INVENTORY AND ASSESSMENT OF HUMAN REMAINS FROM THE NEAR ISLANDS OF THE ALEUTIAN ISLANDS, ALASKA, IN THE COLLECTIONS OF THE NATIONAL MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY, SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION Melissa S. Powell, J. Christopher Dudar, and Stephen Damm Repatriation Office National Museum of Natural History Smithsonian Institution P.O. Box 37012, MRC 138 Washington, D.C. 20013-7012 2015 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In compliance with the National Museum of the American Indian Act, 20 U.S.C. Section 80q et seq. (Public Law 101-185), this report provides an inventory and assessment of human remains and potential funerary objects in the possession of the National Museum of Natural History (NMNH), Smithsonian Institution (SI), from the Near Islands, Alaska, that are considered to be potentially affiliated with Alaska Native Villages represented by the Aleutian Pribilof Islands Association (APIA). The APIA submitted a repatriation request dated May 30, 2001, on behalf of all the federally recognized native groups from the Aleutian Islands, for the return of culturally affiliated human remains and funerary objects from the entire Aleutian and Pribilof Island region, including traditional Unangan territory on the Alaskan Peninsula. The NMNH holds human remains from three of the Near Islands, including Attu, Agattu, and Shemya islands, from at least five archaeological sites. This report documents the human remains of 51 individuals in 42 catalog numbers in the NMNH collections (Table 1). No funerary objects from the Near Islands were identified in the NMNH collections. The human remains of an estimated eight individuals represented by nine catalog numbers in the NMNH collections were obtained at Attu Island by Aleš Hrdlička and Alan May in 1936 and 1937 from a prehistoric archaeological site near Chicagof Harbor and from Sarana Bay. The preponderance of evidence indicates that the human remains from Attu Island are Unangan and culturally affiliated with the Native Village of Atka. Archaeological and biological evidence of population continuity, prehistoric Unangan material culture and burial patterns, the relative geographic isolation of Attu Island, the known history of occupation of Attu Island, and the historic record of resettlement of Attu Islanders at Atka Island in the 1940s, all point to a relationship of shared group identity between the past inhabitants of Attu Island and the Native Village of Atka. There was continuity in settlement at Attu Island from prehistoric to historic times. The residents of Attu Island were displaced during World War II, and following their internment in a Japanese prison camp in Otaru, Hokkaido, from 1942-1945, the survivors were resettled on the island of Atka, Alaska. The Unangan descendants of the people of Attu are members of the Native Village of Atka, the only federally recognized Native Village of the western Aleutian Islands. The human remains of an estimated 41 individuals represented by 32 catalog numbers in the NMNH collections were obtained at Agattu Island by Aleš Hrdlička in 1937 from three prehistoric archaeological sites in Aga Cove of McDonald Bay. The preponderance of evidence indicates that the human remains from Agattu Island are Unangan and culturally affiliated with the Native Village of Atka. Archaeological and biological evidence of population continuity, prehistoric Unangan material culture and burial patterns, labret customs, the relative geographic isolation of Agattu Island, the known history of occupation of Agattu Island, and the historic record of resettlement of Near Islanders at Attu Island by 1780 and later at Atka Island in the 1940s, all point to a relationship of shared group identity between the past inhabitants of Agattu Island and the Native Village of Atka. The human remains of two individuals represented by one catalog number in the NMNH collections were obtained at Shemya Island by Oscar T. Lewis in the 1940s during World War II, i from one prehistoric archaeological site. The preponderance of evidence indicates that the human remains from Shemya Island are Unangan and culturally affiliated with the Native Village of Atka. Archaeological and biological evidence of population continuity, Unangan material culture, the relative geographic isolation of Shemya Island, the known history of occupation of Shemya Island, and the historic record of resettlement of Near Islanders at Attu Island by 1780 and later at Atka Island in the 1940s, all point to a relationship of shared group identity between the past inhabitants of Shemya Island and the Native Village of Atka. Finally, additional objects at NMNH were collected from archaeological sites in the Near Islands but these were not determined to be funerary since no human remains were found in association with any of the objects. These include artifacts donated by William Healy Dall, who collected archaeological objects in 35 catalog numbers in 1873 from Attu Island from a site near Chichagof Harbor, one ethnographic object in one catalog number from Chichagof Harbor, and archaeofaunal remains in one catalog number, but none were associated with burials. Lucien McShan Turner collected archaeological objects in 749 catalog numbers from Attu Island during 1880-1881, but these were not associated with funerary contexts. Charles Townsend collected eight archaeological objects in six catalog numbers in 1894 from an archaeological site on Agattu Island, but they are not funerary items. Edward Koch donated one archaeological object in one catalog number in 1959 from Shemya Island, and there is no indication that it is from a funerary context. In sum, it is recommended that the human remains of an estimated 51 individuals represented by 42 catalog numbers from at least five prehistoric archaeological sites from Attu Island, Agattu Island, and Shemya Island in the Near Islands of the Aleutian Islands, Alaska, be made available for repatriation to the culturally affiliated Native Village of Atka. ii Table 1. Human Remains from the Near Islands, Alaska, in the Collections of the National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, Organized by Site and Catalog Number. Catalog No. Acc. No. Provenience Collector Date Accessioned Cultural Affiliation P377760 138127 Attu Island Aleš Hrdlička (and Alan May) 1937 Native Village of Atka P377760RO-A 138127 Attu Island Aleš Hrdlička (and Alan May) 1937 Native Village of Atka P377760RO-B 138127 Attu Island Aleš Hrdlička (and Alan May) 1937 Native Village of Atka P377760RO-C 138127 Attu Island Aleš Hrdlička (and Alan May) 1937 Native Village of Atka P377761 138127 Attu Island Aleš Hrdlička (and Alan May) 1937 Native Village of Atka P377762 138127 Attu Island Aleš Hrdlička (and Alan May) 1937 Native Village of Atka P377763 138127 Attu Island Aleš Hrdlička (and Alan May) 1937 Native Village of Atka P377764 138127 Attu Island Aleš Hrdlička (and Alan May) 1937 Native Village of Atka P377765 138127 Attu Island Aleš Hrdlička (and Alan May) 1937 Native Village of Atka P377766 138127 Attu Island Aleš Hrdlička (and Alan May) 1937 Native Village of Atka P377767 138127 Attu Island Aleš Hrdlička (and Alan May) 1937 Native Village of Atka P378398 143191 Attu Island Aleš Hrdlička (and Alan May) 1937 Native Village of Atka P378368 143191 Agattu Island Aleš Hrdlička 1937 Native Village of Atka P378369 143191 Agattu Island Aleš Hrdlička 1937 Native Village of Atka P378370 143191 Agattu Island Aleš Hrdlička 1937 Native Village of Atka P378371 143191 Agattu Island Aleš Hrdlička 1937 Native Village of Atka P378372 143191 Agattu Island Aleš Hrdlička 1937 Native Village of Atka iii Catalog No. Acc. No. Collector Date Accessioned Provenience Cultural Affiliation P378373 143191 Agattu Island Aleš Hrdlička 1937 Native Village of Atka P378374 143191 Agattu Island Aleš Hrdlička 1937 Native Village of Atka P378375 143191 Agattu Island Aleš Hrdlička 1937 Native Village of Atka P378376 143191 Agattu Island Aleš Hrdlička 1937 Native Village of Atka P378376A 143191 Agattu Island Aleš Hrdlička 1937 Native Village of Atka P378376B 143191 Agattu Island Aleš Hrdlička 1937 Native Village of Atka P378377 143191 Agattu Island Aleš Hrdlička 1937 Native Village of Atka P378378 143191 Agattu Island Aleš Hrdlička 1937 Native Village of Atka P378379 143191 Agattu Island Aleš Hrdlička 1937 Native Village of Atka P378380 143191 Agattu Island Aleš Hrdlička 1937 Native Village of Atka P378381 143191 Agattu Island Aleš Hrdlička 1937 Native Village of Atka P378382 143191 Agattu Island Aleš Hrdlička 1937 Native Village of Atka P378383 143191 Agattu Island Aleš Hrdlička 1937 Native Village of Atka P378384 143191 Agattu Island Aleš Hrdlička 1937 Native Village of Atka P378385 143191 Agattu Island Aleš Hrdlička 1937 Native Village of Atka P378386 143191 Agattu Island Aleš Hrdlička 1937 Native Village of Atka P378387 143191 Agattu Island Aleš Hrdlička 1937 Native Village of Atka P378388 143191 Agattu Island Aleš Hrdlička 1937 Native Village of Atka P378388RO-A 143191 Agattu Island Aleš Hrdlička 1937 Native Village of Atka P378389 143191 Agattu Island Aleš Hrdlička 1937 Native Village of Atka P378390 143191 Agattu Island Aleš Hrdlička 1937 Native Village of Atka P378391 143191 Agattu Island Aleš Hrdlička 1937 Native Village of Atka P378392 143191 Agattu Island Aleš Hrdlička 1937 Native Village of Atka P378393 143191 Agattu Island Aleš Hrdlička 1937 Native Village of Atka iv Catalog No. Acc. No. Collector Date Accessioned Provenience Cultural Affiliation P378394 143191 Agattu Island Aleš Hrdlička 1937 Native Village of Atka P378395 143191 Agattu Island Aleš Hrdlička 1937 Native Village of Atka P378395RO-A 143191 Agattu Island Aleš Hrdlička 1937 Native Village of Atka P378395RO-B 143191 Agattu Island Aleš Hrdlička 1937 Native Village of Atka P378395RO-C 143191 Agattu Island Aleš Hrdlička 1937 Native Village of Atka P378395RO-D 143191 Agattu Island Aleš Hrdlička 1937 Native Village of Atka P378395RO-E 143191 Agattu Island Aleš Hrdlička 1937 Native Village of Atka P378395RO-F 143191 Agattu Island Aleš Hrdlička 1937 Native Village of Atka P378396 143191 Agattu Island Aleš Hrdlička 1937 Native Village of Atka P378397 143191 Agattu Island Aleš Hrdlička 1937 Native Village of Atka P378397RO-A 143191 Agattu Island Aleš Hrdlička 1937 Native Village of Atka P378397RO-B 143191 Agattu Island Aleš Hrdlička 1937 Native Village of Atka P387028 390872 Shemya Island Oscar T. Lewis (donated by Joseph L. Cramer) 1992 Native Village of Atka P387028RO-A 390872 Shemya Island Oscar T. Lewis (donated by Joseph L. Cramer) 1992 Native Village of Atka Note: RO numbers (i.e. RO-A, RO-B) refer to subdivisions of existing database catalog numbers and represent distinct individuals within that catalog number. v TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY…………………………………………..…………………...............i I. INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................................1 II. HISTORY OF THE REQUEST....................................................................................... …….2 III. LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS………………………………………………………….5 Cultural Affiliation………………………………………………………………………………..5 Object Category Definitions………………………………………………………………………5 IV. CULTURAL AND HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF THE NEAR ISLANDS, ALASKA…………………………………………………………………….….….......................6 History of Research………………………………………………………………………………..7 Archaeological Background…………………………………………………………………….…9 Hrdlička’s Migration Hypothesis…………………………………………………………...…....11 Biological Population History of the Aleutian Islands......………………………………………13 Historic Period……….……………………………………………………………………..........15 Unangan Mortuary Practices..........................................................................................................18 V. HUMAN REMAINS AND POTENTIAL FUNERARY OBJECTS FROM THE NEAR ISLANDS, ALASKA, IN THE COLLECTIONS OF THE NATIONAL MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY.......……………………………………………….……………..............20 Attu Island………………………………………………………………………………………..21 Human Remains from Attu Island…….…………..……….……………………………..25 Assessment of Potential Funerary Objects from Attu Island.............................................29 Cultural Affiliation of Human Remains from Attu Island………………………………..30 Agattu Island……………………………………………………………………………….…….31 Human Remains from Agattu Island…………...…….…………………………………..37 Assessment of Potential Funerary Objects from Agattu Island……………………………..41 Cultural Affiliation of Human Remains from Agattu Island……………………….…….42 Shemya Island…………………………………………………………………………………....43 Human Remains from Shemya Island……………………………………………………46 Assessment of Potential Funerary Objects from Shemya Island……………………...…46 Cultural Affiliation of Human Remains from Shemya Island……………………………47 NMNH Archaeological Collections from the Near Islands of Alaska Without Human Remains or Funerary Objects………………………………………………………………………….…...48 VI. SUMMARY OF CULTURAL AFFILIATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS…..............50 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS………………………………………………………………... …...52 REFERENCES……………………………………………………………………………….….53 APPENDIX A: DOCUMENTATION OF HUMAN REMAINS AT THE NATIONAL MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY……………………………………………………….…62 APPENDIX B: GLOSSARY………………………………………………………………….....64 vi LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES Table 1. Human Remains from the Near Islands, Alaska, in the Collections of the National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, Organized by Site and Catalog Number...iii Table 2. Human Remains from Attu Island in the Collections of the National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution………………............................................................................26 Table 3. Hrdlička’s (1945:310) Comparison of the House Site and Hill Site at Agattu Island……………………………………………………............................................................. 36 Table 4. Human Remains from Agattu Island in the Collections of the National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution……………….............................................................. 38 Table 5. Human Remains from Shemya Island in the Collections of the National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution………………...............................................................46 Figure 1. Map of the Aleutian Islands Showing the Location of the Near Islands, Alaska (adapted from Lantis 1984:Fig. 1)…………………………………………………......................................2 Figure 2. Alan May’s 1936 Map of the Near Islands (National Anthropological Archives, Smithsonian Institution, Hrdlička Papers, Alaska Survey, Box 96)………………………..……23 Figure 3. Alan May’s 1936 Map of Attu Island, Showing the Locations of Chichagof Harbor and Sarana Bay (National Anthropological Archives, Smithsonian Institution, Hrdlička Papers, Alaska Survey, Box 96)…………………………………………………………………….……23 Figure 4. Map of Agattu Island (from Hrdlička 1945:Fig.91)……………...................................32 Figure 5. Map of Shemya Island, Showing the Location of Archaeological Site ATU-023 (Corbett, West, and Lefèvre 2010:Fig.1-3)………………………………………………………45 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ANCSA APIA IRA NAGPRA NMAI Act NMNH MNI MOA RO USNM WAAPP Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act Aleutian Pribilof Islands Association Indian Reorganization Act Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act National Museum of the American Indian Act National Museum of Natural History Minimum Number of Individuals Memorandum of Agreement Repatriation Office United States National Museum Western Aleutians Archaeological and Paleobiological Project vii I. INTRODUCTION The National Museum of the American Indian Act of 1989 (20 U.S.C. Section 80q), as amended in 1996, requires the Smithsonian Institution to inventory and identify the tribal origins of all Native American human remains, funerary objects, sacred objects, and objects of cultural patrimony currently in its possession or control. Potentially affiliated tribes are to be notified and consulted regarding the disposition of culturally identifiable remains housed in the National Museum of Natural History (NMNH). Such affiliated remains are to be expeditiously returned to the culturally affiliated tribe upon their request. The documentation in this report was undertaken in response to a request from the Aleutian Pribilof Islands Association (APIA), which submitted a request on behalf of all of the federally recognized Alaska Native groups from the Aleutian Islands.1 The current report evaluates the Near Islands (Figure 1). The NMNH holds human remains from three of the Near Islands, including Attu, Agattu, and Shemya. The NMNH does not hold human remains or objects from the islands of Nizki and Alaid, which are part of the smaller Semichi Islands group of the Near Islands. This report documents the human remains of an estimated 51 individuals represented by 42 catalog numbers in the NMNH collection from at least five prehistoric archaeological sites on three of the Near Islands. The findings of this report are based on the NMNH’s master computer catalog, consultation with the APIA, correspondence sent to the museum by original collectors, museum ledger books, catalog card files, original accession documents, osteological information, and other historical documents. Secondary sources were consulted where appropriate. Original documentation for each catalog number of human remains and potential funerary objects was examined for this evaluation. An important part of the documentation process was an examination of the human remains themselves. This examination was conducted by the Repatriation Osteology Laboratory as part of the inventory and physical documentation process. The human skeletal remains described in this report were inventoried to provide a record of elements present and their condition. Observations were made on the individuals’ ages at death, sex, possible injuries or cause of death, other evidence of pathological conditions, and on any cultural modifications that might contribute to the determination of cultural affiliation. The physical documentation supplements and corroborates the information assembled from museum records and other historical documents, and provides unique details about the individuals. Cultural objects from the Near Islands in the NMNH collections were also examined in order to evaluate their cultural affiliation and status as potential funerary objects. Information on the shape, size, material, and manufacture of the cultural objects is evaluated, along with museum records, archaeological, and anthropological information to help identify the affiliation of cultural items to Native American groups. 1 The communities represented by APIA are Akutan, Atka, Belkofski, False Pass, King Cove, Nelson Lagoon, Nikolski, Pauloff Harbor, Sand Point, St. George, St. Paul, Unalaska, and Unga (www.apiai.org). 1 Figure 1. Map of the Aleutian Islands Showing the Location of the Near Islands, Alaska (adapted from Lantis 1984:Fig. 1). Documentation serves to verify existing museum records. It also forms part of the permanent record of the Museum’s compliance with the repatriation mandate. Information assembled and permanently archived at the Museum as a record of repatriation is available upon request. For further information, please contact the NMNH Repatriation Office. This report is divided into six sections. Following this introduction, the second section presents an overview of the history of the repatriation request. The third section reviews the legislative requirements that must be met for repatriation to occur under the NMAI Act. The fourth section provides the ethnographic and archaeological background, with an abridged account of the history of human occupation of the Near Islands, and a summary of Unangan mortuary practices. The fifth section details the results of the physical inventory and archival documentation process. The written documentation pertaining to the remains and potential funerary objects is reviewed, and a summary of the physical characteristics of the remains is provided. The final section summarizes the findings of the report and makes recommendations for repatriation. II. HISTORY OF THE REQUEST This report for the Near Islands, Alaska, falls under a larger repatriation request for human remains and funerary objects submitted to NMNH on May 30, 2001, by the Aleutian Pribilof Islands Association (APIA) and signed by APIA President Dimitri Philemonof. In the letter, the APIA requested the repatriation of human remains and funerary objects from the entire Aleutian and Pribilof Island region, including traditional Unangan territory on the Alaskan Peninsula. The letter indicated that the APIA was authorized by all of the federally recognized Unangan tribes to make a repatriation request on their behalf, supported by signed memoranda of agreement (MOAs) from all tribes appended to the letter. For the Native Village of Atka, the 2 MOA was signed by Atka IRA Council President Mark Snigaroff, who continues to serve in this position. Snigaroff is also currently the APIA Chair of the Board of Directors. The letter stated that in addition to anthropological evidence, “Aleut oral traditions and folklore indicate a long standing occupation of the region based on extensive place names for villages, hunting camps, sacred sites, traditional use areas and long standing political rivalries, feuds and warfare among Aleut polities…” It noted that other stories relate to “legendary heroes whose actions influenced subsequent Aleut beliefs, customs, and even land use patterns.” The 2001 letter from the APIA asked that photography and documentation of the human remains at NMNH be stopped, and stated that any requests to examine or study the remains should be referred to Allison Young McLain, APIA Cultural Heritage Director. Dorothy Lippert, the NMNH Repatriation Case Officer for Alaska at the time, wrote to McLain in June 2001 to discuss the need for the NMNH Repatriation Office to examine and photograph the human remains for documentation purposes in order to complete the assessment for the repatriation request. Discussions continued by telephone, and staff from the NMNH Repatriation Office were invited to discuss the repatriation process in person at an Aleut Corporation meeting. During October 11-14, 2001, Lippert, along with NMNH Physical Anthropologist Stephen Ousley and NMNH Repatriation Office Program Manager William Billeck, met in Anchorage with tribal representatives at the Aleut Corporation meeting, at village seminars, and at the APIA offices. Numerous communications concerning the repatriation request occurred between the NMNH Repatriation Office and the APIA from 2002 to 2005. Lippert continued to discuss the importance of the repatriation documentation process, including during teleconferences on October 13 and November 12 of 2003. On October 21, 2003, the NMNH Repatriation Office sent a letter requesting permission to resume repatriation documentation, noting that this step was necessary to determine age at death, sex, and minimum number of individuals, and to ensure the accuracy of the request so that the correct individuals were included. In 2005, additional written requests were made by the NMNH Repatriation Office to the APIA to resume repatriation documentation, but no response was received. McLain visited the NMNH during September 19-22, 2005, to view the Unangan collections and to consult with the NMNH Repatriation Office staff. Ousley contacted Millie McKeown, the new APIA Cultural Heritage Director, on February 27, 2006, concerning permission to digitize Unangan remains for a research study. Through an e-mail message from McKeown on March 13, 2006, he received permission from 12 of the 13 Unangan communities. On April 24, 2009, a letter was sent from the Nikolski IRA Council and the Chaluka Corporation, representing the Native Village of Nikolski, signed by Chaluka Corporation President Dora Johnson, and addressed to Andrea Hunter, then Chair of the NMNH Repatriation Review Committee. The letter objected to nondestructive research conducted in 2002 on human remains from the Kagamil Islands at NMNH by non-Smithsonian researchers, after APIA requested that documentation of human remains be stopped. On June 17, 2009, Billeck sent a response explaining that while the NMNH Repatriation Office was not moving forward with repatriation documentation at the request of the APIA, the policy of the NMNH Department of Anthropology is to allow collections to be researched until they are found to be culturally affiliated in a repatriation report approved by the museum administration. Billeck again 3 requested that repatriation documentation be able to continue in order to respond to the APIA repatriation request, and he invited the Unangan representatives to the museum for further discussions. In 2010, Chris Wolff was hired as the NMNH Repatriation Case Officer for the Aleutian Islands and south-central Alaska, and he contacted McKeown in April 2010. Wolff and McKeown were in frequent communication over the next few months, and discussed scheduling a consultation meeting during a time when multiple Unangan groups might be gathering. McKeown invited Wolff to an APIA board meeting in Anchorage during December 7-10, 2010. Wolff and Billeck attended and met with APIA and Native Village of Atka