From the nonrandom, discretionary samples described in the preceding section, I analyzed 3739 individual fish, bird, and mammal specimens; these and the invertebrate remains weighed 4344 g in total (Table 4.1). I identified 2388 specimens; much of the remaining material consisted of undifferentiated bone, heavily altered by perthotaxic (post-death and pre-burial) and anataxic (post-burial) taphonomic factors (Lyman, 1994: 354–416). This was especially the case for mammal bones, which contained a preponderance of pulverized, crushed, burned, and eroded specimens.
| Birds | NISP | MNI | Wt. (g) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Identified | 204 | 47 | 151.5 |
| Unidentified | 94 | n/a | 30.6 |
| Total | 298 | 47 | 182 |
| % Identified | 68.5 | n/a | 83.2 |
| Fish | NISP | MNI | Wt. (g) |
| Number Identified | 1810 | 68 | 1209.3 |
| Not Identified | 905 | n/a | 256.3 |
| Total | 2715 | 68 | 1465.6 |
| % Identified | 66.7 | n/a | 82.5 |
| Mammals | NISP | MNI | Wt. (g) |
| Number Identified | 374 | 30 | 2153.7 |
| Not Identified | 352 | n/a | 255.7 |
| Total | 726 | 30 | 2409.5 |
| % Identified | 51.1 | n/a | 89.5 |
| Invertebrates | NISP | MNI | Wt. (g) |
| Total | n/a | 37 | 286.9 |
| All Material | NISP | MNI | Wt. (g) |
| Total Identified | 2388 | 182 | 3801.4 |
| Grand Total | 3739 | 182 | 4344.1 |
| % Identified | 63.9 | n/a | 87.5 |
Table 4.1, Summary of Analyzed Faunal Remains from Selected Samples.
From the 2388 identified specimens, I noted at least 45 taxa: Twelve genera in six bird families, six genera in five fish families, and ten genera in eight mammal families. I also noted two bivalve genera, and at least one variety each of marine snail and barnacle. Table 4.2 summarizes taxa present in the analyzed samples.
| Sample (Test Unit/Level) | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Latin Name | Common Name | 4/6 | 4/14 | 4/18 | 4/20 | 4/24 | 4/28 | 7/7 |
| Aves | Birds | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | |
| Alcidae | auks, etc. | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | ||
| Brachyramphus sp. | murrelets | Y | ||||||
| Cepphus columba | pigeon guillemot | Y | Y | Y | Y | |||
| Cerorhinca monocerata | rhinoceros auklet | Y | ||||||
| Uria sp. | murres | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | ||
| Anatidae | ducks, geese, etc. | Y | Y | Y | Y | |||
| Anas sp. | marsh ducks | Y | ||||||
| Bucephala sp. | buffleheads & goldeneyes | Y | ||||||
| Melanitta sp. | scoters or sea ducks | Y | ||||||
| Gaviidae | loons | Y | Y | Y | ||||
| Gavia arctica? | loons (arctic loon) | Y | Y | Y | ||||
| Laridae | gulls, skuas, & terns | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | |
| Larus sp. | sea gulls | Y | Y | Y | Y | |||
| Rissa sp. | kittiwakes | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | ||
| Podicipedidae | grebes | Y | Y | |||||
| Aechmorphus occidentalis | western grebe | Y | ||||||
| Phalacrocoracidae | cormorants | Y | Y | |||||
| Phalacrocorax sp. | cormorant | Y | Y | |||||
| 4/6 | 4/14 | 4/18 | 4/20 | 4/24 | 4/28 | 7/7 | ||
| Pisces | Fish | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y |
| Clupeidae | herring | Y | ||||||
| Clupea harengus | Pacific herring | Y | ||||||
| Gadidae | cod | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | |
| Gadus macrocephalus | Pacific cod | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | |
| Microgadus proximus | Pacific tomcod | ? | ||||||
| Pleuronectidae | flatfish | Y | ? | |||||
| Salmonidae | salmon & trout | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | |
| Scorpaenidae | rockfish | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | ||
| 4/6 | 4/14 | 4/18 | 4/20 | 4/24 | 4/28 | 7/7 | ||
| Mammalia | Mammals | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y |
| Canidae | dogs, etc. | Y | Y | Y | Y | |||
| Canis familiaris | domestic dog | Y | ? | |||||
| Canis lupus | wolf | ? | ||||||
| Vulpes sp. | foxes | Y | ||||||
| Cervidae | deer, caribou & moose | Y | Y | Y | ||||
| Rangifer sp. | caribou & reindeer | Y | Y | Y | ||||
| Cetacea | whales & dolphins | Y | Y | |||||
| Cricetidae | mice, rats, etc. | Y | Y | Y | ||||
| Synaptomys | lemming | Y | Y | Y | ||||
| Mustelidae | weasels, skunks, etc. | Y | ||||||
| Odobenidae | walrus | Y | Y | Y | Y | |||
| Odobenus rosmarus | walrus | Y | Y | Y | Y | |||
| Otariidae | sea lions & fur seals | Y | Y | Y | ||||
| Phocidae | hair seals & elephant seals | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | ||
| 4/6 | 4/14 | 4/18 | 4/20 | 4/24 | 4/28 | 7/7 | ||
| Mollusca & Arthropoda | Mollusks & Arthropods | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | ||
| Mollusca—Bivalva | bivalves | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | ||
| Macoma sp. | chalky clams | Y | Y | Y | ||||
| Mytilus edulis | blue mussel | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | ||
| Mollusca—Gastropoda | snails | Y | Y | |||||
| Arthropoda—Balanus sp. | barnacles | Y | Y | |||||
Table 4.2, Summary of taxa identified, by sample provenience. Ys signify presence of taxa indicated. Indication of presence for familly and higher-order taxa includes individuals identified to genus or species, and individuals not identified to genus or species.
Unless otherwise noted, all specimens referred to in the following section were recovered in 1/4" screen samples. I occasionally employed data derived from analyses of specimens recovered from bulk samples with an 1/8" screen in the laboratory. I also paired my summaries of quantitative data with arithmetic manipulations of those data to control for variations in the volume of soil excavated in each unit. I calculated volume-controlled data by multiplying a given measure (NISP, MNI, or bone/shell weight) by the Volume Control Constant (KV) for the unit from which the data derive, as described in Section 3. While I will present volume-adjusted data alongside raw data in Section 4, I will discuss the implications of adjusted data in Section 5.
