BioOne sees sustainable scholarly publishing as an inherently collaborative enterprise connecting authors, nonprofitpublishers, academic institutions, research libraries, and research funders in the common goal of maximizing access tocritical research.

Evidence for Local Fish Catch In ZooarchaeologyAuthor(s): Patrick M. Lubinski and Megan A. PartlowSource: Journal of Ethnobiology, 32(2):228-245. 2012.Published By: Society of EthnobiologyDOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.2993/0278-0771-32.2.228URL: http://www.bioone.org/doi/full/10.2993/0278-0771-32.2.228

BioOne (www.bioone.org) is a nonprofit, online aggregation of core research in thebiological, ecological, and environmental sciences. BioOne provides a sustainable onlineplatform for over 170 journals and books published by nonprofit societies, associations,museums, institutions, and presses.

Your use of this PDF, the BioOne Web site, and all posted and associated contentindicates your acceptance of BioOne’s Terms of Use, available at www.bioone.org/page/terms_of_use.

Usage of BioOne content is strictly limited to personal, educational, and non-commercialuse. Commercial inquiries or rights and permissions requests should be directed to theindividual publisher as copyright holder.

EVIDENCE FOR LOCAL FISH CATCHIN ZOOARCHAEOLOGY

Patrick M. Lubinski and Megan A. Partlow

Fish bones at archaeological sites may be used to address anthropological questions about past fishing practices

and trade, as well as biological questions about past species distributions. In both cases, it is important todistinguish fish caught locally from those transported longer distances to the disposal site. The necessary

standard of proof may vary by the geographic scale of the study and proximity to fish habitat, but multiple lines

of evidence should be brought to bear, such as regional ethnography or oral history, fishing artifacts, available

local habitat, skeletal parts frequencies, and bone chemistry. An example from the American Pacific Northwestdemonstrates the complexity of determining catch location. The question at the Grissom site was whether the

bones could demonstrate past salmonid and other fish occurrence in the adjacent Caribou Creek. Of seven fish

species identified, three species were interpreted as local catch, one as local but indicating a change in range, andthree as equivocal.

Key words: zooarchaeology, zooarchaeological methods, fishes, catch, salmon

Las espinas de pescado de los yacimientos arqueologicos se pueden utilizar para contestar preguntas

antropologicas sobre practicas de pesca y sobre el comercio de pescado en el pasado, ası como sobre la distribucionde especies biologicas. En ambos casos, es importante distinguir si el pescado fue capturado localmente o

transportado. La validez de las pruebas depende de la escala geografica del estudio y de la proximidad al habitat

de los peces. Ademas es necesario tener en cuenta evidencias provenientes de distintos enfoques, como la

etnografıa regional o la historia oral, los artefactos de pesca, el habitat disponible a nivel local, las frecuencias delas partes del esqueleto y el estudio quımico de las espinas. Un estudio de caso en el noroeste del Pacıfico

americano demuestra la complejidad de determinar la ubicacion de la captura. En el yacimiento de Grissom nos

preguntamos si los huesos podrıan demostrar la presencia pasada de salmonidos y otros peces en el Caribou

Creek. De las siete especies de peces identificadas, tres fueron interpretadas como provenientes de capturaslocales, una como local, pero con un cambio en el rango y tres como capturas cuyo origen es indeterminado.

Introduction

Faunal remains from archaeological sites may be used to address a numberof questions about past human behavior, as well as questions about identifiedprey species (Reitz and Wing 2008). Fish bones may be especially pertinent toanthropological questions about past fishing practices and trade, and biologicalor modern management questions about past species distributions. To addressthese sorts of questions, it is necessary to distinguish fish caught locally (near thesite of archaeological recovery) from those transported longer distances. Forexample, the archaeological study of past fish trade networks benefits fromidentification of non-local fish, such as marine fish bones at inland sites.Conversely, tribal and other fishery managers interested in restoration effortscould benefit from identification of local catch fish, such as endangered salmon

Patrick M. Lubinski, Department of Anthropology, Central Washington University, 400 EastUniversity Way, Ellensburg, WA 98926-7544 (Lubinski@cwu.edu)

Megan A. Partlow, Department of Anthropology, Central Washington University, 400 East UniversityWay, Ellensburg, WA 98926-7544 (partlow@kvalley.com)

Journal of Ethnobiology 32(2): 228–245 Fall/Winter 2012

(Oncorhynchus spp.) at sites along streams that no longer support them. In thiscase, archaeological fish bone could be used to justify stream rehabilitation effortsunder the Endangered Species Act or other authorities. These examplesdemonstrate the importance of determining the catch location of fish remainson archaeological sites.

There are a number of ways fish bones could be deposited in a site. Here, weuse the term ‘local catch’ to mean fish caught within a short distance of the findsite. The metric distance for ‘local’ is not easy to estimate, as it no doubt varies byfisher, available transportation, and other factors. But ‘local’ could be defined interms of a research question, such as ‘along this stream’ in the case of fisheryrestoration, or ‘from shore in this bay’ (see Lepofsky et al. 2007 for one use of theconcept). In addition to catches in the immediate environs of a site, fish alsocould be taken on longer forays and brought back, such as halibut (Hippoglossusstenolepis Schmidt) or cod (Gadus macrocephalus Tilesius) caught on deepwatermarine fishing trips and returned fresh to coastal villages in 19th-century Alaska(Emmons 1991:115–117; Turner 2008:136–137). Fish might also have been broughtto a site in a preserved rather than fresh state, having been prepared fortransport, trade, or storage elsewhere. For example, 19th-century Aleut andAlutiiq peoples commonly brought dried or smoked salmon from summer fishcamps to villages for winter use (Holmberg 1985:41; Huggins 1981:6; Veniaminov1984:278). There are also concentrations of fish bone not created by humans, suchas natural death deposits along a stream (Butler 1993), and raptor accumulations(Broughton 2000).

Clearly, a fish skeletal part that was disposed of at a site need not represent afish caught in the nearest body of water. Although this seems obvious at siteslocated away from water, it is also worth considering even at sites adjacent tomajor fisheries. While the standard of proof for catch location may reasonablyvary among researchers, we argue that it is inadequate to simply assume all fishremains represent local catches. Instead, we argue that multiple lines of evidencefor fish catch location should be considered for each identified species. Wesuspect that most researchers do this already, although perhaps not explicitly.Here we lay out some explicit considerations and provide an example from thePacific Northwest that demonstrates the complexity of the issue for a smalltributary of the Yakima River.

Approaches to Evaluating Catch Location

There are several possible approaches to determining catch location for eachidentified fish species, including evaluating (a) records of the fishers or theirdescendants, (b) site setting and contents, (c) biological and environmentalparameters of the species, (d) skeletal part abundance, and (e) otolith or bonechemistry. As most of these approaches are indirect, and each has its ownweaknesses and assumptions, the most reliable interpretations result from aconvergence of results from multiple methods.

