MARINE MAMMALS BEFORE EXTIRPATION: USING ARCHAEOLOGY TO 

UNDERSTAND NATIVE AMERICAN USE OF SEA OTTERS AND WHALES  

IN OREGON PRIOR TO EUROPEAN CONTACT 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

by 

HANNAH P. WELLMAN 

 

 

 

 

 

A DISSERTATION 

 

Presented to the Department of Anthropology 

and the Division of Graduate Studies of the University of Oregon 

in partial fulfillment of the requirements 

for the degree of 

Doctor of Philosophy 

 

June 2021 

 



ii 

DISSERTATION APPROVAL PAGE 

Student: Hannah P. Wellman 

Title: Marine Mammals before Extirpation: Using Archaeology to Understand Native 

American Use of Sea Otters and Whales in Oregon prior to European Contact 

This dissertation has been accepted and approved in partial fulfillment of the 

requirements for the Doctor of Philosophy degree in the Department of Anthropology by: 

Madonna L. Moss 

Stephen Dueppen 

Nelson Ting  

Ryan Jones 

and 

Andrew Karduna 

Chairperson 

Core Member 

Core Member 

Institutional Representative 

Interim Vice Provost for Graduate Studies 

Original approval signatures are on file with the University of Oregon Division of 

Graduate Studies. 

Degree awarded June 2021 



iii 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

© 2021 Hannah P. Wellman 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



iv 
 

DISSERTATION ABSTRACT 

Hannah P. Wellman 

Doctor of Philosophy 

Department of Anthropology 

June 2021 

Title: Marine Mammals before Extirpation: Using Archaeology to Understand Native 

American Use of Sea Otters and Whales in Oregon prior to European Contact 

 

Tribal ancestors living on the Oregon coast prior to European contact were skilled 

fisher-hunter-gatherers residing in a rich environment, home to diverse marine mammals. 

Euro-Americans over-exploited these marine mammals and drove some species to near 

extinction. Some marine mammal populations rebounded while others, such as the locally 

extinct Oregon sea otter, never recovered. Threats from hunting are past, but marine 

mammals on the Northwest Coast today face new challenges, and sea otters and 

cetaceans are foci of conservation efforts. Despite the interest these taxa enjoy in the 

present, little systematic study of their use by and relationship with precontact peoples in 

Oregon has occurred, and this dissertation addresses these gaps in knowledge. 

To address ancestral tribal use of sea otters and cetaceans I researched previously 

excavated faunal assemblages. The Par-Tee (35CLT20) and Palmrose (35CLT47) sites 

located in Seaside, on the northern Oregon coast, were home to the Clatsop and 

Tillamook at contact. Par-Tee and Palmrose were occupied at different times in the Late 

Holocene (~1850-1150 cal BP and ~2750-1500 cal BP, respectively). The two sites were 

excavated in the 1960s-1970s and contained an enormous quantity of well-preserved 

faunal remains. The Tahkenitch Landing (35DO130) site is located on the central Oregon 

coast, north of Reedsport, and was home to the Lower Umpqua Indians at contact. 

Tahkenitch Landing was occupied from the early to mid-Holocene (approximately 5000-



v 
 

3000 BP) and contained a large quantity of whale bones which were previously analyzed, 

but not identified to species level. 

I conducted zooarchaeological analysis of the sea otters from Par-Tee and 

Palmrose (NISP=2992) and cetaceans from Palmrose (N=1174) and Tahkenitch Landing 

(N=33). With my co-authors, I analyzed ancient DNA from 20 Seaside sea otter 

specimens and performed Zooarchaeology by Mass Spectrometry (ZooMS) and ancient 

DNA identifications of 158 cetacean specimens. These analyses provided new insight 

regarding precontact ancestral tribal use of sea otters and cetaceans and the historical 

ecologies of the animals. This dissertation provides a socio-ecological dataset with 

implications for potential reintroductions of sea otters and the conservation of cetaceans 

in Oregon today. 

This dissertation includes previously published and unpublished co-authored 

material. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



vi 
 

CURRICULUM VITAE 

 

 

NAME OF AUTHOR: Hannah P. Wellman 

 

 

GRADUATE AND UNDERGRADUATE SCHOOLS ATTENDED: 

 

 University of Oregon, Eugene, Oregon 

 Tufts University, Medford, Massachusetts 

 

 

DEGREES AWARDED: 

 

 Doctor of Philosophy, Anthropology, 2021, University of Oregon 

 Master of Science, Anthropology, 2016, University of Oregon 

 Bachelor of Arts, 2012, Archaeology, Tufts University 

 

 

AREAS OF SPECIAL INTEREST: 

 

Anthropological archaeology, zooarchaeology, historical ecology, ancient DNA, 

human-animal relationships 

 

 

PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE: 

 

Graduate Teaching Employee, Department of Human Physiology, University of  

Oregon, 2021 

 

Collections Graduate Employee, Museum of Natural and Cultural History,  

University of Oregon, 2015-2016 

 

Graduate Teaching Employee, Department of Anthropology, University of  

Oregon, 2014-2015; 2016-2020 

 

 

GRANTS, AWARDS, AND HONORS: 

 

General University Scholarship, University of Oregon, 2020-2021 

 

Research Grant, Edna English Trust for Archaeological Research, University of  

Oregon, 2020 

 

Robert D. Hevey and Constance M. Filling Graduate Student Fellowship in  

Anthropology, National Museum of Natural History, 2019 



vii 
 

 

Special “Opps” Grant, Graduate School, University of Oregon, 2019 

 

Cheryl L. Harper Memorial Scholarship, Department of Anthropology, University  

of Oregon, 2018 

 

Special “Opps” Grant, Graduate School, University of Oregon, 2018  

 

  

PUBLICATIONS: 

 

Grindle, E. Dalyn, Torben C. Rick, Nihan D. Dagtas, Rita Austin, Hannah P. Wellman, 

Kenneth Gobalet, and Courtney A. Hofman 

 2021 Green or White? A Morphological and Genetic Analysis of North American 

Pacific Coast Sturgeons. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports. 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jasrep.2021.102887 

 

Wellman, Hannah P., Rita M. Austin, Nihan D. Dagtas, Madonna L. Moss, Torben C. 

Rick, and Courtney A. Hofman 

 2020 Archaeological mitogenomes illuminate the historical ecology of sea otters 

(Enhydra lutris) and the viability of reintroduction. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: 

Biological Sciences 287(1940):20202343. DOI:10.1098/rspb.2020.2343. 

 

Wellman, Hannah P. 

 2018 Applied zooarchaeology and Oregon Coast sea otters (Enhydra lutris). Marine 

Mammal Science 34(3):806–822.  

 

Moss, Madonna L, and Hannah P Wellman 

 2017 The Magoun Clam Garden near Sitka, Alaska: Niche Construction Theory Meets 

Traditional Ecological Knowledge, But What About the Risks of Shellfish Toxicity? 

Alaska Journal of Anthropology 15:7-24. 

 

Wellman, Hannah P., Torben C. Rick, Antonia T. Rodrigues, and Dongya Y. Yang 

 2017 Evaluating Ancient Whale Exploitation on the Northern Oregon Coast Through  

Ancient DNA and Zooarchaeological Analysis. The Journal of Island and Coastal  

Archaeology 12(2):255–275. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jasrep.2021.102887


viii 
 

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 

 I am sincerely grateful to my advisor, Dr. Madonna Moss, for her support and 

encouragement. Madonna has held me to high standards, generously shared her knowledge, and 

helped me to navigate academia as a feminist and woman. She gave me complete independence 

but was always quick to help, and I am so appreciative of the opportunities for academic and 

personal growth she has afforded me. 

Dr. Stephen Dueppen has similarly generously given his time, knowledge, and puns. 

Before the pandemic, Stephen’s physical door was always open to talk through problems and I 

am grateful for, and miss, these chats. I thank Dr. Nelson Ting and Dr. Kirstin Sterner for 

welcoming me into their lab groups and encouraging my interests in ancient DNA and outreach, 

and Dr. Ryan Jones for bringing his Pacific environmental history perspective to my committee. 

I am deeply grateful to Dr. Courtney Hofman at the University of Oklahoma for giving 

me the opportunity, funding, and training to advance my sea otter research with ancient DNA. 

Courtney, her students, and colleagues welcomed me with warmth and generosity; the time I 

spent in Norman was among the most memorable of graduate school. I am lucky to count 

Courtney as a friend and colleague, and I am also grateful to Nihan Dağtaş, Dr. Tanvi Honap, Dr. 

Rita Austin, Dr. Krithi Sankaranarayanan, and Dr. Cara Monroe. 

Many thanks to Dr. Jon Erlandson, Dr. Pamela Endzweig, and Elizabeth Kallenbach at 

the Museum of Natural and Cultural History (MNCH) at UO for their support of this project and 

access to the Palmrose collection. At the National Museum of Natural History (NMNH) Torben 

Rick, Dave Rosenthal, Esther Rimer, and Amanda Lawrence (Department of Anthropology), and 

John Ossosky and Suzy Peurach (Division of Mammals) facilitated access to archaeological and 

comparative collections. Paul Collins at the Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History provided 

access to California sea otter teeth for aDNA analysis. This dissertation would not have been 



ix 
 

possible without the stewardship of these institutions and the dedicated employees who care for 

these collections. 

Dr. Rick Minor suggested the Tahkenitch Landing site as a source of archaeological 

whales, and Kevin Bruce and Molly Kirkpatrick at the Siuslaw National Forest facilitated the 

Tahkenitch loan and generously provided funds for AMS dates. Dr. Briece Edwards, 

Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde, suggested ethnographic sources. Dr. Robert Losey and 

Hope Loiselle shared their thoughts on the Seaside sites. Dr. Katherine Ralls provided feedback 

on Chapter III. The undergraduate students of Dr. Moss’s 2015, 2017, and 2019 zooarchaeology 

classes helped me via their class projects or volunteering their time to gain lab experience. 

Drs. Torben Rick and Melinda Zeder fostered my interest in zooarchaeology and 

encouraged me to pursue a Ph.D. Torrey served as my NMNH fellowship advisor and continues 

to mentor and guide me; I am eternally grateful for his support. Many years ago, Dr. Reuven 

Yeshurun shared his microscope with me and patiently trained me to identify cutmarks. Dr. 

Catherine West brought me to the field and has always been only a text away.  

I would like to thank my family and friends for their unwavering support, in whatever 

form it came. I do not have the space or words to properly express all the thanks I owe to you, but 

I love you and am so thankful to have you in my life. In short: “preesh.” 

Finally, I would like to thank Dave Hatch, whom I never met but was nonetheless an 

enormous source of inspiration for this project. Dave was a member of the Confederated Tribes of 

Siletz Indians and driving force behind the founding of the Elakha Alliance. His goal to bring sea 

otters home to Oregon inspired me to pursue the applied zooarchaeology of sea otters. 

This dissertation was financially supported by the Robert Hevey and Constance M. 

