be Stejneger’s beaked whale (Mesoplodon stejnegeri) or Baird’s beaked whale (Berardius bairdii), both species known to inhabit the Bering Sea: a complete radius (from EU83/L2, feature 2) of a very young individual (perhaps newborn or foetal; GL=31.7mm) and the proximal epiphysis of another radius (from EU83/L2) of a much older individual (probably subadult) (see Figures 6.6.06 and 6.6.07).

108

Figure 5.6.06 Unknown medium-sized whale radius, foetal/newborn (#201858)

Figure 5.6.07 Unknown medium-sized whale radius, proximal epiphysis (#200095).

Unidentified large whales What appears to be the proximal epiphysis of a large whale was recovered from EU 8 and also awaits identification (Figures 6.6.08a and 6.6.08b). Various other undiagnostic fragments may be identifiable using DNA analysis (Table 5.6.12).

109

Figure 5.6.08a Unknown large whale radius, proximal epiphysis articular surface (#200962).

Figure 5.6.08b Unknown large whale radius, proximal epiphysis underside (#200962).

110 Table 5.6.12 EU 8/83 Whale element representation and distribution

UNIT LEVEL PROV. QUAD COMMON ID ELEMENT BODYPART AGE NISP NAME 0008 1/2 Level n/a Whale sp. 20 Unid 23 (unk.element) 0008 2 Level n/a Large whale 20 Radius/ulna Front limb J/SA 1 (epiph) 0008 2 Level n/a Large whale 20 Unid 1 (unk.element) 0008 2 Level n/a Whale sp. 20 Unid 48 (unk.element) 0008 3 Level n/a Whale sp. 20 Unid 51 (unk.element)

0083 1 Level n/a Whale sp. 20 Unid (frags) 5

0083 2 Feature n/a Small/Medium 20 Radius Front limb NB/YJ 1 2 whale sp. 0083 2 Feature n/a Whale sp. 20 Unid (frags) 12 2 0083 2 Feature n/a Whale sp. 20 Unid (frags) 2 2 0083 2 Feature n/a Whale sp. 20 Skull Skull 1 2, H6 0083 2 Level n/a Small/Medium 20 Radius Front limb A/SA 1 whale sp. 0083 2 Level n/a Large whale 20 Unid 1 (unk.element) 0083 2 Level n/a Whale sp. 20 Unid (frags) 1 0083 2 Level n/a Whale sp. 20 Unid (frags) 1

0083 Midden1 Midden n/a Long-finned 22 Radius Front limb YJ/J 1 pilot whale 0083 Midden1 Midden n/a Small/Medium 20 Maxilla Skull 1 whale sp. (tooth row)

0083 Pit feat. Pit fill n/a Small/Medium 20 Rib Ribs 1 fill whale sp.

0083 S3_Hfill House n/a Long-finned 22 Radius Front limb YJ/J 1 fill pilot whale 0083 S3_Hfill House n/a Whale sp. 20 Unid (frags) 11 fill 0083 S3_Hfill2 House n/a Whale sp. 20 Unid (frags) 9 fill 0083 S3_Hfill2 House n/a Whale sp. 20 Unid (frags) 1 111 fill

0083 S3_Hfloor Faunal A Whale sp. 20 Unid (frags) 4 conc. 0083 S3_Hfloor House A Whale sp. 20 Unid (frags) 7 floor 0083 S3_Hfloor House B Whale sp. 20 Unid (frags) 8 floor 0083 S3_Hfloor House C Whale sp. 20 Unid (frags) 4 floor 0083 S3_Hfloor House D Whale sp. 20 Unid (frags) 6 floor

0083 S6_Hfill House n/a Whale sp. 20 Unid (frags) 7 fill 0083 S6_Hfill House n/a Whale sp. 20 Unid (frags) 3 fill

0083 S6_Hfloor House n/a Whale sp. 20 Unid (frags) 7 floor

0083 S7_Hfill House n/a Large whale 20 Nasal Skull 1 fill 0083 S7_Hfill House n/a Whale sp. 20 Unid (frags) 4 fill 0083 S7_Hfill House n/a Whale sp. 20 Unid 96 fill (unk.element)

0083 S7_Hfloor House A Whale sp. 20 Unid (frags) 1 floor 0083 S7_Hfloor House B Small/Medium 20 Vertebra Vertebrae 1 floor whale sp. (eph) 0083 S7_Hfloor House B Whale sp. 20 Unid (frags) 3 floor 0083 S7_Hfloor House B Whale sp. 20 Unid (frags) 3 floor 0083 S7_Sfloor House D Whale sp. 20 Unid (frags) 7 floor 0083 S7_Sfloor Sub n/a Whale sp. 20 Unid (frags) 6 floor

112

Birds Birds recovered from EUs 8 and 83 at Amaknak Bridge comprise a significant proportion (32%) of all identified remains. Of the 10,528 bird specimens examined, 5720 were identified (or identifiable) to at least family (Tables 6.6.01 and 6.6.03). At least 44 species of birds are present (Table 5.5.01), many represented by one or a few specimens. Interestingly, the earlier deposits from EU 8 (Table 5.6.06) display a greater diversity of species than the later ones. This lowest strata is the only level where all taxonomic groups are represented, although other strata have a higher NISP count. While some remains of many bird species appear to be fairly young (including albatross), these almost certainly represent “just-fledged” or “newly fledged” individuals rather than nestling chicks. No remains of undisputed nestling chicks, even unidentifiable as to species, were recovered.

Ducks, Geese and Alcids Grouping the species of the two dominant families, Anatidae and Alcidae, into size categories displays some patterns (see Tables 6.6.13 & 6.6.14, below).

Table 5.6.13 Family Alcidae, size summary and frequency of occurrence.

TAXON % PER FAMILY/ FAMILY/ NISP FAMILY GROUP GROUP %

NISP COMMON NAME SPECIES NAME Alcidae, all combined 2543 100% Sm. alcids Alcidae 509 20% Ancient murrelet Synthliboramphus antiquus 10 0.4% Parakeet auklet Cyclorrhynchus psittacula 27 1.1 Least auklet Aethia pusilla 9 0.4 Crested auklet Aethia cristatella 37 1.5 Crested-type auklet Aethia cristatell\Cyclorrhynchus sp 368 14.5 Cassin's auklet Ptychoramphus aleuticus 35 1.4 Alcid (sm) Alcidae (sm) 23 0.9 Med. alcids Alcidae 121 5% Pigeon guillemot Cepphus columba 15 0.6 Rhinoceros auklet Cerorhinca monocerata 20 0.8 Puffin Fratercula sp. 84 3.3 Alcid (med), undeter. Alcidae (med) 2 0.1 Lg. alcids Alcidae 1733 68% Common murre Uria aalge 1286 50.6 Thick-billed murre Uria lomvia 65 2.6 Murre sp. Uria sp. 382 15.0 Alcid, undeter. Alcidae 180 7.1 180 7%

113

Table 5.6.14 Family Anatidae, size summary and frequency of occurrence.

TAXON % PER FAMILY/ FAMILY/ NISP FAMILY GROUP GROUP %

NISP

COMMON NAME SPECIES NAME Anatidae, all combined 2000 100% Geese, all combined Anatidae 163 (8%) Goose sp., med Anatidae Emperor goose? Chen canagica 147 7.4% Goose sp. (med), undeter. Anserinae (med) 12 0.6 159 8% Goose sp., lg Anatidae Canada goose Branta canadensis 1 0.1 Goose sp. (lg) Anserinae (lg) 2 0.1 3 <1% Goose sp., undeter. Anserinae 1 0.1 Ducks, all combined Anatidae 1837 (92%) Duck sp., sm Anatidae 106 5% Bufflehead Bucephala albeola 1 0.1 Harlequin duck Histrionicus histrionicus 61 3.1 Merganser (hooded) Lophodytes cucullatus 1 0.1 Duck (sm), undeter. Anatidae (sm) 43 2.2 Duck sp., med Anatidae 481 24% Oldsquaw Clangula hyemalis 205 10.3 Duck (med) Anatidae (med) 276 13.8 Duck sp., lg Anatidae 894 45% Surf scoter Melanitta perspicillata 30 1.5 Black scoter Melanitta nigra 81 4.1 White-wing scoter Melanitta fusca 135 6.8 Scoter (undet.) Melanitta sp. 66 3.3 Goldeneye (common) Bucephala clangula 3 0.2 Goldeneye (Barrow's) Bucephala islandica 6 0.3 Common eider Somateria mollissima 91 4.6 Steller's eider Polysticta stelleri 11 0.6 Eider sp. Polysticta/Somateria sp. 12 0.6 Duck (lg), undeter. Anatidae (lg) 459 23.0 Duck, undeter. Anatidae 356 17.8 356 18%

Tables 6.6.13 and 6.6.14 show that large alcids (common and thick-billed murre, NISP 1733) are the most frequently occurring birds at 30% of the total, followed by large ducks (primarily scoters and eiders, NISP 894) at 16%, small alcids (various auklets and murrelets, NISP 509) at 9%, medium ducks (primarily oldsquaws, NISP 481) at 8%. An additional 6% are ducks of undetermined size (NISP 356), 2% are small ducks (including harlequin duck and bufflehead, NISP 106), 2% are medium alcids (including guillemots, rhinoceros auklet and puffins, NISP 121), and another 3% are alcids of undetermined size (NISP 180).

114 Fully 51% of all alcids could be positively identified as Common murre (NISP 1286/2543). Another 15% (mostly fragmentary elements) could be classified only as “large alcid,” although most of these probably represent Common murre as well. Only 3% of all alcids (NISP 65/2543), or 5% of all murres identified to species (65/1351), could be positively identified as Thick-billed murre (although a portion of the “large alcid” category are probably also this species).

The distribution of scoters in the Aleutians (see Appendix A) is mirrored in the remains, since all the ducks attributable to one of the three scoters (NISP 246), only 12% were Surf, 33% Black and 55% White-winged (few Black scoters are identified in more southern coastal sites, where surf and white-winged scoters dominate prehistoric assemblages). Not all elements are equally diagnostic, however, and no attempt was made to determine ID hind limb elements to species; an additional 33 bones were attributable only to the genus.

Oldsquaw ducks are the most commonly occurring medium-sized duck. All of the duck tracheal bullae recovered from the Amaknak Bridge assemblage were identified as Oldsquaw (NISP 8/205), indicating that at least some male ducks were harvested (see species account, Appendix A, for a complete discussion). While no particular conclusion can be drawn from this small sample, a larger sample drawn from a greater extent of the site (if it similarly contains only the more fragile tracheal bullae of Oldsquaws and none from duck species such as eiders, that possess more robust bullae), it might be possible to suggest differential exploitation, or butchering patterns, for male Oldsquaws (for example, male Oldsquaws, unlike all other ducks except the Pintail (Anas acuta), posses long tail feathers that might have had a specific use for Aleut people, causing hunters to choose male Oldsquaws over other ducks, including females of the same species). However, it is also possible that even within the context of a larger sample, survival of some tracheal bullae of Oldsquaw is simply a reflection of the relatively high overall representation of this one species. Even in this small sample, Oldsquaw remains occur at the highest frequency for any single species of duck, comprising 10.3 % of all Anatidae (NISP 205/2000), while White- winged scoter make up only 6.8% of the sample (NISP 135) and Common eider, 4.6% (NSIP 91).

Despite being almost equal common as Oldsquaw ducks during the winter in the Aleutians today, in the Amaknak Bridge assemblage, Harlequins comprise only 3.1% of all Anatidae (61/2000) - less than half the number of Oldsquaws recorded (and compared to only a single bone each of bufflehead and hooded merganser).

Gulls Gulls overall are relatively rare in the Amaknak Bridge bird assemblage, comprising only 1.5% of the total NISP (89/5720); gulls were obviously not highly sought after relative to other taxa. Of these 89 gull bones, however, almost half (47%) are the (currently) relatively less abundant size class of “very large” while only 31% are the currently more abundant “large” class. Medium-sized gulls are the next most common size (12%), with small sizes relative rare (4.5%) and the med/lg size class represented by only one bone (1%).

If one assumes that relatively “incidental” taxa such as gulls tend to be represented in faunal assemblages in proportions similar to their true relative population abundance at the time the site inhabitants were exploiting them (which may or may not be true), one could tentatively interpret 115 the Amaknak Bridge gull frequencies as suggestive of a relative higher abundance of very large gulls. If so, these remains probably represent the Glaucous gull, L. hyperboreus, a species that currently thrives in northern Alaska. Colder Neoglacial conditions and lots of locally breeding alcids on which to prey probably created conditions supportive of larger populations of Glaucous gulls than currently inhabit this area of the Aleutians.

Cormorant Not unexpectedly, the Red-faced is the most abundant cormorant species of all cormorant remains that could be identified to species in the Amaknak Bridge assemblage (NISP 138/163 or 85%). Double-crested and Pelagic cormorant bones were almost equally abundant, comprising 13/196 and 12/163 of the identified sample, respectively. Fragments of cormorant bone can be difficult to distinguish to species, as can certain phalanges and vertebrae; thus 24/187 (13%) of all bones attributable to the cormorant family could not be identified to species. Cormorant wing elements in the Amaknak assemblage often displayed cut marks suggestive of early stages of tool manufacture (NISP 23) and some (NISP 5) were fully modified into awls; most of the twenty-eight worked cormorant bones were humeri (20; see Figure 5.6.09), while the rest were divided amongst ulnae (5) and radii (3).

Figure 5.6.09 Red-face cormorant, L. humerus (distal) with cuts (#500720).

Shearwaters and Fulmars The Amaknak Bridge bird assemblage reflects the relative difference in distribution and abundance of the two shearwaters common in Aleutian waters. Of the 337/5720 bones that could be attributed to shearwaters, only 8% (NSIP 26) were identified positively as Sooty. With only one specimen that could not be distinguished (<1%), fully 92% (NISP 310) of the shearwaters 116 were identified as Short-tailed. All shearwaters combined comprise 91% of all procellarids identified (NISP 370). Despite their modern abundance, fulmar make up only 4% (NISP 15) of all procellarids identified (370). Albatross In the Amaknak Bridge assemblage, short-tailed albatross comprise 9% of the total NISP (492/5720). These are distributed between EU 8 (NISP 46) and EU 83 (NISP 446). The albatross assemblage from EU 8 contains a mix of anatomical parts, including heads and feet, as do the samples from midden, level and house fill components of EU 83. However, house floors tend to have only albatross wing elements. In addition to the S3_HFloor feature described below, S7_Hfloor contained only wing elements (NISP 9) and the associated S7_Subfloor contained almost all wing bones (except for one vertebra). However, H6_Hfloor contained no albatross remains at all. Table 5.6.15 lists the measurements that could be taken of wing elements from the albatross sample. Most of the albatross in EU 83 consists of a single feature (# 0836) located in S3_Hfloor, Quad D containing 335 bones. This feature contains almost all of the bones from at least 12 complete wings (humerus, 12L/12R; radius, 8L/6R;ulna, 11L/11R; carpometacarpus, 6L/11R; pollex, 1R/1L; digit II phalanx 1, 7L/9R; digit II phalanx 2, 7L/2R; digit III, 1L/2R).

However, another 30 bones, only one of which is not a wing bone, were found in the same S3_Hfloor, quad (D) and may simply not have been recognized during excavation as part of the same feature. If these assemblages are combined, it suggests the feature may have initially consisted of at least 14 complete wings (humerus, 9L/9R; radius, 11L/8R; ulna, 12L/11R; carpometacarpus, 8L/14R; pollex, 1L/1R; digit II phalanx 1, 10L/12R; digit II phalanx 2, 7L/2R; digit III, 1L/2R) and would have comprised 364 bones.

Most of the bones from feature 0836 are very dry-looking and most have shattered, producing more than 100 long bone fragments. These breaks all look recent and could have been made by the weight of excavators standing on the ground above the feature before their presence became apparent. There are no obvious butchering marks on any of the articular surfaces of the elements, nor on the wing feather attachments of the ulnae, suggesting that entire wings, probably with feathers still attached, had originally been archived. This assumption is based on the fairly common occurrence of worked albatross bone from these units. In some cases, the bone simply has a few cut marks; in others, there are very distinct longitudinal scoring marks accompanied by cuts running the entire circumference of the element (Figures 6.6.10a & 6.6.10b).

117

Figure 5.6.10a Shorttailed albatross, L. ulna distal end, scored and cut (#500718).

Figure 5.6.10b Shorttailed albatross, L. ulna distal end, scored and cut (#500718), another aspect.

Table 5.6.15 EU 83. Measurements of shorttailed albatross bones.

118 Ninety-three short-tailed albatross specimens from Unit 83 at Amaknak Bridge were complete enough to provide at least one measurement. The measurements are as named and described in Von den Driesch 1976. They are presented below by faunal number. FAUNA ELEMENT SIDE PORTION PART GL Bp Did Bd L# 500095 Humerus R distal all but one end 25.5 500096 Humerus R distal more than half 25.9 500097 Humerus R distal more than half 25.0 500098 Humerus R distal more than half 25.1 500099 Humerus R distal half 25.6 500100 Humerus R distal less than half 27.4 500101 Humerus R distal less than half 25.8 500102 Humerus R distal less than half 26.4 502801 Humerus R distal half 26.6 500091 Humerus R effectively whole bone 294.0 25.7 complete 500092 Humerus R effectively whole bone 299.0 26.8 complete 500093 Humerus R effectively whole bone 294.0 25.4 complete 500094 Humerus R effectively whole bone 285.0 25.4 complete 500112 Humerus L distal more than half 25.2 500113 Humerus L distal less than half 26.7 500114 Humerus L distal less than half 26.4 500115 Humerus L distal less than half 25.7 500116 Humerus L distal less than half 25.3 500117 Humerus L distal less than half 25.5 500118 Humerus L distal articular 26.3 surface 500107 Humerus L effectively whole bone 295.0 25.6 complete 500108 Humerus L effectively whole bone 285.0 25.1 complete 500109 Humerus L effectively whole bone 280.0 25.3 complete 500110 Humerus L effectively whole bone 299.0 27.3 complete AVGERAGE 291.4 25.9 N 8 24

500079 Radius R distal less than half 11.4 500080 Radius R distal less than half 12.0 500081 Radius R distal less than half 11.6 500082 Radius R distal less than half 13.4 500083 Radius R distal less than half 12.1 119 500066 Radius L distal all but one end 11.5 500067 Radius L distal more than half 11.2 500068 Radius L distal less than half 11.5 500069 Radius L distal less than half 11.8 500070 Radius L distal less than half 11.6 500071 Radius L distal less than half 12.3 500072 Radius L distal less than half 11.5 500065 Radius L effectively whole bone 292.0 12.3 complete AVGERAGE 292.0 11.9 N 1 13

FAUNA ELEMENT SIDE PORTION PART GL Bp Did Bd L# 500053 Ulna R effectively whole bone 289.0 20.0 complete 500054 Ulna R effectively whole bone 296.0 20.8 complete 500056 Ulna R proximal less than half 20.5 500057 Ulna R proximal half 19.9 500058 Ulna R proximal half 20.2 500059 Ulna R proximal more than half 21.1 500060 Ulna R proximal more than half 19.8 500061 Ulna R proximal more than half 20.1 502803 Ulna R proximal half 20.7 500039 Ulna L effectively whole bone 286.0 20.0 complete 500040 Ulna L effectively whole bone 294.0 complete 500041 Ulna L effectively whole bone 291.0 20.9 complete 500042 Ulna L effectively whole bone 280.0 19.8 complete 500043 Ulna L effectively whole bone 272.0 19.9 complete 500044 Ulna L effectively whole bone 296.0 21.4 complete 500045 Ulna L proximal less than half 20.1 500046 Ulna L proximal less than half 21.0 500047 Ulna L proximal half 21.1 500048 Ulna L proximal more than half 20.5 502980 Ulna L proximal less than half 21.6 AVGERAGE 288.0 20.5 N 8 19

120 500022 Carpometacarpus R effectively whole bone 113.8 complete 500023 Carpometacarpus R effectively whole bone 115.7 complete 500024 Carpometacarpus R effectively whole bone 112.2 complete 500025 Carpometacarpus R effectively whole bone 109.3 complete 500026 Carpometacarpus R effectively whole bone 115.0 complete 500027 Carpometacarpus R effectively whole bone 114.6 complete 500028 Carpometacarpus R effectively whole bone 111.9 complete 502349 Carpometacarpus R effectively whole bone 114.8 complete 502596 Carpometacarpus R effectively whole bone 115.6 complete 500032 Carpometacarpus L effectively whole bone 115.8 complete 500033 Carpometacarpus L effectively whole bone 108.9 complete 500034 Carpometacarpus L effectively whole bone 111.9 complete 500035 Carpometacarpus L effectively whole bone 109.1 complete 500036 Carpometacarpus L effectively whole bone 114.5 complete 502350 Carpometacarpus L effectively whole bone 114.6 complete AVGERAGE 113.2 N 15

FAUNA ELEMENT SIDE PORTION PART GL Bp Did Bd L# 500001 Digit 2 phalanx 1 R effectively whole bone 60.5 (wing) complete 500002 Digit 2 phalanx 1 R effectively whole bone 56.4 (wing) complete 500003 Digit 2 phalanx 1 R effectively whole bone 55.2 (wing) complete 500004 Digit 2 phalanx 1 R effectively whole bone 57.2 (wing) complete 501351 Digit 2 phalanx 1 R effectively whole bone 61.5 121 (wing) complete 502351 Digit 2 phalanx 1 R effectively whole bone 56.8 (wing) complete 502595 Digit 2 phalanx 1 R effectively whole bone 65.1 (wing) complete 502805 Digit 2 phalanx 1 R effectively whole bone 57.7 (wing) complete 500011 Digit 2 phalanx 1 L effectively whole bone 57.9 (wing) complete 500012 Digit 2 phalanx 1 L effectively whole bone 57.0 (wing) complete 500013 Digit 2 phalanx 1 L effectively whole bone 58.0 (wing) complete 500014 Digit 2 phalanx 1 L effectively whole bone 60.4 (wing) complete 500015 Digit 2 phalanx 1 L effectively whole bone 58.5 (wing) complete 502352 Digit 2 phalanx 1 L effectively whole bone 59.4 (wing) complete 502981 Digit 2 phalanx 1 L effectively whole bone 53.6 (wing) complete 503101 Digit 2 phalanx 1 L effectively whole bone 59.2 (wing) complete AVGERAGE 58.4 N 16 500007 Digit 2 phalanx 2 R effectively whole bone 60.0 (wing) complete 500008 Digit 2 phalanx 2 R effectively whole bone 58.4 (wing) complete 500019 Digit 2 phalanx 2 L effectively whole bone 58.6 (wing) complete AVGERAGE 59.0 N 3

500009 Digit 3 (wing) R effectively whole bone 48.0 complete 500010 Digit 3 (wing) R effectively whole bone 50.3 complete 500021 Digit 3 (wing) L effectively whole bone 51.7 complete AVGERAGE 50.0 N 3

Table 5.6.16 shows how the strong representation of wing elements from albatross compares to all other species for each unit: 92% of all albatross recovered from EU 83 are wing elements vs. 41% for all other birds together. Since none of the phalanges (from either limb) were included in 122 this comparison, wing bones should make up about 30% of the sample for all taxa (Bovy 2002). This table also illustrates the very low representation of albatross vertebrae compared to other taxa (vertebrae were identified simply as “albatross” or “not albatross).

