Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T06:50:17.011Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Curved Single-Piece Fishhooks of Shell and Bone in California

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 January 2017

Robert F. Heizer
Robert F. Heizer*
Affiliation:
Department of Anthropology, University of California, Berkeley, California
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Notwithstanding the numerous published works which have specifically or incidentally treated with the curved fishhooks of California, there is available at present no single source which draws together the accessible information and cites the relevant bibliography. The present article seeks to remedy this situation and seems justified on the grounds of making available the California data to local workers and to those who are further interested in the near identity of some of the California types with those of the Chilean coast in South America, on the one hand, and with those of the Oceanian area, on the other. Within North America the distribution of single-piece curved bone fishhooks is spotty, and a theoretical problem of historical community of these various occurrences also awaits analysis.

Curved hooks of shell and/or bone occur in California in archaeological sites on the Santa Barbara Channel islands (San Miguel, Santa Rosa, Santa Cruz), on the islands farther south and more distant from the mainland shore (San Nicolas, San Clemente, San Miguel), and on the coast from Point Concepcion to Santa Ana.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Antiquity , Volume 15 , Issue 2 , October 1949 , pp. 89 - 97
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for American Archaeology 1949

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abbott, C. C., and Putnam, F. W. 1879. “Implements and Weapons made of Bone and Wood.” In Report upon United States Geographical Surveys West of the One Hundredth Meridian, Vol. 7, Archaeology, pp. 222–33. Washington. (Pls. 11 and 12 illustrate shell hooks and barbed bone hooks from Santa Cruz Island.)Google Scholar
Amsden, C. 1930. “Homo Californianus.” Maslerkey, Vol. 3, pp. 21–9. Los Angeles: Southwest Museum. (On p. 26 is a photograph of three shell fishhooks. Note the curious elongated shank of one—this may perhaps be an additional type not otherwise reported in the literature with the possible exception of one hook shown by Yates, 1900, Fig. 378.)Google Scholar
Ashby, G. E., and Winterbourne, J. W. 1939. A Study of Primitive Man in Orange County, and Some of its Coastal Areas. Santa Ana. (Pl. 13 illustrates Type 1 shell fishhooks.)Google Scholar
Beasley, H. F. 1929. Pacific Island Records: Fish Hooks. London.Google Scholar
Beardsley, R. K. 1948. “Culture Sequences in Central California Archaeology.” American Antiquity, Vol. 14, pp. 1–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berreman, J. V. 1944. “Chetco Archaeology.” General Series in Anthropology, No. 11. Menasha.Google Scholar
Bird, J. 1943. “Excavations in Northern Chile.” Anthropological Papers, American Museum of Natural History, Vol. 38, Pt. 4. New York. (There are fishhooks of chipped stone in Figs. 30, j; 33, d; and of Choro mussel shell in Figs. 18, e; 34, m; 43, m, n; and 44, m.)Google Scholar
Bolton, H. E. 1927. Crespi, Missionary Explorer, 1769-1774. Berkeley.Google Scholar
Bolton, H. E. 1931. Font’s Complete Diary; a Chronicle of the Founding of San Francisco. Berkeley.Google Scholar
Bowers, S. 1883. “Fish-Hooks from Southern California.” Science, o.s., Vol. 1, p. 575. Cambridge. (He calls the curved shell fishhooks ornaments. Types 3 and 5 shell hooks are illustrated.)CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bowers, S. 1887. “Aboriginal Fish-Hooks.” West American Scientist, Vol. 3, pp. 243–5. San Diego.Google Scholar