Filling Graduate Student Fellowship Award (NMNH), the University of Oklahoma, the Edna 

English Trust (MNCH), the UO Graduate School “Special Opps” grants, the UO Department of 

Anthropology Cheryl L. Harper Fellowship and Travel Funds, and the Siuslaw National Forest. 



x 
 

To my friends and family, especially my grandmother,  

Alice N. Wellman, 

the original family archaeologist, 

and in honor of Dave Hatch and the Oregon Elakha. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



xi 
 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Chapter Page 

 

 

I. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................... 1 

 

 1.1 Background ...................................................................................................... 1 

 

 1.2 Dissertation Outline ......................................................................................... 2 

 

 1.3 Research Programs: Human-Animal Studies and Historical Ecology ............. 3 

 

 1.4 Archaeological Sites and Materials ................................................................. 4 

 

1.4.1 Par-Tee and Palmrose (the “Seaside sites”) ............................................ 4 

 

1.4.2 The Tahkenitch Landing Site .................................................................. 7 

 

  

II. FOOD OR FUR? ANCESTRAL TRIBAL USE OF SEA OTTERS  

ON THE OREGON COAST PRIOR TO EUROPEAN  

CONTACT AND EXTIRPATION.............................................................................. 8 

 

 2.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................... 8 

 

 2.1.1 Sea Otters in Oregon ............................................................................... 8  

 

 2.1.2 Current Study .......................................................................................... 9 

 

 2.2 Background ...................................................................................................... 10 

 

2.2.1 Archaeological Sites and Materials ........................................................ 10 

 

2.2.2 Ethnographic Background ...................................................................... 11 

 

2.2.3 Previous Cutmark Studies ....................................................................... 12 

 

 2.3 Cutmark Methods............................................................................................. 14 

 

 2.3.1 Cutmark Identifications .......................................................................... 14 

 

 2.3.2 Tallying Cutmarks .................................................................................. 14 

 

 2.4 Results: Zooarchaeological Analysis ............................................................... 15 

 

 2.4.1 Par-Tee Sea Otter Remains ..................................................................... 15 



xii 
 

Chapter Page 

 

 

 2.4.2 Palmrose Sea Otter Remains ................................................................... 22 

 

 2.5 Cutmark Results ............................................................................................... 27 

 

 2.5.1 Cutmarks at Par-Tee ............................................................................... 27 

 

 2.5.2 Cutmarks at Palmrose ............................................................................. 37 

 

 2.6 Sea Otter Use at Par-Tee and Palmrose ........................................................... 42 

 

 2.6.1 Skinning and Pelt Removal ..................................................................... 42 

 

 2.6.2 Additional Processing ............................................................................. 43 

 

 2.6.3 Skinning Strategies ................................................................................. 45 

 

 2.6.4 Sea Otter for Supper? .............................................................................. 45 

 

 2.6.5 Alternative Food Items at Seaside .......................................................... 47 

 

 2.7 Comparing Par-Tee and Palmrose Assemblages ............................................. 51 

 

 2.8 Human-Sea Otter Relationships ....................................................................... 54 

 

 2.9 Conclusion ....................................................................................................... 56 

 

 

III. ARCHAEOLOGICAL MITOGENOMES ILLUMINATE THE HISTORICAL 

ECOLOGY OF SEA OTTERS (ENHYDRA LUTRIS) AND THE  

VIABILITY OF REINTRODUCTION ....................................................................... 58 

 

 3.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................... 58 

 

3.1.1 Reintroductions and Applied Archaeology ............................................. 58 

 

3.1.2 The Sea Otter on the Pacific Coast ......................................................... 59 

 

3.1.3 Previous Studies ...................................................................................... 61 

 

3.1.4 Current Study .......................................................................................... 62 

 

 3.2 Methods............................................................................................................ 64 

 



xiii 
 

Chapter Page 

 

 

3.2.1 Sampling ................................................................................................. 64 

 

3.2.2 Ancient DNA Analysis ........................................................................... 65 

 

 3.3 Results .............................................................................................................. 67 

 

 3.4 Discussion ........................................................................................................ 69 

 

  3.4.1 Mitogenome Haplotype Distribution ...................................................... 69 

 

  3.4.2 Precontact Sea Otter Acquisition ............................................................ 70 

 

  3.4.3 Implications for Reintroduction .............................................................. 71 

 

  3.4.4 Novel Methodological Approach ............................................................ 73 

 

 3.5 Conclusion ....................................................................................................... 73 

 

 

IV. ANCESTRAL TRIBAL USE OF ANCIENT OREGON CETACEANS: 

BIOMOLECULAR ANALYSES REVEAL HUMAN-CETACEAN  

RELATIONSHIPS ....................................................................................................... 75 

 

 4.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................... 75 

   

  4.1.1 Current Study .......................................................................................... 75 

   

  4.1.2 Archaeological Cetaceans on the Northwest Coast ................................ 76 

   

 4.2 Background ...................................................................................................... 78 

   

  4.2.1 Archaeological Sites and Materials ........................................................ 78 

   

  4.2.2 Ethnographic Background ...................................................................... 79 

 

  4.2.3 Oregon Archaeological Cetacean Studies ............................................... 82 

 

  4.2.4 Cetaceans on the Present-day Oregon Coast .......................................... 84 

 

 4.3 Methods and Materials ..................................................................................... 87 

   

  4.3.1 Zooarchaeological Analysis .................................................................... 87 

 



xiv 
 

Chapter Page 

 

  

  4.3.2 Biomolecular Analysis ............................................................................ 88 

 

 4.4 Zooarchaeology and Biomolecular Results ..................................................... 93 

 

  4.4.1 Tahkenitch Landing ................................................................................ 93 

   

  4.4.2 Palmrose .................................................................................................. 94 

 

  4.4.3 Par-Tee .................................................................................................... 99 

 

 4.5 Discussion ........................................................................................................ 102 

  

  4.5.1 Oregon Tribal Ancestors’ Acquisition of Cetaceans .............................. 102 

 

  4.5.2 Oregon Tribal Ancestors’ Use of Cetaceans ........................................... 108 

 

  4.5.3 Comparisons Across Assemblages ......................................................... 113 

 

 4.6 Tribal Ancestors and Cetaceans on the Oregon Coast ..................................... 122 

  

 4.7 Conclusion ....................................................................................................... 124 

 

 

V. CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................... 126 

 

 5.1 Dissertation Study ............................................................................................ 126 

   

 5.2 Culture History Implications............................................................................ 130 

   

  5.2.1 Overview ................................................................................................. 130 

   

  5.2.2 The Seaside Sites .................................................................................... 131 

 

  5.2.3 Tahkenitch Landing ................................................................................ 135 

  

 5.3 Concluding Thoughts ....................................................................................... 136 

 

REFERENCES CITED ................................................................................................ 137 



xv 
 

LIST OF FIGURES 

 

Figure Page 

 

1.1 Map of the Seaside sites and the Tahkenitch Landing site .................................... 5 

2.1 Map of the Palmrose and Par-Tee sites.................................................................. 10 

2.2 NISP sea otter in the Par-Tee sample .................................................................... 16 

2.3 Percent of sea otter elements expected in the Par-Tee sample .............................. 17 

2.4 Adult and juvenile sea otter abundance in the Par-Tee sample ............................. 18 

2.5 Proportions of sea otter anatomical unit in the northeast quadrant of Par-Tee ...... 20 

2.6 Proportions of sea otter anatomical unit in the northwest quadrant of Par-Tee ..... 20 

2.7 Proportions of sea otter anatomical unit in the southeast quadrant of Par-Tee ..... 21 

2.8 Proportions of sea otter anatomical unit in the southwest quadrant of Par-Tee .... 21 

2.9 NISP sea otter in the Palmrose sample .................................................................. 23 

2.10 Percent of sea otter elements expected in the Palmrose sample .......................... 24 

2.11 Adult and juvenile sea otter abundance in the Palmrose sample ......................... 25 

2.12 Proportions of sea otter anatomical unit in the NE/NW quad of Palmrose ......... 26 

2.13 Proportions of sea otter anatomical unit in the SE/SW quad of Palmrose ........... 26 

2.14 Abundance of cutmarked sea otter in the Par-Tee sample ................................... 28 

2.15 Thoracic vertebra cutmarked at base of spinous process ..................................... 29 

2.16 Lumbar vertebra cutmarked on ventral centrum .................................................. 30 

2.17 Scapula cutmarked on subscapular fossa ............................................................. 30 

2.18 Distal humerus cutmarked on medial epicondylar ridge ..................................... 31 

2.19 Femur cutmarked on gastrocnemius origin and femoral neck ............................. 32 



xvi 
 

Figure Page 

 

2.20 Tibia cutmarked on the medio-distal aspect ........................................................ 33 

2.21 Calcaneus exhibiting cutmarks ............................................................................ 33 

2.22 Total longbone cutmarks from the Par-Tee sample ............................................. 35 

2.23 Percent NISP cutmarked by joint in the Par-Tee sample ..................................... 36 

2.24 Abundance of cutmarked sea otter in the Palmrose sample ................................ 37 

2.25 Total longbone cutmarks from the Palmrose sample ........................................... 40 

2.26 Percent NISP cutmarked by joint in the Palmrose sample .................................. 41 

2.27 Percent cutmarked sea otter comparing Palmrose, Par-Tee, and Angoon ........... 43 

2.28 Palmrose excavation units containing gnawed sea otter ...................................... 47 

2.29 Sea otter element abundance (% NISP) at Par-Tee and Palmrose ....................... 52 

3.1 Geographical origins of archaeological dentine and historical calculus ................ 63 

3.2 Median-joining network of haplotypes .................................................................. 66 

3.3 TempNet analysis................................................................................................... 67 

3.4 Median-joining network of trimmed alignment ..................................................... 72 

4.1 Map showing location of Palmrose, Par-Tee, and Tahkenitch Landing ................ 78 

4.2 Humpback whale phalanx with embedded bone point from Par-Tee .................... 82 

4.3 Gouging and adzing on gray whale mandible from Par-Tee ................................. 83 

4.4 Example of weathered element from Tahkenitch Landing .................................... 93 

4.5 Element abundance of small cetaceans at Palmrose .............................................. 95 

4.6 Element abundance of whales at Palmrose ............................................................ 96 

4.7 Blue and gray whale phalanges from Par-Tee ....................................................... 102 



xvii 
 

Figure Page 

 

4.8 Small cetaceans by NISP per excavation unit in the Palmrose site ....................... 105 

4.9 Cutmarked humpback whale phalanx from Palmrose ........................................... 109 

4.10 Distribution of whale species in the Palmrose site .............................................. 110 

4.11 Humpback occipital condyles from Palmrose ..................................................... 111 

4.12 Distribution of whale species in the Par-Tee site................................................. 113 

4.13 Element abundance of small cetaceans at Palmrose and Par-Tee ........................ 114  

4.14 Family/species abundance of small cetaceans at Palmrose and Par-Tee ............. 115 

4.15 Family/species abundance of whales at Palmrose and Par-Tee ........................... 118 

4.16 Whale vertebrae from Par-Tee ............................................................................. 121 

4.17 Vertebra gouged to form a bowl from the Avenue Q site.................................... 121 



xviii 
 

LIST OF TABLES 

 

Table Page 

 

2.1 Cutmarks on Par-Tee forelimb and hindlimb longbones ....................................... 34 

2.2 Cutmarks on Palmrose forelimb and hindlimb longbones ..................................... 40 

3.1 Historical museum specimens................................................................................ 64 

3.2 Haplotype assignments of specimens .................................................................... 68 

4.1 AMS 14C dates from Tahkenitch Landing ............................................................. 92 

4.2 Tahkenitch Landing ZooMS results....................................................................... 94 

4.3 Palmrose species/family NISP ............................................................................... 95 

4.4 Palmrose ZooMS results ........................................................................................ 97 

4.5 Par-Tee ZooMS results .......................................................................................... 100 

 

 



1 
 

 

CHAPTER I 

INTRODUCTION 

 

1.1 Background 

Tribal ancestors living on the Oregon coast prior to European contact were skilled 

fisher-hunter-gatherers and savvy traders residing in a rich environment. The Oregon 

coast ecotone is home to diverse marine mammals – sea otters, seals, sea lions, porpoises, 

and whales – as well as other marine and terrestrial resources. Over time, Euro-

Americans over-exploited these marine mammals and drove some species close to 

extinction, while inflicting disease, violence, and displacement upon Indigenous 

communities. Some marine mammal populations rebounded under state and federal laws, 

while others, such as the locally extinct Oregon sea otter, never recovered. Threats from 

Euro-American industrial-scale hunting in the U.S. are now over, but marine mammals 

living along the Northwest Coast today face new challenges, such as climate change, 

pollution, resource conflicts, and human-mediated disruptions, such as ship strikes. Sea 

otters and cetaceans are the foci of conservation efforts and concerns, and are also 

popular and charismatic fauna. While these taxa enjoy both general and academic interest 

in the present, little systematic study of these taxa and their use by, and relationship with, 

precontact peoples in Oregon has occurred. Tribal ancestors living on the Oregon coast 

prior to contact hunted or otherwise acquired sea otters and cetaceans and deposited the 

remains of these animals into middens and other archaeological features, but these 

remains are often overlooked and much remains to be analyzed. 

