Transcript
Page 1: Comparative Biomass Estimates and Prehistoric Cultural Ecology of the Southwest Umnak Region, Aleutian Islands

Comparative Biomass Estimates and Prehistoric Cultural Ecology of the Southwest UmnakRegion, Aleutian IslandsAuthor(s): David R. Yesner and Jean S. AignerSource: Arctic Anthropology, Vol. 13, No. 2 (1976), pp. 91-112Published by: University of Wisconsin PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40283944 .

Accessed: 14/06/2014 10:00

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

University of Wisconsin Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to ArcticAnthropology.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 185.44.79.40 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 10:00:42 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Page 2: Comparative Biomass Estimates and Prehistoric Cultural Ecology of the Southwest Umnak Region, Aleutian Islands

COMPARATIVE BIOMASS ESTIMATES AND PREHISTORIC CULTURAL ECOLOGY

OF THE SOUTHWEST UMNAK REGION, ALEUTIAN ISLANDS*

DAVID R. YESNER AND JEAN S. AIGNER

ABSTRACT

While changes in faunal frequencies over time within archaeological sites can indicate the nature of changing regional settlement patterns, much may be learned about the nature of regional hunting adaptations from the pat- terning of faunal frequencies in sites as a whole. Adaptational information relates pri- marily to three areas: cultural selection of resources, dietary composition, and harvesting methods. Because of environmental stability, cultural continuity, high density and

diversity of resources and excellent preser- vation of archaeological faunal remains, the Aleutian Islands offer an excellent model area for testing hypotheses relating to these three areas. To this end, biomass estimates are compared between the modern Aleutian ecosystem and archaeologically derived data; dietary analyses are performed; and means for deriving information on harvest- ing methods from faunal frequency data are presented.

INTRODUCTION

Archaeological faunal data can provide a good deal of information on exploitation pat- terns of hunter-gatherer populations. The "laundry list" approach of specifying which species are present in the archaeological materials indicates which species in the eco- system were being exploited, but given little or no information on hunting patterns per se. Potentially, however, a detailed quantitative approach using faunal frequency patterns can provide information on the following:

1) Environmental change 2) Seasonality (span of occupation) and

settlement pattern 3) Relative population change over time and

distribution over space h) Intensity of resource exploitation 5) Cultural selection of resources 6) Dietary and nutritional patterns 7) Harvesting methods 8) Butchering patterns 9) Refuse deposition and accumulation pat-

terns 10) Nature and spatial distribution of ac-

tivities on discrete living floors.

The midden sites of mari ne- adapted hunter- gatherers present a special opportunity for these ecologically-oriented archaeological studies, owing to the accumulation of vast amounts of organic materials and frequently to their excellent preservation in a highly cal- ciferous matrix. Often, however, these sites present special problems in archaeological interpretation. Because they consist primarily of refuse deposits, "microstructural" analy- sis of these sites, including reconstruction of human activities for different time periods, becomes a study of the formation of small lenses of refuse and the analysis of discrete living floors (Ambrose 1967). An ad- ditional problem is the partial intermixing of refuse deposits and living floor debris. Nevertheless, reconstruction of changing human ecological and demographic relationships based upon temporal shifts in faunal frequency pat- terns (numbers 1 through k) is possible with

*The author wishes gratefully to acknow- ledge the opportunity provided by Drs. W. S. Laughlin and J. S. Aigner of the University of Connecticut to study Aleutian archaeological collections. A further note of thanks goes to Drs. J. S. Aigner and P. J. Pelto of the University of Connecticut for extensive review of the manuscript. Computer programs were prepared in conjunction with A. M. Bieber, Uni- versity of Connecticut, and computer facili- ties were generously made available by the University of Connecticut computer center. G. A. Sanger of the Marine Mammal Division, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administra- tion, Seattle, kindly made available and al- losed replication of his data. This research was made possible by grants from the National Science Foundation (GB281+6, "Aleut Adaptation to the Bering Land Bridge Coastal Configura- tion" ) and the Connecticut Research Founda- tion. The author assumes responsibility for all errors contained herein.

91 Arctic Anthropology XIII- 2, 1976

This content downloaded from 185.44.79.40 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 10:00:42 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Page 3: Comparative Biomass Estimates and Prehistoric Cultural Ecology of the Southwest Umnak Region, Aleutian Islands

92 Arctic Anthropology XIII- 2

careful attention to, and adequate sampling of, microstructural features within site com- ponents (these temporal trends have been out- lined in Lippold [1966] and Yesner [l9T^a, 1975]). However, certain problems (numbers 5 through 7) not only do not require this kind of detailed intrasite analysis for their illu- mination, but are more rationally tackled by dealing with whole sites within a regional framework. That is, in dealing with questions of cultural selection of resources, dietary and nutritional reconstruction, and harvesting methods, the major concerns of the present paper, the relevant data must be obtained from and analyzed in terms of regional population systems, so that confounding effects of site seasonality and mi cr ©environmental differentia- tion may be filtered out. An explicitly re- gional approach toward faunal analysis is often required when considering hunter- gatherers with the complex mosaic of shifting exploit at ional patterns characteristic of marine-adapted populations. While these popu- lations represent a special subset of hunter- gatherers in general, the same regional ap- proach is even more mandatory for other hunter- gatherers with even greater mobility.

THE ALEUTIAN MODEL AREA

The Aleutian Islands (see Fig. 1 of Aigner this issue) serve as a good model area for the reconstruction of regional hunting adaptations from faunal analyses for several reasons. First, there is a virtual one-to-one corre- spodence between human population and environ- ment in the Aleutians. The Aleuts are found entirely within a sharply delimited ecosystem characterized by extensive reef areas support- ing large invertebrate populations, breeding grounds for sea mammals, extensive cliff areas for bird nesting, and fresh water streams and spawning lakes supporting anadromous fish populations as well as migratory waterfowl. With the exception of some roots, shoots, and berries, there are no significant terrestrial resources. To the east of the Aleutians are found Eskimo populations who have had little genetic interchange with their Aleut neighbors. In addition, the resource configuration avail- able to the Eskimos is substantially different from that available to the Aleuts; there is little in the way of invertebrate resources, but there is a substantial terrestrial mammal- ian fauna which the Eskimos exploit along with the maritime zone. The latter is within the winter ice zone, another distinction from the Aleutian ecosystem which contains virtu- ally no winter ice (Aigner 1970).

Secondly, the high density and diversity of Aleutian resources, as well as the coastal settlement system, permitted the formation of

high human population densities and conspicu- ous remains, and consequently high archaeolo- gical visibility. • The high density of animal and human populations in the Aleutians is directly related to the presence of major up- welling systems generally concentrated in inter-island passes where cold, nutrient-rich waters of the Bering Sea mix with warmer, deeper Pacific waters bearing the strong Pacific current (Laughlin 1972:381; Aigner 1970). High densities of plankton in these areas in turn support a large biomass of birds and marine macrofauna.

The diversity of resources in the Aleutians is the result of a combination of factors: the mixing of Nearctic and Palearctic faunas, combining seasonal, migratory species with

year-round, sedentary forms, including the "Aleutican" avifauna native to the archipelago (Udvardy 1963) ; a central position with respect to both pinniped migration routes and the north to south Pacific flyway; the lack of winter ice; and a coastal configuration allow- ing the formation of reef systems and fresh water streams and lakes. Such a diversity of resources stimulated a variety of subsistence activities during all seasons of the year, reflected in changing frequencies of faunal remains. It also meant that when one resource was naturally depressed or over exploited, an- other could be substituted in its place. Cer- tain resources, such as invertebrates or birds , could be relied upon when more favored resources failed (Aigner 1970). In such a situation of resource density and diversity, it was unnecessary for the Aleuts to adopt such population-limiting practices as infanti- cide or senilicide that were adopted elsewhere in the arctic. Because of this, Aleut popula- tions probably responded more or less di- rectly to the nutritional changes indicated by faunal remains .

Several additional factors contribute to making the Aleutians a model area for faunal studies. Because of their highly basic sea urchin matrix, Aleutian midden sites exhibit excellent bone preservation. Good estimates of faunal abundance are available for the modern Aleutian ecosystem. Good estimates of nutritional composition are available for na- tive Aleutian foods. Much data on the nutri- tion, seasonal cycle, and subsistence tech-

nology of the Aleuts is available from ethno- graphic and ethnohistorical sources. Finally, cultural continuity has been demonstrated for the Aleutians for the last 9000 years (Aigner 1970, 1971).

The southwest Umnak region of , the Aleutians was chosen as the specific focus for study for four reasons. First, the region is naturally delimited; its shape is that of an elongated triangle, bounded on two sides by the ocean and on* the third by a mountain chain. Second,

This content downloaded from 185.44.79.40 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 10:00:42 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Page 4: Comparative Biomass Estimates and Prehistoric Cultural Ecology of the Southwest Umnak Region, Aleutian Islands

Yesner and Aigner: Comparative Biomass Estimates 93

environmental stability has "been demonstrated for the region for at least the last 1*000 years; this is the maximum age of the regional midden sites dealt with here, in order to eliminate the problem of major environmental change, which is held as a constant. Third, the southwest Umnak region was an area of high population density in prehistoric times. This was due to its unique coastal configuration, including a large number of bays , reefs , and salmon streams, the presence in nearby Samalga Pass of a major upwelling system, and the proximity of important pinniped and avian mi- gration routes. Finally, the region formed the southeastern terminus of the Bering Land Bridge at its maximal extension (Laughlin 1963, 1967; Black 1966; Laughlin, Aigner, and Êlack 1971; Aigner 1970, 1971).

