Chapter 2
INSECTS
FORMERLY USED AS FOOD BY INDIGENOUS POPULATIONS
OF
NORTH AMERICA NORTH OF MEXICO
Taxa and life
stages consumed
Bruchidae (seed
beetles)
Algarobius (=
Bruchus) spp., larvae, pupae
Neltumius (=
Bruchus) spp., larvae, pupae
Cerambycidae
(long-horned beetles)
Ergates spiculatus Leconte, larva
Monochamus
maculosus Hald., larva
Monochamus
scutellatus Leconte, larva
Neoclytus
conjunctus Leconte, larva
Prionus
californicus Mots., larva, adult
Rhagium lineatum Olivier, larva
Xylotrechus
nauticus Mann., larva
Curculionidae
(snout beetles, weevils)
Rhynchophorus
cruentatus (Fabr.), larva
Dytiscidae
(predaceous diving beetles)
Scarabaeidae
(scarab beetles)
Cyclocephala
dimidiata Burmeister, adult
Cyclocephala
villosa Burm., adult
Phyllophaga fusca Froelich, adult
Polyphylla crinita Leconte, adult
Scientific name(s)
unrecorded
Ephydridae (shore
flies)
Ephydra cinerea Jones (= E.
gracilis Packard), pupa
Ephydra macellaria Eggar (= E.
subopaca Loew), pupa
Hydropyrus (=
Ephydra) hians Say, pupa
Oestridae (warble
flies, bot flies)
Hypoderma bovis Linn., larva
Oedemagena tarandi (Linn.), larva
Rhagionidae (snipe
flies)
Atherix sp., egg masses
with adult females
Tipulidae (crane
flies)
Holorusia
rubiginosa Loew, larva
Tipula derbyi Doane, larva
Tipula quaylii Doane, larva
Tipula simplex Doane, larva
Scientific name(s)
unreported
Belostomatidae
(giant water bugs)
Lethocerus
americanus Leidy, adult
Aphididae (aphids)
Cicadidae
(cicadas)
Anthophoridae
(digger bees)
Anthophorid
honey
Apidae (honey
bees, bumble bees)
Bombus
appositus Cresson,
larva/pupa
Bombus
nevadensis Cresson,
larva/pupa
Bombus
terricola occidentalis
Greene, larva/pupa
Bombus
vosnesenskii Radoszkowski,
larva/pupa
Cynipidae
(gall wasps, etc.)
Cynipid-produced
oak galls
Formicidae
(ants)
Camponotus sp., larva, adult
Formica rufa Linn., larva/pupa/adult?
Lasius niger Linn., larva/pupa/adult?
Myrmecocystus
melliger Forel,
honeypots
Myrmecocystus
mexicanus hortideorum McCook,
honeypots
Pogonomyrmex
californicus Buckley,
larva/pupa/adult?
Pogonomyrmex
desertorum Wheeler,
larva/pupa/adult?
Pogonomyrmex
occidentalis Cresson, larva/pupa/adult?
Pogonomyrmex
owyheei Cole,
larva/pupa/adult?
Pogonomyrmex sp., adult
Vespidae
(paper wasps, yellowjackets, hornets)
Vespula
diabolica Saussure,
larva/pupa
Vespula
pennsylvanica Saussure,
larva/pupa
Vespula spp., larvae/pupae
Rhinotermitidae
(subterranean termites)
Reticulitermes
tibialis Banks
Scientific
name(s) unreported
Arctiidae
(tiger moths, etc.)
Arctia caja
americana Harris, larva
Lasiocampidae
(tent caterpillars)
Malacosoma spp., larvae
Megathymidae
(giant skippers)
Megathymus
yuccae Boisduval &
Leconte, larva
Noctuidae
(noctuids)
Heliothis zea
Boddie, larva
Homoncocnemis
fortis Grote, larva
Spodoptera
frugiperda Smith, larva
Saturniidae
(giant silk moths)
Coloradia
pandora Blake, larva,
pupa
Hyalophora (=
Platysamia; = Samia) euryalus Boisduval,
larva (see Essig 1958, Arnett 1985)
Sphingidae
(sphinx or hawk moths)
Hyles lineata
Fabr., larva
Manduca sexta
Johannsen (= Macrosila
carolina (author?)), larva
Scientific name(s) unreported
Aeshnidae
(darners)
Aeshna
multicolor Hagen, nymph
Scientific
name(s) unreported
Acrididae
(short-horned grasshoppers)
Arphia
pseudonietana Thomas,
adult
Camnula
pellucida Scudder, adult
Melanoplus
bivittatus Say, adult
Melanoplus
devastator Scudder,
adult
Melanoplus
differentialis Thomas,
adult
Melanoplus
femurrubrum DeGeer,
adult
Melanoplus
sanguinipes Fabr. (= M.
mexicanus mexicanus Suassure;
reported as M. atlanis Riley by Essig 1931), adult
Melanoplus sp.
