AN ABSTRACT OF THE THESIS OF
Dave N. Schmitt for the degree of Master of Arts in
Interdisciplinary Studies in Anthropology. Geography and
Antjuswilagy presented on May 1, 1986.
Title:
Zooarchaeologjcal and Taphonomic Investigations of
site 35JA42. Upper Applegate River,
Southwestern Oregon
Abstract approved:
Redacted for Privacy
R. Lee Lyman
Site 35JA42 represents the first protohistoric village
complex excavated in Southwest Oregon.
Analyses of animal
bones recovered from the site offer the first significant
insights into human subsistence behaviors in this region.
Although the faunal assemblage is extremely fragmented,
detailed zooarchaeological analysis indicates that deer were
the primary meat resource while elk, bear, mountain lion,
and gray fox were secondary.
Animal carcasses were
disarticulated by percussion and the bones subsequently
processed for marrow and soup/grease.
The faunal data also
suggest that one house was used as a refuse dump by later
occupants and that the site was re-occupied by the same
family or families who returned to the site and constructed
new houses over several consecutive winters.
Zooarchaeological and Taphonomic Investigations
of Site 35JA42, Upper Applegate River,
Southwestern Oregon
by
Dave N. Schmitt
A THESIS
submitted to
Oregon State University
in partial fulfillment of
the requirements for the
degree of
Master of Arts in Interdisciplinary Studies
Completed May 1, 1986
Commencement June 1986
APPROVED:
Redacted for Privacy
Assistant Professor of Anthropology in charge of major
Redacted for Privacy
Tssociat'e Professor of Geography in charge of co-field
?Redacted for Privacy
Associate Professor of Anthropology in charge of co-field
Redacted for Privacy
Chairman of Department of Anthropology
Redacted for Privacy
Dean of
aduate %Fool
6
Date thesis is presented May 1. 19B6
Typed by Carol Schwartz for Dave N. Schmitt
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I want to express my sincere thanks to my committee
members:
R. Lee Lyman, David R. Brauner, Mary Lee Nolan,
and Morrie Craig for their editorial comments on this thesis
and their enthusiasm for my work.
Special thanks to R. Lee
Lyman and David Brauner for their comments, the use of their
personal libraries, and the opportunities I received in
working with these men in the field and in the laboratory.
My personal and professional respect for these men is
unparalleled.
I also wish to thank my brother Marty and all of my
fellow graduate students, especially Francine Havercroft,
Lucie Tisdale, Peter Kiigemagi, Ann Bennett, Lou Ann
Nicholls, and Philip Green for their comments and their
ability to get me away from my work when it was desperately
needed.
Thanks also to all of the people at Intermountain
Research.
The archaeological experience and knowledge I
gained in working with these fine people helped to ease the
rigor of producing this thesis.
Special thanks and gratitude go to my parents Joan and
Larry.
For their unprecedented financial and spiritual
support, I dedicate this thesis to them.
Finally, for his
academic support and my love and respect for the man,
Chapter 4 is dedicated to the late Thomas Hogg.
greatly.
I miss him
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I.
II.
INTRODUCTION
Physical Setting
Site Discovery, Testing,
and Temporal Placement
METHODOLOGY
Data Recovery
Analytic Methods
1
2
4
6
6
9
III.
ETHNOGRAPHIC BACKGROUND
11
IV.
SYSTEMATIC PALEONTOLOGY
16
QUANTIFICATION AND TAPHONOMY
Quantification
Taphonomic Considerations
Small Mammals
Carnivores
Humans
Bone Weathering
24
24
25
28
30
31
33
DESCRIPTIVE ZOOARCHAEOLOGY
House 1
House 2
House 3
Feature 4
House 5
House 6
Summary
37
37
40
53
60
63
67
69
BUTCHERING
The Site
71
72
INTRA-SITE ANALYSIS
Burnt Bone
Fragmentation Analysis
Discussion
88
89
92
98
V.
VI.
VII.
VIII.
IX.
SEASONALITY
Introduction
Incremental Lines
Seasonality at 35JA42
100
100
101
104
X.
XI.
BONE ARTIFACTS
Pointed Bone
Antler Tine Flakers
Cut Bone
Pendants
Miscellaneous Bone Artifacts
Discussion
113
113
114
115
115
119
120
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
122
BIBLIOGRAPHY
125
APPENDIX A
143
APPENDIX B
159
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE
PAGE
1.
Location of site 35JA42
3
2.
Sampling units and Houses at 35JA42,
level 1
7
Sampling units and Houses at 35JA42,
level 2
8
3.
4.
Scatter plot of measurements of Ursus
sp. M3
20
5.
Miscellaneous modified bone
32
6.
Chronological sequence of known and
speculative human formational
processes at 35JA42
34
Bone frequencies by excavation unit
in House 1, level 1
38
Bone frequencies by excavation unit
in House 1, level 2
39
Species key to symbols
42
Distribution of identified specimens
in House 1, level 1
43
Distribution of in situ identified
specimens, in House 1, level 2
44
Distribution of identified specimens
in House 1, level 2
45
Bone frequencies by excavation unit
in House 2, level 1
47
Bone frequencies by excavation unit
in House 2, level 2
48
Distribution of identified specimens
in House 2, level 1
49
Distribution of jn situ identified
specimens in House 2, level 2
50
Distribution of in situ deer-sized
specimens in House 2, level 2
51
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
Distribution of identified specimens
in House 2, level 2
52
Bone frequencies by excavation unit
in House 3, level 1
54
Bone frequencies by excavation unit
in House 3, level 2
55
Distribution of identified specimens
in House 3, level 1
56
Distribution of in situ identified
specimens in House 3, level 2
57
Distribution of in situ deer-sized and
elk-sized specimens in House 3, level 2
58
Distribution of identified specimens
in House 3, level 2
59
Bone frequencies by excavation unit
in Feature 4, levels 1 and 2
61
Distribution of identified specimens in
Feature 4, levels 1 and 2
62
Bone frequencies by excavation unit
in House 5, levels 1 and 2
64
Distribution of identified specimens
in House 5, levels 1 and 2
65
Bone frequencies by excavation unit
in House 6, levels 1 and 2
68
Comparison of the marrow utility index
and number of specimens from 35JA42
with flake scars
76
Flow chart depicting the various
methods and stages in animal
butchery at 35JA42
78
Faunal remains from a "typical"
excavation unit
81
Deer-sized artiodactyl utility
strategy at 35JA42
84
Relationship between frequencies of
proximal humerus/distal radius and
distal humerus/proximal at 35JA42
86
35.
36.
Relationship of units selected for
fragmentation analysis and houses
at 35JA42, level 1
94
Relationship of units selected for
fragmentation analysis and houses
at 35JA42, level 2
95
Specimens selected for incremental
line analysis
105
38.
Section of an artiodactyl lower molar
108
39.
Photograph and graphic depiction of
incremental lines in tooth
cementum, specimen B-224
109
Photograph and graphic depiction of
incremental lines in tooth
cementum, specimen B-274
110
Season of site occupation as
indicated by faunal data
112
Bone and antler artifacts
118
37.
40.
41.
42.
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE
PAGE
Quantitative data for vertebrate
taxa at 35JA42
26
2.
Abbreviations of anatomical parts
41
3.
Butchering marks on artiodactyl bones
73
4.
Absolute and proportional frequencies
of deer and deer-sized bones
compared to the MGUI for sheep
83
Statistical comparison of proportions of
burnt and unburnt bone for various
faunal aggregrates
90
Statistical comparison of fragmentation
data in various faunal aggregrates
97
1.
5.
6.
7.
Bone and antler artifacts
116
ZOOARCHAEOLOGICAL AND TAPHONOMIC INVESTIGATIONS OF
SITE 35JA42, UPPER APPLEGATE RIVER,
SOUTHWESTERN OREGON
I.
INTRODUCTION
Archaeological investigations in southwest Oregon have
provided a great deal of information regarding the
aboriginal populations that inhabited this rugged domain.
Although these numerous archaeological investigations have
recovered many aspects of prehistoric material culture, few
faunal remains have been found in the organic-poor deposits
of most sites in this region (e.g., Brauner and Lebow 1983;
Brauner and Nisbet 1983; Davis 1983; Griffin 1983; Lyman
1985a; Nicholls, et al. 1983; Tisdale 1986).
The detailed analysis of faunal remains representative
of human intervention offers potential for reconstruction of
human behavior (Lyman 1980), subsistence and dietary
patterns (Daly 1969), season of site occupation (Monks
1981), and contributing to understanding the taphonomic
history of a site (Binford 1981; Gifford 1981; Lyman 1982).
The faunal assemblage recovered from 35JA42 is unique in
that it possesses much of these data which are usually
invisible in southwestern Oregon archaeological sites.
2
physical Setting
Site 35JA42 is located in the NW
section 30, Township 405, Range 3W.
of the NW
of
The site parallels the
eastern bank of the Applegate River near the northern
boundary of the Applegate Lake Project area (Figure 1)
in
the Klamath Mountain physiographic province (Baldwin
1981:81-83).
The site is situated on the heavily forested
upper terrace of the Applegate River which lies at an
elevation of 1750 feet above sea level (Brauner 1983).
The upper terrace is composed of rounded to subangular
(alluvial) cobbles in a sand and gravel matrix.
Although no
soil development is evident, cultural material is buried 10
to 30 centimeters by organic debris and sandy loam brought
to the site by a previous land owner in an attempt to grow
exotic plants on the "gravel bar" (Brauner 1983:5).
Dominant overstory vegetation includes second growth
ponderosa pine (sinus ponderosa) and Douglas fir
(iagaigtaugamenzi2ai)
Oregon grape (perberis aquifolium)
and white-leaved manzanita (Arstoatapjayjaalpisiaa) are the
dominate understory species (Shelley Smith, field notes;
also Franklin and Dyrness 1973).
see
3
Figure 1.
Location of site 35JA42.
4
-
I
-
II
-
Site 35JA42 was recorded in 1976 by Jeff LaLande,
cultural resources technician, Rogue River National Forest.
While conducting a reevaluation of cultural resources within
the Applegate Lake Project area in 1977, David Brauner,
archaeologist with Oregon State University, placed the site
on the State of Oregon inventory.
The southern portion of
the site was characterized by two mute depressions with a
low frequency surface scatter of lithic tools and debitage
extending approximately 80 meters north to five and possibly
six circular pit-house depressions.
Although late
prehistoric cultural material was recovered from 1977 test
excavations, the southern depressions turned out to be a
recent trash pit and a natural surface depression (Brauner
and Honey 1977:40).
Test excavation (of House 1) in the northern site area
during the 1978 field season confirmed the presence of house
pits in this portion of the site (Brauner 1978:69-70).
Since the remaining house depressions appeared to be
undisturbed, they were assumed to contain the wealth of
economic, technological, and architectural data retrieved
from test excavation of House 1 (Brauner 1978).
For a more
detailed description of the "history" of 35JA42 and field
methods employed during the initial test excavations at the
site, see Brauner (1978, 1983) and Brauner and Honey (1977).
5
Test excavations in 1978 and the 1982 excavation of
35JA42 produced a number of historic artifacts, including
blue glass beads, a brass hinge, and glass projectile points
(Brauner 1978, 1983).
These artifacts indicate a
protohistoric occupation.
Although the recovered tool
assemblages from late prehistoric components at 35JA47 and
35JA49 are similar to those found at 35JA42 (Brauner 1983;
Brauner and MacDonald 1983), the latter site represents the
first protohistoric site excavated in the Applegate River
drainage.
As suggested by Brauner (1983:89), "a general
time frame ranging between 1750 AD and 1830 AD may be
appropriate for site 35JA42."
6
II.
METHODOLOGY
Data Recovery
The field methodology employed at 35JA42 was designed
to recover cultural materials from all observable house
depressions, and to sample associated exterior work areas.
A large open surface excavation strategy was employed to
expose the in situ structures and all associated cultrual
materials (Brauner 1983).
All excavated sediment was passed through a series of
screens with final recovery of debris in screen mesh no
larger than one-eighth inch.
water (Brauner 1983).
All screening was done with
The use of water accompanied with the
use of small screen mesh size aided in the recovery of
microdebitage, beads, botanical remains, and small bone
fragments which would otherwise have been lost (cf. Thomas
1969; Watson 1972).
The basic recovery unit was a 1 X 1
meter excavation unit 10 cm deep (Brauner 1983).
At the completion of fieldwork in 1982, 198 square
meters in level 1 (surface to 10 cm below surface; fill) and
106 square meters in level 2 (10 cm to 20 cm below surface;
floor) had been excavated (Figures 2 and 3).
To alleviate
confusion in excavation and subsequent analysis, the dashed
lines on these illustrations represent a generic breakdown
of large excavation areas into their respective house or
feature (after Brauner 1983:17).
North
100
1
104
116
112
108
120
139
124
1
1
142
1
93
93
96
dla
HOUSE 6
100
water line
104.s.
East
l=seel=1
0
Figure 2.
2
N
4m
Sampling units and houses at 35JA42, level 1.
North
100
i
108
104
i
1
1
i
116
112
i
i
1
1
1
120
I
124
I
i
142
139
i
I
I
1
93
93m
HOUSE
96
3
96
HOUSE
6
FEATURE 4
100m
o
IMO
HOUSE 5
water
line
104m
East
Ins4=af
0
Figure 3.
2
4m
N
Sampling units and houses at 35JA42, level 2.
CO
9
Analytic Method&
Pertinent horizontal and vertical provenience data were
recorded for each of the recovered faunal specimens.
Prior
to taxonomic identification, I complied a list of extant
mammalian taxa (see Appendix B) to familiarize myself with
fauna in the site area (after Gilmore 1949:165).
Faunal
data were also extracted from reports documenting taxa which
are not presently locally extant, but which were present in
the area historically.
The faunal remains were identified by direct comparison
with the Oregon State University, Department of
Anthropology, comparative osteological collection.
Identification was conducted in a very conservative fashion;
the relatively few numbers of individuals representing each
species in the comparative collection made it difficult to
distinguish intrataxonomic variation such as sexual
dimorphism.
As pointed out by Grayson, "the smaller the
comparative collection, the easier the identification seems
though the more inaccurate it is likely to be" (1973a:5354).
The recovered specimens were identified to the most
specific level possible (cf. Lyman 1979).
Although the
majority of the faunal remains are unidentifiable (i.e.,
small bone fragments), all specimens were tallied.
Data on
butchering marks, ontogenetic age, bone fragment size,
burning, weathering, rodent gnawing, and carnivore attrition
10
were also recorded, and are described and discussed in the
following chapters.
11
III. ETHNOGRAPHIC BACKGROUND
The aboriginal populations that inhabited southwest
Oregon and northwest California include the Tolowa, Shasta,
Galice Creek Athapaskans, Applegate Creek Athapaskans,
Upland Takelma, and Lowland Takelma (e.g., Schaeffer 1959).
Until 1981, the paucity of ethnographic data relevant to the
aboriginal groups that once occupied the upper Applegate
River drainage created difficulty in defining distinct
cultural territories (cf. Brauner and Honey 1977).
Since
then, the publication of J.P. Harrington's field notes in
1981 and Gray's (1985) ethnographic synthesis have clarified
our understanding of territorial boundaries in this region.
The upper Applegate River drainage was included within
the territory of the Applegate Athapaskan or pakubetede
(Gray 1985; see also Brauner 1983).
Although linguistically
distinct from the Takelma (to the west, north, and east) and
Hokan-speaking Shasta (to the south), these groups shared a
number of cultural traits.
As stated by Kroeber, the close
relationship was "so much so, in fact, as to constitute a
single (cultural) area" (1920:156).
The following
discussion of (animal) food acquisition and preparation
incorporates ethnographic data from these cultural groups.
Deer, elk, and bear represent the primary large land
mammals that were hunted.
of techniques.
Deer hunting involved a variety
These included stalking (using head-type
disguises) and manually driving deer into fenced "corrals"
12
or snares, often with the use of fire or dogs to facilitate
driving (Dixon 1907; Holt 1946; Jacobs n.d.; Sapir 1907).
Whether natural or constructed, corrals and snares were
usually located near streams or salt licks (Dixon 1907;
Sapir 1907).
Harrington (1981:558) and Sapir (1907:260)
document the use of deer shoulder blade (scapula) "rattles"
utilized both in the deer drive and as an alarm system to
alert other hunters when the deer were entrapped.
Once
trapped, deer were shot or clubbed to death (Dixon 1907;
Sapir 1907).
Although Jacobs (n.d.) states that stalking
and snares were not utilized in hunting elk, I suspect that
all or some of the techniques employed in hunting deer were
used under certain circumstances.
Ethnographic documents describe numerous techniques for
hunting grizzly bears and black bears.
These included
luring the animal out of its den and then dispatching it
with bow and arrow or spear (e.g., Holt 1946), or by using
dogs as decoys while hunters perched in nearby trees would
shoot at it (Jacobs n.d.).
Because the aboriginal people
had a great deal of respect and reverence for the bear
(especially the grizzly bear), there was a great deal of
spiritual preparation before the hunt (Dixon 1907; Holt
1946).
Ethnographic records conflict in discussing utilization
of the mountain lion and bobcat.
Dixon (1907:424) states
they were used as food while Holt (1946:311) maintains that
these taxa were taken only for their fur.
13
Although deer, elk, and bear were the fundamental meat
resource species, smaller mammals, such as rabbits and
ground squirrels were also taken (Driver 1939; Harrington
1981; Holt 1946).
No ethnographic data is available on the
techniques employed to take small mammals.
The preparation of deer, elk, and bear meat included
boiling (often with a small amount of salt), roasting, and
drying (Harrington 1981; Holt 1946; Sapir 1907).
also consumed fresh (Holt 1946:309).
Meat was
Although there are
some slight discrepancies in the ethnographic literature as
to variations in food preparation techniques, Holt's
(1946:309) detailed description serves as a synthesis of the
various techniques employed.
Bear feet were boiled and eaten fresh.
Deer
hoofs, the gristle stripped from the lower leg
bone left on, were dried and boiled and eaten like
pigs' feet.
The marrow from the deer's upper leg
bone was eaten, as were also the liver and lungs.
A sort of blood pudding was made by filling the
paunch or large intestine of the deer about half
full of blood, adding to this, fat from the
outside of the paunch.
It was then tied and
buried in the ashes and when done the paunch would
be full.
It was tested by piercing with a stick
and when no blood oozed out it was done and was
opened and eaten with a spoon.
The small
intestines were washed, turned inside out with a
14
stick, and roasted over coals.
Deer heads were
skinned and placed on flat rocks around the fire,
as were any other bones to which a little meat
adhered.
These cooked there and were left for
anyone to pick up and eat at any time he wished.
During the big fall deer hunt on the mountains,
when they had a number of deer heads at the same
time, a pit was dug, lined with rocks, and a fire
kept up in it all day.
In the late afternoon the
ashes were raked out, evergreen boughs placed on
the hot rocks, and the deer heads (washed with the
hair on) were put on these.
More boughs were put
on top, sprinkled with water, and the whole
covered thickly with hot ashes, coals, and dirt.
A fire was built on top and kept up for several
hours and the heads were left thus all night.
Ground squirrels were also roasted in the ashes,
after singeing off the hair, and gray squirrels
and rabbits were skinned and boiled or roasted in
front of the fire.
Deer bones and salmon bones
were pounded up and stored for making soup in the
winter.
No ethnographic data exists concerning activities performed
at the kill site.
The only ethnographic document regarding
the disposal of bone refuse was recorded by Goddard (n.d.):
The Galice threw bones of deer away back into the
brush somewhere, where a woman would not step over
15
them.
If a woman stepped over the deer bones, the
deer in the woods would get wild!
Whether this represents culturally distinct (unique?)
behavior or refers to only whole bones and/or those removed
from the kill site and brought back to camp is unknown.
Fish, especially salmon, were a primary food source for
many aboriginal populations in southwest Oregon (Gray 1985).
No fish remains or fishing implements were recovered from
archaeological excavations at 35JA42.
Whether this is due
to differential preservation (cf. Lyman 1984), food
preparation techniques (Dixon 1907:425; Driver 1939:381),
bone consumption (cf. Dansie 1984), or that fish were not
part of the human inhabitants diet remains unknown.
Most ethnographies encompass observations made after
Euro-american contact had changed the aboriginal way of
life.
