Historic Eskimo peoples like the Cupiit depended upon animal products for food, skins, and other products (Oswalt 1967). Of course, the Nunivarrmiut have access to non-animal resources as well: driftwood, trade goods, rye grass, and a variety of greens; but animals provided the majority of food and clothing (Lantis 1946). Study of the animal remains recovered from midden deposits at Ellikarrmiut reveals some of the activities of the people who lived here about 400 years ago.
Birding
Although probably not a staple of the residents’ diets, birds played an important role in the Nash Harbor economy. Nash Harbor's proximity to the sea cliffs forming the northwestern corner of Nunivak Island provided close access to a rich variety of birds. Not only could Nash Harbor people eat these animals and their eggs, but they could also make ornaments and clothing from bird skins. They could trade the skins to people living on the eastern portion of the island, and to Yupiit people on Nelson Island and the mainland.
The profusion of cliff bird remains in the analyzed samples, especially in the 4/18, 4/20, and 7/7 samples may reflect their special status as wealth and trade items to Nash Harbor people. Pratt (1990) and Lantis (1946, 1986) described the capture of these birds while “cliffhanging,” a risky venture that yielded considerable wealth in food, skins, and beaks for the Nunivarrmiut. A hunter, often working with a partner, would descend from the clifftops on sealskin or walrus skin ropes, and net or snare cliff-dwelling birds. The Nash Harbor people traded puffin, murre, auklet, and cormorant skins and beaks with their neighbors in Mekoryuk and other towns to the east, who had limited access to these items (Hoffman 1990:67; Pratt 1990:77; VanStone 1989:35; Lantis 1946:169, 170). Cliffhangers also gathered eggs and greens from the cliffs, prized foods that archaeologists would have difficulty recovering (Pratt 1990). Oral historical evidence suggests that the cliffs nearest Nash Harbor were not used, but that Nash Harbor cliffhangers usually travelled to the larger cliffs forming the northwest corner of the island (Pratt 1990; Griffin 1997, personal communication).
Although probably second to auks and cormorants in importance, waterfowl also represented a proportion of Nash Harbor economy. Lantis (1986:214, 1946:172) reported that the Nunivarrmiut often speared ducks, scoters, grebes and loons on the open water. Mainland Yupiit snared or speared these birds on the ground while they nested, or during their summer molts (Shaw 1983). VanStone (1989:9–11) described hunters shooting waterfowl—and murres and cormorants—on the open water with bows and arrows, or with three-pronged bird spears.
A wide variety of gulls nest on Nunivak Island on cliffs and on open ground; kittiwakes nest primarily on sea cliffs (Armstrong 1980). Capture of these animals would have required the same techniques as the capture of cliff-birds and waterfowl. Gulls tend not to be as concentrated in large rookeries as other cliff-dwelling birds (Swarth 1934). Gull remains occurred in small numbers in almost all samples, but were more abundant when found with other birds. This distribution may indicate that gulls did not represent a specialized economy, as with other cliff birds. Perhaps Ellikarrmiut birders took gulls in a wide variety of situations—either while cliffhanging or while hunting on the water or open tundra. Renowned Nunivarrmiut cliffhanger Andrew Noatak and other hunters avoided gull nests while cliff-hanging, since gulls tend to nest on unstable scree that offers poor footing (Hoffman 1990:69). Neither VanStone (1989) nor Pratt (1990) described any trade of gull skins.
Chatters (1972) noted that anatid and gavid remains predominated the avian sample from sites near Mekoryuk Village (49-NI-028 and 49-NI-030) during Norton times (150 B.C. to A.D. 600), with alcids and phalacrocoracids ranking distant second and third. Neither Chatters (1972) nor Nowak (1982) detailed the condition of excavations at the Mekoryuk Village sites, although screens were apparently not used, so these data are not easily compared to the Nash Harbor results. However, I found the preponderance of cliff birds at Nash Harbor compared to Mekoryuk Village unsurprising, given Nash Harbor’s close proximity to the sea cliffs forming the northwestern corner of Nunivak Island.
With the exception of a possible Arctic loon (Gavia arctica) all the birds represented in the analyzed Nash Harbor sample reside seasonally on Nunivak, either during migrations in the spring and fall, or during the summer breeding season (Armstrong 1980; Swarth 1934). Pratt (1990:77) indicated that cliffhangers concentrated their activities during the spring and summer, when populations of cliff birds were densest, and when they displayed breeding plumage. The importance of birds is reflected in traditional Cup'ig names for the lunar months between late April to August: “Kittiwakes” (late April), “Birds” (May), “Birds Breeding” (June), “Murre Gone Away” (July), and “Puffin Gone Away” (August) (Lantis 1946:171). Deposition of bird remains—especially alcids—probably occurred between May and August.
Fishing
As indicated by the analyzed sample from 1/4" screens, Nash Harbor people probably relied heavily on the catch of Pacific cod. These animals constituted the overwhelming majority of fish remains in the analyzed sample, and perhaps the majority of all animal remains. The predominance of cod heads, as opposed to cod vertebrae, suggests that the Nash Harbor people not only took cods in great numbers, but butchered them in a regular way that left cod heads in one place and cod vertebrae someplace else, or destroyed them altogether.
Some ethnographic data illuminate possible cod fishing and processing practices. Oswalt (1967:128, probably following Lantis 1946) indicated that Nunivarrmiut fishermen relied less on fishhooks than nets and spears for taking fish. Lantis (1986:214) noted that the Nunivarrmiut took riverine fish with weirs, nets, traps, and multi-pronged spears; they also used large composite hooks for cod (Lantis 1946:173). VanStone (1989:13) indicated that the Nunivarrmiut fished for cod in the spring, spearing them from kayaks, or using a weighted line and hook. Cod are usually deep benthic fish, coming in close to shore in the spring and early summer, where they are more easily hooked (Hart 1973:222–224; Shimada and Kimura 1994:814). In the early 20th century, Nash Harbor was renowned for having a good cod fishery (Griffin 1996; 1997 personal communication).
Lantis (1986:214) noted that fish were frozen, boiled, or dried, but not smoked. Dried fish were an important staple through the winter (Lantis 1946:172–180). VanStone (1989:14–15) wrote that “salmon and other fish caught through mid-summer were split, cleaned, scored, and hung of racks to dry.” He also noted that “cod were cut along the back in the same manner as salmon,” and then the “split heads and eggs were buried in pits lined with grass and covered with sod” (VanStone 1989:30). Such a processing method could fragment vertebrae, leading to an uneven distribution of cod heads and vertebrae. This explanation also suggests a purpose for the flat stones of Feature 1 in TU4. VanStone (1989:31) indicated that after decapitating the cod, the Nunivarrmiut would spread the heads and bodies on rocks to dry. In 1927, Edward Curtis photographed a pile of cod heads at Cape Etolin (near Mekoryuk), probably the byproduct of some processing method. The catching and processing of cod indicates a deposition of these animals’ remains from late spring through mid-summer.
The Nash Harbor people caught other fish as well. They probably speared or hooked tomcod while ice fishing, or in in seine nets in the fall (VanStone 1989:12–13; Lantis 1946:174). They also took tomcod, flounder, and herring with seine nets. One person on shore held one end of a long seine net, while a kayaker closed the seine by drawing the end close to shore. I discovered no ethnographic reference to scorpaenid fishing techniques on Nunivak, so can only speculate that these marine fish could have been caught in shallow to moderately deep water, with hooks and lines, or seine nets.
The presence of 150 herring bones in the TU4/18 bulk sample suggests that these small fish may also have figured in the Nash Harbor economy, but excavation techniques have obscured their actual importance. VanStone (1989:13) indicated that the Nunivarrmiut took herring in the spring using seine nets. Small fish such as herring were strung along a line, and then hung to dry.
Mammal Hunting
Sea mammals, along with cod, probably formed a staple of the Nash Harbor economy. Seals and walruses were probably most important, although with the limited sample analyzed here it is difficult to gauge the actual importance of either animal. Seals may have been even more abundant than indicated, since oral histories record that proper respect for seals involved the disposal of their remains in the sea (Griffin 1996, personal communication). Place name studies indicate several important sealing sites near Nash Harbor, which was recorded as an important base for sealing operations (Lantis 1946:162–163, 172–178).
VanStone (1989:6–10) described seal hunting in some detail. The spring seal hunt was most important, and large ceremonial preparations preceded the hunt. Hunters harpooned the seals in the open water from kayaks, or on the sea ice as the animals basked in the sun, although Oswalt (1967:128) stated that the Nunivarrmiut did not take seals from the ice. In the fall, before the onset of sea ice, hunters took seals in nets. Oswalt (1967:128) and Lantis (1946:181) asserted that seals were also hunted in the fall, and VanStone (1989:8) observed that seal hunting slacked during the summer. In the fall, the Nunivarrmiut netted seals with nets strung between the shore and floats set 25 to 100 m out. The nets were used through holes in the ice during the winter. Beluga and sea lions occasionally appeared in the seal nets, although all ethnographic sources agree that these animals were incidental to the catch—which helps explain the scarcity of otarid and cetacean remains in the analyzed sample from Nash Harbor. Most phocids give birth in late winter or early spring, on pack ice or land (Burt and Grossenheider 1976). The presence of juvenile seal remains in TU4 suggests that the Ellikarrmiut hunted seals at these times.
The Nunivarrmiut hunted walrus—probably the second most important mammal at Nash Harbor—primarily in the spring, when the edge of the sea ice moved past the island (VanStone 1989:9; Lantis 1946:177). Walrus hunters worked from kayaks in small groups, since walrus were capable of upsetting single kayaks. Lone walrus were taken occasionally on the sea ice in winter, and walrus carcasses often washed ashore in summer and autumn (Lantis 1946:179). The Nunivarrmiut prized walrus meat even more than that of seal meat (VanStone 1989:30).
Caribou remains comprised a small proportion of the analyzed sample; they may not have contributed significantly to the Nash Harbor economy. VanStone (1989:10) described caribou hunting techniques. According to VanStone, caribou were the most important land mammal, hunted in the spring after the seal hunt, and during the winter. Lantis (1946:172) stated that “[m]ost caribou hunting took place in early summer.” The Nunivarrmiut hunted them traditionally with composite bows and arrows; VanStone contends that they did not usually drive caribou into enclosures, as mainland peoples did. I encountered no discussion of the butchering of caribou, however. It is possible that caribou were butchered away from the village, and only portions of the animal brought back to the village. Such a situation would explain the paucity of caribou remains at the site: antler fragments, a tooth, and a single tarsal. I have left open the question of whether these remains might instead be reindeer, since I believe the midden materials predate the introduction of reindeer by at least 300 years. However, should this belief prove false, the Rangifer remains may actually signifiy the presence of reindeer.
Canid remains were the most abundant identified terrestrial mammals, a finding I have difficulty interpreting. Neither VanStone (1989) nor Lantis (1946) described the Nunivarrmiut as eating domestic dogs, although VanStone (1989:38, 108) and Lantis (1946:179) detailed the use of puppy skins for making children's parkas. Dogs were also important as beasts of burden (VanStone 1989:20). I have also tentatively identified two canid individuals as wolf and fox. Arctic foxes, red foxes, and wolves were caught in traps, especially during the winter, when their coats were fullest (VanStone 1989:12). The Nunivarrmiut eschewed red fox meat, but used the furs of all wild canids for making clothing (VanStone 1989:30, 32).
A single Mustelidae humerus found in TU4/6 also indicates that the Nash Harbor people may have captured weasels or minks as well, although traditional methods for trapping minks on land had been forgotten (VanStone 1989:12). Curtis (1930) outlines a method for catching mink in the water, using a wicker trap. The humerus found in 4/6 might also be intrusive into the midden, as mustelids are active burrowers (Burt and Grossenheider 1976).
Shellfish Gathering
The role of shellfish in the economy of Nash Harbor remains enigmatic. As outlined in Section 5, invertebrate (mostly mussel) shells contributed only 3.7% of the weight of animal remains in the analyzed sample, although this is a result of sampling. The large concentration of mussel shells in TU7/7 (and elsewhere in TU7) indicates that Nash Harbor people gathered mussels in great quantity, probably during the summer.
The winter sea ice would have constrained shellfish gathering in three ways. First, shellfish gathering would simply have been impossible about half the year, because ice covered the littoral zone. Second, the sea ice scours the high to low littoral zones, scraping bivalve spat from the rocks. Mussels (or other sessile invertebrates) could therefore be taken only during very low neap tides. Third, the long, cold winter and the generally frigid Bering sea waters would limit mussel growth, making shellfish exploitation here less profitable than in other, warmer areas.
Nonetheless, the Nash Harbor people appear to have eaten significant quantities of shellfish, mostly mussels but also Macoma clams. I discovered no ethnographic record of clamming on Nunivak, but Lantis (1986: 214) observed that the Nunivarrmiut ate mussels raw; VanStone (1989:31) repeats the observation. A lack of evidence for burning of mussel shells in the analyzed sample may bear this out, but of course the Ellikarrmiut may simply have shucked mussels raw, then dried or smoked the meat. VanStone (1989: 32) suggested another use for mussel shells: to scrape hair from seal skins.
Nash Harbor Economy & Patterns of Site Use, ca. A.D. 1550
Ethnohistorians have represented Nash Harbor as a sealing and cod-fishing camp, and a center for cliff-birding (Griffin 1996; Lantis 1946). Zooarchaeological analyses largely support this representation, although the variety of animals actually found in the faunal sample reveals a much more diverse economy. The Ellikarrmiut focused their attention on cod, seals, cliff birds, and walrus, but also took tomcod, salmonids, mussels, ducks, grebes, loons, sea lions, and caribou. They probably traded many of the birds they caught to people living on the eastern portion of the island, and to mainland Yupiit peoples. Excavation and recovery techniques have masked the importance of other animals, especially herring, and the differential butchering and transport of caribou remains may underrerpresent the actual importance of these animals. The Ellikarrmiut may have also taken fur animals such as wolves, foxes, and weasels or minks.
Figure 6.1, Seasons of Cupiit animal capture, based on VanStone (1989) and Lantis (1946), in order of approximate abundance in sample. Light bars indicate times of animals’ availability; dark bars indicate traditional times of capture.
Drawing upon the archaeological and ethnohistoric evidence outlined above, I can characterize Ellikarrmiut, about 400 years ago, as a settlement with evidence for use in the spring and summer Figure 6.1. Cupiit practices of food storage make the differentiation of winter occupation more difficult; since summer foods were stored and consumed through the winter (Lantis 1946), the presence of animals believed to have been captured during the summer does not necessarily indicate a summer occupation. However, the presence of juvenile phocids in the analyzed sample is a strong indicator of late winter and early spring hunting by Nash Harbor residents. The evidence for cod processing also implicates summer occupation, a finding bolstered by the abundant mussel shell deposits recovered from the site. Since the Nunivarrmiut did not store mussels (Lantis 1946; VanStone 1989), mussel shell deposits from Nash Harbor indicate occupation during mussel season (May through August).
The present study has reviewed only a tiny a fraction of the faunal materials recovered from Nash Harbor in 1996. As more materials come under study, and as more archaeological investigations take place at Nash Harbor, more finely-tuned analyses will inevitably result. These analyses can help flesh out my description of the Ellikarrmiut of Late Thule times: a people utilizing a wide variety of fish, bird, shellfish, terrestrial mammal, and sea mammal resources, focusing on cod, seals, walrus, cormorants, and murres.
Table of Contents
Previous: Section 5: Distribution of Faunal Materials
Next: Acknowledgements & References Cited