MICROSCOPIC ANALYSIS OF FEATHER AND HAIR FRAGMENTS ASSOCIATED WITH HUMAN MUMMIFIED REMAINS FROM KAGAMIL ISLAND, ALASKA Carla J. Dove and Suzanne C. Peurach Department of Systematic Biology National Museum of Natural History Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC, USA USGS Patuxent WudHfe Research Center National Museum of Natural Mstory Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC, USA INTRODUCTION Human mummified remains of 34 different infant and adult individuals from Kagam? Island, Alaska, are accessioned in the Department of Anthropolog}?, National Museum of Natural Histor)?, Smithsonian Institution. Kagam? Island is one of the small islands in the Island of Four Mountains group of the Aleutian Islands, Alaska and is well known for the mumm)? caves located on the southwest coast of the island. The Kagam? mumm)? holdings at the Smithsonian represent one of the largest, best documented and preserved col- lections of this t)?pe. Although these specimens are stored in ideal conditions, many small feather and hair fragments have become loose or disassociated from the actual mummies over the years. This pre- liminary? investigation of fragmentary fiber material retrieved from these artifacts is the first attempt to identify bird and mammal species associated with the mummified remains of the Kagam? Island, Alaska coUection and is part of the ongoing research connected with these artifacts. AH speci- mens included in this study were co?ected by Henderson (DaU 1874) and Hrdlicka from 1936 to 1938 (Hrdlicka 1945) and are attributed to die Aleutian Island site at Kagam?. The identification of birds from microscop- ic feather evidence has been used in systematic stud- ies of birds (Chandler 1916; Dove 1997, 2000); in ecological studies of prey remains (Day 1966); in the identification of birds that collide with aircraft (Brom 1991; Dove 2000); and in the identification of anthropological artifacts (Dove 1998; Rogers et al. 2002). It has been shown that certain groups of birds may have diagnostic suites of microscopic characters in the plumulaceous (downy) feather barbs (Figure 1) which aid in the identification of orders, famuies and even species of birds (Chandler 1916; Dove 1997, 2000; Brom 1991; Reaney et al. 1978; Robertson et al. 1984). Several thorough studies published by Hausman (1920a, 1920b, 1920c, 1924,1930) paved the way for a vast array of research on the attributes of mammalian hair. Some studies examined the commercial aspects of hair produced by the domes- tic breeding of fiar bearing mammals (Appleyard 1978) wh?e other studies have focused on hair iden- Ethnographical Series, Volume 20 51 Microscopic Analysis of Feather and Hair Fragments Carla J. Dove and Suzanne C. Peurach ?naceous barbs Contour Feather Pigment Barbule tification of Stomach or scat contents (Day 1966; Cypher et al. 1994); hair tubing studies (Lindemayer et al. 1999); and wildlife remains from aircraft strikes (Dove and Peurach 2001). Identification keys based mainly on dorsal guard hair characteristics are avail- able for many geographical regions and can be used to distinguish between samples of different mam- mal groups (Brunner and Coman 1974; Mayer 1952; Moore et al. 1974). METHODS A total of 54 feather and 46 hair samples were examined from 34 different catalogued mummies (infant and adult) in the collections of the Smithsonian Institution, Department of Anthropolog}? (Table 1). Due to the fragile nature of these objects, many loose pieces or partial feath- er and hair fragments were detached from the arti- facts and available for microscopic examination, thus the analysis did not involve any form of destructive and/or invasive procedures. T}?pically, the mummified bodies are wrapped in a combination of bird skins, marine mammal fur and grass mattings. In a few cases, the bundles have been fiorther cushioned by adding /. Topography of a contour feather showing plumula- ceous barbs, which are subdivided into barbules (below), that have diagnostic