Test Unit 4, Level 6 (Sample 4/6)
The faunal sample from Test Unit 4, Level 6 (TU4, Level 6) derived from Stratum I (A/O horizon) soils. Active biological processes and the excavation level's proximity to the surface complicated the interpretation of faunal remains from this sample in two significant ways. First, root penetration and rodent activity in this stratum obscured depositional boundaries—if they actually existed—that might indicate separate occupation or activity episodes. Second, these same soil formation factors accelerated decay of the faunal materials, especially when compared to samples lower in the unit where permafrost in essence refrigerated archaeological materials.
Unlike excavation levels beneath it in Test Unit 4, the excavation of level 6 was relatively uncomplicated. I excavated from the cutbank edge south to the nearest east-west 1m grid line, resulting in an excavation level more than 0.1 m3 in volume. By computing the volume from field notes and maps, I estimate the level’s volume to be 0.12 m3, and its volume control constant to be KV = 0.83.
Of the 98 bird specimens weighing a total of 39.4 g, I identified 56 specimens totaling 31.1 g to taxon and anatomical element. At least 15 individual birds, representing at least eight species in four families, were present in the sample (Table 4.3). Most abundant were anatids (ducks, geese, and swans), with the remains of at least 2 individuals of the genus Anas (marsh ducks), and at least 3 individuals of other, unidentified genera.
| Actual Values | Adjusted for Volume | |||||
| Taxon | NISP | MNI | Wt. (g) | NISP | MNI | Wt. (g) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Alcidae | 3 | 1 | 0.8 | 2.5 | 0.8 | 0.7 |
| Anas sp. | 7 | 2 | 5.4 | 5.8 | 1.7 | 4.5 |
| Anatidae | 6 | 3 | 3.9 | 5 | 2.5 | 3.2 |
| Anatidae or Alcidae | 24 | n/a | 8.4 | 19.9 | n/a | 7 |
| Cepphus columba | 1 | 1 | 0.4 | 0.8 | 0.8 | 0.3 |
| Gavia sp. | 1 | 1 | 2.5 | 0.8 | 0.8 | 2.1 |
| Larus sp. | 4 | 1 | 4.4 | 3.3 | 0.8 | 3.7 |
| Rissa sp. | 3 | 2 | 2.7 | 2.5 | 1.7 | 2.2 |
| Uria (aalge?) | 7 | 1 | 2.8 | 5.8 | 0.8 | 2.3 |
| Unidentified | 42 | n/a | 8.2 | 34.9 | n/a | 6.8 |
| Birds Total | 98 | 12 | 39.5 | 81.3 | 10 | 32.8 |
Table 4.3, Analyzed Bird Remains from TU4, Level 6. Righthand columns indicate measures adjusted for excavation volume (KV=0.83).
Members of the auk family (Alcidae) were also well-represented, with the remains of at least 3 individuals—one each of the genera Cepphus (guillemots) and Uria (murres, probably Uria aalge, the common murre), and one individual of an unidentified genus. I also identified the remains of three individuals of the gull family (Laridae)—one sea gull (Larus sp.) and two kittiwakes (Rissa sp.)—and one individual of the loon family (Gavia sp.). 24 bones lacking articular or other easily recognizable surfaces were of similar size to small anatid or alcid bones in the comparative collection, and could not be identified, along with 42 specimens of undifferentiated (usually crushed and burned) bone.
| Actual Values | Adjusted for Volume | |||||
| Taxon | NISP | MNI | Wt. (g) | NISP | MNI | Wt. (g) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gadus macrocephalus | 253 | 7 | 240.6 | 210 | 5.8 | 199.7 |
| Pleuronectidae | 4 | 1 | 3.4 | 3.3 | 0.8 | 2.8 |
| Salmonidae | 8 | 1 | 2.7 | 6.6 | 0.8 | 2.2 |
| Scorpaenidae | 27 | 2 | 10.9 | 22.4 | 1.7 | 9 |
| Unidentified, but not Gadidae | 67 | 3 | 20.1 | 55.6 | 2.5 | 16.7 |
| Unidentified, prob. Gadus | 85 | n/a | 55.5 | 70.6 | n/a | 46.1 |
| Unidentified | 155 | n/a | 39.6 | 128.7 | n/a | 32.9 |
| Fish Total | 599 | 7 | 372.8 | 497.2 | 5.8 | 309.4 |
Table 4.4, Analyzed Fish Remains from TU4, Level 6. Righthand columns indicate measures adjusted for excavation volume (KV=0.83).
I recovered and analyzed 599 fish bones from TU4, level 6, weighing 372.8 g; of these I identified 324 specimens, weighing a total of 268.3 g and representing at least 14 individual fish (Table 4.4). Gadus macrocephalus were the most abundant fish in this sample, with the remains of at least seven individuals represented by more than 250 specimens. Next most abundant were rockfish (Scorpaenidae, probably Sebastes sp.), with two individuals represented by 27 specimens. Flatfish (Pleuronectidae) and salmonids (Salmonidae) were also each represented by the remains of at least one individual of each family.
| Actual Values | Adjusted for Volume | |||||
| Taxon | NISP | MNI | Wt. (g) | NISP | MNI | Wt. (g) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Canidae, probably Vulpes sp. | 3 | 1 | 251 | 2.5 | 0.8 | 208.3 |
| Phocidae | 12 | 1 | 101.3 | 10 | 0.8 | 84.1 |
| Mustelidae | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0.8 | 0.8 | 0.8 |
| Odobenus rosmarus | 10 | 1 | 480.7 | 8.3 | 0.8 | 399 |
| Rangifer sp. | 1 | 1 | 1.1 | 0.8 | 0.8 | 0.9 |
| Cricetidae, prob. Synaptomys/Dicrostonyx | 4 | 1 | 0.7 | 3.3 | 0.8 | 0.6 |
| Undifferentiated/poss. Rangifer | 1 | n/a | 5.3 | 0.8 | n/a | 4.4 |
| Undifferentiated, poss. Canis or Phocidae | 71 | n/a | 65.7 | 58.9 | n/a | 54.5 |
| Unidentified, small mammal | 24 | n/a | 10.9 | 19.9 | n/a | 9 |
| Unidentified | 154 | n/a | 121 | 127.8 | n/a | 100.4 |
| Mammal Total | 281 | 6 | 1038.7 | 233.2 | 5 | 862.1 |
Table 4.5, Analyzed Mammal Remains from TU4, Level 6. Righthand columns indicate measures adjusted for excavation volume (KV=0.83).
