Opportunistic Whale Hunting on the Southern Northwest Coast: Ancient DNA, Artifact, and Ethnographic Evidence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Two modes of whale use have been documented on the Northwest Coast of North America, namely systematic whale hunting and whale scavenging. Ethnographically, systematic hunting was practiced only by Native groups of southwestern Vancouver Island and the northern Olympic Peninsula of Washington State. This hunting was undertaken with technology specifically designed for the task. Other groups on the Northwest Coast reportedly did not hunt whales but did utilize beached animals. Here we present archaeological evidence of whaling from the northern Oregon coast site of Par-Tee in the form of a bone point lodged in a whale phalange. This hunting likely occurred 1,300 to 1,600 years ago. Ancient DNA extracted from the phalange proves it to be a humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae). DNA recovered from the bone point indicates that it is made from elk (Cervus elaphus) bone, and the point's DNA sequence is identical to that from unmodified elk bone from Par-Tee, suggesting the whale was locally hunted. We present ethnohistoric data from the southern Northwest Coast describing opportunistic whale hunting with a variety of technologies. We argue that many groups along the west coast of North America likely occasionally hunted whales in the past and that this hunting occurred using nonspecialized technologies.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".