Evaluating Native American Bird Use and Bird Assemblage … · 2018-07-02 · Evaluating Native American Bird Use colonies. We hope that the methods and approaches employed here will

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttp://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=uica20

The Journal of Island and Coastal Archaeology

ISSN: 1556-4894 (Print) 1556-1828 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/uica20

Evaluating Native American Bird Use and BirdAssemblage Variability along the Oregon Coast

Kristine M. Bovy, Madonna L. Moss, Jessica E. Watson, Frances J. White,Timothy T. Jones, Heather A. Ulrich & Julia K. Parrish

To cite this article: Kristine M. Bovy, Madonna L. Moss, Jessica E. Watson, Frances J. White,Timothy T. Jones, Heather A. Ulrich & Julia K. Parrish (2018): Evaluating Native American BirdUse and Bird Assemblage Variability along the Oregon Coast, The Journal of Island and CoastalArchaeology, DOI: 10.1080/15564894.2018.1457105

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/15564894.2018.1457105

View supplementary material

Published online: 22 May 2018.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 33

View Crossmark data

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=uica20

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/uica20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/15564894.2018.1457105

https://doi.org/10.1080/15564894.2018.1457105

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/suppl/10.1080/15564894.2018.1457105

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/suppl/10.1080/15564894.2018.1457105

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/authorSubmission?journalCode=uica20&show=instructions

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/authorSubmission?journalCode=uica20&show=instructions

http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1080/15564894.2018.1457105&domain=pdf&date_stamp=2018-05-22

http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1080/15564894.2018.1457105&domain=pdf&date_stamp=2018-05-22

The Journal of Island and Coastal Archaeology, 0:1–36, 2018Copyright C© 2018 Taylor & Francis Group, LLCISSN: 1556-4894 print / 1556-1828 onlineDOI: 10.1080/15564894.2018.1457105

Evaluating Native American Bird Use andBird Assemblage Variability along theOregon Coast

Kristine M. Bovy,1 Madonna L. Moss,2 Jessica E. Watson,3

Frances J. White,2 Timothy T. Jones,4 Heather A. Ulrich,5

and Julia K. Parrish4

1Department of Sociology & Anthropology, University of Rhode Island,

Kingston, Rhode Island, USA2Department of Anthropology, University of Oregon, Eugene, Oregon, USA3Department of Anthropology, University of Albany, Albany, New York, USA4Coastal Observation and Seabird Survey Team (COASST), University of

Washington School of Aquatic and Fishery Sciences, Seattle, Washington, USA5Bureau of Land Management, Springfield, Oregon, USA

ABSTRACT

Native American use of birds on the Oregon coast is not well knownand has never been synthesized to present a regional understanding.We rectify this by analyzing data from 26 zooarchaeological assem-blages, including three previously unpublished bird assemblages:Umpqua/Eden (35DO83), Whale Cove (35LNC60), and the DunesSite (35CLT27). We employ a series of non-parametric randomizationtests to directly evaluate patterns of taxonomic diversity, correlationswith nearby breeding colonies, and broader procurement strategiesdiscussed in ethnohistorical accounts. We compare the assemblagesto contemporary surveys of naturally beached birds as observed byCOASST (Coastal Observation Seabird Survey Team) and evaluatewhether archaeological specimens were scavenged from the beach.While 71% of the identified bird remains belong to just three families(Anatidae, Alcidae, and Procellariidae), closer analysis reveals theincredible diversity of birds used by Oregon coast Native Americans.The assemblages vary considerably in terms of taxonomic diversityand composition, leading us to conclude that people used birdsopportunistically, likely incorporating multiple strategies, includinghunting, collecting beached carcasses and targeting cormorant

Received 19 September 2017; accepted 29 January 2018.Address correspondence to Kristine M. Bovy, Department of Sociology & Anthropology, University ofRhode Island, Kingston, 507 Chafee Bldg., Kingston, RI 02881, USA. E-mail: [email protected] versions or one or more figures in this article are available online at www.tandfonline.com/uica

1

https://doi.org/10.1080/15564894.2018.1457105

https://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1080/15564894.2018.1457105&domain=pdf&date_stamp=2018-05-21

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.tandfonline.com/uica

Evaluating Native American Bird Use

colonies. We hope that the methods and approaches employed herewill inspire other archaeologists to devote more attention to birdassemblages, and how their study can inform conservation efforts.

Keywords Northwest, zooarchaeology, birds, scavenging, hunting

INTRODUCTION

Even though bird bones are common inOregon (USA) coast archaeological sites,ethnographic information regarding theuse of birds by local Native Americans isextremely limited (Hall 2001:20–22; Minorand Toepel 1986:63). Beyond brief men-tions in early reports (e.g., Drucker 1939;Kroeber 1939), bird use in this regionhas not been widely discussed. From theLewis and Clark expedition, we know thatbirds were so numerous—and loud—thatat least some of the explorers could notsleep for the noise (Moulton 1990:21).Suttles (1990:27) suggests birds were moreimportant in the Pacific Northwest Coastthan often assumed, with waterfowl “vastlymore important” than terrestrial birds.The degree to which different birds werehunted for food, their eggs gathered, theirfeathers and skins used to make clothingor regalia, or their bones made into toolsis not well documented. Birds have re-ceived less attention by zooarchaeologistsin the Pacific Northwest Coast than fish ormammals, perhaps because they are oftenless abundant in these sites (Butler andCampbell 2004; Lindsay 1995).

Yet we now have an adequate numberof systematically analyzed bird assemblagesto begin outlining general patterns of birduse and raising questions to direct futureresearch. Analyses of bird bones can pro-vide information on pre-contact dietarypractices, site seasonality, foraging loca-tions, hunting and processing strategies,and dynamic coastal environments. Weexamine which birds were used, how theywere likely obtained, and how taxonomicabundance and diversity vary by location,using original data from Umpqua/Eden(35DO83), Whale Cove (35LNC60), and theDunes Site (35CLT27) and published data

from 23 other Oregon coast sites. The meth-ods and observations from these assem-blages will be relevant to researchers study-ing birds in coastal settings worldwide.

BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT

Oregon Coast Environments and Cultures

The Oregon coast is located withinthe southern part of the Pacific NorthwestCoast culture area, which extends from IcyBay, Alaska, to northern California (Moss2011). The 480 km-long coastline consistsof rocky shorelines, headlands, and sandybeaches. Oregon is part of the NorthernCalifornia Current Ecoregion, a transitionalzone between colder subarctic waters ofthe Gulf of Alaska and subtropical wa-ters off Baja California (OCMP 2016). Thecontinental shelf off Oregon is narrower,steeper, and deeper than average, con-tributing to a pelagic zone that is only 14 to64 km offshore (Byrne 1962:67). Seasonalupwelling is typical (Bograd et al. 2009),with a switch from winter downwelling(onshore flow of surface waters associatedwith wind direction and storm events) tosummer upwelling (offshore flow of surfacewaters bringing cold, nutrient-rich bottomwaters to the surface). Timing of this springtransition and intensity of the upwellingseason affect coastal productivity (Barthet al. 2007), including the reproductive suc-cess and mortality rates of coastal seabirds(Parrish et al. 2007).

In the early 1800s, the Oregon coastwas occupied by diverse Native Americantribes, including (from north to south) var-ious bands of Chinook, Clatsop, Tillamook,Alsea, Siuslaw, Umpqua, Coos, Coquille,Tututni, and Tolowa (Figure 1). Linguisticdata suggest that representatives of three

2 VOLUME 0 • ISSUE 0 • 2018

Kristine M. Bovy et al.

Figure 1. A. Regional map of the Pacific Northwest Coast (USA); B. Map of Oregon coast showinglocation of archaeological sites with identified bird bones, COASST survey beaches in-cluded in the analysis, and major Indian tribes (in capitals). Open circles indicate siteswith <100 NISP, which were excluded from the comparative analyses. See Table 3 for sitenumbers. See Results for discussion of site clusters.

language phyla (Na-Dene, Salishan, andPenutian) and at least five language families(Athapaskan, Chinookan, Alsean, Siuslaw,and Coos) were spoken (Thompson andKinkade 1990). Cultural differences amongOregon coast groups are due to differentadaptations to various Oregon coast envi-ronments and diverse origins. People werein central Oregon by at least 14,000 yearsago (Jenkins et al. 2014), though the earliestdate for a coastal archaeological site is ca.9000 cal BP (35CU67; Moss and Erlandson1998). The relative scarcity of early sitesalong the Oregon coast is due to post-glacialsea-level rise, episodic tectonic subsidence,tsunamis, landslides, severe coastal erosion,accumulation of extensive dunes during

the middle and late Holocene, and theevolution of former estuaries into lakes(Lyman 1991; Moss and Erlandson 2008).The most substantial bird assemblages stud-ied thus far date to the late Holocene (3000to 400 cal BP); this is the time period onwhich we focus.

Birds of the Oregon Coast

A diversity of birds is found on the Ore-gon coast, including seabirds, shorebirds,and waterfowl. Table 1 summarizes the per-tinent life history information for some ofthe most common taxa found in archae-ological sites in the region. We organize

THE JOURNAL OF ISLAND AND COASTAL ARCHAEOLOGY 3

Tab

le1

.Li

feh

isto

ryin

form

atio

nfo

rO

rego

nco

ast

bir

ds

(dis

cuss

edin

the

tex

t).

Nes

tin

gLo

cati

on

sH

abit

atP

refe

ren

cein

Ore

gon

Seas

on

alit

y(p

eak

abu

nd

ance

)Sc

aven

gin

gP

ote

nti

al1

Ref

eren

ces

Wat

erfo

wl

(An

atid

s)

Dab

blin

gD

uck

san

dG

eese

man

yb

reed

inA

lask

aan

dC

anad

a;a

few

bre

edlo

cally

estu

arie

s,ti

dal

flat

s,m

arsh

es,l

akes

,fiel

ds

win

ter

(an

dsp

rin

g/fa

llm

igra

tio

ns)

;so

me

year

-ro

un

d(e

.g.,

Can

ada

Go

ose

,Mal

lard

s)

rare

bea

ched

bir

d

Sco

ters

bre

edin

Ala

ska

and

Can

ada

estu

arie

san

dn

ears

ho

reb

ays

win

ter

(an

dsp

rin

g/fa

llm

igra

tio

ns)

un

com

mo

nb

each

edb

ird

(#12

,18)

;wre

cksp

ecie

sSa

vard

etal

.20

15

Seab

ird

sN

esti

ng

alo

ng

the

Ore

gon

Co

ast

Co

mm

on

Mu

rre

clif

fn

este

r;o

ffsh

ore

rock

s/is

lan

ds

nea

rsh

ore

and

larg

ees

tuar

ies

year

-ro

un

dco

mm

on

bea

ched

bir

d(#

1);

po

st-b

reed

ing

mo

rtal

ity

spec

ies;

wre

cksp

ecie

s

Ain

ley

etal

.20

02

Rh

ino

cero

sA

ukl

etb

urr

ow

nes

ter;

off

sho

rero

cks/

isla

nd

s;p

op

ula

tio

nce

nte

rin

Can

ada

shel

fw

ater

sto

nea

rsh

ore

and

larg

ees

tuar

ies

year

-ro

un

d(f

arth

ero

ffsh

ore

inw

inte

r)co

mm

on

bea

ched

bir

d(#

5);

po

st-b

reed

ing/

win

terk

illsp

ecie

s;w

reck

po

ten

tial

Gas

ton

and

Dec

hes

ne

1996

Cas

sin

’sA

ukl

etb

urr

ow

nes

ter;

off

sho

rero

cks/

isla

nd

s;p

op

ula

tio

nce

nte

rin

Can

ada

shel

fw

ater

sto

nea

rsh

ore

year

-ro

un

d(f

arth

ero

ffsh

ore

inw

inte

r)co

mm

on

bea

ched

bir

d(#

3);

po

st-b

reed

ing/

win

terk

illsp

ecie

s;w

reck

po

ten

tial

Man

uw

alan

dT

ho

rese

n20

11

Co

rmo

ran

tssu

rfac

en

este

r;o

ffsh

ore

rock

s/is

lan

ds;

man

mad

est

ruct

ure

s

nea

rsh

ore

,est

uar

ies,

low

erC

olu

mb

iaR

iver

,fr

esh

wat

erb

od

ies

(Do

ub

le-c

rest

edC

orm

ora

nts

)

com

mo

nye

ar-r

ou

nd

com

mo

nb

each

edb

ird

(#10

,14

,27)

;po

st-b

reed

ing

mo

rtal

ity

spec

ies

Wal

lace

and

Wal

lace

1998

;Hat

chan

dW

esel

oh

2014

(Con

tin

ued

on

nex

tpa

ge)


Tab

le1

.(c

on

tin

ued

).

Nes

tin

gLo

cati

on

sH

abit

atP

refe

ren

cein

Ore

gon

Seas

on

alit

y(p

eak

abu

nd

ance

)Sc

aven

gin

gP

ote

nti

al1

Ref

eren

ces

Gu

llssu

rfac

en

este

r;o

ffsh

ore

rock

s/is

lan

ds;

man

mad

est

ruct

ure

s

ub

iqu

ito

us

acro

ssm

arin

ean

dfr

esh

wat

erse

ttin

gs(i

ncl

ud

ing

alls

pec

ies)

com

mo

nye

ar-r

ou

nd

(bu

tva

riab

leb

ysp

ecie

s)

com

mo

nb

each

edb

ird

(#4+

);p

ost

-bre

edin

gm

ort

alit

ysp

ecie

s

Mig

rato

rySe

abir

ds

(Pel

agic

s)

Alb

atro

sses

bre

edin

wes

tern

Paci

fic

shel

fan

dsl

op

ew

ater

ssu

mm

er(A

pr.

toO

ct.)

un

com

mo

n-t

o-r

are

bea

ched

bir

dH

yren

bac

het

al.2

002

Soo

tySh

earw

ater

bre

edin

New

Zea

lan

dan

dA

ust

ralia

shel

fan

dsl

op

ew

ater

ssu

mm

er(a

nd

spri

ng/

fall

mig

rati

on

s)co

mm

on

bea

ched

bir

d(#

7)V

eit

etal

.19

97

No

rth

ern

Fulm

arb

reed

inA

lask

aan

dC

anad

ian

Arc

tic

shel

fw

ater

sw

inte

r(S

ep.t

oFe

b.)

com

mo

nb

each

edb

ird

(#2)

;w

inte

rkill

spec

ies;

wre

cksp

ecie

s

Hat

chet

al.

