Volume 2000 Article 14

2000

Notes on the from Site 41DT59, Cooper Lake, Delta County, Texas

Jesse Todd MA Counslting

Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.sfasu.edu/ita

Part of the American Material Culture Commons, Archaeological Anthropology Commons, Environmental Studies Commons, Other American Studies Commons, Other Arts and Humanities Commons, Other History of Art, Architecture, and Archaeology Commons, and the United States History Commons Tell us how this article helped you.

Cite this Record Todd, Jesse (2000) "Notes on the Mollusca from Site 41DT59, Cooper Lake, Delta County, Texas," Index of Texas Archaeology: Open Access Gray Literature from the Lone Star State: Vol. 2000, Article 14. https://doi.org/10.21112/.ita.2000.1.14 ISSN: 2475-9333 Available at: https://scholarworks.sfasu.edu/ita/vol2000/iss1/14

This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Center for Regional Heritage Research at SFA ScholarWorks. It has been accepted for inclusion in Index of Texas Archaeology: Open Access Gray Literature from the Lone Star State by an authorized editor of SFA ScholarWorks. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Notes on the Mollusca from Site 41DT59, Cooper Lake, Delta County, Texas

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

This article is available in Index of Texas Archaeology: Open Access Gray Literature from the Lone Star State: https://scholarworks.sfasu.edu/ita/vol2000/iss1/14 NOTES ON THE MOLLUSCA FROM SITE 41DT59, COOPER LAKE, DELTA COUNTY, TEXAS

Jesse Todd, MA Consulting

This paper focuses on the information authors have concluded about site about the mollusca from site 41 DT59. The 41DT59, but does discuss material not author takes the information from Dr. covered in the original text. The analysis Fullington, the noted malacologist, and is divided into two sections. The illustrates how the archeologist can take information derived from the gastropods is the information and apply it to site discussed first, and the information analysis. This information derived from derived from the mussels second. the analysis mainly supports what the

The Gastropods

In their interpretation of the soils for site that A. strongylodes prefers exposed 41DT59, Shanabrook, Hunt, and Cliff knolls surrounded by trees or shrubs. The (1955:F-7) state that they believe the remaining gastropod fauna, however, sediments from Unit 25 were probably prefer an oak-savannah environment that alluvial floodplain deposits. Based on the may be slightly moister than that for A. gastropod shells found in the excavation, strongylodes. they are correct. The species Anguispira strongylodes was recovered from the All of the species in Level 2 can be found upper 10 cm, species dealbatus, on floodplains in oak-savannah Gastropta contracta, Strobilops texasiana, environments. Both G. indentata and S. Hawaiia minuscula, Zontoides arboreus, texasiana can be found under leaves and and Glyphyalinia indentata were rotting logs in moist areas in a floodplain, recovered from the 10 - 20 cm level, and but S texasiana prefers to be adjacent to species Gastrocopta contracta, streams or water. G. contracta prefers to Glyphyalinia indentata, Rabdotus be on rocks adjacent to the floodplain, dealbatus, Strobilops texasiana, and although it can be found in the floodplain. Mesodon thyroidus were recovered from H minuscula lives under rocks and logs 20 - 30 cm below datum (Fullington on a floodplain. Z arboreus is always 1995:H-3). Fullington (1995:H-3) states associated with trees, and R. dealbatus

33 Caddoan ArcheoloEJ!_ prefers mixed, drier grasslands and woods, except for H minuscula and Z. arboreus even though it can be found on floodplains and contained .A,1. thyroidus which Level 2 where there is standing water (Fullington did not. M thyroidus prefers mixed, drier and Pratt 1974). grassland and woods similar to R. dealbatus. There may have been a grassier Level 3 contained all of the gastropods in and drier environment during Level 3 Level 2, which still indicates a floodplain, times than Level 2 times.

The Mussels

Cliff and others (1995:100) list the covered from the site, P. purpuratus is species and percentages of the identified still the most common mussel with 18 species in Table 1. Current scientific name umbos/hinges present of36, or 50 percent. are used instead of those used in 1995. The next most common mussel repre­ sented by the umbos/hinges is L. hydiana As is shown in Table 1, P. purpuratus is with seven umbos/hinges (18% of the the most common mussel present in the sample) with A. plicata being represented sample. A. plicata is the second most by only one umbo (3% of the sample). common mussel present, but this is true Fullington (1995:H-3) stated that the site only if one looks at the fragments. If one inhabitants use of P. purpuratus was looks at the number of umbos/hinges re- unusual because A. plicata is usually the

Table 1. Common Name, Scientific Name, and Percentage of Fragments from Site 41DT59.

