Crater Lake. Klamath Indian legend of water devils who drag people into the water. Charles M. Skinner, Myths and Legends of Our Own Land (Philadelphia: Lippincott, 1896), vol. 2, pp. 302–303. Crescent Lake. Henry Schwering and Bert Vincent saw an animal with a huge, round head. Peter Cairns, “Colossal Claude and the Sea Monsters,” Portland Oregonian, September 24, 1967.
Upper Klamath Lake. Native American legend of an animal that was half dragon, half hippopotamus. Charles M. Skinner, Myths and Legends of Our Own Land (Philadelphia: Lippincott, 1896), vol. 2, p. 304.
|bandon_monster_by_pristichampsus-d2yvyl3 (by Tim Morris, the artwork is recycled from an earlier blog)|
Mysterious Creatures (George Eberhart, 2002, continued)
WASHINGTON: Spirit Lake. Animal with a bearlike head. Paul Kane, Wanderings of an Artist among the Indians of North America (Toronto, Canada: Rasmussen Society, 1925), pp. 136–137.
In the Domain of Lake Monsters, page 163: "Perhaps the most bizzare lake monster of Washington state is one for which there is no specified lake and no apparent tradition. Chris Bader in his book Strange Nothwest writes of a Washington trapper who discovered the carcass of a miniature lake monster with a barrel like body, short stubby legs with big webbed feet, no tail and a 'neck [that] looked like a snake'. The creature's head was rather small but contained a mouth full of teeth"
[We can now safely assume that it was an ordinary sea lion, quite typical to the Columbia River although a visitor and not a native species, and it is not actually important to know the precise location. This was most likely a California sea lion, and a female.-DD]
Sea lions have been a recurring problem in the Bonneville Pool for the last three years. They have damaged fishing gear and stolen fish from nets. There are an estimated four sea lions in the Bonneville Pool this spring.[The number has been as high as an estimate of 70 at one time within recent years]
After the four Columbia River treaty tribes requested that this growing problem be addressed, the National Marine Fisheries Service paid for construction of a trap to try to remove problem sea lions from the Bonneville Pool. “Tribal fishers have grown frustrated with the sea lions above Bonneville Dam and the damage they cause to their fishing gear,” said Paul Lumley, CRITFC executive director. “We are happy that something is being done to address the situation and that there is now a method to remove animals that have been trapped in the Bonneville Pool.”
The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife is operating the trap, but trapping is being done in coordination with tribal fishery managers. The trap was deployed on April 17 at The Dalles Marina. The trap needs to be deployed in an area where sea lions haul out. There have been at least three sea lions that have been hauling out at The Dalles Marina. Trapping also needs to be done where the trap can be kept secure and where sea lions can be removed from the trap for transport. The Dalles Marina also meets this requirement. Once trapped, each animal will be removed from The Dalles area and later examined for brands or natural markings. These markings determine if the animal is on the list for removal. Unknown or unmarked animals will be branded and released into the Columbia River below Bonneville Dam. Marked animals on the removal list will undergo a health assessment and, if found healthy and meeting a series of health criteria, could be considered for transfer to the Queens Zoo in New York. All marked animals on the removal list are subject to possible euthanasia.
There are plans to install another trap possibly in the Stevenson area. Fishers should be aware that there is no guarantee trapping will be successful. It may take a long time to catch the animals. There may be logistical limits that prevent trapping in all areas where problem sea lions are. Fishers are encouraged to continue to report sightings of sea lions. We recognize the frustration of fishers, but these reports have helped a great deal in getting support for trapping efforts.
Call CRITFC Enforcement (800) IT’S FISHY if you spot a sea lion in Zone 6 stretch of the Columbia River. Fishery managers are especially interested in locations where sea lions haul out as it may be possible to trap them in these locations. By compiling as much data about the size and nature of the sea lion problem, the tribes hope to have more information to come up with an effective and suitable solution. For information on non-lethal hazing techniques from NFMS, please visit: bit.ly/ hazingmethods .
Human Impacts on Seals, Sea Lions, and Sea Otters: Integrating Archaeology and Ecology in the Northeast Pacifi c, edited by Todd J. Braje and Torben C. Rick. Copyright © by The Regents of the University of California. All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.
Today it is not unusual to pick up the latest issue of an archaeology journal such as American Antiquity, or Journal of Archaeological Science, or the like, and to fi nd in the table of contents an article on a topic in zooarchaeology. It is more diffi cult to fi nd a piece on the zooarchaeology of marine mammals. It is equally diffi cult to fi nd an article on some prehistoric aspect of marine mammals based on zooarchaeological remains in a natural history journal such as Marine Mammal Science or Oecologia. These informal observations prompt some musings. Has the history of zooarchaeological research on North Pacifi c pinnipeds and sea otters (Enhydra lutris) been unique, or has it been but a portion of the much larger history of zooarchaeology in general? Have trends in analysis of pinniped and sea otter remains tracked analytical trends in zooarchaeology in general? In this chapter, I provide some initial answers to these questions. In par tic u lar, I report and comment on the history of paleoecological research on pinniped and sea otter remains recovered from archaeological sites along the northeastern Pacifi c coast. I conclude with some observations on potentially signifi cant research topics that have as yet been little explored.
METHODS, MATERIALS, AND CAVEATS To write the history that follows, I read the published literature only and did not examine unpublished archival rec ords nor did I delve into the extensive unpublished (and thus basically inaccessible) grey literature resulting from CRM projects. Exceptions include several unpublished doctoral dissertations, copies of which I happen to have. Taxonomic abundance data are presented as the number of identifi ed specimens (NISP; Grayson 1984; Lyman 2008). Discussion is limited to the pinnipeds and sea otters; whales and other cetaceans are not considered. For purposes of this chapter, the northeastern Pacifi c Rim includes, from south to north,
would reveal much about prehistoric ranges of taxa, long- extinct and thus zoologically unknown species might be revealed by such remains, skeletal pathologies of taxa might be better documented with zooarchaeological materials, and temporal changes in the size of animals might be revealed by prehistoric faunal remains. Some but not all of these revelations have occurred via study of marine mammal remains recovered from archaeological sites along the northeastern Pacifi c Rim.
BEGINNINGS William Healy Dall (1877) excavated several sites in the Aleutian Islands during the late 19th century. He listed the sea mammals represented by faunal remains he found: northern fur seal (Callorhinus ursinus), Steller sea lion (Eumetopias juabutus), Phoca (two species), and walrus (Odobenus rosmarus) (Dall 1877:74). Dall was a naturalist of the fi rst rank (Merriam 1927); he did not need to indicate how he identifi ed the remains nor did he list the frequencies of the remains he found. This was typical of the time (Reitz 1993; Robison 1987)— what are pejoratively referred to as “species lists” were the typical result of zooarchaeological work in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, if any such work was done at all. Dall did not mention any paleoecological implications of the remains he reported. This is not surprising for the simple reason that naturalists were still learning about the modern zoological world in the late 19th century and thus did not know what might be unusual in the prehistoric record. The report on northeastern Pacifi c Rim marine mammals that most people know about and that can be taken as the seminal modern zooarchaeological study was undertaken by Gretchen M. Lyon in the 1930s. Lyon (1935, 1937) described remains from the Point Mugu shell mound in Ventura County, southern California. She was a zoologist in the natural history sense. She studied living amphibians, mammals, and birds; she illustrated the work of other zoologists; and she did some paleontology (published the California, Oregon, Washington, British Columbia, and southeastern Alaskan coasts, both those coasts along the open ocean and those facing the inside passage. The groups of pinnipeds and sea otters discussed comprise seven species (Table 2.1). I mention the paleontological record where pertinent, and focus on the archaeological record of these creatures because that is where the bulk of the pertinent data originates. I mostly restrict discussion to aspects of paleoecology— biogeography, rookery locations, and the like— indicated by the remains of marine mammals. There have been many discussions of the human economic implications of the marine mammal remains recovered from archaeological contexts along the eastern Pacifi c Rim (e.g., Calvert 1980; Cannon 1991; Colton 2002; Hildebrandt 1981, 1984b; Huelsbeck 1983; Stewart and Stewart 1996; Wigen and Stucki 1988). I do not review these discussions here, as many of the other chapters in this volume cover this topic in detail. Given the focus of this chapter, it is appropriate to note that natural historian W. J. Wintemberg (1919:63) pointed out nine de cades ago that zooarchaeological remains would “give valuable aid to zoology.” In par tic u lar, Wintemberg noted that zooarchaeological remains
TABLE 2.1 Pinniped and Sea Otter Nomenclature for the Northeastern Pacifi c Ocean taxon common name Enhydra lutris Sea otter Phoca vitulina Harbor seal Mirounga angustirostris Northern elephant seal Callorhinus ursinus Northern fur seal Arctocephalus townsendi Guadalupe fur seal Eumetopias jubatus Steller (northern) sea lion Zalophus californianus California sea lion NOTE: Taxonomy after King (1983).