THE SOUTHWEST UMNAK DATA SET

Archaeological data from the southwest Um- nak region were derived from site excavations depicted in Fig. 2 of Aigner this issue. Avian remains were used in the analyses for three reasons. First, because of the number of bird species and their ecological variety (i.e., differences in habitat preference), they offer the archaeologist a better data base than do other classes of faunal remains containing fewer and less ecologically- differentiated species. Second, better abun- dance estimates are available for birds than for other (modern) Aleutian faunal classes. Finally, bird remains have particularly excel- lent preservation in regional midden sites.

An initial problem in quantifying the faunal remains for use with biological or other archaeological data is the reconstruction of "minimum numbers of individuals" as a data base for biomass or dietary analysis. Unfor- tunately, in vertebral faunal analysis calcu- lating minimum numbers of individuals rather than raw bone counts from relatively small samples tends both to exaggerate- the impor- tance of rarer taxa (Grayson 197^+a) and to suffer more from stochastic variation, even when calculations are made from individual stratigraphie units rather than entire sites. However, the problem of exaggeration of rarer taxa is mitigated to some extent in the present _ analysis by dealing with avian rather than mammalian remains (Munson 197^:8), since birds have a greater relative size uniformity than do mammals. In addition, experiments with fine-mesh (l/l6") screening of massive Aleu- tian midden flotation samples demonstrate that small birds (less than 100 grams in weight or 25 centimeters in length) were not being ex- ploited by the Aleuts, and that small avian bones that had passed through the larger (l/V) mesh screening used on most of the

midden samples were simply smaller bones (ribs, vertebrae, and scapulae) of the larger species. Thus, the range of bird size dealt with was very narrow, increasing the relia- bility of the use of minimum numbers of in- dividuals in subsequent calculations. Lastly, there was a high correlation between raw bone counts and minimum numbers of individuals in the southwest Umnak avi faunal data, indicating that sample sizes were sufficiently large to justify the use of minimum numbers of indivi- duals in data analysis.1

Calculation of minimum numbers of individu- als and faunal frequencies was based upon a computer program ("MIND/FREQ") developed by the author and A. M. Bieber of the University of Connecticut, which scans a matrix consist- ing of data on species, skeletal element, age, and side of the body for each specimen, and determines the largest entry in a given cate- gory or array element, with correction factors for ^the number of a given skeletal element in a given species (Yesner and Bieber 197*0. 2

Pair-matching methods (Krantz 1968) and geo- metric models based upon such methods (Den- niston 1972) were found less effective and more time-consuming in terms of the amount of real data generated.

COMPARATIVE BIOMASS ESTIMATES AND PATTERNS OF CULTURAL SELECTION

METHODOLOGY

Analysis of cultural selection of resources involves the comparison of biomass data for species from the natural ecosystem with data derived from the archaeological record. A related approach, comparing potentially sup- portable human population estimates derived from archaeological biomass data to actual human population densities derived from ethno- graphic data has been used elsewhere (Grayson 197Vb). Biomass estimates for the modern Aleutian ecosystem have been obtained in two ways. First, biomass estimates are avialable from shipboard censuses of off-shore birds, comprising five of the seven major "ecological groups" of Aleutian birds (Sanger 1972a). These include the Diomedeidae (albatrosses), Prooellariidae (shearwaters and fulmars),

Correction factors for minimum numbers of individuals, applying constants derived from the regression of minimum numbers of indi- viduals on raw bone counts to the southwest Umnak data, are discussed elsewhere (Yesner and Bieber n.d. ) .

2The "MIND/FREQ" computer program, as well as programs for tabulating biomass and various distance measures, are available on request.

This content downloaded from 185.44.79.40 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 10:00:42 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Page 5: Comparative Biomass Estimates and Prehistoric Cultural Ecology of the Southwest Umnak Region, Aleutian Islands

Q4 Arctic Anthropology XIII- 2

Laridae/Stercorariidae ( gulls > kittiwakes, and jaegers), large alcids (murres, guillemots, and puffins), and small alcids (auklets and murrelets). Second, "biomass estimates for the Phalacrocoracidae (cormorants) and Anatidae (waterfowl) as well as for individual species within all seven ecological groups have been obtained according to the following method adapted from Fay and Cade (1959):

1) Aleutian National Wildlife Refuge quali- tative coding of avian abundance for each season of the year as "abundant," "common," "occasional," "unusual," or "rare" (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1969) is transformed into quantitative coding by substituting the constants "1," "2," "3," "V and "5," respec- tively.

2) The numbers for each species are averaged over the four seasons of the year, the result converted to the nearest whole number.

3) The figure obtained for each species is transformed into a relative order of magnitude, substituting "102," "101," "10°," "10-1," and »io-2 ,» respectively, for the "1," "2," "3," "U," and "5" designations.

k) For each species, the relative order of magnitude of species abundance is multi- plied by the mean mass for a single in- dividual of that species, yielding the species biomass.

5) Biomass for ecological groups is the simple arithmetical sum of the biomass figures for individual species within those groups.

Biomass estimates obtained for the modern ecosystem (Tables 1-3) were compared to fig- ures derived from archaeological data obtained from southwest Umnak sites. The prehistoric figures represent the product of mean species mass (per individual) and minimum numbers of individuals for each species in each site, cal- culated with individual strata or site compo- nents as the base units (Grayson 1973). Neither archaeological nor ecosystemic biomass estimates are intended to measure the actual total biomass of all species present or ex- ploited in the region, but rather the relative representation of those species in the Aleu- tian ecosystem and prehistoric cultural system, respectively. Even Sanger's (l9T2a) data, which attempt to derive estimates applicable to the entire Bering Sea Coastal Domain (Table l), do not measure the actual human carrying capacity in terms of avifauna. This is be- cause the limiting environmental factor is the minimal availability of avifauna, which in turn depends upon seasonal patterns not com- pletely covered by Sanger*s summer /winter di- chotomized data, and because the aggregation or clustering of species is at least as

important as average density in determining their "availability" to hunter- gatherer popula- tions (Hassan 1971*; Yesner 197^b).

The methodology employed in comparing bio- mass estimates initially involves screening minor environmental change out of the data. This can easily be done, since the shifts in the range of a small number of Aleutian species (e.g., the disappearance of Short- tailed Albatrosses and Trumpeter Swans and the

expansion of ptarmigans in the Aleutians in historical times) that are visible in the archaeological record are well known by modern

biologists.

HYPOTHESES AND TESTS

Subsequently, the comparative biomass methodology involves the testing of specific hypotheses (derived primarily from the ethno-

graphic record) concerning cultural selection of resources by the Aleuts against divergences between faunal frequency patterns of the modern ecosystem and those of the archaeologi- cal record of southwest Umnak Island. These

hypotheses include the following: 1) Albatrosses and cormorants were the

greatest overall contributors to species biomass. Since a substantial number of the cormorants were used primarily for clothing (feather parka) manufacture rather than for food (Veniaminov 181+0: 213), albatrosses were the greatest overall contributors to the avian por- tion of the diet, largely because of their great size, general abundance, and near-island distribution (Yesner 197^c).

2) Shearwaters and fulmars contributed to the diet in a percentage outweighing their abundance in the ecosystem as a whole. The hypothesized dispropor- tionate reliance on albatrosses and procellariids (shearwaters and fulmars) may be explained in part by the tendency of these birds to congregate in areas of nutrient-rich upwelling systems found in inter-island passes (Miller 19^0:31, Kelley et al. 1971:86-92).

3) Gulls, as an ecological group, formed a smaller proportion of the Aleut diet than indicated by their representation in modern bird populations. These scavengers were avoided as dietary re- sources except in times of stress (Jochelson 1933:53), were not deemed valuable for fabricational purposes, and

only yielded a single valuable resource (eggs) not retrievable from the archaeo- logical record. In addition, the larger, migratory glaucous gull {Larus hyper- boreus) , less known for its scavenging

This content downloaded from 185.44.79.40 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 10:00:42 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Page 6: Comparative Biomass Estimates and Prehistoric Cultural Ecology of the Southwest Umnak Region, Aleutian Islands

Yesner and Aigner: Comparative Biomass Estimates 95

Table 1. Summary of Observed and Calculated Data on Seabird Abundance by Season for the Bering Sea Coastal Domain (Data from Sanger, 1972; see also Kuroda, i960).

WINTER • SUMMER

X birds /p Standing Biomass X birds/p Standing Biomass 100 km Stocks (Tons) 100 km Stocks (Tons)

Diomedeidae 0.80 10,100 27.8 6.76 92,000 253.0

Proeellariidae 12.61 171,500 115. 1 65^.00 8,890,000 5,778.5

Laridae/ Steroorariidae 21.51 292,500 219. h 13.11 178,000 133.9

Large alcids 13.38 182,000 172.9 26.35 358,000 300.0

Small alcids 100. 90 1,370,500 27U.I 6.0U 82,100 16.U

Hydrobatidae/ Phalaropodidae 5.9U 80,900 O.k 69.25 9^2,000 U.5

Other 5.85 79,500 i+7.1 3.00 1+0, 800 2U.5

TOTAL 160.99 2,187,000 856.8 778.51 10,582,900 6,510.8

Table 2. Abundance Ratings and Biomass Data for the Modern Aleutian Ecosystem (USFWS data).

