Santander, February 19th-22nd 2008 - Aranzadi

The U.S. Freshwater Shell Button Industry
309
shell buttons has been driven by the use of buttons
on button blankets made by Indians of the Pacific
coast of Canada and the U.S.
5. THE PROBLEMS WITH SHELL BUTTONS
There were numerous problems with either
producing or using shell buttons that left the U.S.
industry extremely vulnerable to the imported
Filipino and Japanese shell buttons that began flooding
the U.S. market in 1910 and which received favorable
tariff treatment. These problems were the wastage
of shell, the production of low-grade buttons
during the manufacturing process, and the yellowing
and breaking that occurred during their use on clothing.
Home dryers produced enough heat to
cause the buttons to exfoliate and commercial
detergents and dryer heat yellowed the buttons.
While the Japanese and Filipinos had these same
production losses, shells and labor were much
cheaper for those foreign industries and the cheaper
product was produced for export, not home
consumption. It was worse still for the U.S. freshwater
shell button industry when after 1928 low
priced composition buttons began to give freshwater
shell button serious competition and marine
shell and metal buttons were gaining favor.
Marine shell buttons from the Philippines were
given exemption from tariffs and button import
quotas were loosened. After 1939 plastic buttons
began making serious inroads into the world button
markets and by 1954 had killed shell button
production.
6. CONCLUSIONS
Freshwater shellfish were extremely abundant
in historic times and continue today to support a
fishery for the Japanese cultured pearl industry
even in the wake of deteriorating habitat quality.
The shell button industry of the United States provides
archaeologists and environmental historians
with much evidence for the variety of shellfish in a
river, the size of shellfish beds, the harvest potential
by hand and with other means, and the ability
of this fauna to withstand harvest pressure and
recover rapidly. This evidence, in fact, has made it
possible to correct interpretive errors made by
archaeologists considering the significance of
Archaic (8000-4000 BP) freshwater shellheaps on
rivers in Kentucky and Tennessee (Claassen
1991). Assuming that shellfish could only be found
in a few rivers, archaeologists have constructed
scenarios of research defense. The data presented
here undermine such an assumption. Some
archaeologists have assumed that the abandonment
of these shell heaps reflected overharvesting
(by hand collecting) in those locations. The data
presented here also undermine this assumption.
Other examples could be collected but the point
remains that documenting historic industries that
use shell or pearls will greatly aid archaeologists in
understanding the use of this resource by older
cultures. It will also help in modern efforts to reintroduce
shellfish as food and as a commercially
viable raw material.
7. BIBLIOGRAPHY
CLAASSEN, C.
1991 “Normative thinking and shell-bearing sites. In: Schiffer,
M.B. (Ed.): Archaeological Method and Theory 3:
249–298.
1994 “Washboards, Pigtoes, and Muckets: Historic Musseling
Industries in the Mississippi Watershed”. Historical
Archaeology, 28 (2):1–164.
COKER, R.
1919 Fresh-water Mussels and Mussel Industries of the United
States. Bulletin of the U.S. Bureau of Fisheries for 1917-
1918. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
DANGLADE, E.
1914 The Mussel Resources of the Illinois River. U.S. Bureau of
Fisheries Document 804. Washington, D.C.
ELDRIDGE, J.
1914 The Mussel Fishery of the Fox River. U.S. Bureau of
Fisheries Document 804. Washington, D.C.
LONGSTRETH, O.
1906 The Pearl Button Industry in Iowa. Manuscript on file, State
Historical Society of Iowa, Iowa City.
LUND, J.
1983 Fishing as a Folk Occupation in the Lower Ohio Valley.
Ph.D., University of Indiana, Bloomington. (unpublished).
SMITH, H.
1898 The Mussel Fishery and Pearl-Button Industry of the
Mississippi River. Bulletin of the U.S. Fisheries
Commission 18, Washington, D.C.
THELER, J.
1987 Woodland Tradition Economic Strategies: Animal
Resource Utilization in Southwestern Wisconsin and
Northeastern Iowa. Office of State Archaeologist, Report
17, University of Iowa, Iowa City.
TOWNSEND, C.
1901 Statistics of the Fisheries of the Mississippi River and
Tributaries. U.S. Commission of Fish and Fisheries,
Committee Report. Washington, D.C.
WILSON, C. & CLARK H. W.
1914 The Mussels of the Cumberland River and Its Tributaries.
U.S. Bureau of Fisheries Document 781, Washington, D.C.
MUNIBE Suplemento - Gehigarria 31, 2010
S.C. Aranzadi. Z.E. Donostia/San Sebastián