281 specimens comprised the mammalian faunal sample in TU4, Level 6. I identified 127 specimens, representing six individuals in 6 families (Table 4.5). The mammal remains from TU4, Level 6 were particularly poorly-preserved. Many of these showed evidence of having been burned, crushed, or pulverized; even large intact specimens were badly eroded. Phocids and Rangifer (caribou or reindeer) were the most abundant taxa by bone weight and number of individual specimens. Phocids were represented by 12 specimens connoting at least one juvenile individual. Odobenus rosmarus was represented by ten specimens--six rib fragments and four pieces of ivory, all of which show evidence of shaping for use as tools. I identified a wide variety of other mammal remains: a small canid’s (probably Vulpes sp.) teeth, a single Rangifer molar, and a burned Mustelidae (weasel or mink) humerus. A long bone fragment and paired mandibles represents a single rodent, probably a lemming (Synaptomys sp. or Dicrostonyx sp.). This rodent may have been intrusive, a strong possibility given the turbated nature of the soil.
| Actual Values | Adjusted for Volume | |||||
| Taxon | NISP | MNI | Wt. (g) | NISP | MNI | Wt. (g) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gastropoda | 13 | 4 | 0.7 | 10.8 | 3.3 | 0.6 |
| Macoma sp. | 53 | 4 | 37.3 | 44 | 3.3 | 31 |
| Mytilus edulis | n/a | 1 | 17.1 | n/a | 0.8 | 14.2 |
| Invertebrate/Total | 66 | 9 | 55.1 | 54.8 | 7.5 | 45.7 |
Table 4.6, Identified invertebrate remains from TU4, Level 6. Righthand columns indicate measures adjusted for excavation volume (KV=0.83).
Several shell fragments indicated the presence of mollusks in the TU4, Level 6, sample. Unlike other samples with significant amounts of shellfish remains, the most abundant species was not Mytilus edulis (blue mussel) but a variety of clam, probably Macoma. This bivalve was represented by 53 large fragments weighing a total of 37.3 g, more than twice the total weight of the highly fragmentary Mytilus sample of 17 g (Table 4.6). Eight partial Macoma hinge fragments also suggested the presence of at least four individual clams. Mytilus remains may have been underrepresented due to excavation and screening methods, but the Macoma remains from this sample still outweighed all other non-Mytilus shellfish remains from other analyzed samples.
Test Unit 4, Level 14 (Sample 4/14)
The southern margin of this unit had frozen solid, but the northern margin along the sea cliff edge had thawed some 50 cm back from the exposure, making excavation possible in the northern half of the excavation unit. As a result of this and the ragged north edge of the unit due to erosion along the bank, the excavation unit had a non-standard shape and volume. By analyzing excavation plan maps and profile maps, I estimate the total volume of TU4, Level 14 at 0.06 m3, yielding a Volume Control Constant of KV = 1.6.
Although difficult to excavate because of its hard, concrete-like consistency, permafrost helped preserve archaeological materials in this unit. The frozen matrix minimized root penetration, rodent burrowing, and microorganism activity, so strata were reasonably intact, and archaeological materials were well preserved. I located several concentrations of fish and bird bone that probably denoted discrete dumping locations. Excavation Level 14 contained a large proportion of the midden material above Feature 1, in Stratum II-9. Moderately sticky, silty sandy loams with high organic content characterized the Stratum II soils of Level 14. Several substrata intersected the excavation level, each of which may have represented unique depositional processes. For the purposes of my analyses, however, I assumed that the midden materials in substratum II-9 represented a single activity locus.
| Actual Values | Adjusted for Volume | |||||
| Taxon | NISP | MNI | Wt. (g) | NISP | MNI | Wt. (g) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Alcidae, Misc. | 5 | 1 | 2.2 | 8 | 1.6 | 3.5 |
| Histrionicus histrionicus | 2 | 1 | 1.4 | 3.2 | 1.6 | 2.2 |
| Larus sp. | 3 | 2 | 11.4 | 4.8 | 3.2 | 18.2 |
| Rissa sp. | 5 | 2 | 2.6 | 8 | 3.2 | 4.2 |
| Uria (aalge?) | 2 | 1 | 0.8 | 3.2 | 1.6 | 1.3 |
| Unidentified/Gull Size | 3 | n/a | 2.9 | 4.8 | n/a | 4.6 |
| Unidentified/Small, poss. Alcidae | 13 | 0 | 6.8 | 20.8 | 0 | 10.9 |
| Bird Total | 33 | 7 | 28.1 | 52.8 | 11.2 | 45 |
Table 4.7, Analyzed Bird Remains from TU4, Level 14. Righthand columns indicate measures adjusted for excavation volume (KV=1.6).
I recovered 33 bird bones weighing 28 g, signifying at least seven individuals in five taxa, of which larids may have been the most numerous (Table 4.7). Two individual sea gulls (Larus sp.) were represented by three specimens, two of which were complete left humeri. Five specimens --including two left carpometacarpi--indicated a minimum of two Rissa individuals. Three other specimens suggested another gull-size bird, although these were too badly eroded to make firm identification possible. A single anatid (possibly a harlequin duck, Histrionicus histrionicus) was represented by two specimens. Murres were present as well, with at least one Uria and one unidentified alcid indicated by 5 specimens. 13 other bones, badly deteriorated but similar in size to Alcidae specimens in the comparative collection, implied that Alcidae may have been even more abundant than MNI counts suggest.
| Actual Values | Adjusted for Volume | |||||
| Taxon | NISP | MNI | Wt. (g) | NISP | MNI | Wt. (g) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gadus macrocephalus | 618 | 19 | 539.7 | 988.8 | 30.4 | 863.5 |
| Salmonidae | 12 | 1 | 0.8 | 19.2 | 1.6 | 1.3 |
| Scorpaenidae | 8 | 1 | 1 | 12.8 | 1.6 | 1.6 |
| Undifferentiated; Gadus macrocephalus? | 550 | n/a | 113 | 880 | n/a | 180.8 |
| Undifferentiated, but not Gadus | 6 | n/a | 0.6 | 9.6 | n/a | 1 |
| Unidentified | 238 | n/a | 66 | 380.8 | n/a | 105.6 |
| Fish Total | 1432 | 2 | 721.1 | 2291.2 | 3.2 | 1153.8 |
Table 4.8, Analyzed Fish Remains from TU4, Level 14. Righthand columns indicate measures adjusted for excavation volume (KV=1.6).