ABUNDANCE AVG. SPECIES RATING WT. l BIOMASS1 RANK

Gavia immer k 3350 33,500 12 Gavia arotioa 0 1900 Gavia stellata h 1750 17,500 16 Podioeps grisegena 2 1110 111 Podioeps auritus 2 U32.5 ^3 Diomedea nigripes h 3090 30,900 82 Diomedea immutabilis k 2U50 2U,500 82 Fulmarus glacialis 5 671.3 67,130 6 Puffinus griseus 3 787 787 Puffinus tenuirostris 3 606 606 Oceanodroma furoata 5 35 3,500 23 Ooeanodroma leuoorhoa h hQ.k kQh Phalaarooorax auritus 3 2500 2,500 25 Phalacrooorax urile k 2000 20,000 Ik Phalaorooorax pelagious 5 1868 186,800 1 Olor buccinator 1 7000 Olor columbianus 3 6033 6,033 21 Branta nigricans 3 1000 1,000 29 Branta canadensis minima 1 1000 Branta canadensis leucopareia 1 1000 Philacte canagica 3 3000 3,000 2k Anser albifrons 0 3000 Anas platyrhynchos h 1125.5 11,255 17 Anas strepera 3 723 723 Anas acuta 2 890 89 Anas crecca 5 600 60,000 7 Anas carolinensis 3 3^1.9 3^2 Anas americana 1 657

(continued)

This content downloaded from 185.44.79.40 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 10:00:42 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Page 7: Comparative Biomass Estimates and Prehistoric Cultural Ecology of the Southwest Umnak Region, Aleutian Islands

96 Avctio Anthropology XIII-3

Table 2 (continued)

ABUNDANCE AVG. SPECIES RATING WT. 1 BIOMASS1 RANK

Aythya marila 2 1157-5 116 Ay thy a vasilineria 0 1000 Aythya fuligula 1 1000 10 Buoephala olangula 1 1066 11 Buoephala albeola 1 377 ^ Clangula hyemalis 3 750 750 Histrionious histrionious 5 *+72 1+7,200 10 Polysticta stelleri 2 1000 100 Somateria mollissima k 2086 20,860 13 Somateria speotabilis 3 1750 1,750 26 Somateria fisoheri 0 1500 Melanitta deglandi 1 121+7 12 Melanitta perspioillata 0 1000 Melanitta nigra 3 938.5 939 Mer^ws merganser 3 1200 1,200 28

Mergus serrator 2 917 92 Buteo lagopus 3 1110 1,110 30 Haliaeetus leuoooephalus k 5500 55,000 9 Circus oyaneus 0 51^.5 FaZeo rustioolus 3 1729 1,729 27 Fafo<? peregrinus h 1008 10,080 19 Faloo columbarius 1 173 2

Lagopus lagopus k 800 8,000 20 3 ̂

Lagopus mutus h 800 8,000 20 3

Grus oanadensis 1 3500 35 Haematopus baohmani h 800 8,000 20 Charadrius semipalmatus 2 100 10 Pluvialis dominioa 1 125 1 Arenaria interpres 3 100 100 Numenius phaeopus 0 1+00 Eeterosoelus inoanus 1 100 1 Erolia ptiloonemis k 70 700 Erolia melanotos 0 101 Erolia bairdii 1 35 Erolia alpina 1 50 1 - Ereunetes mauri 2 25 3 - Limosa lapponioa 1 270 3 Crocethia alba 1 73 1 -

Phalaropus fulioarius 1 3*+ -

Lobipes lobatus 3 25 25 - Steroorarius pomarinus 2 6l0 6l Steroorarius parasitious 2 1+1+5 1+5 Steroorarius longioaudus 1 320 3 Larus hyperboreus 1 l6Uo 16 Larz^s glauoesoens 5 11+12.5 lUl,250 2 Larus argentatus 0 1135 Larws eanus 1 ^03.1+ U La2»us Philadelphia 1 500 5 Jfewz saHni 2 185.5 19 Rissa tridaotyla 5 380 38,000 11 Sterna paradisaea 2 108.6 11 Sterna aleutioa 2 100 10 Uria aalge 5 950 95,000 hh Uria lomvia 5 975 97,500 3k Cepphus oolumba 1+ 1+50 l+,500 155

(continued)

This content downloaded from 185.44.79.40 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 10:00:42 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Page 8: Comparative Biomass Estimates and Prehistoric Cultural Ecology of the Southwest Umnak Region, Aleutian Islands

Yesner and Aigner: Comparative Biomass Estimates 97

Table 2 (continued)

ABUNDANCE AVG. SPECIES RATING WT.1 BIOMASS1 RANK

Braehyramphus marmoratus 3 235 235 155 Braahyramphus brevirostre 2 200 20 15 5

Synthliboramphus antiquus 3 200 200 15 5

Ptyooramphus aleutica 2 173 20 155 Cyclorrhynchus psittaoula 2 289.3 29 15 5 Aethia oristatella h 282.7 2,827 155 Aethia pusilla 5 88. k 8,81+0 155 Aethia pygmaea h 80 800 155 Cerorhinoa monooerata 3 5^2 5U2 15 5

Frateroula comioulata 5 700 70,000 155 Lunda oirrhata 5 838 83,800 5 Nyotea soandiaoa 2 1U0U ±ho Bubo virginianus 1 1U80 15 Asio flammeus k 500 5,000 22 Megaceryle alcyon 1 155 2 Ripavia riparia 1 17 Hirundo rustioa 2 17 2 - Corvus oorax k 1069 10,690 18 Pleotrophenax nivalis 2 100 1

TOTALS 1,193,521

*A11 weights given in grams; bird weights have been combined from numerous sources, promi- nently Palmer (1962) and Poole (1939).

2Biomass data for Diomedea spp. in the modern ecosystem have been pooled so that pooled ranks could be compared with biomass ranks of now locally extinct Diomedea albatvus derived from the archaeological sites.

^Lagopus spp. and Haematopus baohmani had equivalent biomass standings, and were given the equivalent rank of 20.

Sttiile ranked 3 and h9 respectively, Uria aalge and Uria lomvia have essentially equivalent ranks, and have been pooled for comparison with archaeological representation of Uria spp.

5Because auklets and murrelets were not further identified for all of the sites, these birds were pooled to form the biomass rank 15 for comparison with archaeological representation of these species.

Table 3. Summary of Biomass Estimates and Biomass Frequencies by Avian Family for the Modern Aleutian Ecosystem.

FAMILY OR BIOMASS BIOMASS ECOLOGICAL GROUP ESTIMATE FREQUENCY

(in kg.)

Diomedeidae 55.1+ k. 6k% Procellariidae 68.5 5-7W Phalaoroooraoidae 209. 3 17 . 53$ Anatidae 155.6 13.03$ Laridae 176.6 lU.79$ Alcidae 361+.3 30.52$

Large alcids 280.8 23.52$ Small alcids 83.5 7.00$

Other groups 163.8 13.75$

TOTAL BIOMASS 1193.5 100.00$

behavior, should have been exploited to a greater extent than indicated by its modern abundance relative to the common glaucous-winged gull (Larus glauoesoens).

k) A general Aleutian subsistence strategy existed whereby large birds were rela- tively heavily utilized even if present in low frequencies, while small birds were not utilized unless exceptionally abundant, resulting in exploitation of an optimal range of biomass, insuring adequate return on energy invested in hunting individual species.

5) Finally, a large number of "native" Aleutian avian species, including most alcids, non-migratory waterfowl, eagles, loons , and ravens , were "randomly" utilized, resulting in nearly equivalent frequencies (and biomass rankings) for these species in the natural environment and in the archaeological materials.

This content downloaded from 185.44.79.40 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 10:00:42 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Page 9: Comparative Biomass Estimates and Prehistoric Cultural Ecology of the Southwest Umnak Region, Aleutian Islands

98 Arctic Anthropology XIII- 2

Table k. Biomass Ranks.

PRESENT CHALUKA ANANGULA SHEEP MEAN SITE SPECIES BIOMASS (WEST) OGLODAX» VILLAGE CREEK RANK1

Phdlaorooorax pelagicus 1 7 k 5 1 U.25 (3) Larus glaucescens 2 10 9 8 7 8.50(5) Uria sp. 3A 3 13 9 10 8.75 (6) Lunda cirrhata 5 8 lk 15 9 11.50 (8) Fulmarus glacialis 6 9 2 1 19 7.75 (k) Anas crecca 7 - - - 22 28.00 (23) Diomedea albatrus2 8 2 3 3 5 3.25 (l) Haliaeetus leucocephalus 9 5 6 - 6 11.75 (9) Histrionicus histrionicus 10 20 17 - 21 22.00 (l6) iftssa triâactyla 11 - 25 22 - 26.75 (20) Gavia immer 12 16 10 10 16 13.00 (10) Somateria mollis sima 13 13 8 7 8 9.00 (7) Phalacrocorax urile lk k 7 2 2 3.75 (2) "Auklets"3 15 lk 21 12 15 15-50 (13) Gavia stellata 16 23 18 20 - 22.75 (17) Anas platyrhynchos 17 - - 23 - 28.25 {2k) Corvus corax 18 19 16 2k 20 19-75 (15) Falco peregrinus 19 - 2k - 25 27.25 (21) Eaematopus bachmani 20 - 29 21 - 27.50 (22) Olor sp.4 21 12 5 - 11 lU.50 (12) Philacte canagica 22 21 11 11 li 11.75 (9) Phalacrocorax auritus 23 11 23 6 17.50 (l^+) Somateria spectabilis 2k 15 12 13 13 13.25 (ll) Mergus merganser 25 27 28 lk - 2U.75 (18) Branta nigricans 265 29 2U 19 - 25.50 (19)

xThe first value is a mean of the rankings of the four sites. The value in parentheses represents a ranking of the mean site ranks themselves. The 29 "birds with the highest total bio- mass were ranked for each site and for the ecosystem as a whole ("present biomass"). Values be- low this level (indicated by dashed lines) were considered as 30.0 for the purpose of calculat- ing the mean site ranks.

