Evaluating Native American Bird Use and Bird Assemblage … · 2018-07-02 · Evaluating Native...
Transcript of Evaluating Native American Bird Use and Bird Assemblage … · 2018-07-02 · Evaluating Native...
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttp://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=uica20
The Journal of Island and Coastal Archaeology
ISSN: 1556-4894 (Print) 1556-1828 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/uica20
Evaluating Native American Bird Use and BirdAssemblage Variability along the Oregon Coast
Kristine M. Bovy, Madonna L. Moss, Jessica E. Watson, Frances J. White,Timothy T. Jones, Heather A. Ulrich & Julia K. Parrish
To cite this article: Kristine M. Bovy, Madonna L. Moss, Jessica E. Watson, Frances J. White,Timothy T. Jones, Heather A. Ulrich & Julia K. Parrish (2018): Evaluating Native American BirdUse and Bird Assemblage Variability along the Oregon Coast, The Journal of Island and CoastalArchaeology, DOI: 10.1080/15564894.2018.1457105
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/15564894.2018.1457105
View supplementary material
Published online: 22 May 2018.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 33
View Crossmark data
The Journal of Island and Coastal Archaeology, 0:1–36, 2018Copyright C© 2018 Taylor & Francis Group, LLCISSN: 1556-4894 print / 1556-1828 onlineDOI: 10.1080/15564894.2018.1457105
Evaluating Native American Bird Use andBird Assemblage Variability along theOregon Coast
Kristine M. Bovy,1 Madonna L. Moss,2 Jessica E. Watson,3
Frances J. White,2 Timothy T. Jones,4 Heather A. Ulrich,5
and Julia K. Parrish4
1Department of Sociology & Anthropology, University of Rhode Island,
Kingston, Rhode Island, USA2Department of Anthropology, University of Oregon, Eugene, Oregon, USA3Department of Anthropology, University of Albany, Albany, New York, USA4Coastal Observation and Seabird Survey Team (COASST), University of
Washington School of Aquatic and Fishery Sciences, Seattle, Washington, USA5Bureau of Land Management, Springfield, Oregon, USA
ABSTRACT
Native American use of birds on the Oregon coast is not well knownand has never been synthesized to present a regional understanding.We rectify this by analyzing data from 26 zooarchaeological assem-blages, including three previously unpublished bird assemblages:Umpqua/Eden (35DO83), Whale Cove (35LNC60), and the DunesSite (35CLT27). We employ a series of non-parametric randomizationtests to directly evaluate patterns of taxonomic diversity, correlationswith nearby breeding colonies, and broader procurement strategiesdiscussed in ethnohistorical accounts. We compare the assemblagesto contemporary surveys of naturally beached birds as observed byCOASST (Coastal Observation Seabird Survey Team) and evaluatewhether archaeological specimens were scavenged from the beach.While 71% of the identified bird remains belong to just three families(Anatidae, Alcidae, and Procellariidae), closer analysis reveals theincredible diversity of birds used by Oregon coast Native Americans.The assemblages vary considerably in terms of taxonomic diversityand composition, leading us to conclude that people used birdsopportunistically, likely incorporating multiple strategies, includinghunting, collecting beached carcasses and targeting cormorant
Received 19 September 2017; accepted 29 January 2018.Address correspondence to Kristine M. Bovy, Department of Sociology & Anthropology, University ofRhode Island, Kingston, 507 Chafee Bldg., Kingston, RI 02881, USA. E-mail: [email protected] versions or one or more figures in this article are available online at www.tandfonline.com/uica
1
Evaluating Native American Bird Use
colonies. We hope that the methods and approaches employed herewill inspire other archaeologists to devote more attention to birdassemblages, and how their study can inform conservation efforts.
Keywords Northwest, zooarchaeology, birds, scavenging, hunting
INTRODUCTION
Even though bird bones are common inOregon (USA) coast archaeological sites,ethnographic information regarding theuse of birds by local Native Americans isextremely limited (Hall 2001:20–22; Minorand Toepel 1986:63). Beyond brief men-tions in early reports (e.g., Drucker 1939;Kroeber 1939), bird use in this regionhas not been widely discussed. From theLewis and Clark expedition, we know thatbirds were so numerous—and loud—thatat least some of the explorers could notsleep for the noise (Moulton 1990:21).Suttles (1990:27) suggests birds were moreimportant in the Pacific Northwest Coastthan often assumed, with waterfowl “vastlymore important” than terrestrial birds.The degree to which different birds werehunted for food, their eggs gathered, theirfeathers and skins used to make clothingor regalia, or their bones made into toolsis not well documented. Birds have re-ceived less attention by zooarchaeologistsin the Pacific Northwest Coast than fish ormammals, perhaps because they are oftenless abundant in these sites (Butler andCampbell 2004; Lindsay 1995).
Yet we now have an adequate numberof systematically analyzed bird assemblagesto begin outlining general patterns of birduse and raising questions to direct futureresearch. Analyses of bird bones can pro-vide information on pre-contact dietarypractices, site seasonality, foraging loca-tions, hunting and processing strategies,and dynamic coastal environments. Weexamine which birds were used, how theywere likely obtained, and how taxonomicabundance and diversity vary by location,using original data from Umpqua/Eden(35DO83), Whale Cove (35LNC60), and theDunes Site (35CLT27) and published data
from 23 other Oregon coast sites. The meth-ods and observations from these assem-blages will be relevant to researchers study-ing birds in coastal settings worldwide.
BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT
Oregon Coast Environments and Cultures
The Oregon coast is located withinthe southern part of the Pacific NorthwestCoast culture area, which extends from IcyBay, Alaska, to northern California (Moss2011). The 480 km-long coastline consistsof rocky shorelines, headlands, and sandybeaches. Oregon is part of the NorthernCalifornia Current Ecoregion, a transitionalzone between colder subarctic waters ofthe Gulf of Alaska and subtropical wa-ters off Baja California (OCMP 2016). Thecontinental shelf off Oregon is narrower,steeper, and deeper than average, con-tributing to a pelagic zone that is only 14 to64 km offshore (Byrne 1962:67). Seasonalupwelling is typical (Bograd et al. 2009),with a switch from winter downwelling(onshore flow of surface waters associatedwith wind direction and storm events) tosummer upwelling (offshore flow of surfacewaters bringing cold, nutrient-rich bottomwaters to the surface). Timing of this springtransition and intensity of the upwellingseason affect coastal productivity (Barthet al. 2007), including the reproductive suc-cess and mortality rates of coastal seabirds(Parrish et al. 2007).
In the early 1800s, the Oregon coastwas occupied by diverse Native Americantribes, including (from north to south) var-ious bands of Chinook, Clatsop, Tillamook,Alsea, Siuslaw, Umpqua, Coos, Coquille,Tututni, and Tolowa (Figure 1). Linguisticdata suggest that representatives of three
2 VOLUME 0 • ISSUE 0 • 2018
Kristine M. Bovy et al.
Figure 1. A. Regional map of the Pacific Northwest Coast (USA); B. Map of Oregon coast showinglocation of archaeological sites with identified bird bones, COASST survey beaches in-cluded in the analysis, and major Indian tribes (in capitals). Open circles indicate siteswith <100 NISP, which were excluded from the comparative analyses. See Table 3 for sitenumbers. See Results for discussion of site clusters.
language phyla (Na-Dene, Salishan, andPenutian) and at least five language families(Athapaskan, Chinookan, Alsean, Siuslaw,and Coos) were spoken (Thompson andKinkade 1990). Cultural differences amongOregon coast groups are due to differentadaptations to various Oregon coast envi-ronments and diverse origins. People werein central Oregon by at least 14,000 yearsago (Jenkins et al. 2014), though the earliestdate for a coastal archaeological site is ca.9000 cal BP (35CU67; Moss and Erlandson1998). The relative scarcity of early sitesalong the Oregon coast is due to post-glacialsea-level rise, episodic tectonic subsidence,tsunamis, landslides, severe coastal erosion,accumulation of extensive dunes during
the middle and late Holocene, and theevolution of former estuaries into lakes(Lyman 1991; Moss and Erlandson 2008).The most substantial bird assemblages stud-ied thus far date to the late Holocene (3000to 400 cal BP); this is the time period onwhich we focus.
Birds of the Oregon Coast
A diversity of birds is found on the Ore-gon coast, including seabirds, shorebirds,and waterfowl. Table 1 summarizes the per-tinent life history information for some ofthe most common taxa found in archae-ological sites in the region. We organize
THE JOURNAL OF ISLAND AND COASTAL ARCHAEOLOGY 3
Tab
le1
.Li
feh
isto
ryin
form
atio
nfo
rO
rego
nco
ast
bir
ds
(dis
cuss
edin
the
tex
t).
Nes
tin
gLo
cati
on
sH
abit
atP
refe
ren
cein
Ore
gon
Seas
on
alit
y(p
eak
abu
nd
ance
)Sc
aven
gin
gP
ote
nti
al1
Ref
eren
ces
Wat
erfo
wl
(An
atid
s)
Dab
blin
gD
uck
san
dG
eese
man
yb
reed
inA
lask
aan
dC
anad
a;a
few
bre
edlo
cally
estu
arie
s,ti
dal
flat
s,m
arsh
es,l
akes
,fiel
ds
win
ter
(an
dsp
rin
g/fa
llm
igra
tio
ns)
;so
me
year
-ro
un
d(e
.g.,
Can
ada
Go
ose
,Mal
lard
s)
rare
bea
ched
bir
d
Sco
ters
bre
edin
Ala
ska
and
Can
ada
estu
arie
san
dn
ears
ho
reb
ays
win
ter
(an
dsp
rin
g/fa
llm
igra
tio
ns)
un
com
mo
nb
each
edb
ird
(#12
,18)
;wre
cksp
ecie
sSa
vard
etal
.20
15
Seab
ird
sN
esti
ng
alo
ng
the
Ore
gon
Co
ast
Co
mm
on
Mu
rre
clif
fn
este
r;o
ffsh
ore
rock
s/is
lan
ds
nea
rsh
ore
and
larg
ees
tuar
ies
year
-ro
un
dco
mm
on
bea
ched
bir
d(#
1);
po
st-b
reed
ing
mo
rtal
ity
spec
ies;
wre
cksp
ecie
s
Ain
ley
etal
.20
02
Rh
ino
cero
sA
ukl
etb
urr
ow
nes
ter;
off
sho
rero
cks/
isla
nd
s;p
op
ula
tio
nce
nte
rin
Can
ada
shel
fw
ater
sto
nea
rsh
ore
and
larg
ees
tuar
ies
year
-ro
un
d(f
arth
ero
ffsh
ore
inw
inte
r)co
mm
on
bea
ched
bir
d(#
5);
po
st-b
reed
ing/
win
terk
illsp
ecie
s;w
reck
po
ten
tial
Gas
ton
and
Dec
hes
ne
1996
Cas
sin
’sA
ukl
etb
urr
ow
nes
ter;
off
sho
rero
cks/
isla
nd
s;p
op
ula
tio
nce
nte
rin
Can
ada
shel
fw
ater
sto
nea
rsh
ore
year
-ro
un
d(f
arth
ero
ffsh
ore
inw
inte
r)co
mm
on
bea
ched
bir
d(#
3);
po
st-b
reed
ing/
win
terk
illsp
ecie
s;w
reck
po
ten
tial
Man
uw
alan
dT
ho
rese
n20
11
Co
rmo
ran
tssu
rfac
en
este
r;o
ffsh
ore
rock
s/is
lan
ds;
man
mad
est
ruct
ure
s
nea
rsh
ore
,est
uar
ies,
low
erC
olu
mb
iaR
iver
,fr
esh
wat
erb
od
ies
(Do
ub
le-c
rest
edC
orm
ora
nts
)
com
mo
nye
ar-r
ou
nd
com
mo
nb
each
edb
ird
(#10
,14
,27)
;po
st-b
reed
ing
mo
rtal
ity
spec
ies
Wal
lace
and
Wal
lace
1998
;Hat
chan
dW
esel
oh
2014
(Con
tin
ued
on
nex
tpa
ge)
4 VOLUME 0 • ISSUE 0 • 2018
Tab
le1
.(c
on
tin
ued
).
Nes
tin
gLo
cati
on
sH
abit
atP
refe
ren
cein
Ore
gon
Seas
on
alit
y(p
eak
abu
nd
ance
)Sc
aven
gin
gP
ote
nti
al1
Ref
eren
ces
Gu
llssu
rfac
en
este
r;o
ffsh
ore
rock
s/is
lan
ds;
man
mad
est
ruct
ure
s
ub
iqu
ito
us
acro
ssm
arin
ean
dfr
esh
wat
erse
ttin
gs(i
ncl
ud
ing
alls
pec
ies)
com
mo
nye
ar-r
ou
nd
(bu
tva
riab
leb
ysp
ecie
s)
com
mo
nb
each
edb
ird
(#4+
);p
ost
-bre
edin
gm
ort
alit
ysp
ecie
s
Mig
rato
rySe
abir
ds
(Pel
agic
s)
Alb
atro
sses
bre
edin
wes
tern
Paci
fic
shel
fan
dsl
op
ew
ater
ssu
mm
er(A
pr.
toO
ct.)
un
com
mo
n-t
o-r
are
bea
ched
bir
dH
yren
bac
het
al.2
002
Soo
tySh
earw
ater
bre
edin
New
Zea
lan
dan
dA
ust
ralia
shel
fan
dsl
op
ew
ater
ssu
mm
er(a
nd
spri
ng/
fall
mig
rati
on
s)co
mm
on
bea
ched
bir
d(#
7)V
eit
etal
.19
97
No
rth
ern
Fulm
arb
reed
inA
lask
aan
dC
anad
ian
Arc
tic
shel
fw
ater
sw
inte
r(S
ep.t
oFe
b.)
com
mo
nb
each
edb
ird
(#2)
;w
inte
rkill
spec
ies;
wre
cksp
ecie
s
Hat
chet
al.
2010
1B
ased
on
info
rmat
ion
fro
mth
eC
OA
SST
web
site
(201
7).C
om
mo
n:i
nth
eto
p10
spec
ies
fou
nd
inth
eC
OA
SST
dat
aset
;un
com
mo
n:i
nth
eto
p25
spec
ies
bu
tn
ot
inth
eto
p10
;rar
e:n
ot
inth
eto
p25
spec
ies.
Nu
mb
ers
inp
aren
thes
esin
dic
ate
ran
kab
un
dan
cein
the
CO
ASS
Td
atas
et;
mu
ltip
lera
nks
are
sho
wn
inth
eca
seo
fm
ult
iple
spec
ies.
