This document has been archived. Out of Place Bones Beyond the Study of Prehistoric Subsistence This article was prepared Zooarcheologists specialize in old bones. inventorying all faunal species that are available in by Becky M. Saleeby, an Unlike paleontologists, who study fossil bones, the general site area, on either a year-round or a archeologist for the and physical anthropologists, who study human seasonal basis. However, sometimes after the anal- National Park Service. skeletal material, zooarcheologists study the ysis has begun, there can be surprises. Sometimes osteological refuse of long-past meals. Our exper- the fragments are “out of place,” or not what is tise is in identifying and analyzing discarded, usu- expected using modern faunal distribution maps. ally fragmentary, and often burnt skeletal remains These fragments may represent species that once of mammals, birds, fish, and shellfish excavated lived in an area but are now extinct or no longer from archeological sites. During excavation, these present within the region or species that were fragments are carefully retrieved, bagged, and brought into the site as the result of long-distance labeled with their exact site provenience, or place hunting forays or trade. In this review, the focus of origin within the site, before being brought will be on bones identified from archeological sites back to the lab. With some collections numbering throughout Alaska that are “out of place“ geo- upwards of 10,000 specimens, analysis can take graphically. It highlights some of the Pleistocene several months or even years. Frequently the goal megafauna—the big game animals—hunted by of zooarcheological or faunal analysis is to pro- the earliest Alaskans, as well as some species of vide a detailed picture of past human subsistence sea mammals—walrus, ringed seal, and polar practices. bear—hunted far outside their current ranges at Even before the first bag of catalogued bones times when past climatic and ice conditions were is opened, the zooarcheologist puts together a list, much different than today. 55 Analysis of large zooarcheological collections nately there are some exceptions, notably the Dry is time-consuming, beginning with the sorting of Creek site in the Nenana River valley, adjacent to bones and bone fragments that are potentially Denali National Park and Preserve. identifiable. Later, we tentatively identify skeletal Dry Creek is a multi-component site excavated elements and species based on drawings and during the 1970s by researchers from the Univer- photographs in reference books and on simple sity of Alaska Fairbanks (UAF). It was heralded in pattern recognition. For example, the distal (lower) archeological circles not only for its 11,000-year- ends of the upper arm or forelimb of most mam- old dates,* but also for its preservation, albeit mals look similar, regardless of species. Subtle poor, of faunal remains in association with ancient differences in morphology, such as the angle on a stone tools. R. Dale Guthrie, a Quaternary biolo- bony ridge or the shape of a particular ligament gist and paleontologist now retired from UAF, attachment, may be all that separate fragments of worked with the team of archeologists at the site two closely related species, so we turn to compar- and identified fragments of Dall’s sheep, wapiti or ative collections of skeletal material for positive elk, and bison in the small but significant faunal species identifications. assemblage, composed mostly of teeth. Neither In Alaska, one collection of comparative faunal wapiti nor bison are native to Alaska today, material is housed at the Anthropology Labora- though some small herds have been reintroduced tory at the University of Alaska Anchorage. Over into the state. the last several years, members of the Alaska Guthrie’s paleoecological reconstruction of the Consortium of Zooarcheologists (ACZ), which is site allows us to imagine Beringian hunters living a special interest group of the Alaska Anthropo- in an interior Alaska landscape changing from dry logical Association, have added many specimens grassland or steppe, which was once the dominant of mammals, birds, and fish to broaden the existing Pleistocene habitat in Alaska. Today the environ- comparative collection. By virtue of state and ment in the region is primarily boreal forest. Pale- federal permits, we have been allowed to collect animal carcasses for processing. Properly pre- pared as clean, white skeletons, they are acces- sioned into the growing inventory of modern specimens used for comparative purposes by archeologists throughout the state. National Park Service (NPS) archeologists have made frequent use of these collections for identifying faunal remains from sites within Aniakchak, Bering Land Bridge, Cape Krusenstern, and other NPS units in Alaska. Humans, Bison, and Elk For zooarcheologists working on collections from early Alaskan sites dating between 10,000 and 12,000 years ago, it is exciting to realize that some bone fragments do not