Records of the people who caught the fish, or their descendants, can provideimportant clues about the likelihood that a fish species was caught locally. Suchsources could include ethnohistory, ethnography, and oral history, and provide

Fall/Winter 2012 JOURNAL OF ETHNOBIOLOGY 229

evidence for how and where the species was typically caught, transported, ortraded. For example, there is a rich ethnohistoric record of salmon procurement,processing, and trade in the Pacific Northwest (e.g., Lee and Frost 1969; Lewisand Clark 1814; Thwaites 1905, 1906; Wilkes 1844). A significant record of tradein a species would suggest that a simple assumption of local catch (with noregard to other lines of evidence) would be unwarranted. On the other hand, arecord lacking any mention of trade would tend to support a local catchinterpretation. Naturally, historical records have limitations with regard to timedepth, what is reported or omitted, how widely applicable they are to allmembers of a society, and other factors. It is likely that the applicability of suchrecords will diminish with increasing gaps in time, spatial distance, and culturalcontinuity between the record and archaeological site (e.g., Lyman and O’Brien2001; Steward 1942; Wobst 1978). These complications should be considered inusing such data.

The setting and contents of the site could also provide evidence in support ofor against fish bones representing local catch. A site location near water is oneobvious requirement for local catch. A site at or near a good fishing locationprovides more compelling support. For example, good locations for salmon fishingcould include instream boulders or narrow gaps where fish concentrate, or fallswhere dipnetting could be practiced. Fishing features found associated with fishbones could also provide support for local catch. This would be strongest if fishbones from an appropriate species were associated with local fishing features suchas spearing platforms, weirs, or other capture facilities. Less compelling would befishing or fish processing artifacts found at sites with fish bone. Although in thiscase the fish may have been caught some distance from the site, at least it wouldsuggest people were fishing, rather than solely bringing traded or preserved fishfrom elsewhere. The type of archaeological site might also lend helpful evidence.For example, a site that appears to be an extractive fishing camp (e.g., a streamside,limited-activity site dominated by fish bones and fishing tools) would be morelikely to include local catch than a base camp or village to which fish and otherfood items might well have been transported. Limitations of site setting andcontent evidence include important problems arising from variable artifactdeposition, preservation, and recovery (e.g., Schiffer 1987).

Consideration of an identified species’ biological and environmentalparameters would indicate whether the local area is consistent or inconsistentwith its requirements. Such parameters include historic range, life historyrequirements, and preferred habitat. This evidence is probably most convincingfor significant discordances (e.g., marine vs. freshwater, or fast stream vs.backwater lake habitats), rather than consistencies. Use of biological andenvironmental data requires evaluating whether species range, life history, andhabitat have changed significantly from the time of site use to the time ofbiological records, and is limited by the quality of available information about thelocal environment at the time of site occupation.

The logic behind the skeletal part abundance method is that a fish caught faraway and transported to the site would be represented by an incompleteskeleton, because it is unlikely fresh fish were transported whole for longdistances. A similar argument has been made for storage: stored fish were

230 LUBINSKI and PARTLOW Vol. 32, No. 2

preserved (dried, smoked) and likely represent incomplete skeletons, while freshfish could be whole. Transported or preserved fish were very likely divided intofatty, easily-spoiled portions (e.g., heads) that were consumed at or near the catchlocation, and drier portions (e.g., trunks) that were intended for storage andtransport. This division is probable simply on the basis of fish anatomy, but isalso well-documented for Pacific Northwest salmon in ethnohistory (e.g., Curtis1911:94; Hewes 1998:624; Wilkes 1844:410). Thus, complete skeletons or head-dominated assemblages represent fresh fish caught locally, while trunk-dominated assemblages represent transported or stored fish. This argument isvery similar to that used to support the hypothesis of salmon storage at a numberof archaeological sites in the Pacific Northwest (e.g., Butler and Chatters 1994;Hoffman et al. 2000; Matson and Coupland 1995; Partlow 2006).

As with any indirect method, there are weaknesses and assumptionsassociated with the skeletal part abundance approach. First, non-local catchmay be indistinguishable from storage of local catch fish, since sites with disposalof fresh, non-local catches have the same expected skeletal part pattern as thosewith disposal of stored fish remains. Second, the expectations for local andtransported/stored parts could vary by region, species, and fish size. Forexample, small fish might be dried whole, like the more than 1,100 dried Tuichub (Gila bicolor Girard) found in Nevada cave sites (Raymond and Sobel 1990).Third, archaeological skeletal part frequencies may not be an accurate reflectionof patterns inherent at the time of fishing, due to bias introduced byarchaeological recovery, disposal history, or differential destruction of skeletalparts (Lubinski 1996). To account for some of these concerns, researchers couldevaluate possible bias in skeletal part representation due to density-mediateddestruction (Butler and Chatters 1994) and screen size (Nagaoka 2005), and limittheir study to larger fish species in a particular region. Some other possibleconcerns, such as the roles of transport distance, disposal patterns, and choices ofindividual fishers, cannot easily be addressed with archaeological data. Ifresearchers use the method of skeletal part abundance, they must assume thatsuch issues do not confound skeletal parts patterns.

The otolith or bone chemistry method is the most direct for determining localcatch, but remains limited in scope at present. This method matches distinctivechemistry preserved in fish remains (e.g., strontium isotope ratios) to likelysource locations. The idea is best developed for anadromous fish, which mayretain a chemical signature of their natal stream. This has been demonstrated formodern fish otoliths (Bacon et al. 2004; Ingram and Weber 1999), and is nowbeing developed for archaeological otoliths (Miller et al. 2011). Attempts to linknon-anadromous fish to particular water sources using bone chemistry are alsounder development (Dufour et al. 2007).

An Example Application: The Grissom Site

Our study of fish remains from the Grissom site illustrates the issuesencountered in determining catch location. The study site is located along aminor drainage in the Pacific Northwest that currently supports no spawninganadromous fishes. A principal goal was to determine if fish bones from the site

Fall/Winter 2012 JOURNAL OF ETHNOBIOLOGY 231

could be linked to this stream and identified to any endangered or anadromousspecies, especially steelhead trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss Walbaum). This informa-tion could then potentially be employed by area fisheries managers, such asYakama Nation Fisheries, to justify rehabilitation efforts to the stream. The projectwas envisioned to benefit both archaeological knowledge and the Yakama Nation,on whose ceded lands the site is located. The project was approved by the YakamaNation Cultural Committee.

The Study Site

The Grissom site (45KT301) lies at the northeastern margins of the broad, well-watered Kittitas Valley in central Washington State (Figure 1). The site is near theeastern edge of the Cascade Range in the Columbia Plateau. It is along the upperreaches of Caribou Creek, a small tributary of the upper Yakima River with aspring flow today of about 5 cfs or 0.14 cms (McIntosh et al. 1990:175). Waters ofCaribou Creek flow into Cooke Creek and other tributaries before joining theYakima River near Ellensburg, Washington, then flowing into the Columbia Rivernear Richland, Washington. The site is about 19 km from the Yakima River, 24 kmfrom the Columbia River, and 800 river km upstream of the ocean.

Figure 1. Location of the Grissom site.

232 LUBINSKI and PARTLOW Vol. 32, No. 2

Caribou Creek and its native fish fauna have been significantly impacted byirrigation canals, starting with the Town Ditch constructed 1885–1889 (Bureau ofReclamation 1925:22). While today the stream near the site is less than 3 m wide,in November 1868 the creek was about 6.7 m wide, and a much larger creek(probably a channel of Cooke Creek) about 1.6 km west was 26.5 m wide (GeneralLand Office 1868). If these widths reported for 1868 reflect water extent and notsimply channel margins, then there was significant flow here during the fallseason, probably much more than today. There are no anadromous fishes in thecreek today (McIntosh et al. 1990:175) although Tuck (1995) suggests that theremay have been runs of coho (Oncorhynchus keta Walbaum) salmon and steelheadprior to the construction of irrigation features.