Po
st-b
reed
ing
mo
rtal
ity
spec
ies:
carc
ass
dep
osi
tio
np
eak
inla
tesu
mm
er/e
arly
fall
follo
win
gth
elo
calb
reed
ing
seas
on
.Win
terk
ill
spec
ies:
carc
ass
dep
osi
tio
np
eak
inth
efa
ll/w
inte
rfo
llow
ing
mig
rati
on
into
the
regi
on
fro
mb
reed
ing
site
sin
Bri
tish
Co
lum
bia
and
Ala
ska.
Wre
ckp
ote
nti
al:s
pec
ies
or
tax
on
gro
up
has
had
on
eo
rm
ore
un
usu
alm
ort
alit
yev
ents
alo
ng
the
Paci
fic
No
rth
wes
tco
astl
ine,
asd
efin
edb
ym
on
thly
dep
osi
tio
nra
tes
abo
veth
e95
%co
nfi
den
celim
its
of
the
lon
g-te
rmm
on
thly
aver
age.
THE JOURNAL OF ISLAND AND COASTAL ARCHAEOLOGY 5
Evaluating Native American Bird Use
these taxa into three categories based ongeographic distribution and natural history:waterfowl (ducks/geese), coastal seabirdsthat nest along the Oregon coastline, andpelagic (open water) seabirds nesting out-side the Pacific Northwest and migratinginto Oregon waters (predominantly duringthe non-breeding season).
Waterfowl (Anatids). Anatidae is a largefamily, with 7 species of geese and swans(Anserinae), 10 dabbling ducks (Anatini), 5pochards/bay ducks (Aythini), 11 sea ducks(Mergini) and the Ruddy Duck (Oxyurajamaicensis) present in coastal Oregon.Dabbling ducks/geese feed on plants orsmall mollusks in a variety of shallow wa-ter and terrestrial habitats. Diving ducks(pochards and sea ducks) generally winterin the Pacific Northwest, and migrate to andfrom their breeding grounds in northernregions or interior lakes in the spring andfall. Diving ducks, such as scoters, feed onfish and shellfish in deeper waters includingestuaries and exposed coastal habitats, andcan be found in large congregations.
Nesting Seabirds. The Common Murre(Uria aalge) is the largest (800–1300 g)and most abundant alcid breeding alongthe Pacific Northwest Coast, comprisingover half of all seabirds nesting in Oregon(Naughton et al. 2007a:5). Breeding com-mences in April, with eggs appearing inMay (Gladics et al. 2015). Breeders remainon-colony until July, and then dispersethroughout the nearshore ecosystem ofthe Pacific Northwest (Gladics et al. 2015).Following breeding, Pacific Northwestmurres have a flightless molt period inSeptember–November (Jones et al. 2017).Four other alcid species breed within thenearshore ecosystem of Oregon: TuftedPuffin (Fratercula cirrhata), RhinocerosAuklet (Cerorhinca monocerata), Cassin’sAuklet (Ptychoramphus aleuticus), andPigeon Guillemot (Cepphus columba),albeit all in much lower numbers thanmurres (Naughton et al. 2007a). During thefall post-breeding season, larger numbersof both auklet species can be found in
Oregon coastal shelf waters, as tens tohundreds of thousands of individuals fromWashington and British Columbia coloniesmigrate south (Gaston and Dechesne 1996;Manuwal and Thoresen 2011).
Cormorants include the Double-crested (Phalacrocorax auritus), Brandt’s(P. penicillatus), and Pelagic Cormorant(P. pelagicus), all of which nest on rockyspires, outcroppings, and predator-free off-shore islands. Double-crested cormorantsalso nest within estuarine systems, onislands throughout the Columbia River sys-tem, and in a variety of inland freshwaterlakes (Wiese et al. 2008). Western (Larusoccidentalis) and Glaucous-winged gulls (L.glaucescens) nest along the Oregon coast-line in a wide range of habitats. Duringthe fall post-breeding season, at least eightother gull species migrate into Oregonestuarine and coastal waters to over-winter(Naughton et al. 2007a:14).
Migratory Seabirds (Pelagics). Millionsof marine birds breed entirely outsideof the Pacific Northwest and migrate toor through Oregon waters during thenon-breeding season. Of these, the mostnumerous are the highly pelagic pro-cellariids: albatrosses, shearwaters, andNorthern Fulmar (Fulmarus glacialis).Three species of albatrosses breed in thewestern Pacific and migrate to the Oregoncoast in spring: the regularly sighted Black-footed (Phoebastria nigripes), rare Laysan(P. immutabilis), and truly rare Short-tailed(P. albatrus). Short-tails are still recoveringfrom near extinction in the 1920s dueto commercial over-exploitation (USFWS2017), but were historically as abundant asthe other two albatross species (Guy et al.2013). While the suggestion has been madethat the distribution of the Short-tailedAlbatross was once closer to shore basedon their relative abundance in archaeolog-ical sites (e.g., Bovy 2005; Greenspan andWigen 1991; Miller 1940:231), this may bemore a reflection of their former absoluteabundance in the coastal shelf marine birdcommunity, as current evidence indicates
6 VOLUME 0 • ISSUE 0 • 2018
Kristine M. Bovy et al.
Short-tails concentrate primarily at the shelfbreak (Kuletz et al. 2014).
Sooty Shearwaters (Ardenna grisea)1
are the most abundant shearwater inthe California Current System (Veit et al1997). These birds breed in large coloniesin the Southern Hemisphere, then mi-grate north during the austral winter tolocations throughout the North Pacific,Bering, and Chukchi seas (Shaffer et al.2006). Sooty Shearwaters are the mostabundant bird in recent summer surveysoff the Pacific coast and second mostabundant in fall over inner-shelf waters (be-tween 0 and 100 m offshore; Adams et al.2014:23–24). In contrast to albatrosses andshearwaters, Northern Fulmar breed inAlaska, migrating south down both sidesof the North Pacific following breeding(Hatch et al. 2010).
Bird Hunting and Collecting Strategies
Ethnographic accounts in the Pa-cific Northwest Coast (and worldwide)include a range of bird hunting and col-lecting strategies (Serjeantson 2009; Suttles1990). Yet distinguishing between variousstrategies (e.g., hunting vs. scavenging)in the archaeological record is challeng-ing (Bovy et al. 2016; deFrance 2005).We organize ethnohistorical and archaeo-logical information on bird procurementin the Pacific Northwest Coast into fourstrategies.
Nearshore Hunting. Oregon coast peo-ples had access to a variety of nearshorehabitats, including estuaries, marshes, bays,tideflats, eelgrass beds, and open waterswithin a few kilometers of shore. All butthe most offshore birds may have beenhunted in the nearshore during certaintimes of the year (Table 1), using bowand arrow, spears, hook and line, traps, orsnares. Beckham (1977:70–71) describeda Tillamook method for taking waterfowlin estuaries, where men waded among theflocks wearing basketry decoys over theirheads. Further north, submerged and hang-ing nets were used to catch large numbersof waterfowl (Suttles 1990:459).
Hunting on Breeding Colonies. Breedingcolonies of seabirds may provide a relativelypredictable and plentiful source of fledglingbirds and eggs, and sustainable egg collec-tion is still a staple of indigenous diets incoastal Alaska (Moss 2007; Moss and Bow-ers 2007; Zador et al. 2006). Adult birdsmay also be more vulnerable to huntingwhen tending their young. Ethnographicand ethnohistoric accounts discuss NativeAmerican hunting of fledgling cormorantsin northern California (Gould 1966:85) andNetarts Bay (Losey 2002:81), and Barnett(1937:165) noted use of cormorant andgull eggs by several Oregon coast groups.Medullary bone and juvenile bones (in-dicated by porous texture and unfusedepiphyses) could indicate colony exploita-tion for most species, although juvenilebird bones may remain unidentified orunder-reported due to lack of comparativespecimens or difficulties in distinguishingolder juveniles (3–4 months) from adults(e.g., Bovy 2011). While many seabirdsmature quickly and fledge close to adultweight (e.g., 90% for Cassin’s Auklet; Ainleyet al. 1990), the Common Murre is anexception at 17–24% (Ainley et al. 2002).
Offshore Hunting. Although some havequestioned whether Oregon coast peoplesventured onto the open ocean in canoesfor hunting, fishing, or birding (e.g., Ly-man 1995), ethnographic research indicatesocean-going canoes were used at least oc-casionally (Andrews 1962:138; Minor 2001;Ray 1938:102), and archaeological analy-sis supports opportunistic whale hunting(Losey and Yang 2007; Wellman et al. 2017).The presence of pelagic seabirds in ar-chaeological assemblages has been inter-preted as evidence for offshore hunting(e.g., Greenspan and Wigen 1991; Ulrich2009). North Pacific procellariids are at-tracted to modern fishing vessels (Edwardset al. 2015) and may have tracked offshorefishers and marine mammal hunters in thepast, perhaps through chumming (DePuydt1994). Breeding birds were available on off-shore islands, such as Goat Island on thesouthern Oregon coast (Gard 1990).
THE JOURNAL OF ISLAND AND COASTAL ARCHAEOLOGY 7
Evaluating Native American Bird Use
Collecting Beached Carcasses. Research-ers in coastal regions worldwide haverecognized that beached birds couldbe a source of bones or feathers fortool/ornament production (see referencesin Bovy et al. 2016). The relative abundanceof remains and/or skeletal part frequency(e.g., an abundance of wing bones) hasbeen used to argue either for or againstbeach scavenging (e.g., Bovy 2002; de-France 2005; Eda et al. 2016; Jerardinoet al. 2009; Losey 2002); however, Bovyet al. (2016) found these approaches oflimited utility. While any aquatic bird mayend up on the beach, some occur morefrequently than others (Table 1); thereforerelative taxonomic abundance may indicatea scavenged assemblage. Larger numbers ofbeached carcasses may be available duringmass mortality events or “wrecks,” whenbirds are deposited on the beach after largestorms or following reproductive failure orfood shortages (Bovy et al. 2016; deFrance2005). Many of these “wreck” carcassesare relatively fresh and intact and couldbe used for meat (e.g., Work and Rameyer1999). On the Oregon coast, pelagic birdsare often assumed to have been collectedoff the beach (Hall 2001; Losey 2002:289).
MATERIALS AND METHODS
New Primary Data
Original, unpublished identifications bythe authors are drawn from collection-basedprojects from three sites excavated priorto 1986: Umpqua/Eden (Bovy 2005), WhaleCove (Watson 2011), and the Dunes Site(Ulrich 2009). At Umpqua/Eden and WhaleCove, ¼” screens were used to recoverthe faunal remains, undoubtedly resultingin the loss of small bird bones. From theDunes Site, we have no information as towhether screens were used. Bird remainswere identified to the lowest possible tax-onomic level using comparative collectionsfrom the Burke Museum of Natural His-tory and Culture at the University of Wash-ington (Umpqua/Eden, Whale Cove), Mu-seum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard
(Whale Cove), and the North Pacific collec-tion at the University of Oregon’s Depart-ment of Anthropology (Dunes), along withpublished criteria (e.g., Broughton 2004;Woolfendon 1961). Vertebrae and ribs werenot identified beyond the class level (for allanalysts), and Ulrich did not identify pha-langes (except phalanx I of digit II). Bovyused both morphological and metric cri-teria to identify taxa, and did not iden-tify small passerines. All assemblages werequantified using NISP (Number of Identi-fied Specimens), which is primary data (notsecondary, derived data like Minimum Num-ber of Individuals; Grayson 1984; Reitz andWing 2008), and allows comparison withother assemblages (see below).
Site 1: Umpqua/Eden. Umpqua/Eden (35DO83) is situated on the south/centralOregon coast within the territory ofthe Penutian-speaking Lower Umpqua orKalawatset (Lyman 1991). The site is lo-cated on a high terrace along the UmpquaRiver, about 3.2 km from the river mouth.Excavations began with Peter Stenhouse(unpublished), were continued by RichardRoss with an Oregon State University (OSU)field school from 1978 to 1980 (Ross andSnyder 1979, 1986), and later by Rick Mi-nor (1994; Minor et al. 2012). Lyman (1991)summarized and analyzed mammal remainsfrom the Ross excavations, while Bovy an-alyzed the bird remains in her dissertation(2005), which focused on the effects of en-vironmental change and human hunting onpast waterbird populations. Ross and Sny-der (1986) believed the site was continu-ously occupied for 3,000 years, but withadditional dating, Bovy (2005) found thatthe bulk of the deposits accumulated dur-ing two periods: 2280–1775 cal BP and900–250 cal BP. A 900-year long hiatus insite occupation, or at least faunal accumu-lation, occurred between 1800 and 900 calBP.
Table 2 provides data on the 1553 birdbones from Umpqua/Eden. Ducks dominatethe assemblage (n = 1120; 72%), followedby cormorants (n = 94; 6%), loons (n =86; 6%), geese (n = 74; 5%), eagles/hawks
8 VOLUME 0 • ISSUE 0 • 2018
Kristine M. Bovy et al.
Table 2. Identified specimens from Umpqua/ Eden (35DO83), Dunes Site (35CLT27) andWhale Cove (35LNC60).
Scientific Name1 Common NameUmpqua/
Eden2WhaleCove Dunes
Anseriformes
Anatidae Duck, Goose, Swan 4 14
Anserinae Goose, Swan 12
Anserini Goose 49 4
Branta cf. canadensis Canada Goose 25
Branta canadensis Canada Goose 39
Anatinae Duck 336 14 64
Anas spp. Dabbling Duck 80
Aythya spp. Pochard 132
Mergini Sea Duck 75 7
Melanitta spp. Scoter 315 17 60
Melanitta perspicillata Surf Scoter 54 200
Melanitta fusca White-winged Scoter 32 4 204
Bucephala albeola Bufflehead 81
Bucephala spp.-large Common or Barrow’sGoldeneye
3
Bucephala islandica Barrow’s Goldeneye 1
Mergus spp. Merganser 7
Mergus merganser Common Merganser 2
Oxyura jamaicensis Ruddy Duck 2
Galliformes
Gallus gallus Domestic Chicken 8
Podicipediformes
Podicipedidae Grebe 4 4
Podiceps spp. Grebe 5
Podiceps spp.-small Horned or Eared Grebe 3
Podiceps auritus Horned Grebe 6
Aechmophorus spp. Western or Clark’s Grebe 5
Aechmophorus occidentalis Western Grebe 8
Columbiformes
Columba spp. Pigeons 12
Gruiformes
Grus canadensis Sandhill Crane 1
Charadriiformes Shorebird 1
Scolopacidae Sandpiper 5
Calidris spp. Sandpiper 5
Alcidae Alcid 1 2 30
Uria aalge Common Murre 8 594
(Continued on next page)
THE JOURNAL OF ISLAND AND COASTAL ARCHAEOLOGY 9
Evaluating Native American Bird Use
Table 2. (Continued).
