The Faustian Bargain of Technological CH PDF

Journal of Anthropological Archaeology xxx (2014) xxx–xxx
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Journal of Anthropological Archaeology

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jaa
The Faustian bargain of technological change: Evaluating

the socioeconomic effects of the bow and arrow transition
in the Coast Salish past
Bill Angelbeck a,⇑, Ian Cameron b
a
Department of Anthropology and Sociology, Douglas College, New Westminster, BC, Canada
b
Ursus Heritage Consulting, Vernon, BC, Canada
a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t
Article history: Changes in technology can have transformative effects upon ancient economies. Commonly, the advan-
Received 6 August 2013 tages of technology are highlighted in the past, with diagnostic markers of tool types, serving as the
Revision received 27 May 2014 important signatures in regional culture histories. While technological changes generally do improve effi-
Available online xxxx
ciency or provide other benefits, new technologies also bring new additional costs, presenting what Neil
Postman calls a ‘‘Faustian bargain.’’ In this essay, we consider such costs in the transition from atlatl and
Keywords: dart technologies to the bow and arrow for the precontact Coast Salish economy, focusing on consequent
Northwest Coast
organizational changes in hunting strategies. We maintain that technologies also can be indicators of
Coast Salish
Atlatl and dart
broader socioeconomic changes in labor organization. We analyze shifting patterns of hunting emphasis
Bow and arrow through faunal assemblages in relation to changes in tool technologies. We postulate that the transition
Technology to the bow and arrow brought benefits in increased efficiency for individual hunters, but at a cost for col-
Labor organization lective hunting teams based on atlatl and dart technologies that were headed by elites. In so doing, with
Faunal analysis the bow and arrow, individual hunters exerted greater economic autonomy and this is marked in the fau-
nal archaeological record of the Coast Salish area.
! 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction are not simply matters of efficiency, or quantitative, but that tech-
nologies can affect the broader contexts of their use, or can be
All technological change is a Faustian bargain. For every advan- qualitative. Indeed, the consequences of adopting new technolo-
tage a new technology offers, there is always a corresponding gies can be social, influencing how people organize their labor to
disadvantage. use the tools productively. In this article, we explore the social
... ramifications of new projectile technologies throughout the Coast
Salish past, focusing primarily on the switch from atlatl and dart
Technological change is neither additive nor subtractive. It is
to bow and arrow. Hunters and warriors gained immensely from
ecological.. . . It changes everything.
the technological advantages of new weaponries, however, each
[—Neil Postman (1995, p. 192; 1993, p. 18)]
technology also contributed to different dynamics and patterns
New technologies often save labor and increase efficiency, and of socioeconomic organization. These new forms of weaponry were
the bulk of discussion about inventions in the past concern the not simply added to their cultural repertoire, as they had ‘‘ecolog-
benefits afforded by adopting novel technologies. But, a new ical’’ effects, influencing the social contexts of their use.
weapon does not just provide new advantages in efficiency or pro- In the Coast Salish area, it is clear ethnographically that they
ductivity. As the late cultural critic Neil Postman (1995, p. 192; associated certain artifacts and technologies with particular sub-
1993, p. 18), emphasized, new technologies also bear new costs. sistence practices, and further that task groups pursued optimal
With each innovation, new problems also arise to the fore. These forms of labor organization to use such tools effectively. A fishing
technologies may require new materials, more maintenance, or spear, for instance, is an individual’s weapon, while the owner of
involve multiple parts. Postman also suggested that such changes a reef-net requires a large crew to operate it. For archaeologists,
the artifacts or features associated with each of those activities—
⇑ Corresponding author. in these cases, bone points from fish spears or anchor stones for
E-mail address: angelbeckw@douglascollege.ca (B. Angelbeck). reef-netting—provide indications about the required scale of labor
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jaa.2014.08.003
0278-4165/! 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Please cite this article in press as: Angelbeck, B., Cameron, I. The Faustian bargain of technological change: Evaluating the socioeconomic effects of the bow
and arrow transition in the Coast Salish past. J. Anthropol. Archaeol. (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jaa.2014.08.003
2 B. Angelbeck, I. Cameron / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology xxx (2014) xxx–xxx
Table 1
Subsistence activities of the ethnographic Coast Salish by scale of organization (after Suttles, 1990a).
Type of activity One-person activities Two-person activities Group activities

Gathering Berrying
Root gathering
Shellfish gathering
Fishing Fish harpooning Reef netting
Gaff-hooking Trawl netting
Halibut fishing Weirs
Dip-netting Tidal pounds
Basket-traps
Hunting Land mammals (deer, elk, Sea mammals Sea lion
goat, beaver, (most; e.g., seals, porpoise)
squirrel, etc.)
Sturgeon fishing Deer netting
Duck netting
organization. In this article, we contend that these socioeconomic in number, but those were ‘‘generally more productive.’’ These col-
patterns can extend to the faunal archaeological record. The hunt- lective endeavors included sea-lion hunting, duck netting, and sev-
ing of some species, or general classes thereof, was associated with eral methods for fishing: fish weirs, tidal ponds, and reef netting.
certain technologies––harpoons with the hunting of sea mammals, This especially applied to various salmon fishing methods as well
or net poles for ensnaring ducks, for example. Here, we focus on as to the teams they organized for salmon processing (e.g.,
land mammal hunting and the changes in projectile technologies Graesch, 2007). Yet another important point from this is that
over time, from atlatl and dart to the bow and arrow. The techno- Suttles highlighted that the collective activities were also hierar-
logical advantages of the bow and arrow likely presented different chical in organization. Reef-netting for salmon, for instance,
dynamics with implications for how socioeconomic activities were involved captains and crews as well as much ritual ceremony
organized. While many studies highlight the technological advan- and protocol to ensure spirit power help. In group activities, elites
tages of the bow and arrow over the atlatl and dart, archaeologists were able to exert control over the process and claim much of the
have less often emphasized the implications these weaponry have take, or control the amounts and manner of redistribution to those
for labor organization. Here, we provide such a case study for the involved. They may have owned the means of production, had
Coast Salish area of the Northwest Coast of North America. inherited rights to a resource locale, or held authority through cul-
To undertake this inquiry, we first provide some ethnographic tural conventions.
background concerning the social organization of projectile tech- Suttles’ breakdown of subsistence activities, however, informs
nologies among the Coast Salish. Next, we associate forms of labor us about how the Coast Salish organized those activities ethno-
organizations with certain subsistence practices, primarily consid- graphically, or since contact, even while he intended that these
ering individualistic activities versus organized activities. Then, we may have great implications for how their ancestors handled such
examine the shifts in land mammal hunting practices in relation to practices in late precontact periods and possibly even further back
shifts in technologies from the Middle to Late Pacific Period, ca. in time. But, the subsistence activities he described were based on
1600 BP, when technologies largely switched from atlatl and dart technologies then available in the postcontact period: nets for
to the bow and arrow. We argue that this dart/arrow transition ducks, harpoons for sea lion, bow and arrow for deer and elk,
not only marks a change in technological efficiency but also a shift reef-nets for salmon, and so on. However, the bow and arrow,
in labor organization, and we can track this transition through the archaeologically, is a relatively recent technology with widespread
faunal assemblages in the archaeological record. adoption occurring only about 1600 years ago. So, the subsistence
practices he described do not necessarily apply to periods prior, as
the technologies had changed. Our aim here is to consider Suttles’
2. Labor organization in Coast Salish subsistence activities framework in light of technological changes that lead up to the
ethnographic period he described. To do so, allow us to present
Coast Salish peoples have lived in the Northwest Coast for thou- some familiar aspects of prior technologies for sake of argument.
sands of years, inhabiting southern and eastern Vancouver Island,
Puget Sound, the lower Fraser River basin and the fjords north of
Desolation Sound in the southwestern part of British Columbia, 3. The spear, atlatl and dart
Canada, and the northwestern part of Washington state, U.S. Tradi-
tionally, they have maintained economies based on hunting, gath- One of the original projectile weapons was the spear. The spear
ering, and fishing, with semi-permanent winter villages serving as provides a lengthy extension of one’s reach, allowing one to pierce
their largest settlements while households or family groups dis- their quarry from a short distance. The robustness of the blade and
persed seasonally to numerous camps in resource areas that they the stoutness of the shaft were advantages, especially appropriate
owned or had rights to access, usually through marriage ties. Some for pursuing large animals. Hunters can also throw their spear, but
economic pursuits required numerous individuals, but many once hurled, the hunter no longer has the weapon. For most, that
involved smaller numbers of individuals. launch is basically their one shot. If the hunter misses the game,
Wayne Suttles (1990a) broke down subsistence activities of one can recover the spear and try again, but the prey likely at that
central Coast Salish societies by the scale of their organization. point has raced away. To compensate for this, hunters often
He described that they conducted the bulk of subsistence practices worked in groups.
as individuals or in two-person teams (Table 1). These included Having several hunters ready with spears maximizes the num-
many activities that economically sustained households, such as ber of shots at the prey, which better ensures a successful hunt.
berrying, root gathering, shellfish gathering, harpooning fish, and This was especially necessary with large and dangerous game. To
land mammal hunting. He noted that group activities were less bring down mammoths or mastodons, Clovis hunters of the late
B. Angelbeck, I. Cameron / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology xxx (2014) xxx–xxx 3
Fig. 1. Space requirements for atlatl use versus bow (redrawn After Yu (2006) and Whittaker (2010)).
Pleistocene hunted cooperatively in groups (Frison, 1987).1 Indeed, ‘‘Sea-mammal hunting may, in fact, be one of the oldest and one of
it makes sense that more than one spear would be needed to slay a the most influential elements of this area’s unique culture.’’ Suttles
mammoth, just as Sub-Saharan hunters worked as teams to kill compared the practice to Nuu-chah-nulth whaling, with its ritual
giraffes or elephants. protocols, and to the cooperative walrus hunting of the Inuit (see
In a comparative study of the weapons and practices across also McMillan, 1999, pp. 160–162); we will turn to Penelakut sea
numerous cultures, Churchill (1993) found that 95% of the world- lion hunting in more detail below.
wide societies used the spear, but only half of them used it in ter- With the development of the atlatl, hunters enhanced the effec-
restrial hunting. Primarily, spearing technologies were used for tiveness of the spear, providing much greater propulsion. For use
marine mammals, fishing, warfare, and defense against predators. with an atlatl, spears were shortened to darts, and projectile points
The spear was the most effective against larger prey and, rather were smaller. The atlatl adds additional lever action, extended
than thrown, ‘‘The thrusting spear is used primarily as a dispatch- force to the throw of the dart, and even provides some flexing
ing tool after prey have been placed in a disadvantageous position’’ spring action in the process, all of which combine to add thrust
(Churchill, 1993, p. 16). The hunters confined the prey, ambushed and power to the dart (Whittaker, 2010). The earliest evidence
it, or pursued the animals for a closer encounter for stabbing. To for atlatls in the region comes from the Dalles in Oregon ca.
throw the spear is to risk losing the primary tool for killing the 9000–8000 BP (Kirk and Daugherty, 2007, p. 60) and from Namu,
prey. This was the case for the Coast Salish area as well. For Period 2, about 6500–5000 BP (Carlson, 1996, p. 100). In the North-
instance, early explorers had remarked that spears were present west Interior Plateau, darts may have been present as long ago as
but were used as lances and not thrown (Gunther, 1972, p. 14). 10,800 BP, according to Ames et al. (2010). Atlatls continued to
Similarly, Barnett (1955, p. 270) ethnographically described that be used after contact, as evident among the Tlingit in 1788
‘‘Spears were seldom hurled but were used for thrusting.’’ (Galois, 2004; cited in Keddie and Nelson, 2005, p. 116), although
Even when thrown, the spear is a short-range weapon, which is such instances were infrequent. In the Coast Salish area, a mostly
why hunters often cornered prey in a narrow canyon, swamp, or complete atlatl has been recovered in the delta of the Skagit River
snow drift. While many studies emphasize the range of the spear, of Washington.2
it is also important to consider the social aspects of hunting with Another main advantage of the spear-thrower is the dart’s ulti-
spears: that success is more likely through collective hunting. mate force when piercing, the penetration of which can cripple and
While the spear has been overtaken by more effective, longer- immobilize game (Hitchcock and Bleed, 1997, p. 355; see also
range projectiles such as darts and arrows, particularly for land Cattelain, 1997; Yu, 2006). In Zimbabwe, for example, Tyua groups
mammal hunting, spearing practices continued as the predomi- preferred to use the atlatl and dart for such reasons, even while
nant method for sea mammal hunting. In the Northwest Coast, adjacent groups used the bow and arrow; they hunted large game:
Drucker (1955) described the harpoon as ‘‘a sort of spear,’’ albeit giraffe, rhinoceros, and elephant. To increase success, they also
with many variations. The harpoon is a composite projectile, often hunted collectively in groups.
involving toggling valves, lashes, a short foreshaft, a lengthy shaft, With this technology, there are disadvantages, however. A lim-
and an attached rope that linked the foreshaft to a float to prevent itation of atlatls is the amount of space needed to make a shot
the sea mammal from sinking or diving too deeply. (Fig. 1a). Hunters need substantial room, both behind and in front,
Harpooning, therefore, essentially is a complex form of spearing and especially overhead to throw a dart using an atlatl. Therefore,
technology. While those hunting with spears could do so as indi- it comes as no surprise that the atlatl is used ‘‘almost exclusively’’
viduals, in practice it was rare. Hunters used canoes to hunt sea in open environments, whether on land (Cattelain, 1997) or sea
mammals, and the harpooner stood in the bow while others pad-
dled. Often, teams in several canoes surrounded the prey, increas-
2
ing the chances of hitting the target. Among the Nuu-chah-nulth Based on its complex anthropomorphic designs, Borden (1968; see also Taylor
and Caldwell, 1954) inferred that the atlatl was likely Locarno Beach Phase in age (ca.
on the West Coast, there was often an additional canoe and crew
3500–2400 BP), but Fladmark et al. (1987) radiocarbon dated it to ca. 1700 BP, or the
for ‘‘planting the second harpoon’’ (Drucker, 1955, p. 47), or several Marpole Phase. The Skagit Atlatl exhibited ornate artwork that many scholars have
‘‘other canoes with junior relatives and their crews’’ (Arima and attempted to interpret; Borden (1968, p. 14) described it as a ‘‘sea-monster,’’ while
Dewhirst, 1990, p. 395). Holm (1990, pp. 173–176) emphasized it as a ‘‘lightning snake.’’ These depictions
Some Coast Salish groups practiced such techniques when likely convey spirit powers of the device, or reflecting those of its owner. One thing is
clear about this artifact, which is regarded as ‘‘one of the best known of all prehistoric
hunting sea mammals. For instance, in discussing the Penelakut Northwest Coast sculptures’’ (Fladmark et al., 1987), is that this piece is far from
hunting of sea lions, Suttles (1987 [1952]), p. 233) determined that utilitarian. With little doubt, this was a highly valued item, likely an elite individual’s
weapon. Indeed, it may have been largely ceremonial or symbolic of status. As
Fladmark et al. (1987, p. 6) concluded, ‘‘Although the Skagit River sculpture is
1
For instance, at the Naco site in Arizona, archaeologists unearthed eight Clovis definitely an atlatl in form, questions must remain as to whether it was a functional
points intermixed with the mammoth’s bones. Each point was Clovis in style but weapon or a non-functional symbol of chiefly power and prestige. The apparent
exhibited distinct variations, that lead the archaeologists to argue that these fragility of the atlatl shaft around the finger holes suggests that it could not have
represented the spear points from different individuals (Haury et al., 1953). taken much stress.’’