Lyon (1937:163) believed that the remains she described refl ected “a changing picture of marine life,” and thus, as a biologist, she set a prece dent that would not soon be mimicked by zooarchaeologists. Lyon discussed the “past and present status of the species” represented by the faunal remains from Point Mugu. She noted, for example, that though the sea otter was rare in the site area today and that it had obviously been hunted by prehistoric people, the abundance of its remains indicated that it had been “formerly abundant” in the area and that it was “likely the white man” who had decimated the population in the late 18th century and throughout the 19th century (Lyon 1937:163, 164). Lyon noted regarding the northern fur seal that no remains of males had been found; only remains of females were in the collection, and this matched expectations based on the modern migratory habits of this species. The large number of Guadalupe fur seal (Arctocephalus townsendi) remains (Table 2.2) was surprising to Lyon (1937:164), who noted that this species was thought to be extirpated “north of the Mexican line.” Signifi cantly, Lyon (1937:165) reported that she had examined a small sample of bones collected from a shell midden located at Yachats in Lincoln County, Oregon, and those remains included several specimens of female Guadalupe fur seal. Lyon (1937:165) took those specimens as evidence that this species had once been found that far north, adding that samples from other sites were necessary “to establish with certainty the northern limit of the range of this species.” This research avenue would not be exploited until more then 60 years later. Finally, Lyon found that the age- sex demography of the sample suggested that rookeries had been exploited. In off ering her biogeographic and biological inferences, Lyon was holding to the natural history tradition in which she was trained.
BIOGEOGRAPHY, DEMOGRAPHY, AND ROOKERIES Lyon’s observations regarding diff erences between modern and prehistoric distributions of under her married name; Burleson 1941, 1948). In her report on the Point Mugu materials Lyon not only provided quantitative data in the form of NISP and MNI (Minimum Number of Individuals) per species (Table 2.2), but she described taxonomically diagnostic morphometric features of some of the bones she identifi ed. Lyon’s use of NISP and MNI followed work by paleontologists who were her contemporaries (e.g., Stock 1929). Lyon’s description of taxonomically diagnostic anatomical features mirrored some of the seminal eff orts of individual researchers to present what can loosely be termed skeletal keylike information that could be used by other archaeologists (e.g., Brainerd 1939). At the time, such information was new and worthy of publication. Lyon’s work preceded by more than a decade the more widely known (among archaeologists) eff orts of Theodore White (e.g., 1952, 1953a, 1953b), a paleontologist who studied zooarchaeological remains recovered from sites on the Plains and who is typically credited with introducing the concept of MNI to archaeologists. Credit likely should be given to White because he published in American Antiquity and other archaeological venues whereas Lyon published her work in zoological journals that were seldom read by archaeologists until about 1980.
TABLE 2.2 NISP and MNI Data for Pinnipeds and Sea Otters Reported by Lyon (1937) species nisp mni percent of mni Enhydra lutris 304 31 13.7 Zalophus californianus 145 19 8.3 Eumetopias jubatus 12 4 1.7 Callorhinus ursinus 57 12 5.2 Arctocephalus townsendi 1557 152 66.9 Phoca vitulina 18 4 1.7 Mirounga angustirostris 21 5 2.2
NOTE: Taxonomy is updated.
six- decades- old statement: zooarchaeological remains can, they said, “provide information concerning the biology of animal species.” They described remains from a site on San Miguel Island (part of California’s Channel Islands), noting that remains of Guadalupe fur seal were much more abundant relative to the remains of other pinnipeds than would be expected given modern abundances of the taxa in the area. They attributed this diff erence in observed versus expected abundances to historic “commercial sealing activities” having decimated the metapopulation, and noted that their data matched those described by Gretchen Lyon (Walker and Craig 1979:53). Walker and Craig published their research results in California Fish and Game, a regional journal unlikely to have been read by many archaeologists. The interests of archaeologists at the time largely concerned those of artifact- centric culture history or culture process- centric pro cessual archaeology; the paleoecological implications of faunal remains were of little interest to the majority of archaeologists because prior to about 1970 they were asking questions that did not require paleoecological data (Lyman 2007a, 2007b; Lyman et al. 1997). This would change as the population of archaeologists grew and archaeologists diversifi ed and specialized their interests (Reitz 1993; Trigger 2006). By the end of the 1970s, zooarchaeology had become an important and potentially autonomous research endeavor (Reitz 1993; Reitz and Wing 1999). The likely catalysts for this development were equal parts of pro cessual archaeology’s quest for materialist and functionalist explanations including economic variables (see for example Graham’s  and Lundelius’s  synopses of late Pleistocene paleomammalogy in volumes devoted to Paleo- Indian archaeology), the federal government’s mandates for protection of archaeological resources via recovery and analysis of all cultural materials, and a growing population of archaeologists such that intradisciplinary specialization was not only possible but predictable ( O’Brien et al. 2005; Reitz 1993). Zooarchaeology along the northeastern Pataxa set a standard that would not be diverged from for nearly 65 years. Thirty years after Lyon’s report was published, Carl E. Gustafson (1968a, 1968b) noted that his work with the Ozette site zooarchaeological materials from the northwestern tip of Washington State’s Olympic Peninsula revealed abundant remains of northern fur seal. Gustafson was a zoologist by training, though throughout his career he was Washington State University’s zooarchaeologist in the Department of Anthropology. Gustafson perceived no diff erence in the relative abundance of fur seal remains from precontact to postcontact time among the remains from Ozette, and this suggested to him that some 2000 years of human predation had not had an impact on the local population. The abundance of male northern fur seals relative to the abundance of females was about 1:1 throughout the stratigraphic sequence, but males were absent from the historic record. Gustafson (1968b:51) attributed this demographic shift to “a change in the migratory pattern of male fur seals.” Gustafson’s work is noteworthy because it represents an early zooarchaeological study in which an estimate of the ontoge ne tic age of individual organisms based on tooth development was used. Gustafson (1968b:50) submitted teeth to the “Bureau of Commercial Fisheries, Division of Marine Mammals, for exact age determinations” based on “annual growth rings in the canines (Scheff er 1950),” but in the absence of those data he “constructed relative age categories based on the size of the root canal, which becomes smaller as dentine is deposited with increasing age.” Gustafson’s research was published in Science, yet it seems to have had no more (or less) impact on paleozoology than did Lyon’s less widely circulated report. The article was rarely cited by paleozoologists over the next three de cades, and many of the insights Gustafson provided were neither replicated nor evaluated in light of other data until early in the 21st century. A de cade after Gustafson’s work, Phillip Walker and Steven Craig (1979:50), two archaeologists, reiterated Wintemberg’s (1919) a his tory of paleoecologic a l r e s e a r c h 23 In the late 1980s, zooarchaeologist Lee Lyman (1988, 1989, 1991) reported on remains of sea otters and pinnipeds from three sites on the coast of Oregon (ΣNISP = 3235). He used the sex and age demography indicated by the pinniped remains to determine whether prehistoric hunters were exploiting haul- outs or rookeries. Lyman (1988) inferred the local presence of rookeries for northern fur seal and Steller sea lion. Rookeries for northern fur seal were historically unknown along the Oregon coast, and at least one and perhaps two Steller sea lion rookeries Lyman inferred were historically not documented. Lyman (1988) attributed diff erences between the prehistoric and historic records to 19th- century commercial exploitation of pinnipeds and the decimation of local populations. His results were published in an international marine mammalogy journal with the explicit purposes of illustrating the precise nature of commercial exploitation on marine mammal populations and contributing pertinent data to biological conservation and management decisions. Such applied zooarchaeological research is increasing with respect to both terrestrial mammals (references in Lyman 2006) and marine mammals (Murray 2008). In the 1990s, the long- awaited reports on the late- prehistoric archaeological site at Ozette, Washington, were published (Huelsbeck 1994). Only a sample of the mammal remains was described, but that sample was an order of magnitude larger than any other sample from the eastern Pacifi c (ΣNISP = >48,000). Unfortunately, remains of the two species of sea lions— Eumetopias jubatus and Zalophus californianus— were not distinguished. The only biological observation off ered was that the abundances of the taxa were “very similar to those observed by Gustafson” in a much smaller sample (Huelsbeck 1994:27). A few years later, zooarchaeologist Mike Etnier (2002a, 2002b) studied a sample of the pinniped mandibles from Ozette and found 34 specimens of Guadalupe fur seal mixed with 1374 specimens of northern fur seal. Etnier (2002a:555) drew three conclusions: (1) because all of the Guadalupe fur seal remains cifi c Rim tracked these developments, including an increased rate of publication. William Hildebrandt (1981, 1984b), an archaeologist, identifi ed and tallied the remains of sea otters and four taxa of pinnipeds recovered from six sites on the northern California coast (ΣNISP = 746) for his doctoral research. Hildebrandt (1984a) observed that the zooarchaeological remains he described “may indicate a former deviation from [the historically documented] pattern” of northern fur seals not frequenting the coast of northern California. Because northern fur seal remains comprised twothirds of the marine mammal remains from the site of Stone Lagoon, Hildebrandt (1984a:29) hypothesized that prehistoric hunters had obtained these animals from the nearby off shore Redding Rock and that this location “may have been used heavily by the northern fur seal as a hauling ground.” Hildebrandt cited Lyon’s (1937) work, but not Gustafson’s (1968a, 1968b). Importantly, Hildebrandt published his hypothesis in a natural history journal rather than an archaeological journal. It was, however, a regional journal with limited circulation, and thus it is likely that few marine mammalogists were aware of Hildebrandt’s signifi cant observations. Archaeologist Donald Clark (1986:39) effectively reiterated Wintemberg’s (1919) notation when he remarked that a “highly eff ective mode of long- term biological sampling is the analysis of kitchen middens or refuse deposits left at ancient habitation sites.” Clark interpreted changing abundances of remains of northern fur seal in archaeological sites on Kodiak Island, Alaska, as indicating that this species had been abundant near the southeastern side of the island during the late prehistoric/ earliest historic period. Both prior to and subsequent to a high abundance of northern fur seal remains relative to other pinnipeds, northern fur seal remains were not very abundant. Clark (1986:42) was unsure of the cause of the “blip” in the abundance of fur seal remains, but safely concluded that it could not be presumed that prehistoric maritime ecosystems were stable. 24 a his tory of paleoecologic a l research were suffi ciently abundant that syntheses of information for numerous taxa in many areas could be written (e.g., Grayson 2005; Lyman 2004). Pinnipeds are categorized as marine mammals, yet individuals of various taxa are known to occasionally ascend rivers, likely in pursuit of prey such as anadromous fi sh. This means that remains of marine taxa will potentially be recovered from riverine sites in freshwater settings. So far as I know, only Lyman and colleagues (Lyman et al. 2002) have examined this phenomenon with respect to eastern North Pacifi c pinnipeds. They found that harbor seals occurred in the lower reach of the Columbia River prehistorically, virtually since the beginning of the Holocene 10,000 years ago. This could be a critical bit of knowledge with respect to damming rivers and industrial alteration of estuaries. Thus far, wildlife managers have focused only on the impacts of such activities to anadromous fi sh. It may become necessary to monitor as well the impacts of anthropogenic activities on pinnipeds that ascend rivers. Such monitoring may, however, be a long time coming because California sea lions have been observed for the past de cade or so preying upon salmon and steelhead— two eco nom ical ly valued fi sh— below Bonneville Dam on the Columbia River. In light of these observations, state fi sh and wildlife agencies in Washington, Oregon, and Idaho requested and received federal authorization in early 2008 to remove these pinnipeds by capture and relocation if possible, but by lethal means if necessary (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, 2008). The zooarchaeological record suggests pinnipeds have ascended the Columbia River for millennia, so one must wonder if lethal removal is ecologically wise and really the best option, especially in light of the dim future that has been forecast for marine mammals the world over (e.g., Anderson 2001).