Scientific Name1 Common NameUmpqua/
Eden2WhaleCove Dunes
Brachyramphus marmoratus Marbled Murrelet 8
Ptychoramphus aleuticus Cassin’s Auklet 128
Cerorhinca monocerata Rhinoceros Auklet 2 38
Fratercula cirrhata Tufted Puffin 3 13
Laridae Gull, Tern 44 12 10
Rissa cf. tridactyla Black-legged Kittiwake 1
Rissa tridactyla Black-legged Kittiwake 40
Larus spp. Gulls 47
Gaviiformes
Gavia spp. Loon 59 2 60
Gavia stellata Red-throated Loon 8
Gavia pacifica Pacific Loon 8
Gavia immer Common Loon 11
Procellariiformes
Phoebastria spp. Albatross 15 71
Phoebastria spp.- small Laysan or Black-footedAlbatross
1
Phoebastria albatrus Short-tailed Albatross 2
Procellariidae Shearwater, Fulmar, Petrel 1 17
Fulmarus glacialis Northern Fulmar 1 3 38
Ardenna (=Puffinus) spp. Shearwater 3 127
Ardenna grisea Sooty Shearwater 324
Ardenna creatopus Pink-footed Shearwater 2
Suliformes
Phalacrocorax spp. Cormorant 54 3 22
Phalacrocorax penicillatus Brandt’s Cormorant 1
Phalacrocorax auritus Double-crested Cormorant 28 1
Phalacrocorax pelagicus Pelagic Cormorant 11 4
Pelecaniformes
Pelecanus spp. Pelican 5
Pelecanus occidentalis Brown Pelican 6 3
Ardea herodias Great Blue Heron 1
Accipitriformes
Pandion haliaetus Osprey 3
Accipitridae- large Bald or Golden Eagle 5
Haliaeetus leucocephalus Bald Eagle 18 1
Accipitridae- small Hawk 2
Buteo spp. Hawk 14
(Continued on next page)
10 VOLUME 0 • ISSUE 0 • 2018
Kristine M. Bovy et al.
Table 2. (Continued).
Scientific Name1 Common NameUmpqua/
Eden2WhaleCove Dunes
Buteo jamaicensis Red-tailed Hawk 5
Strigiformes
Megascops kennicotti Western Screech-owl 1
Bubo spp. Great Horned or Snowy Owl 1
Bubo virginianus Great Horned Owl 1 1
Piciformes
Picidae Woodpecker 1 1
Falconiformes
Falco spp.- large Falcon, large-sized 1
Passeriformes
Passeriformes (non-corvid) Perching Bird 11 1 1
Turdidae Robin, Thrush 4
Corvus brachyrhynchos American or Common Crow 11
Corvus corax Common Raven 29
Total 1553 106 2230
1Taxonomic names and order follows the American Ornithologists’ Union Check-list of NorthAmerican Birds (AOU 2017), including recent updates (e.g., Chesser et al. 2016).
2Simplified from Bovy (2005), which also included size class information for non-speciesidentifications (e.g., Anas sp.- small). In addition, some identifications were combined (e.g., cf.Phalacrocorax spp. and Phalacrocorax spp.).
(n = 44; 3%), and gulls (n = 44; 3%)2. Water-fowl are the most abundant taxon in boththe early and later components. Eelgrassoccurs in coves both north and south ofUmpqua/Eden (Gaumer et al. 1973:26), anddense flocks of Surf (Melanitta perspicil-lata) and White-winged Scoters (M. fusca)have been observed near the Umpqua Riverduring November (Briggs et al.1992:A-49). Given that the most abundant ducksrecovered were scoters, pochards, andBuffleheads (Bucephala albeola), and thatherring (Clupea pallasii) and harbor seal(Phoca vitulina) were also abundant (Ly-man 1991; Minor 1994), site occupantsmay have been targeting these productiveeelgrass patches, in addition to the estuar-ine tideflats. Bovy (2005) identified a widerange of bird species at Umpqua/Eden, butfound little change in the taxonomiccomposition over the site’s occupa-tion, perhaps indicating environmentalstability.
Site 2: Whale Cove. Whale Cove (35LNC60) occurs within areas encompassed bythe territories of the Siletz (Salish speakers)in the north and the Yaquina (Penutianspeakers) in the south (Ruby and Brown1986). Ann Bennett Rogers (Bennett 1988)excavated the site in 1985 as part of an OSUfield school. Located on a bluff near DepoeBay in northern Oregon, the site containedthree strata dated to 3010–330 BP, includ-ing dense shell midden layers (Bennett andLyman 1991). Bovy and Watson examinedthe avifauna in 2011 as part of Watson’sundergraduate honors project at the Uni-versity of Rhode Island (Watson 2011), inorder to help evaluate the seasonality of thesite. Most identified bird bones derive fromWhale Cove I (WCI), a component datingca. 3010–2830 BP (Bennett and Lyman1991:244).
The Whale Cove bird assemblage issmall (NISP = 106) but diverse (Table 2).The most abundant taxa were ducks and
THE JOURNAL OF ISLAND AND COASTAL ARCHAEOLOGY 11
Evaluating Native American Bird Use
geese (n = 46; 43%), albatrosses and shear-waters (n = 21; 20%), puffins and Com-mon Murres (n = 15; 14%), gulls (n = 12;11%) and cormorants (n = 8; 7%). Watson(2011) suggested that the bird bones in-dicate year-round rather than seasonal oc-cupation based on the presence of alba-tross and puffin (thought to be present insummer only), scoter and Northern Fulmar(fall and winter), and a juvenile cormorant(spring).
Site 3: The Dunes Site. The Dunes Site(35CLT27) is located in the Clatsop Plainsdunes system, which extends 30 km southfrom the mouth of the Columbia River toTillamook Head. It is positioned 1.2 kmfrom the current shoreline, 500 meters eastof Neacoxie Creek just north of the townof Gearhart, and at 15–20 m above sea level(Harrison and Longo 1991). The Lower Chi-nook occupied both banks of the ColumbiaRiver from the mouth to about 50 milesupstream (Ray 1938; Silverstein 1990).The Lower Chinook included the Chinookproper who occupied the north bank (toWillapa Bay) and the Clatsop who occupiedthe south bank (to Tillamook Head), includ-ing the Dunes Site location. The Dunes Sitewas occupied ca. 950–550 cal BP, and wasexcavated by Fred Hasle and field schoolstudents from Clatsop Community Collegefrom 1972 to 1974 (Harrison and Longo1991). Faunal remains are housed at theUniversity of Oregon’s Museum of Naturaland Cultural History. The large assemblageof bird bones was unexamined for 30 years,until Moss and students began to tackle theproject (Rose et al. 2006). Ulrich selectedthe site for her M.S. project, under thedirection of Moss, to investigate bird use,site seasonality, and the dynamic natureof the coastal environment near the site,including the westward progradation ofextensive dunes south of the ColumbiaRiver (Connolly 1992).
Ulrich’s analysis yielded 2230 NISP(Table 2); as of this writing, this representsthe largest archaeological bird assemblage(from a single site) from the Oregon coastyet identified. Birds from 14 families wereidentified, with Common Murre (n = 594;
27%), scoters (n = 464; 21%), and shearwa-ters (n = 453; 20%) dominating the assem-blage. Next in abundance were other ducksand geese (n = 129, 6%), Cassin’s Auklets(n = 128, 6%), albatrosses (n = 71, 3%),loons (n = 60, 3%), and gulls (n = 57, 3%).Also identified are other small alcids, cor-morants, Northern Fulmar, and Black-leggedKittiwake (Rissa tridactyla). Through anal-ysis of the taxonomic composition and con-sideration of the habitat requirements of themost common birds, Ulrich (2009) inferredthat the Dunes Site was used during mul-tiple seasons, was located on or very nearthe shoreline when occupied, and its res-idents made use of both outer coast andnearshore environments. Ulrich (2009) sug-gested that the high numbers of scoters, rel-ative to other ducks, indicated outer coastalas opposed to estuarine use.
Comparative Bird Data
Bovy and Watson compiled data from23 additional bird assemblages on theOregon coast (Figure 1, Table 3). It wasnot possible to obtain excavated volumesand screen size information for each assem-blage, so high NISP values may indicate sam-pling intensity, rather than the relative abun-dance of birds at a given site. Challengeswith comparing published zooarchaeologi-cal data include differing recovery methods(screen size), availability of comparativecollections, and analysts’ experience andprotocols (Atici et al. 2013; Driver 2011).Since we focus inter-site comparisons onfamily-level identifications (Table 4), we areconfident the trends discussed adequatelyrepresent human bird use in the past.
Statistical Analyses
Moss and White used various tech-niques to explore structure in the birdassemblage data. Because taxonomic rich-ness (number of taxa) is a function ofsample size, which varied greatly amongour sites, we used the reciprocal of theSimpson Index (Krebs 1989) to measuretaxonomic diversity, which focuses insteadon the equitability of abundance across
12 VOLUME 0 • ISSUE 0 • 2018
Tab
le3
.O
rego
nco
ast
arch
aeo
logi
cal
site
sw
ith
iden
tifi
edb
ird
rem
ain
s(o
rgan
ized
fro
mn
ort
hto
sou
th).
Site
No
.Si
teN
ame
Per
iod
1E
xca
vati
on
(Ex
cava
tor,
Dat
e)2
Fau
nal
An
aly
stR
epo
rtN
SP3
NIS
P3
35C
LT34
Ind
ian
Poin
tLH
,PH
Min
or
1978
Wig
enM
ino
ret
al.(
2008
a)80
425
6
35C
LT27
Du
nes
LHH
asle
1972
–197
4U
lric
hU
lric
h(2
009)
4179
2230
35C
LT20
Par-
Tee
LHP
heb
us
&D
ruck
er19
60/7
0sC
olt
enC
olt
en(2
002,
2015
)13
9674
9
35C
LT47
Palm
rose
LHP
heb
us
&D
ruck
er19
60/7
0s;C
on
no
lly19
88
Cro
ckfo
rd;
Co
lten
Co
nn
olly
(199
2);C
olt
en(2
002,
2015
)14
8380
0
35C
LT13
Ave
nu
eQ
LHC
on
no
lly19
88C
rock
ford
Co
nn
olly
(199
2)80
642
5
35C
LT21
BEc
ola
Poin
tLH
,PH
Min
or
1990
Gre
ensp
anM
ino
r(1
991a
)13
277
35T
I1N
etar
tsLH
New
man
&C
olli
ns
1950
s;Lo
sey
1999
Lose
yLo
sey
(200
2)12
4152
4
35LN
C45
Bo
iler
Bay
MH
Tasa
&C
on
no
lly19
93Pe
nto
n,T
asa
Tasa
&C
on
no
lly(1
995)
248
119
35LN
C60
Wh
ale
Co
veLH
Ben
net
t-R
oge
rs&
Lym
an19
85W
atso
n,B
ovy
Wat
son
(201
1)15
110
6
35LN
C50
No
rth
Yaq
uin
aH
ead
LHM
ino
r19
88G
reen
span
,W
igen
Min
or
(198
9)16
211
3
35LN
C62
Yaq
uin
aH
ead
MH
,LH
Min
or
1989
Wig
enM
ino
r(1
991b
)17
3471
6
35LN
C57
Cap
eC
reek
LHM
ino
r19
91,1
992
Gre
ensp
anM
ino
r&
Gre
ensp
an(1
995a
)14
475
35LN
C55
Go
od
Fort
un
ePo
int
LHM
ino
r&
Toep
el19
83;
Co
nn
olly
&Ta
sa20
00G
reen
span
;Tas
aM
ino
ret
al.(
1985
);Ta
sa&
Co
nn
olly
(200
1)32
3
35LN
C56
Go
od
Fort
un
eC
ove
LHM
ino
r&
Toep
el19
83G
reen
span
Min
or
etal
.(19
85)
6819
35LA
10B
ob
Cre
ekLH
Tasa
etal
.200
0sSi
nge
rTa
saet
al.(
2009
)18
8
35LA
19Li
lyLa
keP
HM
ino
r19
99G
reen
span
Min
or
etal
.(20
08b
)61
323
9
35D
O13
0Ta
hke
nit
chLa
nd
ing
MH
Min
or
&To
epel
1985
Gre
ensp
anM
ino
r&
Toep
el(1
986)
780
245
35D
O83
Um
pq
ua/
Eden
LH,P
HR
oss
1978
–198
0B
ovy
Bo
vy(2
005)
no
tre
po
rted
1553
(Con
tin
ued
on
nex
tpa
ge)
THE JOURNAL OF ISLAND AND COASTAL ARCHAEOLOGY 13
Tab
le3
.(C
on
tin
ued
).
Site
No
.Si
teN
ame
Per
iod
1E
xca
vati
on
(Ex
cava
tor,
Dat
e)2
Fau
nal
An
aly
stR
epo
rtN
SP3
NIS
P3
35C
S114
Hau
ser
LHM
ino
r19
91–1
993
Gre
ensp
anM
ino
ret
al.(
1998
a)93
443
6
35C
S119
Ko
chLH
Min
or
1993
Gre
ensp
anM
ino
ret
al.(
1998
a)32
495
35C
S11
Bal
diy
aka/
Ch
ief’
sIs
lan
dLH
Min
or
1985
;Fag
an20
04G
reen
span
;B
aker
Min
or
&G
reen
span
(199
5b);
Ogl
eet
al.(
2005
)77
41
35C
S5B
and
on
San
dsp
itLH
,PH
Cre
ssm
an&
Co
llin
s19
52T
vesk
ov
Tve
sko
v(2
000)
4931
35C
S61
Blu
eB
arn
MH
,LH
Tve
sko
v20
06T
vesk
ov
Tve
sko
v&
Co
hen
(200
7)20
914
35C
S43
Nah
-so
-mah
(Old
Tow
nB
and
on
)
LHR
oss
&H
all1
978,
1986
,19
88,1
990,
1991
,19
93
Hal
lH
all(
2001
)n
ot
rep
ort
ed87
0
35C
U2
Cap
eB
lan
coM
H,L
HM
ino
r19
97G
reen
span
Min
or
&G
reen
span
(199
8b)
100
44
35C
U16
0G
oat
Isla
nd
LHG
ard
1989
Gar
dG
ard
(199
0)15
278
1M
H=
Mid
dle
Ho
loce
ne:
7,50
0–3,
000
year
sag
o;L
H=
Late
Ho
loce
ne:
3,00
0ye
ars
ago
toco
nta
cter
a(A
iken
set
al.2
011)
;PH
=P
roto
his
tori
c(j
ust
bef
ore
con
tact
).2M
any
of
thes
esi
tes
wer
eex
cava
ted
mu
ltip
leti
mes
;th
eex
cava
tio
ns
liste
dh
ere
are
asso
ciat
edw
ith
the
syst
emat
ical
lyan
alyz
edb
ird
asse
mb
lage
s.3N
SP=
Nu
mb
ero
fSp
ecim
ens
inth
eas
sem
bla
ge;N
ISP
=N
um
ber
of
Iden
tifi
edSp
ecim
ens
(sp
ecim
ens
iden
tifi
edm
ore
spec
ifica
llyth
an“b
ird
”).