2This value has been artificially obtained from the sum of the biomass of the modern species, Diomedea nigripes and D. immutabilis (see text).

3Murrelets and guillemots as well as auklets were included in these figures. hOlor buccinator is the common form found in the archaeological sites; Olor columbianus is

the form found almost exclusively today. 5Species 27, 28, and 29 (Asio flammeus, Oceanodroma furcata^ and Falco rusticolus) have not

been included in the table because they are not represented archaeologically.

RESULTS AND INTERPRETATIONS

The comparative biomass data support these hypotheses on cultural selection of resources .

l) Albatross and cormorant biomass ranks: Table k compares modern biomass ranks (ex- hibited in Table 2 and summarized by family in Table 3) with those from various archaeologi- cal sites in the southwest Umnak region; mean site ranks (and relative ranking of those ranks) are indicated in the last column of the table. The Short-tailed Albatross (Diomedea albatrus) comprised nearly 95 percent of pre- historic albatross remains (Yesner 197^+c), but has become greatly depleted within the last 100 years (Austin 19^9, Sanger 1972b). Since it has become replaced in its niche to some

extent by other albatross species, particu- larly the Laysan Albatross (Yesner 197^c), the biomass sum of the modern species is used as a representative figure for prehistoric alba- tross density. This gives albatrosses a bio- mass rank of eight; Sanger1 s data (Table l) also shows albatrosses to represent less total biomass in the Bering Sea Coastal Domain than procellariids or alcids. This ecosystemic rank of eight compares with a much higher mean site rank of 3.25 for the archaeological materials, higher than that of any other birds (Table k) . Even if the procedure under- estimates the former density of Short-tailed Albatrosses to some extent, it is likely that some cultural selection was exercised in hunt- ing these birds.

This content downloaded from 185.44.79.40 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 10:00:42 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Page 10: Comparative Biomass Estimates and Prehistoric Cultural Ecology of the Southwest Umnak Region, Aleutian Islands

Yesner and Aigner: Comparative Biomass Estimates 99

Red-faced cormorants also have a mean site rank (3.75)» "but were important primarily for fabricational purposes as indicated ethno-

graphically. Butchering pattern studies re- veal that in addition a disproportionate number of cormorant wing bones went into bone tool manufacture.

2) Fulmars have a high rank of six in both

archaeological and modern ecological data (four in the former and six in the latter). These birds are year-round residents in the Aleutians. Shearwaters exhibited a mean site rank of nine (or a rank of seven among the mean site ranks themselves) in archaeological bio-

mass, yet do not rank within the top 30 birds in the Aleutian area according to biomass data derived from U.S. Fish and Wildlife surveys. There are probably two reasons for this.

First, shearwaters, unlike fulmars, are

strictly seasonal birds in the Aleutians.

They spend the winter and spring months breed-

ing in the southern hemisphere, where they are hunted by the Maoris as "muttonbirds. "

During the late summer and fall months they arrive in the northern North Pacific in great numbers; the dramatic increase in their biomass in the

Bering Sea Coastal Domain during these months has been indicated by Sanger (1972a; Table l). The technique described for deriving biomass data from Fish and Wildlife surveys involves seasonal averages, and tends to underestimate this seasonal increase. Second, during the

period in which the shearwaters are present they tend to congregate in inter-island passes where they would have been easily accessible in large numbers. Thus they were apparently hunted to an extent outweighing their average density in the ecosystem. Fulmars, like

shearwaters, also feed in these areas in large numbers, but were apparently not so dispro- portionately hunted. Since a major differ- ence is the timing of their availability, it is likely that bird hunting in the inter- island areas took place only or primarily dur-

ing the summer.

Ethnographic evidence (Veniaminov 18^0:107, Turner 1886:128-29) indicates that javelins or darts may have been used for hunting these

species. Nets or snares may also have been used for this purpose (Veniaminov 181+0, Jochelson 1933). The use of nets would ex-

plain the dense pockets of shearwater or ful- mar bones found in the middens. However, it is not necessary to hypothesize that these birds were the object of a specialized hunt; they could easily have been obtained in these areas from boats primarily engaged in obtain-

ing sea mammals from nearby rookeries. 3) Larus gtaucesoens y the common glaucous-

winged gull of the Aleutians, has an eco- systemic biomass rank of two, and gulls generally rank second only to alcids in Sanger1 s ( 1972a) winter biomass data.

However, these birds exhibit a mean site rank of only 9.3, supporting the hypothesis of nega- tive cultural selection applied to these birds. Although not indicated in Table 3, the glau- cous gull {Larus hyperboreus) , a rare visitor to the Aleutians today, was disproportionately represented in the archaeological materials in relation to its abundance vis-à-vis that of the glaucous-winged gull, supporting the ear- lier hypothesis. (A shift in species range, however, cannot be ruled out absolutely in this case. )

h) The fact that an Aleutian subsistence strategy resulting in exploitation of an opti- mal biomass range existed is indicated in Table 5, distilled from the data in Table 2. While the optimal biomass represented in the last column of the table is in no sense an ab- solute figure, it does demonstrate that such an exploitation strategy did take place.

5) Finally, a large number of "native" Aleutian species had equivalent rankings in the natural ecosystem and in archaeological materials, indicating "random" utilization of those species. These include the murres {Uria spp.), the tufted puffin {Lunda oirr- hata) , many species of auklets and murrelets, the bald eagle (Haliaeetus leuoooephalus) , the common raven {Corvus oorax) , the common loon (Gavia immer) , the red-throated loon (Gavia stellata) , and the common mallard (Anas platyrhynchos ) . With the exception of this last duck, most waterfowl species varied widely in their degree of positive or negative cultural selection. Among those concentrated upon in apparent excess of ecosystemic repre- sentation are the Emperor Goose (Philacte cana-

gioa) , a fatty species particularly important during the lean months of late winter and early spring, and the Common and King Eider ducks, important for fabricational as well as dietary purposes (Jochelson 1933:53).

In general, the "random" utilization or nearly equivalent ranking of a large number of Aleutian species in terms of both archaeologi- cal and ecosystemic biomass indicates the exis- tence of a generalized hunting strategy by which biomass availability more or less de- termined the relative intensity of exploita- tion of a given species.

DIETARY ANALYSIS

Following the admonition of Fagan (1972: iQk) that archaeologists should pay more at- tention to the specific nutritional factors in the diet indicated by faunal remains, one aim in dietary analyses of the Aleutian avifauna was to delimit the contributions of the vari- ous species to all nutritional components of the diet, rather than only total calories. The data base upon which these archaeological

This content downloaded from 185.44.79.40 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 10:00:42 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Page 11: Comparative Biomass Estimates and Prehistoric Cultural Ecology of the Southwest Umnak Region, Aleutian Islands

100 Arctic Anthropology XIII-2

Table 5. Optimal Biomass Exploitation.

ABUNDANCE: ORDERS MINIMUM BIOMASS OF OPTIMAL BIOMASS OF MAGNITUDE SPECIES EXPLOITED EXPLOITATION

(OM) (MB) (OM)X(MB)

101Î5 25.0 g. 790.5 g. 101 88.1+ g. 881+.0 g. 10*5 235 g. 71+3.1 g. io° 890 g. 890.0 g. 10"^ I6U0 g. 518.6 g.

Mean optimal biomass 765.2 g.

Table 6. Biomass Data: Anangula Village.

1 1 SPECIES MINDS AVT. WT. BIOMASS $ TOTAL

Gavia irmer 2 3,350 6,650 3.73$ Gavia stellata 1 1,750 1,750 0.98$ Podiceps grisegena 2 1,110 2,220 1.25$ Diomedea albatrus 10 3,500 35,000 19.6k% Puffinus griseus 2 787 1,57*+ 0.88? Puffinus tenuirostris il 606 6,666 3.7*+$ Fulmarus glaoialis 31 671.3 20,810 11.68$ Phalacrooorax auritus 3 2,500 7,500 1+.21$ PhalacroQorax urile ik 2,000 28,000 15.71$ Phalacrocorax pelagicus 9 1,868 16,812 9.1+3$ Branta nigricans 2 1,000 2,000 1.12$ Philacte oanagioa 2 3,000 6,000 3.37$ Anas platyrhynchos 1 1,125.5 1,125.5 0.63$ Bucephala clangula 1 1,066 1,066 0.60$ Bueephala albeola 1 377 377 0.21$ S omateria mollis sima 3 2,086 6,258 3.51$ Somateria spectabilis 3 1,750 5,250 2.95$ Melanitta deglandi 2 1,2U7 2,1+9*+ 1.1+0$ Mergus merganser 3 1,200 3,600 2.02$ Lagopus lagopus 1 800 800 0.1+5$ Haematopus bachmani 2 800 800 0.1+5$ Larus glaucesoens h 1,1+12.5 5,650 3.17$ Rissa tridaotyla 1 380 380 0.21$ Uria aalge 1+ 950 3,800 2.13$ Uria lomvia 2 975 1,950 1.09$ Cepphus oolwnba 5 1+50 2,250 1.26$ Aethia oristatella 1 282.7 282.7 0.16$ Aethia pusilla 3 88.1+ 265.2 0.15$ Cerorhinca monooerata 2 5U2 1,081+ 0.6l$ Frateroula oomiculata 2 700 1,1+00 0.79$ Lunda oirrhata k 838 3,352 l'.88$ Corvus oorax 1 1,069 1,069 0.60$

TOTALS 133 178,235.- 100.00$

XA11 weights are in grams.