Oedaloenotus
enigma Scudder, adult
Schistocerca
Shoshone Thomas (= S.
venusta Scudder), adult
Gryllacrididae
(wingless long-horned grasshoppers)
Stenopelmatus
fuscus Haldeman
Gryllidae
(crickets)
Gryllus
assimilis Fabr., complex
Tettigoniidae
(long-horned grasshoppers)
Isoperla sp., nymph, adult
Pteronarcidae
(giant stoneflies)
Pteronarcys
californica Newport,
nymph, adult
As with
indigenous populations nearly everywhere, North American Indian tribes made
wide use of insects as food. Dozens of
species have been recorded or are highly suspect on the basis of distribution,
abundance and ecology. Data on the use
of insects in aboriginal cultures are primarily of two types, ethnographic and
archaeological, and it has been particularly necessary to draw upon the full
range of methodology in North America where the original cultures have been so
completely enveloped by a later European-derived culture. Ethnographic data are derived from direct
observations by anthropologists, observations by non-anthropologists (e.g.,
ethnohistoric accounts), memory culture, continuation of practices into the
present, and inferences from ethnographic data from neighboring groups. Sutton (1988: 1-10) points out pitfalls relative to the
gathering and interpretation of each kind, and provides some insight as to why
the importance of insect consumption in aboriginal societies has been
under-reported and underestimated.
Sutton
points out that few of the observers were trained in anthropology, and fewer
yet in the natural sciences. Observers
from European cultural backgrounds were often biased in their observations of
insect consumption or disregarded it entirely.
In addition, as insects were usually processed and fragmented, they
often could not be recognized by ethnographers, and so were not recorded. As a result, Sutton concludes that it is
probable that a much greater number and variety of insects were utilized by the
Indians of the Great Basin than has been reported. In addition, misidentifications appear to
have been frequent, e.g., the term "locust" used interchangeably for
grasshoppers, crickets and cicadas. This
affects conclusions as to seasonality, technology employed, and caloric return,
and thus can lead to an underestimation of the importance of insects in the
aboriginal diet and a corresponding overestimation of the importance of other
dietary components.
Relative
to archaeological data, poor preservation and inadequate field and laboratory
methods result in a paucity of data.
Sutton discusses reasons for this, and why even coprolite analysis is
not as fruitful as might be expected.
Coprolite evidence exists for the use of several kinds of insects. Sutton notes that insect remains are
frequently encountered during flotation analyses of soil samples from features
and hearths in archaeological sites, but they generally are not identified
because they are considered unimportant.
Coprolites could yield much more information than has been the case to
date. "The recovery of
archaeological evidence of insect use suffers most from indifference,
disinterest, or ignorance on the part of archaeologists who are not attuned to
the recovery of such data."
Flotation samples must be given special attention and new data recovery
techniques must be employed.
As far
as known, insects never comprised the staple in any economy, but they
were often critical resources that were more than an occasional addition to the
diet. Sutton notes that Great Basin
investigators are now beginning to study resources in view of their seasonal
availability, nutritional content, and search and processing time, but, noting
the usually cursory treatment of insect consumption by anthropologists, he
states (p. 2): "From an ecological
standpoint, an understanding of, or at least a delineation of, all parts of an
economic system is necessary for an understanding of the system as a whole and
of its interactions with other systems."
Many components, including insects are poorly known. Anthropologists often consider that insects
are "famine food and backup resources, usually taken on an individual
encounter basis," yet, Sutton states (p. 3): "While it is probably true that insects
were taken individually during the course of other activities, the overall
procurement of insects appears to have been systematic and not confined to
chance." He concludes that,
"insects were commonly and extensively used and that they played an
important part in fulfilling the nutritive requirements of the Great Basin
Indians."