14 VOLUME 0 • ISSUE 0 • 2018
Tab
le4
.N
um
ber
of
Iden
tifi
edSp
ecim
ens
(NIS
P)
by
maj
or
tax
on
om
icgr
ou
ps
of
bir
ds.
1
Tax
on
om
icN
ame
Co
mm
on
Nam
eIn
dP
tD
un
esPa
r-Te
ePa
lmro
seA
veQ
Eco
laP
tN
etar
tsB
oil
Bay
Wh
lCve
An
atid
aeD
uck
s,G
eese
,Sw
ans
165
593
302
456
836
132
346
Ph
asia
nin
aeD
om
esti
cC
hic
ken
44
Tetr
aon
inae
Gro
use
24
Pod
icip
edid
aeG
reb
es1
173
89
27
Co
lum
bid
aeP
igeo
ns
112
1
Ral
lidae
Co
ots
2
Gru
idae
Cra
nes
1
Hae
mat
op
od
idae
Oys
terc
atch
er
Ch
arad
riid
aeP
love
rs1
Sco
lop
acid
aeSa
nd
pip
ers
21
2
Alc
idae
Au
ks(M
urr
es,P
uffi
ns)
811
181
8022
010
8977
15
Lari
dae
Gu
lls97
4082
262
514
12
Gav
iidae
Loo
ns
1660
1915
61
332
Dio
med
eid
aeA
lbat
ross
es71
2228
74
6415
Pro
cella
rid
aeFu
lmar
s,Sh
earw
ater
s2
508
131
5255
1640
336
Hyd
rob
atid
aeSt
orm
-pet
rels
18
Ph
alac
roco
raci
dae
Co
rmo
ran
ts2
2246
595
736
28
Pele
can
idae
Pelic
ans
31
415
Ard
eid
aeH
ero
ns
33
Pan
dio
nid
aeO
spre
y
Acc
ipit
rid
aeEa
gles
,Haw
ks6
12
23
912
Stri
gid
aeO
wls
21
13
Ale
ced
inid
aeK
ingfi
sher
s3
Pic
idae
Wo
od
pec
kers
21
Falc
on
idae
Falc
on
s1
Pass
erif
orm
esPe
rch
ing
Bir
ds
734
24
62
371
Tota
lNIS
P25
622
3074
979
942
577
524
119
106
THE JOURNAL OF ISLAND AND COASTAL ARCHAEOLOGY 15
Tab
le4
.(C
on
tin
ued
)
Tax
on
om
icN
ame
NY
aqH
dY
aqH
dC
ape
Crk
Gd
Frt
Pt
Gd
Frt
Cve
Bo
bC
rkLi
lyLk
eTa
hke
nit
chU
mp
/Ed
nH
ause
r
An
atid
ae20
157
1713
28
151
1198
264
Ph
asia
nin
ae9
8
Tetr
aon
inae
1
Pod
icip
edid
ae11
1118
10
Co
lum
bid
ae
Ral
lidae
3
Gru
idae
1
Hae
mat
op
od
idae
Ch
arad
riid
ae1
Sco
lop
acid
ae11
2
Alc
idae
387
51
101
76
Lari
dae
934
76
49
4513
Gav
iidae
423
114
8626
Dio
med
eid
ae92
43
Pro
cella
rid
ae1
194
122
18
Hyd
rob
atid
ae13
Ph
alac
roco
raci
dae
7393
281
231
2194
26
Pele
can
idae
11
Ard
eid
ae8
1
Pan
dio
nid
ae3
Acc
ipit
rid
ae3
44
Stri
gid
ae3
3
Ale
ced
inid
ae
Pic
idae
1
Falc
on
idae
1
Pass
erif
orm
es4
11
522
Tota
lNIS
P11
370
974
219
823
924
415
5343
6
16 VOLUME 0 • ISSUE 0 • 2018
Tab
le4
.(C
on
tin
ued
)
Tax
on
om
icN
ame
Ko
chB
ald
iyak
aB
and
on
Blu
eB
arn
Nah
-so
-mah
Cap
eB
lnc
Go
atIs
l2G
ran
dTo
tal
%o
fId
enti
fied
An
atid
ae74
2914
1250
242
4743
Ph
asia
nin
ae61
1
Tetr
aon
inae
7<
1
Pod
icip
edid
ae2
1211
11
Co
lum
bid
ae14
<1
Ral
lidae
2227
<1
Gru
idae
2<
1
Hae
mat
op
od
idae
33
<1
Ch
arad
riid
ae24
26<
1
Sco
lop
acid
ae18
<1
Alc
idae
341
52
1717
17
Lari
dae
103
471
502
5
Gav
iidae
23
325
339
3
Dio
med
eid
ae2
1132
33
Pro
cella
rid
ae1
1071
11
Hyd
rob
atid
ae76
107
1
Ph
alac
roco
raci
dae
44
113
038
931
9
Pele
can
idae
135
<1
Ard
eid
ae1
824
<1
Pan
dio
nid
ae3
<1
THE JOURNAL OF ISLAND AND COASTAL ARCHAEOLOGY 17
Tab
le4
.(C
on
tin
ued
)
Tax
on
om
icN
ame
Ko
chB
ald
iyak
aB
and
on
Blu
eB
arn
Nah
-so
-mah
Cap
eB
lnc
Go
atIs
l2G
ran
dTo
tal
%o
fId
enti
fied
Acc
ipit
rid
ae10
1911
11
Stri
gid
ae10
23<
1
Ale
ced
inid
ae3
<1
Pic
idae
37
<1
Falc
on
idae
2<
1
Pass
erif
orm
es15
141
1
Tota
lNIS
P95
4131
1487
044
7898
55
1Su
bfa
mily
iden
tifi
cati
on
sar
esh
ow
nfo
rP
has
ian
idae
tod
isti
ngu
ish
gro
use
(wh
ich
are
nat
ive)
fro
min
tro
du
ced
chic
ken
s.A
llp
asse
rin
esar
egr
ou
ped
toO
rder
(Pas
seri
form
es)
asth
ese
are
less
freq
uen
tly
iden
tifi
edto
fam
ilyle
vel.
At
leas
tth
ree
fam
ilies
of
Pass
erif
orm
es(C
orv
idae
,Tu
rbid
ae,
and
Car
din
alid
ae)
hav
eb
een
iden
tifi
edin
Ore
gon
coas
tsi
tes.
Asm
alln
um
ber
of
spec
imen
sid
enti
fied
on
lyas
“Ch
arad
riif
orm
es”
wer
eex
clu
ded
fro
mth
ista
ble
for
Palm
rose
(n=
1),Y
aqu
ina
Hea
d(n
=7)
,Cap
eC
reek
(n=
1),G
oo
dFo
rtu
ne
Poin
t(n
=1)
,an
dTa
hke
nit
ch(n
=1)
.2G
ard
(199
0)co
ncl
ud
edth
atth
eid
enti
fied
bir
dre
mai
ns,
sto
rm-p
etre
ls(O
cea
nodro
ma
spp
.)an
dTu
fted
Pu
ffin
(Fra
terc
ula
cirr
ha
ta),
wer
en
atu
rally
inco
rpo
rate
din
toth
esi
te,g
iven
that
bo
thta
xa
are
bu
rro
wn
este
rscu
rren
tly
bre
edin
go
nG
oat
Isla
nd
.Th
ree
un
iden
tifi
edfr
agm
ents
wer
ed
eem
edto
be
arch
aeo
logi
cal,
rath
erth
anin
tru
sive
(giv
enth
eir
con
tex
t).
18 VOLUME 0 • ISSUE 0 • 2018
Kristine M. Bovy et al.
taxa. To minimize sample size bias, similar-ity/dissimilarity matrices were created toexplore assemblage relatedness across sites.Pearson product-moment correlations werecomputed for each pair of sites to assessinter-site comparisons using BIOMstat 3.3(Rohlf and Slice 1999). We used cluster anal-ysis to assess relationships among individualassemblages using arithmetic averages inthe unweighted pair group method (UP-GMA; Sneath and Sokal 1973:230–234) andvisualized these results with dendrogramsproduced in Exeter Software NTSYSpc2.11x. This technique removes size biasand allows multiple assemblages to becompared simultaneously.
We used Mantel tests to examinewhether similarities between the assem-blages could be related to: 1) distancebetween sites, 2) similarity in habitat, or 3)sample size. Mantel tests are non-parametrictests that use repeated randomizations(n = 5,000) to examine whether an ob-served pattern of pairwise relationships inan observed similarity matrix is significantlyhigher or lower than expected by chancewhen compared to a specific hypothesistest matrix (Sokal and Rohlf 2012:852–858; for archaeological application, seeO’Connor et al. 2016). We calculated twomatrices to describe the observed patternof similarity among the sites. In the first,similarity was based on the presence orabsence of each family at each possiblepair of sites. The second used the Pearsonproduct-moment correlation between theabundance of each family for each possiblepair of sites. Both matrices were testedagainst two different hypothesis test matri-ces. The first tested the hypothesis that sitesthat are close together are more similar thanthose that are far apart, and was based ongeographical distances between each pairof sites calculated using Google Earth. Thesecond tested the hypothesis that sites fromthe same habitat type are more similar thanones belonging to different habitat types.To avoid the circular reasoning of usingthe bird assemblage to infer habitat type,we used three generic habitat categories:riverine/estuarine, intermediate, and outercoast. The intermediate type includes fau-
nal assemblages from sites whose habitatmay have been significantly different in thepast than today (e.g., Connolly 1992; Ulrich2009).
To investigate the relationship betweenmodern seabird colonies and the taxonomicabundances of archaeological assemblages,we used data from the Catalog of OregonSeabird Colonies (Naughton et al. 2007a).The most recent, accurate, or representa-tive (MRA) estimate for each species wasused (Naughton et al. 2007a:15). Moss com-piled a matrix, by species, of all extantseabird colonies with a minimum of 100birds located within 10 and 20 km straightline distance, respectively of the archaeo-logical sites using georeferenced positionslisted in Naughton et al. (2007a) and GoogleEarth (see Supplemental Table 1).
COASST Analysis
To explore the degree to which the ar-chaeological assemblage composition couldhave resulted from scavenging, Parrish andJones used the COASST dataset to calcu-late a modern day “baseline” compositionof beached birds. Species counts were ex-tracted for all COASST surveys (2001–2017)performed on beaches within a 20 km ra-dius of each archaeological site (Figure 1;excluding a mass mortality event of Cassin’sAuklets from November 2014 to February2015).
Carcasses were placed in taxonomiccategories according to Table 5 to match thetaxonomic resolution possible from archae-ological findings. Note that this analysis in-cluded individual species in some families,notably the Alcidae, whereas other groupswere coalesced at higher taxonomic lev-els, up to family (e.g., Laridae). A higherlevel assemblage was also produced (water-fowl, gulls, grebes, loons, alcids, procellari-iformes, and cormorants). In the latter case,species found in the COASST dataset butunrecorded in the archaeological datasetswere included (e.g., Horned Puffins wereincluded in Alcidae). Finally, “other species”including all non-aquatic species were ex-cluded from the analysis, such that an
THE JOURNAL OF ISLAND AND COASTAL ARCHAEOLOGY 19
Evaluating Native American Bird Use
Table 5. Number of Identified Specimens (NISP) for sites with >100 identified birdspecimens. Percentages are shown in parentheses for major taxonomic groups(bold). More specific identifications are shown for the four most abundantfamilies.
Taxonomic Name Common Name Indian Pt Dunes Par-Tee
Cygini Swans 35
Anserini Geese 32 51 6
Anatini Dabbling Ducks 17 12
Aythyini Bay Ducks/ Pochards 1
Mergini1 Diving Sea Ducks 4 464 231
Oxyurini Stiff-tailed Ducks
Anatidae (unid.) Unid. Anatids 76 78 53
Anatidae Total Ducks, Geese, Swans 165 (65) 593 (27) 302 (40)
Podicipedidae Grebes 1 (<1) 17 (1) 3 (<1)
Uria aalge Common Murre 594 181
Cepphus columba Pigeon Guillemot
Brachyramphusmarmoratus
Marbled Murrelet 8
Synthliboramphusantiquus
Ancient Murrelet
Ptychoramphusaleuticus
Cassin’s Auklet 128
Cerorhincamonocerata
Rhinoceros Auklet 38
Fratercula cirrhata Tufted Puffin 13
Alcidae (unid.) Unid. Alcids 30
Alcidae Total Auks (Murres, Puffins) 811 (36) 181 (24)
Laridae Gulls 97 (4) 40 (5)
Gaviidae Loons 16 (6) 60 (3) 19 (3)
Diomedidae Albatross 71 (3) 22 (3)
Fulmarus glacialis Northern Fulmar 38
Ardenna (=Puffinus)spp.2
Shearwaters 2 453 130
Procellariidae (unid.) Unid. Procellariids 17 1
Procellariidae Total Fulmars, Shearwaters 2 (1) 508 (23) 131 (18)
Phalacrocoraxpenicillatus
Brandt’s Cormorant 7
Phalacrocorax auritus Double-crested Corm. 4
Phalacrocoraxpelagicus
Pelagic Cormorant 27
Phalacrocorax spp.(unid.)
Unid. Cormorant 2 22 8
PhalacrocoracidaeTotal
Cormorants 2 (1) 22 (1) 46 (6)
Other Birds 70 (27) 51 (2) 5 (1)
Total NISP 256 2230 749
(Continued on next page)
20 VOLUME 0 • ISSUE 0 • 2018
Kristine M. Bovy et al.
