Florida State University Libraries

Electronic Theses, Treatises and Dissertations The Graduate School

2018 Somewhere between Wild and Domestic: An Examination of the Human-Turkey Relationship during the Mississippian Period in Middle Kelly L. Ledford

Follow this and additional works at the DigiNole: FSU's Digital Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected] FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY

COLLEGE OF ARTS AND SCIENCES

SOMEWHERE BETWEEN WILD AND DOMESTIC: AN EXAMINATION OF THE

HUMAN-TURKEY RELATIONSHIP DURING THE MISSISSIPPIAN PERIOD IN MIDDLE

TENNESSEE

By

KELLY L. LEDFORD

A Thesis submitted to the Department of Anthropology in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science

2018 Kelly Ledford defended this thesis on March 21, 2018. The members of the supervisory committee were:

Tanya M. Peres Professor Directing Thesis

Rochelle A. Marrinan Committee Member

Jessi H. Halligan Committee Member

The Graduate School has verified and approved the above-named committee members and certifies that the thesis has been approved in accordance with university requirements.

ii

This thesis is dedicated to my parents, Brian and Reba Ledford.

iii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

There are a number of people I must thank for their help and support, I am forever grateful as this thesis would not have been possible without them.

First and foremost, I must thank my committee members, Dr. Tanya Peres, Dr. Rochelle

Marrinan, and Dr. Jessi Halligan. I especially owe thanks to Dr. Peres who provided me with opportunities, advice, and professional guidance during my time at Florida State. I must also thank Malinda Carlisle for helping me print all of the things and providing coffee when I ran out of fuel.

The Tennessee Council for Professional Archaeology provided funding for portions of this project through a TCPA Research Grant. I also owe thanks to Mike Moore and Aaron Deter-

Wolf at the Tennessee Division of Archaeology as they provided full access to the state’s collections and offered advice and assistance when I needed them.

Dr. Carla Hadden at the Center for Applied Isotope Studies offered me an internship when I could not secure funding for my isotope analysis. Not only did she allow me to analyze my thesis material at her lab, but she taught me a skill that will be useful far beyond grad school.

Brady Daniels lent me his amazing GIS skills (Figure 1) when the maps I made just would not make the cut and Alison Bruin put her artistic skills to work for Figure 5.

I owe my sanity to the other members of my cohort—specifically Shawn Joy, Megan Merrick, and Haley Messer—I am thankful their willingness to listen to my ideas or complaints and providing feedback.

Finally, I would like to give a huge thank you to my partner Andrew Chase. While I technically could have done this without him, his positive attitude and unwavering support helped me to not only finish but to finish strong.

iv TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Tables ...... vii List of Figures ...... ix Abstract ...... xi

1. INTRODUCTION ...... 1

2. THE MISSISSIPPIAN PERIOD, MISSISSIPPIAN FOODWAYS, AND TURKEY MANAGEMENT IN THE AMERICAS ...... 5

2.1 The Mississippian Period in the Southeastern ...... 5 2.2 Mississippian Period Foodways ...... 8 2.2.1 Major Trends in Mississippian Period Foodways Research ...... 8 2.2.2 Mississippian Use of Plant Resources ...... 10 2.2.3 Mississippian Use of Faunal Resources ...... 11 2.3 Mississippian Trends in the Middle Cumberland River Valley...... 13 2.3.1 Mississippian Foodways and Animal Exploitation in the Middle Cumberland River Valley ...... 14 2.4 The Role of Turkeys During the Mississippian Period ...... 17 2.4.1 Turkeys in Mississippian Art and Native Ritual Regalia ...... 19 2.4.2 Ethnographic and Ethnohistoric Accounts of the Turkey ...... 22 2.5 Turkey Management Strategies in the American Southwest and Mesoamerica ...... 25

3. NICHE CONSTRUCTION THEORY, TURKEY BEHAVIOR, AND IMPLICATIONS FOR TURKEY FLOCK MANAGEMENT ...... 28

3.1 A History of Human-Environmental Theoretical Paradigms ...... 28 3.2 Niche Construction Theory Applied to Archaeology ...... 31 3.2.1 Niche Construction as an Agent of Resource Management...... 34 3.3 Turkey Behavior and Implications for Flock Management in Middle Tennessee...... 39

4. FAUNAL SAMPLES AND METHODS ...... 43

4.1 Faunal Samples ...... 44 4.1.1 Turkey Specimens from (40CH8) ...... 47 4.1.2 Turkey Specimens from Sogom (40DV68) ...... 48 4.1.3 Turkey Specimens from Brandywine Point (40DV247) ...... 48 4.1.4 Turkey Specimens from Fewkes (40WM1) ...... 49 4.1.5 Turkey Specimens from Sandbar Village (40DV36) ...... 49 4.1.6 Turkey Specimens from Brick Church Pike (40DV39) ...... 50 4.1.7 Turkey Specimens from Castalian Springs (40SU14) ...... 50 4.1.8 Turkey Specimens from Inglehame Farm (40WM342) ...... 51 4.1.9 Turkey Specimens from Gordontown (40DV6) ...... 51 4.1.10 Turkey Specimens from Old Town (40WM2) ...... 52

v 4.1.11 Turkey Specimens from Brentwood Library (40WM210) ...... 53 4.2 Methods...... 53 4.2.1 Estimating Turkey Population Demographics with Osteometrics ...... 54 4.2.2 Reconstructing Turkey Diets with Stable Isotopes ...... 55 4.2.3 Establishment of the Southeastern Ancient Turkey Database ...... 57

5. RESULTS AND ANALYSIS ...... 58

5.1 Demographic Profiles of Mississippian Period Turkey Populations in the Middle . Cumberland River Valley ...... 58 5.1.1 Analysis of Osteometric Data ...... 59 5.1.1.1 Scapula ...... 60 5.1.1.2 Humerus ...... 60 5.1.1.3 Ulna ...... 61 5.1.1.4 Radius ...... 62 5.1.1.5 Phalanx I ...... 62 5.1.1.6 Carpometacarpus...... 63 5.1.1.7 Femur ...... 64 5.1.1.8 Tibiotarsus...... 65 5.1.1.9 Tarsometatarsus ...... 66 5.1.2 Constructed Demography Based on Discrete Sex Characteristics and Osteometric Data ...... 67 5.2 Stable Isotope Results and Turkey Diet Reconstruction...... 70

6. INTERPRETATIONS, CONCLUSIONS, AND SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH ...... 73

6.1 Interpretations ...... 73 6.2 Conclusions ...... 76 6.3 Suggestions for Further Research ...... 77

APPENDICES ...... 79

A. OSTEOLOGY OF THE EASTERN WILD TURKEY AND OSTEOMETRIC DESCRIPTIONS ...... 79 B. OSTEOMETRIC ANALYSIS-RESULTS AND FIGURES ...... 81 C. OSTEOMETRIC DATA ...... 99

References ...... 123

Biographical Sketch ...... 136

vi LIST OF TABLES

1 Seasonally Based Subsistence Strategies of the Mississippian Period (after Bense 1994) .....12

2 Chronology of in Middle Tennessee (after Moore and Smith 2009) ...14

3 Archaeological Correlates of Turkey Population Management in the Southeastern United States (after Peres and Ledford 2016) ...... 19

4 Categories of Niche Construction (after Laland and O’Brien 2010)...... 33

5 Mississippian Period Sites Examined for Evidence of Management with Relative Abundance Measures of Turkey Identified by Site...... 43

6 Contexts of Turkey Remains Examined by Site ...... 45

7 Turkey Specimens Analyzed for Stable Isotopes by Site ...... 57

8 Estimated Turkey Flock Demography by Site ...... 68

9 Estimated Turkey Flock Demography by Site Type...... 69

10 Estimated Turkey Flock Demography During the Early, Middle, and Late Mississippian Periods in Middle Tennessee ...... 69

11 Description of Measurements and Abbreviations (von den Driesch 1989 ...... 80

12 T-test of Sex Groups Identified from Metrics of the Greatest Cranial Diagonal of the Scapula ...... 81

13 T-test of Sex Groups Identified from Metrics of the Breadth of the Distal Humerus...... 82

14 T-test of Sex Groups Identified from Metrics of the Breadth of the Proximal Ulna ...... 83

15 T-test of Sex Groups Identified from Metrics of the Greatest Diagonal of the Proximal Ulna ...... 84

16 T-test of Sex Groups Identified from Metrics of the Greatest Diagonal of the Distal Ulna. ...85

17 T-test of Sex Groups Identified from Metrics of the Breadth of the Distal Radius...... 86

18 T-test of Sex Groups Identified from Metrics of the Greatest Length of the First Phalanx ....87

19 T-test of Sex Groups Identified from Metrics of the Greatest Length of the Carpometacarpus...... 88

vii

20 T-test of Sex Groups Identified from Metrics of the Breadth of the Proximal Carpometacarpus...... 89

21 T-test of Sex Groups Identified from Metrics of the Greatest Diagonal of the Distal Carpometacarpus...... 90

22 T-test of Sex Groups Identified from Metrics of the Greatest Length of the Femur ...... 91

23 T-test of Sex Groups Identified from Metrics of the Breadth of the Proximal Femur ...... 92

24 T-test of Sex Groups Identified from Metrics of the Depth of the Proximal Femur...... 93

25 T-test of Sex Groups Identified from Metrics of the Breadth of the Distal Femur...... 94

26 T-test of Sex Groups Identified from Metrics of the Depth of the Distal Femur...... 95

27 T-test of Sex Groups Identified from Metrics of the Breadth and Depth of the Distal Tibiotarsus...... 96

28 T-test of Sex Groups Identified from Metrics of the Breadth of the Proximal Tarsometatarsus ...... 97

29 T-test of Sex Groups Identified from Metrics of the Breadth of the Distal Tarsometatarsus...... 98

30 Osteometric Data According to von den Driesch (1976) Guidelines...... 99

31 Osteometric Data According to Steadman (1980) Guidelines...... 114

32 Summary of Measurements Recorded by Element and Measurement Type...... 121

viii LIST OF FIGURES

1 Locations of the Eleven Sites Examined for Evidence of Turkey Management ...... 3

2 Artistic Rendition of a Mississippian Period Mound Site in Tennessee (Frank H. McClung Museum website) ...... 6

3 Marine from Southern Illinois Depicting a Human Figure Striking a Turkey (Thruston 1890: Figure 250) ...... 21

4 Turkey Bone Awl from the Gordontown Site (40DV6) (photograph by Aaron Deter-Wolf) ...... 22

5 Yuchi Scratcher Made of Turkey Bones and Feathers (after Speck 2009: illustration by Alison Bruin) ...... 24

6 Photosynthetic Pathways and Average 13C Values of Wild and Domestic Plants (after Schoeninger and Moore 1992; Tykot 2004) ...... 70

7 Stable Isotope Values from Mound Bottom (40CH8), Gordontown (40DV6), and Inglehame Farm (40WM342) ...... 71

8 Osteology of the Wild Turkey (after Olsen 1968) ...... 79

9 Scatterplot of Metrics from the Greatest Cranial Diagonal of the Proximal Scapula ...... 81

10 Scatterplot of Metrics from the Breadth of the Distal Humerus ...... 82

11 Scatterplot of Metrics from the Breadth of the Proximal Ulna ...... 83

12 Scatterplot of Metrics from the Greatest Diagonal of the Proximal Ulna...... 84

13 Scatterplot of Metrics from the Greatest Diagonal of the Distal Ulna ...... 85

14 Scatterplot of Metrics from the Breadth of the Distal Radius ...... 86

15 Scatterplot of Metrics from the Greatest Length of the First Phalanx of the Second Digit .....87

16 Scatterplot of Metrics from the Greatest Length of the Carpometacarpus ...... 88

17 Scatterplot of Metrics from the Breadth of the Proximal Carpometacarpus ...... 89

18 Scatterplot of Metrics from the Greatest Diagonal of the Distal Carpometacarpus ...... 90

19 Scatterplot of Metrics from the Greatest Length of the Femur ...... 91 ix 20 Scatterplot of Metrics from the Breadth of the Proximal Femur ...... 92

21 Scatterplot of Metrics from the Depth of the Proximal Femur ...... 93

22 Scatterplot of Metrics from the Breadth of the Distal Femur ...... 94

23 Scatterplot of Metrics from the Depth of the Distal Femur ...... 95

24 Scatterplot of Metrics from the Breadth and Depth of the Distal Tibiotarsus ...... 96

25 Scatterplot of Metrics from the Breadth of the Proximal Tarsometatarsus ...... 97

26 Scatterplot of Metrics from the Breadth of the Distal Tarsometatarsus ...... 98

x ABSTRACT

The eastern wild turkey (Meleagris gallopavo silvestris) was an important resource for

Mississippian period (ca. A.D. 1000-1450) peoples in Middle Tennessee. Turkeys were an integral part of Native American life and their use for food and raw materials is well documented. A preliminary study of human and turkey (Meleagris gallopavo) relationships at

Fewkes (40WM1) suggests that turkeys may have been a managed resource at the site as opposed to being hunted in the wild. To further test this hypothesis, I collected osteometric data from eleven additional sites and isotopic data from three sites. I apply Niche Construction

Theory to my examination of archaeological, biological, and ethnographic material to illustrate that turkeys were potentially managed under a free-range system that did not require supplemental feeding or captivity. This particular management strategy presents archaeologically as a high percentage of male turkeys with little to no indication that humans were in control of the bird’s diet.

xi CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

The Mississippian period in the Southern United States is often characterized as a time of increased socio-political organization, widespread shared ideologies, and a shift from foraging or horticulture to agriculture (Blitz 2010; Cobb 2003). The spread of maize cultivation and agriculture in the Americas, firmly affected not only the human diet, but it also led to the use of supplementary subsistence strategies (e.g., garden-hunting). The study of ancient diets, subsistence strategies, and foodways by archaeologists is important in that it tells us about past human adaptation and innovation surrounding climatic and environmental forces, the expansion or diffusion of ideas and people, and the emergence of agriculture and stratified societies

(Schoeninger and Moore 1992).

In what is now Middle Tennessee, variants of Mississippian culture can be seen at small hamlets or villages as early as A.D. 1000, but Mississippian ideologies in the region truly flourished in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries (Smith and Moore 1996). Deter-Wolf and

Peres (2012) estimate that twenty percent of the 1700 known sites with diagnostic artifacts in the region date to the Mississippian period. Excavations have been conducted by archaeologists with cultural resource management companies and the Tennessee Division of Archaeology at many of these sites and generated large artifact assemblages. The analysis of faunal and paleobotanical remains in the Middle Cumberland River Valley has broadened our understanding of general subsistence trends and cultural changes of the time. Breitburg (1988:161) provided an apt summary of these trends when he noted, “...in the Central Basin of the Cumberland River where enough forest edge environment existed to support a relatively abundant deer population and also provided an excellent habitat for wapiti and bear populations in both dense forest and forest

1 openings, Mississippian populations in the mid-latitudes of the eastern woodlands were oriented toward an animal exploitation pattern of large game mammals and turkey.”

The eastern wild turkey (Meleagris gallopavo silvestris) is abundant in faunal assemblages from all prehistoric time periods in the Southeastern United States. During the

Mississippian period (A.D. 900-1500) in particular, turkeys were an integral part of Native

American life and their use for food and raw materials is well documented. Turkey bones were often crafted into tools and feathers were incorporated into clothing, headdresses, and other ritual regalia. There is strong evidence that other native turkey species (Meleagris spp.) were domesticated and/or managed by a form of husbandry in the American Southwest and in

Mesoamerica prior to European contact (Badenhorst et al. 2012; Breitburg 1988; Munro 2011;

Rawlings and Driver 2010; Thornton et al. 2012). To date, few researchers have considered the possibility of turkey management or domestication in the Southeastern U.S. (except see Peres and Ledford 2016).

The archaeological, iconographic, and ethnographic evidence suggest that the relationship between humans and turkeys in Middle Tennessee is more complex than previously thought. In a pilot study in the Southeast, the osteometric analysis of turkey remains from the

Fewkes site (40WM1) suggests that the preference for male turkeys might be linked to the management of turkey flocks (Peres and Ledford 2016). The aim of this current research project is to determine if the markers of turkey population management identified at Fewkes can be identified at other Mississippian period sites in Middle Tennessee (Figure 1). To test this hypothesis, I examine turkey specimens from ten additional sites in Middle Tennessee for evidence of demographic markers of animal management and isotopic indicators that humans were controlling the animals’ diet. To reconstruct turkey flock demography, I analyze

2 osteometric data from the ten study sites. I analyze the isotopic signatures of turkeys at three sites. This type of study that focuses on the relationship between humans and a single animal in the Mississippian Southeast is relatively rare. The breadth of this thesis requires not only an examination of faunal data from numerous sites, but a review of ethnographic and ethnohistoric accounts and literature on modern turkey biology and management strategies.

Figure 1. Locations of the Eleven Sites Examined for Evidence of Turkey Management.

3 This thesis encompasses six chapters. The Introduction, Chapter One, presented the specific issues that will be addressed in this research. Chapter Two contextualizes this study within modern thoughts about the foodways and subsistence strategies of the Mississippian world. Chapter Two also summarizes research on this topic in other regions of the Americas. A summary of the theoretical parameters that informed my approach and interpretations is presented in Chapter Three. Chapter Four details the source materials used to collect data and the methods employed to interpret said data. Chapter Five presents the results and analysis of the zooarchaeological data. In Chapter Six I present the interpretations and conclusions of this research and suggests potential avenues for further research.

4 CHAPTER 2

THE MISSISSIPPIAN PERIOD, MISSISSIPPIAN FOODWAYS, AND TURKEY MANAGEMENT IN THE AMERICAS

Archaeologists characterize the Mississippian period (AD1000-1600) as a time when the socio-political organization in the Southeastern United States became more hierarchical and centralized (Blitz 2010; Cobb 2003). The growing and expanding population in the region settled into communities that built earthen and plaza centers, practiced maize-based agriculture, and participated in trade networks that covered vast distances (Cobb 2003; Pauketat

2007). In order to contextualize the cultural climate that may have given rise to turkey management, I first present general characteristics of Mississippian period ideology and subsistence in the Southeastern region and the variants of those characteristics in Middle

Tennessee. Next, I examine the role of turkeys within Mississippian ideological spheres and subsistence practices. Finally, I discuss research dedicated to identifying turkey management in other regions of North America to establish a comparative framework for the varying human- turkey relationships in the past.

2.1 The Mississippian Period in the Southeastern United States

Before examining the role of turkeys within Mississippian culture and subsistence, a discussion of general trends and culture in the Mississippian period is required. There are shared or common characteristics, symbolic styles, motifs, or themes from artifacts or at prehistoric sites from the region in Oklahoma all the way to the St. John’s Culture of Northern Florida

(Figure 2). Artifacts such as shell-tempered ceramics, globular vessels, carved marine shell gorgets and masks, and copper plates are often characterized as “hallmarks” of Mississippian style material culture. The similarities seen on material culture across the region stem from an

5 exchange of goods and ideas within what archaeologists call the Mississippian Ideological

Interaction Sphere (King 2007; Knight 2006; Lankford et al. 2011; Reilly and Garber 2007)

(formerly the Southeastern Ceremonial Complex). Many of the symbolic images from the earlier

Woodland period, such as the bird and serpent, were emphasized as Mississippian chiefdoms reached their peak around A.D. 1200-1350 (Bense 1994; Power 2004). The old motifs and new ones were organized according to major themes within the ideological sphere such as ancestors, fertility, and war (Bense 1994; Blitz 2010, Blitz and Lorenz 2006; Lankford 2011).

Figure 2. Artistic Rendition of a Mississippian Period Mound Site in Tennessee (Frank H. McClung Museum website).

Ancestors were a source of power for the chiefly elite. Charnel houses or temples on top of mounds were symbols of political and religious authority through their association to elite ancestors (Pauketat 1993; Power 2004). The temples contained single or paired stone statues, totems, or sacred animals and served as shrines to ancestral figures (Bense 1994:195; Power

6 2004; Smith and Miller 2009). The temples were highly visible across the landscape and thus served as indicators of physical and metaphorical power (Power 2004). James Brown (1982) noted that a village was not truly defeated during times of war until its temple was destroyed and its contents removed.

By A.D. 1300 Mississippian chiefdoms were in decline and smaller mound centers were being abandoned. During this time, bioarchaeological evidence throughout the Southeastern region indicates that violent conflict increased (Dye 2009; Milner et al. 2013; Worne 2017). The symbolism associated with war was a way to maintain chiefly power and social control within the Mississippian world. Human figures in Mississippian art are depicted with warlike symbols or animals such as the hawk or falcon (Power 2004). Symbolic weaponry like monolithic axes, greenstone celts, or long chert blades are buried with warriors and also depicted with supernatural beings (Dye 2007; Power 2004). The stories of figures like “Birdman” and the

“Hero Twins” outline proper battle behavior and establish narratives and origins myths for warrior cults (Brown and Dye 2007; Dye 2007; Goldstein 2014).

An increase in sustained intergroup and intragroup violence also affected the ways in which people procured their food (Vanderwarker and Wilson 2015). “The cultural shift from the primary reliance on hunting, gathering, and fishing to increased dependence on cultivated crops significantly influenced Mississippian art,” (Power 2004: 66). Fertility, as an ideological theme, best speaks to the shifting subsistence systems and the growing reliance on agricultural or cultivated products prepared close to home. Increased sedentism, population density, and the centralization of power during the Mississippian period required food to be produced rather than foraged by certain members of society. The woodpecker, panther, and woman or “earthmother” are all symbols of fertility within the Mississippian world (Bense 1994). My research does not

7 directly address questions of Mississippian ideology, but as turkeys are represented on a variety of Mississippian art, a brief discussion of these archaeological trends and ideological themes is important for contextualizing the larger social and political systems which created an environment for turkey management to develop.

2.2 Mississippian Period Foodways

The study of foodways during the Mississippian period is important as it can tell us about the changing subsistence, political, economic, and religious systems of the time. “Food and the quest for it are the foundation of larger social changes, symbolic activities, and rules governing our associations with others in society,” (Peres 2017:1-2). According to Appadurai (1989) food is the physical manifestation of social fact. People morph the environment into food. As John

Edge (2005) defines it-foodways are the ways in which people procure, prepare, and consume their food. Thus, if we want to study foodways we have to look at now only what people eat, but why they eat it and how they eat it. Foodways as a research avenue encompasses the examination of diets, cuisines, or subsistence strategies to identify the rules, contexts, and meanings behind not only what was eaten but how it was procured, processed, cooked, served, and consumed

(Peres 2017). Many archaeologists have identified the study of subsistence practices as an important research topic in archaeology, but the earliest inclusion of food remains within archaeological studies were rarely more detailed than a species list (Peres 2017; Watson 1990).

Reconstructing foodways through the analysis of skeletal and other faunal remains can provide a holistic understanding of past cultures even in the absence of written records or oral histories.

2.2.1 Major Trends in Mississippian Period Foodways Research

The earliest models of Mississippian subsistence along the Mississippi River Valley floodplains outline the highly selective use of fauna and flora based on seasonal availability

8 (Smith 1974). Other zooarchaeologists and paleoethnobotanists have tested these early hypotheses and they tend to hold true though they overemphasized the role of large animals like bear (Ursus americanus) and elk (Cervus elaphus) (Peres 2010). The people of the late prehistoric period carried over foraging styles from earlier Archaic and Woodland periods and incorporated them into the agricultural production of maize and eventually beans and squash as well (Perdue and Green 2001:28).

A current popular trend in Mississippian foodways research is to identify evidence of feasts, or special events where large amounts of food or rarely consumed foods were eaten. This is due to the fact that increased population density and social stratification, along with preservation factors, allow archaeologists to better identify any feasting episodes that arose during the Mississippian period. Symbolically charged events like a solstice, a life-cycle ritual, or other religious ceremonies were often accompanied by feasts like those described at the site in Tennessee (Vanderwarker 1999) or at the paramount chiefdom of (Kelly 2001).

The for example marks the time of year when corn begins to ripen. The first days of the ceremony were spent eating any remainder of stored foods from the winter

(Peres 2018).

The second trend in Mississippian foodways research is the identification of differential access to food resources between the elites and the common people. The emerging hierarchy controlled who had access to certain foods or access to preferred cuts of food. At larger mound sites like Moundville, there is sufficient evidence that the elite and those of lower social status had differential access to fauna and flora (Jackson and Scott 2003). Rare faunal species such as bison (Bison bison), sharks (Carcharhiniformes), and falcons (Falconidae) within elite contexts

9 speak to the differential access to foods based on status or family lineage (Jackson and Scott

2003).

