304 CHERYL CLAASSEN shape (Coker 1916: 16). The ebony shell (Fusconaia ebena) was the best suited to button production and in the early years was the only species sought (Fig. 1). Some rivers yielded 80% or more of ebony shells such as the upper Mississippi, the St. Francis River in Arkansas, and the Pearl River in Louisiana and Mississippi (Coker 1919). By 1920, however, approximately 40 different freshwater species had commercial value in the US industry. Figure 1. Ebony shell (Fusconaia ebena). 2. BEDS AND SHELL DENSITIES In 1912, 57 rivers in 18 states were contributing shells to the button industry. By 1950, at least 108 rivers had been harvested for shell button needs. Naiad beds were often of considerable size and yielded considerable numbers of individuals. For example, that section of the Mississippi River around Muscatine, Iowa, yielded 500 tons of shell (open, meatless) in 1896, 3502 tons of shells in 1897, and 3641 tons in 1898 (Townsend 1901). Another bed in the vicinity of New Boston, Illinois, was measured to be 1.5 miles long by 330 yards wide. From 1896 to 1898 it produced 10,000 tons of shells. The rapids above Keokuk, Iowa, produced 1600 tons in 1910. Lake Pepin reports indicated 804 tons from one section of the upper lakeshore and 1160 tons from a section of the lower lakeshore in 1924 (Fig. 2) The early catch records from the Illinois River in the state of Illinois are also informative about animal density and industrial potential. The town of Chillicothe had in 1912 a 65 ton shell pile. A man in the Spring Bay area in 1909 gathered 14 tons in 17 days. In the Peoria area one sheller gathered 10 Figure 2. Shell Piles along the Mississippi River (Used with permission of the Musser Public Library, Muscatine, Iowa, Oscar Grossheim Collection, No. 567.) MUNIBE Suplemento - Gehigarria 31, 2010 S.C. <strong>Aranzadi</strong>. Z.E. Donostia/San Sebastián
The U.S. Freshwater Shell Button Industry 305 The techniques used to harvest mussels from their beds were adopted from the musseling industry of Europe and varied in their efficiency and damage to the beds. Most common were hand collection, raking, brailing, and the use of dredges. Brailing and hand collecting began in the late 1880s. Brailing refers to the dragging of multitons in 6 months in 1912. A 50 ton pile was recorded in the Pekin area. Havanna had a 30 ton pile in 1912, and “hundreds of tons” were shipped from the Bath area that year. Four thousand tons were harvested in the beds from Meredosia to Naples in 1909, while in 1912, 850 tons were gleaned. From the Valley City area came 200 tons in 1910 and 93 tons in 1912. Bedford had 28 tons in 1912, Pearl had 168 tons, and 30 tons were sold just north of Kampsville in 1912. Buyers bought 1000 tons in 1908 from Hardin, but only 5 tons in 1912, 122 tons at Grafton; 600 tons in 1911 and at least another 600 tons in 1912 from Gatlin (Danglade 1914). While I have been presenting the hauls in individual years, it is important to realize that many small and large rivers sustained continuous harvesting for more than two decades. The harvest records are not easy to find. For Iowa rivers I can say that, for instance, the Skunk River was exploited from at least 1920 to 1936, the Des Moines River from 1920 until 1941, and the Cedar River from 1920 to 1941. The yields from the each river are contained in Table 1. The variation in yields had little to do with the size of the molluscan population. Instead, it was heavily determined by the factory interest in this river as a source of shells expressed in the presence