Journal of EthnoblOlogy 23(1): 125-141 Spring/Summer 200-3

THE USE OF DRIFTWOOD ON THE NORTH PACIFIC COAST:AN EXAMPLE FROM SOUTHEAST ALASKA

DANA LEPOFSKY: Nl\TASHA LYONS' and MAD()NNA L. MOSS""Department of Archtu,olo!,'y, Simon Fraser University, llumaby, s.c. V5A 156

b Departrtlt'nt q: Anthrot101ogy, Unir;ersity of Oregon, OR 97403-1218

ABSTRACT.-~Nort:h Pacific Coast societies were dependent on several tree speciesto supply them with fuel and flif\.V materials used in construction and in makingimplem;;:nts with utilitarian, and/or ceremonial purpoS(~. Although muchof the l\lorth Pacific Coast is blanketed with usable and ac-cessible wood was not always readily available. An study ofCape Addington Rockshelter in southeast Alaska (49-CRG-188) revealed that thesite relied on driftwood to supplement the live trees and dead woodin the Both accessible ilnd renewable, driftwood also supplied preferredfuel wood taxa that other\\'ise 'would have been available only through trade withother groups. A review cf the North Pacific Coast ethnographic literature revealsthat driftwood was an impurtiil1'1t source of wood for fuel and technology forseveral First Nation groups.

Key words: Northwest Coost First N~tion$f paleoethncbQtany, driftwood, CapeAddington, Alaska.

RESUMEN,--Las sociedades de la Costa del Pacifico Norte d~!pend!ando divers,~s

especies arboreas para Ia obtend6n de combustible y materias primas usadas enla mustrucdon y en la li.~aborad6n de artfculos con valor utilitario, social y!0

ceremonial. Aunque gran parte de la costa del Pacifico Norte cl"ll'i cubierta porecosistemas forestales, no siempre era facH obtener madera aprovechable y acee­sible. Un €'Studio arqueoboM.nicQ en el sureste de Alaska revelo que los habitantesdel sttio usaban madera de deriva como suplemento a los arboles vivos y maderamuerta obtenidos del bosque. La madera de deriviil, accesible y renovable, tambil'Dproveia de cicrtos taxones prefuridos como leila, que de otta manera s610 habrianestado disl:lOnibles a traves del comercio con otro9 grupos. Una revision de laiiteratura etnogrMica de 1a Costa del Pacifico Norte revela que la madera de deriva(lra para varios grupos indigenas una fUli'nte importal1l:e de combustible y materialpara manufacturas.

REsUMIL-Les societ€s de la cote du Pacifique Nord d~pendaientde plusieurs~~Il;'U~ d'arbres pour subvenir a kmrs hewitt.,;; en combustible et en matieres

utilisaient dans la construction et pour la fabrication d'usten~

ades utilitaires, sooals, etlon ceremortie1!es. Bien qu'une grande partiede 1a cOte du Pacifique Nord soH re\:ouverte forestiers, leg arbresutilisabies et d"acees facile etaient parfois diffidles a trouver, Une etude archeo­botanique de Cap Addington .Rockshelter au Sud Est de l'A.laska (49-CRG-188)montre que les occupants du site (nmpta.:ient sur Ie bois de pour comple-menter leg aroTeS et Ie bois mort de fa foret AIa foiB et renollveJable,1e bois de greve procurait €galenlent des taxons de bois de feu fort prise> quin'auraient ete diBponibles autrement que par des echanges cnmmeroaux avec

No. JVol.LEPOFSKY et aL

INTRODUCTION

d'autres groupes. Un examen de la litterature ethnographlque de la edte du Pa­dfiqlle Nord n?vel", que Ie bois de greve emit une ressoun:e pour Iesbesoins en combustible et en tedmologie de plusieurs groupe:; de Premieres Na­tions.

126

North Pacific Coast peoples relied on wood. l Ethnographically, large quanti­ties of wood .",ere used to construct and heat houses, to process foods, and a5

raw materials for manufacturing cal1O€$, implement:>, and art and ceremonial ob­jects (Turner 1998). In the arrl',aeological record, evidence of this high demand

wood can be seen in. the size and extensive remodelling of plank nous"c:set a1. 1992; Lepofsky et al. 2000), the abundance of charcoal in most sites (Sten­holm 1992), the dominance or wooden artifacts and debris at wet sites (Bernick1991), and the profusion of standing and dead culturally modified trees withevidence of bark and wood harvesting (Mobley and Eldridge 1992; Pegg 2000;Stryd 1997; Stryd and Eldridge 1993). In addition to sheer quantity, bothethnographic and archaeological records indicate that North Pacific Coast peoplesrecognized different qualities of w()ods for fuel and ted:mology, sought par­ticular species for specific tasks (Friedman 1975; Lepofsky in press; Turner 1998;Turner and Peacock in press).

Despite a wen-developed system of ownership and management of trees{Stewart 1984:36-37; Turner and Peacock in press), the ethnographic record sug-

that local forests could not supply the amount of wood or theparticular species of wood needed by North Pacific Coast groups for fuel andt('(;tmlol()~{. Heavy demands on firewood meant that some groups exerted con­siderable effort to collect fuel at sonu~ distance from their villages (Boas J935[1969]:7; Drucker 1951:107; }ewitt 1974:96). The effort involved in harvesting fueland its overall value is further indicated by the fact that among the Coast Salish,the lower class were often required to supply firewood along with other essentialsupplies to dominant clite villages 1955:86; Suttles 1987:5). In the moresparsely forested ecosystems of the northern portion of the coast, groups such asthe Dena'ina had to re-locate villages when local supplies of firew'ood weredepleted (Karl 1987:1S). Further: when specific woods fOl' technology could notbe obtained from forests within a group's territory, people traded for wood orthe finished products (de Laguna ]972;35,413; Drucker 1955:61; Singh 1966:27,Turner 1998:43-44; Wennerens 1985:59). The archaeological record of culturallymodified trees indicates that North Coast peoples also consider­able distances from their settlements to harvest wood for technological purposes(e,g., Lepofsky and Pegg 1996).

In addition to the wood supply in the surrounding forests and that obtainedthrough trade, many North Pacific Coast peoples could obtain wood as driftwood.

paper explores the importance of driftwood as an accessible and renewableSOtm::e of wood for fuel and technology. Our pal(~oethnobota.'1icalinvestigation ofthe Cape Addington Rockshelter in southeast Alaska revealed that a significantproportion of fuel WQod used at the site did not grow locally, and likely camefrom driftwood. Further, resufts suggest that the inhabitants of the rockshelter

Spring/Summer 2003 JOlJRNAL OF ETHNOBIOLOGY 127

BRiTISHCOLUMBIA

~

\~1

"'--1.._"........__"'..... ...__.._"'_"'_..._,.,_.:L_..__,

1J

I

~~\.

\'\

Kwakwa!ia'Wakw

NUu-ct1aJH1u1th

NilinahtMakah

Quialeule '"Twana"'- /.

PUYallup-/Nisqually

/liQrthem limit 0" -' -'iillIIWII'aJ Cs/llomlli!fr@.~

:=~~t.~, ..Cape .._____­

AddlllgtCn - ~site

Haida ­

/IIMfhel'nIJmlt .,_.- _.-.-.-.-.

ofDouglas·fir

ALASKA

i

/' i NO~hem\-...

I limit 1 \I .! ofyeliorr \ Yakutat

Dana'ioo I cedar Tfil'lglt

IChugach Alu!iiq

FIGURE l.-··The North Pacific Coast, showing location of Cape Addington Rockshelter,northernmost range limits of some major tree species. and cultural groups for whom thereis an ethnographic record of driftwood use (see Table Tree range limits come fromPojar and MacKinnon (1994).

selected preferred fuel wood taxa from among the drift A review of the ethno­graphic literature for the region indicates that the Cape Addington Rockshelterinhabitants were not unique on the North Pacific Coast, and that driftwood wasan important source of wood for fuel and technology for many grOllp5.

CAPE ADDINGTON ROCKSHEI.:TER

Cape Addington Rockshelter is located on Noyes Island, one of many smallislands west of Prince of Wales Island in southeast Alaska (Figure 1). The site wasexcavated by Moss in 1997. The cultural depOSits extend over a 20 x lO-m areaon a slope that ranges between to 9.0 m above mean high. tide within anuplifted \-\lave-cut rockshelter. The 279 em deep shell midden at the sHe has pro­duced 13 radiocarbon dates with calibrated midpoints ranging from AD. 160 to1420. The sim deposits are composed of shell, fire-cracked rock, bone, antler, and

charred and uncharred botanical remains, The artifact assemblage numbers abouttwo dozen items, including five deer ulna awls or knives, bone and wood points,a deer scapula spoon, barbed bone harpoon point, mussel shell blade, and frag­ments of worked bone, wood, and shell.

From the rockshelter, 8918 vertebrate remains have been studied. Thirty-twospecies, nine additional genera, and another nine families animals haveidentified (1vloss n,d., Moss and Losey 2003). During the earliest period of siteoccupation (AD. 70 to 270), the faunal remains are dominated by halibut (Hip­pogloss1JS stenolepis Schmidt) and deer (Odamileu:> hemionus sitkensis Merriam). AfterA.n 600, Pacific cod (Gadus macrocephalus Tilesius) is the most abundant taxon,indicating site occupation during IVlarch and April (see Bowers and Moss 2001for a detailed discussion of Pacific cod), In later periods, harbor seals (prlOca vi­tulina L) and salmon (Ol1corhyrlf::hus spp.) become key resources, and offshoreresources, such as northern fur seals (Callvrhinu5 ursinus [,), Stt:ller sea lions (Eu­metopias jubatus Schreberl, and a variety of seabirds attest to use of oceanic islands,possibly including the Forrester Islands. Both faunal and macrobotanical evidencesuggest site use during spring and summer (Lepofsky et al. 2001; Moss and Losey20(3). Plants were collected in the site vicinity; and some plant processing andconsumption took place on site,

The site occurs within the densely vegetated western hemlock~Sitkaspruce(Thuga hererophyila-Picea rainforest of the southern half ofsoutheast Alaska (Viereck and Uttle 1972). Some small shore pine contorta)are also found along the beach fringe today. Mountain hemlock (Tsuga mertensiana(Bong.) Carr.), western redcedar (Thuta plicata), and yellow-cedar (ChamaeL:llparisnootkalensis) occur within the larger region, but 'were not observed during recon­naissance of southwest Noyes Island. Shrubs and herbs growing in the immediatevicinity of the rockshelter include Sitka alder (Alnus crispal, cow parsnip (Hera­deum lanatwn Michx.), and devU's dub (Oplopanax horrid!!!> Smith), A variety offt>1ns, grasses, and other low-lying plants are found outside the shelter. Hue shore­line in front of the site is open to the Gulf of Alaska, but nearby headlands andoffshore rocks provide some protection from the full force of Pacific swells andstorms, Nonetheless, driftwood is commOn on the beach in front of tile site today.

The vegetation surrounding the site today differs little from that of thelast 2000 years. The forest surrounding the site has not been altered significantlyby modem. human activity, and while the record of glacial advances and mac­rofossils do indicate climatic fluctuations on the Alaska coast in the last 2000 years(e.g., Calkin et aL 2001; CVv1'Ilar 1990; Hansen and Engstrom 1996; Mann et a1.1998), there was relatively little change in vegetation in the same period~at leastat the coarse level that pollen records can detect (e.g., Gottesfeld et a1. 1991; Hebda1995; Hebda and Whitlock 1997).

128 tEPOF5KY et al.

METHODS

As part of a larger paleoethnobotanical analysis of 49-CRG-188, Lyons andLepofsky identified 90 charred and 30 uncharred wood specimens from five bulksediment samples and from material collected from the l,i~inch screen during theexcavation of one deposit (Table 1; Lepofsky et al. 2001). The bulk and ~.4-in('h

Spring/Summer 2003 JOURNAL OF ETHNOBIOLOGY 129

TABLE 1.«~Paleoethnobotanical Rocksheltee

Date volumeUnit Stratum Feature (liters) Notes

Unit 1 lIa 18 An ]420 1.4 18 is a hearth \ivith ash lens!burned rock! dlarcoal. II is adark, fine bilty black [natrixwith considerable amounts ofbone and ,;,ome shell.

Unit 2 Ilk 22 AD. 660 1.6 22 is a mussel shell-burned rockconcentration. HI is light-col-ored due to large quantities ofshell. Large particles of shell,

considerable bone.Unit 2 Layer IVd N/A AD. 500 1.9 IV is a dark matrix with less

shell lhdn III. M()istto upper strata. Bone occurs.

Unit 7 Stratum B NjA AD. 1230 1.8 B is a dark matrix with someshell aJ:,d lots of charredwood.

Unit 7 Stratum H N!A A.D. 800 1.l H is a dark matrix with bits of"hell.

Unit 3 Layer IUa N/A A.D. 750 N/A botanical rema.iM collected fromi 4·inch screen, III is

ored due tosheiLrock;

samples were selected to repreS€nt the different areas of the excavation a'i wen asthe major deposits within the site. Two the bulk samples were from featuresand the other three were from charcoal-rich layers within the shell midden. lhematerial from the l.4-inm screen was from a shell-rich deposit where unique de­positional conditions resulted in the of an abundance of both un­charred charred botanical remains (Lepofsky et at 2001). Material collectedfrom the %-inch screen should be representative of botanical remains!but not smaller remains.

We proct~ssed the sediment and 14-inch samples in slightly different ways.The sediment samples were floated using a modified bucket flotation systemwhich collected plant remains >0.425 .nun in diameter. These remains were sortedinto their constitm:nt parts (charcoal, "seeds,t' needles, non-woody tissues) withthe aid of a dissecting microscope (maximum magnification 40X). We limited ouranalysis of the \~-inch screen material to mm in since an un­known amount of smaller material had passed through the screen. We sorted thismaterial direct!}T into three gross charcoal! unmarred wood, and un­charred herbaceous plant We further subdivided the uncharred \\'ood into two

on morphology: stem/root and wood, The "wood" cate-gory consists of fragments which, based on the curvatm€ of the growth rings,originate from brand1€Sr or stemwood, The "branch/root" cat­egory consists of specil11.ens whose original diameter (based on ring curvature

and presence of bark) was em in diameter, and therefore likely originatedfrom either smaller tree roots or small branches.

We rando:mJy selected for identification 15 charcoal specimens from ofthe five flotation samples and 15 specimens from the charcoal, uncharred wood,and branchI root from the%-inch. screen. Based on previous experience with woodanalysis on the North Pacific Coast, 15 specimens is the minimum sample size torepresent the abundance of the common taxa. All specimens were mm inCharred wood was identified using a reflected light microscope (maximum mag­nification 400X) and uncharred wood was identified with a transmitted lightmicroscope (maximum magnification 400X). AU identifications were made bycomparing against specimens in the wood reference collection housed in Le~

pofsky's paleoethnobotany laboratory at the Department of Archaeology, SimonFraser Universiry-.

130 LEPOFSKY et at VoL 23, No.1

l

The Cape Addington Rockshelter flotation an.d screen samples yielded seeds,needles! buds! wood! and non-woody tissues representing 24 plant taxa (Lepofskyet 2001). Of these, uncharred and charred wood taxa dominate the assemblageboth in diversity and abundance. The woods are comprised of ten tree spE'des,the majority of which are conifers (Table

Despite the relatively small sample size, there is patterning in the distributionof charred and uncharred wood taxa. Of the charred woods! thn->e spruce(Picea sitchensis), redcedar (Thuja plicata), and Douglas-fir (P5uedotsuga menziesii)were collected most often and in greatest quantity 2). The remainingcharcoal species were either infrequently; and/or were not harvested inabundance. Our sample of uncharted woods is too lirnib"d to discern definitivepatterns, but the percent abundances some taxa do indicate distinct formationprocesses for the uncharred wood and charred wood taxa (e.g.! yellow-cedar char­coal versus uncharred branch/ root; hemlock charcoal versus uncharred wood;Table 2),

This non-random distribution reflects the deliberate collection particularwood species for specific tasks. We assume that the charred wood recovered wascollected for fuel, and/or was scrap generated from other which \'vasburned. The preference at the site was dearly for spruce, and Douglas-fir fuel; each of these taxa is widely recognized among North,-Irest Coast peoplesas an excellent an~purpose fuel wood (Turner 1998). The uncharred wood fromthe 'A-inch screen sample may have been brought into the site to manufactureartifacts, or may have also been stockpiled for future fuel consumption (e.g., Regerand Campbell 1986).

The taxonomic abundance of the different woody taxa reflects both lot::alabundance and cultural preference, In charred and uncharTed archaeological sam­ples as well as in the local environment today, conifers are more common thanhardwoods. However, while both spruce and western hemlock (TSUgli heterophylla)are common in local forests today, and were likely so in. the past as well, onlyspruce is ubiquitous and abundant in the archaeobotankal assemblage {Table 2;

Spring/Summer 2003 JOURNAL OF ETRNOBIOLOGY 131

TABLE 2,-Wt)od taxa recovered from Cape Addington Rockshelter.----

N(% Abundance)'

Scientific name(common name) C

UCW

could be either A. amabilis or A.lasiocarpa; both grow in rare, lo­cal stands in southeast Alaska;not observed on Noves Island,but may be present.~

present in southeast Alaska inmixed coniferous forests fromsea level to timberline, includingmuskeg; not in immediate vicin­ity of site today, but may hepresent at higher elevations.

abundant in the forests of south­east Alaska from low to mid el­evations; abundant in site vicini­ty today.

COfl"l:mon in shoreline forests, pre­sent in site vicinity· today.

common component of centraland SOUthetl1 B.C. coastal for­ests; northernmost population is380 km south of Noyes Island.

present in southeast Alaska fromImv to mid elevations south ofFrederick Sound; not in imme­diate site vicinity today; mayoccur in more protected habitatson the island.

common tree of coastal forests;common in site vidnity today.

common along shorelines of south­east Alaska and near site today.

grmvs in mixed and pure thicketsor as a slow-growing small treein low to mid elevations ofsoutheast Alaska. None ob­served in the site vicinity today.

several species of vvillow grow onthe outer islands of southeastAlaska; in site vicinity today_

2 (2)9 (10)

3 (3)

4 (4)

4 (4) 1 (3) 5 (17)

27 (30) 6 (20) 3 (10)

11 (12) 1 (3)

Coniferous TIeesAbies spp. (true fir)

Chamaecyparis twotkatensis D.Don (yellow-cedar)

TSI/gll d. helerophyllu (Raf.) 3 (3) 5 (17) 2 (7)Sarg.' (western hemlock)

Isuga/Chamaecyparis 14 (16) 2 (7) 3 (10)Unidentified conif~.r 7 (8) 2(7)

Deciduous TreesAlnus d. crispa' (Regel) 3 (3)

Rydb. (Sitka alder)Pyrus fusea Raf. (Pacific 1 (1)

crabapple)

Salix 'pp. (willow) 1 (1)

Unidentified deciduous 1 (1)

Pinus cf. contorta DougL2(shore pine)

Pinus/PiceaPsuedotsuga menziesii

(Mirbet) Franco (Douglas­fir)

Picca d. sitdu:nsis (Bong,)Carr.' (Sitka spruce)

Thuja pUcata Donn ('\-\'esternredcedar)

--,-,--".-:- -­1 C = charred, UC W = uncharred stert"Lwood; lie B/R = uncharred branch/root fur charcoal, N

90 (15 identified specimens from each of the five flotation samples and the one lA-inch screensample)~ For uncharred wood, N = 30 05 specimens from each of the !'>temwood und btiU1d,/rootspedmens recovered from lA.~inch screen sample}.~ Speciee:. identifications of these genera are based on phytogeography rather than minute an.:'\tom}'.

Vol. 23, No.1LEPOFSKY et a1.

30% 12%

Figure 2). This may be because unlike spruce, hemlock was not a preferred fuelwood among many Northwest Coast groups (Turner 1998).

]n contrast, Douglas-fir does not grow locally, yet is common in the archaeo­botanical record. The northern limit of Douglas-fir habitat occurs at aboutnorth latitude in central Britiqh Columbia, almost 380 kIn to the south of NoyesIsland (Figure 1; Pojar and MacKinnon 1994:17). Distributions of Douglas-fir var­ied in the past, but never extended north of British Columbia's central coast (Mat­hewes and Rouse 1975; Hebda 1995; Hebda and Whitlock 1997).

The Douglas-fir wood in the 49-CRG-188 assemblage was undoubtedly col­lected as drift from Noyes Island beaches. Although it is possible that the CapeAddington RocksheIter occupants travelled south to harvest Douglas-fir or thatthey received. it through trade, both these scenarios Se€m unlikely, especially giventhat the anhaeologkal site was not occupied year-round. The Davidson Current,which regularly transports drift from southern California north'ward along theAlaska coast during the winter (Thomson 1981:231) likely transported the Doug­las-fir wood to beaches in the site vicinity.2

Other taxa within the archaeobotanical assemblage also may have been col­lected as driftwood, but this is more difficult to demonstrate based on plant ge­ography. In particular, the abundance of r~>dcedar in the archaeobotan:ical assem­blage is than its apparent abundance in the local forest (Table 2). Althoughwe cannot rule out the possibility that site inhabitants went to some effort totransport fedcedar back to the rockshelter from elsewhere on the island, or from

~~ "raC:> 1;-""T(-'O"'. .;,'Q'If.

0\';'"10'&

(p'lf. Wood taxa

FIGURE 2.,-The number of times different charma! taxa were identified in each of sixsamples (15 identifications per sample). For each Ulxon, each bar represents one sample,111€ numbers on top of the bars represent the average percent abundance for that taxon,Only secure identifications are illustra«'>d, but unidentifiable specimens are included in thecakulations of percent abundance.

132

Spring/Summer 2003 JOURNAL OF ETHNOBfOLOGY 133

another island, a more plausible scenario is that they harvested the wood as driftfrom the beach in front of the rockshelter.

Vv'hile we carillot quantify how much of the total wood used at the rockshdterwas collected as driftv,ood, it appears to be significant. Conservatively, based onDouglas-fir alone, driftwood accounts for 8°!o of the charred and uncharred woodrecovered al Cape Addington (n = 120). If redcedar is included in the total, atleast 18% of the tolal assemblage may have originated from drift (Table 2). Theactual contribution of driftwood could be much higher.

The relative abundance of Douglas-fir and redcedar in the archaeobotanicalassemblage suggests that the site inhabitants deliberately selected these woodsfrom among the drift. Although we cannot quantify how common Douglas-firand redcedar were in the andent driftwood population, we expect that hemlockwas at least as available as the other two spedes. Yet, whereas hemlock was notcollected in abundance as a fuel wood, Douglas-fir and redcedar were clearlysought after. In the case of Douglas-fir, it was only found charred in the deposits(Table 2), suggesting it was selected only for fuel, and not for other purposes.

DRIFTWCXID USE ON THE NORTH PACIFIC COAST

Even though few North Pacific ethnographers discuss the use of woods muchat all, our literature review indicates that groups throughout the region relied ondriftwood for fuel and technology (Table 3; Figure 1). For the Makah and Kwak­wa'ka'wakw, for example, driftwood was the most common source of fuel, whileonly occasional use is mentioned for other groups. For some groups, access todriftwood meant a supply of valued woods that were not locally available orsufficiently abundant, and could otherwise be acquired only through trade. Suchwas the case of redcedar among the Alutiiq (Wennerens 1985:59) and Makah(Singh 1966:27), and redcedar and yellow-cedar among the Yakutat Tlingit (deLaguna 1972:43; Drucker 1955:61). Several sources mention preferred uSes for par­ticular taxa of drift, indicating that driftwood, like wood found in the forest, wasselectively harvested for specific uses,

The elhnographic sources are relatively silent as to specifically who collecteddriftwood. Slaves and olher lower class people were often employed to gatherfirewood in general (Boas 1935 [1969]:7; Jewitl1974:96; Oberg 1973:79; Ruyle 1973:611; Singh 1966:54; Suttles 1987:5), which likely included driftwood as well aswood from the forest. Only Drucker (1951:107) had more specific observationsabout the harvesting of driftwood. He noted, "[b]oth [Nuu-d,ah-nulth] men andwomen got wood, although womens wood gathering consisted chiefly of pickingup small driftwood along the beaches. Men got 'big wood'-big lengths of drift­wood". :'

11,ere is some indication that driftwood was a resource that could be claimedand owned, This is clearly illustrated in the ca'lC of a large spruce log that driftedashore in Nitinaht territory in 1930s that was immediately claimed, and then cutup for firewood (Turner et a1. 1983:fig 16) Since slaves belonged to titleholdersor to the households of titleholders (Donald 1997), and slaves often collected fire­wood, we surmise that driftwood collected for fuel was considered the privateproperty of an individual or the common property of a household. Some southern

134 LEPOFSKY et al. Vol. 23, No.1

TABLE use of driftwood on the North Padfic Coast.1

Use of driftwood Reference

Russell 1991b: 6, 19, 20, 21

Blackman 1981;75

Turner et a!. 1983:fig, 16

Wennerons 1995:59. 78

de Laguna 1972;413

Elmendorf and Kroeber1992:220

Swan 1868;4

Drucker 1951;107; Arima1983:62

N.]. Turner'Wolcott 1967:23; Rolmer

and Rohner 1970:19Boas 1909:407

N.J. Turner"

Boas 1921;256, 451.

Smith 1940:286

Singh 1966:23

Bamboo sometimes drifted ashoreDrift logs for firewood

Driftwood piled to make screen todirect heat from cooking fires onbeach

"Bark was il favored winter fuel/ butany kind of wood, includingbeach drift, was so used"

Drift logs were split into boards ormade into canoes

Drifn.....ood was the principal sourceof firewood_: redcedar drift logswere used for canoes, especiallyby the ]',lakah

Driit logs were owned and cut up forfirewood; P silchmsis drift for fuel

Drifl was (QHeeted for fuel

Quileute and !vlakah

Makah

Nuu-dlah-nullh

Puyallup-Nlsqually

K1A'akwak..,'wakw

Chugach Alutilq

Chugadl Alutiiq

Nuu-ehah-nulthKwakwaka'wakw

Nitinaht

Kwakwaka'wak\'\'

Halda

Northern and Kal­gani !fuida

Raid.

Haida

Yakutal Tllnglt

Drift logs 'vere most commonsourC{' of fuel; soft drift\/lfood usedas hearth wilh fire drill

Driftwood was used to process el­derberries and to singe the hairoff harbor seals

R tni'11ziesii, Acer, Betula, and otherwoods sometimes collected asdrift

Drift logs were lashed together tomake rafts to migrate to Alaska

Drift legs used for pyre to cremale Swan 1876;9dead

DrHhvood used for fire on beach to Blackman 1980:85process spruce roots

rnuja and Cl1arnaecypuris found asdrift

Thula available at Nuchek only usdrift; it was available yCiif roundon the beaches of Prince WilliamSound, used for paddles, quivers;ycllow~cedar sought after on Low~

er Kenai PeninsulaDriftwoodl smaH trees/ ;;l.nd broken

pieces of wood were preferredover standing trees

Thuja available only as drift; whenfound, people cut, ]J"cl<ed, andshared the wood; nuga spp. har­vested only as drift; though locallyavailable PaddIes and dugout ca­noes made from 'LSI/gil and Thujadrift. Populus Iricho",rpa driftwoodused to heat homes and steam­baths; preferred for smoking fish

-~-~-~~-~-~-~~-~-~-~~----_._--

-

Spring/Summer 2003

TABLE 3.-Continued.

Group

Dena'ina

Dena/inaDena'ina, Aleut

JOURNAL OF ETHNOBIOLOGY

Use of driftwood

Driftwood and windfalls weresought after for firewood; Thuja col­lected as driftvlOodFire drills made of Thuja driftPopulus trichocmpa drift preferred forsmoking fish because is udean"~

without sapl contains salt, and slm..r­bunting; for steambath switcl1€s,whittlingThuja and Charnaeeyparis used asbuilding material due to resistanceto rot; dugoot boats for children.Driftwood used as poles for fish

racks

Reference

Kari 1987:15, 39

Osgood 1966:108Russell 1991a: 9, 12, 13

135

I The aboriginal groups arE' ordered from south to north along the coast. See Figure 1 for locations ofgroups.~ Dc Nancy J. Turner, etlmobotanist, University of Victoria, email correspondence with n Lepofsky,19'19.

Northwest Coast peoples divided beaches into family-owned territories to claimownership of beached whales (e.g., Hajda 1990), and it is possible that driftwoodwas also incorporated into this system of ownership.

At the north end of the Pacific Coast, where forest wood is a much scarcercommodity, several groups developed systems of ownership of driftwood. Forinstance, among the Alutiiq, when redcedar drift was found it was cut up andshared (Russell 1991b:19), and among the Koniag of Kodiak Island, ownership ofdriftwood was often claimed while the logs were still out at sea (Adams 1998).Among the Aleuts of the Aleutian Islands, wars were started when driftwoodwas taken from another village's territory (Veniaminov 1984, cited in Hoffman1999:159), and an excavation of an Aleut village suggests that driftwood wasshared within a household group (Hoffman 1999:159). The people of NunivakIsland marked ownership of piled driftwood by placing a large log in an uprightposition in the pile (Fienup-Riordan 2000:62).

DISCUSSION

From the time of initial coloni7,atim1 of the North Pacific Coast, driftwood prob­ably has been an important source of wood for people of the region (Ames andMasdmer 1999:61). Nol only was driftwood a readily accessible and renewable sourceof wood, but it also provided preferred taxa that would not otherwise have beenavailable except through trade. Both the Cape Addington Rockshelter case study andour review of the ethnographic record indicate that North Pacific Coast peoples se­lectively harvested driftwood for particular purposes. Like living trees or dead woodfOlmd in a resource territory, driftwood was integrated into a system of ownershipand management typical of other valued resources, by at least some groups.

Although we cannot determine the amount of driftwood available on PacificCoast beaches prior to industrial logging, early accounts indicate that driftwood

136 LEPOFSKY et al. Vol. 23, No. 1

was plentifuL For instance, in 1777, when Captain Cook arrived to Nootka Soundon the west coast of Vancouver Island, he was pleased that many drift logs of allshapes and sizes were available to repair various parts of the Resolution (Gough1978:10). Similarly, Dorsey (1898:5). travelling in Dixon Entrance in the late 1800s,commented that many beaches were "piled high with drift, often to a height ofsixty feet or more." Likewise, early photographs of the coast (e.g.• Curtis's 1912photograph of "Itjhe mouth of the Quinault River") also show abundant drift­wood on the beaches (Curtis 1913).

Despite the overall availability of driftwood on the coast, not all people wouldhave had equal access to this valuable resource. Because of the subtleties of localocean currents, only certain beaches accumulate drift.3 Undoubtedly, North PacificCoast peoples had knowledge of beaches where drift tended to accumulate andthese were valuable locations for collecting wood. Even though we cannot recon­struct the relative abundance of spedes that were available as driftwood prior toindustrial logging, current patterns of deposition of drift on beaches should reflectthe overall spatial availability of driftwood in the past.

In addition to the availability of drift on local beacl1es, the role of driftwoodto any individual group was undoubtedly influenced by regional variation inforest spedes composition and overall forest produetivity. Importantly, the num­ber of tree species declines northward along the coast (Alaback 1996), and thedistribution of highly valued species such as Douglas-fir, redcedar, and yellow­cedar becomes increasingly restricted towards the northern ends of their geo­graphic ranges (Figure 1; Pojar and MacKinmID 1994). \'\'here redcedar and yel­low-cedar do grow in Alaska, they often are small and stunted (Pojar andMacKinnon 1994:1n and thus are unsuitable for canoes or large structures. Inthe northernmost part of the region (north of 58" north latitude), forests not onlycontain fC\¥er tree species in general, but less of the landscape is forested, andthose forests are less productive overall (Alaback and Pojar 1997). Based on thesevegetation patterns, it seems quite dear that driftwood was more important topeople on the extreme northern part of the North Pacific Coast. However, theethnographic data suggest that geographical variation alone does not account forthe relative role of driftwood among North Pacific Coast groups (Table 3).

A final factor in determining the importance of driftwood was settlementtype. Large, long-term, permanent settlements would have placed especially highdemands on local forests, both for foel and technological needs. This is clearlyillustrated for the Makah, Nuu-chah-nulth, and Kwakwaka'wakw, who are locatedin some of the most productive coastal forests. yet aecording to the ethnographicrecord, driftwood was their prindpal source of fuel (Table 3). Driftwood may alsohave played a relatively more important role in some small and/or low-statussettlements since these communities are less likely to be associated with the well­developed regional trade systems that supplied non-local woods.

The North Pacific Coast is not unique in northwestern North America withrespect to the value of driftwood. Further north in the 'Western Arctic, where thelandscape is sparsely treed or treeless, and the cold winters result in especiallyheavy demands on foel, the importance of driftwood permeates the religious,soda!, and economic systems of most groups (Adams 1998; Barker 1993; Fienup­Riordan 1996, 2()()(); Oswalt 1957:26). To the east, Plateau groups located their

Spring/Summer 2003 JOURNAL OF ETHNOBIOLOGY 137

villages and camps along floodplains that accumulated drift, and used the woodboth for fuel and for spaial technological purposes (Miller 1998:258; Rhode 1986;Smith 2000:7.8; Stenholm 1985; TeitI930:223).

Recognizing the value of driftwood has important implications for OUT un­derstanding of how people of the North Pacific Coast negotiated resource diver­sity across the landscape. Even in a heavily forested region, an archaeologist can­not assume that charcoal represented in an archaeobotanical assemblage repre­sents locally growing tree species. North Pacific Coast peoples clearly identifiedand understood the different properties of various wood taxa, even in the formof drifL Identifying charred relllilins to genus or species should become a routinearchaeologkal practice, especially for wood samples from coastal sites submittedfor radiocarbon dating. Samples of driitwood may be particularly susceptible tothe "old wood," or inbuilt age problem, and the magnitude of this effect can bespecies specific (Gavin 2001; Schiffer 1986).

NOTES

1 For the purpose of this paper,. we defint;~ the North Pacific Coast as the region extendingfrom Cook Inlet to the Oregon-California border.

2 Dl~ Curt Ebbesmcyer, Oceanographer,. Evans-Hamilton; email correspondence with D. Le­pofsky, 1999.

3· Dr. Curt Ebbesmeyer, Oceanographer, Evan&-Hamilton; email correSpOndL'IKe with D. Le­pofsky, 1999.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Excavations at '19-eRC-188 were supported by grants to Moss from the National Sciencefuundation, Tongass National Forest, Craig Ranger District, University of Oregon, and theNational Marine Fishelies Service, Auke Bay Laboratory. Moss would like to thank the fieldlearn: }on Erlandson, Hob Losey, Ivlark Tv€Skov, Betty John.ston, and Erik Moss Ertandson, allof whom enjoyed driftwood campfires at night. Many thanks to CUl~ Ebhesmeyer for sharinghis extensive knowledge of drift, to Nancy Turner for information on the use of drift by FirstNations of the Nortln",·cst Coast, and to Karen Adams for sharing her unpublished work ondriftwood use in Alaska. W, also thank it'S"" Morin for rus help with the search throughetlmographic sources for lllformation on wood use by Norlhwest Coast peoples. Many thanksto Kathia Guay and Remi Bra"'On for the translation of the abliotract into French ilnd to AndresValle-Domenech and IVlarcela Olguin-Algarez (once again) for the translation into Spanish.

REFERENCES CITED

Adams, Karen R. 1998. The spirit of drift­wood: Alaskan drift\\Food use and ar­chaeological implications. Paper pre­sented at the 63rd Annual Meeting ofthe Society for American Ard)aeology,Seattle,. \'Vashington.

Alaback, Paul B. 1996 Biodiversity patternsin relation to climate: the coastal tem­pera.te rainforests of North America. In

High-Latitude RJJin!aresls and AssociatedEcosystems of the West Coa..,t of the AJJle­deus, ed;;. Richard B. lawford, Paul 5,Alaback, Eduardo Fuentes, PP' 105-133.Springer-Verlag,. New York.

Alaback, Paul and Jim Pojar. 1997. Vegeta­tion from ridgetop to seashore. In TheRainforests of Home, eds. Peter K.Schoonmaker, Bettina von Hogen, and

No.1VoL

pp. 159-177. Brilisll ArchaeologicalReport International Series 94'1. A1'·chaeopress, Oxford,

Calkin, Parker Gregory C andDavid J. Barclav. 2001. Holocene coastalglaciation of Alaska. QUilfe-mary ScienceRevinils 20:449~"'461_

Curtis, Edward S. 1913 [1970], The NorthAmerican Indian: it Serk'7S of VolumpsPic~ur.im;> and the indiansUnited tl1£ DOi'nir,riOl1Alaska. vlll. 19, ed. Frl:',del-ickPlimpton Press, NOf\·vood, Massachu­setts. Johnson Reprint, Ne1.v York..

Cwynar" L.C 1990, A late Quaternary veg­etatkm history from Lily Lake, ChllkatPeninsula, southeast Alaska. CanadianJournal of Bl)[any 68:1106-1112.

de Laguna, Frederica. 1972. Under MountSaint Elias: The Historv and Culture ofthe Yakutat Tlingit, Pt. 1. SmithsonianCOl1tributums to Anthropology, Vol. 7.Smithsonian Institute Press, Washing­ton, D.C.

Donald, Leland. 1997. onthe Nurth.u,'est COl15t of America.University of California. Press, Berkelev.

Dorsey, George A 1898, .<\ cruise amongHaida and Tlhigit vUJages about Dix­on's Entrance. Reprinred in Appleton'sPopular Science Monthly from a lecturedelivered in the Held Columbian Mu~

seum, Nov. 6, 1897.Drucker, Philip. 1951. Tire Northern ,md Om­

fml Nootkan Tribes, Smithsonian Im,ti­tution Bureau of American Ethnology,Bulletin 144. Smithsonian Institution,Washington, D.C.

1955. Indians (If fhe NortJrrot'sl Coast.TIle Natural Garden City,NevvYork

Ehnendort William Wand A.L Kroebet:1992. Tile Strucfltre Ta¥1na Culture,With Comparati'lA.' Nott:s on tlu> Structure

Yurok Culture. Washington Stare Uni­versity Pr€5Sr Pullman, Washington.

Fit'J1up-Riordan, Ann. 19%. Tire LWHig Tm­dilion of Yup'ik Maslr.s, University of"V,'l.shington Press, Se"lttle.

(editor) 2000. Where the EcllOand other Oral Tradltkms from Southwest­ern A.ll1ska recorded tn.! H,ins Himmelheber.University of Alaska Pressr Fairbanks.

rfliedlnaJrl, Janet. 1975. The Prehistoric Usesof Wood at the Ozelle ArchaeologicalSite. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of

LEPOFSKYet a1.

Edward C. Wolf, pp. 69~.g7. IslandPress, Washington, D.C.

Ames, Kenneth M., Doria F. Raetz, StephenC. Hamilton, and Olristinf' l\4cAfee.1992. Household archaeology of asouthern Northwest Coast plank house.Journal of Field ArclulI;ology 19:27~290.

Ames, Kenneth M. and Herbert D.GMaschner. 1999. H~(}~11e5< of fhe Nortllu't'stC(¥~5:t Thamt'S and Hudson Ltd., Lon·don.

Arima, E.Y. 1983. The t\\'st Coast If/eNootka of l1mcouver Island and Cape Fltu­ten/. British Columbia Prmdncial Mu­seUm, Special })ublk"t1on.. nO·. 6, Victo­ria.

Barker, H.1993. Alzt.,1Us Gettin~ Readu.Upterrltlinar!utl.l. Yup'ik" Eskimo '·Subsi~.fena: in SOlltlwJest Alaska. Univers-ltv ofWashington Press, Seattle.

