Using Faunal Analysis to Explain Social Stratification at an Upper Mississippian Site in Laporte County, Indiana

USING FAUNAL ANALYSIS TO EXPLAIN SOCIAL STRATIFICATION AT AN UPPER MISSISSIPPIAN SITE IN LAPORTE COUNTY, INDIANA

A THESIS SUBMITTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE MASTER OF ARTS BY CAITLIN EILEEN NICHOLS DR. S. HOMES HOGUE – ADVISOR

BALL STATE UNIVERSITY MUNCIE, INDIANA DECEMBER 2016

Table of Contents

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS...... 6

INTRODUCTION...... 8

A SUMMARY OF SITE 12LE377...... 12

LITERATURE REVIEW...... 21

METHODS ...... 41

RESULTS...... 49

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS...... 69

REFERENCES CITED...... 74

APPENDIX I...... 79

APPENDIX II...... 84

APPENDIX III...... 126

List of Figures

Figure 1- LaPorte County, Indiana...... 13

Figure 2- 12LE377 and 12LE378 on the 7.5’ Springfield, Indiana, USGS Quadrangle map...... 13

Figure 3- Site 12LE377 and trench locations...... 17

Figure 4- Map of the Mississippian World...... 22

Figure 5- Map for the locations of the Fifield and Griesmer sites...... 33

Figure 6- Bison scapula, previously identified as a scapula hoe, posterior view, Feature 13...... 53

Figure 7- Possible split rib awls, Feature 6...... 54

Figure 8- Antler tine, Feature 19...... 55

Figure 9- Black bear distal metacarpal volar view, Feature 10...... 56

Figure 10- Bobcat right calcaneus dorsal view, Feature 2...... 57

Figure 11- Bobcat distal right humerus ventral view, Feature 25...... 58

Figure 12- Log Difference Scale for 12LE377...... 61

Figure 13- NISP for each of the comparative sites and 12LE377...... 65

Figure 14- NISP percentage for each of the comparative sites and 12LE377...... 65

Figure 15- MNI for each of the comparative sites and 12LE377...... 67

Figure 16- MNI percentage for each of the comparative sites and 12LE377...... 67

Figure 17- Aw values for site 12LE377 and comparative sites...... 68

List of Tables

Table 1- Cultural feature summaries for features 1-16 in 12LE377...... 15

Table 2- Cultural feature summaries for features 17-33 in 12LE377...... 16

Table 3- MNI, NISP, and Weight data for remains identified by species in site 12LE377...... 50

Table 4- A summary of remains identified by class in site 12LE377...... 59

Table 5- Sample sizes of deer bones in features used in the log difference scales...... 62

Table 6- Features from 12LE377 with faunal remains and decorated Oneota pottery (DP) sherds...... 62

Table 7- Faunal Data from Feature 2...... 79

Table 8- Faunal Data from Feature 3...... 79

Table 9- Faunal Data from Feature 4...... 79

Table 10- Faunal Data from Feature 6...... 80

Table 11- Faunal Data from Feature 8...... 80

Table 12- Faunal Data from Feature 9...... 80

Table 13- Faunal Data from Feature 10...... 80

Table 14- Faunal Data from Feature 13...... 81

Table 15- Faunal Data from Feature 18...... 81

Table 16- Faunal Data from Feature 19...... 81

Table 17- Faunal Data from Feature 22...... 82

Table 18- Faunal Data from Feature 23...... 82

Table 19- Faunal Data from Feature 24...... 82

Table 20- Faunal Data from Feature 25...... 82

Table 21- Faunal Data from Feature 32a...... 83

Table 22- Faunal Data from Bag 221...... 83

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

None of this research would have happened without the love and support from my friends and family. My mother, Eileen, was instrumental in providing encouragement and constantly reminding me to “turn for home.” Jessica, my Murray friend, was responsible for reminding me that it could be done and to keep going. Brent, Zach, Eric, and Barry were unconsciously supportive by keeping the “state of my head” always positive and strong willed. I would not have been able to complete this project without any of you.

I have been extremely fortunate to have an incredibly helpful committee: Homes Hogue,

Kevin Nolan, and Mark Hill. Aside from agreeing to read and review my thesis, they have helped by providing access to Ball State’s Applied Anthropology Laboratory after hours so I could complete my analysis while holding down a full time job. They also lent me incredibly helpful reading material which became useful references. Mitch Zoll, the Principle Investigator for the Phase II investigation of site 12LE377, also played a part in helping my research. He personally hand delivered the Site Assessment to me which included the ceramic and initial faunal analyses; I constantly referred back to it at multiple points of the project, so I am incredibly grateful he let me have a copy to keep.

Special thanks to the archaeologists from my undergrad who have kept in touch and reminded me every step of the way that they’re proud of me. Dr. Anthony Ortmann, Dr. Lara

Homsey-Messer, and Dr. Lori Roe in particular helped me get here and I can’t thank them enough.

In loving memory of Dr. Kit Wesler, without whose mentorship none of this would have been possible.

Graduate school was your idea first. I hope I’ve made you proud.

INTRODUCTION

The Mississippian period is characterized by the first complex societies in prehistoric

North America (Emerson 1999; Kelly 2001; Pauketat 2004; Welch 1991). Middle Mississippian component sites, such as Cahokia near present day St. Louis, or Moundville in Alabama, have a well-defined hierarchy consisting of elite and commoner groups (Kelly 2001; Pauketat 2004).

Other sites, such as the Yarborough site in Mississippi, are less stratified farmsteads, consisting of single families or kinship groups (Jackson and Scott 1995; Pauketat 2004). Upper

Mississippian sites in the Upper Midwest demonstrate a similar range between fortified villages

(Jackson and Emerson 2014) and small seasonal summer camps where particular resources were exploited (Faulkner 1972).

A site recently investigated in Laporte County, Indiana with an Upper Mississippian cultural component is site 12LE377. It was originally found during a Phase I survey (Bubb

2011). The site was within the proposed location for an expansion of the city of LaPorte’s East

Water Treatment facility. This initial survey recommended either additional archaeological testing or avoidance of the site due to its “relatively high artifact density” (Bubb 2011:16) making it potentially eligible to be added to the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) or the Indiana Register of Historic Sites and Statues (IRHSS) under criterion D. As a result, Pioneer

Consulting Services Inc. completed a Phase II survey in September and October of that same year (Bubb 2011).

The Phase II investigation uncovered a total of 8,396 artifacts, including pottery, lithic material, and faunal remains. In addition to artifacts, 37 features were also found and recorded.

Previous research with this collection demonstrates that the site was occupied from the Late

Woodland (AD 400-1000) to the Mississippian period (AD 1000-1500). Charcoal samples were collected and were reported to be in good enough quality for radiocarbon dating, but it is unclear whether these samples were ever tested, so radiocarbon dates for this site remain unknown. The faunal and ceramic artifacts were sent to Ball State University in order to be properly analyzed.

The faunal analysis in particular focused on answering questions regarding the seasonality of the site, the hunting practices, and what was eaten.

In addition to answering the questions addressed in the initial analysis for site 12LE377, faunal assemblages can also answer questions about the social dimensions of a site. One example is the topic of social stratification, or how social status can be interpreted in the archaeological record (Jackson and Scott 1995; Kelly 2001).

Social stratification is a very relevant topic in both Middle Mississippian and Upper

Mississippian archaeology. Ethnographic and historic information has already shown that subsistence is likely to have been a part of economic integration in Middle Mississippian government (Jackson and Scott 1995). This provides a direct link between subsistence, economy, and Middle Mississippian elite. In Upper Mississippian contexts, research has shown that interaction with Middle Mississippian groups influenced Upper Mississippian material culture as well as introduce social stratification into some Upper Mississippian social dynamics (Cook

2008; Emerson 1991; Jackson 2014a; Pauketat 2004).

While Middle Mississippian interaction with some Upper Mississippian cultures has an effect on Upper Mississippian social stratification, there are still several Upper Mississippian

9 sites that do not provide any evidence of social hierarchy, with or without an interaction with

Middle Mississippian communities. Sites such as the Griesmer and Fifield sites in Northwestern

Indiana, exhibit Oneota characteristics of the Fisher and Huber phases (Faulkner 1972). The studies done at these sites did not show evidence of interaction with Middle Mississippian groups. Some larger sites, such as the Hoxie Farm fortified village in Northeastern Illinois, show evidence of having a trade relationship with Middle Mississippian groups in the south but social stratification is still not cited despite the interaction (Jackson and Emerson 2014). In short,

Middle Mississippian influence in the Upper Midwest did not bring social hierarchy in all contexts.

This current study addresses the question of social stratification at site 12LE377 by reanalyzing the faunal collection and observing how it compares to other late prehistoric sites in

Indiana and Northeastern Illinois that did not exhibit social hierarchy. The Number of Identified

Specimens (NISP) and Minimum Number of Individuals (MNI) data produced from this second analysis was used to analyze what people ate and see if it had any relation to social status. In addition, the faunal assemblage of 12LE377 was compared to faunal assemblages of six sites that were contemporary with 12LE377 in the region and not known to have had social stratification.

This faunal analysis showed that 12LE377 did not have evidence of social stratification.

The taxa of animals were identified along with skeletal elements. Particular attention was paid to the deer skeletal elements; these remains in particular were largely broken or fragmented from use, which is not characteristic of an elite context. This site also showed little to no presence of

“dangerous” taxa. Exotic taxa was absent; in other words, the taxonomic diversity was entirely local. In addition to identifying the remains, the study investigated the lithic and ceramic artifacts that were found in the same features as the deer remains that represent high meat quantity. These

10 artifacts were typical of the archaeological record from this time period and area, meaning there was an absence of unique pottery and lithic artifacts were made from local cherts. When compared to the six contemporary sites, 12LE377 had similar ratios of mammals, birds, and fish as well as a similar population diversity. As a result, this research provided evidence that

12LE377 did not have characteristics of a stratified society.

A SUMMARY OF SITE 12LE377

Site 12LE377 was originally encountered during a Phase I survey for the city of LaPorte in LaPorte County, Indiana. LaPorte County, Indiana is located in Northwestern Indiana, as shown in Figure 1; the site’s location in LaPorte city can be found in Figure 2. The city had proposed a water system improvement project and two previously unrecorded archaeological sites, 12LE377 and 12LE378, were encountered at the location.

Bubb (2011:15) provides a brief summary of the Phase I investigation. 12LE378 was determined to be a small portion of a much larger Late Woodland period camp. This site was determined ineligible for the NRHP. No further archaeological investigation was recommended because the archaeologists involved felt that the rest of the camp laid outside the project area.

Site 12LE377, however, was potentially eligible for inclusion on the IRHSS or NRHP under criterion D of the NHPA due to its “relatively high artifact density” (Bubb 2011:16). There was a total of 386 artifacts recovered at 12LE377; of this total count, 350 of these artifacts were lithic and 24 were prehistoric pottery. The remaining 12 artifacts were historic nonhuman bone fragments, a historic foil fragment, and a slate fragment (Bubb 2011:Table 2). This site was determined to have a Late Woodland occupation due to the characteristics of the pottery and some of the lithics. The pottery fragments recovered were either plain or cord marked and

Figure 1: LaPorte County, Indiana. Map copied from emapsworld.com (2010)

Figure 2: 12LE377 and 12LE378 on the 7.5’ Springfield, Indiana, USGS Quadrangle map. Map copied from Bubb (2011: Figure 1)

13 tempered with sandy grit. Triangular hafted biface fragments were present in the lithic assemblage (Bubb 2011:15).

The Phase II survey of 12LE377 provided much more detail about the cultural history of this site. Pioneer Consulting Services concluded that the original area for 12LE377 in the Phase I survey was accurate: 28,222 m² or 206 x 137 m (Bubb 2011:24). Phase II methodology for this site included the use of shovel test probes and mechanical trenching. After this was completed, a total of 37 soil anomalies were identified in the trenches, 30 of which were determined to be cultural features (Bubb 2011:37). A brief summary for features 1-16 can be found in Table 1 and

17-33 in Table 2.

Recovered Artifacts

Lithic, ceramic, and faunal artifacts were all recovered during the Phase II investigation at 12LE377 along with charcoal and flotation samples. They were recovered using shovel test probes in addition to mechanical stripping. Figure 3 shows a site map that depicts the proposed location for the water treatment facility, the site boundaries, shovel test probe locations, and the locations of trenches as a result of mechanical stripping. The faunal artifacts were analyzed by

Hogue and Carver (2011) and the ceramic artifacts were analyzed by Cochran (2011). The site assessment claims that the analysis of the lithic artifacts, charcoal samples, and soil samples would be performed by professionals and published as addendums to the assessment.

Unfortunately, these analyses are not included with the assessment at the present time so it is unknown whether these analyses ever took place.

Table 1: Cultural feature summaries for features 1-16 in 12LE377

Dimensions Depth Feature Trench Description (cm) (cm)

Modestly sized pit where hearth and household debris F-001 2 70 x 70 28 was deposited.

Large storage pit into which hearth and other F-002 2 95 x 100 60 household debris was deposited

Deep storage pit where hearth and other household F-003 2 74 x 80 58 debris was deposited

Modestly sized pit where hearth and other household F-004 2 92 x 100 42 debris was deposited.

Base of a shallow hearth where household debris was F-005 2 88 x 92 13 deposited after its use-life

Large storage pit into which hearth and other F-006 2 110 x 112 55 household debris was deposited Modestly sized pit where hearth and other household F-007 1 74 x 74 27 debris was deposited; Possible hearth feature due to minimal burned earth Modestly sized pit where hearth and other household F-008 2 74 x 74 30 debris was deposited Modestly sized pit where hearth and other household F-009 2 68 x 70 38 debris was deposited; Possible limited in situ burning due to charcoal flecking Modestly sized pit where hearth and other household F-010 3 70 x 80 40 debris was deposited; Possible limited in situ burning due to charcoal flecking

F-011 3 28 x 28 12 Base of a post mold

Large but shallow pit where hearth and other F-012 3 116 x 128 22 household debris was deposited Large pit where hearth and other household debris F-013 3 74 x 84 34 was deposited; Possible limited in situ burning due to charcoal flecking Base of a large post mold or small ephemeral basin; F-015 4 45 x 55 24 Possible limited in situ burning due to charcoal flecking Deep storage pit where hearth and other household F-016 4 80 x 82 110 debris was deposited

Table 2: Cultural feature summaries for features 17-33 in 12LE377

Dimensions Depth Feature Trench Description (cm) (cm) Large post mold or the base of a shallow ephemeral F-017 4 48 x 55 10 basin Base of a large post mold or base of a small ephemeral F-018 4 38 x 46 15 basin Deep storage pit where hearth and other household F-019 6 77 x 88 65 debris was deposited Deep storage pit where hearth and other household F-022 5 60 x 80 100 debris was deposited Modestly sized pit where hearth and other household F-023 1 62 x 72 46 debris was deposited; Possible limited in situ burning due to charcoal flecking Shallow hearth into which refuse aggregate was F-024 1 75 x 78 22 deposited; Possible in situ burning due to charcoal flecking Modestly sized pit where hearth and other household F-025 1 50 x 64 22 debris was deposited; Possible limited in situ burning due to charcoal flecking Modestly sized pit where hearth and other household F-026 1 56 x 62 26 debris was deposited; Possible limited in situ burning due to charcoal flecking Modestly sized pit where hearth and other household F-027 1 64 x 64 31 debris was deposited; Possible limited in situ burning due to charcoal flecking Deep storage pit where hearth and other household F-028 1 80 x 80 78 debris was deposited Large storage pit into which hearth and other F-029 1 70 x 70 66 household debris was deposited Large storage pit into which hearth and other F-030 1 56 x 76 70 household debris was deposited Deep storage pit where hearth and other household F-032a 1 66 x 70 72 debris was deposited Truncated shallow pit or truncated hearth; Possible F-032b 1 56 x 56 4 limited in situ burning due to charcoal flecking Large storage pit into which hearth and other F-033 1 75 x 75 92 household debris was deposited

Figure 3: Site 12LE377 and trench locations. The site’s boundary is outlined in green. The proposed structure locations are outlined in fuchsia and proposed pipelines are orange. Area of cultural feature concentration is shaded in red. Shovel test probe locations are black (positive), white (negative), and red (disturbed) dots Area subjected to shovel test probes but was not trenched is shaded in yellow Map copied from Bubb (2011:Figure 4)

Despite the absence of a formal analysis for the lithic artifacts, there is still information provided about what was recovered. Debitage, chipped stone tools, and ground stone tools were all recovered. In the category of “Other Lithics” (Bubb 2011:88), there were two large hammerstones and an anvil as well. Local glacial/gravel chert was the most commonly used lithic material present, comprising 96 percent of the lithic assemblage. Non-local cherts, namely

Kenneth and Wyandotte, were minimally present. These made only two percent of the assemblage (Bubb 2011:85).

Debitage, namely waste flakes, dominated the lithic assemblage. There was one bipolar flake present; Bubb (2011) mentions that bipolar tool manufacture is a characteristic of AD

1000-1500 occupations. The chipped tools identified at this site consistent with the Mississippian period were utilized flakes, scrapers, bifaces, drills, projectile points, abraders, and ground stone tools including hammer stones and anvils (Bubb 2011: 86-88). Lithic tools that had characteristics consistent with an Oneota occupation include 58 projectile points that were triangular in shape and lacked a middle notch.

Blades and blade-like flakes, tools consistent with the Middle Woodland period, were also mentioned as part of the chipped stone tools identified. Bubb (2011:86) shares, however, that it is unclear whether the blades were intentionally made or were the byproducts of bipolar core reduction. There was only one blade that appeared to be intentionally made while the rest were determined most likely to be bipolar flake debris.

The ceramic assemblage at 12LE377 had a total of 2,277 sherds. Over 60 percent of these sherds, however, were too small for the formal analysis (Cochran 2011:51). Shell tempered and vertically cord marked body sherds made up a majority of the identifiable assemblage. Cochran

(2011:55) was able to verify a Fisher/Fifield Oneota cultural component through the analysis of

18 diagnostic pottery pieces. Pieces with characteristics consistent with this component, such as shell temper (Cochran 2011:1), were found in each feature that had faunal remains except for

Feature 17. Cochran (2011) also identified grit temper in about 3 percent of the sherds present.

While this is usually indicative of Woodland period ceramics, Cochran (2011:54) noted that

Oneota ceramics do have grit temper. Until further research can be applied, Cochran (2011) considers the grit tempered sherds from 12LE377 as part of the Fisher/Fifield component.

Surface treatment in the analyzed ceramics was either plain, cord marked, decorated, or unknown. Decoration of the sherds consisted of trailed lines that began at the rim/body juncture and ran diagonally to the vertical structure of the rim. If a sample was large enough, trailed lines would run perpendicular to tool impressions left on rims. Nested chevrons were also noted in a small number of samples (Cochran 2011:51).