of a mussel buyer on the river. Prior to 1920 the principal button shell was the ebony. As the ebonies were depleted below the numbers necessary for a sheller’s income, shellers and buyers moved to other rivers. By 1920 and for the next 30 years the species mix viewed as acceptable for button cutting changed nearly yearly renewing factory interest in “old” river sources. The price the buyers offered per ton was also significant in the number of musselers willing to work. Some musselers harvested mussels even when no buyer was present and either left them in piles for future sale or transported them to a buyer on another river. So the variation in harvest yield is due to the presence of buyers, the price being offered, the number of individuals of a targeted species, the number of musselers, and the technique employed. There were far more species and individuals in these rivers than were of interest to the commercially motivated individual. 3. HARVESTING TECHNIQUES Year Mississippi Cedar Iowa DesMoines Wapsipinicon Skunk 1920 1,866,580 696,257 8,600 145,100 67,210 31,430 1921 1,430,894 89,500 15,660 149,005 157,210 6,000 1922 1,200,355 70,150 32,940 466,400 83,705 27,540 1923 1,424,933 9,410 36,369 553,786 155,641 43,297 1924 1,165,667 9,100 193,390 29,340 1925 1,144,687 100,366 26,000 231,271 100,040 57,149 1926 2,058,626 1,225,456 228,633 1,205,692 24,252 1927 888,982 663,848 205,663 322,603 14,490 1928 2,422,897 669,128 64,665 236,384 136,861 1929 1,020,484 NR 79,705 172,015 24,860 1930 1,482,679 76,281 81,181 43,293 41,362 7,700 1931 858,334 386,947 10,130 856,906 61,173 17,500 1932 299,181 87,277 91,652 1,890 2,010 1933 NR NR NR NR NR NR 1934 435,269 186,227 4,150 87,257 2,830 7,240 1935 324,344 130,296 20,917 46,316 7,385 12,704 1936 128,499 24,240 2,000 7,999 300 1937 192,438 94,117 1,468 390,062 1938 266,449 8,310 1,906 226,118 1939 148,665 7,590 7,298 7,800 1940 296,735 6,300 180 21,183 1941 225,960 6,600 39,830 1942 365,852 NR=no record Table 1. Mussel Poundage Taken from Iowa’s Rivers 1920-1942 (from Claassen 1994). MUNIBE Suplemento - Gehigarria 31, 2010 S.C. <strong>Aranzadi</strong>. Z.E. Donostia/San Sebastián
- Page 5 and 6:
SUPLEMENTO - GEHIGARRIA 31 Not only
- Page 9:
Not only Food. Marine, Terrestrial
- Page 12 and 13:
10 ESTEBAN ÁLVAREZ-FERNÁNDEZ, E.
- Page 14 and 15:
12 ESTEBAN ÁLVAREZ-FERNÁNDEZ, E.
- Page 17 and 18:
Not only Food. Marine, Terrestrial
- Page 20 and 21:
Radiocarbon dating of shell carbona
- Page 22 and 23:
20 KATERINA DOUKA, THOMAS F. G. HIG
- Page 24 and 25:
22 KATERINA DOUKA, THOMAS F. G. HIG
- Page 26 and 27:
24 KATERINA DOUKA, THOMAS F. G. HIG
- Page 28 and 29:
26 KATERINA DOUKA, THOMAS F. G. HIG
- Page 30 and 31:
Marine shell beads from the Gravett
- Page 32 and 33:
30 CRISTINA SAN JUAN-FOUCHER & PASC
- Page 34 and 35:
32 CRISTINA SAN JUAN-FOUCHER & PASC
- Page 36 and 37:
34 CRISTINA SAN JUAN-FOUCHER & PASC
- Page 38 and 39:
Upper Paleolithic ornament seashell
- Page 40 and 41:
38 ANTONIO J. RODRÍGUEZ-HIDALGO, A
- Page 42 and 43:
40 ANTONIO J. RODRÍGUEZ-HIDALGO, A
- Page 44 and 45:
42 ANTONIO J. RODRÍGUEZ-HIDALGO, A
- Page 46 and 47:
44 ANTONIO J. RODRÍGUEZ-HIDALGO, A
- Page 48:
46 ANTONIO J. RODRÍGUEZ-HIDALGO, A
- Page 51 and 52:
MUNIBE(Suplemento/Gehigarria) - nº
- Page 53 and 54:
The personal ornaments made from mo
- Page 55 and 56:
The personal ornaments made from mo
- Page 57 and 58:
The personal ornaments made from mo
- Page 60 and 61:
Magdalenian marine shells from El H
- Page 62 and 63:
60 MIGUEL ÁNGEL FANO & ESTEBAN ÁL
- Page 64 and 65:
62 MIGUEL ÁNGEL FANO & ESTEBAN ÁL