Sutton
concluded that crickets, grasshoppers, shore flies, caterpillars, and ants were
the most significant insect resources and they were utilized by almost every
Great Basin group. Other insects,
including bees, yellowjackets, aphids, mesquite beetles, june beetles,
stoneflies and lice were also eaten but in lesser quantity. Sutton disagrees with the view that insects
were mostly obtained on an "encounter" basis, stating that, "the
ethnohistoric and ethnographic data indicate that considerable planning,
travel, and effort was often involved in insect procurement." Such effort suggests that aboriginal groups
were knowledgeable about the seasonal and geographic availability of insects
and that the insect resources were fully integrated into aboriginal economic
systems. Although fresh insects were
available primarily from April to October, many accounts specify that insect
foods were stored for later use, often in large quantities. According to Sutton, "Stored insects,
combined with stored plant products (with which insects were often mixed) may
have formed a balanced diet providing for a comfortable winter."
Although
cost/benefit ratios for collecting most insect resources have not been
determined, Sutton notes that studies have shown high return rates for Mormon
crickets and grasshoppers. Collecting
and processing of insects in the Great Basin was conducted primarily by women,
although in "drives" requiring the participation of many people, men,
women and children probably participated.
In
summary, Sutton concludes that insects probably constituted a major rather than
a minor resource in the Great Basin, and states that "Anthropologists
should continue to seek elucidation of the use of insect foods, both ethnographically
and archaeologically, and should consider insect foods important resources that
were fully integrated into the various economies of the aboriginal Great
Basin."
The
point made by Sutton that if the role of insects in North American aboriginal
economies is underestimated, the role of other components is therefore
overestimated and we lack an accurate understanding of the systems as a whole,
is of particular interest and has wide implications. If this is true for North America, it is
probably equally true for Africa, Asia and elsewhere inasmuch as most of the
early information was furnished by Europeans.
The historical record of insect consumption may be an excellent example
of history distorted by being seen only through the eyes of those who wrote it.
Several
points come into focus as one peruses the North American literature:
1. Insect consumption was widespread among
tribes in western North America, but not in the eastern part of the
continent. Waugh (1916)
and Carr (1951) are among the few reports from east of the
Mississippi River. On the other hand,
not all western tribes used insects (see Dorsey 1884, Ray 1933, Voegelin
1938, and Barnett 1939, for example). Hoffman (1896) suggested that
the Menomini did not eat insects and other "loathsome food" because
they had "always lived in a country where game, fish, and small fruits
were found in greater or lesser abundance," and Skinner (1910)
suggests that "the universal practice of agriculture south of the Great
Lakes" obviated any need for insects as food.
The
reasons suggested by Hoffman and Skinner would seem to be discounted, however,
by numerous reports from the West that the Indians relished insects in the
midst of abundant food resources. Dixon
(1905) states, regarding the Northern Maidu in the lower Sierra region,
"Of animal food [deer, elk, rabbits, etc.] there was an abundance. . . .
Yellow-jacket larvae were, however, eagerly sought, as were also
angle-worms. Grasshoppers, locusts, and
crickets were highly esteemed, and in their dried condition were much used in
trade." Muir (1911),
described a great variety and abundance of foods, then stated, "Strange to
say, they seem to like the lake larvae [Hydropyrus hians pupae] best of
all." According to Ross (1956),
despite a profusion of salmon, buffalo and vegetables, the Snake Indians resort
to "the most nauseous and disgusting articles of food," such as
crickets, grasshoppers and ants.
2. Insects were an integral part of the seasonal
rounds of food gathering. This is
evident in many reports, but quick insight on the role of insects within the
context of food gathering can be provided by quoting from the excellent and
concise description by Emma Lou Davis (1962) of the seasonal
activities and locations of the Mono Lake Paiute. Mono Lake is located at the base of the
Sierra Nevada, within the Upper Sonoran Life Zone at an elevation of 6,400
feet. Davis states (p. 24):
Due to this climatic variability and
to the range in altitudes the area offered a wide range of seasonal foods which
were attractive to hunter-gatherers.
From April through October different natural food crops matured in turn
throughout the territory. The activities
of the Mono Lake Paiute, and of other aboriginal travelers and visitors, were
geared to this cycle of food events. At
each season the people had different sorts of camps, in different places and
with significantly different artifact assemblages.
The Kuzedika had only a stone-age
tool kit, [but] their culture was characterized by a number of highly developed
specialties which permitted them to cope successfully with their unpredictable
environment. In common with other
Basin-Plateau peoples they possessed a diversified complex of beautifully made
baskets, permitting them to collect, toast and winnow tiny seeds and fine meal.
They used metates and manos,
mortars, stone bowls, and pestles. With
this milling equipment they could reduce hard or tough foods to an edible
consistency. They made warm fur robes by
weaving twined strips of rabbit pelt into a fibre warp. They understood how to process and store
protein foods. Most particularly, they
had an encyclopedic knowledge of the ecology of which they formed a part. They were clever at devising ways of
harvesting every seed, grub and rat in their habitat. They ate everything they could digest and
knew precisely where and when it could be found and the best means of procuring
it.