The third and final theme within Mississippian foodways research is the identification of food insecurity. As Peres (2017) notes, when people feel secure in their ability to procure or produce food, their time is often spent on other activities such as mound building and the creation of art for both ritual and personal needs. The late Mississippian period was a time of increased warfare, which resulted in modified behaviors. For example, people in the Illinois

River Valley dramatically adapted their foodways by cultivating gardens within palisade walls and garden-hunting to deal with the daily threat of violence. Vanderwarker and Wilson (2016) state that once a village became fortified with a palisade, people no longer went beyond the walls of that fortification to forage for wild plants instead; the diversity and nutritional benefits of a varied diet declined.

2.2.2 Mississippian Use of Plant Resources

The onset of the Mississippian period in the Southeast is often marked by a change in subsistence from foraging to horticulture/agriculture. The maize plant is not native to North

America. Instead the practice of farming maize spread from the Pacific Coast of Mexico into the

American Southwest and eventually the Southeast (Chapman and Crites 1987; Cook et al. 2015;

Langlie et al. 2014; Merill et al. 2009; Vanderwarker et al. 2013). Although maize may have been cultivated in the Southeast as early as the Woodland period (1000 BC-AD 1000), the crop was not intensively farmed until ~AD 1000 when the Mississippians adopted large-scale agriculture (Chapman and Crites 1987). Many early European explorers note the prevalence of maize, beans, and squash in the Native American subsistence economy and early European accounts note that famers managed their fields by seasonally clearing and burning them (Muller

10 1987). The nutritional profile of unprocessed maize however is severely lacking. The amino acids are a poor source of protein and the maize has to be processed with an alkali

(nixtimilization) in order for the nutrients to be absorbed by humans. Briggs (2015) convincingly argues that the production of hominy (nixtamalized maize) was an important step in the integration of maize-based foodways into the traditional subsistence practices.

Though maize was a staple crop, the riverine-dwelling Mississippians continued to exploit locally available plants and animals as they supplied necessary vitamins and minerals that maize lacks. Nuts from trees like oak (Quercus spp.), hickory (Carya spp.), and walnut (Juglans spp.) were consumed the most and contributed important fats and carbohydrates to a diet of lean meats (Gremillion 2001, 2011). Fleshy fruits and berries like persimmons (Diospyros virginiana), muscadine grapes (Vitus rotundofolia), hackberries (Celtis sp.), and plums (Prunus sp.) are prevalent in both the archaeological record and ethnohistoric accounts of Native

American foodways. Some seedy crops like sunflower (Helianthus sp.), maygrass (Phalaris caroliniana), chenopod (Chenopodium sp.), and sumpweed (Iva annua) became more prevalent in the Southeastern diet from the mid-Holocene onward (Smith and Yarnell 2009; Watson 1990).

Native plants like chenopod and maygrass were eventually cultivated as they tend to thrive in human created habitats (Smith 2011). The availability of certain native foodstuffs would change seasonally or from year to year (Table 1) and so the Southeastern Mississippians had well- developed preservation and storage techniques (Gremillion 2011).

2.2.3 Mississippian Use of Faunal Resources

General discussions of faunal subsistence patterns in the Mississippian period always mention deer (Odocoileus virginianus), turkey, and other medium sized mammals like raccoon

(Procyon lotor) or opossum (Didelphis virginiana) (Lapham 2011). These animals were often

11 exploited almost to the near exclusion of other terrestrial species. For example, in southern and central Virginia deer typically make up anywhere from ten to fifty percent of an assemblage while turkeys make up anywhere from one to nine percent. In the Appalachian Highlands black bear, wapiti (Cervus canadensis), deer, turkey, and turtles (Testudines) made up the majority of the native diet (Lapham 2011:413). Smaller mammals such as raccoons and opossums, birds such as pigeons (Columba livia) and bobwhites (Colinus virginianus), and locally available fish often added diversity to the diet as well.

Table 1. Seasonally Based Subsistence Strategies of the Mississippian Period (after Bense 1994).

Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar April May June July

Fish Spawning

Migratory Birds Fall Peak Spring Peak

Terrestrial Mammals and Terrestrial Mammals and Birds Birds

Nuts, Berries, Fruit Fall Harvest Storage

Cultivated Plants Fall Harvest Winter Storage Spring Planting

At permanent or semi-permanent villages, faunal remains suggest that people incorporated a wider variety of locally available resources. Terrestrial mammals like deer were often caught by either a single hunter wearing animal hides as a disguise, or by hunting parties which focused on younger animals within a herd per group (Lapham 2011). At seasonal or special use sites, the zooarchaeological assemblage is often restricted to fauna with limited seasonal availability such as migratory birds and fish (Lapham 2011; Styles 1981). Birds like

12 Canada geese (Branta canadensis), sandhill cranes (Antigone canadensis), and mallards (Anas platyrhynchos) were most abundant along principal flyways or river valleys as they stopped to breed or rest along their migratory path. In coastal areas of the Mississippian world, fish and other aquatic resources played a much larger role while seasonal hunting or foraging was less important (Reitz 1982). Fish and other aquatic taxa like beaver (Castor canadensis) or mollusks

(Bivalvia) were an easily accessible and readily available source of protein during the warm spring and summer months thus these resources were dietary staples on the coast.

2.3 Mississippian Trends in the Middle Cumberland River Valley

The archaeological materials examined for this research all originated in the geographical area known as the Middle Cumberland River Valley (MCRV) (Peres and Deter-Wolf 2012,

2016). This geographic region stretches from the confluence of the Harpeth River and the

Cumberland to the West, and the confluence of the Obey River with the Cumberland to the East

(Peres and Deter-Wolf 2016). Here I provide a brief overview of the Mississippian period in the

MCRV. Much of the material culture recovered from sites in the MCRV display markers of what archaeologists call the Mississippian Ideological Interaction Sphere. Recent archaeological work highlights both continuities and local variations of Mississippian culture within the region.

Moore and Smith (2009) developed a revised chronology of Mississippian culture within

Middle Tennessee (summarized in Table 2). In Regional Period I (A.D. 1000-1100), small dispersed mound sites become visible within the archaeological record. During Regional Period

II (A.D. 1100-1200) local populations increased and became denser and chiefdoms began to develop. One of the most distinguishing features of the Middle Cumberland Culture, the use of limestone slabs to create stone box graves that were placed in either large cemeteries or within mounds, became most prevalent in this second period. Regional Period III (A.D. 1200-1325) is a

13 time when Moore and Smith (2009) argue that a hierarchy of mound sites developed, and the populations continued to increase. Political power became decentralized during Regional Period

IV (A.D. 1325-1425) and people dispersed from mound centers and into smaller towns and villages. By the end of Regional Period V (A.D. 1425-1475) the Mississippian culture in the

Middle Cumberland River Valley dropped below the level of archaeological visibility.

Table 2. Chronology of Mississippian Culture in Middle Tennessee (after Moore and Smith 2009)

Components Dates Characteristics A.D. chiefdom centers established of the western periphery Emergent and Early I 1000- Mississippian mound construction 1100 shell-tempered wares at farmsteads, hamlets, villages A.D. mound centers expand Expansion and II 1100- Mississippianization Mississippian moves from west to east 1200 burial mounds containing stone box graves population increase A.D. Proliferation of increased population density III 1200- Chiefdoms 1325 emergence of sociopolitical centers-hierarchy of mound sites proliferation of stone box burials village cemeteries become more common decentralization of socio-political organization A.D. establishment of new fortified villages Regional IV 1325- Decentralization occupied mound centers now more like fortified villages without 1425 mound construction wall trench houses replaced with single pole construction population dispersal A.D. Regional Mississippian material culture drops below the level of V 1425- Abandonment archaeological visibility 1475

2.3.1 Mississippian Foodways and Animal Exploitation in the Middle Cumberland River Valley

The prehistoric inhabitants of Middle Tennessee had access to a diverse suite of faunal taxa as the region is part of the Carolinian Biotic province (Dice 1943; Moore and Breitburg

1998; Moore and Smith 2012). Faunal assemblages in Middle Tennessee or the Middle

14 Cumberland area exhibit many of the general trends of other contemporaneous Mississippian period sites. Early models of animal exploitation overstated the importance of elk and bear to the occupants near the Middle Cumberland River and its drainage systems (Peres 2010). Breitburg

(1988) proposed that the inhabitants of the area relied less on migratory birds, waterfowl, and fish and more on large game. Many faunal assemblages in the MCRV seem to support

Breitburg’s model at first glance, but abundance measures such as NISP, MNI, and biomass deemphasize smaller game like turkey, turtles, and other smaller mammals and elevate larger game like elk and bear (Clinton and Peres 2011; Peres 2010). Recent studies on the MCRV have highlighted the importance of smaller game and also identified specific food processing and food procurement techniques (Clinton and Peres 2011; Peres 2010; Peres and Ledford 2016).

An analysis of deer elements from the middle to late Mississippian towns of Fewkes and

Castalian Springs in Tennessee provides evidence of butchering and processing techniques that have otherwise been understudied Southeast (Peres 2018). Deer were the number one prey choice for Mississippian peoples in the Middle Cumberland region (Clinton and Peres 2011;

Peres 2018) and recent research shows that meat and hides were not the only resources deer could provide (Peres and Altman 2017). The percentages of spiral fractures, bone flakes, and the fracturing of longbone epiphyses in the faunal assemblages from these two sites suggest that marrow and bone grease were desirable commodities. Marrow was extracted at Castalian

Springs to a further degree than was at Fewkes, but the people at both sites were processing deer bones for their nutrient dense and energy rich secondary products (Peres 2018). These examples illustrate how studies that go beyond providing species lists and rank-ordering taxa can help us understand human-animal relationships beyond what people ate.

15 As reliance on agriculture and its byproducts increased, the time-consuming labor obligated Mississippian peoples to stay near their fields and gardens. This created scheduling conflicts between new foodways and the continuation of foraging and hunting from the past

(Vanderwarker 2006; Zeder 2012). A potential solution to this time conflict is garden-hunting or preying on the species that are attracted to anthropogenic landscapes for food and shelter. The clearing of forests and planting of domesticated crops created niche environments that were attractive to certain animals adapted to living in edge environments. Deer and turkey for example, are attracted to the insects that eat crops, weedy plants, and even the agricultural products themselves. Garden-hunting is a strategy that allows for the acquisition of meat without taking significant time from gardening or farming. Environmental scientist Derek Smith (2005), noted that today in the Caloveborita region of Panama, nearly fifty percent of all fauna are caught near agricultural fields by hunting or trapping methods. Smith (2005: 528) asserts that high harvest rates can be maintained when anthropogenic landscapes are adjacent to undisturbed habitats; thus garden-hunting strategies have significant implications for animal management.

The original garden-hunting model suggests that as agriculture increases, the hunting and dependence on large game increases while the use of smaller game and aquatic resources decreases (Linares 1976). Later models build on Linares’ early work and propose that garden- hunting would not be so selective but instead yield high species diversity (Neusius 1996, 2008).

Others have argued that garden-hunting can be either opportunistic or selective depending on the harvest and is thus a risk management strategy as well (VanDerwarker 2006). Regardless, these shifts in resource intensity are visible in the archaeological record and thus zooarchaeologists have identified the correlates of the garden-hunting model to better understand changes in subsistence patterns between foraging and agricultural economies (Clinton and Peres 2011).

16 Ledford and Peres (2018) have suggested that garden hunting was a way to manage turkey populations in Middle Tennessee. In this model, turkeys and humans entered into a long term symbiotic relationship. Turkeys were attracted to agricultural fields as crops supplied a steady source of food and the edge environments surrounding fields a safer place to roost at night. Humans also benefit in this model as turkeys would eat insects that are otherwise considered to be pests or harmful to crops. Turkeys may have tethered themselves to the edges of maize fields and thus it became easier to hunt, trap, and eventually manage or encourage them to relocate and exist within the anthropogenic landscape. It is clear that turkeys were important to humans as a food resource, but as reviewed in the section below, they were also deeply integrated into the larger culture of the time.

2.4 The Role of Turkeys During the Mississippian Period

In Smith’s (1974) predictive model of Middle Mississippian animal exploitation, he states that in any given archaeofaunal assemblage, turkeys will often be ranked anywhere from 2nd to

5th in terms of relative abundance measures such as MNI and biomass. More recent zooarchaeological analyses in the region confirm a strong reliance on turkey for subsistence

(Peres and Ledford 2016); however, other lines of evidence show that were an important part of

Mississippian period culture. Images of turkeys appear in the art and folklore of many

Southeastern archaeological and ethnohistoric groups such as the Mississippians, Cherokee, and

Yuchi (Fradkin 1988; Mooney 1880; Peres and Ledford 2016).

Archaeologists know the importance of turkeys in the prehistoric Southeast, but few have considered the possibility that they were managed (Peres and Ledford 2016). There are only two brief mentions in Southeastern archaeological literature about turkeys being purposefully raised or captured, but these mentions are preliminary interpretations that require further testing and

17 data collection. First, Jackson and Scott (2003:566) postulate that a high proportion of males in the assemblages from Mounds G and Q at Moundville could be linked to intentional management. Second, in an unpublished report by the Tennessee Division of Archaeology

(TDOA), a rectangular post structure at Mound Bottom (40CH8) was interpreted as a turkey pen

(TDOA n.d.).

In their 2016 article, Peres and Ledford presented the archaeological correlates of turkey population management in the Southeastern United States (Table 3). Demographic markers of management include high quantities of turkey relative to other taxa, sex ratios skewed towards males, age ratios skewed towards adults, and a lack a medullary bone in female. These demographic markers are based on biological literature and assume that in a managed population, unnecessary or aggressive males are culled, and any young birds or egg laying females are protected from predation. The non-osseous markers of turkey management are most concerned with the level of human control over a turkey’s diet, range, and reproduction. Finally, the cultural evidence for management includes the representation of turkeys in art and notes in ethnographic or ethnohistoric accounts regarding the human turkey relationship. These cultural markers speak to the importance that an animal has as both a food resource and within other areas of people’s lives.

The case study of flock demography at the Fewkes (40WM1) site suggests that turkeys may have been managed by the prehistoric inhabitants of Middle Tennessee as opposed to being hunted in the wild. The initial interpretation of the Fewkes dataset, however, is ultimately limited by sample size and requires the collection and analysis of a more robust dataset that tests multiple markers of management.

18 Ta ble 3. Archaeological Correlates of Turkey Population Management in the Southeastern United States (after Peres and Ledford 2016).

high quantities of turkey relative to other taxa (in terms of MNI) Flock sex ratios skewed toward males Demography lack of medullary bone in females low frequency of juveniles eggshells Non-osseous carbon isotopic signatures high in cultivated plants (presumably maize) Evidence strontium isotopic signatures which suggest a limited home range ancient DNA representation in art Cultural Evidence ethnographic and/or ethnohistoric documentation

2.4.1 Turkeys in Mississippian Art and Native Ritual Regalia

Turkeys are a commonly identified motif in Mississippian art and are frequent characters within Southeastern Native American folklore as well (Fradkin 1988). The symbolic portrayal of an animal is not an accident, but rather an image laden with meaning that would be easily identified by the viewer (Reitz and Wing 2008). As such, these symbolic representations of turkeys were chosen for the specific meanings and messages they would convey. In the art of the

Southeastern Native Americans, the number of birds represented on material culture is limited to birds of prey like falcons or hawks, woodpeckers, and turkeys.

The depictions of gobblers or cocks (male turkeys) on marine shell gorgets are the best- known examples of turkeys in Mississippian art. The turkey-cock motif appears on gorgets throughout the entire Southeastern United States, but the highest concentration of turkey gorgets were recovered from sites within Tennessee. Seven turkey cock gorgets were recovered from mound burials at the Hixon site near Chattanooga (Sullivan 2001) and two turkey gorgets were found within burials at the Tallassee site in East Tennessee (Kneberg 1959).

19 In other areas of the Southeast, the depiction of the turkey is also common. Four turkey cock gorgets were recovered from one single burial at Etowah in Georgia (Muller 2007).

Lankford (2004) argues that the motif on these gorgets in which two birds are shown facing each other with their tails fanned (the male strut), divided by a striped pole, is a depiction of all three worlds of Mississippian cosmology. The above world is characterized by order and the steady movement of the sun; the middle world is where humans, animals, and plants live; and the beneath world is characterized by chaos and water (Lankford 2007; Smith 1995; Swanton 1928).

Another gorget from Southern Illinois was examined by Thruston (1890) and interpreted as a human figure, potentially a warrior, striking a turkey (Figure 3). Ceramic vessels from the prehistoric Southeast have been recovered decorated with carved or painted with turkey images.

An effigy bowl from Moundville in Alabama is interpreted as a serpent with turkey like features

(Steponaitis and Knight 2004). Textiles recovered at in Oklahoma were crafted from yarn fashioned from numerous types of animals, including turkey down (Power 2004:137).

Turkey remains were often used as tools as well. A included with an individual from the Archaic site of Fernvale contained six sharpened turkey elements from at least 4 individuals (Deter-Wolf 2013). One tarsometatarsus is presumed to be male based on its size in comparison to the other tarosmetatarsii. Bone tools, like the awl from Gordontown

(Figure 4), continued to be made from turkey leg elements well into the Mississippian period

(Moore and Breitburg 1998). New research suggests that these awls, such as those from the

Fernvale bundle or Gordontown, may be tattoo or scratching implements (Deter-Wolf 2013b;

Deter-Wolf et al. 2017).

The turkey was an important symbol of warfare and fierceness in Mississippian art. The beard, or black neck feathers of a male gobbler, closely resembles the human scalp (Power 2004:

20 137). According to Dubbin (1999) warriors wore threatening headdresses containing turkey beards near the forehead. During battle, warriors would mimic the turkey call to display power

(Power 2004). Cherokee origin stories detail the violent way turkeys acquired the beard and their sharp leg spurs in a battle with Terrapin (Fradkin 1988).

Figure 3. Marine Shell Gorget from Southern Illinois Depicting a Human Figure Striking a Turkey (Thruston 1890: Figure 250).

The turkey and its depiction clearly held significance to the ancient people of the

Southeast beyond that as a food resource. I agree with Power (2004), that the shifting foodways of the Mississippian period highly influenced the art of the time. On average, deer comprise a larger percentage of faunal assemblage NISP and MNI within the Southeast, but deer are rarely if ever, represented in Mississippian iconography. Turkeys were definitely eaten regularly, but their depiction in iconography suggests a more complicated relationship beyond that of predator and prey. Furthermore, not only are turkeys depicted in art, but they appear in origin myths and other

21 folklore for many Southeastern native groups. This too indicates a complex human-turkey relationship in the Mississippian Southeast.

Figure 4. Turkey Bone Awl from the Gordontown Site (40DV6) (photograph by Aaron Deter- Wolf). 2.4.2 Ethnographic and Ethnohistoric Accounts of the Turkey

The use of ethnography within archaeology can help us to identify what the potential material culture correlates of human activity. The turkey was the most important and revered of all the avian fauna in Cherokee folklore and tradition (Fradkin 1988:408). Arlene Fradkin

(1988), in her book Cherokee Folk Zoology: The Animal World of a Native American People,

1700-1838, notes that the Cherokee sought out turkey feathers, especially those of adult males, for their iridescent bold colors. The preference for male gobblers is evident in the as well. Fradkin (1988:162, 186) notes that the Cherokee linguistically distinguished male toms or gobblers, calling them “galagina” rather than “gvna,” the general term for turkey.

22 The feathers were used to make women’s short gowns, mantles, blankets, and even hair ornaments; they were also attached to the base of arrows (Fradkin 1988:269-270, Table B-1).

Entire wings were used as fans and parts of the wings and legs were made into turkey decoy calls for hunting (Fradkin 1988:270, 410).

In stories that detail the origins of wild game, the turkey led all native bird species out of the cave and onto the Earth (Mooney 1888:100). In other mythological tales, turkeys derived their most distinctive characteristics from a series of incidents with the Terrapin. The “beard” or a set of veinless neck feathers are said to be a scalp seized from Terrapin (Fradkin 1988:408).

The turtle, slow and unable to run after the turkey to retrieve the scalp, sought revenge instead and shot sharpened cane splints into Turkey’s legs which gave it its spurs (Fradkin 1988;

Mooney 1900). Taboos surrounding the turkey’s wattle, or red throat, forbid children and sick individuals from consuming the neck for fear that they would develop a goiter or “kernels”

(Fradkin 1988; Mooney 1900:285). Turkey feathers could not be used as stuffing in pillows as this might cause baldness (Fradkin 1988; Speck and Broom 1951).

The ball game was an important social event in Cherokee life that usually coincided with the end of the corn harvest (Fradkin 1988). Turkey bones and feathers were used in pre-game ceremonies or rituals such as scratching (Figure 5). Cherokee or Yuchi Participants in the ball game were often scratched two or three days before the game commenced (Fleming and Luskey

1988). Ethnographer James Mooney (1888) photographed a Cherokee ball player being scratched with a seven-toothed turkey comb. In addition to being scratched with turkey bones, ball players were expected to abstain from consuming turkey meat or wearing their feathers (Fradkin

1988:410-411).

23 Other ethnographic and ethnohistoric accounts document the Cherokee and other indigenous groups baiting turkeys with corn to more easily acquire them for food and feathers.

Cherokee hunters often baited turkeys and hunted them while wearing wooden masks for disguise. Traps or snares were designed to capture turkeys or eagles specifically and entire birds were often sold at local markets (Fradkin 1988:289, 293).

Figure 5. Yuchi Scratcher Made of Turkey Bones and Feathers (after Speck 1909: illustration by Alison Bruin).

24 Early European accounts in North America illustrate that turkeys continued to be an important food into the historic period. One Cherokee informant recounted his mother gathering turkey eggs from a nest and hatching them under a chicken (Witthoft 1946). The earliest

European accounts note how prevalent turkeys were in the New World. The De Soto expeditions were presented with seven hundred turkeys upon their arrival in one town (Power 2004).

2.5 Turkey Management Strategies in the American Southwest and Mesoamerica

Turkeys were an important resource or symbol not only in the Southeastern U.S., but in prehistoric North America as whole. The topic of turkey domestication and management has been studied extensively in both the American Southwest and Mesoamerica (Badenhorst et al.

2012; Badenhorst and Driver 2009; Breitburg 1988; Munro 2011; Rawlings and Driver 2010;

Thornton et al. 2012).

Archaeologists have identified the typical markers of animal management and domestication such as changes in faunal assemblage composition, demographic changes, morphological changes, dietary changes, and the appearance of an animal outside of its home range (Reitz and Wing 2008). It is by examining the archaeological signatures of these markers that archaeologists in the Americas have recognized the changing relationships between humans and turkeys through time and space.

The isotopic signatures of archaeological turkeys from both regions have expanded our understanding of turkey management strategies in the past. Carbon and nitrogen isotopes have indicated that humans in these areas were in control of or augmenting the diets of turkeys.

Strontium isotope signatures tell us about the geographic origins of an individual or population.

This means we can identify the migration of people and the import/export of goods such as animals. In terms of turkey management, strontium isotope analysis indicates that some turkey

25 species were being raised outside of their natural habitat and that their home range was severely limited (McCaffrey et al. 2014; Rawlings and Driver 2010; Thornton et al. 2016). A more detailed discussion of using isotopes to identify turkey management can be found in Chapters 4 and 5.

Sites in the Southwestern United States dating to the Pueblo and Basketmaker periods yielded large quantities of turkey in relation to other taxa (Badenhorst and Driver 2009; Driver

2002). A zooarchaeological assemblage that is skewed towards a single taxon in terms of abundance measures like NISP or MNI typically indicates a heavy reliance on that animal. This can also be the result of domestication in which the population numbers were manipulated through control of feeding and mating habits to increase the abundance and availability of the animal. Archaeological features securely identified as turkey pens further support the notion that birds were being kept and bred in captivity. Ethnohistoric and archaeological evidence indicate that the use of turkey feathers in rituals and ceremonies was the driving force behind their domestication (Munro 2011). It was not until after domestication was complete that attitudes around turkeys shifted from ritual to quotidian and people began regularly eating turkey in non- ritual contexts or using their skeletal elements as tools (Munro 2011:548).

