Scott Mardis has sent me several pdfs concerning pinnipeds seen in the Columbia river system, and in fact I had several reports from that area which I would classify as various kinds of seals and sea lions, upo to including elephant seals, and historically all along the length of the river: this also has a direct bearing on the Bear Lake Monster since Bear Lake formerly drained into the Columbia river (the drainage point has been blocked off by a natural earthen dam during the historical period) These days the accumulation of sea lions preying on salmon runs has gotten to the point where many of the creatures are captured and relocated, "Hazed" to make them go away, or killed outright.
Mysterious Creatures, under Water Monsters: OREGON:
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.
http://cryptozoo-oscity.blogspot.com/2009/10/wally-wallowa-lake-creature.html
http://www.unknownexplorers.com/wallowalakemonster.php
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wallowa_Lake
http://frontiersofzoology.blogspot.com/2011/07/gambian-sea-elephant-and-other-sea.html
 |
| 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]
CRITFC Dipnetter · May 2013
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 .
These are photos in reference to some of the species of sea lions involved. I also include a longer article transcribed from one of the more technical pdfs below: I apologise for some problems
with the text, since it seems Blogger was not designed to be pdf-friendly.
A History of Paleoecological Research on Sea Otters and Pinnipeds of the Eastern Pacific Rim
R. Lee Lyman
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 [1979] and Lundelius’s
[1974] 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