By any measure (MNI, NISP, or bone weight), fish remains—especially Pacific cod (Gadus macrocephalus)—overwhelmed the other fauna in the TU4, Level 14 sample (Table 4.8). As in other samples, Pacific cod was the most abundant fish, with at least 19 individuals represented by more than 618 specimens. 19 atlas vertebrae indicated a minimum of 19 cod; other elements (10 frontal bones; 13 left exoccipitals, 17 basioccipitals) supported the high Gadus macrocephalus MNI based on cranial elements. A few other fish were represented in the sample as well—twelve vertebrae indicated at least one salmonid, and eight vertebrae indicated a single scorpaenid. 550 elements weighing 113 g had the consistency of other, identified Gadus bones, but were crushed and not easily differentiated as to element. Six specimens possibly do not belong to Gadus, but were also undifferentiated bone fragments.
| Actual Values | Adjusted for Volume | |||||
| Taxon | NISP | MNI | Wt. (g) | NISP | MNI | Wt. (g) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Canis Familiarus | 9 | 1 | 5 | 14.4 | 1.6 | 8 |
| Cetacea | 2 | 1 | 142.3 | 3.2 | 1.6 | 227.7 |
| Odobenus rosmarus | 2 | 1 | 37.5 | 3.2 | 1.6 | 60 |
| Phocidae | 4 | 1 | 56.7 | 6.4 | 1.6 | 90.7 |
| Otariidae | 1 | 1 | 57.8 | 1.6 | 1.6 | 92.5 |
| Synaptomys or Dicrostonyx | 4 | 4 | 0.6 | 6.4 | 6.4 | 1 |
| Unidentified/Dog Size | 31 | n/a | 1.7 | 49.6 | n/a | 2.7 |
| Unidentified/Large Marine Mammal | 2 | n/a | 5.2 | 3.2 | n/a | 8.3 |
| Unidentified/Small Mammal | 29 | n/a | 15.3 | 46.4 | n/a | 24.5 |
| Unidentified | 86 | n/a | 55.2 | 137.6 | n/a | 88.3 |
| Mammal/Total | 170 | 9 | 377.3 | 272 | 14.4 | 603.7 |
Table 4.9, Analyzed Mammal Remains from TU4, Level 14. Righthand columns indicate measures adjusted for excavation volume (KV=1.6).
I recovered and analyzed a wide variety of mammal bones from TU4, Level 14—approximately 170 specimens representing at least nine individuals in six taxa, and weighing a total of 378 g (Table 4.9). Dog remains—probably Canis familiaris, the domestic dog—figure prominently in the identified sample, with nine identified specimens. A small phocid is also present, with four elements representing a single individual. I also noted 31 bones—ribs, and fragments of carpals and tarsals—of the appropriate size to belong either to a large dog or small phocid, so these taxa may be underrepresented in Table 4.9. I also identified 2 long bone fragments of a porous consistency similar to sea mammal bones in the comparative collection. Other sea mammal remains were present in this sample—at least one walrus and one sea lion. Two large fragments of porous bone signified the remains of a single cetacean. Four tiny left mandibles indicated the presence—probably intrusive—of lemmings of the genera Synaptomys or Discrostonyx.
| Actual Values | Adjusted for Volume | |||||
| Taxon | NISP | MNI | Wt. (g) | NISP | MNI | Wt. (g) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Macoma sp. | 1 | 1 | 1.1 | 1.6 | 1.6 | 1.8 |
| Mytilus sp. | 5+ | 3 | 38.9 | 5+ | 4.8 | 62.2 |
| Invertebrate Total | n/a | 4 | 40 | n/a | 6.4 | 64 |
Table 4.10, Analyzed Invertebrate Remains from TU4, Level 14. Righthand columns indicate measures adjusted for excavation volume (KV=1.6).
The excavation crew recovered a few invertebrate remains from TU4, Level 14, during excavation. Most were badly crushed shell fragments or pieces of periostracum, the leathery "skin" covering mussels shells; altogether they weighed 40 g (Table 4.10). Five Mytilus hinge fragments—three right and two left—indicated the presence of at least three individual mussels, weighing a total of 38.9 g. I also noted a single fragment of Macoma shell.
Test Unit 4, Level 18 (Sample 4/18)
TU4, Level 18, lay under the large rock feature, Feature 1. During excavation, and until the return of radiocarbon dates from TU4, I assumed that Feature 1 represented a distinct stratigraphic boundary, separating Stratum II and Stratum III soils, as described in Section 3. Level 18 (and the stratigraphically similar Level 20) yielded significant amounts of animal bone, especially considering their volume. The Level 18 sample (and the Level 20 sample, to be discussed later) contained no shellfish remains.
Owing to the refrigerative properties of permafrost, Level 18 was largely unimpacted by bioturbation, decay, and soil formation processes, and it did not appear to intersect dense regions of refuse, as with Level 14. Substrata soils vary widely, from sticky anthropic sandy silt loams to thin sheets of sands, perhaps eolian in origin. I have interpreted the variety of soil types here as evidence of turbation during or immediately after deposition, perhaps as a result of episodes of trash dumping, interspersed with episodes of eolian sand deposition.