representatives, including McKeown and Snigaroff. At the December 2010 meeting, Wolff and Billeck obtained permission from the APIA and members of their communities to proceed with documentation of the human remains and funerary objects in order to address the repatriation request. In consultation with the APIA representatives, a decision was made to separate the very large Aleutian and Pribilof Island repatriation claim into smaller regional case reports so that repatriation assessments could be made in a timely manner. Lars Krutak of the NMNH Repatriation Office shifted into the position of Case Officer for the Aleutian Islands in June 2011. Krutak communicated with McKeown on June 29, 2011, to let her know that he would be working on the APIA request. Krutak updated McKeown on December 2, 2011, and stated that he would be working on the Unga report and noted that he had sent letters of introduction to John Foster of the Unga Tribal Council and to Mark Snigaroff of the Native Village of Atka. Krutak followed up with phone messages to Snigaroff and to the Atka IRA Council on February 1, 2012, and again to Snigaroff on September 27, 2012. At the October 12, 2012, Aleut Shareholder Meeting and village seminar in Anchorage, Krutak consulted with Mark Snigaroff, President of the Atka IRA Council; Crystal Dushkin, Atka IRA Tribal Council Member; Vincent Tutiakoff, Sr., Qawalangin Tribe of Unalaska and Chairman of the Ounalashka Corporation; Sharon Svarny-Livingston, Administrator of the Qawalangin Tribe; and Bruce Foster, Sr., President of the Unga Tribal Council. Krutak provided an update for McKeown and APIA Environmental Safety Manager Karen Pletnikoff on March 11, 2013. He noted that several upcoming NMNH case reports for the APIA request would involve prehistoric remains and suggested that consultation on these individuals should be at the pan-Unangan level. Pletnikoff replied to Krutak on March 14, 2013, expressing interest in assisting in the repatriation process. While in Anchorage to attend the Alaskan Anthropological Association meetings, Krutak met with Pletnikoff at the APIA headquarters on March 15, 2013, to discuss the need for further discussion at the pan-Unangan level with representatives of the APIA, the Aleut Corporation, and federally recognized Native villages. Krutak contacted the new Atka IRA Council Tribal Administrator Oleana Nelson, on May 7, 2013, to introduce himself and to discuss the status of the repatriation request. In addition to the other reports in progress, Krutak noted that NMNH Repatriation Case Officer Melissa Powell would be writing the Near Islands report. On October 30, 2013, Krutak provided updates to Snigaroff, Nelson, Pletnikoff, McKeown, and Dushkin. Krutak and Dushkin corresponded on October 31 and November 1, 2013. Dushkin emailed Krutak on November 13, 2013, to say that she was recently appointed Director of Cultural Affairs for the Native Village of Atka. Krutak 4 wrote to Dushkin in March 2014, noting progress on his report. Krutak left the Repatriation Office in April 2014 and returned as a contractor in February 2015, to complete the report for Amchitka, Kiska, and Little Kiska islands. On April 13, 2015, Powell sent letters to Snigaroff and Dushkin with an update on the status of the assessment efforts. The first report to address the overarching APIA repatriation request for the Aleutian and Pribilof Islands was written by Wolff, concerning St. Paul Island (Wolff et al. 2011). The human remains from St. Paul Island were repatriated to the Aleut community of St. Paul Island on May 16, 2012. A second report to address the request was completed by Krutak (2013), which recommended repatriation of human remains and funerary objects from the vicinity of Unga to the Native Village of Unga. The human remains were repatriated to the Native Village of Unga on June 25, 2014. A third report evaluates Amchitka, Kiska, and Little Kiska islands, formerly known as the Rat Islands (Krutak and Dudar 2015). The current report on the Near Islands is the fourth in the series of NMNH repatriation reports for the Aleutian and Pribilof Islands. III. LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS Cultural Affiliation The NMAI Act directs the Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution to identify the “tribal origins” (cultural affiliation) of collections but does not define the term “cultural affiliation.” The amendment to the NMAI Act requires the Smithsonian to employ the definitions used in the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) for unassociated funerary objects, sacred objects, and objects of cultural patrimony, and to assess the cultural affiliation of objects. To do so, it is necessary to employ the definition of “cultural affiliation” as defined by the NAGPRA regulations: Cultural affiliation means that there is a relationship of shared group identity which can reasonably be traced historically or prehistorically between members of a present-day Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization and an identifiable earlier group. Cultural affiliation is established when the preponderance of the evidence – based on geographical, kinship, biological, archaeological, linguistic, folklore, oral tradition, historical evidence, or other information or expert opinion – reasonably leads to such a conclusion [43 C.F.R. Part 10, Section 10.2(e)]. Object Category Definitions The NMAI Act defines a funerary object as “an object that, as part of a death rite or ceremony of a culture, is intentionally placed with individual human remains, either at the time of burial or later” [20 U.S.C. 80q-14]. The NAGPRA defines associated funerary objects as: 5 [O]bjects that, as a part of the death rite or ceremony of a culture, are reasonably believed to have been placed with individual human remains either at the time of death or later, and both the human remains and associated funerary objects are presently in the possession or control of a Federal agency or museum, except that other items exclusively made for burial purposes or to contain human remains shall be considered as associated funerary objects [25 U.S.C. 3001(3)A]. The NAGPRA defines unassociated funerary objects as: [O]bjects that, as a part of the death rite or ceremony of a culture, are reasonably believed to have been placed with individual human remains either at the time of death or later, where the remains are not in the possession or control of the Federal agency or museum and the objects can be identified by a preponderance of the evidence as related to specific individuals or families or to known human remains or, by a preponderance of the evidence, as having been removed from a specific burial site of an individual culturally affiliated with a particular Indian tribe [25 U.S.C. 3001(3)B]. The NAGPRA regulations present a slightly expanded definition: Funerary objects means items that, as part of a death rite or ceremony of a culture, are reasonably believed to have been placed intentionally at the time of death or later with or near individual human remains. Funerary objects must be identified by a preponderance of the evidence as having been removed from a specific burial site of an individual affiliated with a particular Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization or as being related to specific individuals or families or to known human remains. The term burial site means any natural or prepared physical location, whether originally below, on, or above the surface of the earth, into which, as part of the death rite or ceremony of a culture, individual human remains were deposited, and includes rock cairns or pyres which do not fall within the ordinary definition of gravesite [43 C.F.R. Part 10, Section 10.2(d)(2)]. IV. CULTURAL AND HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF THE NEAR ISLANDS, ALASKA The westernmost of the Aleutian Islands, the Near Islands group includes the main islands of Agattu and Attu, and the three smaller Semichi Islands of Shemya, Nizki, and Alaid (Figure 1). They were collectively called the Near Islands because they were closest to the eighteenth-century explorers and fur hunters of the Kamchatka Peninsula of Russia. To the east of the Near Islands lies Buldir Island, and further east are the Rat Islands of Semisopochnoi, Amchitka, Hawadax (formerly Rat Island), and Kiska. The greatest inter-island distance within all of the Aleutian Islands is the 120 kilometers (75 miles) of ocean separating the islands of 6 Shemya and Buldir, contributing to the relative geographic isolation of the Near Islands even within the Aleutian chain (Veltre 1998:224). The people of the Near Islands spoke Attuan, a dialect of the Western Aleut language (Woodbury 1984:49). The Aleut language (Unangam Tunuu), spoken today in the Aleutian Islands, is part of the larger Eskimo-Aleut language family (Berge 2010:557). Linguistic studies generally support the idea of an early westward migration through the Aleutian Islands, followed by a more recent second westward migration and corresponding diffusion of the Eastern Aleut language (Berge 2010:564, 579). Some linguistic scholars believe that the first westward wave of migration reached the Near Islands by 600 BCE, while a second wave of western migration within the Aleutian Islands likely occurred within the last 1,000 years (Berge 2010:564). The word Aleut, often widely applied to the whole archipelago, may have originated in the Near Islands as the name that people used to refer to themselves (Veltre 1998:231). Near Islands people were also referred to as Sasixnan (“outcasts from the islands”) by people living in the eastern Aleutian Islands (Black 1984; Corbett 2010b:25). As Veltre (1998:231) has noted, “It was only after the arrival of the Russians that ‘Aleut’ became widely used, and the term was often broadly—and confusingly—applied to both Aleuts and Native residents of Alutiiqspeaking areas to the east.” The more accurate regional name used today is Unangan, or Unangax̂, in the dialect of Atka (Veltre 1998:231). History of Research The first archaeological investigations in the Aleutian Islands were made by William Healy Dall (1870, 1873, 1877, 1878), a specialist in the study of mollusk shells. While employed by the US Coast and Geodetic Survey on a hydrographic and geographic survey from 18711874, Dall investigated archaeological sites throughout the Aleutian Islands, including the islands of Attu, Agattu, and Amchitka. The collections he made are now at the NMNH. Dall tested shell heaps and was among the earliest researchers to pay attention to stratigraphy. He noted deep stratigraphic sequences in the Aleutian middens, which he recognized as an indicator of great cultural time depth. Dall believed that the Aleutians were populated from the east, a finding that most archaeologists in the region still support today (Veltre and Smith 2010:492). Lucien Turner, a member of the US Signal Service, was stationed in the Aleutian Islands from May of 1878 until 1881, making collections in botany, natural history, and ethnology, now part of the NMNH collections. Based primarily in Unalaska, Turner also spent time at Atka Island and excavated at Attu Island during 1880-1881(McCartney 1984; Turner 1886, 2008). During 1909-1910, the Russian ethnographer Waldemar Jochelson led archaeological investigations in the region as part of the multidisciplinary Ryabushinski Aleut-Kamchatka Expedition, sponsored by the Imperial Russian Geographical Society (Jochelson 1912, 1925, 1933). The Expedition’s work centered on topics which are still relevant today: the investigation of Aleutian Island population origins, maritime adaptations, and the relationship between past and present cultures (Loring and Veltre 2003). In pursuit of these goals, Jochelson excavated at Unalaska, Umnak, and Atka islands. Jochelson also excavated at three sites on Attu Island, including near Massacre Bay at Alexai Point at the site of Nanikax (ATU-059), at the village site 7 he called “Sin” near Chichagof Harbor, and at an historic fish camp in Sarana Bay (Corbett 2010b:31; Corbett, West, and Lefèvre 2001:255). In addition, the project collected linguistic and ethnological information at Atka and Umnak islands. Smithsonian Institution physical anthropologist Aleš Hrdlička spent three field seasons (1936-1938) excavating on the Aleutian islands of Agattu, Attu, Kiska, Little Kiska, Amchitka, Ilak, Tanaga, Kanaga, Adak, Atka, and Amlia (Hrdlička 1941, 1945). He briefly visited the Commander Islands but found no evidence of prehistoric occupation (Hrdlička 1939, 1945). Hrdlička’s primary research interest in the Aleutian Islands was the peopling of the New World. In order to address this question he collected as many human remains as quickly as possible, excavating rapidly and with little interest in the collection of detailed stratigraphic or other archaeological information. Hrdlička’s limited field records often preclude a reconstruction of archaeological site patterning and the original context of burials, which impacts the ability to reassociate human remains and funerary objects, as discussed in the following sections of the report. In 1949, Albert Spaulding of the University of Michigan excavated at Agattu Island at the site of Krugloi Point (ATU-001/02) (Spaulding 1962). Radiocarbon samples from the lowest levels of the site yielded a date of approximately 615 BC, which Spaulding estimated as the time of the initial occupation (Corbett 2010a:18; Spaulding 1962:12-13). Spaulding’s investigations at Agattu Island suggested an occupation lasting about 1,300 years, with no significant changes in material culture or artifact types through time (Corbett 2010a:18; Spaulding 1962). Spaulding, like Hrdlička, noted the relative scarcity of bone artifacts in the archaeological assemblage of Agattu Island. Spaulding (1962:43-44) wrote, “[T]he known Agattu sites represent an early population who brought an archaic and simple artifact inventory to the island and preserved it in relative isolation without much change for more than a millennium.” In the late 1940s, biological anthropologist William Laughlin, who had previously worked with Hrdlička in the Aleutians, conducted archaeological and multidisciplinary investigations at Atka, Nikolski, and St. Paul, and he later worked at the Chaluka site on Umnak Island (Laughlin 1963, 1966; Laughlin and Marsh 1951). Laughlin’s students and associates, including Allen McCartney, Christy Turner, and Douglas Veltre also carried out archaeological research in the Aleutian Islands in the 1960s and early 1970s (McCartney 1971, 1984; McCartney and Turner 1966; Veltre and Smith 2010:495). In 1975, Bruno Frohlich (2002) conducted a coastline site survey of some Aleutian Islands, including Attu Island, a project sponsored by the Aleut Corporation as part of compliance with the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA). For Attu Island, Frohlich (2002:82) noted: It was clear that the highest concentration of Aleut sites is located on the eastern part of the Attu Island, where the best protection from the sea and the best topographic features are found… Compared to Adak Island, the coastal configuration of Attu Island was less suitable for Aleut settlements. However, the eastern part of the island with its substantial system of reefs, small islands, and 8 strand flats may have contained and supported a large population who ventured to other points on the coast of the island to establish camps for temporary use. Beginning in the early 1990s, a long-term research project involving the Near Islands, the Western Aleutians Archaeological and Paleobiological Project (WAAPP), has been undertaken by a team of scholars including Debra Corbett, Christine Lefèvre, Dixie West, and Douglas Siegel-Causey (Corbett et al. 1997; Corbett et al. 2001; Corbett, Lefèvre, and West 2010; Lefèvre et al. 2001). This team of scholars has collaborated on archaeological investigations at Buldir, Shemya, Attu, and Agattu islands, with the goals of understanding the chronology, settlement history, past environments, and material culture of the Near Islands (Veltre and Smith 2010:497). WAAPP conducted site surveys on Attu and Shemya Islands from 1994-1998 (Lefèvre et al. 2001). Stephen Loring and the Smithsonian Institution’s Arctic Studies Center partnered with WAAPP to excavate at Little Kiska Island in 1992, at Buldir Island in 1993, and at Agattu Island in 1996 at three archaeological sites near Karab Cove (AG-23, AG-26, and AG27) (Loring 1993, 1998). In 1998, West and others investigated a burial cave located in the Western Aleutian Islands, with individuals buried in shallow graves at the rear of the cave in contexts with radiocarbon dates of 1,200 to 800 years ago (West et al. 2003). Such cave burials were previously unknown for the Western Aleutians. Archaeological Background The earliest archaeological site known from the Aleutian Islands is located on Anangula Island and dates to approximately 8000 B.P. (Laughlin and Marsh 1951, 1954; McCartney and Turner 1966). The site consists of depressions of semi-subterranean structures covered by layers of volcanic ash. Similar sites have been excavated on Hog Island, and together with the Anangula site, they are used to define the Early Anangula phase (ca. 9000-7000 B.P.) (Corbett 2010a:19). The Early Anangula phase is characterized by the presence of stone blades from polyhedral cores and end- and side-scrapers, and by the lack of bifacial stone tools (Corbett 2010a:20). The Late Anangula phase (7000-4000 B.P.) in the Aleutian Islands is marked by the use of stemmed projectile points and bifacial tools, a cultural tradition known from archaeological sites on Umnak and Akun (Corbett 2010a:20; Hatfield 2011; Knecht and Davis 2001). The subsequent Margaret Bay phase (4000-3000 B.P.) is visible at archaeological sites at Chaluka, the Amaknak Bridge site, and the Margaret Bay site on Amaknak Island. The Margaret Bay phase is also recognized by the appearance of stone houses with clay floors and fireplaces (Corbett 2010a:20). Some Margaret Bay phase archaeological sites are known from the islands of Adak, Amchitka, and Shemya in the central and western Aleutian Islands (Hatfield 2011:117). Most scholars believe that the spread of the Unangan cultural tradition throughout the archipelago occurred from east to west, although the timing of this process is not well established. Based on a summary of available evidence, Dumond (2001:301-302) thought that settlement began in the Fox Islands around 8000 B.P., spread to the Central Aleutians by 5000 B.P., continued to the Rat Islands by 3500 B.P., and reached the Near Islands around 2500 B.P. Corbett (2010a:20-21) has noted that dates from several sites on Amchitka Island indicate occupation in the Rat Islands between 4700-4300 B.P., perhaps indicating a swifter migration. 9 The early sites on Amchitka are characterized as “blowout” sites which are recognized archaeologically as “small scatters of lithic flakes and cobble tools appearing on high bluffs away from the shoreline at deflated ‘holes’ in the tundra vegetation” (Corbett, Lefèvre, and West 2010:200). Recent dates from Shemya Island in the Near Islands suggest occupation by around 2500 B.P., indicating a significant time lag between the occupation of the Rat Islands and settlement of the Near Islands to the west (Corbett 2010a:20-21; Corbett, Lefèvre, and West 2010:200; Hatfield 2011:117). Previous climatic conditions may have prevented the colonization of the Near Islands by people traveling in small skin boats, which may explain the hiatus (Corbett, Lefèvre, and West 2010:200). The timing of the first settlement of the Near Islands, likely by people from the Rat Islands, seems to coincide with an interval of decreased rainfall and less severe storm conditions (Corbett, Lefèvre, and West 2010:200). Two of the earliest known Near Islands archaeological sites are at Krugloi Point on Agattu Island and on Shemya Island, sites that both date to approximately 2500 BP (Corbett, Lefèvre, and West 2010:200). A fully developed Unangan maritime adaptation was in place in the Aleutian Islands by approximately 3000 B.P. (McCartney 1984). The Aleutian Tradition is sometimes divided into two phases, the Amaknak phase (3000-1000 B.P.) and the Late Aleutian phase (1000-200 B.P.). Initial settlement of the Near Islands occurred at the time of the shift from the Margaret Bay phase to the Amaknak phase of the Aleutian Tradition (Corbett, Lefèvre, and West 2010:200). Aleutian Tradition lithic assemblages include irregular cores and products of bifacial reduction, accompanied by bone foreshafts, sockets, harpoons, and lance points. Aleutian Tradition sites are typically deep middens containing sea urchins, fish, and shellfish (McCartney 1984:124). The Late Aleutian phase (1000-200 B.P.) is associated with the Late Aleutian Trait Complex (Hatfield 2010:545), which includes ground stone, iron tools, “nipple-ended” needles, and bone harpoon points and foreshafts (Corbett et al. 1997; Corbett, Lefèvre, and West 2010:206). The archaeological record of the central and western Aleutian Islands has been characterized as one of cultural continuity, representing “a fairly uniform and stable maritime adaptation for the entire 4500-year occupation of this region” (Veltre 1998:223). Lacking significant terrestrial fauna and with only limited plant resources, subsistence was based on fish, birds, and marine mammals and invertebrates, as seen in the faunal evidence in large and deep middens (Veltre 1998:223). Archaeologists have noted little evidence for change through time in the subsistence patterns, technology, or settlement patterns of the central and western Aleutian Islands (Claassen 1975; Veltre 1998:229). For the eastern Aleutian Islands, Davis and Knecht (2010) also find general continuity in the archaeological record from the time of initial settlement, with “continued use of basic lithic, bone, and ground-stone technologies throughout major portions of the entire sequence.” Larger, complex house forms known from the archaeological record of the eastern Aleutian Islands, such as communal longhouses of the late prehistoric to early contact period, are not present in the central and western areas, which tend to have simpler and smaller houses (Veltre 1998:230; McCartney and Veltre 2002). Recently, however, for the Near Islands, some larger house forms, which incorporate whalebone construction and have associated artifact caches and burials, have been interpreted as chiefs’ houses (Corbett 2011). Other larger, possible chiefs’ houses in the Near Islands appear to be present at Shemya, Alaid, and Nizki islands 10 (Corbett, Lefèvre, and West 2010:206). Of the chiefs’ houses, Corbett, West, and Lefèvre (2001:262) note: “[T]his type of settlement may have emerged as early as 1200-1600 years ago but was certainly in place in the Near Islands by 330 BP.” According to these scholars, the earliest settlement pattern in the Near Islands consisted of small villages situated near the coastline, including approximately ten communities, probably occupied by kin groups using nearby catchments. This early prehistoric settlement pattern in the Near Islands shifted after about A.D. 1200 to fewer, more aggregated sites (Corbett, West, and Lefèvre 2001:264). Within the central and western Aleutian cultural tradition, prehistoric artifacts from the Near Islands sites are recognized as being stylistically distinctive, a pattern attributed in part to the geographic isolation of the Near Islands even from the other islands in the Aleutian archipelago (Corbett 2010a:18; Hrdlička 1945:296, 310; McCartney 1971; Spaulding 1962; Veltre 1998:229). McCartney (1971) identified bone and stone tool characteristics unique to the Near Islands, which include toggle harpoon heads with fluted or modeled faces, unilaterallybanded dart points with line decoration, asymmetrical tangs of harpoon heads, indented bladelashing areas on harpoon tips, intensive circle and dot decoration, triangular line decoration, bone and ivory blunts, barbless fishhook points, small gorges, unique bird bone awls, peg-shaped bone wedges, and shouldered projectile points with contracting stems. Hrdlička’s Migration Hypothesis From 1936 to 1938, Aleš Hrdlička of the U.S. National Museum (USNM), now known as the National Museum of Natural History (NMNH), conducted archaeological research throughout the Aleutian archipelago. Hrdlička (1945:586) hypothesized that two physically distinct human populations occupied the Aleutian Islands after separate migration events, the first occurring in “the earlier part of the Christian era” and the other within the last few hundred years. Hrdlička (1945:474) characterized these peoples as “Pre-Aleut” and “Aleut,” contending that they were morphologically different populations but possessed “the same classes of objects, though [they] differ in form and other details.” Hrdlička (1945) believed that the Pre-Aleut people were more robust and taller in stature with narrow- to intermediate-shaped heads (dolichocephalic to mesocephalic), while the Aleuts were shorter and had more round heads (brachycephalic). Based on these cranial differences, Hrdlička (1944:170; 1945:551, 586) hypothesized that a brachycephalic Aleut population gradually spread west in small contingents from the Alaska Peninsula to replace the dolichocephalic to mesocephalic Pre-Aleut people. While Hrdlička (1945:212) characterized his archaeological excavations as “exploratory incisions,” he maintained that a pattern of thick Pre-Aleut deposits were