Fish and Complexity: Faunal Analysis at the Shell Midden Component of Site DgRv-006, Galiano Island,...

FISH AND COMPLEXITY: FAUNAL ANALYSIS AT THE SHELL MIDDEN COMPONENT

OF SITE DGRV-006, GALIANO ISLAND, B.C.

By

JUSTIN RAY HOPT

A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of

the requirements for the degree of

MASTER OF ARTS IN ANTHROPOLOGY

WASHINGTON STATE UNIVERSITY

Department of Anthropology

DECEMBER 2014

© Copyright by JUSTIN RAY HOPT, 2014

All Rights Reserved

ii

To the Faculty of Washington State University:

The members of the Committee appointed to examine the thesis of JUSTIN RAY

HOPT find it satisfactory and recommend that it be accepted.

_______________________________________

Colin Grier, Ph.D., Chair

_______________________________________

Andrew Duff, Ph.D.

_______________________________________

Brian Kemp, Ph.D.

iii

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

As with any large undertaking, the completion of this thesis was only possible through

the help of others. First and foremost, I must thank my advisor, Colin Grier. This entire project

and thesis would not have been possible without his guidance and support. I also must thank the

other members of my committee: Andrew Duff and Brian Kemp. Their comments on earlier

drafts of this thesis made the finished project a much better piece of writing.

I would also like to thank the field crews from both the 2012 and 2013 excavations for

their hard work in the collection of the faunal material utilized in this thesis. Thanks goes to

everyone in the WSU Northwest Coast lab as well. I would also like to especially thank Patrick

Dolan and Matt Marino, whom have directly helped me think through several aspects of this

thesis.

Finally, I would like to thank my friends and family for their support. My brothers for

keeping me grounded and my parents for both their financial and (more importantly) emotional

support. And lastly, I would like to thank my partner, Vanessa, for always being there for me.

iv

FISH AND COMPLEXITY: FAUNAL ANALYSIS AT THE SHELL MIDDEN COMPONENT

OF SITE DGRV-006, GALIANO ISLAND, B.C.

Abstract

By Justin Ray Hopt, M.A.

Washington State University

December 2014

Chair: Colin Grier

Studies of the development of social complexity and inequality on the Northwest Coast

have focused on the inter-connectedness of subsistence practices and social changes. Several

early studies proposed a linear model for the development of complexity, where increasingly

complex social relations were accompanied by shifts in subsistence activities. These models

hypothesize that a peak in complex social relationships was paired with a specialized salmon

economy in the Marpole Period (2500-1000 BP), with a change in social relationships

accompanied by a more diverse fishing strategy in the Late Period (1000 BP-contact).

Close scrutiny of the empirical data used to support this linear complexity model has

prompted calls for a more nuanced approach to understanding the basis for Northwest Coast

complexity. For example, many of the originally perceived changes in subsistence may actually

be attributed to changes in environmental productivity. Despite such critiques, these models offer

a frame of reference against which patterning in faunal assemblages can be evaluated,

illuminating the ways in which we might better explore the relationships between socio-cultural

shifts and subsistence strategies.

v

In this study, faunal remains from the shell midden component of site DgRv-006 are

examined. Radiocarbon dates indicate that the age of the midden deposits overlap with both a

Late Period plankhouse at DgRv-006, and site DgRv-003, a nearby Marpole-age plankhouse

village. The shift in subsistence posited to occur between the Marpole and Late Period in the

linear model should be evident within the midden deposits, allowing us to directly address the

connection between social and subsistence changes for this important location over the long

term.

Results of the analyses undertaken in this study do not support salmon specialization in

the Marpole faunal assemblage, and fish remains overall show a consistent diverse pattern in

both time periods, indicating that social changes and subsistence shifts may not be as closely

correlated as past models have posited. This study also explores several methodological issues

related to faunal analyses from shell midden contexts, including the use of bulk samples for

correcting sample counts, emphasizing proper quantification techniques, and the use of

correspondence analysis to address shell midden life histories.

vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT............................................................................................... iii

ABSTRACT................................................................................................................. iv-v

LIST OF TABLES..................................................................................................... xi-xii

LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................... xiii-xvii

CHAPTER

1. INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................... 1

a. Objectives of the thesis....................................................................... 3

b. Conclusions of the thesis.................................................................... 7

c. Organization of the thesis................................................................... 8

2. FISH AND COMPLEXITY IN NORTHWEST COAST STUDIES ...........10

a. Linear Complexity Model Critiques .................................................16

b. Thesis Analysis .................................................................................19

3. CULTURE HISTORY OF THE GULF OF GEORGIA REGION.............. 23

a. Old Cordilleran (9000-4500 BP)...................................................... 23

b. Charles (4500-3500 BP) ...................................................................24

c. Locarno Beach (3500-2500 BP) .......................................................26

d. Marpole (2500-1000 BP) ..................................................................27

e. Late Period (1000 BP-Contact) .........................................................30

f. Ethnographic Record ........................................................................32

i. Social Organization ...............................................................32

vii

ii. Settlement .............................................................................35

iii. Subsistence ............................................................................35

4. SITE DGRV-006 INFORMATION: ENVIRONMENT, BIOLOGY, AND

ARCHAEOLOGY ........................................................................................39

a. Marine Transgression........................................................................41

b. Geology and Soils of Galiano Island ................................................42

c. Climate/Biology ................................................................................42

d. Archaeology of the Dionisio Point Locality .....................................43

5. QUANTIFYING A MIDDEN ......................................................................52

a. Faunal Analysis Procedure ...............................................................52

b. Quantification of Remains ................................................................55

i. NISP ......................................................................................55

ii. MNI .......................................................................................57

iii. Meat Weights ........................................................................60

iv. Ubiquity ................................................................................62

v. Diversity ................................................................................63

6. TEMPORAL AND DEPOSITIONAL BREAK-DOWN OF MIDDEN

CONTEXTS ..................................................................................................65

a. Radiocarbon Dates and Stratigraphy ................................................65

b. Depositional Unit 1: Mound .............................................................66

c. Depositional Unit 2: Marpole Deposits ............................................66

d. Depositional Unit 3: Later Deposits .................................................67

viii

e. Depositional Unit 4: Shell Dump ......................................................67

f. Temporal Area 1: Dated Marpole .....................................................68

g. Temporal Area 2: Inferred Marpole ..................................................68

h. Temporal Area 3: Dated Late ...........................................................68

i. Temporal Area 4: Inferred Late ........................................................73

j. Correspondence Analysis: Depositional Units .................................73

7. TEMPORAL COMPARISON ......................................................................79

a. Full Midden Assemblage Summary..................................................80

i. Fish Vertebrae .......................................................................81

ii. Terrestrial Mammal ..............................................................84

iii. Sea Mammal .........................................................................86

iv. Bird .......................................................................................86

v. Full Midden Summary ..........................................................87

b. Marpole Assemblage ........................................................................88

i. Fish Vertebrae .......................................................................89

ii. Terrestrial Mammal ..............................................................95

iii. Sea Mammal .........................................................................97

iv. Bird .......................................................................................97

v. Shellfish ................................................................................98

vi. Conclusion: Marpole Assemblage ........................................99

c. Late Period Assemblage .................................................................103

i. Fish Vertebrae .....................................................................104

ix

ii. Terrestrial Mammal ............................................................109

iii. Sea Mammal .......................................................................111

iv. Bird .....................................................................................111

v. Shellfish ..............................................................................112

vi. Conclusion: Late Period Assemblage .................................112

d. Temporal Comparison of Linear Complexity Models ....................114

i. Richness ..............................................................................115

ii. Evenness .............................................................................118

iii. Importance of Salmon .........................................................121

iv. Conclusion ..........................................................................122

8. BULK SAMPLES AND BIAS TESTING .................................................124

a. Screen Size Analysis .......................................................................125

b. Marpole Correction .........................................................................130

c. Late Period Correction ....................................................................132

d. Conclusion ......................................................................................136

9. CONCLUSIONS.........................................................................................139

a. Method-based Conclusions .............................................................139

b. Site-specific Conclusions ................................................................141

c. Linear Complexity Models .............................................................142

BIBLIOGRAPHY .........................................................................................................144

APPENDICES ..............................................................................................................158

A. Fish Vertebrae Raw Counts ........................................................................158

x

B. Fish Vertebrae Raw Data ............................................................................173

C. Terrestrial Mammal Raw Counts ................................................................192

D. Terrestrial Mammal Raw Data....................................................................195

E. Sea Mammal Raw Counts ...........................................................................198

F. Sea Mammal Raw Data ..............................................................................198

G. Bird Raw Counts .........................................................................................199

H. Bird Raw Data.............................................................................................208

I. Fish Elements Raw Data .............................................................................210

J. “No ID” Raw Data ......................................................................................213

K. Temporal and Depositional Unit Level Designation ..................................216

L. Stata Correspondence Analysis Output ......................................................219

xi

LIST OF TABLES

1. Southern Gulf of Georgia Culture History ........................................................................3

2. Ethnographic catchment, seasonality, and processing info. on select fish species .........38

3. AMS dates from Parry Lagoon Midden..........................................................................40

4. Fish biology information on species present in the Parry Lagoon Midden ....................44

5. Shellfish biology information on species present in the Parry Lagoon Midden .............45

6. Vertebrae numbers and fish weights for species present in the Parry Lagoon Midden ..58

7. Parry Lagoon Midden burials and burial location ..........................................................71

8. Input values for depositional unit correspondence analysis ...........................................75

9. Chi-Squared analysis on depositional units ....................................................................77

10. NISP, MNI, and Ubiquity for fish vertebrae – overall Parry Lagoon Midden ...............82

11. Meat weight analysis – overall Parry Lagoon Midden ...................................................84

12. NISP, MNI, and Ubiquity for mammal – overall Parry Lagoon Midden .......................85

13. NISP, MNI, and Ubiquity for bird – overall Parry Lagoon Midden...............................87

14. Marpole assemblage fish NISP and MNI counts ............................................................90

15. Meat weight calculations – Marpole assemblage ...........................................................93

16. Late Period assemblage fish NISP and MNI counts .....................................................105

17. Meat weight analysis – Late Period assemblage...........................................................108

18. Comparison of species presence – Marpole and Late Period .......................................117

19. Comparison of meat weights by time period ................................................................121

20. Matrix sample counts – dry screened............................................................................126

21. Matrix sample counts – wet screened ...........................................................................127

xii

22. NISP count totals for all matrix material ......................................................................129

23. Chi-Squared input values for dry screened bulk samples .............................................129

24. Chi-Squared input values for wet screened bulk samples ............................................129

25. Matrix sample counts – Marpole assemblage ...............................................................130

26. Thomas 1969 correction factor calculation – Marpole assemblage..............................131

27. Thomas 1969 correction factor applied to excavation levels: 15B1, 16B6, 16B8 .......131

28. Meat weight analysis on corrected values – Marpole assemblage ...............................133

29. %NISP of Marpole excavation levels, corrected, and smelt corrected assemblages ....133

30. Matrix sample counts – Late Period .............................................................................134

31. Thomas 1969 correction factor calculation – Late Period assemblage.........................134

32. Thomas 1969 correction factor applied to excavation levels: 12B2, 14B1, 19B2 .......135

33. Meat weight analysis on corrected values – Late Period assemblage ..........................135

34. %NISP of Late Period excavation levels, corrected, and smelt corrected assemblages137

xiii

LIST OF FIGURES

1. Figure 1; Southern Gulf of Georgia Islands ................................................................2

2. Figure 2a; Parry Lagoon Midden with temporal distinction – 2012 excavations.

Redline separates the Marpole from the Late Period. Earliest Marpole portion is

below the blue line. Figure 2b; Parry Lagoon Midden with temporal distinction –

2013 excavations .......................................................................................................21

3. Figure 3; Suttles’ inverted pear of Coast Salish social organization ........................33

4. Figure 4; Dionisio Point archaeological locality. Parry Lagoon Midden indicated in

red. Modified from Grier 2014 .................................................................................40

5. Figure 5; Unit 13 - eroding burial cairn. From Grier, McLay, and Richards 2012 ..47

6. Figure 6; Example of midden undercut during the 2013 excavations ......................48

7. Figure 7; Excavation units 10-19. Photograph taken following excavation of these

units (2012), looking west from Parry Lagoon .........................................................48

8. Figure 8; Parry Lagoon Midden before 2012 excavation - Southern portion. Parry

Lagoon is to the photographer’s back .......................................................................49

9. Figure 9; Parry Lagoon Midden before 2012 excavation - Middle portion. Parry


10. Figure 10; Parry Lagoon Midden before 2012 excavation - Northern portion. Parry


11. Figure 11; Parry Lagoon Midden after 2013 excavation. Image on right includes unit

designations...............................................................................................................50

xiv

12. Figure 12; Parry Lagoon Midden before 2013 excavation. Image on right includes

unit designations .......................................................................................................51

13. Figure 13a; Radiocarbon date locations on the midden – 2012 excavations. Dates are

in cal BP. Late Period dates are in blue, Marpole dates in red. Corresponding Table 3

ID letter is located below dates. Figure 13b; Radiocarbon date location on midden –

2013 excavations. Late Period date is in cal BP Corresponding Table 3 ID letter is

located below date.....................................................................................................69

14. Figure 14a; Deposition units of the midden – 2012 excavations. Figure 14b;

Depositional units of the midden – 2013 excavations ..............................................70

15. Figure 15a; Temporal areas of the midden – 2012 excavations. TA-1 and TA-2

combine to make up the Marpole portion. Red line designates the temporal distinction

from Marpole and Late Period. Figure 15b; Temporal areas of the midden – 2013

excavation .................................................................................................................71

16. Figure 17; Stratigraphy view 1 .................................................................................72

17. Figure 18; Stratigraphy view 2 .................................................................................72

18. Figure 18; Deposition unit correspondence analysis biplot ......................................77

19. Figure 19; Parry Lagoon Midden overall counts %NSP. Category, Count, Proportion.

NSP = 18,312. An additional 1,397 specimens were unidentifiable ........................80

20. Figure 20; Parry Lagoon Midden overall counts %NISP. Category, Count, Proportion.

NISP = 13,301 ...........................................................................................................81

21. Figure 21; %MNI for overall Parry Lagoon Midden assemblage. Exact MNI is

presented on top of each respective bar ....................................................................83

xv

22. Figure 22; Pie chart of NSP proportions – Marpole assemblage. Category, Count,

Proportion. NSP = 9,927. An additional 933 specimens were unidentifiable ..........88

23. Figure 23; %NISP and %Ubiquity fish vertebrae – Marpole assemblage ................91

24. Figure 24; %NISP fish vertebrae by family – Marpole assemblage. Inset graph is

%NISP fish vertebrae with “other fish” category. Counts are presented on top of each

respective bar. ...........................................................................................................91

25. Figure 25; %MNI fish vertebrae by family – Marpole assemblage. Inset graph is

%MNI fish vertebrae with “other fish” category. Exact MNI is presented on top of

each respective bar ....................................................................................................92

26. Figure 26; %NISP terrestrial mammal – Marpole assemblage. Counts are presented

on top of each respective bar ....................................................................................95

27. Figure 27; %NISP and %Ubiquity terrestrial mammal – Marpole assemblage .......96

28. Figure 28; %NISP bird – Marpole assemblage. Counts are presented on top of each

bar .............................................................................................................................97

29. Figure 29; %NISP and %Ubiquity bird – Marpole assemblage ...............................98

30. Figure 30; %MNI bird – Marpole assemblage. Exact MNI is presented on top of each

bar .............................................................................................................................99

31. Figure 31; %MNI shellfish – Marpole assemblage. Exact MNI is presnet on top of

each respective bar ....................................................................................................99

32. Figure 32; Canoe travel buffer analysis from site DgRv-006. Both areas contain

distances that a canoe crew could travel to a resource gatherering area, gather

resources, and travel back in a single day as argued by Ames 2002 ......................101

xvi

33. Figure 33; Pie chart of NSP remains – Late Period assemblage. Category, Count,

Proportion. NSP = 6829 ..........................................................................................104

34. Figure 34; %NISP fish vertebrae by family – Late Period assemblage. Inset graph is

%NISP fish vertebrae with “ other fish” category. Exact counts are presented on top

of each respecteive bar ............................................................................................106

35. Figure 35; %NISP and %Ubiquity fish vertebrae – Late Period assemblage .........106

36. Figure 36; %MNI fish vertebrae by family – Late Period assemblage. Inset graph is

%MNI fish vertebrae with “other fish” category. Exact MNI is presented on top of

each respective bar ..................................................................................................107

37. Figure 37; %NISP terrestrial mammal – Late Period assemblage. Counts are

presented on top of each respective bar ..................................................................109

38. Figure 38; %NISP and %Ubiquity terrestrial mammal – Late Period assemblage 110

39. Figure 39; %NISP bird – Late Period assemblage. Counts are presented on top of


40. Figure 40; %MNI bird – Late Period assemblage. Exact MNI is presented on top of


41. Figure 41; %MNI shellfish – Late Period assemblage. Exact MNI is presented on top

of each respective bar..............................................................................................113

42. Figure 42a; Sampling to redundancy for richness – Marpole assemblage. Samples

(excavation levels) were randomly added. Figure 42b; Sampling to redundancy for

richness – Late Period assemblage. Samples (excavation levels) were randomly added

.................................................................................................................................116

xvii

43. Figure 43a; Sampling to redundancy for evenness – Marpole assemblage. Samples

(excavation levels) were randomly added. Figure 43b; Sampling to redundancy for

evenness – Late Period assemblage. Samples (excavation levels) were randomly

added .......................................................................................................................118

44. Figure 44; Comparison of %NISP by time period ..................................................120

45. Figure 45; Comparison of %NISP with “other fish” category by time period .......120

46. Figure 46; Comparison of %MNI with “other fish” category by time period ........121

47. Figure 47; Segmented bar graph: matrix sample fish vertebrae remains. Broken apart

by different screening methods ...............................................................................129

48. Figure 48; %NISP of excavation levels 15B1, 16B6, 16B8 compared with corrected

values ......................................................................................................................133

49. Figure 49; %NISP of excavation levels 12B2, 14B1, 19B2 compared with corrected

values ......................................................................................................................136

1

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

Archaeological investigations within the southern Gulf of Georgia region have focused on

explaining social change within these complex hunter-gatherer societies. These efforts have

increasingly involved detailed faunal analysis, with many temporal changes hypothesized to be

reflected within subsistence remains deposited at archaeological sites throughout the region.

Key studies in Gulf of Georgia archaeology have posited that fishing practices shifted in

concert with sociocultural changes such as the emergence of social inequality, sedentary village

life, and multi-family houses (Croes and Hackenberger 1988; Matson and Coupland 1995). This

assumes that economic and social changes are interrelated. Exemplifying this view, the Marpole

period (2500-1000 BP) has been argued to represent the “peak” of complex social relationships,

hypothesized to be the result of a shift from a diversified hunting/fishing strategy to the

specialized intensive fishing of salmon. Recent studies evaluating this trend have shown the

picture to be more complex, and have questioned the use of an overarching, linear, regional

model when the area contains a diversity of environments and cultural practices, both spatially

and temporally. This has led to calls for a better understanding of localized historical contexts

(Grier 2014; Moss 2011, 2012).

In addition, methodological issues related to zooarchaeological quantification and the

complexities of large shell middens have become increasingly important in Northwest Coast

archaeology. Concerns about screen size biasing faunal representation and the use of differing

quantification methods have lead researchers to re-evaluate the role that smaller fishes (most

importantly herring) play in coastal economies (Cannon 1999; Cannon 2000; Casteel 1972,

2

1976a,b; Grayson 1984:168-172; Hanson 1991, 1995; McKechnie 2005, 2012). Finer-grained

analysis of shell middens have also revealed these depositional environments to be more than

trash dumps, but conclusions on the other purposes they served and proper methodologies to

explore them with are few.

Figure 1. Southern Gulf of Georgia Islands

In this thesis, I evaluate linear complexity models, local histories, methodological

issues, and shell midden deposition utilizing vertebrate faunal remains from the Parry Lagoon

Midden (PLM) component of site DgRv-006. DgRv-006 is a plankhouse and coastal shell

midden site located on the northern end of Galiano Island (Figure 1), within the confines of the

3

Dionisio Point Provincial Park. The PLM contains faunal components from two key culture

historical periods in the southern Gulf of Georgia, the Marpole period (2500-1000 BP) and the

subsequent Late Period (1000 BP to contact) (Table 1). This time frame includes potentially

important social shifts, these being the abandonment of nearby Marpole site, DgRv-003 (a large

plankhouse village), and the establishment of a new plankhouse at DgRv-006 in the Late Period.

Table 1. Southern Gulf of Georgia Culture History

Overall 19,709 vertebrate specimens were recovered using 1/8” (3.2 mm) mesh from 13

units excavated over three field seasons. Of these specimens, 11,540 were identified to a level of

specificity required for this study (covered in chapter seven). The vast majority of these

specimens (96%) are fish. Additionally, 1,516 fish vertebrate specimens and 452 invertebrate

specimens were recovered from seven two-liter matrix samples utilizing a series of graded mesh

sizes and screening techniques (described in chapter 8).

Objectives of the thesis

The central objective of this study is to evaluate how faunal patterns differ between the

Marpole and Late periods at site DgRv-006. Difference, or lack of it, is measured against

expectations established by linear complexity models introduced by Northwest Coast

archaeologists, primarily Croes and Hackenberger (1988) and Matson and Coupland (1995).

4

According to these models, the Marpole portion of the midden is expected to be dominated by

salmon remains, indicating specialization. In comparison, the Late Period material is expected to

contain a diverse assemblage of fish remains.

Specialization involves a focus on one or a few resources, often with one species

dominating faunal counts (Betts and Friesen 2004:358). Specialization of salmon is indicated by

the abundance of their bones in an assemblage relative to all other fish taxa. However, what

constitutes specialization can vary. For example, Coupland et al. (2010) argue for specialized

assemblages at five sites in Prince Rupert Harbour, all with salmon proportions at (or above)

90% of all fish remains. In comparison, Gulf of Georgia sites interpreted as salmon-specialized

have overall lower proportions of salmon. For example, the Crescent Beach site has component

proportions of 74.2% and 56.8%, which were interpreted as reflecting specialization (Coupland

et al. 2010:202, Matson 1992:408-415). For this study, I set a cut-off point for specialization at

50% of the assemblage. Thus, a taxon over 50% across all quantification techniques will be

considered specialized. This 50% cut-off represents the lower value of what has been accepted as

specialization within the Gulf of Georgia region, which typically ranges between 50% and 80%

of an assemblage.

According to the linear complexity models, Late Period sites are expected to contain a

diverse assemblage of fish remains, rather than a focus on salmon. Diversity consists of two

components, richness (the number of taxa, the more taxa the richer the assemblage) and evenness

(an assemblage is more even when taxa contain similar counts) (Lyman 2008:172-178). A

diversification of resources would be established in this analysis if both the richness and

evenness increase from the Marpole to the Late Period.

5

Given these expectations, in this study I evaluate a null hypothesis of no difference

between the Marpole and Late assemblages at site DgRv-006. If the null hypothesis cannot be

rejected, meaning no difference is evident between the diversity of the Marpole and Late

assemblages, then linear complexity model predictions are not supported. The null hypothesis is

rejected if there are significant differences between the two assemblages in terms of diversity.

Importantly, the linear complexity model predicts that change should be towards increased rather

than decreased diversity. Consequently, any change other than an increase in diversity fails to

support expectations derived from the linear complexity models.

Several implications for the connection between economic and social change can be

drawn whether the null hypothesis is accepted or rejected. At the Dionisio Point locality, a shift

in social organization appears to take place between the Marpole and Late Period, including the

abandonment of the large Marpole village at DgRv-003 around 1300 BP, and the establishment

of a single, large plankhouse at DgRv-006 in the Late Period. Given this apparent shift in

household organization, we should expect some change in the types of economic practices

between these two periods if social and economic changes are linked. Therefore, if no economic

change is observed between the Marpole and Late Period deposits, support for a decoupling of

the social and economic spheres is generated.

Another important implication is that linear models of complexity posit region-wide

changes in economic and social practices. If the DgRv-006 data do not match the linear

complexity models developed based on data from other sites analyzed in the region, then it

stands in contradiction to the posited region-wide pattern. This result would further undermine

such models and support the need for a more historical and local understanding of social change.

6

In recent years, most studies have pointed to more variability in the archaeological record than

can be encompassed by linear complexity models, and this study represents an effort to explore

and recognize that variability (Bilton 2013; Butler and Campbell 2004; Coupland et al. 2010;

Hanson 2008; Moss 2011, 2012).

Due to the nature of zooarchaeological data recovered in midden sites (discussed in

chapter five) the evaluation of the null hypothesis will involve a mostly qualitative, rather than

strictly statistical, assessment of difference between the temporal assemblages.

In addition to this central research objective, several methodological issues are pursued.

First, the development of an appropriate approach to properly quantify faunal remains from the

midden is pursued. The goal is to develop a quantification approach that can address the relative

importance of different taxa within the midden and address larger issues of economic and social

change.

Second, an exploratory data analysis approach using correspondence analysis (CA) is

used to characterize midden depositional patterns. The CA utilizes log (base 10) fish specimen

counts to evaluate how similar or dissimilar faunal patterns are in different depositional areas of

the midden. This offers a methodological technique to address depositional changes over the life

history of a large shell midden.

Third, an understanding of the potential biasing of screen size used in excavation is

needed to test whether significant loss of small fish specimens may have occurred in the larger

excavation sample. In order to address this, matrix sample remains were analyzed using several

different screen sizes and screening techniques, including screens matching the size used in

excavation (1/8”) as well as finer mesh (1/16”). Potential screen size biasing of the temporal

7

assemblages is addressed by comparing excavation level counts corrected for screen size bias

with uncorrected counts.

Conclusions of the thesis

Conclusions from this thesis can be broken into three categories: those that are method-

based, those that relate to site specific history, and those resulting from an evaluation of linear

complexity models. Methods-based conclusions are that increased recovery of fish remains

occurs with both the use of a smaller screen size (1/16”) as well as the use of wet-screening.

However, conclusions also indicate that 1/8” dry-screened material was consistent with those

corrected for screen size bias. Correspondence analysis of fish faunal data is deemed a useful

technique for evaluating intra-midden differences, which helps illuminate changing midden

depositional practices through time. Lastly, the use of multiple different quantification

techniques is deemed necessary for proper quantification of midden contents.