This content downloaded from 185.44.79.40 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 10:00:42 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Page 12: Comparative Biomass Estimates and Prehistoric Cultural Ecology of the Southwest Umnak Region, Aleutian Islands

Yesner and Aigner: Comparative Biomass Estimates 101

Table 7. Nutritional Components of Avian Portion of Diet (Data from Anangula Village [1973]).

FAMILY OR SUBFAMILY CALORIES PROTEIN1 FAT1 CARBOHYDRATE1 CALCIUM2 PHOSPHORUS2

Gaviiâae 11T60.0 1176.0 117.6 - 1176.0 11760.0 5.27$ 1+.80? I+.OU? - k.95% \.9\%

Podioipedidae 3108.0 310.8 31.1 - 310.8 3108.0 1.39? 1.26? 1.07? - 1.31? 1.29?

Diomedeidae 1+9000.0 1+900.0 1+90.0 - 1+900.0 1+9000.0 21.9^ 20.00? 16.86? - 20.65? 20.1+7?

Pvooellaviidae 1+0670.0 I+O67.O 1+06.7 - I+O67.O 1+0670.0 18.21? 16.60? 11+.00? - 17. ik% 16.99?

Phalaerocoracidae 51812.0 5828.9 1+92.2 531.1 5051.7 51812.0 23.20? 23.80? 16. 9 W - 21.29? 21.61+?

Anserinae 10388.0 13UU.0 33.6 0.0 1008.0 171+72.0 1+.62? 5.1+8? 1.15? 0.0 1+.21+? 7.30?

Anatinae lh6n.k 1670.6 827. 1+ 0.0 866.8 11+932.6 6.5W 6.82? 28.1+8? 0.0 3.65? 6.23?

Aythyinae 20052.6 2259.3 129.7' 0.0 126U.8 17728.1+ 8.98? 9.22? 1+.1+6? 0.0 • 5.33? 7.1+0?

Merginae 2520.0 252.0 25.2 0.0 252.0 2520.0 1.12? 1.02? 0.86? 0.0 1.06? 1.05?

Tetraonidae 1120.0 11+1.1+ 10. 9 0.0 1956.6 1500.8 0.50? 0.57? 0.37? 0.0 8.28? 0.62?

Haematopodidae 16OO.O 16O.O 16.0 - 16O.O 16OO.O 0.71? O.65? 0.55? - 0.67? 0.66?

Laridae 6030.0 603.0 60.3 - 603.0 6030.0 2.70? 2.1+6? 2.07? - 2.5W 2.51?

Aloinae 8050.0 213.3 100.6 1296.1 68U.3 8050.0 3.60? 0.87? 3.1+6? - 2.88? 3.36?

Cepphinae 3150.0 261.5 31+.7 11.0 535-5 3150.0 1.1+1? 1.06? 1.19? - 2.25? 1.31?

Aethiinae 767. 0 lOl+.l 16.1 3.5 72.9 767. 0 0.3W 0.1+2? 0.55? - 0.30? 0.32?

Fraterculinae 8170.0 1090.7 102.1 98. 0 69I+.5 8170.0 3.65? 1+.1+5? 3.51? - 2.92? 3.1+1?

Corvidae 1068.0 106.8 10.7 - 106.8 1068.0 0.1+7? 0.1+3? 0.36? - 0.1+5? 0.1+1+?

TOTALS 233299.0 21+1+89.1+ 2901+.9 - 23719.3 239338.8

heights expressed in grams. 2Weights expressed in milligrams.

dietary analyses are constructed consists of the relative biomass figures derived above. These biomass values are converted into meat values by using general mas s /meat conversion factors for birds (White 1953, Parmalee 1965). While the mas s /meat conversion factor is fair- ly constant for birds (more so than for mam- mals), it is necessary in this case to apply special correction factors to less meaty birds

including cormorants, gulls, and ravens. An example of meat data derived from bio-

mass data for the Anangula Village site ex- cavation of 1973 is found in Table 6. Because good comparative data on nutritional composi- tion of arctic foods are available (Heller and Scott 196l, ICNND 1962), the archaeological meat data are converted into specific nutri- tional dietary components, including protein,

This content downloaded from 185.44.79.40 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 10:00:42 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Page 13: Comparative Biomass Estimates and Prehistoric Cultural Ecology of the Southwest Umnak Region, Aleutian Islands

102 Arctic Anthropology XIII-2

fats , carbohydrates , and minerals , as well as calories. An example of this using data from the Anangula Village site (Table 6) is pre- sented in Table 7- Similar dietary analyses have been developed for other sites in the southwest Umnak region. Biomass data for the Chaluka (west) and Oglodax1 sites are found in Tables 8 and 9.

Birds formed a small proportion of the total Aleut diet and were outweighed by sea mammals by a ratio of 100 to 1 (Table 10). Similar ratios have been found by other Aleutian in- vestigators (Denniston 1972, McCartney 197*0. Nevertheless , birds contributed substantial amounts of most nutrients to the diet, insur- ing that the population could depend upon this resource during the most limiting period of the year from late winter to early spring (Veniaminov l8Uo, Turner et al. 197*0. It is particularly noteworthy that migratory water- fowl, present in the Aleutians in greatest concentrations during these leaner months, contributed a disproportionately great amount of fats to the diet, as indicated in Table 10. However, it should be stressed that these data represent relative species contributions and not absolute amounts of given nutrients in the diet.

HARVESTING METHODS

Microenvironmental differentiation appears to be the greatest controlling factor behind the patterning of regional faunal frequencies. A series of cluster analyses using the AGCLUS program developed by D. C. Olivier of the Bureau of Economic Research (Olivier 1973) was run on dissimilarity matrices of Minkowski- type distance measures (Mean Character Dif- ference, Squared Euclidean Distance, and Balakrishnan and Sanghvi's [1968] G2) based upon frequencies of avian minimum numbers of individuals in different strata or site compo- nents of archaeological sites in the south- west Umnak region. These analyses (the den- drogram for a "centroid" cluster analysis of site components is presented in Table 11 ) show that while certain individual strata from some sites "cluster" with those from other sites, sites tend to "cluster" as individual groups of strata. Faunal frequency data from Bering Sea coast excavations (Chaluka West, Chaluka East, Sheep Creek) tend to "cluster" as a whole, separate from other sites, particularly the Oglodax1 site, a Pacific coast occupation. Dendrograms for several cluster analyses of sites as a whole are presented in Fig. 1.

Fig. 2 shows a schematic map of the south- west Umnak sites based on Squared Euclidean Distances in turn derived from avian minimum numbers of individuals. These distances are obviously not congruent with inter-site geo-

graphical distances (compare Fig. 2); Euclidean "distances," unlike geographical distances, are uni dimensional vectors that do not include direction indicators. A stepwise multiple discriminant function analysis run on faunal frequencies from all site components (Table 12) indicates that the alcids as a group were most responsible for the "distances" and "clusters" produced in the analysis; alcids (murres, guillemots, puffins, auklets, and murrelets) tend to concentrate in certain locations on the Bering Sea side of the is- land. Other avian groups concentrate in given locations to varying degrees. Because of this, microenvironmental differentiation can be used as a powerful tool for interpreting the nature of prehistoric hunting practices from faunal frequency patterns.

The use of inter-site avi faunal frequen- cies to delimit regional Aleut hunting prac- tices rests upon the premise that faunal fre-

quencies that are the most consistent between sites indicate taxa that are hunted primarily at sea (requiring the use of kayaks) as op- posed to birds hunted along the coast, whose

frequencies differ substantially between coas- tal areas, and therefore between archaeologi- cal sites at different coastal locations. Sites sampled ranged from cliff-top sites without fishing streams or extensive reef

systems where birds were of relatively lesser dietary importance (e.g., the Chaluka site).

In order to assess regional hunting pat- terns, the faunal data are compressed into major avian families equivalent to Sanger's ( 1972a) ecological groups. A truncated sample size technique is used whereby all avian fami- lies represented by less than 3 percent of the total remains are deleted and the proportions of the remaining families recalculated from the reconstituted sample size. When inter- site comparisons are made, the resultant fre- quencies show albatrosses (Diomedeidae) to be the least variable group (Table 13). In fact, the Diomedeidae is the only avian family whose mean frequencies differ so little between sites as to be insignificant at the .01 level (Table lU). Finally, the fact that albatross faunal frequencies have a high correlation with those of shearwaters and fulmars (Table 15) birds that also congregate in inter- island passes, renders even more likely the

probability that albatrosses were hunted out at sea.

SUMMARY

Certain clear-cut patterns emerge from the Aleutian faunal data when comparisons are made with the modern ecosystem and other de- tailed analyses are performed. While the die-

tary analysis indicates that in some ways

This content downloaded from 185.44.79.40 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 10:00:42 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Page 14: Comparative Biomass Estimates and Prehistoric Cultural Ecology of the Southwest Umnak Region, Aleutian Islands

Yesner and Aigner: Comparative Biomass Estimates 103

Table 8. Biomass Data: Chaluka West (1971).