microscopic characteristics for identification. grass and seaweed. Although there is no direct evi- dence at this time, computed tomography reveals that bodies may be wrapped in a combination of several layers of feathers and fiar (Figure 2). Sometimes, the inner-most layer consists of an inverted bird skin, which on some infants has been applied as a head-gear. Because of the non-invasive demands on the artifacts in this study, none of the bird or mammal skins originating on the internal part of the bundle could be identified. However, CT scanning suggests that it might be ver)? likely that the internal bird and mammal skins are similar to the skins facing the external surfaces and respon- sible for the loose feather and hair fragments used for the present analysis. Minute samples of feather and hair were mounted on labeled glass microslides and prepared following the methods described in Laybourne and Dove (1994) and Dove (1998) witii the exception that samples were not washed due to the small amount of material available for study. Microslides were examined with Reichert Diastar and Zeiss compound comparison light microscopes at 100 ? 400X. Photomicrographs were taken with a Polaroid DMC le digital camera. Microslides were labeled with the Department of Anthropolog)? cata- logue number and are stored with the Kagam? mummy collection at the Smithsonian Institution. The Kagam? feather and hair samples were com- pared with a large reference collection of microslides (Smithsonian Institution, Division of Birds and Division of Mammals) made from known species that occur throughout the Aleutian Islands. In this study, feather identification was con- ducted mainly by microscopic examination of the downy barbs found associated with the Kagam? specimens. Downy feather barbs are located at the Table 1 (opposite page). List of birds and mammals i from fragments assodated with mummies from Kagamil Island, Alaska catalogued in the Department of Anthropology, Smithsonian Institution. In cases where more than one sample was examined for a specfic item, samples are numbered 1 to 6. Parentheses in?cate lowest possible level of taxonomic identification, with genus and spedes i 52 Ethnographical Series, Volume 20 Carla J. Dove and Suzanne C. Peurach Microscopic Analysis of Feather and Hair Fragments USNM Catalogue # Bird Identification Mammal Identification 17480 17481 17482 17483 377698 377699 377832 377899 386376 386378 386379 386380 386382 386383 386384 386385 386386 1. eider (Anaridae) 2. auklet (Alcidae) 1. puffin {Fratercul?) 2. alcid (Alcidae) 1. puffin {Fratercul?) 1. Common Raven (Corms comx) 1. alcid (Alcidae) 1. alcid (Acidae) 1. puffin {Fratercul?) 1. eider (Anatidae) No birds 1. puffin (Fratercul?) 2. auklet (Alcidae) 1. puffin {Fratercul?) No birds 1. alcid (Alcidae) 2. kittiwake (hams) No birds 1. Pelagic Cormorant (Phakcrocomx 1. Pelage Cormorant 2. auklet {Alddae) 3. Parakeet Auklet {Aethiapsittacul?) 1. Least Auklet {Aethiapusill?) 2. auklet (Alcidae) 3. cormorant (Phakcrocoim^ 4. auklet (Alcidae) 1. Least Auklet {Aethia pusill?) 1. goose (Anatidae) 2. gull (Laridae) 3. goose (Anaridae) 1. fox {Ahpexor. Vulpes) 2. bear (Ursus) 3. otter (?nhydra or Lj)ntr?) 1. earless seal (Phocidae) 2. eared seal or walrus (Otariidae) No mammals 1. otter (linhydra or Lj)ntr?) 1. otter (Ilnhydra or L?ntm) 2. cf caribou (Ranker); earless seal (Phocidae) 3. bear (Ursus) No mammals No mammals No mammals 1. earless seal (Phocidae) 1. eared seal or walrus (Otariidae) 2. otter (Enby?ra or Lj)ntm) 1. otter {?nhydra or L/mtm) 1. otter {?nhydra or L/mtm) 1. earless seal (Phocidae) 2. fox {Ahpex or Vuipes) 1. otter (?nhydra or Ijmtm) 2. bear (Ursus) 3. earless seal (Phocidae) No mammals 1. earless seal (Phocidae) 1. fox {Ahpex ot I 2. fox (Ahpex or Vuipes) 3. bear (Ursus) No mammals 1. eared seal or walrus (Otariidae) 2. eared seal or walrus (Otariidae) 386387 1. eider (Anatidae) 2. auklet (Alcidae) 386388 1. auklet (Acidae) 2. auklet (Acidae) 386389 1. auklet (Acidae) 386390 1. puffin (Frafermla) 2. Common Raven [Corvus cora^ 386391 1. goose (Anatidae) 2. auklet (Alcidae) 386392 1. Common Raven {Corpus cora^ 2. Canada goose {Branta canadensis) 3. guU {Laruf); Murre {Uri?) 386393 1. guU {Larus) 2. gull {Larus), possibly Herring Gull 3. guU (Larus) 4. plover or sandpiper (Charadriidae or Scolopaci( 386394 1. Tufted Puffin (?ratercula cirrhat?) 