Site-specific results include the identification of overall similarity between the Marpole

and Late Period components and, thus, economic behaviors as well. Fish remains dominate both

assemblages, with herring, salmon, dogfish, and an “other fish” category indicating a diversified

fishing pattern in both periods. This similarity indicates a temporal stability of fishing patterns.

Additionally, other taxa remains indicate continuity in hunting and shellfish gathering practices.

This similarity extends into the local microenvironments utilized and seasonality of occupation

(late-winter/early spring to summer).

On the applicability of linear complexity models for explaining economic and social

change, data from the PLM support rejection of their expectations. This includes an acceptance

of the null hypothesis of no difference between time periods. There was continuity in fishing

8

patterns overtime, with no evidence for salmon specialization. This indicates that we need to

consider social and economic changes separately. While there is evidence for social changes at

DgRv-006, little evidence exists for these being accompanied by subsistence change.

Organization of the thesis

Following this introductory chapter, chapter two offers a more detailed discussion of the

issues and background for this study, with a primary focus on the connection of faunal studies

and complexity on the Northwest Coast, along with some discussion of midden depositional

pressures. Chapter three provides coverage of the general culture history of the Northwest Coast,

with specific focus on the Gulf of Georgia region. Chapter four provides background information

on the specific site under study here, DgRv-006. This chapter includes an exploration of the local

marine transgression record, geology, biology, and a brief history of archaeological studies

within Dionisio Point Provincial Park. Chapter five presents a detailed discussion of excavation

methods used for the collection of this assemblage, as well as quantification methods utilized in

this study. Chapter six contains a stratigraphic breakdown of temporal and depositional midden

categories, and the correspondence analysis of depositional midden categories. Chapter seven

presents the bulk of the analysis of Marpole and Late Period faunal remains, as well as an

exploration of environments utilized, hunting/fishing behaviors, and site seasonality.

Additionally, this chapter includes temporal comparisons and an evaluation of the linear

complexity models. Chapter eight explores potential screen size biasing issues within the midden

assemblage. Chapter nine, the final chapter, offers an in-depth discussion of the three major

conclusions that this study offers.

9

Appendices A through J provide the raw data and identifications utilized in this study.

Appendix K presents the temporal and depositional categorization of individual excavation

levels, and Appendix L contains the raw statistical output of the correspondence analysis (from

the Stata program).

10

CHAPTER TWO

FISH AND COMPLEXITY IN NORTHWEST COAST STUDIES

The Northwest Coast of North America has often been considered a key area for the study of the

development of social complexity and inequality. This is largely due to the ethnographically

observed existence of social hierarchies within a non-agricultural economic system. Beyond the

Northwest Coast (and more recently recognized areas with similar “complex hunter-gatherers”),

this was thought to be atypical, as the control and production of agricultural products was

deemed a necessary prerequisite (or cause) for the deconstruction of egalitarian systems (Ames

and Maschner 1999:13-14).

Although the dismantling of this agricentric model has occurred, the general premise of a

linear progression of social change had remained in studies of Northwest Coast complexity.

Many models covering the development of cultural complexity on the Northwest Coast assume

constantly increasing socioeconomic inequalities, with the ethnographic class system being the

end-point. These models mostly relied on the idea that the control of spatially/temporally

circumscribed, mass-harvested and stored resources (specifically a specialization in anadromous

salmonids) was the key factor in what led to the rise of social classes and substantial wealth

differences within societies (Croes and Hackenberger 1988; Matson 1992; Matson and Coupland

1995; Mitchell 1971; Schalk 1977).

Temporally these models have posited a linear trend, (most systematically described in

Matson and Coupland [1995]), where the “Developed Northwest Coast Cultural Pattern” – a

phenomena which contains ethnographically-noted patterns of ascribed and inherited statuses,

11

class stratification with a large class of elites, large plankhouses, a distinct art style, and stored

winter resources – emerged starting with the Locarno Beach Period (3500-2500 BP). This

pattern, according to Matson and Coupland (1995), was fully expressed in the following Marpole

Period (2500-1000 BP). The Marpole Period is seen as the pinnacle of sociocultural complexity.

Thom (1995) argues that theses elite individuals were organized into a competitive rank-based

system. Ascribed status and the restriction of resources are important in this system, but the

maintenance of social responsibilities to lower ranking individuals (achieved status) determines

the success of individual elite (Thom 1995:3-5).

The following Late Period (also known as the Gulf of Georgia Period) is seen as a

general continuation of this pattern in most aspects (Matson and Coupland 1995:247). However,

an important change in status differences has been argued as emerging in this period, with the

ethnographic pattern of formal social classes emerging, a shift from the argued achieved status in

the Marpole Period. Thom (1995) finds that this shift from a competitive rank-based society to

class stratification occurred due to a restriction of sources of wealth and power through a pattern

of elite marriage ties and extra-local connections. This is reflected in changing mortuary patterns

between the Marpole and Late Periods, with new mortuary symbols establishing the elite’s new

social position (Thom 1995:45). Grier (2003) argues that these extra-local social connections

were already present in the Marpole Period. Angelbeck and Grier (2012) offer a different

hypothesis for how this pattern of elite social class emerged. They argue that increasing

centralization of power was met with active commoner resistance, who utilized the need for their

labor to elevate themselves into the elite class, as a “nouveau riche” (Angelbeck and Grier

2012:563-564).

12

It is within the Locarno Beach/Marpole Periods that key changes emerged that formed

the basis for southern Northwest Coast complexity. However, Northwest Coast archaeologists

differ in explaining how an elite class of individuals would have emerged. Ames (1995) sees

these arguments as falling into two broad categories: “elites as managers” and “elites as thugs.”

The “elites as managers” models see inequalities emerging because certain individuals are

needed to ensure efficient coordination of complex tasks, and these managers work themselves

into positions of authority (Ames 1995:155). The “elites as thugs” view, in comparison, posits

that individuals actively campaigned for control over resources for their own benefit, rather than

a specific societal need (Ames 1995:156; Hayden 1995).

Both Schalk (1977) and Ames (1981) present models of complexity that fall under the

“elites as managers” category (Ames 1995:156). Schalk places importance on the creation of a

storage based salmon economy, arguing that the time and effort it takes to process salmon for

storage, along with the relatively short procurement opportunity, would lead to the rise of a

managerial leader to deal with the complexity of the task. Salmon runs are generally consistent

from year to year. Schalk argues that this reliability lead to a larger population, less mobility,

greater sedentism, and an overall reconstruction of society, where the managers of these

resources get preferential treatment (1977:220-232). Ames’ (1981) model directly follows this

same pattern with institutional leaders (and inequality) emerging because of the need for efficient

management in the procurement and storage of salmon. In an expansion of his ideas, Ames

(1994), added that his view contends that inequality emerged from the “interplay” of

circumscribed resources (temporal and spatial), resource ownership, sedentism, resource

13

specialization (including but not limited to salmon), population growth, and ritual promotion by

individuals (Ames 1994:212-213).

Matson presents an “elites as thugs” model (1983, 1985, 1992) that was evaluated at the

Crescent Beach site, located at the mouth of the Nicomekl River (near the U.S./Canadian

border). The Crescent Beach site contains St. Mungo, Locarno Beach, and Marpole deposits

(Matson 1992:389). Matson’s model hypothesizes that social complexity and inequality emerges

from the control of resource patches that contain differential economic worth (Matson and

Coupland 1995:152). Matson contends that only resources that are reliable, abundant,

predictable, and localized would be beneficial for groups smaller than the community (i.e.,

individuals and families) to attempt to control (Matson 1983:138; Matson 1985; Matson and

Coupland 1995:152). Additionally, this combination of factors would also lead towards

technological innovation to better utilize the controlled resource (Matson 1983:138). Once this

process started, the differences in productivity of the resource patches would lead to inequality

(Matson and Coupland 1995:152). Groups taking less desirable resources and individuals

without a controlled resource patch would be left to join other households, exchanging their

labor for access to the controlled resource (Matson 1985:248; Matson and Coupland 1995:152).

This idea gains some support from the ethnographic work of Suttles (1987c:26-44), who noted

that the Coast Salish environmental region is “neither uniformly rich and dependable within any

tribal area nor precisely the same from area to area” (Suttles 1987c:43).

Matson has argued that shellfish and salmon resources were the initial resource patches

of importance, essentially kick-starting the entire process towards the “Developed Northwest

Coast Pattern” (Matson 1983:136-137; Matson and Coupland 1995:152). Of these two resources,

14

salmon was the resource that was intensified further, because shellfish resources can be

“overcollected and difficult to obtain in dark, stormy winters” (Matson 1983:136). Matson’s

model contains an interconnection between the intensified use of salmon, social ranking, and

sedentary living conditions (Matson 1983:142). He notes that once this pattern has been

achieved, variations that do not contain all three aspects (intensified use of salmon, social

ranking, and sedentary living) would occur (Matson 1983:142). Noting this, Matson makes the

prediction that the Marpole Period in the Gulf of Georgia region, as the first representation of the

complete “Developed Northwest Coast Pattern”, will contain a larger proportion of salmon

remains than subsequent temporal stages (Matson 1983:143). Thom (1995:46-47) more directly

connects this to social changes, noting that in the Late Period, subsistence shifts to include more

broad scale adaptations. He notes that these changes are consistent with what one would expect

from a social shift from ranked to class societies (Thom 1995:46-47).

Croes and Hackenberger (1988) offer an economic explanation for the emergence of the

“Developed Northwest Coast Pattern.” At the core of Croes and Hackenberger’s model is the

idea that economic decision making can be affected by population growth. Shifts in subsistence

economics are driven by two goals: “to attain a secure food and nonfood income” and “to realize

low-cost maintenance of human population aggregations” (Croes and Hackenberger 1988:30).

Important to this idea is the use of an optimal-foraging type explanation for which resources

should be utilized first. To establish population growth and aggregation at a minimum expense, a

resource would be considered important if its yield can be large and spatially sedentary (Croes

and Hackenberger 1988:30). Using computer simulations for both a pre-storage and storage

economy, Croes and Hackenberger develop a model for the Hoko River ecosystem, and test the

15

models assumptions with faunal data from the Hoko River site. With this model and

archaeological evaluation, the authors develop six conclusions with implications for the entire

southern Northwest Coast. First, the authors predict that exponential population growth and

spatial circumscription are important factors affecting subsistence and settlement practices.

Especially important is the advent of a storage economy around 5000-4000 BP which caused an

explosion in population. Second, as populations increase the growth curve would become

logarithmic. Third, as smaller groups expanded and spatial circumscription occurred, population

growth would stabilize in the St. Mungo phase (4000-3000 BP). A storage economy based on

halibut and other flatfish is predicted, with the overuse of shellfish the controlling factor in

population stabilization. Fourth, as human populations continued to slowly grow, shellfish

populations would be shrinking, and thus an emphasis on late spring/fall/winter stored resources

would have to emerge. This is predicted to occur in the Locarno Beach Period with the intense

storage of flatfish. It is here that Croes and Hackenberger see inequality developing, as the

ownership of circumscribed resources would develop (cf. Matson 1985). Fifth, as the storage

economy became more important, a switch to a specialization of salmon would occur. This is

predicted to happen within the Marpole period. Sixth, as populations continued to grow an

intensification of offshore fisheries would occur, explaining the diversification shift seen in the

Late Period by Hanson (1991, 1995) and connected to the social shift argued by Thom (1995)

and Angelbeck and Grier (2012).

Of critical importance to each of the complexity/inequality models presented above is the

development of an economy dominated by salmon specialization. This is hypothesized as

facilitating the development of social inequalities, based on specialization having emerged in the

16

Locarno Beach Period, reaching complete specialization in the Marpole Period, and diversifying

in the Late Period (Croes and Hackenberger 1988; Matson and Coupland 1995; Mitchell 1971).

This focus on the importance of the subsistence economy allows us to evaluate these models

with zooarchaeological data.

Linear Complexity Model Critiques

Critiques of these linear models have focused on how the importance placed on salmon

resources may have prevented researchers from recognizing the importance of other taxa in

Northwest Coast subsistence (Monks 1987). Evaluation of zooarchaelogical data in comparison

to the linear complexity models has mostly taken a broad regional approach (Bilton 2013; Butler

and Campbell 2004; Hanson 2008). The results of these regional studies have generally not

supported a single regional pattern. For example, using abundance and evenness indexes, Butler

and Campbell (2004), find that from 7000 to 150 BP salmon use did increase, but not to the

detriment of other species. Salmon is the most abundant and wide-spread taxa, but does not

increase in importance over time relative to all other fishes, thus contradicting the pattern of

specialization that is predicted by the linear models of complexity. Echoing these results,

Coupland et al. (2010) find that the Gulf of Georgia faunal record contains no evidence for

extreme salmon specialization at any time, including the Marpole Period (Coupland et al.

2010:203-204). They conclude that the development of cultural complexity and inequality

“seems to have occurred without any notable increase in salmon production” (Coupland et al.

2010:205). Bilton (2013) also finds a similar trend regionally. Using principal coordinates

analysis, Bilton evaluated 46 faunal components from the Gulf of Georgia and found no

17

evidence for salmon dominance, instead the data suggest a diversified subsistence pattern (Bilton

2013:298).

This importance of resources other than salmon continues to gain traction in these recent

studies. Additional analyses have also postulated that elements of the “Developed Northwest

Coast Pattern” may have emerged earlier, with the archaeological expressions undiscovered due

to the effects of marine transgression (Fedje and Christianson 1999; Moss 2011:56-72; Punke

and Davis 2006). For example, Cannon and Yang (2006) present evidence for early salmon use

and potentially year-round villages at Namu around 7,000 years ago without evidence for large

population growth and inequality (although Monks and Orchard [2011)] disagree on the

importance of salmon in earlier deposits). The authors also argue that changing fish faunal

patterns at Namu were related to local environmental factors (a collapse in the salmon fishery)

rather than broader social changes along the coast. The potential for different portions of the

“Developed Northwest Coast Pattern” to have arisen earlier suggests that continual evaluation of

data at more local scales is necessary to explain the development of cultural complexity and

inequality on the Northwest Coast.

In the most recent regional volume addressing the Northwest Coast culture area, Moss

(2011), suggests that no regional “master narrative” can be developed. Rather, she suggests that

we look for more localized historical processes (citing Pauketat 2007:185). Moss readily accepts

that some patterns are seen region-wide (population growth, circumscription of territories,

intensification of resource use/storage leading to cooperation and/or competition) but notes that

rather than a step-wise progressive and regional pattern of change, we see different trends

emerging in local areas (Moss 2011:96; also see Moss 2012; Moss and Erlandson 1995).

18

A good example of this can be seen in differences in the hierarchical organization of

houses across the Northwest Coast. Coupland et al. (2009) note a north-to-south cline for the

presence of hierarchical house organization, finding the northern houses to have more strict

hierarchies, whereas the houses of the southern Coast Salish societies (including the Gulf

Islands) appear to maintain less rigid house hierarchies, a notion that is supported by Angelbeck

and Grier (2012). Differences in organization of houses demonstrate the existence of local

historical trajectories on the coast. This has also been demonstrated by Clark’s (2010, 2013)

analysis of the Locarno Beach/Marpole Periods. Clark finds local variation within these time

periods. This variation suggests that local groups “complexity” relies on many different factors,

such as resource availability, the agency of specific individuals, and the innovation of different

technologies. These occur in different areas at different times, and leads to an “uneven” regional

development of complexity (Clark 2010:3). The evaluation of many different forms of

archaeological data (including faunal remains) can help us decipher whether there is a uniform

regional pattern, or more localized historical trajectories. This idea of localized historical

trajectories, as well as an analysis of human actors with agency and agendas, is the direction that

explorations of coastal complexity are currently emphasizing (Grier 2006a, 2014; Moss 2012).

Additionally, we must be open to several different possibilities. If we conclude that

localized historical processes are how complexity should be examined, we still need to evaluate

the unquestionably regional connections that do emerge in the Locarno Beach/Marpole Periods

(Grier 2003). Also, we may need to reevaluate how we view ideas of “complexity” and

“inequality” – undeniably archaeologists (and anthropologists in general) have preferenced

Western viewpoints over aboriginal perspectives on these and other concepts, viewpoints that

19

may not have existed within the indigenous ontological realm (Ewonus 2011b:29; Gosden

1999:185-186). Recent analyses have confirmed the importance and usefulness of an indigenous

knowledge-base archaeologically (Crowell and Howell 2013; Losey 2010; Martindale and

Marsden 2003; Vanpool and Newsome 2012). An in-depth use of this knowledge base will also

prove beneficial for addressing issues of cultural complexity and inequality.

Thesis Analysis

Differing from the regional studies noted above, this study focuses on one site (DgRv-

006). This site contains material with dates spanning the occupation of a Marpole Period

plankhouse village (DgRv-003) as well as the occupation of a Late Period plankhouse (DgRv-

006). This will allow a direct comparison of the two periods without the biases that can emerge

from differing excavation techniques and spatial locations. Given the time periods represented in

this midden, a direct evaluation of faunal changes present during a major sociopolitical change

(abandonment of a village and a later plankhouse occupation) can be reviewed. Although the

evaluation of complexity models is best served by the use of multiple data sets (Clark 2013:3),

this in-depth look at faunal data provides a critical perspective on how subsistence patterns

match or do not match the linear complexity models. Important to note, is that my usage of these

linear models is not because they are the necessarily the most illuminating way to think about

complexity in the Gulf of Georgia (as noted by the studies above), but they present a useful and

explicit frame of reference and a way to set up hypotheses for the faunal material.

Some definitions for the overly broad and often vague conceptual language in use here

are needed before analysis can proceed. First, when the term “social complexity” is used, the

specific focus is on the different social connections made in sedentary villages and if these

20

connections were shaped by resource intensification. The idea of “social complexity” focuses on

the presence of social interactions beyond what is seen in more typical (mobile) foraging

societies. Additionally important to this study are the terms “specialization” and

“diversification.” Specialization indicates an extreme focus on one or two key species, while

diversification involves the use of a wide range of species (Betts and Friesen 2004:358-359).

Diversification is often noted as consisting of two trends in the data: richness (the number of

taxa, the more taxa the richer the assemblage) and evenness (an assemblage is more even when

taxa contain a similar count) (Lyman 2008:172-178).

Also important in this analysis is the correct identification of the depositional context of

this midden, as it is clear middens are not simply trash heaps (Grier et al. 2009; Hayden and

Cannon 1983). The inclusion of both human and dog burials in the midden requires that we not

assume the depositional context to be solely domestic trash. We must consider other possibilities

that account for the non-trash that is included in coastal shell middens. Two ideas may be

relevant for explaining the presence of burials and the highly visible nature of the midden on the

Parry Lagoon shoreline. First is the idea that the midden may have acted as “food for the dead”,

given the presence of both human burials as well as more typical food remains (e.g. Carlson

1999; Cybulski 1992). Secondly, taking cues from landscape-based archaeological approaches

(Ingold 1993), we can also consider how a large shell midden becomes part of the built

environment, projecting a multitude of social messages to groups passing by in canoes. It

becomes a cultural feature that can convey ownership and social identity (Moss 2011:124).

Adding to this, the earliest Marpole portion of the midden forms a mound shape (figure

2a,b), with later portions “filling in” and leveling off the shape of the midden. Thus, the midden

21

may have served different depositional purposes through time. Potentially interesting is the

prospect that this midden started out as a special mortuary feature for the earlier village (DgRv-

003), with its purpose shifting after the abandonment of that village. Faunal remains can be used

to investigate these types of relationships by noting if faunal deposition changes when

stratigraphic aspects of the midden change. Final conclusions on what these different

depositional areas represent will not be reached here. A complete identification of these areas

would need additional coverage of other aspects of the midden (most importantly the burials),

which are outside the scope of this study.

Before these analyses can be presented, additional background information is necessary

to give appropriate context to this study. This contextual information will be addressed in the

following two chapters with specific culture history of the southern Northwest Coast in the

following chapter, and site/island information in chapter four.

Figure 2a. Parry Lagoon Midden with temporal distinction – 2012 excavations.

Red line separates the Marpole from the Late Period. Earliest Marpole portion is

below the blue line

22

Figure 2b. Parry Lagoon Midden with temporal distinction – 2013 excavations.

23

CHAPTER THREE:

CULTURE HISTORY OF THE GULF OF GEORGIA REGION

The Gulf of Georgia is the most intensely studied region within the larger Northwest Coast

culture area, and because of this, a detailed historical framework has been developed. Several

different sequences have been advanced over the years to organize these data, including the

broad syntheses presented in volumes by Matson and Coupland (1995) and Ames and Maschner

(1999). Matson and Coupland’s framework largely focuses on the Gulf of Georgia region and

thus it is the framework that will be used (Table 1). Culture history coverage will begin with the

Old Cordilleran and extend to the ethnographic record. It should be noted that current research

suggests that an even earlier habitation than the Old Cordilleran may be found on the coast, but

this issue is not addressed here (Erlandson et al 2007; Jenkins et al 2012; Punke and Davis 2006).

Old Cordilleran (9000-4500BP)

The earliest well-defined Northwest Coast archaeological culture is the Old Cordilleran,

dated from 9000-4500 BP (Matson and Coupland 1995). This unit was originally developed in

the Gulf of Georgia area by information obtained from the Glenrose Cannery site (DgRr-006),

located in the Delta of the Fraser River (Matson 1976; Matson and Coupland 1995: 69).

Additional sites from outside of the Gulf of Georgia region including, Namu, Bear Cove,

Milliken, Five Miles Rapids, and Tahkenitch Landing, were also considered in the development

of this cultural component. The Saltery Bay site (DkSb-30) represents another well-excavated

site (Bilton 2013:75).

24

The Old Cordilleran was characterized by Matson and Coupland as a terrestrial mammal

subsistence system, with use of some “smaller resources,” including shellfish and a variety of

fish (1995:81). They note that this is a widespread coastal adaptation, which may represent an

early seasonal round (Matson and Coupland 1995:81). Glenrose Cannery offers a good example

of this, as both mammalian resources (wapiti, deer, beaver, and harbor seal) as well as fish

remains (salmon, flatfish, eulachon, stickleback, and peamouth) were deemed important

resources (Matson and Coupland 1995:73-74). Artifacts include leaf-shaped bifaces, cobble and

flake tools, and antler wedges (Ames and Maschner 1999:72). At the time of Matson and

Coupland’s writings, there were no large site components like those seen in the later cultural

components and nothing to suggest a group larger than the family (Matson and Coupland

1995:96).

Matson and Coupland considered there to be no evidence for sedentism or social

inequalities at this time (Matson and Coupland 1995:81). This is now being debated with the

work done at the Namu site in central British Columbia, where researchers argue for the

existence of a large salmon fishery (Cannon and Yang 2006; Moss 2011:78). Cannon and Yang

have also argued for the presence of a large sedentary village at this time, although this argument

has proven more controversial (Cannon and Yang 2006, 2011; Monks and Orchard 2011). Other

fish-heavy faunal assemblages have been noted at the Cohoe Creek site on Haida Gwaii, Bear

Cove on Vancouver Island, and Tahkenitch Landing on the Oregon Coast (Moss 2011:79-82).

Charles (4500-3500BP)

Next in the sequence is the Charles Period, which has been dated from 4500-3500 BP.

The Charles Period is composed of two sub-periods, St. Mungo and Mayne, which overlap in

25

time (Matson and Coupland 1995:98). The St. Mungo Period has been described from three sites

located on the Fraser River: St. Mungo, Glenrose Cannery, and Crescent Beach (Matson and

Coupland 1995:98). Important artifact changes include the increase of bone and ground stone

tools, which are seen as important components of the Developed Northwest Coast pattern.

Carved antler and anthropomorphic/zoomorphic figures have also been found in this time period

(Bilton 2013:83; Matson and Coupland 1995:107). The use of shellfish and fish becomes a more

important component of the diet, although shellfish type and abundance varies by location (Moss

2011:85). The increase in shellfish and fish lead Matson and Coupland to consider this a

subsistence pattern focused on a diverse coastal/riverine forager adaptation (1995:109, 114).

Additionally, the increased presence of milling stones shows a larger importance of plant

resources (Ames and Maschner 1999:138-139).

The Mayne Period has direct temporal overlap with the St. Mungo Period, but occurs in

different areas. Mayne Period sites are exclusively located on the Gulf Islands, causing some to

distinguish this as a purely island adaptation (Bilton 2013:80, 243-244). Overall there is a

general similarity between the St. Mungo and Mayne Periods, with most distinctions being made

in the presence of labrets (stone lip plugs often associated as status markers) in Mayne

components. Overall, Matson and Coupland see this time period as a period of local groups

“settling in” to the resource bases (1995:142). Perhaps because of this, we see a generally broad

subsistence economy at this time (Ames and Maschner 1999:138). The “Developed Northwest

Coast Pattern” is not seen in these phases, as there is no evidence for large houses or ascribed

status differences (Matson and Coupland 1995:143). However, this is not a universally accepted

26

notion. Looking at the Pender Canal site (DeRt-1 and DeRt-2), Carlson and Hobler (1993) argue

that the full “Developed Northwest Coast Pattern” can be seen in this earlier time period.

Locarno Beach (3500-2500BP)

The Locarno Beach Period witnesses the “development of cultural complexity” and the

start of the most important economic aspects of the “Developed Northwest Coast Pattern” are

attributed to this period (Matson and Coupland 1995:145-146).

The type site of Locarno Beach, dated from 3500 to 2500 BP, is located in present day

Vancouver (Matson and Coupland 1995:154). Most of the Locarno Beach artifact components

are based on Mitchell’s early 1970s report on Montague Harbour (Matson and Coupland

1995:156). Common artifacts include unilaterally barbed points, ground slate tools, bird-bone

needles, labrets, celts, stemmed chipped points, microliths and functionally questionable ground

stone known as the “Gulf Island Complex” (Matson and Coupland 1995:156; Moss 2011:98).

Additionally high proportions of both ground stone and faunal tools are found in Locarno Beach

assemblages (Moss 2011:88). Ames and Maschner find that the presence of microblade cores

and blades, toggling harpoons, and ground-stone tools are what set the Locarno Beach Period

apart (1999:104). Locarno Beach sites are also known for clay depressions, rock slab features,

and the presence of exclusively midden burials (Moss 2011:98).