SPECIES MINDS AVG. WT.1 BIOMASS1 * TOTAL

Gavia immer h 3350 13,^00 1. 38JÉ Gavia stellata 3 1750 5,250 0.5W Podioeps grisegena 5 1110 5,550 0.57* Ooeanodroma leuoorhoa k kQ.k 19k 0.01* Diomedea albatrus 26 3500 91,000 9.37$ Fulmarus glacialis 6l 671.3 ^0,9^9 h .21% Puffinus spp. 252 700 176,000 18. IT* Phalaerocorax auritus 13 2500 32,500 3.3Û* Phalaorocorax urile 35 2000 70,000 7.21* Phalaorooorax pelagious 28 1868 52,30U 5.38* Olor buccinator 8 7000 56,000 5.77* Olor colurribianus 5 6*033 30,165 3.10* Philacte oanagica 2 3000 6,000 0.6l* Anser albifrons 1 3000 3,000 0.30* Branta nigrioans 1 1000 3,000 0.30* Branta oanadensis 2 1000 2,000 0.20* Anas platyrhynohos 1 1125.5 1,126 0.11* Anas aouta 2 890 l,T8o 0.18* Anas amerioana 2 657 l,3lU 0.13* Aythya marila 3 1157.5 3,^72 0.35* Bucephala olangula 1 1066 1,066 0.10* Buoephala albeola k 377 1,508 0.15* Clangula hyemalis ik 750 10,500 1.08* Histrionicus histrionicus 13 U72 6,136 0.63* Polystiota stelleri 5 lOOO 5,000 0.51* Somateria mollissima 13 2086 27,118 2.79* Somateria spectabilis 13 1750 22,750 2.3^* Somateria fischeri 6 1500 9,000 0.92* Melanitta deglandi k 12^7 U,988 0.51* Melanitta perspicillata 1 1000 1,000 0.10* Melanitta nigra 3 938.5 2,8l6 0.29* Mergus merganser 3 1200 3,600 0.37* Mergus serrator 2 917 1,83^ 0.18* Ealiaeetus leueooephalus 12 5500 66,000 6.80$ Faloo peregrinus 1 1008 1,008 0.10* Larus glauoescens 25 1^12.5 35,312 3.63* Rissa tridactyla 15 380 5,700 O.58* Xema sabini 1 185.5 186 0.01* Steroorarius parasitions 1 kk5 kk5 0.0i+* Sterna paradisaea 1 108.6 109 0.01* Limosa lapponioa 3 270 810 0.08* Lagopus mutus 1 800 800 0.08* Misc. Charadrii formes 3 100 300 0.03* Uria spp. 86 970 83,1+20 8.59* Lunda oirrhata 56 838 U6,928 H.83* Misc. Alcidae 105 250 26,250 2.70* Corvus oorax 6 1069 6,klk 0.66* Nyetea soandiaoa 3 ikoh i+,212 0.i+3* Pleotrophenax nivalis 1 100 100 0.01*

TOTALS 860 970, hlh 100.00*

1A11 weights are in grams.

This content downloaded from 185.44.79.40 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 10:00:42 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Page 15: Comparative Biomass Estimates and Prehistoric Cultural Ecology of the Southwest Umnak Region, Aleutian Islands

104 Arctic Anthropology XIII-2

Table 9. Oglodax1 Biomass Data.

MIN. NO. OF MASS PER INDI- TOTAL PERCENT OF BIOMASS SPECIES INDIVIDUALS VIDUAL (IN GRAMS) BIOMASS GRAND TOTAL RANK

Gavia immer 7 3350 23,^50 3.23 10 Gavia stellata 3 1750 5,250 0.72 18 Diomedea albatrus 27 3500 9^,500 13.03 3 Puffinus sp. 203 700 1 1+2, 100 19-59 1 Fulmarus glaoialis 1U3 671.3 96,000 13. 2^ 2 Phalacrocorax auritus 1 2500 2,500 0.3^ 23 Phalacrocorax uvile 17 2000 3^,000 U. 69 7 Phalacrocorax pelagious 28 1868 52,300 7.21 h Olor buccinator 7 7000 1*9,000 6.76 5 Philacte canagica 6 3000 18,000 2.U8 11 Branta nigricans 2 1000 2,000 0.28 2\ Branta canadensis 2 1000 2,000 0.28 2h Aythya vasilineria 2 1500 3,000 0.1+1 21 Bucephala clangula 1 1066 1,066 0.15 30 Bucephala albeola 3 377 1,131 O.16 29 Clangula hy emails 5 750 3,750 0.52 20 Eistrionicus histrionicus 12 1+72 5,661+ O.78 17 Somateria mollissima lU 2086 29,200 U.03 8 Somateria spectabilis 9 1750 15,750 2.17 12 Somateria fischeri 2 1500 3,000 0.1+1 21 Melanitta deglandi k 1250 5,000 O.69 19 Mergus merganser 1 1200 1,200 0.17 28

Mergus serrator 2 917 1,83^ 0.25 26 Haliaeetus leucocephalus 8 5500 l+l+,000 6.07 6 Falco peregrinus 2 1000 2,000 0.28 2k

Haematopus bachmani 1 800 800 0.11 32 Charadrius semipalmatus 1 100 100 0.01 35 Lobipes lobatus 1 25 25 36 Stercorarius parasiticus 2 1+1+5 890 0.12 31 Larus glaucescens 17 lUl2 2*+, 000 3.31 9 Larus hyperboreus 7 16U0 11, Wo I.58 15 Rissa tridactyla 5 380 1,900 0.26 25 Uria aalge 16 970 15,520 2.11+ 13 Cepphus columba h U50 1,800 0.25 27 Cerorhinca monocerata 1 5^2 5^2 0.07 3^ Aethia pusilla 8 88.5 708 0.10 33 Other anklets, murrelets 12 250 3,000 O.Ul 21 Lunda cirrhata 17 838.2 li+,250 I.96 lU Nyctea scandiaca 2 li+00 2,800 0.39 22 Passerrella iliaca 1 100 100 0.01 35 Corvus corax 9 1069 9,621 1.33 16

Biomass grand total 725,232

Table 10. Dietary Analysis (Mammalian Fauna). Data from Anangula Village (1973).

Eumetopias Callorhinus Phoca Enhydra Vulpes SPECIES jubata ursinus vitulina lutris fulva

% USABLE MEAT1 70$ 70$ 10% 10% 50%

TOTAL AMOUNT OF MEAT 39,170.7 kg. 2,U28.9 kg. 2,028.5 kg. 617-7 kg. 5.^5 kg.

% OF GRAND MEAT TOTAL 88.5$ 5-5$ h.5% 1.5%

RELATIVE RATIO 719^ ^6 373 113 1

Estimates derived from White (1953). - - - -

This content downloaded from 185.44.79.40 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 10:00:42 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Page 16: Comparative Biomass Estimates and Prehistoric Cultural Ecology of the Southwest Umnak Region, Aleutian Islands

Yesner and Aigner: Comparative Biomass Estimates 105

Fig. 1. Several Cluster Analyses on Whole Sites.

0.029 l______

0.050 _] ___

0.052 - . 3 j^ 0.0T3 i

0.080 z

TYPE 1 CLUSTERING ON BIRD MIND FREQUENCIES- SQUARED EUCLIDEAN DISTANCE

1 1-

0.029 1 5 5J

1

0.060 1 3 3J

0.109 __

I 6 6-1 _j_

p 2 £j TYPE 2 CLUSTERING ON BIRD MIND FREQUENCIES- SQUARED EUCLIDEAN DISTANCE

I IF 0.029 1 5 F3 0.056

3 >J 0.090 1

6 6-J 1

O.12U - . - ÎÎ

1^3 0.228 =

TYPE 3 CLUSTERING ON BIRD MIND FREQUENCIES- SQUARED EUCLIDEAN DISTANCE

1 1-j 0.029 ,

5 5-1 ,

0.0U7 , 3 3-J

,

0.068 , , 6 6-1 , ,

" 0.090

"

it kJ Ô7Î36

F

2 ^J TYPE U CLUSTERING ON BIRD MIND FREQUENCIES- SQUARED EUCLIDEAN DISTANCE

1 3tt ~" ~~~

0. 015

1 5 - 5^ zzz;

: 0.031

0.051

0.072 t 0.072 5j

J

"I t

2 !