Table 5. (Continued)
Taxonomic Name Palmrose Ave Q Netarts Boil Bay Whl Cve N Yaq Hd Yaq Hd
Cygini 2
Anserini 20 9 16 4 1
Anatini 17 3 18 1
Aythyini 6 1 1
Mergini1 319 13 86 3 28 63
Oxyurini
Anatidae (unid.) 94 57 10 14 19 92
Anatidae Total 456 (57) 83 (20) 132 (25) 3 (3) 46 (43) 20 (18) 157 (22)
Podicipedidae 8 (1) 9 (2) 7 (1) 11 (2)
Uria aalge 64 214 50 8 3 33
Cepphus columba 1
Brachyramphusmarmoratus
3 2 4 9
Synthliboramphusantiquus
Ptychoramphusaleuticus
1 4 1
Cerorhincamonocerata
2 13 77 2 11
Fratercula cirrhata 17 3 19
Alcidae (unid.) 12 2 2 14
Alcidae Total 80 (10) 220 (52) 89 (17) 77 (65) 15 (14) 3 (3) 87 (12)
Laridae 82 (10) 26 (6) 51 (10) 4 (3) 12 (11) 9 (8) 34 (5)
Gaviidae 15 (2) 6 (1) 33 (6) 2 (2) 4 (4) 23 (3)
Diomedidae 28 (4) 7 (2) 64 (12) 15 (14) 92 (13)
Fulmarus glacialis 2 5 15 3 1 155
Ardenna (=Puffinus)spp.2
49 50 6 33 3 37
Procellariidae (unid.) 1 19 2
Procellariidae Total 52 (7) 55 (13) 40 (8) 33 (28) 6 (6) 1 (1) 194 (27)
Phalacrocoraxpenicillatus
14 1
Phalacrocorax auritus 7 3 1
Phalacrocoraxpelagicus
8 4 4
Phalacrocorax spp.(unid.)
30 2 31 2 3 73 93
PhalacrocoracidaeTotal
59 (7) 5 (1) 36 (7) 2 (2) 8 (8) 73 (65) 93 (13)
Other Birds 19 (2) 14 (3) 72 (14) 2 (2) 3 (3) 18 (3)
Total NISP 799 425 524 119 106 113 709
THE JOURNAL OF ISLAND AND COASTAL ARCHAEOLOGY 21
Evaluating Native American Bird Use
Table 5. (Continued)
Taxonomic Name Lily Lke Tahkenitch Ump/Edn Hauser Nah-so-mah Total (%)
Cygini 7 44
Anserini 4 74 71 18 306
Anatini 1 80 5 314 468
Aythyini 132 79 220
Mergini1 3 16 570 41 64 1905
Oxyurini 2 2
Anatidae (unid.) 5 130 340 147 20 1135
Anatidae Total 8 (3) 151 (62) 1198 (77) 264 (61) 502 (58) 4080 (44)
Podicipedidae 11 (5) 18 (1) 10 (2) 12 (1) 107 (1)
Uria aalge 10 34 34 1225
Cepphus columba 1 2
Brachyramphus 1 27
marmoratus
Synthliboramphus 24 24
antiquus
Ptychoramphusaleuticus
6 140
Cerorhinca monocerata 143
Fratercula cirrhata 52
Alcidae (unid.) 1 17 78
Alcidae Total 10 (4) 1 (<1) 76 (17) 41 (5) 1691 (18)
Laridae 9 (4) 45 (3) 13 (3) 47 (5) 469 (5)
Gaviidae 14 (6) 86 (6) 26 (6) 25 (3) 329 (4)
Diomedidae 3 (<1) 11 (1) 313 (3)
Fulmarus glacialis 1 220
Ardenna (=Puffinus) spp.2 12 18 793
Procellariidae (unid.) 1 41
Procellariidae Total 12 (5) 2 (<1) 18 (4) 1054 (11)
Phalacrocorax penicillatus 1 3 26
Phalacrocorax auritus 28 3 46
Phalacrocorax pelagicus 11 54
Phalacrocorax spp.(unid.)
231 21 54 20 130 722
PhalacrocoracidaeTotal
231 (97) 21 (9) 94 (6) 26 (6) 130 (15) 848 (9)
Other Birds 16 (7) 106 (7) 3 (1) 102 (12) 481 (5)
Total NISP 239 244 1553 436 870 9372
1Of those Mergini identified to species (n=1823), 93% (n=1701) were Scoters (Melanitta spp.).2Of those shearwaters identified to species (n=555), 99% (n=548) were Sooty Shearwaters
(Ardenna grisea).
22 VOLUME 0 • ISSUE 0 • 2018
Kristine M. Bovy et al.
Figure 2. Dendrogram showing results of cluster analysis.
“other versus other” catch-all datapoint wasnot included in either analysis.
For both COASST and archaeologicaldatasets, data were standardized as percentof total within site and square-root trans-formed to down-weight the importance ofhigher values. We also created a regionalCOASST dataset by summing species-specific counts across all sites included inthe local analysis (n = 87 sites). The per-cent composition of seabird taxa assessedas NISP was regressed against the percentcomposition of the corresponding seabirdtaxa from the COASST dataset, and usedgeneral linear models (GLMs) with nor-mally distributed errors to identify whethercorrelations were statistically significant,reported at a threshold of α = 0.05.
RESULTS
Native Americans living on the Oregoncoast during the late Holocene used a greatvariety of birds (Table 4). Over 80 birdspecies representing 27 families have beenidentified from these 26 sites. The five mostcommon taxa were Anatidae (ducks, geese)with 43%; Alcidae (murres, puffins, auk-
lets), 17%; Procellariidae (fulmars, shearwa-ters, albatrosses), 11%; Phalacrocoracidae(cormorants), 9%; and Laridae (gulls), 5%.Ducks are the most common group at morethan half the sites. We focused on sites (n =15) with a minimum of 100 NISP (Table 5)to reduce the effects of small sample size.The results are divided into four maingroups (Figure 1), based on cluster analysis(Figure 2), taxonomic abundance (Table 5),Pearson correlation coefficients (Table 6),and taxonomic diversity (Table 7).
Taxonomic and Spatial Variability
Cluster 1: Anatids (Indian Point, Palm-rose, Tahkenitch, Umpqua/Eden, Hauser,Nah-so-mah). Six sites spanning twogeographic groupings to the extreme north(Indian Point, Palmrose) and south (Tahken-itch, Umpqua/Eden, Hauser, Nah-so-mah)of our sampling region were principallydefined by a predominance of anatids (57–77%). These sites also comprised the moststructured cluster, displaying pairwise cor-relation coefficients above 0.9, and were rel-atively low in taxonomic diversity (<3.0).Assemblages at all sites with the exceptionof Boiler Bay, Lily Lake, and North Yaquina
THE JOURNAL OF ISLAND AND COASTAL ARCHAEOLOGY 23
Tab
le6
.P
ears
on
corr
elat
ion
coef
fici
ents
for
each
pai
ro
far
chae
olo
gica
lb
ird
asse
mb
lage
s.
CLT
-34
CLT
-27
CLT
-13
CLT
-47
CLT
-20
TI-
1LN
C-4
5LN
C-6
0LN
C-5
0LN
C-6
2LA
-19
DO
-13
0D
O-8
3C
S-1
14
CS-
43
Ind
ian
Poin
tC
LT-3
40.
630.
740.
920.
820.
81−
0.11
0.85
0.06
0.35
−.1
80.
940.
950.
930.
94
Du
nes
CLT
-27
0.92
0.56
0.88
0.75
0.83
0.61
−0.
090.
70−
.13
0.46
0.40
0.64
0.40
Ave
nu
eQ
CLT
-13
0.35
0.70
0.64
0.92
0.44
−0.
100.
41−
.12
0.23
0.18
0.46
0.21
Palm
rose
CLT
-47
0.88
0.85
0.03
0.96
0.22
0.57
0.00
0.98
0.97
0.98
0.96
Par-
Tee
CLT
-20
0.89
0.48
0.87
0.13
0.76
0.02
0.81
0.77
0.91
0.77
Net
arts
TI-1
0.36
0.94
0.10
0.62
−.0
40.
760.
750.
860.
75
Bo
iler
Bay
LNC
-45
0.13
−0.
140.
390.
50−
.09
−.1
50.
14−
.12
Wh
ale
Co
veLN
C-6
00.
200.
620.
000.
890.
890.
920.
89
NY
aqu
ina
LNC
-50
0.25
0.97
0.24
0.21
0.19
0.36
Yaq
uin
aLN
C-6
20.
330.
500.
440.
530.
45
Lily
Lake
LA-1
9−
.01
−.0
6−
.03
0.11
Tah
ken
itch
DO
-130
0.99
0.97
0.98
Um
p/E
den
DO
-83
0.95
0.98
Hau
ser
CS-
114
0.94
Nah
-so
-mah
CS-
43
24 VOLUME 0 • ISSUE 0 • 2018
Kristine M. Bovy et al.
Table 7. Oregon coast bird assemblages in order of taxonomic diversity (measured byreciprocal of Simpson’s Index).
Site # 35- Site Name Reciprocal of Simpson’s Index Habitat
TI-1 Netarts 7.305 riverine/estuarine
LNC-62 Yaquina 5.662 outer coast
LNC-60 Whale Cove 3.991 outer coast
CLT-27 Dunes 3.863 intermediate
CLT-20 Par-Tee 3.850 intermediate
CLT-13 Avenue Q 3.050 intermediate
CLT-47 Palmrose 2.796 intermediate
CS-43 Nah-so-mah 2.760 riverine/estuarine
DO-130 Tahkenitch 2.490 riverine/estuarine
CS-114 Hauser 2.455 riverine/estuarine
CLT-34 Indian Point 2.377 riverine/estuarine
LNC-50 North Yaquina 2.185 outer coast
LNC-45 Boiler Bay 2.010 outer coast
DO-83 Umpqua/Eden 1.656 riverine/estuarine
LA-19 Lily Lake 1.069 intermediate
Head contained at least 20% anatids. Ofanatids identified beyond family, 88% wereducks, with 10% geese and 2% swans. Ap-proximately 70% of the duck bones wereidentified at least to the tribe level. Of these,diving sea ducks (Mergini) dominated mostassemblages (70–100% of ducks), exceptfor Indian Point and Nah-so-mah, wheredabblers were most common (77%, 69%, re-spectively). Scoters (Melanitta spp.) werethe most abundant sea duck identified at allsites (93% of n = 1823 Mergini identifiedto species). Bufflehead was the secondmost abundant sea duck (5%), followed bymergansers (Mergus spp.; 1%).
Cluster 2: Albatrosses (Netarts, WhaleCove, Yaquina Head). Netarts, WhaleCove, and Yaquina Head, all located onthe north-central coast, have the largestpercentages of albatross (12–14%) and arecharacterized by the highest taxonomicdiversity (>3.9). Albatrosses occur at lowerpercentages (<1–4%) at a number of othersites. Netarts and Whale Cove share furthersimilarities, with a correlation coefficientof 0.94, including abundant anatids (25–43%), and similar proportions of alcids
(14–17%), gulls (10–11%), ful-mars/shearwaters (6–8%), and cormorants(7–8%). While Yaquina Head has similarfrequencies of some taxa, including anatids(22%) and alcids (12%), the assemblageis distinguished by having higher propor-tions of fulmars/shearwaters (27%), and istherefore distantly grouped with cluster 3(Figure 2).
Cluster 3: Murres and Shearwaters(Dunes, Par-Tee, Avenue Q). Dunes, Par-Tee, and Avenue Q, all located in theextreme northern coast, have relativelyhigh taxonomic diversity (3.0–3.9), in-cluding substantial proportions of alcids(24–52%) and shearwaters (12–20%), inaddition to anatids (20–40%). The smallproportions of gulls (4–6%), loons (1–3%),cormorants (1–6%), and albatrosses (2–3%)are also similar. Boiler Bay is similar tothese three sites with high proportions ofalcids (65%) and shearwaters (28%), butunique in having an alcid assemblage dom-inated by Rhinoceros Auklet, rather thanCommon Murre, and an overall low taxo-nomic diversity (note that the assemblageis small, n = 119; just above our threshold
THE JOURNAL OF ISLAND AND COASTAL ARCHAEOLOGY 25
Evaluating Native American Bird Use
for consideration). Common Murre is themost numerous alcid at all other sites, com-prising 98–100% of the identified alcids atPar-Tee and Avenue Q, and 76% at Dunes,which has more diverse alcids, including anunusually high proportion of Cassin’s Auk-let (16%). The alcid assemblages are alsomore diverse at Netarts and Yaquina Head(cluster 2), with greater numbers of puffins(19%, 26% respectively) and RhinocerosAuklet (15%).
Shearwaters are more abundant thanNorthern Fulmar at all sites, except YaquinaHead. Shearwaters can be divided into twosubgroups on the basis of their flying andaquatic habits (Kuroda 1954): good gliders(e.g., Ardenna creatopus) and flutteringflyers/good divers (e.g., A. grisea). Thesebehavioral differences have resulted in os-teological differences that make it possible(along with size) to identify archaeologi-cal specimens to species (Bovy 2005:329;Kuroda 1954). Of those shearwaters identi-fied to species, 99% (n = 548) were SootyShearwaters.
Cluster 4: Cormorants (North YaquinaHead, Lily Lake). North Yaquina Head andLily Lake, both located along the centralcoast, form a tight grouping, with a corre-lation coefficient of 0.94. Both sites haveunusually high percentages of cormorants(65%, 97% respectively); the overall diver-sity at these sites is low enough to placethem near the bottom of the diversity in-dex. At Lily Lake, only eight anatid spec-imens were found in addition to the cor-morants. Both sites are located close tomodern cormorant colonies. Cormorantsmake up 15% of the bird assemblage atNah-so-mah, 13% at Yaquina Head, andbetween 6 and 9% at many other sites(Table 5).
Habitat Comparisons
The results of the Mantel test and Pear-son product-moment correlation indicatethat similarities between sites were not dueto distance between sites or sample size. Wealso checked to see if the presence/absenceof bird families was related to habitat
type (Table 7). The Mantel test found norelationship between the presence/absenceof bird families in the 15 archaeological as-semblages to habitat type. However, habitattype did correlate with assemblage com-position, yielding the matrix correlationcoefficient r = 0.168. The probability p istested against a null hypothesis of no cor-relation and was found to be p = 0.0170.Results of the random permutations werethat 4814 were < Z, 1 was = Z, and 185 >Z, as shown in the histogram in Figure 3.This suggests a strong correlation betweenassemblage composition and habitat type.In other words, the riverine/estuarine as-semblages share some characteristics, asdo intermediate habitat sites, and the outercoast sites. This is also apparent in thecluster analysis discussed above.
