OF BLOOD, SALT, AND OIL: AN ARCHAEOLOGICAL, GEOGRAPHICAL, AND 
HISTORICAL STUDY OF NORTH CAROLINA’S DOLPHIN FISHERY 
By 
George Martin Huss II 
March 2019 
Director: Dr. Nathan Richards 
Major Department: Program in Maritime Studies, Department of History 
The purpose of this study is to examine the influences of North Carolina’s historic 
dolphin fishery at Hatteras and how it changed over time. Little research has been conducted to 
date and only echoes of the dolphin fishery’s history and archaeology still exist. Preliminary 
historical records, material culture, and archaeological sites related to the dolphin fishing 
industry of North Carolina suggests a study of the influences that led to its origin, development, 
and decline is possible. By analyzing artifacts and materials using Schiffer’s behavioral chain 
model, it may be possible to shed light on an overlooked area of North Carolina’s maritime 
archaeology and history. 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
OF BLOOD, SALT, AND OIL: AN ARCHAEOLOGICAL, GEOGRAPHICAL, AND 
HISTORICAL STUDY OF NORTH CAROLINA’S DOLPHIN FISHERY 
 
 
 
 
 
A Thesis 
Presented to the Faculty of the Program in Maritime Studies of Department of History 
East Carolina University 
 
In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree 
Master of Arts in Maritime Studies 
 
 
 
 
By 
George Martin Huss II 
March 2019 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
©Copyright 2019 
George Martin Huss II 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
OF BLOOD, SALT, AND OIL: AN ARCHAEOLOGICAL, GEOGRAPHICAL, AND 
HISTORICAL STUDY OF NORTH CAROLINA’S DOLPHIN FISHERY 
 
 
By  
George Martin Huss II 
 
APPROVED BY: 
DIRECTOR OF THESIS:           
      (Nathan Richards, Ph.D.)  
COMMITTEE MEMBER:           
      (Lynn Harris, Ph.D.)  
COMMITTEE MEMBER:           
      (Christopher Oakley, Ph.D.)  
CHAIR OF THE DEPARTMENT  
OF HISTORY:            
      (Christopher Oakley, Ph.D.)  
DEAN OF THE  
GRADUATE SCHOOL:           
      (Paul J. Gemperline, Ph.D.) 
 
  
 
 
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 
Isaac Newton’s notable phrase “if I have seen further than others, it is by standing upon 
the shoulders of giants” applies to the work put into this thesis. I would like to express my 
immense gratitude for the many individuals that aided me in this endeavor. I would like to thank 
Maritime Studies students Paul Gates and Janie Knutson for assistance in data collection and 
processing. I would like to thank Kristina Fricker for her assistance in the creation of the artifact 
photogrammetric models. I would like to thank Tyler Caldwell and Adam Parker for their 
assistance in creating maps in ArcGIS. I would also like to specifically thank John McCord of 
the Coastal Studies Institute for providing access and aid in utilizing the aerial drone and 
photography equipment. In addition to my supportive classmates, I would like to acknowledge 
staff members of the institutions I visited, Mary Ellen Riddle of the Graveyard of the Atlantic 
Museum, Lynn Anderson and Paul Fontenoy of the North Carolina Maritime Museum at 
Beaufort, and John Ososky of the Smithsonian. I would also like to thank the Dare County 
Government Education Access Grant Committee for recognizing the value of my research and 
providing the funding to carry it out.  I would also like to thank members of my committee for 
their individual input, patience, and guidance throughout the writing process. My deepest 
appreciation is reserved for my advisor, mentor, and friend, Dr. Nathan Richards who supported 
this research from the very beginning. Lastly, I thank my family and close friends for their 
enduring love and support.  
 
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 
LIST OF TABLES ……………………………………………………………………… ix 
LIST OF FIGURES …………………………………………………………………….. xi 
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION .………………………………………………….. 1 
 Introduction ……………………………………………………………………… 1 
 Research Questions …………………………………………………………….... 4 
 Thesis Structure …………………………………………………………………. 6 
CHAPTER TWO: HISTORICAL UNDERSTANDINGS OF DOLPHIN FISHERIES… 8 
 Introduction……………………………………………………………………… 8 
 Earliest Evidence of Dolphin Hunting………………………………………….. 9 
  Mediterranean …………………………………....................................... 9 
  Panama Bay ………………………………….......................................... 10 
  Japan ……….…………………………………........................................ 13 
 The American Dolphin Hunting Industry…………………………………………. 15 
  The Cape May Porpoise Fishing Company....……………………………. 16 
 Hunting Dolphins on North Carolina’s Shores …………………………………... 19 
 Conclusion …………………………………………………………………….... 25 
CHAPTER THREE: THEORIES OF TECHNOLOGY AND TECHNOLOGICAL 
CHANGE………………………………………………………………………………... 26 
 Introduction ……………………………………………………………………… 26 
 Archaeological Studies on Technology…………………………………………… 27 
 Schiffer’s Behavioral Archaeology……………………………………………….. 33 
 Schiffer’s Behavioral Chain Model……………………………………………… 40 
 
 
  Nature of the Social Group Conducting the Activity……………………... 43 
  Participating Artifacts and Externs ………………...……………………... 44 
  Interaction-Relevant Performance Characteristics………………………... 45 
  Location of Performance…………………………..……………………... 45 
  Times and Frequency of Performance……………..……………………... 45 
  Intersection of Convergent and Divergent Chain Segments ……………... 46 
  Outputs or Pathways……………..……………………............................. 46 
 Previous Applications of Behavioral Chain Modeling ………………………….. 47 
  Yucca Remains at Antelope House ……………………………………… 47 
  Lithic Analysis at the Longhorn Site (41KT53) ………………………… 50 
 Conclusion …………………………………………………………………….... 51 
CHAPTER FOUR: METHODOLOGY ………………………………………………… 53 
 Introduction …………………………………………………………………….. 53 
 Historical Research ……………………………………………………………... 53 
 Archaeological Research ……..………………………………………………… 57 
  Stage One ………..…………………………………………………….... 58 
  Stage Two …………….............................................................................. 61 
  Stage Three ……………………………………………..……………...... 66 
CHAPTER FIVE: IDENTIFICATION OF THE EXTENT OF NORTH CAROLINA  
DOLPHIN FISHERY ARTIFACTS…………………………………………………….. 71 
 Introduction ……………………………………………………………………... 71 
 Description of the Collection…………………………………………………….. 72 
  Current Location of Artifacts ……………………………………………. 72 
 
 
  Fabrics in the Collection …………………………………………………. 84 
  Function of Objects ..……………………………………………………... 85 
  Functions and Subfunctions……………………………………………... 92 
  Building Subfunctions……………………………………………………. 93 
  Hunting Subfunctions ……………………………………………………. 94 
  Processing Subfunctions…………………………………………………. 97 
  Distribution Subfunctions…………...……………………………………. 100 
  Unknown…………………………………………………………………. 102 
 Temporal Distribution of Objects ………………………………………………... 104 
  Manufacture of Objects…………...……………………………………. 105 
  Presence of Objects in the Fishery…...……………………………………. 107 
 Conclusion ………………………………………………………………………. 110 
CHAPTER SIX: THE APPLICATION OF SCHIFFER’S BEHAVIORAL CHAIN  
MODEL TO NORTH CAROLINA’S DOLPHIN FISHERY……………………………. 111 
 Introduction ……………………………………………………………………… 111 
 Behavioral Chain Segments for Activities of the North Carolina Dolphin Fishery 113 
 Spying …………………………………………….……………………………… 113 
 Pursuit …………………………………………….……………………………… 117 
 Capture……………………………………………..……………………………… 122 
 Killing ……………………………………………..……………………………… 127 
  Immediate Kill of Dolphins Behavioral Chain Segment ………………….. 128 
  Suffocation of Dolphins Behavioral Chain Segment …………………….. 131 
 Beach Processing ………………………………………………………………… 132 
 
 
 Transportation to Factory ………………………...……………………………… 139 
 Factory Processing ………………………………………..……………………… 142 
  Dolphin Hide Factory Processing Behavioral Chain Segment……………. 142 
  Dolphin Blubber Factory Processing Behavioral Chain Segment ……….. 148 
  Dolphin Bone Factory Processing Behavioral Chain Segment …………... 150 
 Packaging ………………………………………………………………………… 152 
  Dolphin Hide Packaging Behavioral Chain Segment ……………………. 152 
  Dolphin Blubber Oil Packaging Behavioral Chain Segment …………….. 153 
  Dolphin Bone Meal Packaging Behavior Chain Segment …...…………... 154 
  Dolphin Jaw Packaging Behavior Chain Segment ………………………. 155 
 Shipping Transportation ……………………………………….…………………. 156 
 Behavioral Chain Model of the North Carolina Dolphin Fishery…………………. 159 
 Conclusion ………………………………………………………………………. 164 
CHAPTER SEVEN: CONCLUSION …………………………………………………… 165 
 Introduction …………………………………………………………………….. 165 
 Observations ………………………..…………………………………………… 165 
 Limitations ……………………………………………………………………… 168 
 Opportunities for Future Research .……………………………………………… 169 
REFERENCES CITED …………………………………………………………………. 171 
APPENDIX A: …………………………………………………………………………... 179 
APPENDIX B: …………………………………………………………………………… 186 
APPENDIX C: …………………………………………………………………………… 191 
  
 
 
LIST OF TABLES 
4.1 LIST OF INSTITUTIONS VISITED OR CONSULTED ………………………….. 54 
4.2 LIST OF LAND PARCELS PERMITTED TO SURVEY ………………………….. 64 
5.1 TABLE DETAILNG THE LOCATION AND NUMBER OF OBJECTS AT SITE 
OR REPOSITORY (N=179) …………………………………………………………….. 74 
5.2 TABLE DETAILING THE NUMBER OF OBJECTS BASED ON FUNCTION …... 86 
5.3 TABLE DEPICTING NUMBER OF OBJECTS WITH FUNCTIONS AND 
SUBFUNCTIONS ………………………………………………………………………… 93 
6.1 BEHAVIORAL CHAIN SEGEMENT ON SPYING ……………………………….. 114 
6.2 BEHAVIORAL CHAIN SEGEMENT ON PURSUIT……………………………… 118 
6.3 BEHAVIORAL CHAIN SEGEMENT ON CAPTURE ………………….………… 123 
6.4 BEHAVIORAL CHAIN SEGMENT ON KILLING WHEN DOLPHINS ARE  
IMMEDIATELY KILLED ……………………………………………………………… 128 
6.5 BEHAVIORAL CHAIN SEGMENT ON KILLING DOLPHINS BY  
SUFFOCATION ………………………………………………………………………….. 132 
6.6 BEHAVIORAL CHAIN SEGMENTS ON BEACH PROCESSING ………………... 134 
6.7 BEHAVIORAL CHAIN SEGEMENT ON TRANSPORTATION TO FACTORY … 139 
6.8 BEHAVIORAL CHAIN SEGMENT ON FACTORY PROCESSING FOR HIDES... 143 
6.9 BEHAVIORAL CHAIN SEGMENT ON FACTORY PROCESSING OF  
DOLPHIN BLUBBER …………………………………………………………………… 148 
6.10 BEHAVIORAL CHAIN SEGMENT ON FACTORY PROCESSING OF  
DOLPHIN BONES ……………………………………………………………………… 150 
6.11 BEHAVIORAL CHAIN SEGMENT ON PACKAGING OF DOLPHIN HIDES…. 152 
 
 
6.12 BEHAVIORAL CHAIN SEGMENT ON PACKAGING OF DOLPHIN  
BLUBBER OIL …………………………………………………………………………... 153 
6.13 BEHAVIORAL CHAIN SEGMENT ON PACKAGING OF DOLPHIN BONE 
MEAL……………………………….…………………………………………………… 155 
6.14 BEHAVIORAL CHAIN SEGMENT ON PACKAGING OF DOLPHIN JAW 
BONE…………………………………………………………………………………….. 156 
6.15 BEHAVIORAL CHAIN SEGMENT ON SHIPPING TRANSPORTATION……. 157 
6.16 BEHAVIROAL CHAIN MODEL ON THE NORTH CAROLINA DOLPHIN  
FISHERY ………………………………………………………………………………… 162
 
 
LIST OF FIGURES 
1.1 CERAMIC DEPICTION OF DAILY LIFE AT SHELL CASTLE…………………. 2 
1.2 CHART OF DOLPHIN HUNTING TECHNIQUES………………………………. 3 
2.1 LOCATION OF GROTTA DELL’UZZO ………………………….………………. 10 
2.2 MAP OF PANAMA SHOWING THE LOCATION OF THE PEARL ISLAND 
ARCHIPELAGO ………………………………………………………………………... 11 
2.3 PHOTO OF MODERN DOLPHIN HUNTING TAKING PLACE IN TAIJI,  
JAPAN ……………………………………………………………………………………. 13 
2.4 ALIGHTMENTS OF DOLPHIN CRANIA FROM THREE JOMON PERIOD 
SITES ……………………………………………………………………………………... 14 
2.5 PORPOISE LEATHER SHOE ADVERTISEMENT ……………………………….. 18 
2.6 CREW MEMBERS OF THE HATTERAS PORPOISE PLANT …………………… 22 
2.7 A DOLPHIN ‘SPY’ WAITING TO GIVE THE SIGNAL TO THE DOLPHIN 
HUNTING CREWS ……………………………………………………………………… 23 
2.8 HATTERAS DOLPHIN FISHERMEN HAULING DOLPHINS ON SHORE TO 
PREPARE THEM FOR PROCESSING ……………………………………………….. 24 
3.1 TABLE GIVING CORRELATIONS OF THE SEVERAL CULTURES IN TIME  
AND SPACE …………………………………………………………………………….. 28 
3.2 SYSTEM OUTPUTS FOR THE KENNEMERLAND WRECK SITE ……………… 32 
3.3 PERFORMANCE MATRIX FOR LIGHTHOUSE ILLUMINATION, 1869-99 …… 37 
3.4 BEHAVIORAL CHAIN WITH CONVERGENT CHAIN AND DIVERGENT 
CHAIN ……………………………………………………………………………………. 41 
3.5 BEHAVIORAL CHAIN OF MAIZE FOR THE HOPI CULTURE …………………. 43 
 
 
3.6 BEHAVIORAL CHAIN FOR ZUNI USES OF YUCCA BACATTA LEAVES ……. 48 
3.7 BEHAVIORAL CHAIN FOR ZUNI USES OF YUCCA BACATTA FRUIT ……… 49 
4.1 DIGITAL RECRUITMENT FORM…………………………………………………. 55 
4.2 UNC COASTAL STUDIES INSTITUTE FACEBOOK ADVERTISEMENT ……... 56 
4.3 MEDIA RECRUITMENT FORM …………………………………………………… 57 
4.4 IRB INTERVIEW QUESTIONS ……………………………………………………. 57 
4.5 NATHAN RICHARDS AND GEORGE HUSS PREPARING BOTTLES OF  
DOLPHIN OIL FOR ARTIFACT PHOTOGRAPHY …………………………………... 59 
4.6 DOLPHIN FISHERY ARTIFACT DATA FORM ………………………………… 60 
4.7 A 1923 AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH TAKEN BY THE US ARMY AIR CORP …….. 62 
4.8 UNSCALED BUILDING PILLING FOUND ON THE SHORE OF DURANT’S 
ISLAND ………………………………………………………………………………….. 63 
4.9 DIVISION OF LAND OWNERSHIP OF DURANT’S ISLAND …………………… 63 
4.10 LETTER REQUESTING PERMISSION TO ACCESS AD PHOTOGRAPH  
LAND FOR ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESEARCH ………………………………………. 64 
4.11 ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY AREA OF THE BIGHT OF HATTERAS ……… 65 
4.12 TRY YARD CREEK, OCRACOKE …………………………….…………………. 66 
4.13 MICROSOFT ACCESS SHEET DETAILING THE LIST OF TABLES  
CREATED FOR GRAPHS AND CHARTS ……………………………………………. 67 
4.14 MICROSOFT ACCESS QUERY DETAILING THE CURRENT LOCATION  
OF OBJECTS …………………………………………………………………………….. 67 
4.15 MICROSOFT ACCESS QUERY DETAILING THE FABRIC COUNT OF  
OBJECTS ………………………………………………………………………………... 68 
 
 
4.16 MICROSOFT ACCESS QUERY DETAILING THE FUNCTION OF  
OBJECTS ………………………………………………………………………………... 68 
4.17 MICROSOFT ACCESS QUERY DETAILING THE FUNCTION AND  
SUBFUNCTIONS OF OBJECTS ……………………………………………………….. 69 
4.18 MICROSOFT ACCESS QUERY DETAILING OBJECT MANUFACTURE  
DATES …………………………………………………………………………………… 69 
4.19 MICROSOFT ACCESS QUERY DETAILING THE OBJECT PRESENCE  
DATES …………………………………………………………………………………… 70 
5.1 DISTRIBUTION MAP DEPICTING AREAS WITH ARTIFACTS RELATED TO 
 THE NORTH CAROLINA DOLPHIN FISHERY …………………………………….. 73 
5.2 PIE CHART DETAILING THE PERCENTAGE OF ARTIFACTS FOUND AT 
 ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES AND MATERIAL CULTURE REPOSITORIES ………. 74 
5.3 TERRACOTTA PIPING FRAGMENT FOUND AT THE BIGHT OF HATTERAS  
SITE ……………………………………………………………………………………… 75 
5.4 KNIFE USED FOR PROCESSING A DOLPHIN FOR ITS SKIN ………………… 76 
5.5 THE TYPICAL CLOTHING WORN BY DOLPHIN FISHERS AT THE  
HATTERAS FISHERY FROM 1907-1929 ……………………………………………... 78 
5.6 SEINE NET AND DORY BOAT USED IN THE CAPTURE OF DOLPHINS AT  
THE HATTERAS DOLPHIN FISHERY IN 1914 ……………………………………… 79 
5.7 SMALL BOTTLE OF DOLPHIN OIL USED FOR LUBRICATING WATCHES  
AND CHRONOMETRIC DEVICES …………………………………………………… 80 
5.8 PHOTOGRAMMETRIC MODEL OF A TRYPOT AT THE GRAVEYARD OF  
THE ATLANTIC MUSEUM ……………………………………………………………. 80 
 
 
5.9 PHOTOGRAMMETRIC MODEL OF AN OX CART AT THE GRAVEYARD  
OF THE ATLANTIC MUSEUM ……………………………………………………….. 81 
5.10 DEVINE GUTHRIE POSING WITH A PILOT BOAT THAT MAY HAVE  
BEEN USED IN HUNTING WHALES AND DOLPHINS ……………………………. 82 
5.11 A SINGLE SPY CAMP USED TO ALERT FISHERS OF DOLPHINS NEARBY .. 83 
5.12 LINE GRAPH DEPICTING THE NUMBER OF FABRICS FOUND WITHIN  
THE COLLECTION …………………………………………………………………….. 84 
5.13 PIE CHART DEPICTING THE PERCENTAGE OF OBJECTS BASED ON  
FUNCTION ……………………………………………………………………………… 85 
5.14 BRICK FRAGMENT FOUND AT THE HATTERAS PORPOISE FACTORY  
SITE ……………………………………………………………………………………… 87 
5.15 CINDER BLOCK FRAGMENT FOUND AT THE BIGHT OF HATTERAS SITE . 87 
5.16 RARE PICTURE FROM A 1907 BROCHURE DISPLAYING WILLIAM  
NYE’S LABORATORY AT FISH ISLAND, MASSACHUSETTS ……………………. 88 
5.17 A TRYPOT THAT WAS USED IN LOCAL WHALING FISHERY DISPLAYED 
AT THE NORTH CAROLINA MARITIME MUSEUM AT BEAUFORT ……………... 89 
5.18 EMPTY GLASS BOTTLE OF NYOIL 4 LOCATED AT THE GRAVEYARD  
OF THE ATLANTIC MUSEUM ………………………………………………………… 90 
5.19 CONGLOMERATE LOCATED AT THE BIGHT OF HATTERAS ……………… 91 
5.20 SUNBURST CHART DEPICTING PERCENTAGES OF OBJECTS’  
FUNCTIONS AND SUBFUNCTIONS ………………………………………………… 92 
5.21 TIMBER FOUND AT THE BIGHT OF HATTERAS SITE ……………………… 94 
5.22 DOLPHIN SPY POSTED AT A SPY CAMP WAITING TO RAISE THE  
 
 
SIGNAL OR WAIF ……………………………………………………………………… 95 
5.23 KNIFE OR SPEAR USED TO DELIVER A KILLING BLOW ON A DOLPHIN  
AT THE BEAUFORT DOLPHIN FISHERY IN 1912 ………………………………….. 96 
5.24 CLOTHING WAS ESSENTIAL TO ALLOW THE FISHERS TO CARRY OUT  
THE HUNTING OPERATIONS ………………………………………………………… 97 
5.25 KNIVES WERE THE SIMPLEST BUT MOST EFFECTIVE PROCESSING  
TOOLS USED FOR BEACH PROCESSING …………………………………………… 98 
5.26 BOTTLE OF NYE DOLPHIN OIL USED FOR LUBRICATING SEWING  
MACHINES AND BICYCLES …………………………………………………………. 101 
5.27 CLOROX BOTTLE FRAGMENT DATED BETWEEN 1933 AND 1936 ……….. 103 
5.28 ANIMAL BONE FOUND AT THE HATTERAS PORPOISE FACTORY SITE …. 104 
5.29 LINE GRAPH DEPICTING THE TEMPORAL DISTRIBUTION OF OBJECTS  
BASED ON MANUFACTURE ………………………………………………………… 105 
5.30 GRAPH DEPICTING THE TEMPORAL DISTRIBUTION OF OBJECTS BASED  
ON PRESENCE …………………………………………………………………………. 108 
6.1 SPY CAMP WHERE OLDER DOLPHIN FISHERMEN WOULD KEEP  
WATCH ………………………………………………………………………………….. 115 
6.2 MAP DISPLAYING THE VISUAL ACUITY OF 25CM DOLPHIN FIN OF AN 
AVERAGE DOLPHIN FISHERMAN ………………………………………………….. 116 
6.3 CLOTHING WAS ESSENTIAL TO ALLOW THE FISHERS TO CARRY OUT 
HUNTING OPERATIONS ……………………………………………………………… 119 
6.4 A DORY BOAT USED IN PURSUANCE OF DOLPHINS ……………………….. 120 
6.5 SEINE NET USED IN THE PURSUANCE AND CAPTURE OF DOLPHINS ...… 120 
 
 
6.6 MAP DEPICTING THE AREA OF ACTIVITY FOR WHERE PURSUING  
TOOK PLACE …………………………………………………………………………… 121 
6.7 CLOTHING WAS ESSENTIAL TO ALLOW THE FISHERS TO CARRY OUT  
THE HUNTING OPERATIONS ………………………………………………………... 124 
6.8 DORY BOAT USED IN THE CAPTURE OF DOLPHINS ………………………… 124 
6.9 SEINE NET USED IN THE CAPTURE OF DOLPHINS …………………………. 125 
6.10 HOOK WITH STOUT LINE USED IN THE CAPTURE OF DOLPHINS ………. 125 
6.11 MAP DEPICTING THE CAPTURE AREA OF DOLPHINS …………………….. 126 
6.12 DOLPHIN FISHERMEN CLOTHING USED TO PROCTECT FISHERMEN 
FROM HARSH WEATHER ……………………………………………………………. 129 
6.13 KNIFE USED IN THE PROCESSING OF DOLPHINS …………………………. 129 
6.14 DOLPHINS KILLED ON THE BEACH ……….…………………………………. 130 
6.15 MAP DEPICTING AREA WHERE DOLPHINS WERE KILLED ………………. 130 
6.16 DOLPHIN FISHERMEN CLOTHING WORN BY THE FISHERMEN AFTER  
CATCHING DOLPHINS ………………………………………………………………… 134 
6.17 KNIFE USED TO SLICE DOLPHINS OPEN ………………………………………. 135 
6.18 DOLPHIN HIDE SPLIT LONGITUDINALLY FROM TIP TO SNOUT TO  
NOTCH OF FLUKE FOR HIDE AND FATTY LAYER REMOVAL ………………….. 135 
6.19 DOLPHIN HIDE SPLIT ON THE UPPER SIDE …………………………………… 136 
6.20 DOLPHIN JAWS REMOVED FROM SKULL ……………………………………. 136 
6.21 MAP DEPICTING THE AREA OF WHERE BEACH PROCESSING TOOK  
PLACE …………………………………………………………………………………… 137 
6.22 DOLPHIN FISHERMEN CLOTHING WORN TO PROTECT FISHERMEN  
 
 
FROM THE ELEMENTS ………………………………………………………………... 140 
6.23 POSSIBLE TRANSPORTATION ROUTE TAKEN FROM THE SPY CAMP 
TO THE FACTORY ……………………………………………………………………... 141 
6.24 GEORECTIFIED MAP WITH 91.54 METER MARGIN OF ERROR ……………. 145 
6.25 GEORECTIFIED MAP SHOWING THE POTENTIAL LOCATION OF THE 
HATTERAS PORPOISE FACTORY …………………………………………………… 146 
6.26 LIST OF ARTIFACT TYPES FOUND WITHIN THE BUFFER ZONE OF THE 
HATTERAS PORPOISE FACTORY SITE ……………………………………………. 147 
6.27 BARREL HOOP FRAGMENTS FOUND AT THE HATTERAS PORPOISE  
FACTORY SITE ………………………………………………….……………………... 154 
6.28 MAP DEPICTING AREAS WHERE DOLPHIN PRODUCTS WOULD GO……. 158 
6.29 GENERAL FLOW CHART OF THE ACTIVITIES WITHIN THE NORTH  
CAROLINA DOLPHIN FISHERY………………………………………………………. 161  
  
 
 
 
 
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION 
Introduction 
North Carolina’s coastal landscape has given humans the opportunity to thrive off much of its 
marine resources for thousands of years. Operating within this complex landscape were several 
historical fisheries since the mid-seventeenth century (Whisnant 2015:78). One fishery that was 
prevalent to this area was the bottle-nose dolphin fishery or commonly referred to as the porpoise 
fishery. Dolphins were valued for their oils, hides, and meat. Their oils were specifically utilized 
for fertilizer and industrial lubricants (Cecelski 2000:85; Whisnant 2015:83). While it may have 
been possible that the dolphin fishery evolved from the whaling industry or vise-versa, these 
industries shared several similarities. Evidence suggests that dolphin fishers would eventually 
have their own set of techniques and methods for their respective industry (Clark 1887:308-309; 
Dunbar 1958:76; Angell 1981:20; Parr 1996:50; Cecelski 2000:82-83)  
Per the traditional narrative, the industry traces its origins to 1793. Entrepreneurs, John 
Gray and John Wallace started a dolphin fishery at Shell Castle (an island close to present-day 
Ocracoke Inlet, NC) using their lighter vessel, Beaver (Dunbar 1958:76; Whisnant 2015:83). The 
first mentions of dolphin hunting ventures appeared in 1790 when John Fulford inquired about 
participating in dolphin fishing and possibly building boats for the operation. Shell Castle’s 
dolphin fishery operated seasonally from January through March. Unfortunately, little to no 
details on specific activities and techniques can be gleaned from the extant record other than the 
existence of the fishery’s operations (McGuinn 2000:77; Figure 1.1). 
 
 
FIGURE 1.1: Ceramic depicting Daily Life at Shell Castle (Source: North Carolina Museum of 
History). 
 
By 1803, this industry continued to develop when enslaved watermen ran a dolphin 
factory near Ocracoke Inlet. Unlike Shell Castle’s dolphin fishery, the dolphin fishermen 
between Bear Inlet and Cape Hatteras operated on the coast. The crews consisted of between 
fourteen to eighteen men. They surrounded dolphin pods in small boats (dories) and snared them 
in heavy, wide-meshed seines approximately eight hundred yards long (Figure 1.2). Once 
trapped, the dolphin fishermen waded into the water and stabbed the dolphins that had not 
already drowned with knives. They then gaffed the animals and dragged them ashore for 
processing (Angell 1981:21; Cecelski 2000:82; McGuinn 2000).  From 1810 to 1860 the industry 
2 
 
continued to thrive as dolphins were hunted up and down the coast of North Carolina (Dunbar 
1958:76). 
FIGURE 1.2: Hunting techniques used by the dolphin fishermen at Hatteras (Source: Angell 
1981). 
 