F^ TYPE 5 CLUSTERING ON BIRD MIND FREQUENCIES- SQUARED EUCLIDEAN DISTANCE

This content downloaded from 185.44.79.40 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 10:00:42 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Page 17: Comparative Biomass Estimates and Prehistoric Cultural Ecology of the Southwest Umnak Region, Aleutian Islands

106 Arctic Anthropology XIII-2

fi •H -P

O O

• H H H M M H M H M MMHMHMMHHMHMMHHHHHHMMHMHH

I

I

|

co I H I O; .MMMHMMMHHHMMMM(_|HMHHHMMHHHH-

I i I

1 | | CO I I a> I I

S ! CD I I

CO I .HHM|HHMMMHHMHHMHMHHMHHHMHHMHHH H H I I H M I I d O I I

Jh H I I

«h a? i i

m ë ! ! •H Pc, I I co I i

5 1 I i fi S I I

< I I

s a | ; -p S I .HHHHHMMHMMHMMMMMHMHM^ co < I | I p- Pu I I I

H I I I O P I I I

= M I I I •tf pq I I I •H I • M | I

éhH IO I «HHMH~ -P O I CM | II fi S3 I 00 | | CM a) < i i i

o eh i i i -3- c co . i i i

M I I I PII I

H< h 3 ! ! i H< I I «MHMHH-

PhD | || <D S

PhD | |

I II ||

H M | I II £> J I I II cd o i I I I

Eh |D • H - I • H -

II I I I I H I Pli

II I I

ill i H II I • H H H - I 1-^" • H H *

< !! ! | OJI I .MHH-LA

& .^| I .mhmh_oji • • h - ion co i i i i i i i i i ill

loi i i i i i on .-|.-

o ! rn . J i -HHH- • ' • -' • - en \ en . - i eu

O i i/\ lt\ i lH.j-«- «h--* vot---^ . oohoo • - on

m •- cxjon .f_iHM- «h- t-iAHcovû on j- h oo LTNVOont- ^f Htr- onmoj-3- K I I I ' I I I I I I H H W H^r oj oo4VDHHOionH4 hjiaiaia ^t^r onon onon En c\j oj oj oj on m ojoj monnnroH hh

hJ ChC\JLA(nOlAt-OOC^HOOHC\|(n^(^^OOOJLrNC\|CAO^IAl^-HOOCOlAVÛVDWtOVD(^^ u HHHOJOjojojojonon -^t LfMALfMAHHiAVOJ- Lp»xf m-d-^H-J'Hoo-^Honco^

if\ LTNJ-OncOt- (nOOJCOLr\OJ^V^l/>LrNOO-^O^VX)Lr\<X>Lf>a\HONO\ H O\J- IAC\I H CM

pq CM LAH H LT\ -J-OOOOHHOOJOOH^rLTNHt^-OHOjmOO HHOOJOHOn Ph OOOOH0JOOOOHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOH0JOOOOOOOO

Eh OOOOOCDOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

This content downloaded from 185.44.79.40 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 10:00:42 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Page 18: Comparative Biomass Estimates and Prehistoric Cultural Ecology of the Southwest Umnak Region, Aleutian Islands

Yesnev and Aignev: Comparative Biomass Estimates 107

• H M H M -

MHHHHMHMMMMMHHMMHHHMH* !

| |

| | I I

I I

I |

j | i i i i

MMMHMMH- | |

r1-. ! ! • II!

I | ! i : I ! I ! iii

• H H M - i' ! ! ! iii

i i i : : 1 i

iMM-. i il ! i ..'il ! ! ! ii

! loi ! ! II.*-. ! °° i !

H - ! ! ° . M H H H M H M -

j . -

j j j °° j « | VD

I I I >MHHHHHH-O0 en

.-.' i i i I ^ Od j

• | .HHHH

^ COLA joO^_

. J ,£m } lA I 'S • ' evi en i a\ . m J . J . J lt\ i ! ' £ il i i i i i i i i

lt\ S

'

3 o\ m •-fOiAvoa\HcvjLr\vo . • . h - s i- i c\j ii i i i i i •h onro m^t hhvovûvdvovo ojm^ot^-oo if mm g vo vu m en cvj lavû o

H ^ IACVJ 0OH(M OOVÛVÛ-^ VOIAVÛVÛVO IA Ol S^^H 1AVD S

This content downloaded from 185.44.79.40 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 10:00:42 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Page 19: Comparative Biomass Estimates and Prehistoric Cultural Ecology of the Southwest Umnak Region, Aleutian Islands

108 Avotio Anthropology XIII-2

Table 12. Summary of Stepwise Multiple Discriminant Function Analysis.

F VALUE NUMBER OF STEP VARIABLE TO ENTER VARIABLES

NUMBER ENTERED REMOVED OR REMOVE INCLUDED U-STATISTIC

1 6 (Alcidae) 29.2077 1 0.2551 2 2 (Procellariidae) 17.3323 2 0.0923 3 5 (Laridae) 12.6997 3 0.0399 k 3 (Phalacrocorac.) 7.25^1 k 0.0226 5 7 (Alcidae: small) 8.U652 5 0.0119 6 k (Anatidae) 5.^325 6 0.007^ 7 1 (Diomedeidae) 3.2328 7 0.0055

EIGENVALUES

6.77177 2.85996 1.2U362 O.96U65 0.31082 0.05262 -0.00000

CUMULATIVE PROPORTION OF TOTAL DISPERSION

0.55^91 0.78926 0.89117 0.97022 0.99569 1.00000 1.00000

CANONICAL CORRELATIONS

0.933^5 0.86077 0.7^51 0.70072 0.1+8695 0.22359 0.0007U

COEFFICIENTS FOR CANONICAL VARIABLE-

ORIGINAL VARIABLE 1 2 3 h 5 6 7

1 0.03829 0.81U99 0.6U870 -1.02U87 -O.2O816 0.69006 -I.U7U3U 2 -I.I98U5 O.II+O67 -I.IO829 1.35^62 -O.O5883 -O.28695 -O.OI936 3 -O.I9755 -0.93061+ 0.56722 I.O6816 0.69^36 0.09817 0.00392 k -O.62961 0.25105 0.6270U -0.79555 0.29678 -I.O2278 0.10675 5 -O.89953 O.I12876 -0.21U21 0.97922 -O.O299I 0.676U1 l.i+2276 6 -0.97380 -1.21083 0.36660 -1.29265 -0.66623 0.35065 -0. 019^ 7 0.59373 O.O553U -O.7719I -O.62886 0.68313 O.31+19i+ -0.00001

GROUP CANONICAL VARIABLES EVALUATED AT GROUP MEANS 1 1.1U017 -2.6389U 1.3U2U3 -1.32609 -0.78556 0.25338 -0.00001 2 5.07593 2.38666 O.O6O5O 0.03836 -O.89526 -O.37868 0.00001 3 -I.58306 0.76^73 O.681U3 -O.579W 0.38038 -O.IO262 0.00000 ** 0.07535 -I.89U61 -I.3OI6O O.16U9 0.12713 -0.1U621 -0.00000 5 -2.10300 I.III9I -O.U636O O.816O6 -O.U3^36 0.20957 -0.00000 6 6.85736 2.55270 -2.2555^ -1.8U8VT 1.15^39 O.6U729 -0.00002 7 3.90516 -I.IO299 1.96U61 2.^3UUU 0.7667^ 0.12316 -0.00000

CHECK ON FINAL U-STATISTIC 0.005^8

This content downloaded from 185.44.79.40 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 10:00:42 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Page 20: Comparative Biomass Estimates and Prehistoric Cultural Ecology of the Southwest Umnak Region, Aleutian Islands

Yesner and Aigner: Comparative Biomass Estimates 109

Table 13. Inter-Site Avifaunal Analysis (Minimum Numbers of Individuals).

Diome- Procel- Phalacro- TOTAL deidae lariidae ooraoidae Anatidae Laridae Alcidae INDI-

SITE No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % VIDUALS

Chaluka West 1971 3k 1+.22 313 38.88 88 10.93 89 11. 06 3l+ 1+.22 2 1+7 30.68 805

Chaluka East 1971/1972 22 11.17 38 19.29 32 16. 2k 11 5.58 3 1.52 91 1+6.19 197

Sheep Creek 1970 5 k.V] 13 10.83 30 25.00 32 26.67 12 10.00 28 23.33 120

Oglodax f

'1971 27 U.6l 3*+6 59. 0k 57 9.73 78 13.31 2k 1+.10 5k 9.22 586 Anangula Vil-

lage 1973 10 8.06 kk 35.W 26 20.97 16 12.90 5 U.03 23 18.55 12U

TOTALS 98 75*+ 233 226 78 kk3 1832

X2 (20 df)

Chaluka West 1971 1.906 1.013 2.020 1.070 0.002 11+.073 20.081+

Chaluka East 1971/1972 12.1+60 22.890 1.922 7.279 3.1+63 39.1+65 87.1+79

Sheep Creek 1970 0.311+ 26.812 11+.238 19.989 9.290 0.036 70.679

Oglodax1 1971 0.60l+ 1+5.556 1+.123 0.1+51 0.036 51+.279 105.01+9

Anangula Vil- lage 1973 1.713 0.968 6.636 0.032 0.015 1.625 10.989

TOTALS 16.997 97.239 28.989 28.821 12.806 109. ^78 291+.280 (1+df) (1+df) (1+df) (1+df) (1+df) (1+df) (20df)

Table ll+. Inter-Site Comparison of Avian Faunal Frequencies.

Diomedeidae Prooellariidae Phalacrocoracidae Anatidae Laridae Aloidae

X (%) 6.62 39.30 11+.06 9.76 3.86 20.61

VARIANCE 1+.11+ 396.1+8 63.85 1+0.88 6.75 I+2I+.9I+

s.d. +_ 2.01+ +_ 19.91 ± 7.99 i 6.39 i 2.60 ±20.61 S.E. (X) + 0.91 ± 8.91 i 3.57 ± 2.86 +_ 1.16 + 9.26

X2 (5df) 16.13 11+7.51+ 67.1+1+ 87.75 51.01 1+37.60

N (Bones) 387 3139 626 691 290 1593

Table 15. Correlations between Avian Frequencies for the Southwest Umnak Sites.

