ANTHROPOLOGICAL RECORDS -- ~21:1 FISHING AMONG THE INDIANS OF NORTHWESTERN CALIFORNIA BY A. L. KROEBER and S. A. BARRETT With special data from E. W. Gifford and G. W. Hewes UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA PRESS BERKELEY AND LOS ANGELES 1960 FISHING AMONG THE INDIANS OF NORTHWESTERN CALIFORNIA BY A. L. KROEBER and S. A. BARRETT With special data from E. W. Gifford and G. W. Hewes ANTHROPOLOGICAL RECORDS Vol. 2I, No. i UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA PUBLICATIONS ANTHROPOLOGICAL RECORDS Editors (Berkeley): J. H. Rowe, R. F. Heizer, R. F. Murphy, E. Norbeck Volume 21, No. 1, pp. 1-210, plates 1-32, 49 figures in text maps 74 Submitted by editors July 25, 1957 Issued February 12, 1960 Price, $4.50 University of California Press Berkeley and Los Angeles California Cambridge University Press London, England Manufactured in the United States of America CONTENTS Page Introduction. Acknowledgments. Bibliographical keys ........... Maps . Chapter I. Rights, Varieties of Fish, Methods Fishing Rights. .............. Core area.............. Peripheral and neighboring areas . . Varieties of Fish Utilized d........ Freshwater species ......... Anadromous species....... Permanent fauna........ Introduced species s....... Salt-water species .......... Native beliefs and statements .... Fishing Methodso s............ Chapter II. Weirs ........ Introduction. Fixed Weirs: Core Area . . Yurok . The Kepel weir. . . Analysis of the Waterman-Kroeber data The second Yurok weir ......... Hupa. Karok. Chilula. Wiyot. Coast Yurok ok................ Tolowa. Fixed Weirs: Marginal or Peripheral Northwest Mattole and Bear River r........... Nongatl. Sinkyone. Coast Yuki .................. Shasta . Fixed Weirs: Sacramento Valley y........ Maidu and Pomo ............... Patwin. Nisenan. Movable Weirs................... Analysis of photographs of weirs ......... * . . A rea * . . * . . . .* . .. Hupa dam 1 ........... Hupa dam 2 ........... Chilula dam in Redwood Creek. Pomo dam in Russian River . . Chapter III. Fish Nets.......... Conical Nets s............. Lifting net............. Platforms for lifting nets . . Analysis of photographs . . . Yurok lifting net .. .. ... -. - --- -- -t -- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Yurok platform and net: Hewes data a......... Karok platforms and lifting netst. ............. Shasta lifting nets: Dixon and Curtis data ......... Maidu, Klamath, Pomo, and Quinault parallels ....... Mattole bars and channels: Hewes data a.......... Landing net ............................ [iii] 1 1 2 2 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 5 5 6 6 6 9 10 11 11 12 13 17 18 20 21 22 23 24 26 26 26 27 27 27 28 28 28 28 28 29 29 29 30 31 32 .... . .. . 32 .... . .. . 32 ... . . . . 33 ... . . . . 33 ... . . . . 34 .... . .. . 36 .... . .. . 38 .... . .. . 38 ... . . . . 39 ... . .. . 39 ... . .. . 40 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I ANTHROPOLOGICAL RECORDS Page Chapter III. Fish Nets (cont'd.) Conical drag net .... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 Double drifting bag net .... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 Plunge net or thrusting net ......................... . 41 Core area ..... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 Other areas ..... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 Scoop net ..... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 Arc net or bow dip net .... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 Type I ..... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 Type II ..... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 Hoop dip net ................................. . 48 Bag net ..... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 Flat Nets ..................................... . 48 Seine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 Set net or gill net .............................. . 50 Drift net ............ ........................ . 53 Drag seine ..... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 Drifting bag seine .............................. . 54 Double drifting bag seine .... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 Single drifting bag seine ........................ . 54 Cylindrical or Hoop net .... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 Floats, Sinkers, Anchors .... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 Chapter IV. Net Making and Netting Implements .... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 Net Making ..... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 M aterials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 Cordage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 Net weaving ..... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 Netting Implements ..... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 Shuttles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 Mesh measures or gauges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 Decoration of mesh measures ..................... . 62 Trigger Buttons ..... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 Chapter V. Basketry Traps .... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 Cylindrical Traps ..... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 Invaginated Traps ..... . . . . . . . . . . ... ........ . . 67 Boxlike Traps ..... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 Trough-shaped Traps .... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68 Baskets for Scooping Fish .... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 Half-Cylinder and Half-Tamale-Shaped Traps .... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 Eel Pots and Rock Piles ............................. . 70 Chapter VI. Fish Harpoons, Spears, Other Devices and Methods ... . . . . . . . 73 Harpoons and Spears ..... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 Core area .................................. . 75 Peripheral area ............................... .. 78 Area of neighboring tribes .... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79 Other Devices and Methods .... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80 Spearing scaffolds .... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80 Shaded booths ................................ . 80 White stone flooring .... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80 Gaffs . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80 Shooting fish with bow and arrow ...................... . 82 Fishhooks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82 Fish poisons (narcotics) .... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85 Fire at night ..... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86 Diving for fish ..... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87 Snaring fish ................................. . 87 Snagging, sniggling, or jerking fish .... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88 Driving fish ................................. . 89 Sea Fishing ..... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89 Sharks .................................... . 90 Chapter VII. Accessory Implements .... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91 Fish Clubs .................................... . 91 M ashers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91 Alarm Rattles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91 Salmon Jaw Breakers ............. ............. 92 iV KROEBER AND BARRETT: FISHING IN NORTHWESTERN CALIFORNIA Chapter VII. Accessory Implements (cont'd.) Page Fish Knives ..... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92 Eel Slitters ..... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92 Chapter VIII. Transport, Preservation, Storage, and Cooking .. ... ... . 94 Transport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94 Knotless net bags .............................. . 95 Preservation and Storage .... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 Methods of cutting and curing salmon .... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 Hupa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 Karok . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 Shasta . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101 Tolowa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101 Wiyot, Mattole, Nongatl, Sinkyone ................... . 101 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102 Lamprey curing ............................... . 102 Smelt drying ..... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102 By-products ..... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103 Oil ...................................... . 103 Adhesives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103 Cooking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104 Chapter IX. Beliefs, Restrictions, and Ceremonies .... . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106 Beliefs and Restrictions concerning Fishing .... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106 Yurok . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106 Karok . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107 Shasta . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107 Mattole . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107 Nongatl . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107 Wiyot . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107 Tolowa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107 Northern Pomo and Klamath . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108 Ceremonies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108 Chapter X. Shellfish ................................. . 110 Mollusks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110 Specific tribal data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111 Crustaceans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113 Salt-water crabs: tribal data .... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114 Freshwater crayfish: tribal data .... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114 Echinoderms and Coelenterates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114 Chapter XI. Sea Mammals .... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115 Property Rights in Sea Mammals ........................ . 115 Pinnepeds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115 Species . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116 Sea-Lion Hunting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116 Yurok . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116 Tolowa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118 Wiyot, Bear River, Mattole, Sinkyone .... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120 Comparative summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121 Sea-lion harpoon heads: Bennyhoff data .................. . 121 Whales . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122 Yurok information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123 Tolowa, Wiyot, Mattole, and Sinkyone information ............. . 124 Whale rights and customs .... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125 Alleged whale hunting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125 Appendix: Supplementary Plates of Karok Stagings and Nets ... . . . . . . . . . 127 Glossary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129 Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135 Explanation of Maps ..... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144 Plates ... . 169 Index. 209 209 vi ANTHROPOLOGICAL RECORDS FIGURES IN TEXT Page 1. Weir construction. Hupa. ............................ 19 2. Barrier of brush. Dip net used from platform. Chilula ............ . 21 3. Weir for catching lampreys. Chilula ...................... . 22 4. Weir for taking King salmon. Wiyot. .... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 5. Weir with impounding bays and traps. Wiyot .................. . 23 6. Triangular corral used in small creeks. Coastal Yurok ............ . 23 7. Small weir, with bag net trap, used in creeks. Coastal Yurok ......... . 24 8. Double weir and trap. Tolowa .......................... . 24 9. Cylindrical net trap, used in weir. Tolowa ................... . 25 10. Double weir with tubular basketry trap. Tolowa, Chetco ............ . 25 11. Lamprey gaffing chute, with white pebble floor. Tolowa ............ . 26 12. Weir built on tripods. Nongatl .......................... . 27 13. a. Lifting net. Yurok. b. A variant of the trigger system. Shasta ... . . 35 14. Conical drag net. Yurok .............................. . 40 15. Double drifting bag net for salmon. Hupa .................... . 40 16. Plunge net or thrusting net. Wintu ........................ . 42 17. Scoop net or surf net. Yurok. .... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 18. Gill net, with pole supports, anchors, rattle, and fire ashore .......... . 50 19. Gill net, with anchors and with rattle ...................... . 51 20. Gill net, moored to tree and attended by man in a canoe. Tolowa. ... . . . . 51 21. Double drifting bag seine, for sturgeon ..................... . 54 22. Mesh measures, showing ornamentation .... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 23. Mesh measures and trigger buttons, showing ornamentation .......... . 64 24. Boxlike trap. Hupa ................................ . 67 25. Trough trap. Karok ............................... . 68 26. Trough trap, with upstream end raised. Coastal Yurok ... . . . . . . . . . . 68 27. Trough trap in weir .... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 28. Trough trap. Brush-covered. Hupa ....................... . 69 29. Eel pot ...................................... . 70 30. Eel pot anchored in stream .... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 31. a. Gaff of ordinary type. b. Gaff with hook and piercing point. ... . . . . . . 71 32. Single-toggle harpoon on end of shaft ...................... . 74 33. Single-toggle harpoon, angled foreshaft ..................... . 74 34. Double-pointed toggle harpoon. Class II A 1 .................. . 74 35. Double-pointed toggle harpoon. Class II B 2. Rawhide leaders, cord toggle line. Blackened shaft ............. . 75 36. Bag net temporarily mounted on two sticks .... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 37. Blunt-headed arrow. Used in shooting fish and also the smaller land mammals 82 38. Single-barbed, acute-angled fishhook. Hups. .... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83 39. Gorge hook. a. Double-pointed. b. Single-pointed ............... . 83 40. Square hook on short line and float. Tolowa. ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84 41. Simple-loop technique .............................. . 95 42. Loop and single twist .... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96 43. Loop and double twist .... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96 44. Schematic plan of weaving of knotless netting bag ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96 45. Sea-lion paunch oil storage container with basketry top ... . . . . . . . . . . 103 46. Sea-lion harpoon with detachable head. Yurok ................. . 117 47. Sea-lion harpoon with fixed head. Yurok .................... . 117 48. Sea-lion dispatching dart . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118 49. Sea-lion harpoon with three-barbed head and flint point ... . . . . . . . . . . 120 FISHING AMONG THE INDIANS OF NORTHWESTERN CALIFORNIA BY A. L. KROEBER and S. A. BARRETT Witlh special data from E. W. Gifford and(i G. W. Hewes INTRODUCTION In aboriginal times what is now the extreme north- :western part of California was occupied by several tribes of diverse origins, as evidenced by the varied linguistic affiliations. However, they all had the same basic cul- tural background- -the southernmost projection of the Northwest Coast culturel--founded upon two fundamental principles: individualism and wealth. These tribes occupied not only the immediate coast- line, but also the rivers and coastal mountains from below the mouth of Eel River on the south to the Cali- fornia-Oregon border on the north. Three tribes, the Yurok, Hupa, and Karok, on the lower Klamath, Trinity, and Salmon rivers were most typical. The neighboring Wiyot, Chilula, Whilkut, and Tolowa, had a culture simi- lar to that of the Yurok, Hupa, and Karok. Together, these tribes form the central core or nucleus of this specialized Northwestern culture, with most notable dependence on salmon. This nuclear area may be divided into two subareas or subcultures, the Riverine and the Littoral peoples, each group the result of the special environmental fea- tures of its territory. In the Klamath, Trinity, and Salmon rivers we have large, relatively swift-flowing streams. Here, the Riverine tribes, the Yurok, Hupa, and Karok (and to a lesser degree the Chilula and Whilkut), wielded large A-frame lifting nets and built large weirs. The remainder of this nuclear area lies along the beaches, headlands, and rocks of the immediate ocean shore. Here, except at the mouth of the Klamath, were smaller rivers and creeks, with their estuaries and tide- waters. Here lived the Seashore or Littoral Tribes: the Tolowa,2 the Coastal Yurok, the Wiyot, engaged in special types of fishing such as the beach scoop-net fishing, hook- and-line fishing from rocks, sea-lion hunting, mussel, clam, and seaweed gathering, and utilizing stranded whales. The river people and shore dwellers, however, had sufficient intercourse and enough common cultural features to form jointly the characteristic nuclear area. While the present work primarily concerns these Riverine and Littoral tribes of this nuclear area, the marginal or peripheral groups are included in this study. These are the Shasta, New River, Konomihu, Chimariko, part at least of the hill-dwelling Northern Wintun, Mattole, Nongatl, Lassik, Sinkyone, Wailaki, and in some measure lKroeber definitely assigns these nuclear tribes of Northwestern California to the Northwest Coast culture area (1920, pp. 155- 164; 1925, pp. 903-912; 1939, p. 30). 2With the Tolowa we may include also the Chetco, just across the California-Oregon border. As is pointed out by Drucker (1937, p. 222), while a relatively close cultural affinity is recognized between the Tolowa and their Athabascan-speaking kindred to the north, the culture ofthe Tolowa was quite strongly influenced by their Klamath River neighbors to the south, while that of their northern kin was more strongly tinged with the cultural features of such closer neighbors as the Kus and the Umpqua. [1] the Kato and Coast Yuki, all showing a considerable pro- portion of Northwestern traits. Comparisons will also be made with what we are terming, in the tabulation accompanying map 2, "Neigh- boring Groups." Here, though the culture is predomi- nantly Central Californian, there are still traces of link- age with Northwestern California. The distributional maps,3 maps 3-74, show the lo- cations of these groups and indicate also their groupings as based on fishing techniques, and other features of material culture. Despite studies like Goddard's "Life and Culture of the Hupa," no comprehensive accounts of fishing in the area have been published. The present monograph is based on all data available to us, published and unpublished. The chief published data utilized in this study include the relevant information in Kroeber's Handbook, in Goddard's Hupa, and in special monographs like the Waterman and Kroeber Kepel Fish Dam. From volumes 13 and 14 of E. S. Curtis' The North American Indian, rare and hence often inaccessible to scholars, we have sometimes quoted passages instead of merely summariz- ing or referring to them. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS There are three large bodies of unpublished data to which we have had access. These consist of copies of field notes recorded by Kroeber, by our colleague Gifford, and by Gordon Hewes. We express our special gratitude to the two latter and make full acknowledgment. Our work would have been much more meager if it had not been for their unrestricted and generous contribution. To permit authentication and verification of data, it is desirable to preserve record of authorship of individual sets of data. We have therefore treated our manuscript data as historians and humanists treat their manuscripts, namely as ultimate primary data, whose identity must not be blurred by intermingling or premature consolida- tion. Kroeber's field notes comprise two series. The older and broader notes were written in the native habitat between 1900 and 1908, chiefly on the Yurok, but also on Karok, Hupa, and Wiyot. The second series, on the Yurok, was recorded from 1933 from Robert Spott, who is named as informant. Kroeber's earlier field notes, which tend to be more summary than those from Spott, are sometimes credited to the informant who made them, especially when they possess a coherent point of view. References to these data are sometimes made by such notations as (40-82) which indicate that these data are 3The map used as the basis for this series is map No. 11 of the Uni- versity of California map series; its tribal and numerical designations are followed throughout. ANTHROPOLOGICAL RECORDS recorded in his field notes, Volume 40, page 82. Also in reference to a myth the annotation may be C3 or G2, which indicates that the myth is so numbered in his "Yurok Tales," now in preparation for publication. Gifford's field work was done primarily among the Karok from 1939 to 1942. He has published papers on the World Renewal ceremony and on Karok ethnobotany; everything else he has put at our disposal and we have drawn from it what bears on fishing. His data are often valuable for their unusual detail. His authorship, when not cited in subheadings, is indicated by the reference "Gifford (F.N., 1939-42)." In 1940 Gordon W. Hewes, now at the University of Colorado, spent his next-to-last summer as graduate student at the University of California in an intertribal field survey of native fishing methods, which he prose- cuted north along the coast from San Francisco Bay into southern Oregon, and up the Klamath drainage. From these data of his own collecting he subsequently branched out into the published literature to write his doctoral dissertation on "Aboriginal Use of Fishing Resources in Northern North America," which remains unprinted but is on file as of 1947 in the University of California Library at Berkeley. We have drawn on this, but even more heavily on a typewritten copy he lent us of his 1940 field notes, of which only part could be incorporated in his dissertation, which has a wider range. Data from his field notes are listed as "Hewes (F.N., 1940)" when not identified by a subheading. Data from his thesis carry the identification "Hewes (Th., 1947)." Finally, we drew systematically on the ethnological collections from Northwestern California in the Uni- versity's Museum of Anthropology, collected principally by Kroeber, Goddard, and Philip Mills Jones in the first decade of the century, under grants then made to Anthro- pology by Mrs. Phoebe Apperson Hearst, Regent of the University, and under her patronage. Other specimens from the region came into the Museum subsequently, with an inevitable shift with the years from primarily ethno- logical to archaeological material. Specimen numbers given in the text are from the Museum's catalogue 1, the California collections, unless otherwise stated. Negative numbers are from Museum catalogue 15. We were also able to consult and utilize the excellent Northwest California collection of the State Indian Mu- seum at Sacramento, and our whole-hearted thanks are due its successive Directors, Mr. Jack Dyson and Mr. F. A. Riddell. We are indebted to Mr. Grover Sanderson, a Karok Indian reared on the Klamath River, whose genuine interest in the aboriginal ways of his people has led him to take many pictures in order to preserve a record of old customs before their disappearance. We are, with his permission, reproducing in plates 29 to 31 twelve of these photographs pertaining to fishing among the Karok, all taken by him on the Klamath in 1932. We have had the aid of grants from the share of the research funds which the Department of Anthropology receives from the University on recommendation of the Committee on Research. These grants were made in 1954-55 and 1955-56 and enabled us to arrange for copy- ing, typing, and photographing. Certain of the notes on the Yurok were transcribed as the result of an earlier grant-in-aid (no. 543) to Kroeber from the Wenner-Gren Foundation for Research in Anthropology. These aids are acknowledged with gratitude. BIBLIOGRAPHICAL KEYS Immediately following most major subject headings we give a condensed list of references in the literature to topics in question, arranged alphabetically by authors, with dates and citation of the specific tribes referred to. These lists will facilitate comparisons for checking further. These and other references are, of course, pre- dominantly on the positive side. Observers in the field tend to record the presence of a given trait, but rarely note absences. MAPS Map 1 is a detailed map of the extreme northwestern section of the region covered by our present study --- the only part of the region for which we have anything like complete data on weir locations. On this map the rivers and creeks are indicated in sufficient detail to permit exact locations to be given for many of these weirs. The approximate situations of other weirs are indicated. The legend accompanying this map gives these locations in detail. Outside the area covered by this map we have definite locations for only six other weirs: three on Russian River, two on the Sacramento, and one on Feather River. Map 2 shows the culture areas in northern California, and the area of culture blending in Northwestern Cali- fornia. Maps 3 to 74 are distributional maps which graphically summarize the known distribution of traits concerned with fishing and other related elements of material cul- ture. Each map shows at a glance the territorial and tribal limits of a single trait. For some tribal groups information is scarce, so blank spaces on the maps, like gaps in our information, often indicate lack of recorded knowledge rather than a definite absence of traits. In preparing this series of maps we were confronted with certain facts which unfortunately make for incom- pleteness. (1) Many of the authors, particularly the earlier ones, recorded their findings in such general terms that it is often difficult to be certain of the par- ticular type of implement or device mentioned. (2) The absence of an implement or feature is almost never noted. Where its presence is affirmed, we have noted it on our map with shading. Where we have its absence positively stated, this fact is indicated by underscoring the areal number. When we have both positive and nega- I tive evidence, the area is shaded, and the number is underscored. Otherwise blank spaces appear. These blanks indicate lack of evidence, positive or negative. For example, very little is on record concerning the Huchnom, though their close affiliation, linguistically and culturally, with the neighboring Yuki proper and Coast Yuki makes it most likely that they had the same customs and used similar implements. The only eth- nographer who has had an opportunity to make even a limited study of the Huchnom is Foster, who says (1944, p. 226), under the heading of "Fishing": "Same tech- niques, same varieties as described for Yuki." With this statement in mind we have shaded Huchnom areas to correspond to those of Yuki on each map. Otherwise these would have remained as blank as areas of the several other tribes which disappeared soon after white contact. We suspect that if further inquiries could be made in the field, provided informants could be found at this late date, many of the blank spaces on these maps could be filled. This is particularly true for those blank spaces which are surrounded by indications that the neighboring tribes did possess some particular implement or custom. For convenience of reference all maps are brought together immediately preceding the plates at the end of the paper. 2 .1 CHAPTER I RIGHTS, VARIETIES OF FISH, AND METHODS FISHING RIGHTS BARRETT, 1952. Pomo, pp. 40, 41, 103, 104, 148, 149. CURTIS, 1915. Kwakiutl, pp. 22-24, 28; private or family rights to eulachon fisheries; salmon weirs communal. DRIVER and MASSEY, 1957. General statement on ownership of fishing places, p. 256. GARTH, 1953. Atsugewi, p. 136; private ownership of fisheries largely restricted to falls. HEWES, Th., 1947. Yurok, pp. 81-82; wide geographical range of holdings of individual. KROEBER, 1925. Yurok, pp. 27, 33, 34; value of a fishing place; rules governing use of fishing place and division of time and catch among owners. , 1926. Yurok, p. 516; comparison of Yurok property rights to those of the Northwest Coast tribes, and to those of Central California. , 1932. River Patwin, p. 277; some fishing places privately owned. SPIER, 1930. Klamath, p. 149; no private rights, fishing or other. SPOTT and KROEBER, 1942. Yurok, p. 188; whale rights. Pp. 182, 183, 188, 191, 192, 197; sea-lion flipper rights. WATERMAN, 1920a. Yurok, pp. 218-226; property rights, especially regarding fishing places, sea-lion rocks, beaches, and whales; descent and inheritance; map 3 locates properties of one family; pl. 8, fig. 1, typical fishing place. CORE AREA The dependence in northern California upon fish as a major source of food supply was tempered, especially in the core area, by a rather elaborate system of rights assuming the force of law. The best fishing places along the rivers were privately kowned, sometimes by single individuals, sometimes jointly by several. In the latter case, a fishing place ,would be used by each owner in rotation, according to the proportionate share of his ownership. An owner might give someone else permission to fish there on the day or days when his turn would normally come. But no one was permitted to fish or to establish a new fishing place im- mediately downstream from a recognized fishing place.4 A share in a fishing place was a personal property of real and recognized value. It could be sold or given away by its owner, and could be passed on by inheritance. Kroeber (1925, pp. 33, 34) gives details, and specifies (p. 27) that a fishing place or right was worth from one to three strings of dentalia. Most inferior fishing places, and a few excellent ones, were not privately owned but were open or public. To a somewhat lesser extent the system of private claims carried out to the beaches, lagoons, and offshore ocks along the coast, but with more orientation to prestige-giving rights than to productivity of food supply. ost references are to a person or house "owning" a stretch of coast several miles long, but only for certain 4Kroeber in 1902 noted that "at Kenek (Tuley Rapids) the best stur- geon fishing eddy is just above the roughest rapids. There would be pod sturgeon fishing below, but it is law that one may not make a new fishing scaffold below an established one- -not for nearly half a mile; theowner above would drive off the newcomer. This particular stur- geon'claim' is owned by a number' of men: some own the right to fish it for a night, some for two nights.'" uncommon privileges, such as making the first cut in a stranded whale or receiving the flippers of all sea-lions taken. Hewes (Th., 1947, pp. 81, 82) makes the following observation on the subject of fishing rights: "Throughout the Yurok area property rights were apt to be far-flung, and a native of Orick might be a shareholder in a pro- ductive eddy on thie Klamath river ten or fifteen miles from its mouth. Many Klamath Yurok, for example, owned shares in the sea-lion hunting at Redding Rock." Such geographical scattering of ownership was the cumulative result of intermarriage of families, inherit- ance, payments for wives, weregild, injuries, and oc- casional purchases. Waterman's (1920a, p. 225) map of the property owned or claimed by one family includes two deer-snaring tracts, four fishing spots, fifteen sepa- rate acorn grounds, a fifteen-mile stretch of beach (rights unspecified), and a house site, scattered over a wide range of territory from Redding Rock, with sea-lion and mussel opportunities, six miles off shore, to places strung along thirty miles of the Klamath. In the main, use-rights to any such "properties" were simply recognized by common consent. However, Water- man (1920a, pp. 220, 221) records that among the Yurok tokens were sometimes kept, and cites two examples: (1) The special tump lines used in measuring and drag- ging cuts of whale meat were passed on by inheritance or marriage, and served as a guarantee of title to a definite share in any whale washed ashore on a certain stretch of beach. (2) Certain sea-lion clubs were simi- larly used to guarantee title to shares in rookeries. We discuss these instances more fully under "Sea Mammals" in chapter XI. A good example of the operation of fishing rights among the Karok is shown by Gifford (F.N., 1939-42). An informant told of a half-mile stretch called pawat [31 ANTHROPOLOGICAL RECORDS andjsununam ("where they start fishing for Chinook salmon"), where only the owners might fish. When asked if this meant "owners of the land along the river," the informant replied emphatically, "No; it made no difference at all who owned the land; only those fished there who owned the rights though they would give away fish on request if there were sufficient." Gifford further cites that in 1940 Happy Jack sold a share in the "fishery" at Katimin to Emily for six dollars. This share entitled her to use the spot every third night and day, from afternoon to afternoon. Since women themselves never fish, the fishing would be done by her son or a substitute. Another fishing site is still owned by a woman through inheritance. It was presented to her family in return for care in a man's last illness and "burial in good clothes," this when the present owner was a baby. A third Karok woman owns a share in a fishing place at Ashanamkarak, and also one above the Forest Service bridge near by, as well as acorn-gathering and hunting rights. These instances show that women possessed rights even though they might not exercise them in person. Spott and Kroeber cite details of the purchase of a salmon-taking right in Prairie Creek off Redwood Creek (1942, p. 211), and of acorn-grove ownership by both in- heritance and public gift (1942, p. 148). Hewes (F.N., 1940) found that in our nuclear area, fishing places at eddies where the large lifting net was used were always owned privately, as were also most of the important gathering tracts, hunting areas, and off- shore rocks. Other types of fishing usually were not reserved. Specifically, for example, Lake Earl was an open fishing area. Any Tolowa could set a gill net or could seine in the lake itself; only the creeks emptying into the lake were privately owned. Kroeber's Yurok information agrees. Eddies by which scaffolds were built for salmon fishing with A-frame nets were owned, but less productive spots, or the taking of less important varieties, or the use of harpoon, or gaff, or drag net were likely to be public and open. Robert Spott told Hewes (F.N., 1940) of an interchange of open fishing privileges on the lower Klamath. People! living upriver from Turip-Sa'al to Pekwan might fish downriver as far as Turwer Creek. Reciprocally, those at the mouth of the river at Rekwoi and Welkwaw were privileged to fish upriver to Erliiken-pets--an overlap of six r iver miles (see Waterman, 1920, maps 4, 5, 9-11) These reciprocal rights were probably automatic, not calling for permission. It appears that Turwer and Erliiken (Lamb's Riffle) were famous communal fishing places, where people seasonally camped in numbers (Waterman, 1920a, map 9, sites 46, 48, and p. 236; and map 10, sites 11, 14). Also there were no permanent settlements in the stretch between them, except Turip- Sa'al. Hewes records the word for a fishing spot or for any private and localized right in several languages of the area: Yurok, mequoJ [Kroeber, mekwoi, "claim"], Karok, imvir, Shasta uwe. If necessary, the name of the locality, of the species, or of the type of net used was prefixed. PERIPHERAL AND NEIGHBORING AREAS Out from the nuclear area the tendency toward indi- vidual or family ownership of specific sites or areas diminished, but it is probably safe to say that it rarely disappeared wholly. Even where communal ownership was dominant, the season's yield of a tree or the crop of a patch might be claimed for a family by marking it in some way. VARIETIES OF FISH UTILIZED BONNOT, 1930. Pp. 131, 132; several species of surf fish. Candlefish. CHARD, 1953. Wappo, p. 244. CURTIS, 1924a. Wiyot, pp. 193, 194; myth: "How Salmon Were Brought to the Rivers." Culture hero brings salmon from fish weir of Pleiades in the far north and stocks each river along the coast from Smith River down to the Mattole. DRUCKER, 1937. Tolowa, pp. 231, 232. FONT, 1931. Fr. Font (in 1775, 1776), in speaking of the vicinity of Carquinez Strait, notes the abundance of salmon (p. 371); also he saw two large fish netted which, from his description, appear to have been sturgeon (pp. 372, 373). GIFFORD, 1939. Coast Yuki, pp. 321-325; various fish and fishing devices discussed. Also flora, crus- taceans, mollusks, other marine invertebrates, and whales. HEWES, Th., 1947. Pp. 79-82; relationship of Northwestern California rivers to the whole salmon area. General statement of topographic features governing salmon runs. Salmon runs by seasons. ROSTLUND, 1952. Maps showing ranges of species, as follows: map 1, lampreys; map 3, sturgeon; map 8, Pacific salmon;map 9, cutthroat and rainbow trout; map 12, suckers. Pp. 149-151, 207; importance of fish as a food. WATERMAN, 1920a. Yurok, p. 185; importance of salmon in Yurok economy. FRESHWATER SPECIES We owe to Professor Erhard Rostlund, of the Depart- ment of Geography at the University of California, our thanks for guidance to data, summarized here, by the California Fish and Game Commission and others, on the fauna of Smith and Eel rivers, which is presumably the same--except that no dolly-varden trout appear to have been recorded in the Eel. The Trinity and the Salmon presumably share most of the fauna of the Klamath, to which they are tributary. Anadromous species.--Of the five species of Pacific Salmon, Oncorhynchus, only two regularly frequent the Klamath: 0. tschawytscha, the King or Chinook, and 0. Kisutch, the coho or silver salmon. 0. nerka, the red oi sockeye salmon, may occur in the Klamath, but not in II I 4 KROEBER AND BARRETT: FISHING IN NORTHWESTERN CALIFORNIA significant numbers. Two other species, 0. gorbuscha, the pink or humpback, and 0. Keta, the chum or dog salmon, are rare in all California rivers, although oc- casional stragglers may appear. The steelheads are sea-running trouts or Salmonidae, and do not die on spawning. The usual species is Salmo gairdnerii (irideus), the rainbow trout. North of Cali- fornia, S. clarkii, the cutthroat trout, and Salvelinus malma, the dolly-varden, sometimes run to sea and return as "steelhead"; at least the first of these species entered the Klamath and adjacent streams. But the dolly-varden seems pretty certainly not to have fre- quented the Eel. Both salmon and steelhead run up the Klamath into the Klamath Lakes and their tributaries. There are certain significant variations in the distri- bution and times of run of both salmons and trouts within our area. The King or Chinook salmon has two runs a year in a few of the larger rivers. There is always a fall run if this species enters a stream at all. In addition a spring run occurs in Smith River; in the Klamath, includ- ing the Trinity but not other tributaries such as the Salmon, Scott, and Shasta; and in the Sacramento, includ- ing most of its tributaries. The presence of this spring run is evidently conditioned by a heavy flow. All the other northwestern streams that enter the ocean, from Redwood Creek to Bear and Mattole rivers, have fall-run King salmon only. South of the Mattole, however, only the Noyo and Garcia seem to be entered by King salmon. Either the flow is too small, or perhaps it comes too late in winter. The Eel has fall-run King salmon, but they are more usually called "black salmon" in the upper reaches, this species turning blackish after prolonged exposure to fresh water. These black King salmon are sometimes trapped in pools in the variable flows of the Eel River tributaries. The point is mentioned here because of allegations that most of the Eel drainage was not visited by King salmon: the error rests on confusion of popular names. The Yurok on the Klamath distinguish the two runs of King salmon. The spring Kings, or "Chinooks" in local English, are called numi-nepuji, "true salmon," or nepew6 after their mythical ruler and leader. It is for them that the First Salmon Rite is made by the Yurok about April at the mouth of the Klamath and by the Karok below the mouth of the Salmon. The fall run, according to the Yurok, may begin as early as July, and they speak of the fish in English as summer salmon, or King salmon, on account of their large size; the native name is ohp6s. The silver salmon is a much smaller species than the King--maximum weight 27 pounds as against 100. It is rarely above 15 pounds as against 50 for King. They do not seem to have entered the Sacramento-San Joaquin drainage at all. With this exception, however, they enter all California streams that the King salmon enter, plus a series of smaller coastal streams south of the Mattole, namely Ten Mile, Big, Albion, Navarro, Gualala, and Russian rivers, plus several large creeks in the same stretch, such as Elk, Alder, and Salmon creeks; also at least four streams on the San Francisco peninsula or draining into northern Monterey Bay, the southernmost being Soquel Creek. The Yurok call this species tsegwuin or tseguin, or silversides in English, have them run from September to November, and say they spawn along the lower river, hence include many hook-bills and sore-tails. They average only about 8 pounds; the flesh is white and con- tains little oil, so they can be dried without splitting into three longitudinal slices. Of the two anadromous trouts or steelheads, the cut- throat is known to the State Fish and Game Commission to have entered only the coastal streams from the Smith to the Eel, but has not been reported from affluents such as the Trinity or Salmon. The rainbow steelhead has much the widest distribution in California, occurring wherever any other "salmon" occurs, and beyond to the south as far as Los Angeles and even San Diego counties, local run-off permitting. The Yurok call both the rainbow and the cutthroat steelhead tskwol, but distinguish winter and summer runs, the first lasting from about December to February, the latter until November. The sturgeons are limited to the lower courses of the rivers. According to Karok statements to Kroeber, they are ordinarily stopped by Ike's Fall, a mile below the mouth of the Salmon River. There are two species: Acipenser transmontanus, the larger and more common "'white" sturgeon, and A. medirostris (acutirostris), the smaller and less numerous "green" sturgeon. The "eel" is Entosphenus tridentatus, the Pacific lamprey, largest and much the most common of the western lampreys. Small, dwarfed brook forms or sub- species also occur. The lampreys, like the salmon and steelhead, ascend to Klamath Lakes. Permanent fauna.--The trouts are the same species as the steelheads: the common or rainbow trout, Salmo gairdnerii (or irideus, with some distinguishing a Klamath River subspecies as newberrii); cutthroat trout or S. clarkii; and dolly-varden, Salvelinas malma, strictly a charr rather than a trout. When individuals of these species stay in the river, they are called "trout"; when they return after having entered the ocean, they are steelhead. The most important other group of freshwater fishes are suckers, of which there are two, the Klamath coarse- scale sucker, Catostomus snyderi, and the Klamath fine- scale sucker, C. rimiculis, the latter occurring only below Klamath Falls. There are four other suckers, Chamistes brevirostris, C. stomias, C. copei, and Deltistes luxatus, which are confined to the Klamath Lakes and their tributaries. They thus do not live in the Klamath River itself, nor presumably in other Northwest California streams. The rest of the freshwater fauna is notably poor; few in species, individuals also few and small. There are three or four minnows (Cyprinidae): the Klamath speckeldace, Rhinichthys osculus klamatheniis; the Klamath River tui, Siphateles obesus bicolor, formerly Rutilus bicolor; allegedly Leuciscus bicolor; and in the Klamath Lake system an endemic minnow or chub of subgenus Klamathella. There is also a small sculpin, the Klamath muddler, Cottus bairdii; and the California three-spine stickleback, Gasterosteus aculeatus subsp. Introduced species.--At one time or another in the past century, Eastern brook trout, carp, the American eel, catfishes, large-mouth and small-mouth black bass, sunfishes, crappies, shad, and striped bass have been introduced into California rivers: none of these forms was native. Most likely of these to be found in northwestern streams are the last two, shad and striped bass, which are anadromous like salmon, steelhead, sturgeon, and lamprey. This suggests that the Klamath and neighboring streams provide an ecologic niche particularly favorable to species that are spawned in rivers, move into the ocean, and return to the streams to breed. 5 ANTHROPOLOGICAL RECORDS SALT-WATER SPECIES In the ocean, the Indians had more difficulty taking fish than in streams. There were undoubtedly more species of salt-water than of riverine fishes available, but as some of these were probably never fished for and others were to be seen only sporadically, it is unneces- sary to list all the species. Both mollusks and sea- mammals were more important to the Indian than fish (see chaps. X, XI). The most important in native life over the coast as a whole probably were several species of small surf fishes or smelt that spawned along sand beaches, and next to these the small eulachon that spawned in brackish river mouths. Humboldt Bay, in possession of the Wiyot, was the only sheltered body of salt water in the region, and more kinds of sea fish were taken there, probably, than in all the remainder of the coast. NATIVE BELIEFS AND STATEMENTS A Wiyot informant told Hewes that the steelhead follows the King salmon upriver in the fall run to eat the King salmon eggs as these are laid. From the Shasta, Hewes learned of salt licks near the Klamath producing spots of brackishness in the river in which the "summer salmon" (gitar) lingered. After July they again took to the fresher water. A Karok listed the principal species to Gifford as follows: 1. Chinook, King, spring, or black salmon: pawat, pavat (the name, binuni ama, "summer salmon," may be a translation from English). This was recognized as a large, dark-skinned fish with pale pink ("white") flesh and was the most esteemed species. It appeared in spring and continued through fall. Before the spring run, these fish were referred to honorifically as inenyari, which naming helped induce them to come in numbers. The first arrivals were called ixyats, but might not be eaten until after the ceremony made for them at Amaikiaram. This was the species for which lifting-net scaffolds were set up, though in creeks it was harpooned. 2. Coho or silver salmon (also sometimes locally called dog salmon): achawiun or ichwon. It was very red-fleshed, rather dry, not fat. The run began late, in October. [The three other species of Pacific salmon were not mentioned, no doubt because of their rarity.1 3. Steelhead: sa'ap. In winter, at high water, they continued to be taken with platform lifting nets after the salmon completed their runs. 4. Trout: ashkup, were in the river and creeks the year round. [Hewes adds that the Shasta did not catch them in summer.] 5. Suckers: chamuxit. Bony, not considered too desirable, but available the year round. [Hewes says the Shasta took them with dip nets in winter.] 6. Bullheads: xantiit, are probably the catfish introduced by Americans. [Hewes gives the name as hanket and says they were chiefly caught in winter with dip nets.] 7. Sturgeon: shikihas, ishrixihara, the latter alluding to the rough skin. Occurs upstream only to Ike's Fall, which it cannot hurdle; but the Karok say it fears an enemy above there and turns back. Stur- geon were caught in a strong-meshed lifting net. The flesh was considered less good than salmon, and there were no special formulae or ceremonies for sturgeon. [This list evidently started out to name the species in the order of their native importance, but breaks down after no. 3, the sturgeon coming in as an afterthought and the lampreys being forgotten. Both were certainly more important than trout or suckers.] According to Hewes, sturgeon, being large fish, rarely entered small streams, but to the Yurok and Wiyot were of considerable importance; and were taken in seines and lifting nets or by harpoon. The Wiyot stated that sturgeon might come in summer so near the surface to bask that they could be harpooned from a canoe. We presume this was done in Humboldt Bay. FISHING METHODS BANCROFT, 1883. Yurok, Wiyot, pp., 337, 338; weirs, torches, lures, harpoons, diving, traps, lifting nets, scoop nets, basketry traps, eel pots. BARRETT, 1952. Pomo. pp. 148-156. BONNERJEA, 1937. Yurok, Sinkyone, Yuki, Pomo, Shasta, pp. 130-133; lifting nets, seines, harpoons, eel pots, arc nets, plunge nets, spears, weirs, gaffs, driving, traps. CURTIS, 1924a. Hupa, Wiyot, p. 8; hooks, double-toggle harpoons, traps, acute-angle hooks, single-pointed harpoons, weirs, nets (seine, A-frame, landing). Klamath, p. 169; hooks (gorge, acute-angle, double- barb), nets, spears. , 1924b. Wailaki, p. 22; arc net. Pomo, p. 63; arc nets, scoop nets, traps, harpoons. Wintun, p. 77. DRIVER and MASSEY, 1957. P. 201; general statement. FOSTER, 1944. Yuki, p. 164; lampreys of two species (small gray, large black); only latter eaten; caught with hands or flipped onto bank with stick. GIFFORD and KLIMEK, 1936. Yana, pp. 80, 86, 97. GOLDSCHMIDT, 1951. Nomlaki, p. 406; salmon rare; no spearing or seining; diving, catching with hands, small nets. HEWES, 1942. Pp. 103, 104; concise general statement. , Th., 1947. Miwok, p. 61; arc net, basketry traps, gorge hooks for sturgeon, harpoon; lampreys speared, gaffed, trapped, seized by hand; trout caught by hand; shooting with bow and arrow, poisoning. 6 KROEBER AND BARRETT: FISHING IN NORTHWESTERN CALIFORNIA Nisenan, pp. 62, 63; spear, single-pointed toggle harpoon, gill nets, dip nets, arc nets, basketry traps, caught by hand. Maidu, p. 63; weirs, toggle harpoons, A-frame nets, arc nets, poisoning, basketry traps, gorge hooks, acute-angle hooks, noosing, diving. Patwin, p. 65; seines, arc nets, weirs, corrals, diving, noosing, gorge hooks. Yana, p. 66; double-toggle harpoon, darkened booth, basketry traps, gill nets, arc nets, poison, hooks. Wintun, p. 67; double-toggle harpoon, darkened booth, weirs, basketry traps, drives, seines, diving, gorge and angle hooks. Wappo, p. 71; harpoons, basketry traps, nets, weirs, drives, poisoning. Pomo, p. 71; arc nets, hoop nets, poison, gorge hooks, harpoons (single and double points), basketry traps, weirs, seines, giant arc net on Clear Lake. Yuki, p. 75; arc net, set gill net, bag nets, basketry traps, single and double toggle harpoons, weirs, diving. Achomawi, Atsugewi, pp. 97-98; multipronged spear, stone fish dams, ice fishing, hoop net, arc net, poison, drives, basketry traps, angle hooks. Klamath, Modoc, pp. 97-98; double-pronged toggle harpoon, gorge hook, double-pointed angle hooks, V-frame dip net (large), multipronged spear, basketry traps, stone fish dams, hoop net, ice fishing, no poisons. Shasta, pp. 98-99; A-frame dip net, harpoon, acute-angle hook, weirs, drives, plunge net, basketry traps, poison, beaver dams, movable weirs. KNIFFEN, 1928. Achomawi, p. 305; ice fishing. KROEBER, 1932. Patwin, p. 295. ROSTLUND, 1952. P. 86 and maps 33-43; evaluation of fishing methods. Distribution of fishing methods. SAPIR and SPIER, 1943. Yana, p. 252; spear, hook and line, seine. Within the range of known fishing techniques, the methods employed are governed almost entirely by the local conditions of terrain and water. These environ- mental factors may be outlined as follows: 1. Pelagic. True pelagic fishing was almost entirely absent, except as noted in speaking of sea fishing and sea-lion hunting. The abundance of fish in the bays, estuaries, rivers, and smaller streams furnished an ample supply so the more hazardous pelagic fishing was really unnecessary. Furthermore, wholly reliable sea-going canoes were not available for such fishing. The canoes used on the open ocean were large, stout, and undamaged examples of the blunt-ended craft used on river, lagoon, or bay. They were used on the ocean for sea-lion hunting, trips to mussel rocks (Redding Rock is 6 mi. offshore), and some- times for transport. Their completely round, keel- less bottoms and especially their square ends, made them dangerous any time after whitecaps began to appear on the ocean. Thus we have here a condition opposite to that found among Northwest Coast tribes such as the Nootka of Vancouver Island, where canoes with prows were made for travel at sea and for whaling. 2. Offshore rocks. On the offshore rocks and sea stacks were sea-lion rookeries and mussel beds. These places were reached in the large river canoes-- in fact, some were close enough inshore to be reached by swimming. Incidental to this activity, hunters en route in a canoe might harpoon a sea lion, a seal or a sea otter asleep on the surface of the ocean. 3. Littoral fishing. The actual shore line was of two kinds: rocky cliffs and sandy beaches. The shore- dwellers took moderate numbers of fish by means of hook and throw line from the rocks along the coast; such rocks also yielded shellfish and seaweeds. Much greater quantities of fish were taken with the scoop net (and to a much lesser extent with the arc net), as these smaller species came in close to the beaches with the breakers to spawn. 4. Bays, estuaries, and "lagoons." In the rela- tively still waters of Humboldt Bay and its estuaries, and in some stream mouths, usually fairly shallow and affected by the ebb and flow of the tide, we find spearing, gaffing, dip-netting, gill-netting, and bag- netting, all done from canoes; and the use of setlines, trotlines, and certain special types of traps. Movable weirs were also used. North of Trinidad, in Coast Yurok territory, were three lagoons -- Big, Stone, and Freshwater -- each separated from the ocean for most of the year by a sand bar, which in the first two broke open only in the rainy months, when the lagoons were swelled by stream discharge. The surf might soon rebuild the bar or the mouth would re-open and close several times, admitting tide flow and some salt-water species. As soon as the heavy rains were over, the bars re- formed until the following winter. Big and Stone lagoons were thus prevalently freshwater instead of tidal, and Freshwater Lagoon is said to have opened to the ocean only once in the past half-century or more. These three mainly "landlocked lagoons" of the Coast Yurok shore are a quite special local feature. 5. River outlets and bars were very important in the taking of anadromous species and the species which preyed upon them. Here we find the harpoon almost exclusively in use. Important were the bars which formed at some river mouths during the summer season of low run- off. At the mouths of Mad River and Redwood Creek such a bar extended from bank to bank and completely shut off the stream from the ocean. As the salmon congregated for their annual migration up these streams, it was sometimes necessary for the fisher- men to cut through the bars. The stream then soon scoured out a narrow channel and the fish were able to ascend. This cutting was almost always a com- munal matter and was attended by some ceremony. Not infrequently a bar formed only part way across a stream, in which case the fishing was good only at the opposite bank. But the vagaries of almost any bar were such that next season it might establish its out- let along the other bank, leaving the established fishing spots in backwater or even dry, while opening up a new series of fishing sites. The mouth of the Klamath did just this. The actual outlet might be for years on the north side, and then shift in a winter storm to the south side, though the flow was too great for the mouth ever to remain dammed. On the contrary, Redwood Creek, which in winter is a big stream, al- most every summer is dammed by the surf and forms a freshwater lagoon behind its bar, several feethigher than mean sea level. There is a complete gradation from the perma- nently open "lagoon" at the mouth of a large river like the Klamath to, say, the permanently landlocked 7 ANTHROPOLOGICAL RECORDS Freshwater Lagoon, which in summer has only an insignificant trickle or two entering it. Redwood Creek mouth has only a short slough after the rains begin and its bar opens, but by summer may develop a lagoon of tenfold extent with water several feet higher than sea level. Big Lagoon is, in a sense, the stream-mouth lagoon of Maple Creek; but the flow of this stream diminishes heavily in summer, though normally it continues to run. Mad River has Arcata Slough running south some miles from its mouth; this slough was navigable for canoes, but did not widen out into a "lagoon." Next southward, Humboldt Bay might be considered a permanently open lagoon. It has several fair-sized streams draining into it--Salmon Creek, Elk River, etc.--but the area of the bay is large enough for its volume of water to be sufficient to keep the opening scoured out by tidal flow. The outlet channel made difficulties for modern navigation until it was double-jettied, but there is no record of its ever being closed by the surf. Salmon Creek and Elk River have no notable flow in summer but are permanent tidal estuaries running some miles inland from Humboldt Bay. 6. Stream fishing. Riffles: For harpooning, gaffing, certain types of trapping and driving. Shallows: For weirs (often with impounding pens), for spearing, dip-netting, gaffing, and trapping. The Kepel dam was the most elaborate construction. Eddies: Here triggered lifting nets were used from platforms. This was the most highly specialized feature of the region. 7. Falls and cascades. Here anadromous species attempting to ascend to spawn were taken with plunge nets, traps, harpoons, gaffs, and baskets. 8. Sluggish waters and deep pools. Diving, bow- and-arrow shooting (some tribes only), snaring, poisoning, sturgeon riding. 9. Creeks and smaller streams. Short weirs with basketry traps, hook-and-line fishing, sniggling. 10. Lamprey fishing. This eel-shaped species was taken with lifting nets and other types of dip nets and with basketry traps; also by means of rock piles, on the faces of certain falls, by means of gaffs and awls, by hand catching, and with eel pots (recent). 11. Ice fishing was, for climatic reasons, almost entirely absent. In fact, we find only one positive statement on the subject of ice fishing. One of Kniffen's Achomawi informants (1928, p. 305) stated that in the winter "nets were set through the ice and the fish were driven into them." No details of this procedure are given and it is hard to see just how it was done. The language seems to indicate that some sort of flat net was used. To set such a net through the ice would present some difficulties and, even if it were in place under the ice, the driving of the fish into the net would seem even more difficult. Thus, different environmental conditions ruled the life cycles of these species, controlled the methods by which each might be taken, and gave rise to the different devices: weirs, nets, traps, spears, harpoons, gaffs, and other inventions of the primitive fishermen. And, since fish formed their most abundant food re- source, the one upon which their existence chiefly depended--at any rate next to acorns--we naturally find fishing of prime interest in a study of this spe- cialized culture. Here the chief emphasis was upon methods of mass fishing or taking fish continuously without changing station, by weirs, nets, and traps. Only more or less incidentally do we find methods for taking fish indi- vidually: noosing or riding sturgeon, jerking trout, shooting salmon with bow and arrow. These methods were used as conditions permitted or, to some extent, as a matter of sport. The return was small when compared with the standard methods, which might yield in a relatively few days of concentrated effort a whole winter's supply of food. 8 CHAPTER II WEIRS AGINSKY, 1943. Miwok, p. 399; weirs, stone dams, and pens. BANCROFT, 1883. Yurok, pp. 337, 338; weir with pens and scaffolds; fish harpooned or dip-netted. BARNETT, 1937. Tolowa, Chetco; pp. 163, 164, 195. BARRETT, 1952. Pomo, pp. 149, 150, 357. CURTIS, 1924a. Hupa, pp. 8, 15, 16, 18. Yurok, p. 40. Wiyot, pp. 74, 75. Shasta, p. 113. Achomawi, p. 137. Tolowa, p. 98. , 1924b. Wintun, pp. 85, 86. Maidu, p. 109. DIXON, 1905. Maidu, p. 197; guide fence for salmon. , 1907. Shasta, p. 428; construction and use of weir; only three weirs in Shasta territory. DRIVER, 1936. Wappo, pp. 184, 185; weir for salmon, etc., straight line of driven posts with intertwined brush. Openings for "wicker traps or baskets" with "mouths facing downstream to receive fish coming up"; salmon and other large species of fish caught "in baskets or nets tied to dam." , 1939. Tolowa, Karok, Yurok, Wiyot, Hupa, Chilula, Nongatl, Mattole, Sinkyone, Kato, Coast Yuki, pp. 312, 378; notes give details of construction; most all with scaffolds; movable weir used by Wiyot, Hupa, Mattole, Sinkyone. Kato. DRIVER and MASSEY, 1957. Pp. 201, 203, map 26; general statement. DRUCKER, 1937. Tolowa, pp. 232, 233; built c6mmunal fish weirs, with formulas, at specified sites; individuals built smaller weirs on creeks; small diagonal weir with cylindrical net at weir opening, with crab-claw rattle and string for closing net; lamprey weir and gaff and torch used. Salmon weir points downstream. Lamprey weir points upstream to a chute leading past platform where fisherman gaffs lampreys. DU BOIS, 1935. Wintu, p. 17; for suckers; wings of brush or stones built out from banks; net in opening; fish driven. ESSENE, 1942. Pomo, Kato, Lassik, Yuki, p. 6; straight across stream, dip net in opening. Pomo, Kato, platform on weir. FOSTER, 1944. Yuki, pp. 163, 164; brush weir with dip net set in opening; also impounding corral at down- stream side of opening; fish finally removed in coarse basket; weir removed after two days' fishing. GARTH, 1953. Atsugewi, pp. 136, 137; guide fences, V-shaped. No elaborate weirs. Achomawi, p. 136. GIFFORD, 1939. Coast Yuki, p. 325; fence weir for salmon. GIFFORD and KROEBER, 1937. Pomo (all divisions), Patwin, Hill Wintun, pp. 133, 172; S. Pomo built platform over weir. River Patwin had weir with falling doors and string trigger. GODDARD, 1914. Chilula, p. 270; small weirs for taking lampreys and trout. GOLDSCHMIDT, 1951. Nomlaki, p. 407; weir with pens, booths, and fire lure on main river only.. HEWES, Th., 1947. Nongatl, Whilkut, Chilula, p. 79. Wiyot, p. 80, figs. 5, 6; portable fence weirs; simple weirs with A-frame nets; very complex weirs with corrals for lampreys. Yurok, Hupa, Karok, pp. 84, 85, fig. 7. Tolowa, p. 88, fig. 9; double weir. Wintun, p. 98; stone fish dams. Coast Yurok, fig. 8; weir, illus. HOLT, 1946. Shasta, p. 309. KNIFFEN, 1939. Pomo, pp. 363, 376. KROEBER, 1925. General statement on weirs, p. 816; usually found in streams which carry salmon. Yurok, pp. 10, 24. Kepel dam, pp. 58-60. Shasta, p. 294; weirs built at three points; traps in openings. Patwin, p. 363; salmon weirs built by one functional family. Hupa, p. 132. ,1929. Nisenan, p. 262; communal weirs with gates and with pens upstream. Fish dipped out with nets. , 1932. River Patwin, p. 278; large weirs built at two points (koru and saka) on the Sacramento River, present Colusa and Grimes. KROEBER and GIFFORD, 1949. Hupa weir, pl. 2, e, f. Yurok, pp. 81-85, 105, 114, 135; observations on the Kepel dam and the Rekwoi ceremony; myths of origin of Kepel dam; ritual chants for Kepel dam. Hupa, p. 60; "fish dam ceremony." Yurok, p. 79; the salmon weir above Weitspus. LOEB, 1926. Pomo, p. 168. McCLELLAN, 1953. Wappo, p. 283; weirs communal property. [91 ANTHROPOLOGICAL RECORDS McKERN, 1922. Patwin, p. 248. MERRIAM, 1955. Wintun, p. 22; large weir on McCloud River. NOMLAND, 1935. Sinkyone, p. 154; weir made of stones and brush. POWERS, 1877. Yurok, p. 49; weir and basketry trap briefly described. Wintun, p. 233. ROSTLUND, 1952. Pp. 101-104, 171, 172, map 34; weirs and traps. SCHOOLCRAFT, 1860. Yurok, Vol. 3, p. 176. SPIER, 1930. Klamath, p. 149; weirs unknown, but wing dams of rock to create eddies where fish can be netted. VAN CLEVE, 1945. Hupa, fig. 27, p. 111. VOEGELIN, 1942. Klamath, Modoc, Shasta, Wintun, pp. 55, 173; types of weirs, openings, pens, traps; driving fish to weir. WILKES, 1850. Vol. 5, pp. 187-189; description with drawing; nets. WORK, 1945. Maidu, pp. 32, 33; weirs on Feather River, 1833. MAPS 1, 3-10, 55 INTRODUCTION The throwing of fish weirs across the smaller streams and tributaries was no great feat, but to erect them in the Klamath or even Trinity involved a certain enterprise and skill. The historic Yurok built "fish dams," as they call them in English, at two spots in their stretch of the Klamath, and legend speaks of a third and even fourth. More about this in a moment. The Karok have mentioned to Gifford at least half-a- dozen weir sites on the Klamath and Salmon. The Klamath used to be fordable on horseback a short distance above Orleans, at low water, and this ford appears to be where one weir was put. (See map 1.) The Karok also know of two legendary weirs in the days of the immortals, called Yu'-timin and Ka'-timin, translated "Lower Dam" and "Upper Dam," not far below and above the mouth of the Salmon. These places, however, are natural falls or high rapids, corresponding respectively to Ike's Fall at Shanamkarak and Amaikiaram villages, and to the swift rapids at the foot of A'u'ich or Sugar Loaf Peak just below Ka'timin and Ishipishi. In fact, Ka'timin is not so much a concentrated large native town as a rambling string of "suburbs" or hamlets, each designated locally by its sweathouse, Ka'timin being the term used for the collective whole, chiefly when one is speaking at a dis- tance. An actual fish weir probably could not have been satisfactorily built at either site, since a weir requires a moderate flow of fairly even strength across the breadth of the stream and a rather smooth bottom, pref- erably of gravel or shingle, into which stakes can be driven, whereas Ka'timin and Yu'timin are rocky rapids or falls. Above the Karok territory, the Klamath, while still a large stream, flows more placidly between low terraces flat enough for cultivation and could undoubtedly be weired at a number of points. Dixon (1907, p. 428) states that there were but three of these large dams within Shasta territory: one was at the "mouth of Shasta River, one at Scott River, and one at Happy Camp" (which last, however, was actually still in Karok territory). The Trinity carries perhaps a third as much water as the Klamath where they join at Weitchpec. The Hupa erected weirs at two spots in their main valley, at their largest towns of Takimilding and Medilding, in alternate years, according to Goddard (1903, p. 24) and Hewes. They may have erected others farther up, between Hupa Valley and South Fork. Hewes 's account, summarized below, gives particularly full details of the mechanics construct ion. Undoubtedly a great many other weirs were built in various places in northern California. Besides those shown on the map we have definite locations for six oth weirs: three on Russian River (one near Ukiah, a seca near Calpella, and a third in Potter Valley); two on the Sacramento River (one at Grimes, the other at Colusa) one on Feather River (near Marysville). One of Hewes's (F.N., 1940) Bear River informants stated that there were in precontact times five of six villages on Bear River and that the number of fish web on the river was somewhat smaller, perhaps two or possibly three less than the number of villages. He coi not give exact locations for these dams. He stated that in the openings in these dams basketry fish traps were placed to catch the smaller species of fish and that neti were used to catch salmon and other large species. A Wiyot informant drew a rough sketch map of the lower Eel River, owned by the Wiyot, and indicated two fish dams located at tepawo and wosela. He stated tha the latter was the more productive dam, though locate farther upstream. He also mentioned that this was a communal dam, provided with five or six impounding pens, placed on its upstream face. Each pen had its pl form from which the dip nets were used. Each pen w the property of some one man or family. We know that in the Pomo country there were weirs various places, the exact location of which (other than two here mentioned) are not now certain. The latest o of which we have record is a straight brush weir buil by the Pomo of Potter Valley and reported to John H. Hellard in 1927. (See California Fish and Game, 13:1 for description and photograph.) Furthermore, in Po mythology we find various references to fish dams. Coyote steals fish at one of these weirs used by a nei boring people and considerable trouble results (Barre' 1933, p. 210). In addition to such ordinary dams there were magic dams, as, for instance, the one made of 1i snakes in the myth of Obsidian Man (Barrett, 1933, p. The most important weirs on large streams had of necessity to be fixed by setting or planting posts in th stream beds, often with reinforcement of braces. F weirs were also often placed in smaller streams. In I II II 10 KROEBER AND BARRETT: FISHING IN NORTHWESTERN CALIFORNIA addition, there was a class of portable weirs of simple and loose construction, which could be dragged as units up and down the stream bed, but which were confined to creeks and to rivers which got very low in summer. These movable weirs are discussed briefly at the end of the section on fixed weirs. A separate section consists of inferences to be drawn from photographs of several Hupa, Chilula, and Pomo weirs, taken soon after 1900 by members of the Univer- sity staff. An analysis of these photographs is not in- corporated in the main presentation because its evidence, though less complete, is of a different order and would have burdened the descriptive presentation with details, doubts, and arguments. On the other hand, the photograph analysis seems too special, too lengthily adjudicative of fine points, to belong in the "Explanation of Plates" at the end of the memoir. We have therefore treated it as a sort of informal appendix at the end of the chapter on weirs. We shall now review in detail the data on fish weirs of the fixed type, first in the heart of the Northwest Cali- fornia culture area, then in its marginal range, and third, outside, especially in the Sacramento Valley. FIXED WEIRS: CORE AREA YUROK WEIRS The historic Yurok weirs were at Kepel (map 1, Yl), just above the mouth of Capell (Kepel) Creek, three or four miles below the famous fishing spot at Tuley Rapids or Kenek; and again at Heyomu or Lo'lego, in English, Saint's Rest (map 1, Y2), nearly two miles above Weitchpec and seven or eight miles above Tuley Rapids. The Kepel weir was hedged about with innumerable ob- servances and taboos, in fact even dramatic play inter- ludes, and marked the start of both a Deerskin and a Jumping dance, the whole constituting the most elaborate public ritual complex5 in the region. The weir building occurred toward the beginning of low water in August- September. The Yurok second weir, at Heyomu, is said to have been put up earlier in the season, about July (Kroeber's information), but M'Kee found it in use in October. The other name of the settlement here, Lo'lego, means "[where they] habitually make a weir." It was a small settlement of three or four houses, wealthy enough to contribute an "outfit" or "party" to the Deerskin and Jumping dances at Weitchpec-Weitspus, but not attempt- ing a public ritual or display of their own in connection with their local weir. In fact, they were undoubtedly helped in its construction by the people of Weitspus, who looked upon it as "their" weir, for which reason they did not participate in the Kepel "dam" except as visitors. A formula was spoken at the beginning of the Heyomu construction, but such very likely was the case at all other weirs erected in the region, in fact even for the less communal affairs. All Yurok know that in legend the Kepel Fish Dam was first made at Turip (map 1, YM2), more or less twenty- five miles downriver, seven miles above the ocean. The Kepel people are said to have come down and taken the weir and its rite away. The Turip people went up to fight and recover them; but when they came in sight, up the opposite bank, they got afraid and said, "Well, perhaps we had better let them keep it." But they would watch 5The Kepel dam cycle of ceremonies was basically of the world- renewal order, with emphasis on the (first) salmon (akin to the "first fruits" features among many tribes). The whole cycle was designed to insure collective and individual health, prosperity, and abundance. Gunther (1928, pp. 129-173) has reviewed the salmon ceremony among the tribes of northwestern America and has shown that this ceremonial cycle has been integrated with the r itual pattern of each group where it occurs. Among the principal tribes of Northwestern 'California, particularly the Yurok, these ceremonies are in the hands of priestly families and involve elaborate and immutable rituals. The utilization of the salmon was made to conform to a definitely prescribed pattern, strictly regulated by the formulist in charge of the whole cere- mony and governed by a recognized series of taboos. it, they declared, and would be paid when it was made (reference to a play episode in the ritual); and they stayed where they were standing, turned into redwood trees--the farthest grove of redwoods up the Klamath, visible from its surface. This origin myth may have a historical basis in fact, or only a pseudogeographical one. The river bends and terrace settings are strikingly parallel at Kepel and Turip. First is a fairly long stretch of smooth current; then a slight bend to the right, toward the end of which the weir is erected at Kepel. Then follows a U-turn to the left around a semicircular grassy terrace on which stand the towns of Kepel and Turip, respectively, both facing northeast across the river; after which the flow resumes the prevalent northwesterly direction. (See Waterman, 1920a, maps 9, 17.) The idea of a transfer from Turip may rest on the analogous topography--plus a Yurok penchant for thinking up preliminary trials or experiments for their finally perpetual and unchangeable institutions. A base material is used but proves un- satisfactory, a dance line-up does not sound right until the fifth direction is faced, the Klamath used to flow into the ocean through Wilson Creek, and so on -- this is the pattern. A bit of measuring and sounding at Turip would quickly reveal whether a weir within native capacity to build would be possible there. The Klamath does not flow ma- terially more water at Turip and, while it is somewhat wider there, it is not very much wider; but being so much nearer the mouth, the current is slower and presumably deeper in spots. The other reference to a weir in Yurok myths is in a long travelogue saga (Kroeber, Yurok Tales, no. C3, in preparation) of the great fighting character, Falcon (duck hawk), Kerernit, whom the Karok call Aikneich. After a successful feud with Ocean Breakers, he moves on to the Klamath, but, still hearing the surf, goes on to live at "Knetken-o-lo', -- arrowhead's weir" (map 1, YM1) probably error for Kerernit-o'lo, "Falcon's weir" or at near-by Muntse-haa'g, "white rock," both below Roach Creek mouth, about two miles down from Kepel. (Waterman, 1920a, pp. 246-247, map 17, nos. 7, 9.) There Falcon builds himself a weir. As he will not open this to let the salmon through, the Hupa of Oknul come downriver and in his absence tear out the weir. He goes to attack the Hupa headman but cannot reach him where he is living, safe inside a rock in the Trinity. But his dam site remaining spoiled, Falcon goes far upriver, on to A'u'ich, Sugarloaf Peak overlooking Karok Ka'timin, puts in another weir there, and runs a scaffolding from it up the face of the cliff to his house on the peak. This weir his wife, Grizzly Bear, tears to pieces in jealousy 1 1 ANTHROPOLOGICAL RECORDS while he is off visiting a Shasta sweetheart in Scott's Valley. This last episode is told also by the Karok, as is a separate tale of Falcon's helping two girls try (vainly) to recover their lover from the land of the dead (a story not known to the Yurok). There is nothing about the river bed at Muntse-haa'g which suggests that a weir was prac- ticable, and the story may have located one there because of other accessory natural features connected with side incidents of the story that Waterman refers to (pp. 246, 247). The Kepel weir. --This brings us back to the Kepel weir, whose technology and ritual have been described in a special publication by Waterman and Kroeber (1938), whereas its emotional involvements have been discussed by Erikson (1943). This is the historically authenticated weir site lowest downstream on the Klamath. It was therefore presumably the largest construction of any sort attempted by people of the Northwest California culture, and it is reasonable to infer that it was this fact which led to association of the weir with a major World Renewal ritual. As a matter of fact, the association is geographi- cally rather tenuous, the main dancing being performed at several places ten miles or so downstream from Kepel. The particular spot at which the weir was erected is shown in Waterman's Yurok Geography (1920a, maps 4, 17). The river here is wide (perhaps 75 or 85 yds. -- memory estimate by Kroeber); rather shallow (6-7 ft. by paddle measure in July, 1933--perhaps not over 6 ft. at construction time in August to September); what is per- haps most important, of fairly even depth all the way across, and with a level bottom of fine gravel, into which stakes could be driven; free of rocks, except one off the northeast shore, which served as a marker. The current is fairly strong, but steady and nearly even across the river's breadth. The dam was set slightly upstream of Kepel, which looked down on it from the upstream end of its terrace. The town of Sa' or Sha'a, which contained the dam-maker's or formulist's sacred sweathouse, lay adjacent on the same terrace, downstreamward, and looked across the river to Murek. Capell, or Kepel, Creek comes in from the north a little downstream of the weir, and opposite Kepel village. Roach Creek comes in from the southwest a mile or more below Sa'. The weir was an elaborate structure built in ten named sections by ten groups of men, all working under the actual, as well as the ceremonial, direction of one formulist. Each section was built with an enclosure pro- vided with a gate which could be closed when the fish entered. The fish were then easily removed with dip nets. Vast numbers of fish were taken during the ten days that the dam was allowed to stand. After that it was deliber- ately torn down, at least in part. The reason for tearing out the structure instead of merely abandoning it to the forces of nature is not too apparent, but its destruction again cleared the channel and permitted the fish to ascend the stream to spawn, at the same time providing the up- river residents with their essential supply of fish. All told, the full ceremonial cycle connected with the Kepel dam covered (with certain intervals) some fifty to sixty days. It was the most elaborate undertaking of any kind among the tribes of this Northwestern California region. However, the magnitude of the undertaking can be exaggerated. Erikson (1943, p. 300), in speaking of this Kepel weir, says: "The middle part of the river ... is obstructed by the yearly erection of a fish dam which is accompanied by sacred ceremonies and represents the most communal enterprise and the most advanced tech- nical accomplishment of California Indian cultures." Yet the sweeping statement that this is the most pretentious communal undertaking among any of the California Indians might be challenged when we consider the building of one of the large ceremonial dance houses in the Central California area. One of the last of these dance houses built in the ancient manner was the one formerly standing at Sulphur Bank in the Clear Lake region. It is described and illustrated by Barrett (1916, pp. 10-17, pls. VI-XI). If we take the average for the dimensions of such a build- ing (diam., 50 ft.; depth, 5 ft.) we find that these Pomo had first to excavate a pit of these dimensions with their digging sticks and to remove in their baskets about 350 cubic yards of earth. Then, after completing the wooden framework and roof of this structure, they had labori- ously, basketful by basketful, to place these same 350 cubic yards of earth back on top of this roof or around its edge to make a waterproof "thatch." And the con- struction of the framework, rafters, and wattling was in itself no small undertaking. There were a large center pole, eight posts, eight stringers, ninety-six rafters, forty-eight wall braces, at least a thousand sheeting poles, upon which were laid two layers of mats woven of twigs, and on these a layer of tule mats, and finally a layer of grass. Next came a layer of mud to seal the roof tightly, and finally the loose earth from the excava- tion was placed on the roof as a final cover. The ma- terials alone certainly bulked fully as large as those used in the Kepel dam. Nor was this construction done without ceremonial procedure of considerable moment, probably not as in- volved or extensive as in the Kepel dam, but still of some importance. Certainly the actual labor involved in the construction of one of these large semisubterranean dance houses must have been fully as great as was that involved in building the Kepel dam. And it certainly was fully as much a communal undertaking. Everybody, even the women, participated. But an assembly house would last a decade or two; a salmon weir was used only for some weeks. According to Hewes (F.N., 1940) a Coast Yurok in- formant stated to him that everyone for miles downriver from Kepel helped build the dam there, the following villages participating: Tekta, Woxkero, Kootep, Pekwon, Yoxter, Sregon, Meta, Nohtskum, Murekw, and Kepel. Those whose residents did not help work were: Wa'asei- Merip, Kenek, Wahsekw (Martin's Ferry), and Weitspek, upstream; and Serper, Ayol, Erner, and Erliiken below Tekta. Of the above, Waterman (1920a, p. 54) includes down- river Erner and upriver Wa'asei, Merip, Kenek, and Wahsekw among the villages that contributed workers to the Kepel enterprise. Curtis (1924a, p. 40) says it was the villages from Was'ai (Wa'asei) down to Wohtek who built the Kepel dam; and that those above, who did not participate, had the right to come down to Kepel and take all the salmon they wanted while the weir was shutting the run of fish off from them. The Kepel dam cycle of ceremonies was basically of the world-renewal order, with emphasis on abundance of salmon and vegetal foods generically, rather than specifi- cally on the first salmon, as in the "first fruits" rites among many tribes. The whole cycle was designed to insure collective and individual health, prosperity and abundance, and the prevention of epidemics and calami- ties. The Yurok did have a specific first-salmon rite at WelkwAu at the mouth of the river, as the Karok did at Amaikiaram just below Ike's Fall; but these both came 12 KROEBER AND BARRETT: FISHING IN NORTHWESTERN CALIFORNIA at the beginning of the spring run, about April; and the one at Welkwau was without accompaniment of public dancing. Analysis of the Waterman-Kroeber data.--The Water- man-Kroeber monograph on Kepel contains a number of apparently conflicting statements from different native sources, some probable misunderstandings, and a num- ber of unresolved problems. These will now be analyzed here seriatim. All page references are to this mono- graph (UC-PAAE Vol. 35, No. 6: pp. 49-60, information by Waterman; pp. 61-80 by Kroeber). 1. Shape of the weir: The dam seems to have been V-shaped, with its point upriver. Waterman is almost certainly right on this point. The matter happened not to be mentioned to Kroeber, perhaps because his Yurok informants took it for granted, and Kroeber knew the Goddard or Jones photographs of straight dams at Hupa, so took straightness for granted for Kepel. The second historic Yurok weir, above Weitchpec, was V-shaped, and Hewes makes the main or formal dam across the Trinity at Hupa also V-shaped, though Goddard, Curtis, and Gifford are noncommittal on the point. The late photo- graphs from Hupa show only straight barriers. (See pl. 1, a-c.) In a stream of smaller volume, the shape might not matter much. The larger the flow, the greater the re- sistance which a two-way diagonal weir would possess, presumably, and experience may have shown the Indians that this gain in strength more than compensated for the additional length. Depth of water would also be a factor, on account of the leverage of the current against longer uprights and wider mat gratings. The Kepel depth *as measured at 6 to 7 feet in midsummer by Kroeber; Hewes was told: about 4 feet at Hupa; and Kroeber found it not much over 3 feet when fording the Trinity at Medilding in late summer; smaller streams like Salmon River and Redwood Creek would be less than that. It is clear that size of stream was not the only factor, for Hewes reports the Karok dams farther up the Klamath as being straight, whereas we show a photograph by God- dard of a small Chilula dam (pl. 1, e) on Redwood Creek which is V-shaped. At any rate both Yurok dams, at Kepel and at Heyomu, were angular. 2. The falsework: Waterman's account of the false- work, or staging (p. 57), from which the Kepel weir was built is not mentioned for any other weir. It might be said that such a falsework was unnecessary elsewhere, the Kepel dam being the only one built across the con- joined Klamath and Trinity--the second Yurok dam at eyomu-Lo'olego was situated nearly two miles above heconfluence at Weitchpec. However, there are some iconsistencies or difficulties about the falsework, and tis probable that Waterman's account of it refers to the weir itself. He has construction begin with a pair of takes being driven by workers, who "waded out" into estream. When these two stakes or piles had been shed together where they intersected, a long pole--no oubt a slender tree trunk--was laid from shore into the tch, projecting out over the stream. Pushing his way longthis, a worker pounded in another pair (or tripod) fposts, and a new horizontal or stringer was added; ntil the two wings of the staging met in midstream. "Meanwhile," says Waterman, other workers had 'already begun the driving in of the innumerable stakes rogon) which formed the permanent weir. These . . . ere only a few inches apart" and constituted the barrier held the salmon. This makes the barrier of the main put in place before it has any supporting timbers of own! The account goes on (p. 58) by telling of a substantial pile driven in every few yards "on the downstream side of the dam, to give it solidity." Until then, was the false- work holding the "innumerable" stakes against the cur- rent? And were the main supports of the permanent dam added as a sort of afterthought--merely to "solidify" it? More difficulties follow. The main uprights or piles, the "upstream standing ones" of the Yurok, were taken out, one by one, on the falsework, aimed at the bottom, and jammed down into the gravel. "While several men held one vertically as best they could" [from the false- work?], "a volunteer climbed to the top of the pile" and clung to it, with his feet resting on a serving of withes lashed on about three feet below the top, thus "riding the pile," while he pounded it in with a stone. This feat might be possible; but it would certainly be a feat. There were 10 in all of these vertical piles, he says, although they came "every few yards" apart; and each was then shored by a diagonal brace on its downstream side. Kroeber's informant A, Amits, says (p. 65) that the "upstream standing" posts were seven to eight inches thick--that is, he no doubt gestured the size with his hands--and that there were about 40 of them, all put in on one day. The first to be put in place, out from the north bank, were the larger two (a Douglas fir and a tan oak) of three cut by the formulist up the hill upriver some days before any other cutting or constructionbegan. Elsewhere in the weir, there were "perhaps three petsikume in a group"--that is, forming a tripod--as Waterman says of his "falsework." With ten traps or pens or "salmon houses" behind the weir--Waterman gives the names of nine of them--there would be 11 or more groups of piles; say 10 tripods, plus a pair near the north shore, perhaps another at the south--32 to 34 in all, as against the 40 estimated by Amits. Each fish pen also had 2 posts above the dam; but these may have had less load of current to support and have been smaller. In any event, if we count them in, the total would be more than 40. Informant B, Mack, is no help on this point--he was more interested in ritual- istic than in technological deeds. There are also the "downstream standers," the sloping piles each shoring up against the current a pair or tripod of vertical or near-vertical piles. These braces would presumably be somewhat longer than the posts, though not as long as the stringers. When Amits volunteered his "about 40" larger timbers, he may have had in mind nothing more than ten groups of three up- rights each with one brace on the downstream side. All in all, it seems to us most likely that Waterman, listening to the broken English of his informants, mis- construed their description of the skeleton frame of the dam--which obviously had to be put up first--as being a preparatory stage, and so invented the falsework scaf- folding. None of the difficulties of understanding which his account raises are resolved or diminished by positing a falsework; indeed they are doubled. If there is a factual basis for the account of several men standing on the scaffolding holding a new pile "as best they could" while a rider at the same time clasped and pounded it in, it would after all provide only an additional post in the falsework; or, if it were an addition to the permanent dam, it could have been just as well put in from the skeleton of this which was already erected. 3. Width of the weir: Informant A does not explicitly mention the number of the longest timbers, the horizontal rafters or stringers. He does say that the first one, on the north, was somewhat short. The second, and then every alternate one, had a pen behind it. This may mean 1 3 ANTHROPOLOGICAL RECORDS that there were 20 (or 21 or 22) rafters; or again, he may have been thinking of the occasions when only five pens were built because the number of workers was small; in which case 10 full-length rafters would have carried the weir across to both shores, or virtually so. There might, however, have been ten salmon pens plus eleven spaces of plain weir between them, twenty-one in all, with the recorded names applying primarily to the pens. In that case there would have been 20--or to be exact, probably 21--stringers along the top of the dam-- unless each stringer was long enough to stretch across both a pen and a section of plain weir. For 21 stringers, a minimum of 40 piles would have been required to carry them, and more in proportion as tripods were set up in place of pairs--up to about 60, in fact, without counting any of the pen posts. If we knew the width of the river at the weir site,, we might infer at least some probabilities on these matters. Estimating from memory, Kroeber would say the river was around 250 ft. from shore to shore. This, if the weir ran straight across, would give stringers of about 25-ft. span, which a Douglas fir log 7 or 8 in. thick at the butt ought to cross easily enough, and even support a few men--in a static situation. But the stringers ulti- mately would also have to hold back against the current the upper ends of all the smaller stakes plus the matting behind these. That load might easily be several times greater than the gravity load of a mere catwalk. We would guess that 25-ft. stringer spans would be quite liable to give before a 6-ft.-deep current. If, as we have decided, the dam was V-shaped, its length would be materially increased and that of the spans with it. Thus if the two wings sloped upstream at 45 degrees, forming the hypotenuse of an isosceles right triangle, the two wings together would have a length greater than a straight dam by 2{172, or over 40 per cent additional, say 350 instead of 250 ft. It seems highly probable that 10 rafters of a 35-ft. span each would not have withstood the current; but if they numbered 20, they would have been subject to considerably less pressure than the 10 in a straight-across weir. This computation accordingly favors a dam of ten pens plus eleven neat spaces in the dam. Even this calculation involves spans twice as long as Hewes's eight feet between pairs of up- right piles in the Hupa dams. To be sure, the Yurok used mainly tripods of piles, and these may have been larger to accord with their somewhat greater length, as neces- sitated by more depth. What, of course, would help most in the problem would be if someone were actually to measure the width of the river at the Kepel site, which ought still to be possible, though probably not for much longer, with motorboat logging and prospects of reservoir dams and diversions. 4. The gratings: The gratings or mats of split sticks that were unrolled and set up behind the piles and rafters were of course the element of the pens, and perhaps of the weir, that ultimately kept the salmon from ascending. These gratings were not driven into the bottom, but their width--that is, the length of the sticks composing them-- must have been close to seven feet--enough to set them firmly on the even gravel bottom and reach up to the top of the water or above it. They were "tied together" with grapevine (hazel shoots are also mentioned) in "four places" (p. 64); which, we take it, means that four pairs of vine lengths were twined across and around the sticks as they were laid parallel on the ground or sand bar. Then came the "tug-of-war" directed by the formulist, according to informant A. This was one of the many ritual games and plays associated with the weir building, but it also pulled tight the wefts as they passed around the split-stick warps of the mats. Amits mentioned the length of the mats as four fath- oms (span reaches) plus an arm. A customary length of Yurok canoes, irrespective of their beam or draught, is specified as three fathoms and a hand-length: the Yurok evidently were fond of such standardizations in their regulated little world. Their fathom or reach was prob- ably a bit less than our six feet, because they are a little shorter in stature than we average. But the measure of four fathoms plus an arm would have been quite close to! twenty-five feet for the mat. Informant B (p. 71) tells how all the gratings were plunged in simultaneously, at the formulist's signal, apparently on the last day of the construction, and of how sometimes a couple of workers fell into the river with their grating. Amits also specified that "they always had six rolls [of grating] for each salmon house, but some were shorter" than standard. This gives us another line on the width of the dam: namely, ten times six times 25 feet, or 1,500 in all, less what some of the gratings wer short of full length. If we deduct a third for this factor, we still have 1,000 linear feet of which half might con- ceivably go into lining the pens, leaving 500 linear feet for the weir as such. This seems a great deal consider ing the probable width of the river, and that, too, after two liberal deductions. Hewes has the Hupa mats of any convenient length up to 30 or 40 feet, and says that usually two or three suf- ficed to reach each shore from the middle. These see very reasonable figures, for a smaller stream, wherea the Kepel ones are certainly excessive if taken at face value. 5. Main row of stakes: The twined mat gratings be what ultimately prevented the passage of the salmon, they must also have done most to impede the flow of th river. It seems inconceivable that they could have re- sisted this enormous and persistent pressure while su ported only by one edge of them being pushed against t bottom and the other held by the weir stringers. In addition, and mainly, they were held in place by the cu rent pressing them against somewhat larger sticks or stakes than those composing the gratings, stakes which had been individually pounded into the bottom while the spanning stringers kept their tops in line. These woul be Waterman's rogon or "innumerable stakes... driven only a few inches apart." Unfortunately, neither Yuro informant A or B used the word "rogon" to Kroeber n did either make any statement that can be indubitably construed as referring to them. Quite possibly they di mention them (informant A for his fourth day--see bel but the distinction between them and the smaller sticks that went into the mats may have been lost in the Engli ing. Yet "rogon" stakes seem to show in some of the photographs of the Hupa and Chilula weirs; and it stan to reason that but for their presence the mats would h been bent and pulled and washed away, whereas in a smaller weir the mats might have been dispensed with the rogon were set close. In distinction from the rogon, Waterman gives "woosel" as the name of the stakes of which the pens were made, and "wa'egwoya" as "reinforcing stakes" added in spots where the weir was found weak. Kroe got the latter name in the form "wa'ewoges" for the "small upright sticks" of the weir, after they had bee prepared but were still on land, which name was chan' to "werarhkwa" when they were in the water, in place the dam. The making, or inserting, of these took a da seemingly the fourth, according to informant A's sched 14 KROEBER AND BARRETT: FISHING IN NORTHWESTERN CALIFORNIA of progress summarized below, whereas the mat gratings seem to have been put in only on the tenth day, according to both informants A and B. Waterman ap- pears to have not even any indirect reference to the gratings, only to the pair of "pepperwood" (bay, laurel) logs weighting each trap down (and no doubt bracing and stiffening it, too) and to the redwood twigs packed around the bottoms of the traps to prevent washing out, both of these sets of materials being obtained on the ninth day according to informant A. Informant B says specifi- cally (pp. 71, 72) that the gratings were put down on the last day; that the brush or boughs were packed against the bottom only after that (as indeed is only common sense); that the formulist might then at last speak secu- larly once more; and that "now the dam is finished." A's schedule seems to put underwater inspection of the dam (piles and rogon stakes) by the formulist, and his resumption of secular speech, on the ninth day; trip to the redwoods and bargaining with them also on the ninth; cutting the "redwood" foliage and putting in the mats and packing the leaves against the bottom, on the tenth day. 6. Bundles of sticks and of foliage: There is a partial confusion in our Englished versions between the getting of the sticks for the mats and the securing of the "redwood" limbs for packing. Informant A (on p. 66 and referring to the tenth day) tells of branches cut off young redwoods, uphill across from Kepel, and "laid cross- wise to form a circle," each man then dancing with a load of such branches, finally throwing them down where they would roll all the way to the river; after which they are ferried across and packed against the weir bottom. B tells (p. 69), also after the bargaining with the redwood trees, how on top of the hill across from Kepel they cut "top limbs of pine, three or four feet long," made into "flat bundles, tied with branches sticking out in all directions." The workers then (p. 70) dance in line, to a special song, carrying the bundles on their heads, at the end dumping the loads forward so they roll to the river. When the men arrive there, they dance in boats across the river, ferrying their loads over, while boys accompanying them hold up brush cut on the hill, after which they all dive into the stream by the dam with boughs and pack them firmly. The two accounts agree that the loads consist of branches laid flat and radiating, in other words, forming a disk, and that each of these disks is then rolled down to the river as if it were a cart wheel. Yet that seems almost impossible with the disks made of pliable feathery branches (whether these be of pine, fir, or redwood). On the other hand, the rolling ought to have been much easier if it were done with the cylindrical rolled-up mat gratings. And in fact B (p. 71) refers to at least one such cylinder being rolled down the same hill. Landing from aboat near the mouth of Kepel Creek--on the final day-- the formulist sprinkles sung-over or prayed-over water on a huge bundle of sticks (mat), so heavy it would take half-a-dozen men to lift it, but he sings it so light that he can drag it unaided. "These are the sticks got on top of the hill, split yellow pine [limbs] five or six feet long, tied together with hazel twigs like a basket, a solid pile several feet in diameter, that have been rolled down the bill." After the formulist has started the bundle, the workers ferry it across river and up to the dam in the largest boat available. Here we clearly have one or several of our gratings rolled up into a cylindrical mass. It is made of split yetlIw pine limbs or sticks five or six feet long and is "like a basket" in being twined together with hazel shoots. These split sticks of the mats are clearly dif- ferent from feathery redwood twigs used for packing, as well as from "rogon" stakes driven into the gravel bottom behind the main connecting stringers of the dam. It is also clear that both the packing and the split sticks for the matting were rolled downhill amid ritual associations--the disks of packing being danced with before they were started downhill, the matting roll being magically lightened after it arrived at the bottom. What still is not clear mechanically is how the workers managed to roll a cart wheel or pancake of soft boughs downhill; or whether there has been a lapse in the de- scription or Englishing of the incident, so that the soft boughs as well as the split sticks perhaps were actually massed into more of a cylindrical than a disk shape. 