13 indi^ddual beaks 386395 1. puffin {Fraterculd) 386396 1. goose (Anatidae) 2. alcid (Aldicae) 386397 1. Common Eider {Somateria mollissimd) 2. Ancient Murrelet (Synthliboramphus antiquus) 386398 1. Least Auklet (Aethia pusiila) 386399 1. puffin {Fraterculd} 2. auklet (Alcidae) 386400 1. Common Raven (Corvus corax) 386377 1. puffin (Fratercula) 1. earless seal (Phocidae) 2. Unidenrified hair 1. earless seal (Phocidae) 2. eared seal or walrus (Otariidae) 3. eared seal or walrus (Otariidae) 1. otter (?nhydra or Lontr?) No mammals 1. eared seal or walrus (Otariidae) 2. fox {Ahpex or ]Ailpc?) 1. eared seal or walrus (Otariidae) 2. bear (Ursus) 1. bear (Ursus) 2. earless seal (Phocidae) 3. otter ?nlx?dra orLontra) 4. earless seal (Phocidae) 5. earless seal (Phocidae) 6. earless seal (Phocidae) 1. earless seal (Phocidae) 1. earless seal or walrus (Phocidae or Otariidae) 1. otter ?nlr?dra or Lontr?) 2. cf caribou (Rangfer) No mammals No mammals No mammals 1. earless seal (Phocidae) No Mammals Ethnographical Series, Volume 20 53 Microscopic Analysis of Feather and Hair Fragments Carla J. Dove and Suzanne C. Peurach '2 CT scan of USNM-386389. Infant mumm fed body from Kagamil Island. Body (a) is protected by layers of bird skin (b), mammal fur (c), grass mattings (d), and sea- weed (e). base of most contour feathers (or grow in between feather tracts) and function to provide insulation. The variation in the microscopic feather characters of the downy barbules (which branch from downy barbs) such as node shape, node distribution, pig- ment patterns and length of downy barbules (Figure 1) were used in this study to aid in the identification of bird species. Mammal identifications were based on microscopic hair characters such as presence or absence and configuration of the medulla, overall hair length, shape, color, and external scale patterns (Figure 3). Hair terminolog)^ is based on Brunner and Coman (1974). Because it was impossible to remove whole feathers, bird carcasses, or mammal skins from the mummy specimens in this study, microscopic identi- fications could not be corroborated in the usual way by matching whole or partial fragments to museum specimens. Therefore, the identification results of this study are preliminary until more detailed sam- pling is permitted. scale pattern medulla 3 Topography of a \ some characters used for microscopic analysis. Sea Otter (Enlydra lutris) 54 Ethnographical Series, Volume 20 Carla J. Dove and Suzanne C. Peurach Microscopic Analysis of Feather and Hair Fragments ; 4. Photomicrogri^hs showing typical microscopic characters of (A) auklet (Aladae), (B) eider (Anatidae), (C) deer (Cervidae), and (D) otter (Mustelidae). RESULTS Bird Identifications In this preliminar)? study, more than a dozen differ- ent species of birds representing four different avian orders (Charadriiformes, Anseriformes, Pelecaniformes, Passeriformes) were identified from the downy feather fragments associated with the Kagam? mummies (Table 1). Table 2 shows that the majoritjf of the bird species were ?rom the avian orders Charadriiformes (auks, guUs and shorebirds) or Anseriformes (ducks, geese and swans). The Common Raven {Corvus corax) was the only songbird (Passeriformes) identified in this study. Fortj^-one of the feather samples could only be identified to a gen- eral "group" of birds (e.g. auklet) because of insuffi- ciently available feather material. One item (#386394) contained 13 individual distal upper beaks of Tufted Puffin (Fratercula ?rrhata). Auklets (a sub-group of six species of birds within the family Alcididae) composed the majorit)^ of the avian identifications