CHEMISTRY, GE NE TICS, AND EXTIRPATION By the end of the 20th century, zooarchaeology had entered what can be informally labeled the seemed to originate from individuals that were a year or less in age, this species likely had no rookeries in the area; (2) despite the historic range of the species being limited to southern California and Baja California, it had until late prehistoric times been found as far north as northern Washington; and (3) this species may have ranged northward outside its modern range coincident with El Niño events. Etnier (2002b) used demographic data to conclude that previously unidentifi ed northern fur seal rookeries had existed prehistorically on or near the Washington coast. Finally, Etnier (2002b) found no evidence that prehistoric human predation had infl uenced the local population of northern fur seals. He concluded that historic commercial exploitation had altered the biogeography of the species (see also Etnier 2007). Zooarchaeologist Diane Giff ord- Gonzalez and colleagues (Giff ord- Gonzalez et al. 2005) summarized the zooarchaeological record for pinnipeds along the northeastern Pacifi c coast. They noted that remains of northern fur seals were much more abundant prehistorically throughout the area than would be expected given the modern abundances and migratory behaviors of the species. They also pointed out that Steller sea lion rookeries as well as northern fur seal rookeries existed prehistorically in places where there was no historical record of rookeries for these species, but cautioned that additional research was necessary to confi rm the occurrence of uniquely prehistoric rookeries. Most recently, archaeologist Torben Rick and colleagues (Rick et al. 2009) compiled and summarized all zooarchaeological data for Guadalupe fur seals on the California coast. The early- 19th- century distribution of this species was poorly known given it had nearly been exterminated by the late 19th century. Its zooarchaeological remains indicate it was relatively abundant in southern California, particularly south of 35°N latitude, during the late Holocene (last 3500 years). In producing syntheses, Giff ord et al. (2005) and Rick et al. (2009) mimic a trend in zooarchaeology in general. By the end of the 20th century, paleozoological (zooarchaeological and paleontological) data a his tory of paleoecologic a l r e s e a r c h 25 found that although specimens from both sites indicated the fur seals “were feeding off shore,” they could not distinguish specimens at either site from modern northern fur seals from the Pribilof Islands of southwestern Alaska (Moss et al. 2006:179). In 2007, the collaborative efforts of several biologists and archaeologists provided resolution to Moss et al.’s (2006) conundrum. Newsome et al. (2007) were able to sort several collections of fur seal remains, both modern and prehistoric, into three geographic groups. Female northern fur seals from central and southern California have the highest isotope values; individuals from northern Oregon, Washington, British Columbia, southeastern Alaska, and the eastern Aleutians have intermediate values; and individuals from the western Aleutian Islands have the lowest isotope values. Newsome et al. (2007:9710) conclude that these distinctions “confi rm that prehistoric northern fur seal from California were not immigrants from northern waters but instead were year- round residents.” Isotope values also indicate that the northern fur seals in the geo graph i cally intermediate group “weaned at a much older age than their modern Bering Sea counterparts.” Newsome et al.’s (2007:9711) suggestion that older weaning age is likely a result of less selective pressure from longduration severe winter weather in southern latitudes relative to northern latitudes has recently received some very suggestive but not quite conclusive confi rmation that has implications for conservation biology (Lea et al. 2009). Study of isotopes to detect migration patterns of terrestrial mammals have also been recently undertaken (e.g., Hughes 2004), and though not based on stable isotope analyses, other evidence of prehistoric migration of ungulates has been noted by conservation biologists (Berger et al. 2006). Thus, study of zooarchaeological remains of marine mammals is tracking zooarchaeological research in general. GENES Historical rec ords indicate that some populations of eastern Pacifi c pinnipeds were archaeometry stage. Animal bones were not just identifi ed and their macroscopic features recorded; sometimes the chemistry, and sometimes the ge ne tics of par tic u lar animal bones, were recorded (Reitz and Wing 1999). Study of eastern Pacifi c pinnipeds and sea otters followed suit. ISOTOPES One of the fi rst studies of the chemistry of archaeological pinniped remains focused on the northern fur seal. Mammalogist Robert Burton, zooarchaeologist Diane Giff ord- Gonzalez, and their colleagues (Burton et al. 2001, 2002) studied the stable isotopes of fur seal remains from Monterey Bay, California. They found that the carbon and nitrogen isotopes of the bones indicated that, unlike in the 20th century, the northern fur seal foraged off the coast of central and northern California in the past. The ontogene tic age of some individuals was estimated based on the size of the dentary and indicated that fur seals considerably younger than 3 months of age were represented. Isotopic analysis indicated these individuals had not yet been weaned when they died. Together, these data confi rmed earlier suggestions that northern fur seals had reproduced in lower latitudes prior to the 18th century than they did today. A second study of bone chemistry quickly followed. Etnier (2004a:99) noted that the stable isotopes of the northern fur seal bones from the Ozette site fell midway between those of modern Alaska and the archaeological specimens from California reported by Burton et al. (2001, 2002). In light of demographic data suggesting a local rookery had existed, Etnier (2004a:99) concluded that the isotope data indicated that the Ozette northern fur seals “maintained a foraging pattern distinctly different than those of the California and Alaska populations.” Archaeologist Madonna Moss and colleagues (Moss et al. 2006) examined the stable carbon and nitrogen isotopes evident in northern fur seal specimens from a site in southeastern Alaska and a site on the Oregon coast. They 26 a his tory of paleoecologic a l research sition of modern Californian sea otters rather than the Alaskan sea otter population that was exploited for individuals that were moved to other areas along the northeastern Pacifi c coast. Moss et al. (2006) examined ancient DNA in a specifi c attempt to distinguish populations of fur seals among remains recovered from a site in southeastern Alaska (Cape Addington), a site on the west coast of Vancouver Island (Ts’ishaa), and a site on the Oregon coast. Although they found that prehistoric northern fur seals tended to have “a much higher ge ne tic variability” than modern populations, the limited modern data prompted them to conclude that they could not determine “the extent of recent ge ne tic bottlenecks” (Moss et al. 2006:181). Similarly, Moss et al. (2006) could not determine if their specimens represented distinct, prehistorically unique local breeding populations. This sort of research mimics that of others studying paleozoological remains of terrestrial taxa (e.g., Pusch et al. 2003 and references therein).