Excavation of Level 18 was constrained by the large stones of Feature 1, which could not be removed without risking damage to the excavation walls. The excavation crew worked from the cut bank face south, in essence digging into the level sideways. We also left a large cantilevered pedestal to support the weight of Feature 1. These two conditions produced an excavation level considerably smaller than the ideal 0.1 m3; my calculations placed the volume of Level 18 at around 0.05 m3, with a Volume Control Constant of 2.0.
| Actual Values | Adjusted for Volume | |||||
| Taxon | NISP | MNI | Wt. (g) | NISP | MNI | Wt. (g) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Alcidae, very small | 5 | 2 | 1.8 | 10 | 4 | 3.6 |
| prob. Anas sp. | 1 | 1 | 0.8 | 2 | 2 | 1.6 |
| Other Anatidae | 2 | 1 | 0.8 | 4 | 2 | 1.6 |
| Bucephala sp. | 3 | 1 | 1.2 | 6 | 2 | 2.4 |
| Cepphus columba | 3 | 2 | 0.7 | 6 | 4 | 1.4 |
| Cerorhinca sp. | 3 | 1 | 1.3 | 6 | 2 | 2.6 |
| Larus sp. | 3 | 1 | 1.8 | 6 | 2 | 3.6 |
| prob. Melanitta sp. | 1 | 1 | 2.2 | 2 | 2 | 4.4 |
| Uria sp. | 4 | 1 | 3.4 | 8 | 2 | 6.8 |
| Unidentified/Small Anatidae? | 8 | n/a | 3.9 | 16 | n/a | 7.8 |
| Unidentified/Laridae? | 2 | n/a | 1.7 | 4 | n/a | 3.4 |
| Not Identified/Misc. | 19 | n/a | 7.2 | 38 | n/a | 14.4 |
| Bird/Total | 54 | 11 | 26.8 | 108 | 22 | 53.6 |
Table 4.11, Analyzed Bird Remains from TU4, Level 18. Righthand columns indicate measures adjusted for excavation volume (KV=2).
Of the 54 total bird specimens from the TU4, Level 18 sample, I identified 35 specimens (Table 4.11). Alcids seemed particularly abundant in the Level 18 sample, represented by two Cepphus individuals, one Cerorhinca individual, one Uria individual (probably aalge), and two unidentified Alcidae. I noted the remains of at least four anatid individuals—one each Anas, Bucephala, and Melanitta, and an unidentified small anatid. In addition, I noted eight specimens with similarities to anatids in the comparative collection. Larids were poorly represented, with only a single individual of Larus indicated by three elements; two other elements identified to Lariidae suggested the presence of a second larid.
| Actual Values | Adjusted for Volume | |||||
| Taxon | NISP | MNI | Wt. (g) | NISP | MNI | Wt. (g) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gadus macrocephalus | 185 | 4 | 186.4 | 370 | 8 | 372.8 |
| Salmonidae | 7 | 1 | 1.2 | 14 | 2 | 2.4 |
| Not Identified/poss. Gadidae | 240 | n/a | 59.8 | 480 | n/a | 119.6 |
| Fish Total (from 1/4" screen sample) | 432 | 5 | 247.4 | 864 | 10 | 494.8 |
| Clupea harengus (from bulk sample) | 150 | 3 | 1.1 | n/a | n/a | n/a |
Table 4.12, Analyzed Fish Remains from TU4, Level 18.
The fish bone sample from TU4, Level 18, consisted of 432 specimens weighing a total of 247 g (Table 4.12). I found the remains of at least four gadids. In addition to cod remains from the TU4, Level 18 sample, I found seven vertebrae indicating the presence of at least one salmonid individual.
Analysis of bulk sample materials recovered in the laboratory using 1 8" screens revealed the presence of a large number of Clupea bones in the 4/18 sample. I noted 149 Clupea harengus vertebrae and one basioccipital; together, these bones weighed a mere 1.1 g and represented three individuals. Since bulk samples varied wildly in volume and represent a tiny fraction of the total excavated volume, I could not extrapolate the overall abundance of Clupea in TU4, Level 18. However, excavators will have missed virtually all of the tiny Clupea remains, whatever their abundance, and herring played some role in the economy of Nash Harbor people.
| Actual Values | Adjusted for Volume | |||||
| Taxon | NISP | MNI | Wt. (g) | NISP | MNI | Wt. (g) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Canis familiarus | 19 | 1 | 48 | 38 | 2 | 96 |
| Phocidae | 30 | 2 | 38 | 60 | 4 | 76 |
| Unidentified/Marine Mammal | 1 | n/a | 22.5 | 2 | n/a | 45 |
| Unidentified | 40 | n/a | 29.6 | 80 | n/a | 59.2 |
| Mammal Total | 90 | 3 | 138.1 | 180 | 6 | 276.2 |
Table 4.13, Analyzed Mammal Remains from TU4, Level 18. Righthand columns indicate measures adjusted for excavation volume (KV=2).
Ninety specimens totaling 138 g comprised the sample of analyzed mammal remains from TU4, Level 18 (Table 4.13). Forty or so of these specimens were burned or otherwise damaged, possibly before deposition. Many of these were also small, difficult to identify bones—carpals and tarsals. Of the remaining specimens, 30 appeared to belong to two phocid individuals, one of them juvenile. A single large bone may also have belonged to a large marine mammal. In addition, 19 elements, mostly ribs and a humerus and femur, signified the presence of at least one medium size canid, probably Canis familiaris.
Test Unit 4, Level 20 (Sample 4/20)
The soils of Test Unit 4, Level 20, were similar to those of Level 18. Mixed anthropic soils, consisting of dark brown, slightly sticky silty loam, were interspersed with lenses of tan to gray sands showing a degree of rounding, characteristic of probable eolian beach sands.