This is not to say that ethnographic documents should
not be used in conjunction with archaeological data, but
that they should be used in a very general sense, especially
when analyzing prehistoric and late prehistoric cuture.
On
the other hand, their value might be underestimated when
dealing with archaeological data representing protohistoric
occupations.
16
IV.
SYSTEMATIC PALEONTOLOGY
Twenty thousand twenty-three vertebrate specimens were
recovered from the 1978 test and 1982 excavation of 35,7A42.
The highly fragmented nature of the assemblage resulted in
the identification of only 78 specimens (less than 1%) to
the family, genus, or species level.
The following is a
descriptive summary of the recovered faunal remains.
This
discussion includes the species represented and their
abundances.
See Appendix B for a complete list of mammals
in the site area.
Class:
Order:
Family:
=axial
Remarks:
Mammalia
Rodentia - Rodents
Sciuridae - Squirrels
2 radii (2 specimens).
Six species of sciurid rodents are found in
southwest Oregon (Hall 1981; Maser, et al. 1981).
Although
these specimens appear to represent the genus Spermophilus,
they are too fragmentary to identify beyond the family
level.
cf.
5permophilua sp.
Ground Squirrels
Material:
Remarks:
1 innominate (1 specimen).
Two species of ground squirrel are currently found
in southwest Oregon:
the California ground squirrel
(5permophilus beecheyi) and the golden mantled ground
17
squirrel (5. lateralis) (Hall 1981).
The recovered specimen
is burned and fragmentary precluding more specific
identification.
Order:
Family:
Carnivora
Carnivores
Canidae - Wolves, Dogs, and Foxes
Canis familiaris
Domestic Dog
Material:
Remarks.
1 complete individual
This individual was recovered from an excavation
unit just northwest of House 1.
Not yet fully decomposed
(i.e., the bones were still covered with mold and large
clusters of hair), this immature individual (less than 22
weeks old) represents a recent, intrusive burial in the
site.
The recovered skeleton is now part of the O.S.U.
Department of Anthropology comparative osteological
collection.
cf
Material.
Urocyon cinereoargenteus
1 canine (1 specimen).
Urocyon cinereoaroenteus
Gray Fox
MaterialRemarks:
1 edentulate mandible (1 specimen).
Gray foxes are inhabitants of wooded areas
throughout western Oregon (Hall 1981; Maser, et al. 1981).
Family:
Felidae
cf. Lynx rufus
Bobcat
Cats
18
1 first phalanx (1 specimen).
Material:
Remarks:
The bobcat is currently found throughout the
entire state of Oregon (Hall 1981; Maser, et al. 1981).
Relis concolor
Mountain Lion
Material:
Remarks:
Oregon.
1 distal humerus (1 specimen).
Mountain lions are common throughout the state of
Hall (1981) lists seven occurrence records in the
southwestern portion of the state.
Family:
cf
Malarial.
Ursidae - Bears
Ursus americanus
1 metatarsal, 1 metapodial diaphysis (2
specimens).
Ursus americanus
Black Bear
Material:
Remarks:
1 mandible with M1, M
2'
and M 3
(1 specimen).
The black bear is found throughout western Oregon
(Hall 1981; Maser, et al. 1981).
Although they are not
currently found in the area, ethnographic documentation
(Harrington 1981) and historical records (Craighead and
Mitchell 1982) indicate that the grizzly bear (Ursus arctos)
was once present in southwest Oregon.
Grizzly bears are
much larger than black bears and are commonly differentiated
from one another by their size differences (Gordon 1977).
The maximum antero-posterior length and lingual-buccal width
of the third molar were measured.
Comparison of these
measurements with those of known species (after Lyman 1985)
19
clearly indicates that the 35JA42 specimen represents IL.
americanus (Figure 4).
Order:
Family:
Material:
Artiodactlya
Even-toed Ungulates
Cervidae - Elk, Caribou, Moose, and Deer
4 antler tines (4 specimens).
cf. Cervus elaphua
nftterjal:
1 thoracic vertebra, 1 metacarpal shaft fragment,
3 first phalanges (5 specimens).
Cervus elaphus
Elk (Wapiti)
Natalia'
1 isolated tooth, 3 first phalanges, 1 third
phalanx (5 specimens).
Remarks:
Two subspecies of elk, Roosevelt elk (roosevelti)
and Rocky Mountain elk (Csasnelsgni) occur in Oregon
(Bryant and Maser 1982; Hall 1981; Maser, et al. 1981).
Because the Rocky Mountain elk presently occurs east of the
Cascade range (Bryant and Maser 1982), the specimens
recovered from 35JA42 probably represent the subspecies
roosevelti.
The osteological similarities of the two
subspecies prevents identification beyond the species level.
Other archaeological occurrences of elk in Jackson County
include 5 specimens from a prehistoric house pit in the Elk
Creek drainage (Schmitt 1986a).
cf. Odocoileus sp.
Material:
3 skull fragments, 1 hyoid, 5 edentulate mandible
fragments, 3 isolated tooth fragments, 1 axis, 1
20
1.9
I
URSUS M3
1.7
1.5
E
x
1.3
A
1.1
0.9
1.1
1.3
1.5
17
19
21
213
LENGTH (cm)
Figure 4.
Scatter plot of measurements of Ursus sp. M3. The
circles represent U. americanus and the dots U. arctos. Connected
circles and dots denote the left and right M3's of the same
individual.
(A) represents the archaeological specimen (after
Lyman 1985b:254).
21
distal humerus, 2 proximal radii, 1 distal radius, 3
proximal ulnae, 1 trapezoid-magnum, 1 unciform, 2 innominate
fragments, 1 femur shaft fragment, 1 proximal tibia, 1
distal tibia, 10 astragali, 3 calcanae, 1 navicular cuboid,
1 proximal metacarpal, 5 metatarsal shaft fragments, 2
distal metapodials, 1 first phalanx (50 specimens).
Odocoileus sp.
Deer
Material:
2 skull fragments, 1 antler fragment, 10
mandibles, 16 isolated teeth, 2 scapulae, 1 proximal
humerus, 2 distal humeri, 6 proximal radii, 1 distal radius,
2 proximal ulnae, 1 ulna, 4 distal tibiae, 1 astragalus, 1
proximal metatarsal, 7 metatarsal shafts, 1 third phalanx
(58 specimens).
Remarks:
Two subspecies of the species Odocoileus hemionus
are currently found in southwest Oregon:
mule deer (O. h.
hemionus) and black-tailed deer (0. h. columbianus) (Hall
1981; Wallmo 1981).
Although records for the occurrence of
white-tailed deer (Q. virginianus) are marginal in relation
to the upper Applegate River (Baker 1984; Hall 1981; Smith
1985), the possibility that this species was more widespread
in the past should be considered (cf. Grayson 1982; Lyman
and Livingston 1983).
Deer are clearly the most abundant
taxon at 35JA42 and numerous deer remains were recovered
from a prehistoric house pit in the Elk Creek drainage
northeast of the Applegate Lake Project area (Schmitt
1986a).
22
Family:
Bovidae
Bovids
Ovis_aries
Domestic Sheep
Materials:
4 isolated teeth, 1 mandible with DP
21 DP3, DP4,
and MI (5 specimens).
Remalkg:
All of these specimens were recovered from a 1 X 1
meter excavation unit in House 5.
The presence of these
specimens in the site will be elaborated on in the
discussion of House 5.
"Elk-sized"
Material:
1 proximal humerus shaft fragment, 3 rib
fragments, 1 proximal tibia shaft fragment, 1 distal femur
shaft fragment, 1 scaphoid fragment, 1 navicular-cuboid
fragment, 2 phalange fragments, 1 first phalanx fragment (11
specimens).
Remarks:
These fragmented specimens probably represent elk,
but might be representative of cow (Dos sp.).
"Deer-sized"
Material:
1 skull fragment, 7 edentulate mandible
fragments, 5 scapula fragments, 1 axis fragment, 1 cervical
vertebra fragment, 2 thoracic vertebra fragments, 1 lumbar
vertebra fragment, 3 vertebra fragments, 2 rib fragments, 3
proximal humerus fragments, 1 humerus shaft fragment, 15
distal humerus fragments, 7 proximal radius fragments, 7
radius shaft fragments, 3 distal radius fragments, 3
proximal ulna fragments, 1 trapezoid-magnum fragment, 5
innominate fragments, 4 proximal femur fragments, 8 femur
23
shaft fragments, 8 distal femur fragments, 13 proximal tibia
fragments, 10 tibia shaft fragments, 21 distal tibia
fragments, 9 astragalus fragments, 2 calcaneus fragments, 2
proximal metacarpal fragments, 4 metacarpal shaft fragments,
4 proximal metatarsal fragments, 6 metatarsal shaft
fragments, 6 metapodial shaft fragments, 6 distal metapodial
fragments (171 specimens).
Remarks:
Although these specimens probably represent deer,
the recovery of domestic sheep (Ovis aries) remains obviated
more specific identification of these specimens.
There are
many morphological characteristics which differentiate these
two taxa (Hilbebrand 1955; Lawrence 1951), but the
fragmented elements from 35JA42 lack diagnostic surfaces.
24
V.
QUANTIFICATION AND TAPHONOMY
Ouantification
The quantification of taxonomic abundances in
vertebrate faunal assemblages has had a long and
controversial history.
Since the advent of White's
recommendation for the use of "the number of individuals" to
determine "the percentage which each species contributes to
the diet of the people" (1953a:396-397), the topic of
zooarchaeological quantification has received much attention
(e.g., Grayson 1979, 1981, 1984; Klein and Cruz-Uribe 1984).
The two most frequently employed techniques in
measuring taxonomic abundances are the number of identified
specimens per taxon (NISP) and the minimum number of
individuals (MNI)
(Grayson 1979, 1984; Lyman 1982).
are many difficulties with both measures.
There
The major problem
with NISP is the unknown degree of specimen interdependence
(Grayson 1984).
While MNI controls for specimen
interdependence, it is a derived measure (e.g., Casteel
1977) that is a function of sample size and different
aggregation techniques can cause variations in relative
taxonomic abundances across a site (Grayson 1984).
Because the scale of measurement can be empirically
determined (Grayson 1979, 1984), various "medium-sized"
faunal aggregates (after Lyman 1985b:261) were defined for
analysis of the 35JA42 fauna.
Grayson (1984) suggests that
25
a sample can be analyzed and interpreted at an ordinal scale
of measurement if the rank order of taxa do not differ
significantly when various aggregation techniques are
compared.
The quantitative data for vertebrate taxa
presented in Table 1 clearly illustrate that the rank orders
do not differ significantly between aggregation techniques.
Therefore, the 35JA42 archaeofaunas can be validly analyzed
at an ordinal scale.
Deer represent the most abundant taxon
at the site with all other taxa representing secondary
resources.
Due to the paucity of identified skeletal
elements for each of these (secondary) species, it is
uncertain as to their relative economic importance to the
people who inhabited the site.
Grayson (1984) has elucidated our understanding of
zooarchaeological quantification.
"Although the current
emphasis on taphonomy is extremely healthy" (Grayson
1984:179), there are still many ambiguities in the fossil
record related to the unknown taphonomic (formational)
history of a site (e.g., Lyman 1984a).
As our understanding
of taphonomic processes increases, so will our understanding
of the assessment of relative taxonomic abundances (see also
Lyman 1985c).
Taphonomic Considerations
Between its initial occupation and its archaeological
excavation, an archaeological site is an extremely dynamic
9Z
0
0
0
0
R 2)
01
iti
Cl)
CI)
d
W
H
0
5-'
G
P
0
11
C
ft
o
ga
0
0
m
ti
r
0
0
4 0
0
0
0 fr1
0 0
1
1
1
I
0
0
0
0
P
1
11
1
.1 III
11
1
1
o
p3
H.
0
1-43
'II
00C
0 k-
0 gG
P r
rr ro
0
o
P
d
m
4
m
Q
.
H.
I
1
1
12
1
1
I
I
II
+
III!
1
I
1.111
I
I
.1 II II
K21
1
1
-
w
1
1
-
I
11111111
P
P.
CD
C)
0 0,00 A
'Li
0
En
0
H
I-J
0
m
00- 0
0 IVm
H!
o H
1c2
Site (total)
Site (total)
House 6/Level 2
House 6/Level 1
House 5/Level 2
House 5/Level 1
Feature 4/Level 2
Feature 4/Level 1
House 3/Level 2
House 3/Level 1
House 2/Level 2
House 2/Level 1
House 1/Level 2
House 1/Level 1
hd
1-1
Cl)
rr
27
environment.
It is therefore important to consider the many
processes which may have played a significant role in the
formation of a faunal assemblage, prior to elaborating on
human subsistence and other zooarchaeological
interpretations.
Although the mammalian skeletal remains
recovered from 35JA42 represent an "archaeofauna" (Lyman
1982:332-333) and probably represent bone refuse indicative
of human intervention (cf. Daly 1969), there are many
processes which could have incorporated and modified the
bones in this archaeological deposit (e.g., Binford 1981;
Brain 1981; Gifford 1981; Gifford and Behrensmeyer 1977;
Hill 1979; Haynes 1980, 1983).
Taphonomy or
the science of
the laws of burial" (Efremov 1940:93) is the study of these
processes.
In the past twenty years actualistic research has
increased our taphonomic awareness.
While we are far from
recognizing the precise taphonomic history of most specimens
(i.e., each bone has its own unique history; Gifford 1981),
taphonomic studies have helped to redefine the kinds of
research and analysis which can validly be performed.
Empirical analysis indicates a wide range of primary and
post-depositional modificaton of numerous bones recovered
from 35JA42.
My discussion will focus on four agencies
which appear to have contributed to the taphonomic and
formational history of the site:
humans, and bone weathering.
small mammals, carnivores,
28
Small Mammals
During their growth, many small mammals (i.e., rodents)
gnaw on bone.
Rodent gnawed bone is characterized by
parallel striations that are typically broad, shallow and
flat-bottomed (e.g., Johnson 1985; Shipman 1981; Shipman and
Rose 1983).
Twenty-two bones recovered from 35JA42 display
these distinctive marks.
Because many rodents, particularly
woodrats (e.g., Veotoma sp.; Bonaccorso and Brown 1972;
Wells 1976), transport bones, these specimens could
represent bones transported by rodents to the site.
Figure
5a illustrates an example of rodent gnaw marks on a specimen
recovered from House 1.
The mixing of soils by burrowing animals
(faunalturbation) can have profound effects on
archaeological and paleontological deposits (Erlandson 1984;
Wood and Johnson 1978).
The soft, sandy deposits at 35JA42
precluded the identification of krotovinas during excavation
of the site.
The abundance of burrowing species in the area
and numerous krotovinas encountered in the excavation of
other sites in the Applegate River drainage suggest the
possibility of mixing of cultural deposits at 35JA42 due to
faunalturbation (David Brauner, personal communication,
1986).
Aside from their taphonomic input during their life
cycle, the occurrence of small mammal skeletal remains in
archaeological deposits can be the result of many taphonomic
29
processes.
Stahl (1982) has pointed out the potential
importance of small mammals in prehistoric human subsistence
due to their availability and high ratio of edible meat to
total weight.
Ethnographic records on most western
prehistoric cultures discuss small mammals as part of the
aboriginal diet (e.g., Holt 1946; Steward 1941; Stewart
1941).
Because rodents were roasted and consumed whole or
pounded up for soup (e.g., Holt 1946), the best evidence for
their utilization as a food resource by humans would be the
analysis of human coprolites (see Bryant 1974; Dansie 1984)
or the recovery of small charred bone fragments resulting
from carcass consumption.
Four charred rodent bone
fragments were recovered from 35JA42, but whether these are
indicators of human food refuse or non-cultural inclusion is
unknown.
Small mammal remains can also be incorporated into
deposits by many non-human agencies.
They may be deposited
in carnivore scatological remains (Dansie 1984; Juell and
Schmitt 1985; Mellet 1974) or raptor pellets (Brain 1981;
Dodson and Wexlar 1979; Mayhew 1977), or they may simply die
in their burrows.
Research directed toward distinguishing
the characteristics of human and non-human modification of
small mammal remains is increasing (Dansie 1984; Juell and
Schmitt 1985), but much more work must be done before
"signature criteria" that "discriminate one modifying agent
or set of agents from another" (Binford 1981:26) are
defined.
30
Carnivores
Research has shown that carnivores, especially canids,
can destroy bone (Binford and Bertram 1977; Lyon 1970),
fragment bone (Haynes 1980, 1983), and/or disperse it
throughout a site (Kent 1981).
The distinctive punctures
and pitting characteristic of carnivore gnawing (e.g.,
Haynes 1980) can help in interpreting the extent of bone
modification due to carnivore activities in a site.
Only one specimen recovered from 35JA42 possesses marks
indicative of carnivore gnawing.
The specimen, a deer
(Odocoileus sp.) distal right tibia (B-403), displays
pitting on the anterior surface and a large (10.8 mm)
puncture on its posterior surface (Figure 5b).
The oval
shape of the puncture, and the fact that the tooth contact
area "for most carnivores will be relatively small, no more
than a few millimeters" (Morlan 1983:256), indicates that
this perforation represents a series of contiguous tooth
punctures.
Whether the marks on this bone represent
carnivore gnawing contemporary with human occupation of the
site (e.g., a domestic dog co-existing with the human
inhabitants) or carnivore scavenging after site abandonment
is unknown.
Because tooth marks are not always produced
31
from carnivore gnawing and transport of bone (Haynes 1980;
Kent 1981), there is equal difficulty in ascertaining the
degree of taphonomic input that carnivores contributed at
35JA42.
As discussed above, carnivores can deposit bones as
scatological remains in deposits.
Although I have
identified scat bones in other archaeofaunal assemblages
(Schmitt 1986b), none were identified in the 35JA42
assemblage.
Humans
Human activities directed toward extracting resources
from an animal's carcass are also taphonomic processes.
Skinning and butchering a carcass, breaking a bone for
marrow, bone meal, and/or soup manufacture, and modifying
bone for its use as a tool are examples of these processes
(e.g., Bonnichsen 1982; Lyman n.d.; Noe-Hygaard 1977).
Once
bone has passed through this "cultural filter" (Daly
1969:146) it is susceptible to further human modification
such as trampling and redisposal.
Bones can be discarded at their locus of use ("primary
refuse"; Schiffer 1972:161), discarded away from their locus
of use ("secondary refuse"; Schiffer 1972:161), or they can
be transported from either of these locales by house
construction and pit digging activities ("tertiary
deposition"; Meadow 1981:68).
The site population and the
32
Figure 5. Miscellaneous modified bone. a. deer-sized metatarsal
with rodent gnawing; b. deer distal tibia with carnivore tooth
punctures; c. weathered deer ulna.
33
duration and intensity of occupation can create a decreasing
correspondence between use and discard locations (Gifford
1980; Murray 1980; Schiffer 1972, 1983).
This "smearing" of
debris during daily activities (Ascher 1968) and the
possibility of cultural scavenging of materials creates
difficulty in defining activity areas within a site.
The shallow deposits, close proximity of the house
depressions, intensity of occupation, and backdirt piles
from aboriginal house construction and recent looting at
35JA42 indicate multiple episodes of human refuse
deposition.
Figure 6 represents a model of known and
speculative formational processes attributed to human
activities at the site.
Human modification of bone indicative of butchering,
marrow extraction, and soup/grease manufacture is discussed
in Chapter 7.
Bone artifacts are discussed and described in
Chapter 10.
Bone Weathering
Numerous unburned bones displaying various degrees of
weathering were recovered from the site (see weathering
stages 0-3 in Behrensmeyer 1978:151).
These specimens
indicate mixing of the cultural deposits at 35JA42 because
they are horizontally and vertically dispersed throughout
the site.
I would expect a uniform distribution of
34
Figure 6. Chronological sequence
(earliest [top] to latest [bottom])of known
and speculative human formational processes at 35JA42.
A.
The construction of House 3. Backdirt from
construction tossed to the northeast of the
house.
B.
House 3 occupied.
C.
The construction of House 2. Backdirt from
construction tossed to the northeast of the
house.
*D.
Outside of house task area(s) from the House 3
occupation redeposited by the construction of
House 2.
E.
House 2 occupied.
F.
The construction of House 1. Backdirt from house
construction tossed to the northeast of the house.