EXTIRPATION—TIMING AND CAUSE Historical documents suggest that populations of many northeastern Pacifi c Rim pinniped and sea otter taxa were nearly extirpated by commercial and bounty exploitation during the 19th and early 20th centuries. Some archaeologists argue that prehistoric hunters drove many populations toward extinction (Hildebrandt and Jones 1992, 2002; Jones and Hildebrandt 1995; Porcasi et al. 2000). Not surprisingly, what we have found is that extirpation is historically contingent; it is population and location specifi c (Etnier 2002b; Giff ord et al. 2005; Lyman 2003; Newsome et al. 2007). Available data suggest that central and southern California populations of fur seals and sea lions were extirpated 800 or more years ago whereas more northern populations of these taxa were extirpated only in the last 200 or so years (Etnier 2002b; Giff ord et al. 2005; Lyman 2003). It has been suggested that terrestrial climatic change in southern California prompted intensifi ed exploitation and eventual decimadecimated and others were exterminated by historic commercial exploitation. This well-documented fact provides ge ne ticists with a testable hypothesis— the degree of ge ne tic diversity in descendants of decimated populations should be less than the ge ne tic diversity of descendant populations that did not experience a bottleneck. Similarly, prehistoric, prebottleneck populations should display relatively greater ge ne tic diversity than modern, postbottleneck populations. Biologist Shawn Larson and colleagues (Larson et al. 2002a, 2002b) found exactly these test implications among eastern Pacifi c sea otters. Both extant and prehistoric sea otter populations displayed low variability in mtDNA, but sea otter remains from the Ozette site indicate that the population prior to the fur trade had more variation than all tested extant populations. When Lyman (1988) reported on the phenotypic variation of Oregon’s prehistoric sea otters, he implied that some of that variation was the result of ge ne tic variation. The editors of Marine Mammal Science requested that discussion of the possible ge ne tic implications of the phenotypic variation of prehistoric Oregon sea otters and of the likely results of transplanting the wrong phenotype (and by implication the wrong genotype) of sea otter to the Oregon coast both be omitted from the manuscript that eventually became Lyman (1988). In the original, unpublished manuscript, Lyman suggested that the Alaskan sea otters transplanted to the Oregon coast in the 1970s may have been doomed from the start because of their phenotypic (and implied ge ne tic) adaptation to a high- latitude habitat and attendant dietary diff erences from sea otters in more southern latitudes. Subsequent to Lyman’s (1988) research, a collaborative project was undertaken between Oregon biologists and zooarchaeologists who studied ancient DNA extracted from archaeological specimens recovered from Oregon sites. These researchers (Valentine et al. 2008) found that the ge ne tic composition of Oregon’s prehistoric sea otters best matches the ge ne tic compoa his tory of paleoecologic a l r e s e a r c h 27 avoid the area. What distinguishes Hanson and Kusmer’s analysis is their choice of a very narrow research question concerning a single taxon in a geo graph i cally limited area, and their intensive analysis of all available data that bears on their research question. This is not to denigrate or discourage multitaxon analyses, but rather to emphasize that diff erent taxa have diff erent physiologies, ecologies, and the like, making the individualistic species model the most viable initially. Further, my comments are not meant to deny that the presence or the absence of par tic u lar marine mammal taxa could have signifi cant cascading ecological eff ects on littoral biotic communities; interestingly, one of the seminal studies to demonstrate this built its case on zooarchaeological data (Simenstad et al. 1978). Large zooarchaeological samples are necessary for studies of prehistoric species interactions, and those samples must span suffi cient temporal durations and occur in sequent, suffi ciently short- duration assemblages that the signal of the ecological cascade eff ects is not muted. Sadly, few samples with all of these characteristics presently exist.
MORPHOMETRICS The potential implications of zooarchaeological data for wildlife management were particularly evident in Lyman’s (1988) examination of phenotypic diff erences between prehistoric and modern sea otter populations. Lyman (1988) noted that Oregon’s prehistoric sea otters displayed some characteristics of 20th- century Alaskan sea otters and other characteristics of historic California sea otters. These characteristics ranged over simple qualitative traits such as the angle of the ascending ramus of the mandible, to quantitative features such as size and shape of teeth. In light of a recent failure of efforts to re- establish an Oregon sea otter population with transplanted Alaskan sea otters, Lyman suggested that further study of prehistoric sea otter remains might prove informative to wildlife managers and conservation biologists. The morphometry of prehistoric sea otters has not been pursued and remains a wide- open research tion of pinniped populations (Colten and Arnold 1998). Detailed paleoclimatic rec ords (e.g., Arnold and Tissot 1993; Jones and Kennett 1999) are required, as are tight chronological controls of zooarchaeological data, in order to establish that climatic variables had causative roles in the decimation of marine mammal populations (e.g., Trites et al. 2007). Coincidentally, it must be demonstrable that humans did not play a signifi cant role in depressing populations of prey animals. Study of the timing of the extirpation of local populations of sea mammals will continue, and debate over the cause— was it natural or was it anthropogenic?— will also continue, just as it is has for the terminal Pleistocene extinctions of North American mammals (e.g., Fiedel and Haynes 2004; Grayson and Meltzer 2003). Hopefully, identifying a human cause of extinctions will not become evidence used for po liti cal purposes as it has for the overkill hypothesis regarding Pleistocene extinctions (Grayson and Meltzer 2004). A good way to sum up the discussion thus far concerns an ontological point basic to modern ecol ogy. When studying the history of multiple taxa, no matter how related they might be in an ecological or phyloge ne tic sense, each taxon’s history will be more or less in de pendent of every other taxon’s history. This ontology, known as the “individualistic hypothesis,” grew from botanist Henry A. Gleason’s (1926) observations (Nicolson 1990). It’s general accep tance among ecologists grew in part from increasing amounts of paleontological data that contradicted notions of static interspecies associations and interlinked ecologies and histories thereof (e.g., Hewitt 2000; King and Graham 1981). Hanson and Kusmer (2001) exemplify this taxon- specifi c approach, examining all faunal collections in the Strait of Georgia region to determine if sea otters were historically absent from the area as a result of historic overhunting or if some environmental factor precluded use of the area by this marine mustelid. They found no evidence of the former, and postulated that the sea otter’s ability to detect and avoid paralytic shellfi sh toxins caused them to 28 a his tory of paleoecologic a l research immature pinnipeds (Lyman 1988). Using bone or tooth size (e.g., crown height) to estimate ontoge ne tic age is not unusual in zooarchaeology in general (e.g., Klein et al. 1981; Munson 1984). A unique use of morphometric data is found in Crockford et al.’s (2002) suggestion that a previously unknown and now- extinct species of fur seal occupied the Barkley Sound– Cape Flattery area of southwestern Vancouver Island and the northwestern Olympic Peninsula of Washington state. Ethnohistoric data they consulted indicate a form of fur seal that was not only unique in terms of its reproductive behaviors but also its pelage. These data in combination with slight diff erences in the morphology of archaeological remains of newborn fur seals relative to modern comparative specimens suggested to Crockford et al. (2002) that a unique, now- extinct species of fur seal occurred around the western end of the Strait of Juan de Fuca until recent historic times. Crockford et al. wisely note the small size of their sample and suggest testing the validity of the proposed unique taxon with ancient DNA. Crockford et al.’s use of morphometric data to identify previously unknown extinct taxa is part of a long history of such in zooarchaeology and paleontology (Mead et al. 2000 and references therein). The paucity of morphometric studies on northeast Pacifi c sea otters and pinnipeds mirrors the paucity of such studies in North American zooarchaeology in general. A diff erence exists, however, in the fact that most morphometric research away from the Pacifi c Rim has involved converting bone size to biomass (e.g., Emerson 1978; Purdue 1987; Reitz et al. 1987). No such algorithms have yet been developed for pinnipeds along the northeastern Pacifi c Rim.
DISCUSSION Moss et al. (2006) point out that they misidentifi ed several specimens of pinniped and detected the mistakes only when ancient DNA revealed the errors. They attribute the misidentifi cations to the “fragmentary and juvenile avenue. This is not unusual; bone size tends to be minimally exploited in zooarchaeology generally, except for the use of allometric relationships between bone size and body size for purposes of estimating biomass (e.g., Reitz et al. 1987). Mike Etnier (2002b, 2004b) examined the size of male Alaskan northern fur seals in the 20th century and found that the fur seals collected between 1911 and 1920 were larger than individuals collected from 1940 through 1953. He attributed this shift in size to coincident changes in the density of the fur seal population. When the population was more dense, intraspecifi c competition was greater and fur seals tended to grow slower and be smaller as adults; when the population was less dense, intraspecifi c competition was less and fur seals grew more rapidly and were larger as adults. Etnier (2004b:1624) suggested that “long- term data on relative population levels [might be provided by] paleontological or archaeological samples.” In his unpublished dissertation, Etnier (2002b) reported that the Ozette northern fur seals were smaller than the Alaskan individuals throughout the archaeological sequence. The archaeological specimens were smaller either because the prehistoric Washington population was denser than the 20th- century Alaskan population, or because the two populations were not only distinct in terms of size but latitudinally distinct as well (Etnier 2002b:227). This issue has not yet been resolved. The correlation of population density and individual body size is a phenomenon that is beginning to be regularly used in the zooarchaeology of terrestrial mammals (e.g., Wolverton 