In Mesoamerica, there is a wealth of information about the complex human turkey relationship through time. Beginning in the fifteenth century, turkeys were raised for their use in ritual to cure illness or bring a good harvest (Lapham et al 2016). The way that Mesoamericans managed their turkeys were much different than their Southwestern counterparts. People in the

Oaxaca region today, practice a form of backyard husbandry. In this method of management, turkeys are kept in a free-range system where backyard or community garden plots supply enough food for the turkeys to tether themselves to the modified landscape.

26 The presence of turkey domestication or management in the Southwestern United States or Mesoamerica does not necessarily mean that the birds were managed in the Southeast.

However, we know that maize agriculture spread to the Southeastern United States from one of these regions and that turkey management elsewhere is often directly linked to maize. This thesis aims to expand our knowledge of human-turkey relationships in the Americas as there is currently limited scholarly research regarding the subject in the Southeast.

27 CHAPTER 3

NICHE CONSTRUCTION THEORY, TURKEY BEHAVIOR, AND IMPLICATIONS FOR TURKEY FLOCK MANAGEMENT

Theoretical paradigms inform every step in the research process from the formulation of a hypothesis to derived conclusions. This chapter provides an overview of the shifting theoretical paradigms of human-environmental relationships in archaeology and a discussion of turkey behavior and potential management strategies. I apply Niche Construction Theory (NCT) to my examination of human-turkey interactions in the past as I believe this framework holistically encompasses the cultural and environmental factors that drive adaptation. The shift to maize agriculture during the Mississippian period created niche environments that forever impacted human and animal relationships. The newly constructed niche environments surrounding agricultural fields led both turkeys and humans to modify their behaviors. This cycle of actions and reactions by both species had implications for the ways that turkeys could be hunted, captured, and even managed.

3.1 A History of Human-Environmental Theoretical Paradigms

There is a long-standing debate amongst archaeologists regarding the role that the environment plays in human adaptation and culture (Codding and Bird 2015; Jones and Hurley

2017; Kelly 2013; Kroeber 1939; Smith and Winterhalder 2000; Steward 1955; Zeder 2012,

2016). The main caveat of the debate revolves around the extent to which the environment drives human behavior. Biological and ecological data have largely shaped our understanding of resource management and domestication in the past. Early evolutionary theories painted adaptation as asymmetrical and one directional (Laland and Sterelny 2006; Williams 1992).

However, more recent ecological and archaeological theories of human-environment interactions

28 view adaptation as a multi-directional cycle of constant action and reaction (Lewontin 1983;

Smith 2012).

The earliest cultural ecologists proposed the environment as the main catalyst for human adaptation. Cultural ecology was a concept developed in the early 1950’s by Julian Steward who sought to amend the deficiencies of the prevalent “culture area” theory at the time. Steward’s concept was concerned with the relationships between culture, technology, and the environment.

He ultimately wanted to delineate the origins of particular cultural features to a biological stimulus (Steward 1955). Cultural ecology as a method and theory is often critiques for assumptions regarding the diffusion of knowledge and innovation. Cultural ecology assumes that ideas originate in the center of culture and spread out. This is not necessarily true as people on the periphery interact with other groups and this is where new ideas are often formulated as well.

Human behavioral ecology (HBE) as a theory developed as a reaction to the critiques of cultural ecology. The theory was first introduced to anthropology by Bruce Winterhalder and

Eric Smith in the 1980’s (Kelly 2013; Smith and Winterhalder 2000). Instead of biology, HBE is most concerned with exploring human behavior as an adaption to environmental and cultural stimuli. Human behavioral ecology is best known for its application of mathematical models that are based on ethnographic data to predict human behavior in specific ecological settings. Some anthropologists have criticized human behavioral ecology for its reductionist tendency and how it perpetuates the stereotype that hunter-gatherers are more primitive or closer to nature (Kelly

2013). Due to its environmentally deterministic nature, HBE does not always account for agency, or behaviors such as chastity and infanticide that are considered maladaptive from an evolutionary standpoint. But when it comes to humans, many behaviors are learned or passed along via culture and not via genetic inheritance or the environment (Kelly 2013).

29 Optimal Foraging Theory (OFT) is a derivative of human behavioral ecology (Piperno et al.

2017). OFT uses the expenditure and consumption of “energy” as the main motivator of subsistence strategies (Jones and Hurley 2017; Piperno et al. 2017). This theory assumes that humans will constantly strive for the “optimal” returns for the labor expended to acquire a resource. Within OFT, resources are ranked based on this scale of input-output. In short, people will always strive to gain the maximum output from the environment with minimal input

(Piperno et al. 2017). Though the theory seems intuitive, it is often criticized for its reductionist ideas about food and culture and a negative focus on resource depression (Jones and Hurley

2017). Optimal-foraging models ultimately fall short as they do not account for cultural preference or non-food relationships with animals.

On the other end of the spectrum, Ecological Niche Construction Theory outlines the process by which an organism shapes the environment to achieve a desired effect and then adapts to what those changes bring about (Bleed 2006; Bleed and Matsui 2010; Laland et al. 2001; Laland and

Brown 2006; Laland and O’Brien 2010; Sterelny 2005). This theoretical framework is best when applied to archaeology as it places humans in an active/innovative role rather than the reactive/passive role of the environmentally deterministic views so often used to study prehistoric subsistence before. I do not dispute the fact that the environment plays a role in human adaptation and subsistence. I do believe however that examining human-environmental relationships through niche construction theory allows archaeologists to gain a holistic understanding of the catalysts for changes technology, belief systems, and foodways in the past.

Niche Construction Theory (NCT) was developed by evolutionary biologist Richard

Lewontin (1983a,1983b) in the 1980’s. Where other models of evolution paint paths of adaptation as a one-way street where nature shapes an organism to fit that specific environment,

30 NCT defines the relationship between an organism and its environment as a web of dynamic and reciprocal interactions. Within NCT, the human-environmental relationship is a constant rotation between natural selection and niche construction creating a constant loop of causation and feedback (Laland and Sterelny 2006). Modern evolutionary theorists argue that niche construction is a phenomenon unique to humans., but in the animal world, simple examples of niche construction are plentiful. Birds construct nests, spiders build webs, plants convert one atmospheric gas into another, and fungi aid in decomposition thus adding nutrients to the soil

(Laland and O’Brien 2010). Proponents of NCT often use the popular example of the beaver dam to highlight how classic evolutionary theory sometimes falls short. As beavers build dams, they change the selective pressures within their ecosystem. These pressures act not only on them, but on every species within their constructed niche. Thus, they are co-directors of their own evolution (Laland and Sterelny 2006: 1752). The main difference between HBE, OFT, and NCT models is that one portrays domestication or management as a reactive response to environmental changes, while the other emphasizes the intentional modification and enhancement of the environment where resources are rich. In short, human behavioral ecology identifies resource scarcity as the motivator of innovation while niche construction theory identifies resource abundance via environmental manipulation as the motivator.

3.2 Niche Construction Theory Applied to Archaeology

Niche Construction Theory urges archaeologists to think beyond climate, instability, and the external as sole causes of evolutionary events. Culture itself is the human ecological niche construction (Hardesty 1972). People make sense of the world around them by modifying it until they fit within that niche. Humans owe their success to their ability to modify any and every environment they encountered as the earliest Homo sapiens left Africa approximately 100,000

31 years ago and populated the planet (Laland and O’Brien 2010). Through niche construction humans have controlled fire, manufactured shelter and clothing, and domesticated a myriad of plants and animals. Many archaeologists have become NCT “enthusiasts” as Laland and O’Brien

(2010) call them, because this theoretical framework recognizes the agency of the people we study.

Laland and Sterelny (2006) proposed seven reasons why niche construction should not be neglected as a theoretical framework in archaeology. Many of these reasons are applicable to those of us who wish to study human behavior in the past. Niche construction is a prevalent phenomenon. There are tens of thousands of species who consistently modify the world around them to create an environment that suits their unique needs. Interdisciplinary work from geneticists, biologists, etc., gathered ample evidence that niche construction does in fact bring about evolutionary consequences and affects the process of adaptation (Laland and Sterelny

2006). Niche construction involves a set of repeated behaviors with a predictable outcome. For example, many bird species can be identified by the shape of their nest alone. Niche construction is an agent of evolutionary change rather than the end product of years of natural selection

(Laland and O’Brien 2010). Through ecological NCT, we now know that individuals inherit more than genetic material from their parents; they also inherit the acquired behaviors associated with the modified or constructed environment. What West-Eberhard (2003) called developmental plasticity, we know as epigenetics. If the environment in which a juvenile reaches maturity is modified, the phenotypic expression of certain traits can be modified as well. For example, the young females of a typically queenless ant species (Rhytidoponera metallica) will convert into queens after living in captivity and receiving a steady supply of food (West-

Eberhard 2003). Niche constructors are more fit for an environment because of cyclical,

32 “construction, depletion, modification, or regulation of resources by organisms in their environments, in a manner that enhances their fitness to the environment,” (Laland and Sterelny

2006: 1758).

Laland and O’Brien (2010) define four categories of niche construction (Table 4). The first pair of dichotomous categories, perturbation and relocation, define the ways in which a species changes the selective pressures it faces. Perturbation occurs if an organism physically changes one or more factors within their environment at a specific time or location (Laland and

O’Brien 2010). Relocation occurs when a species moves to a new space. The second pair of categories, inceptive and counteractive, define whether a behavior is an initiative to change or response to change in the environment. When combined, these four categories describe a wide range of niche constructing behaviors (Laland and O’Brien 2010: Table 1). For example, animals such as raccoons and bears will relocate to inhabit anthropogenic spaces in order to gain access to their trash or food scraps, this is inceptive relocation. The dumping of waste into a midden or pit is inceptive perturbation. These changes are often considered initiative. Examples of reactionary changes include counteractive perturbation, like the thermoregulation of a nest, or counteractive relocation, such as seasonally driven migrations (Laland and O’Brien 2010: 307).

Table 4. Categories of Niche Construction (after Laland and O’Brien 2010).

Perturbation Relocation Organisms initiate a change in their Organisms expose themselves to a novel Inceptive environment by physically modifying selective environment by moving to or their surroundings growing into a new place Organisms counteract a prior change in Organisms respond to a change in the Counteractive the environment by physically environment by moving to or growing into modifying their surroundings a more suitable environment

33 The utility of niche construction theory does not necessarily stem from its application to universal principles or phenomena. Instead it is best applied to understand the circumstances under which a certain species adapts and changes (Laland and Sterelny 2006). Subsistence has been used as a way to classify and to clump societies together (i.e. hunter-gatherers, agriculturalists, pastoralists). This is problematic, as researchers are forced to fit peoples into predetermined categories based on subsistence alone. In relation to archaeology, the repetition of niche construction behaviors by humans will leave an identifiable archaeological footprint.

Through NCT we can understand the ways that humans in the past constantly adapted to and shaped their environment as they saw fit without pre-categorizing their behaviors.

3.2.1 Niche Construction as an Agent of Resource Management

The human-environment relationship is of particular interest to the study of the initial domestication of plants and animals. In a traditional evolutionary model, the origins of agriculture and domestication are placed within a linear or one-way trajectory which then creates a “chicken or the egg” type of scenario. The application of NCT instead takes into account the co-evolution of biological and cultural stimuli. This approach recognizes the tangled web of initiative and reactive behaviors of plants, animals, and humans. Constructed niches cannot be constructed and left alone. They must be maintained and regulated. In regard to agriculture and domestication, variability must be stamped out (counteractive niche construction). This may involve killing off aggressive domestic animals or ensuring plants with undesirable traits do not germinate. Thus, niche construction is a constant cycle of creation and destruction to maintain the desired effect.

According to many cultural niche construction theorists, domestication or management will always arise under certain conditions that can be detected archaeologically. For human

34 behavior to be considered a management strategy, there must be little evidence that an environmental change led to change in biomass and resource returns (Piperno et al. 2017). Any important or high-ranking taxa should not experience a marked decrease prior to the management of another species. For example, if turkeys were being managed by Mississippian people, high-ranking species like deer would not decrease in faunal assemblages. Finally, increased sedentism around resource rich areas and the sustained cultivation of plants are all significant indicators that humans are managing resources and constructing niche environments.

There are clear definitions for what constitutes domestication or management, but we lack a clear understanding of what happens in between. Resource management does not always lead to domestication and domestication is not a final product either as managed animals can become feral if niche construction behaviors are not maintained. The application of niche construction theory to archaeology provides a spectrum of possibilities as alternatives to the

“wild” and “domestic” dichotomy so typically applied to subsistence studies. According to Zeder

(2012:1), “Domestication is a sustained multigenerational, mutualistic relationship in which one organism assumes a significant degree of influence over the reproduction and care of another organism in order to secure a more predictable supply of a resource of interest, and through which the partner organism gains advantage over individuals that remain outside this relationship, thereby benefitting and often increasing the fitness of both the domesticator and the target domesticate.” While management is defined as, “the manipulation of the conditions of growth of an organism, or the environment that sustains it, in order to increase its relative abundance and predictability and to reduce the time and energy required to harvest it,” (Zeder

2012). Under this dichotomy, archaeologists may find themselves trying to force data into one of these extremes or ignoring important research avenues. For example, in Japan during the Jomon

35 period, people used intricate management systems for both plants and animals but did not develop a traditional form of agriculture. Thus, the Jomon period attracts little attention from the archaeological community (Bleed and Matsui 2010). A reanalysis of Jomon period subsistence through niche construction theory shed new light on our biases toward societies we do not consider to be complex.

Common misconceptions regarding resource management make domestication seem as if it is a single pathway in which a wild resource becomes domesticated. Instead, resource management is a spectrum with many possible pathways, methods, and outcomes (Larson and

Fuller 2014; Zeder 2012, 2016). The different pathways of management are mainly defined by human intention and animal behavior. Some plants and animals were not domesticated intentionally, while others were manipulated for the sole purpose of controlling their abundance.

Some species may have domesticated themselves as their behavior suits them for living in an anthropogenic landscape. All of these pathways and possibilities must be considered for us to truly understand the complexity of the human-environmental relationship.

The “commensal” pathway outlines the initiation of animal domestication or management as an unintentional process. “The human directed selection that we associate with modern domestic populations would have only been possible after animal populations adapted to take advantage of the human environment, a process that took place, at least initially, in the absence of human instigation,” (Larson and Fuller 2014: 117-118). People altered their surroundings and as a result wild species are attracted to certain elements of the new niche environment whether it was waste or even smaller animals attracted to the same waste. The animals most expected to enter this new niche environment, often called snythanthropes, would have to be less aggressive than the others in their group (Larson and Fuller 2014: 117). According to Larson and Fuller

36 (2014:118), once animals on the commensal pathway became entrenched in the human niche, the phenotypic differences between them and their wild counterparts would not take long to emerge due to sympatric speciation or genetic isolation via a new habitat. The transformation of the wild wolf (Canis lupus) into the domestic dog (Canis lupus domesticus) is the perfect example of a commensal pathway domesticate.

The “prey” pathway of domestication begins with human intention (Larson and Fuller

2014). The intention was not to domesticate however, but instead to increase resource returns.

The animals following the prey pathway tend to be medium to large herbivores (pigs, cows, goats, sheep). Unlike the sythanthropes on the commensal pathway, however, these animals are never inherently drawn to human created environments. Instead it was the humans who altered their hunting strategies by baiting target animals with cultivated plants to maximize returns

(Svizzero 2007). In Mesoamerica and South America, turkeys and alpacas are presumed to have been domesticated along the prey pathway as they are first intensively hunted in the wild.

The “directed” pathway is the model by which humans set out to deliberately domesticate a species (Zeder 2012). On this pathway, humans are already reliant on other domesticates, and thus, they could foresee the product of the intentional modification of another wild species. The directed pathway of resource management was only possible after other species had been modified via the commensal or prey models. Many of the animals on the directed pathway are once used for food, but their potential for other uses drove their domestication (Larson and Fuller

2014). For example, the use of camels and horses as transportation rather than food led humans to control their breeding and habitat.

A key component of niche construction as an agent of resource management is a concept known as indigenous or Traditional Ecological Knowledge (most often referred to as TEK). The

37 example of Jomon culture in Japan highlights how indigenous populations have a deep understanding of their environment and know how to manage resources without domesticating plants and animals. Through the passing down of TEK, future generations possess a heightened capacity to modify their ecosystems to increase return potential. “They are not passive participants in local environments, confined to simply using what the ecosystem offers in the way of natural resources-adapting to what’s available,” (Smith 2012: 264). According to Smith

(2007, 2012) small scale societies constantly update and maintain a comprehensive knowledge of their environment. If a society has a well-established understanding of how the ecosystems around them function, they are more likely to survive and thus pass that knowledge on to the next generation. Most TEK is not passed down in written form, but in oral traditions, behaviors, and myths (Smith 2012). This knowledge is not acquired during the exploration of new landscapes, but by repeatedly returning to the same places and observing and monitoring over multiple years and generations. In the eastern woodlands of North America for example, during

October and November, clusters of hickory and oak trees meant a steady supply of nuts to gather, and an increased likelihood of encountering deer and turkey as well (Smith 2012). This would have been knowledge only gained from repeated annual observations of this phenomenon.

Resource acquisition decisions are made long before resources are actually encountered.

Therefore, when the Native Americans of the eastern woodlands returned to the hickory and oak forests, they would come prepared to collect nuts and to hunt turkey or deer they encountered.

Later in the Mississippian period, maize fields would have to be monitored throughout the growing season and thus any predators or commensal species such as turkeys, are consistently encountered. “By shifting plant-community composition toward earlier successional-stage plant species, small-scale human societies can also indirectly increase, through trophic cascade, the

38 relative abundance of a wide range of browsing herbivores that are highly valued as food resources,” (Smith 2012:266; summarizing Bliege-Bird et al. 2008).

3.3 Turkey Behavior and Implications for Flock Management in Middle Tennessee

The behavioral patterns of a wild species can determine its success in the management process (Ledford and Peres 2018; Zeder 2012). Ideally, a species is able to maintain the majority of its behaviors throughout its journey from a wild to a managed species. Turkeys have a home range that spans anywhere from 2,000-15,000 acres and individuals may move as much as fifteen miles within a day (Thackston et al. 1991). These movements are food-motivated and differ by season. In the spring, turkeys move from covered forested environments to grassy open areas that provide more ideal places to feed on insects and nest. Turkeys form their flocks based on age, sex, and social hierarchy. When young males born in the spring grow larger than hens, this creates imbalance in the social hierarchy so the jakes (juvenile male turkeys) typically leave the flock by winter (Thackston et al. 1991.). If too many unrelated males live in the same flock, they will inevitably become aggressive and combative with one another in an effort to earn mating rights. In the non-mating seasons, turkeys arrange themselves into groups of related adult males, young males, hens with female offspring, and non-brooding hens.

Sex-specific demographic markers are one of the most broadly accepted archaeological markers of population management (Zeder et al 2006: 141). Gobblers will mate with more than one hen. Thus, the culling of males for management purposes will not negatively impact flock population numbers and it allows turkeys to maintain their demographic balance. In most cases, the majority of young males are killed and just a few are left to live and continue breeding.

Therefore, in the archaeological record, we will see evidence of a managed population as an emphasis on males and older females in the resulting faunal assemblage. For example, in what is

39 now modern-day Iran and Iraq, demographic profiles from faunal assemblages have identified evidence for the management of goats 1000 years before morphological characteristics can be seen in the osteological record (Zeder 2001; Zeder et al. 2006).

We know from the brief discussion in Chapter 2 that indigenous people cultivated maize during the Mississippian period. Modern research notes that turkeys heavily utilize agricultural fields that are distributed throughout forested areas with mature timber stands (Thacktson et al.

1991). Some wildlife biologists have postulated that the turkey’s range could be limited if a steady supply of preferred foods is provided (Stoddard 1963) and that turkeys adapt their resource use to concentrate on areas where other species receive supplemental feeding (Griffith

2017). The vegetative cover in fallow fields provides easy mobility on the ground and some researchers observed hens immediately relocating their poults to fields until they matured enough to fly to roost (Griffith 2017; Porter et al. 1980). Gobblers have also been noted to strut around open agricultural fields in order to attract a mate (Wunz and Pack 1992).

Larson and Fuller’s (2010) assumption that turkeys were domesticated along the prey pathway alone is problematic as the behavior of the eastern wild turkey makes it susceptible to the commensal pathway as well. Just as turkeys are attracted to the hickory nuts and other wild fruits that ripened in the fall, they are attracted to the edge environments that surrounded agricultural fields and garden plots as well. Turkeys are unique in that they fit many characteristics of both the commensal and the prey pathways of management or domestication.

Turkeys are already an important part of the diet for people in the late prehistoric period in

Middle Tennessee. Humans at first, unintentionally attracted turkeys to these newly constructed niche environments and set both species on a new pathway of interactions. The persisting false dichotomy between “domestic” and “wild” led many researchers to never consider turkey

40 management in the prehistoric Southeastern U.S. as a possibility. In fact, turkeys are generally thought to be a wild species in the region, “… unlike the Southwest where there is ample evidence that people raised and bred these birds from as early as the Basketmaker III period

(A.D. 500-700) through historic times,” (Gremillion 2011:413). The agricultural fields of the

Mississippian period provided ideal spaces for turkeys to maintain their wild behaviors, but within the newly constructed ecological niche. There were places to roost, a steady supply of insects and corn to feed on (Ledford and Peres 2018; Peres and Ledford 2016), and the trash thrown out from stone tool production in nearby villages may have even provided ideal lithic material for gizzard stones (Munro 2011). The initial change in human-turkey interactions brought about by agriculture fits well with Zeder’s commensal pathway. Humans may have intentionally encouraged turkeys to tether themselves to the new ecological niche to increase their abundance and ease of capture. The indigenous populations in Middle Tennessee were aware of the wild turkey’s behavioral patterns and social structures. Through sustained interactions over multiple generations, Mississippians knew that to successfully manage or domesticate turkeys, the social structure and feeding habits of the flock must remain intact.

According to the four categories of niche construction proposed by Laland and O’Brien

(2010), the anthropogenic clearing and burning of forested areas for agricultural fields and gardens is “inceptive perturbation.” In contrast, turkeys tethering themselves to the edges of agricultural fields that are preferred to their typical habitat is “counteractive relocation” (Laland and O’Brien 2010). In this cooperative commensal relationship, both humans and turkeys had to constantly modify, adapt, and adjust to ecological changes that agriculture brought about. If these behaviors were sustained long enough, through the lens of niche construction theory, the garden-

41 hunting model outlined in Chapter 2 could eventually be considered a turkey management strategy.

42 CHAPTER 4

FAUNAL SAMPLES AND METHODS

In this thesis I explore prehistoric human-turkey relationships in Middle Tennessee by examining the skeletal remains of turkeys from archaeological assemblages for two species- specific parameters of flock management established by Peres and Ledford 2016. In this chapter,

I characterize the examined materials and provide background and contextual information, when possible, for eleven archaeological sites that yielded the specimens included in this study.

All eleven sites are located in Middle Tennessee and were most intensively occupied during the Mississippian period, ca. A.D. 1000-1450 (see Figure 1). The sites differ by occupation type and population size and include two small farmsteads, three towns/villages, and seven villages/mound centers (Table 5). The variety of these datasets are important in determining any changes in the human-turkey relationship through time as these sites span many regional phases of the Mississippian period. The differing site types should also highlight whether or not turkey management was practiced at large civic centers, small family farms, or everywhere. The second half of this chapter details methods used to collect data needed to address the questions this research aims to answer and why those methods were selected.

Table 5. Mississippian Period Sites Examined for Evidence of Management with Relative Abundance Measures of Turkey Identified by Site.

Site # Site Name Occupation Site Type NISP MNI Early/Middle A.D. 1000- Mound 40CH8 Mound Bottom Mississippian 1300 Village 167 5 A.D. 1033- 40DV68 Sogom Early Mississippian Farmstead 1250 22 3 Brandywine A.D. 1050- 40DV247 Early Mississippian Farmstead Point 1250 3 1 A.D. 1100- Mound 40WM1 Fewkes Middle Mississippian 1250 Village 440 16

43 Table 5. continued

Site # Site Name Occupation Site Type NISP MNI A.D. 1100- 40DV36 Sandbar Village Middle/Late Mississippian Town/Village 1450 12 1 Brick Church A.D. 1100- Mound 40DV39 Middle/Late Mississippian Pike 1450 Village * * A.D. 1100- Mound 40SU14 Castalian Springs Middle/Late Mississippian 1450 Village A.D. 1100- 40WM342 Inglehame Farm Middle/Late Mississippian Town/Village 1450 66 3 A.D. 1250- Mound 40DV6 Gordontown Middle/Late Mississippian 1450 Village 34 4 A.D. 1250- Mound 40WM2 Old Town Middle/Late Mississippian 1450 Village * * Brentwood A.D. 1298- 40WM210 Middle/Late Mississippian Town/Village Library 1455 11 2 Undetermined 40DV74 Unknown Unknown Unknown Mississippian 7 2

4.1 Faunal Samples

Turkey elements recovered from mound centers make up the majority of the materials examined (n=224, 84%), followed by turkeys recovered from villages or towns (n=29, 10%).