The dolphin fishery continued until the Civil War (Parr 1996:45; Cecelski 2000:82). 
Shortly after, it quickly experienced growth in activity for several reasons after the Civil War. 
The North Atlantic whaling industries of New Bedford and Nantucket were mainly responsible 
for the North Carolina dolphin fishery’s revival. During the Civil War, many whalers were 
forced into conscription, and their ships were often used to blockade Confederate harbors. In 
addition, fleets of whaling ships were lost in the Arctic Ocean due to stranding. Thus, the 
companies involved in the whaling industry, such as NYE Lubricants, were forced to look 
elsewhere if they were to continue their economic enterprise (Parr 1996:45). This made North 
Carolina’s dolphin fishery a very appealing enterprise to the whaling merchants of New Bedford 
and elsewhere.   
During the winter of 1874-1875, dolphins were so prevalent in Hatteras Inlet that the 
waters “seethed and foamed” with them, and the dolphin harvesting industry was revived. By the 
3 
 
1880s, the active markets in Elizabeth City, New Bedford, and Philadelphia encouraged the 
development of dolphin factories at Creed’s Hill, Diamond City, and Rice Path. Many of these 
factories had absentee ownership from whaling merchants in New Jersey and New Bedford 
(Whisnant 2015:83). From 1885-1891, the fishery had reached its peak with four or five factories 
processing upward of 4,000 dolphins (Dunbar 1958:76; Cecelski 2000:85). 
Commercial-fishing boosters dreamed that the dolphin industry would become one of the 
state’s leading fisheries, possibly even on par with the mullet fishery that stretched from 
Ocracoke Inlet to Bear Inlet and the shad fishery centered on the lower Neuse River. The editors 
of the Weekly Record even encouraged local fishermen “to at once engage in the catching of 
Porpoise” (The Weekly Record 1887:1). Unfortunately, this was not the case as the market 
quickly diminished in the early 1890s (Cecelski 2000:85).  
The reasons for the market failure were many. Dwindling numbers of fishermen and 
shrinking fortunes were ultimately the cause for the decline in the market (Impact Assessment, 
Inc 2005a:282-283). Cecelski argues that overharvesting may have also been a factor in the 
industry’s decline. Most of the factories had closed by the 1920s. The only remaining fishery 
was the Hatteras Porpoise Factory operated by Nye Lubricants (Cecelski 2000:85). By 1929, 
Nye Lubricants ordered the closing of the factory officially ending North Carolina’s dolphin 
fishery (Cecelski 2015:77) 
Research Questions 
The primary objective of this study is to gain a greater understanding of North Carolina’s 
dolphin fishery at Hatteras through a combination of historical research and archaeological 
analysis. By utilizing this combination of historical research and archaeological analysis, it 
provides the opportunity to apply Schiffer’s behavioral chain model to an under studied area of 
4 
 
maritime archaeology. If done successfully, this study will gain insight into a maritime 
subculture that has yet to be subjected to an extensive study of its kind.  
 
Primary Research Question 
• How did technology, economics, and culture affect the North Carolina dolphin fishery? 
 
The question above is a desire to seek potential evidence and knowledge of the exchange of 
goods and ideas, technology, and techniques between people engaged in dolphin harvesting 
along the east coast of North America. In addition to the question above, several secondary 
questions may be asked based on the data collected. 
 
Secondary Research Questions 
• Can technological change studies shed light on North Carolina’s dolphin fishery? 
• Does geospatial and material cultural analysis shed light on our understanding of the 
North Carolina dolphin harvesting industry? Do such analyses reveal: 
▪ Where dolphin harvesting practices occurred in North Carolina? 
▪ What prompted the desire shift from deep sea to shore-based dolphin harvesting and 
the ultimate influencing of factors regarding site selection? 
• Does material culture analysis of dolphin fishery artifacts suggest patterns of object use 
or technological change that are like that of other US-based and possibly global dolphin 
harvesting cultures or the development of an industry that adapted to several factors that 
include environmental, cultural, and industrial realities of the North Carolina Coast? 
5 
 
• Does geospatial analysis of North Carolina dolphin fishery illuminate environmental 
patterns that are similar patterns located outside of North Carolina? 
 
Thesis Structure 
Following this introductory chapter, Chapter Two provides a brief history of dolphin hunting 
among various cultures around the planet and ending with the current historical narrative of 
North Carolina’s dolphin fishery. Chapter Three provides a brief introduction on archaeological 
theories of technology and concludes with a discussion of Michael B. Schiffer’s behavioral chain 
model and its use in this study.  Chapter Four mentions the methodologies employed in historical 
research, archaeological fieldwork, and material culture recording. Chapter Five elaborates on 
the archaeological research conducted on both material culture assemblages from collections and 
site-specific in-situ material culture descriptions from fieldwork. Chapter Six is the application 
of Schiffer’s Behavioral Chain Model to the data accumulated in the previous chapter. Chapter 
Seven provides a conclusion and addresses the research questions, limitations of this study, and 
ideas for future research.  
Fisheries represent a large, if not the largest, area of humanity’s interaction with the 
maritime environment and yet it is an uncommon theme for maritime archaeological research 
(Stanbury 1994; Allen 2002; Raupp 2004, 2015; McNeary 2007; Erlandson and Torben 2008; 
Moss and Cannon 2011; Bradley 2015). This thesis seeks to contribute to the limited research 
undertaken to date to contribute to a greater understanding of the people and culture of the Outer 
Banks and the fishery associated with it. Analysis of artifacts related to the dolphin fishery may 
be able to reveal insights into the technology, economics, and culture of the industry. The 
historical record surrounding the industry is fragmented, and the archaeology is largely 
6 
 
understudied. This thesis aims to not only fill in some of the gaps but also serve as the first study 
of its kind. The biggest concerns of this study are historical documentation throughout the state 
and material culture collections related to the dolphin harvesting industry. An historical and 
archaeological study of this industry provides an opportunity to contribute significantly to the 
greater understanding of North Carolina’s maritime heritage. 
7 
 
CHAPTER TWO: HISTORICAL UNDERSTANDINGS OF DOLPHIN FISHERIES 
Introduction 
The development of systematic dolphin hunting in America has roots in prehistoric hunter-
gatherers. These dolphin hunting cultures ranged from the Mediterranean to the Pacific and 
primarily utilized shore-based hunting techniques. The methods and technology developed by 
these ancient maritime cultures only experienced relatively little changes over time. That said, a 
link exists between these maritime cultures and those of North Carolina’s dolphin fishery 
(Porcasi and Fujita 2000; Cecelski 2015; Cooke et al. 2015; Maninno et al. 2015). A study of the 
methods, the technology employed, and the developments of early in-shore dolphin hunting 
industry is essential in understanding how it was once pursued in North Carolina.  
This chapter provides the traditional historical narrative of the cultures that engaged in 
dolphin hunting. It is comprised of three parts and investigates how these fisheries once operated. 
It will find focal points that suggest possible cultural continuities or similarities and 
discontinuities or differences between cultures across time and space. The first part provides an 
overview of the earliest evidence of dolphin hunting. It gives a brief history and analysis of the 
technology used, methods of hunting, and potentially shed light on the maritime cultures and 
landscapes associated with it.  The second part looks at dolphin hunting in the United States. 
This part is critical as it will provide the foundational influences of North Carolina’s dolphin 
hunting industry. Finally, the last part explores the historical origins, development, and the 
overall decline of North Carolina’s dolphin hunting industry. 
 
 
 
 
Earliest Evidence of Dolphin Hunting 
Tursiops truncates, commonly referred to as bottle-nose dolphins are one of the most widespread 
species on earth; ranging from the Mediterranean to the Pacific. It should come to no surprise 
that there is widespread evidence of their consumption and utilization in maritime cultures across 
the planet. Early evidence suggests that dolphins were primarily consumed for their meat by 
hunter-gatherers (Porcasi and Fujita 2000; Savelle and Kishigami 2013; Cecelski 2015; Cooke et 
al. 2015:733; Maninno et al. 2015). Over time, humans found other uses for dolphin parts such as 
fertilizers and lubricants (Hiraguchi 1993; Cecelski 2015). While the hunting techniques are 
largely under-researched, many speculate that these early dolphin hunters were opportunistic and 
took advantage of mass strandings when possible (Porcasi and Fujita 2000). This section looks at 
early evidence of dolphin hunting in areas such as the Mediterranean, Panama Bay, and Japan.  
  
Mediterranean 
One of the earliest examples of prehistoric dolphin hunting is Grotta dell’Uzzo site in 
Northwest Sicily. Large concentrations of dolphin bone were found in the site’s stratigraphy. 
According to Mannino et al. (2015), hunter-gathers along the Mediterranean coast took 
advantage of mass cetacean strandings approximately 8,200 years ago. They argue the reason for 
these mass strandings was primarily due to the shifting climate of the region. The effects of the 
shifting climate in the region are significant because it contributed to shaping the landscape. In 
doing so, it allowed hunter-gatherers to take advantage of mass cetacean strandings (Mannino et 
al. 2015). This type of landscape is key as it demonstrates a pattern displayed among other 
cultures that engaged in dolphin hunting (Figure 2.1). 
9 
 
 
 
FIGURE 2.1. Location of Grotta dell’Uzzo (San Vito lo Capo peninsula) on the Gulf of 
Castellammare and view of the cave from the north (Maninno et al. 2015). 
 
Panama Bay 
On the other side of the planet, a similar form of dolphin hunting existed. Prehistoric 
cetacean exploitation was taking place at the Don Bernardo Bay archaeological site in the Pearl 
Island archipelago of Panama (Figure 2.2). Remains of several different species of dolphin with 
evidence of anthropogenic modifications were found in shell-bearing midden dated between 
10 
 
6200 and 5600 cal BP (Cooke et al. 2015:734-35). Cooke et al.’s analysis of the dolphin remains 
offers four possible avenues of acquisition of these dolphins in not only the Pearl Islands but also 
in other dolphin hunting cultures.  
 
 
FIGURE 2.2. Map of Panama showing the location of the Pearl Island archipelago, other 
geographic highlights, and mainland Pre-Columbian sites mentioned in the text (Cooke et al. 
2015). 
 
The first possible method of extraction is seen through the stranding behavior between 
single dolphins versus herds of dolphins. The behavior of dolphins differs significantly between 
whether they are alone or are in large groups. When looking at single dolphins, evidence 
suggests they strand themselves when they are either sick or possibly incapable of reproduction 
(Danil and Chivers 1998). Herds of dolphins, however, have been observed floundering onto 
coastal landforms while herding shoals of small fishes under the direction of a leading dolphin 
(Gazda et al. 2005). Recent studies also report that noise pollution from boats and ships, which 
affect the acoustic communication of mass herds of dolphins, play a significant role in the 
stranding of herds of dolphins (Jepsen et al. 2013). An example of this can be seen in Japan 
11 
 
where they utilize motorized watercraft and noise machines to drive dolphins to the coast 
(Psihoyos 2009; Cooke et al. 2015:749). 
The second possible method of extraction is the accidental entrapment of dolphins in 
other fishing technology. Dolphins are known to forage around fish-farm cages and to take fish 
from gillnets and crab traps. In doing this, they sometimes entrap themselves, and incidental 
mortality will occur (Wells and Scott 1999). Fishing technology such as crab traps or gill nets 
have not been found at the Don Bernardo Bay site. However, raw materials such as the island’s 
dry tropical woods and terrestrial plants are sufficient to create this type of technology (Cooke et 
al. 2015:749). 
The third possible method of extraction is the in-shore movement of dolphins as an 
evasion response to shark attacks. The primary predators of dolphins in tropical and sub-tropical 
waters are large and aggressive sharks such as Galeocerdo cuvier (Corkeron et al. 1987; Mann 
and Barnett 1999; Heithaus and Dill 2002). Two perforated shark teeth were recovered from the 
site. This suggests that residents of the area may have taken advantage of stranded dolphins after 
shark attacks drove them in-shore essentially creating a symbiotic relationship between sharks 
and humans (Cooke et al. 2015:749). 
The final possible method of extraction, which is evident in several cultures, is the 
systematic and intentional driving of dolphins to the shore using watercraft, nets, and noise. This 
technique today is known as dolphin drive hunting. While there is no archaeological evidence to 
suggest that dolphins were driven to the shore as a result of humans, the landscape of Don 
Bernardo Bay on Pedro Gonzalez Island shares a topographic resemblance to other dolphin 
hunting cultural landscapes (Porcasi and Fujita 2000; Savelle and Kishigami 2013; Cecelski 
2015; Cooke et al. 2015:749-750; Maninno et al. 2015). 
12 
 
Japan 
With a rich maritime cultural history, Japan represents one of the oldest longstanding 
traditions of dolphin hunting that continues to operate today (Hiraguchi 1993; Savelle and 
Kishigami 2013). Japan’s dolphin hunting has sparked animal welfare concerns recently due to 
the perceived brutality of its practice. The film that most notably put Japan in the spotlight for 
the harvesting of dolphins was The Cove (2009). This film highlighted the methods of how the 
fishery operated and the increasing risk of Minamata disease due to high levels of mercury 
present in dolphin meat (Psihoyos 2009; Figure 2.3).  
FIGURE 2.3. Photo of modern dolphin hunting taking place in Taiji, Japan (Psihoyos 2009). 
Aside from potential activism bias, The Cove offers captivating insights into the methods, 
technology, and the landscape used in Japan’s modern dolphin fishery (Psihoyos 2009). These 
not only suggests a cultural connection between the early and contemporary Japanese dolphin 
fisheries but also a pattern that is seen among some of the other dolphin fisheries that operated 
13 
 
throughout the world (Porcasi and Fujita 2000; Savelle and Kishigami 2013; Cecelski 2015; 
Cooke et al. 2015:733; Maninno et al. 2015).  
The earliest evidence of prehistoric dolphin hunting in Japan can be found at the Early 
Jomon Mawaki site on the Noto Peninsula. Archaeologists date the site to approximately 5,000 
years BP. The remains of at least 286 dolphins were identified in one stratum associated with a 
village and ceremonial complex (Savelle and Kishigami 2013:3; Figure 2.4). Most of the 
archaeological research conducted on the dolphin remains found at the site was by Dr. Tetsuo 
Hiraguchi. Through his research, Hiraguchi was able to shed light on a great deal of information 
that included the economic, spatial, and technological aspects of the early dolphin fishery 
(Hiraguchi 1993). 
 
FIGURE 2.4. Alignments of dolphin crania from three Jomon period sites (Hiraguchi 1993). 
Hiraguchi argues that dolphin remains had several cultural and economic uses in the 
Jomon culture. The most evident use was they were consumed. Cut marks were present on 
several areas of the dolphin remains suggesting they were butchered for consumption. It also 
14 
 
indicates their remains were used for tools. There were two artifacts found at separate sites; a 
spatulate tool crafted from the base of a dolphin mandible and a pendant made from a dolphin’s 
tooth. Finally, there is also evidence that the dolphin remains were used in a religious context. At 
the Higashi-Kushiro shell mound, several crania of dolphins were found in a circle with bills all 
directed toward either the center or the outside suggesting a ceremonial purpose (Hiraguchi 
1993:42). 
With regards to the spatial aspects, Hiraguchi elaborates on the environment that the 
Jomon dolphin hunters utilized. The Mawaki site is located on the eastern edge of the Noto 
peninsula facing the entrance of Toyama Bay. Within Toyama Bay are several coves or small 
bays that may have been used to drive the dolphins closer to land. The Mawaki site itself is 
located on a small alluvial plain that is between six to twelve meters above sea level (Hiraguchi 
1993:36). 
Finally, Hiraguchi explains the role of technology by classifying the methods of dolphin 
extraction in the Jomon period into three general types. He did this based on fishing gear found 
on site and in reference to ethnological examples. He refers to the first type as the “net method” 
which utilizes either a wall of netting, casting nets, or fixed shore nets. The second type is the 
“thrusting method” which employs the use of harpoons or spears. Finally, the “shooting method” 
uses projectile points (Hiraguchi 1993:38-39). 
 
The American Dolphin Hunting Industry 
As seen throughout the world, the hunting of dolphins was not exclusive to one region. There is 
evidence of dolphins being hunted in the United States. Not many Americans today would 
imagine people once used to hunt dolphins on the shores of the United States. Rather, they would 
15 
 
be horrified to hear a beloved animal killed for food or other purposes. Animal rights activists, 
scientists, and several others played a significant role in changing the cultural attitude on how 
dolphins were once perceived. Because of this altered perception, dolphins were added to the list 
of species protected under the Marine Mammals Protection Act of 1972.  
While this was a significant step in protecting the species from near extinction, it is 
important to understand, from an archaeological and historical perspective, the nature of these 
fisheries and what they offer when interpreting the archaeological record. The earliest evidence 
of dolphin hunting in the United States can be found at California’s Channel Islands. Native 
Americans in the region hunted them between 6440 BCE to 1400 AD (Porcasi and Fujita 
2000:548). Supposedly, dolphin fisheries existed in states like Texas and Florida. However, there 
is not enough evidence to shed light on the nature of those fisheries. That said, there were two 
relatively well-known dolphin fisheries in the United States. They were in Cape May, New 
Jersey and the coast of North Carolina. This section investigates the Cape May’s historic dolphin 
fishery and sheds light on aspects that are evident in America’s dolphin fishery. 
 
The Cape May Porpoise Fishing Company 
 On the Atlantic seaboard of the United States, there were two dolphin fisheries that once 
operated; one of which being in Cape May, New Jersey. Located on the Southernmost tip of New 
Jersey, Cape May has always had strong maritime heritage. Prior to the arrival of Europeans, the 
Lenni-Lenapes tribe, a branch of Algonquin Native Americans occupied the Cape May region 
(Stevens 1897:9-25). With the arrival of Europeans, Cape May underwent a significant 
transformation because of the early colonial settlers, whaling, and other fisheries, the 
Revolutionary War, the establishment of the new American government, the War of 1812, the 
16 
 
Civil War, and much more. Today, Cape May is a quiet fishing town known for its scallop, fluke, 
and tuna commercial fisheries (Stevens 1897; Levine and McKay 1987:243). Cape May’s 
dolphin fishery, also originally known as the porpoise fishery, was a short-lived industry that 
operated during the late 19th century.  
 The influences behind Cape May’s dolphin fishery are unclear. It may have been partially 
motivated by North Carolina’s dolphin fishery (Star of the Cape 1883:3). What is known is the 
fishery was started by three men by the names of John A. Cook, George L. Sparks, and William 
Peacock, none of whom had any commercial fishing experience (Cape May County Corporation 
Book 1883:1.3-4). According to census records from the late 19th century, John Cooke was a 
cabinet maker, George Sparks was a telegraph operator, and William Peacock was a common 
laborer (Cape May County Census Records 1880:3-18). Seafaring men had also long asserted it 
was impossible to capture dolphins using nets because they could readily escape (Philadelphia 
Inquirer 1884:2).  Regardless, their company had a short but relatively successful industry in 
Cape May.  
The fishery began in 1875 when Cook, Sparks, and Peacock applied for a certificate of 
organization for their corporation, “The Atlantic Oil and Fertilizing Company,” in the state of 
New Jersey. Their primary intent was to catch dolphin in the Atlantic Ocean and Delaware Bay 
and to convert them into oil and fertilizing material (Cape May County Corporation Book 
1883:1.3-4). In addition to oil and fertilizing material, there is also evidence of the consumption 
of dolphin meat. Dolphin meat was considered a delicacy in New Jersey. According to the Star 
of the Cape newspaper, “Porpoise steak has become so popular on the Jersey coast that the 
children blubber for it” (1885:3).  
17 
 
 By 1884, the company had been enjoying relative success. Dolphin products were highly 
desired in the global economy. An example of this is evident in an English advertisement 
showing  porpoise leather shoes were popular among men because they were waterproof and 
very durable (Figure 2.5). Because of this success, the board of directors decided to change the 
name of the company to “The Cape May Porpoise Fishing Company” (Star of the Cape 
1884a:3).  
FIGURE 2.5. Porpoise Leather Shoe Advertisement (The Times 1886:7). 
 
 Within that same year, The Cape May Porpoise Fishing Company had begun making 
arrangements to expand their enterprise in North Carolina’s waters. Superintendent Cooke 
traveled to North Carolina to start the process of using the company’s nets off the coast. Shortly 
thereafter, the Cape May Porpoise Fishing Company began offshore dolphin hunting off the 
coast of North Carolina, leading to a significant boom in their stock (Star of the Cape 1884b:3). 
 While the expansion of their business interests in North Carolina led to an initial success 
for the Cape May Porpoise Fishing Company, it was short lived. On 4 November 1884, one of 
18 
 
the company’s steamers, John Taylor, dealt with an unfortunate demise. After undergoing 
substantial repairs, John Taylor went underway to begin dolphin fishing operations. Within a few 
hours of starting, a strong gale carried the steamer on to the beach and destroyed a portion of the 
ship. Fortunately, the company was able to salvage their nets and certain machinery parts. 
However, they did not have insurance for their ship which led to the eventual downfall of the 
company (Cape May Wave 1884:3; New York Times 1884:5; Star of the Cape 1884b:3). 
The wrecking of John Taylor contributed heavily to the company’s bankruptcy. Shortly 
after, a petition was started to begin foreclosure of the company. By July 17th, 1886, the 
company’s land had been put up for sale by the county sheriff and the Cape May Porpoise 
Fishing Company discontinued (Cape May Wave 1886:3).  While the Cape May dolphin fishery 
did not last long, the historical record surrounding it provided an excellent glimpse into how 
culture, economics, and technology played pivotal roles in dolphin hunting.  
 
Hunting Dolphins on North Carolina’s Shores 
The earliest historical mentions of dolphins hunted off North Carolina was possibly noted in 
1683 in the Lord’s Proprietors of Carolina Charter. The charter permitted “fishing of all sorts of 
fish, whales, sturgeons and all other royal fishes…” (Powell 1958:1-2) It is unknown if dolphins 
were taken into consideration. In the early 1700s, the French may have hunted dolphins off the 
coast of North Carolina. English surveyor, John Lawson, mentioned: 
Bottle-Noses are between the Crampois and Porpois, and lie near the Soundings. 
They are never to swim leisurely, as sometimes all other Fish do, but are 
continually running after their Prey in Great Shoals, like wild Horses, leaping now 
19 
 
and then above the water. The French esteem them good Food, and eat them both 
fresh and salt (Lawson in Lefler 1967:158; Lawson in Cecelski 2015:52).  
The first mentions of systematic dolphin fishing ventures in Shell Castle appeared in 
1790 when John Fulford inquired about participating in dolphin fishing and building boats for 
the operation (McGuinn 2000:77). Three years later, the Shell Castle dolphin fishery officially 
began when entrepreneurs John Gray and John Wallace used their lighter vessel Beaver to catch 
dolphins for their jaw oil (Dunbar 1958:76; Whisnant 2015:83). Shell Castle’s dolphin fishery 
typically operated seasonally from December to April. Unfortunately, little to no details on 
specific operations and techniques can be gleaned from the extant record other than the existence 
of the fishery’s operations (McGuinn 2000:77).  
The success of the Shell Castle dolphin fishery led to the development of dolphin 
fisheries throughout the coast of North Carolina. This success continued until around the 
American Civil War. The effects of the Civil War had limited North Carolina’s fishing industry 
(Mallison 1998:169). As such, the dolphin fishing industry had vanished at this point (Angell 
1981:20; Cecelski 2015:53). Interestingly, North Carolina was not the only fishing state that was 
experiencing these effects. 
 The whaling industry of the North Atlantic was also experiencing the crippling effects of 
the Civil War (Parr 1996:45; Cecelski 2000:82). During the Civil War, many whalers were 
conscripted, and their ships were often used to blockade Confederate harbors. Several fleets of 
whaling ships were lost in the Arctic Ocean due to ice stranding. Thus, the companies involved 
in the whaling industry were forced to look elsewhere if they were to continue their economic 
enterprise (Parr 1996:45). As a result, Northern soldiers such as Colonel John Wainwright saw 
20 
 
the potential of North Carolina dolphin fishery and later helped restart the fishery (The Morning 
News 1885:1). 
The success from the previously mentioned Cape May Porpoise Fishing Company during 
the 1880s also contributed significantly to the revival of the North Carolina dolphin fishery. With 
the knowledge gained from Cooke, Sparks, Peacock, and several others, the Cape May Porpoise 
Fishing Company was effective in restarting the North Carolina dolphin fishery in the spring of 
1884. Their success led to many other Northern companies getting involved with the fishery 
(Star of the Cape 1884; Dunbar 1958:76; Cecelski 2000:85). 
By the late 1880s, the dolphin fishery had reached its peak with dolphin fisheries and 
processing factories thriving in surrounding areas such as Beaufort, Morehead City, and Fort 
Macon (New Berne Weekly Journal 1887; The Union Republican 1887; Weekly State Chronicle 
1887). Many saw the dolphin fishery potentially becoming the state’s leading fishery. The 
editors of the Weekly Record even encouraged local fishermen “to at once engage in the catching 
of Porpoise” (Salomen 1887:1). Unfortunately, this was not the case as the market quickly 
diminished in the mid-1890s (Cecelski 2000:85).  
The reasons for the market’s failure were many. Dwindling numbers of fishermen and 
shrinking fortunes were ultimately the cause for the decline in the market (Impact Assessment, 
Inc 2005a:282-283). Cecelski argues that overharvesting may have also been a contributing 
factor in the industry’s decline (Cecelski 2000:85). While the industry suffered from a gradual 
decline, it did not entirely disappear in North Carolina. The industry would eventually start again 
in 1907 with under the organization of the William Nye Company (Cecelski 2015:49). 
The gradual downfall of the whale fishery posed a serious threat to the William Nye 
Company of New Bedford, Massachusetts during the late 19th century. The Nye company began 
21 
 
to experiment with other products such as animal, vegetable, fish, and mineral sources. However, 
neither of these experiments yielded the lubricating consistency of whale oil. Coincidentally, 
dolphin oil (known as porpoise oil at the time) was highly desired during this period for its uses 
in watchmaking, chronometers, and other heavy industrial tools. The William Nye Company 
quickly jumped on that industry and began to enjoy relative success (Parr 1996:45). 
After a brief stint of hunting blackfish in the inlets of Cape Cod, the William Nye 
Company began to explore other geographic regions that would allow for porpoise hunting (Parr 
1996:45). In 1907, William Nye sent his son, Joe Nye, to Cape Hatteras, North Carolina where 
dolphins were known to migrate in large numbers from December to April. Shortly after visiting, 
Joe Nye helped restart the Hatteras dolphin fishery (Figure 2.6; Parr 1996:50) 
FIGURE 2.6. Crew members of the Hatteras Porpoise Plant posing for picture (Source: New 
Bedford Whaling Museum).  
 
The Porpoise Factory, as it would come to be called, used local workers under the 
supervision of a manager employed by Nye. The organization’s operations were simple but 
22 
 
physically demanding. Fifteen men made up a beach crew. Several were stationed over a ten-
mile stretch of beach. Each crew had four boats and a seine net about 1,800 feet long. One man 
was designated as the ‘spy.’ The spy’s job observed for dolphins and raise a flag to signal their 
arrival (Figure 2.7). Once the flag was waved, the boat crews would quickly move out and 
surround the schools of dolphins with nets. After they were surrounded, they were swept toward 
the shore (Angell 1981:21-22; Parr 1996:50; Cecelski 2015:68). 
FIGURE 2.7. A Hatteras dolphin ‘spy’ waiting to give the signal to the dolphin hunting crews 
(Source: New Bedford Whaling Museum). 
 
The process of bringing the dolphins onto shore was perhaps one of the most grueling 
aspects of this fishery. Once in shallow enough water, a man with a giant steel hook, known as 
the ‘hooker,’ would drive it into the dolphin’s blowhole (Figure 2.8). Several men would then 
drag these dolphins on the beach where they would struggle helplessly. After the men pulled the 
dolphins from the water, a man known as the ‘stabber,’ would sometimes deliver a killing blow 
23 
 
to any dolphins that were still alive. With the catch all dead, the men would process the dolphins 
by cutting away the blubber portions where they would be loaded into carts and taken to be 
processed for oil, skin, and meat (Angell 1981:22; Parr 1996:51). 
FIGURE 2.8. Hatteras dolphin fishermen hauling dolphins on shore to prepare them for 
processing (Source: New Bedford Whaling Museum). 
 
Joseph Nye’s dolphin hunting operations in Hatteras saw great success.  The Hatteras 
dolphin fishery gave him a sense of personal notoriety. Interestingly, Joseph Nye was also 
involved with dolphin conservation. In 1914, he donated seven dolphins to the New York 
Zoological Society to be exhibited to the public. The entire process of catching and transferring 
the animals from Hatteras to New York was even captured in motion pictures by a Society 
official. For his generosity, the Society made Joseph Nye a lifetime member (Parr 1996:52-53; 
Cecelski 2015:75-76). 
24 
 
By the 1920s, the fishery saw a decline, and would eventually disappear (Parr 1996:53). 
In 1923, Joseph Nye died at the age of sixty-five. At this time, the age of petroleum was also 
contributing to the downfall of the popularity of whale oil. In February 1928, the company 
ordered: “that the fishery be closed down at the end of the month” (Cecelski 2015:77). Some 
accounts suggest the fishery continued by islanders for a short time, possibly selling their oil to 
the William Nye Company, but that was short-lived. The company continued to own assets and 
pay taxes on Hatteras Island until at least 1930, but there is no evidence of continued dolphin 
hunting operations. By then, the industry disappeared bringing an end to one of the state’s oldest 
fisheries (Cecelski 2015:76-77; Whisnant 2015:84). 
 
