Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

A cultural analysis of faunal remains from three archaeological sites in Hesquiat Harbour, B.C. 1980

You don't seem to have a PDF reader installed, try download the pdf

Item Metadata

Download

Media
UBC_1980_A1 C34.pdf
UBC_1980_A1 C34.pdf [ 18.73MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 1.0058416.json
JSON-LD: 1.0058416+ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 1.0058416.xml
RDF/JSON: 1.0058416+rdf.json
Turtle: 1.0058416+rdf-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 1.0058416+rdf-ntriples.txt
Citation
1.0058416.ris

Full Text

A CULTURAL ANALYSIS OF FAUNAL REMAINS FROM THREE ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES IN HESQUIAT HARBOUR, B.C. by i I SHEILA GAY CALVERT B.A., University of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1968 M.A., University of V i c t o r i a , 1973 A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY i n THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES (Department of Anthropology and Sociology, Un i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia) We accept t h i s d i s s e r t a t i o n vas^ebnforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA May, 1980 © Sheil a Gay Calvert, 1980 In presenting th i s thes is in pa r t i a l fu l f i lment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the Univers i ty of B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree that the L ibrary sha l l make it f ree ly ava i l ab le for reference and study. I fur ther agree that permission for extensive copying of th is thesis for scho lar ly purposes may be granted by the Head of my Department or by his representat ives. It is understood that copying or pub l i cat ion of this thes is for f inanc ia l gain sha l l not be allowed without my writ ten permission. Department of Anthropology aad. Sociology The Univers i ty of B r i t i s h Columbia 2075 Wesbrook P l a c e Vancouver, Canada V6T 1W5 September 30, 1980 i i Abstract This study examines the proposition that among the p r e h i s t o r i c hunter-gatherers of Hesquiat Harbour, west coast of Vancouver Island, B r i t i s h Columbia, the geographical area exploited, and hence animal resource s e l e c t i o n , was c o n t r o l l e d by land use patterns l i m i t i n g l o c a l groups to s p e c i f i c t r a c t s of t e r r i t o r y . I t suggests that the i n t e r a c t i o n of the land use system with the environmental d i v e r s i t y of Hesquiat Harbour creates a sub-regional l e v e l of resource s p e c i a l i z a t i o n recog- nizable i n archaeological s i t e s as v a r i a t i o n i n emphasis on animals from d i f f e r e n t habitats among the faunal assemblages. A s p e c i f i c p roposition, developed from pertinent ethnographic and environmental information, r e l a t e s land use patterns with a s p e c i f i c pat- tern of d i v e r s i t y among the faunal assemblages from three archaeological s i t e s , DiSo 1, DiSo 9 and DiSo 16. The emphasis on d i f f e r e n t habitats one would expect to f i n d at each s i t e are predicted. The faunal assem- blages, comprising 49,770 s k e l e t a l elements and 135,777.4 grams of s h e l l , are described and compared, using r e l a t i v e frequency of s k e l e t a l element count and s h e l l weight. The differences and s i m i l a r i t i e s are discussed i n r e l a t i o n to sampling and preservation f a c t o r s , l o c a l environmental change, season of e x p l o i t a t i o n , change through time i n material culture and habitats exploited. A s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t a ssociation of assemblages with d i f f e r e n t habitat emphases i s found to account f o r the major proportion of the i n t e r - assemblage v a r i a t i o n . Observed patterns of habitat emphases are compared with those predicted^ Actual emphases i n the assemblages of DiSo 16 and DiSo 1 are p o s i t i v e l y correlated with the predicted patterns, but i i i those of DiSo 9 d i f f e r . The d i f f e r e n c e s are c o n s i s t e n t w i t h demonstrated l o c a l environmental change and a wider t e r r i t o r y o f e x p l o i t a t i o n . The a n a l y s i s suggests t h a t a simple, autonomous l o c a l group l e v e l o f s o c i o p o l i t i c a l o r g a n i z a t i o n was present i n Hesquiat Harbour at l e a s t 1,200 years ago and demonstrates t h a t the n a t u r a l environment defined by s o c i o - c u l t u r a l o r g a n i z a t i o n a l f a c t o r s i s an important i n f l u e n c e on r e g i o n a l f a u n a l assemblage p a t t e r n i n g on the Northwest Coast. iv Table of Contents Page Abstract i i Li s t of Tables v i i L i s t of Figures ". . X 1 1 Acknowledgements x v Chapter I. Introduction . . . 1 II. The Study Area 9 Present Environment 9 Landforms and Geology 9 Hydrography. . 14 Climate. 1 7 Flora 1 8 Fauna 1 9 Mammals 2 1 Birds 3 5 Fish 49 Shellfish 59 Summary of Faunal Resources 6 4 Past Environment 70 Landforms, Geology and Sea Levels 71 Hydrography 7 3 Flora 7 4 Fauna 7^ Summary 7 8 Ethnography 79 General Nootkan Ethnography 79 Hesquiat Local Group Territories and Settlement and Subsistence Patterns 87 Previous Archaeological Work 97 The Hesquiat Project 10O>1 III. Statement of Problem 105 General Theory 106 Predicted Faunal Assemblages 109 V Chapter Page IV. S i t e Context of the Faunal Assemblages 118 Sit e Excavation Methods, Stratigraphy and Dating . . . . 118 DiSo 16 118 DiSo 9 122 DiSo 1 128 Associated A r t i f a c t Assemblages 133 Summary 140 V. Faunal Assemblages 142 Methods of I d e n t i f i c a t i o n 142 Methods of Qu a n t i f i c a t i o n 144 Description and Comparison 144 Vertebrate Fauna . . . . . . . . . . . 148 Mammal Remains . . 149 B i r d Remains 160 Fi s h Remains . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • 170 S h e l l f i s h . . . 180 Assemblage Summaries . . . . . . . . 194 VI. Interpretation • • • • • • • . . . . 205 Sampling Factors . . . . . . . . . . 206 Preservation Factors 208 Diachronic V a r i a t i o n i n Material Culture . . . . . . . . 212 Environmental Change . . . . . . . . . 218 Season of E x p l o i t a t i o n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 221 Mammals 223 Birds . ' 225 Fi s h • • • • • • • • 227 Molluscs . . . . . . . . . . 229 Summary . . . . . . . 233 Habitats Exploited 234 Vertebrate Fauna 235 S h e l l f i s h Fauna 251 Discussion of Results 255 v i Chapter Page VII. Conclusions . . . . . . . 265 References Ci t e d 269 Appendix A: Faunal Tables 280 v i i v i i i Table Page 19. Relative Frequencies by Weight of Remains within Major 184 Classes, Clam/Oyster/Scallop Species. 20. Relative Frequencies by Weight of Remains within Major 185 Class, Mussel Species. 21. Relative Frequencies by Weight of Remains within Major 186 Class, Sea S n a i l Species. 22. Relative Frequencies by Weight.of Remains within Major 187 Class, Limpet.Species. 23. Calcium ppm and pH Ranges of Matrix Samples From a l l 209 St r a t i g r a p h i c Units. 24. Relative Frequencies of Selected A r t i f a c t Classes by S i t e . 215 25. Seasons Represented i n the Mammal Fauna of A l l Assemblages, 224 Presence of Known Age or Migratory Mammals. 26. Comparison of Growth S t a t i s t i c s by Age f o r East Coast 230 Vancouver Island Clams ( b i o l o g i c a l samples) and West Coast Vancouver Island Clams (archaeological samples). 27. Seasons Represented in.the Vertebrate Faunal Assemblages. 232 28. Major Habitat Categories f or S h e l l f i s h , A H Assemblages,., 252 Relative Frequency by Weight i n Grams. 29. Combined S h e l l f i s h Habitat Categories by Assemblage, 253 Relative Frequency by Weight i n Grams within Faunal.Classes. 30. Mammal Remains, Family by Assemblage, Relative Frequency 281 by Sk e l e t a l Element Count. 31. Mammal Remains, Family by Assemblage, Relative Frequency 282 by MNI.- 32. Mammal,Remains, Including N o n - s p e c i f i c a l l y I d e n t i f i e d 283 Remains, Relative Frequencies by MNI. 33. B i r d Remains Family by Assemblage, Relative Frequency 284 by Skeletal Element Count. 34. B i r d Remains, Family by Assemblage, Relative Frequencies 285 by MNI. 35. Fish.Remains, Family by Assemblage, Relative Frequencies by Sk e l e t a l Element Count. 287 i x Table Page 36. F i s h Remains, Excluding Herring, Anchovy and Sardine, 288 Family by Assemblage, Relative Frequencies by Sk e l e t a l Element Count. 37. F i s h Remains, Family by Assemblage, Relative Frequency 289 by MNI. 38. S h e l l f i s h Remains, Family by Assemblage, Relative 290 Frequency by Weight of Remains. 39. DiSo 16, Mammal Remains, Ske l e t a l Element Count and MNI. 291 40. DiSo 16, B i r d Remains, Ske l e t a l Element Count and MNI. 292 41. DiSo 16, F i s h Remains, Ske l e t a l Element Count and MNI. 293 42. DiSo 16, S h e l l f i s h Remains, Weight of.Remains. 294 43. DiSo 9-1, Mammal Remains, S k e l e t a l Element Count.and MNI. 295 44. DiSo 9-1, B i r d Remains, Ske l e t a l Element Count and MNI. 296 45. DiSo 9-1, F i s h Remains, S k e l e t a l Element Count and MNI. 298 46. DiSo 9-1, S h e l l f i s h Remains, Weight of Remains. 299 47. DiSo 9-II, Mammal Remains, Ske l e t a l Element Count and MNI. 300 48. DiSo 9-II, B i r d Remains, S k e l e t a l Element Count and MNI. 301 49. DiSo 9-II, F i s h Remains, Ske l e t a l Element Count and MNI. 302 50. DiSo 9-II, S h e l l f i s h Remains, Weight of Remains. 303 51. DiSo 1-1, Mammal"Remains, Sk e l e t a l Element Count and MNI. 304 52. DiSo 1-1, B i r d Remains, S k e l e t a l Element Count and MNI. 305 53. DiSo 1-1, F i s h Remains,"Skeletal Element Count and,MNI. 307 54. DiSo 1-1, S h e l l f i s h Remains, Weight of Remains. 308 55. DiSo l - I I , Mammal Remains, S k e l e t a l Element Count and MNI. 308 56. DiSo l - I I , B i r d Remains, Ske l e t a l Element Count and MNI. 309 57. DiSo l - I I , F i s h Remains, S k e l e t a l Element Count and MNI. 310 58. DiSo l - I I , S h e l l f i s h Remains, Weight of Remains. 311 59. DiSo l - I I I , Mammal Remains, Skeletal,Element Count and MNI. 311 Table Page 60. DiSo l - I I I , B i r d Remains, Ske l e t a l Element Count and MNI. 312 61. DiSo l - I I I , F i s h Remains, Ske l e t a l Element Count and MNI. 314 62. DiSo l - I I I , S h e l l f i s h Remains, Weight of Remains. 316 63. DiSo 1-IV, Mammal,Remains, Ske l e t a l Element Count and MNI. 317 64. DiSo 1-IV, B i r d Remains, S k e l e t a l Element Count and MNI. 318 65. DiSo 1-IV, F i s h Remains, S k e l e t a l Element Count and MNI. 320 66. DiSo 1-IV, S h e l l f i s h Remains, Weight of Remains. 321 67. DiSo 1-V, Mammal Remains, Skeletal Element Count and MNI. 321 68. DiSo 1-V, Bir d Remains, Skeletal Element Count and MNI. 322 69. DiSo 1-V, F i s h Remains, Ske l e t a l Element Count and MNI. 322 70. DiSo 1-V, S h e l l f i s h Remains, Weight of Remains. 323 71. B i r d Remains, Season of A v a i l a b i l i t y by Assemblage, Relative Frequency by Sk e l e t a l Element Count. 324 72. B i r d Remains, Season of A v a i l a b i l i t y by Assemblage, Relative Frequency by MNI. 324 73. F i s h Remains, Season of A v a i l a b i l i t y by Assemblage, Relative Frequency by Sk e l e t a l Element Count. 325 74. F i s h Remains, Season of A v a i l a b i l i t y by Assemblage, Relative Frequency by MNI. 325 75. Mammal Remains, Habitat Category by Assemblage, Relative Frequency of Skeletal Element Count. 326 76. Mammal Remains, Habitat Category by Assemblage, Relative Frequency by MNI. 326 77. B i r d Remains, Habitat Category by Assemblage, Relative Frequency of Skel e t a l Element Count. 327 78. B i r d Remains, Habitat Category by Assemblage, Relative Frequency-of MNI. 327 79. F i s h Remains, Habitat Category by Assemblage, Relative Frequency of Skeletal Element Count. 328 80. F i s h Remains, Habitat Category by Assemblage, Relative Frequency of Skel e t a l Element Count-Excluding Herring, Anchovy and Sardine. 329 x i Table Page 81. • F i s h Remains, Habitat Category by Assemblage, 330 Relative Frequency of MNI. 82. Habitat Category by Assemblage, Relative Frequency by 331 Skele t a l Element.Count of Bi r d , F i s h and Mammal Fauna. 83. Habitat Category by Assemblage, Relative Frequency by 332 MNI, Bird, F i s h and Mammal Fauna. 84. Percentages of Animal Weight Contributed by Mammal.Bird 333 and F i s h Species. 85. Mammal:Remains, Habitat Category by Assemblage, Relative 333 Frequency by Animal Weight. 86. B i r d Remains, Habitat Category by Assemblage, Relative 334 Frequency by Animal Weight. 87. F i s h Remains, Habitat Category by Assemblage, Relative 335 Frequency by Animal Weight.- 88. Habitat Category by Assemblage, Relative Frequency of 336 Animal Weight, B i r d , F i s h and Mammal"Remains. x i i L i s t of Figures Figure Page 1. Vancouver Island, Showing Location of Hesquiat Harbour, 10 B r i t i s h Columbia. 2. Topographic Features of Hesquiat Harbour. 11 3. Hydrographic Features of Hesquiat Harbour. 15 4. Generalized D i s t r i b u t i o n of Mammal Habitat Categories. 23 5. Generalized D i s t r i b u t i o n of B i r d Habitat Categories. 36 6. Generalized D i s t r i b u t i o n of F i s h Habitat Categories. 51 7. Generalized D i s t i r b u t i o n of S h e l l f i s h Habitat Categories. 60 8. Generalized D i s t r i b u t i o n of Combined Vertebrate Habitat 67 Categories. 9. Generalized D i s t r i b u t i o n of Combined S h e l l f i s h Habitat 68 Categories. 10. Hesquiat Local Group T e r r i t o r i e s According to Drucker. 88 11. Hesquiat Local Group T e r r i t o r i e s According to Information 92 Recorded bv the Hesquiat Elders. 12. Known Archaeological S i t e s in Hesquiat Harbour. 103 13. Relationship of.Hesquiat Local Group T e r r i t o r i e s , Combined 110 Vertebrate Habitat Categories and DiSo 1, DiSo 9 and DiSo 16. 14. Expected Rank Orders of Importance of.Vertebrate Faunal 113 Habitat Categories, S i t e s DiSo 1, DiSo 9 and DiSo 16. 15. S i t e Map of Yaksis Cave, DiSo 16. 119 16. East/West P r o f i l e at North 2.0 Metres, Yaksis Cave, 121 DiSo 16. 17. Map of Loon Cave, DiSo 9. 125 18. T y p i c a l North/South P r o f i l e , Loon Cave, DiSo 9. 127 19. Site.Map of Hesquiat V i l l a g e , DiSo 1. 130 20. Typical DiSo 1 P r o f i l e , Abstracted from Excavation Unit B. 131 x i i i Figure Page 21. Stone and S h e l l A r t i f a c t Classes. 138 22. Bone and Antler A r t i f a c t Classes. 139 23. Relative Frequencies of Mammal Remains. 150 24. Relative Frequencies of B i r d Remains. 161 25. Relative Frequencies of F i s h Remains. 171 26. Relative Frequencies of F i s h Remains Excluding Herring, . Anchovy and Sardine. 174 27. Relative Frequencies of S h e l l f i s h Remains. 182 28. DiSo 16, Relative Frequencies of Faunal Remains within 197 Major Taxonomic Classes, S k e l e t a l Element Count or S h e l l . Weight. 29. DiSo 9-1, Relative Frequencies of Faunal Remains within 198 Major Taxonomic Classes, S k e l e t a l Element Count or S h e l l Weight.- 30. DiSo 9-II, Relative Frequencies of Faunal Remains within 199 Major Taxonomic Classes, S k e l e t a l Element Count or S h e l l Weight. 31. DiSo 1-1, Relative Frequencies of Faunal Remains within 200 Major Taxonomic Classes, S k e l e t a l Element Count or S h e l l Weight. 32. DiSo l - I I , Relative Frequencies of Faunal Remains within 201 Major Taxonomic Classes, S k e l e t a l Element Count or S h e l l Weight. 33. DiSo l - I I I , Relative Frequencies of Faunal Remains within 202 Major Taxonomic Classes, S k e l e t a l Element Count or .Shell Weight. 34. DiSo 1-IV, Relative Frequencies of Faunal Remains within 203 Major Taxonomic Classes, S k e l e t a l Element Count or S h e l l Weight. 35. DiSo 1-V, Relative Frequencies of Faunal Remains within 204 Major Taxonomic Classes, Skeletal Element Count or S h e l l Weight. 36. Comparison of Radiocarbon Estimates from Three Hesquiat 214 Harbour S i t e s . x i v F i g u r e P a g e 3 7 . S e a s o n o f A v a i l a b i l i t y , A v i f a u n a o f A l l A s s e m b l a g e s , 2 2 6 R e l a t i v e F r e q u e n c y b y S k e l e t a l E l e m e n t C o u n t . 3 8 . S e a s o n o f A v a i l a b i l i t y o f F i s h F a u n a o f A l l A s s e m b l a g e s , 2 2 8 R e l a t i v e F r e q u e n c y b y S k e l e t a l E l e m e n t C o u n t . 3 9 . R e l a t i v e F r e q u e n c y o f I d e n t i f i e d M a m m a l R e m a i n s , H a b i t a t 2 3 7 C a t e g o r y b y A s s e m b l a g e , S k e l e t a l E l e m e n t C o u n t i . 4 0 . R e l a t i v e F r e q u e n c y o f I d e n t i f i e d B i r d R e m a i n s , . H a b i t a t 2 3 9 C a t e g o r y b y A s s e m b l a g e , S k e l e t a l E l e m e n t . C o u n t . . 4 1 . R e l a t i v e F r e q u e n c i e s o f I d e n t i f i e d F i s h , H a b i t a t C a t e g o r y 2 4 1 b y A s s e m b l a g e , S k e l e t a l E l e m e n t C o u n t . . 4 2 . R e l a t i v e F r e q u e n c y o f F i s h E x c l u d i n g S a r d i n e , A n c h o v y a n d 2 4 2 H e r r i n g H a b i t a t C a t e g o r y b y A s s e m b l a g e , S k e l e t a l E l e m e n t C o u n t . 4 3 . R e l a t i v e F r e q u e n c y o f B i r d , F i s h a n d , M a m m a l R e m a i n s , 2 4 4 H a b i t a t C a t e g o r y b y A s s e m b l a g e , S k e l e t a l E l e m e n t C o u n t . 4 4 . R e l a t i v e F r e q u e n c y o f M a m m a l R e m a i n s , H a b i t a t C a t e g o r y 2 4 6 b y A s s e m b l a g e , A n i m a l W e i g h t . 4 5 . R e l a t i v e F r e q u e n c y o f B i r d R e m a i n s , H a b i t a t . C a t e g o r y b y 2 4 7 A s s e m b l a g e , A n i m a l W e i g h t . 4 6 . R e l a t i v e F r e q u e n c y o f F i s h R e m a i n s , H a b i t a t C a t e g o r y b y 2 4 8 A s s e m b l a g e , A n i m a l W e i g h t . 4 7 . R e l a t i v e F r e q u e n c y o f B i r d , F i s h a n d M a m m a l R e m a i n s , , 2 4 9 H a b i t a t C a t e g o r y b y A s s e m b l a g e , A n i m a l W e i g h t . 4 8 . E x p e c t e d R a n k O r d e r o f I m p o r t a n c e f o r V e r t e b r a t e E a u n a l ' 2 5 7 H a b i t a t C a t e g o r i e s , C o m p a r e d w i t h t h e O b s e r v e d ' R e l a t i v e F r e q u e n c i e s , D i S o 1 6 , D i S o 9 a n d D i S o 1 . XV Acknowledgements The l a t e C a r l E. Borden f i r s t turned my attention to faunal remains and counselled me, brusquely, to "be a p r o f e s s i o n a l " , thus beginning the process r e s u l t i n g i n t h i s d i s s e r t a t i o n . Many others have contributed to i t s completion. I should l i k e to thank the members of my advisory committee, R.G. Matson (Advisor), Richard J . Pearson, J.E. Michael Kew and Thomas Northcote f o r t h e i r encouragement and guidance. Any errors of f a c t or l o g i c r e s t with me. I thank my colleagues at the Archaeology D i v i s i o n , B r i t i s h Columbia P r o v i n c i a l Museum, for t h e i r support. Nancy Condrashoff drew the base map of Hesquiat Harbour, while the photographs were taken by David Hutchcroft. Elaine Patterson and Terry Hanna typed the manuscript. I owe a s p e c i a l "thank-you" to Susan Crockford. Her help i n i d e n t i f i c a t i o n and her a b i l i t y to deal with seemingly endless quantities of fragmentary bone were i n - valuable. Donald Abbott and Thomas Loy provided encouragement and d i s - cussion, while Neal Crozier's work i n f i e l d and laboratory was indispensible. I owe a s p e c i a l debt to James Haggarty, who introduced me to the Hesquiat Project and provided i n t e l l e c t u a l argument and stimulation. Many ideas developed here surfaced during l i v e l y discussions and I cannot claim sole authorship. Len Ham and Paul Gleeson also shared hours of s p i r i t e d discussion. More people a s s i s t e d i n the f i e l d and laboratory than can be l i s t e d , but those who worked on the 1973 and 1974 excavation crews, or a s s i s t e d i n faunal i d e n t i f i c a t i o n , are Sam Mickey, Paul Lucas, Stephen Lucas, Marina Tom, Carol Lucas, Verna Sutherland, Ruby Lucas, Rob Whitlam, x v i Rick R o l l i n s , Terrance Sabbas, Bob Fraser, Dora Gallegos, Marilyn Amos, Karla George, Buddy George, Heather Brewis, 'Nes Leonhardt, Sennen Charleson, Pat Amos, James Amos, Marilyn Lucas and Russel Amos. To these people and a l l the others who contributed i n lab and f i e l d , I o f f e r my h e a r t f e l t thanks. The work was often tedious but i n t h e i r company, never d u l l . F i n a n c i a l support was provided by the B.C. P r o v i n c i a l Government (Archaeological Si t e s Advisory Board, F i r s t C i t i z e n ' s Fund, Summer Student Programme), the Federal Government (Department of Indian A f f a i r s C u l t u r a l Grants Fund, Local I n i t i a t i v e s Programme, Opportunities for Youth, Secre- tary of State Summer Student Programme) and the Friends of the P r o v i n c i a l Museum. Jorg Boehm, my family, and Bruce Frederick have had to bear the worst of t h i s endeavour, neither d i r e c t l y p a r t i c i p a t i n g nor able to escape the e f f e c t s . To them I o f f e r apologies and deep thanks for t h e i r support and encouragement. Most importantly, I thank the Hesquiat People. Their ancestors have provided me with a profession, but t h e i r present company has shown me much I might otherwise neither have seen=nor understood. I e s p e c i a l l y thank the Hesquiat C u l t u r a l Committee, i n p a r t i c u l a r Ruth Tom, Larry Paul and the Hesquiat E l d e r s , Chief Benedict Andrews, A l i c e Paul, Alex Amos, George Ignace, Mrs. Mike Tom, the l a t e Mary Amos and the l a t e Mike Tom Senior. The determination of these people to guard t h e i r c u l t u r a l heritage f o r future generations i s surpassed only by t h e i r pride i n being Hesquiat. I am honoured that they have shared with me the experience of being at "home" i n Hesquiat. 1 Chapter I Introduction Archaeologists have generally r e l a t e d c u l t u r a l d i f f e r e n c e s among contemporary faunal assemblages i n the same region to either techno- l o g i c a l v a r i a t i o n or the seasonal e x p l o i t a t i o n of d i f f e r e n t microen- vironments. Less attention has been paid to the way i n which organi- z a t i o n a l p r i n c i p l e s of s o c i o c u l t u r a l systems might function i n chans neling the s e l e c t i o n of resources by a p a r t i c u l a r group. This d i s s e r - t a t i o n examines the proposi t i o n that among the p r e h i s t o r i c hunter- gatherers of the west coast,of Vancouver Island, the geographical area exploited by a group, and thus the microenvironments and seasonal resources within i t , was delineated and co n t r o l l e d by c u l t u r a l patterns of land use that associated groups with c l e a r l y defined t r a c t s of t e r r i t o r y . I t i s suggested that because of environmental d i v e r s i t y along the west coast of the i s l a n d , the actual resource base of a c u l t u r a l l y defined sub-unit of a regional adaptation was not neces- s a r i l y the same as the regional resource base a v a i l a b l e to the whole adaptive system. This would r e s u l t i n d i f f e r i n g i n t r a - r e g i o n a l emphases on p a r t i c u l a r resources. Consequently one might expect con- siderable d i v e r s i t y among faunal assemblages from archaeological s i t e s i n the same region, which could not be s a t i s f a c t o r i l y explained by technological differences or v a r i a t i o n s i n season of e x p l o i t a t i o n . Jochim, w r i t i n g of the value of an ec o l o g i c a l approach to archaeology, recognizes the dif f e r e n c e between the e c o l o g i c a l l y a v a i l a b l e resource base of an area and that a c t u a l l y exploited by a group, but stresses technology and value systems rather than the 2 operational p r i n c i p l e s of the s o c i o - c u l t u r a l organization as the defining f a c t o r s : "This approach focuses on the s t r u c t u r i n g of the r e l a t i o n s h i p of a group to i t s natural environment, with primary consideration given to c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the natural environment... i t must be remembered, however, that the exploited natural environment i s c c u l t u r a l l y defined, so that the "cognized" environ- ment may d i f f e r from that seen by the e c o l o g i s t . S p e c i f i c a l l y , the d e f i n i t i o n of exploitable and desirable resources depends,,to a large extent, upon technology and value systems, and t h i s process of d e f i n i t i o n must be examined." (Jochim 1976:9) Martinez also distinguishes a " c u l t u r a l environment" from the ecolo- g i c a l environment, but l i k e Jochim, focuses on technological and i d e a t i o n a l v a r i a b l e s . "Not a l l the environment that surrounds a given society i s consciously r e a l i z e d by i t s members; there i s a neutral or i n d i f f e r e n t part of t h e i r surroundings that does not a f f e c t the development of t h e i r s o c i a l l i f e because the c u l t u r a l baggage of the moment does not contain the knowledge and tools necessary f o r i t s ex- p l o i t a t i o n . ' On the other hand, there i s another part of the environment composed of a s e r i e s of elements considered to be subsistence resources, which taken together constitutes a " c u l t u r a l l y integrated space"; the l a t t e r i s an abstract idea of the environment i n the c o l l e c t i v e mind of the group, which could be c a l l e d the " c u l t u r a l environment". (Martinez 1979:313) I t i s a "cognized", " c u l t u r a l l y " defined natural environment that i s here considered the major contributing factor to inter-assemblage v a r i a b i l i t y among eight faunal assemblages from three archaeological s i t e s i n Hesquiat Harbour, west coast of Vancouver Island, but one defined p r i m a r i l y by s o c i o - c u l t u r a l organizational p r i n c i p l e s rather than technology or ideas of what i s or i s not edible. Technological and value system variables operate at the regional l e v e l , a f f e c t i n g sub-regional units equally, except perhaps i n the 3 case of i n d i v i d u a l or family food taboos or the l i k e . But the socio- c u l t u r a l organization of a regional population i n t o d i s c r e t e units of production and consumption with set t e r r i t o r i e s , creates a sub-regional l e v e l of v a r i a t i o n d i r e c t l y r e l a t e d to i n d i v i d u a l s i t e use and season of occupancy. I f the autonomous s o c i o - p o l i t i c a l group inh a b i t i n g a s i t e i s also the autonomous socio-economic u n i t of production and con- sumption within a c l e a r l y defined and s t r i c t l y maintained t e r r i t o r y , the resource base a v a i l a b l e to the i n h a b i t i n g group i s t e r r i t o r i a l l y bounded and f i x e d by c u l t u r a l l y imposed l i m i t s . When the t e r r i t o r i e s so bounded also d i f f e r among themselves i n habitats, the r e s u l t must be d i f f e r i n g l o c a l group adaptations to l o c a l faunal resources and d i f f e r i n g faunal assemblages i n the s i t e s of d i f f e r e n t t e r r i t o r i a l units of the same regional adaptation. An examination of Nootkan ethnography indicates that t h i s was the case i n Hesquiat Harbour immediately p r i o r to contact. I t i s suggested here that i t was also the case for the e a r l i e r p r e h i s t o r i c inhabitants of the harbour, and that the e f f e c t s of such a s o c i o - c u l t u r a l organi- zation are observable i n the manner i n which faunal assemblages d i f f e r among archaeological s i t e s i n the harbour. The implications of t h i s approach to the Hesquiat faunal assem- blages are broader than the accurate reconstruction of a p a r t i c u l a r regional p r e h i s t o r i c adaptation. In the Northwest Coast, where faunal assemblages are often large and well preserved records of e x t r a c t i v e , productive and consumptive a c t i v i t i e s , the importance and p o t e n t i a l of t h i s data set i s becoming i n c r e a s i n g l y apparent. The i n c l u s i o n of faunal analyses i n Northwest Coast archaeological s i t e studies, rather than b r i e f and uninformative l i s t s of species present, i s bee 4 coming more common, as i s witnessed by recent works (Friedman 1976; Gleeson 1970; Matson 1976; Monks 1977; Connover 1972). I t i s accord- i n g l y important that the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of faunal patterning be improved, taking into account a l l p o s s i b l e sources of v a r i a t i o n . Customarily we d i s t i n g u i s h four major sources of v a r i a t i o n i n observed faunal frequencies and d i s t r i b u t i o n s within and among s i t e s : differences i n the adaptive systems responsible f o r the deposition of the remains; v a r i a t i o n i n preservation a t t r i b u t a b l e to the e f f e c t s of the depositional environment on d i f f e r e n t faunal remains, or to d i f f e r i n g depositional environments; v a r i a t i o n r e s u l t i n g from post- de p o s i t i o n a l disturbances; and sample bias a r i s i n g from archaeological techniques of recovery and q u a n t i f i c a t i o n . Archaeologists are accustomed to considering the patterning exhibited among faunal assemblages i n the l i g h t of the l a s t three s sources of v a r i a t i o n , as a l l have received considerable attention i n recent l i t e r a t u r e (Binford 1977). The c l u s t e r i n g of remains within s i t e s i n a c t i v i t y areas and among s i t e s because of varied s i t e use and purpose have been studied with increasing s o p h i s t i c a t i o n (Abbott 1972; Binford 1962; Plog 1974; Streuver 1971), while recently Jochim (1976), S c h i f f e r (1976), Yellen (1977) and Binford (1978) have ably demonstrated the complicated nature of the r e l a t i o n s h i p s between l i v i n g systems and the s p a t i a l patterning of t h e i r material remnants i n and on the ground. Thus archaeologists are incr e a s i n g l y knowledge- able about the d i f f i c u l t y of t r a n s l a t i n g s t a t i c archaeological f a c t s i n t o l i v i n g systems. The f i r s t source of v a r i a t i o n i s , of course, that which we seek to decipher. That archaeological faunal assemblages are c u l t u r a l , 5 representing the selected e x p l o i t a t i o n of c e r t a i n animalrresources from the t o t a l a v a i l a b l e animal resources base, by a p a r t i c u l a r group of people at a p a r t i c u l a r place and time, has been recognized for a long time (Bokonyi 1973; Daly 1969; Reed and Braidwood 1960). I t i s the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of what structures that s e l e c t i o n that i s impor- tant. Many archaeologists agree that c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the natural en- vironment i n t e r a c t with s o c i o - c u l t u r a l v a r i a b l e s , that the i n t e r r e l a t i o n s define the adaptive structure s p e c i f i c to a p a r t i c u l a r s o c i o - c u l t u r a l system, and that these i n t e r r e l a t i o n s influence the s e l e c t i o n of re- sources. The d e f i n i t i o n of those i n t e r r e l a t i o n s , then, must take into account the variables of both spheres. Considerable attention has been paid to the constraints of the natural environment i n shaping adaptive structures. Such factors as seasonal a v a i l a b i l i t y of resources, micro- environmental l o c a l i z a t i o n of resources and p r e d i c t a b i l i t y of resources have a l l received attention (Coe and Flannery 1964; R o l l 1974; Schalk 1977; Stewart 1975; Yesner and Aigner 1976). The constraints and op- p o r t u n i t i e s of p a r t i c u l a r technologies (Kew 1976; Oswalt 1976) and the r e l a t i o n s h i p between predator and prey (Casteel 1973; Elder 1965; Shawcross 1973) have also been considered. The a p p l i c a t i o n of systems theory and a r e v i t a l i z e d c u l t u r a l ecology to archaeological data has emphasized the.complexity and m u l t i d i r e c t i o n a l i n t e r a c t i o n s of p a r t i c u l a r adaptations to p a r t i c u l a r environments. As a r e s u l t , archaeologists understand more c l e a r l y how technology,, scheduling, and the natural environment i n t e r a c t to structure the faunal resources selected for e x p l o i t a t i o n by a p a r t i c u l a r p r e h i s t o r i c group. What has received short s h r i f t to date, i s the influence on resource s e l e c t i o n and there- 6 fore faunal patterning i n s i t e s , of the manner i n which a society organizes access to i t s animal resources. Catchment analysis has attempted, with some success, to define c u l - t u r a l l y delineated geographical areas associated with s p e c i f i c s i t e s . In the c l a s s i c catchment analysis as used by V i t a - F i n z i and Higgs (1970:667) and by Rossman (1976:98), geographical areas l i k e l y to have been exploited from a s i t e are defined by measures of e i t h e r temporal or p h y s i c a l distance from the s i t e , without regard to p o s s i b l y con- f l i c t i n g claims. While Zarky (1976:118-120) r e f i n e s t h i s approach by considering, i n a regional context, the percentage of various environ- mental zones contained within a catchment area, the assumption i s s t i l l that the s i t e occupants have u n r e s t r i c t e d access to a l l t e r r i t o r y within i n a determined distance of that s i t e . These analyses e s s e n t i a l l y place the s i t e occupants i n c u l t u r a l vacuums,;,with t e r r i t o r i e s determined s o l e l y by p h y s i c a l access, i . e . distance. The approach used by Flannery, "empirical determination" of s i t e catchment areas (1976a.:103-104) , i s c l o s e r to that used i n t h i s study. He also begins with the empirical evidence of resource e x p l o i t a t i o n , the faunal and f l o r a l remains, to determine the types of environmental zones exploited by the s i t e inhabitants. Flannery i s also well aware, i n h i s use,of the phrase ''other factors being equal" (1976b:180) and a reference to the influence of s o c i a l f a c t o rs (1976a:117) on v i l l a g e spacing, that s o c i o - p o l i t i c a l factors influence the catchment area as- sociated with s i t e s i n Mesoamerica. This study d i f f e r s from previous studies i n examining the influence on faunal resource s e l e c t i o n of s p e c i f i c s o c i o - p o l i t i c a l factors and i n s t a r t i n g from the dictum that "other things" are not equal. C u l t u r a l 7 distance and s i t e catchment area i s defined as much by organizational p r i n c i p l e s as by kilometres or hours. A resource l o c a t i o n may be l e s s than a kilometre away from a hab i t a t i o n s i t e , but i f the society so organizes access to resources that the r i g h t to use that resource l o c a - t i o n i s not associated with the inhabitants of that p a r t i c u l a r s i t e , the resource l o c a t i o n might as well be several hundred kilometres d i s t a n t . I t i s 1 not a v a i l a b l e to the s i t e inhabitants. The manner i n which a society organizes and maintains access to i t s animal resources i s an important possible source of v a r i a t i o n i n faunal assemblages, p a r t i c u l a r l y on the Northwest Coast, where t e r r i t o r i a l ownership was a strongly developed part of the s o c i o c u l t u r a l systems. I f p r e d i c t i v e regional archaeological models are b u i l t on faunal as well as a r t i f a c t u a l data, i t behooves us to understand the influences which shape the faunal data i n s p e c i f i c archaeological contexts. By i d e n t i - f y i n g those factors within a region, we w i l l be better able to r e a l i z e the p r e d i c t i v e power of these data. This study uses ethnographic data and knowledge of the present and past environments of Hesquiat Harbour to p r e d i c t the d i f f e r i n g emphasis on animal resources from p a r t i c u l a r habitats, that one would expect to f i n d among faunal assemblages from Hesquiat Harbour s i t e s i f the ethno- g r a p h i c a l l y described organization of access to resources was i n oper- ation p r e h i s t o r i c a l l y as well,as more recently. Eight faunal assemblages from three s i t e s i n two d i f f e r i n g environmental settings are described and compared, and t h e i r differences characterised according to the kinds of habitats being exploited most heavily. The observed patterns of habitat emphasis are compared with the expected patterns and the r e s u l t s discussed i n r e l a t i o n to the known changes i n l o c a l environment. 8 during the past 2,700 years and to the ethnographic system of organizing access to resource l o c a t i o n s . Chapter II describes the study area. Both present and past environ- ment are described i n terms of relevant geology, hydrography, climate, f l o r a and fauna. The faunal species are covered i n some d e t a i l , r e l a t i n g t h e i r occurence i n the harbour to seasons and habitat categories i n which they are most l i k e l y to be found. The d i s t r i b u t i o n of these habi- t a t categories i n Hesquiat Harbour i s i l l u s t r a t e d and r e l a t e d to the l o c a t i o n of the s i t e s under study. The ethnographic adaptation to the harbour i s discussed and previous archaeological work on the west coast of Vancouver Island b r i e f l y d e t a i l e d . In Chapter III the problem being examined i s o u t l i n e d i n r e l a t i o n to Nootkan pr e h i s t o r y , and s p e c i f i c expectations given f o r the three archaeological s i t e s as regards t h e i r . f a u n a l assemblages. Chapter IV describes the s i t e s from which the faunal assemblages were recovered, the methods of recovery, s t r a t i g r a p h i c r e l a t i o n s h i p s , dating and as- sociated a r t i f a c t assemblages. Chapter V o u t l i n e s the methods used to i d e n t i f y and quantify the faunal remains, presents the faunal assemblages, and i d e n t i f i e s t h e i r d ifferences and s i m i l a r i t i e s . Chapter VI r e l a t e s these differences and s i m i l a r i t i e s to p o s s i b l e sources of v a r i a t i o n and compares the assem- blages with the predicted patterns of habitat emphasis. The r e s u l t s are then discussed, and the success of the approach evaluated i n Chapter VII. Detailed faunal data are contained i n Appendix A. 9 Chapter II The Study Area Forty-eight kilometres north of Tofino on Vancouver Island's west coast a broad, low-lying peninsula reaches out into the P a c i f i c Ocean, ending i n the bedrock outcrops of Estevan Point (Fig. 1). This western edge of land i s pounded by the f u l l force of winds and waves sweeping i n fromtthe open P a c i f i c . In the southern shelter of the tongue of land l i e s Hesquiat Harbour. I t i s a short, broad i n l e t about 9.6 kilometres long and 6.4 kilometres wide, opening to the south. North of LeC l a i r e and Rondeau Points, which j u t out from the western and eastern shores res p e c t i v e l y , the harbour waters and shores are protected from the f u l l e f f e c t s of P a c i f i c winds and waves (Fig. 2). To the south, the i n l e t gradually widens, the eastern and western shorelines swinging outwards i n a pattern of a l t e r n a t i n g beaches and sculptured rock outcrops. Hesquiat Harbour i s a b r i e f space of sheltered water, bordered on the west by the f l a t , low p l a i n of Hesquiat Peninsula and on the north and east by the fee t of the mountains, flanked on both sides by headlands and beaches f u l l y exposed to the open P a c i f i c . The harbour and short stretches of the outer coast to the north and south are claimed by the Hesquiat speaking peoples as t h e i r t r a d i t i o n a l t e r r i t o r y . PRESENT ENVIRONMENT Landforms and Geology Hesquiat t r a d i t i o n a l t e r r i t o r y contains portions of two major landforms, the Estevan Coastal P l a i n and the Vancouver Island Mountains. The Estevan Coastal P l a i n i s a narrow, l o w - r e l i e f c o a s t a l p l a i n , seldom Figure 1. Vancouver Island, Showing Location of Hesquiat Harbour, B r i t i s h Columbia. 11 Split Cape Barchester^ Bay 171 m »i/4m ; H E S Q U I A T P E N I N S U L A Estevan Point g 7 0 m 4 i 3 r Hesquiat^? Lake Rondeau Point 'LeClaire Point H E S Q U I A T H A R B O U R ... Anton's Spit Hesquiat Point pillage .ak M Hesquiat ' A Village P A C I F I C O C E A N 0 1 i k m L 4 SCALE = 1:77.511 Boulder Point Figure 2. Topographic Features of Hesquiat Harbour. (From Hydrographic Survey Map 3640) 12 exceeding 46 metres i n height above mean sea l e v e l , s t r etching along the outer coast of Vancouver Island from the Brooks Peninsula i n the north to the area of Port Renfrew i n the south. I t reaches i t s greatest width, 13 kilometres, at Hesquiat Peninsula (Holland 1976:32). Much of the underlying bedrock i s f l a t , gently t i l t e d beds of r e l a t i v e l y s o f t T e r t i a r y shales, s i l t s t o n e s , limey sandstones and she l l y limestones of marine o r i g i n . Where not exposed by erosion, the bedrock i s o v e r l a i n by Pleistocene boulder clays and s t r a t i f i e d sands, gravels and clays, and by recent a l l u v i a l and beach deposits (Jeletzky 1954:2). The areas of Hesquiat Peninsula underlain by these rocks are f l a t and almost f e a t u r e l e s s , with many swampy areas drained by slowly meandering streams. Where such rock formations occur at the water's edge, the shoreline i s marked by broad, rocky f l a t s dotted with huge boulders and long stretches of sand or pebble beaches. The boulder beaches of the inner harbour provide good substrata f o r rocky shore i n t e r t i d a l s h e l l f i s h that p r e f e r a sheltered habitat while the sandy beaches are good clam habitat. The boulder beaches also a t t r a c t small f i s h e s such as sculpins, toadfishes and surf perches. Throughout much of Hesquiat Harbour, however, these s o f t e r rocks alternate with harder, more r e s i s t a n t sandstones and conglomerates of T e r t i a r y age and marine o r i g i n . The beds of sedimentary rock are broken here and there by smaller exposures of the strongly f a u l t e d and folded g r a n i t i c rocks of the older Coast Intrusions and the p o r p h y r i t i c lavas, sc h i s t s and limestones of the Karmutsen Group of Upper T r i a s s i c age (Jeletzky 1954:2-3, 11). The l a t t e r formations, associated with the Vancouver Island Mountains, are found along the eastern and northern shores of Hesquiat Harbour, separated from the T e r t i a r y s i l t s t o n e s , 13 shales, sandstones and conglomerates underlying the whole of Hesquiat Peninsula and the t i p of Hesquiat Point by a major disconformity run- ning northwest southeast across the harbour. Where the harder sandstones, conglomerates and igneous rocks occur, the shoreline i s t y p i c a l l y rugged with long sculptured rock promontories stretching out into the ocean. Those promontories on the open coast, such as Boulder Point, Estevan Point and Hesquiat Point (Fig. 2), pro- vide excellent substrata f o r rocky shore i n t e r t i d a l s h e l l f i s h such as C a l i f o r n i a Mussels, which are adapted to the exposed environment. The intensely f a u l t e d and contorted nature of the formations, combined with the r e s i s t a n t rock types, produced a t y p i c a l l y p r e c i p i t o u s shoreline marked by wave cut g u l l i e s , caves and b l u f f s eroded by marine action along f a u l t l i n e s . The drainage system of the land also follows t h i s c r i s s - c r o s s pattern of f a u l t s and sheer zones, with streams marked by w a t e r f a l l s and rapids (Jeletzky 1954:2-3). The complicated tectonic h i s t o r y of the Hesquiat area has l e f t the underlying bedrock cut by numerous f a u l t s and sheer l i n e s , along which l o c a l movement i s pos s i b l y s t i l l occuring. The eastern edge of the Estevan Coastal P l a i n i s formed by the western f o o t h i l l s of the Vancouver Island Mountain Range. At Hesquiat Harbour these g l a c i a l l y rounded mountains r i s e upwards from the northern and eastern shores of the harbour waters to heights of 900 metres above mean sea l e v e l . I t i s t h i s mountain bedrock that i s the source of the sedimentary formations of the Estevan Coastal P l a i n and the more re- cent Pleistocene deposits. Much of the Hesquiat Peninsula bedrock i s o v e r l a i n by Pleistocene boulder clays and s t r a t i f i e d sands, gravels and cla y s . There are more 14 l o c a l i z e d areas around stream mouths and i n the bays of recent a l l u v i a l and beach deposits, where they provide soft,substrata f o r clams and good spawning beaches for herring. Along the western shoreline of the harbour between Anton's s p i t and Le C l a i r e Point and along the eastern shoreline, a s e r i e s of Pleistocene and recent beach ridges are v i s i b l e i n a e r i a l photographs of the f o r e s t behind and p a r a l l e l i n g the present shoreline. The most prominent area of recent beach and a l l u v i a l de- p o s i t s i s the area behind Anton's S p i t now.occupied by V i l l a g e Lake (Fig. 2). The present a l l u v i a l and beach areas of the harbour are to- day b u i l d i n g outwards i n many locati o n s , with sea strand vegetation, followed by the establishment of strandline S i t k a Spruce, gradually c l o t h i n g the more recently formed beach ridges. In other areas, notably at the head of the harbour and on the northern side of Anton's S p i t , l o c a l wave action, winter storm action, currents and stream develop- ment are eroding e a r l i e r shoreline and d e l t a deposits. Hydrography Eight small streams drain the mountain slopes of the northern and eastern shores of Hesquiat Harbour between Hesquiat Point on the east and LeClaire Point on the west (Fig. 3). One of the streams i s large, but a l l except one are of s u f f i c i e n t s i z e and of su i t a b l e formation to support runs of salmon. At present, Tofino F i s h e r i e s O f f i c e records show runs of coho and/or dog salmon i n these streams of about 1,000 to 10,000 f i s h annually. Another three streams r i s e among the swampy meadows i n the i n t e r i o r of Hesquiat Peninsula, emptying into the harbour at locations.along the western shore between LeClaire and Boulder Point. A l l three contain s i m i l a r l y sized cbho runs today and one drains the meadows southwest of Anton's S p i t on the western shore. 15 Figure 3. Hydro-graphic Features of Hesquiat Harbour. (From Hydrographic Survey Map-3640) N Rae < v^asin v / 'Rondeau my i H i s r n \Lakt (Ft 11m H E S Q U I A T PEIMINSULi SCALES 1:77,511 km J H E S Q U I A T H A R B O U R / 'Anton's Spit / HESQUIAT BAR I I/O V . — * V- 37m / / 16 Several other streams, some seasonally intermittent, enter the P a c i f i c along the outer coast north of Boulder Point. Besides V i l l a g e Lake, a shallow lake with a depth of 2 to 3 metres that i s gradually f i l l i n g i n , there are three other lakes i n the study area. H i s n i t Lake, a small, shallow lake very l i k e V i l l a g e Lake, i s located on the eastern shore between Rondeau and Hesquiat Points (Fig. 3). Hesquiat Lake, l y i n g at the head of the harbour i n a deep, g l a c i a l l y scoured v a l l e y , i s the l a r g e s t of the lakes. I t i s connected to s a l t water at high t i d e by a small e x i t stream flowing i n t o Rae Basin and has a t r i b u t a r y network of streams along the eastern shore and a t r i b u - tary lake, Rae Lake, to the west (Fig. 3). According to F i s h e r i e s records, only the Hesquiat Lake system now contains sockeye salmon, but steelhead run i n t o both H i s n i t and Hesquiat Lake systems, while coho salmon spawn i n the streams of a l l three systems. The waters of Hesquiat Harbour are not deep. Immediately o f f Boulder and Hesquiat Points the ocean waters reach depths of 11 to 22 metres over a gravel and rock bottom. Between Anton's S p i t and Hesquiat Point the gravel and rock bottom shelves r a p i d l y upwards to form Hesquiat Bar, stretched across the harbour entrance from shore to shore. Here the water has a depth of about 7 metres and the rocky substratum pro- vides attachment f o r two major kelp beds p a r a l l e l i n g the eastern and western entrance shorelines. The kelp beds a t t r a c t r o c k f i s h , green- l i n g s and lingcod from the deeper waters offshore. A reef o f f Hesquiat Point i s part of the eastern, seaward edge of the bar, while Anton's Sp i t i s b u i l d i n g up along the inner, western edge of the bar. Inside Hesquiat Bar, the waters deepen to 15 metres over a muddy bottom with depths of 2 to 7 metres over a sandy bottom along the eastern inner 17 shoreline. The numerous streams emptying i n t o the inner harbour basin provide the sand and s i l t deposits covering the ocean f l o o r i n s i d e the bar. This i s the s o f t bottom, shallow water type of habitat favoured by several species of f l a t f i s h . Highest t i d e s i n t h i s area reach 3.9 metres while low t i d e s s e l - dom f a l l below 0.2 metres, with highest.tides occuring i n November to March and lowest i n June and J u l y . As the entrance to Hesquiat Harbour i s wide and open, there are no r i p t i d e s i n the harbour i t s e l f , but once outside the inner harbour there are strong offshore currents as- sociated with f a l l i n g t i d e s and the generally southerly trend of the main offshore coastal.current patterns. Within the inner harbour the, l o c a l current pattern i s clockwise. Climate The climate of the study area i s mild and wet. Average annual pre- c i p i t a t i o n i s 313.4 centimetres, m o s t . f a l l i n g i n the form of r a i n during October through March, although the winter months may see some snow i n colder years. January i s the coldest month with an average temperature of 5° C and a range of ?7° C to 10° C. J u l y and August are the hottest months, with an average temperature of 14° C and a range of 7° C to 24°CC. The average annual temperatures i s 9° C. These data are based on the records of the Estevan Point Weather Station f o r the years 1940 to 1976 (B.C. Department of A g r i c u l t u r e 1940-1976). The f a l l through spring months are usually times of r a i n and storm, with winds up to 100 kilometres per hour. In August and September, thick banks of fog l i e heavily on the horizon j u s t o f f shore. On cool mornings the fog bank moves into the harbour i n a thick blanket, but most mornings a thinner, misty fog that burns o f f i n the sunshine by 18 noon d r i f t s i n t o the harbour. The most pleasant months are June and July, when the storms are fewer and the sunlight strong. In summer the p r e v a i l i n g winds are from the north and northwest, bringing sunshine tempered by b r i s k winds. The main storm tracks come from the south and southwest, and i t i s these bad weather winds that add t h e i r force to the ocean wave patterns to produce huge r o l l e r s and pounding surf i n the winter months. In Hesquiat Harbour the weather patterns are a major constraint of the natural environment. People l i v i n g here are dependent on and must adapt t h e i r a c t i v i t i e s to the vagaries of the elements over which they have no c o n t r o l . F l o r a The marine terraces and mountain slopes of Hesquiat Harbour sup- port a t y p i c a l temperate marine fo r e s t , c l a s s i f i e d within the Coastal Western Hemlock Biogeoclimatic Zone (Krajina 1965) and dominated by Western Hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla (Rafinesque-Schmaltz) Sargent) and Western Red Cedar (Thuja p i i c a t a Donn) with l e s s e r amounts of Amabilis F i r (Abies amabilis (Douglas) Forbes), Yellow Cedar (Chamaecyparis nootkatensis (D.Don) Spach) and Sit k a Spruce (Picea s i t c h e n s i s (Bongard) C a r r i e r e ) . These trees are associated with a ground cover of shrubs, among which the most abundant are S a l a l (Gaultheria shallon Pursh), Salmonberry (Rubus s p e c t a b i l i s Pursh), Huckleberries (Vaccinium spp.), Wild Gooseberry (Ribes divaricatum.Douglas), Black Twinberry (Lonicera invol u c r a t a (Richards) Banks) and Red Elderberry (Sambucus racemosa Linnaeus) (Szczawinski 1970). Higher up the mountain slopes the shrub underbrush i s replaced by a thinner ground cover of shrubs, ferns and 19 other herbs, but on the lower slopes and the marine terraces the underbrush i s thick, choked with w i n d f a l l s and almost impenetrable. In the i n t e r i o r of the peninsula the f o r e s t cover i s broken by large swamp areas surrounded by boggy meadows. Here the dominant v vegetation cover i s Sweet Gale (Myrica gale Linnaeus) with hemlock, pine, various grasses, sedges, ferns and other herbs (Hebda and Rouse 1976). Areas immediately adjoining the shoreline are characterized by a f o r e s t cover dominated by strandline S i t k a Spruce associated with P a c i f i c Crab Apple (Pyrus fusca Rafinesque-Schmaltz), Western Red Cedar, Red Alder (Alnus rubra Bongard) and Douglas F i r (Pseudotsuga menziesii (Mirbel) Franco). Dominant shrubs are those already men- tioned plus Wild Rose (Rosa nutkana P r e s l . ) , Thimbleberry (Rubus p a r v i f l o r u s N u t t a l l ) , False Azalea (Menziesia ferruginea Smith), Willows (Salix spp.), Saskatoon Berry (Amelanchier a l n i f o l i a N u t t a l l ) and Cascara (Rhamus purshiana de Candolle). A wide v a r i e t y of herbs i s found i n these areas in c l u d i n g various ferns, grasses, wild straw- b e r r i e s , wild onions; h o r s e t a i l and wild sweet pea (Szczawinski 1970). The marine f l o r a contains many species of algae, chief among which are the sea weeds B u l l Keibp (Nereocystis leutkeana (Mertens) Postela and Ruprecht), Rockweed (Fuscus furcatus C. Agardh) and E e l Grass (Zostera marina Linnaeus). As mentioned above (page 15) the p r i n c i p a l kelp beds occur on either side of the entrance to the harbour and p a r a l l e l i n g the outer coasts. Fauna The present fauna of the Hesquiat Harbour region i s r i c h i n marine 20 and i n t e r t i d a l species. Land species are les s abundant and les s varied. Many species are only present during c e r t a i n seasons of the year. The abundance.and concentration of animals also v a r i e s among the d i f f e r e n t species. The animal species.can be grouped into several main associations within each major taxon ( i . e . b i r d , f i s h , mammal and s h e l l f i s h ) ac- cording to the type or types of habitat to which they are adapted. These habitat categories are not communities i n the s t r i c t z o o l o g i c a l sense, but group together those species l i k e l y to be found most consis- t e n t l y and i n greatest-abundance wherever the p a r t i c u l a r habitat con- d i t i o n s occur. I t must be stressed that these habitat categories, with the associated animal species, do not have s t r i c t boundaries. A series of habitats may represent a continuum of conditions with con- siderable overlap where one habitat grades i n t o another. The cate- gories describe the optimal habitats and therefore the optimal areas of a v a i l a b i l i t y f o r the species groupings, not, i n many cases, the only a r areas of a v a i l a b i l i t y . Obviously, non-sedentary species are free to move i n and out of an area and many i n t e r t i d a l molluscs are to l e r a n t of a wide range of v a r i a t i o n i n habitat conditions. Many of these habitat categories have both resident and seasonal populations, and animals found i n one habitat i n one season may be found i n another at other seasons. The information used to place species i n habitat and seasonal categories was obtained from d i r e c t observation i n Hesquiat Harbour during May through August of 1973, May of 1974 and July of 1975; a survey of the i n t e r t i d a l zone of Hesquiat Harbour that involved walking 21 the harbour shoreline at low t i d e s recording species present i n par- t i c u l a r locations; Tofino F i s h and W i l d l i f e O f f i c e records; and pub- l i s h e d references. The scientific.names, of species are those used by Banfield (1974) for mammals; Hart (1975) for f i s h ; Godfrey (1976) f o r birds and Morris (1966) for s h e l l f i s h . Mammals: The land mammal fauna of Hesquiat Harbour i s l i m i t e d i n the number of species that are present. A l l are resident i n the study area year r round and there do not appear to be major f l u c t u a t i o n s i n abundance, although t h i s i s d i f f i c u l t to determine because of recent habitat d i s - ruption by logging. A l l but the deer, herd animals, would normally be encountered e i t h e r as i n d i v i d u a l s or as members of small family groups. Land mammals present i n the area and i d e n t i f i e d i n the archaeological record include: Coast B l a c k - t a i l e d Deer,(Odocoileus hemionus columbianus] (Richardson));. Black Bear.