Bryan, B. 1931. “Excavations at Mishopsnow.” Art and Archaeology, Vol. 31, pp. 176–85. (On p. 183 is an illustration of a Type 1 shell hook and a Type 4 hook of polished soapstone.)Google Scholar
Claflin, W. H. Jr. 1931. “The Stallings Island Mound, Columbia County, Georgia.” Papers, Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University, Vol. 14, No. 1. Cambridge. (Pl. 41, g is a curved bone fishhook.)Google Scholar
Ferguson, H. L. 1935. “Archaeological Exploration of Fisher’s Island, New York.” Museum of the American Indian, Heye Foundation, Indian Notes and Monographs, Vol. 11, No. 1. New York. (Pl. 12, f, h are curved bone fishhooks.)Google Scholar
Ford, J. A., and Willey, G. R. 1940. “Crooks Site, a Marksville Period Burial Mound in La Salle Parish, Louisiana.” Anthropological Study, Department of Conservation, Louisiana Geological Survey, No. 3. New Orleans. (Fig. 54 contains a curved bone fishhook.)Google Scholar
Gifford, E. W. 1940. “Californian Bone Artifacts.” Anthropological Records, University of California, Vol. 3, No. 2. Berkeley. (See pp. 178, 224 for a Type 2 bone fishhook from Santa Cruz Island.)Google Scholar
Gifford, E. W. 1947. “Californian Shell Artifacts.” Anthropological Records, University of California, Vol. 9, No. 1. Berkeley. (See pp. 44–5, 110, for a discussion of shell fishhooks from the Santa Barbara region. He compares Types 3 and 4 shell hooks of California with the Caroline Island hooks and finds them very similar. He also notes the similarity of south central California coast hooks to those of northern Chile recovered by J. Bird.)Google Scholar
Griffin, J. B. 1943. The Fort Ancient Aspect. Ann Arbor. (On Pls. 15, 46, and 51 are discussions of curved bone fishhooks.)Google Scholar
Gruvel, A. 1928. La pêche dans la préhistoire, dans l’antiquiti, et chez les peuples primitifs. Paris. (On pp. 102–3 and in Fig. 87 are a description of manufacture and illustration of the process of making Santa Barbara shell hooks.)Google Scholar
Hadlock, W. S. 1943. “Bone Implements from Shell Heaps Around Frenchman’s Bay, Maine.” American Antiquity, Vol. 8, pp. 341–53. (See Fig. 34 for a curved bone fishhook.)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harrington, J. P. 1928. “Exploration of the Burton Mound at Santa Barbara, California.” Annual Report, Bureau of American Ethnology, No. 44, pp. 23–168. Washington. (See pp. 133, 139–46; Pl. 23, i, 1 for shell and bone fishhooks. Burton Mound yielded 124 circular fishhooks, of which 4 were bone, the remainder shell. Bone hooks were of Types 2 and 3; shell hooks were of Types 1, 2, 3, 4. The most common type was 4.)Google Scholar
Heizer, R. F. 1938. “The Plank Canoe of the Santa Barbara Region, California.” Ethnological Studies, Vol. 7, pp. 193–227. Stockholm.Google Scholar
Heizer, R. F. 1940. “The Frameless Plank Canoe of the California Coast.” Primitive Man, Vol. 13, pp. 80–9. Washington.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heizer, R. F. 1944. “Artifact Transport by Migratory Animals and Other Means.” American Antiquity, Vol. 9, pp. 395–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heye, G. G. 1921. “Certain Artifacts from San Miguel Island, California.” Indian Notes and Monographs, Museum of the American Indian, Vol. 7, No. 4. New York. (Pp. 133–7, Pls. 98, 99 describe and illustrate hooks of Types 2, 3, and 4.)Google Scholar