in this study. According to del Hoyo et al. (1996), all six species of auklets (Least, Crested, Parakeet, Whiskered, Cassin's, Rhinoceros) occur throughout the Aleutian Islands. The downy feather microstructure characteristics of these six auklets are similar to each other and do not vary^ enough to confidendy assign specific identifica- tions based on microscopic analysis alone. However, the microscopic feather structures of the auklets do Ethnographical Series, Volume 20 55 Microscopic Analysis of Feather and Hair Fragments Carla J. Dove and Suzanne C. Peurach Table 2. Percentages of birds and mammals represented in the Yiagamil mummy samples. Birds: Order Charadriiformes (auks, gulls, and shorebirds) Anseriformes (ducks, geese, swans) Pelecaniformes (pelecans, cormorants) Passeriformes (song birds) 63 21 11 05 Total (percent) 100 Mammals: Family Phocidae (earless seals) Mustelidae (weasels, otters) Otariidae (eared seals, walrus) Ursidae (bears) Canidae (dogs) Cervidae (deer) Phocidae or Otariidae (seal) 30 20 20 13 11 04 02 Total (percent) 100 differ from other genera within the family Alcidae (auks) by having oblong-shaped, heavily pigmented nodes with long prongs (Figure 4). A female Common Eider {Somateria mollissi- m?) was identified on item #386397 based on one whole feather that was attached to the outside of the mummy bundle. Eiders tj^picaUy can be differentiat- ed microscopicall)? from other species within Anseriformes (ducks, geese, swans) by the heav}^ stippling of pigment throughout the barbule (Figure 4). Anseriformes also have diagnostic, triangular- shaped nodes that are located on the distal portion of the barbule. Sekora (1973) lists three species of eider (Common, King and Steller's) as occurring throughout the Aleutians and reports the Common Eider as a known breeder in the chain. Three other samples in this study contained eider feathers that could not be identified to the species level. The Common Raven {Corvus corax) was found in four separate samples and represents the only passerine species identified in this study. Ravens are known in Native American cultures of the Northwest as being the creator of earth, moon, sun, and stars, as well as being regarded as tricksters and cheaters (Borman and Heinrich 1999). Jochelson (1933) reported that beaks of ravens were used as hunting amulets by the Aleuts. The few taxonomic identifications of birds to species level in this study were based on microscopic examination in combina- tion with some other diagnostic character observed on the whole feathers attached to the bundles. Mammal Identifications The majorit)^ of the mammals identified from the Kagam? mummy remains were carnivores (Order Carn?vora) and include (in order of abundance): ear- less seals (Fam?)?: Phocidae), otters (Genera: Ijontra or Enhydrd), eared seals (Family: Otariidae), Bear (Genus: Ursus), and fox (Genern: Alopex ot Vulpes). Only two samples contained deer (Famil)?: Cervidae, possibly caribou). Over 71% of the samples identi- fied were from aquatic or semi-aquatic mammals (Table 2) and were found in 14 samples. Earless seals (Phocidae) often have hair shafts that are broken distaUy, resulting in hairs that are t)'pically short, wide, and completely lacking a medulla when compared to other carnivores (Mayer 1952). Hairs of eared seals or wakus (Otariidae) were identified from eight samples and share many characteristics with those of the earless seals (Phocidae) with the exception that the overhairs and guard hairs of otar?d seals have medullas whereas 56 Ethnographical Series, Volume 20 Carla J. Dove and Suzanne C. Peurach Microscopic Analysis of Feather and Hair Fragments ; 5. Kagamil infant (USNM-386384) covered in bird and mammal skins. Photo by Center for S?enti?c Imaging and Photography. National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution. phocid hairs do not (Yochem and Stewart 2002). Attempts were not made to distinguish between piniped genera until more detailed sampling can be done. Otter (Mustelidae) was identified from 10 samples comprising 20% of the mummies examined in this study, but species designation between sea otter (?nhydra ) and river otter (Lontra ) could not be determined. Mustelid hairs always have a petal shaped scale pattern on the underhairs as well as on the base of overhaits and guard hairs. Some carni- vores may also show this basal scale pattern, but it is not as extensive as in mustelids. In addition, the overhairs of mustelids widen distaUy into a broad shield that is not as pronounced in other carnivores (Teerink 1991). Other terrestrial members of the family Mustelidae also share these characteristics with otters, but the hair shaft is longer and wider in the otter. The identification of bear (Ursus) from six samples was based primarily on the length (138 mm longest hair) and the microscopic character of a sim- ple, amorphous medulla (less than V2 diameter for the entire hair shaft). Microslides of the samples were compared with the reference collection or pub- lished literature for mammals (native and non-native species) that might have hair of this length such as human (Homo), musk ox (Ovihos), bison (Bison ), cow (Bos), and horse (Equus). AU were found to possess different characteristics of the medulla when exam- ined with light microscopy. The identification to species level is problematic because most of the hairs with bear-like characteristics in this study pos- sessed a distinctive orange coating. It is reported that the Aleuts used ochre dye as well as their own blood to dye components for amulets or simple dec- orations (fochelson 1933). Fox (/llopex or Vulpei) were found in five samples and were distinguished from other closely related canids and members of the fam?y Mustelidae based on hair length as well as characteristics of the medulla and external scale pattern. Guard hairs of wild species of dog that were reviewed in the micro slide reference collection were found to have wider medulla (more than Viz the diameter of the hair shaft) and had much darker pigment than was found in these samples. The length of the hair elim- inates all terrestrial mustelids from that region except wolverine (Guio), and the Kagamil samples lacked the narrow basal region followed by a wide shield near the tip found on most mustelids (Moore et al. 1974). However, the Kagamil samples did posses the basal petal scales seen in some carnivores as well as mustelids. The hair shaft of the wolverine has a much greater diameter than that of the fox. Further, identification of fox was problematic for reasons similar to the bear identifications. These hair sam- ples were always found to be bright orange and showed evidence of orange-colored debris adhering to the outside of the hair shaft. Ethnographical Series, Volume 20 57 Microscopic Analysis of Feather and Hair Fragments Carla J. Dove and Suzanne C. Peurach Vigure 6. Harbor Seal (Phoca mtulina) on Ship Rock Island between Umnak and Unalaska islands. Identification: by James Mead, Manne Mammal Program, Smithsonian Institution. Photo by Bruno Fr?hlich. The possible identification of caribou (Rangifer tarandus) from two samples was based on geographic distribution of the species and the microscopic observation of the unbroken lattice medulla, a character found in members of the family Cervidae as well as in other artiodactjds. Caribou is the only cervid species native to the Aleutian Islands (Hall 1981). This species was also introduced on Seward Peninsula between 1892 and 1902 (Dau et al. 2000). Figure 4 shows examples of topical micro- scopic characters observed in cervid (deer) and otter hair. DISCUSSION The identification of birds and mammals from frag- mentary evidence in this study was difficult due to the minute samples available for study, the inaccessi- bilit}^ of the bird and mammal specimens within the bundles (Figure 5), and the non-invasive restrictions on the artifacts. Therefore, exact species identifica- tions could not be made on the associated birds and mammals