(Dickson, 1985).3 A consequence of this is the disadvantages the Great Basin region much later, about 1800 BP, before spreading
weapon has for stealth, which is a critical component of most hunt- throughout much of the continent. In the Northwest Coast, the
ing strategies. Hunters try to get as close to the prey as possible, gen- bow is thought to have been widely adopted ca. 1600 BP, and the
erally within 20–30 m (Cattelain, 1997, p. 230), and many hunters small triangular arrow point—notched and unnotched, chipped or
have stated a preferred distance of 10–20 m with an atlatl. Hunters ground from slate—is a characteristic trait of the Late Pacific Period
may carry up to three darts, as darts generally are smaller than (Blitz, 1988; Maschner, 1991; Matson and Coupland, 1995; Lowrey,
spears, in both shaft length and thickness as well as having shorter 1999). In the Coast Salish area, Carlson and Magne (2008, p. 359) sta-
projectile points (e.g., Hitchcock and Bleed, 1997, p. 348). However, ted that 1600 BP ‘‘marked the end of the climactic Marpole phase,’’
even with darts, hunters generally have one shot since the throw and adding that its closing coincided with ‘‘the introduction of the bow
the large projectile would still alarm game if missed. It would and arrow.’’6 In a chronology of points for the Coast Salish region,
involve more time for a hunter to set the atlatl with another dart Carlson (2008) classified these small, notched (occasionally unnot-
in order to try again at the prey, although other hunters may be ched) arrow points as ‘‘Type VIc,’’7 and he regarded them as ‘‘post-
ready with a shot. Marpole’’ in age, noting that the earliest dated example was from
While the atlatl has advantages in the force of the projectile, its 1620 BP, at the Belcarra Site (Charlton, 1980). For our purposes, this
main limitations concerned where it could be used (open environ- date of 1600 BP marks the transition in the Coast Salish area.8
ments), the hindrance to stealth, and the number of shots readily In the Northwest Interior Plateau, however, archaeologists
available for the hunter. The bow and arrow addresses each of have claimed an earlier introduction for the bow and arrow. So,
these drawbacks. in the Northwest more generally, the bow and arrow existed in
the Interior Plateau prior to the coast by a few centuries, or by
4. The bow and arrow 1800 BP (e.g., Blitz, 1988; Nassaney and Pyle, 1999; Richards
and Rousseau, 1987; Rousseau, 2008) or as early as 2000–
The most significant advantage of the bow and arrow is the 2400 BP (Chatters, 2004). From the Interior Plateau and Great
number of shots readily available. The bowhunter carries, not one Basin, the bow and arrow spread later throughout the eastern
spear or a handful of darts, but as many arrows that can fill their continent.
quiver, easily a dozen to a score. Furthermore, the space needed Some archaeologists do push the timing of the bow and arrow
to unleash a shot was significantly less (Fig. 1b)—one needed the back further. Morrissey (2009), using Shott’s (1987) metric
room to hold the bow and pull the bowstring back, and that could analysis, determined that the bow extends much earlier than pre-
be done in a kneeling position, or from behind a bush or boulder; viously thought. Accordingly, the bow and arrow was not
this is especially important for the dense, temperate rainforests of restricted to the Kamloops Horizon (1200 BP to 200 BP), but
the Northwest Coast. Another advantage is that the learning curve was characteristic of many Shuswap and Plateau Horizon projec-
for mastering the bow and arrow is quicker or much easier than tile points, extending back to 3500 BP. Then, others have pushed
the atlatl and dart (Whittaker, 2013).4 Depending on design, some the date even further back. Ames et al. (2010) conducted a series
bows likely had greater range than the atlatl (Hughes, 1998, p. of metric comparisons between projectile points with darts and
352). For these reasons––space, stealth, and shots––the widespread arrows, using Shott’s (1987) method, Thomas’ (1978), and others’.
adoption of the bow arrow must have been a significant transforma- These measurements compared length, width, neck-width, shoul-
tion in hunting practices for many peoples. As Railey (2010, p. 5) has der-width, and other variables of known darts and arrows in
emphasized, ‘‘The transition from the use of the atlatl-dart combina- museum collections. From their results, they maintained that
tion to the bow-and-arrow was a major shift in weapons technology, many dart points should be classified as arrow points and, in so
the importance of which is difficult to overstate.’’ As well, Bingham doing, they pushed the date for the bow and arrow back to
et al. (2013, p. 82) emphasized the transformative effects of the 8500 BP; they did note that it increased in frequency around
bow and arrow, considering it a ‘‘single cause factor,’’ that lead to 4400 BP. Subsequently, peoples used both technologies until darts
numerous cultural changes throughout the continent. become rare after 1500 BP. At that point, their results align with
others that the bow and arrow predominates during the Late
4.1. Dating the introduction of the bow and arrow Period.
The studies that push the bow and arrow back further in time
Originally, the bow and arrow first appeared in west and central require some caveats, however. These are based on metrics from
Alaska, ca. 4500 BP,5 and then it diffused to the Interior Plateau and museum collections, much of which originate from the relatively
recent, ethnographic time period. This involves problematic
3
assumptions, particularly that those examples are representative
Yupik, or Alutiiq, hunters could hunt whales from kayaks with atlatls, but in a
sitting position they would lose the full-body strength. Hence, they relied not upon
of technologies from millennia ago, for instance. Hildebrandt and
force of impact but rather on the poisons they applied to darts to eventually kill the King (2012) emphasized that ethnographic collections should not
whale; they would have to wait to claim the whale after it would wash up on shore be used to differentiate darts from arrows. Using a different
some days later. More typically, whales were hunted from within umiaks, which were method, a dart-arrow index, they determined that the Interior Pla-
open-skin boats that could hold six to ten-member crews. And, in those cases, they
teau points evaluated by Ames et al. (2010) were not arrows, but
typically thrusted with the harpoon (Whitridge, 1999: 104–105).
4
Whittaker (2010), for instance, examined recreational and sporting atlatlists in
addition to conducting his own experiments with atlatl use. His studies provide useful
information to consider concerning range, accuracy, and learning curve when
6
evaluating past atlatl practices. From this process, he described the difficulty of atlatl Keddie (2008:85) noted the presence of smaller triangular points at the southern
mastery, relative to bow and arrow proficiency (see also Whittaker, 2013). tip Vancouver Island extending back to 2700 BP, but such points do not appear
5
According to Maschner and Mason (2013:133), the simple self bow may have northward on the island until 1700 BP. Further, he found that such points do not
been present even in the early Holocene of coastal Alaska, however, the evidence is begin to dominate assemblages on the island until after 1500 BP.
7
thin (based upon small bone points with microblade inserts, which may not relate to These ranged from 25 to 51 mm in length, with 50% measuring tightly between
bow technology). Moreover, they acknowledged that the technology would ‘‘not have 31 and 34 mm; for width, these ranged from 11 to 22 mm. The width-to-length ratios
enough power to bring down the large ungulates of the middle Holocene,’’ which were 0.33–0.61 mm, with half ranging from 0.47 to 0.55 mm (Carlson, 2008, p. 146).
8
would not be until about 4500 BP, when bow technology is associated with caribou We are less concerned here with whether or not this marks the end of the
and musk ox hunting, although it was still used alongside the atlatl and dart. By Marpole Phase, which is debated by archaeologists in the region; for a recent
1300 BP, the bow is still in use in Alaska, but exclusively for warfare, while they evaluation, see Clark (2013). Rather, instead of typology, we are focused on periods of
continued to use atlatl and darts for hunting. technological use in the Coast Salish area.
darts, and that ‘‘a major revision of the history of bow-and-arrow 5. On cooperative versus individualistic hunting practices
technology in western North America is unnecessary.’’9
To compare, consider the recent recoveries of projectiles from The differences in cooperative versus individualistic hunting
alpine settings, where archaeologists have been searching the efforts involve more than simply the scale of organization. In the
ice-patches during the summer melts. In the Yukon, Hare et al. Coast Salish area, as Suttles’ (1990a) emphasized, the subsistence
(2004, 2012) discovered numerous examples of dart and bow tech- activities that were more productive also were those activities that
nology that had been frozen within the ice since deposition. Over also allow certain individuals to dominate the process, by owning
millennia, hunters had pursued caribou seasonally at these alpine the means of production, by having hereditary or familial rights to
locales. By 2004, they found 146 artifacts from 18 ice-patch sites, certain resource areas, or through cultural protocols that deter-
and from 45 of the artifacts they acquired radiocarbon dates; by mine the hierarchy of households or corporate groups. In some cul-
2012, they had acquired 207 artifacts from 43 melting patches. tures, such as the Tyua of the northeastern Kalahari, there were
In total, they have acquired over 200 radiocarbon dates from the such protocols that governed their spear-based hunts, which they
artifacts. These are immensely valuable, with perishable items conducted in groups. These teams were never just a random collec-
intact, having dart points bound to their wooden shafts, some with tion of available participants; rather these involved personnel that
fletching still attached. Their darts and arrows provide a useful were loyal to or indebted to the more prominent hunters. For
sample to consider, as their chronology is fully derived from instance, in seeking a bride, young suitors needed to demonstrate
archaeological darts and arrows, not metrics drawn from ethno- hunting ability to the father of the potential bride by participating
graphic collections. Their results indicated that use of the atlatl in his hunting crew. Even after marriage, part of the bride-price
ranged from at least 8360 BP to approximately 1250 BP, when involved a commitment to be a part of the father-in-law’s hunting
the bow and arrow became predominant. In comparing arrow team for several seasons (Hitchcock and Bleed, 1997, p. 355). The
dates with dart dates, they claimed that ‘‘it is clear that there is vir- point is that the need for collective action can be put to the advan-
tually no temporal overlap between atlatl and bow-and-arrow tage of prominent individuals, or those having means, rights, or
technology in southern Yukon’’ (Hare et al., 2004, p. 268). They other customary protocols. For the Coast Salish, similar hierarchies
described the transition as an ‘‘abrupt technological replacement’’ were present among sea-mammal hunting teams that used spear-
about 1200 BP (Hare et al., 2012). ing-technology as with the harpoon.
While some scholars continue to push back the introduction of In Suttles’ (1987 [1952]) account of Stellar sea lion hunting by
the bow and arrow, it is clear that this issue is not likely settled. It the Penelakut, the hunters would cooperate to hunt these large
is possible that the bow and arrow was not the preferred technol- sea mammals, which typically weigh from 545 to 680 kg (1200
ogy for caribou, which may have needed a weapon with greater to 1500 lbs.), and sometimes close to 900 kg (2000 lbs.). During
force, for instance, and the bow and arrow may not have been as the season of their migration through the area, lookouts were sta-
powerful a weapon until 1200 BP in the Yukon. The key event is tioned near Porlier Pass, one of the few gaps in the Gulf Islands
the ca. 1200 BP transition, which holds for much of the continent, offering access to the open Gulf of Georgia.
give or take a few centuries. Even the work of Ames et al. (2010),
A lookout was stationed at the pass day and night at the season
who have argued for the oldest date of bow and arrow in the Inte-
when the animals were expected. When he sighted the sea
rior Plateau, agree that the bow and arrow predominate after
lions, he gave out a call u: u: u:::, in a falling and then rising
1500 BP. If we accept that the bow and arrow were present prior
tone, that could be heard across the water at Penelakuts. At this
to the Late Period, it is apparent that the bow and arrow became
signal, from a half a dozen to twenty canoes put out. Their hulls
widely adopted in North America about that time. Therefore, some
had been rubbed smooth with dry fish fins and greased with
form of improvement to the bow and arrow occurred that led to its
porpoise oil. Each held a harpooner and one or two paddlers
widespread use; this may have been the sinew-backed bow,
and a supply of food and water (Suttles, 1987 [1952], pp.
according to Bettinger et al. (2006),10 or the recurved bow
236–237).