*G.
Outside of house task areas from the House 2 and
House 3 occupations redeposited by the constrution of
House 1.
H.
House 1 occupied.
I.
Hearth stones from House 3 scavenged by a later
(more recent) occupation.
J.
Cultural scavenging of materials.
K.
Recent looting of House 5.
south of the house.
L.
Recent construction of a waterline ditch
(*possible redeposition of outside of house(s)
task areas).
*7.
M.
Backdirt tossed to the
The construction and occupation of House 5. Backdirt
probably tossed to the northeast of the house.
Site excavation.
Denotes speculative occurrence.
NFigure 6.
LA)
LY1
36
weathering stages if no mixing occurred.
There is a great
deal of difficulty in distinguishing between dessication
cracks due to weathering and shrinkage cracks due to heating
(cf. Shipman, et al. 1984).
This degree of uncertainty
precluded any detailed spatial analysis of "weathered" bone
fragments in the site.
Figure 5c shows weathering cracks on
a deer (cf. Odocoileus sp.) proximal ulna found just under
the ground surface and above the floor of House 5.
I have presented here an outline of "visible" processes
that have influenced the formation of the faunal assemblage
at 35JA42.
Other processes which might have affected the
assemblage are unknown due to our taphonomic naivete (cf.
Behrensmeyer and Kidwell 1985).
37
VI.
DESCRIPTIVE ZOOARCHAEOLOGY
The following is a discussion of individual faunal
assemblages within the houses and features at 35JA42.
Although faunal remains from the house fill (level 1) are
graphically presented, emphasis is placed on faunal
specimens recovered from the house floors (level 2).
Souse 1
House 1 was the southernmost depression in the village
complex at 35JA42, located 1.5 meters south of House 2
(Figure 2).
The only visible disturbance of the cultural
deposits was the planting of a few small exotic trees above
the depression by a previous land owner (Brauner 1983).
Backdirt from the construction of House 1 was thrown into
the House 2 depression indicating House 1 was constructed
and occupied subsequent to the construction of House 2.
With backdirt from the construction of House 2 located in
the southeast portion of House 3, House 1 represents the
most recent occupation of the site (cf. Brauner 1983).
Two thousand nine hundred nineteen bones were recovered
from House 1:
938 (73% burned) from level 1 and 1981 (80%
burned) from level 2 (Figures 7 and 8, respectively).
Sixty-six unidentifiable bone fragments were recovered from
a 2 X 2 meter excavation unit 2 meters east of the house
(Figure 2).
38
100 N
104 N
I
1978 TEST EXCAVATION (%)
'LEVEL 1' surf. to 35cm
211
9
21
25
78
90
64
50
59
31
72
61
77
21
61
31
86
51
81
35
33
14
63
67
86
97E
28
499E
43
7
25
24
28
99
98
43
68
75
86
61
105
-
91
8
33
14
6
1
155
100
88
93
100
100
65
N
Figure 7. Bone frequencies by excavation unit in House 1, level 1.
Bold numbers (top) are total number of hones and small numbers
(bottom) are percentage of total which are burned.
39
100 N
104 N
1978 TEST EXCAVATION (V. ")
4
'LEVEL 2'35 to 55cm
75
265
97 E
53
6
_
237.
84
225\
232
\
47
81
83
132
189
77
es
85
94
74
99 E
59
89
115
130
86
67
72
73
/
/ 133
70
67
20
63
96
75
71
106
.1e.
67
102E
hearth
N
Figure 8. Bone frequencies by excavation unit in House 1, level 2.
Bold numbers (top) are total number of bones and small numbers
(bottom) are percentage of total which are burned.
40
On the floor (level 2) of House 1, bones were
concentrated in the northern and northwestern portion of the
house (Figure 8).
Based on the distribution of bone, fire-
cracked rock, grinding stones, and lithic debitage, the
northwest quadrant of House 1 appears to be the primary task
area within the house (after Brauner 1983:34).
Deer are the most abundant taxon in House 1 (NISP = 7;
cf. Odocoileus sp., NISP = 9) while ground squrrel (cf.
Bpermophilus sp., NISP = 1) and black bear (from level 1,
NISP =1) are rare.
Figures 10, 11 and 12 illustrate the
skeletal portions recovered from House 1 (see Table 2 and
Figure 9 for the definition of symbols).
The skeletal
portions of deer recovered from House 1 indicate that a wide
variety of butchering units and/or whole carcasses were used
by this household; both axial and appendecular skeletal
elements were recovered.
House 2
House 2 was located between House 1 and House 3
approximately 3 meters from the alluvial terrace (Figure 2).
The only visible damage to the house was exotic plants
placed in the depression by a previous land owner.
Previous
land owners had also burned trash and limbs in the house
depression, as indicated by a 5 cm layer of ash and burned
wood near the center of the depression (Brauner
41
Table 2.
ANT
SK
HY
NAND
TO
AT
AX
CERV
THOR
LUM
VER
PELV
SAC
R
ST
SC
PH
DH
RD
PRD
DRD
UL
PUL
Abbreviations of anatomical parts (after Milford 1978).
Antler
Skull
Hyoid
Mandible
Tooth
Atlas
Axis
Cervical vertebrae
Thoracic vertebrae
Lumbar vertebrae
Vertebrae (unidentifiable)
Pelvis
Sacrum
Ribs
Sternum
Scapula
Humerus
Proximal humerus
Distal humerus
Radius
Proximal radius
Distal radius
Ulna
Proximal ulna
CARP
MC
PMC
DMC
F
PF
DF
PT
DT
IBN
TAR
AST
CAL
MT
PMT
DMT
MPL
DMPL
PHA 1
PHA 2
PHA 3
PHAL
Carpals
Metacarpal
Proximal metacarpal
Distal metacarpal
Femur
Proximal femur
Distal femur
Tibia
Proximal tibia
Distal tibia
Long bone
(unidentifiable)
Tarsals
Astragalus
Calcaneus
Metatarsal
Proximal metatarsal
Distal metatarsal
Metapodial
Distal metapodial
First phalange
Second phalange
Third phalange
Phalange
(unidentifiable)
42
HOUSES 1,2,3,5,6 and FEATURE 4
0
Cervldae
Odocolleug sp.
0
cf. Odocoileug sp.
deer -sized
0
Q. elaphus
cf. C. elaphus
elk -sized
0. arias
0
0
U. emericanus
cf. U. amerlcanus
HOUSE
1
cf. Spermophilus sp.
HOUSE
2
cf. L. rufus
HOUSE
3
U. clnereoargenteus
FEATURE 4
F.
concolor
FEATURE 4 and HOUSE 5
Sclurldae
HOUSE
5
cf. U. clnereoargentenus
Figure 9.
Species key to symbols used in Figures 10-12, 15-18,
21-24, 26, and 28.
43
100 N
104 N
1978 TEST EXCAVATION (
V)
'LEVEL 1' surf. to 35 cm
0 MT
97 E
AST
MT
X DF
X DT
X LBN
0 PHA 3
XF
a MAND
TO
X THOR
AST
MT
PHA 1
99 E
MAND
X VER
0 TO
X DH
X DIM
X LBN
0 TO
CARP
AST
X LBN
Figure 10.
Distribution of identified specimens in House 1,
level 1.
See Table 2 and Figure 9 for keys to symbols.
44
100 N
104 N
1978 TEST EXCAVATION (1/4")
'LEVEL 2'35 to 55cm
97 E
99 E
\
MAND
'9
\
SK
MT
M
MC
MC e.
,.
102 E
hearth
N
MAND
0
I
-
Figure 11. Distribution of in situ identified specimens in House
1, level 2. See Table 2 and Figure 9 for keys to symbols.
45
100 N
104 N
1978 TEST EXCAVATION ('4 ")
'LEVEL 2' 35 to 55 cm
97 E
got
/V
X DMPL
CLMAND
0 DT
X PRD
DF
X DMP
SK
PELV
99 E
PELV
MT
111 SK
DMPL (2 )
X LBN
X DF
(D PRD
AST
MT
X DH
X LBN
X LBN
CARP
/
X AST
0 TO
z
PMT
102 E
I
hearth
N-
Figure 12.
Distribution of identified specimens in House 1, level 2.
See Table 2 and Figure 9 for keys to symbols.
46
1983:35).
Overall, damage to the cultural deposits was
minimal.
Four thousand three hundred seventy-seven bones were
recovered from House 2:
1646 (82% burned) from level 1 and
2731 (70% burned) from level 2 (see Figures 13 and 14,
respectively).
Many of the burned bones in level 1 could be
attributed to recent trash burning.
The highest frequency
of bones recovered from the floor of House 2 was located in
the northern and northwestern portions of the house.
A
smaller concentration was located along the southeast rim
(Figure 14).
The distribution of relative frequencies of
lithic tools in the house is similar to that of bone
suggesting that the northern floor was the primary work area
(Brauner 1983:52).
Deer are more abundant (NISP = 15; cf
NISP = 5) while elk (NISP = 2) are rare.
Odocoileus sp.,
Of the deer and
deer-sized identified skeletal elements in level 2 (Figures
16, 17 and 18), the appendages (humerus, radio-cubitus,
carpal-metacarpals [anterior] and tibia, tarsal-metatarsals
[posterior]) constitute over half (54%) of the house
assemblage.
The frequency of these high marrow yielding
units (Binford 1978:26-28) suggests the in-house processing
of these elements.
Five of these specimens display mid-
shaft flake scars indicative of marrow extraction.
The
anterior appendages were concentrated in the northern
portion of the house and the posterior appendages were in
the northwest floor area.
Whether these small
47
108 N
112 N
96 E
7
no bone
86
36
73
9
15
94
74
100
73
6
28
24
30
40
29
67
100
88
60
50
69
29
28
7
32
30
86
89
86
91
70
72
no bone
1
38
56
El 1
0
97
84
73
4
1
86
76
100 E
162
86
60
22
6
36
84
97
95
67
78
63
40
32
32
39
65
100
94
81
92
49
96
59
47
35
85
90
83
100
El 1
Ei 1
93
98
N
Figure 13.
Bone frequencies by excavation unit in House 2, level 1.
Bold numbers (top) are total number of bones and small numbers
(bottom) are percentage of total which are burned
48
108 N
1
5 4'
X98
2N
36
67
85
73
67
71
142
161
173
63
68
73
65
98 E
,117
85
1
58
67
57
75
142
66
74
94
66
68
77
63
101
128
247
71
64
415
16 4
71
91
46
91
42
55
76
/66
102 E
: hearth
N
Figure 14. Bone frequencies by excavation unit in House 2, level 2.
Bold numbers (top) are total number of bones and small numbers
(bottom) are percentage of total which are burned.
49
108 N
112 N
96 E
no bone
0 PHAL
0
XR
PHA 1
0 LBN
MAND
X PF
XF
PHA 3
XT
0 ANT
no bone
X DH
0 EIRD
X MPL
X AST
100 E
X MPL
PRO
® LSN
X DT
N
Figure 15.
Distribution of identified specimens in House 2, level 1.
See Table 2 and Figure 9 for keys to symbols.
50
108 N
112 N
.0
...-
... .-^-
,
,...
-..
%
!
/
/
98 E
,
PT
s.
\
AX
1
1
e
\
1.____
(SAND
DH
0
l
PRE/
C2)MAND
I
PUL
I
I
AST
I
I
PRO
0
/
\
i
\\
\
/
I
\X
'.
102 E
/
.
hearth
DT
n
.
/
/1
N
Figure 16. Distribution of in situ identified specimens in House
2, level 2. See Table 2 and Figure 9 for keys to symbols.
51
112 N
108 N
... . .
.. ....
,
98 E
e
.,
..,
"..MT
1
/
1N
IT
/
1
/
PRD
/
T \
x
x
of
1
F
P
x
XT
PT
1
1
PT
x
1
ORD
x
i
PRD
I
.MC
i
f PF t
x
MT
x
x
\
Ro x
...
PMT
PMT
/
/
x
/
In
\
/x
\
/
\
102 E
/
MT
1
x
S.
hearth
.
i
N
Figure 17. Distribution of in situ deer-sized specimens in House
2, level 2. See Table 2 for the key to anatomical part abbreviations.
52
112 N
108 N
..../.
//
... ... ... ... .......
61.PHAL
/
/
98 E
\
X AST
"..
X SK
X LBN
/X DRD
X AX
or
IIICAL
'All.AST
\
*
0 SK
LBN (4 )
PHA1
X DT
X LBN
1
LBN(2)
X
1
1
1
li
X LUM
X PT
OR
X
X THOR
PRD
X OF
I
I
XT
X LBN
0 TO
0 MT
0 ANT
X LBN (3)
\
N.
0
0
TO
X LBN
X LBN (2)
1/2.
102 E
\
MAND
0
0
0
DT
AST
PH
MAND
X LIMO)
rr.
hearth
'
r
/
/ X PMC
N
Figure 18.
Distribution of identified specimens in House 2, level 2.
See Table 2 and Figure 9 for keys to symbols.
53
concentrations are due to food redistribution (cf. Lyman
1980), a shift in food processing locales, or random
deposition is unknown because the sample is so small.
The
recovery of long bones, vertebrae, cranial fragments, and
teeth indicate the "head to toe" marrow and soup/grease
processing of carcasses in and around House 2.
House 3
House 3 was located 2 meters northwest of House 2.
The
recovery of charred wall planks and other architectural
material indicate that most of the structure had burned (see
Brauner 1983:56-59 for a discussion of data relating to the
superstructure).
Backdirt in the House 3 depression is
attributed to the construction of House 2 and indicates that
the former was occupied before Houses 1 and 2.
House 3 possessed the highest frequency of bone and the
most taxonomically rich faunal aggregate at the site.
Ten
thousand two hundred eighty bones were recovered from House
3:
6551 (68% burned) from level 1 (including 133 from the
ground surface) and 3729 (70% burned) from level 2 (Figures
19 and 20, respectively).
Deer are most abundant in level 2
(NISP = 8; cf. Odocoileus sp., NISP = 7) while elk (NISP =
3)7 bear (cf. U. americanus, NISP = 2), and gray fox (cf. Us
cinereargenteus, NISP = 1) are rare.
Faunal remains are
most abundant in the southeast portion of the house floor
(Figures 20-24).
The variety of anatomical parts in this
54
114 N
118 N
93E4-
ND
276
289
145
71
52
88
115
182
200
93
172
27
80
69
88
86
69
56
116
131
126
98
53
73
82
al
68
95 E
713
88
41
65
27
22
92
98
85
78
45
44
57
72
71
91
77
54
45
80
83
78
105
29
54
73
74
78
73
75
55
76
56
72
96
99
42
63
80
63
74
78
85
57
78
157
184
171
184
100
230
87
53
79
47
67
76
76
77
273
171
284
309
155
78
40
53
45
70
59
45
N -91
73
112
95
77
62
80
73
63
47
74
73
50
loci
Figure 19. Bone frequencies by excavation unit in House 3, level 1.
Bold numbers (top) are total number of bones and small numbers
(bottom) are percentage of total which are burned.
55
11414
so t
125'
/
...
....
118 N
,
23
101
110
58
91
68
74
96
95
/
57/
/
i
75
71
134
)
151
68
....
I
335
154
101.:1:
2
87
70
81
94
85
263
343
207
39
72
68
73
64
75 1
1
4 31
57
1
%
\
100 E
116'4, 201
237
68
71
hearth
205
76
70
36
./
, 81
N
Figure 20. Bone frequencies by excavation unit in House 3, level 2.
Hold numbers (top) are total number of bones and small numbers
(bottom) are percentage of total which are burned.
56
114 N
118 N
93 Eel
XF
XH
C)TO XSC
PHA 1
X LBN
TO
0MT X PH
X LBN
MC X DT
MI PHA 1
95 E
XT
X LBN
0 PRD
X LBN
PHA1
0 PRD
AST
X Sc
CAL
X LBN
X LBN
X DMPL
AST
X DH
X PELV
X RD
X DT
0 TO
X PT
XT
XR
AST
TO
X DT
X CAL
X PMT
ORD
X DH
X DH
X PT
X MAND
X PF
X LBN(2)
X DH
X PELV
X MPL
UL
X MAND
X LBN(2)
X SC
X LBN
X DT
X MAND
X DH
XT
X RD
AST
X MPL
XT
X PHAL
X LBN
X PT
X DT
O TO
XT
X PRD
X DT
X MPL
X LBN
X PUL
X MPL
X MT
HY
X LBN
CO PT
PRD
XT
0 MAND
MAND
X ORD
X PELV
X
TAR
X PT
X PRO
F
X AST
N
0 TO
Figure 21. Distribution of identified specimens in House 3, level 1.
See Table 2 and Figure 9 for keys to symbols.
57
114 N
1 8 N
r
no e -,
r
DT
rI
MPL
-".".---Tilli
i
I
/
&
T
PHA 1
0
OH 1
0
MT
I
0
MA0 ND
i
MAND
1
%
MAND
MAO
*
\
100 E
\
\
PUL
%...
..
---.
-3/4-
---
-...
---
/
r
...,
hearth
Figure 22. Distribution of in situ identified specimens in House 3,
level 2.
See Table 2 and Figure 9 for keys to symbols.
58
114 N
118 N
woc
0....
....
DH
...#
x
..../
...."
..#
/
/
/
/PH
co
/
/
1
T
1
X
PT
OF
V0,
9
RR
A
PRO
WO
1
PMC
,----t
AST
DT
x
DH
1
PT
x
DT
x
DT
100 E
x
ii
OH
\
DT
x
N.
DT
x
AAR
x
1
....,j
%.
hearth
-...
---
-- .--
---
/
....
N
Figure 23. Distribution of in situ deer-sized and elk-sized
specimens in House 3, level 2. See Table 2 and Figure 9 for keys
to symbols.
59
114 N
VOC
111
THOR ..,
X AST °
X LBN
'
118 N
I'
....0
DH
X PELV
X
X F
X LBN
,/
e
/
CERV
X DT
X AST
X LBN
X
/
/
t
X
I
X PELV
i
.0 DT
...
.;.;1Q PHA 1
X PHD
X DMPL
MAND
X PT
X LBN
X PF
PMCL
X DMPL
X DH
X PMT
0 MT
X PMT
X LBN
X LBN
X DT
X AST
li
0 TO
X
X
X
X
la
1
THOR t
RD
'
OF
\
MT
X LBN 14)
100 E
X
X
X
X
X
DF
F
DT
DT
CARP
\
X AST
CAL
X MAND
X NAND
X LBN
X
X
X
X
\X LBN (3)
`\
0
ANT% r-...
X
DT
hearth
X LBN
0 TO
DH
PUL
CARP
CAL
X LBN
"
0 TO
X ft
X DH ....
0 TO
X MAND
-..
-
--
-"
...,
N
Figure 24. Distribution of identified specimens in House 3, level 2.
See Table 2 and Figure 9 for keys to symbols.
60
cluster and throughout the entire house suggests that whole
carcasses were processed in and around House 3.
Feature 4
Feature 4 was the designation given to a surface
depression just northeast of House 3 (Figure 2).
First
thought to be a house depression, it is now thought that the
area was heavily disturbed by construction of a water line
ditch, and deposition of backdirt from the recent looting of
House 5 and from the construction of House 3 (Brauner
1983:70).
One thousand one hundred seventy faunal specimens were
recovered from Feature 4:
755 (81% burned) from level 1
(including 59 bone fragments from the ground surface) and
415 (77% burned) from level 2 (Figure 25).
Deer are most
abundant in disturbed level 1 and in level 2 (NISP = 12, cf.
Odocoileus sp., NISP = 1) while mountain lion is represented
by only one specimen.
Two relatively complete deer left scapulae were found
next to each other in Feature 4 on the 120N grid line (see
Figure 26, level 2).
Oriented the same (both distal ends
are facing south), these two specimens might represent a
"shoulder blade rattle" which was utilized in hunting deer.
61
122 N
18
100 E
64
44
30
51
100
84
82
93
63
80
102
7
1
26
49
56
57
0
100
96
30
24
38
31
39
10
90
83
100
97
74
70
no bone
9
29
no bone
12
no bone
67
90
....
92
104
119 N
123 N
100 E
63
103
52
95
67
46
83
96
25
26
28
23
100
88
96
100
N
Figure 25. Bone frequencies by excavation unit in Feature 4, level
Bold numbers (top) are total number
1 (top) and level 2 (bottom).
of bones and small numbers (bottom) are percentage of total which
are burned.