(Ursus americanus P a l l a s ) ; Cougar ( F e l i s concolor Linnaeus); Wolf (Canis lupus Linnaeus); River Otter (Lontra canadensis-(Schreber)); Marten (Martes americana (Turton)); Mink (Mustela vison Schreber); Raccoon (Procyon l o t o r (Linnaeus)); Red S q u i r r e l (Tamiasciurus hudsonicus.(Erxleben)); Townsend's Vole (Micro- tus townsendii (Bachman)); and the Navigator Shrew (Sorex p a l u s t r i s Richardson). More varied i n number of species, the sea mammal populations i n the region are also l a r g e r , more migratory and composed of large sized species with great p o t e n t i a l food value. Sea mammals found i n the area and i d e n t i f i e d or p o s s i b l y i d e n t i f i e d i n the archaeological re- cord are: Northern Sea Lion (Eumatopias jubata (Schreber)); C a l i - 22 f o r n i a Sea Lion (Zalophus c a l i f o r n i a n u s (Lesson)); Northern Fur Seal (Callorhinus ursinus (Linnaeus)); Harbour Seal (Phoca v i t u l i n a L i n - naeus) ; Northern Elephant.Seal (Mirounga a n g u s t i r o s t r i s ( G i l l ) ) ; Sea Otter (Enhydra l u t r i s (Linnaeus)); Harbour.Porpoise (Phocoena phocoena (Linnaeus)); D a l l ' s Porpoise (Phocoenoides d a l l i O ( T r u e ) ) ; K i l l e r Whale (Orcinus orca (Linnaeus)); Grey Whale (Eschrichtius robustus ( L i l l j e - borg)) and Humpback Whale (Megaptera novaeangliae (Borowski)). Some of these sea mammals are ei t h e r seasonally a v a i l a b l e or vary seasonally i n abundance and group composition. They tend to occupy more d i s c r e t e habitats than the la r g e r land mammals. Table 1 summarizes the seasonal a v a i l a b i l i t y and the habitat cate- gories i n which these mammals are most l i k e l y to be found. Accurate information on the present abundance of these animals i n Hesquiat Harbour and the immediately surrounding seas i s unfortunately not av a i l a b l e . A gross measure of t h e i r estimated r e l a t i v e abundance i s given i n Table 1, using the symbols C f o r Common, P for Present and R f o r Rare. The habitat categories themselves are defined below and t h e i r geographical d i s t r i b u t i o n i n Hesquiat Harbour i l l u s t r a t e d i n F i g . 4. Pelagic: open ocean, o f f shore waters from about 15 to 25 kilometres of f shore.-well, i n t o the Pacif-ic.. - - P i e l a g i c - L i t t o r a l : the open ocean from about 20 k i l o - metres offshore to the l i t t o r a l waters, may include deeper bays and estuaries. L i t t o r a l : the waters immediately adjacent to shore, inc l u d i n g shallow bays and estuaries. L i t t o r a l - F o r e s t Edge: the beaches and immediately ad|j jacent ocean waters and f o r e s t edges. Forest: the fo r e s t s , including open meadow and swamp areas within the coastal f o r e s t s . 23 Figure 4. Generalized D i s t r i b u t i o n of Mammal Habitat Categories. 24 As these mammals vary greatly i n size and therefore p o t e n t i a l quantity of food, the average weights f o r males and females are given i n Table 2. S p e c i f i c e c o l o g i c a l and b i o l o g i c a l data f o r each species are d i s - cussed under habitat categories below. Pelagic Mammals: Northern Fur Seals are t r u l y p e lagic animals with a well defined annual migration associated with pupping and breeding. Their p e l a g i c range extends from southern C a l i f o r n i a to the Bering Sea, but the only breeding grounds known today are i n the extreme northern part of t h e i r range on the i s o l a t e d P r i b i l o f , Robben and Commander Islands (Kenyon and Wilke 1953:85-86). For f i v e to eight months of the year the seals are s t r i c t l y p e l a g i c , generally ranging f a r out to sea and only i n very rare and exceptional circumstances approaching close to land. During the summer and f a l l months the vast majority of the present population of about one and a h a l f m i l l i o n animals i s concentrated at or near the northern rookery islands (Kenyon and Wilke 1953:87; Fiscus 1972:6). Throughout much of the year the d i s t r i b u t i o n of mature males i s d i f f e r e n t from that of mature females and juveniles of both sexes. During the winter and f a l l months, a f t e r they leave the rookeries, the mature males are dispersed and pe l a g i c , but today they remain i n nor- thern waters, moving only short distances south of the Aleut i a n Islands chain (Kenyon and Wilke 1953:88). There i s archaeological evidence from the Ozette s i t e on the Olympic Peninsula that t h i s i s a recent, p o s s i b l y post A.D. 1900, pattern f o r the males, as adult males over ten years of age form between twenty and t h i r t y percent of the f u r seal remains at t h i s s i t e , which spans the time period from about 2,000 years ago to about A.D. 1900 (Gustafson 1968). 25 T a b l e 1. S e a s o n a l A v a i l a b i l i t y a n d H a b i t a t C a t e g o r i e s o f Mammals f o u n d i n t h e H e s q u i a t H a r b o u r R e g i o n T a x a C - Common; P - P r e s e n t ; R - R a r e H a b i t a t e C S t e g o r i e s 1 2 3 4 \ dg e 5 \ H H rH w o o ns m <d -H •H H u M +J •P Cn o o 0 w w -m m -P +J •p <D (U H H -P •p •p iH w •rH -H 0 o ft ft N o r t h e r n F u r S e a l , C a l l o r h i n u s u r s i n u s C X(W) X ( S P ) K i l l e r W h a l e , O r c i n u s o r c a C X X G r a y W h a l e , E s c h r i c h t i u s r o b u s t u s P X ( W , S P ) H u m p b a c k W h a l e , M e g a p t e r a n o v a e a n g l i a e P X ( F , S P j _ H a r b o u r P o r p o i s e , P h o c o e n a p h o c o e n a C X D a l l ' s P o r p o i s e , P h o c o e n o i d e s d a l l i P X ( S ) N o r t h e r n S e a L i o n , E u m e t o p i a s j u b a t a P X C a l i f o r n i a S e a L i o n , Z a l o p h u s c a l i f o r n i a n u s R X(W) N o r t h e r n E l e p h a n t S e a l , M i r o u n g a a n g u s t i r o s t r i s R X(W) S e a O t t e r , E n h y d r a l u t r i s R, f o r m e r l y C X X H a r b o u r S e a l , P h o c a v i t u l i n a C X R i v e r O t t e r , L o n t r a c a n a d e n s i s P X M i n k , M u s t e l a v i s o n C X R a c c o o n , P r o c y o n l o t o r P X C o a s t B l a c k - t a i l e d D e e r , O d o c o i l e u s h e m i o n u s C W o l f , C a n i s l u p u s R, f o r m e r l y C ? C o u g a r , F e l i s c o n c o l o r P B l a c k B e a r , U r s u s a m e r i c a n u s P M a r t e n > M a r t e s a m e r i c a n a P A m e r i c a n R e d S q u i r r e l , T a m i a s c i u r u s h u d s o n i c u s P T o w n s e n d ' s V o l e , M i c r o t u s t o w n s e n d i i P N a v i g a t o r S h r e w , S o r e x p a l u s t r i s P X X X X X X X X K E Y : ( W ) - W i n t e r ; ( S P ) - S p r i n g ; ( S ) - S u m m e r ; ( F ) - F a l l ; o t h e r w i s e y e a r r o u n d 26 Table 2. Weights of Selected Mammals Weight i n Kg (unless indicated otherwise) Taxa Adult Males Adult Females Grey Whale Humpback Whale K i l l e r Whale Northern Elephant Seal Northern Sea Lion C a l i f o r n i a Sea Lion Northern Fur Seal D a l l Porpoise Harbour Porpoise Harbour Seal Sea Otter Coast B l a c k - t a i l e d Deer Black Bear Cougar Wolf River Otter Raccoon Marten Mink Red S q u i r r e l Navigator Shrew 33.6 metric tons, male and female together 27.1(18.1-39.9) metric tons, male & female No data a v a i l a b l e ; several metric tons ? (up to 3,629) ? (680 to 999) ? (227 - 271) 192 (150 - 272) 110 (95 - 132) 55 (27 - 88) 72 (up to 148) 34 (23 - 36) ? (50 - 215) 169 (115 - 270) ? (67 - 103) ? (up to 907) ? (272— 365) ? (45 - 91) 43 (38 - 54) 95 (67 - 150) about the same size 58 (up to 111) 20 (17 - 23) ? (32 - 72) 136 (92 - 140) ? (36 - 60) ? (26 - 79) male and female together 8 7 9 8 .9 (.7 - 1.3) 16 (.6 - .8) 1.7 (1.7 - 2.3) .8 (.8 - 1.2) .2 .2 .01 .01 * ? means information not a v a i l a b l e . Weights i n brackets are ranges. B a n f i e l d 1974; Cowan and Guiguet n.d.; B.C. P r o v i n c i a l Museum Archaeology D i v i s i o n records. 27 The adult females, young of the year and immature animals of both sexes are f a r more widely dispersed i n pelagic waters o f f the west coast during the winter months, some t r a v e l l i n g as f a r south as the C a l i f o r n i a border. At sea, they are usually s o l i t a r y , o ccasionally forming tem- porary groups of up to twenty animals i n areas where there i s a concen- t r a t i o n of food. They are r a r e l y seen c l o s e r than sixteen to twenty-four kilometres o f f shore. The greatest numbers of seals are found scattered i n a band sixteen to eighty kilometres offshore along the outer edge of the continental s h e l f , approximately the 183 metre contour, where there are abundant food supplies (Fiscus 1972:7; Kenyon and Wilke 1953:87-88; Baker 1957:16; Taylor, Fujinaga and Wilke 1955:49; Bartholomew and Hoel 1953:417). Pelagic winter populations are e s p e c i a l l y heavy along the continental s h e l f between mid-Vancouver Island and C a l i f o r n i a , two major concentrations being o f f Barkley Sound and o f f the Juan de Fuca S t r a i t - Cape F l a t t e r y area (Taylor 1971:1663). Off the west coast of Vancouver Island, Northern Fur Seals are pre- sent i n p e l a g i c waters from December to May, with a peak period of con- centration during March and A p r i l . For as long as the present pattern has held, the population a v a i l a b l e to Hesquiat Harbour peoples would be composed only of yearlings, immature animals and females. During the peak period of abundance o f f the harbour, the mature females would be carrying well developed foetuses, two to three months from b i r t h . The animals would be feeding on the herring schools gathered along the con- t i n e n t a l s h e l f edge, and some probably followed the schools into Hesquiat Harbour. Most of the.animals, however, would be present no closer than sixteen to twenty-four kilometres o f f shore. Some immature animals may have been present year round, but f a r out to sea. The archaeological 28 evidence from Ozette indicates mature males may also have been present i n the winter and spring months, but t h i s pattern i s not yet c l e a r . The K i l l e r Whale i s the l a r g e s t of the Delphinidae and a common resident of B.C. coastal waters, often hunting closerto shore i n packs of up to f o r t y i n d i v i d u a l s . They feed on seals, porpoises and sea l i o n s as well as f i s h and frequent the l i t t o r a l waters where these animals are commonly found. Young are born i n November and December. Although some K i l l e r Whale populations are migratory, they are presenttoff the west coast of Vancouver Island year round, p o s s i b l y with a larger summertime population (Cowan and Guiguet n.d.:257-258; B a n f i e l d 1974:264-265). P e l a g i c / L i t t o r a l Mammals: Both the Gray Whale and the Humpback Whale are large, migratory, baleen whales inhabiting the shallow continental shelves, with the Hump- back frequently entering bays and i n l e t s . Gray whales winter i n the lagoons of Baja C a l i f o r n i a where calves are born i n January, and summer i n the Bering and Chukchi Seas. They are o f f the west coast of Van- couver Island i n concentrations i n A p r i l and early May, moving slowly northwards close to shore (within 10 kilometres) i n gams of up to a dozen calves and females or b u l l s , and again i n December, moving much more r a p i d l y southwards (Banfield 1974:270-273; Cowan and Guiguet n.d.: 264). There are i n d i v i d u a l sightings o f f the west coast of the i s l a n d at other times of year as w e l l . The Humpback whale spends the winter months o f f the west coast of Mexico and summer i n the Bering Sea. They pass Vancouver Island i n May and June, moving northwards i n gams of up to 150 i n d i v i d u a l s and return south i n October and November. The young are born i n February or March, and a few Humpbacks winter along the B.C. 29 coast (Banfield 1974:277-281; Cowan and Guiguet n.d.:268-270). The Harbour Porpoise frequents inshore waters, bays, harbours and channels, seldom venturing more than 30 kilometres offshore. They t r a v e l i n small groups of two to f i v e animals, with groups of mature males seg- regated from groups of females, calves and young males. The Harbour Por- poise i s migratory, some i n d i v i d u a l s wintering o f f the coast of Washington and B r i t i s h Columbia and summering further north, but there i s also a resident B.C. population. The young are born i n May to early J u l y (Ban- f i e l d 1974:268-269; Cowan and Guiguet n.d.:260). The D a l l Porpoise frequents the waters of the continental s h e l f at les s than 900 metres, seldom ranging f a r out to sea nor i n t o shallow bays. Gam s i z e i s larger than those of the Harbour Porpoise, up to a dozen in d i v i d u a l s ^ sometimes as many as 100. I t i s r e g u l a r l y present o f f Van- couver Island's west coast i n the summertime, from June to October. Young are born i n July and August (Banfield 1974:269-270; Cowan and Guiguet n.d.:262-263). The Northern Sea Lion may be present year round, but there are today no breeding and pupping rookeries near Hesquiat Harbour. During the winter and early spring, sea l i o n s are widely dispersed i n d i v i d u a l l y or i n small groups throughout the coastal waters, usually within 20 k i l o - metres of the shore and feeding i n l e s s than 180 metres of water. In spring and f a l l they tend to concentrate i n the areas where there are large schools of spawning f i s h , and would be present i n greater numbers i n the harbour area during the spring herring spawning season and again i n the f a l l during the salmon runs. During the spring season adult females would be carrying well-developed foetuses and there would probably be few adult (breeding) males, as these seem to s h i f t north- 30 wards during the l a t e winter and spring months. From May to early Sep- tember the bulk of the population i s confined to the breeding rookeries, but immature (non-breeding) animals and very o l d males associated with hauling out places on Vancouver Island's west coast to the south, might well occur s p o r a d i c a l l y i n the harbour. In the f a l l season adult males and immature i n d i v i d u a l s probably follow the salmon in t o the harbour, but the adult females and pups of the year would s t i l l be concentrated at the breeding rookeries. During the winter months i n d i v i d u a l s of various ages and both sexes might again be a v a i l a b l e . Although present d i s t r i - butions may d i f f e r from past patterns, these animals were probably never a concentrated resource, but were probably seasonally a v a i l a b l e i n small groups and i n d i v i d u a l l y year round (Kenyon and Rice 1961; Pike 1958; Pike 1966; Pike and Maxwell 1958; Spalding 1964; Orr arid Poulter 1967). The west coast of Vancouver Island has previously been considered the extreme northern l i m i t of the C a l i f o r n i a Sea Lion, but there are recently reports of a further northward extension. Formerly, only males aged four to ten years would be seen o f f the west coast and then only during the winter months. Aft e r the breeding season many males migrate north of t h e i r breeding areas o f f the coasts of C a l i f o r n i a and Mexico. They tend to haul out at locations used by t h e i r cousins the Northern Sea Lion, sometimes intermingling with the l a r g e r species (as at Barkley Sound), at other locations maintaining separate groups (Mate 1973:12-17). Their presence i n the Hesquiat Harbour area would be con- fine d to sporadic occurrences-of male animals i n the winter months. They occupy the same coast l i t t o r a l habitat as the Northern Sea Lion. The Northern Elephant Seal, the l a r g e s t of the northern earless seals, breeds on several small islands o f f the coasts of Mexico and 31 C a l i f o r n i a , but ranges as f a r north as Alaska i n the winter. I t .is today rare, but was formerly numerous to the south and r e g u l a r l y reported o f f the west coast of Vancouver Island i n winter. I t has been recorded as f a r as 65 kilometres o f f shore but also frequents the l i t t o r a l waters (Cowan and Guiguet n.d.:354-355). At sea they forage alone, feeding i n waters 70 to 185 metres deep, while on land they are highly gregar- ious and slow moving. Pups are born between mid-December and the end of January (Banfield 1974:380-382). L i t t o r a l Mammals: The Sea Otter was formerly abundant along the west coast of Van- couver Island, but there i s no information a v a i l a b l e on the former l o c a - tions of breeding areas. This marine mammal eats and often sleeps at sea, and also r e g u l a r l y hauls out on rocky points, or sometimes sand beaches, s p i t s and i s l e t s . They favour shallow waters adjacent to the coast or underwater rocky reefs, p a r t i c u l a r l y where kelp beds occur. (Kenyon 1969:57). Sea otte r s tend to remain i n shallow water and are generally within the 55 metre l i n e . They are gregarious and tend to form colonies (Kenyon 1969:57, 64-69). They dive f o r t h e i r food of f i s h , molluscs, echinoderms and crabs i n waters of 10 to 45 metres deep, the majority feeding within 1 kilometre of shore (Kenyon 1969:105, 110; Ba n f i e l d 1974:345; Cowan and Guiguet n.d.:335). Although there does not appear to be a f i x e d breeding season, with new born young reported fo r a l l seasons, there does appear to be ausummer peak i n b i r t h s (Kenyon 1969:230). The west coast of Vancouver Island was formerly r i c h i n t h i s marine mammal, p r i o r to i t s near e x t i n c t i o n by pelage hunters. Although they are generally close to shore, where underwater reefs provide s h a l - low water feeding conditions even f a r offshore, they w i l l also be found 32 there. In Hesquiat Harbour the kelp beds along the eastern entrance shoreline and along the outer coast between Boulder Point and Estevan Point would be i d e a l sea o t t e r habitat. The Harbour Seal i s the marine mammal most commonly seen i n B.C. coastal waters. I t s habitat i s p r i m a r i l y l i t t o r a l marine, rather than p e l a g i c , and these animals are generally close to shore and i n shallow bays and i n l e t s (Cowan and Guiguet n.d.:352). I t i s e s s e n t i a l l y non- migratory, although l o c a l movements associated with t i d e s , f l u c t u a t i o n s i n food.supplies, seasons and reproduction are documented (Biggs 1969a:2). For much of the day i n d i v i d u a l s are solitary:,, dispersed along the shores foraging f o r food. I t i s only at the hauling out places, the sand bars, reefs and estuarine mudflats, that they are found i n loo s e l y gregarious herds. In favourable locations these groups may be 100 to 150 i n d i v i d u a l s , but are commonly much smaller, averaging about 30 i n d i v i d u a l s . They include males and females of a l l ages. Pupping takes place on'isolated sand bars and r e e f s , with no harem formation. The pupping season covers an annually predictable period of one and a h a l f to two months, the time of year varying with l a t i t u d e and becoming progressively e a r l i e r as one goes from Puget Sound north to Alaska (Biggs 1969b:450). Although there are no published data s p e c i f i c to the ce n t r a l p o r t i o n of the west coast of Vancouver Island, records f o r the areas to the north and south suggest June and July would be the months when most b i r t h s occur i n t h i s area, with a peak of early to mid- Ju l y (Biggs 1969a:9; Biggs 1969b:450; Fisher 1952:26-27). Hesquiat Harbour provides a few good hauling out places for Harbour Seals, including the reefs o f f Estevan and Homeis Points, the reefs and rocks o f f Hesquiat Point, and p o s s i b l y Anton's S p i t , although the sur- 33 rounding waters are too shallow to be i d e a l . These areas would only be ava i l a b l e at low t i d e . At other times one might expect to see Harbour Seals almost anywhere i n the harbour, often close to shore. L i t t o r a l / F o r e s t Edge Mammals: The River Otter, the Mink and the Raccoon are common i n Hesquiat Harbour, and while a l l three species inhabit the f o r e s t s , t h e i r favoured habitat i n t h i s region i s the seashore and the immediately adjacent forest f r i n g e . Both r i v e r o t t e r and mink favour the streams, beaches and immediately adjacent l i t t o r a l waters, spending much time i n the water and feeding on f i s h and crustaceans. A family of r i v e r o t t e r s was a d a i l y sight at the head of Hesquiat Harbour during the summer months of 1973. Mink young are born i n A p r i l and May, r i v e r o t t e r s i n March and A p r i l (Cowan and Guiguet n.d.:320-321, 330-331; Ba n f i e l d 1974:330, 340). Raccoons are also common i n the harbour, but being p r i m a r i l y noc- tu r n a l , are l e s s frequently seen. They are commonly found along f o r e s t water course and along the beaches. Young are born from mid-March to mid-April (Banfield 1974:315; Cowan and Guiguet n.d.:298). Forest Mammals::: Coast B l a c k - t a i l e d Deer i s the only large ungulate found i n the study area while Black Bear, Cougar and Wolf are the only large forest carnivores. The Marten and a number of small rodents are also present, i n undetermined abundance. The Canada Land Inventory c l a s s i f i e s Hesquiat Harbour as Class 4 land with moderate l i m i t a t i o n s to the production.of ungulates (Land C a p a b i l i t y f or W i l d l i f e - Ungulates, Map Nootka Sound 92E). No accurate estimate of abundance i s a v a i l a b l e , but deer are c e r t a i n l y not p l e n t i f u l 34 i n the harbour today. Male deer shed t h e i r antlers i n March, although young animals may carry them through A p r i l . The velvet i s stripped from the new antlers i n August and early September (Cowan and Guiguet n.d.: 368). Fawns are normally born i n June, although the range i s from March to November (Banfield 1974:390). In the harbour, .the meadows to the northwest of Hesquiat V i l l a g e on Hesquiat Peninsula are known as the best deer hunting t e r r i t o r y , although tracks are also seen on the beaches. Black bears are the most frequently seen today of the large carnivores. In 1976 the head of the harbour supported at l e a s t one family of four, and F i s h e r i e s records frequently mention black bears at the streams during the f a l l salmon runs. In the mild Hesquiat area, the large Vancouver Island black bear may be active throughout the winter, but i f hibernating from November to A p r i l , the young are born i n hibernation , usually i n January or February (Cowan and Guiguet n.d.:290; B a n f i e l d 1974:305-308). Signs of cougar are common and there i s probably more than one t e r - r i t o r y i n the harbour. Cougars range over wide areas and through various habitats, from swamps to dense coniferous f o r e s t , i n search of food. Apart from the recently (1900's) introduced domestic goats and cows, the only large prey i n the harbour i s deer. As cougars have no f i x e d breeding season the young may be born at any time of year (Cowan and Guiguet n.d.: 336) although there are reported to be two peaks of b i r t h , l a t e winter and midsummer (Banfield 1974:347). Wolves have not been seen here for years, but the tracks of a s o l i t a r y animal were seen i n 1975, while i n e a r l i e r times-they were c e r t a i n l y more p l e n t i f u l . Wolves, too, range throughout a v a r i e t y of habitats, hunting i n packs that average four to seven i n numbers but can range from two to fourteen (Banfield 1974:290). Pups are born i n 35 A p r i l and May (Cowan and Guiguet n.d.:282). The low ungulate population i n the harbour i s r e f l e c t e d i n the r e l a t i v e l y low abundance of t h e i r p r i n c i p a l predators, wolf and cougar, while black bears, with a varied d i e t , have maintained a higher population i n the area. In none of these instances, however, are we t a l k i n g about an abundant resource. Although the presence of Marten was not personally confirmed, i t s range includes Hesquiat Harbour. This animal favours the forest habitat, occasionally feeding along the seashore. The young are born i n l a t e March and A p r i l (Banfield 1974:316-317; Cowan and Guiguet n.d.:301). Three of the rodents reported f o r the area have been i d e n t i f i e d i n the archaeological record, the Townsend's Vole, the American Red S q u i r r e l and possibly the Deer Mouse. The Navigator Shrew wasoalso i d e n t i f i e d a rchaeologically and the S h o r t - t a i l e d Weasel seen i n 1973. A l l of these animals are small f o r e s t dwellers. Birds : Avian resources of the area are diverse, i n c l u d i n g many d i f f e r e n t species, from ocean going f l i e r s to f o r e s t residents. The species also show v a r i a t i o n i n seasonal a v a i l a b i l i t y , abundance and concentration. The habitats of the inner harbour and those of the outer coast d i f f e r i n a l l these f a c t o r s . The b i r d species present i n Hesquiat Harbour today and also iden- t i f i e d i n the archaeological samples can be grouped according to preferred habitat. The following habitat categories indicateethe habitats where the l i s t e d species are most l i k e l y to be found i n greatest abundance, rather than the only habitats i n which they w i l l be found. Birds are highly mobile species. Table 3 groups the species i d e n t i f i e d i n the archaeological samples by the habitat categories, while Figure 5 36 Figure 5. Generalized D i s t r i b u t i o n of B i r d Habitat Categories. 37 i l l u s t r a t e s the present d i s t r i b u t i o n of the habitats i n Hesquiat Harbour. Pelagic: open ocean from about 15 to 200 kilometres o f f - shore, p a r t i c u l a r l y 20 to 40 kilometres offshore. Open-Littoral Waters: the open, l i t t o r a l waters, including outer portions of some larger bays and i n l e t s . Sheltered L i t t o r a l Waters: the sheltered l i t t o r a l waters of bays and i n l e t s . Sheltered Shallow Waters: the shallow l i t t o r a l waters of sheltered bays and estuaries, lakes, mudflats, marshes and streams. S t r a n d / L i t t o r a l Interface: the beaches and adjacent l i t - t o r a l waters and f o r e s t edge. Forest/Upland: the f o r e s t , including the wooded areas and open meadows within the f o r e s t . Many of these birds vary greatly i n s i z e . While b i r d weights are highly v a r i a b l e , even within a single day, the mean weights presented i n Table 4 give a gross measure of r e l a t i v e s i z e s . Pelagic Birds: The pelagic birds are p r i m a r i l y the ocean f l i e r s , r a r e l y coming close to shore i n Hesquiat waters. While species such as the albatross are large, most are r e l a t i v e l y small birds whose b i g wingspan b e l i e s t h e i r actual weight. They include both the Black-footed Albatross (Diomedea nigripes Audubon) and the S h o r t - t a i l e d Albatross (D. albatrus P a l l a s ) , the Northern Fulmar (Fulmaris g l a c i a l i s (Linnaeus)), the Sooty Shearwater (Puffinus griseus (Gmelin)), the Northern Phalarope (Lobipes lobatus (Linnaeus)), the P a r a s i t i c Jaeger (Stercorarius p a r a s i t i c u s (Linnaeus)), the A r c t i c Tern (Sterna paradisea Pontopiddan), the Black-Legged K i t t i - wake (Rissa t r i d a c t y l a (Linnaeus)) and storm p e t r e l s (Hydrobatidae). Open L i t t o r a l Water Birds: The birds i n t h i s category are diving, f i s h eating b i r d s , sometimes 38 Table 3. Ha b i t a t Categories of B i r d s found i n the Hesquiat Harbour Region H a b i t a t Categories Taxa 1 2 3 4 5 6 t3 H 0) rH CO H O o (0 rH rd rH 15 \ ^ IC \ •H U CO QJ rH CO CD 0 co MH H-> T3 Cn 0 rH -P O rH -P H rH C O rH CO s rG C •p <u rH -P <U rH rH <D -p 0) H CD -p H-> <U +J -P <U ft) H-1 U H-l -P rH rH PH •H ITS Xi -H rd rC £ <fl -P -H C O On ft O Cfl |ij co w CO J H Cn D A l b a t r o s s , Diomedea sp. X Northern Fulmar, Fulmaris g l a c i a l i s X Sooty Shearwater, P u f f i n u s g r i s e u s X Storm P e t r a l s , Hydrobatidae X Northern Phalarope, Lobipes lobatus X P a r a s i t i c Jaeger, S t e r c o r a r i u s p a r a s i t i c u s X A r c t i c Tern, Sterna paradisea X Black-legged K i t t i w a k e , R i s s a t r i d a c t y l a X A r c t i c Loon, Gavia a r c t i c a X Western Grebe, Aechmophorus o c c i d e n t a l i s X Double-crested Cormorant, Phalaeroco rax a u r i t u s X Brandt's Cormorant, £. p e n i c i l l a t u s X P e l a g i c Cormorant, p e l a g i c u s X Oldsquaw, Duck, Clangula hyemalis X White-winged Scoter, M e l a n i t t a deglandi X Surf Scoter, M. p e r s p i c i l l a t a X Common Scoter, Oidemia n i g r a X Common Murre, U r i a aalge X Pigeon Guillemot, Cepphus columba X Marbled M u r r e l e t , Brachyramphus marmoratus X Cassin's A u k l e t , Ptychoramphus a l e u t i c a X Rhinoceros A u k l e t , Cerorhinca monocerata X Tufted P u f f i n , Lunda c i r r h a t a X 39 Table 3. (Continued) Habitat Categories 1 2 -.3 4 5 > 6 Taxa 'a TS CD H <u H <U O o rd H id rH id (d \ •rH w w a) 0 to -o r4 p &> 0 M 4-1 0 !H p H u fi o n w C n3 a 4-> o H •P a) H H <u <d 4-> cu cu fo i—I <u •P •p 4-> 4-> a) (d 4-> r4 4J -p u rH a) ft •H id •H id , f i (d 4J •r4 c 0 ft cu o CO co CO co H fa P Common Loon, Gavia immer X Red-throated Loon, Gavia s te l lata X Red-necked Grebe, Podiceps grisagena X Horned Grebe, P. auritus X Eared Grebe, P. caspicus X Greater Scaup, Aythya marila X Common Goldeneye, Bucephala clangula X Barrow1 s Goldeneye , B_. islandica X Bufflehead, B. albeola X Common Merganser, Mergus merganser X Red-breasted Merganser, M. serrator X Whistling Swan, Olor columbianus X Canada Goose, Branta canadensis X Brant, B. bernicla X White-fronted Goose, Anser albifrons X Snow Goose,.Chen caerulescens X Mallard, Anas platyrhynchos X Gadwall, A. strepara X Blue-winged Teal, A. discors X P in ta i l , A. acuta X American Widgeon, Mareca americana X Shoveler, Spatula- clypeata X American Coot, Fulica' americana X Glaucous-winged Gul l , Larus.,glaucescens X Western Gul l , L. occidentalis X Herring Gul l , L. argentatus X 40 Table 3. (Continued) Habitat Categories 22 3 4 5 Taxa T3 CD rH CD H CD rH O o (d & rd r4 \ rd rd \ •H u CD r4 CO CD 0 cn U M-l +J Cn 0 u 4J 0 S-l 4-1 H u fl 0 U 05 rd C 4J CD H 4-1 CD H H CD rd 4-> CD CD i—1 Q) 4-> 4-1 CD 4-1 4J . CD id 4J U 4-1 4-> U CD m .G •H rd Xi rd 4-1 •H C 0 ft O ^ CO IH £ CO CO £ co tA H fo C a l i f o r n i a G u l l , L. c a l i f o r n i c u s X Mew G u l l , L. canus X Bonaparte's G u l l , L. P h i l a d e l p h i a X Heerman's G u l l , L. heermanni X Great Blue Heron, Ardea herodias X Bald Eagle, Haliaeetus leucocephalus X Black Oystercatcher, Haematopus bachmani X Greater Yellowlegs, Totanus melanoleucus X Sandpipers, E r o l i a sp. X Northwestern Crow, Corvus caurinus X Great Horned Owl, Bubo virginianus X Snowy Owl, Nyctea scandiaca X F l i c k e r , Colaptes cafer/auritus X P i l e a t e d Woodpecker, Dryocopus p i l e a t u s X Varied Thrush, Ixoreus naevius X Finches etc, F r i n g i l l i d a e X 41 seen closer to shore, but more abundant where the large schools of f i s h are concentrated i n deeper water. They include the cormorants, the murres, and some of the grebes, loons and ducks. Those i d e n t i f i e d i n the archaeological sitesaare: A r c t i c Loon (Gavia a r c t i c a (Linnaeus)), Western Grebe (Aechmo- phorus o c c i d e n t a l i s (Lawrence)), Double-crested Cormorant (Phalacrocorax auritus (Lesson)), Brandt's Cormorant p e n i c i l l a t u s (Brandt)'), Pelagic Cormorant (P. pelagicus P a l l a s ) , Oldsquaw Duck (Clangula hyemalis (Linnaeus)), White-winged Scoter (Melanitta deglandi (Bonaparte)), Surf Scoter (M. pers- p i c i l l a t a (Linnaeus)), Common Scoter (Oidemia nigra (Linnaeus)), Common Murre (Uria aalge (Pontoppidan)), Pigeon Guillemot (Cepphus columba P a l l a s ) , Marbled Murrelet (Brachyramphus marmoratus (Gmelin)), Cassin's Auklet (Ptychoramphus aleuti c u s ( P a l l a s ) ) , Rhinoceros Auklet (Cerorhinca monocerata ( P a l l a s ) ) , and Tufted P u f f i n (Lunda c i r r h a t a ( P a l l a s ) ) . Sheltered L i t t o r a l Water B i r d s : The birds i n t h i s category are also d i v i n g , f i s h eating b i r d s , but they favour more sheltered waters than t h e i r cousins. They are often seen close to shore, and most are migratory. They include Common Loon (Gavia immer (Brunnich)), Red-throated Loon (Gavia s t e l l a t a (Pontoppidan)), Red-necked Grebe (Podiceps grisagena (Boddaect)), Horned Grebe (Podiceps auritus (Linnaeus)), Eared Grebe (Podiceps caspicus ( H a b l i z l ) ) , Greater Scaup (Aythya marila (Linnaeus)), Common Goldeneye (Bucephala clangula (Linnaeus)), Barrow's Goldeneye (B. i s l a n d i c a (Gmelin)), Bufflehead (B. albeola (Linnaeus)), Common Merganser (Mergus merganser Linnaeus) and Red-breasted Merganser (M. serrator Linnaeus). Sheltered Shallow Water B i r d s : These b i r d s are the surface feeding and dabbling ducks, geese and swans, whose preferred habitats are the shallow waters over e e l grass 42 Table 4. Weights of Selected B i r d Species Taxa X Weight i n Grams Taxa X Weight i n Grams Common Loon A r c t i c Loon Red-throated Loon Western Grebe Red-necked Grebe Horned Grebe Eared Grebe Sh o r t - t a i l e d Albatross Black-footed Albatross Northern Fulmar 3330(2425-3677) 2000* 2000* 656(520-793) 450* 369(N. A. ) 350* 2300* 2300* 100* Sooty Shearwater 100* Leach's P e t r e l 27 D-C Cormorant 3000* Brandt's Cormorant 2979 Pelagic Cormorant 1463(1250-1850) Whistling Swan Canada Goose Brant White-fronted Goosel Snow Goose Mallard Gadwall Blue-winged Teal Widgeon Shovellor Greater Scaup Black-legged Kittiwake 6208(4072-8244) 3882(2134-5676) 1385(1317-1453) 2729(2134-2996) 2254(1345-3314) 1039(544-1725) 863(636-1044) 397(227-545) 817(544-1089) 647(499-817) 806(726-1362) 400* Common Goldeneye Barrow's Goldeneye Bufflehead P i n t a i l . Oldsquaw Duck White-winged Scoter Surf Scoter Common Scoter Common Merganser Red-breasted Merganser Hooded Merganser Great Blue Heron Bald Eagle Coot Black Oyster- catcher Greater Yellowlegs Northern Phalarope P a r a s i t i c Jaeger Skua Glaucous-winged G u l l Western G u l l Herring G u l l C a l i f o r n i a G u l l Bonaparte G u l l Mew G u l l Heerman's G u l l Great Horned Owl 1010(692-1452) 939!('499-1135) 466(332-636) 969(590-1462) 746(612-999) 1373(953-1771) 863(636-1135) 1068(863-1272) 1430(953-2043) 704(590-817) 704(681-726) 2340(1850-3062) 5549(4313-6356) 493(434-551) 559(524-577) 170 6 500* 500* 941(717-1120) 900* 1018(850-1184) 700* 300* 400* 510(430-554) 1291(973-1480) 43 Table 4. (Continued) X Weight X Weight Taxa i n Grams Taxa i n Grams A r c t i c Tern 300* Snowy Owl 1404 Common Murre 978(637-1195) F l i c k e r 142(108-163) Pigeon Guillemot 400* P i l e a t e d Woodpecker 950* Rhinoceros Auklet 500(470-530) Northwestern Crow 866 Tufted P u f f i n 703(606-813) Robin 78(74-82) Marbled Murrelet 216(206-226) Varied Thrush 75* Cassin's Auklet 143 Measurements i n brackets are ranges; a l l measurements include both male and female i n d i v i d u a l s ; * indicates an estimated weight based on length r e l a t i v e to known weight species that are c l o s e l y r e l a t e d . Poole 1938; Baldwin and Kendeigh 1938; B e l l r o s e 1976; B.C. P r o v i n c i a l Museum, Archaeology D i v i s i o n records. beds i n sheltered bays and estuaries, shallow lakes, mudflats, marshes and streams. They include: Whistling Swan (Qlor columbianus (Ord)), Canada Goose (several sub-species) (Branta canadensis (Linnaeus)), Brant (B_. b e r n i c l a (Linnaeus)), White-fronted Goose (Anser a l b i f r o n s (Scopoli)), Snow Goose.(Chen caerulescens (Linnaeus)), Mallard (Anas platyrhynchos Linnaeus), Gadwall (A. strepara Linnaeus), Blue-winged Teal (A. discors Linnaeus), P i n t a i l (A. acuta Linnaeus) American Widgeon (Mareca americana (Gmelin)), Shoveler (Spatula clypeata (Linnaeus)), and American Coot (F u l i c a americana Gmelin). These birds are often found on shore at the waters edge, as well as i n the l i t t o r a l waters. S t r a n d / L i t t o r a l Interface B i r d s : These are the beach scavengers and the wading birds who feed on the t i d a l f l a t s , the g u l l s and the shorebirds. They include the Glaucous- winged G u l l (Larus glaucescens Naumann), Western G u l l (L. o c c i d e n t a l i s Audubon), Herring G u l l (L. argentatus Pontoppidan), C a l i f o r n i a G u l l (L. 44 c a l i f o r n i c u s Lawrence), Mew G u l l (L. canus Linnaeus), Bonaparte's G u l l (L. P h i l a d e l p h i a (Ord)), Heermann's G u l l (L. heermanni Cassin), Great Blue Heron (Ardeaaherodias Linnaeus) Ba<Ld Eagle (Hariaeetus leucocephalus (Linnaeus)), Black Oyster-catcher (Haematopus bachmani Audubon), Greater Yellowlegs (Totanus melanoleucus (Gmelin)), Northwestern Crow (Corvus caurinus Baird) and various sandpiper species. Forest/Upland Birds: Few f o r e s t birds are represented i n the samples, although there are many species present i n the harbour. Those i d e n t i f i e d a r c h aeologically include Great Horned Owl (Bubo virginianus (Gmelin)), Snowy Owl (Nyctea scandiaca (Linnaeus), F l i c k e r (Colaptes cafer (Gmelin)), P i l e a t e d Wood- pecker (Dryocopus p i l e a t u s (Linnaeus)), Varied Thrush (Ixoreus naevius (Gmelin)) and various u n i d e n t i f i e d small finches or the l i k e . A l l of Hesquiat Harbour except the lakes i s c l a s s i f i e d by the B.C. Land Directorate as Class 7 land i n c a p a b i l i t y f or waterfowl production, meaning that the l i m i t a t i o n s of these lands are so severe that.waterfowl production i s nearly precluded. The lakes are c l a s s i f i e d as Class 5 (moderately severe) and Class 6 (severe l i m i t a t i o n s ) (The Canada Land Inventory, Land C a p a b i l i t y C l a s s i f i c a t i o n for W i l d l i f e , Map Nootka Sound, 92E, Waterfowl). This c l a s s i f i c a t i o n takes i n t o account the breeding, wintering and migratory stopover p o t e n t i a l of an area, and c l e a r l y i n d i c a t e s the u n s u i t a b i l i t y of the Hesquiat Harbour t e r r a i n to support large waterfowl populations. No accurate estimates of seabird populations s p e c i f i c to Hesquiat Harbour are av a i l a b l e , but they are c e r t a i n l y more common than waterfowl. Many of both the waterfowl and the seabirds are migratory, only a v a i l a b l e i n Hesquiat Harbour at c e r t a i n times of year. 45 The most relevant information on species abundance and seasonal •occurrence is"'that gathered by Hatler, Campbell and Dorst (1978) "for P a c i f i c Rim National Park on the west coast of Vancouver Island south of Hesquiat Harbour. Table 5 presents seasonal abundance data from t h i s study (augmented by d i r e c t observations i n Hesquiat Harbour) f o r a l l 63 species of b i r d i d e n t i f i e d d i n the archaeological samples. The birds are grouped into 10 categories of seasonal a v a i l a b i l i t y : 1) Present year round i n roughly equal abundance 2) Present year round but l e s s common i n the summer months 3) Not present (for varying lengths of time i n the summer months 4) Only present l a t e f a l l to very e a r l y spring 5) Present year round but more abundant i n the f a l l and spring 6) Only present i n f a l l and spring 7) Only present discontinuously i n the spring to early f a l l months 8) Present year round but.more common i n the summer months 9) Only present spring through f a l l 10) Only present summer through f a l l As can be seen from Table 5, 36 of the 63 species are p o t e n t i a l l y a v a i l a b l e year round. Of these, 17 species are a v a i l a b l e i n roughly constant q u a n t i t i e s throughout the year, the remaining 19 i n seasonally f l u c t u a t i n g q u a n t i t i e s . A l l other species are only a v a i l a b l e f or r e s t r i c t e d portions of the year. In addition to seasonal f l u c t u a t i o n s i n occurrence and/or abundance, the a v a i l a b i l i t y of the seabirds i s affected by t h e i r offshore/onshore and short range l a t i t u d i n a l movements rela t e d to the occurrence of feed. 46 Table 5. Seasonal Abundance and A v a i l a b i l i t y of Selected B i r d Species i n the Hesquiat Harbour Region * "Month Seasonal Category Species J F M A M J J A S O N D 1 Surf Scoter xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Northwestern Crow XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX Bald Eagle X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Black Oystercatcher X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Brandt's Cormorant X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Pelagic Cormorant X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Great Blue Heron X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Common Merganser X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Glaucous-winged G u l l XXXX X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Mew Gu l l X X X X X X X X . X X X X X X X X X Western G u l l Herring G u l l • • Pigeon Guillemot Common Scoter ?-??—? F l i c k e r P i l e a t e d Woodpecker _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Great Horned Owl " - - - - - - - - - - - - 2 Common Loon X X X X X X XXXX XXXX X X X Varied Thrush X X X X X X X KXXXXXXX X X X Greater Scaup X X X XXXXX X - - - - X X X X Mallard X X X X X X X X X X X Red-breasted Merganser X X X X X X X - - - - - X X X Western Grebe _ _ _ _ _ Red-necked Grebe - - - Double-crested Cormorant ZZZZ. _ _ _ Horned Grebe - 3 Brant X XXX X P i n t a i l _ _ _ X X X X — American Widgeon XXXXXXXXXXX I-i - - - X XXXXXXXX Common Goldeneye X X X X X X X- - - X X X 47 Table 5. (Continued) Seasonal Category Species Month J F M A M J J A S O N D 3 (cont) A 4 Barrow's Goldeneye Bufflehead Oldsquaw Duck American Coot Snowy Owl White-winged Scoter Bonaparte's G u l l A r c t i c Loon Canada Goose Whistling Swan White-fronted Goose Gadwall Shoveler Snow Goose Blue-winged Teal A r c t i c Tern Northern Phalarope Black-legged Kittiwake Common Murre Red-throated Loon Marbled Murrelet Black-footed Albatross Northern Fulmar Greater Yellowlegs P a r a s i t i c Jaeger Sooty Shearwater Cassin's Auklet Rhinoceros Auklet Tufted P u f f i n - _ _ _ _ _ ? _ _ _ XXXXXXXXXXXX X X X X XXXXXX X X X XXXX X X X XXXXXXXX X X X X H X X XXXXX XXX X XXXX X X X X X X - X XXXX X —???— ? — •?—?— KXXXXX - X XXX X - - -X X X X X X X - ? — -?- - X XXXXXXXXXX ?- — X X X X X X X X X — - - - X X X X X X X X X X - - - x x x x x x;:xxxxxx x x x x x 48 Table 5. (Continued) Month Seasonal Category Species J F M A M J J A S O N D 10 Heermann's G u l l Skua KEY: Absent ; Rare - ; Present - - -; Uncommon - Common X X X ; Abundant XXXXX * Extrapolated from Hatler, Campbell and Dorst 1978 No precise data are currently a v a i l a b l e on these l a t t e r movements for the Hesquiat area, although i t . i s known they can be abrupt, unpredictable with present knowledge and of considerable magnitude, with f l o c k s of several thousand Sooty Shearwaters f o r example, congregating i n an area f o r several days, then disappearing overnight. A t h i r d f a c t o r a f f e c t i n g a v a i l a b i l i t y from a human predator's point of view i s the concentration i n which a species occurs. For b i r d species, t h i s ranges from sin g l e i n d i v i d u a l s through p a i r s , family groups, small fl o c k s and large f l o c k s of several thousand i n d i v i d u a l s , and may vary with the season. In general, l a r g e s t concentrations are at nesting grounds or during migration. At sea, the f u l l y pelagic b i r d s tend to disperse into small groups or i n d i v i d u a l s , f l o c k i n g into l a rger groups when the feed i s concentrated or when a c t u a l l y on migration. The murres, auklets and cormorants are usually found i n small f l o c k s while the grebes and loons tend to be s o l i t a r y , i n p a i r s , or i n very small groups when not ac t u a l l y migrating. During migration, a l l the duck and goose species - - X X X X - - 49 are found i n small to very large f l o c k s . At other times they tend to move i n p a i r s or small groups of p a i r s . The g u l l s are found i n highly v a r i a b l e concentrations when o f f the nesting grounds, favouring small f l o c k s . Sandpipers congregate i n small fl o c k s while the Greater Yellow Legs, the Great Blue Heron and Black Oyster Catcher are s o l i t a r y or i n p a i r s . Other seastrand and f o r e s t birds are generally found i n p a i r s or s o l i t a r y , except f o r the crows, which are normally found i n small f l o c k s . F i s h : At l e a s t f o r t y d i f f e r e n t species of f i s h were i d e n t i f i e d i n the archaeological samples from Hesquiat Harbour, ranging from marine sharks and r o c k f i s h to anadromous salmon. Although many more species are a v a i l - able, those present represent a wide range of habitats and a good s e l e c - t i o n of food f i s h . o f varying s i z e s . Although most are marine f i s h , four species of anadromous f i s h spawn i n the Harbour streams and those entering Hesquiat, H i s n i t and V i l l a g e Lakes, including Sockeye (Hesquiat Lake only), Coho and Chum Salmon, and Steelhead. Some marine f i s h , such as Herring, Sardine and B l u e f i n Tuna, are also only seasonally a v a i l a b l e i n the harbour. No accurate data on abundance of i n d i v i d u a l species, are a v a i l a b l e s p e c i f i c a l l y for Hesquiat Harbour except f o r F i s h e r i e s records f o r the salmon and steelhead spawning i n the creeks on the east side of the har- bour. These records are not d i r e c t stream counts, but estimates, often obtained from l o c a l residents or from planes. They cannot be regarded as accurate data. They do, however, indicate that salmon resources of the Harbour are not (and probably were not) very extensive. The count estimates record a steady decline i n the number of f i s h 50 entering the streams throughout the period of records. For the years 1944 to 1973, the average annual number of Coho spawning i n the eastside streams and Hesquiat Lake drainage i s estimated at 1,247 f i s h , with a range of 50 (1963) to 10,000 (1945) f i s h . For Chum, the annual average i s 2,120 f i s h and the range 50 (1963) to 20,000 (1946) f i s h . Sockeye only appear i n the records i n f i v e of the years since 1968, one year only as f i n g e r - l i n g s . I t i s not c l e a r i f sockeye are newly using these spawning grounds or i f they were not recorded i n e a r l i e r years. The range of run s i z e i s 30 to 1,000 f i s h , average 216 f i s h . Steelhead are recorded as present i n the east side streams, but no numerical data are given (Tofino Federal F i s h e r i e s O f f i c e Records, 1944 - 1973). Local residents ind i c a t e that the streams on the north and west sides of Hesquiat Harbour are also Chum and Coho streams, and that the stream draining V i l l a g e Lake i s a good, though small run, Coho stream. Herring are very abundant i n the l a t e winter and early spring when they approach the Harbour beaches to spawn. Although no figures s p e c i f i c to Hesquiat Harbour are a v a i l a b l e , i t i s known to l o c a l fisherman as one of the best places for herring on the west coast of Vancouver Island. Numerical abundance data are not a v a i l a b l e f or the other species of f i s h i d e n t i f i e d i n the archaeological record, but dogfish and r o c k f i s h are c e r t a i n l y common i n the Harbour. Great v a r i a t i o n e x i s t s among species i n the concentration of oc- currence, ranging from the s o l i t a r y wolf e e l to the huge schools of spawning herring. The f i s h fauna can be grouped into nine habitat categories as defined below, according to t h e i r preferred habitat. These habitats r e f e r to adult populations and do not take into account v e r t i c a l or l o c a l movement 51 Figure 6. Generalized D i s t r i b u t i o n of F i s h Habitat Categories. 1 DEEP \A(jp"TEfl Of^FS~HORE - 2 MODERATELYvOeEP^BOCfTfVBQT; 3 MODERATELY DEEP VARIED BOTi 4 SHALLOWER INSHORE,VARIED^BOT. 5 SHALLOWER INSHORE, SOFT BOT. ^•.INTERTIDAI-^PULDER 7 4 t V T E R T l D A L , SO I^ \ S, STREAMS, LAKES COBVfe-USJ . . s TO 52 within the categories. Table 6 groups the species i d e n t i f i e d archaeolo- g i c a l l y by the habitat categories and indicates season of a v a i l a b i l i t y . The present d i s t r i b u t i o n of the habitat categories i n the harbour i s displayed i n Figure 6. Dogfish. (Squalus acanthius Linnaeus) and R a t f i s h (Hydrolagus c o l l i e i (Lay and Bennett)) are excluded from the habitat table as they occur i n a very wide range of habitats. They are a v a i l a b l e year round. The habitat categories are: Deep Water Offshore: the deep, offshore waters of the open coast, over varied bottoms, i n c l u d i n g offshore reefs and banks, often deeper than 300 metres. Moderately Deep Water, Rocky Bottom: the moderately deep to deep l i t t o r a l waters over rocky bottoms. F i s h are con- centrated above 300 metres, often above 200 metres. Moderately Deep Water, Varied Bottom: the moderately deep to deep l i t t o r a l waters over v a r i e d bottom. Shallower Inshore Waters: the shallow waters of bayssand i n l e t s over various substrata. Shallower Inshore Waters, Soft Bottom: the shallow waters of bays and i n l e t s over muddy sand and gravel bottoms. I n t e r t i d a l , Boulder Bottom: the l i t t o r a l waters of bays and i n l e t s over i n t e r t i d a l zones of boulders and rocks on so f t bottom. I n t e r t i d a l , Soft Bottom: the shallow l i t t o r a l waters of bays and i n l e t s over i n t e r t i d a l zones of sand and gravel. Streams: ( s e l f explanatory) Lakes: ( s e l f explanatory) Deep Water Offshore F i s h : These f i s h include several species of sharks, as well as a number of f l a t f i s h and smaller schooling f i s h . The west coast of Vancouver Island i s the northern l i m i t of the B l u e f i n Tuna's range, where i t occurs i n - frequently during the summer months. The f i s h i n t h i s category are Longnose Skate (Raja rhina Jordan and G i l b e r t ) , Sardine (Sardinops Sagax Table 6. Seasonal A v a i l a b i l i t y and Habitat Categories of Fish Found i n the Hesquiat Harbour Area Habitat Categories Taxa 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 e e a 0 0 0 4-> 4-) g B u +> 4-1 4-> o H rH 0 CD 04 4-) a, o M 0 U -P rd rd 4-> 4-> CD CD 0 CD ffl CD ffl CD 4J T) T i +J rd U CD ffl CD S CD CD 0 •H M •H 0 CO S 0 Q Q T i O M Ti 0 r4 ffl 4-> CD e 4J ffl e Xi >i CD rH 0 CD rH 0 iH Ti o r4 rd Qi cn • u, • -H H ^ •H rH • f i 4-> CD rH 4-1 CD 4-> CD CD MH T> O Tl r4 rd CO r4 rd w 4-> 4J 4-> 1+4 r4 CD MH o Q O rd 1̂ fi rd Xi 0 fi 0 0 fl o 4-> Q O S Pi a > 10 H > co H CO H ffl ffl H CO W CO CD •s hH Sharks, Pleurotremata . X Longnose Skate, Raja rhina X Sardine, Sardinops sagax X(S) Northern Anchovy, Engraulis mordax mordax X(S) P a c i f i c Hake, Merluccius productus X B l u e f i n Tuna, Thunnus thynnus X(S) S a b l e f i s h , Anoplopoma fimbria X Arrowtooth Flounder, Atheresthes stomias X Petrale Sole, Eopsetta jordani X(W) Flathead Sole, Hippoglossoides elassodon X P a c i f i c Halibut, Hippoglossus stenolepis X Dover Sole, Microstomus p a c i f i c u s X E n g l i s h Sole, Parophrys vetulus X(W) Copper Rockfish, Sebastes caurinus Y e l l o w t a i l Rockfish, S. flavidus Shortbelly Rockfish, S_. jordani Quillback Rockfish, S_. maliger Black Rockfish, S_. melanops Bocaccio, S_. paucispinus Canary Rockfish, pinniger X X X X X X X X(S) X(S) co III cn co •d to CD •d co >d 50 M O t-1 K rt CD P) rt P) 0 CD P- rt 0 to P- Pi p- 0 CD CD P 3 PJ o o fr Hi H P H P) p <£) tr 3 o H CD P fr P p- w Hi CD >;• Hi p- p- CD iQ H H P- P Hi H Pi to 1 3 3 CO N O o >ff 0 co p- co P M CD CD Hi -) 0 0 cn s; CD cQ o o 0 P- O CD fr CD P- P) 3 fr P CD P) s I-1 PJ P 1 CO P. P 1 3 CO rt s CD •< CD M co CD ff CO O co ff pi CD CD CD n ^ 0 PJ s O ff CD S P- H co 3 c 5 £ c & t? 3 a H » co >d 3 fr tr1 0 J- 1 to 3 fr 0 o ff P- 0 P> CO fr fr JS P to s CD P) CO 3 P) P P- 3 O P 1 CD CD CD Pl •0 fr p- ff p P ff s L J . 