(Maschner and Mason, 2013). More to the point, the introduction
or widespread adoption of the bow and arrow occurred variably
As sea lions were dangerous to hunt, a harpooner ideally would
across the continent about that time, potentially leading to numer-
have a spirit power appropriate to the task, such as the ‘‘blackfish’’
ous transformations (Bingham et al., 2013). And, in the Coast Salish
or orca power, and there were ritual preparations as well, similar
area, this is the Late Pacific Period, ca. 1600 BP. For our purposes, it is
to the whaling protocols of the Nuu-chah-nulth on the West Coast.
this transition, the widespread adoption of the bow and arrow, that
It was also rare for anyone to be able to kill a sea lion with one
is of concern. And, among Coast Salish groups ethnographically, the
shot, although there were legends of two men that could (Suttles,
bow and arrow was used by one- or two-person teams.
1987 [1952], p. 237). Instead, harpooners took turns impaling the
prey until they killed it. When there are many hunters involved
9
Still, Ames et al. (2010) did find a reduction in projectile point size dating back
in killing each sea lion, there was a protocol for dividing up the
millennia. Perhaps this represented an advancement in atlatl technology. For
example, Hughes (1998, pp. 351–353) emphasized the importance of fletching.
meat among the hunters, scouts, and paddlers.
When fletching a dart, the shaft of the projectile and the tip and weight of the point
A sea lion carcass was divided according to a formula following
can be reduced (Hughes, 1998, p. 367). In her analysis, the spearthrower was in use
prior to 7500 BP, while the bow and arrow began to predominate about 2000 to the order of striking. The first man to strike the animal received
1500 BP, continent-wide. In this sense, Hughes (1998) mainly confirmed majoritarian the rear portion and the head. The second one got one flipper,
thought. Morrissey (2009) does not consider the implications of fletching upon the the third the other flipper, the fourth the back, the fifth the
projectile point size. And, while Ames et al. (2010) did discuss Hughes’ (1988) work, neck, and the rest got pieces of the belly. Each harpooner then
they may not have fully incorporated the implications of fletched darts in their
analysis.
divided his share with his paddler. Everyone got a piece of the
10
According to Bettinger et al. (2006:544), the sinew-backed bow was an gut, which was stretched, twisted, and dried for cord. The Pen-
improvement upon the self bow, which did not have sinew-backing. The self bow elakuts provided their neighbors to the south with sea-lion gut
was mostly for use for ‘‘rough use, small game, and play,’’ while the sinew-backed for bow strings (Suttles, 1987 [1952], pp. 237–38).
bow was more efficient but required additional efforts in their construction; those
extra steps, however, extended the use life and made the bow stronger, and better for
use with bigger game (or for use in warfare). They noted that firearms became the
As with whalers, this ritual protocol of dividing up according to
weapon of choice for such major uses, and the presence of the bow commonly a formula not only reinforces who is the most successful hunter,
consisted of the self-bow, which they continued to use for minor needs. but the practice also recapitulates the social order (Grier, 1999).
Harpooners were given the larger share of the meat, as opposed to Not only did the bow and arrow increase an individual hunter’s
their paddlers. Among Arctic whalers, sometimes the largest por- efficiency––projectile range, stealth, time between shots, and the
tion went, not to the harpooner, but to the captain of the crew, number of shots for killing the prey––but it created greater oppor-
who owned the canoe and perhaps the harpoon, profiting by own- tunities for non-elite hunters to produce their subsistence, or even
ing the means of production. A similar redistribution occurs for pursue greater wealth, on their own. If so, we postulate that these
teams assembled for reef-netting salmon (Suttles, 1951, p. 180). patterns may be reflected in changing emphases in the faunal
For just such reasons, technologies need to be considered for archaeological record.
their social implications as well as part of the ‘‘ecology’’ of prac-
tices, after Postman, for any cultural group. For instance,
Nassaney and Pyle (1999) argued that ‘‘traditional weapons (e.g., 6. To the case study: faunal assemblages in the Coast Salish area
darts) might have been retained in cooperative activities such as
game drives, whereas lone hunters would have found the bow If the social organization of hunting practices is affected by the
and arrow to be more effective.’’ Similarly, Benn (1990, p. 85) has creation or adoption of new technologies, then the archaeological
argued that ‘‘cooperative hunts involving game drives or surrounds patterns that result from those changed practices should be evi-
would have favored retention of traditional weapons (i.e., the dart dent in faunal assemblages throughout the Coast Salish area. To
or spear). For small autonomous groups led by a lone hunter, the recap, the ethnographic description of most artiodactyl hunting
bow and arrow would have been the most effective weapon.’’11 practices indicates that this was an individualistic pursuit among
This appears to been the case on the central Northwest Coast, the Coast Salish. However, this was not likely the case prior to
where hunters predominantly worked alone or with a partner. the widespread switch to the bow and arrow. That is, the bow
The one- and two-person team for deer hunting, as outlined by allowed for hunters to pursue deer hunting on their own. From
Suttles’, is supported by other ethnographers for other Coast Salish the above, we postulate that the hunting of deer and elk, and other
peoples. Smith (1940, p. 269) noted that hunters cooperated in regional artiodactyls (mountain goat, bighorn sheep, occasionally
teams for a deer drive in a ‘‘surround,’’ but that was done only moose), should show an increase after the widespread adoption
‘‘when game and fresh food were scarce.’’ She stated that ‘‘As a of bow and arrow technology. Such an increase should generally
whole, however, hunting was a one-man occupation, a hunter be reflective of individualistic practices as opposed to group
going out alone or taking with him only a young relative for activities.
instruction’’ (Smith, 1940, p. 269). Similarly, Elmendorf (1992 To analyze the faunal assemblages, we examined the broad cat-
[1960]), p. 92) explained that the ‘‘commonest method in taking egories of mammals by general taxa in relation to each other by
deer was for the individual hunter to shoot from concealment near time period. These categories include: artiodactyls, large mam-
a deer runway.’’ As well, among the Lummi, deer hunting was an mals, sea mammals, canids, and small mammals (Table 2). Artio-
individual pursuit (Stern, 1934, p. 47). There were also other meth- dactyls within the Coast Salish region include mule deer
ods that were group-oriented, such as deer- or elk-drives, often (occasional white-tailed deer), elk or wapiti, mountain goat, big-
cordoning off a herd to entrap with large nets, yet these were less horn sheep, and moose. The category for large non-artiodactyl
prominent; this is a topic to which we will return. To sum at this mammals includes those over 20 kg (45 lb.) in average weight,
point, it was common for ethnographers to note the individualist comprising black bear, grizzly bear, and mountain lion
aspect of most land mammal hunting; moreover, we should note (Shackleton and Cowan, 1999; Eder and Pattie, 2001). Coast Salish
that most descriptions also concerned the hunting of artiodactyls. groups hunted a variety of sea mammals including sea lions (both
As Suttles (1990a) stated, ‘‘there is one important difference Northern and Stellar, or California), harbor seals, as well as por-
between these one-person fishing and hunting activities and gath- poises, dolphins, and whales.12 A distinction is also made for canids
ering. There were no restrictions on where you could fish or hunt (wolves, coyotes, and dogs), however, these predominantly entailed
by these methods,’’ while other methods, especially gathering, domesticated dog, which were not hunted (instead dogs were likely
involved clam beds or root digging areas that were owned. Access to accompany hunters); as well, coyotes and wolves were generally
and permission would have to be granted, and portions of one’s not a preferred food source (Duff, 1952, p. 71), although the latter
harvest usually offered as a gift (or a respectful tribute) in kind. was sought for clothing (Eells, 1985, p. 52), often for ritual reasons.
Accordingly, the bow and arrow represents a shift in this nature, Small mammals are the final category, which include an array of
from group hunting with atlatl and darts (and its associated hierar- mammals less than 20 kg (45 lb.). These include small carnivores
chical protocols) to the individualized hunting generally character- (lynx, bobcat, wolverine), omnivores (raccoon, red fox, skunks, bad-
istic of ethnographic Coast Salish (without such conventions). gers), herbivores (snowshoe hare, weasels, porcupine), and others.
With the bow and arrow, an individual could pursue success as A final point is that we excluded all categories of ‘‘undeter-
a hunter potentially without needing to work as a supporter for mined’’ or ‘‘possible’’ taxonomic interpretations. While such inter-
another hunter or as part of a hunting team, and settling for a small pretations of undiagnostic bone fragments as ‘‘likely’’ being deer
part of the kill. An individual hunter could become more econom- may be accurate, only a few analyses provided such interpreta-
ically self-sufficient and perhaps independently become prosper- tions, so this helps to ensure comparability across assemblages.
ous, bypassing some traditional avenues to wealth or status. The small mammals category does exclude minor rodents that
More broadly, this would fit what some have called the ‘‘foragers’
pursuit of individual autonomy’’ (Gardner, 1991). 12
Whale bones are not uncommon in Coast Salish assemblages, but ethnographers
In the Coast Salish region, as elsewhere in the Northwest Coast, indicated that these were derived from butchering beached whales, rather than from
the introduction of the bow and arrow may have destabilized expressly hunting them, which is more of a practice on the West Coast, among the
Nuu-chah-nulth and Makah groups. As noted by Elmendorf (1992 [1960]), p. 100,
Marpole Phase elites, or at least those that led hunting groups.
‘‘beached whale were eagerly accepted as food, but no Twana group hunted whale.’’
Similarly, Barnett (1955, p. 92) reported that ‘‘Whales were not hunted anywhere. In
some localities, they were not eaten at all.’’ And, while common in the Salish Sea, the
11
Further, he noted these protocols would have led to sites being present with the orca (killer whale; Orca orcinus) was not hunted. Most groups considered the orca the
new technology, such as the bow and arrow, well before its widespread adoption, due preeminent sea mammal hunter, just as the wolf was the animal hunter ‘‘par
to general adherence to social norms (Benn, 1990, pp. 85–86). Accordingly, the excellence’’ on land (Barnett, 1955, p. 93). For these reasons hunters sought spirit
discontinuity for the widespread adoption of the bow and arrow reflects the moment, powers from these predators. Barnett (1955, p. 93) noted that ‘‘Neither of these two
not when the technology was introduced, but when the dominant cultural prefer- animals were ever killed’’; this may partly explain the paucity of orca and wolf bones
ences and protocols shifted to that technology. in faunal assemblages.
Table 2 the prey (Elmendorf, 1992 [1960], pp. 102–106; Suttles, 1955, p.
Mammals classified into general taxa by species and common name. 26). For smaller game, Coast Salish peoples implemented a wide
General Common name Species range of methods particular to certain species, and these included
taxon netting, snare traps, pit traps, as well as the bow and arrow. The
Artiodactyls point is that the bow and arrow is most commonly associated with
Mule deer Odocoileus hemionus hunting artiodactyls, and it is less commonly identified in the Coast
White-tailed deer Odocoileus virginianus Salish hunting practices for other species.
Bighorn sheep Ovis canadensis
Mountain Goat Oreamnos americanus
While the bow and arrow was used for hunting some small
Elk, Wapiti Cervus canadensis mammals, the contribution of small mammals to the diet was
Moose Alces alces much less significant. This was due to the amount of meat from
Large mammals a small mammal (with a weight less than 20 kg [45 lbs.] as com-
Black bear Ursus americanus pared to that derived from artiodactyls, which are substantially lar-
Grizzly bear Ursus horribilis ger animals that accord a much greater supply of meat, easily by
Mountain lion Felis concolor
tenfold or fiftyfold. For instance, a mule deer ranges from 30 to
Sea mammals 210 kg (66–465 lbs.), while an elk typically ranges from 180 to
Seal, Harbor Phoca vitulina
500 kg (400–1100 lbs.). Bighorn sheep typically are 55–155 kg
California sea lion Zalophus californianus
Northern sea lion Eumetopias jubatus (120–340 lbs.), mountain goats are 45–135 kg (100–300 lbs.),
Porpoises (harbor or common, Phocoena phoecoena, while a moose can weigh 230–540 kg (510–1190 lbs.), potentially
Dall’s) Phocoenoides dalli over a half-ton (Eder and Pattie, 2001, pp. 30–59). As it were, there
Dolphin, Pacific white-sided Lagenorhynchus obliquidens simply was ‘‘more bang for the buck.’’ As well, artiodactyls were
Whale (gray) Eschrichtius robustu; Cetacea
sp.
less dangerous to hunt than bears, cougars, or wolves, in addition
to being much more populous than predators. Barnett (1955:92)
Canid mammals
Dog (domesticated) Canis familiaris
also described a hunting learning curve concerning how to hunt
Coyote Canis latrans artiodactyls, which were easier to hunt than bears and smaller
Wolf Canis lupus fur-bearing mammals, which ‘‘necessitated skill and study.’’ For
Small mammals just such reasons, Barnett (1955:92) noted that deer and elk were
Badger Taxidea taxus ‘‘staples.’’
Beaver Castor canadensis To compare the relationships of these taxa, we have compiled a
Bobcat Lynx rufus
substantial collection of data from available faunal assemblages
Lynx Lynx canadensis
Marmots (hoary, yellow-bellied, Marmota sp. (caligata, throughout the Coast Salish region. For inclusion, the faunal
Vancouver Island) flaviventris, vancouverensis) assemblage needed to meet three criteria, involving temporal con-
Martens (American or pine; Martes americana, Martes trol, temporal placement, and comparability of the data. First, the
fisher) pennanti data needed to come from a dated component and the faunal data
Porcupine Erethizon dorsatum
presented by component; it was common to find in some reports
Raccoon Procyon lotor
Red fox Vulpes vulpes that faunal data was collected but was not provided by component,
River otter, northern Lutra canadensis rather the authors presented faunal results only as a total collec-
Skunks (Striped, Western spotted) Mephitis mephitis, Spilogale tion, even when there were multiple components at the site.13 Sec-
gracilis
ond, as we were assessing the impact of the bow and arrow, the
Snowshoe hare Lepus americanus
Squirrels, ground (Columbian, red, Spermophilus sp. component needed to be on either side of the transition date, ca.