7. The redwoods: A close rereading of informant B clears up the episode of bargaining with the redwood trees. These are believed to be the transformed original weir owners from Turip, who followed upriver when the dam was stolen from them, but, coming in sight of Kepel across the river, decided not to press the issue by fight- ing, but to turn themselves into redwoods and stay where they could thereafter see the dam being built, and to exact compensation for the dancing that would begin toward the end of the construction. That is why, late on the ninth day, the workers cross and go uphill and negoti- ate with the trees, offering an imitation obsidian blade, whereas the tree (presumably impersonated by someone behind it) insists on two or more blades and gets them. After that the workers go on up the hill and camp there for the night but leave a few of their number behind to impersonate the Turip owners next day, In the morning, when the workers come downhill again, they hear crying: one of the impersonators pretends to have lost his wife and will hold up all dancing until his grief has been assuaged. They offer him a blade, but he wants a woman also; and gets her, in the shape of a stone--and perhaps a spring, too, where women bathe, so he may peep at them. So "everything is settled; they have been paid twice, just like true headmen"--first, for their owner- ship of the dam stolen from Turip; second, as now "residents" of the area, for a death in the family. In- formant A as well as Waterman ran this double episode into a single one. This acting is ritualized drama, but it helps to clear up a special problem of construction materials. Redwood boughs may be particularly effective, as Waterman says, for stuffing into the bottom of the weir or pens. But mature redwoods are usually limbless for fifty or a hun- dred feet up, and the Yurok would have had no way of climbing them. Immature trees with low limbs are often wanting around isolated clumps, and none show in Water- man's plate 6, figure 2 (1920a). The Yurok may thus have been hard put to it to collect much redwood foliage for the dam pens, beyond what might come up each year or two in the shape of suckers from the roots or stumps. Hence it would seem likely that actually they gathered some redwood foliage as a token, and then took the bulk of what they needed for packing from yellow pines (B, p. 69) or Douglas firs (suggested in place of redwoods, A, p. 66). 8. Pens above or below weir: In view of both Curtis and Hewes reporting that the platforms on Hupa weirs, from which salmon were netted, were on the downstream side of the weir, it has seemed worth while to check Waterman's flat statement (p. 58) that at Kepel the pens were upstream. Informant A says (p. 64): "'They begin each salmon house by placing two posts upstream of the dam; from these, wings spread to the dam." 15 ANTHROPOLOGICAL RECORDS He says again (p. 65): "Each salmon house has two spreading posts [upstream of the dam], joined on top"; but the "upstream" is bracketed as an explanatory addi- tion by Kroeber--no doubt on the basis of page 64. Informant B (p. 70) says: "Each boy climbs to the upstream end of his pen and jumps in to pack brush." This is not wholly decisive, but were the pens attached on the downstream side of the weir, the boys could drop into them by just jumping off the main stringer of the dam, without climbing out to the far end of the pen. The passage is therefore probably confirmatory. A reference by informant B on page 71 is to the gate of the pen in the middle of the dam being made by the formulist in person. It throws no light one way or the other; except in so far as a gate implies a pen above it. The specific Yurok statements thus are all to the effect that pens were attached to the weir on its upper side, whereas the Hupa accounts speak of open bays and platforms on the lower side. This may be a character- istic difference. The Karok data are no help in the matter, because the only mention is by Gifford of a single platform in the middle of the dam, whereas Hewes denies platforms for the Karok altogether. It thus appears that the Yurok pens or salmon houses were not the same thing as the Hupa constructions. The Yurok emphasize enclosures for the fish; the Hupa, plat- forms for the fishermen with their dip nets. The Hupa platforms rested on one post set a few feet down from the weir, and under each was a line or wall of stones. Between the pens and lines of stones were bays in which the salmon were stopped by the weir. They could be taken on either side of the platform or from its lower end. Curtis (1924a, p. 15) says that several narrow open- ings were left in the Hupa weir, "and at each one a plat- form extends below the weir . . . The fisherman stands on his platform, lowers his net into the water, and draws it out at random." There obviously is no pen at all: the net takes its place. What is not clear, however, is how the salmon traveling upstream could enter the bag of a net which the current rushing through the gate would bag out distended downstreamward. The Curtis arrangement would seem to be feasible only for spent salmon drifting downstream. (Cf. our Chilula fig. 2.) 9. Sequential summary of the construction: Informant A included in his statement (pp. 65-66) a day-by-day ac- count which is not quite complete and therefore not altogether certain but seems reliable in outline. This runs as follows. Day 1. No construction work may be done until the formulist has set, near the north shore end of where the weir will stand, the stake wetspegar, "its ear," or "having ears," which is the first timber he cut from a small Douglas fir when he made his initial journey upriver (p. 64). Then the main vertical piles are driven in groups of twos or threes and lashed together (p. 65). Day 2. The slanting braces that shore or prop the vertical piles against the current are put in. Day 3. The rafters or stringers connecting the posts are laid and lashed. The three days the dam is "left open in the middle" may refer to these first days while the weir is only a skeleton. Day 4. The many small stakes, wa'ewoges--num- bering perhaps some hundreds--that constitute the body of the dam are driven behind the stringers--that is, with their tops supported against the current by the stringers. Day 5. Cutting laurel limbs called umesa. (Some long thin limbs are saved for the salmon pens later.) Day 6. Tying these on horizontally, under water, across the small stakes of day 4. Day 7. Frames of salmon pens made: two posts per pen, also two horizontal braces (p. 59) for their tops, and thin laurel limbs bent U-shape over fire, put horizontally around the pen posts to connect with the weir piles. Day 8. Not clear. Possibly the wa'ewoges small stakes were driven into the pen frames, if such were used there; there is no specific mention one way or the other. Day 9. The formulist makes the first salmon gate, the workers make the rest; the formulist inspe-cts under water, and may then converse secularly once more. (B, p. 71, puts this release on day 10.) A says "The next day from that, they will finish the dam. That evening" [viz., of the ninth day] they visit the redwood clump up the north side and bargain with the trees for the right to dance. "Then they go a distance up Kepel creek, make camp, and sleep there." Day 10. The limbs with foliage for stuffing against the weir bottom are danced with, then rolled down the hill. (The gratings of small sticks may have been rolled down previously, or perhaps they are rolled down now. The magical dragging of a huge roll bundle of these mats by the formulist is definitely put on this tenth day by B, p. 71.) A has both the grating rolls and the foliage twigs for packing ferried across the river or up to the dam in boats, while the workers and boys do a boat dance. Both gratings and packings are put in place; and this finishes construction (unless the pen gates are also added on this day). Everything further consists of ritual, dancing, and using the dam to take salmon. This account seems to us to make sense structurally and mechanically. The uprights are driven first, then th braces, then the stringers are laid, then the long line of small stakes set; only after that are the fish pens begun and worked at in the order of cutting their heavier tim- bers, setting them, securing the lighter materials, then putting these in place. It is also no doubt correct that each consecutive day had one main job; in that way con- fusing efforts were prevented. And the Yurok no doubt approved in principle the one-by-one linear or enumera tive order of events. The extrication of this sequence from the seeming jumble of accounts of A and B--and for that matter Waterman's as well--also raises a few new doubts, or queries. Were the hundreds of wa'ewoges stakes possi- bly used only in the weir proper (as mentioned for day 4 and not in the salmon pen frames? Conversely, were the grating mats perhaps restricted to the pens? Kroeb had always assumed that both weir and pen corrals had not only piles and stringers but stakes and twined mats too. Yet the fact that specific mentions of stakes relate to the weir body, and of mats to the pens, suggests that such limitation may not have been due to accidental omission of statements, but have conformed to a struc- tural reality. We are not in a position to make an un- qualified decision. Both of Kroeber's accounts from A and B were secured on the principle of giving a good old informant his head: telling him on what subject information was wanted, and then not interfering with his own develop- ment of it by questions or corrections. This method ha virtues of its own, and it gets data of certain qualities that can be secured in no other way. It is however un- 16 KROEBER AND BARRETT- FISHING IN NORTHWESTERN CALIFORNIA fortunate when coherent accounts obtained in this way are treated as ultimate. The ordered day-by-day outline just listed might just as well have been submitted to Amits and Mack for their verification and correction. This would have given further occasion for getting, also in order and without omissions, the name of each element that went into the weir, its size and shape and placement, and the kind of tree or vine requisite or preferred for it. And this procedure would unquestionably have brought into focus points of handling or process that now are left ambiguous. Informants with knowledge such as these two old men had no longer exist among the Yurok, unfortu- nately. We work today, however, with sharper methods. And sins of omission are most easily seen in retrospect. The second Yurok weir.--The only preserved de- scription of the second Yurok salmon weir, made in the Weitchpec district at Heyomu (or Lo'lego) is in the journal of George Gibbs, who was a member of the ex- ypedition of Col. Redick M'Kee, sent in 1850 to northern California to make Indian treaties or cessions. This iournal of Gibbs was published by H. R. Schoolcraft in *1860 in Volume 3 of his Archives, pages 99-177.6 The expedition had a pack train and, working north rfrom Hupa, made camp on October 8 in the ridge prairie ;at Bloody Camp, which has an elevation of 2,656 feet and lies 1.8 miles WSW of the confluence of the Trinity and "Klamath. They zigzagged down to the Klamath and ,crossed it by ferrying at or near what was long main- "tained and known as Martin's Ferry; then, on the north or east bank, they turned upriver, passed through Weitspus-Weitchpec opposite the confluence, and made camp again on October 9, less than two miles above Weitchpec, where they saw the weir at a village they called Hai-am-mu. We quote Gibbs's brief description of the weir (p. 146) 4because it is a concise and intelligible account that gives about all the specific information extant on this second Yurok dam, and which enables us to establish a dozen 1points about it; but our discussion would mean very little ito a reader who did not happen to have Schoolcraft's ,volumes of 1860 at hand. At this village there was a large fish-dam; a work exhibiting an extraordinary degree both of enterprise and skill. It crossed the entire river, here about seventy-five yards wide, elbowing up stream in the deepest part. It was built by first driving stout posts into the bed of the river, at a distance of some two feet apart, having a moderate slope, and supported L from below, at intervals of ten or twelve feet, by two braces; the one coming to the surface of the water, the other reaching to the string pieces. These last were heavy spars, about thirty feet in length, and were secured to each post by withes. The whole dam was faced with twigs, carefully peeled, and placed so close together as to prevent the fish from passing up. The top, at this stage of the water, was two or three feet above the surface. The labor of constructing this work must, with the few and insufficient tools of the Indians, have been immense. Slight scaffolds were 'built out below it, from which the fish are taken in * scoop-nets; they also employ drag-nets, or spear them, the spear having the barb movable, and fastened to the shaft with a string, in order to afford the salmon play. Similar dams to this exist on the Klamath, a few 6The "Archives of Aboriginal Knowledge," volumes 1-6, 1860, are a reprinting of Schoolcraft's "Historical and Statistical Information, etc.," volumes 1-6, 1851-57--both Philadelphia. miles below the forks, and about fifteen above this one; and there is another upon the Trinity, thirteen or four- teen miles from its mouth. They form a frequent cause of quarrel among the bands inhabiting different parts of the rivers. Some understanding, however, seems to exist as to opening portions of them at times, to allow the passage of fish for the supply of those above. The following significant points or inferences emerge from this Gibbs account. 1. Gibb's Hai-am-mu is Waterman's (1920a p. 258, no. 30) and our Heyomu town and creek, also called Lo'lego (Waterman, lo'-o-le' go) "[where] habitually they build a fishweir." The creek and a flat at the mouth are called Saint's Rest by Americans and on maps and are 1.4 miles air line upstream of Weitchpec post office. Waterman says the village site was hydraulicked away by miners; the weir was built in several slightly differ- ent spots from year to year, according to height of river and shift of current. The weir was last erected in 1868, forty-one years before Waterman's visit in 1909. Half a mile downriver, about a third of the way to Weitspus- Weitchpec, a small stream (either Muddy Cr. or the un- named creek above it) comes in, also on the north side, near the head of which, about a mile up, perhaps around "Lake Prairie," is a place called P6ikar-o-rew (no. 26 on map 25) meaning "stakes where cut" or "stakes their cutting," where stakes were got for the weir. (Peikar does not resemble any of the otherwise recorded words for weir materials.) The towns around Weitspus--above Wahsekw, to be specific--participated in erecting the Heyomu weir and in its catch, and therefore did not take part at Kepel except as visitors. 2. Gibbs made camp at Heyomu on October 9, 1850. Kroeber was told that the weir fell in the June-July moon. Gibbs not only saw the structure, but his account gives the impression that he saw it being used. The dates for all weirs are likely to have varied according to seasonal depth of water. 3. Gibbs estimated the Klamath as about 75 yds. wide at Heyomu. This is a little less than Kroeber's esti- mate of 75-85 yds. or about 250 ft. at Kepel; but at Heyomu the Klamath does not yet include the Trinity. The site was no doubt chosen in part for this reason; also because, at the larger settlement of Weitchpec, the river curves rather strongly in a sweeping bend and immedi- ately above is rocky. 4. The dam was V-shaped; "elbowing up stream in the deepest part." 5. "Stout posts"--not stakes--were driven into the river bed "some two feet apart." This agrees with Hewes's account for Hupa, below. 6. "At intervals of ten to twelve feet"--which would be presumably at or after each fifth post--"these [posts] were supported from below . . . by two braces." Of these, one, apparently with "moderate slope" like the two-foot-spaced posts, or more nearly vertical, reached up to the stringer. The other came up only to the top of the water; that is, it sloped more. These two would roughly correspond to the petsik-sume and pulik-sume of Kepel. The difference is that at Kepel there were pairs or tripods of petsik-sume for each pulik-sume brace. (Even Waterman has paired posts or tripods for his "falsework," though for the permanent dam he mentions "ten in all"--or one petsik-sume "heavy up- right" for each pulik-sume diagonal brace.) However, the Gibbs description differs in one detail 17 ANTHROPOLOGICAL RECORDS from all those of the Kepel weir. Each post that is braced at all has two braces or struts on the downstream side to shore it (and all that it supports) against the cur- rent. These two differed in length. The shorter, which would also have been set into the gravel bottom nearer the upright, met the upright at about the surface of the river. The longer, set farther off, reached to the string piece--in fact probably formed a crotch with the post which it supported, into which crotch the stringer was laid. This interpretation of the position of the two braces is not enforced by the Gibbs description but the position was probably simplest and perhaps was strongest. The lower brace might have been put in more toward the horizontal, the upper more toward the vertical, but they would then have had to cross instead of standing in a plane with the post, and it is hard to see what would have been gained. 7. There would be about eighteen 12-ft. intervals in a 75-yd.-wide weir or, if we add 40 per cent for its angling upstream and down again, twenty-five intervals. 8. The stringers were "heavy spars," no doubt coni- fers and probably Douglas fir, about 30 ft. long, withed in place. Thirty feet of length would have carried them to the second or third pair of braced supports beyond the one where they started. Ten such stringers, five in each wing, would about have spanned the river, if the V forma- tion was not too acute. 9. The entire dam "was faced with twigs, carefully peeled" and so close as to prevent the fish from passing. This agrees exactly with all the photographs of recent Hupa and Chilula weirs (a and d of pl. 1) even to the peeling. "Twigs" of course must be understood as slender conifer limbs, of sapling size, an inch or inch and a half in diameter. All the Kepel accounts were less interested in these than in the big timbers, the mat grat- ings, and the foliage for packing the bottom. These peeled "twigs" or sticks almost certainly formed the main surface of the weir at Kepel as elsewhere; they constitute Waterman's innumerable rogon stakes. 10. The top edge of the weir was probably formed mainly by the upper ends of the peeled sticks, which would have had more strength if they projected some- what above the stringers that held them. The top was two to three feet above the surface at the stage of water seen by Gibbs. 11. "Slight scaffolds were built out below" the weir, from which salmon were taken in dip nets, plunge nets, or by harpoon with toggle. Since the downstream posi- tion of the Heyomu scaffolds agrees with almost all non- Yurok data here assembled, it would establish a possi- bility that the other Yurok weir at Kepel was not a unique exception, but that Waterman and Kroeber after all mis- understood their informants' explicit statement as to the upstream position of the fish-taking constructions there-- if it were not for the fact that these are described as pens, corrals, or houses, plus the corroboration afforded by the Patwin dams. 12. Gibbs tells of similar dams "a few miles below" Weitchpec (at Kepel, some 10 mi., but he did not go down to it); "about fifteen" miles above this one (this would be Orleans, probably); and another, 13 or 14 miles up the Trinity in Hupa, most likely the one at Medilding that year. These identifications are cited to establish that in spite of the early date--only a year after the first re- corded irruption of miners--Gibbs was able to communi- cate adequately with the Indians and that he was inter- ested in having his information accurate. This ends the interpretation of the Heyomu weir. Hewes's informant, Weitchpec Ned, said that the Lo'lego weir was built in years when there was none put up at Kepel; which seems only common sense, since there would have been little run of fish while Kepel was functioning, and a different season could hardly have been chosen because the size of the Klamath would limit con- struction to the low-water period at the end of summer. HUPA WEIRS Hewes (F.N., 1940) records details on the Hupa weirs. Originally the weir was said to have been built each year at Takimi4ding, a short distance upstream from where Hostler Creek enters the Trinity. When the headman's age made it impossible for him to supervise the building, he "loaned" his authority to Medilding. Thereafter they constructed the weir in alternate years at the two places, which are, as a matter of fact, only two or three miles apart, but were the respective metropolises of the lower and upper halves or "divisions" (Goddard) of the valley. The weir was not built until the depth of the water was right. A man waded out into the stream and, if the water did not come above his armpits (about 4 ft.), it was deemed proper to start construction. There were certain formalities but no such elaborate ceremonial procedure as at Kepel. In the early morning, before taking any food, the "leader," assisted by a "formulist,"7 cut a pole four or five inches in diameter and about fifteen feet in length. This pole was brought to the river and tethered to a stone by means of a "hazel withe," and allowed to float in the current for five days. From this first morning on the leader might drink no water for ten days, purified himself by sweating in the sweathouse, and observed other restrictions not detailed. On the fifth day all the men who were to participate in building the dam (there might be as many as a hundred) assembled and brought poles and other materials. The poles were usually fifteen to sixteen feet in length, and each was later cut in half to make two posts of proper length to form a crotch. However, the pole which had been floating in the river was first cut in half and the resultant two posts formed the first of the crotches, driven at the point which had been selected as the center or apex of the V-shaped weir.8 The driving was done with a heavy flat stone, wielded from a canoe9 (in later times the white man's sledge made it easier). This work was laborious and required, it was said, about half a day to drive a pair of these post for a crotch. They were slanted so as to give the upper side of the weir a slope and so brace it against the cur- rent. The subsequent crotches, each securely bound at the point of crossing, were spaced about eight feet apart in the V-shaped line across the river. 7This "leader" and assistant "formulist" evidently correspond to the "formulist" and "assistant" of the Waterman-Kroeber account at Kepel. Note also that the first ritual act is the cutting of a key pole five days ahead. 8While Hewes's account does not explicitly say so, mechanical reasons make it probable that each length of post was driven in separately and that they were tied together only after they were in place. It would seem almost impossible to drive into gravel a spreading crotch. The V-shape of this weir is not substantiated by extant photographs of other weirs, but these were taken 50 years after wholly native times. 9This seems more likely than Waterman's statement that the wielder of the maul stone rode the post while pounding it. 18 KROEBER AND BARRETT: FISHING IN NORTHWESTERN CALIFORNIA ..,. ,, ,. . .. *: ..**,* - . . ' 2 . Fig. 1. Weir construction. Hupa. After Hewes (F.N., 1940). All this post driving and crotch binding was done under the direction of the leader, who gave a verbal signal when each blow was to be struck. Meantime an assistant sighted along the crotches to see that they lined up prop- erly, and that each pair crossed so the crotches would form a fairly level line. Our figure 1, based on Hewes's account, shows on the right the construction of this framework; on the left the construction of the completed weir. Into the crotches the two or more heavy poles form- ing the walkway on top of the weir were dropped as the work progressed. These top poles also held the tops of the smaller (3 to 4 in. diam.) intervening posts, which were placed at relatively frequent intervals between the crotches. 10 Next, horizontal poles, usually of oak, of perhaps inch to inch and a half diameters, were securely bound to the upright posts. Workers had to dive to tie the lower ones. iThe binding material was wild grapevine which was heated in embers to make it pliable. Next, a kind of slat matting was woven in sections iabout four and one-half feet wide and of any length up to tas much as thirty or forty feet. This was woven on the ground ashore and was rolled for transportation. The slats were simply secured by three lengthwise courses of twining. The mats were then unrolled on the upstream face of the weir and made it quite fish-tight.11 Usually two or three of these mats were enough to reach from the apex to the shore. They required no bind- ing to the frame since the pressure of the current was quite sufficient to hold them in place. Finally boughs of any available kind (fir, alder, or willow) were placed along the bottom edge of the weir and weighted down with stones. These boughs effectively sealed the bottom against the passage of any fish, and against the " digging" effect of the current. On the downstream side of the weir were constructed short platforms of wooden slabs or planks, one end rest- ing upon the walkway atop the weir,12 the other end on a post driven a few feet downstream. The space beneath such a platform was occupied by a line of stones resting onabase of boughs to prevent the water from "digging" lOSee fig. 1. These smaller posts (but bigger than stakes) which inter- vened between the crotched and braced main posts at intervals of two or threefeet are mentioned in Gibbs's account of the second Yurok weir but not for the Kepel dam. llThe Hewes description of these mats agrees closely with the Kepel account. 12Hewes's field notes indicate that this plank was, at least sometimes, rested upon a stringer below the walkway, as is shown in our fig. 1. A modernized platform is shown in pl. 1, d. away the sand. Such a line of stones was said to reach well up toward the surface of the water. The first platform was built at the apex of the weir, another at each alternate crotch. In other words these platforms were spaced about sixteen feet apart, and with their lines of rocks they divided the weir into a series of bays, each nearly sixteen feet wide. The platform in the center was the most important and advantageous. Not only did the fish tend, on account of the angular form of the weir, to work toward this apex, but the fishermen who occupied this platform had availa- ble to them a bay on either side of the platform.13 This central platform was definitely reserved for the use of certain families who had legendary right to it. All the other platforms on the weir were open to any- one who had participated in its construction, and to those whom they might invite to fish there. If a visitor came along he was given fish outright, provided there was an abundance already caught. If not, he was loaned fishing equipment and invited to use one of the platforms. The fishing was usually done off the downstream end of the platform. Two types of dip net were used. One was a fair-sized landing net mounted on an A-frame. It had two mooring lines running back to the weir in order to hold it in place. The second type of net used was the regular plunge net. Since most fishing was done at night, a small fire was kept burning ashore near either end of the weir, where the fishermen could warm themselves from time to time. Women were never permitted to participate in any way in fishing or in building weirs. 14 In fact, no woman was permitted to cross the river on the weir, though men always did so. A woman must cross the river in a canoe. Among his illustrations, Hewes (Th., 1947, fig. 7) shows a drawing of a photograph of a Hupa weir, and states that with this weir "A-frame dip-nets are used from platforms on the downstream side." Hewes's information is corroborated in a general way by Curtis (1924a, p. 18), who makes the Hupa weir erec- tion a "pseudo-religious event," and has everyone bring at least a few sticks so as to share in the catch.15 He 13This would actually be true of each of the other platforms, but the informant mentioned this as the point of advantage. Though he did not specifically so state, we may assume that regulations restricted the users of other platforms to a single bay each. 14With the Yurok also. A woman might not cross the Kepel weir, and she must not look 'at its construction. 15Curtis first uses the term "stakes" to correspond to the "posts" or "piles" of Hewes, Waterman, and ourselves, but later applies it to timbers. 19 ANTHROPOLOGICAL RECORDS mentions fishing platforms on the lower side of the weir, but does not specify whether the structure ran straight across the river or was V-shaped. Two views of a very simple Hupa weir are shown by Kroeber and Gifford (1949) in plate 2, e and f. Our plate 1, a, b shows other views of this weir, and 1, c shows another Hupa weir. KAROK WEIRS One of Gifford's Karok informants, Mary Ike, after whose husband Ike's Fall is named, stated (F.N., 1939- 42) that weirs were built in lower Karok territory at four spots in the Klamath itself and at two in the Salmon River. In order down the main river these six locations, with names added from Kroeber, 1936, were: 1. Above the mouth of Irving Creek "below the Sancho mine." (The Irving school is between 9 and 10 mi. upriver from the mouth of the Salmon.) (Map 1, Kl.) 2. On lower Salmon River, below the bridge at Somes Bar. (Probably Shakiripak or Shihtiri, a frac- tion of a mile from the Klamath.) (Map 1, K2.) 3. At Oak Bottom Flat. (This is Vunharuk, some- thing over a mile above Somes Bar, about two and a half miles up from the mouth of the Salmon, and about a mile below where Wooley Cr. flows into it.) (Map 1, K3.) 4. Back on the Klamath, at Orleans (Panamnik, something over seven miles below the mouth of the Salmon). (Map 1, K4.) 5. At Tuyuvuk, Ullathorn Creek and Bar (not quite 3 mi. below Orleans). (Map 1, K5.) 6. At Wupam, (Red Cap, about 4 mi. below the last; it was the most downriver of Karok towns). (Map 1, K6.) The total stretch involved is nearly 25 river miles. A weir was built, in any one year, at only one of these six sites.16 Georgia Orcutt made an independent statement about Karok weirs. She named: A. Aftaram, at Stanshaw Creek. B. Afsuf, the creek next below Camp Creek, on the same side. C. At Forks of Salmon (exact location uncertain). Stanshaw Creek comes into the Klamath only about half a mile above Irving Creek. Since the weir was above the latter, evidently only one site is intended by the informants: 1 = A. Aftaram was a settlement of importance. The creek next below Camp Creek is Crawford Creek, which is only a fraction of a mile from Ullathorn. In fact, the three creeks converge so that their mouths are all within 0.7 mi., according to topographic map. There can thus be no reasonable doubt that Afsuf is part of Tuyuvuk or another name for it, and that 5 = B. As for C, Forks of Salmon was not Karok territory at all, at least not until the Konomihu had been wiped out by the 1860's, and it may be assumed that "Forks of Salmon" 16What is not clear about this statement is why weirs across the Salmon should be equated with those across the Klamath, when the flow of the former, and the presumable quantity of salmon taken, was only a fraction of that in the main stream. either was a loose statement for "somewhere up the Salmon" or refers to the postcontact period when Karok had moved into the old Konomihu territory. (This weir is indicated on map 1 by our crossed circle symbol at Forks of Salmon.) There is therefore no essential disagreement betweei the two lists, except as regards completeness. The only known statement by an American, however, as to any of these dams, is that of Gibbs in 1850, who refers to one seen by him near Orleans,17 similar to the one seen at Yurok Heyomu and "in every respect its equal. " It is curious that while we have these accounts of weirs at several sites in the lower twenty-five miles of Karok territory on the Klamath, we do not have a single reference to any weir in the upper thirty miles from Stanshaw Creek to Happy Camp. Gifford's notes state further that weir building amoni the Karok was attended by a certain amount of ceremo- nial procedure, though not as elaborate as that at Kepel among the Yurok. The weir at Afsuf was made only afte completion of the Amaikiara Jumping Dance on a ridge near Orleans in the month of July, the formulist for the weir remaining for four days in the sweathouse at Panarr.nik. If the weir was built at Wupam (Red Cap), the formulist stayed in the sweathouse there for five days. These two dams were said to be rather ceremonia and differed therein from those at other points in Karok territory, which were built without formality. Yet, even with these two weirs at Afsuf and Wupam no major dances followed their construction; though it was custom ary to hold a girl's puberty dance shortly after construe tion of any of the weirs. After the completion of a weir the people camped thei (usually during July and August) and busied themselves with curing the supply of salmon for next winter. The actual construction of a weir involved considera ble labor, according to Gifford. Heavy stakes of fir wer first driven with cobblestone mauls into the river bed at frequent intervals and then crossed. (Two-foot intervat were mentioned by one informant, though this seems close.) Where needed for further strength, stones were piled around the bases of these stakes. Where these pairs of stakes crossed they were lashed securely to- gether, and into the notches thus produced a pair of horizontal poles was placed which served as a walkway for the fishermen. Sometimes, even, other stakes were added specially to support the walk. Only one informant mentioned that out near the miOdle of the weir this walk way was expanded to form a platform large enough to accommodate two fishermen with their nets. Next, smaller poles were lashed together or woven into a kind of matting which was then placed on the up- stream side of the crossed stakes so as to close the spaces between them, and to fill completely the width of the river. When the weir was not actually in use some of these mats or gratings were removed so that the fish could pass on upstream. A landing net was used on the downstream side of the weir, the fisherman standing on the walkway or the plat form. While informants are not in entire agreement, it 17This may have been no. 5 near Ullathorn rather than no. 4 at Orlean Gibbs implies that they reached Orleans Bar after "crossing another branch [tributaryl of some size, the Ocketoh, at the mouth of which 'wa the dam.'" The large affluent would be Camp Creek. The name is not decisive because the expedition was now traveling in Karok territory with Yurok guides. Oketo means "lake" in Yurok, and may refer to a widening in the Klamath. 20 KROEBER AND BARRETT: FISHING IN NORTHWESTERN CALIFORNIA seems probable that the harpoon may at times have been used from these same vantage points. To facilitate the building of these weirs, much of the work was actually done on shore by making what may be termed large mats of withes which could be rolled onto the upriver side of the framework. Withes of suitable lengths were laid parallel one to another and these were held by courses (usually 3) of twining with willow bark. Comparably, Driver (1939, p. 378) specifies for the Wiyot that the weir was "made of split redwood slats bound together [twined?] with willow bark. It could be rolled up and carried to the site where the weir was being constructed." Curtis (1924a, pp. 74, 75) also describes a Wiyot weir "made with close-set redwood saplings, which were held together by means of three courses of willow-bark twined-work." And a Hupa weir with platforms on the downriver side is shown by Hewes (Th., 1947) in his figure 7. In a Karok myth (Kroeber, G2d) collected in 1902, Shammai is said to have created some of the essentials of fishing. He first made a fishing platform of long poles, bruised grapevine to lash them together, and set on them a plank and a stool. He then added a screen of brush in the water, moved it nearer shore, and finally replaced it by an "even" [flat] screen of sticks tied together. This, probably, refers to a guide fence leading to the net under a platform. Another reference in a Karok myth from Kroeber recites that A'u'ich peak (Sugarloaf Mt.) at Ka'timin created salmon and that when they came upriver full grown, he made the lifting net, the scoop net, and the scaffold staging. It seems that among the Karok the weir had become a rather simple type of barrier (little more than a guide fence) running straight across the river. Hewes (F.N., 1940) gives for this type of weir the Karok name isiya, anddetails its construction as follows: Select two posts of proper length, according to the depth of water, and bind these with hazel withes to form an A-shaped crotch. [It is difficult to see how a crotch could be driven into thebottom.] Plant [i.e., set] this ready-formed crotch out in the stream at a distance so that a log running from the shore will rest in it. Place successive ready-made crotches and connecting logs in this way completely across the stream, perhaps 200 ft. The logs may be 6 or8 in. in diameter and as much as 15 or 20 ft. in length. Next, brace, with additional posts and some stones if needed, the anchor crotches at the ends of the weir. Then, on a line a foot or so above the river bottom, bind a set of longitudinal poles to the upriver posts of these crotches. Then, on shore, make mats by weaving thr ee lines of twining to hold slats of split fir 5 feet or so long, each mat several feet wide. These were placed on the upriver side of the weir and were held in place by the force of the current: no stones Were needed. If rocks on theriver bottom interfered with the setting of the lower' edges of the slats, the rocks were rolled away so that the ends of the slats could be firmly worked down into the sand and gravel. The building of such a weir required a couple of weeks' time, according to Hewes, including the gathering and peeling of the poles and logs. It was a matter of the mmunal effort of those who wished to participate, and Was not attended by any special ceremonial procedure. Anyone was privileged to fish from this dam, regardless whether he had specially concerned himself with its construction. In this weir no special platfor ms were used by the fishermen. A group of perhaps three or four men would take out a canoe and moor it to one of the crossed sup- ports of the weir. Then each fisherman, armed with a plunge net and a fish club, would stand on the top log of the weir. As he caught a fish in his plunge net, the fish- erman would club his fish and throw it into the canoe. Several such groups, each with its own canoe, might operate simultaneously from the top of the weir. This fishing was done usually for a couple of hours late in the afternoon and for a similar period early in the morning. No night fishing was attempted. In fact, one informant insisted that formerly night fishing was not necessary. Now, since the introduction of the more visible white twine of commerce for net making, night fishing has be- come prevalent. This weir was usually left in until it was torn out by the high water in early winter, though toward the end of the run some part of the weir might be breached, thus permitting at least some of the fish to ascend. At such a weir plenty of fish were caught for a winter's supply for hundreds of people. The families camped near by and here the women busied themselves with preparing and drying the fish for winter storage. They gathered all the wood and performed all tasks re- lating to this drying and storage. Women, however, must not go near the weir, and under no circumstances could a woman cross the river on a weir. Not only would it ruin the luck of the fisher- men, but the woman's life would be curtailed. CHILULA WEIRS Some information is at hand from the Chilula. The main stream in their territory, Redwood Creek, is small as compared with the Klamath or even Trinity, and their dams were quite simple. Hewes (F.N., 1940) describes a barrier of brush thrown across a stream late in the season, particularly to catch the steelheads as they came back downstream after spawning. They were too emaci- ated for drying but were still serviceable for immediate use fresh. In the middle of this temporary dam was an opening about three feet in width. At this opening, and on the upstream side of the dam, a small platform of redwood bark slabs provided a station from which to wield the dip net. A bed of sand on the platform provided a hearth upon which a small fire was kept burning for warmth during the chilly night hours. This hearth is illustrated in our figure 2. Fig. 2. Barrier of brush. Dip net used from platform. Chilula. After Hewes (F.N., 1940). 2 1 I ------ ANTHROPOLOGICAL RECORDS This barrier had no posts or braces and was of such a temporary nature that it was not expected to last more than a week. It could be built by anyone and without ceremony. The informant said that even women might fish here. Hewes also describes another weir made by the Chilula, which was particularly employed in taking lampreys. At some point on a small stream, perhaps 20 ft. wide, where the water was 3 to 5 ft. deep, heavy posts were driven vertically into the stream bed at about 6-ft. intervals. Braces were set and bound on either side of each of these posts, the upstream brace forming in each instance a crotch in which the horizontal top log rested. Along the bases of the upstream braces ran a lighter horizontal pole. Next a matting, woven of split sections of poles, was rolled out on the upriver side of this frame- work, and finally leafy boughs weighted with stones were placed along the bottom of the weir. Out near the middle of the dam, and on the downstream side, were usually placed two small platforms from which the eel nets were manipulated. For each platform a vertical post was driven out in the stream a few feet from the weir. A slab of redwood bark ran from the post over to the weir, and horizontal poles made a separating fence for each platform. A rock or stool served as a seat. Here the fisherman manipulated a small, close-meshed lifting net [sic] mounted on an A-frame, provided with a simplified signal device. This structure is shown in our figure 3. Since lampreys travel almost entirely at night, this dam was used only then. The fishermen took turns using it, two men at a time. Little ceremony and few restrictions marked the building of such a dam. The headman devoted himself to prayer during the days the dam was being constructed. However, during the first five days of the life of this dam the lampreys caught must be cooked and eaten on the adjacent stream bank. If it was deemed necessary to dry some, the drying must be done at home or at least well away from the dam. After these first five restricted days lampreys could be dried anywhere. One Chilula informant stated that on the section of Redwood Creek occupied by his people there were never more than two or three weirs. Such a weir backed up the water so that the level above the dam was from one to two feet higher than that on the downstream side. WIYOT WEIRS The Wiyot territory lies along the coast line where the tides affect the streams and where bays and inlets prevail. Both straight and V-shaped weirs were present but, as would be expected, they were of simpler con- struction. The building of a weir by the Wiyot was governed by the depth of the water in the stream. Hewes says that a depth of four feet was preferred, and such weirs were usually constructed in late spring or early summer, depending upon weather conditions. Another type of weir (fig. 4) (Hewes, Th., 1947, fig. 5) was set in deeper water (7-8 ft.) in the middle of a stream or tidal slough, which might be as much as 60 ft. in width. It consisted of two wings, sharply converging downstream, with an opening at the center where an A- frame net was set (Hewes, F.N., 1940; Th., 1947). At high tide such a device might be completely submerged. It was used primarily for King salmon which were car- ried down along with the ebbing tide into the net. It must be watched carefully by a man in a canoe, which was stationed just below the trap, not only to prevent the escape of the fish, but because a seal might go into the net after the fish. This not only lost the catch but tore the net. This is considered a dangerous method of fish- ing, for in a swiftly running ebb one might easily be pulled overboard when manipulating the net. Cases of drownings are known. When Hewes mentions A-frame dip nets similar to those manipulated from scaffolds, he refers not to the large lifting net, which is the type used from scaffolds along the banks of rivers at eddies, but rather to the smaller A-frame net which we are designating as the "landing net." Curtis (1924a, pp. 74, 75) is evidently speaking of this same weir type, but his mention of the use of a signal or trigger device by a fisherman on a platform seems to be in error in this instance. It is much more likely that Hewes is correct in stating that the fisher- man operated the landing net, which he probably did froi a canoe. Curtis (1924a, p. 75) also describes two Wiyot weirs which were somewhat similar to this one. Both were V- shaped with their angles pointing downstream. [Note thai the V pointed downstream when the weir was intended for descending fish.] With one a net was operated from a platform; with the other the fish were caught in a 4I Fig. 3. Weir for catching lampreys. Chilula. After Hewes (F.N., 1940). Fig. 4. Weir for taking King salmon. Wiyot. After Hewes (F.N., 1940, and Th., 1947, fig. 5). 22 KROEBER AND BARRETT: FISHING IN NORTHWESTERN CALIFORNIA k'slender, conical basket.'' The middle of this basket as raised above water level, its pointed end being bent own again into the water and covered with brush to keep e sunlight off the catch. Curtis mentions for the Hupa a similar trough trap ith brush-covered end. (See fig. 28.) Still another weir (Hewes, Th., 1947, fig. 6), and a ther elaborate one, which Hewes attributes to the 'yot, is shown in our figure 5. It is designed for the lng of steelheads and lampreys. It extends all the way ross the stream and consists of several impounding ys, each of which terminates in a basketry trap and ach of which has, at its side and downstream, a platform om which a fisherman can remove the catch. Hewes s not state just how the fish are removed and we may esume that this is done with a dip net. This may be ilar to the weir with compartments described by rtis (1924a, p. 98) for the Tolowa. It is for steelheads urning downstream. Some fish are removed with a f. It had several short perpendicular wings projecting wnstream, each with a platform from which a net was rated; also with impounding enclosures on the upper de of the weir where fish would be entrapped. COAST YUROK WEIRS All our data are from Hewes. A device (fig. 6), illus- ated by Hewes (Th., 1947, fig. 8), a Coast Yurok trap or use in small creeks, is so constructed that the im- unding portion of the device is even larger than the rt which blocks the progress of the fish. Coast Yurok informants told Hewes that in Little iver, the only salmon stream in the vicinity of Trinidad, fairly small stream, the rather swift flow travels in a latively narrow channel, producing a condition at one *t which allowed an interesting type of weir that might termed a triangular corral or pen. The mouth of Little River does not close with a bar, forms certain riffles where at high water fish can be n with the single-pointed toggle harpoon. The people I. // /8/s/ 40 .1~~~ Fig. 5. Weir with impounding bays and traps. Wiyot. After Hewes (F.N., 1940, and Th., 1947, fig. 6). of Trinidad fished the lower three or four miles of Little River, as well as its mouth, but the special type of tri- angular corral was put in at the first rapids on Little River, near Crenell Mill, a mile upstream from High- way 101. Half-a-dozen men would team up in building the corral when the water level had fallen to two feet in midstream. The apex of the triangle pointed upstream, and the third side stretched across the stream from shallow water to shallow water, with an opening in the middle by which fish entered. The sides of the corral (about 3-1/2 ft. in height) were built of horizontal poles or logs, spaced about four inches apart and bound securely by hazel withes between pairs of upright stakes driven into the river bottom, much like one type of our rail fence. The fish were removed from this pen by gaffing--not by harpoons or dip nets. Often the fisherman simply stood in the water beside the opening and gaffed the fish as they entered, or he climbed into the pen, hooking one fish after another with a long-handled, five-foot gaff and clubbing each before throwing it onto the bank. The informant insisted that both the shape and the horizontally laid face of this kind of weir were peculiar to the special conditions at this one spot on Little River. Hewes (F.N., 1940) describes a relatively small Coast Yurok dam, called 16gen like the river weirs, built on Prairie Creek at a place called tseser. It was erected without ceremony, ran straight across the stream, and had no woven mats. The creek here was about four feet deep and twenty wide. About ten stakes were driven in a straight line across the, stream. To these a log, a foot or so in diameter, was fastened. Against the upstream side of this log, stakes were leaned, and a few rocks were placed along the bottom for strength. No woven stake mats and no leafy brush were added. The plunge net was used from the top of this dam, or from the two or three five-foot stagings built on the downstream side. Also the double-pointed harpoon was used here for both salmon and steelhead. This dam was left in Prairie Creek until washed away by high water. Hewes (F.N., 1940) reports another very simple type of weir, called witcepurh, used by the Coast Yurok in small creeks to catch salmon returning downstream to get into the river. A few posts were driven into the l l [ ;( I l It 1 f1 1 \ I I Fig. 6. Triangular corral used in small creeks. Coastal Yurok. After Hewes (F.N., 1940, and Th., 1947, fig. 8). V: 23 I 24 ANTHROPOLOGICX Fig. 7. Small weir, with bag net trap, used in creeks. Coastal Yurok. After Hewes (F.N., 1940). creek bed and brush was piled against these to form two short converging wings pointing downstream. In the opening at the angle of these wings a cylindrical net, about four feet in depth, was fastened to the side posts. No hoop was needed [sic]. The salmon were clubbed in the net and removed by hand. Trout were also some- times caught in this same net. This device is shown in our figure 7. TOLOWA WEIRS The Tolowa adjoined the Coastal Yurok on the north, but were Athabascans. In Smith River they had a good-sized river, much Fig. 8. Double weir and trap. Tolowa. After Hewes (F.N., 1940, and Th., 1947, fig. 9). AL RECORDS smaller than the Klamath, but carrying salmon abun- dantly. In volume toward its mouth it was probably intermediate between the Trinity and the Salmon rivers. Hewes's data are not only excellent for the Tolowa, but, except for Drucker's, they are almost the only ones. A device (fig. 8) which Hewes briefly describes and illustrates in his thesis (Th., 1947, fig. 9), but which he details much more fully in his field notes, was made by the Tolowa, a sort of double barrage which he says was employed for taking "spring salmon." It was a slanting, double fence, placed at a point where the water was not over three feet deep. [One informant said that these fences were parallel and gave nilime-tces4tiM (river fence) as the name of the device.] The lower fence, protruding about a foot above water, was made of posts some three inches in diameter, set two to three inches apart. The fish easily jumped over this but hesitated to try jumping back (probably because of the cramped quarters). The second fence, about three and one-half feet up- stream, "the length of good-sized Chinook salmon" (according to one informant), was built of much smaller stakes (an inch or so in diameter), even some split stake being used. Intertwined among these were pliable hazel withes. To withstand the water pressure against this fairly tightly woven fence it was bound to heavy upright posts set into the stream bottom and then reinforced with rocks. The posts were set about two feet apart and rose about two feet above water, but the woven fence extended on up another two feet, thus bringing the top of the whole structure a good four feet above water level. This height insured against fish trying to jump the upper fence. At the downstream end of this double barrage was placed a woven basketry trap, as much as fourteen feet long. One informant said that it was cylindrical. It was so placed that its mouth was under water, while its rear half [sic] protruded out of the water. By the time a fish had worked down to the end he found himself helpless in the dry part of the basket. Such a pair of parallel dams might be as much as a hundred feet in length, depending upon the width of the stream and the sharpness of its downstream trend, and it required the work of quite a number of men to build this rather intricate device. When fish were seen between the fences, a fisherman waded in at the upper end and drove them down into the basketry trap. When the water was very low, one could see the dorsal fins and the tails protruding above the water. No dip net was used with this device. No gates were built into these fences. If it was deemed advisable to let some of the fish go on upriver, some of the stakes in the upper fence were simply removed. This same type of weir appears in Driver's (1939, pp. 312, 378) element 193, which he lists for the Tolowa only Hewes records another type of Tolowa dam, called naa'tina, built usually by one man, a small weir placed straight across a small stream. A double row of stakes had brush placed between them and a special type of 7- ft.-long, cylindrical net was set between two stakes at an opening in the weir. The mouth of the net was some thirty inches in diameter, was held open by means of a hazel hoop, and was faced upstream, its bag, of course, pointing downstream with the current. To a point a couple of feet back from its closed end was fastened a signal cord, which ran over to a stake planted on shore. On this cord was hund a crab-claw rattle. As the fish pushed at the end of the net in his efforts to get through, he rattled the crab claws and gave the alarm to the KROEBER AND BARRETT: FISHING IN NORTHWESTERN CALIFORNIA I~ Fig. 9. Cylindrical net trap, used in weir. Tolowa. After Hewes (F.N., 1940). fisherman on shore. (See fig. 9.) Unless there was a dam immediately above to turn ascending salmon back, this device would have taken only spent salmon or descending steelhead. At a point near the mouth of the net another cord was so rigged onto the net that it served as a means of closing it. Then the net was lifted enough so that the fish could be clubbed and grasped by the tail; the hazel hoop of the net was then lifted and the fish dumped out of the net onto the shore. The mesh of this net was only a little larger than that of the surf net. It was used only at night so that the fish could not see the net. This type of net caught not only salmon and steelhead, but also, at times, land otter (naga'tfin). Another type of double weir, called ustcidi'la (fig. 10), accredited by Hewes (F.N., 1940) to the Tolowa and to the Chetco of Chetco River north of Smith River, con- sists of an upper fence, called us, made of posts about 3 in. in diameter which are driven into the stream bed at 4-ft. intervals and on a line running diagonally from bank to bank. The spaces between these posts are filled In with smaller stakes so as to make a fish-proof fence. Ata distance of about 12 ft. below this fence is located the apex of a V-shaped guide fence of small stakes and brush leaving a passage around one end so that the ascending salmon may find their way around it and into the space between the two fences. At the angle of this lower guide fence, which is quite near one bank of the stream, is a long cylindrical basketry trap. Into this trap the fish eventually find their way, if not voluntarily, then when frightened by the fishermen. This tubular trap, called nagete, sometimes as much as fourteen feet in length, is so narrow that a fish cannot turn around. Escape is impossible. The Tolowa also had another type of dam across the stream for steelhead and salmon coming downstream in the fall after spawning. In the apex of this fence there was set, in midriver, an open-topped wicker trough [or perhaps a split canoe?], 10 to 12 ft. long, and 3 ft. wide. Sticks were placed under the lower end of this trough so as to bring it up out of the water. If there was deep water above the dam, a net was stretched across (2 or 3 nets together if necessary) and this net was hauled down- stream with canoes to bring the fish down to the fence. In place of the trough-shaped trap, a cylindrical basketry trap sometimes was equally effective. Still another device attributed to the Tolowa is one called negete [really the name of the platform itself, cf. the name of the last-mentioned one], which consists of a V-shaped fence (pointing upstream) with a platform of hazel withes built just downstream at the opening of the fence. This fence is called na'tiai, and was usually built by older men in late summer. It is quite similar to a Chilula weir with platform, shown in our figure 2. The informant did not detail the exact method of fishing used here but it is presumably dip-netting, for he did specify that younger men preferred spearing. This device was used on any large riffle where the water was one to two feet deep. The informant mentioned particularly a place, militcuntun (see below, Drucker), on Smith River, and said that this platform-fence was used at other points upstream where similar conditions prevailed. It was not used in smaller streams, such as Mill Creek. Hewes (F.N., 1940) also learned from the Tolowa of a special type of lamprey weir, called tatcesha ta.crul. Choosing a spot on a riffle up Smith River where the water was about two feet deep, they set a dam or line of cobblestones across the stream. An opening about 5 ft. wide was left in this rock barrier. On its upstream side two fences of stakes and brush were constructed, each 9 or 10 ft. in length. The floor of this "chute" was covered with white pebbles in order to make the prey Fig. 10. Double weir with tubular basketry trap. Tolowa, Chetco. After Hewes (F.N., 1940). 25 ANTHROPOLOGICAL RECORDS Fig. 11. Lamprey gaffing chute, with white pebble floor. Tolowa. After Hewes (F.N., 1940). more easily visible. (See fig. 11.) The fisherman stood either on a platform built at one side of the chute or in his canoe beside the chute. In one hand he held a pitch torch to illuminate the chute. With the other he wielded the gaff. This lamprey fishing was always done at night and usually in July and August. This was the only instance known to the informant of such use of white pebbles by the Tolowa, though the same fence device wit white stones was observed by him among the Chetco in Oregon. Drucker (1937, p. 232) says that "when the fall salmo entered [Smith] river, in late summer, the people camp at the communal weir at Munsontun, or at individually owned places, to catch and dry the winter's supply." The communal weir (uss tciu'), was built at Munsontun and/or Militcuntun, with its angle pointing downstream. Here was set a trough-shaped basketry trap. Fish were then driven downstream into the trap by shouting, splash ing, and throwing of stones, including heated ones. Small weirs were built diagonally across small streams, with a conical net in a hoop at the lower end. One man tended the net at night, being wakened by crab claws on a stick rattling when a fish entered the net. Drucker's name for this, na'ti:a, "standing up" (viz., th rattle stick) corresponds to Hewes's na'atina. Drucker's maps 2 and 3 show Munsontun as perhaps one and a half miles above Rowdy Creek mouth, and Militcuntun about three miles farther up Smith River, more or less abreast of the north part of Lake Earl and perhaps six or eight miles below where the North and South Forks of Smith River join. On our weir plat (map 1) we have entered the two weirs as Ti and T2. FIXED WEIRS: MARGINAL OR PERIPHERAL NORTHWEST AREA MATTOLE AND BEAR RIVER WEIRS Hewes (F.N., 1940) says that the Mattole fish weir, called taySts' i, was, as the informant put it, "built of rocks and sticks," usually at some place where the water was about knee-deep. Large rocks were placed in a line across the stream; then stakes eighteen inches or so apart were set slant4xg somewhat downstream, behind the rocks and supported by them. Finally brush was placed on the upstream side of the stakes to make the weir relatively tight. "No logs were placed on top." Three or four gaps were left for the fish to pass through. At each of these gaps and on the downstream side of the weir rocks were so placed as to support a small plat- form of poles. Each was about three and a half feet wide. Upon the platform the fisherman stood to do his harpoon- ing. Such a weir was the work of a single day for half a dozen men, or even a smaller number. A fire was kept burning on shore for warmth, but no fires were burned on the platforms. In fact such a fire, according to informants, if at all bright, would frighten fish away. As the fish came up the river they made enough noise to be heard by a lookout, who gave warning for the fish- ermen to be ready with their harpoons. It is evident that this weir was essentially a device for guiding fish ascend- ing in shallow water to prepared spots where they could easily be harpooned. On the other hand, the same weir might be used for trapping fish instead of harpooning. In that event the platforms were unnecessary. Instead, one or more openings were left in the weir into which basketry traps were fitted. Since the salmon travel chiefly at night, these traps were raised in the morning and the catch re- moved, no one remaining at the weir over night. Since ascending fish could readily escape from a trap by simply drifting with the current, it appears that the traps must have been set on the downstream side of the weir- again to take descending fish. What may be termed a drag weir, consisting of a roll or drag of brush, was sometimes used to drive fish into the basketry traps. Hewes says that among the Mattole such a roll of brush is called tailes. It was so heavy thi it was handled by two men, and even then must be moved downstream. No exact description was given of this "roll" but it was apparently in the nature of a movable weir designed solely for the purpose of frightening the fish toward the traps rather than for actually impoundil them in any way. As this device was being manipulated by the men in the stream, small boys busied themselves throwing stones into the water to help in keeping the fisi moving in the desired direction. When the water in Bear River was low enough in the spring, a simple weir was built across the stream so a to leave an opening near one bank or the other, depend on where the fish usually preferred to go. Here an ope work fish basket with invaginated mouth was placed to catch the fish as they ran upstream. This appears to have been on the principle of our lobster or eel pots, v a basketry cone in the mouth of a basketry cylinder. NONGATL WEIRS Among the Nongatl (Hewes, F.N., 1940), we find that when the water level in the river had dropped far enou a low weir was built especially for spearing. Such a weir was built in the following manner. In a narrow place (40 to 50 ft.), where the current is suffi- ciently mild to render the driving of posts into the rive bottom unnecessary, tripods are made by binding near the top three fairly heavy stakes. These are then set i to the river so that two stakes of each tripod are on the downstream side, thus giving greater strength. These 26 KROEBER AND BARRETT: FISHING IN NORTHWESTERN CALIFORNIA Fig. 12. Weir built on tripods. Nongatl. After Hewes (F.N., 1940). tripods are set five to six feet apart, and each is shaken fand pressed enough to firm it securely into the sand and gravel of the river bottom. [The tripods are evidently lashed together on shore and then set on the river bottom and their ends worried into the sand a bit. They could 4ot well be driven in after lashing.] Next a single long .logis laid into the series of crotches formed by these tripods. [The weight of this stringer would help hold in Iplace the tripods.] A series of poles, each long enough lIo reach a few inches above the horizontal long log, is 'then placed so that each slants as do the upstream legs of the tripods. These poles are spaced about ten inches ,iapart. On the upstream side of this picket-fence-like ,framework, brush with leaves is laid to make a tight dam. No rocks are needed. This dam is built on a slightly diagonal line across the stream. The angle apparently induces the fish to follow along it until they find a thirty-inch gap toward the lower end of the dam where an A-frame net is set fortheir reception. (See fig. 12.) This is a relatively small dip net, called tekak', and is used for steelhead only ("not for black [King] salmon"). The net is pro- nded with a signal string which is fastened to the finger [si] of the fisherman. The various parts of the weir are bound together with zel withes, but inevitably these give way in time as ey dry and break. The dam is simply left until it ally falls apart and washes away. Sometimes it re- pains for the entire summer. This weir, though it rves chiefly for netting, is also of service for spearing, en the opening is closed with brush "to form a gate" d stop the fish, whatever their direction. Stern (1934, p. 49) describes for the Lummi of north- estWashington a similar weir, which he calls a "river ap," formed upon a set of heavy tripods and provided tha "large pocket" [pen or corral], which he terms a "basket," from which the fish find their way into a long sket so slender that it is impossible for them to turn ound. SINKYONE WEIRS One type of dam reported by Hewes from the Sinkyone was merely a wall of rocks or a line of brush built sraight across a stream. Sometimes an opening was purposely left so that some of the fish could pass through. In using this type of dam the fisherman stood on the bank. No platform was built out over the stream. When they had enough fish, the dam was torn out, or at least a hole was made near its middle. COAST YUKI WEIRS About the simplest weir of any is that reported by Driver (1939, p. 378) for the Coast Yuki. It consists of a "log laid across stream and single post driven in middle as reenforcement." It goes without saying that this would be effective only in a very shallow stream. SHASTA WEIRS For the Shasta, Hewes (F.N., 1940) records that in the wintertime they formerly built dams in Scott Creek Can- yon and in Horse Creek. Winter salmon spawn up these two streams. No dam was built by the Shasta across the Klamath River in olden times. This contradicts Dixon's statement, already cited in the introduction to this section on weirs, that the Shasta built dams at the mouths of Shasta and Scott rivers, and at Happy Camp (Dixon, 1907, p. 428). (See map 1: S1, S2, S3, and "S.") In former times beaver sometimes built dams across streams. Such a dam stopped the flow of a stream tem- porarily and prevented the fish from ascending it. A beaver dam was utilized by fishermen. If no such dam was found, the fisherman built his own brush dam across the stream. Horse Creek, for instance, has a width of about thirty feet. Sometimes a tree which had fallen across the creek was utilized as the top supporting log. Otherwise, a suitable fir log was cut and floated down. Next, stakes were inserted behind this log and finally brush was so placed as to make the dam tight enough. A basketry trap, woven in more or less of a trough shape, was inserted, sometimes in the middle, some- times at one end or the other of this dam, the trap in the center, ahusuikailk, being usually somewhat lar ger than the one near the bank, an-i'kasahauailk. 27 t ANTHROPOLOGICAL RECORDS FIXED WEIRS: SACRAMENTO VALLEY MAIDU AND POMO WEIRS Among the Northern Maidu, according to Dixon (1905, p. 197), the weir, or guide fence, was used chiefly to cause the salmon to pass through certain openings left in the weir where they could be taken with spears. Barrett has seen in the early years of the present century similar guide fences of poles and brush used by the Pomo on the upper Russian River for the same pur- pose. Plate 1, f, g, shows remnants of such a Pomo weir. PATWIN WEIRS Kroeber (1932, p. 278) has an account of weirs of the Sacramento River Patwin. They built weirs at only two places in their stretch of river, at Koru and Saka, near Colusa and Grimes. (These locations are confirmed by both McKern and Wilkes, below.) Farther down, espe- cially after the Feather River came in, the Sacramento carried too much water to be weired. A dam was called b6no. Posts were six to eight inches in diameter, pounded in with stones, and lashed with grapevine. Inter- vals, braces, stringers, etc., are not described. Willows were set an inch apart all the way across: these were what stopped the fish. Pens or corrals "woven on land" were floated down from above the dam and set behind gates that were left. This shows that the enclosures were on the upstream side of the weir, as at Kepel. The pens were dived into by swimmers who clapped a net mouth over salmon, the opening being edged by two sticks tied together at their ends and bent open by the swimmer. Sturgeon had a noose slipped around the nar- row of their tail. The weirs were built in early summer and were maintained until the water rose in fall. Salmon were slit into strips, sun-dried on grapevines, not smoked, and often powdered when dry. McKern (1922, p. 248) describes the Patwin weir, bono-tep, at Colusa or Grimes as formed on a straight line of piles, with willow "brush" (withes ?) woven across these in-and-out (in "wicker work technique"), perfo- rated every few yards by a gateway. Conical basket traps twined of willow were set in the gateways, and lifted out--by fishermen on the dam--as salmon entered them. In the warm downriver water, salmon did not try to leap the dam, which presumably means that it was low. Some gates were always left open--no doubt to prevent hostilities by upriver groups, whose supply would other- wise be cut off. These numerous conical traps, lifted even for single fish, give a quite different picture from the three large pens (described in the following Pickering account), within which the Indians fished around with nets. Pickering (in Wilkes, 1850, Vol. 5, pp. 187, 188) gives us our earliest description and illustration of a fish weir on the Sacramento River. The weir was encountered by the boats of the Wilkes exploring party, which ascended the river in 1841. From the position given (lat. 390 13' 39" N) this weir must have been in the Patwin country, and was probably either the one at Grimes or the one at Colusa. Pickering says (in Wilkes, 1850): This fish-weir was constructed with a great deal of art: stakes, pointing down the stream, had been driven into its bed, having three openings, which led into square pens above; over each of the entrances into the pens was a platform, on which the natives stand to take the fish; on these also there were heaps of ashes, indicating that the natives make use of fire to attract the fish. The annexed wood-cut is a representation of the weir. This interesting early illustration has been reproduced by Goldschmidt (1951, p. 407). What it essentially show is that the weir extended straight across the river, had three rectangular pens on its upper side and platforms over the entrances to the pens. The diagram sketched gives each pen an entrance chute as well as a fourth or, front side, when of course three sides set against the back of the dam ought to have answered just as well. NISENAN WEIRS The Nisenan or Southern Maidu of lower American River also built weirs (perhaps a weir) according to Kroeber (1929, p. 262). All that is known of these is that they were reared communally (as would indeed pr sumably be necessary), and had gates, with enclosures above, from which the fish were scooped with nets. T information conforms with the nineteenth- century Pickering account and Kroeber's data for the Patwin rather than with McKern's twentieth-century descripti Work (1945, pp. 32, 33) in his journal, under date of February 24, 1833, mentions weirs found by his party. From the location given for his camp, these must have been on the Feather River, somewhere in the region of what is now Marysville. MOVABLE WEIRS AGINSKY, 1943. N., P1. Miwok, pp. 399, 452. DRIVER, 1939. Wiyot, Mattole, Sinkyone, p. 379. ESSENE, 1942. Kato, Lassik, p. 6; movable weir used like seine. GIFFORD and KROEBER, 1937. Pomo (N. E), pp. 133, 172; brush fence. N. Pomo dragged brush fence at low water to impound small fish which were dipped out with baskets. E. Pomo had grapevine withes with pendant brush; dragged by several men. Fish caught in baskets. HEWES, Th., 1947. Kato, p. 76; portable fence weir. Wiyot, p. 80; portable fence weirs. HUTCHINGS' CALIFORNIA MAGAZINE, 1858. Vol. II, No. 12 (June), pp. 534, 535. Paiute; encircling fish with movable weir of brush, described and illustrated. KNIFFEN, 1939. N. Pomo, p. 376; drag of brush. ROSTLUND, 1952. Pp. 93, 94, map 33. 28 KROEBER AND BARRETT: FISHING IN NORTHWESTERN CALIFORNIA This special class of weirs is the portable type which can be easily moved about from place to place as oc- casion demands, and obviously is of service only on small streams and in other shallow waters. Driver (1939, p. 378) records the movable weir as used by the Wiyot, the Mattole, and the Sinkyone, though he does not specify wrhether such movable weirs were made of woven mats or whether they were merely a drag of brush hauled through the stream. This drag was sometimes used by the Northern Pomo (Kniffen, 1939, p. 376) and some other tribes to the south. Hewes (Th., 1947, p. 80) says of the Wiyot: "In the tidal channels which meander over the mud flats of Humboldt Bay, they set portable fence weirs." Pre- sumably this may refer to the rolled-up mats which can be transported with such facility. Further, he says (p. 76): "The Kato had a portable fence, something like a folding screen, which could be set up quickly as a weir in a creek after a rainstorm." Hewes (F.N., 1940) gives further details concerning these movable weirs: Although a regular diagonal weir across a stream was not used by the Wiyot, they made a portable weir for use in tidewater sloughs. This was a fencelike device, four feet high and as much as sixty feet in length. It was woven of split redwood sticks with courses of string weaving to make something not unlike one of our own woven lath fences. This was rolled up and transported by canoe to the mouth of a tidewater slough. Here it was planted vertically across the mouth of the slough when the tide was high. When the tide went out the fish in the slough were impounded and could be lifted with a small dip net out of the shallow water. In this manner flounders, bullheads, herring, perch, crabs, etc., were taken. This Wiyot movable tidewater fence of split redwood boughs, which in the current of the Klamath and Trinity rivers served merely as the finishing touch of a weir of timbers, was quite similar to the movable brush fence used elsewhere. Hewes was told that the brush fence was used upstream on Eel River [by Athabascans], but that it was not used by the Wiyot in the lower river. The portable weirs, however, were all of minor im- portance. ANALYSIS OF PHOTOGRAPHS OF WEIRS HUPA DAM 1 Plate 1, a, b (negatives 1289, 1291) shows two views of a weir photographed by Dr. P. M. Jones in Hupa Valley about 1901; the site was not specified. The current is flowing from left to right (see the boat on the near shore in both views). As the Trinity runs from south to north, we are looking across the river at its west bank; that is, out from perhaps either Medilding or Takimilding village (not at them), if this dam was the one formerly made ritually there in alternate years. There is a group of half-a-dozen or more seated figures, apparently men, just beyond the far end of the weir. Plate 1, a shows the length of the stringers, and the slope of the braces on the downstream side--flatter than 450 rather than steeper. There appear to be about twelve of these. One might estimate them as being only 4 or 5 in. in diameter, and perhaps 8 to 10 ft. apart. Plate 1, b presents the upstream face of the dam. Again, its slope is greater than expectable. Perhaps it had stood for some time and the pressure had gradually pushed the butts of the braces along, so the weir leaned more than when new. The near or east end of the weir does not show. Some forty to forty-five posts project above the weir edge in the visible part; the total number may have been about ten or a dozen more. If so, there would be about four to five times as many posts as strut braces on the other side. This number seems to corre- ,spond with such counting of posts and braces as is possi- -ble in the near part of 1, a. An approximate 2-ft. interval between posts also corresponds with the body-width of the Indian holding a line near the right end of the upper side in 1, b. Some of the braces also show in 1, b as they project under the stringer, having been lashed to a post which they cross. Seen from this side, the number Wof posts to each projecting brace is: 4, 5, 4(?), 4(?), 3, lndistinguishable beyond. Thus the length of the weir would be perhaps 1 1 0 ft. The stringer, where most visible, seems easily a foot ri diameter. The weight of this alone may have helped Wtodepress the dozen not very large braces, and to flatten the dam. The small stakes vary from three or four to about eight between each pair of posts, which would mean they were spaced 6 to 3 in. between centers, perhaps one-third of that consisting of interstices. It is impossible to see with certainty whether these stakes were inserted indi- vidually and then bound together with twining, or twined on shore into mats and floated into place and set up; but the latter seems the more likely. There would seem to be three lines of twining across the stakes at the far end of the weir, but only one at the near end, where the water was evidently a couple of feet deeper. A third photograph by Jones (1290) shows this same weir, end on, with P. E. Goddard crossing it on the stringer: it has been reproduced in Kroeber and Gifford's World Renewal (1949, pl. 2, f). This view confirms the size of the stringer, and makes it almost certain that the small stakes were both split and bound into a mat on shore; but apart from the near detail, the view is too much in line with the weir to reveal much as to the total structure except that this ran rather surprisingly straight and even, except where increased depth pulled the mat lower. All in all, the construction of this dam is rather flimsy, especially as regards the scantiness of bracing. Even if the Kepel dam was only half as good as described, it was a much sturdier structure than this one. Add that this recent Hupa weir is much shorter, is straight, and without sign of pens or gates. On the other hand, it agrees point for point with Hewes's description--even to showing at least one crosswise fence making the begin- ning of a bay on the lower side. HUPA DAM 2 The negative (3301) of the photograph shown in plate 1, c is labeled as taken in 1906 by Goddard, of a weir below the mouth of Mill Creek in Hupa. Mill Creek comes in about 1.25 miles below Hostler Creek, both of them on the east side of the Trinity; and it is the last tributary on that side of the valley, whose foot is formed by Bald Hill, less than a mile distant from Mill Creek where the Trinity sidles sharply to the east to enter a gorge a mile farther on, within which it resumes its general NNW 29 ANTHROPOLOGICAL RECORDS course. Mill Creek mouth is almost opposite that of the last west-side affluent in the valley, Socktish Creek. Kroeber has recorded a Yurok myth from Weitchpec (no. A4, in preparation for publication) which tells of facing houses or villages at these opposite creek mouths, and a fish weir there (in myth times). In August, 1958, informant Mrs. Louise Jackson pointed out the traditional site of the Takimiiding dam as just below the mouth of Hostler Creek. There seems no record of the exact spot at which the weir associated with Takimilding (Hostler village) was erected, and it might accordingly have stood actually nearer Mill than Hostler Creek: the river is fairly placid between flat banks all through the stretch. While this remains a possibility since we have only somewhat loose statements as to locations, it also seems possible that, besides the ritualized and alternating weirs at Takimilding and Medilding, the Hupa sometimes built a third one, with less ritual, near Mill Creek mouth; or that at least they sometimes did so when (or after) they did not (any longer) erect the more ritual-bound struc- ture near Hostler Creek which was associated with the sacred house and sweathouse at Takimiiding. In short, the Goddard 1906 "Mill Creek" weir of plate 1, c may be a relatively modern version or substi- tute for the Takimilding-Medilding ritual weir, or again it may be nonritual and wholly independent of it. With that uncertainty unresolved, we proceed now to an analysis of plate 1, c. In comparison with the preceding pair of photographs, the river flows somewhat quieter, evener, and broader in this one--from right to left. The view is therefore from the west to the east or right bank. The dam is again straight across, without pens, gates, or platforms. It is less flattened forward. The braces on the down- stream side seem to agree with those of the foregoing dam in diameter (to judge from those visible on the open or skeleton end in 1, c), but to be even shorter, to judge from their projecting less. There seem to have been only two stringers in the present structure, laid butt to butt, meeting where the water is deepest. The nearer stringer is accompanied by a sort of handrail of thin poles carried above it. Just about where this handrail ends, the farther stringer begins; it is recognizable by a change of color, as if it had been debarked. Both butt diameters must be all of a foot; they taper from this to under six inches as they ap- proach the shore. It would appear from the distribution of size that the stringers were counted on to add their weight in aiding to hold the uprights in place where there was most flow of current. The uprights (apart from their braces) in this dam numbered around 60. About 37 of these held up grating mats: 22 along the near stringer, 15 along the farther one. The remainder of the dam--clearly so at the far end, brush-obstructed at the near end--is a mere skele- ton of uprights, braces, and stringers.18 The water was evidently too shallow here at the sides for salmon to run up it. Not even occasional stakes were put in here. The middle of the weir apparently had no separate stakes either; the fish were blocked merely by a mat grating leaned behind the near-upright posts. No joint or overlap of gratings is visible, nor is there a break in the courses of twining--although discernment is made more difficult in the shadowed nearer half of the grating. It is therefore probable that closure was effected by a 18A similar incomplete phase at Kepel seems to be what led Waterman into his "falsework." single mat sixty to seventy feet long. This mat seems to have been bound together by two courses of twining. It is possible, but seems unlikely, that there was a third course, which is wholly submerged. The sticks, or split sticks, composing the mat seem to have been bound to- gether more closely than in plate 1, b. They completely conceal the uprights (except for the projecting tops of these), whereas in 1, b the posts show through the slatting~ like a thigh through a grass skirt. Just beyond the far end of the mat, a Hupa can be distinguished walking the narrowing stringer; his figure aids in recognition of actual dimensions. Again the correspondence of the photograph to the Hewes descriptions is notable. CHILULA DAM IN REDWOOD CREEK Plate 1, d, e (negatives 3041, 2926) shows two Chilula photographs taken in 1902 by Goddard. In spite of the separation of the negative numbers, the two photographs show the same weir. Compare the four poles lying on shore just above the water's edge. The stream is, of course, Redwood Creek. The Indian seated19 on the dam is Milaketz. He holds the signal line to his net, of which the top of the A-frame projects two or three feet above the water. The stream flows from right to left. The far shore is therefore the east bank. The volume of flow is much less than the Trinity. The weir as a whole is V-shaped; but this is due to picking a spot where one wing was mainly natural, built up a little with a few stones and poles--see 1, e. The structural wing curves somewhat, but not much. What shows better in 1, d than in any other photograph is the extent to which the water level was raised behind the weir, as shown by what pours through. This must have been at least a foot, possibly more. Most of the sticks or stakes forming the closure of the dam look as if they might have been split. Their tops are very ragged, as if they had been inserted indi- vidually. A mat-grating made on shore would be very much easier to make, roll, and move if its edges were trimmed even; compare 1, b and c. Three main posts show on the fisherman's left in 1, d toward the right of the photograph. They seem nearly vertical and project little above the stringers. They ap- pear to be set two to three or four feet apart. Only one downstream-side brace is distinguishable with certainty. This brace seems under rather than over four inches in diameter. It does not cross with an upright to form a crotch supporting the stringer. It is set between two uprights and appears to be braced directly against a stringer. Two lengthwise screens or fences can be seen ex- tending downstream, one under the fisherman's knee, the other from an upright post three or four feet to his side. From the end of these two screens there arise two-inch- thick poles, which are tied to a (supplementary ?) stringer. Between the two screens is a bay or open- ended compartment, such as those mentioned by Hewes. 19The position is characteristic: the Northwest California Indian men did not ordinarily sit cross-legged. They liked a low stool, block, or stone, and then to raise their knees; but perhaps the plank here laid over the dam stringer was narrow enough to make a raised seat pre- carious. The fisherman could not well have hung his legs over the front of the dam: either he would have had the net at his side, or, straddling it, his legs would have been in his way when he lifted it. Moreover, in 1902 the Indians were only partly accustomed to chairs and hanging lower legs. 30 KROEBER AND BARRETT: FISHING IN NORTHWESTERN CALIFORNIA 'The purpose of these bays was obviously not to impound 1almon but to collect and steer them. It will be seen that ~the net is set so as to have half the opening in front of Obe bay described, the other half in front of the space &eyond. Salmon reaching the main wall of the weir and groping for a way through or around would encounter the [screen at the side of their bay, follow it down to its end, end, in trying to round this, would find themselves actually in the opening of the bag of the net, whose frame will be noted as set vertically. About four other thin sticks may be seen attached to the lower side of the weir. They are too small to serve as props, and some of them seem loose below. Their purpose is not clear. POMO DAM IN RUSSIAN RIVER Plate 1, f, g (negatives 2677, 2676) show two pictures taken by Barrett in January, 1906, at a point about a mile south of Calpella on the Russian River, of the remains of an abandoned Pomo weir. 31 CHAPTER III FISH NETS The fish nets of Northwestern California were of three types. 1. Conical nets: eight forms in all. 2. Flat nets: four forms in all. 3. Cylindrical nets: one form only. CONICAL NETS LIFTING NET BANCROFT, 1883. Yurok, p. 339; trigger system and alarm used with net. BARNETT, 1937. Tolowa, Chetco, p. 164; did not use A-frame net, but oval-mouthed lifting net. BARRETT, 1952. Pomo, pp. 153-156, 275-280. CURTIS, 1924a. Hupa, pp. 14-15; also illus.: frontispiece, and opp. pp. 40 and 46. Shasta, pp. 113, 114. _ 1924b. Maidu, p. 109. DIXON, 1905. Maidu, p. 197. , 1907. Shasta, pp. 428-430; described and illustrated. DRIVER, 1939. Tolowa, Chimariko, Karok, Yurok, Wiyot, Hupa, Van Duzen, Nongatl, Mattole, Sinkyone, pp. 312, 378. Not used by Kato and Coast Yuki. DRIVER and MASSEY, 1957. Pp. 201, 203, 208, map 25; general statement. DRUCKER, 1937. Lower Rogue River, p. 271; here a type of lifting net was mentioned, but on a very different sort of frame. "A long stick of vine maple, one end of which was steamed and bent into a loop while the other end served as a long handle, made a frame for a lifting net for salmon." ESSENE, 1942. Lassik, p. 6. FOSTER, 1944. Yuki, p. 164; dip net with trigger string, probably a simplified form of the lifting net, used at falls. HEWES, 1942. Fig. 34, e, p. 106. Th., 1947. Lassik, Wailaki, Sinkyone, Mattole, Bear River, Nongatl, Whilkut, Chilula, Yurok, pp. 76, 77, 79, 83, and fig. 67. HOLT, 1946. Shasta, p. 309. KROEBER, 1925. P. 816; general statement. Yurok, p. 85. Shasta, p. 294. Yurok, Karok, pls. 4, 7; Sinkyone, p. 184; Maidu, p. 410. LOEB, 1926. Pomo, p. 179. OLSON, 1936. Quinault, pp. 27-29, figs. 1-3; horizontal lifting net with trigger system used with weir. POWERS, 1877. Yurok, pp. 48, 49. ROSTLUND, 1952. Pp. 86, 93, and map 33. SCHENCK and GIFFORD, 1952. Karok, p. 379; dip net poles made of Douglas spruce. VOEGELIN, 1942. Modoc, Shasta, p. 55. MAP 11 The largest of these conical nets, the lifting net, is a very large, woven, conical pouch which is rigged onto a relatively large A-shaped frame of poles and is usually operated by a fisherman from a scaffold or staging built out over an eddy or backwater where the salmon naturally congregate. (See Kroeber, 1925, pls. 4, 7; and Hewes, Th., 1947, fig. 67; also our pl. 2, a-d.) This, the most highly distinctive of the nets of this region, was quite evidently developed as a result of the particular environmental conditions existing on the larger streams. Like the elaborate weirs, this type of net becomes gradually more simplified as we go out from the core area 3 f the region. It was used in taking salmcn, lampreys, and sturgeon, the mesh sizes varying for each species. In essentials this net constituted one type of trap, but one quite compli- cated in its operation. First of all, it can be set only in a strong eddy where the upstream current is sufficient to hold it fully dis- tended and thus provide the fish with an apparently un- impaired opportunity to pass normally on upstream. Suc an eddy is always near the bank, where the water runs less rapidly than out in midstream. For this reason the fish, in their upstream journey, always tend to keep close to the bank, where the going is easiest. At such a "fish- ing place" a suitable staging or platform is built out over the eddy. Goddard (1903, p. 23) speaks of this staging as a "crib of logs and rocks," which suggests a submerged line or wall of rocks, perhaps held together by stakes or even actual logs. Kroeber recalls nothing of the sort, and the available photographs do not show what could be construed as cribbing. We believe that the "fish place" or eddy was usually natural and that, if rocks were de- posited, it was only enough to firm the hold of the one or two staging poles against the bottom. A frame two meters wide with a purse net five or six meters long needed a pretty clear bottom if it was not to foul. The only other references to anything like a cribbing are (1) by Driver (1939, pp. 312, 378), who notes for his Hupa 1 "stones piled in river upstream from scaffold to form eddy at it"; and (2) by Curtis (1924a, p. 14), who speaks of a platform "resting on a structure of logs and rocks." It seems, however, that such an artificial eddy as a crib would make would be built only under unusual circumstances. If this were a common practice, the whole value of privately owned fishing places would be nullified, for anyone could build one of these artificial eddies almost anywhere. Furthermore, neither Driver nor Curtis gives a detailed description or says whether he is reporting generic statements by informants or wha he himself has seen. It is worth noting at this point that Driver (1939, p. 378) states that "at the bottom, branches and gravel [are piled up to block passage beneath." This statement is [321 KROEBER AND BARRETT: FISHING IN NORTHWESTERN CALIFORNIA ,made in connection with his notes on Yurok weirs. Per- aps it may have given rise to the crib idea above men- tioned. -Hewes (F.N., 1940) also frequently refers to the use of rocks to reinforce posts and stakes driven in the river bottom in making weirs. This we do not in the least oubt; but the reinforcement seems secondary in the con- Xtruction, and no crib, in the ordinary sense of this term, Is mentioned. Platforms for lifting nets.--The scaffold or staging is tessentially a combination gangplank and operating plat- form built out over the river. One or possibly some- times two planks extend out from the usually rocky shore. On this narrow platform the lone fisherman walks out to pear the end, perpendicularly lowers his triangular net 'frame to the bottom, seats himself on a wooden block stool while holding the closure line to the bag of his net, :clubs the fish, throws or carries it to shore, and then ,repeats the operation. The scaffold or narrow platform overhanging the edge !of the river, from which the large A-frame lifting net is ,ipsed, can of course not be built in any regular or pre- conceived shape because it has to be fitted into idiosyn- pcracies of shore and river bottom. All that can be said I that it consists of several more or less upright poles wedged into the bottom, of several horizontal ones (plus erhaps a grapevine guy rope or two), and at least one plank of sufficient width for the net user to walk out on enId to sit on (upon a block or stool), and to operate from. The number, direction, angles, and joining of the poles gad planks must conform to the given terrain of the spot, specially its rocks and the depth of water. Analysis of photographs.