0̂ 0 -1 rt P tr P- ** 3 pi o H p- Pi pj fr Pi 5 rt ^ fr o ff ff o CD o P-P- 0 O P- „ 3 3 tr 3 3 a CO -1 0) O o cn H o O pi O p- P- CD ff pi P ff H p- CD 3 ff H ff 3 0 3 o CD X P- CD ri- pi ri- rt P- 0 p- a rt v P 0 ff M pj . P 3 ff rt ff rt M •0 H tr ff ff O ri- 0 iQ ICO fr -I p- P> P) 2̂ ff e p- •< *< C ff 3 P • 3 cn o Hi >o P cn O cn 0 3 iQ cu ro cn ff p- tr p- •< rt p O CO P) P 3 rt o p- fr cn < o O p- ff rt 3 rt P- •0 CD ff ff P 1 0 p) o 0 o c p) C 0 PJ P 1 k< ri- p- rt tr O p) CD ff CO P) CO CO ID K M •to CO ff 3 C p- o P 1 ri- P P' 3 CD CO CO PJ M M ff rt 3 H 1 > PJ 0 CO CO P) 0 P) pi cn O P) H* CO cn rt rt ff 3 rt rt CO ff P -1 1 P- rt CD CO P> CD CD C pi P) o p- H1 0 •3 p cn 3 rt O H • n P 1 p P- 0 C _J rt P> fr P 1 H rt rt CO PJ •C rt p- CD P- pi CO ff cn US dus pidotus CO tus cha alus X CO X co Kjt y k'N KS B co X X Kjl K> KS t̂ N K'N K>< K> KN K̂ < X CO x CO X co 'd X K^A »y( rS rN KS H3 p) PJ H3 pi tr CD (Ti O 0 3 rt P- 3 C CD fr Deep Water Offshore Mod. Deep Rocky Bottom Mod. Deep Varied Bottom Shallower Inshore ^ Varied Bottom Shallower Inshore oi Soft Bottom I n t e r t i d a l Boulder Bottom I n t e r t i d a l Soft Bottom Streams cn ffi pi tr p-rt P) rt O P) rt CD iQ O P P-CD CO Lakes 03 CD PS 3 t+ CD CO I LO H- 3 P) O el-s' CD n H-cn CD ^ CD n o C 3 & co o H 0 0 O o C o rt CD ^ ><; CO CD PJ co H 1 to 3 H 1 Pi 0 3 I—1 3 0 3 o CO 3 O p cn 3 C CD ct H o 31 pi o 3* co 8 3 oJ O n 3 O 3" 0 CO rV CD rt p) X X X —̂» CO CO co K> rvJ Kj( KN KS KN co co co X X X X — X X(F) 1-3 % P) i-3 CD o o 3 rt H-3 CD Deep Water Offshore Mod. Deep Rocky Bottom Mod. Deep Varied Bottom Shallower Inshore ^ Varied Bottom Shallower Inshore Soft Bottom I n t e r t i d a l Boulder Bottom I n t e r t i d a l Soft Bottom cn & H- rt P) rt O P) rt CD iQ O H- CD CO Streams Lakes oo 99 56 (Jenyns)), Northern Anchovy (Engraulis mordax mordax G i r a r d ) , P a c i f i c Hake (Merluccius productus (Ayres)), B l u e f i n Tuna (Thunnus thynnus (Linnaeus)), S a b l e f i s h (Anoplopoma fimbria ( P a l l a s ) ) , Arrowtooth Flounder (Atheresthes stomias (Jordan and G i l b e r t ) ) , Petrale Sole (Eopsetta jordani (Lockington)), Flathead Sole (Hippoglossoides elassodon Jordan and G i l b e r t ) , P a c i f i c Halibut (Hippoglossus stenolepis Schmidt), Dover Sole (Microstomus p a c i f i c u s (Lockington)), and Engl i s h Sole (Parophrys vetulus Girard). During the summer months, the Engl i s h and the Petrale Soles move in t o shallower waters closer to shore. Moderately Deep Water over Rocky Bottom F i s h : This category includes the r o c k f i s h , greenlings and some of the lar g e r s culpins. Species i d e n t i f i e d are Copper Rockfish (Sebastes caurinus Richardson), Y e l l o w t a i l Rockfish (Sebastes f l a v i d u s (Ayres)), Shortbelly Rockfish (Sebastes jordani ( G i l b e r t ) ) , Quillback Rockfish (Sebastes maliger (Jordan and G i l b e r t ) ) , Black Rockfish , (Sebastes melanops Girard), Bocaccio (Sebastes paucispinus Ayres), Canary Rockfish (Sebastes pinniger ( G i l l ) ) , Yelloweye Rockfish (Sebastes ruberrimus (Cramer)), Rock Greenling (Hexagrammos lagocephalus ( P a l l a s ) ) , Lingcod (Ophiodon elongatus Girard) and Cabezon (Scorpaenichthys marmoratus (Ayres)). Moderately Deep Water Over Varied Bottom F i s h : This i s a l e s s well defined category than others. The Big Skate (Raja binoculata Girard) and the Wolf E e l (Anarrhichthys o c e l l a t u s Ayres) are year round residents of these waters, while Petrale and English Soles are found here during the summer months, Spring Salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha (Walbaum)) during the l a t e winter and early spring months, and the P l a i n f i n Midshipman (Porichthys notatus Girard) through the months 57 when i t i s not spawning, i n the spring and early summer. During the l a t e summer, j u s t p r i o r to entering the streams, the Coho Salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch (Walbaum)), Chum Salmon (0. keta (Walbaum)), Sockeye Salmon (0. nerka (Walbaum)) and Steelhead (Salmo gairdneri Richardson) are also found i n t h i s category. Shallower Inshore Waters over Varied Bottom F i s h : These waters are the haunts of the sea perches, smaller sculpins and some f l a t f i s h . The Chum, Coho and Sockeye Salmon and Steelhead are also found i n t h i s habitat while they wait to enter fresh water. I d e n t i f i e d i n the archaeological sample are Striped Seaperch (Embiotoca l a t e r a l i s Agassiz), P i l e Perch (Rhacochilus vacca (Girard)), Buffalo Sculpin (Enophrys bison (Girard)), and Rock Sole (Lepidosetta b i l i n e a t a (Ayres)). The Red I r i s h Lord (Hemilepidotus hemilepidotus ( T i l e s i u s ) ) i s also found here except when spawning "in the spring. Shallower Inshore Waters Over Soft Bottom F i s h : Three species of f l a t f i s h i d e n t i f i e d i n the archaeological samples inhabit these waters, the P a c i f i c Sanddab (Citharichthys sordidus (Girard)), the Starry Flounder (Platichthys s t e l l a t u s (Pallas)) and the Sand Sole (Psettichthys melanostictus (Girard). I n t e r t i d a l , Boulder Bottom F i s h : A single species, the P l a i n f i n Midshipman, inhabits these areas during the spawning time i n spring and early summer. They burrow beneath the boulders, making nests i n the s o f t muddy sand. I n t e r t i d a l , Soft Bottom F i s h : This category i s also a seasonal category, the i n t e r t i d a l s o f t beaches 58 used for spring spawning by the Red I r i s h Lord and the P a c i f i c Herring (Clupea harengus p a l l a s i Valenciennes). Stream F i s h : The Coho, Sockeye, and Chum Salmon, the Steelhead and trout (Salmo sp.) are found i n the streams, the former four species during the spawning season only, i n F a l l , while otherstrout are year round residents. Lake F i s h : Sockeye Salmon and trout species w i l l also be found i n the lakes, the former only during the f a l l spawning season, as they wait to enter the t r i b u t a r y spawning streams. The range of f i s h species exploited by the inhabitants of Hesquiat Harbour vary greatly i n s i z e , from the 33 cm P a c i f i c Herring to the 2.5 m B l u e f i n Tuna and even larger sharks. To a s s i s t i n the l a t e r analysis of the faunal remains, the f i s h species were grouped into major weight classes. These groupings are d e t a i l e d i n Table 7 below. Table 7. SizesClasses of Selected F i s h Size Class Taxa < 1 Kg P a c i f i c Herring, Sardine, Anchovy, P l a i n f i n Midshipman, Striped Seaperch, P i l e Perch, B u f f a l o Sculpin, Sanddab, Flathead Sole, Red I r i s h Lord 1 Kg -<5 Kg Pink Salmon, Coho Salmon, Sockeye S a l - mon, Copper Rockfish, Y e l l o w t a i l Rock- f i s h , Quillback Rockfish, Black Rock- f i s h , Greenling, Rock Sole, English Sole, Sand Sole, Dover Sole, Petrale Sole, Ratfish, Shortbelly Rockfish 5 Kg -<10 Kg Dogfish, Arrowtooth Flounder, Starry Flounder, Hake, Bocaccio, Canary Rock- f i s h , Yelloweye Rockfish, Big Skate 59 Table 7. (Continued) Size Class 10 Kg -<20 Kg 20 Kg -<60 Kg 60 Kg - 100 Kg Taxa Wolf E e l , Steelhead, Chum Salmon, LongS nose Skate, Cabezon, Sab l e f i s h Spring Salmon, Ling Cod, Halibut (male) B l u e f i n Tuna (maximum 114 Kg), Halibut (female, maximum 216 kg), Sharks Size estimates are based on Hart 1973 and records of the BCPM Archaeology D i v i s i o n Comparative Skeleton C o l l e c t i o n . S h e l l f i s h ; The term s h e l l f i s h i s used here to include i n t e r t i d a l and marine invertebrates with calcareous exoskeletons that are preserved i n an arch- aeological context. This category includes bivalve and univalve molluscs, chitons, sea urchins, crabs and barnacles. A l l the s h e l l f i s h i d e n t i f i e d i n the archaeological record are ava i l a b l e year round, although some may be considered unpalatable during t h e i r breeding season. Their a v a i l a b i l i t y i s , however, affected by t h e i r v e r t i c a l placement i n the i n t e r t i d a l zone and by seasonal t i d a l patterns. Many s h e l l f i s h are adapted to very s p e c i f i c habitats, while others are tolera n t of a wider range of conditions. Regardless of t h e i r v e r t i c a l placement i n the i n t e r t i d a l zone, the 34 species of s h e l l f i s h i d e n t i f i e d i n the.archaeological samples from Hesquiat Harbour can be grouped according to t h e i r preference f o r the following habitats: Exposed Rocky Shores: the rock substratum i n t e r t i d a l zone exposed to heavy (outer coast) wave action; high s a l i n i t y . Sheltered Rocky Shores: the rock substratum and boulder beach i n t e r t i d a l zone subject to l e s s wave action; varying degrees of s a l i n i t y . 60 Figure 7. Generalized D i s t r i b u t i o n of S h e l l f i s h Habitat Categories. i C } 1 E X P O S E D R O C K Y S H O R E S 2 S H E L T E R E D R O C K Y S H O R E S 3 E X P O S E D S A N D / G R A V E L B E A C H 4 S H E L T E R E D S A N D / G R A V E L B E A C H 5 S H E L T E R E D M U D / S A N D / G R A V E L B E A C H " 0 3 7 m 61 Exposed Clean Sand/Gravel Beaches: sand or gravel substratum i n t e r t i d a l zone subject to l e s s wave action; varying degrees of s a l i n i t y . Sheltered Sand/Gravel Beaches: protected sand or gravel substratum i n t e r t i d a l zone subject to l e s s wave action; varying degrees of s a l i n i t y . Sheltered Mud/Sand/Gravel Beaches: protected muddy sand and gravel substratum i n t e r t i d a l zone subject to l e s s wave action; lower s a l i n i t y . Table 8 groups the species according to these habitat categories, while the present d i s t r i b u t i o n of the categories i n Hesquiat Harbour i s displayed i n Figure 7. Exposed Rocky Shores S h e l l f i s h : The exposed rocky shores of Hesquiat Harbour are outer coast.habitats. The s h e l l f i s h found only on these shores are the C a l i f o r n i a Mussel (Mytilus c a l i f o r n i a n u s (Conrad)), sea urchin species (Strongylocentrotus sp.), Northern Abalone ( H a l i o t i s kamschatkana Jonas), Leafy Hornmouth (Cerato- stoma foliatum (Gmelin)), Dire Whelk (Searleslavdira (Reeve)). The Finger Limpet (Acmaea d i g i t a l i s Eschscholtz), Black Turban (Tegula funebralis (A. Adams)), Red Turban (Astraea gibberosa (Dillwyn)), S i t k a Periwinkle ( L i t t o r i n a sitkana P h i l i p p i ) , Eschricht's Bittium (Bittium e s c h r i c h t i (Middendorff)), Hooked Slipper S h e l l (Crepidula adunca Sowerby), L u r i d Rock S h e l l (Qcenebra l u r i d a (Middendorff)), Mossy Chiton (Mopalia muscosa Gould), Black Katy (Katherina tunicata Wood), and the Giant Chiton (Cryptochiton s t e l l e r i Middendorff) a l l p r e f e r the more exposed rocky shores, but are also found on l e s s open shores. The Plate Limpet (Acmaea t e s t u d i n a l i s scutum Eschscholtz), Channeled Dogwinkle (Thais c a n a l i c u l a t a (Duclos), Emarginate Dogwinkle (Thais emarginata Deshayes) and the F i l e Dogwinkle (Thais lima (Gmelin) are found-equally on both exposed and protected rocky shores. 62 Table 8. Habitat Categories for S h e l l f i s h i n the Hesquiat Harbour Region Habitat Category Taxa 1 2 3 4 5 H CD > rH CD > O rd CD CD \ H U U to CD CJ \ O to 0 G to > to rC CL) ,C O CD rd o to TJ CO U CO •0 CO CO U CO G CO CD CU CD CD CD O \ CD CD rd CD CO >i •P >i co c rC -P rC •P co rC O r* H ,V O rd o rH to o rH \ o ft u CD O ft CD <d CD q id CD to rd X 8 3 H CD rC ed CD rC CD w co w U PQ co CO m CO a m C a l i f o r n i a Mussel, Mytilus c a l i f o r n i a n u s X Sea Urchin, Strongylocentrotus sp. X Northern Abalone, H a l i o t i s kamschatkana X Leafy Hornmouth, Ceratostoma foliatum X Dire Whelk, S e a r l e s i a d i r a X Finger Limpet, Acmaea d i g i t a l i s XX X Black Turban, Tegula funebralis XX X Red Turban, Astraea-gibberosa XX X Si t k a Periwinkle, L i t t o r i n a sitkana XX X Eschricht's Bittium, Bittium e s c h r i c h t i XX XX Hooked Slipper S h e l l , Crepidula adunca XX X L u r i d Rock S h e l l , Ocenebra l u r i d a XX X Mossy Chiton, Mopalia muscosa XX X Black Katy, Katharina tunicata XX X Giant Chiton, Cryptochiton s t e l l e r i XX X Plate Limpet, Acaea.testudinalis scutum X X Channeled Dogwinkle, Thais c a n a l i c u l a t a X X Emarginate Dogwinkle, Thais emarginata X X F i l e Dogwinkle, Thais lima X X Bay Mussel, Mytilus edulis X XX Shield Limpet, Acmaea p e l t a X XX F r i l l e d Dogwinkle, Thais lamellosa X XX Purple-hinged Scallop, Hinnites multirugosus • X XX 63 Table 8. (Continued) Habitat Category 1 2 3 . 4 5 Taxa cu CD cu 1—1 rH u rH CU o 0 Xi o u > -0 > Xi Xi cu Xi rd cu cu Xi co u CO Xi u cn u CO rH fi w cu cu cu o cu cu C5 cu cu rd cu CO >i 4J >1 cn rC -p \ Xi 4-> co rC o H rM o o 1—1 xi u rH \ o ft o CU u ft a ca cu fi rd cu -d rd X Q Xi S X cs cu xi rd cu Xi cu w CO w CO CO CO m co a CQ Pearly'Monia,. Pododesmus cepio X Mask Limpet, Acmaea persona X Bodega Clam, T e l l i n a bodegensis XX XX Lewis's Moon S n a i l , P o l i n i c e s l e w i s i i , XX X Purple Ol i v e , Q l i v e l l a b i p l i c a t a XX X Butter Clam, Saxidomus giganteus, X Sand Macoma, Macoma secta X Rose-petaligemele,;::Semele rubropicta X Native L i t t l e n e c k , Protothaca staminea X X Basket Cockle, Clinocardium n u t t a l l i X Horse Clam, Tresus c a p a x / n u t t a l l i X KEY: X-Present; XX-More abundant-in t h i s category when present i n more than one category, Sheltered Rocky Shores S h e l l f i s h : The Mask Limpet (Acmaea persona Eschscholtz) and the Pearly Monia (Pododesmus cepio (Gray)) both pre f e r the sheltered rocky shore habitat. While the Bay Mussel (Mytilus edulis Linnaues) -, Shield Limpet (Acmaea p e l t a Eschscholtz), F r i l l e d Dogwinkle (Thais lamellosa (Gmelin)) and the Purple-hinged Scallop (Hinnites multirugosus (Gale)) are sometimes found i n the more exposed habitats, they too pref e r the sheltered rocky shores. 64 Exposed Clean Sand/Gravel Beaches S h e l l f i s h : The exposed s o f t substratum beaches are home to few animals. Their clean sands and gravels, v i r t u a l l y free of organic materials, provide l i t t l e food,for s h e l l f i s h . Only three species found i n the samples p r e f e r these beaches, the Bodega Clam ( T e l l i n a bodegensis Hinds), the Lewis's Moon S n a i l (Polinices l e w i s i i (Gould)), and the Purple O l i v e s n a i l ( O l i v e l l a b i p l i c a t a (Sowerby)). A l l three species are also found l e s s frequently on more sheltered beaches. Sheltered Sand/Gravel Beaches S h e l l f i s h : In addition to the three species mentioned above, four species of clams prefer t h i s habitat category, the Butter Clam (Saxidomus giganteus Deshayes), Sand Macoma (Macoma secta (Conrad)), Rose-petal Semele (Semele rubropicta D a l l ) , and Native L i t t l e n e c k (Protothaca staminea (Conrad)). The Native L i t t l e n e c k i s equally abundant i n more muddy habitats. Sheltered Mud/Sand/Gravel Beaches S h e l l f i s h : Two species of clams prefer the more muddy habitats of sheltered beaches, the Basket Cockle (Clinocardium n u t t a l l i (Conrad)) and the Horse Clam (Tresus c a p a x / n u t t a l l i (Conrad)). As mentioned, the Native L i t t l e - neck i s also found here. Summary of Faunal Resources These are the archaeologically exploited animal species and the habitats i n which they are most commonly found today, c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of the study area. I t i s a fauna o f f e r i n g a wide v a r i e t y of food resources to a human population but o f f e r i n g them i n varying concentrations throughout the Harbour area and throughout the year. The shape, topography, geomorphology, l o c a t i o n and o r i e n t a t i o n of 65 Hesquiat Harbour are such that faunal habitats are unevenly d i s t r i b u t e d throughout the general harbour region. While the e f f e c t s of t h i s range and l o c a l i z e d d i s t r i b u t i o n of habitats are les s noticeable on the l o c a l a v a i l a b i l i t y of land animal species, they are extremely important i n the d i s t r i b u t i o n of i n t e r t i d a l and marine species. The p h y s i c a l and eco l o g i c a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the harbour combine to produce two geogra- p h i c a l subdivisions of the harbour within which c e r t a i n of the habitats c l u s t e r and within which the associated animals are most l i k e l y to be found i n greatest quantities and most pr e d i c t a b l y . To obtain a general p i c t u r e of the harbour environment, the faunal habitat categories f o r birdy f i s h and mammal can be combined into f i v e major vertebrate habitat categories as follows: Pelagic: includes mammals Pelagic (1); b i r d s Pelagic (1); and f i s h Deep Water Offshore (1). P a l a g i c / L i t t o r a l : includes mammals P e l a g i c / L i t t o r a l (2); birds Open L i t t o r a l Waters (2); and f i s h Moder- at e l y Deep Waters over Rocky Bottom (2). L i t t o r a l : includes mammals L i t t o r a l (3); b i r d s Sheltered L i t t o r a l Waters (3) and Sheltered Shallow Waters (4); and f i s h Moderately Deep Waters over Varied Bottom (3), Shallower Inshore Waters, Varied Bottom (4) and Shallower Inshore Waters, Soft Bottom (5). L i t t o r a l / F o r e s t Edge: includes mammals L i t t o r a l / F o r e s t Edge (4); birds S t r a n d / L i t t o r a l Interface (5); and f i s h I n t e r t i d a l Boulder Bottom (6) and Inter- t i d a l Soft Bottom (7). Streams/Lakes/Forests: includes mammals Forest (5); b i r d s Forest/Upland (6); and f i s h Streams (8) and Lakes (9) . S i m i l a r l y , the s h e l l f i s h habitat categories can be grouped into two major habitat categories defined as follows: Exposed Shores: includes categories Exposed Rocky Shores (1) and Exposed Clean Sand/Gravel Beaches (3). 66 Sheltered Shores: includes categories Sheltered Rocky Shores (2), Sheltered Sand/Gravel Beaches (4), and Shel- te r eddMud/S and/ Gravel Beaches (5). The general d i s t r i b u t i o n i n Hesquiat Harbour of these major habitat cate- gories i s mapped i n Figures 8 and 9. The d i s t r i b u t i o n s of the combined habitat categories roughly divide the harbour region i n t o two zones, an Inner Harbour Zone, north of Anton's Spit on the west and Rondeau Point on the east, and an Outer Coast Zone south of these two points of land. The t r a n s i t i o n from one zone to the other i s not abrupt, with some sections of Exposed Shores habitat around LeClaire Point, but north of both Le C l a i r e and Rondeau Points, a l l the habitats are sheltered. Each zone o f f e r s a d i f f e r e n t combination of hab- i t a t s , as out l i n e d below. Inner Harbour Zone: Here the more sheltered harbour waters are quite shallow, ranging from 15 metres on the west to 2 metres on the east. The sea bottom and surrounding beaches are predominantly muddy sand, with some stretches of boulder on sand; The shoreline contains rocky promontaries between the beaches p a r t i c u l a r l y along the western shore. The bordering land i s mostly mountain slope, fronted i n some areas with o l d beach ridge f l a t s , with only a small p o r t i o n of the western shoreline backing onto the f l a t land of the Peninsula. Seven streams drain the mountain slopes and the zone contains Hesquiat and Rae lakes, and t h e i r t r i b u t a r y streams. This zone contains the following optimal habitat categories: Mammals: L i t t o r a l (3)., L i t t o r a l / F o r e s t Edge (4) and Forest (5). Birds: Sheltered L i t t o r a l Waters (3), Sheltered Shallow Waters (4), S t r a n d / L i t t o r a l Interface (5), Forest/Upland (6). 67 68 Figure 9. Generalized D i s t r i b u t i o n of Combined S h e l l f i s h Habitat Categories 69 F i s h : Shallower Inshore Waters, Soft Bottom (5), I n t e r t i d a l , Boulder Bottom (6), I n t e r t i d a l , Soft Bottom (7), Streams (8) and Lakes (9). S h e l l f i s h : Sheltered Rocky Shores and Boulder Beaches (2), Sheltered Mud/Sand/Gravel Beaches (4). In terms of the combined vertebrate habitat categories, the Inner Harbour Zone i s characterized by L i t t o r a l , . L i t t o r a l / F o r e s t Edge, and Forest/ Streams Habitat Categories, while i n the combined s h e l l f i s h habitat categories, i t i s characterized almost e x c l u s i v e l y by Sheltered Shores Habitat Category, with but a small area of Exposed Shores around LeClaire Point. In summary, the Inner Harbour Zone i s characterized by sheltered i n t e r t i d a l and shallow water marine habitats with good stretches of sand/ mud/gravel beaches and a predominantly muddy ocean f l o o r . Streams are numerous, there are two lakes, and land habitats are f o r e s t and f o r e s t edge. Outer Coast Zone: As well as the eastern shoreline south of Rondeau Point and the western Shoreline south of Anton's Spit, t h i s zone includes the complex of offshore reefs flanking the peninsula, the f u l l s t r e t c h of open water across the harbour mouth and the open ocean areas offshore. The shore- l i n e i s predominantly rocky, with many headlands separated by stretches of clean sand and gravel beaches and long exposures of f l a t bedrock covered with huge boulders. There are few sheltered areas and few streams. V i l l a g e Lake i s included i n t h i s Zone; On the west, the land i s the low, f l a t peninsula, on the east, the mountains slopes. This zone o f f e r s the following habitat categories: Mammals: A l l habitat categories are av a i l a b l e i n t h i s zone, but Pelagic (1) and P e l a g i c / L i t t o r a l (2) are optimal here. 70 Bi r d s : Pelagic (1), Open L i t t o r a l Waters (2) are optimal, with some occurrences of Sheltered Shallow Waters (4) around the lake and of S t r a n d / L i t t o r a l Inter- face (5) and Forest/Upland (6) habitats. F i s h : Deep Water, Offshore (1), Moderately Deep Waters, Rocky Bottom (2), and Moderately Deep Water, Varied Bottom (3). S h e l l f i s h : Exposed Rocky Shores (1) and Exposed Clean Sand/ Gravel Beaches (3) with much more l i m i t e d occur- rences of more sheltered habitats. In terms of the combined vertebrate habitat categories, the Outer Coast Zone i s characterized by a l l the habitat categories, but with p a r t i c u l a r l y good access to Pelagic and P e l a g i c / L i t t o r a l Habitat Categories. Combined s h e l l f i s h habitat categories here are almost e x c l u s i v e l y Exposed Shores, with very l i m i t e d occurrences of sheltered beaches as i s o l a t e d pockets. In summary, t h i s zone o f f e r s good deep, open water pelagic and p e l a g i c - l i t t o r a l habitats and rocky exposed i n t e r t i d a l habitats^ As can be seen from t h i s summary of the general c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the two zones, they are quite d i s t i n c t one from the other as f a r as faunal resources are concerned. The Inner Harbour Zone has a more l i m i t e d range of habitats a v a i l a b l e to i t than the Outer Coast Zone, but both o f f e r varied, though d i s t i n c t l y d i f f e r e n t , resource basis to an inhab i t i n g human population. PAST ENVIRONMENT There i s as yet a very l i m i t e d amount of information a v a i l a b l e on the early Recent and Post Pleistocene environment of the west coast of Vancouver Island, d i r e c t l y relevant.to Hesquiat Harbour. As t h i s study i s concerned only with the l a s t 2,500 years, no attempt i s made to summarize what i s known of the immediate p o s t - g l a c i a l h i s t o r y of the area. By 2,500 years ago, the west coast of Vancouver Island was probably much 71 as i t i s today, with e a r l i e r successional stages of the e x i s t i n g f i r s t growth f o r e s t well established and wide area land-sea r e l a t i o n s h i p s generally s t a b i l i z e d at about t h e i r present l e v e l s , although recent evidence suggests continuing u p l i f t (Don Howes, pers. comm.). As yet there are no reported geological data from the west coast of the i s l a n d to support or r e j e c t t h i s regional pattern extrapolated from other areas. Recent p a l y n o l o g i c a l work i n Hesquiat Harbour, however, has provided evidence of changes i n l o c a l topography during the time period under discussion. Whether these data are r e g i o n a l l y or only l o c a l l y relevant i s not yet known. I t seems best to consider that they record l o c a l events u n t i l such time as work i n adjacent areas allows t h e i r i n t e r p r e t a t i o n within a broader perspective. Landforms, Geology and Sea Levels The major landforms c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of Hesquiat Harbour, the Estevan Coastal P l a i n and the Vancouver Island Mountains, were established well before 2500 years ago. Any changes i n the land-sea i n t e r f a c e , however, may have affected the areal extent of the p l a i n as represented by Hesquiat Peninsula, as much of t h i s peninsula i s less than 46 metres above present mean sea l e v e l . P alynological evidence from the swampy Whicknit meadows around Purdon Creek, behind the present v i l l a g e of Hesquiat, i n d i c a t e s that the swamps began to form about 1,000 years ago on the f l a t gravel deposits overlying the bedrock i n th i s area (Hebda and Rouse 1976). A singl e p o l l e n core of 46 cm from these swampy meadows provided a basal 14 C estimate of 1080 + 100 B.P. (WSU 1588). 14 A second p o l l e n core from V i l l a g e Lake with a basal C estimate of 2760 +_ 80 B.P. (I - 1977) records vegetation and micro-faunal changes i n d i c a t i n g that the l o c a l depositional environment of the core sediments 72 changed from saltwater to brackish to fresh water within the l a s t 2,700 years. The actual change from brackish to f u l l y f r esh water, recording the f u l l emergence of V i l l a g e Lake, i s not dated, but occurs approximately 30 cm from the top of the two metre core (Hebda and Rouse 1976:6). This indicates that i t i s a recent phenomenon, pos s i b l y occurring within the l a s t 700 to 500 years. The bedrock and s u r f i c i a l geology of t h i s area of Hesquiat Peninsula suggest that the event recorded by the V i l l a g e Lake p o l l e n core involved at l e a s t the area now containing the lake, Anton's S p i t and the adjacent foreshore. Southwest of t h i s area the bedrock i s u p l i f t e d i n a prominent escarpment. I t i s probable that u n t i l about A.D. 700 the escarpment i t s e l f was the western land boundary to the harbour entrance, bordered by stretches of sand and gravel beaches, while the area now containing the mouth of Purdon Creek, V i l l a g e Lake and the p r o j e c t i n g land northeast of V i l l a g e Lake would have been under the sea. This area was probably t i d a l f l a t s and s h i f t i n g sand bars u n t i l about 1,000 to 1J.200 A.D. The t o t a l area involved i s uncertain. The l o c a l environment of the V i l l a g e Lake basin changed from marine or t i d a l marine to a brackish environment suggesting a lagoon or embayment p e r i o d i c a l l y inundated during highest t i d e s , to a f u l l y fresh water lake surrounded by a l l u v i a l marine deposits on which strandline S i t k a Spruce f o r e s t then Cedar swamp vegetation took hold. Subsequently, or coterminously with the l a s t phases of t h i s phenomenon, Anton's S p i t began to b u i l d up along the inner edge of Hesquiat Bar. The gradual replacement i n the p o l l e n core of saltwater p l a n t species with brackish then fresh water species suggests a continuous, gradual develop- ment of the lake basin. 73 As yet, no c l e a r evidence i s a v a i l a b l e to indicate whether t h i s occurrence i s r e s t r i c t e d to the V i l l a g e Lake area and e s s e n t i a l l y records l o c a l topographic changes dependent on s p i t formation and the blockage of the main lagoon o u t l e t or i s more widespread, in v o l v i n g a gradual u p l i f t i n g of the land r e l a t i v e to the sea throughout the area of Hesquiat Harbour. Hebda and Rouse suggest the l a t t e r , c a l c u l a t i n g a rate of u p l i f t of approx- imately 1.1 metres per 1,000 years (Hebda and Rouse 1979:129). Archaeolo- g i c a l t e s t excavations at DiSo 21, j u s t north of Hesquiat Point and at DiSp 2 at Homeis Cove on the outer coast north of Estevan Point, revealed c u l t u r a l deposits below the main midden deposits and c l e a r l y separated from them by non-cultural sand deposits (Crozier 1977:13). Analysis of the sand samples i s not complete, the deposits are not dated and the areas tested too l i m i t e d to allow d e f i n i t e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . These deposits may represent f l u c t u a t i o n s i n land-sea int e r f a c e s r e l a t e d to widespread occur- rences or may represent f l u c t u a t i n g beach ridge deposits associated with l o c a l beach development. They do suggest, however, that the land-sea r e l a t i o n s h i p s i n t h i s region have been f l u c t u a t i n g i n the recent past i n a complicated pattern e i t h e r from l o c a l tectonic movements, widespread i s o s t a t i c movements or successional topographic development of a geomorpho- l o g i c a l nature. Hydrography Obviously, no lake habitat!was'available near Hesquiat p r i o r to about. A.D. 1200 and i t i s probable that Purdon Creek, associated with the develop- ment of the swampy meadows, i s also a recent phenomenon i n i t s present form. Other streams probably drained into the area now occupied by V i l l a g e Lake. The lake i t s e l f may have been f u l l y established by about 700 to 500 years ago. This time estimate i s based on an assumed constant rate of 74 emergence f o r the lake basin and a constant rate of deposition of s e d i - ments i n the lake basin. This i s obviously an assumption that may or may not be v a l i d . One would expect an increased rate of deposition i n the upper p o r t i o n of the deposits as the o u t l e t of the embayment gradually became closed i n . The sediments recorded by the upper t h i r t y centimetres of the p o l l e n core may have b u i l t up at a f a s t e r rate than the lower sediS ments r e l a t i n g to a t i d a l estuary s i t u a t i o n and the actual amount of time represented by the 30 centimetres of deposit may be l e s s than 700/500 years. I f the emergence of V i l l a g e Lake was associated with a l o c a l u p l i f t of land, Hesquiat Bar may also have been affected. I f so, the waters over the bar may have been deeper i n i t i a l l y than at present. F l o r a The two p o l l e n cores from Hesquiat Harbour record local.vegetation changes t y p i c a l of successional developments within a Coastal Western Hemlock Biogeoclimatic Zone. The 46 cm core from Whicknit Meadows records a l o c a l coniferous f o r e s t cover dominated by Western Hemlock associated with l e s s e r amounts of Shore Pine (Pinus contorta Douglas), spruce (Picea sp.) and alder (Alnus sp.). Pine and spruce are s l i g h t l y more prominent i n the lowest l e v e l s of the core, while alder i s more prominent i n the upper 10 cm. The core i s dominated by high l e v e l s of Sweet Gale throughout, with a decrease i n the upper 10 cm and the lower 5 cm. Grasses (Graminacea) and sedges (Cyperacea) increase from bottom to top and a number of other herbs and ferns are present. According to Hebda and Rouse, "The Whicknit core shows l i t t l e change i n vegetation. .... ...Sweet gale, together with hemlock, grasses, sedges and 75 ferns seem to have been the major vegetational components throughout the (1,000 year) i n t e r v a l . Near the top of the core the s i t e becomes more open, with a progressive i n - crease i n sedges to the present." (Hebda and Rouse 1976:7) The two meter core from V i l l a g e Lake records four depositional zones characterized by d i f f e r i n g p o l l e n frequencies and recording the develop- ment of V i l l a g e Lake. The bottom 85 to 90 cm of the core, Zone I, are characterized by tree p o l l e n dominated by hemlock and spruce with some cedar, pine and alder, while the nontree p o l l e n i s represented by s i g n i - f i c a n t l e v e l s of grasses, Goosefoot (Chenopodiacaea) and Ragweed (Am- brosia sp.). This p o r t i o n of the core r e l a t e s to the i n t e r v a l when the lake basin was influenced by a marine environment. The next 85 cm of the core, Zone I I , record the same tree species, but a much higher f r e - quency of cedar p o l l e n . Nontree p o l l e n i s e s s e n t i a l l y the same. The next 17 cm, Zone I I I , record tree p o l l e n frequencies e s s e n t i a l l y the same as Zone I I , but i n the nontree p o l l e n , the Chenopodiacaea, grasses and ragweed p o l l e n gradually disappear and Yellow Water L i l y p o l l e n becomes abundant. In the upper 13 cm, Zone IV, tree p o l l e n remains the same except f o r the disappearance of cedar p o l l e n (possibly associated with human a c t i v i t y i n the area) and further increases are apparent i n the l e v e l s o f Yellow Water L i l y p o l l e n and polypody fern spores. In summary, Hebda and Rouse state: "The lower part of the V i l l a g e Lake core indicates the presence of a forest dominated by western hemlock during the early phases of deposition... The high l e v e l s of spruce ind i c a t e the presence of coastal s i t k s spruce stands, s i m i l a r to those t y p i c a l l y strung out along and behind sandy beach areas on the west coast of Vancouver Island today. Since there i s l i t t l e cedar p o l l e n i n the lowest part of the core, o r i g i n a l l y .there were l i k e l y no wet swampy lowlands with cedar stands, such as those presently around the lake. However, the absence of cedar 76 p o l l e n may be due to non-preservation i n the carbonate r i c h bottom sediments. There i s a smaller number of species recorded i n the basal sediments than those immediately above. This suggests that the f o r e s t closed i n quickly a f t e r an i n i t i a l period when l i t t l e vegetation grew i n the immediate v i c i n i t y of the lake." (Hebda and Rouse 1976:5) While i t i s not possible to extrapolate.the d e t a i l s from these two cores to the region as a whole, as they record l o c a l events, i t i s ob- vious that the vegetation changes recorded are within expected ranges for successional developments within a coastal western hemlock f o r e s t . No major regional changes i n vegetation have occurred. This also i n d i - cates that no major c l i m a t i c changes have occurred within the relevant time period of the past 2,500 years. Fauna There i s nothing i n the a v a i l a b l e geological and botanical evidence to suggest environmental changes between 2500 B.P. and the present of s u f f i c i e n t magnitude to e f f e c t substantial major changes i n the fauna of the study area. This i s supported by the archaeological evidence of the faunal remains from excavated s i t e s . A l l species i d e n t i f i e d i n the faunal assemblages can be found i n the region today or could have been p r i o r to the h i s t o r i c fur trade period when species such as the Sea Otter, Northern Fur Seal and several species of albatross were almost exterminated. The regional animal resource base, then, was probably l i t t l e d i f f e r e n t 2,500 years ago from the present base. One possible exception to t h i s general p i c t u r e i s the presence at the bottom of the V i l l a g e Lake p o l l e n core of the estuarine clam the False Mya (Cryptomya c a l i f o r n i c a (Conrad)) which was not recorded f o r the area during the i n t e r t i d a l beach survey. These animals are quite 77 deep l i v i n g species, burrowing to a depth of 0.5 m (Quayle 1973), so may well have been missed during the survey, but no dead s h e l l s were found either. Whether or not the species i s present i n the area today, no specimens were i d e n t i f i e d i n the archaeological fauna, suggesting that even though they may have been present i n the Harbour during the i n i t i a l occupation of DiSo 1, they were not being exploited. The archaeological evidence from Ozette does suggest that the com- p o s i t i o n of the Northern Fur Seal population a v a i l a b l e i n the area may have been d i f f e r e n t (Gustafson 1968), and i f t h i s means other rookery locatio n s clo s e r to the Hesquiat area, the seasonal a v a i l a b i l i t y of these animals may also have been d i f f e r e n t from the present patterns. Recent changes i n the range of the C a l i f o r n i a Sea Lion suggest that they also may have been a v a i l a b l e i n d i f f e r i n g patterns of seasonality and population composition. The land-sea i n t e r f a c e or l o c a l topographic changes described i n the preceding section would have aff e c t e d the l o c a l d i s t r i b u t i o n of some of the species i n the study area. I t seems probable that p r i o r to the formation of the p r o t e c t i v e prominence of Anton's Sp i t , the harbour.would have been even more open than i t i s today. I f the changes also involved Hesquiat Bar, the waters over t h i s area of the entrance may also have been deeper. I t i s possible, then, that the western beaches were even more f u l l y exposed to the open P a c i f i c winds and waves than they are today, perhaps as f a r north as Le C l a i r e Point, perhaps even further into the Harbour. One might expect that pelagic l i t t o r a l mammals and b i r d s now not co n s i s t e n t l y found i n the i n s i d e harbour would have been more l i k e l y to use the wider, more open waters. F i s h species p r e f e r r i n g deeper water 78 habitats may also have been more common i n the inner harbour, while exposed i n t e r t i d a l habitats along the western shore possibly extended further north into the harbour. A d d i t i o n a l habitats associated with the brackish- lagoon-estuary that became V i l l a g e Lake would have been present i n the Outer Coast/Inner Harbour Zone boundary area and mud/sand f l a t s would have been more extensive here as w e l l . In terms of general faunal d i s t r i b u t i o n s , the whole,Outer Coast Zone pos s i b l y extended further i n t o the harbour, the Inner Harbour Zone may have been r e s t r i c t e d to the northeastern part of the Harbour and the t r a n s i t i o n from Outer Coast habitats to Inner Harbour habitats may have been more gradual, along the western shore,uuntil about 1200 to 1400 A.D. Summary Throughout the time period represented by the faunal samples from DiSo 1, 9 and 16, the natural environment of Hesquiat Harbour has been much as i t i s today, with a c l o s e l y s i m i l a r f l o r a and fauna, with the exception of l o c a l topographic changes r e l a t i n g to the development of V i l l a g e Lake and Anton's S p i t . The vegetation, topographic and hydro- graphic changes recorded by two p o l l e n cores from Hesquiat Peninsula are summarized by Hebda and Rouse as follows: " U n t i l a few thousand years ago, t h i s part of Hesquiat Peninsula was probably under s a l t water and characterized by s h i f t i n g sand bars, s p i t s and beaches. I n i t i a l l y the V i l l a g e Lake basin was a s a l t water bay with a few streams running i n t o i t , which l a t e r became a brackish water estuary. As land became uncovered, stands of s i t k a spruce occupied areas behind sandy beaches, while hemlock forests grew on older mature s o i l s . As more f l a t land became avai l a b l e , cedar swamps developed near the lake, behind a band of s i t k a spruce. Very recently the V i l l a g e Lake basin was cut o f f from the sea and developed a fresh water f l o r a . . . s m a l l boggy areas such as Whicknit developed on the lowlands." (Hebda and Rouse 1976:8) 79 P r i o r to the development of t h i s land area the harbour mouth was probably more open than today, allowing stronger influence of the open o ocean wind and wave action i n the inner harbour areas. Present conditions were pos s i b l y established by about 500 years ago. o ETHNOGRAPHY The area of the west coast of Vancouver Island from approximately Escalante i n the north to mid-way between Hesquiat Point and Refuge Cove i n the south i s considered to be the t r a d i t i o n a l t e r r i t o r y of the Hesquiat speaking peoples, a l i n g u i s t i c and c u l t u r a l sub-group of the Nootkan e t h n o - l i n g u i s t i c family. C u l t u r a l l y the Hesquiat people are considered part of the Central Nootkan Tribes (Drucker 1971:4). In pre-contact times, l i k e other Nootkan groups, they had a sophisticated s o c i o - c u l t u r a l adaptation i n v o l v i n g inheritance of r i g h t s and p r i v i l e g e s validated by i the p o t l a t c h system and a s o c i o - p o l i t i c a l d i v i s i o n of the population into d i s c r e t e socio-economic groups whose b i l a t e r a l l y r e l a t e d members were bound together by common residence and economic association with a c h i e f l y family (Drucker 1971:220). Their subsistence economy was based on the hunting of land and sea mammals, gathering of i n t e r t i d a l s h e l l f i s h and of berries, and roots, fowling, and f i s h i n g f o r both marine and anadromous species, with a strong emphasis on marine resources. As among other Nootkan groups, Hesquiat settlement, land use and resource e x p l o i t a t i o n systems are c l o s e l y i n t e r r e l a t e d with aspects of t h e i r kinship, socio- p o l i t i c a l and ownership systems. General Nootkan Ethnography S o c i o - p o l i t i c a l l y the Central Nootkan peoples were divided into non- u n i l i n e a l k i n groups who l i v e d i n the same house, associated with p a r t i s 80 l i n e a l l i n e s of high ranking i n d i v i d u a l s ( c h i e f s ) . These k i n groups, or l o c a l groups, were named e n t i t i e s associated with p a r t i c u l a r resources and habitation locations to which they controlled access through exclu- sive r i g h t s of -ownership vested i n the c h i e f l y l i n e . This u n i t , unless formally associated with other such u n i t s , was independent p o l i t i c a l l y and economically, maintaining a separate winter v i l l a g e and e x p l o i t i n g at the appropriate times•the resources of t h e i r f i s h i n g and gathering places (Drucker 1951:220-221; S. Kenyon 1976). By v i r t u e of t h e i r status,Lthe highest ranking male members of the l o c a l group, the family of c h i e f s , owned r i g h t s of access to p a r t i c u l a r salmon streams, sea f i s h i n g places, seal rocks, off-shore h a l i b u t banks, lakes, areas of f o r e s t , t r a c t s of sea, clam beds and stretches of shore- l i n e . Important among ri g h t s of access were salvage r i g h t s to that which d r i f t e d ashore, such as a dead whale. Not only actual resource loca t i o n s , but every section of the shoreline was named and owned. While r i g h t s of access were exclusive, permission f o r use of the resource locations could be given to outsiders by the c o n t r o l l i n g c h i e f . On such occasions a portion of the s t u f f s obtained would be given to the owning c h i e f . Boun- daries between l o c a l groups were c l e a r l y demarcated and s t r i c t l y upheld, to the point of warfare (Drucker 1951:333). Among some Nootkan peoples the l o c a l groups were formally bound together i n t o wider t e r r i t o r i a l units c a l l e d " t r i b e s " and "confederacies" by Drucker. Im summarizing Nootkan p o l i t y , he states: "The fundamental Nootkan p o l i t i c a l u n i t was a l o c a l group centering i n a family of c h i e f s who owned t e r r i t o r i a l r i g h t s , houses and various other p r i v i l e g e s . Such a group bore a name, usually that of t h e i r "place" (a s i t e at t h e i r f i s h i n g ground where they "belonged"), or sometimes that of a chief; and had a t r a d i t i o n , f i r m l y believed, of descent from a common ancestor ... Among most Northern Nootkans these l o c a l groups were not autonomous. Each was formally 81 united with several others by possession of a common winter v i l l a g e , f i x e d ranking for t h e i r assembled c h i e f s , and often a name. To such a formal union the term " t r i b e " i s applied ... Several such t r i b e s might be bound together i n t o a confederacy." (Drucker 1951:220) At the confederacy l e v e l of formal association, several t r i b e s shared a summer v i l l a g e and integrated ranking of t h e i r c h i e f s . This type of association was not found south of Nootka Sound. In a b r i e f discussion Drucker makes the. following statements about the p o l i t y of the Hesquiat people: "Among the Muchalat, and i n Hesquiat Harbour, j u s t south of Nootka Sound, there was no t r i b a l organization whatsoever i n p r e h i s t o r i c times. There were simply f i v e or s i x l o c a l groups, each independent of the others." (Drucker 1951:221) "...the Hesquiat (hcckwTJ ath), a modern fusion of several independent l o c a l groups of the Hesquiat Harbour region..." (Drucker 1951:5) "The present day group.living at Hesquiat Harbour repre- sents a merging within h i s t o r i c times of four or f i v e formerly independent l o c a l groups each of whom had t h e i r own separate winter v i l l a g e s and seasonal camps and s t a t i o n s . " (Drucker 1951:235) Drucker deals f a i r l y extensively with the general Nootkan annual r round. Although much of t h i s i s not f u l l y applicable to the Hesquiat s i t u a t i o n , i t i s summarized here as a basic d e s c r i p t i o n from which the various Hesquiat l o c a l groups diverged to a greater or l e s s e r degree. The seasonal use of several d i f f e r e n t habitation and/or resource e x p l o i t a - t i o n locations within f i r m l y f i x e d t e r r i t o r i e s over which the owners had exclusive control i s common to a l l Nootkan groups, in c l u d i n g the Hesquiat groups. As described by Drucker (1951:36-61) the annual round involved 82 a sequential yearly movement from a sheltered inside winter v i l l a g e , to spring and summer outer coast f i s h i n g and sea mammal hunting places, to f a l l salmon streams, back to the winter v i l l a g e . In Hesquiat Harbour t h i s pattern applied only f o r those groups with t e r r i t o r y that included both outer coast and sheltered inner l o c a t i o n s , the groups c o l l e c t i v e l y r e ferred to as the kTqinath and even then only p a r t i a l l y . Two other l o c a l groups, the ma^apiath and va-qsisath. c o n t r o l l e d t e r r i t o r y s o l e l y within the inner harbour, and had no d i r e c t access to outer coast r e - sources. A fourth, the homa^isath, had no sheltered inner l o c a t i o n s , but only exposed outer coast t e r r i t o r y , while the f i f t h , the haimai^isath, also had very l i t t l e sheltered area within t h e i r t e r r i t o r y and were b a s i c a l l y outer coast. Thus the general pattern following i s not f u l l y applicable to a l l Hesquiat l o c a l groups. The winter v i l l a g e was the main settlement f o r the l o c a l group, where large wooden houses were constructed and people l i v e d a r e l a t i v e l y seden- tary l i f e from November to the end of January. Economic a c t i v i t i e s during t h i s time were sporadic and intended to add v a r i e t y to the steady d i e t of dried salmon, herring and cod. Such a c t i v i t i e s included f i s h i n g f o r red snapper, k e l p f i s h and perch; some deer hunting; the gathering of winter huckleberries; and the c o l l e c t i n g of the following invertebrates: horse- clams, cockles, "a medium sized clam", butter clams, razor clams, a large and small pecten, large and small mussels, limpets, small abalones, china s l i p p e r s , periwinkles, sea anenomes, large barnacles, sea cucumbers, crabs and spider crabs (Drucker 1951:39). According to Drucker, sea s n a i l s , "rock borers" and whale barnacles were not eaten although sea s n a i l s are c e r t a i n l y found i n the archaeological deposits (Drucker 1951:37-39). The winter v i l l a g e was occupied for a longer portion of the year 83 than any of the other l o c a t i o n s . I t was here, during the dark, wet winter months that ceremonial a c t i v i t i e s such as feasts, potlatches and the wolf r i t u a l s v i v i d l y expressed theccomplexity and richness of the Nootkan s o c i a l organization (Drucker 1951:40). The manufacturing of too l s , gear and clothing, as well as ceremonial r e g a l i a , also took place at the winter v i l l a g e s . As the food procurement was l e s s intensive, people had more time and energy to spend on manufactures. The winter v i l l a g e , then, consisted of the greatest aggregation of people f o r the longest p o r t i o n of the year and was a place of consumption, manufacture and ceremonialism more than of economic food production. Many of the foodstuffs procured and preserved during other seasons at other locations were consumed at the winter v i l l a g e s . In l a t e winters, preserved food stores ran low and the a r r i v a l of the herring schools, the f i r s t major spring food resource, was eagerly awaited. The groups moved to t h e i r f i s h i n g stations around February to e x p l o i t t h i s important resource (Drucker 1951:40-42). Both the f i s h and the eggs were d r i e d f or l a t e r consumption, as well as eaten f r e s h . The herring were s p l i t and dried whole, not f i l l e t e d . Sea going spring salmon would also be a v a i l a b l e at t h i s time, and were eaten fresh (Drucker 1951:41-42). Towards the end of the herring season f l o c k s of migratory water fowl appeared and were hunted. The new growth of seaweed was- exploited. This was also the time when the migrating female f u r seals would be a v a i l a b l e c l o s e s t to shore. Towards the end of A p r i l , beginning of May, those l o c a l groups with outer coast resource stations moved there to f i s h f o r h a l i b u t and true cod and to hunt sea mammals. The halibut and cod were sun-dried f o r winter use, the sea mammals were eaten fresh although the blubber was 84 rendered to o i l and stored f o r l a t e r use a l s o . The summer months were the time f o r p i c k i n g b e r r i e s and digging roots, while l a t e summer saw the f i s h i n g of perch and the early runs of coho salmon (Drucker 1951: 56-57). With the a r r i v a l of the main coho, chum and sockeye runs i n l a t e September and October, i n d i v i d u a l f a m i l i e s moved to their.salmon f i s h i n g streams and began the short period of intensive e x p l o i t a t i o n of these important resources. As well as being eaten fresh, the f i s h were drie d and smoked f o r winter use. The f l e s h was removed i n one piece and d r i e d separately from the backbone, which with head and t a i l attached, was eaten fresh at the beginning of the season but dri e d and smoked towards the end of the season. A f t e r the end of the salmon runs the people r e - turned to the winter v i l l a g e s (Drucker 1951:58-59). Other economic a c t i v i t i e s such as hunting of deer, bear, cougar and small fur bearing animals, were c a r r i e d out i n a more opportunistic fashion consistent with t h e i r year round a v a i l a b i l i t y , but also taking i n t o account the state of the animal f o r food, i t s hide or p e l t f o r leather or c l o t h i n g and the greater importance of other, only seasonally a v a i l a b l e resources. The f l e s h of land mammals-was not smoked or d r i e d (Drucker 1951:65). I t i s obvious from t h i s b r i e f discussion that there was a continuum of settlement types as f a r as v a r i e t y of subsistence a c t i v i t i e s , length « of occupation and size of occupying group i s concerned, with the single a c t i v i t y salmon f i s h i n g s t a t i o n at one end and the multi-use "winter" v i l l a g e at the other. The amount of time spent at a l o c a t i o n and the v v a r i e t y of a c t i v i t i e s c a r r i e d out there obviously varied according to l o c a l conditions. Length of occupation probably varied d i r e c t l y with the v a r i e t y of resources sequentially a v a i l a b l e from that one l o c a t i o n and/or 85 the quantity of a resource and the duration of i t s a v a i l a b i l i t y . While the economic procurement a c t i v i t i e s c a r r i e d out from the winter v i l l a g e were probably l e s s important i n providing.quantities of food, the v a r i e t y appears greatest of a l l settlement types. A d d i t i o n a l l y , many foodstuffs obtained elsewhere were a c t u a l l y consumed at the winter v i l l a g e s . De- pending on how the resources were prepared f o r preserving, these foods may or may not have l e f t concrete evidence of t h e i r consumption i n de- p o s i t s associated with winter settlements. The cooking of meats and f i s h was s i m p l e — r o a s t i n g , b r o i l i n g , steaming under mats and stone b o i l i n g (Drucker 1951:61). Bones, s h e l l s and other refuse were simply tossed outside on the garbage heaps. Smoked and dri e d f i s h were hung on racks near the c e i l i n g s of the b i g houses i n the smoke of the cooking f i r e s u n t i l ready to be packed away i n wooden boxes. The material culture of capture, while also simple, was yet sophis- t i c a t e d i n the p r e c i s e working of wood in t o many diverse implements. Halibut, other f l a t f i s h , cod, r o c k f i s h and spring salmon wereecaught on hand l i n e s t r o l l e d from canoes, armed with a v a r i e t y of composite hooks with bent wood, s t r a i g h t wood or stone shanks and bone barbs (Drucker 1951: 22). Other salmon were taken by harpoon or i n traps--and weirs in.the spawning streams and at the mouths of streams (Drucker 1951:16-18, 19-21). F i r and spruce boughs were set i n frames l i k e fences along the beaches, j u s t under water, for the herring to spawn on and the eggs adhering to the boughs c o l l e c t e d . The adult f i s h were taken from canoes with herring rakes armed with bone or wooden teeth and with dipnets (Drucker 1951:23). Perch were caught i n t i d a l beach traps of stone and l a t t i c e work while greenlings were caught i n submerged woven traps (Drucker 1951:19). Nets other than dipnets were apparently not used for f i s h i n g (Drucker 1951:25). 86 There i s very l i t t l e information on how birds were captured. Ducks and geese were taken at night with nets thrown from the bow of a canoe a f t e r the birds had been confused by a l i g h t (Drucker 1951:43); with bow and arrow from canoes (Drucker 1951:43); and with submerged traps. These were f o r taking diving.ducks and were armed eit h e r with underwater nooses or baited gorge hooks (Drucker 1951:33-34). Eagles were shot, snared with loop snares or grabbed by t r i c k e r y (Drucker 1951:59). Deer and black bear were hunted with bow and arrow, spear and dead- f a l l traps (Drucker 1951:32-33). Cougar were also o c c a s i o n a l l y taken i n the traps, as were raccoon (Drucker 1951:61). The hunting of sea mammals was done with harpoons of various s i z e s , from canoes also of d i f f e r e n t sizes f o r d i f f e r e n t game. For a l l the har- poons, the arming heads were toggle heads with bone or wooden barbs and a mussel s h e l l : c u t t i n g blade. When large animals such as whales and,sea l i o n s were hunted, seal skin f l o a t s were attached to the heavy cedar harpoon l i n e to create drag and to help buoy up the animal once dead (Drucker 1951:46, 48-55). Harbour seal and porpoise were also harpooned, and harbour s e a l were also clubbed at t h e i r hauling out places i f unlucky enough to be stranded f a r from the water's edge (Drucker 1951:45). Sea o t t e r s were taken e i t h e r with harpoons or with bow and arrow, from canoess (Drucker 1951:46). While Drucker states that fur seal were not hunted a b o r i g i n a l l y (1951:46), many fur seal remains are present i n the archaeo- l o g i c a l s i t e s . Presumably they were taken with harpoons as were other sea mammals. A simple wooden digging s t i c k was used by the women to dig f o r roots and f o r clams, and to pry mussels, chitons.and sea urchins from the rocks (Drucker 1951:35). The s h e l l f i s h were c o l l e c t e d i n open weave cedar baskets. 87 A much f u l l e r d e s c r i p t i o n of the material culture i s given by Drucker, but perhaps the most important point i s that most of the manufactures were ei t h e r e n t i r e l y of plant f i b e r s or at l e a s t major portions of composite tools were made from wood. Such materials r a r e l y survive i n the archaeo- l o g i c a l context of a s h e l l midden, thus leaving no d i r e c t evidence of the kinds of implements used, other than the b i t s and pieces that were made from s h e l l or bone or stone. The excavations at Ozette, on the Olympic Peninsula i n Washington, where ..vegetal materials have been preserved, have provided ample evidence of j u s t how much of the material culture i s not normally r e t r i e v e d by archaeologists working with northwest coast s h e l l middens. Hesquiat Local Group T e r r i t o r i e s and Settlement and Subsistence Patterns According to Drucker (1951:235-238), p r i o r to the amalgamation of the independent groups at Hesquiat i n the mid-1850's, there were four, p o s s i b l y f i v e , l o c a l groups i n the harbour. He l i s t s these as the kiqinath, with four houses at t h e i r winter place of kTqina (DiSo 2) (Fig. 10), a summer v i l l a g e at hiZwina (DiSo 21) and f a l l f i s h i n g s t a t i o n at kukuwah (DiSo 3) and te'aitaifc (no s i t e i d e n t i f i e d ) ; the haimai 1 i s a t h , with two houses at t h e i r winter place of heckwl (DiSo l),!.a summer place at ta_ata (DiSp 1) and a cod f i s h i n g place at tea*a (Boulder Point); the outer coast homisath with f i v e winter houses at homls (DiSp 2); a summer place at hahqi (DiSp 4) and u n i d e n t i f i e d f i s h i n g places; the ma'apiath, with four houses at t h e i r winter v i l l a g e of ma'apl (DiSo 8) and at l e a s t three f i s h i n g stations, pa' a s t c i - (DiSo 6), t s a i y a (not i d e n t i f i e d archaeolo- g i c a l l y ) and a i 1 isaqh (DiSo 25) but no summer place; and the family owning the f i s h i n g r i g h t s to the stream of yaqhsis (DiSo 14) who were i n the process of becoming a separate l o c a l group s p l i t o f f from the ma 1apiath. 88 N SCALE = 1:77,511 hahqi homisath yaqhsis tsaiya homTs ma'aplath U'amui ikukuwah rpa'astciJ kiqinath kTqina h«ckwT . 0 , 1 2 t c a ' a ^ J L hiJwina p KEY'. A winter village 9 summer village 19 fishing station 3 4 5 haimai'isath Figure 10. Hesquiat Local Group T e r r i t o r i e s According to Drucker. Based on Drucker 1951:236. 