Table 5.6.17 demonstrates albatross element distribution for each unit compared to alcids, ducks & geese, shearwaters, and cormorants. In general, at least twice as many alcid and duck wing bone elements (humerus, radius, ulna, carpometacarpus) were recovered for every hind limb element (femur, tibotarsus, tarsometatarsus); this ratio increases to almost three to one for cormorant remains in EU 83, while for albatross it approaches seven to one in EU 8 and more than eighteen to one in EU 83! Cormorant bones were are also commonly used for tool manufacture, mostly awls (see Figure 5.6.09) and this use may be reflected in the greater fore to hind limb ration representation observed in EU 83 for cormorants over ducks and alcids. Since these deposits reflect a combination of house floor deposits and refuse midden (fill), the higher proportions of wing remains seen in most of the dominant taxa may reflect a combination of wing elements archived for subsequent tool manufacture and discarded wing elements broken during use &/or manufacture.

Table 5.6.16 EU 8/83 Bird body part representation, Short-tailed albatross vs. all other species combined, frequency per unit, all elements included.

EU FAMILY SKULL/ STERNUM/ VERTEBRAE FRONT PELVIS HIND UNIT NISP MANDIBLE HYOID LIMB LIMB 83 ALL OTHERS 4% 3% 24 41% 5 23% 6523 83 ALBATROSS 1 0 2 92 0 5 310

08 ALL OTHERS 4 2 26 40 6 22 1402 08 ALBATROSS 23 0 8 57 5 8 40 BODYPART 357 216 1918 3560 379 1845 8275 TOTAL NISP

Table 5.6.17 EU 8/83 Bird body part representation, by dominant family NISP per unit (excluding vertebrae, fibulae, phalanges and pelvic elements)

EU FAMILY SKULL/ STERNUM/ FRONT HIND % OF FAMILY FAMILY MANDIBLE HYOID LIMB LIMB NISP/UNIT NISP/UNIT 83 ALCIDS 8% 3% 59% 30% 100% 2043 83 DUCKS/GEESE 5 3 60 31 100 1756 83 SHEARWATERS 3 3 48 46 100 245 83 CORMORANTS 11 6 62 21 100 159 83 ALBATROSS 1 0 96 3 100 239

08 ALCIDS 6 4 61 29 100 500 08 DUCKS/GEESE 10 3 58 30 100 184 08 SHEARWATERS 4 4 60 31 100 124 08 CORMORANTS 4 0 63 33 100 24 08 ALBATROSS 41 0 50 9 100 22 BODYPART 334 173 3220 1569 5296 TOTAL NISP

123 Eagle The tentative identification of bald eagle, listed as H. cf. leucocephalus is based on the very large size and robusticity of the remains recovered. Specimens of eagle from EU 8 & 83 are not only at the high end of the size range for bald eagle specimens in our comparative collection but are also more robust (heavier) and show some shape differences from bald eagle. I must consider that possibility that during the cold Neoglacial conditions prevailing at the time the Amaknak Bridge site was occupied that Steller’s sea eagle, H. pelagicus, may have been more common that it is today (it is common today in the western Bering Sea and known to be an occasional visitor to the eastern Aleutians). A comparative specimen of Steller’s sea eagle will attempted to be located so that the tentative nature of this identification can be resolved before the final report for this site is prepared.

The eagle remains found in any site need careful consideration. Eagles are considered totemic animals in some cultures and wing feathers and claws are often valued for decorative or ceremonial purposes (Bovy 2002), resulting in selective curation of particular body parts that may be reflected in archaeological deposits. This certainly seems to be the case at the Amaknak Bridge site, as the seventeen eagle bones were recovered from relatively few associated groups rather than randomly distributed throughout the deposit. These include:

1) From EU 08 Level 3, the lowest level of the deposit, a single rear digit (talon);

2) From S3_House floor, faunal concentration (quad A), partial L. tibiotarsus and fibula (leg bones, between thigh and foot), plus fragments of a sternum and an associated complete L. coracoid; these could be from the same or different individuals;

3) Also from S3_House floor (quad A) but not the faunal concentration, sternum fragments of another individual as that mentioned in 2);

4) Also S3_House floor (quad A, point provenience #0707), a complete R. femur (with part of the proximal end cut off, with what looks like red and yellow orchre staining, see Figure 5.6.11; Bd = 31.31mm), plus a complete L. scapula (no cut marks but with apparent yellow orchre staining); could be from the same individual or different ones.

5) From S7_Hfill, a virtually complete R. wing, consisting of partial humerus, complete (glued) radius and ulna, carpometacarpus, cuneiform and all four digits (NISP 9). Measurements as follows (GL is greatest length; Bp is greatest breadth of the proximal end; Bd is greatest breadth of the distal end):

Table 5.6.18 EU 83 Measurements of Eagle remains from a single individual (S7_Hfill).

S7_Hfill EAGLE WING MEASUREMENTS GL (mm) Bp (mm) Bd (mm) R. ulna 258.00 25.70 R. radius 245.00 17.84 R. carpometacarpus 123.2 (including process distalis) R. digit II phalanx 1 49.55

124

Figure 5.6.11 Eagle femur with apparent ochre staining, from S3_Hfloor, Quad A (point provenience #0707) (specimen #503490).

Fish (EU 83 only)

Fish remains are well represented in EU 83, with a total of 6729 specimens identified to species, genus or family (Table 5.6.01) so far, with more to add when bulk samples have been analyzed. Pacific cod are overwhelmingly the most frequently occurring taxon at 87% (NISP 5,846). The next most frequently occurring taxon is Halibut, at 6% (NISP 373), followed by Salmon and Greenlings at 3% each (NISP 175 and 170, respectively). All other fish taxa are represented at frequencies of less than 1% of the total, including Salmon shark, Dolly varden, Walleye pollock, Rockfish, several species of sculpin (Cottidae) and small flounder (Rock sole, Starry flounder and Arrowtooth flounder). The frequency of major fish families are reported per major strata in Table 5.6.07. Note that the pit feature fill contained the lowest proportion of Pacific cod (38%) and the highest percentage of halibut (29%) and rockfish (13%) of all strata, even though it contained the second smallest number of specimens for the whole unit (Pit feature fill NISP 79). 125 Of some interest are the patterns exhibited when the sample of Pacific cod and Halibut are reported by size. Those specimens that were sufficiently complete to be assigned to a size category were tabulated for both these taxa (Tables 6.6.19 and 6.6.20). Of all Pacific cod remains for which a size estimate could be made, based on comparison to skeletal material of known size (Appendix D), 99% represent captured individuals of adult fish with a minimum estimated total length of 27cm and fully 35% were estimated to have been 70cm or longer. Halibut show a greater range of size, although the remains of some very large individuals were recovered: 6% (NISP 9) of the sample represent halibut greater than 190 cm total length. Of the remainder of the halibut sample, 64% (NISP 94) were estimated to have come from fish between 90 and 190cm, 12% (NISP 18) from fish between 50 and 90 cm, and 17% (NISP 25) from fish 16 to 50 cm in length. It may be possible to estimate the size of Pacific cod and halibut remains more precisely, by taking measurements of particular elements and comparing these to data collected from modern specimens of known size, using regression analysis. Modern data are already available for a number of Pacific cod elements (see Orchard 2003), but not for Halibut. Additional work on size of both species are planned as part of continuing analysis of Amaknak Bridge fish samples, which may also include a more complete analysis of the many intact Pacific cod otoliths recovered from the site.

Table 5.6.19 EU. 83 Pacific Cod size categories by major strata, relative frequency of size-estimated elements, NISP.

EU83 EU83 EU83 EU83 EU83 EU83 EU83 EU83 % EACH TOTAL Levels midd. pit fill S3_ S3_ S6_ S6_ S7_ SIZE 1-2 1 Hfill Hfl Hfill Hfl Hfill NISP EXTRA LARGE/ 56% 34% 100% 46% 26% 50% 33% 26% 36% 269 HUGE LARGE/ VERY 44 66 3 53 71 50 67 73 63 473 LARGE MEDIUM/ MEDIUM- 0 1 0 P 2 0 0 1 1 7 LARGE V. SMALL/ SMALL/ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 MEDIUM- SMALL STRATA 25 170 1 253 185 6 15 94 100% 749 NISP .

126

Table 5.6.20 EU. 83 Halibut size categories by major strata, relative frequency of size-estimated elements, NISP.

EU83 EU83 EU83 EU83 EU83 EU83 EU83 EU83 % TOTAL Levels midd. pit fill S3_ S3_ S6_ S6_ S7_ EACH 1-2 1 Hfill Hfl Hfill Hfl Hfill SIZE NISP EXTRA LARGE/ 0% 0% 15% 0% 5% 100% 0% 5% 6% 9 HUGE LARGE/ VERY 83 100 23 80 59 0 100 95 64 94 LARGE MEDIUM/ MEDIUM- 0 0 8 20 17 0 0 0 12 18 LARGE V. SMALL/ SMALL/ 17 0 54 0 19 0 0 0 17 25 MEDIUM- SMALL STRATA 6 3 13 10 88 2 5 19 100% 146 NISP .

5.7 Season of Exploitation and Habitats Utilized Season of resource exploitation for these deposits can be established in terms of seasons definitely represented, using the life history information presented for all taxa in Appendix A.

The presence of fully adult and foetal and newborn Bearded seal provide conclusive evidence of a spring seal hunt on local pack ice, since these animals always utilize ice as a birthing platform and refuge during the annual molt. Ringed seals have similar habits but as the proportion of breeding age adults and newborns is very low for this species, it is unlikely that they were hunted during the breeding season. The relatively high frequency of juvenile/subadult ringed seals suggests that the hunt for this species may have targeted molting individuals hauled out on pack ice in late spring and early summer.

Largha and Ribbon seals also give birth on pack ice but all remains reported here could have been taken from pack ice during the early summer (during the annual molt) or later in the

127 summer and early fall from local waters. However, during the cold Neoglacial period, when spring pack ice would have been more extensive in the southern Bering Sea, Largha seals were probably available in greatest numbers from late winter to spring.

The presence of fur seal remains of unweaned (< 4 month old) and just-weaned (ca. 4-6 mos. old) pups in the Amaknak Bridge sample provides conclusive evidence that this species must have had a rookery nearby. A hunt for young fur seals must have taken place throughout the summer months (July onwards) and into the fall, with unweaned pups taken off the rookery and slightly older ones from waters nearby before the end of November, when young-of-the-year depart the Bering Sea.

Adult female fur seals may have been taken off the rookery along with unweaned pups or from nearby waters during the foraging bouts. However, as both female fur seals and their pups are only present in the Bering Sea during the summer and fall (mid-June to early Nov), they must have been taken during this time. Male fur seals are resident in the Bering Sea year round and may have been taken whenever they were encountered. However, the preponderance of adult and subadult males in this sample may indicate that hunting of fur seals started as early as May, when breeding-aged males would have begun to congregate on local rookeries in anticipation of the arrival of females. The intense rivalry that preoccupies male fur seals to first establish and defend territories, and later, harems of sexually receptive females, may have made them especially vulnerable to hunting at this time. Taken together, the faunal data suggests that fur seals were primarily hunted throughout from spring through fall.

The faunal remains from Amaknak Bridge presents definitive information regarding seasonal use of bird resources, indicating birds were definitely exploited year round. Short-tailed albatross and short-tail shearwaters, species well represented in the faunal assemblage, migrate to the Bering Sea in spring to feed over the summer and early fall. Although a few shearwaters may over- winter, it is unlikely that albatross ever did and the greatest numbers of both are present during the summer months.

A few duck species are year-round residents that breed during the summer in the Eastern Aleutians (including both Common and Steller’s eider, and the Black scoter). These species might have been taken anytime during year, although curiously, no remains of nestling-age chicks of any of these breeding ducks were identified in the sample. The majority of the sea ducks represented in the Amaknak Bridge deposits are exclusively winter residents, arriving about September and departing by April or May of each year (including the Harlequin, Barrow’s and Common goldeneyes, Bufflehead, Hooded merganser, Oldsquaw, Surf and White-winged scoters and the Emperor goose). Thus, although remains of eiders and black scoter are fairly common in the assemblage and may represent summer procurement, the majority of ducks had to have been taken over the fall and winter months, while albatross and shearwaters were almost certainly taken during the summer.

All three cormorant species are year-round residents, as are all species of alcids identified in the assemblage, although some may be less accessible or abundant during the winter months.

Pacific cod and halibut are deep water bottom feeders that typically move into relatively shallow inshore waters in early summer, making them more easily available to fishers using hook and line technology. All other fish species represented in the Amaknak Bridge assemblage are fairly 128 shallow-dwelling inshore residents that would have been available year-round provided that shore-fast ice during the depth of winter did not restrict winter exploitation.

However, as other climatic indicators suggest this site was occupied at the height of the Neoglacial period, winters may indeed have been frigid enough to produce shore-bound ice during the coldest months, preventing or limiting offshore fishing. The very low frequency of sea otter remains combined with the evidence of spring pack ice, for example, suggest that winters were too cold at this time to support a local sea otter population (J. Watson, pers. comm., November, 2003); the few sea otter remains present in the deposits may have come in as trade goods from the Western Aleutians or further south, or represent short hunting forays to those areas.

Unfortunately, there are no species that are present only in the winter; many species may be taken then as well as in other seasons.

Table 5.7.01 Summary of seasonal (exclusive *) and habitat indicators

SEASON INDICATOR HABITAT late Spring newborn Bearded seals* local pack ice newborn Largha seals* local pack ice YOY Ringed seals* local pack ice Summer/ newborn fur seals* local breeding rookeries early Fall Shorttailed albatross* local waters & beaches shearwaters* local waters & beaches whales local waters Pacific cod local waters Halibut local waters Fall juvenile seals & sea lions local waters & haul-outs whales local waters Winter many local waters & beaches

5.8 Evidence of Neoglacial Climate

The presence in this assemblage of newborn Bearded seal is the most conclusive indicator that that during the occupation of the Amaknak Bridge site, the climate was colder than it is today. This is substantiated by the large number of YOY Ringed seal remains, which suggest that preferred Ringed seal pack ice habitat was available close by.

These two strong indicators of locally available spring pack ice suggest that other species present that may be found associated with ice or taken in open water, were indeed taken from pack ice 129 habitats (including Polar bear, Walrus and Ribbon seal). A colder climate would also explain the greater proportion of putative Glaucous gulls than are present today and the presence of putative Steller’s sea eagle.

The fact that the faunal data here provide an even stronger signal of a cold Neoglacial climate than the deposits from Margaret Bay (Davis 2001) suggest that climatic conditions ca. 4500 BP may only have been in the early stages of cooling, with local pack ice (and its associated fauna) available only occasionally (and unpredictably) rather than annually.

It is clear from the faunal remains that from the first occupation of the site, the focus of exploitation activities has been on the marine and marine foreshore environments. Fur seal, sea lion, porpoise, whale and a variety of fish remains are present in the earliest layers and continue throughout the sequence, indicating exploitation of the nearshore marine habitat on a sustained basis as well as excursions well offshore. The presence of albatross, fulmars, shearwaters, cod and halibut throughout the sequence supports this offshore focus.

The few land mammal remains present are what one would expect from if the site inhabitants had direct access only to Unalaska Island fauna, and in fact, none are truly terrestrially-bound: both Arctic fox and Polar bears will venture out onto sea ice to forage and the Sea otter, the sea otter is often considered a sea mammal by habitat choice. 5.9 Summary and Future Analysis

The overall pattern is one of sea bird hunting and deep-sea (long-line) fishing, augmented by hunting for a variety of sea mammals (fur seals, seals, sea lions and porpoises) - at sea, on local island haul-outs and rookeries, and on offshore pack ice - during a period of strong Neoglacial cooling. Whales may have been actively hunted or scavenged. There is no strong pattern of change through time apparent so far. Features of particular note in this assemblage include: the presence of low but significant numbers of both newborn and adult (breeding age) Bearded seal throughout the deposits; the presence of high numbers of unweaned and newly-weaned age Northern fur seal; the presence of Ringed and putative Largha seals; the first record of Long-finned pilot whale in the eastern North Pacific; a major house floor feature consisting of the archived wings from at least 12 Shorttailed albatross; the remains of very large individuals of Pacific cod and Halibut.

130

Chapter 6 Culture History and the Amaknak Bridge Site

From the Research Design: The Amaknak bridge site gives us the opportunity to study the range of variation in type and style of artifacts and features of the Margaret Bay Phase. Basically we can try to understand the cultural similarities and differences between the two sites known sites (Margaret Bay and Amaknak Bridge) which overlapped significantly in time. The Amaknak Bridge site allows us to answer questions about continuity, variation, and cultural change during a poorly known period of Aleutian prehistory.

Culture history is the backbone of American archaeological practice. One of the first steps of archaeological analysis is to place a given site in its temporal framework and to discern its similarities and differences with sites in the immediate vicinity as well as further a field (Willey and Phillips 1958). Our own research in the eastern Aleutians has focused on creating a reliable cultural historical sequence as a first step toward understanding the overall archaeological picture (Knecht and Davis 2001). This section of the report will focus on temporal definition of the Amaknak Bridge site and also how the site can be related to the Margaret Bay UNL-48 site (Knecht, Davis, and Carver 2001). The Margaret Bay site is only 0.9 km from the Amaknak Bridge site and both are located on Amaknak Island adjacent to Iliuliuk Bay.

6.1 Amaknak Bridge in Time

In section 3.1, Table 3.1.01 we have presented all of the C-14 determinations for Amaknak Bridge. In Figure 6.1.01 the Amaknak Bridge C-14 chronology is shown in comparison to Margaret Bay. To begin with Amaknak Bridge, the existing determinations run from 2540+/-60 BP to 3470+/-70 BP. At least two of the earliest dates appear to us to be anomalous. Namely the date labeled in Figure 6.1.01 as “Level 1 (?)” comes from near the top of the site and would be expected to be one of the youngest dates, not the oldest. It may be the result of WWII disturbance. The date labeled “S7W (?)” is from the floor of the western room of Structure 7. It is the oldest determination from the site at 3470+/-70 BP. This determination also appears to be anomalous because the Main Room determination from Structure 7 is 2840+/-90. Structure 7 West and Structure 7 Main are on exactly the same level and appear to be contemporaneous. The majority of determinations from all levels Amaknak Bridge are between 2500 and 3000 BP and that is the range we feel is most representative of the site’s age. One important exception is the determination from the floor of Structure 2 which was located on the western margin of the site. Its C-14 date was 3370+/-60. On stylistic grounds discussed below, it may be the case that S2 represents the earliest occupation of the site which was followed three or four hundred years later by the more intense occupation represented in the east block excavation. The 3310+/-110 BP determination from the base of Structure 1 excavated in 2000 may also represent this early phase of settlement.

A second indication of the sites chronology comes from climatic indicators. The analysis of the fauna presented in section 3.5 of this report clearly showed that there was an abundance of ice edge fauna represented at the site. This ice edge fauna represents a cooler interval that today’s. It is likely to come from the time of the well developed Neoglacial period, i.e. younger than 3500 BP

131

Figure 6.1.01 Radiocarbon chronology of Amaknak Bridge, UNL-50 and Margaret Bay, UNL- 48

The temporal relationship between Amaknak Bridge and the Margaret Bay sites is important to understand. Figure 6.1.01 clearly shows a range of dates for Margaret Bay which is much older but yet overlaps the younger range of Amaknak Bridge dates. From our stratigraphic and C-14 analysis of Margaret Bay (Knecht, Davis, and Carver 2001) it was quite clear that the site was abandoned by approximately 3000 BP. This is precisely the time when the major occupation of Amaknak Bridge as represented by the eastblock excavation began. Thus one model for the occupation of Iliuliuk Bay is that the center of population shifted from Margaret Bay to Amaknak Bridge during the time of the intensification of the Neoglacial. We do know that at the time of occupation of Level 2 at Margaret Bay the relative sea level was some 1.8 m higher that it is today (Knecht, Davis, and Carver 2001: 39). As sea level dropped accompanied by Neoglacial conditions, we suspect that Margaret Bay may have become a less optimal place to reside than Amaknak Bridge. It is important to keep in mind, however, that there does appear to be some occupation of Amaknak Bridge at the same time as Level 2 at Margaret Bay. To conclude this discussion of Amaknak Bridge site chronology, our interpretation is that the site may have been occupied as early as 3500 BP, but the expansion of the settlement and its most intense occupation occurred between 3000 and 2500 B.P.

6.2 Comparison to the Margaret Bay site (UNL-48)

The Margaret Bay site (UNL-48) is the only nearby excavated and reported locality which overlaps in time with the Amaknak Bridge site. As we made clear in the research design, 132 it is important, therefore, to investigate the degree of cultural similarity and difference between the two sites. Of particular interest to us was whether Amaknak Bridge shared some of the Arctic Small Tool tradition elements which we had identified from Level 2 at Margaret Bay. Also we wanted to find out the degree of similarity between the domestic structures between the two sites. Since Level 2 at Margaret Bay had very limited preservation of bone, we did not have much of an idea of what the bone tool industry from that time period looked like.