2010

1B

ased

on

info

rmat

ion

fro

mth

eC

OA

SST

web

site

(201

7).C

om

mo

n:i

nth

eto

p10

spec

ies

fou

nd

inth

eC

OA

SST

dat

aset

;un

com

mo

n:i

nth

eto

p25

spec

ies

bu

tn

ot

inth

eto

p10

;rar

e:n

ot

inth

eto

p25

spec

ies.

Nu

mb

ers

inp

aren

thes

esin

dic

ate

ran

kab

un

dan

cein

the

CO

ASS

Td

atas

et;

mu

ltip

lera

nks

are

sho

wn

inth

eca

seo

fm

ult

iple

spec

ies.

Po

st-b

reed

ing

mo

rtal

ity

spec

ies:

carc

ass

dep

osi

tio

np

eak

inla

tesu

mm

er/e

arly

fall

follo

win

gth

elo

calb

reed

ing

seas

on

.Win

terk

ill

spec

ies:

carc

ass

dep

osi

tio

np

eak

inth

efa

ll/w

inte

rfo

llow

ing

mig

rati

on

into

the

regi

on

fro

mb

reed

ing

site

sin

Bri

tish

Co

lum

bia

and

Ala

ska.

Wre

ckp

ote

nti

al:s

pec

ies

or

tax

on

gro

up

has

had

on

eo

rm

ore

un

usu

alm

ort

alit

yev

ents

alo

ng

the

Paci

fic

No

rth

wes

tco

astl

ine,

asd

efin

edb

ym

on

thly

dep

osi

tio

nra

tes

abo

veth

e95

%co

nfi

den

celim

its

of

the

lon

g-te

rmm

on

thly

aver

age.



these taxa into three categories based ongeographic distribution and natural history:waterfowl (ducks/geese), coastal seabirdsthat nest along the Oregon coastline, andpelagic (open water) seabirds nesting out-side the Pacific Northwest and migratinginto Oregon waters (predominantly duringthe non-breeding season).

Waterfowl (Anatids). Anatidae is a largefamily, with 7 species of geese and swans(Anserinae), 10 dabbling ducks (Anatini), 5pochards/bay ducks (Aythini), 11 sea ducks(Mergini) and the Ruddy Duck (Oxyurajamaicensis) present in coastal Oregon.Dabbling ducks/geese feed on plants orsmall mollusks in a variety of shallow wa-ter and terrestrial habitats. Diving ducks(pochards and sea ducks) generally winterin the Pacific Northwest, and migrate to andfrom their breeding grounds in northernregions or interior lakes in the spring andfall. Diving ducks, such as scoters, feed onfish and shellfish in deeper waters includingestuaries and exposed coastal habitats, andcan be found in large congregations.

Nesting Seabirds. The Common Murre(Uria aalge) is the largest (800–1300 g)and most abundant alcid breeding alongthe Pacific Northwest Coast, comprisingover half of all seabirds nesting in Oregon(Naughton et al. 2007a:5). Breeding com-mences in April, with eggs appearing inMay (Gladics et al. 2015). Breeders remainon-colony until July, and then dispersethroughout the nearshore ecosystem ofthe Pacific Northwest (Gladics et al. 2015).Following breeding, Pacific Northwestmurres have a flightless molt period inSeptember–November (Jones et al. 2017).Four other alcid species breed within thenearshore ecosystem of Oregon: TuftedPuffin (Fratercula cirrhata), RhinocerosAuklet (Cerorhinca monocerata), Cassin’sAuklet (Ptychoramphus aleuticus), andPigeon Guillemot (Cepphus columba),albeit all in much lower numbers thanmurres (Naughton et al. 2007a). During thefall post-breeding season, larger numbersof both auklet species can be found in

Oregon coastal shelf waters, as tens tohundreds of thousands of individuals fromWashington and British Columbia coloniesmigrate south (Gaston and Dechesne 1996;Manuwal and Thoresen 2011).

Cormorants include the Double-crested (Phalacrocorax auritus), Brandt’s(P. penicillatus), and Pelagic Cormorant(P. pelagicus), all of which nest on rockyspires, outcroppings, and predator-free off-shore islands. Double-crested cormorantsalso nest within estuarine systems, onislands throughout the Columbia River sys-tem, and in a variety of inland freshwaterlakes (Wiese et al. 2008). Western (Larusoccidentalis) and Glaucous-winged gulls (L.glaucescens) nest along the Oregon coast-line in a wide range of habitats. Duringthe fall post-breeding season, at least eightother gull species migrate into Oregonestuarine and coastal waters to over-winter(Naughton et al. 2007a:14).

Migratory Seabirds (Pelagics). Millionsof marine birds breed entirely outsideof the Pacific Northwest and migrate toor through Oregon waters during thenon-breeding season. Of these, the mostnumerous are the highly pelagic pro-cellariids: albatrosses, shearwaters, andNorthern Fulmar (Fulmarus glacialis).Three species of albatrosses breed in thewestern Pacific and migrate to the Oregoncoast in spring: the regularly sighted Black-footed (Phoebastria nigripes), rare Laysan(P. immutabilis), and truly rare Short-tailed(P. albatrus). Short-tails are still recoveringfrom near extinction in the 1920s dueto commercial over-exploitation (USFWS2017), but were historically as abundant asthe other two albatross species (Guy et al.2013). While the suggestion has been madethat the distribution of the Short-tailedAlbatross was once closer to shore basedon their relative abundance in archaeolog-ical sites (e.g., Bovy 2005; Greenspan andWigen 1991; Miller 1940:231), this may bemore a reflection of their former absoluteabundance in the coastal shelf marine birdcommunity, as current evidence indicates



Short-tails concentrate primarily at the shelfbreak (Kuletz et al. 2014).

Sooty Shearwaters (Ardenna grisea)1

are the most abundant shearwater inthe California Current System (Veit et al1997). These birds breed in large coloniesin the Southern Hemisphere, then mi-grate north during the austral winter tolocations throughout the North Pacific,Bering, and Chukchi seas (Shaffer et al.2006). Sooty Shearwaters are the mostabundant bird in recent summer surveysoff the Pacific coast and second mostabundant in fall over inner-shelf waters (be-tween 0 and 100 m offshore; Adams et al.2014:23–24). In contrast to albatrosses andshearwaters, Northern Fulmar breed inAlaska, migrating south down both sidesof the North Pacific following breeding(Hatch et al. 2010).

Bird Hunting and Collecting Strategies

Ethnographic accounts in the Pa-cific Northwest Coast (and worldwide)include a range of bird hunting and col-lecting strategies (Serjeantson 2009; Suttles1990). Yet distinguishing between variousstrategies (e.g., hunting vs. scavenging)in the archaeological record is challeng-ing (Bovy et al. 2016; deFrance 2005).We organize ethnohistorical and archaeo-logical information on bird procurementin the Pacific Northwest Coast into fourstrategies.

Nearshore Hunting. Oregon coast peo-ples had access to a variety of nearshorehabitats, including estuaries, marshes, bays,tideflats, eelgrass beds, and open waterswithin a few kilometers of shore. All butthe most offshore birds may have beenhunted in the nearshore during certaintimes of the year (Table 1), using bowand arrow, spears, hook and line, traps, orsnares. Beckham (1977:70–71) describeda Tillamook method for taking waterfowlin estuaries, where men waded among theflocks wearing basketry decoys over theirheads. Further north, submerged and hang-ing nets were used to catch large numbersof waterfowl (Suttles 1990:459).

Hunting on Breeding Colonies. Breedingcolonies of seabirds may provide a relativelypredictable and plentiful source of fledglingbirds and eggs, and sustainable egg collec-tion is still a staple of indigenous diets incoastal Alaska (Moss 2007; Moss and Bow-ers 2007; Zador et al. 2006). Adult birdsmay also be more vulnerable to huntingwhen tending their young. Ethnographicand ethnohistoric accounts discuss NativeAmerican hunting of fledgling cormorantsin northern California (Gould 1966:85) andNetarts Bay (Losey 2002:81), and Barnett(1937:165) noted use of cormorant andgull eggs by several Oregon coast groups.Medullary bone and juvenile bones (in-dicated by porous texture and unfusedepiphyses) could indicate colony exploita-tion for most species, although juvenilebird bones may remain unidentified orunder-reported due to lack of comparativespecimens or difficulties in distinguishingolder juveniles (3–4 months) from adults(e.g., Bovy 2011). While many seabirdsmature quickly and fledge close to adultweight (e.g., 90% for Cassin’s Auklet; Ainleyet al. 1990), the Common Murre is anexception at 17–24% (Ainley et al. 2002).

Offshore Hunting. Although some havequestioned whether Oregon coast peoplesventured onto the open ocean in canoesfor hunting, fishing, or birding (e.g., Ly-man 1995), ethnographic research indicatesocean-going canoes were used at least oc-casionally (Andrews 1962:138; Minor 2001;Ray 1938:102), and archaeological analy-sis supports opportunistic whale hunting(Losey and Yang 2007; Wellman et al. 2017).The presence of pelagic seabirds in ar-chaeological assemblages has been inter-preted as evidence for offshore hunting(e.g., Greenspan and Wigen 1991; Ulrich2009). North Pacific procellariids are at-tracted to modern fishing vessels (Edwardset al. 2015) and may have tracked offshorefishers and marine mammal hunters in thepast, perhaps through chumming (DePuydt1994). Breeding birds were available on off-shore islands, such as Goat Island on thesouthern Oregon coast (Gard 1990).



Collecting Beached Carcasses. Research-ers in coastal regions worldwide haverecognized that beached birds couldbe a source of bones or feathers fortool/ornament production (see referencesin Bovy et al. 2016). The relative abundanceof remains and/or skeletal part frequency(e.g., an abundance of wing bones) hasbeen used to argue either for or againstbeach scavenging (e.g., Bovy 2002; de-France 2005; Eda et al. 2016; Jerardinoet al. 2009; Losey 2002); however, Bovyet al. (2016) found these approaches oflimited utility. While any aquatic bird mayend up on the beach, some occur morefrequently than others (Table 1); thereforerelative taxonomic abundance may indicatea scavenged assemblage. Larger numbers ofbeached carcasses may be available duringmass mortality events or “wrecks,” whenbirds are deposited on the beach after largestorms or following reproductive failure orfood shortages (Bovy et al. 2016; deFrance2005). Many of these “wreck” carcassesare relatively fresh and intact and couldbe used for meat (e.g., Work and Rameyer1999). On the Oregon coast, pelagic birdsare often assumed to have been collectedoff the beach (Hall 2001; Losey 2002:289).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

New Primary Data

Original, unpublished identifications bythe authors are drawn from collection-basedprojects from three sites excavated priorto 1986: Umpqua/Eden (Bovy 2005), WhaleCove (Watson 2011), and the Dunes Site(Ulrich 2009). At Umpqua/Eden and WhaleCove, ¼” screens were used to recoverthe faunal remains, undoubtedly resultingin the loss of small bird bones. From theDunes Site, we have no information as towhether screens were used. Bird remainswere identified to the lowest possible tax-onomic level using comparative collectionsfrom the Burke Museum of Natural His-tory and Culture at the University of Wash-ington (Umpqua/Eden, Whale Cove), Mu-seum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard

(Whale Cove), and the North Pacific collec-tion at the University of Oregon’s Depart-ment of Anthropology (Dunes), along withpublished criteria (e.g., Broughton 2004;Woolfendon 1961). Vertebrae and ribs werenot identified beyond the class level (for allanalysts), and Ulrich did not identify pha-langes (except phalanx I of digit II). Bovyused both morphological and metric cri-teria to identify taxa, and did not iden-tify small passerines. All assemblages werequantified using NISP (Number of Identi-fied Specimens), which is primary data (notsecondary, derived data like Minimum Num-ber of Individuals; Grayson 1984; Reitz andWing 2008), and allows comparison withother assemblages (see below).

Site 1: Umpqua/Eden. Umpqua/Eden (35DO83) is situated on the south/centralOregon coast within the territory ofthe Penutian-speaking Lower Umpqua orKalawatset (Lyman 1991). The site is lo-cated on a high terrace along the UmpquaRiver, about 3.2 km from the river mouth.Excavations began with Peter Stenhouse(unpublished), were continued by RichardRoss with an Oregon State University (OSU)field school from 1978 to 1980 (Ross andSnyder 1979, 1986), and later by Rick Mi-nor (1994; Minor et al. 2012). Lyman (1991)summarized and analyzed mammal remainsfrom the Ross excavations, while Bovy an-alyzed the bird remains in her dissertation(2005), which focused on the effects of en-vironmental change and human hunting onpast waterbird populations. Ross and Sny-der (1986) believed the site was continu-ously occupied for 3,000 years, but withadditional dating, Bovy (2005) found thatthe bulk of the deposits accumulated dur-ing two periods: 2280–1775 cal BP and900–250 cal BP. A 900-year long hiatus insite occupation, or at least faunal accumu-lation, occurred between 1800 and 900 calBP.

Table 2 provides data on the 1553 birdbones from Umpqua/Eden. Ducks dominatethe assemblage (n = 1120; 72%), followedby cormorants (n = 94; 6%), loons (n =86; 6%), geese (n = 74; 5%), eagles/hawks



Table 2. Identified specimens from Umpqua/ Eden (35DO83), Dunes Site (35CLT27) andWhale Cove (35LNC60).

Scientific Name1 Common NameUmpqua/

Eden2WhaleCove Dunes

Anseriformes

Anatidae Duck, Goose, Swan 4 14

Anserinae Goose, Swan 12

Anserini Goose 49 4

Branta cf. canadensis Canada Goose 25

Branta canadensis Canada Goose 39

Anatinae Duck 336 14 64

Anas spp. Dabbling Duck 80

Aythya spp. Pochard 132

Mergini Sea Duck 75 7

Melanitta spp. Scoter 315 17 60

Melanitta perspicillata Surf Scoter 54 200

Melanitta fusca White-winged Scoter 32 4 204

Bucephala albeola Bufflehead 81

Bucephala spp.-large Common or Barrow’sGoldeneye

3

Bucephala islandica Barrow’s Goldeneye 1

Mergus spp. Merganser 7

Mergus merganser Common Merganser 2

Oxyura jamaicensis Ruddy Duck 2

Galliformes

Gallus gallus Domestic Chicken 8

Podicipediformes

Podicipedidae Grebe 4 4

Podiceps spp. Grebe 5

Podiceps spp.-small Horned or Eared Grebe 3

Podiceps auritus Horned Grebe 6

Aechmophorus spp. Western or Clark’s Grebe 5

Aechmophorus occidentalis Western Grebe 8

Columbiformes

Columba spp. Pigeons 12

Gruiformes

Grus canadensis Sandhill Crane 1

Charadriiformes Shorebird 1

Scolopacidae Sandpiper 5

Calidris spp. Sandpiper 5

Alcidae Alcid 1 2 30

Uria aalge Common Murre 8 594

(Continued on next page)



Table 2. (Continued).