The first two objectives of this dissertation are to fully characterize how Oregon 

Coast Native Americans used sea otters and cetaceans prior to Euro-American contact, 

addressing longstanding assumptions regarding use of these species. Addressing ancestral 

tribal use of these species requires understanding the biological and ecological traits of 

the animals themselves, which comprises the third objective: to form a historical 

ecological dataset on the sea otter and cetacean species which can be applied to present-

day conservation concerns. 

 



2 
 

 

1.2 Dissertation Outline 

This dissertation uses faunal remains from archaeological sites in Oregon to 

address how tribal ancestors used marine mammals (specifically cetaceans and the now-

extirpated Oregon sea otter) prior to European contact, and gain insight on species’ 

historical ecologies prior to Euro-American depletion and extirpation.  

Chapter II of this dissertation addresses whether tribal ancestors were skinning 

sea otters to remove their pelts, to remove meat for dietary consumption, or both. 

Researchers have assumed that tribal ancestors skinned sea otters to obtain pelts based on 

the importance of the fur trade at contact, but other uses have not been critically 

evaluated. This chapter explores other purposes for which tribal ancestors might have 

used sea otters and describes possible dimensions to the human-animal relationship that 

may have been maintained between tribal ancestors and sea otters in their shared coastal 

environment. Precontact ancestral tribal use of, and socio-ecological relationships with, 

sea otters, have implications for potential future sea otter reintroductions which are 

currently undergoing a feasibility study led by the Elakha Alliance (a group pursuing the 

reintroduction of sea otters to Oregon). 

Chapter III addresses the Oregon sea otter’s historical ecology through an ancient 

DNA analysis of extirpated Oregon sea otters and their relatedness to other groups of 

extant sea otters elsewhere in the north Pacific. The results of Chapter III have 

implications for reintroduction efforts, particularly with regards to the source stock for 

possible relocations of sea otters to Oregon, and these results have already been 

disseminated to the Elakha Alliance. Chapter III includes previously published co-

authored material with Rita M. Austin, Nihan D. Dağtaş, Madonna L. Moss, Torben C. 

Rick, and Courtney A. Hofman. 

Chapter IV shifts from sea otters to a much larger class of marine mammal: 

cetaceans (dolphins, porpoises, and whales). Indigenous groups south of the Makah tribe 

(in Washington state) on the Northwest Coast are typically categorized as non-whaling 

groups by anthropologists and historians, despite the presence of whale remains in 

archaeological sites in Oregon and California. As a result, ancestral tribal use of 

cetaceans has generally received more attention north of Oregon at archaeological sites 



3 
 

like Ozette (a Makah site) and ancestral Nuu-chah-nulth sites in British Columbia. 

Researchers have investigated whether tribal ancestors in northern Oregon were hunting 

or scavenging whales (Losey and Yang 2007; Sanchez 2014; Wellman et al. 2017), but 

discussion of cetacean use has been limited to mention of oil extraction for trade and 

consumption (Wellman et al. 2017:272) and other uses have not been systematically 

evaluated. This chapter moves beyond the focus on how Indigenous peoples living on the 

Oregon coast acquired whales, and instead seeks to fully characterize how residents of 

three different archaeological sites used cetaceans, as well as explore possible dimensions 

to precontact human-whale relationships. Chapter IV also provides a new, expanded 

dataset on the presence of cetacean species on the central and northern Oregon coasts 

during the Middle and Late Holocene, which may interest wildlife biologists working on 

cetacean conservation on the Northwest Coast. Chapter IV includes unpublished material 

with co-author Camilla Speller. 

 

1.3 Research Programs: Human-Animal Studies and Historical Ecology 

In order to address the topics and questions described above, I draw from the 

research programs of human-animal studies and historical ecology. Human-animal 

studies seek to understand how humans and animals have interacted and related across 

temporal, social, cultural, and ecological contexts (Hill 2013; Mullin 2002). Human-

animal studies draw from a wide variety of research methods and approaches, and in the 

case of archaeological applications, often rely heavily upon Traditional Ecological 

Knowledge or ethnographic analogy. 

Historical ecology seeks to describe the relationships between humans and their 

environments across temporal and spatial contexts (Balée 2006:75). Historical ecology is 

a descriptive approach that is necessary to create datasets from which to infer the human-

animal relationships. In zooarchaeology, historical ecology is also sometimes used to 

refer to the ecological history of a specific species or family in the past, particularly when 

the species or community/population of interest is extinct or locally extirpated. 

Zooarchaeologists have emphasized the relevance of using zooarchaeological analyses to 

provide baseline biological and ecological data on such species, which can then be 

applied to modern conservation efforts (Lyman 2006). 



4 
 

Both of these approaches are readily applied in archaeological thought and 

analyses. Together they form an appropriate research program and framework with which 

to address: 1) questions of ancestral tribal use of marine mammals prior to Euro-

American contact, and 2) the implications the resulting data may have for the animals 

themselves in terms of conservation and changes in their ecology and/or biology as a 

result of near-extirpation by Euro-American colonizers. 

 

1.4 Archaeological Sites and Materials 

1.4.1. Par-Tee and Palmrose (the “Seaside sites”) 

The majority of sea otters and cetaceans analyzed in this dissertation come from 

the “Seaside Collection,” comprised of materials from three coastal shell midden sites 

excavated between 1967 and 1977 at Seaside, Oregon (Phebus and Drucker 1979): Par-

Tee (35CLT20), Palmrose (35CLT47), and Avenue Q (35CLT46). Par-Tee and Palmrose 

are the focus of this dissertation project, and are located in northern Oregon, roughly 15 

miles south of the mouth of the Columbia River (Figure 1.1). What is now the town of 

Seaside formerly contained an ancient bay or estuary, which later filled to form the 

landscape present today (Connolly 1992, 1995; Phebus and Drucker 1979). Par-Tee is 

located closest to the shoreline and has undergone additional AMS dating which has 

refined the site occupation to 1850-1150 cal BP (or cal AD ~100-800; Sanchez et al. 

2018). Palmrose is located slightly inland, closer to the proposed ancient quiet-water 

environment (Connolly 1995) and was occupied primarily 2750-1500 cal BP (Connolly 

1992), although an early date of 4000 cal BP associated with whale bone may suggest 

early “intermittent and opportunistic” use of the Palmrose site (Connolly 1992:39). 

 



5 
 

 

Figure 1.1. Map showing location of the Seaside sites (Palmrose and Par-Tee) on the 

northern coast (black inset) and the Tahkenitch Landing site on the central coast (red 

inset). Made in ArcMap 10.0/Adobe Illustrator; data from Natural Earth, U.S. Census 

Bureau, Esri, DeLorme, HERE, and MapmyIndia. 

 

 

The sites were excavated by Robert Drucker and George Phebus and their 

volunteers in 5 × 5 foot (~1.5 × 1.5 m) units in arbitrary one-foot (~30 cm) levels. All 

sediments were screened over 1/4-inch mesh (Phebus and Drucker 1979). Unit depths 

varied, reaching up to six feet (1.8 m) in some places. Phebus and Drucker sampled 

approximately 550 m2 at Par-Tee, making it one of the largest excavations on the 

Northwest Coast south of Ozette (Losey and Yang 2007:662), including the extensive 

excavations at Čḯxwicən (Butler et al. 2019). Faunal and structural remains suggested 

possible part-time habitation at Par-Tee (Phebus and Drucker 1979), while seasonality of 

faunal remains and the discovery of the remains of a large, rectangular semi-subterranean 



6 
 

plank house suggested possible year-round residence at Palmrose (Aikens et al. 

2011:247; Connolly 1992:168; Greenspan and Crockford 1992). 

The close relationship between the Tillamook and Clatsop tribes in the area has 

led to some ambiguity regarding cultural affiliation of the Seaside sites (Aikens et al. 

2011; Arbolino et al. 2005; Phebus and Drucker 1979). At Euro-American contact, the 

Seaside area was home to the Penutian-speaking Clatsops (Chinookan peoples; Deur 

2016) and likely the Salish-speaking Nehalem Tillamook (Jacobs 2003:2; Ray 1938). The 

groups were interconnected through marriage, trade, and language (Deur 2016; Boas 

1894; Jacobs 2003). Seaside was also a documented location of Clatsop/Tillamook 

persistence following contact (Deur 2016). Today, the descendants of these groups are 

represented by the Confederated Tribes of the Grande Ronde and Confederated Tribes of 

Siletz Indians, as well as the federally unrecognized Confederated Tribes of Clatsop-

Nehalem and Chinook Nation (Deur 2016; Johnson 2013:5). A repatriation report 

compiled by the Smithsonian Institution National Museum of Natural History (NMNH) 

determined Par-Tee was culturally affiliated with Tillamook descendants (Arbolino et al. 

2005:ii), and Palmrose with Tillamook and Clatsop descendants (Arbolino et al. 2005:iii). 

The Par-Tee site assemblage is curated at the NMNH in Washington, D.C. The 

Palmrose assemblage is split between the NMNH and the Museum of Natural and 

Cultural History (MNCH) at the University of Oregon (UO) in Eugene. Par-Tee and 

Palmrose both contain enormous quantities of well-preserved faunal remains, and while 

research on these assemblages has occurred during the last two decades (Colten 2002, 

2015; Loiselle 2020; Losey and Power 2005; Losey and Yang 2007; Sanchez 2014; 

Sanchez et al. 2016, 2018, 2020; Wellman et al. 2016; Wellman 2018; Wellman et al. 

2020) much remains to be analyzed. Publications to date include a brief excavation report 

(Phebus and Drucker 1979), analysis of a subsample of faunal remains (Colten 2002, 

2015), analyses of shellfish and fish remains (Losey and Power 2005; Sanchez et al. 

2020), and AMS dating analyses (Sanchez et al. 2016, 2018). Connolly et al. (1992) 

revisited the Palmrose site in 1988 for limited excavations and reported additional faunal 

remains, artifacts, and studied the ancient geomorphology. Additional site notes and 

records are available in the archives at NMNH and MNCH. 