Features The important features we focus on here are the structures from Margaret Bay and Amaknak Bridge. We have already presented detailed descriptions of all the Amaknak Bridge structures, and the question is now to discuss their similarities and differences with the structures from Margaret Bay. The Margaret Bay Structure 1 is shown in Figure 6.2.01

Figure 6.2.01 Margaret Bay, UNL-48 Structure 1

The salient characteristics of Margaret Bay Structure 1 are its shape, mode of construction, and floor features. It is a semi-subterranean stone lined structure built into a surface which slopes up to the north. It is basically oval in shape and has an area of approximately 16 m2. The stone wall is constructed from water worn boulders which have been carried up from the shore. Generally the boulders are laid in two or three courses: the first being with the boulders in a vertical orientation and the upper courses horizontal. This is exactly the same mode of construction known from all of the structures at Amaknak Bridge. It is also very similar to the partially excavated structure from the Chaluka village mound from Umnak Island which is dated to

133 approximately 4000 BP (Aigner 1978, Laughlin 1980). The oval shape and interior area size are also similar to several of the Amaknak Bridge structures (particularly Stuctures1, 2, 3, and 4).

The floor features of Structure 1 are noteworthy, and bear close resemblance to features at Amaknak Bridge. Figure 6.2.01 shows two stone lined sub floor trenches (approximately 20 cm deep). The southernmost one runs up to the stone lined hearth which has a vent exterior to the structure. At the time we excavated it in 1996, we thought the sub floor trenches were storage and food processing areas. Based on the similar structures (which in many cases were in better states of preservation) at Amaknak Bridge we no longer believe them to be food storage features, but rather they may have been designed for drainage and heating. At Amaknak Bridge sub floor stone lined trenches were preserved in Structures 2, 5, 6, 7 Main, and 7 West. In any event the sub floor features from both sites show many points of similarity. They are also, in so far as we have been able to determine, unique features. We know of no clear analog in the Aleutians or elsewhere at this time period. We conclude, therefore, that they are a distinct “cultural signature” of a particular society.

Artifacts

The artifact inventory at both Amaknak Bridge and Margaret Bay was extensive. Close to 50,000 individual pieces have been cataloged between the two sites. The relevant artifacts for comparative purposes come from Margaret Bay, Level 2. As pointed out earlier in this report, the primary basis for artifact comparison are the ground and chipped stone tool industries because bone tools are not preserved at Margaret Bay, Level 2. Although the Chaluka Village site on Umnak Island has numerous bone tools, we do not have good stratigraphic context for most of them and hence our observations about cultural similarities and differences with Chaluka will be of a more general nature.

Our approach to the comparison between Amaknak Bridge and Margaret Bay chipped and ground stone is both qualitative and quantitative. Our underlying assumption is that a high degree of similarity in tool type, tool fabrication, and tool use reflect the behaviors of a unitary society. Because of the proximal and chronological closeness of the two sites, a high degree of artifact similarity should give a reliable measure of the degree of cultural similarity.

The first quantitative measure we will employ here is a comparison of the Amaknak Bridge and Margaret Bay, Level 2 frequencies of raw material use for chipped stone tools. We have documented in previous work (Knecht and Davis 2001) that the utilization of raw materials has varied with time in the Unalaska archaeological sequence. As can be seen in Figure 6.2.02, the percentage use of the main varieties of silicified material is virtually identical for the two sites. Thus is a first indication of the similarity between the two sites in terms of how resources were utilized and processed.

134 60%

49% 48% 50%

UNL-48 40%

33% 34% UNL-50

30% Percentage

20% 17% 18%

10%

0% Basalt Chert Obsidian Raw Material

Figure 6.2.02 Comparison of Raw Material Utilization for the Chipped Stone Industries at Amaknak Bridge, UNL -50 and Margaret Bay, Level 2, UNL-48 Archaeological Sites.

A second quantitative measure of comparison between Amaknak Bridge and Margaret Bay is the frequencies of the major classes of shaped chipped stone tools. This comparison is shown in Figure 6.2.03 where the percentages of major tool classes are shown for the two sites. As can be readily seen there are some significant differences. Most notable are the much higher frequencies of small, stemmed points at Amaknak Bridge. This was a fairly rare variety at Margaret Bay, but made up 9% of the major retouched tool types at Amaknak Bridge. Overall, points of all kinds occurred in higher frequency at Margaret Bay (42% vs. 31%). On the other hand, knives and bifaces (cutting tools) were considerably higher in frequency at Amaknak Bridge (46% vs. 29%). The asymmetrical knives were much more frequent at Amaknak Bridge (8% vs. 2%). Asymmetrical knives, particularly the stemmed variety frequent at Amaknak Bridge, are significant because they become increasingly frequent in the following Amaknak phase sites. Scrapers of all types comprised 20% of the Margaret Bay inventory while they amounted to only 8% of Amaknak Bridge chipped stone tools.

Totally absent from Margaret Bay were small ground chisel tools; they comprised fully 2% of the sample at Amaknak Bridge. Interestingly, however, burins at Margaret Bay constituted 2% of the sample, but burins were almost entirely absent from Amaknak Bridge. The two artifact types may well be functional equivalents. This occurrence most likely signifies an important technological difference between the two localites.

135 40%

35%

30%

25% UNL48 20%

Percentage UNL50 15%

10%

Adze Point Burin chisel Biface Mbcore Piercer Bipoint Scraper Microblde Point, large Point, small Scraper, bell Knife, square Piece esquille Scraper,Scraper, end side Point, stemmed Knife, asymmetrical Point, stemmed,Point, stemmed, large small Major Artifact Type

Figure 6.2.03 Major Chipped Stone Tool Types from Amaknak Bridge, UNL-50 and Margaret Bay, UNL-48

One significant aspect of the Margaret Bay site, Level 2 was the presence of several Arctic Small Tool tradition (ASTt) elements. The ASTt is generally seen by northern archaeologists as a marker of terrestrially based hunters who were the first to reach the high arctic of North America sometime between 4500 and 4000 BP. Thus its possible presence in the Eastern Aleutians is of great significance, because it might indicate a much wider area for its development, range of adaptations, and dispersion. The ASTt elements at Margaret Bay included knives, small and beaked endscrapers, small flat base points with parallel flaking and frequently fine, denticulate edges, microblades, burins, ground burin like tools, adze bits with grinding on the bit, and the use of brightly colored cherts for scrapers. Some of these features were present at Amaknak Bridge but were in low frequency. In qualitative terms there were several differences. At Amaknak Bridge the fine parallel flaking with denticulate edges on the small projectile points was rare, burin like ground tools were absent, adze bits had much more extensive grinding generally covering the entire ventral surface, and the distinctive colorful chert small scrapers were infrequent as were the characteristic bell shaped scrapers. All in all, there is no persuasive evidence for the ASTt at Amaknak Bridge.

Ground stone tools were numerous at both sites and clearly played an important part in the subsistence and domestic economy. Figures 7.2.04 and 7.2.05 show the proportional

136 Plummet 0% Ochre Grinder 4%

Net Sinker 24% Abrader 38%

Lamp 2%

Bowl Knife-shaped Hone 0% 15% Bowl, sherd Hammerstone 5% 12%

Figure 6.2.04 Amaknak Bridge, UNL-50 Ground Stone Tool Major Types

Ochre Grinder 2% Lamp 2% Net Sinker Plummet 2% Knife-shaped Hone 3% 2% Hammerstone 5%

Abrader 53%

Bowl, fragment 31%

Bowl 0%

Figure 6.2.05 Margaret Bay, Level 2, UNL-48 Ground Stone Tool Major Types

137 differences between Amaknak Bridge and Margaret Bay. Probably the most significant differences which distinguish Amaknak Bridge are the much higher percentage of net sinkers, the presence of the knife-shaped hones, and the significantly larger proportion of hammerstones. As was pointed out in Section 3.3.2 of this report, the elongate net sinkers with a continuous groove encircling the entire sinker are unique for this time period in the Aleutians. The knife- shaped hones are also a unique technology for Amaknak Bridge; they are not present at Margaret Bay.

6.3 Change Within the Amaknak Bridge Site Over Time

Based on the C-14 determinations and stratigraphic evidence from the east block excavation, we determined that the most intensive part of the site occupation occurred after 3000 BP. Structure 2, as noted above in section 7.1 is dated to 3370+/-60 and therefore may have come from an earlier time in the settlement’s history. Based on the chipped stone artifacts recovered from Structure 2 there does seem to be some indication of an earlier assemblage that is more similar to Margaret Bay, Level 2. Stemmed points, which are abundant in the east block excavation units, are rare in Structure 2 as they were at Margaret Bay. There was only one small stemmed point in Structure 2, and the small, flat based points were the most numerous category. Also, the ground chisel tools were totally absent from Structure 2 which also was the case at Margaret Bay Level 2. Thus, there is some, albeit weak, evidence for cultural change over time as observed in artifact frequency and type at Amaknak Bridge. On the whole, however, there is no evidence for abrupt cultural change, and the features, bone and stone artifacts reflect remarkable cultural uniformity.

6.4 Amaknak Bridge in the Unalaskan Archaeological Sequence

As has been just described in this chapter, the Amaknak Bridge site has both significant similarities and differences with Margaret Bay. The major similarities are found in the structure and feature types and the utilization of raw materials for chipped stone. Differences have been clearly apparent in the appearance of unique tool types at Amaknak Bridge including ground chisels, grooved net sinkers, and knife-shaped hones. Additional differences have been noted in the significantly higher frequencies for small stemmed points and asymmetrical knives. Finally, while there is good evidence for ASTt elements at Margaret Bay, its presence can not be discerned at Amaknak bridge.

We can now come to a conclusion in cultural historical terms regarding the observed similarities and differences. Given the temporal overlap between Amaknak Bridge and Margaret Bay, the picture is reasonably clear. There is strong evidence for considerable cultural continuity between the sites. The basic technique of structure construction, raw material utilization, and the overall lithic reduction techniques for chipped and ground tools demonstrate a definite connection. On the other hand, the introduction of a new type of netsinker and the ground chisel along with the higher frequencies of cutting tools (especially the asymmetrical knife) reflects the adoption of new technologies. Stylistically the stemmed asymmetrical knives provide a marker of continuity with the later Amaknak Phase. Additional varieties of structures are introduced during the later phase of the Amaknak Bridge occupation. These include, of course, the large rectangular rooms of Structure 7 and also the construction of side rooms. In sum we can see at the Amaknak Bridge site a period of continuity and change. Base technologies continue and there is clear indication of response to new conditions. 138

Chapter 7 Household Archaeology

From the Research Design: A current major area of study is household archaeology, the study of domestic living space. From a close analysis of house floors and associated artifacts and features it is possible to discern patterns of family organization, various domestic activities, gendered activity, and overall social structure of the community. We are fortunate to have found three-quarters of one household structure during our 2000 excavations, but we are confident that several other structures await excavation at Amaknak. Ground penetrating radar survey in 2000 revealed evidence of two other structures and a possible third. We have only one other complete structure from this time period at Margaret Bay, so the excavations at Amaknak, therefore will provide extremely valuable data on household organization.

Household archaeology was an important component of our research design, and we recovered a substantial amount of data from the 2003 excavation directly relevant to understanding cultural patterns of domestic life and the social structure of the community. Based on our 2000 excavations and ground penetrating radar survey, we anticipated encountering structures in 2003. Indeed, we were fortunate to excavate six previously unknown semi subterranean buildings.

As can be seen in Table 3.1.01, the radiocarbon determinations for the structures range from 2590 +/-90 B.P. for the hearth of Structure 3 to 3470 +/-70 for the west side room of Structure 7. Thus this radiocarbon year interval spans nearly a millennium. As we discussed in the previous chapter, however, the period of most intense occupation appears to be after 3000 BP and falls into the end of the Margaret Bay phase and the beginning of the Amaknak phase.

The main questions pertinent to the household archaeology of Amaknak Bridge we will pursue in this chapter are: • Are all the structures for domestic use or can any special purpose buildings be identified? • Is there evidence for specific behavioral patterning within any or all of the structures? • what kind of social organization is reflected in the overall Amaknak Bridge site architecture?

7.1 Domestic v. Special Purpose Structures

The degree of structure differentiation is an important variable to study, because it sheds light on subsistence practices, family structure, social ranking, and overall settlement organization and function. Very little has been excavated and described to date concerning structures from the time of the Margaret Bay phase in the Aleutians. The most relevant material for comparison would be the Chaluka Village site on Umnak (Aigner 1978), the Russell Creek site on the Alaska Peninsula near Cold Bay (Maschner and Jordan 2001), and the Margaret Bay site on Unalaska (Knecht, Davis, and Carver 2001). Basically these earlier excavations had revealed single domestic structures with hearths. They are semi subterranean and have stone walls around their entire circumference. Entry was most likely made through a roof opening. Multiroomed structures or structures with small side rooms were unknown from this time period.

139 The east block excavations at Amaknak Bridge revealed a series of five structures while the smaller west block exposed one structure (see Figure 3.3.01). Bacon’s 1977 excavation encountered Structure 1, and we excavated the remaining portion of it in 2000. It is clear that the structures were not all contemporary. Structure 1 was dated to 3310+/-110 but is not linked stratigraphically to other portions of the site. Structure 2 in the west block was dated to 3370 +/- 60 B.P. while the other radiocarbon dates indicates the remaining structures (with the exception of Structure 7 west side room) are significantly younger. Based on stratigraphic evidence within eastblock, Structure 3 is the youngest, and its radiocarbon age is statistically indistinguishable from Structure 4. Structure 4 truncates the wall of Structure 6. The floor of Structure 6 overlies Structure 7 main room floor. Structure 5 overlaid a portion of the Structure 7 southwest room where the burials were discovered. Based on the above observations, the stratigraphic sequence of structure construction can be visualized in Figure 7.1.01

Structure 3 Structure 4 2590+ /-90 2670+ /-70 Structure 5 3000+ /-70 Structure 6

Structure 7 Southwest Room Structure 7 Main Room 2840+ /-90

Structure 2 Structure 1 3370+ /-60 3310+ /-110

Figure 7.1.01 Structure Chronology at Amaknak Bridge, UNL-50

It seems likely that the C-14 determination for the main room is a little too young. Otherwise the C-14 sequence for the rooms matches their stratigraphic position.

Structure size is frequently related to structure function. Table 7.1.01 shows the floor area (measured by the Scion Image software program) and the maximal dimensions.

Table 7.1.01 Structure Interior Areas and Dimensions

Structure Length (m) Width (m) Area (m2) Structure 1 ~3.5 ? ~ 10 - 12 Structure 2 4.75 3.50 11.25 – 15.7 Structure 3 3.50 3.25 9.43 140 Structure 4 5.50 4.20 16.5 Structure 5 ? ? ? Structure 6 ? ? ? Structure 7 Main 5.3 3.6 19.0 Structure 7 Northwest 2.5 1.9 4.0 Structure 7 Southwest 3.0 1.9 5.0 Structure 7 West 4.1 4.0 9.25

Substantial portions of Structure 1 were lost to erosion, and the area estimate is approximate. Structures 2 and 3 were virtually intact and the measurements are reliable. A portion of Structure 4 had been eroded down hill, but its outline remained clear. Structures 5 and 6 are fragmentary and hence their dimensions and areas cannot be calculated. Structure 7, which is a complex of 4 rooms, was entirely intact. Based on their size and location we categorize Structures 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 as independent domestic structures. The areal extent of these structures averages around 13 m2. By way of comparison, Structure 1 from Margaret Bay, Level 2 is only slightly larger at about 16 m2.

The most striking result of the dimensional analysis on the structures is that Structure 7 is a multiroomed complex and is larger than any of the other of the structures at the site. There are four rooms in Structure 7 (Figure 7.2.03). The large rectangular room is designated S7 Main. It has a small side room designated S7-SW. This room contained all of the burials described in section 3.4 of this report. The second largest room is designated S7-W, and it is joined to a side room designated S7-NW. All of the room walls are on the same level and the stone walls of S7- W, S7-NW, and S7-SW intersect at a common point. The most likely conclusion is that the building was designed to be multiroomed. Its combined internal area is more than twice the size of any other structure. Structure 7 stands apart from all of the other architectural features at Amaknak Bridge. It has all the elements of a domestic structure, but it is built to a larger scale and has additional side rooms. Structure 7-NW and Structure 7-SW are the smallest rooms and are devoid of hearths, pits, and other sub floor features. Structure 7-SW was joined to the main room with a doorway, and the Structure 7-NW room had the chimney vent from Structure 7 West connected to its floor, and it could possibly have functioned as a smoke house. Thus it seems very unlikely that neither the small Structure 7-SW or Structure 7-NW could have served as independent domestic structures.

A striking feature of Structure 7 Main is that the rectangular plan was maintained during a rebuilding phase. At some point the original south wall of the structure collapsed, and a new wall paralleling it was built. The two walls can be seen clearly in Fig 3.32. It is reasonable to infer that the structure was important enough to the community to merit considerable maintenance.

Structure 7, composed of two main rooms and two side rooms may well represent a domestic structure for a high status individual and portions of an extended family. S 7 Main is the first known rectangular structure from the Margaret Bay phase; all others from this time are single, oval or circular structures.

7.2 Evidence for Behavioral Patterning Within the Structures.

141 Artifacts and features from the various structures can be used to infer patterns of behavior at the site. Unfortunately bone preservation was not uniform over the entire site because it was dependent on the distribution of shell midden which reduced the acidity of the soil and thus helped preserve bone. Chipped and ground stone artifacts, therefore, can be used to help define activity areas over the entire site, but bone can only be used in limited circumstances.

Before looking at what is found inside the structures, it is instructive to compare frequencies of tools found on the outside of houses with those found on the floors inside. Looking first at the chipped stone tool industry, we observe that 12% of all the chipped stone artifacts were found on house floors; the rest were found in middens, house fill, and on surfaces between structures. Microblade cores on floors were 10% of all microblade cores found at the site. Flake cores on floors were 16% of the total. Tools used for cutting such as knives and bifaces were relatively rare on house floors; they comprised 7% of the total. Similarly, points on floors made up 8% of all the points recovered at the Amaknak Bridge site. Thus it seems that chipped stone tools were a definite presence inside structures, but they were mostly discarded outside. Chipped stone tools from house floors were somewhat less likely to be broken that those found in other contexts. Forty-four percent of house floor chipped stone tools were in an intact condition compared to 36% of the chipped stone tools found elsewhere. There may be, therefore, a tendency to find curated tools in good condition inside houses.

Taking the bone tool industry next, we see that there is a considerably higher percentage of bone tools found on house floors than was the case with chipped stone tools. Fully 20% of all of the recovered bone tools were found on house floors. Twenty-eight percent of the needles, 22% of the fish hooks, and 15% of the harpoons were discovered on house floors as opposed to other areas of the site. The higher percentage of bone tools may indicate their use was more common indoors, but it is more likely due to differential preservation of bone in that context because of the high frequency of shell middens in house fill.

Finally, ground stone tools also occur in higher percentages on house floors when compared to chipped stone tools. Seventeen percent of the ground stone tools were found on structure floors. Pumice abraders were the most frequent type of ground stone tool and 19% of them occurred on house floors. Only 9.6% of the elongate net sinkers, the second most abundant form of ground stone tool, were found on house floors. This lower percentage most probably reflects the fabrication, maintenance and storage of fishing nets were outdoor activities, and thus relatively few of the net sinkers wound up on house floors.

Chipped stone debitage from the house structure floors is not abundant and thus appears to reflect limited intramural stone tool working. There are few cores, and cortical flakes constitute only between 10 -13% of the debitage on house floors. Therefore it seems unlikely that much tool manufacture occurred indoors. Rather, the debitage density is largely made up of pieces less than 2cm in their maximal dimension and thus is more reflective of some tool maintenance.

Table 7.2.01 gives an inventory of all the house floor artifacts that were located with the total station in 2003. Plots of these artifacts from Structures 3 and 7 are shown in Figures 8.2.01 and 8.2.02 respectively. Because of the incompleteness of the remaining structures and disturbance from subsequent construction or scarcity of floor artifacts, we will concentrate on the analysis of floor artifacts from Structures 3 and 7. 142

Table 7.2.01 Floor Artifacts Point Provenienced with the Total Station

Chipped Ground Stone Bone Stone Total Location S2- Floor 48 11 59 S3- Floor 63 19 71 153 S4- Floor 42 28 13 83 S5- Floor 69 8 77 S6- Floor 7 8 6 21 S7- Floor 168 58 36 262 S7-SW 21 24 5 50 S7-W 33 4 5 42 Total 451 141 155 747

A significant distribution pattern emerges right away from an examination of Figures 8.2.01 and 8.2.03. The floor artifacts from Structure 3 are fairly evenly distributed over the center part floor. There are relatively few artifacts along the walls. An entirely different pattern can be seen in Structure 7 Main. There are distinct concentrations of artifacts along the northern wall and along the southern wall. The central part of the structure is relatively devoid of artifacts. Similarly the main distribution of artifacts in Structure 7-W is along the walls. Structure 7-NW has very few artifacts of any kind. As discussed earlier it was most likely some kind of storage side room and few artifacts were discarded there. Structure 7-SW shows some concentrations of artifacts which were associated with the burials.

It is not readily apparent from Figures 8.2.01 and 8.2.02 if the distribution of artifacts reflects a primary use related context or if the artifacts had been swept to the corners of the domestic structures. Our impression while excavating Structure 3 was that the building had been abandoned rather suddenly; the seemingly undisturbed concentrations of cooking stones, the cache of albatross bone, and the well preserved hearth with charcoal all suggested good in situ preservation. This observation is supported by the distribution pattern of plotted artifacts discussed above.