Holmes, W. H. 1883. “Art in Shell of the Ancient Americans.” Annual Report, Bureau of American Ethnology, No. 2. Washington. (Pl. 28 illustrates curved shell fishhooks from the Santa Barbara, California region.)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Irwin, M. C. 1946. “Canalino Fishing Tackle.” Museum Leaflet, Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History, Vol. 21, pp. 18–20. Santa Barbara. (Figure on p. 19 shows stages in the manufacture of shell hooks. Note pump drill for which no prehistoric evidence is known. Figure on p. 21 shows completed hooks of several types.)Google Scholar
Lewis, T. M. N., and Kneberg, M. 1947. “The Archaic Horizon in Western Tennessee.” Tennessee Anthropology Papers, No. 2; University of Tennessee Record, Extension Series, Vol. 23, No. 4. Knoxville. (On p. 27 is a curved bone fishhook.)Google Scholar
McGregor, J. S. 1943. “Burial of an Early American Magician.” Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, Vol. 86, pp. 270–98. Philadelphia.Google Scholar
McKern, W. C. 1945. “Preliminary Report on the Upper Mississippi Phase in Wisconsin.” Bulletin of the Public Museum of the City of Milwaukee, Vol. 16, No. 3. Milwaukee.Google Scholar
Mulloy, W. 1942. “The Hagen Site.” University of Montana Pub lications in Social Science, No. 1. Billings. (Fig. 36 illustrates curved bone fishhooks from the lower Yellowstone region, Montana.)Google Scholar
Nelson, N. C. 1936. “Notes on the Santa Barbara Culture.” In Essays in Anthropology in Honor of A. L. Kroeber, pp. 199-209. Berkeley. (P. 202 contains mention of a chipped stone fishhook from a mainland site, and of three ground stone fishhooks from San Nicolas Island. On p. 203, bone and shell curved hooks are mentioned.)Google Scholar
Olson, R. L. 1930. “Chumash Prehistory.” University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology, Vol. 28, No. 1. Berkeley. (Data on occurrence of shell fishhooks are in Tables 1-5. Fig. 2, a, b illustrates Types 2 and 3 hooks.)Google Scholar
Orr, P. C. 1943. “Archaeology of Mescalitan Island and Customs of the Canalino.” Occasional Papers, Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History, No. 5. Santa Barbara. (On p. 32, Fig. 1, he attributes circular shell fishhooks to the Late Canalino period.)Google Scholar
Orr, P. C. 1947. “Additional Bone Artifact Types in the Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History.” Appendix in Gifford, 1947, pp. 115–32. (He notes and illustrates 18 Type 3 bone hooks and 125 Type 5 examples from two mainland sites and one site on Santa Cruz Island.)Google Scholar
Putnam, F. W. 1887. “The Way Bone Fish-Hooks Were Made in the Little Miami Valley.” Peabody Museum Report, No. 20, pp. 581–6. Cambridge.Google Scholar
Rau, C. 1876. “The Archaeological Collection of the United States National Museum in Charge of the Smithsonian Institution.” Smithsonian Institution, Contributions to Knowledge, Paper No. 287. Washington. (Fig. 242 illustrates a Type 5 barbed bone hook from Santa Cruz Island, California.)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rau, C. 1884. “Prehistoric Fishing in Europe and North America.” Smithsonian Institution, Contributions to Knowledge, Vol. 25. Washington.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ritchie, W. A. 1936 a. “A Prehistoric Fortified Village Site at Canandaigua, Ontario County, New York.” Research Records of the Rochester Museum of Arts and Sciences, No. 3. Rochester. (Pl. 9 illustrates curved bone fishhooks.)Google Scholar
Ritchie, W. A. 1936 b. “New Evidence Relating to the Archaic Occupation of New York.” Researches and Transactions of the New York State Archaeological Association, Vol. 8, No.1 Rochester.Google Scholar
Ritchie, W. A. 1944. The Pre-Iroquoian Occupations of New York State. Rochester. (Pls. 33, 61, 62, 101, 160 illustrate curved bone fishhooks of two types—one simple, the other with knobbed shank and inner barb.)Google Scholar