Brachyramphus marmoratus Marbled Murrelet 8

Ptychoramphus aleuticus Cassin’s Auklet 128

Cerorhinca monocerata Rhinoceros Auklet 2 38

Fratercula cirrhata Tufted Puffin 3 13

Laridae Gull, Tern 44 12 10

Rissa cf. tridactyla Black-legged Kittiwake 1

Rissa tridactyla Black-legged Kittiwake 40

Larus spp. Gulls 47

Gaviiformes

Gavia spp. Loon 59 2 60

Gavia stellata Red-throated Loon 8

Gavia pacifica Pacific Loon 8

Gavia immer Common Loon 11

Procellariiformes

Phoebastria spp. Albatross 15 71

Phoebastria spp.- small Laysan or Black-footedAlbatross

1

Phoebastria albatrus Short-tailed Albatross 2

Procellariidae Shearwater, Fulmar, Petrel 1 17

Fulmarus glacialis Northern Fulmar 1 3 38

Ardenna (=Puffinus) spp. Shearwater 3 127

Ardenna grisea Sooty Shearwater 324

Ardenna creatopus Pink-footed Shearwater 2

Suliformes

Phalacrocorax spp. Cormorant 54 3 22

Phalacrocorax penicillatus Brandt’s Cormorant 1

Phalacrocorax auritus Double-crested Cormorant 28 1

Phalacrocorax pelagicus Pelagic Cormorant 11 4

Pelecaniformes

Pelecanus spp. Pelican 5

Pelecanus occidentalis Brown Pelican 6 3

Ardea herodias Great Blue Heron 1

Accipitriformes

Pandion haliaetus Osprey 3

Accipitridae- large Bald or Golden Eagle 5

Haliaeetus leucocephalus Bald Eagle 18 1

Accipitridae- small Hawk 2

Buteo spp. Hawk 14


10 VOLUME 0 • ISSUE 0 • 2018


Table 2. (Continued).



Buteo jamaicensis Red-tailed Hawk 5

Strigiformes

Megascops kennicotti Western Screech-owl 1

Bubo spp. Great Horned or Snowy Owl 1

Bubo virginianus Great Horned Owl 1 1

Piciformes

Picidae Woodpecker 1 1

Falconiformes

Falco spp.- large Falcon, large-sized 1

Passeriformes

Passeriformes (non-corvid) Perching Bird 11 1 1

Turdidae Robin, Thrush 4

Corvus brachyrhynchos American or Common Crow 11

Corvus corax Common Raven 29

Total 1553 106 2230

1Taxonomic names and order follows the American Ornithologists’ Union Check-list of NorthAmerican Birds (AOU 2017), including recent updates (e.g., Chesser et al. 2016).

2Simplified from Bovy (2005), which also included size class information for non-speciesidentifications (e.g., Anas sp.- small). In addition, some identifications were combined (e.g., cf.Phalacrocorax spp. and Phalacrocorax spp.).

(n = 44; 3%), and gulls (n = 44; 3%)2. Water-fowl are the most abundant taxon in boththe early and later components. Eelgrassoccurs in coves both north and south ofUmpqua/Eden (Gaumer et al. 1973:26), anddense flocks of Surf (Melanitta perspicil-lata) and White-winged Scoters (M. fusca)have been observed near the Umpqua Riverduring November (Briggs et al.1992:A-49). Given that the most abundant ducksrecovered were scoters, pochards, andBuffleheads (Bucephala albeola), and thatherring (Clupea pallasii) and harbor seal(Phoca vitulina) were also abundant (Ly-man 1991; Minor 1994), site occupantsmay have been targeting these productiveeelgrass patches, in addition to the estuar-ine tideflats. Bovy (2005) identified a widerange of bird species at Umpqua/Eden, butfound little change in the taxonomiccomposition over the site’s occupa-tion, perhaps indicating environmentalstability.

Site 2: Whale Cove. Whale Cove (35LNC60) occurs within areas encompassed bythe territories of the Siletz (Salish speakers)in the north and the Yaquina (Penutianspeakers) in the south (Ruby and Brown1986). Ann Bennett Rogers (Bennett 1988)excavated the site in 1985 as part of an OSUfield school. Located on a bluff near DepoeBay in northern Oregon, the site containedthree strata dated to 3010–330 BP, includ-ing dense shell midden layers (Bennett andLyman 1991). Bovy and Watson examinedthe avifauna in 2011 as part of Watson’sundergraduate honors project at the Uni-versity of Rhode Island (Watson 2011), inorder to help evaluate the seasonality of thesite. Most identified bird bones derive fromWhale Cove I (WCI), a component datingca. 3010–2830 BP (Bennett and Lyman1991:244).

The Whale Cove bird assemblage issmall (NISP = 106) but diverse (Table 2).The most abundant taxa were ducks and



geese (n = 46; 43%), albatrosses and shear-waters (n = 21; 20%), puffins and Com-mon Murres (n = 15; 14%), gulls (n = 12;11%) and cormorants (n = 8; 7%). Watson(2011) suggested that the bird bones in-dicate year-round rather than seasonal oc-cupation based on the presence of alba-tross and puffin (thought to be present insummer only), scoter and Northern Fulmar(fall and winter), and a juvenile cormorant(spring).

Site 3: The Dunes Site. The Dunes Site(35CLT27) is located in the Clatsop Plainsdunes system, which extends 30 km southfrom the mouth of the Columbia River toTillamook Head. It is positioned 1.2 kmfrom the current shoreline, 500 meters eastof Neacoxie Creek just north of the townof Gearhart, and at 15–20 m above sea level(Harrison and Longo 1991). The Lower Chi-nook occupied both banks of the ColumbiaRiver from the mouth to about 50 milesupstream (Ray 1938; Silverstein 1990).The Lower Chinook included the Chinookproper who occupied the north bank (toWillapa Bay) and the Clatsop who occupiedthe south bank (to Tillamook Head), includ-ing the Dunes Site location. The Dunes Sitewas occupied ca. 950–550 cal BP, and wasexcavated by Fred Hasle and field schoolstudents from Clatsop Community Collegefrom 1972 to 1974 (Harrison and Longo1991). Faunal remains are housed at theUniversity of Oregon’s Museum of Naturaland Cultural History. The large assemblageof bird bones was unexamined for 30 years,until Moss and students began to tackle theproject (Rose et al. 2006). Ulrich selectedthe site for her M.S. project, under thedirection of Moss, to investigate bird use,site seasonality, and the dynamic natureof the coastal environment near the site,including the westward progradation ofextensive dunes south of the ColumbiaRiver (Connolly 1992).

Ulrich’s analysis yielded 2230 NISP(Table 2); as of this writing, this representsthe largest archaeological bird assemblage(from a single site) from the Oregon coastyet identified. Birds from 14 families wereidentified, with Common Murre (n = 594;

27%), scoters (n = 464; 21%), and shearwa-ters (n = 453; 20%) dominating the assem-blage. Next in abundance were other ducksand geese (n = 129, 6%), Cassin’s Auklets(n = 128, 6%), albatrosses (n = 71, 3%),loons (n = 60, 3%), and gulls (n = 57, 3%).Also identified are other small alcids, cor-morants, Northern Fulmar, and Black-leggedKittiwake (Rissa tridactyla). Through anal-ysis of the taxonomic composition and con-sideration of the habitat requirements of themost common birds, Ulrich (2009) inferredthat the Dunes Site was used during mul-tiple seasons, was located on or very nearthe shoreline when occupied, and its res-idents made use of both outer coast andnearshore environments. Ulrich (2009) sug-gested that the high numbers of scoters, rel-ative to other ducks, indicated outer coastalas opposed to estuarine use.

Comparative Bird Data

Bovy and Watson compiled data from23 additional bird assemblages on theOregon coast (Figure 1, Table 3). It wasnot possible to obtain excavated volumesand screen size information for each assem-blage, so high NISP values may indicate sam-pling intensity, rather than the relative abun-dance of birds at a given site. Challengeswith comparing published zooarchaeologi-cal data include differing recovery methods(screen size), availability of comparativecollections, and analysts’ experience andprotocols (Atici et al. 2013; Driver 2011).Since we focus inter-site comparisons onfamily-level identifications (Table 4), we areconfident the trends discussed adequatelyrepresent human bird use in the past.

Statistical Analyses

Moss and White used various tech-niques to explore structure in the birdassemblage data. Because taxonomic rich-ness (number of taxa) is a function ofsample size, which varied greatly amongour sites, we used the reciprocal of theSimpson Index (Krebs 1989) to measuretaxonomic diversity, which focuses insteadon the equitability of abundance across

12 VOLUME 0 • ISSUE 0 • 2018

Tab

le3

.O

rego

nco

ast

arch

aeo

logi

cal

site

sw

ith

iden

tifi

edb

ird

rem

ain

s(o

rgan

ized

fro

mn

ort

hto

sou

th).

Site

No

.Si

teN

ame

Per

iod

1E

xca

vati

on

(Ex

cava

tor,

Dat

e)2

Fau

nal

An

aly

stR

epo

rtN

SP3

NIS

P3

35C

LT34

Ind

ian

Poin

tLH

,PH

Min

or

1978

Wig

enM

ino

ret

al.(

2008

a)80

425

6

35C

LT27

Du

nes

LHH

asle

1972

–197

4U

lric

hU

lric

h(2

009)

4179

2230

35C

LT20

Par-

Tee

LHP

heb

us

&D

ruck

er19

60/7

0sC

olt

enC

olt

en(2

002,

2015

)13

9674

9

35C

LT47

Palm

rose

LHP

heb

us

&D

ruck

er19

60/7

0s;C

on

no

lly19

88

Cro

ckfo

rd;

Co

lten

Co

nn

olly

(199

2);C

olt

en(2

002,

2015

)14

8380

0

35C

LT13

Ave

nu

eQ

LHC

on

no

lly19

88C

rock

ford

Co

nn

olly

(199

2)80

642

5

35C

LT21

BEc

ola

Poin

tLH

,PH

Min

or

1990

Gre

ensp

anM

ino

r(1

991a

)13

277

35T

I1N

etar

tsLH

New

man

&C

olli

ns

1950

s;Lo

sey

1999

Lose

yLo

sey

(200

2)12

4152

4

35LN

C45

Bo

iler

Bay

MH

Tasa

&C

on

no

lly19

93Pe

nto

n,T

asa

Tasa

&C

on

no

lly(1

995)

248

119

35LN

C60

Wh

ale

Co

veLH

Ben

net

t-R

oge

rs&

Lym

an19

85W

atso

n,B

ovy

Wat

son

(201

1)15

110

6

35LN

C50

No

rth

Yaq

uin

aH

ead

LHM

ino

r19

88G

reen

span

,W

igen

Min

or

(198

9)16

211

3

35LN

C62

Yaq

uin

aH

ead

MH

,LH

Min

or

1989

Wig

enM

ino

r(1

991b

)17

3471

6

35LN

C57

Cap

eC

reek

LHM

ino

r19

91,1

992

Gre

ensp

anM

ino

r&

Gre

ensp

an(1

995a

)14

475

35LN

C55

Go

od

Fort

un

ePo

int

LHM

ino

r&

Toep

el19

83;

Co

nn

olly

&Ta

sa20

00G

reen

span

;Tas

aM

ino

ret

al.(

1985

);Ta

sa&

Co

nn

olly

(200

1)32

3

35LN

C56

Go

od

Fort

un

eC

ove

LHM

ino

r&

Toep

el19

83G

reen

span

Min

or

etal

.(19

85)

6819

35LA

10B

ob

Cre

ekLH

Tasa

etal

.200

0sSi

nge

rTa

saet

al.(

2009

)18

8

35LA

19Li

lyLa

keP

HM

ino

r19

99G

reen

span

Min

or

etal

.(20

08b

)61

323

9

35D

O13

0Ta

hke

nit

chLa

nd

ing

MH

Min

or

&To

epel

1985

Gre

ensp

anM

ino

r&

Toep

el(1

986)

780

245

35D

O83

Um

pq

ua/

Eden

LH,P

HR

oss

1978

–198

0B

ovy

Bo

vy(2

005)

no

tre

po

rted

1553

(Con

tin

ued

on

nex

tpa

ge)


Tab

le3

.(C

on

tin

ued

).

Site

No

.Si

teN

ame

Per

iod

1E

xca

vati

on

(Ex

cava

tor,

Dat

e)2

Fau

nal

An

aly

stR

epo

rtN

SP3

NIS

P3

35C

S114

Hau

ser

LHM

ino

r19

91–1

993

Gre

ensp

anM

ino

ret

al.(

1998

a)93

443

6

35C

S119

Ko

chLH

Min

or

1993

Gre

ensp

anM

ino

ret

al.(

1998

a)32

495

35C

S11

Bal

diy

aka/

Ch

ief’

sIs

lan

dLH

Min

or

1985

;Fag

an20

04G

reen

span

;B

aker

Min

or

&G

reen

span

(199

5b);

Ogl

eet

al.(

2005

)77

41

35C

S5B

and

on

San

dsp

itLH

,PH

Cre

ssm

an&

Co

llin

s19

52T

vesk

ov

Tve

sko

v(2

000)

4931

35C

S61

Blu

eB

arn

MH

,LH

Tve

sko

v20

06T

vesk

ov

Tve

sko

v&

Co

hen

(200

7)20

914

35C

S43

Nah

-so

-mah

(Old

Tow

nB

and

on

)

LHR

oss

&H

all1

978,

1986

,19

88,1

990,

1991

,19

93

Hal

lH

all(

2001

)n

ot

rep

ort

ed87

0

35C

U2

Cap

eB

lan

coM

H,L

HM

ino

r19

97G

reen

span

Min

or

&G

reen

span

(199

8b)

100

44

35C

U16

0G

oat

Isla

nd

LHG

ard

1989

Gar

dG

ard

(199

0)15

278

1M

H=

Mid

dle

Ho

loce

ne:

7,50

0–3,

000

year

sag

o;L

H=

Late

Ho

loce

ne:

3,00

0ye

ars

ago

toco

nta

cter

a(A

iken

set

al.2

011)

;PH

=P

roto

his

tori

c(j

ust

bef

ore

con

tact

).2M

any

of

thes

esi

tes

wer

eex

cava

ted

mu

ltip

leti

mes

;th

eex

cava

tio

ns

liste

dh

ere

are

asso

ciat

edw

ith

the

syst

emat

ical

lyan

alyz

edb

ird

asse

mb

lage

s.3N

SP=

Nu

mb

ero

fSp

ecim

ens

inth

eas

sem

bla

ge;N

ISP

=N

um

ber

of

Iden

tifi

edSp

ecim

ens

(sp

ecim

ens

iden

tifi

edm

ore

spec

ifica

llyth

an“b

ird

”).