The least amount of turkey specimens were recovered from single family farmsteads (n=11, 3%); however, this is likely due to the smaller overall faunal assemblages recovered from these types of sites. Roughly twenty-five percent of the specimens examined date to the Early Mississippian period, sixty-seven percent date to the Middle Mississippian period, five percent date to the Late

Mississippian period.

A total of two hundred and eighty turkey specimens from eleven Mississippian period sites were examined for this research. Not all of the examined elements could be included in the osteometric data collection portion of this study as only one hundred and sixty-one (or fifty- seven percent) of the specimens had measurable reference points. The measured elements yielded two hundred and sixty-nine osteometric measurements according to guidelines provided

44 in von den Driesch (1976) and one-hundred and one measurements according to the guidelines provided in Steadman (1980). A composite summary of all recorded osteometrics can be found in Appendix A.

A total of twelve of the turkey specimens were processed for isotopic analysis. The twelve specimens for isotopic study were selected because they lacked the necessary reference points and could not be included in the osteometric data collection. The sample of isotopes was limited to twelve as that is what my budget allowed. The materials analyzed are presented below by site, field specimen number, feature number, and excavation unit designation. When possible, the most specific context is used in the presentation of materials (i.e., Feature 1 N ½, Feature 1 S

½). In some cases, a general lot number or unit number were all that were available, so no feature or provenience descriptions are provided in those cases.

Table 6. Contexts of Turkey Remains Examined by Site.

Site Context Description Mound B large platform mound south of the sites largest mound (A) 40CH8 Feature 13 no feature information available Mound Feature 59 no feature information available Bottom Lot and Excavation no information available Unit Levels 40DV68 Feature 37 a basin shaped pit; also part of Feature 29 Sogom Feature 48 no feature information available 40DV247 Feature 20 no feature information available Brandywine Lot and Excavation no information available Point Unit Levels Feature 34 no feature information available circular basin shaped pit filled with domestic refuse; located Feature 55 outside the palisade wall Feature 56 potential structure 40WM1 Feature 59 no feature information available Fewkes Feature 71 no feature information available Feature 83 no feature information available Feature 114-N 1/2 no feature information available Feature 180 no feature information available

45 Table 6. continued

Site Context Description upper fill sequence surrounding Feature 185; associated with burials Feature 184 4 and 6 hearth like feature over the grave of a 20 to 35 year old male; burial Feature 185 inclusions such as greenstone celts and feasting deposits Feature 393 no feature information available Feature 521 no feature information available Feature 533 no feature information available Fewkes 40WM1 Feature 795 no feature information available large shallow basin shaped pit; bisected by the pallisade; not in close Feature 817 proximity to domestic structures borrow pit later filled with domestic refuse; remains of a 25 to 40 Feature 847 year old male included B00400 burial fill Lots and Excavation no information available Unit Levels 40DV36 Sandbar Feature 4 midden or trash disposal area Village 40DV39 Lot and Excavation Brick no information available Church Pike Unit Levels 40SU14 Feature 134 no feature information available Castalian Lot and Excavation no information available Springs Unit Levels Feature 43 no feature information available 40WM342 large circular pit filled with ash, daub, charcoal, faunal material, Feature 44 Inglehame ceramics Farm Lot and Excavation no information available Unit Levels Burial 85 35 to 45 year old male Feature 1 circular refuse pit just north of stone box burial cluster Feature 13 oval refuse pit on the northeast edge of the site 40DV6 also called Structure 1; series of 14 postholes with interior hearth Feature 23 Gordontown and other domestic features square/rectangular structure with interior hearths SW of mounds A; Feature 25 structure burned and converted into cemetery and B Lot 78 general surface collection 40WM2 100 ft. Trench 92-121 fill sequence associated with stone box graves and a burned structure Old Town B1-C2 no information available

46 Table 6. continued

Site Context Description 40WM2 B1-C3 no information available Old Town

Burial 12 5 to 7 year old child with periostitis

40WM210 Brentwood Burial 15 fragmentary remains of a one year old Library mixed remains of at least five individuals; two were juvenile while Burial 66 the other three were adults prepared clay floor with a hearth, ceramic sherds, burned faunal Structure 2 material, and lithic debris DOA #10 no feature information available DOA #75 no feature information available

4.1.1 Turkey Specimens from Mound Bottom (40CH8)

Mound Bottom (40CH8) is located along the narrows of the Harpeth River in Cheatham

County, Tennessee (see Figure 1). The central portion of the site stretches over seven acres and contains at least twelve mounds and central plaza surrounded by residential areas and cemeteries

(Deter-Wolf 2017; O’Brien and Kuttruff 2012). The site was occupied as early as A.D. 1050, and established by immigrants from around the Cahokia area in Illinois (Deter-Wolf 2017). Ceramic styles suggest that the major period of occupation of the site was from A.D. 1100-1300 (Moore et al. 2014).

A total of 167 turkey elements weighing 401.5 grams were identified from Mound

Bottom. The contexts in which the turkey elements were recovered include features, mound contexts, and unit excavation levels (see Table 6). A total of 19 of the recovered elements had measurable reference points for osteometric data collection. The 19 elements yielded 59

47 measurements. Measured wing elements include one humerus, five carpometacarpii, and three ulnae. Measured leg elements include two femora, four tibiotarsii, and three tarsometatarsii. One coracoid was measured as well. Eight of the turkey elements from Mound Bottom were analyzed for their carbon and nitrogen isotope signatures (Table 7).

4.1.2 Turkey Specimens from Sogom (40DV68)

The Sogom site (40DV68) is an Early Mississippian period farmstead in Davidson

County, Tennessee. The site is located on Cockrill Bend of the Cumberland River and was most intensively occupied by a single family or small group from A.D. 1033-1250. Radiocarbon dates and a semi-flexed burial suggest the site may have been occupied as early as the Archaic period

(Norton and Broster 2004). One feature yielded four maize kernels at Sogom, this was the only maize identified at the site (Norton and Broster 2004). A total of 22 turkey specimens were identified at Sogom, but only two elements had measurable reference points. The two specimens yielded three measurements. The elements were both from feature contexts. No elements were analyzed for isotopes at this site.

4.1.3 Turkey Specimens from Brandywine Point (40DV247)

The Brandywine Point site (40DV247) is an Early Mississippian period farmstead in

Davidson County, Tennessee. The site, described by Smith and Moore (1994) was most intensively occupied by a single family or small group from during the emergent Mississippian period A.D. 1050-1250 (Moore and Smith 2009). Poor soil conditions led to less than favorable preservation of faunal material, though the preservation of floral material allowed the identification of maize and squash. Only 55 faunal specimens were recovered from the entire site. Two of the modified specimens were thought to be turkey elements that had been scored and snapped (Smith and Moore 1994).

48 A total of three turkey elements were identified at the Brandywine Point site. Only two of those elements had measurable reference points for osteometric data collection (see Table 6).

The two elements yielded 13 measurements. No elements were analyzed for isotopes at this site.

4.1.4 Turkey Specimens from Fewkes (40WM1)

The Fewkes site (40WM1) is a Middle Mississippian period village site with multiple mounds, structures, and a palisade wall, located at the headwaters of the Harpeth River in

Williamson County, Tennessee. The site was most intensively occupied from A.D. 1100-1250. A number of large domestic features yielded a large faunal assemblage that revealed interesting insight into Mississippian lifeways (Peres 2010). For example, a large number of bone flakes suggest that people were extracting bone marrow (Peres 2010) and pathologies on one dog skeleton suggests the animal carried a heavy load on its back (Fleming 2006).

A total of 440 turkey elements were identified from the Fewkes site. The turkey specimens were identified from both general excavation levels and feature contexts (see Table

6). Out of the 440 specimens, 107 of those elements had 163 measurable reference points for osteometric data collection. Measured wing elements include 11 humerii, 14 ulnae, 13 radii, 18 carpometacarpii, and five first phalanges. Measure leg elements include eight femora, 15 tibiotarsii, and eight tarsometatarsii. Other measured elements include two coracoids, seven scapulae, and one sternum. No elements were analyzed for isotopes at this site.

4.1.5 Turkey Specimens from Sandbar Village (40DV36)

The Sandbar Village site (40DV36) is a Middle-Late Mississippian period town and village in Davidson County, Tennessee. The site is located on Cockrill Bend of the Cumberland

River. Sandbar Village was most intensively occupied from A.D. 1100-1450, but some features have suggested a Woodland period occupation at the site as well. Though Sandbar Village was

49 originally interpreted as a small hamlet, a reanalysis of stone artifacts and ceramics by Moore and colleagues may suggest otherwise (Smith and Moore 2012). Recovered maize cobs, kernels, and cupules suggest the inhabitants were growing corn at the site.

A total of 12 turkey specimens were identified at Sandbar Village and seven of those specimens were found in association with maize waste (Smith and Moore 2012: Table 6). Only one turkey element had measurable reference points for osteometric data collection (see Table 6).

The complete right femur recovered from the midden context had twelve measurable reference points for osteometric data collection. No elements were analyzed for isotopes at this site.

4.1.6 Turkey Specimens from Brick Church Pike (40DV39)

The Brick Church Pike site (40DV39) is a Middle-Late Mississippian period mound village in Davidson County, Tennessee. The site was most intensively occupied from A.D. 1100-

1450. Like many Mississippian sites in Middle Tennessee, Brick Church Pike contained a large platform mound, several smaller mounds, a number of stone box burials, domestic structures, and features (Barker and Kuttruff 2010).

The total number of turkey specimens identified at 40DV39 has not been reported in any articles or technical reports. One turkey element from the site was examined for this research.

The diaphysis of a right humerus was recovered from Lot 13, Block H, Unit 1, Level 3, a midden deposit, and it had one measurable reference point for osteometric data collection. No elements were analyzed for isotopes at this site.

4.1.7 Turkey Specimens from Castalian Spring (40SU14)

The Castalian Springs site (40SU14) is a Middle-Late Mississippian period mound village in Sumner County, Tennessee. The site was a large palisaded village that covered an estimated 16 acres and it was most intensively occupied from A.D. 1100-1450 (Smith and Miller

50 2009: 68). Though Castalian Springs is several miles from the Cumberland River, it is located on an upland creek terrace near a series of mineral springs, creeks, and caves.

A total of 14 turkey elements were examined from the Castalian Springs site. The turkey specimens were identified from both general excavation levels and feature contexts (see Table

6). A total of 14 of the examined elements had measurable reference points for osteometric data collection. The 14 elements yielded 45 measurements. Measured wing elements include three carpometacarpii, three ulnae, one radii, and one first phalanx. Measured leg elements include one tibiotarsii, and four tarsometatarsii. One scapula was measured as well. No elements were analyzed for isotopes at this site.

4.1.8 Turkey Specimens from Inglehame Farm (40WM342)

The Inglehame Farm site (40WM342) is a Middle-Late Mississippian period town/village on the Harpeth River in Williamson County, TN. The site was most intensively occupied from

A.D. 1100-1450 (Moore 2016). A total of 31 turkey elements were identified from the Inglehame

Farm site. The turkey specimens were recovered from feature and general excavation levels (see

Table 6). Only nine of those elements had measurable reference points for osteometric data collection. The nine elements yielded 33 measurements. Measured wing elements include one carpometacarpus and two first phalanges. Measured leg elements include one femur and two tarsometatarsii. Other measured elements include two scapulae and one partial innominate.

4.1.9 Turkey Specimens from Gordontown (40DV6)

The Gordontown site (40DV6) is a fortified Middle-Late Mississippian (A.D. 1200 -

1450) period mound village in Davidson County, Tennessee. The earliest map of Gordontown estimated that the site was around 15 acres and enclosed by a palisade. Corrected radiocarbon dates from Structure 1 (A.D. 1294 -1395) and Structure 3 (A.D. 1326 - 1348) suggest the site

51 was most intensively occupied during the regional periods III and IV (Moore et al. 2009). The site is located adjacent to two natural springs that feed a tributary of the Cumberland River

(Moore et al. 2006). Little is known about the subsistence strategies at Gordontown as much of the earliest work focused on excavating and exhuming the stone box burials that were prominent at the site.

A total of 34 elements from at least 4 individuals were identified from the Gordontown site. The turkey specimens were recovered from a general excavation level, features, and burial contexts (see Table 6). A total of 8 elements had measurable reference points for osteometric data collection. The 8 specimens yielded 19 measurements. Measured elements include two scapulae, one femur, and five tarosmetatarsii. Two elements were analyzed for stable isotopes

(see Table 7).

4.1.10 Turkey Specimens from Old Town (40WM2)

The Old Town site is a Middle-Late Mississippian period mound village on the Harpeth

River in Williamson County, Tennessee. The site was most intensively occupied from A.D.

1250-1450 (Smith 1993). The total number of turkey remains identified at Old Town was not reported in any articles

The total number of turkey elements identified at Old Town has not been reported in any articles or technical reports. A total of nine turkey elements from Old Town were examined for this research and only three of those elements had measurable reference points for osteometric data collection. The three elements yielded three measurements. Measured elements include two ulnae and one tibiotarsus. No elements were analyzed for isotopes at this site.

52 4.1.11 Turkey Specimens from Brentwood Library (40WM210)

The Brentwood Library site (40WM210) is a Middle-Late Mississippian period town/village on the Little Harpeth River in Williamson County, Tennessee. The site was most intensively occupied from A.D. 1298-1465 (Moore 2012). The 1997 excavations at Brentwood by archaeologists with the Tennessee Division of Archaeology identified portions of a palisade wall which suggests the people fortified the town for protection (Moore 2012). Recovered floral remains also suggest that people who lived at the site primarily grew corn, beans, and squash

(Moore 2012).

A total of 11 turkey elements from at least two individuals were identified from the

Brentwood Library site. The contexts in which the turkey elements were recovered include features, burial contexts, and general unit excavation levels (see Table 6). Only six of the turkey specimens had measurable reference points for osteometric data collection. One turkey awl was recovered from Burial 2, but I did not have access to this material as the human remains and associated artifacts were repatriated according to state and federal regulations. Two turkey longbones were modified with either cut marks or fractures that suggest they may have been scored and snapped in an attempt to make tools (Sichler and Moore 2012). The six elements yielded 8 measurements. Measured wing elements include one humerus and two carpometacarpii. Measure leg elements include two tibiotarsii, and one tarsometatarsus. No elements were analyzed for isotopes at this site.

4.2 Methods

The methods used for this study were selected to identify two specific markers of turkey management in the archaeological record, a demographic profile skewed towards males and a diet high in maize, as outlined by Peres and Ledford (2016) (see Table 2). First, I aim to create a

53 demographic profile of the turkey populations at all of the sites I examine in this research. The method best suited to answer this question is osteometric analysis, which can determine the ratio of males to females and juveniles to adults. Second, I aim to determine the extent to which turkeys were exposed to the agricultural products of the Mississippian period subsistence economy. The method best suited to address this question is the analysis of carbon and nitrogen isotopic ratios of turkey skeletal elements.

4.2.1 Estimating Turkey Population Demographics with Osteometrics

The recording and analysis of osteometric data is particularly useful as it is nondestructive and can be recorded from existing collections. Many scholars insist that measurements of faunal remains should be standard zooarchaeological practice, though often these data are not collected due to time and budgetary constraints (Boessneck and von den

Driesch 1978; Chaplin 1971; von den Driesch 1976). Turkeys are a highly sexually dimorphic species, with males typically being twice the size of their female counterparts with little to no overlap in overall body mass. Therefore, primary osteometric data can be used to easily and reliably distinguish male and female elements from one another and to build a probable demographic profile an archaeological assemblage (Badenhorst et al. 2012; Bochenski and

Campbell 2006; Steadman 1980). Sex-specific demographic markers are one of the most broadly accepted archaeological markers of population management (Zeder et al 2006: 141). Studies of population demography do have their limits, but these studies are an essential tool that aid in understanding resource management in the archaeological record (Meadow 1989). The processes of mammalian domestication in other parts of the world were in fact successfully defined using osteometric analysis (Reitz and Wing 2008).

54 I collected osteometric data on specimens from eleven Mississippian period sites held by the Tennessee Division of Archaeology and Middle Tennessee State University between 2015-

2017 (see Table 5). The collection of metrics was executed according to the accepted methods outlined in von den Driesch (1976) and Steadman (1980). Three-hundred and fifty-four metrics were recorded (Appendix C) with digital calipers from one-hundred and sixty-one complete and partial elements when possible to reduce bias against any taphonomic pathways that favor broken bones such as butchering (following Badenhorst et al. 2012:65). Each measured element was weighed, counted, and examined for evidence of use-wear, cut marks, thermal alteration, sex, age, and morphological markers when present according to standard zooarchaeological procedure (Reitz and Wing 2008). All data were recorded in an Excel spreadsheet.

4.2.2 Reconstructing Turkey Diets with Stable Isotopes

Stable isotope analysis of archaeological materials is a popular method to extract evidence for certain behaviors that are otherwise undetectable. The ratios of certain isotopes have been widely used in archaeological studies regarding people’s relationships with food and the environment around the world, in all time periods (Ambrose 1993; Kilgrove and Tykot 2012;

Martin 1999; Pate 2000; Schoeninger and Moore 1992). We now have a more holistic understanding not only about what people ate, but the extent to which they consumed certain plants and animals, and thus can make better interpretations about cuisine or food choice.

Though there are several stable isotopes that can be measured (Carbon, Nitrogen, Strontium,

Oxygen), I apply the analysis of carbon/nitrogen ratios as these are best at pinpointing the concentration of agricultural foods in the diet. When terrestrial plants reduce CO2 to carbohydrates during photosynthesis, the carbon dioxide is processed vis one of three pathways-

C3, C4, or CAM- each with a unique isotopic signature (Martin 1999). Temperate grasses, shrubs,

55 and trees have a signature high in C3, while agricultural plants like maize are higher in C4. The signature of each carbon isotope does not overlap and thus the recreation of a diet high in wild C3 plants can be easily distinguished from one comprised of cultivated plants high in C4.

In the case of my research, I am most concerned with the role of human control over a managed species’ diet. Turkeys in the wild would have a more diverse diet made up of insects and wild plants and thus their remains will have a higher C3 signature (Thornton 2016). If turkeys were being fed corn or were feeding on corn in backyard gardens or agricultural fields, should have a higher C4 signature. I am interested in examining if any changes in body size observed via the osteometrics can be linked to an increase in corn consumption or if there might be other factors at play.

In the second week of May 2017 I completed a week-long internship at the Center for

Applied Isotope Studies at the University of Georgia in Athens, under the direction of Dr. Carla

Hadden. During this internship, I prepared and processed a total of 12 turkey samples from

Mound Bottom (40CH8), Gordontown (40DV6), and Inglehame Farm (40WM342) for stable isotope analysis (see Table 7). Dr. Hadden instructed me through each step of the collagen extraction and processing. The samples were manually brushed to remove dirt and debris and then soaked in a cold hydrochloric acid solution to remove the organic minerals for approximately twenty-four hours. Next, the samples were rinsed with deionized water until they had a neutral pH and then soaked in sodium hydroxide to remove any humic acids. The samples were again rinsed with deionized water to a neutral pH and soaked in cold hydrochloric acid to remove any atmospheric carbon dioxide. Next the samples were rinsed in deionized water until they consistently tested as a pH 4 and heated to 80 degrees Celsius overnight (8 hours). The resulting solution was filtered to capture any collagen and freeze dried. Each collagen sample

56 was then measured to ~1mg and placed into tin to be measured by an Elemental Analyzer

Isotope Ratio Mass Spectrometer (EA-IRMS).

Table 7. Turkey Specimens Analyzed for Stable Isotopes by Site.

Site Feature Element 40DV6 13 cuneiform 40DV6 23 tibiotarsus 40CH8 14/13/64C coracoid 40CH8 14/13/64D tarsometatarsus 40CH8 14/12/64D ulna 40CH8 59 L 1/2 humerus 40CH8 59 coracoid 40CH8 59 carpometacarpus 40CH8 59 radius 40CH8 14/12/64D vertebra 40WM342 4-66-32-15 tibiotarsus 40WM342 04-66-029 humerus

4.2.3 Establishment of the Southeastern Ancient Turkey Database

This thesis research and my continued collaboration with Dr. Peres are the first studies to apply established morphometric protocols to determine flock demographics of an archaeological turkey assemblage from the Southeastern United States. A primary goal of this continued research program is to establish an open access database of osteometrics for the eastern wild turkey (Meleagris gallopavo silvestris) from as many archaeological sites in the Southeastern

United States as possible spanning the Archaic through Contact periods. To collect osteometric data in a more timely and efficient manner, I will create data entry platforms via Excel and

Qualtrics so the greater archaeological community can contribute data online. The online form is designed to streamline the process and reduce inter-observer error.

57 CHAPTER 5

RESULTS AND ANALYSIS

The data collected for this research have the potential to further our understanding of past human-turkey relationships in the Middle Cumberland River Valley. In this chapter, I present the results of the osteometric data analysis and create demographic profiles for archaeological turkeys during the Mississippian period in Middle Tennessee. I also present the results of the isotopic analysis to estimate if the archaeological turkeys maintained a wild diet or consumed large quantities of maize. Both flock demography and diet are potential indicators of turkey management (Peres and Ledford 2016). If the demographic results indicate a higher percentage of males and non-egg laying females at each site, this potentially indicates that turkeys were not solely hunted in the wild. If the results of the isotopic analysis indicate that turkeys ate a high percentage of maize, this indicates that humans were in control of or at least augmenting turkey diets.

5.1 Demographic Profiles of Mississippian Period Turkey Populations in the Middle Cumberland River Valley

There are number of ways to identify male gobblers and female hens in live turkey populations. Adult gobblers are on average at least twice as large as females and males have a bony protrusion or spur on their tarsometatarsus. Males have more colorful and iridescent feathers than females. The head of an adult male turkey is often bare and turns red, blue, or white during mating season, while the head of an adult hen is completely feathered. Droppings can also aid in the identification of males and females. Gobblers have J-shaped or straight droppings and females have corkscrew shaped feces. Unfortunately, few of these traits survive into the archaeological record.

58 The presence or absence of a spur on the distal tarsometatarsus of a male turkey is the most reliable way to distinguish the sex of an archaeological specimen. Unfortunately, this small feature on the element does not always survive in the archaeological record. The 6 spurs examined during this analysis were broken off of their host element. Therefore, I was unable to examine the likelihood that a tarsometatarsus with a spur would present as male via osteometric analysis. Prior to any osteometric analysis, at least 5 of the 49 turkeys examined for this research were male.

Though spurs are the best indicator of sex, a male may not start growing one until he is well into adulthood. Anecdotally, I observed this in a population of modern blue slate turkeys in

Florida. It is easy to identify the gobblers and hens based on size alone, but the one-year old gobblers did not have any spurs even though they have reached sexual maturity. Therefore, even when males have yet to grow spurs, turkeys are still sexually dimorphic enough to distinguish males and females by metrics or size alone.

5.1.1 Analysis of Osteometric Data

The osteometric data collected for this research are analyzed following protocols established by Badenhorst and colleagues (2012), Peres and Ledford (2016), and Manin et al. (2016). The measurements from archaeological specimens are compared to modern wild turkeys of known sex from Tennessee and published data from the Fewkes site (Peres and Ledford 2016). The data were entered into an Excel spread sheet by element and measurement type and placed into ascending order according. The metrics were then graphed into a scatterplot. As seen in

Badenhorst et al. (2012) and in Peres and Ledford (2016), a scatterplot of recorded metrics makes it easy to distinguish potential sex groups based on size. Error bars of up to one standard deviation were added to plot points of the population of known females on each scatterplot. The

59 error bars increased the probability that any distinct sex groups were easy to recognize. When clear sex groups were identified, I conducted t-tests in Excel to determine the statistical similarity between the comparative females and the predicted females or males. A p-value that is close to zero indicates similarity while a lower p-value indicates significant differences. The statistically significant sex groups identified in this analysis are then used to build demographic profile of the turkey population at each site.