62
118 N
122 N
100 EOTO
0 PRD
X PUL
XT
0 MT
OTO
OTO
X PH
X LBN
0 ANT
OW
no bone
no bone
I
0 MAND
no bone
104 E
119 N
100 E
123 N
0 SC
* OH 0 ANT
X DT 0 UL
0 PRI)
X PEL
0 UL
X DT
p SC
X DMPLI. F
X LBN (4)
N
XF
Figure 26.
Distribution of identified specimens in Feature 4,
level 1 (top) and level 2(bottom). See Table 2 and Figure 9 for
keys to symbols.
63
Souse 5
House 5 was located 6 meters to the northeast of House
3 (Figure 2).
First thought to be different from the other
houses due to steeply sloping side-walls, excavation of
House 5 indicated that the depression had been looted
(Brauner 1983).
Backdirt from the looting of House 5 had
been tossed back into the depression and onto the surface of
Feature 4.
Due to extensive looting of the house, its
relationship to the other structures at the site is unknown.
Seven hundred eighteen bones were recovered from House
5:
673 (69% burned) from level 1 (including 9 bones
recovered from the ground surface) and 45 (33% burned) from
level 2 (Figure 27).
Deer are most abundant (NISP = 3; cf.
Odocoileus sp., NISP = 3) while domestic sheep (NISP = 5)
and gray fox (NISP = 1) are secondary (Figure 28).
The recovery of domestic sheep remains from the site
warrants discussion.
The occurrence of a complete domestic
sheep mandible in the cultural deposits at 35JA42 could be
attributed to a number of processes.
This specimen could
represent food refuse from the aboriginal site occupants,
more recent occupants, natural inclusion through the on-site
mortality of an animal, or, transportation of the specimen
to the site by a carnivore.
I believe that this specimen is
representative of food refuse deposited by one of the
aboriginal occupations at 35JA42.
Although it possesses no
evidence of butchery (i.e., flake scars or
64
124 N
98E4-
130
92
75
79
105
106
76
90
45
30
62
87
18
17
69
69
58
30
-
102E-
126 N
100 E
N
-45
33
Figure 27. Bone Frequencies by excavation unit in House 5, level
1 (top)and level 2 (bottom).
Bold numbers (top) are total number
of bones and small numbers (bottom) are percentage of total which
are burned.
65
124 N
98 E
* TO
1:1RD
® TAR
MT
PUL
0 MT
PELV
C)70
X Sc
X Sc
X MT
CE) LBN
QPH
C)MAND-
010(4)
102E-
126 N
100 E
N
X DH
X PT
Figure 28.
Distribution of identified specimens in House 5, level
1 (top) and level 2 (bottom). See Table 2 and Figure 9 for keys
to symbols.
66
striae), it is heavily stained from the organic-rich midden
and its location (in backdirt from the looting of House 5)
suggests that it was redeposited.
Although conjectural,
this specimen could have been associated with the floor of
House 5 prior to its looting.
No historical data (pre 1900) was recorded for the
introduction of domestic sheep to southwest Oregon.
Because
historical records document the import of sheep to Oregon
from California (Gibson 1985; Lomax 1941, 1928), a brief
history of the domestic sheep in California is presented
here.
Domestic sheep were brought to California by the
Spaniards in the early part of the 16th century (Lomax
1941).
In reference to the breed of sheep brought to the
New World by the Spanish, Lomax (1941:24-25) notes that they
were;
largely Merino, degenerated by this time into a
scrub type.
Nevertheless, they were woolbearers
and by selective breeding, could be improved in
quality in spite of their lack of petigree.
By the mid 1700's, sheep were a primary component of
California mission livestock.
Exceeded in importance only
by cattle, they were a valuable source of meat and wool
(Archibald 1978:177).
Between 1785 and 1795, the number of
sheep in California missions increased 497%.
By 1810, there
were 150,000 sheep in California missions alone (Archibald
1978:180-181).
67
The recovery of glass beads and other historic
artifacts from 35JA42 indicates aboriginal trade with Euroamericans (or at least with other aboriginals for these
items).
Although speculative, it is possible that a
domestic sheep (or portion thereof) was exchanged during one
of these interludes, and was subsequently depositied at
35JA42.
House 6
House 6 was located 12 meters northwest of House 5
(Figure 2).
A small relic collectors pit near the center of
the depression was the only sign of disturbance (Brauner
1983:76).
Unlike other houses in the village complex, the
depression was small (approximately 2 X 3 meters) and oval
shaped (Figure 2).
House 6:
A total of 493 bones were recovered from
349 (97% burned) from level 1 and 144 (88% burned)
from level 2 (Figure 29).
None of the recovered bone
fragments were identifiable.
The assemblage of bone and other cultural debris from
House 6 indicates that the structure was used for a more
limited range of activities than the larger houses (Brauner
1983:82).
This structure may have been a menstrual hut.
Activities and tools associated with a male
presence in the structure were absent.
The total
cultural assemblage from House 6 indicates shortterm usage of the structure by women.
The
68
139 N
142 N
93 Eno
41
7
15
100
86
93
30
25
19
31
8
97
92
95
100
100
6
16
9
35
10
100
100
100
97
90
16
26
16
9
94
100
100
100
no bone
30
no bone
96 E
no bone
100
139 N
142 N
93 E
no bane
12 /
83
14
93
1
4
2
100
100
13
18
85
67
100
32
16
16
97
94
75
N
96 E
2
8
100
100
Figure 29. Bone frequencies by excavation unit in House 6, level
1 (top) and level 2 (bottom). Bold numbers (top) are total number
of bones and small numbers (bottom) are percentage of total which
are burned.
69
context, size, and isolated position of the
structure leads this researcher to propose that
House 6 functioned as a menstrual but (Brauner
1983:82).
Menstrual huts are commonly reported in ethnographic
literature throughout most of western North America (see
Brauner 1976 and references therein).
Because they are
rarely (if ever) reported archaeologically, there is
difficulty in recognizing the recovered material culture as
indicative of activities associated with such structures.
Summar'c
As discussed in the previous chapter, there is often a
great deal of difficulty in identifying areas indicative of
specific human activities.
What I have presented here is a
general characterization of the distribution and frequency
of bones associated with various occupational features at
35JA42.
The distribution of bones in Houses 1 and 2 suggest
that in-house food preparation and (possibly) consumption
occurred in the northern portion of the houses while similar
tasks performed in House 3 occurred in the southeast floor
area.
Deer are most abundant across the site and are
represented by almost every skeletal element.
The recovery
of this wide range of skeletal parts indicates that (at
70
least in some instances) whole carcasses were brought back
to camp for processing.
The site may have been occupied by the same family or
families returning to the site and constructing new houses
over consecutive years (Brauner 1983).
Although House 3 is
different than houses 1 and 2 in many respects, the tool
kits recovered from all of the structures are stylistically
and functionally similar.
The divergence of House 3 from
the other houses indicated by the distribution, frequency,
and condition of the recovered faunal remains is examined in
detain in Chapter 8.
71
VII. BUTCHERING
Theordore White was one of the first zooarchaeologist
to study prehistoric butchering techniques in North America
(e.g., 1952, 1953a, 1953b, 1954).
His discussions on
differential transport of bones and cultural temporal
differences in butchery techniques, and his insights into
prehistoric behavior and social organization as indicated by
horizontal and vertical distribution of skeletal elements in
a site served as a standard for many subsequent researchers
(see discussions in Lyman 1985c, n.d.).
While "he realized
... that taphonomy had to be considered when making intrasite comparisons" (Lyman n.d.), the contemporary affluence
of actualistic and ethnoarchaeological research has helped
elucidate many taphonomic considerations White was unaware
of.
As an example, we now know that bone distributions and
frequencies are often dictated by distributional factors
(e.g., Hill 1979a, 1979b), differential presentation (e.g.,
Binford and Bertram 1977; Lyman 1984), or both.
Nonetheless, White's work in the 1950's helped stimulate
contemporary analytic endeavors in this important and
rapidly expanding aspect of zooarchaeological analysis.
The butchering of an animal involves a series of
processes directed towards extracting consumable resources
from the carcass (Lyman n.d.).
Evidence of butchering
consists of striae and flake scars on bones (e.g., Binford
1981; Bonnichsen and Will 1980; Potts and Shipman 1981).
72
Other taphonomic agencies (e.g., rodents, carnivores, and
treadage) can produce marks on bone similar to those
produced by humans during the butchering process (e.g..
Behrensmeyer, et al. 1986; Shipman 1981).
These latter
marks superficially resemble butcher marks, and problems
persist in identifying the particular agent that made a mark
on a bone (Lyman n.d.).
The following discussion of animal
butchery and associated taphonomic implications of the
353A42 assemblage follows recommendations outlined by Lyman
(n.d.).
The Site
All but one of the butchering marks are flake scars
(Table 3).
The remaining specimen (a deer calcaneum) has
two striations on its dorsal surface.
These striae closely
match filleting marks (type TC-3) illustrated by Binford
(1981:120).
Prior to interpreting the flake scar data, it
is important to note that carnivores not only fragment bone
(Haynes 1980, 1983), but can also leave marks on bone
similar to those produced by a hammerstone wielded by a
human impacting bone (Bunn 1982).
Although some of the
flake scars might have been produced by carnivores, the
paucity of bones in the collection displaying carnivore
damage suggests that the majority of the flake scars were
hammerstone ("dynamic loading"; Lyman n.d.) produced.
73
Table 3.
Catalog #
House/
Feature
Butchering marks on artiodactyl bones.
Level
Element
Type
B-120
B-159
B-166
1
1
1
1
2
B-167
B-173
1
1
2
8-174
1
2
B-185
1
2
B -196
2
2
B-203
2
2
8-220
B-226
B-244
B-252
2
2
2
2
2
2
B-266
B-303
B-502
B-512
B-537
2
2
2
3
2
3
3
1
B-538
3
1
B-551
3
1
8-564
3
1
B-580
B-616
B-617
3
1
3
3
1
1
B-618
B-645
B-323
3
3
3
1
1
2
Proximal latero -anterior FS
tibia
Distal posterior radius
FS
Proximal posterior humerus FS
Metacarpal - posterior
shaft
Posterior first phalanx
FS
Proximal posterior femur FS
Proximal posterior tibia FS
B-339
3
2
Proximal anterior humerus FS
2
2
2
2
1
1
Distal anterior radius
Proximal posterior radius
Distal posterior metatarsal
Distal posterior humerus
Metatarsal - posterior
shaft
Metacarpal - anterior
shaft
Mandible - horizontal
ramus
Proximal posterior metatarsal
Proximal anterior tibia
Location
FS
FS
FS
Medial
Medial
Medial
FS
FS
lateral
Medial
FS
Lateral
FS
Lingual
FS
lateral
FS
FS
Medioanterior
Lateral
Lateral
Medial
Medioposterior
Lateral
Lateral
Medial
Dorsal
Lateral
FS
Lateral
FS
Lateroposterior
Medioanterior
medial
Lateral
Radius - lateral shaft
Distal tibia
Tibia - medial shaft
Proximal posterior tibia
FS
FS
FS
FS
Distal anterior radius
Humerus - lateral shaft
Distal posterior tibia
Dorsal calcanuem
Distal medio -posterior
radius
Distal later° -posterior
humerus
Proximal anterior radius
FS
FS
FS
Medial
Lateral
Lateroposterior
Lateral
74
Table 3.
Catalog #
House/
Feature
Level
3
2
3
2
3
2
3
2
8-369
8-400
B-403
B-417
(Continued)
Element
Type
Distal posterior tibia
Anterior first phalanx
Distal tibia
Distal anterior tibia
FS
FS
FS
FS
Location
Medial
Medial
Medial
Latero -
anterior
B-424
4
2
Radius - posterior shaft
FS
Medio -
8-427
8-430
4
4
2
Distal posterior tibia
Femur - anterior shaft
FS
FS
posterior
Lateral
Lateral
FS
Flake scar
S
Striae
2
75
Further, the morphology of the flake scar at 35JA42 is not
similar to flake scars produced by North American carnivores
(Haynes 1983).
While the 35JA42 flake scars represent human induced
bone breakage, problems persist in interpreting the function
(purpose) of this breakage.
Traditional interpretations
suggest that flake scars are indicative of marrow extraction
and/or grease production (Binford 1978, 1981).
Plotting the
frequency of flake scars per anatomical part and comparing
it to Binford's "marrow index" (1978:21) indicates that many
of the flake scars might be attributed to the extraction of
marrow by humans (Figure 30) because most of the flake scars
occur on bones with high marrow content.
But some of these
flake scars could be related to animal disarticulation.
As
an example, the proximal tibiae are represented almost
entirely by anterior crests.
While only two of these
skeletal portions display flake scars, they are an abundant
element in this and other collections (cf. Lyman 1978).
Because many muscles and ligaments are attached to this
element (e.g., the deep fascia and ligamentum patellae),
"breaking off the crest allows easy separation of the knee
joint from the tibia" (Lyman 1978:16).
Further, because
tibiae are relatively high marrow yielding elements (Figure
30), the breakage pattern resulting in the high frequency of
anterior crests could be two-fold:
disarticulation by
percussion and the resultant opening of the medullary
76
NUMBER OF FLAKE SCARS
10
5
Vi
0
111111111111;
4 u
100
;122 r2
_I
cc.3
wul-w
m
9
7,06
rter Pet' re
:11!xtmwr
.91iTiegf.90!
wa mu:i6
m004 -yriccxx
0.0.0000
1111111111111111i1111111iiil
50
10
5
MARROW UTILITY INDEX
Figure 30.
Comparison of the marrow utility index (Binford 1978)
and number of specimens from 35JA42 with flake scars.
77
cavity for marrow extraction.
Disarticulation by percussion
might represent the most "optimum" butchering strategy in
that it separates articulated joints while simultaneously
exposing the medullary cavity for marrow extraction (Figure
31, far right).
The paucity of cut marks, high frequency of flake
scars, and the recovery of a number of articulated joints
seems to indicate a butchering pattern similar to that
documented on the prehistoric Columbia Plateau.
Specifically, dismemberment and disarticulation by breaking
bone just proximal and distal to major joints (Lyman 1978,
1985b).
There are, however, many methodological weaknesses
in how this interpretation is derived (after Lyman 1985b).
First, "it is quite possible to butcher an animal of any
size without leaving a single (cut) mark on any bone"
(Guilday, et al. 1962:64; see also Shipman and Rose 1983).
Second, the intensive processing of bone for soup/grease as
displayed by the highly fragmented 35JA42 assemblage could
have "erased" many cut marks.
Finally, regardless of
butchering techniques, less dense articular ends that
possessed cut marks could be absent due to preservational
factors (Lyman 1984a).
While these inherent weaknesses might render the
traditional interpretation too simplistic (after Lyman
1985b:279), the 35JA42 butchering data indicates that in
many instances ungulates were skinned and subsequently
disarticulated by percussion and filleted.
Although no
78
Figure 31.
Flow chart depicting
the various methods and stages
in animal butchery at 35JA42.
1.
After the animal is skinned, the carcass is
disarticulated by cutting through the joints.
2.
After the animal is skinned, the carcass is
disarticulated by breaking bones just proximal and
distal to joints.
3.
Meat is extracted from separated butcher units.
4.
Meat and marrow are extracted from the separated
butcher units.
5.
After meat and marrow are extracted, the bones are
discarded.
6.
After meat is removed, the bones are discarded. The
paucity of nearly complete elements indicates that
this rarely occurred.
7.
After meat is removed, the bones are broken for
marrow.
8.
Although bones are broken during disarticulation,
further bone processing is required to expose more of
the medullary cavity for marrow extraction.
9.
After marrow is extracted, the bones are discarded.
10.
Bone fragments resulting from disarticulation and
marrow extraction are broken further for the
manufacture of soup/grease.
11.
After soup/grease is manufactured, the bone fragments
are discarded.
SKINNED CARCASS
2
1
DISARTICULATE (CUTTING)
DISARTICULATE
EXTRACT MEAT
( PERCUSSION)
DISCARD
EXTRACT MARROW
EXTRACT MEAT
BONE
BREAK FOR
DISCARD
9
DISCARD
BONE
FURTHER
BREAKAGE
DISCARD
BONE
MARROW
BONE
FURTHER
BREAKAGE
(marrow)
(soup/grease)
10
10
FURTHER
BREAKAGE
(soup /grease)
DISCARD
BONE
FURTHER
BREAKAGE
(soup/grease)
DISCARD
BONE
DISCARD
BONE
Figure 31.
11;11
DISCARD
BONE
80
disarticulation (cut) marks were observed, it is suspected
that carcasses were occasionally disarticulated by cutting
through the joints.
Because "every butchering situation is
unique" (Frison 1978:305), one can assume variation in
butchering techniques due to the many contingencies
affecting each butchering episode.
These contingencies
might include (among other things) the number of animals
killed, the natural setting in which animal butchery
occurred (Binford 1978), and the anatomy of the animal(s)
(Gifford 1977).
For a complete list of variables affecting
butchering techniques, see Lyman (n.d., Table 3).
In Houses 1 and 2, skeletal elements displaying flake
scars are most abundant on the house floors.
Conversely,
the highest frequency of butchered bone in House 3 is from
level 1 (Table 3).
Because it represents the
chronologically first occupational surface at the site, the
abundance of butchered bone in the fill of House 3 suggests
that this open depression served as a refuse dump for later
occupants of the site.
Bone fragments from a "typical" excavation unit at
35JA42 are shown in Figure 32.
The abundance of small bone
fragments implies that the activities of bone soup/grease
manufacturing were commonly undertaken at the site (cf.
Leechman 1951; Vehik 1977).
Because bone grease is a high
caloric food resource (due to its high fat content) and
because it preserves well (see Vehik 1977), bone grease
appears to have served as a multifunctional food resource:
81
Figure 32. Faunal remains from a "typical" excavation unit at
35,1702 (112-113N/100-101E, level 2).
82
"opportunistic" exploitation of an available resource (cf.
Lyman 1985b:285), a concentrated energy source (Vehik 1977),
an additive to other foods, and as a stored food reserve for
consumption under conditions of short supply.
Minimally,
the crushing of bone and its suspected subsequent boiling
for grease extraction indicate the maximum utilization of
animal resources at the site.
In order to assess the human behavioral meaning of the
site fauna, deer and deer-sized skeletal elements were
collapsed into one sample (after Lyman 1985b).
The minimum
number of elements (MNE) and minimum animal units (MAU) were
then derived from this sample (see Binford 1984:50-51).
These data were then compared to Binford's (1978:74)
modified general utility index (MGUI) for sheep.
The curve
resulting from plotting the MAU against the MGUI per
anatomical part (Table 4, Figure 33), corresponds closely
with that of a reverse utility strategy (Thomas and Mayer
1983:368), or, the inverse of the bulk utility strategy
(Binford 1978:81; see also Lyman 1985b, 1985c).
The model
for this strategy predicts the recovery of a higher
proportion of low utility elements (e.g., mandibles) than
higher utility elements (e.g., femurs).
Although the
paucity of high utility skeletal portions suggests transport
of these elements to another location, many (e.g., vertebrae
and ribs) are low density elements and their low frequency
in the site could be attributed to differential destruction.
As stated by Lyman (1985c:234),
83
Table 4. Absolute and proportional frequencies (Binford 1984:50-51)
of deer and deer-sized bones compared to the MGUI for sheep (from
Binford 1978:74).
Skeletal Part
Antler
Skull
Mandible
Hyoid
Atlas
Axis
Vertebrae (unident.)
Cervical
Thoracic
Lumbar
Pelvis
Rib
Sternum
Scapula
Proximal humerus
Distal humerus
Proximal radius
Distal radius
Proximal ulna
Carpals
Proximal metacarpal
Proximal femur
Distal Femur
Proximal tibia
Distal tibia
Tarsals
Astragalus
Calcaneum
Proximal metatarsal
Distal metapodial
First phalanx
Second phalanx
Third phalanx
NISP
MNE
4
2
29
6
4
57
22
5
1
1
0
0
2
1
.04
.14
71
14
0
14
3
1
2
1
.15
.16
MAU
.5
MGUI
1
26(13)
12a
44b
19
19
47c
2
2
46
55
2
39
1.5
21
-
0
2
1
0
29
82
100
91
14
3
43
4
57
1
3.5
14
8
3
.5
3
7
21
14
21
14
26
1.5
1
1.5
4
5.5
1
20
.25
7
5
1.5
1.5
79
4
100
21
21
8
1
0
2
.13
29
2
0
0
8
1
.13
2
8
7
2
0
7
4
18
15
5
4
8
5
50
57
45
37
33
24
20
28d
13
10
81
81
52
38
23
23
23
16
10e
8
a MGUI is for mandible without tounge.
b YGUI is for mandible with tounge.