The staffs of life of the Kuzedika
were greens, roots and fruits; seeds of grasses; fly larvae [actually Hydropyrus
hians pupae], pine tree caterpillars [Coloradia pandora larvae],
rodents, lizards, rabbits and occasional large game. The great winter staple was pine nuts. . . .
During an average year the Paiute
schedule of camping and collecting ran as follows: In winter, the groups broke up into separate
families. The families lived either in
the pine nut groves, close to their caches of nuts, or else in sheltered coves
around the warmer east end of the lake.
Here they subsisted on rodents and stored foods. . . .
In March, when the sun and the deer
returned, Kuzedika families moved to the west end of the lake and camped on
sunny, well-drained knolls near streams with gallery forests of aspens. The first new food activities in spring were
the hunting of deer and the collecting of fresh greens for which the people
were starved. . . .
By June groups of people moved down
to the summer grass sites. . . . These meadow camps served as a base for
collecting grass seeds, berries, roots and tubers. They were also a point of departure for more
distant and varied collecting activities.
Each summer the whole population migrated to the lake shores in order to
gather and process fly larvae, which piled up in windrows along the beaches. Open camps appear to have extended for miles
along high strand lines at the west end of the lake, where fresh water was
available. The wealth of food near the
lake attracted other people from miles around.
Even the unfriendly Washo paid regular visits to Mono Lake. The high percentage of projectile points
(some of them very large spear points) at beach sites suggests defensiveness or
an armed truce. . . .
In addition to its appeal as a food
larder, Mono Lake basin was a cross-roads for trade and travel [and] many other
people came and went through the home range of the Kuzedika. This situation was, of course, a potential
source of inter-group friction but appears only occasionally to have caused
outbreaks of armed hostility. The Paiute
were not an aggressive people and territoriality was but weakly developed among
these transient collectors.
On alternate summers, in the early
part of July, the Kuzedika and scattered groups of visitors migrated 15 miles
south to the Jeffrey pine forests near Indiana Summit. Here the caterpillars of a moth, Coloradia
pandora, completed their biennial cycle and emerged to feed on the pine
needles. Smudge fires were built;
circular trenches (still faintly visible) were dug around the bases of selected
trees. The trapped and stupified worms
were then collected, sun-dried and stored in slab shelters, a few of which are
still standing.
If the year were favorable, autumn
brought in the most important of all food crops: the pine nuts. Families worked together to amass great piles
of green cones, still tightly closed to protect the contained nuts. The cones were piled within retaining rings
of stones, covered with grass, boughs and slabs of rock and left as winter
stores. . . . If the harvest of pinyon nuts had been an adequate one, families
built brush tipis with countersunk floors and wintered near their caches. In the scattered winter communities people
trapped small game, gambled at Nayel'we, the popular Hand Game, told myths in
endless song-recitive during the long evenings and waited for the returning sun
to bring another cycle of collecting.
3. Some insects undoubtedly yielded a very high
energy return for the energy expended in their harvest. Although few experimental data are available,
this seems especially evident from the many vivid accounts of grasshopper and
Mormon cricket "drives" (see under Orthoptera: Acrididae and Tettigoniidae) and the
large-scale harvests of shore fly pupae (Diptera: Ephydridae) and pandora moth caterpillars
(Lepidoptera: Saturniidae). Madsen and Kirkman (1988)
describe a special, but recurring, situation in which the return rate from
collection of grasshoppers washed ashore at Great Salt Lake was at least 16
times that of any local seed resource. Madsen
(1989) provides data suggesting that the return rates from Mormon crickets
collected by hand exceeded those from all local plant resources and compared
favorably with those from small and large game animals. It is likely that return rates from Mormon
crickets collected during the large, organized drives described by early
observors would have far exceeded those that can be obtained by
hand-collecting. Simms (1984),
although he makes no mention of edible insects, provides useful information on
the kilocalories returned per hour of work for various Great Basin collected
food resources, both plant and animal.
4. Insects, when dried, were storable for use in
the future and were an important winter food.
Grasshoppers, Mormon crickets, shore fly pupae, pandora moth
caterpillars, cicadas and ants were among the insects stored (e.g., Dixon
1905, Elliott 1909, Muir 1911, Steward 1941, Davis
1965, and Downs 1966, among others).