The osteometric analyses are presented by below element and then by measurement type.

The smaller elements that fall within the standard deviation of the known population within each scatterplot (left of the dotted line) are presumed to be likely female and the larger elements to the right of the dotted line are presumed to be likely male.

5.1.1.1 Scapula

The scatterplot of the cranial diagonal of the proximal scapula (Dic) illustrates two distinct size groups of birds (Figure 9-Appendix B). This analysis suggests that two elements from 40WM1 are likely female and five are likely male. The scapula from 40DV6 is likely from a male bird. One element from 40WM342 is likely female and one is likely male.

For the Dic of the scapula, any differences between the likely females and the comparative females is not statistically significant and thus these groups can be considered similar. Differences between the likely males and the comparative females are statistically significant (Table 12-Appendix B).

5.1.1.2 Humerus The scatterplot of the breadth of the distal humerus (Bd) illustrates two distinct size groups of birds (Figure 10-Appendix B). This analysis suggests that four elements from 40WM1 are likely female and five are likely male. The one element from 40CH8 is likely female.

60 For the breadth of the distal humerus, any size differences between the likely females and the comparative females is not statistically significant and thus these groups can be considered similar. Differences between the likely males and the comparative females is statistically significant (Table 13-Appendix B).

5.1.1.3 Ulna The scatterplot of the breadth of the proximal ulna (Bp) illustrates two distinct size groups of birds (Figure 11-Appendix B). This analysis suggests that five elements from 40WM1 are likely female and three are likely male. The one element from 40WM2 is likely male.

For the breadth of the proximal ulna (Bp), any size differences between the likely females and the comparative females is not statistically significant and thus these groups can be considered similar. Differences between the likely males and the comparative females is statistically significant (Table 14-Appendix B).

The scatterplot of the greatest diagonal of the proximal ulna (Dip) illustrates two distinct size groups of birds (Figure 12-Appendix B). This analysis suggests that five elements from

40WM1 are likely female and three are likely male. One element from 40WM2 is likely female.

For the greatest diagonal of the proximal ulna (Dip), any size differences between the likely females and the comparative females is not statistically significant and thus these groups can be considered similar. Differences between the likely males and the comparative females is statistically significant (Table 15-Appendix B).

The scatterplot of the greatest diagonal of the distal ulna (Did) illustrates two distinct size groups of birds (Figure 13-Appendix B). This analysis suggests that four elements from 40WM1 are likely female and three are likely male. Both elements from 40CH8 are likely from a female bird while two ulnae from 40SU14 are likely male.

61 For the greatest diagonal of the distal ulna (Did), the differences in size between the likely females and the comparative females is not statistically significant thus these groups can be considered similar. The difference between the likely males and the comparative females is statistically significant (Table 16-Appendix B).

5.1.1.4 Radius The scatterplot of the breadth of the distal radius (Bd) illustrates two distinct size groups of birds (Figure 14-Appendix B). This analysis suggests that three elements from 40WM1 are likely female and ten are likely male. The radius from 40SU14 is likely female.

For the breadth of the distal radius (Bd), the differences in size between the likely females and the comparative females is not statistically significant thus these groups can be considered similar. The difference between the likely males and the comparative females is statistically significant (Table 17-Appendix B).

5.1.1.5 Phalanx I The scatterplot of the greatest length (GL) of the first phalanx of the second digit illustrates two distinct size groups (Figure 15-Appendix B). Five of the phalanges from 40WM1 are likely female and five are likely male. One element from 40WM342 is likely female and one is likely male. One element from 40SU14 is likely male and the phalanx from 40DV74 is likely female.

For the greatest length of the first phalanx of the second digit, the differences in size between the likely females and the comparative females is not statistically significant thus these groups can be considered similar. The difference between the likely males and the comparative females is statistically significant (Table 18-Appendix B).

62 5.1.1.6 Carpometacarpus The scatterplot of the greatest length of the carpometacarpus (GL) illustrates two distinct size groups (Figure 16-Appendix B). This analysis suggests that three elements from 40WM1 were likely female and seven were likely male. The carpometacarpii from 40CH8 and 40DV74 were likely female. The metrics of the element from 40DV247 indicate that it was likely from a male.

For the greatest length of the carpometacarpus (GL), the differences in size between the likely females and the comparative females is not statistically significant thus these groups can be considered similar. The difference between the likely males and the comparative females is statistically significant (Table 19-Appendix B).

The scatterplot of the breadth of the proximal carpometacarpus (Bp) illustrates two distinct size groups (Figure 17-Appendix B). The scatterplot suggests that three elements from

40WM1 were likely female and nine were likely male. Two carpometacarpii from 40CH8 were likely female and one was likely male. The 40DV74 metrics suggest that one element is likely from a female, and one from a male. The carpometacarpus from 40SU14 was likely male and the element from 40DV247 was likely female.

For the breadth of the proximal carpometacarpus (Bp), the differences in size between the likely females and the comparative females is not statistically significant thus these groups can be considered similar. The difference between the likely males and the comparative females is statistically significant (Table 20-Appendix B).

The scatterplot of the greatest diagonal of the distal carpometacarpus (Did) illustrates two distinct size groups (Figure 18-Appendix B). This analysis suggests that three proximal carpometacarpii from 40WM1 are likely female and eleven are likely male. The metrics from

40DV74 suggest the element from this site is likely female. One element from 40WM342 is

63 likely female. The metrics from 40DV247 suggest this individual is likely male. Both of the proximal carpometacarpii from 40CH8 were likely male.

For the greatest diagonal of the proximal carpometacarpus (Did), the differences in size between the likely females and the comparative females is not statistically significant thus these groups can be considered similar. The difference between the likely males and the comparative females is statistically significant (Table 21-Appendix B).

5.1.1.7 Femur The scatterplot of the greatest length of the femur (GL) illustrates two distinct size groups

(Figure 19-Appendix B). This analysis suggests that both femurs from 40WM1 were likely male while the elements from 40CH8, 40DV36, and 40WM342 were likely female.

For the greatest length of the femur (GL), the differences in size between the likely females and the comparative females is not statistically significant thus these groups can be considered similar. The difference between the likely males and the comparative females is statistically significant (Table 22-Appendix B).

The scatterplot of the breadth of the proximal femur (Bp) illustrates two distinct size groups (Figure 20-Appendix B). This analysis suggests that three proximal femurs from 40WM1 and one from 40CH8 were likely male. Two proximal femurs from 40WM1, one femur from

40Ch8, and the elements from 40DV6 and 40DV36 are all likely female.

For the breadth of the proximal femur (Bp), any differences in size between the likely females and the comparative females is not statistically significant thus these groups can be considered similar. The differences in size between the likely males and the comparative females is statistically significant (Table 23-Appendix B).

The scatterplot of the depth of the proximal femur (Dp) illustrates two distinct size groups (Figure 21-Appendix B). This analysis suggests that the element from 40WM1 and one

64 element from 40CH8 are likely male. The metrics also suggest that one element 40CH8, and the elements from 40DV6, 40DV36, and 40WM342 were likely female.

For the depth of the proximal femur (Dp), the differences in size between the likely females and the comparative females is somewhat significant and thus these groups cannot be considered similar. The differences between the likely males and the comparative females is statistically significant (Table 24-Appendix B).

The scatterplot of the breadth of the distal femur (Bp) illustrates two distinct size groups

(Figure 22-Appendix B). This analysis suggests that three elements from 40WM1 and one from

40DV68 were likely male. One femur from 40WM1, and all of the elements from 40DV36 and

40WM342 were likely female.

For the breadth of the distal femur (Bd), the differences in size between the likely females and the comparative females is somewhat significant and thus these groups cannot be considered similar. The differences between the likely males and the comparative females is statistically significant (Table 25-Appendix B).

The scatterplot of the depth of the distal femur (Dd), illustrates one size group (Figure 23-

Appendix B). This analysis suggests that all of the elements measured were likely female.

For the depth of the distal femur, the differences in size between the likely females and the comparative females is statistically significant thus these groups cannot be considered similar

(Table 26-Appendix B). No potential males were observed in the analysis of the depth of the distal femur.

5.1.1.8 Tibiotarsus The scatterplot of the paired measurements of the breadth and depth of the distal tibiotarsus (Bd, Dd), illustrates two distinct size groups (Figure 24-Appendix B). The metrics from 40WM1 suggest that five elements were male and eight were likely female. One tibiotarsus

65 from 40CH8 is likely male while the other two from the site are likely female. Both of the tibiotarsii from 40WM210 are likely male. The elements from 40WM342 and 40DV247 are both likely female.

For the breadth and depth of the distal tibiotarsus (Bd, Dd), the differences in size between the likely females and the comparative females is not statistically significant thus these groups can be considered similar. The difference between the likely males and the comparative females is statistically significant (Table 27-Appendix B).

5.1.1.9 Tarsometatarsus The scatterplot of the breadth of the proximal tarsometatarsus (Bp) illustrates two distinct size groups (Figure 25-Appendix B). This analysis suggests that three elements from 40WM1 were likely male and one was likely female. One tarsometatarsus from 40SU14 and 40DV6 each are likely female. Two of the three tarsometatarsii from 40DV6 are likely female. The elements from 40CH8, 40WM210, and 40WM2 are likely male.

For the breadth of the proximal tarsometatarsus (Bp), the differences in size between the likely females and the comparative females is not statistically significant thus these groups can be considered similar. The difference between the likely males and the comparative females is statistically significant (Table 28-Appendix B).

The scatterplot of the breadth of the distal tarsometatarsus (Bd), illustrates two distinct size groups (Figure 26-Appendix B). This analysis suggests that only three of the distal tarsometatarsii, one from 40WM1, 40WM342, and 40SU14, were likely male. The other elements from 40WM1, 40CH8, 40DV6, and 40SU14 were all likely female.

For the breadth of the distal tarsometatarsus (Bd), the differences in size between the likely females and the comparative females is not statistically significant thus these groups can

66 be considered similar. The difference between the likely males and the comparative females is statistically significant (Table 29-Appendix B).

5.1.2 Constructed Demography Based on Discrete Sex Characteristics and Osteometrics

According to the parameters of turkey population management established by Peres and

Ledford (2016), a managed or domesticated flock of eastern wild turkey will present in the archaeological record as a higher percentage of males and a low occurrence of juveniles and females. In the wild, most turkey flocks are comprised of brooding females and their young male and female offspring. In contrast, adult males are largely solitary or travel in small groups. I was able to estimate the sex of 224 of the 263 measured elements (85 percent) (Table 8). At three sites (40DV36, 40DV74, 40WM342) females make up anywhere from 70-100 percent of the turkey assemblage. Five of the sites have a relatively even distribution of males and females, with females occurring slightly more than males. Three of the examined sites did exhibit a higher percentage of males. While higher number of males alone does not indicate that turkeys were managed, it does seem that males were preferred in these locales. Interestingly, all three of the sites with a higher percentage of potential males (40WM1, 40WM2, and 40WM210) are in

Williamson County along the Harpeth River and they were all most intensively occupied during the Middle Mississippian period (A.D. 1150-1450) when chiefdoms were proliferating throughout Middle Tennessee. It is also noteworthy that the majority of the measured femurs (61 percent), a weight bearing element, presented as female.

The analysis of the distribution of males and females by site type did not reveal any strong indicators of turkey management (Table 9). At mound centers and farmsteads, the ratio of females to males is relatively even. At towns/villages, females were identified at a higher proportion that males.

67 Table 8. Estimated Turkey Flock Demography by Site.

# of sex # of recorded Estimated Site N= % by sex estimations measurements Sex female 13 56.52 40CH8 23 24 male 10 43.48 female 4 57.14 40DV6 6 8 male 3 42.86 female 5 100.00 40DV36 5 6 male 0 0.00 female 1 50.00 40DV68 2 3 male 1 50.00 female 4 80.00 40DV74 5 7 male 1 20.00 female 3 60.00 40DV247 5 6 male 2 40.00 female 8 57.14 40SU14 14 19 male 6 42.86 female 58 40.00 40WM1 145 163 male 87 60.00 female 2 40.00 40WM2 5 10 male 3 60.00 female 0 0.00 40WM210 4 8 male 4 100.00 female 7 70.00 40WM342 10 15 male 3 30.00

The analysis of flock demography by chronology did not reveal any markers of turkey population management either (Table 10). Every phase of Mississippian period occupation had an even distribution of males and females.

68 Table 9. Estimated Turkey Flock Demography by Site Type.

Site # of Sex % Female % Male % Type Estimations mound 194 86.61 85 43.81 109 56.19 village 19 8.48 12 63.16 7 36.84 farmstead 7 3.13 4 57.14 3 42.86 unknown 4 1.79 N/A N/A N/A N/A

Table 10. Estimated Turkey Flock Demography During the Early, Middle, and Late Mississippian Periods in Middle Tennessee.

Cultural # of Sex % Female % Male % Period Estimations Early Mississippian 30 13.39 17 56.67 13 43.33 Middle Mississippian 181 80.80 82 45.30 99 54.70 Late Mississippian 9 4.02 2 22.22 7 77.78 unknown 4 1.79 N/A N/A N/A N/A

The faunal material and osteometrics were also analyzed to create an age profile of the archaeological turkeys. Two of the spurs measured ~0.5in which suggests the gobblers were around 2 years old and one spur measured over 1 inch which suggests the bird was at least 3 years old. Peres and Ledford’s (2016) analysis of the Fewkes site produced the only observations of juvenile turkeys (n=6). A proximal femur from 40DV6, distal femurs from 40DV36 and

40WM342 and two distal femurs from 40WM1 are significantly smaller than the comparative females. These femurs all had fused epiphyses, so they were not juveniles, but potentially came from younger adult females. All of the examined elements in this research lacked medullary bone. This indicates that none of the potential females were killed during an egg-laying phase.

69 The age profiles suggest that adult turkeys were preferred by the prehistoric inhabitants of

Middle Tennessee.

5.2 Stable Isotope Results and Turkey Diet Reconstruction

Maize was the main agricultural product of the Mississippian world. A dietary shift towards high maize consumption should be detectable in turkeys as maize utilizes a different synthetic pathway (C4) than the shrubs, roots, and insects (C3) a turkey consumes in the wild

(Figure 6) (Tykot 2004). Individuals who primarily consume maize produce a higher range, or less negative, 13C signatures from -9 to -16% (average 13C = -12.5%) (Schoeninger and Moore

1992; Thornton et al. 2016; Tykot 2004). Individuals who primarily consume wild C3 plants will produce lower 13C signatures from -34 to -20% (13C = -26.5%) (Schoeninger and Moore 1992;

Thornton et al. 2016; Tykot 2004). Individuals with 13C signatures from -20 to -16% can indicate a mixed diet of C3 and C4 plants, or the consumption of animals or insects who ingest

C4 plants (Schoeninger and Moore 1992; Tykot 2004).

Atmospheric CO2 C3 C4 trees maize shrubs subtropical grasses temperate grasses sugarcane insects chenopods Pure C3 consumers C3 and C4 consumers Pure C4 consumers collagen -21.5% intermediate values collagen -7.5%

Figure 6. Photosynthetic Pathways and Average 13C Values of Wild and Domestic Plants (after Schoeninger and Moore 1992; Tykot 2004).

The turkeys examined in this analysis (n=12) had a diet that consisted of primarily C3 plants. The 13C values (average 13C = -20.16) suggest these turkeys browsed in forest or

70 forest-edge environments and ate wild grasses, shrubs, and insects (Figure 7). Two of the elements from 40CH8 and one from 40DV6 had a 13C signature that could be considered intermediate. These values may indicate that turkeys ate a diet of mixed C3 and C4 plants, but most likely these individuals ingested insects that browsed in agricultural fields which elevated their carbon values.

6.00

5.50

5.00

4.50 N,‰

4.00 15 δ

3.50

3.00 -22.50 -22.00 -21.50 -21.00 -20.50 -20.00 -19.50 -19.00 -18.50 δ13C,‰

40CH8 40DV6 40WM342

Figure 7. Stable Isotope Values from Mound Bottom (40CH8), Gordontown (40DV6), and Inglehame Farm (40WM342)

In summary, the osteometric and isotopic data of archaeological turkeys remains from eleven sites in Middle Tennessee were examined in an effort to identify markers of resource management in the region. Eight of the examined sites do not exhibit any signs that the population was managed or manipulated. The turkeys at these sites were primarily female and

71 ate a diet of wild grasses, shrubs, and insects. The turkey remains at three of the sites were primarily male and this is a potential marker of management.

72 CHAPTER 6

INTERPRETATIONS, CONCLUSIONS, AND SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH

Turkeys were an important resource for Mississippian people in the Southeastern United

States. The birds played a major role in late prehistoric subsistence strategies, appeared in Native

American art and folklore, and their skeletal remains were manufactured into tools. Previous archaeological research suggests that turkeys were likely a managed resource in the Middle

Cumberland River Valley. The preference for male gobblers at the Fewkes site (Peres and

Ledford 2016) and the prevalence of turkeys in Mississippian iconography and Native American folklore (Ledford and Peres 2018) suggests that the human-turkey relationship in the Southeast is more complicated than that of predator and prey. This thesis aimed to identify two specific markers of turkey management at ten Mississippian period sites in the Middle Cumberland River

Valley. This chapter details my interpretations of the osteometric and isotope results, conclusions, and my suggestions for future research on this topic.

6.1 Interpretations

The materials examined for this research came from a variety of site types and cultural phases. As summarized in Chapter 4, relative abundance measures such as NISP and MNI suggest that turkeys were most heavily exploited during the Middle Mississippian period (A.D.

1100-1350) as over eighty percent of the materials examined date to this time. I cannot decisively say which type of site that any form of turkey management was likely practiced, but it is interesting that over eighty percent of the turkeys examined here were excavated from mound centers.

The osteometric analyses did not conclusively identify markers of turkey management at seven of the study sites. At three of the sites examined, females dominate the assemblage and at 73 five of the sites, males and females are represented in relatively even numbers. The three sites where females are most abundant are all towns/villages and date to the Middle-Late

Mississippian or Regional Periods III-V. No discernable trends could be identified at the sites where males and females are represented evenly. These sites are a mix of farmsteads, villages, and mound sites and span the Early-Late Mississippian. The osteometric analysis did identify a higher abundance of males at three sites. All three of the sites where males were preferred were most intensively occupied during Regional Periods III-V and two of these sites were mound centers.

I believe that the inhabitants of 40WM1, 40WM2, and 40WM210 targeted males by hunting or capturing them along the edges of agricultural plots during mating season. The high percentage of males does indicate a strong preference for that sex as females are easier to capture especially when they are brooding and rearing a nest. Females prefer fields to raise their broods when the poults are still too young to fly and roost in trees at night. The fields provide much needed protection from predators and a steady supply of weeds and insects to feed on. During the early weeks of mating season, males could be easier to acquire as gobblers have been observed strutting around agricultural plots to attract submissive females. At 40WM210 charred maize cobs, cupules, and kernels were recovered from a number of hearths, pit features, and post holes

(Bishop and Moore 2012). If corn was grown near the site, it would be easy to manage any turkey flocks that regularly used the fields for nesting, eating, or attracting a mate. The high occurrence of adult turkeys also leads me to believe that turkey poults were potentially protected from predators on some level. Animals like domestic dogs, hawks, bobcats, and coyotes all contribute to a mortality rate of anywhere from 50-80 percent for young turkeys (Thackston et al.

74 1991). If a turkey does reach adulthood, parasites and human predation become the only threats it will face.

The isotopic results suggest that humans were not in control of turkey diets. At 40CH8,

40DV6, and 40WM342; the intermediate values of C3 do indicate that turkeys likely fed near agricultural fields and consumed insects that consumed some maize. To me this indicates that any managed turkeys were allowed to forage as they would in the wild thus maintaining a diet high in grasses, shrubs, and insects. Unfortunately, none of the turkeys selected for isotope analysis originated at sites where males or larger individuals were preferred, but this is something that should be done in the future.

The results of this analysis are similar to patterns of turkey management identified at

Tijeras Pueblo in the Southwest and the Oaxaca region in Mexico. In Tijeras, ethnographic and archaeological accounts detail free-range turkeys being used as a form of pest control in areas of marginal maize production (Jones et al. 2016). The turkeys under this form of management in the

Southwest still maintained a diet high in C3 plants or had mixed diets of C3 and C4 plants. In

Oaxaca where turkey management extends far into antiquity and is still practiced today, free- range turkeys with a large enough area will consistently forage for insects and shrubs around backyard garden plots and thus supplemental feeding and captivity are not necessary (Lapham et al. 2016).

It appears that some of the turkeys examined in this research were not domesticated, but they were not wild either. If the evidence presented here is analyzed through the lens of niche construction, the prehistoric inhabitants of Middle Tennessee did not aim to domesticate turkeys, but instead they created niche environments that were attractive to turkey flocks. Through sustained interactions with humans, subsequent generations of turkeys likely became tame and

75 consistently utilized agricultural fields for roosting and feeding. The turkeys that tethered themselves to fields could then be managed via a garden-hunting or free-range system of husbandry. The subsistence strategy described here fits well with Zeder’s (2012) definition of resource management (see Chapter 3). The planting of maize modified the natural environment and created a niche environment in which turkeys and humans could co-exist. The behaviors that attracted turkeys were likely unintentional at first which is characteristic of the commensal pathway of management (Larson and Fuller 2014). As both humans and turkeys continued the niche constructive behaviors, humans likely began intentionally modifying the environment to increase the relative abundance of turkeys on the landscape which is consistent with the prey pathway of management.

6.2 Conclusions

Through a careful examination of osteometric and isotope data I have demonstrated that the human-turkey relationship in Middle Tennessee is more complex than was previously thought. Turkeys were an important dietary staple during the Mississippian period and are often only second to deer in faunal assemblages across the region. Turkeys were also one of the few bird species selected to be represented in art and often appear in Native American folklore and ritual. In the Mississippian period in the Middle Cumberland River Valley, many turkeys continued to be hunted in the wild. Some turkey populations, or at least their preferred habitats, were likely managed so that male turkeys could be obtained more often. At 40WM1, 40WM2, and 40WM210 a preference for males is likely linked to the intentional manipulation of the environment for the acquisition of the meat and raw materials turkeys provide. Males specifically were likely preferred by Mississippian period inhabitants for their importance in ritual regalia

76 and ceremony. Turkey feathers and bones were especially important items in Native American rituals like the Green Corn Ceremony.

This analysis also highlights that osteometrics can be used to confidently estimate the demographics of archaeological eastern wild turkey (Meleagris gallopavo silvestris) populations in Tennessee. Though the demographic profiles based on osteometric analysis are likely accurate and statistically significant, they are estimates that should be tested further via aDNA analysis for verification.

6.3 Suggestions for Future Research

As is true with any scientific inquiry, this analysis could be improved by additional data.

There are a number of potential research avenues that should be explored. First, an osteometric dataset that spans multiple archaeological time periods can better identify any changes in turkey utilization through time. As a part of the turkey database creation, I crowd sourced osteometric data and I have received some contributions from other archaeologists, but this dataset is still entirely from the Mississippian period. Also, metrics from the Middle Cumberland River Valley should be compared to other regions within the Mississippian Southeast.

Additional isotopic data would also strengthen and broaden the conclusions of this research. Other species regularly hunted by Mississippians such as deer and bear would provide a much-needed comparison of a potentially managed species with wild ones. Furthermore, it would be highly beneficial to test the isotopic signatures of modern wild turkeys in an undisturbed environment, the signatures of turkeys living near agricultural fields, and free-range domestic turkeys for a comparison to archaeological specimens. The three sites (40WM1,

40WM2, and 40WM342) where males were preferred, should be analyzed for carbon and

77 nitrogen isotopes. Before I can securely argue for the selection of males, I need to rule out an increase in body mass due to the supplemental feeding of maize.

Another potential avenue for further research is to examine the leg bones of turkeys specifically for changes in morphology and size reduction. It is interesting that sixty-one percent of the femurs in this study presented as female, even when other leg bones like the tibiotarsus and tarsometatarsus were predominantly male. The selective breeding of modern chickens and ducks has led to a reduction in leg size and increased curvature of weight bearing elements

(Duggan et al. 2016). Perhaps we should consider the selection for individuals with desirable features like larger breasts and increased growth rate, as the selection for these traits would also likely affect the morphology of the turkey legs.