The Grissom site was investigated from 1967 to 1971 by faculty and studentsfrom Central Washington State College (now Central Washington University),which resulted in excavation of 59 units (most 2 3 2 m in size) with depths of upto 2.5 m. Excavation and J in screening yielded over 13,000 bags of artifacts,including lithic chipping debris, projectile points, bone, shell, and historicartifacts. The vertical distribution of historic artifacts indicates a degree ofstratigraphic mixing. The excavated materials have not been analyzed orreported yet except for student papers, this study of fish remains, and severalongoing projects. Six radiocarbon dates show a span of occupation with datesranging from 210 B.P. to 4130 B.P. (Table 1), but based on the presence of historicartifacts and the dominance of arrow styles of the past 2000 years in apreliminary sample of projectile points, most of the excavated material datesfrom the historic period to 2000 B.P. No specialized fishing tools, such asfishhooks or net weights, were found.

It is understood that the site is not ideal for interpretation of fish remains,given its stratigraphic mixing, multiple occupations of unknown duration ortype, lack of fine screening, and relatively small fish bone sample. However, thisstudy is not meant to provide definitive evidence for local biogeography or pastfishing practices, but rather to illustrate the complexity of the local catch issuewith a case study. In this sense it is a good example because it represents what wethink of as a typical site rather than an ideal one. Additionally, none of theseconcerns diminishes the potential of the site to demonstrate local catches of largesalmonid fishes in the adjacent stream at some point in the late prehistoric orearly historic past, which is sufficient chronological resolution for managementpurposes.

Table 1. AMS radiocarbon dates from the Grissom site.

Unit Depth (cm)Conventional

Age (BP)Calibrated Age1

(2 s range) Material Lab Number

J2W 20–40 400±40 AD 1432-1632 bone Beta-167130J2W 90–100 1580±40 AD 402-568 elk bone Beta-190125J2W 130–150 4130±40 2872-2581 BC charcoal Beta-190126O0E 40–60 710±40 AD 1224-1388 bone Beta-202534S5E 20–40 1150±40 AD 778-980 bone Beta-167131V0E 20–40 210±40 AD 1530-1877 bone Beta-167132

1Calibrated age given as 2 s age ranges (or maximum extent of multiple 2 s age ranges) calibrated with CALIB 6.1.0

(Stuiver et al. 2011) using intcal09.14c data set (Reimer et al. 2009).

Fall/Winter 2012 JOURNAL OF ETHNOBIOLOGY 233

Zooarchaeological Methods

All fish bones in the excavated sample were analyzed by the authors. Thebasic analytical unit used was an individual bone or bone fragment, referred to asa ‘specimen.’ Each specimen was identified to element, side, portion, and taxonas possible. Taxonomic identifications were made by direct comparison tomodern comparative skeletons in the collection housed at Central WashingtonUniversity and some additional skeletons on loan from the University ofMichigan Museum of Zoology. All species with present or historic freshwaterdistributions in Washington were considered for comparison.

For Oncorhynchus vertebrae, which are difficult to identify beyond genusbased on morphology (Gobalet et al. 2004:806), identification was attemptedusing the methods of Huber et al. (2011). This involved measuring vertebralheight and length to the nearest 0.01 mm and importing these data into aworkspace for statistical classification and regression trees (CART) using themodule Rpart (Therneau et al. 2010) in the free access software R version 2.12.0 (RDevelopment Core Team 2010). Identifications were to one of four speciesgroups: cutthroat trout (O. clarki Richardson), pink or sockeye salmon (O.gorbuscha Walbaum/nerka Walbaum), chum or coho or steelhead (O. ketaWalbaum/kisutch Walbaum/mykiss Walbaum), and Chinook salmon (O. tsha-wytscha Walbaum). These identifications are probable but not certain, based onthe aggregate 92% classification success rate reported for the method, and thenecessary assumption that there is a similar vertebral shape relationship betweensalmon species in the Upper Yakima River (Grissom study site) and the mixedcoastal sample (Huber et al. 2011) used to derive the method.

Given the vagaries of bone fragmentation and variation in bone shapebetween species, identifications were made to several taxonomic levels, such asspecies, genus, family, or order. For example, for cypriniforms, some elements(e.g., pharyngeals, dentaries) are often quite distinctive and can be identified tothe species level, while other elements (e.g., vertebrae) are similar or identicalbetween species and can only reliably be identified to the order level. Boneidentifications were made conservatively (see Driver 1991; Lyman 2002), with theidea that under-identification was preferable to mis-identification.

Results were quantified in terms of number of identified specimens (NISP;Payne 1975) and estimates of minimum number of individuals (MNI; White1953). MNI estimates were made by tabulating the occurrence of each boneportion by side (e.g., 5 right medial lower pharyngeals, 4 left completeceratohyals, 3 left proximal hyomandibulars, 2 left medial lower pharyngeals)and selecting as MNI the maximum value (e.g., 5), unless a larger MNI value wasgenerated from vertebrae. The vertebral MNI estimate was calculated conserva-tively by dividing the number of complete vertebral centra in the assemblage bythe maximum number of vertebrae present in that taxon. Since Washington fishesof the genus Oncorhynchus possess 56–75 vertebrae (Mecklenberg et al. 2002), 75was used as the divisor for that taxon.

Skeletal part abundance was quantified with estimates of minimum numberof elements (MNE; Bunn 1982) made using the same conservative, minimum-distinction method as was used for MNI. MNE estimates were compared directly

234 LUBINSKI and PARTLOW Vol. 32, No. 2

with expected counts of elements for a complete salmonid skeleton as reportedby Butler (1993:Figure 4), as well as being further manipulated for classicarchaeological evaluations of abundance. For this, MNE estimates were pooledinto minimum animal units (MAU; Binford 1984) by dividing MNE values by thenumber of times the element occurs in the skeleton of a single animal. PercentMAU values (Binford 1984) were calculated by dividing element MAU values bythe maximum MAU value obtained in the assemblage. This method provides%MAU scores of 100% for the best represented parts, and lower percentages forunder-represented body units. Given the small sample sizes, only two animalunits are defined: cranial (head) and postcranial (trunk), with the includedcranial and postcranial elements following Butler (1993:Table 3).

To control for bias in the skeletal part abundance measures, we evaluated thepossible roles of screen size and density-mediated destruction. For the former,the precise relationship between screen size and fish skeletal part distribution isunknown for this region, although no strong bias between head and trunk partshas been found in J in screening of salmon bones (Partlow 2006), nor in a briefJ in screening of probable species in our comparative collection. For the latter,we employed rank order correlation tests between %MAU scores and publishedbone density values for comparable fish, following Butler and Chatters (1994)and Broughton et al. (2006). Tests for salmonids used Chinook salmon bonedensity measurements (Butler and Chatters 1994), excluding otoliths. Tests forcypriniforms used largescale sucker (Catostomus macrocheilus Girard) densitymeasurements (Butler 1996).

Identifications

We examined 1,348 fish specimens and identified 1,025 to the order level orlower based on bone morphology. These represent at least five different taxa:salmon/trout, pikeminnow, peamouth, and two species of suckers, all in theOrders Salmoniformes and Cypriniformes (Table 2, Table 3). The fish remainsare slightly dominated by salmoniforms in terms of NISP (579 vs. 446, or 43% vs.33%), but overwhelmingly dominated by cypriniforms in terms of MNI estimates(4 vs. 29, or 12% vs. 88%).