The initial faunal analysis for site 12LE377 served to identify vertebrate species present, characteristics of subsistence and hunting patterns, food preparation, and if the site was occupied seasonally or year round. There were 17 species total; 10 of these were mammal, three were bird, three were turtle, and one was a fish (Hogue and Carver 2011:6). Modifications observed included cut marks, burning, hacking, and gnawing. There were a few bones made into tools, including antler tines, a bone bead, and a possible bison scapula hoe, a common tool found in

Oneota sites. As for seasonality, Hogue and Carver (2011) analyzed dental eruption and wear in two nearly complete deer mandibles. From their analysis, they concluded that deer exploitation, at least for the deer analyzed, took place in the summer or fall months, making the site occupied in the late fall and early spring. They did not, however, rule out a year-round occupation (Hogue and Carver 2011:12)

The work done for this site has established that the time of occupation ranged between the Late Woodland and Mississippian periods. The faunal analysis performed did not rule out the possibility that this site was a year-round occupied site (Hogue and Carver 2011), but it’s still possible that the site was seasonally occupied. Bubb (2011) notes that the lack of evidence for permanent structures could reflect seasonal occupation. Bubb (2011:91) says that the lithic tools at the site indicate a reliance of hunting and gathering for subsistence and “the storage pits indicate that agriculture or a large-scale gathering had been conducted”. In his conclusions, Bubb

(2011:92) suggests that this site served as a storage facility and may share several characteristics with the Crouch site complex in Johnson County, Indiana.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Middle Mississippian societies were largely concentrated along, but not restricted to, the

Mississippi river. Using Pauketat’s (2007:86) map of the Mississippian world, as seen in Figure

4, Middle Mississippian groups were centrally located in the present day United States, including

Illinois, Missouri, Kentucky, Tennessee, Mississippi, Arkansas, and Alabama. Oneota, Fisher-

Huber, and Fort Ancient areas on the map are considered Upper Mississippian. For the sake of this study, there will be a concentration on Middle Mississippian sites and Upper Mississippian sites labeled as Oneota and Fisher-Huber in Figure 4 located in Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, northern Illinois, and northwestern Indiana. Oneota and Fisher-Huber sites are discussed because of 12LE377’s location within the area labeled as Fisher-Huber and the Oneota cultural component established in the ceramic analysis performed by Cochran (2011).

Even though they existed within the same time frame, Upper and Middle Mississippian groups were separate societies who descended from separate Late Woodland groups. Upper and

Middle Mississippians, however, practiced similar economic adaptations to the environment, despite this difference in origin. (Gibbon 1982; Overstreet 1997; Pauketat 2004).

Based on Charles Cleland’s (1976) focal-diffuse model, most Middle Mississippian groups practiced a focal adaptation to the environment, or a concentration on a few economic resources. Cleland (1976:73) also claims that Upper Mississippians practiced a focal adaptation to the environment, but they also had a reliance on secondary resources.

Figure 4: Map of the Mississippian World. Map copied from Pauketat (2007: Figure 4.1)

The other adaptation to the environment is the diffuse adaptation, which is a concentration on many economic resources. Cleland (1976) identifies these environmental adaptations based on what a group of people rely on for subsistence and the environmental conditions that cause an adaptation of how food is acquired. His adaptive strategies are strongly based in Optimal

Foraging Theory, which suggests that foragers will make decisions for subsistence based on what will yield the highest rate of return for their efforts (Smith 1992). Middle Mississippian settlements varied from large cities with a defined chiefdom such as Cahokia (Pauketat 2004) and Moundville (Welch 1991) to single household farmsteads such as the Yarborough site

(Jackson and Scott 1995). Upper Mississippian settlements for the most part didn’t consist of large populous sites; instead they remained small, ranging from small villages to temporary habitation sites and farmsteads (Dobbs and Shane 1980; Gallagher and Stevenson 1980). The following sites will provide examples of settlement patterns for Middle and Upper Mississippian groups.

Middle Mississippian Communities

By the late Mississippian period, approximately AD 1200, Middle Mississippian societies were characterized by centralized economies (Jackson and Scott 1995) where a large mound/ceremonial site functioned as a center for smaller sites. One site which provides a strong example of a Mississippian centralized economy is Cahokia. All of the American Bottom sites of the late Mississippian period were hierarchical and Cahokia was essentially the major center where goods were both brought to and then redistributed to the hinterland communities (Kelly

2001; Pauketat 2004). Even within Cahokia, there was noted social hierarchy; maize and deer

23 meat were two of the main sources of food, however a study done by Ambrose et al. (2003) shows that people from Cahokia with higher social status consumed notably more protein than lower status individuals who relied almost completely on corn.

The Cahokia site is the largest archaeological site in North America and has been labeled as part of a “central-political-administrative complex” (Pauketat 2004:71). Pauketat (2004) provides a description of the Cahokia site pattern. The two main points of focus include Monks

Mound and the Grand Plaza. Monks Mound is the tallest and widest pre-Columbian construction in North America. Rivaling structures of Central and South America, it’s also the third or fourth largest ancient pyramid in the western hemisphere. The Grand Plaza is a human-made plaza directly south of Monks Mound, measuring 19 hectares in total size. Monks Mound and the

Grand Plaza serve as the center of the site, surrounded by 120 smaller pyramid mounds and other man-made plazas measuring nine hectares in total size. Aside from the mounds and plazas,

Cahokia also shows remnants of other structures; thousands of wooden pole and thatch buildings were present along with compound walls, a woodhenge, and bastioned palisades (Pauketat

2004:69).

Pauketat (2004:71) discusses two other sites which also serve in the “central-political- administrative complex”: The East St. Louis Mound Group and the St. Louis Site, also known as

“Mound City”. The East St. Louis Mound Group is located directly southwest of Cahokia and has the remnants of 50 earthen pyramids and various temples, storage huts, and walled compounds. The St. Louis site has the remnants of 26 earthen pyramids and a two hectare plaza.

Cahokia and the St. Louis sites are examples of very large and complex Mississippian chiefdoms (Pauketat 2004). There are smaller examples of chiefdoms as one moves south.

Another popular example is the Moundville site and the Moundville polity in Alabama. The

Moundville site was a large chiefdom community that originally was believed to consist of about

20 mounds, mostly platform and conical in construction (Steponaitis 1983; Welch 1991), but

Knight and Steponaitis (1998:3) found that the total number of mounds is actually 32 after including periphery mounds from a sketch map by Nathanial T. Lupton and three low rises that an engineering firm in 1930 interpreted as artificial mounds after a topographic survey. The area of occupation for Moundville is 75 hectares, located in the Black Warrior River Valley (Knight and Steponaitis 1998; Welch 1991). The largest mounds were built around the margins of a single central plaza and the area was at one point fortified by a palisade wall (Knight and

Steponaitis 1998:4-5).

Middle Mississippian architecture and crafts started to appear between AD 1050 and

1200, known as the Moundville I phase. During this time, agricultural production of native crops intensified and local elite were established (Knight and Steponaitis 1998). In this period, only two of the 32 mounds were built, located at the northern and southern boundaries. It wasn’t until the late Moundville I and the early Moundville II phase (approximately AD 1200-1300) that a majority of the rest of the mounds and the palisade wall were built (Knight and Steponaitis 1998;

Steponaitis 1998). Most notable about the late Moundville I into early Moundville II phases is the beginning of the Moundville polity. Moundville was no longer just a singular site; it was a primary center for other secondary mound sites which acted as administrative centers to several farmsteads. These outlying sites functioned mainly for the movement of food to Moundville elites (Knight and Steponaitis 1998; Welch 1998). During this time, elites would not only receive the most desirable food, it would already be processed and prepared for them to cook or consume.

Welch (1991) describes the movement of food from lower status locations to higher status locations as provisioning. Specifically, provisioning according to Welch (1991:89) entails the movement of “desirable foods” from lower status contexts to higher status ones. Lower status people procured and partook in the initial processing of the food while higher status people consumed it. From a zooarchaeological context, a provisioned site would then have faunal elements representing choice cuts of meat, such as the hind and forequarter regions of the animal. A site that was provisioning another site would have elements of food animals representing the lowest quality meats, like foot and cranial bones. Provisioning is also observed in Cahokia, where meat was sent to elites while common people relied on corn (Ambrose et al.

2003). Also like Cahokia, there is a focus on deer and maize in the way of subsistence at

Moundville. Other fauna and plant remains are present, but they are not in the same abundance as deer and maize.

Jackson and Scott (1995) examine village subsistence at the Lubbub Creek locality in

Mississippi. This is another smaller example of the same kind of chiefdom structure exhibited by

Moundville and Cahokia. The Lubbub Creek locality is similar to Cahokia and Moundville because of the presence of social hierarchy/elites. Its layout was also similar because it consisted of scattered domestic structures and a mound that served as a key feature to the people who lived there. It differed, however, because the size and layout is not nearly as large or complex as

Cahokia or even Moundville. Jackson and Scott (1995:188) suggest that this site would have served as an “administrative center”. The faunal assemblage shows a narrow range of small animals and aquatic fauna mixed with a large quantity of deer remains. Food for this site was brought in from smaller communities in the area. The evidence for this was the large number of nearly complete long bone remains present (a high utility portion of the deer), and the absence of

26 remains which would indicate primary butchering (low utility remains such as cranial or foot bones). This aspect was also exhibited in Moundville and Cahokia (Jackson and Scott 2003;

Kelly 2001).

While diet in stratified societies such as Cahokia, Moundville, and Lubbub Creek did take advantage of various local resources such as plant life and species of animals along with agriculture including squash and gourds, there was a specific focus on deer and maize, consistent with a focal adaptation. This would have allowed them to create permanent sites and have reliable access to food through agriculture.

Smaller sites without an elite population were more egalitarian. An example of this is the

Yarborough site (Jackson and Scott 1995). There is no definitive proof that Yarborough was a site providing the Lubbub Creek locality with food, but Jackson and Scott have used this site to show how smaller farmsteads, or sites with a single structure and practiced agriculture, operated in relation to larger villages like Lubbub Creek, or even cities like Cahokia. Yarborough is a much smaller Mississippian site, consisting of a single structure. Jackson and Scott (1995) believe that the economic pattern for this particular site involved hunting and gathering of local resources mixed with some horticultural adaptation.

Another interesting aspect about Yarborough is that there is a significant amount of evidence for primary butchering of deer remains; skulls, lower limbs, and foot elements are overrepresented in relation to other deer elements at this site. These skeletal materials have a low utility value because they are not meaty. Utility in faunal remains usually refers to food value, or the amount of fat and meat that would have been present on the remains in life (Reitz and Wing

1999:213). Utility can be measured by the Food Utility Index (FUI), which was derived from the

27 caribou meat utility index used by Metcalfe and Jones (1988), but would be later modified to be applicable to deer (Reitz and Wing 1999:216).

Jackson and Scott (1995) suggest that Yarborough is a single family site and that they were provisioning another site located elsewhere. If provisioning activity in the archaeological record is apparent, sites can either be provisioned by or provision for another location; this is evidenced by the remains present in an assemblage and the utility of the remains in question. In the case of the Yarborough site, provisioning for another location is evident because of the over representation of low utility deer remains; this indicates the inhabitants were practicing primary butchering in order to prepare the deer meat. The absence of higher utility deer remains suggests that the inhabitants were preparing the deer meat for another location. This site was residential and also served as a processing site which “helped to provision other segments of the society”

(Jackson and Scott 1995:187).

Similar smaller sites are observed around the Moundville Chiefdom. As Welch (1991:31) describes, the single mound sites within the Moundville complex as “only a small population resident… perhaps no more than a dozen households at each site. A much larger segment of the population, we suspect, resided in districts or neighborhoods of dispersed farmsteads and occasional hamlets, centered around the single mound sites and Moundville”. Previous studies done at the White and Mill Creek sites have shown a similar over-representation of low-utility deer remains like at Yarborough, suggesting a similar pattern of provisioning (Jackson and Scott

2003).

Upper Mississippian Communities

Unlike the Middle Mississippian societies, Upper Mississippian societies didn’t operate in large centralized economies, therefore they were much less stratified. Before the Mississippian period, Late Woodland sites of northern regions in the Midwest tended to stay in sizes between small villages and temporary habitation sites or “hunting camps” (Moffat 1998). The main reason for this is a mix between the less concentrated populations compared to Middle

Mississippian societies and the environment of northern marginal regions (Emerson et al. 2005).

The Late Woodland period people in this area didn’t possess a need for an intensified agriculture or centralized economy because of the various resources surrounding them, therefore settlement patterns were much smaller than the larger communities of the south (Pauketat 2004) and much less centered on a single resource. Increased reliance on maize is apparent around AD 1000 when

American Bottom chiefdom societies became present. More people were coming into the area, therefore shifting various aspects of Upper Mississippian culture: “With the need to support larger, more stable social units came the intensification of the production of the most stable and storable resource available- maize” (Emerson et al 2005:102). This would also have an effect on how the Upper Mississippian people interacted in terms of economic, social, and political standards (Emerson et al. 2005).

People exhibiting the Oneota cultural component are believed to have descended from local Late Woodland populations and influenced by Middle Mississippian culture (Gibbon 1980;

Kelly 2001). This, however, is only one of several theories as to how the Oneota people came to be. Archaeologists have also theorized that Oneota people were immigrants from the south.

Another theory suggests that Oneota people were actually a “degenerated” version of more complex Middle Mississippian cultures in the Upper Midwest (Overstreet 1997:252). The topic of Oneota origins is still debated between these three ideas as archaeologists still haven’t been able to prove without a shadow of a doubt that one idea is more valid than the other (Gibbon

1982; Overstreet 1997).

The Oneota cultural component in the archaeological record is largely characterized by pottery (Overstreet 1997). Oneota ceramics are largely tempered with shell rather than grit, although there are some occasions where grit has been used (Faulkner 1972). Decoration for these ceramics include trailed lines made with tools or even fingers. Later Oneota pottery is characterized by curvilinear lines, chevrons and punctates, and rectangular designs. Other artifacts that are typically found in Oneota contexts include bison or elk scapula hoes, copper beads and ornaments, end scrapers, and paired sandstone abraders, but nothing truly identifies an

Oneota component like the ceramics (Overstreet 1997:251).

Like Middle Mississippian communities, there was a range of possibilities for types of

Oneota settlements. The size could range from a large village covering 20 or more acres to smaller villages with only a few noted structures; some even smaller habitation sites existed.

Some sites were characterized by fortified palisaded walls while others showed no means of defense at all (Jackson and Emerson 2014; Overstreet 1997). Sites were situated on knolls or terraces that had the best access to various natural resources, fertile soil for maize horticulture, or both (Dobbs and Shane 1980; Gallagher and Stevenson 1980; Overstreet 1997).

Fisher-Huber groups predominately found in Northeastern Illinois and Northwestern

Indiana, as seen in Figure 3, are considered variants of Oneota groups. The term Fisher-Huber refers to two phases: the Fisher phase and the Huber phase. The Fisher-Huber and Oneota groups

30 share similar characteristics in that their occupation sizes ranged from large farming communities to small and temporary habitation sites. They also practiced similar subsistence strategies with a mixture of agriculture and hunting and gathering, and both even used shell tempered pottery (Faulkner 1972; Jackson 2014b). Studies agree that these two groups are related; archaeologists generally view Fisher-Huber groups as Oneota, however the pottery present in Fisher phase sites make them a separate cultural identity. Aspects that are characteristic of Fisher pottery which are not found in Oneota include: cordmarking, lip lugs, and appliqué strips (Jackson and Emerson 2014:457).

A site found in Thornton, Illinois in the south Chicago area which provides a great example of a late Fisher phase/early Huber phase site is the Hoxie Farm fortified village site

(Jackson and Emerson 2014). This particular site is not only a large village area that was densely populated, but it shows characteristics of fortifications. Palisaded walls with ditches are noted to surround the site, but in addition to this, there are four noted ditches beyond the palisade itself.

Jackson and Emerson (2014:198) suggest that the function of these ditches was to slow down any enemies that would attack the village. Occupied during the early to middle 14th century, this village was approximately 10.8 hectares in size and said to have supported anywhere from 448 to

4,476 people (Jackson 2014b:Table 7.1). The poor preservation of faunal materials in addition to the extensive fragmentation and burning done to them made identification difficult, but from what could be identified, the people at the fortified village exploited the wild local resources.

Floral analysis supports this by showing an exploitation of local hickory and hazel nuts. Floral analysis also showed that agriculture was also happening at this site, producing goods such as maize, squash, and beans (Jackson and Emerson 2014). The fortified village at Hoxie Farm was

31 judged to be “somewhat permanent” (Jackson and Emerson 2014:450), the height of its activities happening between spring and early fall when crops would be planted and harvested.

Jackson and Emerson (2014:458) suggest that the reason for fortifications at this site include trade relationships with other culture groups in the region. The lithic assemblage for this site in particular demonstrates these relationships. Material used for lithic tools included chert from the confluence of the Kankakee river and the starved rock locality, such as the Plateville-

Galena and Silurian cherts (Evans et al. 2014:411). There were also exotic cherts from sources further south, inclusive of Burlington, Wyandotte, and Cobden cherts. This kind of interaction has been seen in previous Oneota studies as well. Ramey incised pottery, ceramics with

Cahokian design motifs, and tri notched points have also been found in Oneota contexts

(Pauketat 2004; Theler and Boszhardt 2006).

Two examples of Fisher-Huber sites found in Northwestern Indiana are the Griesmer and

Fifield sites, located in the Kankakee Valley, as seen in Figure 5. The Griesmer site is located in

Lake County, Indiana on a high knoll running parallel to the north bank of the Kankakee River

(Faulkner 1972:39). This was especially ideal because the knoll is situated in what used to be a marsh. This gave the people who inhabited this site at one point or another a plethora of options for subsistence. Thirty-eight species of vertebrates were identified in the faunal assemblage

(Faulkner 1972:200) and the floral remains all came from the marshland. What is also important to note about the floral remains is the complete absence of corn, a food that was so important in

Middle Mississippian cultures.

Faulkner (1972:116) suggests Griesmer was a seasonal summer occupation until early fall where the inhabitants would move to another semi-permanent location. This site would have been used repetitively until the resources surrounding it were completely exploited. The Upper

Mississippian inhabitants of this site would have been a group of families, all of them possibly coming from same lineage (Faulkner 1972:116). The resources of particular interest to the Upper

Mississippian people here were the surrounding marshlands.

Figure 5: Map for the locations of the Fifield and Griesmer sites. Copied from Faulkner (1972:Figure 1)

The Fifield site is a slightly different case. Located on a flat terrace above a creek that eventually flows into the Little Calumet River (Faulkner 1972:119), Fifield is larger than

Griesmer. The original excavator, Robert R. Skinner, believed it to be about 20 acres in size, but

Faulkner (1972) agrees with the second excavator, Robert E. Reichert, that the site was more likely four acres. This site may not have been situated in a marsh, but the faunal remains yielded

47 different vertebrate species (Faulkner 1972:205). There is little information on the floral remains from this site, but what can be said is that corn is still absent. Faulkner (1972) does point out, however, that there are several Upper Mississippian sites which have corn remains, so it’s not impossible for them to be in this area.

Despite the size of this site, it’s still believed that the occupation at Fifield was seasonal, occupied for at least six months out of the year. One argument suggests that Fifield served as a winter hunting camp due to the absence of agriculture and the abundance of hide-processing tools. There’s still evidence to suggest a summer occupation if not year round, however, due to the size of the site along with its location on optimal farming soil (Faulkner 1972:147). The faunal remains add additional support for this site being occupied in the summer months as well due to the completed development of antlers on deer crania (Faulkner 1972:146). In the end, this site was larger than Griesmer, but the people still largely depended on the resources surrounding them in order to subsist, specifically the animals of the region.

Upper and Middle Mississippian settlement patterns varied greatly depending on the population density and the availability of resources. Places like Cahokia and Moundville were so densely populated they evolved into major cultural centers. Smaller communities, especially those up north in the Upper Midwest, tended to remain in smaller village patterns or even smaller single-family household sites. What both scenarios have in common is how the number of

34 resources present affected the social stratification. The type of resource dependency, whether it is focal or diffuse, may have a relation to social stratification.

Upper Mississippian Economic Practices

At this point, both American Bottom and Upper Mississippian cultures were involved in agricultural practices, but agricultural intensity differed slightly; while Cahokians placed more focus on a few resources and relied on the production of maize as a source of food, the Oneota people were less focused on agriculture and relied on multiple resources, wild and agricultural, employing an “intensification with diversification” program in their economy (Emerson et al.

2005:73). As previously stated, Cleland (1976) classified this type of exploitation as focal.

It’s been a previous suggestion that the reason for this difference in agricultural intensification is due to differences in climate between the American Bottom and the Upper

Midwest: marginal climates will have a negative effect on the intensity of agricultural production

(Emerson et al. 2005; Hart 1990). Brown (1982:111), however, says that Oneota groups had tillable land which wouldn’t be considered marginal. Brown (1982) also asserts that the need for intense agricultural production was less in Upper Mississippian groups because they practiced upland big game hunting and wetland harvesting, however these were subsistence practices for

Middle Mississippians as well.