I also think we should further consider the three sites at which females dominate the assemblage. Perhaps there is alternative explanation for the extreme lack of males in these locales. In the case of 40DV36, males are totally absent. At paramount mound centers like

Cahokia, Moundville, and Etowah, archaeologists have identified patterns of provisioning by local farms and villages (Jackson and Scott 2003; Knight 2004,). Staple items like maize, preferred cuts of deer, and perhaps turkey were prepared off site in nearby villages and brought into the mound sites. In future studies of turkey demography, we should expand our search from looking for a higher number of males to looking at the ratios of males and females at mound sites and their surrounding towns and looking at the ratios of elements in elite and non-elite contexts.

In summary, there is much to be done to further explore the human-turkey relationship in the Middle Cumberland River Valley and in the Southeastern United States. A larger dataset of osteometrics and isotopic data and the development of methods to examine other markers of turkey management are research avenues worth pursuing.

78 APPENDIX A

OSTEOLOGY OF THE EASTERN WILD TURKEY AND OSTEOMETRIC DESCRIPTIONS

Figure 8. Osteology of the Wild Turkey (after Olsen 1968).

79 Table 11. Description of Measurements and Abbreviations (von den Driesch 1989).

Measurement Description Abbreviation Breadth of Fascies Articularis BF Greatest Basal Breadth Bb Breadth of Distal End Bd Breadth of Proximal End Bp Depth of Distal End Dd Diameter of Acetabulum DiA Greatest Cranial Diagonal Dic Greatest Diagonal of Distal End Did Greatest Diagonal of Proximal End Dip Depth of Proximal End Dp Greatest Length of Element GL Length of Element L Medial Length of Element Lm Smallest Breadth of Corpus (Diaphysis) SC

80 APPENDIX B

OSTEOMETRIC ANALYSIS-RESULTS AND FIGURES

Scapula-Dic 35

30

25

20

15 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 Comparative Female 40WM1 40Dv6 40WM342

Figure 9. Scatterplot of Metrics from the Greatest Cranial Diagonal of the Proximal Scapula.

Table 12. T-test of Sex Groups Identified from Metrics of the Greatest Cranial Diagonal of the Scapula.

Scapula-Dic Female Likely Female Likely Male Mean 22.1525 23.1600 30.7886 SD 1.7467 1.4552 0.8568 p= - 0.4541 0.0001

81 Humerus-Bd 35

30

25

20 -5 0 5 10 15 20 Comparative Modern Females 40WM1 40CH8

Figure 10. Scatterplot of Metrics from the Breadth of the Distal Humerus.

Table 13. T-test of Sex Groups Identified Sex Groups from Metrics of the Breadth of the Distal Humerus

Humerus-Bd Female Likely Female Likely Male Mean 24.8350 25.9760 32.4780 SD 1.6768 0.8005 0.8237 p= - 0.1988 0.0001

82 Ulna-Bp 25

20

15

10 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 Comparative Modern Females 40WM1 40WM2

Figure 11. Scatterplot of Metrics from the Breadth of the Proximal Ulna

Table 14. T-test of Sex Groups Identified from Metrics of the Breadth of the Proximal Ulna.

Ulna-Bp Female Likely Female Likely Male Mean 13.9580 14.4780 19.4100 SD 0.8586 0.6671 1.0970 p= - 0.3610 0.0001

83 Ulna-Dip 29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 Comparative Modern Females 40WM1 40WM2

Figure 12. Scatterplot of Metrics from the Greatest Diagonal of the Proximal Ulna.

Table 15. T-Test of Sex Groups Identified from Metrics of the Greatest Diagonal of the Proximal Ulna.

Ulna-Dip Female Likely Female Likely Male Mean 21.0900 21.4550 26.4925 SD 1.2846 1.0197 1.0149 p= N/A 0.6583 0.0002

84 Ulna-Did 25

20

15

10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 Comparative Modern Females 40WM1 40CH8 40SU14

Figure 13. Scatterplot of Metrics from the Greatest Diagonal of the Distal Ulna.

Table 16. T-test of Sex Groups Identified from Metrics of the Greatest Diagonal of the Distal Ulna.

Ulna-Did Female Likely Female Likely Male Mean 15.2717 15.9457 19.6417 SD 1.3734 0.5244 0.6455 p= - 0.2527 0.0001

85 Radius-Bd 20

15

10

5 -5 0 5 10 15 20 Comparative Modern Females 40Wm1 40SU14

Figure 14. Scatterplot of Metrics from the Breadth of the Distal Radius.

Table 17. T-test of Sex Groups Identified from Metrics of the Breadth of the Distal Radius

Radius-Bd Female Likely Female Likely Male Mean 10.3040 11.1725 13.9420 SD 1.1230 0.3373 0.8468 p= - 0.1835 0.0001

86 Phalanx I-GL 32

27

22

17

12 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 Comparative Modern Female 40WM1 40DV74 40SU14 40WM342

Figure 15. Scatterplot of Metrics from the Greatest Length of the First Phalanx of the Second Digit.

Table 18. T-test of Sex Groups Identified from the Greatest Length of the First Phalanx.

Phalanx-GL Female Likely Female Likely Male Mean 23.1733 24.1829 29.2343 SD 1.9528 0.5705 1.0399 p= - 0.2160 0.0001

87 Carpometacarpus-GL 90

85

80

75

70

65

60

55

50 -5 0 5 10 15 20 Comparative Modern Female 40WM1 40CH8 40DV74 40DV247

Figure 16. Scatterplot of the Greatest Length of the Carpometacarpus.

Table 19. T-test of Sex Groups Identified from the Metrics of the Greatest Length of the Carpometacarpus.

Carpometacarpus-GL Female Likely Female Likely Male Mean 63.1820 64.8820 81.1700 SD 3.7327 1.7296 2.1569 p= N/A 0.3825 0.0001

88 Carpometacarpus-Bp 30

25

20

15

10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Comparative Modern Females 40WM1 40CH8 40DV74 40DV247 40SU14

Figure 17. Scatterplot of Metrics from the Breadth of the Proximal Carpometacarpus.

Table 20. T-test of Sex Groups Identified from Metrics of the Breadth of the Proximal Carpometacarpus.

Carpometacarpus-Bp Female Likely Female Likely Male Mean 18.5980 19.1222 23.2975 SD 1.3212 0.7463 1.1186 p= 0.3547 0.0001

89 Carpometacarpus-Did 18

16

14

12

10

8 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Comparative Modern Females 40WM1 40CH8 40DV74 40DV247 40WM342

Figure 18. Scatterplot of Metrics from the Greatest Diagonal of the Distal Carpometacarpus.

Table 21. T-test of Sex Groups Identified from Metrics of the Greatest Diagonal of the Distal Carpometacarpus.

Carpometacarpus-Bp Female Likely Female Likely Male Mean 11.9320 12.0520 14.7529 SD 0.9456 0.1741 0.5981 p= 0.7837 0.0001

90 Femur-GL 140

135

130

125

120

115

110

105

100 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16

Comparative Modern Females 40WM1 40CH8 40DV36 40WM342

Figure 19. Scatterplot of Metrics from the Greatest Length of the Femur.

Table 22. t-Test of Sex Groups Identified from Metrics of the Greatest Length of the Femur.

Femur-GL Female Likely Female Likely Male Mean 112.2833 113.5933 137.0750 SD 4.5334 2.0066 0.9405 p= 0.6556 0.0003

91 Femur-Bp

34

31

28

25

22 0 3 6 9 12 15 18 Comparative Modern Females 40WM1 40CH8 40DV6 40DV36

Figure 20. Scatterplot of Metrics from the Breadth of the Proximal Femur.

Table 23. T-test of Sex Groups Identified from Metrics of the Breadth of the Proximal Femur.

Femur-Bp Female Likely Female Likely Male Mean 25.9117 25.3720 32.4940 SD 0.9152 0.7712 1.5025 p= 0.3240 0.0001

92 Femur-Dp 22

20

18

16

14

12

10 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

Comparative Modern Females 40WM1 40CH8 40DV6 40DV36 40WM342

Figure 21. Scatterplot of Metrics from the Depth of the Proximal Femur.

Table 24. T-test of Sex Groups Identified from Metrics of the Depth of the Proximal Femur.

Femur-Dp Female Likely Female Likely Male Mean 15.7717 13.9850 19.7450 SD 0.6555 1.9659 1.2516 p= 0.0677 0.0008

93 Femur-Bd 30

29

28

27

26

25

24

23

22

21

20 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

Comparative Modern Females 40WM1 40DV36 40DV68 40WM342

Figure 22. Scatterplot of Metrics from the Breadth of the Distal Femur.

Table 25. T-test of Sex Groups Identified from Metrics of the Breadth of the Distal Femur

Femur-Bd Female Likely Female Likely Male Mean 23.4717 22.4000 27.9175 SD 0.4285 0.7017 1.8136 p= 0.0228 0.0003

94 Femur-Dd 25

20

15

10

5

0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

Comparative Modern Females 40WM1 40DV36 40DV68 40WM342

Figure 23. Scatterplot of the Depth of the Distal Femur.

Table 26. T-test of Sex Groups Identified from Metrics of the Depth of the Distal Femur.

Femur-Dd Female Likely Female Likely Male Mean 20.4767 17.8100 N/A SD 0.4395 2.1829 N/A p= N/A 0.0162 N/A

95 Tibiotarsus-Bd, Dd

24

22

20

18

16

14

12 12 14 16 18 20 22 24

Comparative Modern Females 40WM1 40CH8 40DV247 40SU14 40WM2 40WM210

Figure 24. Scatterplot of Metrics from the Breadth and Depth of the Distal Tibiotarsus.

Table 27. T-test of Sex Groups Identified from Metrics of the Breadth and Depth of the Distal Tibiotarsus.

Bd Dd Female Likely Female Likely Male Female Likely Female Likely Male Mean 17.0383 17.3846 20.9675 15.7933 16.2183 20.1786 SD 1.7612 1.6991 0.5289 1.5638 1.5842 1.0236 p= - 0.6880 0.0001 - 0.5975 0.0001

96 Tarsometatarsus-Bp 27

25

23

21

19

17

15 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 Comparative Modern Females 40WM1 40CH8 40DV6 40SU14 40WM2 40WM210

Figure 25. Scatterplot of Metrics from the Breadth of the Proximal Tarsometatarsus.

Table 28. T-test of Sex Groups Identified from Metrics of the Breadth of the Proximal Tarsometatarsus.

Tarsometatarsus-Bp Female Likely Female Likely Male Mean 19.5683 19.7033 23.5975 SD 0.9788 1.4032 1.2871 p= - 0.8691 0.0001

97 Tarsometatarsus-Bd 30

25

20

15

10

5

0 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16

comparative female 40WM1 40CH8 40DV6 40SU14 40WM342

Figure 26. Scatterplot of Metrics from the Breadth of the Distal Tarsometatarsus.

Table 29. T-test of Sex Groups Identified from Metrics of the Breadth of the Distal Tarsometatarsus.

TMT-Bp Female Likely Female Likely Male Mean 18.0000 19.6000 23.5933 SD 1.9107 1.8938 0.2871 p= - 0.1980 0.0028

98 APPENDIX C

OSTEOMETRIC DATA

Table 30. Osteometric Data According to von den Driesch (1976) Guidelines.

Measurement Measurement Site Lot, Unit Feature Element Portion Side Type (mm) 40CH8 14/36/66B carpometacarpus fragments L Did 14.28 40CH8 14/45/65A carpometacarpus fragments R Bp 19.14 40CH8 14/35/65B carpometacarpus fragments L Bp 22.10 40CH8 carpometacarpus fragments R Did 14.30 40CH8 13 carpometacarpus near complete R Bp 18.34 40CH8 13 carpometacarpus near complete R GL 64.54 40CH8 14/47/66A femur near complete R Bp 25.40 40CH8 14/47/66A femur near complete R Dp 12.58 40CH8 14/47/66A femur near complete R GL 111.37 40CH8 14/47/66A femur near complete R LM 101.54 40CH8 14/12/64D femur proximal L Bp 30.36 40CH8 14/12/64D femur proximal L Dp 18.86 40CH8 34/50/90(5) SW humerus distal R Bd 26.12 40CH8 14/12/64D tarsometatarsus distal R Bd 23.17 40CH8 14/11/14C tarsometatarsus proximal R Bp 21.70 40CH8 14/15/62D tibiotarsus distal L Bd 15.35 40CH8 14/15/62D tibiotarsus distal L Dd 14.03 40CH8 14/35/66B tibiotarsus distal R Bd 18.90 40CH8 14/35/66B tibiotarsus distal R Dd 17.84 99 Measurement Measurement Site Lot, Unit Feature Element Portion Side Type (mm) 40CH8 14/36/66B carpometacarpus fragments L Did 14.28 40CH8 14/45/65A carpometacarpus fragments R Bp 19.14 40CH8 14/35/65B carpometacarpus fragments L Bp 22.10 40CH8 carpometacarpus fragments R Did 14.30 40CH8 13 carpometacarpus near complete R Bp 18.34 40CH8 14/34/65B tibiotarsus distal R Bd 20.44 40CH8 14/34/65B tibiotarsus distal R Dd 21.74 40CH8 14/47/66A ulna distal L Did 16.10 40CH8 14/45/65A ulna distal L Did 16.53 40CH8 14/12/64D ulna distal L Did 18.50 40DV247 20 carpometacarpus near complete R Bp 20.91 40DV247 20 carpometacarpus near complete R Did 13.82 40DV247 20 carpometacarpus near complete R GL 79.02 40DV247 20 carpometacarpus near complete R L 73.28 40DV247 Unit 10, Level 1 tibiotarsus distal L Bd 16.72 40DV247 Unit 10, Level 1 tibiotarsus distal L Dd 16.79 40DV36 Unit S7E5, Level 2 4 femur complete R Bd 21.62 40DV36 Unit S7E5, Level 2 4 femur complete R Bp 26.46 40DV36 Unit S7E5, Level 2 4 femur complete R Dd 17.28 40DV36 Unit S7E5, Level 2 4 femur complete R Dp 15.87 40DV36 Unit S7E5, Level 2 4 femur complete R GL 115.27 40DV36 Unit S7E5, Level 2 4 femur complete R LM 102.84 40DV6 1 femur proximal R Bp 24.28 40DV6 1 femur proximal R Dp 12.02 40DV6 13 scapula proximal R Dic 32.26 40DV6 1 tarsometatarsus distal L Bd 18.65

100 Measurement Measurement Site Lot, Unit Feature Element Portion Side Type (mm) 40CH8 14/36/66B carpometacarpus fragments L Did 14.28 40CH8 14/45/65A carpometacarpus fragments R Bp 19.14 40CH8 14/35/65B carpometacarpus fragments L Bp 22.10 40CH8 carpometacarpus fragments R Did 14.30 40CH8 13 carpometacarpus near complete R Bp 18.34 40DV6 1 tarsometatarsus proximal L Bp 24.45 40DV6 25 tarsometatarsus proximal L Bp 21.23 40DV6 1 tarsometatarsus proximal Bp 24.00 40DV6 1 tarsometatarsus proximal Dp 10.10 40DV68 37 femur distal Bd 29.52 40DV68 37 femur distal Dd 20.37 40DV68 48 humerus proximal Bp 41.08 40DV74 N158 E123 Structure 2 carpometacarpus proximal L Bp 23.09 Structure 2, floor 40DV74 N157 E124 carpometacarpus near complete R Bp 18.40 surface Structure 2, floor 40DV74 N157 E124 carpometacarpus near complete R Did 11.87 surface Structure 2, floor 40DV74 N157 E124 carpometacarpus near complete R GL 63.93 surface Structure 2, floor 40DV74 N157 E124 carpometacarpus near complete R L 59.45 surface Structure 2, floor 40DV74 N157 E124 phalanx 1 complete GL 25.05 surface Structure 2, floor 40DV74 N157 E124 phalanx 1 complete L 23.52 surface 40SU14 N1060 E798-Level 3 134 carpometacarpus fragment L Bp 19.27

101 Measurement Measurement Site Lot, Unit Feature Element Portion Side Type (mm) 40CH8 14/36/66B carpometacarpus fragments L Did 14.28 40CH8 14/45/65A carpometacarpus fragments R Bp 19.14 40CH8 14/35/65B carpometacarpus fragments L Bp 22.10 40CH8 carpometacarpus fragments R Did 14.30 40CH8 13 carpometacarpus near complete R Bp 18.34 40SU14 N1062 E796-Level 1,2 carpometacarpus fragment R Bp 21.94 40SU14 N1062 E804-Level 4 carpometacarpus fragment R Bp 18.97 40SU14 N1060 E798-Level 13 134 S1/2 humerus diaphysis SC 15.29 40SU14 N1062 E796-Level 4 humerus diaphysis SC 13.60 40SU14 N1066 E804-Level 6 phalanx 1 complete R GL 28.92 40SU14 N1066 E804-Level 6 phalanx 1 complete R L 27.41 40SU14 N1060 E806-Level 3 radius distal R Bd 10.68 40SU14 N1066 E808-Level 3 scapula near complete R GL 112.57 40SU14 N1060 E800-Level 2 134 tarsometatarsus complete L Bd 18.68 40SU14 N1060 E800-Level 2 134 tarsometatarsus complete L Bp 19.41 40SU14 N1060 E800-Level 2 134 tarsometatarsus complete L GL 130.18 40SU14 N1060 E806-Level 3 tarsometatarsus distal L Bd 20.31 40SU14 N1066 E806-Level 3 tarsometatarsus distal R Bd 23.91 40SU14 N1066 E806-Level 3 tibiotarsus distal R Bd 19.35 40SU14 N1066 E806-Level 3 tibiotarsus distal R Dd 18.65 40SU14 N1062 E796-Level 3 ulna distal L Did 19.57 40SU14 N1062 E804-Level 5 ulna distal R Did 19.86 40SU14 N1060 E796-Level 2 ulna distal L Did 16.42 40WM1 55 carpometacarpus near complete L GL 63.70 40WM1 55 carpometacarpus complete L GL 64.32 40WM1 55 carpometacarpus complete L Bp 18.84

102 Measurement Measurement Site Lot, Unit Feature Element Portion Side Type (mm) 40CH8 14/36/66B carpometacarpus fragments L Did 14.28 40CH8 14/45/65A carpometacarpus fragments R Bp 19.14 40CH8 14/35/65B carpometacarpus fragments L Bp 22.10 40CH8 carpometacarpus fragments R Did 14.30 40CH8 13 carpometacarpus near complete R Bp 18.34 40WM1 55 carpometacarpus complete L Did 12.00 40WM1 55 carpometacarpus complete L GL 82.30 40WM1 55 carpometacarpus complete L Bp 23.78 40WM1 55 carpometacarpus complete L Did 14.34 40WM1 55 carpometacarpus L Bp 23.09 40WM1 55 carpometacarpus L Did 15.85 40WM1 55 carpometacarpus distal L Did 14.52 40WM1 55 carpometacarpus distal L Bp 19.10 40WM1 55 carpometacarpus complete R GL 79.08 40WM1 55 carpometacarpus complete R Bp 23.23 40WM1 55 carpometacarpus complete R Did 14.54 40WM1 55 carpometacarpus R GL 82.35 40WM1 55 carpometacarpus R Bp 25.67 40WM1 55 carpometacarpus R Did 15.53 40WM1 55 carpometacarpus R Bp 23.63 40WM1 55 carpometacarpus distal R Did 12.17 40WM1 55 carpometacarpus distal R Did 14.91 40WM1 55 carpometacarpus distal R Did 14.25 40WM1 71 carpometacarpus complete GL 81.70 40WM1 71 carpometacarpus complete Bp 23.64 40WM1 71 carpometacarpus complete Did 14.45

103 Measurement Measurement Site Lot, Unit Feature Element Portion Side Type (mm) 40CH8 14/36/66B carpometacarpus fragments L Did 14.28 40CH8 14/45/65A carpometacarpus fragments R Bp 19.14 40CH8 14/35/65B carpometacarpus fragments L Bp 22.10 40CH8 carpometacarpus fragments R Did 14.30 40CH8 13 carpometacarpus near complete R Bp 18.34 40WM1 180 carpometacarpus complete GL 80.49 40WM1 180 carpometacarpus complete Bp 23.71 40WM1 180 carpometacarpus complete Did 14.92 40WM1 521 carpometacarpus GL 67.92 40WM1 521 carpometacarpus Bp 19.13 40WM1 521 carpometacarpus Did 11.93 1247, Blk B, TU 100, Level 40WM1 carpometacarpus complete GL 85.21 3 1247, Blk B, TU 100, Level 40WM1 carpometacarpus complete Bp 24.21 3 1247, Blk B, TU 100, Level 40WM1 carpometacarpus complete Did 15.41 3 40WM1 B00400 carpometacarpus near complete GL 79.21 40WM1 B00400 carpometacarpus near complete Bp 21.48 40WM1 B00400 carpometacarpus near complete Did 15.42 40WM1 55 coracoid near complete L GL 104.88 40WM1 55 coracoid near complete GL 116.74 40WM1 55 femur near complete L GL 136.41 40WM1 55 femur near complete L Bp 33.92 40WM1 55 femur near complete L Bd 29.25 40WM1 55 femur distal L Bd 25.67

104 Measurement Measurement Site Lot, Unit Feature Element Portion Side Type (mm) 40CH8 14/36/66B carpometacarpus fragments L Did 14.28 40CH8 14/45/65A carpometacarpus fragments R Bp 19.14 40CH8 14/35/65B carpometacarpus fragments L Bp 22.10 40CH8 carpometacarpus fragments R Did 14.30 40CH8 13 carpometacarpus near complete R Bp 18.34 40WM1 55 femur distal L Dd 14.89 40WM1 55 femur L Bp 25.39 40WM1 184 femur complete L GL 137.74 40WM1 184 femur complete L Bp 31.63 40WM1 184 femur complete L Bd 27.23 40WM1 298, Blk A, TU 28, Level 4 femur distal Bd 22.98 40WM1 298, Blk A, TU 28, Level 4 femur distal Dd 19.54 Lot 237, Blk A, TU 14, 40WM1 femur proximal Bp 33.76 Level 3 40WM1 Lot 255 femur proximal Bp 25.33 40WM1 Lot 6056, Feat 847 femur proximal Bp 32.80 40WM1 Lot 6056, Feat 847 femur proximal Dp 20.63 40WM1 55 humerus L Bd 24.64 40WM1 55 humerus L Bd 26.33 40WM1 55 humerus R Bd 32.59 40WM1 56 humerus distal Bd 31.18 40WM1 184 humerus L Bd 32.32 40WM1 521 humerus SC 15.88 40WM1 533 humerus distal Bd 32.94 40WM1 817 humerus proximal Bp 43.40

105 Measurement Measurement Site Lot, Unit Feature Element Portion Side Type (mm) 40CH8 14/36/66B carpometacarpus fragments L Did 14.28 40CH8 14/45/65A carpometacarpus fragments R Bp 19.14 40CH8 14/35/65B carpometacarpus fragments L Bp 22.10 40CH8 carpometacarpus fragments R Did 14.30 40CH8 13 carpometacarpus near complete R Bp 18.34 Lot 1251, Blk B, TU 93, 40WM1 humerus complete GL 124.19 Level 3 Lot 1251, Blk B, TU 93, 40WM1 humerus complete Bp 32.34 Level 3 Lot 1251, Blk B, TU 93, 40WM1 humerus complete Bd 26.77 Level 3 Lot 1251, Blk B, TU 93, 40WM1 humerus complete SC 13.19 Level 3 40WM1 Lot 6056, Feat 847 humerus complete GL 122.25 40WM1 Lot 6056, Feat 847 humerus complete Bp 34.35 40WM1 Lot 6056, Feat 847 humerus complete Bd 26.02 40WM1 Lot 6056, Feat 847 humerus complete SC 13.04 40WM1 Lot 6056, Feat 847 humerus near complete Bd 33.36 40WM1 Lot 6056, Feat 847 humerus near complete SC 15.52 40WM1 55 phalanx 1 near complete L GL 23.71 40WM1 55 phalanx 1 near complete R GL 23.74 40WM1 55 phalanx 1 near complete R GL 27.99 40WM1 55 phalanx 1 near complete R GL 28.08 40WM1 59 phalanx 1 GL 29.68 40WM1 184 phalanx 1 complete GL 23.71 40WM1 521 phalanx 1 GL 24.60