for the majorit}" of these mummies. Additionally, it was impossible to determine if cross contamination of fragments occurred over time or during storage and transport. However, the large number of samples analyzed in this study does con- firm that certain t^pes of birds and mammals were preferred in the burial rituals of the Kagamil mum- mies by the Aleuts. BIRDS The group of birds most often identified in this study was Charadr?formes (auks, gulls, shorebirds). This is not unusual considering that vast numbers of auks and guUs occur and breed throughout the Aleutian Islands. Sowls et al. (1973) estimated breeding colonies of kittiwakes in Alaska to be near- ly 2 million and Sekora (1973) estimated more than 1,000 breeding puffins and 285,000 breeding Common and Thick-billed Murres on Kagam? Island alone. An inventor)^ of 3,985 bird bones from middens discovered at Nikolski, a village that lies only 42 km east of Kagamil, listed shearwaters and fioknars (Procellariformes) as representing 40% of the birds found in the village debris followed by puffins and auklets representing 32%, and ducks, cormorants, albatross and others representing 28% (Laughlin 1980). Birds and eggs probably comprised about 20% of the early Aleutian diet and puffins were used for food and clothing (Laughlin 1980). The practice of inverting whole bird skins over the heads of infants is apparent throughout the Kagamil mummies in this collection. The purpose of this practice is unknown but Laughlin (1980) explains that the earty Aleutians used puffin skins to make fijU-length parkas that were reversible. The feathers were often worn on the inside during cold weather and on the outside during social occasions (Laughlin 1980). Geese and ducks (especially eiders) are known for the warm insulation that is provided 58 Ethnographical Series, Volume 20 Carla J. Dove and Suzanne C. Peurach Microscopic Analysis of Feather and Hair Fragments by the down feathers and were used with some fre- quency in these Kagarml burials. The breeding and wintering ranges of Common Eiders (Goudie et al. 2000) would have made them easily obtainable dur- ing all seasons of the year It is not surprising that the Aleuts used the birds that lived in the area to construct clothing for the burial garments of the mummies. The bird groups identified in this study are mainly consistent with what would have been expected to be available for use in the everyday lives of the people. It is interesting to note, however, that certain birds were not found in this study. Waterproof parkas made by some Aleuts had white feathers from the Bald Eagle, and hawks and owls were used in the dis- memberment practices of making mummies and for ceremonial and magical purposes (Laughlin 1980). Jochelson (1933) describes a practice of using the reddish down of the Rosy Finch (Leucosticte tephrocotis) to ornament birdskin parkas and as amulets to attract whales. None of these species were found in this preliminary^ study. MAMMALS Mammal identifications were complicated for the same reasons listed for bird identifications. Additionally, the different tj^pes of hair (e.g. under- hair, guard hair) on the same animal exhibit a great deal of variation. Many of the characters on the guard hair can only be used with assurance when it is known where the unknown samples have been taken from the body of the mammal. Other vari- ables such as the age of the animal or the season when the hair was collected may cause variation in the characteristics of the hair The preference for using earless seals dur- ing burial practices may be based on the importance of this animal as a component of their hunting practices as well as a central part of the diet. Laughlin (1980) reported that one-third of the diet of the Aleuts was found to consist of the meat of marine mammals. The livelihood and cultural prac- tices of the Aleuts were influenced greatiy by sea otter (?nhydra lutris), especially after contact with Russians with whom the pelts were prized (fochelson 