89 He notes that i n summer the ma'apTath shared hi3/wina with the kiqinath; but i t i s uncertain whether or not t h i s i s s o l e l y a post-amalgamation pattern (Drucker 1951:237). A combination of war and economic advantage seems to have drawn the l o c a l groups to amalgamate p r i o r to the e s t a b l i s h - ment of the f i r s t C atholic mission on the west coast at Hesquiat i n 1875 (Moser 1926), with the k i q i n a t h maintaining the f i r s t four (highest ranking) p o t l a t c h seats (Drucker 1951:237). Information recorded by the Hesquiat elders has modified t h i s p i c t u r e , e s p e c i a l l y i n the matter of the seasonal and l o c a l group a f f i l i a t i o n of p a r t i c u l a r locations i n Hesquiat Harbour. This information i s s t i l l being c o l l e c t e d and processed, thus the tentative o u t l i n e of settlement patterns described here i s not e n t i r e l y c l e a r and i s subject to modification i n the future. The following descriptions of Hesquiat l o c a l groups and t e r - r i t o r i e s are based on data recorded by the Hesquiat elders with Barbara E f r a t , Andrea Laforet and Larry Paul, between 1973 and 1978. The descrip- tions of Hesquiat subsistence economy are based on information recorded by the Hesquiat elders and knowledge of the harbour. Translations from Hesquiat were done by Larry Paul and Dora Gallegos. The settlement pattern described by the elders i s more complicated than that described by Drucker, p a r t i c u l a r l y as regards the l o c a l group c a l l e d k i q i n a t h by Drucker. According to the elders there appear to be twelve named groups with t e r r i t o r i a l r i g h t s to p a r t i c u l a r resource st a t i o n s . Six of these groups i n the middle t e r r i t o r y of the harbour shared a winter v i l l a g e , suggesting either that there was a grouping akin to Drucker's " t r i b e " i n the c e n t r a l area, or that the named groups are i n f a c t f a m i l i e s , rather than l o c a l groups. This i s not yet c l e a r . By order of t e r r i t o r i a l a f f i l i a t i o n and from north to south to north, 90 s t a r t i n g on the outer coast north of Estevan Point, the groups d i s t i n - guished by the elders are l i s t e d below. Orthography i s that used by Laforet and E f r a t . Figure 11 shows t h e i r locations and t e r r i t o r i e s i n the harbour. 1) the homa^isath 2) the t?a - X a -t?ath 3) the ciknu?ath 4) the haimai?isath 5) the kinqo a s takams^ath 6) the q wac •'astakama^ath -or 7) the napulyutakemaTYath 8) the qeyx^Tani s t akams^Ta th 9) the pasci)rath 10) the c^asnoasath H ) the ma?apiath 12) the ya^qsisath The homa?isath had a small t e r r i t o r y on the outer coast, with portions of haimai?isath t e r r i t o r y on e i t h e r side to the north and to the south. I t i s not c l e a r i f homa?isath t e r r i t o r y was always t h i s small, or whether t h i s i s a l a t e pattern. Drucker records both S p l i t Cape and Barchester Bay as homa?isath locations (Drucker 1951:236-237). However, the elders record that haimai^isath t e r r i t o r y included hohqui ( S p l i t Cape) and p a ? c i s t a (Barchester Bay) and as.far south as Perex Rocks on the outer coast, was broken by the homa'isath t e r r i t o r y , then stretched from Estevan Point around to and i n c l u d i n g the present v i l l a g e of Hesquiat. Two other inde- pendent groups, the t ?a-/fa-t?ath and the ciknu^ath, apparently l i v e d year round at Estevan Point and Smokehouse Bay r e s p e c t i v e l y , but were associated 91 with the haimai?isath. The ciknu'ath also had f i s h i n g r i g h t s across the harbour south of Hesquiat Point at a sockeye stream c a l l e d t i • t a p i . These two groups seem to be family groups that functioned independently but i t i s not c l e a r i f they had core c h i e f l y l i n e s and hence f i t Drucker's d e f i n i - t i o n of a l o c a l group. The kinqoastakama^iath, q wac?astakamafrath/mohatikfreyath, napulyuta- kamsfcath, and geyx^anistakamefrath a l l wintered at hifcwina and had various summer, spring and f a l l resource s t a t i o n s , separate, along the shores of the ce n t r a l p o r t i o n of Hesquiat Harbour and south past Hesquiat Point. These are the groups c o l l e c t i v e l y c a l l e d the kiqi n a t h by Drucker. The pasci^ath apparently stayed year round at pa-sci)rh but sometimes moved into hiiwina also, and are therefore associated with the other four groups more c l o s e l y than with any other inner harbour group. Apparently some people stayed year round at hijtwina, but i t i s not cl e a r i f t h i s means some of a l l the groups or a p a r t i c u l a r group, nor i s i t c l e a r who the c?asnoasath are, i f i n f a c t they are a separate group. The ma?apiath correspond c l o s e l y to Drucker's desc r i p t i o n , staying year round at ma?api, with some people e x p l o i t i n g the resources of the f i s h i n g streams across the harbour i n summer and f a l l : Their . t e r r i t o r y began north of pa'sci^th, stretched as f a r as ya?qsis, then started again south of Hesquiat Lake, and from there continued as f a r south as somewhere between Rondeau Point and H i s n i t Lake. There were at l e a s t three c h i e f s i n t h i s group, each with p a r t i c u l a r r i g h t s to portions of the shoreline, streams and harbour waters. The ya?gsisath owned the t e r r i t o r y from ya?qsis stream near t h e i r year round v i l l a g e , to the eastern entrance of Hesquiat Lake, inc l u d i n g Hesquiat Lake and i t s t r i b u t a r i e s . 92 N SCALE = 1:77,511 haimai^isath homa?isath2 homis WW J 9 haimai^isatl t 7 a * a t a ' t?a-3r_Rt_ath ya*qsisath ya'qsis ?ma?api V 7 ma?apiath pasci/ta^th y \ pasci>h<^D ^ middle groups kinqoastakama^Tath qwac?ast akams)5ath/ mohatik^eyat h napulyutakama^Tath c?asnoasath qey x)sa n is t a ka m aAa t h r*_k*i i ciknu 7atn KEY: year round(?) village fishing station o 1 t__2 L 4 Figure 11. Hesquiat Local Group T e r r i t o r i e s According to Information Recorded by the Hesquiat Elders. 93 As f a r as seasonal movements are concerned, i t would seem that the ma?apiath and ya?qsisath were e s s e n t i a l l y sedentary, using the resources of t h e i r salmon streams but not a c t u a l l y s e t t i n g up permanent habitation structures at these l o c a t i o n s . Both ma?api and ya^qsis are themselves by salmon streams. A f t e r amalgamation of the l o c a l groups at Hesquiat, how- ever, these groups d i d erect houses at the i n s i d e f i s h i n g s t a t i o n s . Archaeological t e s t i n g of these f i s h i n g stations,confirms that they are h i s t o r i c a l , with no p r e h i s t o r i c deposits. Presumably the c o n t r o l l i n g f a c t o r here was distance. The middle groups, who wintered at hdjtwina, seem to have been more mobile, but i t i s not clear i f they a c t u a l l y had p r e h i s t o r i c structures at Anton's Sp i t , although there are midden deposits there (DiSo 2). There are no p r e h i s t o r i c structures at t h e i r salmon streams. A s i m i l a r pattern holds f o r the haimai^isath and the homa?isath, there being midden deposits at t h e i r designated "winter" v i l l a g e s , but only h i s t o r i c deposits at other resource st a t i o n s . Whether the p r e h i s t o r i c structures were but temporary and have l e f t l i t t l e evidence, or were much removed from the present, u p - l i f t i n g , shore- l i n e , or were non-existent, i s hotyyet c l e a r . But i t seems c e r t a i n that permanent house frames at winter, summer and f i s h i n g v i l l a g e s , such as those described f o r the northern Nootkans by Drucker (Drucker 1951:69), d i d not e x i s t i n Hesquiat Harbour. The settlement pattern f o r each l o c a l group seems to have been centered around a single, permanent habitation s i t e (marked by a s h e l l midden). The c o n s t e l l a t i o n of resource locations seems to have been exploited from the main l o c a t i o n , at l e a s t u n t i l amal- gamation at Hesquiat i n the l a t e 1800's. The lack of midden deposits at the northern outside f i s h i n g stations suggest that the haimai?isath use 94 of these locations may be a l a t e pattern and that formerly they were homa?isath, as haimai?isath use would have demanded actual group movement. Some s p e c i f i c statements about animal resources i n Hesquiat Harbour add d e t a i l to Drucker's remarks. They are based on information recorded by the Hesquiat elders with Larry Paul, Marilyn Amos and Cathy Amos i n 1977. Harbour seals, sea l i o n s , fur seals and whales were a l l hunted. Har- bour seals could be found on the rocks o f f homis, o f f Hesquiat Point and at the head of the harbour i n Boat Basin, sometimes even i n Hesquiat Lake. They were speared or harpooned (the d i s t i n c t i o n i s not always made) i n the water and also clubbed at hauling out places. At these rocks, sharpened s t i c k s might be placed hidden beneath seaweed, where the s t a r t l e d seals heading f or the water would impale themselves. The same methods were used f o r sea l i o n s , but they were not clubbed, j u s t harpooned or speared. These animals were considered dangerous, were scarce, and were hunted les s f r e - quently. There were no good places f o r sea l i o n s at Hesquiat Harbour, the nearest hauling out rocks being at Revel Point by Hot Springs Cove. They were not around i n the summer. Fur seals were hunted f a r out at sea, although they were a l i t t l e c l o s e r to Hesquiat "when the berr i e s were f u l l y r i p e " i n early summer. At l e a s t four d i f f e r e n t sizes were distinguished, the la r g e s t being found furt h e s t out to sea, so f a r out that only the t i p s of the snow capped mountains could be seen. They did not come into Hesquiat Harbour. Gray and humpback whales were harpooned as.described by Drucker (1951:48-56). Sea otters were hunted offshore between homis and Hesquiat, with bow and arrow or harpoon. Land game was hunted with dea d f a l l s , bow and arrow, and spear. River 95 otte r s were common at Hesquiat Lake stream and the mouth of Purdon Creek, and were e s p e c i a l l y common i n the f a l l at the salmon streams. Deer were hunted mainly i n early f a l l and winter. They were most p l e n t i f u l around ma'api, i n the meadows north of Hesquiat V i l l a g e , at Hesquiat Point, and towards Estevan Point. Bear were a v a i l a b l e i n a l l areas but were e s p e c i a l l y p l e n t i f u l at the salmon streams i n f a l l . Raccoon and mink were caught i n dead f a l l traps set on t h e i r t r a i l s and were common everywhere. Wolves were s p e c i a l . They had a sp e c i a l r e l a t i o n s h i p with people and were hunted only f o r t h e i r skins, f o r the dance r e g a l i a of the Wolf Ri t u a l s Cougar were not hunted very much. Dogs are said to have been r e l a t i v e l y recent imports. I t i s not cer- t a i n where they came from, but i t i s said the Moachat people to the north saw them f i r s t , and probably got them from the Nimpkish people of the east coast of Vancouver Island. At f i r s t there was only one kind. They were used for hunting. L i t t l e information has yet been recorded on f i s h and b i r d s , but some of the species abundant i n the archaeological records are discussed. Diving birds such as cormorants, scoters and other d i v i n g ducks were taken mainly from j u s t i n s i d e the harbour. They were caught on baited hooks set several to a hand l i n e , t r o l l e d from a canoe. Loons, mergansers, and grebes were also caught t h i s way but were found at the head of the harbour. Canada geese of at l e a s t two subspecies and snow geese were netted from canoes i n V i l l a g e Lake, at night, when storms kept the geese from f l y i n g . They were also taken on the beach i n s i d e Anton's S p i t and between Boulder Point and homis, i n the spring and f a l l . Swans only came among the geese i n the f a l l . Brant were common only along the outer beaches and insi d e Anton's S p i t i n spring. Other ducks, such as mallards and shovelers, were 96 taken i n traps on the beaches, or snared with a hoop on the end of a long pole. Ducks were most abundant i n l a t e winter and spring, when the herring were i n the harbour p r i o r to spawning. Bow and arrow was also used f o r b i r d s . Albatross and shearwaters were seen and shot when people were out fur sealing. Albatross (the S h o r t - t a i l e d Albatross?) formerly also came near to Boulder Point and could be caught there on hook and l i n e at sea. They were sought f o r t h e i r bones f o r raw material as well.as to eat. Herring were taken with dip-net and rake from the i n s i d e harbour waters, and t h e i r spawn c o l l e c t e d on bough fences from the sandy beaches. They were a v a i l a b l e i n l a t e winter as well as early spring. Dogfish were every- where. Sea perches were trapped i n t i d a l traps of stone and "wicker", e s p e c i a l l y between Hesquiat V i l l a g e and Anton's Sp i t , where stone a l i g n - ments are s t i l l v i s i b l e on the beach. They were used mainly f o r b a i t . The Midshipman was eaten bytthe ya^qsisath and ma^apiath people es- p e c i a l l y . They were taken from beneath the rocks at low t i d e during the spring spawning season. They were e s p e c i a l l y p l e n t i f u l i n Rae Basin at the head of the harbour near the stream mouth from Hesquiat Lake. Small f l a t f i s h were not common, but were sometimes taken in s i d e Anton's Spit i n the shallow water. They were speared with a s p e c i a l short spear. Halibut were not found i n the inner harbour, only at the offshore banks o f f Estevan and homis. Here also was the best place f o r sea cod and large r o c k f i s h l i k e the red snapper. The Hesquiat people distinguished at l e a s t f i v e d i f f e r e n t kinds of r o c k f i s h . The small ones were found more generally d i s t r i b u t e d , the large red snapper and another big species only i n the deep waters offshore. Coho salmon were found i n most streams i n the harbour, but dog salmon 97 only i n those of the inner harbour, north of LeClaire and Rondeau Points. Sockeye were scarce and found only i n the Hesquiat and H i s n i t Lake systems, as were the few steelhead. Pink salmon were also scarce and seen only at the head of the harbour. The outside streams only had coho runs. The spring salmon di d not spawn i n the harbour streams but were i n the inner harbour during winter. Salmon were taken i n saltwater with hook and l i n e , i n the streams with spears/harpoons and traps and weirs. The remnants of weirs can be seen on the beaches i n front of two streams i n the inner harbour, and i n the stream i t s e l f as well f o r one of the streams. The beaches at Anton's Spit and i n s i d e the harbour were known as good clam beds. Boulder Point was good for mussels, chitons and sea urchins. According to the Hesquiat elders, t e r r i t o r i a l boundaries were s t r i c t l y upheld. One could only hunt or f i s h or gather i n the places of another group with the permission of that group's c h i e f . I t i s c l e a r from t h e i r records that there.were di f f e r e n c e s among the l o c a l groups i n emphasis on c e r t a i n resources, and that trade between the i n s i d e and outside groups took place, i n important resources not generally a v a i l a b l e . Thus the outside groups traded s e a l , sea l i o n and whale o i l and blubber to the i n s i d e groups, f o r bear meat and dog salmon, which were more p l e n t i f u l i n these groups' t e r r i t o r i e s . PREVIOUS ARCHAEOLOGICAL WORK Although the west coast of Vancouver Island was one of the f i r s t areas i n B r i t i s h Columbia to see the meeting of native Indian and European c u l - tures, the p r e h i s t o r y of the native cultures has only recently received serious study. There i s a r i c h l i t e r a t u r e of ethnographic reports and early h i s t o r i c a l descriptions of the native Nootkan inhabitants' way of l i f e . Speculation concerning the o r i g i n s and connections of the Nootkan 98 speaking peoples and of t h e i r c u l t u r a l adaptations has been considerable (Borden 1951, 1962; Chard 1956, 1962; Drucker 1943, 1955; Duff 1965; Huntsman 1963; and Swanson 1956). Yet i t was not u n t i l the 1960's that the f i r s t systematic archaeological excavations were c a r r i e d out i n what i s known ethnographically as Nootkan t e r r i t o r y . In the summer of 1966 the National H i s t o r i c S i t e s Service of the Federal Department of Northern and Indian A f f a i r s funded excavations at the h i s t o r i c a l l y famous v i l l a g e of Fr i e n d l y Cove, or Yuquot, the summer v i l l a g e of Chief Maquinna and the Moachat Confederacy. Directed by William Folan with the assistance of John Dewhirst, the excavations revealed f i n e l y s t r a t i f i e d c u l t u r a l s h e l l midden deposits to a depth of f i v e and a h a l f metres, representing at l e a s t the past 4,000 years (Dewhirst 1969:232, 239; Folan 1969:217; Folan and Dewhirst 1970). As yet, only preliminary r e s u l t s of the work are a v a i l a b l e . The excavators i n t e r p r e t the data as representing an i n s i t u c u l t u r a l develop- ment a n a l y t i c a l l y d i v i s i b l e i n t o four periods based on s t r a t i g r a p h i c zones and radio carbon estimates (Dewhirst 1977:12). They i n t e r p r e t the data as i n d i c a t i n g c u l t u r a l s t a b i l i t y through time, with a gradual refinement of the i n i t i a l adaptation and an increasing dependence on marine resources as one nears the h i s t o r i c period (Dewhirst 1977:12; 1978:7, 10, 20). A r t i f a c t technologies are r e l a t i v e l y simple, with a very l i m i t e d chipped stone industry; quantities of sandstone abraders and saws; a developed ground stone industry centering around f i s h hook shanks and adze blades; a developed ground s h e l l industry using mussel s h e l l f o r harpoon points and knives; and a strong bone sawing, s p l i t t i n g and grinding industry centering on the production of awls and ulna t o o l s , numerous simple bone points of various s i z e s , some barbed points and a range of both 99 toggle and tanged harpoon types (Dewhirst 1978:8S15). The simple stone technology and the manufacturing t o o l assemblages recovered .from Yuquot suggest that wood and vegetal materials that have not survived were major components of many tools (Dewhirst 1977:13). This supposition i s given greater support by the recent excavations at Ozette on the Olympic Penin- sula, a southern Nootkan (Makah) s i t e at which wood and vegetal materials as well as bone and a n t l e r , are preserved and have been recovered. A very high percentage of the Ozette a r t i f a c t s are made of plant materials that would not normally survive i n an archaeological context. The ante- cedents and extra-areal c u l t u r a l r e l a t i o n s h i p s of the Nootkan a r t i f a c t t r a d i t i o n s are not yet apparent. The faunal remains from Yuquot are as yet unreported i n , f u l l . Prelim- inary analyses suggest an increasing use of sea mammal resources as one nears the h i s t o r i c period. S h e l l f i s h and f i s h are major constituents of the faunal remains, birds l e s s abundant (Savage 1973, 1975). Although there are minor changes i n frequencies, the basic t o o l k i t at Yuquot appears to have remained remarkably unchanged u n t i l the h i s t o r i c period. Dewhirst says of t h i s " i n c r e d i b l e c u l t u r a l c o n t i n u i t y " : "The Nootkans of today are probably the descendents of the people occupying the West Coast i n the E a r l y Period at Yuquot ... The successful c u l t u r a l patterns of the E a r l y Period have been gradually r e f i n e d during the past f o r t y centuries to improve the adaptations of the Nootkans to t h e i r coastal environment. This process, for the most part, has been one of c u l t u r a l continuity, with gradual change and some innovations." (Dewhirst 1978:20) In 1966 Alan McMillan c a r r i e d out.the second archaeological excavation i n Nootkan t e r r i t o r y , a small t e s t excavation at Coopte i n Nootka Sound, the winter and early spring s i t e of some of the Moachat people who summered 100 at Yuquot (McMillan 1969). Although the excavations were l i m i t e d , they revealed c u l t u r a l deposits varying i n depth from .5 to 1.5 metres on the f i r s t beach terrace and 2.4 metres on the second beach terrace (McMillan 1969:60-62). The a r t i f a c t assemblage of 273 objects i s s i m i l a r to that from Yuquot. The most common faunal remains are reported to be f i s h , i n cluding salmon, herring, h a l i b u t and dogfish. Sea mammal remains, i n - cluding porpoise, harbour seal and whale, are present, as are deer remains. B i r d remains seem to be less common and s h e l l f i s h remains, though not p a r t i c u l a r l y abundant, include butter clam, native l i t t l e n e c k clam, horse clam, barnacle and both bay and C a l i f o r n i a mussel (McMillan 1969:100-105). As the faunal assemblage i s not reported q u a n t i t a t i v e l y i t i s d i f f i c u l t to assess. Both the Yuquot and Coopteamaterials suggest a long in_ s i t u develop- ment of the Nootkan c u l t u r a l adaptation described by Drucker i n h i s c l a s s i c 1951 monograph "The Northern and Central Nootkan Tribes". S i t e locations and a r t i f a c t assemblages suggest that the l a t e r p r e h i s t o r i c adaptation d i f f e r e d l i t t l e from the ethnographic pattern i n main features of economic o r i e n t a t i o n . As i n the ethnographic pattern, habitation s i t e s probably formed segments of m u l t i - s i t e group settlement patterns that allowed ex- p l o i t a t i o n of both outer coast sea mammal, f i s h and s h e l l f i s h resources, and i n l e t herring spawning beaches, as well as up i n l e t salmon spawning streams (Dewhirst 1978:19). As these.resources are separated seasonally as well as geographically, seasonal s h i f t s of residence were necessary. Thus d i f f e r e n t e x p l o i t a t i v e a c t i v i t i e s were c a r r i e d out at d i f f e r e n t season- a l l y occupied s i t e s . Dewhirst emphasizes t h i s outer/inner, spring and summer/fall and winter adaptive s h i f t u t i l i z i n g the two major environmental settings of the west coast shoreline as a basic underlying p r i n c i p l e of 101 Nootkan e c o l o g i c a l o r i e n t a t i o n (Dewhirst 1977:11). S t i l l , the a r t i f a c t assemblages from outer coast Yuquot and i n s i d e Coopte are very s i m i l a r . "Nearly every a r t i f a c t type found at Coopte i s also found at Yuquot. The Coopte material f i t s n i c e l y into the Late Period (A.D. 800-1790) and the H i s t o r i c Period (post.A.D. 1790) at Yuquot". (Dewhirst 1978:19) Dewhirst suggests that t h i s s i m i l a r i t y i n a r t i f a c t assemblages, despite the d i f f e r e n t i a t e d subsistence a c t i v i t i e s , i s the r e s u l t of using the same tools f o r d i f f e r e n t tasks at the d i f f e r e n t l o c a t i o n s . "There are only a few instances, such as whaling, h a l i b u t f i s h i n g , dentalium f i s h i n g , i n which s p e c i a l i z e d portable a r t i f a c t s were used i n only one major environmental s e t t i n g . . . I t would appear that the Nootkans had e s s e n t i a l l y one "tool k i t " f o r environmental e x p l o i t a t i o n i n both outside and i n s i d e s e t t i n g s " . (Dewhirst 1978:20). He further suggests that Yuquot i s " f a i r l y t y p i c a l " of the large outer coast midden s i t e s along the west coast of Vancouver Island i n Nootkan t e r - r i t o r y ; that the four c u l t u r a l periods defined at Yuquot, the E a r l y Period (2300 - 1000 B.C.), the Middle Period (1000 B.C. -_,A*.D. 800), the Late Period (A.D. 800 - 1790) and the H i s t o r i c Period (A.D. 1790 - 1966), w i l l " l i k e l y apply to the archaeology of other outside s i t e s " ; and that i t i s only the faunal remains that w i l l i n d i c a t e the differences i n resource u t i l i z a t i o n at a p a r t i c u l a r s i t e (Dewhirst 1978:7). Faunal r e - mains w i l l r e f l e c t l o c a l s i t e to s i t e v a r i a t i o n within a regional adapta- t i o n to a f a r greater degree than a r t i f a c t s . THE HESQUIAT PROJECT The archaeological studies r e s u l t i n g i n t h i s d i s s e r t a t i o n were under- taken as part of the Hesquiat C u l t u r a l Recovery Project, a m u l t i - d i s c i p l i n a r y 102 pr o j e c t i n i t i a t e d and directed by members of the Hesquiat Indian Band, i n conjunction with s p e c i a l i s t s i n many d i f f e r e n t f i e l d s from outside the Band (Haggarty 1978:3). Faced with the incr e a s i n g l y frequent desecration of t h e i r ancestors 1 b u r i a l places i n t h e i r remote t e r r i t o r y of Hesquiat Harbour, the Hesquiat people took the i n i t i a t i v e . In 1970 they formed a C u l t u r a l Committee and charged i t with the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r d i r e c t i n g the recovery and preservationoof information about t h e i r past, and making that knowledge a meaningful part of today's way of being Hesquiat. The C u l t u r a l Com- mittee approached Donald Abbott at the Archaeology D i v i s i o n , B r i t i s h Columbia P r o v i n c i a l Museum, and requested assistance i n the work of pre- serving t h e i r heritage. This f i r s t hesitant contact between the Hesquiat C u l t u r a l Committee and the Archaeology D i v i s i o n was the beginning of a unique co-operative endeavour that i s now i n i t s tenth year of operation. Since that time, the scope of the pr o j e c t has grown beyond the i n i t i a l salvage work i n archaeology and p h y s i c a l anthropology (Haggarty 1978; Cybulski 1978), to include research i n l i n g u i s t i c s , ethnography, botany, palynology, dendrochronology, pedology and geomorphology. In addition to academic research, the pr o j e c t encompasses equally important a c t i v i t i e s ranging from the construction of a C u l t u r a l Education Center at Hesquiat V i l l a g e to house the objects, tapes and books r e s u l t i n g from the pro j e c t ' s work; to summer schools for band chi l d r e n to learn t h e i r native tongue, at Hesquiat, from the Band elders; to the production of calendars, colouring books and a simple d i c t i o n a r y i n the Hesquiat tongue. Central to the p r o j e c t i s the assurance that benefits of the pr o j e c t w i l l accrue equally to both the academic s p e c i a l i s t s who p a r t i c i p a t e i n the pro j e c t and the Hesquiat People. At the core of the assurance i s the 103 D i S p 4 D iSo 14 I DiSo 15 DiSo1( So16 D i S o ^ = W D i S o 13 DiSo8J?\MDiSo 12 •DiSo 11 DiSo: DiSo 25 'D i So 22 D i So 6] VDiSo4 DiSo 5 D iSo 17^ D i S o 18 D i S e 1 9 D i S o 20 D i S o 2 D i S o 21 Di'Sp 2 D i So 27 D i S o 26 D i S o 1 K E Y : & cave/rock shelter & mfdden gg historic fishing station JC petroglyph © fish weir/trap 0 ochre source 0 . 1 2 L ! L 2 I L Figure 12. Known Archaeological Sites i n Hesquiat Harbour. 104 growth and maintenance of a warm working r e l a t i o n s h i p between band members and non-band members, based on mutual t r u s t and respect. The archaeological work began i n 1971 under the d i r e c t i o n of James Haggarty, who has remained the p r i n c i p a l museum s t a f f member associated with the pro j e c t since that time. The author joined the pr o j e c t i n 1973. Between 1971 and 1977 t h i r t y - f o u r archaeological s i t e s were located. They include open midden s i t e s , cave/rock shelter s i t e s with surface b u r i a l complexes and/or habitation deposits, f i s h trap and weir remnants, an ochre s i t e , a petroglyph, and h i s t o r i c f i s h i n g stations (Figure 12). Seventeen of the s i t e s have been tested archaeologically and the surface b u r i a l s from a l l cave/rock sh e l t e r s i t e s systematically removed for r e - b u r i a l i n a crypt at Hesquiat V i l l a g e (Cybulski 1978). The faunal as- semblages from three of the s i t e s investigated i n 1973 and 1974 under t h i s j o i n t Hesquiat C u l t u r a l Committee/British Columbia P r o v i n c i a l Museum pro j e c t of survey and excavation, Hesquiat V i l l a g e (DiSo 1), Loon Cave (DiSo 9) and Yaksis Cave (DiSo 16), are the subject of t h i s study. 105 Chapter I I I Statement of Problem An examination of eight faunal assemblages from three s i t e s i n Hesquiat Harbour spanning attime range from at l e a s t A.D. 100 to h i s t o r i c times, shows there are major differences among the assemblages, both i n species represented and i n frequency of occurrence of species. The aim of t h i s study i s to determine whether or not the major proportion of the observed v a r i a t i o n among the faunal assemblages can be rela t e d to the e x p l o i t a t i o n of animal resources from d i f f e r e n t habitats. The small distances between s i t e s , the homogeneity of a r t i f a c t as- semblages, the contemporaneity of at l e a s t some of the assemblages, and the l i n g u i s t i c , c u l t u r a l , and s o c i a l unity of recent inhabitants of the harbour a l l suggest the s i t e s represent ei t h e r temporal or s p a t i a l seg- ments of the same regional adaptive system. I t i s suggested that the main fac t o r contributing to inter-assemblage v a r i a b i l i t y i n the archaeological assemblages i s the i n t e r a c t i o n between a land use system of s t r i c t l y de- fined and regulated c u l t u r a l t e r r i t o r i e s and d i v e r s i t y i n the geographical d i s t r i b u t i o n of animal resources. Such a land use system i s documented' ethnographically f o r Hesquiat Harbour and environmental information con- firms that the geographical d i s t r i b u t i o n of animal habitats i n the harbour does not provide each of the ethnographic t e r r i t o r i e s with access to the same resource bases. This i n t e r a c t i o n r e s u l t s i n the c u l t u r a l creation of d i f f e r e n t resource bases associated with s p e c i f i c h a b i t a t i o n locations i n the harbour. Con- sequently, one would expect d i f f e r i n g faunal assemblages i n the archaeolo- g i c a l s i t e s , f o r as long as a s i m i l a r i n t e r a c t i o n has taken place. 106 As d i f f e r i n g seasonal a v a i l a b i l i t y of resources within i n d i v i d u a l t e r r i t o r i e s i s also documented, i t i s further suggested that some of the v a r i a t i o n among the faunal assemblages i s a t t r i b u t a b l e to season of ex p l o i t a t i o n . Changes i n the l o c a l environment have been recorded f o r the relevant time period, and also can be expected to contribute to the pattern of interassemblage v a r i a t i o n . GENERAL THEORY The sources of v a r i a t i o n considered here d i f f e r from those suggested by Dewhirst f o r the west coast of Vancouver Island generally (Dewhirst 1978:20). He p r e d i c t s , i n view of a broadly based uniformity of material culture through time and space i n the Nootkan c u l t u r a l area, that a r t i f a c t assemblages from Nootkan area s i t e s w i l l vary minimally through both time and space, while faunal assemblages w i l l d i f f e r according to an outer coast l a t e spring and summer versus an inner coast f a l l , winter and early spring settlement pattern. He also suggests that faunal assemblages w i l l probably indi c a t e an increasing use of marine resources as one nearsttheppreseht. These pr e d i c t i o n s are based on the 4,000 year sequence at Yuquot, to the north of Hesquiat Harbour. While the inner coast/outer coast s h i f t i n g r e s i d e n t i a l and e x p l o i t a - t i o n pattern may indeed be an underlying c u l t u r a l p r i n c i p l e of Nootkan e c o l o g i c a l o r i e n t a t i o n , as Dewhirst suggests, i t i s u n l i k e l y to have been so f o r the l o c a l group u n a l l i e d to other l o c a l groups with t e r r i t o r i e s i n the d i f f e r e n t environmental settings, that i s , u n t i l a t r i b a l or con- federacy l e v e l of s o c i o - p o l i t i c a l i n t e g r a t i o n was achieved. MacMillan, following Drucker (1951:228-231), outlines the development of such an int e g r a t i o n f o r the Moachat l o c a l groups within recent t r i b a l memory, 107 achieved through the inter-group tran s f e r of t e r r i t o r i a l r i g h t s (McMillan 1969:14). Folan also sees t h i s process of confederation a l t e r i n g the settlement pattern of Nootka Sound from an i n i t i a l one of independent l o c a l groups with year round residence i n t h e i r own contiguous blocks of t e r r i t o r y i n a si n g l e environmental s e t t i n g to one of integrated l o c a l groups with seasonally s h i f t i n g residence i n discontinuous t e r r i t o r i e s spanning several environmental settings (Folan 1973:13). The l o c a l groups' t e r r i t o r i a l r i g h t s were then guaranteed by the s o c i o - p o l i t i c a l a l l i a n c e s of the t r i b a l and confederacy organizations. An examination of the ethnographic pattern of settlement and land use i n Hesquiat Harbour suggests that Dewhirst's p r e d i c t i o n s of a dichotomous outer coast summer/inner coast winter settlement pattern, are u n l i k e l y to be applicable i n the Hesquiat area. The f i v e Hesquiat l o c a l groups were not bound p o l i t i c a l l y and economically into a t r i b e or confederacy (although such changes were beginning to take place and were interrupted by the estab- lishment of Father Brabant's Catholic Mission at Hesquiat V i l l a g e i n 1875) but were independent l o c a l groups. Each had t h e i r own s e r i e s of seasonally used resource extraction and habitation locations within c l e a r l y defined t e r r i t o r i a l portions of the wider Hesquiat t e r r i t o r y . As d e t a i l e d i n Chapter I I , animal resources are d i s t r i b u t e d throughout Hesquiat Harbour i n a clustered and discontinuous manner, r e f l e c t i n g h abitat conditions, j u s t as they are elsewhere on the west coast of Van- couver Island. But l o c a l group t e r r i t o r i e s were not nec e s s a r i l y discon- tinuous and did not n e c e s s a r i l y provide d i r e c t access to both outer coast and inner coast resources f o r each l o c a l group. On the contrary, four of the f i v e groups held blocks of t e r r i t o r y e n t i r e l y within one of the major environmental settings (see pages >87 to ;93) .. 108 Given t h i s i n t e r a c t i o n of s o c i o - p o l i t i c a l and environmental f a c t o r s , one would s t i l l expect Hesquiat faunal assemblages r e l a t i n g to the ethno- graphic pattern of land use or ownership to r e f l e c t an outer coast/inner coast s p l i t i n resource extraction and consumption, but t h i s d i v i s i o n should occur along l o c a l group l i n e s , not within the l o c a l group adaptation represented by a series of s i t e s , with the po s s i b l e exception of those s i t e s r e l a t i n g to the l o c a l group occupying the c e n t r a l portion of the harbour, c a l l e d k i g i n a t h by Drucker. U n t i l the development of a t r i b a l or confederacy l e v e l of socio- p o l i t i c a l structure that allowed the maintenance of discontinuous t e r r i t o r i e s of e x p l o i t a t i o n , one would have to expect major differences i n the subsis- tence bases of Nootkan autonomous l o c a l groups re l a t e d to the e x p l o i t a t i o n of t h e i r immediate l o c a l environment. I f i t i s determined that the major source of v a r i a t i o n among Hesquiat faunal assemblages i s i n f a c t -attributable to the exploitation-'on"a. year round basis of d i f f e r e n t habitats that are but portions of the a v a i l a b l e regional resource base, then c u l t u r a l l y r e s t r i c t e d access to the t o t a l resource base seems the most l i k e l y explanation. Such a pattern of i n t e r - assemblage v a r i a t i o n would suggest the presence of c u l t u r a l l y bounded blocks of e x p l o i t a t i o n t e r r i t o r i e s within single environmental settings, such as would be associated with the l o c a l group l e v e l of s o c i o - p o l i t i c a l organi- zations The works of Drucker, Dewhirst, McMillan and Folan suggest that the ethnographically described Nootkan adaptation to the west coast of Vancouver Island may have developed from a settlement pattern closer to that exhibited by the Hesquiat peoples at contact than that exhibited by the Moachat and other northern groups, that i s , one of independent l o c a l groups. Confirma- t i o n of a long time depth f o r t h i s l e v e l of s o c i o - p o l i t i c a l organization 109 i n Hesquiat Harbour would lend support to the theory that the simpler, autonomous l o c a l group s o c i o - p o l i t i c a l structure was the e a r l i e r adaptive pattern over a widespread area of the west coast of Vancouver Island. To determine whether or not the major proportion of observed v a r i - ation i n the faunal assemblages from Hesquiat Harbour can be rel a t e d to year round e x p l o i t a t i o n of r e s t r i c t e d portions of the harbour t e r r i t o r y , the three s i t e s , Hesquiat V i l l a g e (DiSo 1), Loon Cave (DiSo 9) and Yaksis Cave (DiSo 16), are r e l a t e d to the ethnographic t e r r i t o r i e s and settlement patterns. These are r e l a t e d to the d i s t r i b u t i o n i n Hesquiat Harbour of animal species, grouped i n t o Habitat Categories as defined i n Chapter I I . Using t h i s information p r e d i c t i o n s of Major Habitat Category emphasis at each s i t e are made, according to the ethnographic pattern of land use and ownership. These expected patterns w i l l be compared with the observed v a r i a t i o n i n Habitat Category emphasis, and the differences and s i m i l a r i t i e s discussed. PREDICTED FAUNAL ASSEMBLAGE EMPHASIS The faunal remains studied were excavated from the three s i t e s DiSo 1, DiSo 9 and DiSo 16 during the 1973 and 1974 f i e l d seasons of the Hesquiat Project (Boehm 1974; Haggarty and Boehm 1974; Haggarty and Crozier 1975) . DiSo 1 i s the t r a d i t i o n a l "winter" v i l l a g e of the haimai^isath l o c a l group and the present day v i l l a g e of Hesquiat. DiSo 16 i s a small cave s i t e located within ya^qsis t r a d i t i o n a l t e r r i t o r y - and DiSo 9 a l a r g e r cave located within ma?apiath t e r r i t o r y . The l a t t e r two s i t e s were used as b u r i a l places during the ethnographic period and thus are not linked as habitation locations to the ethnographic settlement pattern i n the harbour. They are, however, c l e a r l y within the above mentioned localigroup t e r r i t o r i e s i n the inner harbour. DiSo 1 i s on the outer coast, but because of the o r i e n t a t i o n 110 Figure 13. Relationship of Hesquiat Local Group T e r r i t o r i e s , Combined Vertebrate Habitat Categories, and DiSo 1, DiSo 9 and DiSo 16. I l l of the harbour, i s s l i g h t l y sheltered. Figure 13 locates the three s i t e s i n r e l a t i o n to Hesquiat l o c a l group t e r r i t o r i e s and combined vertebrate habitat categories i n the harbour. For the purposes of t h i s research, then, we are concerned with the t e r r i t o r i e s , seasonal settlement patterns and resource bases of three Hesquiat l o c a l groups, the haimai^isath, the ma?apiath and the ya?qsisath. T h e i r . t e r r i t o r i e s and seasonal settlement patterns have been outlined above (pages 87-93). The present faunal d i s t r i b u t i o n s i n Hesquiat Harbour have been described i n pages 19 to.64)^ With t h i s knowledge i t i s pos s i b l e to suggest the major patterns one would expect to f i n d i n the faunal as- semblages of the three s i t e s i f the ethnographic patterns have a long time depth i n the harbour. DiSo 1 and haimai^isath T e r r i t o r y Haimai''isath t e r r i t o r y d i f f e r s markedly from that of the ma^apiath and the ya^qsisath. Their t e r r i t o r y i s e n t i r e l y within the Outer Coast Zone, with good access to Pelagic and P e l a g i c - L i t t o r a l marine and unprotected i n t e r t i d a l h abitats. They have no chum salmon streams and few coho streams. The outer beaches are not p a r t i c u l a r l y good herring spawning places because of excessive wave action. DiSo 1 i s ethnographically a "winter" season v i l l a g e . One would expect a faunal assemblage r e l a t i n g to t h i s ethnographic usage i n t h i s t e r r i t o r y to demonstrate an emphasis on deep and moderately deep water sea f i s h , s h e l l f i s h , preserved and fresh coho salmon, preserved h a l i b u t and cod, and preserved herring. As the summer f i s h i n g places of t h i s group are unpro- tected outer coast stations, one might also expect the herring fish e r y and some sea mammal hunting to take place,from t h i s , the only r e l a t i v e l y well sheltered l o c a t i o n . Since an important coho stream i n haimai^isath 112 t e r r i t o r y i s at t h i s l o c a t i o n , one might expect the deposits at DiSo 1 to represent the f a l l season as well. The faunal assemblages might include spring and f a l l catches of migratory waterfowl obtained i n the lake and the meadows behind the v i l l a g e . In short, t h i s "winter" v i l l a g e i s so situated as to be.habitable year round, at l e a s t f o r portions of the popu- l a t i o n . Archaeologically one would expect a wide range of resources to be represented with a d e f i n i t e emphasis on outer coast marine and i n t e r - t i d a l resources. Using the categories established i n Chapter I I , one would expect the faunal assemblage to be predominantly from the following Habitat Cate- gories: Mammal - Pelagic (1) and P e l a g i c - L i t t o r a l (2); B i r d - Pelagic (1), Open L i t t o r a l Waters (2), Sheltered Shallow Waters (lakes and marshes) (3), with l e s s e r frequencies of S t r a n d / L i t t o r a l Interface (5) and Forest (6); F i s h - Deep Water Offshore (1), Moderately Deep Waters, Rocky Bottom and Varied Bottom (2 & 3), Streams (8) and Lakes (9); and S h e l l f i s h - Exposed Rocky Shores (1), Exposed Clean Sand/Gravel Beaches (3) and les s e r frequen- ci e s of sheltered mud and sand beaches animals although pockets of these habitats are found even on the outer coast. Other categories may well be represented, but these should predominate. The vertebrate fauna can be grouped i n t o the more i n c l u s i v e combined habitatecategories and arranged i n rank order of expected importance to provide a general p i c t u r e of the faunal assemblages expected at DiSo 1. This i s i l l u s t r a t e d i n Figure 14C. Pelagic i s expected to be most important, followed by P e l a g i c / L i t t o r a l , then L i t t o r a l , Streams/Lakes/Forests and f i n a l l y L i t t o r a l / F o r e s t Edge. DiSo 9 and ma^apiath T e r r i t o r y Ma^apiath t e r r i t o r y i s e n t i r e l y within the Inner Harbour Zone, s h e l - 113 A. DiSo 16 B. DiSo 9 C D i So 1 PELAG IC PELAGIC/LITTORAL LITTORAL/ FOREST EDGE L ITTORAL 2 STREAMS/LAKES/FOREST - PELAGIC PELAGIC/L ITTORAL L ITTORAL/FOREST EDGE 3 STREAMS/LAKES/FOREST L ITTORAL PELAGIC PELAGIC/L ITTORAL 2s L ITTORAL 3 S STREAMS/LAKES/FOREST LITTORAL / FOREST EDGE &y 'Figure 14. Expected.Rank Orders of Importance for Vertebrate Faunal Habitat Categories, Si t e s DiSo 1, DiSo 9, DiSo 16. 114 tered, with at l e a s t four good salmon streams, but no access to Hesquiat Lake or the open ocean. Beaches are predominantly muddy sand with areas of boulder beach. DiSo 9 a r t i c u l a t e s with the ethnographic settlement and land use pattern as a b u r i a l place. The e a r l i e r habitation deposits, i f they belong within.the ma ̂ apiath settlement t r a d i t i o n , are expected to be year round, as ethnographically the "winter" v i l l a g e of the ma^apiath (DiSo 8) was occupied year round, while the many f i s h i n g stations were used but not l i v e d at u n t i l h i s t o r i c times, and there i s apparently no summer v i l l a g e associated with t h i s l o c a l group u n t i l a f t e r amalgamation. There o does not appear to be any advantage to moving about within ma rapiath t e r - o r i t o r y as i t i s small, r e l a t i v e l y homogeneous and e n t i r e l y within the Inner Harbour. S t r i c t l y speaking, the ma^apiath settlement pattern p r i o r to amalgamation would seem to be sedentary, with use of many resource locations from a cen t r a l habitation l o c a t i o n . One would expect at DiSo 9 a f a i r l y wide range of resources represented i n the deposits, but only those a v a i l a b l e i n the sheltered, shallow water marine and i n t e r t i d a l habitats and i n streams and f o r e s t s . Surface feeding ducks and geese should be f a i r l y well represented, as should sheltered mud- sand beach molluscs. One would not expect the sea l i o n s , porpoises and whales to be well represented, although harbour seal and sea ot t e r might well be present. Fur seal might also be present i f they are following the herring into Hesquiat Harbour i n the spring. These animals should be female and/or f o e t a l . As large sea mammals are not r e a d i l y a v a i l a b l e i n t h i s zone, one might expect a greater r e l i a n c e on large land mammals, p a r t i c u l a r l y deer, at t h i s s i t e than at DiSo 1. Herring and salmon should be well represented, p a r t i c u l a r l y chum.salmon. Summarizing, a l l seasons are expected to be represented and the f o l - 115 lowing Habitat Categories are expected to be emphasized: Mammal - L i t t o r a l (3), L i t t o r a l / F o r e s t Edge (4) and Forests (5) possible with some Pel a g i c - L i t t o r a l (2) i n the form of fur seal; B i r d - Sheltered L i t t o r a l Waters (3), Sheltered Shallow Waters (4), S t r a n d / L i t t o r a l Interface (5), and Forest/ Upland (6); F i s h - Shallower Inshore Waters (4), Shallower Inshore Waters with Soft Bottom (5), I n t e r t i d a l , Boulder Bottom (6), I n t e r t i d a l , Soft Bottom (7), and Streams (8); and S h e l l f i s h - Sheltered Rocky Shores and Boulder Beaches (2), Sheltered Sand/Gravel Beaches (4) and Sheltered Mud/ Sand/Gravel Beaches (5). The expected combined vertebrate pattern i s i l l u s t r a t e d i n Figure 14B. I t i s expected that L i t t o r a l resources w i l l rank f i r s t i n importance, followed by Streams/Lakes/Forests resources, then L i t t o r a l / F o r e s t Edge resources, and f i n a l l y P e l a g i c / L i t t o r a l resources. Pelagic resources are not expected to be represented. DiSo 16 and ya?gsisath T e r r i t o r y Ya'c'qsisath t e r r i t o r y i s even more r e s t r i c t e d than ma ̂ apiath t e r r i t o r y and also e n t i r e l y within the Inner Harbour Zone. I t does, however, include the sockeye and other salmon resources of the Hesquiat Lake system. P r i n c i p a l resource locations are streams and sheltered shallow water marine and i n t e r t i d a l habitats. The habitation deposits of DiSo 16 presumably represent an early expression of the ya ̂ qsisath settlement pattern. The cave i s so small as to suggest a single (extended?) family occupation. As at DiSo 9, one might expect year round occupation of th i s small cave, with a f u l l range of the a v a i l a b l e resources represented i n the faunal assemblage, but as the t e r r i t o r y i s more r e s t r i c t e d , a l e s s e r v a r i e t y than at DiSo 9. Again, one would not expect to f i n d emphasis on sea mammal resources, but a greater 116 emphasis on deer, salmon, and p o s s i b l y herring, although t h i s t e r r i t o r y includes few stretches of good sandy beach such as that favoured by spawning herring. Much of the beach shoreline i s boulder. The Habitat Categories expected to be predominantly represented are: Mammal - L i t t o r a l (3), L i t t o r a l - F o r e s t Edge (4) and Forests (5); B i r d - Sheltered L i t t o r a l Waters (3), Sheltered Shallow Waters and Adjacent Shores (4), S t r a n d / L i t t o r a l Interface (5) and Forest/Upland (6); F i s h - Shallower Inshore Waters (4), Shallower Inshore Waters, Soft Bottom (5), I n t e r t i d a l , Boulder Bottom (6), I n t e r t i d a l , Soft Bottom (7), Streams (8)r and Lakes (9); and S h e l l f i s h - Sheltered Rocky Shores (2), Sheltered Sand/ Gravel Beaches (4) and Sheltered Mud/Sand/Gravel Beaches (5). Figure 14A i l l u s t r a t e s the expected pattern for the combined vertebrate faunal categories. Streams/Lakes/Forests are expected to rank f i r s t i n importance, followed by L i t t o r a l resources, then L i t t o r a l / F o r e s t Edge and f i n a l l y P e l a g i c / L i t t o r a l . As at DiSo 9,,Pelagic resources are not expected to be present. Summary These are the expected faunal assemblages given a continuation back through time of the ethnographic settlement and land use systems that pre- v a i l e d p r i o r to amalgamation of the Hesquiat l o c a l groups at Hesquiat V i l l a g e sometime i n the early 1800's. Generally, one would expect the widest range of resources and greatest emphasis on marine p e l a g i c and p e l a g i c l i t t o r a l resources at DiSo 1, with DiSo 9 and 16 e x h i b i t i n g s i m i l a r inner harbour assemblages, but with the DiSo 16 assemblage les s varied. One would expect a l l seasons to be represented at a l l s i t e s , although the more l i m i t e d the range of resources exploited the le s s l i k e l y i t i s that i t w i l l be possible to document a l l seasons. I t should be pointed out that 117 t h i s representation of a l l seasons i s a record of the seasons of e x p l o i t a t i o n , not n e c e s s a r i l y the seasons of occupation. Wherever a storage technology i s eit h e r known or l o g i c a l l y presumed to have been i n use, the season of oc- cupation must be distinguished from the season of e x p l o i t a t i o n of animal resources i n i n t e r p r e t i n g faunal assemblages. These faunal patterns should p e r s i s t f o r as long as the people occupying the s i t e s have had d i r e c t access to s i m i l a r l y r e s t r i c t e d t e r r i t o r i e s and have used the locations during the ,same.seasons. In summary, one would expect to f i n d a p a r t i c u l a r type of fauna at each s i t e , grouped by the types of habitats that they favour and p o s s i b l y , to a l e s s e r degree, by the seasons at which they are a v a i l a b l e . I f i t i s found that the archaeolo- g i c a l faunal assemblages from these s i t e s d i f f e r p r i m a r i l y i n habitat groupings of fauna, then one must conclude that d i f f e r e n t habitats are being exploited by the occupants of each s i t e . I f such i s the case, the best e x p l i c a t i o n of such a,pattern would seem to b e , c u l t u r a l l y defined t e r r i t o r i e s that associate r e s t r i c t e d resource e x p l o i t a t i o n t e r r i t o r i e s with each habitation l o c a t i o n . 118 Chapter IV S i t e Context of the Faunal Assemblages B i r d , f i s h , mammal and s h e l l f i s h remains were systematically c o l l e c t e d during the excavation of a l l s i t e s tested i n the seven years of archaeological f i e l d research undertaken as part of the Hesquiat Project. P a r t i a l samples from the excavated samples recovered from DiSo 1 and DiSo 9 and the f u l l sample from DiSo 16, completely excavated, are used here. The sampling and excavation methods by which the faunal samples were recovered varied s l i g h t l y from s i t e to s i t e , but adhered to three general objectives: the c o l l e c t i o n of an a r e a l l y representative sample; the maintenance of c u l t u r a l s t r a t i g r a p h i c provenience; and the c o l l e c t i o n of co n t r o l samples to ensure the i n t e r - s i t e comparability of Faunal data. SITE EXCAVATION METHODS, STRATIGRAPHY AND DATING DiSo 16 i s a small cave s i t e located at the head of Hesquiat Harbour approximately .4 kilometres east of the mouth of yaqsis stream and 1.1 k i l o - metres east of DiSo 9 (Fig. 13). The cave i s set back some 10 metres from the present shoreline and approximately 1.5 metres above present high high water l e v e l . In o u t l i n e the i n t e r i o r of the cave i s narrow and shallowly b i l o - bate at the back, with a maximum length of 3.5 metres and a maximum width of 2.8 metres (Fig. 15). The d r i p l i n e marking the entrance overhang angles back- wards from west to east so that there are only about f i v e square' metres of sheltered area within the cave. The habitation deposits reach a maximum thick- ness of one metre at the f r o n t of the cave. The cave f l o o r slopes unevenly upwards towards the back of the cave and the deposits here are correspondingly shallower. No c u l t u r a l deposits were located outside the cave although the slope i n f r o n t was sampled using a power auger. 119 Figure 15. S i t e Map of Yaksis Cave, DiSo 16. 120 ,The deposits at DiSo 16 were completely excavated within a l i n e at r i g h t angles to the western edge of the d r i p l i n e . A one metre square g r i d was de- fined i n s i d e the cave and deposits removed by trowelling i n alternate one metre square u n i t s , using a combined system of ten centimetre.arbitrary and c u l t u r a l l e v e l s . A l l material removed was dry screened through 1/4 inch mesh. A l l vertebrate remains uncovered during excavation or retained i n the screens were c o l l e c t e d f o r analysis. Representative samples of molluscan.remains were c o l l e c t e d , the d i f f e r e n t species being sampled according to t h e i r perceived r e l a t i v e frequency of occurrence i n the deposits. Matrix samples of the st r a t i g r a p h i c layers were c o l l e c t e d from the excavation unites during excava- t i o n . In addition, two 20 cm by 20 cm v e r t i c a l columns, one i n the c e n t r a l area of the cave and the other outside the d r i p l i n e , were c o l l e c t e d i n t o t a l by combined a r b i t r a r y and c u l t u r a l l e v e l s , f o r matrix a n a l y s i s . These also serve as con t r o l samples f o r the recovery of small faunal remains:and the subjective c o l l e c t i o n of molluscan remains. The c u l t u r a l deposits at DiSo 16 were excavated down to the cave f l o o r . The f u l l sample of faunal remains from eight 1 m by 1 m excavation units i s discussed here. The p h y s i c a l stratigraphy of the deposits i s r e l a t i v e l y simple but i s p a r t i a l l y complicated by the e f f e c t s of the angled d r i p l i n e (Fig. 16). In the areas immediately outside the d r i p l i n e , an un d i f f e r e n t i a t e d matrix of. dark, s l i g h t l y sandy s o i l high i n organic content and containing scattered charcoal, f i r e cracked rocks and very occasional pockets of s h e l l , extended from the surface to the cave f l o o r or to the noncultural sands and gravels f i l l i n g the uneven pockets of the cave f l o o r . In the center of the cave a complex of rock spread hearths was uncovered at 10 cm below the surface, extending down to 50 cm below the surface of the deposits. To the north and west of t h i s hearth complex are concentrated s h e l l lenses underlain by a dark, s l i g h t l y sandy s o i l and o v e r l a i n by a brown humus with scattered s h e l l remains. At the back G — beach pebbles , sand Eigure 16. East/West P r o f i l e at North 2.0 Metres, Yaksis Cave, DiSo 16. 