5. Insects were important items of trade among
tribes (e.g., Dixon 1905, Steward 1933, J. Davis 1961),
with grasshoppers, pandora caterpillars and shore fly pupae among the insects
most widely traded. Accounts of Indian
attempts to trade their edible insect preparations to Whites, however, are
frequently humorous (see, for example, Bidwell 1890). Disputes concerning insect collecting rights
sometimes arose among Indian tribes or individual families. Steward (1933: 245-246), for
example, cites Muir to the effect that families and tribes claimed sections of
the shore at Mono Lake where the windrows of shore fly pupae washed up and
disputes arose over encroachment into a neighbor's territory. Regarding pandora caterpillars, Miller
and Hutchinson (1928: 158-160) related that "...the
Monos, lured by the tempting collecting grounds, had crossed the range [the
Sierra Nevada] and gathered caterpillars from areas that were considered
exclusive worming grounds of another tribe.
This caused a serious break in diplomatic relations between the two
tribes and very nearly resulted in a great Pe-ag'gie war."
Conversely
to most reports, Heizer (1978) shows only three recorded
ethnographic instances of insects traded as food items from one tribe to
another in California.
Essig's (1931)
discussion is of particular interest because it is the first to provide the
specific identity (scientific names) of many of the insects that were, or
probably were, used as food in western North America. His information is incorporated under the
appropriate insect orders below. Essig
(1934), as did Davis (1962) and others later, extolled the intimate
knowledge of the Indians about natural history, including the life cycles and
habits of insects. He says (page 181):
Indians probably knew a great deal
more about certain facts concerning the natural instincts and habits of insects
than the white race will ever know. The
aborigines of California literally lived with their tiny six-legged brothers
and liked them in more ways than one.
Apparently there were no feelings of rivalry on the part of the red men
as is so often expressed to-day by the entomological economists who class
insects as man's greatest rivals on this earth.
The Indians accepted nature as it was without carrying out any great
schemes to replace the forests and the prairies with cultivated fields and
great cities.
Finally,
although our discussion here is limited to food, insects were much more than
food in the lives of the Indians. Hitchcock
(1962) has discussed a number of aspects in Indian culture, including
the spiritual power of insects; insects as omens and symbols; their use in
medicine, magic and witchcraft; influence on the growth and development of
children; use of products for various purposes such as ornaments, artwork,
dyes, not to mention honey and beeswax; domestication of insects of various
kinds; use as food (briefly); and the Indian view of insect control. Hitchcock, as did Essig before him, suggests
that the American Indian had a much more intimate view of himself in relation
to nature than we do and insects were part of the world around him. Indians in general did not regard insects as
pests in the same manner that we do.
This was partly because the Indian economy was such that insects did not
make such recognizable demands on it and partly because of their spiritual and
other importance. A point made by both Hitchcock
and Essig is that, in general, those groups that made the most use of
insects or insect products had great knowledge about the biology and
identification of their insects, a principle that we will see applies to
indigenous people in other continents as well.
DeFoliart (1991)
listed more than 70 species of insects known or presumed to have been used as
food by North American tribes. Included were representatives of 12 insect
orders and 28 families. DeFoliart (1994)
described a number of insect foods of the American Indians and incidents showing
how early whites reacted to them. The
author concluded: "As might be expected from our European cultural
heritage, some early American whites looked with open disgust at the insect
foods of the American Indians. It is
interesting, though, that so often . . . . these cross-cultural encounters
relative to food seemed dominated by feelings of mutual tolerance, curiosity
and respect and were described with a sense of humor."
Ikeda
et al
(1993) reported that some 500 descendants of Miwok-speaking Native
Americans live in Mariposa County, California, and that 50 percent of the
families live below the federal poverty level and are unable to afford the kind
of food that ensures an adequate diet.
The authors report:
Some families augmented their food
supply in traditional ways: 47% gathered wild berries, nuts, mushrooms and
other plants; 67% said their grandparents and parents traditionally used wild
plants as foods, and 81% said this knowledge had been passed on to them by
their elders. . .[22% gardened, 26% fished, 14% hunted] . . . Many Miwok
recalled foods their grandparents ate that they do not eat: insects such as
pine tree worms, Monarch butterfly larvae and grasshoppers; animals like
squirrel, Mono Lake shrimp, quail, deer, rabbit, bear and hedge hog; and plant
foods such as acorn mush, pine nuts, wild vegetables and berries. Some of these foods, particularly the
insects, are not considered food by the dominant culture. This may have influenced these Native
Americans to abandon them as food sources.