Conclusion 
This chapter provided context for this research by providing an overview of dolphin hunting 
globally. From its prehistoric beginnings in the Mediterranean to the systematic dolphin hunting 
of present-day Japan, the understanding of the history of these fisheries is useful in examining 
the archaeology of North Carolina’s dolphin fishery at Hatteras. This chapter also communicated 
the history of dolphin hunting in North Carolina from the early 18th century to its downfall in the 
early 20th century. This was necessary because it established the foundation on which new data 
can be collected to augment or challenge existing information. The historical resources used in 
this chapter revealed many gaps in its history. There is still a plethora of information to discover 
surrounding the dolphin fishery of North Carolina, including the potential for material culture 
and in situ archaeological evidence to provide new opportunities to deepen our understanding of 
this industry. The following chapter will cover the theoretical framework employed to best 
derive valuable information from North Carolina dolphin hunting material culture.
25 
 
CHAPTER THREE:  
THEORIES OF TECHNOLOGY AND TECHNOLOGICAL CHANGE  
Introduction 
The study of technology and technological change is the primary intent of this research. To 
effectively examine the technology and technological change of North Carolina’s dolphin 
fishery, Michael Schiffer’s behavioral chain model will be utilized in this study. Schiffer defines 
the behavioral chain model as “a fine-grained model that includes the entire set of activities that 
took place during the life history of a component, product, or complex technological system” 
(Schiffer 2011:30). 
The justification for using Schiffer’s behavioral chain model is not only its effectiveness 
in examining technology and technological change but also its ability to visualize and describe 
the interrelations between behavioral and spatial material aspects of a specific cultural element’s 
life history. The application of the behavioral chain will also be useful in visualizing the role 
technologies and complex networks of North Carolina’s dolphin fishery. It will provide insights 
on groups, activities, and places such as the location of hunting grounds, processing areas, and 
the fishermen associated with the industry. Before this is possible, an understanding of theories 
related to technology and technological change is necessary. Studies related to technology and 
technological change exist in various theoretical movements in archaeology (Schiffer 1995, 
2011; O’Brien et al. 2005; Trigger 2006).  
This chapter will do two things. It will first contextualize various theoretical perspectives 
on technology and technological change in both terrestrial and maritime archaeology. Finally, it 
will discuss the specifics of each component of Schiffer’s behavioral chain model and its 
applicability in this study.  
 
Archaeological Studies on Technology 
Schiffer argues that technology “is known by several different terms such as artifacts, products, 
objects, material culture, objects, gadgets and gizmos, or just plain things. Technology 
encompasses everything that people make or modify” (Schiffer 2011:4). This view of technology 
stems from a long line of theoretical perspectives that have not only shaped technology and 
technological change studies but also archaeology as a discipline (Schiffer 1995, 2011; O’Brien 
et al. 2005; Trigger 2006; Johnson 2010). To better understand these theoretical perspectives, it 
is important to contextualize them in both archaeology and maritime archaeology.  
 Prior to 1960, some historians of archaeology argue the culture history period was known 
as the ‘long sleep’ of archaeological theory, in which very little theoretical discussion took place. 
Cultural historical archaeologists focused more on collecting mass amounts of archaeological 
material within an unquestioned, generally assumed framework (Johnson 2010:15). Others 
argued the theoretical debates of culture history period were used to assert national and racial 
superiority (Trigger 2006:240-241).  
Cultural historical archaeologists viewed culture and the artifacts differently than later 
archaeologists. In his earlier years, V. Gordon Childe argued artifacts occurring together were 
part of a complex of associated traits. Childe termed this a “cultural group” or just a “culture.” 
This complex of associated traits is the material expression of what today would be called a 
“people” (Childe 1929:v-vi). This idea of a “cultural group” or “culture” is known as 
“normative.” Normative essentially means that artifacts are expressions of cultural norms and 
those norms are what define the culture (Johnson 2010:17). 
Culture historical archaeologists preferred to view artifacts in groups. The reason behind 
this was they believed that to translate the present into the past, placing artifacts in groups was 
27 
 
necessary. These groups would then be known as the archaeological cultures (Johnson 2010:18). 
An example of this idea is displayed in Figure 3.1 where Childe essentially builds a complex 
mosaic detailing the prehistory of Europe (Trigger 2006:244) 
 
FIGURE 3.1 Table giving correlations of the several cultures in time and space (Childe 
1929:418) 
 
 While the culture historical period remained prominent for several more years (and 
remains a tradition in present-day archaeological theory), a dissatisfied faction of archaeologists 
emerged during the 1950s. Some individuals were particularly unhappy with the inadequacies of 
culture-historical archaeology’s understanding of how prehistoric cultures operated and changed. 
This dissatisfaction ultimately ushered in a new wave of thought in archaeology, one based on 
systematic anthropological and sociological investigations of human behavior. This new wave 
would come to be known as processualism or the ‘New Archaeology’ (O’Brien et al. 2005:18-
35; Trigger 2006:314; Johnson 2010:21-23). 
 The traditional narrative contends that processualism had its beginnings in the early 
1960s when a new generation of ‘young Turks’ would ultimately shape the course of 
28 
 
archaeological thought (Johnson 2010:21). Among this new generation of archaeologists was 
Lewis Binford: the face of ‘New Archaeology’ (O’Brien et al. 2005:40). Binford argued that 
archaeology needed to be more anthropological and more scientific (Binford 1962:217). This 
change in archaeological thought significantly altered how interpretations were later made, 
especially regarding technology.  
 The stated goal of the ‘New Archaeology’ was to study cultural processes and to 
contribute to anthropological theory. To study archaeology as more of a process, two things were 
required. First, the basic notion of culture needed to be restructured from a normative, idea-based 
concept to one that was behavioral, systemic, and materialist. Second, archaeology needed to be 
conducted scientifically. This meant that archaeologists had to work deductively rather than 
inductively and use ethnographic analogy in a rigorous manner (O’Brien et al. 2005:37; Johnson 
2010:21-23). 
 With this restructured and more scientific approach in hand, studies surrounding 
technology in archaeology were vastly different. The American Southwest became a breeding 
ground for much of the terrestrial archaeological case studies on technology that took place 
during the processualism movement (Cronin 1962; Longacre 1963; Flannery 1964). There are 
several reasons for this, but for this chapter’s purposes, they provide excellent examples of 
technological studies in archaeology (O’Brien et al. 2005:67-91).  
 An example of how technology was studied during this period is evident in Constance 
Cronin’s “An Analysis of Pottery Design Elements, Indicating Possible Relationships between 
Three Decorated Types” (1962). In this work, Cronin analyzed Southwestern pottery and found 
that specific design elements would occur on pottery from one site but not another. She 
concluded that “decoration of pottery might reflect the learning frameworks of mothers teaching 
29 
 
daughters, who taught their own daughters and so on” (Cronin 1962; Longacre 2000:294; 
O’Brien et al. 2005:68). This conclusion demonstrated several key points regarding interpreting 
technology during this period.  
Cronin utilized a systems-thinking approach by employing a type-variety system of 
analysis on Southwestern pottery types. She also identifies cultural evolution in her conclusion 
by pointing out the stylistic changes of pottery decoration overtime. Lastly, she identified 
variability in her study by pointing out that some specific design elements would occur on 
pottery from one site but not another. Each of these key points are some of the many hallmarks 
of the processualism movement (Cronin 1962; O’Brien et al. 2005:68; Johnson 2010:23-27). 
Cronin’s work is one of many studies that demonstrates the key points of processualism 
for terrestrial archaeology during this time. By the 1970s, the works of Binford (1962, 1972) and 
many others demonstrated that processualism was dominating the archaeological discussions. 
Interestingly, processualism was also making headway in maritime archaeology. 
Early theoretical perspectives in maritime archaeology were implicit, and along the lines 
of historical particularist approaches as seen in the works of George Bass (1966). It was not until 
the mid and late 1970s when processualism influenced maritime archaeological thought. In 1978, 
Keith Muckelroy published Maritime Archaeology differing significantly from the earlier 
historical particularist perspective. Influenced heavily by the processual leanings of his mentor 
David Clarke, Muckelroy introduced revolutionary ideas to the field of maritime archaeology 
such as site formation processes and interpretive frameworks for understanding a ship in its 
social context (Muckelroy 1978:160-225). 
While Muckelroy applied many of these new ideas to several historic wreck sites of Great 
Britain, he is primarily known for his work on the Kennemerland wreck site (1976, 1978). The 
30 
 
Kennemerland was a merchant ship of the Dutch East India Company that was bound for the 
East Indies but wrecked in the Out Skerries of Shetland in 1664. The site experienced several 
centuries of salvaging until the 1970s when preliminary archaeological investigations were 
conducted. While the site itself experienced years of salvaging it still offered a wealth of 
knowledge (Muckelroy 1976:280-281). 
Muckelroy’s works primarily focused on early maritime site formation theory 
(Muckelroy 1975, 1978). However, he provides several examples of processual interpretations 
regarding the technology found at the Kennemerland site. This is especially present in his work 
on extracting filters. Extracting filters essentially refers to the processes of wrecking, salvaging, 
and disintegration of perishables and how they lead to loss of material from a wreck-site. Each 
process thus generates an output column shown in a diagram (Muckelroy 1978:165; Figure 3.2). 
Muckelroy reinforces a couple of key points of processualism interpretations of 
technology specifically in maritime archaeology. Muckelroy emphasizes a systems-thinking 
approach by arguing that “the artifact assemblage itself is defined as a system, defined by the 
necessary characteristics of the ship as a means of transport and as a social unit, which has 
undergone a series of transformations through time within the constraints imposed by the larger 
system” (Muckelroy 1976:281). To reiterate, the different parts Muckelroy argues as a system 
were interrelated as part of a larger functioning cultural system (Muckelroy 1976:281-284; 
1978:165-169; Johnson 2010:23-25). 
Muckelroy also utilizes a scientific approach and expresses explicit biases in his analysis 
of the technology found at the Kennemerland site. He does this by openly specifying his 
hypotheses, the procedures for investigation, constraints, results, analysis, and conclusions. Each 
31 
 
of these represents the very core of the scientific approach and processualism (Muckelroy 1976; 
1978:165-169; O’Brien et al. 2005:92-120; Johnson 2010:26). 
 
FIGURE 3.2. System outputs for the Kennemerland wreck site (Muckelroy 1978) 
32 
 
The works of Cronin (1962), Muckelroy (1978), and many others heavily shaped the 
course of archaeological thought during this period and beyond. However, like many theoretical 
movements, processualism also experienced problems and criticisms. The main problem was the 
arguments surrounding the systematic processes that produce the archaeological record (O’Brien 
et al. 2005:210; Johnson 2010:65).  
Binford argued material remains of a cultural system leave behind a “fossil” record of an 
extinct society (Binford 1962:219; O’Brien 2005:210-211). If this and other assumptions related 
to this were true, then the archaeological record would indeed show a clear reflection of past 
human behavior. However, Binford failed to consider human behavioral aspects in relation to the 
patterning and processing in the archaeological record. One of Binford’s students, Michael 
Schiffer would augment processualism by placing a greater emphasis on the role of human 
behaviors on the interpretation of archaeological sites. 
 
Schiffer’s Behavioral Archaeology 
Early discussions on the role of behavior in archaeological interpretation were made by figures 
like Leslie White who argued “culture thus becomes primarily a mechanism for harnessing 
energy and of putting it to work in the service of man, and, secondarily, of channeling and 
regulating his behavior not directly concerned with subsistence and offense and defense” (White 
1949:390-391). By the 1970s, discussions regarding the role of human behavior in 
archaeological site formation processes were taking place (Johnson 2010:65). Contrary to 
Binford argument, Schiffer contended that the archaeological record was far from a perfect 
reflection of past human behaviors and that understanding cultural and non-cultural processes 
were necessary to sift through the distorted behavioral patterns reflected in the archaeological 
33 
 
record (Schiffer 1987:7; O’Brien et al. 2005:211-212; Trigger 426-428). Binford rejected this 
claim and openly attacked Schiffer for “retarding the field.” This rejection gave rise to the field 
of behavioral archaeology and significantly changed how technology would be analyzed 
(Schiffer 1995:19-21; O’Brien et al. 2005:65; Trigger 2006:426; Johnson 2010:65). 
This rejection of Binford’s argument ultimately created a mutation in processualism, and 
thus behavioral archaeology was born. As the primary proponent of behavioral archaeology, 
Schiffer defines it as the: 
… study of relationships between people and things in all times and space. The 
relationships between people and artifacts are discussed in terms of regularities 
discerned in process of manufacture, use, and disposal that make up the life 
histories of material things, as in flow models and behavioral chains (Schiffer 
1995:13). 
Behavioral archaeology focuses more on the need to create a science of material culture (Trigger 
2006:426). This new focus on creating a science of material culture had the most profound 
change in technology studies and even emphasized the process of technological change.  
 Many studies arose out of this new focus of formalizing the relationship between artifacts 
and human behavior (Rathje 1974; Schiffer 1995; O’Brien et al. 2005:211). A famous example 
of this is seen in William Rathje’s work on the Tucson Garbage Project. The goal of Rathje’s 
garbage study was to examine the link between present human behavior and material debris 
(Johnson 2010:65). He did this by conducting interviews that asked questions pertaining to 
patterns of consumption in relation to matters of health. The intention behind this was to record 
traces of drug, alcohol, cigarette, vitamin, and nutrient consumption. Once completed, Rathje and 
other members of the Tucson Garbage Project would test the results from these interviews by 
34 
 
searching through the garbage of a selected sample of neighborhoods and comparing (Rathje 
1974:236-237). The results of this study were astonishing for many reasons.  
Rathje found significantly more vitamins were consumed in Tucson by people with 
intermediate incomes than those with lower ones. The garbage data, however, show exactly the 
opposite in that the largest quantities of vitamin containers were discarded by those on a very 
low-income scale. Another pattern Rathje found was that one might expect there is a high rate of 
expensive waste of pastry and takeout meals but, the most significant waste was of staples such 
as beef, fruits, and vegetables (Rathje 1974:237-239). 
There were two reasons why Rathje chose modern people for this study. He wanted to 
show that assumptions about the way material culture is related to behavior in past civilizations 
can be tested in a familiar, ongoing society. Also, by applying these archaeological methods to 
such a society can provide valuable insights into the society itself (Rathje 1974:236-237). Rathje 
could successfully identify certain regularities and patterns between people and objects in 
specific times and places. This is a hallmark of behavioral archaeology (Johnson 2010:65). 
 Another case of examining the relationship between artifacts and human behavior can be 
seen in Schiffer’s work on electric technology in nineteenth-century lighthouses. As the first 
structures to install the world’s first generator-powered electric lights, lighthouses have a special 
place in the histories of electrical technology. Interestingly, electric-arc technology was not 
widely adopted for lighthouse illumination. Its distribution was curiously uneven: most maritime 
nations had none, a few had one or two, and the United States only had the Statue of Liberty. 
France and Britain, however, roughly had half a dozen to a dozen. In this piece, Schiffer is 
particularly interested in the large-scale technological change process of adoption regarding 
electric lights in lighthouses (Schiffer 2005:275-276). 
35 
 
 To answer this uneven adoption of electric-arc technology among nations, Schiffer 
employs two heuristic tools of behavioral archaeology, the performance matrix, and the life-
history framework. These help to identify the common factors and others that might explain why 
most nations, including the United States, only had one or a few arc lights while Britain and 
France adopted them on a much larger scale (Schiffer 2005:275-287). 
The performance matrix is a table that allows the investigator to compare performance 
characteristics (PCs) of two or more competing technologies (Figure 3.3). Within the internal 
and external factors that affect the course of technological change, the performance 
characteristics represent behavioral capabilities, which can be assessed in relation to specific 
activities and social groups. Performance characteristics ultimately allow an analysis to 
incorporate both qualitative and quantitative factors allowing the researcher to deal with multiple 
causes of adoption (Schiffer 2005:287). 
The life history framework is beneficial in organizing performance characteristics of the 
performance matrix. It is built on the foundation that technology has a life history consisting of 
processes such as manufacture, use, and adoption. Different performance characteristics can 
come into play during each process which in this case refers to the specific activities that groups 
will carry out. Schiffer divides the life histories of the competing illumination technologies into 
the following gross processes: (1) acquisition of the components and installation of the system; 
(2) functions—practical and symbolic—during use; and (3) operation, regular, and repair 
(Schiffer 2005:287-288). 
 
36 
 
 
FIGURE 3.3. Performance matrix for lighthouse illumination, 1860-99 (Schiffer 2005). 
By applying the performance matrix and life history framework, Schiffer could conclude 
the primary pattern in the performance matrix shows that electric light was competitive only in 
use-related functions. It was excellent for guiding mariners in haze and light fog. However, 
performance characteristics related to costs specifically show that electric light was too 
expensive when compared to oil. This, in turn, indicates the rejection of electric lights was a 
decision, made repeatedly by lighthouse organizations, that weighted utilitarian and financial 
factors over use-related factors (Schiffer 2005:294-305).  
The works of Rathje (1974) and Schiffer (2005) strongly show that behavioral 
archaeology has played an influential role in not only shaping the interpretations surrounding 
material culture but also establishing it as a science (Trigger 2006:426). Because of this, the 
37 
 
processes of technological change come more into play because technology is the material 
culture component of activities that represent behavioral characteristics (Schiffer 2011:4). This is 
especially seen in maritime archaeology where the application of behavioral archaeology and 
technological change has yielded some fascinating results over the last few years.  
An example of this is Will Sassorossi’s Master of Arts thesis which analyzed the 
processes of commercial fishing trawlers being adapted and transformed for military operations 
during World War Two. The selected vessels in Sassorossi’s study were YP-389, HMT 
Bedfordshire, and HMS Senateur Duhamel. To determine the methods for converting and 
adapting these vessels, Sassorossi utilized two main paradigms: site formation theory and 
theories of technological change (Sassorossi 2015:36). 
Regarding the theories of technological change, Sassorossi draws from four theoretical 
models that incorporate different influencing factors which bring about innovation, adaption, or 
change. The first model is entitled the heroic inventor and focuses on the exceptional advances 
of a single person. As defined by Don Leggett and Richard Dunn, “the heroic inventor model of 
technological change of a single individual is claimed to make great leaps in innovation, 
seemingly from contemporaries, constraining institutions or the requirements” (Leggett and 
Dunn 2012:5; see also Sassorossi 2015:48). 
The second model Sassorossi uses is technological evolution, which strongly opposes the 
heroic inventor model. The technological evolution model “weaves technological change into the 
fabric of maritime history without reflexive consideration, by shrouding the agency of actors and 
the cultural specificity of technical decision making” (Leggett and Dunn 2012:5). Unlike the 
heroic inventor model, the technological evolution model rejects the idea of singular actors as 
38 
 
sole creators and proposes technological change as a progressive movement, incorporating a 
larger set of actors working toward technological change (Sassorossi 2015:51-52). 
Like the technological evolution model, the third model Sassorossi used is technological 
determinism. Technological determinism emphasizes that technological change is determined by 
laws or by physical and biological conditions rather than by human will (Bimber 1994:86). In 
this sense, technological changes are more formulaic and continue progressively without regard 
to social, political, or cultural factors (Sassorossi 2015:53-54). 
The final model Sassorossi utilized is technological momentum. Compared to the 
technological determinism model, technological momentum suggests that social development is 
responsible for shaping and is shaped by technology (Hughes 1994:102). This emphasis on the 
idea that technological change is affected by social influences as well as effecting social change 
allows for a more inclusive model for determining the process of modification or adaption 
(Sassorossi 2015:57).  
By applying these four models along with site formation process theory, Sassorossi came 
to a couple of interesting conclusions. He demonstrated that the conversion and alteration 
processes of these vessels certainly fit within a model of technological change. He argues that 
social and economic factors were ultimately responsible for these processes because military 
leaders in World War Two needed more naval vessels to fill the role of patrol and convoy duties. 
Sassorossi’s study also highlights the imperativeness of analyzing modern wreck sites for 
determining models of technological change (Sassorossi 2015:183-185). 
 This emphasis on technological change in behavioral archaeology is drastically different 
from how its predecessors in culture history and processualism viewed technology in the scope 
of archaeology. By using technological change to guide this material culture study, it will be 
39 
 
possible to understand the influences of North Carolina’s dolphin fishery. This next section will 
do precisely that and discuss the theoretical framework that is employed in this study.  
 
Schiffer’s Behavioral Chain Model 
As seen in his previous work on nineteenth-century lighthouses, life history models are highly 
effective tools for studies in archaeology and the history of technology (Schiffer 2005, 2011:30). 
One of the most well-established life history models is the behavioral chain. The behavioral 
chain allows the visualization of linkages or networks among various groups, changing 
technologies, activities, and places. By understanding these levels of complexity and 
interconnectivity, the behavioral chain furnishes insights into technological changes (Schiffer 
2011:30-34).  
The application of the behavioral chain will be useful in establishing and illustrating the 
complex networks of North Carolina’s dolphin fishery. It will provide insights on groups, 
activities, and places such as the location of hunting grounds, processing areas, and the 
fishermen associated with the industry. This section will do a few things. It will define and 
discuss the behavioral chain model. It will then provide examples of how it has been applied in 
previous studies. Finally, it will then briefly mention how the behavioral chain model will be 
applied to this study in later chapters.  
 Behavioral chains are not new in archaeology. Rather, they are Schiffer’s explicit 
interpretation of a form of reasoning employed to arrive at the activities that were performed at a 
site and their test implications. In this case, he was heavily influenced by Marvin Harris (1964). 
However, Schiffer places more emphasis on the life history of system elements over Harris’ 
actor-activity orientation. The reason for this shift in perspective relates to the material nature of 
40 
 
the archaeological record and some of the predictive properties of behavioral chains. As Schiffer 
puts it, “properties that permit the investigator to circumvent the apparent limitations of the 
archaeological record” (Schiffer 1995:57). 
With this background in mind, Schiffer defines the behavioral chain as “the entire 
sequence of activities that took place during the life history of a component, product, or complex 
technological system.” A behavioral chain may represent a singular artifact, such as a trypot or 
mass-produced products such as dolphin oil (Angel 1981; Schiffer 2011:30). Once the material 
culture is selected for the study, the behavioral chain is presented in the form of a table (Figure 
3.4).  
 
Activities 
    Convergent Chain Segment  
 
Activity 1 Activity 2 Activity 3 Activity 4 Activity 5 
 
 
      Divergent Chain Segment  Activities 
FIGURE 3.4. Behavioral chain with convergent chain segment (upper left) and divergent chain 
segment (lower right) (Source: By George Huss, after Schiffer 2011:31). 
 
 The table is comprised of activities which are defined as “occurring in a particular place, 
an activity is a series of related interactions among a set of interactors that includes at least one 
person or artifact” (Schiffer 2011:191; Figure 3.4). Each activity is then structured based on 
certain elements. Elements are essentially the components of an activity and can be based on 
many things (Schiffer 1995:58). Depending on the research question, elements can include any 
41 
 
or all of the following characteristics: (1) nature of the social group conducting the activity (size, 
age/gender composition) and its mode of recruitment, such as family, work party, or graveyard 
shift in a factory; (2) participating artifacts and externs; (3) interaction-relevant performance 
characteristics; (4) specific interactions; (5) location of performance; (6) times and frequency of 
performance; (7) the relational knowledge possessed by members of the social group that makes 
possible skillful and socially competent interactions; and (8) intersections with convergent or 
divergent segments. The latter may include an “out-put” column which indicates where a 
discarded material begins its journey to the archaeological record (Schiffer 2011:30-31). An 
excellent example of these elements employed in the activities of a behavioral chain model can 
be seen in Figure 3.5 which illustrates the use of maize in the Hopi culture (Schiffer 1995:59). 
As seen in Figure 3.5, the behavioral chain provides an excellent visual of the entire 
sequence of activities that took place during the life history of a component, product, or complex 
technological system (Schiffer 2011:30). Schiffer specifically chose these elements for the 
behavioral chain because they are effective in describing the interrelations between behavioral 
and spatial material aspects of activity performance with reference to the life history of cultural 
elements. However, more explicit definitions will be necessary to better understand what 
Schiffer means by these elements (Schiffer 1995:58-61). These next few subsections will give 
definitions for each element and then provide examples of them in Figures 3.6 and 3.7. It will 
then briefly mention how they will be specifically applied to North Carolina’s dolphin fishery in 
later chapters. 
 
 
42 
 
 
FIGURE 3.5. Behavioral chain of maize for the Hopi culture, circa A.D. 1900 (Schiffer 1995). 
Nature of the Social Group Conducting the Activity 
 In his earlier work, Schiffer refers to social groups as energy sources. Energy sources 
refer to humans associated with an activity performance. This element is applied minimally on 
43 
 
two levels: the individual level, and the societal level. Schiffer gives an example of these two 
levels by applying it to the grinding of maize in Hopi culture. On an individual level, a post-
pubescent woman does the coarse grinding of maize. On a societal level, however, it is important 
to specify that the recurrent social unit of maize-coarse-grinding is all post-pubescent women of 
a society (Schiffer 1995:60; Figure 3.5). In the case of North Carolina’s dolphin fishery, it 
includes individuals involved with the hunting of dolphins and individuals involved with the 
processing of dolphins. 
 
Participating Artifacts and Externs 
Schiffer defines an artifact as “any material phenomenon modified or manufactured, 
wholly or in part, through the interactions of people” (Schiffer 2011:191). He also defines an 
extern as “a type of interactor that arises independently of people, such as sunlight and clouds, 
wild plants and animals, and landforms” (Schiffer 2011:192). Schiffer groups these two elements 
together as conjoined elements. Conjoined elements are essentially the artifacts and externs of a 
given activity performance excluding the human energy sources (Schiffer 1995:60).  
An example of conjoined elements in Figure 5 can be seen in the process of “maize-
coarse grinding. Maize-coarse-grinding requires at least two elements with hard surfaces capable 
of breaking the endocarp of maize kernels. One of these elements must be capable of sustained 
manipulation by the human energy source (Schiffer 1975:110). In the case of the North Carolina 
dolphin fishery, the hunting and processing of dolphins are excellent examples of activities that 
require conjoined elements such as knives, trypots, and nets. 
 
 
44 
 
Interaction-Relevant Performance Characteristics 
 Interaction-relevant performance characteristics are defined as “a capability, competence, 
or skill that could be exercised by an interactor – i.e., ‘come into play’ – in a specific, real-world 
performance” (Schiffer 2011:193). This is essentially the practical knowledge necessary to carry 
out an activity by the interactor. Schiffer does not mention this in Figure 3.5. However, an 
example of this could be the skills necessary for maize-coarse-grinding. When applying this 
element to North Carolina’s dolphin fishery, many skills are necessary for both hunting and 
processing. 
 
Location of Performance 
 The location of an activity performance essentially refers to the location or multiple 
locations within an area. They can be specified relative to each other or to stationary features 
(Schiffer 1995:60). As seen in Figure 3.5, Schiffer mentions several locations where activities 
would take place for the Hopi culture. The same can be said about North Carolina’s dolphin 
fishery where several locations were being used to hunt and process dolphins. 
 
Times and Frequency of Performance 
 The times and frequency of an activity’s performance is easy to establish but often rather 
difficult to determine. Reference is made here to the class of usual performance times and 
frequencies with the stipulation that variability can be encompassed in specific applications such 
as location (Schiffer 1995:110). When looking at Figure 3.5, time and frequency of a 
45 
 
performance can vary between daily to yearly. In the case of North Carolina’s dolphin fishery, 
time and frequency of a performance varied depending on the activities taking place. 
 
Intersection of Convergent and Divergent Chain Segments 
One can easily indicate where other behavioral chains intersect that of the reference 
artifact by including convergent and divergent chain segments. A convergent chain segment is an 
addition to the behavioral chain. A divergent chain segment, on the other hand, indicates a 
removal of a by-product or waste product of the behavioral chain. Within the behavioral chain 
model, Schiffer labels these convergent and divergent chain segments as ‘additions’ and 
‘deletions’ (Figure 3.5).  Schiffer makes the example of making salsa as a behavioral chain. In 
making salsa, the addition of diced onions is indicated by a convergent chain segment that joins 
the onion’s behavioral chain to that of the salsa. In contrast, a divergent chain segment indicates 
a removal in the formation of a by-product or waste product such as onion skins (Schiffer 
2011:30). An example in the North Carolina dolphin fishery might be the harvest of certain 
objects, such as oil, skin, and bones, but the discard of teeth. 
 