Excavation in Level 20 proceeded more smoothly than in Level 18, although Feature 1 again forced us to excavate this unit from the cut bank into the dune. I estimated the volume of Level 20 to be 0.07 m3. Dividing the ideal excavation unit volume of 0.1 m3 by the actual volume excavated yielded a Volume Control Constant of 1.43.
| Actual Values | Adjusted for Volume | |||||
| Taxon | NISP | MNI | Wt. (g) | NISP | MNI | Wt. (g) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aechmorphus occidentalis | 1 | 1 | 0.5 | 1.4 | 1.4 | 0.7 |
| Alcidae | 2 | 1 | 0.4 | 2.9 | 1.4 | 0.6 |
| Brachyramphus sp. | 1 | 1 | 0.5 | 1.4 | 1.4 | 0.7 |
| Cepphus columba | 2 | 1 | 0.7 | 2.9 | 1.4 | 1 |
| Gavia sp. | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1.4 | 1.4 | 1.4 |
| Phalacrocorax sp. | 2 | 1 | 3.2 | 2.9 | 1.4 | 4.6 |
| Rissa sp. | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2.9 | 1.4 | 1.4 |
| Uria sp., poss. aalge | 3 | 1 | 6.2 | 4.3 | 1.4 | 8.9 |
| Unidentified | 8 | n/a | 3.6 | 11.4 | n/a | 5.1 |
| Bird Total | 22 | 8 | 17.1 | 31.5 | 11.4 | 24.5 |
Table 4.14, Analyzed Bird Remains from TU4, Level 20. Righthand columns indicate measures adjusted for excavation volume (KV=1.43).
Of the 22 bird bones from the TU4, Level 20 sample, I identified 14 to taxon (Table 4.14). Cliff-dwelling birds dominated the identified sample, with at least one individual each of murrelets (Brachyramphus sp.), Cepphus columba, Uria sp. (probably aalge), and one other alcid. I also noted a single cormorant and one kittiwake individual. Anatids were entirely absent from the sample, but a single grebe (Aechmorphus occidentalis) and one loon were present.
| Actual Values | Adjusted for Volume | |||||
| Taxon | NISP | MNI | Wt. (g) | NISP | MNI | Wt. (g) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gadus macrocephalus | 74 | 2 | 47 | 105.8 | 2.9 | 67.2 |
| Salmonidae | 3 | 1 | 0.6 | 4.3 | 1.4 | 0.9 |
| Sebastes sp. | 5 | 1 | 0.8 | 7.2 | 1.4 | 1.1 |
| Unidentified, but not Gadus macrocephalus | 4 | n/a | 1 | 5.7 | n/a | 1.4 |
| Unidentified, prob. Gadidae | 30 | n/a | 5.7 | 42.9 | n/a | 8.2 |
| Unidentified | 100 | n/a | 11.1 | 143 | n/a | 15.9 |
| Fish/Total | 216 | 4 | 66.2 | 308.9 | 5.7 | 94.7 |
Table 4.15, Analyzed fish remains from TU4, Level 20. Righthand columns indicate measures adjusted for excavation volume (KV=1.43).
Fish were represented in the TU4, Level 20, sample by 216 specimens weighing 66.2 g. Gadus macrocephalus again dominated the sample, but I identified a minimum of only two individuals, indicated by 74 elements. Salmonids and scorpaenids were also represented by one individual each. Four elements could not be identified to taxa, but were unlike gadid bones in consistency, implying that the sample may have contained the remains of at least one other non-gadid fish.
| Actual Values | Adjusted for Volume | |||||
| Taxon | NISP | MNI | Wt. (g) | NISP | MNI | Wt. (g) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Canis lupus | 2 | 1 | 44.2 | 2.9 | 1.4 | 63.2 |
| Odobenus rosmarus | 2 | 1 | 152 | 2.9 | 1.4 | 217.4 |
| Otariidae | 1 | 1 | 13.7 | 1.4 | 1.4 | 19.6 |
| Phocidae | 15 | 1 | 38.5 | 21.5 | 1.4 | 55.1 |
| Rangifer sp. | 3 | 1 | 76.6 | 4.3 | 1.4 | 109.5 |
| Unidentified, Pinniped? | 4 | n/a | 24.7 | 5.7 | n/a | 35.3 |
| Unidentified, marine mammal? | 7 | n/a | 9.8 | 10 | n/a | 14 |
| Unidentified, Rangifer? | 9 | n/a | 54.8 | 12.9 | n/a | 78.4 |
| Unidentified, Phocidae? | 6 | n/a | 12.2 | 8.6 | n/a | 17.4 |
| Unidentified, Canidae or Phocidae? | 49 | n/a | 23.4 | 70.1 | n/a | 33.5 |
| Mammal/Total | 98 | 5 | 449.9 | 140.1 | 7.2 | 643.4 |
Table 4.16, Analyzed Mammal Remains from TU4, Level 20. Righthand columns indicate measures adjusted for excavation volume (KV=1.43).
Ninety-eight individual specimens weighing 449.9 g comprised the mammalian sample from TU4, Level 20 (Table 4.16). Large mammals predominated, with at least one individual each of Phocidae, Canidae (probably Canis lupus), Odobenus rosmarus, and Rangifer. A large number of partially-identified elements implied that mammals may have been more abundant in this level than indicated by MNI. Forty-nine fragmentary long bone, vertebral, and rib elements were similar to small phocid or large canid bones in the comparative collection. Long bone fragments suggested larger mammals—caribou, sea lion, or other, unidentified mammals.
Test Unit 4, Level 24 (Sample 4/24)
TU4, Level 24, intersected two major strata of markedly different histories and consistencies. Stratum IV indicated the lowest and earliest anthropic soils in Test Unit 4; dark gray to brown sandy loams with dense pockets of vegetal organic matter characterized these soils. Stratum V indicated sterile parent soils; these were gray beach sands, containing no cultural materials.
The crew experienced no particular difficulty in excavating Level 24. Permafrost proved a problem in the southern margin of the unit, but the loose sandy matrix meant that the cold soil thawed quickly and was easily excavated even when partially thawed. The estimated volume of TU4, Level 24, is about 0.06 m3, with a Volume Control Constant of 1.6.
| Actual Values | Adjusted for Volume | |||||
| Taxon | NISP | MNI | Wt. (g) | NISP | MNI | Wt. (g) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unidentified, poss. Larus sp. | 1 | 1 | 0.6 | 1.6 | 1.6 | 1 |
| Unidentified | 2 | n/a | 0.8 | 3.2 | n/a | 1.3 |
| Bird Total | 3 | 1 | 1.4 | 4.8 | 1.6 | 2.2 |
| Gadus macrocephalus | 2 | 1 | 0.8 | 3.2 | 1.6 | 1.3 |
| Unidentified | 8 | n/a | 0.7 | 12.8 | n/a | 1.1 |
| Fish Total | 10 | 1 | 1.5 | 16 | 1.6 | 2.4 |
| Cetacea | 1 | 1 | 11.1 | 1.6 | 1.6 | 17.8 |
| Otariidae | 1 | 1 | 6.9 | 1.6 | 1.6 | 11 |
| Unidentified | 3 | n/a | 0.9 | 4.8 | n/a | 1.4 |
| Mammal Total | 5 | 2 | 18.9 | 8 | 3.2 | 30.2 |
| Balanus sp. | 6 | 1 | 0.2 | 9.6 | 1.6 | 0.3 |
| Mytilus edulis | n/a | 1 | 0.4 | n/a | 1.6 | 0.6 |
| Invertebrate Total | 6 | 2 | 0.6 | 9.6 | 3.2 | 1 |
Table 4.17, Analyzed Faunal Remains from TU4, Level 24. Righthand columns indicate measures adjusted for excavation volume (KV=1.6).