Proximity to Murre Colonies
Proximity had no bearing on theabundance of Common Murre NISP at ar-chaeological sites (non-parametric correla-tion coefficient: r = 0.02); however, extantcolony size was only weakly correlated withCommon Murre NISP (r = 0.40). While thenumber of murres increases with samplesize (as expected), we regressed residualsto colony size (within 10 km, then within20 km) and exact distance to colony, but nosignificant relationship was found. We per-formed a multiple regression analysis com-bining exact distance and colony size, butagain, no significant relationship was found.
Comparisons to Modern Beached BirdData
Correlations between COASST beach-ing data and NISP data across the 15 siteswere more likely to be significant when re-gionalized COASST data (assembled acrossall 87 Oregon COASST sites) at the specieslevel were used. Only one archaeologicalsite, Boiler Bay, had a significant and strongcorrelation (local: r = 0.940; regional:r = 0.953) at the higher taxonomic assem-blage level but not at the species level,which may be an artifact of the relatively
26 VOLUME 0 • ISSUE 0 • 2018
Kristine M. Bovy et al.
Figure 3. Mantel test histogram, showing the strong correlation between bird assemblage com-position and habitat types. The solid vertical line represents the matrix correlation(r = 0.16812). As shown, 4814 random permutations are positioned to the left, 1 isatop the line, and 185 occur to the right. The correlation is in the significantly highrange of possible correlation values.
low number of taxa (N = 5) at this site.That is, when coalesced at higher taxo-nomic levels, the prevalence of “zeroes” inthe archaeological data corresponding torelatively high values in the COASST dataset(e.g., for Common Murres NISP = 0 andCOASST percentage = 43) was masked.This effect, together with the observationthat several archaeological sites had aprevalence of only one species within theAlcidae (e.g., Boiler Bay: Rhinoceros Auklet;Par-Tee: Common Murre), or one species inaddition to Common Murres (e.g., Hauser:Ancient Murrelet), suggests that a species-or lowest possible taxon-level approach ismost appropriate.
When examined at the regional andspecies-specific level, six archaeologicalsites displayed relatively strong, posi-tive, and significant correlations (Table 8,Figure 4). In general, sites with a highproportion of ducks in the archaeologicaldata had weak, insignificant correlationsprincipally driven by the inversion of ducks(high in NISP, low in COASST) and CommonMurres (low in NISP, high in COASST). Thesingle exception was Tahkenitch, whichalso displayed a minor murre signal. Sig-nificant correlations were overwhelminglydriven by Common Murres (e.g. Dunes,Avenue Q) and secondarily by NorthernFulmars (e.g. Yaquina, Netarts).
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
Native peoples used an impressive diver-sity of birds on the Oregon coast, fromsmall species (e.g., sandpipers, auklets), tolarge-bodied taxa (e.g., pelicans, herons,swans); and from terrestrial birds (e.g., rap-tors, grouse), to species principally inhabit-ing the pelagic zone of the coastal shelf andslope (e.g., albatrosses, Northern Fulmar).While scoters, Common Murre, and SootyShearwater were the most frequently iden-tified taxa overall, the 26 assemblages in-cluded in our study vary widely in the num-ber and relative abundance of taxonomicgroups.
While bird assemblages from siteswithin the same habitat category—estuarine, outer coast or intermediate—tended to share some characteristics, wefound more site-specificity than expected,with subtle differences between and amonghabitat categories. These differences mayreflect habitat change since the time thesite was occupied, or site-specific pat-terns independent of habitat type (e.g.,seasonality, selectivity), and underscorethe need for caution when using taxo-nomic composition of bird assemblagesalone to infer specific habitat types in thepast.
THE JOURNAL OF ISLAND AND COASTAL ARCHAEOLOGY 27
Evaluating Native American Bird Use
Table 8. Correlation between taxon-specific NISP at each of 15 archaeological sites andcorresponding beached bird taxonomic assemblages from the COASST dataset.COASST sites: number of data collection sites within 20 km of the archaeologicalsite. Significant regressions are indicated in bold.
Archaeological Site COASST Sites Pearson’s R Regression Coefficient 95% CI
Indian Point 5 − 0.33 − 0.38 − 0.89 0.12
Dunes 13 0.58 0.59 0.21 0.97
Par-Tee 14 0.45 0.50 0.04 0.96
Palmrose 14 0.30 0.31 − 0.15 0.77
Avenue Q 15 0.76 0.83 0.50 1.16
Netarts 9 0.43 0.35 0.01 0.69
Boiler Bay 16 0.15 0.19 − 0.39 0.77
Whale Cove 17 0.37 0.38 − 0.06 0.82
North Yaquina 15 0.39 0.49 − 0.05 1.04
Yaquina 17 0.52 0.50 0.12 0.87
Lily Lake 11 0.16 0.21 − 0.41 0.83
Tahkenitch 4 0.42 0.45 0.00 0.90
Umpqua/Eden 4 − 0.13 − 0.15 − 0.66 0.37
Hauser 8 0.25 0.25 − 0.21 0.71
Nah-so-mah 14 0.06 0.06 − 0.42 0.55
Although determining where and howpast peoples obtained birds requires care-ful examination of the context and taphon-omy of a given assemblage (e.g., Bovy et al.2016), our comparative analyses acrossmany sites allows an evaluation of the po-tential for different procurement strategieswithin and among sites. In short, we seeconsiderable variability, reflective of flexibleand opportunistic use of birds.
Nearshore Hunting
Five of the assemblages dominated byducks (Cluster 1: Indian Point, Palmrose,Umpqua/Eden, Hauser, Nah-so-mah) are dis-tinctly different from the COASST dataset.Ducks, especially dabbling ducks, are notcommonly found as beached carcasses onthe Oregon coast today. All of these sites(except possibly Palmrose) were locatedin riverine/estuarine environments, whereducks would be plentiful and could behunted with relative ease. A variety of othernearshore birds may have been hunted,though some (gulls, cormorants) are also
common beached birds. Many seabirds,including scoters and murres, may be morevulnerable to a range of nearshore threats,including human hunting during their flight-less molt period in fall (Jones et al. 2017).
Hunting on Breeding Colonies
Despite the abundance of breedingseabirds on the Oregon coast (Naughtonet al. 2007a), there is little direct evidencethat people took birds from the colonies.Contemporary seabird colonies are situatedon steep islets and headland cliffs makingthem inaccessible to terrestrial predators,including humans. There is, however, someindication of colony-based hunting at LilyLake and North Yaquina Head (Cluster 2).Both sites have low taxonomic diversity,are dominated by cormorants, and both areclose to modern seabird colonies (Supple-mental Table 1). Minor et al. (2008b) foundthat 75% of the cormorant specimens re-covered from Lily Lake were juveniles, aswere many of the unidentified bird remains,supporting the interpretation that site oc-
28 VOLUME 0 • ISSUE 0 • 2018
Kristine M. Bovy et al.
●● ●●
●● ●●● ●
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
01
23
45
0 1 2 3 4 5 60
12
34
50 1 2 3 4 5 6
01
23
45
6
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
01
23
45
67
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
02
46
8
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
01
23
4
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
02
46
8
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
01
23
45
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
02
46
8
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
01
23
45
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
02
46
810
●
●0 1 2 3 4 5 6
01
23
45
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
01
23
45
67
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
01
23
45
●● ●●● ●●●
●
●●
●●● ●●● ●●● ●●● ●
●● ●
●●
●●
●
●●●
● ● ●●● ●
●●
● ●● ●
●
●●●
●
● ●●● ●●● ●●● ●●
●
●●● ●●●●●●
●
●
●
●
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
01
23
45
6
Indian Point Dunes Par-Tee Palmrose Avenue Q
Netarts Boiler Bay Whale Cove N. Yaquina Yaquina Head
Lily Lake Tahkenitch Umpqua/Eden Hauser Nah-so-mah
Beached bird composition (%)
Mid
den
com
posi
tion
(%)
Common MurreOther Alcid
Diving Sea DucksOther Waterfowl
AlbatrossesNorthern Fulmar
ShearwatersOther
●●
Cormorants
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
Figure 4. The relationship between the taxonomic composition (see Table 5) of aquatic bird car-casses washing ashore on Oregon beaches (data from the COASST program) and that ofarchaeological sites (see Figure 1). Data are percent composition over all carcasses (orNISP) found, square-root transformed to down-weight high values. Sites with any levelof association (Pearson’s R above 0.4) are bolded (site name and graph outline), andhave linear fits (dashed lines). Higher associations are all driven by high proportions ofmurres (black circles).
cupants were targeting nearby colonies.Close proximity to a productive, accessiblesource of young birds may have eliminatedthe need for site occupants to hunt or scav-enge birds elsewhere. Although no informa-tion was provided about the age of speci-mens at North Yaquina Head (Minor 1989),the similarity in species composition sug-gests inhabitants of this site may also haveharvested juvenile birds. Small numbers ofjuvenile cormorants were also recovered atNetarts (Losey 2002:288) and Whale Cove(Watson 2011:5), and evidence for huntingof fledgling cormorants has been found inother parts of the Pacific Northwest Coast(Bovy 2007; Broughton 2004; Gould 1966).The juvenile cormorants in the Oregoncoast sites are only identified to genus level.
Common Murres are the most abundantbreeding bird along the Oregon coast andthe most common alcid recovered from ar-chaeological sites. There does not appearto be a relationship between murre abun-dance in archaeological sites and the prox-imity or size of current Common Murrecolonies, although the breeding distributionof this species may have been different inthe past. Marked population shifts at Com-mon Murre colonies have occurred alongthe Washington and Oregon coasts in recentdecades due to increased Bald Eagle (Hali-aeetus leucocephalus) predation and shiftsin prey due to changing oceanic condi-tions (Gladics et al. 2015; Thomas and Lyons2017).
THE JOURNAL OF ISLAND AND COASTAL ARCHAEOLOGY 29
Evaluating Native American Bird Use
Offshore Hunting
The presence of pelagic taxa, suchas albatrosses, Northern Fulmar and shear-waters at many Oregon coast sites raisesthe possibility of open ocean hunting, asthese species actively avoid the immediatenearshore environment defined as the wavezone out to five kilometers (Hyrenbachet al. 2002; Parrish et al. 1998). The abun-dance of shearwater bones in the Dunesassemblage led Ulrich (2009) to infer thatat least some were hunted in offshore wa-ters. Yet offshore hunting is difficult to dis-tinguish from beach scavenging (Bovy et al.2016). Comparative data on pelagic fish andsea mammal remains might be used to inves-tigate this hypothesis, but such data are notavailable for the Dunes site and are beyondthe scope of this paper.
Collecting Beached Carcasses
The comparisons between the Oregoncoast archaeological data and the COASSTmodern beached bird surveys demonstratethe possibility that beach collecting mayalso have occurred at some sites. Ne-tarts and Yaquina Head (Cluster 2) andDunes, Par-Tee, and Avenue Q (Cluster 3)all have similar taxonomic composition tothe COASST dataset (Figure 4, Table 8).Although these relationships are drivenby Common Murres, most sites also dis-played relatively high proportions of themigrant pelagic taxa (albatrosses, shearwa-ters, and/or Northern Fulmar). Murres andfulmars are predictably common beachedbird species in the fall (post-breeding mor-tality of murres) and winter (migration ex-haustion and exposure of fulmars), respec-tively (Parrish et al. 2007). Both speciesdisplay wrecking behavior wherein thou-sands of freshly dead carcasses wash ashoreover a short (weeks) period of time (Par-rish et al. 2007, 2017). Seabird wrecks mayalso explain the singular predominance ofalcid species at some sites (e.g., Dunes:Cassin’s Auklet; Boiler Bay: Rhinoceros Auk-let; Yaquina Head: Tufted Puffin; Hauser:Ancient Murrelet; Table 5), as these birdsbreed largely to entirely north of Oregon,migrate south into offshore waters, and are
occasionally found in mass mortality eventsand subsequent beaching along the Oregoncoast (Parrish et al. 2017).
CONCLUDING REMARKS
This study is the first to synthesize regionaldata of Native American bird use alongthe Oregon coast, and contributes to bothregional and global scholarship. We usedmultiple analyses, including standard taxo-nomic abundance, diversity and correlationmeasures, along with cluster and regressionanalysis, to better elucidate the regionalpatterns. We document the diverse typesof birds found in archaeological sites andhighlight likely procurement strategies,including nearshore hunting, hunting oncolonies, and collecting beached carcasses.It is difficult to compare our findings be-yond the Oregon coast, as few similarstudies have been conducted, although theopportunistic and flexible use of birds hasbeen noted for coastal foragers in otherregions (e.g., deFrance 2005; Jerardinoet al. 2009; Kristensen 2011).
Our interpretations incorporated lifehistory information for major bird taxa inthe Pacific Northwest, including nestinglocations, habitat preference, seasonality,and scavenging potential; these discussionsshould provide a useful framework forothers in the region. Our synthesis of allthe birds recovered from Oregon coast siteswill assist researchers investigating biogeo-graphic or conservation biology questionspertaining to taxa of concern, such as alba-trosses (Naughton et al. 2007b). Additionalstudy of Oregon coast bird assemblages, in-cluding more detailed taphonomic studies,has enormous potential to address a varietyof lingering questions, such as the role ofbirds within coastal subsistence strategiesand the ocean-going capacities of NativeAmerican groups. Finer temporal resolu-tion may enable us to better understandthe effects of climate change on birds,such as that associated with the El Niño-Southern Oscillation. Finally, new data willhelp document the longer-term historicalecologies of birds, which provide essential
30 VOLUME 0 • ISSUE 0 • 2018
Kristine M. Bovy et al.
context for understanding and addressingcontemporary phenomena.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We thank the Archaeology and ZoologyDivisions of the Burke Museum of Nat-ural History and Culture, the Museumof Comparative Zoology at Harvard, Ore-gon State University, and Ann Bennett-Rogers for access to the archaeologicaland comparative collections. At the Uni-versity of Oregon, we acknowledge PamEndzweig, Museum of Natural and Cul-tural History, for facilitating the loan ofthe Dunes assemblage. We thank KeithHamm and Yu Hirasawa, two undergrad-uate students from Moss’s 2009 Zooar-chaeology course, for assisting Ulrich toanalyze a portion of the collection. Manythanks are also due to the numerousarchaeologists who provided site reportsand other advice, including Agnes Cas-tronuevo, Thomas Connolly, John Fagan,Ruth Greenspan, Roberta Hall, Lee Ly-man, Rick Minor, Pat O’Grady, and MarkTveskov. Bovy was partially supportedthrough an EPA STAR (Science to AchieveResults) Fellowship (#U-91576301), a NSFDissertation Improvement Grant (#BCS-0242632), and the Department of An-thropology at the University of Wash-ington. COASST analyses (Parrish, Jones)were supported by NSF EHR/DRL award1322820 and Washington Department ofFish and Wildlife award 13–1435.