Outputs or Pathways 
 The last activity is the outputs or pathways which discusses the artifacts or practices that 
had fallen out of use. Schiffer notes that at every stage in the behavioral chain there is an 
“output” path through which materials may or will eventually become a part of the 
archaeological record. The example he uses for outputs in the Hopi culture behavioral chain 
model includes pollen and grains. This material may undergo no further transport or discard. 
46 
 
Other pathways may also be more complex. Using the example of Hopi culture, waste products 
from cooking or mixing activities can constitute an inconvenient and unsanitary residue that 
would likely be cleaned up, transported, and discarded as refuse (Figure 3.5). Furthermore, in 
societies with highly developed refuse disposal systems, most elements will end up in the 
archaeological record at locations other than those of their use. This is necessary to specify in the 
output column of the behavioral chain exactly how and where these discard activities take place 
(Schiffer 1975:111). 
 
Previous Applications of Behavioral Chain Modeling 
Schiffer’s development and application of the behavioral chain model has allowed for other 
scholars to learn a great deal of knowledge in not just archaeological studies but also in fields 
such as history, ethnography, and other material focused studies (Schiffer 2011:30-34). With a 
better comprehension of the technical jargon he uses in this framework, it is now possible to 
understand the results other scholars have found using the behavioral chain. This next section 
will provide two case studies on how the behavioral chain has been used. The purpose of this 
will be to demonstrate how the behavioral chain model has been an effective theoretical 
framework and how it is suitable for the application to the case of North Carolina’s dolphin 
fishery. 
 
Yucca Remains at Antelope House 
 One of the first examples of the behavioral chain being applied can be seen in the work of 
Frances Stier (1975) at the Antelope House site in Arizona.  
47 
 
FIGURE 3.6. Behavioral chain for Zuni uses of Yucca bacatta leaves (Source: Stier 1975).
48 
 
FIGURE 3.7. Behavioral chain for Zuni uses of Yucca bacatta fruits (Stier 1975). 
49 
 
Stier’s goal was to reconstruct prehistoric economic activities by analyzing manufacturing 
methods and use patterns of the two species of yucca plant: Y. baccata and Y. angustissima. The 
reason why yucca was chosen as her study’s emphasis is due to the fact it made up seven percent 
of the total vegetal refuse weight found at the site. Stier argues that this suggests some idea of 
economic importance (Stier 1975:57). 
 As seen above in Figures 3.6 and 3.7, Stier outlines her behavioral chain model using 
agents, by products, material correlates, activities, location, and wastes as his elements. She 
specifically chose these elements for this study primarily because of the nature of the yucca 
plant’s ecology and pollination characteristics. By organizing it in this manner, Stier came to a 
couple conclusions. First, the behavioral chain found was useful in clarifying the origin and 
location of vegetal wastes that were transported and abandoned in specific areas. She was also 
able to find evidence of technological change on the yucca-based cords. Cords were found 
randomly throughout the site, often with their ends cut. The distribution of these cords suggests 
the inhabitants recycled cord from robes for use as ordinary cordage. When placed within a 
behavioral chain, this shows a pattern of reuse (Stier 1957:58-63; Schiffer 2011:194).  
 
Lithic Analysis at the Longhorn Site (41KT53)  
The behavioral chain model has also been useful in the identification of activity areas 
through lithic analysis. In Kathyrn Smith’s master’s thesis, she utilizes the behavioral chain 
model on lithics and debitage found at a Protohistoric Native American encampment known as 
the Longhorn Site (41KT53). Studies surrounding the archaeology of the Longhorn Site 
(41KT53) had been going on since the 1950s (Smith 2010:vi-3). 
50 
 
 What separates Smith’s study from other behavioral chain studies is her use of lithics 
rather than the variety of material culture seen in other studies (Schiffer 1975, 2011; Stier 1975. 
Schiffer points out that “a behavioral chain may be represented by singular artifact, such as 
Renoir’s painting Luncheon of the Boating Party; a craft item, such as the rice-cooking pots 
made by all potters in Dangtalan, a village in the Philippines; or a mass-produced product, such 
as a Hershey’s milk chocolate bar with almonds” (Schiffer 2011:30). With that in mind, lithics, 
while different compared to the material culture mentioned by Schiffer, still offer a wealth of 
knowledge when applied in a behavioral chain model (Smith 2010). 
 In her study, Smith used six steps to identify activity areas based on the distribution of 
7,644 pieces of debitage and 161 lithic tools. These steps include activities that could have taken 
place, identifying activity areas, additional information, additional activities, recurring activities, 
and aspects of social organization. These steps were chosen because of the studies focus which is 
flintknapping technology and its life history (Smith 201:34-69). By visualizing her behavioral 
chain model through those six steps, Smith could reach a couple conclusions. First, she could 
identify the tool manufacturing, use, and maintenance activities that took place at the Longhorn 
Site (41KT53). Secondly, she could identify the animal hide processing activities that were 
taking place in her area of focus. Finally, she related the spatial organization of the site through 
the distribution of its activity areas (Smith 2010:157-160). 
 
Conclusion 
Archaeological studies of technology have vastly changed over the last century. The works of 
Childe (1929), Binford (1962a), Schiffer (2011) and several others played pivotal roles in how 
technology is interpreted in archaeology. By understanding the works of these key figures, it is 
51 
 
understandable how Schiffer came to his definition of technology and the processes surrounding 
its change (Schiffer 2011:4).   
 The behavioral chain model is an excellent framework to study technology and its 
changing processes. It gives the investigator the ability to visualize linkages or networks of 
groups, technologies, activities, and places. In doing this, it shows potential changes that took 
place during the activities and processes of a technology’s life (Schiffer 2011:4). The behavioral 
chain model has never been applied to the maritime archaeology of fisheries. By utilizing this 
theoretical framework, a wealth of knowledge can be gleaned not only from North Carolina’s 
dolphin fishery but also fisheries as whole. 
52 
 
CHAPTER FOUR: METHODOLOGY 
Introduction 
To apply Schiffer’s behavioral chain model to North Carolina’s dolphin fishery, a multistage 
methodology is necessary. The methodology for this study is divided into three phases; a 
historical research phase, an archaeological research phase, and a data compilation phase. The 
historical research phase focused on identifying and utilizing archival and historical sources 
related to North Carolina’s dolphin fishery. The archaeological methodology comprised of 
several stages. The first stage involved locating potential repositories from public and private 
collections and documenting material culture related to North Carolina’s dolphin fishery. The 
second stage involved utilizing historical resources to locate any potential areas of activity 
related to the industry including hunting grounds and processing factories. The third stage 
utilized the historical and archaeological phases to create a material culture database and maps 
depicting areas of activity. By collecting and processing the data in this manner, it allowed for 
behavioral chains to be effectively collated and analyzed. 
   
Historical Research 
Preliminary historical research for this project began with a survey of previous studies on North 
Carolina’s whaling industry. Whaling researchers such as Mitchell and Reeves’ History of 
Whaling in and near North Carolina (1988), Simpson and Simpson’s Whaling on the North 
Carolina Coast (1990), and Bradley’s “Where were the Whalers?” (2015) mentioned on several 
occasions that dolphin fishing occurred on the Outer Banks but was vastly different from the 
whale fishery. After examining the sources of these previous researchers, the search led to 
several institutions throughout the eastern part of the United States. These institutions included 
 
museums, archives, companies, and local historical societies. A list of these institutions visited or 
consulted with is provided below (Table 4.1). 
 Table 4.1. List of Institutions visited or consulted. 
INSTITUTION LOCATION 
History Museum of Carteret County Morehead City, NC 
Beaufort Maritime Museum Beaufort, NC 
Cape Fear Museum of History and Science Wilmington, NC 
Coastal Voices  Harker’s Island, NC 
Core Sound Waterfowl Museum Harker’s Island, NC 
East Carolina University Joyner Library  Greenville, NC 
Fort Macon State Park Atlantic Beach, NC 
Graveyard of the Atlantic Museum Cape Hatteras, NC 
Hatteras Island Genealogical & Preservation Cape Hatteras, NC 
Society  
Museum of the Albemarle Elizabeth City, NC 
New Bedford Whaling Museum New Bedford, MA 
Newspapers.com Internet Database 
North Carolina Museum of Natural Sciences Raleigh, NC 
North Carolina Maritime Museum at Southport, NC 
Southport 
North Carolina State Archives Raleigh, NC 
Nye Lubricants Fairhaven, MA 
Ocracoke Preservation Society Ocracoke, NC 
Outer Banks History Center Manteo, NC 
Smithsonian Institution  Washington, DC 
UNC Chapel Hill Library Chapel Hill, NC 
US Coast Guard History Program New London, CT 
Wildlife Conservation Society New York City, NY 
 
 In addition to visiting or consulting with these public institutions, oral history interviews 
were conducted with two Outer Banks community members who had a connection to the dolphin 
harvesting industry. Because interviews with the public were carried out, an Institutional Review 
Board application was submitted and accepted by the University and Medical Center Institutional 
Review Board 17-000911. The Institutional Review Board application included a digital 
recruitment form, media recruitment form, a consent waiver, and interview question form. 
54 
 
 The digital recruitment form was a short advertisement intended for internet, email, and 
social media-based recruitment (Figure 4.1). This form was primarily used as most of the 
advertisements were sent through social media platforms such as Facebook (Figure 4.2). The 
media recruitment form is like the digital recruitment form, but it was intended for digital and 
print-based flyers for recruitment (Figure 4.3). The consent waiver was the most essential form 
because it was necessary to have signed before oral histories could be used in this study. It 
informed the interviewee of the goals of the interview and how the data would be used (see 
Appendix A). Finally, the interview question form showed the two primary questions that would 
be asked to interviewees (Figure 4.1). These questions were framed with the concepts of 
Schiffer’s behavioral chain model in mind (Schiffer 2011).  
 
FIGURE 4.1. Digital Recruitment Form (IRB application 2017). 
55 
 
 
FIGURE 4.2. UNC Coastal Studies Institute Facebook Advertisement (Facebook). 
56 
 
FIGURE 4.3. Media Recruitment Form (IRB Application 2017). 
 
FIGURE 4.4. IRB Interview Questions (IRB Application 2017). 
 
Archaeological Research 
The archaeological research phase was a multi-stage approach. The first stage involved locating 
and documenting material culture related to North Carolina’s dolphin fishery. The second stage 
utilized archival and historical resources to identify and survey archaeological sites associated 
57 
 
with North Carolina’s dolphin fishery. The final stage focused on creating maps in ArcGIS to 
geospatially analyze the datasets collected and create visuals depicting the interrelations between 
behavioral and spatial-material aspects of activities with reference to their life history (Schiffer 
1995:61). 
 
Stage One: Artifact Documentation 
In March of 2018, a Dare County Government Educational Television Program Grant, 
titled “Local Programming Development Initiative” was obtained, which provided funding to 
support travel to visit public repositories listed in Table 1 (see McCord et al. 2018). After 
consulting with these public institutions, material culture related to North Carolina’s dolphin 
fishery were found at the Graveyard of the Atlantic Museum, the University of North Carolina at 
Chapel Hill, the North Carolina Maritime Museum at Beaufort, the Smithsonian Institution, the 
New Bedford Whaling Museum, and the World Conservation Society. To locate private 
repositories, the previously described advertisements calling for individuals with connections to 
North Carolina’s dolphin fishery were sent to various media outlets. Social media platforms, 
such as Facebook, were proven to be the most effective tool in locating individuals who had a 
connection to North Carolina’s dolphin fishery. Unfortunately, no artifacts were found within 
private repositories. Once the artifacts were located, the next component focused on artifact 
recordation and documentation.  
 The University of North Carolina Coastal Studies Institute’s Maritime Heritage Program 
provided a portable artifact photography kit, which included two lights with stands, a Giottos 
ST120 small portable light tent, background screen in various colors, and a tripod. Additional 
equipment included photographic scale bars, a portable weight scale, additional lights, a white 
58 
 
background, and Nikon D300 SLR camera, controlled via a laptop running digiCamControl 
software. Lights were positioned behind the tent to provide a shadow-less background. The 
dimensions of each artifact varied and required different sized scale bars (Figure 4.5). 
  
FIGURE 4.5. Nathan Richards and George Huss preparing bottles of dolphin oil for artifact 
photography (John McCord). 
 
 Once photographs were taken, a field journal and artifact catalogue were assembled 
noting all the data obtained. The artifact catalogue contained information such as (1) current 
owner, (2) current location (in appropriate public institutions latitude and longitude), (3) 
materials of the artifact, (4) measurements and dimensions and any additional important 
information for analysis, and (5) any additional information on the artifact (Figure 4.6).  
 
 
 
59 
 
 
FIGURE 4.6. Dolphin Fishery Artifact Data Form (Source: Author). 
Collation of this additional information involved defining other important categories of 
analysis such as use, reuse, and function (in association with Schiffer’s behavioral chain model 
framework). To define terminology, this study adapted the material culture categorization system 
defined by Annalies Corbin in The Material Culture of Steamboat Passengers (1999) -- a system 
that has been modified by other scholars for thematic research.  For example, Kathryn Cooper 
utilized Corbin’s methodology for gender, status and racial meanings within a material culture 
assemblage in the museum ship Success, and quotes: 
60 
 
While her [Corbin’s] topic is temporally similar to the Success, her book, The 
Material Culture of Steamboat Passengers (1999) covers an entirely different subject. 
Corbin nonetheless developed a method of cataloguing artifacts, by using a 
taxonomic categorization strategy applied to each artifact in each assemblage, which 
could prove useful in cataloguing Success’s material culture. She identified a 
hierarchy of attributes applicable to each artifact from which to infer the extent to 
which it expresses different cultural constructs such as gender or age. These attributes 
were then compared against one another to get an idea about the general character of 
the assemblage and the wide variety of ways it can be interpreted (Cooper 2014: 96-
97, and see Corbin 1999:23-25). 
 In addition to photographing and recording the artifacts, photogrammetric models 
were also created to provide 3D models of larger artifacts. This allowed for greater 
interpretation of technologies and environments associated with the dolphin fishery.  
 
Stage Two: Archaeological Site Documentation 
After the material culture documentation was complete, stage two involved 
conducting archaeological fieldwork. The methods employed in the archaeological 
fieldwork stage were strictly non-invasive and included photography, videography, and 
pedestrian surveys. After consulting the historical and archaeological records, research 
pointed to three sites that were known to have had activity related to North Carolina’s 
dolphin fishery.  
The first site was the Hatteras Porpoise Processing Factory. Located on a marshy 
island (Durant’s Island) north of Hatteras Village, the Hatteras Porpoise Processing 
61 
 
Factory was one of the largest and longest continuously operating factories on the Outer 
Banks (Figure 4.7). The factory was known to have processed goods such as porpoise oil, 
skin, and meat. Today, only very little remains of the factory existence (Figure 4.8).  
Prior to conducting fieldwork, permission was required from private landowners. After 
searching through the Dare County GIS Portal requests for permission to conduct non-
intrusive surveys were mailed to private landowners (Figures 4.9-4.10). Permission was 
eventually granted in some areas on the stipulation that all data compiled would be shared 
with landowners (Table 4.2). Once permission was granted in specific areas, pedestrian 
surveys were carried out using photography, videography, and pedestrian surveys. 
FIGURE 4.7. A 1923 aerial photograph taken by the US Army Air Corp for conducting 
vulnerability tests of naval forces to aerial bombardment of the Port of Hatteras. In the 
bottom left corner is a rare image of what might be the Hatteras Porpoise Factory (US 
Airforce Historical Research Agency). 
62 
 
FIGURE 4.8. Unscaled building pilling found on the shore of Durant’s Island possibly in 
relation to the Hatteras Porpoise Factory (Source: Author). 
 
FIGURE 4.9. Division of land ownership of Durant’s Island (Dare County GIS). 
63 
 
Table 4.2. List of land parcels permitted to survey (Table by Author). 
PARCEL PERMISSION SURVEYED 
NUMBER GRANTED 
1 Yes Yes 
2 Yes Yes 
3 Yes Yes 
4 Yes Yes 
5 Yes Yes 
6 No No 
7 No No 
8 No No 
9 No No 
10 No No 
 
 
 
FIGURE 4.10. Letter requesting permission to access and photograph land for 
archaeological research (Source: Author). 
64 
 
 The next two sites were located within the Cape Hatteras National Seashore and 
required a federal Scientific Research and Collecting Permit (CAHA-2018-SCI-0005) to 
be submitted and approved by the National Park Service (see Appendix B). The second 
site is known as the Bight of Hatteras (Figure 4.11). This area was ripe for dolphin 
hunting as many dolphins were known to travel along the bight. Along the bight were 
‘spy’ camps where a dolphin fisherman would wait patiently and give the signal when a 
pod of dolphins was in sight (Kellogg 1927:12). It was unlikely that any artifacts could be 
found given the site’s changing geography. However, the purpose of surveying this site 
was to photograph and record surface finds or landforms that could illuminate the use of 
the area. 
Bight of Hatteras 
FIGURE 4.11. Archaeological survey area of the Bight of Hatteras (Source: Author). 
65 
 
 The final site is known as Try Yard Creek. Located on Ocracoke Island, Try Yard 
Creek was possibly a hunting ground and processing area for both whales and dolphins 
(Figure 4.12). Above-surface artifacts were unlikely. Unfortunately, the entire area was 
impossible to survey due to brush reaching heights of up to six feet. The permit prevented 
any destructive techniques from being used, and no data was collected. 
 
FIGURE 4.12. Try Yard Creek, Ocracoke (Source: Author). 
 
Stage Three: Data Compilation 
The final phase involved the analysis of the data compiled and will be further expanded 
upon in later chapters. The data compilation phase was split into two sections. The first section 
66 
 
deals with the material culture collection. The creation of a material culture database table in 
Microsoft Access was necessary for illustrating important aspects of the artifacts (Figure 4.13). 
Queries related to the database were also created to visualize areas such as current location of 
objects, fabric count, function of objects, functions and subfunctions of objects, and objects’ 
manufacture and presence dates (Figures 4.14-4.19). 
 
FIGURE 4.13. Microsoft Access sheet detailing the list of tables created for graphs and charts 
(Source: Author).  
 
FIGURE 4.14. Microsoft Access query detailing the current location of objects (Sources: 
Author). 
67 
 
 
FIGURE 4.15. Microsoft Access query detailing the fabric count of objects (Source: Author). 
 
FIGURE 4.16. Microsoft Access query detailing the function of objects (Source: Author). 
 
 
 
 
 
 
68 
 
 
 
FIGURE 4.17. Microsoft Access query detailing the function and subfunctions of objects 
(Source: Author). 
 
 
 
FIGURE 4.18. Microsoft Access query detailing object manufacture dates (Source: Author). 
 
 
 
 
 
69 
 
 
 
FIGURE 4.19. Microsoft Access query detailing the object presence dates (Source: Author). 
 
The second section involved utilizing ArcGIS. Several maps were created depicting 
activity zones such as hunting grounds and processing areas. Once the maps were created, the 
Access database was then integrated into the ArcGIS project to further highlight important 
behavioral and spatial aspects of the fishery. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
70 
 
CHAPTER FIVE: IDENTIFICATION OF THE EXTENT OF NORTH CAROLINA’S 
DOLPHIN FISHERY MATERIAL CULTURE 
 
Introduction 
Historical documents shape the current narrative of North Carolina’s dolphin fishery.  However, 
while these documents provide a glimpse into the fishery’s existence, additional information lies 
within the archaeological record. To date, there has been no archaeological research conducted 
on any areas of North Carolina’s dolphin fishery. This chapter serves as the first case of 
archaeological research conducted on North Carolina’s dolphin fishery and provides the results 
gleaned from fieldwork and material culture assemblages. 
 This chapter’s primary objective is to elaborate on the archaeological research conducted 
on both material culture assemblages from collections and site specific in-situ material culture 
descriptions from fieldwork. This chapter also outlines synchronic (atemporal) and diachronic 
(temporal) analyses of the material culture assemblage(s). By doing this, it aids in the creation 
and understanding of the material culture database detailing the fishery extensively (see 
Appendix B). As such, this chapter is divided into three sections.  
 The first section provides a detailed description of the collection in its entirety. Within 
this section, it looks at the location of objects, fabrics of the collection, and the functions of 
objects. The second section further expands on the functions of objects by providing synchronic 
functional and subfunctional identifications of the collection. The last section looks at the 
temporal distribution of objects by manufacture and presence.  
 
 
 
Description of the Collection 
A description of the collection is necessary as it provided much of the foundation for the 
application of Schiffer’s behavioral chain model in the following chapter (Schiffer 2011:30-34). 
This section also seeks to provide context into the discovery and curation of these objects that 
make up. The objects of this database were found within both material culture assemblages from 
museum collections and in-situ at archaeological sites.  
Inevitably, there are certain biases associated with collections and objects found at 
archaeological sites. An example of this would be at the Bight of Hatteras site where 
archaeological data was personally collected. The bias, in this case, is the location is a greatly 
disturbed archaeological site (perhaps the location of salvage or comingling of objects from other 
human activities) that may or may not include materials that are exclusively related to dolphin 
fishery. However, these materials were still recorded because of their location within an area 
purported to be a site connected to the dolphin fishery. Conversely, the bias of an institution such 
as the Graveyard of the Atlantic Museum is found within their curated collections. The objects of 
these collections are personally selected by the institution to fit the narrative of the collection, 
and this may lead to high-profile, aesthetically pleasing, or the most complete objects being 
curated. This first section begins with identifying the current location of objects within the 
collection.  
 
Current Location of Objects 
 Material culture potentially pertaining to the North Carolina dolphin fishery was found in 
institutions in Washington D.C., New York, Massachusetts and within institutions and 
archaeological sites in North Carolina (Figure 5.1). Figure 5.2 and Table 5.1 detail the current 
72 
 
location of objects along with the number of objects found at each site or repository. The site that 
had the most objects in Figure 5.2 was the Hatteras Porpoise Factory Site on Durant’s Island, 
North Carolina. The site made up 29.6% of the studied assemblage and yielded a total of fifty-
three objects (Figure 5.2; Table 5.1).  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
FIGURE 5.1. Distribution map depicting areas with artifacts related to the North Carolina 
dolphin fishery (Image by Author). 
 
73 
 
 
FIGURE 5.2. Pie chart detailing the percentage of artifacts found at archaeological sites and 
material culture repositories (n=179) (Source: Author). 
 
 
Table 5.1. Table detailing the location and number of objects at each site or repository (n=179), 
(Source: Author). 
Current Location of Objects  Number of Objects  Percentage of Collection 
Hatteras Porpoise Factory Site, 53 29.60% 
Durant’s Island, North Carolina 
Bight of Hatteras Site, Hatteras, 37 20.70% 
North Carolina 
Smithsonian Institution, 36 20.11% 
Washington D.C. 
New Bedford Whaling Museum, 21 11.73% 
New Bedford, Massachusetts 
Wildlife Conservation Society, 14 7.82% 
New York City, New York 
Graveyard of the Atlantic 10 5.58% 
Museum, Hatteras, North 
Carolina 
North Carolina Maritime 7 3.91% 
Museum at Beaufort 
University of North Carolina at 1 0.55% 
Chapel Hill Wilson Library 
74 
 
 
The next site to yield a substantial number of objects was the Bight of Hatteras. The site 
made up 20.7% of the collection and had a total of thirty-seven objects (Figure 5.2; Table 5.1). 
Like the Hatteras Porpoise Factory site, everything was recorded within the area of survey and 
much of the objects displayed a less-than-complete status (Figure 5.3). As mentioned previously, 
it is likely that some of the objects found may or may not be related to dolphin fishing activities. 
This will be further discussed in the “Functions and Subfunctions” section of this chapter.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
FIGURE 5.3: Terracotta piping fragment found at the Bight of Hatteras site (Image by Author). 
 
 Following the objects found at archaeological sites, the objects found in public 
repositories made up 49.7% of the collection (Figure 5.2; Table 5.1). The repository to contribute 
the most objects came from the Smithsonian Institution. In May 1927 and February 1928, Dr. 
Remington Kellogg of the United States National Museum’s Bureau of Biological Survey visited 
75 
 
the Hatteras dolphin fishery as part of a joint research study with John Hopkins University. The 
goal of the study was to evaluate the behavior of bottlenose dolphins in the region in relation to 
the fishery’s yearly catch (Kellogg 1927:11-13; Cecelski 2015:77). 
 While observing the hunting techniques of the dolphin fishers, Kellogg took extensive 
field notes detailing the processes surrounding the fishery (Kellogg 1927:11-13). In addition to 
his notes, Kellogg provided twelve photographs with descriptions detailing the tools and 
methods of the Hatteras and Beaufort dolphin fisheries (Figure 5.4). The bias, in this case, is the 
photographs were taken to provide visual evidence to fit Kellogg’s research into the behavior of 
dolphins while a hunt took place.  
 
FIGURE 5.4. Knife used for processing a dolphin for its skin (Smithsonian Institution B-3664-
M). 
 
76 
 
 As a result, Kellogg suspected the reason for the declining yearly catches was due to 
dolphins in the region learning to avoid the fishermen’s nets (Kellogg 1927:11; Cecelski 
2015:77). Regardless, Kellogg’s work was extremely beneficial for understanding the Hatteras 
and Beaufort dolphin fisheries.  His photographs made up 20.11% of the collection and display a 
total of thirty-six objects (Figure 5.2; Table 5.1). An example of an object found in these 
photographs was a processing knife (Figure 5.4). 
The next institution to house objects related to the fishery came from the New Bedford 
Whaling Museum. The museum had a total of twenty-one objects and made up 11.73% of the 
collection (Figure 5.2; Table 5.1). The objects of this collection were also entirely historical 
photographs of the Nye fishery operations from 1907 to 1929. According to Lead Marketing and 
Developer of Nye Lubricants, Andrew Vieira, Nye Lubricants donated several photographs 
related William and Joseph Nye’s operations during this period to the New Bedford Whaling 
Museum (Vieira 2016, pers. comm). President and Chief Executive officer of Nye Lubricants, 
George B. Mock, III, also noted the photographs were used in Ed Parr’s The Last American 
Whale-Oil Company: A History of Nye Lubricants, Inc., 1844-1994 (1996) which has provided a 
great deal of knowledge for this study (Mock 2017, pers. comm).  
The bias of this collection is that it is entirely made up of photographs specifically related 
to the Nye Lubricants operations. Nye Lubricants prides itself as one of the last American 
companies that engaged in cetacean hunting that continues to operate today. The photographs 
were taken by company representatives and focus on Nye Lubricants’ operations during this 
period. Regardless, they provide visual evidence of objects in areas associated with hunting and 
processing. An example of an object often appearing in this collection was the protective 
clothing used by fishers (Figure 5.5).  
77 
 
FIGURE 5.5: The typical clothing worn by dolphin fishers at the Hatteras fishery from 1907-
1929 (New Bedford Whaling Museum). 
Despite hunting thousands of dolphins during the early twentieth century, Joseph Nye 
was also involved with dolphin conservation efforts. In 1912, Nye invited the New York 
Zoological Society’s director, Charles Townsend, to Hatteras to receive several dolphins for the 
aquarium (Democrat and Chronicle 1912:19). These dolphins did not survive the trip prompting 
Townsend to travel to Hatteras a year later to personally supervise the transportation of other 
dolphins (Townsend 1914:294). 
The next institution that has objects related to the dolphin fishery came from the New 
York Zoological Society (now World Conservation Society). While in Hatteras, Townsend took 
several photographs that he included in his article “The Porpoise in Captivity” (1914). The 
photographs depicted his time down there and provided excellent visual evidence of objects used 
in the fishery as well as the techniques employed. Today, the original photographs are part of the 
Wildlife Conservation Society’s Charles Townsend collection that continues to be processed 
(Thompson 2018 pers. comm.). Townsend’s photographs make up 7.82% of the collection and 
78 
 
depicts fourteen objects in three photographs (Figure 5.2; Table 5.1). The objects depicted in 
these photographs included items such as seine nets and dory boats (Figure 5.6). 
 
FIGURE 5.6: Seine net and dory boat used in the capture of dolphins at the Hatteras dolphin 
fishery in 1914 (Source: Wildlife Conservation Society). 
 