--With this inevitably high 'variability of the scaffolds, beyond their aim and generic ,p1an, the best data on them are photographs. We have Fbeen able to assemble eight usable photographs, all taken hyKroeber between 1901 and 1907, of five scaffolds, one ,jAarok and four Yurok. They seem all to have stood on the left bank of the Klamath, with the exception of no. 3, which is the least distinct in its photograph. Grover Sanderson's exceptional pictures (pls. 29-31) hlave already been mentioned. They show the construction and us-e of Karok fishing platforms. Two additional scaffolds, Karok, appear on plates 26- 128 and are discussdd in an appendix. Scaffold 1, plate 2, a-c, 1902; Karok. Just downstream [of Ashandmkarak (Ike's Fall village), looking downstream Bdiagonally across to Amaikiara (Amekiara), of which only the ridge of a native house (sacred sweathouse ?) is isible just below the skyline of Douglas firs. The bag of pte net bows upstream in the eddy, as is usual. The fish- erman is Little Ike, whose aged widow, Mary Ike, was ione of Gifford's best Karok informants more than thirty- Wveyears later. In successive exposures the net is *own, first, being inserted, second, awaiting entry of pimon, and third, temporarily out of use. The last is, ortunately, taken from a viewpoint slightly nearer the ver's edge, in order to show how the scaffold is bound the shore. Scaffold 2, plate 32, a, b, 1907, Yurok. At Kenek or elcy Rapids, the rock and famous fish-place Woweyelk aterman, 1920a, map 22). The rock out in the stream Rahtek, "store basket," so-called because of a hollow its top. Plate 32, a is shown in Waterman (pl. 8:1), utis reproduced here as complement to 32, b since each hows features not visible in the other. The fisherman, ccording to Waterman, is Dan of Wahsek, but may have en Kenek Dan as shown again in plate 32, e, f. Scaffold 3 appears in the same photographs as scaf- fold 2, but dimly on the opposite shore of plate 32, a, b. Slightly upstream, against the face of the rock Menes, another scaffold can be seen faintly in both photographs, with perhaps two vertical poles rising above the rock, and a horizontal pole or plank along its front perhaps three or four feet above the water. From the upper ends of the verticals, a long stringer runs "inland" to rest in the crotch of two crossed poles supported by at least three more in varying directions, the whole forming the main anchorage of the scaffolding. The scaffold seems to hang by withes from the riverward end of the long stringer down to its left or downstream end, and also by withes from its right end, over the sloping face or top of the rock, to an invisible stake or rock behind. It may be that this scaffold was not only partly but wholly hung, what looks like the horizontal pole above the water being really the edge of the plank for the fisherman to sit on. In that case what has just been described as two vertical poles would not be scaffold supports but the converging poles of an A-frame net set in the eddy. The net would of course only be set with its owner there to lift it; and indeed there is, next to the upper "V" of the poles, what looks like a seated human figure (especially in 32, b) though not discernible with assurance even under magni- fication, on account of the mottling of shadow and sun- light on this opposite bank. However, the point of the net frame, if it is such, is about as far above the head of the figure, if that is such, as in plate 2, b. (If there was an occupant of the scaffold in the photo- graph, he might have been Informant B of the Kepel Dam monograph, Mack of opposite-Kenek, who would have been somewhat more likely to fish habitually on his side of the river than across it on the Woweyelk-Kenek side.) Scaffold 4, plate 2, d, plate 32, d. Negatives 2730, 2729, were taken in 1906 at the downriver end of Kepel- Sa'. This scaffold belonged to Amits, informant A of the Kepel monograph. Plate 32, d was probably taken from the edge of the Sa' village flat or river terrace, to which Waterman, map 19, credits an elevation of forty to sixty feet above the river. The relevant portion is therefore unfortunately small, but both elevation and direction are quite different from 2, d, so that other features show. Scaffold 5, plate 32, c, was taken in Yurok territory at a spot which Kroeber failed to record at the time, but which the context of other exposures shows to have been in the Kenek-Kepel region. This is one of the clearest pictures as regards structure of the staging. There are three pairs of crossed uprights, side uprights and anchored horizontal extensions both backward and to the side, and a guide post for the net frame up front, well out from the shore rocks. Plate 32, e, f, shows Kenek Dan (perhaps also of scaffold 2), full face and profile, holding to his net frame after its removal from the scaffold. It looks as if it had been set up either for drying or for binding the bag net onto its pole. It is held by two guy lines, as well as apparently being propped by one or two sticks. The following features are discernible in these pic- tures of scaffolds as identified by the numbers just assigned them. Crossed poles stood in the water in No. 1 and 4; on land, in No. 3. In No. 1 they are cross-braced with a board; in No. 3, propped by lashed-on sticks. Single, nearly vertical poles are used in No. 1 (three), in No. 4 (four), in No. 5 (4--1 at the outside end, 3 near the rocks on shore). In all these cases the pole farthest out may be the one that carried the hazel- or grapevine- withe ring to help steady the in-pole of the net. 33 34OANTHROPOLOGICAL RECORDS Scaffolds 2 and 3 seem to be largely hung over the edge or face of a large rock jutting out into the turbulent river: they are both at the Tuley Rapids. From both of these scaffolds long stringers extend back to the shore; also, in No. 2 at least, over the water across to other rocks. None of the scaffolds shows definitely more than one plank. This also accords with Kroeber's memory as a generality--he must have seen, first or last, two or three dozen such stagings; though he does recall an occasional second, shorter plank at an angle to the main one. A seat shows on scaffolds 1, 2, and 5, and was usual, in Kroeber's recollection. It might he a low, solid cylin- drical block stool such as used inside houses (often how- ever flaring somewhat), or perhaps a rectangular block. Guy ropes to help hold the net frame are clear in all three views of scaffold 1; in 32, b of No. 2; also in 32, e, f; and seemingly in No. 4. There seems to be no indu- bitable instance of a guy line holding the scaffold itself; although the suspended ones must have had lines reach- ing over their rocks. A guide fence to steer salmon is visible in No. 4. Its rising above the water may be due to having been put in earlier in the season at higher water. Hewes gives the Yurok term wilep'ola as the name for this fence. A net and frame, stood up on the scaffold between uses, are shown in 2, c of scaffold 1, and one laid on edge immediately behind, if not on, scaffold 2 in 32, b. It is not evident how either was supported in this position, though in No. 2 a line to the left extends out to the hori- zontal pole crossing the long stringer. The net frames on scaffolds 2 and 4 depart from an isosceles "A" toward the right angle, but No. 1 seems much more even-legged. It also has the upper crossbar nearer the lower end than 2 and especially than 4. Whether these differences are due to No. 1 being the only non-Yurok scaffold and net frame shown is uncertain. It is clear from plate 2, b, where the upper bar is above water, that the whole net was unusually large unless the eddy at scaffold 1 was relatively shallow and the net may have been woven accordingly. See below, in the Hewes data on Yurok platform and net, statements that Karok lifting nets were larger, and that the side-poles of the frame were uneven. All in all, these northwestern fishing stagings look very ramshackle and patchwork. They undoubtedly were pieced out, with extra struts and braces put in where needed--or perhaps it would be more accurate to say wherever it was possible to find any hold or support. The pictures show the ruggedness of the shore, and the bottom was probably of equal irregularity and immova- bility. Timbers had to be pushed or crowded in where they would enter between rocks, not where one would have liked to put them. Crazy as some of these scaf- folds must have looked above the swirling water, they did what they were meant to. One hears of fishermen falling off them, but not of scaffolds collapsing under them. Some fishing places (Karok, ikhri hwadam) are in almost inaccessible spots along the rivers. A giant boulder (pl. 32, a and b) out in the stream may produce the eddy needed, and fishing places even right along the shore are often in very rugged spots. (See pls. 2, a-d, 32, d, 27, 28, 29, c, d.) Grover Sanderson's photographs (pls. 29-31) show the construction of a platform of this sort. In order to reach such a fishing place it is even sometimes necessary to cut a trail into the rock face of the canyon, as is shown in plate 29, a, b. This particular spot (sahwarum yum in Karok) is on the left bank of the Klamath at a point about three miles downstream from Orleans. To be more exact it is the southwest face of sahwarum canyon. The old village of sahwarum is on the opposite side of the Klamath and only a short distance downstream from where the Trinity enters the Klamath. Just below this cliff face (down- stream) is an excellent fishing place which has come down in the family of Grover Sanderson from ancient days. Grover's first recollection of it is when it was owned by his great-grandfather, itcfinipa. This trail along the cliff face was, according to tradition, cut there in the rock by the earliest inhabitants. It is about fifteen feet above the high-water level, which is plainly visible in a of plate 29, standing about a dozen feet above the level of the river at the time this picture was taken. Tb girl with the burden basket walking along this trail is Grover's niece, Nancy Sanderson. As is evident from almost all of our illustrations showing fishing places, the building of one of these scaf- folds or platforms (Karok, imwir) is attended by much arduous labor. This fact is shown particularly well in plate 29, c and d. Here Grover Sanderson's father, Antone Sanderson (wastadan in Karok) is shown rebuild- ing the fishing platform here at sahwarum yum in the spring of 1932. In the first of these pictures he is down in the water, wrestling with one of the brace poles form- ing part of the underpinning of the scaffold. In the seco picture he is lashing members forming the upper part of the structure. In addition, except in unusually favorable fishing places, there must be constructed below the wat surface a guide fence (Karok, tcantcakar) which will hel bring the fish out into the net at the end of the platform. This fence consists of horizontal poles with interwoven brush, which forms a barrier to the passage of the fish close to the bank. As they follow along it and move out into the swifter water of the eddy, they are conducted into the mouth of the net. Sanderson says that to facilitate the building of this guide fence the Indian owners of such a fishing place would, at a time of very low water, actually cut holes or sockets in the rock of the river bottom into which the vertical supports of such a guide fence could be inserte Yurok lifting net.--From the platform described above the large A-frame with its net is let down and fastened vertically in place. On the inshore pole of this A-frame is a stout ring or loop, which travels up and down the short, vertical pole driven beside the staging as a guide for this ring. The other pole of the A-frame is provided with a guy line, usually of grapevine, which runs to the shore, where it is tied to a tree, some bush or a rock so as to anchor the net securely. In certain instances such a guy line runs from each of these poles to the shore. These two devices, the loop and the guy line, hold the large A-frame firmly in its vertical posi- tion at the staging. Otherwise the current, at times qul swift, might sweep the net, frame and all, completely o of the hands of the fisherman. In our plate 2 both these devices are clearly shown. In 2, a the partially raised net shows both the ring and the guy line, while in 2, b only a portion of the guy line appears. Here the net is wholly depressed and set on the river bottom. Hence t ring is completely submerged. The bottom of this A-frame is formed by a crossbar so lashed to the long side poles that one of them (the inz shore pole) projects about a foot downward below the crossbar. By forcing this point down into the sand or gravel of the river bottom, the lower edge of the trap is held securely in place. As might be expected, the large A-frame dip net is 34 KROEBER AND BARRETT: FISHING IN NORTHWESTERN CALIFORNIA handled with considerable ceremonial procedure. One of the Yurok myths (Kroeber, D4) recorded by Kroeber in the earliest years of this century was designated as a "formula," and describes magical practices relating to the A-frame net used from a staging. One sings and ties the net first to the middle of the upper crossbar, then leftward, then down along the left or "long" side pole; then back to the starting point, on to the right, down the right side pole (and right half of the lower crossbar). This singing is called rekwoi "entering from the ocean" (same word as the name of the town at the river mouth). Then the man moves four times as if to dip his net into the river but draws it up again before actually setting it in place. He says at the same time that he sees the path of the salmon traveling up across the river, then up the middle, then up his side of the river, underneath and into the net, successively. After he finally puts the net down, he may not lift it again until a salmon has entered it. These songs and speeches are derived from the Steel- head (tserhker), who sang them at Kowetsek, the legend- a ary salmon home across the ocean, after the sweathouse owner there had told him the sweathouse was already full, and though Sturgeon complained of his singing when he wanted to sleep. In passing, it may be noted that when a new fishing place is established or when a new scaffold is erected at a fishing place, careful watch is kept immediately after setting the big lifting net there for the first time. If driftwood floats into the net it is taken as a sure sign that this is not a good fishing place and that salmon will not be caught here. The net opening, bag, and signal strings: The two crossbars of the A-frame produce a large trapezoidal opening about which the mouth of the conical net is securely fastened by means of its own headline and stapling line, which are attached to the edges of the net at every third mesh. A typical example of this type of apparatus is shown in figure 13, a (made from our speci- mens 11724 and 9367, both collected by Kroeber at ,Weitchpec in 1906 and 1907.) This drawing shows the relative dimensions of the various parts of this trap. 'From its large trapezoidal mouth the conical pouch ex- tends back a total of about 540 cm. to its tip. Starting, in this particular specimen, with 198 meshes around the mouth of the net, these gradually decrease in number until, at the tip, they are reduced to five. These five are laced onto a heavy cord which serves as a drawstring and holds them tightly together, but which can be opened to produce an aperture 6 to 8 in. in diameter, a feature doubtless quite useful in emptying a net of such size. As is characteristic of all of these nets, the meshes grow progressively smaller as well as fewer toward the tip. Beginning at the mouth of this particular net with a mesh about 70 by 70 mm. square, it decreases to about 42 by 42 mm. square at the point. Further specific de- tails are given below under "Net Weaving." The successful operation of the device depends largely upon the rather elaborate system of signal cords which b Fig. 13. a. Lifting net. Yurok (11724, 9367). Length of net, 540 cm. (104 meshes). Opening: top, 105 cm. (40 meshes); each side, 166 cm. (28 meshes); bottom, 210 cm. (102 meshes). b. A variant of the trigger system. Used by the Shasta. After Hewes (F.N., 1940). 35 ANTHROPOLOGICAL RECORDS subtends the open mouth of the net. A typical arrange- ment of these cords is shown in the lifting net, figure 13, a. The end of each of the cords is attached to the net at a point about 76 cm. back from the mouth. Along the bottom are four of these cords, attached about equidistantly one from the other and passing for about 120 cm. up toward the middle of the opening. Here, each divides laterally into two members, each about 76 cm. long, which pass on up to the upper surface of the net where they are attached to the mesh itself. Thus, this lower half of the opening is divided by these four cords into segments of about equal width, while the forking of each string in the upper half of the opening cuts this area into double that number of smaller sections. Specifically, the dimensions of these string sections forming parts of the signal device are as follows: A B D A D F B C E D F G 46 cm. (12 meshes) 15 cm. (4 meshes) 46 cm. 76 cm. 120 cm. 90 cm. (30 meshes) Since the fish usually tend to swim fairly close to the river bottom, these large lower openings facilitate their passage on into the trap. On the other hand, the greater number of cords in the upper part of the opening makes it easier for the fisherman to raise the net rapidly and thus close it more quickly. Near the middle of the upper surface of the net, and at the point of fastening of two of the cords crossing the net mouth, two cords are attached to the outer surface of the net which, after running up 54 cm., are tied to- gether, forming a single signal cord 240 cm. long. The wooden "hand button" is tied into this cord at a point 195 cm. from the top surface of the net.20 The whole system of cords forms a signal and trigger device which constitutes an important feature of this trap. The fisherman, as he sits on his wooden stool on the platform above, holds this signal button in his hand, and through it and the cord receives notification that fish are in the trap.21 They may, as they enter, touch one or another of the cords which cross the mouth of the net or they may swim against the net sides farther on in the trap. In either case the vibration passes along the signal string and notifies the fisherman that it is time to haul in his catch. By pulling up on this signal string he closes, at least partially, the mouth of the net and entraps what- ever fish are farther back. Then, by hauling the net-- purse and frame--up onto the platform, he has his catch. A large wooden hook fastened onto an upright to pre- vent the net from slipping back into the water is described below under Karok platforms and lifting nets. Hanging near by on the platform is the fisherman's club (pl. 18, a-c; also Goddard, 1903, p. 24) with which the fisherman stuns the fish, one after another, if several enter the net at once, before emptying them out22 and 2OThis hand button is frequently of bone or antler, and it may be tied in at any convenient point along the signal line. 21As a comment on his item 186, Driver (1939, p. 378) says, concern- ing this trigger device as used by one division of the Sinkyone, "cord runs from net to ear so fisherman can feel fish strike." This seems a most unusual use for this trigger string and we find no mention of the connection to the ear elsewhere. 221n speaking of the operation of this type of net among the Shasta, Dixon (1907, p. 429) says: "The loop slides off the top of the pole, thus enabling the fisherman to lift the whole net and contents to the platform." Also, in describing the operation of the trigger device, he says (p. 430): "The affair (i.e., the entire A-frame, net and all) being lifted out on the platform, the fish are then killed with a club." placing them safely on shore where they cannot flop about and get back into the water. The net is then reset and the whole cycle repeated. With such a trap it is said that a man may take, in a very short time (a matter of days) at the height of the salmon run, "a winter's supply" of fish. Kroeber has heard talk of takes of a hundred salmon in a night, but does not know whether this represents an actual count or a sort of hope. The gutting, slitting, drying, and storing of the fish are ordinarily the work of the women. Other lifting nets are much smaller and are outfitted with more simple signal devices than the net above de- scribed. One of these in our collection has an overall length of only a meter and a half. Its signal device con- sists of only four strings, which cross its mouth verti- cally. They are fastened to the bottom of the net about 45 cm. back from the mouth and so that there are six meshes (about 25 cm.) between each string and its neighbor. Each string is 75 cm. long. The strings are attached to the top surface of the net so that there are only two meshes between each string and its neighbor. Thence they run up 20 cm. to the lower end of the meter- long signal cord, which finally terminates in a trigger button of bone. The meshes are about 35 mm. square. Further specific details concerning this net are given under "Net Weaving." [On the other hand, Hewes de- scribes for the Shasta a trigger system which is, in some respects, even more elaborate than the one on our big net. We are illustrating this in our figure 13, b.] The trapezoidal opening of the net last described, as nearly as may be determined in its present condition, was: top, 135 cm. (38 meshes); each side, 1 m. (16 meshes); bottom, 175 cm. (34 meshes). Thus there are a total of 104 meshes around the mouth of this net. The top of the opening has its 38 meshes attached directly to the headline, each mesh by a lark's-head knot. All the balance of the mouth of the net (i.e., the two sides and the bottom) has a double-cord selvage. Each alter- nate mesh is attached to a stapling line by a wrapping of fine cord. The stapling line attaches to the headline by lark's-head knots. The side of each loop of the stapling line is 9 cm. in length. The Yurok platform and net: Hewes data.--Hewes (F.N., 1940) states that the Yurok lifting net for salmon, called erker, was formerly provided with a short cross- bar at the very top of the A-frame. This gave it added strength, but it has not been used lately. Compare the Shasta lifting-net frame described below. The only cross member at all (other than the one forming the top of the trapezoidal mouth) used in more modern times was the long one at the bottom of the fram This was given a special name, witeg6', "its tego'." The lifting net for sturgeon, called koko werker, "sturgeon its lift-net," was somewhat larger. Its A- frame was larger and the mesh of the net had more ample dimensions. The lifting net for lampreys was much smaller. Great care was taken of the whole lifting net and its parts. As already mentioned, the net itself was hung on a special hook on the platform as it was raised. In case of prospective high water the net was dismounted from the frame and taken home. The poles composing the frame were taken ashore and placed well above any pos- sible high-water mark. Hewes's informants called attention to another point in connection with the A-frame. The longer, pointed pole is always placed on the inshore side of the frame. Also the outside, or offshore, pole of the triangle is notched so that it cannot slip. U 36 KROEBER AND BARRETT: FISHING IN NORTHWESTERN CALIFORNIA While ordinarily the lifting net was manipulated from affold, there were a few places where the natural itions were such that it could be handled right off rocks. One such spot was at Rekwoi. [This is per- the large flat rock, from which sea lions were also oned at certain stages of water, a few yards up- ear from the crag Oregos. It may be Waterman's 5, no. 49.] Another such place, a rock called rlirq, iter of Oregos," was at the edge of the ocean abreast Welkwaw, which the river washes when it flows out on south side. [This is Waterman's map 5, no. 69, "a ag."] Robert Spott told Hewes that at rlirq two guy ,es (wo6'xtcos) were used. These ran back for some stance. There they joined to form a single line which u on shoreward to a rock with a natural hole, where it s moored. This pierced rock is said to have been wght across the ocean in mythical times. It was pos- ble to fish here with a small lifting net for about an Br and a half each day when dead low tide made the rer current swifter and temporarily produced an eddy ich carried the net upstream. A natural rock provided convenient seat, so no stool was used here. At such salt-water spots no guide ring was used with e net. In fact, Hewes says that the Yurok mostly did It need the guide pole and ring. This ring was used by eKarok, whose nets and frames were larger; [also the rrent tended to be swifter]. The lifting nets of the lpa were even smaller than those of the Yurok. There were two other places near Rekwoi on the north suk where the lifting net could be manipulated directly ti the rocks: su'u and otegahino. Su'u, owned by the luse knqw in Rekwoi, was northwest or downstream zom Oregos, about where the river bank becomes ocean iore. Waterman (map 5, no. 38) shows it as a rock off- bore; it should be on shore, upstream from his no. 40. ~lshing here was done without a scaffold, directly off the ock. - Otegahino was owned in Tmeri, an upriver suburb of ekwoi on the tiny Tmeri Creek. This fishing place was ownstream from the former salmon cannery and on the ptream side of weitspekw, "confluence", a point pro- cting into the river lagoon. A wersker platform was milt at otegahino, but it rested on a single post instead pthe crossed pair usual upstream. The erker net here, tthe same size as at rlirq, was held by a hazel loop, a, as at rlirq, could be used only at low tide slack- ater. Waterman gives this place as weitspus (p. 323 md shows it on his map 5, no. 52, as a fishing place. Hewes's informants called attention to another fact iso. Not infrequently an old, established fishing place ay be suddenly lost. A landslide may completely fill it or may so alter its size and shape as to render it use- ss. Some eddies are caused by the presence of a bar, which case the shifting of the bar or a change in its hpe may ruin the eddy. One place where a bar has a marked effect upon the shing is at the mouth of the Klamath. Just below Turkey Tucker Rock (Oregos) the sand bar has a way of shift- g from time to time, thus throwing the actual opening Of the river mouth from side to side, sometimes for a 3This Weitspus-Weitspek must of course not be confused with the rge village some 40 miles upriver at the mouth of the Trinity. Only meaning of the name is common; and the name occurs a third time Yurok for the mouth of Southfork into the Trinity (Hupa lelding). irq on the south side of the mouth of the Klamath must be kept sepa- It from Erliken or Rliiken- at Lamb's Riffle at a sharp bend some 10 les up the Klamath (Waterman, 1920a, map 10, nos. 11-14). This was .famous public salmon-taking site where people camped and dried ,eir catch after gouging out the salmon eyes. duration of years. When the sand spit shifts to its more usual form, so that the opening is at Oregos on the north side of the river (as it was in 1940), there is a consider- able eddy and a lifting net can be used from a platform, though only when the tide is low. When the tide comes in, the eddy slackens and the lifting net is no longer of service. One of Hewes's (F.N., 1940) informants (Williams), an old resident of the region at the mouth of the Klamath, having been born at Welkwaw, opposite Rekwoi, gave some further details concerning shifting of this bar. When it extended out from the south bank, thus leaving the river open at the north side, fishing could be done with the regular A-frame lifting net (erker) with its sig- nal strings, directly off [the foot of] the rock Oregos, for there was a strong eddy here, so strong in fact that the A-frame needed guy ropes to hold it in place. When, however, the bar shifted and extended out from the north bank, the rock rlirq fronted directly on the stream and became the base of the fishing place called qowseo, which, he said, was owned by the people of the near-by village of Welkwaw. All of its inhabitants shared in this ownership for fishing purposes, just as the people of Rekwoi owned Oregos jointly. However, he pointed out that here at qowseo there was a much less powerful eddy and that conditions were not right for the use of the erker lifting net. Instead the tregepa plunge net was used, though this plunge-net frame could take two forms--one, the regular frame with the hoop-shaped lower end; the other, a frame in which this hoop was replaced by a straight bar. Otherwise, the two were the same in all other respects (narrow frame, head bar, etc.), and in name. He further stated that more salmon came in when the south side of the river was open. Also that the sand bar itself was free fishing ground. None of it was subject to private ownership. Spott told Hewes that the fishing place at rlirq was not owned exclusively by the people of Welkwaw, but was open to the people of Rekwoi as well. [He and Williams may both be right for both sides of the mouth, each rock being "owned" by the people that lived near it but open to use by all residents of the river mouth, like the bar itself.] Spott differed from Williams in saying that the net used at rlirq for salmon was a relatively small lifting net; the plunge net was used around the river mouth for small species, especially eulachon. Informants pointed out that the A-frame lifting net was generally unsuitable near the mouth of the Klamath on account of tides and slack water. The fairly strong eddies required for this type of net were found largely above tidewater. The importance of these bars at the mouths of the rivers was emphasized to Hewes by several informants. In the smaller streams such as Redwood Creek and Mad River, the bars often built up during the dry season so as to close the streams completely for weeks or months. The flow into Big Lagoon is moderate and that into Stone Lagoon even less, and the surf piles up wide sand-beach bars in front of them, which for most of the year block all connection with the ocean except by seepage. As the dry season progresses, the water behind each bar be- comes increasingly fresher. Only during the highest water of the rainy season, which coincides with the most violent wave action in the adjacent sea, is there force enough to break through. Then the salt water is carried in by the tide, and at such times the ocean species come in and these waters have a small run of salmon, steel- heads, and other species. At this same time Stone and I :. 37 ANTHROPOLOGICAL RECORDS Big lagoons receive a new population of flounders and soles. The flat fishes adapt themselves and continue life inside after the bars reclose and while the waters become almost fresh again; until the next winter's storms bring a break-through, a fresh supply of salt water, and a new stocking of salt-water species. Karok platforms and lifting nets. - -Gifford's (F.N., 1939-42) Karok informants stated that, while building a fishing scaffold, a man must never eat deer meat. If he was out cutting poles for a fishing scaffold, and if he should hear a rattlesnake, he must cease work immedi- ately. He might return the next day to the same spot, and if he did not then hear the rattlesnake, he might pro- ceed with the work. The fishing platform was supported upon crossed poles driven into the river bottom and bound securely with hazel withes at the points of crossing. These crossed poles were further strengthened by piling rocks about their bases, if needed. A plank, usually of spruce (?), ran out from the shore and a second plank was added out toward the end to make a more commodious platform upon which to operate. The inshore end of this longer plank was supported on a pair of short, crossed stakes, and it was further made firm by being weighted with rocks and with live-oak timbers. It was a definite rule that no woman might step on or over any part of this platform or of the plank running out from the shore. Also, women and dogs must be kept away from a fishing place while a platform was being built or bad luck would ensue (these seem also to have been Yurok prohibitions). Finally, at the outer end of the platform the pole which was to carry the guide ring of the lifting net was driven into the river bed with a stone maul. Another feature described by the Karok is the net hook, above mentioned, called tahwuka, a heavy wooden hook some eight inches in length, which was securely bound to one of the upright poles supporting the staging. As the lifting net was hauled up onto the staging, it was thrown over this hook in such a manner as to prevent it from falling back into the water. The fish were then clubbed before being removed from the net. This same hook served to keep the net in place up on the platform during the fisherman's absence, if he should be tempo- rarily called away. Hewes (F.N., 1940) says that the Karok used a very large lifting net, for which he was given by one inform- ant the native name amvaur4pa. Such a net is said to have had a spread of as much as twelve feet. Other in- formants gave as their names for this net ikrihar ur'lpi and simply ikrihar. The generic term for this net seems to be urlpi. The Karok use the special guide pole or stake and guide ring in manipulating this net. The guide pole is called iyaikakuri or ivaikakuri. The ring or loop of grape- vine which holds the net to the guide pole is called ikwinipkuni. Informants said that here the trigger sys- tem was quite simple, consisting of only four strings. A smaller A-frame net for lampreys had a bottom spread of only about six feet and had no guide ring. This smaller net was called akrauripa. We have recently secured from Grover Sanderson several photographs taken by him in 1932, showing methods of operating the lifting net among the Karok. In plate 30, a the fisherman--here Oscar Mack (half Yurok and half Karok), who lived in 1932 at Saint's Rest--is lowering the lifting net from the scaffold. Note the mooring line attached to the offshore pole of the net frame. The guide ring is indistinguishable in the picture. However, Sanderson calls attention to the fact that the Karok had, sometimes at least, a notch cut into the plank of the staging into which this ring and/or the inner pole of the net frame was fitted to help hold the frame in place and counteract the force of the current. In plate 30, b and c the fisherman is holding the trig-| ger device as he sits on the platform out over the eddy. Plate 30, c is a close-up, showing particularly how the trigger button is held with the line passing down between the fingers. In plate 30, d and plate 31, a-c the net and catch are being raised. As the fish comes up in the net, it is clubbed at the first opportunity. The club is always keptl near at hand. In this instance it is an unshaped club, which may be seen on the end of the plank in both b and c of this plate. This clubbing partly stuns the fish, but it is still likely to flop around. However, if grasped be-! hind the gills, as shown in 31, b, and if pressure is put,a just the right spot, the fish becomes suddenly rigid and immobile. It can then be easily removed from the net, as shown in c of this plate, without danger that it will flop around and escape back into the water. Shasta lifting nets: Dixon and Curtis data.--Dixon (1907, pp. 428-430, figs. 100, 101) gives a very detailed description, with illustrations, of a lifting net among the" Shasta, farther on up the Klamath River. However, it has some features which are quite different from the net described among the downriver tribes. Dixon shows it with an extra crossbar about three-quarters of the way 1 up toward the top of the frame. This corresponds to what the Yurok told Hewes (see above) about their net frames formerly having had such a second crossbar. Most important of the Shasta differences, however, is the trigger device, a set of eight signal strings with the lower ends tied directly to the bottom crossbar instead of to the meshes back in the throat of the net. From th bottom crossbar these strings fan up and across the mouth of the net to a common point, where they join the trigger string. None of these strings is directly at- tached to the net itself, a feature which is universally found in the nets of the downriver tribes. Since other features of this Shasta net are exactly like those in the nets of their neighbors, it is difficult to reconcile these two variants, especially the signal-string feature, whic must have been highly inefficient, to say the least. Furthermore the Shasta were sufficiently in touch with their downriver neighbors so that they must certainly have been familiar with their nets and fishing methods. Holt (1946, p. 309) repeats, briefly, Dixon's version. It seems possible that the string attachments were mis- understood in the museum in New York where Dixon's net specimen was figured, probably in his absence. Curtis' (1924a, p. 113) description of the Shasta lifti net is in agreement with that given by Dixon, including the mooring line, the sliding ring, and even the details the signaling device. Without knowing the precise sour of his information, however, it is impossible to evaluat this account. On the other hand, Hewes's informant (Sergeant Sambo) described the Shasta lifting net quite differently (see fig. 13, b). He says that the "feeler strings," as he terms this signal system, consisted of two long strings running down from the "flat bone," which was held in the hand. Each of these long strings divided at point some distance above the top of the net, making fo strings which (as his drawings show) passed through th top of the net, apparently without being attached to it. Near the bottom of the net each of these divided into fo very short strings each of which was attached to the 38 KROEBER AND BARRETT: FISHING IN NORTHWESTERN CALIFORNIA tm meshes of the net along a line about a foot back rthe net mouth, thus giving a total of sixteen points ttachment, which should have enabled the fisherman aise the bottom and close the net very quickly and ctively. He further specifies a single crossbar (not two as ioned above) at a point about four feet above the om bar of the A-frame. He shows a guy line of Ievine running from the outer vertical pole to the e and also the guide ring attached to its shorter pore pole. Furthermore he specifies that the name he lifting net, uitcir, is "after [the] ring of grapevine [the] inside pole." The name of the platform (which, rsays, is made of poles) is itcu^kutcakema. All of this information further fortifies our belief that on's earlier descriptions of the Shasta lifting net are error. In discussing the Hupa dip net, for which he cites the ve name mihltastei, Curtis (1924a, p. 14) gives the thof the net itself as about seven feet and says that mounted on an A-frame ten feet high and with a six- spread. But he fails to mention any signal device further states: From each of the two uprights [of the A-frame] a rope extends to a stake driven into the ground at the edge of the river, by which the unwieldy contrivance s prevented from being dragged out of the hands of the fisherman who stands or sits on a board pro- jecting over the water and resting on a structure of logs and rocks. e again it is difficult to evaluate these details with- definitely knowing the sources of Curtis' information. Maidu, Klamath, Pomo, and Quinault parallels.-- on (1905, p. 197) briefly describes the Northern Maidu hod of fishing in the Sacramento River, where they a dip net with trigger strings, mounted on an A- ne and manipulated from a platform built out over the eam at a point where there was a strong eddy. This use of a large dip net, this time on an immense shaped frame, is also found among the people of th Lake, where other species of fish largely re- e the salmon and where the seeds of the water lily, hia polysepala, replace the acorn. (See Barrett, O, p. 249 and pl. 10.) Here, where a large body of er makes it possible, we find this type of net develop- toan almost prodigious size, just as similar condi- S at Clear Lake have led to a similar development ng the Pomo of a gigantic arc net or semicircular- thed dip net. (See Barrett, 1952, pp. 154, 155.) Hewes's (F.N., 1940) Sinkyone informants spoke of a ck-like net," which was used from a scaffold built over a riffle. It had a "draw string" by which it id be closed. This, they said, was used on the South k of the Mattole and on the lower course of Eel River. e may, in passing, mention, as indicating the wide .ibution of such trigger devices, a variant of this gnet described and illustrated by Olson (1936, pp. 29) for the Quinault. This net has an elliptical open- about five by seven feet across, and is so set that the ing lies horizontally instead of standing vertically, does the trapezoidal opening of the Northwest Cali- net. It is provided with a trigger device. At- ed along one side of the oval mouth were eight signal gs which gave the fisherman on the platform notice one or more salmon were passing over the net th. By immediately raising the net he was fairly eto entrap a catch. This rather shallow, horizontally operated net is in striking contrast to our net with its vertical opening, but both depend for their effectiveness upon a similar signal and trigger system. Smith (1940, pp. 261, 262) describes a similar, but smaller, net used by the Puyallup-Nisqually, in connec- tion with what she terms a "large tripod fish trap" (a large weir made on tripods). She terms this a "lift net" and says that it was mounted on a "circular rim four or five feet in diameter." It was provided with a signal cord which vibrated if a salmon passed over the mouth of the net. Mattole bars and channels: Hewes data.--Sometimes a completely closed bar had to be opened artificially, when the fish were due to run upriver for spawning. Hewes (F.N., 1940) obtained rather full notes on this from the Mattole. The sand bars at the mouths of the Mattole and Bear rivers often closed completely in July or August, though they would probably open naturally sometime in Septem- ber because of the higher water following the first rains. If the people did not want to wait, the headman decided upon a date and called them to open the bar. Bringing digging sticks and baskets, all assembled and dug a small channel through the bar. As the backed-up water of raised level in the river flowed through and widened and deepened the opening, the first salmon rushed in. All the men were ready with their spears, and the first salmon caught was ceremonially cut up and cooked right there on the river bank. There was no doctor or formulist and no elaborate ceremony, but the first salmon speared was cut thus. It was split down the belly from head to tail. Next, it was cut across the gills. The head and tail were left on. It was this special method of cutting the salmon that gave it its distinction. Everybody ate a small part of the fish. After that the people could catch, cook, and eat salmon as they pleased. On the day of the opening of the bar only a few fish (perhaps 5 or 10) were likely to be taken. By the next day fifty to a hundred, perhaps even two hundred, might be caught. As soon as the news spread that the bar had been opened, many people from other settlements came down and asked permission of the "owner" (one chief controlled the mouth of the river) for permission to fish. The sequence in which the various species of salmon arrived at the Mattole was usually as follows: 1. About the end of September [or after] came the King or Chinook salmon. Some hookbills were usually among the Kings. 2. The silversides (blueback) came next and these, together with steelhead, continued to run up to about March first.24 There was nothing fixed about these dates. The salmon run depended upon the height of the water in the river--there must always be enough water in the river to let the fish come up. Informants stated that the run never started before September 10 or thereabouts. October was known as "first month" for during that month the greatest number of fish ran up the river. The Mattole never went out to sea for the purpose of catching salmon. Their first contact with them was made here at the mouth of the river. The mouths of Redwood Creek and probably Mad River also were at times blocked by sand bars. Redwood Creek has a definite lagoon spreading back from the mouth at all times, which in mid and late summer may 24The Yurok names are: salmon, generic or salmon meat, nepui; King salmon, 6xpes; hookbill, tse-gan; steelhead, tskwot. I i 39 ANTHROPOLOGICAL RECORDS have its level raised several feet above even high tide, flooding many acres. Americans usually cut it through, but if the stream flow is low, the surf may soon restore the bar. LANDING NET BARRETT, 1910. Klamath Lake, p. 250. DU BOIS, 1935. Wintu, p. 15; dip-netters dipped fish out as torch- bearers drove fish into seine at communal drive. GARTH, 1953. Atsugewi, p. 136. KROEBER, 1925. Coast Yuki, p. 213; landing net for salmon; Klamath Lake, p. 325; very large net operated from prow of canoe. , 1932. River Patwin, p. 278; bag net with spring-pole mouth used by diver for salmon in pen of weir. MAPS 12, 15 A much smaller, shorter dip net (Yurok tcawOn), designed for dipping fish out of corrals or enclosures in weirs and for use from canoes in streams or lagoons, is made in the same general manner as the lifting net just described. It is mounted on an A-frame of smaller dimensions but lacks the signal and trigger device. This may well be termed a "landing net" to differentiate it from the larger lifting net. It is true that some inform- ants stated that this net was at times also provided with signal and trigger strings, but it would seem less con- fusing to call such triggered examples "small lifting nets," and to confine the term "landing net," Yurok tcawOn, to the triggerless, small net on the A-frame. Such nets were used especially for lampreys, eulachon, and other small species. Kroeber's field notes indicate that the dip net used regularly for lampreys was some- what larger than that used for eulachon. This latter species goes no more than seven miles up the Klamath to about Turip. The small net for eulachon is generally used from a canoe and the fisherman keeps dipping his net until he finds a place where the fish are abundant and secures a large number in a few dips. The plunge net (tregepa) is also used for small fish and may be dipped out and down vertically or swept sidewise horizontally. and 200 cm. long respectively. The length of the pouch is 250 cm. (See fig. 14.) Fig. 14. Conical drag net. Yurok (1680). Olson (1936, pp. 29, 30, fig. 4) describes and illus- trates a much more elaborate net of this sort used by th4 Quinault. Here a single conical bag net of this type, mounted on poles, requires two canoes, two paddlers, and two net operators. An especially interesting feature is the presence in the prow of each canoe of a man or bo throwing stones ahead of the canoes in order to frighten the fish toward the net. DOUBLE DRIFTING BAG NET Upon occasion, two of the conical drag nets just described were spliced together side by side to make a double drifting bag net for salmon (see fig. 15), similar to the drifting bag seine for sturgeon made by joining a pair of short seines. Hewes (F.N., 1940) has the Yurok of the lower Klamath call the salmon double bag net weyu'm and mount it on poles about twelve feet long to force it deep in the water, salmon swimming near the bottom of the stream. The mesh was about six inches square (which suggests to us that only large salmon wer expected to be taken). CONICAL DRAG NET DRIVER, 1936. Wappo, p. 184; bullheads, suckers driven into nets (presumably conical). , 1939. All Northwestern California tribes, p. 312. FOSTER, 1944. Yuki, p. 164; trout caught by small conical net in open- ing of weir. Signal string. GARTH, 1953. Atsugewi, p. 136. OLSON, 1936. Quinault, pp. 29, 30, fig. 4. "Drift net" operated from two canoes. SPIER, 1930. Klamath, p. 151. One of the nets in our collection, of this size and general type (landing net), is catalogued as a "drag net for salmon" but should really be called a "conical drag net" to distinguish it from the larger "drag seine." Yet this net is not intended to be mounted on an A-frame, but has two old, slender sticks still attached, by which it was held and manipulated as a drag net. With these sticks held to keep the net open, we have a trapezoidal mouth, each side 47 cm. high and with top and bottom 140 cm. Fig. 15. Double drifting bag net for salmon. Hupa. After Hewes (F.N., 1940, and Th., 1947, fig. 90). The Hupa, according to Hewes (F.N., 1940), also em- ployed the drifting bag net, usually in the fall of the year when the water gets muddy. Hewes (Th., 1947, fig. 90) illustrates this net "for salmon." Four people, two canoes, and two nets were required for this type of fish~ ing. Women were permitted to participate as paddlers 40 KROEBER AND BARRETT: FISHING IN NORTHWESTERN CALIFORNIA if they were strong enough. The informant stated that the nets were the same as those used for dip nets, being taken off the A-frames, and two were fastened together with a three-foot stick at their middle. At each of the outer ends of this combination a longer pole held this double bag down at a proper level. A man in each canoe ,manipulated one of these end poles. The canoes were headed downstream and allowed to drift at will, being paddled only just enough to keep the two nets taut and open. When fish entered the nets and the tremor was felt by the men holding the net poles, the canoes were brought closer together, the nets were hauled in and the fish were clubbed and dropped into the boat. The nets were then reset and the canoes paddled so as to pull them apart. No sinkers or floats were used on this type of net, according to Hewes's informants. If the water was sufficiently muddy, this net could be used in the daytime. Otherwise it was usually much more effective at night. But then the fishermen felt the cold and would go ashore at intervals to a fire. - Kroeber's field notes of 1904 give the following Yurok information. The salmon drag net, we-yom, was usually about 60 cm. in width [viz., height of opening--it was mis- understood as being a flat net], but fairly long [viz., deep-pouched]. Its ends were spread by means of sticks, called we-tse'l, and two such nets were fas- tened end to end [again seines were understood] and spread between two canoes. This position was main- tained by two poles held vertically at the canoes, which were headed slightly away from each other to counteract the pull of the nets as these floated down- stream with the current. The net was weighted with sinkers25 so that it dragged on the river bottom (sand, gravel, or mud), and, when a fish was felt, the net was raised quickly so as to entrap it before it escaped. Apparently considerable deftness was re- quired in manipulating this net for it was specifically stated that it was not raised forward like a dip net, but the pole was raised and pushed upstream [sic] to close the net. The name we-rohtso is given for the sturgeon drag net similar to the we-yom for salmon. What may very likely be this same type of net is referred to by Fr. Font (1931, p. 371) who, in describing (in 1775-1776) "Puerto Dulce" [San Pablo and Suisun Bays and Carquinez Strait] tells of the method of fishing with a "net which was tied to two poles." Yurok informants said that the sturgeon drag net was handled on ropes instead of poles because, as informants said, "the sturgeon lies quietly in the net." This refers to the drifting bag seine later described. One of the Yurok myths (Kroeber, Rl), collected by Kroeber in the earliest years of this century, gives some interesting details concerning the drag net. It tells how Murun, or Murin, "White Duck" or Merganser, first fished successfully with the drag net at Wohkero, and was envied by Pigeon who had nothing but a netted carry- -ingbag (pl. 23, c) to drag in the river. Pigeon therefore bid at night in the woodshed of Merganser's house and heard him and his housemates namex the successive parts of the net, n-amely: 25Hewes's informants stated that these nets were sometimes used .without sinker s along their lower edges, evidently conforming to local conditions in the section of the river where the net was employed. wererpin beginning of net, where it is fastened to stick wohpekolis 6 meshes inserted wo'olo'oi 6 more meshes put in winomek net widens, 8 meshes added na'ainolek " second time" (that 8 meshes are inserted) ukomek 4 meshes ukuris stick at far end umulpo string passing entire length of net. Pigeon was discovered, was jammed against the ground, and made pigeon-breasted, but he learned how the net was made. This account of the insertion of meshes (accrues, as they are called by net-makers) is not entirely clear as it is given above, but it evidently refers to the weaving of some type of conical net, where the cone is increased in size by additions to the numbers of meshes in suc- ceeding courses. Hewes (F.N., 1940) gives additional Yurok details. Two nets, without floats and sometimes without sinkers, each eight feet or so long [deep] by five or six feet wide, were fastened together at the midpoint between two canoes. At each canoe the end of such a net was fastened by means of its line to a pole which held the net open and extended down into the water far enough for the required depths. The poles were manipulated by a man in the middle of each canoe. Fore and aft were other men, who paddled just enough to keep the canoes headed apart and the double bag net open and set to catch the salmon as they swam upstream. Sometimes there was only one paddler. The canoes, with their double net, slowly drifted downstream. When a salmon was encountered, the two net manipulators raised the net to entrap the fish. The one nearest to the fish hauled the net into his canoe, clubbed the fish, and then the net was reset between the canoes for more fishing. Occasionally two or more fish might be taken at once. This method was used especially in fall low water. In recent years the current was said to run too swift for this "two canoe drag net" or lei quwerego, but formerly it was much employed, especially in still waters and small eddy currents--any place where the water was sufficiently slow-moving so the progress of the canoes would belly out the nets and keep them in place. An informant men- tioned one spot on the Klamath, a place called wepa, a short distance downstream from Weitspus, where condi- tions were ideal for this type of fishing. [This place may be woxpa of Waterman, 1920a, map 23, no. 47, a spot on the right bank about two miles below Weitspus and one mile above Martin's Ferry, in the middle of a straight reach, three-fourths mile in length, where the river presumably flows slowly but steadily; the stretch begins at the end of the bend where Pine Creek comes in from the left.] PLUNGE NET OR THRUSTING NET BARNETT, 1937. Tolowa, Chetco, p. 164; did not use. BONNOT, 1930. P. 134. DRIVER, 1939. Chimariko, Karok, Yurok, Wiyot, Hupa, Chilula, Van Duzen, Mattole, Sinkyone, Kato, Coast Yuki, pp. 312, 378. DU BOIS, 1935. Wintu, p. 127 and fig. 5. ESSENE, 1942. Yuki, p. 6; "Snowshoe-shaped frame. Used in river." GIFFORD and KROEBER, 1937. Patwin, Pomo (S, E, NE), p. 133. 4 1 ANTHROPOLOGICAL RECORDS HEWES, Th., 1947. Karok, p. 85. HOLT, 1946. Shasta, p. 310. KROEBER, 1925. P. 816; general statement. Karok, p. 85 and pl. 6. SNYDER, 1924. P. 165 and fig. 40. VOEGELIN, 1942. Klamath, Modoc, Shasta, Wintu, Nisenan, p. 55. MAP 14 Core area.--This net (fig. 16) (Yurok, tregepa; Karok, takika), which is closely akin to the ordinary dip net, is specially effective under conditions which make it im- possible for the fisherman to see into the water, particu- larly on a large riffle or at the foot of a fall or rapids, where the water plunges so that it becomes foamy. (See pls. 26-28.) Such a spot is very likely to have salmon congregated ready to make the leap up over the fall or ready to run the rapids. By plunging or thrusting his net in here, on a hit-or-miss basis, the chances are good that the fisherman will come up with at least one fish. Such a thrust may bring up other species as well as salmon; perhaps trout, bullheads, or even lampreys. This net type also finds extensive use in certain more still waters downstream where it is used for taking eulachon and other small species. The net portion of this device is a relatively conical dip net. Its opening is rarely over a meter across, and its depth is about the same. It is mounted upon a frame quite different from the A type of frame above described. It consists primarily of a pair of side poles, perhaps 360 cm. in length. At the top these poles meet, in a rather acute angle, where they are securely fastened together. At a point a short distance down from this apex a crosspiece is securely bound to these side poles to serve as a "head bar" in handling the net. (See pl. 27.) The divergent lower ends of the side poles have a semi- circular withe, in either one piece or two, securely bound to their ends. (See pls. 26, 27.) The upper side of this semicircle is subtended (replaced) by a heavy cord ("F" in fig. 16) tightly stretched across from pole to pole. Upon this semicircular withe and this heavy cord the net itself is made fast by means of its loops. Thus we have a conical bag, the opening of which is roughly semicircular and with a diameter of about a meter. As is shown by Kroeber (1925, pl. 6), the fisher- man wears a woman's basketry hat as a head protection to take the impact of the "head bar" as he thrusts the net downward into the water while he stands between the side poles, or to protect his forehead when the net is cast out horizontally while he stands behind the poles. This hat or cap, incidentally, is the only article of woman's clothing that a man would wear. Hewes (F.N., 1940) gives the Yurok name of this basketry cap as otww'aika. Thus, this net, when employed in the rushing, foamy waters upstream may be used in two ways: (1) it may be plunged or thrust almost straight down by a fisherman standing on the bank above a deep place in the stream. In this case he is said by informants to actually stand between the long side poles. The net and frame descend until the crossbar strikes the back of the fisherman's head, where the basketry cap cushions the blow as the frame is stopped. The frame, with the net and its catch, are hauled up by alternately lifting on first one and then the other of the side poles. (2) When the net is being used in a foamy rapids, the fisherman does not stand be- tween the side poles, but behind them. He grasps the frame up near the crossbar, perhaps only two or three feet from the apex of the triangle. He throws or casts the whole apparatus out in front of him, sometimes al- most horizontally, in such a manner that the net goes as far as possible out from the bank. He then pulls it in and up. In doing so, first the apex of the frame rests on his forehead, which is protected by his basketry cap. Then, as he pulls the apparatus up, one or the other of the side poles rests upon his head, even at times sliding on the forehead; which is, of course, always protected by the basketry cap. In pulling back the plunge net in this manner the head bar may or may not touch the head de- pending on the circumstances of the pull. In the summer of 1957 Barrett was fortunate enough to find a Karok using one of these plunge nets in this second manner in the rapids at Ishi Pishi Falls on the Klamath some miles above Orleans and was able to secure a series of motion pictures of the operation and to observe the fisherman for some time. These particu- lar falls are very rapid and turbulent and such fishing is really strenuous. The fisherman always cast his net somewhat upstream but it was always carried by the rushing waters well downstream before it could be hauled out of the water, no matter how rapidly the fisherman worked. Although the fisherman observed by Barrett was a Karok in Karok territory, it is safe to assume that the plunge net would be handled in the same manner when operated by the Yurok or the Hupa under similar condi- tions. Some Yurok informants maintained that the regular plunge net was used chiefly at their farthest upstream points--as between Weitchpec and Bluff Creek--for it is only there that conditions are right for it. Hewes's (F. N., 1940) informants, on the other hand, stated that a large type of the plunge net was used in taking eulachon down on the lower reaches of the river, where the water was quite slack. It was used from a canoe and was pulled with a sidewise sweep very much like that of a J Fig. 16. Plunge net or thrusting net. Drawing from Wintu specimen, (28012). Same type as used in our nuclear area. 42 KROEBER AND BARRETT: FISHING IN NORTHWESTERN CALIFORNIA faddle. Another of Hewes's informants stated that when the water got low enough so that the eulachon came in ,close enough to the bank or to the sand bars, this same plunge net was reversed and employed as a regular dip set. A Yurok told Hewes (F.N., 1940) of a variant of this punge-net frame which was sometimes used at one salmon fishing place at the mouth of the Klamath. It was oxactly the same as the frame above described, except ,bat, instead of having the bowed hoop at the front end, thad a straight bar. The local conditions at this fishing *place apparently made this arrangement preferable. [ A smaller form of this same net, with a bow or semi- circular front, one called tceske' u 1, was used farther upstream for taking small species of fish in high water. his net was plunged into the stream and pulled toward e fisherman, presumably from the river bank rather from a canoe. This evidently refers to the same ethod witnessed by Barrett in 1957 and described ve. Another point brought out by Hewes's informants is formerly the upper edge of the net itself was at- ched to a wooden piece bound across between the side les and that it was only recently that this bar had been placed by the heavy cord found in modern specimens. Hewes (F.N., 1940) gives some further details and ms from Yurok informants, as follows: The side poles, uru'tuwap, were made of fir. The forward hoop, usually in two pieces, was made oak, pepperwood, or hazel. The head bar was called ikatcawu'tc. The loops used to fasten the net to the frame were lled samwan. All informants agreed that the plunge net was quite nerally used by the Karok, whose territory lies up- eam from that of the Yurok where the waters run re swiftly and turbulently. Gifford's Karok informants (F.N., 1939-42) described s plunge net in some detail, calling it uruswap (Hewes es takika): it is a small dip net mounted on a frame ose side poles form a very acute angle. About a foot wn from their meeting point is a very short head bar. e opposite end of this frame is formed by binding to e ends of the long side poles an oak arc of horseshoe pe, which produces a more or less semicircular hoop which the net is fastened. As this net, which is es- cially useful in the murky waters of winter, is cast out othe stream at the foot of a fall or similar spot, it is erally plunged or thrust as far as possible downward il it is stopped by the head of the fisherman when the ad bar reaches him. It is then drawn in toward the and up. To protect his head the fisherman wears a ketry cap. The following observation made in the field is of inter- tin this connection. On September 1, 1942, Ben Good- n was given by one of the women a basketry cap so he could use his plunge net at the near-by Ishipishi s at K'atimin. He fished right off the rocks at the s and had very good luck. He gave the woman whose phe used half-a-dozen salmon as a present. It should be noted, however, that while at times an inary woman's cap might be used, there was also a ilar basketry cap made especially for the purpose of hing. It was also sometimes worn by men to protect head by taking the weight of the tump line in carrying dens. This hat, called salipanapha, was woven by men, was twined only with the basic pine-root weft rup), and was entirely without the usual Xerophyllum erlay decoration. It was as carefully made as was the regular woman's hat;26 the inner surface was scraped, as in all baskets, with a mussel shell or a sharp stone; and also the surface was pounded with a small, round- ended pebble to make it smooth and easy on the head. Hewes (Th., 1947, figs. 68, d and 71) illustrates the plunge net used by both Yurok and Karok and makes this statement (p. 85) concerning its use among the Karok. The Karok, situated in the vicinity of the only important falls on the lower Klamath River, used a special thrusting net for both salmon and lamprey. The wielder of this net stopped it with the back of his head as he reached the end of its thrust, to keep it from flying out of his hands; for this reason, according to informants, the Karok men wore basketry hats. He states specifically that the fisherman in using this net actually stands between the poles. He gives the Karok name of this plunge net as takika. Hewes (F.N., 1940) says that his Coast Yurok in- formants stated that the plunge net was much used on the bars down at the mouths of streams and elsewhere in water which was running with moderate speed. In such relatively shallow waters, however, the plunge net was not brought up vertically as it was in deeper waters, but the frame was swung sidewise and downstream just rapidly enough to cause the net to bag out upstream. If this net was used in a small eddy, it was simply plunged and held in position. The action of the current caused the net to bag out so that a fish might easily enter. Other areas.--This same type of net was quite gen- erally used throughout northern California, especially on streams above tidewater, where rapids and falls are more numerous. This wide distribution is attested by the fact that our University collection has an example from the northern Wintun. (See fig. 16.) It is in every way typical of the nets in Northwestern California. This specimen, which is said to be "used in winter when water is high and muddy," is illustrated and described by Du Bois (1935, p. 127), who collected it in 1929 and who says that it is "grasped at peak of triangle and at crosspiece inserted between the two sides." This would mean that the fisherman would be standing at the side of the triangle and not between the poles. This use of the crosspiece is at variance with its use as a head bar in the northwest, and, its placement being so high up on the triangle as to make its use as a hand hold impracticable, it would seem that the information given Du Bois rests on a misunder- standing and that this Wintu crosspiece also was a head bar and that this net too was used with the fisherman standing between the two side poles. The dimensions of this Wintu net are as follows: A - B B - C B - D B- E- A - C 81 cm. 320 cm. 277 cm. F - G 106 cm. H - G 43 cm. B - G 363 cm. 26Women's hats are of several kinds, each with its native name: sarumpha is the everyday hat used in working [usually with designs in whitish Xerophylluml. The tump line passes over this hat. sipibapha', the woman's red hat, is more decorative, usually has a fairly elaborate pattern, mainly in alder-dyed fern-fiber weft. sitapsikasibamps is the woman's full-dress hat, with weft overlay designs in black shiny stem of five-finger fern (Adiantum) and some- times in yellow-dyed porcupine quill. 43 ANTHROPOLOGICAL RECORDS A - D H- F( C - E) B- It 63 cm. B- - 76 cm. D- E 68 cm. I - J 28 cm. Depth of conical pouch, 83 cm. Mesh measurements: outer mesh, 3.5 cm.; mesh at tip of cone, 2.5 cm. The semicircular hoop which forms the front of the frame and upon which the net itself is rove, bows for- ward to bring the front edge of the net 43 cm. beyond the ends of the side poles. This flexible hoop is securely bound to each of the side poles by a cord wrapping which extends up about 40 cm. from each of the points. At a distance of 63 cm. back from the points of these poles a heavy cord ("F") subtends the angle between them and on this cord is rove the transverse edge of the net. Thus we have a conical pouch, which has a maximum opening of 81 by 106 cm. and a depth of 83 cm. According to Hewes (F.N., 1940), the plunge net was used by the Shasta in two ways. In the deeper places on the river, in the wintertime, it was thrown straight out from the bank and was then drawn in toward the bank. It was then called eru'tcid. It was also used during the summertime at certain falls in the river and was then called eruntir, or a'rahuerfntir. Associated apparently with the plunge net is a device made of rocks, which may be termed a "fish ladder." One informant stated that rocks were laid up more or less like steps ("built like fireplaces") on the face or side of the falls at the village of aikar, near Hamburg. As the water ran down these steps, the fish found it possible to ascend here and pass on upstream (this con- trivance may be an adaptation of the white man's fish- ladder idea). The falls and the ladder bear the name aikawa apsiraka. This ladder, which was built only at the time of "low" [the first lower?] water in the spring, was called kokwer entiktuk ("where the plunge net is used"). In fact this term, it seems, may be applied to any spot where the plunge net is used. From the informant's statements it would appear that these rocks were so arranged as to form what might be termed a succession of potholes or basins, each about three feet across, just large enough to take the rounded end of a plunge net. The first fish of the season taken here might not be given away. Referring, probably, to these same artificial rock basins, Holt (1946, p. 310) states "at intervals along the sides of a rapids at Hamburg, rocks were piled about small cleared spaces, forming little pools, and fish run- ning up the rapids paused in these quiet places to rest." The fish were taken from these basins with a dip net, and the author describes in some detail the ceremonial pro- cedure attending this fishing. This account presents a somewhat different picture from the ladder idea above mentioned. Furthermore, both investigators obtained their information from the same informant, Sergeant Sambo, though at different times (and he served Dixon too, a generation earlier). Without checking in the field it is impossible to deter- mine which version is correct, though one is inclined toward the last and simpler one. Snyder (1924, fig. 40, p. 165) shows a very good illus- tration of one of these plunge nets being used from a scaffold at a fish weir on the Trinity River. Hewes (F.N., 1940) records the presence of the plunge net also among the Nongatl. In summary, the plunge net has a wide distribution, is: used for a variety of fish, mostly on a hit-or-miss basis in roiled or turbulent water, and with motions differing according to depth and velocity of current. SCOOP NET BANCROFT, 1883. Yurok, p. 339. BARNETT, 1937. Tolowa, Chetco, p. 164. BARRETT, 1910. Klamath, pp. 247-250, pl. 10; very large V-frame dip ' net used in dugout canoe on Klamath Lake. BONNOT, 1930. Pp. 133, 135. CURTIS, 1924a. Wiyot, Achomawi, Klamath, pp. 75, 136, 169, 170, and illus. opposite p. 80. DRIVER, 1939. Tolowa, Yurok, Wiyot, Mattole, Sinkyone, pp. 312, 378. DRIVER and MASSEY, 1957. Pp. 201, 203, 208, map 25; general statement. DRUCKER, 1937. Tolowa, p. 233. HEIZER and MILLS, 1952. P. 89 and pl. 5. HEWES, 1942. Yurok, p. 106, fig. 34, f. , Th., 1947. Tolowa, Yurok, Wiyot, Mattole, Sinkyone, Bear River, pp. 77, 80, 83, 88. KROEBER, 1925. Klamath, Modoc, p. 325; very large; used on shovel- nosed dugouts. Coast Yuki, p. 213; used on rivers. LOUD, 1918. Wiyot, pp. 278-281; describes in some detail what he terms "sites for surf-fishing about the mouth of Mad river." POWERS, 1877. Yurok, p. 50; describes surf fishing with scoop net at the mouth of the Klamath River. P. 103; remarks about the surf fishing at the mouth of Eel River. SPIER, 1930. Klamath, pp. 149, 150; large triangular dip net. Some- times several in line; fish driven. VOEGELIN, 1942. Modoc, Shasta, Atsugewi; p. 55. Cf. also OLSON, 1936. Quinault, pp. 36, 37; conical dip net with rectangular opening used for surf fishing. MAP 13 The scoop net is a special type of relatively small d net, with an apron, used in the surf. In fact it is often called a surf net. It is rigged onto a V-shaped frame. This term, "V-shaped frame," is used to differentiate this frame from the truly A-shaped frame used with lifting nets and landing nets. Though it has been a rather common practice to refer to this form also as A-shaped frame, it really differs considerably from th true A-shaped frame in that it does not have a crossba at the outer or spread end of the frame, as does the A- frame. This crossbar is, in the V-shaped frame, alwa replaced by a stout cord. The crossbar at the middle the A-frame is straight, while that of the V-frame is arched. Furthermore, in handling, the V-frame is hel most of the time in an upright position so that the dive ing poles do actually point upward and form a V. Only when the net is dropped into an oncoming wave does it leave this V position, and then it never really assumes vertical A position. The frames of the lifting and of th landing nets are almost always used vertically so that they are in the A position. While some have simply lumped all dip nets together, it seems proper to make the distinction between the A and V types of frames wi divergent poles, just as we speak of arc nets and hoop nets, though these also are dip nets. 44 KROEBER AND BARRETT: FISHING IN NORTHWESTERN CALIFORNIA Fig. 17. Scoop net or surf net. Drawn from specimen 1228. Yurok. Dimensions: A-B, 90 cm.; A-D, 333 cm.; A-F, 87 cm.; B-C, 225 cm.; B-F, 67 cm.; C-D, 18 cm.; C-E, 240 cm. The V-shaped frames are often as large as are the tshaped frames upon which the larger lifting nets are unted. One of the V-shaped frames in our collection the measurements shown in the explanation of re 17. At a point -back about 18 cm. from the relatively sharp -points of the side poles, the stout headline of the net ches across from one pole to the other. About five- hs of the way back to the angle formed by these side sthere is bound a strong, arched wooden bar which es as a hand hold in handling the net. To the two poles the net is made fast, with the apron forward. The scoop net is especially designed for use along beaches, particularly at the spawning times of ai small species, notably surf fish or "smelt." The rman, grasping the frame by its upward-bowed sbar and by the junction of the two side poles, and ing knee-deep or more in the surf, watches the es as they roll in. When he catches the glint of light e fish as they run, in numbers, in one of these es, he lowers the front of the net to horizontal or e, so that the fish are caught on the apron and eled by the wave back into the pouch of the net. Such herman in the surf ready to lower his net at the r moment is shown by Heizer and Mills (1952, pl. .89). n our plate 3, a, two fishermen are just ready to r scoop nets into an oncoming wave. Plate 3, b s a fisherman with his net lowered as the fish-laden approaches, and in plate 3, c he is holding up his with the catch of small fish just obtained. These photographs were made by Waterman in 1928, on bar at the mouth of the Klamath River. hile these nets ar e made with the cone tapering euniformly, as shown in figure 17, they do, in actual ;take on quite a different form when partly filled with The weight of the fish tends, as shown in plate 3, draw in the middle of the net in such a manner that s the appearance of a purposeful constriction in the truction of the net. We thus have various descrip- of this surf fishing in which the net is described in age like that used by Powers (1877, 3:50) in speak- of the Yurok: This net he connects by a throat, with a long bag- net floating in the water behind him, . . . After each wave he dips with his net and hoists it up, whereupon the smelt slide down to the point and through the throat into the bag-net. Yurok informants say that they formerly had what they term "a sideways scoop net for lampreys," i.e., it was "held out horizontally and moved horizontally." Apparently this refers to the plunge net, called tregepa, which other informants said was used for eulachon down in tidewater in the lower reaches of the river and was "always scooped sideways." These small species of fish, particularly when coming in to spawn on the beaches, arrive at very irregular intervals, but when they do come, they are in such num- bers that a single dip of the net, regardless of its form, is very productive. The mesh of the scoop net is very small, as expect- able. A good example is a net (1684), listed as "for lampreys, trout, candlefish," which has a conical pouch about 70 cm. in diameter and 80 cm. in depth. Project- ing forward from this pouch is an apron which measures about 100 cm. in length. Here we find, as in the other conical dip nets already described, the mesh size de- creasing toward the point of the pouch. Out at the front of the apron the mesh is about 24 by 24 mm. square. At the outer edge of the pouch it is 15 by 15 mm. square, and at the tip of the pouch it is only 13 by 13 mm. or a half-inch square. Another constant feature of these conical nets is the relative difference in gauge of the cord between the lower portion of the pocket and that up toward the mouth of the cone and on out onto the apron. The cord of the lower part or point of the cone is quite a bit heavier. Mainly this thickening must be deliberate, to keep the weight of the captured fish from bursting the net. The spawning surf fish run fitfully from hour to hour, even from moment to moment, and when they come thick, the fisherman keeps his stance in the water perhaps up to his knees or waist and awaits the next wave, meanwhile slipping his hand down the bag of the net to form what D 11 - i? 45 ANTHROPOLOGICAL RECORDS Powers called its throat, so as to hold the already cap- tured fish safely in. As he sees the fish glinting in the next breaker, he may step sidewise toward a school, or reach forward. He then dips the apron of the net until it is more or less horizontal, and when he lifts it up again, relaxes his hand to let the new catch wash or slide through the "throat" into the bag. In this way he wastes no time stepping back on the dry beach and dumping his catch there, but utilizes every minute of the peak of the run. While each wave may bring him only a few fish, or at best a pound or two of them, he may stay on until he finally staggers back up the beach with twenty or thirty or even fifty wriggling pounds massed in the cone of his net. It is to prevent loss of such a take--which might all slip out in a few seconds if a mesh or two parted-- that the cord is twisted heavier at the point of the net, and the meshes are smaller. Some of this thickening of cord and smaller mesh may also be due to the more constant wetting of the pouch. In use, the pouch of this net is always hanging down in the water, while the apron is much more constantly above the water level. This usage may make the cord of the pouch shrink, especially toward its tip, causing the cord to thicken and the size of the mesh to be somewhat diminished. Aside from any question of shrinkage, however, there is usually clearly a purposeful increase in the mesh size from the point to the mouth of the pouch and from the rear to the front of the apron. In fact we find that, in the mesh measures used in making these conical nets, at least in the smaller ones, the same mesh measure pro- vides for two, and sometimes three, sizes of mesh. One such specimen (2097), shown in plate 17, k, is recorded in the original field notes as "[elk] horn mesh-stick, two [different] widths for top and bottom of smelt [or eel] net." Furthermore, it is an interesting fact that, when this very mesh measure is applied to the net mentioned above, it is found to have three different widths which fit quite well the three different mesh sizes of the net. Again, in reference to the heavier gauge of the cord so often found in the lower part of the cone in these nets, it should be noted that not infrequently a considerable section of the tip of the cone has these cords actually doubled so that we have eight cords forming the four sides of each mesh. Driver (1939, p. 378, item 183) gives the dimensions of a Wiyot smelt net which he observed on a V-frame as follows: "mesh, 3/4 in.; total length, 11 ft.; length of mouth, 7 ft.; length of tail, 4 ft.; width of mouth, 5 ft. 5 in.; width at mouth of tail, 1 ft. [sic]; end of tail con- verges to point." A more detailed discussion of the making of these conical nets will be found under "Net Weaving." Hewes (F.N., 1940) gives the following data from the Coast Yurok for this scoop net (Yurok nega'). It was chiefly used for taking smelt and perch. The fisherman wades out into the surf to a depth of two or three feet. As a wave rolls in, laden with gravel and fish, he drops the net under it. The gravel passes through the meshes of the net, the fish remaining in the bag, which rests upon the sand. Dipping his net repeatedly as successive waves roll in, he finally accumulates perhaps as much as thirty or forty pounds of fish. He then carries his catch ashore and dumps it into a pit in the sand or gravel of the beach. Finally, these fish are carried home in a burden basket, and spread out for sun-drying on the gravel of the beach or on a layer of grass, the fish being turned from time to time. If gravel adheres to the dried fish, they are shaken in an openwork basket until the gravel falls off. At some points surf fish came in so thick that they were caught with the bare hands. No one bothered with anchovies in olden times. Hewes records this same scoop net for the Wiyot, as does Curtis also. Hewes (F.N., 1940) describes the Tolowa surf net and its use in detail. It was of the regular apron type of very fine-meshed net. Its bag was said to be sometimes as much as eight to ten feet long, ending in a buckskin loop to assist the fisherman in lifting and handling it. The fisherman stood out in the surf and dipped his net as the successive fish-laden breakers rolled in. When he had his bag sufficiently filled, he carried the net back on shore above the high-water line. Here he had scooped out a hole in the sand a foot or so deep and had lined it with grass. Into this he poured the fish. The grass lining prevented the fish from picking up too much sand while they awaited the arrival of the women who came with their wood-carrying baskets to carry them to the near-by camp where they were sun-dried, as shown in plate 4, a, or dried with the aid of fire, as shown in plate, 4, b. The small "smelt" were taken in this way, but some- times a dip of the net secured one of the larger fish, a cod for example, which had been in pursuit of the small fish as his own food. The smelt were in former times so numerous that a man often got his net so full that he had to have help to carry it ashore--sometimes even so full that it was necessary to pour some of the fish back into the water for fear of tearing the net because of the weight of the fish. Here again we find the usual restriction of fishing to the men. However, if no man was around a woman mig fish in the surf, provided she had with her a small boy who assisted by holding the "sack end of the net." We thus see that all along the immediate shore line wherever it was sandy, surf-fishing with this V-frame net was a common practice. In fact, when the smaller species ran in to spawn, surf-fishing was the major oc- cupation of the people dwelling on the coast. So much s in fact, that they moved down directly onto the beaches and camped there for the purpose, and were joined by relatives and friends from inland, even those of other speech and tribe. Such camp sites are found at various points; for example, Loud (1918, pp. 278-281) discusses in considerable detail certain archaeological sites alon the immediate shore line, at the mouth of Mad River, which he considers were once sites of Wiyot surf-fishi camps. ARC NET OR BOW DIP NET AGINSKY, 1943. N, P1. Miwok, pp. 394, 399, 453. BARRETT, 1952. Pomo, pp. 154, 155; large type used from tule bal CURTIS, 1924a. Achomawi, p. 136. _ , 1924b. Wintun, p. 78. Maidu, p. 109. DIXON, 1905. Maidu, pp. 142, 143, 197, and fig. 13; used in mountain streams. DRIVER, 1936. Wappo, p. 185; not used. _ , 1939. Kato, Coast Yuki, pp. 312, 378. DU BOIS, 1935. Wintu, p. 127. ESSENE, 1942. Wailaki, p. 54; for river fishing. Pomo, Kato, p. 6; used in surf. Pomo, Kato, Lassik, Yuki, used in streams. 46 KROEBER AND BARRETT: FISHING IN NORTHWESTERN CALIFORNIA GARTH, 1953. Atsugewi, pp. 136, 137; large dip net mounted on up- ward-bowing arc. MIFFORD, 1939. Coast Yuki, p. 323 and fig. 3; smelt caught as wave recedes. tFFORD and KROEBER, 1937. Patwin, Hill Wintun, Pomo (N, C, SW, S, E, SE, NE), pp. 133, 173. C Pomo, used from platform; S Pomo, "feeler strings" for night fishing for salmon; E Pomo, large arc net used by boatman; SE Pomo, large arc net operated from canoe in lake, or at dam, smaller arc nets in creeks; N and SW Pomo, surf fishing probably done with arc net. iGLDSCHMIDT, 1951. Nomlaki, p. 407. PEWES, Th., 1947. Lassik, Wailaki, p. 76. Pomo, fig. 60. plIFFEN, 1939. Pomo, pp. 359, 364. FROEBER, 1925. P. 816; general statement. Sinkyone, p. 148; arc net used for small fish in creeks. Coast Yuki, p. 213; surf fish caught in arc net as wave receded. Modoc, p. 325; Maidu, p. 415; arc net used in swift streams of mountains. 1929. Nisenan, p. 287. 1932. River Patwin, pp. 277, 295; arc net with bag; small arc net used by Hill Patwin. Two or three held abreast while fish are driven. )0EB, 1926. Pomo, p. 168. iOMLAND, 1935. Sinkyone, p. 154. OEGELIN, 1942. Achomawi, Atsugewi, Wintu, Maidu, Nisenan, p. 55. MAP 16 This type of dip net was apparently not used by any of e most typical tribes of Northwestern California, those 'the nuclear area. However, since it occurs among me of the smaller peripheral tribes, even though it is ite clearly borrowed from tribes to the south and east, must be taken into account when considering fishing in orthwestern California. This bow dip net takes two forms: one with points of ewooden bow down, that is, pointed away from the held dofthe main pole; the other with these points up, or bversed. Type I.--In the first type, the wooden bow which holds net mouth open is fastened to a pole so that the cord bich subtends the arc of the bow actually fastens to the tt of the pole. It is upon this semicircle, formed by ebow and the cord, that the net is made fast. This angement brings the straight side of the semicircular net down. It is this type of net that is described by omland (1935, p. 154) as used by the Sinkyone in their rf-fishing. Here the straight edge of the net was set the sand, with the mouth of the net facing inland. This caught the fish as the wave receded, which is exactly reverse of the scoop net, which is set to catch them they roll in with the incoming wave. Hewes (Th., 1947, fig. 65) illustrates this type for the ssik, though they owned only inland streams. As already pointed out, this type of arc net (with the s of the bow pointing away from the fisherman) is ical of the tribes to the south and east of the core ea. Usually it is a relatively small net used in the (ler streams. It reaches its ultimate in size in the ry large dip net of the Pomo, which was formerly used rdeep-water fishing from balsas out in Clear Lake. It quite fully described by Barrett (1952, pp. 154, 155), illustrated by Hewes (Th., 1947, fig. 60). Kniffen 939, p. 364) and Loeb (1926, p. 168) briefly describe it. o Gifford and Kroeber (1937, pp. 133, 173) record it the Pomo element lists (no. 196). It is interesting to note here, in this large lake, the development of this type of net to such great size, just as the large V-frame dip net reaches its ultimate in size on large Klamath Lake. (See Barrett, 1910, pp. 247-249, pl. 10.) In both these instances the large bodies of water have given rise to the development of especially large nets. As further evidence of this influence of environment on the development of special cultural features we need only cite the findings in Lovelock Cave, Nevada (Loud and Harrington, 1929). Here, in the Humboldt River Valley, and hard by two large bodies of water, Humboldt Lake and Carson Sink,27 we find an environmental condi- tion ideal for the development of fishing gear, in spite of the fact that this whole general region is distinctly desert. In Lovelock, as well as in Ocala, Hidden, and Humboldt caves, all only a few miles distant, we find conditions ideal for the preservation of the objects used by the early inhabitants of the region, even such perishable objects as baskets, tule mats, wooden implements, rabbitskin and birdskin blankets, and nets--objects which are prac- tically never found in more exposed archaeological sites. As a result, quantities of nets of various sorts have been recovered, mostly fragmentary to be sure, but sufficient to show how fully these people depended upon these bodies of water for their livelihood. While some of the nets were unquestionably used for rabbits, waterfowl,28 and land birds, many were used for fish in these adjacent bodies of water. In speaking of nets which he considers fish nets, Loud lists both conical dip nets and flat nets, these latter ranging up to 42 ft. in length and 5-1/2 ft. in width. The presence here in Lovelock Cave of many sinkers, both grooved and perforated, is ample evidence that these flat nets were used as fish nets, either as gill nets or as seines. The more recent work of Heizer and Krieger (1956) at Humboldt Cave, Nevada has brought to light still further evidence of the same type. Quite recently F. A. Riddell obtained from Northern Paiute informants near Honey Lake in California the in- formation that they formerly made tule balsas for use in fishing on this body of water and in the sloughs at its outlet where Susan River drains the lake. These balsas are said to have been pointed at both ends.29 Lowie has 27These are vestigial remains of the once great quaternary Lake Lahontan. Other similar, but much larger, remains are Lake Winne- mucca and Pyramid Lake. 28Loud states (p. 88): "In a cave near Ocala, 14 miles to the south of Lovelock Cave, a net was reported with birds entangled in it." 29Agair. the influence of environment is shown in the many and varied uses of tule by these same ancient inhabitants of the Humboldt Valley. As at Klamath Lake in Or egon and Clear Lake in California, great areas of matrsh lands produced quantities of tule and cattail rush, and this maiterial was used for mats, baskets, and many other objects and utensils, including balsas. A tule balsa similar to those reported from Humboldt Valley was used in ancient times on San Francisco Bay and in the estuary of the Sacramento-San Joaquin drainage (Kroeber, 1925, p. 359). Langsdorff (1812, pl. 8) shows a view on San Francisco Bay made in 1806; in the foreground is a tule balsa with pointed prow, rounded stern, and with a small arched "rancho" astern. In this balsa are four Indians, two of whoin are propelling the balsa with long paddles. This same scene is reproduced in Van Nostrand and Coulter (1948, pl. 5, p. 13). In Fr. Font's diary (1931) covering 1775-1776, we read (p. 370) of the region of what he calls "Puerto Dulce" [San Pablo and Suisun bays and Carquinez Strait] that they found here "launches very well made of tule, with their prows or points somewhat elevated." Kroeber (1929, p. 260) also records the use of the tule balsa by the Valley Nisenan. Reverting to the Humboldt River valley, we find that Leonard (1904, p. 167) speaks of the great areas of rushes which his party found grow- ing there in 1832 and says that they ''built rafts out of rushes to convey us across the river," referring apparently to the Humboldt River here in the immediate vicinity of Humboldt Lake. 47 ANTHROPOLOGICAL RECORDS recently recorded (1924, p. 249 and fig. 32) a balsa with pointed ends among the Northern Paiute or Paviotso, who resided historically in the Lovelock area. A subvariant of the arc net of type I has the pole-end fastened to the cord, but apparently does not have the wooden arc fastened across the pole farther up. In other words, the bow is there to stretch the cord, but lies loose across the pole. This arrangement facilitates the closing of the net. Arc nets of this subtype are still in use. In the sum- mer of 1955 W. S. Evans, Jr., and F. A. Riddell found an arc net of this type in the hands of an old Northeastern Maidu, who said that several such nets were held by fishermen standing in line across a stream while others drove the fish toward them. This particular net had a width of about four feet. The shaft was fastened to the cord subtending the bow. As far as could be ascertained the bow was not fastened to the shaft but moved freely. Type II.--In the second type of arc or bow dip net, the horns of the bow are turned up, pointing back toward the fisherman, and it is the center of the bow, not the sub- tending cord, that fastens to the tip of the pole. Dixon (1905, pp. 142, 197) illustrates a Northern Maidu dip net in which the cord running from point to point of the bow is made fast at some distance up the pole, thus producing a more or less triangular opening rather than a semi- circular one. This cord is rove through each mesh in the last course of its side of the net. This net, he says, was the type used in the mountains, whereas along the Sacramento River the seine prevailed. Hewes (Th., 1947, fig. 59) also illustrates this net for the Northern Maidu. Kroeber (1932, p. 295) records the arc net for the Patwin, where, he says, two or three such nets "might be held abreast by as many men, the fish often being driven with poles." Hewes (Th., 1947) notes the use of arc nets by a number of the other peripheral tribes: Coast Yuki, Yuki proper, Kato, Lassik, Wailaki, Yana, and, confirming Kroeber, among the Patwin. HOOP DIP NET BARRETT, 1910. Klamath, p. 250; dip net mounted on circular hoop on pole. CURTIS, 1924a. Klamath, p. 170. DRIVER, 1936. Wappo, p. 165; not used. _ , 1939. Karok, Tolowa, p. 312. GARTH, 1953. Atsugewi, p. 137; small dip net on circular hoop with single pole or on double V-shaped handle. GIFFORD, 1939. Coast Yuki, p. 322; oval-mouthed bag net held by swimmer to catch black perch driven toward net by other swimmers. GIFFORD and KROEBER, 1937. Pomo (N, SE), p. 133. HEWES, Th., 1947. Wailaki, p. 76; oval dip net for salmon. Karok, p.I KROEBER, 1925. Modoc, p. 325. SPIER, 1930. Klamath, p. 151; circular-mouthed dip net, and its use. VOEGELIN, 1942. Klamath, Modoc, Shasta, p. 55. MAP 17 What may be considered a form closely related to the arc net is the one in which the net was mounted on a bowed withe of any sort. Among various tribes it was customary for a man, when hunting or abroad for any purpose, to carry with him a small conical net. Any- where he could cut a green, pliable withe. This he simply bent into an elliptical or circular loop or hoop. Where the two ends crossed, he bound these into a con- venient handle. The net was fastened to the hoop and wil this improvised device he could catch trout, crayfish, and other food from any creek. This device, among the Hupa, was called test'entc. In some other regions this type of net was more elaborate, as mentioned below, but wherever we en- counter it here in northern California it is as simple in construction as possible. Spier and Sapir (1930, p. 176) describe, for the Wish- ram on the Columbia River, two dip nets. Both were mounted upon wooden hoops. One "had its net loosely threaded on the hoop and fastened to [a] cross-bar by a slip-knot," thus entrapping the fish in a kind of purse. BAG NET GARTH, 1953. Atsugewi, p. 136. HEWES, Th., 1947. Wailaki, p. 76; "oval-frame bag-nets which could be set at one end of a weir." This term is a very general one, which may be appli to almost any of the nets which form a bag as they are used. Almost any of the dip nets, the drag nets, and the drifting nets above described could be included in this group. However, we sometimes find such a net set in a weir or otherwise used to form part of a trapping devic just as we do woven basketry traps. (See fig. 7.) It is this connection that the term "bag net" seems most suitable. It is a type which is very little used in our nuclear area, though more often found among neighbori tribes to the east and south. FLAT NETS AGINSKY, 1943. N, P1. Miwok, pp. 394, 453; seine, gill net. BARNETT, 1937. Tolowa, Chetco, pp. 164, 195; gill net used; seine not used. BARRETT, 1910. Klamath, p. 250; gill net for small fish. _ , 1952. Pomo, p. 154 and pl. 1. BARTLETT, 1854. Wappo, pp. 32, 33; methods of fishing with harpoons and nets. Of special interest is the net suspended from a boom and provided with a trigger string. BERREMAN, 1944. Chetco, p. 31 and pl. X; sinkers (notched and grooved) from archaeological sites. CURTIS, 1924a. Hupa, pp. 14-16. Klamath, pp. 169, 170. , 1924b. Wintun, Maidu, pp. 78, 109. I II 48 49 KROEBER AND BARRETT: FISHING IN NORTHWESTERN CALIFORNIA DIXON, 1905. Maidu, p. 143; seine in Sacramento Valley. DRIVER, 1936. Wappo, p. 185; gill net not used. , 1939. Tolowa, Chimariko, Karok, Yurok, Hupa, Mattole, Sinkyone, pp. 312, 378; this is the dragged or circled net, the true seine. Tolowa, Chimariko, Yurok, Wiyot, Hupa, Mattole, Sinkyone, p. 312; gill net. DRIVER and MASSEY, 1957. Pp. 201, 203, 208, map 25; general statement. DRUCKER, 1937. Tolowa, p. 233; gill net. No seine, no drift nets. DU BOIS, 1935. Wintu, p. 15; seine used in communal salmon drives. Stretched across stream. Fish driven into it. ESSENE, 1942. Yuki, p. 5; seine and gill net. FOSTER, 1944. Yuki, p. 164; small seine (with sinkers and tule floats) operated by two men. Others drive fish into net. GARTH, 1953. Atsugewi, pp. 135, 136; gill net, seine. GIFFORD and KROEBER, 1937. Lake Miwok, Patwin, Pomo (N, SW, E, SE), p. 133; Pomo (S, SE), floats of tule. Seine and gill net. GODDARD, 1903. Hupa, p. 24 and pl. 14, fig. 1. GOLDSCHMIDT, 1951. Nomlaki, pp. 406, 407; seines used by river people only. HEWES, Th., 1947. Tolowa, p. 88; long gill nets. KNIFFEN, 1939. Pomo, pp. 359, 364; gill net. KROEBER, 1925. P. 816; general statement. Sinkers commonly notched. Grooved sinkers used only in Northwestern California. Floats of wood or tule. Yurok, pp. 84, 85; gill nets, salmon and sturgeon seines have different sizes of mesh. Achomawi, p. 309; for salmon. Modoc, p. 325; with tule floats. Maidu, p. 415; seine used in still water of sloughs and streams in valley. Patwin, p. 363; seine used by one functional family. , 1929. Nisenan, p. 287. , 1932. River Patwin, pp. 277, 295; short, hauled seine. Also drag seine used between two tule rafts. Three or four men also dived with seine. Short, hauled seine used by Hill Patwin. LOUD, 1918. Pp. 364, 365, 387; sinkers and anchors from Humboldt Bay. NOMLAND, 1935. Sinkyone, p. 154; seine used as barrage. , 1938. Mattole, p. 112. ROSTLUND, 1952. Pp. 93-100 and map 33. SAPIR and SPIER, 1943. Yana, pp. 252, 258; seines. SPIER, 1930. Klamath, pp. 149, 151, 152; 3 ft. by 40+ ft., floats and grooved sinkers. Set on stakes. VOEGELIN, 1942. Atsugewi, Nisenan, Shasta, Wintun, p. 55; seine type net. Klamath, Modoc, Achomawi, Atsugewi, Nisenan, p. 55; gill net. MAPS 19-21 These long and relatively narrow nets were made with extra large mesh for sturgeon and with a standard sh for salmon. They were used as true seines, as set s or gill nets, as drag nets, and as bag nets. SEINE While, in general, the waters of the Northwest Cali- nia rivers were too swift for seining, there were, par- ularly on their- lower courses, some places where the ter was sufficiently slack to permit the use of seines.30 n, there were the bays, estuaries, and lagoons at the ver mouths wher e seining could be done with relative e. Also Lake Earl, which is of considerable size, was he seine is not only one of the most widely used types of nets, but one which dates very far back in history. Wilkinson (1878, Vol. 2, 102), in citing the fishing methods of ancient Egypt, shows a seine ghauled ashore, well filled with fish. ideal for this method of fishing. In such waters these long, narrow nets were employed, being hauled, usually by a pair of canoes, in such a manner as to encircle and impound the fish in a small area. The fish were then usually removed by dip nets. In the process of hauling these nets some fish were gilled, but this was secondary. The object of true seining was to impound the fish in a relatively small area. The self-same net, when provided with sinkers and floats and anchored in one spot, served as a set net or gill net. Hewes (F.N., 1940) states for the Shasta that a type of seine was used occasionally to "encircle fish." This net, called quaidutma, was a hundred feet or so in length by about four feet in width. Its one end was securely moored ashore opposite a point where the river showed slow, still water, with very gentle eddies, if any. Here the fish were likely to be resting quietly. The free end of this net was taken out in a dugout canoe, which circled ANTHROPOLOGICAL RECORDS around in a wide arc, impounding the salmon and the steelheads. This, the informant maintained, was not a gill net. It simply impounded the fish and brought them into a small compass where they were more easily secured by the fisherman. A rather elaborate type of seine used by the Patwin is described by McKern (1922, p. 248). In speaking of Trade Families McKern emphasizes the fact that such families possessed certain charms and medicines which gave them success in their special vocations. He cites this edge are of various kinds of stone and of three general types: one is a natural, perforated stone meas- uring 8 x 9 cm., and weighting 350 gm.; five are flat, grooved sinkers ranging in size from 9 x 13 cm. to 7 x Fig. 18. Gill net, with pole supports, anchors, rattle, and fire ashore. After Hewes (F.N., 1940). as an example a man thus rendered adept in catching all kinds of small and medium-sized fish. Aided by these charms, the man's family used a large "slough net" made of native hemp string. It was, as he says, "squarely oblong" and was suspended across a slough by means of a low-hanging twisted rope, the ends of which were tied to trees on the opposite banks of the slough in such a manner that most of the net was sub- merged. It was held down by a line of sinkers attached to the lower edge of the net. These sinkers were mud pellets, each about the size of a baseball, and were wrapped in tule. The fish were driven into the net. Then one end of the rope was detached from its moorings and the net was pulled across the slough to the opposite shore, thus entrapping the fish and bringing them to land. SET NET OR GILL NET A good net of this type is a Yurok specimen (1083), collected at Weitchpec, which still retains some of its wooden floats and most of its stone sinkers. This net is shown, in part, in Goddard's (1903) plate 14, figure 1. Concerning the use of this type of net among the Hupa, Goddard says (1903, p. 24), "When the net had been set, several canoe loads of men went out and drove the fish into the net." This statement indicates that it was used as a gill net. The specimen noted above is 19.13 m. long as indicated by actual measurement of the headline, and is a meter in width. Its mesh, which is on an 8 cm. bar, is made of a relatively coarse cord and with the usual sheet bend. Its lower edge has a relatively light footline made of two 2-ply cords twisted together. The footline is rove through each of the bottom meshes, and to it the sinkers are attached by binding at intervals averaging about 102 cm. These bindings prevent slippage of the net on the footline. The eleven sinkers31 which still remain attached to 3lOriginally, when the specimen was collected, at least twelve sinkers were present, as shown in Goddard's illustration. 