Hart (1990) provides another explanation for less agricultural intensity in Upper

Mississippian locations by performing a cross-cultural evaluation of the Neo-Malthusian and

Boserupian models of agricultural intensification. He suggests that there is a relationship between climate and agricultural production, but only to the extent that the cost of agricultural

35 production is effected (Hart 1990:572). Larger population densities in a favorable climate would therefore result in more intensive agricultural production and smaller population densities with a favorable climate would result in less intensive agricultural production (Hart 1990:572). This explains why the cultivation of maize would come second in importance to wild resources in the

Upper Midwest. A combination of climate, small population size, and multiple options for subsistence would result in a difference of agricultural intensity between American Bottom and

Upper Mississippian groups.

Previous Mississippian Elite Faunal Studies

Faunal remains found in archaeological contexts can help determine the social status of the individuals who lived there (Crabtree 1990). When investigating social stratification at an

Upper Mississippian site such as site 12LE377, it is important to understand what it will look like in a faunal assemblage when elite groups are present or involved in a site. There are several examples of Middle Mississippian studies which provide this information. Characteristics such as an over representation of faunal remains that represent meatier portions of the animal can indicate an elite presence. Other characteristics which indicate elite involvement or presence include exotic species to the area, carnivorous species, exotic artifacts such as lithic tools made from an exotic chert or painted pottery in the same context as meatier remains, and a lack of bone fragmentation in the collection (Jackson and Scott 1995; Jackson and Scott 2003; Kelly

2001). The following studies go into further detail about what was found in Middle

Mississippian contexts when social stratification was present.

Ritual Feasting at Cahokia

Kelly (2001) performed a study on resource provisioning to assist in understanding social status at Cahokia. The main question to be addressed in her study was whether provisioning occurred at the site. If provisioning was present, she hoped that by examining how elite and commoner groups related to one another, she could provide a better understanding of social relations in and around Cahokia. (Kelly 2001).

Kelly (2001) examines faunal remains from one zone in sub-mound 51 to discuss the possibility of ritual feasting in Cahokia. In addition to faunal materials, she notes that exotic and craft goods were also present including crystals, exotic projectile-points (non-local style traded from elsewhere), axe head debitage, and sherds from painted ceramics. Some unusual artifacts were also present including a drilled alligator tooth, a bone harpoon, and a bone ear spool.

Deer made up over 99 percent of identifiable animal remains in the sub-mound zone level. The most noteworthy aspect of this is that remains which are usually fragmentary were found whole; this included vertebra, scapulae, and innominate bones. Another interesting factor is that a number of bones from the forelimb were found either whole or nearly so (Kelly

2001:347). In Mississippian commoner contexts, and even in some elite contexts (Jackson and

Scott 2003), bones are more fragmentary than what was presented in this study due to bone marrow extraction. Kelly (2001) suggests the lack of fragmentation insinuates the people involved did not need to extract bone marrow, indicating there was a surplus of food.

Large numbers of blowfly pupae and flesh-eating beetle remains were also found in context with the bones (Kelly 2001:348). This also supports the idea of a surplus of food because bones were being thrown away which still had meat on them. In addition to that, the meat was

37 being stripped from the bone instead of boiled; this is a much less efficient way to prepare food and suggests meat surplus (Kelly 2001).

Aside from deer, there was little taxonomic diversity present in the remains. Kelly

(2001:348-349) notes five different taxa of birds, including swans which are not frequently recovered. In addition, swan wing elements were missing from the assemblage, suggesting they were procured specifically for their wings. Kelly (2001:352) suggests that while it is probable birds from this assemblage were eaten, it is more likely they were used for their feathers due to their importance in Southeastern Indian cosmology. Swans in particular are noted in ethnohistorical examples of the Winnebago Thunderbird feast, where swan feathers are scattered in a lodge and worn by the host, and the Chickasaw green corn ceremony, where the sacred fire is fanned by a swan’s wing (Kelly 2001:352).

Feasting is evident by the following feasting “signatures”: low taxonomic diversity, high- yielding meat species, bulk cuts of meat, and little butchering debris (Kelly 2001). In addition to feasting activities, it is also evident that the event was orchestrated by elites. Exotic or unusual artifacts and faunal remains support the idea of an elite presence.

Elite involvement is also evident in the acquisition of the meat. Kelly (2001) suggests that because the body-part representation for deer is consistent and no evidence of primary butchering is present, it’s reasonable to conclude that the portions of deer brought to Cahokia were prescribed. Primary butchering of the deer happened outside of Cahokia, and then collected by the hosting group for the feast (Kelly 2001:351). Kelly (2001:351) further explains that if commoners were just bringing their hunt to Cahokia for the feast, there would be a larger variety of mammals present and the body parts represented in the assemblage would be much more random.

Elites, however, were not the only ones benefiting from this particular feast. Evidence of commoner presence and participation includes domestic ceramic remains alongside that of painted sherds and the presence of domestic subsistence plants (Kelly 2001). As a result, “What is believed to be represented here are public ritual and feasting activities attended by all segments of the community” (Kelly 2001:350).

Elite Faunal Use at Moundville

Jackson and Scott (2003) studied faunal remains from two mounds at the Moundville site: Mound Q and Mound G. Both mounds were indicated from past research to be used by elite people, so the purpose of this study was to understand how they used their space. In addition,

Jackson and Scott (2003) wanted to understand what to expect from elite Mississippian mounds in future research. Faunal remains from the summit and slope middens excavated in 1998 and

1989 field seasons were studied specifically.

Mound Q and Mound G were relatively similar with regards to the faunal remains present in each of the middens. Both mounds also showed a lack of primary butchering, and mostly higher utility cuts of meat which was consistent with what Jackson and Scott (2003) expected.

However, both mounds showed that food preparation did occur by individuals at the site.

Domestic cooking vessels and some bone fragmentation were also found in these contexts.

Jackson and Scott (2003) expected evidence for food preparation, such as fragmentary remains, to be a commoner practice rather than an elite one. In relation to commoner sites, however, the amount of fragmentation on both mounds was significantly less.

Despite their similarities, there were subtle differences between the two elite mounds which showed elite activity and even stratification within elite groups. With regards to bone fragmentation, Mound G had significantly less fragmentation in its middens than Q, suggesting less bone processing occurred here. Both mounds show faunal evidence of “unusual taxa” such as “bobcat, cougar, fox, black bear, white ibis, red-tail hawk, whooping cranes, peregrine falcon… and songbirds” (Jackson and Scott 2003:567), but most of the remains came from G specifically. Mound Q had more fur-bearing unusual taxa which supported the suggestion that its main function was craft production.

Previous faunal analyses have shown that elite contexts have specific traits when it comes to the archaeological record, particularly with faunal assemblages. When elites are present or occupy a certain area, like the ones on Mounds Q and G at Moundville, faunal remains of food animals represent high FUI portions of remains, particularly of deer. Additionally, if a site is providing quality meat for another site, or provisioning them, the site will have evidence of butchering activities, or a large quantity of low FUI portions of remains. Elite contexts in Middle

Mississippian sites also have decorated pottery and special lithic tools. Moundville pottery in particular was painted and represented ceramic pieces that were not associated with cooking

(Jackson and Scott 2003). Lithic tools in both Moundville and Cahokian elite contexts were well made and some were even made with chert that came from a non-local source (Jackson and Scott

2003; Kelly 2001). Non-local and dangerous taxa are also noted to be a characteristic of elite contexts.

METHODS

The reanalysis of the faunal assemblage from site 12LE377 focused on information pertaining to meat cuts and their association with other artifacts, the presence or absence of dangerous and/or exotic animals, and comparing the faunal assemblage of this site to six other contemporary sites in the region. For identification, the comparative collections available in the

Department of Anthropology and the Applied Anthropology Laboratories at Ball State

University were used. Several other reference materials available in the Applied Anthropology

Laboratories were also used including, but not limited to, Bradley Adams and Pam Crabtree’s

(2012) Comparative Osteology: A Laboratory and Field Guide of Common North American

Animals, April Beisaw’s (2013) Identifying and Interpreting Animal Bones, and Elizabeth Reitz and Elizabeth Wing’s (1999) Zooarchaeology. Data collected in this analysis included:

- Taxon (Class if applicable)

- Taxon (Species if applicable)

- Count

- Element represented (if applicable)

- Portion of element (proximal, distal, shaft)

- Side: right or left (if applicable)

- Modifications present (presence/absence)?

- Greatest Length and Greatest Breadth measurements (if not fragmentary)

- Weight in grams.

A large amount of the analysis required several calculations of both the Minimum number of

Individuals (MNI) and the Number of Identified Specimens per taxa (NISP), using the counts and proportions of the remains. On a site level, the NISP and MNI for each of the identifiable taxon was calculated. Both of these numbers were only determined with remains that were identified to the species level. If the class of the specimen was identifiable, this information was recorded, but this specimen was not included in creating the NISP or MNI value for the feature in question. All specimens, identified to the species level, class level only, or completely unidentifiable, were included in an overall count and weighed.

MNI is a calculated variable which allows the archaeologist to identify the minimum number of individual people or animals present depending on bone specimen frequency. For example, if the assemblage has two right femur fragments and one left occipital fragment, the MNI would be two because one complete animal or person cannot possibly have two right femurs.

There are two ways to calculate MNI. One is called the minimum distinction method, where the remains as a whole for the site are treated as one large unit (Grayson 1973). This method is very conservative because it doesn’t take feature context into consideration. The other is called the maximum distinction method and it determines the MNI of fauna according to levels and excavation units determined by the archaeologist (Grayson 1973). The maximum distinction method is subject to the archaeologist’s distinction and therefore is less robust. For example, a feature may have been excavated using levels whose depths are determined by the archaeologist.

If one uses the maximum distinction method for calculating an MNI per level in this case, and faunal remains that share the same species identification are present in multiple levels, the MNI for the feature could end up being much more than what was really present.

MNI methodology for this study is considered maximum distinction, but instead of calculating MNI by excavation unit or levels, it was calculated by cultural feature. This version of maximum distinction allows the archaeologist to determine the MNI for each taxa per cultural feature rather than the site as a whole or by arbitrary units or levels determined by the archaeologist; this produces larger values than the minimum distinction method, but they still remain more conservative than the traditional maximum distinction method (Grayson 1973;

Reitz and Wing 1999). The resulting values remain in a cultural context, but they are made under the assumption that remains from different features are different individuals when they are the same taxon. To determine MNI values for the entire site, each feature’s MNI value per taxon is added together. For example, if there were three features that had an MNI calculated for beaver, all three of those MNI values would be added together in order to determine the site’s MNI for beaver remains.

After NISP was established for each feature, the numbers specifically for deer were used to calculate the log difference between the natural logarithms of the deer remains present at the site and that of an anatomically correct deer. The previous analysis performed by Hogue and Carver

(2011) investigated the presence of provisioning activity with deer at this site by comparing the raw NISP of low and high utility portions of deer. They suggest that because both elements are represented at this site, deer was brought back to 12LE377 to be butchered rather than butchering activities happening at the kill site. Establishing a log difference between the deer remains present at the site and deer remains from an anatomically correct deer is important for understanding provisioning activities because it takes the expected number of deer bones in an anatomically correct deer into account. If the log difference is zero, or close to zero, for both

43 high and low utility remains when comparing log differences, this would be a stronger evidence to suggest that butchering activities happened at the site.

Examining log difference ratios for the portions of animals present at the site will help address the question of social stratification because it may provide evidence for provisioning. For example, if the deer remains present at the site in question solely represent portions of a deer with a high FUI value, this would be evidence that hunting and butchering of deer meat happened elsewhere. Preferable cuts of meat in this scenario would have been brought to the site after butchering happened instead of butchering activities taking place at the site itself; this is consistent with sites that have an elite context (Kelly 2001; Welch 1991). If the site has a predominance of low FUI value remains and little to no high FUI remains, this indicates that this site was butchering meat from hunts and sending more preferable cuts elsewhere. This could be evidence for a population responding to an elite group, in other words it could represent a commoner group. Last, if the site has remains that showcase both high and low FUI portions of deer, and the ratio is consistent with an anatomically correct deer, there was no provisioning activity happening and the people who occupied this site provided solely for themselves.

Examining the log difference ratios of high and low FUI value remains alone, however, will not provide enough proof for the presence or absence of provisioning activity. The inhabitants of site 12LE377 could very well have butchered animals before bringing meat back to the site simply for easier transport. This means that provisioning activity in a faunal assemblage will look very similar to logistical hunting where no elites are present. It is essential that other details about the faunal assemblage, such as the presence or absence of exotic species or exotic trade-goods in relation to the remains, be taken into consideration as well. For example, if the site had a predominance of high FUI value remains but they were in the same context as

44 unpainted pottery or lithic tools that weren’t made with an exotic chert, a more viable explanation would be that field butchering took place out of a need for efficiency.

The log difference formula, as shown by Reitz and Wing (1999:212) is:

d = logeX- logeY

X is representative of the NISP percentage in the assemblage and Y is representative of the

NISP percentage in an anatomically correct deer. After this was calculated for the 12LE377 faunal assemblage, the difference was plotted on a log difference scale; an example of a log difference scale is illustrated in Reitz and Wing (1999: Figure 7.14). In addition to a log difference scale being created for the site as a whole, one was also created for each feature that had deer remains. The site log difference scale provides a visualization of the representation of high and low FUI value remains. The log difference scales created for each feature helped identify which features showed an overrepresentation of elements with a high FUI value. Once these were established, the site assessment written for the project performed by Pioneer

Consulting was referenced in order to establish if any decorated pottery, as discussed in the site summary chapter, or unique lithic tools were associated with these higher quality meat cut remains. Kelly (2001) and Crabtree (1990) both make reference to faunal remains in association with trade goods or unique pottery as being an indication of elite status.

Last, site 12LE377 was compared to six other sites that were contemporary with it; the

NISP and MNI data for these sites was compared, but weight was not examined because this data was not available for all of the comparison sites. The sites used for comparison in relation to taxonomic diversity were a combination of the sites used as comparisons in the original analysis

(Hogue and Carver 2011:21) and sites clearly representing Upper Mississippian culture in

Northwestern Indiana or Northeastern Illinois. Sites 12H993, 12H883, and 12H987 were all sites

45 surveyed in Hamilton County, Indiana and used in the original analysis. 12H993 and 12H987 were investigated by Ball State’s Archaeological Resources Management Service as part of the requirements for two separate Historic Preservation fund grants awarded in 2004 and 2008 respectively (McCord et al 2005; McCord et al 2009). 12H993 is a multi-component site, consisting of diagnostic artifact material from the Late Archaic, Middle Woodland, Late

Woodland/Prehistoric, and historic periods (McCord et al 2005:58). Radiocarbon dates from this project, however, specifically place the occupation of the site AD 1030-1420, which is in the

Mississippian and Late Prehistoric periods. Site 12H987, also known as Taylor Ten, is also a multicomponent site and consists of artifacts from the Early Archaic, Middle Woodland, and

Late Woodland/Prehistoric periods. Majority of the material recovered is consistent with the

Casor Phase, or between AD 1000 and AD 1400; radiocarbon dates calculated from samples of two features provide dates between AD 900 and 1040 and AD 1160 and 1270 (McCord et al

2009:128). Site 12H883, also known as the Strawtown Enclosure, is a site that was surveyed in

2001 by the Indiana University-Purdue University at Fort Wayne Archaeological Survey (White et al. 2002). This site consists of an earthen embankment and ditch construction which was built by Oliver/Fort Ancient peoples between AD 1100 and AD 1300 (White et al. 2002:106). In addition to the Fort Ancient influence at Strawtown, previous study has shown a “Fisher Focus” there as well (White et al. 2002:78). White et al (2002) supports the assertion that after their occupation, people from Taylor Village crossed White River and occupied the site between AD

1300 and AD 1400. As stated previously, Fort Ancient cultures are considered Upper

Mississippian but were excluded from the literature review.

Data for the faunal collections of the Griesmer and Fifield sites of Northwestern Indiana provided by Charles Faulkner (1972) were also included for the comparison. The last site to be

46 used was the Fisher site of Will County, IL (Parmalee, 1962:399). This site is another multi component site, showing evidence of occupation from Late Woodland (AD 300-900), Middle

Mississippi (AD 1100-1500), and Upper Mississippi (AD 1200-1600) groups (Parmalee

1962:400). Out of all the groups, however, the Upper Mississippi group is the dominant representation in the archaeological record.

All six sites were used in the NISP comparisons, but Fisher was left out of the MNI comparison. Parmalee only produced an inventory of identified fauna and discussed what was found, so no MNI was available. The data from these sites was the result of excavation and all six of them were also occupied at least seasonally. Specifically, the NISP and MNI numbers and percentages of mammals, birds, and fish were compared as these were identifiable up to the species and class level in all sites considered. Comparing these sites to site 12LE377 showed characteristics of taxonomic diversity within the time period for this region.

In addition to comparing the NISP and MNI data from site 12LE377 to the comparison sites,

Lieberson’s (1969) equation for population diversity was used on this data to examine the economic adaptation to the environment as discussed by Cleland (1976). The equation itself is:

2 2 Aw = 2[(X1- (X1) ) + .... (Xn- (Xn) )] / n

In this scenario, Aw is the population diversity value, X represents the percentage of a species, and n is the number of species present. Values for X in this study were drawn from the

NISP, MNI, and Weight separately. Population diversity in this equation ranges from zero to one, where zero represents minimal diversity and one represents wider diversity. Low Aw values would support a more focal adaptation to the environment because of minimal diversity in species. If they were high, or closer to 1, this would be supportive evidence of a diffuse adaptation because of wider diversity. As previously discussed, Upper Mississippian sites

47 practiced focal adaptation to the environment, so 12LE377 and the comparison sites should show similar low values with this test.

RESULTS

A total of 1657 remains were analyzed for this study; the total NISP for the site was 306.

The total MNI was 54, and the total weight was 1982.06 grams. Table 3 provides the NISP,

MNI, and weight information for each taxa in 12LE377. The MNI percentage communicates the percentage of MNI a particular species represents. NISP percentage communicates the percentage of a specific taxa in relation to the overall number of identified species. The weight percentage communicates the percentage of a specific taxa’s weight in relation to the whole collection. Tables communicating the NISP, MNI, and weight data for identified taxa per feature can be found in Appendix I. Each percentage in Table 3 and Appendix I is rounded to the nearest hundredth.

Bone measurements were rarely done with this collection because of its fragmentary nature and multiple cases of broken bone. Even when bones were identifiable, a majority of them were not complete specimens. Fragmentation refers to bones being broken into several pieces; majority of the time, this rendered the bone unidentifiable. Broken bones refer to bones that have only a few breaks; they may be broken into two or three pieces rather than several. There were a few cases where breaks in the bone were recent, or done during the excavation, however in general the breaks in the assemblage happened before the time of deposition into the feature.

Table 3: MNI, NISP, and Weight data for remains identified by species in site 12LE377

Identified Weight MNI MNI % NISP NISP % Weight (g) Species %

Beaver 8 15.09 50 16.39 150.77 7.60 Black Bear 1 1.89 1 0.33 3.4 0.17 Bison 5 9.43 11 3.60 479.98 24.22 Bobcat 2 3.77 2 0.66 9.77 0.49 Box Turtle 1 1.89 3 0.98 1.35 0.07 Brown Bullhead Catfish 2 1.89 3 0.98 2.43 0.12 Chipmunk 1 1.89 2 0.66 0.13 0.007 Dog 5 9.43 25 8.20 92.78 4.68 Elk 3 5.66 10 3.28 49.65 2.50 Gray Squirrel 2 3.77 12 3.93 7.07 0.36 Raccoon 2 3.77 6 1.97 14.2 0.72 Soft Shell Turtle 1 1.89 2 0.66 4.94 0.25 Turkey 5 9.43 16 5.25 35.24 1.78 Turkey Vulture 1 1.89 2 0.66 26 1.31 White tailed Deer 15 28.3 161 52.79 1104.35 55.72

Bone modifications for this collection were predominantly burning and cut marks which would be consistent with cooking. There were a few cases where the bones had been modified into tools. Feature 13 had a broken bison scapula (Figure 6); the original analysis identified this as a possible scapula hoe (Hogue and Carver 2011:10), however this identification was not made in the present analysis. Bison scapula hoes were common tools among Oneota populations, used for maize agriculture and digging (Theler and Bozhardt 2006). Characteristics of scapula hoes include notches cut into the distal end of the blade, a wear pattern on the glenoid fossa from use, and the scapular spine and posterior ridge have been removed (Hill 1988:102). This particular scapula was missing the scapular spine. The spine appears to have been broken off at the time of use or burial rather than during the excavation. The scapula in this study was mostly a medial portion; most of the blade is missing and all of the glenoid fossa is gone; fresh breaks in these areas indicate this was a result of the excavation. This makes it impossible to tell if the characteristics of the blade or the glenoid fossa would have been consistent with a scapula hoe.