 



7 
 

1.4.2 The Tahkenitch Landing Site 

In addition to cetaceans from the Par-Tee and Palmrose sites, I re-analyzed the 

cetacean remains from the Tahkenitch Landing (35DO130) site. Tahkenitch Landing is 

located north of Reedsport on the central Oregon coast, on the shores of modern 

Tahkenitch Lake (Figure 4.1). At European contact, Lower Umpqua Indians resided in 

the Tahkenitch Landing area, while the Siuslaw and Coos tribes lived north and south, 

respectively (Minor and Toepel 1986:4). Today, descendants from these groups are 

represented by the federally recognized Confederated Tribes of Coos, Lower Umpqua, 

and Siuslaw Indians. The site was excavated in 1984 and 1985 in 1 m x 1 m units and 10 

cm levels. The site is divided into three chronological components (I-III): the beginning 

of the first component dates to ~8000 BP and the end of the third component dates to 

post-3000 BP (McDowell and Minor 1986:41). The excavation yielded a significant 

amount of faunal material, of which a subsample was analyzed (Greenspan 1986:57). 

Component II contained approximately 31 whale bone specimens, several of which were 

tentatively identified to Balaenopteridae or Physeteridae (sperm [Physeter 

macrocephalus] whale) families, but further research was recommended (Greenspan 

1986:64). Component II at the Tahkenitch Landing site dates to 5200-3000 BP 

(McDowell and Minor 1986:41), preceding the primary occupation of the Palmrose and 

Par-Tee sites. Tahkenitch Landing provides a different geographic and chronological 

context in which cetacean remains were acquired and deposited on the Oregon coast, and 

serves as a comparison to the northern Oregon sites of Par-Tee and Palmrose. The 

collection is stored in the Siuslaw National Forest Supervisor’s office in Corvallis, 

Oregon. Prior to the current study, we are unaware of any analysis of the Tahkenitch 

Landing site assemblage beyond the official excavation report (Minor and Toepel 1986). 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



8 
 

CHAPTER II 

FOOD OR FUR? ANCESTRAL TRIBAL USE OF SEA OTTERS ON THE OREGON 

COAST PRIOR TO EUROPEAN CONTACT AND EXTIRPATION 

 

2.1 Introduction 

2.1.1 Sea Otters in Oregon 

Sea otters were driven to near extinction on the Pacific Northwest Coast in the 

19th century due to the maritime fur trade. While sea otters previously ranged along the 

Pacific Rim from Japan to northern Mexico, the species is now restricted to parts of 

Russia, Alaska, British Columbia, Washington, and California (Bodkin 2015). Despite 

successful conservation efforts elsewhere on the Northwest Coast, reintroductions to 

Oregon in 1970 and 1971 failed (Bodkin 2015). As a result, sea otters are still considered 

extirpated in Oregon and are listed as “threatened” under the Oregon Endangered Species 

Act (ORS 496.171-496.192). Sea otters are of interest to diverse stakeholders in Oregon 

today, and are considered an ecological priority due to their role as a keystone species 

within kelp forest ecosystems (Estes and Palmisano 1974). Restoring sea otters to the 

Oregon coast is the explicit goal for the recently reestablished Elakha Alliance, initially 

founded by Siletz tribal member Dave Hatch (Hall 2019). Reflecting these conservation 

priorities, several zooarchaeological studies of Oregon sea otters have provided historical 

ecological data to inform future reintroduction efforts (e.g. Lyman 1988; Valentine et al. 

2008; Wellman 2018; Wellman et al. 2020 [Chapter III]). 

Sea otters are culturally significant to Native American, First Nations, and Alaska 

Native groups who reside along the Northwest Coast. Precontact sea otter hunting and 

use has been described in the archaeological and ethnographic record for some regions 

and communities, but detailed zooarchaeological data are lacking for the Oregon coast 

(Hall 2019:117). Hall found that sea otters “frequently rank along with Steller sea lion 

and harbor seal among the top three” (2019:122) marine mammals in coastal Oregon 

faunal assemblages. Hall’s findings clearly indicate that sea otters were an important 

species prior to contact and the historical fur trade. Oregon archaeologists and historians 

agree with Hall that sea otters were important, but few have reported on use patterns or 

explored the precontact relationships between humans and sea otters. In a literature 



9 
 

review of pinniped and sea otter use in northern Oregon and southern Washington, Moss 

and Losey (2011:186) recommended more thorough and detailed zooarchaeological 

analyses to gain an understanding of sea otter use, but little progress has occurred since 

the time of their writing. The precontact socio-cultural details of sea otters on the Oregon 

coast remain unaddressed: how, why, and when were tribal ancestors using sea otters, and 

what was the nature of the human-sea otter relationship in the coastal Oregon landscape? 

 

2.1.2 Current Study 

This study characterizes how precontact inhabitants of the Oregon coast used sea 

otters. I present the analysis of cutmarked sea otter remains from two archaeological sites 

from the northern Oregon coast to determine whether sea otters were processed for pelt 

removal, dietary consumption, or both. This study was undertaken with the explicit goal 

of disseminating results to tribal stakeholders to be used as desired or needed, while also 

contributing more broadly to understanding relationships between humans and fur-

bearing marine mammals in the archaeological record. 

A core premise of this study is that sea otters were (and still are) an important 

coastal resource for tribal groups throughout the Pacific Northwest Coast. The analysis 

presented here is one of multiple lines of evidence affirming the importance of sea otters. 

These results are not a new revelation; I build upon current Oregon tribal positions and 

knowledge to affirm tribal assertions that the reintroduction of sea otters to Oregon would 

be a rekindling of a long human-animal relationship disrupted by colonial incursion and 

ecological exploitation by Euro-Americans (Hall 2019). The results of this study indicate 

that the inhabitants of the Par-Tee and Palmrose sites were skinning sea otters for their 

pelts prior to European contact. Sea otter muscle also appears to have been removed from 

parts of the skeleton, but it is not clear if this was for dietary consumption by humans. 

Sea otters were clearly processed, sometimes intensively, prior to their deposition in the 

archaeological record, and were an important coastal resource for Oregon tribal groups 

prior to and at Euro-American contact. 

 

 

 



10 
 

2.2 Background 

2.2.1 Archaeological Sites and Materials 

The sea otters analyzed in this chapter come from the Par-Tee (35CLT20) and 

Palmrose (35CLT47) sites, coastal shell mounds excavated between 1967 and 1977 at 

Seaside, Oregon (Phebus and Drucker 1979). Par-Tee and Palmrose are located south of 

the Columbia River mouth (Figure 2.1). 

 

 
Figure 2.1. Map showing location of the Seaside (Palmrose and Par-Tee) sites on the 

Oregon coast. Made in ArcMap 10.0/Adobe Illustrator; data from Natural Earth, U.S. 

Census Bureau, Esri, DeLorme, HERE, and MapmyIndia. 

 

 

The Par-Tee site collection is curated at the NMNH in Washington, D.C. The 

Palmrose assemblage is split between the NMNH and the Museum of Natural and 

Cultural History (MNCH) at the University of Oregon (UO) in Eugene. Par-Tee and 

Palmrose both contain enormous quantities of well-preserved faunal remains, providing 

an ideal sample size for faunal analyses, and much remains to be analyzed. While full 



11 
 

descriptions of the artifact assemblages have not been published, sea otter bacula tools 

have been identified at Par-Tee (Robert Losey, personal communication, 7/23/2019). 

 

2.2.2 Ethnographic Background 

Ethnographic research on the Chinook and Tillamook peoples began with Lewis 

and Clark’s arrival at the mouth of the Columbia, and was followed by that conducted by 

anthropologists including Franz Boas (1894) and Melville and Elizabeth Jacobs (Jacobs 

2003; Pearson 1990). These sources recorded how tribes on the Oregon Coast used sea 

otters. Lewis and Clark frequently wrote about sea otters and their pelts and are cited in 

various sources (Lewis and Clark 2005; Sauter and Johnson 1974; Ray 1938). Verne Ray 

(1938:114) noted “all of the early writers speak of sea otter robes in use by the Chinook 

but it is not certain whether they used the flesh for food or not.” The typical Chinookan 

method of making sea otter robes required two skins which were sewn together (Ray 

1938:137). The Salmon River Tillamook used sea otters for clothing and bedding (Zobel 

2002:309), and sea otter skins were highly valuable and coveted (Sauter and Johnson 

1974:53). Tillamook shamans reportedly kept their powers in a bag made from sea otter 

skin (Sauter and Johnson 1974:120). Tillamook hunted “otters” for fur and a “valuable 

food source” (Sauter and Johnson 1974:5), but further discussion of otters related to 

subsistence is absent – it is possible Sauter and Johnson are referring to river otter 

(Lontra canadensis), since they do not specify “sea” otter. 

Clara Pearson, a Nehalem Tillamook informant interviewed in the early 1930s, 

did not discuss sea otters with regards to subsistence (Jacobs 2003:95) but recounted 

stories and myths including sea otters (Pearson 1990). For example, the story “The 

Invisible Husband” includes a specific reference to Seaside as the location where “all 

those men went sea-otter hunting” (Pearson 1990:20). “The Round Trip of Ice” describes 

a sea otter hunt with Ice and his men; they encounter a “[…] sea otter that was different 

looking. It was a sea otter all right but it had a white face” (Pearson 1990:3). The men 

cannot strike the sea otter and follow it back to the village where they find a young 

woman who looks just like the sea otter, along with the weapons they had fired at it (her). 

In “Moon’s Winter Dance,” all “types of people” attend, such as Dentalium, Bracelets, 

and “Those Tanned sea otter hides that only very wealthy people wear”                



12 
 

(Pearson 1990:150). In the “South West Wind Dance,” South Wind wears “quivers made 

from sea otter skins” while he creates the world (Sauter and Johnson 1974:125). These 

stories indicate that sea otters were important symbolically and economically, and were 

non-human persons/agents within the lower Columbia River landscape. 

 

2.2.3 Previous Cutmark Studies 

2.2.3.1 Alaska Tlingit Sea Otter/Seal Use and Experimental Skinning Study (Moss 2020). 

To determine if Tlingit ancestors were processing sea otters for dietary consumption, 

Madonna Moss (2020) compared cutmarked elements of seals (which were known to be 

processed for food) to cutmarked elements of sea otters from archaeological sites near 

Angoon, Southeast Alaska. Working with Sealaska Heritage Institute, she received 

permission to observe a Tlingit hunter, Kyle Barry, as he skinned a sea otter hunted under 

the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA). Moss and colleagues obtained the resulting 

sea otter carcass, prepared the skeleton, and examined the bones to identify cutmarks left 

by the skinning. Moss concluded that cutmarks on the archaeological mandibles, tarsals, 

metatarsals, tibiae/fibulae, and ulnae/radii reflected skinning, while cutmarks on the 

femora/humerii were a result of pulling limbs away from the pelt during skinning. On the 

archaeological remains that she studied, Moss (2020:215) interpreted cutmarks on 

scapulae, vertebrae, innominates, and ribs as resulting from obtaining backstrap muscle 

for dietary consumption by dogs and possibly humans. One major methodological lesson 

from Moss’ analysis is that the “typical” patterns of cutmarks and their assigned 

functions (e.g., Binford 1981) were not necessarily applicable to sea otters, and that 

skinning resulted in cutmarks in unexpected areas following zooarchaeological 

conventions (Moss 2020:216). For example, the sea otter skinned by Mr. Barry was 

cutmarked on sternabra, a rib, radius/ulna, metacarpals, calcaneus, and metatarsals, all of 

which are consistent with skinning, and also on the innominate, femur, and fibula, which 

are not (Moss 2020:213). 