1933; Laughlin 1980), although the meat was not historically a component of their diet. Laughlin (1980) retold an Aleut account that the meat of otters reportedly tastes like mud, but Jochelson (1933) recanted a report by George Steiler that the meat of sea otter is better than that of seals and that suckling otter meat tastes much like lamb. Laughlin (1980) reported that in pre- Russian times the Aleuts rarely hunted otters because they believed them to be akin to humans and even used otter bodies as reference matenal for autopsies on their dead. When they did hunt otter, considerable effort was taken to appease the good wiU of the 'person' of the otter. Because the mummified burial remains of the adult and infants from Kagarml Island are pre- served in very good condition, it is possible to study these artifacts in greater detail and gain more infor- mation about the tj^pes of birds and mammals and the significance of these animals to the rituals of the people of this area. However, more liberal sam- pling techniques are desired to obtain better material for study of the bird and mammal species used in these artifacts. Whole feathers, bird carcasses, and large portions of mammal skins are partially visible on some of these artifacts, but the feathers and hairs are dirt)? or stained and need to be properly cleaned to regain natural colors for better identifica- tion characteristics. It is possible to make more positive species identifications of the birds and mammals used on these mummies, but more detailed analysis can only be performed using con- trolled sampling techniques and side by side whole specimen comparisons to unknown samples. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Thanks to Bruno Fr?hlich and David Hunt (Smithsonian Institution, Department of Anthropology) for interest and assistance in this project. The artifacts described in this study are part of the collections of the Department of Anthropolog}?, National Museum of Natural Histor)?, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC. Ethnographical Series, Volume 20 59 Microscopic Analysis of Feather and Hair Fragments Carla J. Dove and Suzanne C. Peurach REFERENCES Applej^ard, H.M. 1978 Guide to the Identification of Animal Fibres. Wool Industries Research Assoc, Leeds. Second Edit. Borman, WI. & B. Heinrich 1999 Common Raven. In: The Birds of North America, No. 476. Alan Poole, Peter Stettenheim, and Frank GiU, editors. Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia and American Ornithologists' Union, Washington, D.C. Brom, T. G 1991 The diagnostic and phylogenetic signifi- cance of feather structures. Instituut voor Taxonomische Zoologische, Amsterdam. Brunner, H. & B. Coman 1974 The Identification of Mammalian Hair Inkata Press, Melbourne. Chandler, A.C. 1916 A study of feathers, with reference to their taxonomic significance. University of CaUfornia Publications in Zoology 13(ll):243-446. Cipher, B.L., K.A. Spencer & J.H. Scrivner 1994 Food items use by coyotes at the naval petroleum in California. Southwestern NaturaUst 39(l):91-95. Dall, WH. 1874 Explorations in the Aleutian Islands and their vicinitjf. American Geological Society Journal, V, 243-245. Dau, J., H.V. Goldman [ed], B. Forbes [ed], & G Kofinas [ed] 2000 Managing reindeer and wildHfe on Alaska's Seward Peninsula. Polar Research 19(l):57-62 (Proceedings of the human role in reindeer/caribou sys- tems workshop, held in Rovaniemi, Finland, 10-14 February 1999). Day, M.F 1966 Identification of hair and feather frag- ments in the guts and faeces of stoats and weasels. Journal of Zoology (Lond.) 148: 201-217. del Hoyo, J., E. Andrew & S. Jordi [eds] 1996 Handbook of the birds of the world. Vol. 3 Hoatzin to Auks, I^jax Edicions, Barcelona. Dove, C.J. 1997 Quantification of microscopic feather char- acters used in the identification of North American Plovers. Condor 99:47-57. 1998 Feather evidence helps clarify localit)? of anthropological artifacts in the Museum of Mankind. Pacific Studies 21(3): 73-84. 