Sutton (1995)
reiterates the importance of insects in prehistoric diet and technology and of
their procurement in determining settlement/subsistence patterns. He also
re-emphasizes and expands on his 1988 criticisms of "Western bias" on
the part of anthropologists, ethnographers and archaeologists in assessing the
role of insects, especially as food. In
the interpretation of study results, there is an over-emphasis on male-oriented
subsistence activities and "big ticket" economic animals, particularly
mammals, while insects, which are not very mobile, are considered part of
"gathering" which is done by women and children. The author discusses in detail the reasons
for the low archaeological "visibility" of insects.
See
also Lowie (1909b, insects as food of the Assiniboine) and Osborne (1923,
insects in coprolites).
Coleoptera
Bruchidae (seed beetles)
Algarobius (= Bruchus) spp., larvae, pupae
Neltumius (= Bruchus) spp., larvae, pupae
Sutton (1988: 57-60) notes that bruchid beetles constituted
an "automatic inclusion of animal protein in processed mesquite."
Three genera of bruchids common in mesquite in North America are Algarobius,
Neltumius and Mimosestes (Kingsolver et al 1977: 113,
Table 6-3). There may be as many as
three generations per year, and as many as 80% of the pods may be infested by
the latter part of the season (Glendening and Paulsen 1955:
9; vide Sutton 1988), thus it was almost axiomatic that the bruchids would be a
part of mesquite harvest. Regarding the
harvest of mesquite pods, Bell and Castetter (1937:
22-23); vide Sutton 1988: 59) observed:
When stored in the form of whole or
dry pods, partially pulverized, they soon became a living mass, since an
insect, a species of Bruchus, was present in almost every seed. To the Pima or any other tribe of Indians,
this made little difference. The insects
were not removed but accepted as an agreeable ingredient of the flour,
subsequently made from the beans. If
reduced to a fine flour soon after gathering, the larvae still remained within
the beans and became a part of the meal, forming an homogenous mass of animal
and vegetable matter.
Hooper (1920: 357)
noted that the Desert Cahuilla ate mesquite beans that were "worm eaten in
spots, but regardless of this, they are all pounded together."
Bye (1972: 94)
gives the history of the botanical collections made by Edward Palmer and John
Wesley Powell and reviews the ethnobiology of the southern Paiutes, which lived
in southern Utah, adjacent northern Arizona, and southern Nevada. Relative to the mesquite, Prosopis
glandulosa Torr. var. torreyana, and the screwbean, P. pubescens
Benth., the fruits of which were important as food, especially the starchy
inner portions and the seeds, often contained Bruchus larvae which were
eaten along with the fruits. Now that
bruchid-containing pods have become unacceptable to some tribes such as the
Pima and Cahuilla, infestations can be controlled by heat-treatment as is the
Seri custom in Mexico (Felger 1977: 163).
Mesquite
seeds in a cached ceramic olla, or storage jar, recovered from CA-RIV-519 in
southeastern California (ethnographic territory of the Desert Cahuilla, and
radiocarbon dated to within the past several hundred years), showed evidence of
insect activity within the bean matrix (Swenson 1984: 249). This was probably the result of bruchid
beetles infesting the beans when they were still nutritionally viable.
Cerambycidae (long-horned beetles)
Ergates spiculatus Leconte, larva
Monochamus maculosus Hald., larva
Monochamus scutellatus Leconte, larva
Neoclytus conjunctus Leconte, larva
Prionus californicus Mots., larva, adult
Rhagium lineatum Olivier, larva
Xylotrechus nauticus Mann., larva
Essig (1931)
states that the fat wood-boring cerambycid grubs, some of which measure up to 60
mm in length, were especially relished by the California Indians. Species mentioned include: Ergates spiculatus Leconte and Prionus
californicus Mots. (obtained from old logs and stumps of coniferous trees,
and the latter also from various deciduous trees); Rhagium lineatum
Olivier (beneath the bark of dead pine trees in the foothills and lowlands
during the winter and spring); Xylotrechus nauticus Mann., Neoclytus
conjunctus Lec. and other species of these genera (under the bark of
various deciduous trees); Monochamus maculosus Hald., and M.
scutellatus Lec. (in fire-scorched, injured and dead coniferous
trees). These and "countless"
other kinds of cerambycid grubs from all kinds of vegetation were dug out and
eaten, usually raw.