Faunal patterns indicate an increased importance of fish remains, particularly salmon,

flatfish, and herring, moving away from the “broad-scale” pattern noted in the previous time

periods (Matson and Coupland 1995:177). Of note is an increase in the amount of salmon

vertebral remains, in comparison to cranial elements. This matches an ethnographic pattern for

the removal of salmon heads as preparation for storage of trunk elements, and has been used by

27

researchers to infer salmon storage (Boehm 1973; Butler and Chatters 1994:413; Matson and

Coupland 1995:166-167). Butler and Chatters (1994) evaluate if this pattern is related to

differences in bone densities between elements, rather than being a cultural phenomenon. They

found that salmon cranial elements are less dense and degrade faster than vertebral elements,

arguing that this must be taken into account before storage is inferred from proportions of cranial

versus vertebral elements. Thus, although there is a noted increase in salmon cranial elements in

the Locarno Beach Period, this does not necessarily mean widespread storage emerged.

It is within the Locarno Beach phase that many aspects of the “Developed Northwest

Coast Pattern” start to emerge including: bone, antler, and ground stone tools, woodworking,

multifamily houses, labrets, and a fish storage economy argued to be driving increasing

complexity (Matson and Coupland 1995:197-198). Missing from the Locarno Beach Period are

the important social changes, including a shift to large villages and ascribed status differences

(Matson and Coupland 1995:198).

Marpole (2500-1000BP)

The Marpole Period (2500-1000 BP) is when the “Developed Northwest Coast Pattern” is

fully realized according to Matson and Coupland (1995:199). The Marpole Period is considered

to be the most complex period in the Gulf of Georgia area, where large multi-family plankhouse

villages, subsistence based on stored salmon, and institutionalized status and inequality were

widely expressed as a complex (Matson and Coupland 1995:255).

The Marpole Period was initially recognized by Borden in the 1950s from his work at the

Point Grey site, as well as observations on materials from the Great Eburne Midden, now known

as the Marpole type site (Matson and Coupland 1995:200-201). This initial categorization was

28

soon strengthened by work from Mitchell (1971) and Burley (Matson and Coupland 1995:201).

The entire ethnographically observed pattern of complex cultural behavior is seen within this

period.

Burial analyses indicate that ascribed social statuses were present, inferred from large

amounts of ethnographically noted wealth and status items interred with juveniles in cairn burials

(Matson and Coupland 1995:209-210). Among these burial analyses is Burley’s (1989) work at

the midden component of the False Narrows site on Gabriola Island. This midden contained a

population of at least 86 individuals from 50 internments (Burley 1989:51). Both males and

females are present, as well as adults and juveniles (Burley 1989:51). Of the 86 individuals

identified only 19 had any grave goods associated with them (Burley 1989:59). Individuals with

grave goods differed in the amount and types of grave goods present (Burley 1989:60). From

this, Burley inferred a stratified social order of haves and have-nots. Below ground burials with

status differentiation are present throughout the Marpole Period (Thom 1995).

Matson and Coupland claim that common artifact types remain unchanged from the

Locarno Beach Period, Moss however notes that leaf-shaped and triangular shaped slate points,

nipple topped mauls, and stone and shell beads are diagnostic artifacts for this period (Moss

2011:98). Labrets disappear from the record around 2000 years ago (Moss 2011:103). A

continued shift away from chipped stone and towards ground stone and bone/antler technologies

is also observed (Matson and Coupand 1995:218). Chipped stone was never completely replaced,

which has lead Moss to the conclusion of cultural continuity with cumulative cultural

innovations being seen in the use of ground stone and faunal tools (2011:89). Types of personal

29

status items increased, including shell beads and stone bowl sculptures (Ames and Maschner

1999:104; Bilton 2013:86).

Large village sites are also seen, from the presence of house platforms (seen at the Beach

Grove, Whalen Farm, False Narrows and Dionisio Point sites), as well as inferred evidence of

storage from large amounts of salmon vertebral elements (e.g., Glenrose Cannery) (Burley 1989;

Grier 2001; Matson and Coupland 1995:223). Subsistence data also indicate the “Developed

Northwest Coast Pattern” dependence on salmon storage emerged, corresponding with increases

in inequality and cultural nodes of complexity. It is important to note that when Matson and

Coupland’s model was generated subsistence data was “rather limited” (1995:222). Marpole

subsistence information that Matson and Coupland utilized comes mainly from five sites:

Glenrose Cannery, Crescent Beach, Beach Grove, Deep Bay, and Point Grey. Of these sites,

three (Glenrose Cannery, Crecent Beach, and Beach Grove) are noted for the abundance of

salmon vertebral remains, Glenrose Cannery being interpreted as a winter village subsisting on

stored salmon (Matson and Coupland 1995:223). From these sites, Matson and Coupland infer a

pattern of large winter base camps occupied until spring, subsisting on a specialized storage of

salmon. Other sites (Deep Bay, Point Grey) represent limited activity sites that were utilized at

different parts of the year, as part of a seasonal round. This pattern of salmon importance has had

some recent support by Clark (2010, 2013), but other researchers are questioning this notion, as

noted above (e.g., Bilton 2013; Butler and Cambell 2004; Coupland et al. 2010).

Clark (2010, 2013) has presented a different notion of what the Locarno Beach and

Marpole Periods represent. Rather than finding Locarno “evolving” into Marpole, Clark argues

that these cultural periods are not simply temporal differences but represent two different culture

30

types that were spatially separated. Clark argues that the Locarno culture was present in the

southern Gulf Islands and southern Vancouver Island at the same time that the Marpole culture

was present in the Fraser River valley and northern Gulf Islands. Through time, connections

developed and both cultures emerged in the Late Period, as one distinct culture type.

Late Period (1000 BP-Contact)

The Late Period is the most recent cultural period prior to the historic period, and is

generally seen as a continuation from the Marpole Period. The Late Period is often considered as

the archaeological representation of the ethnographic record, with many interpretations using the

record to explain phenomena in the Late Period, largely ignoring the changes that would emerge

with European intrusion (Codere 1950; Moss and Erlandson 1995:29, 34). Artifact patterns in the

Gulf of Georgia region are considered to have “evolve[ed] in a seamless manner from the

Marpole phase” (Matson and Coupland 1995:268). Bone, antler, and ground stone tools

dominate assemblages (Matson and Coupland 1995:268). Composite toggling harpoons, flat top

mauls, and bone bipoints are common, but a general reduction in the diversity of tools is noted

(Ames and Maschner 1999:106-107; Matson and Coupland 1995:268). Additionally,

anthropomorphic stone bowls disappear from the record (Ames and Maschner 1999:107).

A shift to an elite dominated (numerically) social class system is present within this time

period (Angelbeck and Grier 2012). A change from below ground burial practices to above

ground burials has been argued as representing this shift (Thom 1995). Thom states that this shift

in mortuary symbols represents elite leaders changing the symbol utilized to represent higher

status (1995:43). Above-ground burials typically involved the need for elaborate boxes and/or

poles, which would restrict these burials to those that could hire skilled artisans, restricting the

31

expression of class status to those with the proper wealth and connections (Thom 1995:43-44).

Angelbeck and Grier (2012) offer a different explanation for this large elite class emergence,

arguing that it emerged due to commoner resistance to outright rule. They argue that this can be

seen in the increase in the proportion of individuals with cranial deformation, a marker of high

status at birth, but one that could be adopted by individuals to express autonomy (Angelbeck and

Grier 2012:557-564). The proportions of cranial deformation are low in the Marpole Period

(which would be expected for a marker of high status when that status is rare), but are in a

majority of the population in the Late Period (Angelbeck and Grier 2012:559).

Matson and Coupland present few thoughts on the subsistence of this time period,

mostly noting its similarity to the ethnographic record. This includes a north to south trend of

environmental differences which affects the resources utilized (also well noted in Schalk 1981).

Also noted are differences between inner sandy coasts and outer rocky coast resource use, and

that sites near large rivers tend to be dominated by salmon remains (Matson and Coupland

1995:295-296). Late Period faunal analyses have noted a diversity of fishing resources, a notion

supported by Croes and Hackenberger’s (1988) model (Matson and Coupland 1995:296). This

broadening of the resource base is a result of an increased focus on offshore resources (Croes and

Hackenberger 1988:78-79). Additional support for this subsistence change can be seen in the

work of Hanson (1991, 1995). Hanson looked at several Late Period sites in the southern Gulf of

Georgia and found that a diversity of fish species were more important than the ethnographic

record indicated. Although salmon was important to the diet, fish species like cods, sculpins,

herring, and perches proved to be more important than the ethnographic record indicated. Given

these results, the question should be if this pattern in the subsistence of the Late Period actually

32

represents a shift in subsistence strategy, or if it is the pattern that had persisted before, and was

missed due to excavation methodology (Hanson 1991, 1995). This would then have an important

effect on how models of complexity and inequality are developed and evaluated.

Ethnographic Record

The ethnographic record has had an important impact on interpretations of Northwest

Coast prehistory, largely because of the vast amount of ethnographic data available on coastal

peoples. This record has greatly influenced archaeological interpretations, as evidenced by the

existence of the “Developed Northwest Coast Pattern” concept. An uncritical connection of the

archaeological record and the ethnographic record is often provided, with interpretations only

being accepted when they agree with the ethnographic record (Grier 2007). This has hindered

interpretations of the past, as only what was observed in the ethnographic present has been

considered viable. This can be problematic when we consider that the ethnographic record is not

perfect and the indigenous people observed were already greatly influenced by Europeans

(Codere 1950; Drucker and Heizal 1967). With this said, the ethnographic record does offer us a

great source for hypotheses against which to test the archaeological record against (Grier 2007).

Because of this notion, a brief review of the ethnographic record is needed. Ethnographic

information on the Coast Salish of the southern Gulf of Georgia is presented below, broken into

three important categories: social organization, settlement, and subsistence.

Social Organization

Coast Salish social organization is noted for its flexibility (Suttles 1987a:16-17). Coast

Salish groupings consisted of families living in plankhouses (typically made of cedar), with at

least one individual claiming right to resources (Suttles 1987a:16-17). This plank-household

33

group is considered the basic social and economic unit (Ames and Maschner 1999:147). Specific

events, like conflict, could cause larger groupings to emerge, but local autonomy was maintained

(Angelbeck and McLay 2011). Coast Salish social organization was based on bilateral kinship

and individuals (other than slaves) were mostly free to live wherever they pleased (Suttles

1987a:16-17). The society was stratified into classes, structured according to what Suttles termed

an “inverted pear” shape (Figure 3; Suttles 1987b:3-12), where the majority of individuals were

considered to be a part of the high class (“Good People”), with a small lower class (“Worthless

Figure 3. Suttles’ inverted pear of Coast Salish social organization

People”), and an even smaller class of slaves. The “Good People” were a class of individuals

whom could move freely in society, but no strict ranking was present, unlike other areas of the

Northwest Coast (Suttles 1987b:6-7; Suttles 1987c:26-44). This class was of good birth and

34

could obtain wealth, something the others could not (Suttles 1987b:3-14). Leaders were drawn

from this class as they had the potential to own important resources. This included both material

resources, such as houses and subsistence locations, as well as cultural resources, like ritual

knowledge (Suttles 1987b:8). These leaders did not have oppressive or coercive power

(excluding over slaves), and their power base revolved around their influence and importance in

gaining access to resources and their reputation in the prestige economy (Ames 1995). An

example of this can be seen in the way that owned resources were managed. Although resources

were owned, use of these resources was not restricted (Suttles 1987a:21).

Social prestige systems were considered to be integrated with the subsistence economy,

and it is hypothesized that this integration allowed populations to adapt to variable

environmental conditions present in the Gulf of Georgia region. Variability took four different

forms: variety of foods, local variability, seasonal variability, and year-to-year fluctuations in

productivity (Suttles 1987a,c). Food was not directly considered wealth, but it could be

exchanged for status items, which could be given away to increase prestige of both the individual

and the household. Suttles identified two forms of exchange related to the upper classes of Coast

Salish society, which he hypothesized, allowed them to live in an environment defined by

variability. The first exchange network involved connections between upper class families. This

involves the exchange of food for different forms of wealth, which could happen when one

family’s controlled resource patch failed. This exchange network had an important impact on the

socioeconomic reality of the region, ensuring that the rich maintain prestige by allowing

individuals to directly turn food into wealth, something the other classes could not do (Suttles

1987a: 17-20). The second system of exchange was the potlatch. The potlatch offered a way for

35

individuals, whom obtain a surplus of wealth, to give it away in a large gathering to obtain status

and prestige. At the same time, this giving away of wealth allows other groups to “restore their

purchasing power,” thus enabling the entire system to continue (Suttles 1987a: 23-24).

Settlement

The Coast Salish settlement pattern consisted of seasonal movements with an aggregation

of multiple families into large plankhouse villages during the winter and early spring months

(Matson and Coupland 1995:2-8). These more permanent winter dwellings were of the “shed

roof” type in the Gulf Islands, in comparison to the “gable roof” structures present in other areas

of the coast (Barnett 1955:35-58; Suttles 1974:256).

Shed roof plankhouses consisted of a framework of large posts with removable cedar

planks covering the sides and roof of the structure (Suttles 1974:256). Planks were removed

when the structure was not in use, the larger posts being left at site. Plankhouses were large, up

to 200 feet or longer, and could be partitioned into separate sections. Sectioning of the house in

this way created several households within one structure (Suttles 1974:260). Winter houses also

acted as both workshops and storage centers. Fall-caught fish were smoked in the house with

storage boxes placed under sleeping platforms (Suttles 1974:256-260). Interesting inferences on

how houses reflect social structure have been made archaeologically (see Grier 2006b and

Coupland et al 2009).

Subsistence

Coast Salish populations consisted of individuals who hunted, gathered, and fished. Many

food gathering activities were also communal. Drawing from Suttles’ (1974) and Barnett’s

(1955) work, we can reconstruct some of the ways that Coast Salish individuals obtained these

36

different foods. Plant foods were also extremely important to Coast Salish individuals, but given

the scope of this study, will not be reviewed here.

Shellfish were typically obtained by hand or with a digging stick (Suttles 1974:57). This

was done at low tide throughout the year, but was at its greatest in the summer (Suttles 1974:65-

69). Shellfish were steamed in an earth oven, roasted, or eaten raw (Suttles 1974:65-69; Barnett

1955:60-61). Urchins were also collected with the gonads eaten both raw and cooked (Suttles

1974:66).

Deer and wapiti (elk) were the primary terrestrial animals hunted. Deer bucks were

predominantly taken in late spring/early summer as bucks were fattest at this time (Suttles

1974:82-92). Ungulate hunting techniques varied, but typically involved bow and arrow

technology, although nets and pit falls were also utilized (Suttles 1974:138-147). Hunting

occurred alone or in pairs, sometimes dogs were utilized, and some hunting also occurred at

night in canoes (Suttles 1974:82-92). Meat was typically steamed for storage and dried bones

were often cracked for marrow. The lower leg bones (metapodial) of deer were commonly used

as tool making material for arrow and duck spear points (Suttles 1974:91). Land mammals could

be roasted, steamed, or boiled (Barnett 1955: 63). Hunting of birds also occurred with techniques

ranging from raised nets over migratory paths, submerged nets, slings, snares, and bow and

arrow hunting (Suttles 1974:70-81).

Sea mammals were also hunted by the Coast Salish, with Porlier Pass being well-known

as a productive area (Suttles 1987d:233-247). Seals and sea lions were hunted by canoe with

harpoons and nets, while beached individuals could be clubbed (Suttles 1974:162-166). Sea

mammals were an important source of oil (Barnett 1955:61).

37

Fishing techniques could vary by fish type and location; ethnographic information on

fishing techniques is presented in Table 2. Techniques include: harpooning of larger fish, use of

spears, hook and line, clubbing, and nets. Suttles (1974) offers a very detailed explanation of the

large reef-net salmon fisheries seen in the Straits area, which consisted of multiple canoes

working in tandem to catch large amounts of salmon before they reached the Fraser River.

Additionally, the use of weirs made of both wood and stones were common to corral fish both in

marine environments and riverine settings. Fish were often dried or smoked with salmon being

the primary species preserved for winter subsistence, although this may be the result of European

intrusion and not representative in deep time. The act of fishing was considered a sacred activity

and men often sought supernatural help and guidance for success (Barnett 1955:77). Other

ceremonial duties were often observed before fishing could commence, the most famous being

the “first salmon rite” (Barnett 1955).

Ethnographic descriptions present a diversity of different activities and resources as being

important to the Coast Salish subsistence pattern. This stands in direct contrast to the extreme

focus on salmon seen in many scholarly treatments of Coast Salish subsistence.

38

Tab

le 2

. E

thn

ogra

ph

ic c

atc

hm

ent,

sea

son

ali

ty, an

d p

roce

ssin

g i

nfo

. on

sel

ect

fish

sp

ecie

s

39

CHAPTER FOUR

SITE DGRV-006 INFORMATION: ENVIRONMENT, BIOLOGY, AND

ARCHAEOLOGY

This chapter provides specific information on the temporal and spatial location of DgRv-006.

This will be followed by environmental and biological information for Galiano Island, the island

on which DgRv-006 is situated. Marine transgression history of the area will be presented first,

followed by information on the geology, sedimentology/soils, climate, and biology of the area.

The chapter concludes with a history of archaeological studies at the Dionisio Point Park

locality, which includes expanded information on site DgRv-006.

Site DgRv-006 is part of the Dionisio Point archaeological locality situated on the very

northern portion of Galiano Island, an island in the southern Strait of Georgia, southwestern

British Columbia, Canada (Figure 1). This locality is noteworthy for the presence of both a

Marpole Period plankhouse village (DgRv-003, dated 1500-1300 cal BP) as well as a Late

Period plankhouse (DgRv-006, dated 1000-700 cal BP; Figure 4; Grier et al. 2012). DgRv-006

also contains a large shell midden adjacent to the plankhouse. This midden, which is the object

of study here, contains material dated to both the Marpole and Late Period (Table 3).

Galiano Island is one of the largest of the Gulf Islands with an area of 5,787 ha (Green et

al. 1989:5). The Fraser River delta is located 20 km to the east, with Valdes Island and Porlier

Pass to the north, Kuper Island, Thetis Island and Vancouver Island to the west, and Mayne

Island and Active Pass directly south (Figure 1). Porlier Pass is well noted for containing diverse

40

marine environments, while also being an important travel corridor (Matson et al. 1999:12-13;

Suttles 1987d).

Figure 4. Dionisio Point archaeological locality. Parry Lagoon

Midden indicated in red. Modified from Grier 2014.

Table 3. AMS dates from Parry Lagoon Midden

All samples processed by University of Arizona AMS Laboratory, *Direct AMS, or **Curt-Engelhorn-Centre for

Archaeometry, Manneim, Germany aConv Age is the lab-reported radiocarbon conventional age before application of marine correction

bAll calibrations complete with Calib 7.0 Terrestrial material calibrated with intcall3.14c. Marine shell calibrated

with Marine 04 (global correction) using Delta R (local correction) of 400 ± 40 years, derived from Queen’s

University Belfast 14Chrono marine database cCalibrated median calendar ages rounded to the nearest decade

41

The Gulf of Georgia region is delineated as a distinct area both culturally and

environmentally (Mitchell 1971). This region consists of the northern half of the Georgia

Depression, which includes the Strait of Georgia and the Puget Sound (Clark 2013:5; Mitchell

1971:2). The region is bordered by the Insular Mountains of Vancouver Island to the West, the

Cascade and Coast Range mountains to the East, the Olympic Mountains/Puget Sound to the

South, and the Johnstone Strait in the North (Clark 2013:5; Mitchell 1971:2-5). The Strait of

Juan de Fuca provides access to the Pacific Ocean in the southern Strait of Georgia, while

Johnstone Strait provides access from the north. The coastline includes many bays and inlets in

comparison to the straight beaches of Oregon and Washington (Ames and Maschner 1999:16-17;

Clark 2013:6).

This coastline pattern is seen in microcosm at the Dionisio Point locality, where a lagoon,

coastal spit, and several bays are located within a few km of the sites (Figure 4). Tidal patterns in

the southern Gulf of Georgia are driven by oscillating movements of water between the inner

Strait waters and the Strait of Juan de Fuca/Pacific Ocean. When tides are low in the Gulf of

Georgia, they are high at the Strait of Juan de Fuca and vice-versa (Mitchell 1971:4-5 citing the

Canadian Hydrographic Service 1966:1).

Marine Transgression

The Northwest Coast culture area is well-noted for having a complex marine

transgression history (Aikens et al. 2011:217-219; Punke and Davis 2006). Three factors play

into post-glacial Northwest Coast sea level change: eustatic, isostatic, and geotectonism (Clauge

et al 1982:598; Fedje and Christiansan 1999:637; Fladmark 1975:144). These factors interact in

42

their influence on marine transgression in the Gulf of Georgia and are important for evaluating

how sea level change can impact coastal shell middens.

Recent research on sea level rise is presented by Fedje et al. (2009) and elaborated in a

locally-relevant context by Grier et al. (2009). Both these studies specifically look at sea level

changes within the past 5,000 years in the Gulf Islands area. Utilizing shovel test pits and auger

samples to find past shorelines (with datable material) in present-day intertidal zones, both

studies indicate a sea level rise of only 1.5-2.0 m since the middle Holocene (Fedje et al.

2009:243; Grier et al. 2009:272).

Geology and Soils of Galiano Island

Galiano Island’s underlying geology consists of the Naniamo Formation, which dates to

the Cretaceous period (90-65 mya) (Johnstone 2006). The Naniamo Formation consists of

sedimentary deposits of sandstone, siltstone, and mudstone. These deposits are marine based in

origin (Johnstone 2006:67). Glacial till deposited by receding glaciers is also present on many

southern Gulf Islands (Green et al. 1989:22). Most soils on the southern Gulf Islands are

moderate to well drained, although some poorly drained silts and clays do lead to the formation

of lakes and bogs (Green et al. 1989:20).

Climate/Biology

Galiano Island is located within the rain-shadow of the mountains of Vancouver Island.

This leads to warm, dry summers and mild, wet winters in comparison to mainland British

Columbia and Vancouver Island, both of which are subjected to wetter conditions (Meidinger

and Pojar 1991:82). Annual temperatures range from 9.2 to 10.5oC, with annual precipitation

ranging from 647 to 1,263 mm (Meidinger and Pojar 1991:82). Because of these conditions,

43

Galiano Island contains the ecosystem designation of “Coastal Douglas-fir zone” (Meidinger and

Pojar 1991:81). Most important for this designation are the types of large trees that grow in the

area: Douglas-fir, Western Redcedar, Grand fir, and Arbutus (Meidinger and Pojar 1991:82). A

multitude of different species of fish and shellfish are present given the diversity of marine

microenvironments present on the island. Tables 4 and 5 present information on important fish

and shellfish species that are present in the midden.

Archaeology of the Dionisio Point Locality

The earliest excavations within the Dionisio Point archaeological locality were

undertaken by Mitchell (1971) at site DgRv-003. DgRv-003 consists of five large house

depressions located between sandstone bedrock bluffs, with a gravel beach-lined bay directly to

the north. Large-scale excavation was undertaken at site DgRv-006 by Colin Grier in 1997 and

1998, and these mark the most extensive excavations within the Dionisio Point locality to date

(Grier 2001, 2003). In 1997, Grier tested two house depressions (House 2 and House 5), while in

1998 about 40% of one house (House 2) was excavated (Grier 2001). Radiocarbon dates place

this house within the Marpole period (House 2: 1500-1300 cal BP). Grier described the five

houses at DgRv-003 as a winter village, based on the substantial architectural remains and

overall plan of the village (Grier 2001, 2006c). An additional layer representing Late Period

shellfish (mostly urchin) resource acquisition overlies the Marpole deposits. Grier’s excavations

tested the hypothesis that House 2 was internally separated into different socioeconomic

groupings, effectively showing that social differntiation was evident within large plankhouses of

this age (Grier 2001, 2006a, 2006c). Data from this site has been used to argue for household

transmission (Grier 2006c) and regional interactions (Grier 2006a). Dolan (2009) conducted

44

Tab

le 4

. F

ish

bio

logy i

nfo

rmati

on

on

sp

ecie

s p

res

ent

in t

he

Parr

y L

ag

oon

Mid

den

45

Table 5. Shellfish biology information on species present in the Parry Lagoon Midden

* All information from Ricketts et al. 1968

a geoarchaeological evaluation of sediments collected from Houses 2 and 5 in his MA thesis.

Additional research at the site was undertaken by Grier in 2002 as part of a UBC field school and

further unpublished excavations have occurred since 2008.

Zooarchaeological work completed since these initial analyses has called the seasonality

of the site into question. Ewonus (2011a,b), identifying 15,968 vertebrate remains from House 2,

concluded that due to a strong dominance of herring bone counts and an overall richness of taxa

present, that the site should be considered an aggregate village focused on seasonal herring

fishing. Additionally, aDNA was successfully obtained by Ewonus and colleagues (2011) which

indicated the presence of ten sockeye salmon and one pink salmon in a sample of the salmon

assemblage. Ewonus et al. (2011) argued that these salmon represent locally caught migrating

salmon that were available at Dionisio Point during summer. In response, Grier reiterated his

original interpretation, noting that the use of bone counts can be misleading when considering

mass caught fish with variable weights, such as herring and salmon. Alternatively, Grier and

Lukowski (2012) argue that salmon represents a larger proportion of the diet when considering

the actual meat that each fish represents. Ewonus (2012) in turn re-asserted his interpretation,

noting issues with the use of meat weight based analyses. Grier and colleagues (2013) further

support their stance by obtaining aDNA from a larger sample of salmon at the site (72 successful

46

extractions) finding a more diverse sample of salmon species, predominantly fall and winter

spawning salmon. They conclude that this diversity of salmon species supports a winter

occupation. Regional connections are inferred, as the diversity of salmon species is most likely

not obtainable locally (Grier 2003; Grier et al. 2013:10).

More important to the current study is site DgRv-006, a plankhouse and midden site

located to the east of DgRv-003 and directly west of Parry Lagoon (Figure 4). DgRv-006 was

first recorded as a shell midden in 1963 by provincial archaeologists Donald Abbott and John

Sendey (Grier and McLay 2007:14-15). In 1974, the site was mapped for the first time and

estimated to be 200 m by 30 m with a depth of 0.5 m (Grier and McLay 2007:15). In the late-

1980s, several instances of human burial recovery occurred. In 1987, a minimum of 11

individuals were recovered, one burial was excavated consisting of a young adult male buried in

sands covered by sandstone boulders (Grier and McLay 2007:15-16). In 1988 another burial was

excavated, a young adult female in a shallow pit (Grier and McLay 2007:16-18).