Average of MGUI for cervical, thoracic, and lumbar.
d Average of MGUI for proximal radius and distal humerus.
e Average of MGUI for distal metacarpal and distal metatarsal.
84
MGU I
Figure 33.
Deer-sized artiodactyl utility strategy at 353A42.
MAU and MGUI values from Table 4. Stippled area is arbitrary
± 10% variance (after Thomas and Mayer 1983:370). See Table 2
for abbreviations.
85
"the frequencies of bone parts should be correlated with the
bulk density of those bone parts to assess the possibility
that the [reverse utility] curve may be the result of
differential destruction and not differential transport."
In order to test this possibility, ratio values of the (less
dense) proximal humeri/distal radii were plotted against the
(dense) distal humeri/proximal radii as illustrated by
Binford (1981: Figures 5.07-5.10; see Lyman 1984a for bulk
density values).
The results (Figure 34) indicate that the
reverse utility curve (Figure 33) could be the product of
differential destruction of high utility-low density
skeletal elements.
The paucity of vertebrae and ribs could
be attributed to food preparation techniques and not
differential transport.
To illustrate this further, jack
rabbit (Lepus sp.) skeletal portion frequencies in western
Great Basin archaeological sites can serve as an
interpretive analog.
Much like the processing of larger mammal bone for
grease, jack rabbits were pounded up for bone meal and soup
(e.g., Steward 1941).
Due to their small size, whole
carcasses were brought to habitation sites for processing;
differential transport of selected butcher units rarely, if
ever, occurred.
Although low density elements, such as
scapulae and cranial fragments, are relatively abundant in
these sites, vertebrae and ribs are rare due to intensive
food processing of these elements (Dansie and Ringkob 1979;
Schmitt 1986b).
The paucity of these elements indicates
86
100
area of no destruction
80
/
/
60
/
40
20
RD
RD
..
H
zone of destruction
...
20
40
60
80
RATIO VALUE OF DISTAL HUMERUS/PROXIMAL RADIUS
NISP
Figure 34. Relationship between frequencies of proximal humerus/
distal radius and distal humerus/proximal radius at 35JA42 (after
Binford 1981:221).
100
87
human behavior related to subsistence practices rather than
differential transport.
Perhaps the low frequency of axial
skeletal portions at 35JA42 reflects a similar food
processing technique.
To summarize, it appears that in many instances whole
carcasses were brought to the site where a variety of food
resources were extracted.
The butchering data indicate that
ungulates were disarticulated primarily by percussion.
Once
meat was removed, marrow was extracted for consumption.
While many equate the recovery of broken mandibles and
phalanges with marrow extraction due to nutritional stress
(e.g., a depleated food supply; Binford 1978), the recovery
of these broken elements at 35JA42 probably represents the
use of a readily available and useable food resource (after
Lyman 1985b), or perhaps even gustatory preference.
The condition of the faunal assemblage indicates
maximizing of acquired animal resources by the human
inhabitants of 35JA42.
Although carnivores and other non-
human agencies can break bone, ethnographic and
archaeological data indicate that the processing of bone for
soup/grease was the major factor resulting in the highly
fragmented condition of the assemblage.
With this evidence
of intensive processing of skeletal elements, one must
suspect intensive utilization of the internal and external
soft tissue (the hide and viscera) as well.
88
VIII.
INTRA-SITE ANALYSIS
The frequency, context, and content of activity areas
in an archaeological site are determined by the function of
a site and the duration and intensity of occupation (Binford
1980; Schiffer 1972).
The inverse relationship between the
duration and intensity of occupation, and the archaeological
resolution of activity areas in cultural deposits (due
primarily to blending and smearing of materials) increases
the difficulty in defining such areas (see Chapter 6).
The
structure of 35JA42 (e.g., house depressions and hearths)
and the large and diverse artifact assemblage (Brauner 1983)
indicate multi-functional and intensive occupation of the
site.
As previously discussed, the recovered faunal remains
are represented primarily by small, burned fragments (see
Figure 32).
While this alone serves as an indicator of the
extent of animal resource processing at the site, it tells
us little about areas where food processing occurred and
where exhausted resources (i.e., bone refuse) were
deposited.
In order to extract behavioral inferences
related to activity areas and study variation in withinplace and between-place site patterning (Binford 1982),
various statistical analyses were performed on the samples
of small bone fragments recovered from the house floors,
fill, and surrounding areas.
89
Burnt Bone
Osteological material can become burned by many natural
and cultural processes including brush fires, house fires,
cooking, and refuse disposal in a hearth.
When bone is
heated by an open flame, it passes through a continuum of
morphological stages directly related to the duration and
intensity of heating (Shipman, et al. 1984).
Although the
burnt bone assemblage from 35JA42 possesses specimens in all
stages of this continuum, most are gray to white, small,
calcined bone fragments.
Due to the dark, organic-rich
deposits at the site, burnt and unburnt bone were easily
differentiated:
burnt bones were typically white and
"chalky" while unburnt were orange to dark brown.
Spearman's rank order correlation coefficient (rs) was
employed to examine the relationship of burnt and unburnt
bone at the site (two-tailed tests are used throughout).
The results (Table 5) indicate significant variation between
the proportions of burnt and unburnt bone in various locales
at the site.
The proportions of burnt and unburnt bone in the
disturbed areas of level 1 horizontal excavation units
(Feature 4 and House 5) and the menstrual but (House 6) are
similar while these proportions in the fill of houses 1, 2
and 3 are significantly different (Table 5, level 1).
Similarities in the proportions of burnt and unburnt bone in
the former might be attributed to greater preservation of
Table 5. Statistical comparison of proportions of burnt and
unburnt bone for various faunal aggregates.
House 1
Area
House 2
Area
House 3
Area
Feature 4
Area
House 5
Area
House 6
Area
Level 1
Number of Units
Total # of Bones
% of Total Burned
Burned vs. Unburned per
1 x lm unit (rs)
P
25
938
73
1646
82
.690
<.002
56
6551
19
755
68
.381
.611
<.02
<.002
.1>p .05
8
415
77
39
81
8
673
69
18
349
97
.438
.024
.274
.2
>.2
-
12
144
Level 2
Number of Units
Total # of Bones
% of Total Burned
Burned vs. Unburned per
1 x 1m unit (rs)
P
18
23
1981
80
2731
70
24
3729
70
.751
.460
.860
.777
<.002
<.01
<.002
<,002
13
1266
70
14
2144
70
-
.545
.379
.780
-
-
.446
>.2
>.2
<.002
-
-
>,2
-
88
-
<.01
-
105
-
88
.663
House Floors Only
Number of Units
Total # of Bones
% of Total Burned
Burned vs. Unburned per
1 x lm unit (rs)
p
8
1168
79
7
91
burnt bone due to increased bone resilience via
carbonization.
Because almost all of the bones in level 1
of House 6 are burned (97%), similarities between this house
and the disturbed areas indicate that the destruction (e.g.,
weathering) of unburnt bone through redeposition of faunal
remains (see Figure 6) may have contributed to variation in
proportions of burnt and unburnt bones in these areas.
The level 2 units show that the proportions of burnt
and unburnt bone per unit are significantly different across
the site.
Faunal remains from the house floor units display
a pattern different than that shown across the general house
areas (Table 5).
Specifically, the proportions of burnt and
unburnt bones in House 3 are correlated while the other
occupational surfaces (i:e., hHouses 1, 2 and 6) show no
correlation.
Although the divergence of House 3 from the
other houses might be attributed to the fact that House 3
had burned, percentages of burned bone (see Table 5) in the
houses (and across the site) suggest that the burning of
House 3 did not effect the relationship of burnt and unburnt
bone.
I believe the variation between House 3 and
(especially) houses 1 and 2 is a result of refuse being
deposited in the House 3 depression after its abandonment.
The percentage of burnt bone remains constant across all
sample sizes in houses 1 and 2, but varies across different
sample sizes in House 3 suggesting bone accumulation
processes different from those operating in houses 1 and 2
operated in House 3; House 3 served as a refuse dump while
92
houses 1 and 2 did not.
This inference is examined further
at the end of this chapter.
Fragmentation Analysis
As discussed in Chapters 5 and 7, bones can be broken
by many cultural and natural processes. Bones are broken by
people during various stages of animal butchery to extract
meat (Lyman 1978), marrow (Binford 1978) and grease (Vehik
1977).
In most instances, the location where these
activities are performed will be dictated by site function.
Tasks associated with marrow processing and bone grease
manufacture are commonly carried out around exterior
(outside of house) hearths (Binford 1978, 1983).
Because
the resultant small bone fragments are commonly
"concentrated in the location where the actual cracking of
bones was carried out" (Binford 1978:155), one might expect
these activity areas to be easily identified in the
archaeological record as a "drop zone", consisting of small
items concentrated around the hearth (Binford 1983; see also
Stevenson 1985).
Further, a "toss-zone" (Binford 1983:153)
might be archaeologically discerned as an area radiating
outward from a hearth and characterized by large items which
were removed to keep the task area devoid of large debris.
Again, depending on the intensity and duration of site
occupation, these areas can be subject to blending and
smearing and secondary (and/or tertiary) refuse disposal
93
which can leave the behavioral meaning of observed
archaeological patterns obscure.
In a general sense, the function of a house interior is
different than exterior work areas.
Houses consist of
enclosed spaces in which activities are spatially
concentrated.
For this reason, and because they generally
contain sleeping and storage areas, cleaning of houses is
common to keep the floor free of refuse (see Murray 1980 for
a list of ethnographic examples).
House cleaning, multi-
purpose locations, and blending and smearing create
difficulty in defining areas indicative of specific human
activities within houses.
In order to make inferences concerning refuse disposal
practices and variation in activity patterning at 35,7A42,
fragmentation analysis was employed.
The procedure involved
measuring each bone fragment from selected units in levels 1
and 2
(see Figures 35 and 36, respectively) on a five
millimeter increment scale.
In order to make reliable
measurements, small fragments exhibiting fresh breaks were
not included in the analysis (after Watson 1972).
In many
instances, however, bones that broke during excavation and
transport were easily recognized and were re-articulated and
measured.
Histograms depicting the size of bone fragments
and their respective abundances (by excavation unit) are
presented in Appendix A.
Elsewhere I (Schmitt 1986b) employed fragmentation
analysis of faunal remains to compare bone fragments in the
North
100
1
104
I
1
112
108
1
1
116
120
124
139
I
1
I
142
93
93
96.
96
IMP
HOUSE 6
100
104
East
11=21M1=111
0
2
4m
N
Out -house sample
In -house sample
Relationship of units selected for fragmentation
analysis and houses at 35JA42, level 1.
Figure 35.
North
100
104
108
116
112
120
124
139
142
1
93-
93
HOUSE
96
HOUSE
3
96
1
HOUSE 6
FEATURE
10040
4
o
HOUSE 5
water line
104
East
0
2
4 es
Out -house sample
In -house sample
Figure 36. Relationship of units selected for fragmentation
analysis and houses at 35JA42, level 2.
1M,
96
fill of houses with fragments from house floors.
Because
house floors represent distinct living surfaces, my purpose
was to determine if bones on house floors are smaller than
bones in house fill and exterior areas due to in-house food
processing and human treadage (cf. Deetz 1977; Yellen 1977).
Although house cleaning would remove some of this evidence,
ethnoarchaeological research has shown that smaller items
tend to be displaced downward and thus remain in fair
numbers while larger, more visible items are swept-up and
discarded outside of the house (Binford 1978; Gifford, et
al. 1985; Yellen 1977).
While analysis of bone fragment
size in the earlier sample supported the hypothesis (Schmitt
1986b), fragmentation analysis of the 35JA42 faunal remains
displays a different yet equally enlightening pattern.
The Kolmogorov-Smirnov test was employed to examine
differences between paired samples (Table 6).
Statistical
analyses show similarities between in-house and out-house
units in both levels 1 and 2, thus precluding the definition
of house floors at 35JA42 as containing a higher frequency
of smaller bone fragments.
Fragmentation analysis does,
however, show House 3 to be an anomaly when compared to
other occupational surfaces at the site.
There is a much
higher frequency of larger bones on the floor of House 3
than on the floors of houses 1, 2, and 6.
97
Table 6. Statistical comparison of fragmentation data in various
faunal aggregates (see Appendix A Eor data).
House 1/Level 1 vs. House 2/Level 1
D = .353
House 1/Level 1 vs. House 3/Level 1
D = .156
.05 > p > .01
House 1/Level 1 vs. House 1/Level 2
D = .179
.05 > p > .01
House 2/Level 1 vs. House 3/Level 1
D = .509
p < .001
House 2/Level 1 vs. House 2/Level 2
D = .197
p < .001
House 3/Level 1 vs. House 3/Level 2
D = .138
p < .001
Out-house/Level 1 vs. House 1/Level 1
D = .036
p > .05
Out-house/level 1 vs. House 2/Level 1
D = .327
p < .001
Out-house/Level 1 vs. House 3 /Level 1
D = .182
p < .001
Out-house/Level 1 vs. Out-house/Level 2
D = .155
p < .001
Out-house/Level 1 vs. House 3/Level 2
D = .223
p < .001
House 1/Level 2 vs. House 2/Level 2
D = .066
p > .05
House 1/Level 2 vs. House 3/Level 2
D = .259
p < .001
House 2/Level 2 vs. House 3/Level 2
D = .334
p < .001
House 1/Level 2 vs. House 6/Level 2
D = .147
p > .05
House 2 /Level 2 vs. House 6/Level 2
D
House 3/Level 2 vs. House 6/Level 2
D = .504
p < .001
Out-house/leve1 2 vs. House 2/Level 2
D = .040
p
D = .359
p < .001
p < .001
*
*
*
=
.170
.05 > p > .01
*
.05
*
Out-house/Level 2 vs. House 3/Level 2
* Out-house sample units in levels 1 and 2 are combined, see Figures
35 and 36.
98
Discussion
The use of fragmentation analysis has proven to be a
valuable analytic tool in zooarchaeological investigations.
Its application to faunal remains has the potential to
define food processing areas, refuse disposal locations, and
occupational surfaces.
Employing fragmentation analysis
also gives the analyst a more accurate tally of bone
fragments in a site because bones that have broken during
excavation and transport are easily recognized during this
extensive "hands-on" analytic procedure.
As a cautionary
note, fragmentation analysis should only be employed on
assemblages of bones represented by animals within the same
size class (see Thomas 1969:393).
Faunal remains recovered
from 35JA42 (represented almost entirely by large mammals)
thus constitute an excellent assemblage for such analysis.
The frequency and distribution of bones, the
proportions of burnt and unburnt bone per unit, bone
fragment sizes, and the distribution of bone artifacts
(Chapter 10) indicate that House 3 is significantly
different than other occupational surfaces at the site.
The
variation displayed by House 3 could be attributed to a
number of factors.
In relation to houses 1 and 2, House 3 represents the
first occupation at the site.
Although the precise time of
occupation is unknown, recovered architectural materials
indicate that House 3 had burned.
If this house burned
99
while it was occupied, perhaps houses 1 and 2 are anomalies
and material from House 3 is actually more representative of
a typical Applegate Athapaskan occupational surface.
If the
house burned subsequent to its occupation, this man-made
depression could have served as a refuse disposal area for
the more recent site occupants.
This might account for the
abundance of bone and the high frequency of larger
fragments; house cleaning refuse was added to the floor of
House 3 by House 1 and House 2 occupants.
House 3 might
also have been occupied during a different season than
houses 1 and 2, or perhaps during a different climatic
interval during which human behavior related to resource
aquisition and processing was modified.
Finally, House 3
might have been occupied by a different family (or families)
than those who occupied houses 1 and 2, and familial
variation in behavior patterns might, therefore, account for
the variation.
I believe that the variation displayed by House 3 is a
product of refuse being deposited in the depression after
its abandonment.
The use of abandoned house depressions for
waste disposal activities is a relatively common phenomenon
(see, for example, Brauner 1976:278).
The abundance of
butchered bone in the house fill (Chapter 7) tends to
support this belief.
100
IX.
SEASONALITY
Introduction
Determination of the season of site occupation is a
common aspect of zooarchaeological analysis (see Monks 1981
and references therein).
Techniques employed in extracting
the season of site occupation utilize ontogenetic data such
as tooth eruption and wear (e.g., Chaplin and White 1969),
and epipyseal fusion, and the presence or absence of
seasonally available species (Bokonyi 1972).
The
literature, however, indicates that the accuracy of
"measuring individual age and season of death may not be as
great as once thought" (Lyman 1982:367), and that there are
many difficulties in using biological measures to determine
the season of human occupation (Grayson and Thomas 1983;
Lyman 1982; Monks 1981; Morris 1972).
In using vertebrate remains to extract seasonal data,
one must realize that the season of animal death is being
measured (Monks 1981).
Due to differential transport of
bone by non-humans (e.g., Kent 1981) and/or the storage and
transport of dried foods (cf. Binford 1978), the seasonal
data extracted from archaeofaunal remains may not correlate
with the actual season of site occupation (Lyman 1982; Monks
1981).
As well, even if the derived seasonal data is
representative of cultural bone refuse, there is difficulty
in obtaining measurement precision (i.e., the month of
101
death).
Further, a uniformitarian assumption that modern
and prehistoric animal populations are ontogenetically
similar is required, but may be inaccurate.
While the peak
birthing season for modern deer is in early June,
differences in historic and prehistoric environments may
have affected the seasonally dictated reproduction cycle
(Lyman 1985b).
Biologically documented individual dietary
variation and genetic variation between geographic
populations of the same taxon (Harris 1978) weigh against
the uniformitarian assumption.
Finally, some ontogenetic
criteria, such as tooth eruption and wear, are at best
ordinal scale measures of age due to variation in the growth
and wear of teeth as these are influenced by the health,
diet, and genotype of a given individual (Kay 1974; Monks
1981; see also Ransom 1966).
Incremental Lines
One technique used in assessing the age of an animal
and the season of its death is the analysis of incremental
lines (e.g., Gustafson 1968; Kay 1974; Lockard 1972; Saxon
and Higman 1969).
Universal in the mammalian species
examined (Grue and Jensen 1979); Spinage 1973), incremental
lines (incorrectly refered to by some as annuli) are
alternating opaque and translucent lines within tooth
cementum (incremental lines are also formed in dentine but
will not be discussed here).
Similar to tree rings in
102
appearance, these bands can be microscopically discerned
with the aid of chemical staining or polarized light (e.g.,
Gordon 1984).
Cementum deposition is appositional, acting to uplift
the tooth into the occlusal plane (Grue and Jensen 1979) and
anchor the tooth in the alveolus (Morris 1972).
Studies
have shown that the opaque lines (or restlines) are formed
during the winter months and the transparent bands are
formed in the spring and summer.
Although Gordon (1984)
suggests that the denser restlines are concentrations of
bone apatite within a protein lattice due to restricted
winter protein intake, the true cause of incremental line
formation is unknown (Grue and Jensen 1979).
The use of incremental lines (or "dontochronology";
Schmitt 1984) to estimate the season of animal death is
subject to the same biological and analytical problems
encountered in the use of other techniques.
The
uniformitarian assumption is required, but must be expanded
to include reference to sexually dimorphic characteristics
(Grue and Jensen 1979).
Studies have shown that false
incremental lines can occur; such lines have been suggested
to represent rut lines in males and lactation lines in
females (cf. Gordon 1984; Grue and Jensen 1979).
Further,
split lines can occur in cementum, creating an incorrect
number of lines at a given location on the tooth root (Kay
1974; Lockard 1972) and cementum can be resorbed into the
103
tooth socket (Spinage 1973), possibly removing the outermost
band(s).
The literature is vague concerning interpretation of
the first "line" formed.