 Historical photographs make up 44.12% of the collection (Figure 5.2; Table 5.1). 
However, the only institution to provide tangible objects related to the dolphin fishery came from 
the Graveyard of the Atlantic Museum. The objects from the Graveyard of the Atlantic Museum 
made up 5.58% of the collection and had a total of ten objects (Figure 5.2; Table 5.1). The 
collection is made up of eight bottles of dolphin jaw oil from the Nye fishery at Hatteras (Figure 
5.7). The collection also included a trypot (Figure 5.8) and an ox cart that may have been used 
for transporting dolphins to the factory (Figure 5.9; Michaux 1894:126-127; Couch 2017 pers. 
comm). 
79 
 
FIGURE 5.7. Small bottle of dolphin oil used for lubricating watches and chronometric devices 
(George Huss and Nathan Richards). 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
FIGURE 5.8. Photogrammetric model of a trypot at the Graveyard of the Atlantic Museum 
(Image by George Huss and Kristina Fricker). 
 
80 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
FIGURE 5.9. Photogrammetric model of an ox cart at the Graveyard of the Atlantic Museum 
(Image by George Huss and Kristina Fricker). 
 
 The bottles of dolphin jaw oil were given to the museum from an anonymous donor. 
Information could not be further provided on the donor due to the museum’s privacy policy 
(Riddle pers. comm 2018). The trypot, however, had a little more information. The trypot was 
supposedly used at the Nye Hatteras Porpoise Factory from 1907 to 1929 and found by a 
Hatteras local on the beach of the Pamlico Sound (Figure 5.8; Riddle pers. comm 2017). Finally, 
there is uncertainty on the ox cart and its relationship to the fishery (Figure 5.9). While ox carts 
were used to transport dolphin remains, they were also used to transport several objects in 
81 
 
Hatteras such as construction materials (Michaux 1894:126-127; Couch 2017 pers. comm). This 
ox cart is on loan to the Graveyard of the Atlantic Museum and dates to about 1850 (Anderson 
2018 pers. comm).  
The next institution to have objects related to the fishery came from the North Carolina 
Maritime Museum at Beaufort. The North Carolina Maritime Museum at Beaufort provided a 
small collection of seven historical photographs of pilot boats. These photographs made up 
3.91% of the collection and displayed seven pilot boats (Figure 5.2; Table 5.1). Pilot boats were 
primarily built by legendary boatbuilder, Devine Guthrie, and were used by whalers in the 
Shackelford Banks and Cape Lookout regions (Figure 5.10). In addition to hunting whales, these 
fishers engaged in dolphin fishing using these boats (Stick 1958:194; Jateff 2006:43; Tursi 2014; 
Bradley 2015:104-105; Fontenoy 2017 pers. comm).  
 FIGURE 5.10. Devine Guthrie posing with a pilot boat that may have been used in hunting 
whales and dolphins (North Carolina Maritime Museum at Beaufort). 
 
82 
 
 The last collection to have material culture related to the dolphin fishery came from the 
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Wilson Library Collier Cobb Photographic 
Collection. Collier Cobb was a geology professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel 
Hill from 1893 to 1934. He traveled extensively and took several photographs documenting his 
journeys around the world. Cobb’s photographic collection was donated to the University of 
North Carolina at Chapel Hill Wilson Library in 1976 (Cobb 1976).  
Within the Collier Cobb Photographic Collection is a single 4x5 glass plate copy negative 
(Fletcher 2017 pers. comm). This glass plate negative copy makes up 0.55% of the collection and 
includes one object (Figure 5.2; Table 5.1). The glass plate copy negative depicts a possible 
dolphin fisher within dolphins in the foreground. In the background, is a single spy camp (Figure 
5.11). 
FIGURE 5.11. A single spy camp used to alert fishers of dolphins nearby (P0013/0083 in the 
Collier Cobb Photographic Collection #P0013, North Carolina Collection Photographic 
Archives, The Wilson Library, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill). 
 
 
83 
 
Fabrics in the Collection 
 The importance of describing the types of fabrics in the collection is due to their 
consideration as conjoined elements and outputs within the behavioral chain model (to be 
discussed in Chapter 6). The fabrics represented in the collection varied considerably. Figure 
5.12 depicts the types and frequency of certain fabrics within the collection. The dolphin fisher 
clothing which was made using cotton, wax, gum, and oil tended to make up a largest number of 
fabrics with a total of forty-six (Figure 5.12; Angell 1981; Couch 2017 pers. comm). Conversely, 
several pieces, such as asphalt, aluminum, and plastic, made up the smaller portions of the 
number of fabrics (Figure 5.12).  
Fabric Count
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
FIGURE 5.12. Line graph depicting the number of fabrics found within the collection (n=179).  
 
84 
 
Cotton, Wax, Gum, And Oil
Wood And Metal
Wood
Glass
Metal
Brick
Coal
Cement
Tar
Bone
Twine, Cork, and Lead
Metal and Glass
Tile
Paper and Plastic
Mortar
Rubber
Wood and Tile
Terracotta
Slate
Metal and Wood
Asphalt
Conglomerate
Anthracite
Cloth, Cork, and Glass
Cotton
Glass and Cork
Aluminum
Metal and Rubber
Paper, Cork, and Glass
Plastic
Steel and Rope
Unknown
Wood and flora
metal and rope
Function of Objects 
 Each artifact within this study fulfilled a specific role or function. According to Schiffer, 
a function or ‘functional field’ is defined as “the entire set of a society’s techno-, socio-, ideo-, 
and emotive functions defined independently of the technologies that carry them out” (Schiffer 
2011:192). The creation of a list of functions for objects was particularly important for this study 
because of Schiffer’s emphasis on technology regarding its role within the activities in the 
behavioral chain model (Schiffer 2011:30-34; Figure 5.12, and Table 5.2). The functions for 
objects in this study were divided into five areas. 
Percentage of Objects Based on Function
4%
6%
11% HUNTING
40% BUILDING
UNKNOWN
PROCESSING
DISTRIBUTION
39%
FIGURE 5.13: Pie chart depicting the percentage of objects based on function (n=179), (Source: 
Author). 
 
 
85 
 
Table 5.2. Table detailing the number of objects based on function (n=179), (Source: Author). 
Function Number of Objects Percentage 
Hunting 71 40% 
Building 69 39% 
Unknown 20 11% 
Processing 11 6% 
Distribution 8 4% 
 
The first function was designated as “Hunting.” Hunting played the most important role 
during the fishery’s existence. The hunting function referred to any objects used to catch and kill 
dolphins. The total number of objects designated as “Hunting” was seventy-one and made up 
40% of the objects (Figure 5.13; Table 5.2). These hunting objects were all depicted in historical 
photographs. They included objects such as seine nets, dory boats, and dolphin fisher clothing 
(Figure 5.3-5.4). Seine nets and dory boats were the tools of choice for fishers in the Hatteras 
fishery from as early as 1850 to 1929 (Kellogg 1927:11-13; Angel 1981; Cecelski 2015). 
The second function was designated as “Building.” The reason for this was throughout 
the field surveys at the Bight of Hatteras and the Hatteras Porpoise Factory sites, a large amount 
of building material was encountered (Figure 5.13; Table 5.2). Objects such as brick and cinder 
block fragments made up a large percentage of the collection (Figures 5.13-5.14). The total 
number of objects designated as “Building” was sixty-nine (Figure 5.13; Table 5.2). Most of the 
objects encountered did not display any diagnostic features suggesting they were used in the 
dolphin fishery. However, some of the objects may have been used for areas such as the 
construction of spy camps or the factory’s building foundation. 
86 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
FIGURE 5.14: Brick fragment found at the Hatteras Porpoise Factory site (Image by Author). 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
FIGURE 5.15. Cinder block fragment found at the Bight of Hatteras site (Image by Author). 
 
 The third function was designated as “Processing.” The processing function referred to 
any objects used in the processing of goods from dolphins. This included both beach processing 
87 
 
and factory processing. The total number of objects designated as “Processing” was eleven and 
made up 6% of the collection (Figure 5.13; Table 5.2).  
 The items that fit the “Processing” category was primarily found within historical 
photographs. The objects depicted included knives and other various processing equipment 
(Figure 5.16). Knives were the simplest and most effective tools in obtaining materials such as 
blubber, jaws, and hides. The object in Figure 5.16 provides a rare glimpse into the complex 
equipment used to process and refine dolphin oil in the Nye Company (Kellogg 1927:11-13; 
Angel 1981; Cecelski 2015). 
FIGURE 5.16. Rare picture from a 1907 brochure displaying William Nye’s laboratory at Fish 
Island, Massachusetts. The equipment displayed was utilized in the secretive and complex 
refining process for dolphin oil made by the William Nye Company (Source: New Bedford 
Whaling Museum). 
 
In addition to the processing objects displayed in historical photographs, the Graveyard 
of the Atlantic Museum cataloged a suspected trypot that was supposedly used at the Hatteras 
Porpoise Factory from 1907 to 1929 (Figure 5.8; Riddle 2017 pers. comm). According to 
Cecelski, “blubber, melon, and the fatty tissues in and around the lower jawbone rendered the 
88 
 
oils in kettles or furnaces at a facility called the ‘try works’” (Cecelski 2015:73). Interestingly, 
the suspected trypot is significantly smaller compared to trypots engaged in whaling. A trypot 
that was utilized in the North Carolina whaling industry displayed at the North Carolina 
Maritime Museum at Beaufort was measured at 100cm width and 56cm depth (Figure 5.17; 
Bradley 2015:194-195). Comparatively, the suspected trypot at the Graveyard of the Atlantic 
Museum used in the Hatteras dolphin fishery measured 25.56cm and 35.14 depth (Figure 5.8). 
FIGURE 5.17. A trypot that was used in the North Carolina whaling fishery displayed at the 
North Carolina Maritime Museum at Beaufort (Bradley 2015:194-195). 
 
 The two trypots also differed in shape. On the bottom rim of the suspected trypot from 
the Graveyard of the Atlantic Museum are two bends and a latch (Figure 5.8). On the top of it are 
three corresponding articulation grooves (Figure 5.8). This could possibly suggest a false bottom 
used for releasing processed dolphin materials. Comparatively, the whale trypot has two 
89 
 
protruding tabs that was used for lifting (Bradley 2015:194). Ultimately, there is no historical 
proof surrounding the suspected trypot’s involvement in the fishery. However, if it was proven to 
be related to the fishery, this suggests the suspected trypot was much smaller and displayed more 
complex features and designs for the processing of dolphins.  
 
FIGURE 5.18. Empty glass bottle of NYOIL 4 located at the Graveyard of the Atlantic Museum 
(George Huss and Nathan Richards). 
 
The fourth function was designated as “Distribution.” The distribution function referred 
to any objects that were meant to be intended for sale or assist in the selling of objects. The total 
number of objects designated as “Distribution” was eight and made up 4% of the collection 
(Figure 5.13; Table 5.2). These included objects such as bottles of dolphin oil. Bottles of dolphin 
90 
 
oil were the most valuable product on the market for the fishery (Figure 5.17; Parr 1996:45; 
Cecelski 2015:54-55; Couch 2017 pers. comm). 
 The last function was designated as “Unknown.” The unknown function referred to any 
objects that were unable to be identified. The total number of objects designated as “Unknown” 
was twenty and made up 11% of the total collection (Figure 5.13; Table 5.2). The objects that fit 
the “Unknown” function were unable to be determined if they were connected to the fishery. An 
example of object with an unknown function is a conglomerate found at the Bight of Hatteras 
(Figure 5.19).  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
FIGURE 5.19. Conglomerate located at the Bight of Hatteras (Source: Author). 
 
 
 
91 
 
Functions and Subfunctions 
 The functions mentioned cover a broad scope of the fishery. However, the functions 
previously mentioned only provide a glimpse into how the fishery operated. This section further 
elaborates on the function of objects by designating subfunctions for the objects in each function 
previously mentioned (Figure 5.20; Table 5.3).  
 
 0.54% 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
0.56% 
 
 
 
 
FIGURE 5.20. Sunburst chart depicting percentages of objects’ functions and subfunctions 
(n=179), (Chart by Author). 
 
 
92 
 
Table 5.3. Table depicting number of objects with functions and subfunctions (n=179), (Table by 
Author). 
 
Function Subfunction Number of Objects Percentage 
Building Unknown 69 39% 
Distribution Packaging 8 4% 
Hunting Capture 6 3.38% 
Hunting Killing 1 0.56% 
Hunting Pursuit 14 7.89% 
Hunting Pursuit, Capture, Kill 47 26.48% 
Hunting Spying 3 1.69% 
Processing Beach Processing 5 2.73% 
Processing Factory Processing 5 2.73% 
Processing Transportation 1 0.54% 
Unknown No Relation 3 1.65% 
Unknown Unknown 7 9.35% 
 
 
Building Subfunctions 
 The building function represented the second largest number of objects found with a total 
number of sixty-nine objects and made up 39% of the collection (Figure 5.20; Table 5.3). Only 
one subfunction was designated for this function and that was “Unknown.” The issue with this 
category is while the objects that make up this function and subfunction were recorded, it is not 
definitively certain as to whether any of them were connected to the dolphin fishery. This is 
important because such materials are likely to be excluded from the analysis given their 
uncertainty of their relation to the fishery. 
93 
 
Nevertheless, most of the objects in this function and subfunction were successfully 
dated. While there is uncertainty surrounding the objects of this function and subfunction, it is 
possible they could have been used in the construction of spy camps or factories. An example of 
an object designated as a “Building” function and “Unknown” subfunction is a timber found at 
the Bight of Hatteras site (Figure 5.21). 
FIGURE 5.21. Timber found at the Bight of Hatteras Site (Photo by Author). 
 
Hunting Subfunctions 
 As previously mentioned, the “Hunting” function had a total of number of seventy-one 
objects and made up 40% of the collection (Figure 5.13; Table 5.2; Figure 5.20; Table 5.3). The 
“Hunting” function was further divided into four subfunctions that detailed the sequence of 
events of this activity. These subfunctions included “Spying,” “Pursuit,” “Capture,” and “Kill” 
(Figure 5.20; Table 5.3).  
Before the hunting of dolphins began, spies were generally posted along the beaches. The 
purpose of this was to alert the fishers when dolphins were sighted (The Commonwealth 1885:4; 
94 
 
The Independent 1919:5; Kellogg 1927:11-13; Angell 1981; Cecelski 2015:69). “Spying”, 
therefore, is established as the first subfunction for hunting. The total number of spying objects 
was three and made up 1.69% of the collection (Figure 5.20; Table 5.3). An example of an object 
used in spying is the spy camp pole. The spy camp pole was used to raise a flag or waif to alert 
nearby fishers that dolphins were in sight (Figure 5.22; Kellogg 1927:12). 
FIGURE 5.22. Dolphin spy posted at a spy camp waiting to raise the signal or waif (Source: 
New Bedford Whaling Museum) 
 
 After the signal was raised, fishers then engaged in pursuing these dolphins. As such, 
“Pursuit” is the next subfunction established for the hunting function. The total number of 
pursuit objects was fourteen and made up 7.89% of the collection (Figure 5.20; Table 5.3). An 
example of an object used in pursuit of dolphins was the dory boat. The dory boat was primarily 
used in the Hatteras dolphin fishery from as early as 1850 to 1929 (Kellogg 1927:11-13). 
 Once the fishers engaged in pursuing the dolphins, their goal was to capture as many as 
possible. The next subfunction created for the hunting function was “Capture.” The total number 
95 
 
of capture objects was six and made up 3.38% of the collection (Figure 5.20; Table 5.3). An 
example of an object used in the capture of dolphins was the seine net. The seine net was a long 
sweep net used to entrap and catch dolphins (Figure 5.6; Kellogg 1927:11-13).   
FIGURE 5.23. Knife or spear used to deliver a killing blow on a dolphin at the Beaufort dolphin 
fishery in 1912 (Source: Smithsonian Institution).  
 
By the time the dolphins were caught, they brought to shore and sometimes immediately killed. 
The next subfunction established for the hunting function was “Kill.” The total number of killing 
objects was one and made up 0.56% of the collection (Figure 5.20; Table 5.3). An example of an 
object used in the killing of dolphins was a knife. Knives were typically used to deliver a killing 
blow to the dolphin’s throats (Figure 5.23; Kellogg 1928:11-13).  
96 
 
Interestingly, there were several objects that were used in more than one subfunction. A 
total number of forty-seven objects were used in the pursuit, capture, and kill subfunctions and 
made up 26.48% of the collection (Figure 5.20; Table 5.3). An example of an object that was 
used in all three subfunctions was the clothing of dolphin fishers. The clothing was necessary for 
protection against the harsh environmental conditions and was worn throughout each operation 
when hunting dolphins (Figure 5.24). 
FIGURE 5.24: Clothing was essential to allow the fishers to carry out the hunting operations 
(Source: Smithsonian Institution B-3671-M). 
 
Processing Subfunctions 
 After the dolphins were captured and brought to the shore, processing would begin. 
Dolphins were processed for several items such as oil, skin, meat, and sometimes teeth (Angel 
97 
 
1981; Cecelski 2000:85; Whisnant 2015:83). The first subfunction for processing was “Beach 
Processing.” Fishers generally processed dolphins on the beach for necessary objects such as the 
jaw or blubber to lighten the load for transportation (Kellogg 1927:13; Cecelski 2015:73). The 
total number of beach processing objects was five and made up 2.73% of the collection (Figure 
5.20; Table 5.3).  An example of a beach processing object was a knife (Figure 5.25).  
FIGURE 5.25. Knives were the simplest but most effective processing tools used for beach 
processing (Smithsonian Institution B-3666-M). 
 
 Once the necessary objects were processed on the beach, they were transported to a 
factory for further processing. The next subfunction for processing was “Transportation.” Only 
one object was found to be used in the transportation subfunction and it made up 0.54% of the 
collection (Figure 5.20; Table 5.3). According to the oral history record, the Graveyard of the 
98 
 
Atlantic Museum has an ox cart in their collection that was the design typically used in the 
transportation of dolphin objects to the factory (Figure 5.9; Couch 2017 pers. comm).  
There is uncertainty regarding the ox cart and its use in the fishery. While the historical 
record and oral histories argue ox carts were used in the transportation of dolphins to the factory, 
it is unknown whether this particular ox cart was used for this described function and 
subfunction (Michaux 1894:126-127; Cecelski 2015:72; Couch 2017 pers. comm; Midgett 2017 
pers. comm). Ox carts were ubiquitous on Hatteras. According to the Graveyard of the Atlantic 
Museum, this ox cart was used in the transportation of construction materials (Figure 5.9; 
Anderson 2018 pers. comm; Riddle 2018 pers. comm). However, it is certainly possible this ox 
cart could have been used in other areas of object transportation. 
 After the objects were successfully transported, they were then further processed at the 
factory. The next subfunction for processing was “Factory Processing.”  Literature surrounding 
the factory processing operations was few. This was possibly due to techniques being a trade 
secret to the Nye Company with only a limited number of people having knowledge of the 
factory processes. However, Cecelski provides an excellent brief account of how dolphins were 
processed once they arrived at the factory. He notes:  
At the dolphin factory on Durant’s Island, another, smaller crew of Hatterasmen 
processed the catch: they shaved off the blubber from the bodies in strips, minced 
the blubber, the melon, and the fatty tissues in and around the lower jawbone, and 
rendered their oils, separately, in kettles or furnaces at a facility called, as on 
whaling ships, the “try works.” They allowed the blubber oil, at least, to settle in 
open tanks, then strained the oil and poured it into barrels, ready for market, while 
they shipped the melon and jawbone to the Nye factory in New Bedford for 
99 
 
further refining. Charles H. Stevenson, the U.S. Fish Commission’s leading 
authority on dolphin products, marveled at the sophistication of the Nyes’ 
operation. After observing the heating, chilling, filtering, and long settling process 
that went into the refinement of melon and jawbone oils, he wrote: “The claim is 
made that there are not half a dozen men in the world who have had the training 
and experience necessary to separate these delicate oils into their proper classes, 
and yet a very large part of the reliability of watch and chronometer lubricants lies 
. . . in the almost instinctive skill of the refiner (Cecelski 2015:73).  
 
With that in mind, the total number of objects used in factory processing subfunction was 
five and made up 2.73% of the collection (Figure 5.20; Table 5.3).  An example of an object used 
in factory processing was a suspected trypot from the Graveyard of the Atlantic Museum (Figure 
5.8; Cecelski 2015:73; Riddle pers. comm 2018). As previously mentioned, the Graveyard of the 
Atlantic Museum’s suspected trypot significantly differs in shape and size compared to trypots 
used in whaling (Figure 5.17; Bradley 2015:194-195). 
 
Distribution Subfunctions 
 Once the objects were processed at the factory, they were then prepared for distribution. 
The first subfunction established for distribution was “Packaging.” This refers to any finalized 
product intended for distribution and sale. The total number of objects used for packaging was 
eight and made up 4% of the collection (Figure 5.20; Table 5.3). An example of an object used 
for distribution was a bottle of dolphin oil. Dolphin jaw oil was the most valuable product to 
come out of the factory. The jaw oil’s consistency was excellent for machinery and industrial 
100 
 
lubrication (Cecelski 2015:73-74). Figure 5.26 is a perfect example of the jaw oil marketed for 
machinery and industrial lubrication. This dolphin oil was specifically marketed for lubricating 
sewing machines and bicycles (Figure 5.26).   
FIGURE 5.26. Bottle of Nye Dolphin oil used for lubricating sewing machines and bicycle 
(Image by George Huss and Nathan Richards). 
 
After the objects were prepared for packaging, they were either then transported for 
further processing or to other markets for sale. The next subfunction established was 
“Transportation.” Unfortunately, there were no objects located that fit the transportation 
subfunction (Figure 5.20; Table 5.3).  
 While no objects that fit the transportation subfunction were located, Figure 5.20 
provides a rare glimpse of the suspected factory and how these objects were transported for 
distribution. The historical record mentions the factory was located approximately one-mile 
101 
 
North of the present-day Hatteras Marlin Club on the Pamlico Sound. It is here where ships, such 
as schooners, often docked at the factory to load shipments for distribution to markets in cities 
such as Elizabeth City and New Bern. They would then be transported to markets in cities such 
as New Bedford, Philadelphia, and Norfolk (Angell 1981; Cecelski 2015:73; Whisnant 2015:83; 
Couch 2017 pers. comm; Midgett 2017 pers. comm). 
 
Unknown 
 In addition to the objects that had a specific function and subfunction, there were several 
objects that were either unknown or had no relation to the collection (Figure 5.20; Table 5.3). 
The first subfunction established was “No Relation.” As the label implies, there were a total of 
three objects that were found to have no relation to the fishery (Figure 5.20). Each of these 
objects were found while conducting an archaeological survey Hatteras Porpoise Factory sites. 
An example of an object with no relation to the fishery was a Clorox bottle fragment dated 
between 1933 and 1936 (Figure 5.27).  
As previously mentioned, all archaeological data from the surveys were recorded and 
subject to analysis upon return. After reviewing historical and archaeological records, these 
objects were determined to have no relation to the fishery. This demonstrates a few things. These 
objects will not be included in the analysis of the dolphin fishery because they are not related to 
the fishery in any way. These objects also suggest there was a comingling of other activities with 
potential dolphin fishing activities. Because of this, there are other parts of the material culture 
collection that may not correlate with the study and must be considered for exclusion from this 
study 
 
102 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
FIGURE 5.27. Clorox bottle fragment dated between 1933 and 1936 (The Clorox Company 
2018). 
 
 The next subfunction established was “Unknown.” There were several objects in the 
collection that were unable to be dated and/or determined what their intended use was. The total 
number of objects in the unknown subfunction was seventeen and made up 9.35% of the 
collection (Figure 5.20; Table 5.3). An example of an object that fit the unknown subfunction 
was an undetermined animal bone found at the Hatteras Porpoise Factory site (Figure 5.28). The 
103 
 
bone was unable to be determined because of it being partially embedded in the soil. Because of 
the agreement with landowners to not disturb any objects in-situ, this made it impossible to 
determine. As such, the objects designated in the “Unknown” subfunction will also excluded 
from the analysis of this study.     
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
FIGURE 5.28. Animal bone found at the Hatteras Porpoise Factory site (Image by Author). 
 
Temporal Distribution of Objects 
This last section presents the diachronic analyses on the quantitative data of the collection.  It is 
divided into two parts that looks at the temporal distribution of objects based on manufacture and 
presence. Manufacture, in this study, refers to the temporal span of objects according to 
historical and archaeological evidence pertaining to the earliest and latest possible dates of their 
manufacture. Presence refers to the temporal span of objects according to sources confirming 
their presence within the fishery. As such, the concepts of terminus ante quem and terminus post 
104 
 
quem are appropriate for this section. These concepts refer to the minimum and maximum 
periods these objects were manufactured or present.  
The presentation of this data is important as it further contextualizes the artifacts used in 
this study and their roles within the behavioral chain model. The creation of a line graph based 
on the temporal distribution of object manufacture is beneficial in providing insight into the 
technological change of objects in the collection. Schiffer mentions the behavioral chain is useful 
in illustrating the technological change of objects (Schiffer 2011:33). In addition, the temporal 
distribution of objects based on presence graph provides insight into objects existing in specific 
periods for a particular activity. These two parts, therefore, provide temporal visualization of the 
fishery’s material culture that will complement the objects applicability in the behavioral chain 
model in the following chapter. 
 
Manufacture of Objects 
 Figure 5.29 is a graph outlining the temporal distribution of objects based on 
manufacture. This graph shows the temporal span of objects according to historical and 
archaeological evidence pertaining to the earliest and latest possible dates of their manufacture. 
The graph does not specifically consider the presence of the object within the North Carolina 
dolphin fisheries. 
A total of 41.34% of objects had dates of manufacture that were unknown and 
untraceable (Figure 5.29). This demonstrated that some of them may not have even been related 
to the fishery. As such, the baseline dates applied to these objects’ terminus ante quem and 
terminus post quem manufacture periods were between 1790 and 2018 (Figure 5.29). 
105 
 
FIGURE 5.29. Line graph depicting the temporal distribution of objects based on manufacture 
(n=179), (Graph by Author). 
106 
 
The reason for this is these dates represent the extent of the study. The year 1790 
represents the earliest example of a systematic dolphin fishery at Shell Castle (McGuinn 2000). 
As such, objects between dated between 1790 and 2018 represent the fact that these objects 
could not be dated, and therefore could have existed at any point in the span of the study’s 
temporal period. An example of an object that had an unknown manufacture date was a timber 
found at the Bight of Hatteras site (Figure 5.21).  
 Regarding the objects’ terminus post quem for manufacturing, Figure 5.29 shows that 
some of the objects had manufacture dates after the end of the dolphin fishery. An example of an 
object that continued to be manufactured after the end of the fishery were seine nets (Figure 5.6). 
The seine nets used in the fishery were typically made of twine, cork, and lead weights (Kellogg 
1927:11-13). By 1950, the boom of technological development from World War II greatly 
contributed to fishing equipment. Synthetic fibers, such as nylon, courlene, and terylene, 
replaced the previously used natural fibers, such as hemp, cotton, and manila (Robinson 
1996:212). Ultimately, this suggests objects, such as seine nets, were reused and possibly 
employed in other fisheries. 
 
Presence of Objects in the Fishery 
 The presence of objects within the collection also provided some interesting results. 
Figure 5.30 provides a graph on the temporal distribution of objects based on presence. This 
graph shows the temporal span of objects according to sources confirming their presence within 
the North Carolina dolphin fisheries. In this graph, the confirmation of these sources is 
exclusively from historical documentation.  
107 
 
FIGURE 5.30. Graph depicting the temporal distribution of objects based on presence (n=44) 
(Graph by Author). 
108 
 
All the objects in this study have terminus ante quem and terminis post quem dates. The 
total percentage of objects with differing terminus ante quem and terminus post quem dates was 
57.55%. Objects, such as the Nye oils and trypot at the Graveyard of the Atlantic Museum, were 
able to be dated between 1907 to 1929 because of their association with the Nye fishery taking 
place at Hatteras during that period (Angell 1981; Cecelski 2015; Figure 5.8; Figure 5.18; Figure 
5.26). 
A total of 42.45% of objects, unfortunately, only provided a single date for their 
presence. The reason for this is largely because most documented objects were dated via 
photograph dates. While the photographs alone were able to provide a significant amount of 
detail into the fishery, Figure 5.30 demonstrates the archaeological record only provides 
fragmentary information of the fishery after 1850. Anything prior to that is only known through 
historical documentation.  
While the data presented in Figure 5.30 provides a wealth of information into the 
presence of objects in the collection, there are a few key points not shown. The identification of 
these key points not depicted in Figure 5.30 are critical as it will ultimately demonstrate that only 
certain periods of the dolphin fishery’s existence can yield archaeological analysis. As 
previously mentioned, the chart demonstrates the archaeological record only provides 
fragmentary information of the fishery after 1850. Anything prior to that is only known through 
the historical record. As such, this next section provides the transition from the results gleaned 
from this chapter to the analysis discussed in the following chapter.  
 