overlain by a thin layer of more recent Aleut near the surface, though he noted that both types of crania were present in some areas, suggesting admixture. Significantly, however, Hrdlička divided the two proposed groups by cranial morphology and not by their stratigraphic placement, which he did not record (Laughlin and Marsh 1951; McCartney 1984; Smith et al. 2009). Both cranial shapes are found in several of the archaeological sites addressed in this Near Islands case report. Therefore, it is important to determine whether individuals with these hypothesized cranial types possess significantly different biological trait profiles, potentially indicating distinct groups that may or 11 may not have an ancestral relationship to living peoples, and thus contribute to the overall determination of cultural affiliation. Based on their excavations in the eastern Aleutian Islands, scholars Laughlin and Marsh (1951) at first accepted the migration theories proposed by Hrdlička, but they later hypothesized that the physical dichotomy of the “Paleo-Aleut” and “Neo-Aleut” (equivalent to Hrdlička’s “Pre-Aleut” and “Aleut”) resulted from in situ evolutionary processes due to the extreme isolation of the Aleutian Islands (Corbett 2010a:21). The terms Paleo-Aleut and Neo-Aleut are used frequently in the literature on prehistoric Unangan population history and will be used for convenience in this discussion. Using data derived from archaeological crania and living peoples2, Laughlin (1963, 1980) posited that natural selection produced the brachycephalic type in the larger populations of the eastern Aleutian Islands, and that through genetic drift this cranial type spread to the less populated western islands, producing an east-west distribution of cranial type, thus explaining the retention of dolichocephaly in the western Aleutians. Although Laughlin noted substantial differences from east to west, he acknowledged that the observed differences were not statistically significant (Laughlin 1951:104). By the 1980s, most researchers had accepted that the transition from a dolicho- and mesiocephalic Paleo-Aleut to a brachycephalic Neo-Aleut population was merely one example of a global trend in cranial morphology, and that a population replacement had not occurred (Coltrain et al. 2006:537). To further investigate the issue, Turner (1991:14) compared dental trait variation across Alaskan Native groups, including 80 Unangans from the western Aleutian Islands, 29 from eastern Aleutian Islands, and 42 from Umnak Island, which he considered an intermediate or “central” location. The sample included dental traits of human remains in multiple museums, including the NMNH, the American Museum of Natural History, the University of Michigan, the University of Wisconsin, the Peabody Museum, and the University of Alaska. Turner’s results showed that prehistoric and living western Unangans generally have smaller teeth than eastern Unangans and display some dental trait frequency differences, a finding he attributed to the evolutionary mechanisms of genetic drift and founder effect on island populations. Due to the small sample sizes available, Turner’s (1991) dental analysis of Paleo- (n=23) and Neo-Aleut (n=37) cranial types pooled the individuals across all islands. No statistically significant differences were found between dental traits by cranial type, nor between these types and living Unangans.3 However, Turner (1991:175) noted that due to the small sample sizes, he could not draw firm conclusions from the results and acknowledged that his study neither supported nor disproved Hrdlička’s views on migration. Although Turner’s (1991) study was based in part on the NMNH collections, Turner appears to have classified the individuals differently than Hrdlička. Ousley and Jones (2010:636) are critical of Turner’s use of a calculated cranial index of 79.9 to sort individuals into one of the hypothesized cranial types, but acknowledge that Hrdlička did not have “hard and fast rules” for Laughlin’s data sources included the cephalic index of 28 living individuals and the cranial index from skeletal remains. Laughlin did not measure any skeletal remains from the western Aleutian Islands. 2 3 Ousley and Jones (2010) note that Turner employed univariate statistical tests with less power to detect differences, but these same statistical tests revealed significant differences in east-west dental trait and size comparisons. 12 his classifications in the first place. Ousley and Jones (2010) found that 24% of the individuals that Hrdlička classified as Pre-Aleut (Paleo-Aleut) have a cranial index above 80, while 11% of the individuals that he classified as Aleut (Neo-Aleut) have a cranial index below 79.9. Ousley and Jones (2010) instead argue that Hrdlička did not base his designations on a cranial index or cranial morphology alone. Biological Population History Radiocarbon dating by Coltrain et al. (2006:544) of eastern Aleutian skeletal remains that fall into the categories of Paleo- and Neo-Aleut revealed that all remains dating older than 1000 B.P. were classified as Paleo-Aleut (n=10), and that after this point “Paleo- and Neo-Aleut people were fully contemporary” and coexisted, at least on Kagamil Island, Ship Rock Island, and Umnak Island. Dietary isotopic analysis suggested to Coltrain et al. (2006) that Neo-Aleuts at these particular islands were more reliant on offshore marine mammals, while Paleo-Aleuts (both pre- and post-1000 B.P.) relied more on near-shore resources. While the dietary isotopic results are reported as statistically significant, the relative differences are small; the mean δ13C for the Neo-Aleut group is higher by 0.3 +/- 0.5 and δ15N is higher by 1.0 +/- 0.8 (Coltrain et al. 2006). The opinion of dietary isotope experts is that these reported differences in archaeologically recovered remains are too small to draw meaningful conclusions about foraging strategy (Tosha Dupras and Tamara Varney, personal communication to J. Christopher Dudar, March 12, 2015). Coltrain et al. (2006) maintained that Paleo-Aleuts buried their dead in subsurface interments and continued this mortuary custom after Neo-Aleuts introduced mummification and cave or rock shelter burials. The perceived differences in foraging strategy and burial practices at these central Aleutian Islands suggested to these authors that individuals with Paleo-Aleut and Neo-Aleut cranial morphology maintained separate group identities after contact. With the hypothesized influx of more socially complex Neo-Aleut populations after 1000 B.P., “significant social disparities” may have existed between them and the coexisting Paleo-Aleuts, although these differences may have been largely subsumed during the social and cultural upheavals following Russian contact (Coltrain et al. 2006:545). A more recent study by Coltrain (2010) revealed that individuals with Paleo-Aleut cranial morphology were also interred in burial caves at Kagamil and Ship Rock islands. At least two individuals with Neo-Aleut cranial morphology were buried in a midden at the Chaluka site on Umnak Island, suggesting that the intra-site distribution of Aleut burial patterns is more complex than previously thought (Coltrain 2010:392). Many formerly inhabited Aleutian Islands do not contain caves or rock shelters, and this geological fact perhaps compelled people to inter their dead in the ground. In addition, mummification is only one part or stage of an overall mortuary behavior. Mummification is not necessarily indicative of biological differences or an indicator of social inequality between or within populations (Frohlich and Laughlin 2002). Recent genetic and morphological studies support an overall Alaska Peninsula origin for all Aleutian peoples (Raff et al. 2010; Raghavan et al. 2014), but also appear to sustain Hrdlička's scenario of a second wave of migration occurring across the Aleutian Islands from the 13 east. Smith et al. (2009) conducted ancient DNA (aDNA) analysis on the same eastern Aleutian individuals studied by Coltrain et al. (2006). Their mitochondrial DNA study (or mtDNA, genetic material inherited only from the mother and passed on to her children) found that the earliest individuals with Hrdlička’s Paleo-Aleut cranial morphology were characterized by a high Haplogroup A2 frequency, while those with a Neo-Aleut cranial shape had a lower frequency of Haplogroup A2 and a high frequency of Haplogroup D2, a pattern more similar to that found in living Unangan people. These genetic differences are statistically significant, and are estimated to have occurred approximately 1000 years B.P. This evidence is consistent with a population history involving migration, expansion, and amalgamation by genetically-related peoples, given that both haplotypes were present before and after the hypothesized migration event. Raff et al. (2010) found the same mtDNA haplogroups A2 and D2 (as well as B2, D1 and D3) in archaeological sites on the Alaska Peninsula, and concluded that migration into the eastern Aleutian Islands likely occurred from that region. Raghavan et al. (2014) also studied mtDNA from archaeological contexts across Alaska and rejected the possibility of a west to east population movement along the Aleutian archipelago from Asia. Crawford et al. (2010) attempted to use Y-chromosome haplogroup frequencies (nuclear DNA inherited only from the father and passed on to the son) to discern Unangan genetic structure prior to Russian contact. However, it was concluded that any pattern in the sampled data had been obscured by the waves of European men who colonized the Aleutian region, starting with the Russians in the eighteenth century. The fact that aDNA results are available for only the eastern side of the Aleutian archipelago and from maternally-inherited DNA limits what can be said about a potentially complex Unangan population history. Ousley and Jones (2010) conducted a non-destructive, multivariate craniometric study of all archaeologically recovered Aleutian Islands remains at NMNH to re-evaluate the Hrdlička and Laughlin studies, to compare and contrast more recent radiocarbon, dietary isotope, and aDNA evidence, and to attempt to provide further insight into Unangan population history. In evaluating Turner’s (1991) use of a cranial index, they discovered “that there is no clear typological sectioning point to determine whether Hrdlička designated individuals as Paleo- or Neo-Aleut”(Ousley and Jones 2010:643). They also found no significant correlation of Laughlin’s data with longitude, thus disputing any east-west clinal distribution of the cranial types. Their analysis revealed that there was no relationship between the craniometric data and the ancient mtDNA haplogroup results, suggesting that the genetic frequency changes observed over time were independent of cranial shape. Ousley and Jones (2010:649) concluded that the Pre-Aleut and Aleut groups identified by Hrdlička probably do not represent genetically distinct peoples.4 Changes due to an altered developmental environment, such as dietary shifts and other sociocultural variables, may account for the variability in cranial morphology. 4 Ousley and Jones (2010:638) emphasize that their study was limited in its conclusions by the variability of sample sizes for the various tests run: “Sample sizes for addressing specific questions were highly variable depending on whether a clear designation of Pre-Aleut or Aleut was made by Hrdlička, whether the collection location was known, or whether radiocarbon dating and mtDNA haplogroup analyses were conducted. Unfortunately, in most cases, the number of very old remains is limited to two or three individuals, so our conclusions must be tempered.” Some of their analyses were based on a small sample from the eastern Aleutian Islands, primarily Chaluka Mound at Umnak Island, which the authors note may not be directly comparable to the western Aleutian Islands. 14 Statistical analysis of the major post-cranial long bone lengths and robusticity indices by the NMNH Repatriation Office revealed no statistically significant differences between the Aleutian Island individuals that Hrdlička characterized as Pre-Aleut and Aleut (Krutak and Dudar 2015:16, 62-64, Appendix A).5 This analysis demonstrated that there is no statistically significant difference between male or female Pre-Aleut or Aleut individuals. There is a trend for individuals with a Pre-Aleut head shape to have slightly longer bone lengths; however, the Aleut male bones are on average only 2 mm longer (mean bone range difference of -1.2 mm to 3.7 mm), and Pre-Aleut female bones are on average only 7 mm longer (mean bone range difference 2.9 mm to 11.2 mm). The bone-by-bone length and robusticity distributions completely overlap and are not statistically different, and therefore are not evidence of biologically distinct peoples. However, the overall bone statistics display a trend towards increasing variance (possess a wider metric distribution), perhaps suggesting an amalgamation of two or more groups of people, which is consistent with the aDNA findings, or may have resulted from changing environmental conditions. The current aDNA studies and archaeological evidence of cultural continuity indicate that a possible second migration event that took place at approximately 1000 BP across the Aleutian archipelago involved the merging of earlier inhabitants with in-migrating peoples, rather than a population replacement. Coltrain et al. (2006) conducted radiocarbon dating and found individuals with the Paleo-Aleut cranial shape lived both before and after the hypothesized second migration event, prior to European contact. Smith et al. (2009) conducted aDNA analysis on the same individuals studied by Coltrain and found the same mtDNA haplotypes A2 and D2 to be present in Paleo-Aleuts, Neo-Aleuts, and in modern Unangan people, although at different frequencies. While the isotope and aDNA studies were limited to individuals archaeologically recovered from the eastern Aleutian Islands, other studies involving craniometric, dental, and material culture research included prehistoric individuals from the western Aleutian Islands. In summary, the biological data do not support an interpretation of a biologically discrete difference between individuals identified by Hrdlička as pre-Aleut and Aleut. When the aDNA results are compared to modern Unangan people, the same mtDNA haplotypes are present in prehistoric individuals as those seen in living peoples, although the frequencies change over time. These biological results are consistent with an ancestor-descendant relationship. The prehistoric skeletal remains collected by Hrdlička from the Near Islands, regardless of cranial typology, are likely to possess an ancestral relationship to living Unangan people. Historic Period For the people of the Near Islands, the first historically recorded contact came in September 1745, when Russian fur hunters and traders arrived on Agattu Island (Laughlin 1984). They were met by a hundred armed men from Agattu Island, and moved on to Attu Island. There the Russians captured an older woman and a boy to train as an interpreter, and attacked a second settlement, killing 17 men. The Russians remained on Attu Island for another year to hunt, 5 The analysis did not include all of the human remains from Chaluka Mound, many of which have not yet been documented by the NMNH Repatriation Office. 15 staying apart from the people of Attu, before returning to Russia in 1746 (Corbett 2010b:41). From 1745-1799, 80 Russian hunting parties visited the Near Islands, mostly Attu Island, where they also introduced arctic foxes (Corbett 2010b:41). Russian ships were wrecked on Shemya Island in 1760, 1762, and twice in 1764; in two instances the men built boats and sailed to Attu Island where they were rescued (Corbett 2010b:42; Corbett, Lefèvre, and West 2010:206). The population of the Near Islands fell dramatically in the 20 years following the beginning of Russian contact. The population of the Near Islands was estimated to be approximately 1,000 people at the time of initial contact (Black 1984). A subsequent estimate by Russia merchants in 1762 indicated 100 residents in the Near Islands (Corbett 2010b:42). Shemya Island was likely abandoned by 1780, as most of the remaining people of the Near Islands, including the residents of Agattu Island, moved to Attu Island (Black 1984; Corbett 2010b:42). The concentration of Near Islands people at Attu by 1780 was a result of overall declining population due to deaths from attacks, disease, and starvation. The other Near Islands continued to be used seasonally for subsistence activities. During these decades, Russian hunters depleted many locally available resources and disrupted Unangan subsistence patterns and traditional ways of life. Scholars have noted that the relocation of Near Islanders to Attu Island was also driven by the desire to be closer to Russian trade goods, and by the need for Russian protection in ongoing raids by eastern Unangan people (Black 1984:73; Corbett 2010b:42). Raids and conflict between Unangan people were common both before and after Russian contact (Hrdlička 1945:144; Krutak and Dudar 2015:15; Ousley and Jones 2010:631). In 1840, Russian Orthodox priest Ivan Veniaminov published ethnographic descriptions of the people of the Aleutian Islands, including accounts of frequent internecine warfare (Veniaminov 1984[1840]:203, 206). Much of Veniaminov’s information was borrowed from his predecessor Iakov Netsvetov, a Christian priest of Unangan descent (Black 1980; Krutak and Dudar 2015). As described in the early accounts, conflicts between the people of the Aleutian Islands stemmed from competition over limited subsistence and natural resources, over women, or for vengeance, profit, or sport (Veniaminov 1984[1840]). Surprise military attacks against other Aleutian Islands were led by lineage chiefs, with battles fought on land (Veniaminov 1984[1840]). Prisoners and war captives, including women, were frequently taken as slaves following such raids (Krutak and Dudar 2015; Ousley and Jones 2010:631). An oral history told by Mike Lokanin from Attu Island, during an interview with Bergsland (1959:124-125), recounted episodes of raiding in the Near Islands: The inhabitants of the Near Islands had once been numerous, but raiders from the eastern Aleutians came and destroyed the Near Islands’ population, except for one woman, named Chuning. She went around the island three times, and not finding anyone else, made a village… After several years, Aleuts from the east returned to Attu and found Chuning at her village, called Hanilig. Chuning and the eastern Aleuts who found her became the ancestors of the Aleut population of Attu found by the Russians on their arrival in the western Aleutians... [Stein 1977:120]. During the early nineteenth century, the Near Islanders who were consolidated at Attu Island traded with the Russian America Company, which controlled the fur trade in the central and western Aleutian Islands. Hunting of sea otters and trapping of foxes were the main activities 16 of the Russian America Company in the Near Islands (Corbett 2010b:44). At this time, two small native settlements were occupied at Attu Island, including at Chichagof Harbor and Massacre Bay. In 1805, the Russian America Company established an outpost at Attu Island in Chichagof Harbor, and stationed their employees (men from Adak and Amchitka islands) in separate company sod-covered barracks at Attu Island (Corbett 2010b:43). Russian America Company employees were often accompanied by native Attuans on hunts. Ships visited Attu Island infrequently, with no ships stopping at the island between 1808 and 1812 (Corbett 2010b:43). Sometime after 1812, some Attuans moved to Bering Island in the Commander Islands (Black 1984:102), although more remained on Attu Island. Corbett provides a summary of the subsequent years on Attu Island: Vasil’ev, in 1812, reported the [company men from Adak and Amchitka] could mobilize 50 single-hatch baidarkas, while the native Attuans could muster only 20 (Black 1984). Only two Russians occupied Attu at the time. Khlebnikov (1994) reported a population of four Russians, five Creoles, and 97 Aleuts in 1827. By 1830, there were 120 people (Netsvetov 1980). By then, everyone lived in the village at the head of Chichagof Harbor, thus indicating that the Attuans had finally moved into the company settlement. In 1860, Tikhmenev (1978) reported a population of 248…[Corbett 2010b:43]. In 1867, Russia sold Alaska to the United States, and a loss of population in the central and western Aleutian Islands followed (Corbett 2010b:45). An 1870 estimate noted 220 people at Attu Island (Corbett 2010b:45). Bergsland (1959:15) reported that 35 people from Attu Island emigrated to Copper Island in 1872, and 23 emigrated to Unalaska. In 1873, following a former Russian America Company manager, at least 38 men from Attu Island emigrated to the Commander Islands (Corbett 2010b:45). Ivan Petroff of the US Census Bureau visited Attu Island in 1878 and recorded a population of 107 residents (Stein 1977:107). The store on Attu Island closed in 1889 and in 1890 the population of Attu Island was 101 people (Corbett 2010b:45). In the 1920s, demand for fox fur led to increased trapping and relatively greater wealth for the Attu islanders, and frame houses replaced barabaras, the traditional semisubterranean Unangan dwellings (Corbett 2010b:45). By 1940, the population of the village of Attu Island was 44 (Corbett 2010b:45). In June of 1942 during World War II, the Japanese attacked Dutch Harbor, Unalaska, and seized Attu and Kiska islands during the Battle of Midway (Corbett 2010c:49). The residents of Attu Island were forcibly removed to a Japanese prison camp at Otaru, Hokkaido, where they remained for three years as prisoners of war (Lantis 1984:166). In 1942, there were fewer than 50 people living at Attu Island, and 23 people from Attu Island survived the war (Berge 2010:577). After the Attuan people were taken to Hokkaido, their village was used as a Japanese headquarters and later destroyed by American bombing (Corbett 2010b:48). Upon their release from imprisonment in 1945, the Attu survivors were prevented from returning to Attu Island and many were relocated to Atka Island (Berge 2010:577). The island of Attu is uninhabited today, and the Unangan descendants of the last native people from Attu Island are members of the Native Village of Atka. 17 Unangan Mortuary Practices A wide variety of burial methods and practices are known from the Aleutian Islands. These include cave burial and mummification, burial in niches and clefts in rocks, in communal houses, in dedicated burial houses, in sod-covered mounds, in wooden or stone coffins, and in middens (Corbett 2010b:39; Dall 1878; Hrdlička 1945; Jochelson 1925; West et al. 2003:83). Such great variability in burial methods may be the result of a combination of factors, including the availability of caves, changes in burial practices through time, status differences, and changes in ideological beliefs through time (West et al. 2003:83). Many burials from the Aleutian Islands are not well dated, however, which hinders studies of change in burial practice through time. The great geographic distances separating people throughout the Aleutian archipelago also likely played a role in the high variability in burial method (West et al. 2003:83). Not all of the burial methods known from the Aleutian Islands are seen in the archaeological record of the Near Islands (Corbett 2010b:39). In particular, the cave and rockshelter burials and the preservation of human remains (artificial mummification) seen in the eastern Aleutian Islands are rare in the Near Islands. There are fewer caves in the western Aleutians, and as Hrdlička (1945:306) noted, some caves in the area may have eroded into the sea and not been preserved. While some scholars have suggested that cave burials correspond to high-ranking individuals or specialists such as whale hunters (Black and Liapunova 1988), a more recently investigated Near Islands cave burial contained more children and younger individuals, which may contradict this idea (West et al. 2003:84).6 Frohlich and Laughlin (2002) propose that some Unangan cave burials, as seen at Ship Rock and Kagamil Islands, represent temporary resting places before final burial within or near village sites.7 In the one known western Aleutian cave reported by West et al. (2003), some individuals were placed in niches and others were buried in shallow graves surrounded by stones. Radiocarbon dates associated with the burial cave range from 1,200 to 800 years ago (West et al. 2003). Many Near Islands individuals were buried in structures such as abandoned houses or in separate burial houses (Corbett 2010b). Traditional Unangan house forms, barabaras, consisted of pits dug in the ground covered by soil and grass. Barabaras are recognized archaeologically as depressions or pits. In house burials, individuals were interred under the floor or covered in a niche within a wall (Laughlin 1983:41-42). Group burials in pits may represent family tombs that were opened and added to through time as people died (Corbett 2010b:40; Corbett, West, and Lefèvre 2001:258). Individuals were buried in both flexed and extended positions. In addition, isolated, extended burials in the Near Islands tend to be adult males, and some remains were apparently exposed on the surface of the ground (Corbett 2010b:40). At Attu Island, Jochelson (1925) found individuals interred in pits adjacent to houses and covered by whale bones. Corbett, West, and Lefèvre (2001:257) have noted that one of 6 At the request of the Aleut Corporation, West et al. 2003 did not specify the island where the burial cave is located. 