FUNDING
Division of Behavioral and Cognitive Sci-ences [BCS-0242632]; Division of Researchon Learning in Formal and Informal Set-tings [DRL-1322820]; Environmental Pro-tection Agency [U-91576301].
SUPPLEMENTAL
Supplemental table for this article is avail-able at the publisher’s website at https://doi.org/10.1080/15564894.2018.1457105.
END NOTES
1. The American Ornithological Union (AOU)recently changed the name for Sooty Shearwa-ters from Puffinus griseus to Ardenna grisea(Chesser et al. 2016) based on recent geneticwork; most other shearwaters are also nowin the genus Ardenna, rather than Puffinus(AOU 2017).
2. This does not include 1 kittiwake bone.
REFERENCES
Adams, J., J. J. Felis, J. W. Mason, andJ. Y. Takekawa. 2014. Pacific ContinentalShelf Environmental Assessment (PaCSEA):Aerial Seabird and Marine Mammal Sur-veys off Northern California, Oregon, andWashington, 2011–2012. OCS Study BOEM2014-003. Santa Cruz and Vallejo, CA: U.S. De-partment of Interior, Bureau of Ocean EnergyManagement, Pacific OCS Region.
Aikens, C. M., T. J. Connolly, and D. L. Jenkins.2011. Oregon Archaeology. Corvallis: OregonState University Press.
Ainley, D. G., R. J. Boekelheide, S. H. Morrell, andC. S. Strong. 1990. Chapter 10: Cassin’s Auklet.In Seabirds of the Farallon Islands: Ecology,Dynamics, and Structure of an Upwelling-System Community (D. G. Ainley and R.J. Boekelheide, eds.):306–338. Stanford: Stan-ford University Press.
Ainley, D. G., D. N. Nettleship, H. R. Carter,and A. E. Storey. 2002. Common Murre(Uria aalge), The Birds of North America(P. G. Rodewald, ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Labof Ornithology. https://birdsna.org/Species-Account/bna/species/commur (accessed Sep.6, 2017.
Andrews, R. W. 1962. Curtis’ Western Indians.New York: Bonanza Books.
AOU (American Ornithologists’ Union). 2017.Check-list of North American Birds.http://checklist.aou.org (accessed June20, 2017).
Atici, L., S. W. Kansa, J. Lev-Tov, and E. Kansa.2013. Other people’s data: A demonstrationof the imperative of publishing primary data.Journal of Archaeological Method and The-ory 20(4):663–681.
Barnett, H. G. 1937. Culture element distri-butions VII: Oregon coast. AnthropologicalRecords 1(3):155–204. Berkeley: University ofCalifornia Publications.
Barth, J. A., B. A. Menge, J. Lubchenco, F. Chan,J. M. Bane, A. R. Kirincich, M. A. McManus, K.
THE JOURNAL OF ISLAND AND COASTAL ARCHAEOLOGY 31
Evaluating Native American Bird Use
J. Nielsen, S. D. Pircer, and L. Washburn. 2007.Delayed upwelling alters nearshore coastalocean ecosystems in the northern CaliforniaCurrent. PNAS 104(10):3719–3724.
Beckham, S. D. 1977. The Indians of WesternOregon: This Land Was Theirs. Coos Bay, OR:Arago Books.
Bennett, A. C. 1988. Whale Cove (35LNC60): AnArchaeological Investigation on the CentralOregon Coast. M.A. Thesis. Corvallis: OregonState University.
Bennett, A. C., and R. L. Lyman. 1991. Archae-ology of Whale Cove (35LNC60). In Prehis-tory of the Oregon Coast: The Effects of Ex-cavation Strategies and Assemblage Size onArchaeological Inquiry (R. L. Lyman, ed.):241–277. San Diego: Academic Press.
Bograd, S. J., I. Schroeder, N. Sarkar, X. Qiu, W. J.Sydeman, and F. B. Schwing. 2009. Phenologyof coastal upwelling in the California Current.Geophysical Research Letters 36:L01602.
Bovy, K. M. 2002. Differential avian skeletalpart distribution: Explaining the abundanceof wings. Journal of Archaeological Science29:965–978.
Bovy, K. M. 2005. Effects of Human Hunting,Climate Change and Tectonic Events on Wa-terbirds along the Pacific Northwest Coastduring the Late Holocene. Ph.D. Dissertation.Seattle: University of Washington.
Bovy, K. M. 2007. Prehistoric human impactson waterbirds at Watmough Bay, Washington,USA. Journal of Island and Coastal Archaeol-ogy 2:210–230.
Bovy, K. M. 2011. Archaeological evidence fora Double-Crested Cormorant (Phalacrocoraxauritus) colony in the Pacific Northwest, USA.Waterbirds 34(1):89–95.
Bovy, K. M., J. E. Watson, J. Dolliver, and J. K. Par-rish. 2016. Distinguishing offshore bird hunt-ing from beach scavenging in archaeologicalcontexts: The value of modern beach surveys.Journal of Archaeological Science 70:65–47.
Briggs, K. T., D. H. Varoujean, W. W. Williams,R. G. Ford, M. L. Bonnell, and J. L. Casey.1992. Oregon and Washington Marine Mam-mal and Seabird Surveys: Final Report. Re-port prepared for Pacific OCS Region, MineralsManagement Service, U.S. Department of theInterior. Bellevue, WA: Ebasco Environmentaland Ecological Consulting, Inc.
Broughton, J. M. 2004. Prehistoric Human Im-pacts on California Birds: Evidence from theEmeryville Shellmound Avifauna. Ornitho-logical Monographs No. 56. Washington, DC:American Ornithologists’ Union.
Butler, V. L., and S. K. Campbell. 2004. Resourceintensification and resource depression in thePacific Northwest of North America: A zooar-chaeological review. Journal of World Prehis-tory 18(4):327–405.
Byrne, J. V. 1962. Geomorphology of the conti-nental terrace off the central coast of Oregon.The Ore Bin 24(5):65–74.
COASST (Coastal Observation Seabird Sur-vey Team). 2017. Explore data: Tables:Species list: Oregon North. http://52.86.35.235:3838/Mega_App/ (accessed Sep. 9, 2017).
Chesser, R. T., K. J. Burns, C. Cicero, J. L. Dunn,A. W. Kratter, I. J. Lovette, P. C. Rasmussen,et al. 2016. Fifty-seventh supplement to theAmerican Ornithologists’ Union Check-List ofNorth American Birds. The Auk 133:544–560.
Colten, R. H. 2002. Prehistoric marine mammalhunting in context: Two western North Amer-ican examples. International Journal of Os-teoarchaeology 12:12–22.
Colten, R. H. 2015. Prehistoric coastal adap-tations at Seaside, Oregon: Vertebrate faunafrom the Palmrose and Par-Tee Sites. Jour-nal of Island and Coastal Archaeology 10:253–276.
Connolly, T. J. 1992. Human Responses toChange in Coastal Geomorphology andFauna on the Southern Northwest Coast: Ar-chaeological Investigations at Seaside, Ore-gon. University of Oregon Anthropological Pa-pers 45. Eugene: University of Oregon.
deFrance, S. D. 2005. Late Pleistocene marinebirds from southern Peru: Distinguishing hu-man capture from El Niño-induced wind-fall. Journal of Archaeological Science 32:1131–1146.
DePuydt, R. T. 1994. Cultural implications of avi-faunal remains recovered from the Ozette Site.In Ozette Archaeological Project Research Re-ports, Volume II, Fauna (S. Samuels, ed.):197–264. Department of Anthropology Re-ports of Investigation 66. Pullman: Washing-ton State University.
Driver, J. C. 2011. Identification, classifica-tion and zooarchaeology. Ethnobiology Let-ters 2:19–39.
Drucker, P. 1939. Contributions to Alsea ethnog-raphy. University of California Publicationsin American Archaeology and Ethnology36:221–300.
Eda, M., H. Koike, and H. Higuchi. 2016. Un-derstanding prehistoric maritime adaptationsin northern Japan: Indirect evidence from an-cient DNA and histological observations of al-
32 VOLUME 0 • ISSUE 0 • 2018
Kristine M. Bovy et al.
batross (Aves: Diomedeidae) bones. Quater-nary International 419:159–164.
Edwards, A. E., S. Fitzgerald, J. K. Parrish, J.Klavitter, and M. Romano. 2015. Foragingstrategies of Laysan albatross inferred from sta-ble isotopes: Implication for association withfisheries. PLoS ONE 10:e0133471.
Gard, H. A. 1990. The Role of SouthernOregon’s Coastal Islands in PrehistoricSubsistence. M.A. Thesis. Corvallis: OregonState University.
Gaston, A. J., and S. B. Dechesne. 1996.Rhinoceros Auklet (Cerorhinca monocerata).In The Birds of North America Online (A.Poole, ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology.
Gaumer, T., D. Demory, and L. Osis. 1973. 1971Coos Bay Resource Use Study. Salem: FishCommission of Oregon.
Gladics, A. J., R. M. Suryan, J. K. Parrish, C.A. Horton, E. A. Daly, and W. T. Peterson.2015. Environmental drivers and reproductiveconsequences of variation in the diet of amarine predator. Journal of Marine Systems146SI:72–81.
Gould, R. A. 1966. Archaeology of the PointSt. George Site and Tolowa Prehistory. Berke-ley: University of California Publications inAnthropology.
Grayson, D. K. 1984. Quantitative Zooarchaeol-ogy. New York: Academic Press.
Greenspan, R. L. and R. J. Wigen. 1991. Chap-ter 5: Vertebrate faunal remains. In YaquinaHead: A Middle Archaic Settlement onthe North-Central Oregon Coast (R. Minor,ed.):83–120. Report No. 100. Eugene, OR:Heritage Research Associates.
Guy, T. J., S. L. Jennings, R. M. Suryan, E. F.Melvin, M. A. Bellman, L. T. Ballance, B. A.Blackie, et al. 2013. Overlap of North Pacificalbatrosses with the U.S. west coast ground-fish and shrimp fisheries. Fisheries Research147:222–234.
Hall, R. L. 2001. Nah-so-mah Village, ViewedThrough its Fauna. Report on file, Depart-ment of Anthropology. Corvallis: Oregon StateUniversity.
Harrison, B. F., and K. S. Longo. 1991. Archae-ology at the Dunes Site (35CLT18): A Prehis-toric Clatsop Village. Report on file. Astoria,OR: Clatsop Community College.
Hatch, J. J., and D. V. Weseloh. 2014. Double-crested Cormorant (Phalacrocorax auritus).The Birds of North America (P. G. Rode-wald, ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithol-ogy. https://birdsna.org/Species-Account/bna/species/doccor (accessed Sep. 6, 2017).
Hatch, S. A., V. A. Gill, and D. M. Mulc-ahy. 2010. Individual and colony-specificwintering areas of Pacific northern ful-mars (Fulmarus glacialis). Canadian Jour-nal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 67(2):386–400.
Hyrenbach, K. D., P. Fernández, and D. J.Anderson. 2002. Oceanographic habitats oftwo sympatric North Pacific albatrosses duringthe breeding season. Marine Ecology ProgressSeries 233:283–301.
Jenkins, D. L., L. G. Davis, T. W. Stafford, P. F.Campos, T. J. Connolly, L. S. Cummings, M.Hofreiter, et al. 2014. Geochronology, archaeo-logical context, and DNA at the Paisley Caves.In Paleoamerican Odyssey (K. E. Graf, C. V.Ketron, and M. R. Waters, eds.):485–510. Col-lege Station: Texas A&M University Press.
Jerardino, A., G. Dewar, and R. Navarro. 2009.Opportunistic subsistence strategies amonglate Holocene coastal hunter-gatherers, ElandsBay, South Africa. Journal of Island andCoastal Archaeology 4:37–60.
Jones, T. J., J. K. Parrish, A. E. Punt, V. L. Trainer,R. Kudela, J. Lang, M. S. Brancato, A. Odell,and B. Hickey. 2017. Mass mortality of marinebirds in the Northeast Pacific. Marine EcologyProgress Series 579:111–127.
Krebs, C. J. 1989. Ecological Methodology. NewYork: Harper and Row.
Kristensen, T. J. 2011. Seasonal bird exploita-tion by recent Indian and Beothuk hunter-gatherers of Newfoundland. Canadian Jour-nal of Archaeology 35:292–322.
Kroeber, A. L. 1939. Cultural and Natural Areasof Native North America. Berkeley: Universityof California.
Kuletz, K. J., M. Renner, E. A. Labunski, and G.L. Hunt, Jr. 2014. Changes in the distributionand abundance of albatrosses in the easternBering Sea: 1975–2010. Deep Sea Research II109:282–292.
Kuroda, N. 1954. On the Classification andPhylogeny of the Order Tubinares, Particu-larly the Shearwaters (Puffinus), with SpecialConsiderations on Their Osteology andHabitat Differentiation. Tokyo: Herald Co.Ltd.
Lindsay, L. W., Jr. 1995. Native use of resourceson the Oregon coast. In People of the CoquilleEstuary: Native Use of Resources on the Ore-gon Coast (R. Hall, ed.):191–210. Corvallis,OR: Words & Pictures Unlimited.
Losey, R. J. 2002. Communities and Catastro-phe: Tillamook Responses to the AD 1700Earthquake and Tsunami, Northern Oregon
THE JOURNAL OF ISLAND AND COASTAL ARCHAEOLOGY 33
Evaluating Native American Bird Use
Coast. Ph.D. Dissertation. Eugene: Universityof Oregon.
Losey, R. J., and D. Y. Yang. 2007. Op-portunistic whale hunting on the southernNorthwest Coast: Ancient DNA, artifact, andethnographic evidence. American Antiquity72(4):657–676.
Lyman, R. L. 1991. Prehistory of the OregonCoast: The Effects of Excavation Strategiesand Assemblage Size on Archaeological In-quiry. San Diego: Academic Press.
Lyman, R. L. 1995. On the evolution of marinemammal hunting on the West Coast of NorthAmerica. Journal of Anthropological Archae-ology 14:45–77.