In addition to the missing portions of the scapula, there were cut marks found on the posterior side opposite of the missing scapular spine; this characteristic is inconsistent with a scapula hoe.

Feature 6 had six bone awls (Figure 7). These match the description of the split rib awls discussed by Hill (1988:117). He describes them as rectangular objects where one end tapers rapidly to a point. The split rib awls discussed by Hill (1988) however are approximately nine and eight centimeters in length; only two of the awls in the 12LE377 collection have those measurements. Second, at least two of the tools in this study taper on both ends. The other four had one end taper and the other broken off.

Last, Feature 19 had an antler tine (Figure 8); the exterior surface was polished, but it was only a distal fragment of a whole tine. Antler tines are often used as pressure flakers in the

51 creation of lithic tools (Andrefsky 2005:12). Lithic tool creation has been identified in both commoner and elite contexts (Jackson and Scott 2003).

There were two species identified that are considered dangerous: bobcat and black bear.

There was one black bear distal metacarpal fragment in Feature 10 which was burned (Figure 9).

Bobcat was represented by two bones in two separate features. Feature 2 had a complete right calcaneus (Figure 10) and Feature 25 had the distal end of a humerus (Figure 11). The only modification connected to cooking was the charring present on the bear metacarpal, indicative of burning; none of the bones had cut marks present.

In terms of taxonomic diversity, there were no species identified which would have been considered exotic. Each of the 15 taxa positively identified to the species level were native to this area of Indiana, including elk which would have been present in the area during this time period

(Faulkner 1972)

Due to the fragmentary nature of this collection, it was impossible to identify each specimen to the species level. As a result, Table 4 provides a summary of the number of remains per class, weight per class, and the percentage of each. The number of completely unidentifiable remains can be found here as well.

Mammals were the majority class for this collection, making a total of 969 specimens or about 59 percent of all the remains in the collection. Species identified in this class include bear, beaver, bison, bobcat, chipmunk, dog, elk, gray squirrel, raccoon, and white-tailed deer. Of these species, white-tailed deer made up the majority with a total of 161 specimens identified.

After the unidentifiable remains, the aquatic mussel shells made up the second largest class group. This study focused on vertebrates and therefore didn’t investigate the species for

52 mussels, however they did make up a total of 194 specimens, which accounted for about 12 percent of the collection.

Figure 6: Bison scapula, originally classified as a possible scapula hoe (Hogue and Carver 2011), posterior view, Feature 13

Figure 7: Bone awls, Feature 6

Figure 8: Antler tine, Feature 19

Figure 9: Black bear distal metacarpal volar view, Feature 10

Figure 10: Bobcat right calcaneus dorsal view, Feature 2

Figure 11: Bobcat distal right humerus ventral view, Feature 25

Table 4: A summary of remains identified by class in site 12LE377

Identified Classes Count Count % Weight Weight %

Amphibia 4 0.24 0.28 0.009 Aves 55 3.33 96.65 3.01 Bivalvia 194 11.76 185.96 5.80 Mammalia 969 58.73 2737.78 85.37 Osteichthyes 22 1.33 4.44 0.14 Reptilia 18 1.09 19.53 0.61 Unknown 388 23.52 162.35 5.06

The rest of the classes in the collection (amphibians, birds, bony fish, and reptiles), held very low percentages compared to mammals and aquatic mussels. Amphibians were a quarter of a percent of the collection with a count of four. Bony fish and reptiles accounted for a little over one percent each in the collection; bony fish had a count of 22 and reptiles were 18. Birds made up about three percent of the collection with a count of 55 specimens. Of these classes, birds, bony fish, and reptiles were the only ones with identified species. The representation of these smaller and more delicate bones could have been affected by the collection methods used by

Pioneer Consulting. All faunal materials were collected either from floatation samples or by dry screening unit soil with a ¼ inch screen (Hogue and Carver 2011:3)

For birds, two species were identified in the collection: turkey and turkey vulture. Turkey made up about five percent of the identified species with a NISP count of 16. Turkey Vulture was identified in Feature 6; this NISP count was two and it made up less than one percent of the identified species.

Box turtle and soft shell turtle were identified for reptiles, although both had a very small presence in the overall collection. Three box turtle specimens were identified while only two

59 were soft shell turtle. Box turtle represented one percent of the identified species and soft shell was a little over half of a percent.

Last, three specimens were identified for brown bullhead catfish, making up about one percent of the identified species.

Log Difference Scales

Each feature which had white-tailed deer remains had a log difference scale created for it.

These scales were based on the log difference scale created for the hypothetical collection in

Reitz and Wing (1999:212). Counts and logarithms for a standard deer were taken from Reitz and Wing (1999).

Figure 12 is the log difference scale constructed for the site as a whole. The meatier portions of deer, or the forequarter and hindquarter regions, were almost in exact proportion to a standard deer. Forequarter portions were in perfect proportion with a log difference of 0 while hindquarter portions were only slightly under represented with a log difference of -0.016, which coincides well with the original analysis of deer being brought back to the site to be butchered

(Hogue and Carver 2011). However, the less meaty portions of the deer are either over or under represented in proportion. The axial skeleton is slightly over represented with a log difference of

0.046, but the head elements have a log difference of 0.352 and the hind feet are overrepresented by 1.276. Foot and forefoot elements are underrepresented with log difference values equaling -

1.568 and -0.569 respectively.

Log difference scales were created for each feature that held white-tailed deer remains; features that had a positive log difference for meatier portions of the deer skeleton, the

60 hindquarter and forequarter remains, will be discussed here. All of the log difference scales can be observed in Appendix III.

Log Difference- All Features

Foot

Hindfoot

Forefoot

Hindquarter

Forequarter

Axial

Head

-3 -2.5 -2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

Figure 12: Log Difference Scale for 12LE377

Six features showed a positive log difference of hindquarter and forequarter bones: 2, 10,

23, 24, 25, and 32a. Table 5 provides a brief description of each feature, illustrates the sample sizes, and which trench they can be found in; the trenches are mapped in Figure 3. Sample sizes for these features were very small, the largest number of bones in a feature being 14. In addition, none of the deer bones that were complete in these features were hindquarter or forequarter elements. The only complete bones were the teeth in Feature 23 and the calcaneus and astragalus in Feature 32a. Table 6 illustrates these features and whether decorated pottery and/or lithic tools were found with them. The only grit tempered sherd found was a rim sherd in Feature 10. Nearly all of the features, however, had shell tempered sherds in them. Feature 2 was the only one to have a shell-tempered neck sherd and the rest of them were body sherds. Feature 24 was the only one that had no sherds at all (Cochran 2011:3).

Table 5: Sample sizes of deer bones in features used in the log difference scales. Feature descriptions copied from Bubb (2011:42-82)

Complete Feature Trench Description Contents Sample Size Bones Hearth and other 2 2 Large storage pit 6 None household debris Hearth and other 10 3 Modestly sized pit 14 None household debris Hearth and other Mandibular M1, 23 1 Modestly sized pit 6 household debris M2, and P1

24 1 Shallow hearth Refuse aggregate 8 1st Phalanx

Hearth and other 25 1 Modestly sized pit 4 None household debris Hearth and other 1 Calcaneus, 1 32a 1 Deep storage pit 7 household debris astragalus

Table 6: Features from 12LE377 with faunal remains and decorated Oneota pottery (DP) sherds. Sherd data copied from Cochran (2011:2-3)

DP DP DP DP DP DP Feature (Grit- (Grit- (Grit- (Shell- (Shell- (Shell- Lithic Tools Exotic Chert? Body) Neck) Rim) Body) Neck) Rim) 3 pieces of bipolar core reduction flake debris, 1 biface, 1 hafted triangular biface tip, 1 Yes- Nodena 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 hafted triangular biface base, 1 Cluster hafted Nodena cluster hafted biface, 1 biface possible anvil, 1 ovoid hammerstone 1 basal fragment of a triangular 10 0 0 1 3 0 0 hafted biface No 1 bifacial end scraper

23 0 0 0 1 0 0 None N/A

3 bipolar core reduction flake 24 0 0 0 0 0 0 No debris

25 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 bifacial tool No

32a 0 0 0 10 0 0 2 triangular hafted bifaces No

Nearly all of the features had lithic tools in them except for Feature 23. Feature 2 had the most tools or tool fragments present with a total count of eight. One biface was made of an

“unidentified exotic chert” (Bubb 2011:42). Feature 24 had 3 flakes which Bubb (2011:69) labels

“blade-like flakes”, Feature 25 had a bifacial tool, and Feature 32a had two triangular hafted bifaces. None of the tools in features 10,23,24,25, and 32a were made of an exotic chert. Bubb

(2011:86) does note in the overall analysis of the lithic materials found in 12LE377 that it is unclear which blade-like flakes were from blade manufacture and which were from bipolar core reduction. There was only one confirmed blade that showed evidence of usewear and the rest of the flakes appear to be bipolar flake debris. This confirmed blade, however, was not mentioned in any of the feature descriptions from the features with positive log differences in Table 5.

Site Comparisons

As stated previously, this study’s NISP count only includes specimens that were identified to the species level. Therefore, the NISP numbers for the comparative sites in this study are representative only of specimens that were identified to the species level as well. Any species identified to this level in the comparative sites, but marked as “cf”, or “compares well”

(Beisaw 2013), were also included. Figure 14 is a chart displaying the NISP counts for each of the comparative sites and 12LE377. The raw counts by themselves were varied; the smallest sum of mammals, birds, and fish was from 12H993 at 145 and the largest was from the Fisher site in

Illinois at 1571.

Despite their differences in numbers, the NISP count data shows how reliant these populations were on mammals. Each one of the sites had hundreds of mammal remains; Fisher

63 and Fifield had thousands. This difference is reiterated in Figure 15 where the percentage of each class is presented. The other classes, birds and fish, stay lower than the mammal counts. In general, birds and fish stayed in double and single digit figures. There were two sites that were exceptions to this trend: the Fisher and Griesmer sites. Fisher’s bird count was 188 and fish was

32, but its mammal count was 1351, so it was consistent with the pattern of extremely high mammal counts and much lower bird and fish counts. The Griesmer site was an anomaly because it was the only site that had a fish count almost match the mammal count. Mammals came out to

480 total and fish were 465. As stated previously in the literature review, Faulkner (1972) believed this site’s main function was to exploit the local wetlands seasonally which would explain why the fish count was so high.

Higher differences between the mammals and the birds and fish continued when the MNI counts and percentages were compared. Figure 16 shows the MNI counts for each site and Figure

17 shows the percentages of each class in the MNI count. The MNI counts for each identified species in 12H993, 12H883, and 12H987 were determined by cultural feature and then added together in the same manner done for this study of 12LE377. Methodology for MNI wasn’t provided by Faulkner (1972), so it’s unknown whether the minimum or maximum distinction method, or the distinction method done by cultural feature, was practiced in the faunal analysis for Griesmer and Fifield.

The numbers for this part of the analysis are much lower because the MNI is identifying the lowest possible number of individuals present. It is clear, however, that the same trend which exists with the NISP is also present with the MNI. Mammals remain higher in both raw numbers and percentages, with the exception of the Griesmer site.

Comparative NISP 1600 1400 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0 12LE377 Griesmer Fifield 12H993 12H883 12H987 Fisher

Mammals Birds Fish

Figure 13: NISP for each of the comparative sites and 12LE377. Griesmer and Fifield data taken from Faulkner (1972:200-205), 12H993 data taken from McCord et al. (2005:158-159), 12H883 data taken from White et al. (2002:207), 12H987 data taken from McCord et al. (2009:96-97), and Fisher data taken from Parmalee (1962:400-402)

Comparative NISP Percentage 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 12LE377 Griesmer Fifield 12H993 12H883 12H987 Fisher

Mammals Birds Fish

Figure 14: The NISP percentage for each site. Citations for the data on Griesmer, Fifield, 12H993, 12H883, 12H987, and Fisher can be found in Figure 13

In addition to the quantity of mammals versus other classes and species, each of these sites had animals that were all native to the region. None of them had anything that would be considered exotic, however each of them had carnivorous species. It has already been established that bobcat and black bear remains were identified in this study of 12LE377. As for the comparative sites, 12H987 identified three “carnivorous” remains (McCord et al. 2005:158),

12H883 identified 32 black bear remains (White et al 2002:207), and the rest of the sites had bobcat remains. Site 12H993 had three bobcat remains (McCord et al. 2009:96), the Griesmer site had one (Faulkner 1972:108), and Fifield had seven in addition to 38 black bear remains

(Faulkner 1972:205).

Not every comparative site was able to be used while examining population diversity. As stated previously, Parmalee (1962) only identified the remains from the Fisher site and tallied them, leaving out MNI and weight data, so the Fisher site was left out of this analysis. The results can be found in Figure 17. The Aw values for site 12LE377 were all very low; NISP,

MNI, and Weight percentage values were 0.091, 0.1147, and 0.0827 respectively. These values are all representative of a low population diversity amongst the faunal remains, indicative of a focal adaptation to the environment. Each of the other comparative sites showed very low values as well. Again, since weight data was not available for every comparative site, weight was not included while evaluating the Aw value. The highest value was 0.1734, derived from the MNI species percentage at site 12H993. The smallest was 0.0212 for NISP at site 12H987. Aw values for each of these sites is supportive of a focal adaptation to the environment.

These low values in areas which were not densely populated can be explained through the predominance of certain animals, in this case mammals, in each of the collections. Lieberson

(1969:851) provides an example of a city with four different religions.

Comparative MNI 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 12LE377 Griesmer Fifield 12H993 12H883 12H987

Mammals Birds Fish

Figure 15: MNI established for each comparative site and 12LE377. Citations for the data on Griesmer, Fifield, 12H993, 12H883, 12H987, and Fisher can be found in Figure 13

Comparative MNI Percentage 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 12LE377 Griesmer Fifield 12H993 12H883 12H987

Mammals Birds Fish

Figure 16: The MNI percentage for each site. Citations for the data on Griesmer, Fifield, 12H993, 12H883, 12H987, and Fisher can be found in Figure 13

He says that in this hypothetical city, if everyone in the population subscribed to one religion that would make the Aw value 0 for religion diversity. Subsequently, if everyone in the community had a different religion, the Aw value would be one. This same logic can be applied for site

12LE377 and the comparative sites. Each of these sites had multiple economic resources, but each of them also showed a specific reliance on mammals. This subsequently affected their Aw value, which supported a focal adaptation to the environment practiced at each site.

Population Diversity 0.3

0.25

0.2

0.15

0.1

0.05

0 12LE377 12H993 12H987 12H883 Griesmer Fifield

NISP Aw MNI Aw

Figure 17: Aw values for population diversity at site 12LE377 and the comparative sites. Citations for the data on Griesmer, Fifield, 12H993, 12H883, 12H987, and Fisher can be found in Figure 13

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

Site 12LE377 is an Upper Mississippian site with an Oneota Fisher-Fifield cultural component as exhibited clearly from the pottery sherds analyzed by Cochran (2011). An original faunal analysis was performed in 2011 in order to identify the faunal remains and to describe subsistence patterns, processing, and seasonality of site occupation. This study was a second analysis which focused on examining whether or not site 12LE377 had elite involvement. To conclude, this site does not possess the characteristics necessary to identify an elite presence in or influencing it.

This site did have carnivorous, or “dangerous”, taxa present in the faunal assemblage, however this alone is not indicative of an elite presence or involvement. There are multiple reasons carnivorous taxa would be hunted. Ethnographic studies have shown that carnivores can represent power, and the consumption of them could be interpreted as an attempt to obtain the characteristics of that animal (Jackson and Scott 2003:554). In the case of 12LE377, the only bone that indicated cooking was the black bear metacarpal which was charred. This is a consistent characteristic of cooking, meaning that the people here were consuming bear meat.

The bobcat humerus and calcaneus did not have any cutmarks present nor were they burned, making it unlikely that these animals were used for food and instead used for another purpose.

Since both of these species were fur-bearing animals, they could have been hunted for their pelts

(Faulkner 1972; Jackson and Scott 2003). Black bear and bobcat, despite their uses at this site,

69 seem to have had little importance to the people of 12LE377 due to their low representation in the assemblage, as seen in Table 2. Aside from carnivorous species, the species represented in the 12LE377 assemblage were completely local; there were no “exotic” species to speak of.

Part of the study was investigating whether exotic or well-made decorated pottery and lithics made from exotic chert were in the same features that also had high FUI value remains.

The only pottery classified as decorated by Cochran (2011) found in the six features investigated were the ones with trailed line designs that are typical of Fisher-Oneota contexts (Overstreet

1997; Faulkner 1972). The lithic tools were generally made of local low quality gravel cherts; there was only one tool with an “exotic” chert, but Bubb (2011) identified the chert as coming from an unknown source. Last, the sample sizes of pottery sherds and deer remains were all very small. In addition, the deer remains that were considered hind and forequarter were fragmentary instead of complete.

Other details pertaining to the faunal assemblage that suggest the lack of an elite presence include the amount of fragmentary and unidentified remains. Totally unidentifiable remains were

23.78 percent of the total assemblage and remains that were identifiable to the species level accounted for only 18.47 percent. Massive fragmentation is the reason for these low amounts of identification. This suggests that the bones were being used for the marrow and the rendering of grease as well as the meat; this type of bone processing is not typical for elite groups (Jackson and Scott 2003).

The log difference scale for the entire site shows that remains such as the foot, hind foot, fore foot, head, and axial elements, which had less preferable FUI values, had log differences.

Foot remains had the largest negative difference while hind foot remains had the largest positive difference. The hind and forequarter remains, which would represent higher FUI value parts of

70 the body, had much lower log differences; the forequarter region had no log difference at all.

What this communicates is that while some butchering may have happened off site which would explain the negative log difference in the foot and fore foot remains, the positive log difference is evidence that suggests butchering happened at the site as well. Two important points should be taken into consideration with this part of the study. The first is that the total number of identifiable deer remains was 161, making the test sample very small to begin with. Second, a large amount of the remains in this assemblage were unidentifiable because of the heavy fragmentation. This definitely affects how much of the meatier portions of deer are actually represented in the assemblage as well as the less meaty portions. As it stands, there is no reason to believe that meat was brought to this site or that it was processed here for someone else. Meat was both butchered and consumed at this site by and for the people that lived there, which does not fit well into a society where elites are concerned.

Last, when comparing this site to the comparison sites, 12LE377 follows the pattern that the other sites convey who do not exhibit social stratification. They all have high NISP and MNI mammal values, percentage and raw numbers, when compared to bird and fish. Griesmer was an exception to this trend due to its use as an extraction site (Faulkner 1972). The population diversity, which was calculated with both the NISP and MNI percentages, was low for all sites involved, staying consistently below a 0.2, providing evidence that all sites practiced a focal adaptation to the environment. Carnivorous species were found in the comparison sites as well as

12LE377 and each site was also entirely local with its resource exploitation. Nothing with regards to the faunal assemblage of 12LE377 stands out from the sites contemporary to it in

Indiana and Illinois that would suggest elite involvement.