Moss (2020) worked with Tlingit individuals with expertise in sea otter hunting, 

skinning, and sewing. Today, Tlingit and other Alaska Natives use sea otters primarily as 

a source of material for sewing regalia, blankets, and handicrafts. To this end, Mr. Barry 

and others attempt to produce the largest skin possible, removing it from all around the 



13 
 

limbs. Mr. Barry produced a fully articulated sea otter carcass, so none of his cutmarks 

were made for disarticulation. Other people at different times and places could 

dismember a sea otter for the purpose of sharing small portions that could be used in a 

variety of ways, even as sources of smaller pieces of fur. 

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 

2.2.3.2 Small Carnivore Experimental Skinning Study (Implications for European Upper 

Palaeolithic) (Val and Mallye 2013). Val and Mallye (2013) conducted an experimental 

skinning study in which professional taxidermists skinned small carnivores found in 

Europe (Eurasian badges, stone and pine martens, a polecat) and Europe/North America 

(red foxes, a weasel). Val and Mallye (2013) recorded the resulting cutmark patterns and 

reported high frequencies of cutmarks on the cranium, lateral mandible, tarsals, 

metatarsals, phalanges, ulna/radius, tibia, and fibula (2013). Val and Mallye (2013:237) 

noted that forepaws and caudal vertebrae may remain in the fur upon removal from the 

skeleton, so an assemblage missing forepaws and caudal vertebrae may indicate that 

animals were skinned and the pelts containing the forepaws/caudal vertebrae were 

deposited elsewhere (2013:237). Conversely, an assemblage consisting solely of 

forepaws or caudal vertebrae (e.g., the stone marten remains at Çatal Hӧyük [Pawlowska 

and Marcizak et al. 2017]) may indicate pelts were deposited in the site. While Val and 

Mallye’s study was performed by modern taxidermists it is a useful comparison when 

considering cutmarks on fur-bearing mammals. 

 

2.2.3.3 Umpqua-Eden and Seal Rock (Oregon) Archaeological Analysis (Lyman 1991). 

Lyman (1991) analyzed sea otter bones from two coastal Oregon sites: Umpqua-Eden 

(35DO83) and Seal Rock (35LNC14). Seal Rock yielded an NISP of 141 sea otter 

specimens, ~18% of which were cutmarked (Lyman 1991:227), and Umpqua-Eden 

yielded an NISP of 302, ~19% of which were cutmarked (1991:152). Lyman sketched 

each cutmark and categorized them by function (following Binford [1981], Howard 

[1973,1975], and Lyman [1987]). Using Binford’s (1981) three categories of cutmarks, 

Umpqua-Eden sea otter elements exhibited 31 dismemberment, 37 filleting, and 22 

skinning marks (Lyman 1991:321-322), and Seal Rock elements exhibited 10 

dismemberment, 12 filleting, and one skinning mark(s) (Lyman 1991:333-334). 



14 
 

Cutmarks classified by Lyman as dismemberment and filleting may not have been a 

result of dismemberment/filleting, but from different aspects of the skinning process, as 

recorded by Moss (2020) and Val and Mallye (2013). Only three innominates, three distal 

tibia, four calcaneii, four metatarsals, and five astragali were categorized as exhibiting 

skinning marks. At Umpqua-Eden, Lyman concluded that complete sea otter hindlimbs 

had been removed from carcasses because 62% of hip joint elements (% NISP) were 

cutmarked, followed by the shoulder joint (21%), elbow/ankle (both ~15%), and knee 

(~13%) (Lyman 1991:156). There were no cutmarks on the wrist joint. Lyman’s 

categorizations of “dismemberment” and “filleting” imply dietary consumption, but he 

did not explicitly discuss or draw specific conclusions regarding use. 

 

2.3 Cutmark Methods 

2.3.1 Cutmark Identification 

I examined the Par-Tee and Palmrose sea otter bones for cutmarks under 0.63x to 

2x magnification. Cutmarks were described and those that were not too faint were 

photographed. Most cutmarks on longbones were sketched onto schematic drawings from 

Post (2006). I studied the muscular anatomy of the sea otter forelimb and hindlimb 

described by Howard (1973, 1975) as well as a dog anatomy textbook (Budras 2007) to 

identify possible fascia “targets” of the cutmarks to determine function. The placement of 

some cutmarks relative to muscle insertions or ligaments was extremely clear, while 

others were not. While determining cutmark “targets” provided an additional level of 

detail, it sometimes made function difficult to discern: most cutmark locations could 

reflect fascia cutmarks even when in locations considered standard for skinning, or vice 

versa (following Moss 2020). For example, cutmarks on the distal tibia have been cited as 

consistent with both disarticulation (Binford 1981:118) and skinning (Lyman 1991:322, 

334; Val and Mallye 2013:234). 

 

2.3.2 Tallying Cutmarks 

I calculated the percentage of each element that exhibited cutmarks (% NISP 

cutmarked, e.g., 69 of the total 116 femora specimens at Par-Tee are cutmarked, or 59%), 

as well as a count of cutmarks based on longbone location (e.g., 10 radii cutmarked 



15 
 

distally). While % NISP cutmarked does not account for fragmentation (Abe et al. 2002; 

Lyman 2008), longbone location counts do; it does not matter if the radius is fragmented, 

as long as it is clear which portion is cutmarked (Lyman 2008:285). 

Some authors have suggested that multiple cutmarks in one location on a single 

specimen reflect the effort of cutting or processing in that area (Milo 1998:106). Val and 

Mallye (2013:236) found that cutmark location remained consistent and cutmark 

frequency was a reflection of the processors’ skill. Consequently, the number of cutmarks 

in a given location may be less meaningful than cutmarks in the same location across 

multiple elements (as found by Val and Mallye 2003:237). In Moss’ experimental 

skinning study, Mr. Barry used a steel knife, but archaeological specimens would have 

been processed with stone or shell tools. The Par-Tee and Palmrose artifact assemblages 

contained chert scrapers and knives. Palmrose additionally contained a possible hafted 

shell blade (Museum of Natural and Cultural History, Eugene, Oregon [MNCH], North 

Coast Box 11 [NC 11], f. Field Notes [FN]). Sea otter pelts are thick with dense fur, and 

repeated cutmarks could be also due to the dulling of these blades rather than effort or the 

skill of the processor. 

 

2.4 Results: Zooarchaeological Analysis 

2.4.1 Par-Tee Sea Otter Remains 

2.4.1.1 NISP and MNI. I analyzed the sea otter remains from 63 Par-Tee excavation units 

which yielded a sample size of 2024 NISP and 54 MNI (calculated using right femora: 30 

adults and 24 juveniles). In terms of raw NISP, vertebrae, ribs, metatarsals, femora, 

phalanges, innominates, and humerii are the seven most abundant elements in the sample 

(Figure 2.2). These elements are representative of the axial skeleton (ribs and vertebrae), 

the hindlimb (femora, metatarsals, and phalanges), and the proximal forelimb (humerii). 

The next most abundant elements are innominates, ulnae, radii, and tibiae, which 

complete the emphasis on the hindlimb and forelimb. 

 



16 
 

Figure 2.2. NISP of sea otter elements in the Par-Tee sample. 

 

Vertebrae are represented primarily by the robust centra and are easily identified. 

Only 39 complete ribs were found in this analysis, but the majority of fragments included 

the diagnostic proximal end. The sample is not dominated by small rib fragments, 

possibly due to lack of recovery during excavation or difficulty identifying small, 

undiagnostic fragments. Regardless, fragmentation does not appear to be driving 

abundance of the vertebrae and ribs in the sample. Approximately 50% of metatarsals are 

complete, and the remainder are primarily undiagnostic distal ends. Pes phalanges are 

largely complete. Large proportions (~70%) of femora and humerii are complete, as are 

roughly 54% of tibiae, 40% of radii, and 20% of ulnae. Innominates are heavily 

fragmented, and a substantial number of unfused, partial juvenile innominates (NISP=34) 

are likely driving this abundance. Fibulae (which are long and extremely thin) are 

represented by the robust medial malleolus and varying intact diaphysis. Similarly, the 

scapulae are represented by the robust glenoid fossae. Crania fragments other than 

maxillae are not present. The maxillae are fragmented and underrepresented (N=38) 

relative to the comparatively robust mandibles (N=81), but 37 left upper P4s and 38 right 

lower P4s were reported in a previous analysis of all sea otter teeth in the assemblage 

(Wellman 2018:Table S1). The roughly equal representation of maxillary and mandibular 

teeth suggests that regardless of preservation, the cranium was processed and deposited. 

 

0

100

200

300

400

500

NISP of Sea Otter Elements at Par-Tee



17 
 

2.4.1.2 Element Representation. While axial and hindfoot elements exhibit high NISP 

counts, these elements are underrepresented if we consider the remains of 54 complete 

sea otter carcasses (assuming complete preservation). With 54 MNI, the sample should 

hypothetically contain 2700 vertebrae, 1512 ribs, 540 metatarsals, and 972 phalanges, but 

16% (N=440), 24% (N=368), 33% (N=178), and 12% (N=114) of the expected totals are 

present, respectively (Figure 2.3). When vertebrae are reported by type, the sample 

contains 34% of the expected totals of lumbar, 24% of cervical, 14% of thoracic, and 7% 

of caudal vertebrae. 

 

 
Figure 2.3. Percent of sea otter elements expected in the Par-Tee sample, based on 54 

MNI. 

 

Femora, innominates, and humerii are present in quantities over or close to 

expected totals (although due to fragmentation, especially of innominates, the actual 

percentage is likely below 100%; Figure 2.3). Ulnae, radii, and tibiae occur at 55%-60% 

of the expected frequencies; these percentages may also be lower due to fragmentation. 

 Forefoot elements are extremely underrepresented in the Par-Tee sample: only 1% 

of expected metacarpal totals are present (Figure 2.3), and carpals/manus phalanges are 

absent. This may be due to the small size of these elements and archaeological recovery 

techniques, or the removal of the forepaws along with the pelt (Val and Mallye 

2013:237). Alternatively, the lack of forefoot elements, combined with the substantial 

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Percent of Sea Otter Elements Expected in the Par-Tee  

Sample



18 
 

underrepresentation of caudal vertebrae, may point to pelt removal and deposition outside 

of the excavated areas of the site. 

 

2.4.1.3 Juveniles at Par-Tee. The Par-Tee sample contains a NISP of 240 juvenile 

specimens, and an MNI of 24 (calculated using right femora). Juvenile femora, humerii, 

innominates, ulnae, and mandibles are most abundant (Figure 2.4), likely because these 

elements have distinctive, diagnostic shapes and tend to be more robust even in a pup or 

juvenile sea otter. Fragile juvenile elements, such as ribs, are more likely to fragment and 

be unidentifiable. 

 

 
Figure 2.4. Adult and juvenile sea otter element abundance (NISP) in the Par-Tee 

sample. 

 

Determining ages of partial sea otter remains is difficult. I used the broad term 

“juvenile” to categorize elements missing one or both epiphyses, or in the case of the 

innominate, lacking fusion through the acetabulum. Using age criteria described in 

Nicholson et al. (2014), I determined age ranges for mandibles and maxillae: fourteen sea 

otters are aged ≤2 months old and eleven sea otters are aged ≤6.5 months old (Nicholson 

et al. 2014). Because the mandibles/ maxillae are fragmented and teeth are often missing, 

absolute ages could not be determined. These estimates are primarily limited to those 

based on the presence/absence of the lower deciduous premolars (pm3/pm4)/permanent 

molars (M1/M2) and upper 1st deciduous premolar (pm4)/permanent molar (M1). The 

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

Adult and Juvenile NISP in the Par-Tee Sample

ADULT

JUVENILE



19 
 

majority of sea otter elements in the Par-Tee sample are fused or show adult dentition 

(Nicholson et al. 2014). 