Douglas’) 1600 BP. Components that straddled the transition date, such as
Squirrels, flying (northern) Glaucomys sabrinus the AB component at Tsawwassen (1830–890 BP) (Kusmer, 1994),
Weasels (mink, ermines, long- Mustelidae sp. (vison, were not included (although the other components from that site
tailed, least weasel) erminea, frenata, nivalis)
were), since the differences between hunting practices would be
Wolverine Gulo luscus
obscured. Third, the data needed to be in a format to allow
most likely were not hunted and have appeared in the site matrix 13
This is not something anyone could get away with in describing artifact types
as intrusive creatures related to bioturbation; these include voles, from a site—for instance, no archaeologist would consider it valid for another to
shrews, mice, and other related rodentia. simply conclude that occupants of the site used tools such as fluted spearheads,
cobble choppers, atlatls, arrows, end scrapers, can openers, and shotguns. Archaeol-
Coast Salish implemented certain technologies appropriate to
ogists always present artifact types by temporal components they can interpret. But,
their hunting strategies for these general taxa. The common tech- with faunal assemblages we had found several reports with general summary
nology for hunting artiodactyls was the bow and arrow, although statements that did not breakdown their interpretations by component. It is perhaps
darts and nets and traps were also used; and, as outlined above, understandable for sites in which the sample size from each component is so small
we presume that the atlatl and dart was the common weapon prior that the zooarchaeologist prefers to discuss in total, however, such practices should
not extend towards the interpretation of multicomponent sites with adequate sample
to the widespread adoption of the bow. For large mammals, such as sizes. This is problematic for its two underlying suppositions. One presumption of
black bear, grizzly bear, or mountain lions, which were more dan- such methodologies is that the ecology of the site was the same through time. Yet,
gerous to hunt, Coast Salish hunters often used dead-fall or pit such a premise undermines the argument that faunal assemblages would be useful
traps (Elmendorf, 1992 [1960], p. 102; Collins, 1974, p. 53; Duff, for assessing contemporary ecological health. However, archaeologists have shown
the value of faunal collections for contemporary concerns, for fisheries and wildlife
1952, p. 71); once trapped, they often were killed with spears or
management, as Moss (2010, 2011, pp. 137–142; see also Moss and Cannon, 2011), as
bows. For black bears, hunters would use a bow and arrow well as Campbell and Butler (2010) have argued for the Northwest Coast. The other
(Suttles, 1955, p. 25). But, for grizzlies, hunters preferred the inherent presumption is that inhabitants from all periods pursued similar subsistence
weapon with the greatest projectile extension, stoutest shaft, and strategies at the site, in addition to occupying the site during the same seasons
broadest point to pierce the bear (Duff, 1952, pp. 71–72); they through time, and so on. Instead, we should expect that past peoples organized their
subsistence strategies quite differently through time, even at the same locations.
likely applied similar methods for hunting wolves or mountain Without temporal control, the faunal data is reduced to presence/absence relevance
lions. The main weapon for hunting sea mammals was the har- and leaves little opportunity for identification of subsistence patterns. Several site
poon, while clubs were sometimes used for seals or to dispatch reports were excluded for this reason.
comparability of assemblages. The baseline that provided the most practices and the associated patterns that may result in faunal
comparability was absolute number of identified specimens (NISP) assemblages.
totals by component. We included components with a minimum of
20 NISP identified for the mammal taxa under consideration. 6.1. Scope of study
We acknowledge that there are concerns with NISP regarding
variabilities among these sites in cultural butchering practices, The scope of study includes faunal assemblages from 49 compo-
natural taphonomic processes, and archaeological recovery meth- nents from 28 sites throughout the Coast Salish region. This
ods (Reitz and Wing, 1999, pp. 191–194). Culturally, hunting includes sites predominantly from the Central and Southern Coast
groups process game differently across regions and time, there’s Salish areas (per Suttles, 1990b), with sites included from Saltery
variability in what hunters will bring back to camp, and people Bay on the Sunshine Coast of British Columbia in the north to sev-
employ a host of techniques in cooking, in selecting bone elements eral sites in Puget Sound of Washington to the south; the sites
for tool material, and in ultimate disposal. Environmentally, site range from Vancouver Island, the Southern Gulf Islands, and the
formation processes are unique in how they affect each site. And, Lower Mainland, extending up the Lower Fraser Valley (Fig. 2;
methodologically, archaeologists deploy different methods in the Table 3). The sites represent three main periods from 8500 BP to
recovery of remains, particularly when 3-mm or 6-mm screens contact, including Archaic and Pacific Periods (per Ames and
are used, which selects against smaller fragments.14 Maschner, 1999).
Several archaeologists have discussed the taphonomy of faunal For the Archaic Period (9500–4500 BP), only three components
remains at sites in the Coast Salish area. For instance, Hanson are present, representing the Old Cordilleran Tradition. These rep-
(1991) detailed the effect of canids upon faunal assemblages. resent predominantly highly nomadic societies ranging within the
Pegg (1999) has shown that coastal sites are subject to taphonomic Northwest and reveal a predominantly inland focus, with an orien-
processes that affect smaller bone fragments, leading to greater tation towards major river valleys but exhibiting use of montane
recovery of larger bone elements in older components; accord- areas as well Chatters et al., 2012, 2011. One site included in our
ingly, since our inquiry concerns late components, this is less of study like Saltery Bay reveals a coastal focus (Pegg et al., 2007).15
an issue than it would be for an investigation into Archaic Period For the Early and Middle Pacific Periods, there are 24 compo-
hunting patterns, for instance. And, Rahemtulla (2003; also nents relating to the Charles Culture (St. Mungo, Mayne, and
Hodgetts and Rahemtulla, 2001) has emphasized the importance Eayem Phases), Locarno Beach Phase, and Marpole Phase. While
of large mammal bones for tool construction in the Late Period, new projectile technologies are not generally associated with the
which would diminish the presence of deer and elk, for instance. Pacific Period, beginning about 4500 BP, new forms of subsistence
Hanson (1991) has commented that archaeologists often classify practices and intensification occur throughout the region, particu-
bone tools solely as artifacts, which withdraws them from faunal larly with increased salmon fishing, processing, and storage
counts. These factors are to be kept in mind. For example, if we (Matson, 1992). Concomitant with such changes is complexity in
aim to highlight the increased hunting of artiodactyl in the Late sociopolitical organization (Grier, 2003). According to Matson
Period, the increased use of artiodactyl bone for tools would lower and Coupland (1995), Mayne and Locarno Phases were ranked
the artiodactyl totals, if archaeologists do not include such bones in societies, with indications of acquired status differences (4000/
their faunal results; another issue is that when tools are shaped 3500 to 2400 BP; Matson and Coupland, pp. 181–183; see also
into tools, they typically are not diagnostic to species after modifi- Carlson and Hobler, 1993 and Burley and Knüsel, 1989), while Mar-
cation. Yet, for our purposes, in assessing artiodactyl versus other pole Phase has indications of a class-based society, with inherited
mammal taxa, these factors could be detrimental for our argument, status differences (Matson and Coupland, 1995, pp. 209–210; see
rather than adding apparent support for our argument. also Burley, 1980, pp. 59–63).
Yet, while we acknowledge these cautions, we emphasize that In this study, our main concern is the distinction between the
the scope of our study is broad and that the crux of our inquiry bow and arrow technological transition, which occurs approxi-
is rather basic. This collection incorporates a great number of fau- mately at the transition between the Early/Middle Pacific and Late
nal assemblages throughout Coast Salish territory, including stud- Pacific Periods, or more specifically during the later part of the
ies of both academic and applied excavations. In this way, we aim Marpole Phase. For some archaeologists, the end of the Marpole
to evaluate broad-scale patterns of faunal data in the manner of Phase occurs about 1600 BP (e.g., Carlson, 2008, p. 146); for others,
Butler and Campbell (2004), Coupland et al. (2010), or Broughton the phase extends to 1200 BP (e.g., Lepofsky et al., 2005); due to
(1994a,b; see also Broughton, 1999). We acknowledge that there such discrepancies, the termination of the Marpole Phase has been
may be local depressions in the number of fauna in particular areas unclear and may involve a long period of transition, as discussed by
during any period that may affect these results. Yet, this is the Burley (1980, p. 39). For our purposes here, particular categoriza-
data-set available to us to ask these questions. Plus, we are tions into phases are less important than the general processes
concerned here with assessing broad categories of general taxa in throughout the Coast Salish region both before and after the wide-
relation to each other, which should be a more reliable indicator spread adoption of the bow and arrow technology.
than would be the case for just a particular species. Lastly, while
variable processes and methods affected these sites, each site is 15
Butler and Campbell (2004, p. 375) found that, among Southern Northwest Coast
subject to such to some degree, and we submit that the general assemblages in general, that there was significant differences between Coast Salish
nature and broad scale of our questions should allow for reason- sites and those on the West Coast, or with Makah and Nuu-chah-nulth sites: ‘‘There is
ably reliable results. In any case, we have attempted to test our a consistent contrast between animals exploited at Ozette and Hoko River Rockshelter
hypotheses about the effects of the social organization on hunting on the outer coast (where marine mammals comprise 96% and 84% of the mammal
fauna, respectively) versus the sites along the inland waterways of Puget Sound and
the Gulf of Georgia.’’ To compare, sea mammals are less present at Coast Salish sites,
14
In the Northwest Coast, the implications of using 6-mm sieves has had wherein sea mammals range from 8.5% to 15.8%. Using a greater number of sites in
detrimental recovery rates for herring bone, for instance, which readily passes their sample, McKechnie and Wigen (2011, p. 156) produced similar results in their
through the mesh, as noted by McKechnie et al. (2014). While this has been the case assessment of Southern British Columbia sites, finding that sea mammal hunting was
in recent decades to use 6-mm mesh, archaeologists increasingly use 3-mm, or use more predominant on the West Coast of Vancouver Island, Nuu-chah-nulth area, and
results from column samples. These differential techniques do affect the quality of that land mammal hunting was more characteristic of Eastern Vancouver Island and
results across sites in our sample, however, our questions concern mammalian fauna, the mainland area, which is Coast Salish. These studies reveal how disparate
not piscine. Tiny fragments of artiodactyl bone that would pass through 6-mm mesh orientations of hunting practices between culture areas have effects on the
typically are not diagnostic to species. proportions of general taxa in the faunal archaeological record.
Fig. 2. Map of the Salish Sea indicating sites included.
There are 22 components related to the Late Pacific Period, also increased focus on artiodactyl hunting is evident after the bow and
simply termed Late Period. This period is often associated with arrow transition. First, we will discuss the percentages by total NISP
increasing warfare, with the introduction of numerous defensive and then as percentages by component.
sites; these palisaded sites may be related to the introduction of During the Early and Middle Pacific Periods, artiodactyls com-
a new projectile weaponry in the bow and arrow (Angelbeck, prise 63.0% of the assemblages, but artiodactyls increase to 75.5%
2009, pp. 160–161), as has been argued for the Northwest Interior during the Late Period, an increase of 12.5%. To evaluate these per-
(Chatters, 2004) and elsewhere in the continent (e.g., Dye, 2005; centages, we considered the 95% confidence intervals for the pro-
Maschner and Mason, 2013). During the Late Period, there are portions of artiodactyls within each period in relation to the
other indicators for increased sociopolitical contestations. Here, sample size for that period, the total NISP; this is considered for
we are concerned with challenges on the economic front, with the two key periods, Early/Middle Pacific as opposed to Late Period
changes in hunting practices. in relation to the bow and arrow transition. For the Early/Middle
Pacific Period, the ratio of 63.0% within the total NISP (n = 2558)
results with an interval of ±1.9%, indicating that artiodactyls likely
6.2. Comparisons of general taxa by time period comprised 61.1–64.9% of the assemblage. For the Late Period, the
ratio of 75.5% within its sample size (n = 3416) indicates a 95%
In comparing the percentages of the four general taxa across confidence interval of ±1.4%, indicating artiodactyls comprised
these three main periods, a marked pattern is present among the 74.1–76.9% of the assemblage. The ranges do not overlap. Indeed,
four general taxa (Fig. 3; Table 4).16 The results indicate that an the confidence interval (95%; ±1.96%) for the difference of the
two proportions indicates that the increase in artiodactyls from
16
We excluded canids from these results since those resulted with 99% domestic the Early/Middle Pacific to Late Pacific ranges from 10.2% to
dog, which were not hunted. 14.8%. To evaluate these results, we assessed these two proportions
Table 3
Sites with faunal assemblages included from the Coast Salish area by component.
