11

Bone Artifacts and Tool Production in
the Native Alaskan Neighborhood

THOMAS A. WAKE

B    ONE TOOLS AND WORKED BONE ARTIFACTS ae one

of the more intriguing artifact classes recovered in
the Nadve Alaskan Neighborhood. Bone tools and

ifact represent, from one perspective, the ultimate

stage in the exploitation of vertebrates as resources, since
these tools were often used to capture more of the species
from which they were made. This chapter describes and
analyzes the bone artifacts recovered from both the

Native Alaskan Village Site (NAVS) and the Fort Ross
Beach Site (FRBS).

Tools and omaments made of bone were important
aspects of the material culture of both Native Alaskans
and Native Califoniians. The wide variety of artifacts

made from bone in both Alaska and Califomia includes
fsshing and hunting implements, utilitarian items,

manufactuing implements, and ornaments. Several

examples of these kinds of implements have been found
in the Native Alaskan Neighborhood.

Many of the bone artifact types made by these two

Native American groups, such as the hunting and fishing
implements and bone ornaments, have stylistic attributes
that allow them to be assigned to a particular ethnic

group or time period (Bennyhoff 1950, 1994; Birket-

Smith 1953; Clak 1974a, 1974b; Gifford 1940; Heizer
1956; Jochelson 1925). The utilitarian and manufactur-
ing implements such as awls, containers, wedges, and

flakers are usually more functional and generalized, and
therefore more difficult to assign to a given ethnic group
or time period (Bennyhoff 1950; Gifford 1940).

Assignment of the bone artifacts from the Neighbor-
hood to a specific time period is a relatively moot point,
however. It is almost certain that these bone artifacts
were deposited in the sites discussed here during the

Russian occupation of Ross, somewhere between 1812
and 1841. It will be seen that the stylistic attributes of

these artifacts do indeed correspond to contact period and
early postcontact period examples from Califomri,

Alaska, and the Kurile Islands (Bennyhoff 1950, 1994;

Clark 1974a, 1974b; Gifford 1940; Heizer 1956; Hrdlicka
1944; Riddell 1955; Shubin 1990).

The determination of the cultural affiliation of bone
artifacts from the Neighborhood is a much more interest-
ing problem. It is well known that local Kashaya Pomo,

Southern Pomo, Cental Pomo, and Coast Miwok women
lived with Native Alaskan men in interethnic households
in the Neighborhood (Istomen 1992; Khlebnikov 1976,
1990; Lightfoot et al. 1991, 1993, chapter 1). Bone

artifacts were integral parts of the material culture of both
broad ethnic groups, the Native Califomians and the

Native Alaskans. Therefore, it should not be unusual to

find bone artifacts belonging to both cultural traditions in
the assemblage from the Neighborhood.

In fact, a number of bone artifacts recovered bear

stylistic attributes that allow relatively clear identification
of their respective culturl origins or identities

(Bennyhoff 1950, 1994; Birket-Smith 1953; Clark 1974a,
1974b; Gifford 1940, Heizer 1956; Hrdicka 1944;

Jochelson 1925; Liapunova 1975; Riddel 1955; Shubin
1990). Other bone artifacts recovered at Ross have less
well-defined cultural affiliations. When analyzed as a

complete assemblage, however, most of these individual
artifacts can be classified as belonging to one culatual
tradition or the other. Nonetheless, some of the bone
artifacts in this assemblage may be found in either

culturl tradition. Evidence of modification of culturl
taditions in the bone artifact assemblage is represented
by the use of metal manufacuring tools. Cultural

affiliation of these bone artifacts is assigned, wherever
possible, and discussed below.

Many of the bone artifacts in this assemblage appear

Bone Ardfacts    249

to be the result of continuing on-site production of bone
tools. Little has been written on the subject of Native

American bone tool production techniques or technology
(Johnson 1983, 1985, 1989; Miller 1989). Even less is
known about bone tool production and technology in

interetnic contact-period coastal archaeological sites.

Arfacts are assigned to categories representing different
stages in the bone tool production sequence.

A total of 836 worked bone artifacts have been

recovered from the Fort Ross Beach Site and the Native

Alaskan Village Site. A wide variety of tool tpes, forms,
and stages of production can be seen in this assemblage.
The comnplete and broken finished tools and ornaments
(n=85) are described below, as are worked bone objects
indicative of various stages of implement production.
The vast majority (n=751) of worked bone artifacts

recovered from these excavations are clearly culturally

modified but are relatively amorphous bits and flakes of
bone that defy clification as formal tool types. This

does not mean that they cannot be classified as artifacts,
however. They are classed as waste flakes, worked

splintes, and worked chunks of bone and are described
below. Appendix 11.1 provides additional detail on the
bone artifacts from the Native Alaskan Neighborhood.

DIAGNOSTiC BONE IMPLEMENTS

A total of 85 identifiable worked bone artifacts have
--been recovered from FRBS and NAVS. The majority of
diagnosic bone implements from these sites relate in

Fome way to marine mammal hunting (n=28) or fishing

(n15). There are also a number (n=15) of utilitarian

.bjects such as buttons, awls, and fasteners. Many of the
-din  c bone artifacts (n=30) from these sites are

associed with personal adornment, such as plain and
uincised bird bone tubes and bone buttons.
MANE MMMAL HUNTING IMPLEMENTS

Marine mammal hunting was of paramount impor-

e mce at Ross. Fully 36% of the diagnostic bone artifacts

'*Eovered from FRBS and NAVS are designed for this
e ~sice. The marine mammal hunting implement

assemblage consists of 18 varied projectile points and
point fagments, 6 dart socket pieces and socket piece
fragments, 3 fmger rests, and 1 possible dart hindshaft.

Thirteen of the eighteen recovered carved bone

pojetile pOits,, point bases, and point fragments are
t,scilcal1 associated with sea otter hunting. Three
ojectile point fragments are associated with seal

1hnting. One long slender point may be associated with
m urchli gathering.

Projecdk Points: Large Dart Points

lTree small fEragments of large dart points have been
rcoveed from NAVS. None were encountered at FRBS.
These artifact fragments are too small to be diagnostic,

but, even as fragments, they are too large for sea otter
darts or harpoon arrows. All of these artifacts are

suggestive of parts of harpoon heads used in seal hunting
(Birket-Smith 1953; Clark 1974a, 1974b; Heizer 1956;
Jochelson 1925; Shubin 1990).

One dart point fragment is a burned, calcined distal
barb from a good sized point (NAVS-7/13/92-53-WB-1)
(Wake 1995, figure 5.la). This fragment is really too
small to be truly diagnostic. It is unilaterally barbed.
The height of the barb from the body of the point

indicates that the space between the distal barb and the
next, more proximal barb, and probably any other barbs
was considerable. Large spaces between barb bases

indicate a point of relatively large size, probably a sealing
point (Jochelson 1925:53-54).

Another large dart point fragment appears to be a

harpoon point base with part of a line hole (NAVS-7/13/
92-85-WB-1) (Wake 1995, figure 5.lb). The base has

broken off at the level of the line hole. No barbs or other
portions of the point were found. The base is finely

carved with metal tools and tapers to a narrow, round tip
with a flat end. The line hole is bi-conical and relatively
wide. This base is reminiscent of harpoon bases illus-

trated by Clark (1974a:plate 18c) and Heizer (1956.:plate
57a-e). This base probably was designed to fit into the

socketed bone foreshaft of a sealing spear. It is not likely
that a point of this one's probable size was used with

throwing boards. It is more likely that it was propelled
by hand or possibly by a finger rest (Heizer 1956:194,
plate 80p-s).

The last large dart point specimen is a base fragment
(NAVS-7/15/92-35-WB-1) (Wake 1995, figue 5.1c).

This fragment is a portion of the lateral shoulder of the

basal, male end of a point that would fit into the socketed
end of a bone foreshaft This artifact is finely finished
and compares favorably to points from Uyak Bay
illustrated in Heizer (1956:169, plate 55k, 1, p-s).

Projectile Points: Small Dart Points

Ten small dart points and point fragments have been
recovered from NAVS and FRBS. These points are

specifically associated with sea otter hunting, usually

from skin boats (baidarkas) (Jochelson 1925:53; Ogden
1941:12; Scammon 1874). All of these dart points were
typically fitted snugly into bone socket pieces, which

were in tum attached to wood mainshafts and propelled
from throwing boards. The points were designed to

detach from the socket piece once they had penetrated a

mammal's skin. The point, the mainshaft, and the hunter
were all linked together by a series of lines to facilite

retrieval of the otter. Once the animal was hauled back to
the boat, it was typically killed with a club.

The most common carved bone projectile point type
encountered in the Native Alaskan Neighborhood is

symmetrical and bilaterally barbed. The pointed barbs

250    The Native Alaskan Neighborhood

project backwards. The tip and barb region is connected
by a short, undecorated shaft to a finished, expanded,

tapering base (figure 1L.la-c). The base is designed to be
inserted into a socket at the distal end of a carved bone
foreshaft (see Jochelson 1925:55, text-figure 7;

Liapunova 1975:80, plate 6: #3, plate 7: #'s 1,2). I call
projectile points having the atributes outlined above the
type one (type 1) series.

The tips of all three relatively complete points are
missing. It is probable ta a single, smaller, unilateral

barb may have been close to the tips of these points, and
have been broken off during use. All three points have

attributes indicative of a single unilateral distal barb as a
part of the missing tips. Each point has one finely

finished sharp-edged side moving from the proximal barb
to the missing tip. The other side of each point has a

sharp edge near the proximal barb, however, this edge is
carved down, dulled, widened, and slightly indented
closer to the other side of the missing tip area. This
attribute is characteristic of indentations forming the

second, smaller, unilateral barb on points illustrated by
Heizer (1956:57-58, table 24, figure 35f, plate 55e, f),
Jochelson (1925:55, text-figure 7, plate 24: #'s 13-15,
23, 24, 26), Liapunova (1975:80, plate 6: # 3, plate 7:
#'s 1, 2), Riddell (1955:18, figures b, c), and Shubin
(1990:447, figure 8: #'s 11-16).

One clear example of a small dart point of this ype
(type 1 series) came from NAVS (NAVS-7/8/9240-WB-
1). It is a midsection of a relatively small asymmetrcal
bilaterally barbed point, missing the base and the very

tip. The two basal barbs are equally sized, and a smaller
barb lies on one side of the point, closer to the tip.

There are three varieties of bases associated with the
type  small dart points at FRBS and NAVS. The most

common base type (type la; figure Il.la) of which there
are four examples (NAVS-7/7/92-19-WB-1, NAVS-7/13/
92-41-WB-1, NAVS-7/14/92-67-WB-1, NAVS-8/6/91-

45-W-1) (Wake 1995, figure 5.le-h), is a simple, undeco-
rated, expanded base, which tapers gradually in a distal to
proximal direction, and has a finished, flat surface at the
very proximal end. One example has a base similar to
la, (FRBS-6/22/88-14-WB-1, figure 11.lb), but has a
curved distal to proximal taper, and an expanded ring
running around the widest, distal-most portion of the

base. I refer to this point astype lb. There is also one
example of a very simple, conacting base which is

essentially a short, conical aper at the proximal end of

the point's shaft (NAVS-7/14/92-63-WB-1, figure 11.lc).
I call this point, type Ic.

The lone example of type Ic is an interesting

specimen. Crudely carved, it has a very simple base yet
seems entirely functional. On one side of this point the
actual cortex of.the bone is still visible. The medullary
cavity and portions of buttressing cancellous tissue are

still visible on the other side of this point. The very tip of
the point and almost certainly the smaller unilaternl distal

barb, has been broken off. It appears that a minimum of
artistic effort was spent in the manufacture of this point,

especially when compared to types la and lb from Ross.

Points of this general type 1 series are described and
illustrated in Heizer (1956:57-58, table 24, figure 35d, e,
f, plate: 55d, e, f, 1). Heizer calls these kinds of points

type lb small (1956:57-58, table 24). According to him,
this ype of point has a"... simple expanded base, no
line hole, bilatal barbs, simple tip, . . . [and a] length
under 10 cm."

Waldemar Jochelson (1925:55, text-figure 7, plate
24: #Vs 13-26,28, 31, 43, 50, plate 25: #'s 2, 26)

provides a description of a generalized Unangas sea otter
harpoon, or dart, propelled by a throwing board and the
carved bone accouterments associated with it, including

projectile points remarkably similar to type 1 series found
at NAVS and FRBS. He first describes the basic types of
Unangas harpoons.

Harpoons are called throwing-arrows or spears when
the pointed head fits loosely into the socket of the

foreshaft of the weapon and is detached from it when
it srikes the animal, remaining in the wound. There
are 2 main Wpes of harpoons: (1) a simple harpoon,
with a head that retains its original position after

striking an animal; (2) a compound or toggle-headed
hapoon in which the head assumes a transverse
position when an obstruction is encountered
(Jochelson 1925:53).

He then goes on to describe the type of harpoon with

which we are primarily concerned in this assemblage, the
simple harpoon.

The simple Aleut haron . . . usually consists of four
parts: . . [a] shaft, . . . bone foreshaft, . . . [and a] bone
head ... with pointed barbs projecting backward. The
barbed head is loosely fitted into a socket at the end of
the foreshaft and when the animal is struck, it pulls out
of the foreshaft . . .One end of the line is attachedto
the neck of the head between the point and the barbs
or fastened into a line-hole of the barbed head. (The
last part] is a line of braided sinew .. .  tathed o the
neck of the head between the point and the barbs or
fastened into a line-hole of the barbed head.
(Jochelson 1925:53).

R. G. Liapunova (1975:80, plate 6: #3, plate 7: #'s
1, 2) describes and illustrates harpoons and projectile
points from the Aleutian Islands very similar to those
Jochelson (1925) discusses. Fitzhugh and Crowell

(1988:52, figure 52, p. 160, figure 194a) provide photo-
graphs of an Unangas sea otter dart which has a bone
foreshaft and a small asymmetrical bilatally barbed
point with two barbs on one side and one on the other.

Scammon (1874:175) provides a detailed illustration
of an "Aleutian Islander's sea-otter spear" and spear
head. The dart point is classically Aleutian with two

small barbs on one side and one larger barb on the other,

Bone Artfacts    251

a long pointed tip, a narrow neck, and an expanded base.

Kaj Birket-Smith (1953:28, figure 9) describes
similar points from Prince William Sound:

The sea otter harpoon was about 125 cm long, with a
barbed head made of the bone of the black bear, and a
heavy socket piece also of bone. It was thrown by

means of a throwing board. A harpoon from Nuchek .
. . is probably a sea otter harpoon (fig. 9). It has a

bone head with two barbs on one side an one on the
other... (Birket-Smith 1953:28).

Fritz Riddell (1955:5, plate lb, c) describes two

"bilaterally barbed bone point[s] ... [which have] . . . a
single barb on one side, and tvo on the other" that he
recovered during his excavations on South Farallon
Island (CA-SFR-1) in 1949. He adds that:

Barbed points of this type are identical to those found
on Amaknak Island in the Aleutians by Jochelson

(1924 sic [1925], p. 84, plate 24). Also identical to the
South Farallon points are several specimens from

atlatl darts, including 2-19342, which are catalogued
as coming from Kodiak or the Aleutian Islands.
Another identical specimen, UCMA 2-1761, is

catalogued as coming from Unalaska, in the Aleutians.
... It seems fomn the foregoing evidence, that the two
bilaterally barbed bone points recovered from

excavations at South Farallon could have been made
by either Koniags, or by Aleuts (Riddell 1955:5).

Riddell is probably correct in his assessment of the

origins of the bilaterally barbed bone points he recovered
Erom South Farallon. The same can be said for the

bilaterally barbed bone points and bases recovered from
the Native Alaskan Neighborhood. According to

Jochelson (1925:53) these small harpoon points would be
termed saxsi'dax' by Aleutian speakers. They would be
found on simple harpoons known as ayu'kdax' and used
only from skdn boats in the water, propelled by throwing
boards. They probably have similar functions but

somewhat different names amongst the Alutiiq speaking
Alutiit No dart points similar to these are found in
California (Bemyhoff 1950; Gifford 1940).
Projectile Points: Miniature Dart Point

One miniature dart point was recovered from NAVS,
unit 120S, 26W (NAVS-7/13/92-66-WB-1, figure 11.ld).
This complete artifact measures 21.8 mm in overall

length. The miature point is relatively simple, sym-

metrical, and bilaterally barbed, with one barb on either
side. It has a plain expanded base, similar to the larger
type la bases described above, and a narrow shaft. It is
complete, somewhat eroded, and has what may be the

remains of a small hole at the base. Judging by its small
size, ftis point is probably not functional. It may be a

toy, or perhaps a model. Its real purpose is elusive, but
the apparent remains of a small hole near the base

suggest that this object may have been a pendant or

amulet of some sort. It is very similar in form to points

illustrated in Heizer (1956:196, plate 82k) and Jochelson
(1925:84, plate 24: #'s 25, 43), but much smaller.

Projectile Points: Harpoon Arrow Points

Two examples of harpoon arrow points have been
recovered from FRBS. No recognizable arrow points
have been recovered from NAVS to date. One of the
FRBS harpoon arrow points is relatively complete,

missing only the very tip, with a line hole near the base.

The other arrow point example is a midsection fragment.

The relatively complete arrow point is small,

unilaterally barbed, missing the last smallest barb, with a
complete base (FRBS-6/23/88-1-WB-1, figure 11.le).

The point is more or less lozenge-shaped in cross section.
The base consists of a finely carved, short, slightly

tapering male projection approximately half the diameter
of the un-barbed portion of the point associated with the

line hole. This projection would fit nicely into the socket
of the bone foreshaft of the actual arrow. The line hole

lies between the base and the barbed portion of the point.
This hole typically has a slim line tied through it,
attaching the point to the body of the arrow. This

harpoon arrow point is remarkably similar to examples
illustrated by Birket-Smith (1953:3 1, figure 12), De

Laguna 1972:1026, plate 109), Fitzhugh and Crowell

(1988:72:figure 76), and Heizer (1956:176, plate 62a-e).