106 Measurement Measurement Site Lot, Unit Feature Element Portion Side Type (mm) 40CH8 14/36/66B carpometacarpus fragments L Did 14.28 40CH8 14/45/65A carpometacarpus fragments R Bp 19.14 40CH8 14/35/65B carpometacarpus fragments L Bp 22.10 40CH8 carpometacarpus fragments R Did 14.30 40CH8 13 carpometacarpus near complete R Bp 18.34 40WM1 114 N 1/2 phalanx 1 complete GL 30.96 40WM1 Lot 3017 phalanx 1 complete GL 29.20 40WM1 Lot 3017 phalanx 1 complete GL 23.80 40WM1 55 radius complete L GL 110.34 40WM1 55 radius complete L Bd 11.41 distal epiphysis, no 40WM1 55 radius L Bd 13.65 shaft distal epiphysis, no 40WM1 55 radius L Bd 13.13 shaft distal epiphysis, no 40WM1 55 radius L Bd 14.67 shaft distal epiphysis, no 40WM1 55 radius R Bd 11.37 shaft distal epiphysis, no 40WM1 55 radius R Bd 11.23 shaft distal epiphysis, no 40WM1 55 radius R Bd 13.97 shaft 40WM1 56 radius distal Bd 15.16 40WM1 71 radius complete GL 133.15 40WM1 71 radius complete Bd 13.99 40WM1 185 radius R Bd 15.05

107 Measurement Measurement Site Lot, Unit Feature Element Portion Side Type (mm) 40CH8 14/36/66B carpometacarpus fragments L Did 14.28 40CH8 14/45/65A carpometacarpus fragments R Bp 19.14 40CH8 14/35/65B carpometacarpus fragments L Bp 22.10 40CH8 carpometacarpus fragments R Did 14.30 40CH8 13 carpometacarpus near complete R Bp 18.34 40WM1 393 radius complete GL 136.24 40WM1 393 radius complete Bd 14.02 1247, Blk B, TU 100, Level 40WM1 radius distal Bd 13.24 3 40WM1 Lot 6056, Feat 847 radius distal Bd 12.54 40WM1 55 scapula L Dic 29.56 40WM1 55 scapula L Dic 30.51 40WM1 55 scapula R Dic 30.86 40WM1 184 scapula L Dic 24.26 40WM1 184 scapula R Dic 30.70 40WM1 817 scapula Dic 21.51 40WM1 Lot 6056, Feat 847 scapula proximal Dic 31.38 proximal epiphysis, no 40WM1 55 tarsometatarsus L Bp 25.72 shaft distal epiphysis, no 40WM1 55 tarsometatarsus L Bd 18.27 shaft proximal epiphysis no 40WM1 55 tarsometatarsus R Bp 18.47 shaft proximal epiphysis, no 40WM1 55 tarsometatarsus R Bp 23.12 shaft 40WM1 71 tarsometatarsus near complete Bd 23.52

108 Measurement Measurement Site Lot, Unit Feature Element Portion Side Type (mm) 40CH8 14/36/66B carpometacarpus fragments L Did 14.28 40CH8 14/45/65A carpometacarpus fragments R Bp 19.14 40CH8 14/35/65B carpometacarpus fragments L Bp 22.10 40CH8 carpometacarpus fragments R Did 14.30 40CH8 13 carpometacarpus near complete R Bp 18.34 40WM1 71 tarsometatarsus near complete Bd 18.52 Lot 2054, Blk C, TU 76, 40WM1 tarsometatarsus proximal Bp 23.78 Level 3 40WM1 34 tibiotarsus distal Bd 21.19 40WM1 34 tibiotarsus distal Dd 18.97 distal epiphysis, no 40WM1 55 tibiotarsus L Bd 18.61 shaft distal epiphysis, no 40WM1 55 tibiotarsus L Dd 16.57 shaft distal epiphysis, no 40WM1 55 tibiotarsus L Bd 19.75 shaft distal epiphysis, no 40WM1 55 tibiotarsus L Dd 18.22 shaft distal epiphysis, no 40WM1 55 tibiotarsus L Bd 14.45 shaft distal epiphysis, no 40WM1 55 tibiotarsus L Dd 14.47 shaft 40WM1 55 tibiotarsus R Dip 34.60 40WM1 83 tibiotarsus distal Bd 21.37 40WM1 83 tibiotarsus distal Dd 20.39 40WM1 184 tibiotarsus R Bd 20.99

109 Measurement Measurement Site Lot, Unit Feature Element Portion Side Type (mm) 40CH8 14/36/66B carpometacarpus fragments L Did 14.28 40CH8 14/45/65A carpometacarpus fragments R Bp 19.14 40CH8 14/35/65B carpometacarpus fragments L Bp 22.10 40CH8 carpometacarpus fragments R Did 14.30 40CH8 13 carpometacarpus near complete R Bp 18.34 40WM1 184 tibiotarsus R Dd 19.94 40WM1 184 tibiotarsus R Bd 21.63 40WM1 184 tibiotarsus R Dd 20.99 40WM1 795 tibiotarsus distal Bd 15.43 40WM1 795 tibiotarsus distal Dd 15.32 40WM1 Lot 284, Blk A, TU 14 tibiotarsus distal Bd 16.65 40WM1 Lot 284, Blk A, TU 14 tibiotarsus distal Dd 15.08 Lot 3018, Blk D, TU 120, 40WM1 tibiotarsus distal Bd 16.49 Level 2 Lot 3018, Blk D, TU 120, 40WM1 tibiotarsus distal Dd 14.78 Level 2 Lot 5009, Blk E, TU 203, 40WM1 tibiotarsus distal Bd 18.98 Level 2-3 Lot 5009, Blk E, TU 203, 40WM1 tibiotarsus distal Dd 18.37 Level 2-3 40WM1 Lot 6056, Feat 847 tibiotarsus proximal Dip 41.48 40WM1 Lot 6056, Feat 847 tibiotarsus distal Bd 18.07 40WM1 Lot 6056, Feat 847 tibiotarsus distal Dd 15.23 40WM1 Lot 6056, Feat 847 tibiotarsus distal Bd 20.49 40WM1 Lot 6056, Feat 847 tibiotarsus distal Dd 18.91

110 Measurement Measurement Site Lot, Unit Feature Element Portion Side Type (mm) 40CH8 14/36/66B carpometacarpus fragments L Did 14.28 40CH8 14/45/65A carpometacarpus fragments R Bp 19.14 40CH8 14/35/65B carpometacarpus fragments L Bp 22.10 40CH8 carpometacarpus fragments R Did 14.30 40CH8 13 carpometacarpus near complete R Bp 18.34 distal epiphysis, no 40WM1 55 ulna L Did 15.41 shaft 40WM1 55 ulna R Did 15.82 proximal epiphysis no 40WM1 55 ulna R Bp 14.28 shaft proximal epiphysis no 40WM1 55 ulna R Dip 20.51 shaft proximal epiphysis w/ 40WM1 55 ulna R Bp 14.53 shaft proximal epiphysis w/ 40WM1 55 ulna R Dip 22.84 shaft proximal epiphysis w/ 40WM1 55 ulna R Did 16.22 shaft 40WM1 71 ulna complete GL 147.42 40WM1 71 ulna complete Bp 20.56 40WM1 71 ulna complete Dip 25.52 40WM1 71 ulna complete Did 19.46 40WM1 71 ulna complete SC 9.24 40WM1 533 ulna proximal Bp 15.60 40WM1 533 ulna proximal Dip 21.56 40WM1 533 ulna distal Did 15.12

111 Measurement Measurement Site Lot, Unit Feature Element Portion Side Type (mm) 40CH8 14/36/66B carpometacarpus fragments L Did 14.28 40CH8 14/45/65A carpometacarpus fragments R Bp 19.14 40CH8 14/35/65B carpometacarpus fragments L Bp 22.10 40CH8 carpometacarpus fragments R Did 14.30 40CH8 13 carpometacarpus near complete R Bp 18.34 40WM1 817 ulna Bp 14.03 40WM1 B00400 ulna proximal Bp 13.95 40WM1 B00400 ulna proximal Dip 20.91 40WM1 Lot 6056, Feat 847 ulna distal Did 20.26 distal epiphysis, no 40WM1 55 ulna L Did 20.20 shaft proximal epiphysis, no 40WM1 55 ulna L Bp 19.92 shaft proximal epiphysis, no 40WM1 55 ulna L Dip 27.19 shaft proximal epiphysis, no 40WM1 55 ulna R Bp 19.15 shaft proximal epiphysis, no 40WM1 55 ulna R Dip 27.53 shaft 40WM2 84-102-3 tarsometatarsus diaphysis SC 8.19 40WM2 84-102-3 humerus diaphysis SC 15.41 40WM2 footer C3, east wall tarsometatarsus proximal Bp 23.91 40WM2 footer D2 tarsometatarsus diaphysis SC 9.92 40WM2 feature in balk tibiotarsus distal Bd 17.25 40WM2 feature in balk tibiotarsus distal Dd 17.92 40WM2 100 ft. trench (92-121) ulna diaphysis SC 8.13

112 Measurement Measurement Site Lot, Unit Feature Element Portion Side Type (mm) 40CH8 14/36/66B carpometacarpus fragments L Did 14.28 40CH8 14/45/65A carpometacarpus fragments R Bp 19.14 40CH8 14/35/65B carpometacarpus fragments L Bp 22.10 40CH8 carpometacarpus fragments R Did 14.30 40CH8 13 carpometacarpus near complete R Bp 18.34 Fea in balk, between footer: 40WM2 ulna Bp 18.01 B1-C2 Fea in balk, between footer: 40WM2 ulna Dip 25.73 B1-C2 40WM2 84-102-6 ulna diaphysis SC 9.76 40WM210 Burial 12 carpometacarpus proximal R BF 22.80 40WM210 DOA #75 carpometacarpus near complete R Dic 14.50 40WM210 structure 2, NE area humerus proximal R BF 33.20 40WM210 Burial 15 tarsometatarsus proximal R BF 22.10 40WM210 DOA #10 tibiotarsus distal L Bd 20.20 40WM210 DOA #10 tibiotarsus distal L Dd 20.40 40WM210 Burial 66 tibiotarsus distal R Bd 21.40 40WM210 Burial 66 tibiotarsus distal R Dd 20.30 40WM342 TU8 Level 1 carpometacarpus near complete L Did 12.29 40WM342 TU 3 Level 8 44 femur near complete R Bd 22.60 40WM342 TU 3 Level 8 44 femur near complete R Dd 16.97 40WM342 TU 3 Level 8 44 femur near complete R Dp 15.47 40WM342 TU 3 Level 8 44 femur near complete R GL 114.14 40WM342 TU 3 Level 8 44 femur near complete R LM 108.12 40WM342 TU 3 Level 8 44 femur near complete R SC 10.60 40WM342 TU2 Level 1 inominate acetabulum L DiA 13.56

113 Measurement Measurement Site Lot, Unit Feature Element Portion Side Type (mm) 40CH8 14/36/66B carpometacarpus fragments L Did 14.28 40CH8 14/45/65A carpometacarpus fragments R Bp 19.14 40CH8 14/35/65B carpometacarpus fragments L Bp 22.10 40CH8 carpometacarpus fragments R Did 14.30 40CH8 13 carpometacarpus near complete R Bp 18.34 40WM342 TU3 Level 1 phalanx 1 complete L GL 29.81 40WM342 TU3 Level 1 phalanx 1 complete L L 29.20 40WM342 TU 8 Level 1 phalanx 1 complete GL 24.67 40WM342 TU 8 Level 1 phalanx 1 complete L 23.52 40WM342 TU8 Level 2 scapula proximal R Dic 30.25 40WM342 TU 3 Level 8 44 scapula proximal L Dic 23.71 40WM342 TU6 43 tarsometatarsus distal L Bd 23.35

Table 31. Osteometric Data According to Steadman (1980) Guidelines.

Measurement Site Lot, Unit Feature Element Portion Side Measurement (mm) Type Lot 13, Block H, Unit 1, 40DV39 humerus diaphysis R C 14.70 Level 3 near 40CH8 14/47/66A femur R H 17.15 complete near 40CH8 14/47/66A femur R J 14.82 complete 114 Measurement Site Lot, Unit Feature Element Portion Side Measurement (mm) Type 40CH8 14/47/66A ulna distal L E 12.27 40CH8 34/50/90(5) SW humerus distal R D 26.12 40CH8 Mound B tarsometatarsus distal L N 7.18 40CH8 Mound B tarsometatarsus distal L P 8.07 40CH8 14/15/62D tibiotarsus distal L F 13.65 40CH8 14/15/62D tibiotarsus distal L G 14.33 40CH8 14/36/65B tibiotarsus distal R G 19.17 40CH8 14/36/66B carpometacarpus fragments L G 14.58 40CH8 14/36/66B carpometacarpus fragments L H 4.09 40CH8 14/45/65A ulna distal L E 16.53 40CH8 14/45/65A carpometacarpus fragments R B 19.14 40CH8 14/45/65A carpometacarpus fragments R C 10.03 40CH8 14/12/64D tarsometatarsus distal R L 23.17 40CH8 14/12/64D tarsometatarsus distal R M 9.40 40CH8 14/12/64D tarsometatarsus distal R N 10.43 40CH8 14/12/64D tarsometatarsus distal R P 9.17 40CH8 14/12/64D femur proximal L C 11.29 40CH8 14/35/65B carpometacarpus fragments L B 22.17 40CH8 14/35/65B carpometacarpus fragments L C 12.64 40CH8 14/35/66B tibiotarsus distal R G 15.73 40CH8 14/35/66B tibiotarsus distal R H 17.02 near 40CH8 59 coracoid R D 32.10 complete

115 Measurement Site Lot, Unit Feature Element Portion Side Measurement (mm) Type near 40CH8 59 coracoid R E 11.82 complete 40CH8 carpometacarpus fragments R G 16.99 40CH8 carpometacarpus fragments R H 5.46 near 40CH8 13 carpometacarpus R C 10.17 complete 40CH8 14/34/65B tibiotarsus distal R F 21.36 40CH8 14/34/65B tibiotarsus distal R G 19.75 40SU14 N1062 E796-Level 4 tarsometatarsus spur H 5.86 40SU14 N1062 E796-Level 4 tarsometatarsus spur J 23.92 near 40SU14 N1066 E808-Level 3 scapula R A 28.18 complete near 40SU14 N1066 E808-Level 3 scapula R C 12.99 complete 40SU14 N1060 E798-Level 3 134 carpometacarpus fragment L C 10.56 40SU14 N1060 E798-Level 3 134 carpometacarpus fragment L E 5.81 40SU14 N1062 E796-Level 3 ulna distal L E 16.08 40SU14 N1062 E796-Level 1,2 carpometacarpus fragment R B 21.94 40SU14 N1062 E804-Level 5 ulna distal R E 16.38 40SU14 N1062 E804-Level 4 carpometacarpus fragment R B 18.97 40SU14 N1062 E804-Level 4 carpometacarpus fragment R C 10.07 40SU14 N1062 E804-Level 4 carpometacarpus fragment R E 5.36 40SU14 N1060 E796-Level 2 ulna distal L E 13.01 40SU14 N1060 E800-Level 2 134 tarsometatarsus complete L A 130.18

116 Measurement Site Lot, Unit Feature Element Portion Side Measurement (mm) Type 40SU14 N1060 E800-Level 2 134 tarsometatarsus complete L B 19.41 40SU14 N1060 E800-Level 2 134 tarsometatarsus complete L M 5.92 40SU14 N1060 E800-Level 2 134 tarsometatarsus complete L N 9.00 40SU14 N1060 E800-Level 2 134 tarsometatarsus complete L P 6.50 40SU14 N1060 E806-Level 3 radius distal R F 10.68 40SU14 N1060 E806-Level 3 tarsometatarsus distal L L 20.31 40SU14 N1060 E806-Level 3 tarsometatarsus distal L M 9.14 40SU14 N1060 E806-Level 3 tarsometatarsus distal L N 8.15 40SU14 N1060 E806-Level 3 tarsometatarsus distal L P 9.06 40SU14 N1066 E806-Level 3 tarsometatarsus distal R L 23.91 40SU14 N1066 E806-Level 3 tarsometatarsus distal R M 10.43 40SU14 N1066 E806-Level 3 tarsometatarsus distal R N 11.00 40SU14 N1066 E806-Level 3 tarsometatarsus distal R P 11.35 40SU14 N1066 E806-Level 3 tibiotarsus distal R E 19.35 40SU14 N1066 E806-Level 3 tibiotarsus distal R F 15.29 40SU14 N1066 E806-Level 3 tibiotarsus distal R G 18.61 40DV74 N158 E123 Structure 2 carpometacarpus proximal L B 23.09 40DV74 N158 E123 Structure 2 carpometacarpus proximal L C 10.24 40DV74 N158 E123 Structure 2 carpometacarpus proximal L E 7.08 Structure 2, floor near 40DV74 N157 E124 carpometacarpus R A 63.93 surface complete Structure 2, floor near 40DV74 N157 E124 carpometacarpus R B 18.40 surface complete

117 Measurement Site Lot, Unit Feature Element Portion Side Measurement (mm) Type Structure 2, floor near 40DV74 N157 E124 carpometacarpus R C 9.39 surface complete Structure 2, floor near 40DV74 N157 E124 carpometacarpus R E 5.40 surface complete Structure 2, floor near 40DV74 N157 E124 carpometacarpus R F 6.64 surface complete Structure 2, floor near 40DV74 N157 E124 carpometacarpus R G 11.87 surface complete Structure 2, floor near 40DV74 N157 E124 carpometacarpus R H 3.64 surface complete 40DV36 S7E5-Level 2 4 femur complete R A 115.27 40DV36 S7E5-Level 2 4 femur complete R B 26.46 40DV36 S7E5-Level 2 4 femur complete R C 9.77 40DV36 S7E5-Level 2 4 femur complete R F 21.62 40DV36 S7E5-Level 2 4 femur complete R H 15.26 40DV36 S7E5-Level 2 4 femur complete R J 16.58 40DV6 1 tarsometatarsus distal L L 18.65 40DV6 1 tarsometatarsus distal L M 8.82 40DV6 1 tarsometatarsus distal L N 8.80 40DV6 1 tarsometatarsus distal L P 8.77 40DV6 1 femur proximal R C 8.95 40DV6 13 scapula proximal R A 29.51 40DV6 13 scapula proximal R B 32.20 40DV6 13 scapula proximal R C 12.05

118 Measurement Site Lot, Unit Feature Element Portion Side Measurement (mm) Type 40DV6 25 tarsometatarsus spur H 5.91 40DV6 25 tarsometatarsus spur J 22.27 40DV6 Lot 78 scapula proximal L C 12.71 40DV6 Burial 85 tarsometatarsus spur H 5.94 40DV6 Burial 85 tarsometatarsus spur J 16.45 near 40DV247 20 carpometacarpus R A 79.02 complete near 40DV247 20 carpometacarpus R B 20.91 complete near 40DV247 20 carpometacarpus R C 9.02 complete near 40DV247 20 carpometacarpus R E 7.02 complete near 40DV247 20 carpometacarpus R H 6.07 complete 40DV247 Unit 10-Level 1 tibiotarsus distal L F 15.31 40DV247 Unit 10-Level 2 tibiotarsus distal L G 15.07 40WM342 TU8 Level 2 scapula proximal R B 30.25 40WM342 TU6 43 tarsometatarsus distal L M 10.93 40WM342 TU6 43 tarsometatarsus distal L N 15.73 40WM342 TU6 43 tarsometatarsus distal L P 11.68 near 40WM342 TU 3 Level 8 44 femur R B 26.56 complete

119 Measurement Site Lot, Unit Feature Element Portion Side Measurement (mm) Type near 40WM342 TU 3 Level 8 44 femur R C 9.80 complete near 40WM342 TU 3 Level 8 44 femur R D 10.60 complete near 40WM342 TU 3 Level 8 44 femur R E 9.15 complete near 40WM342 TU 3 Level 8 44 femur R F 22.60 complete near 40WM342 TU 3 Level 8 44 femur R G 13.48 complete near 40WM342 TU 3 Level 8 44 femur R H 18.45 complete near 40WM342 TU 3 Level 8 44 femur R J 15.78 complete near 40WM342 TU8 Level 1 carpometacarpus L E 5.72 complete near 40WM342 TU8 Level 1 carpometacarpus L F 7.65 complete near 40WM342 TU8 Level 1 carpometacarpus L G 12.29 complete near 40WM342 TU8 Level 1 carpometacarpus L H 3.90 complete 40WM342 TU8 Level 1 tarsometatarsus diaphysis R H 5.45 40WM342 TU8 Level 1 tarsometatarsus diaphysis R J 18.07

120 Table 32. Summary of Measurements Recorded by Element and Measurement Type.

Total Measurement Element n= Measurements Type BF 1 Bp 21 Dic 1 Carpometacarpus 57 Did 19 GL 13 L 2 Coracoid 3 GL 3 Bd 7 Bp 10 Dd 5 Femur 37 Dp 6 GL 5 LM 3 SC 1 Bd 10 BF 1 Humerus 25 Bp 4 GL 2 SC 7 Inominate 1 DiA 1 GL 14 Phalanx #1 18 L 4

121 Total Measurement Element n= Measurements Type Bd 14 Radius 17 GL 3 Dic 11 Scapula 12 GL 1 Bd 9 BF 1 Bp 10 Tarsometatarsus 24 Dp 1 GL 1 SC 2 Bb 2 Bd 19 Tibiotarsus 44 Dd 21 Dip 1 Dp 1 Bp 9 Did 13 Ulna 34 Dip 8 GL 1 SC 3

122 REFERENCES CITED

Ambrose, Stanley H. 1993 Isotopic Analysis of Paleodiets: Methodological and Interpretive Considerations. In Investigations of Ancient Human Tissue Chemical Analyses in Anthropology, edited by Mary K. Stanford, pp. 59-130. Gordon and Breach Science Publishers, Philadelphia.

Appadurai, Arjun 1981 Gastro-Politics in Hindu South Asia. American Ethnologist 8(3):494-511.

Badenhorst, Shaw, and Jonathan C. Driver 2009 Faunal Changes in Farming Communities from Basketmaker II to Pueblo III (A.D. 11300) in The San Juan Basin of The American Southwest. Journal of Archaeological Science 36(9):1832-1841.

Badenhorst, Shaw, Robin Lyle, Jamie Merewether, Jonathan Driver, and Susan Ryan 2012 The Potential of Osteometric Data for Comprehensive Studies of Turkey (Meleagris gallopavo) Husbandry in the American Southwest. 78(1):61-78.

Barker, Gary, and James Kuttruff 2010 A Summary of Exploratory and Salvage Archaeological Investigations at the Brick Church Pike Mound Site (40DV39), Davidson County, Tennessee. Tennessee Archaeology 5(1):5-30.

Bense, Judith A. 1994 Archaeology of the Southeastern United States. Academic Press, San Diego.

Bishop, Andrea, and Michael C. Moore 2012 Floral Remains. In The Brentwood Library Site: A Mississippian Town on the Little Harpeth River, Williamson County, Tennessee. Research Series No.15. Division of Archaeology, Nashville.

Bliege, Bird R., D. W. Bird, B. F. Codding, C. H. Parker, and J. H. Jones 2008 The "Fire Stick Farming" Hypothesis: Australian Aboriginal Foraging Strategies, Biodiversity, and Anthropogenic Fire Mosaics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 105(39):14796-14801.

Blitz, John H. 2010 New Perspectives in Mississippian Archaeology. Journal of Archaeological Research 18(1):1-39.

Boessneck, J., and Angela von den Driesch 1978 The Significance of Measuring Animal Bones from Archaeological Sites. In Approaches to Faunal Analysis in the Middle East, edited by Richard H. Meadow and Melinda Zeder, pp. 25-40. Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University, Cambridge.

123 Breitburg, Emanuel 1988 Prehistoric New World Turkey Domestication: Origins, Developments, and Consequences. PhD dissertation, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale.

Briggs, Rachel V. 2015 The Hominy Foodway of the Historic Native Eastern Woodlands. Native South 8(1):112-146.

Brown, James A., and David H. Dye 2007 Severed Heads and Sacred Scalplocks. In The Taking and Displaying of Human Body Parts as Trophies by Amerindians, edited by Richard J. Chacon and David H. Dye, pp. 278-298. Springer, Boston.