2008). Etnier (2002b, 2004b; Newsome et al. 2007) also used bone size to develop growth curves that allow determination of the ontoge ne tic age of northern fur seals. Such determinations are more exact than earlier ones based on much smaller samples of known- age individuals for other pinniped species (Lyman 1991). Assessment of ontoge ne tic age is critical to evaluation of whether or not rookeries may have been near archaeological sites that produce remains of a his tory of paleoecologic a l r e s e a r c h 29 may be more than 190,000 years old (Gingras et al. 2007). Nevertheless, the recovery of walrus remains from Vancouver Island, southwestern Washington, and even from San Francisco Bay (Harington 1984) indicates that paleozoologists should keep their eyes and their minds open when identifying pinniped remains from the Northwest Coast. Do not allow modern biogeography to bias your taxonomicsearch grid (Driver 1992). Even if walrus were extirpated on the Northwest Coast prior to the arrival of humans, it is particularly important to not completely exclude them from consideration given that prehistoric peoples utilized fossil bone (e.g., Nelson et al. 1986). Part of the solution to diffi culties with taxonomic identifi cation resides in adequate reporting (Butler and Lyman 1996), in par tic u lar, describing the morphometric criteria used to distinguish taxa, sexes, and ontoge ne tic cohorts (Lyman 2005). Such reporting would allow zooarchaeologists to evaluate identifi cations made by others; this is what paleontologists do, and for good reason. But with respect to reporting the morphometric criteria used to make taxonomic identifi cations, zooarchaeological research on northeastern Pacifi c pinnipeds is no diff erent than that anywhere else in the world; basically, very few people report the criteria they use to make identifi cations. Editorial concerns with per- page publication costs may be a limiting factor, but if so, then we simply haven’t done our job in terms of convincing editors of the necessity of describing the criteria we used to identify a par tic u lar taxon. In fact, this lacuna in our reporting is mirrored in archaeology generally. Can anyone tell me where the defi nitive morphometric characteristics of a Clovis projectile point are published? To be sure, many points given the name “Clovis” have been described, but the necessary and suffi cient attributes a specimen must possess in order to be given the name “Clovis” are not generally agreed upon nor are they well known (e.g., Howard 1990). Accurate and well reported taxonomic identifi cation is critical to many kinds of [character of the archaeological] skeletal remains” and the lack of “comparative specimens [of known taxonomy] representing the full range of morphological pinniped species” (Moss et al. 2006:179). This episode in the history of zooarchaeological study of northeastern Pacifi c Rim marine mammals tracks similar episodes with terrestrial fauna and marine fi shes and prompts the same conclusion— extensive comparative collections of known taxonomy are mandatory to accurate identifi cations of zooarchaeological remains (e.g., Driver 1992; Gobalet 2001; Lyman 2005). Two variables exacerbate the identifi cation problem along the northeastern Pacifi c Rim. First, with respect to pinnipeds, relative to the terrestrial interior, few natural history museums are located in coastal settings where skeletons of sea mammals are likely to be housed. The land- locked comparative collection I visit most often— the University of Kansas Museum of Natural History, where the world famous mammalogist E. Raymond Hall (1981) once worked— has thousands of mammal skeletons but only a couple marine mammal skeletons. The second variable that infl uences our ability to correctly identify remains of pinnipeds is that marine mammals are, by and large, now under strict international protection, so building comparative skeletal collections presents unique logistical problems above and beyond the more typical one of traveling to a comparative collection of suffi cient size to adequately facilitate identifi cation. Correct taxonomic identifi cation is critical to any zooarchaeological endeavor. Consider, for example, the walrus, a pinniped taxon that has not often been associated with the Northwest Coast culture area. More than 15 years ago, Harington and Beard (1992) reported the recovery of a walrus skeleton from Vancouver Island. A radiocarbon date on bone collagen from the skeleton assayed at greater than 40,000 BP (see also Harington 1984:516). Four paleontologists recently reported geological trace fossils of walrus in Willapa Bay, southwestern Washington (Gingras et al. 2007). These trace fossils 30 a his tory of paleoecologic a l research The data on which Figure 2.1 is based are given in Table 2.3. While compiling those data, it was found that many such data were not reported in a manner useful to this sort of biogeographic analysis. Rather than reporting pinniped remains as to genus or species represented, several authors simply reported “phocids,” or “fur seals,” or “sea lions.” Each of these folk taxa is polytypic— each comprises more than one genus or species. Such reporting may suffi ce for assessing prehistoric human subsistence, but it simply won’t allow detailed paleoecological and paleobiological research. Taxonomically ambiguous reporting is, sadly, a characteristic of zooarchaeological research in non- coastal contexts as well. For better or worse, we are keeping pace with the discipline at large. Zooarchaeological research on eastern North Pacifi c sea otters and pinnipeds focusing on biological issues has centered on the northern fur seal, likely because remains of this species have been so often out of place biogeo graph i cally relative to modern times— something recognized initially by Gretchen Lyon 70 years ago and still the center of attention today. Lyon also noted the unexpected abundance of Guadalupe fur seals in southern California, something only recently pursued with intensity (Rick et al. 2009). Ignoring the likely bias paleo biological analyses. Consider the likely artifact of incorrect identifi cation of fur seal as Callorhinus ursinus rather than Arctocephalus townsendi apparent in Figure 2.1. One would expect that the biogeographic border for a taxon would not be abrupt in terms of relative abundance of that taxon but rather geo graph i cally gradual (Brown and Lomolino 1998). Data on all sea otter and pinniped remains identifi ed between Kodiak Island and the California- Mexico border were compiled to generate Figure 2.1. The Guadalupe fur seal’s frequency distribution should gradually taper off north of the southern California area given the occasional presence of vagrant individuals (e.g., Gaston 1996). Instead, there are no remains of this species explicitly reported for the area between southern California and central Oregon; fur seal remains are reported as just that—“fur seal”— without species designation (e.g., Hildebrandt and Jones 1992). The only reason Guadalupe fur seals are found in central and northern Oregon is because Gretchen Lyon (1937) reported them in the former area based on skeletal morphology and Moss et al. (2006) identifi ed them in the latter area based on ancient DNA. I predict that if extant collections from northern California and southern Oregon are reexamined with a critical eye, remains of Guadalupe fur seal will be detected. 57.5 56 Alaska British Columbia Washington Oregon California Arctocephalus townsendi 54 50 49 47.5 34 3 3 1 26 3444 45–46 43.5–45 Latitude 42–43.5 40–42 37–38.5 35.5–37 33–35.5 0 200 400 600 800 1000 NISP 1200 1400 3000 3200 3400 3600
FIGURE 2.1. Frequency (NISP) of Guadalupe fur seal (Arctocephalus townsendi) remains relative to latitude. The absence of remains from 40 to 43.5 degrees is likely the result of failure to identify Guadalupe fur seal remains and to distinguish them from northern fur seal (Callorhinus ursinus) remains. Data from Table 2.3.
TABLE 2.3 Summary of Taxonomic Abundance Data (NISP) by Latitude. List Reads from North to South. area (latitude) e. l. p. v. m. a. c. u. a. t. e. j. z. c. data source Kodiak Isl. (57.5) 8 664 0 354 0 19 0 Clark (1986) Angoon (57.5) 476 166 0 0 0 9 0 Moss (1989) Cape Addington (56) n.d. 97 0 20 0 52 0 Moss et al. (2006) Prince Rupert (54) 1915 564 0 44 0 59 0 Stewart and Stewart (1996) Queen Charlottes (53) 719 662 0 104 0 108 0 Orchard and Clark (2005) Hesquiat Harbor (50) 158 124 1 329 0 41 31 Calvert (1980) Ts’ishaa (49) n.d. 43 1 250 0 19 1 Moss et al. (2006) N.W. Washington (47.5) 45 57 7 1923 0 42 0 Friedman (1976) Ozette (47.5) 501 377 2 47,296 34 10 1 Huelsbeck (1994), except A. t., E. j., Z. c. data from Etnier (2002b) N. Oregon (45– 46) 724 317 0 186 3 584 29 Lyman (1995), Colten (2002), Moss et al. (2006), and Minor et al. (2008), except A. t. data from Moss et al. (2006), and Moss et al. (2006) do not report data for E. l. Central Oregon (43.5– 45) 222 264 0 135 3 1047 42 Lyman (1995), except A. t. data from Lyon (1937) S. Oregon (42– 43.5) 329 1332 3 73 0 146 22 Lyman (1995) N.N. Calif. (40– 42) 483 116 0 259 0 975 250 Hildebrandt and Jones (1992) and Whitaker (2008) S.N. Calif. (38.5– 40) 185 155 1 93 0 311 126 Hildebrandt and Jones (1992), Wake and Simmons (2000), and Whitaker (2008) N. Cent. Calif. (37– 38.5) 5057 549 0 312 1 296 304 Simmons (1992) and Broughton (1999), except A. t. from Rick et al. (2009) S. Cent. Calif. (35.5– 37) 744 103 0 292 26 9 26 Hildebrandt and Jones (1992), except A. t. from Rick et al. (2009) S. Calif. (33– 35.5) 1609 275 51 128 3444 22 364 Lyon (1937), Walker and Craig (1979), Colten and Arnold (1998), Porcasi et al. (2000), Walker et al. (2002), and Jones et al. (2008), except A. t. from Rick et al. (2009) NOTE: Latitude is approximate. Data not reported, n.d. 32 a his tory of paleoecologic a l research ploitation of all pinniped taxa, there are few biogeographic diff erences between what we know of the 20th century and what the prehistoric record implies for some taxa. This is particularly evident with northern elephant seals (Mirounga angustirostris) and California sea lions (Zalophus californianus). Today both species breed in latitudes south of the vicinity of San Francisco Bay at about 37°N (King 1983:23, 125), but both are occasionally observed in waters to the north of that bay (Figure 2.2; references in Lyman 1988). Reports of northern elephant seals establishing a more northern breeding and pupping location or rookery with respect to taxonomic identifi cation of Guadalupe fur seal remains, the biogeographic implications of Figure 2.1 are that during the late Holocene (last 3500 years), this species, like today, seldom ventured north of the latitude of the Channel Islands (33– 34°N). Although a historic, commercial- exploitation– related population bottleneck for this species is likely, the prehistoric record suggests relative stasis in its distribution and, perhaps, migratory habits. And this is not the only taxon whose prehistoric remains suggest stasis. By stasis I mean relative to, particularly, northern fur seals.