The distribution of some artifact classes in Stucture 7 main may reflect specific and perhaps gendered activity. Figure 7.2.01 shows all of the chipped stone points and all of the needles and awls. There is a definite concentration of chipped stone and points along the northern interior wall, and a complete absence of needles and awls in that area. Awls and needles were found along the south wall and the south central area of the room. Also Figure 7.2.03 shows that there is a cluster of scrapers along the south wall. Awls, scrapers and needles are frequently associated with hide working and the chipped stone points with hunting. (Aigner 1978). 143

112

110

108

98 100 102 104 106 108 meters Chipped Stone Ground Stone Bone Tool Wall Rock

(red artifacts are needles or awls, green artifacts are points)

Figure 7.2.01 Point Provenienced Tools, Structure 7

144 112

111.5

111

110.5

110

109.5

109

108.5

108 106 106.5 107 107.5 108 108.5 109 109.5 meters

Ground Stone Bone Tool Chipped Stone Interior Wall

Figure 7.2.02 Point Provenienced Tools, Structure 3

145 112

111 S7-NW

110 S7-Main 109 S7-W

S7-SW 108

107

106 98 100 102 104 106 108 meters

Wall Rock

Point Scraper Retouched Blade Knife

Figure 7.2.03 Point Provenienced Chipped Stone Major Tool Classes, Structure 7

7.3 Structures and Social Organization

The third area considered here under the general topic of household archaeology is the question of the relationship between structure design and social organization. Certainly, one of the issues frequently discussed in northern archaeology and in the Aleutians in particular is the timing and emergence of complex social organization. Basically we know at the beginning of the sequence during the Anangula phase that all evidence points toward small, temporary occupations with essentially egalitarian social organization, and at the end of the sequence we know from the Russian commentaries as well as the archaeological remains that permanent or semi permanent villages were widespread in the eastern Aleutians and the social structure may be characterized as ranked with chiefs, common people, and slaves (Lantis 1985, Veniaminov 1984, Veltrie and McCartney 2001). The question is what sort of social organization is reflected from the structural and artifactual remains from Amaknak Bridge.

Based on work at the Chaluka village site and at Margaret Bay there was no basis to infer any significant degree of social differentiation prior to 3500 BP. The somewhat later intense occupation phase from Amaknak Bridge, however, allows us to draw a different picture. The 146 Structure 7 complex of rooms is based on a rectangular, not oval plan. Many years ago in a comparative study of early settlements, Kent Flannery observed a change in domestic architecture from circular to rectangular in the Near East during the transition from the Natufian to the Pre Pottery Neolithic (Flannery 1972). He interpreted this as a reflection of a change of social organization from simple egalitarian bands to a society based more on extended kinship with intensified production. Rectangular structures, Flannery argued, are expandable; it is possible to add adjacent rooms with shared walls. Expansion occurs as families grow and incorporate more kinsmen and also as they increase the quantity of their possessions. Flannery’s observation on social organization and architecture has direct relevance to the Amaknak Bridge case. We interpret the large, rectangular plan of Structure 7 as a convincing indication of an initial change in social organization from an egalitarian society to one based more on some ranking.

It is important to add to this discussion that indications of the emergence of ranking at Amaknak Bridge is based largely on architecture; arguments based on exotic trade goods, status markers like labrets, differential treatment of the dead and so on cannot be made so strongly. It is also the case that Structure 3, a stand-alone, relatively small oval structure, overlies Structure 7. Thus there was not some uniform change in architectural design. The process of social change was not lineal. The intriguing aspect is, however, that Structure 7 heralds several features of domestic architecture which become commonplace a millennium or so later. Thus the process of social differentiation can be thought of as something that happened over a considerable period of time, was intermittent, and the material cultural reflections of it were not uniform.

Chapter 8 Cultural Ecology

From the Research Design: The Amaknak Bridge Site was occupied during an important period of climate change – the end of the Neoglacial and the onset of post Neoglacial warming. The Neoglacial is a widely known period of cooling which began after c. 4000 BP (before present). Based on faunas known from the Late Anangula Phase at Margaret Bay, we can reasonably conclude that the Neoglacial was cold enough to create pack ice which connected most of the Fox Island group of the Eastern Aleutians to the Alaskan Peninsula. Presence of walrus, ringed seal, polar bear all testify to a sea ice habitat (B. Davis 2001). During the subsequent Margaret Bay Phase the climate ameliorated and certainly must have had an effect on the local subsistence base.... We will be able to trace the mode of subsistence change during this important transitional period. It is also apparent from our previous work that during the Margaret Bay Phase and the following Amaknak Phase there was a significant change in technology.

As the prehistoric sequence emerged from our research in Unalaska Bay, it became clear that several time periods were characterized by a relatively rapid shift in settlement patterns, house form, and artifact assemblages. We chose these periods of rapid change as boundaries between major prehistoric cultural phases. This contradicted earlier models of long-term cultural stability in the Aleutian Islands based on an equally stable and unchanging marine subsistence base (McCartney 1984). Now that the major outlines of the sequence have been established, it is now incumbent upon researchers to discover the root causes and processes underlying the major changes reflected in the archaeological record. 147

The Amaknak Bridge site is of particular interest in these reconstructions because of its chronological position between the Margaret Bay Phase and the Amaknak Phase of Western Aleutian Prehistory. We knew when we began this project that the Amaknak phase represented one of the most significant shifts in human adaptation ever to take place in the Aleutian Islands. Now, thanks in part to the extraordinary conditions of preservation at the Amaknak Bridge site, we have important new evidence that the cultural changes we see reflected in the archaeological record are associated with surprisingly radical changes in the ecosystem of the Bering Sea. The Amaknak Bridge site faunal remains provide clues to the nature and extent of paleoenvironmental conditions that prevailed around 3,000 BP, while the artifact assemblage and features at the site provide evidence of human adaptation to those conditions.

8.1 Climate Change in Aleutian Prehistory In winter, when the continental landmasses are cold and the Pacific relatively warm, a large counter-clockwise low-pressure gyre known as the Aleutian Low develops, dominating the weather of south Alaska and much of the northeastern Pacific region. In summer when the land masses are warmer and the ocean relatively cool, a large-scale clockwise high-pressure cell, called the North Pacific High moves up from the south to dominate the weather in this area (Patterson et al. 2004). The intensity of the winter Aleutian Low gradually increased later in the Holocene (Heusser et al. 1985). Summers are now, and probably always have been, shorter, cooler and wetter in the western Aleutians than in the eastern end of the chain, a consequence of a more maritime environment versus a more continental one and outpouring of cold Arctic air from Siberia (Black 1981).

Robert Black (1981) summarized the major events on the Aleutians since the ice-cap deglaciation, from around 12,000-10,000 BP. He found evidence of major alpine glacier advances, reflecting periods of cooler weather in the general intervals of 7,500-5,500 and 3,500-2,000 BP, separated by a Hypsithermal Interval peaking about 5,500-3,600 BP. This advance of alpine glaciers prior to the Hypsithermal Interval was more pronounced and lasted longer in the western Aleutians than in the central. The Neoglacial ice advances on all the islands and Cold Bay began earlier in the western Aleutians and lasted longer than in the eastern. This suggests that the adaptation that humans made to colder climates reflected in the Amaknak Phase sites of Unalaska Bay should also be abundantly reflected, possibly for longer time periods, in sites further west along the Aleutian Island chain.

8.2 The Neoglacial The Neoglacial was a global cooling episode that affected both the northern and southern hemispheres by around 3,500 BP. Temperature shifts typically are felt strongest and earliest near the poles. We had previously documented archaeological evidence for the Neoglacial at the Margaret Bay site, where a pocket of preserved faunal remains dating from about 4,500 ryc BP signalled a markedly cooler climate in the form of ice edge mammalian fauna such as polar bear and ringed seal (Davis 2001). The artifact assemblage also showed some interaction with peoples bearing the Arctic Small Tool tradition, who at that time were spreading across the Arctic coasts of North America (Knecht, Davis and Carver 2000). Houses at the Margaret Bay site were robust, and featured stout stone walls and deep hearth systems. At the Amaknak Bridge site, we found that the faunal and archaeological records showed an even stronger signal for a far colder environment than exists on Unalaska today.

148 The Neoglacial was one of the most rapid and severe declines in temperature to occur in the Holocene. Reconstructions of global temperatures show a precipitous drop around 3,000 BP, which marks the estimated beginning of the Amaknak Phase as well as the time when the Amaknak Bridge site was occupied (Figure 9.1). Not surprisingly, 3,000 BP also marks a cultural boundary in reconstructed prehistoric sequences elsewhere in the North. On Kodiak the Late Ocean Bay Phase gave way to the Kachemak Phase (Clark 1984). North of the Alaska Peninsula pottery apparently from Asia enters the region and marks the beginning of Norton (Dumond 1984). Along the coasts of the Canadian Arctic the Early PaleoEskimo period ends. Inuit populations on the coast of Labrador shrink and retreat south to Labrador (Tuck 1982). The Neoglacial has been documented in the archaeological record elsewhere in Alaska. Intense storms between 4,000-3,000 BP have been associated with the Neoglacial expansion in northwest Alaska (Mason and Jordan 1993). This probably reflects a more intense Aleutian Low. It also appears that the temperature drops during the Neoglacial were markedly more pronounced in Alaska than in locations further south (Figure 9.2)

Figure 8.2.1 Global temperatures show a steep drop after 3,000 BP (Walker and Pellatt 2003).

149

Figure 8.2.2 Comparison of Pollen-based reconstructions of climate change at three coastal sites: Olympic Peninsula, British Columbia, and Icy Cape, Alaska. (Heusser et al. 1985, Walker and Pellatt 2003)

In Southeast Alaska and British Columbia coastal glaciers advanced around 3000 BP (Reyes and Claque 2004). Prentiss and Chatters (2003), found that cultural diversity peaked between 4200 and 5300 cal. BP, but by 3500 cal. BP had been replaced by winter-village collectors. They went on to conclude that “the catastrophe that led to this economic failure appears to have been precipitated by a sharp decline in temperature shortly after a. 4200 cal. BP (2003:12). Numerous studies have abundantly documented the Neoglacial in that region. Pollen records show increased conifer coverage; other proxy records also show widespread climate change corresponding to Neoglacial conditions as far south as Cascadia (Pellatt et al. 2001).

Sea Level Changes Geoarchaeological studies at the Margaret Bay site provided clear evidence for a 180 cm drop in relative sea level around 3,000 BP (Carver et. al 2000, Knecht, Davis and Carver 2001). It seems reasonable to assume that sea levels may have fallen in response to an increase in the amount of ice accumulation during the Neoglacial, however studies documenting a mid- Holocene sea level change on a global scale have not yet taken place. What is more certain is that this fossil shoreline exists throughout the Aleutian Islands and Kodiak, and a number of sites predating 3,000 BP have been excavated on what amounts to a marine terrace perched 8 to 10 meters above the current shoreline angle.

We have concluded that the drop in relative sea level isolated the former peninsula of the Margaret Bay site among shallow and rapidly infilling lagoons and eventually a series of beach ridges, probably leading to its abandonment. Modern Amaknak Island before 3000 BP was a series of 4 islands, which gradually became linked by low lying strands of beach ridges as the 150 waters receded. Early prehistoric sites exist at the junctures of each of the former passes between the islands. The Amaknak Bridge site is located at the deepest of the passes separating the islands from each other, as well as from Unalaska Island. The shallower passes may have been more prone to blockage by the spring and summer floe ice of the Neoglacial. The Amaknak Bridge site was strategically located near the resources available from both high and low energy coastal environments.

8.3 Subsistence at the Amaknak Bridge Site The most marked signal of the environmental changes brought about by the Neoglacial is the presence of sea mammals associated with the presence of pack ice habitats, such as polar bear, walrus, largha seal, and ribbon seal (see Crockford et.al, 2004 and this volume). This is a far different resource base than that exploited by later prehistoric peoples on Unalaska. The long- term cultural and environmental stability model for the Aleutians, if it reflects reality at all, may only apply to the last 2,000 years or less of the 9,000-year long prehistoric sequence.

As Crockford notes in the executive summary “The overall pattern of exploitation at this site is one of deep-sea (long-line) fishing, augmented by sea bird and sea mammal hunting (fur seals, seals, sea lions and porpoises) - at sea, on local island haul-outs and rookeries, and from offshore pack ice - during a period of strong Neoglacial cooling.” While the economy certainly remains maritime, the addition of pack ice hunting presented new challenges and opportunities to the ancient residents of Unalaska Bay. Fast ice may have also been present, but as Crockford notes, the residents of the site may have lacked the dogs needed to effectively find seal breathing holes where hunting could take place. The results of the shellfish analysis by Nora Foster (this volume) are less dramatic in terms of a climate signature, however “The low diversity along with low numbers of Blue Mussels, sea urchins, and Katy Chitons, inhabitants of the mid-tide level on exposed surfaces, may hint at a cooler, possibly ice soured shoreline”.

8.4 Archaeological Correlates of Climate Change at the Amaknak Bridge Site The presence of abundant ice-edge marine mammals in faunal remains is an unmistakable evidence for the new choices made available by the Neoglacial climate on the prehistoric residents of the Amaknak Bridge site. It is also clear from the material remains at the site that the configuration of culture in the Western Aleutians changed markedly in response to the effects of a colder climate on the environment of the Bering Sea. With the exception of the use of stone walls, very similar adaptations appeared on Kodiak Island following the onset of the Little Ice Age, another global temperature decline that occurred much later in time, around AD 1400 (Knecht 1995). The archaeological correlates of human responses to climate change observed at the Amaknak Bridge site include:

Architectural Features • Deeply excavated semi-subterranean houses reinforced by heavy stone walls • Large and elaborate hearth and sub-floor heating systems • Increasing size of storage related features

Subsistence Technologies • Appearance of toggling harpoons • Elaboration of bone harpoon and lance types • Elaboration of fishing technology 151

Social Organization • Appearance of labrets • Elaboration of artwork and decoration • Appearance of multiple-roomed houses

Architectural Features The stone-walled house forms encountered at Margaret Bay and the Amaknak Bridge site appear around 3400 rcybp. Houses dating from before that time at the Margaret Bay site employ stone reinforcements, but not in the form of a continuous wall. The later structures at the Amaknak Bridge site, those less than 3000 radiocarbon years old, are noticeably more robust in terms of the sheer mass of the stone walls used in their construction than those of earlier houses at the site such as structures 1 and 2. House walls in Unalaska Bay from 2,000 BP feature only a single course of stone. Later prehistoric houses no longer feature stone wall construction of any kind (Knecht and Davis 2001).

All of this evidence suggests that a growing preference for ever-larger stone walls may well have been a response to the increasingly stormy conditions of the Neoglacial. It also suggests that Neoglacial conditions may have continued to worsen at the site after 3,000 rcybp. Certainly the stone house walls represent a very substantial investment in labor, for nearly all of the stones used appear to have been collected from the shoreline and brought uphill to the site. Stone walls may have allowed deeper house excavations and were important in preventing slumping of soft volcanic soils saturated by increased amount of rainfall and melting snow runoff. They may also have served to help anchor roofing materials, which may have included sea mammal hides.

The elaborate hearth, chimney, and sub-floor heating channels described earlier in this report are also labor-intensive features, and almost certainly represent a way to deal with cold temperatures. These heating features take up a third or more of the floor space of the houses at the site. The complexity and size of the hearths contrasts strongly with those encountered from other time periods in Unalaska Bay. The large longhouses of the Late Aleutian Phase were well insulated by surrounding soils, and were heated by the combined body heat of occupants supplemented by relatively small and casually constructed hearths. The large number of bone wedges at the site may be associated with the need to split driftwood logs into pieces small enough to use for firewood.

The size and number of storage related features within the houses might also reflect a longer winter season and/or more inclement weather and an associated need for more food storage. On Kodiak Island, increased use of storage features appeared at the onset of the Little Ice Age (Knecht 1995). In the case of Kodiak, salmon was dried and used as a storable food source to sustain populations during the longer winters. Based on the conclusions of the faunal analysis of the Amaknak Bridge site remains, it seems possible that Pacific cod filled this role in Unalaska. It seems the most likely explanation for the much larger proportion of cod bones associated with houses at the site rather than middens.

In Unalaska Bay we also see large stone-lined storage pits appear in the floors of houses at the onset of the Neoglacial. At least one of the side rooms in Structure 7 may have functioned as a food storage area. The main room of Structure 7 along with the floor of Structure 4 also

152 contained the remains of what appears to be non-load bearing walls of possible food storage features. Outside the housefloors, several large conical pit features also have been interpreted as food storage features. A similar emphasis on storage features has been recorded in the archaeological sites from the Neoglacial in Southeast Alaska, where archaeologists concluded that “Populations dependent on broad-spectrum foraging without significant investment in storage would have experienced severe hardship during the cold season because of the inaccessibility of critical fish and game” (Prentiss and Chatters 2003).

Subsistence Technologies The overall pattern at the Amaknak Bridge site is one of increasing elaboration in terms of the variety of forms in both fishing and sea mammal hunting technology. While the bone assemblage from the site represents the only sample from 3000 BP recovered so far in the Aleutian region, it is clearly more complex than that found from 4500 BP levels at the Margaret Bay site. Fishhooks during the Amaknak Phase are found in both single piece and composite forms, with composite forms predominating. What is striking is the number of fishhook type- classes that exceed those seen in sites from earlier and later phases. It seems clear that during the Amaknak Phase certain fish hooks were intended for specific gear types, which in turn probably targeted certain species. The size range of fishhooks is also greater than those seen in other phases.

Stylistically we also observed far more care in detailing of the distal and proximal ends of both shanks and barbs in fishhooks. We see finely carved attachment knobs and facets on these pieces, as well as a routine addition of multiple barbs.

This elaboration and specificity also extends to stone sinkers, normally among the least interesting and variable of artifacts. As in the fishhook collection, the stone sinkers occur in a wider variety of forms and sizes than in other Aleutian sites, regardless of time period. The sinkers include grooved cobbles, plummets, notched pebbles, and large numbers of elongate sinkers. The elongate sinkers are typically ground on all surfaces and have an encircling groove fully ground around the long axis. They are remarkably labor intensive for a sinker and seem to represent a form of fishing gear or method unique to the Neoglacial, for they do not appear in any other assemblages in the Unalaska Bay sequence. Several items of fishing related gear are unique to the collection; notably pumice net floats and large quantities of knife-like hones of sandstone. The hones strongly resemble the wedge shaped hones used by modern trout fishermen to sharpen barbs, suggesting that these artifacts once served a similar purpose in sharpening the bone and ivory hook barbs found at the site. In more general terms the elaboration of fishing related artifacts probably reflects an increased emphasis on fishing during the Neoglacial, perhaps as a response to limits on sea mammal hunting imposed by weather or ice conditions.

Hunting equipment reflected by bone artifacts in the Amaknak Bridge collection also show a quantum leap in elaboration and variety compared to those dating from the first onset of the Neoglacial at Margaret Bay. Toggling harpoons, associated elsewhere in the Arctic with ice hunting, make their first appearance. They occur in a variety of forms, perhaps indicating that a standardized social template for a toggling harpoon had not yet solidified. It remains a possibility that toggling harpoons were used for landing large fish, however the presence of end- 153 blade slots strongly suggests that they were used for sea mammal hunting. The associated bone foreshafts used to hold the point and push it deep into the animal are also present. Among the self-tipped, barbed harpoon points we see a greater range of sizes and barbing styles than before. Long elaborately barbed lance points with end-blade slots make their first appearance, a change probably associated with the greater proportions of large-sized sea mammals reflected in the faunal assemblage.

In sum, it can be said with some confidence that the highest level of craftsmanship in the post-Anangula bone industry (which remains a mystery) was achieved during the Amaknak Phase. Interestingly, this is also true of the neighboring Kachemak Phase in the Gulf of Alaska, which also arose during the Neoglacial. This apparent fluorescence of innovation and craftsmanship may seem counterintuitive for a culture under the pressure from climate change. But a similar fluorescence was documented in late prehistoric Alutiiq culture during the Little Ice Age (Knecht 1995). The causes for this are probably more complex than the assumption that harsher weather forced people to look for ways to amuse themselves while indoors. Innovation was probably a response to a new set of available prey species available to humans because of climate change. The less utilitarian features, decorative elements, and perhaps even the high levels of workmanship are probably linked to changes in social organization and ideology.

8.5 Social Organization The rise of social complexity in the late prehistoric North Pacific is well documented and widely discussed in the literature. Frequently cited among archaeological correlates of social complexity include the rise of corporate housing, and artifacts associated with ceremonialism and art, items of self-adornment, trade, warfare, and similar props used to support and ratify a stratified society. Most of the cultural evolution toward a social stratification on coastal Alaska has been thought to occur in the centuries after c.1000 AD.

Because conventional wisdom holds that cultural evolution in coastal Alaska is a late prehistoric phenomenon, we were surprised social stratification so evident at the Amaknak Bridge site. The corporate housing floor plan of Structure 7 suggested a dwelling occupied by a high status lineage. The house was built on a prominent point above the water and dwarfed all the other houses found on the site. The presence of two hearth systems in the larger rooms of the house suggested at least two cooperating family groups. It may be no accident that one of the side rooms was used for the only intact burial found on the site. We were also startled to see such a wide number variety of labrets in a range of sizes and materials. Labrets signalled permanent status, and it is clear that many, if not all the residents of the site felt the need to convey this information. We found only two stone labrets in the top levels at Margaret Bay; at Amaknak Bridge we found 61, most in the higher levels of the site. Other items of personal adornment, such as pendants and stone beads, were also far more common at Amaknak Bridge. Artwork and decoration of artefacts is far more prevalent in this and other Amaknak phase collections than in preceding phases.

Based on the constellation of traits at the site, our conclusion is that social stratification grew as a response to the organizational needs of the ancient Unangan as they struggled to cope with harsh climate change. Whether the new social structures were permanent additions to Aleutian Island cultures subsequent to the Amaknak phase is uncertain, however the continual growth of houses and settlements, along with the concurrent presence of labrets, artwork, and 154 fortified occupations, suggests that might be the case. It is interesting to note that similar evolution occurred as a response to the Little Ice Age in the Gulf of Alaska, including the appearance there of multiple-room houses (Knecht 1995). In the Arctic Canada, house sizes increased dramatically in the form of Dorset Longhouses around 3,000 BP and again in NeoEskimo culture in the wake of the Little Ice Age. It may well be that these moves toward corporate housing and the social organization associated with these new arrangements, occurred when social aggregates formed to deal with the challenges of deteriorating climate conditions. While the data from the Amaknak Bridge site cannot answer all of these questions, it seems certain to make a significant contribution to the scientific dialogue.