Manuwal, D. A., and A. C. Thoresen. 2011.Cassin’s Auklet (Ptychoramphus aleuti-cus). The Birds of North America (P. G.Rodewald, ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab ofOrnithology. https://birdsna.org/Species-Account/bna/species/casauk (accessed Sep.6, 2017).
Miller, L. 1940. Observations on the Black-footed Albatross. The Condor 42(5):229–238.
Minor, R. 1989. Archaeology of the NorthYaquina Head Shell Middens, Central OregonCoast. Cultural Resource Series No. 3. Port-land, OR: U.S. Department of Interior, Bureauof Land Management.
Minor, R. 1991a. Archaeological Investigationsat the Ecola Point Site, Northern OregonCoast. Report to Oregon State Parks andRecreation Department. Eugene: Oregon StateMuseum of Anthropology.
Minor, R. 1991b. Yaquina Head: A Middle Ar-chaic Settlement on the North-Central Ore-gon Coast. Report No. 100. Eugene, OR: Her-itage Research Associates.
Minor, R. 1994. National Register of HistoricPlaces Registration Form for the Umpqua/Eden Site (35DO83). On file at the Ore-gon State Historic Preservation Office,Salem.
Minor, R. 2001. Beyond stones and bones: Whatthe people say about use of the offshore en-vironment on the southernmost NorthwestCoast. In Changing Landscapes: “Telling OurStories” Proceedings of the Fourth AnnualCoquille Cultural Preservation Conference,2000 (J. Younker, M. A. Tveskov, and D. G.Lewis, eds.):25–41. North Bend, OR: CoquilleIndian Tribe.
Minor, R., and R. L. Greenspan. 1995a. Archaeol-ogy of the Cape Creek Shell Midden, Cape Per-petua Scenic Area, Central Oregon Coast. Re-port to Siuslaw National Forest. Eugene: Ore-gon State Museum of Anthropology.
Minor, R., and R. L. Greenspan. 1995b. Ar-chaeological Investigations for the ProposedBaldiyaka Interpretive Center, Coos County,Oregon. Report No. 176. Eugene, OR: HeritageResearch Associates.
Minor, R., and R. L. Greenspan. 1998a. TheHauser Site: Archaeological Evidence of aPaleo-Estuary in the Oregon Dunes, South-Central Oregon Coast. Report to Siuslaw Na-tional Forest. Eugene: Oregon State Museumof Anthropology.
Minor, R., and R. L. Greenspan. 1998b. Archae-ological Test at the Cape Blanco LighthouseShell Midden, Southern Oregon Coast. Re-port No. 216. Eugene, OR: Heritage ResearchAssociates.
Minor, R., R. L. Greenspan, and D. C. Barner.2008a. Chinookan resource exploitation in theColumbia River Estuary: the view from IndianPoint. In Dunes, Headlands, Estuaries, andRivers (G. L. Tasa and B. L. O’Neill, eds.):37–55. Occasional Papers No. 8. Eugene: Associa-tion of Oregon Archaeologists.
Minor, R., R. L. Greenspan, and J. Boersema.2008b. The Lily Lake Sites Revisited: SiuslawIndian Settlements in the Dunes of the Cen-tral Oregon Coast. Report No. 329. Eugene,OR: Heritage Research Associates.
Minor, R., and K. A. Toepel. 1986. The Archae-ology of the Tahkenitch Landing Site: EarlyPrehistoric Occupation on the Oregon Coast.Report No. 46. Eugene, OR: Heritage ResearchAssociates.
Minor, R., K. A. Toepel, R. L. Greenspan, andD. C. Barner. 1985. Archaeological Investiga-tions in the Cape Perpetua Scenic Area, Cen-tral Oregon Coast. Report No. 40. Eugene,OR: Heritage Research Associates.
Minor, R., D. Whereat, and R. L. Greenspan.2012. Umpqua/Eden revisited: Notes on thearchaeology and ethnohistory of a LowerUmpqua Indian village on the central Ore-gon coast. Journal of Northwest Anthropol-ogy 46(1):39–63.
Moss, M. L. 2007. Haida and Tlingit use ofseabirds from the Forrester Islands, southeastAlaska. Journal of Ethnobiology 27:28–45.
Moss, M. L. 2011. Northwest Coast: Archaeologyas Deep History. Washington, DC: SAA Press.
Moss, M. L., and P. M. Bowers. 2007. Migratorybird harvest in northwestern Alaska: A zooar-chaeological analysis of Ipiutak and Thule oc-cupations from the Deering ArchaeologicalDistrict. Arctic Anthropology 44:37–50.
Moss, M. L., and J. M. Erlandson. 1998. EarlyHolocene adaptations of the southern North-west Coast. Journal of California and GreatBasin Anthropology 20(1):13–25.
34 VOLUME 0 • ISSUE 0 • 2018
Kristine M. Bovy et al.
Moss, M. L., and J. M. Erlandson. 2008. NativeAmerican archaeological sites of the OregonCoast: the historic context for the nomina-tion to the National Register of Historic Places.In Dunes, Headlands, Estuaries, and Rivers:Current Archaeological Research on the Ore-gon Coast (G. L. Tasa and B. L. O’Neill, eds.):1–36. Occasional Papers No. 8. Eugene: Asso-ciation of Oregon Archaeologists.
Moulton, G. E., ed. 1990. The Journals of theLewis and Clark Expedition Vol. 6, November2, 1805-March 22, 1806. Lincoln: Universityof Nebraska.
Naughton, M. B., D. S. Pitkin, R. W. Lowe,K. J. So, and C. S. Strong. 2007a. Cata-log of Oregon Seabird Colonies. BiologicalTechnical Publication FWS/BTP-R1009-2007.Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Interior,Fish and Wildlife Service.
Naughton, M. B, M. D. Romano and T. S. Zim-merman. 2007b. A Conservation ActionPlan for Black-footed Albatross (Phoebas-tria nigripes) and Laysan Albatross (P.immutabilis). Ver. 1.0. https://www.fws.gov/pacific/migratorybirds/pdf/Albatross%20Action%20Plan%20ver.1.0.pdf (accessed Nov. 4,2016).
O’Connor, J. T., F. J. White, and T. L. Hunt. 2016.Fishhook variability and cultural transmissionin East Polynesia. Archaeology in Oceania52:32–44.
Ogle, T. B., R. T. Baker, M. Zehendner, and J. L.Fagan. 2005. Archaeological Recovery of Hu-man Remains from 35CS11, Chief’s Island,Gregory Point, Coos County, Oregon. ReportNo. 1496. Vancouver, WA: Archaeological In-vestigations Northwest, Inc.
Oregon Coastal Management Program (OCMP).2016. Physical Setting. http://www.oregon.gov/LCD/OCMP/Pages/Ocean_Phys.aspx (ac-cessed Sep. 2, 2016).
Parrish, J. K., N. Bond, H. Nevins, N. Mantua,R. Loeffel, W. T. Peterson, and J. T. Harvey.2007. Exploring the link between beachedbirds and physical forcing in the CaliforniaCurrent System. Marine Ecology Progress Se-ries 352:275–288.
Parrish, J. K., N. Lemberg, and L. South-Oryshchyn. 1998. Effects of colony locationand nekton abundance on at-sea distributionof four seabird species. Fisheries Oceanogra-phy 7:126–135.
Parrish, J. K., K. Litle, J. Dolliver, J, T. Hass,H. Burgess, E. Frost, C. Wright, and T. Jones.2017. Chapter 2: Defining the Baseline andTracking Change in Seabird Populations: TheCoastal Observation and Seabird Survey Team(COASST). In Citizen Science for Coastal
and Marine Conservation (J. A. Ciglianoand H. L. Ballard, eds.): 19–38. New York:Routledge.
Ray, V. F. 1938. Lower Chinook ethnographicnotes. University of Washington Publicationsin Anthropology 7(2):29–165.
Reitz, E. J., and E. S. Wing. 2008. Zooarchaeol-ogy, 2nd ed. Cambridge Manuals in Archaeol-ogy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Rohlf, F. J., and D. E. Slice. 1999. BIOMstat, Ver-sion 3.3. Setauket, NY: Exeter Software.
Rose, C., A. Knust, H. Ulrich, and S. Morasci.2006. A Preliminary Look at the Faunal As-semblage of the Dunes Site 35-CLT-27. A re-port for ANTH 471, Zooarchaeology. Reporton file. Eugene: University of Oregon.
Ross, R. E., and S. L. Snyder. 1979. Excavations atUmpqua/Eden. In Umpqua River Basin Cul-tural History, Phase I Research (T. C. Hogg,ed.):92–104. Report to the Douglas CountyCommissioners, Roseburg. Corvallis: OregonState University Department of Anthropology.
Ross, R. E., and S. L. Snyder. 1986. TheUmpqua/Eden Site (35DO83): Exploitation ofmarine resources on the central Oregon coast.In Contributions to the Archaeology of Ore-gon, 1983–1986 (K. M. Ames, ed.):80–101.Occasional Papers No. 3. Salem: Association ofOregon Archaeologists.
Ruby, R. H., and J. A. Brown. 1986. A Guide tothe Indian Tribes of the Pacific Northwest.Norman: University of Oklahoma.
Savard, J.-P. L., D. Bordage, and A. Reed.2015. Surf Scoter (Melanitta perspicil-lata). The Birds of North America (P.G. Rodewald, ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab ofOrnithology. https://birdsna.org/Species-Account/bna/species/sursco (accessed Sep. 6,2017).
Serjeantson, D. 2009. Birds. Cambridge Manualsin Archaeology. New York: Cambridge Univer-sity Press.
Shaffer, S. A., Y. Tremblay, H. Weimerskirch, D.Scott, D. R. Thompson, P, M. Sagar, H. Moller,et al. 2006. Migratory shearwaters integrateoceanic resources across the Pacific Ocean inan endless summer. PNAS 103:12799–12802.
Silverstein, M. 1990. Chinookans of the LowerColumbia. In Handbook of North Ameri-can Indians, Vol. 7 (W. C. Sturtevant andW. Suttles, eds.):533–546. Washington, DC:Smithsonian.
Sneath, P. H. A., and R. R. Sokal. 1973. Numer-ical Taxonomy: The Principles and Practiceof Numerical Classification. New York: W.H.Freeman.
Sokal, R. R., and F. J. Rohlf. 2012. Biometry:The Principles and Practice of Statistics in
THE JOURNAL OF ISLAND AND COASTAL ARCHAEOLOGY 35
Evaluating Native American Bird Use
Biological Research, 4th ed. New York: W.H.Freeman.
Suttles, W. 1990. Environment. In Handbook ofNorth American Indians, Vol. 7 (W. C. Sturte-vant and W. Suttles, eds.):16–29. Washington,DC: Smithsonian.
Tasa, G. L., and T. J. Connolly. 1995. Archae-ological Evaluation of the Boiler Bay Site(35LNC45), in the Boiler Bay State Park Sec-tion of the Oregon Coast Highway (US High-way 101), Lincoln County, Oregon. Report95-2. Eugene: Oregon State Museum of Anthro-pology.
Tasa, G. L., and T. J. Connolly. 2001. Archaeolog-ical Investigations at Cook’s Chasm Bridge,the Good Fortune Point Site (35LNC55), andthe Neptune Site (35LA3). Report 2001–4. Eu-gene: Oregon State Museum of Anthropology.
Tasa, G. L., J. A. Knowles, and T. J. Connolly.2009. Archaeological Evaluation of the BobCreek Site (35LA10): Oregon Coast High-way (US Highway 101), Lane County. Report2009–066. Eugene: Oregon State Museum ofAnthropology.
Thomas, S. M., and J. E. Lyons. 2017. Popula-tion trends and distribution of Common MurreUria aalge colonies in Washington 1996–2015. Marine Ornithology 45:95–102.
Thompson, L. C., and M. D. Kinkade. 1990. Lan-guages. In Handbook of North American In-dians, Vol. 7 (W. C. Sturtevant and W. Suttles,eds.):30–51. Washington, DC: Smithsonian.
Tveskov, M. A. 2000. The Coos and Coquille:A Northwest Coast Historical Anthropology.Ph.D. Dissertation: Eugene, University of Ore-gon.
Tveskov, M. A., and A. Cohen. 2007. Ni-Les’TunArchaeology: The Bussmann, Blue Barn, andOld Town Bandon Sites. Research Report2007-1. Ashland: Southern Oregon UniversityLaboratory of Anthropology.
Ulrich, H. A. 2009. Analysis of Bird Remainsfrom the Dunes Site (35-CLT-27), NorthernOregon Coast. M.S. Paper. Eugene: Universityof Oregon.
USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2017.Oregon Fish and Wildlife Office, Short-tailedAlbatross. https://www.fws.gov/oregonfwo/articles.cfm?id=149489452 (accessed July 31,2017).
Veit, R. R., J. A. McGowan, D. G. Ainley, R. R.Wahl, and P. Pyle. 1997. Apex marine preda-tor declines ninety percent in association withchanging oceanic climate. Global Change Bi-ology 3:23–28.
Wallace, E. A., and G. E. Wallace. 1998.Brandt’s Cormorant (Phalacrocorax penicil-latus). The Birds of North America (P.G. Rodewald, ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Labof Ornithology. https://birdsna.org/Species-Account/bna/species/bracor (accessed Sep. 6,2017).
Watson, J. 2011. Seasonality on the Ore-gon Coast: Avian Faunal Remains fromWhale Cove (35-LNC-60). UndergraduateHonors Paper. Kingston: University of RhodeIsland.
Wellman, H. P., T. C. Rick, A. T. Rodrigues, andD. Y. Yang. 2017. Evaluating ancient whaleexploitation on the northern Oregon Coastthrough ancient DNA and zooarchaeologicalanalysis. Journal of Island and Coastal Ar-chaeology 12(2):255–275.
Wiese, F. K., J. K. Parrish, C. W. Thompson,and C. Maranto. 2008. Ecosystem-based man-agement of predator-prey relationships: Pis-civorous birds and salmonids in the mid-Columbia River. Ecological Applications 18:681–700.
Woolfenden, G. E. 1961. Postcranial osteology ofthe waterfowl. Bulletin of the Florida StateMuseum: Biological Sciences 6:1–129.
Work, T. M., and R. A. Rameyer. 1999. Massstranding of wedge-tailed shearwater chicksin Hawaii. Journal of Wildlife Diseases35(3):487–495.
Zador, S. G., J. F. Piatt, and A. E. Punt. 2006. Bal-ancing predation and egg harvest in a colonialseabird: A simulation model. Ecological Mod-eling 195(3–4):318–326.
36 VOLUME 0 • ISSUE 0 • 2018