FIGURE 2.2. Modern breeding ranges of northern elephant seal (Mirounga angustirostris) and of California sea lion (Zalophus californianus) (shaded), and locations of archaeological remains of each (x) outside of the breeding range. Based on data in Table 2.3. 60°N 60°N 50°N 40°N 30°N 50°N 40°N 30°N 20°N 20°N Mirounga angustirostris X XX X X X X X X X X X X 60°N 60°N 50°N 40°N 30°N 50°N 40°N 30°N 20°N 20°N Zalophus californianus a his tory of paleoecologic a l r e s e a r c h 33 were accessible to humans. Remains of both taxa are abundant in sites within the modern geographic breeding range relative to remains of all other pinniped taxa, but they are relatively rare in sites in more northern latitudes (Figure 2.3). Why these taxa may not have been noticeably aff ected by historic commercial exploitation whereas sea otters and northern fur seals were markedly infl uenced— the latter two were extirpated from large expanses of their prehistoric ranges— remains an open question. Part of the answer may reside in the fact that only sea otters and northern fur seals were exploited for their furs; the other taxa were exploited for (Hodder et al. 1998) at approximate latitude 43.2°N may represent recolonization of previously abandoned rookeries or invasions. This species today migrates north to south- central Alaska (Stewart 1997; see also Crocker et al. 2006). Only study of the paleozoological record will clarify which possibility applies in the case of northern elephant seals (Campbell 1987) and in the case of California sea lions (Bigg 1987). Zooarchaeological remains of northern elephant seals suggest they occasionally could be found north of 37°N prehistorically, but were only abundant south of that latitude just as they are today, perhaps because that is where they 57.5 56 54 50 49 47.5 45–46 43.5–45 42–43.5 40–42 38.5–40 37–38.5 35.5–37 33–35.5 Latitude 0.0 0.5 1.0 Percent of Pinniped NISP -XOregon California Washington Alaska British Columbia Mirounga angustirostris 57.5 56 54 50 49 47.5 45–46 43.5–45 42–43.5 40–42 38.5–40 37–38.5 35.5–37 33–35.5 Latitude 0.0 4.0 8.0 12.0 16.0 20.0 24.0 Percent of Pinniped NISP Oregon California Washington Alaska British Columbia Zalophus californianus
FIGURE 2.3. Relative frequency (percent of all pinniped remains) of northern elephant seal (Mirounga angustirostris) and of California sea lion (Zalophus californianus) remains relative to latitude. Arrows denote the northern limit of the modern breeding range (see Figure 2.2); “x” in the Mirounga angustirostris graph denotes approximate latitude of a newly established rookery. Data from Table 2.3. 34 a his tory of paleoecologic a l research There are few documented paleontological remains of any of the taxa listed in Table 2.1 (see Harington et al. 2004 and Ray 2008 for notable exceptions), so I have focused here on what zooarchaeological remains can tell us about the paleoecol ogy of marine mammals. The problems of studying the marine mammal paleorecord of the northeastern Pacifi c Rim are not insurmountable. The questions driving research on those mammals are interesting and signifi - cant. Let us hope that the next 70 years will be as equally exciting as the fi rst 70 years.
AC KNOW LEDG MENTS
I thank Torben Rick and Todd Braje for inviting me to participate, for comments on an early draft, and for time to update the discussion.
REFERENCES CITED Anderson, P. K. 2001 Marine Mammals in the Next One Hundred Years: Twilight for a Pleistocene Megafauna? Journal of Mammalogy 82:623– 629. Arnold, J. E., and B. N. Tissot 1993 Mea sure ment of Signifi cant Marine Paleotemperature Variation Using Black Abalone Shells from Prehistoric Middens. Quaternary Research 39:390– 394. other reasons. What ever the case, this diff erence between taxa with respect to the degree to which their populations were aff ected highlights the earlier point regarding the Gleasonian model of taxonomically individualistic histories. CONCLUSION By and large, zooarchaeological research on eastern North Pacifi c sea otters and pinnipeds seems to be closely tracking analytical trends in more land- locked loci. By way of conclusion, there is another arena where study of marine mammal remains is tracking study of terrestrial mammal remains. Analysis of zooarchaeological remains from the North Pacifi c coastal zone began slowly, with an early, relatively large sample. It was some years before the next sample was studied, but once that second sample was described, sample sizes per 5- year bin have, in general, increased (Figure 2.4). The apparent decrease in NISP over the past de cade or so is likely an artifact of the fact that many data, particularly those in the CRM- generated grey literature, have not yet entered the published record (a prime example is Rick et al. 2009). This, too, tracks the character of how the general archaeological record is known in the literature (e.g., Lyman 1997). 2006–09 3082 4467 4064 7241 4932 746 2885 2114 2001–05 1996–00 1991–95 1986–90 1981–85 1976–80 1970–75 1941–45 1936–40 Year 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 NISP FIGURE 2.4. NISP of sea otter and pinniped remains reported over the last 70 years. The trend to increase over time is real, but the trend to decrease after 1995 may be the result of unpublished data that has not been widely circulated. a his tory of paleoecologic a l r e s e a r c h 35 Clark, D. W. 1986 Archaeological and Historical Evidence for an 18th- Century “Blip” in the Distribution of Northern Fur Seal at Kodiak Island, Alaska. Arctic 39:39– 42. Colton, R. H. 2002 Prehistoric Marine Mammal Hunting in Context: Two Western North American Examples. International Journal of Osteo archaeology 12:12– 22. Colten, R. H., and J. E. Arnold 1998 Prehistoric Marine Mammal Hunting on California’s Northern Channel Islands. American Antiquity 63:679– 701. Crocker, D. E., D. P. Costa, B. J. Le Boeuf, P. M. Webb, and D. S.Houser 2006 Impact of El Niño on the Foraging Behavior of Female Northern Elephant Seals. Marine Ecol ogy Progress Series 309:1– 10. Crockford, S. J., S. G. Frederick, and R. J. Wigen 2002 The Cape Flattery Fur Seal: An Extinct Species of Callorhinus in the Eastern North Pacifi c? Canadian Journal of Archaeology 26:152– 174. Dall, W. H. 1877 On the Succession of Shell- Heaps of the Aleutian Islands. Contributions to North American Ethnology 1:41– 91. Driver, J. C. 1992 Identifi cation, Classifi cation and Zooarchaeology. Circaea 9(1):35– 47. Emerson, T. E. 1978 A New Method for Calculating the Live Weight of the Northern White- Tailed Deer from Osteoarchaeological Material. Mid- Continental Journal of Archaeology 3:35– 44. Etnier, M. 2002a Occurrences of Guadalupe Fur Seals (Arctocephalus townsendi) on the Washington Coast over the Past 500 Years. Marine Mammal Science 18:551– 557. 2002b The Eff ects of Human Hunting on Northern Fur Seal (Callorhinus ursinus) Migration and Breeding Distributions in the Late Holocene. Doctoral dissertation, University of Washington, Seattle. 2004a The Potential of Zooarchaeological Data to Guide Pinniped Management Decision in the Eastern North Pacifi c. In Zooarchaeology and Conservation Biology, edited by R. L. Lyman and K. P. Cannon, pp. 88– 102. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. 2004b Reevaluating Evidence of Density- Dependent Growth in Northern Fur Seals (Callorhinus ursinus) Based on Mea sure ments of Archived Skeletal Specimens. Canadian Berger, J., S. L. Cain, and K. M. Berger 2006 Connecting the Dots: An Invariant Migration Corridor Links the Holocene to the Present. Biology Letters 2:528– 531. Bigg, M. A. 1987 Status of the California Sea Lion, Zalophus californianus, in Canada. Canadian Field Naturalist 102:307– 314. Brainerd, G. W. 1939 An Illustrated Field Key for the Identifi cation of Mammal Bones. Ohio State Archaeological and Historical Quarterly 48:324– 328. Broughton, J. M. 1999 Resource Depression and Intensifi cation During the Late Holocene, San Francisco Bay. Anthropological Rec ords 32. University of California, Berkeley. Brown, J. H., and M. V. Lomolino 1998 Biogeography, 2nd edition. Sinauer, Sunderland, Mass. Burleson, G. M. Lyon 1941 A Miocene Sea Lion from Lomita, California. University of California Publications in Zoology 47(2):23– 41. 1948 A Pliocene Pinniped from the San Diego Formation of Southern California. University of California Publications in Zoology 47(10):247– 253. Burton, R. K., D. Giff ord- Gonzalez, J. J. Snodgrass, and P. L. Koch 2002 Isotopic Tracking of Prehistoric Pinniped Foraging and Distribution along the Central California Coast: Preliminary Results. International Journal of Osteoarchaeology 12:4– 11. Burton, R. K., J. J. Snodgrass, D. Giff ord- Gonzalez, T. Guilderson, T. Brown, and P. L. Koch 2001 Holocene Changes in the Ecol ogy of Northern Fur Seals: Insights from Stable Isotopes and Archaeofauna. Oecologia 128:107– 115. Butler, V. L., and R. L. Lyman 1996 Taxonomic Identifi cations and Faunal Summaries: What Should We Be Including in Our Faunal Reports? SAA Bulletin 14(1):22. Calvert, S. G. 1980 A Cultural Analysis of Faunal Remains from Three Archaeological Sites in Hesquiat Harbor, B.C. Doctoral dissertation, University of British Columbia, Vancouver. Campbell, R. R. 1987 Status of the Northern Elephant Seal, Mirounga angustirostris, in Canada. Canadian Field Naturalist 101:266– 270. Cannon, A. 1991 The Economic Prehistory of Namu. Simon Fraser University, Department of Archaeology, Publication No. 19. Burnaby, British Columbia. 