Evidence of social stratification is therefore absent from the faunal record of 12LE377 and its relation to other artifacts from this site. The people who lived there were part of the

Oneota cultural component and were self-sufficient with regards to food, suggesting they weren’t serving another group of people, only themselves. What this says about Middle Mississippian relations with Oneota and other contemporary groups is that although Middle Mississippians were immigrating into new territory in the Upper Midwest and changing a few cultures, their influence over government and social relation was not always felt. Oneota sites contemporary with Middle Mississippian immigration, such as 12LE377, Fifield, and Griesmer that did not have direct contact with Middle Mississippians do not show signs of an adoption of social hierarchy.

Even where there is Middle Mississippian interaction with Oneota cultures, like the late

Fisher phase/early Huber phase Hoxie farm fortified village site in Illinois, social hierarchy still does not start to appear. Evidence at this site suggested a trade relationship with the Middle

Mississippians of the south (Jackson and Emerson 2014), but the economy still followed the

“intensification with diversification” pattern discussed by Emerson et al (2005). The animal remains were entirely local and floral analysis showed that the people here were practicing agriculture as well as using local hickory and hazel nuts in their diets. In short, Middle

Mississippians do influence cultures and in some cases change social structure, but Oneota populations of Northwest Indiana and Northeast Illinois were not affected by their movement into the Upper Midwest as far as their own social structures operated.

Future study that would help the understanding of this site’s social structure and economic exploitation would be the floral analysis and carbon dating that has yet to be completed. The report written for the project performed by Pioneer Consulting mentioned 32

72 charcoal samples and 40 flotation samples that still needed to be analyzed (Bubb 2011:89). It is unknown whether this analysis has been completed or not as this kind of analysis was not present in the report, but information regarding plant usage at this site would provide even more detail into the exploitation of environment. Once the charcoal is radio carbon dated, a more specific date range will be available for the time of occupation. Last, research done on site 12LE378, the site just north of 12LE377, would also be useful information. Creating more information about

12LE377, 12LE378, and their relation to one another would provide Midwestern archaeologists valuable knowledge about the Oneota populations of Northwestern Indiana.

REFERENCES CITED

Ambrose, Stanley H., Jane Buikstra, and Harold W. Krueger 2003 Status and Gender Differences in Diet at Mound 72, Cahokia, revealed by isotopic analysis of bone. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology. 22: 217-226

Andrefsky, William 2005 Lithics: Macroscopic Approaches to Analysis. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Beisaw, April M. 2013 Identifying and Interpreting Animal Bones. Texas A&M University Press, College Station

Brown, James A. 1982 What Kind of Economy did the Oneota Have? In Oneota Studies, edited by Guy E. Gibbon, pp. 107-112. The University of Minnesota Publications in Archaeology, Minneapolis.

Bubb, Louis 2011 Phase II Site Assessment of 12LE377, a Late-Woodland through Mississippian Habitation in LaPorte County, Indiana. Pioneer Consulting Services Inc. Submitted to NIES Engineering, Inc., Project Number: 09IA001. Copies available from Pioneer Consulting Services Inc., Muncie

Cleland, Charles 1976 The Focal-Diffuse Model: An Evolutionary Perspective on the Prehistoric Cultural Adaptations of the Eastern United States. Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology 1:59- 76.

Cochran, Donald 2011 Ceramics From 12LE377: A Fisher/Fifield Oneota Component in Northwestern Indiana. In Phase II Site Assessment of 12LE377, a Late-Woodland through Mississippian habitation in LaPorte County, Indiana, prepared by Louis Bubb, pp. 1-12. Submitted to NIES Engineering Inc., Project Number: 09IA001.

Cook, Robert A. 2008 Sunwatch: Fort Ancient Development in the Mississippian World. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

Crabtree, Pam J. 1990 Zooarchaeology and Complex Societies: Some Uses of Faunal Analysis for the Study of Trade, Social Status, and Ethnicity. Archaeological Method and Theory, 2: 155-205

Dobbs, Clark A. and Orrin C. Shane 1980 Oneota Settlement Patterns in the Blue Earth River Valley, Minnesota. In Oneota Studies, edited by Guy E. Gibbon, pp. 55-68. The University of Minnesota Publications in Archaeology, Minneapolis.

Emapsworld.com 2010 LaPorte County Indiana Location Map. Electronic Document, http://www.emapsworld.com/laporte-county-location-map-indiana.html, accessed October 10, 2016

Emerson, Thomas E. 1991 The Apple River Mississippian Culture of Northwestern Illinois. In Cahokia and the Hinterlands: Middle Mississippian Cultures of the Midwest, edited by Thomas E. Emerson and R. Barry Lewis, pp. 164-182. University of Illinois Press, Urbana.

Emerson, Thomas E. 1999 The Langford Tradition and the Process of Tribalization on the Middle Mississippian Borders. Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology 24(1): 3-51

Evans, Madeleine, Ian Fricker, Brenda Beck, Douglas K. Jackson, Stephanie Daniels, Jennifer Howe, and Amanda Butler 2014 Lithic Assemblage. In The Hoxie Farm Site Fortified Village: Late Fisher Phase Occupation and Fortification in South Chicago, edited by Douglas K. Jackson and Thomas E. Emerson, pp. 327-412. Illinois State Archaeological Survey.

Faulkner, Charles H. 1972 The Late Prehistoric Occupation of Northwestern Indiana: A Study of the Upper Mississippi Cultures of the Kankakee Valley. Indiana Historical Society, Indiana

Gallagher, James P. and Katherine Stevenson 1980 Oneota Subsistence and Settlement in Southwestern Wisconsin. In Oneota Studies, edited by Guy E. Gibbon, pp. 15-27. The University of Minnesota Publications in Archaeology, Minneapolis.

Gibbon, Guy 1982 Oneota Origins Revisited. In Oneota Studies, edited by Guy E. Gibbon, pp. 85-89. The University of Minnesota Publications in Archaeology, Minneapolis.

Grayson, D. K. 1973 On The Methodology of Faunal Analysis. American Antiquity 38(4): 432-439.

Hart, John P. 1990 Modeling Oneota Agricultural Production: A Cross-Cultural Evaluation. Current Anthropology 31(5): 569-577. Hill, Mark A. 1988 The Bone Tool Assemblage of the St. Helena Phase. In St. Helena Archaeology New Data, Fresh Interpretations, edited by D.J. Blakeslee, pp.11-132. J&L Reprint Company, Lincoln Hogue, Homes S. and Amanda Carver 2011 The Faunal Materials from the Phase II Assessment of 12LE377. In Phase II Site Assessment of 12LE377, a Late-Woodland through Mississippian habitation in LaPorte County, Indiana, prepared by Louis Bubb, pp. 1-12. Submitted to NIES Engineering Inc., Project Number: 09IA001.

Jackson, Douglas K. 2014a Cultural Background. In The Hoxie Farm Site Fortified Village: Late Fisher Phase Occupation and Fortification in South Chicago, edited by Douglas K. Jackson and Thomas E. Emerson, pp. 25-34. Illinois State Archaeological Survey 2014b The Fortified Village Community. In In The Hoxie Farm Site Fortified Village: Late Fisher Phase Occupation and Fortification in South Chicago, edited by Douglas K. Jackson and Thomas E. Emerson, pp. 189-225. Illinois State Archaeological Survey

Jackson, Douglas K. and Thomas E. Emerson 2014 Fortified Village Summary. In The Hoxie Farm Site Fortified Village: Late Fisher Phase Occupation and Fortification in South Chicago, edited by Douglas K. Jackson and Thomas E. Emerson, pp. 447-464. Illinois State Archaeological Survey

Jackson, H. Edwin and Susan L. Scott 1995 Mississippian Homestead and Village Subsistence Organization: Contrasts in Large- Mammal Remains from Two Sites in the Tombigbee Valley. In Mississippian Communities and Households, edited by J. Daniel Rogers and Bruce D. Smith, pp.181- 200. The University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

Jackson, H. Edwin and Susan L. Scott 2003 Patterns of Elite Faunal Utilization at Moundville, Alabama. American Antiquity 68(3): 552-572.

Kelly, Jamie 2001 The Crescent Bay Hunt Club Site: Oneota in Southeast Wisconsin. http://www4.uwm.edu/archlab/Oneota/

Kelly, Lucretia S. 2001 A Case of Ritual Feasting at the Cahokia Site. In Feasts: Archaeological and Ethnographic Perspectives on Food, Politics, and Power, edited by Michael Dietler and Brian Hayden, pp. 334-367. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington.

Knight Jr., Vernon James and Vincas P. Steponaitis 1998 A New History of Moundville. In Archaeology of the Moundville Chiefdom, edited by Vernon James Knight Jr. and Vincas P. Steponaitis, pp. 1-25. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington.

Lieberson, Stanley 1969 Measuring Population Diversity. American Sociological Review 34(6): 850-862

McCord, Beth K., Leslie L. Bush, Donald R. Cochran, Alison Hadley, and Tanya Peres 2005 Investigations in the Upper White River Drainage: The Albee Phase and Late Woodland/Prehistoric Settlement. Prepared for the Division of Historic Preservation and Archaeology, Indiana Department of Natural Resources. Reports of investigation 65. Archaeological Resources Management Service, Ball State University.

McCord, Beth K., Leslie Bush, Mari Poulos, Jessica Yann, and S. Homes Hogue 2009 Archaeological Investigations at the Hobbs’ Knob (12M266) and Taylor Ten (12H987) Sites, Madison and Hamilton Counties, Indiana. Prepared for the Division of Historic Preservation and Archaeology, Indiana Department of Natural Resources. Reports of Investigation 75, Archaeological Resources Management Service, Ball State University.

O’Gorman, Jodie A. and William A. Lovis 2006 Before Removal: An Archaeological Perspective on the Southern Lake Michigan Basin. Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology 31(1): 21-56.

Overstreet, David F. 1997 Oneota Prehistory and History. The Wisconsin Archaeologist 78(1/2): 250-296

Parmalee, Paul W. 1962 The Faunal Complex of the Fisher Site, Illinois. The American Midland Naturalist, 68(2): 399-408

Pauketat, T.R. 1997 Cahokian Political Economy. In Cahokia: Domination and Ideology in the Mississippian World, edited by T.R. Pauketat and T.E. Emerson, pp. 30-51. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln

Pauketat, Timothy R. 2004 Ancient Cahokia and the Mississippians. Cambridge University Press, New York 2007 Chiefdoms and Other Archaeological Delusions. Altamira Press, Lanham

Smith, Eric Alden 1992 Human Behavioral Ecology:1. Evolutionary Anthropology 1: 20-25.

Steponaitis, Vincas P. 1983 Ceramics, Chronology, and Community Patterns: An Archaeological Study at Moundville. Academic Press, New York. 1998 Population Trends at Moundville. In Archaeology of the Moundville Chiefdom, edited by Vernon James Knight Jr. and Vincas P. Steponaitis, pp. 26-43. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington.

Reitz, Elizabeth J. and Elizabeth S. Wing 1999 Zooarchaeology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Theler, James L. and Robert F. Boszhardt 2006 Collapse of Crucial Resources and Culture Change: A Model for the Woodland to Oneota Transformation in the Upper Midwest. American Antiquity, 71(3): 433-472

Welch, Paul D. 1991 Moundville’s Economy. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa. 1998 Outlying Sites Within the Moundville Chiefdom. In Archaeology of the Moundville Chiefdom, edited by Vernon James Knight Jr. and Vincas P. Steponaitis, pp. 133-166. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington.

White, Andrew A., Dorothea McCullough, Robert G. McCullough, Leslie L. Bush, Donald R. Cochran, Devin Fischel, Rexford C. Garniewicz, Mark Moore, and Andrew M. Schneider 2002 An Archaeological Evaluation of Late Prehistoric Village and Subsistence Patterns in North-Central and Northeastern Indiana. Prepared for the Division of Historic Preservation and Archaeology, Indiana Department of Natural Resources. Reports of Investigations 216, IPFW Archaeological Survey, Indiana University-Purdue University at Fort Wayne.

APPENDIX I

MNI, NISP, and Weight Summaries for identified species

Table 7: Faunal Data from Feature 2

Identified Species MNI MNI % NISP NISP % Weight Weight %

Beaver 1 16.67 6 23.08 2.7 3.34

Bobcat 1 16.67 1 3.85 1.7 2.1

Dog 1 16.67 2 7.69 10.5 12.99

Elk 1 16.67 8 30.77 39.43 48.77

Raccoon 1 16.67 3 11.54 1.21 1.5

White tailed deer 1 16.67 6 23.08 25.31 31.3

Table 8: Faunal Data from Feature 3

Identified Species MNI MNI % NISP NISP % Weight Weight % Beaver 1 50 1 33.33 24.7 91.82 White tailed deer 1 50 2 66.67 2.2 8.18

Table 9: Faunal Data from Feature 4

Identified Species MNI MNI % NISP NISP % Weight Weight % Turkey 1 100 1 100 0.3 100

Feature 5

No Identified Species

Table 10: Faunal Data from Feature 6

Identified Species MNI MNI % NISP NISP % Weight Weight % Beaver 1 14.29 17 31.48 30.2 8.7 Bison 1 14.29 1 1.85 118.3 34.08 Dog 1 14.29 2 3.7 31.9 9.19 Gray Squirrel 1 14.29 4 7.4 2 0.58 Turkey 1 14.29 3 5.56 10.9 3.14 Turkey Vulture 1 14.29 2 3.7 26 7.49 White-tailed deer 1 14.29 25 46.3 127.8 36.82

Feature 7

No identified Species

Table 11: Faunal Data from Feature 8

Identified Species MNI MNI % NISP NISP % Weight Weight % Beaver 1 100 2 100 7.87 100

Table 12: Faunal Data from Feature 9

Identified Species MNI MNI % NISP NISP % Weight Weight % White-tailed deer 1 50 5 83.33 24.6 62.44 Bison 1 50 1 16.67 14.8 37.56

Table 13: Faunal Data from Feature 10

Identified Species MNI MNI % NISP NISP % Weight Weight % Beaver 1 20 3 9.38 10.5 3.3 Black Bear 1 20 1 3.13 3.4 1.07 Gray Squirrel 1 20 8 0.25 3.6 1.13 Turkey 1 20 7 21.88 9.5 2.98 White tailed deer 1 20 13 43.75 291.6 91.53

Feature 12

No Identified Species

Table 14: Faunal Data from Feature 13

Identified Species MNI MNI % NISP NISP % Weight Weight % Bison 1 33.33 6 30 309.11 81.98 White-tailed deer 1 33.33 13 65 6.3 1.67 Elk 1 33.33 1 5 61.66 16.35

Feature 16

No Identified Species

Feature 17

No Identified Species

Table 15: Faunal Data from Feature 18

Identified Species MNI MNI % NISP NISP % Weight Weight % White-tailed Deer 1 100 3 1 16.1 100

Table 16: Faunal Data from Feature 19

Identified Species MNI MNI % NISP NISP % Weight Weight % White-tailed deer 2 15.38 48 47.52 280.55 64.21 Box Turtle 1 7.69 3 2.97 1.35 0.31 Beaver 2 15.38 18 17.82 67.03 15.34 Bison 1 7.69 2 1.98 13.12 3.00 Dog 1 7.69 18 17.82 42.32 9.69 Brown bullhead Catfish 1 7.69 2 1.98 0.36 0.08 Elk 1 7.69 1 0.99 3.92 0.90 Raccoon 1 7.69 3 2.97 12.99 2.97 Soft Shell turtle 1 7.69 2 1.98 4.94 1.13 Chipmunk 1 7.69 2 1.98 0.13 0.03 Turkey 1 7.69 2 1.98 10.2 2.33

Table 17: Faunal Data from Feature 22

Identified Species MNI MNI % NISP NISP % Weight Weight % White-tailed deer 1 25 20 76.92 136.08 78.59 Dog 1 25 2 7.69 4.65 2.69 Bison 1 25 1 3.85 24.65 14.24 Beaver 1 25 3 11.54 7.77 4.49

Table 18: Faunal Data from Feature 23

Identified Species MNI MNI % NISP NISP % Weight Weight % White-tailed Deer 1 100 6 100 31.18 100

Table 19: Faunal Data from Feature 24

Identified Species MNI MNI % NISP NISP % Weight Weight % White-tailed deer 1 100 8 100 44.53 100

Table 20: Faunal Data from Feature 25

Identified Species MNI MNI % NISP NISP % Weight Weight % White-tailed Deer 1 25 4 44.44 45.85 74.35 Turkey 1 25 3 33.33 4.34 7.04 Dog 1 25 1 11.11 3.41 5.53 Bobcat 1 25 1 11.11 8.07 13.09

Feature 27

No Identified Species

Feature 28

No Identified Species

Feature 29

No Identified Species

Table 21: Faunal Data from Feature 32a

Identified Species MNI MNI % NISP NISP % Weight Weight % White-tailed deer 1 100 7 100 31.7 100

Table 22: Faunal Data from Bag 221

Identified Species MNI MNI % NISP NISP % Weight Weight % Brown Bullhead Catfish 1 100 1 100 2.07 100

APPENDIX II

Raw Data for 12LE377

In the following charts, GL refers to Greatest Length and GB refers to Greatest Breadth.