7 Based on interviews with elders from Nikolski and Unalaska, Frohlich and Laughlin (2002:113) note that within traditional Unangan mortuary practice, temporary cave burials may be related to “situations where there are unsolved problems between the deceased and living,” or in cases of deceased infants and young children, until spiritual communication with the mother is complete. 18 Jochelson’s excavation pits (2.5 x 1.9 m) contained nine individuals who appear to have been buried separately at different times. Hrdlička (1945) also reported whale scapulae covering or associated with some burials at Agattu Island. Hrdlička encountered graves with multiple individuals, as well as instances of incomplete skeletal elements such as isolated crania. For Hrdlička’s work at Attu Island and other Aleutian Islands, Frohlich and Laughlin (2002:96-97) have noted, “Unfortunately, the lack of controlled excavation techniques prevents a division of these burials into house or pit burials.” At Agattu Island, Spaulding (1962) excavated multiple graves where some individuals were flexed, while others were extended. There is some evidence for dismemberment of the dead in the Aleutian Islands, particularly in the treatment of enemies, whose spirits were considered malevolent (Fortuine 1985:28; Laughlin 1983:44-46; Marsh and Laughlin 1956:48). In 1764, on Umnak Island, a group of Russians massacred by Unangan people were treated in this manner (Laughlin 1984:316). Fortuine (1985:28) says that the practice of dismemberment was “a necessary way of protecting the survivor of an attack from a fatal encounter with a slain enemy.” He writes: If the enemy’s body were not dismembered, usually at the joints and neck, the power in the body would not be dissipated and could in the future harm the slayer. Examples of such dismemberment occur frequently in Aleut legends and historical stories, and in fact, early account of skirmishes with the Aleuts tell of the horrible ‘mutilation practiced on the slain humans’ [Fortuine 1985:28]. Russian Orthodox priest Father Veniaminov and other visitors to the islands also reported that the dissection of the bodies of enemies was sometimes carried out by medicine men for the purpose of understanding human anatomy (Hrdlička 1945:176; Marsh and Laughlin 1956:39). The Aleutian language contains many detailed terms related to human anatomy (Fortuine 1985:28; Marsh and Laughlin 1956). Drawing on the previous experience of Iakov Netsvetov at Atka Island, Veniaminov described traditional Unangan funerary practices as follows (Black 1984:176): Funerals varied in accordance with the wealth and status of the deceased. Notables, wealthy and outstanding hunters were buried with particular ceremony. Such deceased were dressed in their best garments and the body was placed, in a sitting position, in a small house-like structure dug in the earth and decorated in the best possible manner. The legs were pulled up toward the body, so that the body was flexed. The structure was then covered from above and totally covered with earth. If the deceased had been a hunter, all his hunting equipment was buried with him, unless he had willed it to someone… The poor and ordinary common people were buried simply in a hole in the ground, but also in a sitting position. Men who died at sea were disemboweled, in order to preserve the body as long as possible, and buried in a special manner. Following the settlement of Russians on the Aleutian Islands in the eighteenth century, many Unangan people began to bury their dead following Russian Orthodox Church practices, often marking the graves with a headstone or a Russian Orthodox cross. 19 V. HUMAN REMAINS AND POTENTIAL FUNERARY OBJECTS FROM THE NEAR ISLANDS, ALASKA, IN THE COLLECTIONS OF THE NATIONAL MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY This report documents the remains of an estimated 51 individuals represented by 42 catalog numbers from three of the Near Islands, including from prehistoric archaeological sites at Attu, Agattu, and Shemya islands. The NMNH does not hold human remains or objects from the islands of Nizki and Alaid. This section provides details on NMNH collections from three of the Near Islands and assesses the cultural affiliation of the remains and potential funerary objects. All human remains were documented and recorded following the established NMNH Repatriation Office Osteology Laboratory data collection protocol. This documentation was completed to ascertain the number of individuals and identify basic demographic information such as age and sex. The age at death of individuals is estimated according to the relative age group of the individual. From infancy through childhood, up to age 14 to 18, dental development and eruption is the primary method of age estimation. After age 12, other methods become increasingly more useful. Up to the end of adolescence and into early adulthood, the fusion of diaphyses (bone shafts) and epiphyses (bone joint surfaces and projections) are also used for age estimation. After age 20 to 25, age is generally estimated according to morphological changes in the pelvis and ribs, cranial suture closure, and how much wear and tear is present on the joints of the long bones and vertebrae. After skeletal maturity, when growth in height stops, the fusion of the medial clavicular epiphysis occurs in the late 20s. Dental wear and tooth loss increase with age but can be highly variable depending on the population and its cultural and dietary practices. Estimation of sex involves examining pelvic morphology, which is adapted for childbirth in females. The skull shows differences between the sexes as well, with males being generally larger, with larger brow ridges and muscle attachments. The male skeleton in general shows more pronounced muscle attachments than in females. The sex differences vary by population, however, and typical females among one population might be classified as males if they were part of another population (absent the pelvic bones). The remains are organized by museum-assigned catalog numbers, which usually correspond to the remains of a single individual, or a “lot” of bones (e.g., unassociated femora). When a catalog number contains remains from more than one person, based on duplication of elements, age differences, morphological or taphonomic considerations, or other compelling evidence, it is called commingling. Commingling may result from burial practices, excavation techniques, or errors in accessioning and curation. In all cases of commingled remains, an effort is made to reassociate as many elements with the individual to whom they belong as is possible. Duplicated elements provide an absolute minimum number of individuals (MNI) represented. In this report, we use an estimated number of individuals for each site, which includes the absolute MNI while also taking into account other differences such as age, sex, morphological and size differences, preservation, and bone color. 20 The environmental elements to which human remains are exposed can affect their appearance and condition. A careful examination of the remains can reveal the circumstances regarding the individual’s post-mortem environment or taphonomy. The taphonomy of the remains has been evaluated in order to better understand the burial environment. Cultural objects from the Near Islands in the NMNH collections were also evaluated in order to assess their cultural affiliation and status as potential funerary objects. The physical examination of the cultural objects is an integral part of the repatriation assessment process. Evidence about the objects is reviewed, along with museum records and archaeological information. Attu Island The largest of the Near Islands, Attu Island is the westernmost island in the Aleutian archipelago. Attu is relatively mountainous with sharp, steep coastlines. While en route to Kiska Island aboard the U.S. Coast Guard Cutter Shoshone, Hrdlička noted in his journal on July 7, 1936, that he would send his “best man,” the volunteer and retired British Army Major Alan G. May, ahead to Attu Island for reconnaissance (Hrdlička 1945:220). May excavated at Attu Island by himself for one season in 1936, on the eastern side of the island at archaeological sites near the last Attu Island village in Chichagof Harbor (Figure 2 and Figure 3). Hrdlička’s diary from July 27, 1936, notes that May excavated at Attu Island at an old site on the north shore at the entrance of the bay (National Anthropological Archives, Hrdlička Papers Box 170: M J 10.70, “From My Journeys, 1898-1938”). Details of May’s work at Attu Island in 1936 are available in several sources, including his personal journals archived at the University of Alaska, Anchorage (May 1936a), now being prepared for publication by Veltre (2013). May (1936b) also prepared a short report and maps summarizing his work, located in the National Anthropological Archives, Smithsonian Institution (Hrdlička Papers, Alaska Survey, Box 96, Folder: Report by Alan G. May, 1936 expedition to Attu). His maps of the Near Islands and Attu Island are reproduced here as Figures 2 and 3. May worked at Attu Island from July 9 to July 26, 1936, noting that heavy rains for eleven days hindered his work. At the time of his visit, the settlement on the island included a dozen barabaras (dugouts) still in use, a dozen two-room frame houses, a church, and a neverused schoolhouse where May stayed (Veltre 2013:129). His visit was facilitated by Chief Mike (Michael) Hodikoff of the Native village at Chichagof Harbor. The people of Attu told May that the whole village had lived in barabaras as recently as 1928. May (1936b) recognized the presence of four archaeological sites near the village of Attu, characterizing two as “postRussian” sites and two as “pre-Russian,” focusing his attention on the two older, prehistoric sites (National Anthropological Archives, Smithsonian Institution, Hrdlička Papers, Alaska Survey, Box 96, Folder: Report by Alan G. May, 1936 expedition to Attu). May first excavated an “old” archaeological site at Attu Island near “Pisa Tower”, a 50foot high leaning rock on the edge of Chichagof Harbor, a site which he noted had been 21 previously excavated by Jochelson (Veltre 2013:131). This may be the ancient village site of “Sin” excavated by Jochelson in 1909 (Jochelson 1925:24, 26; Stein 1977:95; Veltre 2013:131). Lucien Turner (2008:24) also appears to have collected artifacts from this site in 1880-1881. May’s (1936b:1) description of the site near “Pisa Tower” is as follows: Near the North East point of the bay, slightly to the South of Pisa Tower is a preRussian site covering about seven acres. It lays on flat land and is bordered on the East by a small stream. Barabara depressions were observed both round and rectangular but were too indistinct to count. The soil is of a sandy loam averaging two feet in depth with beach gravel underneath. One days work on this site produced very little. Test holes were dug, animal and fish bones were scarce with practically no shell. A broken bowl and one ‘flint-rock’ point were the only specimens obtained during the day. May wrote in his personal journal of the site near Pisa Tower at Attu Island (Veltre 2013:131): On this site I worked all day and was terribly disappointed. I only found four complete specimens and some animal bones and a few pieces. It does not look good and I think it will be waste of time to work here. The Chief [Mike Hodikoff] tells me that there is another site on the other side of the harbor, about five miles or so from here by land, but only two by water. May began excavations at a second Attu Island archaeological site located two and a half miles from the schoolhouse, on the northwest side of Chichagof Harbor (Figure 3). He characterized it as a village site located on level ground with a depth of two to three feet (Veltre 2013:132, 134). May (1936b:1) described his work at the second Attu Island site: Another pre-Russian site was found on the Northwest side of the bay opposite Kennon Island, about two miles from the present village of Attu. The site covers approximately four acres and is situated at the base on an irregular cliff, forty to fifty feet high. Look-out shelters were observed on top of the cliff. The soil was of a heavy black dirt, which turned to a sticky mud when wet. Average depth of this site was five feet, large beach boulders forming the bottom. The present beach level was found to be at least a foot above the bottom of the site, which may indicate some considerable age. Stratification in layers of dirt and debris suggests two or possibly three occupations at different periods. 22 Figure 2. Alan May’s 1936 Map of the Near Islands (National Anthropological Archives, Smithsonian Institution, Hrdlička Papers, Alaska Survey, Box 96). Figure 3. Alan May’s 1936 Map of Attu Island, Showing the Locations of Chichagof Harbor and Sarana Bay (National Anthropological Archives, Smithsonian Institution, Hrdlička Papers, Alaska Survey, Box 96). 23 In an undated entry for his work at the site on the northwest side of Chichagof Harbor, Attu Island, May noted, “Came across a mandible in good condition as well as part of a very thick parietal bone and a femur of an adolescent” (Veltre 2013:135). A later entry for the site by May (Veltre 2013:138) reads: Had a fairly successful day, grooved sinker, a broken bone bowl made from the vertebra of a whale, twelve awls, six wedges, two flint-rock knives and two bullet-shaped ivory points. Parts of broken lamps were found, as well as many other broken pieces. Some human bones showed up, first a left femur and then about two feet away I found a right tibia, fibula, and ulna—these last three bones doubtless belonging to the same individual. Later I found another longer fibula and close by was round [sic] a youth’s mandible. For the same site, on July 13, 1936, May noted in his journal: Found quite a few specimens today. Came across a bunch of human bones all bundled together—three humeri of different sizes and a mandible. At another place were two left femora, right and left tibiae, and other extra tibia and fibula, all jumbled together. Can’t quite figure out why they should be in bunches—so few bones and yet belonging to several individuals… In the afternoon I came across a ‘canary’ as the Doctor calls them… It turned out to be the frontal and face bones only of a skull. It lay on a rock with another over it and was right side up. On the skull above the forehead were two old wounds which had partially healed. One of these wounds, oval in shape with a hole in the centre, looked for all the world like some case of trephining. It can hardly be that, as such a case has never been heard of from this district [Veltre 2013:140-141]. In several places in his journal for Attu Island, May mentions finding disassociated human bones (Veltre 2013:149, 154, 158). In his summary of his work at the site on the northwest side of Chichagof Harbor, May (1936b:2) stated, “No complete burials were found and no burial ground could be located. Many isolated human bones occured [sic] thru-out the digging.” He further noted, “In one place two femora, three tibiae and two fibulae were exposed laying alongside each other, as if bundled together… No skeletal material was obtained deeper than three feet from the surface” (May 1936b:2). May visited large caves in Holtz Bay, Attu Island (Figure 3), with Chief Mike Hodikoff on July 22, 1936. These included a cave with no signs of human habitation and one with a recent burial marked with a “Russian Greek” cross, said to be the grave of a trapper killed in an accident (Veltre 2013:155-156). Hrdlička (1945:417) also mentioned that several caves were present on Attu Island, but noted that they were not known to contain burials. May concluded his excavations on July 25, 1936, and departed Attu Island on July 27, 1936. The following year, on the way to the Commander Islands, Hrdlička and May again stopped at Chichagof Harbor, Attu Island, for a few hours on July 9, 1937. Hrdlička’s (1945:278) very brief journal entry for this visit reads: 24 Reach [Attu] 5 p.m.—go ashore—visit chief’s family—get a skull from Saraná Bay—boat takes on fresh water, repair local radio—and after ten finally leave for the Commander Islands. May also described the July 9, 1937 visit to Attu Island and noted that the cranium had been given to him personally by the brother of Chief Mike Hodikoff (Veltre 2013:280): I followed him to his room and from under the floor he pulled out a skull. It was in good condition but had no mandible. The skull was dolichocephalic and that of a woman. I gave him four packages of cigarettes for it and he was tickled to death. As I was examining the skull the Doctor walked up… He took the skull away from me, which was all right, for it was one that he wanted. After visiting the Commander Islands, Hrdlička and May returned to Attu Island a week later to the same site near Chichagof Harbor, for one day of excavation on July 16, 1937. Hrdlička (1945:288) noted for July 16, 1937: “Go to see site May explored a little last year. Is an old site, nicely situated, but apparently not rich, though we get a few specimens.” Again, one month later, following their work at Agattu Island, Hrdlička and May made yet another brief stop at Attu Island on August 9, 1937, and revisited the same Chichagof Harbor site. Hrdlička (1945:312) noted: Visit and excavate in a nicely situated fair-sized old site on the northern point of the mouth of the bay, where May had already worked. A nice situation, but site of no great promise. Hear of others on the Island, but impossible to visit. Leave Attu after 4 p.m., and then caught by fog in narrow entrance to bay—barely avoided accident… Hrdlička’s (1945:312) notes do not specify whether they collected remains or objects on August 9, 1937. May remarked that in total it was his fourth call at Attu Island, the reason for the brief stop being that the ship’s dentist was needed to perform dental work for the islanders (Veltre 2013:325). Human Remains from Attu Island The NMNH holds the human remains of an estimated eight individuals from Attu Island, represented by nine catalog numbers catalogued in NMNH Accessions 138127 and 143191 (Table 1 and Table 2). The individuals in Table 2 from Attu Island include those excavated by May in 1936 and those obtained during Hrdlička and May’s revisits to Attu Island in 1937. All came from an archaeological site on Attu Island near Chichagof Harbor, with the exception of one individual from Sarana Bay, Attu Island, from an unknown location. Given the circumstances of the excavation and the fact that all catalog numbers from Attu Island are incomplete, the minimum number of individuals was calculated for a commingled burial context. A minimum number of eight individuals is estimated for all catalog numbers from Attu Island, based on the presence of four mandibles, two juvenile crania, and the postcranial remains of two 25 Table 2. Human Remains from Attu Island in the Collections of the National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution. Temp. No.* Catalog No. Site Remains Present Age in Years Sex Hrdlička’s Cranial Category P377760 A1 Chichagof Harbor Mandible 14-18 Unknown - P377760-RO-A A1 Chichagof Harbor Mandible 14-18 Unknown - P377760-RO-B A1 Chichagof Harbor Mandible 35 Female - P377760-RO-C A1 Chichagof Harbor Mandible 7-10 Unknown - P377761 A2 Chichagof Harbor Cranium 7-9 Unknown “Aleut” P377762, Tracking No. 1 A3 Chichagof Harbor Partial postcrania, right femur 35+ Male - P377762, Tracking No. 2 A3 Chichagof Harbor Partial postcrania, left femur Adult Female - P377762, Tracking No. 3 A3 Chichagof Harbor Partial postcrania, left femur 30+ Male - P377762, Tracking No. 4 A3 Chichagof Harbor Partial postcrania, right femur 15-19 Male - P377762, Tracking Nos. 5 and 6 A3 Chichagof Harbor Partial postcrania, left and right femora antimere pair 15-19 Unknown - P377763, Tracking Nos. 1 and 2 A4 Chichagof Harbor Partial postcrania, left and right tibiae antimere pair 14-17 Unknown - P377763, Tracking Nos. 3 and 4 A4 Chichagof Harbor Partial postcrania, left and right tibiae antimere pair 14-17 Unknown - P377764, Tracking No. 1 A5 Chichagof Harbor Partial postcrania, left humerus 35+ Male - P377764, Tracking No. 2 A5 Chichagof Harbor Partial postcrania, right humerus 35-49 Female - P377764, Tracking No. 3 A5 Chichagof Harbor Partial postcrania, left humerus 14-18 Unknown - 26 Temp. No.* Catalog No. Site Remains Present Age in Years Sex Hrdlička’s Cranial Category P377765, Tracking Nos. 1 and 2 A6 Chichagof Harbor Partial postcrania, left and right fibulae antimere pair 18+ Male - P377765, Tracking No. 3 A6 Chichagof Harbor Partial postcrania, right fibula 10-14 Unknown - P377766 A7 Chichagof Harbor Partial postcrania, left ulna 20-35 Unknown - P377767 A8 Chichagof Harbor Partial postcrania, left innominate (hip bone) 50+ Male - Sarana Bay Cranium 11-15 Unknown P378398 - “Pre-Aleut” *Temp. No. refers to numbers listed in the 1937 accession file (NMNH Accession 138127). Note: RO numbers (i.e. RO-A, RO-B) refer to subdivisions of existing database catalog numbers and represent distinct individuals within that catalog number. Some skeletal elements were assigned Repatriation Office Tracking numbers, meaning that these bones may belong to one of the other catalog numbers represented in the skeletal series from the excavation; however, there is insufficient evidence to positively reassociate tracked bones to only one of these individuals. Alternatively, these tracked bones may also be from another individual incompletely recovered during excavation. (See Glossary, Appendix B, for a more complete explanation of Repatriation Office Tracking Numbers). adult males. The crania from P377761 and P378398 do not articulate with the juvenile mandible of similar age from P37760-RO-C. In a list of artifact types collected from Attu Island, Hrdlička (1945:48) noted that labrets of bone and ivory were found. However, evidence for labret wear was not observed for any of the individuals from Attu Island for which dental elements are present. Only one individual has a mandible with teeth that could have been observed for labret wear (usually the canines and incisors). This individual was an adolescent, so any possible labret wear would likely not yet have affected the teeth. Thus, no observations for labret wear at Attu Island could be made. The Sarana Bay cranium that May and Hrdlička obtained from the brother of Chief Mike Hodikoff during the July 9, 1937, visit to Attu Island is apparently cataloged as P378398, with “Sarana Bay” written on the remains, along with an accompanying paper tag with this provenience. Sarana Bay is an inlet on the east coast of Attu Island (Figure 3), and was the location of the summer village and fish camp of the Attu people of Chichagof Harbor up until the time of World War II (Jochelson 1925:24-26; Turner 2008:160). The Sarana Bay remains were identified by the NMNH Repatriation Office as the cranium of an 11- to 15-year old individual of indeterminate sex, which May likely identified as female based on the small size. While all of the other human remains from Attu Island are part of NMNH Accession 138127, the individual represented by catalog number P378398 is part of a different accession, NMNH Accession 143191 (the accession for Agattu Island). The catalog card for P378398 reads, “Pre-Aleut,” within Hrdlička’s classification. Unlike other remains from Attu Island, however, the presence of sun bleaching and weather checking on this cranium suggest that it came from a more recent 27 shallow burial, from a disturbed burial context, or was otherwise recovered from the surface of the ground. From the brief descriptions provided by Hrdlička and May, it is not known how or when Chief Mike Hodikoff’s brother obtained the cranium from Sarana Bay. At the Chichagof Harbor site at Attu Island, May mentioned excavating the remains of an individual with two partially healed head wounds, which he noted as a possible case of trepanation (Veltre 2013:140-141). A trepanation is a surgical procedure involving the localized cutting, drilling, or scraping away of bone to produce a hole into the inner cavity, usually the cranial cavity of the head, but could also include a hole into the medullary space of postcranial bones. Trepanation has been practiced for over 5,000 years to heal cranial trauma, afflictions of the head, and possibly for other religious or cultural reasons (Verano and Finger 2010). Trepanation continues to be used in modern trauma care to relieve intercranial pressure resulting from head wounds. In a likely match to May’s description, the remains at NMNH identified with catalog number P377761 from Attu Island consist of an incomplete cranium of a child aged 7 to 9 years. The frontal, right parietal, facial bones, and several maxillary (upper jaw) teeth are present, but the mandible (lower jaw) is not present. The right parietal displays a roughly incomplete circular depressed fracture 28 to 30 mm in diameter that penetrates to the inner table of the cranial vault, producing a sinuous fracture line 25 mm long. This fracture may be due to perimortem trauma (around the time of death, since no healing or bone remodeling is present), or it may have occurred sometime after death due to environmental factors, such