Site name Site number Component Begin BP End BP Period Source

Bay street 45KP115 BaySt 675 675 Late Pacific Butler and Campbell (2004) and Lewarch et al. (2002)
45KP115 BaySt 2 475 475 Late Pacific Butler and Campbell (2004) and Lewarch et al. (2002)
45KP115 BaySt 3 300 300 Late Pacific Butler and Campbell (2004) and Lewarch et al. (2002)
British Camp 45SJ24 British Camp 160 1690 Late Pacific Pegg (1999)
Burton Acres 45KI437 BrtAc Precontact 525 525 Late Pacific Bovy (2002) and Butler and Campbell (2004)
Cove Cliff DhRr-18 Late Phase 1250 250 Late Pacific Trost (2005)
Dallas Road DcRu-75 DcRu-75 680 495 Late Pacific Wilson et al. (2003)
DcRt-16 DcRt-16 DcRt-16 1200 1080 Late Pacific Wilson et al. (2004)
Decatur Island 165 45SJ165 Dec-165 1950 1950 Early Pacific Lyman (2003), Butler and Campbell (2004)
Decatur Island 169 45SJ169 Dec-169 2330 2330 Early Pacific Lyman (2003) Butler and Campbel (2004)
45SJ169 Dec-169-3 2280 2280 Early Pacific Lyman (2003) Butler and Campbel (2004)
Departure Bay DhRx-16 Departure Bay 1749 2049 Early Pacific Howe et al. (1994)
Dionisio Point DgRv-3 Layer B 1265 965 Late Pacific Ewonus (2006)
Duwamish 45KI23 Duwamish 1180 500 Late Pacific Campbell (1981), Lyman (1981), and Butler and
Campbell (2004)
Glenrose DgRr-6 Glenrose II 4240 3280 Early Pacific Matson (1976, 1980) and Imamoto (1976)
DgRr-6 Glenrose I 2310 2030 Early Pacific Matson (1976, 1980) and Imamoto (1976)
DgRr-6 Glenrose III 8400 5605 Archaic Matson (1976, 1980) and Imamoto (1976)
Harbour House DfRu-3 Zone E 2183 2055 Early Pacific Brolly et al. (1993)
Helen Point DfRu-8 Assemblage 1 4750 3750 Early Pacific Boucher (1976)
DfRu-8 Assemblage 3 3750 2750 Early Pacific Boucher (1976)
DfRu-8 Assemblage 6 2200 2000 Early Pacific Boucher (1976)
DfRu-8 Assemblage 12 1200 700 Late Pacific Boucher (1976)
DfRu-8 Assemblage 14_ 700 200 Late Pacific Boucher (1976)
Katz DiRj-1 Katz 2741 2130 Early Pacific Boucher (1976)
Little Qualicum DiSc-1 Little Qualicum Dry 1000 1000 Late Pacific Bernick and Wigen (1990)
DiSc-1 Little Qualicum Wet 1000 1000 Late Pacific Bernick and Wigen (1990)
Locarno Beach DhRt-6 Locarno Beach 2550 2300 Early Pacific Stiefel (1985)
Musqueam Northeast DhRt-4 Musqueam Locarno 3060 2465 Early Pacific Stiefel (1985)
Beach component
Pender Canal DeRt-1 Late Component 850 850 Late Pacific Hanson (1991, 1995) and Butler and Campbell (2004)
Port Hammond DgRp-17 Port Hammond Marpole 2000 1601 Early Pacific Rousseau et al. (2001, 2003)
(2000–1500BP)
Saltery Bay DkSb-30 Component 1 Saltery Bay 7620 5960 Archaic Pegg et al. (2007)
DkSb-30 Component 2 Saltery Bay 3700 3700 Early Pacific Pegg et al. (2007)
DkSb-30 Component 3 Saltery Bay 520 520 Late Pacific Pegg et al. (2007)
Sequim 45CA426 Sequim A 2550 2550 Early Pacific Lyman (1999) Butler and Campbell (2004)
45CA426 Sequim B 2200 1740 Early Pacific Lyman (1999) Butler and Campbell (2004)
45CA426 Sequim C 1450 1100 Late Pacific Lyman (1999) Butler and Campbell (2004)
45CA426 Sequim D 750 300 Late Pacific Lyman (1999) Butler and Campbell (2004)
Shoemaker Bay DhSe-2 Shoemaker II 1530 1045 Late Pacific Calvert and Crockford (1982)
DhSe-2 Shoemaker I 4135 2770 Early Pacific Calvert and Crockford (1982)
Tsawwassen DgRs-2 Layer AA; Zone A 430 210 Late Pacific Kusmer (1994)
DgRs-2 Zone C Layer CC 2060 1750 Early Pacific Kusmer (1994)
DgRs-2 Zone G Stselax 530 200 Late Pacific Kusmer (1994)
Tualdad Altu 45KI59 Tualdad Altu 1660 1480 Late Pacific Chatters (1988), Chatters et al. (1990), and Butler and
Campbell (2004)
West Point 45KI428 West Point 428 1 3900 3900 Early Pacific Lyman (1995) Butler and Campbell (2004)
45KI428 West Point 428 2 3090 3090 Early Pacific Lyman (1995) Butler and Campbell (2004)
Whalen Farm DfRs-3 Locarno Beach component 2610 2290 Early Pacific Stiefel (1985)
Xay:tem/Hatzic Rock DgRn-23 Hatzic Charles Components (I-III) 4764 4686 Archaic Mason (1994)
Percentages of Mammals by General Taxa

100
with a z-test. The resulting score was !10.0 deviations from the
null hypothesis of 0, which is much higher than the confidence
interval. These results, while intriguing, concern the percentages
75
when the NISPs are combined for each period.
We also assessed the percentages as broken down by compo-
nent (Fig. 4). For artiodactyls, the average of the percentages for
50
Early/Middle Pacific components (n = 24) was similar to the com-
bined NISP result, with 63.9%, with a standard error of ±5.3%. For
the Late Pacific Period (n = 22), the range was slightly higher than
25
the combined NISP result, with 78.7%, with a standard error of
±3.1%. When weighted for sample size, the average of the percent-
0
ages is similar: 63.0% for Early/Middle Pacific; 76.1% for the Late
Archaic Early / Middle Pacific Late Pacific Pacific. Thus, with the breakdown by components, the differences
9500 to 4500 BP 4500 to 1600 BP 1600 to 200 BP
between Early/Middle Pacific and Late Period components is
Artiodactyls Lg Mammals Sm Mammals Sea Mammals
14.9% (13.1% weighted), which is slightly greater than the
Fig. 3. Percentages of general taxa by time period, excluding canids. combined results. A t-test of the two groups results with !2.36
Table 4
General faunal taxa (NISP) by component.
Time period site componenta Artiodactyls Large mammals Small mammals Sea mammals Total
Archaic
Saltery Bay [1] 107 0 1 21 129
Xay:tem/Hatzic 16 0 95 0 111
Glenrose [3] 23 0 2 3 28
Early/Middle Pacific
Helen Point [3] 174 2 16 191 383
British Camp 273 0 51 42 366
West Point [2] 121 0 92 24 237
West Point [1] 134 1 22 33 190
Sequim [A] 162 2 22 0 186
Glenrose [2] 101 5 48 23 177
Saltery Bay [2] 63 9 2 87 161
Port Hammond 107 6 7 3 123
Sequim [B] 96 7 1 0 104
Helen Point [6] 75 0 0 25 100
Shoemaker Bay [1] 84 2 5 9 100
Decatur Island [165] 69 0 7 10 86
Decatur Island [169-2] 42 0 32 12 86
Decatur Island [169-3] 73 0 1 10 84
Departure Bay 69 2 8 1 80
Harbour House [E] 66 1 4 1 72
Tsawwassen [C-CC] 5 0 59 0 64
Musqueam Northeast 33 2 16 9 60
Glenrose [1] 39 4 8 6 57
Locarno Beach 18 11 13 4 46
Whalen Farm 1 0 32 12 45
West Point [428-3] 27 0 7 2 36
West Point [429-2] 24 0 3 5 32
Helen Point [1] 10 0 3 16 29
Katz 19 0 1 0 20
Late Pacific
Shoemaker Bay [2] 592 11 37 123 763
Duwamish 338 96 20 30 484
British Camp 273 0 51 42 366
Pender Canal 240 0 10 111 361
Little Qualicum [dry] 203 0 3 0 206
Tualdad Altu 102 0 72 0 174
Bay Street [1] 157 0 1 0 158
Dallas Road 106 1 15 19 141
Cove Cliff 92 7 23 10 132
DcRt-16 105 2 5 8 120
Helen Point [14] 64 2 39 10 115
Little Qualicum [wet] 36 0 1 20 57
Helen Point [12] 40 0 0 5 45
Bay Street [3-2] 42 0 2 0 44
Sequim [D] 41 3 0 0 44
Bay Street [2-2] 43 0 0 0 43
Burton Acres 30 0 5 0 35
Tsawwassen [AA-A] 22 0 6 2 30
Saltery Bay [3] 14 0 0 13 27
Dionisio Point 19 0 0 7 26
Tsawwassen [G] 19 1 1 3 24
Sequim [C] 20 1 0 0 21
a
When more than one component for a time period, the particular component is indicated in brackets.
standard deviations from the mean (!2.12 for weighted results), the most frequently identified land mammals.’’ This also supports
which indicates that the ranges are statistically distinct between Butler and Campbell’s (2004, pp. 374–375) observations in a North-
these components at the 95% confidence interval (±1.96). west Coast-wide evaluation of faunal assemblages. They concluded
So, when the results are combined into two groups and when that the results indicated ‘‘the importance of large terrestrial game
percentages are averaged across components, the results are (wapiti, deer), which has been little considered in syntheses of
similar. Furthermore, tests of those differences suggest that the Northwest Coast subsistence. There is evidence that cervid use
differences are statistically meaningful. increases through time (relative to small mammals) and the decline
These results accord with the general conclusions of other in mammal evenness values over time suggests increasing special-
researchers as well that have noticed an emphasis on increased ization on certain mammal taxa.’’ We add that this ‘‘increasing spe-
artiodactyl presence in Late Period assemblages. Hanson (1991) cialization’’ for artiodactyls appears to be related to changes
analyzed Late Period faunal assemblages at 33 sites in the Coast Sal- afforded by new technologies, or the bow and arrow.
ish area. She found that a ‘‘predominance of ungulates in the sites The results presented above add to their observations, indicat-
supports statements that deer and wapiti were staple foods for ing that the bow and arrow transition appears to have contributed
people living in the Strait of Georgia area.’’ She related this to eth- to this emphasis on artiodactyls. Moreover, to return to our larger
nographic sources reporting that ‘‘Deer and wapiti [or elk] were point, the bow is not just increasing the efficiency of hunting
Fig. 4. Percentages for mammal taxa by component.
artiodactyls, which would simply be additive, but we contend that practices were in association with the bow and arrow technology,
it also represents a turn from the cooperative group hunting which was not widely adopted prior to 1600 BP in the Coast Salish
towards the one- and two-person teams that Suttles’ (1990a) area. Prior to that time, atlatl and dart technology was predomi-
described ethnographically. That is, the switch to the bow and nant, and we have presented that atlatl and darts technology are
arrow affected not just the efficiency of hunting, but also it appears more successful when used in groups. That is, the technology is
to have had ‘‘ecological’’ effects, influencing the social organization more effective to use when hunters organize their labor. Archaeo-
of hunting practices as well. logically, this has been argued for Clovis peoples in hunting mam-
moth and mastodon; ethnographically, organized teams use atlatl
and darts or spears when hunting among groups worldwide; and,
7. Discussion in the Coast Salish area, when spearing technologies are used, as
with sea-lion hunting by harpoon, they organize their labor into
In this analysis, we have focused on the organizational aspects teams. As other complex hunter-gatherer-fishers of the Northwest
of hunting practices, assessing when the individualistic hunting Coast, when Coast Salish peoples organized larger economic
identified in the ethnographic period may have begun. Those endeavors, they did so in ways that benefitted higher status or
chiefly individuals. The meat of sea-lion carcasses was divided up The increasing focus on artiodactyl hunting, some might argue,
by the lead harpooner, who gave some to the second harpooner, might be related to other factors, such as increasing focus upon sal-
and the third; and each of those hunters distributed meat to their mon fishing, processing, and storage during the Late Period.
supporting crew, of paddlers and scouts. Owners of reef-nets dis- Accordingly, perhaps such emphases detracted attention away
tributed the catch to crew operating the nets from the two canoes from terrestrial hunting parties. However, archaeologists generally
involved as well as to the crew on shore processing the salmon for have argued that such developments began or intensified much
storage. In this way, larger socioeconomic enterprises were scenar- earlier, particularly at the beginning of the Marpole Phase (e.g.,
ios or social arenas that allowed for the enaction of social hierar- Burley, 1980; Croes and Hackenberger, 1988; Matson, 1992), vari-
chies. Chiefly individuals organized the parties, led the efforts of ably 2000–2400 BP years ago, which is long before these develop-
others, and controlled the redistribution of the meat or fish. ments focused on here. Thus, evidence for a switch in economic
This is especially the case for Coast Salish subsistence endeav- emphases does not seem to parallel these developments in terres-
ors, as detailed by Suttles (1990a) (see Table 1). In that discussion, trial hunting.