None of the 460 specimens identified as Oncorhynchus could be identified tospecies based on morphology, mostly because 449 were vertebrae and vertebralfragments (see Table 3). Using the statistical assignment method of Huber et al.(2011), the 246 complete vertebral centra were measured and distributed asfollows: no cutthroat trout, 28% undifferentiated pink or sockeye salmon, 21%undifferentiated chum or coho or steelhead, and 51% Chinook salmon.Considering all data together, the site includes at least seven taxa: Chinooksalmon, undifferentiated pink/sockeye salmon, undifferentiated chum/coho/steelhead salmon, pikeminnow, peamouth, largescale sucker, and bridgelipsucker.

Catch Location

As discussed above, there are four currently available approaches to theproblem of correlating fish excavation location and catch location: evaluatingrecords of the fishers or their descendants, site setting and contents, biological

Fall/Winter 2012 JOURNAL OF ETHNOBIOLOGY 235

and environmental parameters of the species, and skeletal part abundance.Examination of these lines of evidence at the Grissom site provides support for alocal catch interpretation for most of the minnows and suckers, but equivocalresults for salmon.

The ethnographic and ethnohistoric record of the site vicinity provides mixedinformation for the identified species. While all of the identified species areknown to have been consumed by local tribes in historic or modern times (Hunn1980:Table 1), and there is no record of trade of minnows or suckers, there was anextensive trade in salmon throughout the Pacific Northwest in the 1800s (Cannon1992; Stern 1998; Thwaites 1905, 1906:358). Thus, it is probably unwise to assumeall salmon remains represent local catches. Records also indicate complicationsfor skeletal parts expectations for salmon. A common 19th-century method forsalmon processing, especially for large-scale trade, was to dry the fish, remove allbones, and pound it into a powder (Lee and Frost 1969:181; Lewis and Clark1814:142–143; Schuster 1998:331; Wilkes 1844:410). Although one could use this toargue that any salmon bone residue in the Pacific Northwest indicates locallycaught fish, other processing methods were used (e.g., Romanoff 1992; Stewart1977; Teit 1975:234), most of which are consistent with the head vs. trunk skeletalpart expectations noted above.

Local ethnohistoric reports indicate that the general site vicinity was used forfishing, but also was a gathering area with good potential for trade or transportfrom elsewhere. The area is a well-known location in written and tribal oralhistories for encampments by Yakamas and their allies. At this approximatelocation, fur trader Alexander Ross (1956:23) reported observing an encampmentof over 3,000 men, plus women, children, and horses in an area ‘‘covering more

Table 2. Fish identified at the Grissom site using bone morphology.

Order/Family Taxon1 Common Name NISP MNICurrentStatus2

Order Salmoniformes:

Family Salmonidae Oncorhynchus sp. Salmon or trout 460 4 PresentUnidentified salmonid 119 NA

Order Cypriniformes:

Family Cyprinidae Mylocheilus caurinus Peamouth 45 19 AbsentPtychocheilus oregonensis Northern

pikeminnow31 5 Present

Unidentified cyprinid 33 NAFamily Catostomidae Catostomus columbianus Bridgelip sucker 10 3 Present

Catostomus macrocheilus Largescalesucker

10 2 Present

Catostomus sp. 171 NAUnidentified

cypriniform146 NA

Order unknown:

Unidentified fish 323 NATOTAL 1,348 33

1Authorities for previously unmentioned species include Mylocheilus caurinus (Richardson), Ptychocheilus oregonensis

(Richardson), and Catostomus columbianus (Eigenmann and Eigenmann).2Distribution today in the upper Yakima River (Patten et al. 1970; Scholz and McLellan 2010; Wydoski and Whitney

2003).

236 LUBINSKI and PARTLOW Vol. 32, No. 2

than six miles in every direction’’ in June, 1814. In an 1857 letter, Indian AgentRobie noted that Yakamas camped at Fort Simcoe were anxious to move (byMarch 25) to this part of the Kittitas Valley, ‘‘where they usually go in spring togather roots and take fish’’ (Lane 1994:19–20). The 1868 General Land Office mapshows a large number of trails in the vicinity, three of which cross in the sectioncontaining the site, as well as some ‘‘Indian Houses’’ about a mile east of the site.It should be noted that although the accuracy of applying documentaryinformation to the older Grissom site fish fauna is uncertain, there is no reasonto discount it entirely. Most sources characterize the subsistence and settlementpatterns of regional inhabitants at the time of Grissom site occupation as quitesimilar to ethnohistoric times, particularly for salmon fishing (e.g., Chatters andPokotylo 1998).

The site setting provides weak support for local fish catches. That is, the siteis located adjacent to a stream that currently supports fish, but there is noevidence of any particularly good fishing location nearby. The site contentslikewise provide no support for local fish catches, because the site lacksidentifiable fishing artifacts and features, although there has not yet been adetailed analysis that might document possible chipped stone fish processing

Table 3. Grissom site fish specimen identifications.

Taxon and Identified Elements (NISP)

Order Salmoniformes:

Oncorhynchus sp.: Basipterygium (1), caudal bony plate (1), cleithrum (2), coracoid (1), interopercle (1),preopercle (1), posttemporal (1), supracleithrum (2), vertebra caudal (188), vertebra indeterminate(144), vertebra precaudal (7), vertebra thoracic (110)

Unidentified salmonid: Branchiostegal ray (1), basipterygium (1), caudal bony plate (1), craniumunidentified (1), hypural (1), interhaemal spine (5), mesocoracoid (1), ray (2), scapula (1),supracleithrum (1), vertebra 1 (3), vertebra caudal (17), vertebra indeterminate (68), vertebraprecaudal (2), vertebra thoracic (11), vertebra ultimate (1), unidentified (2)

Order Cypriniformes:

Mylocheilus caurinus: Coracoid (1), hyomandibular (1), parasphenoid (1), pharyngeal (42)Ptychocheilus oregonensis: Branchiostegal ray (2), basioccipital (1), ceratohyal (4), cleithrum (3), dentary

(2), epihyal (1), hyomandibular (4), metapterygoid (1), pharyngeal (8), preopercle (3), quadrate (2)Unidentified cyprinid: Articular (1), basipterygium (5), cleithrum (6), dentary (1), hyomandibular (1),

interopercle (4), opercle (6), parietal (1), parasphenoid (1), pharyngeal (1), preopercle (2), prootic(1), subopercle (1), vertebra 1 (1), vertebra 2 (1), vertebra 3 (5), vomer (1), vertebra ultimate (2)

Catostomus columbianus: Dentary (6), maxilla (1), preopercle (2), quadrate (1)Catostomus macrocheilus: Coracoid (1), dentary (3), hyomandibular (2), metapterygoid (1), opercle (1),

parasphenoid (1), pterotic (1)Catostomus sp.: Articular (1), branchiostegal ray (1), basioccipital (2), basipterygium (9), caudal bony

plate (1), ceratohyal (7), cleithrum (17), coracoid (7), dentary (2), ectopterygoid (4), epihyal (1),exoccipital (3), frontal (1), hyomandibular (8), interopercle (5), maxilla (18), mesopterygoid (2),metapterygoid (1), opercle (14), palatine (3), parietal (2), parasphenoid (7), postcleitrum (4),pharyngeal (4), preopercle (7), prevomer (1), quadrate (9), supracleithrum (2), supraoccipital (1),subopercle (1), supraethmoid (1), tripus (1), urohyal (5), vertebra 1 (2), vertebra 2 (11), vertebra 3(5), vomer (1), vertebra ultimate (2)