155

9 Conclusions and Recommendations

9.1 Site Significance and Research Potential

We began the data recovery project at the Amaknak Bridge Site in the hope that we could increase our understanding of various aspects of Eastern Aleutian prehistory: culture history, subsistence ecology, household archaeology, and adaptations to environmental change. The previous chapters of this report have developed these topics descriptively and analytically, and we have also provided interpretative accounts of our research questions in order to more fully understand the contributions of the Amaknak Bridge Site excavation. The site has provided a great wealth of data which can be referenced for many years to come. The large scale excavation made possible by the ADOT&PF contract has brought to light significant new discoveries which have led to new perspectives on Aleutian archaeology.

In terms of culture history the initial question was directed toward understanding what the relationship might be between the Amaknak Bridge Site and the Margaret Bay Site (UNL-48), which lies a only few hundred meters to the north. Earlier excavations at Amaknak Bridge by Dennison and by us uncovered stone lined houses and artifacts that suggested that these sites may have been occupied at the same time (Knecht and Davis 2001). The C-14 results from the 2003 season at the Amaknak Bridge Site indicate that that Margaret Bay, Level 2 was occupied before the most intensive period of occupation at the Amaknak Bridge Site. If the sites were contemporary it would have been for a relatively brief time. It seems most likely that the main occupation of the Amaknak Bridge Site immediately followed Margaret Bay in a sequence of large occupations along the inner harbor of Unalaska Bay. The two sites may well have constituted the largest village settlements in Unalaska Bay between c. 4000 and 3000 years BP. The form and frequency of Amaknak Bridge artifacts demonstrates an intermediate chronological position between the Margaret Bay site and Summer Bay (UNL-92). This corresponds to what we have defined previously as the end of the Margaret Bay archaeological phase and the beginning of the Amaknak phase.

Another research focus we addressed through the data recovery project was household archaeology. House floors and associated features are the primary data for household archaeological analysis. In our Data Recovery Plan we anticipated that two or possibly more dwellings might still exist in the knoll. In actuality, we found four largely intact structures and remains of at least six additional ones. The major discovery of the 2003 field season was Structure 7 with its large, multiple room, rectangular floor plan. It had an exterior chimney and stone lined sub floor channels that may have served as heating system. At least three other dwellings had the same sub floor channel features with an exterior chimney. Such architecture has no parallel at this period of prehistory in the north. The appearance of large, multiple room dwellings at 3000 years BP, along with other correlates of cultural complexity such as large labrets clearly challenges long held assumptions about the nature of cultural evolution on the North Pacific Rim.

An important research question was the reconstruction of subsistence ecology through the preserved bone artifacts and midden that were abundant in many areas of the site. In 2003 we found numerous contexts with excellent preservation. About 2,500 bone and ivory artifacts were recovered; the only assemblage of its kind in the Aleutians from c. 3000 BP. The rarely 156 preserved bone tools and weapons from this time period provide a glimpse into adaptations to the changing climate and subsistence available to the ancient Unangan. The art work is among the earliest ever recovered from the Bering Sea and provides a baseline for understanding long lived and widespread artistic traditions.

We recovered and analyzed one of the largest collections of early prehistoric faunal material in Alaska. The results of the analysis have great significance in that abundant remains of ice-edge sea mammals are present which indicates that the ice edge of the Bering Sea was hard against the north shore of the eastern Aleutians during the height of the Neoglacial. The ice-edge fauna at the earlier Margaret Bay , Level 4 component reflected only the beginning of a temperature drop that transformed the marine ecology of the Aleutians. The Amaknak Bridge faunal data is a welcome addition to the growing body of data at a time when understanding both contemporary and ancient temperature oscillations is a major topic in the sciences.

In sum the scope and implications of the data we recovered at the Amaknak Bridge Site far exceeded our expectations. The site is a true benchmark of Aleutian prehistory.

9.2 Site Volume

In the original proposal to ADOT&PF in April of 2003 we estimated the remaining volume of archaeological deposits in the Amaknak Bridge site to be 600 cubic meters. We proposed removing a 20% sample or 120 cubic meters. The actual excavation of the site during the 2003 field season removed an estimated 264 cubic meters - more than twice the proposed volume. Volume was calculated by making a surface map with the total station of the east block excavation area before excavation and a second surface map of east block after the excavation. Using the program Surfer 7.0, the volume of East Block excavation between the two surfaces was computed to be 236 cubic meters. The excavated volume of West Block was 28 cubic meters, bringing the total of the excavation to 264 cubic meters. A general site profile is shown in Figure 9.2.01

How much of the site remains? It is not possible to determine the volume exactly, but several auger tests in East Block indicated the cultural deposit continued for at least 1.25 meters. The western wall section of East block at the end of the 2003 excavation showed clearly that the cultural deposit continued underneath the WWII access road and thus the extent of the site runs further to the west than had been anticipated. Extrapolating from these observations we estimate that there are some 550 cubic meters of intact cultural deposits remaining at the Amaknak Bridge site.

157 102 West Block 101 East Block 100 S-2 99 S-5 S-7nw S-3 S-4 98 S-6 98 97 S-7w S-7sw 97 96 S-7m 96 Elevation (meters) Elevation 95 95

80 85 90 95 100 105 110 Easting (meters)

Key Top of Archaeological Deposit Structure Floors Estimated Bottom of Archaeological Deposit

Figure 9.2.01 Relative position of houses encountered and estimated base of the site.

9.3 Recommendations for Future Research

The Amaknak Bridge Site data has significant future potential. Given the sheer size of the collection and the scale of the excavations, the analysis of the artifacts and features in their spatial context can be taken further that we have done for this report. The spatial patterning of artifacts within and without the structures can be studied to learn more about the manufacture, use, and maintenance of various types of tools. Metric analysis of the lithic assemblage would be useful in examining an industry on the cusp of change, as the long-lived core and blade technique slowly faded away and was replaced by flake and ultimately ground stone technologies.. Bone and ivory artifact classes can be further refined with study. Analysis of the artwork and decorative styles on the various artifacts and comparison of them to many sites throughout much of the sub arctic and arctic would be very productive. We anticipate that the present report will serve as a nucleus for a subsequent series of publications.

Similarly the volume and quality of the faunal remains preclude a 100% analysis, and the faunal analysis is based on what we feel is a significant sample of the material. A complete faunal analysis has been appended to this report. This will be based on a much larger sample that is analyzed in Chapter 6, but the general results are very similar. At least two researchers from two institutions, the University of Alaska Fairbanks and the University of California in Santa Cruz are already making plans to include the Amaknak faunal bone in ongoing stable isotope research. Stable isotope analysis is one of the best ways to study prehistoric changes in trophic levels among marine mammal populations which in turn relate to climatic influences on the ecosystem of the Bering Sea.

As researchers we naturally hope that the invaluable data contained in the site can be used to its fullest potential. The site itself is slated for removal as a consequence of the realignment of the South Channel Bridge beginning in 2006. If funds can be raised to support further excavation of the site, much more about the site could be learned. An excavation project on the scale of the work done in 2003 could recover perhaps another 250 cubic meters. Deeper excavations, 158 however would require shoring of the trench walls as mandated by OSHA regulations in order to prevent their collapse. This might slow work and would raise the expense of the project. Nevertheless, it would be well worth the effort to make every attempt to carefully excavate remaining portions of the site.

A monitoring plan will be developed early in 2005. This plan will be followed during the earthmoving phase of the bridge realignment. Goals of the monitoring plan could include the recovery of additional burials, the mapping of additional structures, the excavation of extensive stratigraphic profiles, the recovery of additional samples for C-14 dating, and the determination of the full extent of the site. Mechanized equipment would carry out most of the earthmoving, and if it is done with enough control and diligence, important new information about the site can be recovered.

Amaknak Island has been inhabited for some 8,000 years. Numerous, deeply stratified archaeological sites have been found on the island, but in recent years their number has significantly declined. The Amaknak Bridge site is certainly one of the most significant of the island’s sites. World War II construction, a variety of archaeological excavations, and recent and likely future development of the island all have had and will continue to have significant impact. Over the years, the community of Unalaska, the Museum of the Aleutians, and the Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities have given major support to archaeological recovery efforts. Increased community, state and federal support is now needed to preserve the remaining vestiges of Unangan history.

Figure9.3.01 Amaknak Bridge Site Crew, July 2004.

9.4 Acknowledgements

159 We are grateful for the hard work and good cheer of our excavation and laboratory crews. Their enthusiasm made it possible for us to recover more than twice as much material as we hoped. Thanks also to the volunteers who stood with us at the water screens on many a cold and windy day. We also appreciate the cooperation and goodwill of the Ounalashka Corporation, who own the Amaknak Bridge site and its contents. The Ounalashka Corporation along with the Qawalangin Tribe of Unalaska gave us their permission to complete the excavation and analysis of the human remains found on the site. The City of Unalaska helped us find a way to link our water screening system to their fire hydrants and assisted in other important ways. We also appreciate the supportive staff of the Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities who facilitated this project in such a way that allowed us to maximize our data recovery. Without ADOT&PF’s financial support, a project of this size would not have been possible. Much credit is also due the Federal Highway Administration for funding and supporting this project. Museum bookkeeper Dixie Engman did a superb job in managing the complex finances of this project. Graphic support was provided by Judit Greskovits and Maria Charette. Support for faunal analysis was provided by Melia Knecht.

160

References

Ackerman, D. 1990. A reporter at large: albatrosses. The New Yorker Sept. 24: 61-88.

Aigner, J. S. 1970 The Unifacial, Core and Blade Site on Anangula Island, Aleutians. Arctic Anthropology 7(2): 59-88

1978 Activity Zonation in a 4000 Year Old Aleut House, Chaluka Village, Umnak Island, Alaska. Anthropological Papers of the University of Alaska 19: 11-25.

1983 Idaliuk Bay Camp, Umnak Island, Circa 4200 B.P. North American Archaeologist 42(2): 89-125.

Armstrong, R. H. 1995. Guide to the Birds of Alaska (4th ed.). Alaska Northwest Books, Anchorage.

Arnason, U., Bodin, K., Gullberg, A., Ledje, C. & S. Mouchaty 1995. A molecular view of pinniped relationships with particular emphasis on the true seals. Journal of Molecular Evolution 40: 78-85.

Bacon, Glenn H. 1977 A Preliminary Narrative Report on the 1977 Excavations at the Amaknak Bridge Site, Aleutian Islands, Alaska. Report to ADOT&PF.

1980 Toward Norton Origins. Paper presented at the Norton Interaction Sphere symposium, Annual Meeting of the Alaska Anthropological Association, Anchorage

1983 The Amaknak Bridge Site. Report to the Office of History and Archaeology. Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Anchorage.

Baker, J.D., Fowler, C. W. & G. A. Antonelis 1994. Body weight and growth of juvenile male northern fur seals, Callorhinus ursinus. Marine Mammal Science 10(2):151-162.

Banfield, A.W.F. 1974. The Mammals of Canada. National Museum of Natural Science, University of Toronto Press, Toronto. Bellrose, F. C. 1976. Ducks, Geese & Swans of North America. Stackpole Books, Harrisburg, PA.

161 Berry, A & Berry, R 1967 Epigenetic variation in the human cranium. Journal of Anatomy: 101: 361- 379. Berta, A., & J.L. Sumich 1999. Marine Mammals: Evolutionary Biology. Academic Press, San Diego.

Black R. F. 1980 Isostatic, tectonic, and eustatic movements of sea level in Aleutian Islands. In Earth Rheology, Isostasy, and Eustasy, Morner N. (eds.), pp. 231-248, Wiley, New York.

1981 Late Quaternary Climatic Changes in the Aleutian Islands, Alaska In: Quaternary Paleoclimate, edited by W.C. Mahaney. Papers from a conference held at York University, May 18-20, 1979.

1983 Glacial chronology of the Aleutian Islands. In: Glaciation in Alaska, Extended Abstracts from a Workshop, edited by R. M. Thorson and T.D. Hamilton. Occasional Paper 2; University of Alaska Museum, Alaskan Quaternary Center. Workshop on glaciation in Alaska.

Bovy, K.M. 2002. Differential avian skeletal part distribution: explaining the abundance of wings. Journal of Archaeological Science 29:965-978.

Brooks, J & Suchey, J. 1990 Skeletal Age Determination Based on the Os Pubis: A Comparison of the Acsadi-Nemeskeri and the Suchey-Brooks Methods. Human Evolution: 5: 227-238.

Brothwell, D. 1981 Digging up Bones. Cornell University Press, New York.

Buikstra, J & Ubelaker, D. 1994 Standards for Data Collection From Human Skeletal Remains. Arkansas Archaeological Survey Research, Series 44.

Burgner, Robert L. 1991. Life history of sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka). In: Pacific Salmon Life Histories (C. Groot and L. Margolis, eds.) pp. 3-117. University of British Columbia Press, Vancouver.

Campbell, R.W., Dawe, N.K., McTaggart-Cowan, I., Cooper, J.M., Kaiser, G.W. & M.C.E. McNall 1990. The Birds of British Columbia. Vols I, II & III. Royal British Columbia Museum, Victoria, B.C.

162 Carver G. A., Gilpin L. M. 1993 Late Holocene paleoseismicity of Kodiak Island, Alaska. Final Report to the U.S. Geological Survey (NEHRP Grant #14-080001-G2121).

Carver G., R. Davis, R. Knecht, P. Saltonstall, and J. Sauber 2000 Holocene Sea Level Changes and Resettlement of Maritime People Eastern Aleutian and Kodiak Islands, Alaska. In: EOS, v.81, no.48.

Castro, J. I. 1983. The Sharks of North American Waters. Texas A & M University Press, College Station.

Clark, Donald W. 1984 Prehistory of the Pacific Eskimo Region. In Handbook of North American Indians, Volume 5, Arctic, edited by David Damas. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. Pp. 136-148.

Crockford, S.J. 1997. Osteometry of Makah and Coast Salish Dogs. Publication No. 22, Archaeology Press. Simon Fraser University, Burnaby.

1994. A taxonomic review of the tracheal bullae (bony syrinx) of the ducks of the genus Anas of the Pacific Northwest. Poster presentation, Society of Ethnobiology Conference, Victoria, B.C. see published abstracts,

2003. The archaeological history of short-tailed albatross in British Columia: A review and summary of STAL skeletal remains, as compared to other avian species, identified from historic and prehistoric midden deposits. Report prepared for Ken Morgan, Canadian Wildlife Services, Victoria.

Crockford, S.J., Frederick, G., & R. Wigen. 1997. A humerus story: albatross element distribution from two Northwest Coast sites, North America. Internat. Journal of Osteoarchaeology 7:378.1-5.

2002 The Cape Flattery Fur Seal: An Extinct Species of Callorhinus in the Eastern North Pacific? Canadian Journal of Archaeology 26: 152-174.

Dall, W. H. 1877 On Succession in the Shell-heaps of the Aleutian Islands. Pp. 41-91 in Tribes of the Extreme Northwest. (Contributions to North American Ethnology 1) Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office.

1878 On the Remains of Later Prehistoric Man Obtained from Caves in the Catherina Archipelago, Alaska Territory and Especially from the Caves of the Aleutian Islands. Smithsonian Contributions to Knowledge 22 (318). Washington

163 Davis, B. L. 2001. Sea mammal hunting and the neoglacial: An archaeological study of environmental change and subsistence technology at Margaret Bay, Unalaska. University of Oregon Anthropological Papers 58 (Recent Archaeology in the Aleut Zone of Alaska): 71-85.

Denniston, Glenda B. 1966 Cultural Change at Chaluka, Umnak Island: Stone Artifacts and Features. Arctic Anthropology 3(2): 84-124. Dixon, G. 1977 Archaeological Reconnaissance of the Unalaska Amaknak Bridge Project., Alaska Division of Parks, Office of History and Archaeology, Anchorage.

Dumond, Don E. 1984 Prehistory of the Bering Sea Region. In: Handbook of North American Indians, Volume 5, Arctic, edited by David Damas, pp. 94-105, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

1987 The Eskimos and Aleuts. Revised Edition. Thames and Hudson, London.

Dumond, Don E. and Richard A. Knecht 2001 An Early Blade Site in the Eastern Aleutians University of OregonAnthropological Papers 58 (Recent Archaeology in the Aleut Zone of Alaska): 9-34.

Eda, M., Baba, Y., Koike, H., & H. Higuchi. 2002. Ancient DNA analysis for species identification of albatross bones short-tailed albatrosses disappeared from the Sea of Japan and the Sea of Okhotsk. Poster presentation. International Council of Archaeo- zoology, 9th Conferences, University of Durham, UK.

Eschmeyer, William N., Earl S. Herald, and Howard Hammann. 1983. A Field Guide to Pacific Coast Fishes of North America. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston.

Etnier, M. A. 2002. The effect of human hunting on northern fur seal (Callorhinus ursinus) migration and breeding distribution in the late Holocene. PhD. dissertation, University of Washington (Anthropology).

Eveleth, P & Tanner, J. 1990 Worldwide Variation in Human Growth (2nd ed). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Everitt, R.D., Fiscus, C.H. and R.L. DeLong. 1979. Marine mammals of northern Puget Sound and the Strait of Juan de Fuca. NOAA Technical Memorandum ERL MESA-41, Seattle.

164 Fedoseev, G. A. 1975. Ecotypes of the ringed seal (Pusa hispida Schreber, 1777) and their reproductive capabilities. In: K. Ronald & A. W. Mansfield (eds.), Biology of the Seal. Rapports et Proces-verbaux des Reunions, Conseil International Pour L’Exploration de la Mer 169: 156-160.

Finley, K. J, Miller, G. W., Davis, R. A., & W. R. Koski 1983 A distinctive large breeding population of ringed seal (Phoca hispida) inhabiting the Baffin Bay pack ice. Arctic 36 (2): 162-173.

Flannery, Kent F. 1972 The Origins of the Village as a Settlement Type in Mesoamerica and the Near East: A Comparative Study. In Man, Settlement and Urbanism, P.J. Ucko, Ruth Tringham, and G.W. Dimbleby, Eds. London, Duckworth: 23-53.

Freethy, R. 1987. Auks: An Ornithologists Guide. Blandford Press, Poole, UK.

Frohlich, B & Laughlin, S. 2002 Unangan Mortuary Practices and the Umqan Burials on Anangula Island, Aleutian Islands, Alaska. In To the Aleutians and Beyond: Ethnographical Series Vol. 20. (eds.) Frohlich, B, Harper, A, & Gilberg, p. 89- 119. The National Museum of Denmark, Copenhagen.

Giddings, J.L. 1964 The Archaeology of Cape Denbigh. Brown University Press, Providence, Rhode Island.

Giles, E & Elliot, O. 1962 Race identification from cranial measurements. Journal For Forensic Science: 7, 147-157. Gill, G. 1986 Craniofacial criteria in forensic race identification. In Forensic Osteological Advances in the Identification of Human Remains, (ed.) Reichs, K. Charles Thomas, Illinois, p. 143-159.

1998 Craniofacial criteria in skeletal attribution of race. In Forensic Osteology: Advances in the Identification of Human Remains, (ed.) Reichs, K., 293-317.

Gilbert, B. 1976 Anterior femoral curvature: Its probable cause and utility as a criterion of racial assessment. American Journal of Physical Anthropology: 45, 601- 604.

Godfrey, W.E. 1979. The Birds of Canada. National Museum of Canada Bulletin 203, Biological Series 73, Ottawa. 165

Gustafson, C.E. 1968. Prehistoric use of fur seals: evidence from the Olympic coast of Washington. Science 161:49-51.

1975. Distribution and aboriginal use of the sub-order Pinnipedia on the Northwest Coast as seen from Makah Territory, Washington. Ms on file, Washington State University, Washington Archaeological Research Section, Pullman.

Hamilton, Thomas D. 1994 Late Cenozoic glaciation of Alaska In: The Geology of Alaska, edited by G. Plafker and H.C. Berg. Boulder, Colorado, Geological Society of America.

Heusser, Calvin J. 1990 Late Quaternary vegetation of the Aleutian Islands, southwestern Alaska. Canadian Journal of Botany 68:1320-1326

Heusser, C.J., L.E. Heusser and D.M. Peteet. 1985 Late–Quaternary Climatic Change on the American North Pacific Coast. Nature 315: 485–487.

Hart, J.L. 1973. Pacific Fishes of Canada. Fisheries Research Board of Canada Bulletin 180, Ottawa.

Healey, M.C. 1991. Life history of chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha). In: Pacific Salmon Life Histories, C. Groot and L. Margolis (eds.), pp.313-393. University of British Columbia Press, Vancouver.

Heard, William R. 1991. Life history of pink salmon (Oncorhynchus gorbuscha). In: Pacific Salmon Life Histories, C. Groot and L. Margolis (eds.), pp. 121-230. University of British Columbia Press, Vancouver.

Henriksen, G., Gjertz, I. & A. Kondakov. 1997. A review of the distribution and abundance of harbor seals, Phoca vitulina, on Svalbard, Norway and in the Barents Sea. Marine Mammal Science 13(1):157-163. Hillson, S. 1996 Dental Anthropology. Cambridge University press: Cambridge.

Holst, M., Stirling, I., & W. Calvert. 1999. Age structure and reproductive rates of ringed seals (Phoca hispida) on the northwest coast of Hudson Bay in 1991 and 1992. Marine Mammal Science 15(4):1357-1364. 166

Hiraguchi, T. 1992. Catching dolphins at the Mawaki site, central Japan, and its contribution to Jomon society. In: Pacific Northeast Asia in Prehistory: Hunter-fisher- gatherers, Farmers, and Sociopolitical Elites, C.M. Aikens & S.N. Rhee (eds.), pp. 35-45. Washington State University Press, Pullman.

Hrdlicka, A. 1945 The Aleutian and Commander Islands. Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology, Philadelphia.

Huard, P & Montagne, M. 1950 Le Squelette Humain et L’attitude Accroupie. Bulletin de la Societe des Etudes Indochinoises: 25, 401-426.

Huelsbeck, D.R. 1983. Mammals and Fish in the Subsistence Economy of Ozette. Ph.D. dissertation. Washington State University, Pullman.

Huelsbeck, D.R. & M. Fisken 1983. The utilization of whales at Ozette. MS on file, Laboratory of Anthropology, Washington State University, Pullman.