The second arrow point example, a midsection

fragment (FRBS-6/8/89-6-WB-1), is markedly lozenge-
shaped in cross section and has one complete barb and

the proximal portion of another. This specimen is not as
diagnostic as the one described above. It compares
favorably to examples illustrated by Birket-Smith

(1953:3 1, figure 12), Fitzhugh and Crowell (1988:72:fig-
ure 76), and Heizer (1956:176, plate 62a-e), however.

Harpoon arrow points such as these are specifically
associated with sea otter hunting (Birket-Smith 1953:30;
Fitzhugh and Crowell 1988:72, figure 76 caption;

Rousselot et al. 1988:161). Jean-Loup Rousselot et al.

(1988:161) state that "the use of harpoon arrows required
two man kayaks in which the stem paddler stabilized the
boat while the bowman shot" Kaj Birket-Smith

(1953:28) remarks that "when bows and arrows were
employed, both hunters in the baidarka had their own
bows, whereas the arrows were carried in a common
wooden quiver placed between them on top of the

baidarka." The importance of two-person boats cannot
be overlooked here; the boat must be stabilized in order

for arrows to be effective. No projectile points similar to
these are found in California (Bennyhoff 1950; Gifford
1940).

Projectile Points: Miscellaneous

Two other bone projectile points have been recov-
ered from the Neighborhood. One is a simple, well-

carved, pointed projectile point tip (FRBS-6/16/89-24-

252    The Native Alaskan Neighborhood

Figure 11.1 Bone Projectile Points from the Native Alaskan Neighborhood

0t

b

c

e

I                                                                                           I                                                                                       I1

I                                                                                                                                                                                                   I

a. Type la small dart point, tip missing (NAVS-7/7/92-19-WB-l). b. Type lb small dart point, tip missing (FRBS-6/22/88-

14-WB-l). c. Type Ic small dart point, tip missing (NAVS-7/14192-63-WB-l). d. Miniature dart point, possible hole renmant at

base (NAVS-7/13/92-66-WB-1). e. Unilaterally barbed harpoon arrow point, with socket insert and line hole, tip missing

(FRBS-6/23/88-1-WB-1). f. Unbarbed point, possible sea urchin or fish spear (FRBS-6/30/88-68-WB-1).

Illustrations by Judith Odgen.

WB-1). It has no base or barbs and is therefore relatively-
undiagnostic. It compares favorably to bone projectile
point tips illustrated in Clark (1974a, 1974b), Heizer
(1956), and Jochelson (1925).

The other point was recovered from the East Bench
at FRBS (FRBS-630/88-68-WB-1, figure 11.1f). This
long, slender, un-barbed point is finely fnised with

metal tools over its entire surface. The tip is very sharp
and pointed. The base is narrower than the midsection,

and the very end is squared off. Ilis object may not be a
marine mamnmal humdnig device, although it is clearly some

kind of projectile point If it were curved and barbed,
ften it would be classed as a bird dart by Jochelson

(1925) and Heizer (1956). However, it is quite smooth.
It could be classed as an awl of some sort, but it seems
too slender, and the base is uncomfortable to hold as an

awL This object most resembles an artifact illustrated by
Jochelson (1925:84, plate 24) and described as a:

tf of iplement by which sea urchins

were obtained from the water. This implement was

called cuniga'six' and consisted of a long shft to the
end of which four circular bone prongs (cwruga'sim
agatu', i.e. tooth of the implement, cuniga'six?) were
tied (Jochelson 1925:84, figure 33 caption).

Sea urchin tests and spines are a major constituent in the
midden areas of NAVS (see chapter 15). They appear to
have been an exploited and perhaps important food
source in the Neighborhood. They were ceainly

important food sources in the Aleutians. Jochelson

(1925:104-107) discusses the abundance of "echini" at
the sites he investigated and the importance of sea

urchins as food in the Aleutian Islands. This pointed
bone object may be a portion of a cuniga'six' used at
Ross.

HARPOON SHAFT PIECES

Ten of the 28 carved bone marine mammal hunting
implements are various shaft elements designed to

.0

a

d

0

-5cm

0

I O C

I

lI

I

11.
I. .

Bone Artifacts   253

deliver the barbed points to the target. Six of these

specimens are socket pieces or socket piece fragments.
Three specimens are classed as finger rests, one tenta-
tively. One specimen appears to be a hindshaft for an
awrow or dart

Harpoons: Socket Pieces

One complete, unfuiished socket piece has been
recovered from NAVS. The proximal half of another

socket piece with its lashing tangs was recovered from
FRBS. The four remaining fragments, two distal socket
end fragments and two proximal lashing tangs, were
recovered from NAVS.

The most complete example of a carved bone socket

piece from the Neighborhood is from the South Trench of
NAVS, unit 121S, 26W (NAVS-7/17/92-2-WB-1, plate
l1.la). This specimen, made of whale bone, is beauti-
fully carved and smoothed and in its final stages of

production prior to actual use. It lacks the socket hole in
the distal end, and the lashing tangs are not yet com-

pleted. It also has what appears to be carnivore gnawing
damage close to its proximal end on one side of the shaft.
It is possible that this artifact was unhappily discarded
due to that damage.

The socket piece recovered from FRBS (P15, Middle
Profile) is incomplete and has some excavation damage

(FRBS-6/26/88-6-WB-1, plate II.lb). It is finely carved,
smoothed, and made of whalebone like the specimens
from NAVS. Obviously, considerable time and effort

went into its production. Its two lashing tangs appear to
have been broken off post-depositionally. This specimen
may have been discarded after its use-life had ended.

The two more complete socket piece specimens are

relaively small in diameter, and relatively long in length.
Their small diameters indicate a mainshaft with a

relatively small diameter, such as those found in sea otter
darts or darts propelled by throwing boards. These two
specimens are very reminiscent of specimens illustrated

in Clark (1974a:215, plate 19k, 1), De Laguna (1975:plate
56: # 1), Fitzhugh and Crowell (1988:figure 52, figure
194c), Heizer (1956:166, plate 52h, i), Jochelson

(1925:80, plate 23: #'s 20-23, 88; plate 26: # 16), and
Shubin (1990:448, figure 9: # 1). Heizer (1956:55)

refers to this kind of socket piece as tpe la, "long and

heavy, one-piece, with round or ovoid closed socket and
bifurcated base." Relatively light bone foreshafts or

socket pieces such as these, known as tumga'kix among
the Unangan, are commonly associated with sea otter
hunting (Jochelson 1925:53)

Two examples of distal foreshaft fragments have

been recovered from adjoining units 125S, 23W (NAVS-
8/12/91-88-WB-1) and 125S, 24W (NAVS-8/8/91-2-WB-
1) at NAVS (plate l1.lc). They are finely carved and

finished, and made of whalebone. These two fragments
conjoin to fonn a nearly complete distal socket piece
fragment

The distal socket piece fragment, with an estimated
diameter of 5 cm, comes from a somewhat larger and
more robust foreshaft than the two more complete

specimens. The fragment includes portions of a finely

fimished, rounded and smoothed lip which verges into the
socket quite abruptly. It is reminiscent of bone foreshafts
illustrated in Jochelson (1925:80, plate 23: # 24), Heizer
(1956:166, plate 52m, 167, plate 53h), Fitzhugh and

Crowell (1988:160, figure 194c) and Clark (1974a:215,
plate 19q). These kinds of socket pieces are typically

associated with the hunting of prey larger than sea otters,
such as seals.

Two socket piece lashing tangs have been recovered
from NAVS (plate l1.ld, e) (see Clark 1974a:215, plate
19k, 1; Fitzhugh and Crowell 1988, figure 52, figure

194c; Heizer 1956:166, plate 52h, i; Jochelson 1925:80,
plate 23: #'s 20-23, 88, plate 26: # 16; and Shubin

1990:448, figure 9, # 1, for illustrations of socket pieces
with similar lashing tangs). Socket piece lashing tangs

are projections at the bifurcated proximal end of the shaft
designed to overlap the distal end of the mainshat This
overlapping area is then firmly lashed together

(Jochelson 1925:53). Both specimens appear to have

broken off from the main socket piece shaft near the base
of the tang. They are well finished, with smooth sur-

faces. The interior surface is flat, while the exterior is
half round. Each specimen (NAVS-6/30/92-11-WB-1

and NAVS-7/3/92-23-WB-1, plate 11.1 d, e) is wider near
the base and tapers slightly toward the distal end. Both
specimens are made of whalebone. It is likely that these
tangs were broken in use.
Harpoons: Finger Rests

Of the three harpoon finger rests from NAVS, one is
complete and one is a burned proximal fragment Finger
rests are small carved bone, hooked projections lashed to
the mainshafts of harpoons. They provide a point of
purchase to impel greater force to hand cast harpoons

(Heizer 1965:56). The complete specimen was recovered
from unit 120S, 26W (NAVS-7/10/92-123-WB-1, figure
11.2a, plate 1.10f). It is wider at the base than the tip,
with a slight convexity on the basal surface that lies
against the mainshaft. One surface of the object is

hooked to accept the curvature of a finger. A single

lashing hole perforates the finger rest close to its base.

The other finger rest is a bumed base fragment with
a portion of the lashing hole. This specimen was

recovered from unit 73S, IE (NAVS-7/8/92-20-WB-1,

plate 1l.lg). It is very similar in aspect to the complete
finger rest described above, also having a slight convex-
ity on the basal surface, to attach more effectively to the
harpoon's mainshaft.

Both specimens recovered from NAVS bear a great
deal of resemblance to finger rests illustrated by Heizer
(1956:194, plate 80p-s). Heizer (1956:57) states that

harpoon fimger rests similar to those from Uyak Bay have

254     The Natve Alaskan Neighborhood

a wide distribution, both temporally and spatially. No
fnger rests are illusated by Jochelson (1925).

A small (25 mm in length), perforated bone object

was recovered from NAVS, unit 125S, 21W (NAVS-8/7/
91 -6WB-1, plate 11.lh). This object is noteworthy since
it is well finished and a product of detailed carving. It

has a low rounded knob at one end. The other, wider end
is perfoaed by an interesting tiangular hole. It is
postulated that this object may also be some sort of

fastener (Aron Crowell, personal communication 1993),
or more likely, a harpoon finger rest.
Harpoons: Hindshaft

One decorated worked bone shaft fragment recov-
ered from NAVS, unit 125S, 20W (NAVS-8/6/91-22-
WB; figure 11.2b, plate l1.li) was problematic. The
finished end has a steep bevel at roughly a 400 angle.
Ihe center of the bevel at the end of the shaft has a

shallow indentation. This shaft is decorated with two sets
of two paallel incisions, or bands. One band is close to
the beveled end of the shaft. The other band is close to
the broken end of the shaft

The broken end of the shaft may have continued into
a narrower tapering projection for insertion into a

mainshaft The indentation in the center of the beveled
end of the shaft would fit quite nicely onto the ivory or
bone nubs found in many Alaskan throwing boards.

Heizer (1956:57, plate 54e) describes what may be a

"harpoon butt-piece" from Uyak Bay, Kodiak, Alaska.
FISHING IMPLEMFNJS

Fiffteen of the 85 diagnostic bone artifacts from

NAVS and FRBS are fishing implements. Thirteen of
these arfacts are portions of two-piece composite

fishhooks, including barbs, shmnks, and bases. Two of
these   facts are basal parts of fish spear prongs.

Fishhooks

The most common fishing implements recovered

from fte Native Alaskan Neighborhood are portions of

fishhooks. All of the parts come from two-piece compos-
ite foks used tiroughout the Northwest Coast and
Alaska These hooks consist of two main parts, a

relatively short barbed portion and a longer, curved
shank. The section with the barb often has a lashing

bevel on one side of the proximal portion, a slight curve,
and may have more than one barb carved into it. The

shank is usially at least twice as long as the barb, with a
stronger curve. Shanks often have a bevel or slot at the
distal end for lashing to the barb, and a carved knob at
the proximal end where the hook is tied to the line. No
one-piece bone fishhooks are known from Ross.

Fish Hook Barbs

Three complete and parts of five other fish hook barb
sections have been recovered from the Neighborhood.

The thee most complete barbs are all very similar to

each other. All of them have one mid-sized barb at the

very distal end of the shaft The largest specimen (NAVS-
7/14/92-17-WB-1, figure 11.3a) is also the simplest It

has a relatively high barb, a straight shaft, and little basal
modification. Another specimen (FRBS-6/13/89-5-WB-
1, figure 11.3b) is actually missing its base. This

specimen has a straight shaft and a finely carved barb at
its tip. The smallest specimen (NAVS-7/1/92-35-WB-1,

figure 11.3c) is also the best preserved. It has a relatively
low barb, a bevel on one side of the base, and an overall
slight curve.

The fourth barb section is fragmentary, iing only
its tip (NAVS-8/12/91-21-WB-1, figurell.3d). The very
base of a barb element is visible at the tip of this speci-

men. The base is complete, and has a flat d bevel on
one side. Three other fish hook barb pieces are basa

fragments with bevels on one side of the shaft One of

them is burned and has a flattened bevel on one side. The
other two are more questionable and appear to be barb
shaft fragments.

The two complete barbs, the one missing the base,

and the fragment with the basal portion of a barb are all
very reminiscent of fish hook barbs from Kodiak Island
illustrated in Clark (1974a:217, plate 20a-j) and Heizer
(1956:187, plate 73g, k-o). They also resemble the fish
hook barb ilustrated by Shubin (1990:447, figure 8: #
7), and one in De Laguna (1975:plate 43: # 5). These

fish hook barbs share the following aspects: they are all
relatively simple in that they have one, at most two,

unilateral barbs at the tips; they have simple beveled or
incised bases; and they are all straight or have only a
slight curve.

The barbs from NAVS and FRBS are noticeably

different from those from the Aleutian Islands illustated
in Jochelson (1925:86, plate 25: #'s 40-51, P. 87, figures
58a, b, c). They can also be differentiated from those in
the Aleutian-style found on Kodiak Island and illustrated
in Heizer (1956:175, plate 61q-t). Aleutian-style fish

hook barbs tend to be relatively short and sharply curved.
They often have a more intricately carved base and more
numerous barbs, both interior and exterior. Sections from
the Aleutian-style fish hook barbs often have a greater

number of small exterior barbs, rather than lage interior
ones (Jochelson 1925:86, plate 25: #'s 40-51, p. 87,
figures 58a, b, c; Heizer 1956:175, plate 61q-t;

Liapunova 1975:74-75, figures 4, 5). The fish hook
barbs recovered from the Neighborhood at Ross are

obviously of the style found predominantly on Kodiak
Island, and not of the Aleutian-style.

Fish Hook Shanks

No complete fish hook shanks have been recovered
from the Neighborhood. Five fish hook shank fragments
have been identified, however. These shank fragments,
all from NAVS, include four proximal ends and one

Bone Artifacts            255

..i.i. ..... ...  .   ._ _

4)                                                                                          -~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-

'co

4)'

.. :: :: :.: : :. ...... _E. _ ,, y 04 EL~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~... ...

t-' 00 - S

C4 _N: w > c

X                                                                                      .                     x rz~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ . ..