Re-survey of Dionisio Point Park occurred in 1991 and new dimensions of 200 m by 75

m were designated for DgRv-006 (Grier and McLay 2007:18). In 2002, a human cranium was

found eroding from the shoreline which led to four 1 x 1 m excavation units being placed in the

site to ensure collection of all remains (Grier and McLay 2007:19). During these excavations the

plankhouse was first noted as a depression measuring 60 m by 15 m (Grier and McLay 2007:20).

Summer 2010 excavations partially removed another eroding burial cairn (Figure 5). This area

would later be designated as Unit 13, and the remainder of this burial was removed in 2012.

Also in the summer of 2010, several dog burials in association with a child burial were removed

from the midden.

47

Additional work in 2010 and 2011 involved direct excavation within and around the

DgRv-006 plankhouse (Derr et al. 2012). Fourteen 1 x 1 m units were placed directly inside and

adjacent to the plankhouse, which was determined to have dimensions of 40 x 10 m (Derr et al.

2012). The plankhouse dates from 1000 to 700 cal BP, placing it firmly within the Late Period.

Figure 5. Unit 13 – eroding burial cairn.

From Grier, McLay, and Richards 2012.

In the summers of 2012 and 2013, salvage excavations were undertaken at the shell

midden component of site DgRv-006 in order to remove several human burials eroding out of the

side of the midden by undercutting waves (Figure 6) (Angelbeck and Grier 2012; Ruzicka 2013).

Faunal data from these excavations are analyzed in this study. The majority of the material

comes from excavations that took place in 2012. Nine 1 x 1 m units (Units 10-19) were placed

south to north along the eastern, water facing midden edge (Figures 7-10). An additional three

units, two 1 x 1 m and one 1 x 0.5 m, were placed directly north of the 2012 excavation units in

48

the summer of 2013, in order to remove another eroding burial and further stabilize the midden

bank (Figures 11 and 12).

Figure 6. Example of midden undercut during the 2013 excavations.

Figure 7. Excavation units 10-19. Photograph taken following excavation of these units (2012),

looking west from Parry Lagoon.

49

Figure 8. Parry Lagoon Midden before 2012 excavation - Southern portion

Parry Lagoon is to the photographer’s back.

Figure 9. Parry Lagoon Midden before 2012 excavation - Middle portion


50

Figure 10. Parry Lagoon Midden before 2012 excavation - Northern portion.


Figure 11. Parry Lagoon Midden after 2013 excavation. Image on right includes unit

designations.

51

Figure 12. Parry Lagoon Midden before 2013 excavation. Image on right includes unit

designations.

Initially the midden was assumed to date to the Late Period, consistent with the age of the

plankhouse to the north (Hopt and Grier 2013). However, radiocarbon dates (Table 3) indicate

that an earlier Marpole component is also contained within the midden. Based on these dates and

stratigraphic relationships within the midden, a hypothetical temporal line separating these two

components was designated (Hopt 2014; Marino and Hopt 2014).

There are several potential areas of natural bias present in the midden that could affect

cultural interpretations (Schiffer 1983). Most notably the midden is actively being eroded by

intense winter storms, indicating a general loss of archaeological material, but likely leaving

uneroded material in primary context. Root casts, and both active rodent burrows and krotovina

are present throughout the midden. This indicates some movement of material has occurred, but

they are not significant enough to consider disturbance as extensive, as stratigraphic boundaries

can still be deciphered. Additionally, given the broad context of temporal and depositional

distinctions, a low level of disturbance will not affect the results of this study.

52

CHAPTER FIVE

QUANTIFYING A MIDDEN

In this chapter I discuss excavation methods used during data recovery and provide a detailed

evaluation of the quantification techniques used for characterizing the PLM. The explanation of

quantification techniques is the main goal of this chapter, as there is a multitude of different

ways to quantify zooarchaeological data. There is no “one size fits all” method, and specialized

techniques are often developed to address a specific issue. For example, Binford (1978, 1984:50-

51) developed two quantitative techniques, minimum number of elements (MNE) and minimal

animal units (MAU), to evaluate skeletal part frequencies. However, these techniques are not

necessarily appropriate for addressing other areas of interest, such as taxonomic abundance or

assemblage diversity. The primary goal of this thesis is to address relative taxonomic diversity

over time, which requires the interplay of four quantitative methods: number of identified

specimens (NISP), minimum number of individuals (MNI), meat weights, and ubiquity. These

are described below.

Faunal Analysis Procedure

Excavated sediment was dry screened through 1/8” (3.2 mm) screen in the field. All

faunal material identified by the field crew was placed in bags by unit and level. Additional

sediment matrix samples (unscreened bulk soil samples) were taken, judgmentally, from areas of

the midden.

Unit faunal material was taken to the zooarchaeological lab at Washington State

University and the material was “rough sorted” into nine categories by unit and level: salmon

53

vertebrae, herring vertebrae, dogfish vertebrae, “other fish” vertebrae, fish elements (rays,

spines, cranial elements, etc.), bird, terrestrial mammal, and sea mammal. All vertebrate fauna

material was initially processed in this manner.

All remains were further identified with the aid of a 10x hand lens. The faunal collection

at Washington State University and several manuals (Brown and Gustafson 1990; Gilbert 1990;

Gilbert et al 1996; Olsen 1964; Post 2004, 2012; Schmid 1972) were used for identification of

the terrestrial mammal, sea mammal, and bird collections. Fish identification aid was obtained

from multiple sources including the Washington State University faunal collection, the Virtual

Zooarchaeology of the Arctic Project (Betts et al 2011: http://vzap.iri.isu.edu/), Cannon’s (1987)

marine fish manual, the Portland State University faunal collection (photographs were taken of

relevant fish elements, courtesy of Virginia Butler), as well as a digital photo archive created by

the author. Faunal identification data is provided in Appendices A-J.

Species level of identification was attempted for all terrestrial mammal specimens, sea

mammal specimens, bird specimens, and fish vertebrae. Salmon vertebrae were identified to

genus (Oncorhynchus spp.) rather than species. Species level of identification for salmon

requires additional analyses that were not attempted, such as aDNA or osteometric analysis

(Cannon and Yang 2006; Grier et al. 2013; Huber et al. 2011; Orchard and Szpak 2011).

Terrestrial mammal and bird elements taxonomically unidentifiable were given a size class

designation (small, medium, large), with deer and duck being considered the medium category

within their respective categories (following Ewonus 2011a,b). All other fish elements (cranial

elements, rays, spines, and fin elements) were only identified into these broad categories. Further

identification of fish cranial elements was not attempted for three reasons: First, the lack of a

54

comprehensive comparative fish collection, paired with author inexperience, could have caused

varying degrees of identification (Lyman 2002). Second, different species contain different

amounts of elements within the skull. Identification of all remains could bias representation of

fishes that naturally contain more elements. Lastly, the density of specific elements and their

likelihood of preservation are related, thus, the identification of elements with different densities

could potentially introduce biases related to deferential preservation. Several studies have

demonstrated that element density varies between fish species and within an individual fish

(Butler and Chatters 1994, Smith 2008, Smith et al. 2011). Although few studies on bone density

for Pacific Northwest fish have been attempted (only salmon, Pacific cod, and halibut), vertebral

elements are consistently among the densest elements (Smith 2008:46-73). An identification

focus on vertebral elements should help mitigate the role that taphonomic factors play on

specimen representation. Without quantitative knowledge of the role of bone density in other

fishes, the inclusion of potentially less dense cranial elements could introduce an unknown

amount of bias into the specimen counts. Additionally, identifying differential element

representation is not a goal of this analysis, thus, identification of every element is not

specifically needed.

Shellfish remains were collected from seven two-liter bulk sediment samples.

Identification of shellfish remains was accomplished with the use of a comparative collection at

Washington State University. Sea urchin remains were not quantified, but were abundant in each

matrix sample.

55

Quantification of Remains

Multiple quantification methods were utilized to properly analyze the faunal remains.

Different techniques were required, as each method of quantification contains potentially

problematic issues associated with its application, especially with the analysis of fish bones.

These quantification techniques are detailed below in an effort to highlight their strengths and

weaknesses, and their specific application in this study.

NISP

Considered “the most fundamental unit by which faunal remains are tallied” (Lyman

2008: 27), Number of Identified Specimens (NISP), involves simply counting every skeletal

specimen and fragments of elements that have been identified to the order, family, genus, or

species level (Lyman 2008:27). Relative proportions (%NISP) are often utilized, allowing a

comparison of contexts with different sample sizes. A more general categorization, Number of

Specimens (NSP), is also used here to express broader element identifications, such as

“terrestrial mammal” or “fish vertebrae.”

The main advantage of NISP is its ease of quantification; simply identify remains and

tally the numbers. Additionally, NISP counts can be considered an observed value rather than a

derived one, and thus counts are not affected by choices made by the analyst (Lyman 2008:28).

Disadvantages of the use of NISP counts have been well described and an exhaustive list can be

found in Lyman (2008: 29-30). Here, it is beneficial to highlight one of these issues specifically;

NISP is a poor measure of diet (Lyman 2008:30). Because NISP is a “counts only” measure,

smaller, mass-caught animals (e.g., herring) are often given an increased importance in the diet

in comparison to taxa that are obtained in fewer numbers, but contribute more weight per animal

56

(e.g., salmon). Thus, NISP counts may be dominated by the smaller individuals, however, these

smaller individuals are not contributing as much dietary sustenance as the less represented taxa.

Because of this, the strict use of NISP can cause erroneous interpretations when used as a

measure of diet and as a measure of overall taxa importance (Grier and Lukowski 2012; Monks

and Orchard 2011). To deal with this issue, meat weights are taken into account with a specific

meat weight analysis that is explained below.

Dogfish NISP counts deserve a special mention. Dogfish vertebral elements take an hour-

glass type form that are mostly found broken in half in archaeological assemblages. In order to

maintain consistency in NISP counts, half vertebrae were considered one “NISP.” Thus, each full

vertebrae is considered two “NISP.” This highlights another issue with NISP; interdependence of

specimens. With NISP the same individual can be counted multiple times. Thus, one individual

animal will be counted an unknown number of times. This can be problematic when using NISP

as a measure of abundance, as bone densities and amount of elements can vary between species.

This is particularly problematic with fish remains (Wheeler and Jones 1989:152). Because of this

issue of interdependence, NISP data presents a theoretical maximum and can be considered

ordinal scale data (Lyman 2008:71-78).

NISP will be used in this study as the primary view of taxa abundance within the PLM.

NISP presents the only non-derived, directly observable measure available to faunal analysis,

and can be considered a maximum value. The main issues with NISP involve the

interdependence of the data generated and the treatment of all taxa as equally weighted. These

issues are solved by the use of additional quantification methods, explained below.

57

MNI

Standing for “Minimum Number of Individuals,” MNI can be defined as the most

commonly occurring, non-repetitive element of a specific taxon (Lyman 2008:38), although

there are many other definitions (Lyman 2008:40). Because these specific elements are non-

repeating, this gives the minimum individuals required to account for an assemblage. To

calculate MNI for terrestrial mammals and bird, I counted the most commonly occurring, non-

repetitive, left or right element. For fish, of which only vertebral elements have been identified, a

technique developed by White (1953) and expanded on by Casteel (1976a) is utilized.

Calculation consists of taking the identified vertebrae in a context and dividing by the average

number of vertebrae in the specific fish (presented in Table 6). Although not the only way to

calculate fish MNIs, it does offer us the quickest way when cranial elements are not identified

(for a different technique see Orchard 2005). This MNI technique presents us with fairly

conservative estimates for numbers of individuals, as it takes a full set of vertebrae to equal one

individual. Because of this, fish species with large NISP counts (representing more than one

individual) will be underrepresented more so than fish species with smaller (less than a complete

vertebrae column) NISPs.

Shellfish quantification is in MNI form rather than shell weights given the small amount

of sediment analyzed (see Mason et al. 1998 for a larger breakdown of this issue; also see

Claasen 2000). Shellfish MNIs were calculated by dividing NISP counts of hinge fragments by

two for clams, while barnacle, chiton, whelk and limpet MNI values are the same as their NISP.

58

Tab

le 6

. V

erte

bra

e n

um

ber

s an

d f

ish

wei

gh

ts f

or

spec

ies

pre

sen

t in

th

e P

arr

y L

ag

oon

Mid

den

59

The use of MNI does have disadvantages; Lyman (2008:45-46) identified seven specific

issues, three of which deserve special attention. First, MNI can be derived by many different

methods, thus comparability between studies can be problematic. This becomes a less of an issue

if researchers are clear about how MNIs are calculated, and make the raw data easily accessible.

The second major issue with the use of MNI is that they often exaggerate rarer taxa. For

example, a taxon with an NISP count of “1” may have the same MNI as a taxon with a much

higher NISP count. This is especially an issue with the fish vertebrae calculation presented

above. The last issue is that MNI counts change based on how contexts are aggregated. Do we

count everything in the excavation level as a context and determine MNI based on each

excavation level? Is so, this MNI will differ from an MNI calculated with a site-wide aggregation

of faunal remains. Because of these issues, MNI is best considered an ordinal scale measure

(Lyman 2008:71). An additional fragmentation issue not covered by Lyman (2008) is also

important to note. While NISP counts will over represent fragmented taxa, MNI does the exact

opposite. As noted by Marshall and Pilgrim (1993), extremely fragmented assemblages will

under represent individuals due to issues with taxonomic identification.

Although these issues are problematic, MNI remains a useful measure and overcomes

some of the issues present in NISP counts. In particular, it allows a measure of relative

abundance that is more intuitive (actual animals) and more comparable across species

(McKechnie 2012:159). In conjunction with other methods, MNI offers another useful way to

frame the data. In this study MNI will be used as an alternative measure of taxa abundance. In

comparison to the maximum value provided by NISP, MNI is a minimum value for taxa

representation. The primary issue with MNI in this study is how fish MNI calculations will under

60

represent taxa with large NISPs relative to taxa with small NISP values. Additionally, similar to

NISP, MNI does not take weight of taxa into account.

Meat Weights

NISP and MNI are the two most widely used methods for quantifying faunal data from

archaeological sites. However, both NISP and MNI are not well suited for dealing with

assemblages that contain fauna that vary in size. This is particularly problematic in an

assemblage dominated by fish. Both NISP and MNI do not take weight into consideration, thus

one small fish, like a herring, is given the same dietary importance as one large fish, like a

salmon or a halibut. However one herring on average weighs 156 g, while one coho salmon on

average weighs 4050 g, and one halibut on average weighs 6000 g (Haist and Stocker 1985:140,

Hart 1973:116, Olsen et al. 2009). Because of these wide differences, NISP and MNI do not

completely capture the actual realities of what a taxon contributed to diet. Given this issue, meat

weights will be used in this analysis. Being a derived measure based on MNI, meat weight

calculations suffer from the same issues as MNI, and, since it moves beyond MNI, additional

issues arise depending on the specific technique used. However, it does present us with a way to

account for differently sized animals.

In this study, meat weights will be calculated on fish vertebrae. I will only be using fish

weights on select fish species where reliable averages are available, specifically herring, salmon,

dogfish, codfish, and flatfish. The specific technique follows Monks and Orchard (2011) and

Grier and Lukowski (2012). Earlier studies by Guthrie (1968) and White (1953) present a similar

approach. This technique involves calculating the MNI by taking the NISP counts from a context

in the midden and dividing by the vertebrae found in one specimen (this is the same as MNI

61

above). This MNI is then multiplied by the average adult weight of the fish type, which gives us

the relative amount of fish weight.

Average fish weights were obtained from published sources and are presented Table 6.

Salmon weights deserve explanation. Average weights of salmon were calculated from an

average of three species: Pink, Chum, and Sockeye. These three species made up 91% of salmon

remains identified with aDNA by Grier et al. (2013) for site DgRv-003. Given the proximity of

both sites, as well as temporal overlap, it is reasonable to assume similarities in salmon species

for DgRv-006.

Meat weight calculations were calculated by species when applicable, but also by genus

and family when species level of identification could not be established. These weights are then

standardized to the salmon weight, which is done by dividing each total weight category by the

total weight of salmon. This is done to provide a simple way to compare relative importance of

these taxa, as anything greater than “1” would show that taxon as contributing more meat weight

than salmon, thus illuminating the contribution of salmon relative to other species (see Grier and

Lukowski 2012).

Salient critiques of this style of meat weight calculation have emerged (Cannon and Yang

2011; Ewonus 2012). One major issue with this technique is variability of fish weight. The use of

average weights for fish does not take into account sources of variability that will be present in

the archaeological fish such as age, sex, health status, historical differences, and even simple

individual difference. Thus, exact biomass for the midden population cannot be achieved with

this method. However, my interest is not in obtaining an exact population biomass but rather in

62

ascertaining the relative importance of each taxa, so that we can better understand human

behavior as it pertains to temporal components found in the midden.

It is impossible that any quantification method utilized will be able to correctly identify

exact numbers of individuals or grams of meat consumed by a population. However, by using

many different approaches, we can address and potentially correct issues that each technique has.

Using this multi-technique approach, we should be able to identify when specific techniques are

under or overestimating taxa importance. Meat weight analyses that involve several assumptions

should not be used as the sole basis for an argument. But, it can be used as one way to

demonstrate how dominant NISP or MNI values for any species may not actually result in

dietary dominance. Although presented in more quantitative terms, the use of meat weight can

be considered an ordinal measure. More accurate fish weights would be derived through the use

of regression formulae (see Casteel 1974, 1976; Orchard 2001), but that level of data resolution

is not the objective here, nor is it necessary to understand the major patterns in the assemblages.

Ubiquity

Another way to measure a taxon’s abundance is by using the measure of ubiquity and

percent ubiquity. Ubiquity describes the presence/absence of a taxon across archaeological

contexts, while percent ubiquity is simply the proportion of these contexts that contain the taxon

expressed as a percent. For example, if there are 10 different contexts, such as arbitrary 10 cm

excavation levels, and salmon were found in 8 of these 10 contexts we would have a ubiquity of

8 and a percent ubiquity of 80%. Exact numbers of specific taxa are not taken into account with

this approach. Ubiquity is noted as being useful for fish remains, given the issues of differential

element representation and bone density (Wheeler and Jones 1989:152). Additionally, it is useful

63

to address abundance of taxa when an assemblage contains large amounts of smaller fauna that

may not be contributing as much to the overall diet as the counts would suggest. Here, ubiquity

will be calculated using arbitrary excavation levels and features (120 different contexts total).

The use of ubiquity in this study will mainly address the spread and dispersion of taxa within the

midden, with the baseline expectation that the most abundant taxa should also appear in the most

contexts. Deviation from this pattern could be indicating an increased abundance of taxa from

what NISP values express.

Diversity

The concept of diversity and how it is measured deserves discussion to better

contextualize how the previous measures will be utilized to address the issue of diversity, which

is central to the very discussion of changing temporal faunal trends in this study. I utilize the

term “diversity” in the same way that others have used the term “heterogeniety” (Lyman

2008:176). Here, diversity refers to the “structure and composition” of a faunal data set,

incorporating both assemblage richness and assemblage evenness (Lyman 2008:174-178).

Richness involves the number of different types of taxa within an assemblage (NTAXA).

Evenness is a measure of the proportions across taxa, where the more similar the proportions the

more “even” an assemblage. For example, if an assemblage consists of two taxa, both equaling

50% of the assemblage, this would be an “even” assemblage. In comparison if one taxon made

up 98% of the assemblage, this would be considered an “uneven” assemblage.

Diversity studies often consider both of these measures together with the use of simple

mathematical indices, the Shannon-Wiener index being the most common (Lyman 2008:192).

These indices are useful for an evaluation of multiple different assemblages at once, however,

64

given the smaller scope of this study I prefer to evaluate diversity by looking at richness and

evenness separately. This allows for a more in-depth evaluation of each component and their

influences on the expression of diversity. Richness will be evaluated simply by tallying the

amount of taxa identified in each assemblage. Evenness will be evaluated by the comparison of

taxa NISP, MNI, and meat weight proportions.

A combination of four different quantification methods, NISP, MNI, meat weights, and

ubiquity, will be utilized in this study. This multi-technique approach facilitates a better

understanding of faunal importance by presenting multiple lines of evidence: counts, individuals,

weights, and range of spatial location. Additionally, this allows an exploration of the data that

mitigates the downfalls of any single technique. With methodology and quantification techniques

sufficiently covered, I now turn to an exploration of the PLM’s temporal and depositional

stratigraphy.

65

CHAPTER SIX

TEMPORAL AND DEPOSITIONAL BREAKDOWN OF MIDDEN CONTEXTS

The PLM is a complex depositional environment consisting of multiple depositional episodes of

variable material. In this chapter, I divide the midden into two kinds of units: 1.) those that

reflect differences in deposition, and 2.) those that reflect deposition over time (aka

chronostratigraphy). These divisions are based on stratigraphic observations and the results of

radiocarbon dating (presented by excavation level in Appendix K). I then undertake exploratory

data analysis, in the form of correspondence analysis, on the faunal composition of the

depositional units (DU) in order to identify patterning in faunal representation across the midden.

I posit that support for changing depositional uses in the midden will be established if there are

distinct differences in faunal deposition that are consistent with the stratigraphic divisions.

Temporal depositional trends are explored in chapter seven. Overall the midden contains a

three-strata pattern common in sites in the region: A: topsoil (historic disturbance), B: midden

material, C: sterile beach sands (Stein 1992: 79). The temporal and depositional stratigraphic

units differences are all contained within the B strata.

Radiocarbon Dates and Stratigraphy

Nine radiocarbon dates have been obtained for the PLM (Table 3), revealing a fairly long

time range for the use of this midden. Seven date to the Marpole Period and overlap with the

occupation of the adjacent (150 m away) Marpole village, DgRv-003, providing evidence for use

of this midden by these occupants. Two dates post-date the abandonment of the village providing

evidence for continued use of the midden into the Late Period.

66

Figure 13 presents the radiocarbon dates with their spatial locations within the midden.

Pairing these with stratigraphic differences evident through changing proportions of shell and

sediments differences there appear to be four depositional areas (Figure 14) and four temporal

areas (Figure 15).

Depositional Unit 1: Mound

Depositional Unit 1 (DU-1) consists of the lowest portion of the midden. This area

includes underlying basal sands and a mound of shell that extends through units 15, 16, and 17

(see Figure 7). Five burials are located within this portion of the midden (Table 7), with four of

them located within or directly on top of the basal sands (BR-2, BR-5, BR-7, and BR-8). Dates

from this portion of the midden (2012-16b, 2012-17a, 2012-21, 2012-24) place it as the earliest

area of use, meeting expectations of the law of superposition. Maximum date range is 1400-1730

cal BP. Using just charcoal dates, this section of the midden dates to 1556-1730 cal BP.

Depositionally, it appears that a prepared burial surface on a sandy beach environment may have

been the original deposition, as a prepared floor surface was found, with the earliest burials both

placed on top of and dug into this surface. It then appears that additional shell deposits were

placed on top. These burials are currently being analyzed and will be described fully in a

subsequent publication.

Depositional Unit 2: Marpole Deposits

Depositional Unit 2 (DU-2) sits directly on top of DU-1 and is bounded on top by

Depositional Areas 3 and 4. DU-2 is characterized as a deposit containing less shell material than

all other depositional areas. This area is interspersed with some sandy matrix material (Figure

16-17). One burial has been identified as a pit burial dug into the DU-2 matrix later in the

67

occupation (BR-3). Dated to the Marpole period by two dates (2012-2a, 2012-23) the maximum

date range for this portion of the midden is 1356-1756 cal BP. Utilizing just the charcoal date,

DU-2 contains a date range of 1356-1524 cal BP, a range later than DU-1. This area is

tentatively identified as either a continuation of the potential mounding event seen in DU-1, or,

as additional material that had been placed on top of the mound.

Depositional Unit 3: Later Deposits

Depositional Unit 3 (DU-3) is located directly on top of DU-2. This area is defined in the

southern portion by an increase in shell. The northern portion slopes down in elevation into the

depression for the Late Period plankhouse. This portion of the midden is represented by two

radiocarbon dates, both post-dating the abandonment of the Marpole village (PLM2013-1a and

Grier et al. 2012). Three burials were found in this portion of the midden, including the

aforementioned BR-1 (Figure 5). The individual in this burial was dated to 520-652 cal BP.

Similar to DU-2, the burials rest in pits that were dug into the matrix. Also evident in this portion

of the midden is an historic trash pit and a large rotting cedar tree cast indicating some natural

and cultural disturbance. Depositionally, this area is identified as continued dumping episodes,

this time associated with a later time frame.

Depositional Unit 4: Shell Dump

Depositional Unit (DU-4) consists of a large heap of shell-rich material at the very

highest crest of the midden. The one radiocarbon date places this material in the Marpole period,

overlapping with the occupation of DgRv-003 (2012-3; 1294-1532 cal BP). Depositionally, it

appears to be one large dump of mostly shell material. It is possible that this was one large heap

68

of material placed in the Marpole time period, or it could possibly represent material moved from

the construction of the Late Period plankhouse (and thus in secondary context).

Temporal Area 1: Dated Marpole

Temporal area 1 (TA-1) includes all areas of the midden that can be firmly dated to the

Marpole period. These are areas of the midden that include a Marpole date or are directly below

a Marpole date. The one exception to this rule is the inclusion of the shell dump (DU- 4). This is

included because it is believed to be one large depositional episode. Stratigraphic differences

were not given as much importance in this temporal categorization – the main goal here was to

gather the areas that could be directly dated to this time period. Included in this temporal

distinction are portions of DU-1 and DU-2.

Temporal Area 2: Inferred Marpole

Whereas TA-1 did not reflect stratigraphic delineations, Temporal Area 2 (TA-2)

conforms with them completely. Stratigraphic differences that were identified in DU-2 were used

here to set the upper boundary for the Marpole period deposits. DU-2 was dated to the Marpole

Period based on dates present within the stratum. This time period includes all areas of DU-1 and

DU-2 that were not already covered in TA-1. Together TA-1 and 2 make up the Marpole

assemblage of the PLM.

Temporal Area 3: Dated Late

Similar to TA-1, Temporal Area 3 (TA-3) includes excavation levels that correlate with

dated Late Period deposits. This includes one burial, BR-1, which is in a well-delineated pit. The

other well-dated context comes from a charcoal date located in Unit 20, Level B2 (30 cm below

69

Fig

ure

13

a. R

adio

carb

on d

ate

loca

tions

on t

he

mid

den

– 2

012 e

xca

vat

ions.