Huelsbeck, D.R. and G.C. Wessen 1994. Twenty-five years of faunal analysis at Ozette. In: S.R. Samuels (ed.), Ozette Archaeological Project Research Reports, Volume II: Fauna. Reports of Investigations 66: 1-16. Department of Anthropology, Washington State University, Pullman and National Parks Service, Pacific Northwest Regional Office, Seattle.

Hunt, D. 1990 Sex Determination in the Subadult Ilia: An Indirect Test of Weaver’s Nonmetric Sexing Method. In Journal of Forensic Sciences: 35, No. 4, 881-885.

Iscan, M. 1983 Assessment of Race from the Pelvis. American Journal of Physical Anthropology: 62, 205-208.

Iscan, M & Loth, S. 1986 Determination of Age from the Sternal Rib in White Males: A Test of the Phase and Method. Journal of Forensic Science: 31, 122-132.

Jantz, R & Moore-Jansen, P. 1988 A Database for Forensic Anthropology: Structure, Context, and Analysis. Report of Investigations 47. University of Tennessee, Knoxville.

167 Jochelson, W. 1925 Archaeological Investigations in the Aleutian Islands. The Carnegie Institution of Washington, Washington DC.

Kasuya, T. 1975. Past occurrence of Globicephala melaena in the western North Pacific. Sci. Rep. Whales Res. Inst. 27: 95-110.

Kenyon, K.W. & D.W. Rice 1961. Abundance and distribution of Steller sea lion. Journal of Mammalogy 42:223-234.

Kenyon, K.W. & F. Wilke 1953. Migration of the Northern fur seal, Callorhinus ursinus. Journal of Mammalogy 34:86-98. Knecht, R.A. 1995 The Late Prehistory of the Alutiiq People. Unpublished dissertation, Bryn Mawr College. University Microfilms, Ann Arbor. . 2001 Boundary Survey for the Amaknak Bridge Site, UNL-50. Report for ADOT & PF.

Knecht, R. A. & R. S. Davis 2001. A prehistoric sequence for the Eastern Aleutians. University of Oregon Anthropological Papers 58 (Recent Archaeology in the Aleut Zone of Alaska): 269-288.

Knecht, R., R. S.Davis and G. Carver 2001 The Margaret Bay Site and Eastern Aleutian Prehistory. University of Oregon Anthropological Papers 58 (Recent Archaeology in the Aleut Zone of Alaska): 35-69.

Knecht, R. , Haakanson, S. & Dickson, S. 2002 Awa’uq: Discovery and Excavation of an 18th Century Alutiiq Refuge Rock in the Kodiak Archipelago. In To the Aleutians and Beyond: Ethnographical Series Vol. 20. (eds.) Frohlich, B, Harper, A, & Gilberg, p. 89-119. The National Museum of Denmark, Copenhagen.

Krogman, W and Iscan, M. 1986 The Human Skeleton in Forensic Medicine. 2nd ed. Springfield, Illinois, Charles Thomas.

Lantis, M. 1984 Aleut. In Handbook of the North American Indians, edited by D. Damas, pp. 161-184. vol. 5. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. .

168 Laughlin, W. S. 1975 Aleuts: Ecosystem, Holocene history, and Siberian origin. Science 189(507-515). 1980 Aleuts: Survivors of the Bering Land Bridge. Holt, Rinehart, & Winston, New York. 1983 Aleut Mummies: Their Significance for Longevity and Culture. In Cultures of the Bering Sea Region: Papers from an International Symposium. (eds.) Michael, H & VanStone, J, 44-46. International Research & Exchange Board, New York

Leatherwood, S., Reeves, R.R., Perrin, W.F., & W.E. Evans 1988. Whales, Dolphins, and Porpoises of the Eastern North Pacific and Adjacent Arctic Waters: A Guide to their Identification. Dover Publications Inc., New York.

Lieverse, A. 1999 Diet and the Aetiology of Dental Calculus. International Journal of Osteoarchaeology: 9, 219-232.

Lovejoy, C, Meindl, R, Mensforth, R and Boston, T. 1985 Multifactorial Determination of Skeletal age at Death. American Journal of Physical Anthropology: 68, 1-14.

Lyman, R.L. 1988. Zoogeography of Oregon coast marine mammals: the last 3,000 years. Marine Mammal Science 4: 247-264.

1989. Seal and sea lion hunting: a zooarchaeological study from the southern Northwest Coast of North America. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 8: 68-99.

Manzer, J.I. and I. Mc. T. Cowan. 1956. Northern fur seals in the inside coastal waters of British Columbia. Journal of Mammalogy 37: 83-86.

Maschner, H. D.G. and J.W. Jordan 2001 The Russell Creek Manifestation of the Arctic Small Tool Tradition on the Western Alaska Peninsula. University of Oregon Anthropological Papers 58 (Recent Archaeology in the Aleut Zone of Alaska): 152-171.

Mason, Owen and J. Jordan 1993 Heightened North Pacific Storminess and Synchronous late Holocene erosion of northwest Alaska beach ridge complexes. Quaternary Research 40:1.

Mays, S. 1998 The Archaeology of Human Bones. Routledge, London & New York.

169 McCartney, Allen 1967 An Analysis of the Bone Industry of Amaknak Island. MA thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Wisconsis, Madison. 1984 Prehistory of the Aleutian Region. In: Handbook of North American Indians, Vol 5. Arctic. edited by David Damas. Smithsonian Institution, Washington D.C. pp. 119-135. 1998 Alvin R. Cahn: World War II Aleutian Archaeologist. Arctic Anthropology 35(2): 136-146.

McCartney, A. P. & J.M. Savelle. 1993. Bowhead whale bones and Thule Eskimo subsistence-settlement patterns in the central Canadian Arctic. Polar Record 29(168):1-12.

McTaggart-Cowan, I. & C.J. Guiget 1965. The Mammals of British Columbia. BC Provincial Museum Handbook 11, Victoria.

McKern, T & Stewart, T. 1957 Skeletal Age Changes in Young American Males. Natick, Mass., Headquarters, Quartermaster Research & Development Command Technical Report, U.S. Army.

Mecklenburg, C. W., Mecklenburg, T. A., & L. K. Thorsteinson. 2002. Fishes of Alaska. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda.

Miraglia, Rita A. 1986 A Study of the Bank Archaeological Collections from the Aleutian Islands. Alaska Historical Commission Studies in History, No. 1999.

Mizuno, A. W., Onuma, M., Takahashi, M., & N. Ohtaishi 2003. Population genetic structure of the spotted seal (Phoca largha) along the coast of Hokkaido, based on mitochondrial DNA sequences. Zoological Science 20: 783-788.

Molleson, T, Cruse, K, & Mays, S. 1998 Some Sexually Dimorphic Features of the Human Juvenile Skeleton and their Value in Sex Determination in Innominate Skeletal Remains. Journal of Archaeological Science: 25 (8), 719-778.

Nagtegaal, D.A. 1983. Identification and Description of Assemblages of Some Commercially Important Rockfishes (Sebastes spp.) off British Columbia. Canadian Technical Reports of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 1183. Department of Fisheries & Oceans, Nanaimo, B.C.

Nickerson, R. 1984. Sea Otters: A Natural History and Guide. Chronicle Books, San Francisco, CA. 170

O’Corry-Crow, G. M. & R. L. Westlake 1997. Molecular investigations of spotted seals (Phoca largha) and harbor seals (P. vitulina), and their relationship in areas of sympatry. pg. 291-304, In: Molecular Genetics of Marine Mammals (A.E. Dizon, S.J. Chivers, W.F. Perrin, eds). Society for Marine Mammalogy, Special Publication 3, Lawrence, KS.

Olesiuk, P.F, Bigg, M.A., Ellis, G.M., Crockford, S.J. & R.J. Wigen. 1990. An assessment of the feeding habits of Harbour seals (Phoca vitulina) in the Strait of Georgia, British Columbia, based on scat analysis. Canadian Technical Report of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 1730.

Orchard, T. J. 2003. An application of the linear regression technique for determining length and weight of six fish taxa: the role of selected fish species in Aleut paleodiet. British Archaeological Reports International Series 1172.

Orth, Donald J. 1967 Dictionary of Alaska Place Names. Geological Survey Professional Paper No. 567. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.

Ortner, D & Putscher, W. 1985 Identification of Pathological Conditions in Human Skeletal Remains. Smithsonian Press, Washington DC.

Patterson, D. Timothy, Prokoph, Andreas, Wright, Cynthia, Chang, Alice S., Thomson, Richard E. and Ware, Daniel M. 2004 Holocene Solar Variability and Pelagic Fish Productivity in the NE Pacfic. Palaeontologia Electronica 7(4)

Peterson, R. T. 1961. A Field Guide to Western Birds (2nd ed). Houghton Mifflin Co., Boston.

Pellatt, M.G., Hebda, R.J., and Mathewes, R.W. 2001 High-resolution Holocene vegetation history and climate from Hole 1034B, ODP Leg 169S, Saanich Inlet, Canada. Marine Geology, 174:211-222.

Pelly, D. F. 2001. Sacred Hunt: A Portrait of the Relationship Between Seals and Inuit. University of Washington Press, Seattle.

Phillips, J.B. 1964. Life History Studies on Ten Species of Rockfishes. California Fish & Game Bulletin 126. 171

Potapov, E., Utekhina, I., & M. J. McGrady. 2000. Habitat preferences and factors affecting population density and breeding rate of Steller’s sea eagle on northern Okhotia. In: First Symposium on Steller’s and White-tailed Sea Eagles in East Asia, M. Ueta & M. J. McGrady (eds), pp. 59-70. Wild Bird Society of Japan, Tokyo.

Prentiss, William C. and James Chatters 2003 Cultural Diversification and Decimation in the Prehistoric Record. Current Anthropology Volume 44: 33-58

Ramey-Burns, K. 1999 Forensic Anthropology Training Manual. Prentice Hall, New Jersey. 150, 120-135. Redfield, A. 1970 A New aid to Aging Immature Skeletons: Development of the Occipital Bone. American Journal of Physical Anthropology: 33, 217-220.

Reeves, R. R, Stewart, B. S., Clapham, P. J. & J. A. Powell 2002. National Audobon Society’s Guide to Marine Mammals of the World. Alfred A. Knopf, New York.

Reyes, Alberto V. and John J. Clague 2004 Stratigraphic evidence for multiple Holocene advances of Lillooet Glacier, southern Coast Mountains, British Columbia. Can. J. Earth Sci./Rev. Can. Sci. Terre 41(8): 903-918.

Roberts, C. & Manchester, K. 1995 The Archaeology of Disease, 2nd ed. Sutton Publishing, Cornell University Press, New York.

Robertson, G. & R. Gales. 1997. Albatross Biology and Conservation. Surrey Beatty, Chipping Norton.

Robertson, C.J.R. & G.B. Nunn 1997 Towards a new taxonomy for albatrosses. In G. Robertson and R. Gales, Editors, Albatross Biology and Conservation, pp.13-19. Surrey Beatty, Chipping Norton.

Ruff, C. 1987 Sexual Dimorphism in Human Lower Limb Structure: Relationship to Subsistence Strategy and Sexual Division of Labour. Journal of Human Evolution: 16, 391-416.

Salo, E.O. 1991. Life history of chum salmon (Oncorhynchus keta). In: Pacific Salmon Life Histories, C. Groot and L. Margolis (eds.), pp. 233-309. University of British Columbia Press, Vancouver.

172 Sandercock, F.K. 1991. Life history of coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch). In: Pacific Salmon Life Histories, C. Groot and L. Margolis (eds.), pp.397-445. University of British Columbia Press, Vancouver.

Savelle, J.M., McCartney, A.P., & A.S. Dyke. 2001. Human predators and migratory megafauna: the case of Thule bowhead whaling. In People and Wildlife in Northern North America: Essays in Honor of R. Dale Guthrie, S. C. Gerlach and M. S. Murray (eds.), pp. 242-254. British Archaeological Reports International Series 944, Oxford.

Sasaki, H., Numachi, K., & M. A. Grachev. 2003. The origin and genetic relationships of the Baikal seal, Phoca sibirica, by restriction analysis of mitochondrial DNA.

Saunders, S. 1989 Nonmetric Skeletal Variation. In Reconstruction of Life From the Skeleton. (eds.) Iscan, M & Kennedy, K, 95-108. Alan Liss, New York.

Scheffer, V.B. 1950. Growth layers on the teeth of Pinnipedia as an indication of age. Science 112: 309-311.

Schiavini, A.C.M., Lima, M. and L.M. Batalles. 1992. Growth structures of maxillary canines of the southern fur seal (Arctocephalus australis). Marine Mammal Science 8: 89-93.

Schulter-Ellis, F & Hayek, L. 1984 Predicting Race and Sex with Accetabulum/pubis Index. Collegium Anthropologieum 8: 155-162.

Schultz, A. 1937 Proportions, Variability, and Asymmetries of the Long Bones of the Limbs and the Clavicles in Apes and Man. Human Biology 9, 281-328.

Schutkowski, H. 1993 Sex determination of infant and juvenile skeletons. Morphognostic Features. American Journal of Physical Anthropology: 90, 199-205.

Schwartz, J. 1995 Skeleton Keys: An Introduction to Human Skeletal Morphology, Development, and Analysis. Oxford University Press.

Searching: Steller’s sea eagle, species synopsis 2004. html: www.fadr.msu.ru/o-washinet/spsynop

Sease, J.L. & A.E. York 2003. Seasonal distribution of Steller’s sea lions at rookeries and haul-out 173 sites in Alaska. Marine Mammal Science 19(4):745-763.

Simpkins, M.A., Hiruki-Raring, L.M., Sheffield, G., Grebmeier, J.M. & J.L. Bengtson. 2003. Habitat selection by ice-associated pinnipeds near St. Lawrence Island, Alaska in March 2001.

Sprague, R. 1968 A Suggested Terminology and Classification for Burial Description. American Antiquity: Vol. 33, No. 4, 479-485.

Springer, A.M., Estes, J.A., van Vleit, G.B., Williams, T.M., Doak, D.F., Danner, E.M., Forney, K.A. & B. Pfister. 2003. Sequential megafaunal collapse in the North Pacific ocean: an ongoing legacy of industrial whaling? Proceedings of the National Academy of Science USA 100(21):12223-12228.

Steele, D & Mckern, T. 1969 A Method for Assessment of Maximum Long Bone Length and Living Stature from Fragmentary Long Bones. American Journal of Physical Anthropology:31, 215-227. Stewart, H. 1977. Indian Fishing. Douglas & Mcintyre, Vancouver & University of Washington Press, Seattle.

Stewart, T. 1958 The Rate of Development of Vertebral Osteoarthritis, in American White Males and its significance in Skeletal Age Identification. American Journal of Physical Anthropology:15, 9-18.

Stewart, T. 1962 Anterior femoral curvature; its ability for race identification. Human Biology: 34, 49-62.

Suchey, J, Owings, P, Wiseley, D, Noguchi, T. 1984 Skeletal Ageing of Unidentified Persons. In Human Identification, Case Studies in Anthropology. (eds.) Rathbun, T, Buikstra, J, & Buikstra, J, 278-297. Charles C. Thomas, Springfield, Illinois.

Suchey, J & Katz, D. 1986 Skeletal Age Standards Derived from an Extensive Multiracial Sample of Modern American. Abstract. American Journal of Physical Anthropology: 69, 269.

Trinkaus, E. 1975 Squatting among the Neanderthals: A Problem in the Behavioral Interpretation of Skeletal Morphology. Journal of Archaeological Science: 2, 327-351.

174 Tyrell, A. 2000 Skeletal non-metric traits and the assessment of inter- and intra-population diversity: past problems and future potential. In, Human Osteology: In Archaeology and Forensic Science, (eds.) Cox, M & Mays, S. Greenwich Medical Media, London, 289-306.

Tickle, W. L. N. 2000. Albatrosses. Pica Press, East Sussex.

Trites, A.W. & M.A. Bigg. 1996. Physical growth of northern fur seals (Callorhinus ursinus): seasonal fluctuations and migratory influences. Journal of Zoology of London 238: 459-482.

Trotter, M & Gleser, G. 1952 Estimation of Stature from Long Bones in American Whites and Negroes. American Journal of Physical Anthropology: 10, 463-514.

Trotter, M & Gleser, G. 1958 A Re-evaluation of Stature Based on Measurements of Stature Taken During Life and of the Long Bones After Death. American Journal of Physical Anthropology: 16, 79-123.

Tuck, J.A. 1982 "Prehistoric Archaeology in Atlantic Canada Since 1975," Canadian Journal of Archaeology 6 :203.

Ubelaker, D. 1989 Human Skeletal Remains, Excavation, Interpretation and Analysis. 2nd ed., Taraxacum Press, Washington.

Veltre, D.W., A. P. McCartney, M.J. Veltre, and J.S. Aigner 1984 An Archaeological Site Survey of Amaknak and Unalaska Islands, Alaska. A Report to the Alaska Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation.

Veltre, D. W. and A. P. McCartney 2001 Ethnohistorical Archaeology at the Reese Bay Site, Unalaska Island. University of Oregon Anthropological Papers 58 (Recent Archaeology in the Aleut Zone of Alaska): 87-104.

Veniaminov, I. 1984 Notes on the Islands of the Unalashka District. Translated by L. T. Black and R. H. Geoghegan. Limestone Press, Kingston, Ontario.

Von den Driesch, Angela

175 1976 A Guide to the Measurement of Animal Bones from Archaeological Sites. Peabody Museum Bulletin 1. Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard.

Walker, Ian R. and Marlow Pellatt 2003 Climate Change in Coastal British Columbia- A Paleoenvironmental Perspective. Canadian Water Resources Journal, 28 (4): 531-566. Walker, W.A. & M.B. Hanson. 1999. Biological observations on Stejneger’s beaked whale, Mesoplodon stejnegeri, from strandings on Adak Island, Alaska. Marine Mammal Science 15(4):1314-1329.

West, D., Lefevre, C., Corbett, D., & S. Crockford. 2003. A burial cave in the western Aleutian Islands, Alaska. Arctic Anthropology 40(1):70-86.

Wiig, O., Derocher, A. E., & S.E. Belikov 1999. Ringed seal (Phoca hispida) breeding in the drifting pack ice of the Barents Sea. Marine Mammal Science 15(2):595-598.

Wilson, D. E. & S. Ruff (eds.) 1999. The Smithsonian Book of North American Mammals. UBC Press (Smithsonian Institution Press/American Society of Mammalogists), Vancouver.

Woollett, J. M., Henshaw, A. S., & C. P. Wake. 2000. Palaeoecological implications of archaeological seal bone assemblages: case studies from Labrador and Baffin Island. Arctic 53 (4):395-413.

Yarborough, L. Finn 1995. Prehistoric use of cetacean species in the northern Gulf of Alaska. In: A. P. McCartney, ed., Hunting the Largest Animals: Native Whaling in the Western Arctic and Subarctic, pp. 63-81. Canadian Circumpolar Institute Occasional Publication 36 (Studies in Whaling 3). University of Alberta, Edmonton.

Yesner, D. R. 1976. Aleutian Island albatrosses: a population history. Auk 93: 91-112.

1988 Significance Assessment for the Margaret Bay Site, Unalaska, Alaska. Report prepared for the Ounalashka Corporation.

Yesner, D.R. and R. N. Mack 1995 Margaret Bay Knoll and the Origins of Aleut and Pacific Eskimo Cultures. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, Minneapolis.