Common Name Scientific Name Number of Percentage Fra2ments

Bluefer Potamilus purpuratus 52 54.2

Threeridge Amblema plicata 17 17.7

Louisiana Fatmucket Lampsilis hydiana 12 12.5

Pink Papershell Potamilus ohioensis 5 5.2

Yellow Sandshell Lampsilis teres 5 5.2

Texas Fatmucket Lampsilis bracteata 2 2.1

Maple leaf Quadrula quadrula 2 2.1

Washboard Megalonaias nervosa 1 1.0

34 Volume 11 (3) , October 2000

dominant food mussel found on pre­ Of the shell collected from 41DT59, 11 historic Native American sites. percent was burned. This percentage appears high to me. Ethnographic By looking at the scatter of fragments, accounts and experiments suggest that there were probably four A. plicata shells roasting or boiling the mussels was the recovered from the site. Four is the MNI fastest way ofcooking them [Henshilwood for L. hydiana based on the valve/umbo et al (1994:107); Parmalee and Klippell count also, meaning that the two species (1974:421); Waselkov (1987:169)]. The are about even in their popularity at the shell being burned, however, does not site. It appears that the three major mussel necessarily mean that it was intentional. It species eaten or used by the site merely could have been incorporated into inhabitants were P. purpuratus, A. plicata, a fire accidentally. and L. hydiana. It appears that the use of mussels in­ Because six of the eight species of creased over time at 41 DT59, just like the mussels recovered from the site inhabit use of other . Although mussels deeper streams or river waters (Cliff et al. were not a major subsistence base, their 1995:100), they may have been gathered importance can not be overlooked. For in the summer or fall when the water was one thing, the amount of energy return for low. The mussels such as L. teres which gathering time is greater. Brown (1988: inhabit shallow water could have been 229), in his discussion of the subsistence gathered at any time. It is interesting that practices of the prehistoric inhabitants of there were only two fragments of Q. what is now Aquilla Lake, stated that quadrula and one fragment of M nervosa mussels may have been an important recovered. Q. quadrula inhabits shallow source of calcium. Lintz (1996:T-14) water, oxygen rich riffles and runs pointed out that mussels recovered from (Howell et al. 1996: 125), but M nervosa two Early Archaic sites in the Concho inhabits deep water and suggests again River Terraces in Tom Green Cow1ty that these mussels were gathered when the provided fat and vitamin A as well as water was low. calcium.

Cliff and others (1995:52) suggest that One interesting aspect of mussels that the southeastern area of the site contained has not been utilized much is their use to a kitchen midden and was not a primary determine what fish were present in the occupational area based on the bone, shell stream that the mussels were recovered and charcoal recovered from Unit 25 . This from. Since different mussel species may conclusion is supported by the amount of use the same fish for hosts for their shell recovered from Unit 25. It contained glochidia, there has been no attempt to 32 percent of the shell recovered from the specify which fish were hosts to which site by itself In addition, the mussels mussel. Although no fish bones were collected from Unit 25 show the greatest identified at 41DT59, fish recovered from diversity of any other unit of the site. the Spike site (41DT16) included bowfin,

35 Caddoan Archeologx catfish, drum, gar, and sunfish (Yates white crappie, black crappie, and yellow 1993 :23 ). These fish could have been perch. Other fish include northern pike, utilized for food at 41DT59 and other pumpkinseed, and sauger (Howells et al. possibilities include white bass, rock bass, 1996). largemouth bass, bluegill, warmouth,

Conclusions

It appears that Shanabrook, Hunt, and be identified by which fish were used as Cliffs conclusion about Unit 25 is correct hosts by the mussels' glochidia. Based on based on the gastropods present. Unit 25 the locations of shell fragments and was probably within a midden also based number of umbos/hinges present, the per­ on the percentage of shell fragments centage of fragments may yield a false present. The amount ofburned shell seems picture of the dominance of a species high, especially when roasting was proba­ present at a site. Both A. plicata and L. bly the most common form of cooking hydiana are probably represented equally mussels. The mussels were probably in the archeological record instead of A. gathered when the Sulphur River was low. plicata being more common as the In addition, potential fish species that percentages of shell fragments indicate. might be found in the Sulphur River may