Unidentified cypriniform: Branchiostegal ray (2), basipterygium (1), ceratobranchial (1), cleithrum (1),coracoid (2), ectopterygoid (1), frontal (1), interhaemal spine (3), mesopterygoid (1), opercle (2),parasphenoid (1), ray (1), rib (4), scapula (1), subopercle (1), vertebra 2 (1), vertebra 3 (1), vertebracaudal (54), vertebra Weberian (4), vertebra indeterminate (9), vertebra precaudal (11), vertebrapenultimate (1), vertebra thoracic (37), vertebra ultimate (5)

Unidentified fish: Cleithrum (1), cranial indeterminate (9), opercle (3), rib (9), rib spine or ray (16),vertebra indeterminate (16), unidentified (269)

Fall/Winter 2012 JOURNAL OF ETHNOBIOLOGY 237

tools (see Morin 2004; Prince 2011; Rousseau 2004). Finally, the site appears torepresent a base camp rather than an extractive fish camp, in part because fishrepresent only a small proportion of vertebrate faunal remains (,2% of NISP inan initial sample), which appear to be dominated by deer-size mammals.

An evaluation of the biological parameters of the identified species indicatesboth consistencies and inconsistencies with the hypothesis of local catch. Thenative fish species currently in Caribou Creek are not recorded comprehensively,but a 1937 survey by McIntosh et al. (1990:175) noted presence of rainbow andcutthroat trout (O. mykiss and O. clarki) and a lack of anadromous species. Thereare, however, good records for the Yakima and Columbia River systems ingeneral. Today, six of the seven species or species groups identified are present inthe upper Yakima River and tributaries, as well as the lower Yakima andColumbia River (Patten et al. 1970; Scholz and McLellan 2010; Wydoski andWhitney 2003). The seventh species, peamouth, is absent in the upper YakimaRiver; its current range extends from the Columbia and lower Yakima River toabout 30 river km downstream of the mouth of the site tributary (Scholz andMcLellan 2010:118). Thus, if peamouth were caught locally, there must have beena change in species range to today. Such a change is possible, since Gilbert andEvermann (1895:194) noted peamouth as an ‘‘abundant and widely distributedfish in the Lower Columbia basin.’’ They included the Yakima River atEllensburg within their Lower Columbia basin study area, although they didnot specifically mention whether peamouth were present there.

Two of the species in the undifferentiated salmon groups (pink and chum)are absent in the entire Yakima River system today, although the remaining threespecies in the undifferentiated groups (sockeye, coho, and steelhead) are present.Pink salmon generally spawn near river mouths (Heard 1991). Today they arerare in the lower Columbia River and nearly absent upstream (Wydoski andWhitney 2003), although some have been reported 600–700 km upstream in theSnake River, probably as strays of other long-run stocks (Basham and Gilbreath1978). Chum salmon were abundant in the Columbia River until the 1940s, buttoday are rare (Salo 1991:235) and limited to the lower Columbia below themouth of the Yakima River (Wydoski and Whitney 2003). The remaining salmonspecies are known to run in the main channel of the Yakima River at the mouth ofCaribou Creek, both presently and historically in the case of coho and Chinooksalmon and steelhead (Williams et al. 1991; Wydoski and Whitney 2003), anduntil the circa 1905 installation of upstream dams in the case of sockeye (Flaggand Ruehle 2000:6; Fulton 1970).

Local habitat at the time the fish were caught is uncertain, but was in anyevent a small upper tributary stream. This may be inconsistent with local catch ofseveral of the identified fish species. Sockeye salmon typically require areasassociated with lakes for spawning habitat (Burgner 1991) or rarely main-stemstreams (Lorenz and Eiler 1989), and no such habitats occur upstream of thisarchaeological site. Peamouth, based on their current distribution, appear toprefer deeper river mainstems and lakes, although Reimer and Bond (1967:544)suggest they ascend tributaries during spawning migrations. Thus, consideringmodern range and habitat, the peamouth and undifferentiated pink/sockeyesalmon reflect either exotic fish transported to this site or changes in species

238 LUBINSKI and PARTLOW Vol. 32, No. 2

range/habitat preferences between modern and prehistoric times. The undiffer-entiated chum/coho/steelhead salmon identifications likely reflect coho orsteelhead rather than chum salmon.

The final approach compares observed skeletal part abundances withexpectations for local catch fish. Fresh or local catch fish are expected to becomplete or head-dominated, while transported or stored fish are expected to betrunk-dominated. Skeletal part distributions for salmonids and cypriniforms forthe study site are summarized in Table 4. With either measure, the skeletons ofboth groups of fish appear incomplete. For example, chi-squared tests showsignificant differences between observed MNE values and those expected for acomplete fish: salmonid x25 220.02, p,0.0001, and cypriniform x25 4.045, p5

0.04. The salmonids have too few heads, which is not consistent with local catches.The cypriniform pattern is more complicated. The MNE data show a slightunderrepresentation of heads, although the count of head elements and postcranialelements is approximately equal, and the MAU data show an over-abundance ofheads. These cypriniform patterns are most consistent with local catches.

To control for bias in the skeletal part abundance measures, we evaluated thepossible role of density-mediated destruction. Based on the correlation of bonedensity and skeletal part abundance, density-mediated destruction may havebiased the skeletal part distributions for salmonids (rs5 0.68, p, 0.01), but not forcypriniforms (rs5 0.097, p5 0.74). Thus, it is possible that complete salmonidcarcasses were brought to the site but subject to differential destruction beforerecovery (e.g., salmon heads but not vertebrae were destroyed by dogs). There isno particularly compelling evidence of such destruction at the site (e.g., thefaunal assemblage lacks significant carnivore gnawing), but it remains apossibility that cannot be discounted.

Combining all lines of evidence, the pikeminnow and sucker species areinterpreted as caught locally, as they are consistent with expectations fromrecords, biological/environmental parameters, and skeletal parts. The catchlocation of peamouth is less clear, given the inconsistency with modern rangeand perhaps habitat. Although we cannot discount the possibility of non-localcatch, it seems more plausible that peamouth were caught locally, because thereare no historic records or other simple explanations for peamouth transport.Instead, the lack of overlap with present species range probably represents achange in range from prehistoric times to the present.

The catch location for salmonids is equivocal. Evidence against local catchincludes the strong record of salmon trade, site location along several trails for

Table 4. Skeletal part distributions for Grissom site fishes.

Measure

Salmonids Cypriniforms

Observed (%) Expected1 (%) Observed (%) Expected1 (%)

Cranial MNE 3 1 42 125 47 53Postcranial MNE 315 99 58 140 53 46Cranial MAU 0.5 12 100 10 100 100Postcranial MAU 4.0 100 100 5 50 100

1Expected values for salmonid MNE from Butler’s (1993) standard salmon, and for cypriniform MNE from complete

Bridgelip suckers examined by the authors.

Fall/Winter 2012 JOURNAL OF ETHNOBIOLOGY 239

transport, and habitat disjunction with sockeye. On the other hand, the valleyaround the site (if not the site location itself) is known as a traditional fishinglocation, and the skeletal part data may reflect differential destruction ofcomplete skeletons. Our suspicion is that most of the salmon is not local catch,although it is difficult to be certain. The salmon bones could also represent amixture of non-local and local catches. If the salmon were not caught locally, alikely scenario is that they were caught in the larger Yakima or Columbia Riversand prepared for transport to the Grissom site.