- Page 66 and 67:
64 MIGUEL ÁNGEL FANO & ESTEBAN ÁL
- Page 68 and 69:
66 MIGUEL ÁNGEL FANO & ESTEBAN ÁL
- Page 70:
68 MIGUEL ÁNGEL FANO & ESTEBAN ÁL
- Page 73 and 74:
MUNIBE(Suplemento/Gehigarria) - nº
- Page 75 and 76:
From the Mediterranean sea to the S
- Page 77 and 78:
From the Mediterranean sea to the S
- Page 79 and 80:
From the Mediterranean sea to the S
- Page 81 and 82:
MUNIBE(Suplemento/Gehigarria) - nº
- Page 83 and 84:
Archaeomalacological remains from t
- Page 85 and 86:
Archaeomalacological remains from t
- Page 87 and 88:
Archaeomalacological remains from t
- Page 89 and 90:
Archaeomalacological remains from t
- Page 91 and 92:
MUNIBE(Suplemento/Gehigarria) - nº
- Page 93 and 94:
Shell beads in the Pre-Pottery Neol
- Page 95 and 96:
Shell beads in the Pre-Pottery Neol
- Page 97 and 98:
Shell beads in the Pre-Pottery Neol
- Page 99 and 100:
Shell beads in the Pre-Pottery Neol
- Page 102 and 103:
Lost in the mountains? Marine ornam
- Page 104 and 105:
102 JORGE MARTÍNEZ-MORENO, RAFAEL
- Page 106 and 107:
104 JORGE MARTÍNEZ-MORENO, RAFAEL
- Page 108 and 109:
106 JORGE MARTÍNEZ-MORENO, RAFAEL
- Page 110 and 111:
108 JORGE MARTÍNEZ-MORENO, RAFAEL
- Page 112 and 113:
New data on Asturian shell midden s
- Page 114 and 115:
112 F. IGOR GUTIÉRREZ & MANUEL GON
- Page 116 and 117:
114 F. IGOR GUTIÉRREZ & MANUEL GON
- Page 118 and 119:
116 F. IGOR GUTIÉRREZ & MANUEL GON
- Page 120:
118 F. IGOR GUTIÉRREZ & MANUEL GON
- Page 123 and 124:
MUNIBE(Suplemento/Gehigarria) - nº
- Page 125 and 126:
Analysis of malacofauna remains fro
- Page 127 and 128:
Analysis of malacofauna remains fro
- Page 129 and 130:
Analysis of malacofauna remains fro
- Page 131 and 132:
MUNIBE(Suplemento/Gehigarria) - nº
- Page 133 and 134:
Shell as a raw material for tools a
- Page 135 and 136:
Shell as a raw material for tools a
- Page 137 and 138:
Shell as a raw material for tools a
- Page 139 and 140:
Shell as a raw material for tools a
- Page 141 and 142:
3100 138-145 000-000 DONOSTIA-SAN S
- Page 143 and 144:
The use of marine shell in Cingle V
- Page 145 and 146:
The use of marine shell in Cingle V
- Page 147 and 148:
The use of marine shell in Cingle V
- Page 149 and 150:
MUNIBE(Suplemento/Gehigarria) - nº
- Page 151 and 152:
Technology, production and use of m
- Page 153 and 154:
Technology, production and use of m
- Page 155 and 156:
Technology, production and use of m
- Page 158 and 159:
Archaeomalacological Data from the
- Page 160 and 161:
158 ALFREDO CARANNANTE The aim of t
- Page 162 and 163:
160 ALFREDO CARANNANTE we exclude s
- Page 164 and 165:
162 ALFREDO CARANNANTE Other common
- Page 166 and 167:
164 ALFREDO CARANNANTE The use of t
- Page 168 and 169:
166 ALFREDO CARANNANTE 13. ACKNOWLE
- Page 170 and 171:
More than food: beads and shell too
- Page 172 and 173:
170 RUTH MAICAS & AIXA VIDAL ved, s
- Page 174 and 175:
172 RUTH MAICAS & AIXA VIDAL tary s
- Page 176 and 177:
174 RUTH MAICAS & AIXA VIDAL Almiza
- Page 178 and 179:
Oysters ancient and modern: potenti
- Page 180 and 181:
178 GREG CAMPBELL The author assess
- Page 182 and 183:
180 GREG CAMPBELL the east Solent (
- Page 184 and 185:
182 GREG CAMPBELL range and more ob
- Page 186 and 187:
184 GREG CAMPBELL Figure 9. A possi
- Page 188 and 189:
186 GREG CAMPBELL Using measurement
- Page 190 and 191:
A large-scale exploitation of oyste
- Page 192 and 193:
190 CATHERINE DUPONT The deposit of
- Page 194 and 195:
192 CATHERINE DUPONT Figure 2. Hist
- Page 196 and 197:
194 CATHERINE DUPONT hence these pe
- Page 198 and 199:
196 CATHERINE DUPONT Figure 6. Open
- Page 200:
198 CATHERINE DUPONT CAVOLEAU, J.A.
- Page 203 and 204:
MUNIBE(Suplemento/Gehigarria) - nº
- Page 205 and 206:
Shells in the Middle Ages: archaeom
- Page 207 and 208:
Shells in the Middle Ages: archaeom
- Page 210 and 211:
Indirect detection of changes in Se
- Page 212 and 213:
210 ELOÍSA BERNÁLDEZ & ESTEBAN GA
- Page 214 and 215:
212 ELOÍSA BERNÁLDEZ & ESTEBAN GA
- Page 216 and 217:
214 ELOÍSA BERNÁLDEZ & ESTEBAN GA
- Page 218 and 219:
Manufacturing techniques of Oliva p
- Page 220 and 221:
218 EMILIANO R. MELGAR Figure 1. Th
- Page 222 and 223:
220 EMILIANO R. MELGAR Category of
- Page 224 and 225:
222 EMILIANO R. MELGAR Figure 6. St
- Page 226 and 227:
224 EMILIANO R. MELGAR In addition,
- Page 228 and 229:
The Maya nacreous shell garment of
- Page 230 and 231:
228 HORTENSIA DE VEGA, EMILIANO R.
- Page 232 and 233:
230 HORTENSIA DE VEGA, EMILIANO R.
- Page 234 and 235:
232 HORTENSIA DE VEGA, EMILIANO R.
- Page 236 and 237:
234 HORTENSIA DE VEGA, EMILIANO R.
- Page 238 and 239:
Malacological Material from Pezuapa
- Page 240 and 241:
238 HERVÉ V. MONTERROSA & REYNA B.
- Page 242 and 243:
240 HERVÉ V. MONTERROSA & REYNA B.
- Page 244:
242 HERVÉ V. MONTERROSA & REYNA B.
- Page 247 and 248:
MUNIBE(Suplemento/Gehigarria) - nº
- Page 249 and 250:
Specialized Shell Object Production
- Page 251 and 252:
Specialized Shell Object Production
- Page 253 and 254:
Specialized Shell Object Production
- Page 255 and 256: MUNIBE(Suplemento/Gehigarria) - nº
- Page 257 and 258: What about shells? Analysis of shel
- Page 259 and 260: What about shells? Analysis of shel
- Page 261 and 262: What about shells? Analysis of shel
- Page 263 and 264: What about shells? Analysis of shel
- Page 265 and 266: MUNIBE(Suplemento/Gehigarria) - nº
- Page 267 and 268: Malacological artifacts in Argentin
- Page 269 and 270: Malacological artifacts in Argentin
- Page 271 and 272: Malacological artifacts in Argentin
- Page 274 and 275: Of Shell and Sand: Coastal Habitat
- Page 276 and 277: 274 ISABEL C. RIVERA-COLLAZO the an
- Page 278 and 279: 276 ISABEL C. RIVERA-COLLAZO Figure
- Page 280 and 281: 278 ISABEL C. RIVERA-COLLAZO BIVALV
- Page 282 and 283: 280 ISABEL C. RIVERA-COLLAZO GASTRO
- Page 284 and 285: 282 ISABEL C. RIVERA-COLLAZO clypea
- Page 286: 284 ISABEL C. RIVERA-COLLAZO RODRIG
- Page 289 and 290: MUNIBE(Suplemento/Gehigarria) - nº
- Page 291 and 292: Archaeological shell middens and sh
- Page 293 and 294: Archaeological shell middens and sh
- Page 295 and 296: Archaeological shell middens and sh
- Page 297 and 298: MUNIBE(Suplemento/Gehigarria) - nº
- Page 299 and 300: Molluscs as sedimentary components.
- Page 301 and 302: Molluscs as sedimentary components.
- Page 303 and 304: Molluscs as sedimentary components.
- Page 305: MUNIBE(Suplemento/Gehigarria) - nº
- Page 309 and 310: The U.S. Freshwater Shell Button In
- Page 311: The U.S. Freshwater Shell Button In