Feature 2 Bag (87) - F2 W 1/2 Lvl 1 Depth: 0-10 cm

Taxon Taxon Weight (g) GL GB Element Portion Modifications Count (class) (species) (cm) (cm) Mammalia N/A 1.4 N/A N/A Fragments N/A None 3 Mammalia N/A 0.5 N/A N/A Rib Medial None 3 fragments Mammalia Odocoileus 11.6 N/A N/A Metatarsus Medial None 2 virginianus Fragments

Bag (25) - F2 W 1/2 Lvl 2 Depth: 10-20 cm

Taxon Taxon Weight GL GB Element Portion Modifications Count (class) (species) (g) (cm) (cm) Mammalia Unknown 0.46 N/A N/A Fragments N/A None 3 Amphibia Unknown 0.28 N/A N/A Fragments N/A None 2 Mammalia Unknown 8.93 N/A N/A Long Bone Medial Cut up peri 1 mortem Mammalia Procyn 1.21 N/A N/A Maxilla N/A None 3 lotor fragment- Left; with teeth M1 and M2

Bag (106) - F2 Lvl 4 Depth: Unknown

Taxon Taxon Weight GL GB Element Portion Modifications Count (class) (species) (g) (cm) (cm) Unknown Unknown 8.7 N/A N/A Fragments Unknown None 25 Unknown Unknown 1 N/A N/A Fragments Unknown Burned 2 Mammalia Unknown 6.2 N/A N/A Fragments Unknown None 3 Mammalia Unknown 1.1 N/A N/A Crania Unknown None 2 Mammalia Unknown 2.2 N/A N/A Unknown Unknown None 1 Mammalia Unknown 2.5 8.6 0.5 Rib Medial None 1 Mammalia Unknown 1.3 N/A N/A Unknown Fragments None 2 Mammalia Castor 1.9 3.2 0.8 Tooth Medial None 1 canadensis Bivalvia Unknown 2.3 N/A N/A Fragments Unknown Burned 2 Aves Unknown 0.3 3.1 0.6 Unknown Medial None 1 Mammalia Cervus 10.5 4.3 2.1 2nd Whole None 1 canadensis Phalanx Mammalia Cervus 17.5 N/A N/A 2nd Fragments 1: linear 5 canadensis Phalanx scratch .8cm in length Mammalia Canis 5.7 4.6 2.5 Femur Distal None 1 familiaris Fragment Mammalia Canis 4.8 6 1.4 1st Complete None 1 familiaris Phalanx Osteichthyes Unknown < 0.01 2 0.1 Dorsal Proximal None 1 spine Amphibia? Unknown < 0.01 N/A N/A Unknown Broken None 2 ends

Bag (137) - F2 Lvl 5 W1/2

Depth: 40-50cm

Taxon Taxon Weight GL GB Element Portion Modifications Count (class) (species) (g) (cm) (cm) Unknown Unknown 9.9 N/A N/A Fragments Unknown Burned 13 Unknown Unknown 8 N/A N/A Fragments Unknown None 35 Osteichthyes Unknown < 0.1 2.4 0.3 Dorsal Complete None 1 Spine Mammalia Unknown 0.6 N/A N/A Thoracic Spinuous None 1 Process Mammalia Unknown 9.6 N/A N/A Long Bone Unknown None 5 Fragments Mammalia Unknown 2 N/A N/A Rib Medial None 3 fragments Mammalia Unknown 1.9 N/A N/A Fragment Unknown None 1 Mammalia Odocoileus 2.7 N/A N/A Carpals Complete None 2 virginianus Mammalia Lynx rufus 1.7 3.7 1.4 Calcaneus- Complete None 1 Right

Bag (115) - F2 Lvl 6 W1/2 Depth: 50-60 cm

Taxon Taxon Weight GL GB Element Portion Modifications Count (class) (species) (g) (cm) (cm) Unknown Unknown 0.6 N/A N/A Fragments Unknown None 4 Mammalia Unknown 2.7 N/A N/A Carpal? Unknown None 1 Mammalia Unknown 0.5 N/A N/A Cranial? Unknown None 1

Bag (114) - F2 E1/2 (Zone Faunal)

Depth: Unknown

Taxon Taxon Weight GL GB Element Portion Modifications Count (class) (species) (g) (cm) (cm) Mammalia Unknown 4.6 N/A N/A Fragments Unknown Unknown 8 Mammalia Odocoileus 7.7 N/A N/A Femur Medial None 1 virginianus fragment

Bag (080) - F2 E1/2 (Zone Faunal 1 of 2)

Depth: Unspecified

Taxon Taxon Weight GL GB Element Portion Modifications Count (class) (species) (g) (cm) (cm) Mammalia Unknown 3.9 N/A N/A Fragments Unknown None 12 Mammalia Rodentia 0.1 N/A N/A Rib medial None 1 Mammalia Castor 0.2 N/A N/A Incisors- Fragments None 2 canadensis enamel

Bag (015) - F2 W1/2 (Zone 1 Faunal)

Depth: Unspecified

Taxon Taxon Weight GL GB Element Portion Modifications Count (class) (species) (g) (cm) (cm) Mammalia Unknown 4.3 N/A N/A Fragments Unknown None 8 Unknown Unknown 2.4 N/A N/A Fragments Unknown Burned 7 Mammalia Unknown 5.3 N/A N/A Rib Medial None 3 Mammalia Castor 0.6 N/A N/A Teeth Fragments None 3 canadensis Mammalia Unknown 3.6 N/A N/A Long Medial? Cut marks 1 Bone (Butchery?) fragments Mammalia Unknown 4.1 N/A N/A Fragments Unknown Burned 1 Mammalia Cervus 7.5 N/A 2.3 2nd Distal None 1 canadensis Phalanx

Bag (183) - F2 W1/2 (Wall Scraping Faunal Bone)

Depth: Unspecified

Taxon Taxon Weight GL GB Element Portion Modifications Count (class) (species) (g) (cm) (cm) Mammalia Unknown 1.5 N/A N/A Possible Unknown None 1 carpal or tarsal? Mammalia Odocoileus 3.31 N/A N/A Phalanx Distal None 1 virginianus Fragment Mammalia Cervus 3.93 N/A N/A Phalanx Distal None 1 canadensis Fragment

Feature 3 Bag (118) - F3 W1/2 Zone 1 Depth: 0-58 cm

Taxon Taxon Weight GL GB Element Portion Modifications Count (class) (species) (g) (cm) (cm) Bivalvia Unknown 2.3 N/A N/A Fragments Unknown Burned 15 Mammalia Odocoileus 0.9 2.9 0.7 Incisor- Right Complete None 1 virginianus Mammalia Castor 24.7 14.8 3 Ischium, Complete None 1 canadensis Acetabulum, and Ilium- Right

Bag (193) - F3 E1/2 Level 3 Depth: 20-30cm

Taxon Taxon Weight GL GB Element Portion Modifications Count (class) (species) (g) (cm) (cm) Mammalia Odocoileus 1.3 N/A N/A Molar Fragment None 1 virginianus fragment Bivalvia Unknown 1.7 N/A N/A Shell Fragments Burned 8

Bag (179) - F3 E1/2 Lvl 4 Depth: 30-40 cm

Taxon Taxon Weight GL GB Element Portion Modifications Count (class) (species) (g) (cm) (cm) Mammalia Unknown 0.2 N/A N/A Fragment Unknown None 1 Mammalia Unknown 0.3 N/A N/A Fragment Unknown Burned 1

Bag (148) - F3 E1/2 Lvl 6 Depth: 50-58cm

Taxon Taxon Weight GL GB Element Portion Modifications Count (class) (species) (g) (cm) (cm) Aves Unknown 1.3 N/A N/A Fragment Unknown None 1

Feature 4 Bag (108) - F4 E1/2 Level 1 Depth: 0-10 cm

Taxon Taxon Weight GL GB Element Portion Modifications Count (class) (species) (g) (cm) (cm) Bivalvia Unknown 1.8 N/A N/A Shell Unknown Burned 19 Mammalia Unknown 2.3 N/A N/A Long Medial? None 3 Bone Fragments

Bag (133) - F4 E1/2 Level 3 Depth: 20-30 cm

Taxon Taxon Weight GL GB Element Portion Modifications Count (class) (species) (g) (cm) (cm) Unknown Unknown 0.3 N/A N/A Fragment Unknown None 1

Bag (003) - F4 W1/2 Level 4 Depth: Unknown

Taxon Taxon Weight GL GB Element Portion Modifications Count (class) (species) (g) (cm) (cm) Unknown Unknown < 0.1 N/A N/A Fragment Unknown None 1 Mammalia Unknown 14.1 N/A N/A Fragment Medial None 2 Aves Meleagris 0.3 2.2 0.5 Phalanx Complete None 1 gallopavo

Feature 5 Bag (199) - F5 E1/2 Level 1 Depth: 0-10 cm

Taxon Taxon Weight GL GB Element Portion Modifications Count (class) (species) (g) (cm) (cm) Unknown Unknown 0.2 N/A N/A Fragment Unknown Burned 1

Bag (138) - F5 W1/2 Zone 1 Depth: 0-13 cm

Taxon Taxon Weight GL GB Element Portion Modifications Count (class) (species) (g) (cm) (cm) Unknown Unknown 5.1 N/A N/A Fragments Unknown Burned 5 Unknown Unknown 0.5 N/A N/A Fragments Unknown Burned 4 Mammalia Unknown 1.1 N/A N/A Fragments Unknown None 2

Feature 6 Bag (160) - F6 E1/2 Level 1 Depth: 0-10 cm

Taxon Taxon Weight GL GB Element Portion Modifications Count (class) (species) (g) (cm) (cm) Unknown Unknown 1.5 N/A N/A Fragments Unknown Burned 6

Bag (141) - F6 E1/2 Level 2 Depth: 10-20cm

Taxon Taxon Weight GL GB Element Portion Modifications Count (class) (species) (g) (cm) (cm) Unknown Unknown 0.2 N/A N/A Fragments Unknown None 2 Unknown Unknown 7 N/A N/A Fragments Unknown Burned 15

Bag (231) - F6 E1/2 Level 3 Depth: 20-30cm

Taxon Taxon Weight GL GB Element Portion Modifications Count (class) (species) (g) (cm) (cm) Unknown Unknown 0.6 N/A N/A Fragments Unknown None 4 Unknown Unknown 8 N/A N/A Fragments Unknown Burned 8

Bag (105) - F6 E1/2 Level 4 Depth: 30-40cm

Taxon Taxon Weight GL GB Element Portion Modifications Count (class) (species) (g) (cm) (cm) Mammalia Odocoileus 5 3.7 2.9 Vertebra Halved None 1 virginianus Aves Unknown 1.8 N/A N/A Fragments Unknown None 4 Unknown Unknown 2.4 N/A N/A Fragments Unknown None 5 Mammalia Unknown 12 N/A N/A Long Bone Unknown None 2 Fragments Mammalia Castor 6.2 N/A N/A Occipital Complete Burned? 1 canadensis Lobe Mammalia Castor 1.9 N/A N/A Astragalus Complete Burned? 1 canadensis Mammalia Castor 1 N/A N/A Long Bone Distal Burned? 1 canadensis Mammalia Castor 0.2 N/A N/A Phalanx Proximal None 1 canadensis Mammalia Castor 0.6 N/A N/A Ribs Medial None 4 canadensis Mammalia Sciurus 0.2 N/A N/A Femur-right Proximal None 1 carolinensis Reptilia Testudines 0.3 N/A N/A Shell Fragment None 1

Bag (83) - F6 W1/2 Level 4 Depth: 30-40cm

Taxon Taxon Weight GL GB Element Portion Modifications Count (class) (species) (g) (cm) (cm) Unknown Unknown 1.7 N/A N/A Fragments Unknown None 5 Unknown Unknown 0.4 N/A N/A Rib Medial None 1 Mammalia Odocoileus 9.2 N/A N/A Thoracic Fragment None 1 virginianus Vertebra Mammalia Sciurus 0.1 3.5 0.1 Rib- Right Complete None 1 carolinenus Mammalia Castor 0.6 N/A N/A Incisors Fragments None 2 canadensis Aves Meleagris 7.8 N/A N/A Tibiotarsus- Medial None 1 gallopavo left Aves Meleagris 0.4 N/A N/A Ulna Medial None 1 gallopavo Bivalvia Unknown 3.9 N/A N/A Shell Fragments Burned 10 Mammalia Canis 16.1 N/A 4.2 Femur- Proximal None 1 familiaris Right

Bag (28) - F6 W1/2 Zone 1 Depth: Not Specified

Taxon Taxon Weight GL GB Element Portion Modifications Count (class) (species) (g) (cm) (cm) Mammalia Unknown 11.8 N/A N/A Fragments Unknown None 21 Unknown Unknown 14 N/A N/A Fragments Unknown Burned 34 Unknown Unknown 0.6 N/A N/A Fragment Unknown Burned 1 Mammalia Odocoileus 9.1 N/A N/A Scapula- Proximal None 1 virginianus Right Mammalia Odocoileus 4.5 N/A N/A Scapula Medial None 2 virginianus Mammalia Odocoileus 2.2 N/A N/A Metatarsus Medial Burned 1 virginianus Mammalia Odocoileus 2.3 N/A N/A Metatarsus Medial Burned 1 virginianus Mammalia Odocoileus 0.7 N/A N/A Phalanx Distal None 3 virginianus Mammalia Unknown 2.1 N/A N/A Innominate Fragments None 2

Bag (123) - F6 W1/2 Zone 2 (1/2) Depth: Not Specified

Taxon Taxon Weight GL GB Element Portion Modifications Count (class) (species) (g) (cm) (cm)

Unknown Unknown < 0.1 N/A N/A Cranial Fragment None 1 Unknown Unknown 0.5 N/A N/A Rib Medial Burned 1

Unknown Unknown 6.6 N/A N/A Fragments Fragments Burned 20

Unknown Unknown 0.7 N/A N/A Rib- Proximal Fragment None 1

Unknown Unknown 1.61 N/A N/A Unknown fragments carved 6

Mammalia Unknown 0.5 N/A N/A Rib-Medial Fragment None 1 Mammalia Unknown 0.7 N/A N/A Phalanx Fragment Burned 1

Mammalia Unknown 31.1 N/A N/A Unknown Fragments None 46

Mammalia Unknown 0.8 N/A N/A Rib Medial None 1 Mammalia Unknown 26 N/A N/A Fragments Fragments Burned 16

Mammalia Unknown < 0.1 N/A N/A Phalanx Distal Burned 1 Mammalia Unknown 31.9 N/A N/A Long Bone Fragments Cut marks 6 Fragments

Mammalia Unknown 32 N/A N/A Long Bone Medial None 1

Fragments Mammalia Unknown 0.2 N/A N/A Long Bone Medial None 1 Fragments Mammalia Unknown 0.7 N/A N/A Femur Distal Burned 1 Fragment? Mammalia Unknown 0.4 N/A N/A Phalanx- Near None 1 Proximal Complete Mammalia Bison 118.3 N/A N/A Antler Medial None 1

Mammalia Odocoileus 13 N/A N/A 1st Thoracic Complete None 1 virginianus Vertebra Mammalia Odocoileus 6.3 N/A N/A Cervical Fragment None 1 virginianus Vertebra

Mammalia Odocoileus 8.5 N/A N/A Thoracic Fragment None 1 virginianus Vertebra Mammalia Odocoileus 9.9 N/A N/A 1st Lumbar Complete None 1

virginianus Vertebra Mammalia Odocoileus 11 N/A N/A Lumbar Near None 1 virginianus Vertebra Complete Mammalia Odocoileus 5.8 N/A N/A Thoracic Fragment None 1 virginianus Vertebra

Bag (123) - F6 W1/2 Zone 2 (2/2) Depth: Not Specified

Taxon Taxon Weight GL GB Element Portion Modifications Count (class) (species) (g) (cm) (cm) Mammalia Odocoileus 1.6 N/A N/A Thoracic Distal None 1 virginianus Vertebra Articular surface Mammalia Odocoileus 1.4 N/A N/A Lumbar Distal None 1 virginianus Vertebra Articular surface Mammalia Odocoileus 11.4 N/A N/A Astragalus Complete None 1 virginianus Mammalia Odocoileus 17.7 N/A N/A Calcaneus- Complete None 1 virginianus Right Mammalia Odocoileus 5 N/A N/A Ribs Proximal None 3 virginianus Mammalia Odocoileus 1.4 N/A N/A Phalanx Fragment None 1 virginianus Mammalia Odocoileus 1.8 N/A N/A Sacrum Fragment None 1 virginianus Mammalia Canis 15.8 N/A N/A Ulna Near Distal 1 familiaris Complete Mammalia Castor 2.9 N/A N/A Teeth Fragments None 4 canadensis Mammalia Castor 12.7 N/A N/A Femur Distal None 1 canadensis Mammalia Castor 0.8 N/A N/A Fibula Medial None 1 canadensis Mammalia Castor 3.3 4.5 1.4 Tarsal Complete None 1 canadensis Mammalia Sciurus 0.3 N/A N/A Innominates Near None 1 carolinensis Complete Mammalia Sciurus 1.4 N/A N/A Incisor Near None 1 carolinensis Complete Aves Unknown 2.1 N/A N/A Humerus Proximal None 1 Aves Unknown < 0.1 N/A N/A Rib Fragment Medial 1 Aves Unknown 0.12 N/A N/A Furcula Near None 1 Complete Aves Meleagris 2.7 N/A N/A Humerus Fragment Distal 1 gallopavo Aves Cathartes 26 13 4.3 Humerus- Near Cut marks 2 aura Right Complete Bivalvia Unknown 97.9 N/A N/A Shell Fragments Burned 20 Osteichthyes Unknown 0.11 N/A N/A Vertebra Complete None 1 Osteichthyes Unknown 0.18 N/A N/A Vertebra Complete Burned 1 Reptilia Testudines 1.25 N/A N/A Plastron Fragment None 1 Reptilia Testudines 1.79 N/A N/A Carapace Fragments Burned 3 Reptilia Unknown 3.43 N/A N/A Unknown Fragments Burned 3

Feature 7 Bag (166) - F7 South 1/2 Zone 1 Depth: Not Specified

Taxon Taxon Weight GL GB Element Portion Modifications Count (class) (species) (g) (cm) (cm) Mammalia Unknown 10.92 N/A N/A Fragments Unknown None 1 Unknown Unknown 0.23 N/A N/A Fragments Unknown Burned 1

Feature 8 Bag (029) - F8 West 1/2 Level 1 Depth: 0-10 cm

Taxon Taxon Weight GL GB Element Portion Modifications Count (class) (species) (g) (cm) (cm) Unknown Unknown 1.24 N/A N/A Fragment Unknown Burned 1 Mammalia Unknown 0.5 N/A N/A Fragment Unknown Burned 2

Bag (130) - F8 East 1/2 Depth: 0-40 cm

Taxon Taxon Weight GL GB Element Portion Modifications Count (class) (species) (g) (cm) (cm) Bivalvia Unknown 0.87 N/A N/A Fragments Unknown Burned 33

Bag (136) - F8 East 1/2 Depth: 0-40 cm

Taxon Taxon Weight GL GB Element Portion Modifications Count (class) (species) (g) (cm) (cm) Mammalia Unknown 0.21 N/A N/A Tooth Near None 1 complete

Bag (171) - F8 East 1/2 Depth: 0-40 cm

Taxon Taxon Weight GL GB Element Portion Modifications Count (class) (species) (g) (cm) (cm) Mammalia Castor 2.6 N/A N/A Ulna- Proximal None 1 canadensis Right Mammalia Castor 5.27 N/A N/A Tibia- Proximal None 1 canadensis Left

Feature 9 Bag (184) - F9 East 1/2 Level 2 Depth: Tag says 10-20 cm, bag says 0-10cm

Taxon Taxon Weight GL GB Element Portion Modifications Count (class) (species) (g) (cm) (cm) Aves Unknown 0.6 N/A N/A Fragment Proximal? None 1 Mammalia Odocoileus 2 N/A N/A M3- Complete None 1 virginianus Mandibular Right Mammalia Odocoileus 2 N/A N/A M2- Near None 1 virginianus Mandibular complete Right Mammalia Odocoileus 1.5 N/A N/A Molar Near None 1 virginianus Fragment complete

Bag (27) - F9 West 1/2 Zone 1 Depth: Not specified

Taxon Taxon Weight GL GB Element Portion Modifications Count (class) (species) (g) (cm) (cm) Mammalia Unknown 1.7 N/A N/A Fragments Unknown None 3 Unknown Unknown 0.3 N/A N/A Fragments Unknown Burned 1 Mammalia Odocoileus 9.8 N/A N/A Astragalus Near None 1 virginianus complete Mammalia Odocoileus 9.3 N/A N/A Calcaneus- Near None 1 virginianus Right complete Mammalia Unknown 2 N/A N/A Mandible Fragment None 1 Mammalia Bison 14.8 N/A N/A Humerus Proximal None 1 head

Feature 10 Bag (129) - F10 East Depth: 0-10 cm

Taxon Taxon Weight GL GB Element Portion Modifications Count (class) (species) (g) (cm) (cm) Mammalia Unknown 2.2 N/A N/A Fragment Unknown None 2 Mammalia Unknown 15.9 N/A N/A Long Bone Unknown Cut marks 5 Fragments Mammalia Odocoileus 26.6 N/A N/A Humerus Distal None 1 virginianus Fragment- Right Mammalia Odocoileus 32.6 N/A N/A Metatarsus- Distal None 1 virginianus Right Mammalia Odocoileus 2.3 N/A N/A Metatarsus Medial None 1 virginianus Aves Unknown 0.7 N/A N/A Fragment Unknown None 1 Aves Meleagris 1.8 N/A N/A Long Bone Medial None 2 gallopavo Fragments Mammalia Sciurus 0.6 4.7 1.1 Humerus- Left Complete None 1 carolinensis Mammalia Sciurus 0.4 N/A N/A Femur- Left Proximal None 1 carolinensis Mammalia Sciurus 0.7 N/A N/A Mandible- Left Near None 1 carolinensis complete Mammalia Sciurus 0.4 N/A N/A Mandible- Near None 1 carolinensis Right complete Mammalia Sciurus < 0.1 N/A N/A Incisor Complete None 1 carolinensis

Bag (081) - F10 East 1/2 Level 1 Depth: 0-10 cm

Taxon Taxon Weight GL GB Element Portion Modifications Count (class) (species) (g) (cm) (cm) Mammalia Unknown 0.9 N/A N/A Fragment Unknown None 2 Mammalia Unknown 5.5 N/A N/A Fragment Unknown Burned 14