Sea otter pups can be born year round and juvenile remains are dispersed 

throughout levels at the site, making seasonality inferences difficult. It is interesting 

nonetheless to have so many juveniles in the sample and the age estimates (albeit 

approximate ranges) are informative. Sea otter pups are weaned on average at 6 months 

of age (Thometz et al. 2014), so the 2-6.5 month old pups in this sample would have been 

with or nearby their mothers and possibly hunted in association with the adult females. 

Distribution throughout the site lends additional evidence for co-capture: adults always 

co-occur in units containing juveniles and frequently within the same level. 

 

2.4.1.4 Gnawing. The Par-Tee sample contains 28 specimens that exhibit carnivore tooth 

punctures and gnawing: one femur, two humerii, one innominate, nine metatarsals, one 

phalanx, one rib, one sternabra, five tibiae, four ulnae, and four vertebrae. This is likely 

an undercount, as other taphonomic signatures (wear/erosion/breakages) made 

toothmarks or gnawing difficult to identify. I noted several repeated irregular erosion 

patterns that, upon reflection, may have been gnawing. For example, I noted “divets” on 

the palmar and plantar surfaces of some distal metatarsals, as though they were ground 

between two canine teeth. A total of seven elements are both gnawed and cutmarked. 

Unfortunately, there is no clear spatial patterning at Par-Tee to differentiate between 

carnivore scavenging and domesticated dog gnawing, though the proximity of the 

gnawed elements both in and near the house feature at the Palmrose site may reflect 

domesticated dog activity. At contact dogs were reportedly human hunting partners, 

human companions, and possibly “sanitation workers,” eating trash and refuse (Mack 

2015:65-66).  

 

2.4.1.5 Pathology. The Par-Tee sample contained 33 specimens exhibiting pathologies: 

seventeen vertebrae exhibit signs of arthritis on the centrum, and five metatarsals, six 

phalanges, two sternabrae, four ribs, two tibiae, one radius, and one calcaneus show signs 

of active or healed infection. One radius is badly misshapen, but the cause is unclear. 

 



20 
 

2.4.1.6 Element Representation: Spatial Distribution. In order to identify any spatial 

patterning in skeletal element representation, I re-categorized elements based on their 

broader anatomical unit: cranium (teeth, mandibles, maxillae), the axial skeleton 

(vertebrae, sacra, ribs, sterna/sternabrae), hindlimb (innominates, femora, tibiae, fibulae), 

forelimb (scapulae, humerii, radii, ulnae), hindfoot (tarsals, metatarsals, pes phalanges) or 

forefoot (carpals, metacarpals, manus phalanges). I tallied the % NISP for each 

anatomical category within each excavation unit (Figures 2.5-2.8). 

 

 
Figure 2.5. Proportions of sea otter anatomical unit in the excavation units of the 

northeast quadrant of the Par-Tee site. 

 

 

 
Figure 2.6. Proportions of sea otter anatomical unit in the excavation units of the 

northwest quadrant of the Par-Tee site. 

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

%hindlimb

%axial

%hindfoot

%cranium

%forelimb

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

NW19A NW20A NW21A

%hindlimb

%axial

%hindfoot

%cranium

%forelimb



21 
 

 
Figure 2.7. Proportions of sea otter anatomical unit in the excavation units of the 

southeast quadrant of the Par-Tee site. 

 

 
Figure 2.8. Proportions of sea otter anatomical unit in the excavation units of the 

southwest quadrant of the Par-Tee site. 

 

All units except for five (NE12H, NE12I, NE2B, NE7D, NW21A) contained 

elements from three or more of the anatomical categories. Yet because these five units 

produced very small samples (NISP≤10), this likely accounts for the lack of element 

diversity. 

 

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

%hindlimb

%axial

%hindfoot

%cranium

%forelimb

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

%hindlimb

%axial

%hindfoot

%cranium

%forelimb



22 
 

At Par-Tee, vertebrae and ribs are the two most abundant elements by NISP, and 

all units except one (SE6C, NISP=7) contain axial elements. Axial elements also make up 

a large portion of the unit NISP (almost half of units contain at least 50% or greater axial 

elements). Several units deviate from the majority axial component, although this is also 

attributable to small sample size (e.g., units NW20A, NW21A, NE2B). Unit NE2B 

(NISP=3), for example, contains two humerii (right and left) and a rib fragment, skewing 

the forelimb representation for the unit. 

Units NE12G and NE7B, however, do not appear to be skewed solely due to 

sample size. Unit NE12G contains six phalanges as well as left metatarsals I-V, and unit 

NE7B contains three phalanges and left metatarsals I-III and V. The excavation levels 

were imprecise (~1 ft), so it is difficult to ascertain whether deposition of groups of 

matching elements like left metatarsals accurately reflect processing activity/deposition 

of single sea otters within a specific area of the site, but it is possible. Overall, however, 

elements from a variety of anatomical units of the sea otter body appear to have been 

processed and deposited in units across the site without obvious patterning. 

 

2.4.2 Palmrose Sea Otter Remains 

2.4.2.1 NISP and MNI. I analyzed the sea otter remains from 34 excavation units from the 

Palmrose site, which yielded a 968 NISP and 22 MNI (calculated using right humerii [15 

adults and 7 juveniles]). In terms of raw NISP, vertebrae, ribs, metatarsals, phalanges, 

and humerii are the most abundant elements (Figure 2.9). These elements are 

representative of the axial skeleton (ribs and vertebrae), the hindfoot (metatarsals and 

phalanges), and the proximal forelimb (humerii). The next most abundant elements are 

ulnae, femora, and mandibles, which complete the emphasis on the hindlimb and 

forelimb. 

 



23 
 

 
Figure 2.9. NISP of sea otter elements in the Palmrose sample. 

 

Vertebrae are represented primarily by the robust centra and are easily identified. 

Only nine complete ribs are found in this analysis, but the majority of fragments included 

the diagnostic proximal end. The sample is not dominated by small rib fragments, 

possibly due to lack of recovery during excavation or difficulty identifying small, 

undiagnostic fragments. Regardless, fragmentation does not appear to be driving 

abundance of the vertebrae and ribs in the sample. Approximately 42% of metatarsals are 

complete, and the remainder are primarily undiagnostic distal ends. Pes phalanges are 

largely complete. Large proportions of femora (~74%) and humerii (~65%) are complete, 

as are roughly ~50% of tibiae, ulnae, and radii. Innominates are heavily fragmented and 

are likely driving this abundance. Fibulae (which are long and extremely thin) are 

represented by the robust medial malleolus and varying intact diaphysis. Similarly, the 

scapulae are represented by the robust proximal articular ends. Crania fragments other 

than maxillae are not present. The maxillae are fragmented and underrepresented (N=14) 

compared to mandibles (N=29), but eight left upper M1s and 13 right lower M1s were 

reported in a previous analysis of all sea otter teeth in the assemblage (Wellman 2018: 

Table S1). The roughly equal representation of maxillary and mandibular teeth suggests 

that regardless of preservation, the cranium was processed and deposited. 

 

 

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

NISP of Sea Otter Elements at Palmrose



24 
 

2.4.2.2 Element Representation. While axial and hindfoot elements represent high NISP 

counts, these elements are underrepresented as at Par-Tee. With 22 MNI, the sample 

should hypothetically contain 1100 vertebrae, 616 ribs, 220 metatarsals, and 396 

phalanges, but 24% (N=266), 20% (N=125), 55% (N=121), and 20% (N=80) of the 

expected frequencies are present, respectively (and these totals include 

fragmented/incomplete elements) (Figure 2.10). When vertebrae are reported by type the 

sample contains 38% of lumbar, 43% of cervical, 23% of thoracic, and 11% of caudal 

vertebrae expected totals. Humerii and ulnae are present in quantities over or close to 

expected totals (although due to fragmentation the actual percentages are likely lower; 

Figure 2.10). Femora, innominates, tibiae, and radii are represented by ~60%-75% of 

expected totals; these percentages may also be lower due to fragmentation. Forefoot 

elements are extremely underrepresented in the Palmrose sample as at Par-Tee; only 2% 

of expected metacarpal totals are present (Figure 2.10), and carpals/manus phalanges are 

absent. This may be due to the small size of these elements and archaeological recovery 

techniques, or the removal of the forepaws along with the pelt (Val and Mallye 

2013:237). The lack of forefoot elements, combined with the substantial 

underrepresentation of caudal vertebrae, may point to pelt removal and deposition outside 

of the excavated areas of the site. 

 

 
Figure 2.10. Percent of sea otter elements expected in the Palmrose sample, based on 22 

MNI. 

 

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Percent of Sea Otter Elements Expected in the 

Palmrose Sample



25 
 

 

2.4.2.3 Juveniles at Palmrose. The Palmrose sample contains an NISP of 138 juveniles 

and an MNI of seven (calculated using right humerii). Vertebrae, humerii, femora, and 

mandibles are the most abundant juvenile remains (Figure 2.11). There are no juvenile 

maxillae fragments, but five sea otter mandibles are aged ≤2 months old and seven are 

aged ≤6.5 months old (Nicholson et al. 2014). As at Par-Tee, juveniles are distributed 

throughout the site and co-occur with adults, and the pups represented by mandibles are 

under or at weaning age (Thometz et al. 2014). 

 

 
Figure 2.11. Adult and juvenile sea otter element abundance (NISP) in the Palmrose 

sample. 

 

2.4.2.4 Gnawing. The Palmrose sample contains 36 specimens exhibiting carnivore tooth 

punctures or gnawing: one astragalus, one baculum, three femora, five metatarsals, one 

phalanx, two radii, five ribs, one scapula, six tibiae, one ulna, and ten vertebrae. This is 

likely an undercount for the reasons described with regards to the Par-Tee assemblage. 

Gnawed elements are distributed throughout the site, including units within or in 

proximity to the house feature. A total of six elements are gnawed and cutmarked. While 

I cannot confirm that the gnawing was made by dogs, the proximity of the gnawed 

elements to and in the house feature may reflect domesticated dog activity. At contact 

dogs were reportedly human hunting partners (Jacobs 2003; Mack 2015; Ray 1938), 

human companions, and possibly “sanitation workers,” eating trash and refuse         

0

50

100

150

200

Adult and Juvenile NISP in the Palmrose Sample

ADULT

JUVENILE



26 
 

(Mack 2015:65-66). According to Ray (1938:117), Chinook dogs were allowed indoors, 

which might explain the presence of gnawed specimens within the house feature. 

 

2.4.2.5 Pathology. The Palmrose sample contains 17 specimens exhibiting pathologies: 

ten elements exhibit signs of arthritis, while two metatarsals, two phalanges, one 

metacarpal, one rib, and one fibula appear to show signs of active or healed infection. 

 

2.4.2.6 Element Representation: Spatial Distribution. As at Par-Tee, axial elements are 

present in the majority of units (except for SW8L and SW6D), and make up large 

proportions of the unit NISP (Figures 2.12-2.13). 

 

 
Figure 2.12. Proportions of sea otter anatomical unit in excavation units of the NE and 

NW quadrants at Palmrose. 

 

 

 
Figure 2.13. Proportions of sea otter anatomical unit in excavation units of the SE and 

SW quadrants at Palmrose. 