Dat

es a

re i

n c

al B

P. L

ate

Per

iod d

ates

are

in

blu

e, M

arpole

dat

es i

n r

ed. C

orr

espondin

g T

able

3 I

D l

ette

r is

loca

ted b

elo

w d

ates

. .

70

Figure 13b. Radiocarbon date location on midden - 2013 excavations

Late Period date is in cal BP. Corresponding Table 3 ID letter is

located below date.

Figure 14a. Deposition units of the midden - 2012 excavations

Figure 14b. Depositional units of the midden - 2013

excavations

71

Figure 15a. Temporal areas of the midden – 2012 excavations. TA-1 and TA-2 combine to make

up the Marpole portion. Red line designates the temporal distinction from Marpole and Late

Period.

Figure 15b. Temporal areas of the Midden - 2013 excavation

Table 7. Parry Lagoon Midden burials and burial location

72

Figure 16. Stratigraphy view 1

Figure 17. Stratigraphy view 2

the surface). This date contains a two sigma range of 1072-1262 cal BP, dating this area after the

abandonment of the Marpole village.

73

Temporal Area 4: Inferred Late

Startigraphic differences that led to the categorization of DU-3 were used here to

distinguish the remaining late deposits. Combining TA-3 and 4 creates the Late Period

assemblage.

Correspondence Analysis: Depositional Units

With both temporal and depositional categories for the midden now established, a

preliminary analysis of the depositional midden contexts is presented. Temporal units (Marpole

and Late Period) are examined in more detail in the following chapter. Correspondence Analysis

(CA) is used in an exploratory analysis of the depositional areas of the midden. CA is a chi-

squared based, multivariate statistical technique that is well-suited for use on count data, like the

faunal data collected here. It is also usable with data transformations and percentage-based data

(Baxter 1994:100; Shennan 1997:308-310). Multivariate analyses, like CA, use a large data set

with several variables to create new variables (known in CA as dimensions) that are able to

explain variation in several of the original variables (Shennan 1997:266-267). These new

dimensions can then be displayed on bipoint graph(s) as the x and y axes, while assemblages and

variables are plotted as points. This allows a comparison of similarity in assemblages, with

assemblages located closer together on the graph being more similar than assemblages further

away. Additionally, the location of variables on the biplot informs which specific taxa are

driving the position of the assemblages (Shennan 1997:268).

Correspondence Analysis specifically utilizes the chi-squared (χ2) contingency table

statistic (χ2 = ∑ (O-E)

2/E; where O=observed values and E [the expected] = Row total x Column

74

total / Overall total) as a means to measure difference (Baxter 1994:112-114). The CA starts by

creating a general profile for each row and column by dividing by the sum of each. The CA then

calculates the chi-squared distances between the different rows and columns (Baxter 1994:110-

112). This calculation works to largely eliminate sample size differences since the chi-squared

statistic works on an expected value that is an average of all of the row/column data points

(Baxter 1994:112). These chi-squared values are then weighted together to create a two-

dimensional (or more) plot that accounts for as much variability in the data set as possible for

both the row and column data (Baxter 1994:112).

Similar multivariate analyses (Multi-Dimensional Scaling, Principal Components

Analysis) have been successfully used in coastal research (e.g., Clark 2013; Bilton 2013; Matson

1989), and specifically on faunal data (Orchard and Clark 2005). CA has been used with faunal

data in arctic Canada (Betts and Friesen 2004). The main goal of this preliminary analysis is to

evaluate the depositional designations, with the hypothesis being that if these are real differences

between deposition units, this should be expressed in the biplots.

The log of Fish NISP counts are used for input in the CA, given the general abundance of

fish remains in comparison to all other remains. Given the noted issues with the possibility of

herring NISP dominance (a lot of herring does not equal a lot of food) a logarithmic transform

(base 10) will be used in order to ensure that herring counts are not simply shaping each result.

Logarithms are useful because they lower the absolute differences between values, without

eliminating the relative difference between them. Although CA deals with sample size issues

fairly well, sample size can still influence results. In order to evaluate this, a CA on row

percentage and column percentage data was also completed. Patterns from these analyses match

75

the pattern for the log CA presented below, and thus, a conclusion of actual patterning can be

reached. Raw data for all CA analyses are presented in Appendix L. Several excavation units are

removed from this analysis due to the absence of precise spatial locations (wall cleaning and

profile cleaning material). These units are denoted in Appendix K.

CA log input values are presented in Table 8 with the biplot result presented in Figure 18.

The first dimension covers 80.2% of variance and the second dimension covered an additional

17.6%. This indicates that two dimensions account for most of the variance in the data (97.8%

covered). Dimension 1 finds that assemblages that plot high contain a larger proportion of

salmon remains, whereas assemblages that score low are characterized by a larger proportion of

herring. This dimension largely separates DU-1 and DU-4, with DU-1 containing a greater

amount of salmon remains, while DU-4 contains more herring. DU-2 and 3 are located near the

origin of this dimension, with DU-3 slightly leaning more towards the salmon end of the

spectrum, suggesting they are not explained by the variability of Dimension 1.

Table 8. Input values for depositional unit correspondence analysis

* Exact count numbers presented first, Log base 10 values presented after

Dimension 2 situates herring and “other fish” as positive values, while dogfish-rich

assemblages have negative values. DU-2 and 3 are again clustered, this time with the amount of

dogfish the common attribute. DU-4 plots close to herring and “other fish”, indicating the

76

importance of these taxa to the assemblage. DU-1 plots highest indicating that herring and “other

fish” are also important to this assemblage.

Taking both dimensions into consideration the four assemblages can be seen as falling

into three groups. DU-1 and DU-4 can be considered their own respective patterns, which

support the distinctions that were made with stratigraphic differences. DU-2 and 3 cluster

together in both dimensions, indicating a general similarity between the two. This stands in

contrast to the stratigraphic difference, and indicates perhaps a similar depositional use for these

two areas despite their difference in time. Given that DU-1 may be a special burial environment,

DU-2 and 3 may represent a shift to more conventional depositional practices. These three

different deposition patterns are supported by traditional chi-squared analyses presented in Table

9. DU-1 and DU-4 are significantly different from all other depositional environments (p-value <

0.001). The comparison of DU-2 and DU-3 failed to reject the null hypothesis of no difference

(p-value = 0.109), indicating a similar depositional pattern.

Overall this analysis provides a useful exploration of the midden depositional contexts

and illuminates the differences and similarities between them. For example, the separation of

DU-1 and DU-2 in the CA plot indicates a depositional shift and reflects the differentiation of the

two areas established by stratigraphy. Interestingly, this also indicates that deposition does

change within the same time period (Marpole). In comparison, the clustering of the faunal

compositions of DU-2 and DU-3 indicates that the stratigraphic boundary denoted here does not

indicate a significant depositional shift. This indicates, in terms of fish material, temporal change

is not always associated with changes in deposition.

77

Figure 18. Depositional unit correspondence analysis biplot.

Table 9. Chi-Squared analysis on depositional units

* Null hypothesis states that there is no difference between the two compared. Significance is

established at an α of 0.05. Null hypothesis is only rejected for the comparison of DU-2 and 3

In sum, this analysis has utilized both stratigraphic realities and radiocarbon dates to

establish specific temporal and depositional areas of the PLM. Depositional units were presented

first with four specific areas noted: DU-1: Mound, DU-2: Marpole Deposits, DU-3: Late

78

Deposits, and DU-4: Shell Dump. Utilizing these findings, four temporal areas were then

presented: TA-1: Dated Marpole, TA-2: Inferred Marple, TA-3: Dated Late, and TA-4: Inferred

Late. TA-1 and TA-2 are combined to make up the overall Marpole assemblage, while TA-3 and

TA-4 combined make up the Late Period assemblage. These will be presented and evaluated in

the following chapter.

Following this, a correspondence analysis was utilized to preliminarily evaluate

depositional contexts. The hypothesis for this analysis was that if midden depositional practices

actually shifted in this manner, than this would be reflected taxonomically along the stratigraphic

boundaries. Results from the CA found that DU-1 and DU-4 are both distinct areas, while DU-2

and DU-3 appear taxonomically similar. This strengthens the idea that DU-1 may be a distinct

burial and mound event (or series of events), with a shift to a more temporally constant

deposition behavior.

With temporal midden distinctions established, this study now turns to the bulk of the

analysis. Both Marpole and Late Period assemblages are evaluated below, with coverage of all

faunal remains presented for each temporal period. Each assemblage coverage will be followed

by an explanation of environmental and behavioral patterns that are evident, given the taxonomic

compositions. This is followed with the main goal of this thesis, a comparison of the temporal

assemblages and how they relate to the larger regional patterns covered in chapter two. These

regional, linear, complexity patterns state that salmon specialization is expected to be present in

the Marpole assemblage, with a diversification of fishing practices emerging in the Late Period.

79

CHAPTER SEVEN

TEMPORAL COMPARISON

Using the temporal distinctions established in the last chapter, a comparison of the Marpole and

Late Period faunal remains can now be made. Amounts and proportions of faunal material from

the overall midden assemblage (regardless of time) will be presented first. Temporal assemblage

analysis will follow, with direct comparison of the two presented at the end of the chapter. This

comparison is driven by the null hypothesis (of no expected difference) outlined in Chapter one.

Drawing on linear complexity models, the Marpole assemblage is expected to contain a

specialization of salmon, while a diversification of fish is expected in the Late Period. But if

there is no difference we reject these expectations. Consequently, deviations from this model

would suggest that reevaluation on the interconnection of subsistence and social change is

needed, as has been argued in recent Northwest Coast literature (Grier 2014; Moss 2011, 2012).

Analysis of the entire midden includes all excavated material, while the temporal

comparison leaves out some excavation contexts. These contexts mainly consist of profile/wall

cleaning material, and are noted in Appendix K. Additionally, three arbitrary excavation levels

(13B3, 13B4, 19B3) are split by the line separating the Marpole from the Late Period deposits.

The majority of each level was located within the Marpole section. The entire level will therefore

be considered Marpole. Analysis excluding these levels does not change the overall results, thus,

there is no reason to completely exclude them from the analysis.

80

Full Midden Assemblage Summary

The PLM assemblage consists of 19,709 individual faunal specimens from 9,546.75 liters

of sediment. Of these, 18,312 (92.9%) have been identified to the broad NSP categories of fish

vertebrae, terrestrial mammal, sea mammal, or bird, while 1,397 elements remain unidentified

even to these categories (Figure 19). Of the NSP remains 13,031 (71%) were identified to order,

family, genus, species, or size class (these are considered the NISP remains; Figure 20). Varying

amounts of the NSP were identified: 96% of fish vertebral elements, 69% of terrestrial mammal,

95% of sea mammal, and 49.6% of bird remains were successfully identified to minimally

taxonomic order. A large portion of the unidentified remains (n=5,281) consisted of fish cranial

elements, fin/tail elements, and rays/spines (n=3,946; 74.7% of the unidentified remains).

Another large portion consisted of fragmented terrestrial mammal bones (14.7% of the

unidentified remains). Fish vertebral specimens greatly dominate the assemblage, making up

63% of the NSP and 85% of the NISP.

Figure 19. Parry Lagoon Midden overall counts %NSP. Category, Count,

Proportion. NSP = 18, 312. An additional 1,397 specimens were unidentifiable.

81

Figure 20. Parry Lagoon Midden overall counts %NISP. Category, Count,

Proportion. NISP = 13,301.

Fish Vertebrae

Of the 11,544 specimens identified as fish vertebrae, 96% (11,117) are identified to the

family, genus, or species level. Count data for NISP and MNI is presented in Table 10. Eighteen

different species and two genera from 12 different families are found in the PLM. Herring is the

most abundant, making up 73.27% of all identified remains. This matches a larger regional

pattern (McKechnie et al. 2014). Dogfish and salmon also make up a considerable amount of the

assemblage with 12.67% and 8.23% of all remains identified. Lastly, all other fish pooled

together make up 5.84% of the assemblage.

A category that includes of all non-herring/dogfish/salmon is useful analytically. This

category represents individually caught fish and reflects a different human behavior, in

comparison to the mass catch fishing of herring and salmon, and to some extent dogfish, which

82

are likely caught while feeding on schooling fish such as smelts and/or herring. Dogfish were

also an important source of non-food materials in ethnographic times, as sand paper and oil,

which would indicate that they should be given their own taxonomic category (Suttles 1974:130-

131).

Table 10. NISP, MNI, and Ubiquity for fish vertebrae - overall Parry Lagoon Midden

MNI values reveal an increased representation of the combined “other fish” category in

comparison to their NISP value, moving from fourth to second in rank order of abundance

83

(Figure 21). It is only when combined that these other fish species become numerically

important, as no individual species of “other fish” approach more than 4% of the accumulated

MNI, and most contain an MNI of 1. This would suggest that none of these fish individually

were important to the diet, but does suggest that behaviorally, mass-catch fishing is not the only

important fishing technique. Other important shifts in the rank order from the NISP counts

indicate an increased frequency for salmon and rockfish, while dogfish decrease in frequency.

Ubiquity percentages are presented in Table 10. The relative proportions of NISP are

generally reflected in the rank order of percent ubiquity, the more abundant species are also

found within more of the contexts. One important difference is the high ubiquity of salmon,

dogfish, and rockfish, which are in more contexts than their NISP values would suggest.

Figure 21. %MNI for overall Parry Lagoon Midden assemblage. Exact MNI

is presented on top of each respective bar.

Meat weights were also calculated for six families: Clupeidae (herring), Salmonidae

(salmon), Squalidae (dogfish), Scorpaenidae (rockfish), Gadidae (cods), and Pleuronectidae

(flatfish) (Table 11). This meat weight analysis reveals a very different rank of these taxa then

84

NISP, MNI, or ubiquity. Most interesting is that herring, the most frequent taxon in both NISP

and MNI, actually appears less abundant in comparison to both dogfish and salmon. Although

several assumptions are being made here by using average weights, this meat weight analysis

shows how a high NISP (approaching 80%) does not necessarily indicate a high dietary

contribution, and thus, fish with a smaller proportion of NISP can still be considered important to

the overall pattern.

Table 11. Meat weight analysis - overall Parry Lagoon Midden

Terrestrial Mammal

A total of 2,523 specimens (NSP) have been identified as terrestrial mammal with 1,746

identified to genera/species or size class (NISP). Important to note is that 31% of the NSP

remains were unidentifiable (777 specimens). These unidentifiable pieces are primarily

fragmented long bone shafts, potentially the result of bone tool manufacturing (Hodgetts and

Rahemtulla 2001).

NISP and MNI counts of all identified mammal remains are presented in Table 12. A

majority of the remains are canids (Canis spp.) (85.4%). Canid remains were removed for

additional studies and will not be analyzed further here. These remains are not considered food

85

remains, and thus their exclusion does not affect the current analysis. Additionally, rodent

remains will be removed from the analysis as they are likely invasive burrowers, rather than

actual subsistence remains. Excluding these remains, %NISP for the remaining 215 specimens

shows deer (Odocoileus spp.) as the most common species. The category of “large mammal”

also makes up a considerable portion of the assemblage. Given the large size of these remains

this would suggest that wapiti (Cervus canadensis) and/or bear (Ursus spp.) remains may have

more importance, however, this cannot be verified given that these elements were not conducive

to further identification. The same argument can be made for the “medium mammal” category,

which, most likely represents deer remains. Ubiquity percentages indicate that the most abundant

taxa are also found in the most contexts. The one notable exception to this is “Large Mammal”

remains, which are abundant in the NISP counts, but found in only 6 of the 120 contexts. This

indicates that this large mammal category is spatially restricted.

Table 12. NISP, MNI, and Ubiquity for mammal – overall Parry Lagoon Midden

86

MNIs were generated by counting the most commonly occurring, non-repeating element

for each taxa (deer = left mandible, wapiti = femur, bear = left humerus, and rodent = left

mandible). Table 12 presents the results of the MNI calculation, which largely reflect the NISP

counts. Deer is most likely underrepresented here due to the fragmentary nature of most of the

remains, which was detrimental for siding bones. In comparison, rodents were relatively intact,

which allowed for identification of element and side, which in turn helped increase the MNI

count for this taxon. This also supports the intrusive nature of these remains, as all other remains

had a higher degree of fragmentation.

Sea Mammal

The sea mammal component of the PLM consists of only 43 elements, 41 of which were

identified. Most elements were identified as Pinnipedia (92.68% of remains), with two

specimens identified as Harbor Seal (Phoca vitulina), and one specimen indentified as a “large

sea mammal” (Table 12). The fragmentary nature of these remains prevents meaningful MNI

calculations.

Bird

Of the 256 bird specimens present in the PLM, 127 (49.61%) were identified to order or a

greater precision. Specimens were identified to six species, one genus, three families, and eight

orders. Three orders of birds make up the majority of the identified remains (60.63%):

Charadriiformes (sea birds), Passeriformes (perching/song birds), and Anseriformes (waterfowl)

(Table 13). All other remains were identified to five other orders contributing a minimal amount

of the overall NISP (6.3% when consolidated). Bird NISP rank order for ubiquity shows a

general agreement with the rank order of NISP. What this suggests is that the most abundant

87

birds are also most commonly found across the midden. MNI calculations largely mirror NISP

results.

Table 13. NISP, MNI, and Ubiquity for bird – overall Parry Lagoon Midden

Full Midden Summary

The PLM consists largely of fish vertebral specimens with terrestrial mammal, bird, and

sea mammal remains providing a much smaller proportion of the assemblage. Looking strictly at

NISP counts, herring specimens make up a large majority of the fish remains. However, when

measured by MNI and meat weight, other taxa, especially dogfish and salmon, increase in

frequency. This is largely because of the vast difference in meat weights. Herring is numerically

88

dominant, but is a very small fish, so abundance of NISP does not necessarily equal a large

dietary importance.

Terrestrial mammal remains mainly consist of canids and deer. Remains are largely

fragmented beyond the point of identification, suggesting the use of bone as raw material for tool

making. Sea mammal remains are rare in the PLM and level of fragmentation hinders the

identifiability of these remains. Bird remains are mostly identified to the order, three of which

dominate: Charadriiformes (20.47% of the NISP), Passeriformes (20.47% of the NISP), and

Anseriformes (19.69% of the NISP).

Marpole Assemblage

The Marpole assemblage consists of 10,860 specimens with 933 (8.59%) unidentifiable.

The remaining 9,927 specimens could be identified to the categories of “Fish Vertebrae,” “Fish

Elements (head, spines, and fins),” “Bird,” “Terrestrial Mammal,” and “Sea Mammal” (Figure

22). The Marpole assemblage is derived from 5,319 liters of excavated sediment.

Figure 22. Pie chart of NSP proportions – Marpole assemblage. Category, Count,

Proportion. NSP=9,927. An additional 933 specimens were unidentifiable.

89

Of the 9,927 NSP remains, 6,834 (68.84%) were identified to an order, family, genus,

species, or size class (NISP). The proportion of NSP not identified consists largely of non-

vertebrae fish elements (n=2,595). A large majority (97.93%) of the 6,858 NISP remains consists

of fish vertebrae (n=6,693). The remaining 2.06% of NISP remains consists of 67 terrestrial

mammal specimens, 72 bird remains, and only two sea mammal specimens.

Fish Vertebrae

Fish vertebral specimens have been identified to 18 species and two genera belonging to

12 different families (Table 14). Much like the overall PLM assemblage, herring is the most

abundant species with over 74.71% (n=5,000) of the vertebrate remains identified. Dogfish and

salmon are also a noticeable portion of the NISP remains, with dogfish 10.68% (n=715) of the

assemblage, and salmon 8.99% (n=602).

Percent ubiquity (Figure 23) indicates that the most abundant taxa are generally more

widespread in the midden, although some minor shifts in rank-order are present. For example,

flatfish are found in more contexts than sculpin and greenling, which are more abundant

according to NISP. Lingcod and hake are another example of this, as each fish type is found in

more contexts than their NISPs would suggest. Overall this shows a fairly widespread dispersion

of fish species throughout the Marpole portion of the midden. Also interesting here, is the

widespread occurrence of both salmon and dogfish remains, which are in more contexts than

suggested by their %NISP values. This may indicate an increased abundance from what the

NISP values show.

All non-herring/dogfish/salmon specimens individually are a very minor portion of the

NISP with rockfish (1.4%) the only other fish that makes up more than 1% of the assemblage.

90

Even when species are combined into families (Figure 24) the same rank order is maintained

(herring, dogfish, salmon, rockfish) with no other groupings present in proportions larger than

1%. It is only when all other fish (non herring, salmon, or dogfish) are combined that they

Table 14. Marpole assemblage fish NISP and MNI counts

make up a significant portion of the assemblage (5.62%; Figure 24). This indicates that on their

own, none of these taxa can be considered particularly important. However, when combined as

individually caught fish, they can be considered important. The species in this “other fish”

category are caught individually, with dogfish also being obtained in this manner (although

91

dogfish could also be mass-harvested as they will school in shallow water). While mass catch

fishing (salmon, herring, and dogfish) remains the dominant means of fishing, the 5.62% of

combined “other fish” does support the notion that other fishing methods were also important.

Figure 23. %NISP and %Ubiquity fish vertebrae – Marpole assemblage.

Figure 24. %NISP fish vertebrae by family – Marpole assemblage. Inset graph is %NISP fish

vertebrae with “other fish” category. Counts are presented on top of each respective bar.

MNI calculation presents a slightly different picture of the assemblage. Herring still are

the majority of remains (71.32%), but salmon now becomes the second most abundant species,

92

with 6.62% of the MNI (n=9). Most interesting is how dogfish appears less abundant in MNI

values, with this second most abundant taxa according to NISP, representing only 2.94% of the

overall assemblage MNI. This puts it on equal rank with rockfish. Additionally, when all species

are combined to families, dogfish contains the same MNI as gadidae and sculpins, and are less

abundant than flatfish (Figure 25). When combined, all “other fish” become the second most

abundant category, with only herring containing more individuals. Caution when interpreting this

pattern is needed, as many of the MNIs for the “other fish” category are calculated from NISPs

that make up less than half of a typical vertebral column. Other than rockfish, none of these

“other fish” MNIs actually include a full vertebral column, and the general abundance noted is

mostly a result of the variety of fish species present. This does indicate that we should consider

the “other fish” category more important than NISP reveals. However, this does not mean that

the “other fish” are more abundant than salmon and dogfish, as the MNI values for these species

is likely under representing the true individual count more so than the MNI for the rarer taxa.

Figure 25. %MNI fish vertebrae by family – Marpole assemblage. Inset graph is %MNI fish

vertebrae with “other fish” category. Exact MNI is presented on top of each respective bar.

Meat weight calculations are presented in Table 15. This analysis presents another view

of the data, shifting the rank order again. With meat weights, dogfish obtains the highest rank

93

order of the assemblage, greater than both with salmon and herring. Additionally, a shift in the

rank order of the three other fish is seen with a complete reversal in order, as rockfish becomes

the taxa with the least meat weight. Most telling from this analysis is that, even though herring

contains the largest NISP and MNI, it does not have the highest dietary contribution by meat

weight. This meat weight analysis demonstrates that, while many herring were brought to this

site, it was likely not only a seasonal herring fishing location. Other taxa also contributed

significantly to the diet, with dogfish and salmon at the forefront. Additionally, the “other fish”

category should also be considered more abundant than what is indicated by NISP. From this

analysis, three fish families---rockfish, Gadidae, and flatfish---all together present more meat

weight than herring (22,846 g compared to 15,132 g). These three fish families provide nearly as

much meat weight as salmon (29,070 g). Although caution must be used because of the

assumptions of meat weights, we can conclude that when presented with an NISP dominated by

a small fish (like herring) much smaller NISPs from larger fish can be considered of significance

to the diet.

Table 15. Meat weight calculations – Marpole assemblage

94

Overall these analyses indicate a general diversity of many different fish taxa.

Proportions of individual taxa shift depending on the technique utilized to examine the data. For

NISP, we see a greater proportion of herring remains, with dogfish and salmon also obtaining

noticeable counts. All “other fish” taxa are minimally represented, only when combined do we

find larger proportions. Looking strictly at NISP, we would consider the site to be herring

dominated, with dogfish, salmon, and “other fish” being considered of secondary use. MNI

results present a different view of the data. Herring maintains the top of the rank order, but

salmon now becomes the second most abundant taxa, with dogfish dropping rank to be equal

with combined families of the seemingly less important “other fish.” Meat weights present us

with yet another view of the data, completely shifting the abundance ranking with herring

dropping significantly and salmon (rank order second), dogfish (rank order first), and even

combined categories of rockfish, cod, and flatfish overtaking herring. These meat weights

indicate that, even with smaller portions of NISP, taxa of the right size can be considered more

abundant than a greater NISP of a small taxon.

This general shifting of rank orders through each method suggests that no one taxon is

dominant in this assemblage. If a single taxon is dominating the assemblage it should maintain

that dominance across each of the methods and no such taxon does this. NISP counts should be

viewed as the fundamental quantification of the data, but we have to consider the patterns that

other analyses indicate as well. A general importance of herring, salmon, and dogfish is noted

overall. However, when combined, “other fish” also display a significant abundance in this

assemblage. Thus, I conclude that a diversity of fish species were important to this Marpole

assemblage, with no overall specialization on any taxa.

95

Terrestrial Mammal

For the Marpole portion, 277 terrestrial mammal elements were identified. The majority

(n=210) of these remains were extremely fragmented and could not be identified further. This

matches a general Northwest coast pattern of fragmentation, other studies finding that this most

likely represents bone tool manufacturing debitage (Hodgetts and Rahemtulla 2001). This leaves

a much smaller portion of overall data suitable for analysis with identification to order, genus,

species, and size class (n=67).

Figure 26. %NISP terrestrial mammal – Marpole assemblage.

Counts are presented on top of each respective bar.

NISP counts presented in Figure 26 indicate the presence of deer and bear. Additionally,

generalized size categories of “small,” “medium,” and “large” mammal fragments are present.

Percent ubiquity indicates that the dispersion of terrestrial mammal specimens largely matches

%NISP counts: the most abundant taxa are found in the most abundant contexts and the least

abundant are found in the least (Figure 27). %NISP indicates that 62.69% of the assemblage can

be identified as deer. Additionally, the “medium mammal” category most likely represents

96

fragmented deer remains. However, this cannot be independently verified, so caution is observed

with this notion.