14 VOLUME 0 • ISSUE 0 • 2018

Tab

le4

.N

um

ber

of

Iden

tifi

edSp

ecim

ens

(NIS

P)

by

maj

or

tax

on

om

icgr

ou

ps

of

bir

ds.

1

Tax

on

om

icN

ame

Co

mm

on

Nam

eIn

dP

tD

un

esPa

r-Te

ePa

lmro

seA

veQ

Eco

laP

tN

etar

tsB

oil

Bay

Wh

lCve

An

atid

aeD

uck

s,G

eese

,Sw

ans

165

593

302

456

836

132

346

Ph

asia

nin

aeD

om

esti

cC

hic

ken

44

Tetr

aon

inae

Gro

use

24

Pod

icip

edid

aeG

reb

es1

173

89

27

Co

lum

bid

aeP

igeo

ns

112

1

Ral

lidae

Co

ots

2

Gru

idae

Cra

nes

1

Hae

mat

op

od

idae

Oys

terc

atch

er

Ch

arad

riid

aeP

love

rs1

Sco

lop

acid

aeSa

nd

pip

ers

21

2

Alc

idae

Au

ks(M

urr

es,P

uffi

ns)

811

181

8022

010

8977

15

Lari

dae

Gu

lls97

4082

262

514

12

Gav

iidae

Loo

ns

1660

1915

61

332

Dio

med

eid

aeA

lbat

ross

es71

2228

74

6415

Pro

cella

rid

aeFu

lmar

s,Sh

earw

ater

s2

508

131

5255

1640

336

Hyd

rob

atid

aeSt

orm

-pet

rels

18

Ph

alac

roco

raci

dae

Co

rmo

ran

ts2

2246

595

736

28

Pele

can

idae

Pelic

ans

31

415

Ard

eid

aeH

ero

ns

33

Pan

dio

nid

aeO

spre

y

Acc

ipit

rid

aeEa

gles

,Haw

ks6

12

23

912

Stri

gid

aeO

wls

21

13

Ale

ced

inid

aeK

ingfi

sher

s3

Pic

idae

Wo

od

pec

kers

21

Falc

on

idae

Falc

on

s1

Pass

erif

orm

esPe

rch

ing

Bir

ds

734

24

62

371

Tota

lNIS

P25

622

3074

979

942

577

524

119

106


Tab

le4

.(C

on

tin

ued

)

Tax

on

om

icN

ame

NY

aqH

dY

aqH

dC

ape

Crk

Gd

Frt

Pt

Gd

Frt

Cve

Bo

bC

rkLi

lyLk

eTa

hke

nit

chU

mp

/Ed

nH

ause

r

An

atid

ae20

157

1713

28

151

1198

264

Ph

asia

nin

ae9

8

Tetr

aon

inae

1

Pod

icip

edid

ae11

1118

10

Co

lum

bid

ae

Ral

lidae

3

Gru

idae

1

Hae

mat

op

od

idae

Ch

arad

riid

ae1

Sco

lop

acid

ae11

2

Alc

idae

387

51

101

76

Lari

dae

934

76

49

4513

Gav

iidae

423

114

8626

Dio

med

eid

ae92

43

Pro

cella

rid

ae1

194

122

18

Hyd

rob

atid

ae13

Ph

alac

roco

raci

dae

7393

281

231

2194

26

Pele

can

idae

11

Ard

eid

ae8

1

Pan

dio

nid

ae3

Acc

ipit

rid

ae3

44

Stri

gid

ae3

3

Ale

ced

inid

ae

Pic

idae

1

Falc

on

idae

1

Pass

erif

orm

es4

11

522

Tota

lNIS

P11

370

974

219

823

924

415

5343

6

16 VOLUME 0 • ISSUE 0 • 2018

Tab

le4

.(C

on

tin

ued

)

Tax

on

om

icN

ame

Ko

chB

ald

iyak

aB

and

on

Blu

eB

arn

Nah

-so

-mah

Cap

eB

lnc

Go

atIs

l2G

ran

dTo

tal

%o

fId

enti

fied

An

atid

ae74

2914

1250

242

4743

Ph

asia

nin

ae61

1

Tetr

aon

inae

7<

1

Pod

icip

edid

ae2

1211

11

Co

lum

bid

ae14

<1

Ral

lidae

2227

<1

Gru

idae

2<

1

Hae

mat

op

od

idae

33

<1

Ch

arad

riid

ae24

26<

1

Sco

lop

acid

ae18

<1

Alc

idae

341

52

1717

17

Lari

dae

103

471

502

5

Gav

iidae

23

325

339

3

Dio

med

eid

ae2

1132

33

Pro

cella

rid

ae1

1071

11

Hyd

rob

atid

ae76

107

1

Ph

alac

roco

raci

dae

44

113

038

931

9

Pele

can

idae

135

<1

Ard

eid

ae1

824

<1

Pan

dio

nid

ae3

<1


Tab

le4

.(C

on

tin

ued

)

Tax

on

om

icN

ame

Ko

chB

ald

iyak

aB

and

on

Blu

eB

arn

Nah

-so

-mah

Cap

eB

lnc

Go

atIs

l2G

ran

dTo

tal

%o

fId

enti

fied

Acc

ipit

rid

ae10

1911

11

Stri

gid

ae10

23<

1

Ale

ced

inid

ae3

<1

Pic

idae

37

<1

Falc

on

idae

2<

1

Pass

erif

orm

es15

141

1

Tota

lNIS

P95

4131

1487

044

7898

55

1Su

bfa

mily

iden

tifi

cati

on

sar

esh

ow

nfo

rP

has

ian

idae

tod

isti

ngu

ish

gro

use

(wh

ich

are

nat

ive)

fro

min

tro

du

ced

chic

ken

s.A

llp

asse

rin

esar

egr

ou

ped

toO

rder

(Pas

seri

form

es)

asth

ese

are

less

freq

uen

tly

iden

tifi

edto

fam

ilyle

vel.

At

leas

tth

ree

fam

ilies

of

Pass

erif

orm

es(C

orv

idae

,Tu

rbid

ae,

and

Car

din

alid

ae)

hav

eb

een

iden

tifi

edin

Ore

gon

coas

tsi

tes.

Asm

alln

um

ber

of

spec

imen

sid

enti

fied

on

lyas

“Ch

arad

riif

orm

es”

wer

eex

clu

ded

fro

mth

ista

ble

for

Palm

rose

(n=

1),Y

aqu

ina

Hea

d(n

=7)

,Cap

eC

reek

(n=

1),G

oo

dFo

rtu

ne

Poin

t(n

=1)

,an

dTa

hke

nit

ch(n

=1)

.2G

ard

(199

0)co

ncl

ud

edth

atth

eid

enti

fied

bir

dre

mai

ns,

sto

rm-p

etre

ls(O

cea

nodro

ma

spp

.)an

dTu

fted

Pu

ffin

(Fra

terc

ula

cirr

ha

ta),

wer

en

atu

rally

inco

rpo

rate

din

toth

esi

te,g

iven

that

bo

thta

xa

are

bu

rro

wn

este

rscu

rren

tly

bre

edin

go

nG

oat

Isla

nd

.Th

ree

un

iden

tifi

edfr

agm

ents

wer

ed

eem

edto

be

arch

aeo

logi

cal,

rath

erth

anin

tru

sive

(giv

enth

eir

con

tex

t).

18 VOLUME 0 • ISSUE 0 • 2018


taxa. To minimize sample size bias, similar-ity/dissimilarity matrices were created toexplore assemblage relatedness across sites.Pearson product-moment correlations werecomputed for each pair of sites to assessinter-site comparisons using BIOMstat 3.3(Rohlf and Slice 1999). We used cluster anal-ysis to assess relationships among individualassemblages using arithmetic averages inthe unweighted pair group method (UP-GMA; Sneath and Sokal 1973:230–234) andvisualized these results with dendrogramsproduced in Exeter Software NTSYSpc2.11x. This technique removes size biasand allows multiple assemblages to becompared simultaneously.

We used Mantel tests to examinewhether similarities between the assem-blages could be related to: 1) distancebetween sites, 2) similarity in habitat, or 3)sample size. Mantel tests are non-parametrictests that use repeated randomizations(n = 5,000) to examine whether an ob-served pattern of pairwise relationships inan observed similarity matrix is significantlyhigher or lower than expected by chancewhen compared to a specific hypothesistest matrix (Sokal and Rohlf 2012:852–858; for archaeological application, seeO’Connor et al. 2016). We calculated twomatrices to describe the observed patternof similarity among the sites. In the first,similarity was based on the presence orabsence of each family at each possiblepair of sites. The second used the Pearsonproduct-moment correlation between theabundance of each family for each possiblepair of sites. Both matrices were testedagainst two different hypothesis test matri-ces. The first tested the hypothesis that sitesthat are close together are more similar thanthose that are far apart, and was based ongeographical distances between each pairof sites calculated using Google Earth. Thesecond tested the hypothesis that sites fromthe same habitat type are more similar thanones belonging to different habitat types.To avoid the circular reasoning of usingthe bird assemblage to infer habitat type,we used three generic habitat categories:riverine/estuarine, intermediate, and outercoast. The intermediate type includes fau-

nal assemblages from sites whose habitatmay have been significantly different in thepast than today (e.g., Connolly 1992; Ulrich2009).

To investigate the relationship betweenmodern seabird colonies and the taxonomicabundances of archaeological assemblages,we used data from the Catalog of OregonSeabird Colonies (Naughton et al. 2007a).The most recent, accurate, or representa-tive (MRA) estimate for each species wasused (Naughton et al. 2007a:15). Moss com-piled a matrix, by species, of all extantseabird colonies with a minimum of 100birds located within 10 and 20 km straightline distance, respectively of the archaeo-logical sites using georeferenced positionslisted in Naughton et al. (2007a) and GoogleEarth (see Supplemental Table 1).

COASST Analysis

To explore the degree to which the ar-chaeological assemblage composition couldhave resulted from scavenging, Parrish andJones used the COASST dataset to calcu-late a modern day “baseline” compositionof beached birds. Species counts were ex-tracted for all COASST surveys (2001–2017)performed on beaches within a 20 km ra-dius of each archaeological site (Figure 1;excluding a mass mortality event of Cassin’sAuklets from November 2014 to February2015).

Carcasses were placed in taxonomiccategories according to Table 5 to match thetaxonomic resolution possible from archae-ological findings. Note that this analysis in-cluded individual species in some families,notably the Alcidae, whereas other groupswere coalesced at higher taxonomic lev-els, up to family (e.g., Laridae). A higherlevel assemblage was also produced (water-fowl, gulls, grebes, loons, alcids, procellari-iformes, and cormorants). In the latter case,species found in the COASST dataset butunrecorded in the archaeological datasetswere included (e.g., Horned Puffins wereincluded in Alcidae). Finally, “other species”including all non-aquatic species were ex-cluded from the analysis, such that an



Table 5. Number of Identified Specimens (NISP) for sites with >100 identified birdspecimens. Percentages are shown in parentheses for major taxonomic groups(bold). More specific identifications are shown for the four most abundantfamilies.

Taxonomic Name Common Name Indian Pt Dunes Par-Tee

Cygini Swans 35

Anserini Geese 32 51 6

Anatini Dabbling Ducks 17 12

Aythyini Bay Ducks/ Pochards 1

Mergini1 Diving Sea Ducks 4 464 231

Oxyurini Stiff-tailed Ducks

Anatidae (unid.) Unid. Anatids 76 78 53

Anatidae Total Ducks, Geese, Swans 165 (65) 593 (27) 302 (40)

Podicipedidae Grebes 1 (<1) 17 (1) 3 (<1)

Uria aalge Common Murre 594 181

Cepphus columba Pigeon Guillemot

Brachyramphusmarmoratus

Marbled Murrelet 8

Synthliboramphusantiquus

Ancient Murrelet

Ptychoramphusaleuticus

Cassin’s Auklet 128

Cerorhincamonocerata

Rhinoceros Auklet 38

Fratercula cirrhata Tufted Puffin 13

Alcidae (unid.) Unid. Alcids 30

Alcidae Total Auks (Murres, Puffins) 811 (36) 181 (24)

Laridae Gulls 97 (4) 40 (5)

Gaviidae Loons 16 (6) 60 (3) 19 (3)

Diomedidae Albatross 71 (3) 22 (3)

Fulmarus glacialis Northern Fulmar 38

Ardenna (=Puffinus)spp.2

Shearwaters 2 453 130

Procellariidae (unid.) Unid. Procellariids 17 1

Procellariidae Total Fulmars, Shearwaters 2 (1) 508 (23) 131 (18)

Phalacrocoraxpenicillatus

Brandt’s Cormorant 7

Phalacrocorax auritus Double-crested Corm. 4

Phalacrocoraxpelagicus

Pelagic Cormorant 27

Phalacrocorax spp.(unid.)