12 cm., and weighing 671, 510, 500, 393, and 390 gm. respectively. The remaining five are thin, discoidal sinkers, each with a hole pecked through its center. One has a diameter of 9 cm. The others have diameters of 10 cm. each. Their weights are 230, 221, 321, 341, and 351 gm. respectively. Each sinker is tightly lashed to the footline of the net with several rounds of cord, as is shown in plate 5, a. Fortunately, seven of these sinkers are still attached to this footline at one end of the net as originally used. This shows us two facts. (1) Since one of these sinkers is lashed to the corner of the net, we know that no anchor, was used at this corner as it is in the nets illustrated in figures 18 and 20, (2) Since seven of these sinkers ar still in a consecutive line, it is possible to obtain ac- curate measurements of their spacings. These range from 94 cm. up to 134 cm. The average is 102 cm. If, as seems most probable, this average was maintained throughout the 19.13 meters of the net's length, we find that there were originally nineteen such spaces calling for twenty sinkers. As above stated, eleven of these are now present and bound in place. In addition there are four other bindings still attached to the footline, account- ing for a total of fifteen of the original presumed twenty sinkers. The upper edge of this net has a heavy headline, and also a lighter line, which may be termed a handling line. The first is a heavy 3-ply line which is rove through each of the meshes, of which there are 191, all told, from end to end of the net. The handling line is a some- what lighter 3-ply line which is made by twisting togethe three 2-ply lines. This handling line does not pass through any of the meshes, but is fastened at intervals of every sixth mesh (about 63 cm.) to the main headline by means of a lark's-head knot. Apparently the main pur- pose of this line is to prevent the rove meshes from sliding too far on the main headline as the net is being hauled or otherwise handled. It does not serve any use- ful purpose in connection with the floats, for these are attached by short lines [strops] to the knotting points where the headline and the handling line are fastened together. The floats are very light ovals of redwood, measuring 50 KROEBER AND BARRETT: FISHING IN NORTHWESTERN CALIFORNIA ., Fig. 19. Gill net, with anchors and with rattle. After Hewes (F.N., 1940). 27 cm., with a thickness of only 2 cm. The reason using thin ovals is not clear, but their use is con- ed by Hewes, below. They may possibly have been bd round out of ends or pieces of house planks. Concerning these set nets Kroeber (1925, p. 85) says: A long net was sometimes set for sturgeon. One at was measured [in the field] had a six inch mesh, a width of three feet, and a length of eighty-five feet, but in use was doubled to half the length and double he width. A measured salmon seine had a scant three inch mesh, a width of three and a half feet, and a length of over sixty feet. et nets or gill nets were quite generally used where- r the body of water was sufficiently large and where- rthe current was not too swift to make their use racticable. Usually such a net was used in conjunc- with a fish drive which made the whole operation re or less of a communal affair. Hewes (F.N., 1940) records for the Yurok and the st Yurok the following facts concerning their gill nets ret): These nets were 6 to 7 ft. wide by 50 to 60 ft. gordinarily, though one informant among the Coast ok mentioned lengths up to 300 ft. The mesh of such et was 3 to 4 in. square. iThe net was weighted with stone sinkers (lewet-wal: "net rock") spaced about 3 ft. apart. The headline uch a net was provided with thin, oval, wooden floats lenew), spaced at about 6-ft. intervals. The net was stretched out, with one end of the head- line tied to a tree or stake on shore or held by anchors, the other end being tied to a pole set firmly in the river bottom or held by an attending fisherman in a canoe. (See figs. 18-20.) On a line running from the net to the shore usually hung a crab-claw rattle. The struggles of a catch in the net sounded the alarm which roused the watchers waiting ashore at a small fire (for warmth). They paddled out and removed the catch. (This account suggests night setting of the nets. Compare Spott and Kroeber's nar- rative [1942, p. 204], where an attacking party was dis- covered near the present highway bridge over the Klamath by a Welkwau man who had gone there with his wife to set a gill net for the night. The salmon were not running and they both went to sleep, but toward morning the crab claws rattled, and while he went to his net, his wife saw the enemy canoes.) Sometimes no alarm line was used. Then the net might be left unattended. In the morning the fisherman returned, raised the net, and removed whatever fish had been caught during the night. Such a net would catch not only any kind of fish which became entangled but also ducks and possibly other species which swam into it. Some informants stated that gill nets were used only at night for the reason that in the daytime fish would see it and avoid it. What seems to be a more likely explan- ation was given by others for this night fishing, namely, that the fish usually traveled at night rather than in the daytime. According to Gifford (F.N., 1939-42), the gill net used by the Karok was shorter than that used downriver where, Fig. 20. Gill net, moored to a tree and attended by man in canoe. After Hewes (F.N., 1940). Tolowa. 8 il I t II 5 1 ANTHROPOLOGICAL RECORDS at least toward the mouth, the stream was considerably wider.32 One such net measured five "reaches" (fathoms) in length and about one and a half in width (a reach being the distance from fingertip to fingertip when the arms are fully extended). This particular net was used in the Salmon River, where it stretched completely across from bank to bank. [This net must have been in an especially narrow spot, as the Salmon River averages several times 30 ft. in breadth.] It was not used on the near-by Klamath for the reason that it was not long enough to reach across this large stream, although it might be stretched across some cove if desired. Such a net was weighted with sinkers made of flat stones with grooves pecked into two edges so that the iris-string lashing could not slip. These stones were lashed directly onto the footline of the net. Other in- formants stated that no floats were used by the Karok and that no perforated sinkers were employed. The net was moored to each bank, or it might be moored at only one end, the opposite end being held by a fisherman in his canoe. (See fig. 20.) Others on the banks or in canoes threw stones into the water, upstream and downstream, in order to frighten the fish toward the net, where they were gilled. The agitation of the net showed when it was time to haul in the catch. Hewes (F.N., 1940), for the Wiyot, says that inform- ants stated that after spearing salmon for several days, as they came in after the bar at the mouth of the [Eel] river had been opened by the first high water, the Wiyot then set their gill nets in the deeper waters of the estuary. These could not be used farther upstream because of in- sufficient water. The streams were neither deep enough nor wide enough in most places. Such a Wiyot gill net was woven of iris-fiber string. This material had to be secured through barter from the mountain regions farther back from the coast. The net was 60 to 70 ft. in length and had grooved (not perforated) stone sinkers at about 18-in. intervals along the bottom. It had no floats (sic) but at each end there was a light redwood pole to keep the net upright. This pole was held in place by planting it in the sand or mud of the bottom or by anchoring with a heavy grooved stone anchor. A crab-claw rattle was placed on one of the poles so that, as the fish tried to get through the net, they gave the alarm. This rattle was made of dried crab "shells" or claws or both. It took about four such pieces to make a satisfactory rattle. (See figs. 18, 19.) The fisherman then hurried out in his canoe lest a seal devour his catch. He hauled on the headline of his net so as to cause the meshes to close partially into diamond forms and thus more effectively entangle the fish. As he hauled in the net and came to each fish, he clubbed it, either in the net or after it had fallen into the canoe. If he came upon a fish which was not securely gilled, he tried to wrap a section of net around it to pre- vent its escape until it could be landed in the canoe. Al- most any kind of club served his purpose. One of heavy wood, like oak, and with a knobbed end, was especially useful. No gaff was used. A sand hearth in the canoe enabled the fishermen to have a small fire for warmth at night. Informants stated that, because in olden times there were such great numbers of salmon, this set gill net was the only type used in the lower part of the [Eel] river. Neither the drift net nor the true seine was used. And, 32Kroeber's observation is that up to about 10 mi. from the mouth of the Klamath the increase in width is not very noticeable; evidently the stream deepens more than it widens in the 30 miles below weitchpec as compared with the 30 miles above that point. of course, there were, in Wiyot territory, no eddies and rushing waters where A-frame lifting nets could be emw ployed. Some other informants, however, stated that such nets were also used by the Wiyot--perhaps else- where. Hewes (F.N., 1940) also gives some details concern- ing the gill net of the Tolowa. The general term mecx' is applied to all nets of this type. His informants recognized two kinds: The larger oni called ti kaitloke-mecxa', the one used for taking Chino salmon, was some 15 fathoms in length and had a width of about 13 ft.33 This net was set anywhere along the lower ten miles of Smith River. Another, smaller net, one 10 fathoms in length and only 5 ft. in width, was used in the fall for taking steelheads. This net, called tTsi'mun-mecxa', was always set in shallower water neu the bank, for this is the water favored by this species. Neither of these nets was long enough to reach completl across Smith River. Either net was moored to a stake on shore, the op- posite end being anchored by means of a stone anchor weighing twenty to thirty pounds. Any natural stone served this purpose, provided it had either a natural perforation or a surface which would hold a cord which was tied around it. The bottom line of the net had lash to it several grooved stone sinkers, while the headline carried paddle-like, wooden floats [note once more the flat, oval shape] placed at intervals of ten or twelve fe Such a net was mostly used at night and was watche very carefully, chiefly because a seal or sea lion, fol- lowing the fish, might tangle in the net and ruin it in a very few minutes. The repair of a torn net might con-1 sume at best two or three days. Especially was it im- portant to safeguard the net because the iris fiber use in making and in repairing it had to be obtained from mountain regions, usually through barter with the peop on the Klamath. In watching his net the fisherman either remained ashore or in his canoe moored near the shore. In eith case the watcher held the end of the headline so that h could feel the twitching caused by the struggles of the enmeshed fish. He then pulled his canoe along by the headline of the net until he felt the weight of the en- meshed fish, which he hauled into the canoe, where it was stunned with the fish club. In order to provide against the chill of the night a small fire was kept burning on shore or, if the watche remained in his canoe, on a small hearth of dirt in the bottom of the canoe. Informants stated that a net intended for use in Smi River was made with a mesh about seven and a quarte inches square, while one intended for use in Lake Ear was about a half-inch smaller in each of its dimensio They maintained that no steelheads came up into Lake Earl, and that the "blue backs" (silver salmon) found there rarely exceeded eight or nine pounds in weight. However, Chinook salmon running up Smith River so times reached a weight of fifty to sixty pounds. 33A net of this width can have been used only in the lower tidal est of Smith River. The Klamath has a far larger flow of water but few any reaches of 13-ft. depth; nor have any Yurok claims been record of nets of such width. 34It looks as if one of Hewes's Tolowa informants tended to use pr figures but with a careless grandeur: a 13-ft. wide net above, andn a 7.25-in. mesh, which would let all but the occasional very largest Chinook salmon through. Even in the larger Klamath the Yurok stur geon net mesh is rarely given as more than 6 in. The 9-lb. "blue- salmon in Lake Earl could have swum through the alleged 6.75 inch mesh in pairs. I i I L 52 KROEBER AND BARRETT: FISHING IN NORTHWESTERN CALIFORNIA One informant pointed out that these gill nets were 0t set in Lake Earl itself, but in the mouths of creeks ing into the lake; hence they were usually quite rt--rarely over two fathoms in length. Another of Hewes's Tolowa informants called attention a special setting of the gill net for catching steelheads they ascend the river with the high water in January. seems that, according to this informant, the steelhead rally travels upstream very close to the bank, rarely in midstream. Taking advantage of this fact, the herman builds out at right angles to the bank a short to 8 ft.) fence, by driving several close-set posts with tight brush filling on the upstream side. From the er end of this fence a gill net, six fathoms or so in th, is run upstream. The fish, upon encountering short barrier, make their way out around it and ap- ntly, on trying to get back close to shore again, gill selves in the net. This whole device is called agtra ("runs out"). S 1_i; --. Hewes (F.N., 1940) further reports, for the Mattole, type of gill net as a very temporary affair, made of inner bark of willow. Such a net (30 to 100 ft. long 5 or 6 ft. wide) could be woven in a single day and t never be allowed to get dry. If these fibers dried ,they became brittle and the net was useless. This was chiefly used in the lagoon up from the river th, though it was employed in favorable spots on up te upper limit of Mattole territory. It was stretched ss any deep pool. No canoe was necessary in setting the fishermen simply waded out into the water. It was ided with a brush buoy at either end. The "floaters" e light sticks (not tules). A few stones, picked up re used, served as sinkers. When the net was in e, the fishermen waded about and disturbed the water order to scare the fish into the net. Some fish went er it and were allowed to pass, because the fishermen w that the people living upstream needed fish also. 'The Mattole also made more permanent nets of 2-ply , with mesh measure and shuttle. A coarser-meshed was used for salmon and a smaller-meshed net for Iheads. The nets were carefully dried and were ed in a dry place. Then they would last indefinitely. For King (Chinook) salmon, always caught in the fall e year [the Mattole does not carry enough water for .until after the winter rains have begun], the net had esh about six inches square. It was used when the r was high, at which time a weir is impracticable. fishermen waded out into the stream waist-deep in er to set this net. The smaller-meshed net, for steelheads, was used in spring, and these fish were caught chiefly as they ecoming downstream, heading out to sea. Two or men worked together and often caught a hundred or e fish at a time. They divided with everybody. As informant said, "One man does not eat fish alone." The dip net was not used for King salmon by the ole, and a hook was not used for any kind of salmon. nother type of gill net is recorded by Hewes (F.N., ). He says that the Tolowa use a long gill net, to " which they trun it out over the stern35 of the canoe. required two persons, one to paddle the canoe, the rto pay out the net. The paddler may be a second rman, or possibly the wife of the man who is han- gthe net. In order to prevent the tangling of the net, headline with its floats was held aloft, letting the bably means from one side toward the stern. If there is only one er. he must sit at the stern to control direction. The net was pre- ly paid out over the gunwale, somewhat forward of the paddler's on the side opposite to his paddle. footline with its sinkers slide out over the gunwale of the canoe. If this net was to be employed as an ordinary gill net it was moored to the shore or was secured by heavy, grooved anchor stones. Thus employed, it was usually used at night. DRIFT NET This same gill net was, however, sometimes employed in the daytime as a drifting net. It was paid out of the canoe in the same manner as above described and was provided with the same floats and sinkers. However, it was not moored to the shore and it did not have the heavy anchor stones. Sometimes as many as three of these gill nets might be fastened together, end to end, in order to reach well across the stream. Some fish were actually caught as they struck the net in their attempt to pass, but the chief purpose of this drift net seems to have been to force the fish toward the weir and trap device, which was placed across the river not far away. The informant stated that the drifting of this net was sometimes carried as much as half a mile, but he did not go into details concerning the weir and trap construction. Such a net served the same purpose as a movable weir. The fishermen usually carried their harpoons in the canoes, and secured some, at least, of their fish this way. In connection with these set nets and with some types of traps, attempts were made to frighten the fish out of deep pools and elsewhere above or below the net or trap and to make them run into the device set for them. The fishermen, or perhaps some boys, would wade around, if the water was shallow enough, would throw stones into the stream, and would use any other means possible to get the fish moving. One of Hewes's Tolowa informants spoke of a special device used to frighten fish into their nets or traps. He stated that they would place decaying food and refuse in bundles of brush where they also put very hot stones. When these bundles were cast into the stream the fish would be frightened for long distances. In their attempts to escape they landed in the nets or traps. [The hiss and steam of these hot stones would undoubtedly help frighten fish, but the function of decaying food is not clear.] (See also "Driving Fish.") DRAG SEINE The term "drag seine" applies to a net of the type above described when it is hauled through the water instead of being simply set and allowed to remain in one place. The weight of the sinkers causes its lower edge to drag on the bottom of the river, where the salmon chiefly are as they travel upstream. In this case the term drag net or drag seine is certainly proper. This is an entirely different net from the smaller "conical drag net" described above, which is in reality a type of dip net, with two sticks or poles used as dis- tenders to produce a trapezoidal-mouthed pouch, which is hauled through the water by two canoes. When two of these conical drag nets are hitched together and manipu- lated on poles long enough to force them down to the river bottom where the salmon are, they form the "'conical drifting bag net" described earlier. However, two of these "drag seines," when connected, form the "drifting bag seine" next to be described. 53 ANTHROPOLOGIC. DRIFTING BAG SEINE The drifting bag seine, as we are calling it in contra- distinction to the "conical drifting bag net" above de- scribed, is of two forms: a double form designed primarily for taking sturgeon and a single form designed primarily for taking salmon. Both were operated on ropes instead of poles. Double drifting bag seine.--The double drifting bag seine was made by fastening together two short seines with vertical distenders, and by placing these on ropes, the whole being balanced with stone anchors, so that the two nets would remain in the right position and at the proper depth. (See fig. 21.) Hewes describes what he terms a "sturgeon bag net" among the Coast Yurok, as follows: Fasten together two nets, each about 7 ft. long and with abag about 6 ft. deep. Such a double bag net was called roxtce. For sturgeon the mesh was about 8 in. square. The two ends of these nets were held open by vertical sticks.36 The nets were held down by heavy sinkers (anchors) attached to the end lines, while they were dragged slowly downstream by two canoes. This caused the nets to bag out upstream. (See fig. 21.) The nets were attached to heavy lines (3/8 in.) held by men in the sterns of the canoes. , ' i I / AL MLJ AA JUflJl spring, almost everyone participated in this type of fish-I ing on the lower reaches of the Klamath. Several pairs of canoes, each with its two bag nets, operated at the same time and frequently many sturgeon were caught. Single drifting bag seine.--Gifford (F.N., 1939-42) says that, among the Karok, a bag net, primarily for salmon, was formed by stretching a single seine betwee two canoes. Each end of this net was held by a heavy grooved "anchor" stone so placed in each canoe as to help balance the pull of the net and facilitate the handlin of the craft. The canoes were sometimes paddled by women while men handled the net. The canoes really floated downstream and only enough paddling was neces- sary to keep them at such distance one from the other a to hold the net properly. Hewes (F.N., 1940) also records this type of net for the Karok. A gill net is set between two canoes which drift downstream, usually for one-eighth of a mile or so. The bottom edge of this net was weighted with regular flat, partly grooved stone sinkers. At each end of the net was a larger, heavier sinker, which may be termed an anchor. This anchor had a somewhat rounded form with the groove running completely around it. Each of these anchors was actually placed in one of the canoes and the two served to secure the ends of the net firmly. I Fig. 21. Double drifting bag seine, for sturgeon. When the net man in either canoe felt a sturgeon in his net he called out to the paddlers to bring the canoes together. Meantime he began to haul in the line and to close the mouth of his one of the pair of nets. As soon as the entrapped sturgeon was within reach both net tenders used their fish clubs to stun it. Or, upon occa- sion, one of the net men would actually grapple with the sturgeon while his partner wielded the fish club. Yurok informants stated that a communal effort in taking sturgeon by means of the "drifting bag seine" was very efficacious. When the sturgeon run was due in the Such a net was called icipkan. When used for taking the large winter salmon (pavu't), it was called pavu't icipkan. Hewes also records this same type of net as present among the Wiyot. The only other mention of it is that by Driver (1939, p. 312), whose entry 182 calls for a "sacklike net, drag ged" which presumably refers to a similar type of net. However, he attributes it to one only of the divisions of the Sinkyone and to none of the other tribes of the North western California region. 36Kroeber's field notes (1902) speak of seeing, at Ko'tep, just below Pekwon, a notched or ringed pole, about 4 ft. in length, attached to what was called a sturgeon dip net. From the description it seems quite possible that this may have been one of the distenders on a sturgeon drifting bag seine, rather than part of the frame of a sturgeon lifting net. 54 A T D~ V-nD nc: l KROEBER AND BARRETT: FISHING IN NORTHWESTERN CALIFORNIA CYLINDRICAL OR HOOP NET DRUCKER, 1937. Tolowa, p. 232; "conical net" with hoop set in diagonal weir. HEWES, F. N., 1940. Tolowa; cylindrical net with hoop used in weir. MAP 18 Much more rarely we find what may be termed a cylindrical net set by some of these tribes as a trap in Pe opening of a weir. The mouth of this long tube is held open by means of a wooden hoop and it is fitted with signal cord which operates a rattle on shore. Also there is usually a cord which may be pulled to close the net and entrap the catch. Such a device, as reported by Hewes (F.N., 1940) for the Tolowa, is shown in our figure 9. FLOATS, SINKERS, ANCHORS BARNETT, 1937. Chetco, Tolowa, grooved sinkers; Chetco, square float; Tolowa, triangular float; p. 164. BARRETT, 1910. Klamath Lake, pp. 250, 252, p]. 21, fig. 7; grooved sinkers, tule floats. , 1952. Pomo, tule floats; pl. 15, fig. 2. DRIVER, 1939. All Northwestern California tribes, pp. 312, 378. DRUCKER, 1937. Tolowa, p. 233; triangular or oval wooden floats. Grooved or notched sinkers. ESSENE, 1942. Yuki, p. 5; unworked stone sinkers. GIFFORD and KROEBER, 1937. N and E Pomo, unworked stone net sinker; E Pomo, grooved net sinker; E and SE Pomo, net floats, pp. 133, 134. KROEBER, 1925. Yurok, sinkers, fig. 7; Klamath Lake, p. 326, grooved net sinkers. McKERN, 1922. Patwin, p. 248, mud ball sinkers wrapped in tule. SPIER, 1930. Klamath Lake, p. 152; tule floats, grooved sinkers. VOEGELIN, 1942. Modoc, Atsugewi, perforated stone sinkers. Klamath, Modoc, Atsugewi, Achomawi, Wintun, grooved stone sinkers. Achomawi, Atsugewi, wooden floats. Klamath, Modoc, Achomawi, Atsugewi, tule floats, p. 55. MAPS 22-26 In manipulating nets of the flat type certain acces- pries were required: floats, sinkers, and anchors. l Floats in the nuclear area were usually thin ovals of lot wood tied to the upper edge of the net so as to keep buoyed up at or near the surface of the water. Such ats are shown in figures 18 and 20. 'Hewes says these floats are 11 by 3-3/4 in. in dimen- ns. We may assume that such exact figures derive omactual measurements of floats seen in the field. efloats on our large net measure, as above mentioned, by 27 cm. and have a thickness of 2 cm. Hewes does give the size of the larger float [buoy] at either end the net. Some of the adjacent tribes varied the forms of these ats. Drucker (1937, p. 233) states that the Tolowa atwas "triangular or ovoid." Driver (1939, p. 312, ment 179) records simply ''wooden floats" for the Iowa, Karok, Yurok, Hupa, and Mattole. These were oused by the Chetko. Others, the Klamath Lake Indians, for example, used 'n sticks or tule for floats. The Pomo, of the Clear e region at least, used small bundles of tule as floats. In the Northwest area sinkers were attached at fre- nt intervals along the lower edges of flat nets. These re of three general types: grooved sinkers, sinkers hnatural perforations, and finely formed, perforated ers. Though sometimes purposely shaped, the ved sinkers were most frequently flattish pebbles of ral forms with grooves pecked around their middles on two of their edges to hold the cord by which they re lashed to the footline of the net. If such a pebble had any sort of depression sufficient to keep the cord from slipping, no pecking was required. If a pebble could be found which had a natural perforation, the hole was utilized to lash it to the net. The finely formed perforated sinkers were usually quite carefully made by pecking and then smoothing. Four of these are shown in our plate 5, a, where they are lashed in place on a large gill net. Our plate 6, a-i, shows a selected series of all three types of these sinkers, with considerable variation in form il the grooved and the perforated types. The dimensions and weights of these several sinkers are tabulated in the explanation accompanying this plate. Almost any kind of stone was utilized for sinkers, but the more finely shaped and smoothed ones were usually of serpentine.37 Kroeber (1925, p. 86, fig. 7) shows five of these sinkers. Driver (1939, p. 312) records grooved stone sinkers as used by the Tolowa, Chimariko, Karok, Yurok, Wiyot, Hupa, Sinkyone, and Coast Yuki. He records per- forated sinkers as used by the Tolowa, Karok, Yurok, Wiyot, and Hupa. With large nets, anchors were used at the ends, as shown in figures 18-20. A rock of suitable size and weight, generally more or less ovoid in form, was grooved so that it would hold a fairly heavy cord. Six of these are shown in plate 6, m-r. Their dimensions and weights are given in the explanation of this plate. 37Some of the sinkers in the collection have been identified as made of serpentine, others of talc. i .4 5 5 ANTHROPOLOGICAL RECORDS As above mentioned, one of Hewes's (F.N., 1940) Karok informants said that his people had a drifting bag net which consisted of a short gill net held between two canoes and allowed to drift downstream with the current. The lower edge of this net was provided with stone sinkers and eacW of the lower corners of the net had one of the heavy anchors. These anchors were not allowed to hang down in the water but one was carried in each canoe. This would naturally cause the net to bag out upstream, and would produce an effective pouch. That heavy stone anchors were quite widely used is indicated by the fact that Fr. Font (1931, p. 373) found them employed in the vicinity of Carquinez Strait in 1771 1776. With reference to balsas in these waters, he speak of "raising the anchors, which were stones tied by a rope. " 56 CHAPTER IV NET MAKING AND NETTING IMPLEMENTS NET MAKING BARRETT, 1910. Klamath Lake, p. 250; milkweed and nettle fibers. CURTIS, 1924a. Klamath, p. 173. _ , 1924b. Wintun, p. 78. DIXON, 1905. Maidu, pp. 143-145, and figs. 14, 15; details of netting, milkweed, wild hemp. Fibers rolled on thigh into 2-ply string. These combined to make stronger cord. GIFFORD, 1939. Coast Yuki, pp. 342, 343; Iris macrosiphon fiber. String 2-ply. Rope 4-ply. KROEBER, 1925. Yurok, Coast Yuki, pp. 85, 214; 2-ply iris-fiber cord. Coast Yuki, p. 214; wooden mesh measure. ROSTLUND, 1952. P. 169; materials. SCHENCK and GIFFORD, 1952. Pp. 381, 382, 386; uses of Iris macrosiphon. Grapevine and hazel used for coarser cordage. SPIER, 1930. Klamath, pp. 152, 154; nettle, milkweed. VOEGELIN, 1942. P. 80; 2-ply cord twisted on thigh by all tribes of Northeastern California. i.." MATERIALS The people of this region generally employed only one aterial in making their finer cordage, though coarse ipes were twisted out of grapevine and strips of willow k and hazel withes were used for tying and coarse wving. In fact, mention was made of a temporary net nen of willow-bark fiber. Among the Karok, still bther material (unidentified) was sometimes used, ac- rding to Gifford. The Karok, according to Schenck and Gifford (1952, 386), used grapevine to moor a boat, and, they add, the paller grapevines are twisted to make rope. Kroeber gularly observed the same among the Yurok. The string regularly used for nets, bags, snares, and like was made exclusively from the leaf of Iris orosiphon. This is a small plant with a white flower. ch leaf yielded only two fine, white, silky fibers. These Fe extracted by the women with the aid of an artificial mmbnail of mussel shell, such as those shown in plate m-r. The actual rolling and twisting of the strong ird, with right-hand twist, was the work of men, as was sothe weaving and knotting of the nets. Informants on the immediate coast usually said that iris fibers were obtained "from the mountains." The lowa told Hewes that they got most of theirs from the lamath River people. The range of the plant is record- as from 100 to 3,000 feet (according to Jepson's anual) in the Sonoran and Transitional humid zones. brestriction of range, the thinness of the fiber, and its ghtensile strength account for the value placed on it. Kroeber's field notes of 1901 (11-54) specify how the asfibers for cordage were obtained. The leaves of this iris (macrosiphon) are from one to ofeet in length and not over a quarter of an inch in idth, and are flat almost to the root. They are a red- ple at the base, white a little farther up, and finally een throughout the remainder of that part of their gth which is above ground and in the light. With the aves held in the left hand, each leaf is split by means Ithe artificial nail on the right thumb. Then each half- [57] leaf is stripped of its green pulpy material by drawing this shell thumbnail from the middle of the half-leaf out, first toward one end, then toward the other, on one side, then the leaf is turned over. Thus with four such strip- pings one leaf is reduced to its two, full-length, silken, white fibers. Kroeber collected six bundles of this iris fiber (speci- men 1460) from the Yurok early in this century. These bundles range in length from 50 to 55 cm. Half-a-dozen individual fibers chosen at random range in length from 27 to 55 cm. The average length of the six was 42 cm. Gifford (F.N., 1939-42) states that the Karok call Iris macrosiphon apkas. The fibers of the common large species, I. missouriensis (chir apkas), lack the tensile strength and are not used. His account of Karok prepa- ration of macrosiphon follows. The leaves are usually gathered by women, though men may assist. Each leaf is torn from the plant with the bare hands. As a handful of leaves accumulates, it is tied into a bundle with one of the leaves around it and dropped into a burden basket. On arrival at camp or home, these bundles are hung up overnight, but not where smoke will reach them. This procedure is necessary to permit the two contained fibers to be extracted without breaking as they are peeled out. The next day the bundles are opened and each leaf is split with the thumbnail from its distal end, the index finger following through in the split after it is started. Each half-leaf is then scraped by being passed between the end of the middle finger and the musselshell scraper which is fitted over the thumb to form a false thumbnail.38 If bundles dry before they can be scraped, they are dipped in water and laid in a basket until next day when they will be sufficiently damp and pliable to be split and scraped. The scraper is often made from the end fragment of what has been a woman's musselshell spoon. Two holes are drilled into the fragment; a buckskin thong through the holes gives a loop. 38 The edge of this implement is sharpened with the stem of the giant Equisetum. I 58 ANTHROPOLOGICAL RECORDS Sometimes the leaves are scraped directly over the sharp edge of a musselshell spoon instead of by means of the thumb scraper. The resultant product from each leaf is two white, silken fibers. These are twisted into string by the men, who roll them on the bare thigh. Depending on the size of the cord desired, a sufficient number of fibers is taken, and folded over at the beginning to make two rovings. These are then twisted, by rolling on the bare thigh, into the start of a 2-ply cord. As the worker nears the end of each roving, he adds more fibers and thus carries on each ply indefinitely. When a sufficient amount of string is finished, it is wound over the flexed elbow and hand, taken off, and wrapped around the middle to form a hank. It remains in this form until needed for net making, when it is wound onto the shuttle. Two-ply string is the pre- dominant form, although informants said that 3-ply and 4-ply string was also made. One informant told Gifford that among the upper Karok around Clear Creek iris fiber was not so important as that obtained from a plant called xansipmisip, which grows on river bars and which, though not the ordinary milkweed, does have a milky juice. It yields a long, stout fiber, which is mixed in with iris fiber, particularly to make deer snares. Sinew is another material which was used by the Karok in making nets, particularly for catching deer. One in- formant mentioned that a strong sinew net was placed in the bottom of a pit in order to entangle an animal which had fallen in. CORDAGE The cords made from these iris fibers varied in size according to use, but the basic cord was usually 2-ply and quite thin. If a cord of considerable diameter was required, it was usually made by twisting together two (or sometimes three) of these thinner 2-ply cords. If a still heavier cord was required, two of these doubled cords were twisted together. Our collection possesses six of these heavy cords, all skeined just as the Indians had them stored away. These were collected by Kroeber in 1907 and are recorded as having originally been deer snares, re-used for making sturgeon nets. All are apparently of iris fiber and in each the basic cord is of about the same gauge, about 0.5 mm. These basic elements are twisted in certain combi- nations as shown in the following tabulation. Specimen No. Diam. (mm.) 11848 2 2-ply cords twisted together 2.7 11844 2 2-ply cords twisted together 2.0 11845 2 3-ply cords twisted together 2.3 11847 2 3-ply cords twisted together 2.4 11849 3 3-ply cords twisted together 2.6 11846 2 3-ply cords twisted together and then three of these twisted together 4.4 This last is an especially heavy and intricate line. It starts with a definitely 3-ply cord. Two of these are twisted together to make the next larger unit. Then three of these are twisted together to make the final cord or rope, which is very compact and hard-twisted, 4.4 mm. in diameter. Thus we have in cross section 18 of the twisted strands with which we started. This cord is skeined up so as to make 67 loops, each approximately 30 cm. in length, the over-all length thus being around 20 meters. I While the basic cord of our region thus is the fine, 2-ply, right-hand-twist iris cord, this is combined to produce heavier line. Further, the snares used to take deer and the harpoon and tow lines used for sea lions were heavier than those tabulated above. Such lines often specified as being as much as "half-an-inch thic three times the diameter of the heaviest line measured above. NET WEAVING As above mentioned, the making and repairing of ne was man's work, usually done at night or on rainy days in the sweathouse. Kroeber's notes (15-71) state that salmon or sturgeon nets a hooked stick (pl. 25, a, c, e, specs. 1893, 1667, 1666) of fairly large size was stuck into the joint where the ridgepole of the building rests the timber in the middle of the wall at one end of the sweathouse. Or, a wall timber was pierced and a with passed through it. From either of these supports a net was suspended. As the weaving or the repairing pro- gressed, the worker sat as near or as far away as the work required. He held the mesh stick in his left hand and tied the knots with his right. He held the netting shuttle in his mouth while the tie was being made over the mesh stick. The size of the mesh stick governed t size of the mesh and the number of meshes governed t size of the net, all according to the species for which net was intended.39 No one might pass behind a weaver. Also no one might speak loudly, else the salmon would hear it and avoid the net. Smaller nets for lampreys and other species were handled in the same way, but on smaller hooks. As soon as a net was finished it was placed in the river to wet it. It was then considered good for five or six years of active service. So far, Kroeber's account of 1901. The only knot used in making these nets is the sheet bend, also known to net makers by several other names mesh knot, netting knot, weaver's knot, hawser bend, a becket bend. (See pl. 7, a.) This is true regardless of the kind or size of the net or of the size of the mesh. In weaving any flat net the whole process is quite simple because it is only necessary to consider a dire progression on a plane surface without variation of me size or of mesh numbers. For example, in our large net above referred to (1083) the meshes are quite uni- formly 80 mm. square, throughout its entire length and breadth. However, in the conical nets (lifting, landing, and plunge nets), and in the scoop net, which is a conical b with an apron of greater or smaller size woven onto it, we have constantly increasing mesh dimensions as we progress outward from the tip to the mouth of the cone or forward from the rear to the front of the apron. The increasing dimensions of the cone are achieved in the three following ways. 1. The number of meshes in each succeeding coursel of the spiral formed by these meshes automatically in- creases by four. 2. In some nets the size of the mesh in succeeding courses gradually increases as the work progresses. 39The large lifting net was held in place by means of the guide ring, which was frequently made from grapevine. These nets were very large and were used for taking salmon, lamprey eels, and sturgeon. The mesh size of the nets for taking lampreys was much smaller than that for taking salmon; that of the sturgeon net considerably larger. All the nets were provided with signal and trigger strings. KROEBER AND BARRETT: FISHING IN NORTHWESTERN CALIFORNIA 3. A still greater and more rapid flare of the cone is led by inserting extra meshes (accrues, quarterings) ervals as required. (Plate 9, b.) The conical net shown in plate 9, b illustrates the ess. Starting at the point of the cone with a single we find three meshes originating from it. Two are angular and one is triangular. This combination s the ever-expanding spiral of rectangular meshes, h increase by four as each round is completed. This Ices a regular progressive growth in the diameter the cone. This increase is usually further stepped up adually enlarging the size of the mesh in succeeding Ids of the spiral, apparently largely by what may be ed a free-hand method- - loosening the cord as it Us around the mesh measure. However, as already ioned, the mesh measures for some nets are so that they provide two, or even three, gauges. the scoop net the apron is woven right on from the of the cone and usually covers half or two-thirds of circumference of the mouth of the cone. For example, e specimen (1228), which has an unusually long I, the front or outer edge of the apron is 225 cm. while its inner edge is only about 170 cm. in width. increase in the width of the apron as it flares out d the front of the triangular frame is accomplished Ly by progressively increasing the size of the mesh. xamples of several of these changes in mesh sizes, in the cones and in the aprons, are given in the wing table 1. TA Changes (All -dim (All dimei as greatly added strength. In the lifting, landing, and scoop nets this extra cord on the sides may be carried on across the front edge of the net, and this edge may also be properly termed selvedge. In the A-frame or V-frame nets this is true for the bottom or forward edge as well as for the two slanting sides. The outer row of meshes at the front and at the two side edges of such a net, regardless of its size, is made with a double line of cord as a "selvedge" to give it this added strength. (See pls. 9, a and 10, b, both Yurok specimens). These two cords are not twisted together, as is sometimes done in making an extra strong tip of the pouch of such a net. These selvedged loops are then attached, either by knot- ting or by binding, to the loops of a strong stapling line, which loops, in turn, are knotted onto a still stronger headline or footline, depending on the position in the net. (See pl. 9, a.) The knot invariably used in making such attachments is the lark's-head knot.40 Plate 8, b shows both obverse and reverse views. In one specimen, how- ever, the meshes were attached to the stapling line by wrappings of fine cord (probably a method of repair). The fourth side of the net's trapezoidal mouth is pro- vided with a stout headline, but it lacks the stapling line found on the other three sides. Instead, the fourth corner of each mesh is fastened directly to the headline by means of a lark's-head knot in the mesh line itself. (See pl. 9, b.) Examples of the selvedging may be of interest. One of these is the large Yurok lifting net (11724), de- scribed in the discussion of that type. .BLE 1 ; in Mesh Size !nsions in mm.) Spec. No. Depth Diam. Cone Mesh Tip Middle Mouth Length Width Apron Rear Mesh Middle Front .Scoop nets 1181 . . . . 1,000 1,500 9x9 llxll 12x12 1,700 900 1Ox10 12x12 24x24 10515a. . . . 800 900 18x18 21x21 22x22 800 650 1Ox10 15x15 22x22 1228 . . . . 1,400 2,000 8x8 1Ox10 12x12 2,250 2,250 lOxlO 12x12 13x13 1684 . . . . 800 700 13x13 15x15 15x15 1,000 600 15x15 20x20 24x24 1907 . . . . 650 700 12x12 13x13 16x16 730 650 16x16 17x17 18x18 1565 . . . . 1,300 1,500 27x27 30x30 45x45 900 700 45x45 50x50 60x60 1567 . . . . 1,000 1,300 12x12 14x14 15x15 1,200 800 12x12 15x15 30x30 rLifting nets 1566 . . . . 1,500 1,750 28x28 32x32 35x35 11724 . . . . 5,400 2,300 42x42 50x50 70x70 168b . . . . ca. 2,000 ca. 1,500 75x75 | 85x85 aThe mesh in the cone of this net is larger than that in the apron, a very unusual arrangement which seems to indicate that the apron was a later addition. This is a Nongatl net. All others mentioned in this tabulation are Yurok nets. bThis is a conical drag net, without trigger device or apron. It is mounted on two short sticks (ca. 530 mm. long). It is recorded as a "drag net for salmon" (see "Conical Drag Net"), and bears the original field number ,264. It is the only one of this type in the collection. Fhen the edge of a net is finally reached, there is need iovide added strength where the net cone fastens to L-frame or V-frame, or to other support in flat nets. krictly speaking the selvedge of a net refers only to ight- and left-hand edges (of a seine, for example) stinguished from the top (head) and bottom (foot). last row of loops on the right or left is a normal dge. By knotting into or binding onto each of these i or half-meshes an additional cord, a straight dge is formed. This gives finish to the net as well Second, a Yurok scoop net (1684) previously mentioned is woven with the usual sheet bend or netting knot (pl. 7, a), and the last row of meshes is finished with the double cord selvedge. The middle of every third one of these meshes is attached to the stapling line by means of a lark's-head knot (see pl. 8, b) dii'ectly in the stapling line itself. These meshes are on a 50-mm. bar. The 40The rare instances of reeving of headline and stapling line may be considered a method of repair. I --r- --- i I I L- I r I i I - I 59 ANTHROPOLOGICAL RECORDS stapling line is attached by means of the usual lark's- head knot to the headline at intervals of 10 cm. The loops of the stapling line hang down about 13 cm. A third example is the small Yurok lifting net, 1566, mentioned under that type. It still has its signal strings and the trigger button attached. It is about 170 cm. in length, and is woven of relatively heavy cord. It is specially strengthened at its conical tip, where the last 35 cm. of its length are woven of double cord throughout (plate 8, a). Here the net maker has simply taken two 2- ply cords and has twisted these together to make a single heavier 2-ply cord. The edge of the mouth of this net follows the usual rule, being provided with a heavy headline to which, on three sides, is attached a stapling line at intervals of 14 cm., again with the lark's-head knot used for the purpose. This stapling line, which is as heavy as the headline, hangs down about 6 cm. (See pl. 9, a.) The meshes of this net have a 35-mm. bar. The outer- most side of each final mesh is made of two regular cords (not twisted together). These serve as a selvedge. The stapling line is not actually rove through these final meshes, as is usually done in the white man's net, but every other one of these meshes is seized to the stapling line by a firm binding of fine cord at the middle of the mesh. It is, as the net-makers would say, "set in by the half. " The fourth or upper edge of this net has, like the big lifting net, its meshes fastened, again by a lark's-head knot, directly to the headline. This edge is shown in plate 9, b. -- So far our analysis of the edges of lifting net 15667 A somewhat different system prevails in the scoop nets with the long apron, used in the surf. This is, of necessity, a net with a very fine mesh; it must be, in order to hold small fish. As already explained in speak- ing of this type of net, it is used on a rather large V- frame, the apron being forward and the conical pouch hanging back at the arched crossbar. Our best example of this type of net (1228, Yurok) has an apron almost 2 m. long, with a spread at the forward edge of about the same, with a conical pouch nearly a meter deep, and with meshes on about a 1-cm. bar. (See fig. 17 for detailed measurements.) Running around on three sides of this net is a heavy buckskin thong which serves as a headline on each of these sides. The method employed in attaching the net to this headline along the front edge is quite different from that used on the right and left sides. As shown in plate 11, a, along this front edge each of the meshes in the final row consists of two sides of normal length (1 cm.) and two sides of extreme length (10 cm.). These two long sides run from two opposite corners of this mesh up to the headline, to which they are attached by a single lark's-head knot. The other three corners of each mesh are made with the usual sheet bend. We thus have a whole final front row of these peculiarly shaped meshes (156 in number), in which the two long sides merely serve to suspend the net from the headline. A slight variation is shown at one of the front corners of the apron. Here the long cords used for attachment to the headline are doubled in number. This doubling occuri in sixteen of the lark's-head knots, as shown in plate 11, b. There is no such strengthening at the opposite front corner of the apron. There is no stapling line along this front edge. All the other meshes in this entire net are the regular square type, about 1 x 1 cm. in dimensions, or on a 1-cm. bar. On the other hand, both the long sides of this apron are fastened to the headline by means of a stapling line which attaches to the headline by means of the usual lark's-head knot. This arrangement is shown in plate 10, b. These points of attachment (18 all told on each side) are about 13 cm. apart, and the length of each ele- ment of the stapling line is about 24 cm. Thus, the edge of the net hangs about 10 cm. from the headline. At the lowest point in each of these loops of the stapling line a mesh of the net is fastened securely to it with a sheet bend. This attachment occurs at every fifth to seventh mesh. There are along each side edge of the apron ap- proximately 110 meshes. The rear edge of this net (pl. 10, a), the edge at the arched crossbar, is only 56 cm. long. Instead of the buckskin headline, it is p. jvided with a stout 3-ply cord as a headline. To this the final tie of each successive mesh is attached with a lark's-head knot. In this short space there are so many (108) of these knots that there is hardly any room between them. Outside of this head- line there are loops of stout cord, presumably for at- taching the net to the crossbar. Apparently these loops were originally attached to the headline by means of half-hitches. Later this line was broken and partly lost and repair was made with a still heavier cord which w attached by half-hitches and by bindings. At one point a lark's-head knot was used. This ends description of meshes in net 1228. The rare instance in which a headline is rove throu the loops of the stapling line should be considered a re- pair device and not an original method of construction. A repair of this sort is found in specimen 1181, Yurok. In this old scoop net we have at the forward edge of the apron a heavy headline to which 79 meshes are directly attached with lark's-head knots. These meshes are on 35-mm. bar, but as we progress toward the rear of the apron the meshes rapidly decrease in size. At 20 cm. from the front they are down to normal size, a 12-mm. bar, which is maintained for a meter and a half back to the pouch, where the size is still further reduced to a an 8-mm. bar. The pouch is about a meter in depth. The other three sides of this net have a stapling line with loops, varying from 13 to 15 cm. long, to which th net is attached by binding at every sixth or seventh me Through these loops a heavy headline has been rove. whole has very distinctly the appearance of a repair jo rather than of an original fabrication. NETTING IMPLEMENTS BARRETT, 1910. Klamath Lake, p. 250, pl. 22, figs. 7, 11; shuttle, mesh measure. , 1952. Pomo, p. 278, and pl. 15; shuttle, mesh measure. DIXON, 1905. Maidu, p. 143, and fig. 14; shuttle of wood. First two or three fingers of hand only mesh measure used. DRIVER, 1939. All Northwestern California tribes, pp. 335, 396, 397. -j 0I 1 60 KROEBER AND BARRETT: FISHING IN NORTHWESTERN CALIFORNIA DRUCKER, 1937, Tolowa, p. 396. DU BOIS, 1935. Wintu, pp. 126, 127, and fig. 4; shuttle, mesh measure. GIFFORD, 1939. Coast Yuki, pp. 343, 344, and fig. 13; very primitive composite shuttle. Simple wooden mesh measure. KELLY, 1930. Northwestern California, p. 356; designs on mesh measures. KROEBER, 1925. Yurok, p. 86; both shuttle and mesh measure made of elk antler. Pp. 126, 130; designs on mesh measures. Coast Yuki, p. 214; mesh measure of wood. SCHENCK and GIFFORD, 1952. Karok, p. 388; shuttles made of manzanita. SPIER, 1930. Klamath, p. 152; slender shuttle. Mesh measure of bone or wood. SHUTTLES MESH MEASURES OR GAUGES The cord used in net making was always wound onto a ong, more or less slender shuttle (Yurok, plestitI). Each ye of such a shuttle was slotted so as to permit the cord be paid out as the weaving progressed. In former imes shuttles "were made of elk antler only," the Yurok ry(Kroeber, 1925, p. 86). It is probable that wood was 'ed for this purpose chiefly after sharp-edged tools be- sne available with the advent of the white man. Any rooden shuttle in precontact days was probably used by a or man who could not afford better materials and ahse whole equipment was substandard. These elk-antler shuttles are very slender, trim im- ments, with small eyes, and are highly polished from guse. Plate 12, i-k, illustrates three of these im- ments. They measure respectively 311, 301, and 319 a. The eyes range from 11 down to as little as 5 mm. width. Intermediate between these and the heavy wooden uttle is the slender small-eyed wooden shuttle shown I and m of this same plate, and catalogued as "shuttle making eel net." One of these is 407 mm. long, with eye 12 mm. in width. The other is 369 mm. long, and an eye 11 mm. in width. It seems not unlikely that may represent a transitional form between the nder elk-horn shuttle and the heavy wooden one. The larger wooden shuttles are always made of a very -grained, heavy, reddish wood (probably manzanita), wood which it would be difficult to work with primitive is. The two specimens here illustrated in pl. 12, n o are respectively 365 mm. and 397 mm. in length. ir eyes are from 22 to 25 mm. in width. Schenck and Gifford (1952, p. 388) found that the Karok the wood of the manzanita for making netting shuttles. Hewes (F.N., 1940) shows a drawing of one of these les with a perforation near one eye, which, he says, used to hold the end of the string to prevent it from ping as it was wound onto the shuttle. The string was ed to keep it in place. This, however, seems a very ual procedure and is not recorded elsewhere. Per- it is the idea of some individual worker. Goddard (1903, pl. 14, fig. 2) and Mason (1889, pl. 29, 82) show this large type of shuttle, but neither men- just what wood is used. A fourth type of shuttle, also of wood, is the short, uder shuttle shown in plate 12, g and h, designated in records as "part of an unfinished head dress outfit." ha slender shuttle would be especially suited to ving the small meshes of these head nets. These icular shuttles are quite roughly hewn, and decidedly eshift in appearance. They lack all the smoothness polish of those used in weaving the larger nets. They respectively 242 and 248 mm. in length. The eyes of e 6 and 7 mm. respectively in width. Those of h are 2 and 4 mm. r espectively in width. In net weaving the "bar,'"41 or mesh dimension, was governed by mesh measures (Yurok, tsepko), of sizes and shapes suitable to each type of net. Principally these measures were of elk antler, though a few were of bone and a very few of wood. These last were either temporary implements or were used by lower-class or shiftless men and were usually referred to as a "poor man's mesh measure." These are, however, so few as to make them almost negligible in our collection. In general, mesh measures are of three kinds: (1) the long, slender ones (pl. 13, a-o, and pl. 14, a-i), used in weaving sturgeon nets; (2) the shorter ones, with the more constricted middles (pls. 15, 16, 17, a-j, and 14, n-s), used in weaving salmon nets;42 and (3) the ones of unusual forms, but designed to give two (possibly three) different gauges, used for weaving nets for smaller species of fish, such as lampreys, suckers, eulachon, and smelt. Some of this third kind are of most unusual forms, like those shown in plate 17, k, u, and w. Some of the antler mesh measures are rather rough, but most of them are carefully fashioned, very smooth, and many show the high polish which comes from long use. In color, most specimens have the brown of age, or at least that rich "old ivory" color due to much handling which indicates that they have probably passed through more than one generation. One interesting feature which is almost always found, regardless of other surface qualities, is the presence of the striations made in the process of smoothing, evidently accomplished by rubbing on some sort of a sandstone surface. The tabulations in the explanations of plates (pls. 13- 17) give the various features of 99 of the specimens in the Museum's collection. Of these 68 are made of elk antler, 25 are of bone, and 6 are of wood. Of the bone specimens 11 are made of the heavy, bleached bones commonly found on ocean beaches.43 The mesh measures definitely called by informants "sturgeon net mesh measures," those shown in plate 14, a-i, and in plate 13, a-g, are proportionately longer and narrower than the "salmon net mesh measures" and are, 41Strictly speaking, the "bar" is the length of one side of a mesh. 42Kroeber's field notes (Book 44, 1902) say "length of all mesh sticks measured on hand by two lengths." This annotation refers to a group of eight mesh measures said to be for making "fall salmon set nets." Specimens 2079-2086 (orig. nos. 663-670). 43We are indebted to Professor Alden H. Miller, of the Department of Vertebrate Zo5logy, for carefully studying these specimens to deter- mine the source of the material from which they are made. After care- ful comparisons with skeletal materials in the Museum of Vertebrate Zo8logy he concludes that it is most likely that they are from the ribs of large sea lions. These specimens which have been fashioned into implements, some with polished surfaces, have left so few character- istics of the materials of which they are made, that a positive determi- nation of their source is impossible. I 6 1 ANTHROPOLOGICAL RECORDS in fine specimens, usually made of what appears to be weathered, grayish bone such as is commonly found bleaching on the beach. Three others are of wood and only two are of antler. Almost all of these sturgeon net mesh measures are undecorated. The mesh measures shown in the five plates, 13-17, were almost all secured from Indians by Kroeber, who, for most of them, obtained a declaration as to the sort of fish intended to be caught with the net made with each gauge. In half of these, the net was further described as for either "setting" or for "dragging." The term "set" may have included gill nets or the A-frame lifting nets, which are set stationary although meticulously attended. The individual figures are cited in the plate explanations; the summaries are given in the adjoined little table. TABLE 2 Mesh Gauge Lengths (in mm.) Gauges No. of specs. Max. Min. Mean Salmon net gauges Set . . . . . . . . . 12 116 92 106 Drag . . . . . . . . 10 113 85 91 Unspecified . . . . 40 114a 52b 91 Sturgeon net guages Set . . . . . . . . . 4 156 152 154 Drag . . . . . . . 7 140 118c 129c Unspecified . . . . 13 156 110 134 aExcluding one specimen "155" mm. long. bNot for salmon or for special purpose. cExcluding one "96" mm. It will be seen that measures named as being for "set nets" are definitely larger, whether intended for salmon or for sturgeon. In salmon nets, the gauge length came out the same in drag and in unspecified net measures. In sturgeon nets, the drag type came out 5 mm. shorter than the unspecified, but the sturgeon series are short, and there is much overlap. Of the salmon-net measures, those said to be for set nets averaged 106 mm., with 7 of 12 pieces above 100. Nine drag nets for salmon were consistently between 85 and 92 mm., but the tenth, with 113 mm., brought their average up to 91. As expectable, the 40 unspecified gauges, though the average is the same, range more widely, seven in the 50's and 60's, three in the 70's, twelve from 100 to 114 mm. Five of the shortest meas- ures are 65 mm. or less and may represent some special- purpose class. The 24 sturgeon-net measures show, after deduction of one questionably assigned or perhaps mis-measured 96-mm. drag-net specimen, minima of 110, 114, 115 mm. There thus is just bare overlap between these measures and the 62 measures for salmon nets. The four gauges for sturgeon set nets (pl. 14, f-i) run remarkably uni- form: 153, 154, 155, 156 mm. There is only one non-set gauge that overlaps with these four. Converting into familiar terms, we may say that the standard sturgeon mesh was close to 6 in. in set nets, and 5 to 5-1/4 in. in drag and other sturgeon nets. For salmon, the mesh was around 4 in. for set nets, around 3-1/2 in. for drag and unspecified nets. These figures may serve as a check on mesh sizes as estimated for various kinds of nets by Indian inform ants, as by one of Hewes's Tolowa informants who con. sistently exaggerated sizes. Decoration of mesh measures.--In the Museum's co lection of 128 mesh measures and similar objects44 on 36 bear any kind of markings, many of which are of sue a hit-or-miss nature and so lightly incised as to seem almost accidental. Many others are, however, clear-c! and have been patently made for ornamentation. Any ui as property marks seems unlikely. The variety and tho general nature of these marks may be seen in the ac- companying drawings (figs. 22 and 23). Here 39 drawings are shown, owing to the fact that three show incisions also on the reverse side of the specimen. In almost all specimens, however, only one side is decorated. The 24 sturgeon-net mesh measures are very largeJ undecorated. The shorter salmon-net mesh measures, of which there are 92 in the collection, show more dec ration than the sturgeon net gauges. These salmon-ne gauges show considerable variation, from a few lines about the middle to fairly elaborate zigzags and triang In general, all this decoration is very lightly incise In only two specimens (pl. 16, c and e) are lines deepll cut as if for some useful purpose. The recently cut li1 in the specimen shown in pl. 17, q, are not considered this connection. On the whole, the decoration on mesh measures muu be considered a minor feature if we compare it with t ornate designs on the elkhorn purses and spoons. Nev theless, there is enough of it to merit some considerat Nowhere do we find anything very definite on the subjec of the designs. Kelly (1930, p. 356) merely says that "minor articles. . ., and elk horn mesh sticks are o casionally incised (pl. 119). The designs are in keepi] with those of the purses and consist of triangles, zigza and straight lines. The mesh sticks are usually deco-, rated with plain lines, but this may be a mere coinci- dence." Kroeber (1905, p. 126) records a design of ov lapping rectangles (found on only one basket) which bea the name "mesh stick." Also, in discussing the desigi found on objects other than baskets (p. 130), he says: "Basket design names are the only names applied by Yurok to the carved, engraved, or painted figures, pre dominantly of triangles, on wooden acorn-soup paddles elkhorn spoons and purses, and network and skins." would have been more exact to say that the names for the designs and patterns worked on baskets are the sa as those applied to decorations on other objects: the subiect was first approached from basketry, but the design names have no specific reference to baskets.] While the designs found on mesh measures are not s cifically mentioned in this passage, it seems probable that these might well have been included. At least the is no statement excluding them. One notable feature in mesh-measure decoration i the presence in several specimens of very tiny notche on their long edges. Sometimes these are the sole de ration; in other instances the measure surfaces carry linear designs of one kind or another. One thing see certain--such notches on these long edges could serve useful purpose in net weaving. 44This number includes five "net handles" or "trigger buttons." I I 62 KROEBER AND BARRETT: FISHING IN NORTHWESTERN CALIFORNIA n Fig. 22. Mesh measures, showing ornamentation. 63 ANTHROPOLOGICAL RECORDS C f d e / q S Fig. 23. Mesh measures and trigger buttons, showing ornamentation. b and p are trigger buttons. Li p t 64 I t KROEBER AND BARRETT: FISHING IN NORTHWESTERN CALIFORNIA TRIGGER BUTTONS - These little hand-holds, called in Yurok we-tspina "its waiting for"], used on the signaling system which rosses the mouth of the lifting net, are made chiefly of lone, though elk antler and wood are also used. They kre, as shown in the illustrations, smaller than the imallest of the mesh measures. The signal line is tied oto a loop which usually passes through two close-set erforations as shown in plate 17, 1-n. These three geces are made of very thin bone. The specimen shown plate 14, j, is a small piece of the scapula of some kimal (probably deer) with a small piece of the ridge still left on it. This ridge is perforated to receive the line. Plate 17, 1 shows another bone piece with deeply notched sides to hold the string. A rather nicely incised specimen (fig. 23, p), this time of elk antler and with the usual double perforation, is shown among the drawings of mesh-measure decorations. A small piece of wood may be used as a trigger button, in which case the line is held in place by means of a groove around its middle. Also we have one instance of such a trigger button of bone. It is shown in plate 14, 1. 65 CHAPTER V BASKETRY TRAPS AGINSKY, 1943. Miwok, pp. 399, 452; cylindrical, invaginated, and plunge traps; scooping with basket. BARNETT, 1937. Tolowa, Chetco, pp. 164, 195. BARRETT, 1908b. Pomo, pp. 156, 157, 165, 167, and pl. 27. , 1910. Klamath Lake, pl. 19, fig. 1; cylindrical fish trap. , 1952. Pomo, pp. 151, 152. CHARD, 1953. Wappo, p. 244; small fish scooped up in baskets; salmon caught in basketry traps or nets, set in weirs. CURTIS, 1924a. Hupa, Wiyot, Achomawi, Shasta, pp. 8, 16, 75, 113, 137. , 1924b. Pomo, Wintun, Maidu, pp. 63, 85, 109. DIXON, 1905. Maidu, p. 197 and fig. 50; invaginated trap. , 1907. Shasta, p. 428; "long willow fish-traps" used in openings in weirs. DRIVER, 1936. Wappo, basketry traps: cylindrical, invaginated-mouth, plunge; p. 185. Salmon scooped up in basket; p. 184. , 1939. Tolowa, Chimariko, Wiyot, Kato, Coast Yuki, Yurok, pp. 312, 313, 378, 379. All North- western California tribes use basketry scoops for fish. DRIVER and MASSEY, 1957. Pp. 201, 203, map 26; general statement. DRUCKER, 1937. Tolowa, trough-shaped or cylindrical trap; p. 232. DU BOIS, 1935. Wintu, pp. 17, 128; trough trap placed in angle of weir. ESSENE, 1942. Pomo, Kato, Yuki, p. 6; cylindrical. Pomo, Kato, Lassik, Yuki, scoop up with basket, p. 6. FOSTER, 1944. Yuki, p. 164; woven trap (6 ft. long, 8-in. diam.) set in opening in brush weir. Coarse burden basket used to remove fish from pen at opening of weir. GARTH, 1953. Atsugewi, pp. 136, 137; open twined traps used with V-shaped guide fence. Baskets suspended under natural falls caught fish falling back in attempt to jump falls. Invaginated traps. Fish dipped out with baskets. GIFFORD, 1939. Coast Yuki, p. 321; several types of traps. GIFFORD and KROEBER, 1937. Hill Patwin, Lake Miwok, Pomo (N. C, SW, S, E, SE, NE), Hill Wintun, p. 133. N Pomo, p. 172; baskets used with movable brush weir. C Pomo, p. 173; basket only used in surf fishing. Pomo, pp. 172, 173; invaginated, cylindrical, plunge. GOLDSCHMIDT, 1951. Nomlaki, p. 407; two forms. HEWES, Th., 1947. P. 88, and fig. 9. KNIFFEN, 1939. Pomo, pp. 363, 364, 376, 386. KROEBER, 1925. P. 816, general statement. Pomo, pl. 33. Achomawi, p. 309. Shasta, p. 294. LOEB, 1926. Pomo, p. 168. McKERN, 1922. Patwin, p. 248. MEACHAM, 1875. Klamath Lake, p. 282; "canoe-shaped" basketry trap baited with fish eggs. NOMLAND, 1935. Sinkyone, p. 154; made of hazel. Mouth set downstream. , 1938. Mattole, p. 113. SAPIR and SPIER, 1943. Yana, p. 258. SPIER, 1930. Klamath, pp. 149, 152; sporadic use of traps. Canoe-shaped (quoting Meacham). Cylindrical. Minnows scooped up in baskets. VOEGELIN, 1942. Klamath, Modoc, Shasta. Wintun, Achomawi, Atsugewi, pp. 55, 173. MAPS 27-31. 56 While woven basketry traps were far less important much used, particularly by tribes outside our core than nets, there were several different forms which were area. These forms vary widely, viz.: [66] KROEBER AND BARRETT: FISHING IN NORTHWESTERN CALIFORNIA 1. The long, slender cylindrical type (map 27) 2. The invaginated type, with an inverted cone in its mouth (map 29) 3. The boxlike type (map 56) 4. The long, open-trough type (map 28) 5. The openwork burden basket, and other scooping traps (map 30) 6. The half-cylinder and "half-tamale shaped" 7. The plunge type (map 31) CYLINDRICAL TRAPS Driver (1939, p. 378), after first citing the long, nar- wbasketry fish trap illustrated by Kroeber in the Hand- k (1925, pl. 33, a), states that this type of trap was d by the Chimariko, Wiyot, Kato, and Coast Yuki. h a trap was placed with its mouth upstream. It was 'narrow that a fish could not turn around in it, and the rent was so strong that the fish could not back up and , therefore, most effectively caught. The diameter en, which is stated as "6 ft." for the mouth of the mariko trap, seems to be an error in printing or in ording. As we have noted in speaking of weirs, Curtis (1924a, 75) describes what he terms "a slender, conical ket, which was placed by the Wiyot in a riffle at the e of diverging wings extending upstream to both s.'" Hewes (F.N., 1940) states that the Wiyot built, in the ler tributary creeks, but not in the main rivers, 11 weirs, of the same construction as those used in rivers, for small species of fish, particularly trout. such a small weir a slender basket about three feet in gth was set with its mouth pointing upstream. The were carried into the trap by the force of the cur- The basket was so narrow that the fish could not around. They were removed by simply lifting the le basket out and emptying it. No invaginated mouth used in this trap. Hewes (Th., 1947, fig. 9) also shows a Tolowa double ,in the angle of which is placed a slender basketry p. Driver (1939, p. 378) describes this same weir its "openwork basketry trap." This cylindrical trap is illustrated for the Pomo by eber (1925, pl. 33, a), and two variant forms are wnby Barrett (1908b, pl. 27, figs. 2 and 4). Hewes ,1947, figs. 38, 39) shows two types of the long, drical trap for the Pomo. One of these has an in- nated mouth and a special opening at the rear end. s one he attributes to the Southwestern Pomo. Among the Tolowa, Driver (1939, pp. 312, 378) records pecial type of "openwork basketry trap" placed near re at either end of a double weir. This basket is ced with its rear end out of the water in such a man- that the fish are actually stranded here. INVAGINATED TRAPS Hewes (F.N., 1940) mentions for the Mattole a etry fish trap of the invaginated type. It is de- bed as being 3 to 4 ft. long, 2 to 3 ft. wide and as g an opening [in the invaginated cone] 2 to 3 in. in eter. It was placed, facing downstream, in an open- in a brush weir and was especially efficacious in hing trout. Traps of this invaginated type are found e commonly farther south. Mention has already been e of the Southwestern Pomo cylindrical trap with in- vaginated mouth illustrated by Hewes (Th., 1947, fig. 38). He also shows a much shorter Pomo trap of this type in his figure 40. Kroeber (1925, pl. 33, b) illustrates this same type, as does also Barrett (1908b, pl. 27, fig. 6). Inasmuch as the invaginated eel pot of the North- western tribes was learned from Caucasians and there are no indubitable Northwestern occurrences of other invaginated basketry openings, the interesting question arises whether the use of invaginated basketry traps by the Pomo and neighboring tribes was aboriginal or was possibly learned from Spanish sources a half-century or so before the Americans reached the nuclear North- western tribes in 1850. BOXLIKE TRAPS Hewes (F.N., 1940) describes and illustrates, for the Hupa, a special type of dam or weir, called nolket, built at the foot of some rapids. It was a simple fence made by driving posts in a V-shaped line out to about the center of the stream. On these posts horizontal poles formed a fence, the base of which was made tight by the use of rocks and brush. Where the water was relatively shallow, fairly near the bank, a woven trap, rectangular in form and about 4 ft. wide by 8 to 9 ft. long was constructed. (See fig. 24.) The fishermen remained on shore beside their little fire for comfort. When they heard the splash- ing of water out in the stream, they knew that fish were approaching. They waded out and closed the trap, some- times capturing as many as half-a-dozen salmon at one time. ... : ..!'1: :.\/ .. Fig. 24. Boxlike trap. Hupa. After Hewes (Th., 1947, fig. 43). Hewes, in his field notes, shows this weir and trap as located on the west side of the river and opposite the mouth of Hostler Creek. A short distance up the river he shows one of the main Hupa weirs, the one at Takimilding. Again we hear of a similar type of boxlike trap where Hewes (F.N., 1940) states that, although the Karok used I I I p 7 I 67 ANTHROPOLOGICAL RECORDS no pens or other traps in connection with weirs, they had a kind of woven hazel trough trap, called pichimvaru or pisimvaru, which was about seven feet long and squarish in cross section. Its open end was staked firmly under some relatively small falls or in a riffle in a creek or river. It was most effective when the water was low, late in the season. The closed end of the trap, which ex- tended downstream, was supported on a horizontal beam or on a rock and was actually out of water. At the open upper end a guide wing of brush and stones was built diagonally out toward each bank. TROUGH-SHAPED TRAPS According to Hewes (F.N., 1940), the Karok made a coarsely woven trough-shaped basketry trap for use in the creeks when the water was high in the winter. This type of trap was made of split spruce poles each six or seven feet long and set several inches apart. The weaving was done with hazel withes. (Cf. fig. 25.) The wide end of this basketry trap was securely fastened. The small, pointed end was left out of the water and was not secured. The wide spacing allowed smaller species, like trout and suckers, to pass through, but held all larger fish, such as salmon. It was left in the creek continuously during the run and was visited once a day for the re- moval of the catch. The name of this device, pisimvaru, refers to its bent-up sides. A similar device but with much closer spacing of its elements, was sometimes used for taking the smaller fish. In speaking of Coast Yurok traps Hewes (F.N., 1940) says that, in making this trough-shaped type, they simp] wove a rectangle of poles about six feet long by three a one-half to four feet wide, doubled over one end, and fastened it to make a tight joint. This arrangement naturally made a scoop of the opposite end. The trap w placed in the angle of a small weir on a riffle in a creek with the open end upstream and higher than the closed end. A fish got up over the open end and found himself caught in the wedge of the closed lower end where he could not turn around. (See fig. 26.) Otters were also sometimes caught in this type of trap. For otter it was fitted with a cover to keep them from climbing out. What Driver (1939, p. 379) calls a "pole trough," which he says was used by the Tolowa, Karok, and Sinkyone, was so placed, with its apex pointing down- stream, that the fish were swept into it by the force of the current and there stranded. It was usually made of hazel shoots and is said to have been of openwork twin- ing. It was truly trough-shaped and had no top, but its sides were high enough to prevent the fish from escap- ing as they flopped about. (See figs. 25 and 27.) Curtis, evidently referring to a trap of this kind, (1924a, p. 16) in speaking of the Hupa states: Only one form of fish trap was used. This was a receptacle of poles and withes, about ten feet long and four feet wide, which was placed in a riffle be- low the weir, with the floor of the middle section raised slightly above the surface of the water. Fig. 25. Trough trap. Karok. After Hewes (F.N., 1940). Fig. 26. Trough trap, with upstream end raised. Coastal Yurok. After Hewes (F.N., 1940). 68 KROEBER AND BARRETT: FISHING IN NORTHWESTERN CALIFORNIA r . 27. Trough trap in weir. After Hewes (F.N. Salmon on striking the weir would turn back, < those that entered the trap quickly found them carried by the current and their own momentu into the lower end of the trap, whence they we able to escape. This device was placed also a downstream angle of the two converging lines fence, one of which extended quite to the bank, the other left a channel around the upper end. Salmon swimming through this passage were back into the triangular area between the two and so down into the trap. In the latter part of this statement Curtis seei derring rather to a double weir similar to the ich we have illustrated in our figure 8, which yes as a typically Tolowa device. Fish swimm tnstream might be carried by the current, aid lateral wings, into it. The force of the water mentum of the fish tended to carry the victim closed end of the basket where it was effectu randed. Salmon, steelhead, trout, and other sp pre caught in this device. When this trap was set up, a signal device wa stalled to show from a distance when a fish hac caught. This device might be a fish club or any ordinary stick which was so set that the flopping of the fish would jar it. Thus the observer could see conditions from a distance without going near the trap and running the risk of frightening fish from the vicinity. This trap is shown in figure 28. The shade provided by the branches over the rear end of the trap serves to guard the fish from exposure to the sunlight before the fisherman has time to remove them. It is very similar to the Wiyot trap described by Curtis as being of conical form and as being covered with brush in a similar man- - ner for the protection of the catch from the sun. BASKETS FOR SCOOPING FISH From Driver (1939, p. 379) we learn that, among the Yurok, an ordinary carrying basket was sometimes em- ployed in catching crayfish. If the basket was raised suddenly, it was not unusual to catch one or more fish in 1940). it as well. Hewes (F.N., 1940) states that among the Karok an and openwork burden basket, commonly used for wood Lselves gathering, was sometimes used for catching smaller fish, im like suckers. It was used in the winter season when the re un- coolness of the weather made it possible. Suckers die it the too quickly in the heat of the summer season. He states, of also, that among the Wiyot an ordinary openwork burden while basket was sometimes employed in fishing. A man held it in the water under an overhanging bank and drove the driven fish into it by kicking his foot around under the over- wings, hang. In this way suckers, bullheads, and other species were caught. Even waterdogs (salamanders) were some- times taken, but these were never eaten. The Tolowa, ms to be he says, used this burden basket to scoop up smelt in the one breakers; also for catching trout in narrow streams at Hewes low water. iing The Mattole dip such a basket at random in smaller led by streams when the water is low. This procedure is es- and the pecially successful when used on a very dark night when up into the fish cannot see the basket. A dip may bring up trout ally or any of the other small species. The Nongatl, in addi- )ecies tion to using the openwork burden basket as a dipping basket, placed it in the angle of the converging wings of s a barrier of stones. A man was stationed at the basket d been Fig. 28. Trough trap. Brush-covered. Hupa. After Curtis. s i W ll 69 ANTHROPOLOGICAL RECORDS while others drove the fish toward it. Whenever fish entered the basket, he raised it and threw the catch out on the bank. HALF-CYLINDER AND HALF-TAMALE-SHAPED TRAPS Driver (1939, pp. 313, 379) lists a half-cylinder type of trap as found among the Yurok, Karok, Hupa, Chilula, and Nongatl. Hewes (F.N., 1940) mentions this type of trap as used by several of the tribes of this region. Driver (1939, p. 379) mentions Karok use of a trap which is "pointed at both ends, half-tamale shape." EEL POTS AND ROCK PILES BANCROFT, 1883. Yurok, p. 339. BARNETT, 1937. Tolowa, Chetco, p. 164. DRIVER, 1939. Yurok, Wiyot, Van Duzen, Mattole, Sinkyone, pp. 313, 378. DRUCKER, 1937. Tolowa, p. 233. GIBBS, 1860. Sinkyone, p. 125. HEWES, Th., 1947. Bear River, Nongatl, p. 78; lampreys pierced with bone awl. KROEBER, 1925. Yurok, p. 85; used on lower part of river. MAPS 32, 33 The lamprey was greatly esteemed as a food in North- western California, particularly because of its fatness. As elsewhere stated, lampreys were usually taken by truly aboriginal methods: by small-meshed nets and by gaffs, or in rock piles. Also they were plucked off the faces of falls to which they had attached themselves by theirsuctorial mouths when they were ascending streams. In more modern times, however, eel pots have been used. These basketry traps are woven of undressed withes of hazel or willow, always in plain-twined technique, and are fairly large, as shown by the accompanying tabula- tion which gives dimensions of four of them. The last specimen listed is in the State Indian Museum at Sacra- mento. In the tabulation all measurements are in centi- meters; the mesh of weaving is about 1 by 4 cm. Fig. 29. Eel pot. Drawn from specimen 11865. Spec. No. Height Depth 40043 .. 54 48 11865 .. 45 45 86093 . . . . . . . . 58 51 hcr-10-9-SP . . . . 41 43 Depth of funnel 43 32 43 30 Diam. of funnel moo 6 5 11 10 Figure 29 shows a typical specimen of one of these openwork basketry "pots" or traps. Such a trap is pro vided on one side with several reinforcing sticks which rest on the gravelly river bottom and protect the trap from wear. In setting this type of trap, the fisherman baits it, places it on its side with the funnel downstreai and weights it down with several stones. Then a grape vine anchor line (sometimes two) is run several feet u. stream to a stake or to a cross-tree (see fig. 30) to kei the trap securely in place. The fisherman always choo a shallow spot in the river where the current is strong but not too swift, and where the bottom is gravelly, the sort of place favored by the lampreys for spawning. Ti lamprey builds a kind of nest by carrying pebbles with its suctorial mouth and dropping them where its eggs have been deposited until it has built up a small gravel mound. The lamprey, particularly the male, tends to travel chiefly at night and to spend its days attached to or concealed among rocks on the river bottom. The ee pot is, therefore, an ideal place for the lamprey to seel shelter. Fig. 30. Eel pot anchored in stream. - t I 70 KROEBER AND BARRETT: FISHING IN NORTHWESTERN CALIFORNIA It is this tendency of the lamprey to hide among rocks it makes it an easy prey to the fisherman's gaff. In t, in some places in the estuaries along the coast, bes were stacked in small piles45 purposely to pro- le hiding places for the lampreys. Into the crevices these rock piles lampreys crawl to hide during the ght hours of the day, resuming their journey with the iming of night. In such places lampreys are very easily *en with a gaff or with a sharp-pointed awl. In fact, a cial type of gaff was made, provided with a piercing vice as well as a hook. Figure 31 shows both types of ese gaffs. Hewes (Th., 1947, p. 78) specifically notes the way the Yurok learned about eel pots. They took the Wiyot name for them also, lumu^n. Gifford (F.N., 1939-42) states that among the Karok lampreys were taken in several ways. A small-meshed dip net, the same kind used for taking smaller species of fish when the water is high, is set in an advantageous spot. With this net is used, apparently as a charm, a plant, called kuswexas (kuswe, "poison oak;" xas, "rotten"), which grows high up in the mountains. The statement was made that some of this plant "was put on the bottom of the net," but that this was done without a b Fig. 31. Gaffs. a. Gaff of ordinary type. b. Gaff with hook and piercing point. se rock piles among the Nongatl on Van Duzen Creek, dalso on Bear River. One of Hewes's Nongatl inform- s mentioned another method of taking lampreys with ficially arranged rock work. Instead of higher rock e, they made a windrow of stones about a foot high Ich extended almost the entire width of the stream. 'e the lampreys attached themselves by their suctorial iths and were easily picked off by hand in the early lining hours. The informant stated that this was much ier than it was to gaff them during the night by torch- ~1. Driver (1939, p. 378), in his notes on the eel pot, cites eber's Handbook (1925, pl. 33, b) in such a way that lay be assumed that the Handbook plate illustrates device, despite the fact that the plate is titled "Pomo hTraps," and that this figure, b, is titled "funnel pot, small fish." Actually this trap was used by the Pomo very small species of fish only and was never em- red for lamprey eels, which the Pomo do not use for purpose ordinarily. The true eel pot is of quite a erent shape and construction (see fig. 29). It is nitely known to be a device adopted by the few tribes zch used it only after contact with the whites. Driver [es this fact very clear for the Hupa and the Wiyot, it is equally true also for the other tribes of this lon. A Yurok told Kroeber that the making and use -amprey pots were learned from the whites. Another ok told Hewes the following story concerning the gin of the eel pot among his people. When the first whites came to Humboldt Bay they had trouble with the Wiyot. Finally they moved them up to Smith River and guarded them there. The Tolowa felt sorry for these Wiyot and told them to go upto Big Flat and sent a guide with them. Their food came exhausted and some went over to Hupa, others oWeitspus, where they settled. The women wove. el pots and the men put them in the river. Thlat is is same device for taking fish is found elsewhere; for example, piles are made by the Samoans, according to Buck (1930, pp. 418, ,for the special purpose of providing sanctuary for fish in the us. As a shoal of fish comes in from the sea it is driven by the rmen in their canoes toward these rock piles. Then, by simply lug or by the careful removal of the stones as is done here in western California for lampreys, the fish are captured either in etry traps, in nets, or by spearing. reciting any formula. As above mentioned, lampreys have a tendency to fasten themselves, by means of their suctorial mouths, onto rocks in the stream. At Ike's Fall, for example, many of them will fasten themselves in this way and hang down the faces of the rocks. A net was placed be- low them and they were then frightened so that they dropped off into the net. Again, a net was set in a nar- row place between rocks. Then someone went upstream and put his hand into the water so as to cause the lampreys to release their hold on the rocks. The swift current immediately carried them down into the net. Many lampreys are even now caught by hand, the fish- erman either wearing a glove or carrying in his hand a rag or something else to prevent the lamprey from slipping through his grasp. Sometimes the bare hands alone are used. The fisherman usually has with him a net bag into which the lampreys are thrust at once. Lampreys were also taken by the Karok with a gaff, anciently an acute-angled point of bone or antler at- tached to a wooden handle three feet or more in length. The modern gaff is usually a white man's fishhook fastened to a handle. Gifford's informants stated positively that eel pots were not used by the Karok, though they were employed by the Hupa and even more extensively by the Yurok. Though it is quite well established that the eel pot is a modern device, actually unknown in precontact days, we find among the Karok a tale accounting for the fact that it is not used by them because its use was tabooed by three ixkareya girls (myth-period immortals) whose fish dam was spoiled by Coyote. Two of these girls are now two white rocks on the mountain above Ashanamkarak. The third sits bent over at the north edge of the Klamath lagoon entrance at Requa. The use of the eel pot by the Karok would cause famine: "It would make everything [growing become] scarce." Informants stated that among the Karok there was no "eel medicine ceremony," but that among the Hupa the first eels caught in the season were ceremonially cooked at a certain spot across the Trinity from Takimilding. After this ceremony and feast, people were free to catch and eat lampreys at will. Goddard (1903, p. 79) says that among the Hupa there was a "medicine for the first eel" and that "the observances are nearly the same as for W. - . - I .i 7 1 ANTHROPOLOGICAL RECORDS salmon." In fact, Goddard (1904, pp. 252-264) gives in full the text and translation for this eel medicine. Kroeber and Gifford (1949, p. 61) also discuss the ceremony. One Bear River informant gave Hewes some detailed information concerning the rock piles used for catching lampreys. Lampreys began running in the early spring and continued up into July. April and May were the best months for them. Neither torchlight nor gaff was here used in taking lampreys, though they were used on Eel River. Bear River was a swift stream, though rarely more than knee deep. At the upper end of a riffle one or more rock piles were constructed. Such a rock pile might be as much as five feet in diameter and thirty inches in height, and usually came to within a couple of inches of the surface of the water. In building such a rock pile the builder always sang special good luck songs; and when the lamprey run was finished the rock piles were pulled apart. The lampreys would crawl into the crevices of such a rock pile during the night. The following morning the rocks were carefully removed so as not to alarm the lampreys. Not a word was spoken: all communication was by gestures. Rocks were all moved under water and great care was taken to see that no rock slipped out of the hands. As a lamprey's tail came into view it was pierced with a sharp bone awl four or five inches in length, and the lamprey was pulled out of the crevice. As many as eight or ten lampreys might be taken from a single pile. Lampreys were always eaten fresh by the Bear River people, never dried. If too great a supply was at hand, the surplus was given away. The reason assigned for not drying lampreys was that to do so would cause them to cease coming. It seems doubtful whether so greasy a meat as the lamprey's would dry satisfactorily without smoking. As a matter of fact the Coast Yurok, Chilula and Tolowa dried lampreys by first exposing them to sun, then hanging them over a fire, as told below undet "Preservation" in chapter VIII. The eel pot was not used on Bear River, though it on the Mattole, a larger stream. The people of Bear River carefully distinguish be- tween the "day eels" and the "night eels," the latter being the males which start their daily upriver journeyi just after sundown and crawl into the rock piles during the daytime. They are fat and tasty. The "day eels," on the other hand, are the females which burrow and build their nests and are rank and unpalatable. This female lamprey is called tonaibetcawho ("eel's grand- mother"). A Nongatl from the Van Duzen River told the followi about lampreys. Foot-high piles of rock were made in line across the river. The lampreys attached themselv by their mouths to these rocks and could be pulled off with the "gloved" hand of the fisherman, not pinned do4 by piercing the tail with an awl as on Bear River. In o' times the hand was "gloved" by grasping a piece of buckskin in the hand. A large natural rock two miles downstream from Bridgeville was used similarly. Here, where the shall water ran over the rock, the lampreys would attach the selves. If a net was placed below the rock, they could readily eased off the rock and washed down into the net Sometimes the net was mounted in the regular way on A-frame and sometimes it was held open by some mak shift sticks. This rock belonged to the people who live near there and permission must be asked by anyone e who desired to use it. I 72 CHAPTER VI FISH HARPOONS, SPEARS, AND OTHER DEVICES AND METHODS HARPOONS AND SPEARS AGINSKY, 1943. N, P1. Miwok, p. 399; toggle harpoon, single-pointed spear. BANCROFT, 1883. Yurok, Vol. 1, p. 338. BARNETT, 1937. Tolowa, Chetco, pp. 164, 195; single-toggle and double-toggle, also spear with single fixed point. BARRETT, 1910. Klamath, p. 251, and pl. 22, fig. 4; barbless, toggle harpoon. Multipointed spear. Double- barbed fixed-pointed spear. Single-pointed retriever. ,_ 1952. Pomo, p. 153, and pl. 15. Pp. 187, 188; seal harpoon. BENNYHOFF, 1950. Classification of California fish spears and harpoons. BERREMAN, 1944. P. 25 and pl. V. CHARD, 1953. Wappo, pp. 244, 245. CURTIS, 1924a. Wiyot, p. 75. Shasta, p. 113. Klamath, p. 169; double-pointed toggle harpoon. Multipointed spear. , 1924b. Wailaki, Pomo, Wintun, Patwin, Maidu, pp. 22, 63, 85-88, 109. DIXON, 1905. Maidu, p. 196, and fig. 49. DRIVER, 1936. Wappo, salmon, etc., harpooned, but no details of harpoon given; p. 184. , 1939. Tolowa, Chimariko, Karok, Yurok, Wiyot, Hupa, Van Duzen, Mattole, Sinkyone, Kato, Coast Yuki, pp. 313, 379; harpoon with toggle points. Wiyot, p. 313; multipointed spear. Also spear with single fixed point used by Wiyot and Mattole. DRIVER and MASSEY, 1957. Pp. 201, 203, 208, maps 27, 28; general statement. DRUCKER, 1937. Tolowa, pp. 233, 237, and fig. 1; harpooned salmon at night from canoe, with torches projecting on sticks out over bow. DU BOIS, 1935. Wintu, pp. 16, 123; harpooning platform; salmon house fully described; salmon harpoon illustrated, p. 128. ESSENE, 1942. N Pomo, Kato, Lassik, Yuki, p. 6; with detachable toggle points. N Pomo, Kato, Lassik, spearing booth. FOSTER, 1944. Yuki, pp. 163, 171; double-pointed toggle harpoon used from platform by day, or by night with fire for light. GARTH, 1953. Atsugewi, p. 136; double-pointed toggle harpoon. Spearing from canoe by torch light. GIFFORD, 1939. Coast Yuki, pp. 321, 322; double-pointed toggle harpoon. GIFFORD and KROEBER, 1937, Pomo (N, C, SW, S. E, SE, NE), Hill Patwin, Lake Miwok, pp. 133, 134, 173; single-pointed toggle harpoon. Pomo (E); double-pointed, toggle harpoor.. Hill Patwin, NE Pomo, Hill Wintun; fixed-pointed spear. Pormo, p. 172; scaffold; white stones. Pomo, Lake Miwok, Hill Patwin, Hill Wintun, pp. 133, 172. GODDARD, 1903. Hupa, pl. 13, fig. 3. , 1914. Chilula, p. 270; salmon taken with harpoon. GOLDSCHMIDT, 1951. Nomlaki, p. 407; bone-pointed spear (not harpoon). Harpoon also used by river people. HEWES, 1942. Double-pointed harpoon illustrated; fig. 34, a, p. 106. , Th., 1947. Coast Yuki, Yuki, p. 75; both single- and double-pointed harpoons. Yana, Wintun, Wailaki; double-pointed harpoons. Sinkyone, Mattole, Bear River, p. 77; single-pointed toggle har- poon used bv skillful fishermen. Double-pronged harpoon used only by old men and boys. Wiyot, p. 80; multipointed spear for flounders on Humboldt Bay and in Eel River estuary. Tolowa, p. 88. KROEBER, 1925. Pp. 815, 816; general statement concerning harpoons in California. Yurok, Coast Yuki, pp. 85, 86, 213; double-pronged. Achomawi, p. 309. Klamath, Modoc, pp. 324, 326; lzarbless, double- pointed, toggle harpoon. Modoc; multipointed spear, with barbed lance used as retriever. Wintun, p. 359; double-pronged toggle harpoon, from scaffold over river. Maidu, p. 410. , 1929. Nisenan, pp. 261, 287. Toggle harpoon. , 1932. River Patwin, pp. 278, 295; pike (but not salmon) taken with harpoon. Hill Patwin use harpoon. [73] ANTHROPOLOGICAL RECORDS KNIFFEN, 1939. Pomo; p. 386. LOEB, 1926. Pomo, pp. 168, 185. LOUD, 1918. P. 381; describes and illustrates harpoon heads of antler from archaeological sites on Humboldt Bay. MASON, 1902. Pp. 222-224; general statements concerning harpoons of California. NOMLAND, 1935. Sinkyone, pp. 153, 154; salmon harpooned from canoes or from shore. Double-toggle (?) with antler barbs. Line attached to wrist. Women and children could fish. ROSTLUND, 1952. Pp. 105-112, 177, and map 35. SAPIR and SPIER, 1943. Yana, p. 252. SCHENCK and GIFFORD, 1952. Karok, p. 385; foreshafts of serviceberry wood. SPIER, 1930. Klamath, pp. 149, 153; double-toggle harpoon. Also single-barbed fixed-pointed spear, and multipronged spear used with retriever. Ice fishing with harpoon. VOEGELIN, 1942. Klamath, Shasta, Wintun, Maidu, pp. 56, 174; toggle harpoons, both single- and double- pointed. Multipointed spear used by Klamath, Modoc, Achomawi, Atsugewi. WATERMAN, 1918. Yana, pls. 5-9; pictures of Ishi making and using double-pointed toggle harpoon. For harpoons and spears used in taking sea lions, etc., see "Sea Mammals." MAPS 34-38 The invention of the harpoon, consisting of a detacha- ble head tethered to the shaft by a stout line, was a great step forward from the presumably earliest simple thrust- ing spears, but one which came, historically, very early. Barbed harpoon heads occur among Upper Palaeolithic remains in Europe. For use on land the spear was in most regions pre- ferred to the harpoon, probably because retention of game by a line was difficult or impracticable on land, whereas the harpoon thrust or thrown from shore or boat into fish, seal, or cetacean, rarely fouls its line in water and enables the hunter to retrieve his prey. In our own area, Northwest California, the true spear is so little used in fishing that it becomes quite secondary to the harpoon. In fact, about the only spears employed are the sharpened pole used for the flat fishes on tide- water flats and the multipronged spear used for certain small species, also usually in the same waters. The harpoon, with its toggle head or heads, was used for larger fishes. We treat separately the harpoons used for salmon and sturgeon in fresh water from the heavier ones used for sea lions in salt water, the latter being dealt with in chapter XI on "Sea Mammals." The essential features of the fish harpoons in this whole region are so similar that we may simplify our treatment of the subject by first outlining these features, and then calling attention to variations in construction and use from tribe to tribe. Fish harpoons, as the name indicates, are all fitted with detachable points or heads secured by toggle lines. They differ one from another only in the number and placement of the foreshafts on which these toggle hea are socketed. They fall into the following classes, aj given below. The illustrations in figures 32-35 are Hewes (F.N. 1940). I. Single-pointed harpoons. A. Point socketed directly onto the end of the shaft. (See fig. 32.) Used by the Karok, T Chetco, Wiyot, Mattole, Sinkyone, Bear Riv Nongatl, Coast Yuki, Yuki. B. Point socketed onto the end of a foreshaft of harder wood bound and pitched onto the end the main shaft in such a manner as to align it. A very rare type. C. Point socketed onto the end of a foreshaft sets at a definite angle to the main shaft. angle is made by properly beveling the re of the foreshaft and binding it securely to t main shaft. (See fig. 33.) Used by Coast Yi Karok, Chilula, Bear River. II. Double-pronged harpoons. A. One prong formed by the end of the main s the other by binding the end of a beveled fo shaft onto the main shaft at the proper an (maintained by a wooden block bound into angle). 