:    0    _    0     0 f     _                        &  >   m  D~~~~~ 0

-                                                                                                                                         I . .  ...*

~~~~fE^-                                                                                                                      >..... - s

q         :.c.:^-: -                !        -                     .:.2 : i       i:i.:                .  g K    _  54)

C4 0

*!   00<

~00

256     The Natve Alaskan Neighborhood

midsection.

The four proximal end fragments are quite similar

(NAVS-8/5/91--WB-1, NAVS-8/5/91-8-WB-1, NAVS-

8/10/91-6-WB-1, NAVS-7/13/92-84-WB-1) (Wake 1995,
figure 53e-h). These specimens have relatively narrow
proximal shaft ends, capped by a basal expansion. The
basal expansion is designed to provide purchase for line
attachment with a sharply carved 900 angle. One
intesting feature of the four fish hook shank line
attachment areas is a series of 10 to 12 latitudinally

incised lines extding roughly 10 to 20 mm down the
shaft from the basal expansion (figure 11.3e). This is

usually the general area where line is wrapped around the
shank of the fishhook. These incised lines may be
decorative, however it is more likely that they were

placed there to add extra purchase for the attached fishing
line. These shank bases are very similar to those illus-
tated in Clark (1974a:217, plate 20p-r) and Heizer
(1956:187, plate 73h, i).

The midsection fragment that has been recovered

(NAVS-7/14/92-138-WB-1) (Wake 1995, figure 5.3i) is
curved, with a slight taper, and carved all around from a
seal rib. This specimen is quite similar to fish hook

shanks illustrated in Jochelson (1925:86, plate 25: #'s
44-51; p. 87, figures 58a, b, c), Heizer (1956:187, plate

73a-f, h, i), and Liapunova (1975:74-75, figures 4 and 5).
Fish Spears

Two arfifacts recovered from NAVS are identified as
possible fish spear fragments, pparently of two different
types. One is relatively simple and the other is more

intricately carved. Both appear to be bases, as opposed to
barbed ends.

One specimen (NAVS-7/31/91-13-WB-1) (Wake

1995, figure 53j) is finely fiished, polished, and has a
saight bevel at the base. The bevel also has a slight

conxcavity, to better accept a mainshaf It does not have

any sort of lashing projection common to many fish spear
bases (Bennyhoff 1950:297, 331, figure 1; Heizer
1956:174, plate 60a, c).

The other specimen is more inticately crafted and

better represents a fish spear prong (NAVS-8/5/91-3-WB-
1) (Wake 1995, figue 5.3k). One side is unmodified,
with the exception of a shallow concavity running the

length of the shaft. The other is high and rounded, with
more noticeable modification. It tapers slightly from its
widest point at the broken end to its base. The last 3 mm
of the base is expanded, forming a toe-like raised notch.
This area is evidently a lashing poinL This specimen
bears great resenblance to fish spear prong bases

illustrated in Bennyhoff(1950:331-2:figure lv-b, figure
2a-j) and Heizer (1956:174, plate 60a, c). Regrettably,
not enough of this artifact is present to make it com-

pletely diagnostic. It could be either Native Alaskan or
Native Californian.

UTILITARIAN ITEMS

A variety of bone artifacts not related to hunting or
fishing have been recovered from the Native Alaskan

Neighborhood. These artifacts include broken awl tips,

buttons, a brush fragment, and a baton or club. The items
are classed broadly as utilitarian, for lack of a better term,
since they all have some necessary function in daily life,
but are often taken for grnted.
Awls

The remains of seven bone awls have been recovered
from the Neighborhood. Six of these objects are pointed
tip fragments, presumably from broken awls. One is a
slender bird bone awl missing its tip. All are from
NAVS.

Two basic kinds of awl tips are represented at NAVS.
All are of dense cortical bone, probably from terestial

mammals. The most common awl tip found (type 1, n=4)
is sharply pointed, highly polished, and relatively narrow.
Three of these tips appear to be ground to a point and
then polished to a smooth luster, probably trugh use
(NAVS-8/6/91-37-WB-1, NAVS-7/14/92-9-WB-1,

NAVS-6/30/92-29-WB-1, plate 11.2a-c). One of ese
tips (NAVS-8/15/91-2-WB-1, plate 11.2d), however,
appears to have been carved to a point using a metal

cutting tool, and then ground a little, and subsequently

smoothed to a polish through use. Two relatively wider
and flatter tips (type 2), with a wide, dull, yet highly

polished point have been found at NAVS (NAVS-6/27/
89-19-WB-1 and NAVS-6/28/89-17-WB-1, plate 11.2e,
f). Their function may be different than the sharply
pointed tips described above.

One bird bone awl, missing its tip, was recovered
from NAVS, unit 74S, 2W (NAVS-7/16192-15-WB-1,

plate 11.2g). It is made out of the radius of a gull-sized
bird. The object has three areas of patterned cut marks,

which may be decorative, and is polished near the broken
distal end. This tool is very reminiscent of bird bone

awls illustrated in Heizer (1956: 186, plate 72j, k), Clark
(1974a:247, plate 35d), and Gifford (1940:203, type
A4al).

Buttons

Five bone buttons have been recovered from the

Neighborhood (NAVS-8/13/91-103-WB-1, NAVS-6/24/
92-13-WB-1, NAVS-6/26/92-17-WB-1, NAVS-7/9/92-
34-WB- 1, NAVS-7/16/92-14-WB- 1, plate 11.2h-1). All

are flat round discs, with a single hole in the center. One
is complete, one is almost complete, and three are halves.
Perforated bone discs similar to these are illusd in
Heizer (1956:195, plate 81a, b, e). Single-hole bone

buttons are common artifacts in the historical record in
many areas (Boling 1987; Felton and Schultz 1983;

Furnis 1990; MacGregor 1985). Furnis (1990:56) notes
that single-hole bone buttons were made on a lathe

Bone Artifacts    257

Figure 11.2 Bone Harpoon Shaft Elementsfrom the Native Alaskan Neighborhood

a

0

.5cm

a. Finger rest (NAVS-7/10/92-123-WB-1). b. Probable harpoon dart buttpiece (NAVS-8/6/91-22-WB-1).

Illustrations by Judith Ogden.

Figure 113 Bone Fishing Gearfrom the Native Alaskan Neighborhood

a

b

A .

A)-I

C

0

c

0

C)

0

-5cm

i .:

1. .
e

C1

d

a. Fish hook barb (NAVS-7/14/92-17-WB-1). b. Fish hook barb (FRBS-6/13/89-5-WB-1). c. Fish hook barb (NAVS-7/l/92-35-

WB-1). d. Fish hook barb (NAVS-8/12/91-21-WB-1). e. Fish hook shank, proximal end (NAVS-7/13192-84-WB-1).

Illustrations by Juditi Ogdenr

I
I

I                                                 I

...........                                           .09900::Pr

I

- f:.4-

Os?

b

d-

I

. li

258     The Natve Alaskan Neighborhood

indexing tool. MacGregor (1985:61, figures 36-38, 101,

figure 58) illustrates this technique and the products of it.
All of the single-hole bone buttons from NAVS bear

concentric striae indicative of mass production on a lathe.

Small Brush Fragment

One small fragment of bone with remains of numer-
ous offset holes along its margins was recovered from
NAVS (NAVS-7/8/92-19-WB-1, not illustated). This
object is most likely a frgment of the bristle holding
portion of a bone brush, perhaps a toothbrush. A

toothbrush, dating to the early 19th centuy, from Kings
Bay Plantation bearing remarkable similarity to this
specimen is described and illustate by Adams

(1987:206, 388, figure C.6, a). Toothbrushes and similar
objects are also illustrated in MacGregor (1985:184,
figure 99).
Baton

A curious, rather large, worked antler baton or club
was recovered from NAVS, unit 125S, 22W (NAVS-7/9/
92-43-WB-1, plate 11.3, top). This object is made from
the basal tine of an antler of a very large elk (Cervus

elaphas). The tine was apparently first chopped off of

the lager antler. The larger proximal end of the tine has

been crudely rounded through the removal of large flakes
with a heavy bladed metal tool such as a large knife. The
very distal end of the tine is broken off, and one side
shows large, longitudinal knife scars in the form of a

shallow beveL The sharp edges of the chop scars on the
larger, bulbous, proximal portion of the une have been

smoothed and rounded, probably due to use of this object
as a baton or club for impacting relatively soft objects,
perhaps meat or fish.
Whale Bone Platter

A large, flat portion of a whale's vertebral epiphysis

was recovered from NAVS, unit 125S, 22W (NAVS-8/15/
91-202-WB-1, plate 11.3, bottom). This object was

broken into three pieces, representing approximately half
of the actual epiphyseal surface of the vertebral centrum.

The other half was not recovered. The epiphyseal surface
of the vertebra has been removed from the body of the
centrum and planed relatively flat with a metal cutting
tool. The entire edge of this object has been carved off

witi a metal tooL producing a relatively even ovate fonn.
The actual articlar surface remains on one side of the

object.  s surface is unmodified with the exception of
a number of chop marks near the center. The object is
very similar to whale bone plates illustated in Heizer
(1956:178, plate 64) and Hrdlicka (1944: figures 110,
177, 205, 206). Heizer reports that 25 complete or

fragmentary examples of such plates were recovered

from the Uyak site. He supposes that these plates are "a
prehistoric Kodiak Islander's version of a dinner Plate,"
and reports that such plates are not found in the Aleutian

Islands (Heizer 1956:69).

OBJECTS OF PERSONAL ADoRNMmVT

A wide variety of personal adornment objects have
been recovered from the Native Alaskan Neighborhood.
These include a diverse array of glass and shell beads,

described by Ross and Silliman (chapters 7 and 8), and a
considerable number (n=25) of bone tube onaments,

described below. The ornaments described below are all
hollow bone tubes of small to medium size. Few we

complete, most are fragmentary. These bone tubes can be
broken down into four main groups, based on design
elements or a lack thereof. The majority of the bone

tubes recovered have simple latitudinal incisions. Other
types include, in order of abundance, plain tubes, tubes
with intricate, zoned crosshatched designs, and tubes
with diffuse latitudinal and diagonal incisions.

These artifacts were most likely manufactured by
fist removing the proximal and distal articular ends of

bird long bones. Evidence for this process can be seen in
De Laguna (1975:plate 47). The tubes were then

smoothed and strung. Their polish may or may not have
been intentional as a result of the manufacturing process
or of contact with individuals' bodies.

Undecorated Tubes

Tubes having no detectable decoration are relatively
common at Ross. Eight such artifacts have been found,

all from NAVS. These artifacts are distinguished by their
polish and their rounded and smoothed cutoff ends.

Representative examples are illustated in plate llAa-h.

There are two basic kinds of plain tubes, those under
1 cm in diameter (n=4) and those over 1 cm in diameter
(n=4). These tubes would be classed as type 1 ""undeco-
rated" by Heizer (1956:76) and type EEla by Gifford
(1940:180, 227), a "bead of tube of undecorated bird
bone." Riddell (1955:6, plate lk) illustrates a simila

tube from South Farallon Island. Clark (1974a:271, plate
50a-i) portrays a variety of undecorated bird bone tubes
from Kodiak Island.

Latitudinally Incised Tubes

The majority of bone tube ornaments recovered from
the Neighborhood have relatively simple latitudinal
incisions and are usually polished. Nine such tube

fragments have been encountered. Eight are from NAVS,
and 1 is from FRBS. These incised and smoothe bone
tubes come in a variety of sizes, but none are really very
large. The bulk (n=8) of these tubes are estimated to be
just over I cm in diameter. One is less than 1 cm in

diameter. Representative examples are illustrated in plate
11.4i-q.

The primary indicators that these bone fagments are
actually artifactual are the patterned design elements; the
high polish on many of them; and the smoothed, rounded,
scored and cut off ends of the objects. The design

Bone Artifacts           259
.                                                    -
-

.

.

.-k    =  =

M? Z   *-# .4

-.4 =  0.

k t -0 ?'

N 0 2 o
.1 11 . ....'.. . .I
..- .- ??

II?. 1.?II.

.11 ?.. I, 1.... . .11...?

.II.--,..1I

..I.- .1.11. I. ? ..

I ?.I.-I

II?                            -   . ,..I                                                 .  I=  0-4

1.? .?.. 0..I.I.. . . ..I?.'III. I.II

II?. 1. ?. . ..II. ..

?   .  I.,  I    m.   ?1.   " ..  ?..  I - ,.   ......-   I  I I . -   ..-   1. IZ            =

.I.. ? ?- .I.. ?

.?....1. '. I 1... II
I.. ..'I.?I?.

I? I.1 ..III
II.

I.                  . ..   I I   I . ? I. - ..1             .  I                                .'

.'.                                                                                 tn  'S  .. ;  xi

I.... ..I.I...?
I. II.... ..... ...?. 1. ... I..II ?-.1II

? .. ...'...1 .. 1. ... II1. ?.....I.I

I   I   '.    -   - I.. .   . I..''..   .1   - ...   1 . .                               W-4
c-II. I ?.1 ... ...... ... - -- -.'.... ...I?

.? I.. I-.1 I.. .... ...'....."'. -....'... . .I..? ?.

I. . I 11 ... .1 . .....I-..I..

..-II

.....I                                                                                           --  =

I?. .1. ? I .. I ? .. I ? ...'- - -1. . ..1?

... .. ''.. .1 -.. ... . .. 1.1,11-1- ?-::';:::::-:'-!-..;' .,::!.:. -.-- -I.1.. "4'

. 11 - :-::m: .. I.. .I.
.,.I..?.... ? I I -.1 --

.1. -- .. ---- .. I. --.1 q.- ...........'-- --:-;:--:...-.- I? .II .1..I

I   ..  . -   11   I  I - ....1-  .- ....?.....- . . ..... .. -- -   -..'--..'-- :,..,, .  , " . . '?II I-.1-I.., , ,   .   ..  .-.1 - . .. ? I... I   O ?   .0   ,- -,   ,-,,
II .. I ......-4 -...'.'....'--.I. ....: - .,-.::.,.... .....:: -... -.. I.......-I- 1. I...
I ..II........ - ?:....................... I I ?..

I. I ... .1 1. .:.;.i.:..]': .. ;..

..- I -,.::::::::.: ,:':;:.? ?.:?::.i::;i:i::.i:i:?:?:::::?:i:::i,::::::::?. .1.-.?. .I.- I .. . --?

I .     - .1   .?                                -.. -  I       .  I                          0   V'V  I

.....

.. .,::;Ii;.i:i?i:?.-':.,?::-:?.????.i?:::..:.-?....W

....... 1.I...I1.I-

.?.?.. ....

?1.q.,..?.
11..

.1.

"

..   ?  ?:::??'.'ii??.]?i.                                ? . ..   I   .      .                      0     m

...

'...?..
...'' ... ..

.. .. 1.
....

.?-.I

.1 .I., . ?I?

-.1?I

I:,- . .. ..I.

A"...                                                                                                    ?   MO ?  ?r
." ? 11 ? II..I.-

.I...?-?.I11
?..,.I .1 ...?

.I....'. . ....?....1

I......I

.? ..I, I.

.II.I ?. .I...?,... ...... III.I

.?              I    ::I-                                             .  ?.  - , ...     . I  .                z     '?.   6

?:::: ... .....'... .''.?
??, .?1. ?.I11I

I ?I

I...--.1II
.... I....

I1. - I...,?
.-.--... ......--I

-, ." - -.11.?
.1 ? ?. .... I -I I?.?

:   I     .   . - - , ....                                       - .1-   ..'.....- . I . .                     4?   '*   '??

...... ... - .....?1. ...I

... . ..
I-? ...II-.---.11.1....... I...

I .  .   .        -   :....::                                       ...  -   -w   ...:.? -::;:.:.-   ?   I ' ...   .  ?   .   I I I ..9  1   (N

?...- ,:: : -''......- -1 -1 ? I

-.1-1 II ?. I.. I ..II

.:: .:.                                                          I.. ? I.. . . . .                      4.0  '-k
.?..... :..-, ? - I?

.? ... .?... . .?..I.... ?, i?... -1.I
V

1..,. .; 1. .1 -1-6.....'

...... 1: .'' :. ..? .. 11 I ..... I'. ? -.. 1.

..  -..                                                          .I ..  ..                .                 V.-O  V.?

. . ..... .,.                                                       . .  ...  . . .  . I . .  .....  ?   I .1        Z  Z
..- 1, ?.--' I....I
?. ?1. .....-..I I-- . ... .. . ....-
I-. .. .1 1". ... -.. I , ... I ..

;=

w: ,-..II.- I 1-4..
I. I?-I.. ?:.......1 -1

... I:I ? ??' ..'?:? ... II.'?. -.----'.....? ........... .......' II

? ???.?:'?:j 11: ?.?:.!?.:.II

.         I  .I..                                                                 .  I                               Z  C!

CIO?

.1 ..... ? -, ?I..:.... .. ?1. . .I

.1I... ? I.. ?.. ..... .: ? ....I I11

II -. . - ..- ..... - ? .I -- ;-.. .. --

.1-:??.                                                                                                        ?  ?  'Z? r?

..I..--I.I-.,..

I-?I.1 ?.-.11 ?:::.... ... ? I...

I ? .I.. ... -.!?!- ?.?: I?. .'-? I.I.
I.??.... . .1 . ..... :'?-

V

I?, ... - , . - ?....'?-::- '. :::, -wI
...?.I.".-....I- I... 1. .1 .. .. -1

?-.". ..........::;:?I-I?...-I.

I.,.''-       . .   I....'.                                             :: -':]:'.... .. . .. .   ''.. .   1,   .    %4?   r4

..-- - - I.... .? 1''. I.,

,? .. ....'.... 1. . -.1.I

.. ;-;?;?::::.:.;:-.-? I... . 1.
... ... :I

I.....?

00

.        . 1. . - ...I                                                                                       '%S  I

?-..... ? .1... .-..- I.-I I.
?II ?-... ,.'' - ?. ,:.. -':]:??:.:?.??:

.., - -, ?"..'.: ':

. . I

-1  I .  ? ..  .I.....                                                   -                             tn

.... .. ..?.;.;..:.. I ...I
, - .  - , .                                      -   - 1   .I ... . I..   ..