Unid. Cormorant 2 22 8

PhalacrocoracidaeTotal

Cormorants 2 (1) 22 (1) 46 (6)

Other Birds 70 (27) 51 (2) 5 (1)

Total NISP 256 2230 749


20 VOLUME 0 • ISSUE 0 • 2018


Table 5. (Continued)

Taxonomic Name Palmrose Ave Q Netarts Boil Bay Whl Cve N Yaq Hd Yaq Hd

Cygini 2

Anserini 20 9 16 4 1

Anatini 17 3 18 1

Aythyini 6 1 1

Mergini1 319 13 86 3 28 63

Oxyurini

Anatidae (unid.) 94 57 10 14 19 92

Anatidae Total 456 (57) 83 (20) 132 (25) 3 (3) 46 (43) 20 (18) 157 (22)

Podicipedidae 8 (1) 9 (2) 7 (1) 11 (2)

Uria aalge 64 214 50 8 3 33

Cepphus columba 1

Brachyramphusmarmoratus

3 2 4 9

Synthliboramphusantiquus


1 4 1

Cerorhincamonocerata

2 13 77 2 11

Fratercula cirrhata 17 3 19

Alcidae (unid.) 12 2 2 14

Alcidae Total 80 (10) 220 (52) 89 (17) 77 (65) 15 (14) 3 (3) 87 (12)

Laridae 82 (10) 26 (6) 51 (10) 4 (3) 12 (11) 9 (8) 34 (5)

Gaviidae 15 (2) 6 (1) 33 (6) 2 (2) 4 (4) 23 (3)

Diomedidae 28 (4) 7 (2) 64 (12) 15 (14) 92 (13)

Fulmarus glacialis 2 5 15 3 1 155

Ardenna (=Puffinus)spp.2

49 50 6 33 3 37

Procellariidae (unid.) 1 19 2

Procellariidae Total 52 (7) 55 (13) 40 (8) 33 (28) 6 (6) 1 (1) 194 (27)

Phalacrocoraxpenicillatus

14 1

Phalacrocorax auritus 7 3 1

Phalacrocoraxpelagicus

8 4 4


30 2 31 2 3 73 93


59 (7) 5 (1) 36 (7) 2 (2) 8 (8) 73 (65) 93 (13)

Other Birds 19 (2) 14 (3) 72 (14) 2 (2) 3 (3) 18 (3)

Total NISP 799 425 524 119 106 113 709



Table 5. (Continued)

Taxonomic Name Lily Lke Tahkenitch Ump/Edn Hauser Nah-so-mah Total (%)

Cygini 7 44

Anserini 4 74 71 18 306

Anatini 1 80 5 314 468

Aythyini 132 79 220

Mergini1 3 16 570 41 64 1905

Oxyurini 2 2

Anatidae (unid.) 5 130 340 147 20 1135

Anatidae Total 8 (3) 151 (62) 1198 (77) 264 (61) 502 (58) 4080 (44)

Podicipedidae 11 (5) 18 (1) 10 (2) 12 (1) 107 (1)

Uria aalge 10 34 34 1225

Cepphus columba 1 2

Brachyramphus 1 27

marmoratus

Synthliboramphus 24 24

antiquus


6 140

Cerorhinca monocerata 143

Fratercula cirrhata 52

Alcidae (unid.) 1 17 78

Alcidae Total 10 (4) 1 (<1) 76 (17) 41 (5) 1691 (18)

Laridae 9 (4) 45 (3) 13 (3) 47 (5) 469 (5)

Gaviidae 14 (6) 86 (6) 26 (6) 25 (3) 329 (4)

Diomedidae 3 (<1) 11 (1) 313 (3)

Fulmarus glacialis 1 220

Ardenna (=Puffinus) spp.2 12 18 793

Procellariidae (unid.) 1 41

Procellariidae Total 12 (5) 2 (<1) 18 (4) 1054 (11)

Phalacrocorax penicillatus 1 3 26

Phalacrocorax auritus 28 3 46

Phalacrocorax pelagicus 11 54


231 21 54 20 130 722


231 (97) 21 (9) 94 (6) 26 (6) 130 (15) 848 (9)

Other Birds 16 (7) 106 (7) 3 (1) 102 (12) 481 (5)

Total NISP 239 244 1553 436 870 9372

1Of those Mergini identified to species (n=1823), 93% (n=1701) were Scoters (Melanitta spp.).2Of those shearwaters identified to species (n=555), 99% (n=548) were Sooty Shearwaters

(Ardenna grisea).

22 VOLUME 0 • ISSUE 0 • 2018


Figure 2. Dendrogram showing results of cluster analysis.

“other versus other” catch-all datapoint wasnot included in either analysis.

For both COASST and archaeologicaldatasets, data were standardized as percentof total within site and square-root trans-formed to down-weight the importance ofhigher values. We also created a regionalCOASST dataset by summing species-specific counts across all sites included inthe local analysis (n = 87 sites). The per-cent composition of seabird taxa assessedas NISP was regressed against the percentcomposition of the corresponding seabirdtaxa from the COASST dataset, and usedgeneral linear models (GLMs) with nor-mally distributed errors to identify whethercorrelations were statistically significant,reported at a threshold of α = 0.05.

RESULTS

Native Americans living on the Oregoncoast during the late Holocene used a greatvariety of birds (Table 4). Over 80 birdspecies representing 27 families have beenidentified from these 26 sites. The five mostcommon taxa were Anatidae (ducks, geese)with 43%; Alcidae (murres, puffins, auk-

lets), 17%; Procellariidae (fulmars, shearwa-ters, albatrosses), 11%; Phalacrocoracidae(cormorants), 9%; and Laridae (gulls), 5%.Ducks are the most common group at morethan half the sites. We focused on sites (n =15) with a minimum of 100 NISP (Table 5)to reduce the effects of small sample size.The results are divided into four maingroups (Figure 1), based on cluster analysis(Figure 2), taxonomic abundance (Table 5),Pearson correlation coefficients (Table 6),and taxonomic diversity (Table 7).

Taxonomic and Spatial Variability

Cluster 1: Anatids (Indian Point, Palm-rose, Tahkenitch, Umpqua/Eden, Hauser,Nah-so-mah). Six sites spanning twogeographic groupings to the extreme north(Indian Point, Palmrose) and south (Tahken-itch, Umpqua/Eden, Hauser, Nah-so-mah)of our sampling region were principallydefined by a predominance of anatids (57–77%). These sites also comprised the moststructured cluster, displaying pairwise cor-relation coefficients above 0.9, and were rel-atively low in taxonomic diversity (<3.0).Assemblages at all sites with the exceptionof Boiler Bay, Lily Lake, and North Yaquina


Tab

le6

.P

ears

on

corr

elat

ion

coef

fici

ents

for

each

pai

ro

far

chae

olo

gica

lb

ird

asse

mb

lage

s.

CLT

-34

CLT

-27

CLT

-13

CLT

-47

CLT

-20

TI-

1LN

C-4

5LN

C-6

0LN

C-5

0LN

C-6

2LA

-19

DO

-13

0D

O-8

3C

S-1

14

CS-

43

Ind

ian

Poin

tC

LT-3

40.

630.

740.

920.

820.

81−

0.11

0.85

0.06

0.35

−.1

80.

940.

950.

930.

94

Du

nes

CLT

-27

0.92

0.56

0.88

0.75

0.83

0.61

−0.

090.

70−

.13

0.46

0.40

0.64

0.40

Ave

nu

eQ

CLT

-13

0.35

0.70

0.64

0.92

0.44

−0.

100.

41−

.12

0.23

0.18

0.46

0.21

Palm

rose

CLT

-47

0.88

0.85

0.03

0.96

0.22

0.57

0.00

0.98

0.97

0.98

0.96

Par-

Tee

CLT

-20

0.89

0.48

0.87

0.13

0.76

0.02

0.81

0.77

0.91

0.77

Net

arts

TI-1

0.36

0.94

0.10

0.62

−.0

40.

760.

750.

860.

75

Bo

iler

Bay

LNC

-45

0.13

−0.

140.

390.

50−

.09

−.1

50.

14−

.12

Wh

ale

Co

veLN

C-6

00.

200.

620.

000.

890.

890.

920.

89

NY

aqu

ina

LNC

-50

0.25

0.97

0.24

0.21

0.19

0.36

Yaq

uin

aLN

C-6

20.

330.

500.

440.

530.

45

Lily

Lake

LA-1

9−

.01

−.0

6−

.03

0.11

Tah

ken

itch

DO

-130

0.99

0.97

0.98

Um

p/E

den

DO

-83

0.95

0.98

Hau

ser

CS-

114

0.94

Nah

-so

-mah

CS-

43

24 VOLUME 0 • ISSUE 0 • 2018


Table 7. Oregon coast bird assemblages in order of taxonomic diversity (measured byreciprocal of Simpson’s Index).

Site # 35- Site Name Reciprocal of Simpson’s Index Habitat

TI-1 Netarts 7.305 riverine/estuarine

LNC-62 Yaquina 5.662 outer coast

LNC-60 Whale Cove 3.991 outer coast

CLT-27 Dunes 3.863 intermediate

CLT-20 Par-Tee 3.850 intermediate

CLT-13 Avenue Q 3.050 intermediate

CLT-47 Palmrose 2.796 intermediate

CS-43 Nah-so-mah 2.760 riverine/estuarine

DO-130 Tahkenitch 2.490 riverine/estuarine

CS-114 Hauser 2.455 riverine/estuarine

CLT-34 Indian Point 2.377 riverine/estuarine

LNC-50 North Yaquina 2.185 outer coast

LNC-45 Boiler Bay 2.010 outer coast

DO-83 Umpqua/Eden 1.656 riverine/estuarine

LA-19 Lily Lake 1.069 intermediate

Head contained at least 20% anatids. Ofanatids identified beyond family, 88% wereducks, with 10% geese and 2% swans. Ap-proximately 70% of the duck bones wereidentified at least to the tribe level. Of these,diving sea ducks (Mergini) dominated mostassemblages (70–100% of ducks), exceptfor Indian Point and Nah-so-mah, wheredabblers were most common (77%, 69%, re-spectively). Scoters (Melanitta spp.) werethe most abundant sea duck identified at allsites (93% of n = 1823 Mergini identifiedto species). Bufflehead was the secondmost abundant sea duck (5%), followed bymergansers (Mergus spp.; 1%).

Cluster 2: Albatrosses (Netarts, WhaleCove, Yaquina Head). Netarts, WhaleCove, and Yaquina Head, all located onthe north-central coast, have the largestpercentages of albatross (12–14%) and arecharacterized by the highest taxonomicdiversity (>3.9). Albatrosses occur at lowerpercentages (<1–4%) at a number of othersites. Netarts and Whale Cove share furthersimilarities, with a correlation coefficientof 0.94, including abundant anatids (25–43%), and similar proportions of alcids

(14–17%), gulls (10–11%), ful-mars/shearwaters (6–8%), and cormorants(7–8%). While Yaquina Head has similarfrequencies of some taxa, including anatids(22%) and alcids (12%), the assemblageis distinguished by having higher propor-tions of fulmars/shearwaters (27%), and istherefore distantly grouped with cluster 3(Figure 2).

Cluster 3: Murres and Shearwaters(Dunes, Par-Tee, Avenue Q). Dunes, Par-Tee, and Avenue Q, all located in theextreme northern coast, have relativelyhigh taxonomic diversity (3.0–3.9), in-cluding substantial proportions of alcids(24–52%) and shearwaters (12–20%), inaddition to anatids (20–40%). The smallproportions of gulls (4–6%), loons (1–3%),cormorants (1–6%), and albatrosses (2–3%)are also similar. Boiler Bay is similar tothese three sites with high proportions ofalcids (65%) and shearwaters (28%), butunique in having an alcid assemblage dom-inated by Rhinoceros Auklet, rather thanCommon Murre, and an overall low taxo-nomic diversity (note that the assemblageis small, n = 119; just above our threshold



for consideration). Common Murre is themost numerous alcid at all other sites, com-prising 98–100% of the identified alcids atPar-Tee and Avenue Q, and 76% at Dunes,which has more diverse alcids, including anunusually high proportion of Cassin’s Auk-let (16%). The alcid assemblages are alsomore diverse at Netarts and Yaquina Head(cluster 2), with greater numbers of puffins(19%, 26% respectively) and RhinocerosAuklet (15%).

Shearwaters are more abundant thanNorthern Fulmar at all sites, except YaquinaHead. Shearwaters can be divided into twosubgroups on the basis of their flying andaquatic habits (Kuroda 1954): good gliders(e.g., Ardenna creatopus) and flutteringflyers/good divers (e.g., A. grisea). Thesebehavioral differences have resulted in os-teological differences that make it possible(along with size) to identify archaeologi-cal specimens to species (Bovy 2005:329;Kuroda 1954). Of those shearwaters identi-fied to species, 99% (n = 548) were SootyShearwaters.

Cluster 4: Cormorants (North YaquinaHead, Lily Lake). North Yaquina Head andLily Lake, both located along the centralcoast, form a tight grouping, with a corre-lation coefficient of 0.94. Both sites haveunusually high percentages of cormorants(65%, 97% respectively); the overall diver-sity at these sites is low enough to placethem near the bottom of the diversity in-dex. At Lily Lake, only eight anatid spec-imens were found in addition to the cor-morants. Both sites are located close tomodern cormorant colonies. Cormorantsmake up 15% of the bird assemblage atNah-so-mah, 13% at Yaquina Head, andbetween 6 and 9% at many other sites(Table 5).

Habitat Comparisons

The results of the Mantel test and Pear-son product-moment correlation indicatethat similarities between sites were not dueto distance between sites or sample size. Wealso checked to see if the presence/absenceof bird families was related to habitat

type (Table 7). The Mantel test found norelationship between the presence/absenceof bird families in the 15 archaeological as-semblages to habitat type. However, habitattype did correlate with assemblage com-position, yielding the matrix correlationcoefficient r = 0.168. The probability p istested against a null hypothesis of no cor-relation and was found to be p = 0.0170.Results of the random permutations werethat 4814 were < Z, 1 was = Z, and 185 >Z, as shown in the histogram in Figure 3.This suggests a strong correlation betweenassemblage composition and habitat type.In other words, the riverine/estuarine as-semblages share some characteristics, asdo intermediate habitat sites, and the outercoast sites. This is also apparent in thecluster analysis discussed above.

Proximity to Murre Colonies

Proximity had no bearing on theabundance of Common Murre NISP at ar-chaeological sites (non-parametric correla-tion coefficient: r = 0.02); however, extantcolony size was only weakly correlated withCommon Murre NISP (r = 0.40). While thenumber of murres increases with samplesize (as expected), we regressed residualsto colony size (within 10 km, then within20 km) and exact distance to colony, but nosignificant relationship was found. We per-formed a multiple regression analysis com-bining exact distance and colony size, butagain, no significant relationship was found.