Figure 27. %NISP and %Ubiquity terrestrial mammal - Marpole assemblage

MNI calculations present us with two deer and one bear. Bear remains consist of only one

distinctive element (a left humerus fragment). Deer remains consisted mostly of elements which

could not be sided due to fragmentation. However, several elements indicate at least one fully

grown individual, most interestingly by the presence of both left and right skull fragments

(frontals) with fractured antler bases. The other individual comes from an unfused femoral head,

indicative of a juvenile animal. Given the general fractured and degraded nature of the terrestrial

mammal remains these MNI counts are most likely under representing actual amounts of animals

(Marshall and Pigrim 1993).

Given the nature of the remains, very little can be gathered from the terrestrial mammals.

It does appear that deer was the most important taxon. Additionally, we can conclude that

terrestrial mammal elements were most likely being used as raw material for tool making due to

the highly fragmented nature of their remains at the site.

97

Sea Mammal

Making up just .03% of the assemblage, sea mammal remains are rare within the

assemblage. Overall three specimens have been identified as sea mammal (NSP). One specimen

could not be identified in more detail, while two specimens are identified, one as Harbor seal

(Phoca vitulina), and the other specimen in the size category of “large sea mammal.” All remains

were degraded and positive identifications on exact element could only be identified for the one

Harbor seal element (a distal rib fragment). Due to the rarity of these remains, it is concluded

that sea mammal was a very minor part of the diet.

Bird

The Marpole bird NSP is made up of 124 specimens. Fifty-two of these specimens could

not be identified, which leaves 72 specimens comprising the NISP. Varying levels of

identification were used for the bird remains with two orders, three families, one genus, and five

species making up the NISP counts.

Figure 28. %NISP bird – Marpole assemblage. Counts are presented on top of each bar.

Figure 28 presents NISP proportions and counts. This shows a fairly diverse assemblage

with Charadriiformes (water/sea birds) as the most abundant taxon. This makes sense, given the

98

site location. Crow (corvus) is the next most abundant with a count of 14. All other taxa

represent a minor portion of the assemblage with five orders/families/species containing a count

of only one. When combined, three orders cover 62.5% of the assemblage: Charadriiformes

(water/sea birds), Passeriformes (perching/songbirds), and Anseriformes (waterfowl). Percent

ubiquity for bird remains is presented in Figure 29. Bird percent ubiquity largely matches what

would be expected with more abundant taxa being present in more excavation contexts, the one

exception to this being common murre, which is found in more contexts than more abundant

species. MNI calculation largely matches information contained in NISP counts (Figure 30).

Similar to the sea mammal remains the rarity of bird remains in the deposit leads to a conclusion

of overall unimportance.

Figure 29. %NISP and %Ubiquity bird – Marpole assemblage

Shellfish

Shellfish identifications come from matrix samples 2012-1, 21, 29, and 30. MNIs of

shellfish remains indicate that the majority (80.89%) of the assemblage is made up of sand/mud

burrowing clams (Littleneck, Butter, Horse, and Cockle; Figure 31). All other shellfish make up

99

a minor portion of the assemblage. Also important to note is an abundance of sea urchin remains,

which are not quantified, but each matrix sample was saturated with them

Figure 30. %MNI bird – Marpole assemblage. Exact MNI is presented on top of each bar.

Figure 31. %MNI shellfish – Marpole assemblage.

Exact MNI is presented on top of each respective bar.

Conclusion: Marpole Assemblage

The Marpole assemblage contains a diversity of fish remains with herring, salmon, and

dogfish as the most abundant species. Terrestrial mammal is characterized by a high proportion

of fragmentary deer remains. Sea mammal and bird remains are too rare to ascertain any dietary

100

importance, although it should be noted that types of sea/water birds make up most of the bird

assemblage. Although based on a small sample size, analysis of the matrix sample material

indicates that sand/mud burrowing clams make up most of the assemblage.

Presence of taxa in the assemblage gives clues as to environments utilized, behaviors

practiced, and seasonality. Fish and shellfish remains inform us that a large diversity of marine

environments were utilized (Tables 4 and 5). These environments include rocky reefs, sandy and

muddy neretic substrates, kelp beds, intertidal zones, strong current channels, bays, and riverine

environments. Salmon remains from the midden may have originated from spawns on the Fraser

River that were then brought to Galiano Island, as argued by Grier et al. (2013) for site DgRv-

003. The overlap in time with DgRv-003 and the close proximity to the Fraser River, within one

day of canoe travel time (Ames 2002), would suggest this as a strong possibility (Figure 32).

However this cannot be incontrovertibly argued here, as some species of salmon could be caught

near island, as argued by Ewonus (2011a). More in-depth analysis would need to be undertaken

for this argument to be complete. All other environments can be found within a short distance of

DgRv-006, as northern Galiano Island consists of several bays, rocky and sandy beaches, a

sand/mud substrate lagoon, and the strong current environment of Porlier Pass. It is reasonable to

assume similar environments in the past given studies on sea level changes (presented in Chapter

four) indicating little change between the time the site was occupied and current conditions.

The wide range of species utilized indicates a diversity of fishing techniques were

utilized (Table 2). Another mechanism promoting diversity may have been the “Prey as Bait”

approach, as hypothesized by Monks (1987). “Prey as Bait” is the idea that predatory

relationships within a food chain could be exploited by humans to gather a variety of species.

101

Monks’ (1987) focused on species that preyed on herring and how, through the use of a stone

fishing trap, many different species were drawn to one location and could be easily taken. As

indicated in Table 4, several species found in the midden also prey on other species also found in

the midden (for example, dogfish eat herring and hake). This indicates that the “Prey as Bait”

model for accounting for diversity is relevant interpretively. Additionally, the presence of marine

shorebirds that would feed on fish, like herring, supports this possible interpretation.

Figure 32. Canoe travel buffer analysis from site DgRv-006. Both areas contain distances

that a canoe crew could travel to a resource gathering area, gather resources, and travel

back in a single day as argued by Ames 2002.

Given the utility of this “Prey as Bait” model, and given the importance of both herring

and dogfish to the midden, an evaluation of these two taxa is undertaken to better understand the

102

relationship between them. The predominance of dogfish in the midden may be a result of

simultaneous catch during abundant herring schooling. The alternative is the idea that dogfish

were a targeted species by themselves. If the “Prey as Bait” model is a better explanation we

would find the two species in similar areas of the midden, assuming that fish taken at the same

time were also deposited in the midden at the same time and in the same place. Pearson’s

correlation coefficient was used with NISP counts to evaluate herring and dogfish placement

within 10 cm excavation levels. Results indicate that herring and dogfish frequencies are not

significantly correlated in the midden (r2=0.046, p=0.082, α=0.05, NS). This indicates that the

dogfish fishery at this time was most likely unrelated to the herring fishery.

Season of site use (seasonality) can be partially reconstructed from the presence/absence

of fish and bird remains (Monks 1981:180). More detailed seasonality can be attained with more

in-depth methods (see Monks 1981, for example). Most importantly, different salmon species

vary in spawning time and this variation in timing has allowed researchers to use the

presence/absence of different salmon species to help define seasonality (for example, Cannon

1991; Grier et al. 2013). Since salmon species are not identified to species in this study, this

information cannot be used in the same way.

Non-salmon fish remains indicate at least a late-winter/early spring to summer

seasonality for the site. Herring spawning takes place from late-winter into July with the largest

concentration noted as occurring in March (Hart 1973:97). Given the large amounts of herring

present in the Marpole remains, an assumption of catch at spawning time is made. Presence of

Pacific cod also indicates a spring/summer seasonality, as in autumn these fishes move into

103

deeper water where spawning takes place, while in spring they occupy shallower, easier to catch

depths (Cannon 1991:58; Hart 1973:223).

Bird remains are largely unhelpful for the identification of seasonality, as the majority of

remains identified to species are available year round. The one exception to this is the presence

of Brandt’s Cormorant (n=2). This species of bird winters in British Columbia, following a

period of breeding around California (Baron and Acorn 1997:39). Given the low overall count of

Brant’s Cormorant we must be careful with drawing to much from this (Monks 1981:182-183),

but this presence lends support to the claim of at least a late-winter presence at the site.

Overall species presence/absence indicates a late-winter to early summer occupation for

site DgRv-006. However, this should not be interpreted as a lack of fall/winter presence. It is

only once we have gained species level identification of salmon that we can have a more

complete picture of seasonality. If salmon remains are similar to DgRv-003, we could conclude a

fall/winter presence with more confidence.

Late Period Assemblage

The Late Period assemblage is made up of 7,291 individual specimens with 462 (6.34%)

unidentifiable. The remaining 6,829 specimens have been identified to the broad NSP categories

(Figure 33). The majority of the NSP count consists of fish vertebral elements (67.43%;

n=4,605) and fish head/spines/fin/tail specimens (19.64%, n=1,341). Terrestrial mammal also

makes up a considerable portion of the NSP identified remains (10.41%; n=711). Sediment

excavated is notably smaller than the Marpole assemblage at 3,118.5 liters.

104

Of the NSP remains, 68.14% were identified to an order, family, genus, species, or size

class, and are considered the NISP remains (n=4,653). Of the remains not identified to NISP, fish

elements and fragmentary terrestrial mammal remains make up the majority of the unidentified

(n=1,341, 61.63% of the unidentified NSP; n=565, 26% of the unidentified). Similar to the

Marpole assemblage, the majority of the identified NISP consists of fish vertebral elements

(94.84% of the NISP, n=4413).

Figure 33. Pie chart of NSP remains – Late Period assemblage. Category,

Count, Proportion. NSP=6829.

Fish Vertebrae

Fifteen different species and two genera belonging to 12 families make up the Late

Period fish assemblage (Table 16). Matching the pattern noted above for both the overall midden

data, and the Marpole data, herring NISP counts are greater than all other taxa (71.20%), with

dogfish (15.57%) and salmon (7.07%) also occurring in significant proportions. All other taxa

individually make up very minor proportions of the NISP, with rockfish at 1.84% the most

105

abundant. Combined into their respective families, the same pattern of herring abundance, with

dogfish and salmon in the second and third rank order, remains (Figure 34). Similar to the

Marpole assemblage, it is only when all non-herring/salmon/dogfish are combined that they

make a sizable proportion of the assemblage. When combined, the “other fish” category is only

slightly less abundant than salmon, indicating a greater abundance for these taxa compared to

when these are listed individually.

Table 16. Late Period assemblage fish NISP and MNI count

Percent ubiquity indicates that the most abundant species are also found in the most

contexts with only minor shifts in rank order from the NISP counts (Figure 35). Similar to the

Marpole assemblage, this indicates widespread distribution of taxa across the midden rather than

specific clumping of same species in any one area. Dogfish, salmon, and rockfish percent

106

ubiquity values indicate a widespread dispersion of the taxa, and thus may indicate an increase in

abundance relative to NISP counts

Figure 34. %NISP fish vertebrae by family – Late Period assemblage. Inset graph is %NISP fish

vertebrae with “other fish” category. Exact counts are presented on top of each respective bar.

Figure 35. %NISP and %Ubiquity fish vertebrae – Late Period assemblage.

MNI calculations are presented for each species in Table 16. Herring remains at the top

of the rank order, but salmon increases in frequency when compared with dogfish. However, this

107

is only by one individual. All other patterns in the data are simply replicating the results seen in

the %NISP. When combined into the families we find several interesting changes from the NISP

(Figure 36). Dogfish rank order drops compared to the NISP results, as Gadidae and flatfish both

present the same MNI. This all indicates an increase in prevalence for the combined “other fish”.

Like with the Marpole assemblage, caution is needed as only one of the “other fish” has an NISP

value that makes up more than half of a single vertebral column.

Meat weights present another view of this data, and indicate that herring is not as

proportionally abundant in the Late Period deposits as NISP and MNI indicate (Table 17).

Herring, dogfish, and salmon maintain the top three ranks after meat weights are calculated,

Figure 36. %MNI fish vertebrae by family – Late Period assemblage. Inset graph is %MNI fish

vertebrae with “other fish” category. Exact MNI is presented on top of each respective bar.

but dogfish becomes the most abundant taxon. Additionally herring meat weight equals only

slightly more than half that of salmon. This indicates a large drop in prevalence for the herring

taxon overall. Another interesting trend seen in the meat weights is an increase in abundance of

the other fish families. Although rockfish drops in rank order to sixth, this is mainly due to large

increases seen in the Gadidae and flatfish families. Gadids in particular rise in abundance with a

108

meat weight value of 8,905 g, only 611 g less than herring. Flatfish presents a similar jump, only

1,791 g behind herring. When combined, as was done with the NISP and MNI calculations, the

meat weights for just these three families (20,167 g) present more meat weight than both herring

(9,516 g) and salmon (16,150 g). As noted for the Marpole assemblage, we must be careful in

interpreting these numbers given the issues with MNI calculations, but we can conclude that

dogfish, salmon, and all “other fish” are more abundant in subsistence diet than the NISP counts

indicate.

Table 17. Meat weight analysis – Late Period assemblage

Different trends are seen in the data depending on the quantification technique utilized.

NISP counts indicate that the assemblage is mostly made up of herring vertebrae, while dogfish

and salmon round out the top three of the rank order. After these three taxa, no other taxon on its

own is represented in significant proportions. However, when combined into an “other fish”

category, these taxa also make up 6.16% of the assemblage, nearing the salmon proportion

(7.07%). MNI largely mirrors these results, with the noted exception of the increased abundance

of the “other fish” category, this result supports the idea of increased abundance for these taxa,

even though the severity of the increase is largely a result of the number of different species

109

present in the category. Results of meat weight analyses present a completely different view of

the data from what NISP and MNI show. Abundance of herring drops when considering meat

weight, with an increase in rank order for both dogfish (first) as well as the combined “other

fish” (second; with only three families considered).

Similar to the Marpole assemblage, the various rank orders across different methods of

quantification do not support the notion of specialization in any one fish. We can conclude that a

diverse array of taxa were important to the subsistence in this time period. Herring and dogfish

are the most abundant taxa, but salmon and the combined “other fish” are also significant.

Terrestrial Mammal

The terrestrial mammal component for this time period consists of 711 individual

specimens. The majority of these specimens, 565 (79.47%), are unidentifiable fragments. This

leaves 146 specimens for further evaluation.

Figure 37. %NISP terrestrial mammal – Late Period assemblage.

Counts are presented on top of each respective bar.

Figure 37 presents proportions of NISP with a species rank order of deer, wapiti, and

bear. Much of the assemblage is only identified as small, medium, or large mammal fragments.

110

Although this cannot be verified, the medium and large mammal categories most likely represent

deer and wapiti based on their size. Percent ubiquity indicates that dispersion within the

assemblage is also matched with the overall NISP (Figure 38). The notable exception is the large

mammal remains which contain a very large NISP, but are found in only a few contexts. This

indicates that large mammal remains were concentrated in one area of the Late Period midden,

and that the NISP is likely over representing taxon abundance.

Figure 38. %NISP and %Ubiquity terrestrial mammal – Late Period assemblage

MNI values indicate the presence of at least four deer, two wapiti, and one bear. Three

adult left and right mandibles indicate the presence of three adult deer, while one juvenile left

mandible indicates one more individual in the assemblage. MNI for wapiti was calculated from

two left femur fragments, and bear counts consisted of two rib fragments. Again, similar to the

Marpole assemblage, all terrestrial mammal remains were fragmented and thus MNI calculations

present an extreme minimum. Deer was the most abundant terrestrial mammal in the Late Period

assemblage. The presence of wapiti and a large proportion of large mammal indicate that another

ungulate was potentially important to the DgRv-006 residents. The large amount of fragmented

remains reduces the effectiveness of this analysis, but does suggest that terrestrial mammal

remains were being used as a tool material.

111

Sea Mammal

Remains of sea mammals consist of only 40 specimens, making them a very minor

portion of the NSP assemblage (0.59%). Thirty-nine elements have been identified with the

majority (38) classified into the order of Pinnipedia. The last specimen was identified as a harbor

seal vertebrae fragment. Similar to the Marpole assemblage most of these elements are very

fragmented and I conclude that sea mammals were not an important part of the subsistence

pattern, or are subject to some disposal or taphonomic agent that has removed them from the

midden.

Figure 39. %NISP bird– Late Period assemblage. Counts are presented on top of each respective

bar.

Bird

Bird remains make up 1.93% of the Late Period NSP assemblage (NISP=132). Fifty-five

of these elements were able to be identified into two orders, three families, one genus, and four

species. Figure 39 presents a proportional breakdown of the bird remains. Anatidae, the family of

ducks, swans, and geese, is at the top of the rank order with 21.82% of the assemblage (n=12).

Passerines are also abundant (18.1%, n=10). When combined into orders, three orders contain

58.2% of the assemblage: Anseriformes (waterfowl), Passeriformes (perching/songbirds), and

112

Charadriiformes (water/sea birds). MNI calculations reflect the NISP counts (Figure 40). Like

the Marpole assemblage bird remains are not common enough to be considered important to

overall subsistence.

Figure 40. %MNI bird – Late Period assemblage. Exact MNI is presented on top of each

respective bar.

Shellfish

Shellfish information comes from matrix samples 2012-2, 2012-7, and 2012-42. Similar

to the Marpole assemblage, shellfish is dominated by burrowing clams rather than sessile or

mobile shellfish, Littleneck, Butter, Horse, and Cockle make up 87.35% of the assemblage

(Figure 41). Urchin remains were also important, as they were abundant in the matrix samples.

Conclusion: Late Period Assemblage

The Late Period assemblage contains an abundance of fish remains with herring, dogfish,

and salmon at the top of the rank order. A diversity of other species are also recognized as

important to the overall subsistence pattern, specifically when combined “other fish” are present

in similar numbers/weights to herring, dogfish, and salmon. Terrestrial mammal, sea mammal,

and bird are all secondary resources. Terrestrial mammal mostly consists of fragmented bone,

but the specimens that are identifiable are mostly ungulates (deer and wapiti). Similar to the

113

Marpole assemblage, both sea mammal and bird remains are considered minor constituents. The

Pinnepedia order dominates the remains of sea mammals, although only 40 specimens make up

the entire assemblage. Bird remains consist of a combination of water/sea birds and

perching/songbirds. Shellfish consists mainly of burrowing clams.

Figure 41. %MNI shellfish – Late Period assemblage

Exact MNI is presented on top of each respective bar.

Overall similarity in species representation between the Marpole and Late Period

assemblage also indicates that environments utilized, behaviors practiced, and seasonality were

likely similar between the two time periods. Despite the absence of three fish taxa (Pacific

staghorn sculpin, arrowtooth flounder, and petrale sole) fishing environments exploited in the

Late Period assemblage remain diverse with rocky reefs, sandy and muddy neretic substrates,

kelp beds, intertidal zones, strong current channels, bays, and (potentially) riverine environments

all having been utilized.

Fishing behaviors are diverse based on presence of a diversity of taxa (Table 2). This

matches the pattern seen in the Marpole assemblage. The “Prey as Bait” model is relevant for

understanding this diversity, given the presence of taxa that prey on other taxa found in the

114

midden. This relationship was again explored for the herring and dogfish taxa. Using Pearson’s

correlation coefficient, dogfish and herring are found to be significantly correlated spatially

(r2=0.26, p=0.0002, α= 0.05). This suggests that herring and dogfish could have been caught

together in a type of “Prey as Bait” subsistence strategy.

Seasonality results from the Marpole portion of the midden are also largely repeated. The

important fish taxa for assigning a late winter/early spring to early summer season of occupation

are all present in the Late assemblage, most importantly herring and Pacific cod. Bird remains

change from the Marpole period, as Brandt’s cormorant is absent in this assemblage. However,

the interpretation remains the same because of the presence of common loon. Common loons

spend summers at fresh-water lakes and winters in coastal environments, which support the

presence of people in winter/early spring at the site (Baron and Acorn 1997:39). This is an

incomplete seasonality estimate however; salmon may provide additional data when analyzed

further (Grier et al. 2013).

Temporal Comparison of Linear Complexity Models

The central question of this study can now be addressed: Do subsistence trends change at

DgRv-006 in relation to changing temporal and social landscapes? Do these changes match what

is expected given the expectations of the linear complexity models? Fish vertebrate remains will

be the only grouping discussed here. Fish remains are the most abundant in both Marpole and

Late Period assemblages and they should reflect what has been proposed as important regional

changes between the Marpole and Late period. According to the linear complexity models

described in earlier chapters, the Marpole component of this assemblage should be dominated by

115

salmon remains (more than half of the assemblage), indicating a specialization in that resource.

In comparison, the Late Period component should contain a more diverse (rich and even)

assemblage. A null hypothesis of no difference is established for the two time periods. If

accepted, we should reject linear complexity models and the interconnection of social and

subsistence change. If the null hypothesis is rejected, this could support the connection of social

and subsistence realms. The manner in which it is rejected determines if the exact regional linear

complexity models should be accepted. If diversity decreases between the two assemblages, than

we still reject the linear complexity model explanation. To evaluate these assemblages according

to the above hypothesis we must take an in-depth look at three lines of data: richness, evenness,

and the importance of salmon.

Richness

Before richness can be evaluated we must first ensure that sample size differences are not

driving taxonomic representation (NTAXA) in each assemblage. In order to evaluate this, a

cumulative frequency graph of NTAXA by fish NISP counts is presented in Figure 42. This is

referred to as the “sampling to redundancy” method (Lyman and Ames 2004; Lyman 2008:143-

144). A sampling to redundancy approach involves identifying when cumulative NTAXA

stabilizes (i.e., no or few new taxa are being added), at this point we can consider sample size

large enough to address richness. The analysis of additional samples or specimens will add little

to taxonomic richness and will simply be adding redundant information, since, a theoretical

maximum taxa richness has already been achieved (Lyman and Ames 2004).

A primary critique of this technique is that the order of accumulation of specimens can

affect where this stabilization occurs (Lepofsky and Lertzman 2005:179-181). This is mitigated

116

by adding contexts randomly, as I have done here. Figure 42a shows that the Marpole

assemblage attains redundancy after 5,260 specimens. In comparison the Late Period assemblage

(Figure 42b) appears to become redundant after 2,462 specimens. Both assemblages are sampled

to redundancy, and thus a comparison of their richness will not be affected substantially by

sample size.

Figure 42a. Sampling to redundancy for richness - Marpole assemblage. Samples (excavation

levels) were randomly added.

Figure 42b. Sampling to redundancy for richness - Late Period assemblage. Samples (excavation

levels) were randomly added.

117

According to the null hypothesis, richness values for both time periods should be similar.

Richness values are slightly different between the two assemblages. The Marpole assemblage

contains 25 different fish species/genus/families, while the Late Period assemblage contains 22

(Table 18). The Marpole assemblage is the richer assemblage, though only by three taxa. The

three taxa that are absent in the Late Period assemblage are rare and only amount to 0.11% of the

Marpole assemblage (n=7).

Table. 18. Comparison of species presence – Marpole and Late Period

Overall, a similar amount of richness is noted for both of the assemblages. This does not

match the linear complexity model expectation that the Late Period should be the richer

assemblage. The similar richness values between the assemblages are consistent with the null

hypothesis.

118

Evenness

Similar to richness, a “sampling to redundancy” cumulative graph is presented for both

temporal periods in order to ensure that evenness patterns are not simply the result of sample size

(Figure 43a,b). This is accomplished calculating Shannon’s index of evenness for each

cumulative sample (here excavation levels). Shannon’s index of evenness is derived from the

Shannon-Wiener index of diversity (Shannon-Wiener (H): H=-∑ Pi(lnPi), where H is

heterogeneity, ln is the natural log, and P is the proportion of taxa; Shannon’s index of eveness

(e): e = H/(lnS), where S is the richness of a sample) (Lyman 2008:192-195). Similar to plotting

the Shannon-Wiener index on a cumulative graph (see Lyman and Ames 2004) the index of

evenness will vary between more even and less even assemblages as specimens are added to the

graph. When the graph stabilizes, redundancy is reached and sample size should not be an issue.

Figure 43a. Sampling to redundancy for evenness - Marpole assemblage. Samples

(excavation levels) were randomly added.

119

Figure 43b. Sampling to redundancy for evenness - Late Period assemblage. Samples

(excavation levels) were randomly added.

Marpole evenness redundancy is established at 3,267 specimens. Fluctuation in evenness

value is evident with the addition of NISP but overall the graph stabilizes at this point, indicating

a level of redundancy is reached. Late Period evenness redundancy is established at 2,088

specimens, similarly indicating that sample size will not dramatically affect the pattern here as

well. Evenness scores are low in these graphs, which are scaled from zero to one, higher values

being more even (Lyman 2008:196). This would normally indicate a very uneven assemblage

However, this result is driven by the herring NISP counts, as well as the separation of the “other

fish” taxa into taxonomic categories. When combining all non-herring/dogfish/salmon into one

category, evenness values increase, with the Marpole Period assemblage having an evenness

value of 0.60, and the Late Period being 0.64. When removing herring from the analysis,

evenness values again increase (Marpole = 0.97, Late Period = 0.92). Throughout this analysis

evenness values for both time periods maintain similarity, indicating an even assemblage.

According to the linear complexity models, taxa should be more evenly represented in

the Late Period assemblage, while less in the Marpole assemblage. We do not find this trend.

120

When comparing %NISP by family (Figure 44) the pattern is generally the same – a fairly

uneven assemblage where herring, dogfish, and salmon predominate. As noted above, calling the

assemblages “uneven” is a misleading characterization. When we combine all “other fish” taxa,

calculate MNI, and take meat weights into account, what we find is a more even assemblage for

both time periods, albeit specific taxa are more abundant than others (Figures 45 and 46; Table

19). This general similarity in evenness values between time periods is consistent with the null

hypothesis.

Figure 44. Comparison of %NISP by time period.

Figure 45. Comparison of %NISP with “other fish” category by time period.

121

Figure 46. Comparison of %MNI with “other fish category by time period.

Table 19. Comparison of meat weights by time period

Importance of Salmon

The final expectation of the temporal complexity model concerns the representation of

salmon in the Marpole assemblage. According to the linear complexity models, the Marpole

assemblage should contain an abundance of salmon, indicating a specialization in the resource.

Utilizing past analyses on salmon specialization, an assemblage consisting of at least 50%

salmon is considered specialized. This is not the case as salmon never occupies the top of the

rank order in any of the measures of abundance. Salmon makes up just 8.99% of the NISP,

6.62% of the MNI, and 33.65% of the calculated meat weights. Salmon is important in this

assemblage, but it is not the focal resource. Rather, it is a part of an overall diverse fishing

strategy. The Late Period assemblage contains a similar amount of salmon with 7.07% of the

122

NISP, 5.49% of the MNI, and 20% of the calculated meat weights. Overall, this indicates a slight

decrease in salmon use overtime. This decrease is not large enough to support a difference

between time periods. This indicates that a shift from a specialized resource to a non-

specialization is not observed, thus, the null hypothesis of no difference is not rejected.