Robinson, E. 1942. “Shell Fishhooks of the California Coast.” Occasional Papers of the Bernice P. Bishop Museum, Vol. 17, No. 4. Honolulu. (Description of types and manufacture of Santa Barbara mainland and island shell and bone curved fishhooks. He suggests, p. 61, that Types 5 and 6 barbed hooks date from post-Hispanic contact period.)Google Scholar
Rogers, D. B. 1929. Prehistoric Man of the Santa Barbara Coast. Santa Barbara. (Pl. 47 illustrates Type 3 and 6 bone fishhooks. On p. 401 is a discussion of “coiled” type hooks. Rogers believes that they were “only intended to hold the bait and to be swallowed by the fish.” Cf. this explanation with Robinson, 1942.)Google Scholar
Rust, H. N. 1907. “Archaeological Collections from San Miguel Island, California.” American Anthropologist, n.s., Vol. 9, pp. 656–7. Washington. (Illustration of a number of shell fishhooks.)Google Scholar
Schumacher, P. 1875. “Die Anfertigung der Angelhaken aus Muschelschalen bei den früheren Bewohnern der Inseln im Santa Barbara Canal.” Archiv fur Anthropologic, Vol. 8, pp. 223–4. Braunschweig.Google Scholar
Schumacher, P. 1877. “Researches in the Kjokkenmoddings and Graves of a Former Population of the Santa Barbara Islands and Adjacent Mainland.” United States Geographical and Geological Survey Bulletin, Vol. 3, pp. 37–56. Washington. (Pl. 22 illustrates stages in the manufacture of a Type 5 shell fishhook on Santa Cruz Island.)Google Scholar
Setzler, F. M., and Jennings, J. D. 1941. “Peachtree Mound and Village Site, Cherokee County, North Carolina.” Bulletin, Bureau of American Ethnology, No. 131. Washington. (Pl. 13 illustrates a curved bone fishhook.)Google Scholar
Skinner, H. D. 1942. “A Classification of the Fish-hooks of Murihiki.” Journal of the Polynesian Society, Vol. 51, pp. 256–86. New Plymouth, New Zealand. (On Figs. 68, 70 and p. 261, 2 Santa Barbara region fishhooks are classed as Skinner’s Type 1, Variety A [sub-circular, one-piece hooks], and are compared to Polynesian examples.)Google Scholar
Strong, W. D. 1935. “An Introduction to Nebraska Archeology.” Smithsonian Institution Miscellaneous Collections, Vol. 93, No. 10. Washington. (Pl. 24, left, a is a curved bone fishhook from top level of Signal Butte site. Pl. 9, a-d are bone fishhooks from the Upper Republican culture.)Google Scholar
Walker, E. F. 1943. “Indians of Southern California.” Masterkey, Vol. 17, pp. 201–16. Los Angeles: Southwest Museum. (Fig. 4 is a photograph of four Type 1 shell fishhooks from the Santa Barbara region.)Google Scholar
Webb, W. S. 1946. “Indian Knoll, Site Oh 2, Ohio County, Kentucky.” University of Kentucky Reports in Anthropology and Archaeology, Vol. 4, No. 3, Pt. 1. Lexington. (Fig. 45 illustrates curved bone fishhooks.)Google Scholar
Webb, W. S., and Haag, W. G. 1939. “The Chiggerville Site.” University of Kentucky Reports in Anthropology, Vol. 4, No. 1. Lexington. (Fig. 14 illustrates curved bone fishhooks.)Google Scholar
Webb, W. S., and De Jarnette, D. L. 1942. “An Archaeological Survey of Pickwick Basin in the Adjacent Portions of the States of Alabama, Mississippi, and Tennessee.” Bulletin, Bureau of American Ethnology, No. 129. Washington. (Pls. 98, 221, 288 illustrate curved bone fishhooks.)Google Scholar
Woodward, A. 1930. “Shell Fish Hooks of the Chumash.” Bulletin of the Southern California Academy of Sciences, Vol. 28, pp. 41–5. Los Angeles. (He notes 134 shell fishhooks from Muwu site, of which 3 were of Type 5 and 131 of Type 2. No examples of Types 3, 4, and 6 were recovered. From Avila site came 2 shell hooks of Type 4.)Google Scholar
Yates, L. G. 1900. “Archaeology of California: Southern California.” In W. K. Moorehead, Prehistoric Implements, Sec. VII, pp. 230–52. Cincinnati. (Fig. 378 illustrates the manufacture of shell fishhooks in the Santa Barbara area.)Google Scholar