176

ARTIFACT PLATES

177

Plate 1 Microblade Cores

Object Description Catalog #

A Microblade Core UNL50.10769 B Microblade Core UNL50.11117 C Microblade Core UNL50.5554 D Microblade Core UNL50.10704 E Microblade Core UNL50.5183 F Microblade Core UNL50.10771

178

Plate 2 Blades and Microblade

Object Description Catalog#

A Retouched Prismatic Blade UNL50.12360 B Retouched Prismatic Blade UNL50.9730 C Unretouched Microblade UNL50.14095 D Retouched Prismatic Blade UNL5014078

179

Plate 3 Asymmetrical Knives

Object Description Catalog #

A Stemmed, Asymmetrical Knife UNL50.6634 B Stemmed, Asymmetrical Knife UNL50.7480 C Stemmed, Asymmetrical Knife UNL50.6106 D Stemmed, Asymmetrical Knife UNL50.8026 E Stemmed, Asymmetrical Knife UNL50.7402 F Stemmed, Asymmetrical Knife UNL50.8450 G Stemmed, Asymmetrical Knife UNL50.8817 H Asymmetrical Knife UNL50.7690 I Stemmed, Asymmetrical Knife UNL50.7586 J Stemmed, Asymmetrical Knife UNL50.6327

180

Plate 4 Stemmed Knives

Object Description Catalog # A Stemmed Knife, bifacial UNL50.7726 B Stemmed Knife, bifacial UNL50.7928 C Stemmed Knife UNL50.5604 D Stemmed Knife UNL50.8433 E Stemmed Knife, bifacial UNL50.6307 F Stemmed Knife UNL50.6281 G Square Knife UNL50.7305 H Stemmed Knife, bifacial UNL50.6285 I Stemmed Knife UNL50.7754 J Stemmed Knife, bifacial UNL50.8573

181

Plate 5 Broad Base Knives

Object Description Catalog #

A Broad Base Knife UNL50.8593 B Broad Base Knife UNL50.7975 C Broad Base Knife UNL50.8128 D Broad Base Knife UNL50.6260 E Broad Base Knife UNL50.8220 F Broad Base Knife UNL50.11202 G Broad Base Knife UNL50.7078 H Broad Base Knife UNL50.8043

182

Plate 6 Flake Knives

Object Description Catalog #

A Flake Knife UNL50.6658 B Flake Knife UNL50.5071 C Flake Knife UNL50.7097 D Flake Knife UNL50.7359 E Flake Knife UNL50.6656

183

Plate 7 Large Flake Knives

Object Description Catalog #

A Flake Knife UNL50.6508 B Flake Knife UNL50.7723 C Flake Knife UNL50.6131

184

Plate 8 Projectile Points

Object Description Catalog #

A Small Stemmed Point UNL50.6893 B Small Stemmed Point UNL50.7445 C Small Stemmed Point UNL50.6238 D Small Stemmed Point UNL50.6122 E Small Stemmed Point UNL50.6677 F Small Stemmed Point UNL50.7235 G Small Point UNL50.5004 H Small Stemmed Point UNL50.6377 I Small Stemmed Point UNL50.11921 J Small Stemmed Point UNL50.6097 K Stemmed Point UNL50.7557 L Bipoint UNL50.5041

185

Plate 9 Projectile points

Object Description Catalog #

A Shouldered Point UNL50.7678 B Qaxax Point UNL50.8211 C Stemmed Point UNL50.8228 D Stemmed Point UNL50.7246 E Stemmed Point UNL50.8109 F Small Stemmed Point, UNL50.11199 G Small Stemmed Point, denticulated UNL50.6434 H Large Stemmed Point, denticulated UNL50.14189 I Small Stemmed Point, denticulated UNL50.8107 J Stemmed Point UNL50.8049

186

Plate 10 Large Projectile Points

Object Description Catalogue #

A Large Point with side notching UNL50.5096 B Large Stemmed Point UNL50.6950 C Large, Broad Base Stemmed Point UNL50.7877 D Large Tapered Base Stemmed Point UNL50.5090

187

Plate 11 Large Points

Object Description Catalog #

A Large Stemmed Point UNL50.7176 B Large Point UNL50.7209 C Large Stemmed Point, denticulated UNL50.7850

188

Plate 12 Stem Grinding

Object Description Catalog #

A Small Stemmed Point with grinding on stem UNL50.12316

189

Plate 13 Scrapers

Object Description Catalog #

A Stemmed Asymmetrical Scraper UNL50.6879 B Stemmed, Canted End Scraper UNL50.7200 C Stemmed, Canted End Scraper UNL50.6497 D Stemmed, Canted End Scraper UNL50.11141 E Stemmed, Canted End Scraper UNL50.8354 F Stemmed, Canted End Scraper UNL50.15914 G Stemmed, Canted End Scraper UNL50.7758 H Stemmed, Canted End Scraper UNL50.5599 I Stemmed, Canted End Scraper UNL50.5668

190

Plate 14 Piercers

Object Description Catalog #

A Piercer UNL50.11076 B Piercer UNL50.6048 C Piercer with ground tip UNL50.5969 D Piercer UNL50.10664

191

Plate 15 Ground Chisels

Object Description Catalog #

A Ground Chisel UNL50.5923 B Ground Chisel UNL50.5702 C Ground Chisel UNL50.6465 D Ground Chisel UNL50.11588 E Ground Chisel UNL50.5365 F Ground Chisel UNL50.7490 G Ground Chisel UNL50.5861 H Ground Chisel UNL50.11133 I Ground Chisel UNL50.11909

192

Plate 16 Adzes

Object Description Catalog #

A Adze, ground ventrally UNL50.7454 B Adze, ground ventrally UNL50.7739 C Adze, ground ventrally UNL50.7649 D Adze, ground ventrally UNL50.7876 E Chipped Adze UNL50.5911 F Adze, ground ventrally UNL50.6688

193

Plate 17 Chipped effigies

Object Description Catalog #

A Chipped effigy fragment, obsidian UNL50.6367 B Chipped effigy fragment, obsidian UNL50.6896 C Chipped effigy fragment, obsidian UNL50.6366 D Chipped zoomorphic effigy, grey chert UNL50.10285 E Chipped zoomorphic effigy, calico chert UNL50.6667 F Chipped zoomorphic effigy, black basalt UNL50.13109 G Chipped effigy, red-gray chert UNL50.6368

194

Plate 18 Fish hooks

Object Description Catalog #

A Fish hook UNL50.9362 B Fish hook UNL50.13375 C Fish hook UNL50.14466 D Fish hook UNL50.13993 E Large fish hook UNL50.13599 F Fish hook UNL50.8712 G Fish hook UNL50.14287

195

Plate 19 Composite fish hook barbs

Object Description Catalog #

A Composite fish hook barb; bone UNL50.13227 B Composite fish hook barb; bone UNL50.13340 C Composite fish hook barb; bone UNL50.13645 D Composite fish hook barb; bone UNL50.13634 E Composite fish hook barb; bone UNL50.14504 F Composite fish hook barb; bone UNL50.8727 G Composite fish hook barb; ivory UNL50.8564 H Composite fish hook barb; bone UNL50.12588 I Composite fish hook barb; ivory UNL50.15185 J Composite fish hook barb; bone UNL50.15145 K Composite fish hook barb; bone UNL50.12884 L Composite fish hook barb; bone UNL50.14415 M Composite fish hook barb; tooth UNL50.9203 N Composite fish hook barb; bone UNL50.12988 O Composite fish hook barb; bone UNL50.12835 P Composite fish hook barb preform; bone UNL50.9336 Q Composite fish hook barb preform; bone UNL50.5458 R Composite fish hook barb preform; bone UNL50.7332

196

Plate 20 Composite fish hook shanks

Object Description Catalog #

A Composite fish hook shank UNL50.6925 B Composite fish hook shank UNL50.15004 C Composite fish hook shank UNL50.9352 D Composite fish hook shank UNL50.8072

197

Plate 21 Small composite fish hook components

Object Description Catalog #

A Composite fish hook shank; bone UNL50.14585 B Composite fish hook shank; bone UNL50.12582 C Composite fish hook shank; bone UNL50.12771 D Composite fish hook shank; ivory UNL50.13736 E Composite fish hook barb; bone UNL50.13094 F Composite fish hook barb; bone UNL50.12717 G Composite fish hook barb; bone UNL50.14139 H Composite fish hook barb; bone UNL50.12995 I Composite fish hook barb; bone UNL50.14584 J Composite fish hook barb; bone UNL50.13804

198

Plate 22 Elongate sinkers

Object Description Catalog #

A Elongate sinker; stone UNL50.6846 B Elongate sinker; stone UNL50.5021 C Elongate sinker; pink sandstone UNL50.13298 D Elongate sinker; stone UNL50.8123 E Elongate sinker; stone UNL50.7825

199

Plate 23 Small elongate sinkers

Object Description Catalog #

A Small elongate sinker; sandstone UNL50.7217 B Small elongate sinker; stone UNL50.13514 C Small elongate sinker; stone UNL50.7224 D Small elongate sinker; sandstone UNL50.8121 E Small elongate sinker; sandstone UNL50.8345 F Small elongate sinker; stone UNL50.14137

200

Plate 24 Small grooved sinkers

Object Description Catalog #

A Grooved sinker, stone UNL50.7086 B Grooved sinker, stone UNL50.9818 C Grooved sinker, stone UNL50.12014 D Grooved sinker, stone UNL50.10784

201

Plate 25 Grooved cobbles

Object Description Catalog #

A Grooved cobble/plummet; basalt UNL50.3296 B Grooved cobble; basalt UNL50.10516 C Grooved cobble; basalt UNL50.6431

202

Plate 26 Pumice floats

Object Description Catalog #

A Float, pumice UNL50.8111 B Float, pumice UNL50.8003 C Float, pumice UNL50.8146

203

Plate 27 Spear prongs

Object Description Catalog #

A Spear prong UNL50.8583 B Spear prong UNL50.7474 C Spear prong UNL50.6648 D Spear prong fragment UNL50.6920 E Spear prong UNL50.8752 F Spear prong UNL50.8045

204

Plate 28 Spear prong base fragments

Object Description Catalog #

A Spear prong base fragment; ivory UNL50.8986 B Spear prong base fragment; bone UNL50.7183 C Spear prong base fragment; bone UNL50.12845 D Spear prong base fragment; bone UNL50.12839 E Spear prong base fragment- top view UNL50.8519 F Spear prong base fragment; ivory UNL50.8152 G Spear prong base fragment; bone UNL50.8964 H Spear prong base fragment; bone UNL50.8963 I Spear prong base fragment; bone UNL50.12543 J Spear prong base fragment; bone UNL50.9137 K Spear prong base fragment; bone UNL50.13452 L Spear prong base fragment; bone UNL50.9427

205

Plate 29 Barbed harpoons

Object Description Catalog #

A Bilaterally barbed harpoon UNL50.6263 B Bilaterally barbed harpoon UNL50.7736 C Bilaterally barbed harpoon UNL50.6239 D Bilaterally barbed harpoon UNL50.12637 E Bilaterally barbed harpoon UNL50.12998 F Unilaterally barbed harpoon UNL50.6960

206

Plate 30 Large bilaterally barbed harpoon points

Object Description Catalog #

A Harpoon point UNL50.14868 B Harpoon point UNL50.6777 C Harpoon point UNL50.7194 D Decorated harpoon point UNL50.14869

207

Plate 31 Bi-laterally barbed harpoons with line-holes

Object Description Catalog #

A Bi-laterally barbed harpoon with line-hole UNL50.6264 B Bi-laterally barbed harpoon with line-hole UNL50.13205 C Bi-laterally barbed harpoon with line-hole UNL50.6341

208

Plate 3 2 Toggling harpoons

Object Description Catalog #

A Toggling harpoon UNL50.14284 B Toggling harpoon UNL50.14098 C Toggling harpoon UNL50.14871 D Toggling harpoon UNL50.9353 E Toggling harpoon fragment UNL50.14368 F Toggling harpoon preform UNL50.6691

209

Plate 33 Decorated foreshafts

Object Description Catalog #

A Decorated foreshaft UNL50.6499 B Decorated foreshaft UNL50.12573 C Decorated foreshaft UNL50.14870 D Decorated foreshaft UNL50.12671

210

Plate 34 Harpoon foreshafts

Object Description Catalog #

A Harpoon foreshaft UNL50.6067 B Harpoon foreshaft UNL50.6400 C Harpoon foreshaft UNL50.7958 D Harpoon foreshaft UNL50.8184 E Minature harpoon foreshaft UNL50.13011 F Minature harpoon foreshaft UNL50.12763

211

Plate 35 Barbed point preforms

Object Description Catalog #

A Spear prong preform; sea mammal bone UNL50.6406 B Lance head preform; sea mammal bone UNL50.7028 C Harpoon preform; sea mammal bone UNL50.6798

212

Plate 36 Barbed lance points

Object Description Catalog #

A Barbed lance point UNL50.8742 B Barbed lance point UNL50.6174 C Barbed lance point UNL50.7066 D Barbed lance point UNL50.12505 E Barbed lance points UNL50.6078

213

Plate 37 Throwing board pins

Object Description Catalog #

A Throwing board pin; bone UNL50.5426 B Throwing board pin; bone UNL50.12566 C Throwing board pin; bone UNL50.12837 D Throwing board pin; ivory UNL50.13371 E Throwing board pin; bone UNL50.8695 F Throwing board pin; bone UNL50.9406 G Throwing board pin; bone UNL50.14401 H Throwing board pin; bone UNL50.12868

214

Plate 38 Small decorated root picks

Object Description Catalog #

A Decorated root pick UNL50.8154 B Decorated root pick UNL50.6272 C Decorated root pick UNL50.7054

215

Plate 39 Large root picks

Object Description Catalog #

A Decorated root pick UNL50.7169 B Decorated root pick UNL50.9133 C Large root pick UNL50.7279 D Decorated root pick UNL50.8743

216

Plate 40 Root picks

Object Description Catalog #

A Decorated root pick UNL50.5806 B Root pick UNL50.7592 C Root pick UNL50.8728

217

Plate 41 Oil lamps

Object Description Catalog #

A Oil lamp, basalt UNL50.7119 B Oil lamp, basalt UNL50.3354 C Decorated oil lamp, stone UNL50.3348 D Decorated oil lamp, stone UNL50.3356

218

Plate 42 Oil lamps

Object Description Catalog #

A Ventral surface of decorated oil lamp, basalt UNL50.3350 B Dorsal surface of ‘A’ UNL50.3350 C Oil lamp, basalt UNL50.3353 D Oil lamp, basalt UNL50.3355

219

Plate 43 Decorated oil lamp fragment

Object Description Catalog #

A Decorated lamp, dorsal view; sandstone UNL50.3366 B Decorated lamp, ventral view; sandstone UNL50.3366

220

Plate 44 Decorated oil lamp fragment

Object Description Catalog #

A Decorated oil lamp fragment; stone UNL50.7755

221

Plate 45 Stone bowl rim fragments

Object Description Catalog #

A Bowl rim fragment, volcanic tuff UNL50.3285 B Bowl rim fragments, stone UNL50.6855, 6856

222

Plate 46 Modified whale vertebrae

Object Description Catalog #

A Modified whale vertebrae epiphyseal cap UNL50.6926 B Bowl; whale vertebra UNL50.14861

223

Plate 47 Pumice and scoria abraders

Object Description Catalog #

A Abrader; scoria UNL50.6661 B Abrader; scoria UNL50.5694 C Abrader; pumice UNL50.13248 D Abrader; pumice UNL50.14686

224

Plate 48 Ocher grinders

Object Description Catalog #

A Ocher grinder, basalt UNL50.7730 B Ocher grinder, basalt UNL50.7759 C Faceted ocher grinder, basalt UNL50.8267 D Faceted ocher grinder, basalt UNL50.7072

225

Plate 49 Knife-shaped hones

Object Description Catalog #

A Knife-shaped hone; white siltstone UNL50.8112 B Knife-shaped hone; white siltstone UNL50.8518 C Knife-shaped hone; siltstone UNL50.5001 D Knife-shaped hone; siltstone UNL50.10124 E Knife-shaped hone; pink siltstone UNL50.11125

226

Plate 50 Wedges

Object Description Catalog #

A Wedge, reworked rootpick fragment UNL50.6540 B Wedge with socket UNL50.6808 C Wedge with socket UNL50.13040 D Wedge with socket UNL50.8151 E Decorated wedge with socket UNL50.7773 F Wedge UNL50.13711

227

Plate 51 Small wedges

Object Description Catalog #

A Small wedge, reworked harpoon; bone UNL50.8545 B Small wedge; sea mammal bone UNL50.13266 C Small wedge; reworked harpoon; bone UNL50.8407 D Small wedge; sea mammal bone UNL50.5442 E Small wedge; walrus ivory UNL50.7748 F Small wedge; walrus ivory UNL50.9313 G Small wedge; walrus ivory UNL50.7045 H Small wedge; sea mammal bone UNL50.15116 I Small wedge; sea mammal bone UNL50.13507 J Small wedge; sea mammal bone UNL50.15104 K Small wedge; sea mammal bone UNL50.12729

228

Plate 52 Adze blade holders

Object Description Catalog #

A Adze blade holder, distal fragment UNL50.6839 B Adze blade holder; reworked into a wedge UNL50.6240 C Adze blade holder UNL50.7368

229

Plate 53 Flakers

Object Description Catalog #

A Flaker; sea mammal carpal UNL50.8326 B Flaker; mammal rib UNL50.12745 C Flaker; sea mammal bone UNL50.13377 D Flaker; sea mammal rib UNL50.13508 E Flaker; mammal rib UNL50.13111 F Flaker; sea mammal baculum UNL50.6858 G Flaker; sea mammal rib UNL50.5449 H Flaker; sea mammal bone UNL50.8311 I Flaker; sea mammal bone UNL50.7986

230

Plate 54 Drill Rests

Object Description Catalog #

A Drill rest UNL50.14873 B Drill rest UNL50.13209 C Drill rest UNL50.13208 D Drill rest UNL50.14867 E Drill rest UNL50.8117 F Drill rest UNL50.8192 G Drill rest UNL50.6642

231

Plate 55 Needles

Object Description Catalog #

A Eyed needle; birdbone UNL50.13212 B Eyed needle; birdbone UNL50.13132 C Eyed needle; birdbone UNL50.12954 D Eyed needle; birdbone UNL50.13961 E Eyed needle; birdbone UNL50.14625 F Eyed needle; birdbone UNL50.14671

232

Plate 56 Cut ends of long bones; albatross sp.

Object Description Catalog #

A Cut end of distal humerus; albatross bone UNL50.14221 B Cut end of distal humerus; albatross bone UNL50.14391 C Cut end of proximal ulna; albatross bone UNL50.8734 D Cut end of proximal ulna; albatross bone UNL50.14370 E Cut end of proximal humerus; albatross bone UNL50.12527 F Cut end of proximal humerus; albatross bone UNL50.9701 G Cut end of proximal humerus; albatross bone UNL50.12785

233

Plate 57 ‘Chisel’ Awls

Object Description Catalog #

A Awl, proximal humerus; comorant sp. UNL50.15291 B Awl, proximal humerus; comorant sp. UNL50.6947 C Awl, proximal humerus; comorant sp. UNL50.13186 D Awl, proximal humerus; comorant sp. UNL50.8793 E Awl, proximal humerus; comorant sp. UNL50.9121 F Awl, proximal humerus; comorant sp. UNL50.7065 G Awl, proximal humerus; comorant sp. UNL50.9398 H Awl, proximal humerus; comorant sp. UNL50.8798 I Awl, proximal humerus; comorant sp. UNL50.6080 J Awl, proximal humerus; comorant sp. UNL50.13628

234

Plate 58 Awls

Object Description Catalog #

A Composite awl; bird bone UNL50.15078 B Awl; bird ulna UNL50.6891 C Awl; bird ulna UNL50.6204 D Awl; bird ulna UNL50.8398 E Awl; bird radius UNL50.13704 F Awl; bird radius UNL50.8961 G Awl; bird ulna UNL50.13638

235

Plate 59 Tabular labrets

Object Description Catalog #

A Tabular labret; sea mammal bone UNL50.8740 B Tabular labret; stone UNL50.12071 C Tabular labret; walrus ivory UNL50.9321 D Tabular labret; walrus ivory UNL50.8158 E Tabular labret; stone UNL50.6555 F Tabular labret; slate UNL50.6627 G Tabular labret; bone UNL50.13766 H Tabular labret fragment; bone UNL50.7832

236

Plate 60 Figural labrets

Object Description Catalog #

A Figural labret; stone UNL50.13201 B Figural labret; siltstone UNL50.12424 C Figural labret; siltstone UNL50.6794 D Figural labret fragment; siltstone UNL50.11038 E Figural labret; sandstone UNL50.13202 F Figural labret; calcite UNL50.7166 G Figural labret; siltstone UNL50.13323 H Figural labret fragment; stone UNL50.6262 I Figural labret; stone UNL50.13203

237

Plate 61 Ground calcite labrets

Object Description Catalog #

A Tabular labret; calcite UNL50.8812 B Spike labret; calcite UNL50.8608 C Figural labret; calcite UNL50.12746 D Figural labret; calcite UNL50.8397 E Tabular labret; stone UNL50.6294 F Tabular labret; calcite UNL50.8078 G Tabular labret; calcite UNL50.8455 H Tabular labret; calcite UNL50.7245 I Tabular labret; calcite UNL50.6074

238

Plate 62 Bone and ivory labrets

Object Description Catalog #

A Flanged labret; walrus ivory UNL50.7680 B Spike labret; tooth UNL50.12695 C Tabular labret; sea mammal bone UNL50.13228 D Spike labret; sea mammal bone UNL50.7871 E Spike labret; walrus ivory UNL50.12536 F Figural labret; ivory UNL50.10294 G Spike labret; sea mammal bone UNL50.13964 H Spike labret; sea mammal bone UNL50.8181

239

Plate 63 Beads

Object Description Catalog #

A Bead; stone UNL50.14524 B Bead; bone UNL50.7985 C Bead; stone UNL50.13280 D Bead; stone UNL50.5832 E Bead; stone UNL50.14780 F Bead preform; stone UNL50.8500 G Bead; stone UNL50.13884 H Bead; pumice UNL50.14692 I Bead; calcite UNL50.9347 J Bead; ivory UNL50.13219

240

Plate 64 Large beads and pendants

Object Description Catalog #

A Large bead; stone UNL50.11420 B Incised disc; stone UNL50.13218 C Bead; siltstone UNL50.13292 D Incised pendant fragment; siltstone UNL50.14578 E Pendant or bead; ivory UNL50.13211 F Incised pendant; siltstone UNL50.13210 G Pendant; sea mammal tooth UNL50.13356 H Pendant; dense bone UNL50.7550 I Pendant; banded chalcedony UNL50.13214 J Pendant; banded sandstone UNL50.15274

241

Plate 65 Anthropomorphic pendant

Object Description Catalog #

A Anthropomorphic pendant, dorsal view; ivory UNL50.13206 B Anthropomorphic pendant, side view UNL50.13206

242

Plate 66 Anthropomorphic pin

Object Description Catalog #

A Anthropomorphic pin, dorsal view; ivory UNL50.8899 B Anthropomorphic pin, ventral view; ivory UNL50.8899 C Anthropomorphic pin, side view; ivory UNL50.8899

243

Plate 67 Small decorated pins

Object Description Catalog #

A Anthropomorphic pin; bone UNL50.13204 B Zoomorphic pin; ivory UNL50.6900

244

Plate 68 Decorated art object fragments

Object Description Catalog #

A Decorated art object fragments, bird bone UNL50.14875 B Decorated art object fragments, bird bone UNL50.14875

245

Plate 69 Miniature/toy points and socket pieces

Object Description Catalog #

A Miniature/toy spear prong; bird bone UNL50.13397 B Miniature/toy spear prong; bone UNL50.9400 C Miniature/toy toggling harpoon point; bird bone UNL50.14381 D Miniature/toy harpoon point; bird bone UNL50.14620 E Miniature/toy harpoon point; bird bone UNL50.7960 F Miniature/toy harpoon point; bird bone UNL50.12675 G Miniature/toy harpoon point; bird bone UNL50.8588 H Miniature/toy socket piece; bird bone UNL50.7231 I Miniature/toy socket piece; bird bone UNL50.13633 J Miniature/toy socket piece; sea mammal bone UNL50.5431 K Miniature/toy socket piece; bird bone UNL50.13276 L Miniature/toy socket piece; sea mammal bone UNL50.13381 M Miniature/toy socket piece; tooth UNL50.8719 N Miniature/toy socket piece; tooth UNL50.14325

246

Plate 70 Plate armor fragments

Object Description Catalog #

A Plate armor fragments, bone UNL50.8755, 8744

247

Plate 71 Miscellaneous worked bird bone

Object Description Catalog #

A Perforated, pointed tool UNL50.15118 B Bi-pointed object UNL50.12562 C Hide needle? UNL50.9403 D Finely pointed awl fragment UNL50.12877 E Tool fragment UNL50.13602 F Perforated fragment UNL50.15038 G Gorge UNL50.13393 H Gorge UNL50.13246 I Gorge UNL50.6824

248

Plate 72 Miscellaneous objects

Object Description Catalog #

A Small toggle; bone UNL50.14661 B Small toggle; bone UNL50.11994 C Carved round object; stone UNL50.6269 D Unknown object; birdbone UNL50.8777 E Unknown object; birdbone UNL50.13029 F Unknown object; birdbone UNL50.8681 G Unknown object; birdbone UNL50.5428 H Possible handle; walrus ivory UNL50.13215 I Barbed object; bone UNL50.13207

249 APPENDIX:

Analysis of Shelled Fauna from the Amakanak Bridge Site, UNL-50

Report to the Musuem of the Aleutians

September 4, 2004

Nora R. Foster

NRF Taxonomic Services 2998 Gold Hill Road Fairbanks Alaska 99709

250

Introduction This report presents the identification and interpretation of shelled fauna remains: mollusks, barnacles, and sea urchins recovered from the Amaknak Bridge site, UNL-50.