Roust (1967: 56,
82) reported adults of Prionus sp. (probably californicus) in
prehistoric human coprolites from Lovelock Cave in western Nevada. The heads of the beetles were not found,
"indicating that they were either bitten or torn off prior to ingestion,
without chewing, of the whole beetle."
See
also Powers (1877a, cerambycids as a food of the Nishinam of Pacer County,
California) and Zigmond (1986, as a food of the Kawaiisu). It is surprising that, considering the
extensive worldwide use of cerambycid grubs, and that hundreds of species occur
in North America, there have been so few reports of their use as food here.
Curculionidae (snout beetles, weevils)
Rhynchophorus cruentatus (Fabr.), larva
Ghesquièré (1947)
indicates by the following (translation) that this species was consumed:
"In his interesting History of Entomology, Essig (1931) devoted a
chapter to edible insects in North America; however, he neglects palmicoles in
it and does not cite (cf. Bowdman, 1888, and Kunze, 1916) the boring Rhynchophorus
cruentatus of the saw palmetto and the date tree, whose larvae are
nevertheless eaten by the natives."
The species occurs in Florida and nearby states in the southeastern
United States, and southward through the Caribbean region.
Dytiscidae (predaceous diving beetles)
Cybister explanatus (author?), adult
Roust (1967)
reported adults of Cybister sp. (explanatus?) (pp. 56, 60, 84) in
prehistoric human coprolites from Lovelock Cave in western Nevada, and C.
explanatus and unidentified insect parts in prehistoric human coprolites
from nearby Hidden Cave (p. 66). As with
the cerambycid adults mentioned above, the heads had been bitten or torn off
prior to ingestion, without chewing, of the whole beetles.
Also
see Hrdlicka (1908, dytiscids as a food of the Tarahumare, southwestern U.S.).
Scarabaeidae (scarab beetles).
Cyclocephala dimidiata Burmeister, adult
Cyclocephala villosa Burm., adult
Phyllophaga fusca Froelich, adult
Polyphylla crinita Leconte, adult
Indians
in Madera County, California, were reported to have regularly eaten the adults
of "the white-striped June beetle," Polyphylla crinita Leconte
(Essig 1931). Sutton (1988:79)
reports (via personal communication from Nancy Peterson Walter) that the Owens
Valley and Mono Lake Paiute roasted June beetles (possibly Phyllophaga fusca)
as late as 1981. These insects may have
been used by other groups as well, but there are no other specific data. Sutton
notes that other June beetles occurring in the desert areas of Arizona and
California include Cyclocephala villosa and C. dimidiata.
Miscellaneous Coleoptera
White
grubs from the soil and weevil grubs in nuts are mentioned by Essig (1931)
as food in California, but no specific observations are mentioned. Essig notes that the larvae of leaf beetles
(Chrysomelidae) and ladybird beetles (Coccinellidae) were probably not eaten
because of their offensive body secretions.
According to Ebeling (1986: 368), the Cahuilla used as
food an insect (probably a beetle larva) gathered from Australian saltbush (an
introduced plant) when it bloomed.
Diptera
Ephydridae (shore flies)
Ephydra cinerea Jones (= E. gracilis Packard), pupa
Ephydra macellaria Egger (= E. subopaca Loew),
pupa
Hydropyrus (= Ephydra) hians Say, pupa
There are numerous reports on the
harvesting of shore flies, mainly the pupae of Hydropyrus (= Ephydra)
hians Say, and their use was undoubtedly widespread. They were traded, and some groups traveled
long distances to obtain them. They were
available in great quantities and were storable enough to serve as winter
provisions. Sutton (1988: 45)
notes that other species of shore flies were probably also used, particularly Ephydra
cinerea Jones (= gracilis Packard) which coexists with H. hians
in the Great Salt Lake and elsewhere.
The presence of two sizes is mentioned in one early ethnographic
reference, and E. cinerea is much smaller than H. hians. Although the larvae were frequently mentioned
as the stage consumed, Ebeling (1986: 103-104) and others have
noted that it is primarily the pupae that wash up on shore where collection
occurs.
Zenas
Leonard, in his narrative of his travels written in 1839 (Wagner 1904:
166-167), writes of the Pai-utes (or Diggers) at Humboldt Lake: "When the wind rolls the waters onto the
shore, these flies [shore flies] are left on the beach - the female Indians
then carefully gather them into baskets made of willow branches, and lay them
exposed to the sun until they become perfectly dry, when they are laid away for
winter provender. These flies, together
with grass seed, and a few rabbits, is their principal food during the winter
season." (Ebeling, 1986:
104, citing E. Strong, 1969, identifies Ephydra subopaca Packard
as the species, and Great Salt Lake as the locality referred to in this
account.)