match any modern species from the comparative collection. These sites represent the hunting and foraging camps of people who ranged over the narrowing isthmus of the Bering Land Bridge (Beringia) at a time when the late Pleistocene environment was rapidly changing. In general, faunal preservation at these sites is so poor that bones are either absent or so deteriorated that they cannot be identified. Fortu- *All the dates that appear in this article are uncalibrated. These are the dates listed in the originally published site Zooarcheologist Bob Kopperl checks the differences in reports. Calibrated dates may be several hundred (or seal skulls during a workshop sponsored by the Alaska more) years older than uncalibrated dates. Consortium of Zooarchaeologists at UAA in 1999. 56 David Yesner identified a wide range of water- fowl, small to medium-sized mammals, and fish, representing species still living in Alaska, from the earliest cultural layers at the multi-component Bro- ken Mammoth site. He also identified small num- bers of Dall’s sheep, caribou, and moose bones, along with much higher frequencies of long- horned steppe bison and elk or wapiti remains. Measurements of a bison horn core from Compo- nent 3 (second from lowest) are compatible with this extinct species, and the site is outside the range for the wood bison, a northern species still found in free-ranging herds in Canada. Large- horned bison and elk were clearly the chief prey of the Broken Mammoth hunters, who also left behind an assortment of stone tools, mammoth ivory projectile points, toggles for clothing, and eyed bone needles. Lorraine Alfsen uncovers ontological specimens of mammoth, dating to The provocative name “Broken Mammoth” a mammoth bone point about 12,300 years ago, were found in surveys and the earliest dates that are at least 600 years from the lowest com- around Dry Creek, but the bones of these behe- younger than those from the Dry Creek site beg ponent of the Broken moths were not found at the site. Guthrie argues the question, “where’s the mammoth?” Did humans Mammoth site during and mammoths coexist in Alaska? Archeological excavation in 2000. that although mammoths, horses, camels, saiga antelopes, lions, and other species may have evidence does prove their coexistence at several already become extinct in Alaska at the time when sites in the “lower 48,” but the evidence in Alaska the lower two levels of Dry Creek were occupied, is still circumstantial. The name “Broken Mam- the regional extinction of wapiti and bison had not moth” actually comes from the numerous mam- yet occurred. It is also interesting that the sheep, moth tusk fragments uncovered during initial site bison, and wapiti specimens from the site were as testing. Similar fragments were also recovered large as their Pleistocene forms, so Holocene from the nearby Mead and Swan Point sites. No dwarfing had apparently not yet begun. other mammoth skeletal elements have been A trio of early sites located on Shaw Creek recovered from these sites. Yesner originally pos- Flats in the Tanana River valley—the Broken tulated that the mammoth ivory, and possibly hide Mammoth site, the Mead site, and the Swan Point and meat, at the Shaw Creek sites may have been site—are also among the handful of early sites obtained at kill sites located away from the bluff- with faunal preservation despite the fact that their top campsites and brought back for raw material. lowest occupations date to almost 12,000 years After many field seasons of excavation, the evi- ago. This preservation is due to the sites’ deposits dence now suggests to him that the ivory repre- of wind-blown glacial silt from the nearby flood- sents scavenged material from the skeletons of plain of the Tanana River. Similar in setting to the recently extinct animals that was brought back to Dry Creek site, they probably served not only as camp specifically for tool production. Ongoing hunting overlooks for spotting and intercepting analysis and dating of the specimens may yet game animals, but also as “spike camps” or pro- bring to light indisputable evidence in support cessing stations for the meat and hide brought of the possible coexistence of humans and mam- back from kill sites. Best known of the three is the moths in Alaska. Broken Mammoth site, discovered in 1989 and Hotly debated since the topic was proposed revisited almost annually for summer test excava- decades ago is whether the large-scale die-off of tions and field schools sponsored by the Univer- North American megafauna at the end of the Pleis- sity of Alaska Anchorage (UAA) and the Alaska tocene (approximately 10,000 years ago) was the State Office of History and Archaeology (OHA). direct result of over-predation by human hunters. Charles Holmes, an archeologist with OHA, and The issue of whether the extinction was caused by David Yesner, associate anthropology professor humans, environmental change, or a combination and zooarcheologist at UAA, are the principal of factors has not been resolved.