1. Prongs of equal length. (See fig. 34.) by Yurok, Hupa, Chilula. 2. Prongs of unequal length. Used by Kar Chilula. Fig. 32. Single-toggle harpoon on end of shaft. Class I A. Fig.:33. Single-toggle harpoon, ,Ang t Cs Fig. 33. Single-toggle harpoon, angled foreshaft. Class I C. I I 74 I I iI i 11*1 C- -- - - - - ..- ;Po m KROEBER AND BARRETT: FISHING IN NORTHWESTERN CALIFORNIA Fig. 34. Double-pointed toggle harpoon. One point on shaft. The other on angled foreshaft. Class II A 1. = Fig. 35. Double-pointed toggle harpoon. Both foreshafts angled; one longer than the other. Rawhide leaders, cord toggle line. Blackened shaft. Class II B 2. B. Both prongs made by binding beveled foreshafts at proper angles at the double-beveled end of the main shaft. 1. Prongs of equal length. Used by Yurok, Karok, Wiyot, Mattole, Coast Yuki, Yuki, Shasta, Wintun, Wailaki, Yana, Klamath Lake. 2. Prongs of unequal length. (See fig. 35.) Used by Yurok, Coast Yurok, Sinkyone, Shasta. The following general observations may be made. The th of the main shaft is variously given by different mants and observers as from six to twenty feet, and may safely conclude that these considerable variations e due to local conditions and perhaps somewhat to the of the maker, not to mention to faulty memories or anative informant's vagueness in estimating in Ameri- units of measurement. While statements on blackening vary, it seems certain some of the forward end of the harpoon was usually ched in order to render it less visible to the fish. e informants stated that blackening extended through- the entire length. 'The lengths of the foreshafts are variously given, m a foot or so to as much as three feet. Here again variations are expectable. Since harpoons were intended for use in the water, all ppings of the harpoon heads and of the joinings of shafts with shafts were thoroughly pitched, the pitch grubbed smooth with a heated pebble. The toggle line which held the fish after it was speared sometimes only a heavy cord of iris fiber, but fre- utly there was a "leader" of buckskin, of tanned elk- or of rawhide. Some informants mentioned the hide e seal as especially good. This leader was said to be because the teeth of the salmon were less likely to it than iris cord. CORE AREA Among the Yurok, the double-pointed harpoon was hthe more common. The single-pointed was per- preferred in small streams or low water. However, gle-pointed one was noted by Kroeber in 1902 at the ath mouth: its main shaft measured twenty and a feet in length. The detachable socketed head is ed pesk6 and was said to have been aboriginally made .point of deer-leg bone and barbs of deer antler, the mbly, including the line, being thoroughly pitched. Our plate 12, a-f, shows several of these points, all double-barbed. All except those shown in e and f are so modern that the point of each is made of iron. These two have truly aboriginal points of bone and their barbs are of wood (see pl. 19, a, b). In every other specimen shown on plate 12 the barbs or "ears" are made of bone (see pl. 19, c, d). Each barb is separate and, when a point is assembled, its two barbs are securely bound with stout fine cord to the base of the point. At the same time one end of the toggle line is bound to the rear of the side of this assembly, at a point immediately in front of the barbs. This toggle line, in all specimens but two, consists of two parts, a stout "leader" (usually of raw- hide) and the remainder of heavy cord. (See pl. 12, c, d, f; also Goddard, 1903, pl. 13, figs. 2, 4.) The opposite end of the toggle line is secured to the shaft of the har- poon. The cord wrapping of the point and the attached end of the leader are heavily pitched to unify and water- proof all these parts. When this harpoon, whether double- or single-pointed, is thrust into a fish, the struggles of the fish immediately pull the toggle points off the wood foreshaft prongs of the harpoon. As these points come off they are turned some- what sidewise by the pull of the toggle line. Furthermore, the toggle lines provide "play" for the fish and guard against sudden jerks which might tear the points out of the flesh. The toggle lines may apparently be of any length but those shown in our plate 12, a-e, range from 62 to 106 cm. All are full length lines. In these harpoon heads each toggle line is separate and was apparently fastened to the pole separately. One informant, however, described a different method of tying on the toggles. He said that the leader might be of either buckskin or of seal-hide and that it was usually about twenty inches in length. These two toggles were attached to a single toggle line of iris fiber about six feet in length, thus giving the speared fish ample play. These conditions make it practically impossible for the fish to free itself. It soon becomes exhausted and is easily landed and dispatched. Goddard (1903, pl. 13, fig. 3) shows the forward end of a double-pointed toggle harpoon pole. In a myth collected by Kroeber in 1902 among the Karok (Kroeber, G3a), we learn that Chukchuk, Fish Hawk (Osprey), made the salmon harpoon for people who owned no "fishing places." This reflects the fact that owned fishing places operate with large nets on frames held from scaffolds erected where there is a favorable 7IT-7 - - .1 ?v 75- ANTHROPOLOGICAL RECORDS eddy or counter current in water deep enough so the fish are not seen but are felt in the net. This method is the most productive known to the Indians of our area for salmon--which fact is precisely why such favorable spots were jealously claimed and owned. But spearing can ordinarily be effective only where fish are visible, and the harpoon is therefore used in shallow water, especially at riffles. Such spots are numerous and open and they often change with the stage of water in the stream. They therefore lend themselves less readily to private claim, besides, of course, being less desirable on account of their less concentrated productivity. So the harpoon came to be associated with public and open or unrestricted salmon fishing. Data collected by Kroeber in 1902 show that the Yurok salmon harpoon, used at the mouth of the Klamath, usually had two toggle points, though the single-toggle harpoon was also used. The double-pointed harpoon took two major forms. In one of these, typeII A, one foreshaft (ni'me-w), was bound onto the shaft, which itself served in lieu of a second foreshaft and also carried a toggle point. (See fig. 34.) The second double-pointed form, type II B, beveled both sides of the shaft end and one side of the rear end of each foreshaft. (See fig. 35.) Some of Hewes's informants pointed out that with double points the fisherman was more likely to pierce the salmon with at least one: the single-pointed weapon required greater skill. One Yurok said that the best harpoon in the Klamath was double-pronged, with one foreshaft more nearly in line with the main shaft and about two inches longer than the other. The longer prong was held uppermost; this was done so as to insure that it would pierce the fish before the other struck bottom. a Fig. 36. Bag net temporarily mounted on two sticks. After Hewes (F.N., 1940). Hewes (F.N., 1940) states that the Yurok employed both single- and double-pointed harpoons, but that the double-pointed harpoon prevailed. However, one inform- ant said summarily that at Trinidad the single-pointed harpoon "only" was employed; which statement can probably be amended to "prevailed." The simplest type of single-pointed toggle harpoon is the one in which the point is socketed directly onto the end of the main shaft, type IA, above, as in figure 32. This type, Hewes says, was used by the Bear River, Nongatl, Karok, Tolowa, and Chetco; in conformity with which is the fact that Kroeber does not recall having seen it among the Yurok. The end of the shaft of the single-pointed harpoon was, however, sometimes beveled along with the foreshaft so that the latter stood off at a desired angle, as in type I C, above. (See fig. 33.) Hewes reports a Yurok combination method: taking a net along with the harpoon. A plunge net (tregepa) w untied from its frame and set in a small stream with a couple of women or men to tend it. Such a net is called kergerpr. (See fig. 36.) The spearmen poked in under banks, among rocks roots, to scare out silverside salmon (tcegun) or steel- head (tskwol), which usually ran downstream, the spear man calling " pudlaiya! " ("going downstream! ") to the net watchers, who quickly lifted the net. Sometimes more fish were caught in the net than by the spearmen. Yurok Robert Spott told Hewes that his grandfather had said that in holes46 too deep to scare fish out of by stones or poles, a diver would go down and fasten a lo 46The informant spoke specifically of a deep hole in Hunter's Cree at a point about 2-1/2 mi. above Weber's ranch. 76 \)I I I''1;111 I - --------------------- KROEBER AND BARRETT: FISHING IN NORTHWESTERN CALIFORNIA he tail of a salmon whose head was among rocks or ,roots, or would fasten separate lines to two or three People on shore hauled them out. The resisting would frighten others downstream into the net. This hod was used in conjunction with harpooning. lurok toggle harpoon heads, collected by Kroeber and in the Museum of Anthropology, are shown in plate a-f. Table 3 gives catalogue data on these, as well intwo Hupa points (994A and 994B) collected by Philip L Jones. All these specimens were collected between I and 1906. sharp pointed "ironwood" pole. This latter instrument was used on these flat fish as they congregated on the sand or mud of lagoons and estuaries where the water was brackish. Other tribes along the immediate coast used similar methods. According to Gifford (F.N., 1939-1942) the Karok har- poon was usually of the double-pointed, toggle variety, although the single-pointed harpoon was, on rare occa- sions, used in smaller creeks, especially for steelhead. Neither a single, fixed-point spear nor a multipointed TABLE 3 Toggle Harpoon Heads (Measurements in mm.) Spec. No. Toggle Line Heads Total Length Leader Cord Head Points Barbs (head and line) Material Length Material Length Material Length Material Length 1988 .... ... Iris 990 Iron 55 Bone 46 1,006 1947 .Rawhide 370 Iris 590 Iron 55 Bone 50 1,005 1641A .Elk 440 Iris 600 Iron 60 Bone 55 1,013 1946 . . . . Rawhide 200 Iris 700 Iron 56 Bone 50 965 9302 . . ... ... Iris 540 Bone 40 Wood 68 620 9357a, b . ... Rawhide 400 ... ... Bone 76 Wood 78 ca. 500 994A . . . . . Rawhide 280 Ir is 600 Bone 40 Bone 56 950 994B . . Rawhide 330 Iris 540 Bone 40 Bone 50 930 oastal Yurok told Hewes (F.N., 1940) that, at low fish caught in pools or shallow water, or even lded in the mud, were easily speared. They added the double-pointed harpoon was used in tidewater ethe spearing was difficult; upstream the single- ld prevailed. [Kroeber doubts this as a rule. He imbers both seeing and hearing of the harpoon as ardly two-pronged among the Yurok.] will be seen from table 3 that the four toggle har- -heads with bone points and wooden or bone barbs arbs longer than the points; the four with iron and bone barbs have points longer than the barbs. the eight lines two have no leader and one has no The lines may be grouped as follows: six lines om 870 to 1,040 mm., averaging 940 mm.; one has n iris line 540 mm. long. This last gives us an ely short ensemble and toggle-line length 400 mm. r than the average of the other six, which can rly be considered as normal for this region. Speci- 357a, b is a pair of incomplete harpoon heads have leaders 400 mm. long, but no lines. Coastal Yurok Rekwoi informant told Hewes that on were harpooned from canoes in shallow places lower Klamath, the harpoon shaft (maa' ) being of about fifteen feet long. The two toggle heads were glines ("twelve feet") or iris-fiber string, or of with a buckskin leader. Hewes's illustration (fig. ws two leaders joining perhaps three feet up on the Here a slip knot fastens the single cord to the pole beyond is the remainder of the line. As soon as rgeon was harpooned the fisherman laid the pole the boat and played the fish on the line until it se enough to be stunned with a club. The sturgeon 'speared in the side, below the bone" (below the dorsal plates). es (F.N., 1940) records for the Coastal Yurok that rs (lpergerp) were caught in the gill net, speared e regular toggle harpoon, and even impaled on a spear was employed by the Karok. The shaft of the double-pointed harpoon was made of fir, and the two foreshafts, usually of even length, of western Service Berry (Amelanchier alnifolia), afishiip (Schenck and Gifford, 1952, p. 385, no. 123). This close- grained wood was considered especially good for holding the points of deer bone. The barbs were fastened to the points by a wrapping of iris string pitched with fir gum47 smoothed down with a hot stone. This type of harpoon was formerly used for salmon of any kind when the water was low in the streams. Later it was particularly used for Chinook or "black" salmon. Hewes's (F.N., 1940) Karok told him that they used both double-pointed and single-pointed harpoons. The single-pointed harpoon had no foreshaft, its barbed head being socketed directly onto the shaft. (See fig. 32.) The double-pointed harpoon foreshaft forked because of the beveling where the points were bound on. Toggle heads might be thrust completely through the salmon, in which case the line was usually untied from the shaft and pulled out through the body of the fish. The Karok analyzed their double-pointed harpoon thus: 1. The main shaft (itakanowo or otokanwoaa'up), "ten to twelve feet" long, with foreshafts scorched to make them less visible, and the scorching sometimes carried part or all the way up the length of the shaft. 2. The two socketed heads (sakan), the point being of bone, the barbs or ''ears" of woda'up hardwood or bone or antler. 3. The leader (aan) of iris fiber string--not of buck- skin. Informants affirmed that formerly harpoons were not often used for taking salmon. With fish weirs across the river, salmon could be taken with the dip net much more 47Schenck and Gifford (1952, p. 385, no. 132) state that this wood is also used as the foreshaft for the arrow, but the sinew binding is then smeared with the gum of Prunus demissa. I 77 ANTHROPOLOGICAL RECORDS easily. The harpoon was used for taking steelheads as they ascended the creeks in the spring to spawn. This run covered a short period, perhaps not more than a month, often less. The Wiyot told Hewes (F.N., 1940) that in the early days salmon ran in such numbers in the streams that a spear thrust anywhere would bring up a fish. Both kinds of harpoon were employed, though apparently the double- pointed was more common. The single-pointed type was more suitable for the smaller streams. The harpoon shaft was seven or eight feet long. It was scorched black in order to render it as little visible as possible. Its lower end was beveled so as to seat the foreshafts, which were firmly bound to the shaft with iris-fiber string. Onto the two foreshafts were socketed the detachable heads, which were fashioned from deer leg bone and held by toggle lines. Pitch was applied to the iris-string wrappings "to make them waterproof," i.e., to keep them from slipping off when wet and soft. Curtis (1924a, p. 75), in speaking of the Wiyot, says that salmon were speared in the riffles on moonlight nights or in the autumn by a crew of three men, one using the harpoon, another holding a pitchy torch, the third managing the canoe. Curtis (1924a, p. 74) also mentions "spears with single, detachable bone points" as used by the Wiyot, though he does not specify that they were used for any one species. Hewes (Th., 1947, p. 77) states that the single-pointed harpoon was used by the Sinkyone, Mattole, and Bear River. Among the Wiyot, according to Driver (1939, pp. 313, 379) a spear with a single fixed point was also employed, and Hewes (F.N., 1940) states that the Wiyot used a multi- pronged spear, especially in the tidewater region. It was seven or eight feet long and had three or four (sometimes even more) sharp prongs. It was used for taking small fish. They were simply impaled on the prongs and brought to the surface. Informants stated that it was not necessary to pinion them to the bottom and hold them there, as was done in some other regions. This spear was used to a limited extent in serious fishing and also as a means of sport by boys. In his thesis (1947, p. 80) Hewes mentions this Wiyot multipronged spear as used for "flounders on the shallow bottom" of Humboldt Bay and in Eel River estuary. With it was used a simple fixed-point retrieving spear. Driver (1939, pp. 313, 379) also records for the Wiyot this multipointed spear, in which the points are arranged in a circle on the shaft. With it they pinned the fish to the bottom, where it was "held till worn out or dead, then retrieved. " One Wiyot told Hewes (F.N., 1940) that his people used a multipointed arrow as well as spear. It was about the same as an ordinary arrow and was shot from the ordinary bow. Like the spear, it had three or more sharp wooden points arranged in a circle and was chiefly used by boys for sport. It was serviceable only in deep water and was always shot from a canoe. This is the only mention we have found of this type of arrow. We have no record of a multipronged harpoon. Among the Tolowa the single-pointed harpoon was, according to Driver (1939, p. 379), used for trout, while the double-pointed harpoon was used for salmon. Hewes (F.N., 1940) says that this Tolowa harpoon (mel'ki) was usually, if not always, single-pointed. One informant maintained that the double-pronged harpoon was tabooed. The pole, usually ten to twenty feet in length, was of [Douglas ?] fir. The single point was socketed directly onto the end of the pole, the point being of bone or elk- horn, the barbs of deer antler. One informant stated tha sometimes the point was made of flint, a claim which the present authors doubt. The point was attached to the pole by means of a toggle line, four or five feet in length, of buckskin, of sealskin, or of cord, attached by a slip granny knot whi automatically tightened as the fish pulled. Informants said that the thrust of the harpoon usually carried the point completely through the salmon. To remove the point from the fish it was either turned back on itself and forced back through the flesh or the line was freed from the pole and drawn on through the fish. The fisherman usually carried a spare point in case the point he was using was broken or damaged. Informants spoke of a very simplified form of this single-pointed harpoon, what might be properly termed a lance. This was simply a sharp-ended pole used, as above mentioned, by the Tolowa on Smith River to take' flounders. They went out at night in a canoe, armed on with this sharpened pole. In shallow water they could easily see (presumably with the aid of a torch) the flounder resting on the bottom. The fish was simply pierced and lifted into the canoe. It must be lifted in toward the stern--never toward the prow. PERIPHERAL AREA The people residing on the lower courses of the la rivers did relatively little spearing of fish for the rea that it was easier to take them in set nets. (For the same reason--plus the greater depth and breadth of the stream--weirs were not often built.) They [evidentlyt Wiyot] in fact, did not consider themselves very good spearmen and had great respect for the skill of the Nongatl and others upstream where spearing was much more the order of the day. In fact they said that the u stream fishermen were so expert that they would feel about in the muddy water with the upper end of the har poon shaft till they found a fish, then quickly r everse ends of the shaft and harpoon the prey before it had ti to escape. [Fish can move so quickly that the agility attributed to these spearmen seems questionable.] According to Hewes (F.N., 1940) the Shasta practically always used a double-pointed harpoon, with one prong usually a fraction of an inch (perhaps 3/4 in longer than the other. When this harpoon was poised use, the two prongs were held in a vertical plane, not side by side. The upper prong was aimed slightly bel the salmon on the theory that the buoyancy of the wate would tend to carry the harpoon a little higher and th thus one or the other of the points would pierce the fi Either the longer or the shorter prong might be held above. The string used as a leader in attaching the head t the shaft was about thirty inches in length and was, ac cording to one informant, made of fibers from the ba of a certain weed [probably Apocynum]. He insisted iris-fiber string was not used for this purpose. Usu two strings were used to form such a leader, the up ends being looped around the shaft in a notch cut at t proper distance back to give some slack to the leader Shasta informants gave the following terms for pa of the har poon: toggle, arawaitcu; barb, ikwuhasi; pit iratcu--this is smoothed on with a hot stone. The poi used for summer [King] salmon in the river was som what larger than that on a har poon for use in a creek. The Shasta did night fishing, using a pitch torch forl A rainy night was especially good for harpooning sal I i 78 KROEBER AND BARRETT: FISHING IN NORTHWESTERN CALIFORNIA The making of harpoons, nets, and other gear was articularly a men's occupation in the sweathouses dur- jithe long inclement winter days. Women were never bowed to go where the men were working on such fish- igand hunting gear. Women were allowed to use the irpoon upon occasion, but they were not permitted to tep over a harpoon shaft. Hewes (F.N., 1940) says that the Nongatl used the Igle-pointed harpoon. It had a ten-inch foreshaft only, et at the effective angle. Its toggle line was of either eavy iris-fiber string or rawhide. The barbs of this gatl harpoon, much shorter than those of the Hupa other tribes, were made of bone or antler (either Fer or elk). The fisherman exercised great caution in arying his harpoon point in an "up" position for fear he might strike in on a rock and damage it. The harpoon was used after the first rains of the son caused the Eel or Van Duzen to rise, despite the that the rains also made the water so murky that it practically impossible to see the fish. The salmon Id be followed by their wakes as they swam upstream, the harpoon could be given a calculated thrust. The ged unusual dexterity of the Nongatl has already been ed. .Informants stated that harpooning was done at night well as in the daytime. Night harpooning usually re- ired two men, one wielding the harpoon, the other rying a flaming brand as a torch to give proper illu- ation. The two simply waded out into the shallow er of a riffle for their fishing. Daytime fishing was often done in deeper water and etimes with the aid of a fishing booth. This was a ple shelter of boughs in the shadow of which the erman stood. The fact that he was not silhouetted inst the sky, or otherwise easily visible, made his aring easy. A Sinkyone informant, however, stated that their har- n for salmon had a single toggle point of bone. Nom- 's (1935, p. 154) statement that the Sinkyone ran the le line directly from the harpoon head to the wrist of fisherman seems such an unusual procedure that we y safely assume that there must have been some con- on in recording. Hewes (F.N., 1940) says that one very old Sinkyone rmant stated that they had both the double-pointed gle harpoon and a spear with a fixed single point. The er required more accurate aim and was more suitable fishing in the daytime. It was used chiefly by young n. The double-toggle harpoon was used by older men, was preferred in night fishing with a torch. He gave e as the name for harpoon, and tce as the name for h. The double-pointed harpoon was so constructed that of the points was somewhat longer than the other. arrangement is said to insure that the shorter point get the fish if it is missed by the longer one. The e observations are made above by the Shasta. In er times the point was of bone, the barbs of elk er. f the Nongatl harpoon, Hewes (F.N., 1940) says that main shaft (10 to 12 ft. long) was scorched to "keep wood from rotting," according to his informant, and to render it less visible to the fish. Formerly only ngle-pointed harpoon was used; and the toggle line be about six inches longer than the distance to the of the foreshaft "in order to account for the width of salmon" [sic]. The Nongatl term for harpoon is hak; the toggle head, tufs. It was customary to carry extra point or two, even extra parts (elkhorn barbs and bone points), so that if a harpoon point broke, it could be quickly replaced or repaired. Hewes (F.N., 1940) states that, for salmon fishing, the Mattole had both a single- and a double-pointed har- poon. The leader for the toggles was always made of string, and in the double-pointed harpoon the junction of the foreshafts with the main shaft was always tightly wrapped with string to keep the foreshafts from spread- ing. No mention was made of a spreader block. Upriver, where there were more rocks, the single-pointed har- poon was preferred because if it hit a rock only one point was spoiled. Downriver, the double-pointed harpoon was preferred. Here, especially at the river mouth, the sandy bottom could do no damage to the points. The sturgeon, though a much larger fish, was occasion- ally found among salmon. It was harpooned just like a salmon. One man could drag out a sturgeon by pulling it downstream. The bones of the sturgeon are "very small" and its meat is excellent. Its eggs were also much prized. Informants stated that sometimes the Mattole fished in the daytime. To make the fisherman as nearly in- visible as possible, a small booth or shelter of brush was constructed in which the fisherman, usually an older man, stood in shadow. Such a shelter would overhang a deep pool, but no platform was built out over the water. This booth for spearing had the handicap that salmon do not like shady spots. The younger men were more suc- cessful, for they preferred to take the salmon out on the riffles. Hewes (F.N., 1940), says that the Chilula used both single- and double-pointed harpoons. In fact they some- times removed the second foreshaft to make an effective single-pointed harpoon. In the double-pointed harpoon the shaft and both fore- shafts were flattened to make good joints. One foreshaft was at quite an angle; the other was straight, in line with the shaft. The joining was wrapped, but not pitched [sic]. The toggle line was made up of two parts. To the socketed head was fastened a leader of about ten inches of buckskin, and then iris-fiber line of any desired length, finally ending in a secure half-hitch tie to the shaft itself. The shaft was peeled, but not darkened. The informant insisted that the harpoon is the more certain method of taking salmon in clear water for the reason that the fish might see the net and shy away from it. The harpoon was held so that the straighter of the two prongs was more or less parallel to the surface of the water. The second point, which was placed at quite an angle to the shaft, pointed down into the water. This is said to make more sure a strike of one or the other of the prongs. Occasionally both points took effect. Here, again, we find in use the spear with the single fixed point among the Sinkyone and the Mattole, according to Hewes (F.N., 1940). Driver (1939, pp. 313, 379) men- tions this spear with the single fixed point as employed by the Mattole; while the Kato had a double-pointed type, in which one point was fixed, the other detachable. AREA OF NEIGHBORING TRIBES Hewes further states (Th., 1947, p. 75) that both the Coast Yuki and the Yuki used both single- and double- pronged harpoons. For the Yana, Wintun, and Wailaki he mentions only the double-pointed harpoon. As a variant of the double-pointed harpoon we may mention that the people of Klamath Lake used a double- foggle harpoon, the points of which had no barbs or I i 79 ANTHROPOLOGICAL RECORDS "ears." The toggle head was thrust completely through the fish so that the detachable points slipped off and turned at right angles owing to the fact that the toggle line is attached at the middle of the head. Barrett (1910, p. 251 and pl. 22, fig. 4) gives the details of this device. Waterman (1918, pls. 5-9) has given us a most graphic record of the double-pointed harpoon among the Yana. II these pictures Ishi is shown making and using one of these implements. In Waterman's plate 9 we see that th harpoon heads are barbless, as are those of the Klam Lake and Modoc. OTHER DEVICES AND METHODS SPEARING SCAFFOLDS BARNETT, 1937. Tolowa, Chetco, pp. 163, 195. DRIVER, 1939. Tolowa, Chimariko, Karok, Yurok, Hupa, Nongatl, Mattole, Sinkyone, Kato, Coast Yuki, pp. 312, 378. GIFFORD and KROEBER, 1937. Pomo (N, C, S, E, SE), p. 133; S Pomo speared through openwork floor; had brush screen on front of scaffold. KROEBER, 1925. Wintun, p. 359. MAP 39 Over much of the area under consideration we find that some kind of simple scaffold was erected on the bank or on a weir for harpooning fish. This scaffold was usually a simple platform upon which the fisherman could stand to wield his harpoon. Our map 39 shows the distri- bution of this type of scaffold, which was quite different from the platform used for the large A-frame lifting net. SHADED BOOTHS BARNETT, 1937. Chetco, pp. 164, 195. CURTIS, 1924b. Wintun, p. 87. DRIVER, 1939. Tolowa, Wiyot, Mattole, Sinkyone, Kato, Coast Yuki, pp. 312, 378. DU BOIS, 1935. Wintun, pp. 16, 123; white stones on river bottom. Very detailed description of "Salmon house." Torch used at night. ESSENE, 1942. N Pomo, Kato, Lassik, p. 7. GIFFORD and KROEBER, 1937. Pomo (N, E, SE, NE), p. 133. N Pomo of Russian River; booth built over hole in stream. SE Pomo; booth used in cold weather. Dip net (not harpoon) used. NE Pomo; booth for spearing salmon used on shore. GOLDSCHMIDT, 1951. Nomlaki, p. 407. HEWES, F. N., 1940. Mattole, Nongatl; a shade (without platform) on the bank. Harpooner stood in this shade. , Th., 1947. Yana, pp. 66, 91; shaded booth negatively corre- lated with high development of salmon fishing. MERRIAM, 1955. Wintun, p. 21; conical spearing hut. POWERS, 1877. Yurok, pp. 48, 49; brush-covered booth used for both netting and spearing. ROSTLUND, 1952. "Distribution of Aboriginal Fishing with Decoy, Dark Hut, and Leister" in North America; map 36. Mention has already been made of the use of a shaded booth (without scaffold) by the Mattole and the Nongatl in spearing. For spearing in bright, sunny weather a booth of boughs was built. In the shade of this booth the fisher- man could stand almost without detection by the fish in the water below. His body cast no shadow on the water and he was not silhouetted. We may safely assume that the spearing booth, either with or without shade, was more widely distributed than appears in the literature. Such a detail might easily have' escaped notice, especia in more recent times. Although scaffolds (without weirs) were quite uni- versally recorded by Driver (1939, p. 312) and Barnett (1937, p. 164), we find that the covered scaffold for har- pooning is recorded by them for only the Chetco, Tolowa Wiyot, Mattole, Sinkyone, Kato, and Coast Yuki. While Powers (1877, pp. 48, 49) says that the Yurok l used the brush-covered fishing booth for both nettinga spearing salmon, he seems to be alone in this statemen Kroeber never saw or heard of a Yurok booth, thoughhq saw dozens of scaffolds. The fishing booth is also found in various other parts of the state. Hewes (Th., 1947, p. 66), for instance, mentions it as in use by the Yana: "The Yana harpoone salmon from a small darkened booth set on a scaffoldi the harpoon was of the double-foreshaft toggle type." Essene (1942, p. 7) records a "fish-spearing booth, n on weir" for the Pomo, Kato, and Lassik. Merriam (1955, p. 21) states that the Wintun "erected conical hut for spearing salmon." Presumably the booth would be most practical and useful on small and medium-sized streams with vegeta tion coming down to the river's edge or overhanging its pools. WHITE STONE FLOORING AGINSKY, 1943. N, PI. Miwok, p. 399. DU BOIS, 1935. Wintu, p. 123; used with salmon house. ESSENE, 1942. Wailaki, Yuki; used white stones in bottom of pool to increase visibility; p. 54. FYOSTER, 1944. Yuki, p. 164; white stones in weir opening. GIFFORD and KROEBER, 1937. Pomo (N, E), p. 133; placed on bottob of pool to increase visibility in spearing fish. VOEGELIN, 1942. Klamath, Atsugewi, Wintu, pp. 55, 173; used in connection with scaffold. MAP 40 Even more rarely noted is the white stone flooring used under spearing booths to increase visibility. The fisherman laid white stones immediately below his bo or on the bottom of a pool without booth. Fish passing over the area were more easily seen. (See fig. 11.) Du Bois (1935, p. 123) describes an elaborate "sal house" used by the Wintu for spearing salmon. The r bottom was covered with white stones, and at night a torch was used. GAFFS AGINSKY, 1943. N, Pl. Miwok, p. 452. BARNETT, 1937. Tolowa, Chetco, pp. 164, 195. CURTIS, 1924b. Wailaki, p. 22. I-1 i j II I I I F 80 KROEBER AND BARRETT: FISHING IN NORTHWESTERN CALIFORNIA DRIVER, L939. Tolowa, Karok, Yurok, Wiyot, Van Duzen, Mattole, Sinkyone, pp. 313, 379. DRUCKER, 1937. Tolowa, p. 233. ESSENE, 1942. N Pomo, Kato, Lassik, Yuki, p. 6; lamprey gaff. HEWES, 1942. Nongatl; fig. 34, i, p. 106. , Th., 1947. Lassik, Wailaki, Mattole, Tolowa, pp. 76, 78, 88, 104- 106. KROEBER, 1925. Coast Yuki, p. 213; eels caught at night by raking water at random with bone gaff. NOMLAND, 1938. Mattole, p. 113. MAP 41 Gaffs were used to a limited extent in our area for taking lampreys and to a slight extent for taking trout and salmon. Though the sluggishness of the sturgeon is generally remarked, no mention is made of the gaff in tiking this species, presumably on account of its size, weight, and armor. Hewes (F.N., 1940) speaks of two forms of the eel gaff among the Yurok. The shaft of such a gaff was about three-quarters of an inch in diameter and its length was equal to the height of a man's armpit. One of these gaff shafts (1615), collected by Kroeber in 1901 from the Yurok, measures 137.5 cm. The shaft was usually decorated near its forward or hook end by several nar- row bands of bear-grass (Xerophyllum tenax) wrappings placed at about inch-and-a-half intervals. Our figure 31, a shows the simpler form of this gaff, in which a backward-directed sharp bone or antler point is bound to the shaft. Figure 31, b shows the other type in which this bone also has a forward-projecting point, used, like an awl, for piercing the heads of lampreys in order to string them for carrying, or to pierce their tails in capturing them in the rock piles. The angle which such a point bears to the shaft is quite carefully regulated by using the thumb as a meas- ure, since the thumb has approximately the same thick- ness as a lamprey. The angle must be such that the gaff will not sever the notochord of the lamprey. Extraction of the severed notochord in preparation for drying is more difficult. For the Yurok, Hewes (F.N., 1940) says that the gaff, lem.0l0't4, was used only at the mouth of the Klamath. As the lampreys came in on the breakers, the fisherman gaffed one, swung it two or three times around his head and sent it sailing through the air to a point back on shore where it was picked up by a boy or someone else stationed there. Its head was pierced and it was strung for carrying. If no assistant was on hand, the lamprey was also whirled to keep it fr om wriggling off; when secured it was dropped into the fisherman's netted bag (pi. 23, c), which he usually carried along. Upstream of the river mouth, lampreys were taken with a special A- frame lifting net with small mesh. There was another gaff, somewhat larger in size, which the Yurok used for salmon. They also mentioned a gaff for sea-lion hunting, but without details. Hewes again records the lamprey gaff for the Wiyot, where the shaft was only three feet or less long. The sharp point of bone was securely bound to the shaft, but for some reason the wr apping was not pitched. A fisher- man could use this gaff from a canoe or while wading in the stream, the latter being the better method. The fisherman carried in one hand a torch, for most lamprey fishing was done at night. The torch was bound to a short staff which could, if necessary, be stuck into the river bottom to free both hands. Here again informants spoke of the necessity of keeping the gaff constantly in motion ("twisting," as they called it) to prevent the escape of the lamprey, which eventually landed in the fisherman's netted bag. One Wiyot specified that the lamprey gaff was held so that the sharp bone point was on the under side. Then the fisherman pulled the gaff toward himself with a downward raking motion; the lamprey was hooked on the point and between it and the shaft and then swung with the gaff two or three times around the fisherman's head before being dropped into his netted bag or flung ashore. Driver (1939, pp. 313, 379) records the lamprey gaff among most of the groups covered by his survey; the trout gaff as used by the Yurok, Wiyot, and Mattole; and the salmon gaff by the Wiyot only. He notes that the Karok type of lamprey gaff is made "with single barb of bone bound to wood shaft," but gives no details of construction. Concerning the trout gaff he notes that among the Yurok this implement is "made of fork of elkhorn bound to wooden shaft." The Tolowa mentioned to Hewes a lamprey gaff which was said to have a barb on the outer surface of its point. No others mentioned such a barb. One informant told of a lamprey gaff with a point of mussel or clam shell. He said it was used both for lampreys and for "ocean eels" (tsoes, apparently some type of blenny), which were much like codfish. One Tolowa informant told Hewes that a gaff for fish, especially salmon, was regularly used from the canoe. The point was either of bone or of mussel shell, though the latter was more fragile and would break after fifteen or twenty fish had been taken with it. According to Hewes (F.N., 1940), the Nongatl gaff for lampreys was made of a sharp bone point two inches long, bound at an acute angle to the end of a short stick. The angle was measured by the width of the thumb. The base of the point was beveled so that the iris-string lashing held it in place without the use of a wedge. As elsewhere, the fisherman had to swing the gaff about his head to keep the eel from wriggling off before he could land it. With it he wore [on his free hand ?] a hand-covering woven of iris-fiber string, much like a thumbless glove or mitten, to grasp his slippery prey. Hewes also recor-ds the lamprey gaff among the Sinkyone, and (Th., 1947, p. 78 and fig. 121) among the Mattole, Lassik, and Wailaki. Curtis (1924a, p. 98), in speaking of a Tolowa weir, says that the steelhead trout are removed "with gaffs made by lashing a pointed piece of elk-horn to a shaft." A Coast Yuki informant told Kroeber in 1902 that there lampreys were caught with a gaff which had a "hook of bone." This gaff was about three feet in length and was used at night, and he emphasized that this is "so we don't have to step into water." He said that he still used this gaff at that time though he was then living inland at Cahto. He added that the Coast Yuki did not use eel pots or lamprey nets. We have alr eady referred to the tendency of lampreys to crawl into any available pile of rocks. There they may be gaffed or pierced with an awl after daybreak. American gaffs are large curved hooks used to lift or help lift out of the water fish held by a line and brought to the side of the boat or shore. They are landing imple- ments for large, hooked fish. The Northwest California 8 1 ANTHROPOLOGICAL RECORDS lamprey gaff was a wholly distinct type of implement. The lamprey is an eel-shaped animal, rather light but exceedingly slippery, and does not take bait. The gaff is primarily a hooking device: a sort of one-tined rake which is swept through the water and out in one motion-- a rapid swipe-swing-whirl in which centrifugal force keeps the catch on the implement until it is hurled away from the water. The aim probably is to pierce the lam- prey, but as there is no barb, it would certainly at once wriggle off again except for the swing and whirl. By mere rapidity of motion a skillful gaffer quite likely could snake on to shore most of the lampreys that he engaged in the acute angle between point and shaft with- out actually piercing them. On the contrary it would seem impossible to take large fish this way, and we have no idea how the alleged Tolowa salmon gaff could have been used from a canoe. SHOOTING FISH WITH BOW AND ARROW AGINSKY, 1943. N, PI. Miwok, p. 399. BARNETT, 1937. Tolowa, Chetco, p. 164; use of this method tabooed. DRIVER, 1939. Chimariko, Karok, Yurok, Mattole, pp. 313, 379. DRIVER and MASSEY, 1957. Pp. 201, 206, 208; general statement. ESSENE, 1942. Lassik, p. 76. GIFFORD and KROEBER, 1937. Patwin, Pomo (N, SW, S), pp. 134, 173. HEWES, Th., 1947. P. 87; prohibited oa lower Klamath and Trinity. NOMLAND, 1938. Bear River, p. 112. POPE, 1918. Yahi, p. 130; fish not shot with bow and arrow. ROSTLUND, 1952. Pp. 134, 192, and map 40. VOEGELIN, 1942. Shasta, Wintun, pp. 56, 174; infrequently used. MAP 42 Shooting fish with the bow and arrow, though much in vogue among some native tribes elsewhere, seems to have been rarely encountered in our region and then mostly as a matter of sport. Hewes (F.N., 1940) reports that the shooting of fish was strictly prohibited among the Yurok for the reason that then "they would not come up river in future." This is evidently an instance of Yurok inclination to forbid as wrong or dangerous anything unusual or exceptional. Among the Hupa fish shooting was never done seri- ously. Shot fish must not be eaten, lest the eater himself be shot soon. The psychology was like that of the Yurok. Hewes's informants also state definitely that the Tolowa and Sinkyone did not shoot fish. On the other hand, peripheral tribes did shoot fish, though probably never as a major practice. Among the Shasta, mountain trout were shot in the quieter reaches of mountain streams; in swifter parts, the practice was impossible. The long arrow was fitted with a short point or one made of two crossed pieces of bone or hardwood (preferably mountain mahogany). The arrow with the cross-member head (akir kaahuxa'stairuk) was feathered. It was used in water up to eighteen inches deep, the point of the arrow being below the surface of the water when it was aimed at the head of the fish. (See fig. 37.) A shorter arrow with similarly crossed members as a head, but with shaft of ordinary length, was used by the Shasta for hunting the smaller land mammals. Fig. 37. Blunt-headed arrow. Used in shooting fish and also the smaller land mammals. The Nongatl shot flounders with the bow and arrow but, like the Yurok, they believed that if salmon were shot, they would stop entering the river. The Mattole told Hewes that a very long fish arrow was used in deep holes for shooting fish. Such an arrow- might be as much as eight [sic] feet in length. It had no feathering and only a sharpened wooden point. It was blackened in the fire for less visibility. They said that shooting in the water was tricky both on account of the buoyancy of the water and its refraction. The arrow was inserted into the water for about half [sic] its length and the fisherman aimed at a point below the fish, for "the arrow shoots up." The arrow might go completely through the fish, but the fish, if only wounded, rose to thb surface and "jumped around." No poison was used on these arrows, and they were shot from an ordinary bow. The only species mentioned as taken with these arrows were flounders, trout, and bullheads. The bow and arro was, of course, never employed in taking sea fishes. Driver (1939, pp. 313, 379) notes that fish shooting is, found among the Chimariko, Karok, Yurok, and Mattole, though always as an incidental method or for sport. He adds the Chilula to Hewes's list of tribes tabooing the shooting of salmon. Hewes (Th., 1947, p. 87), in fact, says that the "shoot ing of fish with the bow and arrow seems to be prohibit with almost the strength of a taboo on the lower Klamath River and lower Trinity River, although it was practiced without compunction by the Shasta." Nomland (1938, p. 112) says that the Bear River regularly shot salmon with the bow and arrow. A multipronged arrow of about the same length as the ordinary arrow was used among the Wiyot for shooting fish. This missile, like the multipointed spear, was largely used by boys, chiefly in sport rather than as a serious method of fishing. FISHHOOKS BARNETT, 1937. Tolowa, Chetco, pp. 164, 199; acute-angled hooks. BARRETT, 1910. Klamath, pp. 250, 251, and pl. 22, figs. 3, 6; gorge hook and double, acute-angled hook. , 1952. Pomo, pp. 147, 155, and pl. 14; gorge hook used on Clear Lake for fish. Chiefly used to catch certain species of water birds. BERREMAN, 1944. P. 25, fig. 7 and pl. V. CHARD, 1953. Wappo, p. 246; no fishhooks. Patwin, p. 246; gorge hookt inch long, double-pointed. 82 KROEBER AND BARRETT: FISHING IN NORTHWESTERN CALIFORNIA !3, 1924a. Wiyot, p. 76; hook and line from rocks. Also trolling. Rupa, p. 8. 1924b. Pomo, p. 63; used no hooks. Maidu, p. 109; gorge hook. 1,1905. Maidu, p. 198. 1ER, 1936. Wappo, p. 185; no fishhooks used. 1939. Tolowa, Karok, Wiyot, Hupa, Chilula, Nongatl, pp. 313, FM; composite, acute-angled hook. Gorge hook used by Tolowa, ChiUula, Nongatl, Mattole, Sinkyone, Kato, Coast Yuki. Hook on a short line and float used by Wiyot only. Trot line used by Tolowa and Hupa. t and MASSEY, 1957. Pp. 201, 206, map 29; general statement. ER. 1937. Lower Rogue River, p. 271; "single-pointed, sharp- angled fishhooks of bone or horn were used for off-shore fishing, or, tied to tule floats, were drifted downstream for sturgeon." lTolowa; did sea angling with double-pointed gorge hook. B, 1935. Wintu, p. 16; hook made of two thorns or of deer nasal bne. S, 1942. Kato, p. 6; bipointed gorge of wood or bone. ,1944. Yuki, p. 163; no fishhooks of any kind used. H 1953. Atsugewi, p. 136; hook and line fishing. fD, 1939. Coast Yuki, p. 322; deer bone gorge, baited with looussel worm, used on pole and line to catch certain species of ocean fish. RD and KROEBER, 1937. Patwin, Pomo (N, SW, S, SE), pp. 134, 203, 204, 207; gorge. N Pomo; sharp-angled hook. Pomo (N, C); kelp line. RD, 1903. Hupa, pl. 13, fig. 1. 1949. Pp. 92, 93; Humboldt Bay, archaeological remains of urved fishhooks of bone. ,1942. Pp. 104-106. Also fig. 34, j. , Th., 1947. Sinkyone, Mattole, Bear River, p. 77; acute- agled hook: wood shank, bone point, pitched. Gorge hook used r rock-dwelling sea fish. Karok, p. 86; acute-angled hook of wood. Tolowa, p. 87; hook of mussel shell. N, 1939. Pomo, p. 386. R, 1925. P. 815; general statement on fishhooks in California. oc, pp. 324, 326; double-barbed bone hook. Bone gorge hook. ldu, p. 410; acute-angle hook. 1932. River Patwin, pp. 278, 295; gorge hook. Hill Patwin; u fishhooks. 1926. Pomo, pp. 167, 168. D, 1935. Sinkyone, p. 154; acute-angled hook of antler and uel wood (large for salmon, small for surf fishing) with iris Human hair fly used for trout. Lampreys caught with gorge bo [sic]; also larger sea fish. ,1938. Mattole, p. 113; surf fishing. UND, 1952. Pp. 113-126, 185, and map 38. 1930. Klamath, pp. 149, 154; several forms. Tail bone of eker (illustrated) forms natural hook. Gangs of poles, each h hook and line, set for trout. T, 1943. Pomo, pp. 61, 62; giant kelp used as fish line from ks on coast. LIN, 1942. Klamath, Modoc, Shasta, Wintun, Maidu, pp. 56, 173; ute-angled (unilateral- or bilateral-barbed) hooks, gorge hook, otline. MAPS 43, 44 Driver (1939, pp. 313, 379) records for this area as a whole a considerable variety of fishhooks,48 largely used by the peripheral tribes, who in general live on the smaller and more rapid streams. These are the single- barbed acute-angled hook (fig. 38), the split-stick acute- angled hook, the gorge hook (fig. 39), the bird-claw hook, the human-hair or vegetable-fiber ball for snagging (so- called sniggling), the hair "fly," the trotline, and the hook on a short line and float (fig. 40). The first two types are attributed to the Karok and the Hupa, the sniggle to one division of the Hupa, and the vegetable-fiber snag- ging device to one Yurok division. Otherwise practically all "hooking" devices are confined to the peripheral groups. Fig. 38. Single-barbed, acute-angled fishhook. Hupa. a b Fig. 39. Gorge hook. a. Double-pointed. b. Single- pointed. After Hewes (F.N., 1940). 48A most interesting find, from not too far from our area, is in Hum- boldt Cave, Nevada. Here were found large acute-angled hooks made with points of bone bound onto wooden shanks (See Heizer and Krieger, 1956, pl. 11, c, d, e). Each of these bone points has two barbules cut into it. In one type these are on the outer face of the angle; in another type on the inner face; and in a third type one on the outer and one on the inner face. Each of these hooks has a wooden shank 9-10 cm. long and each has a bone barb 7-1/2 cm. long firmly bound to the shank with fine cord. This cord passes up to the top of the shank where it is closely wrapped around the top section (about 3 cm.) of the shank, whence it passes on to form a leader. Two of these leaders are single heavy 2-ply cords. The other two leaders are formed of very light double cords. The leaders are from 125 to 145 cm. in length. Such large hooks were undoubtedly intended for catching the larger species of fish. No hooks with barbules were reported even in the archaeological remains of Northwestern California. In fact, the only hook with a bar- bule (this time on the outer surface of the barb) from the northern California region is the one (19448) made by Ishi, a Yahi, and illustrated by Gifford (1940, fig. 24, p. 237). A plain, acute-angled hook is shown on this same plate, pl. 11, a (Heizer and Krieger, 1956). Loud and Harrington (1929, pl. 51) show two similar specimens from Lovelock Cave. Also found in Humboldt Cave were obtuse-angled hooks of smaller size, consisting of bone points bound to wooden shanks. This type was apparently used as a form of gorge, and, in one instance at least, a large number of these hooks were mounted on a long trotline. (See Heizer and Krieger, 1956, pl. 11, b.) Here again we find in Lovelock Cave similar obtuse-angled hooks on a trotline. (See Loud and Harring- ton, 1929, pl. 51.) I 8 3 ANTHROPOLOGICAL RECORDS The groups living on the larger, heavy-flowing streams had in weirs and nets far more efficient methods for mass catches. It was therefore ordinarily unnecessary for them to waste time, for the effort expended, with devices which would yield only individual and small fishes. Hewes (F.N., 1940) records for the Yurok that the fishhook was made of an inch-long thorn from one of the briers. It was se- curely bound to a wooden shank. This hook was tied to the end of a line about six feet long and was used on a pole. The bait was a grasshopper or hellgrammite, or occasionally some dried salmon. This type of hook was used for trout from early spring on into the fall. In late winter this type of hook, with angleworm bait, was used for steelheads. Hewes also mentions a hook of bone, chiefly used by boys for catching trout. The men were usually much more interested in taking larger species: salmon, sturgeon (on the Klamath R.), or ocean fish, as well as sea lions. Hewes (F.N., 1940) records for the Hupa that a stout setline or trot- line was anchored ashore, the op- posite end, supported by a wooden block, being allowed to float freely downstream. To this line were attached, with short leaders, hooks, baited with fish eggs or gill "rakes." These hooks were called taldetU, and it is said that any number up to thirty or forty might be used. This device was used in the fall, when the water Fig. 40. was low, primarily for trout. The Square hook hook, as described, was of the com- on short line posite, acute-angled type, its two parts and float. being secured by wrapping with cord Tolowa. which was sometimes pitched. (See After Hewes fig. 38.) One informant said that the (F.N., 1940). points of such hooks were made of the bones of suckers.49 Curtis (1924a, p. 8), in speaking of Hupa fishhooks, says: "The hook was a sharp bone attached by wrapping to a small wooden shaft, which in turn was made fast to the iris-fibre line. It was used for trout, and generally on a multiple-hook set-line." Goddard (1903, pl. 13, fig. 1) shows a group of the small, composite, acute-angled hooks (bone point set in a wood shank) which, he says, were used by the Hupa for trout, and Hewes (Th., 1947, p. 86) states that the Karok had an "acute-angled hook of wood. " Hewes (F.N., 1940) says that among the Wiyot an acute-angled hook made of deer bone ("deer leg pin") was baited and fastened by a short line (about 3 ft.) to a wooden float. This apparatus was cast adrift in the bay or in the river estuary. No sinker was required. The bobbing and movement of the float gave notice that a fish had taken the hook. A surf fish made about the best bait. Several of these little buoyed lines were used at one time by a single fisherman. They were especially good for taking steelheads. For the Wiyot, Driver also mentions a short line with float and hook, several of which were set in a "lagoon." The bobbing of the float indicated that a fish was on that 49Spier (1930, p. 154) describes and illustrates a fishhook which is actually the tail bone of a sucker. This is used on Klamath Lake. particular hook. This rig was probably quite similar the device mentioned below for the Tolowa. Hewes (F.N., 1940) states that among the Tolowai barbless hook was used to jerk fish out of the water, informants disclaimed knowledge of a bird's-claw I Hewes's Tolowa informants described a set-hookX fig. 40) made of mussel shell. It was about four inc [sic] long and squarish in form owing to the shape o shell from which it was made. The upper part of it shank carried three or four notches by which the fi was securely fastened to it. The opposite end of the. was fastened to a special type of dry, wooden float three feet in length by one and a half to two inches diameter. The upper six inches of this float were squared. Just below the squaring, a fish line four so long was tied and wound spirally down to the po the float, finally being secured with what informants termed a "slip hitch" at a knob near this lower end the float. When the fish took the bait and struggled, two th happened: (1) the float bobbed about; (2) the "slip was loosened and the squared upper end of the float to revolve as the line unwound. Either of these mo of the float gave notice to the fisherman that he had catch on this particular hook. This method of fishi much used in the tidewater estuaries. Several cano would put their hooks in a given area, each canoe t about a dozen floats. The result might be a fairly catch when the salmon were running well. [We doubt whether the weight of a musselshell h could pull the end of a 3-ft. float stick under water far as shown in fig. 40, but the device would work as well if the angle of the float were considerably TX the horizontal. We shall encounter in chap. XI, in Drucker's description of the sea-lion harpoon, anot Tolowa square - ended, several-feet - long stick from a line unwinds.] Another type of hook and float, among the Wiyot, somewhat simpler, according to Hewes (F.N., 1940 deer leg-bone angle-hook (the gorge hook not being here) was fastened to a line two and a half or three long, the other end of the line being tied about the of a wooden float of almost any shape. Several of t devices were set adrift from a canoe either in Hu Bay or in the estuary of Eel River. The hook might left bare or it could be baited with a surf fish. It c salmon, steelheads, perch, or bullheads. Reverting once more to hooks among the Tolowa find Hewes (Th., 1947, p. 87) saying that fishhooks mussel shell were reported as once used by the To but he also notes that this marks the first appeara shell hooks north of the Chumash, and then suggest they may have been copies from Caucasian hooks. We would be inclined to agree with Hewes's sug were it not that Heizer (1949, pp. 92, 93) calls atte to the presence in two archaeological sites, on Hu Bay and Patrick Point, of C-shaped single-piece fi hooks of bone. These are not too unlike the Tolow hook of shell to suggest a possible relationship, p larly in view of the proximity of the two areas. According to Nomland (1935, p. 154), the Sinkyo for "salmon" was about 6 in. long, of deer bone, a barb of hazel wood, all well pitched. [Salmon do ordinarily take bait as far up Eel River as the Sin habitat. Steelhead do, but ar e so much smaller t would be inclined to reduce the size of the hook fr in., unless the white deer bone served primarily a lure and the wooden barb was much smaller.] Sin hooks for small fish were minor replicas of the " I I I 84 KROEBER AND BARRETT: FISHING IN NORTHWESTERN CALIFORNIA wok. The Sinkyone had also a double-pointed gorge hook airis-fiber line (see fig. 39, a), for catching ocean ph from the rocks and, it is said, for lampreys. We do know how a gorge would work on the jawless, circular uth of a suctorial lamprey. Hewes (F.N., 1940) says that the Mattole used a small rge hook especially for sea perch, sea trout, and bull- ads. It was of bone, about an inch and a half in length, linted at either end; to the middle a 2-ft. sinew leader as attached. "Mussel worms" served as bait, which r found among mussels almost anywhere. No sinker is required, the hook and bait being allowed to float Ion the surface. For other species of sea fishes the same hook-and- !e outfit was used but a stone was tied into the middle tthe line as a sinker. One hook only was used on each !e and a fisherman used only one line at a time, on the bef outside the bar at the Mattole mouth and from rocks png the coast. This type of gorge hook was not used in the Mattole er itself, though a bone gorge 3 in. long was used up- er for steelheads, chiefly on the riffles, though some- Oes also in deeper pools. A gorge was also used, with most any kind of bait, in the upriver pools for suckers. Informants specified that no gorge hook was used on l River or on Humboldt Bay. Hewes's Chilula informants described a very small ge hook (not more than 1/2 to 3/4 in. long), used with sshopper bait and no sinker, on a pole with a line up 10 or even 15 ft. in length. In a general statement Hewes (Th., 1947, p. 77) says a among the Sinkyone, Mattole, and Bear River "bone ge hooks on lines were employed for rock-dwelling cies. Salmon were taken on angle hooks with wooden nks, bone points [wood and bone reversed from Nom- di, and lashings smeared with pitch." He also men- Is for the Patwin a gorge hook, for the Yana an angle k, and for the Northern -Wintun both a thorn gorge k and a deer-bone angle hook. A double-barbed fishhook and also the double-ended ge hook are found among the Klamath Lake people. ese forms are described and illustrated by Barrett 10, pp. 250, 251, and pl. 22, figs. 6 and 3). The gorge hook, single-pointed (see fig. 39, b), on a ow line used from rocks along shore is confirmed for Yurok by Hewes. In passing we may call attention to the wide distribu- bof the gorge hook both in space and time. It is found many parts of the world, and Gruvel (1928, pp. 29-31, discusses European prehistoric fishhooks of the gorge made of flint, wood, and ivory. A fishhook was made by the Mattole by fastening the p claw of a "chicken" hawk to a line and baiting it h meat. This hook was used chiefly on the riffles up- eam. According to Hewes (F.N., 1940), one informant bably Nongatl), stated that for trout in the Van Duzen ring the summer only) a "sharp grass thorn" was d which grows curved and is "about the size of the index finger of a child." This needlelike hook had tch cut in its base, was attached to a line ten feet g, and was baited with a grasshopper. It could be by anyone and was said to be very effective for tt, though much too small for salmon. The "grass" which the hook was obtained was said to produce a e-colored flower. On Mad River they used another type of thorn hook for hing black salmon, but details are unknown. FISH POISONS (NARCOTICS) AGINSKY, 1943. N, P1. Miwok, p. 399. BARNETT, 1937. Tolowa, Chilula, p. 164; poisons denied. BARRETT, 1952. Pomo, p. 149 and pl. 19. BEALS, 1933. Nisenan, p. 347. CHARD, 1953. Wappo, p. 244; soaproot, doveweed, okali used. No angelica or buckeye used. CURTIS, 1924b. Yuki, Wailaki, pp. 22, 41. DIXON, 1905. Maidu, p. 198; soaproot. DRIVER, 1936. Wappo, p. 185; soaproot and dove weed used as fish poisons. Buckeye and angelica not used. , 1939. Chilula, Nongatl, Mattole, Sinkyone, Kato, pp. 313, 379. DRIVER and MASSEY, 1957. Pp. 201, 206, 208, map 21; general statement. DU BOIS, 1935. Wintu, p. 17; soaproot, "ginseng." Buckeye not used. ESSENE, 1942. N Pomo, Kato, Lassik, Yuki, pp. 6, 55; soaproot, dove weed, manroot. FOSTER, 1944. Yuki, pp. 163, 164; four vegetal poisons used (singly or together) to stupefy fish. GARTH, 1953. Atsugewi, p. 137; wild parsley. GIFFORD, 1939. Sinkyone, p. 322; wormwood. GIFFORD and KROEBER, 1937. Patwin, Lake Miwok, Pomo (all), Wintun, pp. 134, 174; various plants used. GOLDSCHMIDT, 1941. Nomlaki, p. 406; fish poisoning by women, using turkey mullein and soaproot. Mullein fuzz gets into gills and stifles fish. HEIZER, 1941. Pp. 43, 44; discussion of plants used for fish poisoning in California. , 1953a. Piscicides fully treated, pp. 225-283, with a special chapter on California, pp. 250-252. HEWES, Th., 1947. Miwok, p. 62; soaproot, buckeye, turkey mullein, pepperwood. Maidu, p. 63; soaproot, etc. Yana, p. 66; soaproot. Wintun, p. 67; turkey mullein, etc. Wappo, p. 71; soaproot, turkey mullein. Pomo, p. 72; manroot, soaproot, buckeye. Yuki, p. 75; soaproot. Kato, p. 76; soaproot, manroot. Lassik, Wailaki, p. 77; soaproot, turkey mullein, manroot. Nongatl, Whilkut, Chilula, p. 79; soaproot. P. 89; reasons for disappearance of poisoning in the nuclear salmon area. KNIFFEN, 1939. Pomo, p. 376. KROEBER, 1907-1910. Article on poisons. Pt. 2, p. 273. , 1925. Fish poisons, general statement, p. 817. , 1929. Nisenan, p. 287. , 1932. Patwin, p. 278; poison not used. LOEB, 1926. Pomo, pp. 168, 169; soaproot, manroot used for octopus. McCLELLAN, 1953. Wappo, p. 241; soaproot and mullein. NOMLAND, 1935. Sinkyone, p. 154; soaproot and one other (unidentified). POPE, 1918. Yana, p. 130; beaten fruit of manroot or wild cucumber [squirting cucumber] used. ROSTLUND, 1952. Pp. 127-133, 189, 190, and map 39. SPIER, 1930. Klamath Lake, p. 149. No poisons. STEWART, 1943. Pomo, pp. 61, 62; octopus, ocean eels, fish taken by poisoning small pools in rocks along coast. VOEGELIN, 1942. Shasta, Wintun, Maidu, pp. 56, 174; plants used. MAP 46 I 85 ANTHROPOLOGICAL RECORDS Conditions on the large, swift-flowing streams in Northwestern California are not favorable for fish poisons, but these were used by almost all of the pe- ripheral and neighboring tribes. Driver (1939, p. 313) records fish poisoning with soaproot among the Chilula, Mattole, Sinkyone, and Kato, but gives a negative record for all the other tribes of Northwestern California. By the very nature of this poisoning we know that it cannot be used where there is too large a volume of water or in a stream in which the water rushes down too rapidly. Driver cited four tribes which lived on small streams or headwaters and where the natural conditions--series of still pools with little flow between them--were favorable. Nomland (1935, p. 154), for the Sinkyone, states: "poison, or mashed soaproot, stupefied fish. Siultsa' n said to be the strongest poison." One informant stated that this plant "grew in one tall stalk with a cluster of blue flowers at the end of the spike and a root as big as a hat [which suggests manroot--see Hewes below]. The root was pounded and put into water. It turned the water blue and made eels (lampreys) come out of the rocks and trout turn right over." Hewes (Th., 1947) notes the species used among several additional tribes: soaproot (p. 79) was used by the Nongatl and Whilkut, as well as Chilula, in the dry season for suckers and trout; the Lassik and Wailaki (p. 77) took the same two species in the smaller streams with soaproot, turkey mullein, and manroot; the Kato (p. 76) used soaproot and manroot; the Yuki (p. 75), mainly soaproot; the Yana (p. 66) took "small fish in quiet pools" with soaproot; and the Wintun (p. 67) used turkey mullein and a plant identified as ginseng. Further details from Hewes (F.N., 1940) are: Wiyot: poison employed in pools and quiet spots. Sinkyone: soaproot and manroot [wild cucumber] (either together or separately) pounded up and put in deep holes in creeks at low water; efficacious in taking trout and suckers, at times even steelheads. Mattole: poisons much more frequently used upriver than toward the mouth of the Mattole, where the pools are bigger. Only soaproot used, though some other tribes were known to use other poisons. With soaproot in a deep hole the fish soon come floating on the surface. This poison believed to take effect in the viscera, so the fish must not be allowed to float about but should be quickly brought ashore and eviscerated. Bear River: an effective poison was made by pound- ing and mixing together soaproot, wild onions, and man- root (?). Placed in a pool at the upstream end, this quickly colored the pool purplish. In a few minutes the fish began to float on top of the water. All species were affected: trout, suckers, lamprey eels, etc. Nongatl: a large quantity of a root from higher alti- tudes was pounded and deposited in a still pool, giving the water a characteristic color. In an hour or two the stupefied fish rose to the surface and were taken out with dip nets as they floated downstream. This poison was not mixed with soaproot; the root produced edible shoots, though it was itself poisonous to human beings. One informant said that it was used chiefly for trout, though on Redwood Creek lampreys were also taken. It did not impart any flavor to the fish. Chilula: soaproot was pounded up with just enough water to make suds, which were dropped in creek holes for trout. The fish soon rose to the surface and floun- dered around drunkenly; they were either picked off by hand or scooped up with a small dip net. So far Hewes. Fish poisoning among more distant (our "Neighboring') tribes was quite generally practiced, as is shown by tb long list of references at the head of this section, and considerable variety of plants was used: soaproot,tur mullein, dove weed, manroot, and others. Pope (1918, p. 130) states that he was told by Ishi the Yana used the beaten fruit of the "squirting cucu [manroot] as a fish poison. FIRE AT NIGHT AGINSKY, 1943. N, P1. Miwok, p. 399. BANCROFT, 1883. Yurok, pp. 338, 339; torches (also fire on bank) used in spearing. Presumably for illumination. CURTIS, 1924a. Tolowa, pp. 75, 88; pitch torch for illumination. , 1924b. Wintun, p. 98. DRIVER, 1939. Tolowa, Mattole, Sinkyone, Kato, pp. 313, 378, 379; used at night. DRIVER and MASSEY, 1957. P. 203; general statement. DU BOIS, 1935. Wintu, pp. 15, 16; torches used with seine in com salmon drive. Also used as lure in harpooning salmon. ESSENE, 1942. Pomo, Kato, Lassik, Yuki, p. 6. FOSTER, 1944. Yuki, p. 163; fire for illumination. GARTH, 1953. Atsugewi, p. 136; torch described. GIFFORD and KROEBER, 1937. NE Pomo, pp. 133, 172; two fires banks to spear salmon at weir. Patwin, Pomo (N, C, S, E, SI p. 174; fire for illumination, warmth. GOLDSCHMIDT, 1951. Nomlaki, p. 407; fire on platform on weir. HEWES, Th., 1947. Wiyot, p. 80; torch light used in canoe on Hum Bay. KROEBER, 1932. Patwin, p. 278; firelight used at night to see fish weir. NOMLAND, 1935. Sinkyone, pp. 153, 154; torch in canoe or on ba made of finely split redwood. ROSTLUND, 1952. P. 182 and map 37. VOEGELIN, 1942. Klamath, Modoc, Shasta, Wintun, Maidu, pp. 56, fires on shore and pitch torches. MAP 47 The use of fire at night appears to have been limi and then was more for illumination or for warmth t lure. We know that a torch was used in the canoe at night, presumably for lampreys, which were taken b dip net or the gaff. A pitchwood torch, according to Hewes (F.N., 194 was used by the Tolowa for' illumination in taking la preys. The fishing was done with gaffs on the bar as tide turned into flood, br inging the lampreys in for upstream journey. This same gaff-and-torch meth was also employed farther upstream at certain falls. Here the lampreys work their way by suction up the of the rocks and are easily gaffed. Another use for torch and gaff was at the Tolowa lamprey chute sho figure 11. Salmon were also harpooned in Smith Riv by the aid of such a pitchwood torch, and it was emp for catching crabs in low-tide pools at night. Curtis (1924a, p. 98) says that the Tolowa spear salmon at night on the r iffles in the river by the ig a pitchwood torch. Among the Wiyot he says (p. 75)1 spearing of salmon on riffles on moonlight nights w facilitated "by one of a crew of three men using the I 86 I KROEBER AND BARRETT: FISHING IN NORTHWESTERN CALIFORNIA another holding a pitchy torch, the third managing canoe"; and again (p. 74): "on an earthen hearth in canoe was a small fire, at which they warmed their s." These statements definitely establish that fire means always served as a lure for the fish. s previously noted under "gaffs," Hewes describes reys being gaffed by the Wiyot with the aid of a torch ed to a pole stuck into the river bottom to free both S. Driver (1939, p. 378) records for the Sinkyone that a was built out on the platform of the weir, though he s that there is some question whether the blaze was as a lure or merely for warmth and illumination. states that the Coast Yuki used fire similarly. Ac- ingto Nomland (1935, p. 154), the Sinkyone used a ch "for spearing salmon from canoes or banks at That fire was not more used for fishing may be ause the people of this region were able to take fish great numbers with their weirs and dip nets, and by r means, much more efficaciously than by fire lures. DIVING FOR FISH NSKY, 1943. N, Pl. Miwok, pp. 399, 452, 453; dive with bag net. ITIS, 1924a. Klamath, p. 170. , 1924b. Wailaki, Wintun, pp. 22, 85. DN, 1905. Maidu, p. 198. VER, 1936. Wappo, pp. 184, 185; dive and catch fish with bare hands. , 1939. Tolowa, Chimariko, Karok, Yurok, Hupa, Chilula, Van Duzen, Mattole, Sinkyone, Kato, Coast Yuki, pp. 313, 379; divers catch fish with bare hands. VER and MASSEY, 1957. P. 206; general statement. BSENE, 1942. Yuki, p. 55. Pomo, Kato, Lassik, Yuki, p. 6. OSTER, 1944. Yuki, p. 164; dive for salmon in large pools. Catch with bare hands. Also lampreys. 3ARTH, 1953. Atsugewi, p. 135. 3IFFORD and KROEBER, 1937. N, C, S Pomo, pp. 134, 173. ,DSCHMIDT, 1941. Nomlaki, p. 406; dive and catch with hands. Big fish: break neck with hands or by biting. Also catch with small hand nets. WES, Th., 1947. Yurok, p. 84; wrestling with sturgeon. EBER, 1925. Yuki, p. 174; dive for salmon. , 1932. River Patwin, pp. 278, 295; diver with spring-pole bag net caught salmon in pen of weir, also noosed salmon. Hill Patwin dived for fish. VOEGELIN, 1942. Klamath, Modoc, Shasta, Wintun, Maidu, pp. 56, 174; fish caught with bare hands. MAPS 48, 49 The sturgeon is a sluggish as well as large fish and informants described how it is sometimes caught by hand where it lies on the bottom or in the quiet waters of a lagoon. The swimmer simply dives and grasps it by the neck from above and lies on the fish's back. Then, by pulling its head up, he makes it swim toward the surface, and can guide it toward the shore as it swims to free itself. Hewes (Th., 1947, p. 84) mentions this method among the Yurok. "Other important fishing methods near the mouth of the river include . . . wrestling with large 87 sturgeon, which tumbled rather helplessly down-stream after spawning." The following statements seem to refer to salmon. Essene (1942, p. 55; Hewes, Th., 1947, p. 84) empha- sizes the Yuki diving to catch fish bare-handed in deep pools. Hewes adds that "this seems to have been prac- ticed rather widely in California as a sport." We concur. However, Hewes (F.N., 1940) gives additional details. At Hupa, if a fish was seen to disappear under an over- hanging bank or rock, a man might dive in and catch it with his bare hands. Among the Shasta, women often caught fish with their hands when the water was shallow in summer. On the Mattole, a large fish, partly hidden in a deep hole, might be grasped by the gills and brought to the surface; or it might be dispatched by stabbing with a special barbless bone dagger, called tsema, made for the purpose. One Mattole stated that a fish resting quietly under a bank could be grasped quickly by the tail and this slashed off with a knife, thus rendering the fish entirely helpless. Farther afield we find that diving for fish was in some use among many of the neighboring tribes, but always rather incidentally. SNARING FISH DIXON, 1905. Maidu, p. 198; sinew noose (on a short stick) slipped over head of large fish by diver. DRIVER, 1939. Tolowa, Yurok, Wiyot, Van Duzen, Mattole, Sinkyone, Coast Yuki, pp. 313, 379. DRIVER and MASSEY, 1957. Pp. 201, 206; general statement. ESSENE, 1942. Yuki, p. 6. GIFFORD, 1939. Coast Yuki, pp. 321, 322. HEWES, Th., 1947. Maidu, Patwin, pp. 63, 65. KROEBER, 1925. Yuki, p. 174; noose slipped over tail by a diver. , 1932. River Patwin, p. 278; diver caught sturgeon by noose on tail. Also dived with hand net. ROSTLUND, 1952. P. 194 and map 42. MAP 50 Snaring fish, usually by a diver rather than from above water level, is noted for several tribes. Hewes.(Th., 1947, pp. 63, 65) mentions fish snaring by the Maidu and the Patwin. Driver (1939, pp. 313, 379) under his element 249, "Noose slipped over tail of large fish," records this method as used by the Tolowa, Yurok, Wiyot, Van Duzen, Mattole, Sinkyone, and Coast Yurok. His notes on this element add that, among the Tolowa, the noose was slipped over the tail after the fish, driven back and forth till tired, had sought refuge in a hole under the bank or a rock; among the Yurok, when the fish was "resting with tail protruding from hole under roots or rocks, or when struggling in narrow and shallow rapids." Dixon (1905, p. 198) mentions that the Maidu in the Sacramento Valley "caught fish by diving with a stick to which a sinew noose was attached, which could be pulled tight. By cautiously swimming toward a large fish, this noose was said to be slipped over the fish's head, and pulled taut, the diver then coming to the surface with his prize. " According to the Yurok (Hewes, F.N., 1940), the stur- geon in the Klamath and Trinity range up to 8 or 9 ft. and 400 lbs. They start going upstream to spawn in late February or early March. When they come in from the ANTHROPOLOGICAL RECORDS ocean they are very fat and have orange-colored sides. After spawning they roll downstream like logs. The Yurok sometimes attempted to land a resting sturgeon by grasping it with the bare hands alone. There were fishermen bearing scars on their chests where the horny plates of the sturgeon's skin had cut deeply into their flesh as they fought with their catch. The Hupa told Hewes (F.N., 1940) that sturgeon some- times floated downstream to the weir at Takimilding. A man might wade quietly out to such a fish with a stout line in each end of which was knotted a small but stout billet. He would cautiously loop a noose about the tail of the sturgeon and as gently as possible begin to tow it ashore: any quick motion might cause the fish to make a dash for liberty. When near the river bank the man tried to yank the fish ashore quickly, by himself or with help from others. The Karok told Hewes that sturgeon sometimes lie with tail pointing more or less upward. A fisherman wades in and slips a noose of twisted grapevine over the fish's tail. This line is tied to a tree on shore. The fish is so strong that two or three men cannot hold it, but the hitch to the tree is secure, and the fish can be gradually eased ashore. Hewes (Th., 1947, p. 65) says that among the Patwin, sturgeon were caught in a noose wielded by a diver. "For salmon, the diver used an elliptical bag-net, the mouth of which could be snapped shut by releasing the two poles which held it open." He also refers to a special type of net used by the Pomo and described by Gifford and Kroeber (1937, p. 215): "Scoop net with two straight sticks on either side of opening. Man dived with this and bagged salmon caught in enclosure." In Kroeber's (1932, p. 278) account of the Patwin fish dam, already discussed, there is mention of taking salmon from pens with a special net provided with a clamping device at its mouth; noosing sturgeon by the tail is also mentioned. Noosing or snaring is a method employed in many parts of the world in catching fish;for example, Findeisen (MS, 1929, fig. 21, p. 29) shows an elaborate type of Siberian snare for fish which consists of a loop at the end of a rod so rigged that it can be pulled taut through a couple of rings. SNAGGING, SNIGGLING, OR JERKING FISH BARNETT, 1937. Chetco, p. 164; hair ball. CHARD, 1953. Wappo, p. 244; hair sniggle and bait for trout. DRIVER, 1936. Wappo, p. 184; trout caught with grasshopper tied on end of hair line. Trout swallowed bait, hair caught in its "teeth." , 1939. Yurok, Hupa, Mattole, Sinkyone, Coast Yuki, pp. 313, 379; trout jerked with hair string or ball. Yurok; same but with a vegetable fiber ball. Wiyot, Sinkyone; hair fly attached to hook. ESSENE, 1942. Lassik, pp. 5, 6; hair string or ball for jerking trout. GIFFORD, 1939. Coast Yuki, p. 321; human-hair loop (baited) on pole and line. Cast for jerking trout. HEWES, Th., 1947. Wappo, Lassik, Wailaki, pp. 71, 76, 77; hair sniggle. MAP 45 What may be termed a snagging method of catching certain species of fish was sometimes employed. The device used was referred to as a sniggle. It has been briefly noted above under "Fishhooks." Perhaps the simplest snagging device is that men- tioned by Hewes (F.N., 1940) for the Coast Yurok. A piece of salmon flesh tied into the end of a line on a pol was dropped into the water. When a bullhead or a trout took a firm hold on the piece of salmon, it could be liftet out of the water quite easily. This method was used chiefly in the summertime. For the Wiyot, Hewes records that trout and bullhead were taken with a "bunch of hair" or a "ball of hair" a line. For bullheads it was weighted to carry it to the bottom. For trout the line was attached to a light pole and simply cast out on top of the water. It could be use without bait but was more effective if baited, usually with a grasshopper. Hewes also records for the Sinkyone that trout were taken on a human hair lure. What the informant termed the "end hair" of this device was baited. The bait gen- erally employed was a grasshopper, but in the spring angleworms were preferred. This human hair "hook" was even used to some extent in taking steelheads. Usually these sniggles were operated from a canoe. For the Sinkyone, Nomland (1935, p. 154) mentions t use of human hair in this way. "Trout 'hooks' of loop of human hair wound around finger; tied in middle with iris string, used like fly on top of water; trout's teeth get tangled in hair; fish easily raised out of water." Driver (1939, pp. 313, 379) records for the Hupa, Mattole, Sinkyone, and Coast Yuki what he terms a "h string or ball for jerking trout." He says that this is baited, and that, when the strike is felt, the angler jer the string, the hair catches in the trout's mouth and it hurled onto the bank. For the Yurok he records a "vegetable fiber ball for jerking trout" which works on the same principle. Another very simple device is that recorded by Gifford (F.N., 1939-42) for the Karok for taking trout. By attaching a grasshopper, hellgrammite, or other in- sect to a line and lowering this into the water, we have a proper lure. When the fish swallows this bait, it can be easily jerked out of the water. No fishhooks were needed, and some informants maintained that the Karok did not use them, although they were familiar with the fact that the neighboring Hupa did have fishhooks. Hewes's (F.N., 1940) Mattole informants went into detail concerning this device, as follows: Trout were taken by snagging or jerking with a hair ball. Some lo hairs from a woman's head were made into a small ba called silos. This was tied to the end of a six-foot line and a worm for bait was affixed. With a willow pole it was thrown onto the surface of the stream time after time, much as we do fly casting. When a trout struck the worm its teeth became entangled in the hair ball a it could be easily jerked out of the water. This device was used from early summer until the first salmon ap- peared in fall. From then on trout were considered to small to bother with. Hewes (Th., 1947, p. 77) also records for the Lassik and the Wailaki that suckers and trout were jerked out of the smaller streams "with a hair sniggle at the end of a short line." No details are given other than that implement was intended for use below the surface of t water. Hewes refers on these same pages to the use the Wiyot and Sinkyone of a "hair 'fly' attached to a ho and he says that this was "human hair wrapped around the hook to disguise it." He mentions bait (Th., 1947, p. 71) only for the Wappo and says "trout were some- times sniggled with a hair line with grasshopper forb [apparently without hook]. Essene (1942, p. 5) records similar device for the Lassik. I I I 88 KROEBER AND BARRETT: FISHING IN NORTHWESTERN CALIFORNIA DRIVING FISH KY, 1943. N, P1. Miwok, pp. 398, 399, 452. FOPT, 1883. Pp. 338, 339; fish driven to dam. Then another dam ilt upstream to impound them. Speared. D, 1953. Wappo, p. 244; small fish driven into nets. ,1907. Shasta, pp. 428, 430; fish driven by women. ER, 1936. Wappo, pp. 184, 185; bullheads, suckers, driven into nets (5-ft. opening) held by two men. 1939. Tolowa, Yurok, Wiyot, Hupa, Chilula, Chimariko, Van Duzen, Mattole, Sinkyone, Kato, pp. 313, 379. KR.and MASSEY, 1957. P. 206; general statement. KER, 1937. Tolowa, p. 232; drive fish downstream into net at apex of weir. 1D, 1935. Wintu, pp. 15, 17; large communal drives for salmon. Seines and torches used. Also for suckers. SE, 1942. Kato, Lassik, Yuki, p. 6. ZR, 1944. Yuki, p. 164; fish driven into seine. ,1953. Atsugewi, pp. 136, 137. ECHMIDT, 1951. Nomlaki, p. 406; salmon driven into shallow water. Clubbed or stoned. No spears or seines used. HOLT, 1946. Shasta, p. 309. KNIFFEN, 1939. Pomo, p. 364; driving fish with balsa. LOEB, 1926. Pomo, p. 182; driving with rafts. SPIER, 1930. Klamath, pp. 150, 151; chub driven into "rectangular pouch net" in river. On lake several canoes drive fish to large triangular nets, set sometimes several abreast. MAP 51 In connection with certain types of nets and traps and, to some extent, with weirs, fish were driven by throwing stones from the bank or from canoes, by wading and thrashing about in the stream, or by hauling a seine or a movable weir toward the trap. Among some tribes several dip nets were held by as many men in a line across a stream while others drove the fish toward them. One Tolowa device was a double weir, in one of which was a tubular basketry trap into which the fish were driven. Obviously such methods were used only in the smaller streams. In the large, swifter streams of our nuclear area it was largely unnecessary to resort to driving. Reference to driving has already been made in the discussion of drift nets. The wide distribution of driving is shown on our map 51, and it is safe to say that driving would be found in the remaining areas if fuller information were available. SEA FISHING he tribes living on the immediate coast had develop- rtain special devices for taking the ocean species. he Coastal Yurok of Trinidad Bay, and possibly s, are reported by Hewes to have trolled with their es, using a long line and surf fish for bait. rolling in our area is mentioned by Curtis (1924a, ), who says of the Wiyot that "the hook and line used for rock cod and in trolling for salmon." is true that Waterman (1 920a, p. 185), says that the yocean fish" taken by the Yurok with hook and line "surf fish or smelt, which they caught from the hwith throw-lines." This is a unique report and E unlikely for the reason that smelt are a small es, easily taken in quantities by the scoop net. It uch more probable that other authors are correct porting the Indians as taking larger species of fish bes, using smelt for bait. Waterman evidently ccn- smelt as bait with smelt as catch. e are told by Hewes, for example, that the throw 1was used by the Coast Yurok. Fishing off the rocks a line forty or fifty feet long and with a gorge hook ne baited usually with mussel or clam meat, they Itocean perch, snappers, rock cod, rock eels, oc- nal halibut, and other species. Sometimes no actual gorge was used. The bait was simply attached to ine and itself served in place of a gorge hook. When sh had thoroughly swallowed this bait with the line hed, it could be hauled out of the water. The line coiled into a basket to keep it from snarling. awes (F.N., 1940) says that the Wiyot actually ven- out two or three miles beyond the line of breakers. ,with a heavy line and a fairly heavy sinker, they 'd for the pelagic species. he same is true of the Tolowa, who did their deep ishing with either a hand line, or with a pole about e feet long and with a line two or three fathoms in h, at the end of which was a hook made of deer antler and bone, or, other informants said, of mussel shell. When a fisherman started out, he had a mussel or two for bait, but when he had caught his first fish, perhaps a perch, he cut this up and used it for bait. It was much better bait than the mussel meat. Tolowa informants listed as species caught in this way salmon, codfish, snappers, red fish, halibut, ocean eels, etc. We have previously discussed in some detail the taking of surf fish (smelt, eulachon, and others) with nets on the beaches, where the special V-frame scoop net was so much used. The small species of fish would often remain off- shore, waiting for favorable conditions for them to run in through the breakers to spawn. The fishermen could always keep track of the spots where the fish were thus congregating by noting where the gulls, cormorants, peli- cans, and other birds were hovering as they fed on these fish. Yurok informants spoke of a very small species (rimertr), about the size of anchovies and so small that they frequently slipped through the small mesh of the scoop net. They were, however, caught in great numbers with the scoop net and were dried like other surf fish. In addition to the netting on these beaches, there was much activity about the tidal pools in the rocky parts of the coast. Here the older men, as well as the women, sought out codfish and other species which might have been stranded when the tide receded. Crabs were also often found in such pools. The women carried their wood baskets on their backs and often returned well laden from a low-tide excursion. Some very venturesome fishermen might, as above mentioned, go in their canoes for short distances outside the line of breakers, but this was rather rarely done for fish, such journeys to offshore rocks being usually made for mussels and sea lions. I L. 89 90 ANTHROPOLOGICAL RECORDS SHARKS its liver was taken out and rendered in a large shell, adding hot rocks. The resulting oil was used as a cu All informants agreed that sharks were not used as for running sores. food. In fact, only one use for the shark was mentioned, The Wiyot state that they did not use sharks forany and that by the Mattole only. If a shark washed ashore, pose. The Yurok say that they do not use sharks or s CHAPTER VII ACCESSORY IMPLEMENTS FISH CLUBS INSKY, 1943. Miwok; p. 399. IRNETT, 1937. Tolowa, Chetco, pp. 164, 195. ~RRETT, 1952. Pomo, pp. 153, 357. IVER, 1939. Tolowa, Chimariko, Karok, Yurok, Wiyot, Hupa, Chilula, Van Duzen, Mattole, Sinkyone, Kato, pp. 313, 379. lIVER and MASSEY, 1957. P. 206; general statement. BOIS, 1935. Wintu, p. 15. 3ENE, 1942. Lassik, p. 7; club. N Pomo, Lassik, Yuki, p. 7; stick. IFFORD and KROEBER, 1937. Lake Miwok, Patwin, Pomo (N, C, S, SE), pp. 134, 173. ~DDARD, 1903. Hupa, p. 24 and fig. 2. ,LDSCHMIDT. 1951. Nomlaki, p. 406. WrLUND, 1952. Pp. 135, 193, and map 41. EGELIN, 1942. Klamath, Modoc, Shasta, Wintun, Maidu, p. 56; stick, stone, shaped club. MAP 52 Clubs used to dispatch the larger species of fish re removing them from nets are usually in size and pe somewhat like our bowling pins. Such a club is ays kept ready at hand on the fisherman's platform m which the large lifting net is handled, or elsewhere rever the fisherman operates. In taking large species, salmon or sturgeon, such a club is indispensable. sturgeon club is somewhat larger than the one used salmon. Both types in our collection are made of Owood and are therefore very light, but both are quite 'pable of dealing a stunning blow to the head of even a ge fish. In former times harder woods were some- es employed. Examples of the salmon club are shown plate 18, a and b. A good example of the somewhat ger club used for sturgeon is shown in c of this same e. Measurements of these clubs are given in the ex- nation of the plate. Goddard (1903, p. 24, fig. 2) illus- es one of these fish clubs. Driver (1939, p. 313) ords the fish club as used by all the tribes of the lear and per ipheral areas. Hewes's (F.N., 1940) Yurok informants said that the rgeon club, called perker,50 was usually made of oak, 'le the salmon club was made of redwood or some r light wood. The Hupa told Hewes that before edged tools were ulable, fish clubs were made very simply, of alder, willow, or almost any available wood. Green wood chosen so that such a club would not be too brittle. ew club was, for this reason, made each year. A fish club was hung at each fishing platform, right re it would be handy and within easy reach. They e sometimes lost by falling into the water, or be- se a dam was washed away. A club was so simple no special effort was made to retrieve it, whereas his same term was given as the name of whiskey bottle, because form. if a net came loose, it was so valuable that the fisherman would always dive in and try to recover it. When a fish club was made, the following charm formula was recited by the Hupa: "Fish grease and fish oil and blood will run all over you." This makes the club hungry for fish blood and oil. The Karok also said that clubs were simple, not carved into fancy form, because too easily lost in the river. Any convenient billet, a foot or so long, had a notch cut around one end. By a loop of string tied here the club was hung from a pole of the platform or crotch of the weir. (See pl. 31, b, c.) The Tolowa said that they used as a fish club any convenient billet of alder or other heavy wood, regard- less of form; while the Sinkyone and the Nongatl utilized any suitable stick or stone. MASHERS Since most of the fish were taken in the spawning season it was natural that fish eggs should be much used as food. The eggs of the sturgeon were especially prized. These were mashed in preparing them for curing, and a special, heavy wooden masher had been developed for this purpose. Two typical "sturgeon egg mashers" are shown in plate 18, d and f. Both are of a relatively heavy, dense wood, and each has a broad-faced, flat, mashing end. Each tapers more or less uniformly to the conical knob at the hand end. Their dimensions and weights are given in the explanation of the plate. There is in the col- lection a third specimen, designated as a sturgeon egg masher, which so closely resembles a white man's "potato masher" that it may well have been copied after that implement. Still another specimen, also designated as a sturgeon egg masher, is shown in g of the same plate. It is a twisted club, evidently used just as it was picked up off the beach, without reshaping. While these implements are referred to as sturgeon egg mashers, they were used for mashing salmon eggs also. Hewes (F.N., 1940) states that the Karok mashed the eggs of salmon as well as sturgeon with one of these wooden tools or with a stone pestle. The eggs were then wrapped in maple leaves and baked in the underground oven. Those that were not immediately consumed were dried and stored for later use. Fish eggs were never cooked whole. Sturgeon eggs were called crigera-atai by the Karok. As usual, they were preferred to salmon eggs, but among salmon roes those of the Chinook salmon were largest and considered best. What is designated as a berry masher (pl. 18, e) is quite like the sturgeon egg mashers first mentioned ex- cept that it is much smaller. ALARM RATTLES BARNETT, 1937. Tolowa, Chetco, pp. 164, 195. CURTIS, 1924a. Wiyot, p. 74. DRIVER, 1939. Tolowa, Yurok, Wiyot, Mattole, pp. 312, 378. [911 t~ ANTHROPOLOGICAL RECORDS DRUCKER, 1937. Tolowa, p. 232. HEWES, Th., 1947. Tolowa, Chetco, p. 88. POWERS, 1877. P. 49. WATERMAN, 1908. P. 276; illustration of crab-claw rattle. MAP 53 To a slight extent our tribes used an alarm rattle with some of their nets and traps to give notice of fish in the net. Such a rattle, of crab claws, is shown in plate 19, i. According to Driver (1939, pp. 312, 378) the crab-claw rattle was used by the Yurok, Tolowa, Wiyot, and Mattole. He notes that the rattle was used on the river but, as ex- pectable, not in the surf, and that by the Wiyot it was used on the set gill net. Driver also notes the use of a shell rattle by the Mattole. Hewes (Th., 1947, p. 88) says: "Shell or claw rattles as alarms to signify the entrance of a fish were used, at least by the Chetco and Tolowa." He also mentions the use of the device on certain of the traps as well as the set nets. The rattle was affixed either to the guy line (or to a special cord running from the net to the shore) or was tied to the top of a very flexible wand planted for the purpose on shore near the watcher's fire. A light line running from the net or trap to this wand caused it to vibrate. Examples are shown in text figures 18 and 19. Curtis (1924a, p. 74), in speaking of Wiyot fishing, says that the two fishermen, after setting a gill net com- pletely across a stream and placing on one of its net poles "the dry carapace of a crab," would go ashore. "When a school of fish struck the net, the pole was shaken and the rattling carapace gave warning. The fishermen then launched their craft and removed the catch." This rattle must actually have been composed of several dry carapaces, or of one with one or more claws. SALMON JAW BREAKERS The teeth and powerful jaws of a salmon could inflict a wicked wound as the fish struggled after being netted or harpooned. To guard against such an injury the fish- erman often used a "jaw breaker," a paddle-shaped, wooden implement (pl. 19, u), which he inserted in the mouth of the fish to help control it. This, combined with the fish club, soon subdued the most dangerous fish. FISH KNIVES (MAP 58) A special type of knife for descaling salmon, and for splitting and cutting up salmon and presumably sturgeon, is made of a nicely chipped flint blade, hafted in a wooden handle, wrapped and pitched for firmness. Six of these knives from the Yurok are shown in plate 20, p-u. These blades are usually of a greenish stone, which the Yurok call hekwsa "whale [color]." The core of the handle is a piece of wood into which the base of the blade is quite carefully fitted. It is held firmly by a cord wrapping which may extend anywhere from two centimenters to the full length of the wooden handle. On this wrapping as a base is applied a composition which dries and hardens down to a very effective handle. This coating is basically pitch, but it has, from its appearance, an admixture of some granular substance like fine sand. One specimen seems to have some fibers mixed into the composition. On all of these handles ther-e are some fish scales, on the surface at least. The chipped blades have a length ranging from 43 to 87 mm., beyond the handle. In width they vary from 28 to 53 mm., in thickness from 7 to 11 mm. The compo-J sition handles are large enough to give a good graspin surface. The dimensions of the largest handle are: length, 120 mm.; width, 42 mm.; thickness, 30 mm. One of these knives is shown by Kroeber (1925, pl. who states (p. 85): "'Both salmon and lampreys were split for drying, the former with a wooden-handled knif (Pl. 16) of 'whale-colored' flint, as the Yurok called it; the latter with a bone awl." We learn from a Karok myth collected by Kroeber 1902 that Osprey (Chukehuk) assisted the mountain A'u'ich when A'u'ich created salmon and invented vario nets and other devices; also the splitting of cobbles wit which to cut up salmon and suckers. EEL SLITTERS (MAP 57) Perhaps the simplest implement used by the Indians of Northwestern California is the eel splitter, or slitte (pl. 20, a-o). Any fragment of bone which happened to break in such a manner as to produce a sharp point wa utilized. Good examples of this sort are shown in plate 20, i and b, both of which are definitely catalogued as "eel slitters." The first is a mere bone fragment, the naturally sharp point of which has been ground and rounded to some extent. The second is a similarly pointed end of a deer tibia. While the eel slitter was often used in the raw, som specimens were provided with a definite handle in the form of a rounded mass of the same plastic substance used in making the fish-knife handles. An excellent ex. ample is the handle molded onto the rough end of the slitter shown in plate 20, k. One other specimen, n of this same plate, is definite catalogued as an eel slitter. This object is the cannon bone of a deer which appears to have had no grindingat all. All of the remaining specimens in the collection a merely listed as awls. If we may judge from similariti however, we are entirely safe in assuming that all the specimens were "eel slitters" regardless of whatever other uses, if any, they may have had. This tool might) perhaps, better be called an "awl-shaped implement," for the tribes of this region appear to have had little ifi any use for a true awl, except in the sewing of skins, and that no doubt went out when needles became availal in 1851 or 1852. Goddard (1903, p. 26) states that "eels" were "draw and slit many times to the skin with a sharp bone." It is interesting to note that Driver (1939, pp. 315, 381) records the "bone awl" as used for lamprey slit in practically every tribe in Northwestern California, that he also records the use of the flint "knife" for thi purpose among the Tolowa, Chimariko, Yurok, Wiyot, Hupa, Van Duzen, Mattole, and Sinkyone. [Spott in ch VIII of this paper, under "Lamprey Curing" makes th "knife" into a very short flake of flint held between thumb and finger--which agrees with Gifford on the Karok, below.] A wooden awl was used by the Sinkyon and Kato. In his notes on the Hupa, Driver specifies that lampreys, when destined for cooking fresh, were cut and drawn with the flint knife, but when they were be dried they wer e slit with the bone awl. Perhaps further inquiry might discover a similar distinction in the other tribes. I i J I I I I I I I k 92 KROEBER AND BARRETT: FISHING IN NORTHWESTERN CALIFORNIA Gifford (F.N., 1939-42) says that the Karok used a 11, very thin quartz flake as an eel slitter. An in- want demonstrated by holding a lump of quartz in the mof the hand and striking it several times with ber stone, until a satisfactorily thin, sharp-edged 93 flake was produced. Such a flake, held tightly between the thumb and index finger, enabled the worker to slit the thin but slippery skin of the lamprey easily and to slit the adhering flesh preparatory to drying. I CHAPTER VIII TRANSPORT, PRESERVATION, STORAGE, AND COOKING TRANSPORT AGINSKY, 1943. N, P1. Miwok, pp. 399, 405; balsa, log raft, ferryage in baskets. BARNETT, 1937. Tolowa, Chetco; transportation methods on land, p. 171; canoes, p. 170. BARRETT, 1910. Klamath Lake, pp. 247, 249, pl. 10; shovel-nosed dugout canoe. _ , 1952. Pomo; transportation methods on land and water, pp. 163-172. Tule balsa, pp. 164-166, pI. 28. Netted bags, p. 280 and pl. 20, figs. 2-4. COSGROVE, 1947. Figs. 26, a, b, 80, b, and 81, f. Here called plain coiled netting and full-turn coiled netting. DAVIDSON, 1933. Knotless netting, pp. 259-262. , 1935. Knotless netting, pp. 119-123. D'HARCOURT, 1934. Knotless netting, pl. LIX. DIXON, 1905. Maidu, p. 198; dugout canoe, log raft, and balsa all used slightly. DRIVER, 1939. Tolowa, Chimariko, Karok, Yurok, Wiyot, Hupa, Mattole, Sinkyone, p. 315; dugout canoe. All Northwestern California tribes; navigation and land transportation, pp. 322, 323, 386, 387. DU BOIS, 1935. Wintu, p. 15; salmon strung on grapevine. P. 125; no canoe or balsa. Raft of logs or bundles of poles. Also basket rafts. No paddles. ENGEL, 1956. Fig. 7, a, knotless netting, apparently hourglass technique. ESSENE, 1942. N Pomo, Kato, Lassik, Yuki; land transportation, pp. 12, 13; navigation, p. 12. FONT, 1931. P. 370. In the region of Carquinez Strait Fr. Font saw, in 1775-1776, "launches very well made of tule, with their prows or points somewhat elevated." He also saw tule balsas on San Francisco Bay. FOSTER, 1944. Yuki, p. 174; no boats or rafts. Basket ferryage. GARTH, 1953. Atsugewi, pp. 154, 155; dugout canoes, and rafts of logs or tule. Tule balsa unknown. GIFFORD and KROEBER, 1937. Pomo, pp. 144, 145, 174; several methods. GODDARD, 1903. Hupa, p. 19 and pl. 6. GOLDSCHMIDT, 1951. Nomlaki, p. 407; method of carrying salmon. HARRINGTON, 1932. Karok, pl. 11, b; woven bag also used for gathering tobacco. HEIZER, 1940. Yurok, pp. 80-82; "Yurok type" canoe discussed. HEIZER and MASSEY, 1953. Pp. 296, 297; origin, distribution, and use of "Yurok type" canoe. HOLT, 1946. Shasta, p. 312. KENT, 1953. See Wendorf, pp. 150-153. KIDDER and GUERNSEY, 1919. P. 117 and fig. 45. KNIFFEN, 1939. Pomo, pp. 362-364; balsa. KROEBER, 1925. Yurok, p. 27; boat (values of). Pp. 82, 83, and pls. 13, 15; canoe building and care. P. 94; net sack. Wiyot, p. 117; made canoes. Tolowa, pp. 126, 127; canoe. Sinkyone, p. 147; used canoe. Mattole, p. 147; had no canoe. Yuki, p. 174; rafting with baskets. Coast Yuki, p. 214; had no canoe. Pomo, p. 243, tule balsas, log rafts, no dugouts. P. 247; burden baskets and nets. Shasta, p. 291, dugout canoes. Achomawi, Atsugewi, N Maidu, p. 310; crude dugout. Modoc and Klamath, p. 329; dugout canoe, tule balsa. Wintun, p. 359; tule balsa on San Francisco Bay and in marshes of lower Sacramento. Maidu, p. 416; dugout canoe, balsa, raft. Valley Nisenan, p. 416; tule balsa, log raft, dugout canoe. , 1929. Valley Nisenan, p. 260. Tule balsa and log raft. LANGSDORFF, 1914. Balsa, pl. facing p. 36. LOEB, 1926. Pomo, pp. 169, 182. Raft on coast, balsa on Clear Lake and Santa Rosa lagoon. MASON, 1904. Pima, p. 248; Hopewell, p. 380. NOMLAND, 1935. Sinkyone, p. 156; canoes. Paddles have carved, painted bird and mammal designs. [941 KROEBER AND BARRETT: FISHING IN NORTHWESTERN CALIFORNIA , 1938. Mattole, p. 114; canoes, rafts, paddles. ROTH, 1901. Knotless netting, Queensland, various illus. SIEWERTZ VAN REESEMA, 1926. P. 65. SPIER, 1930. Klamath Lake, pp. 169, 170; dugout canoe, paddle, punt pole, tule raft. File the actual catching of fish, by whatever means, definitely the work of the men, the handling of the from that point on was almost exclusively women's k. The transportation, "butchering," drying, storing, cooking of fish, as well as all other foods, was done he women. Men did, upon occasion, carry some of the home but under ordinary circumstances even this 8 was done by the women. 