122 of the cave i n the two small lobes, the concentrated s h e l l lenses l i e d i r e c t l y upon the noncultural sand and gravel deposits (Haggarty and Boehm 1974). Two wood charcoal samples from the s i t e , one associated with the hearth complex and the other from beneath i t , returned radiocarbon estimates of A.D. 1375 - 85 (1-8114) and A.D. 1265 - 80 (1-8113) re s p e c t i v e l y . See Table 9 for dendrochronologically corrected ranges for these estimates. The siz e of the cave, the depth of the c u l t u r a l deposits and t h e i r r e l a t i v e l y simple, continuous nature, and the two radiocarbon estimates, which could be estimates of the same date, a l l suggest that the deposits at DiSo 16 represent a sin g l e short term occupation. The faunal remains are considered a single assemblage representing a short period of occupation i n the 12th to 14th Centuries A.D. DiSo 9 i s a larger cave located immediately east of ma^api, the t r a d i - t i o n a l "winter" v i l l a g e of the ma?apiath l o c a l group, at the head of Hesquiat Harbour (Fig. 13). I t i s about 1.1 kilometres west of DiSo 16. Like DiSo 16, i t i s set back from the present shoreline and i s 4.2 metres above present high high water. The i n t e r i o r of the cave i s long and narrow, being about three metres at i t s widest poi n t and about twelve metres long. The roof of the cave i s low and extremely uneven. P r i o r to excavation,of the habit a t i o n deposits, i t was impossible to stand upright i n the cave, an obvious reason f o r i t s abandonment some time i n the eighth centuryA.D. Much l a t e r , prob- ably i n the 18th and 19th centuries A.D., the cave was again used, t h i s time as a r e s t i n g place f or the dead. The cave f l o o r slopes upwards towards the back of the cave, so that the e a r l i e s t occupation layers are th i c k e s t at the f r o n t of the cave, up to two metres deep, where, beyond the d r i p l i n e marking the cave entrance they become almost i n d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e from and grade i n t o the natural s o i l b u i l d up i n f r o n t t o f the cave. As at DiSo 16, power auger t e s t i n g of the slope i n front of the cave revealed no c u l t u r a l debris. 123 Table 9. Radiocarbon Estimates f o r Hesquiat Harbour Site s s * S i t e 14 Str a t . Lab. No. Age of Sample C Estimate Dendrochronology Unit Corrected range *** DiSo 16 DiSo 9 I I I II II II II 1-8113 1-8114 GaK-4395 1-8109 1-8111 WSU-1543 1-8110 WSU-1544 1-8112 685 - 80 575 - 85 1180. - 60 1200 - 85 1285 - 85 1740 - 60 1790 - 90 1800 - 70 1810 - 115 AD 1265 AD 1375 AD 770 AD 750 AD 665 AD 210 AD 160 AD 150 AD 140 AD 1355 AD 1420 AD 910 AD 915 AD 820 AD 380 AD 350 AD 290 AD 355 AD 1210 AD 1300 AD 730 AD 690 AD 620 AD 200 AD 140 AD 140 AD 95 DiSo 1 II WSU-2286 520 - 90 III WSU-2287 520 t 90 III WSU-2290 540 - 65 IV WSUir2291 780 - 90 IV WSU-1542 820 - 70 IV WSU-2288 1065 - 70 IV WSU-2289 1220 - 65 ? V/IV **GaK-4394 2430 - 200 AD 1430 AD 1430 AD 1410 AD 1230 AD 1130 AD 885 AD 730 480 BC AD 1440 AD 1440 AD 1420 AD 1330 AD 1240 AD 1020 AD 880~ 2 30 BC AD 1340 AD 1340 AD 1345 AD 1190 AD 1090 AD 860 AD 700 800 BC *Dates taken from Condrashoff and Abbott 19 78. •**This date i s seemingly u n r e l i a b l e . ***Ralph, Michael and Han 1973. 124 DiSo 9 was excavated i n 2 m by 1 m units aligned p a r a l l e l to the long axis of the cave (Fig. 17). A system of combined 5 cm a r b i t r a r y and c u l t u r a l l e v e l was used to remove the deposits and to record and c o l l e c t the data. The deposits were trowelled and dry screened through 2 mm mesh. In 1973 a l l vertebrate remains uncovered or retained i n the screens, and representative samples of molluscan remains, were c o l l e c t e d . In 1974 a l l vertebrate and a l l whole, umbo and spir e fragments of molluscan remains were retained. Matrix samples were c o l l e c t e d from each combined a r b i t r a r y and c u l t u r a l l e v e l during excavation and f i v e 20 cm by 20 cm columns randomly selected within 2 m seg- ments of the cave midline were c o l l e c t e d i n t o t a l a f t e r excavation f o r control matrix samples. Approximately f i f t y per cent of the deposits at DiSo 9 had been excavated by the end of the 1974 season, but the sample from only f i v e of the excavation u n i t s , 1, 2, 3, 8 and 10, i s reported on here. These f i v e units provide samples from the front, middle and back of the cave deposits and the midline area as well as that adjacent to the eastern cave w a l l . The p h y s i c a l stratigraphy of DiSo 9 i s both simple and complicated. In the f i e l d i t was possible to d i s t i n g u i s h v e r t i c a l l y 23 d i s t i n c t c u l t u r a l matrices that could be followed h o r i z o n t a l l y throughout the cave wherever they occurred. Thus i n two metres of v e r t i c a l deposit there i s very fi n e s t r a t i f i c a t i o n , but because of the l e v e l nature of t h e i r deposition these s t r a t a can be correlated h o r i z o n t a l l y from excavation u n i t to excavation u n i t throughout the area excavated. Inside the cave the c u l t u r a l deposits s i t d i r e c t l y on top of the cave f l o o r or the natural sands and gravels o r i g i n a l l y l a i d down by wave action (Fig. 18). The lowest c u l t u r a l l e v e l s at the front of the cave can best be characterized as black to brown s o i l with varying concentrations of sand and gravel, high carbon and ash content, and l i t t l e scattered s h e l l but a consid- 125 « Figure 17. Map of Loon Cave, DiSo 9 126 erable number of pockets of concentrated shellfish-remains. In these lower deposits almost the e n t i r e f r o n t and c e n t r a l area of the cave i s taken up by: a series of large structured hearths associated with extensive ash and char- coal deposits. At the back of the cave are concentrated s h e l l and sand de- pos i t s contemporary with the hearth structures. Scattered s h e l l content i n the front area increases towards the top of t h i s major s t r a t i g r a p h i c u n i t . Approximately one metre below the surface of the deposits there occurs a s t r a t i g r a p h i c d i s c o n t i n u i t y . I t i s marked by a l l a y e r of sand that caps the lower deposits, separating them from the upper c u l t u r a l layers. The sand' layer i s very thin, about one centimetre thick, at the f r o n t of the cave and contains very few faunal remains. I t gradually increases i n thickness and faunal content towards the back of the cave, where i t reaches a maximum thickness of 20 centimetres. In the p r o f i l e s , the capping e f f e c t of the sand layer i s c l e a r l y v i s i b l e , the sand f i l l i n g small depressions and holes i n the o r i g i n a l surface on which i t was deposited. Above the sand layer l i e s a s e r i e s of c u l t u r a l layers with varying cons centration of faunal remains, ash and charcoal, i n a dark and sometimes sandy s o i l . In t h i s upper zone the concentration of s h e l l i s v i s i b l y greater than i n the f r o n t and c e n t r a l portions of the lower u n i t . A s e r i e s of rock spread hearth complexes associated with ash spreads occurs i n the c e n t r a l and f r o n t a l portions of the cave i n t h i s s t r a t i g r a p h i c u n i t also and s h e l l concentration i s again heaviest towards the back of the cave. The upper surface of the deposits has been somewhat disturbed by the subsequent use of the cave as a' b u r i a l place and the top ten to twenty c e n t i - metres of the deposits contain fragments of cedar bark rope, matting, planks, h i s t o r i c a r t i f a c t s and a high concentration of decayed wood p a r t i c l e s from disintegrated b u r i a l boxes, a l l associated with the surface b u r i a l complex. 127 N 6M r! ^ R F A C E _ a : O F _ D £ p 0 s | T N 5M D- A-duff B-whole clam, mussed, brown soil C-black soil, ash, charcoal whole clam, mussel sea snail, hearth E- ash, sand, charcoal l=- yellow sand G- black soil, sand, V. gravel, shell black soil; sand, shell, charcoal j - sandy soil,ash, charcoal, low density shell sandy soil, carbon, K~ash, traces of shell l_-sand. 7 dam she 11 0 10 1 cm I 20 30 _I L_ 40 50 Figure 18. Typical North/South P r o f i l e , Loon Cave, DiSo 9. 128 There i s l i t t l e actual disturbance from digging or mixing of laye r s , rather materials o r i g i n a l l y l y i n g on the surface of the habi t a t i o n deposits have gradually f i l t e r e d down in t o the underlying layers. Seven radiocarbon estimates were obtained for DiSo 9. Three wood char- coal samples associated with rock spread hearths of the upper unit returned estimates of A.D. 750 - 85 (1-8108), A.D 770 - 60 (GaK-4395) and A.D. 665 - 85 (1-8111), while four wood charcoal samples associated with structured hearths from the lower u n i t returned estimates of A.D. 140 - 115 (1-8112), A.D. 160 - 90 (1-8110), A.D. 150 - 70 (WSU-1544) and A.D. 210 - 60 (WSU-1543). Dendrochronologically corrected ranges for these estimates are given i n Table 9. The p h y s i c a l stratigraphy and the radiocarbon estimates indicate that the deposits a t DiSo 9 should be considered as two s t r a t i g r a p h i c units represent- ing two periods of occupation, an early one i n the 2nd and 3rd Centuries A.D. and a l a t e r one i n the 7th and 8th Centuries A.D. The faunal remains are considered to be two assemblages r e s u l t i n g from these two occupations. DiSo 1 i s a large open midden s i t e located on a low sandstone b l u f f approximately 8 metres above mean sea l e v e l on the western shore of the harbour mouth (Fig. 13). The c u l t u r a l deposits are concentrated i n two areas: a high area approximately 40 m by more than 160 metres stretched along the top of the b l u f f ; and a shallow area to the east, at the bottom of the b l u f f , stretched atop the more recent beach deposits associated with the develop- ment of V i l l a g e Lake and now approximately 1.5 - 2.2 metres above high high water. Both areas were used h i s t o r i c a l l y , but the deposits of the low area are very shallow and appear to be e n t i r e l y h i s t o r i c , while those on top of the b l u f f reach a depth of about one and a h a l f metres, with h i s t o r i c over- l y i n g p r e h i s t o r i c deposits. Only material from the b l u f f area i s discussed here. 129 Atop the b l u f f , a 2 m by 2 m g r i d was established over an area 106 m long by 32 m to 44 m wide i n the ce n t r a l portion of the known extent of the midden deposits. Six units within t h i s g r i d were selected using a table of random numbers, and excavated. The faunal remains from two of these units, 12 and 18, plus remains from a:.third u n i t selected from the 1973 southward extension of the g r i d , u n i t B, are discussed here. Excavation Unit 12 i s 74 metres north of Excavation Unit 18, 86 metres north of Excavation Unit B and 10 metres west of the edge of the b l u f f . Excavation Units 18 and B are located 12 and 18 metres res p e c t i v e l y further back from the seaward edge of the midden than Excavation Unit 12, so that a reasonably wide area^is ~ sample'd by the three units (Fig. 19). Deposits werecexcavated by trowel i n combined 10 cm a r b i t r a r y and c u l t u r a l l e v e l s and dry screened through 1/4 inch mesh. A l l vertebrate remains un- covered or retained i n the screens were c o l l e c t e d f o r a n a l y s i s , and repre-s sentative samples of molluscan remains were retained. As excavation proceeded, deposit samples were obtained from each combined a r b i t r a r y and c u l t u r a l l e v e l f o r matrix analysis and a check on the recovery of small s i z e faunal remains. In the areas sampled by the three excavation u n i t s , the midden deposits range i n maximum depth from 1.1 m to 1,6 m. They overly g e o l o g i c a l deposits of hard packed sand, clay and gravel. S t r a t i g r a p h i c a l l y the c u l t u r a l deposits can be divided on the basis of matrix content and depositional processes i n t o four major s t r a t i g r a p h i c u n i t s , overlying the basal u n i t of natural o r i g i n . A l l four of the major c u l t u r a l s t r a t i g r a p h i c units are present i n each of the three units reported here (Fig. 20). St r a t i g r a p h i c Unit I, varying i n thickness from 3 to 40 cm, i s a layer of brown humus containing some s h e l l and f i r e cracked rock, and many h i s t o r i c a r t i f a c t s . Some areas of t h i s u n i t are considerably disturbed from the p l a n t - ing of vegetable gardens and h i s t o r i c b u i l d i n g a c t i v i t y . In E.U. 12 , 130 to Village Lake to the meadows excavation units 12 , t8 ,B extent of shell midden sample area 021 • buildings A - prehistoric and historic deposit on top of bluff B - historic deposit on recent beach deposits 40 _L 80 120 160 200 J I ! Figure 19. S i t e Map of Hesquiat V i l l a g e , DiSo 1. 131 S 147 M S 146 M brown soil, shell traces, — historic and disturbed -brown soil, scattered shell, some shell lenses 100 stratified brown soil, Q f^C- lenses of concentrated shell and fish bone dark brown soil,many D - f i re -c racked rocks, shell and bone pockets — dark brown so i l , many f ire-cracked rocks and pebbles, few scattered faunal remains p - g r e y sandy soil and gravel G—ye l l ow orange sand LIMIT OF E X C A V A T I O N 0 10 20 30 40 5.0 I ^ L J L I I 1 Figure 20. Typ i c a l DiSo 1 P r o f i l e , Abstracted from Excavation Unit B. 13 2 t h i s layer- i's. very disturbed--,-; containing a'post hole approximately 20 cm . i n diameter extending 75 cm down from the surface, and a p i t of approximately 80 cm diameter extending 85 cm down from the surface. The f i l l of these fea- tures i s mixed and homogeneous and obviously contains both h i s t o r i c a l and pre- h i s t o r i c a l material from various l e v e l s of the s i t e . The whole of t h i s s t r a t - igraphic u n i t i s considered b a s i c a l l y h i s t o r i c , but also disturbed. S t r a t i g r a p h i c Unit II i s a major u n i t of s t r a t i f i e d deposits of brown s o i l , s h e l l lenses and f i r e cracked rock, containing at l e a s t one sand p i t hearth feature. - I t varies i n thickness from 7 to 65 cm, and i n both E.U. 18 and E.U. 12, much of the u n i t has been truncated and removed by subsequent- occupational a c t i v i t i e s . In E.U. 18, the separation between the remnant of t h i s u n i t and the underlying deposits was not c l e a r l y perceived during exca- vation, thus E.U. 18 Unit II l e v e l s have had to be lumped with Unit I l e v e l s as disturbed. S t r a t i g r a p h i c Unit I I , then, only contains^faunal remains from Excavation Units 12 and B. A wood charcoal sample from the hearth feature returned a radiocarbon estimate of 520 - 90 B.P. (WSU-2 286). S t r a t i g r a p h i c Unit I I I i s a f i n e l y s t r a t i f i e d u n i t of Highly concentrated s h e l l l a y e r s , varying i n thickness from 3 to 70 cm. I t i s well represented i n E.U. B but i s discontinuous i n both E.U. 12 and E.U. 18. There are two radio- carbon estimates for t h i s unit, one of 520 - 90 B.P. (WSU-2 289) and one of 540 - 65 B.P. (WSU-2290). St r a t i g r a p h i c Unit IV i s a s t r a t i f i e d u n i t of brown sandy s o i l s with low density scattered s h e l l lenses and very heavy concentrations of f i r e cracked rocks. I t also contains varyingly concentrated lenses of vertebrate remains. In the E.U. 18 area, i t i s the bulk of the midden, being from 80 to 140 cm thick. In the other two units i t i s l e s s extensive, ranging from 20 to 65 cm i n thickness. Radiocarbon estimates on four wood charcoal samples from t h i s u n i t date i t to between 1200 and 700 years ago. These dates are somewhat con- fusing as two dates, one of 720 - 90 B,P. (WSU-2291X and one of 1065 - 70 B.P. 133 .(WSU-22 88) both come from middle layers of t h i s u n i t , while the other two, of 1220 - 65 B.P. (WSU-2289) and 820 - 70 B.P. (WSU-1542) both date the i n i t i a l occupation layer. A f i f t h estimate of 2430 - 200 (GaK-4394) on wood charcoal from near the contact of Units IV and V seems out of l i n e . S t r a t i g r a p h i c Unit IV o v e r l i e s the geological deposits. S t r a t i g r a p h i c Unit V i s the g e o l o g i c a l u n i t of semi-consolidated sands, clays, and gravels, a r b i t r a r i l y ended by the l i m i t of excavation. I t i s b a s i c a l l y s t e r i l e , but contains a few pockets of faunal remains that may be i n t r u s i v e from Unit IV. While these f i v e major s t r a t i g r a p h i c units are distinguished p a r t l y on s t r a t i g r a p h i c d i s c o n t i n u i t i e s , the depositional breaks are not associated with the development of s t e r i l e s o i l horizons. They probably r e f l e c t changing types and i n t e n s i t i e s of occupation, not abandonments and reoccupations of the whole s i t e . The s t r a t i g r a p h i c sequence i s interpreted as a r e l a t i v e l y continuous depo s i t i o n a l sequence e x h i b i t i n g changing patterns of s i t e usage through time. The p h y s i c a l stratigraphy of DiSo 1 indicates that the faunal remains should be considered f i v e separable assemblages, four c u l t u r a l and one b a s i c a l l y noncultural, within a single more or less continuous depositional sequence. The separation of the faunal remains by Major S t r a t i g r a p h i c Unit allows the examination of changes through time i n the faunal record of t h i s major midden s i t e . ASSOCIATED ARTIFACT ASSEMBLAGES The samples of p r e h i s t o r i c a r t i f a c t s from the excavation units that produced the faunal samples are small: 34 a r t i f a c t s from DiSo .16.; 172 from DiSo 9; and 282 from DiSo 1. Bone, a n t l e r , stone and s h e l l a r t i f a c t s were recovered. F u l l descriptions of the assemblages are s t i l l i n preparation, but the following b r i e f summary and Table 10 serve to demonstrate the r e l a t i v e s i m p l i c i t y of the 134 assemblages.. Figures 21 and 22 i l l u s t r a t e the a r t i f a c t c l a s s e s . Table 10 l i s t s the a r t i f a c t classes distinguished and i l l u s t r a t e s t h e i r d i s t r i b u t i o n and actual frequencies i n the s t r a t i g r a p h i c units used to group the faunal remains. A r t i f a c t classes are as defined i n M i t c h e l l (1971). Where they d i f f e r , they are b r i e f l y described at the end of Table 10. The general characters of a l l the assemblages are very s i m i l a r . Chipped stone objects are e i t h e r absent or extremely rare, and there i s no chipping d e t r i t u s . The few stone a r t i f a c t s other than abrasive stones, of which there are many, are manufactured by grinding techniques. There are no ground s l a t e points or knives. Instead there are ground C a l i f o r n i a Mussel s h e l l points and knives. Other ground stone a r t i f a c t s are c e l t s and fishhook shanks. The majority of the bone and an t l e r a r t i f a c t s are simple bone points or barbs of varying sizes and s t y l e s . Composite toggling harpoon heads are also present i n two s i z e s . Other a r t i f a c t s include needles, awls, u n i l a t e r a l l y barbed f i x e d points, b i p o i n t s , and the deer ulna tools ethnographically described as f i s h c u t t i n g knives. There i s support for t h i s f u n c t i o n a l i d e n t i - f i c a t i o n f o r the archaeological t o o l s as w e l l . Two of the deer ulna tools from the Hesquiat samples were recovered with f i s h scales adhering to the bone surfaces. Bone a r t i f a c t s are more common than a n t l e r a r t i f a c t s . The a r t i f a c t assemblages, then, are r e l a t i v e l y simple. In f a c t the s i m p l i c i t y of the assemblages suggests that they are remnants of material cultures that used many plant f i b r e s , which have not survived i n the archaeol- o g i c a l context, i n t h e i r manufactures. This suggestion i s supported by both ethnographic data and the archaeological evidence from the Hesquiat b u r i a l complex a r t i f a c t s , among which are many wooden items. 135 Table 10. D i s t r i b u t i o n of A r t i f a c t s by Major S t r a t i g r a p h i c Units Class DiSo 16 DiSo 9 DiSo 1 I II I II III IV V STONE Chippedostoneo- c Quartz flake/nodule 1 1 Chipped-slate k n i f e 1 Notched stone 1 Ground Stone Fishhook shank* 5 4 3 1 C e l t 2 Misc. ground stone objects 1 1 1 1 Pecked and Ground Stone Abrasive stones and slabs 5 8 13 27 8 16 62 BONE AND ANTLER Mammal bone needle 1 3 B i r d bone needle 2 3 1 Dogfish spine awl?* 1 B i r d bone awl, tiny 7 Blunt "awl" 1 Deer ulna t o o l 1 1 1 1 Pointed bone object 1 3 1 1 Bone wedge or c h i s e l b i t 1 1 2 B i r d bone handle?* 1 Sea mammal bone dagger?* 1 Polished porpoise auditory b u l l a 1 Ground carnivore tooth 1 U n i l a t e r a l l y barbed poi n t 1 2 1 Composite toggling harpoon valve 6 cm to 13 cm 1 5 2 3 2 2 Composite toggling harpoon valve 4 cm to < 6 cm 1 2 Wedge- or conical-based p o i n t <;5 cm 1 16 7 4 1 1 Misc. bone p o i n t 2 3 3 *Angled barb <3 cm 1 3 Angled barb 3 - <5 cm 1 1 7 3 Angled barb >5 cm 4 1 2 1 Str a i g h t barb <5 cm 6 19 5 3 1 Bone b i p o i n t < 7 cm 5 7 2 7 4 Point or barb fragments 9 20 6 18 2 4 3 Bipo i n t fragments 2 Misc. worked human bone 1 Misc. worked antler 3 1 Misc. worked sea mammal bone 4 1 9 3 3 10 Misc. worked land mammal bone 2 4 5 3 3 6 2 136 Table 10. (Continued) Class DiSo 16 DiSo 9 I II DiSo 1 I II III IV V SHELL Mussel s h e l l point Mussel s h e l l k nife Mussel s h e l l adze blade Mussel s h e l l knife/adze fragment S h e l l bead Dentalium Clam s h e l l scoop?* 1 1 2 1 2 1 1. i : 4 Totals 34 89 83 97 27 55 99 4 A r t i f a c t s of non-aboriginal manufacture were present i n the deposits of DiSo 1-1, probably i n t r u s i v e i n t o DiSo l - I I and DiSo l - I I I , and i n t r u s i v e from the surface b u r i a l complex i n DiSo 16 and DiSo 9-1. ^Ground stone fishhook shank: These are c y l i n d r i c a l stone shanks beveled or grooved a t one end to receive a bone barb and modified at the opposite end to provide an area for l i n e attachment (Fig. 21 b). *Dogfish spine awl?: This i s a dorsal f i n spine from a dogfish which i s extremely worn at the t i p . The wear i s uneven and seems more extensive than the usual wear, exhibited n a t u r a l l y by these spines, although i t may be j u s t an anomalously worn natural spine. *Bi r d bone handle?: This i s made from the r i g h t t i b i a of a Pelagic Cormorant (Phalacrocorax p e l a g i c u s ) . The long bone i s neatly ground o f f at r i g h t angles to the long axis of the shaft so that the proximal l/5th has been removed. The d i s t a l a r t i c u l a r surfaces are unmodified. The r e s u l t i s a n a t u r a l l y socketed shaft approximately 8 cm long with a s l i g h t l y curved 137 handle (Fig. 22 m). *Sea mammal bone dagger?: This i s a 29.5 cm long by 3.5 cm wide by 1.2 cm thick section of whale r i b with a sharply pointed end. I t would make a very • e f f i c i e n t dagger or bark peeler. *Angled barbs: These are bone barbs f o r fishhook shanks, of varying lengths as described (Fig. 22 o - r ) . The bases are shaped with one s t r a i g h t side and one ground smooth at a 10 to 20 degree angle to the long axis of the shaft. *Clam s h e l l scoop?: This may also be natural. I t i s a Basket Cockle s h e l l (Clinocardium n u t t a l l i i ) with a worn ventral edge that appears a r t i f i c i a l l y modified. As with the dogfish spine, however, i t may be nat u r a l l y worn. As the samples are very small, comparisons are made with reservations, but a few differences seem noteworthy. Ground stone fishhook shanks, although r e - covered from the b u r i a l complex assemblages at DiSo 9, only occur i n the habi t a t i o n deposits of DiSo 1, even though they are reported from Yuquot as early as 1,000 B.C. (Dewhirst 1978:12). U n i l a t e r a l l y barbed points, not present i n these samples at DiSo 9, and DiSo 16, are found i n other excavation u n i t samples at DiSo 9, while stone c e l t s , not present i n t h i s sample from DiSo 1, are s i m i l a r l y present i n other excavation u n i t samples at t h i s s i t e . Large toggle harpoon valves, ,like the fishhook shanks, are also found only i n the habi t a t i o n deposits of DiSo 1, although recovered with the b u r i a l complex at DiSo 9. These a r t i f a c t s are not present at Yuquot u n t i l a f t e r A.D. 800 (Dewhirst 1978:14). Bone b i p o i n t s , angled barbs and abrasive stones are a l l more common at.DiSo 1 i n th i s sample. Wedge- or conical-based points and s t r a i g h t barbs l e s s than 5 cm i n length, on the other hand, are more common at DiSo 9. The s h e l l beads and dentalium found at DiSo 9 and DiSo 16 are most probably i n t r u s i v e from the surface b u r i a l complexes at these s i t e s . 138 Figure 21. Stone and S h e l l A r t i f a c t Classes a. abrasive stone, DiSo 1 b. fishhook shank, DiSo 1 c. c e l t , DiSo 9 d. abrasive stone, DiSo 16 e. C a l i f o r n i a Mussel s h e l l adze blade, DiSo 9 f. C a l i f o r n i a Mussel s h e l l k n i f e , DiSo 9 139 Figure 22. Bone and Antler A r t i f a c t Classes a. deer ulna t o o l , DiSo 9 b. mammal bone needle, DiSo 9 c. b i r d bone awl, DiSo 9 d. misc. bone point, DiSo 9 e. conical-based bone point, DiSo f. conical-based bone point, DiSo g. wedge-based bone point, DiSo 9 h. s t r a i g h t barb<5 cm, DiSo 9 k. composite toggling harpoon valve 6 cm, DiSo 9 1. composite toggling harpoon valve >6 cm, DiSo 1 1 m. b i r d bone handle?, DiSo 16 9 n. s t r a i g h t barb 5 cm, DiSo 1 o. angled barb<3 cm, DiSo 16 p. angled barb 3-5 cm, DiSo 1 q,r. angled barbs>5 cm, DiSo 1 s. u n i l a t e r a l l y barbed bone point, DiSo 1 t . bone wedge or c h i s e l b i t , DiSo 1 140 These differences w i l l be discussed more f u l l y i n Chapter VI, but i t i s worth noting here that nearly every a r t i f a c t class found i n these Hesquiat samples i s present i n the Yuquot s i t e a t a comparable or e a r l i e r time period (Dewhirst 1978:8-17). The s i m i l a r i t y of the assemblages i s , as predicted by Dewhirst, quite remarkable. SUMMARY The faunal remains discussed i n t h i s study are considered to be eight d i s t i n c t assemblages from the s t r a t i g r a p h i c units defined as follows: DiSo 16 : dating to the 13th and 14th Centuries A.D. 2. DiSo 9-1 : the upper deposits and the sand layer at DiSo 9, dating to the 7th and 8th Centuries A.D. 3* DiSo 9-II : the lower deposits at DiSo 9, dating to the 2nd and 3rd Centuries A.D. 4 * DiSo 1-1 : the upper h i s t o r i c and disturbed layers at DiSo 1, dating p r i m a r i l y to the h i s t o r i c period from the lat e 1700's to the present. • DiSo l - I I : the upper, low density s h e l l layers at DiSo 1, dating to the 1400's A.D., representing the l a t t e r p a r t of the p r e h i s t o r i c record and comparable to the ethnographic "present".' 6. DiSo l - I I I : the heavy s h e l l layers at DiSo 1, also dated to the 1400's A.D. 7* DiSo 1-IV : the fi r e - c r a c k e d rock, cobble and faunal layers dated to between 700 A.D. and about 1250 A.D., (but possibly beginning as early as 400 B.C. i n some areas of the site?) ^- DiSo 1-V : the e s s e n t i a l l y s t e r i l e g e o l o g i c a l deposits underlying the c u l t u r a l midden deposits, containing a few faunal remains that may have originated from DiSo 1-IV. 141 The faunal assemblages•are associated with s i m i l a r a r t i f a c t assemblages d i f f e r i n g s l i g h t l y i n r e l a t i v e frequencies of p a r t i c u l a r a r t i f a c t classes, but obviously part of the same regional technological t r a d i t i o n . 142 Chapter V Faunal Assemblages The faunal assemblages of each of the three s i t e s include mammal, b i r d , f i s h and s h e l l f i s h remains. A t o t a l of 49,770 s k e l e t a l elements were re- covered from the three s i t e s and i d e n t i f i e d to Family or more s p e c i f i c taxa. Of these, 5,061 elements are mammal, 6,913 are b i r d and 37,796 are f i s h . 135,777.4 grams of s h e l l f i s h remains were retained f o r analysis. METHOD OF IDENTIFICATION A l l faunal remains were i d e n t i f i e d by the author or assistants t r a i n e d and supervised by the author. The comparative s k e l e t a l c o l l e c t i o n s i n the Vertebrate Zoology D i v i s i o n and the Archaeology D i v i s i o n of the B r i t i s h Columbia P r o v i n c i a l Museum, V i c t o r i a , were used f o r i d e n t i f i c a t i o n . Use was also made of the f i s h skeleton c o l l e c t i o n of the Zoology Department of the U niversity of B r i t i s h Columbia, Vancouver, and of the d e s c r i p t i v e i l S l u s t r a t e d key devised by Dr. N.J. Wilimovsky, I n s t i t u t e of Animal Resource Ecology at the University of B.C., and h i s students, during t h e i r i d e n t i f i c a - t i o n of the f i s h remains from the Yuquot excavations. No attempt was made to i d e n t i f y r i b s , rays and spines of f i s h other than the f i r s t interhaemal and f i r s t i n t e rneural spines and the dorsal spines of dogfish, r a t f i s h and skates. A l l elements of mammal remains were i d e n t i f i e d i f complete enough to r e t a i n c r i t i c a l morphological features. No attempt was made to i d e n t i f y b i r d r i b s . A l l s h e l l f i s h remains retained during excavation were analysed. Where there i s doubt, i d e n t i f i c a t i o n s are conservative. Four age categories are used for mammals, augmented where possible by more s p e c i f i c ages derived from patterns of dental eruption and wear or established ages of epiphyseal union. These four categories are: 143 1. Adult: element i s f u l l s i z e , with epiphyses f u l l y fused and a r t i c u l a r facets and muscle ridges developed. 2. Sub-Adult: element i s f u l l s i z e or nearly so, but ephiphyses are not f u l l y joined, a r t i c u l a r facets and muscle ridges developed. With sea mammals, the c r i t e r i o n of epiphyseal union i s l e s s u seful than for land mammals; as they r e t a i n unfused epiphyses of many elements well i n t o adulthood. Thus many sea mammal elements have had to be c l a s s i f i e d as either adult or sub-adult. The sub-adult category i s not used for rodents, raccoon or the small mustelids as i t i s roughly equivalent to the Juvenile category f o r these animals. 3. Juvenile: element i s l e s s than adult s i z e , s t i l l r e t a i n s the j u v e n i l e cortex, epiphyses are unfused, and muscle attachments s t i l l developing. The category roughly corresponds to animals i n t h e i r f i r s t year of l i f e . 4. New Born/Foetal: element i s of very small s i z e , morphological features and a r t i c u l a r surfaces s t i l l forming, juvenile cortex evident and epiphyses absent. The lack of comparative material, p a r t i c u l a r l y f o r sea mammals, of d e f i n i t e l y new born or d e f i n i t e l y f o e t a l ages has necessitated combining these age groupings. This i s e s p e c i a l l y so f o r sea mammals, as unlike most land mammals, they are precocious. The northern fur s e a l , for example, sheds i t s deciduous teeth i n utero. Sex d i s t i n c t i o n s f o r mammals are based p r i m a r i l y on well-established sexual dimorphism augmented where p o s s i b l e by d i r e c t evidence such as antl e r formation and baccula. No attempt was made to age or sex birds and f i s h . 144 METHODS OF QUANTIFICATION The faunal remains are q u a n t i f i e d using major s t r a t i g r a p h i c units (defined above Pages 130 to 131) as the u n i t of q u a n t i f i c a t i o n . S k e l e t a l element count and minimum number of ind i v i d u a l s represented (MNI) for vertebrates and weight of remains for s h e l l f i s h , are used as the units of measurement. The c a l c u l a ^ t i o n of s k e l e t a l element count i s conservative, i n that two non-overlapping fragments of the same element of a species, recovered from d i f f e r e n t l e v e l s within a major s t r a t i g r a p h i c u n i t , are considered to represent one element. Size, age and sex d i s t i n c t i o n s are taken i n t o account wherever po s s i b l e . For DiSo 9 and DiSo 16, MNI i s calculated on the t o t a l s i t e (DiSo 16) or major s t r a t i g r a p h i c u n i t (DiSo 9) sample for each distinguished taxon, d i s - regarding i n t r a - s i t e or i n t r a - u n i t h o r i z o n t a l and v e r t i c a l d i v i s i o n s . For DiSo 1, where widely separated, randomly selected units were excavated, MNI i s c a l c u l a t e d on the excavation u n i t major s t r a t i g r a p h i c u n i t sample for each distinguished taxon, with s i t e major s t r a t i g r a p h i c unit t o t a l s being the sum of i n d i v i d u a l excavation u n i t t o t a l s . V e r t i c a l i n t r a - s t r a t i g r a p h i c u n i t d i v i - sions are disregarded. As with element count, age,.-5sex, and siz e d i s t i n c t i o n s are taken i n t o account wherever p o s s i b l e . S h e l l f i s h remains are reported i n grams of remains by s i t e or major s t r a t i - graphic u n i t . This method of measurement has problems, over-representing the larger, heavier-shelled species, but as two d i f f e r e n t c o l l e c t i o n methods were used f or s h e l l f i s h remains i t was f e l t to be a more representative u n i t of measurement i n t h i s case than element count or MNI. DESCRIPTION AND COMPARISON Given the number of species i d e n t i f i e d , many of which are present i n 145 very low frequencies, a comparison of the faunal assemblages at the species l e v e l can be confusing. Comparison at the zo o l o g i c a l Family l e v e l serves to elucidate the major differences and s i m i l a r i t i e s among the eight assem- blages. The comparisons are presented i n bar graphs. Detailed discussions of each assemblage follow the general comparisons, but the s p e c i f i c data are re- ported i n Appendix A. Here, raw and r e l a t i v e frequencies of occurrence f o r each i d e n t i f i e d taxon of each faunal assemblage are presented i n tabular form. Only remains i d e n t i f i e d to species, genus or Family are included i n the t o t a l counts for percentage purposes, but less s p e c i f i c a l l y i d e n t i f i e d remains are also reported. Unless s p e c i f i c a l l y i d e n t i f i e d , cetacean and delphinid remains are not included i n the percentage counts, and although t e c h n i c a l l y a delphinid, the k i l l e r whale i s qu a n t i f i e d under cetacean because of the si z e of i t s e l e - ments. Both s k e l e t a l element count and MNI r e l a t i v e frequencies are reported i n Appendix A, but throughout Chapters V and VI element count alone i s generally ' used to compare assemblages. Where there are marked differences between the re s u l t s of these two methods of q u a n t i f i c a t i o n , t h i s i s noted. DiSo 16 Assemblages A t o t a l of 286 mammal, 516 b i r d and 3188 i d e n t i f i a b l e f i s h bones or bone fragments was recovered from the small cave DiSo 16. This i s an average of 831 bones or bone fragments larger than 6 mm per cubic metre of deposit, a high concentration of remains that probably r e f l e c t s the confined nature of the occupation and deposition area. A t o t a l representative sample weight of 5,338.2 grams of s h e l l f i s h remains were recovered. The remains were concen- trated i n the back and western ha l f of the cave and i n the upper f i f t y c e n t i - metres of deposit. DiSo 9 Assemblages A t o t a l count of 785 mammal, 2,626 b i r d and 19,285 i d e n t i f i a b l e f i s h 146 remains and 114,791.5 grams of s h e l l f i s h remains were c o l l e c t e d from excava- t i o n units 1, 2, 3, 8 and 10 at DiSo 9. This i s an average of 1,513 bones lar g e r than 2 mm per cubic metre of deposit, a very high concentration of faunal remains. Except f o r b i r d remains, the remains are f a i r l y equally divided between Str a t i g r a p h i c Units I and I I . Stratigraphic Unit;I: This u n i t contains 53 per cent of the mammal, 73 per cent of the b i r d and 43 per cent of the f i s h remains by bone count and 45 per cent of the s h e l l f i s h remains by weight. H o r i z o n t a l l y , these remains increase i n con- centration towards the back of the cave. St r a t i g r a p h i c Unit I I : This u n i t contains 47 per cent of the mammal remains, 27 per cent of the b i r d remains and 57 per cent of the f i s h remains by bone count, while 55 per cent of the s h e l l f i s h remains by weight are from t h i s u n i t . This seems anomalous as the front portions of these lower l e v e l s of the cave deposits are v i s u a l l y nearly s h e l l - f r e e , but r e s u l t s from the concentrated s h e l l lenses at the back of the cave i n these lay e r s . DiSo 1 Assemblages A t o t a l of 3,990 mammal(17 per cent), 3,772 bird(16 percent) and 15,323 i d e n t i f i a b l e fish(66 per cent) bones were.recovered from Excavation Units 12, 18 and B at DiSo 1, for a t o t a l vertebrate sample of 23,085 bones. This i s an average of 1,282 bones larger than 6 mm per cubic metre. The d i s t r i b u - t i o n of vertebrate fauna among the Major St r a t i g r a p h i c Units i s i l l u s t r a t e d i n Table 11. St r a t i g r a p h i c Units III and IV contained a greater proportion of the remains. As expected, Unit II contains a r e l a t i v e l y lower proportion of the remains, p a r t l y a r e s u l t of the small volume of deposit represented by t h i s u n i t . Unit V, being p r i m a r i l y non-cultural, contains a very small proportion of the t o t a l sample, and that p r i m a r i l y f i s h . The lower proportion of remains 147 Table 11. Percentage of Bone,by Str a t i g r a p h i c Unit of DiSo 1 and Type of Bone Stra t i g r a p h i c Taxa Units Mammal B i r d F i s h A l l Bone I 28 37 12 19 II 23 7 17 16 III 19 40 40 36 IV 30 15 25 24 V 1 1 6 5 N 3,990 3,772 15,325 23,085 A l l columns t o t a l 100% i n Unit I i s perhaps p a r t i a l l y explained by the nature of the deposits, h i s t o r i c and disturbed. In r e l a t i o n to sample size and d i s t r i b u t i o n , I Unit I contains a s u r p r i s i n g l y high proportion of the b i r d remains and Units I and II high proportions of the mammal remains, while Unit II con- tains a r e l a t i v e l y low proportion of the b i r d and III a low proportion of the mammal remains. 15,722.9 grams of s h e l l f i s h remains were retained f o r analysis from the three excavation u n i t s . S t r a t i g r a p h i c Unit I contained 10.7 percent, Unit II 2.2 percent. Unit III 61.2 percent, Unit IV 25.8 percent and Unit V 0.1 percent of the s h e l l f i s h remains by weight. The numbers of mammal, b i r d and f i s h bone elements and the weight of s h e l l f i s h remains recovered from each Stratigraphic Unit at DiSo 1 are i l l u s t r a t e d i n Table 12. 148 Table 12. Numbers of Bone Elements and Weights of S h e l l Recovered from S t r a t i g r a p h i c Units at DiSo 1 Str a t i g r a p h i c Weight of Mammal Bone B i r d Bone Fi s h Bone Total Bone Unit S h e l l I 1,681.5 g 1,117(26)* 1,386(32) 1,853(42) 4,356 II 342.1 897(24) 276(8) 2,527(68) 3,700 III 4,061.7 763(9) 1,516(18) 6,081(73) 8,360 IV 4,061.7 1,190(21) 565(10) 3,865(69) 5,620 V 9.7 23(2) 29(3) 947(95) 1,049 * Figures i n brackets are percentages of the t o t a l bone element count f o r the Str a t i g r a p h i c Unit Vertebrate Fauna In a l l assemblages, f i s h remains are the most frequently occurring vertebrate remains, varying from 42 percent to 95 percent of the vertebrate remains by element count. In the assemblages of DiSo 16, DiSo 9-1 and DiSo 9-II and DiSo 1-1, III and V, b i r d remains are more common than mammal remains by bone count, while i n assemblages DiSo l - I I and IV the reverse i s true. Table 13 presents these r e l a t i v e frequencies. Table 13. Percentage D i s t r i b u t i o n of Vertebrate Bone by Major Taxa, i n Site Assemblages Taxa Assemblage DiSo 16 DiSo 9 DiSo 1 i I II I II III IV V Mammal 7 4 3 26 24 9 21 2 B i r d 13 18 6 32 8 18 10 3 F i s h 80 78 91 42 68 73 69 95 N 3,990 10,703 11,993 4,355 3,700 8,360 5,620 1,049 A l l columns t o t a l 100% 149 Mammal Remains: A further breakdown of mammal remains into land and sea mammal, reveals that by both bone count and MNI, the DiSo 16 assemblage i s heavily weighted towards land mammal remains, while a l l DiSo 1 assemblages are equally heavily weighted towards sea mammal remains. Both DiSo 9 assemblages have a more equable s p l i t between land and sea mammals, with sea mammals s l i g h t l y predominant. Table 14 and 15 i l l u s t r a t e these patterns. Table 14. Relative Frequencies of Land and Sea Mammal Remains, A l l Assemblages, Bone Count Taxa Assemblages DiSo 16 DiSo 9 DiSo 1 I :. II I II III IV V 81 84 68 84 74 11 7 16 10 13 8 9 16 6 13 N 286 416 369 1117 8897 763 1190 23 A l l columns t o t a l 100% Sea Mammal 3 36 39 Land Mammal 97 41 32 Undetermined _ 2 3 2 g Mammal Table 15. Relative Frequencies of Land and Sea Mammal Remains, A l l A l l Assemblages, MNI Taxa Assemblages DiSo 16 DiSo 9 DiSo 1 I II I II III IV V Sea Mammal 11 58 70 72 70 83 84 75 Land Mammal 89 42 30 28 30 17 16 25 MNI 9 26 23. 39 23 47 57 4 A l l columns t o t a l 100% A S S E M B L A G E T A X A Columns t o t a l ,100% S k e l e t a l Element Count Figure 23. Relative Frequencies of Mammal Remains. 151 Figure 23 compares the mammal remains of a l l assemblages at the Family t'axonomie l e v e l . I t i s apparent that the major differences among the assemblages are the s h i f t s i n highest frequency from deer (Cervidae) and mustelids (Mustelidae) at DiSo 16 and DiSo 9-1 to the eared seals (Ottaridae) at DiSo 9-II and a l l DiSo 1 assemblages. This s h i f t i n focus from land to sea mammals i s a c t u a l l y sharper than i t looks, as the mustelids at DiSo 16 are River Otter while those of the other assemblages are p r i - marily Sea Otter. This s h i f t i s even more dramatically i l l u s t r a t e d i n Table 16, which includes n o n - s p e c i f i c a l l y i d e n t i f i e d whale and dolphin (Cetacea) and seals, sea l i o n s and/or sea o t t e r (Pinnepedia, Pinnepedia/ E_. l u t r i s ) remains i n the sample (see.also Tables 30-32, Appendix A). Table 16. Relative Frequencies of Mammal Remains Including Non-Specifically I d e n t i f i e d Sea Mammals, Bone Count, Taxa Assemblages DiSo 16 DiSo 9 DiSo 1 I II I II III IV V Shrews, Insectivora - - 1 - - - — — — Rodents, Rodentia - - • 1 1 1 - — - - Whales and Dol- c c 5 5 phin s, Cetacea 5 3 40 31 31 51 39 Seals and Sea Lions,Pinnepidia — 344 56 29 20 23 24 56 Small Sea Mammal, 8 1 23 44 24 9 Pinnepedia/E.lutris Carvinore s, ^ ̂ Carnivora 29 17 3 2 18 14 - Deer, 4 8 A r t i o d a c t y l a 22 23 5 4 5 3 6 N 133 172 181 492 413 417 848 18 A l l columns t o t a l 100% 152 The assemblages of the three s i t e s , then, are decidedly d i f f e r e n t each from the others i n the emphasis on sea mammals and land mammals. There i s a strong emphasis on a l l kinds of sea mammals i n a l l the DiSo 1 assemblages; a strong emphasis on seals and sea l i o n s (Pinnepedia) at DiSo 9 but l i t t l e emphasis on whales and dolphins (Cetacea); and very l i t t l e emphasis on sea mammals at DiSo 16. Emphases do d i f f e r among as- semblages of the same s i t e but major differences seem to be between s i t e s . DiSo 16: Of the 286 mammal bones recovered from DiSo 16, 99 (34.6 percent) were i d e n t i f i e d to species, 7 (2.4 percent) to order and 27 (9.4 percent) to probable species. 153 bone fragments (53.3 percent) were not iden- t i f i a b l e beyond the c l a s s i f i c a t i o n land mammal. 46.5 percent of the sample, then, was i d e n t i f i e d . Of the t o t a l sample, including both s p e c i f i - c a l l y i d e n t i f i e d and u n i d e n t i f i e d fragments, 97 percent by bone count and 89 percent by MNI are land mammal, 3 percent by bone count and 11 percent by MNI are sea mammal. Deer, River Otter and Mink and an u n i d e n t i f i e d whale species are present. Table 39, page 291r • Appendix A, presents the raw and r e l a t i v e frequencies by s k e l e t a l element count and MNI f o r : i d e n t i f i e d mammal remains. Of the two deer represented, one i s a large animal, probably male, the other a smaller animal more than 14 months o l d . The River Otters include one sub-adult, one juvenile, two very young juv e n i l e s and one'new born or f o e t a l animal. In addition, 27 bones or bone f r a g - ments of a very young juvenile and a new born or f o e t a l animal that are probably River Otter were recovered. A l l these bones could be par t of the p o s i t i v e l y i d e n t i f i e d i n d i v i d u a l o t t e r s . The single Mink i s an adult, probably male. Whale i s represented by s i x fragments of r i b and one miscellaneous fragment, a l l of which could be from the same i n d i v i d u a l . The s i x r i b fragments come from the same excavation u n i t within the top 10 centimeters of deposit. No other sea mammal remains were.recovered. The 153 fragments c l a s s i f i a b l e only to land mammal include fragments of long bone shaft, r i b , s k u l l , vertebrae and u n i d e n t i f i a b l e f r a g - ments. The majority are probably deer. Many of the long bone f r a g - ments are s p l i n t e r s d e x h i b i t i n g s p i r a l f r a c t u r e s . 153 The small sample of mammal remains suggests l i m i t e d use of land game resources and no use of sea mammal resources. The whale bone r i b fragments are more l i k e l y to be imported raw material than food refuse. The major mammal resource i s c l e a r l y deer. A l l species i d e n t i f i e d are today a v a i l - able i n the immediate s i t e area. DiSo 9pl: 416 mammal bone or bone fragments were recovered from t h i s upper s t r a t i g r a p h i c u n i t at DiSo 9. Of these, 139 bones (33.4 percent) repre- senting a t - l e a s t 25 i n d i v i d u a l s were i d e n t i f i e d to species or genus, 31 (7.5 percent) to family and two (1 percent) to order. The remaining 244 fragments (58.7 percent) were not i d e n t i f i a b l e with c e r t a i n t y beyond the c l a s s i f i c a t i o n sea, land or indeterminate mammal. Of the t o t a l sample, incl u d i n g both s p e c i f i c a l l y and not s p e c i f i c a l l y i d e n t i f i e d remains, 36 percent by count are sea mammal, 41 percent land mammal and 23 percent i n - determinate. Twelve species of mammal are present, plus u n s p e c i f i c a l l y i d e n t i f i e d whale, porpoise and pinniped remains. Table 43, Appendix A, presents these data by bone count and MNI. By both methods, Sea Otter i s the most frequently occurring species (29.5 percent/20 percent), followed c l o s e l y by Coast Deer (27.3 percent/16 percent). Harbour Seal and Northern Fur Seal are both also well represented, with Northern Fur Seal more strongly represented by MNI (10.8 percent/16 percent) and Harbour Seal by bone count (20.9 percent/12 percent). These four species together comprise 88.5 percent by bone count and 64 percent by MNI of the sample i d e n t i f i e d to species. A l l other species are much less strongly represented. 154 Of the i n d i v i d u a l Sea Otters, two are adult (one male and one female), one adult or sub-adult, and two juv e n i l e , one of these 5 to 6 months o l d . The Deer are one adult, two sub-adults of l e s s than 34 months and 12 to 14 months o l d and one juvenile of no more than 6 months o l d . Of the three Harbour Seals, two are adult (one male) and the t h i r d j u v e n i l e . One of the four Northern Fur Seals i s adult (male?), one a sub-adult male of 5 to 7 years, one a juv e n i l e (male) of about 13 weeks o l d and one newborn or f o e t a l . One of the two dogs(?) i s adult, one sub-adult, and the Mink and the Red S q u i r r e l are juvenile i n d i v i d u a l s . The River Otter i s an adult female and the C a l i f o r n i a Sea Lion an adult male. Both the Navigator Shrew and the Harbour Por- poise are adults. The i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of Black Bear i s uncertain, being based on a single d i s t a l p ortion of a r i g h t metacarpal or metatarsal. The major mammal resources i n t h i s assemblage, then, are Sea Otter, ; Deer, Harbour Seal and Northern Fur Seal, by bone count. DiSo 9-II: 369 mammal bones were recovered from the DiSo 9-II la y e r s . 169 bones 45.8 percent) representing a minimum of 22 i n d i v i d u a l s , were i d e n t i f i e d to species or genus, 9 (2.4 percent) to family and 3 ( II percent) to order. The remaining 188 fragments (50.9 percent) were not i d e n t i f i a b l e beyond land, sea or indeterminate mammal. Of both s p e c i f i c a l l y i d e n t i f i e d and n o n - s p e c i f i c a l l y i d e n t i f i e d remains, 144 bones (39 percent) are sea mammal, 117 (31.7 percent) land mammal and 108 (29.3 percent) indeterminate mammal. Nine species of mammal are present, plus u n s p e c i f i c a l l y i d e n t i f i e d whale, porpoise and pinneped remains (Table 47, Appendix A). Northern Fur Seal i s the most frequently occurring mammal, both by bone count, 85 bones (50.3 percent) and MNI, seven i n d i v i d u a l s (31.8 percent). Deer and Sea Otter are the next most frequently occurring species, with Deer more strongly represented by count (24.3 per cent/13.6 percent) and Sea Otter by MNI (15.9 percent/18.2 percent). Harbour Seal i s the only other mammal representing more than f i v e percent of the sample, with nine bones 155 (5.3 percent) representing two i n d i v i d u a l s (9.1 percent). A l l other species are l e s s than two percent by bone count. The cetaceans and delphinids are not strongly represented, although ei t h e r Harbour or Da l l ' s Porpoise was i d e n t i f i e d . Northern Fur Seal, Deer and Sea Otter together comprise 90.5 percent by bone count and 63.6 percent by MNI of the sp e c i - f i c a l l y i d e n t i f i e d sample. Of the 7 Northern Fur Seals, two are adults (one female, one male), one i s a sub-adult (male), one a juvenile and three are new born or f o e t a l . The two Harbour Seals are one adult and one sub-adult female. The four Sea Otters are two adults (one female?, one male?), one juve n i l e and one new born or f o e t a l . The sing l e Northern Sea Lion i s an adult female and the Raccoons are one adult and one juv e n i l e . Of the three Deer, two are adult (one.female?), and the t h i r d i s a sub-adult of no more than 29 months o l d . The Dog i s an adult. The main mammal resources for t h i s assemblage are Northern Fur Seal, Deer and Sea Otter. DiSo 1-1: Of the 1,117 mammal bones recovered from DiSo 1-1, 112 (10.0 percent) were i d e n t i f i e d to species or,genus and 380 (34 percent) to Order. A further 625 fragments (56 percent) were not c l a s s i f i a b l e beyond the cate- gories land, sea or indeterminate mammal. Of these, 94 (15 percent) are land mammal, 439 (70 percent) sea mammal and 92 (15 percent) mammal, general. Of the t o t a l sample, including both s p e c i f i c a l l y and not speci - f i c a l l y i d e n t i f i e d remains, 81 percent by bone count are sea mammal; 11 pe percent land mammal and 8 percent indeterminate. At l e a s t ten species of mammal are present, plus u n s p e c i f i c a l l y i d e n t i f i e d whale, porpoise and pinneped remains. Table 51, Appendix A, presents bone counts and MNI for these species. Northern Fur Seal remains are the most frequently occurring (34.9 percent/26.5). Deer (19.6 percent/ 156 8.8 percent), Harbour Seal (11.6 percent/11.8 percent) and Northern Sea Lion (11.6 percent/14.7 percent) are also strongly represented. Other species are present i n frequencies of l e s s than ten percent, most les s than two percent of the i d e n t i f i e d sample. Northern Fur Seal, Northern Sea Lion, Harbour Seal and Deer together comprise 77.6 percent by bone count and 61.8 percent by MNI of the i d e n t i f i e d sample. Of the nine Northern Fur Seals, three are adult females, one adult.male, two.sub-adult or adult males, and three ju v e n i l e s , at l e a s t one of.which i s male. The northern Sea Lions are two adult males, one sub-adult or adult male and two juve n i l e s . Of the two C a l i f o r n i a Sea Lions, one i s an adult male, the other a ju v e n i l e . The four Harbour Seals are three adults (at l e a s t one male) and a juvenile of undeter- mined sex. One of the Sea Otters i s adult, the.second juvenile and the t h i r d probably adult or sub-adult. The three Deer are one adult, one sub-adult and one eith e r adult or sub-adult. The two Black Bear are an adult and a sub-adult or adult, while the Dog? i s an adult, possibly female. The remaining i n d i v i d u a l s are ei t h e r adult or of undetermined age. In t h i s assemblage from DiSo 1 the most important mammal resources are Northern Fur Seal, Deer, Harbour Seal and Northern Sea Lion. Whale remains not s p e c i f i c a l l y i d e n t i f i e d , are also common. DiSo l - I I : Of the 897 mammal1bone and bone fragments recovered from DiSo l - I I , 104 (12 percent) were i d e n t i f i e d to species or genus and 309 (34 percent) to order. The remaining 484 fragments (54 percent) were not c l a s s i f i a b l e beyond the categories land, sea and undetermined mammal. Of these, 362 (75 percent) are sea mammal bone, 39 (8 percent) land mammal and 83 (17 percent) undetermined mammal. Of the t o t a l sample of 897 bones, 84 percent are sea mammal, 7 percent land mammal and nine percent undetermined Eight species of mammal are recorded f o r t h i s u n i t , with the 104 bones representing a minimum of 18 i n d i v i d u a l s (Table 55, Appendix A). 157 Unspecified whale, porpoise and pinniped remains are also present. Northern Fur Seal remains are by f a r the most frequently occurring elements (69.2 percent/33.3 percent). Deer i s the second most.frequently occurring mammal (14.1 percent/16.7 percent), while Harbour Seal, at 6.7 percent and 16.7 percent i s the only other species occurring i n bone count frequencies above f i v e percent. As the MNI t o t a l i s so low, these r e l a t i v e frequencies are d i s t o r t e d . Of the si x Northern Fur Seals, one i s an adult female, two are sub-adult or adult (one male and one female), one i s a sub-adult \. , f (Male?), one juvenile male, and one a new born or f o e t a l i n d i v i d u a l . The three Harbour Seals include an adult male, an adult or sub-adult and a juvenile of undetermined sex. Both the sing l e Northern Sea Lion and the si n g l e Sea Otter are adult males. The three Deer i n - clude one adult, one juvenile and one new born or f o e t a l i n d i v i d u a l s , a l l o f undetermined- sex. The Mink i s adult, the Black Bear sub-adult (male?) and the Dogs? a sub-adult and a newborn or ..foetal i n d i v i d u a l . Although not counted i n the MNI t o t a l s , one of the Delphinidae i s a juvenile animal. In t h i s small assemblage, Northern Fur Seal i s c l e a r l y the most impor- tant resource, with Deer and Harbour Seal also important. DiSo l - I I I : Of the 763 mammal bones or bone fragments recovered from DiSo 1-OJII, 178 (23.3.percent) were i d e n t i f i e d to genus or species, 239 (31.3 percent) to order and 346 (45.33 percent) to gross category only. Of the l a t t e r , 57 fragments (16.5 percent) are land mammal, 168 (49 percent) sea mammal and the remaining 121"fragments (35 percent) unspecified mammal. 