Aloidae Alcidae Diomedeidae Prooellariidae Phalaoroooraoidae Anatidae Laridae (large) (small)

Diomedeidae 1.0000 0.301+5 0.1298 • O.I598 0.121+3 -0.3221 -0.11+1+5 Prooellari-

dae 0.301+5 1.0000 -O.I916 -0.021+1+ -O.Ql+76 -0.2085 -0.1996

This content downloaded from 185.44.79.40 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 10:00:42 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Page 21: Comparative Biomass Estimates and Prehistoric Cultural Ecology of the Southwest Umnak Region, Aleutian Islands

110 Arctic Anthropology XIII-2

Fig. 2. Schematic Representation of Squared Euclidean "Distance" Measures on Avian Faunal Frequency Data.

birds are more important to the archaeologist than to the Aleut, they serve as an excellent means for reconstructing prehistoric hunting patterns, indicating which species were selec- tively hunted in what areas, contributing which nutrients to the diet during what times of the year. Reasonable verification was found for hypothesized prehistoric Aleut concentration on species known to congregate in certain areas (e.g., inter-island passes), and biomass comparisons suggest that prehistoric popula- tions were concerned with degree of species aggregation and size of prey as well as popu- lation "density" per se. Finally, because birds can be keyed in to specific habitat

preferences, they can be used to delineate microenvironmental differentiation and to reconstruct prehistoric harvesting methods. While the Aleutian situation is somewhat unique because of the availability of good biomass estimates from both modern and archaeological sources, the comparative methodology suggested here should be applica- ble to the ecological analysis of other re- gional hunter-gatherer population systems.

REFERENCES CITED

Aigner, J. S. 1970 Configuration and Continuity in

Aleut Culture. Paper presented to the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Chicago, Illinois.

Aigner, J. S. 1971 The Unifacial Core and Blade Site

on Anangula Island, Aleutians. Arctic Anthropology , Vol. 7-2.

Ambrose, W. R. 1967 Archaeology and Shell Middens.

Archaeology and Physical Anthro- pology in Oceania, Vol. 2-3.

Austin, 0. L. 19^9 The Status of the Steller's Alba-

tross. Pacific Science, Vol. 3.

Balakrishnan, V. , and L. D. Sanghvi

1968 Distance between Populations on the Basis of Attribute Data. Biometrics, Vol. 2k.

Black, R. F. 1966 Late Pleistocene to Recent His-

tory of the Bering Sea-Alaska Coast and Man. Arctic Anthro- pology, Vol. 3-2.

Denniston, G. 1972 Ashishik Point: an Economic Analy-

sis of a Prehistoric Aleutian Community. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Wis- consin, Madison.

Fagan, B. M. 1972 In the Beginning. Boston.

Fay, F. H. and T. J. Cade 1959 An Ecological Analysis of the Avi-

fauna of St. Lawrence Island, Alaska. University of California Publications in Zoology 63, pp. 73-150.

This content downloaded from 185.44.79.40 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 10:00:42 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Page 22: Comparative Biomass Estimates and Prehistoric Cultural Ecology of the Southwest Umnak Region, Aleutian Islands

Yesner and Aigner: Comparative Biomass Estimates 111

Gray son, D. K. 1973 On the Methodology of Faunal

Analysis. American Antiquity, Vol. 38-U.

Grayson, D. K. 197^+a Minimum Numbers and Sample Size in

Vertebrate Faunal Analysis. Paper presented to the Society of Ameri- can Archaeology, Washington, D.C.

Grayson, D. K. 197^b The Riverhaven No. 2 Vertebrate

Fauna: Comments on Methods in Faunal Analysis and on Aspects of the Subsistence Potential of Pre- historic New York. Unpublished manuscript, Kirkland College, Clinton, New York.

Hassan, F. A. 197^ Determinants of Size, Density, and

Growth Rate of Hunter-Gatherer Populations. In Population, Adaptation, and Evolution. Edited by S. Polgar. In press.

Heller, C. A. and E. M. Scott 1961 The Alaska Dietary Survey 1956-

1961. Public Health Service, Washington, D.C, Publication No. 999-AH-2.

Interdepartmental Committee on Nutrition for the National Defense (ICNND) 1962 The Health and Nutritional Status

of Alaskan Eskimos. American Jour- nal of Clinical Nutrition, Vol. 11, pp. 31-66.

Jochelson, W. 1933 History, Ethnology, and Anthro-

pology of the Aleut. Carnegie Institute of Washington, Washing- ton, D.C. Publication 367.

Kelley, J. J., L. L. Longerich and D. W. Hood 1971 Effect of Upwelling, Mixing, and

High Primary Productivity on COp Concentrations in Surface Waters of the Bering Sea. Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 76- 36.

Krantz, G. S. 1968 A New Method of Counting Mammal

Bones. American Journal of Archaeology, Vol. 72

Kuroda, N. I960 Analysis of Sea-Bird Distribution

in the Northwest Pacific Ocean. Pacific Science, Vol. lU-1.

Laughlin, W. S. 1963 Eskimos and Aleuts : Their Origins

and Evolution. Science, Vol. 1U2.

1967 Human Migration and Permanent Occupation in the Bering Sea Area. In The Bering Land Bridge. Edited by D. M. Hopkins. Palo Alto, California.

1972 Ecology and Population Structure in the Arctic. In The Structure of Euman Populations. Edited by G. A. Harrison and A. J. Boyce. London.

Laughlin, W. S. , J. S. Aigner and R. F. Black 1971 Aleut Adaptation to the Bering

Land Bridge Coastal Configuration. (Grant application submitted to the National Science Foundation. )

Lippold, L. K. 1966 Chaluka: The Economic Base.

Arctic Anthropology , Vol. 9-2.

McCartney, A. P. 1973 Maritime Adaptations in Cold

Archipelagoes: an Analysis of Environment and Culture in the Aleutian and Other Island Chains. Paper presented to the Ninth In- ternational Congress of Anthro- pological and Ethnological Sci- ences, Chicago.

Miller, L. 19^0 Observations on the Black- footed

Albatross. Condor, Vol. 1+2-5.

Munson, P. J. 197^ Faunal Analysis, Sample Size, Dif-

ferential Destruction, and Some Suggested Correction Factors. Paper presented to the Society for American Archaeology, Washing- ton, D.C.

Olivier, D. C. 1973 Aggregative Hierarchical Cluster-

ing Program: Preliminary Ver- sion. Unpublished manuscript, De- partment of Psychology and Social Relations, Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass.

Palmer, R. S, 1962 Handbook of North American Birds.

New Haven.

This content downloaded from 185.44.79.40 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 10:00:42 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Page 23: Comparative Biomass Estimates and Prehistoric Cultural Ecology of the Southwest Umnak Region, Aleutian Islands

112 Arctic Anthropology XIII-2

Parmalee, P. W. I965 The Food Economy of Archaic and

Woodland Peoples of the Tick Creek Cave Site, Missouri. Missouri Archaeo logis t9 Vol . 27-1 .

Poole, E. L. 1939 Weights and Wing Areas in North

American Birds. Auk, Vol. 55.

Sanger, G. A. 1972a Preliminary Standing Stock and

Biomass Estimates of Seabirds in the Subarctic Pacific Ocean. In Biological Oceanography of the Northern North Pacific Ocean. Edited by A. Y. Takenouti et al. Tokyo .

1972b The Recent Pelagic Status of the Short-tailed Albatross. Biologi- cal Conservation, Vol. k-3.

Turner, C. G. , L. R. Richards and J. A. Turner 19TU The Relation of Aleut Population

Size to Seasonality of Marine Fauna. Paper presented to the In- ternational Congress of American- ists, Mexico.

Turner, L. M. 1886 Contributions to the Natural His-

tory of Alaska, h^fh Congress, First Session, Miscellaneous Docu- ment No. 8. Washington, D.C.

Udvardy, M. D. F. 1963 Zoogeographical Study of the Paci-

fic Alcidae. In Pacific Basin Bio- geography. Edited by J. L.. Gres- sitt. Honolulu.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1969 Birds of the Aleutian Islands

National Wildlife Refuge. U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C, National Wild- life Refuge Leaflet 1U8-R2.

Veniaminov, I. 18U0 Notes on the Islands of the Una-

laska District. Russian American Company, St. Petersburg. (Trans- lation in manuscript form at the University of Connecticut, Storrs, Connecticut, Dept. of Biobehavioral Sciences. )

White, T. E. 1953 A Method of Calculating the Die-

tary Percentage of Various Food Animals Utilized by Aboriginal Peoples. American Antiquity > Vol. 18-U.

Yesner, D. R. 197Ua The Southwest Umnak Settlement

System. In Aleutian Population and Ecosystem Analysis. Edited by W. S. Laughlin and J. S. Aigner. In press.

197*+b Nutrition and Cultural Evolution: Patterns in Prehistory. In Medical Anthropology. Edited by D. K. Evans. In press. .

197*+c Albatrosses of the Aleutian Is- lands: a Population History. Auk (in press) .

1975 Maritime Hunter-Gatherers: Demo- graphic and Paleodemographic Models. Paper presented to the Society for American Archaeology, Dallas .

Yesner, D. R. and A. M. Bieber 197^ Application of Multivariate Analy-

sis to Regional Faunal Assem- blages. Paper presented to the Society for American Archaeology, Washington, D.C.

n.d. Correction Factors for Minimum Numbers of Individuals Based on Regression Analysis. Unpublished manuscript, University of Connec- ticut, Storrs.

University of Connecticut Storrs , Connecticut

This content downloaded from 185.44.79.40 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 10:00:42 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions


Recommended