.   .,                                                                                                             "g

,. T.. '.......................'.... ...."...'. 1. '?;???:!??:?::?!???:?!:?.?!????l:i??... . '''.. I'-
IZ

.II. . I.1 ..... .. -.. . ...?. ......II

.. M. ..... .i!.I..- ? i?:: 1? .... .. ...
.11.I... .... .. ..- ?..I.-

I .......?                                                  . ..... ...  ..... . .. , I...   ..'  ?. .?..... 7.1'. ...... M - - -   ... .   '' ...  .... . ' "-  <   cc

. . I ?    ? ..  .1 . . ..I                               ..  .7 .  . . . ..  .. . .                               - 4

I.. I., I .1......7.7..... .... ...1.I............... .1. I........ ..::..'.?',
.I....?. - .. - 11- ? -Ii..:-

...I .I. -.'. ... '.. ".., '- ' '::.:::;:?:?:?:; ':'.I..
.... . ..II....

.,

- '. ?. .-I?;:I:,::... I..I ??

?.I.?II .?I,. .:?. ?i::.:;::- -im::?! :'. .; .. .. '.... .. ii? ,.I

..I, ..II.. .11 .:?::7:: ? ?:;:?:: .......... 1. . ,? ........I... --I- .. ...i::.-:. .....

......?-.... . ..1..I.

.II-. . .. -.: .....

?.:.??....II..1 1. . ... ..:.:. ...: - , " :-;] "' ..., ... I... .. .

.?. .1. ? I..,I?Iq.I ....,..1 -I% I- -... -.. ........ ..............' .i?:?.:::?i?]:? ?:? I ?::?:? ?:? ';:-? ?.,.,.::. --.?II

. .   .   . 1.  . ?  . I   - .  .  ...  ..... I......   ..           .   ::..:: ..,;. ?- - .....   : m::::::;::::  :!].-.'?? i':   '- - -   ? O

, I....                   -..                                            :m:'I-   -'?,j!::: i?iii  ? -  I.   I.-   .. .   --?  C -4
1I... , I, ...' I.. ...I.... - - .. -- -..., ..:;, ;'?*?:::? . -.':ii -, - -1-

?I -.. . - ? I,. ....I.. I.. .-I ..... ??-::-':..:::::: -:.::?:'X:::::.-.:::- -'.."............"..' ?:ix::?:?:??:i:?.;:: -- .-.':I
??

II .I. .1- '::.....?........ I ... ..' .. ::; .... ....... -:??_:.: :::?::?::?:.'--'-.:..--..`? -!;::!:;!:-.:. .-I.... . I..

.11 . ..I I. ?.... -........ .- .... .. ?... : !:;::: ::.: ".-... ::;,-:: :_:.].: 7'.:-.: ;;:?::::?:::?: %: .-

.. II.-.-;::'- -- .:.:,: ... : ?-? . ... . ... .-...

? ..  I  -   ..-   ?  . .   ..   .  ?.   I ... : - ? .:  : !-  ?!   :.  -.:  ..   " :::::   .  I - - .1   .1 ? -   -
.I-.I.I.-I.- ? .-.- - ?... .......-I......, ::::':::- :.,.;.7.:::::- ?. .I.... .:I::. .....'

?I ..' .. ,? I: :? -..- ... -- ... I.....I...... . I..... ?. -:-::.?:: .-.-?': ?. ... ..". 1: -]::::!:,::. . - ?S i ^.- T?. ...

.. I1. .' ? -:-'...'...., -, 1-1 ... . .. - - 1. .--..-... ?... ........' I.I

.1 ... I I.- ,:,:?:.::::;::..::::...??::?:.?.:.??;: I............ ........ 6'..' ... . .. -..... ::.i.:..,:-?

. - - . -   -.                             . -   --                       -...   .. I.......-I                               .

C:

.?. I.... .?,.,::,: . , ??::::;::::::,:::::::::::,:::.?..:::.:?:::;?:::;:::"?;,;.:.:.::,:,:..............:?.......??..................I1.11

..... I... : ;':-1 -:.':::-:?-,.::7:: . .... .. -- :: ::? -? ?:i:?;:?::?: i:?-:::..-.;;::-:: ??J?i?i??--.:? "-:;."-..::'.':-...

I.. -..... I-. -::?'-:::-: ?::::::::-- -::::::'. ....... - ?... I I.....'..,'......''.1.1....:--?O
III.... . -..::.:::::::-.-.:.'.?.'-.:- ... .. ?:;?!?:i':?:??i:?:i:?::.'.::: ........ ..... -,.

.. .1 .1 ....... . II1.:.- ?'?'::::.: - .. -:,,:-.::- ,... ?... ... . .I .."::':-. ?...I... . .. . .. ':X:':.:::"" . -..
. 11 .%.. .,."......,...,..,.......".......?..,...,..?... ........' ....I.

.. I.- I. ''...'' . ?. ?.:w:::.v:::::..:?:'::?;: ??;;:.:::X;:?:;:-- ,........ .- ?:.

?... ?:?!.:::: :: ?:.:::?:. ?.... ..........-.,............'?.?.?.....?.I....?... --...---.'--....: :?; ....:: : ",::.::::,.;?..

....... . .''.,.,...........................,........,....:...:.:,:..::: . ... .. '...I
?I ......I1....'... . ??'".:.:

.?-                          ... I.. . ..                                ..  ...    .......  ,."....   -   I : ,               W .

I ? .1   . I .     I.....?           ..  .I          .,     .1  . -   ?..  I ?  ..   ..... ? ..   .  . . - . .......  ..   4 . 0

I?... I.. . .:IX ; ?- :;...:::.: :. .:.: ::;:; :' :: .:. ::? ..................... 1. .... . .....

I  ? .. I ..          .:. ::;::   ;::?]:. : :',:  ??  ?:?  ..........,   ..   .1.                                 V - 4

-... - - ... ? ,:.,:.:.. ?:'::?:].:. ... .,::..: '?:::!::?:::::.:.:.' '.

---- . .... .I.................,..?..................... ....'.. ?.: I I. I..... ... 1. ::;.qw:x .:: 1. ... ..

.. -...I.-.?:?::?::?? .:!::. ,.. ?:.:??:!::.:,:?--?,:.:..,:::.?:"?, . . ..... '' .. .. .I.. . .I-- cc

I I I I ?.. ?'...".... ? .. -.-.......'...'.--.. .1- .. .. ,.. -:-,-

?.. .?..:...?:.,;::;::::.,...."?..... ...... . ;-- - .,;:--::::-:: ", - - .. I.... -.:: I..''

.. I- 1, II ? ?::: .1 '7: -.1 I. .... --.......-.. -.. ............. -....-'.-'.-?..,.

I?......-...I...I. . ....-X.. ......
-.... -.. .- ..?I?; -.....-..... .::,-. -.-.-.-.-.-:?:. .".....'........I,:;::: ";:. -.1 I

.........-... ..... I -.. -.. ...

... . . . . ---.... .....: -::?: ? ... ."': ?:::?.:::.:......?': "':': '' ''--.-.--':-:--.-'-':-' "'.."", " - "...."......,

..   - I   . .......   I  --- ?:T!   : :... ?:::::.   .:.,;;.::   -:?.. :.::: :7:;;m:::::::::::   -': ,.   -  -::..:.,.   .."   .. ....  ... - . . ...   .   .. I .. .:  ":..  -.. :.,:.:   ::?:.. . .
.1II..I.... . ..I.........I... . .... :-:-::::?.;.:.:.:.?.:.- .... 1.

-.-'..' I... I ,??... -....::--.... I.... I. I-- . .... .I-- ?:: '.- :; ?..-I ......... ..... ''.1

--, ...-::-- ... ........ -...........-...... :??:?mi? ???:?:i:i:i:????'---i?? ::-

.? . .. I... .. -":.-..?.... .1. . I.I.. . . ....I"".................'W........ . I-? .......??........,.;.".:,::.:,:.:: .-.-.,.-I . . ... ... . ...-'........- ? -... ?- I... -I It

.... .. ?. ...... '? --. ?:::.: ... 1. ? ]:-::::::;:::::-:::-:r:; ::X: -- --:,-......... ..%:'..X ............. ..... ... .... ... ??.::..'.'.... ...I.

.-.'.......- -.1-1 ... .... .... -.1 ...-.... .-

'..... ......... '.....:..,.:.;': ...... ::....""".. "... .. ?-I.. I.. . .
11.1 ... .- :::':?:--..... ?-. '-.:? -??m:?:?i?iimi."??I

-..             ..   .. . ::??:  ?::::??'-   ?;? ? ?-?-?:??Ii:? ? i- .   I :m?::::?-::?:::i:i?   ?.: -:-7::::?:  ??:::: 7:::.'.....- ..  ,:?   -.:??.--'-....?   ?:i::??':::'   ."....   . .?.?   ?. :  - :   :?'jjo   ?   ...'  I  -I   .-- --- -- .m ;::   .:;;:?'   ::?  a   E

.1,,?': ??::::'- . .1.1 1. . - -.i. ..'-... -?!::.:::--. -I..'......'- -..-? - I 11.1.

.::??:., :'?,. .:;;';:?'; ::?: - - . .. w, .....'.......... .. .. ......I.. .!..: -.-:-.7:?::-w .. .- . II ?

? - ?:.-::- "' ...... ........ .1 I...... :; : ?'--..
.I, ?! :-.... .--:? ....""..' .??::.:--':-: .: - -,?

....."....??::?i'l?:?!:;;!?:?:???? ???. , :::::::::.:,?.::?,L.-,.?i-A?j?i?i;-.,-...--..-...?:?:???:..??]?????:ii?????:??i::??i?i??V-100 ...... 1.11.1... 1. I.- --'. ..
.''. ? .. .?.11 :'...........''- ? ? -,::.:: -:x::w- .1'' ' "..;: : :::::..:: ... . I

..II.. : ? ..' 11 I. ?. .: .... ::-II11 ,:.;.:: ?:: ..'-...... .:.:.] -. ....I.-.- :.- . . ....... ?..... ....'............. .... . .... .. ...'..'

,..-.. ... .. ? - I-- ? I... ... ::-w::::?m::'.'- .. ,-..

.I.. I . -.- -. -..---. .1 ... .. I,......::: .-.1 -.. - "'. :- 7: ..- ,..... ? 1.

.. . .. . ... ......:. .-.
.. ...I.1 ... -- ': . . ....... ..:::... .. ....' -.

.... I.- -;:..... ..... -1-: ", ......... .11..?.
.-I.....--:- ?i?i?? -- :: .::::

I... . .I ..1 .:: .. : -,.1. :::: :, ...: - ......: '. ....... . .,iii?ii?....::?ii?:.,::?:i??i:?:::??-.i???:::::::?:::; :??

.I... .. : :::::;?: ?,?:.:' . '' ;.:,? ? ":: ':?;??:?:?'?::' ?w W:::!:

,     .     .   . ;.!::   I. ...                           ,' -.I.. ..

.I..... .... I.::,:;;:::::.::::: w' ?::-??-:?-:-- .N

I .1 .::: .. -:?'- -.:?I"....-.'...:"' ,:.::.... .. -::-::X.-:---.... ?.... I.-

?. ?. ]:;:: - I-....., ..... .. .?. ......... .. .. .1. -. . - - I ?...I... ''....".....' ... .. .e'.....,.......?....'?..,...,.......?.,..,.?...........,........'.....1% ... -111? ..

I?. ?.::?%m. -:::.:':.,..d ?,?.::;,:?,;:::?:....;?-'-?:?:.,.,....''.- .: .'....-... I... I.... ... ?... - ?... - - I.. -I....-..... . .. ... I..... ,..

. I.. I.. -- . ,.,.:.:,.?.:.:.::::::?:.??:;.:.:?,::,...,.. - 11 ... ..I

.. .  .,                     ..,              - ?   ..?...:: ?:     1. , I   .......                    .             >  14   a i  ?
. .  -   ..   1.  .....  .?.:!  :.;:!,   ? ?   , ..' ......- I......-                 -,                                  co
.I... I. -.- ...... .....".. : - ? ?? ? ?: ? ?-: ;:::!??i?i?:??:::?'? ..........,,:?.:I.I. ..... ., 7::.::::::..:.

' ' "". -`::: w:X:X.:?.:'?:.... -, - ----:--:--;-:-:-:-? '--- . ::': ...I.,? - 6-I....

-.. . ? I ?... 1. .. -.... '.:::-::?;';::..:-.::?- :.':-::? ? :: ? 7...... .......:. -. . ......!::::;:: .7 ?..- -1.1..I.

.... .-':-....... ?];??:!:."-?::;]??;? ....

.... I.. I .... -:.....'-.'....?-?: .... ..... .:' .. .

o-. . I....I...... I ?. ..... :': :;. . .... ? ?., .-.1''.. Fl. ?..... . ..
--.-....... .. :;:::X !: .? I..,... ". .- -. '.,.... .. -.....-.'.... . ..?:.: ?::' .......pe,. . ?.. .;?i?]i?i??!i??iii?i????!?;???:???!!!!!i?:

-- ... ?.. :1-11 . . ....I.. .......?-.. .:::",.::::::??::?:::;:''?,:;.' .:?-::; ,!:.

?... .. -.. ...... .1 .. ::;..; W: .?. :. .. : ,.!, ?. .:.:? I.; ,::. . :: :- -:-:--- ..

.   . 1 1   .  " ...  -  -  , ,  -   ? -. - ..   ....... .." ,  -':-::::.:::;:::;:w:..::.:?...w.::  4.4 - ?-.'  ??:.:?:?::??:.:?:i???????????!i??i?i????:jijjl????:li?:?.?-..:   ...  - .:-?..

... '; -:; .,:;:::"..:,I?.:;...' !??;??.???i?!?::????:?!???i????Iii?!?i???:?!i?ii:i??i:;,????..?.

I.. ... ... - .:.:,.-.,

.1...-I. ?... ::;:"?:.;:]:; i?!?ii?.. ? - 1.Z

I.I..   ...  I............... I ,:: . . .  . - .:  . . ......  ...  ..   '; -   : ?   .'=                                ' <  't.-  -0   ;'
. .I.- ., .----........ - 1. -.- : .:;. ?-.?' 1- ... :,.:,:.. I ........''..'' .. .6. ,::;.,: ..... . I-- ..

?!

. II.. . ... .--'.... . .... ..... .....,:...:...:.,?.?;....?..??....... ....... ?i:!iiii:;i;???::?!???!;ii?:??i? ::.. .. .? 1.

.: :!:,.; : :: :? ,...... ....:.: ,??AIIII&L.- -;??:?? !?"? :' "'-'p-: ?: W.::??::i::*:::..;-': .....
I.. .... I ?. ?-::? .. - I?:::?::??:;??: ??!?g!-:-]?;i?ijj:: .. .. . ... . :? .:...::; .... ::::: ..

I..             .:::: ?:??.?? ? ? ?  :.......  ". ?....'... ? ?                                         I I - . ...?. i:  -  I . .." . I

.I ?. ?F. - ? .....'.??Ii.

.. . -I.... .. 1... ..? ??i?!i:;:ri: ??:::?'!?.:?!: : .? : ': .. ?-. 1;

-.1 ... I.. ?X .":;..: p... :::;.-:

. ? I...'....-W                  .....  --, .:-  ...                                  X.;'  :?  ;'  .   -,  :  N .- I

'-I%

..- I. I. ? .I. ,.. ...... -.......--..Ij
,.. -... , -,::::::: ., .. ?-----"'...-.:.

-?..'. ;::: .;;;;;::!;::

t3

I..,                              ---,-                                 "I...... ?:?:?::::: ......     .::??:?      %D  0   9  'U

-.7,                                                                                                                -  .
.1 ,. -.?.?:?;;??:;.?;?.,?.?.?.?.?:!:]???:!?i?:i?:?:ii? :::;,:....."..'W..........?. -?

- ..   .  .  -..                      :'--                                        ;  -'...   :.:::I_: , 7...:.:   I . .?  1.          'S

,... '.... -......X':-:..::::?::?;, : '?; 1. p:; ?

.... . -1.I': .. .... .????...,.......?!!??ii???::!?:.: ?:::!:-:7:7:m:..I

.-

-  .. .. .::';:--;-:-:j?::...:  -:1  :.-I.:i,1                       -                                                      a :  4--

. ...'.. .1 1. ..-... ..-?..
I.. ?... . .. ..?....I....' I .. .I.....I?.

.. .. 1. ...,":. ... ... ...... . . .... "...
??

. ....''....                                                                                I III            I -                      c

.... '.... ? ..iiI..1-1. ... .. .. --...... .. "'.II

I I   ...!??::!?..... I                                                                                     I ,          W   03
... :?.:...' "... ., ....., .1..

.?.-?-:-::-?; .--... III,: -? ,. .....

... .11.11 ....I:. i?': ????.......,:?.. ;':? ?i??;?;??I-. ?
.I .. ...'....I.....?-.. .... --- !?::'?:;:;;:: .-- '' ..

. ? ...' ? I.. ;: ?::.,... ..;... ... ........ ? ... .. .'.....??i?;?ii: ......- ............ .. 1. .... ...

... I.... ... ....' .:.-,.-I.. .,-.-... I.

260     The Nadve Alaskan Neighborhood

S~~~~~~~~~~

-i

0

0~~~~~~~~~~~':.':..     _   .7;

Y                       ,v,S, . ,   ,,

0                         t    *l0-  .flA

Photo by Thomas A. Wake

Bone Artifacts   261

elements on these tubes consist primarily of evenly

spaced latitudinal incisions, usually between 4 mm and 8
mm apart, depending on the specimen. Two tubes in this
class have incisions at only one end. One appears to be a
blank for fte manufacture of smaller bone beads and is

the only complete specimen in the lot (plate 11.4j). The
other (figure 11.4a; plate 11.4i) has an intricate faceted
band backed by a simple incision, remarkably reminis-

cent of tubes illustrated by Clark (1974a:271, plate 50k),
and Heizer (1956:194, plate 80o).

Tubes of this Wpe are found in both California and
Alaska. Heizer (1956:76) describes bird bone tubes

found at Uyak Bay as "either plain (type 1) or decorated
(type 2)." These tubes would apparently be type 2.

Gifford (1940:180, 228) describes such artifacts as tpe
EE2a, a "bead or tube with more or less encircling
incisions."

Tubes with Diffuse Latitudinal and Diagonal Incisions

Four tubes with diffuse encircling and latitudinal

incisions have been recovered from NAVS (NAVS-8/15/

91-225-WB-1, NAVS-8/15/91-225-WB-2, NAVS-7/3/92-
45-WB-1, NAVS-7/2/92-33-WB-1). These artifacts are
distinguished by their design elements, polish, and their

rounded and smoothed cutoff ends. They all appear to be
from tubes less than 1 cm in diameter and are fragmen-
tary. The design elements on these tubes consist gener-
ally of latitudinal incisions close to the smoothed ends

and diagonal crossing lines between encircling incisions
further along the tube (figure 11.4b, c). Representative
examples are illustrated in plate 11.4r-t.

Tubes of this type appear in both Alaska and

California. This type of artifact would be classified as
type 2 decorated tubes by Heizer (1956:113, plate 80).

Gifford (1940:180, 227) might place these tubes in type
EE2b since they have more complex design elements
than type EE7a. However, the tubes illustated by

Gifford (1940:227) as belonging to type EE2b all have
very complex design elements including zones filled in

with finer striae or crosshatching. The tubes discussed in
this section do not have the intricacy of design seen in
Gifford's type EE2b.

Tubes with Intricate Designs

Four examples of tubes with intricate, zoned

crosshatch designs have been recovered from the South

Trench of NAVS (figure 11.4d-g). None are known from
FRBS. Three examples are tubes near 1 cm in diameter.
One is a much larger tube, over 1.5 cm in diameter
(figure 11.4f).

These tubes are very distinctive. They have a basic
zoned design consisting of areas of no decoration and
areas of decoration which usually alternate. The deco-
rated areas are filled with fine crosshatching. These
alternating areas are in the form of narrow bands,

lozenges, or compressed lozenges. The tubes are

illustrated in the following order in plate llAu-x (NAVS-
6/27/92-13-WB-1, NAVS-8/8/91-l6-WB-l, NAVS-8/7/
91-55-WB-1, NAVS-6/30/92-115-WB-1). Tubes of this
type apparently are not found in coastal Alaska, but they

are well known from California (Gifford 1940:180). This
style of tube is classed as type EE2b by Gifford

(1940:180, 227). The four tubes from NAVS are very

similar to intricately designed tubes illustrated by Barrett
(1952:plate 37: #'s 1-5). These ethnically distinctive

artifacts clearly indicate a Native Califorian presence at
NAVS.

OTHER FINISHED ARTIFACT

A variety of finished bone artifacts of uncertain

function or type have been recovered from the Native

Alaskan Neighborhood. One of these objects is made of
ivory, the only defmitely ivory artifact found to date at

Colony Ross. It was recovered from NAVS, unit 72S, 1E
(NAVS-7/17/92-7-WB-1, plate 11.2n). One end is
broken. One surface is flat and the other surface is

rounded. A single perforation is located at each end of
the object If each end of this object had one hole and
was symmetrical, the estimated actual length of the

artifact would be approximately 60 mm. The function
and purpose of this object is unclear. It may have been
suspended, or perhaps used to secure and support other
objects.

A small piece of carved bone with a crosshatched
design pattern was recovered from NAVS, unit 123S,

24W (NAVS-7/2/92-30-WB-1, plate 11.2m). This object
is flat and undecorated on one surface. The other surface
has a rounded edge and bears the crisscrossing incised
design.

NON-DIAGNOSTIC WORKED BoNE ARTIFACTS

The remaining 751 worked bone artifacts recovered
from the Native Alaskan Neighborhood are not diagnos-
tic tool types or implements. However, they are all

directly related to the production of the identifiable tools
described above and bone tools in general. These non-
diagnostic worked bone artifacts include possible bone
and ander cores, hand holds, chopped and carved bone

chunks, split bone, sub-cylindrical shaft fragments, and a
variety of chopped and carved bone flakes.

A number of fine to crudely carved and fmished

pointed bone objects have been recovered from NAVS.

Their function is unclear. They may represent bone pins

or pegs. The majority of them have one end that has been
scored and snapped off from another portion of bone.

These pointed objects could simply represent detritus or
discarded portions of other objects at a certain stage of
manufacture.

Eleven finely carved, smoothed cylindrical shaft

fragments have been recovered from the Neighborhood.

262     The Native Alaskan Neighborhood

F  is
m :t

-Z  e

-:

c,

Bone Artifacts   263
Figure 11.4 Bird Bone Tube Fragnmntsfrom the Native Alaskan Neighborhood

I    I     I    I    I    I

0                         5cm

a

d

b

e

c

f

g

a. Latitudinally incised bird bone tube fragment (NAVS-7110/92-123-WB-1). b. Bird bone tube fragment with crossing designs

(NAVS-7/3/92-45-WB-1). c. Bird bone tube fragment with crossing designs (NAVS-712/92-33-WB-l). d. California-style incised
bird bone tube fragment (NAVS-8/7/91-55-WB-l). e. Califomia-style incised bird bone tube fragment (NAVS-6/30/92-115-WB-1).
f. California-style incised bird bone tube fragment (NAVS-6/27192-13-WB-1). g. Califoria-style incised bird bone tube fragment

(NAVS-8/8/91-16-WB-1). Illustrations by Judith Ogden.

Two of them have spiraling incisions at one end reminis-
cent of some sort of screw or bolt The rest are simply
smooth and almost perfectly cylindrical. They could
represent portions of any of a number of Alaskan or

Californian bone artifacts having a smooth, cylindrical
portion, such as fishhooks, projectile points, awls,
ornaments, or other tools.
CORES

Five objects that appear to be large chunks of raw
material from which pieces have been removed for

further reduction and/or use, otherwise known as cores,
have been recovered from NAVS. These objects have
numerous metal tool cut and chop marks on them

indicative of the intense force used to reduce the original
skeletal element to a usable size and eventually to an
artifact

Antler Cores

Two of these objects are basal portions of extremely
large elk antlers (NAVS-7/17/92-9-WB-1, not illustrated,
NAVS-8/14/91-34-MB- , plate 11.5). Both antler

portions have been thoroughly abused during the removal
of other smaller pieces of antler. All of the cut and chop
marks on these antler cores appear to result from the use
of metal manufacturing tools. Elk used to be seen in the
vicinity of Ross (Khlebnikov 1976, 1990). They are now
locally extirpated and found in California from mid-

f?%

4c/??

264     The Native Alaskan Neighborhood

Plate 11.5 Elk Antler Core (NAVS-8114191-34-WB-1)from the Native Alaskan Village Site

Plate 11.6 Whale Rib Core (NAVS-8115191-159-WB-l)from the Native Alaskan Village Site

Photo by Tlomas A. Wake

Bone Ardfacts    265

Humboldt County northward.

Bone Cores

One object clearly used as a source of raw material is
a lage portion of a whale rib (NAVS-8/15/91-159-WB-1,
plate 1 1.6) Other potential sources of raw material for
tool manufacture, or cores, have been recovered from

NAVS. Both of the grizzly bear (Ursus arctos) elements
recovered from NAVS show signs of use as cores. It

should be noted that the grizzly bear is now extirpated

from Califomia and has been for the last hundred years.

One element is a distal right humerus (NAVS-8/13/91-19-
WB-1, plate 11.7, left). The other element is a distal

right radius (NAVS-7/10/92-39-WB-1, plate 11.7, right).
The distal portions of both of these bones have been

removed by chopping all around the circumference of the
shaft with a heavyy-bladed metal tool such as a large

knife or cleaver, the end of the bone was then snapped
off. The remaining shaft portion was probably used in
artifct manufacture. Both of the grizzly bear elements
were treated quite similarly.

Another potentdal raw material source from NAVS is
a proximal ulna of a large (probably male) juvenile

Steller's sea lion (Eumetopias jubatus, NAVS-8/15/91-

204-f-1, not illus ). The proximal portion of the ulna
recovered from unit 125S, 23W has also been removed
from the shaft of the element and discarded. The

remaining shaft piece with thick cortical bone was

probably used as raw mateial for artifact production.
FLAKEs

Five hundred ninety-four bone flakes have been

recovered from NAVS. None have been found at FRBS
to date. These flakes come in a variety of shapes and

sizes. To be classed as a worked bone flake, the artifact
must be longer and wider than it is thick and have one
surface bearing a metal cutting tool blow. Bone flakes
from Ross are subdivided into two classes: chopping
flakes and carving flakes (plate 11.8). None of the
recovered bone flakes appear to be pressure flakes
(Johnson 1985).

Chopping Flakes

Bone bits are classed as chopping flakes if they have
at least one surface bearing a metal cutting tool blow, a
thickness of over 2 mm, and a minimal amount of

curvature. Some curvature or curved deformation of the
object often occurs close to the detaching tool blow,

especially if the flake is relatively thick. These flakes
commonly have one or more facets on their dorsal

surface. Each facet represents a blow from a metal

cutting tool detaching a previous flake of bone overlying
the flake scar in question. Chopping flakes, in general,

imply rapid, controlled, patterned removal of excess bone
material in the process of manufacturing tools or arti-
facts. Represtative examples of the 567 chopping

flakes identified are illustrated in plate 11.8 (left).

Carving Flakes

A more finely directed force in the removal of bone
flakes is seen in the carving flakes. Bone bits classed as
carving flakes are relatively longer than they are wide.
They are quite thin, often less dtan 2 mm in thickness,

and often have a twist and some curvature to them (plate
11.8, right). These artifacts bear an uncanny resemblance
to slivers of antler cut with a knife illusted in

MacGregor (1985:65, figure 40a, b). Carving flakes are
very similar to long, thin, twisted, and curved whittling
flakes produced by long, controlled carving strokes on

wood. The aspect of these bone flakes implies accurate
and controlled force, much more so than the chopping

flakes. These flakes often have fewer and longer facets
than the latter. Twenty-seven carving flakes have been
identified.

AmORPHOUS WORKED BONE CHUNKS

A wide varety of amorphous worked bone chunks
and pieces have been recovered from NAVS and FRBS.
All of these objects have indications, sometimes quite

obvious, of reduction and working by metal cutting and
chopping tools. These artifacts include sub-cylindrical
shaft fragments, which are essentially crudely carved

bone shafts; bone splinters with cut, carve, or chop scars;
and other difficult-to-classify, worked bone bits. The

artifacts in this category, although relatively amorphous,
are important in that they represent the variety and

intensity of bone working that occurred in the Native
Alaskan Neighborhood.
Split Bone

Five of the worked bone artifacts from NAVS exhibit
scars from metal cutting and chopping tools travelling

along the length of the bone (Wake 1995, figure 5.11, left
and right). A prime example was recovered from unit

123S, 25W (NAVS-7/7/92-74-WB-1) (Wake 1995, figure
5.11, left). These scars most likely result from attempts
to split the bone lengthwise, as a part of the reduction

sequence. This would produce long, slender sections of
dense cortical bone more easily shaped into certain tools
such as shafts, awls, and pins.
Sawn Bone

Three pieces of worked bone bearing saw scars have
been recovered from NAVS. One basal portion of elk

antler also bears saw marks at one end. This is especially
noteworthy since none of the faunal remains discussed in
chapter 12 appear to have been butchered or processed
using saws. None of these three pieces bear any resem-
blance to bone butchered using saws, nor do they appear
to be representative of any of the expected cuts of meat
produced by Anglo-Americans who used saws as
butchery tools.

266    The Native Alaskan Neighborhood

. .... i.; .: .                            ii

t i Z~        ~     ~    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ..........   ,  ,

140~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

ass

t   & s  _  I                                              s   0000~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

t   4                                                          vX,':''",,0~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.0,

I

Bone Artifacts       267

1

I.. ..

I.

I         I

I                                        0

.. .1.

I....''.1                                                 I

?I

I               . I. I

.''.. I                                           .                              -9

I            .

.- ?. .".?.

? .I.                                ?   I .??   I. ,                              -

.I?. ?.........I

-.I.. 11 -.. - ... .--

.I .I... ,....

...I1..I.. . ...'' ... .:.:.-.. ... . .1 I.

.  ....   .1:1-1.           . . ?                              i?
.II--- .. ... .. ...l...I

??.1. ... I---.

:...,...jljjj,?_:??:?.:., . .... .. .....

:.     ?I.                               . ? -   I 1.                               .

.,. I.., .---

.?..l...-..?.. ,.I..I
..II?.1 .... .- ...

-. II

I.II.I..1 .. -...

.11.I1.... 1''.....

?--                ?    I . . ?.;  I  - ::., .                       .0!4
,...??:.I. ..... 1..
.1 .. ..

.. .. I I ?I.

-''...I 11

.I       .   -I          , . .   1. I

?..,I...I

?... .,.

,....:??'7q??...... I.... I
]:::.?-:::?. -:': 1.-........-I...,

.-.- I I ?. .. ..... .....l.

-......,- I ..

I... . I---
...11-_I

-.. . -:::::.. :,?.---.
I??:II.... . :,:..
?. ... .. .. -.--

I,11,.
.. 1. :?. . 1. 1.
?I??:.:

.I.. . ?. ::,?:::.I

II.?..-m..?.. ...?. . ... ... mwwmk?:

..   ? I -   - I    I ..             . ?  ?: ,                                       I

......I...?
II-?..., -.-..l. ... I?--:, .. ??..? I.

I   ,?   .  11,             I ...   ..   ?   ? .. I   I I                       0

I      I   ??         .     .
..     ?    111.                       .11

-.??? i?R.?I?I

I . .I...

,-.I.-.. ...

I .        ? ,  ..   I   - .?

..1 ''-?:, .. ??.

.I..I..??I

-... I.. -...,.??.....?.

I.. ?,I ..IW?,

.: ?? ??:: .. , ': ? I.,I?-- .., .1-... 1. I I

II..?-.. ...,.

..?.... . .. ? ---,-....-.-.---I

..I-. .. ...?1. -I :-.1 . -.0"""..."'...-I?I

.1 .. ..:.?. I ---.

-- ... I - .I -     -..              .   . .                               9

.......

.?.I.,?I?. -.... I.,.I
.-I ??.... .....:?' . .1 ... I.., ---- ?I.

???. -- . ,... :::.:I,1. ...

...I... .. .. ??:????;?():... I.I?.

.. ,.... I .- :.-:......:?.: ......, , .. .?I?I
I.- - I-11 - .. .. ... ?.. -..--....l...l-.. I-_II

?.. ??. , -::-: :!::::.?.

???....1 _?II

..1. ... .. . ..-,: ?'?- :. 7.-:? :- -.
.??...?II.??1.-? ;:?!: i:::,:!::...:,..'. -..... ... .. I -::!.:::::: .?:?I

.?::::, ... .. . ..?I. . ..III..1.,:-?:_. .. ::::I.?I??

I . . .  .  I.             ....         -   - I .:..   ... . ._   - , . 1.

I.- I.,. . ?. ..:? I,I II:.. .. - :_: .? . .?`r. . ?...?... I..
?.. ?.-- - .. ":.::,?.1.I.?.... .. ?. l: 1:.. :-..?

,:.. ?I? ... .I. .-: :;,:::

.."...- --?'- m:;--:, ? I ?: -.:.,.:!:... .''... __- - --1k

I - -- I. . .. ... .1 V I.. I -- I ?,, ___:.....--..I

.. --::,:;-.1.?? ?...III. ,....-;-:-,::--?:?- -:.,.11?- . I

I.".1- .........l. -.. :?i?? P. _....

-I. I.1 ....-?--:- ,.I....l.;-:- ? , ?. I.::-II-- .. ... .... I - :?;r:-,-..:: ... ,.,.
.l... .1I...._--_-.,.. ..?

I.. I -I

w

? -....., ... I ...-

.. I    I. .   ?   - -   ? .. .   .....   .. I I... .   ...:1-  .........  -1   -   ?'.   .;:.   ,   ?... I I0
?I .? -1 ... ... ..'..... . , ??-

II. I ?. 11 ,?. ... m..... ... :-.....?; , :.. , ?

II-I ?. i ...-.. - I?,.:.,?
1...... ?: ?::? ?:....*,:: -??:.. I' -..-:?.

I-1. I I..., ........ ........... .I: ?... .... ....

... ;? ...... -,"...: .. .... ... .. ,:

I?.l..... II I..... ?.?. ...?.?....??'.......??.........'?...; ,? I.....I.

... .. .. 1. ?-... ?.. ... -... ... _... ?.. ...,

I.,.1 ..% ... I -.... I---- - - .. I..IW...

.I.I..I......'... , I-1 I.?.?

?......

-... - ?:.:::.?::.::.::,:::.::.?:?:,;,. .,:.?: :W:-?:.. -I

II111. . ,,I..., r.

-:.::........ : .: II . ....I.-W'.
III-. ::. -_-:.... ? ??.
.-.-, -:1.: ... I.I.

69

.? ?.I I?.. I.........?:?- _:? ?--'.... ?-:6::.. ?.: . .

......... .... . 1?. .?:, ]I

.I ..?? ? I...., ... . .. . ..11;... I.. 1. I.--l-.1 ., .:. .:.I:

I,.1,........ I... I..: ?:;: ?:-: ? . ...- ::-:::.,'.., ,.,:. ? I:.-?

..-I III-.-'..'... .. lw:?I?::...'.' . ?; . 1..I..1

l.-:::.,:-:--::-- .., ,. .. I.. I.. .... .-I
....-...-I...I... I.. ,:::':?::::: ? ...... . ....I.....'.....I

I?..1 .-I .... ..... .1 ... ... . -. . .. ..... .I- 1. -? ?: ?;..?
..I?.I I.. .. .1-1. . I ,X.... .........."I - I - , ,I ?.. ? I: :. ?; ?I. .

4

_.. . . .. ....- .1 - -?-.... -.. ?...
?.-1 --- --...., -i ?]:i??:??:? ?:::: ? ??':..... I ..

.I ..... II., I -. ..... . .. - 1- -,.. :, . ? -:::.].:..::.?:.:...::..:: ..........'. I.... ... .... '.... ??:-.

I

. . -. -. . ...I.I. ?,:
.......I?..I?I.....': .. ... ...... .... .11, ... I-. -? -.-. I., .....l. .1 I...

;=

,

.?: ?::::. - ..:::.: 1. ....

,::.:. ...-.. ... .... ........ .1 .... .. I. ..

:5.

?-1 . -..... : .. .-...... ... ...... ... ..'--.. -,.?, ... 1. . . I11I?.

?.? i, ? i-II I.." I ,. .1-:. -:::?-:::::; .......'.. -? ::?:::.:;:::: .:-:? ?:.:;,:::.;::?:::: .. - .., .. . - I ...--.:..
....I...:.1 ....... ? .... ... ... . .? ... I,--- - ..'......'. ..- I..:.

.. ...?.... I---. I I-- ?I?--...,... -...: .... .? .:::: .:,:.: - .:: :: :.....

.... -.1-111.-.1'.. ... .... .::.:..:?j--:. ?:;. ?:?..-..... I., .....I....... .::.- I.. - ? ? II??.??
--I..??.. 11 -I:II.M........., -.. I...'. '...

I.. ...... ..II ??1. ., -6.-!_::-, ?... . ......... - I..??...
..??.,.11II?. 1. I.. . ..I.. I-----.. . _. - ?.. ...... I I.... . I -? ?? ... ?;

-.. ?. .. .... .... . ..
.I.. ,? I.... .-l. 1. .....; -:?: , ... . .. ... . .. 1. ,...

it

.    .  ?  I ,..                                 I...? .   ....I.......  -   ? . -   ?  I

.. ... ...??:: I. .... ... ..... . .I..-:

..?:::?:.,. .,.II.1 ?,I ".._-- ---?. .........I.. . ... . ...I......-.?:?I.
I.... .. I.. ...?...., ? ..1 .I.. ?: . ? I I . ?? ... ........,..,........,ii?i?ii???!??,?I.. .. ...... I .. .. ." . 1....: 1.

I---. ---... ... .... .....I
.I-.. ,..1 , .I?- ?... I......... 11

.;, ?! ............. ?.... .1 I ..-? I-......'... ... .- 1. -... I I.... 1. I.-?I. ?..

.... . ....... -.:I. II -... ,......", . .. .. I. ...,.

,.q .??::: ::: .:.:. ......... .".. -?::? ?I..
..:???:-:::::?::- I.... . I.. .. ..I .I .1II

..........I

... II .?. 1.??-
... _... -- .. .. .... .... .1. -::.:.:::::I

I. .I--- -_.? ..!:::;::. :::::::II ..... ..

4

.. . ....I?;,- . ?.... I. ... . . . . ....... 1,-

I1..... I . - - ? , I..... ?.. I -: -%; .. .. . I ... -'. . I1.,......
... .? .I, ? X ?_ :::,.....

......-? I..., ..?....-.

IW."... --....:: .:.,:. ?.. .1 I.. ......: ?.:-. I.... :;:
..-?.... ... ..I ? I...

- ..:;:?;??i::,?:??:?i?wjii   ..  ?   ....''.., . . :   . :,   ,:I ' .   - .1   ., I.. .   I   - ....... I .   .   .......   ... .   ....I.,   . .   .   1 .   ?I

?

.... .. . 1..:-.-.:-"',-".. ? ,11.:.I .. . . 1. ... 1. I..

..-. 1. ? ?;: m -, :: ?: a:?: ? ?:,. I -... ...... I . ..,. -1- . I;;. . .?. I?I.  , .I. .w?? ? ?:.:: - ?i???%;.::. -_.,.-. 1. -. I., ... .. ? . .:: ?: : ?:::: I: - ::: ::. 7: ?;:.:;:::::. mm 1, . .I., . .,.

,,?? ..:.._..?:. : .... . .. ..l. -.I..I .I?? .1-... ....
.I1. .1 .. .1-11-.1 .... ?. ... . .1 .: ..:::::.. ....... . .. ....

.,;:,: ?n-..-_ - I.- ..... .:.:....
I-1 I. - -.. .... , 1. 1. ?::::, .. ?,... :??, :::---?:--::::;;:?;?i??;?:i?:::i?:?;,?,?:i?i:?:;???:::::??::?. ..... ? "... I..-., I... ?, ?I

I... :?7:: -.1- _.- - - 1, I.''.., ...I.11 ??-. ,..... ....l. I 1.
.I... ,:::?7 ? ":. ?:;; ?: ?.:,: ? ?. ..,.

:;?

. .   I   .   I . ? I.-   I . I  I... ?::?- ,: :  :,.:.:;::   ::w:?.:: ,  ;:.,   :??l   ;: ... ;.,:.,..   ....I. I..   - .   , ??   ,   - ::::::?:?"   7   ..   ,   "...'...   . ? I - -   -:?  : : ::.   .:   . ;. - .....  .?,?... ? I , , ... '.   ..."-?  -?'-   ; -   .. ? I . '. .-

??.?....-....... .. I.-'..47?7?m?i..1.1I..11 .. 1..... .. I

"

..1 ? -"I.::;.-: _-...., I -::: ?;r:: _-?:j;.-...... .......... "... -- I ... ... ..l.......,I? I

.. _.... . ....... ........?- I'-, -,'....-........ .., .'..., - X.:.:-II .. I.....I
?. ... .. I....?........ .. I., ..... .1 I.. -;::::::::.:_:: .:,:X,:.::.::,: ?:. .! ?w i???i?i?'!!,?????.'--.'???:!!;;????i???,.-'.-'??: " '' .. : ? I.

IU

I.:-;. .1....,.I,? .;: :? .?: ? ...... -?..... 11 .:::?;::!.,.::::.::::::::,.:.:::.:., ... '......'... ,._,:; ?: 1.

II., .... -, I .:::;::::: '. ::::::? ? ?::I...?- ": :.;: .. I.... 1, I ::.....::-:!:-::;::.? .? . ..
...-- .., -...:..? I ,....::,..I

;11

?. . ... ........ .... . ,,::! : ?: : :::': ::: ?:: ? ? ? - _. . -- ...'.... ...,:.: ?;:?:: ? I'? --i;? ??!::, ]:?? ? ? :??: ::: ` - - :::?:::::', .:. , .:, ,, "' ....,..I- I... .. I .:?? ?;?:?: 1.I
I.. .. ..... - ... I .. ?11 I?? ?... ? I -??_?..::.,: ?? --:: - .. : ....., ? ............" ....?,.:. . ?:z,7?,"' - ?,..-

I.... .. .. .1 . I.. ...... ?.. ., .. ?::: :::;:?::-?::,:: """", , .:??:.::;? - ,........ ?- I... 1.-. .,..I

.    :',   __ -   - -:,::  :-::   ..  .:.:?:::!.::::::.  ,:;   .11.  - :-?::: -? -- - - -- - . : ,::.  :?_ : I .: .

1*

..:.1. ..... --- I .- .. 1.?1. ...." .1 . I.., .. ?. ? 1. ?.!???":.;!:i:::?:.???:.?:?,.:?::??:??!i????!::i?7 ... ... I .1 -, --. ?.... ._?I

I.I------ ? ''.. I....... ... ... .I].?: :::; !:; ,-:;.,.

?? 1. -?.... . ..?...?.'..... ... I... .., ?-... _.__,,,_--_. .--... '. ..--....--I% -?I-.?..II

.. II?... . .... I ".-I. ,: ;.. I I;: . .... .--. ,_ ... I .... . I.... - .., ,.. , ,..I

.,,.... --?%---- ., . ...l. 1. ..I.. . -:I

. -- -....-I.  , .. . I ...., 1.-- ... ? I.. . .._-.... ... . 1. ....

I.1. .1. ??.,,., ""' ??i?i???:?:??'..'???:?:?;?:???.????:?:????????:i??????;:;:?::::::.:.-:?:: ::::!::::7:?::-:::.::::::,:,:..'I . .. ....?.-?: ..

?3

.. .'......'' .1. ,... ....l.. .1 . . I : :,.I. .... .. .. ?? I---- - , 1.1- '. -.'. ...:.;.. -?-::,.::::: ?::??.. ?:-'',- "' - ,,:: ?:?% .....

.?-....? ... .... .1 ...- . - I. I-I...'......."ll."..- .l :..q,:,;.:: :: ?. , . :. ? ? - , ,:. , .,:.:.: ?;:: ,:::...?:iii ?,.: ?:.;:m. ?'..??:? :jj???:?]?:i ? ?: .. _: . ??:.::::.:::: ?: - .:., '. :: :: .,,-,.-I.... ? -:; .: .: ? ?::: ::w.:::7::,?:-. ?: 7: ....."....-.1.............. i?i?:?...?,I -. I.1 :-::.-Im;?'....

I.,I... ,?.;??. -:: :: ?: %:: . I.::;. . .:.I m.... I-- _.......... .. ?_?;?:.-::: ,::::::::v::::.. ?.? -.

.I I.:, : ,.... .." : ?.,I... .,..? ?. ... ? I ?, ., '? ?:e' . .:.,: .,.: - - .. ?. ,, .: - . I., - .. . .

I.-.?........... I I -..,I.-..-.,.,....-..... %......-.:;... -.-?i?::i::::.:::.;]?:?.",i::?i:?:..,:?.????. -:: ?I . .. ... I .- . . -1I. ... .. ..

?t

. .. ? . - - . -.. . ..--. ?I ...
I.. I.., I.I?. .. ........ . .. ,. ,.. ,?: .. -,_.---: ......'...'.. .... --.. ... ..

--.,.. ....11 . .. . ,I....I..."... , I? I ? - ... -? . ---- -.. - .... ,_1 ...., ......... .I -.1- II....:;:

..II. ?-- .. ...?....... . _ . ....::x:i?i.?i... ?..-. . ... ?..... ..., I :: ;:'._...
? .I.- II .II I.F. .1. I .1 . .- ,.. ..,- .. .- -...,...,-. ....-I_?: -::; ... . : , ;:::: " ,:.-, ::: ..::: -::: ? 1 : ?:::: ? ;: ?:-::::: ? I.- - -......

?..I??I - ?-.-.-- ..?,;:: :: , 1. -1 . .1 -- - ', .....I -.I.. .-?- ?: .:-::-...l.-.-,W::??-?.?-..
11 ? , . -...:.W... ?.. .. .. ? -.-... 1.

I.I.I? ?-...... ....-: :, : ?:.: ::: _- .?. .-- -:i?i??..".?::::;.?i::?....,I,:,:....??:::.?:?]:? ???:: ?.. -:;:::.-X-%.,... ?:6 -. ?-:.,I- ". -::

.?.1 ?..1. ,I..1. .- 1.I,. . .11"?:. ..... ..... ,? :.. .., ... I ?_- ? ... --. .... .... .. .I. . .... -1--I

-..I. I.. .. .....,.?---. I......- .1.. ._;_: ... : ,::: : ?- -::: -...........-... - ... I . 1. ".... ._ ......
W

...... ? ?.. I .-1-- I :: ?:: ?:.: ? :, ? :.....11- -? I.... I...::. I - I. -. .,:::',,-:: .1 ;.I: -: , :'. ?-...I.. . .... ..... ...
-... , ??.: ?: _ .... .. ........ .I. I?........... - .?. ... ... . ....... -. - ... ............. - - .:. .:.: - -?:-:: ?: - - X. r ::, - . .:. ? ;.: -- . -?: --I.,-

.11, -1; :,,....-...-?-:-:-: .; -...l.".....-I... . . ? ?. . ... .. ?. ?... ? ... ,.-1-1 I .I ?. .. . .. ?..
.1 . ?.- . ,I.1I..1 .I1. . .. I I----.... I.. I- :?:I.... ::?. I? :. . -::.-,.. 1. I .. - I .11 ... ? I.?.. - I I."..

.II.1 .l. .. .1 I --.-_----..-l .. ....,.I, ?: ?? ???:'m:::, ? ?..-? ...... -......... .::. ? .!;. :; :: ?'. ? ? :: .-..1'.. . - II .1. ?. .I .1.-I. . ..... .... ...

II?.. .I. I. ?..l. -.. ..."-. . :::,:I -.-.. -.. .. .,. .. . ?-11,I, -.. I .l.... ... ? ? ? I.1. , ....-. ,..
?1. ? I..??... .. I,, ..... .,:!?? ..:?:!.::;;:: :? .:...,.:?!:],;.::?:.:::,:::::.:??.?. ;??-,-:;:::,::::?:::: ?: : -:?:.:: ? : :- ::,; - ,."'....''... .. ...... ,., , - .,

_S

.. .. ,,` .. . 1. . . I.. . ,:__..... . :?: ? ?::- ..

.:.: . .: - '. :, .? ?-l -1 I .II... I...... --

.I.... .I. .. ... 1.?.....`:??;?:??::?:i;ii?: ...;????j?????...?????!??:j?j????:;:??j ?... ... . .._.:. : . ?... p- .. ,_ . _ . ,11 .i.. .: 1-1. ....
?I?... 11 .1 . I....I.,?: :? :-.:?..... . .. I... .. ......'.. -;? , ?: :?; ? ?!.. . " ,I . .... -'- ?:: ;. -;:.-:--.-;--:?;:::- ?.I..'' .... ? I.?.. .::::: :: ,;.1 .: ::--

-... 1. ? ? I ,. - ?... .1 ... - . . ... I... ... ?,::: :.;..;.: ...... -.1-I............. I.. - ?-..-,;:? .::6 ?- :: . . :, ... ''.._.
... -? .. .I., ? .1 1- .... .:? - %?-

.-._?: ,:,.?:, :, !: ? ?.: ???
_. II--?-. , -??;_--??J??iN?; i??:!?i?i:`i?-. ???.-'.??-'.'.?!?!???i???i?i..,: ......,
.I... -1 I.., ?? ??:?::.,:. ."-- .1.1. - - .. . .''. I..

I. I .........." I.. . I.... I -?-? I...... ..::.-.... .... -... . --- ..:..:: .,.: .:-;?: .,.. ?.:..,.:.? .;. ;,%: :::? I .?.?,.?

I..: ??? :I.. . .1 ... .1.11.1 ...

II. :: : :?:%,.:: :::::.::.: :-:::,::-:.-....-.-..? ..1 --?.. ... ....,'...'. I .:?::.,-:.

-".1.1 ., .. I...'?.... -.?... - -.. -.I I- I

9

I.. .1 .. 1. . I........ .:--..-.- ..I., .I..I...... .1 .1 - .. 1: .:??:??i??:?i????,:.;:..,?,'..?.?.:.?; ... :.. -:-?.... ? .

?.            . . I .. 1. ? ...  ?  - -,: ? -:-::-:-:  .-:?.:;:.::-   ,  '..."   .. ?   - .. - - -.  ....., -- ..  .;:-:  :  , . :: ? ; :':  ...   -   ?  :.,.   ,..., . .11   . .
I-? - .1 , - % I ? -.., ??...I.., .... - _-...-, "...I ? ? ... ..... 1. ?,. ?.....I._., _.. -.. ... .?.... I..''.... "...... ......... .. ...... ... ., .:. :::,. . -

I??. II. ...... I .., ...-I.. ..., I. ,:- -?.?.?..i::?::::??i?????:??-?:!':;?:???:..".:.???.?::?;;i??.".,?: -?::??i?ii:]?:??x:.. -?7?.?]' ?"".--, , " ............ ?., .i.,

268    The Native Alaskan Neighborhood

Based on these four sawn bone and antler bits, saws
seem to have been used on bone, not for the pwposes of
butchery, but in the process of manufacturing bone

artiacts. Two of the pieces exhibiting saw marks are
quite small, and have a number of cuts travelling in a
variety of directions on them. They appear to be saw

detits from the manufacture of flat bone implements.

One large sawn bone artifact is a distal femur of a
young adult Steller's sea lion (Euewtopiasjubatus)

(NAVS-8/8/91-28-WB-1, plate 11.9). The femur has

been cut at least twice around the circumference of the
shaft with a narrow-bladed handsaw. Interestingly, the
saw appears to have been used to cut through only the

dense cortical bone and not the softer cancellous tissue in
the interior of the element. Apparently the shaft was

being cut in relatively even portions to provide rings of
bone, which were then  ed off of the remaining
portion for some unknown purpose.

The one sawn piece of elk antler resembles the

Steller's sea lion bone with respect to the way the saw
marks are de            marks do not pass cleanly

through the arfat. As with the sea lion femur, appar-

ently only the dens outer layer of cortical antler material
was cut by the saw. Ajagged lip of cancellous tissue
lying at the base of the saw cut indcates that once the

dense cortical material had been sawn through, probably
circumferenially, the ander was snapped in two. Saws
were occasionally used on bone to produce artifacts, it
seems, but not for the butchery of animals. The saws
used on these elements were not used in a typical

European fashion, to cut cleanly and completely through
an object

HAND HoLDs

A number of ardifacts with a variety of attributes
relatingto the final stages of artifact production have

been recovered from both NAVS and FRBS (figure 11.5a,
b). These artifacts have two main attrbutes in common:

a narrowed, se, cut, chopped, or snapped off end and
the presence of cutting and carving marks indicative of
more than one stage of artifact production. Some of

these objects exlubit as many as four stages of tool pro-
duction including splitting, rough carving, fine carving,
and hand hold removal (plate 11.lOb, c, g, i, j, m).

These objects are termed hand holds, for lack of a
more inclusive label. They are classed as hand holds

based on the belief that they served as an underworked
extension, providing purchase, of a piece of bone being
worked into a tool. An object similar to those discussed
here is described and illustrated by Lyman (1991:122,

figure 5.lOd). In his description of fish hooks from the
Umpqua/Eden site, he states

one of the smaller ones is not yet completely made,
and is attached at the apex of the V (base of the J-

curve) to a smalL flat, rectangular piece of bone (Fig.

S.lOd); this specimen is otherwise completely formed.
It thus seems that these hooks were shaped by cutting
and grinding from a large blank, with the removal of
the completed hook constituting the last step of

manufacturing. This would allow holding the bldnmk

while working on the exposed endfrom which the hook
was produced (Lyman 1991:122, emphasis mine).

The objects discussed in this section are similar to those
described by Lyman (1991:122). They often exhibit a
variety of tool production stages, probably served as

handles, and were apparently cut off and disarded as the
tool in question reached the final stages of completion.
Similar objects have been recovered from Sonoma

County, California in prehistoric contexts (Greg White
and David Fredrickson, personal communication, April
1994).

SPATIAL PATrERNING OF WORKED BONE ARTFACTS

The spatial distribution of worked bone tools and

artifacts across NAVS provides intesing data regarding
the overall organization of the site and the identity of its
inhabitants. Additionally, many of the diagnostic bone
tools recovered from NAVS are stylistically distinctive
and can provide detailed information regarding their
manufacturers. The-probable locations of bone tool

production areas and the ethnic identities associated with
the various excavated portions of the site can be deter-
mined and fine-tuned through spatial analysis of the
worked bone assemblage. Since fewer artifacts were
found at FRBS, this discussion will focus on NAVS.
Analysis of the spatial arrangement of worked bone

artifacts, especially those artifacts from early stages of
the production sequence such as chopping flakes,

provides excellent information aiding in the location of
primary bone tool production areas. Analysis of the

patteming of ethnically sensitive tool types will provide
more detailed information regarding the cultual identity
of the occupants of specific areas.

In order to investigate inta-site pattening of the
worked bone artifacts at NAVS, each of the four main

excavation areas is treated as an independent assemblage
in the section below. All of these excavation areas have
differing frequencies of worked bone artifacts in general.

The analysis of the patterning of the mammal

remains discussed in chapter 12 includes only those
remains from the trench units that were excavated to

sterile levels in the 1991 and 1992 seasons. The spatial

analysis of the worked bone artifacts includes specimens

recovered from the entire excavated areas in the 1991 and
1992 seasons, including the trenches and the area
excavations.

The highest concentrations of bone flakes are

associated with the bone bed deposits in the East Central
and South trenches and excavation areas at NAVS.

Specifically, the greatest density of flakes are located in

Bone Artifacts   269
Plate 11.9 Sawn Sea Lion Femur (NAVS-818191-28-WB-l)from the Native Alaskan Village Site

,0
:

E

4

0

0

Figure 11.5 Hand Holds from the Native Alaskan Neighborhood

0

I    I    I   I    I

5cm

f 6a;

a

b

a. Hand hold (FRBS-6/13/89-18-WB-1). b. Hand hold (NAVS-8/6/91-13-WB-1). Illustrations by Judith Ogden.

i               I                I               I

w B . B B x~~

270    The Nadve Alaskan Neighborhood

S
C)

.00

C

-Z
qc

_00_

o -,

* A

AZi3

V))

eu X-2

>,l

00

Am'.
00

C4s

vz.X

0 C1

?-C

* %* -

cAn

C00A

A -A

Bone Artfacts     271

uits 75S, OE; 75S, IE; and 75S, 2E in the East Central
Bone Bed, and units 125S, 22W; 125S, 23W; and 120S,
26W in the Abalone Dump.

A total of 682 worked bone artifacts were recovered
from the entire South Area (South Trench, South Exten-
sion Trench, and South Excavation Area). A markedly
lower number of worked bone atifacts (132) were

recovered from the entire East Central Area (East Central
Trench, East Central Extension Trench and East Cental
Excavation Area). Seven worked bone artifacts were
recovered from the South Central Test UniL Interest-

ingly, no worked bone artifacts were recovered from the
West Central Trench (units 75S, 16W; 75S, 18W; and

75S, 20W). Only 18 worked bone artifacts were recov-
ered from FRBS, none of them flakes.
DIAGNOSIC ARTIFACTS

The diostic bone artifacts were relatively evenly
distibuted between fte East Central and South excava-
tion areas. For example, 5 dart points and bases were
recovered from the East Central Area, and 6 were

recovered from the South Area. All of the socket piece
elements at NAVS are from the South Area. Five points
were recovered from FRBS. One socket piece was
recovered from FRBS.

A similar pattern is seen with the fishhooks. Four

fish hook elements were eovered from the East Central
Area, while 6 were recovered from the South Area. One
fishhook was recovered from FRBS. The bone awls also
show an even distribution pattem across NAVS, with 3
recovered from the East Central Area and 3 recovered

from the South Area. Similarly, relatively even distribu-
tions of diagnostic bone artifacts are observed across

NAVS in both main excavation areas (Wake 1995, figures
6.21,6.22).

One exception to the even distribution of diagnostic
bone artifacts is seen in the bone buttons. Bone buttons

are more common in the South Area than the East Central
Area. Four bone buttons were recovered from the South
Area, whereas only one was recovered from the East
Cental Area.

The distribution of bird bone tube bead or omament
fragments shows some interesting pattems. Of the 26
bird bone tube ornament fragments recovered from

NAVS, 18 were recovered from the South Area and 8
were recovered from the East Cental Area

One bird bone tube bead fragment was recovered
from FRBS. Four undecorated tube fragments were

recovered from the South Area, and three from the East
Central Area. This compares to 14 decorated tube

fragments from the South Area, and 5 from the East

Cental Area. Interestingly, all 4 of the bird bone tubes
bearing Native Californian decorative patterns were

recovered from the South Area, suggesting a stronger
Native Califonian presence there.

NON-DIAGNOSTIC ARTIFACT

The distribution of production-related bone artifacts
is markedly different from the distribution of diagnostic
bone tools. The general distribution of these bone
artifacts across NAVS is quite uneven (Wake 1995,

figures 6.19, 6.20) unlike that of the diagnostic bone tools
(Wake 1995, figures 6.21, 622). The distribution of

worked elk (Cervus elaphus) antler is perhaps the most
intriguing. All three worked elk antler artifacts are from
the East Central Area. They all appear to be cores and

core fragments, or at the very least, exhausted chunks of
raw material that were discarded. One worked base of a
deer (Odocoileus hemionus) antler was recovered from
unit 125S, 24W in the South Area. It would appear that

most of the antler working, or at least elk antler working,
occurred near the East Cental Area.

ThIis contrasts with the recovery of the majority of

the production-related bone artifacts from the South Area
at NAVS. The pattern is especially evident when one

looks at two important production-related artffact classes:
bone flakes and hand holds.

Bone Flakes

All of the bone flakes recovered at Ross are from
NAVS. The vast majority (n=540) of flakes were

recovered from the South Area at NAVS. Only 54 bone
flakes were recovered from the East Cental Area. The

areas with the highest concentrations of flakes fall within
the undisturbed contexts of the bone beds and appear to
be localized dumping areas (Wake 1995, figures 6.19,
6.20).

In generating the artifact contour maps (Wake 1995,
figures 6.20, 6.21), analysis of the bone flake distribu-

tions in the East Cental and South trenches and excava-
tion areas was standardized by including only the bone

flakes from the three uppermost levels of the East Central
Trench and South Trench.

Within the South Area are two main loci of bone

flakes (Wake 1995, figure 6.20). These loci include unit
125S, 22W (South Bone Bed) and unit 121S, 26W

(Abalone Dump). Unit 125S, 22W yielded the highest
total number (104 total, 25 in the upper 30 cm) of bone
flakes for any unit The next highest number of flakes
(50 total, 6 in the upper 30 cm) is found in unit 125S,

23W and in unit 121S, 26W (51 total), which is over 4 m
north and west of 125S, 22W. Each of these units with
high numbers of bone flakes is surrounded by a fall-off
pattern in flake distributions in adjoining squares (Wake
1995, figure 6.20).

The bone flake distribution in the East Central Area
(Wake 1995, figure 6.19) is not nearly as strongly

patterned as in the South Area (Wake 1995, figure 6.20).
Fewer flakes were recovered overall, and determining a
flake concentration is somewhat more difficult There

appears to be an overall rise in numbers of flakes in units

272    The Native Alaskan Neighborhood

74S, OE and 75S, IE. A defimite fall-off patten sur-

rounds these two units. A slight increase in numbers is

also seen in unit 75S, 4E. Again, the pattern of localized
concentations with surrounding fall-off distributions

seen in the South Area is evident, but not nearly as strong
in the Eas Central Area. Only 3 bone flakes and 4 other

bone artifacts were recovered from the South Cental Test
Unit.

It should be noted tha the flakes referred to here are
produced during the relatively early stages of bone tool
production and would probably not disperse widely,

unles physically transported. The localied high flake
concentration areas may not represent the actual tool

production loci at NAVS, but they are certainly not far
from the area where an individual sat and produced the

atfacts. These loci probably represent unique dumping
instances, possibly resulting from the cleaning of tool
production areas.
Hand Holds

The distibution pattern of hand holds also is

noteworthy. The most significant aspect of the hand hold
artifact distribution, as with the bone flakes, is that the
majority of them are from the South Area (n=18). The

highest number of hand holds per unit (4) is seen in unit
125S, 23W. Ihis unit is contiguous with the unit having
the greatest number of bone flakes at NAVS, unit 125S,
22W. Five hand holds were recovered from the East
Centrl Area, and 4 from FRBS.

DISCUSSION

A wide varety of diagnostic bone tools and other

identfiable artifacts have been recovered from the Native
Alaskan Neighborhood. An equally wide variety of non-
diagnostic worked bone artifacts, bone cores, and bone
flakes have been recovered from the same area. The

diagnostic artfcts, the less diagnostic artifacts, and the

cores, chunks, and flakes provide a great deal of infonna-
tion regarding the imprtance of bone tool technology
and production at this site.

The non-diagnostic worked bone bits, chunks,

splinters, flakes, cores, and hand holds from the Neigh-

borhood are tony to the production and maintenance
of bone tool kits related to marine mammal hunting,
fishing, daily activities, and possibly even ornament

production. The non-diagnostic worked bone artifacts
can be organized into a varety of reduction stages

culminaing in the production of finished bone tools.

These fiished tools were then used, probably sometimes
broken in hunting and fishing activities, perhaps modi-
fied, and then discarded at Ross.

The reduction sequence resulting in any given tool

type probably varied depending on the details involved in
producing the desired object Nonetheless, a series of
generalized phases in the production of bone tools at

Ross appear to include core preparation, core reduction

resulting in the preparation of blanks, rough shaping, fie
shaping, and finishing.

As is typical with any tool production sequence,

large pieces of the required raw material are necessary to
begin the actual production process (MacGregor 1985).

At least five artifacts representative of the earlie stages

of bone tool production have been recovered from NAVS.
These artifacts appear to be exhauste or nearly ex-
hausted large pieces of raw material, or cores.

One of these cores is represented by the basal portion
of a large elk (Cervus elaphus) antler (plate 11.5). The

core proper was probably a complete elk antler. The item
discussed here is representative of an exhaustd core, the
end product of reducing tfie entire core. The very base,
the basal tine, and the rest of the antler above the basal
tine have all been removed using metal chopping tools,
probably large knives (Walker and Long 1977). These
more manageable antler sections were then probably
made into various artifacts (see MacGregor 1985:68,
figure 42 for an antler reduction schematic).

The antler was reduced using numerous controlled

chopping blows latitudinally around the circumference of
the portion to be removed. Once cancellous tissue in the
interior of the antler was reached, the portion was

snapped off. The antler core shows numerous encircling
blows on all ends of the artifact Numerous other blows
cover virtually the entire objecL At least two areas
appear to have abortive encircling blows.

The other smaller portions of elk antler, mentioned
previously in the core section, are smaller than the one
discussed above. However, they both appear to have
been treated in a similar fashion. The tines and more

distal portions of the antler have been removed using the
standard scoring and snapping technique. One of these
specimens is notable due to the fact that the very basal

portion was removed using a saw. The antler was not cut
clean through apparently, but scored with a saw, and then
snapped off. Again, it appears that this section of antler
was used as a source of raw material and then discd.

Another large piece of raw material, or core, is a

midsection of a whale rib (plate 11.6). Whale bone was a
very important source of raw material for coastal Alaskan
people and a wide variety of Native Alaskan  cts

were manufactured from it (Clark 1974a, 1974b; Crowell
1988; Fitzhugh and Crowell 1988; Heizer 1956; Hrdlicka
1944; Jochelson 1925; Jordan and Knecht 1988). Based
on evidence from NAVS, a hypothetical reduction

sequence of a whale rib core to a finished socket piece is
discussed below (Wake 1995, figure 5.14).

The large piece of whale rib exhibits a number of
core reduction stages. A whole whale rib could be

reduced to manageable pieces by chopping in a con-

trolled fashion around the circumference of the bone and
then snapping it in two at the weak point Evidence of
this part of the process can be seen at either end of the

artifact in question. A single whale rib could be reduced

Bone Artifacts   273

to a number of similarly sized sections by repeating this
process.

This section of whale rib recovered from NAVS

appears to be the proper length for dart socket pieces. It

measures 290 cm in length, 35 cm longer overall than the
unfinished socket piece from NAVS, and is virtually the

same kind of dense, yet slighdy porous, whale bone. The
quaity of the bone is so similar to the unfinished and

portions of two finished, broken socket pieces recovered
from NAVS and FRBS that any of these artifacts could
have been manufactred from the very whale rib core in
question.

After reduction in length, this portion of whale rib

was then sectioned lengthwise. Numerous blows from a
metal tool with a slightly curved blade, possibly a small
hatchet or large knife, can be seen travelling lengthwise

on opposite sides of the rib section. One side of this core
was reduced further subsequent to sectioning. The one
side had small sections of bone, flakes essentially,
removed with an adze-like instrument, possibly in

preparaton for even further reduction. This object was
then discarded for some reason. Reducing a core in this
lengthwise fashion would result in a smaller piece of raw
material properly sized for the production of a socket
piece.

The smaller pieces of bone, reduced from the larger
cores, or split from large terrestrial mammal long bones,
appear to be the primary sources of bone tool raw

material, or blanks. A great deal of modification of these
blanks occurred after primary core reduction. In the case
of the unfinished whale bone socket piece recovered from
NAVS, reduction of the core to a splinter of whale rib

was only one of the early stages in the production of the
finished tool.

In order to go from a minimally modified whale rib
splinter to a finished socket piece, a number of stages of
production must be passed through (Wake 1995, figure
5.14a-d). The sectioned whale rib from NAVS would
first have to be roughly worked into the desired length

and roundness. Getting the roughed out shaft more round
and straight would most likely produce the relatively

short, faceted chopping flakes that dominate the entire
worked bone assemblage (plate 11.8). These chopping
flakes could be produced with any stout-bladed metal
tool such as a large knife, a hatchet, or an adze.

The chopping flakes recovered from NAVS and

FRBS are almost all whale bone. Some are relatively flat
and thick and appear to be the result of chopping or
roughly planing a piece of bone flat using powerful
blows. Many of these bone pieces have a large, flat

ventral flake scar and multiple dorsal flake scars. The

dorsal flake scars are often arranged in lengthwise facets
travelling over the top of the bone piece from one side to
the other. Such an arrangement of flake scars indicates
rough rounding of a piece of whale bone. During the

rounding and straightening process, flakes of bone are
removed successively in a controlled fashion that
produces overlapping flake scars in a side-to-side
facetting patn.

Once the shaft is roughly rounded and straightened,

the finer work can begin. This finer work, which requires
more refined and continuous control of knife strokes,
produces the longer, thinner, narrower, and curved

carving flakes (MacGregor 1985; plate 11.8). Removal
of such flakes produces a more refined surface with

fewer large flake scars. It is clearly a different stage of

production than the activity that produces the previously
mentioned chopping flakes.

Once the finer rounding is complete, detailed work
on the distal bevel, the socket, and the lashing tangs can
begin (plate 11.1). From the appearance of the unfin-
ished socket piece from NAVS, the distal bevel was

completed before the other steps. The lashing tangs had
just begun to take shape, as indicated by the two angled,

shallow, 3 mm wide cuts at the proximal end of the shaft.
The socket, at the end of the distal bevel, was not yet

begun. Apparently production of the socket was one of

the last stages. Similar stages of production, on a smaller
scale, were probably involved in the manufacture of
narrower whale bone shafts such as the harpoon end
piece and some of the cylindrical shaft fragments.
SCORING AND SNAPPING

The scoring and snapping method appears to be one
of the primary reduction and fabrication techniques used
in bone artifact production at Ross (figure 11.5, plate
11.10). At least 110 of the amorphous worked bone

pieces and identifiable artifacts recovered from NAVS

and FRBS show evidence of circumferential chopping or
carving, or scoring and snapping. The scoring of these

bone pieces appears to have been done using metal-edged
tools that could be well controlled. Most of the scored
and snapped artifacts appear to have been worked on
with small to medium metal knives, and rarely saws
(Walker and Long 1977).

The predominance of scoring and snapping of bone
at Ross also involved the use of saws in bone tool

production. Why score and snap a bone when you could
use a saw and cut it cleanly in two? Using saws could
make reducing bone into suitably sized lengths quite

straightforward. Four worked bone artifacts exhibit saw
cut marks on them. Two are flat pieces of bone with
more than one saw cut, one is a piece of elk antler

discussed above, and one is a distal femur of a Steller's
sea lion (plate 11.9). The sea lion femur is especially

interesting since the saw cuts ring the circumference of
the shaft and do not come together evenly. This tech-

nique apparently was repeated a number of times, or at
least once more on the remainder of the femoral shaft.
Saws used to cut mammal bone usually cut completely

274     The Natve Alaskan Neighborhood

through the bone, leaving a flat plane. It appears that in
this case a saw was used to score the bone so it could be
snapped off, and not cut completely through, as with the
elk antler discussed above.

The availability of small saws would militate against
the use of the scoring and snapping technique since saws
can quicily and efficiently cut through wood or bone

items at right angles. The historcal record documents
that saws were available at Ross (Khlebnikov 1990).

Based on the great number of artfts exhibiting signs of
scoring and snappig (n=110), however, saws apparently
were not used to cut completely through bones. Although
this could point to a very limited access to saws, that is
unlikely since even when saws were available, the

scoring and snappg technique remained pevalent

Ihe presence of the scoring and snapping technique
at Ross, where the technology t bypass it was present,
indicates the stength of traditional approaches to the
manufacture of bone tools there. The saws that were

used on bones were not utilized in the typical European
fashion, hence they probably were not used by Europe-
ans. The use of these saws reflects the scoring and
snapping method practiced by Native Alaskans.

The persons producing the bone tools at Ross

apparently replaced their traditional manufacuring tools,
which were most likely stone cutting and grnding tools,
with more eficient, European-introduced metal-edged

blades (Walker and Long 1977). While the manufactur-
ing tools are different, the production techniques appear

to have hanged little. One might say that the production
tools were replaced, but the mental template and the
manufcturing techniques remained close to the
precontact taditon.

OTHE TOOL PRODUCTION METHODS

Splinters of bone from animals other than whales

were also iptant pieces of raw material. The projec-

tile points mad fish hook barbs recovered from NAVS and
FRBS are manufactured from relatively dense cortical
bone found in terresrial mammals or large pinnipeds.

Five long bone fragments recovered from NAVS exhibit
pattemed chopping blows designed to split the dense

cortical bone lengthwise (Wake 1995, figure 5.11). Such
long splinters of thick, dense cortical bone could then be
shaped into a variety of artifacts. Each of these incipient
artiacts would need some kind of a handle or hand hold
to provide purchase when carving the tool. An example
of such a practice is illusr   in Lyman (1991:122,
figure 5.1Od).

The hand hold artifact class is very important in the
intretation of bone tool manufacturing at Ross (plate

11.10). Members of this class often exhibit evidence of a
number of production stages. Based on observations of a
number of the artifacts categonzed as hand holds, at least
four stages of production were involved in finishing a

cortical bone tool. The first of these stages is to prepae a
suitable blank piece of raw material by ei'ther reducing a
core or using a preselected piece of bone either split or
reduced from a larger chunk of raw material.

The second production step visible on some of the
hand holds involves the rough shaping of the artfaCt

The organizadon of the metal tool blows is somewhat

haphazard, and exhibits few aspects of fine control. The
metal tool cut marks associated with this second stage are
large, due to the removal of relatively large, thick flakes
of bone. By the end of this stage the rough shape of the
artifact in production should be evident.

The third stage involves fmer shaping and more

detailed craftsmanship. The tool marks associated with
this stage are much smaller, due to the removal of

relatively smaller flakes of bone. The cut marks repre-

sentative of this stage of production are more numerous,
more organized, and generally reflect the application of
much more finely controlled force. At the end of this

stage of production the artifact should be clearly distin-

guishable and virtually finished. The only step remaining
is the removal of the hand hold itself.

In the fourth stage, the hand hold is removed

typically using the scoring and snapping technique. The
portion to be removed is grooved around the circumfer-

ence of the bone and then snapped off. The final stage of
artifact production inferred by the use of this technique is
the finishing of the snapped-off end of the artifact in

question, by carving off the small spur of broken bone
near the base of the artifact

If each artifact in the hand hold class r s  a

fimished tool of some sort, then the number of hand holds
would provide a measure of the intensity of tool produc-
tion in a given area or site. In the case of the Native

Alaskan Neighborhood, this artifact class r sts at
least 30 nearly finished artifacts. If one scored and

snapped off end, plus evidence of other carving or work
on the object, is all that it takes to put the artifact in the
hand hold class, then the number of potential finished
tools represented by hand holds at Ross jumps to 87.

Quantifying hand holds provides a much more
accurate evaluation of production intensity than the
number of finished or broken fimished tools at a site.
Finished tools often leave the areas where they were
made and probably do not retun. Broken tools may

return to a site but probably do not say much about tool

production at that location. Discarded artifacts repesen-
tative of finished tools and their production, such as hand
holds, would most likely tend to stay at the place of

manufacture and be the best measure of tool production
at that location.

All of the tool production stages mentioned above
can be observed on a number of the hand holds in the

NAVS and FRBS worked bone assemblages. Most, if not
all, of these artifacts show splitting, rough carving with a

Bone Artifacts  275

metal tool, finer work with a metal tool, and scoring and
removal of the last bits of waste bone as one of the final
stages of production.

SPATIAL RELATIONSHIPS OF BONE ARTiFACT CLASSES

The distribution of all worked bone remains includ-
ing both bone flakes and diagnostic bone artifacts is

similar to the distrbution of the bone flakes themselves.
This is not swprising since bone flakes dominate the

worked bone assemblage at NAVS. The actual distribu-
tion of more diagnostic bone tools is quite different

(Wake 1995, figures 6.21, 6.22). The distribution of
diagnostic bone tools is generally associatd with the
bone bed deposits at NAVS. The diagnostic tools,

however, are distributed much more evenly than the bone
flakes.

COMPARISON OF THE EAST CENTRAL AND SOUTH AREAS

A similarity between the East Central and South

areas is seen in the diagnostic bone artifact assemblage.
Fishhooks, dart points, awls, and other diagnostic tool
types are all quite evenly distributed between the two

main excavation areas (Wake 1995, figures 6.21, 6.22).

Bone buttons are more common in the South Area (n=4)
than the East Cental Area (n=1), but the numbers of
buttons are too low to  esent a significant patter.

Keeping the above simility in mind, these two

areas differ in a number of important ways. The distribu-
tion of a number of the non-diagnostic worked bone

artifact classes varies between the East Central and South
arewas (Wake 1995, figures 6.21, 6.20). Bone, specifically
whale bone, and chopping and carving flakes are much

more common in the South Area than they are in the East
Central Area. Representatives of the hand hold artifact
class are found more frequently in the South Area than

the East Cental Area. Worked ander, on the other hand,
is more common in the East Cental Area.

With an overa low flake density (Wake 1995, figure
6.19), the distribution of bone flakes is relatively even in
the East Cental Area, especially in comparison to the

South Area. In the South Area the overall flake density is
quite high (Wake 1995, figure 6.20), and the distribution
of flakes is distinctly pattemed with two concentrations

of bone chopping flakes. Areas surrounding both of these
concentrations show a fall-off pattern in numbers of
flakes.

One other obvious difference between these two

areas is in the bird bone artifact assemblages. The bird
bone tube beads are one of the few diagnostic bone

artifact classes that show any patterning. Bird bone tubes
are distributed relatively evenly across NAVS. All of the
tubes bearing Native California-style decorative patterns,
however, are from the South Area Trench and Excava-
tions. Based on this evidence a Native Californian

presence, although diffuse, can be seen in the South Area.

ETHNICJY

Bone tools and ornaments were clearly very impor-
tant to the occupants of the Native Alaskan Neighbor-
hood. The diagnostic bone artifacts recovered provide
information regarding a portion of the subsistece and

day-to-day activity at the site. They also offer excellent
insight into the ethnicity of the persons who produced
them. Ethnic identity of the diagnostic tool types is
assigned on the basis of the stylistic details of Ross

artifacts compared to other artifacts from north-central
coastal California, the Aleutian Islands, and Kodiak
Island.

Analysis of the diagnostic bone artifacts recovered
from the NAVS and FRBS indicates that two general

ethnic groups, Native Alaskans and Native Califomians,
contributed to the worked bone assemblage. Each of

these broad ethnic classifications have specific worked

bone sub-assemblages associated with them. The fishing
and marine mammal hunting assemblages appear to be
exclusively Native Alaskan in origin. The artifacts in

these assemblages have no apparent Califomian homolo-
gies (Bennyhoff 1950; Gifford 1940), but do compare
favorably to artifacts from the Aleutian Islands and
Kodiak Island.

Within this broader Native Alaskan hunting and

fishing tool group there appear to be further, ethnically

based, divisions. The small dart point series from NAVS
and FRBS (figure 11.1) bears a strong resemblance to
artifacts found primarily in the Aleutian Islands

(Jochelson 1925). Similarly sized points from Kodiak
Island appear to be tempomlly and stylistically distinct

from those in the Aleutians and at Ross, and, to date, are
not found at Ross.

The fish hook barbs from Ross also show strong

ethnic affinities (figure 11.3). The barbs fran NAVS and
FRBS bear the strongest resemblance to those on

fLshhooks from Kodiak Island (Clark 1974a, 1974b;

Heizer 1956). The fish hook barbs from Ross do not
resemble styles from the Aleutian Islands in any way

(Jochelson 1925). The Ross barbs are not reminiscent of
Californian fishing technology outside of the Northwest
Coast tradition areas of the state (Bennyhoff 1950;
Gifford 1940).

The bird bone tube ornaments are also strongly tied
to certain ethnic groups. As stated previously, three of

the four types of bird bone tube ornaments (undecorated,
latitudinally incised, and diffuse latitudinal and diago-

nally incised) are essentially ethnically indistinguishable
(plate 11.4a-t). These types are found in both California
and Alaska (Clark 1974a, 1974b; Gifford 1940; Heizer

1956). The fourth type, represented by intricately incised
crosshatched zoned bone tube fragments (figure 11.4d-g;
plate 11.4u-x), appears to be exclusively Native Califor-
nian in origin (Bennyhoff 1994; Gifford 1940).

The ethnically distinct bone tool types found at

276    The Native Alaskan Neighborhood

NAVS and FRBS do not apper to be distributed in any
recognizable patten, with the exception of the Califor-
nia-style bird bone tubes. By and large the diagnostic

tool types are evenly distributed across the two main loci
investigated at NAVS, the East Central Area and the

South Area as well as across FRBS. Nonetheless, the
production of these distnctve tool types was likely

conducted by pesons of different ethnicity. The Califor-
nia-style zoned  atched bird bone tube fragments
are found only in the South Area at NAVS. This indi-

cates that the Native Californians who owned the tubes,

or persons i close enough contact to have acquired such
items, were located in this area. The historical record
strongly supports this idea (Khlebnikov 1976, 1990).

CONCLUSIONS

A much more complete interion of the daily
lives of the individuals inhabiting NAVS is available

from the archeological record than was ever written by
the Rssian histians or vitors to Ross. The worked
bone assemblage recovered from the Native Alaskan

Neighborhood, while interesing in and of itself, provides
infonnation about tool production and ethnicity. This

intensive production indicates the profound importance

of bone tools and technology to the inhabitants of NAVS
and FRBS, and to the Company's operation in California.
Hunting tool kits must be mntained and losses replaced
in order to keep the hunter viable.

It is quite clear that metal cutting tools were used
almost exclusively in the manufacre of bone tools at

Ross. Such tools are undoubtedly superior to their non-

metal precursors in a variety of ways. The evidence that
traditional tool types were still being manufactured at

Ross in relatively taditional ways and that not all of the
applicable European tools available, such as saws, were
used in their most efficient ways indicates that the

persons who manufactured these tools were by no means
fully accultwaed by the Europeans. They were using
European tools within the production modes they were
familiar with from their taditioal, precontact cultures.

Apparently, bone tools were prefered for hunting
marine ma-mais at Ross. No metal marine mammal

hunting tools have been found there. In fact, no mention
of the use of metal tools in the hunting of marine mam-

mals is found in the historical record (Khlebnikov 1976,
1990). Bone tool ldts were undoubtedly easier to

maintain and produce than metal ones, and certainly less
costly. Raw bone was also probably more readily

attainable than processed metal. The techniques involved
in producing tools and useful implements of bone, as

opposed to metal, are much more simple and portable.

The   ning of the bone tool production debris
across NAYS, particularly the pronounced presence of

cores and flakes im the South Area, shows that this space
was, or was near to, an important whale bone tool

producrton area Tlhe South Area, based on the greater

presence of hand holds, was also a production center of
tools made from cortical bone of mammals other than
whales. Since worked ander remains were recovered

from the East Cenutal Area only, this part of the site was
likely the focus of antler tool production.

Life in the Russian-American Company dmanded
that the Alaskan hunters be ready to hunt or board ships
to take them to hunting grounds on a moment's notice

(Khlebnikov 1976, 1990). Therefore the bone elements

of the hunting kit must be constantly ready, necessitating
their continued production and maintenance, and result-
ing in a great deal of production-related detitus. The

bone tools used by the Alaskan hunters were responsible
for the early successes in sea otter hunting and the
continued provision of marine mammals for food.

The other important aspect of the worked bone

assemblage has to do with determining the ethnicity of

the occupants of the Neighborhood, and their respective
activities. The sea otter darts, for instance, appear to be
Aleutian in overall style, implying possible Unangas

dominance in sea ouer hunting at Colony Ross, or at least
in production of dart points there. This type of small dart
point (type 1 series, figure 1 1.la-c) with its associated

technology was accepted by the Company as the opial
sea otter hunting method. ITis preference could result in
production of artifacts in this style by the majority of tool
carvers of different ethnicities.

In contrast to the sea otter dart points, the fishing

assemblage, specifically the barb sections, appears to be
Alutiiq in style (figure 11.3) suggesting that Aluiq tool
types and fishing techniques prevailed at Ross.

In sum, the bone tools and worked bone from Ross
tell us that at least three ethnic groups were involved in
producing the bone tool and artifact assemblage found
there: Unangan, Alutiit, and Native Califonians.

Production and use of bone tools and artifacts was an

important part of the economy at Ross, as indicated by

the large number of specimens related to the manufctr-
ing sequence. The Colony could not have been viable
without the Native Americans who lived there and the
bone tools they produced and used with remarkable
efficiency.

REFERENCES
Adams, William Hampton

1987 Platation Health. and Medical Care. In Hisorical

Archaeology of Plantations at Kings Bay, Camden County,
Georgia. Willian Hampton Adams, editor, pp. 199-216.
University of Florida Reports of Investigations, no. 5.

Barrett, S. A.

1952 Material Aspects of Pomo Cultue. Bulletin of the
Public Musewn of the City of Milvaukee, Vol. 20, Part 2.
Milwaukee, WI.

Bone Artifacts   277

Bennyhoff, James A.

1950 Califomian Fish Spears and Harpoons. University of
California Anthropological Records 9(4):i-iv, 295-337.

1994 Central California Augustine: Implications for
Northen California Archaeology. In Toward a New

Taxonomic Frameworkfor Central California Archaeol-
ogy: Essays by JamesA. Bennyhoff and DavidA.

Fredrickson, edited by Richard E. Hughes, pp. 65-74.

Contributions of the University of Califomia Archaeologi-
cal Research Facility, no. 52. Berkeley.

Birket-Smith, Kaj

1953 The Chugach Eskimo. Nationalmuseets Skrifter.
Etnografisk Raekke, no. 7.
Boling, Sarah Jane

1987 Clothing and Personal Adonmment at Kings Bay. In
Historical Archaeology of Plantations at Kings Bay,

Camden County, Georgia, edited by William Hampton
Adams, pp. 217-24. University of Florida Reports of
Investigations, no. 5.

Clark, Donald W.

1974a Koniag Prehistory: Archaeological Investigations
at Late Prehistoric Sites on Kodiak Iskind, Alaska.

Tubinger Monographien zur Urgeschichte, Band 1. Verlag
W. Kohlhanmer, Stuttgart

1974b Contributions to the Later Prehistory of Kodiak

Island, Alaska. National Museum of Man, Mercury Series.
Paper no. 20, Archaeological Survey of Canada.
Crowel, Aron

1988 Dwellings, Setdement, and Domestic Life. In

Crossroads of Continents: Cultures of Siberia and Alaska,
edited by William W. Fitzhugh and Aron CrowelL pp. 194-
208. Smithsonian Istitution Press, Washington D.C.
De Laguna, Frederica

1972 Under Mount Saint Elias: The History and Culture
of the Yakutat Tlingit. Smithsonian Contributions to

Anthropology vol. 7, part 1. Smithsonian Institution Press,
Washington D.C.

1975 The Archaeology of Cook Inlet, Alaska, second
edition. Alaska Historical Society, Anchorage.

Felton, David L., and Peter D. Schulz

1983 The Diaz Collection: Material Culture and Social

Change in Mid-Nineteenth-Century Monterey. Califomia
Archaeological Reports, no. 23.

Fitzhugh, William W., and Aron Crowell

1988 Crossroads of Continents: Cultures of Siberia and
Alaska. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington D.C.
Furis, C. Lynn

1990 Buttons. In "For a GoodBoy": Victorians on
Sacramento's J Street, edited by Mazy Praetzellis and

Adrian Praetzellis, pp. 55-57. Anthropological Studies
Centr, Sonoma State University.

Gifford, Edward Winslow

1940 Califomian Bone Artifacts. University of Cafifornia
Anthropological Records 3(2):i-iv,153-237.

Heizer, Robert F.

1956 Archaeology of the Uyak Site, Kodiak Island,

Alaska. University of California Anthropological Records
17(l):i-vi,1-199.

Hrdlicka, Ales

1944 The Anthropology of Kodiak Island. The Wistar
Institute of Anatomy and Biology, Philadelphia.
Istomen, Alexi A.

1992 The Indian at the Ross Settlement: According to the
Censuses by Kuskov, 1820-1821. Fort Ross Interpretive
Association, Jenner, Califoria.

Jochelson, Waldemar

1925 Archaeological Investigations in the Aleutian

Islands. Camegie Institution of Washington Publication
Number 367.

Johnson, Eileen

1983 A Framework for Interpretation in Bone Technology.
In Carnivores, Human Scavengers and Predators: A

Question of Bone Technology, edited by Genevieve M.

LeMoine and A. Scott MacEachern, pp. 55-93. Proceed-
ings of the Fifteenth Annual Chacmool Conference. The
Archaeological Association of the University of Calgary.

1985 Current Developments in Bone Technology. In

Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory, vol. 8,
edited by Michael B. Schiffer, pp.157-235. Academic
Press, New York.

1989 Human Modified Bones from Early Southem Plains
Sites. In Bone Modification, edited by Robson Bonmichsen
and Marcella H. Sorg, pp. 431-72. Peopling of the

Americas Publications, edited Volume Series. Center for
the Study of the First Americans, Institute for Quatenary
Studies, University of Maine, Orono.

Jordan, Richard H., and Richard A. Knecht

1988 Archaeological Research on Western Kodiak Island,
Alaska: The Development of Koniag Culture. In Aurora:
The Late Prehistoric Development ofAlaska's Native

People, edited by Robert D. Shaw, Roger K. Harritt, and
Don E. DuMond, pp. 225-306. Alaska Anthropological
Association Monograph Series, no. 4.
Khlebnikov, Kirill T.

1976 Colonial Russian America: Kyrill T. Khlebnikov's
Reports, 1817-1832. Translated and edited by Basil

Dmytryshyn and E. A. P. Crownhart-Vaughan. Oregon
Historical Society, Portland.

1990 The Klebnikov Archive. Unpublished Journal (1800-
1837) and Travel Notes (1820, 1822, and 1824). The

Rasmuson Librazy Historical Translation Series, vol. 5.

Edited by Leonard Shur, translated by J. Bisk. University
of Alaska, Fairbanks.

278     The Native Alaskan Neighborhood

Liapimova. Roza Gavrilovna

1975 Ocherki po EtwnograiAleutov: Konets XVIII-
Pervala PolovinaXIX. Istitut Etnografi, Leningrad.

Lightfoot, Kent G., Thomas A. Wake, and Ann M. Schiff

1991 The Archaeology and Elhnoistory of Fort Ross,
Calfornia: Vol.], Introduction. Contributions of the

University of Califomia Archaeological Research Facility
no. 49. Berkeley.

1993 Native Responses to the Russian Mercantile Colony
of Fort Ross, Northen California. Journal of Field
Archaeology 20:159-75.

Lyman, R. Lee

1991 Prehisory of the Oregon Coast: The Effects of

Excavation Strategies and Assemblage Size on Archaeo-
logical Inquiry. Academic Press, New York.

MacGregor, Arthur

1985 Bone, Antler, Ivory and Horn: The Technology of

Skeletal Materials since the Roman Period. Croom Helm
Ld., London.
Millr, Susanme J.

1989 Characteristics of Mammoth Bone Reduction at Owl
Cave, the Wasden Site, Idaho. In Bone Modifiation,

edited by Robson Bonnichsen and Marcella H. Sorg, pp.
381-94. Peopling of the Americas Publications, Edited
Volume Series. Center for the Study of the First Ameri-
cans, Institute for Quaternary Studies, University of
Maine, Orono.

Ogden, Adele

1941 The Califrnia Sea Otter Trade, 1784-1848.
University of Califoria Press, Berkeley.

Riddell, Francis A.

1955 Archaeological Excavations on the Farallon Islands,
Califonia. Paper on Califomia Archaeology 34. Univer-
sity of California Archaeological Survey Report, no. 32.

Rousselot, Jean-Loup, William W. Fitzhugh, and Aron Crowell

1988 Maritime Economies of the North Pacific Rim. In

Crossroads of Continents: Cultures of Siberia and Alaska,
edited by Wlliam W. Fitzhugh and Aron Crowel, pp. 151-
72. Smisonian Institution Press, Washington D.C.

Scanmmon, Charles M.

1874 The Marine Mmmals of the Northwestern Coast of
North America, Described and lltustrated: Together with
an Account of the American Whale Fishery. John H.
Cannany and Company, San Francisco.

Shubin, Valeri

1990 Russian Settements in the Kurile Islands in the 18th
and 19th Centries. In Russia in North America: Proceed-
ings of the 2nd International Conference on Russian
America, edited by Richard A. Pierce, pp. 425-50.
Limestone Press, Fairbanks, Alaska.

Wake, Thomas A.

1995 Mammal Reminsfrom Fort Ross: A Study in
Ethnicity and Culture Change. Unpublished Ph.D.
dissertation, U.C. Berkeley. University Microfilm
Intemational, Ann Arbor, Michigan.

Walker, P. L., and J. C. Long

1977 An Experimental Study of the Morphological
Characteristics of Tool Marks. American Antiquity
42(4):605-16.