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

%hindfoot

%axial

%cranium

%hindlimb

%forelimb

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

%hindfoot

%axial

%cranium

%hindlimb

%forelimb



27 
 

SE8L (NISP=1) contains a radius and SW6D (NISP=12) contains forelimb and 

hindlimb/foot elements. Several units deviate from the majority axial representation, and 

these discrepancies may be due to small sample size combined with a lack of axial 

elements (e.g., units NE2M, NW6A, and SW1E, NISP≤9). While these units do 

sometimes contain interesting combinations of elements, the lack of stratigraphic 

resolution precludes clear conclusions regarding processing and deposition. For example, 

unit NE2M (NISP=7) contains two cervical and one thoracic vertebrae, an astragalus, and 

three right innominate bones across three levels, giving the impression that a large 

portion of the hindlimb was processed and deposited in this location. Unit NE1E contains 

teeth, mandibles, and an assortment of forelimb and hindlimb bones, and only two 

vertebrae and one sternum. Overall, it appears skeletal elements from all portions of the 

sea otter body were being processed and deposited in units across the site, with 

occasional exceptions. 

 

2.5 Cutmark Results 

2.5.1 Cutmarks at Par-Tee  

2.5.1.1 Cutmark Sample. The Par-Tee sample contained 739 cutmarked specimens (37% 

of the overall NISP); 28% of juvenile specimens and 38% of adult specimens are 

cutmarked. Humerii and femora dominate % NISP cutmarked, followed by tarsals 

(driven by calcaneii/astragali), tibiae/fibulae (driven by tibiae), ulnae, and metatarsals 

(Figure 2.14). The only element that does not exhibit any cut marks is the axis vertebra 

(C2). Twenty different elements are cutmarked: bacula, maxillae fragments (included in 

Figure 2.14 as “crania”), patellae, phalanges, sterna/sternabrae, and sacrum fragments. 

There is an average of five cutmarks per specimen, and the highest average for a specific 

element is the average eight cutmarks per femur. 

 



28 
 

 
Figure 2.14. Abundance (% NISP) of cutmarked sea otter elements in the Par-Tee 

sample. 

 

The % NISP of cutmarked elements follows patterns described in Moss’ results. 

Sea otter humerii, ribs, metatarsals, radii/ulnae, and mandibles are cutmarked at both Par-

Tee and the Angoon sites, but at higher proportions at Par-Tee (Moss 2020:211). Moss 

found sea otter femora and humerii (closely followed by vertebrae) had the highest % 

NISP cutmarked (2020:211). At Par-Tee, humerii and femora also represent the highest 

% NISP cutmarked, but are followed by tarsals, not vertebrae. At Par-Tee, 70% of 

humerii are cutmarked (versus Moss’ 10% and 20% for seals and sea otters, respectively) 

and 60% of femora are cutmarked (similar to the proportion of seal femora cutmarked in 

Moss’ analysis [~70%]) (2020:211). Cutmarked innominates at Par-Tee are intermediate 

(~35%) to the sea otter and seal innominates cutmarked in Moss (roughly 10% and 50%, 

respectively) (2020:211). At Par-Tee, tarsals, ulnae, radii, scapulae, vertebrae, ribs, and 

tibiae/fibulae are cutmarked at higher percentages than both sea otters and seals in 

Moss’s analysis (2020:211). 

Moss noted that eight different seal elements were cutmarked (no cutmarks on 

ribs, metatarsals, and mandibles) compared to 13 sea otter elements (2020:211). Lyman 

(1991) reported 12 elements cutmarked at Umpqua-Eden and eight at Seal Rock 

(1991:154, 228), while 20 different elements are cutmarked at Par-Tee. Moss suggested 

differences in anatomy affect how animals are processed, and the greater variety of sea 

otter elements exhibiting cutmarks may indicate a different approach or relative 

complexity when processing sea otters compared to seals (2020:210). 

0

20

40

60

80

% NISP of Cutmarked Sea Otter Elements at Par-Tee



29 
 

 

2.5.1.2 Cutmarks on the Axial Skeleton. Sterna and sternabrae at Par-Tee exhibit small 

nicks, which may be indicative of skinning and working the pelt away from the ribcage or 

vertebral column (Moss 2020:212; Val and Mallye 2013). At Par-Tee roughly half of ribs 

exhibit cutmarks on the shaft; the other half exhibit cutmarks on the head and/or neck. 

Cutmarks on the rib shaft may result from peeling the pelt away from the rib cage or 

stripping thoracic muscles. The rib head/neck cutmarks may reflect skinning or removing 

ribs from vertebrae. Vertebrae are cutmarked on processes or on the ventral centrum. 

Cutmarks to spinous processes may be the result of backstrap muscle removal (Figure 

2.15), while ventral cutmarks may be from rib removal or gutting the animal (Moss 

2020:215). The majority of vertebrae cutmarks at Par-Tee are located on the ventral 

centrum (Figure 2.16). Moss described a similar pattern in her data and suggested 

vertebrae cutmarks reflected butchering of the axial skeleton to obtain backstrap for 

either human or dog consumption (Moss 2020:215). Pulling the pelt from the vertebral 

column would not make cutmarks through the backstrap to the spinous process, nor 

would skinning explain the ventral vertebral cutmarks (Val and Mallye 2013:236). 

 

 
Figure 2.15. A thoracic vertebra cutmarked at the base of the spinous process, possibly 

indicative of backstrap removal (scale in cm; Palmrose unit SE4D-3).  



30 
 

 
Figure 2.16. A lumbar vertebra cutmarked on the ventral centrum (scale in cm; Palmrose 

unit SE3B-4). 

 

2.5.1.3 Cutmarks on the Forelimb. Scapulae at Par-Tee are cutmarked on the ventral 

blade surface at the edges of the subscapular fossa (origin of the subscapularis muscle) 

(Figure 2.17). The cutmarks may have resulted from working under the scapula to 

separate it from the rib cage; cutmarks underneath the scapula are unlikely to result from 

skinning. Several humerii are cutmarked near the lesser tuberosity (insertion of the 

subscapularis). Taken together, these cutmarks may reflect efforts to sever the 

subscapularis and separate the humerus from the scapula. Humerii are cutmarked in 

various locations, particularly on or near the distal epiphyses. Multiple specimens are 

cutmarked above the anterior trochlea, as well as on/near the medial epicondylar ridge 

and foramen (Figure 2.18). These cutmarks may reflect disarticulation of, or difficulty 

skinning around, the elbow joint. 

 

 
Figure 2.17. A scapula cutmarked ventrally, on the edge of the subscapular fossa (scale 

in cm; Palmrose unit NE4C-3). 



31 
 

 
Figure 2.18. A distal humerus cutmarked on the medial epicondylar ridge (scale in cm; 

Palmrose unit SE3C-5). 

 

Radii and ulnae are also cutmarked in various locations, particularly on the 

proximal end. Radii are frequently cutmarked under the radial head and along the 

anterior/posterior diaphysis. Ulnae are frequently cutmarked on/near the olecranon 

process and on the medial fossa (insertion for multiple brachialis muscles). Some ulnae 

specimens are cutmarked on the posterior and medial diaphyses where Howard (1973) 

labeled muscles absent. Both elements exhibit infrequent distal cutmarks. The ulnae/radii 

cutmarks may reflect skinning, especially in places where fascia are not present (Val and 

Mallye 2013:236). The cutmark activity on the lower forelimb is surprising given the 

relatively small size of it’s muscles relative to the hindlimb. Perhaps these cutmarks do 

not reflect muscle removal but the separation of the radii and ulnae: these elements are 

robust and could be used for specialized tool manufacture (e.g. an ulna awl, bone point). 

The bones of the forepaws (manus phalanges, metacarpals, and carpals) are 

underrepresented at Par-Tee, but several metacarpals exhibit cutmarks on the palmar 

surface and likely reflect skinning. 

 

2.5.1.4 Cutmarks on the Hindlimb. Innominates are cutmarked in various locations. 

Repeated locations included the iliofemoral ligament attachments and the gluteus medius, 



32 
 

obdurator externus, and pectineus muscle origins. These muscles and ligaments insert in 

the proximal femur. Approximately half of cutmarked innominates exhibit cutmarks on 

or near the acetabulum and may reflect leverage applied to the joint while skinning as 

described by Moss (2020:215). Muscle and ligament attachments around the acetabulum 

anchor the femoral head, so these cutmarks may also reflect disarticulation. 

Femora are cutmarked on the diaphyses and epiphyses. Cutmarks on the proximal 

end are at muscle insertions (e.g., the greater/lesser trochanter). Femoral necks (the 

location of the iliofemoral ligaments) are frequently cutmarked (Figure 2.19). Distal 

cutmarks are frequently superior to the lateral and medial condyles (on or near the 

gastrocnemius origin) (Figure 2.19). Three femora are cutmarked on a distal condyle, 

which may reflect a knife slip during disarticulation or working the pelt away from the 

knee joint. Tibiae are cutmarked at various locations, especially distally (Figure 2.20). 

Approximately half of cutmarked tibiae exhibit cutmarks on or immediately around the 

medial malleolus. Tendons and ligaments are present on the distal tibia underneath 

retinacula and may be severed for disarticulation or skinning (Val and Mallye 2013:236). 

Fibulae are primarily cutmarked on the lateral shaft; two are cutmarked on the lateral 

malleolus. Cutmarks to the fibulae may be due to skinning (Moss 2020:213; Val and 

Mallye 2013:236).  

 

 
Figure 2.19. A distal femur cutmarked on and around the medial gastrocnemius origin 

(L) and a proximal femur cutmarked on the femoral neck (R) (scales in cm; Palmrose 

units NE1J-3 and SE1M-3). 

 



33 
 

 
Figure 2.20. A tibia cutmarked on the medio-distal aspect (scale in cm; Palmrose unit 

SE1N-6). 

 

Cutmarks on the astragalus, calcaneus, and other tarsals likely reflect skinning 

(Val and Mallye 2013:230), but may also be due to disarticulation following Binford 

(1981). One Par-Tee calcaneus has over 15 cutmarks on the posterior surface (Figure 

2.21), possibly reflecting efforts to sever the calcaneal tendon or difficulty working 

through the pelt at the ankle joint. Cutmarks on the phalanges and metatarsals likely 

reflect skinning (Val and Mallye 2013). 

 

 
Figure 2.21. Calcaneus exhibiting cutmarks on the posterior surface (scale in cm; Par-

Tee unit NE8F-6). 



34 
 

2.5.1.5 Cutmarks on the Cranium. Par-Tee mandibles are frequently cutmarked on the 

lateral or inferior horizontal ramus which reflects skinning (Val and Mallye 2013). 

Several are cutmarked on the ascending ramus which may indicate removal of the 

mandible from the cranium (several muscles originate/insert at that location). Several 

maxilla fragments are cutmarked which likely reflect skinning. 

 

2.5.1.6 Cutmark Patterns on Longbones. I categorized longbone cutmark locations for 

each specimen as follows: 

1) on the diaphysis proper (“Diaph”) 

2) on/near either the proximal or distal epiphysis (“Prox”/”Dist”) 

3) on/near both the proximal and distal epiphyses (“P_D”) 

4) on either the proximal or distal end and diaphysis (“P_Di”/“Di_D”) 

5) on both the proximal and distal ends and diaphysis (“P_Di_D”) 

I tallied the number of cutmarked locations described above, the total diaphysis cutmarks 

(Total Diaph), and the total of specimens that were cutmarked in multiple locations 

(“Total Multi”) (Table 2.1). Because the specimens analyzed were not always complete, 

tallying the locations of cutmarks helps account for fragmentation by providing an overall 

characterization of longbone locations that exhibit cutmarks (Lyman 2008:285). 