Bernick, Kathryn. 1991. \Alet Site Archaeol­ogy in the Lmver Mainland Region ofBritish Columbia. Report on file, BritishColumbia Trus.t, Victoria.

Blackman, B. 1980. During MyTime, florence Edenshaw Davidson. A Hai··d,.Woman University of WashingtonPress, Seattle.

1981. Window 611 tilC Pf./iir; The Pho·tographic EtlmohistOrll of t,/u; Norfl1f.~rn andKiJig(wi Baidll. National Museum ofMan Mercury Series, Canadian Ethnol­ogy Service, Paper no. 74. National Mu­seums of Canada, Ottawa.

Boas, Franz, 1921. of the Kwa-Based OIl Data bv

George Hunt. Bureau of American Eth­nology, Annual Report 1-2, In35th Amrual Report of tlte Bureml ofAtrll'r·fum Ethnology lily ille Years 1913-1914r

pp, 43-1481. Washingtonr D.C1909 {1975]. The Kwakiutl of Van­

couver Island, Publicatiulls of the JesupNorth Pacific Expedition 5 (2):301~522.Memoirs of the American Museum ot' Nat­ural Histtwy 8 (2). Reprinted,' AMSPress, New York

1935 [1969]. KR'f1kiut! Culture as Re­flecled il1lvf.ytholog,y. Kraus Reprint Ne\vYork,

Bowers. Peter M, and Madonna L. .\fuss.2001. The North Point Wet Site and thesubsistence importance of Pacific codon the northern Northwest Coast. InPeople und J'Vildlife in NOfrflern N(Jt'thAmerica: in Honor of R Dale Guth-

138

"-------_._----_.•._-----_.._-------------------_._--------~----------

Spring/Summer 2003 JOURNAL OF ETHNOBlOLOGY 139

Anthropology, Washington State Uni­versitv, Pullman.

Gavin, Daniel G 2001. Estimation of inbuiltage in radiocarbon ages of soil charcoalfm fire studies. Radiocarbon 43:27-44.

Gottesfeld, Alan Holf W Mathewes, andLeslie M,L Gottesfdd. 1991. Holocenedebris A(}~'S and environmental history,Hazelton area, British Columbia. Cana­d~m Journal Earth Sciencer;, 28:1583­1593.

Gough, Barry M. 1978. Nootka Smmd inJames Cook;;; Pacific world. In Nu-tka­Captain Cook emd the onthe Coast, eds. Barbara S. Efrat and W.J.Langlois, pp. 1-.32. Sound Heritage vol.VII, no. 1. Province of British Columbia,Victorh:L B.C

Hajday Yvonne. 19911 Southwestern CoastSalish. In The Han.tbook of North Armeri­can Indians, vol. 7, 1]1(! N()rthu~st

ed. Wayne Suttles, pp. 503-517, Smith­soruar1 Institution Press, Washington,nc

Hansen, RCS. and n.R. Engstrom 1996.Vegetation history of Pleasant Island,southeastern Alaska.. since B,OOD yr BP.Quaternarv Re5carch 46:161-175.

Hebda, Richard J. 1995. British Columbiavegetation and climate history with fo-cus on 6KA BE Phl/siqw: etQuall,'r!1aire 49:55-79. y •

Hebda, Richard 1, and Cathy Whitlock.1997. Environmental history. In TireRain Forests of Home: Profile of a NorthAmerican Bioregiorl, eds. Peter K.SctlOCIl!nia.~;er.. Bettina von l-fagen andEdward C Wolf, pp, 227-254. Island

Wi'lshington, DC.HQffman, Brian W. 1999. Agayadan Village:

household archa.eology on Unimak Is­land, Alaska. Jaumal of Field Archaeology26:147-161.

Diamcmd. 1955. The Faith of aCoast Salish Indian, Anthropology inBritish Columbia. Memoir No, :t BritishColumbia Provincial Museum, Victoria.

jewitt, John R. 1974. Tlte Adt'Cntures andferings of John J, Jewitt, Captive Anll.mgNootka 1803~~1805. ed. Derek G. Smith.McCiclland and Stewart Ltd, Toronto.

KarL Priscilla Russell 1987. Tal1liina Plant­lore. Dena'ina K'efuna. National ParkService, Anchorage, Alaska.

Lej:lofs,ky, Dana, In press, The Northwest.

In Plant:; and People in Ancient ,",,forthAJr'lt'rU:a. voL 2, cd. Paul Minni.<;. Smith­sonian Institution Press, Washington,nc. ..

Lepofuky; Dana, Michael Blake, DouglasBrown, Sandra ~norrisonl Nicole Oakes,and Natasha Lvons. 2000. The archae­ology of the Scowlitz site, southwesternBritish Columbia. Journal of field AI'-cM.calo)<'lf 27(4):391-416.

Madonna L Moss, and2001. The unrealized

paleoethnobotany in the ar­thaeology of northwestern NorthAmerica: Persp<"<;:tives from Cape Ad­dington, Alaska. A.rdk Anthropology38n ):48-59.

Lepofskl~' Dane and Brian Pegg, 1996. Ar­chaeological and ethnographic assess­ment. In Th(~ Kowesa Watershed As­sessment; Summary Report, pp. 38-44,Interrain Portland, Oregon.

Mann, Daniel H., Awn l. Crowell, Thomasn Hamilton, and Bruce p, Finney. 1998,Holocene geologic and climatic "hi&toryaround the Gulf of Alaska, Arctic Anthropalogy 35:112-13L

Mathewes, Rolf W. andd Glli'll E, Rouse.1975. Palynology and palaeoecology ofpostglacial sediments form the k.wefFraser River Canyon oJ British Colum­bia. Caymdian Jour;ml of Earth Sciences 12:745-756. '

MHler, Jay. 1998. Middle Columbia RiverSaHghan. In The Handbook NorthAmerican India ItS, voL 'flle ed,Wayne 253-270. Smithso-nian Institution Washington, nc

Mobley." Charles M. and r.,'lorley Eldridge1992. C1.1lturallv modified trees in thePacific North\'l~:';'t. Arctic Anthropology29:91-110.

Moss, Madonna L n.d. Archaeological In-ves,tig;aticfn of Addington R«k-shelter: Human of the J{ug-ged Seacoast on the Outer Prince ofWales Archipelago, Alaska. Universil:vof Oregon Anthropological Papers,preparation}

Moss, lVladonna L and Robert I. Losev.2003. Resource Use on the NorthwestCoast: Case Studies from SoutheastAlaska ami Oregon. The Proceedings ofthe 17th 11'1ternlltulilal Abashiri Sympo­sium, Abashiri, Japan,

Oberg, Kalvero. 1973. 'I1u: of

No.1Vol.

mento State College, Sacramento, Cali­fornia.