Bag (086) - F10 East 1/2 Level 2 Depth: 20-30 cm

Taxon Taxon Weight GL GB Element Portion Modifications Count (class) (species) (g) (cm) (cm) Unknown Unknown 2.6 N/A N/A Fragment Unknown None 1 Mammalia Odocoileus 13.7 N/A N/A Antler Medial None 2 virginianus fragments Mammalia Castor 6.6 N/A N/A Ulna Proximal None 1 canadensis fragment- half Right

Bag (085) - F10 West 1/2 Zone 1 Depth: Unspecified

Taxon Taxon Weight GL GB Element Portion Modifications Count (class) (species) (g) (cm) (cm) Unknown Unknown 0.4 N/A N/A Fragment Unknown Burned 1 Mammalia Unknown 10.2 N/A N/A Fragments Unknown None 13 Mammalia Unknown 5.9 N/A N/A Cranial Unknown None 5 Fragments Mammalia Unknown 9.9 N/A N/A Long bone Medial slight burning 1 fragment Mammalia Odocoileus 4.1 N/A N/A Rib fragments Medial None 3 virginianus Mammalia Odocoileus 17.2 N/A N/A Radius Proximal None 1 virginianus fragment- Right Mammalia Ursus 3.4 N/A N/A Metatarsal Distal Burned 1 americanus fragment Mammalia Odocoileus 195.1 N/A N/A Antler fragments Proximal None 4 virginianus Mammalia Sciurus 0.2 N/A N/A Radius- Left? Distal None 1 carolinensis Mammalia Sciurus 0.8 N/A N/A Femur- Right Proximal None 1 carolinensis Mammalia Sciurus 0.5 4.1 1.1 Humerus- Right Complete None 1 carolinensis Mammalia Castor 3.9 N/A N/A Incisors Medial None 2 canadensis Aves Unknown 0.5 N/A N/A Long bone Medial None 1 fragment Aves Meleagris 5 N/A N/A Tarsometatarsus- Proximal None 2 gallopavo Left and Distal heads Aves Meleagris 2.7 N/A N/A Long bone Medial None 3 gallopavo fragments Reptilia Testudines 2.6 N/A N/A Shell Unknown None 1

Feature 12 Bag (229) - F12 East 1/2 Level 1 Depth: 0-10

Taxon Taxon Weight GL GB Element Portion Modifications Count (class) (species) (g) (cm) (cm) Mammalia Unknown 1.1 N/A N/A Fragment Unknown None 1

100

Feature 13 Bag (117) - F13 East 1/2 Level 1 Depth: 0-10 cm

Taxon Taxon Weight GL GB Element Portion Modifications Count (class) (species) (g) (cm) (cm) Mammalia Unknown 11.9 N/A N/A Long Bone Medial None 4 fragments Mammalia Unknown 5 N/A N/A Metatarsus Medial Cut mark 1

Bag (119) - F13 East 1/2 Level 2 Depth: 10-20 cm

Taxon Taxon Weight GL GB Element Portion Modifications Count (class) (species) (g) (cm) (cm) Mammalia Bison 241.1 N/A N/A Scapula Proximal Use ware? 1 Mammalia Unknown 4.4 N/A N/A Fragments Unknown None 9 Mammalia Bison 3.1 N/A N/A Scapula Medial None 1 Mammalia Unknown 0.8 N/A N/A Rib Distal None 1 fragment Mammalia Rodentia < 0.1 N/A N/A Tooth Medial Burned 1 Mammalia Odocoileus 1.1 N/A N/A Antler Distal None 1 virginianus Fragment

Bag (211) - F13 East 1/2 Level 3 Depth: 20-34

Taxon Taxon Weight GL GB Element Portion Modifications Count (class) (species) (g) (cm) (cm) Mammalia Unknown 23.8 N/A N/A Fragments N/A None 17 Mammalia Odocoileus 4.66 N/A N/A Metatarsus Medial None 2 virginianus fragments Mammalia Bison 34.41 N/A N/A Scapula N/A None 2 fragment

101

Bag (230) - F13 East 1/2 Zone 1 Depth: Not specified

Taxon Taxon Weight GL GB Element Portion Modifications Count (class) (species) (g) (cm) (cm) Mammalia Unknown 27.9 N/A N/A Fragments Unknown Burning? 16 Mammalia Odocoileus 14.6 N/A N/A Metarsus Distal None 1 virginianus fragment- head Right Mammalia Odocoileus 4.1 N/A N/A Mandible Unknown None 1 virginianus Fragment Mammalia Odocoileus 4.9 N/A N/A Ischium Medial None 1 virginianus Fragment- Right Mammalia Odocoileus 13.3 N/A N/A Mandible Medial None 1 virginianus Fragment- With Teeth M1 and P3 Mammalia Odocoileus Same as N/A N/A M1 - Complete None 1 virginianus mandible Mandibular Mammalia Odocoileus Same as N/A N/A P3- Complete None 1 virginianus mandible Mandibular Mammalia Odocoileus 8.9 N/A N/A M3- Complete None 1 virginianus Mandible Mammalia Odocoileus 1.4 N/A N/A M3- Maxilla Near None 1 virginianus complete Mammalia Odocoileus 0.6 N/A N/A P2- Mandible Near None 1 virginianus complete Mammalia Odocoileus 8.1 N/A N/A Ilium Medial None 1 virginianus Fragment- Right Mammalia Bison 30.5 N/A N/A Fragments Medial None 2 Mammalia Cervus 6.3 N/A N/A M3- Right Distal None 1 canadensis Mandible

102

Feature 16 Bag (224) - F16 East 1/2 Zone 1 Depth: 0-50 cm

Taxon Taxon Weight GL GB Element Portion Modifications Count (class) (species) (g) (cm) (cm) Mammalia Unknown 4.1 N/A N/A Fragments Unknown Burned 10 Mammalia Unknown 2 N/A N/A Fragments Proximal Burned 2 Mammalia Unknown 4.3 N/A N/A Fragments Unknown None 2

Bag (206) - F16 west 1/2 Level 6 Depth: 50-60 cm

Taxon Taxon Weight GL GB Element Portion Modifications Count (class) (species) (g) (cm) (cm) Mammalia Unknown 0.2 N/A N/A Fragment Unknown Burned 1

103

Feature 17 Bag (202) - F17 East 1/2 Level 1 Depth: 0-10 cm

Taxon Taxon Weight GL GB Element Portion Modifications Count (class) (species) (g) (cm) (cm) Mammalia Unknown 1.2 N/A N/A Fragments Unknown None 2

104

Feature 18 Bag (172) - F18 East 1/2 Level 1 Depth: 0-15 cm

Taxon Taxon Weight GL GB Element Portion Modifications Count (class) (species) (g) (cm) (cm) Mammalia Odocoileus 3.8 N/A N/A M1 Near None 2 virginianus complete Mammalia Unknown 0.2 N/A N/A Tooth root Fragment None 1 Mammalia Unknown 0.4 N/A N/A Long Bone Medial None 1 Fragments Mammalia Unknown 0.8 N/A N/A Fragments Unknown None 2 Mammalia Unknown 1 N/A N/A Fragments Unknown Burned 3

Bag (173) - F18 West 1/2 Zone 1 Depth: 0-15 cm

Taxon Taxon Weight GL GB Element Portion Modifications Count (class) (species) (g) (cm) (cm) Unknown Unknown 1.8 N/A N/A Fragments Unknown Burned 5 Mammalia Unknown 0.4 N/A N/A Fragments Unknown None 1 Mammalia Odocoileus 12.3 N/A N/A Astragalus Complete None 1 virginianus Bivalvia Unknown 7.6 N/A N/A Shells Unknown Burned 9

105

Feature 19 Bag (223) - F19 East 1/2 Level 1 Depth: 0-10 cm

Taxon Taxon Weight GL GB Element Portion Modifications Count (class) (species) (g) (cm) (cm) Mammalia Unknown 2.71 N/A N/A Fragments Unknown None 3 Mammalia Unknown 0.58 N/A N/A Fragment Unknown Bleaching 1

Bag (155) - F19 East 1/2 Level 2 Depth: 10-20 cm

Taxon Taxon Weight GL GB Element Portion Modifications Count (class) (species) (g) (cm) (cm) Mammalia Unknown 1.26 N/A N/A Fragments Unknown None 2 Mammalia Odocoileus 4.86 N/A N/A Metarsus Medial None 1 virginianus

Bag (210) - F19 West 1/2 Level 2 Depth: 10-20 cm

Taxon Taxon Weight GL GB Element Portion Modifications Count (class) (species) (g) (cm) (cm) Mammalia Unknown 0.22 N/A N/A Fragment Unknown Burning 1

Bag (176) - F19 East 1/2 Level 3 Depth: 20-30 cm

Taxon Taxon Weight GL GB Element Portion Modifications Count (class) (species) (g) (cm) (cm) Mammalia Unknown 5.74 N/A N/A Fragments Unknown None 14 Aves Unknown 1.23 N/A N/A Fragment Unknown None 1 Unknown Unknown 1.56 N/A N/A Fragments Unknown Burning 8 Mammalia Unknown 6.68 N/A N/A Long Bone Medial None 2 Fragments Mammalia Odocoileus 14.81 N/A N/A Tibia Distal None 1 Virginianus Fragment- Right Reptilia Terrapene 0.16 N/A N/A Shell Medial None 1 Carolina fragment Reptilia Terrapene 0.63 N/A N/A Plastron Medial None 1 Carolina fragment

106

Bag (227) - F19 West 1/2 Level 3 Depth: 20-30 cm

Taxon Taxon Weight GL GB Element Portion Modifications Count (class) (species) (g) (cm) (cm) Unknown Unknown 0.32 N/A N/A Fragments Unknown Burning 8

Bag (126) - F19 West 1/2 Level 4 Depth: 30-40 cm

Taxon Taxon Weight GL GB Element Portion Modifications Count (class) (species) (g) (cm) (cm) Unknown Unknown 1.6 N/A N/A Fragments Unknown Burning 3

Bag (237) - F19 East 1/2 Level 4 Depth: 30-40 cm

Taxon Taxon Weight GL GB Element Portion Modifications Count (class) (species) (g) (cm) (cm) Unknown Unknown 11.29 N/A N/A Fragments Unknown Burning 1 Unknown Unknown 2.29 N/A N/A Fragments Unknown Burning 7 Aves Unknown 0.97 N/A N/A Fragment Unknown None 1 Mammalia Unknown 20.28 N/A N/A Fragments Unknown None 4 Mammalia Unknown 5.99 N/A N/A Cranial Unknown None 9 Fragments Mammalia Unknown 1.68 N/A N/A Long Bone Unknown None 3 Fragments Mammalia Unknown 1.31 N/A N/A Vertebra Fragments Burning 2 Mammalia Unknown 1.21 N/A N/A Sacrum Fragment Burning 1 Mammalia Castor 0.7 N/A N/A Rib fragment Unknown None 1 canadensis Mammalia Castor 1.08 N/A N/A Incisor Medial None 4 canadensis fragments Mammalia Castor 28.74 N/A N/A Mandible- Near None 1 canadensis Right complete Mammalia Bison 13.12 N/A N/A Innominate Unknown None 2 fragments Mammalia Canis 10.35 N/A N/A Humerus- Distal None 1 familiaris Right Mammalia Canis 2.07 5.1 1 Phalanx Complete None 1 familiaris Mammalia Odocoileus 6.89 N/A N/A Antler Distal Polished- 1 virginianus fragment Tine? Mammalia Odocoileus 0.18 N/A N/A Antler Unknown None 2 virginianus fragment Mammalia Odocoileus 0.58 N/A N/A Metacarpus medial None 1 virginianus fragment Mammalia Odocoileus 1.09 N/A N/A Carpal- left complete None 1 virginianus Osteichthyes Unknown 0.12 N/A N/A Operculum Medial None 1

107

Osteichthyes Ameiurus 0.36 N/A N/A Vertebra Medial None 2 nebulosus Bivalvia Unknown 18.89 N/A N/A Shell Fragment Burning 12

Bag (225) - F19 East 1/2 Level 5 Depth: 40-50 cm

Taxon Taxon Weight GL GB Element Portion Modifications Count (class) (species) (g) (cm) (cm) Unknown Unknown 0.25 N/A N/A Fragment Unknown Burning 1 Mammalia Unknown 14.81 N/A N/A Fragments Unknown None 22 Mammalia Unknown 1.94 N/A N/A Fragment Unknown Cutmarks-7 1 Mammalia Unknown 7.34 N/A N/A Long Bone Medial None 4 Fragments Mammalia Unknown 0.31 N/A N/A Fragment Unknown Burning 1 Mammalia Unknown 3.08 N/A N/A Cranial Unknown None 8 fragments Mammalia Unknown 1.06 N/A N/A Rib Medial None 2 Aves Unknown 0.44 N/A N/A Fragments Medial None 3 Aves Unknown 1.7 N/A N/A Cranial Unknown None 2 Fragments Aves Unknown 0.45 N/A N/A Long Bone Medial None 1 Mammalia Odocoileus 8.37 N/A N/A Rib Proximal and None 4 virginianus Fragments Medial Mammalia Castor 1.73 N/A N/A Rib- Right Proximal None 1 canadensis Mammalia Canis 5.06 N/A N/A Rib Medial None 2 familiaris Mammalia Canis 1.07 N/A N/A Maxilla Proximal None 1 familiaris fragment Mammalia Canis 2.03 N/A N/A M1 Complete None 1 familiaris Mammalia Canis 0.55 N/A N/A P4 Complete None 1 familiaris Bivalvia Unknown 2.78 N/A N/A Shell Unknown Burning 5

Bag (Unknown) - F19 East 1/2 Level 5 Depth: Not Specified

Taxon Taxon Weight GL GB Element Portion Modifications Count (class) (species) (g) (cm) (cm) Mammalia Unknown 1.29 N/A N/A Long Bone Medial None 1 Fragment

108

Bag (168) - F19 East 1/2 Level 6 Depth: 50-65cm

Taxon Taxon Weight GL GB Element Portion Modifications Count (class) (species) (g) (cm) (cm) Mammalia Unknown 5.21 N/A N/A Fragments Unknown None 8 Mammalia Unknown 3.29 N/A N/A Long Bone Medial None 1 Mammalia Odocoileus 5.32 4.7 1.6 Phalanx- Complete None 1 virginianus Right Mammalia Odocoileus 3.61 3.6 1.5 Phalanx- Complete None 1 virginianus Right Mammalia Odocoileus 2.4 N/A N/A Phalanx Proximal None 1 virginianus Fragment Mammalia Cervus 3.92 N/A N/A Phalanx Proximal None 1 canadensis Fragment Mammalia Canis 0.84 N/A N/A M1 Near None 1 familiaris complete Mammalia Castor 2.23 N/A N/A Incisor Medial None 1 canadensis

Bag (220) - F19 West 1/2 Zone II Depth: Not Specified

Taxon Taxon Weight GL GB Element Portion Modifications Count (class) (species) (g) (cm) (cm) Mammalia Unknown 0.73 N/A N/A Fragments Unknown None 3 Mammalia Unknown 0.38 N/A N/A Fragments Unknown Burning 2 Mammalia Unknown 1.32 N/A N/A Occipital Occipital None 2 fragments lobe Mammalia Unknown 3.28 N/A N/A Lamina Lamina None 1 fragment fragment Mammalia Canis 2.55 N/A N/A Axis Axis None 1 familiaris fragment Mammalia Canis 3.72 N/A N/A Femur Proximal None 1 familiaris Head Mammalia Procyn 4.12 N/A N/A Tibia- Proximal None 1 lotor Right Mammalia Procyn 0.42 N/A N/A M2 Molar None 1 lotor fragment

109

Bag (235) - F19 West 1/2 Zone II Depth: Not Specified

Taxon Taxon Weight GL GB Element Portion Modifications Count (class) (species) (g) (cm) (cm) Mammalia Unknown 12.51 N/A N/A Fragments Unknown None 19 Mammalia Unknown 1.97 N/A N/A Fragments Unknown Burning 19 Mammalia Unknown 0.58 N/A N/A Fragments Unknown Burning 1 Mammalia Unknown 4.72 N/A N/A Fragments Unknown Burning 3 Mammalia Unknown 0.19 N/A N/A Claw Fragment Proximal Burning 1 Mammalia Unknown 3.73 N/A N/A Long Bone Medial None 3 Fragments Mammalia Unknown 0.68 N/A N/A Articular surface Proximal None 1 cap Mammalia Unknown 1.44 N/A N/A Vertebral Column Half None 1 Mammalia Unknown 7.27 N/A N/A Cranium fragment Fragment None 1 Mammalia Unknown 0.23 N/A N/A Tooth Fragment None 1 Mammalia Unknown 0.35 N/A N/A Phalanx fragment Near None 1 Complete Reptilia Apalone 4.94 N/A N/A Shell Fragments None 2 spinifera Mammalia Procyn 8.45 N/A N/A Innominate (With Near None 1 lotor Acetabulum)- Complete Right Mammalia Castor 26.09 N/A N/A Mandible- Right Near None 5 canadensis Complete Mammalia Castor 0.8 N/A N/A Incisor fragments Medial None 2 canadensis Mammalia Castor 2.63 N/A N/A Clavicle- Left Complete None 1 canadensis Mammalia Odocoileus 36.48 N/A N/A Lumbar Vertebra Near None 1 virginianus Complete Mammalia Odocoileus 17.49 N/A N/A Astragalus-Right Complete None 1 virginianus Mammalia Odocoileus 6.21 N/A N/A Rib fragments Medial None 2 virginianus Mammalia Tamias 0.13 N/A N/A Mandible- Right Near None 2 striatus Complete

110

Bag (135) - F19 West 1/2 Zone II (1/2) Depth: Not Specified

Taxon Taxon Weight GL GB Element Portion Modifications Count (class) (species) (g) (cm) (cm) Unknown Unknown 34.79 N/A N/A Fragments Unknown None 43 Mammalia Unknown 4.42 N/A N/A Fragments Unknown Burning 3 Mammalia Unknown 0.92 N/A N/A Fragments Unknown Burning 2 Mammalia Unknown 37.74 N/A N/A Fragments Unknown None 4 Mammalia Unknown 1.64 N/A N/A Rib fragment Medial None 1 Mammalia Unknown 0.21 N/A N/A Tooth Near None 1 complete Mammalia Odocoileus 31.63 N/A N/A Mandible portion- Medial None 7 virginianus Right; with teeth M3-P1 Mammalia Odocoileus 12.79 N/A N/A Maxilla portion- Distal None 5 virginianus Left; with teeth M3-M1 and P1 Mammalia Odocoileus 11.77 N/A N/A Maxilla portion- Medial None 3 virginianus Left; with teeth M3 and M2 Mammalia Odocoileus 4.22 N/A N/A Maxilla fragment; Medial None 3 virginianus with teeth P1-P2 Mammalia Odocoileus 10.52 N/A N/A Frontal fragment Medial None 1 virginianus Mammalia Odocoileus 3.89 N/A N/A Cranial fragment Medial None 1 virginianus Mammalia Odocoileus 0.94 N/A N/A Inside of the Medial None 2 virginianus crania bone material Mammalia Odocoileus 4.25 N/A N/A Rib fragment Medial None 1 virginianus Mammalia Odocoileus 16.69 N/A N/A Acetabulum and Medial None 1 virginianus proximal end of ilium- Right