References Cited

Brown, David 0. Recovered from Site 41DT59, Cooper 1988 Prehistoric Subsistence Strategies in Lake, Texas. In: Archeological Test Northeastern Central Texas. Bulletin Excavations at Two Prehistoric Sites of the Texas Archeological Society (4JDT59 and 41DT247) at Cooper 59:201-244. Lake, Delta County, Texas, by Maynard B. Cliff, Melissa M. Green, Cliff, Maynard B., Melissa Green, Steven Steven H. Hunt, and David Shana­ H. Hunt, and David Shanabrook brook. Miscellaneous Reports of 1995 Archeological Test Excavations at Investigations No. 90:Hl-H7 Geo­ Prehistoric Sites (41DT59 and Marine, Inc., Plano. 41DT247) at Cooper Lake, Delta County, Texas. Miscellaneous Reports Fullington, Richard W., and William oflnvestigations No. 90:49-198. Geo­ Lloyd Pratt, Jr. Marine, Inc., Plano. 1974 The "Helicinidae, Carychidiidae, Achatinidae, Bradybaenidae, Fullington, Richard W. , Cionellida e, 1995 Appendix H: Molluscan Remains Haplotrematidae, Helicidae,

36 Volume 11 (J)_, October 2000

Oreohelicidae, Spiraxidea, Shanabrook, David, Steven M. Hunt, and Streptaxidae, Stropolopsidae, Maynard B. Cliff Thysanophoridae, Valloniidae' 1995 Appendix F: Test Unit and Backhoe () in Texas. The Aquatic Trench Profile Descriptions, Sites and Land Mollusca of Texas Bulletin 41DT59 and 41DT427, Cooper Lake, 1 (Part 3). Dallas Museum of Natural Texas. In: Archeological Test History. Excavations at Two Prehistoric Sites (4JDT59 and 41DT42 7) at Cooper Henshilwood, Christopher, Peter Nilssen, Lake, Delta County, Texas, by and John Parkington Maynard B. Cliff, Melissa M. Green, 1994 Mussel Drying and Food Storage in the Late Holocene, SW Cape, South Steven M. Hunt, and David Africa. Journal of Field Archaeology Shanabrook. Miscellaneous Report of 21: 103-109. Investigations No. 90:Fl-F15. Geo­ Marine, Inc., Plano. Howells, Robert G., Raymond W. Neck, and Harold D. Murray 1996 Freshwater Mussels ofTexas. Texas Waselkov, Gregory A. Parks and Wildlife Department, Inland 1987 Shellfish Gathering and Shell Fisheries Division, Austin. Midden Archaeology. In: Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory, Lintz, Christopher Volume 10, by Michael B. Schiffer 1996 Appendix T: Dietary Data of Mussel (editor), pp. 93-210. Academic Press, Shell Assemblages. In: Early Archaic New York. Use of the Concho River Terraces: Cultural Resource Investigations at 4JTG307 and 41TG309, Tom Green Yates, Bonnie C. County, San Angelo, Texas, by J. 1993 Appendix E: Zooarcheology of Four Michael Quigg, Jay Peck, Christopher Woodland/Caddoan Sites at Cooper Lintz, Abby C. Treece, Charles D. Lake. In: Excavations at the Tick, Frederick, Roman Clem, G. Lain Ellis, Spike, Johns Creek, and Peerless Paul Schuchert, and James T. Abbott, Bottom Sites, Cooper Lake Project, pp. Tl - Tl 9. Technical Report 11058. Delta and Hopkins Counties, Texas, TRC Mariah Associates, Inc., Austin. by Ross C. Fields, Eloise F. Gadus, L. Wayne Klement, C. Britt Bousman, Parmalee, Paul W., and Walter E. Klippell and Jerrilyn B. McLerran, pp. 310- 1974 Freshwater Mussels as a Prehistoric 335. Reports oflnvestigations No. 91. Food Source. American Antiquity Prev,ritt and Associates, Inc., Austin. 39(3):421-434.

37