Conclusion

Temporal analysis of the PLM component of site DgRv-006 focused on an evaluation of

taxonomic difference in order to evaluate linear complexity model expectations that propose that

subsistence change is tied to social change (and vice-versa). The models predict a specialized

focus on salmon resources in the Marpole period, with a diversification of the fishing resource in

the Late Period. The analysis presented here found a similarity in richness and evenness values

for both assemblages, indicating continuity of a diverse fishing strategy. Additionally, no

evidence for a specialization in salmon was found in the Marpole period. This indicates that the

null hypothesis of no difference between temporal assemblages is not rejected. Thus, the regional

linear complexity models do not offer a sufficient explanation for faunal patterns at site DgRv-

006.

Overall both assemblages present a similar pattern despite quantification method. This

indicates a general continuity in fishing practices with herring, salmon, and dogfish the most

important individual species. Only minor shifts in the taxa are seen between the time periods,

with salmon use slightly decreasing in the later time period, while the use of dogfish increases.

In addition to continuity seen in the fish remains, all other taxa identified also indicate

general similarity in subsistence through time. Terrestrial mammal remains consist mainly of

deer, with the presence of wapiti in the Late Period the only major difference. Wapiti only

123

consists of three specimens, thus this does not indicate a major change in hunting practices.

Three orders of birds were abundant in both time periods with changes in the overall rank order

and a decrease of lesser orders as the only major temporal changes. For the Marpole period,

Charadriiformes are the most abundant followed by Passeriformes and Anseriformes. In

comparison, the Late Period rank order reverses this with Anseriformes at the top of the rank

order and Charadriiformes at the bottom. Shellfish in both time periods contain an abundance of

sand/mud burrowing species as well as sea urchin remains. A decrease in mussel usage overtime

is the only major temporal change. Lastly, sea mammal remains were extremely rare for both

assemblages. Taken together with the fish remains, these data show an overall pattern of

continuity between the Marpole and Late Period assemblages.

124

CHAPTER EIGHT

BULK SAMPLES AND BIAS TESTING

At this point in this study relative abundances, site seasonality, microenvironments, and an

evaluation of linear complexity model expectations, have been carried out. All conclusions were

based on material dry-screened and collected from 1/8” (3.2 mm) mesh. Several studies (Cannon

1999; Cannon 2000; Casteel 1972, 1976a,b; Grayson 1984:168-172; Hanson 1991, 1995;

McKechnie 2005, 2012; Shaffer 1992; Zohar and Belmaker 2005) have stressed the importance

of screen size bias on the archaeological record. Most important, these studies show that small

fishes (like herring) and smaller individuals of a taxon are often underrepresented in faunal

counts when large mesh sizes are used for recovery. Studies also stress how using column and

bulk samples can help identify this bias by providing finer-grained data.

In this chapter, I report on a screen size study undertaken using bulk matrix samples.

While this was done before analysis of the assemblage, I report on it here because it was

determined that major patterns were not affected by screen size. Seven two-liter samples were

analyzed. Four are located in the Marpole portion, and three from the Late Period. Each two liter

sample was dry sieved through a series of nested screens (1/4”, 1/8”, and 1/16”) in a controlled

laboratory environment. Identification of faunal material was accomplished through the same

methods described above. After identification of dry screened material was finished, the

sediment/shell mix was placed back on the nested screens and wet sieved until all sediment was

removed from each screen (1/4”, 1/8”, and 1/16”). Any faunal material was collected and

identified.

125

To evaluate how screen size bias may be directly affecting the larger excavation material

results, an additional analysis was run utilizing a correction factor developed from the bulk

matrix samples. The specific technique used was developed by Thomas (1969). This technique

involves taking the bulk sample NISP totals for the taxa of interest, then dividing by the bulk

sample total of the screen size of interest. In this study this is the 1/8” dry screen, which was

utilized for the in-field excavation material. This then gives a correction factor, which can be

multiplied with the larger excavation material to give corrected totals. To mitigate issues of

context comparability and sample size (see Cannon 1999), this will only be used to compare

corrected amounts with the original totals from specific excavation levels where bulk samples

were collected from.

Although it is important to note how certain excavation methods have influenced our

ability to recover material, the really important issue is how or if this affects our interpretations

of human behavior at site DgRv-006.

Screen Size Analysis

Results of both dry and wet screened matrix samples are presented in Tables 20, 21, and

22. Of the vertebrate remains, fish dominate, with herring the most abundant species. Also

numerically important is a count of 287 smelts (19.44% of the assemblage). Given the use of

1/8” dry screening in the larger excavation material, the presence of large amounts of taxa in

either 1/16” screens and in wet screens, would indicate the presence of some bias. Overall this

analysis shows that screen size bias does affect representation of several fish taxa. Of the

remains, 69.89% of the herring, 38.46% of dogfish, 52.17% of salmon, and 98.95% of the smelt

126

Tab

le 2

0. M

atr

ix s

am

ple

co

un

ts –

dry

scr

een

ed

*A

dd

itio

nal

ly,

two t

erre

stri

al m

amm

al f

ragm

ents

wer

e fo

und

in

th

e 1

/8”

scre

en,

and

tw

o f

rag

men

ts i

n t

he

1/1

6”

scre

en. O

ne

bir

d f

rag

men

t

was

fo

un

d i

n t

he

1/1

6”

scre

en

127

Tab

le 2

1. M

atr

ix s

am

ple

cou

nts

– w

et s

cre

ened

* A

dd

itio

nal

ly, o

ne

bir

d f

rag

men

t w

as f

ou

nd i

n t

he

1/1

6”

scre

en

128

were found in either the 1/16” dry screen or by wet screening, both methods that were not used

with the larger excavation material. All other fish in the matrix samples were found in either the

1/4” dry or the 1/8” dry. This supports the argument that smaller fish taxa (specifically herring

and smelts) are often lost in large proportions in excavations that utilize larger than 1/16”

screens. These differences are determined to be statistically significant using chi-squared tests.

Table 23 presents input data comparing small fish (herring and smelt) and larger fish (all other

fish) representation in different dry screen sizes. A null hypothesis of no relationship between

taxa representation and screen size is established. Results of the chi-squared analysis indicate a

rejection of this hypothesis (χ2=37.16, df=1, p<0.001, α=0.05), thus, dry screen size is

influencing the representation of the amount of fish remains. Table 24 presents input data for the

comparison of the 1/8” and 1/16” wet screens. The same null hypothesis is used in this analysis.

Again, this null hypothesis is rejected, indicating that taxa representation is affected by screen

size (χ2=41.43, df=1, p<0.001, α=0.05).

Taking a more in-depth look we can determine whether screen size or screening method

(wet vs. dry) helps in our collection of more material for each fish type. Figure 47 presents a

segmented bar graph for each fish type and screening method. For herring, a mixed picture

emerges, as both a smaller screen size, and wet screening increases the yield. This would indicate

that the use of both wet screening and the use of a smaller screen size would greatly aid in the

recovery of herring elements.

For dogfish and salmon a different pattern emerges, smaller screen size did not add much

to the overall assemblages (0% for dogfish, less than 20% for salmon and only in conjunction

with wet screening). The use of wet screening greatly increased the counts for both categories.

129

Table 22. NISP count totals for all matrix material

Table 23. Chi-Squared input values for dry screened bulk samples

*Small fish consist of both herring and smelts, large fish category consists of all other fish

Table 24. Chi-Squared input values for wet screened bulk samples

*Small fish consist of both herring and smelts, large fish category consists of all other fish.

Dry material was added with the assumption that they would have been collected, if they

were not already removed.

Figure 47. Segmented bar graph: matrix samples fish vertebrate remains.

Broken apart by different screening methods.

130

This would indicate that these larger fishes can be easily caught in the 1/8” screen, but the

removal of dirt greatly aids the ability to identify them in the screen. Rockfish, surfperch,

greenling, flatfish, and sculpin were all found in either the 1/4” or 1/8” dry screen, indicating that

no increased measure is needed to be able to collect these fish types. The last category, smelt,

was mostly found in the 1/16” screens. Over half of the remains were identified after wet

screening. This indicates that 1/8” of any screen type is insufficient to find these small fish

vertebrate. This is backed by the absence of smelt in the larger excavation material. Overall, this

analysis supports the role that both smaller screen sizes and wet screening aids in the collection

of small fishes. Additionally, wet screening of material also aids in the recovery of larger fishes.

Marpole Correction

Four two-liter matrix samples were present in the Marpole assemblage: 2012-1, 2012-21,

2012-29, and 2012-30 which corresponds to three excavation levels: 15B1, 16B6, and 16B8.

Table 25 presents absolute NISPs and %NISP for the matrix samples. Herring dominates the

assemblage (78.42%) while smelt also makes up a large portion of the assemblage (17.90%).

Smelt was exclusively found with screening methods not used in the larger excavation and thus

an analysis on its importance temporally cannot be effectively quantified. Given the large

proportion in the matrix samples it is most likely also abundant in the larger excavation material,

but missed due to screen size.

Table 25. Matrix sample counts – Marpole assemblage

131

Sample size is an issue here, thus no direct comparison of the material collected in the

matrix samples with the overall Marpole assemblage can be made. However, a comparison of

matrix sample results with counts gathered from the three excavation levels provides some

indication of how bias is affecting the midden material. Utilizing Thomas (1969), a correction

factor is calculated that will be used on the excavation levels that matrix samples originated

from, giving us a relative look at the effects of screen size bias on the larger excavation material

(Table 26). This correction factor will not be applied to the overall Marpole assemblage, given

the noted issue that different spatial contexts can be influenced by screen size bias differently

(Cannon 1999).

Table 26. Thomas 1969 correction factor calculation – Marpole assemblage

Table 27. Thomas 1969 correction factor applied to excavation levels: 15B1, 16B6, 16B8

132

Results from this analysis indicate that three of the four major taxa are underrepresented

in the 1/8” screen. Applying the correction factor to the excavation levels of interest (Table 27)

we find an increased importance of herring, with a universal decrease in abundance of the other

taxa (Figure 48, note that given the technique corrected NISP counts for surfperch under-

represent that taxon, however, this does not change the overall results). Although this increase in

herring should be noted, it does not significantly change the results of the analysis. Even though

herring increases by five percentage points, there still are fairly large amounts of dogfish and

salmon. Meat weight analysis on these corrected values indicates that herring NISP abundance

does not equal a dietary dominance, even when screen size is accounted for (Table 28).

Smelt deserves a special consideration here. A large number of vertebrae (n=165) was

found in the Marpole assemblage. However, Thomas’ 1969 correction factor could not correct

the assemblage for smelt due to the absence of this taxa in the original excavation unit totals, as

well as the bulk sample 1/8” screen. Arbitrarily adding one smelt to both of these contexts allows

me to utilize Thomas’ 1969 correction factor. Doing this changes proportions of the corrected

taxa, with smelt now obtaining the second rank (Table 29). However, like herring, smelts are

small fish that do not contain a large amount of meat weight per animal. Thus, although possibly

numerically important to the Marpole Period assemblage, the inclusion of this additional taxa

does not largely change results noted above.

Late Period Correction

Three two-liter matrix samples were analyzed for the Late Period assemblage: 2012-2, 7,

and 42 (excavation levels 12B2, 14B1, 19B2). Herring dominates the samples with 77.3% of the

133

Figure 48. %NISP of excavation levels 15B1, 16B6, 16B8 compared with corrected values.

Table 28. Meat weight analysis on corrected values – Marpole assemblage

Table 29. %NISP of Marpole excavation levels, corrected, and smelt corrected assemblages

134

assemblage, while smelt makes up 21.14% (Table 30). Dogfish, salmon, and rockfish are only

marginally represented in these contexts, which may be attributed to the small sample size.

As noted for the Marpole assemblage, sample size is too small for direct comparisons

with the larger excavation material, thus no such analysis will be attempted here. Thomas’

(1969) correction factor (Table 31) is utilized for this assemblage as well. Here we find that

herring is particularly underrepresented in the excavation material, while all other fish analyzed

were collected by the 1/8 in screens. Tables 32 and 33 present the Thomas (1969) correction

factor on both NISP counts and meat weights for the three excavation levels covered.

Table 30. Matrix sample counts – Late Period

Table 31. Thomas 1969 correction factor calculation – Late Period assemblage

Herring maintains on top of the rank order in meat weights – the one measure in the

excavated assemblage, presented in chapter seven, that that it did not dominate. The fact that this

is a relative measure must be stressed here, as herring meat weights and counts are most likely

being overrepresented by the correction factor. Especially noteworthy is how no taxa, other than

herring and smelt, were found in the 1/16” wet screened material. In comparison, the Marpole

135

screen size analysis contained additional taxa in these smaller screens. The fact that no non-

herring remains were found within the more intensive screening methods is likely due to the

small sample size. Additionally, although at the top of the rank order, herring meat weight is not

as dominant as NISP counts indicate. It can be concluded that the original excavation material

may be under-representing herring NISP counts. However, the general rank order of herring,

dogfish, salmon, and “other fish” is still maintained, when comparing the corrected values with

the original (Figure 49). Thus, although some taxa loss occurred, the 1/8 in screen was still able

to capture the dominant pattern from the excavation levels considered.

Table 32. Thomas 1969 correction factor applied to excavation levels: 12B2, 14B1, 19B2

Table 33. Meat weight analysis on corrected values – Late Period assemblage

136

Figure 49. %NISP of excavation levels 12B2, 14B1, 19B2 compared with corrected values

Similar to the Marpole assemblage, smelt also deserves some consideration. Bulk

samples collected 122 smelt vertebrate, while original excavation levels do not contain any

smelt. Given this high number, I arbitrarily added “1” to the smelt excavation level so that a

correction factor coud be ran accounting for these smelt remains. Differing from the Marpole

assemblage, the Late Period bulk samples contained three smelt vertebrate in the 1/8 in dry

screen, which allows a correction factor to be made without arbitrarily adding smelt vertebrate to

this context. Results of this analysis is presented in Table 34. Similar to the Marpole assemblage,

the corrected smelt becomes second in the rank order, however, this with a very small proportion

of the assemblage. Apart from adding a new taxon, this analysis does not change the results

noted above, and the conclusion that the 1/8” dry screen established the overall pattern, remains.

Conclusion

Matrix sample counts include large amounts of two small fish types, herring and smelt,

with marginal amounts of all other fish types. Analysis of sample size utilizing these remains

137

illustrates that the use of 1/8” dry screening fails to capture proportions of these smaller fishes, as

well as a small proportion of some larger fish types. The use of both smaller screens (1/16”) and

wet screening of material greatly helped in collection and identification of more fish remains.

Table 34. %NISP of Late Period excavation levels, corrected, and smelt corrected

assemblages

Correction factor analysis on each temporal assemblage supports the notion that smaller

fishes are underrepresented in the larger excavation material. For the Marpole portion, there is an

increase in herring %NISP abundance. However, this %NISP increase does not change the rank

order of taxa when taking meat weights into consideration. This suggests that the overall pattern

of relative abundance was correctly established with the 1/8” screen used during excavation. The

Late Period analysis indicates slightly different results. Herring %NISP and proportion of overall

meat weight increases when accounting for screen size. This suggests that the larger excavation

material is under-representing herring in both of these measures. However, even though meat

weight for herring increases, a dominance matching the pattern seen in the NISP counts is not

found. This indicates that herring is not as abundant as the NISP counts suggest, even when

taking screen size into consideration.

Entire temporal assemblages could not be analyzed with correction factors due to the

small sample of bulk matrixes analyzed. Thus, only a small portion of the assemblage, the exact

138

excavation levels where bulk samples were obtained, was analyzed. A more complete analysis of

screen size bias would involve the use of a larger collection of bulk matrix samples, to a level of

redundancy.

139

CHAPTER NINE

CONCLUSIONS

Several conclusions can be drawn from the results of this study. These are broken into three

categories: methodological, site specific, and linear complexity models. Additionally, future

research approaches are presented throughout this chapter.

Method-based Conclusions

Method-based conclusions can be drawn from matrix sample analyses, the application of

correspondence analysis, and the use of multiple quantification techniques to understand

assemblage structure. Matrix sample evaluation of screen size bias has shown that the use of 1/8”

dry screens does underestimate the amount of smaller fish taxa in recovered assemblages, as well

as identifiable fragments of some larger taxa. This indicates that the use of smaller screen sizes

(1/16”) and wet screening of material does help recover additional specimens. Especially

noteworthy is the collection of an entire taxon that was not found in the larger excavation

material (smelt). However, even with these biases, the general patterns observed in the

assemblages remain consistent. This shows that a smaller screen size is needed for thorough

recovery of small faunal material. However, it also indicates that 1/8” dry screening is sufficient

to collect enough material to establish consistent faunal representations. This supports the

conclusion that a switch to complete 1/16” wet screening of all excavated material is not

necessarily warranted, but that it is important to analyze matrix and/or column samples in future

studies to establish how bias affects each specific assemblage.

140

Additionally, as other studies have noted, the sifting of column and core samples through

fine mesh does compare favorably with what is obtained from the use of larger 1/8” screen

excavation (Casteel 1970; Cannon 2000). This indicates that small, intensively studied samples

of sediment may be more beneficial for establishing faunal patterns dominated by fish, given the

increased recovery of material.

This study also demonstrated the usefulness of Correspondence Analysis on faunal data

to evaluate stratigraphic interpretations. Other studies have demonstrated how CA (and CA-like

statistical approaches) can illuminate data patterns in regional settlement pattern studies (Betts

and Friesen 2004, Bilton 2013, Orchard and Clark 2005). This study finds similar utility in CA

as an exploratory approach for within-midden contexts. Preliminary distinctions of depositional

patterns were strengthened with the results of CA.

The last methodological conclusion that can be drawn from this study concerns the use of

NISP as a means of quantification. First, lumping fish taxa according to the mechanism of

procurement allowed for more robust interpretations of NISP values. Additionally, as noted

above, NISP remains a poor measure of diet (Lyman 2008:30) and the use of NISP counts alone

can produce erroneous interpretations of the importance of taxa that are mass-caught but also

anatomically small, here represented best by herring remains. Rather than simply using NISP

counts for analysis, more insight was found through the use of multiple measures consisting of

NISP, MNI, ubiquity, and meat weight analyses.

Each of these techniques on their own contains substantial issues in interpretation of

faunal patterns in archaeological contexts. However, the use of all four allowed for more

satisfying conclusions. The use of NISP along with some form of meat weight analysis seems

141

most useful for accurate interpretation of abundance in ichthyofaunal assemblages. Admittedly,

the meat weights employed here poorly address variance in fish weight, so future studies may

want to rely on regression formulae to obtain more precise meat weights.

Site-specific Conclusions

Both the Marpole and the Late Period components of the PLM contain similarly diverse

taxa compositions. Fish remains dominate both assemblages with herring, salmon, dogfish, and

“other fish” abundance indicating a diversified fishing pattern. This pattern of stability and

fishing diversity over time matches what has been observed in regionally-focused studies (Bilton

2013:298; Butler and Cambell 2004). The large NISP dominance of herring has also been

observed in southern Northwest Coast sites (MeKechnie et al. 2014). This analysis does support

a change in dogfish fishery practices between time periods, with dogfish specifically targeted in

the Marpole assemblage, while the Late Period fishery procurement was connected to the herring

harvest.

Overall taxa present in the midden indicate the use of myriad microenvironments for

subsistence production. All of the microenvironments are located adjacent to site DgRv-006

and/or easily reached by canoe, within a single travel day. This includes salmon, which may have

come from as far away as the Fraser River. Evidence for locally caught species of fish and

shellfish support the notion that the site was located in part to exploit a diverse array of marine

ecosystems (McLay 1999). However, this does not indicate a rejection of other reasons for site

location, the exploration of which is the subject of future research.

Species presence/absence indicators place both Marpole and Late Period portions of the

midden within the same late-winter/early spring to early summer seasonality. As noted above,

142

this is incomplete given the lack of species level designation for salmon. It is possible that

seasonality could be extended to include a winter residence, as argued by Grier (2001, 2006c) for

site DgRv-003.

Preliminary analysis of depositional aspects of the midden indicates the possible presence

of a prepared burial surface and mounding event at the beginning stage of midden formation

(Grier, personal communication). A shift to more typical midden deposition after this inital phase

of use is inferred from CA results. Given the presence of both dog and human burials in the

midden, as well as the very visible nature of the midden in an important travel corridor, I suggest

that this area was an important place associated closely with the social identity of the inhabitants

of sites DgRv-003 and DgRv-006 (Moss 2011:124).

Linear Complexity Models

Evaluation of linear complexity models indicates an overall disagreement between model

expectations and what is seen in the PLM faunal assemblage. Overall there is general continuity

of fishing practices over time, with small shifts in the relative abundance of herring, dogfish, and

salmon. Dogfish are more abundant in the Late Period, while salmon is slightly more abundant

in Marpole times. This contrasts directly with what was inferred to be happening to fish faunal

patterns in the linear models: salmon specialization should be present in the Marpole assemblage

with diversification of fish resources occurring in the Late Period. This provided for an

acceptance of the null hypothesis of no difference.

With the null hypothesis accepted at site DgRv-006, additional conclusions related to

social complexity and economy in Northwest Coast studies can be forwarded. First, this study

further solidifies the view that linear progressivism-based models need to be rejected in favor of

143

analysis at the local level to truly understand how social realities and subsistence/economic

realities are connected (Cannon and Moss 2011: 294; Moss 2011, 2012; Moss and Erlandson

1995).

More importantly, this study decouples social and subsistence changes. The linear models

assume that social changes would be driven and/or accompanied by shifts in subsistence and

economic patterns. At the PLM, however, we have evidence of a significant social shift

(abandonment of a village and settlement of a new plankhouse) that is not accompanied by

change in subsistence. Though social changes occurred at DgRv-006 with regards to how settled

village life was practiced, there was no corresponding shift in subsistence practices. This one site

does not necessarily indicate a regional pattern and future research should continue to test the

connection between social change and subsistence trend. However, other non-subsistence driven

hypotheses should also be evaluated in order to better understand how Northwest Coast societies

changed over time.

144

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Aikens, C. Melvin, Thomas J. Connely, and Dennis L. Jenkins

2011 Oregon Archaeology. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, Oregon.

Ames, Ken

1981 The Evolution of Social Ranking on the Northwest Coast of North America. American

Antiquity 46(4):789-805.

1994 The Northwest Coast: Complex Hunter-Gatherers, Ecology, and Social Evolution.

Annual Review of Anthropology 23:209-229.

1995 Chiefly Power and Household Production on the Northwest Coast. In Foundations of

Social Inequality, edited by T. Douglas Price and Gary M. Feinman, pp. 155-187.

Plenum Press: New York, New York.

2002 Going by Boat: The Forager-Collector Continuum at Sea. In Beyond Foraging and

Collecting: Evolutionary Change in Hunter-Gatherer Settlement Systems, edited by

Ben Fitzhugh and J. Habu, pp. 17-50. Plenum Press, New York, New York.

Ames, Ken, and Herbert Maschner

1999 Peoples of the Northwest Coast: Their Archaeology and Prehistory. Thames and

Hudson: London.

Angelbeck, Bill, and Colin Grier

2012 Anarchism and the Archaeology of Anarchic Societies: Resistance to Centralization in

the Coast Salish Region of the Pacific Northwest Coast. Current Anthropology

53(4):1-41.

Angelbeck, Bill, and Eric McLay

2011 The Battle at Mapl Bay: The Dynamics of Coast Salish Political Organization through

Oral Histories. Ethnohistory 58(4):359-392.

Baron, Nancy, and John Acorn

1997 Birds of the Pacific Northwest Coast. Lone Pine Publishing, Edmonton, Alberta.

Barnett, Homer

1955 The Coast Salish of British Columbia. The University Press, Eugene, Oregon.

Baxter, M.J.

1994 Exploratory Multivariate Analysis in Archaeology. Edinburgh University Press,

Edinburgh, United Kingdom.

Betts, Matthew, and T. Max Friesen

2004 Quantifying hunter-gatherer intensification: a zooarchaeological case study from

145

Arctic Canada. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 23:357-384.

Betts, Matthew, Hebert Maschner, Corey Schou, Robert Schlader, Jonathan Holmes, Nicholas

Clement, and Michael Smuin

2011 Virtual zooarchaeology: building a web-based reference collection of northern

Vertebrates for archaeofaunal research and education. Journal of Archaeological

Science 38:755-762.

Bilton, David

2013 Northern, Central, Diversified, Specialized: The Archaeology of Fishing Adaptations

in the Gulf of Georgia (Salish Sea), British Columbia. Unpublished dissertation,

Department of Anthropology, University of Toronto, Ontario.

Binford, Lewis

1978 Nunamiut Ethnoarchaeology. Academic Press: NewYork, New York.

1984 Faunal Remains from Klasies River Mouth. Academic Press: Orlando, Florida.

Boem, S. Gay

1973 Cultural and non-cultural variation in the artifact and faunal samples from the St.

Mungo Cannery Site, DgRr 2. Unpublished MA thesis, University of Victoria, British

Columbia.

Brown, Christopher, and Carl Gustafson

1990 A Key to Postcranial Skeletal Remains of Cattle/Bison, Elk, and Horse. Washington

State University Laboratory of Anthropology, Report of Investigations, No. 57:

Pullman, Washington.

Butler, Virginia, and James Chatters

1994 The Role of Bone Density in Structuring Prehistoric Salmon Bone Assemblages.

Journal of Archaeological Science 21:413-424.

Butler, Virginia, and Sarah Campbell

2004 Resource Intensification and Resource Depression in the Pacific Northwest of North

North America: A Zooarchaeological Review. Journal of World Prehistory 18(4):327-

405.

Burley, David

1989 Senewe’lets. Royal British Columbia Museum, Victoria, British Columbia.

Cannon, Aubrey

1991 The Economic Prehistory of Namu. Archaeology Press, Simon Fraser University,

Burnaby, British Columbia.

146

2000 Assessing Variability in Northwest Coast Salmon and Herring Fisheries: Bucket-

Auger Sampling of Shell Midden Sites on the Central Coast of British Columbia.

Journal of Archaeological Science 27:725-737.

Cannon, Debbi

1987 Marine Fish Osteology: A Manual for Archaeologists. Simon Fraser University,

Burnaby, British Columbia.