111

Bag (135) - F19 West 1/2 Zone II (2/2) Depth: Not Specified

Taxon Taxon Weight GL GB Element Portion Modifications Count (class) (species) (g) (cm) (cm) Mammalia Odocoileus 9.77 N/A N/A Rib fragments- Proximal None 2 virginianus Right Mammalia Odocoileus 7.86 N/A N/A Rib fragments- Proximal None 2 virginianus Left Mammalia Odocoileus 22.93 N/A N/A Metacarpus- Right Proximal None 1 virginianus Mammalia Odocoileus 27.55 N/A N/A Metatarsus Medial None 1 virginianus fragment Mammalia Odocoileus 14.34 N/A N/A Tibia Distal None 1 virginianus Mammalia Castor 1.04 N/A N/A Rib fragment Medial None 1 canadensis Mammalia Castor 1.99 N/A N/A P4 Complete None 1 canadensis Mammalia Canis 10.67 N/A N/A Maxilla fragment; Medial None 4 familiaris with teeth M3, M1, and P4 Mammalia Canis 0.34 N/A N/A M2 Maxilla Proximal None 1 familiaris Mammalia Canis 0.06 N/A N/A P3 Maxilla Proximal None 1 familiaris Mammalia Canis 0.63 N/A N/A Metatarsal Proximal None 1 familiaris Fragment Mammalia Canis 2.38 N/A N/A Metatarsal Complete None 1 familiaris Osteichthyes Unknown 0.39 N/A N/A Opercular bone Medial None 1 fragment Osteichthyes Unknown 0.12 N/A N/A Tooth fragment Distal None 1 Aves Meleagris 10.2 N/A N/A Tarsometatarsus Medial None 2 gallopavo fragments Aves Unknown 15.32 N/A N/A Fragments Unknown None 7 Reptilia Terrapene 0.56 N/A N/A Fragment Medial None 1 carolina Bivalvia Unknown 39.11 N/A N/A Shell Fragment Burning 13

Bag (195) - F19 West 1/2 Level 5 Depth: 40-50cm

Taxon Taxon Weight GL GB Element Portion Modifications Count (class) (species) (g) (cm) (cm) Mammalia Unknown 0.91 N/A N/A Fragment Unknown Burning 3

112

Feature 22 Bag (79) - F22 West 1/2 Level 6 Depth: 50-60cm

Taxon Taxon Weight GL GB Element Portion Modifications Count (class) (species) (g) (cm) (cm) Mammalia Unknown 2.12 N/A N/A Fragments Unknown None 10 Mammalia Unknown 10.12 N/A N/A Long Bone Medial Burning 3 Unknown Unknown 0.04 N/A N/A Fragments Unknown Burning 2 Osteichthyes Unknown 0.07 N/A N/A Fragments Unknown None 10 Mammalia Odocoileus 1.79 N/A N/A Temporal Medial None 1 virginianus fragment Mammalia Odocoileus 2.89 N/A N/A Occipital Medial None 1 virginianus fragment Reptilia Testudines 2.68 N/A N/A Shell Unknown None 3 fragments

Bag (186) - F22 Level 7 Depth: 60-70cm

Taxon Taxon Weight GL GB Element Portion Modifications Count (class) (species) (g) (cm) (cm) Mammalia Unknown 1.28 N/A N/A Fragments Unknown None 7 Unknown Unknown 0.26 N/A N/A Fragment Unknown Burning 1 Mammalia Unknown 0.27 N/A N/A Phalanx Distal None 1 fragment Mammalia Odocoileus 0.97 N/A N/A Metatarsus or Distal None 1 virginianus carpus fragment Mammalia Castor 2.17 N/A N/A Acetabulum Medial None 1 canadensis

Bag (107) - F22 Level 8 W1/2 Depth: 70-80cm

Taxon Taxon Weight GL GB Element Portion Modifications Count (class) (species) (g) (cm) (cm) Mammalia Unknown 2.28 N/A N/A Fragments Unknown None 11 Reptilia Unknown 1.19 N/A N/A Fragment Unknown None 1 Bivalvia Unknown 0.81 N/A N/A shell fragments Unknown Burned 7

113

Bag (094) - F22 Level 9 W1/2 Depth: 80-90cm

Taxon Taxon Weight GL GB Element Portion Modifications Count (class) (species) (g) (cm) (cm) Mammalia Unknown 2.53 N/A N/A Fragments Unknown None 6 Mammalia Odocoileus 14.24 N/A N/A Scapular Medial None 2 virginianus spine fragments Mammalia Odocoileus 5.14 N/A N/A Scapula Proximal None 1 virginianus fragment Mammalia Sciurus 1.47 5.6 1 Tibia Complete None 1 carolinensis? Mammalia Canis 4.65 N/A N/A Sacrum Proximal None 2 familiaris fragment

Bag (091) - F22 Level 10 W1/2 Depth: 90-100cm

Taxon Taxon Weight GL GB Element Portion Modifications Count (class) (species) (g) (cm) (cm) Mammalia Unknown 1.98 N/A N/A Fragment Unknown None 1

114

Bag (164) - F22 Zone 1 E1/2 Depth: 90-100cm

Taxon Taxon Weight GL GB Element Portion Modifications Count (class) (species) (g) (cm) (cm) Mammalia Unknown 46.47 N/A N/A Fragments Unknown None 47 Mammalia Unknown 19.16 N/A N/A Long bone Unknown None 6 fragments Unknown Unknown 0.66 N/A N/A Fragments Unknown Burning 2 Mammalia Odocoileus 8.23 N/A N/A Axis Fragment Medial None 1 virginianus Mammalia Odocoileus 19.01 N/A N/A Lumbar Near None 1 virginianus Vertebra Complete Mammalia Odocoileus 5.36 N/A N/A Vertebra Near None 1 virginianus column Complete Mammalia Odocoileus 9.4 N/A N/A Metatarsus Proximal None 1 virginianus fragment- Left Mammalia Odocoileus 14.66 N/A N/A Metatarsus Proximal None 1 virginianus fragment- Right Mammalia Odocoileus 6.27 N/A N/A Metatarsus Medial None 3 virginianus fragments Mammalia Odocoileus 7.79 N/A N/A Femur Proximal None 1 virginianus Fragment- Left Mammalia Odocoileus 11.48 N/A N/A Astragalus- Complete None 1 virginianus Left Mammalia Odocoileus 8.75 N/A N/A Astragalus- Complete None 1 virginianus Right Mammalia Bison 24.65 N/A N/A Tibia fragment- Proximal None 1 Left Bivalvia Unknown 1.1 N/A N/A Shell fragments Unknown Burned 26

115

Bag (125) - F22 Zone 2 E1/2 Depth: Not specified

Taxon Taxon Weight GL GB Element Portion Modifications Count (class) (species) (g) (cm) (cm) Unknown Unknown 0.34 N/A N/A Fragments Unknown Burning 2 Mammalia Unknown 35.24 N/A N/A Fragments Unknown None 47 Mammalia Unknown 4.45 N/A N/A Fragments Unknown Burning 4 Mammalia Unknown 5.62 N/A N/A Scapula- Proximal None 1 Coracoid Process Mammalia Unknown 4.67 N/A N/A Vertebra Unknown None 1 Fragment Mammalia Unknown 20.53 N/A N/A Long bone Medial None 3 fragments Aves Unknown 1.23 N/A N/A Long bone Medial None 1 fragment Mammalia Odocoileus 8.88 N/A N/A Metatarsus Medial None 2 virginianus fragments Mammalia Odocoileus 11.22 N/A N/A Metacarpus Distal Cut marks 1 virginianus fragment- Left Mammalia Castor 5.39 N/A N/A Acetabulum Medial None 1 canadensis fragment- Right Mammalia Castor 0.21 N/A N/A Phalanx fragment Proximal Burning 1 canadensis Mammalia Rodentia 0.29 N/A N/A Long bone Medial None 2 fragments Bivalvia Unknown 4.9 N/A N/A Shell Unknown Burning 15

116

Feature 23 Bag (104) - F23 Level 2 W1/2 Depth: 10-20cm

Taxon Taxon Weight GL GB Element Portion Modifications Count (class) (species) (g) (cm) (cm) Unknown Unknown 0.74 N/A N/A Fragment Unknown Burning 1

Bag (99) - F23 Zone 1 E1/2 Depth: 0-47cm

Taxon Taxon Weight GL GB Element Portion Modifications Count (class) (species) (g) (cm) (cm) Mammalia Unknown 1.01 N/A N/A Mandible Proximal Burning 1 fragment- Left Mammalia Unknown 2.18 N/A N/A Long Bone Medial Burning 1 fragment

Bag (128) - F23 E1/2 Depth: 0-47cm

Taxon Taxon Weight GL GB Element Portion Modifications Count (class) (species) (g) (cm) (cm) Mammalia Unknown 2.79 N/A N/A Fragments Unknown None 2 Mammalia Unknown 1.87 N/A N/A Tibia fragment- Distal None 1 Right Mammalia Odocoileus 21.61 N/A N/A Mandible Medial None 4 virginianus fragment- Right; with teeth M1, M2, and P1

Bag (131) - F23 W1/2 Depth: 0-20cm

Taxon Taxon Weight GL GB Element Portion Modifications Count (class) (species) (g) (cm) (cm) Mammalia Unknown 19.45 N/A N/A Fragments Unknown Burning 19 Mammalia Odocoileus 6.62 N/A N/A Femur Distal None 1 virginianus fragment- Left Mammalia Odocoileus 2.95 N/A N/A Tibia fragment Distal None 1 virginianus

117

Feature 24 Bag (12) - F24 Level 1 E1/2 Depth: 0-10cm

Taxon Taxon Weight GL GB Element Portion Modifications Count (class) (species) (g) (cm) (cm) Mammalia Unknown 2.8 N/A N/A Fragments Unknown None 2 Mammalia Unknown 2.01 N/A N/A Fragments Unknown Burning 2 Unknown Unknown 2.03 N/A N/A Fragments Unknown Burning 2 Unknown Unknown 0.15 N/A N/A Fragments Unknown Burning 2

Bag (75) - F24 E1/2 Depth: 10-22cm

Taxon Taxon Weight GL GB Element Portion Modifications Count (class) (species) (g) (cm) (cm) Mammalia Unknown 4.48 N/A N/A Fragments Unknown None 4 Mammalia Odocoileus 8.54 N/A N/A Tibia Medial None 1 virginianus fragment Mammalia Odocoileus 14.53 N/A N/A Tibia Distal None 1 virginianus Fragment- Right Mammalia Odocoileus 4.65 4.2 1.8 1st Complete None 1 virginianus phalanx

Bag (109) - F24 E1/2 Depth: 10-22cm

Taxon Taxon Weight GL GB Element Portion Modifications Count (class) (species) (g) (cm) (cm) Mammalia Unknown 4.79 N/A N/A Fragments Unknown None 9 Mammalia Odocoileus 10.72 N/A N/A Antler Unknown None 2 virginianus fragments Mammalia Odocoileus 6.09 N/A N/A Rib Medial None 3 virginianus fragments

118

Feature 25 Bag (142) - F25 Level 1 E1/2 Depth: 0-10cm

Taxon Taxon Weight GL GB Element Portion Modifications Count (class) (species) (g) (cm) (cm)) Unknown Unknown 0.11 N/A N/A Fragment Unknown None 1

Bag (110) - F25 Zone 1 W1/2 Depth: 0-22cm

Taxon Taxon Weight GL GB Element Portion Modifications Count (class) (species) (g) (cm) (cm) Mammalia Unknown 0.11 N/A N/A Fragments Unknown None 2 Mammalia Unknown 0.19 N/A N/A Fragments Unknown Burned 1

Bag (132) - F25 E1/2 Depth: 0-22cm

Taxon Taxon Weight GL GB Element Portion Modifications Count (class) (species) (g) (cm) (cm) Mammalia Unknown 6.36 N/A N/A Fragments Unknown None 9 Mammalia Unknown 2.15 N/A N/A Long bone Medial Burned 1 fragment Mammalia Unknown 0.51 N/A N/A Fragment Unknown Burned 1 Mammalia Unknown 2.41 N/A N/A Phalanx Medial None 1 fragment Mammalia Unknown 0.57 N/A N/A Rib fragment Medial None 1 Mammalia Odocoileus 8.72 N/A N/A Rib fragment- Proximal None 1 virginianus Left Aves Meleagris 1.85 N/A N/A Tibiotarsus Distal None 1 gallopavo fragment- Right Mammalia Canis 3.41 N/A N/A Scapula Proximal None 1 familiaris fragment- Right

119

Bag (072) - F25 Zone 1 W1/2 Depth: 0-22cm

Taxon Taxon Weight GL GB Element Portion Modifications Count (class) (species) (g) (cm) (cm) Mammalia Unknown 4.5 N/A N/A Fragments Unknown None 3 Mammalia Unknown 0.36 N/A N/A Fragment Unknown Burning 1 Mammalia Unknown 15.36 N/A N/A Long Bone Medial None 5 Fragments Aves Unknown 1.98 N/A N/A Fragments Unknown None 2 Aves Meleagris 2.07 N/A N/A Tarsometatarsus Distal None 1 gallopavo fragment- Right Aves Meleagris 0.42 2.5 0.7 phalanx Complete None 1 gallopavo Mammalia Odocoileus 25.92 N/A N/A C5 vertebra Near None 1 virginianus complete Mammalia Odocoileus 9.97 N/A N/A Femur fragment Medial None 1 virginianus Mammalia Odocoileus 1.24 N/A N/A 2nd Phalanx Proximal Burning 1 virginianus fragment Mammalia Lynx rufus 8.07 N/A N/A Humerus Distal None 1 fragment- Right

Unspecified bag found with other Feature 25 bags

Taxon Taxon Weight GL GB Element Portion Modifications Count (class) (species) (g) (cm) (cm) Mammalia Unknown 12.18 N/A N/A Fragment Unknown None 1

120

Feature 27 Bag (134) - F27 Level 2 E1/2 Depth: 10-20cm

Taxon Taxon Weight GL GB Element Portion Modifications Count (class) (species) (g) (cm) (cm) Unknown Unknown 0.21 N/A N/A Fragments Unknown Burning 2

Bag (032) - F27 Level 3 E1/2 Depth: 20-30cm

Taxon Taxon Weight GL GB Element Portion Modifications Count (class) (species) (g) (cm) (cm) Unknown Unknown 0.83 N/A N/A Fragments Unknown Burning 4

121

Feature 28 Bag (212) - F28 Level 2 S1/2 Depth: 10-20cm

Taxon Taxon Weight GL GB Element Portion Modifications Count (class) (species) (g) (cm) (cm) Aves Unknown 0.13 N/A N/A Fragment Unknown None 1 Unknown Unknown 0.69 N/A N/A Fragment Unknown Burning 2

Bag (161) - F28 Level 5 S1/2 Depth: 40-50cm

Taxon Taxon Weight GL GB Element Portion Modifications Count (class) (species) (g) (cm) (cm) Unknown Unknown 0.3 N/A N/A Fragment Unknown Burning 1

Bag (213) - F28 Level 7 S1/2 Depth: 60-70cm

Taxon Taxon Weight GL GB Element Portion Modifications Count (class) (species) (g) (cm) (cm) Unknown Unknown 0.06 N/A N/A Fragment Unknown Burning 1

Bag (127) - F28 Zone 1 N1/2 Depth: 0-70cm

Taxon Taxon Weight GL GB Element Portion Modifications Count (class) (species) (g) (cm) (cm) Unknown Unknown 1.19 N/A N/A Fragments Unknown Burning 2

122

Feature 29 Bag (207) - F29 Level 6 E1/2 Depth: 50-60cm

Taxon Taxon Weight GL GB Element Portion Modifications Count (class) (species) (g) (cm) (cm) Unknown Unknown 0.4 N/A N/A Fragment Unknown Burning 3

Bag (124) - F29 Zone 2 (tag says zone 3) W1/2 Depth: 33-66cm

Taxon Taxon Weight GL GB Element Portion Modifications Count (class) (species) (g) (cm) (cm) Unknown Unknown 0.55 N/A N/A Fragments Unknown Burning 7 Mammalia Unknown 1.36 N/A N/A Fragments Unknown Burning 3 Unknown Unknown 0.17 N/A N/A Fragments Unknown Burning 1

123

Feature 32a Bag (169) - F32a Level 2 S1/2 Depth: 10-20cm

Taxon Taxon Weight GL GB Element Portion Modifications Count (class) (species) (g) (cm) (cm) Mammalia Odocoileus 10.49 7.1 2.4 Calcaneus- Complete None 1 virginianus Right Mammalia Odocoileus 6.8 1.9 3.4 Astragalus- Complete None 1 virginianus Left

Bag (187) - F32a Level 5 S1/2 Depth: 40-50cm

Taxon Taxon Weight GL GB Element Portion Modifications Count (class) (species) (g) (cm) (cm) Mammalia Unknown 1.4 N/A N/A Fragments Unknown None 2 Unknown Unknown 0.78 N/A N/A Fragments Unknown Burning 3

Bag (102) - F32a Level 6 S1/2 Depth: 50-60cm

Taxon Taxon Weight GL GB Element Portion Modifications Count (class) (species) (g) (cm) (cm) Unknown Unknown 5.02 N/A N/A Fragments Unknown Burning 49

Bag (158) - F32a Level 7 S1/2 Depth: 60-70cm

Taxon Taxon Weight GL GB Element Portion Modifications Count (class) (species) (g) (cm) (cm) Unknown Unknown 1.96 N/A N/A Fragments Unknown Burning 3

124

Bag (139) - F32a Zone 1 N1/2 Depth: 0-72cm

Taxon Taxon Weight GL GB Element Portion Modifications Count (class) (species) (g) (cm) (cm) Mammalia Unknown 0.99 N/A N/A Fragments Unknown None 4 Unknown Unknown 3.04 N/A N/A Fragments Unknown Burning 7 Unknown Unknown 1.16 N/A N/A Fragments Unknown Burning 2 Unknown Unknown 1.79 N/A N/A Fragments Unknown Partially 2 burned Mammalia Odocoileus 5.36 N/A N/A Metatarsus Distal None 2 virginianus Mammalia Odocoileus 8.13 N/A N/A Humerus Distal None 1 virginianus fragment Mammalia Odocoileus 0.63 N/A N/A Molar Distal None 1 virginianus fragment Mammalia Odocoileus 0.29 N/A N/A Tooth root Proximal None 1 virginianus

125

Bag 221 Bag (221) - Unknown Feature Zone 1 West 1/2 Depth: 0-30cm

Taxon Taxon Weight GL GB Element Portion Modifications Count (class) (species) (g) (cm) (cm) Unknown Unknown 0.3 N/A N/A Fragments Unknown None 3 Osteichthyes Unknown 1.02 N/A N/A Fragments Unknown None 2 Aves Unknown 4.54 N/A N/A Fragments Unknown None 6 Osteichthyes Ameiurus 2.07 N/A N/A Cleithrum- Near None 1 nebulosus Right complete

126

APPENDIX III

Log Difference Scales

Feature 2

Log Difference- Feature 2

Foot

Hindfoot

Forefoot

Hindquarter

-3 -2.5 -2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

127

Feature 3

Log Difference- Feature 3

Head

-3 -2.5 -2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

Feature 6

Log Difference- Feature 6

Foot

Hindfoot

Axial

-3 -2.5 -2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

128

Feature 9

Log Difference- Feature 9

Hindfoot

Head

-3 -2.5 -2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

Feature 10

Log Difference- Feature 10

Hindfoot

Forequarter

Axial

Head

-3 -2.5 -2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

129

Feature 13

Log Difference- Feature 13

Hindfoot

Axial

Head

-3 -2.5 -2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

Feature 18

Log Difference- Feature 18

Hindfoot

Head

-3 -2.5 -2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

130

Feature 19

Log Difference- Feature 19

Foot

Hindfoot

Forefoot

Hindquarter

Forequarter

Axial

Head

-3 -2.5 -2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

Feature 22

Log Difference- Feature 22

Hindfoot

Forequarter

Hindquarter

Axial

Head

-3 -2.5 -2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

131

Feature 23

Log Difference- Feature 23

Hindquarter

Head

-3 -2.5 -2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

Feature 24

Log Difference- Feature 24

Foot

Hindquarter

Axial

Head

-3 -2.5 -2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

132

Feature 25

Log Difference- Feature 25

Foot

Hindquarter

Axial

-3 -2.5 -2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

Feature 32a

Log Difference- Feature 32a

Hindfoot

Forequarter

Head

-3 -2.5 -2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

133