 
 
109 
 
Conclusion 
This chapter provided a review of the data collected from both fieldwork and material culture 
collections. By identifying and reviewing the data, it provides the opportunity to utilize the 
material culture of North Carolina’s dolphin fishery in Schiffer’s behavioral chain model. That 
said, each section of this chapter was important in establishing a foundation for the application of 
Schiffer’s behavioral chain model (Schiffer 2011:30-34).  
The description of the collection was necessary as it contextualized the objects that will 
either be used in, or excluded from, the behavioral chain model. The establishment of a fabrics of 
the collection was also important for its use in areas such as conjoined elements and outputs 
within the behavioral chain model. The list of functions and subfunctions for objects was also 
important for this study because of Schiffer’s emphasis on technology regarding its roles within 
the activities in the behavioral chain model. Finally, the temporal distribution of objects based on 
presence and manufacture were beneficial in areas such as forecasting the illustration of 
technological change and providing insight into objects existing in specific periods for a 
particular activity (Schiffer 2011:30-34).  
With all this in mind, the results gleaned from this chapter provided the basis by which 
the next chapter will be the application of Schiffer’s behavioral chain model to the North 
Carolina dolphin fishery. Moving forward, the following collections and objects will be used in 
the analysis section: the Smithsonian Institution, the New Bedford Whaling Museum, the 
Wildlife Conservation Society, the Graveyard of the Atlantic Museum, and a small number of 
objects from the Hatteras Porpoise Factory site.
110 
 
CHAPTER SIX: THE APPLICATION OF SCHIFFER’S BEHAVIORAL CHAIN 
MODEL TO NORTH CAROLINA’S DOLPHIN FISHERY 
Introduction 
The behavioral chain model allows archaeologists to infer past activities along with the 
components associated with those activities (Stier 1975; Meyers 2007:88; Schiffer 2011:33). The 
behavioral chain model of this chapter will primarily utilize the results gleaned from the dolphin 
fishery that took place at Hatteras. As such, this chapter uses only the historical and 
archaeological data with some level of certainty of speculation of connection in the creation of a 
behavioral chain model. In addition, the incorporation of non-Hatteras and non-North Carolina 
dolphin fishery examples will be integrated for greater context. 
Schiffer and several others analyzed their behavioral chain models by identifying and 
discussing each individual behavioral chain segment (Schiffer 1975; Stier 1975; Meyers 2007; 
Smith 2010; Schiffer 2011). However, while each of these authors emphasized the spatial aspects 
within their respective behavioral chain models, they lacked geographic visuals to strengthen 
their analysis of each individual behavioral chain segment. This chapter incorporates two 
different approaches regarding how the behavioral chain model and segments will be created and 
analyzed.   
 In Stier’s analysis of yucca materials at the Antelope House site, he creates a behavioral 
chain that slightly differs from Schiffer’s original behavioral chain on the Hopi culture’s maize 
use (Stier 1975:59-60; Schiffer 1975:108). Stier uses a flow chart style to depict the past 
activities and the components associated with those activities. Schiffer, however, uses a table 
format to depict past activities and components associated with those activities. Stier’s overall 
analysis of yucca materials was weak about its function in the activities he mentions. However, 
 
her use of a flow chart style behavioral chain model provides a potential use for individual 
behavioral chain segment analysis.  
The second approach utilized in this study are the further division of activities based on 
the additional smaller actions that make up the activities. Until recently, examples of activities in 
behavioral chain models were somewhat vague. Schiffer defines the activities as “dynamic 
relationships among the various interacting elements” (Schiffer 1995:58). However, in his 
behavioral chain model on the Hopi culture, many of his activities can be elaborated on a much 
smaller level. For example, Schiffer’s activity on ‘Harvest’ focuses on the harvesting of maize. 
However, there are several smaller level dynamic relationships among the various interacting 
elements that can be discussed within harvesting such as the act of extracting the maize, 
identification of ripe maize, or the act of loading the maize within a vessel for transport (Schiffer 
1995:58).  
In this study, the activities will be divided further based on the smaller actions that make 
them up. An example of this can be seen the activity of “Spying.” While “Spying” is considered 
the overall activity, there are much smaller actions that make it up such as the raising of a flag or 
waif by the spy to alarm nearby fishers. The purpose of elaborating on the activities in this 
manner is to allow for smoother organization when effectively analyzing both individual 
behavioral chain segments and the behavioral chain model itself. With that in mind, this chapter 
is divided into two sections. 
 The first section utilizes the Stier flow chart format to depict individual behavioral chain 
segments of the North Carolina dolphin fishery. Within this section are several maps to help 
visualize the spatial aspects of these segments along with non-Hatteras and non-North Carolina 
examples for greater context. The goal of using Stier’s method is to work toward the full 
112 
 
behavioral chain model Schiffer depicts. The second section incorporates all the discussed 
individual behavioral chain segments to create completed behavioral chain as depicted by 
Schiffer. In addition, a map will accompany this section to effectively display areas of activity 
pertaining to the dolphin fishery.   
 
Behavioral Chain Segments for Activities of the North Carolina Dolphin Fishery 
As mentioned, Stier’s flow chart is useful in analyzing the individual behavioral chain segments. 
This section discusses the nine behavioral chain segments that make up the North Carolina 
dolphin fishery. By focusing on each individual chain segment, it allows for greater analysis into 
areas such as personnel, material culture, and temporal and spatial considerations. Each of these 
behavioral chain segments corresponds with the functions discussed in the previous chapter and 
are more-or-less temporal. That said, the first behavioral chain segment begins with ‘Spying.’ 
 
Spying 
The first behavioral chain segment that made up the North Carolina dolphin fishery was ‘Spying’ 
(Table 6.1). Spies were utilized not just in Hatteras but throughout various periods and regions of 
North Carolina (The Commonwealth 1885:4; The Independent 1919:5; Kellogg 1927:12). 
Depicted in the first behavioral chain segment are three small scale actions related to spying. The 
first action was the establishment of spies near hunting grounds. Typically, two older dolphin 
fishermen were the human energy sources carrying out this action (Kellogg 1927:12). The 
conjoined elements that accompanied this action were the spy camp and spy camp pole (Figures 
5.22 & 6.1). The time and frequency of this action was during the hunting season of dolphins 
113 
 
which was from November to May and occurred daily (Rollinson 1891; Couch 2017 pers. 
comm; Midgett 2017 pers. comm). The intersection of this action were additions of the spy camp 
and spy camp pole (Figures 5.22 & 6.1). Lastly, there were no outputs of this action because 
waste was not created.  
TABLE 6.1. Behavioral chain segment on spying (Source: Author).  
Energy Outputs Conjoined Activity Time and Location Intersections: 
Sources: Elements Actions: Frequency Additions/ 
Human/ (Spying) Deletions 
Nonhuman 
Typically,  Spy camp Spies November Shore of Spy camp and 
two older and spy established to May and the Bight spy camp pole 
dolphin camp at locations daily of are added 1,2 
fishermen pole1, 2 near hunting  Hatteras3  
  grounds   
     
     
     
Typically, Spy camp Flag or waif Once Shore of 
two older pole2 is raised to dolphins the Bight 
dolphin alarm nearby are sighted. of 
fishermen fishers.  Hatteras3 
    
    
 Spy follows Once  
 parallel to dolphins  
Spy/ the pod of are sighted Shore of 
Dolphin dolphins and crew the  
from the arrives. Bight of 
shore. Hatteras3  
Key: 
1. Figure 6.1 2.    Figure 5.22 
3. Figure 6.2 
 
Pursuit 
 
114 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
FIGURE 6.1: Spy Camp where older dolphin fishermen would keep watch (Source: New 
Bedford Whaling Museum) 
The location of this activity took place at the shore of the Bight of Hatteras (Figure 6.2). 
This image displays the spatial aspects of the behavioral chain segment on spying. A map was 
created to visualize of the distance spies could typically see while usually separated four miles 
apart from each other (The Commonwealth 1885:4). The concept of visual acuity was necessary 
for the creation of this map.  
Visual acuity refers to clarity of vision and is dependent on optical and vertical factors 
(Cline and Hofstetter 1997). In layperson’s terms, visual acuity refers to the viewing distance of 
how far the average human can see a determined object from a fixed elevation and position. For 
example, at six feet above sea level, the average human can see five kilometers before the 
horizon disappears (NOAA Office for Coastal Management 2019; Size Calculator 2019). 
However, additional variables are taken into consideration depending on the size of the object 
intended to be perceived 
In order to calculate the viewing distance of a dolphin fisherman standing at six feet, the 
following variables were taken; perceived size and physical size. Perceived size refers to the 
115 
 
apparent size of an object given available visual cues whereas physical size refers to an objects 
actual size. In Figure 6.2, perceived size is expressed in arcminutes, physical size is expressed in 
centimeters, and viewing distance is expressed in meters (Kroon 2012; Size Calculator 2019).  
With the variables determined and calculated in the Size Calculator application, the 
average spy at six feet can see a 25cm object with 20/10 vision 429.72m away. In addition, the 
average spy at six feet can see a 25cm object with 20/20 vision 859.44m away (Tolley et al. 
1985). This was necessary as it highlighted the scope of the average spies’ vision.  
 
FIGURE 6.2. Map displaying the visual acuity of 25cm dolphin fin of an average dolphin 
fishermen with both 20/10 and 20/20 vision (Map by Author). 
116 
 
 
 The next action within the behavioral chain segment on spying focuses on the alarming of 
nearby dolphin fishermen (Table 6.1). Like the first action, either of the two older dolphin 
fishermen would act as the human energy sources when raising the flag or waif (Kellogg 
1927:12). The conjoined element in this action is the spy camp flag pole used to raise the flag or 
waif. The time and frequency of this action took place between November and May and occurred 
once dolphins were in sight (Rollinson 1891; Kellogg 1927:12). The location also took place at 
the Bight of Hatteras (Figure 6.2). Finally, this action had neither outputs nor intersections 
(Table 6.1).  
 The last action within the behavioral chain segment on spying is on the spy following the 
nearby dolphin pod (Table 6.1). After raising the signal, the spy then follows the dolphin parallel 
to the shore (The Sun 1912:57; Kellogg 1927:12). The human energy sources are either one of 
the spies following the dolphins while the crews prepare for pursuit. The non-energy source in 
this case would be the dolphins swimming. There are no conjoined elements used in this action 
because it was simply just a spy following the pod and not using any objects. The time and 
frequency of this action took place during dolphin hunting season and occurred once dolphins 
were sighted and the crew arrived. The location also took place on the shore of the Bight of 
Hatteras (Figure 6.2). Lastly, this action had neither outputs nor intersections (Table 6.1). 
 
Pursuit 
Following the behavioral chain segment on spying, the next behavioral chain segment dealt with 
pursuit. By the time the signal was raised, the fishermen would transport their vessels to the 
water and begin pursuing a catch (Kellogg 1927:12).  
117 
 
Table 6.2. Behavioral chain segment on pursuit (Source: Author). 
Spying 
 
Energy Sources: Outputs Conjoined Activity Time and Location Intersection 
Human/ Elements Actions: Frequency (Addition/ 
Nonhuman (Pursuit) Deletion) 
Dolphin  Dory Dory November Bight of Dory boats 
fishermen/Dolphins boats and boats to May. Hatteras4 and dolphin 
 dolphin pushed Once   fishermen 
 fishermen into the   clothing are 
 clothing1,2 water   added. 
      
      
 Dory Fishermen November Bight of  
 boats and row few to May. Hatteras4  
Dolphin dolphin hundred Once    
fishermen/Dolphins fishermen yards until    
 clothing1,2 they are in    
  proximity    
  of    
  dolphins.    
      
      
      
Dolphin fishermen  Dory Fishermen November Bight of Seine nets 
boats, lace nets to May. Hatteras4 are added  
dolphin to each Daylight 
fishermen boat. until dark 
clothing, 
and seine 
nets1,2,3 
Key: 
1. Figure 6.3  2.   Figure 6.4 
3. Figure 6.5  4.   Figure 6.6 
 
 
Capture 
 
 
118 
 
The behavioral chain segment of pursuit is made up of three actions (Table 6.2). The first action 
is when the dolphin fishermen begin pushing the boats to the water. The human energy sources 
of this action were the dolphin fishermen crew assigned. The conjoined elements were the dory 
boats and dolphin fishermen clothing. The time and frequency of this action occurred during 
dolphin fishing season and happened once the signal was made. The intersections of this action 
were the additions of dory boats and dolphin fishermen clothing. Lastly, there were no outputs in 
this action (Table 6.2). 
 
FIGURE 6.3. Clothing was essential to allow the fishers to carry out the hunting operations 
(Source: Wildlife Conservation Society). 
 
119 
 
 
FIGURE 6.4. A dory boat used in the pursuance of dolphins (Source: Smithsonian Institution B-
3669-M). 
 
 
FIGURE 6.5. Seine net used in the pursuance and capture of dolphins (Source: Smithsonian 
Institution B-3671-M). 
120 
 
 
FIGURE 6.6. Map depicting the area of activity for where pursuing took place. Dolphins were 
typically pursued 150 yards from the share (Map by Author). 
 The location of this activity took place at the Bight of Hatteras. Figure 6.7 displays a map 
detailing the zone where pursuance of dolphins took place. Typically, dolphins were pursued 150 
yards from shore. Once the boats were deployed, they remained within a few hundred yards of 
each (Kellogg 1927:12). This leads into the next action of the behavioral chain segment on 
pursuit (Table 6.2).   
The second action within the behavioral chain segment on pursuit is when the dolphin 
fishermen row a few hundred yards until they are in proximity of the dolphins (Table 6.2). Their 
goal was to get to a position abreast of them for effective capture (The Sun 1912:57; Kellogg 
1927:12). The human energy source in this action were the dolphin fishermen. The nonhuman 
energy source were the dolphins themselves. Like the previous action, the dory boats and dolphin 
fishermen clothing are the conjoined elements of this activity (Table 6.2; Figures 6.3-6.5). The 
121 
 
time and frequency occurred during the dolphin fishing season and happened once the dolphins 
were sighted. The location also occurred at the Bight of Hatteras (Figure 6.6). Finally, there were 
neither inputs nor intersections for this action (Table 6.2).  
 The last action within the behavioral chain segment on pursuit is when the dolphin 
fishermen were in position and laced their nets (Table 6.2). The fishermen lace their nets to their 
dory boats and immediately race to their positions (Kellogg 1927:13). The human energy source 
for this activity are the dolphin fishermen. The conjoined elements of this action are the dory 
boats, dolphin fishermen clothing, and seine nets (Figures 6.3-6.6). The intersection of this action 
is the addition of seine nets. The time and frequency took place during dolphin hunting season 
and occurred from daylight until dark. The location of this action also took place at the Bight of 
Hatteras. Lastly, there were no outputs for this action (Table 6.2). 
 
Capture 
By the time the nets were laced to the boats, the dolphin fishermen would then engage in the 
capture of dolphins (Kellogg 1927:13). This next behavioral chain segment focuses on capture 
and is made up of three actions (Table 6.3). The first was when the dolphin fishermen would 
begin rowing the laced net dory boats back to shore. The human energy sources of this action 
were the dolphin fishermen. The conjoined elements were the dolphin fishermen clothing, dory 
boats, and seine nets. The time and frequency of this action took place during dolphin hunting 
season and occurred once the dolphins were abreast of the fishermen. The intersection of this 
action was the deletion of the spy camp and spy camp pole. The dolphin fishermen had the 
dolphins in sight and were preparing for capture. This ended the spy’s role in the activity. Lastly 
there were no outputs for this action (Table 6.3).  
122 
 
Table 6.3. Behavioral chain segment on Capture (Source: Author). 
Pursuit 
 
Energy Outputs Conjoined Activity Time and Location Intersection 
Sources: Elements Actions: Frequency (Addition/ 
Human/ (Capture) Deletion) 
Nonhuman 
Dolphin  Dolphin Dolphin November Bight of Spy camp 
fishermen  fishermen fishermen to May. Hatteras5 and spy camp 
 clothing, rowing back Once   pole are 
 dory boats, to shore.   deleted. 
 and seine     
 nets1,2,3     
      
      
Dolphin Dolphin Dolphins November Bight of  
fishermen/ fishermen are caught to May. Hatteras5  
Dolphins  clothing, in seine nets Once    
 dory boats, and swept    
 and seine closer to    
 nets1,2,3 shore.    
      
      
      
Dolphin Dolphin Dolphins November Shore of  
fishermen/ fishermen are dragged to May. the Bight Dory boats 
Dolphins clothing, beyond high Once  of are deleted. 
seine nets, tide mark Hatteras5  Hook with 
and hook shore  stout line is 
with stout added. 
line1,2,4 
Key: 
1. Figure 6.7   2.   Figure 6.8 
3. Figure 6.9   4.   Figure 6.10 
5. Figure 6.11 
 
Killing 
123 
 
 
FIGURE 6.7 Clothing was essential to allow the fishers to carry out the hunting operations 
(Source: Wildlife Conservation Society). 
 
 
FIGURE 6.8. Dory boat used in the capture of dolphins (Source: Wildlife Conservation Society). 
 
 
124 
 
 
FIGURE 6.9. Seine net used in the capture of dolphins (Source: Wildlife Conservation Society). 
 
FIGURE 6.10. Hook with stout line used in the capture of dolphins (Source: New Bedford 
Whaling Museum). 
125 
 
 
 
FIGURE 6.11. Map depicting the capture area of dolphins. Dolphins were captured within 150 
yards from shore and brought beyond the high tide mark (Map by Author). 
 
The location of this activity also occurred at the Bight of Hatteras. Figure 6.11 displays 
the area where capture took place. Dolphins were captured approximately 150 yards from shore. 
They were then placed beyond the high tide mark to prevent them from escaping (Angell 1981). 
 The second action within the behavioral chain segment on capture was when dolphins 
were caught in seine nets and were eventually being swept to shore (Table 6.3). The dolphin 
fishermen were the human energy sources and the dolphins were the nonhuman energy sources. 
The conjoined elements were the dolphin fishermen clothing, dory boats, and seine nets (Figures 
6.7-6.9). The time and frequency of this action took place during dolphin hunting season and 
occurred once dolphins were caught in the net. The location of this activity occurred at the Bight 
of Hatteras (Figure 6.11). Finally, this action did not have any outputs or intersections (Table 
6.3).  
126 
 
 The last action within the behavioral chain segment on capture was when dolphins were 
in shallow enough water to be dragged to shore (Table 6.3). The human energy source were the 
dolphin fishermen and the dolphins were the nonhuman energy source. The conjoined elements 
were the dolphin fishermen clothing, seine nets, and hook with stout line (Figures 6.7-6.10).  The 
time and frequency of this action took place during dolphin hunting season and occurred once 
the dolphins were no longer able escape. The location of this action took place on the shore of 
the Bight of Hatteras (Figure 6.11).  
The intersections of this action were the deletion of dory boats and the addition of a hook 
with stout line (Figure 6.10). By the time the dolphins were brought into shallow enough waters, 
dory boats were no longer needed. The hook with stout line was then used by the dolphin fishers 
to drag the dolphins further beyond the high tide mark. Another item that was often used instead 
of hook with stout line was a simple rope looped around the tail of the dolphin (Kellogg 
1927:13). Lastly, there were no outputs for this activity (Table 6.3).  
 
Killing 
After the dolphins were successfully captured and brought to shore, they were then prepared for 
killing. There were two methods in which dolphins were killed. Because of this, there are two 
individual behavioral chain segments focused on killing. The actions within these behavioral 
chain segments represent two different decisions of what activity would take place next. The first 
action of the behavioral chain segment of killing discussed was when the dolphins were 
immediately killed (Table 6.4).  
 
 
127 
 
Immediate Kill of Dolphins Behavioral Chain Segment  
Once the dolphins were beached and hauled beyond the high tide mark, they were usually 
stabbed in the throats prior to being processed (Kellogg 1927:13). The dolphin fishermen were 
the human energy sources and the dolphins were the nonhuman energy sources. The conjoined 
elements of this activity were the dolphin fishermen clothing and knives. The time and frequency 
took place during dolphin hunting season and occurred once the dolphins were dragged beyond 
the high tide mark. The intersections of this action were the addition of knives and deletion of the 
hook with stout line. Lastly, this is the first action where outputs begin appearing. After a 
dolphin was stabbed in the throat, blood and flesh would then become waste of this activity 
(Table 6.4). 
Table 6.4. Behavioral chain segment on killing when dolphins are immediately killed (Source: 
Author). 
Capture 
 
Energy Outputs Conjoined Activity Time and Location Intersection 
Sources: Elements Actions:  Frequency (Addition/ 
Human/ (Kill) Deletion) 
Nonhuman 
Dolphin Blood, Dolphin Dolphins November Beyond Knives are 
fishermen/ excess fishermen are to May. high tide added. Hook 
Dolphins dolphin clothing, killed3 Once  mark of the with stout line 
flesh knives1,2  Shore of the is deleted. 
Bight of  
Hatteras4 
 
Key:  
1. Figure 6.12     2.   Figure 6.13 
3.   Figure 6.14     4.   Figure 6.15 
 
 
Beach Processing 
128 
 
 
 
FIGURE 6.12. Dolphin fishermen clothing used to protect fishermen from harsh weather 
(Source: Smithsonian Institution B-3663-M). 
 
 
FIGURE 6.13. Knife used in the processing of dolphins (Source: Smithsonian Institution B-
3663-M). 
 
129 
 
 
FIGURE 6.14. Dolphins killed on the beach (Source: Smithsonian Institution B-3661-M). 
FIGURE 6.15: Map depicting area where dolphins were killed (Map by Author). 
130 
 
The location of this activity took place beyond the high tide mark of the shore of the 
Bight of Hatteras. Figure 6.15 displays the area where killing of dolphins generally took place. 
After they were captured, they were dragged beyond the high tide mark to prevent them from 
escaping. In the context of this activity, beyond the high tide mark is where the killing zone took 
place (Figure 6.15).  
 
Suffocation of Dolphins Behavioral Chain Segment 
 The other action that occasionally took place within the behavioral chain segment on 
killing was when dolphins were left stranded on the beach (Table 6.5). There were often periods 
where too many dolphins were caught and the factory on the island could not effectively process 
them. Instead, they were left alive and slowly suffocating on the beach for two or three days to 
avoid fast decomposition (Kellogg 1927:13). This possibly an attempt to preserve the materials 
such as the flesh or jaw oil.  
 The nonhuman energy source of this action were the dolphins since they were 
intentionally left alive on the shore. There were no conjoined elements used in action. The time 
and frequency took place during dolphin hunting season occurred once they were dragged 
beyond the high tide mark and when the factory was too full. Like the other action in this 
behavioral chain segment, the hook with stout line was deleted in the intersection. The location 
of this activity took place beyond the high tide mark on the shore of the Bight of Hatteras (Figure 
6.15; Table 6.5). Finally, the output of this action would sometimes be an entire dolphin. 
Because the dolphins were left out in the open for two to three days, they were often at risk for 
being eaten by nearby terrestrial predators. 
 
131 
 
Table 6.5 Behavioral chain segment on killing of dolphins by suffocation (Source: Author). 
 
Capture 
 
Energy Outputs Conjoined Activity Time and Location Intersection 
Sources: Elements Actions:  Frequency (Addition/ 
Human/ (Kill) Deletion) 
Nonhuman 
Dolphins An entire  Dolphins are November Beyond  
are dolphin  left on beach to May. high tide 
nonhuman sometimes  for When  mark of  
energy  suffocation5 factory is Shore of 
sources  too full. the Bight 
 of 
Key: Hatteras1 
1. Figure 6.15 
Beach Processing 
 
In one mention, a journalist notes “for days at a at a time a hog, the proverbial North 
Carolina razor back, is not visible about Hatteras, but he knows from instinct when a catch of 
porpoises is made, and like hungry wolves in a Russian forest, these razor backs emerge in great 
droves from the dense woods and feast upon the carcasses, that is if they have not been hastily 
gathered up and carted off to the boiling house” (Table 6.1; The Charlotte Democrat 1895:1).  
 
Beach Processing 
The catch of dolphins would eventually be processed on the beach after they were killed 
(Kellogg 1927:11-13). The reason for processing dolphins on the beach was to allow a lighter 
load for transportation to the factory. This next behavioral chain segment deals beach processing 
and is made up of four activities (Table 6.6). 
132 
 
Table 6.6. Behavioral chain segment on beach processing (Source: Author). 
Killing 
 
Energy Outputs Conjoined Activity Time and Location Intersection 
Sources: Elements Actions: Frequency (Addition/ 
Human/ (Beach Deletion) 
Nonhuman Processing) 
Dolphin Excess Dolphin Longitudinal November Beyond  
fishermen/ dolphin fishermen back hide to May. high tide 
Dolphins remains clothing, separation Once  mark of 
  knives1,2 from tip of  Bight of 
   snout to notch  Hatteras6 
   of flukes3   
      
      
Dolphins Excess Dolphin Hide and fatty November Beyond 
fishermen/ dolphin fishermen layer removed to May. high tide 
Dolphins remains clothing, in two places3 Once mark of 
  knives1,2   Bight of 
     Hatteras6 
      
      
Dolphin Excess Dolphin Longitudinal November Beyond 
fishermen/ dolphin fishermen upper side hide to May. high tide 
Dolphins remains clothing, separation4 Once mark of 
  knives1,2   Bight of 
     Hatteras6 
      
Dolphin Excess Dolphin Lower jaws cut November Beyond 
fishermen/ dolphin fishermen loose from to May. high tide 
Dolphins.  remains clothing, skull5 Once mark of 
and teeth knives1,2 Bight of 
Hatteras6 
Key: 
1. Figure 6.16    2.   Figure 6.17 
3.   Figure 6.18     4.   Figure 6.19 
5. Figure 6.20     6.   Figure 6.21 
 
Transportation to Factory 
133 
 
The first action within the behavioral chain segment on beach processing focuses 
extracting the back of the dolphins hide (Table 6.6). The back hide of the dolphin would be 
longitudinally separation from the tip of the snout to the notch of the flukes (Kellogg 1927:11-
13). The dolphin fishermen were the human energy sources and the dolphins were the nonhuman 
energy sources of this activity. The conjoined elements used were the dolphin fishermen clothing 
and knives. The time and frequency of this activity took place during dolphin hunting season and 
occurred after the dolphin was killed. There were no intersections within this action. Lastly, the 
outputs would most likely have been excess dolphin remains such as flesh or blood (Table 6.6). 
 
 
FIGURE 6.16. Dolphin fishermen clothing worn by the fishermen after catching dolphins 
(Source: Smithsonian Institution B-3664). 
134 
 
 
FIGURE 6.17. Knife used to slice dolphin open (Source: Smithsonian Institution B-3664). 
 
 
FIGURE 6.18. Dolphin hide split longitudinally from tip of snout to notch of flukes for hide and 
fatty layer removal (Source: Smithsonian Institution B-3662-M). 
 
135 
 
 
FIGURE 6.19. Dolphin hide split on the upper side (Source: Smithsonian B-3664-M). 
 
 
FIGURE 6.20. Dolphin jaws removed from skull (Source: Smithsonian B-3666-M). 
136 
 
The location of this activity was like the location within the behavioral chain segments on 
killing in that it was beyond the high tide mark of the Bight of Hatteras (Table 6.1-6.2).  Figure 
6.21 displays the same area where killing of dolphins generally took place. However, in this 
case, the killing has finished and is now a location for beach processing. As such, this zone is no 
longer a zone for killing. Instead, the zone beyond the high tide mark is now designated for 
where beach processing generally took place (Figure 6.21).  
 
FIGURE 6.21. Map depicting the area of where beach processing took place (Map by Author). 
 