Refered to by most as the dentino
cemental interface, some interpret this dark band as a
"birthline", in which the first (overlaying) translucent
band represents the first summer of life (e.g., Ransom
1966).
Others, however, maintain that the dentinocemental
interface represents the first year of life (i.e., in
examining a deer Ml, this tooth is fully erupted at
approximately 12 months) and thus the first transparent band
represents the second summer of life (e.g., Low and Cowan
1963).
Although interpretation of the first line deposited
will not affect seasonal estimates, it will effect the
derivation of individual age (Schmitt 1984).
I have presented only a few of the many problems in
assessing the season of site occupation.
Although the
analysis of incremental lines appears to deliver more
precise seasonal data than other techniques, the growth
increment technique possesses many unknown variables which
can impede reliable interpretations.
The cause and outcome
of incremental line formation must be exhaustively studied
before we place complete faith in our interpretations of
these date.
In order to achieve the greatest precision,
analyses of causational factors, geographic variation,
sexually dimorphic variables, and (large) taxonomically
104
diverse samples are needed, but are beyond the scope of my
study.
Seasonality at 35JA42
Two deer lower first molars from 35JA42 were thin
sectioned and analyzed at the Center for Materials Research
in Archaeology and Ethnology (CMRAE) at the Massachusetts
Institute of Technology in June of 1983.
Although I
performed most of the procedures, Chris Craig (CMRAE)
assisted with the mounting of the specimens and photography,
and Bryan Gordon (National Museum of Man) helped with
incremental line interpretation.
A general description of
the thin section procedure employed on the 35JA42 specimens
follows:
1.
Specimens were measured, photographed, and
occlusal wear patterns were recorded (see
Figure 37).
2.
Teeth were extracted from the alveolus by
gently cutting away the dentary.
3.
Teeth were dried in an alcohol bath, baked,
and dessicated.
4.
Teeth were vacuum impregnated with CIBAGEIGY 509 to consolidate.
105
Catalog no. B-228 ; left mandible (dentary)
Location: House 2, level 2; 110
111N / 101-102 E
Tooth row length: 71.5mm
P2
P 3
P4
hill
IA2
0413
Ern
length 11.8mm
b eadth 7.5mm
c own height 11.0mm
Catalog no. 8 -274; left mandible (dentary)
Location: House 2 , level 2 ; 112.26 N / 99.13 E
Tooth row length 7 20.6mm
P4
W worn
B broken
M1
length 12.7mm
breath 7.4mm
crown height 11.4mm
Figure 37.
Specimens selected for incremental line analysis.
Wear stages are after Payne (1985:142).
106
5.
Teeth were mounted on a Ward's 1 X 2 inch
petrographic slide with resin.
6.
Teeth were cut in half (dorsal-basal) with a
slow speed diamond cut-off saw.
7.
One cut surface was ground smooth (by hand)
with various carborundum grit; final hand
grinding with 600 grit.
8.
The cut (smooth) sides were mounted on a
Ward's 1 X 2 inch petrographic slide with
epoxy resin Araldite 509.
9.
The teeth were cut again (to thin) with a
slow speed diamond cut-off saw.
10.
The cut surface of the teeth were ground
with an automatic thin section grinder
(parallel to the slide) to approximately 75100 microns.
11.
The cut surfaces were hand ground to 35q
microns using 600 carborundum grit.
12.
The ground surfaces were.then covered with
Corning 22 X 50 millimeter cover slides.
The thin section was placed under a polarized light
microscope and was rotated on the stage to examine
incremental lines in the tooth cementum.
After careful
examination of cementum along all edges of the tooth root,
the area just below the enamel was chosen for line counts.
Although incremental lines were visable along most of the
root, they were most distinct just below the enamel on both
107
teeth examined (see Figure 38).
The cementum was then
photographed through a polarized light microscope with a 35
mm camera.
The area was exposed for one minute using Kodak
200 Daylight slide film.
Figures 39 and 40 illustrate
photographs and graphic depictions of the results.
The age
in months of these specimens is after Low and Cowan (1963).
There was difficulty in interpreting the incremental
line count due to staining of the cementum by the organicrich soil deposits.
Both specimens, however, display
relatively full development of the outermost restline
(Figures 39 and 40) suggesting mid to late winter mortality
of these individuals.
This in turn suggests winter human
occupation of the site, at least during the occupation at
House 2 from which the two specimens were recovered.
Analysis of other seasonal indicators at 35JA42 tend to
support winter occupation of the site.
Age data for deer
were derived by examining the stage of mandibular tooth
eruption and wear (Robinette, et al. 1957).
The five
specimens examined indicate the deer died between the months
of September and March.
The recovery of black bear and
mountain lion also suggest winter occupation of the site.
Black bears enter their dens for hibernation between late
October and early January and remain there until April
unless disturbed by people or other animals (Felton 1982).
Ethnographic documentation of techniques utilized in hunting
bear (Chapter 3) indicate luring the animal out of its
winter den was commonly employed.
The occurrence of
108
CROWN
ENAMEL
PULP CAVITY
DENTYNE
CEMENTUM
ROOT APEX
Figure 38. Section of an artiodactyl lower molar (after Gordon 1982).
Arrow locates area photographed on the 35JA42 specimens for incremental line analysis (see Figures 39 and 40).
109
44+
38
30
20
12
Figure 39. Photograph (top) and graphic depiction (bottom) of
incremental lines in booth cementum, specimen 3-224. Scale is in
microns.
110
50
0
EPDXY
44+
38
. .
30
. .
..........
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
. . .
..............
.
. . . . . . . . ..........
...................... '-'-...-...-.-...-........ .-.-..--.--.. ..-.-... ..........-.-.-.-....... . ..........................
20
12
TOOTH
.
. .
. . .
.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.".'.'.'.'.'.'.'. .'.'.'.'.'.'.'.". . ..".'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'. . .'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'
.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.:.'.:.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.
.'.'.:.'.".*.".'.'.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.
.'.'.'.'.'. . . .'.'.:. .:.'.'. .'.'.'.'.'.'. .". . .
. .'.'.'.'.'.'.......
. . .'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.
.:.'.'.".".'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'. . .
.
.
.
.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.
. . .'.'.'.".'.".'.'.'.'.'.'.'...'.'.'.'. .'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'."..'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.
.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'."
.
.
Figure 40. Photograph (top) and graphic depiction (bottom) of
incremental lines in tooth cementum, specimen B-274. Scale is in
microns.
111
mountain lion in the site could be representative of an
individual taken during a (winter) deer hunt; because
mountain lions feed almost exclusively on deer, they follow
deer herds down to lower elevations during the winter months
(Dixon 1982).
While these additional seasonality data suggest a
winter occupation, they also tend to be broader than the
estimate from tooth growth increments (Figure 41).
Clearly,
larger samples and multiple indicators generally produce
more valid estimates of seasonality (cf. Monks 1981).
In
the case of 35JA42, however, the use of multiple indicators
has decreased the resolution of the estimate.
The reason
for this is that tooth eruption and wear are less precise
measures of ontogenetic age, and thus provide broader
estimates than growth increments.
Although ethnographic documents corroborate the
seasonal data extracted from incremental line analysis (see
Brauner and Honey 1977:6-11), the possibility of stored food
resources, small sample size, and the many biological and
analytical unknowns render the assessment of season of
35JA42 occupation an estimate.
The fact that no indicators
of summer occupation were recovered does not necessarily
indicate that the site was not occupied during the summer
months but, rather, could be due to small sample size.
N
H
2
0
CC
113
X.
BONE ARTIFACTS
Seventeen bone artifacts were recovered from 35JA42.
These specimens are discussed within five analytic
categories:
pointed bone (N=7), antler tine flakers (N=2),
cut bone (N=4), pendants (N=1), and miscellaneous bone
artifacts (N=3).
Because bone artifacts are rare in southwest Oregon
archaeological sites, bone artifacts from central California
and the Great Basin serve as the nearest analogs.
Inferences derived for manufacture and functional
interpretations are based on microscopic (10X) examination
and comparisons with Great Basin archaeological collections.
pointed Bone
Relatively dispersed throughout the site, seven bones
sharpened to points were recovered (Table 7, Figure 41a-g).
All of the specimens except one (BA-8) display extensive
manufacture and use wear striations perpendicualr to the
long axis of the bone.
Specimen BA-8 (Figure 41d)
is
charred (fire hardened?) and possesses numerous, small flake
scars indicating manufacture by flaking rather than
transverse abrasion.
extensively polished.
The tip of this artifact is
Specimens BA-6, BA-11, and BA-13 have
multi-faceted points which terminate approximately 10 mm
down from the tips.
Specimen BA-1 has a series of parallel,
114
transverse striations from the tip to its (broken) end.
Although these incisions could be the product of use-wear,
they are deep and evenly spaced and appear to represent
decorative motifs.
Due to the fragmented condition of all of the specimens
(i.e., only the tips are represented) and the fact that many
burned, I cannot ascertain with any confidence the specific
function(s) of these items.
They may represent bone awls
used in the manufacture of basketry (Ambro 1970) and/or
perforating tools.
Similar pointed bone objects are common
in Great Basin archaeological sites (e.g., Elston 1979;
Jennings 1957; Pendleton 1985; Thomas 1983).
Two antler tine flakers were recovered (Table 7, Figure
42h,i).
Both specimens (BA-2 and BA-7) are charred and
display blunt, rounded, and slightly polished tips
suggesting their utilization as flaking tools.
Specimen BA-
2 possesses transverse incisions around its tip indicative
of resharpening. Aikens (1970:Figure 47b) illustrates an
antler tine flaker very similar to those recovered from
35JA42.
115
Cut Bone
Four small cut bone artifacts were recovered from the
floor of House 2 (Table 7, Figure 42j-m).
All of the
specimens possess incisions (perpendicular to the long axis)
on one end of the bone.
All of the incised ends are
truncated, indicating that these incisions were to thin and
weaken the bone before breaking it (Schmitt n.d.).
Lack of
further modification or use-wear leads me to believe that
these specimens are refuse from the manufacture of bone
tools.
pendants
One biconically drilled, tear-trop shaped bone pendant
was recovered from the floor of House 2 (Table 7, Figure
42n).
Surface and edge modification which created its
uniform shape indicate that the primary stage in manufacture
was in achieving the desired shape.
Breakage and lack of
use-wear polish in the perforation suggests that this
artifact broke during the latter portion of this
manufacturing stage.
Bone and horn perforated ornaments are
common in Great Basin archaeological sites (e.g., Lucius
1980; Pendleton 1985; Schmitt n.d.).
Table 7.
Bone and antler artifacts.
All measurements are in millimeters.
POINTED BONE
House/
Max.
Length
Max.
Confides
13.8-
4.9
Burned
-
-
28.4
4.1
Burned
2
-
-
18.3
4.8
Burned
3
1
-
..
26.o
8.3
115.51N/98.49E
3
2
Long bone
-
27.8
9.5
Burned/fire
hardened(?)
Burned
BA-11
117-118N/96-97E
3
2
long bone
-
-
47.1
5.7
Unburned
BA-13
117-118N/96 -97g
3
2
-
-
24.4
5.5
Burma
Provenience
aaSire
Jove'
Element
Species
BA-1
104.49N/100.58E
1
1
Antler tine(?)
BA-5
110-111N/100h-101E
2
2
BA-6
110-11IN/100-111E
2
BA-8
115.52N/96.81E
BA-10
Catalog /t
-
Complete
-
Width
pescription
ANTLER TINE FLAKERS
BA-2
104-105N/97.98E
1
2
Antler tine
Cervidas
10.0
4.3
Burned
BA-7
123-124w1o1-102E
4
1
Antler tine
Cervidas
14.5
5.5
Burned
+
24.5
4.3
Burned
+
26.6
4.4
Burned
CUT BONE
BA-3
110-11121/100-101E
2
2
-
BA-4
110-1118/100-101E
2
2
-
BA-12
110-LUN/101-102Z
2
2
-
-
+
27.1
5.9
Unburned
BA-17
110-11111/101-102E
2
2
-
-
-
14.9
5.5
Burned
-
Table 7.
(Continued)
PENDANTS
Catalog #
BA-6
Provenience
House
Feature
'Ave;
1oamac9N/99-100
3
2
Element
Species
Long bone
Deer-sized
Sets
Max.
Length
35.5
max.
Width Description
13.9
Unburned/perforation dia.
2.7
KLSCELLANEOUS BONE ARTIFACTS
BA-9
1o8.6*(100.452
2
2
BA-14
116.87N/96.65E
3
2
BA-15
327."118N/98-99E
3
2
Long bone
Deer-sized
7
64.6
16.6
Unburned
- posterior Deer -sized
shaft
Radius - anterior Deer-sized
shaft
+
95.2
22.0
Unburned
-
75.9
20.0
Unburned
Tibia
118
Figure 42. Bone and antler artifacts from 35,71142. a -q. pointed
hone; h-i. antler tine flakers; j-m. cut bone; n. pendan ; 0-g.
miscellaneous bone artifacts.
119
Miscellaneous Bone Artifacts
Three deer-sized long bone fragments with various
degrees of use-wear and manufacture modification were
recovered (Table 7, Figure 42o-q).
Specimen BA-14 does not
display any evidence of manufacture, but is highly polished
along one edge and at its (distal) end.
This specimen
appears to represent an expedient bone tool (Johnson
1980:83-84).
By definition, expedient bone tools are difficult to
recognize because they lack evidence of manufacture (Frison
1982).
Problems persist in recognizing whether the bone was
"purposefully" broken with the intent of utilizing it as a
tool or whether it broke "fortuitously" during a butchering
episode (Lyman 1984:316-317).
Even the terminology is
ambiguous in that a bone may be "purposefully" broken during
animal butchery without the intent of utilizing it as a tool
(Lyman 1984:317).
Further, many non-human agents can create
modifications on bone that resemble alterations attributed
to human activities (Brain 1967; Hill 1976; Lyman 1984).
When compared to other bones recovered from 35JA42, the
extent of polish on this specimen strongly suggests cultural
utilization.
Although the function of this artifact is
unknown, it is likely that it represents a scraper/flesher
(after Dailey 1973).
The two remaining specimens (BA-9 and BA-15) are deersized long bone fragments possessing numerous, contiguous
120
flake scars along their edges (Figures 42p,g).
These flake
scars terminate within the medullary cavities indicating
latero-medial percussion was employed on both specimens.
Specimen BA-9 has slight polish along its flaked edges while
the only indication of use-wear on specimen BA-15 is a
rounded, polished tip (see the top of Figure 42p).
These
artifacts may represent scraper/fleshers (Dalley 1973; see
especially Dalley 1976, Figure 25m) or cutting tools.
Discussion
The distribution of bones and statistical analysis
employed on faunal remains form House 2 and House 3 indicate
a significant amount of variation (see Chapters 6 and 8).
The distribution of bone artifacts in the site tends to
support the discrepancies displayed between these two
houses.
Seven (41%) of the bone artifacts recovered from
the site were located on the floor of House 2.
All of these
specimens were recovered from the southern and eastern
portions of the house.
Five of these were clustered just
east of the hearth (110-111N/100-102E) suggesting
manufacture and/or use of these specimens in this portion of
the house.
House 3
Conversely, bone artifacts from the floor of
(N=5) were all located in the northern and western
portions of the house.
When compared to other aspects of the material culture
recovered from 35JA42 (Brauner 1983), it is interesting that
121
so few bone artifacts are represented in the collection.
those recovered, at least 12 (71%) are fragmented.
Of
Although
some bone artifacts may have been lost during the test
excavation of House 1 due to the use of larger screen mesh
size (cf. Payne 1975; Watson 1972), only one small antler
tine flaker was recovered from the northern portion of the
house rim.
The paucity of bone artifacts in this house
(which represents the most recent occupational surface) and
across the site as a whole, indicates that bone tools and
ornaments were a small part of the material culture of the
site occupants and/or that bone tools were highly curated.
122
XI.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
The archaeofauna recovered from 35JA42 provides many
insights to protohistoric subsistence strategies in
southwest Oregon and the formational history of the site.
Deer represent the most abundant taxon (i.e., the primary
meat source) while elk are secondary.
Identified skeletal
elements indicate that whole carcasses were brought to the
site where they were dismembered and a variety of food
resources were extracted.
Lack of striae but presence of
flake scars on the bones indicates that disarticulation by
percussion was a commonly employed butchering technique.
Once meat was removed, marrow was extracted and the bones
were processed (broken) further for the manufacture of
soup/grease.
This is evident by the abundance of flake
scars and the highly fragmented condition of the assemblage.
The remainder of the taxa are primarily represented by
carnivores (black bear, mountain lion, gray fox, and
possibly a bobcat).
Much like the deer and elk assemblage,
the carnivore remains are highly fragmented.
Although some
ethnographies state that carnivores were taken only for
their fur, the highly fragmented carnivore remains in the
site suggest maximum utilization of these animals as food
resources.
The zooarchaeological data closely match the
ethnographic record.
The species represented and their
abundances, food preparation techniques, and the possible
123
deer "shoulder blade rattle" are all well documented in
ethnographies on southwest Oregon aboriginal cultures.
The
value of ethnographic documents as sources of interpretive
analogs is often said to be limited (e.g., Wobst 1978).
This apparently is not the case with the archaeological
materials recovered from 35JA42.
Contrary to other zooarchaeological analyses which
examine only taxonomically identified specimens, analysis of
the unidentified, fragmented faunal remains from 35JA42
produced an abundance of human subsistence and taphonomic
data.
The high frequency of small, fragmented specimens
illustrates the extensive processing of carcasses for marrow
and soup/grease.
Statistical analyses of the proportions of
burnt and unburnt bone, and bone fragment sizes illustrate
intra-site variation between various occupational features.
In particular, all of the data indicate that House 3 served
as a refuse dump for later occupants.
Zooarchaeological analysis of 35JA42 has also produced
two "firsts" in southwest Oregon prehistory.
Analysis of
faunal remains accompanied with other aspects of material
culture suggest that House 6 was a menstrual hut, the first
archaeologically defined menstrual but in the region.
Also,
although conjectural because it was recovered from disturbed
deposits, the recovery of a domestic sheep mandible could
represent the first occurrence of domestic sheep in
southwest Oregon.
124
Analysis of faunal seasonal indicators suggests that
the site was occupied during the winter months.
Stylistic
and functional analysis of the recovered artifacts indicates
that the site may have been occupied by a single nuclear
family abandoning and then returning to the site over four
winter seasons.
Each occupation resulted in the construction of a
new house.
The site was certainly not occupied
for more than four winter seasons since there was
no evidence that any of the structures had been
reoccupied after abandonment.
Although difficult
to prove, the probability that the same family or
families returned to the site during the few short
years it was utilized is logically high (Brauner
1983:86).
Zooarchaeological analysis of 35JA42 has proven
valuable to our understanding of southwest Oregon
protohistoric subsistence strategies.
Further
archaeological investigations in this region and the testing
and refinement of zooarchaeological analytic methods can
only enrich our insights into prehistoric and protohistoric
cultures.
125
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Aikens, Melvin C.
1970
Hogup Cave. University of Utah Anthropological Papers 93.
Salt Lake City.
Ambro, Richard D.
1970
A Basketmaker's Work Kit from Lovelock Cave,
Nevada. Contributions of the University of
California Archaeological Research Facility
7:73-79. Berkeley.
Archibald, Robert
1978
The Economic Aspects of the California
Missions.
Academy of American Franciscan
History, Washington D. C.
Ascher, Robert
1968
Times' Arrow and the Archaeology of a Contemporary Community.
In Settlement Archaeology, edited by K. C. Chang, pp. 43-52.
National Press Books, Palo Alto.
Baker, Rollin H.
1984
Origin, Classification and Distribution.
In
White-tailed Deer Ecology and Management,
edited by Lowell K. Halls. Stackpole Books,
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania
Baldwin, Ewart M.
1981
Geology of Oregon.
Kendall and Hunt Publishing Company, Dubuque, Iowa.
Behrensmeyer, Anna K.
1978
Taphonomic and Ecologic Information from
Bone Weathering. Paleobiology 4:150-162.
Behrensmeyer, Anna K., Kathleen D. Gordon, and Glenn T.
Yanagi
1986
Trampling as a Cause of Bone Surface Damage
and Pseudo-Cutmarks.
Nature 319:768-771.