Chaplin, Raymond E. 1971 The Study of Animal Bones from Archaeological Sites. Seminar Press, London.

Chapman, Jefferson, and Gary D. Crites 1987 Evidence for Early Maize (Zea mays) from the Icehouse Bottom Site, Tennessee. American Antiquity 52(2):352-354.

Clinton, Jennifer M. and Tanya M. Peres 2011 Pests in the Garden: Testing the Garden-Hunting Model at the Rutherford-Kizer Site, Sumner County, Tennessee. Tennessee Archaeology 5(2):131-141.

Cobb, Charles R. 2003 Mississippian Chiefdoms: How Complex? Annual Review of Anthropology 32(1):63-84.

Codding, Brian F., and Douglas W. Bird 2015 Behavioral Ecology and the Future of Archaeological Science. Journal of Archaeological Science 56:9-20.

Cook, Robert A., and T. D. Price 2015 Maize, Mounds, and the Movement of People: Isotope Analysis of a Mississippian/ Region. Journal of Archaeological Science 61:112-128.

Deter-Wolf, Aaron, and Tanya M. Peres 2012 Recent Research in the Middle Cumberland River Valley: Introduction to a Special Volume. Tennessee Archaeology 6(1-2):5-17.

Deter-Wolf, Aaron 2013 The Fernvale Site (40WM51): A Late Archaic Occupation Along the South Harpeth River in Williamson County, Tennessee. Research Series No.19. Tennessee Division of Archaeology, Nashville.

124 Deter-Wolf, Aaron, and Carol Diaz-Granados (editors) 2013 Drawing with Great Needles: Ancient Tattoo Traditions of North America. University of Texas Press, Austin.

Deter-Wolf, Aaron, Robitaille Benoit, and Isaac Walters 2017 Scratching the Surface: Mistaken Identifications of Tattoo Tools from Eastern North America. In Ancient Ink: The Archaeology of Tattooing, edited by Lars Krutak and Aaron Deter-Wolf, pp. 193-209. University of Washington Press, Seattle.

Dice, Lee R. 1943 The Biotic Provinces of North America. University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, Michigan.

Von den Driesch, Angela 1976 A Guide to the Measurement of Animal Bones from Archaeological Sites. Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University, Cambridge.

Driver, J. C. 2002 Faunal Variation and Change in the Mesa Verde Regions. In Seeking the Center Place: Archaeology and Ancient Communities in the Mesa Verde Region. edited by Mark D. Varien and Richard H. Wilshusen, pp. 147-160. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.

Duggan, Brenda M., and Paul M Hocking, Tobias Schwarz, and Dylan N Clements 2015 Differences in Hind Limb Morphology of Ducks and Chickens: Effects of Domestication and Selection. Genetics, Selection, Evolution 47(1):88.

Dye, David H. 2004 Art, Ritual, and Chiefly Warfare in the Mississippian World. In Hero, Hawk, and Open Hand: American Indian Art of the Ancient Midwest and South, edited by Richard F. Townsend and Robert V. Sharp, pp. 191-205. Yale University Press, New Haven.

Dye, David H. 2007 Ritual, Medicine, and the War Trophy Iconographic Theme in the Mississippian Southeast. In Ancient Objects and Sacred Realms: Interpretations of Mississippian Iconography, edited by Kent F. Reilly and James F. Garber, pp. 152-173. University of Texas Press, Austin.

Dye, David H. 2009 War Paths, Peace Paths. AltaMira Press, Lanham.

Fleming, Lacey 2006 The Role of the Domesticated Dog (Canis familiaris) in Prehistoric Middle Tennessee. Paper presented at the 63rd Annual Meeting of the Southeastern Archaeological Conference, Little Rock, Arkansas.

125 Fleming, Paula R., and Judith Luskey 1988 The North American Indians in Early Photographs. Dorset Press. Dorchester.

Fradkin, Arlene 1988 Cherokee Folk Zoology: The Animal World of a Native American People. Garland Publishers, New York.

Goldstein, Amy M. 2014 Embodying Ritual Performance: An Iconographic Analysis of Burial 38 at the Etowah Site. Master’s thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of South Carolina, Columbia.

Gremillion, Kristen J. 2001 The Role of Plants in Southeastern Subsistence Economies. In Subsistence Economies of Indigenous North American Societies: A Handbook, edited by Bruce D. Smith, Smithsonian Institution Scholarly Press, Washington D.C.

Griffith, Aaron D. 2017 Wild Turkey Resource Use on Food-subsidized Landscapes and the Relationship between Nesting Chronology and Gobbling Activity. Master’s thesis, Department of Wildlife and Fisheries Science, University of Tennessee, Knoxville.

Hardesty, Donald L. 1972 The Human Ecological Niche. American Anthropologist 74(3):458-466.

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

Jones, Emily L., and David A. Hurley 2017 Beyond Depression? A Review of the Optimal Foraging Theory Literature in Zooarchaeology and Archaeobotany. Ethnobiology Letters 8(1).

Jones, Emily L., Cyler Conrad, Seth D. Newsome, Brian M. Kemp, and Jacqueline M. Kocer 2016 Turkeys on the Fringe: Variable Husbandry in “Marginal” Areas of the Prehistoric American Southwest. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 10:575-583.

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 D.C.

Kelly, Robert H. 2013 The Lifeways of Hunter-Gatherers: The Foraging Spectrum. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

126 Killgrove, Kristina, and Robert H. Tykot 2013 Food for Rome: A Stable Isotope Investigation of Diet in the Imperial Period (1st–3rd centuries AD). Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 32(1):28-38.

Kneberg, Madeline D. 1959 Engraved Shell Gorgets and their Associations. Tennessee Archaeologist 15(1):1-39.

Knight, James V. 2006 Farewell to the Southeastern Ceremonial Complex. Southeastern Archaeology 25(1):1- 5.

2004 Characterizing Elite Midden Deposits at Moundville. American Antiquity 69(2):304- 321.

Kroeber, Alfred L. 1939 Cultural and Natural Areas of Native North America. Vol. 38, University of California Press, Berkeley.

Laland, Kevin N., and Gillian R. Brown 2006 Niche Construction, Human Behavior, and the Adaptive‐lag Hypothesis. Evolutionary Anthropology: Issues, News, and Reviews 15(3):95-104.

Laland, Kevin N., and Michael J. O'Brien 2010 Niche Construction Theory and Archaeology. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 17(4):303-322.

Laland, Kevin N., J. Odling‐Smee, and M. W. Feldman 2001 Cultural Niche Construction and Human Evolution. Journal of Evolutionary Biology 14(1):22-33.

Laland, Kevin M., and Kim Sterenly 2006 Seven Reasons (Not) to Neglect Niche Construction. Society for the Study of Evolution 60(9):1751-1762.

Lankford, George E. 2004 World on a String: Some Cosmological Components of the Southeastern Ceremonial Complex. In Hero, Hawk, and Open Hand: American Indian Art of the Ancient Midwest and South, edited by Richard F. Townsend and Robert E. Sharp, pp. 206-217. Yale University Press, New Haven.

2007 Some Cosmological Motifs in the Southeastern Ceremonial Complex. In Ancient Objects and Sacred Realms: Interpretations of Mississippian Iconography. F. Kent Reilly III and James F. Garber, eds. Pp. 8-38. Austin: University of Texas Press.

127 2011 Regional Approaches to Iconographic Art. In Visualizing the Sacred: Cosmic Visions, Regionalism, and the Art of the Mississippian World, edited by George E. Lankford, Kent F. Reilly and James E. Garber, pp. 3-17. University of Texas Press, Austin.

Lankford, George E., F. K. Reilly, and James F. Garber 2011 Visualizing the Sacred: Cosmic Visions, Regionalism, and the Art of the Mississippian World. University of Texas Press, Austin.

Langlie, BrieAnna S., Natalie G. Mueller, Robert N. Spengler, and Gayle J. Fritz 2014 Agricultural Origins from the Ground Up: Archaeological Approaches to Plant Domestication. American Journal of Botany 101(10):1601-1617.

Lapham, Heather A. 2011 Animals in Southeastern Native American Subsistence Economies. In Subsistence Economies of Indigenous North American Societies: A Handbook, edited by Bruce D. Smith, Smithsonian Institution Scholarly Press, Washington D.C.

Lapham, Heather A., Gary M. Feinman, and Linda M. Nicholas 2016 Turkey Husbandry and Use in Oaxaca, Mexico: A Contextual Study of Turkey Remains and SEM Analysis of Eggshell from the Mitla Fortress. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 10:534-546.

Larson, Greger, and Dorian Q. Fuller 2014 The Evolution of Animal Domestication. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics 45(1):115-136.

Ledford, Kelly L., and Tanya M. Peres 2018 Turkey Foodways: The Intersection of Cultural, Social, and Economic Practices in the Mississippian Period Southeast. In Baking, Bourbon, and : Foodways Archaeology in the Southeastern United States, edited by Tanya M. Peres and Aaron Deter-Wolf, University Press of Alabama, Tuscaloosa.

Lewontin, Robert C. 1983a The Organism as the Subject and Object of Evolution. Scientia 77(118):65.

1983b Gene, organism, and environment. In Evolution from Molecules to Men, edited by D. S. Bendall, pp. 278-285. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Linares, Olga F. 1976 "Garden Hunting" in the American Tropics. Human Ecology 4(4):331-349.

Lorenz, Karl G. 2006 The Chattahoochee Chiefdoms; University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

128 Manin, Aurélie, Raphaël Cornette, and Christine Lefèvre 2016 Sexual Dimorphism Among Mesoamerican Turkeys: A Key for Understanding Past Husbandry. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 10:526-533.

Martin, Steve L. 1999 Virgin Anasazi Diet as Demonstrated through the Analysis of Stable Carbon and Nitrogen Isotopes. Kiva 64(4):495-514.

Merrill, William L.; Robert J. Hard, Jonathan B. Mabry, Gayle J. Fritz, Karen R. Adams, John R. Roney, and A. C. MacWilliams 2009 The Diffusion of Maize to the Southwestern United States and Its Impact. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 106(50):21019- 21026.

Milner, George E. 2013 Conflict and Societal Change in Late Prehistoric Eastern North America. Evolutionary Anthropology: Issues, News, and Reviews 22(3):96-102.

Mooney, James 1900 Myths of the Cherokee. US Government Printing Office, Washington D.C.

1888 Myths of the Cherokee. Journal of American Folklore 1(2):105-132.

Moore, Michael C., and Emanuel Breitburg (editors) 1998 Gordontown: Salvage Archaeology at a Mississippian Town in Davidson County, Tennessee. Research Serie No. 11. Tennessee Division of Archaeology, Nashville.

Moore, Michael C., Emanuel Breitburg, Kevin E. Smith, and Mary Beth Trubitt 2006 One Hundred Years of Archaeology at Gordontown: A Fortified Mississippian Town in Middle Tennessee. Southeastern Archaeology 25(1):89-109.

Moore, Michael C., and Kevin E. Smith 2009 Archaeological Expeditions of the Peabody Museum in Middle Tennessee, 1877-1884. Research Series No. 16, Tennessee Division of Archaeology, Nashville.

Moore, Michael C. (editor) 2012 The Brentwood Library Site: A Mississippian Town on the Little Harpeth River, Williamson County, Tennessee. Research Series No. 11. Tennessee Division of Archaeology, Nashville.

Moore, Michael C. 2016 Archaeology in the Little Harpeth River Drainage: A Reanalysis of the Inglehame Farm Site (40WM342), Williamson County, Tennessee. Paper presented at the 73rd Annual Southeastern Archaeological Conference, Athens, Georgia.

129 Muller, Jon 1987 Archaeology of the Lower Ohio River Valley. Academic Press, Orlando.

2007 Prolegomena for the Analysis of the Southeastern Ceremonial Complex. In Southeastern Ceremonial Complex: Chronology, Content, Context, edited by Adam King, pp. 15-37. University Press of Alabama, Tuscaloosa.

Munro, Natalie D. 2011 Domestication of the Turkey in the Southwest. In The Subsistence Economies of Indigenous North American Societies, edited by Bruce D. Smith, pp. 543-555. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington D.C.

Neusius, Sarah W. 2008 Game Procurement Among Temperate Horticulturalists: The Case for Garden Hunting by the Dolores Anasazi. In Case Studies in Environmental Archaeology, edited by Elizabeth J. Reitz, Margaret Scarry and Sylvia J. Scudder, pp. 297-314. Springer, New York.

Norton, Mark R., and John B. Broster 2004 The Sogom Site (40DV68): A Mississippian Farmstead on Cockrill Bend, Davidson County, Tennessee. Tennessee Archaeology 1(1):2-17.

O’Brien, Michael J., and Carl Kuttruff 2012 The 1974–75 Excavations at Mound Bottom, A Palisaded Mississippian Center in Cheatham County, Tennessee. Southeastern Archaeology 31(1):70-86.

Pate, Donald F. 2000 Bone Chemistry and Paleodiet: Bioarchaeological Research at Roonka Flat, Lower Murray River, South Australia 1983-1999. Australian Archaeology 50:67-74.

Pauketat, Timothy R. 2007 Chiefdoms and Other Archaeological Delusions. Altamira Press, Walnut Creek, California.

Perdue, Theda, and Michael D. Green 2001 The Columbia Guide to American Indians of the Southeast. Columbia University Press, New York.

Peres, Tanya 2010a Zooarchaeological Remains from the 1998 Fewkes Site Excavations, Williamson County, Tennessee. Tennessee Archaeology 5(1):100-125.

2010b Methodological Issues in Zooarchaeology. In Integrating Zooarchaeology and Paleoethnobotany: A Consideration of Issues, Methods and Cases, edited by Amber M. VanDerwarker and Tanya M. Peres, pp. 15-36. Springer Press, New York.

130 2017 Foodways Archaeology: A Decade of Research from the Southeastern United States. Journal of Archaeological Research 25(4):421-460.

2018 Splitting the Bones: Marrow Extraction and Mississippian Period Foodways. In Baking, Bourbon, and Black Drink: Foodways Archaeology in the Southeastern United States, edited by Tanya M. Peres and Aaron Deter-Wolf, University Press of Alabama, Tuscaloosa.

Peres, Tanya M., and Aaron Deter-Wolf 2016 The Shell-Bearing Archaic in the Middle Cumberland River Valley. Southeastern Archaeology 35(3):237-250.

Peres, Tanya M., and Kelly L. Ledford 2016 Archaeological Correlates of Population Management of the Eastern Wild Turkey (Meleagris gallopavo silvestris) with a Case Study from the American South. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 10:547-556.

Peres, Tanya M., and Heidi Altman 2017 The Magic of Improbable Appendages: Deer Antler Objects in the Archaeological Record of the American South. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports :1-8.

Piperno, Dolores R., Anthony J. Ranere, Ruth Dickau, and Francisco Aceituno 2017 Niche Construction and Optimal Foraging Theory in Neotropical Agricultural Origins: A Re-Evaluation in Consideration of the Empirical Evidence. Journal of Archaeological Science 78:214-220.

Porter, William F.; Robert D. Tangen, Gary C. Nelson, and David A. Hamilton 1980 Effects of Corn Food Plots on Wild Turkeys in the Upper Mississippi Valley. The Journal of Wildlife Management 44(2):456-462.

Power, Susan C. 2004 Early Art of the Southeastern Indians. University of Georgia Press, Athens.

Rawlings, Tiffany A., and Jonathan C Driver 2010 Paleodiet of Domestic Turkey, Shields Pueblo (5MT3807), Colorado: Isotopic Analysis and its Implications for Care of a Household Domesticate. Journal of Archaeological Science 37:2433-2441.

Reilly, Kent F., and James F. Garber 2007 Ancient Objects and Sacred Realms: Interpretations of Mississippian Iconography. University of Texas Press, Austin.

Reitz, Elizabeth J. 1982 Vertebrate Fauna from Four Coastal Mississippian Sites. Journal of Ethnobiology 2(1):39-61.

131 Reitz, Elizabeth J., and Elizabeth S. Wing 2008 Zooarchaeology. 2nd ed. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Schoeninger, Margaret J., and Katherine Moore 1992 Bone Stable Isotope Studies in Archaeology. Journal of World Prehistory 6(2):247-296.

Sichler, Judith, and Michael C. Moore 2005 Faunal Remains. In The Brentwood Library Site: A Mississippian Town on the Little Harpeth River, Williamson County, Tennessee, edited by Michael C. Moore, pp. 199-208. Research Series No.15. Tennessee Division of Archaeology, Nashville

Smith, Bruce D. 1974 Middle Mississippi Exploitation of Animal Populations: A Predictive Model. American Antiquity 39(2):274-291.

2007a Niche Construction and the Behavioral Context of Plant and Animal Domestication. Evolutionary Anthropology: Issues, News, and Reviews 16(5):188-199.

2007b The Ultimate Ecosystem Engineers. Science 315:1797-1798.

2011 The Cultural Context of Plant Domestication in Eastern North America. Current Anthropology 52(S4):484.

2012 A Cultural Niche Construction Theory of Initial Domestication. Biological Theory 6(3):260-271.

Smith, Derek A. 2005 Garden Game: Shifting Cultivation, Indigenous Hunting and Wildlife Ecology in Western Panama. Human Ecology 33(4):505-537.

Smith, Kevin E. 1993 Archaeology at Old Town (40WM2): A Mississippian Mound-Village Center in Williamson County, Tennessee. Tennessee Anthropologist 18(1):27-44.

Smith, Theresa 1995 The Island of the Annishnaabeg: Thunderers and Water Monsters in the Traditional Ojibwe Lige-World. University of Idaho Press, Moscow.

Smith, Kevin E., and Michael C. Moore 2012 Changing Interpretations of Sandbar Village (40DV36): Mississippian Hamlet, Village or Mound Center? Tennessee Archaeology 6(1-2):105-138.

1994 Excavation of a Mississippian Farmstead at the Brandywine Pointe Site (40DV247), Cumberland River Valley, Tennessee. Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology 19(2):198- 222.

132 Smith, Kevin E., and James V. Miller 2009 Speaking with the Ancestors: Mississippian Stone Statuary of the Tennessee- Cumberland Region. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

Smith, Bruce D., and Richard A. Yarnell 2009 Initial Formation of an Indigenous Crop Complex in Eastern North America at 3800 B.P. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 106(16):6561-6566.

Speck, Frank G., and Leonard Broom 1951 Cherokee Dance and Drama. Vol. 163, University of Oklahoma Press, Tulsa.

Steadman, David W. 1980 A Review of the Osteology and Paleontology of Turkeys (Aves: Meleagridinae); Contributions in Science Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County 330:131-207.

Steponaitis, Vincent P., and James V. Knight 2004 Moundville Art in Historical and Social Context. In Hero, Hawk, and Open Hand: American Indian Art of the Ancient Midwest and South, edited by Richard F. Townsend and Robert V. Sharp, Yale University Press, New Haven.

Sterelny, Kim 2005 Made By Each Other: Organisms and Their Environment. Biology & Philosophy 20(1):21-36.

Steward, Julian H. 1955 Theory of Culture Change: The Methodology of Multilinear Evolution. United States.

Stoddard, H. L. 1963 Maintenance and Increase of the Eastern Wild Turkey on Private Lands of the Coastal Plain of the Deep Southeast. Bulletin No.3. Tall Timbers Research Station, Tallahassee.

Styles, Bonnie W. 1981 Faunal Exploitation and Resource Selection: Early Late Woodland Subsistence in the Lower Illinois Valley. Scientific Papers 3. Archaeological Program , Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois .

Sullivan, Lynne P. 2001 Dates for Shell Gorgets and the Southeastern Ceremonial Complex in the Chickamauga Basin of Southeastern Tennessee. Electronic document, https://mcclungmuseum.utk.edu/2001/03/01/shell-gorgets/, accessed April 27, 2017.

Svizzero, Serge 2016 Hunting Strategies with Cultivated Plants as Bait and the Prey Pathway to Animal Domestication. International Journal of Research in Sociology and Anthropology 2(2).

133

Swanton, John R. 1928 Social Organization and Social Usages of the Indians of the Creek Confederacy. Smithsonian Institution, Bureau of American Ethnology, Washington D.C.

Thackston, Reggie, Todd Holbrook, Wes Abler, Jerry Bearden, David Carlock, Dan Forster, Nick Nicholson, and Ron Simpson 1991 The Wild Turkey in Georgia: History, Biology, and Management. Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Atlanta.

Thornton, Erin K., Kitty F. Emery, and Camilla Speller 2016 Ancient Maya Turkey Husbandry: Testing Theories Through Stable Isotope Analysis. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 10:584-595.

Thornton, Erin K., Kitty F. Emery, David W. Steadman, Camilla Speller, Ray Matheny, and Dongya Yang 2012 Earliest Mexican Turkeys (Meleagris gallopavo) in the Maya Region: Implications for Pre-Hispanic Animal Trade and the Timing of Turkey Domestication. PLOS ONE 7(8):e42630.

Tykot, Robert H. 2004 Stable Isotopes and Diet: You Are What You Eat; In Proceedings of the International School of Physics “Enrico Fermi” Course CLIV, edited by M. Martini, M. Milazzo and M. Piacentini, IOS Press, Amsterdam.

VanDerwarker, Amber M. 1999 Feasting and Status at the Toqua Site. Southeastern Archaeology 18(1):24-34.

2006 Farming, Hunting, and Fishing in the Olmec World. University of Texas Press, Austin.

Vanderwarker, Amber M., and Gregory D. Wilson 2015 War, Food, and Structural Violence in the Mississippian Central Illinois Valley. In The Archaeology of Food and Warfare: Food Insecurity in Prehistory, edited by Amber M. Vanderwarker and Gregory D. Wilson, pp. 75-105. Springer Press, New York.

VanDerwarker, Amber M., Gregory D. Wilson, and Dana N. Bardolph 2013 Maize Adoption and Intensification in The Central Illinois River Valley: An Analysis of Archaeobotanical Data from the Late Woodland to Early Mississippian Periods (A.D. 600– 1200). Southeastern Archaeology 32(2):147-168.

Watson, Patty Jo 1990 Trend and Tradition in Southeastern Archaeology. Southeastern Archaeology 9(1):43- 54.

134 West-Eberhard, Mary J. 2005 Developmental Plasticity and the Origin of Species Differences. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 102(18):6543-6549.

Williams, George C. 1992 Natural Selection: Domains, Levels, and Challenges. Vol. 4, Oxford University Press, New York.

Winterhalder, Bruce, and Eric A. Smith 2000 Analyzing Adaptive Strategies: Human Behavioral Ecology at Twenty‐Five. Evolutionary Anthropology: Issues, News, and Reviews 9(2):51-72.

Witthoft, John 1946 Bird Lore of the Eastern Cherokee. Journal of the Washington Academy of Sciences 36(11):372-384.

Worne, Heather 2017 Temporal Trends in Violence During the Mississippian period in the Middle Cumberland Region of Tennessee. Southeastern Archaeology :1-12.

Wunz, G. A., and J. C. Pack 1992 Eastern Turkey in Eastern Oak-Hickory and Northern Hardwood Forests. In The Wild Turkey: Biology and Management, pp. 232-264. Stackpole Books, Harrisburg.

Zeder, Melinda A. 2011 The Origins of Agriculture in the Near East. Current Anthropology 52(4):235-.

2012 Pathways to Animal Domestication. In Biodiversity in Agriculture: Domestication, Evolution, and Sustainability, edited by P. Gepts, T. R. Famula, S. B. Betting, A. B. Brush, P. E. Damania and C. O. McGuire, pp. 227-259. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

2016 Domestication as a Model System for Niche Construction Theory. Evolutionary Ecology 30(2):325-348.

Zeder, Melinda A., Eve Emshwiller, Bruce D. Smith, and Daniel G. Bradley 2006 Documenting Domestication: The Intersection of Genetics and Archaeology. Trends in Genetics (22)3:139-155.

135 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

Kelly Ledford was born and raised in Knoxville, Tennessee. As a first-generation college student, her path through the university system was a long a winding road. Kelly began college as a nursing major, but quickly discovered that she would rather pursue her interests in history.

She completed her Bachelor of Science in Anthropology at Middle Tennessee State University in

2012. It was here that she developed her interest in archaeology and found her passion for studying human and animal relationships in the past. Since she found archaeology, Kelly has participated in numerous excavations all over North America and in Fiji and analyzed archaeological faunal material from all over the United States.

136