67.8 percent of the t o t a l mammal sample i s sea mammal bone or bone fragment 16.4 percent land mammal and 15.9 percent unspecified mammal. Table 59 Appendix A, presents bone counts and MNI f o r the mammal remains. At l e a s t 41 i n d i v i d u a l s from nine species of mammal are represented. Northern Fur Seal and Harbour Seal are the two most frequently occurring 158 species, with the former comprising 17.4 percent by bone count or 26.8 percent by MNI and the l a t t e r 21.9 percent by bone count or 19.5 percent by MNI, of the i d e n t i f i e d sample. Sea Otter (14.0 percent/17.1 percent) and Deer (10.7 percent/12.2 percent) are also well represented. Although dog i s well represented by bone count (25.2 percent), the f o r t y - f i v e idenS t i f i e d elements are a l l from a single large i n d i v i d u a l . Northern Sea Lion, Mink, K i l l e r Whale and po s s i b l y Northern Elephant Seal are also present, although the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of the l a s t , based on a single phalanx, i s not p o s i t i v e . U n i d e n t i f i e d whale and porpoise and pinniped are also present. Of the element Northern Fur Seals, there are two adultsmales, two adult females, one adult or sub-adult of undetermined sex, one sub-a-;. adult male, one sub-adult or juvenile (male?), one juvenile male, two juveniles of undetermined sex, and one new born or f o e t a l animal. A l l three Northern Sea Lions are adult males. The two C a l i f o r n i a Sea Lions are a sub-adult and an i n d i v i d u a l of greater than juvenile age. The Northern Elephant Seal would be an adult (female?). Eight Harbour Seals include three adults, one male and two of undetermined sex, two sub-adults of undetermined sex and three juveniles of undeter- mined sex. The Sea Otters are three adults, one male, one female and one.of undetermined sex; two sub-adults of undetermined sex; two juve n i l e s , one male and the other of undetermined sex. The Deer include two adults, one sub-adult and one,juvenile, a l l of undetermined sex. The Dog i s a juvenile, the Canis sp. of undetermined sex and sub-adult age, and both the Mink and the K i l l e r Whale are adults. One of the u n i d e n t i f i e d Delphinidae i s a juv e n i l e . Northern Fur Seal, Harbour Seal, Sea Otter and Deer are again the most important mammal resources i n t h i s assemblage, disregarding the u n i d e n t i f i e d whale remains. DiSo 1-IV: 324 (27.2 percent) of the 1,190 mammal bones were i d e n t i f i e d to species or genus and 524 (44 percent) to order. An a d d i t i o n a l 342 (29 percent) fragments were c l a s s i f i e d only according to gross category. Of these, 40 (12 percent) are land mammal, 235 (69 percent) sea mammal and 67 (19 per- 159 cent) undetermined mammal. Of the t o t a l mammal samples of 1,190 bones and bone fragments, 83.9 percent are sea mammal, 10.4 percent are land mammal and 5.6 percent undetermined. Eight s p e c i f i c a l l y i d e n t i f i e d mammal species are present, the 324 bones representing at l e a s t 48 i n d i v i d u a l s (Table 63, Appendix A). Uniden- t i f i e d whale> porpoise and pinniped remains are also present. Northern Fur Seal i s the most frequently occurring species (26.5 percent/31.3 per- cent). Harbour Seal (20.4/18.8 percent), Sea Otter (17.0 percent/12.5 percent) and Dog (17.0 percent/6.3 percent) are also strongly represented. The f i f t e e n Northern Fur Seals include two adult males and three adult.females, two adult or sub-adult males and one adult or sub-adult female, one sub-adult male and one sub-adult female, one sub-adult or juvenile male and two sub-adults or juveniles of undetermined sex, and two juveniles, one possibly male. The Northern Sea Lions are two adult males, one adult or sub-adult male, and one adult or sub- adult female. The f i v e C a l i f o r n i a Sea Lions include two adult or sub-adult males, one sub-adult male and two juveniles of undetermined sex. Of the nine Harbour Seals, four are adult males and one an adult of undetermined sex, two are j u v e n i l e , one male, and two are new born or f o e t a l of undetermined sex. The s i x Sea Otters include two adult males, two adult or sub-adult males, one sub-adult or juvenile of undetermined sex, and one new born or f o e t a l of undetermined sex. The Deer are an adult male, three adults or sub-adults of undetermined sex and one juvenile of undetermined sex. The Dogs? include two juveniles and one sub-adult or adult, a l l of undetermined sex. The Black Bear i s an adult. DiSo 1-V: Only 2 (9 percent) of the 23 mammal bones recovered from DiSo 1-V were i d e n t i f i e d to species, one Northern Fur Seal and the other Deer. 16 bones (70 percent) were i d e n t i f i e d to order. Of these, s i x fragments are u n i d e n t i f i e d whale (Cetacea), 1 i s u n i d e n t i f i e d Porpoise (Delphinidae) and 9 are u n i d e n t i f i e d seal or sea l i o n (Pinnipedia). An ad d i t i o n a l 5 fragments (21 percent) were only c l a s s i f i a b l e as land- mammal (2 fragments) and undetermined mammal (3 fragments) (Table 67, Appendix A). 160 The Northern Fur Seal i s an adult of undetermined sex, the Deer a sub-adult, also of undetermined sex. Summary of Mammal Remains: . The mammal remains c l e a r l y separate the assemblages along s i t e l i n e s . A l l DiSo 1 assemblages are s i m i l a r and strongly weighted towards the sea mammals, emphasizing p a r t i c u l a r l y eared seals (Otaridae) and whales and porpoises (Cetacea), but also including the earless seals (Phocidae) and the Sea Otter (E. l u t r i s ) . The DiS© 16 assemblage i s d i s t i n c t l y d i f f e r e n t , being almost e x c l u s i v e l y deer (Cervidae) and mustelid (Mustelidae), with no eared or earless seals and no Sea Otter. The two DiSo 9 assemblages most c l o s e l y resemble each other, but d i f f e r a l s o . In the emphasis on eared and earless seals DiSo 9pII resembles the DiSo 1 assemblages but displays a stronger emphasis on land mammals, p a r t i c u l a r l y deer. DiSo 9-1 d i f f e r s from DiSo 9-II i n having a stronger emphasis on the mustelids ( (mostly Sea Ott e r ) , earless seals, and deer as contrasted to the eared seal s . Birds; As with the mammal remains, the b i r d remains from these Hesquiat Harbour assemblages tend to d i f f e r more markedly among s i t e s than within s i t e s . In many of the Families represented, frequency of occurrence groups the DiSo 1 assemblages together, c l e a r l y d i f f e r e n t i a t e d from the DiSo 16 assemblage, with DiSo 9 assemblages i n an intermediate p o s i t i o n , but with DiSo 9-1 tending to be more l i k e DiSo 16 and DiSo 9-II more l i k e the DiSo 1 assemblages. Although there i s more i n t r a - s i t e v a r i a t i o n at DiSo 1 i n the b i r d frequencies than i n the mammal frequencies, i t i s s t i l l l e s s than the i n t e r - s i t e v a r i a t i o n . A l l b i r d bone.identified was from adult A S S E M B L A G E T A X A L.06MS „ — ~ , Gavidae GREBes Podicipedidae DtSo16 D iSo 9 II D f So 1 II IV ALBATROSS Diomedeidae SHEARWATERS ProceHaridae CORMORANTS Phalacrocoracidae HERONS ._, Ardeidae SWANS Cygninae •fJlTSE Anserinae ° U *A na tinae /Ay t hynael Merginae EAGLEST.. Accipitndae COOTS . Rallidae OVSTER CATCHERS Haematppodrdae SANDPIPERS Scblopacidae PHALAROPES".. . Phalaropodidae JAEGERS/SKUAS Stercoraridae "6ULLS/TERNS Laridae MURRES Alcidae ]!53 Jtrigidae FLICKERS Picidae CROWS" Corvidae " T T M I S H E : THffliflafiL..-, , STORM PETRELS Hvdrobatidae FINCHES Fringillidae Misc. SMALL FOREST BIRDS 22 1 9 15 <1 <1 1 2 5 5 1 <1 k i 2 <1 14 6 4 25 4 6 I 2 8 18 9 N 2 0 6 8 1 0 3 0 0 4 2 5 1 0 0 6 8 5 2 8 2 11 Columns total.100% Skeletal Element Count Figure-24'.- Relative Frequencies of B i r d Remains. 162 animals and no medullary bone growth (Rick 1975; 1979:4) was noted i n broken elements. Figure 24 i l l u s t r a t e s the r e l a t i v e frequencies by s k e l e t a l element count f o r taxonomic Family groupings f o r a l l assemblages (See also Tables 33 and 34 i n Appendix A). The inter-assemblage differences are p a r t i c u l a r l y marked i n the Fam- i l i e s or sub-Families loons (Gavidae), grebes (Podicipedidae), albatrosses (Diomedeidae)., geese (Anserinae) , dabbling and d i v i n g ducks (Anatinae/ Aythynae), mergansers (Merginae) and murres (Alcidae). Differences are also apparent i n comparing the species frequencies i among the assemblages. These differences are discussed below with d e t a i l e d data presented i n Tables 40, 44, 48, 52, 56, 60, 64 and 68 i n Appendix A. DiSo 16: Of the 516 b i r d bones recovered from DiSo 16, 206 bones (39.9 percent) were i d e n t i f i e d to family, genus or species. A further 109 fragments (21.1 percent) were i d e n t i f i a b l e as to s k e l e t a l element, but were not suf- f i c i e n t l y complete to assign with confidence to meaningful taxonomic cate- gories. 201 fragments (39 percent) were not i d e n t i f i a b l e , being long bone shaft fragments, r i b s and miscellaneous fragments. The i d e n t i f i e d elements represent at l e a s t seventeen d i f f e r e n t species of loons, grebes, g u l l s , ducks, geese, the kittywake> the common murre, thrushes and finches. Loons, ducks and g u l l s are the most frequently occurring species i n the sample, together making up 89 percent by bone count and 77 percent by MNI of the i d e n t i f i e d sample. Ducks and.geese together make up 48.4 percent by bone count and 42.9 percent by MNI of the s p e c i f i c a l l y i d e n t i f i e d sample. Only 2 of these 100 bones are goose. Within the ducks (Anatidae), the mergansers (Merginae) are the most strongly represented, with 49 bones representing a minimum of 163 5 i n d i v i d u a l s comprising 23.8 percent of the t o t a l i d e n t i f i e d sample. Diving ducks (Aythynae) are well represented, p a r t i c u l a r l y by the scoters (Melanitta sp.), with 26 bones (13 percent) representing 7 i n d i v i d u a l s (19.5 percent), while dabbling ducks (Anatinae) are poorly represented by two s p e c i f i c a l l y i d e n t i f i e d bones. The strong representation of the . mergansers and scoters may be p a r t i a l l y accountable to the fa c t . t h a t t h e i r bones are more e a s i l y recognized, but even i f one assumes that a l l non- s p e c i f i c a l l y i d e n t i f i e d duck remains were from dabbling ducks, scoters and mergansers are s t i l l 80 percent of the duck sample. Mergansers along are 64 percent of the t o t a l duck sample. Loons are we l l represented, with 46 elements (22.3 percent) repre- senting s i x i n d i v i d u a l s (17.7 percent) recovered. Both A r c t i c and Red- throated Loon are present. Gulls (including the kittiwake) are also well represented, with 40 elements (19.3 percent) representing seven i n d i v i d u a l s (20 percent), while grebes are less common, with 14 elements (6.8 percent) representing at l e a s t four i n d i v i d u a l s (11.4 percent). The Common Murre i s present but not common, and the Varied Thrush and the u n i d e n t i f i e d f i n c h species probably represent residents of the s i t e area a c c i d e n t a l l y introduced to the c u l t u r a l sample. DiSo 9-1: Of the 1,925 b i r d bones recovered from the upper u n i t of DiSo 9, 810 (42 percent) were i d e n t i f i e d to species, genus of family, while 219 bones (11 percent) could be i d e n t i f i e d to element but not to a meaningful taxonomic category. A further 900 miscellaneous fragments (47 percent), mainly r i b s and long bone shaft s l i v e r s , could not be i d e n t i f i e d . The 810 bones i d e n t i f i e d are 78.percent of the i d e n t i f i a b l e sample and represent a minimum of 64 i n d i v i d u a l animals from at l e a s t 34 d i f f e r e n t species. 164 Ducks and geese (Anatidae), loons (Gavidae) and g u l l s (Laridae) are most strongly represented. Together, ducks and geese contribute 467 bones (57.7 percent) representing 29 i n d i v i d u a l s (45.4 percent) to the t o t a l sample. Of these, 71 bones (15 percent) are goose, p r i m a r i l y Canada Goose, 25 (5.4 percent) are merganser, ei t h e r Common or Red-breasted, and the remaining 369 (79 percent) are di v i n g or dabbling ducks. Of these, 161 (43.6 percent) are i d e n t i f i e d to species or genus, the majority (76 percent) being scoter. At l e a s t three species of g u l l are present, the Glaucous-winged, Heerman's and Bonaparte's. Most of the 74 g u l l bones i d e n t i f i a b l e only to genus are probably also Glaucous-winged g u l l . Gulls are 14.7 percent by bone count and 12.5 percent by MNI of the i d e n t i f i e d sample. A l l three species of loon are represented, the A r c t i c Loon e s p e c i a l l y strongly, com- p r i s i n g 12.8 percent by bone count and 12.5 percent by MNI of the sample. Grebes are well represented, p a r t i c u l a r l y the Red-necked Grebe, and the Sooty Shearwater i s also a frequently occurring species. A l l other species occur i n frequencies of less than two percent, most les s than one percent. DiSo 9-II: 701 b i r d bones were recovered from the lower u n i t at DiSo 9. Of these, 300 (42.7 percent) were i d e n t i f i e d to species, genus or family, 81 (11.6 percent) to s k e l e t a l element only and 320 (45.6 percent) were u n i d e n t i f i a b l e r i b s , long bone s l i v e r s and miscellaneous fragments. The 300 bones iden- t i f i e d are 79 percent of the i d e n t i f i a b l e sample and represent a minimum of 42 i n d i v i d u a l s from at l e a s t 24 d i f f e r e n t species. The loons (Gavidae), ducks and geese (Anatidae), cormorants ( (Phalacrocoracidae) and g u l l s (Laridae) are the most frequently occurring 165 groups. Grebes (Podicepedidae) and a l c i d s (Alcidae) are also w e l l repre- sented. Common, A r c t i c and Red-throated Loons represent 37 percent by bone count and 14.3 percent by MNI of the sample, with Red-throated Loon contributing most to the total(28.3 percent/7.1 percent). The Anatidae contribute 68 bones (22.6 percent) representing a t , l e a s t 9 i n d i v i d u a l s (21.4 percent) to the t o t a l sample. Few of these are speci - f i c a l l y i d e n t i f i e d , but Canada Goose and White-winged Scoter are the most frequently occurring of the remains i d e n t i f i e d to species. A l l three species of cormorant are present, together contributing 38 bones (12.7 percent) from at l e a s t 6 (14.3 percent) i n d i v i d u a l s . Brandt's Cormorant i s the most frequently occurring of the three species. Only Glaucous-winged G u l l was s p e c i f i c a l l y i d e n t i f i e d , but 24 bones (8 percent) representing at l e a s t f i v e i n d i v i d u a l s (11.9 percent) were i d e n t i f i e d at le a s t to g u l l . While grebes do not contribute greatly to the bone count, with four bones of Western Grebe, nine of Red-necked Grebe'and one of Eared Grebe forming 4.6 percent of the t o t a l count, by MNI they represent 11.9 percent of the sample, with Red-necked Grebe most prominent (7.1 percent). The Common Murre, a species of albatross (either Black-footed or Short- t a i l e d Albatross), the Sooty Shearwater are present at frequencies of more than two percent by eit h e r bone count or MNI. A l l other species are pre- sent at very low frequencies. Together, loons, ducks, geese, cormorants and g u l l s make up 80.6 percent by bone count and 66.7 percent by MNI of the sample. DiSo 1-1: Of the 1,385 b i r d bones recovered from the disturbed and h i s t o r i c layers of DiSo 1, 425 (30.6 percent) were i d e n t i f i e d to species, genus or family. A further 171 (12.3 percent) were i d e n t i f i e d to element but not 166 taxa, while the remaining 790 (57 percent) are u n i d e n t i f i a b l e fragments of long bone shafts, r i b s and miscellaneous fragments. The 425 bones iden- t i f i e d are 71 percent of the i d e n t i f i a b l e sample of 596 bones and represent a minimum of 72 i n d i v i d u a l s from at l e a s t 35 species. By bone count, albatross are by f a r the most frequently occurring species (at l e a s t two d i f f e r e n t species are present) with 205 bones (48.2 percent). This may be p a r t i a l l y a r e f l e c t i o n of the f a c t that even each phalanx of the Diomedeidae i s i d e n t i f i a b l e , thus b i a s i n g the bone count i n favour of the albatross to some extent, but t h i s does not explain the high frequencies at DiSo 1 and low frequencies at DiSo 9 and DiSo 16. By MNI Albatross are s t i l l important, ranking second, but the frequency i s considerably lower at 12.5 percent. Although only one skeleton of the Black-footed Albatross (Diomedea nigripes) was a v a i l a b l e f o r comparative purposes, i t appears that at l e a s t two species of albatross are represented, one of which may be the Black-footed while the other may be the Short- t a i l e d Albatross (Diomedea -albatrus). A proportion of the specimens are considerably larger and more robust than the others, and while t h i s might be sexual dimorphism, s l i g h t morphological differences suggest that more than one species i s involved. Without a more complete range of comparative material for study, the differences are impossible to evaluate at t h i s point. Geese (12.0 percent/15.3 percent), loons (8.9 percent/11.1 percent) and cormorants (8.9 percent/6.9 percent) are well represented by both bone count and MNI. Four d i f f e r e n t species of goose are present, Canada Goose, Brandt, White-fronted Goose and Snow Goose, and three species of loon, Common, A r c t i c and Red-throated are present. The A r c t i c Loon i s p a r t i c u - l a r l y well represented (4.9 percent/4.1 percent). A l l three species of cormorant are also present, with Pelagic strongly represented at 6.8 per- 167 cent by bone count. The grebes, g u l l s and a l c i d s are a l l well represented by MNI, l e s s so by bone count. Three species of grebe, four species of g u l l s p l u s the Black-legged Kittiwake, and three species of a l c i d are represented, with Common Murre, Glaucous-winged G u l l and Horned Grebe occurring most f r e - quently . Ducks are not as well represented (4.0 percent/6.9 percent) with only three species s p e c i f i c a l l y i d e n t i f i e d . Other birds occur i n frequencies of l e s s than one or two percent. DiSo l - I I : 100 (36 percent) of the 276 b i r d bones from DiSo l - I I were i d e n t i f i e d to species, genus or family. A further 35 fragments (13 percent) were i d e n t i f i e d to element but not species, while an a d d i t i o n a l 141 fragments (51 percent) are u n i d e n t i f i a b l e long bone shaft, r i b and miscellaneous fragments. The 100 bones i d e n t i f i e d are 74 percent of the i d e n t i f i a b l e sample, representing a minimum of 32 i n d i v i d u a l s from at l e a s t 23 species. By both bone count and MNI, Albatross (18 percent/9.4 percent) i s the most frequently occurring species. The Sooty Shearwater i s also a commonly occurring species (13.0 percent/6.3 percent). As groups, the geese, ducks, g u l l s and a l c i d s are also w e l l represented, although no one species i s p a r t i c u l a r l y prevalent. Neither the A r c t i c Loon nor the Red- necked Grebe are present i n t h i s u n i t and only the Brandt's Cormorant i s present. DiSo l - I I I : 1,516 b i r d bones and bone fragments were recovered from S t r a t i g r a p h i c Unit I I I . 685 (45.2 percent) were i d e n t i f i e d to species, genus or family. 168 130 (8.6 percent) were i d e n t i f i a b l e to element but not to a meaningful taxa with a v a i l a b l e comparative material and 701 (46.2 percent) were uniden- t i f i a b l e long bone shaft, r i b and miscellaneous fragments. The 685 bones i d e n t i f i e d are 84 percent of the i d e n t i f i a b l e sample. They represent a minimum of 75 i n d i v i d u a l s from at l e a s t 30 species. Albatross i s the most frequently occurring species, p a r t i c u l a r l y by bone count, with 438 elements (63.9 percent) from at l e a s t 14 (18.9 per- cent) i n d i v i d u a l s . The only other species occurring at a high frequency i s Glaucous-winged G u l l , with 71 bones (10.4 percent) from 11 (14.9 percent) i n d i v i d u a l s . As a group, the cormorants are quite strongly represented by bone count, but are more strongly represented by MNI, with MNI group f r e - quencies of 10.8 percent, 6.8 percent and 8.1 percent respectively. A l l other species are present i n frequencies of le s s than two percent by bone count. While not numerically s i g n i f i c a n t , shore b i r d s are more strongly represented i n t h i s u n i t . DiSo 1-IV: Of the 565 b i r d bones recovered, 282 (50 percent) were i d e n t i f i e d to species, genus or family, 92 (16 percent) to element but not to taxa, and 191 (34 percent) were u n i d e n t i f i a b l e r i b , long bone and shaft and miscellaneous fragments. 75 percent of the i d e n t i f i a b l e elements were i d e n t i f i e d . They represent a minimum of 72 i n d i v i d u a l s of at l e a s t 34 species. Sooty Shearwater (34.8 percent/13.9 percent), Canada Goose (19.1 percent/9.7 percent) and Common Murre (6.4 percent/6.9 percent) are the most frequently occurring species. As groups, the geese (26.6 percent/ 15.3 percent), shearwaters (24.5 percent/15.3 percent) ducks (13.4 percent/ 13.9 percent), g u l l s (8.5 percent/13.9 percent) and a l c i d s (7.4 percent/ 169 8.3 percent) are most common. Although not numerically important, Albatross, loons, Northern Fulmar, American Coot, Black Oystercatcher, Snowy Owl and Northwestern Crow are present. The i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of P i l e a t e d Woodpecker, although c e r t a i n l y possible f or the area, i s uncertain. DiSo 1-V: 11 (38 percent) of the 29 b i r d bones were i d e n t i f i e d to species, genus or family. Another 7 (24 percent) were i d e n t i f i e d only to element while the remaining 11 (38 percent) were u n i d e n t i f i a b l e fragments. The 11 iden- t i f i e d bones, from at l e a s t 5 i n d i v i d u a l s , are 61 percent of the i d e n t i f i - e able sample. White-fronted Goose, Shoveler, Bald Eagle and Western G u l l are a l l represented by.one bone and one i n d i v i d u a l each. Albatross i s represented by 5 bones and one i n d i v i d u a l . The r e l a t i v e frequencies are based on such small samples as to be meaningless. Summary of B i r d Remains: Although the large number of b i r d species represented i n the faunal remains suggests for a l l assemblages an extensive use of b i r d resources, emphasis on c e r t a i n groups are apparent f o r each assemblages. In the DiSo 16 assemblage the loons (Gavidae), dabbling and d i v i n g ducks (Anatinae/ Aytynae), mergansers (Merginae) and g u l l s (Laridae) are the most prevalent. In the DiSo 9-1 assemblage, the dabbling and d i v i n g ducks, loons, g u l l s and geese (Anserinae) predominate, while i n the DiSo 9-II assemblage i t i s the loons, cormorants (Phalacrocoracidae), dabbling and d i v i n g ducks and g u l l s . In the DiSo 1-1 assemblage the albatrosses (Diomedidae), geese and loons are the most frequently occurring groups. In DiSo l - I I , i t i s the shearwaters (ProceHaridae), albatrosses, geese, dabbling and d i v i n g ducks and g u l l s , and i n DiSo V, the albatrosses. 170 F i s h : As with the b i r d and mammal remains, the major differences among the f i s h faunal assemblages.group DiSo 16 and DiSo 9 together on the one hand and a l l DiSo 1 assemblages on the other. The main s h i f t s are higher f r e - quencies of herring (Clupeidae), salmon (Salmonidae) and toadfishes (Batrichoididae) i n the former and higher frequencies of a l l cartilagenous fi s h e s (Pleurotremata, Rajidae, Squalidae and Chimaeridae), true cods (Gadidae), r o c k f i s h (Scorpaenidae), greenlings and l i n g cod (Hexagrammidae) and sculpins (Cottidae) i n the l a t t e r . Figure 25 i l l u s t r a t e s the r e l a t i v e frequencies by s k e l e t a l element count f o r taxonomic Families of f i s h fauna f o r a l l assemblages. Detailed data are presented i n Tables 35 to 37, Appendix A. The differences among the DiSo 16 and DiSo 9-1 and DiSo 9-II assem- blages are perhaps more marked for f i s h than for other fauna. At DiSo 16 the toadfishes (Batrachoididae) e s p e c i a l l y , and the surfperches (Embioto- cidae) and r o c k f i s h (Scorpaenidae) are more frequently occurring, while i n the DiSo 9 assemblages herring (Clupeidae) and salmon (Salmonidae) are most frequently occurring. There i s also a d e f i n i t e s h i f t i n emphasis from DiSo 9-II to DiSo 9-1 from e a r l i e r high frequencies of herring and toadfishes to l a t e r high frequencies of herring and salmon. Within the DiSo 1 assemblages, DiSo l - I I I stands out as having higher frequencies of herring and salmon and lower frequencies of r o c k f i s h than the other DiSo 1 assemblages. I t should be remembered that the lower frequencies of herring at DiSo 16 and DiSo 1 may be p a r t i a l l y a t t r i b u t a b l e to sample recovery techniques. Because samples from DiSo 9 were recovered using 2 mm mesh screen, while those from DiSo 1 and DiSo 16 were recovered using 6 mm screening, T A X A SHARKS Pleurotremata D iSo 16 A S S E M B L A G E D t SI o 9 II D i S o 1 II III IV DOGFISH Sqaulidae SKATES Rajidae RATFISH Chimaeridae <1 <1 SKATE/DOGFISH / RATFISH HERRING Clupeidae SARDINE/ANCHOVY Engraulidae/'Osmeridaa SALMON Salmonidae TOADFISHES Batrachoididae CODS Gad idae SURF PERCHES Embiotoc'idae WOLF EEL Anarichadidae TUNA Scombridae ROCKFISHES Scorpaenidae SABLEFISH Anaplopomat idae GREENLING/LINGCOD Hexagrammidae SCULPIN Cottidae FLATFISH 8othidaq^>|eur0nectidae <1 k i a I 2 l<i 1 47 36 <1 <1 N 2 945 8,137 <1 <1 10,726 37 <1 I 1 22 1 <1 46 1.776 15 <1 <1 <1 17 16 10 <1 O 1 <1 30 18 10 <1 "<1 <1 12 2.497 5.987 10 *1 <1 <1 3 8 2 8 1 7 5 2 970 Columns t o t a l 100% Skel e t a l Element Count Figure 25. Relative Frequencies of Fis h Remains. 172 i t i s c e r t a i n that the smaller boned f i s h such as herring, anchovy and sardine are under represented i n the samples from the l a t t e r two s i t e s . Table 17 compares the recovery of herring bones from standard sized mat- r i x samples c o l l e c t e d from a l l s t r a t a of each s i t e , using 6 mm and 2 mm mesh. Assemblages DiSo 16, DiSo 1-IV and DiSo 1-V have a lower average frequency of herring bones i n the deposit samples than do assemblages DiSo 9-1 and DiSo 9-II. The l e v e l samples of these assemblages, then, are probably not too badly skewed, but may s t i l l underrepresent herring. Assemblages DiSo 1-1 and DiSo l - I I have an average frequency of herring bones comparable to the DiSo 9 assemblages. Herring are d e f i n i t e l y . b a d l y underrepresented i n the l e v e l samples from these assemblages. The most highly a f f e c t e d i s assemblage DiSo l - I I I which has an average frequency of herring bones i n deposit samples three times greater than the DiSo 9 assemblages. In the l e v e l samples from these deposits, herring i s ob- vi o u s l y grossly underrepresented. Because of t h i s biasing f a c t o r , the f i s h remains were also graphed excluding the very small boned f i s h e s , herring, anchovy and sardine, from the sample. Figure 26 presents these data. While intra-assemblage f r e - quencies are obviously affected, the dif f e r e n c e s i n r e l a t i v e frequencies are less important as f a r .as inter-assemblages comparisons are concerned, as the rank orders of importance f o r the d i f f e r e n t f a m i l i e s within as- semblages remains the same. In f a c t , the inter-assemblage differences are i n t e n s i f i e d . Of course, i f the matrix sample data are applicable to the l e v e l s i n t o t a l , then the projected r e l a t i v e frequencies of herring remains i n the DiSo 1 assemblages would make herring by f a r the most frequently occurring species, consequently decreasing the r e l a t i v e f r e - quencies of the currently predominant r o c k f i s h , greenlings and dogfish. 173 Table 17. Average Number of Herring Bones Recovered from Standard Size Matrix Samples Using 6 mm and 2 mm Mesh Screens X Number of X Number of % Frequency of Assemblage No. of Bones Recovered Bones Recovered Herring Bones i n Samples 6 mm Screen 2 mm Screen Level Samples DiSo 16 12 0.0 9.5 (0 - 32)* 6 DiSo 9-1 22 0.1 23.0 (0 - 113) 47 DiSo 9-II 41 0.0 20.0 (0.- 72) 52 DiSo 1-1 7 0.0 28.0 (2 - 81) 4 DiSo l - I I 9 0.0 29.0 (0 - 108) 4 DiSo l - I I I 17 0.7 60.0 (0 - 148) 16 DiSo 1-IV 23 < 0.1 6.5 (0 - 20) 2 DiSo 1-V 7 0.0 0.1 (0 - 1) 3 * Range fo r number of bones recovered : from the 2 mm mesh screen Thus the actual frequencies may not be as extremely d i f f e r e n t among assem- blages as the graphs (Fig. 25 and 26 ) would suggest, but the pattern of v a r i a t i o n remains. Individual assemblages are discussed below (See Tables 41, 45, 49, 53, 57, 61, 65 and 69 i n Appendix A). DiSo 16: Of the 3,188 i d e n t i f i a b l e f i s h bones from DiSo 16, 2,014 (94.5 per- cent) were i d e n t i f i e d to species, genus of family. The remaining 174 bones (5.5 percent) could not be i d e n t i f i e d with c e r t a i n t y using the a v a i l a b l e comparative c o l l e c t i o n s . Many of these are probably elements of surf perches and sculpins not represented i n the comparative c o l l e c t i o n , while others are of f i s h not represented i n the i d e n t i f i e d sample. T o t a l l y u n i d e n t i f i a b l e fragments, r i b s , f i n rays and spines were not counted, simply weighed. By weight, 63 percent of the t o t a l f i s h bone weight of 2,706.1 grams was i d e n t i f i e d . TAXA SHARKS Pleurotremata DOGFISH Squalidae SKATES Rafidae RATFISH Chimaeridae SKATE/DOGFISH RATFISH SALMON Salmonidae TOADFISHES Batrachoididae CODS Gadidae SURF PERCHES Embiotocidae WOLF EEL Anarhichadidae TUNA Scombridae ROCKFISHES Scorpaenidae SABLEFISH Anoplopomatidaoj GREENL1NG Hexagrammidae SCULPINS Cott idae FLATFISH B o t h i d a e / 4 . . DiSo 16 ^1 <1 8 67 AS SEMBLAGE DiSo 9 11 <1 <1 | 5 <1 3 1 2 II 10 <1 <1 10 DiSo 1 19 <1 <1 38 I I I 2 9 6 <1 II 23 6 <1 48 III <1 1 <1 <1 21 12 1 <1 2 1 3 5 21 IV 1 0 <1 <1 8 <1 <1 <1 11 2 <1 9 <1 <1 1 N 2,773 4 .334 5,168 j 1,710 2,405 5.053 3,75 945 Columns t o t a l 100% Skel e t a l Element Count Figure 26. Relative Frequencies of Fi s h Remains Excluding Herring, Anchovy and Sardine.- - 175 At l e a s t eighteen d i f f e r e n t species of f i s h are represented i n the sample, including cartilagenous f i s h e s , clupeids, salmonids, toad f i s h e s , surf perches, r o c k f i s h , hexa.grammids, sculpins and f l a t f i s h . A single species, the l i t t l e P'lainfin Midshipman, i s by f a r the most frequently occurring f i s h i n the sample, comprising 61.7 percent by bone count and 72.6 percent by MNI of the i d e n t i f i e d sample. Dogfish, salmon, herring and r o c k f i s h each comprise between f i v e and ten percent by bone count and/or MNI of the i d e n t i f i e d sample, while a l l other species are present i n f r e - quencies of l e s s than f i v e percent, most les s than one percent. DiSo 9-1: 8,166 (98 percent) of the 8,362 i d e n t i f i a b l e f i s h bones from t h i s s t r a t i g r a p h i c u n i t were i d e n t i f i e d to species, genus or family. The remaining 196 bones could not be i d e n t i f i e d with c e r t a i n t y . An a d d i t i o n a l 613.8 grams of r i b s , f i n rays and miscellaneous fragments also remains u n i d e n t i f i e d , forming 40 percent by weight of the recovered sample of 1,528.4 grams of bone. A minimum of 313 i n d i v i d u a l s from at l e a s t 22 d i f f e r e n t species are represented by the i d e n t i f i e d remains. Herring i s by f a r the most f r e - quently occurring species. I t i s represented by 3,795 elements and 132 i n d i v i d u a l s , forming 46.5 percent and 42.3 percent r e s p e c t i v e l y of the i d e n t i f i e d sample. Salmon are also well represented, a l l species together forming 35.7 percent by count and 26.9 percent by MNI. Except for the P l a i n f i n Midshipman, Dogfish, rockfishes and surf perches are the only other fishes occurring at more than one percent frequency. The Midshipman i s strongly represented by MNI at 13.5 percent, but by bone count i s only 4.5 percent. The d i f f e r e n t species are a l l represented by a wide range of s k e l e t a l elements inc l u d i n g both v e r t e b r a l and f a c i a l elements. 176 DiSo 9-II: 10,923 i d e n t i f i a b l e f i s h bones were recovered from the lower s t r a t i - graphic u n i t of DiSo 9. Of these, 10,760 (98.5 percent) were i d e n t i f i e d to species, genus or family. A further amount of 388.5 grams of r i b s , f i n rays, spines and miscellaneous fragments remain u n i d e n t i f i e d , repre- senting 33 percent by weight of the t o t a l recovered sample of 1,177.7 grams. A minimum of 331 i n d i v i d u a l s from at l e a s t 22 d i f f e r e n t species are represented by the i d e n t i f i e d sample. Herring, represented by 5,513 bones (51.2 percent) and 115 i n d i v i d u a l s (34.7 percent) i s by f a r the most frequently occurring species. P l a i n f i n Midshipman i s also well represented, with 2,313 bones (21.5 percent) and 100 i n d i v i d u a l s (30.2 percent). At l e a s t three species of salmon, Chum, Coho and Spring are present, and a l l salmon remains together number 1399 (13.2 percent) from at l e a s t 42 (12.4 percent) i n d i v i d u a l s . Apart from these, only Dogfish and a l l r o c k f i s h species together contribute more than four percent to the bone count. Together, Herring, Midshipman and salmon account f o r 86.2 percent by count and 77.5 percent by MNI of the i d e n t i f i e d f i s h sample. These species are a l l represented by a wide range of s k e l e t a l elements, including f a c i a l , appendicular and v e r t e b r a l elements. DiSo 1-1: 1,853 i d e n t i f i a b l e f i s h bones were recovered from t h i s s t r a t i g r a p h i c u n i t . Of these, 1,780 (96 percent) were i d e n t i f i e d to species, genus or family. The remaining 73 bones (4 percent) were i d e n t i f i a b l e to element but could not be i d e n t i f i e d with c e r t a i n t y using the a v a i l a b l e comparative m a t e r i a l . A f u r t h e r 335.1 grams of r i b s , f i n rays, spines and miscellaneous fragments were considered u n i d e n t i f i a b l e . This i s 35 percent of the t o t a l f i s h sample of 960.9 grams. A minimum of 142 177 i n d i v i d u a l s from at l e a s t 20 species are represented. Rockfish, Dogfish, greenlings, Lingcod and Cabezon are the most frequently occurring f i s h e s . Although s p e c i f i c a l l y i d e n t i f i e d r o c k f i s h are not so frequent, t h i s i s an e f f e c t of the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n process rather than the sample v a r i a t i o n . A l l r o c k f i s h taken together are repre- sented by 654 bones (36.7 percent) and 39 i n d i v i d u a l s (27.2 percent). Dogfish are p a r t i c u l a r l y strongly represented considering that only t h e i r v e r t e b r a l centra and dorsal spines are preserved, and consequently t h e i r elements have a smaller chance than other species of occurring i n the , j> sample to s t a r t with. Their 321 elements (18 percent) represent 31 i n d i - viduals (21.8 percent). Greenlings are well represented by each u n i t of measurement (17.3 percent/14.8 percent) while Lingcod are well represented by bone count (10.1 percent) but le s s well represented by MNI (5.6 percent). A l l other species are present i n frequencies of l e s s than f i v e percent. Rockfish, Dogfish, greenlings and Lingcod make up 82.1 percent by bone count and 69.6 percent by MNI of the i d e n t i f i e d sample. Eight shark vertebrae were recovered. Salmon are not well represented. DiSo l - I I : , I 2,527 i d e n t i f i a b l e f i s h bones were recovered from St r a t i g r a p h i c Unit I I . Of these, 2,509 (99.3 percent) were i d e n t i f i e d to species, genus or family. A further 18 bones (0.7 percent) were not i d e n t i f i e d , a l - though i d e n t i f i a b l e . 673.2 grams of r i b s , f i n rays and miscellaneous fragments comprising 40 percent of the t o t a l f i s h sample weight of 1,666.0 grams, were considered u n i d e n t i f i a b l e . At l e a s t 24 d i f f e r e n t species of f i s h are represented by a minimum of 134 i n d i v i d u a l s . Rockfish species are by f a r the most frequently occurring f i s h , t h e i r 1,142 elements (45.4 percent) representing 43 (32.0)percent) 178 i n d i v i d u a l s . Dogfish i s the only other species or group of species also strongly represented, with 545 elements (21.7 percent) from at l e a s t 28 i n d i v i d u a l s (20.9 percent). The only other species occurring i n f r e - quencies of more than two or three percent are Lingcod (7.9 percent/8.2 percent) and greenlings (6.7 percent/8.2 percent). Of note, though not numerically important, i s the presence of shark and B l u e f i n Tuna. The west coast of Vancouver Island would be the north of the Bluefin's range i n the summer time and one would not expect to f i n d them close to shore but well out to sea. Rockfish, Dogfish, greenlings and Lingcod account f o r 81.7 percent by bone count and 69.3 percent by MNI o f the i d e n t i f i e d sample. DiSo l - I I I : Of the 6,081 i d e n t i f i a b l e f i s h bones recovered from t h i s s t r a t i g r a p h i c u n i t 5,672 (98 percent) were i d e n t i f i e d to species, genus or family. A further 109 bones (2 percent) could not be i d e n t i f i e d with c e r t a i n t y , while 858.1 grams of r i b s , f i n rays, spines and miscellaneous fragments were considered u n i d e n t i f i a b l e . The i d e n t i f i a b l e sample i s 72 percent by weight of the t o t a l excavated f i s h sample weight of 3,087.8 grams. A minimum of 396 i n d i v i d u a l f i s h from at l e a s t 33 d i f f e r e n t species i s represented. Rockfish, Dogfish, Greenlings, Herring and Lingcod are the most frequently occurring species. By bone count, r o c k f i s h rank f i r s t (29.8 percent/13.8 percent), by MNI Herring rank f i r s t (15.6 percent/31.1 percent). A l l species of salmon combined are also quite strongly repre- sented (10.4 percent/2.8 percent). Although not numerically important, a wider range of cartilagenous f i s h e s other than Dogfish are present, 179 including shark, Ra t f i s h and two species of skate. Hake, Sardine and Wolf E e l are also present. Together, Dogfish, Herring, r o c k f i s h , green- l i n g s , Lingcod and salmon make up 91.2 percent by bone count and 82.1 percent by MNI of the i d e n t i f i e d sample. DiSo 1-IV: 3,835 (99 percent) of the 3,865 i d e n t i f i a b l e f i s h bones recovered were i d e n t i f i e d to species, genus or family. The remaining 30 elements were not i d e n t i f i e d . 847.2 grams of r i b s , f i n rays, spines and miscel- laneous fragments, 29 percent by weight of the t o t a l f i s h sample of 2,874.9 grams, were considered u n i d e n t i f i a b l e . The i d e n t i f i e d sample includes a minimum of 237 i n d i v i d u a l s from at l e a s t 27 species. Rockfish (62.8 percent/42.6 percent) are the most common group, incl u d i n g a t l e a s t s i x d i f f e r e n t species. Dogfish (9.8 percent/22.5 percent) and Lingcod (10.0 percent/8.3 percent) are also well represented. At l e a s t three species of salmon are present, together contributing 8.2 percent by bone count and 3.3 percent by MNI to the sample t o t a l s . A l - though not numerically important, Hake and B l u e f i n Tuna are present, plus a v a r i e t y of both the sculpins and the f l a t f i s h . Rockfish, Dogfish and > Lingcod together make up 82.6 percent by count and 74.4 percent by MNI of the i d e n t i f i e d sample. DiSo 1-V: Fi s h form by far.the l a r g e s t p o r t i o n of the vertebrate sample from t h i s u n i t . Of the 997 bones recovered, 969 (97 percent) were i d e n t i f i e d to species, genus or family, while 28 elements (3 percent) could not be i d e n t i f i e d . An a d d i t i o n a l weight of 275.8 grams of r i b s , spines and f i n s rays and miscellaneous fragments were considered u n i d e n t i f i a b l e . The 180 i d e n t i f i e d sample i s 62 percent by weight of the t o t a l f i s h sample of 718.6 grams. A minimum of 53 i n d i v i d u a l s from at l e a s t 23 species i s present. Rockfish (50.8 percent/28.3 percent) are the most frequently occurring group of f i s h , Dogfish (10.3 percent/22.6 percent) and Lingcod (11.1 percent/7.5 percent) the most frequently occurring i n d i v i d u a l species. Salmon are reasonably well represented (9.0 percent/3.8 percent), as are greenlings (5.5 percent/7.5 percent) and Cabezon (4.8 percent/3.8 percent). Summary of F i s h Remains: The f i s h remains c l e a r l y d i f f e r e n t i a t e the DiSo 1 assemblages from the other three, with r o c k f i s h (Scorpaenidae), greenlings and Lingcod (Hexagrammidae) and Dogfish (Squalidae) being the most frequently oc- curring Families. I t i s noteworthy that i n DiSo l - I I I there i s a higher frequency of herring remains than i n a l l the other DiSo 1 assemblages. At DiSo 16, the toadfishes (Batrachoididae) are by f a r the most predom- inant remains, while i n both DiSo 9 assemblages herring (Clupeidae) are predominant with salmon (Salmonidae) next i n importance, p a r t i c u l a r l y i n DiSo 9-1. The toadfishes are also strongly represented i n DiSo 9-II. Taking i n t o account the sample recovery f a c t o r s , i t should be considered that salmon and tpadfish are the most prevalent f a m i l i e s at DiSo 9, keeping i n mind that herring were probably the si n g l e most frequently occurring species i n a l l assemblages. S h e l l f i s h Because s h e l l f i s h remains were q u a n t i f i e d by weight of remains, problems a r i s e i n comparing assemblages at the taxonomic family l e v e l . The heavier species comprise such high proportions of the sample that 181 v a r i a t i o n s within f a m i l i e s of l i g h t e r shelled, smaller species are ob- scured. However, i t i s obvious that c e r t a i n f a m i l i e s are being much more heavily exploited than others. The high incidence of clam remains i n a l l assemblages i s a r e a l factor, not simply a sampling f a c t o r . Over t h i r t y species of.clams, mussels, sea s n a i l s , limpets, chitons and sea urchin were i d e n t i f i e d i n these assemblages. Relative frequen- cies by weight of remains f o r the Family taxonomic l e v e l , f o r a l l as- semblages, are.graphed i n Figure 27 (see also Table 38, Appendix A). Because of the disproportionate amount of weight represented by clam s h e l l s r e l a t i v e to other mollusc s h e l l s , inter-assemblage v a r i a t i o n i s l i m i t e d at t h i s l e v e l of c l a s s i f i c a i t o n . DiSo 16, DiSo 9-1 and DiSo 9-II show higher frequencies of dog winkles (Thaididae); DiSo 1-1 shows a much higher frequency of surf clams (Mactridae); and DiSo l - I I I displays higher frequencies than other DiSo 1 assemblages of mussels (Mytylidae), cockles (Cardidae), dogwinkles (Thaidae), and acorn barnacles, but a l l assemblages are heavily weighted towards the Venus clams (Veneridae). The l a s t family includes the species Native L i t t l e n e c k (Protothaca staminea) and Butter Clam (Saxidomus qiqanteus), ethnographically the major food clams. In a l l assemblages these two species together are by f a r the most frequently occurring s h e l l f i s h remains, varying from 46.4 percent to 82.3 percent of the remains by weight. The comparison of more i n c l u s i v e categories, also i n c l u d i n g non- s p e c i f i c a l l y i d e n t i f i e d remains, retains a s i m i l a r pattern. Clams are by f a r the most frequently occurring remains i n a l l assemblages, while mussels occur i n higher frequency i n DiSo l - I I I and sea s n a i l s i n lower frequencies i n DiSo 1-1 and DiSo 1-IV. A l l other groups occur i n f r e - quencies of le s s than one percent i n a l l assemblages. Table 18 presents these groupings. TAXA A S S E M B L A G E 1 V lae fsCALLOP Pectlnidae TTNGL£ $HKT Anomtidae COCKLE Cardidae VENUS CLAM Veneridae .F CLAM gctridae ELLIN Tellinidao SEMELE; emelidae ABALQNE Haliotidae PERIWINKLE Lttlorirndae HORN SHELL Cerithidae SLIPPER SHELL alyptaeldae SHELL Nactioae ROCK SHELL Muricidae T3Y£ S H E L L _Tnaididae wtero Buccinidae OLiVE. SHELL ivida l e TToTT Mopallidae CHITON , Cryptoplacidae ACORN BARN ACLE NACLE fEA^ URCHIN CRAB LAND SNAIL 2 <1 1 4 <1 <1 <1 <1 <fl <1 10 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 11 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 46 <1 h <i <i <i 30 WEIGHT in GRAMS 5,232.8 50,14 3.8 62.030.3 1.184.7 7,555 9 3,112. 0 9-7 Columns t o t a l 100% Weight of remains Figure 2f7. Relative Frequencies o f - S h e l l f i s h Remains. 183 Table 18. Major Groupings of S h e l l f i s h Remains Including N o n - s p e c i f i c a l l y I d e n t i f i e d Remains, Relative Frequencies by Weight i n Grams, A l l Assemblages Groupings Assemblages DiSo 16 DiSo 9 DiSo 1 I II • I II III IV V Mussels 3.0 6.8 5.3 4.0 4.4 12.4 4.8 1.0 Clams,Oysters, 80.1 77.9 81.8 94.0 79.3 70.9 93 .9 69.1 Scallops Sea Snails 16.4 12.5 10.9 1.2 15.8 12.0 0.9 29.9 Limpets 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.1 - 0.5 0.1 - Chitons 0.2 0.1 - 0.1 - 0.1 0.1 9 Barnacles 0.1 0.4 0.4 0.2 0.1 4 - 1 0.2 - Other 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.1 - U n i d e n t i f i e d 0.1 2.2 1.2 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 - S h e l l Weight ro CM 00 rH LO . CTl LO ro O oo ro (Ti rH 00 ro ro o LO rH CD O CTl LO rH LO CN >£> rH cn A l l Columns t o t a l 100% For the s h e l l f i s h , v a r i a t i o n s at the species l e v e l within major cate- gories are most revealing. These data f o r s p e c i f i c a l l y i d e n t i f i e d clams, mussels, sea s n a i l s and limpets are presented i n Tables 19, 20, 21 and 22. While the butter clam (Saxidomus giganteus) i s the most frequently occur- r i n g species of clam i n a l l the assemblages, the Native L i t t l e n e c k Clam (Protothaca staminea) has much higher frequencies i n the DiSo 16 and both DiSo 9 assemblages, while the Horse Clam (Tresus sp.) i s more abundant i n the DiSo 1 assemblages. 184 Table 19. Relative Frequencies by Weight of Remains within Major Classes, Clam/Oyster/Scallop Species Taxa Assemblage • DiSo 16 DiSo 9 DiSo 1 ,1 II ' ,1 < II . I l l IW Native L i t t l e n e c k , 36 34 29 7 9 18 13 - Protothaca staminea Butter Clam, 44 62 . 67 51 85 54 76 100 Saxidomus giganteus Horse Clam, 11 3 3 41 6 12 10 - Tresus sp. Basket Cockle, 9 1 1 1 1 16 1 - Clinocardium n u t t a l l i Purple-hinged Scallop, - - < 1 1 - <1 - - Hinnites multirugosus Rock Oyster, <1 <1 <1 - - - - - Pododesmus cepio Rose Pe t a l Semele, 1 - - - - - - - Semele rubropicta Sand Clam, • - - - - - 1 - - Macoma secta Bodega Clam, - - - - . - 1 - - Tel U n a bodegensis Weight i n Grams of A l l Clams ,1 74 .6  ,8 63 .2  ,3 14 .9  ,0 90 .7  22 8. 6 ,8 68 .0  ,8 73 .7  a\ cn i—i if) H CN A l l columns t o t a l 100% I n a a l l the assemblages, the C a l i f o r n i a Mussel, Mytilus c a l i f o r n i a n u s , i s by f a r the most frequently occurring mussel species. I t i s only i n the DiSo 16 and DiSo 9 assemblages, however, that the Bay Mussel, Mytilus e d u l i s , occurs i n r e l a t i v e l y high frequencies. At DiSo 1 i t i s e i t h e r absent or l e s s than one percent by weight. The DiSo 1-V sample i s too small to be meaningful (Table 20). 185 Table 20. Relative Frequencies by Weight of Remains within Major Class, Mussel species Taxa Assemblages DiSo 16 DiSo 9 - DiSo 1 I II I II III IV V C a l i f o r n i a Mussel, 63 64 89 100 100 99 100 Mytilus c a l i f o r n i a n u s Bay Mussel, 37 36 11 - - 1 100 Mytilus edulis in r> r~ CTI i—I CN o Weight m Grams . . ; of a l l Mussel LO O m <s> rH \s CTI rH Lf) n rH- rH A l l columns t o t a l 100% Among the sea s n a i l remains, there i s a c l e a r d i f f e r e n c e between the DiSo 16 and the DiSo 9 assemblages on the one hand, and the DiSo 1 as- semblages on the other (Table 21). In the former assemblages, the F r i l l e d Dogwinkle,(Thais lamellosa) i s by f a r the most frequently occurring species, while i n the l a t t e r there i s a much higher incidence of the Black Turban (Tegula f u n e b r a l i s ) . The assemblage DiSo l - I I I , however, unlike the other DiSo 1 assemblages, has a very high frequency of F r i l l e d Dogwinkles. The Red Turban,(Astraea gibberosa) occurs only i n the DiSo 9 assemblages. Differences among the assemblages are also apparent i n the Limpet species frequencies (Table 22). Except i n DiSo l - I I I , limpets are e i t h e r absent from the DiSo 1 samples or present i n very low frequencies. At DiSo l - I I I , the most commonly occurring species i s Mask Limpet (Acmaea persona) with the Plate Limpet (A. t. scutum), also well represented. At DiSo 16, the Shi e l d Limpet (Acmaea pelta) forms 85% of the sample, while at both DiSo 9 assemblages the Mask Limpet comprises more.than 80 percent of the sample. 186 Table 21. Relative Frequencies by Weight of Remains within Major Class, Sea S n a i l Specie's • Assemblages Taxa DiSo 16 DiSo 9 I II DiSo 1 II III IV V V F r i l l e d Dog Winkle Thais lamellosa 83 80 94 51 5 97 16 Emarginate Winkle T. emarginata ^1 <c"l ^1 F i l e Dogwinkle T. lima < 1 Channeled Dogwinkle T. c a n a l i c u l a t a Black Turban Tegula funebralis 46 56 1 84 100 Dire Whelk Se a r l e s i a d i r a 1 1 Leafy Hornmouth Ceratastoma f o l i a t a Lewis' Moon S n a i l Polynices l e w i s i i 12 39 Purple Olive O l i v e l l a b i p l i c a t a Eschricht's Bittium Bittium e s c h r i c h t i Periwinkle L i t t o r i n a sp. Rock S h e l l Ocenebra sp. Red Turban Astraea gibberosa 12 m IT) i n ro CN n 0~\ rH O CN IT. CM Weight i n Grams of a l l 03 00 CM IT) m rH Sea S n a i l IS \D rH A l l columns t o t a l 100% 187 Table 22. Relative Frequencies by Weight of Remains within Major Class, Limpet Species Taxa Assemblages DiSo 16 I DiSo 9 II DiSo 1 I II III IV V Shield Limpet Acmaea p e l t a 85 3 7 - - 9 - Finger Limpet A. d i g i t a l i s 5 4 7 - - 1 — — Mask Limpet A. persona 10 93 86 - 64 100 Plate Limpet A. t e s t u d i n a l i s scutum 1 - 25 Weight i n Grams of a l l Limpet Remains 4.1 91.9 241.0 0.0 0.0 36.2 ,0.4 0.0 A l l columns t o t a l 100% The r e l a t i v e frequencies by weight of remains for a l l species i d e n t i - f i e d i n each assemblage are given i n Tables 42, 46, 50, 54, 58, 62, 66 and 70 i n Appendix A. The i n d i v i d u a l assemblages are discussed below i n d e t a i l . DiSo 16: Of the 5,338.2 grams of s h e l l f i s h remains retained f o r analysis from DiSo 16, 5,232.8 grams (98 percent) were i d e n t i f i e d . At l e a s t 21 d i f f e r e n t species of bivalve and univalve molluscs, barnacles, chitons and crab are present. Clams are the most frequently occurring s h e l l f i s h remains by weight (79.8 percent). Sea s n a i l s are the next most prevalent category (16.9 percent). Mussels are poorly represented (3 percent), while a l l other types of remains each contribute l e s s than one percent of the iden- t i f i e d sample weight. Only four species of clams and the F r i l l e d Dogwinkle 188 occur i n r e l a t i v e l y high concentrations. Native L i t t l e n e c k and Butter clams together comprise 63.9 percent of the sample, while F r i l l e d Dogwinkle comprises 14 percent and Basket Cockle and Horse Clam are also well represented. A l l other species occur at frequencies of l e s s than two percent of the sample weight. Among the clams, Native L i t t l e n e c k and Butter Clam are the most frequently occurring species, together comprising 80.0 percent of the clam sample. Among limpets, the Shield Limpet occurs most frequently, 85.4 percent, while the C a l i f o r n i a Mussel i s more common than the Bay r Mussel at 63.4 percent, and the F r i l l e d Dogwinkle i s by f a r the most frequently occurring sea s n a i l at 83.3 percent. None of the barnacle was s p e c i f i c a l l y i d e n t i f i e d . A l l species except t h e . C a l i f o r n i a Mussel and p o s s i b l y the Northern Abalone, the Rose-petal Semele and the Leafy Hornmouth can today be found i n the immediate v i c i n i t y of the s i t e and a l l species are present i n Hesquiat Harbour today. DiSo 9-1: 51,856.6 grams of s h e l l f i s h remains were retained f o r analysis from , t h i s s t r a t i g r a p h i c u n i t . Of these, 50,143.8 grams (96.7 percent) were i d e n t i f i e d to species or genus, representing at l e a s t 26 species of bivalve and univalve molluscs, barnacles, chitons, crab and land s n a i l . (Table 46 presents these data). Clams (here i n c l u d i n g oysters and scallops) are the most.frequently occurring remains, forming 79.5 percent by weight of the i d e n t i f i e d sample. Sea s n a i l s comprise 12.8 percent and mussels 7.0 percent. A l l other groupings are l e s s than one percent by weight of the sample. Only two clam species, Native L i t t l e n e c k and Butter Clam, and one sea s n a i l , the F r i l l e d Dogwinkle, are present i n quantity, with 189 the two clam species alone comprising 76.1 percent of the t o t a l sample weight. Within major categories, Butter Clam i s the most frequently occurring species at 61.7 percent of a l l clam remains, followed by Native L i t t l e n e c k at 34.1 percent. C a l i f o r n i a Mussel comprises 64.5 percent of a l l mussel remains, while the Mask Limpet i s 92.9 percent of a l l limpets and the P r i l l e d Dogwinkle i s 79.9 percent, followed by the Red Turban at 11.9 percent, of the sea s n a i l sample. Balanus cariosus i s the only s p e c i f i - c a l l y i d e n t i f i e d barnacle. Although chitons are not numerically abundant, three d i f f e r e n t species are represented. A l l the species except the C a l i f o r n i a Mussel are probably a v a i l a b l e i n the immediate s i t e area today, although d i r e c t observations of l i v i n g Red Turban and Eschricht's Bittium are lack i n g . A l l species are c e r t a i n l y a v a i l a b l e i n Hesquiat Harbour. DiSo 9-II: 62,934.9 grams of s h e l l f i s h remains were retained for analysis from t h i s u n i t . Of t h i s sample, 62,030.3 grams were i d e n t i f i e d , representing 21 species of bivalve and univalve molluscs, barnacles, and crab (Table \ 50 presents these data). Clams are the most frequently occurring group (82.7 percent). Sea s n a i l s are well represented (11.2 percent), mussels l e s s frequently oc- cur r i n g (5.4 percent). Limpets, barnacles and crab are poorly represented (0.3 percent, 0.4 percent and 0.1 percent r e s p e c t i v e l y ) . Only Butter Clam, Native L i t t l e n e c k and the F r i l l e d Dogwinkle occur i n quantity (23.9 percent, 55.7 percent and 10.5 percent r e s p e c t i v e l y ) , together comprising 90.1 percent of the remains by weight. While not numerically abundant, the Red Turban sea s n a i l occurs only i n DiSo 9 deposits. 