Comparisons to Modern Beached BirdData

Correlations between COASST beach-ing data and NISP data across the 15 siteswere more likely to be significant when re-gionalized COASST data (assembled acrossall 87 Oregon COASST sites) at the specieslevel were used. Only one archaeologicalsite, Boiler Bay, had a significant and strongcorrelation (local: r = 0.940; regional:r = 0.953) at the higher taxonomic assem-blage level but not at the species level,which may be an artifact of the relatively

26 VOLUME 0 • ISSUE 0 • 2018


Figure 3. Mantel test histogram, showing the strong correlation between bird assemblage com-position and habitat types. The solid vertical line represents the matrix correlation(r = 0.16812). As shown, 4814 random permutations are positioned to the left, 1 isatop the line, and 185 occur to the right. The correlation is in the significantly highrange of possible correlation values.

low number of taxa (N = 5) at this site.That is, when coalesced at higher taxo-nomic levels, the prevalence of “zeroes” inthe archaeological data corresponding torelatively high values in the COASST dataset(e.g., for Common Murres NISP = 0 andCOASST percentage = 43) was masked.This effect, together with the observationthat several archaeological sites had aprevalence of only one species within theAlcidae (e.g., Boiler Bay: Rhinoceros Auklet;Par-Tee: Common Murre), or one species inaddition to Common Murres (e.g., Hauser:Ancient Murrelet), suggests that a species-or lowest possible taxon-level approach ismost appropriate.

When examined at the regional andspecies-specific level, six archaeologicalsites displayed relatively strong, posi-tive, and significant correlations (Table 8,Figure 4). In general, sites with a highproportion of ducks in the archaeologicaldata had weak, insignificant correlationsprincipally driven by the inversion of ducks(high in NISP, low in COASST) and CommonMurres (low in NISP, high in COASST). Thesingle exception was Tahkenitch, whichalso displayed a minor murre signal. Sig-nificant correlations were overwhelminglydriven by Common Murres (e.g. Dunes,Avenue Q) and secondarily by NorthernFulmars (e.g. Yaquina, Netarts).

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

Native peoples used an impressive diver-sity of birds on the Oregon coast, fromsmall species (e.g., sandpipers, auklets), tolarge-bodied taxa (e.g., pelicans, herons,swans); and from terrestrial birds (e.g., rap-tors, grouse), to species principally inhabit-ing the pelagic zone of the coastal shelf andslope (e.g., albatrosses, Northern Fulmar).While scoters, Common Murre, and SootyShearwater were the most frequently iden-tified taxa overall, the 26 assemblages in-cluded in our study vary widely in the num-ber and relative abundance of taxonomicgroups.

While bird assemblages from siteswithin the same habitat category—estuarine, outer coast or intermediate—tended to share some characteristics, wefound more site-specificity than expected,with subtle differences between and amonghabitat categories. These differences mayreflect habitat change since the time thesite was occupied, or site-specific pat-terns independent of habitat type (e.g.,seasonality, selectivity), and underscorethe need for caution when using taxo-nomic composition of bird assemblagesalone to infer specific habitat types in thepast.



Table 8. Correlation between taxon-specific NISP at each of 15 archaeological sites andcorresponding beached bird taxonomic assemblages from the COASST dataset.COASST sites: number of data collection sites within 20 km of the archaeologicalsite. Significant regressions are indicated in bold.

Archaeological Site COASST Sites Pearson’s R Regression Coefficient 95% CI

Indian Point 5 − 0.33 − 0.38 − 0.89 0.12

Dunes 13 0.58 0.59 0.21 0.97

Par-Tee 14 0.45 0.50 0.04 0.96

Palmrose 14 0.30 0.31 − 0.15 0.77

Avenue Q 15 0.76 0.83 0.50 1.16

Netarts 9 0.43 0.35 0.01 0.69

Boiler Bay 16 0.15 0.19 − 0.39 0.77

Whale Cove 17 0.37 0.38 − 0.06 0.82

North Yaquina 15 0.39 0.49 − 0.05 1.04

Yaquina 17 0.52 0.50 0.12 0.87

Lily Lake 11 0.16 0.21 − 0.41 0.83

Tahkenitch 4 0.42 0.45 0.00 0.90

Umpqua/Eden 4 − 0.13 − 0.15 − 0.66 0.37

Hauser 8 0.25 0.25 − 0.21 0.71

Nah-so-mah 14 0.06 0.06 − 0.42 0.55

Although determining where and howpast peoples obtained birds requires care-ful examination of the context and taphon-omy of a given assemblage (e.g., Bovy et al.2016), our comparative analyses acrossmany sites allows an evaluation of the po-tential for different procurement strategieswithin and among sites. In short, we seeconsiderable variability, reflective of flexibleand opportunistic use of birds.

Nearshore Hunting

Five of the assemblages dominated byducks (Cluster 1: Indian Point, Palmrose,Umpqua/Eden, Hauser, Nah-so-mah) are dis-tinctly different from the COASST dataset.Ducks, especially dabbling ducks, are notcommonly found as beached carcasses onthe Oregon coast today. All of these sites(except possibly Palmrose) were locatedin riverine/estuarine environments, whereducks would be plentiful and could behunted with relative ease. A variety of othernearshore birds may have been hunted,though some (gulls, cormorants) are also

common beached birds. Many seabirds,including scoters and murres, may be morevulnerable to a range of nearshore threats,including human hunting during their flight-less molt period in fall (Jones et al. 2017).

Hunting on Breeding Colonies

Despite the abundance of breedingseabirds on the Oregon coast (Naughtonet al. 2007a), there is little direct evidencethat people took birds from the colonies.Contemporary seabird colonies are situatedon steep islets and headland cliffs makingthem inaccessible to terrestrial predators,including humans. There is, however, someindication of colony-based hunting at LilyLake and North Yaquina Head (Cluster 2).Both sites have low taxonomic diversity,are dominated by cormorants, and both areclose to modern seabird colonies (Supple-mental Table 1). Minor et al. (2008b) foundthat 75% of the cormorant specimens re-covered from Lily Lake were juveniles, aswere many of the unidentified bird remains,supporting the interpretation that site oc-

28 VOLUME 0 • ISSUE 0 • 2018


●● ●●

●● ●●● ●

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

01

23

45

0 1 2 3 4 5 60

12

34

50 1 2 3 4 5 6

01

23

45

6

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

01

23

45

67

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

02

46

8

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

01

23

4

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

02

46

8

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

01

23

45

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

02

46

8

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

01

23

45

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

02

46

810

●

●0 1 2 3 4 5 6

01

23

45

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

01

23

45

67

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

01

23

45

●● ●●● ●●●

●

●●

●●● ●●● ●●● ●●● ●

●● ●

●●

●●

●

●●●

● ● ●●● ●

●●

● ●● ●

●

●●●

●

● ●●● ●●● ●●● ●●

●

●●● ●●●●●●

●

●

●

●

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

01

23

45

6

Indian Point Dunes Par-Tee Palmrose Avenue Q

Netarts Boiler Bay Whale Cove N. Yaquina Yaquina Head

Lily Lake Tahkenitch Umpqua/Eden Hauser Nah-so-mah

Beached bird composition (%)

Mid

den

com

posi

tion

(%)

Common MurreOther Alcid

Diving Sea DucksOther Waterfowl

AlbatrossesNorthern Fulmar

ShearwatersOther

●●

Cormorants

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

Figure 4. The relationship between the taxonomic composition (see Table 5) of aquatic bird car-casses washing ashore on Oregon beaches (data from the COASST program) and that ofarchaeological sites (see Figure 1). Data are percent composition over all carcasses (orNISP) found, square-root transformed to down-weight high values. Sites with any levelof association (Pearson’s R above 0.4) are bolded (site name and graph outline), andhave linear fits (dashed lines). Higher associations are all driven by high proportions ofmurres (black circles).

cupants were targeting nearby colonies.Close proximity to a productive, accessiblesource of young birds may have eliminatedthe need for site occupants to hunt or scav-enge birds elsewhere. Although no informa-tion was provided about the age of speci-mens at North Yaquina Head (Minor 1989),the similarity in species composition sug-gests inhabitants of this site may also haveharvested juvenile birds. Small numbers ofjuvenile cormorants were also recovered atNetarts (Losey 2002:288) and Whale Cove(Watson 2011:5), and evidence for huntingof fledgling cormorants has been found inother parts of the Pacific Northwest Coast(Bovy 2007; Broughton 2004; Gould 1966).The juvenile cormorants in the Oregoncoast sites are only identified to genus level.

Common Murres are the most abundantbreeding bird along the Oregon coast andthe most common alcid recovered from ar-chaeological sites. There does not appearto be a relationship between murre abun-dance in archaeological sites and the prox-imity or size of current Common Murrecolonies, although the breeding distributionof this species may have been different inthe past. Marked population shifts at Com-mon Murre colonies have occurred alongthe Washington and Oregon coasts in recentdecades due to increased Bald Eagle (Hali-aeetus leucocephalus) predation and shiftsin prey due to changing oceanic condi-tions (Gladics et al. 2015; Thomas and Lyons2017).



Offshore Hunting

The presence of pelagic taxa, suchas albatrosses, Northern Fulmar and shear-waters at many Oregon coast sites raisesthe possibility of open ocean hunting, asthese species actively avoid the immediatenearshore environment defined as the wavezone out to five kilometers (Hyrenbachet al. 2002; Parrish et al. 1998). The abun-dance of shearwater bones in the Dunesassemblage led Ulrich (2009) to infer thatat least some were hunted in offshore wa-ters. Yet offshore hunting is difficult to dis-tinguish from beach scavenging (Bovy et al.2016). Comparative data on pelagic fish andsea mammal remains might be used to inves-tigate this hypothesis, but such data are notavailable for the Dunes site and are beyondthe scope of this paper.

Collecting Beached Carcasses

The comparisons between the Oregoncoast archaeological data and the COASSTmodern beached bird surveys demonstratethe possibility that beach collecting mayalso have occurred at some sites. Ne-tarts and Yaquina Head (Cluster 2) andDunes, Par-Tee, and Avenue Q (Cluster 3)all have similar taxonomic composition tothe COASST dataset (Figure 4, Table 8).Although these relationships are drivenby Common Murres, most sites also dis-played relatively high proportions of themigrant pelagic taxa (albatrosses, shearwa-ters, and/or Northern Fulmar). Murres andfulmars are predictably common beachedbird species in the fall (post-breeding mor-tality of murres) and winter (migration ex-haustion and exposure of fulmars), respec-tively (Parrish et al. 2007). Both speciesdisplay wrecking behavior wherein thou-sands of freshly dead carcasses wash ashoreover a short (weeks) period of time (Par-rish et al. 2007, 2017). Seabird wrecks mayalso explain the singular predominance ofalcid species at some sites (e.g., Dunes:Cassin’s Auklet; Boiler Bay: Rhinoceros Auk-let; Yaquina Head: Tufted Puffin; Hauser:Ancient Murrelet; Table 5), as these birdsbreed largely to entirely north of Oregon,migrate south into offshore waters, and are

occasionally found in mass mortality eventsand subsequent beaching along the Oregoncoast (Parrish et al. 2017).

CONCLUDING REMARKS

This study is the first to synthesize regionaldata of Native American bird use alongthe Oregon coast, and contributes to bothregional and global scholarship. We usedmultiple analyses, including standard taxo-nomic abundance, diversity and correlationmeasures, along with cluster and regressionanalysis, to better elucidate the regionalpatterns. We document the diverse typesof birds found in archaeological sites andhighlight likely procurement strategies,including nearshore hunting, hunting oncolonies, and collecting beached carcasses.It is difficult to compare our findings be-yond the Oregon coast, as few similarstudies have been conducted, although theopportunistic and flexible use of birds hasbeen noted for coastal foragers in otherregions (e.g., deFrance 2005; Jerardinoet al. 2009; Kristensen 2011).

Our interpretations incorporated lifehistory information for major bird taxa inthe Pacific Northwest, including nestinglocations, habitat preference, seasonality,and scavenging potential; these discussionsshould provide a useful framework forothers in the region. Our synthesis of allthe birds recovered from Oregon coast siteswill assist researchers investigating biogeo-graphic or conservation biology questionspertaining to taxa of concern, such as alba-trosses (Naughton et al. 2007b). Additionalstudy of Oregon coast bird assemblages, in-cluding more detailed taphonomic studies,has enormous potential to address a varietyof lingering questions, such as the role ofbirds within coastal subsistence strategiesand the ocean-going capacities of NativeAmerican groups. Finer temporal resolu-tion may enable us to better understandthe effects of climate change on birds,such as that associated with the El Niño-Southern Oscillation. Finally, new data willhelp document the longer-term historicalecologies of birds, which provide essential

30 VOLUME 0 • ISSUE 0 • 2018


context for understanding and addressingcontemporary phenomena.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We thank the Archaeology and ZoologyDivisions of the Burke Museum of Nat-ural History and Culture, the Museumof Comparative Zoology at Harvard, Ore-gon State University, and Ann Bennett-Rogers for access to the archaeologicaland comparative collections. At the Uni-versity of Oregon, we acknowledge PamEndzweig, Museum of Natural and Cul-tural History, for facilitating the loan ofthe Dunes assemblage. We thank KeithHamm and Yu Hirasawa, two undergrad-uate students from Moss’s 2009 Zooar-chaeology course, for assisting Ulrich toanalyze a portion of the collection. Manythanks are also due to the numerousarchaeologists who provided site reportsand other advice, including Agnes Cas-tronuevo, Thomas Connolly, John Fagan,Ruth Greenspan, Roberta Hall, Lee Ly-man, Rick Minor, Pat O’Grady, and MarkTveskov. Bovy was partially supportedthrough an EPA STAR (Science to AchieveResults) Fellowship (#U-91576301), a NSFDissertation Improvement Grant (#BCS-0242632), and the Department of An-thropology at the University of Wash-ington. COASST analyses (Parrish, Jones)were supported by NSF EHR/DRL award1322820 and Washington Department ofFish and Wildlife award 13–1435.

FUNDING

Division of Behavioral and Cognitive Sci-ences [BCS-0242632]; Division of Researchon Learning in Formal and Informal Set-tings [DRL-1322820]; Environmental Pro-tection Agency [U-91576301].

SUPPLEMENTAL

Supplemental table for this article is avail-able at the publisher’s website at https://doi.org/10.1080/15564894.2018.1457105.