as a stone falling onto the cranium while the bone still maintained some organic flexibility. Across the right side of the frontal bone, approximately parallel to the coronal suture, there is a partially healed traumatic fracture or cutmark approximately 80 mm long with depressed sections along its length. At roughly the center and just anterior to this straight lesion, is an oval-shaped depression with rounded remodeled margins (indicating some recovery or healing during life), measuring approximately 19 x 16 mm. The floor of this oval depression displays thin remodeled bone with a small perforation through the inner table. This small opening would have exposed the meninges or covering membrane of the brain. A second irregularly-shaped lesion approximately 18 x 9 mm is located along the medial portion of the straight lesion near the midline of the frontal bone, and also displays a perforation into the cranial cavity, as well as extensive healing and remodeling. It is unclear whether the straight lesion occurred first or if the more circular remodeled lesions were already present at the time of the linear trauma since healing has obliterated much of the evidence that would indicate the timing of events. The remodeled circular lesions may indicate secondary infection, or as May suggested, a possible trepanation, although he acknowledged that “such a case has never been heard of from this district” (Veltre 2013:141). In either case, porosity around these cranial lesions supports the hypothesis that infection was present. Unangan people were known to have had special knowledge of anatomy and medical practices, especially related to the preparation of bodies for mummification (Marsh and Laughlin 1956). Hrdlička (1941) presented several cases of possible trepanation from Alaska, including: P243974, a cranium from Nazan Bay, Atka Island in the Aleutian archipelago; P262170, a cranium from Knights Island, Prince William Sound; P332608, a humerus from Point Hope; and P372883 and P379252, both crania from Uyak Bay, Kodiak Island. While Hrdlička was uncertain as to the origin of the holes on several of these cases (i.e., P372883), for others he describes them as “surely due to an operation” (Hrdlička 1941:7 re: P262170), or, “impossible to 28 diagnose as anything but a trepanation” (Hrdlička 1941:8 re: P243974). Only the individual represented by P243974 from Atka Island is still present in the NMNH collections; the other remains were repatriated in the early 1990s (Bray and Killion 1994). Three of these repatriated human remains from Alaska, P379252 and P372883 from Kodiak Island, and P262170 from Knights Island, were well documented by Dr. Javier Urcid, a physical anthropologist who has studied trepanation in Central and South America. He concluded that the trepanations reported by Hrdlička are more likely due to pathological processes (Urcid 1994:105, 119, fn3). In the case of the Atka Island individual represented by catalog number P243974, the current expert opinion of several researchers who have studied and published on trepanation is that this individual did not have a trepanation, but the hole was more likely due to an unknown postmortem taphonomic process that occurred in the burial environment. Given the uncertainty surrounding Hrdlička’s (1941) overall evidence for the practice of trepanation in Alaska, the possible case of trepanation suggested by May at Attu Island (P377761) is unlikely. May even acknowledged that “such a case has never been heard of from this district” (Veltre 2013:141). Therefore, the cranial lesion on the individual from Attu Island is more likely due to an infectious process resulting from a serious cranial trauma suffered by this young person. In fact, Kaufman et al. (1997:203) present a case with a remarkably similar lesion on a cranium from a modern anatomical collection that is “thought to show features resulting from traumatic aseptic haematoma that occurred earlier in life,” rather than a trepanation. Assessment of Potential Funerary Objects from Attu Island NMNH Accession 138127 contains archaeological objects in 57 catalog numbers collected in 1936 from Attu Island by May and Hrdlička. This large accession also includes objects from Kagamil Island, Little Kiska Island, Shiprock Island, and Amaknak Island. The objects from Attu Island are tools of stone and animal bone, including wedges and fragments, drills, bone and ivory blunt arrows, bone arrowpoints and fragments, bone dart points, a reamer, flakers, chisels, drills, picks, knives, scrapers, a punch, a bone weaving implement, a bone harpoon head, bone wedges, bone awls, and other modified bird bone fragments (Hrdlička 1945:482; NMNH Accession 138127). Also in the accession from Attu Island are ivory effigies in five catalog numbers, some of which appear to represent seals (illustrated in Black 2003). Four epiphyses of whale vertebrae are present, one of which is identified as a “vessel” (A386279) and one is a lamp fragment (A386280). Also present from Attu Island are bone pendants in two catalog numbers and bone and ivory labrets in two catalog numbers. A series of objects in NMNH Accession 138127 that are cataloged as Attu Island were found to have “L. Kiska” written on them, and the catalog cards and original museum ledger also say Little Kiska Island, which was part of the same accession as Attu Island. The objects with both proveniences associated with them include catalog numbers A386281-A386298. However, there is no indication in museum records that any of the objects in this series, which consist of bone and ivory implements, are from funerary contexts. 29 NMNH Accession 143191 contains objects in 25 catalog numbers collected the following summer in 1937 during several revisits by Hrdlička and May to the same archaeological site at Attu Island. This large accession also includes Kodiak Island, Fox Island, Kagamil Island, and other Alaska proveniences. The objects from Attu Island include anchor stones, anvil stones, hammerstones, a whetstone, line sinkers, stone adzes and fragments, scrapers, flakes, stone lance heads, stone knives and fragments, stone blades, a slate saw, and whole and partial stone lamps. With the exception of a single blunt lance head of bone, the objects in this accession from Attu Island are all made of stone. There is no indication that any of the objects from Attu Island are from funerary contexts. Hrdlička collected archaeofaunal remains in 21 catalog numbers from Attu Island in 1936 and 1937 (NMNH Accession 108529). The archaeofaunal remains from Attu Island have recently been identified as goose, raven, albatross, puffin, gull, scoter, cormorant, kittiwake, eider, and shelduck. There is no indication that any of the archaeofaunal remains from Attu Island are from burial contexts. May and Hrdlička’s notes and publications do not mention finding any funerary objects in direct association with the human remains at Attu Island during their multiple visits to the archaeological site in Chichagof Harbor in 1936 and 1937. Many of the human remains encountered were disassociated bones which likely derived from secondary burials. May (1936b:2) stated that for the prehistoric site he excavated at Attu Island, “No complete burials were found and no burial ground could be located. Many isolated human bones occurred thru-out the digging.” This also held true for their work in 1937, and no objects were described by May or Hrdlička as found in association with the human remains they encountered. Archival and museum records, including the original ledger book, accession files, and the original catalog cards, do not indicate that the objects collected by May and Hrdlička from Attu Island are funerary objects. Cultural Affiliation of Human Remains from Attu Island The human remains of eight individuals represented by nine catalog numbers were collected at Attu Island by Alan May and Aleš Hrdlička in 1936 and 1937 from an archaeological site near Chichagof Harbor and an unknown location near Sarana Bay. The archaeological site on the northwest side of Chichagof Harbor at Attu Island is prehistoric, based on the types of artifacts present and the depth of the midden, and is part of the archaeologically known Aleutian Tradition in the Near Islands (2500-200 B.P.). The excavations at the Chichagof Harbor site at Attu Island encountered no historic artifacts such as Russian crosses, glass trade beads, or metal artifacts, as have been observed at historic period sites at other Aleutian Islands. The human remains recovered from the Chichagof Harbor site at Attu Island appear to have been secondary burials in pits near a habitation site, a known prehistoric Unangan burial practice in the western Aleutian Islands. The cranium from Sarana Bay that was given to Hrdlička and May by the brother of Chief Mike Hodikoff appears historic based on the taphonomy, but has a “preAleut” cranial shape in Hrdlička’s classification. The location of Sarana Bay at Attu Island is near the known historic summer village and fish camp of the Attu people. 30 The preponderance of evidence indicates that the human remains from Attu Island are culturally affiliated with the Native Village of Atka. Several lines of evidence point to a relationship of shared group identify between the past Unangan inhabitants of the Chichagof Harbor site and Sarana Bay with the present day Native Village of Atka. Archaeological and biological evidence of population continuity, prehistoric Unangan material culture and burial patterns, the relative geographic isolation of Attu Island, the known history of occupation of Attu Island, and the historic record of resettlement of Attu Islanders at Atka Island, all point to a relationship of shared group identity between the past inhabitants of Attu Island and the Native Village of Atka. The residents of Attu Island were displaced during World War II, and following their internment in a Japanese prison camp in Otaru, Hokkaido, from 1942-1945, many were resettled on the island of Atka, Alaska. The Unangan descendants of the Attuan people are members of the Native Village of Atka, the only federally recognized tribe of the western Aleutian Islands. Agattu Island On July 17, 1937, Hrdlička disembarked at McDonald Bay on Agattu Island (spelling it Agatu at the time), where he conducted excavations from July 17 to August 8, 1937 (Hrdlička 1945:287-309) (Figure 2, Figure 4). Debra Corbett, an archaeologist who has worked extensively in the Near Islands, has identified two of the archaeological sites at Agattu Island where Hrdlička excavated as ATU-030 and ATU-038, pre-Russian sites located within Aga Cove of McDonald Bay (Corbett 2010a:17, 2010b:30). On July 17, 1937, Hrdlička (1945:290) noted in his diary: At 8:30 already begin to clear and excavate—and soon have some specimens. Foxes, including young, watch us from nearby rocks. [Alan] May and I explore coast on foot, one on each side of the bay, and I soon locate a very large site off the northwestern corner of the bay… in afternoon excavate. Get two skeletons before evening, as well as a good many stone specimens. The latter nearly all chipped points of various sizes, of bluish and brownish argillite, not very fine work but varieties new and Neolithic-like, interesting. During their time at Agattu Island, Hrdlička continued to excavate at the first archaeological site mentioned above, while Alan May and Paul Gebhardt began excavations at a second archaeological site on the north end of the bay. The first site at Agattu Island is referred to as the “House site” because Hrdlička and crew bunked in small trappers’ cabins located on top of the prehistoric site. He described the location as “a bulging flat raised about 15 feet above the upper limit of beach” (Hrdlička 1945:290). Alan May estimated the size of the House site to be two acres (Veltre 2013:301). The archaeological site at the northwestern corner of McDonald Bay that May and Gebhardt excavated, later joined by Hrdlička, is variously referred to as the “Hill site,” “North site,” or “upper site.” A third prehistoric archaeological site that Hrdlička and crew excavated at Agattu Island, just below the Hill site, he referred to as the “Low N Site.” Hrdlička and his crew members went back and forth between the open excavations at the three locales, depending on weather conditions and the progress of the excavations. From trappers on Attu Island, Hrdlička heard about a burial cave on Agattu Island, which two members of his crew searched to find, but were unable to locate (Hrdlička 1945:296, 416; Veltre 2013:305-308). 31 Figure 4. Map of Agattu Island (from Hrdlička 1945:Fig.91). For the House site, on July 18, 1937, Hrdlička (1945:290-291) recorded: “Many specimens especially in my part—a regular workshop. Two more skeletons, and a crushed skull—all from 3 to 4 feet below surface, no disturbance above them.” The following day, Hrdlička (1945:292) wrote of finding additional disassociated human remains at the House site: Locate two additional incomplete female skeletons; also a young female crushed skull with occiput missing, and the back portion of an aged female skull… Also a child skeleton without head. All still between 3 and 4 feet from the surface. No trace yet of human bones lower, nor any evidence of a burial ground in the vicinity. Hrdlička resumed excavations at the House site on August 5, 1937, where he noted finding “a female skeleton, 2 feet deep, but of the old type, not Aleut” (Hrdlička 1945:306). He briefly described the context: “It lay on several pieces of whale ribs and a portion of a whale scapula, and was covered with rocks. With it a bone wedge and a bone awl” (Hrdlička 1945:306). There does not appear to be a photograph matching this burial context in Hrdlička’s papers. The possible funerary objects have not been identified in NMNH collections, as the objects from Agattu Island include multiple whale bones and numerous bone wedges and bone awls. At least 15 catalog numbers of objects from Agattu Island are cataloged as whale bone, and numerous other tools cataloged simply as “bone” may include whale bones such as rib bones. One object in NMNH collections from Agattu Island is a “lap board of whale rib” (A390131) but it is unknown if it could have been among the ribs found with this burial, and it is not identified in the museum records as a funerary object. No whale scapulae have been identified in the collection from Agattu Island. Numerous artifacts from Agattu Island are identified as bone wedges and bone awls. The second prehistoric archaeological site Hrdlička and his crew excavated at Agattu Island, the large Hill site covered several acres of a hill slope, and Hrdlička (1945:292) noted that it may have once had a population of a thousand. A third large site, the “Low N” site was situated on a flat just below the Hill site. Hrdlička noted that the two sites “are really connected 32 and form a great unit” (Hrdlička 1945:292). He wrote, “This covers the southern slopes of the two hills about 25 feet height, and a large low foreground—in all about 10 acres” (Hrdlička 1945:292). He described the Hill site and Low N site as follows: On top of the main hill is a depression of a large quadrilateral oblong barabra [barabara]—near 100 x 35 feet; in lower portion, there is also one large depression, but smaller than that on the top. From the hill site a fine view is had of the bay and of the ocean outside… There are too some smaller house depressions over the two sites, especially over the lower, and they appear not square but rounded. A prehistoric settlement pattern of paired sites, or two clusters of barabaras, has been noted by some researchers in the Aleutian Islands (Frohlich 2002). The paired sites often include a site situated at a low elevation close to water with boat access, along with a contemporary site located at higher elevation affording greater protection from the elements and a better vantage point (Frohlich 2002:82). Corbett, West, and Lefèvre (2001:261) have recorded paired midden sites on beach terraces and bluff tops at Agattu and Attu islands, and in the Rat Islands. These include paired sites ATU-030 and ATU-038 excavated by Hrdlička in Aga Cove at Agattu Island (Corbett, West, and Lefèvre 2001:261), the House and Hill site discussed here. The Hill site excavations at Agattu Island revealed numerous lithic materials including points, knives, and scrapers, many of which were argillite. Of these, Hrdlička (1945:296) remarked, “The whole stone industry here is clearly unique and a new variant of the material culture of the archipelago.” Hrdlička’s diary on July 22, 1937 described the continuing excavations at the Hill site: Follow excavations at N side of bay… Near finished nice exposure on the hill. Deposit beyond slope to 9 feet deep, stratified as usual, in lower part in a spot already “petrified” as at Amoknak and Uyak. Shell in deposits sea biscuit and limpets. Archaeologically all seemingly one peculiar culture… Underneath old accumulations traces of ancient vegetal layer, black, wet, on brown clay and rock; on surface late black vegetal layer, up to 15 inches thick, over whole site. No trace of White contact. On July 23, 1937, at the Hill site Hrdlička (1945:298) mentioned finding “a few spare human bones” and the remains of a skeleton. The following day the excavation crew encountered “a series of bones, partly together, partly scattered, of an adult female and an adolescent—many parts missing, including one-half of pelvis and corresponding lower limb of the female—and no skulls” (Hrdlička 1945:298). He continued, “no trace of a burial place as yet—yet many hundreds of bodies must have been buried somewhere about here, those in the deposits are only a trifle in view of the large population” (Hrdlička 1945:298). When a storm arrived from July 26-28, 1937, Hrdlička stayed close to camp and excavated at the House site while May and the other men continued excavating at the Hill site (Hrdlička 1945:299; Veltre 2013:311). Hrdlička’s diary entry for July 26, 1937 reads: 33 Locate an isolated male skull, 6 feet deep, lying on its side on horizontally placed rocks, a point and two banded stones nearby. Two feet above it and a little to one side two huge whale bones in line—perhaps a boundary of a dwelling. And uncover some bones from a skeleton of a child [Hrdlička 1945:299]. May’s notes for the day, which he spent excavating a cut to the barabara on the Hill site, mention this burial in passing: “On the other side of us Connor found a male isolated skull in fair condition” (Veltre 2013:311), suggesting that the burial was from the Hill site. Although Hrdlička listed possible funerary objects in association with this male individual, a point and two banded stones, these objects cannot be identified in the NMNH collections from Agattu Island. Hrdlička collected many points and lithic materials from Agattu Island. In Hrdlička’s personal papers and photographs, he sometimes used the term “banded stones” to refer to grooved net sinkers, of which he collected many from Agattu Island. Two photographs in Hrdlička’s papers from Agattu Island appear to depict the burial context described above, an isolated crania with two nearby stones, one of which is a partially grooved net sinker (National Anthropological Archives, Hrdlička Papers Box 251). The page on which the photograph appears says “Agatu Hillsite.” The handwritten caption for one of the photographs reads: “Oblong skull, hammer + sinker, 6’ from surf.” A point cannot be seen in the image. Another image of the scene shows a large whalebone at the top left of the view, and is captioned “whalebone border,” which also fits with Hrdlička’s description. All of the net sinkers from Agattu Island, which include over 118 possible net sinkers in 16 catalog numbers, were compared against Hrdlička’s photographs in an attempt to identify the possible funerary objects. However, the quality and resolution of the photographs, even when enlarged, and the undiagnostic nature of the two stones do not permit a match to specific objects in the NMNH collections. In a diary entry for July 27-28, 1937, Hrdlička (1945:300) wrote that they encountered another cranium “4 yards farther in from that of yesterday and 18 inches higher,” noting, “no objects.” He recorded that they were both “of the oblong pre-Aleut type” (Hrdlička 1945:300). Other isolated human bones were recovered from excavations at the Hill site. Working at the Hill site on July 27, 1937, Alan May noted in his diary: “I found a very fine ten-inch blade and also a femur, two tibiae and fibulae, part of a pelvis, radius, and the bones of two feet, all jumbled together” (Veltre 2013:311-312.) No other details were provided by May or Hrdlička and there does not appear to be a photograph of this excavation unit. The 10-inch blade mentioned by May has not been identified in NMNH collections from Agattu Island. Later in their time at Agattu Island, Hrdlička wrote of finding additional burials at the Hill site: Yesterday (30th) got three skeletons, two adult and one child, together, on the hill, two feet from the surface, Aleut type. Towards end of today another skeleton begins to appear about 6 feet deep—proves pre-Aleut. Elsewhere only stray bones. It is plain now that here, too, in all the sites, there is an Aleut veneer over the older much thicker pre-Aleut accumulations [Hrdlička 1945:300]. 34 Hrdlička’s crew continued excavating at the Hill site, where he noted for August 1-2, 1937: “Reached the large barabra [sic] on the hill from west as well as from south—found it filled 4 to 6 feet deep with shell, turf (remains of roof), and refuse—no burials” (Hrdlička 1945:300). They encountered a skeleton at a depth of 6 feet, in poor condition, and two partial skulls (Hrdlička 1945:301). On August 3, 1937, at the Hill site, Hrdlička described the excavation of multiple secondary burials: On hill found a “nest” with a middle-aged woman and six children, reaching from about new-born to early childhood. Evidently a secondary burial, though woman’s bones all there and probably in position—only disordered skulls showed that burials were not primary… all was in wet thick brown muddy clay… All Aleut type and within three feet of the surface; and the burial was marked by an upright slab of whale bone. With the remains was a bone “poniard” [Hrdlička 1945:302]. Two published photographs depict the “nest” of burials at the Hill site (Hrdlička 1945:301, Fig.102; 1945:303, Fig.104), but funerary objects are not visible in the photographs, even when enlarged. The two possible funerary objects mentioned in Hrdlička’s description of the secondary burial, a slab of whale bone and a bone “poniard,” have not been identified in NMNH collections, as Hrdlička collected at least 15 catalog numbers of objects from Agattu Island that are cataloged as whale bone. Two items that could be considered to be slabs include a “lap board of whale rib” (A390131) and one cataloged as a whale bone object (A390129), but it is unknown if either one was the slab of whale bone in Hrdlička’s description, and the museum records do not indicate they were funerary objects. It is also unknown if Hrdlička collected all whale bone he encountered in excavations at Agattu Island. Hrdlička collected numerous bone tools from Agattu Island, none of which are cataloged as a bone “poniard.” Alan May was working at the Low N site on August 3, 1937, when the remains were uncovered at the upper Hill site by the other excavators. May’s notes for the day mention the secondary burial at the Hill site of a woman and six children, which he says were brachycephalic (Veltre 2013:318). May also noted: “Near them was found a fine lamp, about twelve by nine inches and three inches deep, a very fine specimen” (Veltre 2013:318). The lamp described by May, a possible funerary object, does not appear in Hrdlička’s description above, and a lamp is not visible in the pictures of the burial. Hrdlička collected over 25 stone lamps in 23 catalog numbers from Agattu Island, and several are close to the size described by Alan May, but are not those exact dimensions. They include stone lamps A390278, A390279, A390280, and A390282, none of which are identified by archaeological site in the museum records. It is unknown which of these lamps, if any, may be the stone lamp referred to by May. Excavations at the Hill site on August 4, 1937, encountered “two Aleut skeletons, together, an elderly woman and a girl of about 11, 3 feet from the surface” (Hrdlička 1945:303). He continued, “later found two deep skeletons, 6 feet, and adult female and an adult male; the latter distinctly oblong-headed, though skull in pieces; the woman broader, but not Aleut” (Hrdlička 1945:303). 