Conclusions

Determining if archaeological fish bones derive from local catches is not asimple matter. Our example has shown that while the evidence for some speciesmay be clear, for others the data may be somewhat contradictory. The standardfor proof must be left to the researcher. What or how much evidence is sufficientto ascertain that a fish specimen was locally caught? At some level, this is aquestion of geographic scale. The larger the study area, the less problematic is anassumption of local catch, and consequently the need for clear evidence isdiminished. For example, if a researcher is interested in prehistoric speciesdistribution in the mid-Columbia River basin, it would be reasonable to assumeall Grissom site fish were caught within the basin, as all have presentdistributions in the basin. However, if the research issue is highly localized,such as whether particular species were present in the body of waterimmediately adjacent to an archaeological site, a higher standard of proof isneeded.

Beyond the issue of scale, there can be uncertainty about how to evaluatemultiple lines of evidence, especially if they do not converge on the sameinterpretation. Should a majority approach be taken, where the interpretationsupported by the most lines of evidence is accepted, or should different types ofevidence be given different weights? These are subjects for debate. For sites nearfish habitat, given the different interpretations possible by different researchers,we strongly advocate the consideration of multiple lines of evidence, multipleworking hypotheses, and clear reporting on why local catch was likely orunlikely for a given species. For sites far from fish habitat, this may beunnecessary. For example, if salmon vertebrae were recovered from a site 10 kmaway from any seasonal or permanent stream, then non-local catch can bereasonably assumed if there is no reason to suppose that distance to water haschanged over time, without needing to resort to other lines of evidence.

In the particular case of salmon in the Pacific Northwest, it should be notedthat trunk-dominated skeletal parts are common at many sites (Butler andChatters 1994; Hoffman et al. 2000; Matson and Coupland 1995; Partlow 2006),and given the documentary evidence for trade and storage of salmon, most ofthese assemblages could then be considered remains of stored fish or non-localcatches under the records and skeletal part abundance criteria suggested here.We do not see this hypothesis as inherently problematic. After all, many of thesesites are likely winter villages, with significant consumption of stored fish. Whilerare, there are sites meeting the whole fish or head-dominated skeletal part

240 LUBINSKI and PARTLOW Vol. 32, No. 2

abundance expectations for local catch (e.g., Hoffman et al. 2000; Stevenson 2011).It could be that trunk-dominated sites also represent fresh-eaten local catches, butthe head bones were removed, damaged, or destroyed at higher rates than trunkportions for a variety of reasons. Some of these possible causes might be tested,but others may lack archaeological signatures. As discussed above, skeletal partabundance is only one approach, with its own weaknesses, which is why the useof multiple approaches is recommended. Each of these sites needs to be testedmore fully against multiple lines of evidence.

In cases where a site is located adjacent to suitable habitat, its fishing artifactsare consistent with the way represented species are caught, and regionalethnography indicates no suggestion of fish trade, there may be no need forfurther evaluation, and local catch can be assumed. But if these are equivocal,further information is needed, and archaeologists should carefully consider theevidence before assuming local catch.

Acknowledgments

Preliminary faunal sorting was completed by students Kimber Badertscher, CorrineCamuso, Chris Hehman, Michelle Lynch, and Rita Sulkosky. The University of MichiganMuseum of Zoology provided comparative fish skeletons on loan. Virginia Butlerprovided timely assistance with the peamouth identifications. Useful information wasprovided by Dennis Dauble, Hank Fraser, Mark Johnston, Jeff Jorgensen, William Meyer,Elizabeth Sobel, Allan Sullivan, and Morris Uebelacker. Virginia Butler, Lee Lyman, fiveother anonymous reviewers, and the editors provided helpful comments on two versionsof the manuscript. Jennifer Lipton and Craig Revels helped with the Spanish abstract.Holly Eagleston created the map. This research was supported by the Faculty ResearchFund (a Faculty Research Appointment and a Seed Grant) at Central WashingtonUniversity, Ellensburg, Washington.

References Cited

Bacon, Charles R., Peter K. Weber, Kimberly A.

Larsen, Reginald Reisenbichler, John A. Fitzpa-

trick, and Joseph L. Wooden

2004 Migration and Rearing Histories of

Chinook Salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha)

Determined by Ion Microprobe Sr Isotope

and Sr/Ca Transects of Otoliths. Canadian

Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 61:

2425–2439.

Basham, Larry and Lyle Gilbreath

1978 Unusual Occurrence of Pink Salmon

(Oncorhynchus gorbuscha) in the Snake River

of Southeastern Washington. Northwest Sci-

ence 52:32–34.

Binford, Lewis R.

1984 Faunal Remains from Klasies River

Mouth. Academic Press, Orlando.

Broughton, Jack M.

2000 Terminal Pleistocene Fish Remains from

Homestead Cave, Utah, and Implications for

Fish Biogeography in the Bonneville Basin.

Copeia 3:645–656.

Broughton, Jack M., Virginia I. Cannon, Shan-

non Arnold, Raymond J. Bogiatto, and Kevin

Dalton

2006 The Taphonomy of Owl-Deposited

Fish Remains and the Origin of the Home-

stead Cave Ichthyofauna. Journal of Taphon-

omy 4:69–95.

Bunn, Henry T.

1982 Meat Eating and Hominid Evolution:

Studies on the Diet and Subsistence Patterns

of Plio-Pleistocene Hominids in East Africa.

Ph.D. Dissertation (Anthropology). Univer-

sity of California, Berkeley.

Bureau of Reclamation

1925 Reports on the Engineering, Agricultural,

and Economic Feasibility of the Kittitas Divi-

sion, Yakima Project, Washington, Baker Proj-

ect, Oregon, Vale Project, Oregon, Owyhee

Fall/Winter 2012 JOURNAL OF ETHNOBIOLOGY 241

Project, Oregon-Idaho, Spanish Springs Project,

Nevada, Great Salt Lake Basin Project, Utah,

Willwood Division, Shoshone Project, Wyo-

ming. Government Printing Office, Wash-

ington D.C.

Burgner, Robert L.

1991 Life History of Sockeye Salmon (Onco-

rhynchus nerka). In Pacific Salmon Life Histo-

ries, eds. Cornelis Groot and Leo Margolis,

pp. 1–117. University of British Columbia

Press, Vancouver.

Butler, Virginia L.

1993 Natural versus Cultural Salmonid

Remains: Origin of the Dalles Roadcut

Bones, Columbia River, Oregon, U.S.A.

Journal of Archaeological Science 20:1–24.

1996 Tui Chub Taphonomy and the Impor-

tance of Marsh Resources in the Western

Basin of North America. American Antiquity

61:699–717.

Butler, Virginia L. and James C. Chatters

1994 The Role of Bone Density in Structur-

ing Prehistoric Salmon Bone Assemblages.

Journal of Archaeological Science 21:413–424.

Cannon, Aubrey

1992 Conflict and Salmon on the Interior

Plateau of British Columbia. In A Complex

Culture of the British Columbia Plateau: Tradi-

tional Stl’atl’imx Resource Use, ed. Brian

Hayden, pp. 506–524. University of British

Columbia Press, Vancouver.

Chatters, James C. and David L. Pokotylo

1998 Prehistory: Introduction. In Plateau,

ed. Deward E. Walker Jr., pp. 73–80.

Handbook of North American Indians,

vol. 12. Smithsonian Institution, Washington

D.C.

Curtis, Edward S.