0 one means or another, a bur-den of fish or lam- ; was usually carried by the fisherman to some enient spot on the adjacent river bank or ocean I, where it was left. Someone else carried it on to house or elsewhere for butchering and curing. A salmon might be tied head to tail and the cord ,then serve as a tumpline. In fact three or four bound in this way might be carried at once, accord- h Hewes's Yurok informants. No attention was paid ! slime of the fish which came off on the carrier's It was readily washed off at the end of the journey. mmen almost always carried burdens in the open- iburden basket, usually referred to as the "wood heringI basket." It was especially serviceable in Oporting the large numbers of small species of fish in surf fishing. This burden basket had a tumpline hed, which passed across the woman's forehead. If isket was carried by a man, the tumpline usually across his chest, according to Hewes's Tolowa Iants. Mattole stated that if a man had as many as three salmon, or an equivalent weight of smaller fish, Ild make a brush mat, roll the fish in it, and tie that it could be conveniently packed with a tumpline. he rigged a leafy pad to help ease this weight on his and at the same time keep at least part of the slime back. Such a burden could be carried several with relative ease. A variant of this method was ned by a Nongatl informant, who said that a cord 'ted withe was passed through the gills. One end mpline was tied to this loop, the opposite end being to tie the fishes' tails together. Thus the fish were ed in a more or less horizontal position. They on a pad of leaves on the carrier's back. e or two salmon were sometimes carried by pass- toggle line of a harpoon through the gills of the d using this as a tumpline. Also they could be on a hazel withe, twisted to make it pliable. When were only a small number of some small species, rout, the fish were simply strung on a short stick had the stub of a branch left so the fish could not wff' KNOTLESS NET BAGS man almost always had a net bag (pl. 23, c) into lampreys could be dropped as they were gaffed which smallish fish or anything else might be d. wes's (F.N., 1940) Karok informants described the ack" (tatcura) as a woven sack, made of iris-fiber It was as much as two to three feet in length and uth was a much as a foot and a half across. In inter or early spring the lampreys attach them- selves to the rocks and can be picked off by hand when a "dglove"51 or piece of buckskin is used to prevent them from slipping out of one's grasp. They are placed in this bag to carry them ashore. There they are dumped into a fuel basket for transportation to camp. This sack was used for only two or three weeks, at most a month, dur- ing the lamprey run. This may or may not have been the same receptacle as the one shown in plate 23, c and the bag referred to in the next paragraph. The importance of this net bag is emphasized in a Karok myth (Glb) collected by Kroeber in 1902: A'u'ich, after creating salmon, and making nets and devising scaffold staging, makes the salmon club and the net sack (uhuriv--cf. Hewes's tatcura above) for carrying salmon. Its chief use is for carrying freshly caught fish up to the house or elsewhere for splitting and drying, though this woven bag finds a multitude of other uses as well. These bags are woven in what is called knotless net- ting and show four different techniques in the body of the bag, in addition to the plaiting usually found at the edge of the mouth of the bag. The only exception we have encountered to the plaited mouth in these bags occurs in two specimens in the State Indian Museum at Sacramento. In one of these the mouth is formed by a heavy rawhide thong 15 mm. in width; in the other by a thong of modern tanned leather 12 mm. in width. In each of these the initial course of loops form- ing the body of the bag is suspended from a series of perforations in the thong forming its mouth. (Harring- ton, 1932, pl. 11, b illustrates another of these bags.) When the plaited mouth is used, it forms the initial step in the construction of the bag. It can be either a common simple "chain stitch" (pl. 24, a, b) or the intricate double "'chain stitch" (pl. 24, c, d). This chain-stitch section is made as a straight piece, a little over twice the length of the mouth of the bag. It is then doubled back and the ends are woven and securely tied together. Then, back several inches (1-3 in.) from each end of this doubled chain-stitch bag mouth, a short, heavy cord is tied across between the two chain-stitch elements. The body of the bag is then woven, loop and single twist (fig. 42), from left to right in such a manner that its initial loops are suspended from the elements of the chain stitching until one of these cross cords is reached. Then the next loops are suspended from this cross cord which carries the weaving over, in 4 to 8 meshes, to the opposite side of the mouth of the bag. It then progresses Fig. 41. Simple-loop technique. 51The term "glove" was explained by a Nongatl informant as referring to a kind of thumbless mitten woven of iris-fiber string. It was woven like a very fine-meshed net and its rough surface enabled the fisherman to hold firmly the slippery lampreys. U 95 ANTHROPOLOGICAL RECORDS from left to right along this opposite side until the start- ing point of this course has been reached. It then steps down to the first of the loops formed in the first course of weaving and proceeds as before, but now, instead of being attached to the chain-stitch mouth element, it at- taches to each successive loop, so that the second course of loops is suspended from the first course. So the weaving proceeds until the bottom of the bag is finally reached. The final course of weaving is attached to the pre- ceding course by merely looping it into the preceding course without any twisting of the cord. Fig. 42. Loop and single twist. Finally, when the last corner is reached, the cord is firmly knotted to make the weaving secure against ravel- ing. (Figs. 41-43 are drawn from specimens in the Museum of Anthropology.) There are two variations from the description above. 6, 1. The initial course of weaving may be suspended from the chain-stitch mouth of the bag by means of t same loop and single twist ordinarily used throughout the body of the bag (fig. 42), or it may have a double (fig. 43). In fact in one instance a triple twist was us on the second crossing cord, apparently to gain enouU length to drop down to the next course of weaving. T was in a bag using the double-twist suspension for th rest of this first course and a single-twist body. It should be observed in passing that in all three (single double, and triple twist) the ascending element passe front of the cord forming the loop from which it is suI pended. Fig. 43. Loop and double twist. 2. The second variation concerns the expansion ot the bag toward the bottom. This is a relatively simp] process, accomplished by the insertion of accrues or extra meshes. In other words, at any needed point al 30 r 4 4 4 A A A - AA~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~(, 6~~~~~~~~~ Ck --- 28 ~ '\I8 Fig. 44. Schematic plan of weaving of knotless netting bag (2022), showing the courses and the mesh inter vals at which accrues are set in, as indicated by caret. II I I i II I 96 KROEBER AND BARRETT: FISHING IN NORTHWESTERN CALIFORNIA tra cord is passed through the suspending loop and fen its single twist. This lays the foundation for an a mesh at this point as the next course comes around. this means we find that in specimen 2022 we start at mouth of the bag with 30 meshes on each side and rive at the bottom with a total of 87 meshes, after Ing down a total of 33 courses. This expansion is ac- nplished by adding meshes in the rather irregular der shown in figure 44. There are, all told, a considerable number of types knotless netting techniques known. (See Davidson, 33and 1935, and Siewertsz Van Reesema, 1926). Only Pr of these occur in the bags made in Northwestern 1ifornia. The simplest is that shown in figure 41. This is lled by Davidson (1933, pp. 259-262) the "simple loop" chnique and described by him as "a continuous series half-hitches taken at definite intervals on a basal ing for a first row, the subsequent rows being added the same fashion by a half-hitch in each pendant loop the preceding row." This results in a series of simple lf-hitches or what Siewertsz Van Reesema (1926, p. 65) lls"quarter knots." Kidder and Guernsey (1919, fig. p. 117) refer to this technique as "coiled work with- foundation" (see our specimen 1973). In Davidson's illustration (1933, fig. 2) the half-hitches so made that the cord as it ascends passes in front the preceding loop. It then descends behind this loop, ssing around itself to produce the half-hitch. In our rthwestern California specimen the direction is re- rsed, as shown in figure 41, provided the bag is viewed othe front or outside. From the inside, to be sure, e course of the cord is the same as that given by ,vidson for his Australian specimens. In our region the only other techniques regularly used the body of this knotless netting are what Davidson lls the "loop and single twist" (fig. 42), "loop and uble twist" (fig. 43), and the loop and triple twist. The st two of these techniques are here shown in models he pl. 7, b). Here again Davidson's illustrations show e cord running in the reverse relations to those taken ours, as shown in figures 42 and 43. It will thus be observed that in the "simple loop" the cending cord passes behind the cord of the previous op, while in the "loop and single twist" it passes in nt of the cord of the previous loop. In both the simple-loop and the loop-and-single-twist chniques the descending element passes only once round the ascending one. In reality the manipulations olved are the same, but the results of the two tech- ques differ: a half-hitch loop is produced in the first ;tance and a loop and single twist in the second. In one eascending cord passes behind the cord of the previous p, in the other before it. -The appearance of the finished product is therefore ite different. The "simple loop" can be drawn very uch tighter than the "loop and twist." This fact is well ustrated in plate 23, b, which is made almost entirely the "simple loop" technique. The other two speci- ns in this plate are, so far as their body techniques e concerned, wholly in the "loop and single twist" tech- ue which produces an openwork of more or less hex- onal forms. In the loop-and-double-twist and in the loop-and- iple-twist techniques above referred to the ascending ement also passes in front of the cord forming the suspending loop, the only differences being in the number of times the descending cord passes around the ascending element. The geographical distribution of these knotless netting techniques covers a very wide range from Australia52 and the South Seas, through many parts of both North and South America and also the old world; and the techniques have also a great time range, from ancient Peru (D'Harcourt, 1934, pl. LIX), our own archaeological Southwest and middle United States (Kidder and Guernsey, 1919, and Mason, 1904), down to recent sites in both North and South America. Mason (1904) illustrates two of these techniques. His figure 42 (p. 248), shows a Pima carrying basket or net in the simple loop technique, while plate 129 shows a Dog Rib specimen of rawhide in which the chief tech- nique is the simple loop or, as Mason calls it, a series of half-hitches or a buttonhole stitch. This is relieved by a single course of loop-and-single-twist technique, as Mason explains (p. 379). On his page 380, figures 115 and 116 show impressions of the loop-and-single-twist techniques obtained from pottery specimens from the Hopewell mounds of Ohio. A fragment of charred cloth described and figured by Kate Peck Kent (Wendorf, 1953, pp. 150-153) from the Twin Butte site in the Petrified Forest of Arizona shows the simple-loop technique. Amsden (1934, fig. 1, p. 4) shows four forms of loop- ing, a phase of "finger weaving" still used by the Navaho. Also knotless netting is still used in Mexico, Panama, Guatemala,53 Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, and probably elsewhere in the western hemisphere, as we know from our own Museum specimens. 52Roth (1901, pls. 8, 9, 13, 15, 18, 19) illustrates several of these knot- less netting techniques found among the aborigines of Queensland. 530'Neale (1945) gives some details of bag making from maguey fiber as found in Guatemala. She describes (p. 20) the method of making the 2-ply cord, and later (p. 35) she briefly mentions two types of looms used by men: one a "small upright loom," the other a "stick loom," neither of which is apparently used in knotless netting. She states that "finger-looping techniques employed vary" and she discusses a bag "made entirely of half-hitches, the coil without foundation (cf. fig. 80, g)," noting that this technique is more rarely used than the "hourglass." She then calls attention to a variant of this hourglass technique, illustrated in her fig. 58, b, where, in the upper course only, we have an hourglass variant in which the upper loop of the hourglass includes two adjacent loops instead of one. In fig. 58, c the author shows what she considers a "change from looping technique made in maguey over mesh needles to looping without gauge and a variation of single element weaving". In other words, she considers this the product of a combination of weaving on a simple knitting-needle device and freehand finger weaving. Lothrop (1929, pp. 123, 124 and figs. 30, 31) illustrates this same knitting-needle type of weaving bags in Guatemala, and states that this method is more fre- quently employed than the freehand finger process. While we have quite detailed analyses of the finished products and a classification of the variations of knotless netting, we have almost no detailed information from any region concerning the actual procedures and manipulations involved. We feel sure, however, that in most places it was aboriginally a purely finger process. Dr. John H. Rowe recalls seeing such bags made in Colombia by a purely finger-weaving technique, and suggests that this use of the three knitting-needle-like sticks as spacers and framework upon which some of these bags from Guatemala are made may represent a postcontact development actually based upon the white man's knitting (and indeed the resultant product closely resembles white man's knitting). Dr. A. H. Gayton, whose specialty is textiles, corroborates this opinion and has produced from the collections of the Decorative Art Department a half-finished bag (collected some years ago by Dr. O'Neale in Guatemala) with its 3 needles of wood still in place. 1. p r 97 ANTHROPOLOGICAL RECORDS PRESERVATION AND STORAGE BANCROFT, 1883. Wiyot, Yurok, p. 339; sun-dried, smoked. BARNETT, 1937. Tolowa, Chetco, p. 166; sea foods dried. River clams and mussels dried. Babracot, earth oven. BARRETT, 1952. Pomo, pp. 104, 417; fish-drying rack. CURTIS, 1924a. Shasta, p. 114. , 1924b. Wailaki, Maidu, pp. 22, 107; Maidu made "fish flour." DRIVER, 1936. Wappo, p. 185; dried fish stored in baskets. Dried fish in sun or smoke-dried in house (stuck between poles in roof or hung by tail). , 1939. Yurok, Wiyot, Tolowa, Mattole, p. 314; sea-lion bladder or paunch grease-container. Tolowa, Sinkyone; kelp grease-container. Tolowa, Karok, Yurok, Wiyot, Hupa, Chilula, Nongatl, Sinkyone. Kato, p. 315; fish flour. DRUCKER, 1937. Tolowa, p. 234; salmon split, skewered, sun-dried and smoked. Stored in baskets, pack frames, or suspended. Eggs dried, stored in seal-paunch lining. Smelt sun-dried. Lampreys split, sun- and smoke-dried. DU BOIS, 1935. Wintu, pp. 15, 16; salmon split, skewered, sun-dried and stored. Heads, guts, bones, tails also dried, pounded into a fine flour and stored for winter. Another salmon flour made from fish baked in underground oven. Dried roe and pine nuts mixed with salmon flour to make a kind of pem- mican. FOSTER, 1944. Yuki, p. 164; salmon fillets sun-dried. Fire used to keep flies away. Dried salmon stored. Trout not stored. GARTH, 1953. Atsugewi, p. 136. GIFFORD, 1939. Coast Yuki, pp. 324, 325; pit storage of smoked surf fish. Two methods of smoking. GODDARD, 1929. Bear River, p. 294. Kelp bottles and seal paunch used for oil storage. HARRINGTON, 1932. Karok, pp. 142-145; three kinds of salmon beetles and three of salmon worms. HEWES, Th., 1947. P. 66; fish flour probably related to fish pemmican. HOLT, 1946. Shasta, p. 309; salmon, mussels. KNIFFEN, 1928. Achomawi, p. 305; fish flour. , 1939. Pomo, p. 363. KROEBER, 1925. Yurok, p. 85; salmon and lampreys smoked and dried. Surf fish sun-dried. Stored in baskets, as strips or slabs. Never pulverized. Shasta, pp. 292, 294; salmon smoked and dried. Kept in slabs or pulverized. Stored in baskets or tule bags. Crushed salmon bones and crushed deer bones stored for making soup later. Yurok, pl. 9; salmon hanging from drying frame of dwelling. Achomawi, p. 309; salmon kept in slabs or pulverized. , 1929. Nisenan, pp. 261, 262; salmon dried. Salmon flour. , 1932. River Patwin, p. 278; salmon strips sun-dried on grapevine line. Some later ground to salmon flour. Stored in granaries. Flour eaten dry. Strips baked in underground oven. Sturgeon flour also made. LOEB, 1926. Pomo, p. 172; special racks, also fish-drying house. MERRIAM, 1955. Wintun, p. 22; salmon flour. NOMLAND, 1935. Sinkyone, p. 154; lampreys, abalones smoked. Clams, mussels, abalones pounded and sun-dried. POWERS, 1877. P. 51; describes curing of surf fish: smoking on a babracot, followed by sun-drying. ROSTLUND, 1952. Pp. 137-144, 197, 198; fish dried and smoked. Pulverized. SAPIR and SPIER, 1943. Yana, pp. 250, 252; cooking and preservation of salmon. Pulverizing. SCHENCK and GIFFORD, 1952. Karok, pp. 381, 382, 385; birch used in smoke-drying salmon, lampreys, etc. Poison oak branches used as salmon spreaders and skewers. Maple leaves used to store dried salmon. SPIER, 1930. Klamath, p. 155; all fish sun-dried. Never smoked. Quotes Coville on fish drying. Storage. Dried fish pulverized. SPOTT and KROEBER. 1942. Yurok, p. 189; bladder for storage of grease. STEWART, 1943. Pomo, pp. 61, 62; sea foods. VOEGELIN, 1942. Pp. 60, 62; fish chiefly sun-dried on outdoor rack by all tribes of Northeastern Cali- fornia. Salmon meal stored indoors--Klamath, Modoc, Shasta, Wintun, Maidu. MAPS 59-62, 67-70 98 I KROEBER AND BARRETT: FISHING IN NORTHWESTERN CALIFORNIA ost kinds of fish were cured and stored for "winter" but salmon were the most important. They were d as quickly as possible. Informants said that they id be immediately split and have their eyes removed. the slabs of flesh were first placed on heated rocks S scaffolds about a foot high above a small fire to be ked" (i.e., to be dried and smoked). This smoking curing was often done at the camp where the salmon caught, as for instance the famous Yurok fishing called Erliiken or "Lamb's Riffle" (Waterman, Oa, map 10, nos. 11-17), where a bend in the Klamath, riffle, and some projecting rocks make excellent ag. If the fish could be easily transported home, were cured in the small lean-to smoke houses usu- found at every permanent village, or they might be on the large rack hung over the fire in the living amily house. In either event, when the salmon slabs well started on the road to drying, they were fin- by being taken into the living house and hung on the lar drying rack there. This made it unnecessary someone to tend a separate fire in the smoke house. chenck and Gifford (1952, pp. 382, 385) state that the k use the wood of the white alder for "smoking on, eels, and deer meat." An informant's claim "only" alder wood was used presumably means that ye the best taste--as hickory for barbecuing among selves. he Karok used green twigs of poison oak or of willow hich to spit salmon steaks or slabs when they were g smoked. was during the final stage of the drying that the rich ied out and dripped almost in a trickling stream the steatite dishes kept for the purpose of catching preserving this oil. Plate 21, a shows such a Yurok r rack hung full of drying salmon slabs,54 and plate a-i some of the steatite dishes used in catching the en thoroughly dried, these slabs of salmon were away for winter in the same kind of large storage ets used to store acorns and other foods. Inform- ,indicate that openwork storage baskets were often for the storage of fish, but plate 21, b, showing the ge of the interior of one of these houses, happens to w only baskets of the tightly woven and decorated sort. re seems to have been no rule. Well-to-do, particu- people were likely to have mostly close-woven gage vessels, though they took much more time and uble to make. The Karok, again according to Schenck and Gifford 52, p. 385), used maple-leaf mats to separate the ers of dried salmon in the openwork storage basket, lly topping the filled basket with a layer of madroflo Les. These tribes dried, in addition to salmon, almost r other species as well, from the huge sturgeon to very small smelt and eulachon. 'he small species were usually sun-dried, perhaps bthe aid of small fires smouldering under open, low ks when fog blotted out the sun. One such fish camp he bar on Redwood Lagoon is shown in plate 4, a, lquantities of surf fish spread out. ,ifford (F.N., 1939-42) describes the modern Karok ng of salmon, and also other fish, as follows: The of the salmon is first cut off in order to drain out the d, the fish being laid on a layer of brackens during e of Kroeber's Yurok informants (Field Notes, pp. 67-81) stated wbile the fiber of the larger iris (Missouriensis) was unsuitable String making, it was used for tying these slabs of salmon to the lg rack. 99 this time. After removal of the head, the fish is cut up the belly--split its full length--and has its backbone re- moved. This produces two slabs of half a fish each. Each is spitted on a willow rod and placed horizontally on a rack of poles, either in an outdoor brush shelter or on the rack of poles permanently hung over the fire in the dwelling house. As soon as the preliminary drying is finished, these slabs are turned and hung vertically so that their oil will drip in a continuous trickle from the end of the slab into the steatite dishes set to catch it. Gifford's informants said that the old method was somewhat different, the salmon being split along the back and the backbone removed. This left the fish in one whole wide slab. The flesh of each side was next split so as to widen the slab further, for these new sections were left attached. Thus there was a very wide slab consisting of four thinnish sections. These slabs were then draped over horizontal poles where they remained for the first day. They were then turned over for the second day of preliminary drying. Each slab was then flattened out and held so by means of two or three cross sticks of proper length [evidently pinned through the salmon flesh]. One informant specified that these should be unpeeled poison oak.55 This early drying was described as more of a grilling process over a relatively hot fire made by burn- ing non-pitchy wood. One informant mentioned "dead maple wood" as best because it produced heat without black smoke. The grill over which these slabs must be cured was usually made by setting up two rows of stones and between them poles on which the fish were laid. The curing fish must at all times be shielded from the direct sun. If the curing was done outdoors, a special shade of boughs (usually pepperwood) was built. It was not neces- sary to keep the fire actively burning all the time. A fire was always kindled in the morning, but as the sun's heat became stronger later in the day, that was sufficient to carry on the curing, even though the sun's rays did not strike the slabs of fish directly. After about three days of this preliminary drying and curing, the slabs were hung vertically from the drying rack in the dwelling house where the process was com- pleted. After a total of eight or ten days the slabs were ready for storing. On the house rack the slabs were so hung that a space of about two inches separated each two slabs for ample air circulation. In splitting salmon and in cutting them into slabs for curing, a handled knife of flint was invariably used; if it became dulled, it was sharpened by retouching with a flaker. This predilection accounts for Kroeber being able to secure a half-dozen such stone-age pieces, still caked from use, fifty-two years after steel knives were brought to the Yurok. Informants pointed out that formerly the Karok smoked not only salmon, sturgeon, lampreys, trout, and other fish, but venison and other meats, and even acorns. Only rotten wood of various sorts (alder, madrone, oak, and certain others) was used in the curing process. It was sometimes dipped in water in order to make it burn more slowly and produce more smoke. In general they liked best to gather, whether for smoking or for fuel, dead, dry limbs which could be easily broken by simply 55Kroeber has seen these spreader sticks on slabs of salmon in the the field. He remembers some of them as bent-over withes, but is not clear in his recollection whether withes were bent over so as to enclose or bind the slab or whether perhaps one or both ends of the withe were skewered through. I ANTHROPOLOGICAL RECORDS hitting them on the ground. [This preference is intelli- gible because they had no axes.] Gifford further says that in native times the Karok stored dried salmon in two ways. The better method was pit storage, where it kept its flavor better and was less likely to be attacked by insects. It did not mold in the pit but kept nicely all winter. Such a pit was dug inside the house at the back. It was lined with pine needles (aksui), sometimes mixed with maple leaves, and was covered with more pine needles. If baskets were used, they were the same large conico- spheroid storage baskets as were used for acorns and miscellaneous property. However, salmon did not keep as well here as in pits, especially in warmer weather, when it tended to become rancid (domsivit). It was also more subject to the ravages of insects. Informants maintained that there were two kinds of insect pests, one having wings, the other a worm (evidently the adult and the larval stages of the same insect). This is a different enemy from that which attacks acorns. According to some Karok informants dried salmon was not pulverized into "salmon flour" as was done particu- larly by the tribes of northeastern California, but others said that they, too, made salmon flour. Dried salmon was usually eaten just as broken off the slab, though it was sometimes stone-boiled in a basket. METHODS OF CUTTING AND CURING SALMON As might be expected in the case of such a major food as the salmon, its "butchering" and preparation for cur- ing or cooking were quite specifically detailed by inform- ants. While the procedure was generically uniform, there were certain variations from tribe to tribe. A compari- son of the methods of several tribes, particularly the Hupa, the Karok, and the Shasta, is of interest. Hupa method. --One of Hewes's Hupa informants gave the following specifications for preparing a salmon for drying: Place the salmon on a wooden slab with the head away from the worker. 1. Cut off the tail. 2. Cut the head halfway off and allow it to hang, still attached to one side. 3. Slit the fish down the back. 4. Remove [strip off, or slice off?] the skin on the left side, beginning along the back and cutting down to the belly. 5. Slice the meat itself down from the back to the ends of the ribs. 6. Cut "into" [down as far as?] the viscera under the ribs. This produces two thinner slices on this side. 7. Then reverse the length of the fish so that its tail is now away from the worker. 8. Repeat the above skinning and slicing operation on the other side of the fish. 9. Next, "slice" so as to remove the backbone. Take this out with the viscera hanging to it. 10. Now reverse the position of the fish, so that the head is once more away from the worker. 11. Separate the skin, with some flesh still attached, from the remainder down as far as the tail, and put this aside. [As each side of the salmon has already been split--cf. step 6--we infer that "skin" here means that layer of the side of which the skin is part as contrasted with the layer adjoining the viscera.] 12. Remove the viscera and clotted blood from the backbone. 13. Remove the [adhering?l meat from the [back] bone on both sides, and put the backbone aside. 14. At the tail, make a cut from the dorsal side so to lay open one side. Turn the fish over and make a similar cut on the opposite side. Thus the two slabs of flesh [two layers of one side of the fish's flesh] are le attached to both the skin and the "backbone" [ inner] sides here at the tail. 15. In case the tail has not yet been cut off, this my be done at this juncture in the operations. 16. In the male fish the milt is sometimes cooked, though it is not considered by some to be a tasty food. The roe, however, is much esteemed. These sacks of roe are removed from the viscera and are either cook and eaten at once or are dried for later use. 17. The jaw sides or, as they are usually called, "cheeks"' are always used. The gristle on the insidej the head and nose of the salmon is esteemed. This gristle is called kininjkitce. A particularly tasty mor is the bone and flesh located on the under side of the throat. Curtis (1924a, p. 16) states, for the Hupa: "Salmo sturgeon, and lampreys are dried on racks, formerly the underground [sic] dwellings, and stored in baskets Karok method.--Hewes's Karok informants stated the preparation of a salmon was governed by the use tc be made of it. If it was to be dried, the procedure was follows: Spread out a layer of ferns on the ground and lay the fish on these. 1. Cut off the tail at the small rear dorsal fin (tail' ipun). 2. The head is sometimes left on for a time. If the fish is to be used for drying, break the jaw and pull the head back. 3. Cut down the full length of the back and then tur' the fish completely end for end. 4. Remove the backbone, but not the ribs. [We sus pect that "backbone" means the vertebral column wit adhering "true" ribs, and that "ribs" means the par line of more ventral bones on each side. This interpr tation is confirmed by step 6: the viscera could not we be taken out via a dorsal cut if the ribs, which are at- tached to the vertebra, had been left in; also by step 7: the "inside slice"--next to the visceral cavity--"in- cludes the ribs."] 5. When the head is removed, the gills are also tak as part of this unit. 6. After the backbone is out, remove all the viscen and discard all but the eggs. These are always saved for food. If food is extremely scarce, certain other internal parts also may be utilized. This results in a very large, thick slab of salmon, which must now be sliced into two slabs or slices eac half an inch or perhaps more in thickness, and up to t feet in length. Such a salmon, cut up for drying, is cal weraipun. 7. The inside slice includes the ribs and is called The outside slice with the skin on is called maan. The backbone is called 6-t. 8. A scaffold perhaps three feet or so above the ground is constructed and here, over a small fire, the backbones, the heads, and the tails are cooked and thoroughly dried. 9. The two slabs of flesh require no actual cooking They are dried in the shade. First they are folded ovi poles, where they remain for two or three days for a preliminary curing. Then each slab is flattened out am small cross sticks are so placed as to keep each slab. fully distended and flat. A hole is made through each near its head end. Through this hole a pole passes so 100 I KROEBER AND BARRETT: FISHING IN NORTHWESTERN CALIFORNIA eep such a slab hanging vertically. The slabs dry for any days as necessary to complete the curing. ly the slabs are packed away in storage baskets, ded with basketry covers. en a slab of this dried salmon is to be prepared eating, if it is a skin-covered, outside slab (maan), skin side is scored lightly with a knife before heating. makes it break more easily into smaller pieces. If one of the inner slabs (iic), no scoring is needed, it naturally breaks up easily. These slabs of salmon be eaten without any heating and freshening if ired. Upon occasion dried salmon might be boiled. mants say that various other foods may properly be n with dried salmon, but acorn soup is best. ome informants stated that the salmon backbone was pounded or pulverized. It was broken and used ctly, that is, without any further cooking. Others ed that this backbone was pulverized. The Karok name for dried salmon is amve-vaxara; dried steelhead sapi-vaxara. The steelhead (saap) is handled by the Karok in a erent way than the salmon, according to Hewes 1940). If it is to be eaten fresh it is slit down the y. The head and tail are left on. If it is to be dried, cut down the back, and is not sliced like the salmon. the backbone remains in. The viscera are, of se, removed. The whole fish, except for the viscera, id out flat and is stretched in this way by means of he skewers. It is hung vertically on a pole which ses through a hole made in the slab. Steelhead is fatter and molds more easily than dried on. Since dried steelhead did not keep as well, it used first and the supply was usually exhausted l, while the dried salmon lasted throughout the win- and there was usually supposed to be enough on hand a safe margin of supply when the next season's on run began. The hookbill (tcwon) was handled the same as other on except that the slabs cut were three instead of one maan (outside slice with skin), and two inner es, now called picpa'n instead of iic. [We construe to mean that the inner right and inner left side were ed off after the main cut down the back, but the skin the belly was not cut through.] If salmon was to be used as fresh fish the procedure as follows. The fish was cut down the belly from head to tail. It eviscerated and the interior wiped out with ferns-- er cleansed with water. [However, Weitchpec Ned, a rok, told Hewes that in pre-white days all salmon, ether to be dried or eaten fresh, were cut down the k.] The -ail was cut off to bleed the fish. Then the head removed. The flesh was then cooked on one or more sticks set as to hold it near the fire. [In the open, Kroeber has n the skewer sticks planted in the sand at 450. See w under "Cooking."] The flesh was not laid directly the coals. A salmon cooked whole in this way is ed topsirukit in Karok. If the fish was cut into smaller pieces and roasted tesh at the fire it was called wutupic. Usually the gills were thrown away at the outset, ogh some people saved and utilized these. The eggs were always saved, and were almost invari- b sun-dried by being hung outside on sticks. They Id be eaten in this form or they might be pulverized. re is such an abundance of fish during the regular hing season that no one cares to eat fish eggs fresh. 101 Shasta method.--Hewes states that the salmon has a line naturally along its side. After cutting off first the tail (Ihiwa) and then the head (tcaro), one split the side of the fish, along this natural line, down to the ribs, first on one side, then on the other. This leaves the whole salmon belly intact as a single piece, called axti. The back of the fish is then removed also as a single flat piece (back = tuxu). From this the viscera were removed and discarded, then the backbone with the ribs was "cut" [stripped, drawn ?] out. The back of the fish is so thick that it can be split into two slabs, one with the skin on it, the other without. The slabs are now thin enough so that they can be wiped off with weeds or grass leaves and laid out in the sun to dry. They do not need to be cooked in order to preserve them. This is not the case with the salmon belly. This is not split, and is so oily that it must be somewhat cooked before it will properly dry. The backbones, together with such flesh as may adhere to them, are laid on a scaffold about eighteen inches high over a fire to cook thoroughly and dry. They are then pulverized by rubbing them together or against the inner surface of a storage basket. The resultant powder, or what is sometimes called salmon flour, is called itaiptci. Only the salmon bones with attachment were pulverized. The salmon flesh when dried was put away in slabs for future use. Curtis says (1924a, p. 114) that among the Shasta salmon were dried in the sun without salt or smoke and were stored in large baglike receptacles of tule with pine-root twining. Tolowa method.--Hewes says that among the Tolowa the slabs of salmon had stretchers inserted ["skewers"?] to keep them from folding. These slabs are "cooked" on a rack over a fire. They may then be sun-dried for a couple of days or they may be smoked and dried on the rack hanging over the fire in the living house. Care must be taken not to use cedar or any pitchy wood in the fire. Green alder is best for drying fish. Salmon may be sun- dried, without cooking, but it is then too strong to be palatable. The Tolowa dried and ate both the eggs and the milt of the salmon. The Tolowa names of the edible parts of the salmon (tiuk) are: slice with skin, tluk- nT' ste; inside slice, t4uk-me'sD; tail, tci-la; roe, xom'; milt, tcelusOum; gill, tcau'cre; head, tluk-tceta; part under throat ("very good meat"), tca peat'; lower jaw, t4uk-jig'ele. Wiyot, Mattole, Nongatl, Sinkyone methods.--Hewes's Wiyot split the salmon into three layers or slabs. The preliminary drying was on a rack of green willow poles in the sun and over a small fire. This not only smoked the meat but also kept the flies from it. They warned that the fire must be sufficient to "cook thoroughly" the flesh of the fish as well as to dry it. [They alone of our tribes lived along a low, sandy, and particularly foggy coast.] The Wiyot also said that the same general methods as those used for salmon were followed in curing sturgeon, steelhead, perch, and lampreys. The smaller species (herring, smelt, and suckers) were rarely dried at all but were eaten fresh. [The reason for this is not clear, unless it is the greater fogginess of the Wiyot coast.] The Mattole mentioned the use of dried salmon back- bone for making soup and in other ways; but specified that the ribs were burned, giving as the reason that these were needle-sharp and dangerous to bare feet! Among the Nongatl, still according to Hewes, the same ANTHROPOLOGICAL RECORDS general procedures were followed, but, in speaking of the stone knife, informants made no mention of a hafting but simply said it was "grabbed" in buckskin. They also said that dried backbone was sometimes pulverized to- gether with dried meat, or that this powder might be mixed with dried roe. Among the Sinkyone, according to Nomland (1935, p. 154), salmon were "slit open; laid skin-side down on smoke rack over slow fire of green willow brush two days, nights; then sun-dried on leaves two or three days; packed in baskets between layers of leaves." Salmon eggs were smoked with the fish, but separately, and packed for winter in special baskets. Whether eaten raw or stone-boiled, they were considered a great delicacy. Various informants among the nuclear tribes men- tioned that the pulverizing of the dried fish to preserve it (the making of salmon flour) was not a general practice, but that it was usual among marginal groups. It is probably related to the making of salmon pemmican in the Plateau region, as suggested by Hewes (Th., 1947, p. 66). Summary.--Salmon eaten fresh were cut up the belly and eviscerated, at least in the historic period, but salmon to be dried underwent special treatment, de- signed to produce slices of meat thin enough to dry ef- fectively. Usually the first cut for drying was down the back. This practice is specified for Karok and Hupa, is infer- able for the Tolowa, and probably held for the Yurok, from whom there are few particulars. After removal of backbone and viscera, each side of the fish was then split into two layers. The Tolowa names for these are nuste for the inner layer, mesu for the layer adhering to the skin; the Karok, respectively iish and maan; the Yurok, uwosetso and uwerskun: no doubt there were corresponding Hupa terms. Whether the Hupa really skinned their salmon before slicing and drying, as stated, or whether this is an error of explanation or understanding remains uncertain. The account of scoring the dried skin before reheating con- firms the Karok statement that the skin was left on; and Kroeber's Yurok recollections include hanging slabs with skin still attached. There may have been minor variations as to the stage of handling at which the tail was cut off, the backbone, ribs, and viscera removed, as to what informants meant by "ribs," etc. The Shasta method was different from the foregoing, two main longitudinal cuts being made, one along each side, so there was a dorsal and a ventral half of the body. The dorsal half, being thicker, was then split into two layers, one interior, the other, exterior, retaining the skin. This procedure thus yielded three slabs of meat for drying. The Wiyot may have followed the same method: we have no details, but they ended up with the salmon in three slabs. Data on the curing of steelhead are fewer, probably because steelhead kept less well and were eaten either fresh or as soon as possible. The one specific account, from the Karok, has the first main cut made down the back, the backbone left in; the whole fish, except for the viscera, then constituted one slab held flat by skewers. This procedure was rendered possible by the smaller size of the steelhead but it may also have contributed to its not keeping so well. LAMPREY CURING The Tolowa told Hewes that lampreys must be sun- dried for the first day because the meat is so soft that the "smoke of the fire sticks to it," makes it black, and ruins the flavor. It is next dried for two or three days over the fire inside the house. It is at this time that the oil tries out and is caught in the steatite dishes. If lampreys were to be dried by the Chilula, Hewes says, they were slit and cleaned. Then the flesh was split so as to lay the lamprey wide open. Then, with the same awl-shaped bone implement the flesh was scored and cut [evidently on the inside] so that the heat and smoke could easily reach it. [Compare the following Spott account.] To begin the drying, the whole lamprey, prepared as above and flattened out, was bent double over a stick and hung over a small fire at the fireplace in the house. Here, in the course of twenty-four hours it was about "half dried." Then a hole was pierced in the tail of the lamprey and it was suspended over a small smoky fire for the final drying. The oil was caught in a steatite di' Yurok lamprey preparation (told by Robert Spott).-- After the heads have been cut off, the bodies of the lam. preys (ke'win) are slit with small quartz flakes (rekoyo held between the fingers so as to project only 1/4 to 1/ in., to keep the gall from being cut. For fresh consump tion, the slit was carried only to the "navel" (wer'wers, probably the anus) and the guts removed. For drying, the flake was carried around the vent and continued to the tail end. With 60 or 70 lampreys loosely strung together, a woman now worked over them one by one on a piece of board (called o-sl-eg-oil-ku, from sloil, dried lamprey held on her knees. She worked with a bone awl or slitt (kwer'). Putting her left hand into ashes to give her a grip on the slippery body, she doubled up and held the tail, inserted the awl point under the notochord (miks-r or u-mik-we-rag) and worked it loose for a couple of inches or so till there was room for her right thumbnai then ran the thumb to the head end, laying one side of t lamprey open. Then she reversed hands and laid the other side flat. The notochord was then loosened at the head end with the awl, stripped out, and saved for dog food or as a reserve against famine; or it might be left: in. The inner side or lining was scraped with a flint knife or mussel shell, then slit lengthwise repeatedly with the bone awl held so short between thumb and finge as not to cut the skin. The flesh was then in ribbons, b still adhering to the skin. These opened lamprey bodies were then draped, skii side underneath, over the round poles of the scaffold suspended in the house, more or less above the hearth fire, and left for two or three days, to prevent the body walls curling together again. When they stayed flat, the were again strung together through the holes in their tails, and hung in the house for final drying. They wer then sloil, and were usually eaten raw. SMELT DRYING The smaller species, collectively designated as sm or surf fish and consisting, according to Greengo (1952 mainly of Spirinchus starksi and Allosmorus attenuatus I II I I I i 102 KROEBER AND BARRETT: FISHING IN NORTHWESTERN CALIFORNIA hich run in onto the beaches to spawn, were largely sun- nied. Our plate 4, a shows a modern fish camp near the pouth of Redwood Creek with quantities of surf fish ying in the sun. In addition, fire was also used in this rocess (as is shown in pl. 4, b). The eyewitness account of drying by Powers (1877, p. ) says: Smelt being small the squaws dry them whole by laying them awhile on low wooden kilns, with inter- stices to allow the smoke to rise up freely, and then finishing the process in the sun. They eat them un- cooked, with sauce of raw salal-berries. BY- PRODUCTS The by-products of fishing in this region are oil and ihesives. Sea-mammal hunting also yields oils, both ta-lion oil and whale oil. Of these by-products, the oils re much the most important. OIL A by-product, but an important one, of salmon drying the oil which tries out, especially toward the last of e curing. Here, at the permanent drying rack over the in the house, the slabs of salmon hang, as shown in ate 21, a. Toward the last, the oil or grease actually ckles down almost in a stream. This, according to ewes's Yurok informants, is especially true of what ieyterm the "summer salmon" (nepew, King). The tall salmon" (tcegwun) is much drier and has little ease except in the head. Informants stated that this ll salmon is so dry that it could be eaten by sick people. Salmon grease was caught in a shallow steatite dish. larger, somewhat deeper steatite dish, holding up to a Ilon or so, was used for storing the oil. Both of these shes are called pemoiyekw by the Yurok ["greasy," bferring either to the oil or to the steatite of which they re made]. The storage bowls are said to have been placed in Dies eight or nine inches deep, dug in the floor at the ge of the house. They were protected with basketry vers. Hewes's (F.N., 1940) Karok informants stated that ese steatite dishes (imniciram) were "dug out" of one blocks by older people unable to engage in more tive pursuits; for instance, by an old woman who could longer make baskets. The name of this receptacle rives from the term mnic, meaning to cook. There are two other types of grease-storage recepta- es, the kelp bottle and the sea-lion bladder or stomach Itha basketry cover (see fig. 45), but this last is re- rved for the storage of sea-lion, seal, and whale oils.56 Imon oil is never stored in it. The oils are not mixed. is container also was dug into the house floor for safe- eping. Hewes's Tolowa informants mentioned that oils were bndered in stone dishes or in the shell of the horse clam, were stored in containers made of the bladder of the a lion. It was dried and its opening was closed with a ht-fitting stopper. According to Hewes, the Mattole used the carapaces th of land tortoises and sea turtles to catch oil. Driver (1939, p. 314) lists the sea-lion bladder or lunch grease-container for whale oil, as used by the lowa, Yurok, Wiyot, and Mattole. Also he lists the FSpott says that among the downriver Yurok sea-lion oil was stored a sea-lion bladder which was hung up in the shade, while among the river Yurok this oil was stored in a stone dish with wooden cover ch was buried in the ground. Fig. 45. Sea-lion paunch oil storage container with basketry cover. For sea-lion and whale oils. Fish oils are stored in steatite bowls. After Hewes (F.N., 1940). kelp grease-container as used for whale oil by the Tolowa and the Sinkyone. However, he fails to record grease storage for fish oil or sea-lion oil. ADHESIVES AGINSKY, 1943. Miwok, p. 410. BARRETT, 1952. Pomo, pp. 184, 185. DRIVER, 1939. Tolowa, Chimariko, Karok, Yurok, Wiyot, Hupa, Chilula, Nongatl, Mattole, Sinkyone, Kato, Coast Yuki, p. 325. All Northwestern California tribes, pp. 325, 389. ESSENE, 1942. N Pomo, Kato, Lassik, Yuki, p. 14. GOLDSCHMIDT, 1951. Nomlaki, p. 407; glue a by-product of the salmon. KROEBER, 1925. Maidu, p. 417; salmon-skin glue. NOMLAND, 1938. Mattole, p. 114. SCHENCK and GIFFORD, 1952. Karok, pp. 378, 384. VOEGELIN, 1942. Klamath, Shasta, Atsugewi, Achomawi, Wintu, Maidu, p. 81. MAPS 73, 74 Glue was important in this region, particularly in making the fine yew bows used both in war and in hunting. Tribes to the south (Pomo, etc.) used just such finely made yew bows, which they said were obtained from the north. It is not unlikely that some of these came from our region. Gifford (F.N., 1939-42) learned from the Karok of an effective glue. Descaled, dried salmon skin was scraped fine, and was then chewed for a long time. The resultant mixture was deposited in a small "cup" made of a single leaf of the madrofho. Next a glandular substance from the throat of the sturgeon was chewed and added. The "cup" was then placed in among the young leaves of a madrono branch, and this set in the warm ashes (not coals) of the fire, where it cured into a viscous glue. Care must be taken to see that no ashes contaminated I . I 103 ANTHROPOLOGICAL RECORDS the glue or it would not stick. It was used for building up, layer upon layer, the sinew backing of the bow, and wherever else a strong adhesive was required. One informant maintained that only the skin of the Chinook salmon was used in making glue; another that sturgeon skin might be employed. [If so it must have been the inner side of the skin because of the enormous plates outside.] For use, glue was usually prepared as needed in a small stone dish (see pl. 22, d-f). Any left over re- mained in the dish till needed, then was softened with a little water. When certain pigments were added to this glue, paints for decorating bows, arrows, and certain other objects were produced. Another adhesive was found in the gum of the choke- cherry. Informants said that, in backing a bow with sinew, the wood was first dressed with chokecherry gum before the salmonskin glue and the first layer of sinew were applied. In a Karok myth (G3e) recorded by Kroeber in 1902 glue was first made by Osprey (Chukchuk). In trying to put the sinew backing on the bow he was creating, he needed something to make it stick, so he chewed salmow skin, spat it on maple leaves, cooked it into glue, and p~ it onto the bow with a little stick. He then tied the sineW layer onto the bow with string and let it dry. A statement to Kroeber (40-78) by one Yurok inform- ant to the effect that glue was made from either the "bladder" of a sturgeon or the skin of the salmon seems unusual so far as the sturgeon bladder is concerned. Possibly "bladder" refers to the sturgeon's throat gland of six paragraphs back. Harrington (1932, p. 156) says that the Karok glue is made from the skin of the sturgeon or the salmon, mixed with the gums of the fir and the "wild plum" [choke- cherry presumably]. Goldschmidt (1951, p. 407) says that the glue of the Nomlaki is a "salmon by-product." And Powers (1877, p. 108) remarked most favorably upo the power of the glue made by the Mattole. Other tribes also had their own adhesives. The Poma for example, used a mixture of pulverized fish skin and soaproot juice in making their sinew-backed bows (see Barrett, 1952, pp. 283, 284). COOKING BANCROFT, 1883. Yurok, p. 339; broiled, boiled. BARRETT, 1952. Pomo, pp. 61, 103; broiling on coals and hot rocks. Baking in underground oven. CURTIS, 1924a. Hupa, Shasta, pp. 16, 114. DRIVER, 1936. Wappo, p. 185; fresh fish broiled, baked in underground oven. Two underground ovens: indoors for family's use; outdoors for communal use. "Roasted" fish also used in gruel form. DRUCKER, 1937. Tolowa, p. 235; broiling, stone boiling, pit-oven roasting. Gives list of meats handled by each of above methods. DU BOIS, 1935. Wintu, pp. 15, 17; salmon baked in underground oven. Extra meat made into salmon flour. Small fish broiled on hot rocks. Extra small fish dried and stored. Boiled when finally eaten. Salmon refuse ground, mixed with roe and pine nuts to make pemmican. FOSTER, 1944. Yuki, p. 164; fresh fish broiled on coals. Dried salmon roasted or crumbled and boiled. GARTH, 1953. Atsugewi, p. 136. GIFFORD, 1939. Coast Yuki, pp. 322, 324, 325; methods of cooking surf fish and others. GODDARD, 1929. Bear River, p. 294; cooking clams. GREENGO, 1952. Tolowa, Wiyot, Coast Yuki, etc., pp. 76-82; methods of cooking and preserving sea foods. HOLT, 1946. Shasta, pp. 309, 310. KNIFFEN, 1939. Pomo, pp. 363, 376. KROEBER, 1932. Patwin, p. 278; dried salmon cooked in underground oven. LOEB, 1926. Pomo, p. 168. NOMLAND, 1935. Sinkyone, p. 154; fresh salmon cooked directly on coals. SAPIR and SPIER, 1943. Yana, p. 252. STEWART, 1934. Pomo, pp. 61, 62; preparation of sea foods. MAPS 63-66 According to Gifford (F.N., 1939-42), the Karok cooked freshly caught salmon after splitting them length- wise, removing the backbone, and giving each slab two transverse cuts, making six pieces all told. Each piece was then skewered in the middle of an eighteen-inch willow rod, and each rod stood in the ground facing a blazing fire, either indoors or outdoors. From time to time each rod was turned end for end and reset, exposing the various parts to an even broil, and imparting good flavor. [Kroeber has seen the same method used by the Yurok.--Compare the account above under "Cutting" by Hewes for the Karok.] In cooking fresh salmon the Karok usually left the tai on one of the pieces. Freshly caught salmon did not dr grease, but when dried or partially dried salmon was cooked on a skewer (usually held in the hand), it yielded- 104 KROEBER AND BARRETT: FISHING IN NORTHWESTERN CALIFYORNIA ch grease. The skewer was held so that the drip fell a steatite dish, where it quickly congealed. It was ten with a spoon, along with acorn soup. Also, freshly nght salmon was sometimes cooked by raking away the s of a fire so as to expose the hot rocks beneath and ying the pieces of fish directly on the stones. Salmon heads were cooked and eaten. A single head ght be cooked in water in a steatite dish, being turned uently. If several heads were to be cooked, they re usually broiled on a rack of sticks rigged over s. Such a rack or babracot or barbecue was made of r "posts," with crossbars about three feet above the e. Here the heads cooked from four to five hours. Ich slow cooking on a babracot is called tanikixwa. ormants said that "the soft portions [brains ?] in the of the head" were eaten; and that some people even the eyes.57 We have seen that the meat on the man- le was eaten. - Among the Karok the backbones removed from drying mon were saved and dried for winter use. Boiling de the vertebra (usually crushed previously) soft and good food, even for human consumption, at the same e that they could produce a good soup. The vertebra re also much used as a dog food. Hewes (F.N., 1940) gives, for the Karok, the details cooking the head of a sturgeon in the underground oven follows: Heat the pit, heat rocks, line the pit with the trocks. Place on them a layer of green leaves, then esturgeon head and another layer of green leaves, lowed by a layer of sand, and finally by a layer of live als and hot rocks. The head is allowed to bake here om morning till evening. The leaves used are prefer- ly those of the cottonwood. However, maple leaves were used as wrappings for urgeon eggs when these were roasted in the under- ound oven. [Kroeber recalls that the Yurok used maple aves in cooking.] These sturgeon eggs were first ashed with an acorn pestle of stone or with a special woden egg masher (see pl. 18, d, f)--they were not oasted whole. Hewes (F.N., 1940) says that the Karok cut fresh almon into smallish pieces which were put on "maple ticks" [probably skewered] and placed near the fire to bok. Salmon heads, he says, were split from the under pie and laid out flat on a babracot to roast, sometimes tdoors, sometimes indoors if there was a strong wind. A photograph recently acquired from Grover Sander- ion clearly shows the Karok method of cooking slabs of ialmon on skewers stuck into the ground around the fire. ee pl. 31, d.) He says that from time to time each ikewer carrying such a slab of salmon was rotated in order to secure an even cooking of both sides of the fish. [twill be noted also that each of these skewers is so 5?Gifford's Karok informants, in speaking of deer hunting, stated that hanimal's eyes were removed entirely, or at least were slit open. he "eye jelly" [vitreous humor] was often eaten raw by the hunter to j e him good luck. It might not be eaten by women or children, though hywere permitted to eat the cooked eyes from a boiled deer head. bsuch procedure, they said, was followed with the eyes of the salmon. placed that its top is inclined toward the fire. This naturally makes for a more even distribution of the heat vertically and an even cooking on whichever surface is toward the flame. This particular picture was taken at a fire out-of-doors, but the same method is employed at a fire in the house. The Tolowa, according to Hewes, prepared flounders by making a cut "under the throat" and removing the viscera. Then a skewer was passed through the mouth, along the backbone, and out at the tail. The fish was then set by the fire, tail uppermost, being turned and handled by the skewer. Other fish were cooked the same way. The Sinkyone, according to Nomland (1935, p. 154), cooked fresh salmon by laying [pieces of ?] them directly on the hot rocks in an earth oven or by placing them in a cleft stick over coals. Hewes (F.N., 1940) has the Chilula cooking freshly caught lampreys by slitting them down the belly, remov- ing the entrails, and plucking out the notochord, then roasting them on live coals without scoring or further preparation. Hewes (F.N., 1940) says that one of the few foods not dried by the Bear River was trout, perhaps because these fish were not secured in sufficient numbers. They were merely broiled and eaten as caught. If good luck pro- duced an extra number, these were given away. Trout were cooked by broiling on the hot coals without cleaning or other preparation. Bullheads were also broiled and eaten fresh. The dried salmon backbones (sometimes ground) were used in making soup. Soup was also made from a mixture of salmon gills and salmon eggs. Curtis (1924a, p. 114) says that, among the Shasta, both fresh and dried salmon were roasted on skewers, the dry fish being softened by sprinkling on a little water. The Yurok told Hewes about lampreys: that they were slit down the belly from head to tail with an awl of bone, with which also the notochord was extracted, from the tail upward to the head. This notochord is, according to an ancient tale, all that the eel has left of the bony struc- ture which he once had. He and Sucker played a many- stick guessing game, wagering their bones, and Eel lost. Hence Sucker now is "all bones and no meat" while Eel has only a "white string" (notochord) left, which is his shell money. Fresh lampreys are prepared as above, then laid (about four at a time) and broiled on a bed of coals spread out far enough away from the flames so that they will not burn. They are rolled over from time to time so as to cook evenly. When done they are cut into short sections--a turn of a string is wrapped around the lamprey and pulled, which cuts the soft, buttery flesh easily. For drying and preservation, lampreys are slit, the notochord is removed, and then the flesh is scored length- wise with the same awl. This lets the heat and smoke into the scored channels and cures the meat more quickly and evenly. The oil which tries out is caught in steatite dishes and preserved. (Another Yurok account, given by Spott, has been cited earlier.) 105 CHAPTER IX BELIEFS, RESTRICTIONS, AND CEREMONIES BELIEFS AND RESTRICTIONS CONCERNING FISHING Various beliefs concerning fishing, luck charms, taboos, and restrictions have arisen. YUROK Reported by Hewes.--l. The longer and more valu- able dentalium shells are usually covered completely, or at least ornamented, with the skin of a tiny red snake. To see many of these snakes is an omen of good luck for money. The tip of the tail of such a snake is tied onto an eel net to insure a good catch of lampreys. 2. When a large lifting net is set in an eddy in the river, it is carefully watched. If driftwood is carried into the net, it is a sure sign that this is a poor fishing place. 3. When a lifting net is attached to its large A-frame, the attaching must be done in exact progression, accord- ing to informants; then the net must be let down into the water in accordance with a certain specified formula and with certain motions. 4. When sturgeon leap straight up and back down at about the same spot, it is because the water is cold and this indicates that they will not move far. However, if they leap at an angle (forward), they are going to run and the prospects are good for netting many soon. 5. Merlus was the name of a small species of fish in the rivers, which resembled the frog fish or sea-robin. In cooking, this fish is said to "jump" at the fire. How- ever, if someone says, "A pregnant woman will eat you," it becomes quiet. 6. Women must not fish. A man should not fish during his wife's menstrual period. A Coast Yurok, however, said that there was no law to prevent women from fishing, but they were too busy with housework. They could help paddle a canoe but must not use a spear. 7. It was forbidden to eat anything on the bar or sand spit at the river mouth. [Kroeber learned the same.] This restriction applied for certain distances along the beach and upstream, such as maga, the shore ("bank of the ocean") north of Turkey Rock (oregos). Toward the south the restriction extended to etskwak'oo. Inside the mouth the restriction applied on the south side up to pkentcopegemo [Waterman, 1920a, map 5, No. 49, on north side]; to atca'1 on the north bank. [Pkentcopegemo corresponds to Pkets-o-pegemu of Waterman, 1920a, map 5, no. 49, but on north side and at mouth. The other places named have not been identified either in Water- man or in Spott and Kroeber, 1942, p. 182, where boundaries are given for rights to beached whales and to sea-lion flippers.] 8. These same boundaries applied to the abstention from fresh salmon at the time of the first-salmon cere- mony. 9. A person might not smoke within these same limits. If, for some reason, it was necessary to take food or to smoke within these limits, this must be done in the canoe, not on land [the inverse of the general rule]. Yet, if it became necessary to build a fire and cook at the river mouth, this might be done, provided someone was actually in contact with the soil, like some old man leaning onl bank. 10. At Rekwoi the people must be on the point of starvation before they would eat seals or bears. Seals were not eaten because they are the slaves and compai ions of a great sea monster, Ka'mus. If a seal sees Indians (or children) in a canoe, he goes back to Ka'mi who then may capsize the canoe. There are many kind of Ka.mus. The informant's father saw one on an evee in winter. It was as big as a dam stretched across thb mouth of the lagoon. The water was very high. It flou over him, and made a noise like the surf. At other tiu the Ka.mus takes the form of a trout [sic] wriggling ba into the surf after being cast up onto the beach. It w0a be fatal to follow such a fish. A person would be entic into deep water and drowned. One Yurok added that the Tolowa did not refrain fre eating seals. Reported by Kroeber. --11. Yurok boatmen may n consume food while on the ocean, and "even on the ri travelers might not eat a meal; but if in haste, they might carry fire on a layer of earth in the canoe, heat stones, and then, disembarking, quickly cook" (Kroeb 1925, p. 69). Compare Hewes's last preceding senten Certain restrictions pertained to salmon. 12. Salmon caught in "April or May" [presumably before the first-salmon rite at the river mouth] might' dried, and they could be eaten fresh by the aged. Youq people could not eat these as fresh fish until after the salmon medicine had been made. [The Karok have a similar rule as regards their first-salmon ceremony Amaikiara.] The old may take the risk because they not long to live anyway. 13. It was prohibited to talk or make a noise while a canoe on the ocean. One must not point out people shore. On a river no such restrictions applied. The one could talk, even yell, while traveling in a canoe. Also, a person on the bank could point out people in a canoe on the stream. 14. There were definite restrictions on foods which might or might not be eaten together: Deer meat, be meat, grouse eggs, or acorns blackened by prolonged soaking, must never be eaten at the same meal with kind of fish or with sea-lion meat. Acorn products be eaten at the same meal with any other food, and different kinds of fish could be eaten at the same time 15. "It is believed that deer cannot abide the whale the flesh of the two is not eaten together, and whale is called 'rotton wood' before a [deer] hunter in order to spoil his luck" (Kroeber, 1925, p. 69). Also, carrying whale meat upriver may cause rain One old Yurok said that the eating of whale meat s a fisherman's luck for salmon. In fact, care must be used in handling fish generally; to throw away the he a salmon carelessly may ruin the luck of the one who caught the fish. [106] KROEBER AND BARRETT: FISHING IN NORTHWESTERN CALIFORNIA KAROK rReported by Gifford.--16. Before the first-salmon emony at Amaikiaram, any person who had not ob- red continence and ate salmon or steelhead, was in ; of being drowned on the following day or killed by a 'krolling down the mountainside. Even after a dream intercourse, salmon must not be eaten.58 [This riction seems a reinforcement: salmon were for- en before the ceremony anyway, but doubly so after rcourse.] Later in the year no such taboo was ob- ed. One of Hewes's informants specified this prohi- n as at the mouth of Clear Creek and on steelheads ,from the time that the "rocks are piled until the ld Renewal ceremony there in August"--which evi- ly comes to the same thing. This strict taboo against use of steelhead (or even touching them) must be ob- ed or "the world will fall apart," Hewes's informant on. It is bad luck even to touch a steelhead acci- ily during this period. A menstruating woman may not eat either [fresh] on or venison. At Katimin steelhead are not eaten for a period of Onth preceding the World Renewal ceremony iawish) in September. However, spring salmon may aten. Fresh salmon must never be eaten along with son. This will spoil the fisherman's luck. However, d salmon may be eaten at the same meal with venison out ill effect. While larger game animals and birds must be ght into the house by way of the "back door" [re- 1 of a plank], this restriction does not apply to fish. eported by Hewes.--21. The front pectoral fins p) of the sturgeon were reserved for people of th and rank. No one else might eat these morsels. poor man caught a sturgeon, he must give these fins meone of rank. He could not eat or dry them him- [This parallels the sea-lion flipper rights inherited certain house at Rekwoi (Spott and Kroeber, 1942, pp. 183, 191).] SHASTA Reported by Hewes.--22. Lightning (or Thunder) and ie gamble, Lightning betting summer salmon, Dove ling "grass" seeds. When Dove loses, you hear Dove Ing in spring earlier than thunder sounds; there will plenty of seeds that season. When Thunder loses, Oder is heard before the call of the dove in the spring; te will be a few (sic) summer salmon that season. In ter both Lightning and Dove are away. B While there were no fishing songs and no formal lng ritual was made, the Shasta did not eat salmon the formal ceremonies held by the Karok downriver -been concluded. The Shasta caught and dried salmon Dy time, but fresh salmon must not be eaten until rthe Karok pikiawish or world renewals had been luded in early fall. [The nearest pikiawish, at Clear ek, came about August-September; those at Katimin Orleans, a month later; but it is doubtful if the Shasta roeber's Karok information from Little Ike states (Kroeber and Ird, 1949, p. 40), "A man dreaming of a woman, or sleeping with a e, eats no fresh salmon before New Year's, for fear of slipping on and being hurt, being bitten by a rattlesnake, or otherwise losing rlimb." Another Karok informant stated (p. 42), in speaking of hmping Dance, that "the priest must be continent for a year after treat if he wanted to have good luck." would have had much news of these more remote festivals. ] 24. Many Shasta journeyed downriver to witness the pikiawish [presumably the Clear Creek one] and knew of the dire evil that befell if anyone but the ritualist looked at the crucial fire he lit. They looked upon this rite as the special province of the downriver and fishing Karok, just as hunting was their own specialty. Reported by Holt.--25. Tobacco was used (together with another herb) as an offering to fishing pools. It was use'd with a short prayer for luck (Holt, 1946, p. 310). MATTOLE Reported by Hewes.--26. In the fall, if you feel the east wind blowing cold, you know that "the fish want to come in." The formulist has songs for fish. Even some ordinary men have songs for salmon, eels, and other species. 27. Among the Mattole, conduct toward waves is pre- scribed: The water watches you and has a definite attitude, favorable or otherwise, toward you. Do not speak just before a wave breaks. Do not speak in pass- ing rough water in a stream. Do not look at water very long at any one time, unless you have been to this same spot ten times or more. Then the water there is used to you and does not mind if you're looking at it. Older men can talk in the presence of the water because they have been about so much that the water knows them. Until the water at any spot does know you, however, it becomes very rough if you talk in its presence or look at it too long. 28. The ordinary period of abstinence from meat, by a menstruating woman, was five days, sometimes ten. She might then eat dried salmon, though she was pro- hibited from eating fresh fish for two days. [Among the Yurok, Kroeber was told by Spott, dried salmon was her principal non-vegetal food during her periods, but even a small piece of this, taken from her hut of retirement into any supernatural or ritual context was contaminating.] NONGATL Reported by Hewes.--29. Among certain other tribes bad luck resulted from walking behind a fisherman, but this was not Nongatl belief. WIYOT Reported by Hewes.--30. Continence must be ob- served, otherwise an accident might befall a hunter or fisherman, or at least he would have bad luck. 31. A woman might not fish, handle, or step over a net, or take hold of fish lines. TOLOWA Reported by Hewes.--32. If a woman fishes alone-- without a boy along--she will likely die before the year is out. 33. While there was apparently no rule against eating venison with fish, there was a definite prohibition against eating bear meat with mussels. It was said that to do so would cause the mussels to disappear from the rocks: "the bear would scratch the mussels off the rocks." I i 107 ANTHROPOLOGICAL RECORDS 34. Women were not allowed around a fish weir. They Gifford and Kroeber (1937, p. 172) mention that amoi were not allowed to fish with a surf net, except that, if the Northern Pomo of Russian River, wood damaged by there was no man present big enough to fish, then a woodrats or birds must not be used in building a weir woman could use the net, provided she had a boy to help-- bad luck in fishing will result. no matter how small the boy was (2 to 3 years), he could Spier (1930, p. 148) shows that the Klamath have hold the "sack end" of the net. Apparently his male certain mourners' restrictions upon fishing and eating presence was all that was required. fish. Fish gall must be thrown back into the water. Mc other restrictions, however, are absent. He also men- NORTHERN POMO AND KLAMATH tions the absence of any salmon-heart magic. Going farther afield we find that every tribe probably had certain rules and restrictions. For example: CEREMONIES AGINSKY, 1943. N, P1. Miwok, p. 398. First Salmon rite. BARNETT, 1937. Tolowa, Chetco, p. 193; First Salmon rite, First Acorn rite, etc. BEALS, 1933. Nisenan, p. 354. First Salmon ceremony in north, not in south. DIXON, 1905. Maidu, p. 198; simple "First Salmon" ceremony; first salmon must be caught by shaman. , 1907. Shasta, p. 430; regulations concerning "First Salmon" and "Salmon Medicine." DRIVER, 1939. Tolowa, Karok, Yurok, Hupa. Mattole, Kato, pp. 314, 380. DRIVER and MASSEY, 1957. General statement concerning First Salmon Ceremony, p. 256, map 64. DU BOIS, 1935. Wintu, p. 15; no first salmon ceremony. GODDARD, 1903. Hupa, pp. 78, 79. GOLDSCHMIDT, 1951. Nomlaki, p. 408; "First Salmon" rite denied. GUNTHER, 1928. Pp. 129-173; general discussion of "First Salmon" and "First Fruits" ceremonies, including California tribes. HARRINGTON, 1932. Karok, pp. 7, 241-252; "Spring Salmon" ceremony; "World Renewal" ceremony with special reference to the importance of tobacco. HEWES, Th., 1947. Kato, p. 76; modified form of "First Salmon" ceremony. Yurok, p. 84; Kepel dam. Yurok, Hupa, Karok, p. 86; celebrate "First Salmon" ceremony jointly; relationship to "First Fruits" ceremony. HOLT, 1946. Shasta, p. 310. KROEBER, 1925. Yurok, pp. 53, 60; first salmon speared by shaman, eaten by his assistant. Kepel dam, p. 58. Yurok, Karok, Hupa, Yuki, pp. 53, 102, 134, 183; world renewal. Yurok, Karok, Shasta, Maidu, pp. 103, 294, 437; "First Salmon" rite. Achomawi, p. 313; a mild form of "First Salmon" ceremony. Hupa, p. 134; lamprey ceremony. , 1929. Nisenan, p. 273; first salmon caught in any new net had to be consumed completely. , 1932. Yuki, p. 371; no first salmon ceremony. KROEBER and GIFFORD, 1949. Karok, Hupa, Yurok, pp. 35-56, 59, 61, 99, 105, 116, 120, 124, 128; "First Salmon" ceremonies and myths of origin. LOEB, 1926. Pomo, p. 169. , 1932. Lake Miwok, pp. 123, 124. McCLELLAN, 1953. Wappo, p. 239; First Fruits Ceremony. NOMLAND, 1935. Sinkyone, pp. 153, 154; southernmost extension of First Salmon rite here meets the California acorn rite. POWERS, 1874. Shasta, Achomawi, p. 413; salmon ceremony. , 1877. Tolowa, Yurok, pp. 56, 57, 67; salmon ceremony. ROBERTS, 1932. Karok, pp. 426-440. SCHENCK and GIFFORD, 1952. Karok, p. 388; madroflo wood used to cook first salmon. SPIER, 1930. Klamath, p. 148; no "First Salmon" ceremony. First sucker ceremonially roasted at one certain spot. SPOTT and KROEBER, 1942. Yurok, pp. 171, 172, 175, 178, 179, 203; "First Salmon" rite. I I 108 109 KROEBER AND BARRETT: FISHING IN NORTHWESTERN CALIFORNIA THOMPSON, 1916. Pp. 44-54, 135-137; building of the fish dam at Kepel. "Laws of the Fish Dam." WATERMAN, 1920. Yurok, pp. 248, 249; town of Kepel and the ends of the fish dam located. WATERMAN and KROEBER, 1938. Yurok, pp. 49-80; the Kepel fish dam. MAP 54 rhe first-salmon, first-lamprey, first-acorn, and eral "first-fruits" rituals of the core tribes have fdescribed in Kroeber and Gifford's World Renewal ). Some such rite forms a feature in perhaps all kreater ceremonies of the core tribes, and in some Ils like the Karok one at Amaikiaram, it is perhaps ,al. Others, like the first-lamprey rite of the Hupa, seem to stand outside the specific complexes covered by the term "World Renewal." Among the marginal and more distant tribes which have not elaborated formal world renewals, a first- salmon rite is most widespread and important. This rite, as well as the first-salmon aspects within world renewals, are covered by the bibliography at the head of this section. CHAPTER X SHELLFISH We use the term "shellfish" rather than "mollusks" for this chapter heading because our discussion includes some minor food use of species of two or three other phyla: crustaceans, echinoderms, and perhaps coelen- terates. By far the greatest quantity of shellfish food was taken in salt water. Fresh water provided only crayfish and river "mussels" or "clams" (Unionidae). Inland tribes like the Hupa and Karok probably consumed many more mussels and other ocean foods, including surf fish and seaweed, than crayfish and river shellfish from their own territory, the ocean food being obtained by trade and by visits to the coast. Edible seaweed--Porphyra perforata--was gathered and dried wherever the coast was rocky. It was eate like a food, but also as a condiment, displacing salt among the coastal tribes. It could not be dissolved o seasoned into food, but flakes of the dried "leaves" l broken off and eaten between or with bites of acorn gruel. Surf fish served a similar purpose: one or twi of them on a small openwork tray were laid across tb top of the individual basket of acorn gruel served in to-do provident households. There are some gaps in recorded data concerning use of Porphyra seaweed--either in fact or in the rec (mostly Culture Element Survey listings)- -which Kro has discussed in his 1941 paper on "Salt, Dogs, Toba( MOLLUSKS BARRETT, 1952. Pomo, pp. 105, 106. DIXON, 1905. Maidu, p. 198; river mussels dived for. DRIVER, 1936. Wappo, pp. 184, 185; abalones, clams, mussels. , 1939. Tolowa, Yurok, Wiyot, Chilula, Mattole, Sinkyone, Coast Yuki, p. 310; shellfish poisoning. Mussels, clams eaten. Tolowa, Mattole, Coast Yuki ate octopus. DU BOIS, 1935. Wintu, p. 18; mussels and clams obtained from river bottom by diving. Roasted or boiled. Extras dried and stored. ESSENE, 1942. Pomo, Kato, Yuki, p. 4; mussel poisoning. GIFFORD, 1939. Coast Yuki, pp. 307-371, 326-328; various species of shellfish and other sea foods utilized. Pp. 337, 338; abalones and mussels pried off rocks with a special "abalone spatula." GIFFORD and KROEBER, 1937. Pomo, pp. 138, 178; shellfish poisoning. GOLDSCHMIDT, 1951. Nomlaki, p. 407; dive for clams in river. GREENGO, 1952. All northern California coastal tribes, pp. 63-114; review of sea foods. Pp. 85-90; shellfish poisoning discussed. HARRINGTON, 1942. Coastal tribes south of San Francisco, p. 8; mussel poison denied. HOLT, 1946. Shasta, p. 309; river mussels. KNIFFEN, 1939. Pomo, pp. 365, 378, 386; cascara chisel for abalones. KROEBER, 1932. River Patwin, p. 278; river mussels taken by diving. LOEB, 1926. Pomo, pp. 164, 165, 169, 182; mussels, barnacles, and other sea foods. LOUD, 1918. Pp. 275 ff.; goes into details concerning the kinds of shells encountered at the various mounds and archaeological sites about Humboldt Bay and vicinity. NOMLAND, 1935. Sinkyone, p. 154. , 1938. Mattole, p. 113. SOMMER et al., 1937. P. 553; shellfish poisoning. STEWART, 1943. Pomo, pp. 60, 61; sea foods. For mollusks, Hewes's somewhat scattering data are supplemented by Gifford's (1939) excellent information on a group at the edge of our area, the Coast Yuki, and especially by Greengo's 1952 monograph on Shellfish Foods of the California Indians, which gives data on the northwestern tribes. Greengo, in a second paper, treats the archaeological aspects of the subject (MS, 1951). All these tribes used the various shellfish availabl Those living along the immediate coast line had an ab dant supply at all times and they dried them, not only use in winter, but also as an article of barter with th people living farther back in the mountains. Freque mention is made of this barter. The interior people made trips to the coast where they were permitted to [110] i i -1 KROEBER AND BARRETT: FISHING IN NORTHWESTERN CALIFORNIA lect shellfish and other sea foods for themselves on beaches and rocks of their friendly neighbors. buch the most important species in the northwest is 'large ocean mussel, Mytilus californianus, which Os to nine inches long. It lives on rocks exposed to ide, and the largest specimens are likely to be on ore sea stacks. This large mussel was important in northwest also especially for its shell, pieces of its serving as the principal material of the cutting blades d on to the stone handles of adzes. ilus edulis, a world-wide species in the northern Iisphere and important on the Atlantic coast, grows in ornia to only half its eastern size, or to about two es, and does not thrive in the open surf but needs ered bay water. Its most abundant occurrence is on Francisco and Humboldt bays, the latter bay held Iy by the Wiyot. wo species of Haliotis or abalone furnished solid and the opalescent shell was in demand for orna- s. Abalones were quantitatively important for food cially from Monterey Bay south, but were still abun- on the Pomo and Yuki coast. North of Shelter Cove thin out, and beyond Trinidad and Patrick Point they r only sporadically, if at all. The Yurok and Tolowa well aware that dentalium shell comes to them from orth, abalone from the south. lams live in sand, mud, or fine gravel and are there- in most characteristic use in our area among the , whose entire ocean frontage is low and sandy, eas other northwestern groups have beaches only in s, bars, and other short stretches. The principal ies of clams are the razor (Siliqua patula), bent- (Macoma nasuta), rock, hard-shell, or Tomales clam (Protothasa staminea), horse-neck (Schizo- us nutallii), basket or heart-cockle (Clinocardium, erly Cardium corbis), and the Washington clam domus nuttallii), this last the source of the shell- money of Coast Miwok and Pomo type, which pene- to the northwest only very rarely, and then for entation, dentalia replacing it as currency. e large hard-shell Pismo clam, Tivela stultorum, not reach Northwest California, its limit being San Francisco. e small, native, west coast oyster (Ostrea lurida), erly of consequence in San Francisco Bay, should occurred also in Humboldt Bay, but does not seem ye attained primary importance there. paralyzing poison, occurring especially in mussels, e to a dinoflagellate form of plankton, Gonyaulax ella. When this species becomes disproportionately rous, as indicated by redness or rustiness of the water and luminescence at night in summer, the els, storing the poison in their livers, are not them- s harmed but can become lethal to warm-blooded is eating them. The northwest coastal Indians were aware of this poisoning. Many of them believe, as me whites, that deep-water mussels are safe, since ison is the result of mussel exposure to the sun at ide. The fisheries laboratory investigators deny atly. It is therefore to be presumed that Indians aining that in their habitat mussels did not become ous if taken below low-water line, were favored by formations of the coast less favorable to strong ulation of the dangerous Gonyaulax. This interest- int is gone into in detail below, from the native of view. e California mussel is the chief source of danger, appearing to be somewhat protected by living (though the razor and Pismo clam show some in- fection), and bay and estuary species by the fact that Gonyaulax does not flourish in these waters. The abalone, though on open-sea rocks, seems immune. Greengo (1952) gives a convenient recent summary of this whole topic, with references. Driver in his 1939 element survey found every coastal group from Tolowa to Coast Yuki aware of mussel poison- ing. Occasional Pomo informants denied knowledge of poisoning to Gifford and Kroeber in 1937, and of those who knew, several maintained that mussels taken in deep water were safe. We list the recorded instances of this deep-water safety proviso being mentioned by Indians: Tolowa (Hewes, F.N., 1940) Coast Yurok, and again Trinidad (same) Wiyot (Greengo, 1952, p. 87) Mattole (Hewes, F.N., 1940), at the Mattole R.; (reiterated by Greengo, 1952, p. 88) Coast Yuki (Gifford, 1939, p. 315) N. Pomo (Stewart, 1943, p. 60) C. Pomo (Gifford and Kroeber, 1937, p. 178) Greengo points out that the reddening of the water in the daytime and its luminescence at night were well known to at least some of the Coast Indians, and were utilized as a safety factor. He says, in fact (MS, 1951, p. 48), quoting Meyer: From time immemorial it has been the custom among coast tribes of Indians, particularly the Pomo, to place sentries on watch for Kal ko-o (mussel poison). Luminescence of the waves, which appeared rarely and then only during very hot weather, caused shell- fishing to be forbidden for two days; those eating shellfish caught at such times suffered sickness and death (personal communication from Dr. John W. Hudson, Ukiah). SPECIFIC TRIBAL DATA Yurok.--According to Hewes (F.N., 1940) mussels were good at Trinidad all the year round [sic]. None [of the largest size?] were to be found on the inshore rocks, but at a very low-lying group of rocks, called Pilot Rock [a long half-mile due south of Trinidad Head: Waterman, 1920a, map 33, no. 18, Yulpets] or Mussel Rock, they were especially abundant. They were taken there when- ever the tide was low enough. [Possibly the Gonyaulax plankton was less abundant so far out at sea.] In gathering both clams and mussels silence was im- posed. Almost all the rocks near the mouth of the Klamath River had mussels. Such rocks were specially named, such as Kimtku, a rock four miles north, and Micikoma, a rock a mile south. Both these rocks had good mussels, but they were found at such depths that they had to be gathered from canoes. [Neither rock can be identified from Waterman, 1920a, Rectangle A, B, nor can Segwok mentioned in the next paragraph.] Another rock, Segwok, two miles north of the river mouth, had mussels which must not be eaten. Informants said that "it was against the rule," but perhaps the locality was liable to summer poison. Hewes's informants stated that near Trinidad a few abalones (Haliotis sp.) were gathered at Patrick Point, but only at the very lowest tide of the year in August. George Mahats told Kroeber that along the ocean I ill 112 ANTHROPOLOGICAL REC-ORDS shore mussels are small. The farther out one can get them, the bigger and better they are. "I twice went out from Orekw to Redding Rock for mussels." The "only" kind of shells dug out of the sand with sticks are the small clams called sekwusa. These do not occur on the coast in the vicinity of Big Lagoon, but are found only north of Omen. Spott on Yurok ( and Tolowa) use of shells for wear. -- No meat of shells worn as beads or on the body, or having trade value, was eaten by the Yurok. This holds for dentalia, small and large olivellas, small clams, mostly for abalone, and for the clams which were ground into perforated disks or buttons. On the other hand mus- sels, clams of edible size, and tritons were not used for ornament. Dentalium shells used as money came from the far north. Occasionally pieces of dentalium would be found on the beach and were called a-srarul. They consisted only of upper or open ends. The diameter was that of a large shell, but they were mere fragments, an inch or less long [and therefore valueless as money; and they were too few to amount to anything as necklace beads]. Only Spott's father, Captain Spott, once found a whole one at Smetskeu weroi, the creek at the north end of Enderts beach, 3/4 mile south of Nek'el, Nickel or Cushion Creek [in Tolowa territory]. He found that this shell brought him good luck for gambling, but not for more wealth or money. Small olivella univalves, turrk, were washed up alive at Trinidad and at Tolowa Crescent City. They were not found on the coast near the mouth of the Klamath. They were killed in heated sand. One end was rubbed off on a stone, they were strung, and used chiefly as necklaces. They were low-value. A bunch of strings of them about 1-1/2 inches in diameter [this would be around 10 strings,presumably], each string reaching from the nape of the neck to the navel [and back up again?], was traded for a capful of shelled acorns (wenipi) full to the rim. [This seems an incredibly low price for the shells; it suggests that Crescent City was acorn-hungry.] However, the upriver Karok would pay a good price for olivellas. Similar univalves, an inch or longer, were called "olivella's grandmother," tu'rrk-u-kuttsos. Small clam shells used for decorating women's dresses were called sekwse', in distinction from the large clams, sekwso', which were eaten (fresh, not dried). They occurred only at certain places on Tolowa beaches, and reportedly on Wiyot and farther shores, around Eel River or beyond. Among the Tolowa they were found on both flanks of a gentle sand spit called Omig south of Crescent City; at Pebble Beach, Sohtsai, northwest of Crescent City; and most abundantly at Knaawi, Point St. George. Mostly they were got in the seventh month, tsewerhsik, seventh after the winter solstice, viz. (July-) August], when the very low tides come. The shells of the dead clams [about the size of a dime or nickel] were washed up singly, never in attached pairs. A few came with a round hole below the hinge; the rest were given a similar hole by holding the point of a finger inside and rubbing the hinge through against a rough stone. Women gathered them by going down to the beach in the morning, following the tide out, and stirring the sand a few inches down with a stick. In a good place they might get 3 or 4, or 6, or even up to 10, in a morning; if the luck or lo- cation was not so good, they might find only 1 or 2. However, these little clams were valuable. For the larger ones, $20 was given for a string a cubit long, the shells nested spoon-fashion. For the smaller size, the string reached 2 or 3 inches above the elbow. They came I in, or were graded into, two sizes: the larger onesw sewn onto the waist or belt of the dress, the smaller: on its "apron" or skirt. They were dyed in alder ba steeped in warm water in a basket. This procedure brought out their sheen, which showed reddish agains the brown of the buckskin dress. Women's mussel sh spoons were dyed in the same solution to bring out th opalescence in the sun and to redden them. Abalone (Haliotis) were called yererner. These w cut (sawed) with an edge of rough rock, often more or less three-cornered like a steel file, into pendants on women's dresses. The very large ones were called pegerk wer-yer, "man's his abalone," and a pair of shells might be laid on top of a man's grave, where a woman would have baskets. Abalone was valuable an came from the south. None grew north of Patrick Po a few were found there; [the Wiyot sandy coast would have this rock-creeping form]; and most of them ca from south of Eel River. [These statements, plus the Spott generalization t mollusks which were worn were not eaten, further co firm the doubt which we have expressed as to the stat ment recorded by Hewes that the Karok received eno dried abalone meat to be eager customers for it. We suspect the informant confused shell and meat. Most the abalones reaching the Karok would have come fro as far as the Bear and Mattole River coasts, at least, and would have been passed on through Nongatl (or W Whilkut, and Hupa hands. Valuable shells would have been much more likely to make this several-step travi than packets of rather tough dried meat.] Plegepil were buttons or perforated disks of clam shell of Pomo-Coast Miwok type, a few of which reacb the Yurok from the south [apparently always as finish manufactures, never the raw material]. They had two uses: girls wore them strung on the neck; and they w strung on the buckskin fringe strands of dresses abo the abalone or other pendants. Women's dresses, muntsel, were of three types of ornamentation: 1. sek-suin, with sekwse' clam shells sewn on the body. These normally had pendants on the fringes alsq most often of abalone. 2. plegepil-sun, with clam disk beads on the fringe. These were more valuable. 3. Most valuable were soktop (upper river Yurok) serkterip (lower river) ne-mu'n, dresses with obsidian prisms a few inches long. These prisms had bits of notches pressure-flaked near the upper end, for attach ment to the fringe. The prisms came from the Karok; abalone was likely to be traded for them. [The abalonE is more resplendent, but the glass-on-glass clank of th valuable stone fascinated the Indians. One of these obsidian-fringed dresses was obtained among the Karo in 1902 by Kroeber for the American Museum of Natur History.] The tinkling of the pendants, whether of ob- sidian, shell, or American coins and thimbles, is calla wilo6kwits in Yurok; plegepil mel-elau wil6lkwits meai "disk shell beads among the rattling fringes." Karok.--Hewes says that sea foods were not much used. Dried surf fish, abalones, and mussels were brought up from the coast on occasion. Of these, mus sels (tsugilc) were the most esteemed. Abalones were very hard to cut and were little used. [We suspect tha the Karok were more interested in abalone shell than meat, except as an occasional curiosity.] Greengo (1952, p. 80) discusses Karok use of river mussels. Tolowa.--According to Hewes (F.N., 1940) mussels I t 1.I 11 1,I I KROEBER AND BARRETT: FISHING IN NORTHWESTERN CALIFORNIA e pried off the rocks with a sharp stick, and were en fresh or were dried either in the sun or over a , When eaten fresh, they were simply roasted in ir shells by laying them on the hot coals. If, however, rge company was to be provided for, two or three *kets of the freshly collected mussels were spread, in their shells, on a rack of green sticks built over re and there roasted. Dried mussels were first soaked over night and then bed by stone boiling in baskets. lCams were found in the sandy beaches, and also in kets of sand in crevices in the small rocks along the uth of Smith River. They could be eaten the year nd but could be gathered only at low tide. The two Fvailing kinds were horse and razor clams [probably diothaerus and Siliqua]. Clams were roasted in the Ps and eaten fresh. If there was an oversupply they ke dried for winter use. Along the immediate shore y could be sun-dried without fear of flies. Otherwise y were dried on the rack over the fire in the dwelling, ~re the smoke protected them. The Tolowa said that abalones did not occur on their t. There were, however, found here two types of ble snail. One was a white snail found abundantly on beach, especially in the spring. Snails were boiled Dle. In native times the shells were broken to get at meat. Nowadays they are pulled out of the shell with bharp instrument. Mattole. --Hewes (F.N., 1940) was told that mussels t e good at the Mattole at any time of year, although ?etimes unsafe at other points, because there was Ither "red water" nor luminescence at the mouth of -Mattole. There was no taboo against talking while gathering 3ssels. Mussels were cooked, then sun-dried and strung on strings and simply hung up in the house for storage. People from the interior came for sea foods, among which dried mussels were important. Clams were similarly handled, as were also abalones. Clams were not too plentiful in ancient times. They were dug at low tide along the bar at the mouth of the river. They were almost always roasted in the coals; only one informant mentioned that they were sometimes eaten raw. Abalones were pried off the rocks with a chisel-shaped stick of hard wood about as long as one's forearm. The chisel end of this pry was further hardened in the fire. It was called yaltcwi. The abalones were roasted in the ashes or were buried in a shallow underground oven on top of which a fire was built in order to cook them. Here they remained till the abalone meat was thoroughly cooked and "as soft and tender as a biscuit," and this without any pounding. These were then taken out and the sand removed. For winter use they were dried in large quantities. Limpets [probably Acmaea] were eaten, either raw or cooked. What the informant called "water snails" [cf. Tolowa] were never eaten raw. They were cooked by boiling or by roasting in the ashes. They were cooked in the shells, which were cracked only as they were eaten. Sinkyone.--According to Nomland (1935, p. 154), abalones were taken by prying them off the rocks with a "cascara stick sharpened at one end." They might be smoked in the drying process. They were sometimes pounded and sun-dried, as were also clams and mussels. Coast Yuki, Pomo.