35 For the Low N site, Hrdlička (1945:299,301) noted the presence of two large barabaras or communal houses, which he referred to as “kažims.” During excavations at the Low N site on August 3, 1937, Hrdlička (1945:302) described the excavation of “three skeletons, 5 to 6 feet deep, in black mud, in poor condition, and only one with a skull… A male, a female, and a child. A large simple stone lamp above the female. Type, pre-Aleut.” The possible funerary object mentioned in his description, a stone lamp, has not been identified in NMNH collections, as Hrdlička collected over 25 stone lamps in 23 catalog numbers from Agattu Island. There does not appear to be a photograph of this burial context in Hrdlička’s papers. Hrdlička (1945:309-310) described similarities between House site and the Hill site at Agattu Island, including the presence of few simple fireplaces composed of upright slabs, simple stone lamps, similar flaked stone and bone tools, and the absence of pottery. Hrdlička (1945:310) summed up his observations on the differences between the House site and Hill site on Agattu Island in a table (Table 3). Table 3. Hrdlička’s (1945:310) Comparison of the House Site and Hill Site at Agattu Island. Description House Site Hill Site Lamps Mostly whole Nearly all broken Grooved stones Rather scarce Very common Pitted and grooved hammers Rare Common Bone harpoons Few, large barbs Few, small barbs Large barabras [barabaras] (communal houses) Small dwellings None One, very large one The rule Less so Accumulations 4 to 8 feet (aver. nearly 5 feet) To 9 feet (aver. Nearly 7 feet) Human bones None found deeper than 4 ft., some within 2 ½ feet Deep, at from 5 to 7 feet. Also stray bones, still deeper. Some Aleut, in upper 3 feet. *Hrdlička (1945:310) noted: “Low N site—excavations not sufficient for valid comparisons. The bulk of deposits in all three sites is certainly pre-Aleut, and below 3’ yield only the oblong pre-Aleut type of crania. In upper 3’ mostly Aleut burials, but in deposits Aleut time indistinguishable.” Regarding the age of the Agattu Island sites, Hrdlička (1945:292) noted: ‘Both north and south sites old, essentially if not wholly pre Russian, not a vestige encountered yet of White man’s contact.” He noted that the depth of deposits in the Hill site was 9 feet, while the depth of the House site was 10 feet (Hrdlička 1945:292, 296, 298). Elsewhere Hrdlička (1945:298) wrote, “Hill site certainly pre-Russian and old---comparable in both respects to that on Amoknak Island.” Hrdlička (1945:411) also noted: “At Agatu the burials within the upper 3-4 feet were all Aleut, those below that, less frequent, all pre-Aleut. All through, it was very plain that both the 36 pre-Aleuts and the Aleuts must have buried a large majority of their dead somewhere outside of their sites.” Hrdlička (1945:312) also wrote of his work at Agattu Island: As to the relative age of the three sites we worked in, this remains uncertain. There was no apparent difference in the nature of the deposits; both the hill site and the house site showed in places layers of consolidated bones and shell; the shell in all included only small mollusks, mostly sea biscuits; and fish remains in all were not profuse. Further work could perhaps settle the question… Of the three sites excavated at Agattu Island, Hrdlička (1945:304) stated: The house site shows the same culture as that of the hill site, though there are some differences… In all probability the lower N site is less old, at least in parts, than that on the hill. Also it appears now pretty evident that the deeper hill site culture belonged to the oblong-headed pre-Aleut people, while the superficial was Aleut, probably immigrant from farther east. There is nowhere, however, any line of demarcation between the old and the later. Human Remains from Agattu Island While the human remains that Hrdlička obtained from Agattu Island were recovered from three archaeological sites, he did not record which individual remains came from which site. Other than a designation of Agattu Island, the physical remains themselves do not have identifying information to separate them by site or by stratigraphic context, nor is there information in the museum accession file, catalog cards, database, or other records that would allow the remains to be identified by site provenience. Thus, the human remains from all three Agattu Island sites excavated by Hrdlička are listed together in Table 4. The number of individuals estimated for the human remains collected by Hrdlička from Agattu Island is 41 individuals represented by 32 catalog numbers (Table 4). This is based on the frequency of the most commonly occurring element, the cranium (n=29), as well as the addition of twelve individuals found when bone inventory, age, and sex are considered by catalog number, given the provenience issues previously discussed. For example, the individual represented by catalog number P378384 (a 3- to 5-year-old child of indeterminate sex) is represented by only a mandible and incomplete postcranial elements; however, other individuals of that general age range from Agattu Island also have one or more of the same elements present. These duplicated elements are not the most frequently occurring bone in the series, but in the context of the age group they indicate that another individual is present. Three adult female individuals from Agattu Island (P378371, P378373, P378395-RO-E) have polish and micro-abrasions on the enamel surfaces of the teeth that provide evidence of labret wear. For two of the Agattu Island individuals the wear pattern is in the midline position, while the other individual (P378373) has labret wear of an unknown configuration. The practice of piercing the lower or under lip for labret wear with bone, stone, ivory, carved wood, or glass 37 Table 4. Human Remains from Agattu Island in the Collections of the National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution. Catalog No. Temp. No.* P378368 1 Remains Present Cranium, mandible, postcrania Labret Wear Hrdlička’s Cranial Category Age in Years Sex 35-45 Male - “Aleut” Additional commingled adult hand and foot bones in 2 tracking numbers P378369 2 Cranium, mandible, postcrania 17-22 Female - “Aleut” P378370 3 Cranium, mandible, postcrania 40-45 Female - “Aleut” P378371 4 Cranium, mandible, postcrania 24-32 Female Present “Aleut” Additional commingled adult vertebrae and humeri in 2 tracking numbers - “Aleut Mixedtype” on catalog card; “Pre-Aleut” in Hrdlička’s (1944) Catalog of Crania P378372 5 Cranium, mandible, postcrania 20-30 Female P378373 6 Cranium, mandible, postcrania 50+ Female P378374 7 Cranium, mandible, postcrania 50+ Female - “Aleut” P378375 8 Cranium, mandible, postcrania 40-55 Male - “Aleut” P378376 9 Partial postcrania 20-30 Female - - - Present “Aleut” Additional commingled patella in 1 tracking number P378376A 9 Partial postcrania 4-6 Unknown - P378376B 9 Cranium, mandible 40-60 Female - 38 “Aleut” Catalog No. Temp. No.* P378377 10 P378378 Labret Wear Hrdlička’s Cranial Category Age in Years Sex Cranium, mandible, postcrania 40-50 Male - “Pre-Aleut” 11 Cranium, postcrania 35-50 Female - “Aleut” P378379 12 Crania, mandible, postcrania 4-6 Unknown - “Aleut” P378380 13 Cranium, mandible, postcrania 11-13 Unknown - “Aleut” P378381 14 Cranium, mandible, postcrania 7-9 Unknown - “Aleut” P378382 15 Cranium, mandible, postcrania 4-6 Unknown - “Aleut” P378383 16 Cranium, mandible, postcrania 5-6 Unknown - “Aleut” P378384 17 Mandible, postcrania 3-5 Unknown - P378385 18 Cranium, mandible, postcrania 3-6 months Unknown - “Aleut” P378386 19 Cranium, mandible, postcrania 1-2 Unknown - “Aleut” P378387 20 Postcrania 6-8 Unknown - P378388 21 Cranium 30+ Male - P378388RO-A 21 Mandible 20-35 Male - P378389 22 Cranium 10-12 Unknown - “Aleut” P378390 23 Cranium, mandible 5-8 Unknown - “Aleut” P378391 24 Cranium 18-25 Male - “Pre-Aleut” P378392 25 Cranium 25-35 Unknown - “Pre-Aleut” P378393 26 Cranium, mandible, postcrania 4-6 Unknown - “Aleut” P378394 27 Cranium, mandible, postcrania 5-8 Unknown - “Aleut” Remains Present 39 - “Pre-Aleut” - Catalog No. Temp. No.* P378395 28 P378395RO-A Labret Wear Hrdlička’s Cranial Category Age in Years Sex Cranium, mandible, postcrania 3-4 Unknown - - 28 Mandible, postcrania 4.5-6 Unknown - - P378395RO-B 28 Cranium, postcrania <6 months Unknown - - P378395RO-C 28 Cranium, mandible 1.5-2.5 Unknown - - P378395RO-D 28 Cranium, mandible 1.5-3 Unknown - - P378395RO-E 28 Mandible 30-40 Female P378395RO-F 28 Mandible 40+ Male - - P378396 29 Postcrania 25-39 Male - - P378397 30 Postcrania 9-11 Unknown - - P378397RO-A 30 Postcrania 4-6 Unknown - - P378397RO-B 30 Postcrania 2-3 Unknown - - Remains Present Present - *Temp. No. refers to numbers listed in the 1937 accession file (NMNH Accession 143191). Note: RO numbers (i.e. RO-A, RO-B) refer to subdivisions of existing database catalog numbers and represent distinct individuals within that catalog number. bead ornaments or plugs is known from the ethnographic record of Unangan people in the historic period (Black 1984:54; Hrdlička 1945:85-88). In some cases two to three piercings or more were present below the lip, sometimes made during early childhood and filled with plugs (Fortuine 1985:24; Laughlin 1980:57). In other Unangan groups labret piercing occurred at puberty (Dall 1884:87). Heavier labret ornaments were worn by adults (Fortuine 1985:24). Fifteen individuals from the three excavated sites at Agattu Island display postmortem burial appearance (taphonomy) possibly indicating the presence of desiccated soft tissue and/or dried decomposed soft tissue. These catalog numbers include: P378368, P378369, P378370, P378373, P378375, P378379, P378380, P378384, P378385, P378386, P378387, P378388, P378391, P378395, and P378396. In addition, P378370, P378368, and P378379 display 40 significantly less soil staining on certain surfaces, suggesting that they were in a somewhat sheltered subsurface location. According to Hrdlička (1945:301), “The bulk of deposits in all three sites is certainly pre-Aleut, and below 3’ yield only the oblong pre-Aleut type of crania. In upper 3’ mostly Aleut burials, but in deposits Aleut time indistinguishable.” The presence of different taphonomic indicators on some of the skeletal remains, including desiccated tissue, suggests that they may be more recent burials from the upper stratigraphic levels of the three Agattu Island sites. Nine of the individuals with possible soft tissue were classified by Hrdlička as “Aleut” based on cranial morphology. Two individuals with possible soft tissue (P378388 and P378391) were classified by Hrdlička as having a “Pre-Aleut” cranial shape. Unfortunately, as mentioned earlier, Hrdlička did not record which individual remains came from which archaeological site or stratigraphic level. Assessment of Potential Funerary Objects from Agattu Island NMNH Accession 143191 contains objects in 278 catalog numbers collected in 1937 from Agattu Island by Aleš Hrdlička. The objects were collected from three archaeological sites near Aga Cove within McDonald Bay. Some of the objects collected by Hrdlička can be matched to specific archaeological sites on Agattu Island, as the accession file for 143191 includes listings of objects from the “Low Site, Agattu Island” and the “Hill Site, Agattu Island.” Other objects are listed in the accession file as collected by Hrdlička from Agattu Island with no archaeological site specified. Hrdlička collected archaeofaunal remains in two catalog numbers from Agattu Island, accessioned in 1937 (NMNH Accession 108529). These have recently been identified by NMNH Archaeobiology staff as local birds, auklet and fulmar. In addition, the NMNH Repatriation Osteology Laboratory recently documented the presence of six additional faunal remains found in boxes with human remains, including a pinniped carpal/tarsal (A574858) found in a box with human remains cataloged as P378373, a pinniped (likely seal) astragalus (A574859) found in a box with human remains cataloged as P378381, and four pinniped (likely seal) bones (A574884) found in a box with human remains cataloged as P378383. There is no indication in Hrdlička’s writings or the museum records that any of the archaeofaunal remains from Agattu Island were funerary objects. The preponderance of evidence does not suggest that the faunal remains were funerary objects placed intentionally with the human remains at the time of burial, especially since many of the human remains Hrdlička encountered at Agattu Island were secondary burials in middens. Hrdlička did not record many details of the archaeological or stratigraphic context in which he recovered the artifacts collected from Agattu Island, and for many the archaeological site is unknown. While Hrdlička’s descriptions of burials sometimes mention possible funerary objects nearby, these general descriptions cannot be linked to particular objects in NMNH collections. There are a few excavation photographs of burials from Agattu Island, but due to the quality and resolution of the photographs, even when enlarged, and due to the undiagnostic nature of the objects, it is not possible to match specific objects in the NMNH collections to burial contexts. There is a lack of identifying information on the objects themselves, in the field notes, in Hrdlička’s publication, or any of the museum records, including the accession file, 41 ledger book, or original catalog cards to link any of the objects from Agattu Island to burial contexts. Cultural Affiliation of Human Remains from Agattu Island The NMNH holds the human remains of an estimated 41 individuals represented by 32 catalog numbers collected at Agattu Island by Aleš Hrdlička in 1937 from three archaeological sites at Aga Cove in McDonald Bay. Based on the types of artifacts recovered and the depths of the deposits, the House Site, the Hill site, and the Low N site at Agattu Island are prehistoric, and part of the archaeologically known Aleutian Tradition in the Near Islands (2500-200 B.P.). The depths of the deposits indicate that the sites were likely occupied continuously over a very long occupational sequence. The excavations at the Agattu Island sites encountered no historic artifacts such as Russian crosses, glass trade beads, or metal artifacts, as have been observed at post-contact sites on other Aleutian Islands. The majority of the human remains recovered from the Agattu Island sites appear to have been part of multiple secondary burials placed in pits adjacent to habitation areas, a known prehistoric Unangan burial practice in the western Aleutian Islands. Some of the remains Hrdlička encountered were covered by or associated with whale bone, which is also a typical mortuary practice in the western Aleutian Islands. The physical remains of the individuals that Hrdlička excavated from the Agattu Island sites display both of his observed cranial types (“Pre-Aleut” and “Aleut”), indicating that people with both cranial shapes lived in the same prehistoric villages at Agattu Island, and at one time, appear to have co-existed. Although he interpreted the older and deeper deposits and human remains as Pre-Aleut, Hrdlička (1945:330-331) wrote of the Pre-Aleut: Their latest strains apparently admixed more or less with the broad and low headed Aleut and may have survived in the western islands to Russian times… Some of the blood of the older oblong-headed element evidently still exists in a few of the mixblood survivors on the islands. All the old sites on the Aleutian islands probably belong to this type of people, but generally contain a cover, an adjunct, or intrusions of the Aleut. A common refrain in Hrdlička’s publication on the Aleutian Islands is that the stratigraphy of the archaeological sites he excavated did not show a clear temporal break between the hypothesized Pre-Aleut and Aleut people. Hrdlička (1945:410) wrote: “In no case was there found by us a definite line of demarcation between the Aleut and the pre-Aleut deposits, showing that the former followed generally without any long intermission on the latter.” Elsewhere Hrdlička noted, “[T]he distinction of what was Aleut and what pre-Aleut was mostly impossible” (Hrdlička 1945:430). Again, Hrdlička (1945:483) found: The Aleut and pre-Aleut deposits were nowhere separable. Both peoples used the same food, in conformity with the environment must have had much the same general habits, and so left nothing by which their refuse could be told apart…. it was wholly impossible to separate either deposits into any definite periods. 42 If individuals with an “Aleut” cranial shape were part of a likely second westward migration across the Aleutian Islands around 1000 BP, at Agattu Island they appear to have settled in existing villages, and did not live apart from “Pre-Aleut” people they may have encountered. People with both cranial shapes lived at the House site and the Hill site near Aga Cove of Agattu Island, and appear to have overlapped in time. Abrupt changes in material culture, site types, or house forms are not noted for the occupation at Agattu Island, as might be expected from a cultural intrusion, a hiatus in settlement, or a population replacement. Hrdlička (1945:485) noted no significant differences in the preparation of the body in the “pre-Aleut” and “Aleut” burials, writing: “All the burials, of both people and all the periods, were in the more or less contracted position; and both pre-Aleut and Aleut burials were occasionally laid upon, covered with, or surrounded by, pieces of whale ribs or a portion of whale scapula.” The deeper, “pre-Aleut” burials were more often accompanied by funerary objects (Hrdlička 1945:411-412). Based on Hrdlička’s descriptions of the excavations at Agattu Island, people with both observed cranial types lived at the same habitation sites and appear to have shared an Unangan cultural tradition and way of life, as seen in the same site types, house types, artifact types, and burial patterns. At Agattu Island, people with both head shapes appear to have buried their dead in pits or barabaras near habitation sites that were added to through time, creating multiple secondary burials. Several lines of evidence indicate that the human remains from Aga Cove of McDonald Bay at Agattu Island are Unangan and culturally affiliated with the Native Village of Atka. Archaeological and biological evidence of population continuity, prehistoric Unangan material culture and burial patterns, labret customs, the relative geographic isolation of Agattu Island, the known history of occupation of Agattu Island, and the historic record of resettlement of Near Islanders at Attu Island by 1780 and then at Atka Island after World War II, all point to a relationship of shared group identity between the past inhabitants of Agattu Island and the Native Village of Atka. The preponderance of evidence indicates that the human remains from Agattu Island are culturally affiliated to the Native Village of Atka. Shemya Island Shemya Island, located approximately 30 miles east of Attu Island, is the easternmost of the Near Islands (Figure 1, Figure 5). Together, Shemya, Nizki, and Alaid islands comprise the Semichi Islands. During World War II, the island of Shemya became a U.S. advance bomber base. Extensive construction of wartime facilities, airplane runways, and roads had a lasting negative impact on the natural and cultural environment, including the archaeological record of Shemya Island (Corbett 2010c:50; Lefèvre et al. 2001:237). The NMNH holds a collection of artifacts from Shemya Island made by Oscar T. Lewis (1887-1963), a construction foreman employed by the U.S. Navy Seabees during World War II. The exact year Lewis excavated at Shemya Island is unknown; the museum accession file (NMNH Accession 390872) and archival records only state that Lewis obtained the objects 43 during World War II (1939-1945). Military service records for Lewis could not be located and he may have been a civilian employee of the U.S. Navy. A self-taught archaeologist, Lewis was previously involved in excavations in the Northern Great Plains in the 1930s and early 1940s, where he worked as the excavation foreman for Dr. William Mulloy during Works Project Administration excavations of sites in Montana, including Pictograph Cave (Corbett, LeGrow, and Loring 2010). Joseph L. Cramer, a mining geologist and a friend of Lewis, acquired the Shemya Island collection from him in 1953 with the understanding that he would give it to a museum. Cramer donated the collection to the NMNH in 1991. The accession file for 390872 contains a 1991 letter from Cramer to Dr. Dennis Stanford, which notes that the site Lewis excavated was exposed and later destroyed by bulldozing operations for the filtration plant at the U.S. Air Force base at Shemya Island during World War II. Including Lewis’ collection at NMNH, at least eight unprovenienced archaeological collections from Shemya Island were made by servicemen during the island’s military history, collections which are now held by various museums and federal agencies (Corbett, LeGrow, and Loring 2010:187; Hurt 1950; McCartney 1971:94-95). In the 1991 letter from Cramer, the collection excavated by Lewis is described as coming from a very large archaeological site on the “southeast” shore of Shemya Island (NMNH Accession 390872). Cramer wrote: Mr. Lewis made this collection at night using a flood light… with the planned objective of carefully separating the materials from the two occupations present. The upper midden was Aleut and was separated from the lower midden by a ten inch thick tephra deposit. I would guess that some inadvertent mixing took place; however I believe that Mr. Lewis was able to separate the materials rather well [NMNH Accession 390872]. The National Anthropological Archives has ledger pages of mounted photographs and notes prepared by Joseph Cramer (NAA Photo Lot 92-11, Joseph Cramer photographs of Aleutian Island archeological specimens collected by Oscar T. Lewis). The letter from Cramer in the accession file (NMNH Accession 390872), indicates that Cramer created the notes and ledger after interviewing Lewis, the collector, in 1953, an interview which took place approximately a decade after the original excavations. The notes in the album prepared by Cramer read: SH-1. Extensive site on S.E. side of Shemya Island. This site was largely destroyed by bulldozing operations during the construction of the filtration plant for the U.S. Airforce Base. The present collection was excavated by O. T. Lewis from undisturbed portions of the site while work was progressing. Material is from two occupation levels, the lowermost of which extends to 38 ft below the surface. A ten inch layer of barren volcanic ash separates these two layers [Ledger notes, NAA Photo Lot 92-11, Joseph Cramer photographs of Aleutian Island archeological specimens collected by Oscar T. Lewis]. Although Cramer’s notes in the ledger refer to the archaeological site Lewis excavated as “SH-1”, the site description and location on the southeast side of Shemya Island do not match the 44 site today known as SH-1, which is on the west side of Shemya Island, described by Corbett and Loring (2010:111). Corbett and others instead identify the probable locale where Lewis excavated as ATU-023 (Figure 5), a large archaeological site on the eastern coast of Shemya Island which was almost entirely destroyed by wartime construction (Corbett, LeGrow, and Loring 2010:190-195; Corbett and Loring 2010:116-118; Corbett, West, and Lefèvre 2010:272273, Appendix J-3). Based on aerial photographs taken in 1943 before the wartime impacts, the site of ATU-023 is estimated to have once been the largest archaeological site on Shemya Island, with an estimated length of 500 m and a primary midden 6,350 m2 in size (Corbett and Loring 2010:116). Since the 1943 aerial photographs did not yet show wartime construction, it is inferred that Lewis’ probable excavations at the site occurred sometime between 1943 and 1945. Figure 5. Map of Shemya Island, Showing the Location of Archaeological Site ATU-023 (Corbett, West, and Lefèvre 2010:Fig.1-3). Dates from ATU-023 indicate that the prehistoric site was settled “within a few hundred years of the colonization of Shemya,” which took place around 2500 B.P., with evidence for continuous occupation of the site over more than 1,000 years, into the late prehistoric period (Corbett, Lefèvre, and West 2010:201, 205-206). A large house pit visible on an aerial photograph of the site before its destruction has been interpreted as a possible chief’s house (Corbett, Lefèvre, and West 2010:206). The upper levels of the site had large amounts of urchin shell and fish bones, along with bone harpoon points, while the lower levels contained marine mammals and stone tools (Corbett, LeGrow, and Loring 2010). 