190 Within, major groupings, Butter Clam i s the most frequently occurring clam species at 67.4 percent of a l l clam remains, with Native L i t t l e n e c k next at 28.9 percent. C a l i f o r n i a Mussel represents 89ol percent of a l l mussel, the Mask Limpet 85.8 percent of a l l limpets and the F r i l l e d Dog- winkle 94.0 percent of a l l sea s n a i l s . Balanus cariosus i s the only s p e c i - f i c a l l y i d e n t i f i e d barnacle. DiSo l - I : A t o t a l weight of 1,681.5 grams of s h e l l f i s h remains was retained f o r analysis from DiSo l - I l a y e r s . Of t h i s , 1,184.7 grams (70.5 percent) were i d e n t i f i e d to species or genus. An a d d i t i o n a l 494.9 grams were i d e n t i f i e d to cla s s and the remaining 1.9 grams were considered u n i d e n t i - f i a b l e (Table 54 presents these data). Clams i d e n t i f i e d to species comprise 91.1 percent of the sample. Mussels contribute another 5.7 percent, while a l l other taxa are one per- cent or les s of the i d e n t i f i e d sample. Butter clam and Horse Clam (T_. capax and T_. n u t t a l l i combined) are the most frequently occurring species, with Native L i t t l e n e c k being much l e s s abundant. Butter Clam i s 50.7 percent of the clam weight, with Horse Clam 40.5 percent. A l l the mussel i s C a l i f o r n i a Mussel, while F r i l l e d Dog- winkle at 51.2 percent and Black Turban at 45.8 percent are the most frequently occurring of a l l sea s n a i l s . There are no s p e c i f i c a l l y iden- t i f i e d limpets or barnacles. DiSo l - I I : A t o t a l weight of 343.1 grams of s h e l l f i s h remains was recovered from t h i s s t r a t i g r a p h i c u n i t . Of t h i s , 296.6 grams (86 percent) were i d e n t i f i e d to species or genus, 45.7 grams (13 percent) to major cla s s 191 and 0.8 grams (1 percent) were considered u n i d e n t i f i a b l e . The 296.6 grams i d e n t i f i e d include ten d i f f e r e n t species of bivalve and univalve molluscs and echinoderms. Barnacles are represented i n the n o n - s p e c i f i - c a l l y i d e n t i f i e d sample. Clam i s 76.9 percent of the i d e n t i f i e d sample, mussel 5.1 percent, sea s n a i l 17.6 percent, and sea urchin 0.2 percent (Table 58). Butter Clam i s the most frequently occurring species, providing 65.5 percent of the i d e n t i f i e d sample weight and 85 percent of the t o t a l clam sample weight (Table 58). No other species i s more than ten percent of the sample weight. The mussel i s a l l C a l i f o r n i a Mussel and the Black Turban sea s n a i l i s the most frequently occurring sea s n a i l , comprising 55.7 percent of a l l sea s n a i l , with Lewis's Moon S n a i l second at,38.5 percent. This l a t t e r i s obviously a r e f l e c t i o n of the large si z e and weight of the Lewis's Moon Snail's s h e l l , rather than a r e f l e c t i o n of many i n d i v i d u a l s i n the sample. There are no s p e c i f i c a l l y i d e n t i f i e d limpets o r barnacles. DiSo l - I I I : Of the 9,626.9 grams of s h e l l f i s h remains retained f o r analysis, 7,555.9 grams (78.5 percent) were i d e n t i f i e d to species, genus or family. An ad- d i t i o n a l 2,070.6 grams (21.5 percent) were i d e n t i f i e d to major c l a s s , while the remaining 0.4 grams (less than one,percent) were considered un- i d e n t i f i a b l e . A t . l e a s t 29 d i f f e r e n t species are present (Table 62). Native L i t t l e n e c k (11.6 percent), Butter Clam (34.8 percent), Basket Cockle (10.4 percent), C a l i f o r n i a Mussel (15.4 percent) and F r i l l e d Dog- winkle (14.6 percent) are the most frequently occurring species by weight. Clams (including scallops) comprise 64.4 percent, mussels 15.6 percent, sea s n a i l s 15.2 percent, limpets 0.4 percent, barnacles 4.3 percent and 192 other 0.1 percent of the s p e c i f i c a l l y i d e n t i f i e d sample. The r e l a t i v e l y high percentage of mussel distinguishes t h i s DiSo 1 assemblage from a l l other DiSo 1 assemblages. Within clams, Butter Clam i s the most frequently occurring species, with 54 percent of the t o t a l clam weight. Ninety-nine percent of a l l the mussel i s C a l i f o r n i a Mussel; 64 percent of the limpet i s Mask Limpet; 97 percent of the sea s n a i l i s F r i l l e d Dogwinkle and 99.9 percent of the barnacle i s Balanus cariosus. The high percentage of F r i l l e d Dogwinkle i s also d i f f e r e n t from the other DiSo 1 assemblages. DiSo 1-IV: Of the 4,061.7 grams of s h e l l f i s h remains analyzed, 3,112 grams (77 percent) were i d e n t i f i e d to genus or species, 947 grams (23 percent) to major cla s s and 2.7 grams (less than one percent) were considered u n i d e n t i f i a b l e . Of the identifiedssample, clam i s 92.4 percent, mussel 6.5 percent, sea s n a i l 1.2 percent, limpets and barnacles l e s s than one percent and sea urchin and land s n a i l one percent each. Only Butter Clam i s present i n considerable quantity (70.4 percent) (Table 66 gives these data). Within the major groupings of i d e n t i f i e d s h e l l f i s h remains, 76.2 percent by weight of the clam i s Butter Clam; a l l limpets are the Mask Limpet; a l l mussel i s C a l i f o r n i a Mussel; and Black Turban i s the most frequently occurring (84.1 percent) of the sea s n a i l s (Table 70). Although not numerically abundant the presence i n t h i s u n i t of a specimen of the whale barnacle, Coronula sp., i s of great s i g n i f i c a n c e . Barnacles of the genus Coronula are found p r i m a r i l y on the Humpback Whale. One species i s only found on t h i s whale, the other has been recorded once on a Sperm Whale, but otherwise i s only known to occur on the Humpback (Cornwall 193 1970:51-55). This then i s p o s i t i v e , although i n d i r e c t , evidence that at l e a s t one of the whales whose remains were deposited i n t h i s s t r a t i g r a p h i c u n i t was a Humpback Whale. DiSo 1-V: Only 9.7 grams of s h e l l f i s h remains were recovered from t h i s u n i t . 6.7 grams (69.1 percent) are Butter Clam, 2.9 grams (29.9 percent) Black Turban sea s n a i l and 0.1 grams (1 percent) Bay Mussel. S h e l l f i s h Remains Summary: In a l l assemblages, clams are the most frequently occurring s h e l l f i s h remains by weight, followed by sea s n a i l s , then mussels. The r e l a t i v e frequencies of clam, mussel, limpet and sea s n a i l species within major groupings generally d i f f e r e n t i a t e s DiSo 16 from the two DiSo 9 assem- blages and these three from a l l the DiSo 1 assemblages. There are higher frequencies of Native L i t t l e n e c k Clam, Bay Mussel, F r i l l e d Dogwinkle i n the DiSo 16 and DiSo 9 assemblages, although the percentage of Bay Mussel i n DiSo 9-II i s considerably' lower than that i n DiSo 9-1. Both DiSo 9 assemblages are disti n g u i s h e d from the DiSo 16 assemblage by having lower frequencies of Horse Clam and Basket Cockle and higher frequencies of Butter Clam, and higher frequencies of Mask as opposed to Shi e l d Limpets. While four of the DiSo 1 assemblages are distinguished from the DiSo 16 and DiSo 9 assemblages by higher frequencies of Black Turban sea s n a i l s , DiSo l - I I I d i f f e r s i n having much higher frequencies of the F r i l l e d Dogwinkle, as do the DiSo 16 and DiSo 19 assemblages. The DiSo l - I I I assemblage i s d i f f e r e n t from the other DiSo 1 assemblages i n other respects also: mussels (Mytilidae) and cockles (Cardidae) form higher percentages of the i d e n t i f i e d species; limpets are also more abun- 194 dant; Native L i t t l e n e c k clams are more abundant. DiSo 1-1 has a higher frequency of Horse Clam than the other DiSo 1 assemblages. The DiSo 9 assemblages d i f f e r from a l l other assemblages i n containing the sea s n a i l , t h e Red Turban, not found i n any other assemblage. Assemblage Summaries For a l l the major taxa, each assemblage can be characterized by those groups of species most abundantly represented i n the faunal remains using s k e l e t e l element count and s h e l l weight. These emphases are presented f o r each assemblage i n simple p i e diagrams i l l u s t r a t i n g major emphases i n mammal, b i r d , f i s h , clam, sea s n a i l and limpet remains. As C a l i f o r n i a Mussel i s the most abundantly represented of the mussels i n a l l assemblages, i t has not been diagrammed. DiSo 16: The most abundantly represented s k e l e t a l elements i n the DiSo 16 assemblage are Deer and River Otter among the mammals; ducks, mergansers, g u l l s and loons among the bi r d s ; P l a i n f i n Midshipman among the f i s h ; and Butter Clam, Native L i t t l e n e c k , F r i l l e d Dogwinkle and Shield Limpets among the s h e l l f i s h classes. A l l of the resources are ones commonly found i n the immediate,site area today and i n d i c a t e e x p l o i t a t i o n of the f o r e s t , i n t e r t i d a l and l i t t o r a l h a bitats. The C a l i f o r n i a Mussel i s not found i n the s i t e l o c a l e today. DiSo 9: In clams, sea s n a i l s , limpets and f i s h , the two DiSo 9 assemblages are very s i m i l a r , but they d i f f e r i n t h e i r emphasis on various b i r d and mammal fa m i l i e s . 195 DiSo 9-1: The major emphases i n t h i s assemblage are on Deer, mustelids, and earless seals among the mammals; ducks among the b i r d s ; herring and salmon among the f i s h ; and Butter Clam, Native L i t t l e n e c k C l a m , . F r i l l e d Dogwinkles, and Mask Limpets among the s h e l l f i s h classes. Major emphases.are on resources a v a i l a b l e today i n the immediate s i t e l o c a l e , but C a l i f o r n i a Mussel, Red Turban sea s n a i l , eared seals and shearwaters are not commonly found near the s i t e today. DiSo 9-II: This assemblage emphasizes eared seals and Deer among the mammals; loons and ducks among the b i r d s ; herring and P l a i n f i n Midshipman among the f i s h ; and ButterClams, Native L i t t l e n e c k s , F r i l l e d Dogwinkle and Mask Limpets among the s h e l l f i s h classes. Most resources are a v a i l a b l e today i n the immediate s i t e l o c a l e , but the C a l i f o r n i a Mussel, Red Turban, eared seals, albatross and shearwaters are not. DiSo 1: The l a t e r four DiSo 1 assemblages are a l l very s i m i l a r , although DiSo l - I I I d i f f e r s somewhat. The DiSo 1-V assemblage i s very small r e l a - t i v e to the other samples and tends to d i f f e r , but i s s t i l l more l i k e the other DiSo 1 assemblages than l i k e the DiSo 16 or DiSo 9 assemblages. In a l l DiSo 1 assemblages, r o c k f i s h , .Dogfish and greenling are the most abundant remains among the f i s h ; eared seals, earless seals and ei t h e r Deer or mustelids are the most abundant of the mammal remains; and Butter Clam, Horse Clam and Native L i t t l e n e c k , Black Turban and F r i l l e d Dogwinkle the most.abundant among the s h e l l f i s h classes, although DiSo l - I I I d i f f e r s i n having no Black Turban sea s n a i l . 196 The assemblages d i f f e r most i n t h e i r emphasis on p a r t i c u l a r b i r d f a m i l i e s . While Albatross are the most frequently occurring remains i n the DiSo l - I , DiSo l - I I , DiSo l ^ I I I and DiSo 1-V assemblages, they are much less abundant i n the DiSo l - I I assemblage, and form only 4 percent of the DiSo 1-IV assemblage. Both DiSo l - I I and DiSo 1-IV have more varied b i r d assemblages with shearwaters, geese, ducks and g u l l s remains also r e l a t i v e l y abundant. The assemblages are, however, more s i m i l a r to each other than to the DiSo 9 and DiSo 16 assemblages. In a l l DiSo 1 assemblages, the fauna represented are such as would be found today i n the immediate and off-shore s i t e l o c a l e . e 28. DiSo 16, Relative Frequencies of Faunal Remains within Major Taxonomic Classes, S k e l e t a l Element Count or . S h e l l weight. MAMMAL BIRD FISH Figure 29. DiSo 9-1, Relative Frequencies of Faunal Remains within Major TaxonomicClasses, Skeletal Element Count or S h e l l Weight. earless seal other murre other MAMMAL grebe albatross greenling r o c k f i s h - * other FISH . /-other horse c l a m ^ v j * * moon sna dire whelk black turban / I l k ^ > > k j £ ^ red turban ther plat CLAM SEA SNAIL LIMPET Figure 30. DiSo 9-II, Relative Frequencies of Faunal Remains within Major Taxonomic Classes, Skeletal Element.Count or Sh e l l Weight. ' CLAM SEA SNAIL LIMPET Figure 31. DiSo l - I , Relative Frequencies of Faunal Remains within Major Taxonomic Classes, Skeletal Element Count and S h e l l Weight. ear less^* seal f l a t f i s h — . Q t h e r :ulpin-v, *4 MAMMAL BIRD FISH cockle ^fri l led dogwinkle dire whelk C L A M SEA SNAIL LIMPET Figure 32. DiSo l - I I , Relative Frequencies of Faunal Remains within Major Taxonomic Classes, Skeletal Element Count or Shell Weight. other other loon / 2 6 ] /canid 7 \ /mustelid J \22 25 j \earless eared / \ seal seal / shearwater other MAM MAL BIRD FISH other black turban̂ V"18 "̂316 dogwinkle CLAM SEA SNAIL LI MPET Figure 33. DiSo l - I I I , Relative Frequencies of Faunal Remains within Major Taxonomic Classes, Skeletal Element Count and Shell Weight. other-^, ^ a l b a t r o s s cormorant f la t f i sh sculpin other herring MAMMAL BIRD FISH other O CLAM SEA SNAIL LIMPET 'Figure 34. DiSo 1-IV, Relative Frequencies of Faunal Remains within Major Taxonomic Classes, Skeletal Element Count and Shel l Weight. f l a t f i s h scu lp in other herring MAMMAL BIRD FISH O it". CLAM SEA SNAIL LIMPET Figure 35. DiSo 1-V,.Relative Frequencies of Faunal Remains within Major Taxonomic Classes, Skeletal Element Count and Shell Weight. 205 Chapter VI Interpretation In Chapter V the differences and s i m i l a r i t i e s among the eight faunal assemblages were i l l u s t r a t e d . In a d d i t i o n to preservation and sampling factors there appear to be four possible sources of v a r i a t i o n that might account for the patterns of.inter-assemblage d i f f e r e n c e : diachronic change i n the regional or l o c a l resource base; diachronic change i n the material culture; differences i n season of e x p l o i t a t i o n ; and synchronic v a r i a t i o n i n the habitats exploited from each s i t e . I t was established i n Chapter II that there.are today both seasonal and l o c a t i o n a l v a r i a t i o n s i n the a v a i l a b i l i t y of animal species i n Hesquiat Harbour. Habitat categories were defined for b i r d s , f i s h , mammals and s h e l l f i s h , grouping animal species according to habitat pre- ference and the present general d i s t r i b u t i o n s of these habitats i n Hesquiat Harbour were mapped. Five more i n c l u s i v e categories, grouping a l l vertebrate fauna, were devised from the d e t a i l e d information. The f i v e major vertebrate habitat categories were defined.as: Pelagic, P e l a g i c / L i t t o r a l , L i t t o r a l , L i t t o r a l / F o r e s t Edge and Forest/Streams/ Lakes. S h e l l f i s h were s i m i l a r l y grouped into two major habitat categories of Exposed Shores and Sheltered Shores. The present d i s t r i b u t i o n of these major habitat categories was used, to p r e d i c t the type of faunal assemblage one would expect to f i n d at each of the three s i t e s under d i s c u s s i o n , , i f the faunal assemblages were obtained from the immediate s i t e area and i f the l o c a l environment had not changed s i g n i f i c a n t l y (Chapter III) . I t was also established i n Chapter II that while major changes i n the r e g i o n a l resource base are 206 u n l i k e l y , there,have been l o c a l geomorphological changes i n the relevant time period of the last.2,000 years that may have r e s u l t e d i n d i s t r i b u - t i o n a l s h i f t s of c e r t a i n species i n Hesauiat Harbour. The a r t i f a c t assemblages from the s i t e s were.presented i n Chapter IV, and i t was seen that there i s l i t t l e v a r i a t i o n among the assemblages. Certain differences, however, were observed, and require discussion i n r e l a t i o n to both synchronic and diachronic v a r i a t i o n . Before examining the patterning observed i n the faunal data i n r e l a t i o n to these environmental and c u l t u r a l f a c t o r s , the e f f e c t s of sample c o l l e c t i o n techniques and t h e . p o s s i b i l i t y of d i f f e r e n t i a l preserv- a t i o n on the oomparability o f the samples are considered. SAMPLING FACTORS I t has been explained that the deposits at DiSo 1 and DiSo 16 were screened through 6 mm mesh while those of DiSo 9 were screened through 2 mm mesh. The e f f e c t of t h i s on the recovery of small f i s h remains • was i l l u s t r a t e d i n Table 17. Other b i r d , f i s h and mammal,remains con- sidered here are not of a s i z e to be a f f e c t e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y . The low frequencies of herring i n the DiSo 16 and DiSo 1 assemblages must at present be regarded as sample error . The co n t r o l s o i l sample fauna suggest that herring remains were.in f a c t much more frequent i n the DiSo 1 depos- i t s than the l e v e l samples in d i c a t e s They suggest that they were also more frequent i n the DiSo 16 deposits, but the discrepancy at t h i s s i t e between l e v e l and s o i l sample counts would appear to be l e s s . The type of faunal.samples obtained from DiSo l . a l s o d i f f e r from those of DiSo 9 and DiSo 16, the l a t t e r being recovered from block,de- p o s i t . samples and the former from scattered, randomly selected excavation 207 u n i t s . While the large sample sizes and r e p l i c a t i o n of patterns among excavation units a t a l l of the s i t e s indicates that the samples from a l l three s i t e s are representative of the v a r i a t i o n contained i n each s i t e , the c a l c u l a t i o n of MNI i s a f f e c t e d (Grayson 1973:433). Because'the DiSo 1 St r a t i g r a p h i c Unit MNI counts are summations of MNI estimations based on smaller excavation unit samples, these figures are probably i n f l a t e d , e s p e c i a l l y where a species i s represented by few bone elements. The smaller samples recovered from DiSo 1 S t r a t i g r a p h i c Units I I and V also tend to i n f l a t e the figures f o r these units (Grayson 1978). I t was for these reasons that s k e l e t a l element.count was,used as the primary u n i t of measurement for comparative purposes, while, MNI percent- ages were placed i n the appendix; While the use of s k e l e t a l element count introduces i t s own problems of sample comparability, i t was.felt these could be i d e n t i f i e d and noted. For example, the bone count f o r albatross,, as mentioned on.page 156 may be. i n f l a t e d r e l a t i v e to some'less e a s i l y i d e n t i f i e d species, but as the objec t i v e i s to compare patterns among assemblages, t h i s does not introduce a factor that biases one sample and not another. I t i s equally applicable to a l l the assemblages. Thus the percentage f i g u r e s given may b e • i n f l a t e d i n r e l a t i o n to actual r e l a t i v e importance of t h i s species, but the i n f l a t i o n f a c t o r applies equally to a l l assemblages and does not d i s t o r t the interassemblage com- parisons. Further, the sample sizes used, p a r t i c u l a r l y f o r f i s h remains, are large enough that low frequencies of c e r t a i n species are f e l t to r e f l e c t an actual low frequency rather than a sampling error. In most instances, the s k e l e t a l element count percentages and the MNI percentages are c l o s e l y s i m i l a r . Where they differ^markedly, which i s the case where a high 208 proportion of the i d e n t i f i e d elements of a species come from a sing l e i n d i v i d u a l (eg. Canis sp. remains i n assemblage DiSo l - I I I ) , t h i s has been noted. Apart from these i n d i v i d u a l instances of possibly d i s t o r t e d samples, i t appears that the only v a r i a t i o n among assemblages that can be at- tri b u t e d a t . l e a s t i n part to sample error are the diff e r e n c e s i n frequency of herring remains. While other sampling f a c t o r s as yet u n i d e n t i f i e d may be bia s i n g r e s u l t s , the patterns i d e n t i f i e d appear to be too c o n s i s t - ent and too integrated to r e s u l t from sample error. PRESERVATION FACTORS I d e n t i f i a b l e preservation f a c t o r s do not appear to be responsible fo r the observed pattern of v a r i a t i o n . Preservation of bone and s h e l l at a l l three s i t e s was "good. Although layers without heavy concentrations of s h e l l d i d produce lower frequencies of vertebrate remains, the bone from these layers i s generally as well preserved as that from the heavy s h e l l l a y e r s . The lower frequencies probably r e s u l t from h o r i z o n t a l c l u s t e r i n g of remains and/or lower i n t e n s i t y of occupation rather than d i f f e r e n t i a l preservation of faunal remains. Calcium and pH values of the deposits i n d i c a t e l i t t l e d i f f e r e n c e i n these properties among s t r a t i g r a p h i c units at a s i t e (Table .23). pH values do d i f f e r , among s i t e s , but i n a l l cases except DiSo 9-II, DiSo 1—III and DiSo 1-IV, the ranges overlap. The pH ranges of each of these.three s t r a t i g r a p h i c units overlap with a l l . o t h e r s t r a t i g r a p h i c u n i t ranges except DiSo 16, which despite the s h e l l content, has an a c i d i c s o i l . e n - vironment. Calcium ppm at t h i s s i t e are also a l i t t l e lower than at other s i t e s . At both DiSo 16 and DiSo 9, outside the.cave d r i p l i n e both 209 Table 23. Calcium ppm and pH Ranges of Matrix Samples from a l l Str a t i g r a p h i c Units. * DiSo 16 DiSo I 9 II I II DiSo 1 III IV V PH 5.0- 5.6- 7.1- 6.3- 6.6— 7.0- 6.9— 6.6- 6.6 8.2 8.6 7.1 7.5 8.0 7.7 7.2 Calcium 410- 430- 420- 430- 430- 4430- 430- 400- ppm 430 470 470 480 480 480 450 450 * (Crozier n.d.) pH and calcium ppm drop markedly. At DiSo 16 pH ranges from 4.1 to 6.1 and calcium ppm from 0 to 175 i n the lower 50 cm, and from 250 to 410 ppm i n the upper 30 cm. At DiSo 9, pH ranges from 3.8 to 6.1 outside the d r i p l i n e , while calcium ppm flu c t u a t e between 10 and 450, increasing gradually towards the top of the deposits. This suggests some l a t e r a l movement of calcium i n the upper portions of the deposits, while the low calcium ppm i n the lower deposits suggest there never was a high concen- t r a t i o n of calcium ( i . e . s h e l l ) i n the entrance to the cave. Possibly calcium derived from s h e l l deposits in s i d e the cave has moved r i g h t through these deposits to be redeposited further down slope. At DiSo 1, lowest pH values are i n DiSo l - I and DiSo 1-V, the t o p s o i l / d i s t u r b e d / h i s t o r i c layer and the p r i m a r i l y geological layer, as would be expected. Both are s l i g h t l y a c i d i c , but neither varies more than 30 ppm i n calcium concen- t r a t i o n from the heavy s h e l l u n i t s . Calcium ppm hardly vary among a l l s t r a t i g r a p h i c units (Crozier, n.d.). As these values represent the present chemical environment of the deposits, they do not necessa r i l y i n d i c a t e the chemical environment throughout the period of deposition nor the time period since deposition. 210 One would c e r t a i n l y expect the l a t e r deposition of heavy s h e l l layers to a f f e c t the calcium content and the pH of layers previously deposited, thus masking the o r i g i n a l environment of deposition for the e a r l i e r l a y e r s . While noncultural transformation processes, S c h i f f e r ' s "n-transforms" (S c h i f f e r 1976:15), have undoubtedly contributed to the observed v a r i - a t i on, our understanding of t h e i r i n t e r a c t i o n s within a s i t e i s very incomplete. While we may know that an a c i d s o i l destroys bone, we do not yet know the a d d i t i o n of s h e l l , i n what quantities and over what period of time, required to create a s o i l environment s u f f i c i e n t l y basic to , begin preserving bone and s h e l l . Nor do we c l e a r l y understand the i n t e r r e - l a t i o n s of the various'chemical reactions taking place i n s o i l s of mixed natural and c u l t u r a l o r i g i n , . t o which new and var i e d materials are con- st a n t l y being added. In s i t e s as complex as s h e l l middens, s o i l a c i d i t y values cannot.be interpreted as confirmation of poor or good s o i l pre- servation throughout the l i f e of the deposits. A basic s o i l containing few bones i s not nec e s s a r i l y confirmation of an i n i t i a l low frequency of bone. The soil,may o r i g i n a l l y have been a c i d i c . Such values measure the current state of a c i d i t y within a con t i n u a l l y changing s o i l system, now ; perhaps influenced only by natural s o i l forming processes, but formerly influenced by the i n t e r a c t i o n of both natural and c u l t u r a l processes. The observed pattern of interassemblage v a r i a t i o n i n these faunal samples cannot be r e l a t e d l o g i c a l l y to any i d e n t i f i e d preservation f a c t o r s . I t i s l i k e l y that preservation i s now poorer i n the lower layers of DiSo 1 than i t i s i n the upper layer s , as the lower layers are subject to the influence of a f l u c t u a t i n g water table, while those.of the upper deposits are not, but the influence of t h i s appears to be minimal as far as amount and hardness of bone recovered. I f d i f f e r e n t i a l 211 preservation were a factor here, one would expect differences among these DiSo 1 assemblages, where one finds instead strong s i m i l a r i t i e s . Further, the differences among the assemblages of d i f f e r e n t s i t e s are ones of frequency, r a r e l y presence and absence. In f a c t , the d i f - ferences among s i t e s argue against major preservation f a c t o r s a f f e c t i n g the samples. I t seems i l l o g i c a l to suppose that deposits such as DiSo 9, preserving quantities of f r a g i l e herring bones, f i s h scales, mussel periostracae and s n a i l operculae, would f a i l to preserve qu a n t i t i e s of strong, hard r o c k f i s h bones i f they had been present. Instead, the higher qu a n t i t i e s of r o c k f i s h remains are found at DiSo 1. Nor do these high frequencies r e s u l t s o l e l y from recovery techniques b i a s i n g the sample against small remains. There i s an absolute higher frequency of r o c k f i s h remains at DiSo 1 than at DiSo 9 even though the l a t t e r s i t e has a larger sample of f i s h remains. This i s true.even i f herring remains are ex- cluded from the samples. At DiSo 1 one might l o g i c a l l y expect poorer preservation as a r e s u l t of greater movement of ground water through the deposits pro- moting chemical d e t e r i o r a t i o n ; greater ph y s i c a l compaction and weight of deposits promoting higher incidences of mechanical fracture; and higher incidence of post-depositional disturbance, a l l factors that.can con- t r i b u t e to degradation of bone and s h e l l . That these f a c t o r s cannot be held responsible f o r lower frequencies of f r a g i l e remains such as herring and salmon at DiSo 1, i s attested by the abundance of herring bones i n the DiSo 1 matrix samples and the good preservation of those salmon bones recovered. S i m i l a r l y , sea mammal bone i s equally well preserved, when present, i n the DiSo 9 deposits as i n the DiSo 1 deposits where i t i s so much 212 more abundant. In short, the observed pattern of interassemblage v a r i a t i o n cannot l o g i c a l l y be r e l a t e d to interassemblage'differences i n preservation. 1 Although the con t r o l data needed to t e s t such suggestions, j e . chemical t e s t s on the degradation of s p e c i f i c animal remains i n s p e c i f i c environ- ments of deposition over known and varying lengths of time,;-.are not curr e n t l y a v a i l a b l e , the patterns observed appear too consistent yet apparently unrelated to i d e n t i f i e d f a c t o r s of preservation, to be the r e s u l t of d i f f e r e n t i a l preservation. DIACHRONIC VARIATION IN MATERIAL CULTURE The introduction of new items of material culture into the.procure- ment technology can r e s u l t i n the e x p l o i t a t i o n of food resources formerly unused or a more e f f i c i e n t e x p l o i t a t i o n of ones already being harvested. This does not appear to be the case with the Hesquiat samples. While.it i s impossible to say that the technology of food procurement has not changed through time i n Hesquiat Harbour, i t i s pos s i b l e to demonstrate that the material items of food procurement systems preserved i n the s i t e s do not d i f f e r s i g n i f i c a n t l y i n methods of manufacture or concept,. i n a manner which could explain the observed differences i n faunal assemblages. Figure 36 presents the. uncalibrated radiocarbon estimates f o r the assemblages p l o t t e d as the mid-points of t h e i r ranges to two sigma f a c t o r s . DiSo 9-II i s the only assemblages that does not overlap at l e a s t p a r t i a l l y with one or more other assemblages. (The estimate f o r DiSo 1-V cannot be considered r e l i a b l e . ) Thus a f a i r l y continuous temporal sequence with considerable periods of contemporaneity i s suggested. 213 This contemporaneity of several of the assemblages argues against the ass o c i a t i o n of faunal differences with diachronic change i n material culture, inasmuch as some of the major differences among the a r t i f a c t assemblages cross cut temporal d i s t i n c t i o n s . Bone needles, for example, are found i n the e a r l i e s t assemblage, DiSo 9-II and i n a much l a t e r assemblage, DiSo 16, but not i n the temporally intervening assemblages of DiSo 1. While the small a r t i f a c t samples from a l l the assemblages di c t a t e s that caution should be used i n considering sample absences as r e a l absences, the f a c t remains that the demonstrated interassemblage v a r i a t i o n i n occurrence of bone needles does not r e f l e c t changing tech- nology through time. There do not appear to be any major differences i n the a r t i f a c t assemblages that could explain the differences among the faunal assemb- lages oh the basis of d i f f e r i n g technological knowledge of a p a r t i c u l a r method of manufacture or cla s s of a r t i f a c t s (S ee Table 10 i n Chapter XV, page 135 , f or complete a r t i f a c t d i s t r i b u t i o n s ) . Except for objects of non-aboriginal materials, few of the differences observed appear to cor- r e l a t e with the age of the sample. The di f f e r e n c e s that do occur are most marked between s i t e s , rather than assemblages. Table 24 i l l u s t r a t e s the r e l a t i v e frequencies of selected a r t i f a c t classes. I t i s apparent from t h i s table that a number of the differences are such as one would expect i f d i f f e r e n t kinds of resource extraction a c t i v i t i e s were being c a r r i e d out at the d i f f e r e n t s i t e s . I t i s noteworthy that stone fishhook shanks occur i n four of the f i v e DiSo 1 assemblages but at neither DiSo 16 nor DiSo 9 habitations deposits. (A s i n g l e shank was associated with the surface b u r i a l complex Figure 36. Comparison of Radiocarbon.Estimates from Three Hesquiat Harbour S i t e s . DiSo 9 DiSo 1 I900 I800 1700 1600 i500 1400 1300 1200 il 00 1000 900 800H 700 6 0 0 H 500 400 300 —\ 200 100 AD o . 175 100 200 300 400 500 600 DiSo 16 r i i T I 1 |v/jvf IV 1 m p~n | 770160 750*85 665185 ,1410165 1430 * 90 1430190 1230*90 1130190 [1375*85 1265480 885270 I—' 730165 210160 _ 150170 1 6 ' 0 t 9 0 140*115 4801200 215 Table 24.' Relative Frequencies of Selected A r t i f a c t Classes S i t e by S i t e . A r t i f a c t Class DiSo 16 DiSo 9 DiSo 1 Abrasive stones or slabs 31 18 58 Grd. stone fishhook shanks - - 6 Bone needles 13 7 - B i r d bone awls - 6 - Deer ulna t o o l s 6 2 1 U n i l a t e r a l l y barbed points - - 2 Small toggle harpoon valves 6 4 5 Large toggle harpoon valves - - 1 Harpoon points <5 cm 6 20 3 Other bone points - 2 3 Angled bone barbs 31 4 7 Straight bone barbs <5 cm - 22 5 Bone bip o i n t s - 4 10 Mussel s h e l l point - 1 - Mussel s h e l l k n i f e - 3 - Mussel s h e l l knife/adze frags. 6 6 Columns t o t a l 100% N 15 114 200 at DiSo 9.) Although these shanks were reportedly also made of wood, which might not have survived i n the archaeological context, i t seems u n l i k e l y that the use of stone would be r e s t r i c t e d to DiSo 1. These 216 a r t i f a c t s are reported to be "cod" f i s h , spring salmon and more recently dogfish hook shanks (Drucker 1951:22). The-faunal remains a t DiSo 1 tend to support t h i s , with r o c k f i s h ("rock cod", "black cod") and dogfish being abundant i n DiSo 1 assemblages, but l e s s abundant i n the DiSo 16 and DiSo 9 assemblages. A s i m i l a r correspondance of faunal remains and a r t i f a c t classes occurs i n the DiSo 9 assemblages. In both these assemblages herring are abundant faunal remains. Ethnographically herring were fi s h e d with dipnets and with the herring rake, a device l i k e a paddle with small, sharp bone points set along one edge (Drucker 1951:23). The s t r a i g h t bone barbs <5 cm i n length are p r e c i s e l y the kind of point required. They have a much higher frequency a t DiSo 9 than at DiSo 16 or DiSo 1, j u s t as do herring remains. While t h i s may b e . p a r t i a l l y a n . a r t i f a c t of sample error, the f a c t that the s t r a i g h t barbs that do occur i n DiSo 1 were recovered from DiSo l - I I I , also the assemblage with the most herring of a l l the DiSo 1 assemblages, supports the a s s o c i a t i o n of a r t i f a c t c l a s s and faunal remain c l a s s . Deer ulna t o o l s , t r a d i t i o n a l l y used to s p l i t herring for drying, occur i n a l l three s i t e s . Other correspondences suggest an association of small toggle harpoon arming points such as those ethnographically described as salmon harpoon points (Drucker 1951:21) and the higher frequencies of salmon remains at DiSo 9 and DiSo 16. Mussel s h e l l knives, t r a d i t i o n a l l y used i n the preparation of salmon, occur a t DiSo 9 and possibly DiSo 16 but not DiSo 1. The presence of large toggle harpoon,valves such as those reportedly used f o r sealions, seals and porpoises (Drucker 1951:26) at DiSo 1 but, not DiSo 9 or DiSo 16 habit a t i o n deposits corroborates the faunal 217 evidence of higher frequencies of large sea mammal remains at DiSo 1. The higher frequencies of bone bipoints, reportedly used as gorge hooks fo r d i v i n g ducks (Drucker 1951:34),.at DiSo 1 i s not supported by higher frequencies at that s i t e of duck remains. On the contrary, duck remains are more abundant at the other two s i t e s . Perhaps such points were also used for small sea f i s h such as greenlings and the smaller r o c k f i s h . Abrasive stones are much more common at DiSo 1 than at the other two s i t e s , perhaps r e f l e c t i n g the larger s i z e and more permanent nature of t h i s s i t e . While other a r t i f a c t classes do not ne c e s s a r i l y occur i n a l l as- semblages, (eg. needles, b i r d bone.awls, bone wedges) the differences do not appear to be r e l a t e d to l i n e a r diachronic change i n material c u l t u r e . In short, those differences apparent among the assemblages appear to group along s p a t i a l ; rather than temporal l i n e s , and appear to be r e l a t e d to the kinds of a c t i v i t i e s c a r r i e d out at each s i t e , rather than differences i n technological adaptation. As mentioned i n Chapter IV, a t Yuquot, j u s t 25 kilometres north of Hesquiat, fishhook shanks and u n i l a t e r a l l y and b i l a t e r a l l y barbed harpoons presumably used for sea mammals are part of the Middle Period a r t i f a c t assemblage dated from about 1000 B.C. to A.D. 800, as are small toggle harpoons, bone bipoints, and u n i l a t e r a l l y barbed f i x e d points (Dewhirst 1978:10-15). I t i s i n t e r e s t i n g that at Yuquot the larger toggling harpoons do not appear i n the archaeological record u n t i l the Late Period, A.D. 800 to A.D. 1790, roughly the time period spanned by the Hesquiat V i l l a g e DiSo 1 deposits, where these are also found. I t would seem that the range of a r t i f a c t classes present at Hesquiat, with the possible exception of larger toggling harpoons, was 218 already present "at Yuquot p r i o r to the i n i t i a l occupation of DiSo.9. T h i s . i s further support,for the a s s o c i a t i o n of faunal di f f e r e n c e s among the s i t e s with d i f f e r e n c e s i n a c t i v i t i e s rather than change i n material cul t u r e . ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGE There i s no evidence to'suggest that the kinds of di f f e r e n c e s among the faunal assemblages can be explained by change i n the regional. resource base. Nor i s there environmental evidence of such r e g i o n a l change i n animal populations. There i s , however, evidence of l o c a l geomorphological changes that.must have a f f e c t e d the a v a i l a b i l i t y of c e r t a i n marine and i n t e r t i d a l species i n the Harbour. As these changes are not yet c l e a r l y understood i t i s d i f f i c u l t to determine the exact e f f e c t s , but c e r t a i n v a r i a t i o n s i n faunal frequencies may r e f l e c t such changes. Apart from introducing a lake where before there were t i d a l mud-' f l a t s and an embayment, the development of V i l l a g e Lake basin and the adjacent Anton's S p i t must have a f f e c t e d surrounding beaches and c r e - ated a more sheltered habitat north of the s p i t . Hebda and Rouse (1979:129) suggest that Hesquiat Peninsula has u p l i f t e d 3 metres r e l a t i v e to mean sea l e v e l during the l a s t 2,700 years. Such a diffe r e n c e i n the land-sea r e l a t i o n s h i p would place the V i l l a g e Lake area of Hesquiat Peninsula.beneath shallow seas. By the time DiSo 9 was f i r s t occupied about A.D. 100 these shallow seas were probably already becoming ex- tensive t i d a l f l a t s , but there would s t i l l have been a greater open : ocean influence i n the Harbour at that time. I t was n o t . u n t i l approx- imately 1000 years ago, a f t e r the abandonment of DiSo 9, that the peat 219 bogs began to form i n the marshy meadows on the peninsula north of Hesquiat V i l l a g e . And i t was probably not u n t i l 7 0 0 to 5 0 0 years ago that the V i l l a g e Lake basin was completely cut o f f from s a l t water influence by a combination of u p l i f t and s p i t development., New geo- l o g i c a l evidence from o l d strand l i n e s and caves i n the harbour supports the recency of t h i s continuing u p l i f t (Don Howes, pers. comm.). While the V i l l a g e Lake area was s t i l l an embayment flanked to the south and east by b u i l d i n g beach ridges and developing t i d a l f l a t s , there must have been extensive areas of sand and muddy sand i n t h i s region, and good stretches of sheltered sandy beaches. These would have provided exc e l l e n t habitat for clams and good substrata f o r spawning herring. The timing for the closure of V i l l a g e -Lake embayment i s e s t i - mated to be around A.D. 1 2 0 0 to A.D. 1 4 0 0 , the approximate time period of the end of DiSo 1=IV deposits and the time of the DiSo l - I I I deposits. There i s a marked increase i n abundance of clam remains i n DiSo l - I I I over t h e i r frequency i n DiSo 1-IV. This may well r e f l e c t u t i l i - zation of more extensive muddy sand clam f l a t s i n the area now occupied by V i l l a g e Lake and e a r l i e r , during much of DiSo 1-IV times, occupied by the sea. The decrease i n clam s h e l l frequency in.the DiSo I T I I deposits may r e f l e c t the f u l l development of the lake basin and con- comittant reduction i n the t i d a l . f l a t s area. The higher frequency of herring remains i n DiSo l - I I I r e l a t i v e to other DiSo 1 assemblages may also be r e l a t e d to these geomorphological developments, there being a r e l a t i v e l y short period of time when the area beaches were s u i t a b l e f o r herring spawning. The higher frequency of F r i l l e d Dogwinkle sea s n a i l i n DiSo l - I I I layers, a sea s n a i l favour- ing a more sheltered habitat, may also be r e l a t e d to these changes,.as 220 may the higher r e l a t i v e frequency of Native L i t t l e n e c k Clam and Basket Cockle, species favouring muddy sand habitats, as compared to other DiSo 1 assemblages. The, occurrence i n both DiSo 9 assemblages of q u a n t i t i e s of Mytilus c a l i f o r n i a n u s suggest either that t h i s species now occupies a reduced range i n the harbour compared to e a r l i e r times or that the inhabitants of the s i t e had access to a wider t e r r i t o r y of e x p l o i t a t i o n than the inner harbour. P r i o r to f u l l emergence of Anton's S p i t and the adjacent areas, r e s t r i c t i n g both wave act i o n and incurrent f r e s h water d i s p e r s a l patterns, s a l i n i t y and wave a c t i o n within Hesquiat Harbour may have been s u f f i c i e n t to provide more sui t a b l e habitat f or M. c a l i f o r n i a n u s . I t seems u n l i k e l y , however, that the inner harbour was ever an optimal., habitat f o r t h i s species during the time period represented by these assemblages. In t h i s regard i t i s worth noting that the M. c a l i f o r n i a n u s valves recovered from DiSo 9 are r e l a t i v e l y , s m a l l , seldom exceeding 10 cm i n length. C u l t u r a l management of the beds might.also r e s u l t i n the small s i z e . The presence i n both DiSo 9 assemblages of Red Turban sea s n a i l s (Astraea gibberosa), which prefer an exposed rocky shore,.also suggests either a more open habitat i n e a r l i e r times or a wider t e r r i t o r y of e x p l o i t a t i o n . The occurrence of sea l i o n and fur seal remains i n these assemblages might also i n d i c a t e a more open harbour, or a wider.exploit- ation t e r r i t o r y . The higher frequency of Eared Seal remains than might have.been expected i s p a r t i c u l a r l y marked for the older DiSo 9-II assemblage. This assemblage also contains small amounts o f Albatross, Shearwater and Murre bones, species more1 commonly found i n the Pelagic and Pelagic L i t t o r a l environments now found along the outer coast rather 221 than i n the inner harbour. In contrast, the clam remains emphasize F r i l l e d Dogwinkle and Native L i t t l e n e c k Clam, as would be expected from the present environment of the s i t e . Taken together; these i n d i c a t i o n s suggest that during the occupation of DiSo 9 the inner harbour was subject to more influence.from the open ocean, but that some of the fauna was a l s o being exploited from habitats that even so, one would not expect to f i n d i n that inner.harbour. This suggests a wider t e r r i t o r y of ex- p l o i t a t i o n as well, p a r t i c u l a r l y for DiSo 9-II. There i s evidence then of considerable change i n the l o c a l environ- ment during the time period covered by the assemblages. There are in d i c a t i o n s in,the DiSo 1 assemblages of changes associated with the development of the V i l l a g e Lake basin, and i n the DiSo 9 assemblages of a greater a v a i l a b i l i t y of open coast animals i n what i s today a.more, sheltered harbour. There are also suggestions i n the DiSo -9 assemblages, p a r t i c u l a r l y DiSo 9-II, that these faunal assemblages may have been deposited bv inhabitants with access to a.wider t e r r i t o r y o f . e x p l o i t - a t i o n than j u s t the inner harbour. SEASON OF EXPLOITATION The seasonal movement patterns of migratory birds and mammals are often used by archaeologists as evidence f o r season of e x p l o i t a t i o n . I t i s sometimes overlooked that z o o l o g i c a l summaries of these patterns generally r e f e r to the patterns of most commonly observed behaviour, the normal behaviour of adult breeding animals. Others using these data tend to a t t r i b u t e a r i g i d i t y to the•patterns not claimed by zoolo- g i s t s . 222 The migration of the grey whale i s a case i n point. Their north- south movements between the summer feeding grounds i n the a r c t i c and the winter breeding bays of Baja C a l i f o r n i a are well established. But a few grey whales can be sighted o f f the west coast of Vancouver Island i n almost,any month of the year. S i m i l a r l y the behaviour of non-breeding birds may d i f f e r from the species' general pattern. Patterns of growth and development of the bones and teeth are equally fraught with sources of p o t e n t i a l e r r o r . While the a c t u a l se- quence of tooth eruption or long bone epiphyseal union may be well established f o r the species, the ages a t which each stage commences and/or f i n i s h e s are a f f e c t e d by such things as population density, and quantity and q u a l i t y o f feed. Even i f the exact age of the archaeological specimen can be established by such methods'as counts of annual growth ring s i n the teeth, the problem of a s s o c i a t i n g the established age with a calendar date remains. The,birth period of species, covers at l e a s t several weeks, sometimes several months, thereby introducing a seasonal plus or minus factor of some weeks. The use of b i v a l v e mollusc s h e l l growth l a y e r s i s p o t e n t i a l l y the most accurate of the a v a i l a b l e techniques, but as yet i s s t i l l e xperi- mental (Ham and Irvine 1975). For most areas of the west coast c o n t r o l samples of species obtained under known habitat conditions are yet to be obtained. In a d d i t i o n , accuracy i n i d e n t i f y i n g winter check marks (i e . assigning the year's "day 1") i n archaeological specimens i s often d i f f i c u l t . Nor has an a s s o c i a t i o n of these check.marks with s p e c i f i c weeks or months yet been c l e a r l y established f o r d i f f e r e n t areas of the west coast. These points do not even consider.the problem of applying present day z o o l o g i c a l data to past environments. 223 I t i s well to remember i n a t t r i b u t i n g season of e x p l o i t a t i o n . t o archaeological faunal assemblages using z o o l o g i c a l data, that i n most instances we are dealing with the most probable, not-the undisputed season of e x p l o i t a t i o n . The following discussion and data presentation deals with j u s t such p r o b a b i l i t i e s for the Hesquiat assemblages. The assignment of seasonality i s based on the information given i n Chapter I I . Mammals The sample s i z e of mammal remains that can be used as season markers i s too small to compare assemblages using r e l a t i v e frequencies. Instead, the data are i l l u s t r a t e d i n a presence/absence table (Table 25). A problem a r i s e s i n using Fur Seal remains for seasonality markers because i t was not possible to d i s t i n g u i s h between new born and l a t e term f o e t a l remains. I t i s my opinion that the siz e of the remains c l a s s i f i e d as. new born/foetal indicates they are i n f a c t f o e t a l , but t h i s opinion i s as yet unsupported by comparative material. I f f o e t a l , they indicate an e a r l y spring season, i f new born, a summer season. For t h i s reason they are classed here as spring/summer. At DiSo 16 only the spring season i s c l e a r l y marked. In DiSo 9-1 layers a l l seasons are suggested: spring/summer, f a l l / w i n t e r and d e f i n i t e l y winter. In DiSo 9-II layers f a l l / w i n t e r and spring/summer are represented. F a l l and winter are represented in•the DiSo 1-I layers; a l l seasons are represented i n DiSo l - I I and DiSo l - I I I layers, while i n the DiSo 1-IV assemblage summer and f a l l / w i n t e r are represented. • There are no season markers among the mammal.remains from DiSo 1-V. Table 25. Seasons Represented i n the Mammal Fauna of A l l Assemblages, Presence of Known Age or Migratory Mammals. Assemblage Season Represented DiSo 16 DiSo 9 II T-I IT II DiSo 1 III IV V Spring River Otter < 3 Months Newborn/ Newborn/ Newborn/ Newborn/ Summer Foetal Fur Foetal Seal Fur Seal Deer 4 6 Months Foetal Fur Seal Fo e t a l Fur Seal Newborn/ Foetal Har- bour Seal F a l l Juvenile Juvenile Juvenile Juvenile Juvenile Juvenile Winter Fur Seal Fur Seal Adult c? & Raccoon C a l i f o r n i a Sea Lion Fur Seal Fur Seal & Harbour s Harbour Seal Seal Juvenile Northern Sea Lion Fur Seal & Harbour Seal Adult Nor- thern E l e - phant Seal Fur Seal & Harbour Seal Juvenile Northern Sea Lion 225 Birds Using the seasonal categories defined i n Chapter I I , the b i r d remains from each.assemblage were grouped by both bone count and MNI into four categories, Present Year Round (1); Suggesting Winter (2,3,4); Suggesting Spring and/or F a l l (5,6) and Suggesting Summer (7,8,9,10). These broad groupings were used to r e f l e c t the times of year when the species i n question were most l i k e l y to be present i n t h e i r greatest abundance and hence most l i k e l y to have been exploited. The r e s u l t s are graphed i n Figure 37. (Tables 71 and 72 i n Appendix A display the de- t a i l e d data.) A l l four seasonal categories are represented i n each assemblage except DiSo 1-V, with a very small'sample of 9 bones arid 5 i n d i v i d u a l s . Differences i n emphasis, however, are apparent. In a l l other DiSo 1 assemblages, the category Suggesting Summer accounts for between 52 percent and 7*5 percent'; by bone count (42 percent and 43 percent by MNI) . Using bone count,' t h i s category also accounts f o r 56 percent of the b i r d remains from DiSo 9-II, but using MNI t h i s i s reduced to 25 percent. In t h i s case Winter i s equally well represented. In the DiSo 9-1 assemblage the three categories Winter, S p r i n g / F a l l and Summer are roughly equally emphasized whether using MNI or bone count. The same pattern holds f o r the DiSo 16 assemblage, but here, Year Round i s the most emphasized category. The b i r d remains, then, suggest a strong emphasis at DiSo 1 of the summer e x p l o i t a t i o n of bi r d s , while a t both other s i t e s the e x p l o i t - a t i o n of b i r d s i s more extensively spread throughout the year. A s s e m b l a g e Columns t o t a l 100% ,Figure .37. Season of A v a i l a b i l i t y , Avifauna of a l l Assemblages,.Relative Frequency by Skeletal Element Count. 227 F i s h Few o f the f i s h species can be used as season markers. The pos= s i b i l i t y of including herring i n the r e l a t i v e frequency comparisons i s precluded by the differences i n sample recovery techniques among the assemblages. B l u e f i n tuna and salmon can be used, the tuna only being a v a i l a b l e i n summer, coho, chum/dog, and sockeye salmon i n l a t e summer and f a l l , and spring salmon i n winter and ea r l y spring. P l a i n f i n Midshipman are a v a i l a b l e i n spring and early summer when they are i n the i n t e r t i d a l zone f o r spawning. The a v a i l a b i l i t y of herring i n large schools close to shore i s r e s t r i c t e d to l a t e February through March o f f the west coast of Vancouver Island. As herring occur i n a l l the assemblages, t h i s season of e x p l o i t - a t i o n i s confirmed f o r a l l assemblages. Figure 38 compares f i s h assemblages according to season of a v a i l - a b i l i t y with the small f i s h e s herring (Clupeidae), anchovies (Engraulidae) and sardines (Osmeridae) excluded from the sample. (Tables 73 and 74 i n Appendix A present the d e t a i l e d data.) The majority of f i s h i n a l l the DiSo 1 assemblages are a v a i l a b l e year round, whether measured by s k e l e t a l element count or MNI. By s k e l e t a l element count a s i m i l a r p a t t e r n . i s exhibited by the DiSo 9-1 assemblage, but by MNI t h i s pattern i s more d i f f u s e with Spring also marked by a (high frequency.' In the DiSo 16 assemblage, approximately: three .'quarters of the remains are i n the category Spring/Early Summer .by both methods of measurement. In the DiSo 9-II assemblage, j u s t over.half the remains are i n that cate- gory, with almost 40 percent i n the category Year Round. The category F a l l i s not strongly represented i n any assemblage. I t should be noted here that u n s p e c i f i c a l l y i d e n t i f i e d salmon remains A s s e m b l a g e S e a s o n DiSo 16 DiSo 9 DiSo 1 I II I II III IV V YEAR ROUND 2 8 M'iM | 82 1 1 0 1 8 1111 3 6 SSBBf 56 HI 98 <1 1 2 91 <1 SPRING AND gARLY SUMMER l ^ l i f l l i mm* 96 I 4 ' i 94 < 1 I 6 <1 91 41 I 9 SUMMER |8 <1 LATE SUMMER AND FALL i I 2 •Cu \ 9 WINTER AND EARLY SPRING <1 N 2,673 3,620 • 4,13 5 1,700 j 2,326 4,842 3,684 940 Herring, anchovy and sardine excluded from the. sample. Early spring i s act u a l l y represented i n a l l assemblages, by herring (see. page 227) Columns t o t a l 100% Figure 38. Season of A v a i l a b i l i t y , Fish Fauna of A l l Assemblages, Relative Frequency by Skeletal Element Count. 229 could not be included i n these c a l c u l a t i o n s , thus P a l l i s under- represented i n a l l assemblages to some degree. The strength of repre- sentation f o r Spring/Early Summer at DiSo 9 and DiSo 16 i s the more sur p r i s i n g i n that i t represents only one species, the P l a i n f i n Midship- man. Molluscs I t had been my inten t i o n to obtain,season of death estimates f o r selected valves of Native L i t t l e n e c k and Butter Clam from a l l s i t e s to determine the seasons of major c o l l e c t i o n of these two species. Two factors prevented the completion of t h i s study: the number of valves s u i t a b l e f o r seasonality studies a v a i l a b l e from DiSo 1 was too small to be r e l i a b l e ; and a f t e r the DiSo 9 and DiSo 16 samples were measured, aged and cross-sectioned, i t was found that they d i f f e r s i g n i f i c a n t l y i n size/age c o r r e l a t i o n from the only comparative b i o l o g i c a l growth s t a t i s - t i c s a v a i l a b l e f o r estimating average annual amount of growth per age cla s s (Eraser and Smith 1928). •- In a l l age classes the average s i z e of the archaeological samples from Hesquiat i s smaller than that of the comparable Fraser and Smith samples, often by more than 10 mm (Table 26). This i s l o g i c a l , as a l l 32 of the beaches sampled i n the Fraser.and Smith studies were east coast of Vancouver Island, while the archaeological specimens are west coast. While the samples of archae- o l o g i c a l valves are s u f f i c i e n t to demonstrate the discrepancy, they are not s u f f i c i e n t l y large to construct a r e l i a b l e table of age correlated mean breadth growths using the archaeological samples themselves. Only 136 valves of Native L i t t l e n e c k and 122 valves of Butter.Clam were aged and measured with s u f f i c i e n t c e r t a i n t y to use i n t h i s fashion. When Table 26. Comparison of Growth S t a t i s t i c s by Age for East Coast Vancouver Island Clams, (based on'Fraser.and Smith 1928, b i o l o g i c a l samples from 32 beaches between V i c t o r i a and Nanaimo) and West Coast Vancouver Island Clams (based on archaeological specimens from Hesquiat Harbour, dating between A.D. 100 and A.D. 700). Age Protothaca staminea Native L i t t l e n e c k East Coast _ West Coast _ Breadth Range X Breadth Range X Breadth Breadth Saxidomus giganteus Butter Clam Age East Coast Breadth Range _.. West Coast. _ X Breadth Range X Breadth, Breadth 2 19.3-29.2 mm 3 27.2-39.5 mm 4 32.6-45.7 mm 5 .38.6-49.9 mm 6 40.2-53.8 mm 7 43.6-55.6 mm 23.1 mm 15.6-25.9 mm 20.6'mm 32.0mm 19.8-30.9 mm 24.2mm 38.8 mm 23.1-31.5 mm 27.6 mm 43.5mm 24.9-36.9 mm 29;9 mm 47.1 mm 26.0-45.2 mm 33.5 mm 50.2 mm 31.5-45.2 mm 35.8 mm (Fraser and Smith sample f o r (Archaeological sample age classes 1 year to 10 from DiSo 9, N=136) years, N=2975) 2 20.2-28.8 mm 3 29.4-39.1 mm 4 35.6-49.7 mm 5 41.3-57.8 mm 6 45.3-64.5 mm 7 • 48.9-70.5 mm 8 52.1-75.5 mm 9 55.1-78.0 mm 10 57.6-78.5 mm 11 59.0-78.2 mm 24.5 mm 34.0 mm 42.2 mm 48.7 mm 54.3 mm 58.9 mm 62.9 mm 66.2 mm 67.6 mm 69.0 mm (Fraser and Smith sample f o r age classes 1 year to 16 years, N=2523) 19.1-25.4 mm 22.2 mm 21.7-29.2 mm 26.5mm 25.6- 40.0 mm 32.5mm 29.1- 42.6 mm 34;4.mm 29.7- 43.3 mm 37.5 mm 37.0-50.1 mm 43.5 mm 37.4- 53.3 mm 45.9 mm 37.2- 52.0 mm 43.7 mm 44.6-69.6 mm 55.9 mm 51.5- 61.6 mm 56.6 mm (Archaeological sample from DiSo 9, N=122) 231 spread over seven and eleven age classes r e s p e c t i v e l y , these numbers gave r e s u l t s that while consistent, were not deemed i n c l u s i v e enough to be r e l i a b l e ; As individual :specimens often exceed the mean breadth growth increments for appropriate age'classes, i t was not p o s s i b l e to assign seasonal categories to halves or quarters of predicted growths, the method used by Keen (1979). The same'problem prevented the development of a growth curve from which to assess the proportion of yearly growth achieved, a preferable method of determining sub-annual growth increments. While i t would be - possible to increase the sample s i z e i n each age c l a s s by measuring the amount of growth for each year of each specimen and construct a growth curve that could be used p r e d i c t i v e l y , time d i d not permit returning to the specimens for these data. As the other faunal data i n d i c a t e that each assemblage contains vertebrate remains from a l l seasons, and the clam remains are those which d i f f e r l e a s t among assemblages i n frequency of occurrence, the a d d i t i o n a l s h e l l f i s h data were not f e l t e s s e n t i a l to the. c e n t r a l topic of the study. A few comments regarding the Butter and Native L i t t l e n e c k clams from DiSo 9 and DiSo 16, however, can be made.' Glams displaying.no growth a f t e r t h e . l a s t winter check r i n g were not re'co'rded. 