Suttles identified the terrestrial mammal hunting as an individual- As well, there are no major environmental or climatic changes
istic endeavor, however, prior to widespread adoption of the bow associated with these turn of events circa 1600 BP. For the region,
and arrow, it is reasonable to conclude that terrestrial hunting Lepofsky et al. (2005) provided such a turning point centuries ear-
was a collectively organized endeavor, particularly to maximize lier, during a time of increased periods of fire occurrences due to
the number of shots at game by atlatl and dart. With the bow drier climates, a period they defined as the ‘‘Fraser Valley Fire Per-
and arrow, individuals or two-person teams could pursue hunting iod.’’ These climatic developments, they argued, allowed Marpole
deer and elk with substantially increased effectiveness: expanding elites to ‘‘solidify’’ their power beginning about 2400 BP. This per-
the number of shots they had ready; better stealth opportunities; iod of increased dryness and drought may have led to decreased
decreased space for shooting (allowing expansion into denser for- abundance of salmon runs with the reduced stream flow. More-
ested environments); greater range of shot; and a reduced learning over, the increased fires within this period may have led to more
curve for effectiveness (Whittaker, 2013). Hunting artiodactyls open environments and increased foraging areas for deer and elk.
such as deer and elk would also result with the greatest amount Accordingly, this period of dryness ends about 1200 BP. Yet, our
of meat, compared to smaller game, and was safer to hunt as data suggests that the focus on deer and elk occurred after since
opposed to predators such as grizzly bear, black bear, mountain 1600 BP, not 2400 BP. Plus, our data is in agreement with the
lion, or wolf (and deer and elk were much more prevalent than observations from Hanson (1991) as well as Butler and Campbell
predators in any case). (2004), as mentioned above, that such focus on artiodactyl hunting
Even so, there were occasions in which deer or elk were hunted continues throughout the Late Period, which continues well
in groups. For instance, Suttles (2004, p. 527) described a deer drive beyond the Fire Period’s end at 1200 BP and continues until con-
for the Cowichan where people encircled and steered deer into tact. So, while there have been other developments that may
spaces where hunters waited with large nets. However, Suttles affected labor organization or deer and elk presence, studies have
did note that ‘‘there was only one place where they got deer by driv- not been framed from the perspective of technological practices
ing them. They had tried other places but these were too open and as evaluated here. Our approach is explicitly about trying to under-
so they couldn’t get any deer.’’ Among the Twana of Puget Sound, stand the socioeconomic developments. While there are certainly
Elmendorf (1992 [1960], pp. 93–94) detailed that drives were held environmental constraints upon the Coast Salish peoples in the
for elk in the fall, but that ‘‘elk were also taken by individual hunters past (e.g., Trigger, 1991), we are concerned with how they
at other seasons than fall.’’ About deer, Elmendorf (1992 [1960], p. responded to such developments, took advantage of technological
92) stated that the ‘‘most commonest method’’ was by the individ- developments, or pursued subsistence activities with greater indi-
ual hunter. So, while ethnographers did record descriptions of deer vidual autonomy.
and elk drives, there was also the comments that these group prac- In this focus on individual autonomy, our findings here accord
tices occurred less often than the activity of a lone hunter. As with some recent studies concerning the substantive effects of
Barnett (1955, p. 197) emphasized, ‘‘Drives and surrounds by the adoption of the bow and arrow upon social organization in
groups of men seem not to have been common. The more usual other areas of North America (e.g., Bingham et al., 2013). For
methods of hunting required relatively few men.’’ Moreover, when instance, scholars have noted that the widespread adoption of
such group activities occurred, such as with the fall elk drive of the the bow and arrow correlates with the switch to sedentism in
Twana, those endeavors required rituals as well. A first elk cere- the Pueblo Southwest (Reed and Geib, 2013), household dispersal
mony was handled by one with the spirit power or cultural proto- and autonomy in the Late Woodland Southeast (Blitz and Porth,
cols to do so. Thus, much like the reef-netting or other collective 2013), and increasing inequality in Coastal California (Kennett
endeavors, specialists lead or conduct the process. et al., 2013). For Bingham and Souza (2013), the importance of
For other groups as well, Suttles (1951, p. 87) remarked that the ‘‘elite bow’’ (meaning the advanced, sinew-backed or recurved
‘‘deer-net locations’’ were not owned, but shared by the villagers. bow) was a transformative event, contributing to changes across
Yet, ‘‘there were only two or three nets in a community, and these the continent.17 What’s notable about these recent studies are the
of course belonged to individual hunters. These men organized the variable cultural responses across the continent, with some argu-
hunt, waited at the net, and divided the game’’ (Suttles, 1951, p. ments about how the bow’s adoption concentrated the power of
88). Sometimes the division could be equal, but others described
that ‘‘if the drive netted three deer the owner of the net took one
17
and divided the other two’’ (Suttles, 1951, p. 88). Thus, even when Bingham et al. (2013:82) promoted the adoption of the elite bow and arrow as
support for their broader ‘‘social coercion theory,’’ with the primary prediction being
drives were conducted in organized groups, there were done in sit-
that ‘‘local introduction of the bow and arrow will rapidly be followed by increases in
uations in which some controlled the process or benefitting by social scale and economic intensification.’’ They refer it as essentially a ‘‘single cause
owning the means of production; in this case, the large deer nets. factor’’ contributing to Late Period complexity throughout the continent (Bingham
We should recall that the technology for deer netting drives also is et al., 2013:82). However, we disagree with their logic that the widespread adoption
likely much older than the bow and arrow. Therefore, the turn to of the bow leads to increased social complexity, by which they mean the increasing
centralization of society. Indeed, other scholars, within the same issue they edited,
increased artiodactyl hunting that occurred post-1600 BP is not advocated the opposite (e.g., Bettinger, 2013; Walde, 2013), finding that the
likely related to changes in cooperative deer-hunting, which is autonomy increased in certain societies; our case study here can be added as further
net-based and is a technology with a much older tradition. evidence against the monocausal results of ‘‘social coercion theory.’’
elites in some cases, while leading to greater autonomy of house- hunting all required organized teams, and these and other eco-
holds in others. It seems the costs of the Faustian bargain can man- nomic operations continued throughout the year, wherein elites
ifest in varying ways depending on the cultural context. As Bettinger often profited. The archaeological record in the Late Period cer-
(2013, pp. 118, 122) related for Great Basin cultures, the bow and tainly indicates the continued presence of prominent individuals
arrow was a ‘‘a ‘great equalizer,’ like Samuel Colt’s revolver, creating such as at Scowlitz (Lepofsky et al., 2000) or affluent households
opportunities for effective individual defense, increasing prospects at Dionisio Point (Grier, 2006). In turn, we should also mention that
for isolation and self-sufficiency, making it possible for them to there is evidence for increased contestation of elites during this
escape group-level pressures and the reach of authority’’; in this time (Thom, 1998). Warfare also becomes more prevalent, and
way, he referred to the effects of the bow and arrow as leading to these conflicts appear to be among Coast Salish groups as opposed
increased autonomy or ‘‘anarchy.’’18 Our Coast Salish case provides to with Wakashan groups to the west and north, for instance
a parallel example in which the widespread adoption of the bow (Angelbeck, 2009:227–229). So, there is evidence for increased
and arrow is correlated with the increasing autonomy of individuals struggles between elites and commoners, as well as among elites,
and local households. In this manner, we echo what Suttles’ had during the Late Period. Some were overtly violent, challenging
described for Coast Salish groups ethnographically. the existing social structures, while others confronted the chal-
Suttles (1990a) described how Coast Salish subsistence practices lenges by working within their economic options. In our case here,
revealed a general tendency towards economic autonomy. Near the we focused on one such economic struggle, concerning land mam-
conclusion, Suttles (1990a, p. 150) indicated that this expressed a mal hunting. Here, we have tried to constrain our focus to isolate
cultural tendency for cooperative practices to be avenues for hierar- and evaluate one arena of subsistence for patterns concerning
chical organizations, while individualistic activities––which were either individualistic or group hunting. Our findings suggest that
more common––were opportunities for independence. Concluding the bow and arrow enabled people to pursue individualistic (and
from his study, Suttles (1990a, p. 150) wrote that: more autonomous) practices in increased artiodactyl hunting.
Given this chance, they opted to pursue this subsistence practice
I am impressed by the importance of these major fishing meth-
on their own, avoiding the hierarchical arenas in which the major-
ods and the role they must have played in strengthening the
ity of participants subject themselves to another.
position of the owners and directors. On the other hand, I am
New technologies can allow individuals to pursue greater
also impressed by the number, variety, and (I believe) produc-
autonomy economically. Among the Coast Salish, there were
tivity of methods practiced by people working alone and in
numerous avenues that allowed for individuals to strategize for
pairs. Something more than weirs and reef nets, spells, and
better positions. Such cases have been made regarding how Coast
first-salmon ceremonies would be required to turn them into
Salish individuals take advantage of their bilateral kinship options,
meek followers.
allowing them flexibility in which familial household to align and
live with (e.g., Collins, 1979). Grier (2006) provided an example of
Following his lead here, we offer that the bow and arrow also
how the flexibility in household associations served to constrain
further enhanced Coast Salish principles of social flexibility, allow-
the power that house chiefs could impart over their household.
ing individuals greater opportunities to gain status, earn wealth, or
This sociopolitical dynamic contributed to the autonomy of house-
simply acquire more economic independence. A non-elite hunter,
holds within a village (e.g., Elmendorf, 1992 [1960], pp. 257–258),
skilled with a bow, could generate their subsistence through hunt-
constraining the power of chiefs to households and not to villages
ing alone or with a partner. However, the bow and arrow, which is
as a whole (Miller and Boxberger, 1994). Even when Coast Salish
an important factor in making hunting a one-person activity,
groups allied in regional-scale political coalitions, as during the
gained widespread use only since 1600 BP. The other practices Sut-
wars with the Kwakwaka’wakw Lekwiltok, they did so in a decen-
tles mentioned are also characteristic of post-1600 BP periods
tralized manner that ensured local group autonomy (Angelbeck
where more complicated fishing techniques were present, involv-
and McLay, 2011). This tension between centralization and decen-
ing greater organization of personnel. The other one- and two-per-
tralization, or hierarchy and heterarchy, has been present through-
son practices discussed, were practices that involved technologies
out the Coast Salish past (Angelbeck and Grier, 2012). In this study,
that were available throughout much of Northwest Coast prehis-
we have provided an archaeological case of how such tensions
tory. This is not to argue for a technological determinism, that
played out after 1600 BP, with the widespread adoption of the
the bow and arrow instigated wholesale change in hunting prac-
bow and arrow, increasing autonomy for individual hunters
tices. Rather, that the opportunities inherent in bow and arrow
economically.
hunting practices offered individuals yet another option, one that
allowed for more economic self-sufficiency. In this sense, this new-
found autonomy afforded by the bow and arrow would have come
8. Conclusion
at the expense of cooperative groups led by elite hunters.
We should also emphasize that we are assessing terrestrial
Sometimes archaeologists slide into traditional cultural-histor-
hunting, which is only one facet of their overall subsistence econ-
ical modes of thinking in which newly introduced projectile point
omy throughout the year. Our results suggest that individuals were
styles are simply indicators of a certain phase. The practices asso-
more able to avoid hierarchical organizations in hunting endeav-
ciated with these changing artifact styles often may not be consid-
ors. This is not to say they could avoid them entirely. Intensive fish-
ered. The technological development from the atlatl and dart to
ing of annual salmon runs, netting of migratory birds, and sea lion
bow and arrow was not simply incremental, or additional, but in
18
some respects was exponential, resulting in qualitative changes.
While Bettinger (2013:122) portrayed these societies accurately as anarchies, he
This is particularly so regarding the important variables of velocity,
felt the need to add the qualified ‘‘orderly anarchies’’ further in his discussion. This is
likely because of common connotations of chaos or disorder associated with the term. range, stealth, and the number of ready shots. That is, with certain
However, if considering these cases from the perspective of the theory of anarchism, variables, the technological innovations can increase in scalar
such notions are outdated. Instead, history can be viewed as constant tensions dimensions of effectiveness. As Postman (1995) reminded, techno-
between centralization and decentralization, between hierarchy and heterarchy. logical developments are not ‘‘additive,’’ they are ‘‘ecological,’’
Anarchic social tendencies favor local and individual autonomy, freedom of associ-
ation, and the decentralization of authorities. For further discussions of anarchism as
which means that new technologies affect broader cultural rela-
applied to archaeological analysis see Angelbeck and Grier (2012; also Angelbeck, tionships and dynamics. As we have considered here, new technol-
2009). ogies have great effects on hunting practices. In turn, these changes
in practices can have consequences on labor organization, particu- Broughton, J.M., 1994b. Declines in mammalian foraging efficiency during the Late
Holocene, San Francisco Bay, California. J. Anthropol. Archaeol. 13 (4), 371–401.
larly when the technology increases an individual’s effectiveness
Broughton, J.M., 1999. Resource Depression and Intensification During the Late
and personal power relative to another. To close, our main point Holocene, San Francisco Bay: Evidence From the Emeryville Shellmound
is that the forms of social organization used to implement these Vertebrate Fauna. University of California Press, Berkeley.
technologies needs to be considered. Here, the faunal record indi- Burley, D., 1980. Marpole: Anthropological Reconstructions of a Prehistoric
Northwest Coast Culture Type. Archaeology Press, Department of
cates that an individual’s pursuit, artiodactyl hunting, increased Archaeology, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, BC.
markedly in the Late Period. The widespread adoption of the bow Burley, D., Knüsel, C., 1989. Burial Patterns and Archaeological Interpretation:
and arrow and the social contexts of its use should not be ignored. Problems in the Recognition of Ranked Society in the Coast Salish Region. In:
Blukis-Onat., A. (Ed.), Development of Hunting-Fishing-Gathering Maritime
After the earlier Marpole Phase, a period of greater inequality, Societies Along the West Coast of North America, Proceedings of the Circum-
hunters took advantage of the bow and arrow to pursue greater Pacific Prehistory Conference, Seattle.
economic independence, likely at a cost to the status of the elite Butler, V.L., Campbell, S.K., 2004. Resource intensification and resource depression
in the Pacific Northwest of North America: a zooarchaeological review. J. World
hunters. While other collective endeavors certainly persisted, after Prehist. 18 (4), 327–405.
1600 BP collective artiodactyl hunting was no longer one of those. Calvert, G., Crockford, S., 1982. Analysis of Faunal Remains [Appendix D]. In:
This new avenue allowed for greater individual autonomy, and McMillan, A., St. Claire, D. (Eds.), Alberni Prehistory: Archaeological and
Ethnographic Investigations on Western Vancouver Island, Theytus Books/
hunters appear to have sought that in greater numbers, avoiding Alberni Valley Museum, Penticton/Port Alberni, BC, pp. 174–219.
some collective activities that were the scenarios for hierarchical Campbell, S.K., 1981. The Duwamish No. 1 Site: A Lower Puget Sound Shell Midden.
power plays. Institute for Environmental Studies, Office of Public Archaeology, Research
Report 1, University of Washington, Seattle.