45 Human Remains from Shemya Island The human remains of two individuals, represented by one catalog number, are held by the NMNH from the archaeological site excavated by Oscar T. Lewis on Shemya Island during the 1940s (Table 5). The remains from Shemya Island are those of an adult male and a 10- to 12year-old individual of indeterminate sex. The notes made by Joseph Cramer, based upon his interview with Lewis many years later, indicate that the human remains were recovered from the lower part of the lower stratigraphic level at the site. The physical remains of both individuals from Shemya Island have “LOWER LEVEL” and “28 FT LEVEL” written on them. In the ledger description produced by Cramer, he wrote, “Material is from two occupation levels, the lowermost of which extends to 38 ft below the surface” (Ledger notes, NAA Photo Lot 92-11, Joseph Cramer photographs of Aleutian Island archeological specimens collected by Oscar T. Lewis). The references to the human remains coming from a 28 foot level and an occupation sequence extending to a 38 foot level at the site may be exaggerations, errors, or measurements below an unknown arbitrary datum. It is unknown if measurements were taken at the time of excavation, or if they were general estimates relayed to Cramer by Lewis many years later. Archaeological reports from other sites at Shemya Island (Corbett, Lefèvre, and West 2010:206) note the presence of mounded archaeological deposits as high as four meters above the surrounding present ground surface, so it could be possible that the notation of “28 FT” (approximately 8.5 meters) written on the bones is an estimate of depth in a mound at Shemya Island, especially since the site thought to have been excavated by Lewis was likely occupied continuously over a thousand years (Corbett, Lefèvre, and West 2010:201, 205-206). However, Lewis was not a professional archaeologist and the fact that the ledger pertaining to the collection was created by another person nearly a decade after the excavations casts doubt on the validity of the depths recorded on the bones and in the ledger. Table 5. Human Remains from Shemya Island in the Collections of the National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution. Catalog No. Remains Present Age in Years Sex P387028* Cranial fragment 20-35 Male P387028-RO-A Mandible 10-12 Unknown *Cranial shape cannot be determined because only the frontal bone is present. Assessment of Potential Funerary Objects from Shemya Island The artifacts in the NMNH collections from Shemya Island excavated by Lewis are labelled by upper level and lower level. NMNH accession number 390872 includes 370 objects in 70 catalog numbers from Shemya Island, accessioned by NMNH in 1992. The objects are primarily bone and stone tools, including hammerstones, abraders, scrapers, knife handles, harpoon points and blades, fishhook shafts and barbs, a fire drill, awls, beads, pieces of worked whalebone and ivory, shells, fish spines and scales, stone lamps, and net sinkers. The lithic 46 assemblage includes long serrated bifaces with parallel sides, unifacial tools, and debitage. Other notable items are whalebone harpoon foreshafts with pointed bifaces, a modified sea-lion scapula, awls from the wing bones of albatrosses, and a carved tooth of a sperm whale (Corbett, LeGrow, and Loring 2010:191-192). The ledger notes prepared by Cramer about a decade after the excavations by Lewis at Shemya Island indicate that the upper stratigraphic layer of the site did not contain flaked stone artifacts, although bone harpoon points were present. The lower stratigraphic level contained flaked stone, but no bone harpoon points (Ledger notes, NAA Photo Lot 92-11, Joseph Cramer photographs of Aleutian Island archeological specimens collected by Oscar T. Lewis). The ledger notes by Cramer also read: “The ivory carvings & the human bones were all found in the lower part of the lower layer” (Ledger notes, NAA Photo Lot 92-11, Joseph Cramer photographs of Aleutian Island archeological specimens collected by Oscar T. Lewis). There are six catalog numbers of objects at NMNH from Shemya Island that are made of ivory, but none are cataloged as carvings or carved figures, which are known from collections from other Aleutian Islands. The ivory objects from Shemya Island in NMNH collections donated by Cramer include an ivory “float plug” (A542282); an ivory “plug or stopper” (A542283); a blocky, rectangular ivory implement and a small angular ivory fragment of unknown function (A542284), both with conically-drilled holes; 9 ivory pendants (A542286) with an original tag that reads “9 worked animal teeth (for personal decorative use),” including a sea lion tooth and a possible fossil walrus tooth; and 6 ivory teeth (A542285 and A542287). It is unclear if some or all of these objects are the ivory carvings referred to by Cramer in the ledger. While the notes from Cramer indicate that Lewis excavated ivory carvings and human remains from the lower part of the lower level of the archaeological site at Shemya Island, they do not indicate that the carvings were funerary objects. Cultural Affiliation of Human Remains from Shemya Island The human remains excavated by Oscar T. Lewis likely came from archaeological site ATU-023 on the eastern coast of Shemya Island (Corbett, LeGrow, and Loring 2010:190-195; Corbett and Loring 2010:116-118; Corbett, West, and Lefèvre 2010:272-273, Appendix J-3). Dates from ATU-023 indicate that the prehistoric site was settled “within a few hundred years of the colonization of Shemya,” which took place around 2500 B.P., with evidence for continuous occupation of the site over more than 1,000 years, into the late prehistoric period (Corbett, Lefèvre, and West 2010:201, 205-206). The upper levels of the site at Shemya Island contained bone harpoon points and foreshafts, which are part of the Late Aleutian Trait Complex (after 1000 B.P.) in the Aleutian Islands. The human remains were said by Cramer to be found in the lower level of the site, which did not contain bone tools. This may indicate that the remains are older than 1000 B.P., but Lewis’ excavation methods and a ledger record prepared many years after the excavation by Cramer limit the confidence in this inference regarding the age of the remains. Cramer also noted that a barren 10-inch tephra deposit separated the upper and lower levels of the site, suggesting a possible discontinuity in settlement and two separate occupations (NMNH Accession 390872; 47 Ledger notes, NAA Photo Lot 92-11, Joseph Cramer photographs of Aleutian Island archeological specimens collected by Oscar T. Lewis). Nonetheless, the artifacts collected by Lewis from both the upper and lower levels of the site at Shemya Island are typical of the prehistoric Aleutian Tradition in the Near Islands (2500-200 B.P.), and lead to the conclusion that the human remains from the site are also Unangan. Several lines of evidence support the cultural affiliation of the human remains collected from Shemya Island to the Native Village of Atka. They include archaeological and biological evidence of population continuity, prehistoric Unangan material culture, the relative geographic isolation of Shemya Island, the known history of occupation of Shemya Island, and the historic record of resettlement of Near Islanders at Attu Island by 1780 and then at Atka Island after World War II. This evidence demonstrates that a relationship of shared group identity can be traced between the prehistoric human remains from Shemya Island and Unangan descendants now residing at the Native Village of Atka. Therefore, the preponderance of evidence indicates that the human remains from Shemya Island are culturally affiliated to the Native Village of Atka. NMNH Archaeological Collections from the Near Islands of Alaska Without Human Remains or Funerary Objects The NMNH collections include additional objects from the Near Islands of Alaska, but these were not determined to be funerary objects. No human remains were found in association with these objects. The Near Islands collections without human remains or funerary objects include those made by William Healy Dall, Lucien McShan Turner, Charles H. Townsend, and Edward P. Koch. William Healy Dall worked in Alaska for over thirty years. Beginning in 1865 with the Western Union Telegraph Company and continuing with the US Coast Guard Survey in 1871, the US Geological Survey in 1884, and the Harriman Alaska Expedition of 1899, Dall collected ethnographic and natural history specimens from Alaska and the Pacific Northwest (Baker 1901). He was named honorary curator of the US National Museum, Division of Mollusks in 1880. His material from Attu Island was accessioned into the collections under NMNH Accession 003035 in 1873. From Attu Island, Dall collected one ethnographic object in one catalog number, a carved wood doll from Chichagof Harbor, along with archaeological objects in 35 catalog numbers. The objects collected by Dall are cataloged as a “bone ramrod end” for a gun, an “Aleut Table in Game of Quoits,” stone flakes and lance heads, stone net sinkers, a whetstone, a stone plate, worked bone awls, and other bone implements. One object from Attu Island collected by Dall is identified on the catalog card as a prehistoric “ivory carving (or labret) mouth peg.” Under a different accession (NMNH Accession 108529), Dall collected archaeofaunal remains in one catalog number from Attu Island, which have been identified as puffin. Although Dall collected human remains from other Aleutian Islands, including Fox Island and from burial caves (Dall 1878), he is not known to have collected human remains from the Near Islands. The Attu Island archaeological objects themselves, the original catalog cards, 48 and Dall’s field notes at the Smithsonian Institution Archives, were examined for more detailed artifact proveniences, but no additional information was located (William H. Dall Papers, Record Unit 7073, Smithsonian Institution Archives, Washington, D.C.) There is no indication in the archival or museum records that the items collected by Dall from Attu Island are from burial contexts. Lucien McShan Turner was a member of the US Signal Service who worked in the Aleutian Islands from May of 1878 until 1881. During this time, he made many collections in botany, natural history, and ethnology. Turner was based primarily in Unalaska but also spent eleven months on Attu Island from 1880-1881 (Turner 2008). His collections at NMNH from Attu Island are recorded under Accession 010517 in 1882. While at Attu Island, Turner collected ethnographic material and archaeological specimens acquired “mostly from the point of land to the left of the entrance to Chichagof Harbor” from an area that was used for growing potatoes (Turner 2008:24), noting that the “implements were brought to the surface as the natives were cultivating the ground preparatory to planting” (Turner n.d.). The cultivation of potatoes in garden plots was introduced to the Aleutian Islands during the Russian period (Veltre 2011). Turner’s site location is noted to be “about one hundred yards” from the “Tower of Pisa” (Turner 2008:24). A note in the margin of Turner’s Descriptive Catalog manuscript (Turner n.d.) indicates that he also collected artifacts from an archaeological site on the other side of Chichagof Harbor at Attu Island. NMNH Accession 010517 from Turner’s work at Attu Island contains ethnographic objects in 13 catalog numbers, including bone knives, a bone flake, bone projectile points, an iron projectile point, a spoon, two wood carvings, and a fire drill set. Turner also collected objects in 749 archaeology catalog numbers, including 24 catalog numbers listed as originating from Chichagof Harbor. The archaeological objects include bone wedges, spear barbs, stone knives, stone points, stone flakes and scrapers, stone axes, stone sinkers, several stone lamps, a stone comb, stone mullers, blunt bone spear tips, bone needles and awls, a copper-tipped projectile point, teeth of marine animals, two carved ivory and bone “charms,” an ivory chess pawn, and implements of whale, seal, and fish bone. Turner did not mention encountering or collecting any human remains, and there is no information in the archival or museum records linking the objects Turner collected at Attu Island to funerary contexts. Charles H. Townsend, an American zoologist, traveled to Alaska with the US Fish Commission in 1894 on the steamer Albatross and collected archaeological specimens cataloged as A170670 - 170675. The accession records for eight items in six catalog numbers identify them as “dug from a kitchen midden on the east end of Aggattu Island, Alaska” (NMNH Accession 29074). The objects include a stone knife and flake, grooved sinkers, and water-worn pebbles. There is no indication in the museum or accession records that the items collected by Townsend from Agattu Island are funerary objects. Edward P. Koch of Michigan donated one object in one catalog number from Shemya Island in 1959 (NMNH Accession 226398), a fishhook shank made of ivory or a sea lion tooth. The fishhook was recovered from a shell midden at Shemya Island and there is no indication in the museum records that it is a funerary object. 49 VI. SUMMARY OF CULTURAL AFFILIATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS This report provides an inventory and assessment of cultural affiliation for the human remains of an estimated 51 individuals represented by 42 catalog numbers currently in the NMNH collections. All of these human remains are from archaeological sites in the Near Islands of the Aleutian Islands of Alaska, including Attu, Agattu, and Shemya islands. No funerary objects from the Near Islands were identified in the NMNH collections. The human remains of an estimated eight individuals represented by nine catalog numbers in the NMNH collections were obtained at Attu Island by Aleš Hrdlička and Alan May in 1936 and 1937 from a prehistoric archaeological site near Chichagof Harbor and from Sarana Bay. The preponderance of evidence indicates that the prehistoric inhabitants of Attu Island are culturally affiliated with the Native Village of Atka. Archaeological and biological evidence of population continuity, prehistoric Unangan material culture and burial patterns, the relative geographic isolation of Attu Island, the known history of occupation of Attu Island, and the historic record of resettlement of Attu Islanders at Atka Island in the 1940s after World War II, all point to a relationship of shared group identity between the past inhabitants of Attu Island and the Native Village of Atka. There was continuity in settlement at Attu Island from prehistoric to historic times. The residents of Attu Island were displaced during World War II, and following their internment in a Japanese prison camp in Otaru, Hokkaido, from 1942-1945, the survivors were resettled on the island of Atka, Alaska. The Unangan descendants of the people of Attu Island are members of the Native Village of Atka, the only federally recognized tribe of the western Aleutians. The human remains of an estimated 41 individuals represented by 32 catalog numbers are present in the NMNH collections from Agattu Island. These remains were collected by Aleš Hrdlička in 1937 from three prehistoric archaeological sites in Aga Cove of McDonald Bay at Agattu Island. The preponderance of the evidence indicates that the prehistoric inhabitants of Agattu Island are culturally affiliated with the Native Village of Atka. Archaeological and biological evidence of population continuity, prehistoric Unangan material culture and burial patterns, labret customs, the relative geographic isolation of Agattu Island, the known history of occupation of Agattu Island, and the historic record of resettlement of Near Islanders at Attu Island by 1780 and later at Atka Island in the 1940s, all point to a relationship of shared group identity between the past inhabitants of Agattu Island and the Native Village of Atka. The human remains of two individuals represented by one catalog number are present in the NMNH collection from Shemya Island. These remains were collected by Oscar T. Lewis in the 1940s during World War II, from one prehistoric archaeological site on Shemya Island. The preponderance of evidence indicates that the human remains from Shemya Island are culturally affiliated with the Native Village of Atka. Archaeological and biological evidence of population continuity, prehistoric Unangan material culture, the relative geographic isolation of Shemya Island, the known history of occupation of Shemya Island, and the historic record of resettlement of Near Islanders at Attu Island by 1780 and then at Atka Island after World War II, all point to a relationship of shared group identity between the past inhabitants of Shemya Island and the Native Village of Atka. 50 Additional objects at NMNH were collected from archaeological sites in the Near Islands but were not determined to be funerary. No human remains were collected in association with any of the objects. These include artifacts collected by William Healy Dall, who collected archaeological objects in 35 catalog numbers in 1873 from Attu Island from a site near Chichagof Harbor, along with one ethnographic object in one catalog number and archaeofaunal remains in one catalog number, but none were associated with burials. Lucien McShan Turner collected archaeological objects in 749 catalog numbers from Attu Island during 1880-1881 but these were not associated with funerary contexts. Charles Townsend collected eight archaeological objects in six catalog numbers in 1894 from an archaeological site on Agattu Island, but they are not funerary items. Edward Koch donated one archaeological object in one catalog number in 1959 from Shemya Island, and there is no indication that it is from a funerary context. In sum, it is recommended that the human remains of an estimated 51 individuals represented by 42 catalog numbers from at least five prehistoric archaeological sites from Attu Island, Agattu Island, and Shemya Island in the Near Islands of the Aleutian Islands, Alaska, be made available for repatriation to the culturally affiliated Native Village of Atka. 51 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The authors wish to thank all those who contributed to this report. Lars Krutak offered invaluable assistance on numerous aspects of the report and provided references for the Aleutian Islands. Kathleen Adia, Erica Jones, Marilyn London, Dawn Mulhern, and Claire O’Brien conducted osteological documentation of the human remains. Janine Hinton and Sarah Pelot performed radiographic imaging. Walter Larrimore completed the photographic documentation. 52 REFERENCES Baker, Marcus 1901 Geographic Dictionary of Alaska. Bulletin of the US Geological Survey, No. 187. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. Berge, Anna 2010 Origins of Linguistic Diversity in the Aleutian Islands. Human Biology 82:557-581. Bergsland, Knut 1959 Aleut Dialects of Atka and Attu. Transactions of the American Philosophical Society 49(3):1-128. Black, Lydia T. 1980 Netsvetov, Iakov 1804-64: The Journals of Iakov Netsvetov: The Atka Years, 1828-44, edited by R. A. Pierce. Limestone Press, Kingston, Ontario. 1984 Atka: An Ethnohistory of the Western Aleutians, edited by R. A. Pierce. Limestone Press, Kingston, Ontario. 2003 Aleut Art: Unangam Aguqaadangin. 2nd ed. Aleutian/Pribilof Islands Association, Anchorage, Alaska. Black, L. T., and R. G. Liapunova 1988 Aleut: Islanders of the North Pacific. In Crossroads of Continents: Cultures of Siberia and Alaska, edited by W. Fitzhugh and A. Crowell, pp. 52-57. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C. Bray, Tamara L., and Thomas W. Killion, editors 1994 Reckoning with the Dead: The Larsen Bay Repatriation and the Smithsonian Institution. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington and London. Claassen, Cheryl 1975 Aleutian Island Homogeneity: A Near Island Perspective. Unpublished B.A. honors thesis, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville. Coltrain, Joan B. 2010 Temporal and Dietary Reconstruction of Past Aleut Populations: Stable- and RadioIsotope Evidence Revisited. Arctic 63(4):391-398. Coltrain, Joan B., M. Geoffrey Hayes, and Dennis H. O’Rourke 2006 Hrdlička’s Aleutian Population-Replacement Hypothesis: A Radiometric Evaluation. Current Anthropology 47:537-548. 53 Corbett, Debra G. 2010a Prehistoric Background. In The People at the End of the World: The Western Aleutians Project and the Archaeology of Shemya Island, edited by D. Corbett, D. West, and C. Lefèvre, pp. 17- 23. Monograph Series VIII, Alaska Anthropological Association, Anchorage. 2010b Ethnographic Background. In The People at the End of the World: The Western Aleutians Project and the Archaeology of Shemya Island, edited by D. Corbett, D. West, and C. Lefèvre, pp. 25-48. Monograph Series VIII, Alaska Anthropological Association, Anchorage. 2010c Shemya During and After World War II. In The People at the End of the World: The Western Aleutians Project and the Archaeology of Shemya Island, edited by D. Corbett, D. West, and C. Lefèvre, pp. 49-53. Monograph Series VIII, Alaska Anthropological Association, Anchorage. 2011 Two Chiefs’ Houses from the Western Aleutian Islands. Arctic Anthropology 48:3-16. Corbett, Debra G., Christine Lefèvre, and D. Siegel-Causey 1997 The Western Aleutians: Cultural Isolation and Environmental Change. Human Ecology 25:459-479. Corbett, Debra G., Christine Lefèvre, and Dixie West 2010 Chronology and Settlement Patterns: Shemya and the Semichi Islands. In The People at the End of the World: The Western Aleutians Project and the Archaeology of Shemya Island, edited by D. Corbett, D. West, and C. Lefèvre, pp. 197- 207. Monograph Series VIII, Alaska Anthropological Association, Anchorage. Corbett, Debra G., Jane LeGrow, and Stephen Loring 2010 Eight Unprovenienced Collections. In The People at the End of the World: The Western Aleutians Project and the Archaeology of Shemya Island, edited by D. Corbett, D. West, and C. Lefèvre, pp. 187- 196. Monograph Series VIII, Alaska Anthropological Association, Anchorage. Corbett, Debra G., and Stephen Loring 2010 Shemya Island Site Descriptions. In The People at the End of the World: The Western Aleutians Project and the Archaeology of Shemya Island, edited by D. Corbett, D. West, and C. Lefèvre, pp. 107-132. Monograph Series VIII, Alaska Anthropological Association, Anchorage. Corbett, Debra, Dixie West, and Christine Lefèvre 2001 Prehistoric Village Organization in the Western Aleutians. In Archaeology in the Aleut Zone of Alaska, edited by Don E. Dumond, pp. 251-266. University of Oregon Anthropological Papers No. 58, Eugene, Oregon. 54 Corbett, Debra, Dixie West, and Christine Lefèvre, editors 2010 The People at the End of the World: The Western Aleutians Project and the Archaeology of Shemya Island. Monograph Series VIII, Alaska Anthropological Association, Anchorage. Crawford, Michael H., Rohina C. Rubicz, and Mark Zlojutro 2010 Origins of Aleuts and the Genetic Structure of Populations of the Archipelago: Molecular and Archaeological Perspectives. Human Biology 82(5-6):695-717. Dall, William Healey 1870 Alaska and Its Resources. Lee and Shepard, Boston. 1873 Notes on the Pre-Historic Remains in the Aleutian Islands. In Proceedings of the California Academy of Sciences, pp. 283-287, vol. IV. The California Academy of Sciences, San Francisco. 1877 On Succession in the Shell-Heaps of the Aleutian Islands. In Contributions to North American Ethnology, edited by J. W. Powell, pp. 41-92. vol. 1. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geographical and Geological Survey of the Rocky Mountain Region, Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 1878 On the Remains of Later Pre-Historic Man Obtained from Caves in the Catherina Archipelago, Alaska Territory and Especially from the Caves of the Aleutian Islands. Smithsonian Contributions to Knowledge 318. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. 1884 On Masks, Labrets and Certain Aboriginal Customs with an Inquiry into the Bearing of Their Geographic Distribution. Bureau of American Ethnology, Third Annual Report for 1881-1882. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. Davis, Richard S., and Richard A. Knecht 2010 Continuity and Change in the Eastern Aleutian Archaeological Sequence. Human Biology 82:507-524. Dumond, Don E. 2001 Toward a (Yet) Newer View of the (Pre)history of the Aleutians. In Archaeology in the Aleut Zone of Alaska, edited by D. E. Dumond, pp. 289-309. University of Oregon Anthropological Papers No. 58, Eugene, Oregon. Fortuine, Robert 1985 Lancets of Stone: Traditional Methods of Surgery Among the Alaska Natives. Arctic Anthropology 22(1):23-45. 55 Frohlich, Bruno 2002 Aleutian Settlement Distribution on Adak, Kagalaska, Buldir and Attu Islands, Aleutian Islands, Alaska. In To the Aleutians and Beyond: The Anthropology of William S. Laughlin, edited by B. Frohlich, A. B. Harper, and R. Gilberg, pp. 63-88. The National Museum of Denmark, Copenhagen. Frohlich, Bruno, and Sara B. Laughlin 2002 Unangan Mortuary Practices and the Umqan Burials on Anangula Island, Aleutian Islands, Alaska. In To the Aleutians and Beyond: The Anthropology of William S. Laughlin, edited by B. Frohlich, A. B. Harper, and R. Gilberg, pp. 89-119. The National Museum of Denmark, Copenhagen. Hatfield, Virginia 2010 Material Culture Across the Aleutian Archipelago. Human Biology 82:525-556. 2011 Chipped Stone Technology and the Colonization of the Aleutian Archipelago. Arctic Anthropology 48(2):113-125. Hrdlička, Aleš 1939 Explorations in the Aleutian and the Commander Islands. In Explorations and FieldWork of the Smithsonian Institution in 1938, pp. 79-86. Washington, D.C. 1941 Exploration of Mummy Caves in the Aleutian Islands. Part II. Further Exploration. The Scientific Monthly 52 (January 1941). 1944 Catalog of Human Crania in the United States National Museum Collections: Non-Eskimo People of the Northwest Coast, Alaska, and Siberia. Proceedings of the United States National Museum, Vol. 93. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. 1945 The Aleutian and Commander Islands and Their Inhabitants. The Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology, Philadelphia. Hurt, Wesley R., Jr. 1950 Artifacts from Shemya, Aleutian Islands. American Antiquity 16(1):69. Jochelson, Waldemar 1912 Scientific Results of the Ethnological Section of the Riabouschinsky Expedition of the Imperial Russian Geographical Society to the Aleutian Islands and Kamchatka. In Proceedings of the 18th International Congress of Americanists, pp. 334-343. London. 