2000 A descriptive and phjdogenetic analysis of plumulaceous feather characters in Charadriiformes. American Ornithologists' Union. Ornithological Monographs No 51. Dove, C.J. & S.C. Peurach 2001 The use of microscopic hair characters to aid in identification of a bat involved in a damaging aircraft strike. Bat Research News42(l):10-ll. Goudie, R.I., GJ. Robertson, & A. Reed 2000 Common Eider. In: The Birds of North America, No. 546. A. Poole, P. Stettenheim, and F GiU, [eds] Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia and American Ornithologists' Union, Washington, D.C. Hall, E.R. 1981 The mammals of North America. Volume II, second edition, John Wiley & Sons, NY Hausman, L.A 1920a The microscopic identification of commer- cial fiar hairs. Scientific Monthly 10:7078. 1920b Mammal fiar under the microscope. Natural History 20:434-444. 1920c Structural characteristics of the hair of mammals. American Naturalist 54(635):496-523. 1924 Further studies of the relationships of the structural characteristics of mammalian hair. American Naturalist 58:544-577. 1930 Recent studies of hair structure relation- sHps. Scientific Monthly 30(9): 258-277. Hrdlicka, A. 1945 The Aleutian and Commander Islands and Their Inhabitants. Wistar Institute, Philadelphia. 60 Ethnographical Series, Volume 20 Carla J. Dove and Suzanne C. Peurach Microscopic Analjfsis of Feather and Hair Fragments Jochelson, W 1933 Historjf Ethnolog}? and Anthropolog}? of the Aleut, Carnegie Institution of Washington, Pub. No. 432. Laybourne, R.C. & C.J. Dove 1994 Preparation of birdstrike remains for identi- fication. Pp. 531-534 in Proceedings and working papers of the Bird Strike Committee Meeting Europe 22, Vienna. Laughlin, WS. 1980 Aleuts, Survivors of the Bering Land Bridge, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, USA. Lindemayer, D.B., R.D. Incoll, R.B. Cunningham, M.L. Pope, C.F Donnely, CI. MacGregor, C. Tribolet, & B.E. Triggs 1999 Comparison of hairtube tj^pes for the detection of mammals. Wildlife Research 26(6):745-753. Mayer, WV 1952 The hair of California mammals with keys to the dorsal guard hairs of California mam- mals. American Midland Natiiralist 48:480-512. Moore, T.D., L.E. Spence, & CE Dugno?e 1974 Identification of the dorsal guard hairs of some mammals of Wyoming, In: Wyoming Game and Fish Department Bulletin No. 14, WG. Hepworth [ed], Cheyenne, Wyoming. Reaney, B.A., S.M. Richner, & WP Cunningham 1978 A preliminar)^ scanning electron microscope study of the minute morphological features This page: Cormorants, Anangula Island. Next page: Gull (Anangula ?),joung bald eagle ' Cove, Adak Island); Red-faced cor- morants (Anangula Island); murres and other shorehirds (Ship Rock. Island); hump- back whale from Bering Sea north of Unalaska; harbor seal (Attu Island); and fox (Adak Island). Photos by Bruno Fr?hlich. of feathers and their taxonomic signifi- cance. Scanning Electron Microscopy, 1:471-478. Robertson, J., C Harkin, & J. Govan 1984 The identification of bird feathers. Scheme for feather examination. Journal of the Forensic Science Society, 24: 85-98. Rogers, J.D., C.J. Dove, M. Heacker, & GR. Graves 2002 Identification of feathers in textiles from the Craig Mound at Sprio, Oklahoma. Southeastern Archaeology. Vol. 21 (2):245-251. Sekora, P. 1973 Aleutian Islands National Wildlife Refiage Wilderness Study Report. Aleutian Islands National Wildlife Refiige, Alaska. September 1973. Sowls, A.L., S.A. Hatch, & C.J. Lensick 1978 Catalogue of Alaskan Seabird Colonies. Biological Services Program, FWS/OBS- 78/78, U.S. Fish and WildHfe Services, U.S. Department of the Interior. Teerink, B.J. 1991 Hair of West European Mammals, Adas and Identification Y^cj. Cambridge Universit)^ Press, New York, NY Yochem, P.K.& B.S. Stewart 2002 Hair and fiir., PP 548-549 In: Enc>^clopedia of Marine Mammals, William F Perrin, Bernd Wursig, and J. G M. Thewissen, eds.. Academic Press, New York, NY Ethnographical Series, Volume 20 61 62 Ethnographical Series, Volume 20