36 a his tory of paleoecologic a l research 2004 North American Overkill Continued? Journal of Archaeological Science 31:133– 136. Gustafson, C. E. 1968a Historic Change in Migratory Fur Seal Populations: Result of Pelagic Sealing? Journal of Mammalogy 49:842. 1968b Prehistoric Use of Fur Seals: Evidence from the Olympic Coast of Washington. Science 161: 49– 51. Hall, E. R. 1981 The Mammals of North America, 2nd edition. Wiley, New York. Hanson, D. K., and K. D. Kusmer 2001 Sea Otter (Enhydra lutris) Scarcity in the Strait of Georgia, British Columbia. In People and Wildlife in Northern North America: Essays in Honor of R. Dale Guthrie, edited by S. C. Gerlach and M. S. Murray, pp. 58– 66. British Archaeological Reports International Series 944. Oxford. Harington, C. R. 1984 Quaternary Marine and Land Mammals and Their Paleoenvironmental Implications— Some Examples from Northern North America. In Contributions in Quaternary Vertebrate Paleontology: A Volume in Memorial to John E. Guilday, edited by H. H. Genoways and M. R. Dawson, pp. 511– 525. Carnegie Museum of Natural History Special Publication No. 8. Pittsburgh. Harington, C. R. and G. Beard 1992 The Qualicum Walrus: A Late Pleistocene Walrus (Odobenus rosmarus) Skeleton from Vancouver Island, British Columbia, Canada. Annales Zoologici Fennici 28:311– 319. Harington, C. R., R. L. M. Ross, R. W. Mathewes, K. M. Stewart, and O. Beattie 2004 A Late Pleistocene Steller Sea Lion (Eumetopias jubatus) from Courtenay, British Columbia: Its Death, Associated Biota, and Paleoenvironment. Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences 41: 1285– 1297. Hewitt, G. 2000 The Ge ne tic Legacy of the Quaternary Ice Ages. Nature 405:907– 913. Hildebrandt, W. R. 1981 Native Hunting Adaptations on the North Coast of California. Doctoral dissertation, University of California, Davis. 1984a Archaeological Presence of the Northern Fur Seal (Callorhinus ursinus) Along the Coast of Northern California. The Murrelet 65: 28– 29. 1984b Late Period Hunting Adaptations on the North Coast of California. Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 6:189– 206. Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 61: 1616– 1626. 2007 Defi ning and Identifying Sustainable Harvests of Resources: Archaeological Examples of Pinniped Harvests in the Eastern North Pacifi c. Journal for Nature Conservation 15:196– 207. Fiedel, S., and G. Haynes 2004 A Premature Burial: Comments on Grayson and Meltzer’s “Requiem for Overkill.” Journal of Archaeological Science 31: 121– 131. Friedman, E. 1976 An Archaeological Survey of Makah Territory: A Study in Resource Utilization. Doctoral dissertation, Washington State University, Pullman. Gaston, K. J. 1996 Species Richness: Mea sure and Mea surement. In Biodiversity: A Biology of Numbers and Diff erence, edited by K. J. Gaston, pp. 77– 113. Blackwell Science, Oxford. Giff ord- Gonzalez, D., S. D. Newsome, P. L. Koch, T. P. Guilderson, J. J. Snodgrass, and R. K. Burton 2005 Archaeofaunal Insights on Pinniped– Human Interactions in the Northeastern Pacifi c. In The Exploitation and Cultural Importance of Sea Mammals, edited by G. Monks, pp. 19– 38. Oxbow Books, Oxford. Gingras, M. K., I. A. Armitage, S. G. Pemberton, and H. E. Clifton 2007 Pleistocene Walrus Herds in the Olympic Peninsula Area: Trace- Fossil Evidence of Predation by Hydraulic Jetting. Palaios 22:539– 545. Gleason, H. A. 1926 The Individualistic Concept of the Plant Association. Bulletin of the Torrey Botanical Club 53:7– 26. Gobalet, K. W. 2001 A Critique of Faunal Analysis: Inconsistency among Experts in Blind Tests. Journal of Archaeological Science 28:377– 386. Graham, R. W. 1979 Paleoclimates and Late Pleistocene Faunal Provinces in North America. In Pre- Llano Cultures of the Americas: Paradoxes and Possibilities, edited by R. L. Humphrey and D. Stanford, pp. 49– 69. Anthropological Society of Washington, Washington, D.C. Grayson, D. K. 1984 Quantitative Zooarchaeology. Academic Press, Orlando. 2005 A Brief History of Great Basin Pikas. Journal of Biogeography 32:2103– 2111. Grayson, D. K., and D. J. Meltzer 2003 A Requiem for North American Overkill. Journal of Archaeological Science 30:585– 593. a his tory of paleoecologic a l r e s e a r c h 37 King, Judith E. 1983 Seals of the World. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY. Klein, R. G., C. Wolf, L. G. Freeman, and K. Allwarden 1981 The Use of Dental Crown Heights for Constructing Age Profi les of Red Deer and Similar Species in Archaeological Samples. Journal of Archaeological Science 8:1– 31. Larson, S., R. Jameson, J. L. Bodkin, M. Staedler, and P. Bentzen 2002a Microsatellite DNA and mtDNA Variation within and among Remnant and Translocated Sea Otter, Enhydra lutris, Populations. Journal of Mammalogy 83:893– 906. Larson, S., R. Jameson, M. Etnier, M. Fleming, and P. Bentzen 2002b Loss of Ge ne tic Diversity in Sea Otters (Enhydra lutris) Associated with the Fur Trade of the 18th and 19th Centuries. Molecular Ecol ogy 11:1899– 1903. Lea, M.- A., D. Johnson, R. Ream, J. Sterling, S. Melin, and T. Gelatt 2009 Extreme Weather Events Infl uence Dispersal of Naïve Northern Fur Seals. Biology Letters 5:252– 257. Lundelius, E. L., Jr. 1974 The Last Fifteen Thousand Years of Faunal Change in North America. In History and Prehistory of the Lubbock Lake Site, edited by C. C. Black, pp. 141– 160. The Museum Journal 15. Lyman, R. L. 1988 Zoogeography of Oregon Coast Marine Mammals: The Last 3000 Years. Marine Mammal Science 4:247– 264. 1989 Seal and Sea Lion Hunting: A Zooarchaeological Study from the Southern Northwest Coast of North America. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 8:68– 99. 1991 Prehistory of the Oregon Coast: The Eff ects of Excavation Strategies and Assemblage Size on Archaeological Inquiry. Academic Press, San Diego. 1995 On the Evolution of Marine Mammal Hunting on the West Coast of North America. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 14:45– 77. 1997 Impediments to Archaeology: Publishing and the (Growing) Translucency of Archaeological Research. Northwest Anthropological Research Notes 31:5– 22. 2003 Pinniped Behavior, Foraging Theory, and the Depression of Metapopulations and Nondepression of a Local Population on the Southern Northwest Coast of North America. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 22:376– 388. Hildebrandt, W. R., and T. L. Jones 1992 Evolution of Marine Mammal Hunting: A View from the California and Oregon Coasts. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 11: 360– 401. 2002 Depletion of Prehistoric Pinniped Populations along the California and Oregon Coasts: Were Humans the Cause? In Wilderness and Politi cal Ecol ogy: Aboriginal Infl uences on the Original State of Nature, edited by C. E. Kay and R. T. Simmons, pp. 72– 110. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. Hodder, J., R. Brown, and C. Cziesla 1998 The Northern Elephant Seal in Oregon: A Pupping Range Extension and Onshore Occurrence. Marine Mammal Science 14:873– 881. Howard, C. 1990 The Clovis Point: Characteristics and Type Description. Plains Anthropologist 35: 255– 265. Huelsbeck, D. R. 1983 Mammals and Fish in the Subsistence Economy of Ozette. Doctoral dissertation, Washington State University, Pullman. 1994 Mammals and Fish in the Subsistence Economy of Ozette. In Ozette Archaeological Project Research Reports Volume II: Fauna, edited by S. R. Samuels, pp. 17– 91. Washington State University Department of Anthropology Reports of Investigations No. 66. Pullman. Hughes, S. S. 2004 Postcontact Changes in the Behavior and Distribution of Rocky Mountain Bighorn Sheep (Ovis canadensis) in Northwestern Wyoming. In Zooarchaeology and Conservation Biology, edited by R. L. Lyman and K. P. Cannon, pp. 116– 135. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. Jones, T. L., and W. R. Hildebrandt 1995 Reasserting a Prehistoric Tragedy of the Commons: Reply to Lyman. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 14: 78– 98. Jones, T. L., and D. J. Kennett 1999 Late Holocene Sea Temperatures along the Central California Coast. Quaternary Research 51:74– 82. Jones, T. L., J. F. Porcasi, J. Gaeta, and B. F. Codding 2008 The Diablo Canyon Fauna: A Coarse- Grained Record of Trans- Holocene Foraging from the Central California Mainland Coast. American Antiquity 73:289– 316. King, F. B., and R. W. Graham 1981 Eff ects of Ecological and Paleoecological Patterns on Subsistence and Paleoenvironmental Reconstructions. American Antiquity 46:128– 142. 