1911 The North American Indian: Being a Series

of Volumes Picturing and Describing the

Indians of the United States, and Alaska, Vol

8: The Nez Perces, Wallawalla, Umatilla,

Cayuse, the Chinookan Tribes. Edward S.

Curtis, Seattle.

Driver, Jonathan C.

1991 Identification, Classification, and Zoo-

archaeology. Circaea 9:35–47.

Dufour, Elise, Chris Holmden, Wim Van Neer,

Antoine Zazzo, William P. Patterson, Patrick

Degryse, and Eddy Keppens

2007 Oxygen and Strontium Isotopes as

Provenance Indicators of Fish at Archaeo-

logical Sites: The Case Study of Sagalassos,

SW Turkey. Journal of Archaeological Science

34(8):1226–1239.

Flag, Thomas A. and Thomas E. Ruehle, eds.2000 Cle Elum Lake Anadromous Salmon

Restoration Feasibility Study: Summary of

Research. National Marine Fisheries Service,Seattle.

Fulton, Leonard A.1970 Spawning Areas and Abundance of Steel-

head Trout and Coho, Sockeye, and Chum

Salmon in the Columbia River Basin —Past

and Present. Special Scientific Report —Fisheries No. 618. National Oceanic andAtmospheric Administration, Washington,DC.

General Land Office1868 Map and Field Notes for Survey of

Township 18 North, Range 20 East, Will-amette Meridian. Available at: http://www.blm.gov/or/landrecords/survey/ySrvy2.php?tr5180N200E&srt5A&ti536&ri531&ln5

0000000 (verified 18 January 2011).

Gilbert, Charles H. and Barton W. Evermann1895 A Report upon Investigations in the

Columbia River Basin, with Descriptions ofFour New Species of Fishes. Bulletin of the

United States Fish Commission 14:169–207.

Gobalet, Kenneth W., Peter D. Schulz, ThomasA. Wake, and Nelson Siefkin

2004 Archaeological Perspectives on NativeAmerican Fisheries of California, with Em-phasis on Steelhead and Salmon. Transac-

tions of the American Fisheries Society 133:801–833.

Heard, William R.1991 Life History of Pink Salmon (Onco-

rhynchus gorbuscha). In Pacific Salmon Life

Histories, eds. Cornelis Groot and LeoMargolis, pp. 119–230. University of BritishColumbia Press, Vancouver.

Hewes, Gordon W.1998 Fishing. In Plateau, ed. Deward E.

Walker Jr., pp. 620–640. Handbook of NorthAmerican Indians, vol. 12. SmithsonianInstitution, Washington, D.C.

Hoffman, Brian W., Jessica M.C. Czederpiltz,and Megan A. Partlow

2000 Heads or Tails: The Zooarchaeology ofAleut Salmon Storage on Unimak Island,Alaska. Journal of Archaeological Science 27:699–708.

Holmberg, Heinrich Johan1985 Holmberg’s Ethnographic Sketches, ed.

Marvin W. Falk, translated by Fritz Jaensch.The University of Alaska Press, Fairbanks.

Huber, Harriet R., Jeffrey C. Jorgensen, VirginiaL. Butler, Greg Baker, and Rebecca Stevens

2011 Can Salmonids (Oncorynchus spp.) be

242 LUBINSKI and PARTLOW Vol. 32, No. 2

Identified to Species Using Vertebral Mor-

phometrics? Journal of Archaeological Science

38:136–146.

Huggins, Eli Lundy

1981 Kodiak and Afognak Life, 1868–1870.

Limestone Press, Kingston, Ontario.

Hunn, Eugene

1980 Sahaptin Fish Classification. Northwest

Anthropological Research Notes 14:1–19.

Ingram, B. Lynn and Peter K. Weber

1999 Salmon Origin in California’s Sacra-

mento-San Joaquin River System as Deter-

mined by Otolith Strontium Isotopic Com-

position. Geology 27:851–854.

Lane, Barbara

1994 Usual and Accustomed Indian Fisheries

in the Yakima Basin: Anthropological and

Ethnohistorical Evidence. Prepared for the

United States Department of Justice. Manu-

script on file, Washington Department of

Fish and Wildlife, Ellensburg.

Lee, Daniel and Joseph H. Frost

1969 Ten Years in Oregon. 1969 facsimile ed.

of 1844 original. Ye Galleon Press, Fairfield,

Washington.

Lepofsky, Dana, Teresa Trost, and Jesse Morin

2007 Coast Salish Interaction: A View from

the Inlets. Canadian Journal of Archaeology 31:

190–223.

Lewis, Meriwether and William Clark

1814 History of the Expedition Under the

Command of Captains Lewis and Clark, to the

Sources of the Missouri, thence Across the Rocky

Mountains and Down the River Columbia to the

Pacific Ocean Performed During the Years 1804–

5–6. By Order of the Government of the United

States. Vol. II. Bradford and Inskeep, Phila-

delphia. Available at: http://digitalprojects.

libraries.uc.edu/lewisandclark/biddle/fast.

php (verified 19 July 2012).

Lorenz, J. Mitchel and John H. Eiler

1989 Spawning Habitat and Redd Charac-

teristics of Sockeye Salmon in the Glacial

Taku River, British Columbia and Alaska.

Transactions of the American Fisheries Society

118:495–502.

Lubinski, Patrick M.

1996 Fish Heads, Fish Heads: An Experi-

ment on Differential Bone Preservation in a

Salmonid Fish. Journal of Archaeological Sci-

ence 23:175–181.

Lyman, R. Lee

2002 Taxonomic Identification of Zooarch-

aeological Remains. Review of Archaeology

23(2):13–20.

Lyman, R. Lee and Michael J. O’Brien2001 The Direct Historical Approach, Ana-

logical Reasoning, and Theory in American-ist Archaeology. Journal of Archaeological

Method and Theory 8(4):303–342.

Matson, Richard G. and Gary Coupland1995 The Prehistory of the Northwest Coast.

Academic Press, San Diego.

McIntosh, Bruce A., Sharon E. Clark, and JamesR. Sedell

1990 Summary Report for Bureau of Fisheries

Stream Habitat Surveys, Yakima River Basin,

1934–1942. Pacific Northwest Research Sta-tion, Corvallis, Oregon.

Mecklenburg, Catherine W., T. Anthony Meck-lenburg, and Lyman K. Thorsteinson

2002 Fishes of Alaska. American FisheriesSociety, Bethesda, Maryland.

Miller, Jessica A., Virginia L. Butler, Charles A.Simenstad, David H. Backus, and Adam J.R.Kent

2011 Life History Variation in Upper Co-lumbia River Chinook Salmon (Oncorhyn-

chus tshawytscha): A Comparison UsingModern and ,500-yr-old ArchaeologicalOtoliths. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and

Aquatic Sciences 68:603–617.

Morin, Jesse2004 Cutting Edges and Salmon Skin: Var-

iation in Salmon Processing Technology onthe Northwest Coast. Canadian Journal of

Archaeology 28:281–318.

Nagaoka, Lisa2005 Differential Recovery of Pacific Island

Fish Remains. Journal of Archaeological Sci-

ence 32:941–955.

Partlow, Megan A.2006 Sampling Fish Bones: A Consideration

of Screen Size and Disposal Context in theNorth Pacific. Arctic Anthropology 43:67–79.