Behrensmeyer, Anna K., and Susan M. Kidwell
1985
Taphonomy's Contributions to Paleobiology.
Paleobiology 11:105-119.
Binford, Lewis R.
1978
Nunamiut Ethnoarchaeology.
New York.
Academic Press,
126
1980
Willow Smoke and Dogs' Tails: HunterGatherer Settlement Systems and Archaeological Site Formation. American Antiquity 45:
4-20.
1981
Bones: Ancient Men and Modern Myths.
Academic Press, New York.
1982
The Archaeology of Place.
ological Science 1:5-31.
1983
In Pursuit of the Past.
New York.
1984
Faunal Remains from Klasies River Mouth.
Academic Press, New York.
Journal of ArchaeThames and Hudson,
Binford, Lewis R., and Jack B. Bertram
1977
Bone Frequencies and Attritional Processes.
In For Theory Building in Archaeology, edited
by L. R. Binford, pp. 77-153. Academic
Press, New York.
Bokonyi, S.
1972
Zoological Evidence for Seasonal or Permanent Occupation of Prehistoric Settlements.
In Man, Settlement, and Urbanism, edited by
P. J. Ucko, R. Tringham, and G. W. Dimbleby,
pp. 121-126. Duckworth, London.
Bonaccorso, Frank J., and James H. Brown
1972
House Construction of the Desert Woodrat,
Neotoma lepida lepida. Journal of Mammalogy
53:283-288.
Bonnichsen, Robson
1982
Bone Technology as a Taphonomic Factor: An
Introductory Statement.
Canadian Journal
of Anthropology 2:137-144.
Bonnichsen, Robson, and Richard T. Will
1980
Cultural Modification of Bone. In Mammalian
Osteology, by Miles B. Gilbert, pp.7-30.
Modern Printing Company, Laramie.
Brain, C. K.
1967
Bone Weathering and the Problem of Bone
Pseudo-Tools.
South African Journal of
Science 63:97-99.
1981
The Hunters or the Hunted?
to African Cave Taphonomy.
Chicago Press, Chicago.
An Introduction
University of
127
Brauner, David R.
1976
Alpowai: The Culture History of the Alpowa
Locality, Volume I and II. Unpublished Ph.D.
dissertation, Department of Anthropology,
Washington State University, Pullman.
1978
A Reevaluation of Cultural Resources within
the Applegate Lake Project Area, Jackson
County, Oregon, Phase II.
Report to the
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Portland.
Department of Anthropology, Oregon State
University, Corvallis.
1983
The Reevaluation of Cultural Resources within
the Applegate Lake Project Area, Jackson
County, Oregon, Phase III: Data Recovery at
Site 35JA42.
Report to the U. S. Army Corps
of Engineers, Portland. Department of
Anthropology, Oregon State University,
Corvallis.
Brauner, David R., and William D. Honey
1977
Cultural Resource Evaluation of the Steamboat Creek Drainage, Douglas County, Oregon.
Report to the Umpqua National Forest.
Department of Anthropology, Oregon State
University, Corvallis.
Brauner, David R., and Clayton G. Lebow
1983
A Reevaluation of Cultural Resources within
the Proposed Elk Creek Lake Project Area,
Jackson County, Oregon, Phase II: Site
Evaluation. Report to the U. S. Army Corps
of Engineers, Portland. Department of
Anthropology, Oregon State University,
Corvallis.
Brauner, David R., and Lynne MacDonald
1983
The Reevaluation of Cultural Resources within the Applegate Lake Project Area, Jackson
County, Oregon, Phase II: Archaeological
Sampling of Sites 35JA47 and 35JA49. Report
to the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers,
Portland.
Department of Anthropology,
Oregon State University, Corvallis.
Brauner, David R., and Robert Nisbet, Jr.
1983
The Reevaluation of Cultural Resources within the Applegate Lake Project Area, Jackson
County, Oregon, Phase II: Archaeological
Salvage of Sites 35JA52 and 35JA53. Report
128
to the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers,
Portland.
Department of Anthropology,
Oregon State University, Corvallis.
Bryant, Larry D., and Chris Maser
1982
Classification and Distribution.
In Elk of
North America, edited by Jack W. Thomas and
Dale E. Toweill, pp.1-59.
Stackpole Books,
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.
Bryant, Vaughn M., Jr.
1974
Prehistoric Subsistence in Southwest Texas:
The Coprolite Evidence. American Antiquity
39:407-420.
Bunn Henry T.
1982
Meat-Eating and Human Evolution: Studies on
Diet and Subsistence Patterns of PlioPleistocene Hominids in East Africa. Ph.D.
dissertation, University of California,
Berkeley.
University Microfilms, Ann Arbor.
Casteel, Richard W.
1977
Characterization of Faunal Assemblages and
the Minimum Numbers of Individuals Determined
from Paired Elements: Continuing Problems
in Archaeology. Journal of Archaeological
Science 4:125-134.
Chaplin, R. E., and R. G. White
1969
The Use of Tooth Eruption and Wear, Body
Weight, and Antler Characteristics in the
Age Estimation of Male Wild and Fallow
Deer (Dama dama). Journal of Zoology
157:125-132.
Craighead, John J., and John A. Mitchell
1982
Grizzly Bear.
In Wild Mammals of North
America, edited by Joseph A. Chapman and
George A. Feldhamer, pp. 515-556. The
John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore.
Dalley, Gardiner F.
1973
Worked Bone and Antler. In Median Village
and Fremont Culture Regional Variation, by
John P. Marwitt, pp. 96-127.
University
of Utah Anthropological Papers 95. Salt
Lake City.
1976
Swallow Shelter and Associated Sites.
University of Utah Anthropological Papers
96.
Salt Lake City.
129
Daly, Patricia
1969
Approaches to Faunal Analysis in Archaeology.
American Antiquity 34:146-153.
Dansie, Amy J.
1984
Human and Carnivore Modification of Small
Mammals in the Great Basin.
Paper presented
at the First International Bone Modification
Conference, Carson City, Nevada.
Dansie, Amy J., and Thomas Ringkob
1979
Faunal Analysis of the Glendale Site
Assemblage.
In The Archaeology of the
Glendale Site (26WA2065), by Margaret M.
Miller and Robert G. Elston, pp. 184-220.
Report to the Nevada Department of Highways.
Nevada Archaeological Survey, University of
Nevada, Reno.
Davis, Wilbur A.
1983
1973 Lost Creek Archaeology and 1974 Elk
Creek Archaeology, Jackson County, Oregon.
Report to the National Park Service.
Department of Anthropology, Oregon State
University, Corvallis.
Deetz, James
1977
In Small Things Forgotten.
Garden City, New York.
Anchor Books,
Dixon, Kenneth R.
1982
Mountain Lion. In Wild Mammals of North
America, edited by Joseph A. Chapman and
George A. Feldhamer, pp. 711-727. The
John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore.
Dixon Roland B.
1907
The Shasta.
Bulletin of the American Museum
of Natural History 17:381-498.
New York.
Dodson, Peter, and Diane Wexlar
1979
Taphonomic Investigation of Owl Pellets.
Paleobiology 5:275-284.
Driver Harold E.
1939
Culture Element Distributions X: Northwest California. Anthropological Records
6(1).
University of California, Berkeley.
130
Drucker, Philip
The Tolowa and Their Southwest Oregon Kin.
1936
University of California Publications in
American Archaeology and Ethnology 36:221300.
Berkeley.
Efremov, J. A.
1940
Taphonomy: A New Branch of Paleontology.
Pan-American Geologist 74:81-93.
Elston, Robert G.
1979
The Archaeology of U. S. 395 Right-of-Way
Between Stead, Nevada and Hallelujah
Junction, California.
Report to the Nevada
Department of Highways. Nevada Archaeological Survey, University of Nevada, Reno.
Erlandson, Jon M.
A Case Study in Faunalturbation: Delineating
1984
the Effects of Burrowing Pocket Gopher on
the Distribution of Archaeological Materials.
American Antiquity 49:785-790.
Franklin, Jerry F., and C. T. Dyrness
1973
Natural Vegetation of Oregon and Washington.
U.S.D.A. Forest Service Technical Report
PNW-8.
Pacific Northwest Forest and Range
Experiment Station. U. S. Department of
Agriculture, Portland.
Frison, George C.
1978
Prehistoric Hunters of the High Plains.
Academic Press, New York.
1982
Bone Butchering Tools in Archaeological
Sites.
Canadian Journal of Anthropology
2:159-167.
Gibson, James R.
1985
Farming the Frontier: The Agricultural
Opening of the Oregon Country, 1786-1846.
University of Washington Press, Seattle.
Gifford, Diane P.
1977
Observations on Modern Human Settlements
as an Aid to Archaeological Interpretation.
Ph.D. dissertation, University of California,
Berkeley.
University Microfilms, Ann Arbor.
131
1980
Ethnoarchaeological Contributions to the
Taphonomy of Human Sites.
In Fossils in
the Making, edited by Anna K. Behrensmeyer
and Andrew P. Hill, pp. 93-106. University
of Chicago Press, Chicago.
1981
Taphonomy and Paleoecology: A Critical
Review of Archaeology's Sister Disciplines.
In Advances in Archaeological Method and
Theory, Vol. 4, edited by Michael B.
Schiffer, pp. 365-438.
Academic Press,
New York.
Gifford, Diane P., and Anna K. Behrensmeyer
1977
Observed Depositional Events at a Modern
Human Occupation Site in Kenya. Quaternary
Research 8:245-266.
Gifford-Gonzalez, Diane P., David B. Damrosch, Debra R.
Damrosch, John Pryor, and Robert L. Thunen
1985
The Third Dimension in Site Structure:
An Experiment in Trampling and Vertical
Dispersal.
American Antiquity 50:796-802.
Gilmore, R. M.
1949
The Identification and Value of Mammal
Bones from Archaeological Excavations.
Journal of Mammalogy 30:163-169.
Goddard, Pliny Earl
n.d.
Galice/Applegate Ethnographic Notes, 1904.
Box 104 of the Melville Jacobs Collection.
Located in the Archives of the University
of Washington, Seattle.
Gordon, Bryan H. C.
1982
Tooth Sectioning as an Archaeological Tool.
National Museum of Man, Canadian Series
14e:1-4.
1984
Assessing Rangifer Age and Season of Death
Using Cementum Incremental Lines in Teeth.
In Men and Reindeer Herds in French
Magdalenian Prehistory.
National Museum
of Man, Mercury Series.
Gordon, Kenneth R.
1977
Molar Measurements as a Taxonomic Tool in
Ursus.
Journal of Mammalogy 58:247-248.
132
Gray, Dennis J.
1985
The Takelma and Their Athapaskan Kin: An
Ethnographic Synthesis of Southwestern
Oregon. Unpublished M.A. thesis, Department
of Anthropology, Oregon State University,
Corvallis.
Grayson, Donald K.
1973
The Avian and Mammalian Remains from
Nightfire Island. Ph.D. dissertation,
University of Oregon. University Microfilms,
Ann Arbor
1979
On the Quantification of Vertebrate Archaeofaunas.
In Advances in Archaeological
Method and Theory, Vol. 2, edited by Michael
B. Schiffer, pp. 199-237.
Academic Press,
New York.
1981
The Effects of Sample Size on Some Derived
Measures in Vertebrate Faunal Analysis.
Journal of Archaeological Science 8:77-88.
1982
Toward a History of Great Basin Mammals
During the Past 15,000 Years.
In Man and
the Environment in the Great Basin, edited
by David B. Madsen and James F. O'Connell.
Society for American Archaeology Papers
2:82-101.
1984
Quantitative Zooarchaeology.
New York.
Academic Press,
Grayson, Donald K., and David H. Thomas
1983
Seasonality at Gatecliff Shelter. In The
Archaeology of Monitor Valley 2: Gatecliff
Shelter, by David H. Thomas, pp. 434-438.
Anthropological Papers of the American
Museum of Natural History 59(1). New York.
Griffin, Dennis
1983
Archaeological Investigations at the Marial
Site, Rogue River Ranch (35CU84).
Report
to the Bureau of Land Management. Department of Anthropology, Oregon State University, Corvallis.
Grue, Helen, and Birger Jensen
1979
Review of the Formation of Incremental Lines
in Tooth Cementum of Terrestrial Mammals.
Danish Review of Game Biology 11:1-48.
133
Guilday, J. E., P. W. Parmalee, and D. P. Tanner
1962
Aboriginal Butchering Techniques at the
Eschelman Site (36LA12), Lancaster County,
Pennsylvania. Pennsylvanian Archaeologist
32:59-83.
Gustafson, Carl E.
1968
Prehistoric Use of Fur Seals: Evidence from
the Olympic Coast of Washington.
Science
161:49-51.
Hall, E. Raymond
1981
The Mammals of North America, 2 Vols.,
Second Edition. John Wiley and Sons, New
York.
Harrington, John P.
1981
The Papers of John Peabody Harrington in
the National Archives of the Smithsonian
Institution, 1907-1957.
Reel number 28.
Kraus International Publications, Millwood,
New York.
Harris, S.
1978
Age Determination in the Red Fox (Vulpes
vulpes): An Evaluation of Technique Efficiency as Applied to a Sample of Suburban
Foxes.
Journal of Zoology 184:91-117.
Haynes, Gary
1980
Evidence of Carnivore Gnawing on Pleistocene
and Recent Mammalian Bones.
Paleobiology
6:342-351.
1983
Frequencies of Spiral and Green-Bone
Fractures on Ungulate Limb Bones in Modern
Surface Assemblages. American Antiquity
48:102-114.
Hildebrand, Milton
1955
Skeletal Differences Between Deer, Sheep,
and Goats.
California Fish and Game 41:
327-346.
Hill, Andrew P.
1976
On Carnivore and Weathering Damage to Bone.
Current Anthropology 17:335-336.
1979a
Disarticulation and Scattering of Mammal
Skeletons.
Paleobiology 5:261-274.
134
1979b
Butchery and Natural Disarticulation: An
Investigatory Technique.
American Antiquity
44:739-744.
Holt, Catherine
1946
Shasta Ethnography.
Anthropological Records
3(4).
University of California Press,
Berkeley.
Jacobs, Melville
n.d.
Galice Creek Field Notes of Melville Jacobs.
Box 104, number 1693-71-13 of the M. Jacobs
Collection.
Located in the Archives of
the University of Washington, Seattle.
Jennings, Jesse D.
1957
Danger Cave. University of Utah Anthropological Papers 27.
Salt Lake City.
Johnson, Eileen
1980
Updating Comments on "Paleo- Indian Bison
Procurement and Butchering Patterns on the
Llano Estacado." Plains Anthropologist
25:83-85.
1985
Current Developments in Bone Technology.
In Advances in Archaeological Method and
Theory, Vol. 8, edited by Michael B.
Schiffer, pp. 157-235. Academic Press,
New York.
Juell, Kenneth E., and Dave N. Schmitt
1985
Culturally versus Naturally Deposited Bones:
Explorations in Small Mammal Taphonomy.
Paper presented at the 50th Meeting of the
Society fro American Archaeology, Denver,
Colorado.
Kay, Marvin
1974
Dental Annuli Age Determination on Whitetailed Deer from Archaeological Sites.
Plains Anthropologist 19:224-227.
Kent, Susan
1981
The Dog: An Archaeologist's Best Friend or
Worst Enemy
The Spacial Distribution of
Faunal Remains.
Journal of Field Archaeology 8:367-372.
Klein, Richard G., and Kathryn Cruz-Uribe
1984
The Analysis of Animal Bones from Archaeological Sites.
University of Chicago Press,
Chicago.
135
Kroeber, Alfred L.
1920
California Culture Provinces. Publications
in American Archaeology and Ethnology 17(2):
151-169.
University of California, Berkeley.
Lawrence, Barbara
1951
Post-Cranial Skeletal Characteristics of
Deer, Pronghorn, and Sheep-Goat. Papers
of the Peabody Museum of American Archaeology and Ethnology 35(3). Harvard University, Cambridge.
Leechman, Douglas
1951
Bone Grease.
American Antiquity 16:355-356.
Lockard, Gordon R.
1972
Further Studies of Dental Annuli for Aging
White-tailed Deer.
Journal of Wildlife
Management 36:46-55.
Lomax, Alfred L.
1928
Historical Pioneer Sheep Industry.
Historical Quarterly 29:99-143
1941
Pioneer Woolen Mills in Oregon.
and Mort, Portland.
Oregon
Bonfords
Low, William A., and I. M. Cowan
1963
Age Determination of Deer by Annular Structure of Dental Cementum. Journal of Wildlife Management 27:466-471.
Lucius, W. A.
1980
Bone and Shell Material.
In Cowboy Cave,
by Jesse D. Jennings, pp. 97-105.
University of Utah Anthropological Papers 104.
Salt Lake City.
Lyman, R. Lee
1978
Prehistoric Butchering Techniques in the
Lower Granite Reservior, Southeastern
Washington.
Tebiwa: Miscellaneous Papers of
the Idaho State University Museum of Natural
History 13:1-25.
1979
Faunal Analysis: An Outline of Method and
Theory with Some Suggestions.
Northwest
Anthropological Research Notes 13:22-35.
136
1980
Inferences from Bone Distributions in Prehistoric Sites in the Lower Granite
Reservoir Area, Southeastern Washington.
Northwest Anthropological Research Notes
14:107-123.
1982
Archaeofaunas and Subsistence Studies.
In Advances in Archaeological Method and
Theory, Vol. 5, edited by Michael B.
Schiffer, pp. 357-403.
Academic Press,
New York.
1984a
Bone Density and Differential Suvivorship
of Fossil Classes.
Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 3:259-299.
1984b
Broken Bones, Bone Expediency Tools, and
Bone Pseudotools: Lessons from the Blast
Zone Around Mount St. Helens, Washington.
American Antiquity 49:315-333.
1985a
(Editor) Archaeological and Geoarchaeological Investigations at the Sylman Valley
School Site (3500275), Southwestern Oregon.
Report to the Roseburg Sanitary Authority,
Roseburg, Oregon. Department of Anthropology, Oregon State University, Corvallis.
1985b
The Paleozoology of the Avey's Orchard
Site.
In Avey's Orchard: Archaeological
Investigations of a Late Prehistoric
Columbia River Community, edited by Jerry
R. Galm and Ruth A. Masten, pp. 243-319.
Eastern Washington University Reports in
Archaeology and History 100-42.
1985c
Bone Frequencies: Differential Transport,
In Situ Destruction, and the MGUI.
Journal
of Archaeological Science 12:221-236.
n.d.
Archaeofaunas and Butchery Studies: A
Taphonomic Perspective.
In Advances in
Archaeological Method and Theory, edited
by Michael B. Schiffer.
Academic Press,
New York, in press.
Lyman R. Lee, and Stephanie D. Livingston
1983
Late Quaternary Mammalian Zoogeography of
Eastern Washington. Quaternary Research
20:360-373.
137
Lyon, Patricia J.
1970
Differential Bone Destruction: An Ethnographic Example. American Antiquity 35:
213-215.
Maser, Chris, Bruce R. Mate, Jerry F. Franklin, and
C. T. Dyrness
1981
Natural History of Oregon Coast Mammals.
U.S.D.A. Forest Service General Technical
Report PNW-133.
Pacific Northwest Forest
and Range Experiment Station.
U. S.
Department of Agriculture, Portland.
Maser, Chris, and Robert M. Storm
1970
A Key to Microtinae of the Pacific Northwest.
Oregon State University Bookstore,
Corvallis.
Meadow, Richard
1980
Animal Bones: Problems for the Archaeologist
Together with Some Possible Solutions.
Paleorient 6:65-77.
Mellet, James S.
1974
Scatological Origins of Microvertebrate
Fossil Accumulations. Science 185:349-350.
Monks, Gregory
1981
Seasonality Studies.
In Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory, Vol. 4, edited
by Michael B. Schiffer, pp. 177-240.
Academic Press, New York.
Morlan, Richard E.
1983
Spiral Fractures on Limb Bones: Which Ones
are Artificial? In Carnivores, Human
Scavengers and Predators: A Question of
Bone Technology, edited by G. M. LeMoine
and A. S. MacEachern, pp. 241-269. University of Calgary Archaeological Association,
Calgary.
Morris, P.
1972
A Review of Mammalian Age Determination
Methods. Mammal Review 2:69-104.