After the back hide was separated, the next action within the behavioral chain segment 
dealt with the removal of the hide and fatty layers (Tables 6.4-6.6). The human energy sources 
were the dolphin fishermen and the nonhuman energy sources were the dolphins. The conjoined 
elements used in this action were dolphin fishermen clothing and knives. The time and frequency 
took place during dolphin hunting season and occurred once the back hide was separated. The 
137 
 
location of this activity took place beyond the high tide mark of the Bight of Hatteras (Figure 
6.21). The outputs of this action were generally excess dolphin remains. Finally, there were no 
intersections within this action (Table 6.6).  
Shortly after the hide and fatty layers were removed, the next activity to take place in the 
behavioral chain segment on beach processing dealt with the separation of the second hide 
(Table 6.2). After the first hide is separated from the dolphin, it is rolled over and then the upper 
side hide is longitudinally separated (Kellogg 1927:11-13). The human energy sources are the 
dolphin fishermen and the nonhuman energy sources are they dolphins. The conjoined elements 
of this activity are the dolphin fishermen clothing and knives. The time and frequency took place 
during dolphin hunting season and occurred once the hide and fatty layers were removed. The 
location of this activity took place beyond the high tide mark of the Bight of Hatteras. The 
outputs were also excess dolphin remains. Lastly, there were no intersections within this action 
(Table 6.6).   
 The last action to take place within the behavioral chain segment on beach processing 
was when the lower jaws were cut loose from the skull (Table 6.6). As noted, the oil within the 
jaws were considered the most valuable part of the dolphin because of its fine consistency for 
lubrication (Cecelski 2015:49). The human energy sources were the dolphin fishermen and the 
nonhuman energy sources were the dolphins. The conjoined elements of this action were the 
dolphin fishermen clothing and knives. The time and frequency took place during dolphin 
hunting season and occurred beyond the high tide mark of the Bight of Hatteras. The outputs of 
this action were excess dolphin remains and teeth. Dolphin teeth often littered the shores of the 
Bight of Hatteras (Gray and Lyons 1978; Cecelski 2015:74). Lastly, there were no intersections 
within this action (Table 6.6). 
138 
 
Transportation to Factory 
 Once all the materials were extracted from the dolphins, they were then prepared for 
transportation. The next behavioral chain segment focuses on transportation to the factory and is 
comprised of two actions (Table 6.7).  
Table 6.7. Behavioral chain segment on transportation to factory (Source: Author). 
Beach Processing 
 
Energy Outputs Conjoined Activity Time and Location Intersection 
Sources: Elements Actions: Frequency (Addition/ 
Human/ (Transportation Deletion) 
Nonhuman to Factory) 
Dolphin  Dolphin Dolphin objects November Beyond Ox cart is 
fishermen fishermen loaded onto to May. the high added. 
 clothing, cart. Once  tide mark Knives are 
 ox cart1,2   of the deleted 
    Bight of 
    Hatteras 
     
Dolphin Dolphin Dolphin objects November From the 
fishermen/ fishermen are transported to May. shore of 
sometimes clothing, to factory Once  the Bight 
horses ox cart1,2  of 
Hatteras 
to the 
Hatteras 
Porpoise 
Factory3 
Key: 
1. Figure 6.22      2.   Figure 5.9 
3.   Figure 6.23 
 
 
Factory Processing 
139 
 
The first action dealt with the loading of dolphin materials onto an ox cart. The human energy 
sources for this action were the dolphin fishermen. The conjoined elements used were the 
dolphin fishermen clothing and ox cart. The time and frequency took place during dolphin 
hunting season and occurred once the items were processed and gathered. The intersections of 
this action were the addition of the ox cart and the deletion of knives. Lastly, there were no 
outputs for this action (Table 6.7). 
 
FIGURE 6.22. Dolphin fishermen clothing worn to protect fishermen from elements 
(Smithsonian B-3664-M). 
 
 The location of this activity also took place beyond the high tide mark of the Bight of 
Hatteras (Table 6.7). Figure 6.23 displays the location of where the ox cart would be located. It 
then depicts a nine-kilometer path of where the ox cart would go to reach the factory. 
Interestingly, the map also shows that watercraft would have been necessary for transporting the 
dolphins to the factory. Unfortunately, no information was found on watercraft used to transport 
dolphin products to the factory. (Figure 6.23).  
140 
 
 
FIGURE 6.23. Possible transportation route taken from the spy camp to the factory (Map by 
Author).  
 
 The second action within the behavioral chain on the transportation to the factory was 
when the dolphin materials were carted off to the factory (Table 6.7). The human energy sources 
were the dolphin fishermen. Interestingly, horses may have been used as a non-human energy 
source according to some sources (Gray and Umphlett 1978; Cecelski 2015:70-71). The 
conjoined elements were the dolphin fishermen clothing and ox cart. The time and frequency 
 during dolphin hunting season and occurred after the items were loaded onto the cart. The 
location of this activity took place from the shore of the Bight of Hatteras to the Hatteras 
Porpoise Factory (Figure 6.23). Lastly, there were no outputs or intersections for this action 
(Table 6.7). 
 
141 
 
Factory Processing 
Once the dolphin materials were successfully transported to the factory, they were then prepared 
for the complex factory processing. As discussed in the previous chapter, the exact operations 
surrounding how the dolphin remains were processed are unknown. However, some of the 
historical references provide a glimpse into how the dolphin materials were processed (The 
Charlotte Democrat 1895:1). These next behavioral chain segments focus on the goods 
associated with the factory processes of dolphin remains. This includes the hides, blubber, and 
bones. What separates this section from the previously discussed behavioral chain segments is 
each product requires its own behavioral chain segment because they are not done with an 
established chronological order. That said, the first discussed behavioral chain segment on the 
factory process deals with the preparation of the hides and is made up of four actions (Table 6.8). 
 
Dolphin Hide Factory Processing Behavioral Chain Segment 
 The first action taken for the behavioral chain segment on factory processing for hides 
focus on the soaking of hides (Table 6.8). The hides were soaked in large reservoirs for curing 
(The Charlotte Democrat 1895:1; Cecelski 2015:73). The chemicals used in soaking these hides 
are unknown. However, compared to typical curing techniques used on other animal hides, these 
could include chemicals such as sodium sulfide, calcium hydroxide, unsaturated fish oil, and 
much more (Covington 1997).  
 The human energy sources of this action were the factory workers and the nonhuman 
energy source was a heating element (Table 6.8). The conjoined element used in this action was 
possibly the suspected trypot. Given that the suspected trypot’s absolute function has not been 
142 
 
determined, it is possible that it may have been used as a reservoir for soaking hides. The time 
and frequency for this action was determined by the factory workers when the hides were ready 
for removal from the reservoirs. The intersection was the addition of the suspected trypot. Lastly 
there were no outputs for this action (Table 6.8).  
Table 6.8. Behavioral chain segment on factory processing for hides (Source: Author). 
Transportation to Factory 
 
Energy Outputs Conjoined Activity Actions Time and Location Intersection 
Sources: Elements (Factory Frequency (Addition/ 
Human/ Processing for Deletion) 
Nonhuman Hides) 
Factory  Possibly the Hides are soaked Time Hatteras Suspected 
workers/  suspected in large deemed Porpoise trypot 
Heating trypot1 reservoirs. by factory Factory3, possibly 
element   workers. 4 added. 
      
Factory Industrial Hides are Once Hatteras Suspected 
workers/ machinery removed and  Porpoise Trypot is 
Machine  placed on  Factory3, deleted 
  splitting  4 
  machine.   
     
     
Factory Knives or Blubber is Twice Hatteras 
workers cutting shaved evenly  shaved Porpoise 
 devices2   Factory3,
    4 
Factory Factory Hides spread on ~Three  
workers floor2 floor and salted days Hatteras 
Porpoise 
Factory3,
4 
Key: 
1. Figure 5.8     2.   Figure 4.7 
      3.   Figure 6.24     4.   Figure 6.25 
 
 
Packaging 
143 
 
After the hides were soaked for a sufficient amount of time, they were then removed from 
the reservoirs and placed on splitting machine (The Charlotte Democrat 1895:1; Cecelski 
2015:73). The human energy sources were the factory workers and the nonhuman energy source 
was a machine used for splitting. The conjoined elements are largely unknown. However, 
industrial machinery was most likely used for this action. The time and frequency of this action 
was once. The intersection was the deletion of the suspected trypot if it was potentially used as 
the reservoir. Lastly, there were no outputs for this action (Table 6.4).  
 Once the hides were put through the splitting machine, they were then shaved for any 
remaining blubber (The Charlotte Democrat 1895:1; Cecelski 2015:73). The human energy 
sources were the factory workers. While it is not explicitly said, the conjoined elements were 
most likely knives or cutting devices to shave off the blubber. The time and frequency of this 
action was twice. Lastly, there were no outputs or intersections for this action (Table 6.4).  
 The final action of the behavioral chain segment on the factory processing of dolphin 
hides dealt with salting the hide (The Charlotte Democrat 1895:1; Tar Heel 1909:4; Cecelski 
2015:73). The salting of animal hides is a typical process used in the preparation of tanning for 
leather (Covington 1997:117-118).  The human energy source were the factory workers. The 
conjoined element used in this action was the factory floor. The time and frequency of this action 
was usually three days. Lastly, there were no outputs or intersections for this action (Table 6.4).  
 In addition to the activity, actions and the components, the location of these actions took 
place at the Hatteras Porpoise Factory (Figure 4.7; Table 6.4). Regarding the spatial aspects of 
these actions, two maps were created for effective visualization. Figure 6.24 displays a 
georeferenced map of the 1923 aerial photograph. The georectification of oblique images is not 
something that is normally done because of too many sources of distortion. It is recommended 
144 
 
orthographic sources are georectified onto other orthographic sources. However, there was only a 
minimum level of inaccuracy. 
With this level of inaccuracy in mind, the aerial photograph was georectified at five 
points. Measurements were taken of each point to generate an average margin of error at 91.54 
meters. This average was then taken to create a buffer of the potential location of where the 
remnants of the Hatteras Porpoise Factory are (Figure 6.25).  
 
FIGURE 6.24. Georeferenced map with an average 91.54 meter margin of error (Map by 
Author). 
145 
 
 
FIGURE 6.25. Georeferenced map showing the potential location of the Hatteras Porpoise 
Factory (Map by Author). 
 
The buffer depicted in Figure 6.25 shows the potential location of where the Hatteras 
Porpoise factory once was. Interestingly, a portion of this area was surveyed for this study 
(Figure 6.26). Several artifacts such as coal and tar were found within the buffer zone of where 
146 
 
the factory may have been. The main reason for why the rest of the area was not surveyed was 
due to not receiving permission from landowners. However, it is likely more artifacts could be 
found if a permission was granted and a swim survey was conducted. 
 
FIGURE 6.26. List of artifact types found within the buffer zone of the Hatteras Porpoise 
Factory site (Source: Author). 
 
147 
 
Dolphin Blubber Factory Processing Behavioral Chain Segment 
 Another product that is processed at the factory is dolphin blubber. Dolphin blubber was 
processed into a much lower grade of lubricating oil compared to the oil rendered from the jaw. 
The next behavioral chain segment on factory processing deals with dolphin blubber and is made 
up of three actions. The first action was when the blubber was chopped and minced. This was to 
allow for faster boiling (Table 6.9; The Charlotte Democrat 1895:1; The Charlotte Observer 
1896:4; Cecelski 2015:73). 
Table 6.9. Behavioral chain segment on factory processing of dolphin blubber (Source: Author). 
Transportation to Factory 
 
Energy Outputs Conjoined Activity Actions Time and Location Intersection 
Sources: Elements (Factory Frequency (Addition/ 
Human/ Processing for Deletion) 
Nonhuman Blubber) 
Factory  Knives or Blubber is Once Hatteras  
workers  cutting chopped and  Porpoise  
 devices minced  Factory2,  
    3  
      
Factory Possibly Blubber is Once Hatteras Addition of 
workers/ suspected placed in kettle  Porpoise suspected 
Heat trypot1 or furnace and  Factory2, trypot 
element  boiled into oil  3 
     
     
Factory Possibly Oil is strained  Once Hatteras 
workers suspected Porpoise 
trypot1 Factory2,
3 
Key: 
1. Figure 5.8    2. Figure 6.24 
3.   Figure 6.25 
 
 
Packaging 
148 
 
The human energy sources of this action were the factory workers (Table 6.9). The 
conjoined elements were knives or other cutting devices. The time and frequency of this action 
occurred once. The location of this action took place at the Hatteras Porpoise Factory (Figures 
6.24-6.25). Lastly there were no outputs or intersections in this action (Table 6.9). 
 After the blubber was chopped and minced, it was then placed into a kettle or furnace for 
boiling (The Charlotte Democrat 1895:1; The Charlotte Observer 1896:4; Cecelski 2015:73). 
The next action within the dolphin blubber factory processing behavioral chain segment was the 
boiling of dolphin blubber (Table 6.9). The human energy source was the factory workers and 
the nonhuman energy source was a heating element. The conjoined element of this action was 
possibly the suspected trypot. The time and frequency of this action occurred once. The location 
of this action took place at the Hatteras Porpoise Factory (Figures 6.24-6.25). The intersection in 
this case is the addition of the suspected trypot. Lastly, there were no outputs in this action 
(Table 6.9). 
 The last action that took place in the behavioral chain segment of the factory processing 
of dolphin blubber was when the oil was strained (Table 6.9). The purpose of straining the oil 
was to refine any impurities within it. The human energy source of this action was the factory 
workers. The conjoined element of this action was most likely the suspected trypot. The reason 
for this is because of the likelihood of there being a false bottom for the suspected trypot (Figure 
5.8). Having a false bottom would have allowed for a strainer to be placed inside the suspected 
trypot. The time and frequency of this action occurred once. The location of this action took 
place at the Hatteras Porpoise Factory (Figures 6.24-6.25).  Lastly, there were no intersections or 
outputs (Table 6.9). 
 
149 
 
Dolphin Bone Factory Processing Behavioral Chain Segment 
 As seen through the previous behavioral chains, much of the dolphin was used for 
processing. The dolphin bones were also a valuable material. Dolphin bones were an excellent 
source for fertilizer (The Charlotte Democrat 1895:1; The Charlotte Observer 1896:4; Cecelski 
2015:73). The last factory processing behavioral chain segment dealt with the processing of 
dolphin bones and is made up of two actions (Table 6.10). 
Table 6.10. Behavioral chain segment of factory processing of dolphin bones (Source: Author). 
Transportation to Factory 
 
Energy Outputs Conjoined Activity Actions Time and Location Intersection 
Sources: Elements (Factory Frequency (Addition/ 
Human/ Processing for Deletion) 
Nonhuman Bones) 
Factory  Industrial Bones go Once Hatteras  
workers  machinery through steamer  Porpoise 
    Factory1,
    2 
     
Factory Industrial Cleaned bones Once Hatteras 
workers machinery are grounded in a Porpoise 
 bone miller Factory1,
2 
Key: 
1. Figure 6.24     2.   Figure 6.25 
 
Packaging 
 
  
 
150 
 
The first action that took place within the behavioral chain segment of factory processing for 
dolphin bones was steaming (Table 6.10). Steaming was a necessary process to clean the bones 
of any leftover flesh (The Charlotte Democrat 1895:1; The Charlotte Observer 1896:4; Cecelski 
2015:73). The human energy source of this action were the factory workers. The conjoined 
elements were unknown industrial machinery. Unfortunately, the historical record does not go 
into detail of the equipment used for the steaming of dolphin bones. The time and frequency of 
this occurred once. The location of this action took place at the Hatteras Porpoise Factory. 
Lastly, there were no intersections or outputs for this action (Table 6.10). 
 Following the steaming of bones, the second action that took place was the grounding of 
bones in a bone miller (Table 6.10). As mentioned, dolphin bone meal was considered an 
excellent source for fertilizer (The Charlotte Democrat 1895:1; The Charlotte Observer 1896:4; 
Cecelski 2015:73). The human energy source of this action were the factory workers. The 
conjoined elements were also unknown industrial machinery. 
 
Packaging 
After all the dolphin materials went through the complex factory process, they were then 
prepared for packaging. Like the behavioral chain segments on factory processing, packaging 
will have its own behavioral chain segments based on the processed products (Table 6.8-6.10). 
As such, the first behavioral chain segment for this section deals with the packaging of dolphin 
hides and is made up of one action (Table 6.11).  
 
 
151 
 
Table 6.11: Behavioral chain of packaging of dolphin hides (Source: Author). 
Factory Processing 
 
Energy Outputs Conjoined Activity Actions Time and Location Intersection 
Sources: Elements (Packaging for Frequency (Addition/ 
Human/ Hides) Deletion) 
Nonhuman 
Factory  Large Placing cured Once Hatteras Unknown 
workers  boxes hides in boxes Porpoise boxes 
Factory1 added 
Key: 
1. Figure 6.25 
 
Shipping Transportation 
 
Dolphin Hide Packaging Behavioral Chain Segment 
Once the hides were finished being cured with salt, they were then carefully packaged in 
large boxes for shipping (The Charlotte Democrat 1895:1; Cecelski 2015:75). The human energy 
source were the factory workers. The conjoined elements for this action were large boxes. It is 
likely that the boxes used for packaging were made using a material like cardboard because 
objects such as refined dolphin jaw oil bottles were placed in cardboard packing (Figure 5.7). 
The time and frequency of this action occurred once. The location of this action took place at the 
Hatteras Porpoise Factory (Figure 6.25). The intersection in this case was the addition of large 
boxes. Lastly, there were no outputs in this action (Table 6.11). 
 
 
152 
 
Dolphin Blubber Oil Packaging Behavioral Chain Segment 
 By time the dolphin blubber was boiled and strained, it would then be prepared for 
packaging (The Charlotte Democrat 1895:1; Cecelski 2015:73). This next behavioral chain 
segment deals with the packaging of dolphin blubber oil and is made up of one action (Table 
6.8). The human energy source was the factory workers. The conjoined elements of this action 
were barrels. Interestingly, while surveying the Hatteras Porpoise Factory site, barrel hoop 
fragments were found located (Figure 6.27). It is possible that these particular barrel hoop 
fragments may have been used at the factory for packaging of dolphin oil. The time and 
frequency of this action occurred once. The location of this action took place at the Hatteras 
Porpoise Factory. The intersection in this case was the addition of barrels. Lastly, there were no 
outputs for this action (Table 6.12). 
Table 6.12 Behavioral chain segment of packaging of dolphin blubber oil (Source: Author). 
Factory Processing 
 
Energy Outputs Conjoined Activity Actions Time and Location Intersection 
Sources: Elements (Packaging for Frequency (Addition/ 
Human/ Dolphin Blubber Deletion) 
Nonhuman Oil) 
Factory  Barrel1 Oil is poured Once Hatteras Barrels are 
workers  into barrels Porpoise added 
Factory2 
Key: 
1. Figure 6.27     2.   Figure 6.25 
 
Shipping Transportation 
 
153 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
FIGURE 6.27. Barrel hoop fragments found at the Hatteras Porpoise Factory site (Source: 
Author). 
 
 
Dolphin Bone Meal Packaging Behavioral Chain Segment 
 Once the dolphin bones were grounded and made into bone meal, it was then prepared for 
packaging (The Charlotte Democrat 1895:1; The Charlotte Observer 1896:4; Cecelski 2015:75). 
This next behavioral chain segment deals with the packaging of dolphin bone meal and is made 
up of one action (Table 6.13).  The human energy source was the factory workers. The conjoined 
elements were sacks that were filled with bone meal. The time and frequency of this action 
occurred once. The location of this action took place at the Hatteras Porpoise Factory. The 
intersection in this case is the addition of sacks. Lastly, there were no outputs for this action 
(Table 6.13). 
 
154 
 
Table 6.13. Behavioral chain segment of packaging of dolphin bone meal (Source: Author). 
Factory Processing 
 
Energy Outputs Conjoined Activity Actions Time and Location Intersection 
Sources: Elements (Packaging for Frequency (Addition/ 
Human/ Dolphin Bone Deletion) 
Nonhuman Meal) 
Factory  Sacks Bone meal is Once Hatteras Sacks are 
workers  poured into a Porpoise added 
sack. Factory1 
Key: 
1. Figure 6.25 
 
Shipping Transportation 
 
Dolphin Jaw Packaging Behavioral Chain Segment 
Interestingly, dolphin jaws were not processed at the factory. Instead they were packaged 
and sent for processing at Nye’s refining factory. This was likely since the jaws were considered 
the most valuable piece of the dolphin and required more oversight and technique when 
processing them for the oil (The Charlotte Observer 1896:4; The Sun 1912:57 Cecelski 2015:73). 
This last behavioral chain segment of packaging focuses on dolphin jaw bones and is made up of 
one action (Table 6.14). 
 
 
 
155 
 
Table 6.14. Behavioral chain segment of packaging of dolphin jaw bone (Source: Author). 
Factory Processing 
 
Energy Outputs Conjoined Activity Actions Time and Location Intersection 
Sources: Elements (Packaging for Frequency (Addition/ 
Human/ Dolphin Jaw Deletion) 
Nonhuman Bone) 
Factory  Unknown Jaws are placed Once Hatteras Boxes or 
workers  possibly in packaging Porpoise barrels are 
boxes or Factory1 added 
barrels Key: 
1. Figure 6.25 
 
Shipping Transportation 
 
The human energy source were the factory workers (Table 6.14). The conjoined elements 
of this action are unknown. However, cardboard boxes or barrels were most likely used to 
package the jaw bones. The time and frequency of this action occurred once. The location of this 
action took place at the Hatteras Porpoise Factory. The intersection in this case would be the 
addition of boxes or barrels. Lastly, there were no outputs for this action (Table 6.14). 
 
Shipping Transportation 
Once all the processed materials were packaged, they were then ready to be transported for 
further processing in the North or distributed to surrounding markets (The Charlotte Democrat 
1895:1; The Charlotte Observer 1896:4; The Sun 1912:57; Cecelski 2015:75). The location of 
156 
 
the Hatteras Porpoise Factory along the Pamlico Sound was extremely beneficial as it allowed 
for ships, such as schooners, to quickly come in and out with goods (Figure 6.25; Angell 1981; 
Cecelski 2015; Couch 2017 pers. comm; Midgett 2017 pers. comm). That said, this last 
behavioral chain segment discusses the shipping transportation activity and is made up of two 
actions (Table 6.15). 
Table 6.15. Behavioral chain segment on shipping transportation (Source: Author). 
Packaging 
 
Energy Outputs Conjoined Activity Actions Time and Location Intersection 
Sources: Elements (Shipping Frequency (Addition/ 
Human/ Transportation) Deletion) 
Nonhuman 
Factory  Ships, Packaged goods Once Hatteras Ships 
workers,  possibly are loaded onto  Porpoise added 
possibly schooners ship  Factory1 
ship     
workers     
     
Ship Ships, Package goods Once See 
workers possibly are transported Figure 
schooners 6.272 
Key: 
1. Figure 6.25     2.   Figure 6.27 
 
 
 The first action was when the packaged goods were loaded onto the ship (Table 6.15). 
The human energy source of this activity were the factory workers. The ship workers may have 
joined in to speed up the process. The conjoined element in this action were the ships used to 
transport goods. Schooners, on occasion, are mentioned as the ships that would generally stop at 
the factory for picking up and dropping off goods (Angell 1981). The time and frequency of this 
action occurred once. The location of this action took place at the Hatteras Porpoise Factory. The 
157 
 
intersection in this case was the addition of ships as the transportation vessels. Lastly, there were 
no outputs for this action (Table 6.15).  
FIGURE 6.28. Map depicting areas where dolphin products would go (Map by Author). 
158 
 
The second action that took place in the behavioral chain segment on shipping transportation was 
when the packaged goods were transported (Table 6.15). The packaged goods were transported 
for either further processing, such as refining or tanning, or sold directly to nearby markets (The 
Charlotte Democrat 1895:1; The Charlotte Observer 1896:4; The Sun 1912:57; Cecelski 
2015:75). The human energy source were the ship workers. Like the previous action, the 
conjoined element were the ships used to transport these goods. The time and frequency of this 
action occurred once. Lastly, there were no outputs or intersections (Table 6.15).  
 The location of this action occurred throughout North Carolina. Figure 6.28 displays the 
where merchant vessels would take packaged dolphin goods. If the packaged goods were objects 
that required further processing such as tanning or refining, they would go up North to cities 
such as New Bedford and Philadelphia. If they were packaged goods that were to be sold onto 
the market, they usually went to surrounding coastal cities, such as Elizabeth City and New Bern, 
but also could have gone up to Northern markets (Figure 6.28; The Sun 1912:57; Angell 1981; 
Whisnant and Whisnant 2015:83). 
 
Behavioral Chain Model of the North Carolina Dolphin Fishery at Hatteras 
As displayed and discussed in each individual behavioral chain segment, the North Carolina 
dolphin fishery is made up of several dynamic activities and actions. This next section 
incorporates the aforementioned behavioral chain segments into a comprehensive behavioral 
chain model. 
 Before discussing the overall behavioral chain model, a flow model was created to help 
further contextualize the flow of activities within the North Carolina (Figure 6.29). Schiffer 
argues “both flow models and behavioral chains aid in identifying changes in a technology’s 
159 
 
activities and organization. Any change deemed significant can become the starting point for 
research to uncover the causes” (Schiffer 2011:34). These changes are evident in many of the 
actions previously discussed seen in all tables presented in this thesis. That said, Figure 6.28 
provides a generalized flow chart of the activities within the North Carolina dolphin fishery.  
 The creation of a flow chart provided the necessary foundation to better understanding 
the flow of activities within the behavioral chain model (Figure 6.29). Table 6.16 displays the 
Schiffer organized behavioral chain model of North Carolina’s dolphin fishery. Compared to the 
organization of the previous behavioral chain model segments that used cited examples, Table 
6.16’s ‘Key’ will refer to each previously discussed segment. 
 After combining each individual behavioral chain segment into the behavioral chain 
model, several things are evident of the North Carolina dolphin fishery at Hatteras (Tables 6.1-
6.15). The human energy sources of the fishery were entirely men (Table 6.16). In some 
mentions from the historical record, men were always the first to take a job with the fishery for 
primarily because of their familiarity with fishing and experience on local waters (Angell 1981; 
Cecelski 2015:68). The nonhuman energy sources were a combination of industrial machinery 
and animals. Interestingly, within many other behavioral chain model examples, animals were 
not at all applied, despite Schiffer mentioning animals as potential externs within behavioral 
chain models (Schiffer 1995; Meyers 2007; Smith 2010; Schiffer 2011:192).  
 The conjoined elements used within hunting the North Carolina dolphin fishery at 
Hatteras were simple yet effective (Table 6.16). The objects employed in hunting strongly 
resembled the objects used among other dolphin fishing cultures such as Japan and Panama 
(Hiraguchi 1993; Porcasi and Fujita 2000; Cecelski 2015; Cooke et al. 2015).   
 
160 
 
 Spying 
 
Pursuit 
 
Capture 
 
 Killing Killing 
(Stabbing) (Suffocation) 
  
 
Beach Processing 
 
 
Transportation to Factory 
 
Factory Processing Factory Processing Factory Processing 
 Bones Hides Blubber 
   
 
Packaging  Packaging Packaging Packaging 
Bones Hides Jaws Blubber 
     
 
 Shipping 
Transportation 
  
FIGURE 6.29. General flow chart of the activities within the North Carolina dolphin fishery 
(Source: Author). 
 
161 
 
Table 6.16. Behavioral chain model on the North Carolina dolphin fishery (Source: Author). 
 
Activity Energy Source Conjoined Time and Location Outputs Intersections 
(Human/ Elements Frequency (Additions/ 
Non-Human) Deletions) 
Spying Two older Spy camp and November to Bight of  Spy camp and 
dolphin spy camp pole1 May and Hatteras1 spy camp pole 
fishermen/ daily1 are added1 
Dolphins1 
Pursuit Dolphin Dory boats, November to Bight of  Dory boats, 
fishermen/ dolphin May and Hatteras2 dolphin 
Dolphins2 fishermen daily2 fishermen 
clothing, and clothing, and 
seine nets2 seine nets are 
added2 
Capture Dolphin Dory boats, November to Shore of and  Hook with stout 
fishermen/ dolphin May and Bight of line/ 
Dolphins3 fishermen daily3 Hatteras3 Dory boats, spy 
clothing, seine camp and, spy 
nets, and hook camp pole3 
with stout line3 
Kill Dolphin Dolphin November to Beyond high  Knives/ 
fishermen/ fishermen May and tide mark of  Hook with stout 
Dolphins4,5 clothing, daily4,5 Shore of the line4,5 
knives4,5 Bight of 
Hatteras4,5 
Beach Processing Dolphin Dolphin November to Beyond high Excess  
fishermen/ fishermen May and tide mark of dolphin 
Dolphins6 clothing, daily6 Shore of the remains, 
knives6 Bight of teeth6 
Hatteras6 
Transportation to Dolphin Dolphin November to From shore  Ox cart/ 
Factory fishermen/ fishermen May and of the Bight Knives7 
Sometimes clothing, ox daily7 of Hatteras 
horses7 cart7 to the 
Factory7 
Factory Processing Factory Knives or Varies Hatteras  Suspected 
workers/ cutting devices, depending on Porpoise trypot/ 
Heating possibly object8,9,10 Factory8,9,10 Suspected 
element, suspected trypot8,9,10 
machinery8,9,10 trypot, 
industrial 
machinery8,9,10 
Packaging Factory Boxes, barrels, Once11,12, Hatteras  Boxes, barrels, 
workers11, and 13,14 Porpoise sacks/11,12,13,14 
12,13,14 sacks11,12,13,14 Factory 
11,12,13,14 
Shipping Factory Ships15 Once15 Hatteras  Ships/15 
Transportation workers, Porpoise 
possibly ship Factory and 
workers15 other areas15 
Key: 
1. Table 6.1   2.   Table 6.2   3.   Table 6.3   4.   Table 6.4   5.   Table 6.5   6.   Table 6.6   7.   Table 6.7 
 
8.   Table 6.8   9.   Table 6.9   10. Table 6.10   11. Table 6.11   12.   Table 6.12   13.   Table 6.13 
 
14.   Table 6.14   15.   Table 6.15 
 
 
162 
 
The conjoined elements used in processing, however, were much different. Aside from a 
suspected trypot, much of the technology used in factory processing is largely unknown. What is 
known is the conjoined elements used in processing were highly industrial with complex 
functions such as cutting, chilling, straining, and heating (Table 6.16).  
 The time and frequency within the North Carolina dolphin fishery at Hatteras took place 
from November to May and many of its activities occurred either once or daily (Table 6.16). The 
primary reason the dolphin fishery at Hatteras took place from November to May was 
supposedly due to large numbers migrating due to favorable feedings (Angell 1981). Another 
possible reason was due to early nineteenth century ship refrigeration techniques. Many 
examples from the oral historical record mention the pungent odor that came from dolphins 
(Burrus and Garrity-Blake 2004; Couch 2017 pers. comm.; Midgett 2017 pers. comm.). Combine 
the products coming out of the factory with the summer heat would most likely create smell 
worse than previously mentioned. 
 The outputs of the behavioral chain model were surprisingly small (Table 6.16). Out of 
all the activities mentioned, the beach processing activity was the only one to have outputs. The 
reason for this was largely because almost everything from the dolphin was processed into a 
product (Gray and Lyons 1978; Cecelski 2015:74-75). The only objects that reached an output 
were excess dolphin remains and teeth (Table 6.16). However, teeth may have also been 
collected to create cuff links (Cecelski 2015:75). Lastly, the location of the Hatteras dolphin 
fishery occurred in several areas as displayed in the previous maps (Figures 6.1-6.28).  
 