Patten, Benjamin G., Richard B. Thompson, andWilliam D. Gronlund

1970 Distribution and Abundance of Fish in

the Yakima River, Wash., April 1957 to May

1958. Special Scientific Report —FisheriesNo. 603. United States Fish and WildlifeService, Washington, D.C.

Payne, Sebastian1975 Partial Recovery and Sample Bias. In

Archaeozoological Studies, ed. A.T. Clason,pp. 7–17. American Elsevier, New York.

Prince, Paul2011 Salmon Harvesting and Processing

Technologies in Northern British Columbia.In The Archaeology of North Pacific Fisheries,eds. Madonna L. Moss and Aubrey Cannon,

Fall/Winter 2012 JOURNAL OF ETHNOBIOLOGY 243

pp. 91–110. University of Alaska Press,

Fairbanks.

Raymond, Anan W. and Elizabeth A. Sobel

1990 The Use of Tui Chub as Food by

Indians of the Western Great Basin. Journal

of California and Great Basin Anthropology 12:

2–18.

R Development Core Team

2010 R: A Language and Environment for

Statistical Computing. R Foundation for

Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria.

Available at http://www.R-project.org/

(verified 30 June 2011).

Reimer, Paula J., M.G.L. Baillie, E. Bard, A.

Bayliss, J.W. Beck, P.G. Blackwell, C. Bronk

Ramsey, C.E. Buck, G.S. Burr, R.L. Edwards, M.

Friedrich, P.M. Grootes, T.P. Guilderson, I.

Hajdas, T.J. Heaton, A.G. Hogg, K.A. Hughen,

K.F. Kaiser, B. Kromer, F.G. McCormac, S.W.

Manning, R.W. Reimer, D.A. Richards, J.R.

Southon, S. Talamo, C.S.M. Turney, J. van der

Plicht, and C.E. Weyhenmeyer

2009 Intcal09 and Marine09 Radiocarbon

Age Calibration Curves, 0–50,000 Years Cal

BP. Radiocarbon 51:1111–1150.

Reimers, Paul E. and Carl E. Bond

1967 Distribution of Fishes in Tributaries of

the Lower Columbia River. Copeia 3:541–550.

Reitz, Elizabeth J. and Elizabeth S. Wing

2008 Zooarchaeology. Cambridge University

Press, New York.

Romanoff, Steven

1992 Fraser Lillooet Salmon Fishing. In

A Complex Culture of the British Columbia

Plateau: Traditional Stl’atl’imx Resource Use,

ed. Brian Hayden, pp. 222–265. University

of British Columbia Press, Vancouver.

Ross, Alexander

1956 The Fur Hunters of the Far West, ed.

K.A. Spaulding. University of Oklahoma

Press, Norman. Originally published 1855 as

The Fur Hunters of the Far West: A Narrative of

Adventures in the Oregon and Rocky Moun-

tains. Smith and Elder, London.

Rousseau, Mike K.

2004 Old Cuts and Scrapes: Composite

Chipped Stone Knives from the Canadian

Plateau. Canadian Journal of Archaeology 28:

1–34.

Salo, Ernest O.

1991 Life History of Chum Salmon (Onco-

rhynchus keta). In Pacific Salmon Life Histories,

eds. Cornelis Groot and Leo Margolis, pp.

231–309. University of British Columbia

Press, Vancouver.

Schiffer, Michael B.1987 Formation Processes of the Archaeological

Record. University of New Mexico Press,Albuquerque.

Scholz, Allan T. and Holly J. McLellan2010 Fishes of the Columbia and Snake River

Basin in Eastern Washington. Eagle Printing,Cheney, Washington.

Schuster, Helen H.1998 Yakima and Neighboring Groups. In

Plateau, ed. Deward E. Walker, pp. 326–351.Handbook of North American Indians,vol. 12. Smithsonian Institution, Washing-ton, D.C.

Stern, Theodore1998 Columbia River Trade Network. In

Plateau, ed. Deward E. Walker Jr., pp. 641–652. Handbook of North American Indians,vol. 12. Smithsonian Institution, Washing-ton, D.C.

Stevenson, Alexander E.2011 Using Archaeological Fish Remains to

Determine the Status of Anadromous Salmo-nids in the Upper Klamath Basin (Oregon,USA) through mtDNA and GeochemicalAnalysis. Master’s thesis (Anthropology).Portland State University, Portland, Oregon.

Steward, Julian H.1942 The Direct Historical Approach to

Archaeology. American Antiquity 7:337–343.

Stewart, Hilary1977 Indian Fishing: Early Methods on the

Northwest Coast. University of WashingtonPress, Seattle.

Stuiver, Minze, Paula J. Reimer, and Ron Reimer2011 CALIB Radiocarbon Calibration, Exe-

cute Version 6.0html. Available at http://calib.qub.ac.uk/calib/ (verified 30 August2011).

Teit, James A.1975 The Thompson Indians of British Colum-

bia. Reprinted. AMS Press, New York.Originally published 1900, Publications ofthe Jesup North Pacific Expedition, vol. I,part IV, American Museum of NaturalHistory, New York.

Therneau, Terry M., Beth Atkinson, and BrianRipley

2010 rpart: Recursive Partitioning. R pack-age version 3.1-46. Available at: CRAN.R-project.org/package5rpart (verified 30 June2011).

Thwaites, Reuben Gold, ed.1905 Original Journals of the Lewis and Clark

Expedition 1804–1806, Vol. 3. Dodd, Meadand Company, New York. Available at:

244 LUBINSKI and PARTLOW Vol. 32, No. 2

http://www.americanjourneys.org/aj-100c/index.asp (verified 6 January 2011).

Thwaites, Reuben Gold, ed.1906 Early Western Travels, 1748–1846: A

Series of Annotated Reprints of Some of theBest and Rarest Contemporary Volumes ofTravel, Vol. 28. A.H. Clark, Cleveland, Ohio.Available at: http://memory.loc.gov/gc/lhbtn/06902/ThwaitesOutline.html (veri-fied 6 January 2011).

Tuck, Robert L.1995 Impacts of Irrigation Development on

Anadromous Fish in the Yakima RiverBasin, Washington. Master’s Thesis (Re-source Management). Central WashingtonUniversity, Ellensburg.

Veniaminov, Ivan1984 Notes on the Islands of the Unalashka

District, eds. Richard A. Pierce, translated byLydia T. Black and R.H. Geoghegan. AlaskaHistory No. 27. Limestone Press, Kingston,Ontario.

White, Theodore E.1953 A Method of Calculating the Dietary

Percentage of Various Food Animals Uti-lized by Aboriginal Peoples. American An-tiquity 18:396–398.

Wilkes, Charles1844 Narrative of the United States Explor-

ing Expedition During The Years 1838, 1839,1849, 1841, 1842, Vol. IV. C. Sherman,Philadelphia. Available at: http://www.sil.si.edu/digitalcollections/usexex/navigation/NarrativePages/USExEx19_04select.cfm (veri-fied 28 October 2010).

Williams, Jack E., Willa Nehlsen, and James A.Lichatowich

1991 Pacific Salmon at the Crossroads:Stocks at Risk from California, Oregon,Idaho, and Washington. Fisheries 16(2):4–21.

Wobst, H. Martin1978 The Archaeo-Ethnology of Hunter-

Gatherers or the Tyranny of the Ethno-graphic Record in Archaeology. AmericanAntiquity 43:303–309.

Wydoski, Richard S. and Richard R. Whitney2003 Inland Fishes of Washington. University

of Washington Press, Seattle.

Fall/Winter 2012 JOURNAL OF ETHNOBIOLOGY 245