 

Table 2.1. Cutmarks on Par-Tee forelimb and hindlimb longbones based on location. 

 

 

In the Par-Tee sample 29 femora, seven tibiae, four fibulae, 34 humerii, eight radii, and 

nine ulnae are cutmarked on the diaphysis. Following standard conventions (Binford 

1981; Lyman 1991) these diaphysis cutmarks may reflect muscle removal from the 

element. 

Femora and humerii are most frequently cutmarked at the proximal and distal 

ends (or both). A combined 46 femora are cutmarked at the proximal end and 36 are 



35 
 

cutmarked distally. A total of 22 humerii are cutmarked at the proximal end and 53 are 

cutmarked distally. Tibiae are cutmarked proximally (N=7) and distally (N=25). 

Conversely, 12 radii are cutmarked proximally and three distally; 18 ulnae are cutmarked 

proximally and eight distally. I totaled these cutmark locations and labeled a template of 

sea otter skeleton with these frequencies (Figure 2.22). These groupings suggest that the 

hip, knee, elbow, and ankle joints were intensively processed relative to other joints. 

When the % NISP cutmarked is calculated by major joint, the hip (38%) and elbow 

(36%) joints actually rank below the ankle joint (42%) in overall processing (Figure 

2.23). 

 

 
Figure 2.22. Sea otter skeleton with total longbone cutmarks from the Par-Tee sample 

tallied by location (Table 2.1). Circle size and color corresponds to number of cuts at 

location (proximal, distal, diaphysis). Illustration by Keeley Davies. 



36 
 

 
Figure 2.23. Percent NISP of sea otter elements cutmarked in the Par-Tee sample 

(calculated by joint). 

 

Some complete individual elements provide an additional impression of cutmark 

intensity. For example, 15 complete femora are cutmarked at both ends and eight are 

cutmarked at both ends and the diaphysis; 14 complete humerii are cutmarked at both 

ends and 4 are cutmarked at both ends and diaphysis. Tibiae, radii, and ulnae do not 

follow these patterns, instead exhibiting more cutmarks at the articular ends (either 

distal/proximal or both). 

 

2.5.1.7 Par-Tee Cutmark Patterns. The Par-Tee sample yielded a notably high overall 

proportion of cutmarked specimens (37%), especially compared to the proportions found 

by Moss (13%; 2020:210) and Lyman (18% and 19%; 1991:151, 227). The humerii and 

femora are cutmarked in multiple regions and are overall more intensively cutmarked 

than the tibiae, ulnae, and radii (including when calculated by percentage [% multi, Table 

2.1] to account for the higher NISP of femora and humerii). Femora and humerii 

specimens show relatively large numbers of cuts to the diaphysis (which may indicate 

muscle removal, interpreted as “filleting” by Lyman [1991]) but there are more cutmarks 

to the distal and/or proximal epiphyses at the hip, elbow, and ankle joints (Figure 2.22). 

The hip joint was also intensively processed at the Umpqua-Eden site (Lyman 1991:156) 

and in Moss’s analysis (2020:211). The processing on the hip and elbow joints could 

indicate dismemberment (Lyman 1991; Binford 1981) or skinning (Moss 2020; Val and 

Mallye 2013). The processing at the ankle joint could also reflect both, but the distal 

tibiae cutmarks correspond to the cutmark activity recorded in that location by             

0

10

20

30

40

50

ankle hip elbow shoulder knee wrist

% NISP cutmarked joints at Par-Tee



37 
 

Val and Mallye (2013). A large proportion of tarsals at Par-Tee are cutmarked, 

corresponding with the distal tibiae cutmarks. The distal humerii and proximal radii/ulnae 

exhibit more cutmarks which could reflect dismemberment or skinning; Moss (2020:212) 

reported the forelimbs were pulled tightly into the body requiring extra leverage at the 

elbow joint during skinning. These cutmarks could also reflect efforts to remove the 

lower forelimb from the humerus. The axial skeleton is cutmarked, possibly indicating 

backstrap/thoracic muscle removal, and the mandibles are cutmarked primarily in 

locations associated with skinning. 

 

2.5.2 Cutmarks at Palmrose 

2.5.2.1 Cutmark Sample. The Palmrose sample contained 160 cutmarked specimens, or 

17% of the overall NISP: 11% of juvenile elements and 18% of adult elements are 

cutmarked. Innominates dominate % NISP cutmarked (Figure 2.24), followed by 

tibiae/fibulae (driven by tibiae), humerii, femora, and tarsals (driven by 

calcaneii/astragali). There is an average of three cutmarks per specimen in the 

assemblage, (lower than at Par-Tee), and the highest average for a specific element is the 

average of five cutmarks per humerus, tibia, and ulna. 

 

 
Figure 2.24. Abundance (% NISP) of cutmarked sea otter elements in the Palmrose 

sample. 

 

The % NISP of cutmarked elements follows patterns described in Moss’ results. 

Sea otter innominates, tibiae, humerii, ulnae/radii, and mandibles are cutmarked at both 

Palmrose and the Angoon sites, but at higher proportions at Palmrose (Moss 2020:211). 

0

10

20

30

40

50

% NISP of Cutmarked Sea Otter Elements at Palmrose



38 
 

Moss found sea otter femora and humerii (closely followed by vertebrae) had the highest 

% NISP cutmarked (2020:211). At Palmrose, innominates and tibiae/fibulae represent the 

highest % NISP cutmarked, followed by humerii and femora. Moss recorded ~20% of 

vertebrae cutmarked, while at Palmrose only ~10% are cutmarked.  At Palmrose ~27% of 

femora are cutmarked, as opposed to ~38% of sea otter and 70% of seal specimens from 

the Angoon sites. Cutmarked innominates at Palmrose are intermediate (~41%) to the 

cutmarked sea otter and seal innominates reported in Moss (roughly 10% and 50%, 

respectively). 

Fewer elements (N=14) are cutmarked at Palmrose (compared to 20 at Par-Tee) 

but this still represents a greater diversity of elements cutmarked compared to the 8 seal 

elements reported by Moss (2020) and is comparable to the 12 elements cutmarked at 

Seal Rock/Umpqua Eden (Lyman 1991;154, 228). It may indicate that sea otters were 

more intensively processed at Par-Tee than Palmrose, but the smaller sample size from 

Palmrose may also be driving this pattern (fewer bones identified means fewer 

opportunities to identify cutmarks). 

 

2.5.2.2 Cutmarks on the Axial Skeleton. Sterna and sternabrae at Palmrose are not 

cutmarked. Roughly ~70% of ribs exhibit cutmarks on the shaft and ~30% exhibit 

cutmarks on the head and/or neck. Cutmarks on the rib shaft may result from peeling the 

pelt away from the rib cage or stripping thoracic muscles. The rib head/neck cutmarks 

may reflect skinning or removing ribs from vertebrae. Vertebrae are cutmarked on 

processes or on the ventral centrum. Cutmarks to spinous processes may be the result of 

backstrap muscle removal, while ventral cutmarks may be from rib removal or gutting the 

animal (Moss 2020:215). At Palmrose, processes and vertebral centra are cutmarked 

roughly equally. Following Moss, these cutmarks may indicate backstrap removal for 

either human or dog consumption (2020).  

 

2.5.2.3 Cutmarks on the Forelimb. Scapulae at Palmrose (like Par-Tee) are cutmarked on 

the ventral blade surface, often on the edges of the subscapular fossa. The cutmarks may 

have resulted from separating the scapula from the rib cage. Humerii are cutmarked at 

various locations including inferior to the caput, on the lateral diaphysis, anterior 



39 
 

trochlea, and on/near the medial epicondylar ridge and foramen. Radii are cutmarked on 

the diaphyses but not on epiphyses. Ulnae are cutmarked proximally, distally, and on the 

diaphysis in roughly equal numbers. The ulnae/radii cutmarks at Palmrose do not exhibit 

clear patterning like at Par-Tee. Cutmarks to the radii may reflect skinning (following Val 

and Mallye 2013:236), while the ulnae cutmarks may reflect skinning, filleting, or 

disarticulation. The bones of the forepaws (manus phalanges, metacarpals, and carpals) 

are underrepresented at Palmrose, but several metacarpals exhibit cutmarks on the palmar 

surface and likely reflect skinning. 

 

2.5.2.4 Cutmarks on the Hindlimb. Innominates are cutmarked in various locations. 

Repeated locations include those described at Par-Tee, such as the iliofemoral ligament 

attachments and the gluteus medius. These cutmarks could reflect leverage applied to the 

joint while skinning following Moss (2020), or disarticulation of the hindlimb at the hip 

joint. Femora are cutmarked on the diaphyses and epiphyses in roughly equal numbers. 

Cutmarks on the proximal end are at muscle insertions (e.g. the greater/lesser trochanter). 

Femoral necks (the location of the iliofemoral ligaments) are frequently cutmarked. 

Distal cutmarks are frequently superior to the lateral and medial condyles (on or near the 

gastrocnemius origin). Tibiae are cutmarked equally across diaphyses and epiphyses. One 

tibia is cutmarked repeatedly along the anterior crest which may reflect disarticulation or 

skinning following Val and Mallye (2013:234). Distal tibiae cutmarks are on/near the 

medial malleolus. One fibula is cutmarked proximally with small nicks, similar to Moss’ 

experimentally skinned sea otter (2020). Cutmarks on the astragalus, calcaneus, and other 

tarsals likely reflect skinning (Val and Mallye 2013), but may also be due to 

disarticulation (following Binford 1981). 

 

2.5.2.5 Cutmarks on the Cranium. The cutmarked Palmrose mandibles exhibit cutmarks 

on the lateral horizontal ramus, reflecting skinning. Maxillae fragments at Palmrose are 

not cutmarked. 

 

2.5.2.6 Cutmark Patterns on Longbones. I categorized longbone cutmark locations for 

each Palmrose specimen (Table 2.2). Unfortunately, the sample size of cutmarked 



40 
 

elements at Palmrose is smaller than at Par-Tee, so patterns evident in the Par-Tee sample 

are not as clear in the Palmrose sample. 

 

 Table 2.2. Cutmarks on Palmrose forelimb and hindlimb longbones based on location. 

 

 

From Palmrose, four femora, eight humerii, four tibiae, one fibulae, four radii, and one 

ulnae are cutmarked on the diaphysis. Following standard conventions (Binford 1981; 

Lyman 1991) these diaphysis cutmarks may reflect muscle removal from the element. 

Distribution of cutmarks across Palmrose longbone locations is roughly equal 

when visualized across the skeleton (Figure 2.25), unlike the Par-Tee sample in which 

proximal femora and distal humerii were clearly intensively processed (Figure 2.22).  

 

 
Figure 2.25. Sea otter skeleton with total longbone cutmarks from the Palmrose sample 

tallied by location (Table 2.2). Circle size and color corresponds to number of cuts at 

location (proximal, distal, diaphysis). Illustration by Keeley Davies. 



41 
 

The humerii at Palmrose do exhibit slightly more diaphysis cutmarks, and tibiae 

exhibit slightly more distal cutmarks; both of these patterns are also present at Par-Tee. 

When the % NISP cutmarked is calculated by major joint, the hip (26%) and ankle (21%) 

appear to be slightly more intensively processed compared to the shoulder (12%), knee 

(9%), and elbow/wrist (7%) (Figure 2.26). 

 

 
Figure 2.26. Percent NISP of sea otter elements cutmarked