Cannon, Michael

1999 A Mathematical Model of the Effects of Screen Size on Zooarchaeological Relative

Abundance Measures. Journal of Archaeological Science 26:205-214.

Cannon, Aubrey, and Dongya Yang.

2006 Early Storage and Sedentism on the Pacific Northwest Coast: Ancient DNA Analysis

Of Salmon Remains from Namu, British Columbia. American Antiquity 71(1):123-

140.

2011 Pushing Limits and Finding Interpretive Balance: A Reply to Monks and Orchard.

American Antiquity 76(3):585-595.

Cannon, Aubrey, and Madonna Moss

2011 Conclusion: The Archaeology of North Pacific Fisheries. In The Archaeology of

North Pacific Fisheries, edited by Madonna Moss and Aubrey Cannon, pp. 293-300.

University of Alaska Press, Fairbanks, Alaska.

Carlson, Roy

1999 Sacred sites on the Northwest Coast of North America. In Bog Bodies, Sacred Sites

and Wetland Archaeology, edited by Bryony Coles, John Coles and Mogens Schou

Jørgenson, pp. 39-46. WARP (Wetland Archaeology Research Project), Occasional

Paper 12, Short Run Press, Exeter, United Kingdom.

Carlson, Roy, and Philip Hobler

1993 The Pender Canal Excavations and the Development of Coast Salish Culture. BC

Studies 99:25-52.

Casteel, Richard

1970 Core and Column Sampling. American Antiquity 35(4):465-467.

1972 Some biases in the recovery of archaeological faunal remains. Proceedings of the

Prehistoric Society (38):382-388.

1974 A Method for Estimation of Live Weight of Fish from the Size of Skeletal Elements.


1976a Fish Remains in Archaeology and Paleo-environmental Studies. Academic Press,

New York, New York.

1976b Comparison of Column and Whole Unit Samples for Recovering Fish Remains.

World Archaeology 8(2):192-196.

147

Claassen, Cheryl

2000 Quantifying Shell: Comments on Mason, Peterson, and Tiffany. American Antiquity

65(2):415-418.

Clark, Terence

2010 Rewriting Marpole: The Path to Cultural Complexity in the Gulf of Georgia. Doctoral

Dissertation. Department of Anthropology, University of Toronto, Ontario.

2013 Rewriting Marpole: The Path to Cultural Complexity in the Gulf of Georgia.

University of Ottawa Press, Ontario.

Clauge, John, John Harper, R.J. Hebda, and D.E. Howes

1982 Late Quaternary sea levels and crustal movements, coastal British Columbia.

Canadian Journal of Earth Science 19:597-618.

Codere, Helen

1950 Fighting with Property. J.J. Augustin, New York, New York.

Communications Directorate Fisheries and Oceans Canada

2002 Underwater world: Pacific Salmon. Electronic document,

http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/Science/publications/uww-msm/articles/pacificsalmon-

saumonpacifique-eng.htm.

Coupland, Gary, Terence Clark, and Amanda Palmer

2009 Hierarchy, Communalism, and the Spatial Order of Northwest Coast Plank Houses:

A Comparative Study. American Antiquity 74(1):77-106.

Coupland, Gary, Kathlyn Stewart, and Katherine Patton

2010 Do you never get tired of salmon? Evidence for extreme salmon specialization at

Prince Rupert harbor, British Columbia. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology

29:189-207.

Croes, Dale, and Steven Hackenberger

1988 Hoko River Archaeological Complex: Modeling Prehistoric Northwest Coast

Economic Evolution. In Research in Economic Anthropology, Supplement 3. Pp. 19

85. JAI Press.

Crowell, Aron, and Wayne Howell

2013 Time, Oral Tradition, and Archaeology at Xakwnoowú, A Little Ice Age Fort in

Southeastern Alaska. American Antiquity 78(1):3-23.

Cybulski, Jerome

1992 A Greenville burial ground: human remains and mortuary elements in British

Columbia coast prehistory. Archaeological Survey of Canada Mercury Series

148

Paper No. 146. Canadian Museum of Civilization, Hull, Quebec.

Derr, Kelly, Doug Byers, and Colin Grier

2012 Of Sea Urchins and Sea Lions: Analysis of a Mass Consumption Feature in a Late

Period Northwest Coast Plankhouse. Poster presented at the Society for American

Archaeology 77th

Annual Meeting, Memphis.

Dolan, James Patrick

2009 Geoarchaeological Analysis of a Northwest Coast Plank House: Formation Processes

At The Dionisio Point Site. Unpublished MA Thesis. Washington State University,

Pullman, Washington.

Drucker, Philip, and Robert Heizer

1967 To Make My Name Good. University of California Press, Los Angeles, California.

Erlandson, Jon M., Michael H. Graham, Bruce J. Bourque, Debra Corbett, James A. Estes, and

Robert S. Steneck.

2007 The Kelp Highway Hypothesis: Marine Ecology, the Coastal Migration Theory, and

the Peopling of the Americas. Journal of Island and Coastal Archaeology 2:161-174.

Ewonus, Paul

2011a Social Zooarchaeology of a Northwest Coast House. Journal of Island and Coastal

Archaeology 6:72-97.

2011b Social Landscapes of the Southern Strait of Georgia, Pacific Northwest Coast.

Unpublished dissertation. University of Cambridge.

2012 Reflexive theory and practice in evaluating seasonal village settlement: a response to

Grier and Lukowski.” Journal of Island and Coastal Archaeology 7(3):437-445.

Ewonus, Paul, Aubrey Cannon, and Dongya Yang

2011 Addressing seasonal site use through ancient DNA species identification of Pacific

salmon at Dionisio Point, Galiano Island, British Columbia. Journal of

Archaeological Science 38:2536-2546.

Fedje, Daryl, and Tina Christensen

1999 Modeling Paleoshorelines and Locating Early Holocene Coastal Sites in Haida Gwaii.


Fedje, Daryl, Ian Sumpter, and John Southon

2009 Sea-levels and Archaeology in the Gulf Islands National Park Reserve. Canadian

Journal of Archaeology 33:234-253.

Fladmark, Knut

1975 A Paleoecological Model for Northwest Coast Prehistory. Archaeological Survey

of Canada Paper No. 43, Ottawa, Ontario.

149

Gilbert, B. Miles

1990 Mammalian Osteology. Missouri Archaeological Society, Columbia, Missouri.

Gilbert, B. Miles, Larry Martin, and Howard Savage

1996 Avian Osteology. Missouri Archaeological Society Inc, Columbia, Missouri.

Gosden, Chris

1999 Anthropology and Archaeology: A Changing Relationship. Routledge: London and

New York

Grayson, Donald

1984 Quantitative Zooarchaeology. Academic Press, Orlando, Florida.

Green, A.J., L.J.P van Vliet, and F.A. Kenney

1989 Soils of the Gulf Islands of British Columbia: Volume 3 Soils of Galiano, Valdes,

Thetis, Kuper, and lesser islands. British Columbia Soil Survey Report No. 43,

Vancouver, British Columbia.

Grier, Colin

2001 The Social Economy of a Prehistoric Northwest Coast Plankhouse. Unpublished

Ph.D dissertation, Arizona State University, Tempe.

2003 Dimensions of Regional Interaction in the Prehistoric Gulf of Georgia. In Emerging

From the Mist, edited by R.G. Matson, Gary Coupland, and Quentin Mackie, pp.

170-187. UBC Press, Vancouver, British Columbia.

2006a Affluence on the Prehistoric Northwest Coast of North America. In Beyond Affluent

Foragers: Rethinking Hunter-Gatherer Complexity, edited by C. Grier, J. Kim, and

J. Uchiyama, pp. 192-200. Oxbow Books, Oxford.

2006b The Political Context of Prehistoric Coast Salish Residences on the Northwest Coast.

In Palaces and Power in the Americas: From Peru to the Northwest Coast, edited by

J.J. Christie and P.J. Sarro, pp. 141-165. University of Texas Press, Austin, Texas.

2006c Temporality in Northwest Coast Households. In Household Archaeology on the

Northwest Coast, edited by E.A. Sovel, D.A. Trieu Gahr, and K.M. Ames, pp 97-

119. International Monographs in Prehistory, Ann Arbor, Michigan.

2007 Consuming the Recent for Constructing the Ancient: The Role of Ethnography in

Coast Salish Archaeological Interpretation. In Be of Good Mind: Essays on the

Coast Salish, edited by B.G. Miller, pp. 284-307. UBC Press, Vancouver, British

Columbia.

2014 Which Way Forward? Canadian Journal of Archaeology 38:135-139.

Grier, Colin, Kelli Flanigan, Misa Waters, Leah G. Jordan, Susan Lukowski and Brian Kemp

2013 Using Ancient DNA Identification and Osteometric Measures of Archaeological

Pacific Salmon Vertebrae for Reconstructing Salmon Fisheries and Site Seasonality

at Dionisio Point, British Columbia. Journal of Archaeological Science 40(1):544-

555.

150

Grier, Colin, Patrick Dolan, Kelly Derr, and Eric McLay

2009 Assessing Sea Level Changes in the Southern Gulf Island of British Columbia Using

Archaeological Data from Coastal Spit Locations. Canadian Journal of Archaeology

33:12-18.

Grier, Colin, and Susan Lukowski

2012 On Villages, Quantification, and Appropriate Context: A Comment on “Social

Zooarchaeology of a Northwest Coast House” by Paul A. Ewonus. Journal of Island

and Coastal Archaeology 7(3):430-436.

Grier, Colin, and Eric McLay

2007 Archaeological Inventory of DgRv-006, Dionisio Point Provincial Park, Galiano

Island, British Columbia. Unpublished permit report (2007-144) submitted to the

British Columbia Archaeology Branch, Victoria.

Grier, Colin, Eric McLay, and Michael Richards

2012 Stable Isotopes, Human Diet and Subsistence Practices at Two Precontact Villages at

Dionisio Point on the Southwestern British Columbia Coast. Poster presented at the

Society for American Archaeology 77th

Annual Meeting, Memphis

Guthrie, R.D.

1968 Paleoecology of the Large-Mammal Community in Interior Alaska during the Late

Pleistocene. American Midland Naturalist 79(2):346-363.

Haist, V., and M. Stocker

1985 Growth and Maturation of Pacific Herring (Clupea harengus pallasi) in the Strait of

Georgia. Canadian Journal of Fish and Aquatic Sciences 42(1):138-146.

Hanson, Diane

1991 Late Prehistoric Subsistence in the Strait of Georgia Region of the Northwest Coast.

Unpublished Ph.D dissertation, Department of Archaeology. Simon Fraser

University, Burnaby, British Columbia.

1995 Subsistence during the Late Prehistoric Occupation of Pender Canal, British

Columbia (DeRt-1). Canadian Journal of Archaeology 19:29-48.

2008 Salmon and Models of Social Complexity on the Northwest Coast. North Pacific

Prehistory 2:123-132.

Hart, J.L.

1973 Pacific Fishes of Canada. Fisheries Research Board of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario.

Hayden, Brian

1995 Pathways to Power: Principles for Creating Socioeconomic Inequalities. In

Foundations of Social Inequality, edited by T. Douglas Price and Gary M. Feinman,

151

pp. 15-86. Plenum Press: New York and London.

Hayden, Brian, and Aubrey Cannon

1983 Where the Garbage Goes: Refuse Disposal in the Maya Highlands. Journal of

Anthropological Archaeology 2:117-163.

Hodgetts, Lisa, and Farid Rahemtulla

2001 Land and Sea: use of terrestrial mammal bones in coastal hunter-gatherer

communities. Antiquity 75:56-62.

Hopt, Justin

2014 Fish and Complexity: Faunal Analysis at the Shell Midden Component of site

DgRv-006, Galiano Island, B.C. Paper presented at the 2014 Northwest

Anthropological Conference, Bellingham, Washington.

Hopt, Justin and Colin Grier

2013 Subsistence and Resource Use at a Late Period Plankhouse at the Dionisio Point

Locality (Site DgRv-006), Galiano Island, BC. Poster presented at the 78th

Annual

Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, Honolulu, Hawaii.

Huber, Harriet, Jeffrey Jorgensen, Virginia Butler, Greg Baker, an Rebecca Stevens

2011 Can salmonids (Oncorhynchus spp.) be identified to species using vertebral

morphometrics? Journal of Archaeological Science 38:136-146.

Ingold, Tim

1993 The Temporality of the Landscape. World Archaeology 25(2):152-174.

Jenkins, Dennis L., Loren G. Davis, Thomas W. Stafford Jr., Paula F Campos, Bryan Hockett,

George T. Jones, Linda Scott Cummings, Chad Yost, Thomas J. Connolly, Robert M. Yohe

II, Summer C. Gibbons, Maanasa Raghaven, Morten Rasmussen, Johanna L.A. Paijmans,

Michael Hofreiter, Brian M. Kemp, Jodi Lynn Barta, Cara Monroe, M. Thomas P. Gilbert,

and Eske Willerslev

2012 Clovis Age Western Stemmed Projectile Points and Human Coprolites at the Paisley

Caves. Science 337:223-228.

Jensen, A.C.

1965 Life History of the Spiny Dogfish. Fishery Bulletin 65(3):527-554.

Johnstone, Patrick

2006 Geology of the Upper Cretaceous Nanaimo Group, Southernmost Gulf Islands and

adjacent Saanich Peninsula, Southwestern British Columbia. Unpublished MA

Thesis, Department of Earth Sciences, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, British

Columbia.

152

Lamb, Andy, and Phil Edgell

1986 Coastal Fishes of the Pacific Northwest. Harbour Publishing, Madeira Park, British

Columbia.

2010 Coastal Fishes of the Pacific Northwest. Harbour Publishing, Madeira Park, British

Columbia.

Lepofsky, Dana, and Ken Lertzman

2005 More on Sampling for Richness and Diversity in Archaeobiological Assemblages.

Journal of Ethnobiology 25(2):175-188.

Losey, Robert

2010 Anamism as a Means of Exploring Archaeological Fishing Structures on Willapa

Bay,Washington, USA. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 20(1):17-32.

Lyman, R. Lee

2002 Taxonomic Identification of Zooarchaeological Remains. The Review of Archaeology

23(2):13-20.

2008 Quantitative Paleozoology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Lyman, R. Lee, and Ken Ames

2004 Sampling to Redundancy in Zooarchaeology: Lessons from the Portland Basin,

Northwestern Oregon and Southwestern Washington. Journal of Ethnobiology 24(2):

329-346.

Marino, Matthew, and Justin Hopt

2014 (Dis)continuity in a Northwest Coast Midden/Cemetary: Two Perspectives on Faunal

Remains from Galiano Island. Poster presented at the Society for American

Archaeology annual meeting, Austin, Texas.

Martindale, Andrew, and Susan Marsden

2003 Defining the Middle Period (3500 BP to 1500 BP) in Tsimshian History through a

Comparison of Archaeological and Oral Records. BC Studies 138:13-50.

Marshall, Fiona, and Tom Pilgram

1993 NISP vs. MNI in Quantification of Body-Part Representation. American Antiquity 58:

2:261-269.

Mason, R., M.L. Peterson, and J.A. Tiffany

1998 Weighing vs. Counting: Measurement Reliability and the California School of

Midden Analysis. American Antiquity 63:303-324.

Mathewes, Rolf, and John Clague

1994 Detection of Large Prehistoric Earthquakes in the Pacific Northwest by Microfossil

Analysis. Science 264(5159):688-691.

153

Matson, R.G.

1976 The Glenrose Cannery Site. National Museum of Man, Mercury Series,

Archaeological Survey of Canada, No. 52, Ottawa, Ontario.

1983 Intensification and the Development of Cultural Complexity: The Northwest versus

the Northeast Coast. In The Evolution of Maritime Cultures on the Northeast and the

Northwest Coastsof America, edited by Ronald J. Nash, pp. 125-148. Publication No.

11, Simon Fraer University, Burnaby, British Columbia.

1985 The Relationship between Sedentism and Status Inequalities among Hunters and

Gatherers. Status, Structure and Stratification: Current Archaeological

Reconstructions:245-252.

1992 The Evolution of Northwest Coast Subsistence. In Research in economic anthropology

Sup.6 long-term subsistence change in prehistoric North America, edited by D. Croes,

R. Hawkins, and B.L. Isaac, pp. 367-428. JAI Press, Greenwich, Connecticut.

Matson, R.G., and Gary Coupland

1995 The Prehistory of the Northwest Coast. Academic Press, San Diego, California.

Matson, R.G., Joanne Green, and Eric McLay

1999 Houses and Households in the Gulf of Georgia: Archaeological Investigations of

Shingle Point (DgRv 2), Valdes Island, British Columbia. Report to Archaeology

Branch, Victoria, British Columbia.

McFarlane, G.A, W. Shaw, and R.J. Beamish

1983 Observations on the Biology and Distribution of Pacific Hake, Walleye Pollock, and

Spiny Dogfish in the Strait of Georgia, February 20-May 2, and July 3, 1981.

Canadian Manuscript Report and Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences No. 1722

McKechnie, Iain

2005 Column Sampling and the Archaeology of Small fish at Ts’ishaa. In Ts’ishaa:

Archaeology and Ethnography of a Nuu-chah-nulth Origin Site in Barkley Sound,

By Alan D. McMillan and Denis St. Claire, pp. 206-223. Archaeology Press,

Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, British Columbia.

2012 Zooarchaeological Analysis of the Indigenous Fishery at the Huu7ii Big House and

Back Terrace, Huu-ay-aht Territory, Southwestern Vancouver Island. In Household

Archaeology at a Nuu-chah-nulth Village Site in Barkley Sound, edited by Alan

McMillan and Denis St. Claire, pp. 154-186. Archaeology Press, Simon Fraser

University, Burnaby, British Columbia.

McKechnie, Iain, Dana Lepofsky, Madonna Moss, Virginia Butler, Trevor Orchard, Gary

Coupland, Frederick Foster, Megan Caldwell, and Ken Lertzman.

2014 Archaeological data provide alternative hypotheses on Pacific herring (Clupea

pallasii) distribution, abundance, and variability. PNAS:1-10.

154

McLay, Eric

1999 The Diversity of Northwest Coast Shell Middens: Late Pre-Contact Settlement-

Subsistence Patterns on Valdes Island, British Columbia. Unpublished MA

Thesis, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia.

Mecklenburg, Catherine, T. Anthony Mecklenburg, and Lyman Thorsteinson

2002 Fishes of Alaska. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda Maryland.

Meidinger, Del and Jom Pojar

1991 Ecosystems of British Columbia. Special Report Series 6, BC Ministry of Forests.

Mitchell, Donald

1971 Archaeology of the Gulf of Georgia area: a Natural region and its culture types.

British Columbia Provincial Museum.

Monks, Gregory

1981 Seasonality Studies. In Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory Vol. 4, edited

By Michael B. Schiffer, pp.177-240. Academic Press, New York, New York.

1987 Prey as Bait: the Deep Bay Example. Candian Journal of Archaeology 11:119-142.

Monks, Gregory, and Trevor Orchard

2011 Comment on Cannon and Yang: Early Storage and Sedentism on the Pacific

Northwest Coast. American Antiquity 76(3):573-584.

Moss, Madonna

2011 Northwest Coast: Archaeology as Deep History. SAA Press, Washington, D.C.

2012 Understanding Variability in Northwest Coast Faunal Assemblages: Beyond

Economic Intensification and Cultural Complexity. Journal of Island and Coastal

Archaeology 7:1-22.

Moss, Madonna, and Jon Erlandson

1995 Reflections on North American Pacific Coast Prehistory. Journal of World Prehistory

9(1):1-45.

Olsen, N., K.L. Rutherfod, R.D. Stanley, and M.R. Wyeth

2009 Hecate Strait Groundfish Bottom Trawl Survey, May 26th

to June 21st, 2009.

CanadianManuscript Report of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 2901. Fisheries and

Oceans, Canada

Olsen, Stanley

1964 Mammal remains from archaeological sites, Part I: Southeastern and Southwestern

United States. Papers of the Peabody Museum, Volume 56, Number 1, Cambridge,

Massachusetts.

155

Orchard, Trevor

2001 The Role of Selected Fish Species in Aleut Paleodiet. Unpublished MA thesis,

Department of Anthropology, University of Victoria, Victoria, British Columbia.

2005 The Use of Statistical Size Estimations in Minimum Number Calculations.

International Journal of Osteoarchaeology 15:351-359.

Orchard, Trevor, and Terence Clark

2005 Multidimensional Scaling of Northwest Coast Faunal Assemblages: A Case Study

from Southern Haida Gwaii, British Columbia. Candian Journal of Archaeoogy

29:88-112.

Orchard, Trevor, and Paul Szpak

2011 Identification of Salmon Species from Archaeological Remains on the Northwest

Coast. In The Archaeology of North Pacific Fisheries, edited by Madonna Moss and

Aubrey Cannon, pp. 17-29. University of Alaska Press, Fairbanks, Alaska.

Post, Lee

2004 The Moose Manual: How to Prepare and Articulate Large Hoofed Mammal Skeletons.

Self-published.

2013 Pinniped Projects: Articulating Seal and Sea Lion Skeletons. Self-published.

Punke, Michele, and Loren Davis

2006 Problems and Prospects in the Preservation of Late Pleistocene Cultural Sites in

Southern Oregon Coastal River Valleys: Implications for Evaluating Coatal Migration

Routes. Geoarchaeology: An International Journal 24(4):333-350.

Ricketts, Edward, Jack Calvin, and Joel Hedgpeth

1968 Between Pacific Tides. Stanford University Press, Stanford, California.

Ruzicka, Annette

2013 Indigenous Archaeology at Dionisio Point on Galiano Island, British Columbia,

Canada: Contemporary Impacts and Implications for Archaeological Research and

Practice. Unpublished MA thesis. Washington State University, Pullman, WA.

Schalk, Randall

1977 The Structure of an Anadromous Fish Resource. In For Theory Building in

Archaeology: Essays on Faunal Remains, Aquatic Resource, Spatial Analysis, and

Systemic Modeling, edited by Lewis Binford, pp. 207-249. Academic Press, New

York, New York,

1981 Land Use and Organizational Complexity among Foragers of Northwestern North

America. Senri Ethnological Studies 9:53-75.

Schmid, Elisabeth

1972 Atlas of Animal Bones: For Prehistorians, Archaeologists and Quaternary Geologists.

156

Elsevier Publishing Company, Amsterdam.

Shaffer, Brian

1992 Quarter-Inch Screening: Understanding Biases in Recovery of Vertebrate Faunal

Remains. American Antiquity 57(1):129-136.

Shennan, Stephan

1997 Quantifying Archaeology. University of Iowa Press, Iowa City, Iowa.

Smith, Ross

2008 Structural Bone Density of Pacific Cod (Gadus macrocephalus) and Halibut

(Hippoglossus stenolepis): Taphonomic and Archaeological Implications.

Unpublished MA thesis. Portland State University, Portland, Oregon.

Smith, Ross, Virginia Butler, Shelia Orwoll, and Catherine Wilson-Skogan

2011 Pacific Cod and Salmon Structured Bone Density: Implications for Interpreting

Butchering Patterns in North Pacific Archaeofaunas. In The Archaeology of North

Pacific Fisheries, edited by Madonna Moss and Aubrey Cannon, pp. 45-56.

University of Alaska Press, Fairbanks, Alaska.

Stein, Julie

1992 Interpreting Stratification of a Shell Midden. In Deciphering a Shell Midden, edited

by Julie Stein, pp. 71-93. Academic Press, San Diego, California.

Suttles, Wayne

1974 Economic Life of the Coast Salish of Haro and Rosario Straits. Garland Publishing,

New York and London.

1987a Affinal Ties, Subsistence, and Prestige among the Coast Salish. In Coast Salish

Essays, pp. 15-25. University of Washington Press, Seattle, Washington.

1987b Private Knowledge, Morality, and Social Classes among the Coast Salish. In Coast

Salish Essays, pp. 3-14. University of Washington Press, Seattle, Washington.

1987c Variation in Habitat and Culture on the Northwest Coast. In Coast Salish Essays, pp.

26-44. University of Washington Press, Seattle, Washington.

1987d Notes on Coast Salish Sea-Mammal Hunting. In Coast Salish Essays, pp. 233-247.

University of Washington Press, Seattle, Washington.

Thom, Brian

1995 The Dead and the Living: Burial Mounds and Cairns and the Development of Social

Classes in the Gulf of Georgia Region. Unpublished MA Thesis. University of British

Columbia. Vancouver, British Columbia.

Thomas, D.H.

1969 Great Basin Hunting Patterns: A Quantitative Method for Treating Faunal Remains.

American Antiquity 36:392-401.

157

VanPool, Christine and Elizabeth Newsome

2012 The Spirit in the Material: A Case Study of Animism in the American Southwest.


Wheeler, Alwyne, and Andrew K.G. Jones

1989 Fishes. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

White, Theodore

1953 A Method of Calculating the Dietary Percentage of Various Food Animals Utilized

by Aboriginal Peoples. American Antiquity 18(4):396-398

Wilby, G.V.

1937 Bulletin No. LIV: The Ling Cod, Ophiodon Elongatus Girard. The Biological Board

of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario.

Zohar, Irit and Miriam Belmaker

2005 Size does Matter: Methodological Comments on Sieve Size and Species Richness in

Fishbone Assemblage. Journal of Archaeological Science 32:635-641.

158

APPENDICES

Appendix A: Fish Vertebrae Raw Counts

172

*P. Mackeral = Pacific Mackeral

*P. Midshipman = Plainfin Midshipman

*P.S. Sculpin = Pacific Staghorn Sculpin

*A. Flounder = Arrowtooth Flounder

173

Appendix B: Fish Vertebrae Raw Data

192

Appendix C: Terrestrial Mammal Raw Counts

195

Appendix D: Terrestrial Mammal Raw Data

198

Appendix E: Sea Mammal Raw Counts

Appendix F: Sea Mammal Raw Data

199

Appendix G: Bird Raw Counts

208

Appendix H: Bird Raw Data

210

Appendix I: Fish Elements Raw Data

213

Appendix J: “No ID” Raw Data

216

Appendix K: Temporal and Depositional Unit Level Designation

218

*0 = No designation

219

Appendix L: Stata Correspondence Analysis Output

Log Fish Data

220

Fish Row Percentage

221

Fish Column Percentage

Fish and Complexity: Faunal Analysis at the Shell Midden Component of Site DgRv-006, Galiano Island,...

Documents

Transcript of Fish and Complexity: Faunal Analysis at the Shell Midden Component of Site DgRv-006, Galiano Island,...