Excavations at Amakanak Bridge present the opportunity to learn about human presence and the littoral environment in the Unalaska area going back 3000 years BP. Determining species composition along with abundance and spatial distribution of shellfish remains at the site may provide clues to both the harvesting and processing practices and to paleoenvironment and changes through time. Species composition of the shellfish remains will indicate the intertidal habitats used for shellfish harvest. Relating the size of the harvested animals to their abundance in the midden may provide an indication of changes in their population due to harvesting, both by people and by sea mammals.

Methods of Collection Sediments with shell from the excavation were wet screened through ¼ inch mesh in the field, as described in Chapter 2 of the Amaknak Bridge Final Report. Shells and fragments retained in the screens were bagged and labeled by stratigraphic unit and square for identification. Samples were sent to Fairbanks, Alaska, for identification. Shell recovered during both the 2000 and the 2003 field seasons was examined.

Identification and MNI Determination Species determination for bivalves is based on Coan et al. (2000), and for gastropods and chitons on Kozloff (1996). Both vernacular and scientific names follow usage in Turgeon et al. (1998).

Minimum number of individuals (MNI) was determined by counting non-repeating fragments: gastropod apexes or anteriors, and left or right bivalve shells. MNI for chitons was estimated either from the number of distinctive posterior-most valves or a count of the valves divided by eight (the number of valves per chiton). To find evidence of a method of processing the large Saxidomus gigantea (Butter Clam), fragments were separated by side and classified as greater than 2/3, greater than 1/2, greater than 1/3, and less than 1/3. Intact Saxidomus shells were measured to the nearest 1cm.

Methods for determining MNI by separating non-repeating parts were adapted to quantify Green urchin, Strongylocentrotus droebachiensis, and barnacle, Semibalanus cariosus. The mouths of sea urchins consist of a complex of small parts, reflecting the echinoderm five-fold symmetry. (D’Yakanov 1923, translated 1969). The long curved “jaw” (or demipyramid) of Strongylocentrotus preserved well and could be separated without difficulty. An estimate of MNI was made from them, based on 10 “jaws” per individual.

Barnacle parietal walls are made up of six plates, and, in many cases, can be used to identify barnacles to the species level (Kozloff, 1996). MNI for Semibalanus was determined from a count of wall fragments over two centimeters (cm) long, divided by six. Other barnacle fragments were collectively called “barnacle”.

251 Database Total MNI for each taxon was determined for all squares and stratigraphic units in each level, these data were entered in Excel spreadsheets for analysis (database.xls). Database fields are:

Catalog Number (if available), Stratigraphic Unit, Square, Taxon, Size, MNI

Stratigraphic Units Stratigraphic units represent natural levels based on soils, designated Levels 1, 2, 3, and 4. Middens and deposits from within house walls were also designated as separate stratigraphic units, as described in section 3.2, Stratigraphy, of the Amaknak Bridge Final Report.

This report described shelled fauna in these units: Level 1 Level 1, Faunal midden 1 Level 2, Faunal midden 1 Level 2, Faunal midden 2 Level 2, Faunal midden 3 Level 2, Living surface Level 2 Level 2, Pit Feature fill Level 3 Structure 3, House fill east wall Structure 3, House fill west 1/2 Structure 3, House pit fill Structure 3, West wall Structure 4, Subfloor Structure 4, House floor Structure 4, House pit fill Structure 7, West room fill Structure 7, Main room fill Structure 8, House fill Level 4 .

Identifications

Table 1. Summary of species and higher taxa

252 Crustacea: Echinodermata: Mollusca: Mollusca: Mollusca: Cirrpedia Echinoidea Bivalvia Gastropoda Polyplacophora Grand Total

Higher Taxon 1 1 1 3 Families 8 6 14 Genera 10 8 18 Species 1 1 12 13 1 28

Twenty-eight shelled animal species could be recognized from over 13,000 fragments or whole shells. One barnacle, Semibalanus cariosus, and one sea urchin, Strongylocentrotus droebachiensis, along with 26 molluscs could be distinguished to the species level. Smaller shells and worn fragments could in many cases be identified only to the generic or family level. These included the thin shells of the Cockles, Clinocardium and Serripes; the softshell clams Mya; and the clam Macoma. Limpets, Lottia and Tectura, and an unidentified Moon snail, family Naticidae, were also thin and in fragments.

Table 2. Total MNI and relative frequency for all shelled fauna

total Relative Higher Taxon Family Lowest Identified Taxon MNI Frequency Crustacea Barnacle 8 0.1%

Crustacea Archaeobalanidae Semibalanus cariosus 114 1.2% Total barnacle 122 1.1% Echinodermata Strongylocentrotidae Strongylocentrotus 3 0.0%

Mollusca: Bivalvia Anomiidae Podosesmus macroschisma 1 >0.1% Mollusca: Bivalvia Astartidae Astarte sp. 1 >0.1% Mollusca: Bivalvia Cardiidae unidentified 1 >0.1%

Mollusca: Bivalvia Cardiidae Clinocardium californiense 1 >0.1% Mollusca: Bivalvia Cardiidae Clinocardium nuttallii 3 >0.1% Mollusca: Bivalvia Cardiidae Clinocardium sp. 22 0.2%

Mollusca: Bivalvia Cardiidae Serripes laperousii 4 >0.1% Mollusca: Bivalvia Cardiidae Serripes sp. 30 0.3%

Mollusca: Bivalvia Hiatellidae Hiatella arctica 13 0.1%

Mollusca: Bivalvia Myidae Mya pseudoarenaria 4 >0.1% Mollusca: Bivalvia Myidae Mya sp. 53 0.6%

Mollusca: Bivalvia Myidae Mya truncata 37 0.4% Mollusca: Bivalvia Mytilidae unidentified 1 >0.1%

Mollusca: Bivalvia Mytilidae Mytilus trossulus 57 0.6% 253 Mollusca: Bivalvia Tellinidae Macoma inquinata 3 >0.1% Mollusca: Bivalvia Tellinidae Macoma sp. 5 0.1%

Mollusca: Bivalvia Veneridae Protothaca staminea 683 7.2% Mollusca: Bivalvia Veneridae Saxidomus gigantea 2359 25.0% Mollusca: Bivalvia Veneridae unidentified 42 0.4% Mollusca: Bivalvia unidentified bivalve 31 0.3% Total Bivalves 3349 37.8%

Mollusca: Gastropoda Buccinidae Buccinum baeri 5 0.1% Mollusca: Gastropoda Buccinidae Neptunea lyrata 64 0.7% Mollusca: Gastropoda Buccinidae Neptunea ventricosa 3 >0.1% Mollusca: Gastropoda Littorinidae Littorina aleutica 20 0.2% Mollusca: Gastropoda Littorinidae Littorina sitkana 382 4.0% Mollusca: Gastropoda Lottiidae Lottia pelta 94 1.0% Mollusca: Gastropoda Lottiidae unidentified Lottia/Tectura 47 0.5% Mollusca: Gastropoda Lottiidae Tectura persona 2 >0.1% Mollusca: Gastropoda Lottiidae Tectura scutum 76 0.8% Mollusca: Gastropoda Muricidae Nucella canaliculata 3 >0.1% Mollusca: Gastropoda Muricidae Nucella lima 5198 55.1% Mollusca: Gastropoda Naticidae Eunatica clausa 3 >0.1% Mollusca: Gastropoda Naticidae unidentified 22 0.2%

Mollusca: Gastropoda Ranellidae Fusitriton oregonensis 7 0.1% Mollusca: Gastropoda unidentified gastropod 48 0.5% Total Gastropods 5974 63.2% Mollusca: Polyplacophora Mopaliidae Katharina tunicata 15 0.2% Total 9444

The Frilly Dogwinkle, Nucella lima, and the Butter Clam, Saxidomus gigantea, made up over 75% of the shell MNI. The Littleneck, Protothaca staminea, and limpets (Lottiidae) and periwinkles (Littorina), contributed another 12% . All other taxa made up 1% or less of the fauna.

Table 3. Total MNI for shelled fauna by stratigraphic unit Stratigraphic Unit MNI Number of Taxa

Level 1 811 20 Level 1, Faunal midden 1 2098 28 Level 2 2565 35 Level 2, Faunal midden 1 1321 16 Level 2, Faunal midden 2 192 21 Level 2, Faunal midden 3 80 14 Level 2, Pit Feature fill 203 11 Level 2, Gravel 91 10 Level 2, Living surface 9 5 Structure 3, House pit fill 1578 11 Structure 3, House fill east wall 36 9 254 Structure 3, House fill, west 1/2 24 8 Structure 3, West wall 34 7 Structure 3, House floor 2 1 Level 3 142 13 Structure 4, House pit fill 22 4 Structure 4, House floor 7 4 Structure 4, Subfloor 35 4 structure 6 1 1 Structure 7, Main room fill 48 8 Structure 7 West room fill 6 3 Strucutre 8, House fill 75 10 Structure 8 2 1 Level 4 7 4

Shelled fauna was concentrated in areas of the East Block designated Faunal Midden 1 in Level 1, the 3 middens in Level 2, and the House fill from Structure 3. In Level 2 the shell was more scattered, mostly among in squares excavated during the 2000 field season, and outside of the complex of structures. There was only a small amount of shell (representing fewer than 10 individuals) in Level 4 at the base of square 9; on the Level 2, Living Surface; on the Structure 4, House floor; or in the West Room of Structure 7. MNI and the number of taxa declined in deposits older than those associated with Structure 3.

Table 4. Composition of shelled fauna by taxa for selected stratigraphic units

Epifauna Infauna

total

Littorina total Limpets Neptunea total Mytilus trossulu Katharina tunicata Semibalanus cariosus Verneridae total Cardiidae total Mya Naticidae total

Taxa lima Nucella Level 1 469 6 28 12 2 2 7 275 3 2 Level 1, Faunal midden 1 1427 39 47 1 4 4 15 512 3 7 3 Level 2 611 79 59 51 11 4 43 1556 21 71 12 Level 2, Faunal midden 1 1100 28 8 2 4 5 169 1 1 Level 2, Faunal midden 2 7 33 8 32 1 8 80 4 9 1 Level 2, Faunal midden 3 45 6 4 2 1 13 2 3 3 Level 2, Gravel 12 34 2 1 2 33 1 2 1 Level 2, Pit Feature fill 28 98 2 8 62 Structure 3, House pit fill 1402 34 38 3 3 90 1 Structure 3, House fill east wall 8 10 4 2 5 1 Structure 3 house fill W 1/2 9 5 2 5 1 Structure 3, West wall 7 6 1 2 18 Level 3 17 1 7 107 2 2 Structure 4, House pit fill 15 4 2 1 Structure 4, Subfloor 9 1 25 Structure 7, Main room fill 22 17 3 5 Structure 8, House fill 6 1 66 1

255 For Table 4 I have combined some genera and species- all Lottia and Tetura are called “Limpets”, Veneridae include both Saxidomus gigantea and Protothaca staminea, and Cardiidae include both Serripes and Clinocardium. The two habitats, infauna and epifauna describe species that live on exposed hard surfaces (epifauna) and those that are buried or partially buried in gravel, muddy or sandy sediments (infauna).

Except for a decrease in species richness and numbers of individuals, no consistent patterns of change with age can be discerned among shelled animals, either by taxon or by habitat. The fauna and its proportions in Level 1 and in the Level 1 midden is comparable, however, the three midden deposits and other features in Level 2 are quite dissimilar. Nucella lima made up a large proportion, 83%, of the Midden 1 of Level 2 , but only 3.8% of the much smaller Midden 2. In Levels 2 and 3, where they make up over half of the MNI, Venerid clams were found in greatest abundance in squares outside of middens and house fill features. Nucella lima, in stratigraphic units where it was most abundant, tended to be restricted in its spatial distribution to few adjacent squares. Other species showed similar patchy spatial distribution within the room fill and middens of the site. The accumulations of Littorina was nearly half of the shell in the in the Pit Fill Feature of Level 2. The mussel Mytilus trossulus is found only in Levels 1 and 2, making up over 20% of the fauna in the Midden 2 of Level 2.

The Fauna

Table 5. Distribution of Mollusks, Urchins and Barnacles Taxon Tide Level Substrate Distribution

Bering Sea to Southeast Buccinum baeri mid-low intertidal mud/cobble Alaska

Arctic to California, West Cryptonatica affinis mid-low intertidal mud/sand Pacific, North Atlantic

Fusitriton oregonensis mid-low intertidal mud/cobble Bering Sea to California

Aleutian Islands and Littorina aleutica upper intertidal rocky western Gulf of Alaska

Southern Bering Sea to Littorina sitkana upper intertidal rocky Puget Sound, Japan Sea

Aleutians to Baja Lottia pelta upper intertidal rocky California, Mexico

Arctic Ocean to Neptunea lyrata low intertidal rocky California, North Atlantic

Arctic to Bering Sea, Neptunea ventricosa low intertidal rocky West Pacific

Nucella canaliculata upper-mid intertidal rocky Aleutians to California

Alaska to California, NW Nucella lima upper-mid intertidal rocky Pacific

Tectura persona upper intertidal rocky Aleutians to Mexico

256 Tectura scutum mid-low intertidal rocky Aleutians to California

Arctic to Southeast Clinocardium californiense mid-low intertidal mud/sand Alaska, West Pacific

Clinocardium nuttallii upper-mid intertidal mud/sand Bering Sea to San Diego

Arctic to Panama, widespread in both Atlantic and Pacific Hiatella arctica mid-low intertidal nestler waters

Bering Sea to Southern Macoma inquinata upper-mid intertidal mud/sand California

Arctic to Cook Inlet, West Pacific and North Mya pseudoarenaria upper-mid intertidal mud/sand Atlantic

Arctic to Washington, Mya truncata upper-mid intertidal mud/sand circumboreal

Arctic to California, West Mytilus trossulus upper-low intertidal rocky Pacific

Pododesmus macroschisma low intertidal rocky Chukchi Sea to California

Aleutians to Baja California, Mexico, West Protothaca staminea mid-low intertidal mud/sand/cobble Pacific

Saxidomus gigantea mid-low intertidal mud/sand/cobble Bering Sea to California

Arctic to Southeast Serripes laperousii mid-intertidal mud/sand Alaska, West Pacific

Aleutian Islands to Katherina tunicata upper-mid intertidal rocky California, West Pacific Semibalanus cariosus mid-low intertidal rocky

With the exception of the Whelks, Neptunea lyrata and Neptunea ventricosa, the species in the excavation are consistent with lists of mollusks in the contemporary intertidal zone of eastern Aleutians, described by O’Clair et al. (1981) from Eider Point and Portage Bay, and by Foster (2002a) from the intertidal zone near Unalaska. Both Neptunea species are present the nearshore benthic fauna (McLaughlin, 1963; MacIntosh, 1980), but are seldom collected in intertidal surveys. The same Neptunea species have been found in the shell middens at the Tanaxtaxak site, UNL 055 (Foster, 2002b), as well as Port Graham (Workman and Workman, 1997), Kachemak Bay (ADFG, 2003), and Mink Isand, XMK 030, on Shelikof Strait (Foster, 2003) .

About half the species have a northern range limit in the southern Bering Sea or Aleutian Islands. With minor exceptions, the shellfish from the excavation were apparently gathered from the upper to mid intertidal zones. Nucella lima, Littorina sitkana and the limpets are all common in the upper to middle intertidal zones, Zones 1, 2, and 3 of Ricketts and Calvin (1985), to approximately mean lower low water. The large Saxidomus and Protothaca clams are found at slightly lower tidal elevations. 257

Katy Chitons,Katharina tunicata; sea urchins; and Blue Mussel, Mytilus trossulus, numbers are very low compared to shelled fauna from other shell middens in western Alaska where these species are abundant. For example, Mytilus and Katharina make up over 50% of MNI in middle levels of Mink Island (Foster, 2003), and Strongylocentrotus is abundant the Chaluka midden on Umnak Island (Love, 1976) and the Amchitka Island middens (Simenstad et al. 1978).

Butter Clam shells were remarkable for their large size and thickness (Figure 1). The mean length of 1186 valves was 9.43 cm. The size and thickness may indicate a lack of competing predators. Bodkin (2003) demonstrated the difference in size and abundance of Saxidomus in Glacier Bay, before Sea Otters and in Port Althorp, Prince William Sound, where Sea Otters are abundant. The Glacier Bay clams were most abundant in the 70 to 90 mm size range, those from Port Athorp, in the 10 to 30 mm size range.

Butter Clams from the Amakanak Bridge site, unlike those from younger middens in Mink Island and Kodiak Island Kachemak culture, (Fitzhugh, 1995; Foster, 2003) show no evidence of a particular technique for opening the clams. Intact left and right valves were about equal in number (587 left and 602 right valves). Where clams had been processed by holding the left hand and opening with the right, right valves are more common, making up over 80% of the intact valves, and left valves show characteristic patterns of breakage, as illustrated by Fitzhugh (1995).

300

250

200

150

100

5.5-6.0 6.1-6.4 6.4-7.0 7.1-7.5 7.6-8.0 8.1-8.5 8.6-9.0 9.1-9.5 9.6-10.0 10.1-10.510.6-11.011.1-11.511.6-12.012.1-13.0 size range

Figure 1. Size range (cm) and numbers of intact Saxidomus shells

Nucella lima shells were generally found intact, 81% of the MNI is based on intact shells. It has been suggested (Field and Field, 1991; ADFG, 2000) that the Pacific coast Nucella lima, like the Atlantic dogwinkle, Nucella lapillus, could have been gathered to produce pigment rather than for food. This subject has not been explored in Alaska.

258 In contrast to the mammal and bird remains from this site, there is nothing in the shelled fauna that specifically indicates a cooler climate or the presence of nearshore pack ice. The fauna is low in diversity, with a few species accounting for a large percentage of the fauna. The low diversity along with low numbers of Blue Mussels, sea urchins, and Katy Chitons, inhabitants of the mid tide level on exposed surfaces, may hint at a cooler, possibly ice soured shoreline, as described by O’Clair et al. (1981) for Norton Sound and Bristol Bay.

259 Literature Cited

Bodkin, J. L. 2003. Return to Glacier Bay. Alaska Park Science. pp 5-11,

Coan, E. V., Paul V. Scott, and F. R. Bernard. 2000. Bivalve Seashells of Western North America. Marine Bivalve Mollusks from Arctic Alaska to Baja California. Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History Monographs Number 2, Studies in Biodiversity number 2. 764 pp.

Fitzhugh, B. 1995. Clams and the Kachemak: Seasonal Shellfish use on Kodiak Island, Alaska (1200-800 B. P.). Research in Economic Anthropology 16: 129-176.

Foster, N. R. 2002a. Unalaska Island Shoreline Species Survey. Unpublished report to the Smithsonian Environmental Research Center.

Foster, N. R. 2002b. Shellfish Remains from the UNL-055 Site, Amakanak Island, Unalaska, Alaska. Unpublished report to the Museum of the Aleutians

Foster, N. R. 2003. Fauna Remains from the Mink Island XMK 030 Shell Midden. Final Report. Manuscript on file, Lake Clark Katmai National Park and Preserve Studies Center, Anchorage, AK.

Kozloff, E. N. 1996. Marine Invertebrates of the Pacific Northwest. University of Washington Press. 537 pp.

Love, G. 1976. The Biota of the Nikolski Strandflat. Anthropological Papers of the University of Alaska. 18(1):43-49.

McIntosh, R .1980. The snail resource of the eastern Bering Sea and its fishery. Marine Fisheries Review. 42(5):15-20.

McLaughlin, P. A. 1963. Survey of the benthic invertebrate fauna of the eastern Bering Sea. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Species Scientific Report, Fisheries, no. 402. pp iii-75.

O’Clair, C. E., J. L. Hanson, R. T. Myren, J, A. Gharrett, T. R. Merrell, and J. S. MacKinnon. 1981.Final Report. Reconnaissance of intertidal Communities in the eastern Bering Sea and the effect of ice-scour on community Pribilof Islands, Bering Sea: a preliminary annotated list. by Natasha I. Calvin. Environmental Assessment of the Alaskan Outer Continental Shelf. Final Reports of Principal Investigators. Vol. 10. Biological Studies. U.S. Department of Commerce National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Office of Marine Pollution Assessment. U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management. pp 109-415.

Ricketts, E. F., J. Calvin, and J. E. Hedgepeth, revised by D. W. Phillips, 1985. Between Pacificc tides. Standford University Press, Stanford, CA.652 pp.

Simenstad, C. A., J. A. Estes, and K.W. Kenyon. 1978. Aleuts, sea otters, and alternate stable state communities. Science 200:403-411.

Turgeon, D. D., J. F. Quinn, Jr., A. E. Bogan, E. V. Coan, F. G. Hochberg, W. G. 260 Lyons, P. M. Mikkelsen, R. J. Neves, C. F. E. Roper, G. Rosenberg, B. Roth, A. Scheltema, F. G. Thompson, M. Vecchione, and J. D. Williams. 1998. Common and scientific names of aquatic invertebrates from the United States and Canada: mollusks, 2nd edition. American Fisheries Society, Special Publication 26, Bethesda, Maryland.

Workman, W. and K. Workman. 1997. 1996 Test excavations at a late prehistoric site at Port Graham, Kenai Peninsula, Alaska. Paper presented at the 24th Annual Meeting of the Alaska Anthropological Association.

261