--Gifford (1939, pp. 307, 311) gives a long list of mollusks and other sea species utilized by the Coast Yuki. Stewart (1943, pp. 60, 61) goes into much detail on the sea foods of the Pomo. CRUSTACEANS BARRETT, 1952. Pomo, p. 107. DRIVER, 1936. Wappo, p. 184; crabs. DU BOIS, 1935. Wintu, p. 18; mussels and clams obtained from rivers by diving. Roasted or broiled. Dried for winter use. GIFFORD, 1939. Coast Yuki, pp. 310, 325, 326. LOEB, 1926. Pomo, pp. 164, 165; lobsters netted at low tide. Snails. NOMLAND, 1935. Sinkyone, p. 154; crabs, river crayfish caught by hand. , 1938. Mattole, p. 113; crabs caught with baited net. SPIER, 1930. Klamath, p. 154; crayfish boiled. STEWART, 1943. Pomo, pp. 60, 61; sea foods. In fresh water, river and creek crayfish were the only stacea available. In salt water, two species of Cancer--antennarius and oductus--were chiefly taken, according to Greengo , p. 7), from pools among the rocks at low tide. e present-day market crab, Cancer magister, is rare the intertidal zone, but it "may have been taken oc- ionally." This coincides with Kroeber's general collection. The two accounts of crab taking are from Tolowa, in tidal pools, and from the sandy-shored I estuarine Wiyot, who used a lifting basket of the sort t the Karok and Shasta had for crayfish. Barnacles, both Balanus and Mitella, are sessile salt- water crustaceans, and are mentioned by Greengo (1952, p. 66) as considerably used in California. He cites ac- counts from Loeb (1926) and Stewart (1943) of gathering and hot-ash cooking of barnacles by the Pomo, and of building fires on top of beds of them exposed on flat rocks by low tide--a method known also to the Kwakiutl. The only Northwest California reference to the use of barnacles is by Greengo (1952, p. 81), who says that the Yurok cooked pig's foot barnacles (Mitella polymerus) in hot sand. :- II ,C 113 114 ANTHROPOLOGICAL RECORDS SALT-WATER CRABS: TRIBAL DATA Hewes attributes to the Wiyot a trap for crabs similar to that of the Karok for crayfish. A shallow plate-form basket has strings fastened to its edges so that it will remain level. It is weighted with a stone or two, is baited with meat or fish, and is lowered into salt water. If raised carefully, the crabs on the basket are not fright- ened "and may be easily picked off by hand" [sic]. It is interesting that this one report of a trap for salt-water crabs comes from the still-water Wiyot. The other ocean-fronting tribes seem to have got their crabs chiefly from tidal pools among the rocks. The Tolowa told Hewes that they caught crabs in pools at low tide. A torch was used if they were hunted at night. Large crabs use their pincers for defense, but if held belly up they are helpless. They are usually thrown into a burden basket as caught. They are cooked in the hot ashes and sand of the fire. FRESHWATER CRAYFISH: TRIBAL DATA Hewes's (F.N., 1940) informants stated that the Yurok sometimes caught crayfish (keriker) by fastening a piece of salmon into the end of a string which was tied to a pole. Other Yurok mentioned a similar device, but used, instead of a piece of salmon, a ball of what they called "Bald Hills grass." The crayfish "held tightly" onto the fibers of this ball [could not disengage their claws or legs fast enough] and were easily pulled out of the water. They said that crayfish were frequently caught by hand at the water's edge. I The Karok used a pole and string baited with salm gills. Also a bunch of salmon gills were tied above or in a basket set beside or under a rock, and the feeding crayfish lifted with the basket [as also per Gifford's fuller account in the next paragraph]. They were also caught by hand. When roasted in the ashes, they beca deep red. According to Gifford, the Karok called the crayfish xanson. It was caught and eaten chiefly by children an old people: a large openwork plate-form basket, calle imvarum, had a four-foot stick rigged to its center so that the basket would remain horizontal when lowered; into a still place in the river; on the basket were sal gills as bait. After crayfish had been lured aboard, th basket was lifted quickly. They were cooked in hot co the small amount of meat eaten, and the shells strung used as playthings by children. Among the Tolowa, according to Hewes, crayfish (nile-metaka'acu's) were caught by hand under rocks in streams, usually while people were swimming. They were cooked either in the ashes or in the underground oven. The Mattole said that crayfish were abundant uprive but were not found in the brackish water at the mouth their river. Crayfish were trapped by the Shasta, according to Hewes, on a plate-form basket used as Gifford describ for the Karok, except that several strings were attache to its edges instead of a stick to the center, and a ston was laid on it with bait, in about four feet of water in t evening. After ten or fifteen minutes it was pulled gent: to the surface. The crayfish were boiled in a basket. ECHINODERMS AND COELENTERATES The eggs or gonads of the sea urchin Strongy- locentrotus purpuratus were eaten raw by the Tolowa, Wiyot, and Pomo, according to Greengo (1952, p. 76), confirmed for the Pomo by Omer Stewart (1943, p. 60). Nomland (1938, p. 113) adds the Bear River. Kroeber seems to have no record for the Yurok, but this is presumably an accident of non-mention. Somewhat similar is the use of a sea anemone, Cribrina xanthogrammica, according to Greengo (1952, p. 81), which however seems always to have been cooked. The first references are from Pomo and Coast Yuki, and it may have been a more frequent food there than farthe4 north. The citations are: Pomo, Loeb, 1926, p. 164; an Omer Stewart, 1943, p. 60 (dried, soaked, warmed); Coast Yuki, Gifford, 1939, p. 328 (in hot ashes); Wiyot, Greengo, 1952, p. 82 (sliced and fried, doubtful whether pre-Caucasian [certainly frying was not]); Tolowa, Greengo, 1952, p. 82 (on live coals); mentioned also by Drucker (1937, p. 231). Again the Yurok are lacking-- whether because of greater choosiness or from an acci-* dental gap in the record is not clear. CHAPTER XI SEA MAMMALS PROPERTY RIGHTS IN SEA MAMMALS ; Sea mammals, especially sea lions, were regularly unted by the groups on the coast, and sometimes by eople living farther back, when they made summer ourneys to the coast for surf fish, sea birds, seaweed, d especially sea mammals. The sea lions were found -rticularly in their regular rookeries on the outlying cks. So important were these that many rocks or Foups of rocks were particularly owned, and the claims sssed on by inheritance or payment, like salmon eddies long the rivers. There is however no known case of sea-lion rookeries sing owned exclusively by a single family. While it was matter of prestige to have a claim to sealing rights on hegreat Redding Rock (as per Waterman, 1920a, map 3), oany families held the same claim with equal legitimacy. Por all we know, everyone born and living in sight of edding Rock had some rights to its mussels and sea tons. Quite probably this was taken for granted; it was hen an inlander like Waterman's Ko'tep informant ppened, through some ancestors from the coast or rhaps by settlement for an injury, to share in the right at it became a matter of boast and prestige. The same holds even more clearly for rights to cached whales. Evervone in a specified stretch of coast (except for the few slaves and bastards) had a right to some cut of a whale. Residents of other shore stretches and inlanders did not have such a right, unless by traceable descent or remembered legal transaction. All that the "big man" had was a right to the dorsal fin or to the first cut or to priority of a cut of a certain size. Pride in this inherited privilege no doubt might lead him to say that he "owned" the whale; but this must not be exaggerated into a right to grant or withhold a share arbitrarily. Every household in the stretch shared. Waterman (1920a, p. 221) speaks of certain tumplines kept as evidence of right to cuts of whales stranded in specified stretches of shore, and adds that "sea lion clubs, etsqwo-ui-pr' qr-m, also, were looked upon as a sort of outward and visible sign of partnership in sealing- rocks. Certain of these clubs were handed down as heir- looms." The emphasis must be put on "partnership" as well as on heirlooms. Driver (1939, p. 314) aptly sums up the situation when for his traits 291-293 he says that among Tolowa, Yurok, Wiyot, and Mattole each beach was owned by the local group, that a stranded whale was communal property, but that certain parts of the animal were owned by individuals. PINNI PEDS BARNETT, 1937. Tolowa, Chetco, p. 164; club and harpoon used. BARRETT, 1952. Pomo, p. 187; seal spear. BENNYHOFF, 1950. Pp. 300, 301; classified forms. Quotes several authors concerning use for sea mammals. CURTIS, 1924a. Coast Yurok, Wiyot, Tolowa, pp. 39, 73, 99. DRIVER, 1937. Tolowa, Yurok, Wiyot, Mattole, p. 314; harpoon with 2-3 unilateral barbs. Tolowa, Yurok, Wiyot, Mattole, Sinkyone, Kato, Coast Yuki, p. 314; sea-lion club. Coast Yurok, Mattole, p. 314; sea- lion gaff. Tolowa, Wiyot, Mattole, Coast Yuki, pp. 314, 380; pursue sea lion in canoe. Yurok, p. 380; harpoon with redwood float for sea mammals. DRUCKER, 1937. Tolowa, p. 237; despatching dart used with harpoon; fig. 2, sea-lion club. GIFFORD, 1939. Coast Yuki, pp. 318, 319; sea lions, common seals, fur seals: all taken on rocks with harpoon, club, or bow and arrow. Also while asleep on the water. Club made of tan oak or yew. Pp. 335, 336, and figs. 6, 7; bilaterally barbed sea-mammal harpoon obtained from the north. HEWES, 1942. Coast Yurok, fig. 34, b, p. 106; sea-lion harpoon. , Th., 1947. Wiyot, Yurok, Tolowa, pp. 80, 83, 87, and fig. 104. KROEBER, 1925. P. 816; general statement concerning harpoons for sea mammals. Yurok, p. 86; hunter uses disguise. Harpoon with unilaterally barbed, toggle head. Wounded animal followed in canoe. LOEB, 1926. Pomo, pp. 169, 182. NOMLAND, 1935. Sinkyone, p. 153; sea lions and seals speared from canoes. Cascara wood club. Oil stored in kelp bottles. Used as food and medicine. , 1938. Mattole, p. 111. OLSON, 1936. Quinault, pp. 44-49; whales, sea lions, seals, sea otter. [1151 ANTHROPOLOGICAL RECORDS SPOTT and KROEBER, 1942. Yurok, pp. 182, 183; sea-lion flipper rights for one house defined. Details of transmission of flipper rights. WATERMAN, 1920a. Yurok, pp. 220, 221; hunting and rights. MAPS 71, SPECIES While no whales, large or small, seem to have been pursued, all the pinnipeds available were taken by the Northwest California coast Indians. Though this activity might properly be classed as hunting, it is here treated along with fishing since it concerns the sea, boats, and harpooning instead of bow and arrow or snare. So far as food is concerned, the sea lion was much the most important of the pinnipeds. Both the California and the larger Steller sea lion occur on this coast, and were distinguished by the Indians. The Yurok call the Cali- fornia species etskwo', the rarer Steller form numi-'ets. It is the latter, seemingly, or the male fur seal, whose canine tusks were worked into the hooks worn around the forehead by two performers in the Deerskin Dance (God- dard, 1903, pl. 30; Kroeber and Gifford, 1949, pl. 2, c). In fact, the Yurok tell of a still larger sea lion, but he came from the dentalium ocean in the north, swam to the sea of pitch in the south, ascended the Klamath as far as Salmon River, and is obviously a creature of fantasy and myth. They further tell of a third sort of sea lion, a real animal which they used to hunt, called kwer'eri. It was brown (whereas the numi-'ets was whitish, that is, light- colored). This animal was the fur seal, which used to visit the coast between breeding seasons at the Pribi- loffs. The common or harbor seal, which belongs to a dif- ferent suborder of pinnipeds from the sea lions, fur seals, eared seals, and walruses, and whose Yurok name tskweges, may be etymologically related to the etskwo' of the sea lion, was disliked by the Yurok for its stealing of salmon out of nets and was misprized. Accounts differ whether all the Yurok or only those near the mouth of the Klamath refused to eat seals; the Tolowa and the Wiyot to the north and south of the Yurok did eat them. The sea otter, Yurok wohpunika', "across the ocean blanket," is strictly a member of the carnivores rather than of the pinnipeds, though it comes to land less than sea lions. Its fur was highly prized, but the Russians must have made it very scarce along the northern coas of California even before the Americans came in 1850. In fact, Heizer and Mills (1952, p. 193) give Tikhmene4 as authority for the statement that by 1817 the sea otte had been exterminated from Trinidad to the vicinity of San Francisco Bay. Ogden (1941), however, states that these furs were taken in small numbers at various poi along the California coast even as late as 1848. The Tolowa seem to have taken most sea otters, and the Wiyot, with their sandy coast, fewer than the Yurok Along the Bear and Mattole rivers' coast, the numbers apparently picked up once more. (See also our stateme below on the Mattole methods of taking sea otters.) The Tolowa told Hewes that the fur seal was former found in considerable numbers. They were usually sho with the bow and arrow, or were clubbed when found ashore. They were used, like other species of seals, food. Of the sea otter, Hewes's Mattole informants said this long, beautifully pelaged animal was formerly abun dant. They were most easily taken while asleep on the rocks which jut up out of the water offshore, or as they dozed and floated on the surface of the ocean. A good hunter would swim out to a rock with his bow and arrow If the wounded animal succeeded in reaching the water,, it would sink, but its location could be discovered by th blood rising to the surface. If it could be retrieved or it did not sink, it was towed ashore. A sea otter, floating asleep on the surface, might easily be mistaken for a sea lion, it was so long. Its fur was the finest possible and was not used by common people. The meat was not eaten because [sic] this "ric fur" belonged to people of rank and wealth. The attitudes toward these sea mammals are reflecti in the Yurok narratives of Spott and Kroeber (1942, pp. 152, 182, 189, 191, 240, 241, 242). SEA-LION HUNTING YUROK Account by George Mahats of Big Lagoon.-- Our people ate sea lions, etskuk, but not seals, tskweges. Sea lions were hunted on the rocks, about six men going out in a boat. Three or four of these might bring deerskin blankets, or sometimes a bear- skin because some sea lions are black. These men landed on the rock to act like sea lions and attract them; the others stayed in the boat, off to one side, out of sight. Sometimes they made a fire on the rock to keep warm. When those left there saw sea lions coming, they began to sway and crawl and shout like them, to persuade the sea lions to come up close. Meanwhile they got their harpoons ready; and when a sea lion was near enough, all the men cast their harpoons at the same time. Sometimes only one would strike, but the harpoons which missed mostly fell into the ocean and floated. The sea lion would drag off whatever harpoon he was struck by. Then the boat came close to the stack and took off the hunters, and they looked about for the sea lion to emerge. Sometimes he stayed under a long time; or only the harpoon shaft rose to the top. Then they paddled to that, caught it, and pulled on the line. Tw of the men in the boat stood ready with more spears [more harpoons or different dispatching spears?]. Sometimes the animal had to be struck five times before it was killed. Besides the two spearmen, another man had to be ready to hand them a new spear. As it was dangerous to hand it to them with the point forward, it was held crosswise of the boat. Usually they did not attempt to harpoon large sea lions when the sun was getting low, because the big ones took a long time to kill, and sometimes dragged" 1 16 KROEBER AND BARRETT: FISHING IN NORTHWESTERN CALIFORNIA the boat far out into the ocean, hiw8pik, and then the sun would go down on them. Morning was the right time to spear big ones, because it might take up to half a day to kill them. A good-sized sea lion cannot be taken into the boat; holes were punched through its lips and flippers, and then it was towed back to land. Sea lions were not skinned, but the hide was cut up and distributed with the meat. The hair was singed off and then the skin part of the cut was generally put away as a reserve against emergencies, because it kept indefinitely without spoiling. In time of famine it would be got out and eaten. The sea-lion harpoon shaft is called we-tserher. The harpoon line is wound around it. The harpoon head is known as wer-'umerh and is made of elk horn. There are two barbs, one behind the other, along the same edge. The point is of flint or obsidian. The dispatching spear is called u-wo^ptsits. It is like an arrow, but larger; no attempt was made to pull it out. There is "another kind of sea lion" called kwererl. These are hunted like the etskuk sea lions, but are hard to find and to get. [This is not a mythical animal but the fur seal: the informant said he had killed them.] It is from the kwererl that the large canine teeth were taken which were worn on headbands in the Deerskin Dance. The females are said to have been killed after they had given birth. [This must refer to the Steller sea lion, since fur seals give birth only on the Pribi- loffs.] The skin was used in the same way as that of the etskuk sea lions. The oil was tried out and kept in the oparaw [stomach]. The kwererl meat has not much oil when it is fresh, but just before it spoils it is full of oil. This was boiled [?] out. [There may have been confusion for this kwererl between the fur seal and the Steller sea lion.] Hewes data. --Hunters on shore watched, particularly low tide. When sea lions "dived backwards" [that is, ersaulted or leaped out of the water, belly up], it was d, they did not see you. Then a hunter who was es- cially skillful with the harpoon ran quickly down to the re and harpooned the animal. Several men were re- ed to man the 30- to 60-ft. line to hold the animal bring it in to shore. Hewes (F.N., 1940) describes the Yurok sea-lion poon as quite short, only about four or five feet long. *e fig. 46.) The harpoon head was socketed into the ward end of this shaft. The point or head was of bone elk antler and usually carried two barbs placed uni- erally. If the harpoon head was of the detachable type, line was fastened to it either by a hole in the head or held by means of a unilateral line guard. To it was urely fastened some seventy or eighty feet of stout e. This line was wound for a few turns around the harpoon shaft, the balance of the line, in sea hunting, being coiled in the canoe. When the sea lion was harpooned, the harpoon head, if socketed, came off the shaft and the men held the line and let the animal tow the canoe. If the harpoon had a fixed head, the shaft was much longer, about ten feet, and the line was fastened to the shaft about midway of its length. Following was made easier by a fin or vane at the butt of the shaft, which had a tendency to stand out of water and serve as a kind of buoy. This fin was usually about an inch in thickness, as much as four or five inches in width and up to a foot in length. (See fig. 47.) The canoe was always manned by at least two and sometimes as many as four or five hunters. The prow was occupied by the harpooner. Not only was he experi- enced, but he was frequently the leader and had under- gone about ten days of special preparation: singing special songs, abstaining from water, and eating only dried salmon and acorn products. Upon his faithful ad- herence to these regulations depended the success of the hunt. None of the other participants were required to join in the preparations. Sea lions (and seals) were sometimes harpooned in the water but more frequently on one or another of the rocks where they came out to sun themselves. Such spots were Redding Rock (sekw6na) (about 6 mi. offshore near Orick), Red Rock (about 4 mi. offshore near Trini- dad), and certain flat rocks off Patrick Point (6olem). One of these is a sea stack, called numi' ahag, about three miles off Patrick Point. The people of Rekwoi went to what is now known as Four-mile Rock (kim'tko) about four miles north of the mouth of Klamath River. [None of these except Redding Rock is identifiable in Water- man's maps.] On these rocks the animals had to be approached with great stealth. No noise was made and the approach was always upwind. The harpooner had to be prepared to make an accurate cast at a range sometimes as great as thirty feet. The aim was always for some point in the thorax. When struck, the animal immediately took to the water. One or more of the men in the canoe held the harpoon line. The steersman kept the boat on an even keel. And the animal towed the boat at will, usually out toward the open sea and sometimes "even out of sight of land." [This perhaps refers to fog blotting out the shore.] Only when the animal became exhausted and rested on the surface did the paddlers head back toward land, towing the wounded animal [?] or its carcass. The journey back to shore sometimes required, it is said, as much as four or five days [! sic; perhaps hours are meant] and was, of course, fraught with considerable danger. Tradition states that some cases of drowning are known. [See Spott and Kroeber, 1942, narrative no. 5.] The only means of steering a course back to land Fig. 46. Sea-lion harpoon with detachable head. Yurok. After Hewes (F.N., 1940 and Th., 1947, figs. 105-107). Fig. 47. Sea-lion harpoon with fixed head. Yurok. After Hewes (F.N., 1940). --m p c f, I 117 118 ANTHROPOLOGICAL RECORDS was through reckoning direction by the sun, except that the people on shore kept a beacon fire burning as an assist for night travel if the canoe was within sight of land. [We regard these statements as exaggerated as to distance and duration. Kroeber was told by the Yurok that they tried to harpoon in the morning so that even if towed out to sea they might return before the afternoon wind blew up, and a return after dark was surely re- garded as dangerous.] Hewes's informants said that it was impossible to club a harpooned sea lion: it could not be brought close enough. Shooting it with bow and arrow was difficult because of the thick and tough skin. [For "impossible" we would read "unwise." A Yurok told Kroeber that sometimes large sea lions attacked the boat, in which case they might have to be clubbed off.] Another method of hunting sea lions on these rocks was for the spearman to go onto a rock, disguised with a mask. His body was covered with a coat of yellow paint and on his head he wore the head of a sea lion as a mask. He lay down at the edge of the rock and imitated the motions and sounds of the sea lion till one of the animals swam in close enough to the rock to be harpoon- ed. [Note there is no mention here of creeping close to the sea lions on their rocks, only of harpooning them as they swam by.] Seals did not congregate in large numbers in rooker- ies as did sea lions, but they did come out on certain rocks and perhaps cove beaches to doze and sun them- selves. The Coast Yurok said that they rarely harpooned sea lions on the rocks; the animals' clumsiness made it easier for the hunter to overtake and knock them out with a heavy club six or seven feet long, according to one statement. Such a club was wielded with both hands, and even then two or three blows might be necessary to dis- patch an animal. According to Hewes, this implement must be distinguished from the one-handed short club, like a fishing club, used from canoes when an exhausted animal was brought alongside. However, when sea lions, and seals too, pursued fish into the estuaries and up into the Klamath, especially at night, harpooning was the only recour se and would be resorted to in protection of nets as well as for the sea- lion meat. Sea lions would run upriver in pursuit of fish at night as far as Terwer or, according to another in- formant, to Turip, about seven miles. They could be heard roaring, but always returned to the ocean before day. One informant described a small dispatching dart used after the harpoon. This dart (see fig. 48) was simi- lar to the har poon, but much shorter, though it had the fin or vane at the butt to make it go straight. The long Fig. 48. Sea-lion dispatching dart. Yurok. After Hewes (F.N., 1940). slender head (okneget) was socketed into the end of the dart. The dart was provided, just above the butt, with a line 25 to 30 feet in length. When such a dart was placed in the animal (whether by thrusting or by throwing was not stated), the line was jerked and the shaft retrieved. A new head was inserted and the dart used again. The hunter carried a number of extra heads, and he might have with him an extra dart shaft or two, in case of breakage. I Finally, when the animal was sufficiently spent so tha it could be brought up near the canoe, the death blow was given by the short club, perker, of the sort mentioned by Waterman. Archaeological evidence.--Heizer (1951) found at archaeological site Hum-118 at Patrick Point "a large number" and on Cone or Sea Gull rock (Hum-174, a half mile south of Patrick Point and a quarter-mile offshore) an estimated 1,000 sea-lion skulls, usually with one or two perforations into the brain case. No jaws, vertebra or long bones of sea lions were found with the skulls, an absence which evidently represents magico-ritual deposits, such as occur farther north on the Pacific Coast. No ethnographer seems to have reported the practice. Summary. --Sea lions could be clubbed to death if surprised in certain spots on sea stacks. They were also harpooned: in a few localities, from rocks close to deep water in the ocean or at the mouth of the Klamath; and on a number of sea stacks. In hunting at the river mouth the harpoon line was held by several men on shor From rocks in the ocean or from sea stacks the line led to a boat waiting below and had merely to be kept from fouling; or the harpoon shaft was thrown into the ocean, or dragged into it by the wounded animal, and was re- covered by the boat. In either case, the boat was towed by the sea lion- -by a large male perhaps for some hours--before the animal could be dispatched with addi- tional harpoons or by spears. Both methods are speci- fied and probably existed side by side. Thus there were two lengths of harpoon, and the line ran from the head either to the shaft or past it to the hunter. The shaft had a vane or fin at the butt. The harpoon head was wholly different from that of the salmon harpoon: larger, one- piece (except perhaps sometimes for an added flint point) of elk antler, with the barbs in line instead of spreading and with the line attached behind the barbs so that the head did not much "toggle" or turn crosswise; and with the head set into a socket in the end of the main shaft. There was none of the elegance of refined function of the Eskimo harpoon head, but the California heads seem to have served their function, for we do not hear of speared' sea lions breaking away--except in myth when one was a change-shaped doctor. TOLOWA Hewes account. --The Tolowa, most of whom lived on the immediate seacoast, relied perhaps more than any other California people on sea mammals for food. Again,, the harpoon was used chiefly from the canoe, whereas at rookeries the main reliance was on the long club. When a sea-lion hunt was decided on, word was sent to other settlements. If they wished to participate, they I were welcomed. Otherwise they were offered some of the meat after the hunt. Each canoe was in command of a leader who might, himself, serve in any capacity in the crew, but who made the decisions as to what was to be done. Usually all the people of the village came down to the beach to await the return of the canoes from the hunt, If canoes were caught out in a gale, and especially in a heavy fog, the hunters were guided ashore by the direc- tion of the swells, also by the direction of the drift of the, fog. If a canoe did not make shore before dark, those on shore built a good fire as a beacon. When the canoes came ashore a feast was held. Plenty of acorns and other foods were provided to go along with KROEBER AND BARRETT: FISHING IN NORTHWESTERN CALIFORNIA the fresh sea-lion meat. [The account even specifies bish, which would seem superfluous, and venison, which pmay have been permitted by the Tolowa but was forbidden mong the Yurok to be eaten at the same meal with sea lion. Possibly an informant got garrulous with enthusi- sm over the feast.] Should sea-lion meat be left over after the feast, it was thrown into the ocean off the sea-lion rocks so that would not pollute the atmosphere and offend the sea ons; otherwise they would not return to the rocks. [This ccount seems to contain both exaggeration and misunder- anding. Like deer, sea lions had their meat treated ith respect, to ensure their future favor to the hunter. craps and offal would presumably be thrown into the cean rather than be left around to rot, and the sea lions Would be thought to appreciate this. It would probably be rroneous to infer that the Tolowa had a rule that all of sea lion not consumed at the first meal had to be re- rned to the ocean.] There were two fires on the shore for such a feast: ne about which the men congregated for warmth, the her used by the women for cooking. It was at this latter re that the women ate also. [This account describes the ual practice at all feasts and gatherings.] At the mouth of the Klamath, the Tolowa said, the urok tied the harpoon line ashore, then speared a sea on as it came in through the breakers after lampreys r salmon. The animal would fight the line for an hour r so and finally, when exhausted, it could be brought in lose to shore by two or three men. When pulled in close nough, it would be clubbed with the large heavy club ich the Tolowa called mutcu'iag6a. Sea lions were hunted from canoes only in the calm eason from early spring through summer. There are sea-lion rocks offshore from Tolowa ter- tory. One such place is "toward the southwest," at a pot called ya' s6'hwut; another toward the northwest at 6" 'hwut. The former [which is the Crescent City lighthouse ck, called pekts'u in Yurok--Spott and Kroeber, 1942, 240] was the larger in area and was unique in that it d a pool which was kept filled by the wash of the waves. e greater area of the rock facilitated the work of the unters, and the pool enabled them to round up the younger imals where they could be more easily clubbed. The other rock, to the northwest [which may have been ff Point St. George], was longer, narrower, and steeper. ere hunting was much more difficult. The animals ere harder to approach, and when one was stunned with e club, it was more likely to roll off into the water and lost. This steep-sided rock did have one advantage: furnished a very excellent vantage point for harpooning ost straight down when an animal was swimming in e water below. Hunting at such seal rocks was done in the daytime r it was then that the animals congregated to rest. By o or three in the morning the rocks were completely populated, for it was then that the sea lions were out the breakers in pursuit of the fish and lampreys. Three Tolowa towns were mentioned where sea-lion nting was especially important. These were xawunhwut, culet, and mesiteItun, located respectively at the mouth Smith River, on Lake Earl, and at Pebble Beach at the rth end of Crescent Bay. (See Drucker, 1937, pp. 226- 9.) Informants said that only at such ocean-side vil- es did the people have "sea-going canoes" suitable r journeys to offshore rocks for sea-lion hunting and ussel gathering. At militcuntun and other villages rther back from the immediate coast line only "river canoes" were to be found. No one gave specific details as to the differences between seagoing and river canoes, but one informant did say that very special care was given to these seagoing canoes. When not in use they were hauled up beyond the driftwood line, and in winter they were drawn farther back--even being taken over the spit and into the lagoon on Lake Earl. Or they were turned upside down and the bottoms heavily pitched to prevent cracking. Each Tolowa canoe was manned by five men, who, when they started out, sang the sea-lion hunting song, repeating it four or five times: "You must go back up onto the rock, you young sea lions." (This song was designed to entice the young animals up onto the rocks where they could be clubbed more easily than if chased with the canoe.) Two or three of the hunters, armed with long, stout clubs, went up onto the rocks. Here they clubbed the sea lions. This feat required considerable care to avoid being bitten. If a sea lion is "doubled up" [with his hind legs under him] he can "flip over" [lunge] and inflict a bad wound with his teeth. If he is stretched out and flat, he is much less dangerous. In clubbing these animals there are two vulnerable spots--just back of the nose and on the rear of the head. A heavy blow at either point may prove fatal, and almost always at least stuns the animal. However, if it is merely stunned, it may roll off the rock into the sea. Then the men in the canoe give chase and attempt to harpoon the animal. It is necessary to get within twenty or thirty feet in order to make a good strike with the harpoon. If the canoe could be brought close enough, the animal might again be clubbed. The animal might be butchered alongside the canoe. The skin and blubber were taken, also most of the meat. If too great weight was involved, the extra was simply thrown into the sea--such parts as the head, viscera, etc. If a small animal was secured it might be hauled into the canoe without being cut up. This skinning and butchering was done with a flint-bladed knife with a handle of wood or bone. If no full disguise, in the form of a sea-lion skin or even of a sea-lion head as a mask, was worn by the hunters, they blackened their faces with charcoal to render themselves at least partly invisible to their prey. The disguise was, however, very frequently employed. A single hunter, with a sea-lion skin covering him from the waist up, would go onto one of the rocks and roar and act like a sea lion in order to attract the animals to the rock and within range of his deadly club. Or several hunters went onto a large rock and, by surrounding the animals, succeeded in corralling the younger ones and clubbing them. The older animals were pretty tough eating and if they did escape and swim away, it was not considered much of a loss. The younger animals were very tender, and it was sometimes possible to secure a considerable number, in fact, "a canoe load" at one time. Sometimes a hunter wearing a disguise, as above mentioned, but this time armed with a harpoon, would go ashore and spear one of the sea lions. No attempt was made to hold onto the line, to the rear end of which the shaft of the harpoon was left attached. It served as a float and by it the course of the animal could be easily followed. The flat fin or vane of the shaft, especially, was easily visible. When the sea lion became weary, the men in the canoe would seize the pole and play the ani- mal to tire him out as quickly as possible. The sea-lion harpoon is called in Tolowa tcaanti- m'16tket-tut1ki'rc. Informants stated that no darts were used in connection with this harpoon. 119 120 ANTHROPOLOGIC Incidentally, it may be noted that these Tolowa in- formants stated that the oils of the seal and the sea lion were stored in the paunches of these animals or in kelp bottles. The bottles were no doubt common on this im- mediate coast line, and their use by the Tolowa is quite expectable. The informants did not mention bladders used as receptacles. Drucker account. -- [This account condensed from Drucker, 1937, p. 234.] Sleeping sea otters, seals, and sea lions were clubbed on the beach. On a sea-lion hunt, one or more canoes (each with a crew of five, and after proper ritualistic procedure) paddled out to the sea-lion rocks. One or two men went ashore with clubs after the sleeping animals. If pursuit in the water was necessary, the harpooner stationed himself in the prow. The others paddled. If the harpoon was planted, the harpooner held the line until the animal was exhausted, then killed it with a dart. [See Drucker, 1937, fig. 2, p. 237, for sea- lion harpoon. It should be noted that this drawing is evidently not sketched from a preserved specimen but was drawn from statements made by informants. Com- parative material suggests that the head was not perfo- rated, that the shaft was longer and thinner than drawn, and that the square end into which the head is socketed represents a misunderstanding or a poor description of the fin or vane at the butt of the shaft, if not a confusion with the set-hook float described for the Tolowa by Hewes in our chap. VI under "Fishhooks."] (Fig. 40.) WIYOT, BEAR RIVER, MATTOLE, SINKYONE Our information on the Wiyot, Bear River, and Mattole is again from Hewes. Wiyot.--With a very quiet approach to a sea-lion rock in a canoe it was possible to get so close that, as the animals finally took alarm and dived into the water, one might be harpooned. They are strong swimmers, but eventually they become exhausted and may be stunned with the seal club. Hewes illustrates (Th., 1947, fig. 104) a toggle har- poon with a single point, three-barbed head with flint tip, described to him by the Wiyot for hunting sea mammals. [See fig. 49. The barbs recurve more than in preserved specimens, and number one more.] Hewes states specifically that the harpooners went out in dugouts from the mouth of Eel River. The animal once dispatched, its nose was pierced and a line passed through it, by which the carcass was towed ashore. Both sea-lion and seal meats were highly esteemed by the Wiyot for their fatness and their fine flavor [whereas the Yurok mostly did not eat seal]. The oil was carefully saved, being stored in the sea-lion paunch or bladder. Both were carefully cleaned and made good storage receptacles. The bladder was blown up, it is said, until it had a capacity of as much as four or five gallons. [These statements explain the discrepancy of the Yurok speaking sometimes of the paunch and some- times of the bladder as used for storage; it might be either.] The oil was eaten "like butter," as the inform- ants expressed it. 'AL RECORDS Bear River.--Boats were used to reach sea-lion roc though everyone swam out for merely gathering mussel It required a strong line to hold a sea lion - - always of iris fiber and about half an inch in thickness. It would take several years to gather the materials, so it was customary to assemble the deer snares of several families and tie these together to make a rope of suffi- cient length. Once secured, the sea lion was hauled ashore by this line. One of Hewes's Bear River informants recounted briefly that a very long time ago a sea-lion hunting part was towed far out to sea. The people ashore built a signal fire of dry fern fronds at a point near Oil Creek in order to help guide this canoe back to shore. Mattole.--The harpoon used for sea lions was fitted with a "blue flint point, with elk horn barbs," and this head was attached to a stout line of iris fiber about thirt feet long. The shaft was made of young fir. What they probably mean by the "blue flint point" is that the barb elkhorn head was slotted at the end and fitted with a flit tip. The Yurok "whale-color" flint is blueish or green- ish. Iris-fiber rope was, they say, the strongest possib would never break, and would withstand water without rotting. The harpoon was here considered the surest method.. The hunter swam out to the rocks (boats were not used) with his harpoon, and stealthily approached the animal. When he succeeded in planting the harpoon, the animal took to the water with the line. A spear with a fixed point was not used because the sea lion is so powerful that it would soon snap off the shaft. Further, it was believed that the "blue flint from the beach" was poison- ous. A sea lion or a seal, or a human being, speared with such a point would die. Another method of harpooning was to steal up silently in a canoe [sic: boats not used to reach rocks-- ante] upon a sea lion sleeping on the surface of the ocean. If the harpoon head was well planted, the animal would tow the canoe for some distance, often a mile or so. It eventually became exhausted and could be dispatched. Sea lions, and seals as well, might be taken with a special "iron-wood" club made for the purpose. If a sea lion came up near enough to a canoe, it might be dis- patched if hit on the nose. A blow on the top of the head was of no avail, for the skull is too thick and hard. Hunting on the rocks was done by four or five men armed with these clubs. With luck, someone got in an effective blow on the animal's nose, which stunned it so that it could be finished off. These clubs were even more effec- tive on harbor seals, because they are much smaller--a blow almost anywhere on the head was lethal. A hunting party would, with luck, succeed in taking a number of seals, even ten to twenty, in a day. If they got a great many, a man swam out to the rocks with a long rope-- 'as much as a quarter of a mile long" [sic]. The cheek of each clubbed animal was slit and the rope passed through it. Such a string of animals was not un- like a string of fish. They were then floated in onto the adjacent beach, where they wer-e butchered and cut up into slabs of meat and blubber of suitable size for hand- ling. The viscera and other offal were food for the sea gulls. The bones were left on the beach. r li Fig. 49. Sea-lion harpoon with three-barbed head and flint point. After Hewes (F.N., 1940). [The size of the stone tip may be somewhat exaggerated.] I KROEBER AND BARRETT: FISHING IN NORTHWESTERN CALIFORNIA The seal meat was divided in accordance with the rship of the rocks upon which the animals had been . Each of these "seal rocks" was owned by one or e persons, sometimes by as many as seven to nine As informants put it, "They have owned this rock the time the world was made. When one owner dies, share is given to someone else. Sea-lion rocks are public [common] property. For instance, the Bear er [Athabascan] people own Steamboat Rock. The Eel r [Wiyot] people own False Cape Rock for sea lions." e that the evidence cited for private ownership is that ain rocks are owned tribally, not intertribally! ] When the meat was cut up and properly apportioned, as carried home "like slabs of bacon." Everybody he community shared in accordance with the wishes e owners" of the rocks. s the oil tried out and dripped, it was caught in large one shells. When a shell was full, it was emptied a kelp bottle for storage. The bulbous end of the or "whip" kelp, when partially dried, is very tough serves admirably as a container. The sea-lion meat was dried for winter and this rky" was considered very good eating. Sinkyone.--Nomland (1935, p. 153) states that the one speared seals and sea lions from their large wood canoes and killed them with a cascara-wood . The flesh was dried and the oil was stored in kelp les and used for both food and medicine. The skin not utilized. COMPARATIVE SUMMARY In summary, sea-lion hunting was conditioned by local 'ronment. It would appear that harpooning of sea s from the land could be practiced at only a few spots, pecially at the mouth of the Klamath. There is almost rtainly no other Yurok stream where it would be feasi- Tolowa Smith River and Wiyot Eel River perhaps re large enough, seasonally, for sea lions to enter, but tidal sloughs there may have had no rocks at their es. Except at the mouth of the Klamath sea lions were narily got by going out on sea stacks, where the ani- Is could be surprised or attracted, and either clubbed harpooned, according to opportunity, with a boat stand- by to pick up the line and wear the animal down. Oc- ionally, a hunter might cast a harpoon from a sea k into a sea lion swimming close by. It is doubtful whether any of our tribes set out to hunt cruising in a canoe, trying to get a cast at an un- nded sea lion in the water. There is no unambiguous ntion of such procedure or intent. Now and then the sibility may have occurred, but sea lions are alert in e water, as compared with whales, and they probably practically all their sleeping on rocks or beaches. The a otter is said to sleep or doze on the water, especially kelp beds. There was no intentional netting of sea lions or even harbot seals. The Yurok along the lower Klamath re in fact much concerned at both animals ruining teir fish nets as they followed salmon runs in. SEA-LION HARPOON HEADS: BENNYHOFF DATA J. A. Bennyhoff has reviewed California Fish Spears dHarpoons (1950)--that is, their bone or horn points heads, which alone usually are preserved in the chaeological record. 121 On pages 299-300 he classifies Northwest California "simple" harpoon heads (one-piece, for sea mammals; the salmon and sturgeon toggle heads are mostly three- piece and therefore "composite"). I. Large, for sea mammals. A. Line held by bilateral "shoulder." B. Line held by bilateral "guard." C. Line held by unilateral "guard." D. Line passes through hole in head. II. Small, for fish and small game. Class II may have been used for seals and sea otters or for fish other than river salmon, but scarcely appears in ethnographic accounts and accordingly we do not dis- cuss it further here. Class I was intended primarily for sea lions, but, as will appear, would hardly answer for whales with their relatively tender skin. Of the subdivisions of I, D, "holed," is not represent- ed by even one specimen figured by Bennyhoff. Its only illustration is Bennyhoff's figure 7, b', which is a copy of Drucker's (1937) figure of the Tolowa sea-lion harpoon as drawn by him from verbal descriptions, which has already been discussed. We assume that the hole through the head rests on a misunderstanding or misconception. This leaves types A and B having the line held by a bilateral shoulder or guard, C by a unilateral one. The nomenclature implies that all harpoon heads were rela- tively flat--in contrast with, say, Eskimo and European sealing and whaling harpoon heads, which were more three-dimensional, either rounded or spreading. "Flat," in short, means that there were two "sides" and two "edges" to the piece of horn or bone. The shoulders or guards extended out from one edge ("unilateral"--the same edge as the barbs were on) or from both edges (bilateral). The difference between "shoulder" and "guard" is not explicitly defined, but the illustrations suggest that a "shoulder" expands or slopes out obliquely from the body of the harpoon head, whereas the "guard" expands at more or less of a right angle. A "guard" may also definitely swell out across the thickness of the head, whereas a shoulder expands only in the dimension of its breadth. At any rate, shoulders come out from both edges (bilaterally), whereas guards may project from one or both edges of the harpoon head. Bennyhoff next subdivides into: 1, "simple tip," that is, the penetrating point is of the same bone or horn as the whole head; 2, "slotted tip"; and 3, "grooved tip with inset." The distinction between a slot and a groove is not clear; it may possibly refer to whether the inserted tip was of flint or of post-European steel. A final subdivision is into (a) simple, and (b) hooked barb, the latter denoting barbs whose inner edge recurves toward the body of the harpoon head or which, instead of coming to a point, are cut off to an oblique edge. Bennyhoff's typological classification appears sound, so we have extricated it from his text, figures, and ex- planation and transposed it into the subjoined tabulation and summary. These show: 1. Northwest California haIrpoon heads meant for taking sea mammals fall into two classes, intended respectively for sea lions and for smaller game. 2. Both classes are basically one-piece, but class I heads, for sea lions, are larger and about two times out of three had a stone tip inserted; the smaller, class II heads are always without inserted tips, and their barbs ar e never hooked. ANTHROPOLOGICAL RECORDS 3. Both classes are flattish elliptical in cross C Guar section. Barbs, shoulders or guards for holding the la S line, and inserted tip if there is any, are all in the 2b T plane of the longer axis of the cross section. 3b " 4. Line guards or shoulders occur more often on II. Smaller both edges than on one, especially in the smaller "hooked class II. Ala - 5. Blunt "guards" are more frequent than sloping shoulders for holding the line, in both classes, but Bla - there is no strict demarcation. A rectanguloid pro- jecting guard is the most characteristic shape for Cla - holding the line to the head. 6. All harpoon heads are held in position on the shaft from quite near their butt. QuantitatiN 7. The head is always "male," its base fitting into a socket in the shaft. This is in distinction from the composite salmon harpoon head, which is always "female." Projection for Shoulder. One-Piece Harpoon Heads for Sea Mammals Guard . . (Plate references are to Bennyhoff's monograph) Total. . . Projection for I. Large heads, presumably for sea lions Guard . . A Shoulders on both edges Total Shoulde: 1 Self - simple barb: pl. 4, j, k, 1 Total Guard 2 Tipped - simple barb: pl. 4, m, p, q, r Self point. . B Guards on both edges Inserted point la Self - simple barb: pl. 5, a Simple barb 2a Tipped - simple barb: pl. 5, c, d, f Recurved or t 2b Tipped - "hooked" barb: pl. 5, g d on one edge only 'elf - simple barb: p1. 5, h, i Sipped - "hooked" barb: pl. 6, a, b, c, e 'Grooved" - '"hooked" barb: pi. 7, d' heads--no grooving or inserted tip, no i" barbs - shoulders on both edges: pl. 4, s, t, u v, w - guards on both edges: pl. 5, j, k, 1, m n, o,p - guards on one edge only: pl. 6, g, h, i ve Summary of Sea-Lion Harpoon Heads r line on both edges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . r line on one edge only . . . . . . . . . . . . . r . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . t . .. .. .. .. .. . * . . . . . . . . . . . . blunt barb .. .. .. . Class I Large 7 5 12 7 7 12 6 13 13 6 Clas S 5 7 12 3 10 15, lO 15 0 WHALES BANCROFT, 1883. P. 376; whale meat roasted in underground oven by Indians of central California. BARNETT, 1937. Tolowa, Chetco, pp. 164, 195; beach owned by local groups or individuals. Sing to bring floating whale carcass in at desired point. Certain parts of carcass owned by certain individuals. CURTIS, 1913. Quinault, Quilliute, pp. 10, 53, 146. 1916. Nootka, pp. 16-40; highly developed whaling fully described. DRIVER, 1939. Tolowa, Wiyot, Mattole, Sinkyone, Coast Yurok, Coast Yuki, pp. 314, 380; ownership of beaches and of certain parts of whale carcass. Sea-lion bladder and paunch, also kelp, grease- containers. DRUCKER, 1937. Tolowa, p. 235; whale cut in "narrow strips." Sea-lion-paunch grease receptacles. , 1951. Nootka, details of whaling among the Nootka; pp. 48-56. GIFFORD, 1939. Coast Yuki, p. 318. GODDARD, 1929. Bear River, p. 294; uses of whale blubber and meat. HEIZER, 1940. Yurok, pp. 80-82; "Yurok type" canoe discussed. , 1943. Pp. 420, 441; whaling extended as far south as mouth of Columbia River. HEIZER and MASSEY, 1953. Pp. 296, 297; origin, distribution and use of the "'Yurok type" canoe. HEWES, Th., 1947. Clayoquot, Makah, pp. 133, 136; aboriginal whaling off Cape Flattery. JEWITT, 1815. Nootka, canoes of sizes up to "forty-two feet six inches at the bottom, and forty-six feet from stem to stern," p. 84. Description of Nootka whaling, pp. 132-136. , 1931. Nootka, whale harpooned. Towed to shore by forty canoes. Methods of cutting up whale. Pp. 35, 36. KROEBER, 1925. Yurok, pp. 14, 27, 84; apportionment rules for whale. Importance of whale. Value of meat. NOMLAND, 1935. Sinkyone, p. 153; whale belongs to group. "Whale bones used for fire which dried meat." Oil stored in kelp bottles, used as food. OLSON, 1936. Quinault, detailed account of whale hunting. Pp. 44-48. 122 11 KROEBER AND BARRETT: FASHING IN NORTHWESTERN CALIFORNIA POWERS, 1877. Tolowa, p. 67; whale feast and whale dance. RUSSELL, 1856. Sept. 5. Whaling among the Indians of the northern California coast. SPOTT and KROEBER, 1942. Yurok, pp. 182, 183; whale rights for one house defined. TAYLOR, 1860-62. (Apr. 5, 1861.) Whaling on the northern California coast. WATERMAN, 1920a. Yurok, Wiyot, pp. 220-222; regulations and measurements for cutting up whale. We have previously noted the fact that the meat of the Piale is highly esteemed, that none of the historic tribes 'tually put to sea to hunt this huge mammal, but that ben the carcass of one did wash ashore it was seized lon most avidly, but under rules and regulations quite 'ferent from the rules governing other foods and com- Odities. Quite naturally only those communities and lividuals having lands and rights fronting on the sea ire directly concerned with these matters. YUROK INFORMATION Hewes secured excellent data on whales. According ithese, not infrequently a whale was killed in an off- Wre attack by a killer whale. It would eventually wash ,ore, though no attempt was ever made to tow it in or ing it ashore at any particular point. The carcass was n the property of the community controlling the par- luar beach or other spot where it landed. The dorsal (considered the choicest part of the animal) belonged reditarily to one family, regardless of where the whale ght land or of the position in which it might come to st on the shore. When Hewes collected his data, in 40, this right was vested in the family of Mrs. Susie ooks [of the house layekw at Rekwoi]. The discoverer a stranded whale must at once notify the Brooks family, d no meat could be cut until they had taken the dorsal or had given consent for someone else to do so. oter informant said that the flukes and the flippers o went to certain houses, but this statement seems corroborated. ,With a flint knife a cut was made around the base of dorsal fin, an iris-fiber tumpline was fastened to it, it was "pulled off," i.e., as the cutting of the flesh gressed. The remainder of the whale, or at least as much of it was needed, was then cut into slices. Each family cut own. One informant stated definitely that these slices re "four fingers wide," were cut longitudinally [read: ransversely" ? ], and cut completely through to the se. Later each such huge slice was cut crosswise to Me pieces small enough to be carried away. As a cut started the women passed up tumplines, which were into holes along the edge of the slice. While the men Ithe cutting with their flint knives, the woman assisted pulling on the tumplines. If, however, men were not ilable, the women might wield the knives. People from distant points cooked and dried their tat on the beach, using driftwood fires. Those from r-by villages usually took their meat home and cured tried it out] there. While whale oil was not considered tasty as that of the sea lion, it was caught in the usual atite dishes, and was stored in the sea-lion paunch ainers. Whale meat was used both freshly cooked cured [? cf. below] and stored for winter use. It was en with many other foods. No special restrictions re mentioned. Whale oil was eaten with seaweed or with the poor- ting meat of the hookbill salmon and with other foods, these being dipped in it for added flavor. The flavor of sea-lion oil, used in the same way, was considered much better. The relative desirability of the two oils is pointed up in a myth which recounts that Whale boasted that its baby would not starve [but live off its own oil], but it did die. Sea lion's baby, on the other hand, did not starve. The oils of the whale and the sea lion are not mixed or used together. Waterman (1920a, pp. 221, 222) adds some picturesque details. One provides for the hypothetical case of a whale coming ashore across the mouth of Little River, which formed the boundary between the "beach rights" of the Trinidad Yurok and the Wiyot. The solution was expect- able: each group got the parts lying in its territory. The "cuts" of a whale were measured off with the tumpline or pack strap, which had a definite and recognized length, and divided into sections by knots. Waterman says: The length of a strap was, to use the Yurok expression, "one double stretch," qohtsemoi wenupek, that is, twice as long as the owner's "reach" from finger tip to finger tip across his chest. The length of the cut of whale was the full length of the strap. The strap was then doubled two times to determine the width of the strip of meat. Some rich families were entitled to ten cuts [sic]. When a man had cut off his strip of meat, the carrying strap was fastened under the whale hide by means of slashes and the meat dragged home on the ground. If, in cutting up a whale, a man cut beyond the end of his strap, violent disputes arose. Waterman adds also that people from outlying places might look on but must not touch the whale. Later, if invited, they might cut off small pieces for themselves. Kroeber discussed whale use at some length with Robert Spott and other Yurok. There are at least three distinct terms for cetaceans. The larger whales are called hekwsa; a gray whale, somewhat smaller than the largest, is hekwsa kamuks, "bastard whale." The inland female whale in Fish Lake (Spott and Kroeber, 1942, narrative no. 24) was a bastard; but she may have been visualized as of this species. There are two words for smaller cetaceans, kegor and pe'wis. Waterman and Kroeber have both translated kegor as porpoise, but it would seem to be the killer whale or orca. If so, pe'wis would denote porpoises and dolphins. The older Yurok used English terms somewhat indiscriminately to designate these several cetaceans, sea lions, sharks, and mythical underwater monsters (kames, generic; knewolek, a gigantic horned serpent). The kegor are said to have lived with the immortals at Kenek, tried to kill visitors, later went to Patrick Point (Sumig), had a fight there, took the place over, and are associated with it: it is a tract of danger and evil. The rocky peninsula of Patrick Point, with its outlying rocks and sea-lion rookeries, is the sort of shore locale likely to be frequented by killers. All this agrees with kegor being killer whales. Robert Spott remembered in 1940 that kegor had said he would kill whales for human beings. His daughter I LI I I 12 3 ANTHROPOLOGICAL RECORDS carried a whole whale flipper in her pack basket. There- fore, women teach their girls, when a load is heavy, to speak to kegor's daughter before lifting it: then they begin to rock the basket with their elbows, and repeat the prayer; then the load becomes light. All this reenforces the interpretation of kegor as killer. However, Orick Bob, about 1924, confirmed the earlier identifications of kegor as porpoise by saying that both kegor and pe'wis leaped, but pe'wis was the larger; which would make it the killer. Bob may have inverted the sizes, or Spott may have remembered the life habits but have got mixed and applied the porpoise's name to the killer. Hewes does not help out because he gives the Tolowa name for the killer who attacks large whales, but no Yurok term. The identification will have to be left open until some Yurok sure of the English names of the cetacean species is interviewed. Kroeber's account resumes with Spott: Blubber was got off stranded whales by cutting down through it to the meat, passing a line under the skin, and two or three women pulling. The blubber came off with the skin, was washed in the breakers, and dragged up on the beach. It was tried out there, being hung on four stakes, sloping down at one end, from which the oil dripped into a dish; the fire underneath had to be kept small, so as not to spread to the oil or blubber. The steatite dishes used by wealthy families were large and about five inches deep ("from base of thumb to point of index"); the very biggest were so valuable they "would buy a wife"--not literally, probably, but the phrase is customary for denoting extreme value. The whale oil was lifted out of the dish with a keyem basket-dipper and poured into a "bladder," presumably sea-lion's, though Kroeber's notes say whale's. As a receptacle, this bladder was called pamar; in the animal, wahsei ol, "urine house." This name at least establishes that bladders as well as paunches were used. Pieces of whale skin with tried-out blubber adhering seem to have been preserved--perhaps to chew on when other foods ran low. [Goddard secured a piece of such whale meat from the Tolowa in the early years of the century, which we have kept in the University's Museum of Anthropology as specimen 2512. It measures 54 by 18 cm. and is about one cm. thick. This particular speci- men is apparently a cross section of a small whale fin which had been dried for later use. It was found by Goddard in one of the large baskets used for the storage of such foods.] The whale muscle [which is lean and has a fiber much like that of beef] was taken off in blocks, much like the blubber, but the women had to pull harder and continue to pull as the man was cutting. Kroeber's notes contain the Yurok phrase terernitu, "four fingers broad," which Waterman and Hewes mention as the customary "width" (thickness) of slices. Whale meat will not jerk or dry, Spott said. This would explain why when a whale came ashore the Cali- fornia Indians stayed with the carcass until it was more than high. However, it seems doubtful whether there is any quality in the muscle flesh to prevent its dessication. It seems rather a matter of the immense volume, which, especially with only flint knives, would have taken forever to slice thin enough to sun-dry. Whale meat might be eaten by menstruating women. Robert himself was surprised at this fact, because sea lion, deer, and even fresh salmon are absolutely taboo. He explained this was because whales are bastards. Baleen ("branched whiskers in the mouth") was known but not used. Bones and viscera were left in the surf. Barnacles on whales were very large but were not eati Whale ribs, after they had become clean in the surf on the beach, were used as material for awls and need: Three sizes of these implements were specified. Kwei or mel tigohpek, the awl for stitching moccasins, was usually of deer or elk leg, but on the coast might be m of whale rib. Kwegeno, 10-12 in. long, cylindrical but with an eye, for sewing women's dresses, or double bi skin blankets, was (or might be) of whale rib. Longer (about 15 in.) and flat, but also eyed, was another whai rib implement: weikop kwegeno, for sewing cattail rui stalks into floor mats. Whoever saw a whale stranded or drifting ashore-- even a child, or a widow in mourning, or a man by himn self--shouted as loudly as he could: hekwsaaa, kitS- hekwsaaa, and repeated it as he approached any settle ment. Even if there was a recent death there, the mourners could not claim compensation for having the] grief broken in upon by this news of communal conceri Spott said that whale cuts were measured with a m' bow- -a full length, then turned over its end and onto il middle. [This would be toward 5 ft.] A woman measur from finger tip to sternum, then from her armpit to finger tip [a little short of a woman's reach, or again around 5 ft.] What is meant by cut sizes is discussed below. About Waterman's map 3 (1920a, p. 225) Spott told Kroeber that the name of the tract owner Ko'tep Charli was Ki'-morets, not Amits, who was from Kepe'l-Sa'., While the whale-stranding claim in which he shared ra from Stone Lagoon north to Amonek or Emonekw rock (Waterman, 1920a, map 9, no. 20) two miles north of Osegen, the whale beach claim of the Rekwoi house layekw is however cited as extending from beyond OmO at Wilson Creek southward to Otieu (Spott and Kroebe 1942, p. 182; Waterman, 1920a, map 29, no. 2), which two miles south of Osegen. [There is thus an overlapi 4 mi. between the two claims, unless an error has cr into the place names.] There were no whales stranded [or at least none cil up by the Yurok] from 1900 to 1940, but Robert remem bered two that came ashore and were butchered when! was a boy. TOLOWA, WIYOT, MATTOLE, AND SINKYONE INFORMATION The Tolowa and the Wiyot handling of a whale was substantially the same as that of the Yurok, according Hewes. Tolowa informants added that large horse-cli shells, as well as steatite bowls, were used to collect the whale oil. The sea-lion paunch container was mad by tying the lower opening, and by plugging the upper opening with a seaweed stopper. They said that this ol kept for about a year, and then went rancid. Hewes's Mattole informants told of a "whale doctoi who could predict the washing in of a carcass. This il of interest because Barnett mentions (1937, p. 166) th the Chetco, Coos, and Siuslaw of Oregon sang and bea on a log to bring in a floating whale carcass. The carcass "was considered the property of the headman" of the village owning the beach. He asseml the people and made the first cut with a large obsidia knife. After that "anyone was privileged to cut forh self. " [Again we have prestige priority, but after th equal rights.] The slabs were taken home and cured. The blubber was tried out, the oil being caught in the carapaces of I I I I 124 I KROEBER AND BARRETT: FISHING IN NORTHWESTERN CALIFORNIA les. This oil was eaten with dried fish or mussels, with vegetal foods. The carapaces of land and river also sea turtles were used; but also as cooking ves- for stone-boiling. The meat of land and river les was eaten, but that of the sea turtle was con- ered too strong to serve as food. Another Mattole statement to Hewes was that the ge bones" of the whale were cracked to get at the hand well flavored marrow. [There is a misunder- nding here, since the only long or marrow bones of les are the much reduced ones of the flipper. The -rich bones of the jaw of some species are however iled or steamed out by commercial whalers, and the ttole may have discovered this source.] According to Nomland (1935, p. 153) whales washed ore at Needle Rock belonged to the tribe and everyone ped there during the butchering. The discoverer of whale was awarded the choicest piece; the balance equally divided. There was apparently no hereditary t vested in some person or family to some choice of the animal as there was farther north on this t. The flesh was dried for winter. The whale oil preserved and eaten with berries and other foods. o, the statement is made that the whale's bones were ed for the fire which dried the meat; a statement which ems rather unusual. WHALE RIGHTS AND CUSTOMS The extant accounts of hereditary family privileges communal sharing of whales stranded within defined tricts are more picturesque than consistently intelli- le. We here point out the zone of doubts, but also try delimit it. Apparently everyone born on a certain stretch of St had a claim in every whale stranded in that stretch. an ancestor had married or moved inland, his descend- s, at least for a few generations, claimed participation descent. There was one house or family in each district which dthe prestige-laden right to a certain token part of the ale, such as the dorsal fin, plus possibly other parts; the right to claim and make the first cut; or possibly h privileges. "Tumplines" were preserved both as evidence of such erited privilege, and as a measure of the size of cut. ese lines were evidently those passed under the whale into drag off sections of blubber as it was cut loose, I later, slices of meat, and then to drag these up the lach or to one's camp or house. This was much as [-lion dispatching clubs served as tokens of one's aring in the right to hunt particular rookeries. The length of these tumplines or straps was two toms, according to Waterman. The "length" of the was stated to be these twelve feet; the width was the e doubled twice, or three feet. When Waterman says at"some rich families were entitled to ten cuts," he es them all of the whale, or more. Even a single elve-by-three-foot cut through a whale might well be re than one household could handle. Possibly the big n gave much of his share away to clients and friends. Itt speaks of the measure of a cut being one and a half w lengths, or about five feet, and about the same for men, though they measured on their arms. Hewes's cond informant allots fin, flippers, and tail flukes to ivileged houses, but no large cuts to any one; and after ese special portions, everyone cut into the body for iself, in slabs "four fingers thick"--which last is nfirmed by Spott. 125 It is not clear which way the cuts or slabs ran. One statement says "longitudinally," but adds "cut through to the bone," which would mean that they were trans- verse. Except for Spott, no distinction is made between blubber and meat. If cuts ran lengthwise, there would first be one or more enormous sheets of blubber, and after that many of pure muscle. With the normal slab being four fingers thick and run- ning transversely, but the full height of the whale carcass, there would first be a series of three-inch blocks of blubber pulled off, each adhering to a piece of skin, and after that, similar blocks of striped-muscle meat. These could be handled in butchering, dragging, trying out, or curing, and in a whale six or eight feet in diameter would give a household about as much oil and meat as they could dispose of or store. This arrangement would make the most sense, and it leaves the fewest residual problems; but the statements also leave some doubt whether it was the plan actually followed. It is clear that the Yurok and their neighbors were more interested in prestige privileges than in an orderly accounting for the disposition of the carcass, and that they highlighted the special claims. Not a word is said about how anyone got at the off- shore or oceanward side of the whale, where the surf might be beating hard; nor whether cuts ran clear across the body or only to ribs and vertebrae. Low tide would have helped on the offshore side. But since a whale's carcass floats almost wholly submerged, a large whale would have been in the wash of the surf on the ocean side even at low tide. The mean rise of tide above "the plane of reference" is not far from six feet in our region. It is clear that there was some trying out of blubber into oil. But it seems doubtful whether the small fires, which were all they dared build under slabs of blubber loosely stuck up on sticks, would get all the oil out. The connective tissue left on the skin might dry out enough to keep; perhaps this is what is spoken of as "cured" whale "meat. " Spott flatly says that whale flesh will not jerk or sun- dry. This statement sounds more than probable for three-inch-thick slabs, and while the slabs might con- ceivably have been slit into thin slivers that would dry hard, there may also have been practical difficulties. The one preserved specimen, probably a section of dor- sal fin, is seven inches wide where broadest, three- eighths inch thick and surrounded by hide. All of which makes it doubtful what Kroeber's old statement (1925, p. 27) refers to: "the meat from a small section--perhaps half a fathom--of a whale was worth a string of small dentalia"--does it mean fresh or dry; inland or on the spot; meat or blubber? ALLEGED WHALE HUNTING Hewes picked up in the most extreme northwestern corner of California, among the Tolowa, a story remi- niscent of the Northwest Coast. One informant stated that some of the old Tolowa had spoken of a time when their people went out to sea in their canoes and harpooned the whale. To the harpoon line were attached one or two sea-lion paunches as floats. These floats were just suf- ficient to prevent, or at least to discourage, the whale from sounding. The animal finally wore itself out in try- ing to submerge. Though it seems unlikely, it could be that this is a legendary account dating back to a time ANTHROPOLOGICAL RECORDS when these people did, like those of the Washington and Vancouver Island coast, actually put out to sea in large, ocean-going canoes and hunt whales. [This is quite apart from the use of "sea-going canoes" mentioned above in connection with sea-lion hunting.] And there are reports that immediately after the coming of the whites a few large, seagoing canoes were in use on the Northwest California coast. Alexander Taylor (1961, Apr. 5) in an article sub- titled "North California Fisheries," quotes verbatim an article by Russell titled "California Fisheries" which appeared in the September 3, 1856 issue of the San Francisco Bulletin. This is one of a series of six articles in the Bulletin on this subject, in which, after stating that he had been "on the Coast" for seven years, Russell outlines the Indian methods of whaling and of utilizing the meat and oil of this great sea mammal. He then argues for the establishment of a great whaling industry to be based at San Francisco. Taylor's version of Russell's description leaves a first impression of being an eyewitness account of methods employed by northern California Indians. But the original Bulletin articles leave little doubt that Russell is actually describing what he saw farther north on the Washington or British Columbia coast. Taylor was a great miscellanist, and in a later article (1862, Aug. 1), quoting from another article in the Bulletin (Oct. 22, 1860) by an unnamed "special correspondent," and under the title of "The Mackahs of the Washington Coast" states: According to the statement of several reliable chiefs, these Indians have taken during the past year thirteen whales, seven of which they killed, and six were found dead on the beach. They yielded about 10,000 gallons of oil. There can be little doubt that an earlier statement by Taylor (1860, Oct. 26) more nearly portrays the true picture for California: The stranding of a whale on this coast was, in former times, a season of universal rejoicing and festivity among the Diggers. Whale blubber was esteemed a great luxury. The flesh of the whale was cooked in holes in the ground lined with stones, like wells. Fires were kindled in these, and, after clean- ing out the coals and ashes, they were filled with whale-flesh, and covered with grass, sticks, and earth. After the Diggers had gorged sufficiently, the remainder of the flesh was hung upon trees, out of the reach of bears and wolves, and eaten afterwards, as occasion required. According to Hewes's notes, Tolowa sea-lion hunting was systematized enough so "special, sea-going canoes" were required. These were quite a bit larger than the canoes used on the rivers and lagoons [as illustrated in our pl. 5, b]. His informants told him that only the people living on the immediate coast had such seagoing canoes. Powers (1877, p. 69) saw on Humboldt Bay one of these "sea-going canoes" which he says was made on Smith River and which measured 42 ft. in length and had a beam of 8 ft. 4 in. It was "capable of carrying twenty-four men or five tons of freight." Drucker (1937, p. 271) says that Lower Rogue Rive informants believed that "large ocean-going canoes"i were used for hunting seals and sea lions, but knew ni details. We believe it most likely that the Tolowa had in recent times heard of whale hunting by northern tribe Spanish, Russian, British, and American ships all sa along this coast for decades before Americans settled in 1850. Recollections in 1940 would have to be quite' specific before meriting credence. Also, two specific factors block belief. First, the Tolowa-Yurok sea-lion harpoon head is neither of si: nor shape to hold a whale, whose skin is soft, whose blubber is softer, but whose mass runs into tens of t If whales were formerly hunted on the California co suitable harpoon heads should have been found among Indians or in archaeological sites. Second, the North California canoe is admirable for river use, but abou ill-adapted for navigating the ocean as could be desi Both ends are cut off square--across the grain--and has no keel. Ocean swells have to be taken quarteri The Tolowa and Yurok, though expert canoers, are timorous on the ocean because they know the unsea- worthiness of their craft. Without a stem-piece ands shaped prow, these canoes would be little if any more seaworthy even if made much larger. Kroeber long ago inquired of the Yurok about Pow giant canoe, and was told that one oversize boat had b adzed out by the Tolowa on the order of an American hoped to use it to reship miner's pipe from Crescent. harbor to the mouth of the Klamath. All canoes in the region seem to have been almost identical in cut and in length -- about 18 ft., and not o 20 -- but to have differed in beam and in draft accord to the service intended and the labor cost involved. 1 river ferriage, a narrow, shallow boat was sufficient and cheaper, and was easily handled. On the ocean, 9 a canoe was likely to founder in the first whitecaps. the rounding of the hull essentially followed the curvet the tree, higher freeboard was a function of increased draft and beam. Canoes used on the ocean would be fi sized, just as they would be stout and new, for reason of obvious safety. Kroeber has never heard that they were built oversize, as compared with the standard specimens used on the river. They no doubt average larger, because undersized or even cracked canoes w still of some utility on many river reaches. We belie these statements will be substantiated when we can p lish material on the boats of the region. It is true that Drucker (i937, p. 237) says of the Tolowa: "Five-men boats ('sea-lion boats'), for use ocean, said to have been 4 to 4-1/2 fathoms long, 3fe deep, 1 fathom beam; boats for river use nearly as lo but not so wide nor deep." But a boat 24-27 ft. long 6 ft. broad far surpasses any canoe ever seen in the region by Kroeber, who believes that, if the Tolowah occasionally made them the Yurok would have been s impressed and envious as to mention them. It also s doubtful whether with native wedges and adzes the Ind could have cut off, halved, or even handled a 24-ft. lel of a 6-ft. log -- 7 ft. with the bark and cambium. As against these considerations, it is a matter of accept the quantitative statement of one informant who may may not have misremembered or exaggerated. I II A i.t j. 126 APPENDIX SUPPLEMENTARY PLATES OF KAROK STAGINGS AND NETS After the bulk of this monograph had been written and , we received from Professor Bert A. Gerow of the piropology Department of Stanford, where he is also fator of the Anthropological Collections, three photo- s of Karok fishing at Katimin Rapids and Amaikiara namkarak or Ike's) Fall, just above and below the of the Salmon where it empties into the Klamath. permission, we here reproduce these as plates 26-28. r Gerow found the 4-by-5 in. photographic prints in Stanford Museum, uncatalogued. With or on them notations giving the native names of the three spots of two of the four human figures showing in them. pictures were undated and without record of who them or who gave them to the Stanford Museum. jeber estimates that they must have been taken not luy years before or after his own Karok photographs 902 in the same district (Handbook, 1925, pls. 6, 7, also our pl. 2, a-c). the legend with plate 26 reads: "Klamath River, iyou County. Cah-tee-main Falls. Old Ichirie pack- salmon on his back in net. Indian with dip net." This be fall or rapid near the village of Katimin, which in- was named after it: "upper dam." It will be seen great the rush of the current is. The Klamath is a e river, but its width here is only a matter of yards. ie or Hichiri was an old Karok at Katimin whom Meber heard of and probably met in 1902. He is shown tying one or more salmon in a large net sack (cf. tion on "Knotless Net Bags" in chap. VIII). The Sh of the bag is visible and is much closer than that salmon net. It is not clear whether the strap of the passes over Ichirie's left shoulder or across his ehead. He holds his left hand, and perhaps his right o, on his head, possibly over a basketry cap: the hand forearm and their shadow block wholly certain in- pretation. The hand or hands on his head suggest that strap of the bag served as a tumpline passing over forehead. This accords also with his leaning forward iinst the weight of the salmon. (Part of the lean, haps 100, is however due to the camera not having tnheld level.) The younger man wearing the American hat holds a g-poled plunge net. It will be seen that he stands in its frame. The crossbar is at the far right. Most picuous is the considerable upturn of the round end We frame where the net itself is attached. This upturn peras in plate 27, but is less marked there. Across the river a fishing scaffold is visible, against partly under the face of a rock. Two upright poles erge from the water to have their upper ends against rock. Farther out by a foot or two, two shorter poles et at their tops in a 300 V at the level of the platform, ch projects out over the water for perhaps three or feet more. It is impossible to see the number of izontal timbers used but there is at least one pole, ides a plank. A small cylindrical stool has been left r the outer end of the platform. On the near side of the river are two long slender, straight poles lashed crosswise. They may be handholds on the wet, slippery rocks; or, possibly, guy anchorage for a platform on the hidden or torrent side of the medium-sized rock that shows between the two men. At any rate, a foot or more of the upper end of a vertical pole projects above this rock, just "behind" the younger man's back. For plate 27 the memorandum reads: "Indian dipping for fish in an eddy, Ma-kee-arrah Falls, Humboldt near the border of Siskiyou County." The Indian is Little Ike-- Kroeber immediately recognized his face. He is the same man as shown in Handbook plates 6a, 7a, 7b (our pl. 2, a, b), and he could not have been much younger than as shown there from Kroeber's 1902 exposures. Quite likely he was wearing the same cap and using the same net as then. Ma-kee-arrah of course is Amaikiara, the large vil- lage and religious center (First Salmon Rite) a few hundred yards downstream from the fall, of which Ashanamkarak, nearer the fall on the opposite side, was really only a suburb. The fall itself, now named after Ike, does not show in plate 27, as it does in Handbook plate 6, a. The fall must be beyond the two large rocks in front of which Ike is standing on his platform. However, the trees against the skyline, and even the bushy growth down the sloping op- posite bank at the left, conform so closely that Ike's positions in the two photographs could not have been more than a few yards apart. He seems to be facing more or less downriver in the present picture, crosswise in the Handbook one. In both pictures he stands outside the frame, with his left hand farther down the net frame; and, at least in plate 27, with the frame held so as to curve downward, instead of upward as in 26. He stands on a staging with only one upright over the face of a boulder, but at least four and perhaps six or seven horizontals, laid partly on rocks and partly over spaces between them. Presumably the horizontals included at least one plank or slab to give more secure footing; but none such is discernible with assurance. Beyond the staging, parts of three poles are visible, lashed together--possibly a rail, or a footing by which to descend to the fishing platform itself. (In the Handbook picture there is no platform, and Ike stands on a rock above where two channels of torrent converge. That view was taken in May, when the river was still being fed by melting snows; the season of pl. 27 is not known.) In July, 1957, after this text had been submitted for publication, Barrett had an opportunity to observe and to make a motion picture of a Karok fisherman operating a plunge net at Ishipishi Falls. In these rushing waters the fisherman threw the net out from the rocks upon which he stood and drew it in toward himself, standing always at the side of the net frame and breaking its descent into the river by allowing it to strike on the cap on his head. Rarely did it first hit on the head bar. This operation is described in the account of the plunge net (p. 42). [127] ANTHROPOLOGICAL RECORDS Plate 28 came with the legend: "Ma-a-kee-arrah Falls; Rea Neck fishing with net." The staging shown in the middle of this was a few tens of yards downstream from that centering in plate 27: in fact, the latter is faintly visible (one upright, several horizontals) at the far right of the present plate; and to the left of this is the large rock which fills the left foreground of 27. Across the river, the same slope, bushes, and trees on the crest show as in 27, very slightly farther off and a bit altered in angle. Again, the river is flowing from the right to the left of the picture (although a first glance might erroneously suggest the opposite). Rea Neck may be a white man's version of the Indian name of Little Ike. In 1902 his was the only house close to the fall. He is seated on his platform, his right hand seemingly holding the longer of the two A-frame rods above their junction; his left hand is below the junction, holding either the other rod or perhaps the button of the drawstring. He sits at the end of his plank, facing across the river, with the plane of his A-frame extending more or less up-and-downstream, as if the bag of the net were carried by the eddy beneath himself both toward the shore and to the right upstream. This is in contrast to Handbook plate 7, b (our pl. 2,b), in which the platfori also extends out crosswise to the river, but the A-fra plane is crosswise and the fisherman there faces up- stream instead of toward the opposite bank as here. Kroeber's recollection is that plate 28 was upriver fr Ike's house; but Handbook, plate 7, a downriver. The staging here has three main uprights projecti several feet above the platform; also a smaller uprig projecting but little above the plank; and a fifth pole, waterworn and white, serving as a diagonal strut to middle one of the main uprights. There are two heav and long horizontals reaching well on to the bedrock the shore; besides at least two shorter ones; in edge view, the plank is difficult to distinguish from poles. is obvious that in a staging like this one--or for that matter the one in Handbook 7, a--the weight of a man especially when lifting the frame, net, and fish, exert considerable leverage, and a firm holding down of thi platform at its landward end, whether by lashing or counterweighting, is indispensable. And even a good swimmer might be in danger if he fell into the rock- studded torrent here. 128 GLOSSARY In approaching this whole subject from its techno- ical aspects we find ourselves faced with a good many bblems in terminology. There seems to be little uni- hmity in the names given to different types of nets, for mple; and considerable variations are found in the ms used for weaving processes and implements. The ie is true for other fishing gear, such as spears. An example or two will suffice to illustrate this point: read (Smith, 1940, pp. 261-262) that the Puyallup- qually made a "large tripod fish trap." What is a ipod fish trap?"--a woven basketry device standing nthree legs? The author's description soon shows t her "tripod fish trap" is a large weir supported by teral tripods of heavy posts or piles. Again, we learn from Stern (1934, p. 49) that the nmi use a "river trap" which again turns out to be a ir supported upon tripods of heavy timbers. It is, hermore, provided with a "large pocket," which he s is a basket, but which is variously called by others en, corral, etc. We are told by various field observers that this or ttribe uses "dip nets," a term which is good as far 'it goes, but we would like to know which of the many ds of dip nets they employed. The term dip net is lied by different authors to any one of several forms. Jochelson (1908, p. 531), for the Koryak, describes and strates what he terms a "scoop net." This is, in lity, a conical dip net with its mouth made fast to a eular hoop and mounted on a handle. Teit (1900, pp. 249-251) describes and illustrates It he terms a "bag net." This is a conical net mount- upon an elongated hoop by means of "horn rings." mouth of the net is held open by means of a string dby the fisherman. The release of this string allows rings to slip and the mouth of the net to close, thus uring the catch. When the net is landed ashore, another pull on this cord again opens the net mouth. This net could also, by virtue of the closing feature, be very properly called a purse net as well as a dip net. What Jochelson (1908, pp. 530-531) calls a "hand net" is a bagged net with a rectangular mouth mounted on a scythe-shaped wooden frame. It is another type of dip net. What Smith (1940, pp. 266, 267) calls a "salmon spear" is in reality a double-toggle harpoon, and what she calls a "harpoon" is, she says, "exactly like the salmon spear except that it was about four times as big." It was used for taking large fish, seals, and porpoises. The "flounder spear" (Smith, 1940, pp. 267, 268) had three fixed points and was what we are here terming a "multipointed spear." It was, incidentally, used for taking other species than flounders, so why imply this restriction in the name? Faced with this lack of uniformity in terminology and with such a multiplicity of terms (often several for the same thing) it has seemed best to attempt some standardi- zation of terms which will enable us to be relatively certain that we are always speaking of the same thing when any term is used two or more times. Obviously this list of terms will be confined to the subject immediately at hand and will not include terms which, though closely related to our subject, do not have any direct bearing. For example, since the Indians with whom we are dealing never made a net remotely similar to the Trammel net, this term will be omitted. At the same time we must use certain terms which relate to other phases of this subject than fishing im- plements, devices, and their manufacture. These for convenience will be included in this same glossary. For ease of reference it seems expedient to arrange these ter ms alphabetically rather than by subject. TERMS RELATING TO FISHING rues: See Meshes, false. Frame: See Net frame. iadromous: "Ascending rivers from the sea, at certain seasons, for breeding." bracot; babricot: "A wooden grill supported by three r four posts for smoking and drying foods, especially meat." The above definition in the glossary, Hand- book of South American Indians, 1948, Vol. 3, pp. 901, 902. : 1. The dimensions of a mesh. Strictly speaking the term bar, in this sense, refers to the length of one side of a mesh. Thus, a net made on a 10-cm. bar is one whose meshes are each 10 cm. square. 2. The sand and/or gravel obstruction which forms atthe mouth of a stream, particularly at a period of ow water, backing up the water and also obstruct- ing the passage upstream of anadromous species at spawning time. It is sometimes necessary to cut a channel through such a bar artificially in order to start the flow of water. The water coursing through this artificial cut soon widens and deepens the channel so that the fish can start their run upstream. 3. There is a third local use: for a sand or gravel deposit along the edge of the stream. Usually these have been placered, but even then the bigger stones remain. The original names were Sawyer's Bar, Somes Bar, Orleans Bar, Redcap Bar, and a dozen or two others. They are of course between high water and low water of river. Barrage: A bar or obstruction of any kind which is so placed as to hinder the passage or so as to deflect the normal movements of fish, etc. Barrier: Any obstacle: a line of stones, brush, or other material, or a net, placed across or in a stream so as to hinder the passage or so as to deflect the nor- mal movements of fish, etc. [129] 7 I I ANTHROPOLOGICAL RECORDS Complete barriers are so designed as to prevent the movements of the fish from an area which they have voluntarily entered. Guiding barriers are so designed as to direct the voluntary movements of fish into a desired area such as a basketry trap or a corral. Beat: See Breed. Bend: 1. To fasten, as one rope to another. 2. A fastening or knot: as a beckett bend, a sheet bend, etc. Bight: 1. The double part of a rope or line when bent. 2. A loop. Braid: See Breed. Bread: See Breed. Breathe: See Breed. Breed, Bread, Breathe, Braid, Beat: To make a net. Bobbing: See Clotting. Buoy: See Float. Bush net: A roll or bundle of brush, or a screen of intertwined limbs which is dragged through the water to frighten fish toward a weir or trap. It is in reality a form of movable weir. When such a "bush net" is being dragged through the water, boys or others are usually throwing stones into the stream to assist in frightening the fish and moving them in the desired direction. For a discussion of the origin and distri- bution of the bush net see Rostlund, 1952, pp. 93, 94. Chute: A sluice, channel, or canal through which, by means of barrages or guide fences, fish, lampreys and/or other species are made to pass so that they may be more easily taken. See fig. 11. Clotting: Fishing with a "baited line," probably first used without a hook. Used even now in England for catching eels by "tying a bunch of worms at the end of a line, and when it has been taken by the eel, draw- ing it swiftly to hand before the eel has had time to disengage its teeth." Conical net: Any net of conical form, usually mounted on a wooden frame of some kind. The simplest is a wooden hoop. One of the most elaborate is the large A-frame used for the lifting net. See fig. 13. Cylindrical net: Any net of cylindrical form. See fig. 9. Dead netting: See Flat netting. Dip net: A generic term, applied to any form of net which is dipped into the water to catch fish, etc. These range very widely in form as well as in size, from the small hoop or arc net up to the immense A-frame lifting net. See figs. 13, 16, and 17. Double selvage: See Selvedge. Drag: A term sometimes applied to the "bush net" which may take various forms from a roll or bundle of branches to a screen of intertwined branches, or a grapevine to which leafy branches are attached (called "grapevine drag"). Such a drag is always drawn through the water as a movable weir. Drag net, Draft net, Draught net, Driggle: Any net whic is dragged, hauled, or drawn through the water. Th drag nets may be of various sizes and forms. They n are usually drawn by boats of some sort. That this a very loosely used term is shown by the following observation by Bathhurst (1838, p. 115), "so many different nets are called by this name that it is . difficult to know which is meant." See fig. 14. Draft net: See Drag net. Draught Net: See Drag net. Drift net: A net, attached to a floating buoy or to some type of vessel, which moves with the buoy or the vessel under the influence of the wind, the tide, or the current. It differs essentially from the trawl or the seine in that it is not purposely approached towar the fish. It merely drifts naturally under the influen of the elements. It may, as here in Northwestern California, be held between two canoes which are so; maneuvered as to keep the net fully stretched in just the desired position. See fig. 15. Driggle: See Drag net. Eye: See Shuttle. False loops: See Meshes, false. Filter nets and Filter basket: A Filter net is any net so devised and set as to filter out from the water as it flows through the net such small species as are car- ried by the current without their own volition (certaii' small fishes, also crustacea) or which filters out the free-swimming species of fish. Closely related to this net is what we are here calling the Double Drifting Bag net, the Drag seine and the Drifting Bag seine. In each of these types the net is drifted or hauled through the water to a greater or less extent, and as it is hauled the fish are filtered out of the water. Basketry traps set in running water act as filters in the same way as do the filter nets. Fishgig: See Gig. Fishhook: Any device used on any pliable cord or line for catching fish. Hooks are of many forms and of various sizes, from the simple gorge hook to the composite angular hook, with or without barbules. Usually used with bait of some kind. Fish trap: This term is very loosely used, in some instances erroneously referring to a large and elaborated weir or to a net so set as to entrap the fish. Most frequently, however, it signifies some kind of a device woven of rigid material (some form of basketry) used for entrapping fish. This last use seems a more correct one. Such fish traps may be long and cylindrical or cones with or without invagi- nated mouths. Others are half-cylinders or what have been called half-tamale-shaped, still others box-shaped. I I I 130 KROEBER AND BARRETT: FISHING IN NORTHWESTERN CALIFORNIA ig a net: See Setting in of a net. See Gig. netting, Dead netting: A piece of netting made with- out any widenings or contractions. See figs. 18-20. oat, Floater, Buoy, Pellet, Swimmer: An object made of buoyant material (light wood, tule, etc.) attached to the head of a net to keep it at the desired level. Floats are attached by strops, the length of which regulate the depth of the net in the water. oater: See Float. oot: The lower margin of a flat net. otline, Foot rope, Ground rope, Bottom line, etc.: The heavy cord rove, bent, or seized to the foot of a net. It is to this footline that the sinkers are fastened. rk: See Shuttle. ke: A tubular net held open with hoops and provided with a funnel at its entrance. A true fyke is not found in this region, though we do find a tubular net with a hoop holding its mouth open. See fig. 9. aff: A hook or barb on a handle, used in securing fish. ig, Fishgig, Fizgig: 1. Strictly speaking, a kind of spear with barbed prongs for taking fish. 2. Sometimes loosely applied to the harpoon. 3. Also applied to a device made of hooks which is drawn through the water, where fish do not readily bite, in the hope of snagging them. No record of this last device is present in our area. Gill net: A large flat net, fixed in the water, in which the fish are caught by the gills as they attempt to get through it. It is almost always provided with floats and sinkers, and it may extend from shore to shore or may be anchored in one way or another. Such a net is often called a set net. See figs. 18-20. Gore: A tapering triangular section of a net. Also called a pix. gorge, Gorge hook, Gorget: A very primitive type of 7 fishhook, consisting of a straight piece of wood, bone, antler, or stone pointed at one or both ends. The line is attached about its middle. See fig. 39, a and b. Gorget: See Gorge. Grapevine drag: See Drag. Groping: A term used in some regions for diving and groping with the hands for fish among the rocks, etc. Guide fence: Any type of diversionary structure so placed as to cause fish, lampreys, and/or other species to pass some desired spot where they may be more easily taken. A guide fence may be constructed of any material: brush, logs, slats, wattling, even stone. Hand net: Any net which is manipulated by hand. A loosely used term, most often applied to a small dip net of one form or another. Harpoon: A barbed spear or javelin with detachable head on a toggle line used to take larger species of fish and sea mammals. In our area the fish harpoon is usually of the single-toggle or double-toggle type. A heavier harpoon is used for seals and sea lions. The toggle harpoon consists of a shaft, one (or two) foreshafts on which are fitted the barbed head, at- tached by a leader and toggle line to the shaft. This implement is sometimes referred to as a gig, though this term should be reserved for the spear with fixed point. See figs. 32-35, and pl. 12, a-f. Head: The upper margin of a flat net. Headline, Head rope, Top rope, Cork line, etc.: A heavy cord or rope rove, bent, or seized to the head of a net. It is to this headline that the floats are attached, usually by strops. Head of a harpoon: The detachable barbed point. Heading: Strengthening the upper and lower edges of a flat net by doubling the cords of the edge meshes or by using a stronger cord. Similar to selvaging the side edges. Head-masting: See Selvedge. Hitch: A knot or noose, especially one intended as a temporary fastening, and capable of being readily undone; as a diamond hitch, a half hitch, etc. Hook: See Fishhook. Hose, tail: The slender, usually more or less cylindri- cal, end section of a conical or cylindrical net; as in a trawl. None of the nets in our area are purposely woven with such a hose, though in actual use the V- frame scoop net often takes on such a form when partially filled. See pl. 3, c. Knot: See sheet bend, lark's-head knot. Of the many knots only these two are found in this area. Lance: A type of spear, often with sharpened, unbarbed point. The only implement of this kind in our area is the sharpened pole used for taking certain species of flat fishes in the tidewaters. Lacustrine: Pertaining to lakes or inhabiting lakes. Landing net: A conical net, usually of medium or rela- tively small size, used in dipping fish out of corrals or directly out of a stream. It may be mounted on any kind of a frame, but for clarity we are here restrict- ing the use of the term to the net mounted on an A- frame, and without the signaling and trigger device. Lark's-head knot: See pI. 8, b. Leister: A special type of spear with three points. The two outer points are more or less flexible and have r ecurved, infacing barbs which grasp or hook into the prey. Teit (1900, p. 252) describes and illustrates for the Thompson Indians of B3ritish Columbia a leister, which he merely refers to as a three-pronged fish spear. The leister is much used in the regions farther north but does not occur in the California r egion. 