38 a his tory of paleoecologic a l research Moss, M. L., D. Y. Yang, S. D. Newsome, C. F. Speller, I. McKechnie, A. D. McMillan, R. J. Losey, and P. L. Koch 2006 Historical Ecol ogy and Biogeography of North Pacifi c Pinnipeds: Isotopes and Ancient DNA from Three Archaeological Assemblages. Journal of Island and Coastal Archaeology 1: 165– 190. Munson, P. J. 1984 Teeth of Juvenile Woodchucks as Seasonal Indicators on Archaeological Sites. Journal of Archaeological Science 11:395– 403. Murray, M. S. 2008 Zooarchaeology and Arctic Marine Mammal Biogeography, Conservation, and Management. Ecological Applications 18:S41– S55. Nelson, D. E., R. E. Morlan, J. S. Vogel, J. R. Southon, and C. R. Harington 1986 New Dates on Northern Yukon Artifacts: Holocene Not Upper Pleistocene. Science 232:749– 751. Newsome, S. D., M. A. Etnier, D. Giff ord- Gonzalez, D. L. Phillips, M. van Tuinen, E. A. Hadly, D. P. Costa, D. J. Kennett, T. P. Guilderson, and P. L. Koch 2007 The Shifting Baseline of Northern Fur Seal Ecol ogy in the Northeast Pacifi c Ocean. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 104:9709– 9714. Nicolson, M. 1990 Henry Allan Gleason and the Individualistic Hypothesis: The Structure of a Botanist’s Career. Botanical Review 56:91– 161. O’Brien, M. J., R. L. Lyman, and M. B. Schiff er 2005 Archaeology as a Pro cess: Pro cessualism and Its Progeny. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. Orchard, T. J., and T. Clark 2005 Multidimensional Scaling of Northwest Coast Faunal Assemblages: A Case Study from Southern Haida Gwaii, British Columbia. Canadian Journal of Archaeology 29: 88– 112. Porcasi, J. F., T. L. Jones, and M. L. Raab 2000 Trans- Holocene Marine Mammal Exploitation on San Clemente Island, California: A Tragedy of the Commons Revisited. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 19:200– 220. Purdue, J. R. 1987 Estimation of Body Weight of White- Tailed Deer (Odocoileus virginianus) from Bone Size. Journal of Ethnobiology 7:1– 12. Pusch, C. M., M. Broghammer, and N. Blin 2003 Molecular Phyloge ne tics Employing Modern and Ancient DNA. Journal of Applied Ge netics 44: 269– 290. 2004 Late- Quaternary Diminution and Abundance of Prehistoric Bison (Bison sp.) in Eastern Washington State, U.S.A. Quaternary Research 62:76– 85. 2005 Zooarchaeology. In Handbook of Archaeological Methods, edited by H. D. G. Maschner and C. Chippendale, pp. 835– 870. AltaMira Press, Lanham, Mary land. 2006 Paleozoology in the Ser vice of Conservation Biology. Evolutionary Anthropology 15: 11– 19. 2007a Archaeology’s Quest for a Seat at the High Table of Anthropology. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 26:133– 149. 2007b What is the “Pro cess” in Cultural Pro cess and in Pro cessual Archaeology? Anthropological Theory 7:217– 250. 2008 Quantitative Paleozoology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Lyman, R. L., J. L. Harpole, C. Darwent, and R. Church 2002 Prehistoric Occurrence of Pinnipeds in the Lower Columbia River. Northwestern Naturalist 83:1– 6. Lyman, R. L., M. J. O’Brien, and R. C. Dunnell 1997 The Rise and Fall of Culture History. Plenum, New York. Lyon, G. M. 1935 Some Marine Mammals from a Southern California Shellmound. Journal of Mammalogy 16:151– 152. 1937 Pinnipeds and a Sea Otter from the Point Mugu Shell Mound of California. University of California at Los Angeles Publications in Biological Sciences 1:133– 168. Mead, J. I., A. E. Spiess, and K. D. Sobolik 2000 Skeleton of Extinct North American Sea Mink (Mustela macrodon). Quaternary Research 53:247– 262. Merriam, C. H. 1927 William Healey Dall. Science 65:345– 347. Minor, R., R. L. Greenspan, and D. C. Barner 2008 Chinookan Resource Exploitation in the Columbia River Estuary: The View from Indian Point. In Dunes, Headlands, Estuaries, and Rivers: Current Archaeological Research on the Oregon Coast, edited by G. L. Tasa and B. L. O’Neill, pp. 37– 55. Association of Oregon Archaeologists Occasional Papers No. 8. University of Oregon, Eugene. Moss, M. L. 1989 Archaeology and Cultural Ecol ogy of the Prehistoric Angoon Tlingit. Doctoral dissertation, University of California, Santa Barbara. a his tory of paleoecologic a l r e s e a r c h 39 Trigger, B. G. 2006 A History of Archaeological Thought, 2nd edition. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Trites, A. W., A. J. Miller, H. D. G. Haschner, M. A. Alexander, S. J. Bograd, et al. 2007 Bottom- Up Forcing and the Decline of Steller Sea Lions (Eumetopias jubatus) in Alaska: Assessing the Ocean Climate Hypothesis. Fisheries Oceanography 16: 46– 67. Valentine, K., D. A. Duffi eld, L. E. Patrick, D. R. Hatch, V. L. Butler, R. L. Hall, and N. Lehman 2008 Ancient DNA Reveals Genotypic Relationships among Oregon Populations of the Sea Otter (Enhydra lutris). Conservation Ge ne tics 9: 933– 938. Wake, T. A., and D. D. Simons 2000 Trans- Holocene Subsistence Strategies and Topographic Change on the Northern California Coast: The Fauna from Duncan’s Point Cave. Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 22:295– 320. Walker, P. L., and S. Craig 1979 Archaeological Evidence Concerning the Prehistoric Occurrence of Sea Mammals at Point Bennett, San Miguel Island. California Fish and Game 65:50– 54. Walker, P. L., D. J. Kennett, T. Jones, and R. L. DeLong 2002 Archaeological Investigations of the Point Bennett Pinniped Rookery on San Miguel Island. In Proceedings of the Fifth California Islands Symposium, edited by D. Browne, K. Mitchell, and H. Chaney, pp. 628– 632. Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History, Santa Barbara, CA. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife 2008 Columbia River Sea Lion Management: Federal Authorization for States to Remove Sea Lions. http.wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/sealions/ links.html (accessed Oct. 20, 2008 and Oct. 28, 2010). Whitaker, A. R. 2008 The Role of Human Predation in the Structuring of Prehistoric Prey Populations in Northwestern California. Doctoral dissertation, University of California, Davis. White, T. E. 1952 Observations on the Butchering Technique of Some Aboriginal Peoples: I. American Antiquity 17:337– 338. 1953a A Method of Calculating the Dietary Percentage of Various Food Animals Utilized by Aboriginal Peoples. American Antiquity 19:396– 398. 1953b Studying Osteological Material. Plains Archaeological Conference News Letter 6:58– 66. Ray, C. E. 2008 The Fossil Record of Eumetopias. Marine Mammal Science 24:251– 252. Reitz, E. J. 1993 Zooarchaeology. In The Development of Southeastern Archaeology, edited by J. K. Johnson, pp. 108– 131. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa. Reitz, E. J., I. R. Quitmyer, H. S. Hale, S. J. Scudder, and E. S. Wing 1987 Application of Allometry to Zooarchaeology. American Antiquity 52: 304– 317. Reitz, E. J., and E. S. Wing 1999 Zooarchaeology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Rick, T. C., R. L. DeLong, J. M. Erlandson, T. J. Braje, T. L. Jones, D. J. Kennett, T. A. Wake, and P. L. Walker 2009 A Trans- Holocene Archaeological Record of Guadalupe Fur Seals (Arctocephalus townsendi) on the California Coast. Marine Mammal Science 25:487– 502. Robison, N. D. 1987 History of Zooarchaeology. In The Zooarchaeology of Eastern North America, 2nd edition, edited by A. E. Bogan and N. D. Robison, pp. 1– 26. Tennessee Anthropological Association Miscellaneous Paper No. 12. Scheff er, V. B. 1950 Growth Layers on the Teeth of Pinnipeedia as an Indication of Age. Science 112: 309– 311. Simenstad, C. A., J. A. Estes, and K. W. Kenyon 1978 Aleuts, Sea Otters, and Alternate Stable- State Communities. Science 200:403– 411. Simons, D. D. 1992 Prehistoric Mammal Exploitation in the San Francisco Bay Area. In Essays on the Prehistory of Maritime California, edited by T. L. Jones, pp. 73– 103. Center for Archaeological Research at Davis Publication No. 10. University of California, Davis. Stewart, B. S. 1997 Ontogeny of Diff erential Migration and Sexual Segregation in Northern Elephant Seals. Journal of Mammalogy 78:1101– 1116. Stewart, F. L., and K. M. Stewart 1996 The Boardwalk and Grassy Bay Sites: Patterns of Seasonality and Subsistence on the Northern Northwest Coast, B.C. Canadian Journal of Archaeology 20: 39– 60. Stock, C. 1929 A Census of the Pleistocene Mammals of Rancho La Brea, Based on the Collections of the Los Angeles Museum. Journal of Mammalogy 10:281– 289. 40 a his tory of paleoecologic a l research Wigen, R. J., and B. R. Stucki 1988 Taphonomy and Stratigraphy in the Interpretation of Economic Patterns at Hoko River Rockshelter. In Prehistoric Economies of the Pacifi c Northwest Coast, edited by B. L. Isaac, pp. 87– 146. Research in Economic Anthropology, Supplement 3. JAI Press, Greenwich, Conn. Wintemberg, W. J. 1919 Archaeology as an Aid to Zoology. The Canadian Field- Naturalist 33:63– 72. Wolverton, S. 2008 Harvest Pressure and Environmental Carrying Capacity: An Ordinal- Scale Model of Effects on Ungulate Prey. American Antiquity 73:179– 199. a