 
 
163 
 
Conclusion 
This chapter, organized based on Stier and Schiffer’s behavioral chain models, provided by 
which to evaluate the interrelations between behavioral and spatial-material aspects of activity 
performance with reference to the life history of the North Carolina dolphin fishery at Hatteras. 
While the overall dolphin fishery of North Carolina could not be discussed in its entirety, the 
analysis of the Hatteras dolphin fishery provided some fascinating insights into the complexity of 
fishery. This next chapter addresses the research questions posed at the introduction of this study, 
reveal insights and conclusions, considers the limitations of the study, and offers directions for 
further research.   
164 
 
CHAPTER SEVEN: CONCLUSION 
Introduction 
The investigation of material culture, oral historical record, and archaeological sites related to the 
North Carolina dolphin fishery supports the historical record suggesting the prominent area for 
dolphin hunting in North Carolina took place at Hatteras. Extensive historical and archival 
research demonstrates the fishery was heavily influenced by Northern capitalists.  This last 
chapter synthesizes the previous chapters and addresses the questions posed in the first chapter. 
It discusses the limitations and potential avenues for future research.   
 
Observations 
While the goal of this thesis was to attempt to identify and understand North Carolina’s dolphin 
fishery, this study is still incomplete. Several possibilities such as unknown historical documents, 
new artifacts turning up unexpectedly, and information from additional descendants could 
contribute significantly, and possibly change the current knowledge of North Carolina’s dolphin 
fishery. Applying Schiffer’s behavioral chain model to North Carolina’s dolphin fishery allowed 
for several insights to be made along with providing the opportunity for future researchers to 
apply this framework into various areas of maritime archaeology.  
 The application of Schiffer’s behavioral chain model to North Carolina’s dolphin fishery 
was useful in answering this research’s primary question “How did technology, economics, and 
culture affect the North dolphin fishery?” Overall, each of those three areas played critical roles 
in the operations surrounding the fishery. The technology used in hunting was simple yet 
effective. As discussed, the primary technology used in hunting included objects such as seine 
nets, knives, and dory boats. While they were simplistic by design, it was the coordinated efforts 
 
of the fishermen that made the technology effective. Comparatively, the technology used in 
processing was much more complex and likely required specialized training to create products 
such as oil and hides. There was surprisingly little technological change found within the 
artifacts of the Hatteras dolphin fishery’s life history.  
 The historical record suggests economics were the main driving force in the North 
Carolina dolphin fishery at Hatteras. The products made from dolphins, notably the jaw oil, were 
valuable to Northern and surrounding markets (Angell 1981; Cecelski 2015:74; Whisnant 
2015:83-84). However, discussing the role of economics within this study was difficult. This was 
due to the presence of little to no sufficient statistical information on commodity prices or catch 
data to accurately examine the possible rise and fall of markets. 
 Finally, the very culture of the dolphin fishery is an area worth an additional 
anthropological study. Throughout much of the historical, archival and oral historical record, 
culture differed somewhat compared to other fisheries such as the whaling fishery. Contrary to 
the romanticism surrounding whaling, the dolphin fishery was not well liked by many of its 
fishermen. In one mention by Ernie Foster, a descendant of dolphin fishermen Ernal Foster, “My 
father knew that it was a job, but he didn’t like it because when they’d stick the dolphins they’d 
squeal” (Cecelski 2015). 
 While the fishery itself was not well liked by many of its fishermen, the strategic 
coordination used by the fishermen to catch dolphins provided fascinating insights. In much of 
the historical record, many argue that dolphins were intelligent creatures and required fishermen 
to use effective techniques to catch them (Cape May Wave 1884:3; Cecelski 2015:76; Couch 
2017 pers. comm; Midgett 2017 pers. comm). Schiffer’s behavioral chain model was beneficial 
in visualizing the organization, processes, and culture of the fishery.  
166 
 
 In addition to answering this research’s primary question, Schiffer’s behavioral chain 
model was useful in answering some of the mentioned secondary questions. As mentioned, 
technology and technological change were the driving focuses of this research. However, 
technological change studies did not shed light on North Carolina’s dolphin fishery at Hatteras 
given there was no evident technological change. The behavioral chain model was able to 
somewhat successfully visualize and demonstrate various objects used in the dolphin fishery at 
Hatteras and their roles within various activities. If applied to additional areas and periods of the 
North Carolina dolphin fishery, it is possible that technological change could shed light on the 
technology utilized within the fishery. 
 While technology and technological change studies guided this research, a few questions 
involving the role of geospatial and material cultural analysis were also answered. Firstly, 
geospatial and material culture analysis provided a great deal of information into the activities 
that took place within the North Carolina dolphin. While this research was only able to 
specifically address the fishery at Hatteras, it was able to provide visuals of the locations of 
dolphin harvesting. It is also evident that within the Hatteras fishery, it was solely a shore-based 
dolphin fishery. It is possible that it could have occurred in deep-sea regions of North Carolina. 
However, the relatively shallow environment of the area in the Bight of Hatteras was an ultimate 
influencing factor in staying with shore-based hunting.  
 Material culture analysis of North Carolina’s dolphin fishery artifacts also suggested 
patterns of object use that are like that of other US-based and global dolphin fishery cultures. 
Studies surrounding the technology employed in dolphin fisheries elsewhere are limited. 
However, there a several cases of the technology employed in other dolphin fisheries that show 
striking similarities to that of the North Carolina dolphin fishery. Perhaps the best modern 
167 
 
example comes from Japan at the Taiji dolphin fishery. A comprehensive study on the dolphin 
fishery at Taiji has not been undertaken. However, films such as The Cove (2009), the technique 
of using boats and netting for capture is evident.  
 Last, geospatial analysis of North Carolina’s dolphin fishery was beneficial in 
illuminating environmental patterns that are similar patterns located outside of North Carolina. 
As demonstrated in various areas where dolphin hunting either takes place or once took place, 
the environment for dolphin hunting generally occurred in shallow cove-like areas or near 
beaches. These environments essentially acted as trapping agents or ‘externs’ for the fishermen. 
Additional research will be needed to further identify other environments where dolphin hunting 
once took place.   
 
Limitations 
Throughout this research, a few limitations were evident. The goal of this research was to 
analyze the material culture of North Carolina’s dolphin fishery in its entirety. Unfortunately, 
only a small but significant area was able to be explored in-depth. While there was a significant 
amount of material culture related to the Hatteras dolphin fishery, many of them were only in 
photographs.  
 In addition to the limited material culture of the fishery, the behavioral chain model 
posed some challenges in this study. While the behavioral chain model itself offered some 
fascinating insights, it is clear the scope of its applicability can only go so far. This is evident in 
Schiffer’s behavioral chain model on the Hopi tribe. The behavioral chain model Schiffer 
provided a wealth of knowledge from a small object like maize. Adding more objects would 
create additional activities and thus complicate the behavioral chain model. An example of this 
168 
 
could have occurred with the introduction of dolphin fisheries from other regions of North 
Carolina where they most likely differed regarding hunting and processing. That said, it is clear 
the behavioral chain model requires a highly specific cultural element when beginning to analyze 
its related activities (Schiffer 1995:57-59). 
 Another limitation of this research was the processes surrounding oral history data 
collection. Multiple attempts of reaching out to fishermen or descendants of fishermen were 
made using various forms of media such as social media and newspaper articles. However, it was 
extremely difficult to find either of these. Unsurprisingly, it was unlikely to find anyone 
associated with the fishery because of it ending nearly one hundred years ago. Because of this, it 
limited the scope of the oral historical records influence on the analysis. 
 
Opportunities for Future Research 
This research brings up new additional questions. As a result, several avenues can be pursued. 
Much can still be uncovered with the North Carolina dolphin fishery. While the dolphin fishery 
at Hatteras proved to be one of the longest fisheries in North Carolina, several areas have yet to 
be researched. A couple of areas that are likely to yield a significant amount of information. The 
aerial photograph of the Hatteras Porpoise Factory was only recently discovered after fieldwork 
for this thesis was completed. An archaeological survey conducted in the specific area of Figure 
6.25 may yield significant information into the technology used to process dolphins.  The Cape 
Lookout and Bogue Inlet regions also may have more information on the dolphin fisheries. 
Several newspaper articles mentioned dolphin fisheries took place in the surrounding areas, 
particularly in Diamond City as noted by Jateff (2014). In addition, the North Carolina State 
169 
 
Archives are likely to have many unprocessed materials related to the Shell Castle dolphin 
fishery. 
 A study of the dolphin fisheries of North Carolina only begins to scratch the surface of 
marine resource extraction archaeology in this state. North Carolina is an area ripe with marine 
resources. Several marine resources, such as mullet, shark, and waterfowl, have yet to be fully 
explored within North Carolina’s maritime archaeology. Schiffer’s behavioral chain model is an 
excellent framework when interpreting the role of marine resources in maritime archaeology 
because of its excellent ability to organize and visualize the activities that took place along with 
forecasting potential technological change that took place.  
 Finally, there were several mentions throughout this research of the fish processing 
factories in North Carolina. The North Carolina Maritime Museum at Beaufort and North 
Carolina State Archives have a couple of collections on fishing companies, such as Harvey 
Smith’s Menhaden Company and the Caroon Crab Company. The techniques and technology 
utilized would provide an excellent opportunity into understanding the industrial processes 
surrounding these marine resources in North Carolina.
170 
 
REFERENCES  
Angell, Lou  
1981 The Porpoise Factory. pp. 20-23 & 39, The State Magazine, Raleigh, NC. 
 
Bass, George  
1966  Archaeology Under Water. Thames and Hudson, London, UK. 
 
Bimber, Bruce  
1994  Three Faces of Technological Determinism. In Does Technology Drive History: The 
Dilemma of Technological Determinism, Merrit Smith and Leo Marx, editors, pp. 79-100. 
The M.I.T. Press, Cambridge, MA. 
 
Binford, Lewis  
1962  Archaeology as Anthropology. American Antiquity 28:217-225. 
 
Bradley, Ryan  
2015  Where were the Whalers? An Investigation of the Archaeological, Historical, and 
Cultural Infleunces of North Carolina Whaling. Master's Thesis, Joyner Library, East 
Carolina University, Greenville. 
 
Bureau of Biological Survey 
1928 North Carolina Dolphin Fishery Historical Photograph Collection. Smithsonian 
Institution. Washington D.C. 
 
Cape May County Archives 
1883  Cape May County Corporation Book 1. Cape May County, New Jersey, Cape May, NJ 
 
Cape May County  
1880  Cape May County Census Records. Cape May County, Cape May, NJ 
 
Cape May Wave 
1884 November 8, 1884:3. Cape May, NJ 
1886 July 17, 1886:3. Cape May, NJ. 
 
Cecelski, David  
2000 A Historian's Coast: Adventures into the Tidewater Past. John F. Blair, Publisher, 
Winston-Salem, NC. 
2015  Of Time and the Sea: Nye’s Clock Oil and the Bottlenose Dolphin Fishery at Hatteras 
Island, North Carolina, in the Early Twentieth Century. North Carolina Historical 
Review 92(1):49-79. 
 
Childe, V.  
1929  The Danube in Prehistory. Oxford University Press, UK. 
 
Cline D, Hofstetter HW, Griffin J 
 
1997  Dictionary of Visual Science (4th ed.). Buttersworth-Heineman, Boston, MA 
 
Cobb, Collier  
1976  Collier Cobb Photographic Collection. University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill 
 
Cooke, John  
1885  Net for Catching Porpoises, NJ/USA. 
 
Cooke, Richard, Thomas Wake, Maria Martinez-Polanco, Maximo Jimenez-Acosta, Fernado 
Bustamante, Irene Holst, Alexandra Lara-Kraudy, Juan Martin and Stewart Redwood 
2015  Exploitation of dolphins (Cetacea: Delphinidae) at a 6000 yr old Preceramic site in the 
Pearl Island archipelago, Panama. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 6:733-756. 
 
Cooper, Kathryn L.  
2014  The Infamous Convict Museum Ship Success: An Investigation of Material Culture and 
Identity Formation Processes. Master's Thesis, East Carolina University, Greenville, NC. 
 
Corbin, Annalies  
1999  The Material Culture of Steamboat Passengers: Archaeological Evidence from the 
Missouri River. Springer, NY. 
 
Corkeron, P. J., R. J. Morris and M. M. Bryden  
1987  Interactions between bottlenose dolphins and sharks in Moreton Bay, Queensland. 
Aquatic Mammals Journal 13(3):109-113. 
 
Covington, Anthony  
1997  Modern Tanning Chemistry. Chemical Society Reviews 26(2):111-126. 
 
Cronin, Constance  
1962  An Analysis of Pottery Design Elements, Indicating Possible Relationships between 
Three Decorated Types. Fieldiana: Anthropology 53:105-114. 
 
Danil, K. and S. J. Chivers  
1998  Growth and reproduction of female short-beaked common dolphins. Marine Mammal 
Science 14:835-844. 
 
Dunbar, Gary  
1958 Historical Geography of the North Carolina Outer Banks. Louisiana State University 
Studies, Baton Rouge. 
 
Flannery, Kevin  
1964  The Middle Formative in the Tehuacan Valley: Its Pattern and Place in Mesoamerican 
Prehistory. Doctoral Dissertation or Master's Thesis, University of Chicago, IL. 
 
Gazda, S. K., R. C. Connor, R. K. Edgar and F. Cox  
172 
 
2005  A division of labour with role specialization in group-hunting bottlenose dolphins 
(Tursiops truncatus) off Cedar Key, Florida. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 
Royal Society B Biological Sciences. 
 
Lyons, Marcia and Gray, Damon  
1978a Damon Gray: The Porpoise Fishery – Part 1. Coastal Voices: An Oral History of the 
Outer Banks and Down East, NC, Hatteras 
1978b Damon Gray: The Porpoise Fishery - Part 2. Coastal Voices: An Oral History of the 
Outer Banks and Down East, NC, Hatteras 
 
Harris, Marvin  
1964  The Nature of Cultural Things. Random House, NY. 
 
Heithaus, M. R. and L. M. Dill  
2002  Food availability and tiger shark predation risk influence bottle habitat use. Journal of 
Ecology 83:480-491. 
 
Hiraguchi, Tetsuo  
1992  Catching Dolphins at the Mawaki Site, Central Japan, and its Contribution to Jomon 
Society. In Pacific northeast Asia in prehistory: hunter-fisher-gathers, farmers, and 
sociopolitical elites, C. M. Aikens and Song N. Rhee, editors, pp. 35-45. Washington 
State University Press, Seattle. 
 
Howard-Fusco, John 
2017  Culinary History of Cape May, A: Salt Oysters, Beach Plums & Cabernet. American 
Palate, Charleston, SC. 
 
Impact Assessment Inc. 
2005a Final Technical Report - Volume One: Ethnohistorical Description of Eight Villages 
Adjoining Cape Hatteras National Seashore and Interpretive Themes of History and 
Heritage. 311, Manteo, NC. 
2005b Final Technical Report – Volume Two: Ethnohistorical Description of Eight Villages 
Adjoining Cape Hatteras National Seashore and Interpretive Themes of History and 
Heritage. 311, Manteo, NC 
 
Jateff, Emily  
2014  Hain’t Bin Found Yet: The Search for Archaeological Evidence of Shore Whaling at 
Diamond City Shackleford Banks, North Carolina. Master's Thesis, Flinders University, 
Adelaide, AU 
 
Johnson, Matthew  
2010  Archaeological Theory: An Introduction. Blackwell Publishing Limited, West Sussex, 
UK. 
 
Kellogg, Remington,  
173 
 
1927 Remington Kellogg Papers (Box 10-Folder 2), Smithsonian Institution Archives, 
Washington DC 
 
Lefler, Hugh T. (editor)  
1967  A new Voyage to Carolina. University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill. 
 
Leggett, Don and Richard Dunn (editors)  
2012  Re-inventing the Ship: Science, Technology, and the Maritime World, 1800–1918. 
Ashgate Publishing, Ltd., Surrey, UK. 
 
Levine, Edward and Bonnie McCay  
1987  Technology Adoption among Cape May Fishermen. Society for Applied 
Anthropology 46(3):243-253. 
 
Mallison, Fred  
1998  The Civil War on the Outer Banks: A History of the Late Rebellion Along the Coast of 
North Carolina from Carteret to Currituck, with Comments on Prewar Conditions and an 
Account of Postwar Recovery. McFarland & Company, Inc., Publishers, Jefferson. 
 
Mann, J. and H. Barnett  
1999  Lethal tiger shark (Galeocerdo cuvier) attack on bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops sp.) calf: 
defense and reactions by mother. . Journal of Marine Mammal Sciences 15:568-575. 
 
Mannino, Marcello, Sahra Talamo, Antonio Tagliacozzo, Ivana Fiore, Olaf Nehlich, Marcello 
Piperno, Sebastiano Tusa, Carmine Collina, Rosaria Di Salvo, Vittoria Schimmenti and Michael 
Richards  
2015  Climate-driven environmental changes around 8,200 years ago favoured increases in 
cetacean strandings and Mediterranean hunter-gatherers exploited them. Scientific 
Reports 5(16288):1-12. 
 
McCord, John, Nathan Richards, George Huss and Sara Parkin  
2017  Video production of “Blood, Salt, and Oil: The History of North Carolina’s Dolphin 
Hunting Industry” Video. UNC Coastal Studies Institute, NC. 
 
McGuinn, Phillip 
2000 Shell Castle, a North Carolina Entrepôt, 1789-1820: A Historical and Archaeological 
Investigation. Master's Thesis, Joyner Library, East Carolina University, Greenville. 
 
Meyers, Julia  
2007  Prehistoric Wall Decoration In the American Southwest: A Behavioral Approach. 
Doctoral Dissertation, University of Arizona, Tucson. 
 
Michaux, R.R. 
1894 Sketches of Life In North Carolina: Embracing Incidents and Narratives, and Personal 
Adventures of the Author During Forty Years of Travel : with an Appendix, In Which the 
174 
 
Papacy Is Shown From the Scriptures to Be the Great Anti-Christ and the False and 
Corrupt System Is Exposed. W.C. Phillips, printer. Culler. 
 
Muckelroy, Keith  
1976  The Integration of Historical and Archaeological Data Concerning Historic Wreck Site: 
The Kennemerland. World Archaeology 7(3):280-290. 
1978  Maritime Archaeology. Cambridge University Press, UK. 
 
New Berne Weekly Journal  
1887  April 21, 1887. New Bern, NC 
 
New York Times 
1884 November 6, 1884:5. New York City 
 
National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration Office for Coastal Management 
2019 CanVis Distance Calculations. Digital Coast. Washington, DC. 
https://coast.noaa.gov/data/digitalcoast/pdf/canvis-height-horizon-calculation.pdf 
 
O'Brien, Michael, R. Lyrman and Michael Schiffer  
2005  Archaeology as a Process: Processualism and Its Progeny. The University of Utah Press. 
 
Parr, Ed  
1996 The Last American Whale-Oil Company: A History of NYE Lubricants, INC., 1844-1994. 
NYE Lubricants, Fairhaven, MA. 
 
Philadelphia Inquirer 
1884 April 15, 1884:2. Philadelphia, PA 
 
Porcasi, Judith and Harumi Fujita  
2000  The Dolphin Hunters: A Specialized Prehistoric Maritime Adaptation in the Southern 
California Channel Islands and Baja California. American Antiquity 65(3):543-566. 
 
Powell, William 
1958 Carolina Charter of 1663. N.C: State Department of Archives and History. Raleigh 
 
Psihoyos, Louie  
2009  The Cove. Participant Media, Taiji, JN. 
 
Rathje, William  
1974  The Garbage Project: A New Way of Looking at the Problems of Archaeology. 
Archaeology 27:236-241. 
 
Rollinson, John W.  
1891  John W. Rollinson Journal. Outer Banks History Center, Manteo, NC 
 
Reeves, R. R. & Mitchell, E. 
175 
 
1988 History of Whaling in and near North Carolina. National Marine Fisheries Service, 
Washington, DC. 
 
Robinson, R.   
1996 Trawling: The Rise and Fall of the British Trawl Fishery. University of Exeter Press, 
Exeter, UK 
 
Salomen, R.G. 
1887 Porpoise Leather, in Weekly Record (Beaufort), 27 January 1887:1 
 
Sassorossi, William  
2015  Defending the East Coast:  Adapting and Converting Commercial Ships for Military 
Operations. Master's Thesis, East Carolina University, Greenville, NC 
 
Savelle, James and Nobuhiro Kishigami  
2013  Anthropological Research on Whaling; Prehistoric, Historic, and Current Contexts. Senri 
Ethnological Studies 84:1-48 
 
Schiffer, Michael  
1987  Formation Processes of the Archaeological Record. University of New Mexico Press, 
Albuquerque. 
1995  Behavioral Archaeology. University of Utah Press. 
2005  The Electric Lighthouse in the Nineteenth Century: Aid to Navigation and Political 
Technology. Technology and Culture 45:275-305. 
2011 Studying Technological Change: A Behavioral Approach. University of Utah Press. 
 
Simpson Jr., Marcus B. and Simpson, Sallie W. 
1988 “The Pursuit of Leviathan: A History of Whaling on the North Carolina Coast” in The 
North Carolina Historical Review, Vol. 65, No. 1, pp. 1-51. 
1990 Whaling on the North Carolina Coast, Division of Archives and History, North Carolina 
Department of Cultural Resources, Raleigh. 
 
Skibo, J. and M. Schiffer  
2008  People and Things: A Behavioral Approach to Material Culture. Springer, NY 
 
Smith, Kathryn  
2010  Identification of Activity Areas Through Lithic Analysis - The Longhorn Site (41KT53) 
in the Upper Brazos River Basin, Kent County, Texas. Master's Thesis, Texas Tech 
University, Lubbock. 
 
Star of the Cape  
1883 October 19, 1883:3. Cape May, NJ. 
1884a February 1, 1884:3. Cape May, NJ. 
1884b April 11, 1884:3. Cape May, NJ. 
1884c November 7, 1884:3. Cape May, NJ. 
1885 March 20, 1885:3. Cape May, NJ. 
176 
 
Stevens, Louis  
1897  The History of Cape May County, New Jersey: from the Aboriginal Times to the Present 
Day. City of Cape May, New Jersey, Cape May. 
 
Stick, David 
1958 The Outer Banks of North Carolina, 1584-1958. University of North Carolina Press. 
Chapel Hill. 
 
Stier, Francis  
1975  Behavioral Chain Analysis of Yucca Remains at Antelope House. Kiva 41(1):57-64. 
 
Tar Heel 
1909 February 5, 1909:4, Elizabeth City, NC 
 
The Charlotte Democrat 
1895 November 1, 1895:1, Charlotte, NC 
 
The Charlotte Observer 
1896 May 24, 1896:4, Charlotte, NC 
 
The Commonwealth 
1885 April 16, 1885:4, Scotland Neck, NC 
 
The Independent 
1919  December 19, 1919:5, Elizabeth City, NC 
 
The Morning News 
1885 January 28, 1885:1, Wilmington, DE 
 
The Sun 
1912 March 3, 1912:57, New York City. 
 
The Union Republican  
1887 July 14, 1887:3. Winston-Salem, NC. 
 
Trigger, Bruce  
2006  A History of Archaeological Thought. Cambridge University Press. UK 
 
Tursi, Frank  
2014  Ca'e Bankers. Coastal Review Online, Newport, NC 
 
Weekly State Chronicle 
1887 August 11, 1887:3. Raleigh, NC. 
 
Whisnant, David and Anne  
177 
 
2015 Gateway to the Atlantic World: Cape Lookout National Seashore Historic Resource 
Study. Cultural Resources Division Southeast Regional Office National Park Service, 
Atlanta, GA. 
 
White, Leslie  
1949  The Science of Culture: A Study of Man and Civilization. Grove Press, NY 
 
Wells, R. S. and M. D. Scott  
1999  Bottlenose dolphins in: Ridgeway, S.A. In Vol. 6. The Second Book of Dolphins and 
Porpoises, R. Harrison, editor, pp. 137-182. San Diego Academic Press, San Diego, CA.
178 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
APPENDIX A 
Internal Review Board Informed Consent Forms 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
180 
 
 
 
181 
 
 
 
 
182 
 
 
 
183 
 
 
 
184 
 
 
 
185 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
APPENDIX B 
National Park Service Scientific Research and Collecting Permit  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
187 
 
 
 
 
188 
 
 
 
 
189 
 
 
190 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
APPENDIX C 
Artifact Forms and Artifact Photographs 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
192 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
193 
 
 
 
 
194 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
195 
 
 
 
196 
 
 
197 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
198 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
199 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
200 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
201 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
202 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
203 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
204 
 
 
 
 
 
 
205 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
206 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
207 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
208 
 
 
 
 
 
209 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
210 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
211 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
212 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
213 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
214 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
215 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
216 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
217 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
218 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
219 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
220 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
221 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
222 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
223 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
224 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
225 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
226 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
227 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
228 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
229 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
230 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
231 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
232 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
233 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
234 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
235 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
236 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
237 
 
 
238 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
239 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
240 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
241 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
242 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
243 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
244 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
245 
 
 
 
 
246 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
247 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
248 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
249 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
250 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
251 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
252 
 
 
 
253 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
254 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
255 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
256 
 
 
257 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
258 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
259 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
260 
 
 
261 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
262 
 
 
263 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
264 
 
 
 
 
 
 
265 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
266 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
267 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
268 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
269 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
270 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
271 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
272 
 
 
273 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
274 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
275 
 
 
 
276 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
277 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
278 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
279 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
280 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
281 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
282 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
283 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
284 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
285 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
286 
 
 
287 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
288 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
289 
 
 
290 
 
 
291 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
292 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
293 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
294 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
295 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
296 
 
 
297 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
298 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
299 
 
 
300 
 
 
301 
 
 
302 
 
 
303 
 
 
304 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
305 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
306 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
307 
 
 
308 
 
 
309 
 
 
310 
 
 
311 
 
 
 
312 
 
 
 
313 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
314 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
315 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
316 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
317 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
318 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
319 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
320 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
321 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
322 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
323 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
324 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
325 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
326 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
327 
 
 
328 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
329 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
330 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
331 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
332 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
333 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
334 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
335 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
336 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
337 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
338 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
339 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
340 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
341 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
342 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
343 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
344 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
345 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
346 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
347 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
348 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
349 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
350 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
351 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
352 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
353 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
354 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
355 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
356 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
357 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
358 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
359 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
360 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
361 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
362 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
363 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
364 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
365 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
366 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
367 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
368 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
369 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
370 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
371 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
372 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
373 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
374 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
375 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
376 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
377 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
378 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
379 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
380 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
381 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
382 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
383 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
384 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
385