I recovered a small amount of faunal material from Level 24, less than 25 g of material in all (Table 4.17). Most of the material was badly eroded or broken; I speculated that this degradation may have happened before or during deposition. Thick mats of vegetal matter found in these strata imply that permafrost had effectively refrigerated this level, halting biological decay of the faunal materials shortly after deposition.
I could not identify the three bird bones from the TU4, Level 24 sample. A single bird ulna had some similarities to Larus bones in the comparative collection, but was too deteriorated to identify positively. Two gadid bones and eight unidentified but possible gadid bones comprised the total fish sample. Two large mammal bones—a vertebra possibly belonging to a sea lion or fur seal and a fragment of porous bone probably belonging to a cetacean—suggested the presence two large sea mammals. A few crushed barnacle shells and fragments of Mytilus periostracum, together weighing only a total of 5g, comprised the total invertebrate remains from Level 24.
Test Unit 4, Level 28 (Sample 4/28)
Level 28 was the lowest excavated level with associated artifacts in Test Unit 4. More than two and a half meters below the present-day surface of the site, the base of Level 28 is perhaps 40 cm from present high tide line. Most of the excavation level, especially the northern half of the unit, consists of sterile Stratum V sands. The southern half contained yellowish-brown silty anthropic soils, near the base of Stratum IV.
As with TU4, Level 24, the excavation of Level 28 proceeded smoothly. Permafrost complicated digging, but the sandy soil thawed quickly and could be dug when partially frozen. I estimate the volume of TU4, Level 28 to be 0.08 m3, and calculate a Volume Control Constant of KV = 1.25.
| Actual Values | Adjusted for Volume | |||||
| Taxon | NISP | MNI | Wt. (g) | NISP | MNI | Wt. (g) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Salmonidae | 1 | 1 | 0.2 | 1.3 | 1.3 | 0.3 |
| Scorpaenidae | 1 | 1 | 0.1 | 1.3 | 1.3 | 0.1 |
| Unidentified | 3 | n/a | 0.2 | 3.8 | n/a | 0.3 |
| Fish/Total | 5 | 2 | 0.5 | 6.3 | 2.5 | 0.6 |
| Odobenus | 2 | n/a | 222.2 | 2.5 | n/a | 277.8 |
| Unidentified | 16 | n/a | 9.2 | 20 | n/a | 11.5 |
| Mammal Total | 18 | 0 | 231.4 | 22.5 | 0 | 289.3 |
| Mytilus edulis | n/a | 1 | 1.6 | n/a | 1.3 | 2 |
Table 4.18, Analyzed Faunal Remains from TU4, Level 28. Righthand columns indicate measures adjusted for excavation volume (KV=1.25).
The excavation crew recovered few faunal remains from Level 28 (Table 4.18), an unsurprising result, considering the large amount of sterile beach sands comprising the excavated soils. Two walrus bones—rib and long bone fragments—weighed 222 g and comprised the vast majority of faunal material by weight. I could not distinguish these remains as a separate individual from the Odobenus bones found in Level 20, however. Another unidentified mammal was indicated by 16 small, badly eroded mammal bones. I analyzed five fish bones as well, two of which I identified as salmonid and scorpaenid. A few fragments of Mytilus periostracum indicated the presence of shellfish. The total lack of both bird bones and gadid bones set the TU4, Level 28 sample apart from all other analyzed faunal samples.
Test Unit 7, Level 7 (Sample 7/7)
I analyzed only one sample from Test Unit 7, an excavation unit with a much simpler stratigraphic history than TU4. Of the 15 excavated levels from TU7, I analyzed the faunal sample from Level 7 for two reasons. First, Level 7 contained significant amounts of midden material identified in excavation levels 7 through 9 in TU7, although not as much as either Level 8 or Level 9. Second, the material in the TU7 midden deposit appeared to contain more invertebrate remains than the TU4 midden deposit. Thus, analysis of the TU7, Level 7 sample broadened the interpretation of animal harvesting and processing at Nash Harbor by including a large sample of the phyla relatively poorly represented in TU4: mollusks and arthropods.
Bioturbation appeared to have played an important role in the history of the soils in TU7. Root penetration mixed soils in the upper 50 cm, and rodent activity disturbed apparent buried surfaces throughout the unit. A distinct band of dense shell and bone midden ran through the unit, designated Stratum II-4 on the stratigraphic profile (See Figure 2.5). The majority of faunal remains—especially fish and shellfish—were derived from the midden stratum.
Unlike Test Unit 4, Test Unit 7 lacked frozen soils and large features of flat stones; the excavation of this unit proceeded more easily than in Test Unit 4. Because of the erosion along the sea cliff, the unit was irregular in cross-section. I computed the total excavated volume of Level 7 at 0.08 m3, with KV = 1.25.
| Actual Values | Adjusted for Volume | |||||
| Taxon | NISP | MNI | Wt. (g) | NISP | MNI | Wt. (g) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Alcidae | 3 | 1 | 0.5 | 3.8 | 1.3 | 0.6 |
| Anatidae | 2 | 1 | 1.7 | 2.5 | 1.3 | 2.1 |
| Cepphus columba | 2 | 1 | 1.4 | 2.5 | 1.3 | 1.8 |
| Gavia sp. | 3 | 2 | 1.5 | 3.8 | 2.5 | 1.9 |
| Larus sp. | 5 | 1 | 3.8 | 6.3 | 1.3 | 4.8 |
| Phalacrocorax sp. | 14 | 2 | 36.4 | 17.5 | 2.5 | 45.5 |
| Rissa sp. | 4 | 1 | 1.8 | 5 | 1.3 | 2.3 |
| Uria sp. | 3 | 1 | 5 | 3.8 | 1.3 | 6.3 |
| Unidentified/possibly Alcidae | 39 | n/a | 8.9 | 48.8 | n/a | 11.1 |
| Not ID/Phalacrocoracidae or Anatidae | 8 | n/a | 7 | 10 | n/a | 8.8 |
| Unidentified | 10 | n/a | 3.9 | 12.5 | n/a | 4.9 |
| Bird Total | 93 | 10 | 71.9 | 116.3 | 12.5 | 89.9 |
Table 4.19, Analyzed Bird Remains from TU7, Level 7. Righthand columns indicate measures adjusted for excavation volume (KV=1.25).