'My.;subjective impression, based on the archaeological growth s t a t i s t i c s , , i s that the majority o f the valves i n both'samples d i s p l a y a small to moderate amount of growth a f t e r the l a s t winter check r i n g . This suggests for both DiSo 16 and DiSo 9 (both assemblages), that gathering of these molluscs took place p r i m a r i l y i n l a t e spring and summer, confirming the representation of these seasons i n these assemblages. Also the clams from DiSo 9-II tend to be older and larger than those from DiSo 9-1 232 Table 27. Seasons Represented i n the Vertebrate Faunal Assemblages.* Season Assemblage Spring Summer F a l l Winter Year Round DiSo 16 M XXXXXXXXXXX B XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX F XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxx DiSo 9-1 M XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX B XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX F XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxx DiSo 9-II M XXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX B XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX F XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX TRACE XXXXXXXXXXXX DiSo l - I M XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX B XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX F XXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXX DiSo l - I I M XXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX B XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX F XXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXX DiSo l - I I I M XXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX B XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX F XXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX TRACE XXXXXXXXXXXX DiSo 1-IV M XXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX B, XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX F XXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX TRACE XXXXXXXXXXXX DiSo 1-V M B XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXX F XXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXX *Herring remains, representing spring, are considered present i n a l l assemblages, M = Mammal, B = B i r d , F = F i s h . 233 and DiSo 16, perhaps suggesting the influence of extensive e x p l o i t a t i o n on the inner harbour s h e l l f i s h beds. Summary As predicted i n Chapter I I I , a l l seasons are represented i n a l l assemblages, except i n DiSo 1-V, i n which winter i s not represented. This i s l i k e l y a f a c t o r of sample s i z e . Table 27 summarizes•the verteb- rate data. No assemblage i s represented by a si n g l e season only. This indicates that while there are differences i n seasonal emphases among the assemb- lages > the data do not support the idea that any assemblage i s the r e s u l t of a very r e s t r i c t e d seasonal occupation. Thus the assemblages are l i k e l y to represent either year round occupations or winter occupations augmented by preserved food. The faunal remains themselves support the former i n t e r p r e t a t i o n , i n that they contain the bones of animals from a l l seasons that are u n l i k e l y to have been l e f t i n the meat, and hence , could have been transported, i f that meat was preserved. Examples of t h i s are the sea mammal remains, a l l the b i r d remains and large f i s h such as tuna. Further, no species i s represented only by anatomical portions, rather than the remains of whole,animals, as might mark preserved, foods. While food storage patterns may be i n f l u e n c i n g these data, there i s no unequivocal evidence from "the faunal remains to indicate, so. Rather, the assemblages suggest a'variety of species being taken at 0 d i f f e r e n t times throughout the year, thus the idea that they represent but part of the seasonal round must be reje c t e d . The impression of a l l assemblages i s that of a range of hunting, fowling, f i s h i n g and 234 gathering a c t i v i t i e s being c a r r i e d out with d i f f e r e n t species being ex- p l o i t e d as seasonally a v a i l a b l e . The seasonal v a r i a t i o n among the assemblages appears to be the r e s u l t of the e x p l o i t a t i o n of d i f f e r e n t seasonally a v a i l a b l e resources, rather than of d i f f e r e n t r e s t r i c t e d seasons of occupation. HABITATS EXPLOITED I t i s a t h e s i s of t h i s study that although.the Hesquiat faunal assemblages are at l e a s t p a r t i a l l y contemporary, they represent separate e x p l o i t a t i o n s of faunal resources within d i f f e r i n g , c u l t u r a l l y bounded, t e r r i t o r i a l units of the same regional c u l t u r a l adaptation. I t i s con? tended that the d i f f e r e n t habitats contained within these d i s c r e t e t e r r i t o r i a l units and exploited by the s i t e inhabitants, are the major factor contributing to interassemblage differences i n faunal remains. The t e r r i t o r i a l u nits are drawn by s o c i o - c u l t u r a l boundaries l i m i t i n g access to resource locations to p a r t i c u l a r groups of people associated with s p e c i f i c h a b i t a t i o n s i t e s . Thus the groups e f f e c t i v e l y e x p l o i t , and are adapted to, d i f f e r i n g sub-regional resource bases. The types of faunal assemblages one would expect at each s i t e , provided that the ethnographic system of land use and/or ownership was already i n operation, and given-a r e l a t i v e l y stable environment, were described i n Chapter I II (pages 21 to 64). We have seen that some of the v a r i a t i o n d e t a i l e d i n Chapter V can be a t t r i b u t e d to seasonal v a r i - a t i o n i n a v a i l a b i l i t y of resources, to sample error, and to a changing l o c a l environment. I t remains, to determine whether or not the faunal assemblages d i f f e r markedly among themselves i n the e x p l o i t a t i o n of 235 d i f f e r e n t Habitat Categories as defined i n Chapter II (pages 19 to 64) and compare the r e s u l t s with those expected. I t was predicted that at DiSo 1, the assemblages would rank the Pelagic and Pelagic/Littoral/combined vertebrate habitat categories f i r s t and second i n importance, followed by L i t t o r a l , then Streams/Lakes/ Forests, and f i n a l l y L i t t o r a l / F o r e s t Edge. At DiSo 16, Streams/Lakes/ Forests was expected to rank f i r s t i n importance, followed by L i t t o r a l , then L i t t o r a l / F o r e s t Edge, then P e l a g i c / L i t t o r a l fourth. The Pelagic category was. not expected to be represented at either DiSo 16 or DiSo 9. At DiSo 9, i t was predicted that the category L i t t o r a l would rank f i r s t i n importance, followed by Streams/Lakes/Forests, then L i t t o r a l / F o r e s t Edge, then P e l a g i c / L i t t o r a l . I t was also predicted that the DiSo 16 assemblage would be l e s s varied than the DiSo 9 assemblage, although both would be s i m i l a r . Emphases on Exposed Shores s h e l l f i s h species at DiSo 1 and Sheltered Shores species at both DiSo 9 and DiSo 16 also were predicted. Vertebrate Fauna Using the d e f i n i t i o n s presented i n Chapter I I , the vertebrate faunal remains of a l l assemblages were grouped according to the species' preferred habitat, within the major groupings of b i r d , f i s h and mammal taxa. The r e s u l t s provided by s k e l e t a l element count are presented i n Figures 38 to 41 (see also Tables 75 to 81 i n Appendix A). As one would expect, f i s h and.bird species more sharply d i f f e r e n t i a t e among the assemblages than mammals, but i n a l l three vertebrate cases the pat tern: i s c l e a r and s i m i l a r . - These patterns are displayed i n Figures 39, 40 and 41. Tables 75 to 81 i n Appendix A give the figures f o r both s k e l e t a l element count,and MNI. 236 For the mammals (Figure 39), the DiSo 16 assemblage i s exclu s i v e l y within two categories, L i t t o r a l / F o r e s t Edge and Forest. The DiSo 9-1 assemblage i s d i f f e r e n t , with approximately equally strong representation i n Forest L i t t o r a l , and P e l a g i c - L i t t o r a l categories, but also some representation i n Pelagic and L i t t o r a l / F o r e s t Edge categories. DiSo 9-II appears to be grouped with the DiSo 1 assemblages i n emphasizing the categories Pelagic and P e l a g i c - L i t t o r a l most'strongly. I t should be noted that the DiSo 9-II Pelagic category i s e x c l u s i v e l y Northern Fur Seal, which may also have been taken i n the P e l a g i c - L i t t o r a l environment. Because i t i s not possible to determine exactly where these animals were being taken, t h e i r numbers are equally s p l i t between these two categor- i e s i n a l l assemblages where they occur. I f bone count i s used, there, also appears to be a s l i g h t s h i f t with DiSo 1.assemblages from e a r l i e r to more recent, from L i t t o r a l to.Pelagic categories. I t should also be. noted that the category Pe l a g i c at DiSo 1 i s underrepresented- i n a l l assemblages, as the graph does not take into account the quantities of n o n - s p e c i f i c a l l y i d e n t i f i e d whale and porpoise (Cetacea) remains r e - covered from these deposits. MNI frequencies do not d i f f e r appreciably from the s k e l e t a l element count f i g u r e s . The pattern f o r b i r d remains, using s k e l e t a l element count, more c l e a r l y separates the DiSo 1 assemblages from the two DiSo 9 assemblages, and a l l these from DiSo 16 (Figure 40). At DiSo 16 there i s a c l e a r emphasis on Open L i t t o r a l Water and:Sheltered L i t t o r a l Waters avifauna. At DiSo 9, while these .two categories are also the most strongly empha- sized, both assemblages display a stronger emphasis on the former-category and Pelagic avifauna occur more frequently. DiSo 9-II d i f f e r s from DiSo 9-1 i n having a.higher percentage of remains from Sheltered L i t t o r a l A s s e m b l a g e Habitat Category Columns t o t a l 100%. Canis f a m i l i a r i s i s excluded Figure 39. Relative Frequency of I d e n t i f i e d Mammal Remains, Habitat Category by Assemblage, Sk e l e t a l Element Count.- 238 Waters species, and a lower percentage of remains from S t r a n d / L i t t o r a l Interface.species. In a l l DiSo 1 assemblages the Pelagic avifauna are much more strongly represented, Open L i t t o r a l Water avifauna are favour- ed, and those frequenting Sheltered, Shallow Water habitats are well. represented. This l a t t e r category includes water meadows, lakes and t i d a l . f l a t s , some of which would be a v a i l a b l e i n the V i l l a g e Lake.area both before and a f t e r the f u l l development of the lake basin. In a l l assemblages the S t r a n d / L i t t o r a l Interface avifauna are frequently occur- r i n g species. F i s h remains, with herring included i n the sample, group the assemblages as c l e a r l y as do.the avifauna (Figure 41). DiSo 16 i s separated from both DiSo 9 assemblages, while a l l of these assemblages are separated from the DiSo 1 assemblages. At DiSo 16, 70 to 80 percent of. the f i s h remains (Tables 79 and 80) are i n two categories/ Moderate^ l y Deep Water Over Varied,Bottom, and Intertidal,Over Boulder Bottom. No other assemblage emphasizes these categories so strongly. Both DiSo 9 assemblages strongly emphasize the category I n t e r t i d a l with Soft Bottom, with a l e s s e r emphasis on the category Moderately Deep Water over Varied Bottom. These two assemblages also more strongly.."emphasize the category Streams than do other assemblages. At DiSo 1, a l l assemb- lages d i s p l a y a heavy emphasis on the s i n g l e category Moderately Deep Water Over Rocky Bottom. In DiSo 1T.III, there i s also an emphasis on the category I n t e r t i d a l with Soft Bottom. I f herring, anchovy and sardine are•excluded from the sample"to compensate for d i f f e r i n g recovery techniques (Figure 42), assemblages are s t i l l grouped i n the same fashion, but both DiSo 9 assemblages d i s - play a greatly increased emphasis i n the category Moderately Deep Water A s s e m b l a g e Habitat Category Columns t o t a l 100% Figure 40. Relative Frequency of I d e n t i f i e d B i r d Remains, Habitat Category by Assemblage, Skeletal Element Count. 240 Over Varied Bottom and l e s s increases i n the categories Shallower Inshore Waters Over Varied Bottom, and Streams; Other assemblage emphases remain the same, except for DiSo l - I I I , where the removal of herring decreases the frequency of category 7 and increases category 2. For DiSo 16 and DiSo 1,•these findings f i t w e l l with the e x p l o i t - a t i o n from each s i t e of the immediate s i t e environment.. The. DiSo 9 data suggest a more complicated pattern. To further c l a r i f y the picture, the t o t a l s p e c i f i c a l l y i d e n t i f i e d vertebrate sample, excluding herring, anchovy, sardine, dogfish, r a t f i s h and Canis sp., was grouped under the more i n c l u s i v e Major Habitat Categories (see Chapter I I , page 65) of Pelagic, P e l a g i c - L i t t o r a l , L i t t o r a l , L i t t o r a l / F o r e s t Edge, and Streams/ Lakes/Forests, using s k e l e t a l element count. The percentages, d i s p l a y - ed, i n Figure 43, are obtained by combining the percentages for b i r d , f i s h and mammal categories and standardizing them on a base of 300,' rather than returning to i n d i v i d u a l sample s k e l e t a l element counts. This was done to compensate f o r . v a s t l y d i f f e r i n g sample sizes between f i s h remains and other vertebrate remains. A l l DiSo 1 assemblages are grouped together, with between 55 and 75 percent.of t h e i r vertebrate faunal remains occurring i n the Pelagic/ L i t t o r a l and Pelagic categories. Major emphasis i n both DiSo 9 assemb- lages i s the category L i t t o r a l , comprising 44 percent at DiSo 9-1 and 35 percent at DiSo 9-II. In DiSo 9-1 a further 27 percent i s made up of the category Streams/Lakes/Forests. In both DiSo 9 assemblages the. frequencies i n the category P e l a g i c / L i t t o r a l are considerably l e s s than i n the DiSo 1 assemblages but higher than that of the DiSo 16 assemb- lage. A larger proportion of the DiSo 9-II assemblage than of the DiSo 9-1 assemblage i s in,the Pelagic and P e l a g i c / L i t t o r a l categories. Assemblage- Habitat Category Columns t o t a l 100% Dogfish and Ra t f i s h are excluded. Where species occur i n more than one category, the number, of bones i s divided equally among the categories. Figure 41. Relative Frequencies of I d e n t i f i e d Fish, Habitat Category by Assemblage, Sk e l e t a l Element Count. A s s e m b l a g e Habitat Category Columns t o t a l 100% Dogfish and Ratfish excluded. Figure 42. Relative Frequency.of F i s h Excluding Sardine, Anchovy and Herring, Habitat Category by Assemblage Skeletal Element Count. 243 The groupings L i t t o r a l and L i t t o r a l / F o r e s t Edge comprise 31 and 32 percent r e s p e c t i v e l y of the DiSo 16 sample. Of i n t e r e s t are.the higher frequencies at DiSo 9 and DiSo 16 i n the category Streams/Lakes/ Forests, -jrefiecting i n part the higher frequencies of salmon i n these assemblages (see also Tables 82 and 83, Appendix.A). These.calculations suggest a strong as s o c i a t i o n between,the DiSo 1. assemblages and the Pelagic and P e l a g i c / L i t t o r a l habitats, while both DiSo 9 assemblages are associated with the P e l a g i c / L i t t o r a l and L i t t o r a l categories, and the DiSo 16 assemblage i s associated with L i t t o r a l , L i t t o r a l / F o r e s t Edge, and Streams/Lakes/Forests habitats. A further measure of these associations was made, by using weight of animals represented. This was done to examine the p o s s i b i l i t y that , while a higher frequency of i n d i v i d u a l s wasS being taken from a p a r t i c u - l a r habitat, i t - d i d not represent a higher proportion of meat. The c a l c u l a t i o n s were designed to provide a t l e a s t a gross measure of r e l a t i v e importance of the habitat categories for each assemblage i n producing vertebrate meat, rather than to a r r i v e at accurate s t a t i s - t i c s of useable meat represented. Such measures are so fraught with p o t e n t i a l e r r o r as to be highly suspect (Smith, B.D. 1975:101; Lyman 1979:537-538; Stewart and Stahl 1977),;. Accordingly, mean l i v e weights . of species or groups of species were used, not useable meat r a t i o s such as those suggested by White (1953) or Lyman (1979:539). In Chapter I I , weight classes f o r f i s h were given (Table 7); mean weights and ranges of weights for male and female adult mammals were given (Table 2); and mean weights and, ranges f o r female and male bi r d s combined were given (Table 4). To c a l c u l a t e the body weight represented A s s e m b l a g e Combined Vertebrate Habitat Category Columns t o t a l 100% Excludes herring, anchovy, dogfish, r a t f i s h and dog. Figure 43. Relative Frequency of Bird, F i s h and Mammal Remains, Habitat Category by Assemblage, Skeletal Element Count. 245 for a habitat category i n the archaeological f i s h samples, assemblage MNI's for f i s h species were m u l t i p l i e d by the mean of the.appropriate f i s h weight c l a s s . A l l h a l i b u t were taken to be female. For mammals, ad u l t m a l e and female means were used f o r adult i n d i v i d u a l s of known sex; the mean of male and.female means f o r adult and sub-adult.indiv- iduals of unknown sex; hal f of t h i s mean for juveniles; and hal f again for newborn/foetal i n d i v i d u a l s . For bi r d s , a s i n g l e species mean was used. Figures 44, 45, and 46 present the r e s u l t s of these c a l c u l a t i o n s . (See also Tables 85 to 87 i n Appendix A.) I t i s obvious that while per- centages c e r t a i n l y d i f f e r from those.of s k e l e t a l element r e l a t i v e frequencies, the o v e r a l l pattern of interassemblage v a r i a t i o n , and.the a s s o c i a t i o n of each assemblage with p a r t i c u l a r habitat categories r e - mains e s s e n t i a l l y the same. The pattern i s equally clear i f b i r d , f i s h and mammal, weights are added together i n the more i n c l u s i v e Major Habitat Categories and per-^ centages c a l c u l a t e d f o r each category based on the t o t a l assemblage weight. This compensates f o r the proportion of weight contributed to the t o t a l by each major taxon, a compensatory measure necessary, as bir d s contribute only one to f i v e percent of the t o t a l weight (Table 84, Appendix A). The.results of these c a l c u l a t i o n s are displayed i n Figure 47 (see also Table 88, Appendix A). As with the i n d i v i d u a l major taxa percentages, the combined vertebrate faunal weight percentages show the same strong a s s o c i a t i o n between DiSo 1 assemblages and Pelagic and P e l a g i c / L i t t o r a l habitats; between DiSo 9 assemblages and P e l a g i c / L i t t o r a l and L i t t o r a l habitats; and between DiSo 16 and L i t t o r a l and Streams/Lakes/Eorests habi t a t s . The differences between DiSo 9-1 and DiSo 9-II assemblages are also A s s e m b lage Habitat Category Columns t o t a l 100%. Canis f a m i l i a r i s and Orcinus orca excluded. Figure 44. Relative Frequency of Mammal Remains, Habitat Category by Assemblage, Animal Weight. A s s e m b l a g e Habitat Category DiSo 16 PELAGIC I 1 OPEN gg&J LITTORAL j M 2 7 WATERS fM SHFLTERED | LITTORAL 1 WATERS SHELTERED SHALLOW WATERS STRAND LITTORAL INTERFACE FOREST UPLAND 46 16 10 < 1 DiSo 9 27 II 18 < 1 17 11 II 22 21 28 25 DiSo 1 WEIGHT IN Kg 33.8 70-2 6 4.1 12 6.2 3 5.3 Columns t o t a l 100%. Figure 45. Relative Frequency of B i r d Remains, Habitat Category by Assemblage, Animal Weight. A s s e m b l a g e Habitat Category Columns total,100%. Dogfish and R a t f i s h excluded. Figure 46. Relative Frequency of F i s h Remains, Habitat Category by. Assemblage, Animal Weight. A s s emb l age Combined Vertebrate Habitat Category PELAGIC PELAGIC LITTORAL LITTORAL LITTORAL FOREST EDGE&* STREAM/ LAKE'FOREST WEIGHT IN Kg Columns t o t a l 100% Excludes Dogfish, Ratfish and-Dog. Figure 47. Relative Frequency of Bi r d , F i s h and Mammal Remains, Combined..Habitat Category by Assemblage, Animal Weight. 250 c l e a r l y i l l u s t r a t e d , with the l a t t e r d i s p l a y i n g a stronger a s s o c i a t i o n with P e l a g i c / L i t t o r a l and Pelagic habitats while DiSo 9-1 shows a stronger a s s o c i a t i o n with Streams/Lakes/Fbrests habitats. Summary of Vertebrate .Patterns There can be no- doubt that the inhabitants of DiSo 1, throughout i t s occupation, were obtaining the majority of t h e i r vertebrate resources from Pelagic and P e l a g i c / L i t t o r a l habitats. The : percentages range from 74 to 85 percent by animal weight and from 55 to 75 percent by s k e l e t a l element count. Again, the reader i s reminded that these percentages do. not.include whale- remains, as no reasonable method of quantifying these remains was devised. I f such remains were included, undoubtedly these" two categories i n DiSo 1 assemblages would be,even more.strongly empha- sized. Those who deposited the DiSo 9 assemblages were e x p l o i t i n g the P e l a g i c / L i t t o r a l and L i t t o r a l habitats most heavily, obtaining between 58 and 63 percent, by animal weight, or between 63 and 68 percent, by s k e l e t a l element "count, of t h e i r faunal resources from these two habitat categories. They were,also e x p l o i t i n g the Streams/Lakes/Forests habit- ats more i n t e n s i v e l y , with 15 to 26 percent (by weight) or 12 to 27 percent (by element count) o f the vertebrates taken "from these, habit- a t s . DiSo 9-1 emphasized .these habitats more than DiSo 9-II,- .while the l a t t e r emphasized the Pelagic and P e l a g i c / L i t t o r a l habitats more strongly. The people who deposited.the DiSo 16 assemblage c l e a r l y empha- sized L i t t o r a l , L i t t o r a l / F o r e s t , Edge and Streams/Lakes/For'ests habitats, with l i m i t e d use of animals more commonly found i n 251 the P e l a g i c / L i t t o r a l environments, but l i t t l e or no e x p l o i t a t i o n of the Pelagic habitat. S h e l l f i s h Fauna The pattern of s h e l l f i s h e x p l o i t a t i o n i s not as c l e a r , as there were i n a l l assemblages strong emphases on two.main species of clam, Native L i t t l e n e c k and Butter Clam, inhabitants of sheltered, muddy sand and gravel beaches. Pockets of such habitat are found nearly every- where i n Hesquiat Harbour, even i n l i t t l e , r e l a t i v e l y sheltered bays on the outer coast as.well as i n the more obviously s u i t a b l e inner harbour. I t has been remarked that DiSo 9 and DiSo 16 assemblages a l l contain higher proportions than DiSo 1 assemblages of Native L i t t l e - neck, a species that favours a s l i g h t l y more.sheltered, muddy sand, habitat than Butter.Clam. There are also a few other i n d i c a t i o n s that s h e l l f i s h i n the DiSo 1 assemblages were obtained p r i m a r i l y from the outer coast habitats, while those of DiSo 9 and DiSo 16 assemblages were obtained more frequently from sheltered shores. DiSo 1.was the only s i t e at.which sea urchin t e s t and :spine f r a g - ments were c o n s i s t e n t l y noted, although hot c o l l e c t e d f o r qua n t i t a t i v e a n a l y s i s . Chitons are also more frequent i n the DiSo 1 assemblages. Bay mussel, p r e f e r r i n g sheltered rocky shores and t o l e r a t i n g l e s s s a l i n e water conditions, was recovered from DiSo 9 and DiSo 16 assemb- lages, but occurred r a r e l y in.the DiSo 1 assemblages. At DiSo 16 and DiSo 9-1 i t i s 24 percent.of the mussel sample, a t DiSo 9-II, 7 per- cent (Table 28). The remainder of these samples i s C a l i f o r n i a Mussel,, a species not found ins i d e the harbour today. 252 While the very high r e l a t i v e frequency of C a l i f o r n i a Mussel at DiSo 9 might be explained as.the r e s u l t of resource e x p l o i t a t i o n i n a more extensive t e r r i t o r y than the inner harbour., as i s pos s i b l y sug- gested by the vertebrate sample from t h i s s i t e , the high frequency'at DiSo 16 i s not p a r a l l e l e d by such vertebrate evidence. As there i s a change from DiSo 9-II to DiSo 9-1, from l e s s Bay Mussel to more Bay Mussel, a trend continued by the DiSo 16 sample, i t would seem that per- haps gradual environmental change as discussed on pages 218 to 221 , r e s u l t i n g i n a habitat l e s s and l e s s favourable f o r C a l i f o r n i a Mussel, i s the best explanation of t h i s archaeological pattern and present, day d i s t r i b u t i o n s . The increase i n r e l a t i v e frequency of Native L i t t l e n e c k Clam from DiSo 9-II to DiSo 9-1 also may support t h i s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . Table 28. Major Habitat Categories f o r S h e l l f i s h , All:Assemblages> . Relative Frequency by-Weight' i n Grams. Habitat Categories Assemblage Clams Mussel's Sea Sna i l s Exposed Sheltered Exposed Sheltered Exposed. Sheltered (1,3) (2,4,5) (1,3.) (2,4,5) (1,3) (2,4,5) DiSo 16 - 100 76 24 39' 61 DiSo 9-1 - 100 77 24 52 48. DiSo 9-II < 1 99.9 93 7 36 64 DiSo l - I < 1 99.9 100 - 49 51 DiSo l - I I - 100 1000 - 65 35 DiSo l - I I I <1 99.9 99 1 35 65 DiSo 1-IV - 100 100 - 61 39 DiSo 1-V _ 100 — 100* 66 34 Rows t o t a l 100% within categories o f clam, mussel and sea s n a i l . *This percentage i s u n r e l i a b l e as based on,a sample of only 0.1 g. 253 The frequencies of sea s n a i l s also tend to d i s t i n g u i s h the DiSo 1 assemblages from the DiSo 16 and DiSo 9 assemblages, although the pat- tern i s c e r t a i n l y not marked. The l a t t e r assemblages tend to have s l i g h t l y higher frequencies of species favouring more sheltered shores, while DiSo 1 assemblages have s l i g h t l y greater abundances of species favouring more open habitats (Table 28). Sample sizes of.limpets are not s u f f i c i e n t to present r e l i a b l e patterns. I f the percentages of a l l classes of s h e l l f i s h are combined for the two major habitat categories Exposed Shores and Sheltered Shores, the r e s u l t i n g pattern generally distinguishes DiSo 1 assemblages, favouring Exposed Shores species, from the DiSo 9 and DiSo 16 assemblages, favour- ing Sheltered Shores species, but the pattern i s n o t . s u f f i c i e n t l y marked to be s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t (Table 29). Table 29. Combined S h e l l f i s h Habitat Categories by Assemblage, Rel a t i v e Frequency by Weight i n Grams within -Faunal Classes. Habitat Categories Assemblage Exposed Shores Sheltered Shores DiSo 16 39 61 DiSo 9-1 45 55 DiSo 9-II 41 59 DiSo l - I 50 50 DiSo l - I I 58 42 DiSo l - I I I 42 58 DiSo 1-IV 56 44- DiSo 1-V 33 67 A l l rows t o t a l 100%. DiSo 1-V i s a very small.sample. 254 The DiSo l - I I I assemblage stands out from the other DiSo 1.assemblages i n having higher frequencies.of Sheltered Shore species. This probably r e f l e c t s the development of sheltered t i d a l f l a t s and l i t t l e embayments associated.with the development of the V i l l a g e Lake basin and a s s o c i - ated land mass. The sample of s h e l l f i s h from DiSo 1-V i s much too small to be r e l i a b l e . Summary of S h e l l f i s h Patterns Although the pattern of a s s o c i a t i o n between assemblages and habitat categories i s not as strongly marked for s h e l l f i s h fauna as for verteb- rate fauna, i t does follow the expected pattern, with DiSo 1 assemblages favouring more exposed habitat species than the DiSo 9 and.DiSb 16 assemblages. In a l l assemblages, however, the emphasis on clam species favouring sheltered habitats f a r outweighs the minor patterns of sea s n a i l , limpet and mussel v a r i a t i o n . This i s . a clear case of a major food resource being exploited wherever.and whenever i t can be obtained. I t also r e f l e c t s the more discontinuous d i s t r i b u t i o n of small areas of habitat s u i t a b l e for clams throughout,the Hesquiat Harbour 1area (see Figure 7). The changes i n frequency between DiSo 9-II and DiSo 9-1 do support the suggestion of a gradually changing inner harbour environ- ment that i s becoming more sheltered through time with the development of the Anton's S p i t area. This gepmorphological change i s also seem- i n g l y r e f l e c t e d i n the DiSo l - I I I assemblage, which would be roughly contemporary with the f i n a l stages of development of the Village" Lake basin c u t - o f f . 255 DISCUSSION OF RESULTS On the basis of the patterns of v a r i a t i o n i l l u s t r a t e d i n t h i s chapter, i t i s p o s s i b l e to say that the predictions of assemblage/ habitat associations are confirmed. These associations explain a major proportion of the interassemblage v a r i a t i o n i n faunal remains. Seasonal v a r i a t i o n s , while present, do not s a t i s f a c t o r i l y explain the patterns of v a r i a t i o n . As predicted, all.seasons are represented i n a l l assemblages, thus negating the p o s s i b i l i t y that the assemblage diff e r e n c e s r e s u l t from d i f f e r i n g , r e s t r i c t e d seasons of e x p l o i t a t i o n . The d i f f e r e n t assemblages do di s p l a y d i f f e r i n g emphases i n season of ex p l o i t a t i o n , but these r e l a t e to the seasonal a v a i l a b i l i t y of p a r t i c u - l a r species, rather than t o t a l assemblage emphasis on a p a r t i c u l a r l i m i t e d portion of the year. A t DiSo 9-1, for example, both spring and f a l l are strongly represented by f i s h (herring and salmon), while mammal,and b i r d remains in d i c a t e e x p l o i t a t i o n throughout the year as w e l l . The seasonal v a r i - a t i o n observed i s best considered r e s u l t i n g from the e x p l o i t a t i o n of d i f f e r e n t seasonally a v a i l a b l e resources, rather than from d i f f e r e n t , r e s t r i c t e d seasons of occupation. In other.words,•the•seasonal v a r i - a t i o n i s dependent on the habitats being exploited, rather than v i c e versa. The only p o s s i b l e exception to t h i s i s DiSo 9-II, whose faunal assemblages suggest.a more intensive use of Pelagic and Pel a g i c / L i t t o r a l resources during the spring (fur seal) and summer-(birds) months.. This seasonal pattern supports the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n that t h i s assemblage represents e x p l o i t a t i o n from a wider t e r r i t o r y than that of the.inner harbour alone. 256 S i m i l a r l y , d ifferences i n a r t i f a c t assemblages relevant to food procurement were found to be dependent on the d i f f e r i n g a c t i v i t i e s being c a r r i e d out at the d i f f e r e n t s i t e s . Changes i n material c u l t u r e , whether i n a r t i f a c t manufacturing technology or knowledge of p a r t i c u l a r a r t i f a c t classes, were not established. The a r t i f a c t assemblages from a l l three s i t e s were.found to be very s i m i l a r , and probably l i t t l e d i f - ferent from those reported formthe Yuquot s i t e Middle and Late Periods. Sample error and d i f f e r e n t i a l preservation were not found to be important factors i n the interassemblage v a r i a t i o n , except f o r the d i f - ferences in,frequency of herring, anchovy and sardine remains a t t r i b u t - able at l e a s t i n major part to d i f f e r i n g sample recovery techniques. These sample differences are taken i n t o account i n the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s . The observed Assemblage/Habitat Category associations are compared with the hypothetical predicted r e s u l t s f o r the three s i t e s i n Figure 48. This figure displays the predicted rank order of importance of Combined Vertebrate Habitat Categories, plus the observed r e l a t i v e frequencies f o r the categories by s k e l e t a l element count and by animal weight. As a l l f i v e assemblages at DiSo 1 are very s i m i l a r , mean frequencies f o r the s i t e are used. The DiSo 9 assemblages display s u f f i c i e n t differences to j u s t i f y maintaining t h e i r separation. Differences between the predicted pattern of rank order and the observed frequencies of Ske l e t a l element counts, animal weights, and the mean of these two percentages, were com- pared by c a l c u l a t i n g Spearman *s rank order c o r r e l a t i o n r , using the formula N s r = 1 - l " as defined i n Blalock (1960:317). Both DiSo 1 and s N ( N * - l ) DiSo 16 di s p l a y strong p o s i t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n s with the predicted rank 257 A. D i S o 16 — ' — • P E L A G I C 1 PELAGIC/LITTORAL LITTORAL/FOREST EDGE L ITTORAL STREAMS/LAKES/ FOREST < i i B. D i So 9 - I PELAGIC PELAGIC/LITTORAL L ITTORAL/FOREST EDGE STREAMS/ LAKES/FOREST LITTORAL 5 Weight, r s = 1.00 4 3 Count, r s = 0.20 S 1 Mean, r s = 0 .90 5 Weight, T S - 0.10 3 Count, r s= 0.83 2 1 Mean, r g = 0 .50 C D i S o 9-11 PELAGIC PELAGIC/LITTORAL L ITTORAL/FOREST EDGE STREAMS/LAKES/FOREST LITTORAL D- D i S o 1, mean PELAGIC PELAGIC/ LITTORAL L I T T O R A L STREAMS/LAKES/ FOREST L ITTORAL/FOREST EDGE 1 Weight, r s - 0.65 2 3 Count , r g= 0.89 5 Mean, r s = 0 .80 3 Animal weight Element count Expected Figure 48. Expected Rank Order of Importance for Vertebrate Faunal Habitat Categories, Compared with Observed Relative •' Frequencies, DiSo 16, DiSo 9,,and DiSo 1.' 258 orders. DiSo 9-1 shows a f a i r l y strong p o s i t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n while DiSo 9-II displays a weak negative c o r r e l a t i o n . As predicted, a l l DiSo 1 assemblages emphasize Pelagic and P e l a g i c / L i t t o r a l categories. They d i f f e r from the predicted model i n that the P e l a g i c / L i t t o r a l rather than the Pelagic category i s most strongly represented. This i s p a r t i a l l y explained by the greater number of more r e a d i l y a v a i l a b l e species in,the P e l a g i c / L i t t o r a l category as opposed to the Pelagic category.- I t must, however, be remembered that no whale and very few porpoise remains are included in,these c a l c u l a t i o n s . Thus f the r e s u l t s should be interpreted i n the l i g h t of Table 16 (page 155) which c l e a r l y i l l u s t r a t e s percentages ranging from 31,to 51 for Cetacean remains r e l a t i v e to other orders, f o r the DiSo 1 assemblages. When t h i s i s considered, the Pelagic category i s seen to be as strongly, i f not more strongly, emphasized in,these assemblages than i s the Pe l a g i c / L i t t o r a l category, although it.h a s not been q u a n t i t a t i v e l y demonstrated. For animal weight, the c o r r e l a t i o n with the expected pattern o f rank order i s r s=0.65, a reasonably strong p o s i t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n , but not as strong,as that f o r s k e l e t a l element count; which has a r ^ of 0.89. The / mean of the two percentages provides a strong p o s i t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n , with r =0.80. s Minor differences between the DiSo l - I I I assemblage and other'' DiSo 1 assemblages appear to be a t t r i b u t a b l e to l o c a l environmental changes contingent on the development of the V i l l a g e Lake land area. While these differences are most.noticeable i n the f i s h remains, the composite vertebrate sample pattern i s c l e a r l y s i m i l a r to other DiSo 1 assemblages. 259 S h e l l f i s h also display a s l i g h t l y greater emphasis on exposed shore species i n DiSo 1 assemblages than i n other assemblages, as was pre- dic t e d . The differences are not as.marked because i n a l l assemblages, clams are the most abundantly occurring s h e l l f i s h . The higher frequency o f mussel s h e l l i n the DiSo l - I I I assemblage r e l a t i v e to other DiSo 1 assemblages i s d i f f i c u l t to explain, but might r e s u l t . f r o m - i s o l a t e d areas of rocky outcrop being i n the i n t e r t i d a l zone i n areas now part of the land mass of the V i l l a g e Lake-Anton's S p i t area. Such pockets o f : r o c k y shores might have been s u i t a b l e areas for expanded mussel c o l o n i z a t i o n . The DiSo 9 assemblages both d i f f e r from ;the predicted models, e s p e c i a l l y the older DiSo 9-II assemblage, i n t h e i r stronger than ex- pected emphasis on the Pelagic and P e l a g i c / L i t t o r a l categories. They do, however, as predicted, d i s p l a y stronger emphases on the habitat categories L i t t o r a l and Streams/Lakes/Forests, than do the DiSo 1. assemb- lages. The DiSo 9-1 pattern i s cl o s e r to the expected pattern of rank order than the DiSo 9-II.pattern. For DiSo 9-1, rank order of animal weight provides an r g of 0.10, a weak p o s i t i v e a ssociation, but s k e l e t a l element count provides a much stronger p o s i t i v e a s s o c i a t i o n of r s=0.83. The mean of count and weight produces a moderately strong p o s i t i v e cor- r e l a t i o n with the predicted rank order of habitat categories of'.r —O.SO.'- At DiSo 9-II, however, animal weight displays a weak negative c o r r e l a t i o n of r s=0.10 with the predicted:rank order of habitat category emphasis, while count i s moderately strongly p o s i t i v e l y associated with the pre- d i c t e d order, with r s=0.51. The mean percentages are weakly negatively correlated with the predicted rank order, with r s=0.10. The unexpectedly high frequencies i n the Pelagic and Pela g i c / L i t t o r a l categories can be interpreted in,two ways: as the r e s u l t of 260 environmental, change, or as the r e s u l t of a wider t e r r i t o r y of exploita -b t i o n associated with the s i t e . We have seen that th& inner harbour was a l e s s sheltered environ- ment, subject to greater open ocean influence, during the time period represented by.the DiSo 9 assemblages. Animals commonly • found i n the P e l a g i c / L i t t o r a l habitat, such as „fur seals," sea l i o n s , open water d i v i n g b i r d s and f i s h p r e f e r r i n g deeper waters, might have frequented the inner harbour region more often then, than at present. The suggestion of a l o c a l environment gradually changing from more open to more sheltered i s supported by a s i m i l a r r e f l e c t i o n i n the frequency changes from DiSo 9-II to DiSo 9-1, with i t s l e s s strongly Pelagic and P e l a g i c / L i t t o r a l fauna> The same result;-' however, could be expected i f the occupants of DiSo 9 had u n r e s t r i c t e d access to. t h e t o t a l regional resource base o f the harbour area. This would explain the higher. than expected frequency of Pelagic fauna, s t i l l not. s a t i s f a c t o r i l y explained by environmental change. I t i s noteworthy that there appears to be an emphasis i n DiSo 9-1I on the spring and summer e x p l o i t a t i o n of Pelagic resources, con- s i s t e n t with d i f f e r i n g seasonal uses of the d i f f e r e n t a v a i l a b l e habitats. While i t i s s t i l l not known i f DiSo 9 is., the oldest permanent habitation s i t e i n the harbour, older s i t e s would be considerably removed from the present shoreline, and i t seems l i k e l y that i t i s the o l d e s t . s i t e a r t i c u l a t i n g with the recent e c o l o g i c a l configuration of the harbour. Thus i t may well have had c l e a r access to a l l the harbour resources during the time rperiod represented by the DiSo 9-II deposits. During the time period of.DiSo 9-1, however, a contemporary habit- ation s i t e was established i n at l e a s t one other l o c a t i o n i n the harbour, ; 261 at DiSo 1,-where a s i m i l a r time period i s represented by the early deposits of DiSo 1-IV. As would be expected i f the harbour t e r r i t o r y was now divided among two groups, DiSo 1 c o n t r o l l i n g the outer harbour and i t s resources and DiSo 9 c o n t r o l l i n g the inner harbour and i t s resources, there are differences between the DiSo 9-II and DiSo 9-1• faunal assemblages. These include a-decrease i n emphasis i n the l a t t e r assemblage on the habitat categories Pelagic and P e l a g i c / L i t t o r a l and a corresponding increase i n emphasis on the habitat categories L i t t o r a l and Streams/Lakes/Forests. These s h i f t s are most noticeable i n the b i r d and mammal remains, but are perhaps also r e f l e c t e d in.the increased frequency of salmon remains i n DiSo 9-1 r e l a t i v e to DiSo 9-II; S h e l l f i s h remains are rather ambiguous, i n that,while, the presence i n both.assemblages of C a l i f o r n i a Mussel, not found today i n -the inner harbour, 0 i n d i c a t e s a l e s s sheltered environment, the high frequency i n both assemblages of F r i l l e d Dogwinkle sea s n a i l rather than Black Turban sea s n a i l , suggests a r e l a t i v e l y sheltered intertidal.environment throughout. Again, a wider t e r r i t o r y of e x p l o i t a t i o n may be the answer. I t seems most, l i k e l y that both these fac t o r s , l o c a l environmental change and wider t e r r i t o r y of e x p l o i t a t i o n , are responsible for the manner i n which the DiSo 9 assemblages d i f f e r from the expected emphases. I t may i n f a c t be that DiSo 9-1.and the e a r l y layers o f DiSo 1-IV record an A.D. 700 population s p l i t and an early d i v i s i o n of the harbour into c u l t u r a l l y bounded sub-regional e x p l o i t a t i o n u n i t s . The DiSo 16 assemblage f i t s well with the ..predictive model, showing major emphases on the habitat categories L i t t o r a l , L i t t o r a l / F o r e s t Edge, and Streams/Lakes/Forests. There i s a higher frequency than expected i n the P e l a g i c / L i t t o r a l category. This too may r e f l e c t the above 262 mentioned environmental changes as i t i s the r e s u l t of higher than ex- pected frequencies i n the f i s h category Moderately Deep Water over Rocky Bottom and the b i r d category Open L i t t o r a l Waters. While the rank order based on,skeletal element count i s only weakly p o s i t i v e l y . a s s o c i a t e d with the predicted rank order, with r s=0.02, animal weight rank order i s per- f e c t l y p o s i t i v e l y c o r r e l a t e d with the predicted order, r g being 1.00. The mean of the two percentages provides,a rank ordering that i s strongly p o s i t i v e l y correlated with the predicted rank order of habitat category emphasis with r g=0.90. S h e l l f i s h also f i t the predicted model, but as at {.-•'• DiSo 9, there i s a greater quantity of C a l i f o r n i a Mussel.than expected, probably r e s u l t i n g from the environmental changes discussed. Summary In summary, the faunal assemblages from DiSo 1, DiSo 9 and Diso 16 d i f f e r from each other most markedly i n the groups of fauna being ex- p l o i t e d and these groupings a r e ' c l e a r l y r e l a t e d to the habitat categories in.which the species are most l i k e l y to be.found. As predicted, a l l seasons are represented in,each assemblage, although there are d i f f e r i n g seasonal.emphases according to the a v a i l a b i l i t y of the animals being taken. Sample error was found to be at l e a s t p a r t i a l l y responsible for the low frequencies of herring i n DiSo 1 and DiSo 16 assemblages, but' the l a t t e r s i t e probably exploited few herring as w e l l . D i f f e r e n t i a l preservation was not found to be a problem, nor was material c u l t u r e change through time found to be an important factor i n faunal d i f f e r - ences. I t has been determined, then, that the major proportion of the observed interassemblage v a r i a t i o n i n the faunal remains from these Hesquiat Harbour s i t e s i s a t t r i b u t a b l e to d i f f e r i n g emphases on the 263 e x p l o i t a t i o n of d i f f e r e n t major habitats i n the harbour area. I t was shown i n Chapter II that these habitats are associated with p a r t i c u l a r geographical areas i n Hesquiat Harbour; In Chapter I I I , i t was sug- . gested that i f . t h e faunal assemblages d i f f e r e d most strongly i n habitat category emphases, the most l i k e l y explanation was r e s t r i c t e d s o c i a l access f o r each s i t e s ' inhabitants to the regional resource base, that i s , the presence of s o c i o - c u l t u r a l l y bounded t e r r i t o r i e s of e x p l o i t a t i o n associated with each s i t e . Using ethnographic!'information derived from the more recent Hesquiat settlement and s i t e use patterns and the a s s o c i - ation of habitat categories with geographical areas i n Hesquiat Harbour, models were.developed f o r each-site,predicting the habitat.category emphases one would expect, i f the ethnographic system had a time depth comparable to that of the s i t e s . The faunal assemblage associations with Habitat Categories b a s i c r a l l y agree with the predicted models. Rank orders of Habitat Category emphases at both DiSo 1.and DiSo 16 are strongly p o s i t i v e l y c o r r e l a t e d with the predicted pattern, using Spearman's rank order c o r r e l a t i o n as the s t a t i s t i c a l measure. The rank orders of habitat category emphases for both DiSo 9 assemblages, however, d i f f e r from the predicted patterns, e s p e c i a l l y for DiSo 9-II. These differences are p r i m a r i l y consistent with i d e n t i f i e d l o c a l environmental changes, thus the most'likely-ex- planation of faunal assemblage d i f f e r e n c e s i s considered to be r e s t r i c t e d s o c i o - c u l t u r a l access to d i f f e r i n g , sub-regional resource bases. I t i s , however, probable that the occupants of DiSo 9 i n i t i a l l y had access to a wider t e r r i t o r y of e x p l o i t a t i o n , and thus a wider range of resources than i s now found i n the immediate s i t e area; I t i s sug-. gested that the contemporary assemblages DiSo 9-1 and DiSo 1-IV may 264 represent an e a r l y c u l t u r a l d i v i s i o n of the harbour into smaller t e r - r i t o r i e s of e x p l o i t a t i o n . 265 Chapter VII Conclusions The-proposition examined i n t h i s study i s that among the p r e h i s t o r i c hunter-gatherers of Hesquiat Harbour on the west coast of Vancouver Island, the geographical area exploited, and hence animal resource s e l e c t i o n , was c o n t r o l l e d by c u l t u r a l patterns of land use that l i m i t e d l o c a l groups to s p e c i f i c ; t r a c t s of t e r r i t o r y . This proposition was based on the b e l i e f that the manner i n which a society organizes and maintains access to i t s animal resources i s an important influence on the s e l e c t i o n of those resources. The s p e c i f i c thesis was developed from a consideration of the known, ethnographic adaptive system f o r the area and from archaeological i n - dic a t i o n s at Yuquot, 25 kilometres to the north, of long term c u l t u r a l c o n t i n u i t y and i n s i t u development of the Nootkan adaptive system. En- vironmental data indicated that a s p e c i f i c t r a c t of land i n t h i s area does not necessa r i l y contain a l l the major habitats found i n the region as a whole. I t was therefore suggested that the i n t e r a c t i o n of such a > land use system with the environmental d i v e r s i t y would r e s u l t i n d i f f e r - ing i n t r a - r e g i o n a l emphases on p a r t i c u l a r groups of animal resources, p r e h i s t o r i c a l l y as well as ethnographically. I t was considered that i f t h i s i n t e r a c t i o n had time depth, i t would be i n d i r e c t l y observable i n archaeological faunal assemblages from the region as interassemblage d i v e r s i t y i n emphases on animals from d i f f e r e n t habitats. The demonstration of such d i v e r s i t y among the Hesquiat Harbour faunal assemblages would support.the theory that there was a sub- regional l e v e l of resource s p e c i a l i z a t i o n , which would suggest 266 d i s t i n c t e x p l o i t a t i o n t e r r i t o r i e s a s s o c i a t i o n with the archaeological s i t e s . I f faunal assemblages were a l s o shown to be year round i n o r i g i n , yet the d i s t i n c t i v e n e s s of the assemblages maintained, t h i s could be interpreted as the r e s u l t of contemporary autonomous production and consumption units operating i n d i s c r e t e t e r r i t o r i e s . On the basis of the r e s u l t s displayed and discussed i n Chapter VI, i t can.be said that the approach used i n t h i s analysis of faunal assemblages from Hesquiat Harbour was successful. Examination of the ethnographic adaptation to Hesquiat Harbour and of the present and past natural environments of the harbour, l e d to a s p e c i f i c p r o p o s i t i o n r e l a t i n g c u l t u r a l land use patterns that channeled the s e l e c t i o n of resources, with a s p e c i f i c pattern of d i v e r s i t y among archaeological faunal assemblages from the region. A d e t a i l e d d e s c r i p t i o n of the natural environment and the grouping of animals into habitat categories associated with s p e c i f i c areas of the regional harbour environment, made i t possible to p r e d i c t the types of faunal assemblages one would expect to f i n d at the three s i t e s , DiSo 1, DiSo 9 and DiSo 16, i f t h e i r animal resources had been obtained from r e s t r i c t e d areas of.the harbour, as they would have been under the ethnographic system. Anal- y s i s of the faunal assemblages i n terms of the same habitat categories demonstrated that the major proportion of interassemblage v a r i a t i o n could indeed be a t t r i b u t e d to d i f f e r e n c e s i n emphases on the e x p l o i t - ation of p a r t i c u l a r habitats. I t was found that at DiSo 1 and DiSo 16, the actual habitat emphases i n the faunal assemblages are s t a t i s t i c a l l y p o s i t i v e l y cor- r e l a t e d with the predicted emphases based on the ethnographic model. Where actual habitat emphases d i f f e r , as i n the DiSo 9 assemblages, i t 267 i s possible to r e l a t e the diff e r e n c e s l o g i c a l l y to known changes i n the l o c a l environment associated with continuing post-Pleistocene u p l i f t and shoreline development. I t was also p o s s i b l e to suggest th a t the oldest well-dated assemblage, DiSo 9-II, dated to about A.D. 100/200, had u n r e s t r i c t e d access to the regional resource base, as would be ex- pected i f . i t represents the sole group occupying the harbour at that time. Subsequent faunal assemblages contained more r e s t r i c t e d faunal groupings emphasizing p a r t i c u l a r habitats a v a i l a b l e i n the s i t e l o c a l e s . I t was also determined that neither r e s t r i c t e d seasonal occupation nor i- & change in.material culture through time were s a t i s f a c t o r y explanations of,the observed interassemblage v a r i a t i o n on t h e i r own, as a l l seasons were represented i n a l l assemblages, despite d i f f e r i n g seasonal emphases, and a r t i f a c t assemblages d i f f e r e d l i t t l e through time. Thus the data demonstrate a pattern o f interassemblage v a r i a t i o n among the Hesquiat faunal assemblages that suggests the "presence i n Hesquiat Harbour p r e h i s t o r i c a l l y as well as ethnographically, of blocks' of e x p l o i t a t i o n t e r r i t o r y within s i n g l e environmental settings, a s s o c i - ated year round with p a r t i c u l a r h a b i t a t i o n l o c a t i o n s . I t i s considered f that the best explanation for these site-habitat-season associations i s that derived from an ethnographic model,in which several autonomous socio-economic units of production and consumption operate within c l e a r - l y defined and s t r i c t l y maintained t e r r i t o r i e s . This a n a l y s i s has supported strongly the presence of d i f f e r i n g l o c a l group adaptations to l o c a l faunal resources i n d i f f e r e n t t e r r i t o r i a l units of the same regional adaptation. I t was also suggested i n Chapter I II that t h i s pattern of v a r i a t i o n among faunal assemblages was the kind most l i k e l y to be associated oh- 268 the west coast of Vancouver Island with the autonomous, local,group l e v e l of s o c i o - p o l i t i c a l organization. While perhaps s t i l l speculative, i t would seem that t h i s a n a l y s i s lends support,to the theory that t h i s simpler, autonomous l o c a l group s o c i o - p o l i t i c a l structure was the e a r l i - er adaptive pattern f o r the,west coast of Vancouver Island, and present i n Hesquiat Harbour at l e a s t 1,200 years ago. Taking note of the ethnographic system of c o n t r o l l i n g access to resources and determining how it.might i n t e r a c t with a p a r t i c u l a r e n v i r - onment, allowed a more meaningful and integrated i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f the Hesquiat faunal assemblages. This could be a f r u i t f u l approach i n any region where there i s known environmental d i v e r s i t y and ethnographically recorded c u l t u r a l systems i n which c o n t r o l o f resources andaccess to resource locat i o n s were highly developed systems of group.and land management i n t e g r a l to the regional adaptive system. This analysis has . shown that the " c u l t u r a l " natural environment, defined p r i m a r i l y by s o c i o - c u l t u r a l organizational p r i n c i p l e s , i s a very r e a l factor i n f l u - encing regional faunal assemblage patterning on the Northwest Coast. F i n a l l y , the r e g i o n a l approach to Northwest Coast faunal a n a l y s i s has proved e s p e c i a l l y rewarding. I t is, moreover, an approach that avoids the p i t f a l l s of extrapolating from a single s i t e :to a region, , i n an area known f o r i t s environmental d i v e r s i t y and celebrated f o r i t s elaborate and highly s o p h i s t i c a t e d . c u l t u r a l systems of resource manage- ment . 269 References Cited Abbott, D.N. 1972 The u t i l i t y of the concept of phase i n the archaeology of the southern Northwest Coast. Syesis 5:267-278. V i c t o r i a . Baker, R.C. 1957 Fur Seals of the P r i b i l o f Islands. United States F i s h and W i l d l i f e Service, Conservation i n Action Series No. 12. Baldwin, S.F. and S.C. Kandeigh 1938 Variations i n the weight of bi r d s . Auk 55:416-464. Banfield, A.W.F. 1974 The Mammals of Canada. National Museum of Natural Sciences, National Museums of Canada. Uni v e r s i t y of Toronto Press, Toronto. Bartholo