Campbell, S.K., Butler, V.L., 2010. Archaeological evidence for resilience of pacific
Acknowledgments northwest salmon populations and the socioecological system over the last
similar to 7500 years. Ecol. Soc. 15 (1), 17.
Carlson, R.L., 1996. Early Namu. In: Carlson, R.L., Bona, L.D. (Eds.), Early Human
The writers would like to acknowledge colleagues for their con- Occupation in British Columbia. UBC Press, Vancouver, BC, pp. 83–102.
structive evaluations of early drafts. These include Iain McKechnie, Carlson, R.L., 2008. Projectile points from the Gulf and San Juan Islands. In: Carlson,
R.L., Magne, M.P.R. (Eds.), Projectile Point Sequences in Northwestern North
Brian Pegg, Natasha Lyons, and Colin Grier. We also want to thank America. Simon Fraser University, Archaeology Press, Burnaby, BC, pp. 131–160.
Anthony Graesch and the anonymous reviewers for their insightful Carlson, R.L., Hobler, P.M., 1993. The Pender canal excavations and the development
critiques. These commentaries helped us to significantly improve of Coast Salish culture. BC Stud. 99, 25–52.
Carlson, R.L., Magne, M.P.R., 2008. Projectile points and prehistory in Northwestern
the final result. North America. In: Carlson, R.L., Magne, M.P.R. (Eds.), Projectile Point Sequences
in Northwestern North America. Simon Fraser University, Archaeology Press,
Burnaby, B.C., pp. 353–362.
References Cattelain, P., 1997. Hunting during the upper paleolithic: bow, spearthrower, or
both. In: Knecht, H. (Ed.), Projectile Technology. Plenum Press, New York, pp.
Ames, K.M., Maschner, H.D., 1999. Peoples of the Northwest Coast: Their 213–240.
Archaeology and Prehistory. Thames and Hudson, London. Charlton, A.S., 1980. The Belcarra Park Site. Department of Archaeology, Simon
Ames, K.M., Fuld, K.A., Davis, S., 2010. Dart and arrow points on the columbia Fraser University, Burnaby, BC.
plateau of western North America. Am. Antiq. 75 (2), 287–325. Chatters, J.C., 1988. Tualdad Altu (45KI59): A 4th Century Village on the Black River,
Angelbeck, B., 2009. They Recognize No Superior Chief: Power, Practice, Anarchism King Country, Washington. First City Equities, Seattle, Washington.
and Warfare in the Coast Salish Past. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Chatters, J.C., 2004. Safety in numbers: the influence of the bow and arrow on
Department of Anthropology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver. village formation on the Columbia plateau. In: Prentiss, W.C., Kuijt, I. (Eds.),
Angelbeck, B., Grier, C., 2012. Anarchism and the archaeology of anarchic societies: Complex Hunter-Gatherers: Evolution and Organization of Prehistoric
resistance to centralization in the Coast Salish region of the Pacific Northwest Communities on the Plateau of Northwestern North America. University of
Coast. Curr. Anthropol. 53 (5), 547–587. Utah Press, Salt Lake City, pp. 67–83.
Angelbeck, B., McLay, E., 2011. The Battle at maple bay: the dynamics of Coast Salish Chatters, J.C., Rhode, D.E., Hoover, K.A., 1990. Tualdad Altu (45KI59): a prehistoric
political organization through oral histories. Ethnohistory 58 (3), 359–392. riverine village in southern Puget sound. Archaeol. Wash. 2, 32–46.
Arima, E., Dewhirst, J., 1990. Nootkans of Vancouver Island. In: Suttles, W.P. (Ed.), Chatters, J.C., Cooper, J.B., LeTourneau, P.D., Rooke L.C., 2011. Understanding Olcott:
Handbook of North American Indians, Volume 7: Northwest Coast. Smithsonian Data Recovery at Sites 45SN28 and 45SN303, Snohomish County, Washington.
Institution, Washington, DC, pp. 391–411. AMEC Earth & Environmental, Inc., Prepared for Granite Falls Alternate Route
Barnett, H.G., 1955. The Coast Salish of British Columbia. University of Oregon Press, Project, Snohomish County Department of Public Works, Everett, Washington.
Eugene. Chatters, J.C., Hackenberger, S., Prentiss, A.M., Thomas, J., 2012. The paleoindian to
Benn, D.W., 1990. A Theoretical Interpretation of Woodland Prehistory. In: Benn, archaic transition in the Pacific Northwest in situ development or ethnic
D.W. (Ed.), Woodland Cultures on the Western Prairies: The Rainbow Site replacement? In: Bousman, C.B., Vierra, B.J. (Eds.), From the Pleistocene to the
Investigations. Office of the State Archaeologist, The University of Iowa, Report Holocene: Human Organization and Cultural Transformations in Prehistoric
18, Iowa City, pp. 210–231. North America. Texas A&M University Press, College Station, Texas, pp. 37–66.
Bernick, K., Wigen, R.J., 1990. Seasonality of the little qualicum river west site. Churchill, S.E., 1993. Weapon technology, prey size selection, and hunting methods
Northwest Anthropol. Res. Notes 24 (2), 153–159. in modern hunter-gatherers: implications for hunting in the palaeolithic and
Bettinger, R.L., 2013. Effects of the bow on social organization in western North Mesolithic. Archeol. Pap. Am. Anthropol. Assoc. 4 (1), 11–24.
America. Evol. Anthropol. 22 (3), 118–123. Clark, T.N., 2013. Rewriting Marpole: The Path to Cultural Complexity in the Gulf of
Bettinger, R.L., Winterhalder, B., McElreath, R., 2006. A simple model of Georgia. University of Ottawa Press/Mercury Series, Archaeology Paper 172,
technological intensification. J. Archaeol. Sci. 33 (4), 538–545. Canadian Museum of Civilization, Gatineau, Québec.
Bingham, P.M., Souza, J., 2013. Theory testing in prehistoric North America: fruits of Collins, J.M., 1974. Valley of the Spirits: The Upper Skagit Indians of Western
one of the world’s great archeological natural laboratories. Evol. Anthropol. 22 Washington. University of Washington Press, Seattle.
(3), 145–153. Collins, J.M., 1979. Multilineal descent: a Coast Salish strategy. In: Hinshaw, R. (Ed.),
Bingham, P.M., Souza, J., Blitz, J.H., 2013. Introduction: social complexity and the Currents in Anthropology: Essays in Honor of Sol Tax. Mouton, New York, pp.
bow in the prehistoric North American record. Evol. Anthropol. 22 (3), 81–88. 243–254.
Blitz, J.H., 1988. Adoption of the bow in prehistoric North America. North Am. Coupland, G., Stewart, K., Patton, K., 2010. Do you never get tired of Salmon?
Archaeol. 9 (2), 123–145. Evidence for extreme Salmon specialization at Prince Rupert Harbour, British
Blitz, J.H., Porth, E.S., 2013. Social complexity and the bow in the eastern woodlands. Columbia. J. Anthropol. Archaeol. 29 (2), 189–207.
Evol. Anthropol. 22 (3), 89–95. Croes, D.R., Hackenberger, S., 1988. Hoko river archaeological complex: modeling
Borden, C., 1968. The Skagit river atlatl: a reappraisal. BC Stud. 1, 13–19. prehistoric northwest coast economic evolution. Res. Econ. Anthropol. Suppl. 3,
Boucher, N., 1976. Prehistoric Subsistence at the Helen Point Site. Master’s thesis, 19–85.
Department of Archaeology, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, BC. Dickson, D.B., 1985. The atlatl assessed: a review of recent anthropological
Bovy, K., 2002. Faunal Analysis: Mammal and Bird Remains. In: Stein, J.K., Phillips, approaches to prehistoric North American weaponry. Bull. Texas Archaeol.
L.S. (Eds.), Vashon Archaeology: A View from Burton Acres Shell Midden, Burke Soc. 56, 1–38.
Museum of Natural History and Culture, Seattle, Research Report 8, pp. 91–104. Drucker, P., 1955. Indians of the Northwest Coast. Natural History Press, Garden
Brolly, R., Muir, R., Schulting, R., 1993. Archaeological Investigations at the Harbour City, New York.
House Site (DfRu 3), Saltspring Island, B.C. Arcas Consulting Archaeologists. Duff, W., 1952. The upper Stalo Indians of the Fraser valley. Anthropol. Brit.
Permit 1993–83. Archaeology Branch, Victoria, BC. Columbia 1, 1–136.
Broughton, J.M., 1994a. Late Holocene resource intensification in the Sacramento Dye, D.H., 2005. The transformation of Mississippian warfare: four case studies from
Valley, California: the vertebrate evidence. J. Archaeol. Sci. 21 (4), 501–514. the mid-south. In: Arkush, E., Allen, M.W. (Eds.), The Archaeology of Warfare:
Prehistories of Raiding and Conquest. University Press of Florida, Gainesville, Lewarch, D.E., Forsman, L.A., Kramer, S.K., Murphy, L.R., Larson, L.L., Iverson, D.R.,
Gainesville, pp. 101–147. Dugas, A.E., 2002. Data Recovery Excavations at the Bay Street Shell Midden
Eder, T., Pattie, D.L., 2001. Mammals of British Columbia. Lone Pine Pub, Vancouver. (45KP115), Kitsap County, Washington, Limited Technical Report 2002-01,
Eells, M., 1985. In: Castile, G.P. (Ed.), The Indians of Puget Sound: The Notebooks of Larson Anthropological/Archaeological Services, Gig Harbor, Washington.
Myron Eells. University of Washington Press, Seattle. Lowrey, N.S., 1999. An ethnoarchaeological inquiry into the functional relationship
Elmendorf, W.W., 1992. The Structure of Twana Culture. Washington State between projectile point and armor technologies of the northwest coast. North
University Press, Pullman [1962]. Am. Archaeol. 20 (1), 47–73.
Ewonus, P.A., 2006. The Social Economy of a Northwest Coast Plank House in Lyman, R.L., 1981. Mammal Bone. In: Campbell, S.K. (Ed.), The Duwamish No. 1 Site:
Perspective. Master’s thesis, Department of Anthropology, McMaster A Lower Puget Sound Shell Midden. Institute for Environmental Studies, Office
University, Hamilton, Ontario. of Public Archaeology, University of Washington, Seattle, Research Report 1, pp.
Fladmark, K.R., Nelson, D.E., Brown, T.A., Vogel, J.S., Southon, J.R., 1987. AMS dating 199–212.
of two wooden artifacts from the northwest coast, British Columbia. Can. J. Lyman, R.L., 1995. Mammalian and Avian Zooarchaeology of the West Point,
Archaeol. 11, 1–12. Washington Archaeological Sites (45KI428 and 45KI429). In: Larson, L.L.,
Frison, G.C., 1987. Prehistoric, plains-mountain, large-mammal, communal hunting Lewarch, D.E. (Eds.), The Archaeology of West Point, Seattle, Washington:
strategies. In: Nitecki, M.H. (Ed.), The Evolution of Human Hunting. Springer, 4000 Years of Hunter-Fisher-Gatherer Land Use in Southern Puget Sound,
New York, pp. 177–224. Larson Anthropological/Archaeological Services, Seattle, Washington, pp. 9.1–
Galois, R. (Ed.), 2004. A Voyage to the North West Side of America: The Journals of 9.59.
James Colnett, 1786–89. UBC Press, Vancouver. Lyman, R.L., 1999. Faunal analysis: 45CA426 component II. In: Morgan, V. E. (Ed.),
Gardner, P.M., 1991. Forager’s pursuit of individual autonomy. Curr. Anthropol. 32 The SR-101 Sequim Bypass Archaeological Project: Mid-to Late-Holocene
(5), 543–572. Occupations on the Northern Olympic Peninsula, Clallam County,
Graesch, A.P., 2007. Modeling ground slate knife production and implications for Washington, Archaeological and Historical Services, Eastern Washington
the study of household labor contributions to salmon fishing on the Pacific University, Cheney, Reports in Archaeology and History 100–108, pp. 16.1–
Northwest coast. J. Anthropol. Archaeol. 26 (4), 576–606. 16.31.
Grier, C., 1999. The organization of production in prehistoric thule whaling societies Lyman, R.L., 2003. Zooarchaeology of Sites 45SJ169 and 45SJ165 [Appendix C]. In:
of the central Canadian Arctic. Can. J. Archaeol. 23 (1), 11–28. Walker, S.L. (Ed.), Archaeological Investigations at Sites 45SJ165 and 45SJ169,
Grier, C., 2003. Dimensions of regional interaction in the prehistoric Gulf of Georgia. Decatur Island, San Juan County, Washington. Archaeological and Historical
In: Matson, R.G., Coupland, G., Mackie, Q. (Eds.), Emerging from the Mist: Services, Eastern Washington University, Cheney, Reports in Archaeology and
Studies in Northwest Coast Culture History. UBC Press, Vancouver, B.C., pp. History 100–118, pp. 235–274.
170–187. Maschner, H.D.G., 1991. Emergence of cultural complexity on the northern
Grier, C., 2006. Political dimensions of monumental residences on the northwest northwest coast. Antiquity 65 (249), 924–934.
coast of North America. In: Christie, J.J., Sarro, P.J. (Eds.), Palaces and Power in Maschner, H.D.G., Mason, O.K., 2013. The bow and arrow in northern North
the Americas: From Peru to the Northwest Coast. University of Texas Press, America. Evol. Anthropol. 22 (3), 133–138.
Austin, pp. 141–165. Mason, A., 1994. The Hatzic Rock Site. Unpublished Masters’s thesis, University of
Gunther, E., 1972. Indian Life on the Northwest Coast of North America: As Seen by British Columbia, Vancouver.
the Early Explorers and Fur Traders during the Last Decades of the Eighteenth Matson, R.G., 1976. The Glenrose Cannery Site. Archaeological Survey of Canada,
Century. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois. National Museum of Man, Mercury Series 52, Ottawa.