END NOTES

1. The American Ornithological Union (AOU)recently changed the name for Sooty Shearwa-ters from Puffinus griseus to Ardenna grisea(Chesser et al. 2016) based on recent geneticwork; most other shearwaters are also nowin the genus Ardenna, rather than Puffinus(AOU 2017).

2. This does not include 1 kittiwake bone.

REFERENCES

Adams, J., J. J. Felis, J. W. Mason, andJ. Y. Takekawa. 2014. Pacific ContinentalShelf Environmental Assessment (PaCSEA):Aerial Seabird and Marine Mammal Sur-veys off Northern California, Oregon, andWashington, 2011–2012. OCS Study BOEM2014-003. Santa Cruz and Vallejo, CA: U.S. De-partment of Interior, Bureau of Ocean EnergyManagement, Pacific OCS Region.

Aikens, C. M., T. J. Connolly, and D. L. Jenkins.2011. Oregon Archaeology. Corvallis: OregonState University Press.

Ainley, D. G., R. J. Boekelheide, S. H. Morrell, andC. S. Strong. 1990. Chapter 10: Cassin’s Auklet.In Seabirds of the Farallon Islands: Ecology,Dynamics, and Structure of an Upwelling-System Community (D. G. Ainley and R.J. Boekelheide, eds.):306–338. Stanford: Stan-ford University Press.

Ainley, D. G., D. N. Nettleship, H. R. Carter,and A. E. Storey. 2002. Common Murre(Uria aalge), The Birds of North America(P. G. Rodewald, ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Labof Ornithology. https://birdsna.org/Species-Account/bna/species/commur (accessed Sep.6, 2017.

Andrews, R. W. 1962. Curtis’ Western Indians.New York: Bonanza Books.

AOU (American Ornithologists’ Union). 2017.Check-list of North American Birds.http://checklist.aou.org (accessed June20, 2017).

Atici, L., S. W. Kansa, J. Lev-Tov, and E. Kansa.2013. Other people’s data: A demonstrationof the imperative of publishing primary data.Journal of Archaeological Method and The-ory 20(4):663–681.

Barnett, H. G. 1937. Culture element distri-butions VII: Oregon coast. AnthropologicalRecords 1(3):155–204. Berkeley: University ofCalifornia Publications.

Barth, J. A., B. A. Menge, J. Lubchenco, F. Chan,J. M. Bane, A. R. Kirincich, M. A. McManus, K.


https://doi.org/10.1080/15564894.2018.1457105

https://birdsna.org/Species-Account/bna/species/commur

http://checklist.aou.org


J. Nielsen, S. D. Pircer, and L. Washburn. 2007.Delayed upwelling alters nearshore coastalocean ecosystems in the northern CaliforniaCurrent. PNAS 104(10):3719–3724.

Beckham, S. D. 1977. The Indians of WesternOregon: This Land Was Theirs. Coos Bay, OR:Arago Books.

Bennett, A. C. 1988. Whale Cove (35LNC60): AnArchaeological Investigation on the CentralOregon Coast. M.A. Thesis. Corvallis: OregonState University.

Bennett, A. C., and R. L. Lyman. 1991. Archae-ology of Whale Cove (35LNC60). In Prehis-tory of the Oregon Coast: The Effects of Ex-cavation Strategies and Assemblage Size onArchaeological Inquiry (R. L. Lyman, ed.):241–277. San Diego: Academic Press.

Bograd, S. J., I. Schroeder, N. Sarkar, X. Qiu, W. J.Sydeman, and F. B. Schwing. 2009. Phenologyof coastal upwelling in the California Current.Geophysical Research Letters 36:L01602.

Bovy, K. M. 2002. Differential avian skeletalpart distribution: Explaining the abundanceof wings. Journal of Archaeological Science29:965–978.

Bovy, K. M. 2005. Effects of Human Hunting,Climate Change and Tectonic Events on Wa-terbirds along the Pacific Northwest Coastduring the Late Holocene. Ph.D. Dissertation.Seattle: University of Washington.

Bovy, K. M. 2007. Prehistoric human impactson waterbirds at Watmough Bay, Washington,USA. Journal of Island and Coastal Archaeol-ogy 2:210–230.

Bovy, K. M. 2011. Archaeological evidence fora Double-Crested Cormorant (Phalacrocoraxauritus) colony in the Pacific Northwest, USA.Waterbirds 34(1):89–95.

Bovy, K. M., J. E. Watson, J. Dolliver, and J. K. Par-rish. 2016. Distinguishing offshore bird hunt-ing from beach scavenging in archaeologicalcontexts: The value of modern beach surveys.Journal of Archaeological Science 70:65–47.

Briggs, K. T., D. H. Varoujean, W. W. Williams,R. G. Ford, M. L. Bonnell, and J. L. Casey.1992. Oregon and Washington Marine Mam-mal and Seabird Surveys: Final Report. Re-port prepared for Pacific OCS Region, MineralsManagement Service, U.S. Department of theInterior. Bellevue, WA: Ebasco Environmentaland Ecological Consulting, Inc.

Broughton, J. M. 2004. Prehistoric Human Im-pacts on California Birds: Evidence from theEmeryville Shellmound Avifauna. Ornitho-logical Monographs No. 56. Washington, DC:American Ornithologists’ Union.

Butler, V. L., and S. K. Campbell. 2004. Resourceintensification and resource depression in thePacific Northwest of North America: A zooar-chaeological review. Journal of World Prehis-tory 18(4):327–405.

Byrne, J. V. 1962. Geomorphology of the conti-nental terrace off the central coast of Oregon.The Ore Bin 24(5):65–74.

COASST (Coastal Observation Seabird Sur-vey Team). 2017. Explore data: Tables:Species list: Oregon North. http://52.86.35.235:3838/Mega_App/ (accessed Sep. 9, 2017).

Chesser, R. T., K. J. Burns, C. Cicero, J. L. Dunn,A. W. Kratter, I. J. Lovette, P. C. Rasmussen,et al. 2016. Fifty-seventh supplement to theAmerican Ornithologists’ Union Check-List ofNorth American Birds. The Auk 133:544–560.

Colten, R. H. 2002. Prehistoric marine mammalhunting in context: Two western North Amer-ican examples. International Journal of Os-teoarchaeology 12:12–22.

Colten, R. H. 2015. Prehistoric coastal adap-tations at Seaside, Oregon: Vertebrate faunafrom the Palmrose and Par-Tee Sites. Jour-nal of Island and Coastal Archaeology 10:253–276.

Connolly, T. J. 1992. Human Responses toChange in Coastal Geomorphology andFauna on the Southern Northwest Coast: Ar-chaeological Investigations at Seaside, Ore-gon. University of Oregon Anthropological Pa-pers 45. Eugene: University of Oregon.

deFrance, S. D. 2005. Late Pleistocene marinebirds from southern Peru: Distinguishing hu-man capture from El Niño-induced wind-fall. Journal of Archaeological Science 32:1131–1146.

DePuydt, R. T. 1994. Cultural implications of avi-faunal remains recovered from the Ozette Site.In Ozette Archaeological Project Research Re-ports, Volume II, Fauna (S. Samuels, ed.):197–264. Department of Anthropology Re-ports of Investigation 66. Pullman: Washing-ton State University.

Driver, J. C. 2011. Identification, classifica-tion and zooarchaeology. Ethnobiology Let-ters 2:19–39.

Drucker, P. 1939. Contributions to Alsea ethnog-raphy. University of California Publicationsin American Archaeology and Ethnology36:221–300.

Eda, M., H. Koike, and H. Higuchi. 2016. Un-derstanding prehistoric maritime adaptationsin northern Japan: Indirect evidence from an-cient DNA and histological observations of al-

32 VOLUME 0 • ISSUE 0 • 2018

http://52.86.35.235:3838/Mega_App/


batross (Aves: Diomedeidae) bones. Quater-nary International 419:159–164.

Edwards, A. E., S. Fitzgerald, J. K. Parrish, J.Klavitter, and M. Romano. 2015. Foragingstrategies of Laysan albatross inferred from sta-ble isotopes: Implication for association withfisheries. PLoS ONE 10:e0133471.

Gard, H. A. 1990. The Role of SouthernOregon’s Coastal Islands in PrehistoricSubsistence. M.A. Thesis. Corvallis: OregonState University.

Gaston, A. J., and S. B. Dechesne. 1996.Rhinoceros Auklet (Cerorhinca monocerata).In The Birds of North America Online (A.Poole, ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology.

Gaumer, T., D. Demory, and L. Osis. 1973. 1971Coos Bay Resource Use Study. Salem: FishCommission of Oregon.

Gladics, A. J., R. M. Suryan, J. K. Parrish, C.A. Horton, E. A. Daly, and W. T. Peterson.2015. Environmental drivers and reproductiveconsequences of variation in the diet of amarine predator. Journal of Marine Systems146SI:72–81.

Gould, R. A. 1966. Archaeology of the PointSt. George Site and Tolowa Prehistory. Berke-ley: University of California Publications inAnthropology.

Grayson, D. K. 1984. Quantitative Zooarchaeol-ogy. New York: Academic Press.

Greenspan, R. L. and R. J. Wigen. 1991. Chap-ter 5: Vertebrate faunal remains. In YaquinaHead: A Middle Archaic Settlement onthe North-Central Oregon Coast (R. Minor,ed.):83–120. Report No. 100. Eugene, OR:Heritage Research Associates.

Guy, T. J., S. L. Jennings, R. M. Suryan, E. F.Melvin, M. A. Bellman, L. T. Ballance, B. A.Blackie, et al. 2013. Overlap of North Pacificalbatrosses with the U.S. west coast ground-fish and shrimp fisheries. Fisheries Research147:222–234.

Hall, R. L. 2001. Nah-so-mah Village, ViewedThrough its Fauna. Report on file, Depart-ment of Anthropology. Corvallis: Oregon StateUniversity.

Harrison, B. F., and K. S. Longo. 1991. Archae-ology at the Dunes Site (35CLT18): A Prehis-toric Clatsop Village. Report on file. Astoria,OR: Clatsop Community College.

Hatch, J. J., and D. V. Weseloh. 2014. Double-crested Cormorant (Phalacrocorax auritus).The Birds of North America (P. G. Rode-wald, ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithol-ogy. https://birdsna.org/Species-Account/bna/species/doccor (accessed Sep. 6, 2017).

Hatch, S. A., V. A. Gill, and D. M. Mulc-ahy. 2010. Individual and colony-specificwintering areas of Pacific northern ful-mars (Fulmarus glacialis). Canadian Jour-nal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 67(2):386–400.

Hyrenbach, K. D., P. Fernández, and D. J.Anderson. 2002. Oceanographic habitats oftwo sympatric North Pacific albatrosses duringthe breeding season. Marine Ecology ProgressSeries 233:283–301.

Jenkins, D. L., L. G. Davis, T. W. Stafford, P. F.Campos, T. J. Connolly, L. S. Cummings, M.Hofreiter, et al. 2014. Geochronology, archaeo-logical context, and DNA at the Paisley Caves.In Paleoamerican Odyssey (K. E. Graf, C. V.Ketron, and M. R. Waters, eds.):485–510. Col-lege Station: Texas A&M University Press.

Jerardino, A., G. Dewar, and R. Navarro. 2009.Opportunistic subsistence strategies amonglate Holocene coastal hunter-gatherers, ElandsBay, South Africa. Journal of Island andCoastal Archaeology 4:37–60.

Jones, T. J., J. K. Parrish, A. E. Punt, V. L. Trainer,R. Kudela, J. Lang, M. S. Brancato, A. Odell,and B. Hickey. 2017. Mass mortality of marinebirds in the Northeast Pacific. Marine EcologyProgress Series 579:111–127.

Krebs, C. J. 1989. Ecological Methodology. NewYork: Harper and Row.

Kristensen, T. J. 2011. Seasonal bird exploita-tion by recent Indian and Beothuk hunter-gatherers of Newfoundland. Canadian Jour-nal of Archaeology 35:292–322.

Kroeber, A. L. 1939. Cultural and Natural Areasof Native North America. Berkeley: Universityof California.

Kuletz, K. J., M. Renner, E. A. Labunski, and G.L. Hunt, Jr. 2014. Changes in the distributionand abundance of albatrosses in the easternBering Sea: 1975–2010. Deep Sea Research II109:282–292.

Kuroda, N. 1954. On the Classification andPhylogeny of the Order Tubinares, Particu-larly the Shearwaters (Puffinus), with SpecialConsiderations on Their Osteology andHabitat Differentiation. Tokyo: Herald Co.Ltd.

Lindsay, L. W., Jr. 1995. Native use of resourceson the Oregon coast. In People of the CoquilleEstuary: Native Use of Resources on the Ore-gon Coast (R. Hall, ed.):191–210. Corvallis,OR: Words & Pictures Unlimited.

Losey, R. J. 2002. Communities and Catastro-phe: Tillamook Responses to the AD 1700Earthquake and Tsunami, Northern Oregon


https://birdsna.org/Species-Account/bna/species/doccor


Coast. Ph.D. Dissertation. Eugene: Universityof Oregon.

Losey, R. J., and D. Y. Yang. 2007. Op-portunistic whale hunting on the southernNorthwest Coast: Ancient DNA, artifact, andethnographic evidence. American Antiquity72(4):657–676.

Lyman, R. L. 1991. Prehistory of the OregonCoast: The Effects of Excavation Strategiesand Assemblage Size on Archaeological In-quiry. San Diego: Academic Press.

Lyman, R. L. 1995. On the evolution of marinemammal hunting on the West Coast of NorthAmerica. Journal of Anthropological Archae-ology 14:45–77.

Manuwal, D. A., and A. C. Thoresen. 2011.Cassin’s Auklet (Ptychoramphus aleuti-cus). The Birds of North America (P. G.Rodewald, ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab ofOrnithology. https://birdsna.org/Species-Account/bna/species/casauk (accessed Sep.6, 2017).

Miller, L. 1940. Observations on the Black-footed Albatross. The Condor 42(5):229–238.

Minor, R. 1989. Archaeology of the NorthYaquina Head Shell Middens, Central OregonCoast. Cultural Resource Series No. 3. Port-land, OR: U.S. Department of Interior, Bureauof Land Management.

Minor, R. 1991a. Archaeological Investigationsat the Ecola Point Site, Northern OregonCoast. Report to Oregon State Parks andRecreation Department. Eugene: Oregon StateMuseum of Anthropology.