I identified a large number and wide variety of bird remains—almost all from pelagic and cliff-dwelling birds—from the TU7 Level 7 sample (Table 4.19). Cormorants (Phalacrocorax sp.) were the most abundant birds by any measure, with 14 specimens weighing 36 g signifying the presence of at least two individuals. Other pelagic birds included at least one guillemot and one murre, and another alcid unidentified to genus. Gulls were also represented, with one Larus individual indicated by five specimens and one Rissa individual indicated by four specimens. Four specimens indicated the presence of at least one small loon, and two specimens were identfied as an anatid of unknown genus. Undifferentiated small long bone fragments, similar in size to alcid, small anatid, or small larid bones, remained unidentified.
| Actual Values | Adjusted for Volume | |||||
| Taxon | NISP | MNI | Wt. (g) | NISP | MNI | Wt. (g) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gadus macrocephalus | 134 | 3 | 149.1 | 167.5 | 3.8 | 186.4 |
| Microgadus proximus | 34 | 4 | 28.8 | 42.5 | 5 | 36 |
| Salmonidae | 1 | 1 | 0.2 | 1.3 | 1.3 | 0.3 |
| Scorpaenidae, poss. Sebastes sp. | 50 | 3 | 15.6 | 62.5 | 3.8 | 19.5 |
| Hippoglossus stenolepis | 4 | 1 | 1.9 | 5 | 1.3 | 2.4 |
| Unidentified, but not Gadidae | 15 | n/a | 2.1 | 18.8 | n/a | 2.6 |
| Unidentified | 161 | n/a | 78.9 | 201.3 | n/a | 98.6 |
| Fish/Total | 399 | 12 | 276.6 | 498.8 | 15 | 345.8 |
Table 4.20, Analyzed Fish Remains from TU7, Level 7. Righthand columns indicate measures adjusted for excavation volume (KV=1.25).
I analyzed 399 fish bones and fragments weighing a total of 276 g from the TU7, Level 7 sample; of these, I identified 235 specimens (Table 4.20). Although Gadus remains comprised a majority of fish specimens identified, other fish made up a significant amount of the piscine fauna. One hundred thirty-four elements signified at least three Gadus individuals. At least three rockfish (Scorpaenidae, probably Sebastes sp.) and four individuals of a second variety of gadid (probably tomcod, Microgadus proximus) also contributed to the analyzed sample.
| Actual Values | Adjusted for Volume | |||||
| Taxon | NISP | MNI | Wt. (g) | NISP | MNI | Wt. (g) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Phocidae | 4 | 1 | 21.4 | 5 | 1.3 | 26.8 |
| Rangifer sp. | 2 | 1 | 84.8 | 2.5 | 1.3 | 106 |
| Synaptomys or Dicrostonyx | 1 | 1 | 0.1 | 1.3 | 1.3 | 0.1 |
| Unidentified/Phocidae? | 4 | n/a | 7.8 | 5 | n/a | 9.8 |
| Unidentified | 53 | n/a | 39.9 | 66.3 | n/a | 49.9 |
| Mammal/Total | 64 | 3 | 154 | 80 | 3.8 | 192.5 |
Table 4.21, Analyzed Mammal Remains from TU7, Level 7. Righthand columns indicate measures adjusted for excavation volume (KV=1.25).
Identification of the mammalian fauna in the TU7 proved more difficult than in other samples. Of the 64 bones and bone fragments, I identified only 11 specimens (Table 4.21). About 50 bone fragments, weighing 40 grams, were burned, and badly eroded. Many of the remaining bones were also worn and damaged, possibly by immediate post-depositional weathering. The remains of phocids and Rangifer were the most abundant, by weight and number of individual specimens, but I identified only one individual of each group. I also noted a portion of a small rodent cranium.
| Actual Values | Adjusted for Volume | |||||
| Taxon | NISP | MNI | Wt. (g) | NISP | MNI | Wt. (g) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Balanus sp. | 1 | 1 | 0.05 | 1.3 | 1.3 | 0.1 |
| Gastropoda | 1 | 1 | 1.7 | 1.3 | 1.3 | 2.1 |
| Macoma sp. | 11 | 1 | 2 | 13.8 | 1.3 | 2.5 |
| Mytilus edulis | 41 | 20 | 192.53 | 51.3 | 25 | 240.7 |
| Invertebrate/Total | 54 | 23 | 196.28 | 67.5 | 28.8 | 245.4 |
Table 4.22, Analyzed Invertebrate Remains from TU7, Level 7. Righthand columns indicate measures adjusted for excavation volume (KV=1.25).
The TU7 Level 7 sample was most notable for its abundant invertebrate remains, especially Mytilus shells (Table 4.22). Weighing 196g, mussel shells outweighed fish remains in the analyzed sample. As discussed in Section 3, the loss of a large amount of shell due to 1/4" screens used during excavation meant that this amount actually underrepresents the total number of shellfish remains. I noted 41 individual Mytilus hinges or hinge fragments, but did not determine their sides; I estimated the presence of at least 20 mussels. I found the remains of a few other invertebrate species—one complete marine snail (family and genus unknown), and eleven fragments of chalky clam shell, probably belonging to Macoma. A single fragment of acorn barnacle shell discovered during analysis proved enigmatic; it may have arrived in the midden as a hitchhiker on mussel shell collected by Nash Harbor residents.