Hanson, D.K., 1991. Late Prehistoric Subsistence in the Strait of Georgia Region of Matson, R.G., 1980. Prehistoric subsistence patterns in the Fraser delta: the
the Northwest Coast. PhD dissertation. Department of Archaeology, Simon evidence from the glenrose cannery site. BC Stud. 48, 64–85.
Fraser University, Burnaby, BC. Matson, R.G., 1992. The Evolution of Northwest Coast subsistence. Research in
Hanson, D.K., 1995. Subsistence during the Late Prehistoric occupation of Pender Economic Anthropology (Supplement: Long-Term Subsistence Change in
Canal, British Columbia (DeRt-1). Can. J. Archaeol. 19, 29–48. Prehistoric North America), vol. 6, pp. 367–428.
Hare, P.G., Greer, S., Gotthardt, R., Farnell, R., Bowyer, V., Schweger, C., Strand, D., Matson, R.G., Coupland, G., 1995. The Prehistory of the Northwest Coast. Academic
2004. Ethnographic and archaeological investigations of alpine ice patches in Press, New York.
southwest Yukon, Canada. Arctic 57 (3), 260–272. McKechnie, I., Wigen, R.J., 2011. Toward a historical ecology of pinniped and sea
Hare, P.G., Thomas, C.D., Topper, T.N., Gotthardt, R.M., 2012. The archaeology of Yukon otter hunting traditions on the coast of Southern British Columbia. In: Braje, T.J.,
Ice patches: new artifacts, observations, and insights. Arctic 65 (5), 118–135. Rick, T. (Eds.), Human Impacts on Seals, Sea Lions, and Sea Otters: Integrating
Haury, E.W., Antevs, E., Lance, J.F., 1953. Artifacts with mammoth remains, Naco, Archaeology and Ecology in the Northeast Pacific. University of California Press,
Arizona. Am. Antiq. 19 (1), 1–24. Berkeley, pp. 129–166.
Hildebrandt, W.R., King, J.H., 2012. Distinguishing between darts and arrows in the McKechnie, I., Lepofsky, D., Moss, M.L., Butler, V.L., Orchard, T.J., Coupland, G., Foster,
archaeological record: implications for technological change in the American F., Caldwell, M., Lertzman, K., 2014. Archaeological Data Provide Alternative
West. Am. Antiq. 77 (4), 789–799. Hypotheses on Pacific Herring (Clupea Pallasii) Distribution, Abundance, and
Hitchcock, R., Bleed, P., 1997. Each according to need and fashion. In: Knecht, H. Variability. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences: 201316072.
(Ed.), Projectile Technology. Plenum Press, New York, pp. 345–368. McMillan, A.D., 1999. Since the Time of the Transformers: The Ancient Heritage of
Hodgetts, L., Rahemtulla, F., 2001. Land and sea: use of terrestrial mammal bones in the Nuu-chah-nulth, Ditidaht, and Makah. UBC Press, Vancouver.
coastal hunter-gatherer communities. Antiquity 75, 56–62. Miller, B.G., Boxberger, D.L., 1994. Creating chiefdoms: the Puget sound case.
Holm M., 1990. Prehistoric Northwest Coast art: a stylistic analysis of the Ethnohistory 41 (2), 267–293.
archaeological record. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Morrissey, G.E., 2009. Tools and Change: The Shift from Atlatl to Bow on the British
Anthropology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver. Columbia Plateau. Unpublished Master’s thesis, Department of Archaeology,
Howe, G., Muir, R., Bouchard, R., Lepofsky, D., Chisholm, B., Malcolm, J., Schulting, R., Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, BC.
1994. Archaeological Investigations at the Departure Bay Site (DhRx 16), Moss, M.L., 2010. Re-thinking Subsistence on the Northwest Coast: The Value of
Nanaimo, B.C. Arcas Consulting Archaeologists. Permit 1993–103. Archaeology Zooarchaeology in Contemporary Struggles over Fish and Wildlife in Alaska. In:
Branch, Victoria, BC. Vila, A., Estévez, J. (Eds.), La Excepción y la Norma: Las Sociedades Indígenas de
Hughes, S.S., 1998. Getting to the point: evolutionary change in prehistoric la Costa Noroeste de Norteamérica desde la Arqueología. Consejo Superior de
weaponry. J. Archaeol. Meth. Theory 5 (4), 345–408. Investigaciones Científicas: Institución Mila i Fontanals, Madrid.
Imamoto, S., 1976. An Analysis of the Glenrose Faunal Remains. In: Matson, R.G. Moss, M.L., 2011. Northwest Coast: Archaeology as Deep History. Society for
(Ed.), The Glenrose Cannery Site. Archaeological Survey of Canada, National American Archaeology, Washington, DC.
Museum of Man, Mercury Series 52, Ottawa, pp. 21–41. Moss, M.L., Cannon, A. (Eds.), 2011. The Archaeology of North Pacific Fisheries.
Keddie, G., 2008. Projectile points from Southern Vancouver Island. In: Carlson, R.L., University of Alaska Press, Fairbanks.
Magne, M.P.R. (Eds.), Projectile Point Sequences in Northwestern North Nassaney, M.S., Pyle, K., 1999. The adoption of the bow and arrow in Eastern North
America. Simon Fraser University, Archaeology Press, Burnaby, B.C., pp. 79–86. America: a view from central Arkansas. Am. Antiq. 64, 243–263.
Keddie, G., Nelson, E., 2005. An Arrow from the Tsitsutl Glacier, British Columbia. Pegg, B., 1999. The Taphonomic History of the Verterate Faunal Assemblage from
Can. J. Archaeol. 29 (1), 113–123. British Camp, San Juan Islands, Washington. Unpublished Master’s thesis,
Kennett, D.J., Lambert, P.M., Johnson, J.R., Culleton, B.J., 2013. Sociopolitical effects of Department of Archaeology, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, BC.
bow and arrow technology in prehistoric coastal California. Evol. Anthropol. 22 Pegg, B., Mason, A., Wada, G., 2007. Archaeological Mitgation of DkSb-30, Saltery
(3), 124–132. Bay, B.C. Golder Associates. Permit 2004–120. Archaeology Branch, Ministry of
Kirk, R., Daugherty, R.D., 2007. Archaeology in Washington. University of Forests, Lands, and Natural Resource Operations, Victoria.
Washington Press, Seattle. Postman, N., 1993. Technopoly: The Surrender of Culture to Technology. Vintage
Kusmer, K.D., 1994. Changes in subsistence strategies at the Tsawwassen site, a Books, New York.
southwestern British Columbia shell midden. Northwest Anthropol. Res. Notes Postman, N., 1995. The End of Education: Redefining the Value of School. Alfred A.
28 (2), 189–210. Knopf, New York.
Lepofsky, D., Lertzman, K., Hallett, D., Mathewes, R., 2005. Climate change and Rahemtulla, F., 2003. The use of large terrestrial mammal bone on the northwest
culture change on the southern coast of British Columbia 2400–1200 Cal. B.P.: coast. In: Carlson, R.L. (Ed.), Archaeology of Coastal British Columbia: Essays in
an hypothesis. Am. Antiq. 70 (1), 267–293. Honour of Professor Philip M. Hobler. Department of Archaeology, Simon Fraser
Lepofsky, D., Blake, M., Brown, D., Morrison, S., Oakes, N., Lyons, N., 2000. The University, Burnaby, BC, pp. 61–64.
archaeology of the Scowlitz site, SW British Columbia. J. Field Archaeol. 27, 391– Railey, J.A., 2010. Reduced mobility or the bow and arrow? Another look at
416. ‘‘expedient’’ technologies and sedentism. Am. Antiq. 75 (2), 259–286.
Reed, P.F., Geib, P.R., 2013. Sedentism, social change, warfare, and the bow in the Suttles, W., 1990a. Central coast salish subsistence. Northwest Anthropol. Res.
ancient pueblo southwest. Evol. Anthropol. 22 (3), 103–110. Notes 24, 147–152.
Reitz, E.J., Wing, E.S., 1999. Zooarchaeology. Cambridge University Press, Suttles, W.P. (Ed.), 1990b. Handbook of North American Indians, Volume 7:
Cambridge, New York. Northwest Coast. Smithsonian Institution, Washington..
Richards, T., Rousseau, M., 1987. Late Prehistoric Cultural Horizons on the Canadian Suttles, W.P., 2004. Musqueam Reference Grammar. UBC Press, Vancouver, BC.
Plateau. Archaeology Press, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, BC. Taylor, H.C., Caldwell, W., 1954. Carved atlatl from Northwest Coast. Am. Antiq. 19
Rousseau, M.K., 2008. Chipped stone bifaces as cultural, behavioural, and temporal (3), 279–280.
indices on the Central Canadian Plateau. In: Carlson, R.L., Magne, M.P.R. (Eds.), Thom, B., 1998. The marpole-late transition in the Gulf of Georgia region. The
Projectile Point Sequences in Northwestern North America. Simon Fraser Midden 30, 3–7.
University, Archaeology Press, Burnaby, B.C., pp. 79–86. Thomas, D.H., 1978. Arrowheads and atlatl darts: how the stones got the shaft. Am.
Rousseau, M., Carmichael, C., Codd, L., Ewonus, P., Kaltenrieder, S., Seip, L., Will, M., Antiq. 43 (3), 461–472.
2001. Archaeological Monitoring for Interfor’s Port Hammond Cedar Dry Kiln Trigger, B.G., 1991. Constraint and freedom—a new synthesis for archaeological
Replacement Project at the Port Hammond Site (DhRp 17), Lower Fraser River explanation. American Anthropol. 93, 551–569.
River, BC, 2000–2001. Antiquus Archaeological Consultants. Permit 2000–292. Trost T., 2005. Forgotten Waters: A Zooarchaeological Analysis of the Cove Cliff Site
Archaeology Branch, Victoria, BC. (DhRr 18), Indian Arm, British Columbia. Unpublished Master’s Thesis,
Rousseau, M., Seip, L., Ewonus, P., Kaltenrieder, S., 2003. Port Hammond revisited. Department of Anthropology, University of Victoria, Victoria, BC.
In: Carlson, R.L. (Ed.), Archaeology of Coastal British Columbia: Essays in Honour Walde, D., 2013. The bow and cultural complexity of the Canadian plains. Evol.
of Professor Philip M. Hobler. Archaeology Press, Simon Fraser University, Anthropol. 22 (3), 139–144.
Burnaby, BC, pp. 87–108. Whitridge, P., 1999. The prehistory of Inuit and Yupik whale use. Rev. Arqueologia
Shackleton, D.M., Cowan, I.M., 1999. Hoofed Mammals of British Columbia. UBC Am. 16, 99–154.
Press, Vancouver. Whittaker, J.C., 2010. Weapon trials: the atlatl and experiments in hunting
Shott, M.J., 1987. Feature discovery and the sampling requirements of technology. In: Ferguson, J.R. (Ed.), Designing Experimental Research in
archaeological evaluations. J. Field Archaeol. 14 (3), 359–371. Archaeology: Examining Technology Through Production and Use. University
Smith, M.W., 1940. The Puyallup-Nisqually. Columbia University Press, New York. Press of Colorado, Boulder, pp. 195–224.
Stern, B.J., 1934. The Lummi Indians of Northwest Washington. Columbia University Whittaker, J., 2013. Comparing atlatls and bows: accuracy and learning curve.
Press, New York. Ethnoarchaeology 5 (2), 100–111.
Stiefel, S.K., 1985. The Subsistence Economy of the Locarno Beach Culture (3300– Wilson, I.R., Bond, S., Lake, C., 2003. Archaeological Excavation and Monitoring,
2400 B.P.). Unpublished Master’s thesis, Department of Anthropology and DcRu-75, 86–88 Dallas Road, Victoria, B.C. I.R. Wilson Consultants. Permits
Sociology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver. 2003–187 and 2003–219. Archaeology Branch, Victoria, BC.
Suttles, W.P., 1951. Economic Life of the Coast Salish of Haro and Rosario Straits. Wilson, I.R., Bond, S., Lake, C., Rogers, M., 2004. Archaeological Excavation and
Ph.D. dissertation, University of Washington (Reprinted in Coast Salish and Monitoring DcRt-16, King George Terrace, Victoria, B.C. I.R. Wilson Consultants.
Western Indians, volume 1, by Garland Publishing, New York, 1974), Seattle. Permit 2003–232. Archaeology Branch, Victoria, BC.
Suttles, W.P., 1955. Katzie Ethnographic Notes. Anthropology in British Columbia, Yu, P. 2006. From Atlatl to Bow and Arrow: Implicating Projectile Technology in
vol. 2 and 3, pp. 3–31. Changing Systems of Hunter-Gatherer Mobility. In: Sellet, F., Greaves, R., Yu, P.
Suttles, W.P., 1987 [1952]. Notes on Coast Salish Sea-Mammal Hunting. In: Suttles, (Eds.), Archaeology and Ethnoarchaeology of Mobility. University Press of
W. (Ed.), Coast Salish Essays. (Originally in Anthropology in British Columbia Florida, pp. 201–220.
3:10–20). University of Washington Press, Seattle, pp. 233–247.

The Faustian Bargain of Technological CH PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Faustian Bargain of Technological CH PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal of Anthropological Archaeology xxx (2014) xxx–xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Anthropological Archaeology

The Faustian bargain of technological change: Evaluating

Type of activity One-person activities Two-person activities Group activities

Fig. 2. Map of the Salish Sea indicating sites included.

Site name Site number Component Begin BP End BP Period Source

Percentages of Mammals by General Taxa

Fig. 4. Percentages for mammal taxa by component.

You might also like