Smith! Alan H. 2000. Kalispel ethnographyand ethnohistory. In T!Je Oliispell ValleyAr,;,/ulieo!(lgy Finnl RtjXJrf, tv!. 2, Historyilnd EthnographiC Background, eds. W.Andrefskv, G.C Burtdllud, KM.PrCf'rleT, S.R Samuels, P.H. Sanders, and A.Thoms, pp. 7.1-i.151. Center for North­west Anthropology, Department of An­thn)poI{)gy, Washington State Universi­tv.., Pullman.

Smiih,~rion "IN. 1940. The Puyallup-Nis­qually. Columbia University Press, Ne>'JYork.

Stenholm, Nancy A 1985. Botanical a.qsem·bIage. In Stlli'llllary of Results,Darr Culturi11 Resources Prof/xt, Wa5hi!rl!l~

tOil, ed. Sarah K Campbell, pp. 411-4!J~1,

Office of Public Archaeology, Universi­ty of Washington; Seattle.

1992. Fort Rock Basin botanicalanalysis. Paper presented at the North­west Anthropological Conference, Bur­naby! U,C

Stewarf, Hilary. 1984. Cedar. Douglas andMcintyre! Vimcouver.

Stryd! Amoud. 1997. Culturally M<JdifiedTrees of British Columbia. British Colum-bia Ministry of Nanaimo, a.c.

Stryd, Arnoud and Morley Eldridge 1993.C'MT archaeology in British Columbia:the Ivleares Island stu(Hes. KC Studks99:184-2.34.

Suttles, \'Vllyne. 1987. Private knowledge,m{,rality, and social class among theCoast Sali"h, In Coast Salish ESSI!yS, ed.Wayne Suttles, 3-14. Talonbl.mks,Vancouver and of Washing-ton Press, Seattle.

Swan, James G. J868. Indians of Cape Flat­tery at the Entran<:e of the Strait ofFuca, V\il'lshington Territory, Smiths(l1!farrContributio/l to 16(8):1-1D6.Wa.<;hington, D.C

1876. The Haidah Indians of QueenCharlottes British Columbia.With a brief description of their cant­ing;'" tattoo etc SmithsonfrmContributions toWashington. nc.

James A. 1930. The Salishan Tribes ofthe W.:stem Plateaus, In 45th A/mua/ Re-fJOrt the Bur.l.'l1u AmericlJn EUmiJ!ogylnr Uw ed. Franz Boas,'pp, 23-3%, Washington, nc.

LEPOFSKY et aL

fhe Tlingit indians. University of Wash..ington Press, seattle.

Osgood, Cornelius. 1966. The Ethnography ('!f'the Talltiimr. Yale University Publicationsin Anthropology 16. YaleNew Haven, COillledicut.

Oswalt, Vlendell H. 1957. A We&tcm Eski­mo ethnobotany. Anthropologicalof the Unir;ersity of Alaska 6:16-36.

Pegg, Brian. 2000.CMTs, and Nuu-dlah-nulth history Of!

the west coast of Vancouver Island. Ca­naailm Tournai of Archaeology 24:77-&3.

Pojar, Jim and Andy Mackinnon. 1994.Plants Coastal British Columbia. lonePine Press, V<mcouver.

Reger! R. and Chl'L<i R. Campbell.1986. Historic Use of Sakie BI1!f Cm:e,CRG-LBO. Archaeological Sur-veys. Slate of Alaska, Department ofNatural Resources, Anchorage.

Rhode, David. 1986. ArchaelJbotankal inves­tigations in the Wells Reservoir /\r{'ha&­ol(:~ical Project, Eastern Washington. InThe Wells ]{esercw'l' wI. 1: Su.m­mary of Findings, ed, James Chatters. Ap­pendix A-3 Central Washington Archae·ological Survey, Al'cha<.'oiogy Report 86­6, Ellensburg, Washington.

Rohner. Ronald P. and Evelyn C Rohner:1970. The KUXlkiutl fndiims of British Co·lumbia. Holt, Rinehart and Winston,New York.

Russett Priscilla N. 1991a. Ninilchik IJlant­lore. An Ethnobotanv of the NinilchikDen..{ina, Aleut! and Russian Peoples.Ms. on file with author and Pratt Mu­seum! Homer, Alaska.

~'~-. 1991b. and Port Grahamlilutfiq Pltmtlore. Homer Sodety for N'lt­ural History, Chugach HerHage foun­dation, and Alaska Native Plant Society,Anchorage.

Ruyle, Eugene E. '1973. Slav<>"j!, surplus,and stratification on the NorthwestCoast: the of anent stratification system. Currentthropology 14:603--6::h.

Schiffer, Micbael B. 1986. Radiocarbon dat­and the Hold wood" problem: the

ca.se of the Hohokam chronology. !ou/"nal of Ardureologic.al Science 13:13-30.

Singh, Ram Raj Prasad. 1966. ll.bariginaJEconomic System of the Olympic R:ninsulClIndians, ~,\{'Stern WaShillgtOI1. The Sacra·mento Anthropological Sana-

140

JOURNAL OF HHNOBIOLOGYSpring/5ununer2(~3

Thomson, Rid1ard. 1981. Oceanography ofthe Btitish Columbia Coast. CrmadiollSpeeial Publication of Fisheries lind Aqua!kSciences 56. Department of Fisheriesand Oceans, Ottawa.

Turner, Nancy J. 1998. Plmtt Technology ofFirst Pr::oples in British Columbia. RayalBritish ColmJl;Jia Museum Handbook. Uni­versity of British Columbia Press in col­laboration with the Royal British Co­lumbia Musemn, Vancouver.

Turner, Nancy J, and Sandra L Peacock Tnpress. Solving the perennial paradox::the ethnobotanical evidence for plantreWuR'€ management on the North­west Coast. In Keepil1g It Living: ltuiige­noWJ Plant Managel11mt on the Northux:stCoast, eds. Douglas Denr and Nancy J.Turner. University of \....ashingtonSeattle,

]41

Turner, Nancy L John Thornas, Barry F.Carlson, and Robert T. Ogilvie. 1983.Ethnobotalllf of the NitinaJtt Indians ofWmcourer [sland. Occasional Papers otthe British Coluulbia Provincial Muse­UIn, no. 24< British Columbia PronndalMUllelJ,m, VictiJria.

Viereck, Leslie A. and Elbert L. Little, Jr:1972. llkwka Tree;:; llnd Shrubs. Al2:ncU!­tural Handbook No. 410. Forest ;:)CCVJI.:t',

United States of Agricul­ture, VVashington,

Wennerens, Alex J. 1985. Traditional PlantUsage by Chugach Natives AroundPrince William Sound and on the LowerKenai Peninsula, Alaska. M.A. Thesis,University of Alaska, Andlorage,

\'\<'okott, Harry F. 1967. A. Kwakiutl 'Villageand Scl1ool. Holt, Rinehart and Winston,New York.