Minor, R. 1991b. Yaquina Head: A Middle Ar-chaic Settlement on the North-Central Ore-gon Coast. Report No. 100. Eugene, OR: Her-itage Research Associates.

Minor, R. 1994. National Register of HistoricPlaces Registration Form for the Umpqua/Eden Site (35DO83). On file at the Ore-gon State Historic Preservation Office,Salem.

Minor, R. 2001. Beyond stones and bones: Whatthe people say about use of the offshore en-vironment on the southernmost NorthwestCoast. In Changing Landscapes: “Telling OurStories” Proceedings of the Fourth AnnualCoquille Cultural Preservation Conference,2000 (J. Younker, M. A. Tveskov, and D. G.Lewis, eds.):25–41. North Bend, OR: CoquilleIndian Tribe.

Minor, R., and R. L. Greenspan. 1995a. Archaeol-ogy of the Cape Creek Shell Midden, Cape Per-petua Scenic Area, Central Oregon Coast. Re-port to Siuslaw National Forest. Eugene: Ore-gon State Museum of Anthropology.

Minor, R., and R. L. Greenspan. 1995b. Ar-chaeological Investigations for the ProposedBaldiyaka Interpretive Center, Coos County,Oregon. Report No. 176. Eugene, OR: HeritageResearch Associates.

Minor, R., and R. L. Greenspan. 1998a. TheHauser Site: Archaeological Evidence of aPaleo-Estuary in the Oregon Dunes, South-Central Oregon Coast. Report to Siuslaw Na-tional Forest. Eugene: Oregon State Museumof Anthropology.

Minor, R., and R. L. Greenspan. 1998b. Archae-ological Test at the Cape Blanco LighthouseShell Midden, Southern Oregon Coast. Re-port No. 216. Eugene, OR: Heritage ResearchAssociates.

Minor, R., R. L. Greenspan, and D. C. Barner.2008a. Chinookan resource exploitation in theColumbia River Estuary: the view from IndianPoint. In Dunes, Headlands, Estuaries, andRivers (G. L. Tasa and B. L. O’Neill, eds.):37–55. Occasional Papers No. 8. Eugene: Associa-tion of Oregon Archaeologists.

Minor, R., R. L. Greenspan, and J. Boersema.2008b. The Lily Lake Sites Revisited: SiuslawIndian Settlements in the Dunes of the Cen-tral Oregon Coast. Report No. 329. Eugene,OR: Heritage Research Associates.

Minor, R., and K. A. Toepel. 1986. The Archae-ology of the Tahkenitch Landing Site: EarlyPrehistoric Occupation on the Oregon Coast.Report No. 46. Eugene, OR: Heritage ResearchAssociates.

Minor, R., K. A. Toepel, R. L. Greenspan, andD. C. Barner. 1985. Archaeological Investiga-tions in the Cape Perpetua Scenic Area, Cen-tral Oregon Coast. Report No. 40. Eugene,OR: Heritage Research Associates.

Minor, R., D. Whereat, and R. L. Greenspan.2012. Umpqua/Eden revisited: Notes on thearchaeology and ethnohistory of a LowerUmpqua Indian village on the central Ore-gon coast. Journal of Northwest Anthropol-ogy 46(1):39–63.

Moss, M. L. 2007. Haida and Tlingit use ofseabirds from the Forrester Islands, southeastAlaska. Journal of Ethnobiology 27:28–45.

Moss, M. L. 2011. Northwest Coast: Archaeologyas Deep History. Washington, DC: SAA Press.

Moss, M. L., and P. M. Bowers. 2007. Migratorybird harvest in northwestern Alaska: A zooar-chaeological analysis of Ipiutak and Thule oc-cupations from the Deering ArchaeologicalDistrict. Arctic Anthropology 44:37–50.

Moss, M. L., and J. M. Erlandson. 1998. EarlyHolocene adaptations of the southern North-west Coast. Journal of California and GreatBasin Anthropology 20(1):13–25.

34 VOLUME 0 • ISSUE 0 • 2018

https://birdsna.org/Species-Account/bna/species/casauk


Moss, M. L., and J. M. Erlandson. 2008. NativeAmerican archaeological sites of the OregonCoast: the historic context for the nomina-tion to the National Register of Historic Places.In Dunes, Headlands, Estuaries, and Rivers:Current Archaeological Research on the Ore-gon Coast (G. L. Tasa and B. L. O’Neill, eds.):1–36. Occasional Papers No. 8. Eugene: Asso-ciation of Oregon Archaeologists.

Moulton, G. E., ed. 1990. The Journals of theLewis and Clark Expedition Vol. 6, November2, 1805-March 22, 1806. Lincoln: Universityof Nebraska.

Naughton, M. B., D. S. Pitkin, R. W. Lowe,K. J. So, and C. S. Strong. 2007a. Cata-log of Oregon Seabird Colonies. BiologicalTechnical Publication FWS/BTP-R1009-2007.Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Interior,Fish and Wildlife Service.

Naughton, M. B, M. D. Romano and T. S. Zim-merman. 2007b. A Conservation ActionPlan for Black-footed Albatross (Phoebas-tria nigripes) and Laysan Albatross (P.immutabilis). Ver. 1.0. https://www.fws.gov/pacific/migratorybirds/pdf/Albatross%20Action%20Plan%20ver.1.0.pdf (accessed Nov. 4,2016).

O’Connor, J. T., F. J. White, and T. L. Hunt. 2016.Fishhook variability and cultural transmissionin East Polynesia. Archaeology in Oceania52:32–44.

Ogle, T. B., R. T. Baker, M. Zehendner, and J. L.Fagan. 2005. Archaeological Recovery of Hu-man Remains from 35CS11, Chief’s Island,Gregory Point, Coos County, Oregon. ReportNo. 1496. Vancouver, WA: Archaeological In-vestigations Northwest, Inc.

Oregon Coastal Management Program (OCMP).2016. Physical Setting. http://www.oregon.gov/LCD/OCMP/Pages/Ocean_Phys.aspx (ac-cessed Sep. 2, 2016).

Parrish, J. K., N. Bond, H. Nevins, N. Mantua,R. Loeffel, W. T. Peterson, and J. T. Harvey.2007. Exploring the link between beachedbirds and physical forcing in the CaliforniaCurrent System. Marine Ecology Progress Se-ries 352:275–288.

Parrish, J. K., N. Lemberg, and L. South-Oryshchyn. 1998. Effects of colony locationand nekton abundance on at-sea distributionof four seabird species. Fisheries Oceanogra-phy 7:126–135.

Parrish, J. K., K. Litle, J. Dolliver, J, T. Hass,H. Burgess, E. Frost, C. Wright, and T. Jones.2017. Chapter 2: Defining the Baseline andTracking Change in Seabird Populations: TheCoastal Observation and Seabird Survey Team(COASST). In Citizen Science for Coastal

and Marine Conservation (J. A. Ciglianoand H. L. Ballard, eds.): 19–38. New York:Routledge.

Ray, V. F. 1938. Lower Chinook ethnographicnotes. University of Washington Publicationsin Anthropology 7(2):29–165.

Reitz, E. J., and E. S. Wing. 2008. Zooarchaeol-ogy, 2nd ed. Cambridge Manuals in Archaeol-ogy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Rohlf, F. J., and D. E. Slice. 1999. BIOMstat, Ver-sion 3.3. Setauket, NY: Exeter Software.

Rose, C., A. Knust, H. Ulrich, and S. Morasci.2006. A Preliminary Look at the Faunal As-semblage of the Dunes Site 35-CLT-27. A re-port for ANTH 471, Zooarchaeology. Reporton file. Eugene: University of Oregon.

Ross, R. E., and S. L. Snyder. 1979. Excavations atUmpqua/Eden. In Umpqua River Basin Cul-tural History, Phase I Research (T. C. Hogg,ed.):92–104. Report to the Douglas CountyCommissioners, Roseburg. Corvallis: OregonState University Department of Anthropology.

Ross, R. E., and S. L. Snyder. 1986. TheUmpqua/Eden Site (35DO83): Exploitation ofmarine resources on the central Oregon coast.In Contributions to the Archaeology of Ore-gon, 1983–1986 (K. M. Ames, ed.):80–101.Occasional Papers No. 3. Salem: Association ofOregon Archaeologists.

Ruby, R. H., and J. A. Brown. 1986. A Guide tothe Indian Tribes of the Pacific Northwest.Norman: University of Oklahoma.

Savard, J.-P. L., D. Bordage, and A. Reed.2015. Surf Scoter (Melanitta perspicil-lata). The Birds of North America (P.G. Rodewald, ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab ofOrnithology. https://birdsna.org/Species-Account/bna/species/sursco (accessed Sep. 6,2017).

Serjeantson, D. 2009. Birds. Cambridge Manualsin Archaeology. New York: Cambridge Univer-sity Press.

Shaffer, S. A., Y. Tremblay, H. Weimerskirch, D.Scott, D. R. Thompson, P, M. Sagar, H. Moller,et al. 2006. Migratory shearwaters integrateoceanic resources across the Pacific Ocean inan endless summer. PNAS 103:12799–12802.

Silverstein, M. 1990. Chinookans of the LowerColumbia. In Handbook of North Ameri-can Indians, Vol. 7 (W. C. Sturtevant andW. Suttles, eds.):533–546. Washington, DC:Smithsonian.

Sneath, P. H. A., and R. R. Sokal. 1973. Numer-ical Taxonomy: The Principles and Practiceof Numerical Classification. New York: W.H.Freeman.

Sokal, R. R., and F. J. Rohlf. 2012. Biometry:The Principles and Practice of Statistics in


https://www.fws.gov/pacific/migratorybirds/pdf/Albatross%20Action%20Plan%20ver.1.0.pdf

http://www.oregon.gov/LCD/OCMP/Pages/Ocean_Phys.aspx

https://birdsna.org/Species-Account/bna/species/sursco


Biological Research, 4th ed. New York: W.H.Freeman.

Suttles, W. 1990. Environment. In Handbook ofNorth American Indians, Vol. 7 (W. C. Sturte-vant and W. Suttles, eds.):16–29. Washington,DC: Smithsonian.

Tasa, G. L., and T. J. Connolly. 1995. Archae-ological Evaluation of the Boiler Bay Site(35LNC45), in the Boiler Bay State Park Sec-tion of the Oregon Coast Highway (US High-way 101), Lincoln County, Oregon. Report95-2. Eugene: Oregon State Museum of Anthro-pology.

Tasa, G. L., and T. J. Connolly. 2001. Archaeolog-ical Investigations at Cook’s Chasm Bridge,the Good Fortune Point Site (35LNC55), andthe Neptune Site (35LA3). Report 2001–4. Eu-gene: Oregon State Museum of Anthropology.

Tasa, G. L., J. A. Knowles, and T. J. Connolly.2009. Archaeological Evaluation of the BobCreek Site (35LA10): Oregon Coast High-way (US Highway 101), Lane County. Report2009–066. Eugene: Oregon State Museum ofAnthropology.

Thomas, S. M., and J. E. Lyons. 2017. Popula-tion trends and distribution of Common MurreUria aalge colonies in Washington 1996–2015. Marine Ornithology 45:95–102.

Thompson, L. C., and M. D. Kinkade. 1990. Lan-guages. In Handbook of North American In-dians, Vol. 7 (W. C. Sturtevant and W. Suttles,eds.):30–51. Washington, DC: Smithsonian.

Tveskov, M. A. 2000. The Coos and Coquille:A Northwest Coast Historical Anthropology.Ph.D. Dissertation: Eugene, University of Ore-gon.

Tveskov, M. A., and A. Cohen. 2007. Ni-Les’TunArchaeology: The Bussmann, Blue Barn, andOld Town Bandon Sites. Research Report2007-1. Ashland: Southern Oregon UniversityLaboratory of Anthropology.

Ulrich, H. A. 2009. Analysis of Bird Remainsfrom the Dunes Site (35-CLT-27), NorthernOregon Coast. M.S. Paper. Eugene: Universityof Oregon.

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2017.Oregon Fish and Wildlife Office, Short-tailedAlbatross. https://www.fws.gov/oregonfwo/articles.cfm?id=149489452 (accessed July 31,2017).

Veit, R. R., J. A. McGowan, D. G. Ainley, R. R.Wahl, and P. Pyle. 1997. Apex marine preda-tor declines ninety percent in association withchanging oceanic climate. Global Change Bi-ology 3:23–28.

Wallace, E. A., and G. E. Wallace. 1998.Brandt’s Cormorant (Phalacrocorax penicil-latus). The Birds of North America (P.G. Rodewald, ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Labof Ornithology. https://birdsna.org/Species-Account/bna/species/bracor (accessed Sep. 6,2017).

Watson, J. 2011. Seasonality on the Ore-gon Coast: Avian Faunal Remains fromWhale Cove (35-LNC-60). UndergraduateHonors Paper. Kingston: University of RhodeIsland.

Wellman, H. P., T. C. Rick, A. T. Rodrigues, andD. Y. Yang. 2017. Evaluating ancient whaleexploitation on the northern Oregon Coastthrough ancient DNA and zooarchaeologicalanalysis. Journal of Island and Coastal Ar-chaeology 12(2):255–275.

Wiese, F. K., J. K. Parrish, C. W. Thompson,and C. Maranto. 2008. Ecosystem-based man-agement of predator-prey relationships: Pis-civorous birds and salmonids in the mid-Columbia River. Ecological Applications 18:681–700.

Woolfenden, G. E. 1961. Postcranial osteology ofthe waterfowl. Bulletin of the Florida StateMuseum: Biological Sciences 6:1–129.

Work, T. M., and R. A. Rameyer. 1999. Massstranding of wedge-tailed shearwater chicksin Hawaii. Journal of Wildlife Diseases35(3):487–495.

Zador, S. G., J. F. Piatt, and A. E. Punt. 2006. Bal-ancing predation and egg harvest in a colonialseabird: A simulation model. Ecological Mod-eling 195(3–4):318–326.

36 VOLUME 0 • ISSUE 0 • 2018

https://www.fws.gov/oregonfwo/articles.cfm?id=149489452

https://birdsna.org/Species-Account/bna/species/bracor

Documents

Evaluating Native American Bird Use and Bird Assemblage … · 2018-07-02 · Evaluating Native American Bird Use colonies. We hope that the methods and approaches employed here will