1925 Archaeological Investigations in the Aleutian Islands. The Carnegie Institution of Washington, Washington, D.C. 1933 History, Ethnology, and Anthropology of the Aleut. The Carnegie Institution of Washington, Washington, D.C. 56 Kaufman, M. H., D. Whitaker, and J. McTavish 1997 Differential Diagnosis of Holes in the Calvarium: Application of Modern Clinical Data to Palaeopathology. Journal of Archaeological Science 24:193-218. Khlebnikov, Kyrill T. 1994 Notes on Russian America. Translated by M. Ramsay. Limestone Press, Kingston, Ontario. Knecht, Richard A., and Richard S. Davis 2001 A Prehistoric Sequence for the Eastern Aleutian Islands. In Archaeology in the Aleut Zone of Alaska, edited by Don E. Dumond, pp. 269-288. University of Oregon Anthropological Papers No. 58, Eugene, Oregon. Krutak, Lars 2013 Inventory and Assessment of Human Remains and Funerary Objects from the Vicinity of Unga, Alaska, in the Collections of the National Museum of Natural History. Repatriation Office, Department of Anthropology, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. Krutak, Lars, and J. Christopher Dudar 2015 Inventory and Assessment of Human Remains and Funerary Objects from Amchitka, Kiska, and Little Kiska Islands in the Aleutian Archipelago of Alaska in the Collections of the National Museum of Natural History. Repatriation Office, Department of Anthropology, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. Lantis, Margaret 1984 Aleut. In Arctic, edited by D. Damas, pp. 161-184. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 5, William C. Sturtevant, general editor, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. Laughlin, William S. 1951 The Alaska Gateway Viewed from the Aleutian Islands. In Papers on the Physical Anthropology of the American Indian, edited by W. S. Laughlin, pp. 98-126. Viking Fund, New York. 1963 Eskimos and Aleuts: Their Origins and Evolution. Science 142:633-645. 1966 Aleutian Studies: Introduction. Arctic Anthropology 3(2):23-27. 1980 Aleuts: Survivors of the Bering Land Bridge. Holt, Rinehart & Winston, New York. 1983 Aleut Mummies: Their Significance for Longevity and Culture. In Cultures of the Bering Sea Region: Papers from an International Symposium, edited by H. N. Michael and J. W. VanStone, pp. 41-61. International Research and Exchange Board, New York. 57 1984 Massacre at Chaluka. Polar Record 22(138):314-318. Laughlin, William S., and Gordon H. Marsh 1951 A New View of the History of the Aleutians. Arctic 4:75-88. 1954 The Lamellar Flake Manufacturing Site on Anangula Island in the Aleutians. American Antiquity 20(1):27-39. Lefèvre, Christine, Dixie West, and Debra G. Corbett 2001 Archaeological Surveys in the Near Islands: Attu Island and Shemya Island. In Archaeology of the Aleut Zone of Alaska, edited by D. Dumond, pp. 235-250. University of Oregon Anthropological Papers No. 58. Eugene, Oregon. Loring, Stephen 1993 Research in the Western Aleutian Islands. Smithsonian Institution, National Museum of Natural History, Arctic Studies Center Newsletter 2:4-5. 1998 Investigations on Agattu: Joint USF& WS – Smithsonian Research in the Aleutians. Smithsonian Institution, National Museum of Natural History, Arctic Studies Center Newsletter 6:14-16. Loring, Stephen, and Douglas W. Veltre 2003 Aleut Archaeology and Cultural Heritage: The Legacy of the Jesup North Pacific Expedition. In Constructing Cultures Then and Now: Celebrating Franz Boas and the Jesup North Pacific Expedition, edited by Lauren Kendall and Igor Krupnik, pp. 306-325. Contributions to Circumpolar Anthropology No. 4, Arctic Studies Center, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. Marsh, Gordon H., and William S. Laughlin 1956 Human Anatomical Knowledge Among the Aleutian Islanders. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 12(1):38-78. May, Alan G. 1936a Personal Journals of Smithsonian Expedition to the Aleutian Islands, 1935-1937. University of Alaska Anchorage, Archives & Special Collections, Papers of Alan G. May, HMC-0690. 1936b Report of Alan G. May for the period July 9th to July 26th, 1936 Archaeological Expedition of the Smithsonian Institution to the Aleutian Islands. National Anthropological Archives, Papers of Aleš Hrdlička, Box 96, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. McCartney, Allen P. 1971 A Proposed Western Aleutian Phase in the Near Islands, Alaska. Arctic Anthropology 8(2):92-142. 58 1984 Prehistory of the Aleutian Region. In Arctic, edited by D. Damas, pp. 119-135. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 5, William C. Sturtevant, general editor, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. McCartney, Allen P., and Christy G. Turner II 1966 Stratigraphy of the Anangula Unifacial Core and Blade Site. Arctic Anthropology 3(2):28-40. McCartney, Allen P., and Douglas W. Veltre 2002 Longhouses of the Eastern Aleutian Islands, Alaska. In To the Aleutians and Beyond: The Anthropology of William S. Laughlin, edited by B. Frohlich, A. B. Harper, and R. Gilberg, pp. 249-265. The National Museum of Denmark, Copenhagen. Netsvetov, Iakov 1980 The Journals of Iakov Netsvetov: The Atkha Years, 1828-1844. Translated by Lydia Black. Limestone Press, Kingston, Ontario. Ousley, Stephen D., and Erica B. Jones 2010 Craniometric Variation in the Aleutians: Integrating Morphological, Molecular, Spatial, and Temporal Data. Human Biology 82(5-6):629-651. Raff, J., J. Tackney, and D. H. O’Rourke 2010 South from Alaska: A Pilot aDNA study of Genetic History on the Alaskan Peninsula and the Eastern Aleutians. Human Biology 82:677-693. Raghavan, Maanasa, Michael DeGiorgio, Anders Albrechtsen, Ida Moltke, Pontus Skoglund, Thorfinn S. Korneliussen, Bjarne Grønnow, Martin Appelt, Hans Christian Gulløv, T. Max Friesen, William Fitzhugh, Helena Malmström, Simon Rasmussen, Jesper Olsen, Linea Melchior, Benjamin T. Fuller, Simon M. Fahrni, Thomas Stafford Jr., Vaughan Grimes, M. A. Priscilla Renouf, Jerome Cybulski, Niels Lynnerup, Marta Mirazon Lahr, Kate Britton, Rick Knecht, Jette Arneborg, Mait Metspalu, Omar E. Cornejo, Anna-Sapfo Malaspinas, Yong Wang, Morten Rasmussen, Vibha Raghavan, Thomas V. O. Hansen, Elza Khusnutdinova, Tracey Pierre, Kirill Dneprovsky, Claus Andreasen, Hans Lange, M. Geoffrey Hayes, Joan Coltrain, Victor A. Spitsyn, Anders Götherström, Ludovic Orlando, Toomas Kivisild, Richard Villems, Michael H. Crawford, Finn C. Nielsen, Jørgen Dissing, Jan Heinemeier, Morten Meldgaard, Carlos Bustamante, Dennis H. O’Rourke, Mattias Jakobsson, M. Thomas P. Gilbert, Rasmus Nielsen, Eske Willerslev 2014 The Genetic Prehistory of the New World Arctic. Science 345(6200):1255832(1)1255832(9). Smith, Silvia E., M. Geoffrey Hayes, Graciela S. Cabana, Chad Huff, Joan Brenner Coltrain, and Dennis H. O’Rourke 2009 Inferring Population Continuity Versus Replacement with a DNA: A Cautionary Tale from the Aleutian Islands. Human Biology 81(4):407-426. 59 Spaulding, Albert C. 1962 Archeological Investigations on Agattu, Aleutian Islands. Anthropological Papers, Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan 18:1-79. Stein, Gary C. 1977 Cultural Resources of the Aleutian Region: Historic Sites, Vol. 2. Anthropology & Historical Preservation Cooperative Park Studies Unit, Occasional Paper No. 6. University of Alaska, Fairbanks. Tikhmenev, Petr A. 1978 A History of the Russian American Company. Translated by Richard A. Pierce and Alton S. Donnelly. University of Washington Press, Seattle. Turner, Christy G. II 1991 The Dentition of Arctic Peoples. Garland Publishing, New York. Turner, Lucien M. n.d. Descriptive Catalogue of Ethnological Specimens Collected by Lucien M. Turner in Alaska. Lucien Turner Papers, Bureau of American Ethnology collection, National Anthropological Archives, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C., manuscript 7197 [c.1889]. 1886 Contributions to the Natural History of Alaska. Results of investigations made chiefly in the Yukon District and the Aleutian Islands; conducted under the auspices of the Signal Service, United States Army, extending from May, 1874, to August, 1881. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 2008 An Aleutian Ethnography. Edited by Raymond L. Hudson. University of Alaska Press, Fairbanks. Urcid, Javier 1994 Cannibalism and Curated Skulls. In Reckoning with the Dead: The Larsen Bay Repatriation and the Smithsonian Institution, edited by T. L. Bray and T. W. Killion, pp. 101-121. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C. Veltre, Douglas W. 1998 Prehistoric Maritime Adaptations in the Western and Central Aleutian Islands, Alaska. Arctic Anthropology 35(1):223-233. 2011 Gardening in Colonial Russian America: Archaeological and Ethnohistorical Perspectives from the Aleut Region, Alaska. Ethnoarchaeology 3(2):119-138. 2013 Alan May’s Diaries of Archaeological Expeditions to Alaska with the Smithsonian Institution’s Aleš Hrdlička, 1936-1938. Unpublished manuscript on file in the NMNH Repatriation Office. 60 Veltre, Douglas W., and Melvin A. Smith 2010 Historical Overview of Archaeological Research in the Aleut Region of Alaska. Human Biology 82(5-6):487-506. Veniaminov, Ivan 1984 Notes on the Islands of the Unalashka District. Translated by L. T. Black and R. H. Geoghegan. Alaska History 27. The Limestone Press, Kingston, Ontario. Verano, John W., and Stanley Finger 2010 Ancient Trepanation. Handbook of Clinical Neurology 95:3-14. West, Dixie, Christine Lefèvre, Debra Corbett, and Susan Crockford 2003 A Burial Cave in the Western Aleutian Islands, Alaska. Arctic Anthropology 40(1):7086. Wolff, Christopher B., J. Christopher Dudar, and Sarah Feinstein 2011 Inventory and Assessment of Human Remains Requested for Repatriation by the Aleut Community of St. Paul Island, Alaska, in the Collections of the National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution. Repatriation Office, Department of Anthropology, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. Woodbury, Anthony C. 1984 Eskimo and Aleut Languages. In Arctic, edited by D. Damas, pp. 49-63. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 5, William C. Sturtevant, general editor, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. 61 APPENDIX A: DOCUMENTATION OF HUMAN REMAINS AT THE NATIONAL MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY The Repatriation Office (RO) at the National Museum of Natural History is charged with complying with the repatriation provisions of the National Museum of American Indian Act. Following the Act, one of the primary functions of the Office is to determine the extent to which human remains held by the Museum are culturally affiliated with contemporary Native American groups. Resolving the identity of the remains can be a time-consuming and challenging task, but it is one the Museum and staff of the RO take very seriously. Documentation, or the physical examinations of the remains, is an integral part of the repatriation process. It provides one line of evidence used to determine cultural affiliation as required by law. Biological information on the shape and physical condition of the remains is evaluated, along with museum records, archaeological and anthropological information, and traditional knowledge, to help identify Native American groups with whom the remains may be affiliated. Documentation serves to confirm existing museum records. It also forms part of the permanent record of the Museum’s compliance with the repatriation mandate, the determination of cultural affiliation, and the arrangements made for transfer of remains to Native representatives. Information assembled and permanently archived at the Museum as a record of repatriation is available to Native groups for their own records and use. The paragraphs below provide specific details on the kinds of information recorded during documentation and the significance it has to the determination of cultural affiliation. A listing of skeletal remains present. In each repatriation case, all physical remains that have been requested for return are first retrieved from storage. A detailed list of the skeletal elements in each catalog entry is then created. Due to changes in collection techniques and museum practices over the years, it is not always the case that the remains of a single individual are identified by a single catalog number. Information on the number and type of bones included in each set enables us to approximate the number of individuals present. Discrepancies in the records are noted and corrected. Photographs and x-rays are taken to create a permanent record of the remains for deaccession (the museum’s exit procedure) and for future reference. The age and sex of each individual. Determining the age and sex of the remains helps to establish the total number of individuals present. In cases where the record suggests the remains may pertain to a specific individual, knowing the age and sex is critical to making a final identification. This information is especially helpful for the identification of named individuals or remains from recorded historic incidents. Such information has also proven important to Native groups who accord different burial treatment depending on the age and sex of the individual being interred. Condition of the remains. The physical condition of the remains provides information about their original location, their manner of treatment following death, and other events that have affected them since that time. Noting the amount of weathering and staining on the bones can help establish whether the individuals were buried and the kinds of objects placed with the body in contexts above or below the ground. This information can be critical to determining an 62 individual’s cultural affiliation when historical and archaeological information are unavailable or when the circumstances under which the individual died and the manner in which the remains were treated are poorly understood. For some Native groups, interpreting the condition of the remains has also been important for explaining the course of events following death and preparing them for transport and final burial. Differences in bone shape. While every person is unique, there are certain physical characteristics, such as facial features and the shape of the skull, that identify people as members of a particular group. In many cases, these differences are known to correspond with ethnic or cultural differences. Observations on the size and shape of skeletal remains are essential for the assessment of cultural affiliation in cases where other evidence is lacking. The shape of the skull, for example, can be used in combination with other forms of evidence to confirm the presence of a particular group in an area well before the existence of written records. Standard measurements and observations of remains of known cultural affiliation also provide critical information needed for future identification of remains held by the Museum whose cultural affiliation is otherwise unknown. Intentional modification of bone. People sometimes alter their physical appearance to mark their membership in a group or to make themselves more attractive. Some modifications, like piercing of the ears or tattooing, leave no marks on the skeleton. Other activities, such as intentional shaping of the head, carrying infants in cradle boards, and piercing the lip to insert ornaments, change the form of bones or teeth. Because these practices can be characteristic of a particular cultural group, the identification of socially-encouraged modifications of the skeleton can often help in the determination of cultural affiliation. Information on health and diet from skeletal remains. Skeletal remains are a very important source of information on the quality of life. What foods were eaten, what kind of work was engaged in and how healthy a person was are typically reflected in the human skeleton. Since these conditions vary through time and from culture to culture, obtaining information on the health and diet of an individual can aid in the determination of cultural affiliation. This information also advances our understanding of certain diseases and related health issues of concern to Native people and all Americans. The National Museum of Natural History is committed to developing a better understanding of the sensitivities and desires of Native groups charged with the responsibility of recovering ancestral remains and associated funerary objects. We hope that our good faith effort to determine cultural affiliation and to return remains and objects to groups requesting repatriation will form the foundation of more open and collaborative relationships in the future. We will work closely with designated tribal representatives to determine cultural affiliation and to insure that their desires concerning the disposition of the remains are met. A variety of solutions are available, including transfer to the group for burial, continued care of the remains at the museum under guidelines worked out with the group, or transfer of the remains to other institutions, such as regional or Native museums. 63 APPENDIX B: GLOSSARY Accession: The process through which an object or collection is officially added to the holdings of the museum. The term also can refer to the body of records created during the process. Accession records: The body of records that document an object's first association with the museum, including correspondence and inventory supplied by the collector/donor, and the formal records created by the museum to register receipt and acceptance of the contribution. Anthropology collections: The collections of the Anthropology Department of the NMNH are separated into three different divisions: 1) Physical Anthropology (human remains), 2) Ethnology (objects collected contemporaneously from the cultural group that created them), and 3) Archaeology (materials recovered from archaeological contexts) and 4) Non-skeletal human remains, which are human remains consisting of non-skeletal tissue. Associated funerary object: See Funerary objects. Card catalog: Record keeping system in the Anthropology Department of the NMNH. Each card in the file contains information on item(s) associated with a specific catalog number. The type of information contained on the cards typically includes a brief description of the item, its collection history, and its provenience. The card catalog continues to be maintained, though its use has been superseded by the computer database. Catalog Number: Identification number assigned to each item or set of items at the time they are accessioned into the museum. Catalog records: The body of formal records created by the museum relating to the assignment of identification numbers and storage locations for each item in the museum’s collections. At the Smithsonian, these records consist of the ledger books, card catalog and the computer database. Collector: The person who acquired human remains or cultural objects from the field. The collector may differ from the donor. For instance, the person who did so and then shipped his or her collection to the Army Medical Museum (AMM) was both the collector and the donor of the AMM materials. If the materials were then transferred to the Smithsonian from the AMM, the collector would remain the same but the AMM would become the donor to the Smithsonian. Cranium (pl. Crania): The bones of the head, excluding the mandible. Cultural affiliation: As defined in the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (PL 101-601), refers to “a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced historically or prehistorically between a present day Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization, and an identifiable earlier group.” 64 Documentation: The summary of museum records, relevant studies, and other data for the purposes of determining the geographical origin and cultural affiliation of human remains and cultural items and the information regarding their acquisition and accession. Donor: The individual or institution that contributed human remains or cultural objects to the holding institution. The donor may differ from the collector. A collector who acquired materials from the field and shipped them to the Army Medical Museum was both the collector and donor of the AMM materials. If those items were later transferred to the Smithsonian from the AMM, the collector remains the same but the AMM would become the donor to the Smithsonian. Electronic Record: Identification number assigned to each item in the electronic database. This may correspond to a single catalog number, or one catalog number can have multiple electronic records, reflecting either different parts of the same object, or distinct objects within the same catalog number (i.e., five projectile points in one catalog number might have five electronic records associated with them, but only one original catalog record). Ethnographic Summary: Ethnographic object lists prepared to provide Native American communities with information on the scope of the collections in the possession of the museum, the kinds of objects present in the collections, the geographic origins of the materials, how and when the collections were acquired, and the possible cultural affiliation of the items. The information in general is based upon data from a variety of records which have been consolidated in the computer database. This information is considered to be unverified until reviewed within the scope of a repatriation assessment. Funerary objects: Objects intentionally placed with an individual at the time of death or sometime thereafter as part of the a death rite or ceremony of a culture. Funerary objects may be associated or unassociated. Associated funerary objects are objects that are still associated with the remains with which they were originally interred, i.e., both are in the possession of the museum. Unassociated funerary objects are objects that are no longer associated with the human remains with which they were interred, and the remains are no longer extant and/or are not in the possession of the museum. Human remains: The bones, teeth, tissue, hair, or other body parts of a deceased individual, not including portions that are naturally shed or freely given. Inventory: An itemized list that summarizes the available information on the human remains or objects in question with respect to geographic and cultural affiliation. Mandible: The lower jaw. Objects of Cultural Patrimony: The 1996 amendment to the NMAIA requires the Smithsonian to follow the definition from NAGPRA for objects of cultural patrimony, which are objects having ongoing historical, traditional, or cultural importance to the Native American group or culture itself. These objects, because of their central importance to the group, would not be considered the property of any particular individual, and therefore could not be alienated, appropriated, or conveyed by any individual. 65 Postcrania: The bones of the body excluding the skull. Preponderance of evidence: Legal standard which requires that the evidence as a whole show that something is more probable than not; proof need not be conclusive, but the evidence in one direction must have the greater weight. Provenience: The point of origin or collection site of a specific object or set of remains. Repatriation: The return of Native American human remains or cultural items to culturally affiliated Native American tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations. Repatriation Review Committee: Committee of seven individuals appointed by the Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution from nominations submitted by federally-recognized Native American tribes, and Native American, anthropological, and museum organizations. The purpose of the committee is to monitor and review the inventory, identification, and the return of Native American human remains and cultural items for the Smithsonian Institution. The specific functions of the committee are (1) to ensure fair and objective consideration and assessment of all relevant evidence; (2) to review, upon the request of any affected party, the findings relating to the origins or return of any remains or objects; and (3) to facilitate resolution of any dispute that may arise between Indian tribes regarding the return of remains or objects. Sacred objects: As defined in the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (P.L. 101-601), refers to “specific ceremonial objects required by traditional Native American religious leaders for the practice of traditional Native American religions by their present-day adherents. While many items, from ancient pottery sherds to arrowheads, might be imbued with sacredness in the eyes of an individual, these regulations are specifically limited to objects that were devoted to a traditional Native American religious ceremony or ritual and which have religious significance or function in the continued observance or renewal of such ceremony.” Skull: All of the bones of the head, including the mandible and cranium. Tracking Number: A Repatriation Office Tracking number (i.e., P333222 RO Tracking Number 1) is assigned to a single commingled bone within a catalog number when that bone does not belong to the individual representing the majority of skeletal elements in the catalog number. In many cases a catalog number may contain several RO Tracking Numbers, but these commingled and tracked bones do not belong to a single individual. Tracked bones are consistent with more than one individual from that archaeological site or series, and therefore cannot be positively reassociated to another catalog number. Typically RO Tracking Numbers do not contribute to the calculation of minimum number of individuals within an archaeological site, since they could belong to other individuals, unless much of the site is commingled. The RO Tracking number is assigned in order to permit documentation of that bone into the database and possibly allow reassociation to another catalog number in the future if more information is discovered. Unassociated funerary objects: See Funerary objects. 66