Murray, Priscilla
1980
Discard Location: The Ethnographic Data.
American Antiquity 45:490-502.
138
Nicholls, Lou Ann, Ovid R. Brauner, and Shelley Smith
1983
Archaeological Test Excavations of Ten
Upland Sites on the Applegate Ranger
District. Report to the Rogue River
National Forest. Department of Anthropology, Oregon State University, Corvallis.
Noe-Nygaard, W.
1977
Butchering and Marrow Fracturing as a
Taphonomic Factor in Archaeological
Deposits.
Paleobiology 3:218-227.
Payne, Sebastian
1975
Partial Recovery and Sample Bias.
In
Archaeozoological Studies, edited by A. T.
Clason, pp. 7-17.
North Holland,
Amsterdam.
1985
Morphological Distinctions Between the
Mandibular Teeth of Young Sheep, Ovis, and
Goats, Capra. Journal of Archaeological
Science 12:139-147.
Pelton, Michael R.
1982
Black Bear.
In Wild Mammals of North
America, edited by Joseph A. Chapman and
George A. Feldhamer, pp. 504-514. The
John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore.
Pendleton, Lorann S.
1985
Material Culture: Artifacts of Bone and
Horn.
In The Archaeology of Hidden Cave,
Nevada, by David H. Thomas, pp. 226-237.
Anthropological Papers of the American
Museum of Natural History 61(1).
New York.
Potts, Richard, and Pat Shipman
1981
Cutmarks Made by Stone Tools on Bones from
Olduvai Gorge, Tanzania.
Nature 291:
577-580.
Ransom, A. Brian
1966
Determining Age of White-tailed Deer from
Layers in Cementum of Molars.
Journal of
Wildlife Management 30:197-199.
Robinette, W. Leslie, Dale A. Jones, Glenn Rogers, and
Jay S. Gashwiler
1957
Notes on Tooth Development and Wear for
Rocky Mountain Mule Deer. Journal of
Wildlife Management 21:134-153.
139
Sapir, Edward
1907
Notes on the Takelma Indians of Southwestern Oregon.
American Anthropologist
9:251-275.
Saxon, Andrew, and Charles Higman
1969
A New Research Method for Economic Prehistorians.
American Antiquity 34:303-311.
Schaeffer, Claude
1959
Indian Tribes and Languages of the Old
Oregon Country: A New Map. Oregon
Historical Quarterly 55:129-133.
Schiffer, Michael B.
1972
Archaeological Context and Systemic Context.
American Antiquity 37:156-165.
1983
Toward the Identification of Formation
Processes. American Antiquity 48:156-165.
Schmitt, Dave N.
1984
"Dontochronology:" Dental Incremental Lines
and Assessment of Ontogenetic Age and
Season of Death in Odocoileus.
Paper
presented at the 37th Annual Northwest
Anthropological Conference, Spokane,
Washington.
1986a
Faunal Remains.
In Test Excavations at
Site 35JA59, Elk Creek Lake Project, Jackson
County, Oregon, by E. E. Budy, M. P. Drews,
and R. G. Elston, pp. 110-116.
Report to
the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Portland.
Intermountain Research, Silver City, Nevada.
1986b
Faunal Analysis.
In The Archaeology of the
Vista Site (26WA3017), edited by Robert G.
Elston.
Report in preparation for the
Nevada Department of Transportation.
Intermountain Research, Silver City, Nevada.
n.d.
Bone Artifacts.
In The Archaeology of
James Creek Shelter, by Elizabeth E. Budy
and Robert G. Elston.
University of Utah
Anthropological Papers, in preparation.
140
Shipman, Pat
1981
Applications of Scanning Electron Microscopy
to Taphonomic Problems.
In The Research
Potential of Anthropological Museum Collections, edited by A. E. Cantwell, J. B.
Griffin, and N. A. Rothschild, pp. 357-385.
Annals of the New York Academy of Science
376.
Shipman, Pat, Giraud Foster, and Margaret Schoeninger
1984
Burnt Bones and Teeth: An Experimental
Study of Color, Morphology, Crystal Structure
and Shrinkage.
Journal of Archaeological
Science 11:307-325.
Shipman, Pat, and Jennie Rose
1983
Early Hominid Hunting, Butchering and
Carcass-Processing Behaviors: Approaches
to the Fossil Record.
Journal of
Anthropological Archaeology 2:57-98.
Smith, W. Paul
1985
Current Geographic Distribution and
Abundance of Columbian White-tailed Deer,
Odocoileus virginianus leucurus (Douglas).
Northwest Science 59:243-251.
Spinage, C. A.
1973
A Review of Age Determination of Mammals
by Means of Teeth, with Especial Reference
to Africa. East African Wildlife Journal
11:165-187.
Stahl, Peter W.
1982
On Small Mammal Remains in Archaeological
Context.
American Antiquity 47:822-829.
Stevenson, Marc G.
1985
The Formation of Artifact Assemblages at
Workshop/Habitation Sites: Models from
Peace Point in Northern Alberta.
American Antiquity 50:63-81.
Steward, Julian H.
1941
Culture Element Distributions XIII: Nevada
Shoshone.
Anthropological Records 4(2).
University of California Press, Berkeley.
Stewart, Omer C.
1941
Culture Element Distributions XIV: Northern
Paiute.
Anthropological Records 4(3).
University of California Press, Berkeley.
141
Thomas, David H.
Great Basin Hunting Patterns: A Quantita1969
tive Method for Treating Faunal Remains.
American Antiquity 34:392-401.
1983
Bone Artifacts.
In The Archaeology of
Monitor Valley 2: Gatecliff Shelter, by
David H. Thomas, pp.301-308.
Anthropological
Papers of the American Museum of Natural
History 59(1).
New York.
Thomas, David H., and Deborah Mayer
1983
Behavioral Faunal Analysis of Selected
Horizons.
In The Archaeology of Monitor
Valley 2: Gatecliff Shelter, by David H.
Thomas, pp. 353-391. Anthropological
Papers of the American Museum of Natural
History 59(1). New York.
Tisdale, Lucie
1986
The Tlegetlinten Site (35CU59) and its
Place in Southwest Oregon Prehistory.
Unpublished M.A. thesis, Department of
Anthropology, Oregon State University,
Corvallis.
Vehik, Susan C.
1977
Bone Fragments and Bone Grease Manufacturing:
A Review of Their Archaeological Use and
Potential.
Plains Anthropologist 22:169-182.
Wallmo, Olof C.
1981
Mule and Black-tailed Deer Distribution
and Habitats.
In Mule and Black-tailed
Deer of North America, edited by Olof C.
Wallmo, pp. 1-26. University of Nebraska
Press, Lincoln.
Watson, J. P.
1972
Fragmentation Analysis of Animal Bone
Samples from Archaeological Sites.
Archaeometry 14:221-228.
Wells, Phillip V.
1976
Macrofossil Analysis of Wood Rat (Neotoma)
Middens as a Key to the Quaternary Vegetational History of Arid America.
Quaternary
Research 6:223-248.
142
White, Theodore
1952
Observations on the Butchering Technique
of Some Aboriginal Peoples, No. 1.
American Antiquity 17:337-338.
1953a
A Method of Calculating the Dietaty Percentage of Various Animals Unitized by
Aboriginal Peoples. American Antiquity
19:396-398.
1953b
Observations on the Butchering Technique
of Some Aboriginal Peoples, No. 2.
American Antiquity 19:160-164.
1954
Observations on the Butchering Technique
of Some Aboriginal Peoples, Nos. 3-6.
American Antiquity 19:254-264.
Wobst, H. Martin
1978
The Archaeo-Ethnology of Hunter-Gatherers
or the Tyranny of The Ethnographic Record
in Archaeology. American Antiquity
43:303-309.
Wood, W. Raymond, and Donald L. Johnson
1978
A Survey of Disturbance Processes in
Archaeological Site Formation.
In Advances
in Archaeological Method and Theory, Vol. 1,
edited by Michael B. Schiffer, pp. 325-381.
Academic Press, New York.
Yellen, John E.
1977
Cultural Patterning in Faunal Remains:
Evidence from the !Kung Bushman. In
Experimental Archaeology, edited by D.
Ingersoll, J. E. Yellen, and W. MacDonald,
pp. 271-331.
Columbia University Press,
New York.
APPENDICES
143
APPENDIX A
Bone Frequencies by Fragment
Size in Selected Units.
Shaded Area Represents Unburnt
Bone and Unshaded Area
Represents Burnt Bone.
144
60-
60
104-105N
104-105N
98-99E
100
E
a
E
sr, 40-
40"
-
0
a
tk
101 E
_
tk
20-
20-
fm11-1
2
3
I
4
cm
I
III
I
0
6+
5
0
60^
1
2
3
cm
4
5
6+
60
104- 105N
105-106N
99- 100E
99-100E
O
E
E
u, 40-
g 40
.o
20-
0
0
1
2
3
cm
,
4
20
1mir
I
5
f
6+
I
0
0
1
House 1, level 1
2
3
cm
4
5
6+
145
cm
89
60
60
104-105N
105 106N
99 100E
99 100E
C
0)
40
E
12
40
S
<12
o
0
..
4t
20
a
111.11p
20
11.,
0
11.9
1
2
3
cm
1
4
1
1
5
1
1
6+
1
0
House 1, level 2
I
2
3
cm
4
I
5
1
Pill
6+
146
60
60
108
109N
109
99 100E
110N
101 102E
C
E
E
g 40
°' 40
2
0
0
-o
NO BONE
0
20
0
20
1
0
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
3
1
I
I
4
1
1
5
cm
1
6+
0
1
0
60
2
3
cm
4
5
6+
60
108
109N
110
100
101 E
98 99E
111N
O
E
E
S' 40
°'
2
0
40
0
.0
0
20
20
Ip
0
0
1
2
3
cm
it
4
I
1
5
I
1
6+
I
f"9
0
0
douse 2, level 1
2
3
cm
4
5
5+
147
110
111N
99-100E
E
to, 40
00
-o
20
0
0
2
3
cm
4
5
111
112N
100
101 E
6+
60
E
r
40
e
0
20
..
0
0
i
1
2
3
cm
House 2, level 1
4
5
I
'Mil
6+
(Continued)
148
60
60
108 109N
109 110 N
99 100 E
98
E
r 40
2
C
99 E
40
0
0
a
0
0
20
11=M1,
20
.
0
0
2
rill 1"i
3
cm
4
i
i
5
I
6+
0
1
0
1
2
3
cm
4
5
6+
73
60
108-109N
109-110N
99 100E
100 -101 E
r 40
Iiii11/
0
-a
0
20
I
0
CM
House 2, level 2
1
2
3
cm
4
rill5 I..6+
I
149
60-
60
109-110N
100-101E
110- 111N
98- 99E
EIc
40-
gl 40C
-
C
-a
.0
"a
20-
20-
0
I
0
1
2
3
cm
6+
4
0
I
0
1
2
3
4
5
cm
60-
6+
60109-110N
110-111N
99-100E
101- 102E
C
E
r 40C
0
..o
tit
20-
0
0
ilialial
2
3
cm
4
1.1119
5
6 +_
0
0
r
2
3
cm
House 2, level 2
(Continued)
4
I
5
6+
I
150
60
110-111N
111- 112N
99 -100E
100- 101E
a
E
a 40-
o 40-
E
0
0
-
-o
0
0
20-
20-
0
1
1
2
3
CT
4
5
i
6+
0
t
0
1
2
3
cm
4
6+
5
60-
4c
110
111 N
101
-102 E
111-112N
100-101E
.
c
;g ' 4 0 -
;
40-
0
-
-o
0
"i
0
0
3
cm
4
5
6+.
House 2, level 2
0
I
1
2
(Continued)
3
cm
4
1
5
I
6+
151
.
60-
60-
115
114 115N
a
98 99E
t
g
O
0
0
0
a0
40-
C
C
-CI
0
It
116N
99-100E
-1
20-.
0
3
cm
4
6+
5
1
0
1
2
3
cm
4
5
I
6+
I
60-
60115
116 -117N
116N
98 99E
97- 98E
:2
c
g
Cn 40
2
0
C
0
..
-a
it
*t
20-
20
En
0
0
2
3
cm
4
I
5
I
ri
6+
0
0
House 3, level 1
2
3
cm
4
5
6+
152
116
117N
99 100E
3
cm
4
5
6+
60
117
118N
97
98E
E
r 40
0
0
20
0
0
1
2
3
cm
Ilouse 3, level 1
4
11111
6+
5
(Continued)
153
60-1
114 - 115N
97- 98E
E
r 40a
a
20-
0
0
1
2
3
cm
4
6+
5
1
73
60
114- 115N
98- 99 E
115 116N
97 - 98 E
ot
r
E
E
40
c°
.a
0
0
0
0
20
".
0
I
0
1
2
3
cm
4
5
!MI
6+
0
0
cm
House 3, level 2
al El 6+a
4
5
154
60-
60115 -116N
116 -117N
98 99E
96 97E
E
S' 40-
2
40_
0
0
20-
!Mr
20-
0
0
0
3
cm
4
5
6+
0
I
2
3
cm
4
5
S
6+
81
60116 -117N
97 -98E
E
0
20
I
1
0
6+
0
cm
Mouse 3, level 2
(continued)
6+
155
60-
60116- 117N
98- 99 E
117- 118N
97- 98 E
2.!
E
E
r 40-
40o
0
.0
0
*
20-
20
0
1
0
1
2
3
cm
4
1
i
5
P.
6+
0
1
I
0
3
cm
1
4
I
5
6+
68
60-
60116 - 117 N
117 -118N
98 - 99 E
99 100E
C
E
E
c" 402
0
631 40-
-
0
0
0
4t
20-
0
20-
2
3
cm
4
5
6+
0
2
3
cm
House 3, level 2
(Continue])
4
5
6+
I
156
60
60
140
141N
141
94 95E
E
142N
94-95E
1)
40
2 40
C
C
0
.0
0
It
0
20
20
0
0
2
1111111i
3
4
5
0
0
6 4-
2
cm
Fr3
I
4
5
cm
60
6+
60
140
141 142N
141 N
95 96E
95 96E
E
°' 40
fr 400
C
0
CC
0
0
It
0
lx
20
0
0
2
111111171
6+
3
cm
4
5
20
0
House 6, level 2
1
2
1)1111111
6+
3
cm
4
5
157
60
60
120 121N
100-102E
111-113N
97
E
c
C
C
SI 40
98E
40
O
.a
0
0
20
20
0
I
0
2
3
cm
it
i
4
I
5
III
6+
0
106
100
107N
102E
E
c" 400
-a
20-'
0
2
II III
3
cm
2
3
cm
60
0
PTI
1
4
I
5
r9"9
6+
Out-house, level
4
5
I
1
6+
I
158
60
60
120
111
121N
E
a 40
2
113N
97 98E
100 102E
E
i
F 40
0
0
_
.0
0
4t
20
0
O
1
2
a
3
cm
4
1
5
r
20
0
6+
0
60
1
2
3
cm
4
5
6+
60
"
106
100
113
107N
114N
99 101E
102 E
E
40
40
0
.0
0
20
20
0
0
2
3
cm
4
5
6+
0
1
Out-house, level 2
2
3
cm
4
5
6+
159
APPENDIX B
Mammals of Southwest Oregon
160
MARSUPIALIA
Opossums
Didelphidae
Virginia Opossum
Didelphis virginiana
INSECTIVORA
Soricidae - Shrews
Sorex
*Sorex
Sorex
Sorex
Vagrant Shrew
Water Shrew
Pacific Water Shrew
Ttowbridge's Shrew
vagrans
palustris
bendirii
trowbridgii
Talpidae -- Moles
Neurotrichus gibbsii
Scananus townsendii
Shrew-mole
Townsend's Mole
CHIROPTERA
Vespertilionidae - Vespertilionid Bats
tivotis californicus
California Tads
MVotis yumanensis
Yuma Myotis
Little Brown Myotis
Long-legged Myotis
Fringed Myotis
Long-eared Myotis
Silver-haired Bat
Big Brown Bat
Red Bat
Hoary Bat
Townsend's Big-eared Bat
Pallid Bad
flvotis lucifuqus
Myotis volans
Myotis thysanodes
Myotis evotis
Lasiopycteris noctivagans
Eotesicus fuscus
.lycteris borealis
Nycteris cinerea
Plecotus townsendii
Antrozous nallidus
Molossidae - Free-tailed Bats
Brazilian Free-tailed Bat
Tadarida brasiliensis
LAGOMORPHA
Leporidae
Rabbits and Hares
Svlvilagus bachmani
*Lupus aaericanus
Lenus californicus
Brush Rabbit
Snowshoe Rabbit
Black-tailed Jack Rabbit
161
RODENTIA
Aplodontidae - Mountain Beaver
Mountain Beaver
Aplodontia rufa
Sciuridae - Squirrels and Relatives
Eutamias amoenus
Eutamias siskiyou
Spermophilus beecheyi
Spermophilus lateralis
Sciurus griseus
Taniasciurus douglasii
Glaucomys sabrinus
Geomyidae
Yellow-pine Chipmunk
Siskiyou Chipmunk
California Ground Squirrel
Golden-mantled Ground Squirrel
Western Gray Squirrel
Douglas' Squirrel
Northern Flying Squirrel
Gophers
Thonomys mazama
Thomomys umbrinus
Mazama Pocket Gopher
Southern Pocket Gopher
Castoridae - Beavers
Castor canadensis
Muridae
Beaver
Murids
Reithrodontomys megalotis
Peromyscus maniculatus
*Peromyscus boylii
Peromyscus truei
Neotoma fuscipes
Neotoma cinerea
Clethrionomys californicus
Arborimus longicaudus
Microtus californicus
Microtus longicaudus
Microtus townsendii
Microtus Oregoni
Ondatra zibethicus
Western Harvest Mouse
Deer Mouse
Brush Mouse
Pinon Mouse
Dusky-footed Wood Rat
Bushy-tailed Wood Rat
California Red-backed Vole
Red Tree Vole
California Vole
Long-tailed Vole
Tbwnsend's Vole
Oregon Vole
Muskrat
Zapodidae - Jumping Mice
Zapus princeps
Western Jumping Mouse
Erethizontidae - New World Porcupines
Erethizon dorsatum
Porcupine
162
C.ARNIVORA
Canidae - Coyote, Wolves, Foxes, and Dogs
Coyote
Domestic Dog
Gray Wolf
Red Fox
Gray Fox
Canis latrans
Canis familiaris
Canis lupus
Vulpes vulpes
Urocyon cinereoargenteus
Ursidae
Bears
Black Bear
Grizzly Bear
Ursus americanus
*Ursus arctos
Procyonidae
Raccoons and Allies
Ringtail
Raccoon
Bassariscus astutus
Procyon lotor
Mustelidae
Mustelids
Marten
Fisher
Ermine
Long-tailed Weasel
Mink
Wolverine
Badger
Spotted Skunk
Striped Skunk
River Otter
Mertes americana
Mattes pennanti
Mustela erminea
Mustela frenata
Mustela vison
Culo luscus
Taxidea taxus
Spilogale putorius
Mephitis mephitis
Lutra canadensis
Felidae - Cats and Allies
Mountain Lion
Bobcat
Lynx
Domestic Cat
Fells concolor
Lynx rufus
Lynx canadensis
Fells cattus
ARTIODACTYLA
Tayassuidae - Peccaries
Sus scrofa
Domestic Pig
Cervidae - Cervids
Cervus elaphus
Odocoileus hemionus hemionus
Odocoileus hemionus columbianus
Elk (Wapiti)
Mule Deer
Black-tailed Deer
163
White-tailed Deer
*Odocoileus virginianus
Antilocapridae - Pronghorn
*Antilocapra americana
Bovidae
Pronghorn Antelope
Bovids
Ovis canadensis
Bos sp.
Ovis aries
Capra hirca
Mountain Sheep
Cow
Domestic Sheep
Domestic Goat
PERISSODACTYIA
Equidae - Horses
Equus caballus
Domestic Horse
*Denotes species that are presently marginal in relation to the
Applegate Lake Project Area.
Data compiled from: Baker 1984; Craighead and Mitchell 1982; Hall
1981; Maser et al. 1931; Maser and Storm 1970; Smith 1985; Wallmo
1981.
See bibliography (Chapter 11).