131 132 ANTHROPOLOGICAL RECORDS Length of a net: Usually expressed by the whites in fathoms. Indians also use the term fathom, or very frequently the term "reach," signifying the distance from fingertips to fingertips with the arms fully stretched. This measure actually gives a close ap- proximation to our fathom. Lever: The first row of meshes of a net. Lift net, Lifting net: A term which could be properly applied to any net which is lifted out of the water when a catch is secured. Some lift nets are horizontally placed (Olson, 1936, p. 28). Others are vertically placed. The lift net is used vertically in our North- western California region, where it is the most elabo- rate and important fishing device used. The term here is restricted to this large conical net mounted upon a vertically placed A-frame, and provided with a signal and trigger device. See fig. 13. Long line: See Trotline. Lozenge: See Quincunx. Marline: A small, loosely twisted, 2-ply cord used especially for seizing. Meshes: The squares composing a net, made by netting row upon row. These meshes may appear as rec- tangles or diamonds of various proportions depending upon the manner in which the meshes are "set in." (See Setting in of a net.) In weaving, however, practi- cally all meshes are square. The term is not to be applied to the half-squares, or half-meshes, formed by a single row of netting, which are called quincunx (which see). False meshes, false loops, accrues, quarterings: Loops or quincunxes inserted or "set in" in any given row of weaving, by which the number of loops in the work is increased. Used in conical or circular nets. This process is known as "creasing," an abbreviation of increasing; also as "letting out," "'rising," "hitch- ing," "widening," etc. Stole meshes or stolen meshes: Meshes or loops taken out so as to reduce the number of loops in the work. This procedure reduces the diameter of the net. Used in conical or circular nets. This process is known as "bating," "taking in," "stealing," "shrinking," or "narrowing." Mesh gauge: See Mesh measure. Mesh measure, Mesh gauge, Mesh stick, Mesh pin, Spool: All these terms are applied to the implement (regard- less of size, shape, or material of which it is made) which is used to govern the size of the mesh of the net. Various other terms for these measures are used: pin, shale, moot, cowl, keevil, kibble, and mesh. Mesh pin: See Mesh measure. Mesh stick: See Mesh measure. Mounting a net: See Setting in of a net. Multident: A spear with several fixed points, usually arranged in a circle. Also called multipointed spear. The multipointed harpoon does not occur in our area. I Multipointed spear: See Multident. Narcotizing of fish: See Poisoning. Needle: See Shuttle. Net: Device woven of cord or other pliable material, used for catching fish, birds, or mammals. Nets are of a myriad forms and sizes and are used in a great variety of ways. Their names are derived from their forms, methods of use, and often from the kind of fish or game taken. In the region here under consideration the followin types of nets are found: arc net, bag net, bow dip net, bush net, conical net, cylindrical net, dip net, drag n drift net, gill net, hauled net, hoop net, landing net, lifting net, movable weir, plunge net, purse net, seine set net, thrusting net, towed net. There are very many other types of nets which are not found in our area. To mention only a few; casting pound, trammel, trawl, hood, etc. Historically nets are very ancient: remains of net have been found in prehistoric Swiss lake dwellings. Upon the walls of Egyptian tombs of the early dynasti period appear paintings showing nets used by these ancient inhabitants of the Nile Valley. In North America numbers of net fragments have been re- covered from caves in Nevada and elsewhere. In fact, from the most ancient times man has used nets on la and in the water in almost every corner of the globe. As for the origin of nets, it is only possible to specu- late, but the theory that these light, easily portable barriers naturally arose as substitutes for rigid bar- riers of various kinds which were thrown across tidal channels in order to impound fish at the ebbing of the tide, or across streams to congregate fish going up o down, seems a most likely explanation. A flat net used in this way was, in reality, a convenient form of weir, and from such a net could have very easily de-- veloped the various other forms of net we now find. Net frame: The wooden frames upon which different kinds of nets are mounted vary greatly, from the small circular or oval hoops used for small hand dip nets, to the very large A-shaped or V-shaped frames of the lifting and the scoop nets. Furthermore there is a looseness in the use of these last two terms which causes confusion. For our purposes therefore, it seems well to definz these two. The A-frame is, as the name implies, one with a crossbar, and one which is used in the A position. This applies to the "lifting net" (fig. 13) and to the "landing net." The V-frame (fig. 17), on the other hand, is one which is usually held with its points up, being lowered' partially as a wave rolls in on the beach, or wholly as in the case of the immense V-frame dip net used on Klamath Lake. See our pl. 3, a-c; also Barrett, 1910, pl. 10. Norselling, Osselling: A method of suspending a net from its headline by cords of any desired length. These cords are called "norsells" or "ossells." Usually a light line is first rove through all the meshes before the norsells are attached. This method of attachment is not used in any of the nets of our region. I I KROEBER AND BARRETT: FISHING IN NORTHWESTERN CALIFORNIA 1Osselling: See Norselling. Over: See Width of a net. Pelagic fish: Fish which "swim in the upper layers of the water" of the ocean. Pellet: See Float. Pix: A gore, or tapering triangular section, in a net. Plunge net: A type of dip net mounted upon a narrow frame and especially useful in foamy water like that at the foot of falls. This net is plunged into the water at random and the fish are taken even though the fisherman cannot see into the water at all. In the lower reaches of the rivers, especially down on tide- water, or in murky waters, this net is plunged verti- cally, or swept sidewise, with good effect. See fig. 16. Ply: Literally a turn or twist; applied to each element of a cord (as 2-ply, 3-ply, etc.). 'Poisoning: Poisoning or narcotizing of fish was accom- plished by placing in pools or in slow-flowing streams certain kinds of mashed vegetal products: soaproot, manroot, dove weed, mullein. iQuarterings: See Meshes, false. Quincunx: One loop or half-mesh. This term signifies literally "five twelfths" or "five ounce" in Latin, and arises from the similarity in form between the Roman V and the loop or half-mesh. The whole, or completed mesh, is called a Quincuncial Lozenge. Reach: See Length of a net. Reeve: To thread or pass a rope or line through any opening, as to pass a headline through the meshes forming the upper edge or head of a net. Rove, Roving: A roll or sliver of fiber drawn out and slightly twisted, ready for spinning into the final cord. School: See Shoal. Scoop net: This term could be applied to any of the dip nets which are handled with a scooping motion. How- ever, for the sake of clarity it seems best to restrict its use here to that relatively large conical net, mounted on a V-frame, which is used on the immediate coastline for the purpose of catching smelt and other small species of fish as these roll in in the breakers. It is often called a surf net. See fig. 17 and pl. 3, a-c. Seine: A flat net which is hauled by hand or with canoes, usually in such a manner that it encircles or im- pounds the fish. Or a seine may be hauled down a stream so as to drive fish toward a weir ort trap. In that event it is practically a movable weir. A seine may be used either with or without floats and sinkers, depending upon circumstances. Seized: Fastened together or lashed with cord of smaller size, especially marline. Selvedge, Selvage, Head-masting: The self edge of any woven fabric. In flat nets, specifically, the right and the left edges,'as distinct from the top (head) and bottom (foot) of the net. These edges are reinforced by tying a continuous string into each successive mesh, thus forming a straight, firm edge to take the strain. It is this additional cord which is referred to by the term Selvedge or Selvage, or more correctly Double Selvage. It is quite customary to strengthen the upper and lower edges of a net by using double cords or a cord of heavier material. This is called Heading. In coni- cal nets, those mounted upon A-frames and V-frames, a similar reinforcing cord may be run along the front edge of the net. The same term, selvedge, may prop- erly be applied to it also. See pls. 9, a, and 10, b. Sennit: A braided cord or a fabric of plaited cords. Setline: See Trotline. Set net: Any net which is fixed in its position, such as a gill net. See figs. 18-20. Set in: The insertion of one or more extra quincunxes (also called accrues, quarterings, or false meshes) in a mesh in order to provide for a greater number of meshes in the next round and thus for a widening of the net at this point. Not to be confused with the Setting in of a net, which see. Setting in of a net: This term refers to the system fol- lowed in mounting or fixing a net upon its headline, which in turn governs the shape of the diamond of each mesh. The closer the meshes are spaced on the head- line, the narrower and deeper the meshes will be. If a perfect square is to be produced, three meshes are spaced on the headline so as to take up the length of four bars or two full stretches of a mesh. This is called "setting in by the third." If four meshes occupy the space of three, this is "setting in by the fourth." If five meshes occupy the space of four, this is "setting in by the fifth," and so on. Sheet bend, Mesh knot, Netting knot, Weaver's knot, Hawser bend, Becket bend, Trawler's knot: The knot used in weaving the meshes of nets in this region. For the details of this knot see pl. 7, a. Shoal: A multitude of fish. Also called a school of fish. Shuttle, Needle: The implement upon which is wound the thread, string, or twine used in netting. Primitive types of shuttles are usually provided with an eye or fork at each end and they may be made of any material (wood, antler, bone). Modern net makers often use a shuttle provided at one end with an eye carrying a tongue, its opposite extremity having a simple notch. See pl. 12, g-o. Sluice: A narrow channel made by placing barrages and guide fences so as to divert the water and, with it, the fish, lampreys, and/or other species so that they may be more easily taken. See fig. 11. Snagging: See Sniggle. Sniggle: A hair or vegetable-fiber ball attached to the end of a line and used for snagging or sniggling small species of fish, particularly trout. The sniggle is 133 ANTHROPOLOGICAL RECORDS sometimes baited, but is often used without any bait whatever. As the trout nibbles, its teeth become en- tangled in the fibers of the sniggle, and it can be easily lifted out of the water, or snagged. Spear: A general term made to include, rather loosely, various types of pointed weapons with long shafts. It may most properly be restricted to the shaft with a fixed head, as distinguished from the harpoon with its detachable head. A development of this implement is the bident, with its two fixed points, the trident with three, and the multident with several. The term gig is sometimes applied to this type of implement. Spool: See Mesh measure. Stapling: To fasten by staples. It is done in the following manner. Fasten a lighter line to the headline of a net. Then reeve this light line through any desired number of meshes and then hitch or seize it to the headline, allowing enough slack in this light line to form a staple or bight, so that this section of the net hangs down the desired distance. Repeat this reeving and hitching till the entire net edge is on the stapling line. See plates 9, a, and 10, b. Strop: The line by which a float is attached to the head of a net. Surf net: See Scoop net. Sweep: A movable weir, particularly one made of leafy branches attached to a grapevine or other flexible holder and drawn through the water to cause the fish to move toward a weir or trap. Swimmer: See Float. Tail: See Hose. Taut (tight): A term used to signify the pulling tight of the loop around the mesh measure. In aboriginal netting variations in this tightening of successive rounds of loops are apparently sometimes used to ex- pand a net's diameter. Trawl: 1. This term is sometimes applied to the very long fishing-line which is anchored firmly with many hooks attached to it by means of short lines or leaders Another and better term for this is "trotline." 2. The term Trawl is chiefly applied to the large bag net which is dragged along the sea bottom or in very deep water (beam trawl, otter trawl). Our Indian do have two types of bag nets which are hauled through the water, but in no sense could either be called a true Trawl. Troll: To fish with a trolling line provided with a hook which is drawn through the water. That trolling was done aboriginally in this region may be doubted, though some informants stated that it was done down on tide- water in more recent times. Trotline: An extended line to which are attached any desired number of hooks each by means of its short line or leader. It is fixed by being anchored. V-Frame: See Net frame. Waterspread: The water which backs up and spreads out over the land at time of flood or of high tide. Weir: Any dam or obstruction used for catching fish. Weirs range from a log, a simple line of rocks or of brush, to a very elaborate structure with impounding corrals and platforms. Also there are double weirs and movable weirs of various kinds. See figs. 1-8, 10, 12. Width of a net: Usually expressed by the term "over." (A net is said to be three fathoms long and one over, or wide.) Wing: A net device for conducting the fish into the main body, bag, or purse of the net. 134 BIBLIOGRAPHY ABBREVIATIONS American Anthropologist American Antiquity American Museum of Natural History Anthropological Papers Bulletins Memoirs Bureau of American Ethnology, Bulletins Museum of the American Indian, Heye Foundation, Indian Notes and Monographs Peabody Museum of American Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University, Papers Smithsonian Institution Annual Reports Contributions to Knowledge Contributions to North American Ethnology University of California Publications Anthropological Records American Archaeology and Ethnology University of California Archaeological Survey, Reports United States National Museum, Reports Aginsky, B. W. 1943. Culture Element Distributions, XXIV: Central Sierra. UC-AR 8:393-468. Amsden, Charles Avery 1934. Navaho Weaving, its Technic and History. Santa Ana, Calif. 261 pp. Anell, Bengt 1955. Contributions to the History of Fishing in the Southern Seas. Studia Ethnographica Upsaliensia IX. 249 pp. Distribution of circular fishhooks and snares. Bancroft, H. H. 1883. The Native Races. Vol. I. "The Wild Tribes." Barnett, H. G. 1937. Culture Element Distributions, VII: Oregon Coast. UC-AR 1:155-204. Barrett, S. A. 1908a. The Ethno-geography of the Pomo and Neigh- boring Indians. UC-PAAE 6:1-332. 1908b. Pomo Indian Basketry. UC-PAAE 7:133-308. 1910. The Material Culture of the Klamath Lake and Modoc Indians of Northeastern California and Southern Oregon. UC-PAAE 5:239-292. 1916. Pomo Buildings. Holmes Anniversary Volume, pp. 1-17. Washington, D.C. 1952. Material Aspects of Pomo Culture. Bull., Milwaukee Public Mus., Vol. 20. 508 pp. Bartlett, J. R. 1854. Personal Narrative of Explorations and Inci- dents in Texas, New Mexico, California, Sonora and Chihuahua, connected with the United States and Mexican Boundary Commis- sion during the years 1850, '51, '52, and '53. Vol. 2, chap. 23. Bathhurst, Charles [1838]. Notes on Nets. London. 184 pp. Beals, Ralph L. 1933. Ethnology of the Nisenan. UC-PAAE 31:335- 414. Bennyhoff, J. A. 1950. Californian Fish Spears and Harpoons. UC-AR 9:295- 338. Berreman, J. B. 1944. Chetco Archeology. General Studies in Anthro- pology, 11:1-40. Menasha, Wis. Bolton, H. E. 1930. Anza's California Expeditions. 5 vols. Univ. Calif. Press. Berkeley, Calif. Vol. 3, "The San Francisco Colony," con- tains Font's short diary. 1931. Font's Complete Diary. Univ. Calif. Press, Berkeley, Calif. 522 pp. Bonnerjea, Biren 1937. California Indian Fishing Methods. Salmon and Trout Magazine, 87:130-133. [135] AA A Ant AMNH -AP -B -M BAE-B MAIHF-INM PMH-P SI -AR -CK -CNAE UC -AR -PAAE UCAS-R USNM-R ANTHROPOLOGICAL RECORDS Bonnot, Paul 1930. The California Whitebait Fishery. California Fish and Game, 16:130-136. Bright, William 1957. The Karok Language. Univ. Calif. Publ. Ling., Vol. 13. Buck, P. H. 1930. Samoan Material Culture. Bernice P. Bishop Mus., Bull., 75:1-697. 1932. Ethnology of Tongareva. Bernice P. Bishop Mus., Bull., 92:1-225. 1950. Material Culture of Kapingamarangi. Bernice P. Bishop Mus., Bull., 200:1-291. California Pictorial 1948. See Van Nostrand and Coulter, 1948. Chard, C. S. 1953. Ethnographic Material Culture of the Napa Region. In R. F. Heizer, ed. The Archaeology of the Napa Region, UC-AR 12:244-246. Chesnut, V. K. 1902. Plants Used by the Indians of Mendocino County, California, Contr. U. S. Nat. Herbarium, 7:295-408. Cody, B. P. 1942. Yurok Fish-Dam Dance. Southwest Museum, Masterkey, 16:81-86. Cook, S. F. 1957. The Aboriginal Population of Alameda and Contra Costa Counties, California. UC-AR 16:131-156. Cosgrove, C. B. 1947. Caves of the Upper Gila and Hueco Areas in New Mexico and Texas. PMH-P XXIV (no. 2):1-181. Curtis, E. S. The North American Indian. 1913. Quinault. Vol. 9. 1915. Kwakiutl. Vol. 10. 1916. Nootka, Haida. Vol. 11. 1924a. Hupa, Yurok, Karok, Wiyot, Tolowa, Shasta, Achomawi, Klamath. Vol. 13. 1924b. Kato, Wailaki, Yuki, Pomo, Wintun, Maidu, Miwok. Vol. 14. Davidson, D. S. 1933. Australian Netting and Basketry Techniques. Jour. Polynesian Soc., 43:257-299. 1935. Knotless Netting in America and Oceania. AA 37:117-134. Davis, F. M. 1937. An Account of the Fishing Gear of England and Wales. 3rd ed. Fisheries Investigations, Ser. II, XV (no. 2, 1936):1-139. D'Harcourt, Raoul 1934. Les textiles anciens du Perou et leurs techniques. Les Editions d'Art et d'Histoire, Paris. 170 pp., 108 pls. Dixon, R. B. 1905. The Northern Maidu. AMNH-B 17:119-346. 1907. The Shasta. AMNH-B 17:381-498. 1910. The Chimariko Indians and Language. UC-PAAE 5:293-380. Driver, H. E. 1936. Wappo Ethnography. UC-PAAE 36:179-220. 1939. Culture Element Distributions, X: Northwest California. UC-AR 1:297-434. Driver, H. E., and A. L. Kroeber 1932. Quantitative Expression of Cultural Relation- ships. UC-PAXNE 31:211-256. Driver, H. E., and W. C. Massey 1957. Comparative Studies of North American Indians. Transactions, Amer. Philos. Soc., n.s., 47:163-456. Drucker, Philip 1936. A Karuk World-Renewal Ceremony at Pana- minik. UC-PAAE 35:23-28. 1937. The Tolowa and Their Southwest Oregon Kin. UC-PAAE 36:221-300. Good concise treatment of the Tolowa and related peoples across the line in Oregon. 1951. The Northern and Central Nootkan Tribes. BAE-B 144. 480 pp. The section on whaling is very good. Du Bois, Cora 1935. Wintu Ethnography. UC-PAAE 36:1-148. Edge-Partington, J. 1890-1898. Ethnographical Album of the Pacific Islands, Ser. 1-3. Manchester. Emmons, G. T. 1860. Indian Tribes of Oregon and California. In H. R. Schoolcraft, Archives of Aboriginal Knowledge, 3:200-225. Engle, Frederic 1956. Curayacu -- A Chavinoid Site. Archeology, 9:98-105. Erikson, E. H. 1943. Observations on the Yurok: Childhood and World Image. UC-PAAE 35:257-302. Essene, Frank 1942. Culture Element Distributions, XXI: Round Valley. UC-AR 8:1-98. 136 KROEBER AND BARRETT: FISHING IN NORTHWESTERN CALIFORNIA Findeisen, Hans MS. Die Fischerei im Leben der Altsibirischen Volkerstamme. Doctoral diss., Univ. Berlin (1929). 73 pp. Font, Fray Pedro 1931. Font's Complete Diary: A Chronicle of the Founding of San Francisco. Trans. and ed. by H. E. Bolton. Univ. Calif. Press, Berkeley. Foster, George M. 1944. A Summary of Yuki Culture. UC-AR 5:155-244. Fry, W. S. 1904. The Humboldt Indians. Out West, 21:503-514. Garcds, Francisco 1900. On the Trail of a Spanish Pioneer. The Diary and Itinerary of Francisco Garcds through Sonora, Arizona, and California, 1775-1776. Trans. and ed. by Elliot Coues. 2 vols. New York. Garth, T. R. 1953. Atsugewi Ethnography. UC-AR 14:129-212. Concise but quite full treatment of all phases of Atsugewi culture. Gibbs, George 1860. Journal of the Expedition of Colonel Redick M'Kee . . . 1851. In H. R. Schoolcraft, Archives of Aboriginal Knowledge, 3:99-177. 1877. Tribes of Western Washington and North- western Oregon. SI-CNAE 1:157-219. Gifford, E. W. 1928. The Cultural Position of the Coast Yuki. AA, n.s., 30:112-115. 1939. The Coast Yuki. Anthropos, 34:292-375. 1940. Californian Bone Artifacts. UC-AR 3:153-238. 1947. Californian Shell Artifacts. UC-AR 9:1-132. Gifford, E. W., and A. L. Kroeber 1937. Culture Element Distributions, IV: Pomo. UC-PAINE 37:117-254. Gifford, E. W., and S. Klimek 1936. Culture Element Distributions, II: Yana. UC-PAAE 37:71-100. Goddard, P. E. 1903. Life and Culture of the Hupa. UC-PAAE 1:1-88. 1904. Hupa Texts. UC-PAAE 1:89-368. 1914. Notes on the Chilula Indians of Northwestern California. UC-PAAE 10:265-288. 1923. The Habitat of the Wailaki. UC-PAAE 20:93- 109. 1924. Indians of the Northwest Coast. AMNH Hand- book No. 10. 1929. The Bear River Dialect of Athapascan. UC- PAAE 24:291-324. Goldschmidt, Walter 1951. Nomlaki Ethnography. UC-PAAE 42:303-443. Goldschmidt, Walter, and H. E. Driver 1940. The Hupa White Deerskin Dance. UC-PAAE 35:103- 142. Graumont, Raoul, and John Hensel 1939. Encyclopedia of Knots and Fancy Rope Work. New York. 615 pp. Graumont, Raoul, and E. Winstrom 1948. Fishermen's Knots and Nets. New York. 203 PP. Greengo, Robert E. MS. Aboriginal Use of Shellfish as Food in Cali- fornia. Master's thesis, Univ. Calif. (1951), Univ. Calif. Library, Berkeley. 110 pp. 1951. Molluscan Species in California Shell Middens. UCAS-R 13:1-29. 1952. Shellfish Foods of the California Indians. Kroeber Anthro. Soc. Papers, No. 7, pp. 63-114. Gruvel, A. 1928. La Peche, dans la prehistoire, dans l'antiquite et chez les peuples primitifs. Societe d'Editions Geographiques, Maritimes et Coloniales. Paris. 232 pp. Gunther, Erna 1928. A Further Analysis of the First Salmon Cere- mony. Univ. Wash. Publ. Anthro., 2:129-173. Hald, Margrethe 1950. Olddanski Tekstiler. Copenhagen. 496 pp. Handbook of American Indians 1910-1912. BAE-B 30. Ed., F. W. Hodge. Handbook of South American Indians. 1948. BAE-B 143. 6 vols. Ed., Julian H. Steward. Harrington, J. P. 1932. Tobacco among the Karuk Indians of California. BAE-B 94. 284 pp. 1942. Culture Element Distributions, XIX: Central California Coast. UC-AR 7:1-46. Heizer, R. F. 1938. The Plank Canoe of the Santa Barbara Region. Ethnological Studies, 8:193-227. Stockholm. 1940. The Frameless Plank Canoe of the California Coast. Primitive Man, 13:80-89. Catholic Univ. Amer. 1941. The Use of Plants for Fish Poisoning by the California Indians. Leaflets in Western Botany, No. 3, pp. 43-44. 1943. Aconite Poison Whaling in Asia and America: an Aleutian Transfer to the New World. BAE-B 133, pp. 415-468. 1949. Curved Single-Piece Fishhooks of Shell and Bone in California. A Ant 15:89-97. 137 138 ANTHROPOLOGICAL RECORDS 1951. A Prehistoric Yurok Ceremonial Site (Hum- 174). UCAS-R 11 (no. 10), pp. 1-4. 1953a. Aboriginal Fish Poisons. Anthro. Paper No. 38 in BAE-B 151, pp. 225-284. (Bibliography.) 1953b. The Archaeology of the Napa Region. Ed., R. F. Heizer. UC-AR 12:225-358. Heizer, R. F., and Alex F. Krieger 1956. The Archaeology of Humboldt Cave, Churchill County, Nevada. UC-PAAE 47:1-190. Heizer, R. F., and W. C. Massey 1953. Aboriginal Navigation off the Coasts of Upper and Baja California. Anthro. Paper No. 39 in BAE-B 151, pp. 285-311. Heizer, R. F., and J. E. Mills 1952. The Four Ages of Tsurai. Univ. Calif. Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles. 208 pp. Heizer, R. F., and M. A. Whipple, eds. 1951. The Indians of California. "The Yurok of Trinidad Bay, 1851," by Carl Meyer; "Yurok Law and Custom," by A. L. Kroeber; "The World Renewal Cult of Northwest California," by A. L. Kroeber. Univ. Calif. Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles. 478 pp. Hewes, G. W. 1942. Economic and Geographical Relationships of Aboriginal Fishing in Northern California. California Fish and Game, 28:103-110. MS. Aboriginal Use of Fishing Resources in North- western North America. Ph.D. diss., Univ. Calif. (1947). Univ. Calif. Library. 269 pp. (Cited as Hewes, Th., 1947.) 1956. Abstract of Aboriginal Use of Fishing Re- sources in Northwestern North America, Kroeber Anthro. Soc. Papers, No. 14, pp. 98, 99. Hodge, F. W. See Handbook of American Indians. Holt, Catharine 1946. Shasta Ethnography. UC-AR 3:299-350. Hornell, James 1929. The Fishing Methods of the Ganges. Mem. Asiat. Soc. Bengal, 8:200-237. 1946. Water Transport. Cambridge Press, Cambridge, England. 308 pp. 1950. Fishing in Many Waters. Cambridge, England. 210 pp. Hutchings' California Magazine 1858. Vol. II. Jepson, W. L. 1909. The Flora of California. San Francisco. 578 pp. 1910. The Silva of California. Mem. Univ. Calif. Vol. 2. 480 pp. I Jewitt, John R. 1815. Narrative of the Adventures and Sufferings John R. Jewitt. Middletown, Conn. 203 pp. 1931. A Journal Kept at Nootka Sound. Boston, 91 Jochelson, W. 1905. The Koryak. AMNH-M. Pt. 1 of Vol. 10. 1908. The Koryak. AMNH-M. Pt. 2 of Vol. 10. Kelly, Isabel T. 1930. The Carver's Art of the Indians of Northwe ern California. UC-PAAE 24:343-360. Kent, Kate Peck In Wendorf (1953), which see. Kidder, A. V., and S. J. Guernsey 1919. Archaeological Explorations in Northeastern Arizona. BAE-B 65. 228 pp. Klimek, Stanislaw 1935. Culture Element Distributions, I: The Struc ture of California Indian Culture. UC-PAAE 37:1-70. Kniffen, Fred B. 1928. Achomawi Geography, UC-PAAE 23:297-332, 1939. Pomo Geography. UC-PAAE 36:353-400. Kroeber, A. L. 1905a. Types of Indian Culture in California. UC- PAAE 2:81-104. 1905b. Basket Designs of the Indians of Northweste4 California. UC-PAAE 2:105-164. 1907-1910. Handbook of American Indians North of Mexico. BAE-B 30. Articles. 1911. The Languages of the Coast of California No of San Francisco. UC-PAAE 9:273-436. 1920. California Culture Provinces. UC-PAAE 17:151-170. 1922. Elements of Culture in Native California. UC PAAE 13:259-328. 1923. The History of Native Culture in California. UC-PAAE 20:125-142. 1925. Handbook of the Indians of California. BAE-I 78. 995 pp. 1926. Law of the Yurok Indians. Congres Inter- nationale des Americanistes, 22d:511-516. 1927. Arrow Release Distributions. UC-PAAE 2 3:283-296. 1929. The Valley Nisenan. UC-PAAE 24:253-290. 1932. The Patwin and Their Neighbors. UC-PAAE 29:253-424. 1936a. Karok Towns. UC-PAAE 35:29-38. i I I v KROEBER AND BARRETT: FISHING IN NORTHWESTERN CALIFORNIA 1936b. Culture Element Distributions, III: Area and Climax. UC-PAAE 37:101-116. 1939. Cultural and Natural Areas of Native North America. UC-PAAE 38. 242 pp. 1941. Culture Element Distributions, XV: Salt, Dogs, Tobacco. UC-AR 6:1-20. Kroeber, A. L., and E. W. Gifford 1949. World Renewal. UC-AR 13:1-156. Langsdorff, G. H. von 1812. Bemerkungen auf einer Reise um die Welt. Vol. 2. Frankfurt a.M. 1814. Voyages and Travels in Various Parts of the World, During the Years 1803-1807. Pt. 2. London. See also quotation in Heizer and Mills, 1952. Leatherman, K. E., and A. D. Krieger r 1940. Contributions to Oregon Coast Prehistory. AA 6:19-28. Leonard, Zenas 1904. Adventures of Zenas Leonard, Fur Trader and Trapper, 1831-1836. Ed., W. F. Wagner. Cleveland, 317 pp. Records a four-year journey from St. Louis to Monterey and return, giving numerous details about various tribes of Indians. Also an account of the Leonid shower of Nov. 12, 1833. 1934. Same, but edited by Quaife. Chicago. 278 pp. L,oeb, E. M. 1926. Pomo Folkways. UC-PAAE 19:149-406. 1932. The Western Kuksu Cult. UC-PAAE 33:1-138. Ioeffelholz, H. F. and K. F. von 1886. Die Zoreisch-Indianer der Trinidad-Bai. Mitteilungen der Anthropologischen Gesell- schaft in Wien, 23:101-123. (See also trans- lation in Heizer and Mills, 1952.) kthrop, S. K. 1929. The Henequen Industry of San Pablo, Guatemala, MAIHF-INM, 6:120- 129. ud, L. L. 1918. Ethnogeography and Archaeology of the Wiyot Territory. UC-PAAE 14:221-436. ud, L. L., and M. R. Harrington 1929. Lovelock Cave. UC-PAAE 25:1-184. wie, R. H. 1924. Notes on Shoshonean Ethnography. AMNH-AP 20:187- 314. Description and illustration of tule balsa (p. 249 and fig. 32) as found among the Paviotso. ason, 0. T. 1889. The Ray Collection from the Hupa Reservation. SI-AR, 1886. 1902. Aboriginal American Harpoons. USNM-R, 1899-1900, pp. 189-304. 1904. Aboriginal American Basketry. USNM-R, 1902, pp. 171-548. McClellan, C. 1953. Ethnography of the Wappo and Patwin. In R. F. Heizer, ed., The Archaeology of the Napa Region, UC-AR 12:233-243. McKern, W. C. 1922. Functional Families of the Patwin. UC-PAAE 13:235-258. 1923. Patwin Houses. UC-PAAE 20:157-172. Meacham, A. B. 1875. Wigwam and War-path, or the Royal Chief in Chains. Boston. 702 pp. Merriam, C. Hart 1955. Studies of California Indians. Univ. Calif. Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles. 234 pp. Nomland, Gladys Ayer 1935. Sinkyone Notes. UC-PAAE 36:149-178. 1938. Bear River Ethnography. UC-AR 2:91-126. Nomland, Gladys Ayer, and A. L. Kroeber 1936. Wiyot Towns. UC-PAAE 35:39-48. Ogden, Adele 1941. The California Sea Otter Trade, 1784-1848. Univ. Calif. Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles. 251 pp. Olson, R. L. 1927. Adze, Canoe and House Types of the Northwest Coast. Univ. Wash. Publ. Anthro., 2:1-38. 1936. The Quinault Indians. Univ. Wash. Publ. Anthro., 6:1-190. O'Neale, L. M. 1932. Yurok-Karok Basket Weavers. UC-PAAE 32:1-184. 1945. Textiles of Highland Guatemala, Carnegie Institution of Washington, Publ. 567, 319 pp. Pope, Saxon T. 1918. Yahi Archery, UC-PAAE 13:103-152. 1923. A Study of Bows and Arrows, UC-PAAE, 13:329-414. Powers, Stephen 1874. The California Indians. Overland Monthly, 12:21-31, 412-424, 530-540. 1877. Tribes of California. SI-CNAE III. 635 pp. Very excellent data, collected between 1871 and 1875, on the various tribes of Northern California. 139 ANTHROPOLOGICAL RECORDS Quigley, Carroll 1956. Aboriginal Fish Poisons and the Diffusion Problem, AA 58:508-525. Radcliffe, 0. W. 1926. Fishing from the Earliest Times. Dutton and Co., New York. 494 pp. Radin, Paul 1924. Wappo Texts. UC-PAAE 19:1-148. 1929. A Grammar of the Wappo Language. UC-PAAE Vol. 27. 194 pp. Snyder, J. 0. 1924. Indian Methods of Fishing on the Trinity River.. . . California Fish and Game, 10:163-172. Sommer, H., W. F. Whedon, C. A. Kofoid, and R. Stohle 1937. Relations of Paralytic Shell-Fish Poisoningt4 Certain Plankton Organisms of the Genus Gonyaulax. Archives of Pathology, 24:537-5 Spencer, Charles L. 1942. Knots, Splices and Fancy Work. New York. 193 pp. Rau, Charles 1884. Prehistoric Fishing in Europe and North America. SI-CK 25. 342 pp. Roberts, Helen H. 1932. The First Salmon Ceremony of the Karok Indians. AA 34:426-440. Roedel, P. M. 1953. Common Ocean Fishes of the California Coast. Calif. Dept. of Fish and Game. Fish Bull. No. 91, pp. 1-184. Rostlund, E. 1952. Freshwater Fish and Fishing in Native North America. Univ. Calif. Publ. Geog., Vol. 9. 314 pp. Roth, Walter E. 1901. String, and Other Forms of Strand: Basketry-, Woven Bag-, and Net-work. North Queensland Ethnography, Bull. No. 1, pp. 1-54. Russell, C. J. (P.) W. 1856. California Fisheries. In San Francisco Bul- letin, issues of Sept. 3, 5, 11, 12, 15, 16. Sapir, Edward, and Leslie Spier 1943. Notes on the Culture of the Yana. UC-AR 3:239-298. Schenck, S. M., and E. W. Gifford 1952. Karok Ethnobotany. UC-AR 13:377-392. Schoolcraft, Henry R. 1860. Archives of Aboriginal Knowledge, 3:99-177, 200-225. Philadelphia. Shapovalov, Leo 1947. Distinctive Characters of the Species of Anadromous Trout and Salmon Found in Cali- fornia. California Fish and Game, 33:185-190. Siewertz Van Reesema, Elizabeth S. 1926. Contribution to the Early History of Textile Technics. Verhandelingen der Koninklijke Akademie van Wetenschappen Te Amsterdam, Vol. XXVI, No. 2. 78 pp. Smith, Marian W. 1940. The Puyallup-Nisqually. Columbia Univ. Contr. Anthro., 32:1-336. Spier, Leslie 1930. Klamath Ethnography. 338 pp. Spier, Leslie, and Edward Sapir 1930. Wishram Ethnography. UC-PAAE Vol. 30. Univ. Wash. Publ. Anthro. 3:151-300. Spott, Robert, and A. L. Kroeber 1942. Yurok Narratives. UC-PAAE 35:143-256. Stern, Bernhard J. 1934. The Lummi Indians of Northwest Washington. Columbia Univ. Contr. Anthro. 17:1-128. Stevens, G. A. 1950. Nets. London. 128 pp. Steward, Julian H. 1948. See Handbook of South American Indians. Stewart, Omer C. 1943. Notes on Pomo Ethnogeography. UC-PAAE 40:29-62. Taylor, Alex S. 1860-1862. The Indianology of California. Califor Farmer, Vols. XIV-XVII. Teit, James 1900. The Thompson Indians of British Columbia. AMNH-M Vol. 2, Pt. 4, pp. 163-392. Thompson, Mrs. Lucy 1916. To the American Indian. Eurkea, Calif. 2141 Treganza, A. E., C. E. Smith, and W. D. Weymouth 1950. An Archaeological Survey of the Yuki Area. UC-AR 12:113-128. Van Cleve, Richard 1945. Program of the Bureau of Marine Fisheries.' California Fish and Game, 31:80-138. Van Nostrand, Jeanne, and Edith Coulter 1948. California Pictorial. Univ. Calif. Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles. 159 pp. Venegas, Miguel 1756. A Natural and Civil History of California. 2 vols. Madrid. 140 KROEBER AND BARRETT: FISHING IN NORTHWESTERN CALIFORNIA begelin, E. W. 1942. Culture Element Distributions, XX: Northeast California. UC-AR 7:47-252. ies, David Pietersz de 1857. Voyages from Holland to America, 1632-1644. Colls. New York Hist. Soc., ser. 2, 3:1-136. xterman, T. T. 1908. Native Musical Instruments in California. Out West, 28:276-286. 1918. The Yana Indians. UC-PAAE 13:35-102. 1920a. Yurok Geography. UC-PAAE 16:177-314. 1920b. The Whaling Equipment of the Makah Indians. Univ. Wash. Publ. Anthro. 1:1-67. aterman, T. T., and G. Coffin 1920. Types of Canoes on Puget Sound. MAIHF-INM 5:1-43. aterman, T. T., and A. L. Kroeber 1938. The Kepel Fish Dam. UC-PAAE 35:49-80. endorf, Fred 1953. Archaeological Studies in the Petrified Forest National Monument. Mus. Northern Ariz., Bull., 27:1-203. 1850. Narrative of the United States Exploring Ex- pedition during the Years 1838-1842. 5 vols. Vol. 4, p. 313 shows a sketch of a salmon weir on the "Chickeeles" River in Washington. Vol. 5, chaps. 5 and 6 recount Lt. Emmons' narrative of exploration of the Sacramento River. On p. 200 of Vol. 5 is a description and drawing of a weir. The party was just north of "the Buttes" and on the west bank of the Sacramento River. This places them definitely in Patwin territory. Another edition of this work (1844), in five quarto volumes, gives this same information but with different page num- bering. Wilkinson, Sir J. G. 1878. The Manners and Customs of the Ancient Egyptians. 3 vols. London. Woodward, Arthur 1927. Some Tolowa Specimens. MAIHF-INM 4:137-150. Work, John 1945. Fur Brigade to the Buenaventura. John Work's California Expedition, 1832- 1833, for Hudson's Bay Company. Ed., Alice Bay Maloney. Calif. Hist. Soc. Quarterly, Vol. XXII, Nos. 2, 3, 4, and Vol. XXIII, Nos. 1, 2. Special Publ. No. 19. 112 pp. ilkes, Charles 1849. Western America, including California and Oregon. Philadelphia. 130 pp. 141 MAPS EXPLANATION OF MAPS Map 1. Weirs in Northwestern California and deline- ation of Littoral and Coastal Yurok Areas. Weirs A short bar across a stream indicates an established site for a weir. A crossed circle on the lower course of a stream or elsewhere indicates that one or more weirs were erected upstream, but that their precise locations are unknown. The crossed circle at Forks of Salmon marks an alleged Karok weir, in Konomihu, not Karok, territory. The crossed circle, and "S", at Happy Camp on the Klamath indicates an alleged Shasta weir in Karok territory. Ti, T2 Tolowa weirs at Munsontun and Milichuntun YM1, YM2 Yurok mythical weirs: YM1 at Roach Creek, Falcon's Rest; YM2, at Turip, original of Kepel Yl, Y2 Yurok historic weirs at Kepel and at Saint's Rest (Lo'lego) HI, H2, H3 Hupa weirs at Medilding, Takimilding, and in 1906 near Mill Creek Kl-K6 Karok weirs at Stanshaw-Irving Creek, on Salmon River above mouth, on Salmon above Somes Bar, on Klamath near Orleans, near mouth of Ullathorn Creek, near mouth of Redcap Creek Sl, S2, S3 Shasta weirs at Scott Creek, Horse Creek, Shasta River '5" Alleged Shasta weir at Happy Camp, in Karok country Littoral and Coastal Yurok Areas Solid black line marks the outer limits of the Littoral Zone. Heavy dotted line marks the exterior boundaries of the total Yurok Area. Where the two lines coincide, the solid black line supersedes the dotted line. The Coastal Yurok Area comprises two parts, a very small area lying north of the mouth of the Klamath, and a larger one beginning a short distance south of the mouth of the Klamath and extending down to Little River. The Littoral peoples are the Tolowa, the Coastal Yurok (those not of the riverine area), and the Wiyot. See also comments on map 2. Map 2. Culture Areas in Northern California and the Area of Culture Blendings in Northwestern California. This map, which presents an ethnographic classifi- cation of the groups dealt with by us, differs in certain respects from previous maps. This is because of a somewhat different weighting or preoccupation flowing from our particular subject matter. On the other hand, we have followed the delimitation of "tribal" (really linguistic) groups of our outline base map as it has been conventionally current for more than thirty years (going back to the large multicolor map in the Handbook), even where we now know the lines on this to be somewhat in- correct, because we cannot, in the present context of fishing practices, stop to dissect and compare the highly I detailed evidence on group boundaries. The C. Hart Merriam primary data on many "tribal" territories were not available when the basic all-California Hand- book may was compiled. They are now available throu the co-operation of the Smithsonian Institution and of thl heirs of the Merriam trust estate. As a result, we are aware that many of the group territory boundaries will be changed in detail, and some radically. But the cor- rections will take some years to establish. And until they are definitely established, the only practical cours appears to be to continue to operate with the conven- tionally accepted lines. Specifically, the Athabascan boundaries, internal and external, are due for a drastic overhaul. The old lines were based mainly on detailed data of Goddard's for certain patchy areas, reconciled as best possible by Kroeber with spotty information secured by himself, Goddard, Barrett, and Powers. There are now available. not only primary data, including settlement sites, long ago gathered by Merriam on most of the Athabascan groups, but others independently got by Goddard, laid aside by him, but rediscovered under the stimulus of the Merriam information just now worked over by Martin A. Baumhoff. As a result, the Mattole area lf will lose its southern half to the Sinkyone li; the Sinkyone will be split into two halves; the Chilula and Whilkut, ld and le, will be drastically altered. But we are not remaking, in the present monograph, a better map of California: we are using what is available at the moment. So much as to the particular dialectic or "tribal" areas. We return now to the ethnographic classification pre- sented by the shading in our map 2. Mainly this follows the old segregation of native Cali- fornian cultures into Northwestern, Central, and Southe subsequently carried further by Kroeber (1939, pp. 30, 55) by recognition of a transitional zone between North- western and Central culture. This transition area we ha retained: it appears in our map 2; in the text it is often called Marginal in distinction from the Core area of Northwest California culture. This Core comprises the Tolowa, Yurok, Karok, Hupa, and Wiyot, together probab1l with Chilula-Whilkut between the two last. However, in a monograph like the present one dealing with aspects of subsistence and technology, ecological adaptations necessarily loom larger than they do in classifications of total culture, many parts of which, such as religious and social structure, reflect environrnental influences only indirectly and partially. We have ac- cordingly found it desirable to distinguish a littoral aspect or facies of Northwestern California culture from a land-oriented, or better, riverine one. The Riverine Core peoples are the Yurok so far as they live on the Klamath, the Karok, the Hupa, and the Chilula-Whilkut. The Littoral Core peoples are the Tolowa, the off- Klamath Coastal Yurok, and the Wiyot. The term "Coastal Yurok" has been coined for the subsistence culture situations treated in the present work, It does not abrogate the term "Coast Yurok" as it has been regularly employed to designate only the people of Stone and Big lagoons and Trinidad, on the basis of dialectic variation. This quite minute linguistic area is [144] I k. KROEBER AND BARRETT: FISHING IN NORTHWESTERN CALIFORNIA numbered 2b on our base map. However, so narrow a division does not seem justified from the standpoint of subsistence culture. The people in area 2b are one with the other littoral Yurok of the immediate coastal belt (Redwood Creek, Gold Bluff, Wilson Creek), except that atthe mouth of the Klamath we find riverine influences crowding clear down to the coast itself. Thus we have ashort gap in this littoral belt at the river mouth, after which it resumes--for one village more, namely Omen-- up to the northern limit of Yurok territory on the coast. This is shown in more detail on our map 1. It is this narrow, broken littoral stretch which we designate for our present purposes as the "Coastal Yurok" area, in- cluding thereby all the Yurok actually resident on the ,coast, in contradistinction to the smaller dialectic unit, the Coast Yurok of map 2. Neither does "Coastal Yurok" imply that all segments of Yurok culture divide on this coast-river distinction. For instance, the World Renewal rituals are closely similar at Big Lagoon, which is both Coastal Yurok and Coast Yurok (2b); at mouth of Redwood Creek, which was essentially main Yurok (2a) in speech; at Rekwoi at the ,mouth of the Klamath; and at Pekwan 20 miles up the AKamath. And similarly as regards other rituals, beliefs, law, and society. There are a few minor points to be noted about the Littoral zone. Most of the Tolowa settlements were on the coast, or lay on near-by lagoons (cf. Lake Earl) with their backs to the beach. There were two or three settlements on Smith River, but these were smaller than most of the coastal ones. The largest village was at the mouth of Smith River, corresponding to Rekwoi at the mouth of the Klamath, but on a much shorter river. Strictly speaking, there is a split among the Tolowa as there is among the Yurok, but it is the other way: the coast predominates. And the Riverine minority is so minute that we have for convenience subsumed it in the Littoral majority. With the Bear and Mattole River Athabascans of the Transitional zone, we have sea-frontage but land orien- tation. Smelt, abalone, seaweed, sea lions, and seals were taken, but most of the settlements stood inland, and most of the year-round food came from the land and river. We have accordingly felt justified in excluding the Bear and Mattole River area from the Littoral zone. ,This exclusion is in accord with the generic condition south of Cape Mendocino; the coast frontage is steep, and among Athabascan Sinkyone, Yuki, and Pomo alike the littoral population is only a small fraction of that living inland along streams. North of Cape Mendocino, the coast changes so as to invite littoral residence. The Wiyot coast is a sand beach stretch, with a large stillwater bay halfway along. The Yurok coast is rocky, but punctuated by sheltered coves like Trinidad and Wilson Creek and four preva- lently land-locked and freshwater bodies from Big to Redwood lagoons. The Tolowa stretch has the advantage of numerous outlying sea stacks, a fairly broad level terrace immediately back of the surf, some good coves around Crescent City, and the freshwater lagoon of Lake Earl. NORTHWESTERN CALIFORNIA AND ADJACENT ETHNIC GROUPS NUCLEAR GROUPS Riverine Groups Yurok (on Klamath R.) .. . . . ... . . . . . a Karok ... . ................. . 8 Hupa ..... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . lc Chilula . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ld Whilkut .................... . le Littoral Groups Tolowa (and Winchuck) ............ . lb Coastal Yurok ......... . 2b and part of 2a Wiyot ..................... . 3 MARGINAL OR PERIPHERAL GROUPS Shasta. New River Shasta.............. Konomihu . Chimarico . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mattole and Bear R. .............. Nongatl and Van Duzen R............ Sinkyone. Lassik. Wailaki . Wintu (in Trinity, Mad, and Eel R. drainages) .............. NEIGHBORING GROUPS Modoc and Klamath ...... Okwanuchu. Achomawi. Atsugewi. Yana (all)........... Wintu (of Sacramento drainage) Wintun (Nomlaki))....... Yuki. Huchnom . . . . . . . . . . . Kato. Coast Yuki ........... Pomo (all) ........... Wappo. Patwin (River and Hill)..... Maidu (all). Miwok (Coast, Lake, Plains, N. Hill, Central) 6a 6b 6c 9 1 f lg 1 i lh lj 16a 5 ........ . . . . . . . 6d ........ . . . . . . . 6e 6f 7 .. ...... .... 16a .. ...... .... 16b .. ...... .... 4a .. ...... .... 4b .. ...... ..... . lk ........ . . . . . . . 4c ... . . . . . ... 10 ....... . . . . . . . 4d 16c, d 1 7a, b, c .. . . . .... 18a-e Map 3. Converging Fixed Weir. The V-shaped, or con- verging, fixed weir was confined to the northern part of the area, but its presence was denied by some informants. It was rather generally denied farther toward the south. Map 4. Straight Fixed Weir. This weir is the type most widely distributed and appears throughout almost all of the Northwestern and Central California areas. Its presence was denied by only a few informants, and these denials may be due to misunderstandings. The straight weir was the simplest to build and could be expected if any weir at all was present in the area. Map 5. Double Fixed Weir. This weir was apparently found only among the Tolowa, being specifically denied almost everywhere else in the western part of our area and not even mentioned in the Sacramento Valley and Sierra Nevada regions. Map 6. Movable Weir. This weir might be any portable device, from a brush drag to a woven fence of split stakes. It was used by many tribes, wherever conditions were right; particularly on small streams and in backwaters on tidal flats. Map 7. Weirs with Pens on Upstream Sides. A few tribes used impounding bays or pens as accessories to their weirs. Some placed these pens on the upstream sides, others on the downstream sides (map 8). However, many tribes in our area denied their use. 145 146 ANTHROPOLOGICAL RECORDS Map 8. Weirs with Pens on Downstream Sides. Map 9. Weirs with Platforms. Some tribes built plat- forms on their weirs. These were chiefly for dip-netting, though they were occasionally used for harpooning. There was also a special type of scaffold for harpooning which had an even wider distribution, as shown on map 39; also the lamprey chute of the Tolowa (map 55). Map 10. Weirs with Traps or Nets Set in Openings. Closely akin to the impounding pens were the traps or nets placed in openings left for this purpose in the weirs. Map 11. A-frame Lifting Net. Since the lifting net required a swift-flowing stream with eddies, its use is naturally restricted. We find it in our nuclear area and in some of the adjacent territory. Its presence is denied elsewhere, except in two of the Maidu areas where it is somewhat doubtful. This specialized type of net is cer- tainly one of the most characteristic features of our nuclear area, reaching its highest development among the Yurok and Karok on the Klamath River. Map 12. A-frame Landing Net. This net is very largely confined to the nuclear area and the areas im- mediately adjacent. Here we find on most of the weirs platforms from which landing nets could be operated, though sometimes the nets were handled from a canoe or from the river bank. In addition to netting platforms built onto the weirs there were other platforms or scaf- folds built at other points of vantage. The distribution of both types of these platforms is shown on map 15. Map 13. V-frame Scoop Net. This net is suitable for use only at certain places. It is especially adapted to surf fishing and we find it universally used along the im- mediate coast line from the Southwestern Pomo region northward. No doubt, if information were available for the Coast Miwok region we would find it there also. It is reported for the Nisenan (?) and finds its maximum size in Klamath Lake, where it is used from a dugout canoe. Map 14. Plunge Net. The plunge net has a rather wide distribution throughout Northern California but seems to have been more important in the northwestern part of the region. Map 15. Scaffold for Netting. This map shows the distribution of both types of scaffolds or platforms. See comments on map 12. Map 16. Arc Net. The arc net is essentially a Central California device quite universally used throughout that region. It comes into our Northwestern California area only along the very southeastern edge of the peripheral region. Its use is definitely denied for the nuclear area and for almost all of the peripheral area. Map 17. Hoop Dip Net. This simple, often makeshift, type of net is recorded as in use over a considerable area, though it is one of those items which was probably little noticed and was doubtless used in other areas not noted on our map. Map 18. Cylindrical or Hoop Net. The only locations reported for this cylindrical or hoop net are in the Tolowa and Karok areas. Its existence elsewhere along the coast is consistently denied and it is not even men- tioned in the whole of the Sacramento Valley and Sierra regions. I Map 19. Seine. The seine is recorded as in use ove much of northern California but as missing from some areas where the gill net (map 20) was used. The use of both types was so general that neither can be definitely; pegged as characteristic of either the Northwestern or Central California area. Map 20. Gill Net. Map 21. Double Drifting Bag Net. The drifting bag net is reported chiefly from the Northwestern Californ area. Its appearance in the Maidu region seems a bit 0 of order when we consider the environment there. Per" haps this is another instance of misunderstanding on the part of the informants. It may, however, have been use on the Sacramento River but, if so, we would naturally expect it to be found among other tribes on this stream. Map 22. Anchors. Anchors are reported exclusivel from our nuclear area, where the larger streams and deeper waters made them necessary. Map 23. Grooved Sinkers. Grooved sinkers are widely distributed throughout this whole region, though their use is denied for some groups. Map 24. Perforated Sinkers. Perforated sinkers ar recorded only from the northern tribes, especially thos of our nuclear area. Map 25. Wooden Floats. Wooden floats are reported from all the tribes of the nuclear area except the Wiyot also from the Mattole, Modoc, Achomawi, Atsugewi, Pomr Map 26. Tule Floats. These are reported from the Clear Lake Pomo groups and from the Klamath Lake area. These large bodies of water, with their rush- bordered shores, naturally produce this material and th use of tule apparently spread to the Yuki, on the one ha and to the Achomawi and the Atsugewi, on the other. Th use of tule floats by the Shasta is not so easily explaine Map 27. Cylindrical Basketry Traps. These traps, set in weir openings or at other advantageous places, were used in the smaller streams and at almost any spo where the flow of the water was not too forceful. They were common in the Pomo region and adjacent areas an in the northeastern part of California. Their use is denied in most of our nuclear area. Map 28. Trough-shaped Basketry Traps. These tra were very commonly used in northern California, espec ally in the nuclear area. Map 29. Invaginated Basketry Traps. These are not even mentioned for the nuclear area. They are found among the Pomo and Patwin and in the Sierra region. Map 30. Scooping Basketry Traps. These traps, of various shapes, were widely used throughout the region' but appear to be absent in much of the lower Sacrament drainage. Map 31. Plunge Basketry Traps. The plunge trap, used in shallow, still water, appears in the Pomo, Wappo Miwok, and Achomawi-Atsugewi areas, but is lacking in all other regions; in fact, it is denied in several areas. Map 32. Eel Pots. Eel pots were used only among the people of the nuclear area and by some of the I 'it I A )I KROEBER AND BARRETT: FISHING IN NORTHWESTERN CALIFORNIA immediately adjacent tribes. Their restriction to this small area is explained by the fact that the eel pot was introduced by the first whites who came to Humboldt Bay. Our map shows the eel pot as also present among one group of the Yana in Sacramento Valley. It seems very obable that the statement of its presence here may be error due to some misunderstanding by the informant. Map 33. Rock Piles for Lamprey. The use of rock piles, a really primitive method for taking eels, is re- |ported for the Mattole, Sinkyone, and Nongatl only. We suspect that further inquiry would show that this method was more widely used. Map 34. Multipointed Spears. The multipointed or multipronged fish spear is reported from the Wiyot, Klamath Lake, Achomawi, and Atsugewi. Its use was quite consistently denied practically everywhere else in our area. Map 35. Spear, with One Fixed Point. Fish spears with fixed points were rarely used. Those with single fixed points, however, were found in a number of tribes. Map 36. Spear, with Two Fixed Points. These were reported from the Eastern Pomo, Klamath Lake, Wintun, and Atsugewi. Map 37. Single-toggle Harpoon. Toggle harpoons were used much more than spears. The single-toggle harpoon was used in the western half of northern Cali- fornia but its use was specifically denied for most of the eastern half of the area. Map 38. Double-toggle Harpoon. The double-toggle harpoon was reported from almost every tribe in north- ern California and we strongly suspect that any blank spaces on the map are due to lack of information. The double-toggle form should be considered the character- istic type of harpoon for this area as a whole. Map 39. Spearing Scaffold. The scaffold or platform erected specially for spearing fish was found over a large part of the western half of the region under con- bideration but was not reported from the eastern half except in the Klamath Lake region. Map 40. White Stone Flooring. Closely associated with the spearing platform and booth was the white stone flooring which was placed on the stream bottom in order to make the fish more easily visible as they swam over it. In many areas, particularly in the northwestern part of California, the spearing booth was used without the white stone flooring. Map 41. Gaffs (lamprey or fish). Gaffs of various *inds are reported from Northwestern California, in- luding most of the peripheral area. Their use is, how- ver, specifically denied by the Hupa and the Chilula. xcept among the northern Wintun, Atsugewi, and Miwok, ley are not reported from the Central California area. several other areas their use is specifically denied. Map 42. Shooting Fish with Bow and Arrow. In spite pf the relative rarity of fishing by shooting, we find the ractice fairly widespread over northern California, hough informants from many areas denied its use. Map 43. Acute-angled, Single-pointed Fishhook. The icute-angled fishhook, with single point or barb, has been recorded for most of the tribes in northern Cali- fornia. A double-barbed hook was used by the Klamath Lake and Modoc. Map 44. Bipointed Gorge Fishhook. The gorge hook was much more commonly used than the acute-angled hook and had a rather wide total range of distribution. Map 45. Sniggle, Hair Fly, or Ball. The sniggle was used in most of the nuclear area and to a limited extent by some of the near-by tribes. It is also recorded for the Wappo. Elsewhere we have only negative evidence from two small Yana areas; otherwise no statements have been found concerning this practice. Map 46. Fish Poisons (Narcotics). Since fish poisons, to be effective, required relatively quiet waters, they were not used in our nuclear area except by the Wiyot and Chilula. Otherwise, poisons were used quite gener- ally throughout the rest of northern California. Their use is definitely denied, however, for such tribes as the Klamath Lake, Modoc, and River Patwin, who lived on large lakes or rivers. Map 47. Fire at Night. Fee at night, as a lure, for illumination, or for heat, was used in most of the region under consideration. Its use is definitely denied for the Nisenan. For the Coast Yuki and the Mattole both posi- tive and negative statements were obtained. It seems probable that in those areas from which we have no data further information would show that fire was used. Map 48. Diving for Fish. The areas where diving for fish is a usual practice are shown on this map. This method, however, was used only incidentally. Map 49. Catching Fish or Lampreys with Hands. The practice of catching fish and lampreys by reaching into the water is closely related to diving for them. The areas where catching fish by hand is used are shown on this map. Map 50. Snaring Fish. Snaring fish either from above water level or beneath by diving was practiced by all the tribes in our nuclear area and by most tribes in the peripheral area. Farther away we find the practice among the Yuki, River Patwin, and Maidu. Information from all other tribes of the region is lacking. Map 51. Driving Fish. Fish drives were quite gen- erally made throughout most of northern California and we suspect that, if further investigation in the field were possible, most, if not all, of the blank spaces on the map would be filled. Map 52. Fish Clubs. Fish clubs of one kind or another were used by almost all tribes in this region. Uncon- tested denial of their use is recorded for the Achomawi and the Atsugewi only. There are only a few tribes for which we have no information at all. Map 53. Alarm Rattles. Except among the Nisenan, the use of the alarm rattle was confined to the people on the immediate coast in the extreme northwestern part of our area, coming south only far enough to include the Mattole. The alarm rattle may be considered, therefore, rather strictly a Northwestern California device. Map 54. First-Salmon Ceremony. Although the First- Salmon Ceremony was more important in the nuclear 147 ANTHROPOLOGICAL RECORDS area than in adjacent regions, some form of this rite was found among most of the tribes in northern California. Its absence in the southwestern part of this territory seems remarkable. Perhaps this is due to the great emphasis among the southwestern tribes on the first- fruits ceremony, in which the acorn is such a dominant feature. Map 55. Lamprey Chute. The lamprey chute of the Tolowa is closely related to weirs. See maps 1, 3 to 10. Map 56. Boxlike Trap. A special boxlike trap is reported only from the Hupa and Karok, but is not even mentioned elsewhere. Map 57. Eel Slitter. As might be expected, the use of the eel slitter appears to be confined to the extreme northwestern part of California. It extended only as far east as the Shasta and as far south as the Kato. This is what we should expect, for in the rest of the region lampreys were either not present or formed a negligible part of the food supply. Map 58. Fish Knives. The fish knife is a character- istically Northwestern California implement. Its use is confined to the tribes of our nuclear area and to a few peripheral tribes. There is no evidence of its use else- where on our map. Map 59. Babracot. The maps from 59 to 62 and also from 67 to 70 cover various phases of fish preservation and storage. The babracot was used all along the coast and as far inland as Klamath Lake and the Achomawi area. Its use is denied in a very few places, but we sus- pect that even these tribes had some sort of drying rack. The babracot was used both for drying and cooking fish. Map 60. Smoke-drying of Fish. The smoking of fish was practiced quite generally, as shown by this map. Here again further detailed information would probably enable us to fill in the present blank spaces. Map 61. Fish-drying House. A special house for fish drying is a characteristic feature of our Northwestern California area; it reappears in the Clear Lake Pomo area. Map 62. Smoke-drying inside Dwelling. Smoke-drying inside the dwelling is characteristic of the northwestern coastal area, extending south as far as the Northern Pomo area. Map 63. Roasting at Fire. Roasting at the open fire occurs in the western part of the region covered by the map. This is such a general practice that further field investigation would probably enable us to shade all other areas on the map. Map 64. Broiling on Live Coals or Hot Stone. Broil- ing is another universal method of cooking and this map shows broiling as occuring in almost all parts of the area covered. Map 65. Stone Boiling. Stone or basket boiling is generally practiced for cooking many kinds of foods. For the cooking of fish, however, we have positive informatioi on this method only for the coastal tribes and those near by, and also for the Central Wintun and Miwok. Map 66. Underground Oven. As our map shows, the underground oven was almost universally employed in roasting fish. Map 67. Fish Flour. Fish flour was made throughouti the Northwestern California, Sacramento Valley, and Sierra regions with the exception of a few areas. The fish were prepared for pulverizing by various methods of cooking. Map 68. Oil Storage in Kelp Bottle. The kelp bottle for the storage of oils of the salmon, sea lion, or whale is recorded only for the Tolowa, Mattole, and Sinkyone. Map 69. Oil Storage in Sea-Lion Paunch or Bladder. The sea-lion paunch or bladder as a storage receptacle for oil is recorded for the coast tribes southward as far as the Mattole. Map 70. Oil Storage in Steatite Dish. The steatite dish for oil storage is recorded only for the YurokM and Coast Yurok. Map 71. Club for Sea Lions. Since sea lions were found only along the immediate coast line, we naturally expect weapons concerned with their capture only among tribes fronting on the ocean. The fact that the club is found much farther south than the harpoon (map 72) is undoubtedly due to the much more highly developed and regularized pursuit of the sea lion by the northern coastal tribes than by the southern groups. Sea-lion hunting was one of thie major occupations in the north. Map 72. Harpoon for Sea Lions. The harpoon for seal lion hunting was used chiefly by the northern tribes of our area. Map 73. Adhesives Made from Fish Products. The distribution of adhesives made from fish products was 7 quite general throughout northern California. Compare map 74. Map 74. Adhesives Made from Vegetal Products. Vegetal adhesives were also generally distributed throu out northern California. A comparison of maps 73 and 7 shows that in most areas both kinds of adhesives, those made from fish products and those from vegetal product were used but that in the Yuki and Southern Maidu areas only vegetal adhesives were employed. 148 crescent Cify Sc~~~~~~~6or f al o ttBa %~~~~~~~~~~~ Ki~~~~ Ma 1 eisinNotwetrnCaiori [149]~~~~~~o * E -*_. . m * @***X-@--6wti*@---@ Northwestern California: Riverine groups E I, Northwestern California: Littoral groups Central California: neighboring tribes _ Blending of Northwestern and ] Central California: .... marginal or peripheral groups . .7_. Map 2. Culture Areas in Northern California and the area of culture blendings in Northwestern California [150] '''! S S I I IC S O I I I I Map 3. Converging fixed weir Map 5. Double fixed weir Map 4. Straight fixed weir Map 6. Movable weir WEIR TYPES [151] 1 I *s 11i I ' Map 7. Weirs with pens on upstream side 6a d I i ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Map 8. Weirs with pens on downstream s 1*,IIhE 1T '*. mm Map 9. Weirs with platforms Map 10. Weirs with traps or nets WEIR FEATURES set in openings [152] Map 12. A-frame landing net 11 Map 13. V-frame scoop Map 14. Plunge net TYPES 18c . I1. cfdon V Map 15. Scaffold for netting Map 17. Hoop dip net Map 18. Hoop net (cylindrical) PLATFORM AND NET TYPES [154] I I ->' a X gi:x::::,,,........... ------ .:t::::::8.............,$Z '. '. . S.:. ~ '. . ........^ ' """.'.""'.'..'.'......... k 0 s . ...... . . ...... ............. \ ,~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~. .. .. .s a , +... .... ... . . . . \ ' |gd ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.. . . .. .. . , ...... . . . %& <%S \ o ~~~~~~..... .... ,..... ,,, >L4d~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.. ............... . ' \-\,,...,.,,.,,,,.,,}..,.,.,...,~~~~~~~~~.................. \ 1Ao i ~~~~~~~...... .. ... ... Map 2 0. Gill net ,4 _ Map 2 1. Double drifting bag net NET TYPES; ANCHORS [155] Map 22. Anchors Map 23. Grooved sinkers Map 25. Wooden floats SINKERS AND FLOATS [156] Map 28. Trough-shaped basketry traps -\ lAaA . Map 29. Invaginated basketry traps BASKETRY [157] W-g~~~lG Map 30. Scooping basketry traps TRAPS I s~~~~~~. ~~~~I I Map 31. Plunge basketry traps 1 ..................... ..1 6 .- . \10 1 16 1 ,6 lAa ~ ~ T -: *.:78a 10b~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~B lGd 109 O 4d 16c 12.4d lc 18d 18c Map 33. Rock piles for lampreys Map 34. Multipointed spears BASKETRY TRAPS; EEL POTS; ROCK PILES; SPEARS [158] Map 36. Spear, with two fixed points 16,;, \8 8c 18 d Map 37. Single-toggle harpoon Map 38 SPEARS AND HARPOONS [159] 8c 18d o u . ,.Double -toggle harpoon I I 0 N Map 39. Spearing scaffold x/ A 1' Map 41. Gaffs (lamprey or fish) SCAFFOLDS; WHITE ROCK i4Xtza 5 ~~~17c ........ ...... X. ..... .... \ig lf 4d .1.c p . 4 i . .flo.......orn A~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.. . .. Map 40. White stone flooring m k 18a i / e R ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~............. ...................... ..R Map 42. Shooting fish with bow and arrow FLOORING; GAFFS; SHOOTING FISH [160] . ....... 18. 18d X a \ ~~~~~~~~. i:.S.:::: :: :::. ......... 1Q-:* S :. :. : :.:.:.:............. ::B_. ..- N 18a A , .... Map 43. Acute-angled, single-pointed fishhook Map 44. Bipointed gorge fishhook l b 1...lb. ..............~~~~~~~~~ ..............~~~~~~~~~~~~ 6 a~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ( ..~ ........... 2.. . . ............ ..............I.... ......... l~ Map: 45 Snggehar.l o.bl.Mp.6Fih.osos.nrctis 16,a ~ ~ ~ ~~[11 Map 47. Fire at night Map 49. Catching fish or lampr-eys with Map 50. Snaring fish hands VARIOUS FISHING METHODS [162] I I >K~~~~~~~. . . . . . . . o s. . . . . . . . ~~~~~~~~. -..... :.: .... : . , ... .......... .... - _,. . . . . . . . . . . ,..., ....... <....1 + 1 ft o ~~~~~~~~. . . . . . . . . . . . . . M ap~ ~~~~~~~~~~...... ............... 5 : ( - - - .'.,, s rs ................ 5:::::.:.?> t - ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~........ ... ) \ / *--- \ A \ f ... n I I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~. .... t~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ h 6 .. *wg. 16 .E. 4 ~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~7 a .. ...... . :.- an... ... ...- ..... < 17b ............. .. z xggJ .... t z g.b~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.................. w4 b-e-. . r,.,>,., ,,w, 6 # ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~ \4 b- --. .. ..................... ~~~~........ ............ , , ..... * , ...... l . , . . ..... .;, ...... ....................................... ta .... \ ..... .. ........ - Q . V ................... ............ a . \ (y . ......16 b .. ............... .................. \1a....... . .......... ' ' '"5 ' X % "-' 't :>:; * "' .-';'l11 ) IOb t . g4 .... . .... . A~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. * t \ ... . ... . .. ..... . t : . . . \ V x E~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . \ \ . .. . . , ................. w v \ \ g . . F 0 i S~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . W sO , . . A od * .... s . . t . ,.Z~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~........... , ^~~ ~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Mlo . . . . . . . . Map 53. Alarm rattles Map 54. First-salmon ceremony~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~................. FISHING METHODS; IMPLEMENTS; CEREMONY~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~..................................... ...... [163] Map 55. Lamprey chute Map 57. Eel slitter Map 58. Fish knives FISHING DEVICES AND IMPLEMENTS [164] .......... ................... ...... . ... ........ .. ..... .... ................ ... .......... .................... ................ ........ . . ... .. . . ...... .......... ....... ........... ... .......... ....................... . ............. ------ .......... ................... ........ ....... .... ....... .................. . . ......... ............ CL ....... 6 d ....................................... . ..... . ............. ... .. ........ ........ ij ....... ........ ... ............... ............... le 16 cl 6+ 210L 7 b .......... ........... ......... .......... ....... .. . ......... .... . . .. ........ .. .... ......... 7 c ............ 7 c ....... ..... ........ .... .... . . ... ... 17 a .... ...... .................. 16 16 b . . .......... ..... --- 17 b .... ...... .............I........ ..................... ................. 17C .... ....... .. . .... ... G d ............... 44 , L e ............. CL 16 4d 16C .......... 18d Ise 18o. Map 59. Babracot Map 60. Smoke-drying of fish Ab 6 a 6 a 6d Gd ........... .......... 16'a 16 6+ 6+ 7 ala ............ ....,7 17 o. 7 17 o. 16 b 16 b ...... Wi 4a i7 b 17 b ............. ... ........ OL 17C 17C 10 b ............... ro ...... 16C ro 4 d I 18c ..18d6 /i1c 18d.6< Map 61. Fish-drying house Map 62. Smoke-drying inside dwelling PRESERVATION OF FISH [165] Map 63. Roasting at fire ws x P = _ ....................... ................ - \N ., a __J -\. 400 ..-:..... ....... .............. Map 65. Stone boiling Rs zv9-x V~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.9............. R.......... ............ :::.: . *- ........................:-:::-?:-::::* Mw~~~~~~~~~~~r .-. . ........ ** Map 64. Broiling on live coals hot stone Map 66. Underground oven COOKING OF FISH [166] Map 68. Oil storage in kelp bottle / lFIB e r_ J 18c *. *g (f \378aX / 18c .................... > 1 69. Oil storage in sea-lion paunch Map 70. Oil storage in steatite dish or bladder PRESERVATION AND STORAGE [167] Map 72. Harpoon for sea lions U *.~~~~~ *..~~~~ . ..~~~~........ ... .. .. 4d 1c l 4 1c 8c 18d Bc 18d. N - ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~18o. Map 73. Adhesives, fish products Map 74. Adhesives, vegetal products WEAPONS FOR HUNTING SEA LIONS; ADHESIVES [168] Map 71. Club for sea lions PLATES EXPLANATION OF PLATES PLATE 1 Fish Weirs. a, b. Hupa; negs. 1289, 1291; Jones, 1901. c. Hupa; neg. 3301, Goddard, 1906. d, e. Chilula; negs. 3041, 2926, Goddard, 1902, 1903. f, g. Pomo; negs. 2677, 2676; Barrett, 1906. PLATE 2 Scaffolds for A-frame Lifting Nets. a-c. Karok; negs. 1383-1385. d. Yurok, neg. 2730. All photographs by Kroeber, 1901-1907. PLATE 3 Surf Fishing with Scoop Net. Mouth of the Klamath River. a. Fishermen ready to lower scoop nets into oncoming breakers carrying surf fish; neg. 11469. b. Scoop net set to receive incoming wave; neg. 11468. c. Scoop net raised to show small catch of surf fish secured as wave rolled in onto beach; neg. 11467. All photographs by T. T. Waterman, 1928. PLATE 4 Drying Surf Fish. a. Sun-drying surf fish at the mouth of Redwood Creek; neg. 11470. b. Drying surf fish with the aid of fire at the mouth of Redwood Creek; neg. 11473. Photographs by T. T. Waterman, 1928. PLATE 5 Sinkers on Net; Large Dugout Canoe. a. Edge of net with sinkers attached, show- ing method of lashing. Yurok; 1083; neg. 756; photograph by P. M. Jones, about 1901. b. Large dugout canoe with ornamental peak at prow and with paddles. Yurok; 1703; neg. 4439; photograph by A. L. Kroeber, about 1901. PLATE 6 Net Sinkers and Anchors; negs. 17069, 17068. Spec. Max. Dim. (mm.) Weight 11777 83 408 gm. 11787 80 403 gm. 11786 76 240 gm. 11735 85 300 gm. 11806 91 380 gm. 1688R 83 267 gm. 11723 87 335 gm. 11736 98 332 gm. 1908 83 243 gm. j k m n 0 p q r Spec. 11717 11720 11741 9438 L13316 9289 L26329 2006 9275 Max. Dim. (mm.) 113 75 87 130 155 170 140 150 167 PLATE 7 Netting Techniques. a. Model of sheet bend or netting knot used in weaving all nets except the netted bags. The upper model shows this knot open and spread so as to show the relations of its elements. The lower model shows the knot closed and tightly drawn as it is in actual use. Neg. 17106. b. Model of the knotless netting used in bags. This knotless netting has many combinations of loops and twists, but here in the North- western California area there are but four of these: the simple loop, the loop and single twist, the loop and double twist, and occasionally the loop and triple twist. In this model are shown the loop and single twist and the loop and double twist. Neg. 17147. PLATE 8 Reinforced Tip of Lifting Net, and Models of Lark's-Head Knot. a. Tip of cone of Yurok lifting net (1566); neg. 17101. Thirty-five centimeters of tip of this conical net [170] a b c e g h i Weight 350 gm. 173 gm. 370 gm. 2.55 kg. 4.53 kg. 3.46 kg. 3.29 kg. 3.23 kg. 3.46 kg. KROEBER AND BARRETT: FISHING IN NORTHWESTERN CALIFORNIA have been woven of double cords, made by twisting together two 2-ply cords. b. Model of lark's-head knot, showing obverse and reverse views; neg. 17107. PLATE 9 Techniques of Yurok Lifting Net (1566). a. Side of small lifting net, showing double line as selvage, stapling line bound to each alternate mesh and attached to head- line by means of lark's-head knots; neg. 17098. b. Upper edge of small lifting net, showing final meshes attached by lark's-head knots to headline. Also the setting in of extra meshes to increase the flare of the cone of the net. In the third row of meshes from the edge an additional mesh is set in at regular lateral intervals of every seventh mesh. Neg. 17100. PLATE 10 Techniques of Yurok Scoop Net (1228). a. Rear edge of pouch of large scoop net, showing closely set lark's-head knots. Also a reinforcing line secured by half-hitches and with a second reinforcing line bound to this one and the headline so as to include both. Neg. 17102. b. Side of apron of large scoop net, with stapling line attached at every fifth to seventh mesh by means of sheet bends, and to the elkskin headline by means of lark's-head knots. Neg. 17103. PLATE 1 1 Techniques of Yurok Scoop Net (1228). a. Front edge of apron of large scoop net, showing each mesh with its 1 1-mm. sides attached to the elkskin headline by means of lark's-head knots; neg. 17104. b. One corner of the front edge of the apron of large scoop net, showing the doubling of the long sides of the last dozen meshes; neg. 17105. PLATE 12 Toggle Harpoon Heads and Netting Shuttles; negs. 17013, 17014. a-f. Harpoon heads. 1988, 1947, 1641A, 1946, 9302, 9357a,b. Collected by Kroeber between 1901 and 1906; neg. 17013. For measurements and description see table 3 in text (p. 77). g-o. Netting shuttles; neg. 17014. Measurements in mm. below. Netting Shuttles Spec. Length Material Spec. Length Material g 1582C 248 Wood 1 813 369 Wood h 1582B 242 Wood m 9492 407 Wood 1929 311 Antler n 798 365 Manzanita 960 301 Antler o 9495 397 Manzanita k 9444 319 Antler PLATE 13 Sturgeon Drag Net Mesh Measures. a-g. Neg. 17001. h-o. Sturgeon net type mesh measures; neg. 17003. Measurements in mm. Width Spec. Material Length Ends Middle Thickness Color a 2101 Bone 117.8 43.4 41.0 35.4 8.5 Brown b 2078 Bone 127.9 39.4 38.5 26.2 7.25 Ivory c 2077 Bone 131.5 34.2 33.3 26.0 6.9 Dk. Ivory d 2102 Antler 119.0 49.8 45.0 32.2 5.7 Dk. Brown e 2099 Bone 138.0 44.0 42.4 31.6 7.5 Dk. Brown f 2100 Antler 139.6 41.0 40.6 31.2 7.0 Dk. Ivory g 2098 Antler 96.0 40.0 37.4 27.7 7.0 Tan h 2120 Antler 110.0 44.0 39.0 28.5 8.8 Brownish i 2117 Antler 114.6 49.0 48.5 32.3 12.8 Lt. Brown j 1131 Antler 125.2 33.2 33.0 22.0 5.5 0. Ivory k 2122 Antler 126.0 32.8 28.4 25.0 5.5 0. Ivory 1 1124 Bone 149.6 34.5 32.7 20.0 11.3 Gray m 2 132 Antler 141.0 36.8 36.0 31.8 7.3 Gray n 1452 Bone 156.0 45.5 45.5 39.0 8.0 Gray o 2124 Antler 145.5 35.0 34.5 29.2 7.4 Ivory 171 ANTHROPOLOGICAL RECORDS PLATE 14 Mesh Measures and Trigger Buttons. a-e. Sturgeon net mesh measures; neg. 17002. f-i. Sturgeon set net mesh measures; neg. 17002. j, 1. Trigger buttons; neg. 17008. k, m-s. Mesh measures, various types; neg. 17008. Measurements in mm. Width Length Ends Middle 114.4 35.0 34.5 28.3 117.9 39.5 39.5 27.3 149.8 37.4 36.2 25.9 133.5 38.2 37.5 29.6 149.0 38.5 38.5 21.4 155.5 31.5 31.0 24.0 152.5 31.0 30.7 24.7 153.5 30.0 29.0 22.0 155.0 36.0 35.0 26.5 59.0 18.3 19.8 21.5 65.4 28.7 30.2 29.5 68.5 22.4 23.8 12.0 82.0 20.0 24.0 20.0 100.2 37.4 39.0 31.0 64.7 29.0 29.3 21.4 96.7 39.1 40.8 33.0 106.5 39.4 41.8 29.4 107.0 31.8 32.8 27.9 114.0 30.0 30.5 24.0 Thickness Color 9.2 Dk. Brown 8.5 Brown 9.4 Brown 8.3 Brown 7.7 Brown 8.0 Grayish 6.5 Brown 6.5 Grayish 8.0 Brown 2.1 White 4.4 0. Ivory 3.6 White 4.0 Tan 6.4 Blackish 6.4 Tan 4.5 0. Ivory 10.0 Brown 4.3 Brown 7.0 0. Ivo ry PLATE 15 Salmon Net Mesh Measures. a-j. Drag net mesh measures; neg. 17004. Set net mesh measures; neg. 17005. Measurements in mm. Width Length Ends 85.0 41.0 37.7 91.2 31.4 30.0 86.4 39.1 38.5 87.8 31.1 30.5 85.3 41.2 40.4 85.0 34.0 32.3 92.2 40.0 38.8 89.0 34.3 33.7 113.0 45.8 39.9 92.0 40.4 40.0 112.5 40.0 39.4 92.5 34.9 31.2 96.0 40.0 37.4 92.3 41.3 38.8 116.0 39.3 38.6 99.2 35.9 34.6 109.3 39.5 38.6 116.3 34.0 33.8 110.2 37.0 35.0 106.6 38.2 37.4 110.8 44.0 43.7 115.3 40.7 40.6 Middle 26.4 19.6 27.8 26.2 32.3 26.0 27.0 23.8 34.4 28.7 32.9 26.3 27.7 29.8 30.2 29.2 29.8 28.0 31.0 25.8 32.6 28.7 Thickness 4.0 5.4 6.0 5.1 9.0 5.5 6.9 6.0 7.3 5.5 5.0 5.3 7.0 6.6 9.8 7.2 7.8 8.0 10.4 6.6 5.8 9.0 Color 0. Ivory Brown 0. Ivory 0. Ivory Brownish 0. Ivory Dk. Brown Gray Brown 0. Ivory Brown Ivory Tan Gray Gray Gray 0. Ivory Gray Gray Dk. Brown Brown Gray a b c d e f g h i J k T m n 0 p q r s Spec. 2108 2071 2070 2009 1959 2073 2074 2076 2075 9353 2262 1453 1014 2260 2072 9481 2147 2211 1135 Material Wood Wood Wood Bone Antler Bone Bone Bone Bone Bone Antler Bone Wood Antler Wood Antler Wood Antler Antler a c d e f g h i k T m n 0 p q r s t u v Spec. 2093 2 106 2095 2092 -2091 2094 2104 2090 2 103 1130 2083 2025 2089 2088 2081 2087 2079 2084 2080 2086 2085 2082 Material Bone Antler Antler Antler Antler Antler Antler Bone Antler Antler Antler Bone Antler Antler Antler Antler Antler Antler Antler Antler Antler Antler 172 KROEBER AND BARRETT: FISHING IN NORTHWESTERN CALIFORNIA PLATE 16 Salmon Net Type Mesh Measures; negs. 17006, 17007. Measurements in mm. Width Length Ends 83.7 40.2 39.8 93.8 36.4 35.5 91.0 41.8 41.2 77.5 34.4 32.2 94.3 39.7 38.9 91.0 37.0 34.8 104.5 41.9 41.0 84.3 37.3 35.6 107.0 43.3 42.0 94.9 45.9 43.8 87.0 32.8 32.4 90.3 36.9 36.0 93.4 37.5 37.4 97.0 38.3 36.4 95.4 44.0 38.5 81.9 33.7 32.2 94.5 38.5 37.7 78.2 35.9 34.9 109.3 40.0 39.6 111.0 40.9 40.6 Middle 26.5 27.8 26.7 25.1 29.6 25.9 31.2 27.3 33.3 32.5 26.3 27.0 29.0 20.7 31.6 27.0 30.0 27.6 30.8 29.1 Thickness Color 4.4 0. Ivory 4.0 Brown 6.0 Brown 3.8 0. Ivory 9.3 Brown 4.2 0. Ivory 6.4 0. Ivory 6.8 Brown 7.9 Gray 8.4 Brown 4.3 0. Ivory 6.5 0. Ivory 6.7 0. Ivory 5.5 0. Ivory 7.6 0. Ivory 4.6 Brown 6.2 Ivory 4.2 0. Ivory 9.2 Yellowish 5.3 0. Ivory PLATE 17 Mesh Measures and Trigger Buttons. a-j. Salmon net type mesh measures; neg. 17009. k, o-w. Various types of net mesh measures; neg. 17010. k. Described as: "Length is for steelhead set net. Two widths for one eel net." u. Catalogue entry: "For sucker net." v. Catalogue entry: "Mesh measure of elk scapula." w. Catalogue entry: "Horn mesh stick, two widths for top and bottom of smelt net." 1-n. Trigger buttons; neg. 17010. All measurements in mm. Length 69.8 61.5 82.8 68.4 96.9 51.5 103.7 103.5 100.6 107.8 60.4 67.9 81.4 7 3.7 49.1 85.0 72.6 68.5 79.0 74.9 98.9 87.8 182.0 Width Ends Middle 34.0 34.9 30.0 44.0 44.2 36.0 27.4 29.1 27.0 33.0 34.0 27.4 39.8 42.2 30.0 36.5 36.8 37.0 35.0 36.0 26.5 37.6 38.0 35.9 35.3 35.6 32.4 45.3 46.7 32.8 21.0 30.8 -- 24.7 25.0 18.8 36.2 37.8 28.0 29.8 29.9 24.6 29.0 29.8 27.7 29.3 30.8 25.5 36.7 37.9 27.1 33.6 34.2 23.2 40.4 41.3 22.2 28.8 31.0 21.3 35.8 40.0 -- 42.0 45.7 46.8 11.3 13.7 17.0 Thickness 3.7 6.3 3.9 4.0 7.0 4.0 8.0 7.0 15.0 11.3 2.3 2.6 3.0 3.0 3.7 4.4 4.8 5.2 4.3 3.8 2.0 4.0 2.9 Color 0. Ivory Gray Brown Brown Brown Brown Bryown Brown 0. IVOIY 0. Ivory Whitish Whitish 0. Ivory 0. Ivory 0. Ivory 0. Ivory Brown Br-own Br-own 0. Ivory 0. Ivory Br-own 0. Ivory Spec. a 2138 b 2139 c 1958 d 1077 e 11747 f 226 1 g 2123 h 1138 i 1454 T 11851 k 22 10 _ 2137 m 2144 n 1078 o 2201 p 1949 q 1136 r 1428 s 1127 t 1125 Material Antler Antler Antler Antler Antler Antler Antler Antler Antler Antler Antler Antler Antler Antler Antler Antler Antler Antler Antler Antler Spec. a 11873 b 1140 c 2209 d 2024 e 11814 f 1990 g 2075 h 1128 i 2121 7 11850 k 2097 1 1066 m 2 146 n 1957 o 1323 p 2199 q 1324 r 2 145 s 1325 t 2200 u 2096 v 1067 w 2107 Material Antler Antler Antler Antler Bone Antler Antler Antler Bone Bone Bone Bone Bone Bone Antler Antler Antler Antler Antler Antlerx Bone Bone Antler 173 ANTHROPOLOGICAL RECORDS PLATE 18 Fish Clubs and Mashers for Berries and Fish Eggs. a-d. Neg. 17015. e-g. Neg. 17016. Spec. Length Diam. Material Use Weight (gm.) a 1966 315 77 Soft wood Salmon club 450 b 1431 283 83 Soft wood Salmon club 480 c 1193 335 81.5 Soft wood Sturgeon club 550 d 1194 350 94 Hard wood Sturgeon egg masher 980 e 1612 210 65 Hard wood Berry masher 195 f 1967 315 97 Hard wood Sturgeon egg masher 730 g 1980 350 100 Irreg. nat. Sturgeon egg masher 280 wood PLATE 19 Miscellaneous Implements; Objects of Mussel Shell; Salmon Jaw Breaker. a-l. Neg. 17047. m-t. Neg. 14057. u. Neg. 17042. Measurements in mm. Material Length Wood 70.0 Wood 69.0 Bone 62.8 Bone 62.0 Bone 146.5 Bone 144.5 Bone 129.0 Bone 142.5 Crab claw 135.0 Wood 110.0 Wood 75.5 Wood 107.0 Mussel sh. 6 3.5 Mussel sh. 45.0 Mussel sh. 59.5 Mussel sh. 88.0 Mussel sh. 89.0 Mussel sh. 77.0 Mussel sh. 130.0 Mussel sh. 170.0 Wood 450.0 Width Use 14.9 Barb for toggle harpoon 14.6 Barb for toggle harpoon 11.9 Barb for toggle harpoon 12.0 Barb for toggle harpoon 12.5 Double-barbed foreshaft 14.9 Double-barbed foreshaft 12.8 Double-barbed foreshaft 16.0 Double-barbed foreshsft 85.0 Rattle on set net 14.5 Handle for sturgeon line 13.2 Prevents sinkers from slipping 15.7 Prevents sinkers from slipping 40.0 Art. thumbnail. Strip iris 33.0 Art. thumbnail. Strip iris 42.0 Art. thumbnail. Strip iris 38.5 Art. thumbnail. Strip iris 35.5 Art. thumbnail. Strip iris 31.0 Art. thumbnail. Strip iris 65.0 Paint mixing dish 60.0 Paint mixing dish 75.0 Salmon jaw breaker PLATE 20 Eel Slitters and Fish Knives. a-o. Eel slitters; neg. 17011. p-u. Fish knives; neg. 17012. Measurements in mm. Spec. Length 9315 111.9 1613 103.5 9317 77.7 1976 121.5 9316 102.9 9313 149.0 1848 103.2 9314 137.0 Eel Slitters Fish Knives Spec. Length i 1015 91.2 i 1823 79.1 k 1846 117.2 1 1862 12 6.2 rn 1852 135.8 n 1166 133.8 _ 9347 147.3 B l a d e Spec. Length Length Width Thickness p 1326 163.0 43.0 28.0 7.0 q 1541 163.0 64.0 42.5 7.0 r 1538 174.0 87.0 43.0 10.0 s 1540 170.0 68.0 44.0 9.0 t 1539 185.0 69.0 52.5 11.5 u 978 178.0 72.0 50.0 7.5 Spec. a 1825B b 1825A c 1655 d 1654 e 1143 f 1142 _ 1144 h 1141 i 2014 T 1175 k 1665 T 2008 m 2109 n 2418 o 9356 _ 850 q 1023 r 1458 s 1834 t 1836 u 1620 a c e -f g h 174 KROEBER AND BARRETT: FISHING IN NORTHWESTERN CALIFORNIA PLATE 21 Salmon Drying and Storage. a. Slabs of salmon drying above house pit and fire- place in a Yurok living house. The salmon hangs from a crisscross of poles resting on heavier poles like that showing (upper left). An adult must stoop to keep his head out of the salmon. Neg. 1338. Photographed by A. L. Kroeber, c. 1901. b. Corner of plank-walled pit of Yurok living house at Wa'soi and part of two sides of surrounding ledge, with storage baskets holding dried salmon, acorns, and other foods, with conical carrying baskets as covers. Note also the poles across top of pit forming a sort of rack for temporary storage, and part of a rack above the pit. Neg. 3815. Photographed by A. L. Kroeber, 1907. PLATE 22 Steatite Dishes; negs. 17146, 17145, 17144. Measurements in mm. Spec. Length a 1637 272 b c d e f g h i 9538 880 1189 881 1177 9391 1626 9390 265 290 138 140 98 425 305 655 Width Height Depth 126 65 43 210 45 38 240 53 29 88 53 35 104 48 29 65 36 24 260 125 110 295 70 31 315 115 90 Thickness 15 22 25 13 16 22 23 30 31 Use Catch fish grease Catch fish grease Catch fish grease Sturgeon glue dish Catch fish grease Paint cup Catch fish grease; ornamented Catch fish grease Catch fish grease PLATE 23 Bags of Knotless Netting; neg. 17066. Measurements in mm. Length 220 179 Height 86 70 640 420 Use As purse and for small objects As purse and for small objects For eels and fish chiefly PLATE 24 Borders of Knotless Netting Bags, Showing Upper and Under Sides. a. Simple "chain stitch" border. Upper side. 11852. b. Simple "chain stitch" border. Under side. 11852. c. Double "chain stitch" border. Upper side. 2022. d. Double "chain stitch'" border. Under side. 2022. b and d both show the way in which the loops of the first course are attached to the border. Negs. 17151, 17152, 17155, 17150. PLATE 25 Yurok Wooden Hooks; neg. 17191. Length (mm.) 737 278 792 394 1,245 Use Hook for hanging net in sweathouse Hook for hanging spoon basket Hook for hanging net in sweathouse Hook for lifting pots from fire. Modern Hook for hanging net in sweathouse PLATE 26 Karok Fishing Platfor m al Katimin. Showing one man wielding a plunge net and another carrying salmon in a knotless net bag. Neg. 17261. See Appendix. PLATE 27 Karok Fishing Platform at Amaikiara. Little Ike wielding plunge net. Neg. 17262. See Appendix. 175 a c Spec. 2110 1973 1179 a c d e Spec. 1893 1171 1667 1663 1666 ANTHROPOLOGICAL RECORDS PLATE 28 Karok Fishing Platform at Amaikiara. This one is just downstream from the platform shown in plate 27. Neg. 17263. See Appendix. PLATE 29 Trail and Fishing Platform on Klamath River. a, b. Trail along the face of the cliff in Sahwarum canyon, near a fishing place about three miles downstream from Orleans. c, d. Karok fisherman, Antone Sanderson, building a fishing platform at Sahwarum yum. Photographed by Grover C. Sanderson, 1932. PLATE 30 Karok Fisherman Using Lifting Net from Platform. a. Fisherman lowering lifting net from fishing platform. b. Fisherman tending lifting net. c. Fisherman holding trigger button of signal string of lifting net. d. Fisherman raising lifting net. Photo- graphed by Grover C. Sanderson, 1932. PLATE 31 Salmon Fishing and Cooking at Fire. a. Lifting net with salmon being raised onto platform. b. Fisherman pinching neck of salmon to render it helpless before removing it from lifting net. c. Fisherman removing salmon from lifting net. d. Slabs of salmon, spitted, and cooking at the fire. Photographed by Grover C. Sanderson, 1932. PLATE 32 Yurok A-frame Lifting Nets and Scaffolds. a. Neg. 3808. b. Neg. 3806. c. Neg. 1345. d. Neg. 2729. e. Neg. 3856. f. Neg. 3857. All photographs by Kroeber, 1901- 1907. For detailed descriptions see page 33. 176 v -hi -L 74 X - ~~~~~~A. :/ ..<, :::4D.?; 2 -: .. a d b e c f g Plate 1. Fish weirs. [177] b c d Plate 2. Scaffolds for A-frame lifting nets. [178] a a b C Plate 3. Surf fishing with scoop net, mouth of the Klamath River. [179] .......... b Plate 4. Drying surf fish. [180] Plate 5. Sinkers on net; large dugout canoe. [181] 0, U) 0 0) C) [182] Ilk lik- Imh, E - ,:fffSiV: dd ff 000: Z 7:0\ X Q~~~~~~~~~~~~ I vtis: ::002 0 0 J V / Q =~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~a I A- tS:ST0 Y / W~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~U I i-S,id 0E: -;SX - =~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~U m!;f700.ff00-000;ftS:0.002000000 W003 t00 f 0 700f w , 77-8 , ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~a W fi;;~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~00 .i000i300 0 . . w r i.7t, :-.::.::rt:7;0- .... 0:::0-4f-:.t000: :0; ....... 7Cf .: Fi'L &',A' D'':.'S;'DyE.''dAS::giC,$:500.ALyi?C,f, T i., f; : f: ; ' : d w. .-70.'0 R :80. ! 0000;i;id:j.000409S i::000000.; TS v : :fEid.C I k <07 v0; 000k =~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~' . X ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~a) 'C 1^ } a =~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~U :8i~~~~~~~~~~A S | \ ' is ak~~~~~~p 1' : / , N s 0 5 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~' i0Sit i4 8 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~C , i Z 7 ;~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~a r w- Tf : > :~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~1 I ^; X~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ F v iw fe~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~r vi .t, t 0 , . a:~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~a [ 183] ai I b Plate 8. Tip of lifting net and models of lark's-head knot. [184] a b Plate 9. Techniques of Yurok lifting net. [185] .* a b Plate 10. Techniques of Yurok scoop net. [186] A a b Plate 11. Techniques of Yurok scoop net. [187] :4 rge 4EStER 1 X .t so F; A:> tI: 07t .? k '5A' s Ak Fi: .:>S ." ;! - <> _ 1 j ..4. i f; o., I [188] ii , . . . : 4 . I: I Ii 'I if' ?: j?! Sr :a: : E w :: :: E >S . , e '&,. : 7 5 :E .41 .. .t | < 'X'V5.'} { '55E' j : 5 # :fiz,1 'i72 ' C - 'i it ?: tf tsi Xt :: e i : g ? i? f #, 1. -: . . [f g :01gs : j - x ,. 91 ?''-.- s i: $ s 50 ' i ;5s . I I a I I LA a) *0*4 14-i U) b'0 .r4 -4- +U (LA '0 CIO C1) 0 CL) IC 0 H C) 4~) CU a A a3 qt 1? i X. I :jm s ~l :A I "t) 1. ,11 0 U) U1) ee EU) Cl2 CZ a) a) vL) c4 0) bt (3 [189] V QL~~~U bJD b'0 U) U) iN~~~~~~~~~~a U) n g rX gi: :ES; ;4:~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~a [190] 0z b1 Q) [191] to) U) a) :: C12 'I- a) -+- 4) ::0 cn -4 (L) I -% r 0 Q) [192] 10 a) 0n a) a) QZ a) I 0) -a a) cD D - 0 ''.. .. le! x I :, ,-j. . ... 4zi ': , "t3 ?i ~~~~~~~~OL Pi t ;< < Xw?n. b0 b(0 ST Cn (3 Q)~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~W ~. [193] C) bi0 U) b'0 v) *-4 En * r e 10 cn S-4 U) n 0) 4- U) '0 U) tn C0 U U) Co '-4 C.) cU [194] . .>C ' '< i ; A.. ' ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ %R. '_ b '' O~~ 0 [195] 0 C C) : ) :0 cd: U) _ CQ _N U) U)f . _ _ C ) V) .-I iC: C) _C) _S -* r4Ti r { U) . 0. C ) : :.D ; i.C.: . T . C )!:. ti 7 ; . C) C" 'e.g Q t I)" .1-4 41-4 U) U] p-4 gq- CZ- [196] - * * , .. , 1}. op. -. i I b Plate 21. Salmon drying and storage. [197] d e c Plate 22 Steatite dishes. [19.81 Plate 23. Bags of knotless netting. [199] a. 6 C d Plate 24. Borders of knotless netting bags. [200] c d e Plate 25. Yurok wooden hooks. [201] a b 4.) -4) -4) 0~ .4) -44 0 .4- -4.) CU 4.) CU Ii [202] I 4t.. * 1W C) CU En a) 'e U) 44 bL :r4 Cd C.) '0 Cd CU I X t 1w -M ib~ . ~ I" ?47i?? UF? 7 B L '4 I Plate: - 27 Kao ftfrm a Aakr. Plate 27. Karok fishing platform at Amaikiara. [2 03] "-4 4 S 0 C4-4 "-4 C4-4 Kr4 ,1 11 I1 [204] AN. } ,C.i It. 41-4 0~~~~~~~~~~. b.0 .1-I C4-4 0 C-) -'-4 xx H .9 [205] a: 77~~~~~~~~~~~~~~0 0) q4-4 *r4 4-) b0) 4s.4 24 Cr, 4~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~P [206] 0 -C 0-I b.0- 4 ~~~~~~~~~~~~U) [207] a e c d Plate 32. Yurok A-frame lifting nets and scaffolds. [208] f INDEX Accrues, 96, 129 Abalone, 111-113 Adhesives, 103; made from fish products, 148, 168; made from vegetal products, 148, 168 A-frame nets. See Nets, landing and lifting Alarm rattles, 50, 51, 91, 147, 163 American eel, 5 Anadromous fishes, 4, 129 Anchors, 50, 51, 91, 147, 163 Anchovies, 89 Arrow; blunt-headed, 82; multi- pointed, 78, 82 Babracot, 98, 105, 129, 148, 165 Balanus, 113 Balsa, 47 Bar: net, 129; river, 7, 37 Barnacles, 113, 124 Bass, 5 Beads, 111 Beliefs, 6, 106-108 Bennyhoff, J. A., 121, 122 Bibliographical keys, 2 Boiling, See Cooking Booths, shaded, 80 Bow, sinew backing of, 103, 104 Butchering. See Salmon, methods of cutting and curing California Fish and Game Commis- sion, 4 Canoe, sea-going, 119 Cap, basketry, 42 Carp, 5 Catfish, 5 Caves, Nevada (Lovelock, Hidden, Humboldt, Ocala), 47 Ceremonies, 106: first-acorn, 109; first-fruits, 109; first-lamprey, 71, 109; first-salmon, 11 ff., 106-109, 147, 163; first-sucker, 108 Charr, 5 Chokecherry gum, 104 Clams, 110, 111 Club: fish, 38, 91, 147, 163; sea- lion, 115 Cockle, 111 Codfish, 89 Coelenterates, 114 Continence, 107 Cooking, 94, 104: broiling, 148, 166; roasting at fire, 148, 166; stone boiling, 148, 166; in underground oven, 148, 166 Cordage, 58 Core area. See Nuclear area Crabs, 86, 89, 113, 114 Crappies, 5 Crayfish, 110, 113, 114 Crustaceans, 113 Curtis, E. S., 1, 16, 22, 38, 39, 68- 69, 84 Dentalia, 106, 111 Distributional maps, 2, 144-168 Dove weed, 86 Du Bois, Cora, 43 Dyson, Jack, 2 Earth oven. See Oven Eastern brook trout, 5 Echinoderms, 114 Eel: pots, 146, 158; rock piles, 70; slitters, 92, 148, 164. See also Lampreys Eulachon, 89 Fire, 86, 147, 162 Fish: beliefs concerning, 6, 106-108 passim; preparation of. 99, 101, 148, 165; products, 98, 99, 104, 105, 148, 167; species, 4, 5, 6, 77, 106, 107, 110; varieties utilized, 4-6 Fish clubs. See Club Fish dam. See Weir Fish flour, 148, 167 Fish knives, 92, 148, 164 Fish poisons, 8, 85, 132, 133, 147, 161 Fishhook on line and float, 83, 84 Fishhooks, 82, 83, 88, 147, 161 Fishing: by women, 108; methods of, 1, 3, 6, 7, 8, 82, 83-85, 87-89, 132, 133, 147, 160-162; places, 4, 7, 8; rights, 3; restrictions on mourners, 108; sea, 89 Floats, 50, 51, 55; tule, 146, 156; wooden, 146, 156 Flooring, white stone, 80 Flounder, 77; cooking of, 105 Foster, George M., 2 Frames. See Nets, lifting and plunge Fur seal, 116, 117 Gaffs, 71, 147, 160 Glossary of fishing terms, 129-134 Glue. See Adhesives Gonyaulax, poisoning, 111 Grapevine, 57 Guide ring, 38, 58 Guy ropes, 34, 38, 39 Halibut, 89 Haliotis, 111-113 Hair lure (fly or ball), 83, 88, 147, 161 Harpoons, 73, 74, 117, 120, 121, 147, 148, 159, 168 Hats, women's, 42, 43, 127 Hazel withes, 57 Head bar, 42, 127 Headline, 59, 60 Hearst, Mrs. Phoebe Apperson, 2 Hearth in canoe, 87, 106 Hook, weaving, 58 Hudson, Dr. John W., 111 Humboldt Cave, 83 Iris macrosiphon, 57 Ishipishi Falls, 57 Kelp bottle, 103 Kepel fish dam, 1, 11, 12 Killing fish by pressure, 38 Klamath: muddler, 5: speckledace, 5 Klamath River tui, 5 Knots (mesh, netting, weaver's, hawser bend, becket bend, lark's head), 58 Knotless net bags, 95, 127 Lamprey, 70-72, 81, 95; chute, 26, 86, 148, 164; cooking, 105; curing, 102; drying, 105; fishing, 8; glove or mitten, 95; oil, 105; rock piles for, 70, 147, 158 Limpets, 113 Littoral, area and tribes, 1, 144 Lovelock Cave, 47, 83 Lure, 83, 86-88, 147, 161 Manroot, 86 Maps, 2, 144-168 Marginal groups and tribes, 1, 145 Mashers, berry and egg, 91 Menstrual restrictions, 106, 107 Mesh measure (gauge, stick, pin), 58, 60, 62-64; decoration of, 62 Meshes, 58-60 Minnows, 5 Mollusks, 110 Mooring line, 34, 38, 39 Mussel, 89, 110, 111; poisoning, 111 Musselshell scraper, 57 Myth(s), 2, 10, 11-12, 21, 30, 35, 41, 71, 75, 92, 95, 104, 116. See also Beliefs Narcotics (fish). See Fish poisons Neighboring groups, 1, 145 Net: apron, 58; bags (knotless), 95, 127; float, 50, 51, 55, 146, 156; frames, 32, 34, 39-41, 44, 47, 58, 89, 106, 127, 132, 146, 153; hook, 36, 38; materials, 57; sinkers, 50, 51, 55, 145, 156; weaving, 57, 58 Nets, types of: A-frame, 32, 106 132; arc (2 forms), 39, 46, 146, 154; bag, 48, 58, 76; bow dip, 46, 146, 154; conical, 32-48; [209] ANTHROPOLOGICAL RECORDS Nets, types of-(Continued) conical drag, 40; cylindrical, 55; cylindrical hoop, 146, 154; double drifting bag, 40, 146, 155; drag seine, 53; drift, 53; flat, 48; gill, 49, 50, 51, 146, 155; hoop, 55, 146, 154; hoop dip, 48, 146, 154; landing, 40, 58, 146, 153; lifting, 32, 34, 38, 39, 58, 132, 146, 153; plunge, 41, 58, 127, 146, 153; scoop, 1, 44, 58, 59, 133, 146, 153; seine, 49, 53, 54; set, 50, 51; surf, 45; thrust- ing, 41, 58, 127, 146, 153; V- frame, 39, 44, 47, 89 Netting implements, 57 Notochord, 81, 105 Nuclear area and groups, 1, 3, 11, 42, 75, 145 Obsidian prisms, 112 Ocean eels, 89 Oil, 103; receptacles, 103; render- ing of, 103; salmon, 104; storage (in kelp bottles, sea- lion paunch or bladder, steatite dishes), 148, 167 Olivella, 112 Omens, 106 Oven, underground, 104, 105, 148, 166 Ownership, private, 3, 4 Oyster, 111 Pemmican, 98 Peripheral areas and tr ibes, 1, 145 Pinnepeds, 115 Plankton, 111 Platform. See Scaffold Platforms: fishing, 37, 38, 127; for lifting nets, 33-39, 127, 128 Porphyra perforata, 110 Powers, Stephen, 45, 103 Preservation, 94, 98 Prohibitions (various), 106-108 pass im Rattles. See Alarm rattles Red fish, 89 Restrictions. See Prohibitions Riddell, F. A., 2, 47 Rights, fishing, 3 Riverine tribes, 1, 144 Rope, 57 Roslund, Erhard, 4 Salal berries, 103 Salmon, 89: flour, 98, 104; heads, 105; jaw breakers, 92; methods of cutting and curing, 100; oil, 99; soup, 105; varieties of, 4, 5 Sanderson, Grover C., 2, 34, 38, 105 Scaffold: netting, 33-39, 127, 128, 146, 154; spearing, 80, 147, 160 Sculpin, 5 Sea: mammals, 115; otter, 116; stacks, 118; urchin, 114 Sea anemone, 114 Sea lion, 89, 116; bladder, 103; club, 118, 125, 148, 168; clubs as guarantees of title, 3; disguise, 119; dispatching dart, 118; flipper rights, 107; harpoon, 119, 120, 148, 168; hunting, 1, 116; mask, 119; paunch oil storage container, 103; skulls, 118; tusk head band, 116 Seals, 116-118 Seashore tribes, 1 Seaweed, 110: gathering, 1 Shad, 5 Sharks, 90 Shell-disk money, 111 Shellfish, 110 Shuttle, 61, 133 Seine, 49, 133, 146, 155; drag, 53; drifting bag, 54 Selvage, 59, 130 Signal system on lifting net, 35; Shasta, 35 Sinkers, 50, 51, 55, 146, 156 Skewer, 104 Snappers, 89 Sniggle, 88, 133, 147, 161 Soaproot, 86 Spear, 73, 78, 134, 147, 158, 159 Spearing scaffold, 80, 147, 160 Spott, Robert, 1, 37, 76, 102, 112, 123- 124 Staging. See Scaffold Stapling line, 59, 60 State Indian Museum, Sacramento, 2 Steatite dishes, 103 Steelhead, 5, 101 Storage, 94, 98 Sturgeon: eggs, 91; head, 105; riding, 8, 87; species of, 5 Taboos. See Prohibitions Tobacco, sacrifice of, 107 Torch, 78, 86, 87 Transport, 94 Traps: basketry, 8, 66, 70; boxlike, 67, 148, 164; cylindrical, 8, 67, 146, 157; half-cylinder, 70; half- tamale-shaped, 70; invaginated, 8, 67, 146, 157; plunge, 146, 158; scooping, 8, 69, 146, 157; trough- shaped, 8, 68, 157, 164 Unionidae, 110 Underground oven. See Oven V-frame net. See Nets, scoop Walrus, 116 Waterman,-T. T., 1 Waves, conduct toward, 107 Weir, 1, 8, 9, 134; Bear River, 26; Chilula, 11, 21, 30; converging fixed, 145, 151; Coast Yuki, 27; Coast Yurok, 23; double fixed, 24, 145, 151; Eel River, 10; fixed, 10, 11, 145, 151; Heyomu, 17; Hupa, 10, 18, 29; Karok, 11, 20, Kepel, 12; location map, 2; Maidu, 28; Mattole, 28; movable, 11, 28, 145, 151; Nisenan, 28; Nongatl, 26; Patwin, 28; Pomo, 10, 31; portable, 11, 28, 145, 151; Russian River, 10; Sacra- mento River, 10; Shasta, 27; straight fixed, 145, 151; Tolowa, 24; Wiyot, 10, 22; with pens on downstream side, 146, 152; with pens on upstream side, 145, 152; with platforms, 146, 152; with traps or nets set in openings, 146, 152 Wenner-Gren Foundation, 2 Whale, 122; doctor, 124, alleged hunting, 125; oil, 103, 124; rights, 125, stranded, 1, 123, 124, 125 Yurok, Coastal, 1, 144 210