Fremont (1845: 154
[1988 reprint]) described [what lake?] a windrow 10-20 feet in breadth and 7-12
inches in depth, composed entirely of the "skins of worms, about the size
of a grain of oats, which had been washed up by the waters of the lake." Alluding to this later, Fremont tells of an
old hunter, Mr. Joseph Walker, who informed him that:
. . . wandering with a party of men
in a mountain country east of the great California range, he surprised a party
of several Indian families encamped near a small salt lake, who abandoned their
lodges at his approach, leaving everything behind them. Being in a starving condition, they were
delighted to find in the abandoned lodges a number of skin bags, containing a
quantity of what appeared to be fish, dried and pounded. On this they made a hearty supper; and were
gathering around an abundant breakfast the next morning, when Mr. Walker
discovered that it was with these, or a similar worm, that the bags had been
filled. The stomachs of the stout
trappers were not proof against their prejudices, and the repulsive food was
suddenly rejected. Mr. Walker had
further opportunities of seeing these worms used as an article of food; and I
am inclined to think they are the same as those we saw, and appear to be a
product of the salt lakes.
In the
account of the 1859 expedition of Capt. J.W. Davidson to Owens Valley (Wilke
and Lawton 1976), it is stated (p. 30):
Another very plentiful addition to
their means of subsistence is the Larvae of dipterous insects. These are seen floating upon the surface of
Owen's Lake in masses (agglomerated) about the size of a nutmeg, and the
Indians gather them at this season as they are driven ashore by the winds. They then dry them and separate, by threshing
and winnowing, the shells, or skeletons, of the Larva from the grub, which they
pack away in cakes. I may safely say
that I saw hundreds of bushels of this food, in process of preparation and
prepared. The Indians inform me that
these deposits are of yearly occurrence. . . .
Brewer (1930:
417), who visited Mono Lake in 1863 described it as follows:
No fish or reptile lives in it, yet
it swarms with millions of worms, which develop into flies. These rest on the surface and cover
everything on the immediate shore. The
number and quantity of these worms and flies is absolutely incredible. They drift up in heaps along the shore -- hundreds
of bushels could be collected. They
only grow at certain seasons of the year.
The Indians come far and near to gather them. The worms are dried in the sun, the shell
rubbed off, when a yellowish kernal remains, like a small yellow grain of
rice. This is oily, very nutritious, and
not unpleasant to the taste, and under the name of koo-chah-bee forms a
very important article of food. The
Indians gave me some; it does not taste bad, and if one were ignorant of its
origin, it would make fine soup. Gulls,
ducks, snipe, frogs, and Indians fatten on it.
Browne (1865:
111-113) described encountering a deposit of "worms" [actually the
pupae of Hydropyrus hians Say], about two feet deep and three or four
feet wide, which extended "like a vast rim" around the shores of Mono
Lake, one of several highly alkaline lakes in the California-Nevada area:
I saw no end to it during a walk of
several miles along the beach. . . . It would appear that the worms, as soon as
they attain the power of locomotion, creep up from the water, or are deposited
on the beach by the waves during some of those violent gales which prevail in
this region. The Mono Indians derive
from them a fruitful source of subsistence.
By drying them in the sun and mixing them with acorns, berries,
grass-seeds, and other articles of food gathered up in the mountains, they make
a conglomerate called cuchaba, which they use as a kind of bread. I am told it is very nutritious and not at
all unpalatable. The worms are also
eaten in their natural condition. It is
considered a delicacy to fry them in their own grease. When properly prepared by a skillful cook
they resemble pork 'cracklings.' I was
not hungry enough to require one of these dishes during my sojourn, but would
recommend any friend who may visit the lake to eat a pound or two and let me
know the result at his earliest convenience. . . . There must be hundrds,
perhaps thousands of tons of these oleaginous insects cast up on the beach
every year. There is no danger of
starvation on the shores of Mono. The
inhabitants may be snowed in, flooded out, or cut off by aboriginal hordes, but
they can always rely upon the beach for fat meat.
Palmer (1871: 426)
states that the "ke-chah-re" from Mono Lake are dried and pulverized,
then mixed with meal made from acorns, to be sun-dried or baked as bread, or
mixed with water and boiled with hot stones for soup.
Loew (1876: 189)
states, in describing Owens Lake: "Neither
fish nor mollusks can exist, but some forms of lower animal life are plentiful,
as infusoriae, copepoda, and larvae of insects." Loew continues: