INFORMATION TO USERS
This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UMI films the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some thesis and dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may be from any type of computer printer.
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins, and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.
Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand comer and continuing from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. Each original is also photographed in one exposure and is included in reduced form at the back of the book.
Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced xerographically in this copy. Higher quality 6" x 9" black and white photographic prints are available for any photographs or illustrations appearing in this copy for an additional charge. Contact UMI directly to order.
University Microfilms International A Bell & Howell Information Company 300 North Zeeb Road. Ann Arbor. Ml 48106-1346 USA 313/761-4700 800/521-0600
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Order Number 9505895
Prehistoric economies during the Late Woodland period of the Potomac Valley: An examination of animal resource utilization
Moore, Elizabeth Ann, Ph.D.
The American University, 1994
Copyright ©1994 by Moore, Elizabeth Aim. All rights reserved.
UMI 300 N. ZeebRd. Ann Aibor, MI 48106
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. PREHISTORIC ECONOMIES DURING THE LATE WOODLAND PERIOD
OF THE POTOMAC VALLEY: AN EXAMINATION OF
ANIMAL RESOURCE UTILIZATION
by
Elizabeth A. Moore
submitted to the
Faculty of the College of Arts and Sciences
of The American University
in Partial Fulfillment of
the Requirements for the Degree
of
Doctor of Philosophy
in
Anthropology
Signatures of Committee:
Chair:
<4 . l^ r Jean of'the College Date 1994 The American University Washington, D.C. 20016 THE AMERICAN UNIVERSITY LIBRARY Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. © COPYRIGHT by ELIZABETH A. MOORE 1994 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. To my Mother Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. PREHISTORIC ECONOMIES DURING THE LATE WOODLAND PERIOD OF THE POTOMAC VALLEY: AN EXAMINATION OF ANIMAL RESOURCE UTILIZATION BY Elizabeth A. Moore ABSTRACT This research describes differences in the prehistoric economies of two Late Woodland archaeological cultures, the Montgomery Complex and the Luray Focus, and examines the relationship between these differences and other sociocultural factors. Zooarchaeological data used to perform this examination were collected from six sites. The relative completeness and research utility of all assemblages was determined. Other artifact classes and site features were described to provide a more complete view of these sites. The zooarchaeological data was used to define four key aspects of hunting strategies - the diversity of vertebrate taxa exploited, the habitats which were exploited to acquire those taxa, the exploitation of seasonally available resources, and the techniques used to hunt deer. At the sites from the Montgomery Complex, a wide variety of taxa were hunted or collected from all of the surrounding habitats. Deer were hunted with a specific strategy at the ii Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Rosenstock site, a strategy that resulted in the killing of the age groups that were of maximum meat-yielding age and size. Seasonally abundant resources were targeted for exploitation as they became available. As an overall pattern, the occupants of the Montgomery Complex sites appear to have been maximizing the exploitation of many of the animal resources found in the area. The hunting strategies at sites from the Luray Focus contrast to those from the Montgomery Complex in several ways. First, only a limited number of animal taxa were being hunted or collected. These taxa were probably found in the gardens or garden borders. Second, the seasonally available resources in the area were not targeted for maximum exploitation. The presence of seasonally available resources in the assemblages is marginal and their collection was probably opportune and not necessarily part of a deliberate strategy to exploit those particular taxa. Several sociocultural factors that may be related to these differences in hunting strategies are examined. These factors include a possible increase in the dependence upon cultivars, an increase in the use of defensive fortifications, and differences in stalking techniques for deer hunting. Finally, the implications of the relationship between these factors and the differences in the overall economies as reflected in the hunting strategies are discussed. in Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This research project has benefitted from the input of numerous individuals. Professors, colleagues, friends, and family all provided the support without which this work could not have been possible. Any errors in this work have occurred in spite of their assistance. First, I would like to thank my committee members. My advisor Richard J. Dent not only provided the faunal material from the Hughes site but also critiqued the results of my work. Charles W. McNett, Jr. shared a great deal of his time and knowledge as well as a good portion of his library. June Evans has been an inspiration to me both personally and professionally. I especially appreciate her steady reminders to take time away from work and writing to enjoy my family. Last, but certainly not least, I owe a special debt to Melinda A. Zeder. She introduced me to zooarchaeology and provided invaluable training and support through this entire process. In particular, her critical (and sometimes humorous) comments on this research contributed greatly to the final product. I thank several individuals at the Maryland Historical Trust, Office of Archeology. Tyler Bastian, Dennis Curry, and Maureen Kavanagh generously provided me with the opportunity to analyze the faunal material from the Rosenstock site. Their comments and input during my all-too-short visits to the iv Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. site and my assorted trips to the Trust gave me much encouragement. I thank the Archaeological Society of Maryland for all of the work that they performed in the field at the Rosenstock site and in the lab after the excavations ended. Without their continued labor and the assemblage that resulted from that work, this research would not have been possible. Bruce D. Smith has provided support and encouragement over the last several years and for that I am very grateful. In addition, his empathy and humor regarding the entire dissertation process helped me keep this experience in perspective. Susie Arter has been both a dear friend and a valued colleague. Her tenacity in identifying the most frustrating bone fragment was a great help in the lab. Justin Lev-Tov was another colleague who provided not only technical assistance but also friendship. Without his help, I might still be struggling with the fishes. I acknowledge several members of my family for their roles in this project. My mother encouraged me to do exactly what I wanted and I thank her for telling me not to go to law school. Leah Drown has quite persistently performed the task of "cracking the whip" and I thank her for not letting me procrastinate any more than I already did. Sarah Myler provided the loving support only a sister can. I have a most heartfelt thanks and acknowledgement for Varna G. Boyd. As a professional and colleague, the advice, the constructive criticism, the v Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. editing comments, and the wealth of archaeological experience that she has shared with me has been invaluable. I thank her for being one of those truly special friends that few are lucky to find. Finally, I would like to thank my husband Tim Moore and my daughter Rebecca Joy Moore. Rebecca has provided the motivation for me to finish as quickly as possible so that I don't have to devote all of my spare time to my computer. I thank her for two very important things over the past three months - arriving after my defense and sleeping through the night. Tim has graciously suffered through the dissertation process and I thank him for his patience and his valued comments and advice. vi Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT ...... ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS...... iv LIST OF TABLES ...... xiii LIST OF FIGURES ...... xv CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ...... 1 Statement of the Problem ...... 1 Background ...... 3 Test Implications...... 12 Goals and Objectives ...... 14 Methodology ...... 21 Organization...... 24 Conclusion ...... 26 CHAPTER 2 CULTURE HISTORY...... 28 Introduction...... 28 Montgomery Complex ...... 29 Village Organization ...... 31 Ceramic Artifacts...... 32 Lithic Artifacts ...... 34 Worked Bone and Antler Artifacts ...... 36 vii Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Mortuary Patterns ...... 38 Subsistence Patterns ...... 39 Mason Island Complex ...... 42 Village Organization ...... 43 Ceramic Artifacts...... 43 Lithic Artifacts ...... 44 Worked Bone and Antler Artifacts ...... 45 Mortuary Patterns ...... 45 Subsistence Patterns ...... 45 Luray F o c u s...... 46 Village Organization ...... 47 Ceramic Artifacts...... 52 Lithic Artifacts ...... 56 Worked Bone and Antler Artifacts ...... 59 Mortuary Patterns ...... 62 Subsistence Patterns ...... 66 Discussion ...... 71 Conclusion ...... 85 CHAPTER 3 ASSEMBLAGE RECOVERY AND UTILITY ...... 86 Introduction...... 86 18FR18 - The Rosenstock S ite ...... 94 Excavation, Recovery, and Curation ...... 94 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Assemblage Description...... 96 Summary ...... 98 18M01 - The Hughes S ite ...... 100 Excavation, Recovery, and Curation ...... 100 1937-1938 Excavations ...... 101 1990-1991 Excavations ...... 102 Assemblage Description ...... 104 Summary ...... 106 18M03 - The Shepard Site ...... 107 Excavation, Recovery, and Curation ...... 107 1936-1939 Excavations ...... 108 1952-1955 Excavations ...... 110 1955 Excavations ...... 110 Assemblage Description ...... 111 Summary ...... 112 18M04 - The Shepard Barrack Site ...... 114 Excavation, Recovery, and Curation ...... 114 Assemblage Description ...... 115 Summary ...... 116 18M09 - The Winslow S ite ...... 117 Excavation, Recovery, and Curation ...... 117 1940-1941 Excavations ...... 118 ix Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 1959-1962 Excavations ...... 119 Assemblage Description ...... 122 Summary ...... 122 44PA1 - The Keyser Farm S ite ...... 124 Excavation, Recovery, and Curation ...... 124 Assemblage Description ...... 126 Summary ...... 127 Conclusion ...... 128 CHAPTER 4 ANALYTICAL METHODS ...... 130 Introduction...... 130 Analytical Techniques ...... 131 Aging and Sexing of Specimens ...... 149 D e e r ...... 149 R accoon...... 156 Butchering S c a rs...... 158 Sampling Strategies ...... 159 Primary Material ...... 161 Secondary Material ...... 163 Definitions of Analytical T e rm s ...... 164 NISP ...... 165 MNI ...... 166 MNE ...... 189 x Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Diversity ...... 194 Shannon-Weaver Index ...... 196 Evenness ...... 196 Richness...... 198 Chi-Square ...... 199 Kolmogorov-Smirnov ...... 201 Summary ...... 203 CHAPTER 5 SUMMARY OF DATA ...... 204 Introduction ...... 204 Animal Utilization at Montgomery Complex S ite s ...... 206 Diversity ...... 206 Seasonality...... 216 Animal Selection ...... 220 Animal Processing...... 226 Butchering Patterns ...... 235 Animal Utilization at Luray Focus S ite s...... 238 Diversity ...... 238 Seasonality...... 244 Animal Selection ...... 246 Animal Processing...... 248 Butchering Patterns ...... 252 Comparison of Animal Utilization Patterns at Montgomery Complex and Luray Focus Site s ...... 254 xi Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Diversity ...... 255 Seasonality...... 261 Animal Selection, Processing, andButchering ...... 263 Conclusion ...... 265 CHAPTER 6 CONCLUSIONS...... 268 The Use of Curated Collections ...... 285 Directions for Future Research ...... 286 APPENDIX ONE TABLE 23: TAXONOMIC CLASSIFICATION OF SPECIES RECOVERED ...... 290 APPENDIX TWO TABLE 24: HABITATS FOR SPECIES RECOVERED . . 297 APPENDIX THREE TABLE 25: ODOCOILEUS VIRGINIANUS MANDIBULAR TEETH MEASUREMENTS (BASED ON SEVERINGHAUS 1948) ...... 306 APPENDIX FOUR TABLE 26: BUTCHERING SCAR INVENTORY FOR THE ROSENSTOCK (18FR18) AND HUGHES (18M01) SITES .. 314 BIBLIOGRAPHY...... 332 xii Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1. Radiocarbon Dates from Montgomery Complex, Mason Island Complex, and Luray Focus S ites ...... 18 2. Burial Data from the Shepard Site (18M03) Compiled from Slattery and Woodward 1992 and MacCord, Schmitt, and Slattery 1957 . . 40 3. Counts and Weights of Specimens by S ite ...... 89 4. Bone Tool (BTI) and Measurable (Ml) Indices ...... 91 5. Number of Taxa Represented at Each S ite ...... 92 6. Faunal Analysis C o d e s...... 136 7. Fragment Orientation for Known Skeletal Element Fragments ...... 150 8. Criteria for Age Classes for Deer ( Odocoileus virginianus) from Severinghaus 1949 ...... 152 9. Age Classes for Raccoon (Procyon lotor) from Grau, et al. 1970 . . . 157 10. Codes for Butchering Scars...... 160 11. Percentages of Assemblages from the Rosenstock and Hughes Sites Submitted to Each Phase of Analysis ...... 164 12. NISP by Site ...... 167 13. Percent of NISP by Site ...... 172 14. MNI for Identifiable Remains by Site ...... 178 15. Percent MNI for Identifiable Remains by Site ...... 183 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 16. Minimum Number of Elements (MNE) for Deer (Odocoileus virginianus) ...... 191 17. Raccoon MNI by Site and Age C la s s...... 227 18. Distribution of Number of Butchering Scars for Rosenstock (18FR18) and Hughes (1 8 M 0 1 ) ...... 236 19. Distribution of Percentage of Types of Butchering Scars for Rosenstock (18FR18) and Hughes (18M01) ...... 237 20. Shannon-Weaver Index Calculations Comparing Evenness and Richness for the Rosenstock and Hughes S ite s...... 257 21. Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test Calculations for the Distribution of Specimens (NISP) by Class for the Rosenstock and Hughes S ite s ...... 258 22. Chi-Square Calculations for Distribution of Specimens by Class for the Rosenstock and Hughes S ites ...... 260 23. Appendix One: Taxonomic Classification of Species Recovered .... 290 24. Appendix Two: Habitats for Species Recovered ...... 297 25. Appendix Three: Odocoileus Virginianus Mandibular Teeth Measurements (Based on Severinghaus 1948) ...... 306 26. Appendix Four: Butchering Scar Inventory for the Rosenstock (18FR18) and Hughes (18M01) Sites ...... 314 xiv Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1. Study A re a ...... 15 2. Distribution of Dates for Montgomery Complex and Luray Focus S ite s ...... 17 3. Bone Tool and Measurable Bones Indices ...... 99 4. Potomac Valley Faunal Analysis Code Sheet ...... 148 5. Seasonality of Deer Mandibles ...... 218 6. Age Composition of Deer Populations, The Rosenstock Site ...... 222 7. Age Composition of Deer Populations, The Winslow S ite ...... 224 8. Percentages of Deer MNE by Body Part, The Rosenstock Site .... 229 9. Percentages of Deer MNE by Body Part, The Winslow S ite ...... 233 10. Percentages of Deer MNE by Body Part, The Shepard S ite ...... 234 11. Age Composition of Deer Populations, The Hughes S it e ...... 247 12. Percentages of Deer MNE by Body Part, The Hughes Site ...... 249 13. Percentages of Deer MNE by Body Part, The Keyser Farm Site .... 251 14. Percentages of Deer MNE by Body Part, The Shepard Barrack S ite ...... 253 15. Percentages of Deer MNE by Body Part, The Hughes and Rosenstock S ite s...... 264 xv Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Statement of the Problem During the Late Woodland period in the Eastern Woodlands, specifically in the Middle Atlantic region, a number of changes occurred within the indigenous cultures. Much of the cultural historical and theoretically oriented literature concerning this period states that beginning at approximately A.D. 1000 an intensification of food production began in the Eastern Woodlands. This resulted in a shift away from an economic system based primarily on the hunting and gathering of wild resources toward one that was agriculturally oriented and based primarily on the cultivation of corn, beans, and squash supplemented by the collection of wild resources. By A.D. 1200 this development had resulted in an economy based on a more sedentary way of life, one increasingly dependent upon cultivated plant resources (Caldwell 1958; Catlin 1982; Clark 1980; Cohen 1977; Custer 1986; Ford 1985; Griffin 1968; Kavanagh 1982, 1983; Keegan and Butler 1987; Potter 1982, Smith 1992). Previous research on this time period in the Piedmont province of the Potomac Valley has focussed on examining the roles and relationships of settlement 1 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. patterns, increasing sedentism, agricultural intensification, and the environmental context of site location (Custer 1986; Gardner 1986; Hantman and Klein 1992; Kavanagh 1982, 1983r Potter 1993) but has not specifically examined the continued role of animal procurement during these fundamental shifts in the societies involved. Although broad hypotheses have been made about the animals being hunted and the relative importance of various species at various points in time (Gardner 1986:88-89; Kavanagh 1982:70, 74, 79), more detailed aspects of these statements have not been directly examined for Piedmont sites with in- depth zooarchaeological analyses. Zooarchaeological analyses from sites in the Late Woodland period have been performed on sites in the Coastal Plain and have been incorporated into broader interpretations (Potter 1993; Waselkov 1982) and at least one study has been done in the Shenandoah Valley (Otter 1989) but, given the environmental differences between the physiographic provinces and the possibility of differing external cultural contacts and influences as well as in situ cultural developments, the interpretations resulting from these analyses cannot be used to describe and interpret activities at sites in the Piedmont. The current research examines the role of animal procurement in prehistoric economies of the Potomac Piedmont by analyzing the animal remains from six sites representing two distinct prehistoric archaeological cultures and posits possible reasons for differences in animal procurement strategies between these two cultures. These reasons include, but Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. are not limited to, differences in sedentism, reliance on food production, and sociocultural complexity. Background In general, there are two basic types of plant food producing economies - horticultural and agricultural. The difference between these is critical. As I am defining them for this research, horticultural economies are determined as containing strategies where people are deliberately planting and harvesting plant foods, are depending on these foods as a predictable source of calories, but yet continue following the previously developed seasonal round of procurement activities with minimal change in procurement strategy. In this definition, although it is possible that the result of the activities (the predictable and reliable source of food) can have a dramatic impact on the society, planting and harvesting activities themselves can be incorporated without major change in the scheduling of other activities in the society. In agricultural economies, in contrast, people are deliberately planting, tending, protecting, and harvesting plant foods, are depending on these foods as a predictable source of calories, and, as cultivation becomes the primary subsistence strategy, must alter other parts of their culture to accommodate that production. Agriculture is not the causal factor for culture change, but change is effected when a commitment has been made 1) to invest time and energy into an activity; and 2) to depend on the foods resulting from that activity to the Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. extent that it interferes with previously developed activities. This commitment must be supported by or accompanied by other attributes of the culture. These attributes may include having a part of the population who is responsible for tending and protecting the crop throughout the growing season; having the means to store and protect; having access to surplus goods for future use or trade; and having at least a semi-permanent base camp or village near the area where crops are being grown. This definition of agriculture implies a certain degree of sedentism - one where at least part of the population is occupying the same site year-round. Although these sites can change locations, they are tied to the more productive food-producing areas. While horticultural societies can also be relatively sedentary, the main difference here is that sedentism with horticultural societies is possible but not required. On the other hand, with agricultural societies, a certain degree of sedentism is required to support the year-round involvement with food production. Given this definition, the increasing time and labor demands of agricultural production necessitate prioritizing other activities and reallocating remaining time and labor accordingly. Hunting, as a continuing critical source of food, certainly remains important in the economies under examination but the strategies used and the time and labor allocated to perform hunting activities could have changed drastically. Determining the difference between horticultural and agricultural Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. economies archaeologically is not always easy nor even always possible. This is especially so since societies change on a continuum and not necessarily with dramatic shifts that might leave easily recognizable archaeological evidence as a group moves from horticulture to agriculture. Therefore, if examining the evidence of changes in hunting strategies can be used to determine these differences, then the current research will contribute to this discussion. As will be discussed in more detail below, these possible changes in hunting strategies are numerous and can vary greatly between cultures. There have been many theories concerning the causes of the development of agriculture and the rate at which cultivation in general became economically critical after its initial development. These causes include environmental determinism, opportunity and convenience, regional exchange of plants and animals, population pressure, and a combination of all of the above. Finally, while we may never completely understand why agriculture developed in a given area, we are reaching a point in data collection when we can more fully examine the process by which it happened. One of the earliest theories on the origins of agriculture was proposed by V. Gordon Childe in 1951 when he stated that "The period when the food- producing economy became established was one of climatic crises adversely affecting precisely that zone of arid sub-tropical countries where the earliest farmers appear, and where the wild ancestors of cultivated cereals and domestic animals actually lived" (Childe 1951 in Streuver (editor) 1971:15). Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 6 Although the proximity and availability of plants and animals conducive to domestication were necessary, in this environmentally deterministic model it was climatic change that provided the impetus to actually domesticate these and incorporate them into a food producing economy. Braidwood disagreed with these causes for food-production and instead put forth the idea that "The food-producing revolution seems to have occurred as the culmination of the ever increasing cultural differentiation and specialization of human communities” (Braidwood 1960:6). Domestication of both plants and animals was a step in the progression of cultural evolution as humans became increasingly familiar with their environment and the plants and animals around them. As independent cultures reached the required level of complexity, the development of agriculture and animal husbandry occurred and then was diffused throughout the world from those centers of development (Braidwood 1960:6). Binford (1968) in his early work, saw adaptation as a local problem, with selective pressures resulting from conditions of non-equilibrium in the ecosystem. The development of cultivation occurred in systems where three basic conditions occurred: sedentism; population growth; and an increase in potentially hostile contact between neighboring groups as populations expanded. These three conditions produced increasing pressure upon the local environment, the result being strong selective pressure for the development of more effective and efficient means of food production. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 7 Flannery (1969), in a discussion on the origins of agriculture in the Near East, concluded that intensive food production was due to "a series of responses to disturbances of density equilibrium in human populations around the margins of favoured areas, caused by the fact that those areas were the zones of population growth and emigration" (Flannery 1969 reprinted in Streuver 1971:78). While the major goal of the development of farming was a stable food supply, other results of this development included 1) a change the means of production, 2) the development of a division of labor, 3) the stimulation of social stratification, and 4) an increase in environmental degradation so that even if humans wanted to return to their previous exploitation patterns it would not have been possible to do so (Flannery 1969 reprinted in Streuver 1971:78). Not only were plants and animals native to certain ecological zones domesticated, but as people moved between these zones, plants and animals were brought with them where they were not only protected, but selected for propagation. Boserup (1965) proposed that population pressure was the required impetus for the development of agriculture. In this discussion, the optimal carrying capacity (the largest population size that can be supported by available resources in a given area) is a critical variable. As populations grow past this optimal carrying capacity, they must develop ways of producing more food. Without this pressure on the environment, the need to produce more food than was already available would not be present. The development of Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. agriculture is not the only way that cultures can increase their access to food. Cohen (1977), for example, sees an increasing reliance on marine resources as a response to population pressure. Although the various degrees of food production between the hunting and gathering of wild resources and the development of agricultural production may vary among cultures, Boserup, as well as many others, felt that population growth was a requirement for food production to occur. Regardless of the causes of the development of agriculture, it is clear that at different points in time, many cultures around the world independently domesticated plant resources and eventually became dependent on them to some degree. This process was not accomplished quickly; indeed, as is shown in a recent volume on the origins of agriculture (Cowan and Watson 1992), in many areas of the world this process took thousands of years. In Eastern North America, the initial domestication of the indigenous seed plants sumpweed (Iva annua), sunflower (Helianthus annuus), and goosefoot (Chenopodium berlandieri) occurred between 2050-1050 B.C (Smith 1992:106). A domesticated variety of squash (Cucurbita pepo ) was present after 1050 B.C. but there is no evidence that it was present in the area prior to that time. It is also not yet clear whether the C. pepo present after 1050 B.C. was introduced or was domesticated from an indigenous wild progenitor. The earliest evidence of maize in the Eastern Woodlands is from an AMS date of A.D. 175 + 100 from the Icehouse Bottom site in eastern Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 9 Tennessee (Chapman and Crites 1987 in Smith 1992). Although it is evident from the archaeological record that maize was increasingly cultivated, it did not, however, become a staple food until after A.D. 1100 (Smith 1992:110-111). This reliance on maize, as well as the cultivation of beans ( Phaseolus vulgaris) and the previously mentioned plants, developed along various trajectories throughout the Eastern Woodlands in combination with a continued reliance on wild plants and animals. Since there were at least four plant species domesticated prior to the introduction of maize - squash ( Cucurbita ), sumpweed (Iva annua), sunflower (Helianthus annuus), and goosefoot ( Chenopodium berlandieri ) - there was already an established behavior of cultivating plants that could be readily adapted to the cultivation of maize. The domestication of these plants does not mean that the people domesticating them were dependent on them for predictable food. Indeed, Smith maintains that seeds from these plants are relatively rare in the early archaeological record and food production did not play a significant economic role in the region until 550-50 B.C. (Smith 1992:107-108). Agriculture in this area was not then a dramatic change in the economy brought about by the appearance of domesticated species, but rather "The maize-centered food production systems of late prehistoric groups in the East can thus best be viewed as largely compatible extensions of pre-existing, long-evolving subsistence systems" (Smith 1992:113-114). The role of hunting strategies within food-producing economies has become a growing topic of archaeological research. In particular, garden Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 10 hunting, a theory that postulates that with the intensification of agriculture people will exploit certain species that frequent borders of fields, has become increasingly addressed in the archaeological literature (Kent 1989; Linares 1976; Neusius 1990; Speth and Scott 1989; Szuter and Bayham 1989). Linares (1976), in the defining piece on garden hunting, found at the site of Cerro Brujo in Panama that the faunal assemblage had three major components. The first component indicates a focus on the collared peccary, a species that is relatively peaceful, needs a small territory, is used to disturbed conditions, and readily eats cultivated crops. The second component indicates a focus on the white tailed deer, which can withstand heavy harvesting and subsists in open brush, grassland, and disturbed areas, especially those with cultivated crops, instead of the brocket deer which is solitary and lives in more forested areas. The third component indicates a disproportionately high hunting of the small rodents, agouti and paca, relative to their natural biomass, species which also eat cultivated plants (Linares 1976:346-347). Together, these three components add up to a model where hunting is focussed on both large and small animals that can be found in the gardens and immediately surrounding border areas. An alternative model of adaptation in a context of increasingly limited resources is known as the diet breadth model. The diet breadth model states that as a particular resource (i.e., a species) becomes depleted as a result of localized overhunting, lower ranked species will be hunted instead of increasing the costs to search and hunt favored resources. Speth and Scott (1989) Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 11 critically address both the diet breadth and garden hunting models. Through an examination of the archaeological literature of the American Southwest and ethnographic literature on contemporary horticultural societies, they found that as some societies become more heavily committed to food-production rather than becoming increasingly dependent on small mammals there were many cases where the ratio of large to small mammals increased as people were engaged in high-risk high-energy consumptive behavior to acquire these large mammals. They give several possible reasons for this willingness to invest large amounts of time and energy to hunt one particular taxa. One of these reasons is that by having a predictable high caloric yield from horticultural activities, time and energy are available to engage in high-risk time-consuming activities such as hunting large mammals over a broad territory. Another reason is that local game sources may become depleted as a result of continued localized hunting. Traveling longer distances to hunt large mammals therefore becomes more productive than traveling the same distance to hunt small mammals. These differing views, garden hunting and long-range hunting, are not presented here as mutually exclusive hunting strategies where one or the other will always or even most frequently be the strategy used by horticultural societies. Rather, these two strategies are just two of many possible strategy options that can develop as a society becomes more committed to a food producing economy and will vary in different environmental contexts. Two of Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 12 these strategies, a focus on limited large mammals and small mammals as at the Cerro Brujo site (Linares 1976) and traveling long distances to hunt large mammals (Speth and Scott 1989), were outlined above. However, it is also possible that a combination of these two strategies could be used. Although the discussions above were the result of research with horticultural societies, it is possible that these strategies could be used by agricultural societies. The current examination of Late Woodland Potomac Valley sites will contribute to this discussion of changing hunting strategies. The discussion of garden hunting can be used not only to address issues of strategies of resource procurement but can also question the traditional view of male hunters as providing the bulk of animal resources. Opportune hunting while tending a garden would imply that men were not the only hunters in a society unless men were the only people tending gardens. If women, children, and the elderly were tending gardens, they would be just as likely to be contributing to the animal resources that were collected. While the current examination of hunting strategies will not provide direct evidence for gender- or age-specific participation in hunting activities, the implications of it as indirect evidence will be examined. Test Implications A systemic approach to the explanation of cultural change posits a relationship of close interaction among all aspects of a given cultural system. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 13 This approach does not suggest that any one of these features plays a deterministic role but acknowledges that all aspects of any society, from environmental context to ideology, play important roles in the overall definition or description of that society. This context of interrelatedness allows one to postulate that, given a shift to an increased reliance on food production and a more sedentary lifeway, there may be concurrent shifts in strategies of animal resource procurement. While there are probably changes in other aspects of the cultural systems as well, the data analyzed here will not necessarily be able to address those changes directly. There are at least three ways in which these shifts in animal procurement strategies could be manifested: ► One, there could be a concentration in the use of certain animal species mirroring the concentration in the use of certain cultivated plant species. One possible example of this could be a use of only more productive animals - animals with a relatively large amount of meat provided for the energy invested in hunting. If more time and energy is invested in agricultural related activities and less time is available for hunting then a decision could be made to maximize that hunting time by focussing on the most productive resources. ► Two, there could be a complete restructuring and rescheduling (in both species hunted and season of the year when hunted) of the exploitation of available animal resources. Again, if there are increasing demands on time and labor because of agriculturally-related activities, then a variety of changes in Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 14 hunting strategies could occur. These could range from investing the available hunting time in collecting a few highly productive species, as described above, to collecting all available species within the surrounding area, to hunting only the easily accessible animals - those animals either found feeding in the gardens or that take a relatively small amount of time to hunt. Some key agricultural activities such as planting and harvesting are seasonal and the seasonal availability (or lack thereof) of time for hunting could affect the time of year when more hunting is performed. ► Three, there could be no evident change in hunting and collecting strategies. This could indicate that the initial strategies were so successful that either they could be adapted fairly readily to new situations with a minimum of change or that the increase in cultivation activities did not affect the time and energy needed for hunting. Goals and Objectives The primary research goal is to examine animal based procurement strategies over a ca. 600 year span of time during the Late Woodland period in the context of relatively sedentary food producing economies; to interpret not only the strategies evident at each site but how these change over time; and to postulate possible reasons for these changes. Analysis of faunal assemblages from six sites located in the Potomac and Monocacy River Valleys (Figure 1) will be used to define these strategies. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 01 C olu m b ia M a ryla n d F ig u re 1 istrict of S tu d y Area 18FR38 - Devubiss Bridge + 18FR14 - Biggs Ford 618FR18 — Rosenstock ®18M03 - Shepard gH-18M04 - Shepard Barrack Hughe§t®18M09 - Winslow 18M01 V irgin ia Pennsylvania 4-18AG43 — Moore Village 44PA1 - Keyser Farm West V irg in ia Mney-4 Quicksburg Bowman^' 0 Montgomery Complex Sites -)- Luray Focus Sites 0 0 Miles 10 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 16 As described in the background information, other researchers have noted a relationship between sedentism, increased emphasis on localized resources, and maximization of resource security as providing a context for examining the broader issue of the continuation and intensification of food production strategies. Three possible alternative shifts in hunting strategies which incorporate this relationship have been outlined above. Determining which, if any, of these three shifts actually occurred will help to more clearly understand this relationship. The collection of sites analyzed for this research (Figure 1) span what could be a 600 year period from ca. A.D. 900 to ca. A.D. 1500 (Figure 2) (Table 1). The earlier Montgomery Complex is represented by the Winslow (18M09), Shepard (18M03), and Rosenstock (18FR18) sites. The later Luray Focus is represented by the Keyser Farm (44PA1), Shepard Barracks (18M04), and Hughes (18M01) sites. This collection of sites spans the period discussed earlier during which food production was established throughout the region. Although the faunal assemblages from all six sites were examined, the assemblages from the Hughes and Rosenstock sites represent the two most complete and most systematically collected assemblages, assemblages that can be reliably used for describing and interpreting the hunting strategies used by the people occupying these sites (see Chapter Three for a discussion of all Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. I KeyserI Farm j Quickstjurg j I M ile y | Bowman \/sjiepard Barrack stock V H u g h e s Moore Village s \ V H ughes^/ VRosenstock" /\Hughes ^Y lloore Village Ford VKosenstoek Sosenatock \ /^Rosenstoc Luray Focus X Xfiiggs xRosenstock v / / ' y\Shepari v v XRosenstoek XWinslow 1050 1100 1150 1200 1250 1300 1350 1400 1450 1500 1550 1600 1650 /(BigS3 Ford ' v ^She|ard ' j r XKosenstock v x ' ' Complex and Luray Focus Sites v lOoi lOoi Montgomery Complex v&2SSS~k ______ a Distribution of Dates for Montgomery 2 S hepard N / c t , V Win3low / VDevilbiss V/ Vwinslow F ig u re A.D. A.D. 800 850' 80(i 05^ Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 18 TABLE 1 RADIOCARBON DATES FROM MONTGOMERY COMPLEX, MASON ISLAND COMPLEX, AND LURAY FOCUS SITES Site and Uncorrected Date B.C./A.D. Reference Sample No. Before Present Montgomery Complex Biggs Ford (18FR14) SI-3661 915 ± 6 0 A.D. 1035 Stuckenrath, 1979 Kavanagh 1982:71 Rosenstock (18FR18) SI-4577 115 ± 75 A.D. 1835 Stuckenrath, 1980 SI-4578 530 + 60 A.D. 1420 Stuckenrath, 1980 SI-4579 615 ± 6 0 A.D. 1335 Stuckenrath, 1980 SI-4580 475 + 60 A.D. 1475 Stuckenrath, 1980 SI-4581 500 ± 30 A.D. 1450 Stuckenrath, 1980 SI-4582 935 ± 60 A.D. 1015 Stuckenrath, 1980 Beta-51754 910 ±90 A.D. 1040 Curry, pers.comm. Beta-51755 850 +120 A.D. 1100 Curry, pers.comm. Beta-51756 860 + 80 A.D. 1090 Curry, pers.comm. Beta-55044 520 + 80 A.D. 1430 Curry, pers.comm. Beta-55045 380 + 70 A.D. 1570 Curry, pers.comm. Beta-55047 700 ± 90 A.D. 1250 Curry, pers.comm. Beta-55048 720 + 70 A.D. 1230 Curry, pers.comm. Beta-55786 740 + 80 A.D. 1210 Curry, pers.comm. Devilbiss Bridge (18FR38) SI-2898 845 ± 85 A.D. 1105 Stuckenrath, 1978 Kavanagh 1982:71 Shepard (18M03) SI-257 320 ± 240 A.D. 1630 Long & Mielke, 1967 SI-258 1060 + 280 A.D. 890 Long & Mielke, 1967 SI-259 1630 ±280 A.D. 320 Stuckenrath & Mielke, 1970 SI-553 730 + 60 A.D. 1220 Stuckenrath & Mielke,1970 SI-554 750 + 50 A.D. 1200 Stuckenrath & Mielke, 1970 Winslow (18M09) M-1189 1125 ±75 A.D. 825 Crane & Griffin, 1963 SI-37 635 ± 80 A.D. 1315 Sigalove & Long, 1964 SI-41 665 ±100 A.D. 1285 Sigalove & Long, 1964 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 19 TABLE 1 Continued Site and Uncorrected Date B.C./A.D. Reference Sample No. B.P. Mason Island Complex Biggs Ford (18FR18) SI-3662 550 ± 9 0 A.D. 1400 Stuckenrath, 1979 Kavanagh 1982:77 Nolands Ferry (18FR17) Sl-3880a 875 + 65 A.D. 1075 Stuckenrath, 1978 Sl-3880b 745 + 60 A.D. 1205 Stuckenrath, 1978 SI-3880C 470 + 85 A.D. 1480 Stuckenrath, 1978 SI-3881 360 ± 60 A.D. 1590 Stuckenrath, 1978 Sl-3882a 455 + 60 A.D. 1495 Stuckenrath, 1978 Sl-3882b 1080 + 65 A.D. 870 Stuckenrath, 1978 SI-3883 1465 + 70 A.D. 485 Stuckenrath, 1978 Sl-3884a 400 + 60 A.D. 1550 Stuckenrath, 1978 Sl-3884b 855 ± 70 A.D. 1095 Stuckenrath, 1978 SI-3885 2200 ± 75 250 B.C. (?) Stuckenrath, 1978 Luray Focus Moore Village (18AG43) Beta-6782 200 ±50 A.D. 1750 Pousson 1983:148 Beta-6783 530 ± 50 A.D. 1420 Pousson 1983:148 Beta-6784 450 ± 5 0 A.D. 1500 Pousson 1983:148 DIC-2639 550 + 70 A.D. 1400 Pousson 1983:148 Biggs Ford (18FR14) SI-3663 765 + 70 A.D. 1185 Kavanagh 1982:79 Hughes (18M01) Beta-41367 660 ± 50 A.D. 1290 Dent & Jirikowic, 1990 Beta-41368 510 ±50 A.D. 1440 Dent & Jirikowic, 1990 Beta-49132 420 ±60 A.D. 1530 Dent, pers.comm. Beta-49133 580 ± 60 A.D. 1370 Dent, pers.comm. Shepard Barrack (18M04) Sl-44 430 ± 70 A.D. 1520 Sigalove & Long, 1964 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 20 assemblages). There have been 13 radiocarbon dates taken from the Rosenstock site (Curry 1993), and they range from 935 + 60 B.P. (SI-4582) (A.D. 1015) to 380 ± 70 B.P. (Beta-55045) (A.D. 1570) with the median of dates in the late 13th century. Radiocarbon dates from the Hughes site are 660 + 50 B.P. (Beta-41367) (A.D. 1290), 510 ± 50 B.P. (Beta-41368) (A.D. 1440) (Dent and Jirikowic 1990:73), 420 ± 60 B.P. (Beta-49132) (A.D. 1530), and 580 ± 60 B.P. (Beta-49133) (A.D. 1370) (Dent 1993, personal communication) (see Table 1 for citation of relevant radiocarbon dates). As these dates indicate, the time span between these two sites ranges from 100 to 300 years. While there is some overlap in the ranges of dates for these two sites, in general the dates from Rosenstock and the other Montgomery Focus sites cluster approximately 300 years earlier than the dates from Hughes and the other Luray Focus sites. Examining the animal remains from these two sites provides a unique vantage point from which to discuss the relationship between sedentism, food production, socioeconomic complexity, and hunting strategies and how changes in these are reflected in and can be interpreted by the zooarchaeological record. Although the sites under examination in this research are commonly referred to in the literature as being from agricultural societies, rarely is the term agriculture defined in these statements. All of these sites are villages, and although not explicitly stated in any of the discussions of these sites, it appears that they were called agricultural because corn was present. However, Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 21 according to the present definition of agriculture, this criterion alone is not sufficient to designate an agricultural economy. Using the definitions developed above, the presence of domesticated plants is the first prerequisite for agriculture but it must be accompanied by year-round occupancy, a degree of dependency upon those cultivated goods, and a changing of previously developed activities to support and be supported by food-producing activities. The relevant site data that will be used to help determine whether or not each of these villages was agricultural will be presented in Chapter Two. The analysis of the zooarchaeological data will be of primary importance in making this determination but will necessarily need to be discussed in a context of other site information. Further discussion, interpretation, and implications of this determination will be discussed in Chapter Six. Methodology The methodology employed herein is designed to examine the changes that were being made in the pattern of overall strategies of resource procurement by focussing on faunal remains. I have placed the assemblages that will be analyzed into two categories: primary and secondary. Primary assemblages are those from sites which have been excavated more recently, have accompanying detailed site information and interpretations (cultural contextual information as well as physical site descriptive information), and were collected in a relatively systematic fashion. There are two primary Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 22 assemblages considered in this study - the Rosenstock site and the Hughes site. Secondary assemblages are those which were excavated when the collection of faunal remains was not of primary research importance or where there is little other available site information. There are four secondary assemblages - the Shepard site, the Winslow site, the Shepard Barracks site, and the Keyser Farm site. The secondary assemblages are currently being curated at the Smithsonian Institution in the National Museum of Natural History (NMNH). The analysis of these remains was performed by the author in the Smithsonian Institution, Laboratory of Archaeobiology located at the Museum Support Center in Suitland, Maryland. One assemblage, that from the Rosenstock site, was on loan from the Maryland Historical Trust and was also analyzed at the Archaeobiology Laboratory. The deer remains in the 1990 Hughes site assemblage were analyzed in the archaeology laboratory at The American University using a comparative specimen on loan from the NMNH Archaeobiology Laboratory. Remains from species other than deer from the 1990 assemblage and the entire 1991 faunal assemblage from the Hughes site were taken to the Archaeobiology Laboratory for identification using the comparative collection located there. In addition, fish and bird remains not identified using the comparative collection at the Archaeobiology Laboratory were identified by Justin Lev-Tov at the University of Tennessee (U.T.) in Knoxville using the U.T. comparative collection. The zooarchaeological Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 23 methods used to collect all data are discussed in detail in Chapter Four. The data recovered from all analyses were coded for entry into a dBASE 111+ database, and statistical summaries result from the manipulation of that database. This research provides interpretations from the archaeological record through its use of existing collections, encouraging the conservation of archaeological sites and further research on previously collected assemblages. Four of the assemblages used in this research are from collections that have been curated at the National Museum of Natural History for up to forty years. Given the current rapid rate of site destruction and the non-renewable nature of archaeological resources, techniques to obtain more information from curated materials must be explored to insure that the optimum data is obtained from the assemblages. This study illustrates the importance of using existing collections to answer a variety of research questions. Criteria to evaluate the utility of these curated assemblages for various types of research have been developed. These criteria consist of a series of measures that can be taken on an assemblage to determine what type of research the assemblage is best suited for. Is an assemblage relatively complete (through both field collection and curation methods) so it can be considered a representative sample of the results of all animal use practices, or does this assemblage consist primarily of bone tools so that it would be appropriate for a study of bone tool technology and manufacturing techniques but with little usefulness for subsistence Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 24 research? By determining the nature and the research utility of the assemblages being examined, this research provides other archaeologists in the region with descriptive assemblage data that can be used when designing additional research questions that can be addressed with these assemblages. Analyses of all these data will allow me to construct overall descriptions of subsistence strategies. These analyses include species and element identification, season of procurement, and population demographics (specifically, sex and age of individual animals at death). This information can be used to determine which, if any, of the three possible shifts in resource procurement strategy discussed above was occurring. The presence of species concentrations can be illustrated primarily by species representation and species diversity, combined with seasonality information for the acquisition of the animals. A shift in overall strategies can also be indicated primarily through species identification and seasonality of hunting and can also incorporate the demographic (sex and age) information. Organization There are five chapters following in this study. Chapter Two, "Culture History," presents a brief culture history of the Late Woodland Period in the Potomac Valley. It is organized chronologically and is followed by a discussion of issues important to understanding cultural developments in the area. More specifically, it discusses in detail the six sites analyzed for this research and Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 25 places them in the broader cultural historical framework for this area and time. Chapter Three, "Assemblage Recovery and Utility," examines the varying excavation and recovery techniques used at each site examined in this research. Using this information in conjunction with some basic descriptive measures on the faunal assemblage, the research utility of each assemblage is then examined. In this chapter, it will be determined how relatively complete a sample each faunal assemblage is of the archaeological record and to what degree each assemblage can be accurately used to address the current research. For example, if a faunal assemblage consists primarily of bone tools at a site known for having yielded several thousand faunal specimens, then it can be concluded that this assemblage is not appropriate for a subsistence study. Chapter Four, "Analytical Methods," presents the sampling strategies used for each assemblage, the zooarchaeological methods used in analyzing the faunal material, and the coding system developed for recording all data. Because the size of the assemblages varied greatly, a sampling strategy was designed for each site assemblage. A description and justification of each sampling strategy will be discussed. Zooarchaeological methods discussed include the specific information that was collected for each specimen, how that information was collected, and the equipment used during analysis. In addition, the criteria used for aging and sexing specimens and the observations and measurements taken to address these criteria will be discussed. Finally, each Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 26 statistical test used in the later interpretation of the data is defined and its relevance to the current research is discussed. Chapter Five, "Summary of Data," presents summaries of the data collected in the analysis of the faunal assemblages. Many of these are in simple tables of numbers and percentages of various information such as the number of taxa identified in each assemblage, the element distribution for chosen taxa, the number of specimens of each taxa, etc. In addition, descriptive and statistical data needed to address specific questions such as seasonality, off-site animal processing, butchering activities, and taxa selection during hunting are presented. These data are organized by archaeological culture and then by site. This was done to facilitate comparisons of the two cultures, the Montgomery Complex and the Luray Focus, as well as comparisons between sites within these two cultures. Chapter Six, "Conclusions," concludes this study. In this chapter, the initial research questions discussed in Chapter One are addressed using the data collected and presented throughout the rest of the text. Implications of the results are discussed and directions for future research are presented. More specifically, the use of curated collections will be addressed and other appropriate uses for these specific faunal assemblages will be discussed. Conclusion In conclusion, there has been much discussion in the archaeological Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 27 literature regarding the relationship between food production, sedentism, and the role of animal resources in increasingly complex societies. Much of this research has been performed in areas where a variety of animals were becoming domesticated and were therefore becoming one of the more predictable and reliable food resources.- It is only in the last two decades that this research has been extended to include situations where animals were not domesticated but nonetheless played an important dietary role. This discussion, however, has largely been ignored in the Middle Atlantic region of the Eastern Woodlands, partly because of a lack of large systematically collected zooarchaeological assemblages and partly because of the need to examine other questions about cultural change and adaptation in the region. The present research uses animal remains from archaeological sites in this region to examine animal resource procurement strategies in a context of increased sedentism, intensification of plant food production, and increasing socioeconomic complexity and will highlight key aspects of economic change in local prehistory. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. CHAPTER 2 CULTURE HISTORY Introduction The questions addressed with this research examine animal resource procurement and utilization strategies and the relationship between these strategies and a series of socioeconomic changes that were occurring during the Late Woodland prehistoric period in the Middle Potomac River Valley. The Late Woodland period in the Potomac Valley Piedmont is typically separated into three archaeological cultures that overlap slightly both temporally and geographically. Chronologically, these cultures are the Montgomery Complex, the Mason Island Complex, and the Luray Focus, also referred to as the Keyser Complex (Clark 1980; Kavanagh 1982; McNett 1975) (Table 1). Two other archaeological groups adjacent to the study area which are important to an understanding of the Late Woodland period in the Piedmont and that will be described later in this chapter are Shenk's Ferry and Monongahela, located primarily in Pennsylvania. The six sites yielding assemblages for this research were occupied from circa A.D. 900 to circa A.D. 1530. Although only two of the three Potomac 28 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 29 Piedmont cultures, the Montgomery Complex and the Luray Focus, are represented by these six sites, all three will be described to provide a more detailed and complete interpretation of the progression of social and economic traits and their changes over time. The two cultures that are represented by assemblages in this study are the Montgomery Complex (represented by the Shepard site, the Rosenstock site, and the Winslow site) and the Luray Focus (represented by the Hughes site, the Shepard Barrack site, and the Keyser Farm site). In general, the Mason Island Complex is not as well understood as the Montgomery Complex and the Luray Focus. Therefore, interpretations and discussions of the Mason Island Complex presented here will not be as detailed as those for the Montgomery Complex and the Luray Focus. There are several key elements which are used here to distinguish and define these archaeological cultures. These elements include geographic and time range; descriptions of artifact assemblages including ceramics, lithics, and bone tools; internal site organization as reflected in the size and layout of features; mortuary patterns; and subsistence patterns. These variables will be described for each complex with examples provided either from sites analyzed in this study and/or sites that are considered representative of the complex. Montgomery Complex The Montgomery Complex marks the beginning of the Late Woodland period in the Potomac Piedmont and ranges in time primarily from circa A.D. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 900 to circa A.D. 1300 (Clark 1980) (Table 1). Although some of the radiocarbon dates from this complex fall either before A.D. 900 or after A.D. 1300, some of these dates, such as the A.D. 1835 date from Rosenstock and the A.D. 320 and A.D. 1630 dates from Shepard are obviously far out of the normal range for these assemblages and must be considered unreliable. The remaining four post-A.D. 1300 dates for this complex are all fifteenth century dates from Rosenstock. These dates could indicate some later occupation at this site, however the majority of the dates from this site fall within the A.D. 900 - A.D. 1300 range and indicate that the primary occupation of this site is during this time frame. The Montgomery Complex was labeled by Slattery when he originally distinguished it from the later Luray Focus (1952:62). This early definition was expanded by Tidwell (1967) incorporating material from the Winslow site, the Fisher site, the Kern site, and the Shepard site. Slattery and Woodward (1992) provide additional analysis of the artifact assemblages from these sites to give a more detailed description of the various traits considered central to the Montgomery Focus. McNett (1975) later renamed the Montgomery Focus the Montgomery Complex based on a review of Potomac Valley archaeology and an evaluation of the available literature. Excavations at and interpretations of the Rosenstock site provide additional data with the potential to both expand and refine definitions and descriptions of the Montgomery Complex. While the Rosenstock site has Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 31 undergone extensive excavations in the past few years, the artifacts have not yet been completely analyzed. As a result, discussions and conclusions about the Rosenstock non-faunal material can be only preliminary at this point. In addition, results from test excavations at and examination of a surface collection from the Devilbiss site and excavations at the Biggs Ford site along the Monocacy may be able to provide further detail on site structure and artifacts from a broader geographic range of Montgomery Complex sites. Biggs Ford is a multicomponent site, and dates from each component are listed separately in Table 1 in their appropriate section. Major sites in the Montgomery Complex typically consist of riverine- oriented, generally oval shaped villages, one to two acres in size. Many are associated with Huntington silty loam, a rich soil particularly well suited for food- production. Although hunting and fishing remained critical in food production and acquisition cycles, the increasing needs and impacts of a developing food- producing system must have affected, and been affected by, other aspects of this culture. It is the extent of these impacts on the hunting strategies that is being addressed with this study and will be examined later. Village Organization A circular pattern of pits is one of the more prominent archaeological traits at village sites in this complex. Although postmolds are abundant at all of the sites, they do not appear to be in a distinguishable pattern that would Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 32 indicate size and/or number of house structures present at any given point in time. Some postmolds do appear to be in a circular pattern, and it is possible that these represent individual dwellings. It is also possible that these dwellings may be associated with both trash and/or storage pits. The Winslow site exhibits the typical Montgomery Complex pattern of pits. A total of thirty-three trash/storage pits were excavated. The main village area contained a semi-circular pattern of frequently overlapping pits. Ranging in size and depth from 32-60 inches in depth, they were generally ovoid or elongated in plan view. Although several pits were located outside of the main pit line, only six of these were not burial pits (Slattery and Woodward 1992:17). MacCord, Slattery, and Schmitt comment that "The most notable feature revealed in the excavations at the Shepard site was the profusion of pits" with over eighty pits excavated (MacCord, Slattery, and Schmitt 1957:7). These were random throughout the site and some were overlapping or abutted other pits. Although some of the pits had originally been excavated for storage and then later used as either trash pits or burials, the function of most of the pits was indeterminable. The size of the pits that were measured ranged in diameter from three to five feet and were up to five feet deep. Ceramic Artifacts The most frequently used defining trait for the complexes discussed here is ceramic type. The Montgomery Complex is defined partially by the presence Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 33 of the ceramic type known as Shepard Cord-Marked. This type was originally included in Evans’ 1955 category of Albemarle wares (Evans 1955:39-44). Shepard wares are made from a compact clayey paste tempered with crushed rock, most frequently crushed decayed granite or quartz, and show complete, well-controlled firing. The shape of these vessels is generally globular with bases ranging from round to conical. The necks are constricted which bring the opening of the vessels to almost the diameter of the widest part of the body with rims straight to outflaring . Many Shepard ware rimsherds are folded or contain a distinctive appliqued external collar. Decoration of the outside of these vessels consists primarily of variations of cord-marking and/or incising. Interiors of the vessels are smooth. Much of the decoration is found on the collar. This decoration often consists of parallel bands of cord impressions on the lips of the vessel with the base of the collar frequently containing oblique cord-wrapped stick impressions and occasionally oblique incising slanted in the opposite direction at the base of the rim (MacCord, Slattery, and Schmitt 1957; McNett 1975; Tidwell 1967; Slattery and Woodward 1992). There was a variety of ceramics recovered from both the Shepard and the Winslow sites. Some of these, such as the Selden Island steatite- and sand-tempered ware and the steatite-tempered Marcey Creek ware recovered at Winslow, were from an earlier occupation found underlying the primary Montgomery Complex occupation. Other Late Woodland ceramics recovered at Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 34 both sites include Page Cord-Marked, Chickahominy, Rappahannock Incised, Keyser, Potomac Creek, and Clarksville. These minority wares were relatively infrequent, and the majority of the sherds recovered from both sites were Shepard Cord-Marked (Slattery and Woodward 1992:12-15, 28-51). The most common ceramic type recovered at the Rosenstock site is Shepard Cord-Marked. As stated earlier, this ware typically dates to approximately A.D. 900 - A.D. 1300. Additional wares recovered include, in descending order of frequency, Accokeek (Early Woodland, 800 B.C. to 300 B.C), Keyser (Late Woodland, A.D. 1450 to Contact), Page (Late Woodland, A.D. 1300 to A.D. 1500), Marcey Creek (Early Woodland, 1200 B.C. to 900 B.C.), and Shenk's Ferry (Late Woodland, A.D. 1250 to A.D. 1550) (Curry and Kavanagh 1992:27-31). Lithic Artifacts The formal flaked tools in the lithic assemblages from the Montgomery Complex consist primarily of triangular projectile points made of rhyolite with concave bases, quartzite, quartz, and chert, with occasional points made of jasper. Additional flaked stone tools include preforms, blades or knives, drills, and scrapers. Ground stone tools recovered consist of celts, hammerstones, and both perforated and unperforated discoidals (Slattery and Woodward 1992). In the Winslow site assemblage, flaked stone tools include projectile points, blades/knives, drills, small end-scrapers, one large scraper, and one Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 35 axe. The majority (87%) of the points are small and triangular in form. Ground stone tools include one abrading stone and at least three celts. Other ground stone artifacts include one unfinished pipe and 115 complete or fragmented discoidals (Slattery and Woodward 1992:58-66). Projectile points from the Shepard site are likewise primarily small and triangular. Other flaked tools included drills, a knife, and scrapers. Ground stone tools recovered included celts, one felsite axe, one chisel, hammerstones, and one quartzite pestle. Other ground stone items included one sandstone discoidal, one small fragment of a sandstone tablet, one partially perforated chlorite spheroid, one slate bead, one fragment of a possible slate gorget, and one possible unfinished chlorite bead (MacCord, Slattery, and Schmitt 1957:16- 19). A variety of projectile points have been recovered from the Rosenstock site. The majority of these are triangular, either Madison or Levanna types. Madison points are the most frequently found and are the smaller of the two types. Madison points "vary from nearly equilateral specimens to isosceles triangles nearly twice as long as wide. Bases are either straight or concave. The time range for the Madison is estimated at A.D. 1000 to Contact" (Curry and Kavanagh 1992:32). For Levanna points, "Most are equilateral triangles, with the rest described as broad isosceles triangles. Bases are usually concave, although a minority have straight bases" (Curry and Kavanagh 1992:32). Levanna points in the area begin at approximately A.D. 700, become Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 36 common at approximately A.D. 900, and by A.D. 1350 begin to be replaced by Madison points. Other projectile point types recovered from this site include Selby Bay which typically dated to the Middle Woodland period at approximately A.D. 200 to A.D. 900 and are associated with Mockley ceramics, and LeCroy projectile points, an Early to Middle Archaic point which has been dated to 6300 ±100 B.C. (Broyles 1971). These possibly represent an earlier occupation at this site. Other flaked stone tools recovered from the Rosenstock site include stemmed and notched bifaces which could be either Late Archaic projectile points or Late Woodland knives or multi-function tools. Ground stone objects recovered include several small carved slate objects, celts, and a portion of a stone bead. Worked Bone and Antler Artifacts Bone tools are numerous throughout Montgomery Complex sites. These artifacts include awls, beamers, projectile points, fishhooks, cups, and scoops or bowls constructed from turtle carapace. Although the presence and abundance of bone tools from earlier excavations have been coded in this research, these artifacts have not been specifically examined in great detail for this study. As a result, most of the discussions of specific patterns of bone tools have been extracted from previous research published on these sites. The exceptions to this are the discussions using the material from the Rosenstock site, the Shepard Barrack site, and the material from the later Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 37 excavations at the Hughes site. A wide variety of bone artifacts were recovered from the Winslow and Shepard sites. These include: cut antler with the tines missing, presumably the waste from antler projectile point manufacturing; antler tines, the majority of which show either striations running parallel to the long axis of the antler or wear from having been used as pressure flakers, or were ground into projectile points; antler 'flakers,' presumably used for flaking during stone tool production; awls; beads; chisels; fishhooks; 'beamers' made of metapodials from white tailed deer; and one small triangular piece of antler with a semi-circular beveled hole across the base. In addition, several polished plastron and carapace pieces were recovered, some of which had been perforated and most of which showed wear across the edge (Slattery and Woodward 1992:67-75). Antler and bone artifacts recovered at the Shepard site that were not recovered from the Winslow site include antler cylinders of unknown use, antler celts and scrapers, one bone needle, several bone pendants, and a bone scraper (MacCord, Slattery, and Schmitt 1957:19-21). Bone and antler tools recovered from the Rosenstock site include beamers, awls, needles, and flaking tools. Other bone and antler artifacts include beads, antier tines and shafts which show evidence of having been scored and cut, and long bone fragments which are polished due to use wear. A more detailed study of the bone tools is not available. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 38 Mortuary Patterns Burials from sites in the Montgomery Complex are typically flexed individual interments. At various sites, these burials are located both within and without the circular pit line surrounding the central portion of the site. The deliberate inclusion of grave goods varies, but artifacts recovered from this context are most frequently found in children or infant burials and consist primarily of shell and bone beads which appear to have been used for personal adornment. At the Winslow site, 15 complete or nearly complete burials were recovered and, with one exception, were located outside the circle of refuse pits. Ten of these burials were of adults, three were male and seven were female. There were five infant burials of undetermined sex. All of the skeletons were in a flexed position. None of these burials contained grave goods. At the Shepard site, a total of 33 human burials were exposed during all excavations. While some of these were located within refuse pits, it appears that the majority of them were located outside the semi-circular line of refuse/storage pits described above. Eighteen of the burials were flexed, two were bundled, and one was extended. Of the adult burials, six were male and ten were female. All fifteen of the infants and children were of undetermined sex. There are no available data for the remaining two individuals. Only nine of the burials contained what was interpreted as deliberate grave goods Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 39 (MacCord, Schmitt, and Slattery 1957:9-11; Slattery and Woodward 1992:133). Of these nine burials, seven of them were infants, children, or sub-adults. Since no other burials containing grave goods have been recovered from any of the other sites from the Montgomery Complex, it is impossible to determine if this trait of including grave goods primarily with children's burials was site specific or if it occurred throughout the cultural complex. The sex, age, and associated grave goods of these nine individuals is listed below in Table 2. Subsistence Patterns Existing descriptions of subsistence patterns for the Potomac Valley Late Woodland period are general and consist mainly of broad statements that these groups were horticultural or agricultural, hunted, and gathered local resources, probably on an annual round of activities based on the seasonal availability of both plants and animals. While this gives a broad idea of a mixed economy, it does not give any detail with which to test the questions being asked in this study. Direct evidence about subsistence patterns at all of the sites in this study is limited primarily to the observance of domesticated plants such as corn and beans and various wild nut shells and initial species list of animal taxa present. No estimates of associated cultivated field sizes has been performed nor have there been any estimates as to the proportions of domesticated versus wild plants in the archaeobotanical assemblages. To evaluate the subsistence patterns at the archaeological cultures under Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 40 TABLE 2 BURIAL DATA FROM THE SHEPARD SITE (18M03) COMPILED FROM SLATTERY AND WOODWARD 1992 AND MACCORD, SCHMITT, AND SLATTERY 1957 Burial # Sex Age Associated Artifacts 1 ? 1 yr. 1 shell bead and 43 tubular shell beads 2 M 14-15 yrs. 100+ Marginella beads and one tubular bone bead 6 ? 4 yrs. 100+ miscellaneous shell beads 8 ? 6-7 yrs. knobbed bone flaker in right hand 9 ? 6 mos. shell beads 12 M 20 yrs. fragmentary stone gorget 14 ? 18 mos. shell disk beads 21 ? 6 yrs. 9 perforated oyster shells, 110 tubular bone beads, 32 squirrel mandibles, and 1 clam shell disk 33 F 20-25 yrs. 134 tubular bone beads, polished bone tube (length of 19.05 cm), 65 tubular shell beads, 400+ Marginella beads - all of these were near the head or arm appearing to the excavators that they were part of a hair decoration and bracelet Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 41 study in this research, all known archaeobotanical evidence for the sites under study will be presented. Because the results of the faunal analysis will be presented in Chapter Five, broad summary statements of these results and of faunal data known to date will be presented in this chapter. Detailed results, their interpretations, and the implications of the data can be found in Chapters Five and Six. For sites from the Montgomery Complex, identified archaeobotanical material consists of charred corn cob (Zea mays), corn kernels, and beans from the Rosenstock site (Curry and Kavanagh 1991:2), hickory (Carya sp.), walnut [Juglans sp.), and corn from the Winslow site (Slattery and Woodward 1992:75- 76) and corn and hickory (Carya glabra Mill ) from the Shepard site (MacCord, Slattery, and Schmitt 1957:22). In addition, pit features attributable to the Montgomery Complex at the Biggs Ford site contained "abundant" corn (Bastian 1974:5). While no further plant material was collected at the Shepard or Winslow site, extensive flotation samples were collected at the Rosenstock site and the future analysis of these will provide data directly relevant to the current discussion in this study. Faunal remains from the Montgomery Complex sites represent a wide variety of animals. Various taxa in the assemblages were available at different times of the year with the complete assemblages indicating year-round occupation at these villages. Deer are the dominant taxa in the Montgomery Complex assemblages with a wide variety of mammals, fish, reptiles, and birds Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 42 being exploited. Although shell was evident at all of these sites, it has not been fully analyzed to date. This data, combined with the archaeobotanical data presented above, still leaves us with a very broad picture of subsistence patterns known to date about the Montgomery Complex. This picture will be refined below however when more detailed comparisons of the subsistence patterns between the Montgomery Complex and the Luray Focus are presented. Mason Island Complex Mason Island sites are archaeologically evident in the middle Potomac Piedmont possibly as early as A.D. 1300, and certainly by A.D. 1400, appearing to overlap slightly with both the Montgomery Complex and the later Luray Focus. The Mason Island Complex ends at approximately A.D. 1500. Sites originally used to define this complex include the Catoctin Creek site (44LD14) excavated by McNett and Handsman, the Mason Island I site (44LD10), earlier components at the Mason Island II site (44LD13), and the Glen Haven site excavated by Ellis E. McDowell. Additional Mason Island sites excavated since this definition include Biggs Ford (18FR14), Nolands Ferry (18FR17), Herman Barton Village (18AG3), Jeffrey Village (44LD13), Claggett Retreat (18FR25), and Point of Rocks (18FR8) (Kavanagh 1982; MacCord 1992). The Mason Island sites listed above are primarily village sites located in riverine areas, either associated with the Monocacy or the Potomac rivers. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 43 Sites in the Mason Island Complex are typically slightly upriver from Montgomery Complex sites. Radiocarbon dates range from A.D. 870 (Sl- 3882b) to A.D. 1590 (SI-3881) at the Nolands Ferry site, a range overlapping with but generally later than that of the Montgomery Complex sites. The Biggs Ford site yielded one radiocarbon date from a Mason Island component. This A.D. 1400 date (SI-3662) falls well within the range established at Nolands Ferry. More clarification is needed for dating this complex, especially since this date range overlaps with that from both the Luray Focus and the Montgomery Focus. Though similar to the Montgomery Complex in some ways, differences in the Mason Island Complex include ceramic temper, ceramic decoration and burial treatment. These factors, combined with the temporal and geographic variances were considered sufficient by McNett (1975) to merit these sites a separate, albeit related cultural manifestation. Village Organization The internal organization of Mason Island sites is very similar to that at Montgomery Complex sites. In general, these sites contain a circular array of pit features, organized around what appears to be a central plaza area. Ceramic Artifacts Mason Island ceramics differ only slightly from those found at Montgomery Complex sites. They are tempered primarily with limestone and Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 44 occasionally with quartz and are referred to as Page Cord-Marked. Vessel shape is similar to that found on Montgomery Complex sites, as is the presence of cord-marking on the external surface of the body. Rim treatment varies over time in this complex and includes straight, folded, and collared styles. Straight rims appear early and are decorated with punch marks, either obliquely or with a sideways "v" shape, or cord-wrapped stick designs. Later in the complex, rims are typically folded. Collared rims range from earlier lens-shaped folded ones which are decorated with gashes or punches on the termination or occasionally are plain to a later applique rim which is either rectangular or triangular in cross-section (McNett 1975). Ceramics from the Catoctin Creek site, one of the major Mason Island sites, fall into the two broad categories of Page and Shepard. While one of the major differences between these two wares is that Page is usually tempered with limestone and Shepard is usually tempered with crushed quartz, what varies in more significant patterns is the range of decoration. When vessels are sorted into groups based on decoration, temper is no longer such a meaningful variable. Rim sherds with identical treatments were of both tempers, and pottery at the site was categorized by collar decoration (McNett 1975). Lithic Artifacts Lithic tools from Mason Island sites consist primarily of triangular projectile points made of quartz or rhyolite. The few other formal stone tool Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 45 types that have been recovered include hammerstones, scrapers, celts, and some tools which may have been used as hoes. Worked Bone and Antler Artifacts Bone and antler tools that were recovered from Mason Island Complex sites include bone awls, fishhooks, flakers, projectile points, possible bone handles, tubular bone beads, and beaver incisors used as chisels. Mortuary Patterns Burial treatment at Mason Island sites differs from those at Montgomery Complex sites in some very basic ways. The first of these is that burials are extended rather than flexed. Again, individual interments were the norm, but some burials contained a flat slab above the body and others contained ceramic vessels. In general, however, grave goods were personal decorative items, usually in the form of Marginella and Columella beads (McNett 1975). It is interesting to note that, as with the burials at the Montgomery Complex, it is primarily infants and children who received grave goods. Subsistence Patterns Evidence for subsistence patterns being used at Mason Island sites is scarce. Corn is present at most Mason Island sites as are charred wild nuts. Detailed faunal analyses for Mason Island assemblages are not available. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 46 Because of this lack of data, little can be said about Mason Island subsistence patterns except that they were most likely horticultural with the diet supplemented by the collection of wild plants, nuts, berries and the hunting and collection of both terrestrial and aquatic animals. Lurav Focus The Luray Focus, the last representative of the cultural developments in the Piedmont to be discussed here, was first defined by Schmitt using data from the Keyser Farm and the Hughes sites (1952:62-3). McNett (1975) later included analyses from the Miley site (44SH2), the Bowman site, the Berryville site, the Jones site, later levels of the Monocacy site (18FR100), and the later component at the Mason Island II site (18M013). Finally, additional Luray Focus sites include the Quicksburg site, the Moore Village site, the Cabin Run Site, and the Shepard Barrack site. Several cultural traits for this complex contrast sharply with those in the preceding Montgomery and Mason Island Complexes, and some researchers hypothesize that the Luray Focus may in fact be related to the Monongahela of Western Pennsylvania (Manson, MacCord and Griffin 1944; MacCord and Rodgers 1966; Schmitt 1952; Wright 1959; McNett 1975; Pousson 1983). Indeed, the Moore Village is categorized by the principal investigator as a "palisaded, Late Prehistoric, Monongahela village site" (Pousson 1983:xi) and "that this [Monongahela] tradition in the upper Potomac is ancestral to that of Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 47 the Luray Focus" (Pousson 1983:153). This relationship will be discussed in further detail later. Radiocarbon dates from the Luray Focus range from A.D. 1185 (SI-3663) at Biggs Ford to A.D. 1530 (Beta-49132) at the Hughes site (see Table 1). Two of the dates from the Moore village site, 200 B.P. (A.D. 1750) + 50 years (Beta-6782) and 450 B.P. (A.D. 1500) ± 50 years (Beta- 6784) are thought to be possibly contaminated and are therefore too recent to be accurate reflections of the occupation of the site. This leaves the occupation of this site somewhere around A.D. 1400. Two additional dates for the Luray Focus include one date of A.D. 1640 + 120 (SI-136) and A.D. 1710 + 120 years (SI-136). With MASCA corrections, these dates become A.D. 1510- 1600 and A.D. 1630 (MacCord 1992:167). Village Organization The most striking difference between villages in the Luray Focus and villages from earlier Piedmont complexes is that many Luray Focus villages are palisaded. The patterning of the palisaded sites seems to consist of a series of pits, including refuse pits, storage pits, and burial pits, and house structures surrounding an open area. This pattern is not consistent for every Luray Focus site. The Hughes site, for example, does not appear to be palisaded nor does it have the open central plaza as originally thought after the initial excavations in the 1930's observed by Stearns (Dent and Jirikowic 1990). Of the Luray Focus sites mentioned above, the Miley site, the Quicksburg site, and the Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 48 Moore Village site had conclusive evidence of a palisade. The remaining sites either did not have a palisade or the postmold patterns were unclear and a palisade or the outlines of structures could not be determined. The majority of the pits which formed the main pattern at the Keyser Farm site were circular in plan view and ranged in diameter from two to nine feet. Other pits were either elliptical, pear-shaped, or irregular. In cross- section, pits varied in shape and included hemispherical, straight-sided and straight-bottomed, bell shaped, or combinations of all three shapes. Although many of these pits overlapped, indicating that they were originally excavated at different times, there appeared to be no difference in the artifacts recovered from the overlapping pits. In addition, there were several storage/refuse pits that were surrounded by postmolds. It is hypothesized that the postmolds possibly represented either a roof-like structure over the pit or a fence to protect it from scavengers (Manson, MacCord and Griffin 1944:379-386). Clyde (1959), in the only published report for the Shepard Barrack site, reports only one postmold and no other features for the limited excavations at the site. This 1959 report briefly describes a 1958 and 1959 period of excavation conducted by the Archaeological Society of Maryland (ASM). Given the large quantities of artifacts and the scarcity of features that the ASM reported, Clyde (1959) concludes that the site was not occupied for one extended period of time but was probably revisited for short term use. In an examination by E. Moore in December of 1992 of the Shepard Barrack artifacts Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 49 in the NMNH collections, notes were found in the assemblage that referred to certain artifacts being associated with five burials. No reference can be found for these burials, and no record of them could be located in the accession records at NMNH. Apparently additional testing and excavation may have been performed at the site, but the results of that are unknown at this point. Richard E. Stearns observed the excavations by Nicholas and Roy Yinger at the Hughes site from 1937 to 1938, and descriptions of the early excavations of this site come from a publication describing his observations, accession records at the National Museum of Natural History, and notes accessioned with the artifacts from this site. At least forty-two burials and over 135 storage/refuse pits were excavated at the Hughes site in the 1930's. At least seven of these pits were surrounded by postmolds indicating some structure associated with the pit. The majority of the pits were arranged in a circular pattern with an open space on the north end of the circle measuring approximately one hundred and twenty feet across. In addition, there was a cluster of five burial pits containing seven individuals and two refuse pits in the center of the village area. Because of the speed with which the Yinger brothers excavated, Stearns was not able to observe postmold patterns at the site (Stearns 1940). The 1990 excavations at the Hughes site yielded 42 features. These were divided into five categories; shallow, amorphous features; small basin shaped pits; large refuse pits; burials; and miscellaneous unclassified features Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 50 (Dent and Jirikowic 1990:49). One hundred and sixty-eight postmolds were recorded. Although no clear pattern was observed, these postmolds appeared to occur in arcs across the site (Dent and Jirikowic 1990:55). The density of postmolds throughout the excavated area limited the possibility of defining any clear postmold patterns that would indicate structure size and shape. It is probable that this density reflects repeated or long-term use of the area rather than a single construction and occupation period. In addition, the five burials and two trash pits observed in the center of the village during the earlier excavations in combination with the ubiquity of postmolds across the site during the 1990's excavations indicate that there was no completely open central plaza as is hypothesized for other Luray Focus sites. The organization of the Moore Village consisted of a plaza ringed by houses which were surrounded by a palisade. This oval village measured circa 350 by 260 feet. Although no clear postmold patterns for houses or other structures were discernible, there was daub present in some of the midden- filled trench segments associated with the palisade (Pousson 1983:53). Daub has not been observed at any of the other Luray Focus sites nor at any other Monongahela sites. Pousson (1983:150) hypothesizes that since daub is only preserved when it is burned, the paucity of daub at other related sites may be due to disparate preservation rather than it not being used elsewhere. The clay for the daub at the Moore Village site was most likely excavated from trenches between the palisade and the houses. Since other Monongahela sites do Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 51 exhibit these trenches, it is possible that they also had structures with wattle and daub construction. The village organization at the Miley site was typical for Luray Focus sites - a stockade surrounding a series of pits and numerous postmolds from house outlines. Five structure outlines were determined and the one concluded to be typical of the house structures at the site was circular, approximately 23 feet in diameter, with two trash pits inside the structure (MacCord and Rodgers 1966:10). Seventeen pits, eight of which were burials, were excavated at the Miley site. All of these pits had straight sides and rounded bottoms. Finally, one stone lined hearth was excavated outside the stockade line. Archaic artifacts found in conjunction with this feature indicate that the hearth was not Late Woodland but was associated with an earlier occupation. The Bowman site, located approximately ten miles north of the Miley site, was considered by the excavators to be a typical Luray Focus site. The excavations at this village uncovered twelve pits and twenty postmolds. Three of these pits contained human remains with the remainder of the pit containing general trash fill. Three other pits contained only burials and the remaining pits contained only trash fill. Many of the pits appeared to have been originally used as storage and were then later filled (MacCord 1964:44-45). Unfortunately, not enough of this site was excavated to determine either structure size and distribution or general village organization. The Luray component at the Quicksburg site appears to have been a Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 52 palisaded village of an approximate 300 feet diameter. One circular house pattern was defined near the palisade line and the excavators conclude that structures in the village parallelled the palisade with the central part of the village open as a plaza (MacCord 1973). Seventeen pits and eight burials were excavated. Finally, one multiple burial containing 18 individuals was looted prior to the site excavation in 1969 (MacCord 1973:123). Given that multiple interments do not occur prior to Luray occupations in the region, this multiple burial was probably associated with the Luray component at this site. Ceramic Artifacts The predominant ceramic type during the Luray Focus was Keyser Cord- Marked. Griffin (1944) defines this type as shell-tempered with the interior surface being roughly smoothed and the external surface cord-marked. The majority of the rims have vertical cord markings although there are some rimsherds where these cord-markings are oblique (left to right). Decoration is limited to the lip and adjacent outer rim area and treatment includes lips with smoothed surfaces, lips with cord-marked surfaces, transverse incised grooves on smoothed lips, transverse or oblique cord-wrapped stick impressions, smoothed lips with circular punctates, rims with small lugs, small loop handles, and rims with rectilinear narrow line incising and punctates. Although handles could have been functional, the lug handles found on Keyser ceramics are small and appear to be primarily decorative. The shape of these vessels differs Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 53 somewhat from ones found in earlier contexts and "...were wide-mouthed jars with slightly constricted lower rims, slightly expanded bodies, and rounded bases" (Manson, MacCord, and Griffin 1944:404-405). The ceramic assemblage from the Keyser Farm site consists of three different types differentiated by temper: limestone-tempered, shell-tempered, and grit-tempered (Manson, MacCord, and Griffin 1944:402). All of the Keyser sherds are cord-marked on the entire body of the vessel. Additional surface treatment included both vertical and oblique from left to right cord marking on the rims. A variety of decorations occur on the sherds. Based on the presence of a majority of shell-tempered ceramics, Manson MacCord, and Griffin (1944) estimate that the Keyser Farm site dates to "sometime between 1550 and 1650" (Manson, MacCord, and Griffin 1944:413). Since a published description of the ceramics from the Shepard Barrack site is not available, an examination of these artifacts was conducted in December of 1992 by E. Moore. There are two basic tempers used in the ceramics, shell and sand/small quartz grit. A total of 488 sherds were examined. Of these, 39% (n=190) are shell-tempered and 61% (n=298) are sand/small quartz grit-tempered. Surface treatment for both types of ceramics included plain and cord-marked. Decoration observed includes incising, notching on the rim, and punctating. These sherds of Shepard and Keyser wares could represent separate occupations at the site as was hypothesized earlier by Clyde (1959). The ASM excavations in 1958 and 1959 recovered Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 54 over 1000 sherds (Clyde 1959:9), so it is possible that the assemblage at NMNH is either from separate work performed at the site and is not from the ASM work or is a sample of the ASM collections. As with all of the earlier artifact work at the Hughes site, the descriptions of the ceramics from the 1937-1938 excavations are from intermittent observations and from a collection purchased by Stearns from the Yinger brothers. These observations include limited areas of the site, emphasizing features, especially burials. The purchased collection included over ten thousand sherds. Four vessels were reconstructed from these sherds. Three of these were considered typical for Keyser ceramics by Stearns. Besides Keyser ware, sherds from some other unidentified wares were recovered from the early excavations at the Hughes site. These include several sherds of a stone tempered ware with a heavy collar that was decorated with parallel cord impression, several sherds tempered with a fine sandy grit, sand- tempered sherds from a small cup shaped vessel, and a few sherds that were tempered with crushed quartz. McNett (1975) states that this assemblage is typical for a Keyser site and represents a relatively pure Keyser component. The 1990/1991 excavations at the Hughes site yielded a ceramic assemblage very much like that from the earlier work at the site. The figures presented in this discussion are for ceramics recovered during the 1990 excavations. Similar analysis has not yet been published for the artifacts from the 1991 excavations. The majority of the sherds recovered in 1990 are shell- Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 55 tempered. Additional tempers include sand, granite, steatite, crushed rock, and limestone. Surface treatment includes both cord-marked and smoothed. Decoration consists primarily of notches (both cord-marked and smooth) in the rims and lug handles (Dent and Jirikowic 1990). This assemblage is consistent with those described above for both the earlier excavations at the Hughes site and the Keyser ware assemblage from the Keyser Farm site. Ceramics at the Moore Village site are primarily shell-tempered, cord- marked, and globular in form "consistent with published descriptions and illustrations of Monongahela Cordmarked (and Plain), and with those of its Potomac Valley/Shenandoah Valley variant, Keyser Cordmarked" (Pousson 1983:101). Decoration is primarily on the rims and includes straight or oblique cord-marking, horizontal band-marking, and punctating as well as several designs on the vessel lip made with a cord-wrapped stick (Pousson 1983:101- 109). Less than one percent of the sherds recovered at this site are not Keyser sherds. These included sand- and grit-tempered sherds and were not assigned to any specific type (Pousson 1983:113-115). Ceramics at the Miley site are primarily Keyser Cord-Marked or Keyser Plain with small amounts of Keyser Fabric-Impressed and Simple-Stamped in the assemblage. Keyser wares accounted for 98.9% ceramics with minority wares consisting of sand, gravel, limestone, and siltstone tempered cord marked sherds. Ceramics at the Bowman site are also primarily Keyser Cord-Marked Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 56 with one sherd of the Early Woodland steatite-tempered Marcey Creek Plain ware in the assemblage. One of the distinctive features of the ceramic assemblage at the Bowman site is the lack of any other Late Woodland wares, especially the limestone-tempered Page Cord-Marked that, that are found at other Luray Focus sites (MacCord 1964:45-47). The majority of the potsherds at the Quicksburg site are also Keyser Plain and Cord-Marked. Minority wares include sherds from the sand-tempered Stony Creek Series, crushed rock-tempered Albemarle Series, and limestone- tempered Radford Series. It is the Keyser wares that are associated with the palisaded village occupation at the site. Lithic Artifacts There is not a great deal of variety among the formal stone tools from Luray Focus sites. Projectile points range in size but are primarily triangular. Ground stone artifacts include celts, hammerstone, pipes, netsinkers, etc. but do not appear in large quantities when compared to the number of objects from other artifact classes such as bone, antler, or pottery. In addition to the triangular forms, points from the Keyser Farm site include stemmed, unspecialized bifaces, and drill-like points. Points are made of quartz, quartzite, flint, jasper, rhyolite, chalcedony, shale, and chert, (Manson, MacCord and Griffin 1944:398-399). Ground stone tools recovered from the Keyser Farm site are celts, pipes, two fragments of a tablet-shaped Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 57 object, pitted and plain hammerstones, one net sinker, one cupped stone, one broken discoidal, and three abraded stones probably used for sinew processing. Finally, several small fragments of limonite with worn edges and a sandstone palette with ochre stains were recovered. Stone tools from the ASM excavations at the Shepard Barrack site (n>400) include two basic classes of tools - large crude bifaces made of quartzite and small triangular quartz projectile points (Clyde 1959:9). Similar artifacts were observed by Moore in the collection at NMNH, although not in the quantities that were reported by Clyde. Although Stearns (1944) does not discuss the lithic artifacts from the Hughes site, McNett (1975) provides a brief description resulting from a later analysis of the entire artifact assemblage purchased by Stearns and now curated at NMNH. In brief, the projectile points are typically quartz, triangular, and range in size from small to medium, with medium sized points being the rarer of the two sizes. In addition to the points, eight celts, an unspecified number of hammerstones, a piece of rubbed hematite, and two gorgets of purple slate are in the collection. The 1990 excavations at the Hughes site yielded a similar formal stone tool assemblage. Ninety-three complete and 494 fragmentary projectile points were recovered. These are quartz, quartzite, rhyolite, chert, and siltstone. The majority of the quartz points are small and triangular. Other lithic artifacts recovered include bifaces, scrapers, modified flakes, one axe, one celt, Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 58 groundstones, hammerstones, a possible pendant, steatite fragments one of which may be a portion of a steatite bowl, and fire-cracked rock. Debitage was categorized into flakes and shatter (Dent and Jirikowic 1990:65-72). The formal tools from the Moore Village site include ground, rough, and flaked forms. Ground stone tools include a celt, a large celt fragment, adzes, three chopping tools, and ten additional ground or pecked tool fragments (Pousson 1983:91-93). Rough stone tools from the site include eight hammerstones or hammerstone fragments, anvil stones, grinding stones, and abrading stones (Pousson 1983:93-96). Flaked tools include small triangular arrow points, sixteen non-triangular points dating to earlier occupations at the site, knives, bifaces, blanks, drills, perforators, reamers, scrapers, gravers, miscellaneous combination tools, pieces esquillees, and choppers (Pousson 1983:57-90). This variety of stone tools provides an extensive stone tool kit, one fairly typical for Late Woodland villages where a variety of activities were occurring. Stone tools in the Miley site assemblage include small triangular projectile points, drills, scrapers, one celt fragments, one grooved disc, several hammerstones, one steatite bowl fragment, and one mortar. Forty stemmed points dating from an earlier occupation were also found at this site (MacCord and Rodgers 1966:12). The Bowman site yielded a smaller and therefore less diverse assemblage of small triangular points, scrapers one chipped hoe. No ground stone tools were recovered at the Bowman site (MacCord 1964:45). Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 59 A variety of projectile points were recovered from the Quicksburg site. These date from the final Luray Focus component as well as several earlier components. A total of 218 points were recovered, 198 of which were from the Woodland. Additional lithic artifacts in the Quicksburg assemblage include triangulate cores, scrapers, bifaces, utilized flakes, celts, choppers, drills, and hammerstones. Again, these are all typical stone tools for the Luray Focus. Worked Bone and Antler Artifacts In contrast to the lithic artifacts from Luray Focus sites, bone and antler artifacts are extremely varied. They include functional, decorative, and ceremonial items and are produced by cutting, flaking, grinding, and polishing the material. Many of these artifacts, such as "beamers," awls, needles, and scrapers appear to have been used for hide processing or woodworking. Others, especially antler tines, were used for stone tool production or were made into projectile points. Over 100 bone and antler artifacts were recovered from the Keyser Farm site. The most unusual of these items were four deer skull and antler headdresses, three fragmentary and one nearly complete. These were cut along the skull the antlers were channeled and hollowed posteriorly. It has been hypothesized that these were worn over the forehead (Manson, MacCord, and Griffin (1944:394). Only one other such headdress has been found in the general vicinity, at the Miley site (MacCord and Rodgers 1966). Manson, Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 60 MacCord, and Griffin (1944:394) report that similar archaeological items have been reported from the Belle Glade mound in Florida and the Hopewell mound. Additional antler artifacts from the Keyser Farm site include pick-like tools used for digging, chisels, pottery smoothers, lithic flaking tools, celts, and projectile points. Most of the antler used was deer, although some was identified as elk (Manson, MacCord and Griffin 1944:392-398). Seven pieces of worked bone and antler are present in the NMNH collection from the Shepard Barrack site. One of these is a bone bead that was associated with burial #5. Identifiable tools present include two possible beamer fragments made of deer metatarsals. In addition, there were three pieces of bone and one piece of antler that were worked but were too fragmented to identify the type of tool. Although a complete listing of bone artifacts recovered during the 1937- 1938 excavations at the Hughes site is not available, it is clear that the bone artifact assemblage is both large and varied and represents a wide range of activities including hide processing, woodworking, stone tool production, hunting, and fishing. One of the most prominent types of bone tools at the site were bone "beamers." These are scraping/defleshing tools made of deer metacarpals and metatarsals that were used to clean hides. Seventy-nine of these tools were recovered, including nine complete specimens. The remaining pieces were all broken in the middle of the bone shaft as the bone grew thin from use (Stearns 1944:11). According to Roy Brown (1992, personal Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 61 communication), an archaeologist who makes bone tools using primitive technology, a simple sharp edge on one prominent ridge of the shaft is all that is needed to construct these tools. After this initial sharpening, the shaft wears quickly and the tool is exhausted with cleaning as few as two deer hides. The relatively large number of these tools indicates that hide processing was probably an important activity at the Hughes site. The most ubiquitous bone tools recovered at the Hughes site were awls. Additional bone artifacts at the site included fishhooks, chisels made from beaver teeth, pendants, and beads. Antler was also used in a variety of forms. Ten complete and several fragmented antler projectile points were observed by Stearns, although an unspecified number of additional specimens were recovered by the Yingers (Stearns 1944:11-13). Bone artifacts from the 1990/1991 excavations at the Hughes site include beamers (one complete and several fragmented), awls, and beads. In addition, several pieces of bone which show signs of polishing and/or use wear but which are unidentifiable as to specific tool type were recovered. Antler tools were also recovered and included several scored and broken pieces as well as antler tines that appear to have been used for flaking tools. The bone and antler artifacts from the Moore Village site include bird bone beads and bead fragments, deer bone beads, turtle carapace cup fragments, awl fragments, bones with smoothed spatulate ends, beamer fragments, a pendant, one drilled deer phalanx, bone and antler projectile Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 62 points, and antler percussion and pressure flaking tools. The Miley site contained numerous bone and antler artifacts including awls, turtle carapace cup fragments, flaking tools, beamers, needles, fishhooks, points, one tools handle, beads, and one deer antler headdress (MacCord and Rodgers 1966:12). This last item is the most unusual with the only other reported headdresses in the region being from the Keyser Farm site. The Bowman site yielded few bone or antler artifacts. This assemblage included awls, one needle, one fragmented beamer, one fishhook, two points, several turtle carapace cup fragments, one tubular bead, and three disk beads (MacCord 1964:45). The Quicksburg contained a similarly small bone tool assemblage. The bone and antler artifacts from Quicksburg include seven turtle carapace cup fragments, one broken bead, one beamer fragment, four bone awls, one flaking tool, one antler point, and several fragments of scraped bone and antler. Mortuary Patterns Interments within the Luray Focus are varied. They range from individual to multiple and include flexed, cremation, and bundle burials and were located in both separate burial pits and in refuse pits. Although some of these burial positions and treatments had been used at earlier sites in the region, some of them are new to the Middle Potomac Piedmont area as of this complex. For example, the Luray Focus has the first frequent use in the region of multiple Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 63 burials. At least 26 burials were excavated at the Keyser Farm site. Fifty-four percent (n=14) were adults, seven male and seven female. Of the burials where position was determinable, nine were loosely flexed, eight were tightly flexed, and one was extended. The remaining burials had been disturbed or represented partial skeletons, possibly secondary burials. Orientation of the intact burials varied and seemed to follow no particular pattern. Eight of the burials contained grave goods. Six of these were children or infants of indeterminable sex, one was an adult female, and one was a male subadult. Five of the children's burials contained beads, typically shell disk beads, copper disk and tubular beads, and marginella beads. One newborn infant burial was disturbed but contained two stone projectile points, one antler point, one piece of worked turkey bone, and one gorget-like piece of felsite. The male subadult burial had been disturbed by plowing but contained half of an awl or pin that had been broken by the plow. The adult female burial was the most unusual in that is showed no signs of disturbance and was fully articulated but contained none of the larger bones of the lower limbs. Some of the small bones (phalanges, patella, tarsals, and metatarsals) were present but not articulated. Associated with this burial was a small jar and a complete turtle shell cup. In addition, the parietal bones (the side of the skull) were copper stained but no copper artifacts were recovered. Additional bone tools were in the pit, but it was not clear whether or not they were directly associated with this individual Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 64 (Manson, MacCord, and Griffin 1944:387-392). Although notes referring to five burials from the Shepard Barrack site were observed in the NMNH collections by Moore, no description or discussion of these has been located. There are ceramics and charcoal associated with each of these burials in the NMNH collection, but these were mostly small sherds. It is not known whether these were intentional grave goods or were recovered from the fill associated with each burial. As stated earlier, skeletal position was much more varied at sites during the Luray Focus than at sites from the earlier Montgomery or Mason Island Complexes. Indeed, the 1937/1938 excavations at the Hughes site alone revealed all of the above described treatments. Grave goods recovered during these early excavations consisted primarily of personal adornments in the form of shell and bone beads and pendants (Stearns 1940:6). Because many of the burials were looted, no description of all of them exists. It is therefore not possible to discuss distribution of grave goods or skeletal position in any detail. The 1990/1991 excavations at the Hughes site revealed burials containing a total of five individuals. These burials were either exposed or excavated and reinterred. One of these was an infant burial and contained no identified grave goods. The second burial contained two disarticulated individuals. One of these individuals was an adult male and the second was either an adult female or adolescent male. The third burial also contained two individuals. The first of these was an articulated adult male in a flexed position with an easterly Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 65 orientation facing north. The second individual was bundled and disarticulated and was also an adult male. Again, no grave goods were recovered from any of these burials (Dent and Jirikowic 1990:54). No burials were reported for the Moore Village site. The Miley site contained eight burials - two in pits that were also used as trash pits and the remaining six in pits excavated exclusively for interment (MacCord and Rodgers 1966:12). Three of these burials had been disturbed by plowing and the position and association with artifacts could therefore not be determined. One of these three was a multiple burial and the other two contained evidence of single individuals. The remaining five intact burials were all single and were flexed or loosely flexed. Four of these burials contained shell and/or bone beads. One was in a refuse filled pit surrounded by a ring of worn cobbles (MacCord and Rodgers 1966:12). Six burials were excavated at the Bowman site. Three of these were in trash pits and three were in pits used exclusively for interment (MacCord 1964:48). Only one of the burials contained what appeared to be a deliberately placed artifact. Burial #4, that of a newborn infant, was in a grave pit and contained a large shell-tempered cord-marked sherd on the skull (MacCord 1964:48). Eight burials were excavated at the Quicksburg site. Four of these were in deliberate grave pits and the remaining four were in pits that were subsequently filled with trash. Two of these contained shell beads - one Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 66 adolescent and one adult male. Two of these were multiple burials - one containing two children of the same age and the other containing one adult female and two children (MacCord 1973:128-130). Subsistence Patterns Evidence for and descriptions of subsistence patterns at various sites during the Luray Focus have been described with varying degrees of detail. These range from the simple observance of cultivars to full analysis and interpretation of screened and floated sampies of both floral and faunal material. As with the discussion above of subsistence patterns from the Montgomery Complex, sites from the Luray Focus containing assemblages that have been analyzed in detail with the current research (the Keyser Farm site, the Shepard Barrack site, and the Hughes site) will be described in broad statements in this chapter and will be described in more detail in subsequent chapters. Luray Focus sites that have not been analyzed for this research however, will have all available data presented in this chapter. Archaeobotanical material from the Keyser Farm site includes abundant corn, abundant Black walnut (Juglans nigra L.), Big shellbark (Carya laciniosa Michx. f.), Sweet pignut (Carya glabra Mill.), squash in scarce quantities, and scarce quantities of papaw (Manson, MacCord, and Griffin 1944:414). Since both a cultivar and a wild plant were both described as "abundant", this assemblage suggests that wild plant foods were as important in the diet as Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 67 cultivated plant foods. No mention of archaeobotanical remains are found in the Shepard Barrack report (Clyde 1959). One burned hickory nut shell was observed by E. Moore in the Shepard Barrack collection at NMNH but no corn appears in the assemblage. Although it is highly probable that there was corn recovered at the early excavations at the Hughes site, the report of this work made no mention of any plant remains, wild or cultivated. The later excavations at the Hughes site recovered com from an unknown number of pits with a higher concentration of charcoal and charred corn in at least one hearth feature, Feature 13. Additional samples of archaeobotanical material were collected during these later excavations and their analysis will yield additional information about the role of domesticated crops at this site. The faunal remains from the Keyser Farm site, the Shepard Barrack site, and the Hughes site contain a moderate variety of mammals with limited fish, reptiles, and birds present with deer being the most ubiquitous animal in the assemblage. Seasonal indicators such as migrating birds, fish, and young deer are evidence of year-round occupation and hunting at these sites. The taxa diversity does not represent all of the animals that would have been available at these sites. Instead, it indicates that there were certain species - deer, turkey, and turtle - that were being emphasized with other species providing more minor dietary contributions. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 68 The analysis and interpretation of the archaeobotanical and faunal remains from the Moore Village site provides the most complete interpretation of subsistence patterns for the Luray Focus to date. Material identified by Gayle J. Fritz from this site consists of one corn cob (Zeamays L.), one corn kernel (Zea mays), one possible legume, 17 walnut shell fragments ( Juglans nigra L.), 103 hickory nut shell fragments including Bitternut hickory ( Carya cordiformis Wang. K. Koch), Shagbark hickory (C. ovata Mill.), Mockernut hickory (C. tomentosa Nutt.), Sweet (pignut) hickory (C. glabra Mill.), and Sweet pignut (C. ovalis (Wang.) Sarg.), five hazelnut fragments ( Corylus americana Walt.), four wild plum pit fragments (Prunus sp.), and one acorn shell fragment (Quercus sp.) (Fritz 1983:174-175). Faunal remains were identified by Gregory A. Waselkov and consisted of 25,813 specimens from excavated and screened samples and 1,062 bones from flotation samples (Waselkov 1983:168). To summarize Waselkov's findings, three taxa were used as primary meat sources: elk (39%), deer (33.4%), and black bear (15.6%) (Waselkov 1983:168). This relative importance of species differs from that seen at the other sites in this study where deer consistently provides the majority of the meat as reflected in the archaeological assemblages. Other identified taxa include Cyprinidae, Semolitus atromaculatus (creek chub), Terrapene Carolina (box turtle), Procyon lotor (raccoon), and Sciurus niger (fox squirrel). Additional animals mentioned in this report include frogs, reptiles, wild turkey, ruffed grouse, passenger Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 69 pigeon, gray squirrels, and muskrat. No shellfish was recovered at this site. Seasonality indicators in this assemblage include the presence of fish, frogs, reptiles, and migratory waterfowl which could have been obtained in the spring, summer and fall and evidence of winter-killed deer (Waselkov 1983:168- 170). Two juvenile deer aged four to six months at death were probably winter kills. Of the two deer frontals in the assemblage, one had antlers intact and one had them shed. Three adult deer over ten years old were evidenced in the assemblage by mandibular wear. Waselkov concludes that "Such a pattern of numerous very young and very old individuals probably indicates that deer were hunted primarily by individual stalking, an activity associated with egalitarian tribal societies in the eastern woodlands (Waselkov 1978)" (Waselkov 1983:169). If Waselkov is correct, then differences in the age distribution patterns between Montgomery Complex and Luray Focus sites could reflect broad social differences. The implications of Waselkov's thesis will be discussed in greater detail in the concluding chapter of this work. Archaeobotanical remains from the Miley site include corn (Zea mays) cobs and kernels, bean ( Phaseo/us vulgaris?), seed (Pumpkin or squash), Black walnut (Juglans nigra), and hickory nut (Carya glabra) (MacCord and Rodgers 1966:13). Animal taxa identified include turkey ( Meleagris gallopavo), deer ( Odocoileus virginianus), groundhog (Marmota monax), black bear (Euarctos americanus), beaver ( Castor canadensis), rabbit (Sylvilagus floridanus), squirrel ( Sciurus carolinensis), box tortoise, and unidentified fish. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 70 Shell identified includes the Common mussel ( EHiptio complanatus ), the Large mussel (Lampsilis cariosa Say), and the River snail ( Campeloma decisum) (MacCord and Rodgers 1966:13). This combination of floral and faunal remains gives us a general subsistence pattern of crop growing supplemented by the collecting of wild plants and animals. The diversity of animals at this site is fairly low with only one bird, one reptile, and a small number of mammals. Because the fish specimens were not analyzed, the diversity of species cannot be determined. It is possible therefore, that fish played a more important role than is apparent at this time. Indeed due to the lack of flotation samples at many of these sites or the lack of the analysis of existing samples at those with samples, it is probable that fish are underrepresented at all of them. The Bowman site yielded few archaeobotanical specimens. These included one charred hickory nut ( Carya glabra) shell fragment and one charred bean (unidentified). Identified animals included deer, Common box turtle (Terrapene Carolina Carolina), turkey, and Passenger pigeon ( Ectopistes migratorius). Identified shell include Mussel ( EHiptio complanatus) (Most common), Anodonta cataracta (Say), Lampsilis cariosa (Say), the riverine snail Campeloma decisum and the land snails Anguispira, Mesodon thyroides (Say), and Thriodopsis albolabris (Say) (MacCord 1964:48). This data does not allow much interpretation except that this was a mixed economy utilizing both cultivated and indigenous species of plants supplemented with hunting and fishing. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 71 No archaeobotanical remains were recovered from the Quicksburg site. Faunal remains recovered included deer, fox, raccoon, beaver, rabbit, groundhog, turkey, unidentified other birds, box tortoise, mussels {EHiptio), and one unidentified fish bone. Although no domesticated plants were recovered at this site, Quicksburg was probably occupied by horticulturalists who supplemented their diet with indigenous plants, nuts, and fruit as well as a variety of animals. Because of the lack of further data, more detailed subsistence patterns cannot be determined at this time. Discussion Although the outline above for the progression of cultural complexes may seem fairly straightforward, in actuality the relationship of these groups both to each other and to neighboring cultures is still not completely understood. There are two issues which should be addressed at this point in order to more fully understand the complexities of the Late Woodland period in the Potomac Valley Piedmont. The first issue is to what extent were neighboring cultures, such as Shenk's Ferry and Monongahela, possibly influencing or coming into contact with the cultures in the study area and what was the impact of that contact? The second issue is what is the relationship of the archaeological cultures in the Piedmont to each other? If any (or all) of the three archaeological cultures discussed above were coming into contact with distinct neighboring cultures then it is possible that these outside influences could have caused broad Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 72 sociocultural changes which, in turn, affected the hunting strategies of the three cultures under study. Some archaeologists contest that the Montgomery Complex may be related to or influenced by the Shenk's Ferry culture found to the north along the Susquehanna River in Pennsylvania (McNett, 1993 personal communication). Shenk's Ferry ceramics are typically tempered with crushed rock and are often cord-marked and/or incised. Similarities in decoration, temper, form, and surface treatment lead McNett (1993, personal communication) to conclude that Shenk's Ferry ware is virtually the same as Shepard ware and that the assignment of two different types to the same ware has more to do with categorizing by modern archaeologists than to an actual meaningful difference in the past. Although temper varies slightly between these two complexes, this variation in temper could be a result of expediency rather than a mark of a sociocultural distinction. Ceramics classified as Shepard ware from the Shepard site included seven different kinds of tempering material. There are several explanations for this diversity of temper: this could represent several potters at work at the site; it could represent separate social units within the population of the site; it could illustrate the incorporation of techniques from other groups; or, perhaps most likely, this could indicate that temper was not a meaningful way for the occupants of this site to define and categorize their ceramics and that temper was used mainly as a functional item to keep the ceramic from collapsing and not as a symbolic item used for Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 73 identifying a particular group's ceramics. While Shenk's Ferry and Shepard ceramics are not identical, they do possess many similarities, similarities that may override their differences and indicate a possible connection between the groups in the project area with those groups to the north. The Shenk's Ferry Culture is believed to have had a basic horticultural economy that was supplemented with hunting and fishing. Larger villages were located along the river and smaller sites are located in the hills away from main waterways. One Shenk's Ferry site, the Mohr site, contained a palisade as well as a circular postmold pattern approximately 30 feet in diameter with an opening on one side toward a plaza and a possible opening on the opposite side. The organization at the Murry Site, another Shenk's Ferry site, is similar to that at Mohr, containing a stockade with a concentric row of house structures inside and a central structure with no hearth (Kent, Smith, and McCann 1971:334). The presence of a stockade is one major difference between Shenk's Ferry sites and Montgomery Complex sites. As we have seen above, Montgomery Complex sites are typically not stockaded. One similarity in mortuary patterns between the Shenk's Ferry Complex and the Montgomery Complex is in the type of grave goods. For both cultures, as with many similar groups, artifacts in adult burials are primarily those used for personal decoration, such as beads. The most striking similarity in mortuary patterns between these two complexes, however, is the differential treatment of infants and children from that of adults. While the treatment itself varies, it is Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 74 the fact that infants and children are sometimes treated differently than adults that stands out in this examination. In general, it appears that it is infants and children that most frequently contain deliberate grave goods with adults only rarely receiving comparable treatment. There are currently several hypotheses which attempt to explain the developments and movements of these various groups throughout the region. One of the more widely accepted of these is that due to increasing pressure from neighboring groups to the north, the Montgomery Complex people moved from the Piedmont to the Coastal Plain where they became known archaeologically as the Potomac Creek Complex (Clark 1980). The basic premise of this hypothesis is that there were groups of people from outside the immediate study area, probably from the north or northwest, shifting their territory and moving into the range of the Montgomery Complex. In reaction to this external expansion, the people from the Montgomery Complex then left the Piedmont and the incoming groups eventually become known archaeologically as the Mason Island Complex (Chase 1988; Clark 1980; Cissna 1986; McNett 1975). There is some evidence that calls this hypothesis into question. The first evidence is that as has been shown in the discussion of ceramic traits and mortuary treatment, there are some very basic similarities between the Shenk's Ferry Culture and both the Montgomery Complex and the Mason Island Complex. If groups recognized archaeologically as the Mason Island Complex were expanding from the north (where they are Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 75 known archaeologically as the Shenk's Ferry Culture) to replace groups known archaeologically as the Montgomery Complex, they would not necessarily have been hostile groups forcing the local inhabitants to abandon their villages and move to the Coastal Plain. Rather, these groups could be possible relations expanding to the south as the result of either population pressure or increasing hostility from their neighbors. Indeed, if the interaction between Shenk's Ferry and Montgomery Complex was hostile, then there should be some archaeological evidence of this at Montgomery Complex sites. While the position of the Rosenstock site, on a bluff overlooking the river, could be interpreted as a defensive position, no evidence of a stockade has been located at this or any other Montgomery Complex sites. It has been suggested elsewhere (Heisey and Witmer 1964; McNett 1975; Witthoft 1959; Witthoft and Farver 1952) that some Shenk's Ferry people were forced southward during a hostile expansion of the Susquehannock. Other Shenk's Ferry peoples stayed in Pennsylvania where there is considerable evidence for contact between Shenk's Ferry and Susquehannock peoples. Witthoft (1959) describes this interaction: As we now understand the historical occupation, the lower Susquehanna Valley in 1570 was occupied by a number of tiny hamlets of Shenk's Ferry people. These folk were of unknown linguistic affiliation and are unknown to history... At certain village sites (including the Shenk's Ferry Site and the Smith Site at Camp Hill, Cumberland County) and at certain river campsites (such as the Brandt Site at Bainbridge and a rock shelter at Casselmans' Run, York County), Susquehannock bands moved into Shenk's Ferry communities, leaving a scattering of pottery and other Susquehannock objects and a few Susquehannock burials... Judging by Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 76 the small amounts of Susquehannock material at these sites, the joint occupation must have been very brief (Witthoft 1959:23-24). Witthoft goes on to conclude that: I believe that the Susquehannock material in these Shenk's Ferry sites represents the first stage of Susquehannock occupation of the lower valley and that it also marks the termination of the Shenk's Ferry culture as a separate entity. The Susquehannock bands camped only briefly in these small Shenk's Ferry communities, and then gathered at the Schultz Site at Creswell to establish a large village which included many Shenk's Ferry captives or adoptees (Witthoft 1959:24). While this late 16th century expansion may indeed be the first Susquehannock occupation of the Shenk's Ferry area, it is likely that there was previous hostile contact between the two cultures prior to this expansion and occupation. The presence of stockades at Shenk's Ferry sites may be defensive measures as a result of this hostile interaction with the Susquehannock. The second body of evidence which leads us to question the replacement hypothesis deals with the relationship between the Montgomery Complex and the Mason Island Complex. While there are certainly archaeological differences between these two complexes, there are also many similarities. Ceramic temper and some aspects of ceramic decoration are different as are some aspects of mortuary patterns, but general village patterns remain consistent, as do the lithic and bone tool technologies, certain features of mortuary patterns, and certain features of ceramic decoration. It is possible that what has been interpreted as a new culture moving into this area may actually be change within the groups known as the Montgomery Complex. This change could be due to increased contact with other groups, rather than a Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 77 wholesale replacement of one group with another. This change could also be due to change stimulated from within the culture rather than due to outside contact and influence. It is also possible that if indeed a new group of people were moving into the Piedmont area, while some members of the Montgomery Complex people may have moved to the Coastal Plain, some may have remained in the Piedmont. This idea is supported by the overlap in the ranges of radiocarbon dates from both complexes. Given the fact that the focus of the geographic range of Mason Island Complex sites is just slightly upriver from the geographic focus of sites of the Montgomery Complex, it is also possible that some people from the Montgomery Complex remained downriver away from the center of the Mason Island Complex. The Nolands Ferry site on the Monocacy River contains traits from both the Montgomery Complex and the Mason Island Complex and can be used to address this issue of the relationship between the Montgomery Complex and the Mason Island Complex. The Nolands Ferry site contained Page Cord- Marked ceramics and Levanna points, artifacts usually associated with the Mason Island Complex. Four out of five of the burials, however, were flexed, a position usually associated with the Montgomery Complex. In addition, the ceramics provide what is not a pure Mason Island Complex combination of traits. Indeed, Kavanagh notes that: While Page Cord-Marked ceramics as defined by Griffin are exclusively tempered with limestone, both the Catoctin Creek site and Nolands Ferry have pottery tempered with crushed limestone or quartz, or both, usually collared, and decorated with cord-wrapped stick impressions, punctates Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 78 or incised lines. Some vessels show lugs and castellations. At one range of this ceramic type, these sherds are virtually indistinguishable from the Shepard Cord-Marked (Kavanagh 1982:77). Peck (1980), in his analysis of the ceramics from the Nolands Ferry site, found that some of the decoration and surface treatments recovered on the limestone-tempered ceramics at the Nolands Ferry site are very similar to those found on other wares. The decoration on some of the sherds from one of the types defined by Peck, type "C", is identical to Page Cord-Marked sherds found at the Keyser Farm site. The only difference between them is that the decoration on the sherds from Keyser Farm is on a collared rim while at Nolands Ferry, the decoration is on uncollared rims. The decorated collared rims from Keyser Farm are also found at the Shepard site where they are classified as Shepard Cord-Marked and tempered with crushed quartz or granite rather than crushed limestone. This leads Peck to conclude that "The close similarity in decoration suggests that the type of crushed rock which was used to temper the vessels was unimportant during this period of the Late Woodland, and that cultural relationships in this area should be based on the pattern of decoration rather than on the type of temper which was used" (Peck 1980:10). If this is so, then it would lead us to conclude that the Shepard/Page and Montgomery Complex/Mason Island Complex divisions may in fact be false constructions produced by archaeologists and not a reflection of prehistoric distinctions. Radiocarbon dates from the Nolands Ferry site fall into four clusters, Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 79 believed to represent separate occupation periods for the site. The four dates assigned to the Mason Island component at the site are A.D. 1480 (Sl-3880c), A.D. 1495 (Sl-3882a), A.D. 1550 (Sl-3884a), and A.D. 1590 (SI-3881) (Peck 1980 in Kavanagh 1982:77, 88). Several dates from the Rosenstock site, which is clearly from the Montgomery Complex, fall within the same range as the sites from Nolands Ferry leading Kavanagh to conclude that along the Monocacy "at least for a while the two complexes were overlapping in time" (Kavanagh 1982:77). In balance, this evidence seems to indicate that at least three of these Piedmont complexes are related, if not all part of one larger group. This larger group would include the Shenk's Ferry Culture, the Montgomery Complex, and the Mason Island Complex with each of these manifestations representing variants of this larger culture as it changes throughout both space and time. The degree of contact between these groups may have varied, especially as unrelated outside groups such as the Susquehannock began intruding. In any event, given the fairly large geographic range that these archaeological cultures cover and a time span that covers several hundred years, it is not surprising that various traits, such as ceramic temper, differ slightly throughout the region and change over time. These changes do not necessarily indicate the replacement of one group with another. As mentioned earlier, some archaeologists believe that the Luray Focus may be related to, or a southern intrusion of, the Monongahela Woodland Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 80 Complex of southwestern Pennsylvania (Manson et al. 1944; Gardner and Carbone 1983; MacCord and Rodgers 1966; Schmitt 1952; Pousson 1983; Wall 1981). Monongahela sites center around the junction of the Monongahela and Youghiogheny rivers but are also found in northwestern Pennsylvania, southwestern New York, Eastern Ohio, and West Virginia (Kent et al. 1971:336). Monongahela sites are found on either high bottomland areas near major rivers or on hilltops or saddles overlooking rivers. Although villages vary in size and structure, most Monongahela villages have a circular ring of structures with a central plaza area (Wall 1981:30). Houses are mainly oval (George 1974) although rectangular ones were located at the Montague site (Butler 1939:12). Hilltop Monongahela villages in Somerset and Fayette counties are stockaded (George 1974) but stockades are also present in other areas irrespective of their location on hills or terraces (Griffin 1978). Monongahela ceramics are primarily shell-tempered with occasional limestone tempering. Vessel forms are predominantly round-based vessels with in-sloping shoulders and vertical to slightly flaring or collared rims (Wall 1981:30). Surfaces are plain or cord-marked. Rims are occasionally incised, lips are plain or notched with some having rises above lugs, and loop handles occur occasionally (Wall 1981:30). Monongahela stone tools include triangular projectile points of various widths and lengths, occasional small-stemmed or corner-notched points, large triangular or leaf-shaped knives, scrapers, drills, perforators, gravers, adzes, Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 81 celts, hammerstones, and whetstones. Other lithic artifacts include discoidals and cannel coal pendants (Griffin 1978:558). Bone tools include awls, gouges, spatulas, fishhooks, chisels, hoes, projectile points, drifts, scrapers, turtle carapace cups, and beaver incisor chisels. Non-tool bone artifacts include tubes, whistles, pendants, beads, and perforated canine teeth (Griffin 1978:558). Shell artifacts include hoes, scrapers, and pendants and are found primarily in western Monongahela sites or near the Ohio Valley (Griffin 1978:558). Griffin (1978:558-559) states that one of the most distinctive characteristics of Monongahela culture is the variety of pipe forms. These range from visiform stone examples to elbow clay pipes. Monongahela burials are predominantly single interments although one pit at the Montague site contained two infants, possibly twins (Butler 1939:13). Adult Monongahela burials were most commonly flexed while children were both flexed and extended. Burial goods are predominantly ornamental and occur with both adult and sub-adult burials (Griffin 1978:557-558). Subsistence patterns at Monongahela sites consist of a mixed economy which included hunting, fishing, and growing corn, beans, and squash. The relative importance of cultivated plants versus indigenous plants and animals is unclear to date, however Wall (1981:30) states that "subsistence of the Monongahela peoples depended partially on agricultural products such as corn, beans, pumpkins, and squash and partially on hunting and gathering." Given this statement and using the definitions of horticulture and agriculture presented Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 82 earlier, Monongahela cultures could be considered horticultural, not agricultural, since a marginal dependence on cultivars would not necessarily cause the rescheduling of time and distribution of labor necessary to be considered agricultural. Although Wall (1981:30) states that "deer seem to be the best represented faunal species on Monongahela sites" the relative importance of various faunal species is generally unknown. In at least one Monongahela site fish were present in large numbers while deer were not (William Johnson in Griffin 1978:558). There are several similarities between the Monongahela and Luray Focus cultures. In both cultures the majority of sites consist of an array of structures and pits that are arranged in a circular pattern around a more open plaza area and are palisaded. Ceramics are shell-tempered, with both plain and cord-marked varieties. Lithic assemblages from both Monongahela and Luray Focus sites are very similar with small triangular points dominating the formal stone tool inventories. Likewise, the bone tool assemblages are also similar with a variety of tools being produced and the majority of them being awls or beamers, tools most likely used for hide processing. Some of the dates from both cultures are relatively close with median dates clustering in the 15th and 16th centuries. The Moore Village site is thought to have been occupied in the mid-15th century (Pousson 1983:148) while further down the Potomac, the Hughes site was probably occupied in the mid-15th century (Dent and Jirikowic 1990:73). Further to the west in the Shenandoah Valley, the Bowman, Miley Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 83 and Quicksburg sites were probably occupied during the second half of the 16th century (MacCord 1964,1973; MacCord and Rodgers 1966). If the Luray Focus in the Potomac and Shenandoah valleys is the southern intrusion of the Monongahela, then it is not surprising that the later dates are associated with those sites located further away from the original location of the Monongahela. This hypothesis of a southern expansion of Monongahela replacing the Montgomery Complex in the Potomac Piedmont and moving further south and west into the Shenandoah Valley where it is known archaeologically as the Luray Focus has some obvious implications for the current research. If there are drastic differences in hunting strategies between the Montgomery Complex and the Luray Focus as evidenced by the faunal assemblage, then these differences could be due to cultural or ethnic differences between the two groups and not simply due to varying dependencies on cultivated plants. The implications of this hypothesis will be discussed in more detail in the concluding chapter of this work. As has been seen above, much is known about certain artifact classes, such as ceramics and lithics, from the Montgomery Complex and Luray Focus of the Late Woodland period in the Potomac Piedmont. Other elements of site interpretation are not so well understood. Village organization and house structure patterns, for example, are elusive and although hundreds of postmolds have been excavated at all of the sites discussed above, most of these are in confusing and overlapping patterns. Differentiating domestic from special Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 84 function structures is also not possible at most of these sites. Because of this lack of clear data, few definitive statements have been made about social structure, social differentiation, and social organization at specific sites that are directly supported by the archaeological evidence. Certainly indirect evidence can be used but the lack of clear structure forms and the pattern of structures within a site creates a distinct gap in interpretations of these Late Woodland sites. Subsistence systems as well have only been broadly addressed in much of the work on these sites. The terms horticultural and agricultural are frequently applied by various researchers to these sites but it is not always possible to determine what the definitions are for these terms as they are being used. In some cases, the same sites have been called both terms by different authors. Montgomery Complex sites, for example, have been referred to as both horticultural and agricultural depending on the author. While the current research will not be able to determine exactly what is meant by all of these terms in previous literature, it will examine these sites based on the definitions of horticulture and agriculture presented earlier. Since all of these sites contained corn, it can be stated that food-producing economies were present throughout the entire time span under examination. The extent of dependence upon this food production is not clear, however, while it can not be fully determined at ail of these sites, it can certainly be addressed. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 85 Conclusion In conclusion, this chapter has presented a cultural historical context for the Late Woodland of the Potomac Valley Piedmont region. Key archaeological features (artifact types and frequencies, village organization, dates of occupation, possible contact with neighboring cultures, etc.) have been described for major archaeological cultures during this time period. In addition, the six sites providing the faunal assemblages for this research have been discussed in more detail. This context is important in that it provides not only the background in which to place the broad hunting strategies defined later for each archaeological culture, but it also provides the specific context for each of these six sites allowing a more detailed interpretation at the site level. The next chapter will evaluate the recovery techniques and the resultant faunal assemblages from each of these sites and will determine which of these assemblages can be reliably used to define the hunting strategies employed by the occupants of these sites. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. CHAPTER 3 ASSEMBLAGE RECOVERY AND UTILITY Introduction The purpose of this chapter is to examine the varying excavation and recovery techniques used at each site. This examination will be used to discuss the impact that those techniques have had on the utility of the assemblage for subsistence research. The faunal assemblages analyzed for this study were collected by various investigators with a wide variety of techniques that ranged from excavation with no screening and minimal provenience control to the measuring of three dimensional coordinates and the recovery of flotation samples. The assemblages were collected by both amateur and professional archaeologists. All of these variables have played a role in the completeness, the representativeness, and the research applicability of the individual assemblages. An evaluation of each of these variables will allow me to divide the assemblages into two categories - primary and secondary. Primary assemblages are those with a more representative sample that can be considered reliable for a subsistence study. Secondary assemblages are those with samples that are small or non-representative of 86 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 87 subsistence activities but can be used to supplement the patterns found with the analysis of the primary assemblages. It is the information from the discussion and analyses in this chapter that will support the determination of this categorization. This chapter proceeds with a structured format containing similar information about the excavation of each site: who performed the excavations, their research goals or reasons for the excavations, the excavation techniques used, the presence or absence and degree of screening and/or flotation, the relative completeness of the curated assemblages (in other words, was everything that was excavated kept by the excavators or were artifacts discarded after they were recovered because they were considered unimportant to the research goals), and where the assemblages are being curated. It is the biases inherent in all of these factors that will determine to what degree each assemblage can be used to address the present research questions. The sites that have been most recently excavated will be examined first and the earlier excavated sites will follow. Following this basic information, a brief description of each faunal assemblage will be given. These descriptions will include results of the analysis of the faunal remains and will contain information about several variables including: the number of bones, their size and completeness, taxa diversity, what portion of the assemblages are worked or show signs of wear, what portion of the bones are identifiable to class or better, and what can be Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 88 concluded about the degree of impact the field techniques had on the assemblage. Together, these variables illustrate the relative completeness of each assemblage and the results of the biases inherent in collection and research designs. The majority of these variables will be measured in simple percentages (i.e., what percentage of an assemblage is identifiable/unidentifiable) (Table 3). In addition, two indices have been developed, a "bone tool (or utilization) index" (BTI) and a "measurable (or relative completeness) index" (Ml) (Table 4). The bone tool index measures what proportion of an assemblage consists of bone tools. The BTI illustrates if there was a collection bias towards bones that were worked or utilized. The closer the BTI approaches one, the more skewed the assemblage is toward containing only those bones that show signs of alteration. This index includes both those bones that were deliberately worked and fit into a specific tool class (such as awl, projectile point, beamer, etc.) and those tools which show signs (such as polish or striations) of having been utilized without being deliberately altered as a specific tool. An assemblage therefore with a BTI of one would consist entirely of bone tools and an assemblage with a BTI of zero would have no bone tools. The measurable index measures the proportion of bones that are complete enough and well enough preserved to be measurable. This illustrates a collection bias towards bones with complete or near-complete diaphyses and that are readily identified. Given the acidity of the soils in the study area, the Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. TABLE 3 COUNTS AND WEIGHTS OF SPECIMENS BY SITE Site N % N Gram % Gram Average Weight Weight Weight Rosenstock 65361 100 107438 100 1.64 Identifiable(Total) 11230 17 61304 57 5.46 ID - Deer 9627 15 50966 47 5.29 ID - Other 1603 2 10338 10 6.45 Unidentifiable(Total) 54131 83 46134 43 .85 UNID - Large Mammal 9890 15 18931 18 1.91 UNID - Other 44241 68 27203 25 .61 Hughes 1 41 100 1317 100 32.12 Identifiable(Total) 31 76 1048 80 33.81 ID - Deer 24 59 633 48 26.38 ID - Other 7 17 415 32 59.29 Unidentifiable 10 24 269 20 26.90 UNID - Large Mammal 5 12 61 4 12.20 UNID - Other 5 12 208 16 41.60 Hughes 2 27178 100 23612 100 .87 Identifiable(Total) 3223 12 9906 42 3.07 ID - Deer 2946 11 9060 38 3.08 ID - Other 277 1 846 4 3.05 Unidentifiable 23955 88 13706 58 .57 UNID - Large Mammal 3557 13 4834 20 1.34 UNID - Other 20398 75 8872 38 .43 Shepard 618 100 2738 100 4.43 Identifiable(Total) 316 51 2111 77 6.68 ID - Deer 99 16 1394 51 14.08 ID - Other 220 36 717 26 3.26 Unidentifiable 302 49 627 23 2.08 UNID - Large Mammal 11 2 93 3 8.45 UNID - Other 291 47 534 20 1.84 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 90 TABLE 3 continued Site N % N Gram % Gram Average Weight Weight Weight Shepard Barrack 379 100 1437 100 3.79 Identifiabie(Total) 166 44 1075 75 6.48 ID - Deer 150 40 1014 71 6.76 ID - Other 16 4 61 4 3.81 Unidentifiable 213 56 362 25 1.70 UNID - Large Mammal 154 41 297 21 1.93 UNID - Other 59 15 65 4 1.10 Winslow 1792 100 18621 100 10.39 Identifiable(Total) 1222 68 15633 84 12.79 ID - Deer 671 37 10510 56 15.66 ID - Other 551 31 5123 28 9.30 Unidentifiable 570 32 2988 16 5.24 UNID - Large Mammal 28 2 102 1 3.64 UNID - Other 542 30 2886 15 5.32 Keyser Farm 633 100 4728 100 7.47 Identifiable(Total) 151 24 3585 76 23.74 ID - Deer 138 22 3452 73 25.01 ID - Other 13 2 133 3 10.23 Unidentifiable 482 76 1140 24 2.37 UNID - Large Mammal 30 5 116 2 3.87 UNID - Other 452 71 1024 22 2.27 All Sites Combined 96002 100 159891 100 1.67 Identifiable(Total) 16339 17 94662 59 5.79 ID - Deer 13655 14 77029 48 5.64 ID - Other 2687 3 17633 11 6.56 Unidentifiable 79663 83 65226 41 .82 UNID - Large Mammal 13675 14 24434 15 1.79 UNID - Other 65988 69 40792 26 .62 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 91 TABLE 4 BONE TOOL (BTI) AND MEASURABLE (Ml) INDICES Site # of # Bone BTI # Meas. Ml BTI+MI Bones Tools Bones 2 Rosenstock 65361 383 .006 1498 .023 .015 Hughes 1 41 38 .93 24 .59 .76 Hughes 2 27178 122 .004 400 .015 .010 Keyser Farm 633 578 .91 66 .10 .51 Shepard 618 390 .63 162 .26 .45 Shepard Barrack 379 7 .018 28 .074 .046 Winslow 1792 341 .19 491 .27 .23 All Sites 96002 1859 .019 2669 .028 .024 degree to which bones were broken in antiquity during butchering and processing, and the degree of disturbance (i.e., plowing) endured by some of the sites, it is not likely that a high proportion of bones remain complete enough to be measured. A measurable index approaching one will indicate whether or not the more complete and intact bones (as opposed to bone fragments) and the diaphyses were more frequently collected and curated. Examining taxa diversity is another way of determining collection biases (Table 5). Applying taxa diversity to the problem of examining collection bias, however, has the potential for introducing a basic interpretive assumption. Just because an assemblage has a relatively few number of taxa does not necessarily mean that this is a product of excavation and collection strategies. Rather, it could be that there are fewer taxa in an assemblage because there were fewer species used by the occupants of the site. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 92 TABLE 5 NUMBER OF TAXA REPRESENTED AT EACH SITE Site # of Taxa % Specimens Identifiable to Species Rosenstock 67 17 Hughes 1 4 76 Hughes 2 26 12 Shepard 13 51 Shepard Barrack 11 44 Winslow 26 68 Keyser Farm 6 24 The problem here, then, is with finding a way of illustrating the degree of assemblage bias that is due to the collection strategies of the excavators and not the collection strategies of the hunters. One way to do this is by using the information given in the various reports and notes of the excavators themselves. As can be seen below, for many of the excavators, often the reason for collecting faunal remains was to add to the species list from the site. This indicates that for these excavations remains should be almost completely diagnostic with few unidentifiable fragments (such as fragmented long bone shaft fragments with no diaphyses). Examining the number of taxa present in an assemblage and comparing it to the size of the site zooarchaeological assemblage will therefore have to be used in combination with what proportions of certain sizes of animals are identifiable and which are unidentifiable. For example, if a site contains 50 mammal bones, all of which are identifiable to the taxonomic level of species, we can conclude that there was no effort to recover Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 93 all mammal remains, just those which were most diagnostic. The Rosenstock site (18FR18) provides one the best collections against which to measure the other assemblages for these variables. Given that one of the explicitly stated goals of the research at this site was to examine subsistence patterns, that the researchers at this site performed very detailed recovery techniques, and the fact that this site was never looted, this assemblage will act somewhat as a baseline for comparison with other assemblages where collection bias exists but the effects of that bias are uncertain. In short, it is of critical importance to know the excavation and collection techniques used at each site in order to assess the relative comparability of the assemblages. Shoveling, troweling, screening, and floating matrix for artifacts all result in very different types of assemblages. These techniques respectively increase the detail, degree, and completeness of an artifact assemblage recovered. It is axiomatic that as more fine-grained recovery techniques are used, the closer we come to recovering a more complete and representative sample of the archaeological record. One example that illustrates the impact of different recovery techniques is at the Apple Creek site in Illinois (Streuver, 1968). Streuver found that by using flotation, over 57,000 artifacts were recovered that would not have been recovered through standard 1/4 inch mesh dry-screening. Flotation can have a similar impact on other archaeological assemblages. The impact that these varying techniques have had on the Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 94 following assemblages will be discussed and illustrated below. The discussions below about the recovery and evaluation of each site and its faunal sample are organized alphabetically by site number. An assessment will be made of each assemblage as a result of these discussions. In addition, a summary of the results and the assignments of primary or secondary status for this research will be presented at the end of the chapter. 18FR18 - The Rosenstock Site Excavation, Recovery, and Curation The Rosenstock site is an example of modern excavation, recovery, and curation techniques. Information regarding the excavations at this site presented in this discussion below are taken from the site field manuals (Curry and Kavanagh, 1991; 1992) and from personal communications with personnel at the Maryland Historical Trust, Office of Archeology. The Rosenstock site was originally discovered in the early twentieth century but was not extensively excavated until recently. Excavations at the Rosenstock site began in 1979 and continued during subsequent field seasons in 1990 and 1991. Research at this site has been co-sponsored by the Maryland Historical Trust Office of Archaeology, and the Archaeological Society of Maryland (ASM) as the Annual Field Session in Maryland Archaeology. Much of the excavation, recording, and laboratory work was performed by Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 95 volunteers organized and trained through the ASM (Curry and Kavanagh 1991:1). A grid of one meter by one meter squares was established on the site. Each square was numbered from its southwest corner with a north and east measurement relative to datum. The plowzone (usually about twenty centimeters thick) was flat-shoveled by square and all material was screened through 1/4 inch mesh. Artifacts were sorted by artifact type {i.e., ceramic, lithic, faunal, etc.) and bagged separately. Subsoil was encountered directly below the plowzone. The depth below datum of subsoil was taken at each corner of every square. If no features were present on the surface of the subsoil, an additional five centimeters was either flat-shoveled or troweled and screened (Curry and Kavanagh 1991:10-14). All features were excavated separately from the surrounding general fill material. Each feature was assigned a unique number and was photographed prior to excavation. Each feature was bisected twice and excavated in quadrants. For most of the features, the southwest quadrant was submitted to flotation and the rest of the feature was screened through 1/4 inch mesh. Features were excavated in natural levels if they were stratified or in arbitrary ten centimeter levels if they were not. Feature charcoal was collected when present (Curry and Kavanagh 1991:15-17). Postmolds were excavated in a similar fashion. Each postmold received a unique number, was mapped in place, and photographed. Postmolds were Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 96 bisected, profiled in cross-section and photographed again. The remainder of the postmold was excavated and all material was screened (Curry and Kavanagh 1991:17). The only features that were pedestaled were lithic clusters and hearths. These were bisected and excavated in arbitrary ten centimeter levels. All artifacts were left in place as exposed for mapping and photographing. Charcoal was collected in either plastic vials or aluminum foil and matrix was submitted to flotation (Curry and Kavanagh 1991:18). Flotation was performed on site and this material was sorted at the laboratory. Both light and heavy fractions were recovered. The flotation material from 1979 has been sorted and samples of it are available for this study. Although the flotation has been performed for 1990 and 1991, the samples have not yet been sorted and so were not used here. Assemblage Description The complete faunal assemblage from the Rosenstock site consists of approximately 100,000 specimens. Because of the large amount of material recovered from this site, not all of it was analyzed to the same degree (see discussion on levels of analysis in Chapter Four). All feature material underwent phase two analysis. In this phase, every bone or bone fragment is analyzed individually. Approximately three-fourths of the plowzone material underwent analysis. Approximately 10% of the plowzone underwent phase two Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 97 analysis and the remaining 90% underwent phase one analysis. In phase one analysis each lot of bones was sorted by species or order size (i.e., deer, small mammal, large bird, etc.) and then counted and weighed by this sort. In addition, a count of bone tools, altered bones, and butchering scars was noted for each lot. As a result of this sampling strategy, over 65,000 bones or bone fragments were analyzed from the Rosenstock site (see Table 3 for a tabular display of these data). These specimens weigh a total of 107,438 grams giving an average weight of 1.64 grams per specimen. Seventeen percent (n=11230) of this material is identifiable to the level of family or better. The average weight of the identifiable bones is 5.46 grams and is .85 grams for the unidentifiable bones. In addition, 18% of the unidentifiable fragments (15% of the total assemblage) with an average weight of 1.91 grams are from large mammals. Given the preponderance of deer in this assemblage (see Table 3), the majority of these large mammal bone fragments are probably deer. The remainder of the unidentifiable material weighs only an average of .61 grams per specimen. These average weights illustrate the effect that the fine-grained recovery techniques had on the Rosenstock faunal assemblage. This effect becomes even more notable when the absence of the flotation material is taken into account. For the 1979 material that was analyzed, there were frequent lots where there were over 100 bone fragments weighing less than one gram. The Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 98 addition, the flotation material would undoubtedly have reduced the overall bone fragments average weights even further. The BTI and Ml are both very low for the Rosenstock site (see Table 4 and Figure 3). Of the 65,361 analyzed bones, only 383 showed signs of utilization or alteration resulting in a BTI of .006. The Ml for Rosenstock is .023. The Rosenstock site has the highest diversity of taxa represented at any of the sites. "Diversity" in these discussions refers to separate taxonomic classifications at a family level or better. Sixty-seven taxa were recovered from the Rosenstock site. The next highest number of taxa, 26, was found at both the Hughes site and the Winslow site. Although part of this difference could be due to recovery techniques and degree of previous modern disturbance, the Hughes site was excavated using similar techniques so there must be another reason for this difference. This reason may well be the prehistoric hunting and collecting strategies used by the occupants of the site. Further discussion and interpretations of the implications of this difference can be found in Chapters Five and Six. Summary Due to the undisturbed nature of the site and the excavation and recovery techniques used, material from Rosenstock comprises the most complete assemblage in this study. Diagnostic artifacts were excavated and collected with horizontal and vertical controls and undisturbed feature material Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. without prohibited reproduction Further owner. copyright the of permission with Reproduced 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 Index oeTo ad esral Bns Indices Bones Measureable and Tool Bone oe ol ne H Mauebe Index Measureable H- Index Tool Bone Figure3 99 Sites 100 was submitted to flotation. This effort to recover micro-artifacts adds greatly to the richness and accuracy of analysis and interpretation. Given the low indices for this assemblage, and given the proportions of identifiable and unidentifiable material, it is clear that the excavation and collection strategies had a strong impact on the completeness of this assemblage. This resulted in an assemblage that is heavily biased toward a full range of subsistence remains. 18MQ1 - The Hughes Site Excavation, Recovery, and Curation The Hughes site was excavated in two major episodes: from 1937 to 1938 and during summer field seasons in 1990 and 1991. Excavation techniques, collection strategies and research goals were markedly different between these two periods and therefore resulted in two very different assemblages. A sample of the artifact assemblage from the 1937-38 excavations are being curated at the National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution (NMNH). The artifacts from the 1990-1991 excavations are stored at The American University (TAU). Both the material at NMNH and at TAU were examined for this study. Information used in this discussion is taken from a number of sources. Primary sources are: a report written by Richard Stearns and published by the Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 101 Natural History Society of Maryland discussing the 1937-38 excavations (Stearns 1940); a report written by Dent and Jirikowic on file at TAU discussing the 1990 excavations; personal communications with both Dent and Jirikowic; and field notes and maps on file at NMNH that were accessioned with the artifacts donated from the 1937-38 work (Department of Anthropology, SI accession #186144, #176236, #183968, #191329). 1937-1938 Excavations The Hughes site was discovered in the spring of 1937 by Nicholas and Roy Yinger on the property of Mr. Frederick Hughes. The Yingers excavated approximately two thousand square feet of the site and had uncovered twenty- six burials and numerous trash pits when the Department of Archaeology of the Natural History Society of Maryland heard of the excavations. Richard Stearns and other members of the Society participated in the remaining excavations at the site until June of 1938. An additional five burials and an unknown number of pits were uncovered at this time. Stearns and the other Society members mapped these features and photographed burials uncovered during their participation (Stearns 1940:1-2). No grid system is mentioned in any of the discussions of the excavation nor was any screening performed at the site. The goal of the excavations for the Yinger brothers was, as Stearns so bluntly put it "...to completely excavate the site and sell the objects found" (Stearns 1940:1). High market value objects Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 102 do not include large quantities of animal remains that would serve to answer questions about subsistence patterns. The faunal material that is curated at NMNH is primarily material that Stearns and others were able to purchase from the Yinger brothers. From the notes that were made with the accession, this faunal material appears to be primarily well preserved tools from trash pits and some burial material. This is confirmed by the discussion of artifact acquisition by Stearns (Stearns 1940:1-2). 1990-1991 Excavations This phase of excavation at the Hughes site was funded by the Department of Anthropology and the Summer Sessions Program of TAU. Excavations during the 1990 and 1991 field seasons were directed by Dr. Richard J. Dent, Department of Anthropology, TAU. Ms. Christine Jirikowic acted as field and laboratory director for the project. Crew for these excavations consisted primarily of field school students, as well as local residents who volunteered in the field. The 1990 and 1991 excavations were performed in three phases: a walkover visual survey of the project area to identify clusters of surface material; a series of shovel test pits in an east/west transect across the site to confirm the results of the walkover survey and to identify intact areas of the site; and controlled excavation. The site is currently bisected by a series of tree lines which separate several plowed fields. The orientation of these tree lines Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 103 acted as the grid orientation for the site. The grid north/south axis of the site was oriented perpendicular to the tree lines. Site datum, a metal pipe set in concrete, was placed in one of these tree lines (Dent and Jirikowic 1990:41-42). A metric grid was established over the site and excavation units were established as two meter squares. Units north of the grid origin point were numbered (beginning with 1) from west to east in rows south to north. Units south of the grid origin point were numbered (beginning with 1001) west to east in rows north to south. It is these squares that provide the horizontal control for the site (Dent and Jirikowic 1990:44). Natural stratigraphic levels provided the vertical control for the site. These levels consisted of a dark brown silty loam plowzone (level one) and a mottled dark yellowish brown and yellowish red silty clay loam subsoil (level two) overlying a lighter subsoil. Features occurred throughout the site and, although they were somewhat disturbed by the plowzone, were generally intact through Level two. Level one and general fill from Level two was flat shoveled and screened through quarter inch mesh. Artifacts recovered from this matrix were bagged separately by square and level. Features were defined with troweling and were then pedestaled and excavated after the surrounding fill from each level was removed. Features were cross-sectioned, profiled and then fully excavated (Dent and Jirikowic 1990:44-48). A sample (one bag) of fill from each feature was taken for flotation and the remainder of the matrix was screened through quarter inch mesh (Dent, personal communication). Flotation Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 104 samples were not available for this study. Artifacts recovered from features were bagged and processed separately from the artifacts from the surrounding fill. Assemblage Description The early excavations at the Hughes site produced an unknown number of faunal remains. As discussed above, the assemblage at NMNH consists of only a small sample of the assemblage. In addition, this sample is highly biased toward bone tools and large identifiable bone fragments. The assemblage from the early excavations at Hughes consists of 41 bones weighing 1,317 grams - an average weight of 32.12 grams per bone. This contrasts sharply with the Rosenstock site where the average bone weight is 1.64 grams and the later excavations at Hughes where the average bone weight is .87 grams. Seventy-six percent (n=31) of this assemblage is identifiable and has an average weight of 33.81 grams per bone. The unidentifiable remains have an average weight of 26.90 grams. Both of these figures contrast sharply with those from other sites (Table 3). The BTI and Ml for this assemblage are very high - .93 and .59 respectively. These indices are higher than those from any other assemblage (Figure 3). Of the 41 bones in the assemblage, 38 of them were bone tools and 22 were measurable. The number of taxa in the assemblage from the early Hughes site Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 105 excavations is low at four (Table 5). Most of the material from this site are bone tools made of deer bones. Many of these are metapodial bone beamers. The remaining identifiable material is elk, bear, and turtle. A total of 27,178 bones or bone fragments were analyzed from the 1990 and 1991 assemblages. These weighed 23,612 grams for an average weight of .87 grams per specimen. Only 12% (n=3223) of the specimens are identifiable to the level of family or better. The average weight of the identifiable bones is 3.07 grams and is .57 grams for the unidentifiable bones. Fifteen percent of the unidentifiable bones (13% of the entire assemblage) is large mammal. As with the Rosenstock site, given the preponderance of deer remains, most of this material is probably deer. The BTI for the 1990/1991 material from Hughes is .004 and the Ml is .015. This contrasts sharply with the indices from the early excavations at this same site. These are the lowest indices for any of the sites in this study (Table 4). Only 122 bones showed signs of deliberate alteration or use wear. Of the 27,178 bones recovered in this sample, only 400 of them were measurable. These figures correspond with the identifiable/ unidentifiable ratios for this assemblage. They also differ only slightly from the Rosenstock material. Rosenstock had 17% identifiable material and Hughes 1990/1991 had only 12%. The Hughes 1990/1991 assemblage consisted of numerous small fragments of large mammal bones, many of which were difficult although possible to identify. Rosenstock, in contrast, contained a lot of large bones with Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 106 distinguishing features that were relatively easy to identify and a lot of very small bones and bone fragments that could not be identified. Rosenstock did not contain as many of the larger bones broken into small denser pieces as were in the Hughes 1990/1991 assemblage. This difference may be a result of how the bones were processed in antiquity. One explanation for this could be that the occupants of the Hughes site were breaking the bones into small fragments for degreasing and the occupants of the Rosenstock were not. Although modern plowing could account for some of this difference, this pattern carries into the feature material as well, so other explanations must be posited. As already mentioned, there were 26 taxa in the Hughes 1990/1991 assemblage. These include large mammals, reptiles, amphibians, birds, and fishes representing a full range in the size of remains recovered. Because there are a number of specimens representing a variety of small animals, this relatively low number of animals represented is probably primarily due to prehistoric hunting patterns and not the excavation and recovery techniques used. Summary Because of the nature of the collection strategy during the 1937-38 excavations, the assemblage housed at NMNH does not appear to be of much utility for subsistence reconstruction and interpretation. The 1990-1991 assemblage, on the other hand, is applicable to the research questions being Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 107 addressed here. These latter excavations were collected with both horizontal and stratigraphic control. All matrix was screened and can be used to address both the diversity and the richness of the faunal assemblage. It is this assemblage combined with the material from the Rosenstock site that comprises the majority of the data for this study. The 1937-38 material will be used as supplemental material for the more recently collected assemblage but will not be used independently for interpretations. 18MQ3 - The Shepard Site Excavation, Recovery, and Curation The Shepard site was excavated in three major episodes. These were from 1936-1939, 1952-1955 and 1955. These excavations were performed with a wide range of recovery techniques and provenience control. The artifacts from the first and last phases of excavation are housed at NMNH. It was this combined assemblage of faunal remains that was examined for this study (Department of Anthropology, SI accession #219120). The disposition of the artifacts from 1952-55 is not known. The information presented here regarding excavation and collection techniques is taken primarily from a publication entitled "The Shepard Site Study" (MacCord, Slattery, and Schmitt 1957). Supplemental artifact information is from accession notes located at the Department of Anthropology, Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 108 Smithsonian Institution. These notes were constructed when this assemblage was donated to the museum by Richard Slattery and Hugh Stabler. They consist of an artifact inventory as well as an inventory of and preliminary information regarding the burial remains recovered from this site. Except where noted, all information in the following discussion is from the 1957 site report. 1936-1939 Excavations The Shepard site was originally located in September of 1936 by Stabler and Slattery during an archaeological reconnaissance. After gaining permission for excavations from the owner of the property, John B. Shepard, they established a site grid and excavated in five-foot squares. Two base lines were established to form the site grid. A north/south line was marked at five-foot increments alphabetically from north to south and an east/west line was marked at five-foot increments numerically from west to east. Each feature was given an individual number and the provenience of all features refers back to the letter/number grid coordinate (i.e., A12). These grid coordinates (and, occasionally, feature numbers) are present on many of the artifacts in the assemblage at NMNH. Unfortunately, the grid map of these excavations was lost, so the artifacts analyzed for this study cannot be placed within a horizontal framework. Slattery, Stabler, and other volunteers excavated over two thousand square feet, focussing on the western half of the site. In this area, they Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. excavated nineteen burials and at least fifty pits. Testing in other portions of the site revealed an unspecified number of pits and nine additional burials. Dr. William Strong of the Bureau of American Ethnology and Dr. Waldo Wedel of the U.S. National Museum acted as advisors for the excavation, mapping, and preservation of artifacts. In addition, Dr. Wedel's field notes were incorporated into the published report on the site. Additional information on the 1936-1939 excavations was taken from a report written in 1940 by Schmitt and Slattery. Excavation consisted of flat shoveling through surface and/or plowzone material to reveal pits, postmolds, burials, hearths, and other features. Feature material was then excavated as a unit separate from the surrounding fill. None of the records of this period indicates screening of any matrix, either fill or feature material. Material that was considered important to the research goals - primarily projectile points, potsherds, bone tools, grave goods, and human remains - was collected and inventoried. Although no screening was performed, these were systematic excavations which included horizontal control and curation of a portion of the assemblage. The primary goals of these excavations were cultural historical. Research interests focussed on detailing cultural chronology in the area, collecting information on comparative "culture trait" information, and constructing broad descriptions of the lifeways of the people who inhabited this site. Subsistence information collected at this time was equally broad in Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 110 scope. The presence of corn indicated that food cultivation was in use and a species list was constructed from the faunal remains collected. Since no screening was done, much of the diversity and richness of the faunal assemblage may well have been lost in the field. Relative amounts of species present at the site were not needed to answer the question of what was being hunted so a simple presence or absence of a particular species was sufficient to address the subsistence research goals of this time. A sample of the faunal remains collected is currently curated at NMNH. 1952-1955 Excavations Excavations conducted at the Shepard site during this period were undertaken by Nicholas Yinger and Ralph Fout of Frederick, Maryland. These excavations were primarily in the eastern and central portions of the site and covered over seven hundred square feet. No maps of this excavation area are known. This area, in addition to some random shovel test pitting, revealed at least three burials and thirty pits. The artifacts recovered during this period were not analyzed for this study. 1955 Excavations In 1955, Howard MacCord, with the assistance of several volunteers, tested the Shepard site with both trenching and the excavation of five-foot test squares. The trench focussed on the western edge of the site and covered four Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 111 hundred and twenty-five square feet. The five-foot test squares were placed at fifty-foot intervals across the site, with one additional square placed north of the center of the site. No screening was performed at this site. The goal of this testing was to answer questions about the size and depth of the site, the stratigraphy of the site, and the presence of house outlines which, theoretically, would be revealed by postmold patterns. With these goals in mind, all test areas were excavated by natural stratigraphic levels. Features were also excavated as discrete units and material from both the general fill and the features was stored separately to facilitate research concerning the stratigraphic sequencing of the artifacts and the integrity of the site. As with the earlier work at this site, subsistence reconstruction was not a stated goal of these excavations so there was no reason to collect all of the faunal material encountered. It was hypothesized from the earlier excavations that the people inhabiting this site were agriculturalists and the examination of the faunal remains was performed primarily to supplement the list of species known to have been hunted at this time. Assemblage Description The faunal assemblage from the Shepard site consists of 618 bones weighing 2,738 grams. This yields an average weight of 6.68 grams per bone. The identifiable portion of the assemblage is 51% (n=316) and weighs an Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 112 average of 6.68 grams per bone. Unlike the assemblages from the Hughes and Rosenstock sites, the greater proportion of identifiable remains are not deer. Only 31% (99 out of 316) of the identifiable remains are deer. Of the unidentifiable portion of the assemblage (n=49), only two (4%) are from large mammals. The Shepard site assemblage has a large number of bone tools (390) yielding a BTI of .63. The Ml for this site is .26. Both of these indices are very high when this site is compared to Hughes and Rosenstock (see Table 4 and Figure 3). The number of taxa from this site is 13 (Table 5). While this seems low in comparison to this figure from the Hughes and Rosenstock sites, it seems high when the sample size is taken into account. The Hughes site has twice as many different animals in its assemblage, but has a sample size that is almost 44 times that of the Shepard site. These figures indicate that the excavators were interested in collecting both bone tools and a variety of the species represented at the site - both of which were explicitly stated goals in their published reports. Summary As with the early excavations at the Hughes site, information from the Shepard site indicates that a representative sample of the faunal material was not collected. Faunal remains were collected if they were from a previously unidentified species or if there was something unusual about them (such as Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 113 modification for tool use or signs of use wear). This collection strategy is well illustrated by the following excerpt from the Shepard site report: Animal bones were abundant, especially those of the Virginia deer. Literally bushels of such refuse were found, washed and sorted. Most could be identified as deer without further study. Those about which there was uncertainty were identified by Dr. Charles O. Handley, Division of Mammals, U.S. National Museum (MacCord, Slattery, and Schmitt 1957:22). The species list in the report that follows this statement closely matches the species identified in the present study. It appears that the assemblage curated at the NMNH is a combination of both the material identified by Dr. Handley and a sample of the bone tools. Much of the material from the assemblage curated at NMNH either matches the species listed in the Handley report or falls into the modified bone category. It is not known whether the 618 bones in the NMNH assemblage is all of the material that was donated to NMNH or whether only a sample of the donated material was curated. It is also impossible to determine what percentage of the artifact assemblage was donated to the NMNH. In addition, none of the artifacts recovered by Yinger and Fout were donated to the museum (see SI Department of Anthropology accession record #186144 for list of materials donated by Stearns and MacCord). The lack of any of these 1952-1955 artifacts further adds to the sample bias when comparing what is present in the assemblage to what was present at the site. All of these factors - research goals, excavation techniques, field Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 114 recovery, collection, and donation/curation decisions for all three stages of the excavation - affected the currently available collection. Archaeological assemblages by their very nature are not equally representative of all activities present at a particular site. In addition, all archaeological collections are, because of the limitations of both archaeology's methodology and research orientations, always biased to varying degrees by the very factors discussed above. The result of these biases on this assemblage is that this assemblage cannot be used alone for a detailed subsistence study of the type advocated herein. This is not to say that there are no valuable data to be recovered from this material, it is just limited in its scope and application here. It can, however, be used as supplemental data when examining a series of sites. 18M04 - The Shepard Barrack Site Excavation, Recovery, and Curation The Shepard Barrack site was discovered and excavated in 1958 by the Southwest Chapter of the Archaeological Society of Maryland. At the time of excavation, the site was located in a plowed field and owned by Mr. Hugh Beshers. Information regarding excavation and collection techniques used at this site is taken from a report written by Virginia Clyde (Clyde 1959) and published by the Archaeological Society of Maryland. Excavations at the Shepard Barrack site proceeded in two phases. The Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 115 first phase consisted of surface observation and artifact collection over the plowed field. Artifact concentrations were noted and permission was obtained to excavate an unplowed area along a fence adjacent to the field. A total of seventeen five foot by five foot test squares were excavated in the fence area and an additional seven units were excavated in the field. Units were excavated in arbitrary levels with the first level being ten inches deep (approximately the depth of the plowzone) and further levels each three inches deep. In addition to these test units, a trench of unknown size was excavated closer to the river to a depth of eighteen inches. There is no screening mentioned in the Clyde (1959) report. There was only one intact feature uncovered, a post mold. Artifacts continued to twenty- two inches below the surface but the majority of the material was recovered in the plowzone. Assemblage Description There are 379 specimens in the Shepard Barrack assemblage weighing 1,437 grams, averaging 3.79 grams per specimen. Forty-four percent (n=166) of the bones were identifiable, with an average weight of 6.48 grams per bone. Almost all of these identifiable bones were deer (n=150, 90%). In addition, 154 of the 213 (72%) unidentifiable bones were large mammal, probably deer. Combined, the deer and large mammals fragments constitute 80% of the assemblage (Table 3). This pattern reflects both the goals and the techniques Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 118 of the excavation. One of the goals was to expose as much of the site as possible and collect a large sample of the artifacts that would represent the variety of animals at the site, not just the bone tools or immediately identifiable bones. As a result, 56% of the bones are unidentifiable. Because no screening was performed on the site, most of the remains recovered were fairly large (average weight = 3.79 grams per bone) resulting in a skewing of the assemblage toward large mammal bone fragments, even the unidentifiable ones. The BTI for the Shepard Barrack site is .018 and the Ml is .074. Again, this indicates an effort to recover subsistence remains as well as bone tools and a willingness to collect small bone fragments. Eleven taxa were represented in the assemblage from this site. Although this figure is low when comparing it to the more complete assemblages (Hughes 1990/1991 and Rosenstock), it is high when the sample size is taken into account. When compared to the Hughes site, Hughes has only 2.4 times as many different taxa but almost 72 times as many specimens, indicating that recovery at the Shepard Barrack site was somewhat representative. Summary There are several problems that limit the usefulness of this assemblage for subsistence reconstruction. The first of these is that much of the site appears to have been highly disturbed by plowing. This is critical at this site Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 117 because it appears that there are two components present. Clyde (1959:9) does note that the later (possibly Keyser) material is concentrated in the middle of the site. The material from this area would be the material most relevant here. An examination of the ceramic artifacts from this site at NMNH by E. Moore revealed that both Shepard and Keyser sherds were present in the assemblage. The faunal assemblage could therefore be from both or either component. The second problem with this assemblage is that, since there appears to have been no screening performed, the bulk of the faunal material collected will fall into the category of large or unusual bones or bone tools. In addition, there is no mention in the records of what proportion of the material recovered was donated to NMNH. Again, although this assemblage cannot be used alone for a discussion of subsistence strategies, it can provide supplemental data when used in conjunction with the data from the primary sites. 18MQ9 - The Winslow Site Excavation, Recovery, and Curation The Winslow site was excavated in two periods: from 1940 to 1941 and from 1959 to 1962. During the first period, excavations were performed primarily by Richard Slattery and Hugh Stabler. During the second period, excavations were conducted by the Southwest Chapter of the Archaeological Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 118 Society of Maryland (ASM). The artifacts from the first period of excavations were donated to NMNH by Slattery and Stabler. Information used in this discussion is taken from various publications by Richard Slattery (Slattery 1960a, 1960b, 1961, and 1966/1968). The first three of these are progress reports concerning the excavations from 1959-1962. The final reference listed above is what appears to be a draft of a full report and interpretation of the site, including the data from both excavation periods. Some sections of this report were written in 1966 and others in 1968, hence the multiple date for the reference. The entire report is currently on file in the Anthropology Archives at NMNH. It should be noted at this time that since the construction of the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal had destroyed half of the site, the discussions below refer only to the portion of the site that remained on the north side of the canal. 1940-1941 Excavations As mentioned above, from 1940-1941 Richard Slattery and Hugh Stabler performed excavations at the Winslow site. This work was limited in that the landowner allowed excavations to be performed with the condition that all areas had to be refilled at the end of each day. Excavation centered in the west half of the site and a total of three burials and approximately ten trash pits were located. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 119 Horizontal control was of major concern to the excavators and site datum, referred to as a "base stake", was placed along a fence that bordered the canal (Slattery 1966:3). Features were measured to this base stake so that they could be reopened in the future. Given the daily time constraints, the need to refill every unit, and the size of the site, many features were opened one day, partially excavated, backfilled, and never completely excavated. No screening was performed during these excavations. When faced with this situation - a large village site with numerous pits and burials containing large quantities of artifacts and excavations that could be stopped by the landowner at any time - Slattery and Stabler altered their excavation strategy and the goals of the project. As Slattery states "The objectives of the 1940-1941 excavations then changed from one of careful documentation to one of obtaining the most knowledge from the site under restricted working conditions" (Slattery 1968:3). 1959-1962 Excavations The excavation of the Winslow site from 1959-1962 was performed largely by members of the ASM with counselling from Slattery. These excavations were triggered by the fact that a local collector had discovered the site and had begun excavating and removing artifacts. The landowner at this time, Mr. Brockett Muir, granted the ASM permission to do unlimited excavations. There were two major goals of the ASM excavations. The first of these Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 120 was to confirm whether or not a ring of pits circled the site, an observation that Slattery and Stabler had made earlier. The second goal was to "obtain any other additional information available" (Slattery 1968:4). In order to address the first goal, it would be necessary to correlate the results of the two periods of excavation. Unfortunately, the 1940-1941 site datum could not be relocated, so a new site datum was established. This datum consisted of a pipe set into the ground at the foot of a large elm tree along the bank of the canal. A base line was established perpendicular to the canal (compass bearing N 31 E) and extended ninety feet through what was considered the middle of the site. A grid of five foot squares was then established along this baseline (Slattery 1968:4). The first area to be excavated was a trench measuring ten feet by forty feet running parallel to the baseline. Squares were opened adjacent to this trench and a total of one hundred and ninety four squares were excavated. In addition, squares were expanded if features were present and extended beyond the square boundaries. Additional testing elsewhere on the site was done bringing the total area excavated to approximately five thousand square feet (Slattery 1968:5). Standardized excavation techniques were developed for this later phase of work. As with the Shepard Barrack site, approximately the first ten inches of soil was plowzone material. This "Zone A" contained prehistoric, eighteenth century, and modern material (Slattery 1960a:14). All artifacts were collected and labeled as surface finds and were stored separately from the remaining Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 121 stratigraphically intact material at the site. Underlying the plowzone was "Zone B", a dark humic soil containing only prehistoric artifacts. This ranged from eight inches to fourteen inches in thickness. Zone B terminated at a light yellowish tan colored subsoil. This interface was considered the existing surface at the time of occupation. Features extended from zone B into the subsoil and it was zone B that contained all of the midden material. Zone B was excavated first in six inch levels, and later in four inch levels to gain more vertical control of artifact provenience (Slattery 1968:5-6). Refuse pits were excavated as separate units within each square to ensure the separation of pit and general fill material. These pits were not excavated in levels within the pit, but were excavated as a single entity on the assumption that they were small enough to have been rapidly filled and therefore probably represented either a single fill episode or relatively few episodes fairly close in time. Some, but not all, of the pits were bisected and drawn in profile (Slattery 1968:7-8). These pits seemed to be in a circular pattern (Slattery 1960b:14). No screening was performed during these excavations. The Winslow site contained both human (twelve) and dog (six) burials. All burials were completely exposed in situ for recording. Burials were given sequential numbers as uncovered and artifacts from them refer back to this unique number. Burials were photographed and then excavated (Slattery Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 122 1968:4-9). One rectangular shaped (possibly storage) pit was excavated. This had a stone floor and several artifacts but contained little other cultural fill (Tidwell 1960:8-10). In addition, a series of postmolds was excavated which bisects the arc of pits (Slattery 1960b:15). Assemblage Description The assemblage from the Winslow site contains 1,792 bones weighing 18,621 grams for an average bone weight of 10.39 grams (Table 3). The greater proportion of this assemblage is identifiable (68%) with an average bone weight of 12.79 grams per bone. Of this identifiable bone, only 37% (n=671) is deer. Surprisingly, 95% of the unidentifiable remains are not large mammal. This assemblage does, however, have a high average weight of 5.32 grams per specimen for non-large mammal material. Of this assemblage, 341 of the bones were bone tools and 491 were measurable. This results in a BTI of .19 and an Ml of .27. Twenty-six taxa were recovered from this site. This number is very high - equal with that from the 1990/1991 excavations at the Hughes site. This is very important, given the fact that many different animals were recovered without screening or flotation. Summary As with the other sites in this study, excavations were performed using a Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 123 combination of flat-shoveling and troweling. There is no mention of screening for either period of work. One very useful feature of this assemblage is that almost every bone is labeled with a site catalog number. The 1966/1968 report contains a copy of the site catalog appended to the back of the report. Catalog numbers appear to refer to bulk (as opposed to individual) artifacts that were separated by provenience. The catalog contains the catalog number, square, depth, and comments. Because these catalog numbers were noted during analysis, it is possible to determine whether the remains came from primary contexts (such as trash pits and burials), from general fill, or from disturbed contexts such as plowzone or rodent burrows. One of the more interesting results of this examination is the high number of taxa observed in the assemblage. Since no screening or flotation was performed at the site, it is possible that the number of taxa in the complete archaeological assemblage (as opposed to the collected sample) could have been as high as that from the Rosenstock site. More detailed statistical examinations of this diversity will be developed in Chapter Five but clearly the excavators at this site made an effort to collect a diverse sample of the faunal remains encountered during excavation. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 124 44PA1 - The Kevser Farm Site Excavation, Recovery, and Curation The Keyser Farm site was originally located and excavated in the late 1930s by Carl Manson and Howard MacCord during a site survey in the Shenandoah Valley. Although located well west of the other sites, this assemblage was analyzed because, as discussed in Chapter Two, it is related to the other sites in the study. Further collection and excavation occurred in 1943 by MacCord after a flood when two burials were exposed. Information for the following discussion comes primarily from a 1944 report authored by Manson, MacCord, and James B. Griffin. Additional information is from notes, photographs, maps, and artifact inventories donated with the artifact collection (Department of Anthropology, SI accession #160002). Excavation techniques used at this site are similar to those used by the authors at other sites as discussed above. A datum was established and a grid of fifty-foot squares was placed over the site. These squares were subdivided into five foot squares for excavation. Trenches were excavated at the southern and eastern ends of the site to clarify site boundaries. When features were encountered with these trenches five foot squares were measured in place. No screening was performed at this site. As with all of the other sites, there was a plowzone overlying the intact prehistoric material. The plowzone was shoveled and artifacts from this level Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 125 were labeled as surface material. Most of the features were located at the horizon of the plowzone and the underlying light yellow sandy subsoil. In squares where features were not encountered, the subsoil was excavated to a depth of two feet. When features were encountered, the five foot square was expanded to encompass the entire feature (Manson et al. 1944:377). In several of the squares there was an artifact rich, dark humic layer between the plowzone and the subsoil and above any associated features. This was interpreted as debris that had accumulated in depressions left by settling from the pits. The bulk of this material occurred in conjunction with trash pits (Manson et al. 1944:378). Pits were excavated as a unit and the artifacts from them were bagged separately from the surrounding fill. Pits were fully exposed and then triangulated from the square corners. They were then cross-sectioned and the larger or more elaborate pits were profiled and photographed (Manson et al. 1944:377-378). The majority of the pits appeared to be originally storage pits that were filled either with trash or by collapse and erosion. Postmolds were uncovered and excavated over the entire site but there is no mention of any cross-sectioning of them. Many of the pits appeared to be in an elliptical pattern and although there were several pits surrounded by postmolds, there were no clearly definable structures nor were there any prepared floors uncovered (Manson etal. 1944:386). Although several of the burials at the Keyser Farm site were located in Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 126 refuse and storage pits, there were also several discrete burial pits uncovered at the site. All of these were sketched and photographed and these records, as well as the original artifact inventories from each of the burials, are available in the accession records mentioned above (Department of Anthropology, SI accession #160002). Assemblage Description The Keyser Farm site faunal assemblage contains 633 bones weighing 4,728 grams for an average weight of 7.47 grams per bone. Identifiable remains account for 24% (n=151) of the assemblage. Of these, 138 (22%) are deer. As with the Winslow site, a surprising number (n=30, 94%) of non-large mammal unidentifiable remains was collected with an average weight of 2.27 grams. Bone tools account for 578 of the bones in this assemblage yielding a BTI of .91. Measurable bones total 66 for an Ml of .10. Clearly, this assemblage is highly skewed toward bone tools. The number of taxa at this site is very low at six. There are very few small mammals represented in this assemblage, and most of the assemblage consists of deer, turtle, and turkey. It is the larger bones from these animals that are most frequently worked into bone tools. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 127 Summary Most of the material at this site was excavated by flat-shoveling and troweling. No screening was performed. Care was taken during these excavations to collect as much information as possible about the presence of a stockade (none was located), the size and shape of structures (both house and storage), mortuary behavior, and other elements that would eventually appear as a "culture trait" list (see trait list on pp. 400-401 in Manson et al. 1944). These lists were developed for most of the sites excavated during this period to facilitate comparison of sites throughout the Potomac Valley. Indeed, similar culture trait lists were being developed by many ethnographers and archaeologists at this time as a tool for comparative research. Subsistence questions were addressed through both the floral and the faunal remains at this site. As with the Shepard site (18M03), great quantities of faunal material are mentioned in the report but are not present in the curated assemblage. The 633 bones and bone fragments in the assemblage at NMNH do not constitute the "bushels of animal bones and the pecks of mussel shells, which indicate the great dependence placed on the animal kingdom as a source of food" (Manson et al. 1944:414). With this assemblage, it is the bone tools and the larger pieces that were collected. As with many of the collections, the use of this assemblage for subsistence reconstruction is highly limited. This assemblage could not be used independently when discussing subsistence strategies but can be used to provide supplemental data when comparing it to Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 128 other more complete assemblages. Conclusion This chapter has used both a review of documents and a variety of data to address the issue of the utility of the faunal assemblages for addressing subsistence questions. The utility of the assemblages varies greatly from site to site. This range of utility goes from the Rosenstock and Hughes 1990/1991 assemblages, which are well collected and applicable to the present research questions, to the early excavations at the Hughes site, which are so dramatically biased towards bone tools that application to the current research is extremely limited. The results of this examination are that only two of the assemblages - Rosenstock and Hughes 1990/1991 - can be considered primary assemblages as defined in Chapter One. The remaining assemblages, Shepard, Shepard Barrack, Winslow, and Keyser Farm, are classified as secondary assemblages. These can be used only as supplemental comparative data and not used to make initial interpretations about prehistoric subsistence strategies. It is the primary assemblages that must be used for these statements and interpretations. The biases affecting the collection of these assemblages have been examined through a variety of literature including both published articles and field notes and then addressed with a variety of indices and descriptive Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 129 measures. All of this information must be taken into account when interpretations are made based on comparisons between sites. The following chapter describes the analytical methods used for collecting the data needed to address the research questions defined in Chapter One. Given the historical and cultural context described in Chapter Two and the conclusions regarding the utility of each of the samples in the current chapter, different sampling strategies were developed for each of the assemblages. These sampling strategies, as well as the specific analytical methods used for collecting the zooarchaeological data and the statistical methods used for later interpretation of the data will be defined in Chapter Four. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. CHAPTER 4 ANALYTICAL METHODS Introduction Given the research questions discussed in earlier chapters, the collection of faunal assemblages analyzed here provides a unique set of data with which to address issues of animal exploitation in a context that was possibly becoming increasingly socially and economically complex, whether from internally stimulated change or as a result of contact with outside cultures. The sites that are being examined represent a temporal range at a time when there was a possible increase in the cultivation of plant foods. The idea that these people were also becoming increasingly committed to a sedentary way of life can be directly addressed by examining the vertebrate faunal remains. Addressing these questions using a number of assemblages that were collected using widely varying excavation and recovery techniques presents some difficult methodological problems. The varying size and nature of the faunal assemblages require different sampling procedures and interpretive assumptions for each site. For example, the assemblage from the Shepard site, consisting of 618 specimens and excavated fifty-five years ago, was 130 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 131 completely analyzed. The assemblage from the Rosenstock site, however, where all material was screened and large portions of the site were submitted to flotation required designing a sampling strategy in order to deal with the approximately 100,000 bones recovered from four years of excavation. This chapter will address sampling issues, in addition to describing the techniques and conditions used for the identification and analysis of the vertebrate faunal remains. This chapter is divided into three sections. The first section will describe the techniques used for analysis. The second section will discuss the sampling strategies used with each assemblage. The third section will define the various analytical terms used for the analysis as well as the methods with which the statistical figures associated with each term were calculated. Analytical Techniques This research was conducted over a four year period at both the Smithsonian Institution and The American University (TAU). Initial identification was performed using a combination of techniques including the use of comparative specimens and published identification guides (Olsen 1964, 1968, 1979; Gilbert 1980). The comparative mammalian specimens and a selection of bird, reptile, and amphibian specimens that were used for identification are located at the National Museum of Natural History (NMNH) Archaeobiology Laboratory, Museum Support Center (MSC), Smithsonian Institution. In Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 132 addition, as complete elements of the smaller mammals were identified in the site assemblages, they were not repacked but were kept accessible in the laboratory for comparative purposes. Four of the assemblages - Shepard (18M03), Shepard Barrack (18M04), Winslow (18M09), and Keyser Farm (44PA1) - are being curated at the MSC. They were temporarily moved within the MSC to the NMNH Archaeobiology Laboratory for identification. The assemblage from the Rosenstock site is currently on loan from the Maryland Historical Trust and was also identified at the NMNH Archaeobiology Laboratory. The deer remains from the 1990 excavations at the Hughes site were analyzed at the TAU Archaeology Laboratory using a comparative specimen on loan from the NMNH Archaeobiology Laboratory. Non-deer remains from 1990 and the entire screened assemblage from 1991 excavations at the Hughes site were identified at the NMNH Archaeobiology Laboratory. Fish and bird remains not identified at the Archaeobiology Laboratory were identified by Justin Lev-Tov, Zooarchaeology Laboratory Director at the University of Tennessee in Knoxville using the U.T. comparative collection. Three phases of analysis were designed for identification. These are designated phases one through three, with the phase one entailing the least detailed data recovery and phase three the most detailed. For all phases of analysis, bones were first sorted into two categories - identifiable and unidentifiable specimens. These categories were then divided into more Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 133 specific categories of bones. Identifiable bones were those which were identifiable to the level of family or better. The remainder were then classified as unidentifiable. The term "unidentifiable" as used here can be somewhat misleading. This term does not indicate that no information could be collected from these specimens. It does, however, indicate that only a certain limited amount of information could be collected and that the specimen could not be identified to family, genus, or species. Specimens that were classified "unidentifiable" could be identified to class and were coded in broad categories combining size and class(i.e., small mammal, medium bird, etc.). Fragments which were so small that they could not even be identified to class were classified as "unknown." In summary, specimens that were determined to be "unidentifiable" were coded within three degrees of specificity. These were: 1. specimens coded using a combination of size and class(i.e., SMAM (small mammal), LBRD (large bird), etc.) 2. specimens coded using only class(i.e., UMAM (unknown mammal), UBRD (unknown bird), etc.) 3. specimens coded with UNKN (unknown) where no information on class distinction could be determined. In addition to the class identification, any information regarding skeletal element was recorded. With many of the specimens, it was not possible to identify specific elements but it was possible to determine general body part Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 134 {i.e., long bone, vertebra, etc.). In these cases, codes for broader body parts were used. As with the taxon identification described above, there were three degrees of specificity used for coding element. These were: 1. specimens coded using specific element {i.e., HUMR (humerus), TIBI (tibia), etc.) 2. specimens coded using general body part {i.e., RIB (rib), PELV (pelvis), LONG (long bone), VERT (general vertebra), etc.) where specific element could not be determined 3. specimens coded using UNKN (unknown) where body part could not be determined. Each specimen in both the identifiable and the unidentifiable categories were treated as individual cases. Aggregate data was collected only when there was more than one specific type of bone where both class and element were the same {i.e., large mammal long bones) from the same provenience. Because many statistical packages can weight calculations according to a numeric value, each fragment can be counted when aggregate data is needed. In phase one analysis, a list of the animals present and an aggregate count and weight of all specimens was recorded by provenience unit. A sample of data from this phase would be "site, provenience, deer, elk, squirrel, large mammal, fish, total count=53, total weight=77 grams." Although this phase does not yield data necessary to discuss relative proportions of animals in these lots, it does provide information on bone fragmentation and the Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 135 distribution of animals horizontally at the site. In phase two analysis, bones were sorted, and then counts and weights for each category of animals were recorded by provenience unit. At the Rosenstock site, these units were lot numbers. At the Hughes site, these units were actual excavation square numbers. A sample of data from this phase would be "18M01, square 1054, deer - n=15 weight=30; squirrel - n=2 weight=3; large mammal - n=29 weight=55, etc." This phase of analysis yields data necessary to discuss relative distributions of animals at the site, as well as data concerning bone fragmentation and proportions of identifiable/unidentifiable remains. Phase three analysis is the most detailed phase of analysis and entails an individual analysis of each bone or bone fragment. A wide variety of information was recorded for each bone or bone fragment categorized as identifiable in phase three analysis. This information included taxon, skeletal element, side (where applicable), degrees of fusion, sex, relative completeness, breakage pattern for incomplete bones, presence and degree of burning, presence of human modification, presence of butchering scars, evidence of pathological conditions, evidence of animal modification, evidence of weathering, presence and type of decay, and gram weight. The coding system for both identifiable and unidentifiable remains is presented below in Table 6. Weights were taken with an Ohaus model C305 electronic balance readable to 0.1 grams with fraction of gram weights rounded to the nearest gram. A data Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 136 TABLE 6 FAUNAL ANALYSIS CODES dBASE Field Code/Meaning SITE (c,3): ROS Rosenstock M 03 Shepard M 04 Shepard Barracks WIN Winslow KF Keyser Farm H1 Hughes site 1937/1938 excavations H2 Hughes site 1990/1991 excavations PROVEN (c,10): (to indicate provenience of bone - since the contents of this field will vary with each site, definitions of the contents of each field are entered as they are determined) SCREENED (c,1): (used to indicated recovery technique) U unscreened S screened F flotation SQUARE (c,8): (square number) VARIES TO CORRESPOND WITH EACH SITE LEVEL (c,8): (level) VARIES TO CORRESPOND WITH EACH SITE FEATURE (c,3): (feature number) VARIES TO CORRESPOND WITH EACH SITE LOT (n,7): (lot number) ONLY ON MATERIAL FROM THE ROSENSTOCK MATERIAL SPEC_NUM (C,10): (specimen or catalog number) SPECIES (c,4): (taxon) LMAM unidentifiable large mammal MMAM unidentifiable medium mammal SMAM unidentifiable small mammal UMAM unidentifiable mammal XSMM very small mammal BEAR Bear ( Ursus americanus) Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 137 TABLE 6 continued BEAV Beaver (Castor canadensis) CANF Dog (Canis familiaris) CANS Canidae CARN unidentified carnivore CHIP Chipmunk (Tamias striatus) CRIC mice, voles, etc. ( Cricetidae) CRVD unidentified Cervid (Cervidae) COON Raccoon (Procyon lotor) DEER Deer ( Odocoileus virginianus) ELK Wapiti (Cervus canadensis) FELS Felidae FLOR Cottontail (Sylvilagus floridanus) FOX Fox LCRN large carnivore LEPS Jackrabbit Lepus( sp.) LUTR River otter ( Lutra canadensis) LYNX Bobcat (Lynx rufus) MINK Mink (Mustela vison) MOUS Mouse MTLN Mountain Lion (Felis concolor) MUSK Muskrat (Ondatra zibethicus) MUST Mustelidae OPOS Opossum Didelphis ( marsupialis) PORC Porcupine (Erethizon dorsatum) RDNT unidentified rodent RFOX Red fox ( Vulpes fulva) SCRN small carnivore SKNK Skunk (Mephitis mephitis) SQRC Eastern gray squirrel ( Sciurus carolinensis) SQRL Squirrel SQRN Eastern fox squirrel ( Sciurus niger) UROC Gray fox ( Urocyon cinereoargenteus) WEAS Weasel ( Mustela sp.) WOOD Woodchuck (Marmota monax) LBRD large bird MBRD medium bird SBRD small bird BIRD unidentified bird BOUM Ruffed grouse ( Bonasa umbellus) BUTE Red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis) Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 138 TABLE 6 continued COBR American crow ( Corvus brachyrynchos) COVI Common bobwhite ( Colinus virginianus) CYCR Blue jay ( Cyanocitta cristata) DRYO Pileated woodpecker ( Dryocopus pileatus) ECTO Passenger pigeon ( Ectopistes migratorius) GAVI Common loon {Gavia immer) GOOS Goose (Anserinae) MECA Red-bellied woodpecker ( Melenerpes carolinus) MERG Merganser OLOR Whistling swan (O/orcolumbianus) PASS Perching birds (Passeriformes) PICI Woodpeckers ( Picidae ) PINT Pintail QUIS Common Grackle ( Quiscalus quiscula) TURK Turkey ( Meleagris gallopavo) AMPH unidentified amphibian REPT unidentified reptile BOXT Box turtle ( Terrapene Carolina) CHEL Snapping turtle ( Chelydra serpentina) CHRY Painted turtle ( Chrysemys picta) COLU non-poisonous snakes Colubridae) ( ELAP Coral snakes (Elapidae) EMYD Box and pond turtles ( Emydidae) FROG unidentified frog LACE Lizards (Lacertiiia) LSNK large snake LTRT large turtle RABU Frog/toad (Rana/Bufo) RACA Bullfrog (Rana castebiana) STOD Stinkpot (Sternotherus odoratus) TEST Turtles ( Testudinata) TRIO Spiny softshell turtle ( Trionyx spiniferus) TURT Turtle (unidentified turtle) VIPE poisonous snakes Viperidae) ( FISH unidentified fish ANGU American eel ( Anguilla rostrata) CACO White sucker ( Catostomus commersoni) CATO Suckers (Catostomidae) CENT Sunfishes (Centrarchidae) CHUB Creek chub ( Semolitus atromaculatus) Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 139 TABLE 6 continued CYPR Minnows (Cyprinidae) HYPE Northern hogsucker ( Hypentelium nigricans) ICNE Brown bullhead (Ictalurus nebulosus) ICTA Catfishes (Ictaluridae ) MOAN Silver redhorse ( Moxostoma anisurum) MOER Golden redhorse ( Moxostoma erythrurum) MOMA Shorthead redhorse ( Moxostoma macrolepidotum) MOSA Striped bass (Morone saxatiiis) MOXO Redhorse suckers (Moxostoma sp.) NOCO Common shiner (Notropis cornutus) OSTE Bony fish (Osteichthyes) PERC Perch-like fish (Perciformes) RAY Ray (Aetobates sp.) SALM Trouts and allies (Salmonidae ) SEAT Creek chub ( Semolitus atromaculatus) SHRK Shark STUR Sturgeon ( Acipenser sp.) MMBR medium mammal/bird SMBR small mammal/bird UNKN unknown ELEMENT (c,4): (skeletal element) UNKN unknown - used for fragments Forelimb Elements: SCAP scapula HUMR humerus ULNA ulna RADI radius RCRP radial carpal ICRP intermediate carpal UCRP ulnar carpal PISI pisiform 1CRP 1st carpal 2CRP 2nd carpal 3CRP 3rd carpal 4CRP 4th carpal 23CP 2nd & 3rd carpal fused CARP carpal CRPO carpometacarpus Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 140 TABLE 6 continued 1MTC 1st metacarpal 2MTC 2nd metacarpal 3MTC 3rd metacarpal 4MTC 4th metacarpal 5MTC 5th metacarpal 23MC 2nd & 3rd metacarpal fused METC metacarpal ACRP access carpal Hindlimb Elements: PELV general pelvis HIM ilium ISCH ischium PUBS pubis SACM sacrum COCX coccyx FEMR femur PATL patella TIBI tibia FIBI fibula LATM lateral malleolus ASTR astragalus CALC calcaneum CTRS central tarsal 1TRS 1st tarsal 2TRS 2nd tarsal 3TRS 3rd tarsal 4TRS 4th tarsal C4TR central and 4th tarsal fused 23TR 2nd and 3rd tarsal fused TRSL tarsal TIBT tibiotarsus TRSO tarsometatarsus CRCD coracoid 1MTT 1st metatarsal 2MTT 2nd metatarsal 3MTT 3rd metatarsal 4MTT 4th metatarsal 5MTT 5th metatarsal 23MT 2nd and 3rd metatarsal fused Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 141 TABLE 6 continued METT metatarsal General Limb: METP metapodial PHAL phalanx (general) 1PHL 1st phalanx 2PHL 2nd phalanx 3PHL 3rd phalanx LONG long bone shaft fragment SESM sesmoid CRTR carpal/tarsal Antler Fragments: ANTF antler fragment ANTP antler pedicle ANTS antler shaft ANTB antler beam ANTT antler tip ANTL complete antler, except tips ANTC antler combination Skull Parts: SKAN skull with antler attached CRNM male cranium fragment CRNF female cranium fragment PETT petrous/temporal TEMP temporal FACE front 1/3 of skull CRAN frontal/parietal/temporal OCCP occipital region SQUA squamosal BSSK base of skull BASO basio occipital JUGL jugal SKLL general skull fragment SKUL complete skull PMAX premaxillae MAXI maxilla without teeth MAXT maxilla with teeth MAND mandible without teeth Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 142 TABLE 6 continued MNDT mandible with teeth HYID hyoid Teeth: The coding system for teeth is based on a character field four spaces wide. Each space represents a discrete piece of information, and the overall tooth description consists of the combination of the information in all four spaces. SPACE 1: (upper/lower) X unknown U upper L lower SPACE 2: (permanent/deciduous) X unknown P permanent D deciduous SPACE 3: (tooth) X unknown I incisor C canine P premolar M molar SPACE 4: (tooth position) X unknown 1-4 TOTH code used for tooth fragments where none of the previous information is retrievable Axial Skeleton: CLAV clavicle STRN sternum RIB rib ATLS atlas AXIS axis CVRT cervical vertebra Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 143 TABLE 6 continued TVRT thoracic vertebra LVRT lumbar vertebra UVRT caudal vertebra VERT general vertebra fragments OSPN os penis Miscellaneous: PLAS plastron CRPC carapace SIDE (c,4): UNKN unknown CNTR central LEFT left RGHT right N/A not applicable (vertebra, etc.) PFUSION (c,1): (fusion stage of proximal end of long bones) F fused U unfused G fusing DFUSION (c,1): (fusion stage of distal end of long bones) F fused U unfused G fusing MAND_AGE (n,3): (age of mandibles in months) SEX (c,1): M male F female U unknown BREAK (c,4): BRKN broken COMP complete PATT_BREAK (c,4): (used to describe the pattern of bone breakage) SHFT shaft Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 144 TABLE 6 continued DSFT distal shaft DEND distal end and shaft PSFT proximal shaft PEND proximal end and shaft PEPH proximal epiphysis DEPH distal epiphysis D1/3 distal 1/3 of bone P1/3 proximal 1/3 of bone 1/2C 1/2 complete 3/4C 3/4 complete D1/2 dorsal 1/2 V1/2 ventral 1/2 COMP complete FRAG fragment ANTI antler intact ANTS antler shed FRNT anterior portion of bone (vert & skull) CENT central portion of bone BACK posterior portion of bone CNTR carapace fragment with no edge portion EDGE carapace fragment with edge PBREAKAGE (c,4): (used to describe various types of breakage done in antiquity on the proximal end) NONE no breakage SPRL spiral fracture TRAN transverse LONG longitudinal GREN green stick WKBK worked break DBREAKAGE (c,4): (used to describe various types of breakage done in antiquity on the distal end) NONE no breakage SPRL spiral TRAN transverse LONG longitudinal GREN green stick WKBK worked break Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 145 TABLE 6 continued BURN (c,4): (degree of burning) WHTE burnt white CARB carbonized, burnt black WHCB white and carbonized combination BRNT burnt SBRN slightly burnt PBRN possibly burnt BURN_PART (c,4): (used in combination with the above BURN variable to indicate the part of bone burned) ALL all of bone burnt 1/2L 1/2 or less of bone burnt in a longitudinal plane 1/2T 1/2 or less of bone burnt in a transverse plane 1/4 1/4 1/2 1/2 3/4 3/4 P1/2 proximal 1/2 D1/2 distal 1/2 PEND proximal end DEND distal end SHFT shaft only DORS dorsal side RNDM random HUM.MOD (c,1): (used to indicate evidence of human modification) W shows signs of human alteration, either use wear or deliberate alteration BUTCHERY (c,1): P possible butchery B butchery scar present PATHOLOGY (c,1):(used to indicate presence of pathological conditions) P pathology present ANIMAL_MOD (c,4): (used to indicate evidence of non-human animal modification) CRGN a combination of carnivore and rodent gnawing RGNW rodent gnawed CGNW carnivore gnawed Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 146 TABLE 6 continued WEATHER (c,4): (used to indicate presence of weathering) UNWT unweathered WTHR weathered DECAY (c,4): (used to indicate other non-human agents of bone weathering) ROOT root damage MIN mineralization COUNT (n,4): (total number of bones or bone fragments) WEIGHT (n,4):(weight to nearest gram) MEASURE (c.t):(whether or not measurements can be taken) M measurable unmeasurable (blank field) COMMENTS (c,100): (comments) PHASE (c,1): (indicates phase of analysis) P1 COUNT (n,4): aggregate count of all specimens from phase one analysis P1 WEIGHT (n,4): aggregate weight of all specimens from phase one analysis LOG_SPEC (c,75): list of animals present in lot from phase one analysis LOG_WRKD (n,2): number of specimens in lot from phase one analysis that show signs of use wear or human modification LOG_BUTCHR (n,2)number of specimens in lot from phase one analysis that have butchering scars IDJJNID (c,2): whether specimen is identifiable or unidentifiable to family or better ID identifiable UN unidentifiable Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 147 sheet was designed for recording observations (Figure 4). The data sheets were designed to match the fields in the database for ease of data entry. In addition to the above observed information, all catalog numbers and available provenience information was recorded with each bone or bone fragment, as well as key information regarding recovery techniques (i.e., whether the material was from a screened, nonscreened, or flotation sample). The coding system used herein was designed after the examination of several database systems. The database system chosen was dBASE III+, with much of the statistical manipulation that followed performed in dBASE STATS. A character rather than a numerically based coding system was chosen to ease use and editing of the database. Because dBASE is flexible in its field design and can be designed to accept characters as easily as numerics, character codes that were abbreviations of the entries were selected. For example, the code for large mammal was abbreviated as LMAM, medium mammal was MMAM, etc. The dBASE STATS software can translate this character data into numeric codes for its statistical manipulation, so choosing character codes did not limit further analysis. Given these software choices, there was no evident advantage to choosing or designing a numerically based coding system. Indeed, this software was chosen precisely because of its user-friendly design and its flexibility in the ability to accept more descriptive character codes. Initially, a more detailed system for coding fragments of bone that were identifiable to skeletal element was developed and tested for the first five Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 148 FIGURE 4 POTOMAC VALLEY FAUNAL ANALYSIS CODE SHEET SITE SPEC_NUM SPECIES ELEMENT SIDE PFUSION DFUSION MAND_AGE SEX BREAK PATT.BRK PBREAKAG DBREAKAG BURN BURN_PRT HUM_MOD BUTCHERY PATHOLGY ANLMOD WEIGHT COMMENT Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 149 hundred cases. This degree of precision proved to be impractical for two very important reasons - it slowed the pace of analysis to an extreme degree and was very cumbersome for data manipulation. In this system bone fragments were described according to their precise orientation {i.e., proximal, distal, dorsal, ventral, etc.) within the skeletal element (Table 7). Orientation terms were used as described in von den Dreisch (1976). I subsequently decided to modify what proved to be a cumbersome excessive degree of precision and used a set of broader categories that were, nonetheless, still descriptive enough to calculate the figures (MNI, MNE, etc. - see discussion later in Chapter Four defining these terms) that I needed for this research. The data that was collected under the initial more detailed system was translated into the broader categories of fragment analysis listed in Table 6 under "Breakage Pattern." Aging and Sexing of Specimens Aging and sexing of specimens was performed with only two species - white-tailed deer {Odocoileus virginianus) and raccoon {Procyon lotor). Although age and sex of individuals can be determined for other taxa, deer and raccoon were the only taxa with complete enough appropriate elements and in quantities sufficient for this information to be meaningful for this research. Deer Aging of deer specimens was performed primarily with two techniques - Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 150 TABLE 7 FRAGMENT ORIENTATION FOR KNOWN SKELETAL ELEMENT FRAGMENTS For those fragments for which a particular piece of information can not be determined, an "X" is to be substituted for the codes listed below. humerus, femur, scapula: proximal/distal P/D cranial/caudal C/U lateral/medial/both L/M/B end/shaft/both E/S/B radius, ulna, metacarpals: proximal/distal P/D dorsal/volar D/V lateral/medial/both L/M/B end/shaft/both E/S/B tibia, fibula, metatarsals, astragalus, calcaneum: proximal/distal P/D dorsal/plantar DIP lateral/medial/both L/M/B end/shaft/both E/S/B vertebra, pelvis: cranial/caudal C/U dorsal/ventral D/V left/right/both L/R/B end/shaft/both E/S/B ribs: dorsal/ventral DA/ lateral/medial/both L/M/B end/shaft/both EN/SH/BO phalanx, metapodials: proximal/distal P/D dorsal/ventral DA/ left/right/both L/R/B end/shaft/both E/S/B Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 151 degrees of bone fusion and tooth eruption/wear patterns. By combining these two techniques, a larger set of data was gathered for the determination of demographic and seasonality information for deer hunted at these sites. Severinghaus (1949) provides a system for aging deer mandibles by examining dentition (Table 8). Using both tooth eruption and degrees and patterns of wear, a series of age classes was defined. In this system, a total of six age classes were defined, which were further subdivided into twenty-three sub-classes. Dentition pattern is the basis for the definition of each of the six age classes with degrees of eruption and patterns of wear defining the sub classes. Thus, for younger individuals, the pattern of presence or absence of certain teeth places any particular mandible in a specific age class. Subjective observation of the wear patterns further places that mandible into a sub-class. With this technique, certainty in assigning any given mandible to a class is higher than assigning that same mandible to a sub-class. This degree of certainty varies for a number of reasons. First, the experience of the analyst affects the identification of the wear patterns. Second, wear patterns vary between populations of deer. A particular wear pattern that may be indicative of one sub-class of aging in one deer population may vary from that of a different population. Several efforts were made to alleviate these problems. The first of these is that all mandible observations were performed at one time. This was done for two reasons. The first was that by performing all observations at one time, Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 152 TABLE 8 CRITERIA FOR AGE CLASSES FOR DEER (ODOCOILEUS VIRGINIANUS) FROM SEVERINGHAUS 1949 l=incisor; PM= premolars; M=molars Age Age Range Criteria Class 1 Birth to One Week All I erupted; PM through bone 2 One Week to Four Weeks I show further growth then fully erupted; 1st and 2nd PMs through gum 3 Four Weeks to Ten By the end of the age class, PMs 3/4 Weeks developed; 1st M erupting; slight wear on 2nd PM and anterior cusp of 3rd PM; no wear on 1st PM or on middle and posterior points of the 3rd PM 4 Ten Weeks to Seven By the end of the age class, adult Months pincers fully erupted; wear slight on 1st decid. PM and conspicuous on 2nd and 3rd; slight wear on 1st M; hole formed in jaw for eruption of 2nd M 5 Seven Months to Thirteen replacement of all milk I with permanent Months teeth; 2nd M fully erupted; permanent PM fully formed and can be seen through a small orifice between the roots of the deciduous PMs Thirteen Months to Twenty Continuation of resorption of jaw around 6 Four Months and Older temporary PMs; from 17 to 20 months permanent PMs erupt; 3rd M fully erupted in the 20 to 24 month range; wear patterns continue for additional sub-classes of this class Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 153 variations in consistency during identification would reasonably be minimized. The second reason was that by examining all mandibles at one time the entire sample of mandibles could be observed, thereby aiding in identifying any general trends that might be present within the entire sample. The second technique used to minimize observation error was that all aging of mandibles was done three times over a 12 month period. By performing the identifications several times and subsequently comparing the results of all of the identifications, errors due to a misidentification during one of the observation cycles were minimized. With each observation cycle, the identification of ages was performed in several steps. In the first step, the mandibles were sorted in a continuum from youngest to oldest based on tooth eruption and relative tooth wear. Divisions of age classes based on the Severinghaus criteria were then determined and the mandibles were assigned an age class or sub-class when possible. Each mandible was numbered and the age class was recorded. For each mandible, a "certain" or "uncertain" determination was made of the age class assignment. In general, if a complete tooth row was present and the wear pattern was clear, the assignment was considered relatively certain. If only a partial tooth row was present, or if the wear pattern did not follow the general patterns observed in the rest of the mandibles, the assignment was considered relatively uncertain. After each observation series, mandibles were taken out of age order and stored until the next observation. Finally, all observations were compared and any Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 154 discrepancies were reconciled. In addition, measurements of all mandibular teeth were taken. Measurements were taken from the highest point on the lingual crest to the lowest point of heavy pigmentation along the gum line. On the three premolars, one measurement was taken on each tooth. On the first and second molars two measurements were taken, one on each lingual crest. These two measurements were averaged for each tooth. Four measurements were taken on the third molar, one on each anterior crest and one on the posterior cusp of the third molar. All measurements were taken with a Fowler Ultra-Cal II digital caliper. Another procedure for determining ages of deer was developed by Gilbert (1966) using the examination of annular growth in the cementum of teeth. This aging method was not used in this research primarily because of the cost entailed in the preparation of specimens for this procedure. Preparing thin sections requires specialized training and equipment, neither of which was immediately available for this research, and the cost of contracting for a series of sections and slides was felt to be prohibitive. In addition, as discussed above, although they are not without their faults, tooth-wear estimates are a widely accepted technique for aging as long as they are substantiated by independent data and are not used as the sole evidence in a research project. Observations used in the sexing of deer remains in the assemblages were much more difficult to make than the observations for aging. One reason Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 155 for this is that the techniques that have been developed for sexing skeletal remains have a number of drawbacks for archaeological assemblages given differential representation and preservation of the elements. The two elements routinely used for sexing deer specimens are pelvis and antlers. Smith (1975) found that the pelvic sample from a series of Mississippian sites was small due to the high degree of destruction during butchering. Because of this, a great deal of the pelvic sample tends to be small fragments not usable for the morphological examination required for sexing. In addition, doe skull fragments {i.e., those without antlers) may be under-represented at a site because skull fragments from bucks are more likely to be brought back to a site where the antlers were then used. Antlers on deer, Odocoileus virginianus, occur primarily on males. Although there are incidences of female deer having antler, the occurrence of this is not extremely frequent. Goss (1983) states that of modern populations examined in Michigan, one out of every 900 does had antlers. In modern deer populations in Pennsylvania, only one out of every 4400 does had antlers. When present, antlers on females tended to be unbranched spikes unlike antlers on bucks which can have several beams and numerous tips (Goss 1983). Given the low ratios of does with antlers from modern populations, it is not likely that does with antlers would have been a significant part of a sample of individuals from a prehistoric population. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 156 Raccoon Aging raccoon specimens was accomplished using a tooth eruption and wear system. Grau, et al. (1970) present a series of techniques for aging raccoon specimens including degree of cranial suture closure, dental annuli, and tooth wear. Because crania of the small mammals in the assemblages were highly fragmented, degree of cranial suture was not possible for this research. As with the deer, examining cementum annuli was too costly to be performed for this research. In addition, Grau et al. (1970) found in their examination of annuli that the rings were too variable and too difficult to distinguish to be useful for interpretation. A number of reasons were postulated for this difficulty, including cementum layers not forming annually and an inability to differentiate closer layers in older specimens (Grau, et al. 1970:370). Because mandibles were frequently complete enough for tooth wear examination it was decided that only mandibular dentition patterns of eruption and wear would be used for the aging of raccoons in this research. The techniques used for aging raccoon mandibles are based on the same premise as with the techniques used for deer - that dentition erupts and wears in similar patterns as an individual ages. Grau et al. (1970) divided the various stages of eruption and wear into five classes (Table 9). These are not divided into further sub-classes. A system for analyzing the ages of raccoons was designed to minimize misidentifications. As with the deer, all observations were made three separate Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 157 TABLE 9 AGE CLASSES FOR RACCOON (PROCYON LOTOR) BASED ON TOOTH WEAR FROM GRAU ET AL 1970 Age Age Range Criteria Class I 0-14 Months Little or no wear on any of the teeth 15-38 Months Wear on buccal side of 1st M and mesial-buccal side of 2nd M but cones still present 39-57 Months Cone on distal-buccal surface of 1st M and cones on buccal side of 2nd M are worn flat; Wear beginning on PMs IV 58-86 Months 2nd M worn flat; 1st worn flat w/two spots of enamel left; distal-buccal cone of 4th PM absent V >86 Months 1st and 2nd M flat; distal-buccal cone on 4th PM absent times over a 12 month period. All mandibles from all sites were aged at the same time. They were sorted into the age classes defined by Grau et al. (1970), each mandible was numbered, and data for each was recorded. Mandibles were then taken out of order and stored until the next observation. Grau et al. (1970), in their work on aging raccoon mandibles, also presented a technique for sexing specimens by examining the size of the canine. There is considerable sexual dimorphism in the root thickness of the Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 158 lower canines of individuals between five months and four years of age. By five months of age, the lower canine has acquired its maximum root thickness. In the sample that they examined, all male canines were thicker than four mm and 93% of the female canines were thinner than four mm (Grau et al. 1970:368). Measurement of size was taken on all available canines from all sites in the current research. Canines were removed from the mandibles, measured, and then placed back into the mandible. All measurements were taken with a Fowler Ultra-Cal II digital caliper. Butchering Scars The recording of all butchering scars was performed after the completion of all other basic analyses. As material was sorted and identified in the phase one through three analyses, specimens from primary assemblages with butchering scars were labeled and removed from the rest of the assemblage. These scars include cut marks, spiral fractures, and heavy blows. Butchering scars on these specimens were then examined using natural, florescent and halogen light. Small scars that were visible in natural light were often not visible in florescent light. In addition, halogen light occasionally allowed the observation of small scars or cut marks that were not observed using natural light. No magnification was used to identify scars not immediately visible. Butchering scars observed on specimens from secondary assemblages were noted during initial analysis but were not examined in further detail. Because of Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 159 sampling biases discussed earlier, it was decided not to perform any more detailed analysis on the butchering scars from these assemblages. A coding system for recording and classifying butchering scars was developed using Binford's 1981 "Inventory of Described Skinning and Butchering Marks" (Binford 1981:136-142) as a basic code list (Table 10). This inventory describes over 100 scars by their location on individual elements. It also identifies the type of activity associated with each scar. These activities include dismembering, food preparation, skinning, killing, consumption, filleting, defleshing, and secondary butchering. Scars which were identified on the Potomac Valley assemblages and were not included in the Binford inventory were given a code and were also classified as to probable activity. Sampling Strategies The strategies for sampling the assemblages varied according to the recovery techniques used during excavation. As stated earlier in Chapters One and Three, the assemblages were divided into two different categories, primary and secondary, which were defined by the relative completeness of the recovery techniques used at each site. Decisions were then made as to what proportion of each assemblage would be analyzed using each phase of analysis. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 160 TABLE 10 CODES FOR BUTCHERING SCARS Code Definition EM-1 Transverse cut marks across the proximal dorsal surface of the atlas. (The opposite side of Binford's (1981) CV-1) EM-2 Longitudinal cut marks on the articular processes of lumbar vertebra, (see Binford's (1981) TV-5) EM-3 Transverse cuts along the inferior surface of the centrum, (see Binford’s (1981) TV-3) EM-4 Transverse cuts across the posterior shaft of the femur. EM-5 Longitudinal cuts long the base and lower part of the dorsal spine, (see Binford (1981) TV-2) EM-6 Astragalus split longitudinally. EM-7 Dorsal transverse cuts on the atlas. EM-8 Transverse cuts on rib shaft. EM-9 Longitudinal cuts on the posterior shaft of the metatarsal. EM-10 Transverse cuts on the posterior side of the central and fourth tarsal. EM-11 Transverse cuts on the proximal dorsal surface of the lumbar vertebra. EM-12 Oblique cuts on the lateral face of the calcaneus. EM-13 Transverse cuts on the lateral medial side of the first phalange. EM-14 Transverse cuts across the articular tubercle of the temporal bone where the mandible articulates. EM-15 Transverse cuts across the shaft of the tibia. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 161 EM-16 Longitudinal cuts on the triceps brachia of the scapula. EM-17 Transverse cuts across long bone shaft fragments. EM-18 Transverse cuts across pelvis fragments. EM-19 Spiral fracture on long bone shafts. EM-20 Transverse cuts across the condyles of the tibiotarsus. EM-21 Cut marks on skull fragments. EM-22 Transverse cuts across distal shaft on beaver tibia at curve on distal end. EM-23 Transverse cuts across coracoid shaft. EM-24 Transverse cuts across the blade of the scapula. EM-25 Transverse cuts on the posterior shaft on the radius. EM-26 Transverse cuts across the posterior shaft of the tibia. EM-27 Transverse cuts across the distal articular shaft of the first phalange. For all non-EM codes see Binford 1981:136-142. Primary Material Primary assemblages were from recently excavated sites where all matrix was screened. There were two sites which fell into this category, Hughes (18M01) (1990 and 1991 excavations) and Rosenstock (18FR18). These two assemblages were fairly large - over 27,000 specimens from the Hughes site and an estimated 100,000 specimens from the Rosenstock Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 162 site. Given the size of these assemblages, I decided to analyze the entire assemblages, but to use different levels of analysis for various contexts at each site. All feature material from the Hughes site was analyzed in full detail using a phase three analysis (see Chapter Four for definitions of all phases of analysis). All material from non-feature site fill and the plowzone from the Hughes site was given a phase two examination. This examination had four goals: to record aggregate counts and weights for the taxa in the assemblage; to record any anomalous or unique specimens; to record any specimens that might be useful for seasonality estimates {i.e., deer mandibles, migratory birds, etc.); and to record any specimens that showed signs of alteration, utilization, or butchery for further analysis. The material from the Rosenstock site provided more difficult sampling decisions. On one hand, it is a large and very well collected sample, the majority of which was from undisturbed features - an ideal sample for this study. On the other hand, this assemblage is so large that because of time constraints it was not possible to analyze every specimen for this study. All feature material and all non-feature but non-plowzone (general site fill) material from the Rosenstock 1979, 1990, 1991, and 1992 excavations underwent the most detailed phase three analysis. Phase two analysis was performed on all plowzone material from 1990 and 1991, a sample of 1979 plowzone material, and a sample (28 out of 100 lots) of plowzone material from 1992. Phase one analysis was performed only on the sample of 1979 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 163 plowzone material from the Rosenstock site that was not examined with phase two analysis (see Table 11). The phase one sample consisted of a portion of the plowzone material only from non-feature areas. Again, the phase one examination provides a quick means of getting a list of taxa in the sample, of identifying any unusual specimens, and of identifying any bone tools without spending a large quantity of time performing the more detailed analyses. After examining the preliminary results of the phase one and two analysis performed on the complete plowzone material from 1979, 1990, and 1991 and the 28 lot sample of 1992 plowzone material, it was determined that the remaining 72 lots of plowzone material from 1992 would not be examined at all. The diversity and relative quantities of taxa in the plowzone material was similar to that found in the features and because of the disturbance and possibility of contamination in this level, I decided to focus the analysis on the in situ material. In summary, all in situ material was analyzed to the most detailed phase three analysis and approximately 80% of the plowzone material was examined in either phase one or two analysis. Secondary Material Secondary assemblages were from sites that had been excavated prior to the development of modern recovery techniques, such as screening and flotation. Sites in this category were Shepard (18M03), Shepard Barracks (18M04), Winslow (18M09), Keyser Farm (44PA1), and early (1937-1938) Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 164 TABLE 11 PERCENTAGES OF ASSEMBLAGES FROM THE ROSENSTOCK AND HUGHES SITES SUBMITTED TO EACH PHASE OF ANALYSIS Site Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase Hughes Feature 0 0 100 Non-feature material 0 100 0 Rosenstock Feature 0 0 100 Non-feature material 40 40 0 (estimated figures) excavations from the Hughes (18M01) site. The faunal assemblages in this category were relatively small and consisted mainly of large, identifiable bones or bone fragments, many of which were worked or utilized. Due to the high degree of bias already affecting the completeness of these assemblages, 100% of all material from these sites was fully analyzed. Definitions of Analytical Terms The distribution of animal species and of body parts for key species provides much of the data used to answer the current research questions. Several ways of quantifying and illustrating these distributions will be used when comparing assemblages from various sites. Much of this will be done with frequency diagrams. Several ways of testing subjective observations will Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 165 be performed. Although many of the calculations and terms used here are commonly used in zooarchaeological analyses it is important to define not only how they are being used in this study but also exactly how they are calculated. As discussed by Lyman (1992), quantitative terms may have vague definitions or several different definitions and can be calculated in a variety of different ways. Defining the meanings of and the methods for employing these terms will allow for a clearer understanding of the data presented. NISP NISP is the Number of Identified Specimens for a given taxon. A specimen can refer to either a complete bone or tooth (an element) or a bone or tooth fragment. Each piece of bone or tooth, regardless of the relative completeness of the element, was treated as an individual specimen during analysis. There are three taxonomic levels at which NISP is used in this study: species, family, and class. The level being used will be specified in all discussions. For this study, NISP also means that specimens at the level of family or better were also identified to skeletal element. A specimen was not assigned to a taxon better than class (i.e., more specific than mammal, bird, fish, etc.) if it could not be identified to skeletal element. Specimens that could be identified only to general body part (i.e., long bone shaft or unspecified vertebra fragment) were assigned to class when possible for taxonomic identification. The actual NISP calculation was performed by counting the Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 166 number of specimens that fit the category under question (Table 12). In addition, the relative frequency, or percent of NISP for each taxon, was calculated and can be found in Table 13. As with any unit of quantification, there are pros and cons in the use of NISP. Some of the problems encountered when interpreting NISP are due to the variability of the impact of taphonomic forces upon different bones both between elements and between species, as well as the fact that different animals have different numbers of elements in their skeletons. For example, some bird bones which are fragile break easier and into more and smaller fragments than would a mammal bone of a comparable element. Since NISP measures the number of specimens (which can be fragments) rather than the number of elements that the fragments may represent, NISP can become inflated for fragile bones. These taphonomic considerations must therefore be taken into account when interpreting NISPs. MNI MNI represents the Minimum Number of Individuals that would account for a defined sample of specimens. For this research, MNI was calculated at the species level for each species represented in each site assemblage. MNI was also calculated for families or orders when species was not determinable. For example, MNI was calculated for the family Centrarchidae (Sunfishes) even though the specimens were not identifiable to species. Calculating the MNI Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Barrack 1 15 1 3 2 - - ______7 7 343 340 993 990 99 99 12 12 TABLE 12 19 75 980 38 26 NISP BY SITE Shepard Winslow Hughes Keyser Farm Shepard - 1 1 1 1 3 5 2 7 4 4 4 13 75 70 32 41 146 3424 3282 3560 Rosenstock Frogs/Toads Eastern Spiny Softshell Box Box and Pond Turtles Lizards Bullfrog ReDtiles Eastern Painted Turtle Eastern Box Turtle Coral Snakes Non-poisonous Snakes Poisonous Snakes Snake Birds Geese Mergansers Snapping Turtle Common Musk Turtle Common Loon Turtle Amphibians Whistling Whistling Swan Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. CT> 00 Barrack 1 1 - - - 1 2 Continued TABLE TABLE 12 13 13 29 41 10 6 Shepard Winslow Hughes Keyser Farm Shepard . - - 1 1 1 1 1 2 3 5 2 8 2 4 2 12 35 115 394 1764 Rosenstock Birds, Birds, continued Red-Tailed Hawk Ruffed Ruffed Grouse River Chub Pileated Woodpecker Red-Bellied Woodpecker Blue Jay Fishes Passenger Pigeon Pintail Common Bobwhite Big Big Mouth Chub Common Grackle Perching Birds Creek Chub Wild Wild Turkey Woodpeckers Common Shiner Suckers Owl American Crow American Eel Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. CO 05 1 1 335 Barrack 198 1 3 53 19570 Hughes Keyser Farm Shepard 1 5 8 1291 Continued TABLE 12 105 319 Shepard Winslow - 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 2 4 6 4 4 2 4 3 26 24 23 56 Rosenstock Fishes, Fishes, continued Redhorse Suckers Northern Hog Sucker Brown Brown Bullhead Shorthead Redhorse Golden Redhorse Minnows Perch-like Fish Silver Redhorse White Sucker Catfishes Striped Striped Bass Sunfishes Sturgeon Bony Bony Fishes MammalsEastern Cottontail 40932 Trouts Trouts and Allies Snowshoe Hare (Jackrabbit) Eastern Chipmunk Eastern Gray Squirrel Woodchuck j t Q. C o CD Q. with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Barrack Hughes Keyser Farm Shepard Continued TABLE 12 Shepard Winslow - - - - 1 5 2 7 3 2 3 4 9 2 5 8 17 13 91 17 65 78 Rosenstock Beaver Mouse Eastern Fox Squirrel MiceA/oles Rodents Muskrat Mammals, continued Squirrel Porcupine Bobcat Felid Dog Red Fox Mountail Lion Gray Fox Fox Mink Opossum Canid Longtail Weasel River Otter Striped Striped Skunk Black Bear Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. - Barrack - 1 1 - - 77 22 1 3 168 39 671 2970 138 150 - 4 Continued TABLE 12 69 99 Shepard Winslow Hughes Keyser Farm Shepard 1 1 2 8 10 156 158 9626 Rosenstock Mammals, continued Raccoon Mustelid Elk Large Carnivore Small Small Carnivore White-tailed Deer Cervid Carnivore Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. ------7 Barrack ------29.6 3.2 29.6 3.2 ------+ + + + + + 4.6 Hughes Keyser Farm Shepard - - .2 .2 .1 20 ------2 2 19.8 4.6 TABLE TABLE 13 --- + + + + ++ - - - - - + + + + + + + + - - - .2 .1 PERCENT OF TOTAL NISP BY SITE 6.9 6.6 7.2 5.5 4.4 4.5 11.3 Rosenstock Shepard Winslow Bullfrog Reptiles Frogs/Toads Eastern Painted Turtle Eastern Spiny Softshell Eastern Box Turtle Box and Pond Turtles Lizards Poisonous Snakes Non-poisonous Snakes Birds Mergansers Snake Common Musk Turtle Coral Snakes Snapping Turtle Common Loon Geese Turtle Amphibians .3 Whistling Whistling Swan Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. ------.3 Barrack ..------3 1.6 ------1 + + .2 ------.1 .1 .3 .2 .1 1.7 Winslow Hughes Keyser Farm Shepard ------Continued TABLE TABLE 13 .3 -- - + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + .8 3.8 .2 3.6 Rosenstock Shepard Ruffed Ruffed Grouse Birds, Birds, continued Red-Tailed Hawk Common Bobwhite Passenger Pigeon Pileated Woodpecker Red-Bellied Woodpecker Blue Jay Fishes Perching Perching Birds Pintail Common Grackle Wild Wild Turkey Creek Chub River Chub Big Mouth Chub Suckers Owl Woodpeckers Common Shiner American Crow American Eel Q. with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. .3 .3 .3 89.6 Barrack + + .2 .1 .3 75.2 90.6 59.1 Continued TABLE 13 92.5 30.4 .5 Shepard Winslow Hughes Keyser Farm Shepard - + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + .1 82.4 Rosenstock Northern Hog Sucker Shorthead Redhorse Redhorse Suckers Fishes, continued Brown Brown Bullhead Striped Bass unfishes S Minnows Perch-like Fish Catfishes Bony Fishes Mammals Golden Redhorse Sturgeon Eastern Cottontail Silver Redhorse Eastern Chipmunk White Sucker Snowshoe Hare (Jackrabbit) Eastern Gray Squirrel Woodchuck Trouts and Allies Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 175 ------.3 .3 Barrack Shepard ------.3 .3 Keyser Farm ------+ + + + + + + + + + + + .2 .1 ------2 .1 .1 .1 .1 .2 .2 .2 .3 .2 .1 .2 .1 .1 2.6 8.4 Winslow Hughes ------Continued TABLE TABLE 13 .6 .3 .3 1.7 3.2 ------+ ++ + - - - - - + + - + + + + - + - + + + + .2 .6 .1 .6 .2 Rosenstock Shepard Eastern Fox Squirrel Mammals, continued Rodents Mice/Voles Muskrat Squirrel Beaver Mouse Porcupine Mountail Mountail Lion Bobcat Felid Dog Red Fox Gray Fox Fox Black Bear Opossum Striped Striped Skunk River Otter Canid Longtail Longtail Weasel Mink with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. - - .3 Barrack Shepard - ---- .3 Keyser Farm -- - - .2 .1 .3 .8 13.8 41.2 40.1 - - 9.8 4.5 Winslow Hughes ------Continued TABLE 13 20 1.2 + + + + + .3 .3 19.4 28.7 39.1 Rosenstock Shepard Mammals, continued Large Carnivore Mustelid Raccoon Elk Cervid Small Carnivore + = taxon present but less than .1% of total assemblage Carnivore White-tailed Deer - = taxon not present in assemblage Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 177 consisted of finding the most abundant element for each species taking into account both side and portion of the bone (i.e., left proximal tibia or right distal humerus). The total MNI for each class of animals was then calculated by adding the MNIs for each species or family of animal (Table 14 and Table 15). One of the problems encountered when calculating MNI is taphonomic. As discussed above, some elements are more susceptible to taphonomic forces. This variability in breakage can affect the estimated MNI with more fragmented bones potentially resulting in a higher MNI if those fragments are identifiable. Some elements, such as the distal humerus, have many identifiable features which could lead to this result. With many elements, however, increasing fragmentation makes them even more difficult to identify thereby resulting in a lower MNI. Indeed, as Marshall and Pilgram concluded: While MNI decreases with increasing fragmentation, NISP moves in two directions with fragmentation, increasing at low levels of fragmentation and decreasing at high level of fragmentation. In addition, MNI appears more sensitive than NISP to the relative identifiability of different body parts. We believe MNI may be a less representative descriptor of relative element frequency than NISP in highly fragmented assemblages (Marshall and Pilgram 1993:261). Unfortunately, Marshall and Pilgram do not define what they mean by "highly fragmented," leaving it to the researcher to make that determination. If the assemblages from this study are compared to each other, then the two primary assemblages are highly fragmented and the secondary assemblages are the less fragmented (see Chapter Three for a more detailed discussion of the fragmentation of these assemblages). While most of this is due to Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. ------1 Barrack ------1 1 1 1 1 ?? 3 3 11 3 Hughes Keyser Farm Shepard ------1 1 1 2 3 8 Winslow ------? 2 TABLE TABLE 14 Shepard --- 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 9 ? ? 2 5 3 9 17 42 MNI FOR IDENTIFIABLE REMAINS BY SITE Rosenstock Frogs/Toads Reptiles Bullfrog Box and Pond Turtles Lizards Eastern Box Turtle Common Musk Turtle Eastern Painted Turtle Eastern Spiny Softshell Snapping Turtle Birds Poisonous Poisonous Snakes Coral Snakes Non-poisonous Snakes Mergansers Snake Common Loon Amphibians 18 Geese Turtle Whistling Whistling Swan Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Barrack 1 1 1 1 4 Continued TABLE TABLE 14 Shepard Winslow Hughes Keyser Farm Shepard - 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 3 3 7 16 23 56 Rosenstock Pileated Woodpecker Red-Bellied Woodpecker Birds, Birds, continued Red-Tailed Hawk Ruffed Grouse Big Big Mouth Chub Blue Blue Jay Pintail Common Bobwhite Passenger Pigeon River Chub Fishes Perching Birds Common Grackle Suckers Wild Wild Turkey Woodpeckers Creek Chub Common Shiner Owl American Crow American Eel i with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 14 Barrack 20 1 2 Continued TABLE TABLE 14 45 77 45 Shepard Winslow Hughes Keyser Farm Shepard - - 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 3 6 4 3 3 9 4 129 Rosenstock Northern Hog Sucker Fishes, continued Brown Bullhead Minnows Redhorse Suckers Shorthead Redhorse Bony Bony Fishes Perch-like Fish Golden Redhorse Silver Redhorse Striped Bass Sunfishes Eastern Cottontail Eastern Chipmunk Catfishes Sturgeon Mammals White Sucker Eastern Gray Squirrel Snowshoe Hare (Jackrabbit) Trouts and Allies Woodchuck Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Barrack 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 3 2 4 - - 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 4 2 2 4 1 Continued TABLE TABLE 14 Shepard Winslow Hughes Keyser Farm Shepard ------1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 7 4 2 3 Rosenstock Beaver Mouse MiceA/oles Porcupine Red Fox Rodents Muskrat Dog Mammals, continued Longtail Longtail Weasel Mountail Lion Bobcat Felid Eastern Fox Squirrel Squirrel Fox Mink River Otter Black Bear Opossum Gray Fox Canid Striped Skunk Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Barrack 1 1 3 4 1 1 19 17 7 1 4 4 13 Continued TABLE 14 29 28 Shepard Winslow Hughes Keyser Farm Shepard Rosenstock Raccoon Mustelid 10 Elk Small Carnivore Large Carnivore 4 Cervid Carnivore White-tailed Deer 69 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. ------6.3 Barrack Shepard ------? 13 ------? 3 18 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 4.9 Hughes Keyser Farm ------1.1 1.6 1.1 1.1 2.2 3.4 Winslow ------? TABLE TABLE 15 4.3 9 Shepard - ? 9 ? .7 .4 .4 .4 .4 .4 .7 .4 .4 .4 .4 1.1 1.9 3.4 PERCENT MNI FOR IDENTIFIABLE REMAINS BY SITE Rosenstock Frogs/Toads Bullfrog Reptiles 6.5 Eastern Spiny Softshell Snapping Turtle Common Musk Turtle Eastern Painted Turtle Eastern Box Turtle Box and Pond Turtles Non-poisonous Snakes Lizards Poisonous Snakes Mergansers Coral Snakes Snake BirdsCommon Loon 16 Turtle Amphibians 6.9 Geese Whistling Whistling Swan Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Barrack 1.6 1.6 - 6.3 1.6 1.1 1.1 2.2 Continued TABLE TABLE 15 4.3 4.5 11.5 13 6.3 Shepard Winslow Hughes Keyser Farm Shepard - .4 .4 .4 .4 .4 .4 .4 .4 .4 .4 .4 .4 1.1 1.1 1.1 8.8 6.1 2.7 21.4 Rosenstock Passenger Pigeon Birds, Birds, continued Red-Tailed Hawk Ruffed Grouse Perching Perching Birds Pileated Woodpecker Red-Bellied Woodpecker Blue Jay Pintail Common Bobwhite Big Big Mouth Chub River Chub Fishes Creek Chub Common Grackle Common Shiner Suckers Woodpeckers Owl Wild Turkey American Crow American Eel Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 1 6.3 6.3 87.5 Barrack 1.6 1.6 6.6 73.8 87 1.1 2.2 2.2 Continued TABLE TABLE 15 2.1 95.7 86.5 Shepard Winslow Hughes Keyser Farm Shepard - - .7 .4 .4 .4 .4 .4 .4 .4 .4 .4 .4 1.1 1.5 1.5 1.1 1.1 2.3 3.4 49.2 Rosenstock Fishes, continued Redhorse Suckers Brown Bullhead Minnows Perch-like Fish Northern Hog Sucker Shorthead Redhorse Silver Redhorse Golden Redhorse Striped Bass Sunfishes Bony Fishes Mammals Catfishes Sturgeon Snowshoe Hare (Jackrabbit) Eastern Cottontail Eastern Chipmunk White Sucker Eastern Gray Squirrel Trouts and Allies Woodchuck i I Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. - - - - - . - - 6.3 6.3 Barrack Shepard ------. ------1.6 1.6 1.6 3.3 - - 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.6 1.1 3.3 1.1 1.6 1.1 4.5 2.22.2 1.6 1.6 4.3 6.3 3.4 4.5 4.5 3.3 Winslow Hughes Keyser Farm ------Continued TABLE TABLE 15 2.1 8.5 ------.4 .7 .4 .4 .4 .4 4.3 .7 .7.4 2.1 .4 .4 .4 2.1 1.1 2.7 2.1 Rosenstock Shepard Squirrel BeaverMuskrat 1.5 Eastern Fox Squirrel Mouse Mammals, continued Porcupine Mountail Lion MiceA/oles Rodents Bobcat Felid Dog Red Fox Opossum Gray Fox Fox Longtail Weasel Mink River Otter Striped Skunk Canid Black Bear Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. - - 6.3 6.3 43.8 Barrack - -- 73.9 Keyser Farm Shepard ------6.6 4.3 31.1 Hughes - - “ 4.5 14.6 Winslow - Continued TABLE 15 8.5 2.1 61.7 31.5 4.9 4.3 MNI for site ------1.5 26.3 Rosenstock Shepard RaccoonMustelid 3.8 Elk Large Carnivore Cervid Small Carnivore Carnivore White-tailed Deer - = taxon not present the in + assemblage= taxon present but less than .1% of total Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 188 collection strategy, the cause of fragmentation does not matter for determining the appropriateness of using MNI or NISP, only the resulting degree of fragmentation itself. Although some statistical tests used in this study, such as the Shannon-Weaver Index for Evenness and Richness, require the use of MNI rather than NISP, others can be performed using either calculation. Because the primary assemblages are more fragmented, this would indicate that NISP would be more appropriate to use when possible. For this reason, for those tests where using either NISP or MNI is optional, NISP will be used. This extends the use of the conclusions reached by Marshall and Pilgram from element frequency to taxa frequency. While their conclusions were reached by testing the accuracy of the different calculations at an element level, because NISP as defined for this research only counts those bones or bone fragments in a given taxon that can be identified to element, combining element NISPs into taxon NISPs should yield similar conclusions. A second problem in calculating MNI is that some bones have a larger number of identifiable features on them, making a larger proportion of the fragments identifiable to element. A high MNI estimate can then result if those elements are used for calculations. Conversely, using elements without as many easily identifiable features when estimating MNIs can result in low calculations. For example, with distal humeri, even relatively small fragments can be identified to element because of the number of distinctive features of the bone. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 189 A third problem in calculating and interpreting MNI is that the calculation of the MNI figure is an interpretive exercise and as such different researchers can have different figures for the same assemblage depending on which factors they take into account in their calculations. For example, if an assemblage contained three left proximal humeri, two left distal humeri, and four right proximal humeri an MNI of five would be calculated if side was used as the only determining factor. An MNI of four, however, would be obtained if both side and elemental portion were used as determining factors. Explicitly stating the criteria used for calculating MNI becomes important when interpreting these figures and comparing them to assemblages from other sites. As stated above, for this study, MNI was calculated taking into account both side and element portion. The pros and cons of using MNI and NISP have been discussed at great length in the zooarchaeological literature (see Binford 1981, Grayson 1984, and Lyman 1993 for some of the more recent examinations of these calculations) which can be consulted for further discussion. MNE MNE represents the Minimum Number of Elements that are needed to account for a defined sample of specimens. MNE differs from MNI in that MNE is calculated for each element separately, rather than being calculated for a complete individual. MNE can be used to address a number of different questions including animal processing or element deposition away from the site, Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 190 variability in taphonomic forces on different elements, and variable use of different body parts. In this study, MNE was calculated for deer for postcranial elements using both side and elemental portion data. In addition, MNE for long bones was calculated separately for proximal and distal ends (Table 16). By calculating MNE figures separately for different parts of a single element, the "E" in "MNE" no longer refers to a complete element but rather a portion, such as proximal or distal end, of an element as defined by the analyst. In this study, MNE refers to a complete element if no further delineation of portion is listed [i.e., astragalus). MNE refers to a partial element only where a portion is defined [i.e., distal tibia). Although it may be confusing to have one term refer to either a complete or partial status of an element, it would be more confusing to use a new term when a partial versus a complete element is being discussed. Because MNE is calculated on an element by element basis, the individual MNE figures can be combined to examine use of larger body parts such as forelimb or axial elements. For interpretive purposes, the MNE of a complete deer skeleton was calculated and divided into larger body parts of forelimb, hindlimb, unspecified lower limb [i.e., metapodials, phalanges, etc.) and axial. The same list of elements was used when calculating the MNEs for the complete deer as were used for the archaeological sample even though the complete deer assumes complete elements. For example, when the proximal and distal ends of an element were counted separately in the archaeological Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. ------1 3 2 5 5 12 28 - _ ------Farm Barrack -- 1 1 2 3 2 5 2 6 4 7 1 15 14 1 46 TABLE TABLE 16 - - - - - 1 1 8 3 4 10 15 (ODOCOILEUS VIRGINIANUS) ------1 1 4 1 1 1 20 14 1 2 7 7 43 139 16 - - 1 8 6 MINIMUM NUMBER OF ELEMENTS (MNE) FOR DEER 12 15 22 61 24 28 22 20 71 72 120 531 Rosenstock Shepard Winslow Hughes Keyser Shepard 1st 1st Carpal Forelimb Forelimb Elements Proximal Proximal Radius Prox. Metacarpal Forelimb Total Inter. Inter. CarpalRadial Carpal 13 Scapula Distal Ulna Prox. Prox. Humerus Distal Humerus Distal Radius Proximal Ulna Distal Metacarpal 36 3rd 3rd Carpal Ulnar Carpal 2nd Carpal 2nd/3rd Carpal 4th Carpal Access. Carpal Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. TABLE 16 Continued Rosenstock Shepard Winslow Hughes Keyser Shepard Farm Barrack Hindlimb Elements Proximal Femur 49 1 4 12 - 3 Distal Femur 74 - 6 14 - 2 Proximal Tibia 111 3 8 17 1 2 Distal Tibia 67 1 6 9 - 4 Patella - - 1 2 Prox. Metatarsal 115 5 9 28 31 3 - Distal Metatarsal 22 1 8 4 - 1 m Calcaneous 75 1 16 16 - 7 Astragalus 67 - 8 21 - 5 Lateral Maleolus - - 1st Tarsal -- 2nd/3rd Tarsal 10 - 7 2nd Tarsal 11 - 1 3rd Tarsal - - Central/4th Tarsal 43 - 3 7 - 3 Hindlimb Total 644 12 69 138 32 30 UnsDecified Limb Elements Metapodial 86 1 27 1 1 1st Phalanx 126 7 10 37 - 8 193 - - 1 3 3 4 7 12 13 Shepard Barrack ------1 37 Farm -- 2 2 6 4 4 2 1612 1 9 13 80 38 106 1 Continued TABLE 16 - 7 26 2 16 2 7 12 6 7 3 8 8 16 13 33 Winslow Hughes Keyser ------1 1 1 2 39 9 19 4 142 191 16 18 49 53 24 20 66 27 50 108 108 352 645 Rosenstock Shepard Unspec. Limb Total Maxilla Mandible Hyoid Lumbar Vertebra 3rd 3rd Phalanx Pelvis 2nd Phalanx 91 Cervical Vertebra Caudal VertebraSternum 4 11 Sacrum Rib Axis Thoracic Vertebra 140 Axial Elements Atlas Axial Axial Total Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 194 sample, they were also counted separately in the complete deer even though in the complete deer they would be together in a single element. This results in similar data categories for comparing assemblages from both skeletally complete and archaeological contexts. Because calculating MNE, as with calculating MNI, requires that the analyst define a set of criteria under which the calculations are performed, MNE has some of the same problems as MNI. Varying the number of differentiating criteria (i.e., element portion, side, etc.) used in calculating the figure can yield very different results. Using few criteria can result in overestimates for both MNE and MNI while using a large number of criteria can result in underestimates for these calculations. Diversity Diversity, as used here, refers to the variety of taxa represented in each faunal assemblage. Diversity will be examined primarily at two levels - class and species. This will be done to determine not only if particular species of animals within a class were preferred (i.e., turkeys instead of swans) but also if whole classes of animals were preferred. This differentiation of distribution of species and classes of animals between sites will be one of the key data sets for describing hunting patterns. Important information related to the distribution of species will be the seasonal behavioral and distributional changes in the animals, as well as the habitats that they occupied. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 195 Fifty-three species from 36 families were recovered at the sites under examination (Appendix 1). The number of species recovered from each class varied and consists of one species (two families) of amphibians, five species (six families) of reptiles, 12 species (10 families) of birds, 12 species (seven families) offish, and 23 species (11 families) of mammals. These animals occupied a variety of habitats (Appendix 2). The varieties of these habitats and the changes in the distribution of various species among them throughout the year can be important when interpreting hunting strategies. For example, elk migrate up mountains in spring and down into the valleys in the fall (Burt and Grossenheider 1980:215). Male elk generally shed their antlers in February or March so if the season of kill can be determined, the habitat where they were killed can be inferred, possibly yielding information about hunting patterns and ranges. Migrating birds are another example of the importance of knowing habitats and ranges of each species. Many migrating birds are only in the Potomac Valley area for limited times of the year and this information can be used to infer seasonality of hunting (Burt 1980). Because of the problems of sampling and representativeness associated with some of the assemblages discussed in Chapter Three, the two primary assemblages, those from the Rosenstock (18FR18) and Hughes (18M01) sites, will be used for the principle interpretations of hunting patterns for the Montgomery Complex and the Luray Focus. Data from the associated secondary assemblages will be compared to that from the primary assemblages Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 196 but will not be used as sole data for any argument. Data from secondary assemblages will be used as supporting or contradictory evidence are insufficient to make important statements. There are many ways of measuring diversity both within an assemblage and between assemblages. No method of quantifying data, however, is appropriate for every research question. After an examination of both statistical and zooarchaeological literature, several measures have been chosen for this analysis. These measures can be used at different levels depending on the research question. How they are being used here will be described below. Shannon-Weaver Index Evenness The Shannon-Weaver index measures the certainty with which a randomly selected remains can be identified to a given taxon (Popper 1988). Another way of phrasing this is that the index measures the evenness of the distribution of individuals across all of the taxa in a given assemblage. If there are many taxa evenly distributed in the assemblage, the certainty of predicting the identity of the selected plant is low and the index indicates high diversity. If the taxa are few and unevenly distributed, the index indicates low diversity (Popper 1988:66). The formula for calculating this measurement is H= -E(MNI in taxon/total MNI) loge(MNI in taxon/total MNI) (Grayson 1984:158-159). As can be seen in the formula, the index is MNI based and incorporates the relative abundance of Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 197 each taxon to determine this evenness. For all following calculations using this formula, only MNIs calculated at the genus level or better were used. There are two conditions of an assemblage which can skew this measurement. The first of these is uneven distribution across taxa within an assemblage. If there is an uneven distribution of MNIs among taxa, the index will reflect a lower diversity than is the case. The second condition which can skew results is a low MNI in each taxon. Pearsall (1983:130) recommends that counts (or MNIs) per taxon of more than 10 are needed to give accurate results. Although both Pearsall and Popper discuss the limitations and requirements for calculating this index using data from ethnobotanical analyses, the same restrictions hold when applying this statistic to zooarchaeological remains. As will be seen in Chapter Five, at the genus level both of the primary assemblages suffer from one or both of the skewing conditions mentioned above. Both the Hughes and Rosenstock site assemblages are relatively uneven in the distribution of MNI between taxa with a wide range of MNIs among the taxa. Both assemblages also have taxa with less than 10 MNI. For these reasons, the Shannon-Weaver Index cannot be calculated on these assemblages at a genus level. If, however, MNIs are calculated on the genus level and then combined at the class level the total MNIs by class increase sufficiently to result in more accurate diversity calculations. For these reasons, this index will be used at the class level. By calculating the index at this level, Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 198 the diversity of the number of taxa represented is no longer included in either the calculation or the interpretation of the index. Instead, the evenness of distribution among classes is calculated and the use of whole classes of taxa is examined. Although this is a broad level of analysis, it is the only taxonomic level at which all of the requirements for the calculation of the Shannon-Weaver Index are met. Richness "In studies of taxonomic richness, analysis is focused on the number of taxa, often species, that have contributed to a faunal assemblage, and on comparing assemblages on the basis of the number of taxa they contain" (Grayson 1984:132). The Shannon-Weaver Index can be used to address this taxonomic richness, as well as the evenness of distribution of individuals among those taxa as described above. Richness is calculated by dividing H (see above) by the natural log (loge) of the total number of taxa represented (Reitz via Lev-Tov, personal communication 1993). If diversity were being calculated at the genus level in the present analysis, only taxa which were identified to the level of genus or better would be counted. The Hughes site would then have twenty-three taxa and the Rosenstock site would have fifty-seven taxa resulting in divisors of twenty-three and fifty-seven, respectively (see subsequent data presentation in Chapter Five). Since this measure is being calculated at the class level for these assemblages however, the divisor for these sites is four for Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 199 the Hughes site (reptiles, birds, fishes, and mammals) and five for the Rosenstock site (amphibians, reptiles, birds, fishes, and mammals). Note that MNI is not calculated originally at the class level but is calculated at the genus or species level and then summed by class. The number of classes represented are then counted as the divisor for richness rather than counting genus or species. As with the calculation for evenness, richness is no longer being addressed with the number of taxa represented at the genus level but rather is being examined with the number and relative frequency of taxa at the class level. Chi-Square There are two versions of chi-square tests. The first is a one-sample test "in which a sample is compared to a specified theoretical population and a test is made of how good the correspondence or 'fit' is between these two distributions; the idea is clearly important when we are testing theoretically- derived models" (Shennan 1988:65). The second version of this test is the chi- square test for cross-classified data. In this second version, rather than comparing a sample to a theoretically-derived population, samples are compared which have been classified by two different criteria. It is the second version that will be used in this analysis since the samples being used have been classified in two different ways - by archaeological complex (each represented by a primary site assemblage) and by taxonomic class. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 200 Calculating chi-square allows one to test an hypothesis that the distribution of specimens across classification categories is the same (the null hypothesis) or different. After chi-square is calculated, it is then compared to the value in the chi-square table for the required level of significance. If the calculated value of chi-square is greater than the tabulated value then we can reject the null hypothesis. Note that chi-square does not measure the strength of the relationship examined, just whether or not a relationship exists (Shennan 1988:70-74). Chi-square is sensitive to sample size and if a sample is very large then the chi-square value will be correspondingly large. Therefore, once the minimum value has been reached for a given confidence level, a very high chi-square value does not indicate any stronger a relationship than one close to the minimum value required. There are two requirements for calculating this test. The data must be on at least a nominal scale and there must be no expected frequencies less than one and there should not be more than 20% of the cells with expected values less than five (Norusis 1989:160). When the two samples being considered are organized by class using MNI, the Hughes site has a high frequency of low MNIs (see presentation of data in Chapter Five). One way of alleviating this problem is by using NISP instead of MNI. For this reason, the chi-square values will be calculated using NISP figures rather than MNIs. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 201 Kolmogorov-Smirnov The Kolmogorov-Smirnov test examines the significance of difference between two assemblages or whether or not the differences between two assemblages are significant at a given level. This test assumes that the assemblages represent random samples of the archaeological record. The Kolmogorov-Smirnov test then examines the difference between the distribution of relative frequencies among categories to determine whether or not the samples came from similar populations. As discussed by Grayson ... two samples can differ greatly in the relative abundances of the taxa that they share, but not differ significantly in their cumulative distribution functions. Such a result suggests that there may be some underlying structure in the relative proportions of species represented in a pair of faunal assemblages that is independent of the specific species involved (Grayson 1984:155). It is the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test that will be used to examine that underlying structure of population similarity or dissimilarity. Thus, while a chi-square analysis will examine the significant differences in the relative abundances of specific species within the assemblages, Kolmogorov-Smirnov examines the "underlying similarity in the structure of the species-abundance distributions of these two faunal assemblages, one that is independent of the species involved" (Grayson 1984:156). Because chi-square takes into account the actual taxa involved in the distributions, it can indicate a significant difference because of uneven distributions by taxa. Kolmogorov-Smirnov bypasses that potential skewing by examining the cumulative frequencies which will not be affected as strongly by individual taxa distributions. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 202 There are two steps needed to calculate and evaluate significance of the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test. The first of these requires calculating the cumulative relative frequencies of specimens in each category for each assemblage. In the present case, this is the distribution of specimens (NISP) for each class for the two primary assemblages, Hughes and Rosenstock. The differences between the cumulative frequencies is then calculated and the greatest difference is noted. The second step is to calculate the figure for which the observed greatest cumulative frequency difference represents a significant difference in the populations from which these samples were taken. If the two populations are different then there is a theoretical difference within which any random sample from those populations should fall. "If the observed difference is equal to or greater than this then it is statistically significant at the set level" (Shennan 1988:60-61). This theoretical difference at the 0.05 confidence level is calculated by using the formula 1.36/n1+n2/n1n2 where n1 equals the number of specimens in sample one and n2 equals the number of specimens in sample two. To calculate this figure at the 0.01 confidence level substitute 1.63 for 1.36 in the formula above and at the 0.001 confidence level substitute 0.195. If we hypothesize that two populations are different then our goal is to reject the null hypothesis that there is no difference between the two populations. The minimum theoretical difference for that hypothesis to be rejected is the figure calculated in the second part of the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test. If the figure observed by calculating the greatest cumulative frequency Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 203 difference in part one of the test is less than the figure in part two of the test then one cannot reject the null hypothesis. If the figure from part one is equal to or greater than the figure in part two then one can reject the null hypothesis at the confidence level chosen for the calculation (Shennan 1988:53-61). Summary The analytical techniques described above provide a range of data that can be used to address questions of species diversity, seasonality, completeness of individuals, age of individuals, and general demographic characteristics of the various assemblages. These, in turn, will be used in the following chapters to address the broader cultural historical and theoretical questions discussed in previous chapters, including issues of sociocultural change and complexity and their interaction with economic strategies and the adaptation of these strategies to changing sociocultural contexts. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. CHAPTER 5 SUMMARY OF DATA Introduction This chapter presents the data needed to address the research questions defined in Chapter One. Data will be presented for each individual site and will be used to interpret animal utilization patterns and strategies at the sites. Comparisons will then be made between sites within the two archaeological complexes under question as well as between both complexes. These comparisons will be made using the analytical methods defined earlier. Calculating the figures of NISP, MNI, MNE, etc. on a site-by-site basis will provide the data necessary to make conclusions about patterns in the data. In addition, these observations will be tested statistically to confirm their empirical validity. Before this is done, however, it will be necessary to determine what types of data can and should be used to address the research questions. Among the specific questions being asked by this research are the following: what were the hunting strategies during each of the two periods in question; did these strategies change over time; and, if these strategies did change, what are some of the possible reasons for this that current site 204 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 205 evidence supports? Several types of data are needed to examine and define these hunting strategies. These data include: species diversity (which animals were being hunted); what proportions of different animals were being hunted (i.e., more fish, fewer birds, etc.); the types of environments these animals lived in; what season of the year these animals were being hunted; and whether or not certain ages and/or sexes of individual species were preferred. An additional associated question to be addressed is how were the animals processed prehistorically both in the field and back at the village? The examination of white-tailed deer remains will yield the primary data to address this question. As will be illustrated below, deer are the most ubiquitous species in the assemblages from all of these sites. Field preparation after hunting will have had an effect on the distribution of deer elements recovered at the village site, and this may be evident in the assemblage. One simple example could be that if non-meat bearing parts such as the head and lower limbs were removed in the field to lighten the load being brought back to the village, then these skeletal elements will not be in the site assemblage. The distance of hunting away from the site will also affect the distribution of skeletal elements with more complete field dressing performed the farther away from the site the kill was performed. The techniques used in processing the meat at the site will also have had an effect on the assemblage. Skeletal part distribution, fragmentation patterns, and the location and types of butchering scars will be used to briefly examine butchering and processing techniques. The results from answering all Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 206 of these more specific data-oriented questions will be used to address the implications for the larger issues of sociopolitical complexity, sedentism, etc. that have been defined in Chapter One. Animal Utilization at Montgomery Complex Sites Diversity The assemblage from the Rosenstock site is the only primary assemblage for this complex. It has a wide variety of animals with at least two different amphibians, at least eight species of reptiles, 14 identified species plus one additional family of birds, 13 species and five additional families offish, and 25 species of mammals (Table 12). Although the MNI for many of these species is low (Table 14), they represent a wide variety of animal species. Because flotation material was not available for this analysis, all distributions and conclusions here are based only on screened material. Small remains found in flotation samples typically include the classes least represented here (i.e., fish, birds, etc.). This potential bias will be taken into account and discussed in the interpretations both for the site and its comparison to other sites. Identifiable remains were distributed very unevenly among the classes identified in the assemblage. Mammals represent the greatest proportion of remains with 82% of the NISP (Table 13). Bird and reptile each represent Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 207 seven percent of the NISP, fish are four percent and amphibians are less than one percent. As can be seen with this distribution, although mammals were the most heavily utilized class, there was still variety in the classes of animals being collected. Deer are the most ubiquitous species recovered from the Rosenstock site. Sixty-seven percent of the remains identifiable to the level of family or better are white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus). In addition, deer comprise 93% of the mammals that are identifiable to the level of family or better. Turtles are the next most frequent remains with 23% of remains identifiable to the level of family or higher being turtle. It is possible that this is a disproportionately high percentage of NISP for turtle. Most of the turtle specimens identified were carapace or plastron fragments. Although efforts were made to reconstruct fragmented carapaces and plastrons, few mends of pieces broken in antiquity were made. Because one carapace or plastron can easily break into many pieces depending on the degree of fusion and post-depositional deterioration of the fragments, the NISP value may be high because of these taphonomic forces. An additional factor that could be misleading in the use of turtle carapaces in estimating dietary remains is that a turtle carapace can be collected after the turtle has died. These carapaces can be used for many purposes, none of which represent a dietary contribution by the individual turtle that the carapaces could represent. This same problem is encountered with Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 208 deer antler. Because deer antler are shed every year, deer antler could have been frequently collected throughout the area. These antler would not represent an individual in the diet. Because of this, deer antler are not used as elements for any MNI or dietary contribution estimates. Because turtle MNIs were calculated using skeletal elements rather than carapace and plastron fragments, the number of skeletal elements is probably a more reliable estimate of the actual proportions of turtle used at the site. Turkey constitute three percent of the NISP, raccoon and elk each are one percent and all other species in all classes each represent less than one percent of the identifiable assemblage (Table 13). In rank order then, the most frequently collected animals were deer, turtle, turkey, raccoon, elk, and all others. This does not necessarily equal the rank order of the contribution of meat by animal. When body size and available meat weight per animal is taken into account, this order changes to deer, elk, turkey, turtle, raccoon, all others. Because most of the species in this assemblage have an MNI lower than 10, meat weight estimates were not calculated. In some archaeological assemblages, the relative value of certain species can be underestimated or overestimated because of varying body sizes between species. For example, in an assemblage with one deer and 100 fish, estimating the meat weight that each species would have contributed to the diet would show that although the MNI for fish was 100 times that of deer, each species could have contributed the same amount of meat. This would give a much different interpretation than Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 209 if you did not take into account the size and meat available from each individual was not taken into account. For the Rosenstock assemblage, however, because so many of the species have such low MNIs (especially the smaller species), I did not feel that calculating the meat weights for each species would change the ranking of the importance of species in the diet except in very few cases (such as elk as seen above). The Rosenstock site is located in a forested mountainous region of the Central Maryland Piedmont immediately above the banks of the Monocacy River. Because of this location, both terrestrial and freshwater aquatic species were immediately available to the inhabitants of the site. Indeed, all of the terrestrial species in this assemblage routinely occupy a forested habitat, whether mountainous or not. Elk migrate up mountains in the spring and down to valley areas in the fall. They would potentially be available to the residents of the Rosenstock on a year-round basis. Hunters could go slightly farther up into the mountains in the spring/summer, wait for the elk to move when they are fattest and most productive for meat purposes in the fall, or could go further down the valley if necessary in the winter if elk were desired. Either way, because of the central location of the site in this distribution of areas, elk could probably have been hunted throughout the year. The aquatic species recovered at the site occupy a variety of riverine habitats (Appendix 2). These habitats range from quickly flowing water as would be found directly in the river to small pools and shallow areas along the Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 210 river's edge, to brackish closed areas that would occur either after flooding or heavy rainfall further away from the water's edge. The occupants of the Rosenstock site were exploiting faunal resources in all of these habitats and were not limiting themselves to certain species of animals or specific habitats. This further supports the idea that the occupants of the Rosenstock had a broad-based subsistence system, one that took advantage of the many diverse resources available to them. They were not simply coming to the area for a particular resource (such as migrating elk or spawning fish) but were collecting from all habitats in the area. While some of the birds recovered in the assemblage are migratory birds and live further north for parts of the year, all of the birds not normally found in the immediate vicinity of the site do migrate past the site area at some time of the year. Because the normal range for these birds can be up to 1000 miles north of the site, it can be assumed that these birds were hunted only while migrating and were not hunted by traveling great distances. A list of these species as well as the time of year that they would have been in the site area and the implications of their presence in the assemblage will be discussed below in the section on seasonality. All but two of the aquatic species can be found in medium-sized rivers or the pools and shallow areas alongside the river. The two exceptions to this are the American Eel, Anguilla rostrata, and the Striped Bass, Morone saxatilis. The American Eel is a catadromous species - one that spend most of its life in Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 211 fresh water but travel to the sea to spawn. It is more common near the sea and uncommon in more inland streams and lakes. The modern distribution of the American Eel does not extend into the immediate site vicinity. The Striped Bass is an anadromous species - a marine species spends most of its life in the sea but that ascends large rivers far upstream to spawn. It can be found in medium to large rivers, lakes, and connecting rivers during spawning runs. While the modern distribution of the Striped Bass does not extend into the immediate site vicinity, it is possible that the prehistoric range of this fish extended into the Monocacy River. Unfortunately, no data could be found illustrating the prehistoric distribution of these fishes. The material from the Winslow site, although not as diverse as that from the Rosenstock site, still represents a fairly diverse assemblage. Four species of birds, 16 species of mammals, at least one species of fish, at least two different reptiles, and at least one amphibian are present in the assemblage (Table 12). As with many of the assemblages in this analysis, the MNI for almost all of these species is less than ten (Table 14). The exceptions to this are raccoon and deer. For remains identified to the level of class or better 75% are mammals. The next highest represented class is reptiles at 20%. Birds constitute four percent of the assemblage with fish and amphibians each making up less than one percent. Deer are the largest portion of the remains identifiable to the level of Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 212 family or better at 55%. In addition, deer are 57% of the mammals identifiable to the level of family or better. Turtles are the next most frequent remains with 22% of remains identifiable to the level of family or better being turtles. Raccoon represent 11% of all species identifiable to the level of family or better and 14% of mammals identified at this level. Dog are the next most frequent species with 12% of the mammals (nine percent of identifiable species for all classes) being dog. These remains are from a series of dog burials excavated at the site so these will not be included in any discussions of dietary remains. It is possible that dogs were used as food so this possibility cannot be ruled out altogether but these particular specimens do not appear to have been used for subsistence purposes. Elk comprise seven percent of the mammal remains identifiable to family or better and five percent of remains identifiable to family or better for all classes. Beaver are the next most frequently identified species and are four percent of the mammals identified to the level of family and are three percent of this level of identification for all classes. Black bear are three percent of the mammals identifiable to the level of family or better and two percent of identifiable remains for all classes. Finally, turkey comprise three percent of remains identifiable to the level of family or better for all classes. All other species represent less than one percent of the identifiable assemblage (Table 13). Although there is a smaller number of species identified at the Winslow site than at the Rosenstock site, the diversity is still considerable given the fact Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 213 that no screening was performed at this site. At least twenty-seven different animals were identified. Only five unidentifiable fish fragments were in the assemblage from this site. This lack of fish may be due to the lack of screening. As stated earlier, no flotation material was examined for any of the assemblages in this analysis. All of the fish remains came from 1/4 inch screens. Even so, the amount of fish recovered for this size screen can be high as is seen in the Rosenstock assemblage. Even without identifiable fish remains, however, the Winslow site still has a fairly diverse assemblage. This is similar to the pattern found at the Rosenstock site - that the occupants of the sites at this time were utilizing resources from many, if not all, of the habitats in the area. The Winslow site is located along the banks of the Potomac River and therefore had access to a variety of both terrestrial and aquatic animals. All of the species recovered in the assemblage were available in the immediate site vicinity. The Shepard site is the final site from the Montgomery Complex represented in this study. The assemblage from this site is not as diverse as those from the other sites in this complex and had only 13 different species represented. How much of this is due to the collection strategies employed at the site is unknown, but as was discussed in earlier chapters, this sample is probably not representative of the subsistence remains at the site, and conclusions regarding overall subsistence patterns cannot be stated using this assemblage. Instead, the data from this site will be discussed in the framework Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 214 of the hunting patterns of the overall complex as evidenced from the data from the Rosenstock site and supported by the data from the Winslow site. The Shepard site assemblage has a total of 345 specimens identifiable to the level of class or better in this sample. Of these, 323 are identifiable to the level of family or better. Mammals are the largest proportion of the material and comprise 92% of the remains identifiable to class and 93% of the remains identifiable to the level of family. Birds comprise six percent of the remains identifiable to class and four percent of the remains identifiable to family. Reptiles are two percent of remains identifiable to class and two percent of remains identifiable to family (Table 13). No fishes or amphibians were present in this sample. MNI figures for this assemblage are low with deer (MNI=29) being the only species with an MNI greater than five (Table 14). Unlike the species distribution from other sites in this complex, deer are not the most ubiquitous species in the assemblage. The Eastern Gray Squirrel has an NISP of 105, accounting for 35% of the mammal remains and 33% of remains from all classes identifiable to the level of family. Many of these specimens were squirrel mandibles that had been part of a necklace. Because of this, the relative importance of squirrel may be overrepresented in this sample. This is not to imply that the mandibles are not from individuals that were also used for subsistence purposes. Instead, it is possible that, because portions of these elements were used for decorative purposes, the excavators collected what Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 215 may be a more accurate sample of the squirrel at the site whereas other species were not as well collected because they did not have elements that showed signs of further utilization. The next most frequently represented species in this sample is deer. NISP for deer is 99, comprising 33% of the mammal remains and 31% of remains from all classes identifiable to the level of family. Raccoon follow deer in frequency with an NISP of 69. Raccoon are 23% of mammal remains and 21% of remains from all classes identifiable to the level of family. Turkey are four percent and dog are three percent of the remains from all classes identifiable to the level of family. In addition, dog constitute four percent of the mammal remains. Turtle (NISP=7) and the Eastern Fox Squirrel (NISP=6) are two percent and elk are one percent of the remains from all classes identifiable to the level of family. The Eastern Fox Squirrel are two percent of the mammal remains and elk are one percent of the mammal remains identifiable to the level of family. All other species represented less than one percent of the assemblage. The Shepard site is located immediately adjacent to the Potomac River and was also surrounded by a variety of habitats, each of which could have yielded a diverse array of animal species. This sample reflects more of the terrestrial species utilized by the inhabitants of the site than the aquatic species available. Although, as stated above, this may due to sampling problems and not because the inhabitants of the site were not collecting aquatic species, this Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 216 cannot be proven given this data. Seasonality As discussed in more detail in Chapter Four, there are several ways in which seasonality of the killing of individuals can be examined. These include seasonal migration patterns, as well as seasonal behavioral and physical characteristics, that vary from species to species. For example, the presence or absence of antler on deer changes throughout the year as antler are shed and regrown by male deer. The examination of deer crania and whether or not those crania have their antlers intact or shed indicates the season in which they were killed. In addition, the examination of mandibular tooth eruption and wear in young deer occurs at a relatively predictable rate (Severinghaus 1948). The average birth date is estimated at June 1. Identifying the wear stages of the mandibles present in the assemblages will yield information that will then indicate the season in which the individual was killed. Not all of the assemblages have enough young deer mandibles to address seasonality or have non-shed antler so the use of these indicators will vary from site to site. In the following discussions spring includes February, March, and April, summer includes May, June, and July, fall includes August, September, and October, and winter includes November, December, and January. The antler identified in the Rosenstock assemblage contains 13 intact antlers, antlers which have not been shed from the crania. Since shed antler Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 217 can be collected throughout the area at any time of the year, only intact antler can be used to indicate seasonality. No crania were identified with antlers shed. Antlers are present and in velvet from May to September and present and fully hardened from September to February (Smith 1975:38). All of the intact antler in the Rosenstock assemblage appear to be fully developed and tend to be fairly large and nearly complete. Several of the specimens are complete antlers and range up to 12-15 inches in length. The presence of these antler would indicate fall/winter hunting of deer. The seasonality of deer hunting at the Rosenstock site, as evidenced by the aging of the deer mandibles, indicates that deer were hunted year-round (Figure 5). Of the 43 mandibles complete enough to be aged, 22 were young enough to be used to indicate seasonality. Of these 22 mandibles, 50% (n=11) of them were from the spring, 10% (n=2) were in the summer, 19% (n=4) were in the fall, and 23% (n=5) were in the winter [see Appendix 3 for an inventory of all mandible ages and associated data]. Combining the data from the two indicators (antler and mandibles), it is possible to conclude that although deer were hunted year-round, the larger older deer, the ones that would have had the large intact antlers, were hunted primarily in the fall and winter. This appears reasonable since fall and early winter is the period when deer are at their peak body weight and would yield the largest amount of meat. There is no evidence for the seasonality of deer hunting in the assemblage from the Shepard site. At the Winslow site, however, there were Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. without prohibited reproduction Further owner. copyright the of permission with Reproduced Seasonality of Deer Mandibles 0q.u!\ j jequunN jo S0|qi.puB!/\j <0 218 0 0 □ X CC o c co o o CO o © c CO 5 o X £ 3 Q © 0) w ; CM m T* CO CO Figure 5 219 15 intact antlers and 24 young deer mandibles. The mandibles are distributed throughout the year with 33% (n=8) from the spring, 21% (n=5) from the summer, 29% (n=7) from the fall, and 17% (n=4) from the winter (Figure 5). This pattern is different in several ways from that at the Rosenstock site. First, the mandibles indicate that a lower proportion of deer are being hunted in the winter and spring. Second, the mandibles also indicate that a higher proportion of deer are being hunted in the summer and fall. Third, the 15 cranially intact antler, unlike the mandible distribution, indicate fall/winter hunting leaving only the spring with a clearly lower rate of deer hunting. Four of the species recovered at the Rosenstock are migrating birds present in the area only in the winter. These species include the Common Loon, the Whistling Swan, geese, and mergansers. These birds represent only 17% of the MNI for birds from this site. The remaining 83% of the birds identifiable for MNI are present in the site vicinity year-round. This indicates that, although the occupants of the site took advantage of the seasonal birds that came into the area, they did not hunt only those birds. Instead, they hunted a variety of species that were present throughout the year, whether seasonally or not, taking advantage of the full range of resources available. Wild turkey form the largest proportion of the birds recovered at the Rosenstock site (NISP=394, MNI=23). Although available year-round, turkey congregate into flocks in late fall and larger droves of two or more flocks in the winter that last until late March, just prior to the breeding season. The Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 220 beginning of the breeding season is also the time of year when males are at their peak body weight (Smith 1975:77). Given these two factors, grouping and increased body weight, fall and winter appear to be the most ideal times for hunting large numbers of turkey with smaller amounts being hunted throughout the rest of the year. Neither the Winslow site nor the Shepard site assemblages contain species of birds or fish that are available only on a seasonal basis. Both assemblages do contain turkey, but, as stated above turkey are not a definite seasonal indicator. The fish in the assemblage at the Rosenstock site include both catadromous and anadromous species. The catadromous species present at this site is the American Eel. The American eel typically lives in streams with permanent flow and then migrates to the Atlantic where they spawn and die. These eels live for several years in one area before migrating to the sea so they would have been available on a year-round basis at the site. There is one anadromous species present in the Rosenstock sample, the Striped Bass. The Striped Bass is considered a marine fish and ascends large river far upstream to spawn. Spawning is typically done in the spring and it is then that this species would have been available in the site vicinity. Animal Selection While animal diversity and seasonality of acquisition are important factors Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 221 in describing the hunting patterns from these sites, other factors to be taken into account include the selection of certain categories of individuals from various species and how different animals were processed both in the field and in the village. Hunting strategies include not only the decisions made about what animals to hunt and when but also what is done with those animals after they are killed. Processing in the field, or the removal or disarticulation of certain elements in the field, will be discussed only for deer and will be done through examining the distribution of skeletal elements. Processing at the site will be examined using two types of data - fragmentation of specimens and the number of various types of butchering scars. Deer is the only species with a sample large enough and with elements complete enough to attempt this type of examination. When the ages from all 43 of the deer mandibles from the Rosenstock site are examined, a hunting pattern utilizing all age classes can be observed. One question that can be asked then is whether this sample indicates that individuals were randomly killed or whether particular ages of deer were preferred over others. Munson (1991), extrapolating from data compiled by Emerson (1980) constructed a distribution of the proportions of deer dying in a natural population for a series of six age classes. The distribution of ageable mandibles from the Rosenstock site differs slightly from this natural distribution (Figure 6). The first three age classes (less than one year, one-to-two years, and two-to-three years) are slightly underrepresented in the Rosenstock Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 222 Population Population Natural Population* Population* Natural “ Rosenstock “ 4 " Figure 6 Age 2-3 3-4 4-5 5+ The Rosenstock Site 1-2 *From Emerson (1980) extrapolated by Munson (1991) Age Composition of Deer Populations <1 15 10 25 40 35 20 30 Q_ Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 223 sample. The next two age groups, however (three-to-four years, and four-to- five years), are overrepresented with the final age group (over five years) being very similar to the natural population. The occupants of the Rosenstock site, then, were hunting fewer younger individuals and more older individuals than would be expected in a normal population die-off pattern. One reason for this selection could be that individuals in the three-to-four year and four-to-five year age groups have achieved their maximum body weight and therefore result in more meat for each kill. This pattern then indicates that hunting was not purely random but was selective - selective for older and larger individuals. This agrees with the conclusions reached by the examination of the antler: that older and larger individuals were being hunted. In addition, these larger individuals were probably being hunted more heavily in the fall when their body weight was at its annual maximum. The hunting pattern illustrated by mandibular ages at the Winslow site is very different from that at the Rosenstock site and from the die-off pattern of a normal population (Figure 7). A total of 59 ageable mandibles are in the sample from the Winslow site. The distribution of animals within the six age classes is u-shaped with higher proportions (25% each) of individuals being hunted at the youngest and oldest age classes with the remaining individuals distributed more evenly throughout the middle four age classes. If this sample is representative of the hunting pattern used by the occupants of the site then it appears that they are hunting the age classes easiest to hunt - the younger and Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 224 *c S30 c m o 3 '.S3 OCL JS CL 3 5 a. o o ID CL C <0 z t * lueojdd Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 225 the older individuals least able to flee. This pattern could result from many factors, not only a choice preference for young or old individuals. This could also indicate that not as much time was devoted to hunting, waiting for the optimum sized individual, but instead taking the first deer that they could kill, the ones least able to get away. No ageable mandibles were identified in the sample from the Shepard site. Mandibular tooth eruption and wear can also be used to determine age within certain classes for raccoon. In addition, sexual dimorphism in the root size of canines can be used to determine the sex of the individual raccoon. Of the MNI of 10 for raccoon from the Rosenstock site, nine are represented by ageable mandibles (Table 17). Grau et al. (1970) define five age classes for categorizing tooth eruption and wear patterns. At the Rosenstock site seven of these (78%) were in the older two age classes with one each in the second and third age classes and none in the youngest age class. While this does not represent a normal population distribution, this could very well be due to sample size. In a population of any animal, you would expect to find the most individuals at the youngest age classes and then decreasing amounts at subsequent classes until all of the population dies. The ages of the dead individuals should then reflect this pattern. The pattern at the Rosenstock is instead the reverse of this with fewer individuals in the younger age classes and more individuals in the older age classes. Four of the raccoon mandibles Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 226 had canines intact and could therefore be sexed. Two of the individuals were male and two were female. Because of the small sample size no conclusions can be drawn from these data except to say that both sexes were being hunted and there was no deliberate and total exclusion of hunting one sex of raccoon. Twenty-eight ageable raccoon mandibles were recovered from the Winslow site. These were distributed in all five age classes with 14% (n=4) in age class one, 14% (n=4) in age class two, 29% (n=8) in age class three, 11% (n=3) in age class four, and 32% (n=9) in age class five (Table 17). At the Shepard site, 18 ageable mandibles were recovered and included 22% (n=4) in age class one, 28% (n=5) in age class two, 28% (n=5) in age class three, 5% (n=1) in age class four, and 17% in age class five. Eleven raccoon mandibles with few or no teeth present were also in the Shepard site assemblage. Neither of these assemblages indicates a clear preference for individuals from certain age classes but instead are distributed, albeit relatively unevenly, throughout all five age classes. Animal Processing The distribution of deer skeletal elements (as measured with MNE) varies greatly from element to element at the Rosenstock site (Table 16). If complete skeletons were being brought from the hunting site to the village for processing, then the distribution of these elements throughout the body should match closely to the distribution of these elements in a standard deer with all Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 227 TABLE 17 RACCOON MNI BY SITE AND AGE CLASS SITE AGE LEFTRIGHTPAIRS MNI CLASS 18FR18 2 1 N/A 1 18FR18 3 1 N/A 1 18FR18 4 3 N/A 3 18FR18 5 1 3 NONE 4 TOTAL 9 18M01 1 1 N/A 1 TOTAL 1 18M09 1 2 2 NONE 4 18M09 2 2 2 NONE 4 18M09 3 4 4 NONE 8 18M09 4 2 1 NONE 3 18M09 5 3 6 NONE 9 TOTAL 28 18M03 1 4 N/A 4 18M03 2 2 3 NONE 5 18M03 3 5 N/A 5 18M03 4 1 1 1 1 18M03 5 4 1 NONE 3 18M03 ? 9 3 1 11 TOTAL 29 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 228 elements intact. To examine this, elements were divided into four categories - forelimb, hindlimb, unspecified lower limb, and axial elements. Forelimbs include from the scapula and humerus to the carpals, hindlimbs include from the pelvis to the tarsals, unspecified lower limb elements include the sesamoids and phalanges, and axial elements include the skull (including mandible) and vertebra. The proportions of elements in each of these categories were then calculated for each site and for a standard deer skeleton. As can be seen in Figure 8, there are some clear differences between the proportions of elements at the Rosenstock site and those of the standard deer. All limb bones are slightly overrepresented with hindlimbs showing the greatest degree of elevation. Axial bones are grossly underrepresented with only approximately one half the proportions in the Rosenstock sample as are in the standard deer. When examined more closely we can see that for the atlas and axis, the MNEs are 20 and 24 respectively. The MNI for deer overall however is 69, much higher than is indicated by the MNEs for axial remains. When compared to the number of axial remains that would be expected given the MNI, the axial remains are even more underrepresented with less than a third of the expected MNE for 69 individuals. Some of this distribution could be attributed to differential taphonomic processes, with the sturdier limb bones having more fragments preserved and identifiable to element than the more fragile vertebrae. However, it is more likely that this distribution is the result of differential prehistoric retention of Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 229 H Rosenstock BStandard Deer Figure 8 Body Part The Rosenstock Site ------— Percentages of Deer MNE by Body Part ------80 100 r — Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 230 skeletal elements at the village. Although vertebrae are frequently highly fragmented, many of these fragments are still relatively identifiable. While the precise vertebra location cannot be identified, the type of vertebra (i.e., cervical, thoracic, etc.) could be identified, and this level of identification was considered sufficient for inclusion of a fragment in the MNE calculations. As a result, while the vertebrae may be slightly underrepresented because of their fragmentation, I do not feel that this potential underrepresentation is severe enough to warrant negating the obvious low frequency of axial remains in this assemblage. The unspecified limb elements, consisting of lower limb elements unassignable to forelimb or hindlimb (phalanges and sesamoids) are slightly higher proportionally in the Rosenstock assemblage than those from a standard deer. When the MNE for those elements are compared to what would be expected with an MNI of 69, however, these elements are extremely low. With phalanges, for example, an MNI of 69 would yield 552 of each bone. In the Rosenstock assemblage however, there are only 126 first phalanges, 91 second phalanges, and 49 third phalanges. The lower limb bones identifiable to forelimb or hindlimb are also underrepresented with very low numbers for metacarpals, metatarsals, and all other carpals and tarsals. The combination of these two patterns, proportionally fewer lower limb bones and axial bones, indicates that there was probably some initial cleaning of the skeleton at the hunting site that resulted in the lower limb bones and much of the axial skeleton being removed before the remaining meat was Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 231 brought back to the village. Although metacarpals and metatarsals are frequently used as tools, the other carpals, tarsals, and phalanges are rarely used as tools and also yield virtually no meat and little marrow. Their utility therefore is very limited, and there would be little incentive for bringing these parts back to the village. Although more meat is found associated with the vertebra than with the lower limbs, much of that (such as the tenderloin) can be quickly removed leaving the vertebrae behind. Vertebrae are also rarely used for tools although they can yield high amounts of marrow depending on how they are cleaned and disarticulated. It is the upper limb bones that are highest in meat yield, that yield high amounts of marrow, and that are most frequently used for tools. It is not surprising, therefore, that these are the most frequently recovered elements at the site. The Winslow site has a limited number of elements represented for deer (Table 16). For both hindlimbs and forelimbs, it is primarily the upper limb bones that are present in the assemblage. The MNI for deer for this site is 44 and is based on mandibles. None of the limb bones come close to the counts for what would be expected for 44 individuals. As can be seen in Table 16, one metacarpal and one carpal were in the sample. Tarsals are slightly better represented with 17 metatarsal specimens and 27 tarsals. When the elements are divided into the four categories of general body part, the forelimbs are exactly the same proportion as for the standard deer, the hindlimbs are almost twice as high as expected for the standard deer, the unspecified lower limb Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 232 bones are a little over half of what is expected for the standard deer and the axial bones are only slightly lower than expected for the standard deer (Figure 9). The hindlimb and the unspecified lower limb categories are most different from the standard proportions. As with the material from the Rosenstock site, it is possible that the lower limb bones were removed in the field prior to the hunters' returning to the village. Given the sample size for this assemblage, however, some of this uneven distribution could also be due to collection strategy. Although the proportions of axial bones as a general category are fairly close to that expected for a standard deer, the distribution of elements within that category is very uneven. Mandibles and maxillae are well represented, but the remaining elements in the category are underrepresented. Indeed, mandibles are the highest represented element and is the element used to calculate the MNI. Given the large numbers of mandibles compared to other elements for this sample, and given that all of them are complete enough to be aged, there appears to have been a bias in the collection strategy for this element. The distribution of deer skeletal elements by general body part from the Shepard site is the most unlike the standard deer of the other Montgomery Complex sites (Figure 10). While the forelimbs are slightly elevated in proportion, the hindlimbs are almost three times the expected proportion, the unspecified lower limb bones are two and one-half times the expected Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. without prohibited reproduction Further owner. copyright the of permission with Reproduced Percentages of Deer MNE by Body Part O D CM o o CD o o CO o O o e6eju0oj0d 233 Figure 9 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. without prohibited reproduction Further owner. copyright the of permission with Reproduced Percentages of Deer MNE by Body Part The Shepard Site o o o o o o o o O CM f T 0 ( GO O eeeiueojad 234 Q O 0) Figure 10 235 proportion, and the axial elements are only one-fifth of the expected proportion for the standard deer. In addition, the MNI for deer for this assemblage is only four. Only five of the 18 elements represented have an MNE greater than one. As discussed in Chapter Three, the collection strategy at this site limits the interpretations about subsistence patterns that can be made from this sample. While broad interpretations about the general distribution of animals or the presence of certain species can be discussed, more detailed observations such as those performed by examining closely calculated figures such as MNE or MNI cannot be made. Interpretations about the implication of missing elements or absent species of animals could be totally misleading due to biases in collection strategy. Butchering Patterns Butchering scars were examined only for the assemblages from the Rosenstock and Hughes sites. The material from the other sites are biased in various ways and the distribution of the various butchering scars was not felt to be representative of butchering activities at these sites. A total of 276 butchering scars were examined from the Rosenstock site (Table 18) (see Appendix 4 for a listing of data on all of these scars). Using categories defined by Binford (1981), dismembering scars are 46% of the sample, filleting scars are 31%, breaking scars (usually spiral fractures or heavy blows done to break long bone shafts) are 20%, and skinning scars are three percent (Table 19). In Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 236 TABLE 18 DISTRIBUTION OF NUMBER OF BUTCHERING SCARS FOR ROSENSTOCK (18FR18) AND HUGHES (18M01) SCAR TYPE M F FL D B S K Rosenstock Fea. 2 2 Fea. 4 3 3 ---- - Fea. 5 39 19 -- 21 4 - Fea. 6 2 -- - 1 -- Fea. 10 - -- - 1 -- Fea. 12 59 28 1 1 23 2 1 Fea. 17 4 8 -- 2 -- Fea. 27 4 1 - - -- - Fea. 35 1 ------ Non-Fea. 11 25 -- 8 2 - Total 125 84 1 1 56 8 1 Hughes Fea. 22 10 5 1 . 6 Fea. 45 4 1 - - 1 1 - Non-Fea. 5 10 - - - - - Total 19 16 1 - 7 1 - Key to Abbreviations: M = Dismembering F = Filleting FL = Flaking D = Defleshing B = Breaking S = Skinning K = Killing/Food Preparation Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 237 TABLE 19 DISTRIBUTION OF PERCENTAGES OF BUTCHERING SCARS FOR ROSENSTOCK (18FR18) AND HUGHES (18M01) SCAR TYPE M F FL D B S K Rosenstock Fea. 2 100 Fea. 4 50 50 ----- Fea. 5 45 23 - - 25 5 - Fea. 6 67 -- - 33 -- Fea. 10 -- - - 100 -- Fea. 12 51 24 1 1 20 2 1 Fea. 17 29 57 - - 14 -- Fea. 27 80 20 --- - - Fea. 35 100 ------ Non-Fea. 24 55 -- 17 4 - Total 46 31 20 3 Hughes Fea. 22 45 23 5 . 27 Fea. 45 58 14 -- 14 14 - Non-Fea. 33 67 ----- Total 44 36 2 - 16 2 - Key to Abbreviations: M = Dismembering F = Filleting FL = Flaking D = Defleshing B = Breaking S = Skinning K = Killing/Food Preparation Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 238 addition, one each of flake scars, defleshing scars, and killing scars were identified. Given this distribution, the major activities that these data indicate are dismembering the carcass, filleting the meat from the bones, and then breaking the bones, probably for marrow extraction. Little evidence of skinning or broader defleshing (as opposed to the finer filleting) occurs. The lack of skinning scars may be accounted for by the low numbers of lower limb elements in the assemblage rather than by concluding that skinning was not an activity performed on these animals. Skins are frequently cut from the body down to the lower limbs where those parts are removed and, at this site, left in the field and not brought back to the village. While skinning was probably occurring, the techniques involved cannot be addressed since these data are not present. Instead, what can be concluded is that skinning activities occurred away from the site, while other meat removal and marrow extraction activities were performed within the village. Animal Utilization at Lurav Focus Sites Diversity The assemblage from the Hughes site is the only primary assemblage for this complex. It contains a limited variety of animals, with amphibians present but none identifiable to family or better, three identifiable species of turtles, three identifiable species of birds, one identifiable species of fishes, and Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 239 fifteen identifiable species of mammals (Table 12). As with the material from the Rosenstock site, the MNI for many of these species is low (Table 14). Flotation material was not available for this analysis, and all distributions and conclusions here are based only on material screened through 1/4 inch mesh. The impact of the inclusion of the flotation material would probably be on those classes of animals that leave very small remains - fishes, birds, amphibians, and reptiles. Because of this it is probable that these classes of animals are underrepresented in the current assemblage. All of these classes of animals are present in the analyzed screened assemblage, so some sample of them has been analyzed, but predicting the degree of their underrepresentation is not possible. Material identifiable to class at the Hughes site are distributed much less evenly than those at the Rosenstock site. Mammals constitute 91% of the NISP by class in this assemblage. Reptiles, predominantly turtles, and birds each represent five percent of the NISP by class. Fish and amphibians each represent less than one percent of the NISP by class. Deer are the most frequently identified species in this assemblage. Deer account for 69% of the NISP identifiable to a level of family or better for all classes, and 93% of the mammals identifiable to a level of family or better. Turtles are the next most frequent remains with 23% of remains identifiable to the level of family or better. As with the Rosenstock assemblage, this figure for turtle NISP could be misleadingly high, since most of the identifiable turtle Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 240 remains were either carapace or plastron fragments. The MNI figure for turtle, which was calculated using bone fragments rather than carapace and plastron fragments is only three, a figure that is probably a more accurate representation than the NISP is of the importance of turtle in the diet of the inhabitants of the site. Gray squirrel represent one percent of the NISP identifiable to the level of family or better for all classes of animals in the Hughes site assemblage. Although turkey (n=41) and raccoon are the next most frequently recovered species, they each represent less than one percent of the NISP for all animals identifiable to the level of family or better. All other identified species also each represent less than one percent of the NISP. Meat weights will not be calculated for the Hughes site assemblage because of the consistently low MNI figures. Given these low figures, with few exceptions, calculating the meat weights would not change the ranking of species in order of dietary importance much differently than what they are using NISP or MNI. The Hughes site is located approximately 300 feet north of the north bank of the Potomac River in a floodplain environment. All of the species recovered in the Hughes site assemblage can be found in the immediate site vicinity at some point of the year. Most of these are available year-round. One exception is a migrating bird, the Whistling Swan, Olor columbianus. The Whistling Swan is found in the site vicinity only in the winter. As discussed above, elk are typically up in mountains in the spring and summer and down in Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 241 valley areas in the fall and winter. It is possible that the inhabitants travelled into more mountainous areas to hunt elk in the spring and summer. It is more likely however that elk were hunted when they moved into their winter grounds in the valley areas that would have been closer to the site. Early in these seasons is also the time when elk would be at their peak body weight and would be optimal for hunting. The implications of the presence of these species will be discussed below. In sum, the Hughes site environs include a number of habitats and could have provided a wide variety of animals, both terrestrial and aquatic, for subsistence purposes to the inhabitants of the site. It does not appear, however, that the occupants of the Hughes site fully utilized all of these habitats. Instead, the pattern as evidenced by this sample, indicates that hunting focussed on a few terrestrial species, mainly deer, squirrel, turkey and raccoon, with the hunting and fishing of other species incidental in their contribution to the diet. The more prevalent species can regularly be found in forest edges or in shrubby areas that would be found adjacent to agricultural fields. Deer today are frequently found browsing in these edge habitats and in fields, and it is likely that they would have done the same prehistorically. The assemblage from the Keyser Farm site, as discussed in more detail in Chapter Three, cannot be considered representative of the subsistence activities occurring at this site. The Keyser Farm assemblage contains no amphibians or fish and only one reptile (turtle) are present in the sample Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 242 available for this study. One species of bird was identified and four species of mammals. The mammal remains comprise 59% of the material identifiable to class with the bird remains at 11 % and reptiles at 30%. With no screening most of the smaller fragments and therefore the smaller taxa were not recovered. The diversity of taxa at the Keyser Farm sites is extremely low when compared to any other site in this study. It is not possible to determine to what extent this is due to a lower diversity of taxa being used by the inhabitants of the site or due to collection methods. As we can see above, the primary assemblage from the Luray Focus, the Hughes site, appears to be less diverse than that of the primary assemblage from the Montgomery Complex, the Rosenstock site (a more detailed comparison and testing of this observation can be found below). If this pattern continues, then we would expect to find a relatively low diversity of taxa in the Keyser Farm site. Still, it is not possible to determine if the low diversity observed in this assemblage is the result of collection strategy or is an actual assemblage characteristic. It is interesting and perhaps significant though that the curated early assemblages from the Montgomery Complex are relatively higher in diversity while the assemblage from the Keyser Farm site is relatively low in diversity. Not surprisingly, deer were the most frequently identified animal in this assemblage (NISP=138). They are 56% of the specimens from all classes identifiable to the taxonomic level of family or better and 98% of the mammals identifiable to the family or better (Table 13). Turtle (NISP=99) are the next Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 243 most frequently identified animal and are 100% of the reptiles recovered and 40% of all animals identified to at least the level of family. As with the other secondary assemblages discussed above, the turtle remains collected consisted primarily of carapace and plastron. Because of this, the relative importance of turtle in the diet of the occupants of this site is very possibly overrepresented in this assemblage. Turtle carapaces were frequently altered to be used as tools, especially as cups or bowls. The excavators at this site were aware of this, and the high frequency of turtle carapace may very well be the result of this knowledge and the intent of the excavators to collect deliberately modified or utilized bone. Ten turkey bones were identified and they represent 100% of the identifiable birds and four percent of remains from all classes that were identifiable to at least the level of family. The only other identifiable animals in this assemblage are fox (NISP=1), raccoon (NISP=1), and elk (NISP=1). All other remains in the assemblage were identifiable only to class. A total of 374 specimens were identifiable to class in the assemblage from the Shepard Barrack site. Of these 90% are mammal, seven percent are bird, three percent are reptile, and less than one percent are fish. Approximately less than half of the remains identifiable to class were identifiable to family. However, the distribution of these is very similar to that at the class level. Of the remains identifiable to family 89% are mammal, seven percent are reptile, three percent are bird, and one percent are fish. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 244 As at most of the sites in this study, deer are the most ubiquitous species in the assemblage (NISP=150). They are 84% of the remains identifiable to family, 94% of the mammal remains identifiable to family, and 40% of all remains identifiable to class (Table 13). The only other mammal identified in the sample with an NISP greater than one is elk (NISP=3). Other mammalian species identified include the eastern cottontail, woodchuck, beaver, fox, and raccoon. Turtle (NISP=12) are the only species of reptile identified and turkey (NISP=6) are the only species of bird identified. The only fish specimen in the assemblage was one fragment of sturgeon. This specimen was not identifiable to species. All of the remains could have been found in the immediate vicinity of the Shepard Barrack site. Since sturgeon is an anadromous fish, it would have been available on a seasonal basis. The largest of the bony fishes, sturgeon can weigh over 2500 pounds (Robins et a/. 1986:46). Given this size range, regular acquisition of this fish could have represented a significant part of the diet of the occupants of this site. Seasonality Seasonal indicators at the Hughes site are few. Three intact antlers were recovered, but no crania with evidence of shed antler were in the assemblage. In addition, only three mandibles complete enough to be aged and young enough to indicate season of kill are present. Of these three Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 245 mandibles, two are from the spring and one from the fall (Figure 5). While these mandibles indicate that deer were definitely hunted in the spring and fall, the sample is not large enough to conclude that deer were not hunted at other times of the year. No intact antlers or young, complete mandibles were present in either the Keyser Farm or the Shepard Barrack samples. One species of migrating bird, the Whistling Swan (MNI=3, NISP=15), is present in the Hughes site assemblage. Turkey (MNI=7, NISP=41) is the most frequently identified bird from this site. Only one other species of bird, the red tailed hawk, was recovered from the Hughes site. Given the fact that this assemblage was recovered with good control and collection strategies, it is surprising that more bird remains are not present in this assemblage. If, because of the detailed collection strategy, we can assume that the assemblage is representative of the remains at the site, then it is significant that such a high proportion of the few birds that are present in the sample are from this seasonal species (swan). This would indicate that although some species could have been hunted throughout the year, bird hunting at the Hughes site was done mainly in the fall. No migrating birds are present in either the Keyser Farm or the Shepard Barrack samples. Few fish were recovered at any of the Luray Focus sites and none of the fish recovered can be used as seasonal indicators. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 246 Animal Selection Eleven ageable deer mandibles were identified in the assemblage from the Hughes site. Of these, one (9%) is less than one year old, one (9%) is in the one-to-two year old group, two (18%) are in the two-to-three year old group, two (18%) are in the three-to-four year old group, four (37%) are in the four-to- five year old group, and one (9%) is in the five year and over age group (Figure 11). In this distribution only one age class, the oldest, matches the natural population distribution. For the other age classes, the Hughes site distribution is almost the opposite of that of the natural population with fewer individuals in the younger age classes and more individuals in the three middle adult age classes. This could indicate selective hunting for older and larger individuals. This pattern could also be a result of the small number of mandibles in the sample. The assemblage as a whole, however, is considered representative of the subsistence activities at the site, so there is no reason to suspect that this particular element would not be representative. If this is so, then an argument could be made for selective deer hunting at the Hughes site, with selectivity being for older individuals. Only two ageable mandibles were identified in the sample from the Shepard Barrack site. One of these was in the two-to-three year old age group and one was in the five year and over age group. Given the small sample size no conclusions can be drawn from these two specimens. No ageable mandibles were identified in the Keyser Farm assemblage. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 247 Population Natural Population* H ughes 5 + 3-4 4-5 Figure 11 Age The Hughes Site 2-3 1-2 *From Emerson (1980) extrapolated by Munson (1991) Age Composition of Deer Populations <1 IO 40 30 20 CL Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. One ageable raccoon mandible was recovered at the Hughes site. It is a male in age class one. No ageable raccoon mandibles were recovered from either the Shepard Barrack site or the Keyser Farm site. Given this, no conclusions can be drawn about raccoon hunting at any of these sites or for the Keyser Focus in general. Animal Processing The distribution of the proportions of skeletal elements for deer by body part can be seen at the Hughes site in Figure 12. When compared to the distribution of elements in a standard deer skeleton there are some key dissimilarities that need to be addressed. The first of these is that numbers of both the forelimb and the hindlimb elements are approximately 10% higher in the archaeological assemblage than in a standard deer skeleton. The MNI for deer at the Hughes site is 19. Many of the MNEs for upper limb elements are in this range while many of the lower limb elements are not. It is the high meat bearing elements which are best represented - the scapulae, humeri, tibiae, and femura. In addition, the metacarpals and metatarsals are well represented. These elements were frequently used as tools, however, and their curation prehistorically in the assemblage could be a function of this use rather than of their relative dietary importance. The unspecified lower limb elements (metapodials and phalanges) are slightly overrepresented proportionally in the assemblage at 18%. The standard Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. without prohibited reproduction Further owner. copyright the of permission with Reproduced Percentages of Deer MNE by Body Part CO JC 1“ 1 -C +-» O) 0 eBe^uQOjed 249 CO ■o CL d (0 O > LJL T— CM CD 0 IS u_ 250 deer skeleton is only 11% metapodials and phalanges. However, when the MNEs for these lower limb elements are compared to what would be expected for 19 individuals, these elements all appear to be very low. Finally, axial elements are only slightly more than one-half of what is expected in a standard deer. In particular, atlas with an MNE of four and axis with an MNE of two are very low. The remaining vertebra and other axial elements are all also equally low except for the pelvis. Thirty-eight pelvic elements were identified, a representation equal to many of the upper limb elements. Unlike the other axial elements however, the pelvis is part of a high meat yielding area of the body so it is not surprising that its representation is similar to that of the other high meat yielding areas. Deer skeletal elements represented at the Keyser Farm site are very limited. One radius, one ulna, and one tibia are the only high-meat bearing elements represented. Most of the elements in this assemblage are metacarpals and metatarsals (Table 16) and most of them are worked. Indeed, metapodials account for 46 of the 50 identifiable elements in the assemblage. This unevenness of the distribution of proportions of body parts contrasts sharply with that of the standard deer skeleton (Figure 13). This distribution of elements and the distribution of their proportions by body part supports the conclusions that were reached in Chapter Three - that due to collection biases this assemblage is not accurately representative of the dietary remains at the site. As a result no conclusions can be reached regarding possible processing Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 251 t 0 QL > ■o O n § in £ z 0 L i. i_ ■c 0 0 0 Q_ > > ■D Figure 13 O CQ 0 ® 0 -C O) H 0 ■H c 0 O 3>_ 0 CL 0BBlU0OJ0d Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 252 tasks performed away from or at the village itself. The Shepard Barrack site deer assemblage has a higher representation of elements than that from the Keyser Farm site. Except for carpals and tarsals, most of the skeletal elements are represented. The distribution of these elements by body part is not unlike that seen in other assemblages with overrepresentation in the forelimb and hindlimb elements and underrepresentation in the axial elements (Figure 14). The MNI for deer at the Shepard Barrack site is seven. Again, it is some of the high meat yielding elements that are closest to meeting this figure, with 12 humeri, seven radii, five femura, six tibiae, and 13 pelves identified. No atlas or axis and only five other vertebrae were present in the assemblage. Given the conclusions reached in Chapter Three, that this assemblage appears to be somewhat representative of the dietary remains at this site, this assemblage can be used to support the conclusions reached with the data from the primary assemblages. The element and body part distribution patterns described for this assemblage indicate that, as at some of the other sites, there appears to have been a preliminary processing of deer carcasses in the field prior to their return to the village site. Butchering Patterns Data on animal processing as evidenced by the distribution of butchering scars for the Luray Focus are limited to those at the Hughes site. A total of 44 butchering scars were observed on the faunal material in the Hughes site Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 253 Standard Deer 0Shepard Barrack S S Figure 14 Body Part The Shepard Barrack Site Percentages of Deer MNE by Body Part 100 CD O) C (D 03 CD O i— CL o CD Q. Q. C with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 254 assemblage (Table 18). Dismembering scars comprise 44% of the scars observed, filleting scars are 36%, breaking scars (usually of long bone shafts) are 16%, and skinning scars and flaking are two percent of the butchering scar sample (Table 19). The rank order of activities that these data indicate were occurring at this site were: 1) the dismemberment of the carcass; 2) the removal of the flesh; 3) and the breaking of long bones, probably for marrow extraction. The low frequency of skinning scars indicates that skinning of the animals was either occurring off-site or that the bones that would most likely contain this evidence (the crania, upper vertebra, and lower limbs) were deposited elsewhere. Because these are the same elements that are poorly represented in the distribution of skeletal elements for deer, it is possible that skinning the animal and removing the non-meat bearing elements was occurring at the hunting camp prior to bringing the animal back to the village. The meat processing and marrow extraction activities then, appear to have been performed at the village. Comparison of Animal Utilization Patterns at Montgomery Complex and Lurav Focus Sites The main features in animal utilization strategies to be compared between these two archaeological complexes are the diversity of animals being hunted, the emphasis of seasons in which various hunting activities were performed, if criteria were used in selecting individual animals, and what Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 255 processing activities were being performed away from the village at the hunting site if indeed it appears that the hunting site was away from the village. The remainder of this chapter will be used to define and compare these features for the two complexes and to determine if differences between them are statistically significant or due to various sampling strategies. The conclusions that can be drawn from these differences and similarities and the implications of these results will be discussed in depth in the following final chapter. Diversity The diversity of animals being hunted at the sites in the Montgomery Complex and Luray Focus will be compared to determine if whole classes of animals as well as certain species of animals are being hunted in different proportions. Because of both the uneven distribution of specimens between species and the low number of specimens for most of the species identified, all of the statistical comparisons for these assemblages will be performed on the taxonomic level of class by summing the MNIs or NISPs calculated within those classes. Similarity and difference between the two primary assemblages will be tested statistically using the Shannon-Weaver Index for evenness and richness, and Chi-Square and Kolmogorov-Smirnov to determine if any observable differences between the two assemblages illustrated by Shannon-Weaver are significant. To provide basic statistical descriptions of this diversity, the Shannon-Weaver index will be used and will be calculated using combined MNI Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 256 figures summed by class. When comparing the diversity in the two primary assemblages the basic comparative question is "Is one assemblage significantly more diverse than the other?" Both Chi-Square and Kolmogorov-Smirnov will be calculated using NISP figures combined by class to address this question. When the calculations for evenness and richness are performed for the primary assemblages (Table 20) two very different sets of figures result. (These figures will be rounded to the nearest hundredth for this discussion.) Evenness at the Hughes site is .33 and richness is .47. Evenness at the Rosenstock site is .52 and richness is .74. The two figures taken together indicate overall diversity of an assemblage. This difference in these figures indicates that not only were more types of animals being hunted at the Rosenstock site (indicated by the higher richness value), but that the animals that are being hunted are more evenly distributed across all of the classes (indicated by the higher evenness figure). I can conclude from this observation then that the occupants of the Rosenstock site were hunting a more consistently diverse distribution of animals by class. Given the conclusion that the Rosenstock assemblage is more diverse than the Hughes site assemblage, the next issue to be addressed is whether or not that difference is significant at a given level. If the assemblages are significantly different then reasons for this difference must be postulated. For both significance tests performed below, the null hypothesis is that there is no significant difference in the distribution of specimens (NISP) among taxonomic Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 257 TABLE 20 SHANNON-WEAVER INDEX CALCULATIONS COMPARING EVENNESS AND RICHNESS FOR THE ROSENSTOCK AND HUGHES SITES Hughes Site Class MNI % log0% | loge%(%) | Amphibian 0 0 0 0 Reptile 3 0.050847 -1.29373 0.06578 Bird 11 0.186441 -0.72946 0.13600 Fish 1 0.016949 -1.77085 0.03001 Mammal 44 0.745763 -0.12740 0.09501 Evenness 0.326810 Richness 0.467556 Rosenstock Site Class MNI % loge% | loge %(%) | Amphibian 9 0.039823 -1.39987 0.05575 Reptile 11 0.048673 -1.31272 0.06389 Bird 38 0.168142 -0.77432 0.13020 Fish 39 0.172566 -0.76304 0.13168 Mammal 129 0.570796 -0.24352 0.13900 Evenness 0.520510 Richness 0.744684 classes between the Rosenstock and Hughes sites. If null hypothesis is disproved, then it is possible that there is a significant difference in the distribution of specimens (NISP) among the taxonomic classes between the Rosenstock and Hughes sites. The Kolmogorov-Smirnov test consists of two steps - calculating the Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 258 greatest difference of cumulative frequency by class and then comparing this to the calculated minimum expected value for the desired confidence level. Table 21 shows that the greatest observed difference of cumulative frequency is .085. Minimum expected values were calculated for three confidence levels, .05, .01, and .001. Given that the observed greatest difference of cumulative frequency is greater than the minimum expected values for any of the calculated confidence levels, the null hypothesis can be rejected. In summary, then, the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test indicates that it is possible that the distribution of specimens among classes between the Rosenstock and Hughes sites is significantly different. TABLE 21 KOLMOGOROV-SMIRNOV TEST CALCULATIONS FOR THE DISTRIBUTION OF SPECIMENS (NISP) BY CLASS FOR THE ROSENSTOCK AND HUGHES SITES Rosenstock Hughes Class % Cumulative % Cumulative Difference % % Amphibian .003 .003 .000 .000 .003 Reptile .069 .072 .046 .046 .026 Bird .071 .143 .045 .091 .051 Fish .035 .178 .002 .093 .085 Mammal .822 1.000 .907 1.000 .000 Observed Greatest Difference of Cumulative Frequency.085 Minimum value required at significance of .05 .011 Minimum value required at significance of .01 .013 Minimum value required at significance of .001 .002 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 259 The final test used to determine significance of similarity between two assemblages is chi-square. As discussed above, chi-square does not measure the strength of a relationship, only if a relationship exists. Because the results of the chi-square test can be influenced by the size of the sample(s), once the minimum value for significance at a given level is reached the results are considered significant. Whether the calculated value is only slightly higher or extremely higher than the required value does not increase the significance or indicate a stronger relationship. The chi-square value in Table 22 was calculated using dBASE Stats. This software package calculates the value and indicates the significance level at which the value was reached. Significance levels can be calculated for up to five places to the right of the decimal point - much higher levels than those that were calculated for Kolmogorov-Smirnov - if the results are indeed significant at that high a level. The chi-square value for these assemblages is 1131.41223, and is significant at a level less than .00005. Since many significance tests are calculated at levels of .05 or .01 and the .001 level is considered to be rigorous enough for most relationships, this significance level is more than sufficient to test the hypothesis. Given that the acceptance of the null hypothesis would indicate that there is no significant difference in the distribution of specimens among the taxonomic classes between the Rosenstock and Hughes sites, with the significance level of .00005 achieved, we can conclude that the null hypothesis can be rejected and that the difference in taxonomic distribution between Rosenstock and Hughes is significant. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 260 TABLE 22 CHI-SQUARE CALCULATIONS FOR DISTRIBUTION OF SPECIMENS BY CLASS FOR THE ROSENSTOCK AND HUGHES SITES Class Amphibian Bird Fish Mammal Reptile Total Hughes 2 980 46 19570 993 21591 (30.2%) Rosenstock 146 3560 1764 40932 3424 49826 (69.8%) Total 148 4540 1810 60502 4417 71417 Total % .2 6.4 2.5 84.7 6.2 100.0 Chi-Sauare Degrees of Freedom Significance 1131.41223 4 <.00005 With the observations described earlier in this chapter for each complex and the statistical results described above, I argue that there are some very basic differences between the primary assemblages in relation to assemblage diversity. First, the occupants of the Rosenstock site are hunting many more species of animals than are the inhabitants of the Hughes site. Second, not only are more species of animals being hunted at the Rosenstock site, but these species are distributed throughout the various classes of animals. Third, the breadth of hunting at the Rosenstock site is fairly consistent throughout the classes. Hunting a variety of species in each class is not a deviation from the regular hunting patterns but is rather an integral part of the regular hunting pattern. In addition, this pattern is significantly different than that found at the Hughes site. Although the samples from the secondary sites are not Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 261 representative enough to be statistically tested against this model, there are some indications with the number of taxa from a variety of classes at Winslow and Shepard that this pattern carries through for the other sites from these complexes. Seasonality Seasonality indicators from Montgomery Complex sites indicate that deer were being hunted throughout the year and that other seasonal resources were hunted as they became available. At the Rosenstock site, the mandibular data indicate that more deer were being hunted in the spring. The intact antler figures however, indicate that a considerable number of the deer in this assemblage were hunted in the winter. These data are not contradictory, instead they seem to indicate that deer were being hunted relatively consistently throughout the year. The mandibular data are representing those individuals hunted in the spring while the antler data are representing those individuals hunted throughout the rest of the year. When the age distribution of deer is added, it is obvious that older deer at their prime meat-bearing size were being hunted most frequently. One possible conclusion that could be drawn from these data is that older (and larger) individuals were hunted more in the fall or winter (evidenced by the intact antler) when they are at their yearly peak weight. The seasonal indicators for deer from the Winslow site yield similar Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 262 results. The mandibular data indicate year-round hunting with an emphasis in the spring and fall, but the high number of intact antlers indicate that more deer in the assemblage were indeed hunted in the fall or winter than the mandibular data indicate. The Rosenstock site provides the most evidence of any of the Montgomery Complex sites for seasonal indicators other than deer. Four migrating birds, present only in the winter, were identified in the Rosenstock assemblage. In addition, Wild Turkey comprise 55% of the MNI for birds from this site. Turkey, which are easiest and most productively hunted in the fall or early winter, in combination with the other winter birds are 64% of the birds in this assemblage. It appears then that, although birds were hunted year-round at the site, they were hunted most extensively when they were largest and the most productive (in the fall) or, in the case of the migrating birds, as they became available in the area. The data from the fish remains indicate a similar pattern. Much of the assemblage consists of species that could be caught year-round, but there is the presence of species that would be available only on a seasonal basis in the spring during spawning periods. Very little data on seasonality was recovered from the Luray Focus assemblages. Only three deer mandibles were recovered from the Hughes site that indicate seasonality. One of these was from the fall and two from the spring. Three intact deer antlers as well as the presence of one Whistling Swan indicate additional hunting in the fall or winter. Although these data are Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 263 limited, what is most interesting is not the presence of certain data but the absence of other data. The absence of seasonally available fish or more seasonally available birds is significant. I do not think that this lack of birds and fish is due to sampling at the site. The faunal material from both sites was excavated and screened in a similar manner and only the screened samples from both sites were analyzed for this study. Rather, this absence indicates that unlike the occupants of the Rosenstock site, the occupants of the Hughes site were not necessarily hunting these very productive resources as they became available throughout the year. What can be concluded is that hunting was occurring year-round, but, unlike the pattern observed at the Rosenstock site, seasonally available resources were not so deliberately targeted and scheduled into the annual round of activities. When seasonally available resources were included in hunting, they were almost incidental and not part of a larger effort to maximize their availability. Animal Selection, Processing, and Butchering The distribution of skeletal elements and the distribution of various types of butchering scars both provide sufficient quantities of data to make general comparative statements between the two complexes. Figure 15, shows that the distribution of deer skeletal elements at these two sites are both similar to each other and different from the standard deer. Both assemblages are slightly elevated in all limb categories and suppressed in the axial category. The Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. without prohibited reproduction Further owner. copyright the of permission with Reproduced Percentages of Deer MNE by Body Part O \J C - j i o o D < o CO o o O o 06e}U0Ojed 264 Figure 15 265 conclusion drawn from these data is similar for both sites - there was probably some degree of carcass preparation in the field away from the village, most likely at the hunting site. The butchering data from the two sites are also similar, with the most frequent activities being dismemberment, filleting, and marrow extraction. Conclusion The data presented and tested in this chapter indicate that the hunting strategies associated with the two archaeological complexes under study differ in four very important ways: in the diversity of animals being hunted and collected; in the habitats that were being exploited; in the focus on seasonal resources; and, with deer, in the hunting of specific age classes of individuals. In the Montgomery Complex, as evidenced by data from all three sites, hunting was occurring year-round with seasonally available resources being targeted for exploitation as they became available. Hunting was not limited to specific animals but rather took advantage of available resources from every surrounding habitat, both aquatic and terrestrial. Finally, the data on deer hunting differs between the Rosenstock and the Winslow sites. At the Rosenstock site, the individuals that had the most meat available, the full-sized males, were being specifically targeted. At the Winslow site, however, it was the older and the younger individuals that were hunted, those individuals that could be killed with the least amount of hunting time invested. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 266 In contrast, in the Luray Focus, as evidenced primarily by data from the Hughes site and supported by limited data from the Keyser Farm and Shepard Barrack site assemblages, although hunting was occurring year-round, only a limited variety of animals were being hunted and collected. These were mostly deer, turkey, and turtles with other animals almost incidental in the overall hunting strategy. Seasonally available resources were hunted occasionally but were not targeted and utilized as fully as they were in the earlier Montgomery Complex, nor were animals from all habitats being exploited. The broad variety of other animals that were certainly available at these sites were not being hunted, or if they were, their remains were not being deposited in the village trash or storage pits. Finally, although deer were the most frequently hunted animal at these sites, as at the Rosenstock site, older individuals were being targeted. Unlike the pattern at the Rosenstock site, however, very few individuals in the younger age classes (less than one-year and one-to-two years) were killed. While the Rosenstock site had a deer age composition curve that was similar to the natural population except for the elevation in middle-aged individuals (Figure 6), the deer age composition curve from the Hughes site does not resemble the natural population at all (Figure 11). Instead, the distribution at the Hughes site has most of the individuals in the most productive two-to-five year old age classes. There are at least two possible reasons for this predominance of the middle-aged individuals. One of these is that these age classes were being deliberately chosen because they Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 267 were the most productive for meat return. Another possible reason is that the killing of these age classes is the result of the hunting technique being used. Using certain hunting techniques will result in different age curves. More detail on the relationship between hunting techniques and the age composition of the individuals being killed will be discussed in the concluding chapter. There are several possible reasons for the overall differences in the hunting strategies between the Montgomery Complex and the Luray Focus. These possible reasons and the implications of these differences will be discussed in the concluding chapter. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. CHAPTER 6 CONCLUSIONS Introduction The main goal of this research has been to examine sociocultural differences between two Late Woodland archaeological cultures, the Montgomery Complex and the Luray Focus, as reflected in the hunting strategies of these two cultures. This examination has been done with the zooarchaeological analysis of the vertebrate faunal assemblages from six sites. From the Montgomery Complex, assemblages were examined from the Rosenstock site, the Shepard site, and the Winslow site. The Rosenstock site provided the majority of the data from the Montgomery Complex. While the Rosenstock site has been classified as a Montgomery Complex site, there are some differences between this site and the Shepard and Winslow sites which may make Rosenstock atypical for the Montgomery Complex. Some of these differences include site size, site organization, and distribution of radiocarbon dates. These differences have not yet been fully examined by the site excavators and the results of the analysis of the artifacts and features at Rosenstock may have further implications for the interpretation of the faunal 268 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 269 assemblage. The acknowledgement that Rosenstock may be anomalous for the Montgomery Complex does not discount the current research and interpretations. It does, however, allow that factors other than the ones examined here may account for some characteristics of the faunal data. From the Luray Focus, assemblages were examined from the Hughes site, the Keyser Farm site, and the Shepard Barrack site. The Hughes site provided the majority of the data from the Luray Focus. This was supplemented by the data from the Keyser Farm and Shepard Barrack sites. The long-term prehistory of this area is frequently described in terms of a trajectory of increasing socio-political complexity in combination with changing resource procurement strategies. This can be seen on a very broad level by examining the traditional subdivisions for the long-term prehistory of the region and how these are defined and distinguished from each other. The first inhabitants of the region, Paleoindians, are described as small groups of nomadic hunters and gatherers who utilized a variety of both large and small animals as well as a variety of fish and plant resources. The subsequent Archaic period is defined primarily through its exploitation of a broader resource base as well as specializing in the exploitation of the particular resources of local areas. Groups during the Archaic remained widely dispersed in small, mobile bands. The Woodland period, the threshold of which is often defined artifactually by the presence of ceramics, was a time of population growth and the Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 270 appearance of an increasingly sedentary way of life. Permanent villages were accompanied by outlying specialized extraction camps for the procurement and processing of a variety of resources. The Woodland period is also characterized by the introduction of cultivated plants and the increasing use and investment of time and energy into the production and processing of these cultivars. By the time of European contact, the Lower Potomac Valley and many of the surrounding areas throughout the region were part of a series of chiefdoms. The inhabitants participated in a highly organized society - one in which the exploitation of available local resources and the cultivation of plants played important roles in the subsistence economies. Both plants and animals, as well as other resources, were included in a redistribution of goods by the chief, and villages were expected to produce not only enough food for their own use but also enough to contribute to the redistributive process. This backdrop of increasing sociocultural complexity provides the context for this research. The Research Question The specific placement of the Montgomery Complex and the Luray Focus in the broad continuum of sociocultural change outlined above is not yet completely understood. A complex social structure including the year-round occupation of villages and the cultivation of plant foods was certainly established at the time of the occupation of the sites examined above, but the extent to which the local subsistence economies depended upon those Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 271 cultivated goods is not clear, and it will be discussed more below. One major assumption that is critical for this study is that this dependence upon cultivated goods was increasing over time. This increase was not necessarily progressing at a steady pace nor was it progressing in a predictable manner. Indeed, there could have been long periods of stasis interspersed by short- or long-term periods of change. These periods of change also do not have to have been unidirectional. There could have been periods where the commitment to cultivation was decreasing and not just periods where it was increasing. As discussed earlier, a systemic approach to the explanation of cultural change assumes an interactive relationship between all aspects of a given cultural system. This approach does not attempt to assign causality to any one of these aspects nor does it take a simplistic evolutionary perspective that all cultures are constantly moving towards increasing complexity. While, from a long-term perspective there is an increase in sociocultural complexity in the region, studies, including this one, examining shorter periods of time cannot always assume that change is occurring during that particular period of time. In Chapter One, it was postulated that if there was an observable difference in the hunting strategies between the two archaeological cultures under examination, then it is possible that this was due to a change in the dependence upon cultivated foods between the Montgomery Complex and the Luray Focus. A number of models have been developed to describe changes in hunting strategies that have occurred in horticultural economies as those Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 272 economies become increasingly committed to cultivating plants. One of these responses is a focus on both small and large mammals that feed on cultivated plants and that are immediately available with a minimum of hunting time invested, known as garden hunting (Linares 1976). An alternative model developed by Speth and Scott (1989) includes a shift to hunting primarily those animals with a high return regardless of whether those animals are available locally or require travel of relatively long distances to acquire. Although this strategy frequently requires great amounts of time and energy, the return is considered worth the investment. These models, when applied to contexts other than those for which they were developed, are not necessarily mutually exclusive. A combination of both of these adaptations, as well as numerous possible others, could have been used by various archaeological cultures as they incorporated horticultural and/or agricultural production into their economies. After examining these alternative models, three possible responses for the situation under examination by this research were defined and it was hypothesized that if there was an increase in cultivation then one of these responses may have occurred in the study area. The first of these responses is a concentration in the use of selected animal species, possibly the more productive ones as more time was needed to tend crops. These species could also be the ones that were feeding in the fields or were immediately available in the river - animals that could have been hunted or collected with a minimum Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 273 amount of time spent away from the immediate village area. The second response discussed was a complete restructuring and rescheduling of animal procurement strategies, shown through changes in seasonal scheduling of hunting forays as certain times of the year became devoted to agricultural tasks. This restructuring could also be reflected as a change in which more localized resources were being hunted more intensively to again reflect the time constraints necessitated by agricultural tasks. Finally, it was proposed that there could be no evident change in hunting patterns between the two cultures, the result of the already existing hunting strategies being flexible enough to accommodate a variety of sociocultural changes, whether these changes included an increased dependence upon agriculture or not. The data collected through the faunal analysis and presented in Chapter Five can be used to address which differences occur between these two archaeological complexes. There is a distinct difference in hunting strategies between the Montgomery Complex and the Luray Focus. During the Montgomery Complex, hunting a large variety of animals from many habitats was occurring throughout the year at all of the sites examined. Deer, the most important animal in the diet, were hunted with a specific strategy at the Rosenstock site, a strategy that maximized meat return for time and effort put into hunting. The individuals that were of maximum meat-yielding age and size were the ones more frequently hunted while individuals from other age groups were hunted more proportionately to their distribution in a natural population. At Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 274 the Winslow site, the strategy for deer hunting was just the opposite, with younger and older animals being taken more frequently than the prime-aged two-to-three year olds. Finally, during the Montgomery Complex, seasonally available resources such as fish and migrating birds were targeted for exploitation as they became available. As an overall pattern, the occupants of these sites appear to have been maximizing the exploitation of many, if not all, of the animal resources found in the area. During the Luray Focus, in contrast, although hunting was occurring throughout the year, only a limited number of taxa were being hunted. Those animals were the ones that were probably found feeding in the fields. Few aquatic species were utilized although the site location is ideal for the collection of them. Indeed, given the Hughes site's proximity to the Fall Line, it is likely that several species of large anadromous fish would have been available at least on a seasonal basis during spawning runs. The deer that were killed were primarily those in the two-to-five year-old age classes, with very few individuals being represented in the younger age classes. Finally, seasonally available resources were hunted or collected only incidentally at the sites in the Luray Focus and there appears to be no shifting of time and energy to utilize these resources that were available in large quantities for limited amounts of time throughout the year. Given these differences in hunting strategies between these sites, it can be seen that the first of the three responses suggested earlier appears to be Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 275 most applicable. This response was defined as a concentration in the use of selected productive species. The species being focussed on in this case not only have a relatively large body weight relative to the other available animals in their class, but can also be found in gardens or garden borders. One of the implications for a pattern of garden hunting calls into question the frequently held view of a gender-based division of labor in prehistoric societies with men performing hunting and women performing gardening. If women are performing most of the gardening tasks, then they would often be in an opportune position to hunt those animals frequenting the gardens and garden borders. Given the hunting pattern in the Luray Focus, it is very possible that women were performing as much hunting as men. Indeed, given the presence of palisades and the presence of defense and warfare that these imply, it is possible that women were performing most of the hunting as well as the gardening while the men were involved in defensive activities. It was hypothesized earlier that it may be possible to determine whether the groups from these two complexes are horticultural or agricultural given the zooarchaeological data. This determination has implications for the examination of other aspects of the sociocultural system. As defined earlier, horticultural economies are those where people are deliberately planting and harvesting cultivars, are depending on these foods as a relatively predictable resource, but continue to follow previously developed strategies of hunting, fishing, and collecting a variety of plant and animal resources, whether those Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 276 resources are acquired throughout the year or on a seasonal basis. Activities associated with the planting, care, and harvesting of cultivars become incorporated into the already established seasonal cycle of activities. While associated sedentism is possible with horticultural economies, it is not required. Villages occupied on a year-round basis could be located near the fields with various hunting and collecting forays emanating from this central base, or visiting the field location could simply be another stop on a more nomadic seasonal round of procurement of a variety of resources. Agricultural economies, in contrast, have incorporated cultivation related activities to the point that previously developed subsistence activities are changed or abandoned to accommodate the limited amount of time and energy remaining after agricultural activities are completed. For numerous possible reasons, from providing food to participating in a sociopolitical redistribution of prescribed resources, the production of these cultivated plants has become increasingly important. Sedentary villages are necessary to maintain enough people throughout the year to plant, care, protect, and harvest these resources. Other food related activities become scheduled as time is available, time which is not necessarily the most optimal when examining the potential return of the resource. For example, clearing fields and planting crops occurs in the spring, the same time that anadromous fish are spawning and available in the largest quantities throughout the year. Although occasional anadromous fish could be collected prior to or following the cultivation related activities, they could not be Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 277 netted in such large quantities in as short amount of time as they can during spawning runs. A choice must then be made to invest ail energy available at that time to clearing and planting or to divide energy between maximizing fish collecting and planting possibly a smaller area. Given these definitions, little to no alteration of previously existing hunting strategies and seasonal activities can be considered indicative of horticulture and an increasing alteration or total disruption of hunting strategies and seasonal activities can be considered indicative of agriculture. The zooarchaeological data indicates that the archaeological cultures examined in this study fit at very different locations in the socioeconomic continuum from horticulture to agriculture. The Montgomery Complex, with its intensive utilization of all animal resources in the immediate area, has a pattern closer to the horticultural end of this spectrum. The Rosenstock site is located on a bluff above the east bank of the Monocacy River. Across the river on the west side is a floodplain area with fertile soil, the area most probably used as fields. There is no available fertile land on the east side of the river where the village is located but the river is easily passable at the location of the Rosenstock site (Kavanagh, personal communication 1993). The Winslow and Shepard sites are both located immediately adjacent to the Potomac on well-drained, deep floodplain Huntington silt loam soils. The Luray Focus, with its less intensive hunting pattern of acquiring the most convenient resources, is closer to the pattern expected for an agricultural Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 278 economy. The Hughes site is located approximately 300 feet north of the north bank of the Potomac River in the floodplain environment. The site is above the Fall Line in the Piedmont province in Montgomery County, Maryland. The village itself is located on Huntington silt-loam, soils considered the most fertile and productive for agricultural growth in the county. Immediately adjacent to the river and behind the site in a wetland area approximately 250 feet from the site is a more poorly drained soil series that is frequently flooded. It is not known if the wetland area to the north of the site was a wetland at the time of the Hughes site occupation. It is possible that it was an active channel of the Potomac at that time (Dent and Jirikowic 1990:6). Either way, it would have been unusable as an occupational area. If this area was a wetland, it could have provided an area attractive to many terrestrial and aquatic species of animals. If it was an active channel, it could have provided another area for fishing and collecting a variety of aquatic resources. Because the Hughes site is close to the Fall Line it would not be surprising if anadromous or marine species of fish were recovered in the assemblage given the site's proximity to the river. The lack of these species is significant and illustrates even more dramatically how non-intensive the hunting and fishing strategies at this site were. It is possible that the observed difference in hunting strategies could be due to other sociocultural factors besides a change in dependency on cultivated goods. This response leads to further questions about the broader sociocultural Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 279 contexts of the Late Woodland and why these strategies differ between these two cultures. Besides hunting strategies, one of the major differences between the two cultures under question is the presence of a palisade in the majority of the later Luray Focus sites. Gramly (1988) states that "The appearance of the first fortifications, rather than trauma on skeletons caused by armed violence, is the better guide for determining when organized conflict became a fact of life for the Indians of the Eastern Woodlands" (Gramly 1988:91). Gramly goes on to hypothesize that the primary reason for conflict in the Eastern Woodlands was competition for deer skins. Given the limited sustainable yield of wild animal hides from the forests of the East (Gramly 1977) and given a growing population fed by maize, it was inevitable that conflicts should have culminated in feuding, killing, and outright usurpation of hunting territories belonging to groups who were defeated in wars. As a defense against surprise attack, fortifications would have been erected in remote places with difficult access (Gramly 1988:91). While competition for deer skins may have been one factor in the appearance of fortifications in the study area, I do not think that it is the only one. One reason is that the Luray Focus sites under question are not "in remote places with difficult access" but are located bn major waterways with immediate access to anyone using those waterways to travel throughout the region. The second reason is that if deer were a scarce commodity, or even if deer were just decreasing in population, then a more intensive hunting pattern for deer would be expected, one that exploited large numbers of deer from all Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 280 age classes, not a less intensive pattern as seen in the Luray Focus. As seen earlier in the discussion of the cultural history for the region, there is considerable evidence that indicates that the Luray Focus may be a southern intrusion of the Monongahela culture. If this is so, then it should not be surprising that there would be fortifications at the sites of a culture, the Luray Focus, that is expanding into a previously occupied area, in this case, occuppied by the Montgomery Complex. This presents another question, however, which is why does the Hughes site appear not to have been palisaded? It is within a mile of two major Montgomery Complex sites, the Shepard and Winslow sites. If those sites were occuppied at the time of the establishment of the Hughes site, then one would expect that the Hughes site would be palisaded. Given the distribution of radiocarbon dates at all three of these sites (Table 1), it is possible that the Shepard aand Winslow sites were occuppied prior to the establishment of the Hughes site and that all three of these sites were not contemporaneous, even for a short period. Further excavations at the Hughes site may be able to address these issues. This southern movement as described above would also explain the location of Luray Focus sites on major waterways. As people moved southward, they most likely travelled along the water and, since they were coming with an economy that included the cultivation of domesticated plants, it would make sense to stay along the rivers where the prime agricultural land was located. In addition, if there was trade or continuing contact throughout the Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 281 region, being located on a large river provides immediate access to a major means of transportation and other people who may be using that route. Waselkov (1978) hypothesized about changes in hunting strategies, how they are reflected in the zooarchaeological record, and their relationship to sociocultural complexity. Waselkov divided various hunting strategies known in the ethnohistorical record for Virginia into two main types, stalking and communal driving. Stalking would result in an acquisition pattern of young deer (yearlings and under) and old deer (over 4 1/2 years), giving a bimodal age distribution (Waselkov 1978:22). Communal driving, in contrast, would result in a unimodal age distribution, with all age classes represented archaeologically relative to their distribution in a living population (Waselkov 1988:20-21). Waselkov then examined the deer age data from a series of prehistoric sites in light of the expected patterns for the two types of hunting methods. He found that sites from earlier tribal-level societies had a bimodal (stalking) distribution of ages while later chiefdom-level Mississippian societies had a unimodal (communal drive) age distribution. In addition, these later societies were large fortified villages closely spaced in the bottomlands of major rivers, putting stress on the local deer population. Waselkov concludes that: Carefully coordinated, seasonally scheduled deer drives would have been the most effective means of harvesting a limited resource. The Middle Mississippians had achieved a chiefdom level of socio-political organization; that is, they had redistributional societies with permanent central agencies of coordination (Service, 1971: p. 134). This conclusion is based on comparisons with flourishing Mississippian-derived societies, such as the Natchez, observed by early European visitors, as well as from archaeological evidence for hereditary ranked status (e.g., Larson, Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 282 1971: p.67; Peebles and Kus, 1977:pp.435-40). It seems reasonable to hypothesize that concomitant with the increase in social complexity was an elaboration of subsistence methods, specifically the intensified exploitation of selected species (cf. Smith, 1975: p. 139) (Waselkov 1978:23). An exception to this pattern is in the data from a series of sites where the occupants were involved in the fur trade. At those sites, communal drives were being used even though the societies were tribes and not chiefdoms. In these cases, however, Waselkov claims that it was the introduction of an additional external variable, the pressure to acquire deer skins for trade, that provided the stimulus for adopting a more intensive exploitation pattern. Smith (1975) proposed a different pattern for stalking in the fall. One of the historically documented techniques used by Eastern Indians in stalking involved the use of a decoy. The decoy consisted of a hunter with a set of antlers or a deer skull with a deer skin. The hunter would hide in the bushes, rustling the branches to make noise. In the fall, male deer are in rut and are more curious than at other times of the year. When the deer investigated the rustling noises, they became more vulnerable to the hunter and were then killed (Smith 1975). Using this technique would result in a killing pattern of primarily adult male deer. If we apply Waselkov's pattern of stalking as indicative of a tribally organized society and communal drives as indicative of a chiefdom, then it appears that both the Montgomery Complex and the Luray Focus are probably both tribal-level societies. The patterns of the deer age data from the Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 283 Rosenstock and Winslow sites are bimodal distributions. The Rosenstock site has one elevation in the very young (under one-year) age class and another in the three-to-five year-olds, the age class at its prime meat weight (Figure 6). The Winslow site has its two elevations in the very young (less than one-year) and the very old (over five years) age classes. As stated before, the Hughes site has most of its deer in the two-to-five year-old age classes with very few in the young or older age classes. This distribution has very little resemblance to a natural population. As discussed earlier, it is the similarity of the unimodal distribution of individuals in the archaeological assemblage to a natural population curve that indicates the presence of communal drives. This pattern at the Hughes site indicates that stalking is probably occurring, but possibly with a different technique than at the Rosenstock and Winslow sites. One artifact in particular may be an indicator of this technique. At the Keyser Farm and Miley sites, possible antler headdresses were recovered. Although it is possible that these were used for ceremonial purposes, it is also possible that they could have been used as hunting decoys. If this is so, and if this is a trait of Luray Focus culture in general, and not specific to the Keyser Farm and Miley sites, this could indicate decoy stalking which would account for the age composition of deer at the Hughes site. The possible use of stalking for deer hunting does not discount the previously hypothesized presence of garden hunting. Different hunting Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 284 techniques could have been used for different species, especially if those species have different behaviors. It is also possible that both opportune garden hunting and deliberate stalking could have been used at the same site for the same species, in this case, deer. While garden hunting may have provided a relatively steady source of meat while there was food in the fields to attract the animals, this would not necessarily have provided all of the meat needed throughout the year. For those instances when garden hunting was not sufficient, stalking could have been used as a supplemental hunting technique. It is also possible that at some sites stalking provided the majority of the deer killed while garden hunting was the more supplemental hunting technique. In either case, the use of more than one hunting technique would have increased the possibility of hunting success. In conclusion, the answer to the basic research question posed here of "is there a difference in the hunting strategies between the Montgomery Complex and the Luray Focus given the zooarchaeological data from six sites from these two archaeological cultures," is yes. Yes, there are some very distinct differences in hunting strategies between these two cultures. Furthermore, given the cultural historical context of these sites, there are several sociocultural factors which could have affected the hunting strategies or which can be used to explain the differences in hunting strategies between these two cultures. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 285 The Use of Curated Collections As discussed in Chapter One, one additional issue to be addressed by this research is the relative completeness and research applicability of the curated assemblages. These assemblages, recovered up to 40 years ago, were examined using a series of indices and criteria designed to evaluate their representativeness of the archaeological record. This examination was done by comparing this series of indices from the curated assemblages to the same indices from recently excavated assemblages. The results of this examination are encouraging. The analysis of these assemblages indicates that, although they were not complete enough to yield all of the data necessary to answer all of the research questions being addressed here, these assemblages did fit very well into the broad patterns and conclusions that were reached using the primary material. In addition, the bone tool sample in some of these assemblages is fairly high and a study of bone tools from the two archaeological complexes would be feasible using these samples. The implications of these conclusions for research based on the analysis of other artifact classes is also encouraging. While studies of debitage would probably not be feasible, the formal stone tool collection should be relatively representative. Likewise, an analysis of ceramic remains would probably yield a high percentage of diagnostic {i.e., rim, handle, or shoulder) or unique sherds rather than a representative sample of body sherds. Since recovering a variety of the faunal remains was one explicit goal for some of the excavations of these Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 286 sites, this emphasis toward recovering representative variety may also be present in the ceramic and lithic material. One artifact class that probably did not fare as well as the others in these earlier collections is the archaeobotanical remains. While larger specimens such as corn cobs, kernels, or larger seeds and pits recovered at most of these sites, smaller specimens were only collected at the two primary sites. Botanical samples are even more biased by a lack of screening and flotation than the faunal remains since a larger proportion of botanical remains are so small. An examination of the archaeobotanical sample from the curated assemblages may indicate the presence of domesticates but it is doubtful that a comparison of the proportions of cultivated plants versus wild plants utilized at the site could be performed. Since ethnobotanical evidence could be critical to providing further data to address the arguments and conclusions in this research, the ethnobotanical samples from the primary assemblages become even more important. Directions for Future Research There are a number of directions that future research related to or building upon the results of this research could move into. The most obvious of these is analyzing the archaeobotanical evidence from these sites. This analysis could be used to determine what the patterns of plant exploitation are and if these patterns mirror or correspond in some way to the patterns revealed Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 287 by the examination of the zooarchaeological material. The most directly related question would be whether or not there appears to be an increase in the amount of time and energy devoted to cultivation for this particular period in time. The results from the archaeobotanical analysis, in combination with the results from the zooarchaeological analysis could then be used to create a more complete picture of changing subsistence systems. These systems may include an increase in the commitment to cultivation or they may include other changes that could be indicated by the archaeobotanical analysis that are not obvious from the zooarchaeological analysis. This combination of zooarchaeological and archaeobotanical data could yield a more complete model of subsistence change, one that may be general enough to apply to other cultural contexts where agricultural development is occurring. Another issue related to this research is when did cultivation first become present in the region and how did this initial introduction of cultivation affect hunting strategies? Again, the first part of this question would be answered primarily with archaeobotanical data. Examining the zooarchaeological data from sites over a lengthy time span would be necessary to determine hunting patterns prior to cultivation and how hunting strategies in general changed over a longer period of time. By having this long-term description of hunting strategies, the patterns observed at the Montgomery Complex and the Luray Focus could be placed in a more detailed perspective. This would yield more accurate interpretations about the relationships between many of the aspects of Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 288 these societies that were changing for long periods of time. These aspects include, but are not limited to, sedentism, socio-political complexity, cultivation, and hunting strategies. The examination of village development, individual structure size and function, and social complexity would provide a much more complete picture of these important relationships. On a more detailed level, two specific research questions that could be addressed to expand upon the current results are: what were the hunting strategies immediately prior to the Montgomery Complex; and what were the hunting strategies for the Mason Island Complex? Answering these questions, in combination with the broader long-term developmental questions proposed above would provide a more detailed picture of this particular point in time. Additional non-zooarchaeological data that could be critical to these interpretations would be clarifying the absolute and relative chronologies of these sites. The range of radiocarbon dates for these sites is confusing at best. In addition, further excavations at the Rosenstock site could yield structure outlines and pit patterns that could be used to infer information about the social structure at the site. Another related research question to be addressed is what are the hunting strategies at Monongahela sites and how do these compare to those at Luray Focus sites? There may also be indicators of ethnicity, such as butchering patterns, that could be used to examine the relationship between the Monongahela and the Luray Focus cultures. Examining this connection could Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 289 have a direct impact on current discussions of the culture history of the Middle Atlantic region. Other future research that could be performed with these same assemblages is an examination of bone tool production and technology at Montgomery Complex and/or Luray Focus sites. As we have seen from the results of the evaluation of the curated assemblages, the bone tool samples for many of these sites appear to be relatively complete. More detailed analysis of these tools could provide information not only on how these tools were made but what they may have been used for. In conclusion, the results from this research have provided data about the changes in hunting strategies for a relatively short period of time in the prehistory of the Potomac Valley. These results have been used to develop hypotheses about related changes in these cultures, specifically, the possible increasing commitment to the cultivation of plants. These hypotheses can be tested with the analysis of other artifact classes. This research provides a building block, one that can be used to answer broader anthropological questions about not only how but also why cultures change. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. APPENDIX ONE TABLE 23 TAXONOMIC CLASSIFICATION OF SPECIES RECOVERED 290 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. to to Sternotherus Rana Chelydra serpentina Chelydra Chrysemys picta picta picta Chrysemys Terrapene Carolina Bullfrog: Bullfrog: catesbeiana Turtle Musk Common (Stinkpot): odoratus Turtle: Painted Eastern Softshell: Spiny Eastern Turtle: Box Eastern Carolina spinifera Snapping Turtle: Snapping Apalone spinifera Apalone (Toads) (Coral Snakes) (Coral TABLE TABLE 23 Testudinidae Trionychidae Chelydridae Kinosternidae Emydidae Elapidae Bufonidae Ranidae Family: Family: Family: Family: Family: Family: Family: Family: Family: Family: Family: Family: (Lizards) TAXONOMIC CLASSIFICATION OF SPECIES RECOVERED Cryptodira Lacertilia Serpentes Squamata Anura Sub-Order: Sub-Order: Sub-Order: Chelonia Sub-Order: Reptilia Amphibia Order: Order: Order: Order: Order: Order: C lass: C lass: Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Buteo Corvus Olor Gavia Bonasa Meleagris Colinus virginianus Colinus umbellus Ectopistes migratorius Ectopistes Woodpecker: Pileated Common Loon: Loon: Common immer columbianus Grouse: Ruffed Common Bobwhite: Common Passenger Pigeon: Passenger Dryocopus pileatus Dryocopus Woodpecker: Red-Bellied carolinus Melanerpes brachyrhynchos gallopavo Wild Turkey: Turkey: Wild American Crow: Crow: American jamaicensis Hawk: Red-Tailed (Geese) Swan: Whistling (Mergansers) Cygninae Merginae Buteoninae Anserinae Sub-Family: Sub-Family: Sub-Family: Sub-Family: Sub-Family: Sub-Family: Continued TABLE 23 TABLE Corvidae Gaviidae Tetraonidae Columbidae Phasianidae Meleagrididae Picidae Anatidae Accipitridae Family: Family: Family: Family: Family: Family: Family: Family: Family: Family: Family: Columbiformes Gaviiformes Galliformes Piciformes Passeriformes Falconiformes Anseriformes Aves Order: Order: Order: Order: Order: Order: Order: Order: Order: Order: C la ss : Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 293 Luxilus Anguilla Semolitus Nocomis Cyanocitta Catostomus commersoni Catostomus Quiscalus quiscula Quiscalus River Chub: Chub: River comutus Sucker: Hog Northern nigricans Hypentelium Moxostoma cristata Creek Chub: Chub: Creek micropogon Chub: Mouth Big platyrynchos Nocomis Shiner: Common Blue Jay: Jay: Blue atromaculatus macrolepidotum Common Grackle: Common rostrata Shorthead Redhorse: Shorthead White Sucker: White American Eel: Eel: American (Trouts and Allies) and (Trouts Continued TABLE 23 TABLE Catostomidae Cyprinidae Icteridae Salmonidae Anguillidae Family: Family: Family: Family: Family: Family: Family: Family: Family: Cypriniformes Salmoniformes Anguilliformes Osteichthyes Order: Order: Order: Order: Order: C la ss : Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 294 Lepus Morone Marmota Tamias striatus Tamias Sylvilagus iloridanus Sylvilagus Eastern Cottontail: Eastern Chipmunk: Eastern Squirrel: Gray Eastern carolinensis Sciurus Squirrel: Fox Eastern niger Sciurus Moxostoma erythrurum Moxostoma americanus monax Golden Redhorse: Golden anisurum Moxostoma Bullhead: Brown saxatilis Striped Bass: Bass: Striped Snowshoe Hare: Hare: Snowshoe Woodchuck: Woodchuck: Silver Redhorse: Silver Ameirus serracanthus Ameirus (Sunfishes) Continued TABLE 23 TABLE Centrarchidae Sciuridae Ictaluridae Moronidae Leporidae Family: Family: Family: Family: Family: Family: Family: Sciuromorpha Rodentia Siluriformes Perciformes Lagomorpha Sub-Order: Sub-Order: Mammalia Order: Order: Order: Order: Order: Order: Order: C lass: Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 295 Felis Mephitis Lutra sp. Erethizon Urocyon Vulpes fulva Vulpes Ondatra Castor Lynxrufus Mustela vison Mustela Canis familiaris Canis V. V. vulpes) Beaver: Beaver: canadensis Peromyscus Muskrat: dorsatum concolor Bobcat: cinereoargenteus frenata Mustela Mink: Otter: River canadensis Mouse (unspecified): Mouse Porcupine: Lion: Mountain Dog: Red Fox: (also Fox: Gray Longtail Weasel: Longtail Skunk: Striped mephitis zibethica Continued TABLE 23 TABLE Castoridae Cricetidae Canidae Erethizontidae Felidae Mustelidae Family: Family: Family: Family: Family: Family: Aeluroidea Arctoidea Myomorpha Hystricomorpha Carnivora Sub-Order: Sub-Order: Sub-Order: Sub-Order: Sub-Order: Sub-Order: Order: Order: Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 296 Cervus Ursus Procyon lotor Procyon Odocoileus virginianus Odocoileus canadensis Raccoon: Raccoon: (Wapiti): Elk Black Bear: Bear: Black americanus White-tailed Deer: White-tailed Continued TABLE 23 TABLE Ursidae Cervidae Procyonidae Family: Family: Family: Ruminantia Artiodactyla Sub-Order: Sub-Order: Order: Order: Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. APPENDIX TWO TABLE 24 HABITATS FOR SPECIES RECOVERED 297 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 298 TABLE 24 TAXONOMIC CLASSIFICATION OF SPECIES RECOVERED Class: Amphibia Family: Bufonidae (Toads) Habitat: Requires shallow bodies of water to breed, hiding places with moisture, and an abundant supply of insects and other invertebrates for food (Conant and Collins 1991:306-307). Family; Ranidae Habitat: Aquatic, including streams, rivers, and lakes (Conant and Collins 1991:335). Bullfrog: Rana catesbeiana Habitat: Aquatic and preferring larger bodies of water than most other frogs. Lives in lakes, ponds, bogs, sluggish portions of streams, etc. Small streams are also utilized when other habitats are lacking (Conant and Collins 1991:335-336). Class: Reptilia Snapping Turtle: Chelydra serpentina Habitat: Lives in any permanent body of fresh water, large or small, occasionally brackish water. Omnivorous, food includes small aquatic invertebrates, as well as a variety of vertebrates and vegetation (Conant and Collins 1991:41-42). Common Musk Turtle (Stinkpot): Sternotherus odoratus Habitat: Abundant in many bodies of water, but not often observed except in shallow, clear-water lakes, ponds, and rivers. Prefers still waters (Conant and Collins 1991:44). Eastern Painted Turtle: Chrysemys picta picta Habitat: Lives chiefly in shallow water with profuse aquatic vegetation and soft and muddy bottoms of ponds, marshes, ditches, edges of lakes, backwaters of streams, and river pools (Conant and Collins 1991:71). Eastern Spiny Softshell: Apalone spinifera spinifera Habitat: A river turtle but also lives in lakes and other quiet bodies of water where sand and mud bars are available (Conant and Collins 1991:79-80). Eastern Box Turtle: Terrapene Carolina Carolina Habitat: Essentially terrestrial but occasionally soak themselves in mud Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 299 TABLE 24 Continued or water. Burrow beneath logs or rotting vegetation (Conant and Collins 1991:52-53). Sub-Order: Lacertilia (Lizards) Family Elapidae (Coral Snakes) Habitat: Extremely poisonous snakes that live in wooded areas and hide under leaves or debris. Habitats vary from well-drained woods and open, dry, sandy areas to pond and lake borders (Conant and Collins 1991:224). Class: Aves Common Loon: Gavia immer Habitat: Wooded lakes, tundra ponds (summer), coastal waters. In Middle Atlantic region in winter (Peterson 1980:32). Whistling Swan: Olor columbianus Habitat: Lakes, large rivers, bays, estuaries, flooded fields. In Middle Atlantic region in winter (Peterson 1980:42). Geese: Sub-Family Anserinae Habitat: Waterfowl, more terrestrial than ducks, grazing on land. In Middle Atlantic region in winter (Peterson 1980:42). Mergansers: Merginae Habitat: Waterfowl, Lakes, ponds, rivers. In Middle Atlantic region in winter (Peterson 1980:62). Red-Tailed Hawk: Buteo jamaicensis Habitat: Open country, woodlands, prairie groves, mountains, plains. Resident year-round (Peterson 1980:154). Ruffed Grouse: Bonasa umbellus Habitat: Ground and understory of deciduous or mixed woodlands. Resident year-round (Peterson 1980:144). Common Bobwhite: Colinus virginianus Habitat: Brushy open country, roadsides, wood edges. Resident year- round (Peterson 1980:148). Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 300 TABLE 24 Continued Wild Turkey: Meleagris gallopavo Habitat: Woods, mountain forests, wooded swamps. Resident year- round (Peterson 1980:144). Passenger Pigeon: Ectopistes migratorius Pileated Woodpecker: Dryocopus pileatus Habitat: Conifer, mixed, and hardwood forests, woodlots. Resident year- round (Peterson 1980:188). Red-Bellied Woodpecker: Melanerpes carolinus Habitat: Woodlands, groves, orchards, towns. Resident year-round (Peterson 1980:190). American Crow: Corvus brachyrhynchos Habitat: Woodlands, farmland, agricultural fields, river groves, shores. Resident year-round (Peterson 1980:206). Blue Jay: Cyanocitta cristata Habitat: Oak and pine woods, groves. Resident year-round (Peterson 1980:208). Common Grackle: Quiscalus quiscula Habitat: Croplands, groves, streamsides. Resident year-round (Peterson 1980:254). Class: Osteichthyes American Eel: Anguilla rostrata Habitat: Catadromous species, spawns in Atlantic Ocean and ascends streams. Common near sea; uncommon in more inland streams and lakes. Usually in permanent streams with continuous flow. Hides in undercut banks and deep pools (Robins, Ray, and Douglass 1986:49). Family Salmonidae (Trouts and Allies) Habitat: Lives in cool to cold streams and lakes. Freshwater or migrate into fresh water to spawn (Robins, Ray, and Douglass 1986:75). Creek Chub: Semolitus atromaculatus Habitat: Lives in rocky and sandy pools of headwaters, creeks and small rivers (Page and Burr 1991:87-88). Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 301 TABLE 24 Continued River Chub: Nocomis micropogon Habitat: Lives in rocky runs and flowing pools of small to medium rivers (Page and Burr 1991:91-92). Big Mouth Chub: Nocomis platyrynchos Common Shiner: Luxilus cornutus Habitat: Lives in rocky pools near riffles in clear, cool creeks and small to medium rivers (Page and Burr 1991:110). White Sucker: Catostomus commersoni Habitat: Wide range of habitats from rocky pools and riffles of headwaters to large lakes. Usually in small, clear, cool creeks and small to medium rivers (Page and Burr 1991:169). Northern Hog Sucker: Hypentelium nigricans Habitat: Rocky riffles, runs, and pools of clear creeks and small rivers; occasionally large rivers (Page and Burr 1991:180). Shorthead Redhorse: Moxostoma macrolepidotum Habitat: Rocky pools, runs, and riffles in small to large rivers; lakes (Page and Burr 1991:184). Golden Redhorse: Moxostoma erythrurum Habitat: Mud- to rock-bottomed pools, runs and riffles of creeks and small to large rivers; occasionally lakes (Page and Burr 1991:185-186). Silver Redhorse: Moxostoma anisurum Habitat: Mud- to rock-bottomed pools, runs and riffles of creeks and small to large rivers; occasionally lakes (Page and Burr 1991:186). Brown Bullhead: Ameiurus serracanthus Habitat: Pools and sluggish runs over soft substrates in creeks and small to large rivers; impoundments, lakes, and ponds (Page and Burr 1991:195). Striped Bass: Morone saxatiiis Habitat: Marine; ascends large rivers far upstream to spawn. Channels of medium to large rivers during spring spawning runs; lakes, impoundments, and connecting rivers (Page and Burr 1991:254-255). Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 302 TABLE 24 Continued Family Centrarchidae (Sunfishes) Habitat: Freshwater; generally in sluggish waters, pools (Page and Burr 1991:258). Class: Mammalia Snowshoe Hare, Jackrabbit: Lepus americanus Habitat: Swamps, forests, thickets, mountains in the west. Habits: Nocturnal. Home range about 10 acres, but may travel up to 1 mile. Populations fluctuate tremendously, with highs about every 11 years. Young: Born April-August (Burt and Grossenheider 1980:205). Eastern Cottontail: Sylvilagus floridanus Habitat: Heavy brush, strips of forest with open areas nearby, edges of swamps, weed patches. Habits: Active from early evening to late morning. Feeds on green vegetation in summer, bark and twigs in winter. Home range 3-20 acres. Populations fluctuate from 1 per 4 acres to several per acre especially in winter concentrations. Young: Born mostly March-May, also in September (Burt and Grossenheider 1980:208-209). Woodchuck: Marmota monax Habitat: Open woods, brushy and rocky ravines. Habits: Diurnal for most part, may wander at night in early spring. Feeds on tender succulent plants. Hibernates Oct-Feb. Home range 40-160 acres. Mates in March or April, breeds at 1 year. Young: Bom April-May, 2-6 (Burt and Grossenheider 1980:92). Eastern Chipmunk: Tamias striatus Habitat: Deciduous forests, brushy areas. Habits: Solitary except for mother and young. Feeds on seeds, bulbs, fruits, nuts, insects, meat, eggs; stores food underground. Hibernates but may come aboveground in middle of winter. Home range usually less than 100 yd across. Populations of 2-4 per acre. Young: 1st litter May, 2-8; 2nd litter Aug- Sep, gestation period 31 days (Burt and Grossenheider 1980:108). Eastern Gray Squirrel: Sciurus carolinensis Habitat: Hardwood forests with nut trees, river bottoms. Habits: Primarily arboreal, rarely ventures far from trees. Feeds on a variety of nuts, seeds, fungi, fruits, and often the cambium layer beneath the bark in trees; stores nuts and acorns singly in small holes in ground. Nests in Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 303 TABLE 24 Continued holes in trees or builds leaf nest in branches. Populations of 2-20 per acre. Young: 3-5, gestation period 44 days, 2 litters a year (Burt and Grossenheider 1980117-118). Eastern Fox Squirrel: Sciurus niger Habitat: Open hardwood woodlots in North and pine forests in South, both with clearings interspersed. Habits: Spends much time on ground foraging, sometimes in open several rods from trees. Feeds on great variety of nuts, acorns, seeds, fungi, bird eggs, and cambium beneath bark of small branches of trees. Nests in cavities in trees or builds twig and leaf nest in crotch or branches, usually 30 ft. or more from ground. Home range 10-40 acres. Populations of 1 per 2 acres. Young: Born Feb-April and Aug -Sep in North, a month earlier in South (Burt and Grossenheider 1980:118-119). Beaver: Castor canadensis Habitat: Streams and lakes with trees or alders on banks. Habits: Chiefly nocturnal, occasionally seen by day, appears shortly after sundown. Has moved 150 miles or more from birth place, usually under 6 miles. Live up to 11 years in wild. Young: Born April-July (Burt and Grossenheider 1980:151-153). Mouse (unspecified): Peromyscus sp. Muskrat: Ondatra zibethica Habitat: Marshes, edges of ponds, lakes, and streams; cattails, rushes, water lilies, open water. Habits: Chiefly aquatic; moves overland, especially in autumn. Feeds on aquatic vegetation, also clams, frogs, and fish on occasion. Builds house in shallow water; also burrows in banks; entrances usually underwater. Young: 2-3 litters a year (Burt and Grossenheider 1980:193-194). Porcupine: Erethizon dorsatum Habitat: Usually forested areas, but occasionally away from trees if brush is available. Habits: Most active at night, but may be seen during day, especially top of tree, more at home in tree than on ground. Solitary in summer, may be colonial in winter. Young: Born April-May,1 (Burt and Grossenheider 1980:199-200). Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 304 TABLE 24 Continued Mountain Lion (Cougar, Puma, Panther): Felis concolor Habitat: Rugged mountains, forests, swamps.Habits: Chiefly nocturnal, but may be seen abroad during day. Secretive, seldom seen. Most at home on ground, but climbs trees. Young: May be born any month of year (Burt and Grossenheider 1980:77-78). Bobcat: Lynxrufus Habitat: Swamps and forests in East. Habits: Mostly nocturnal and solitary. Feeds on small mammals and birds. Young: Born any month, mostly in spring (Burt and Grossenheider 1980:81-82). Red Fox: Vulpes fulva (also V. vulpes) Habitat: Mixture of forest and open country preferred. Habits: Most active at night, early morning, and late evening; often active during day. Young: Born March or April, depending on latitude (Burt and Grossenheider 1980:72-73). Gray Fox: Urocyon cinereoargenteus Habitat: Open forests. Habits: Chiefly nocturnal, secretive. Will climb trees to escape enemies. Young: Born April-May (Burt and Grossenheider 1980:75-77). Longtail Weasel: Mustela frenata Habitat: Not restricted, found in all land habitats near water. Habits: Chiefly nocturnal, but also active by day. Climbs trees, but spends most of time on ground. Young: Born late April or early May (Burt and Grossenheider 1980:58). Mink: Mustela vison Habitat: Along streams and lakes. Habits: Chiefly nocturnal, solitary except for family groups. Young: Born April or May (Burt and Grossenheider 1980:60). River Otter: Lutra canadensis Habitat: Along streams and lake borders. Habits: Aquatic but may travel several miles over land to reach another stream or lake. Young: Born April or May (Burt and Grossenheider 1980:60-63). Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 305 TABLE 24 Continued Striped Skunk: Mephitis mephitis Habitat: Semi-open country, mixed woods, brushland, and open prairie preferred, normally within 2 miles of water. Habits: Chiefly nocturnal, starts hunting shortly after sundown and retires at about sunrise. Young: Born early May (Burt and Grossenheider 1980:65). Black Bear: Ursus americanus Habitat: In East, primarily forests and swamps. Habits: Primarily nocturnal, but occasionally abroad at midday. Usually solitary, except female with cubs. Eats berries, nuts, tubers, insects and their larvae, small mammals, eggs, honey, carrion, garbage. Semihibernates in winter. Young: Born in winter Dec., Jan. or Feb. (Burt and Grossenheider 1980:46). Raccoon: Procyon lotor Habitat: Along streams and lake borders near wooded areas or rock cliffs. Habits: Chiefly nocturnal, but occasionally abroad during day. Feeds mostly along streams and lakes. Dens in hollow trees, does not hibernate. Young: Born April or May (Burt and Grossenheider 1980:50-52). Elk (Wapiti): Cervus canadensis Habitat: Semi-open forest, mountain meadows (in summer), foothills, plains, and valleys. Habits: Most active morning and evenings. Usually seen in groups of 25 or more, both sexes together in winter, old bulls in separate groups during summer. Migrates up mountains, in spring, down in fall. Males shed antlers in Feb-March, velvet shed in Aug. Attains adult dentition at 2.5-3 years. Young: Born May-June (Burt and Grossenheider 1980:215-216). White-tailed Deer: Odocoileus virginianus Habitat: Forests, swamps, and open brushy areas nearby. Habits: More of a forest mammal. Browser. Occurs in groups up to 25 or more in winter, usually singly or 2-3 (doe and fawns) in summer and fall. Home range rarely more than 1 mile. Young: Usually 2 to adult does (Burt and Grossenheider 1980:218). Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. APPENDIX THREE TABLE 25 ODOCOILEUS VIRGINIANUS MANDIBULAR TEETH MEASUREMENTS (BASED ON SEVERINGHAUS 1948) 306 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 307 + + - - - - + + + - - - - + + + Age 7.5Y 8.5Y 7.5Y 7.5Y 7.5Y 7.5Y 5.5Y 6.5Y 5.5Y 5.5Y B B 3.0 3.86 3.55 7.5Y 2.98 4.45 4.64 3.49 3.61 5.5Y 2.31 4.38 7.5Y 3.15 3.39 4.00 5.5Y - M3/3 M3/P 3.52 3.05 5.21 7.33 6.32 7.85 5.74 7.35 6.5Y 5.75 M3/2 5.96 6.42 4.97 5.67 5.15 4.00 5.17 3.82 4.86 5.12 4.62 7.42 5.69 4.71 5.79 M2/2 M3/1 TABLE TABLE 25 MANDIBULAR TEETH MEASUREMENTS 3.81 4.21 8.02 7.89 7.34 6.76 7.65 1.83 3.45 3.16 7.5Y 4.84 4.14 M1/2 M2/1 (BASED ON SEVERINGHAUS 1948) 4.70 3.70 4.10 4.60 2.44 4.98 3.78 4.17 4.57 5.70 6.32 6.76 4.92 2.85 3.60 5.06 5.33 M1/1 P4 5.11 3.80 6.13 3.83 3.12 3.69 5.10 6.18 6.72 5.53 7.09 4.90 4.97 5.13 6.26 4.40 2.44 3.50 3.27 4.74 4.14 4.32 ODOCOILEUS VIRGINIANUS 5.03 4.23 5.10 4.60 R R Side P2 P3 R L L R L L 4.11 L L R R L 18M 09 18M 09 18M01 18FR18 18M 09 R 18M 09 18M 09 18M 0918M 09 R 18FR18 Site 18M 09 18M 09 18M 09 18FR18 18M 09 18M 04 L Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 308 + + + + + + 1 i + + 1 1 + 1 + + 1 + S S A > > > > - > > > > - > > - m i n £ i n m in in in m & m m LO i n i n i n t j - •M * M 1' M* M 1 m - M* M" M" x r QQ 0 0 CO CM CO CM CL CO x j* c q x r o p CM Z o o 1 . 5 3 x * CO i n i n c o ’ OO x r o CO I s - i n r * 0 0 o o CM CL CO 03 O m CO CO CO O Z c q 1 .5 9 | x f i n N-' I s - ’ i n CO I s- ’ i n T— o o •m - I s - T“ o o OO CL CM o o o CO c q o Z s 5 . 7 2 CO h - * o o o ‘ o o ' o ’ o * o ’ CO* 7 — CO CO o LO CM i n 03 CL h - c q N- CO 7 — r * . P CM Z 0 0 5 . 9 3 | c o ' <6 0 0 * h - ’ 0 0 * 03* 0 3 I s - ' 0 0 7 " * I s - CO 0 0 o O i n CL CO i n I s - o T“ p CO I s- T*“ o Z 6 . 5 6 I s - ’ | c o ’ o o ' o o ' I s -* o o ' o o ' o o * o I s - I s - o 03 0 3 CL X t 0 0 i n 0 0 CO x * CM CO CO s z CO 5 . 8 4 i n i n i n c - * I s - o o ' N-* c o ' o o * o o * < o x j - 0 0 CO CO o 0 0 i n i n CO p i n CO i n 03 i n CM o 03 4 . 5i 2 n i n x f r i n i n i n i n ' CD i n o o ' i n h - i n CO CO t — m CO CO CO 03 T— CO T“ i n p p ▼- p in o m 03 3 . 9 7 CO i n i n CO CO M* in ’ i n CO* i n c d i n CO CO I s - o CO i n c o CO T j* CM CO CO i n 0 0 x j - CO CM r * - M* 4 . 8 3 i n CD c o X* CO c o ' o o ’ 0 0 * i n ' CM CO o i n i n c q Y~ c q 5 c q i n i n i n x f i n i n 03 03 CO DC o o x j - 00 CO c q Z i n x f CO CO DC DC DC DC DC _J DC _ i - 1 -J _ j DC - j a : DC DC CO o » O) 03 T- 03 T** 03 0 3 O O O DC o O O o O 2 2 2 LL. 2 2 2 2 0 0 00 00 CO 00 00 o o 00 0 0 1 8 F R 1 8 1 8 M 0 9 18FR18 18FR18 18FR18 18M 09 18FR18 18M 09 T- 18M 09 7“ V Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 309 + + i 1 I + + + + + I 1 1 1 1 1 + 1 > > ■ > - > - >- >-> > >•> >- >->- LO i n i n i n LO m m i n m m i n i n i n i n i n m i n i n 'M * m - ■m * CO COCO CO COCOCOCOCO COCO c o COCO c a 1 - n i n C M o 0 0 0 0 Q_CO 00 T f C M IO 7 CO LO I s - COCO CO o > 0 CO CO CO m C O i n i n m i n i n I s - c o C O LO n o > o i n CO CL CO c o CM CO T— CO v C M 0 0 o > 7 00 0 0 0 0 CM LO CO i n h - CO i n CO 1 0 1 0 I s - o > n o o c o O ) i n Q. 0 C O I s- (M r - 7 r - CM o > CMCM o > 7 CM N* CM N- OO O) 0 0 O O ) T“ OO ’r " T-T" t j - n t n M " COCO o o n CM OO O) LO I s - T” T“ 7 m CM 0 0 7 * M" 0 I s- o o 0 0 CO o > o o 0 0 O 0 T“ o > T“” - r - n o CO O M* n 0 0 a . CO COCO (O T* CO T- CO 00 z 7 o > 7 00 CM 1 ^ 0 0 O O a > 0 0 O) 0 o > O T“ O) n 0 0 CMCO C O I s- Q_ 0 T“ i n o 7 " **•CO T|- T“ o * 7 TT CM CO I s- I s- o o O O 0 0 O)O) O) O) 0 T f n i n r - I s- i n i n n T” o o z o C O T~ CO i n ■7 CM i n CO I s - N - i n CO 00 T- T- O) x h I s- CM CM CO 0 CO CO N- CO r - O CO 00 i n CO N. CO h - c o CO 00 CO 0 0 m- CO I s- O) C M C O o > 0 t o 0 0 OCM o i n t o I s - o CO I s- i n I-. V 0 0 CO 0 0 m 0 0 LO 'O - 'M' i n ■M* od a : od od _ l od -J Od a : _ i Od _! od od od Od od -J 0 0 0 0 C O 0 0 0 0 T“ o > O) 0 ) O) a> 0 0 o > 0 00 O o ft O IT o O rr or OOO O f Y 0 O or i r IS u . u . : > L L a . : > > > : LLS LL LL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C O o o 0 0 0 0 0 0 o o 0 0 00 00 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 T“ V r - T“ ▼ “ < r - T” T” T“ Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 310 + + i + + 1 1 + 1 1 1 + 1 1 + + + 1 2.5Y 2.5Y 2.5Y 2.5Y 2.5Y 2.5Y 2.5Y 2.5Y 2.5Y 2.5Y 2.5Y 2.5Y 2.5Y 2.5Y 2.5Y 20-24M 20-24M 20-24M c a CQ 0 0 Q. LO z 6.9 5.16 6.16 6.72 6.52 6.14 5.07 5.96 OO N. NP 5.42 4.87 5.35 6.99 5.31 6.95 6.10 a . z 9.15 9.44 9.77 10.80 10.96 10.60 10.12 10.22 * * 12.18 NP 9.43 9.59 9.26 11.49 11.25 10.01 11.50 10.64 CO 9.06 9.15 o ' 8.59 10.09 10.75 I I 9.55 o CO CO CO 9.15 8.64 9.61 8.59 0 0 7.69 o o ' 7.57 5.91 7.50 6.96 5.92 7.97 5.38 * * 8.54 0 0 CO 7.57 5.99 7.78 6.81 6.56 7.49 c o ' 8.93 CO 0 0 7.73 8.75 7.43 6.40 6.50 7.05 8.30 6.81 6.87 90'S 9S'S 0 0 0 0 CO o 6.58 5.79 6.31 5.54 6.40 CO* 6.76 CO 0 0 CO a> 5.27 4.14 6.56 5.42 4.97 6.56 -J _i a: DU 01 cm - i _i a: a: a: _i cm o: o 2 0 0 18M01 18FR18 J 18M 09 18M 09 18FR18 18M 09 18M01 18M 09 18M 09 18M 09 18M 09 18FR18 18FR18 18FR18 18M01 18FR18 18FR18 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. without prohibited reproduction Further owner. copyright the of permission with Reproduced TABLE 25 O —< U T3 c a) c o =j 7 2 2 n z M C M C M C n * s I *• *< O o o o O O O C n O C M C ) O n v o O C — r o L L L L r o c ' O j - O C O C y 1 “ T ▼“ — T f T " M r r f T O C O C n i 0 0 *fr ■ o ) O o v * s I — T O C 0 0 O C * N o cm O C -T- f • a c 2 2 2 2 2 o t . * r * h O C f T O C > o ” T ) O o o “ T ) O o - ^ r O C > o 0 0 ) O n i n i “ T * s I n t ) O > o O C L L L L r . N n i n i cm cm O C D O C C * s I O C > o M C > o 0 0 0 0 O C o o 0 0 0 0 0 0 O C + m ” 7 M C - N 0 0 o n T n n i M C M C T*“ “ T t 7 n o o f “ T Y - 1 V 1 1 + + + 1 + 1 + + 1 + 1 + 1 i + + S S 9M 9M | 9M 7M 5M 3M 6M 6M 5M 5M o o 4M CO 3M 7.5M 7.5M 7.5M 3.5M 10WK CQ in ■ o CM (i> D 4.35 LU C —I U —< CQ c o £ o 3.92 6.32 4.89 10.53 CO U i CO 2 8.05 9.12 9.19 6.34 7.49 8.87 c o ' 6.66 CO NE 5.22 9.14 7.68 8.91 8.59 8.07 CO 6.98 CM CM 5.98 4.93 5.35 4.14 4.82 4.65 5.36 5.84 M-' 6.08 5.83 S O S CO CM CO CO S cq 5.96 3.49 4.65 3.41 5.47 4.40 4.50 4.27 3.96 CO CO* CO* CO 4.74 4.50 3.09 3.00 2.98 3.39 3.28 4.47 3.58 3.46 3.67 4.45 2.80 3.68 U. O) o> o> o O O 2 2 S CO 00 CO 18M 09 18FR18 18M 09 18FR18 18FR18 18M 09 18FR18 18FR18 18M 09 18FR18 18FR18 18M 09 18M 09 18M01 18FR18 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. TABLE 25 Continued 18FR18 I NE NE 9WK + 18M 09 r 4.57 6.68 8WK + 18M 09 I 3.99 3.42 5.96 8WK + 18FR18 I 3.91 4.21 6.12 8WK + 18M 09 I 3.99 4.58 6.29 NE NE 7WK + 18FR18 r 3.95 4.75 7WK - 18M 09 I 4.08 5.67 7WK + 18M 09 I 4.57 7.07 6WK + 18FR18 r 5.06 5WK + 18FR18 I 4.61 5WK + NOTES: 1) In the column for S ID E ,' L' and 'R' indicate the presence of permanent premolars and 'I' and Y indicate the presence of deciduous premolars. 2) In the column for AGE, YR=years, M=months, WK=weeks 3) NE=not erupted, NP=not possible to take measurement on tooth that was present due to post-depositional damage 4) B=butchering scars present on mandible 5) + or - =certainty of age assignment APPENDIX FOUR TABLE 24 BUTCHERING SCAR INVENTORY FOR THE ROSENSTOCK (18FR18) AND HUGHES (18M01) SITES 314 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 315 - - 5 17 17 12 13 11 (GRAMS) 11 30 9 6 6 19 2 41 3 19 4 24 3 72 3 7 2 11 22 13 31 14 11 17 # SCARS WEIGHT F M SCAR M TYPE RCp-6 EM-1 M? EM-2 M SCAR# EM-3 M TC-1 M MCd-1 M SPRLB TC-1 TABLE 26 TABLE N/A R PS-7 R R R EM-4 D R TA-2 M R TA-2 M AND HUGHES (18M01) SITES ELEMENTSIDE CALCL RADI CALCL HUMRRSPRLB FEMR METCRFEMR SKAN LLVRT S-4 N/A S EM-5 M ATLS ASTR ASTR R TA-2 M ASTR DEER DEER DEERPELV DEERLVRTN/ADEER DEER DEER DEER DEER DEER DEER ELK DEER DEER BONE TA-1 M DEER BUTCHERING SCAR DATA INVENTORY FOR THE ROSENSTOCK (18FR18) 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 FEATURESPECIES 12 12 5 - 18FR18 18FR18 18FR18 18FR18 12 18FR18 18FR18 18FR18 12 18FR18 12 18FR18 18FR18 SAME BONE 18FR18 SITE 18FR18 18FR18 18FR1818FR18 12 18FR18 SAME 18FR18 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. without prohibited reproduction Further owner. copyright the of permission with Reproduced TABLE 26 O —* U TJ o C 3 0 c 2 F H : a l c uj «? CO Dl o> lO CD < <0 T~ - T oo u 1 LU 111 UJ CL CO LL. a 11 1 2 1 < < CL (O UJ < OCO CO 00 MCM T_ CM a a CL CO CL - M" 2 2 2 »- MC CM CM CM I- CL JU UJ UJ UJ UJ < i— —T 7“ T— T— LCL CL 00 .u.u. u . u U. CL co i T— m 1 < OCO CO < < < < CO h” CL T_ 00 ■*— a JUJ UJ oC OO CO co O' - ”T“ 7” - J h* < C CD -C" <0 LC LCL CL CL CL T— CM r-~ Q CL CL co TABLE 26 O " O -< 4 a) o C c u 2 t M C - N dOd Od - T 04 || 18FR18 DEER SCAP S-2 — 2 03 M C o c m M C 18FR18 DEER SCAP 1 2 O C dO dO Od Od Od Od Od || 18FR18 DEER SCAP S-2 2 2 O C M C 18FR18 DEER SCAP S-2 oo M C M C n i 18FR18 DEER HUMR Hd-2 M C n i 2 “ T M C 18FR18 DEER HUMR Hd-2 - r 2 T— Q UJ UJ Od n i 18FR18 HUMR Hd-2 ”T“ T” a 2 dOd Od l T™* O 18FR18 DEER HUMR Hd-3 O C Q C T“ O C . u E O C 317 1 DEER HUMR SPRL 2 2 | 18FR18 SAME BONE Hd-2 1 O C 18FR18 SAME BONE Oblique 1 Hd-2 T— O C T“ S a: M C || 18FR18 DEER HUMR Hd-3 2 O C i _ M C O C T“ M C 18FR18 DEER HUMR Hd-3 m | 18FR18 SAME BONE SPRL 1 > o O C O C j _ i _ n i 18FR18 DEER HUMR Hd-3 T“ O C 0 0 u. E 0 0 SAME BONE SPRL 1 O C 2 2 2 M C M C | 18FR18 DEER HUMR Hd-2 2 8 | | T— O C O C * T 18FR18 DEER ATLS N/A CV-2 O C o Q UJ UJ Od m || 18FR18 ATLS N/A CV-1 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. without prohibited reproduction Further owner. copyright the of permission with Reproduced TABLE 26 O u ■ ■H '■ c C o 3 D C 2 2 n i M C [ [ 18FR18 SAME BONE EM-7 1 CO n i | | 18FR18 1 DEER ATLS N/A EM-7 2 2 2 2 n i > o M C 18FR18 1 DEER ATLS N/A EM-7 * M CO O o i — c < to M C 18FR18 DEER N/A M" ■M M C ~ T M C 18FR18 DEER AXIS N/A CV-5 M C - T O C M C 18FR18 DEER AXIS N/A CV-5 2 2 2 s “ T CO O C _i “ T M C 18FR18 BEAR ULNA RCp-4 > o M C M C OH CO in 18FR18 DEER ULNA RCp-5 - T OH M C || 18FR18 DEER ULNA RCp-2 318 “ T I — M C ” T 0 0 I. L O' O C DEER ULNA RCp-3 . u ) O W UJ Ul OH OH Q 18FR18 RADI RCp-6 2 o c M C o i _ 18FR18 1 DEER RADI RCp-5 n i 3u u. u_ 03 J _ M C 18FR18 DEER RADI SPRL n i UJ 2 O C h o “ T CM [ 18FR18 DEER RIB ■ “ T 2 Ul O C M C 18FR18 DEER RIB 1 2 i CO n i HOH OH 18FR18 DEER RIB RS-3 IJU ’ M " T O O m 18FR18 DEER RIB EM-8 u. CO M C j - M C 18FR18 DEER RIB EM-8 - I L “ T f T LU 2 OO J - M C 18FR18 DEER RIB i L U “ T m O C Ul UJ OH OH m Q || 18FR18 RIB EM-8 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. without prohibited reproduction Further owner. copyright the of permission with Reproduced TABLE 26 o < - 4 T3 o (U c c o M C Ooo o lO 3 2 . u U L — ^ — ^ n o Q C - T - T o o L L n o Q U L n J o U n U o L J U n o o o 1 1 2 M C M C h 5 n o L I n o J U U L - h o o o c Q C Q C Q C Q C Q 3 0 u 3 0 u o M ( o o T— “ T p 2 - V L— - » o c n o 00 i. L 0 0 ■ n o i _ i H L C m n o n o “ T 2 2 2 < 2 J U 2 J U T— 00 LL o o m o 1 D I T L L M C O C l _ - L 3 T - T Q C —T“ T T— L L “ T J U M C J U n o 00 O O l _ 1 _ l _ J - T— L C n o Q C i H J U l U J U Z l U OCO CO LL n o 0 0 0 0 i H o < t M C O C L L L L O C - 1 0 " T - i 5 n o n o —T“■—^— ^ ■t— “ T T— l U J U n c “ T L L L L M" ■M M C o o - - I L L 1 > L L J U 2 n o n o - T n o l U M C < o o O C M C o o >-OCO C O - l> L L 2 2 J U T— L L n o n o n o o o ) I t « i H < Z 00 . i . i 319 2 n o n o n o n o L L L L . U > • L L l U L U J U ) U r < o o o o M C 0 0 L L L L Z l U L L O T_ 00 O C i H 4. 1 3 T T o c M C U L 2 n o . U l U n o J U n o “ T o o L L n o O O M" ■M v J U J U M C M C M C Q — T ) O L L 2 L L J U 2 n o n o OO L L n o Q O C 4 . n o — * L U l U 2 o c L C Q C ) - - i n c in u L L L L L L n o “ T n i n i — T OO o o ) O J T o c O C 2 — i 5 n o - 1 n o J U l U J U o Q J U n o 00 o o i o n o h h - | O C 2 2 J U - r 1 _ 3 1 i H . Q Q C n o lO J U n o ” T o o o o — t o o — ^ n o J U - r i H L C - ^ C Q C * T “ T l U a J U n o - T 00 n o o c ■» !■ M C — ^ J _ D > z l U 2 2 J U - 1 l U J C n o ” T o o _ u n o o o i M C “ T M C - r - 1 i H L C n o Q C l U n o l U l U 2 L L n o n i Q “ T 00 o o 2 o T— - "M M" "M H l U 2 D I U L n o Q l U o . I L n o 0 0 M C o o 1 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. without prohibited reproduction Further owner. copyright the of permission with Reproduced TABLE 26 O 3 T o c C 3 (1> C M i n T t CMCOCO T- o O) 1 CO o o (O CON. (OM" i n c o y — CM x — T“ T- CM ^ — CM CM CMCM Y“* Y“ Tt“ c o C O T t ■M - CM CM i n c o CO M 1 c o o » CM CO o T t CM CO T- LL l l LL 2 2 2 u . l l l l 2 LL LL 2 LL 2 2 2 LLU. 2 lO i n t o c > - CM CM t— T- CO Y™ < 0 CMCM 'T 9 i . i . d i. i . I > i CM CO 6 . * o P O O OO A. 2 C ) o 2 O O < f < r < f h - X H i l U 1 ft I t LL UJ t - J— UJ t - H- v - H COCO CO tt _ j a : —I tt _J O' _ j - 1 tt tt tt tt _ J _ 1 ft or < tt o o o O O tr tr tr CL CLCL T* u u u 7 -J - 1 _ J _ l < < < -J < U l < < < < < 01 01 tt tt O' (t tt > ft ft UJ a: tt ft tt ft tr tr. i r * tr LU UJUJ UJUJUJUJ < UJUJ Z UJ UJUJ 11.1 U l i n h i i n i n UJUJUJ UJUJUJUJ U l UJUJ o UJUJUJ UJ UJ in in in in Q UO a u a G m a Q m a Q a a Q a a a a UJ 2 r- r«- N. h- N. l>- h- CM < CMCMCM CM CM Y“— ^ T“ T— t— t— T“ t o Y-* UJ in T* i n i n T* T“ i n OO o o o o CO CO CO o o o o o o OOCOCO 00 o o o o 0 0 o o c o CO o o r- V" ■t— T“ Y“ T— Y— T* t— T— a: 01 tt tt tt tt tt ft tt tt ft ft tt ft tr. ft tr tr tr tr LL LL LL u. LL l l i l l l u. u. LL u . LL l l ii. U. i i i i . i i LL 00 00 CO 00 o o 00 o o o o o o c o 00 CO 00 o o 00 o o CO CO 00 00 T“ Y— T“ 'r— T“ T— Y“ T* T“ Y~ Y“ T— T— Y“ r_ T_ T“ Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. without prohibited reproduction Further owner. copyright the of permission with Reproduced TABLE 26 •o o o c C 3 0) O C L U M C M C I I I < j u 2 CDC . u DC “ T o O m o c O C T” o o JCL C .J r I 1 2 DC co M- •M o c X O C O < . Q U L DC U L O C O C 0 0 O C u_ " T o o DC Q C J - 1 - O C J - M C > o — T ) _ 2 i Q U L DC U L M C Q C D C Q o o 0 0 L L DC - T OO X o • 2 2 O C * 1 * M C O U L U L o < J U < J U 2 2 T“ i- L O' OO X O o - M C Q C □ G J U “ T a “ T ~ T X o o o T™ 00 L L DC 1 X J T L C > T 2 . N L L X X M C * } * M C 0 0 J U J U > _ > _ 2 DC J U r t u O C G u n i O C O C o o o c - T — Y L I DC 00 Q C DC L L X O C DC J _ T— M C M C 2 DC J U DC M C O O 000 00 L I DC ~ T 2 2 M C M C O C X J U 2 2 o c o < J U CO L L . U DC . U DC — T 322 J - D " M C 0 0 O C I I I 2 DC l U nr l U T— 0 0 — T 00 L U 1 - L L u 2 I I I 2 DC D C O C J U nr J U J U Q “ T — T o c 000 00 “ T 0 0 o c DC X L L 2 DC DC O C . Q DC J _ Q C m — ^ - T J U ' r r I I I Q C Q n i - LL T L L o c DC 2 L L t— 't X l U o l U l U < l U O C T— T— o o CDC DC 1 2 " •M < G Q J _ DC o n i n i O C l U DC J U Q C Q Q C Q > u T*“ o o t O C LL L — O C O C . n . n DC Q C Q C " T X l U J - o < O C m O C < 2 T— o c o c L L DC o o o o o o 1 r < DC DC C < i _ DC n i nr J U J _ O C “ T LL V CDC DC 2 M DC O n i X l U o 2 2 7— “ T CO L — T . 6 l 1 1 — . u O O DC o O C M C O C I I I n i nr U L l U o 1 M C M C o o o o 0 0 i i : r i . 2 DC l _ DC O O - r " •M DC G O C CO'. O . I I DC . i n i L L l U DC X o m n i £ O C < OO o o i- L 1 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. without prohibited reproduction Further owner. copyright the of permission with Reproduced TABLE 26 O TJ C o C D CD CO | 18FR18 SAME BONE SPRL 1 ’M’ o V 3 0 a a J U j u cm m c 18FR18 RADI : SPRL CM L L J - 18FR18 SAME BONE 1 1 s 5 18FR18 SAME BONE RCp-5 2 CO cm lO 18FR18 DEER RADI RCp-5 o> • 2 cm lO m 18FR18 DEER RADI RCp-5 - s CO J - L U O C CM O C DEER ULNA RCp-2 L I CO £ “ T o o L L 00 SAME BONE RCp-7 i L L ▼— CM (0 cm n i 18FR18 DEER RIB EM-8 323 3 cm O C LL co IO II 18FR18 DEER RIB I “ T “ t T T OQ i _ Q l U U L cm CM || 18FR18 TIBI SPRL L L 18FR18 SAME BONE Td-4 1 5 2 MCO CM CO cm CM [ 18FR18 DEER TIBI Td-1 IO CM - v CM || 18FR18 DEER SKLL N/A S-1 CM 2 * T M C [ 18FR18 DEER MAND M-4 2 2 O C CO cm n i 18FR18 DEER MAND M-4 CM o> w “ T * N 18FR18 DEER SCAP o i i L D D 2 O C m 18FR18 DEER 1PHL 1 l U T“ Mh- CM CO 2 O C CM 18FR18 DEER 1PHL 1 L L a: t n i CO CO * ELK FEMR Fd-2 209 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. without prohibited reproduction Further owner. copyright the of permission with Reproduced TABLE 26 •o o o c C 3 CD Oc CO co CO LCL CL CQ lcl cl _] T— — t — ^ . u UJ m o o 1 0 < > 2 o UJ z CO Oin CO 1 T— _J -H 1- Q C CL CQ o CO _l Z IL — * UJ O00 OO O' 00 r- Q C cl CL CQ O' T” l-J _l Z Z il -1 l i JU JU JUJ UJ UJ UJ Ui UJ MCM CM o o < •*r 0<<<< < < < < <0 _i h- 2 CD T— DC 00 L I O' OCO CO 1 CO CL aC QCQ CQ CQ ca in n £ a CL CL _i . u T* o o CL. in _i z a —I OC CO CO CO CL o> CL . . L L CL — y _i z 00 00 1 _J CL r-~ 1^- CL a Q CL L L L L —T“ T— Z .1 OO CL o o in _l il CL CL 00 03 T“ CL _i z CL . . 00 Mo CM 00 1 ^ il < 5 J OCO CO CL QCQ CQ 03 — i L L L L CL T— J U _1 Z Z CL 1. C^ .1 .1 00 o o T— 324 — X D 2 CL CL O CM “ T OO CL — ^ in UJ _l O' CL o o CL ± 2 ■M" T— L L T" Ul CL < 2 Z ■a O0 00 00 CO 00 / nin in C/J Q C o UJ 1 T” 3 y < CL O 2 o o lU UJ Ul Ul -T"“ T- l i CL _J Z V 00 a. _i CM X D 2 CO CL J_j _J CD CM CO . u . u : a —1 CL il o o < Z 2 CD 2 Q CL o o o o CL t _i z T OOO CO — T“ . Q Ml CL CL CO 2 00 i i li. li. li. £ Q U L J - CM V ON* CO Q- OCO CO CM LCL CL Q C o UJ t CO < 5 z o o 00 Ul — i CL o CL III >1 CL h- 2 CO (O o o ▼" in Ul I — V o o 2 T“ in in lUl Ul £ _i CO n CQ i. L L I r r in UJ I — V IT " T O0 CO 00 CO 00 2 T“" 2 < UJ 2 U CO O■n CO Q C ) ( T_ n z U L o o CL 1 J- _i CO n 2 o CL _J CD CM t i. L f UJ _l V 00 — Y Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. without prohibited reproduction Further owner. copyright the of permission with Reproduced TABLE 26 O U-* ■o C o c 13 D ( i - Od CO CL rt m I- O J—I _J III T— " T 0 0 L L Od nin in UJ V “ T CO 1 Q. or I - m (O (O o o >_i z> CO JL CO LU UJ s UJ OCO CO LL dOd Od V CO F- “ 't in O CO CQ CL tr -1 UJ L L _l V co CO — IT) T“ 2 2 5 u T— l i Od UJ co — T (0 < _l u z UJ co CL 1 1 T— CM CM 3 3 3 CO CO CL rtr tr _l F* O JU UJ UJ UJ —T“ T— . u L L L L : a JUJ UJ V V V 2 2 2 0 0 " t oo 1 •M- CM CO OCO CO CO a. . ...1 -.1 -F- r- t 0 0 Od T“ in 00 T— CO T— CL tr CO t UJ —1 T“ oo a: T“ CM CO co CO tr CO n 3 CO CL _l < T- L L Od t in Jca UJ —I V od 0 0 CO — Od o in 2 co L I Od CO < 2 Ul UJ oo CO IJ A. ck 325 1 •M- CM F- o 1 262 7 Od u- y *— 0 0 Od T™ Od 218 Q) CO CM 7 _i OCO CO T OCO CO y T_ IL Od ni in a lUJ Ul :a: a: OC CO CO CO oo - Y OOO CO CM o o> 7 Y“ _i T y L L 0 0 Od Q •V *d 7 a c CO a >y v> T— L I Od ^ MCM CM LU dOd Od oo Y“ CO — 193 Y“ CM o T— i li li. dO Od Od Od 7 Od CO a CO _T_ T_ oo in II.J UJ CO CO in in Od O 2 r- n l_i _l 2 2 TABLE 26 o ■o o c C 3 0) O) o U. TABLE 26 o ■o C. o c a) 3 — T Z l l o c o c - c 2 2 2 3 o 3 D C 3 3 J U J U J - 2 2 < 2 2 2 i _ 2 i — 2 T_ M C O O “ T o o T- o 0 o 0 1— £ O C o o l l £ o o . L L L U o c - 1 2 - T " T O O O D C J — < < l l ■ o o - " t Z O C D C D C l U J U 1 - O I l _ £ L L t 0 0 — O I - f Z “ T L L 2 2 2 i _ . < 5 £ “ T . u ” T — T M C T_ o o L L O I o c 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 2 3 3 3 1 _ J I - I - I - D C J U l U l U U L O ( O **” 5 2 s 2 < 2 < 2 < 2 M C j _ j _ £ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 L L L L L L L L M C - h " T D C D C O D C ? . M C - r " T - r 2 2 £ £ o o ” T T— . u T— M C - - r-~ IO — ^ O o o t L L — - f ^ 1 . T— N O C 2 O < < < < < < < M C ~ T < M C < < i — < £ £ £ 0 0 £ o o " “ T L L “ T 3 3 3 3 L L L L “ T D C J U D C l D U C J U J U J 2 U J U 2 J U 2 O O O M C M C - T - T 1 - L L L L L L 327 M C J - 1 - — T i _ O I o o T— 0 0 o c “ T M C . N L T— - v o c o o t OO O O l — i ~ T o c D ( D C D C 2 D C D C 2 D C 2 D C 2 D C s 2 2 ^ 1 O O j _ L L £ £ £ £ i — T— L L i 3 i _ L L “ T “ T - h . * h o o 1 - M C M C " T 0 0 o o O O O C o o T_ L L O I 3 L L o o 1 - J - 2 * r T— l l O I l _ M C 3 L L * - o o “ T L L 1 2 2 2 3 3 O J _ i _ o - T 2 2 2 2 O C . a l U l U J U L £ £ £ £ £ o c j _ _T_ T_ L I O I O I o o 0 0 0 0 0 0 l o O I “ T L L “ T “ T - l» O C ? ? O O l _ J L i _ 2 o o o o o c o o l i l _ J _ 3 “ T - ' ' I L L M-■ - ■M - ■M T_ L I O C i _ L L 9 < l U l U £ “ T l l M C 2 3 M C T— . " I 2 J U O L L < O O T- L L ■ 328 i n 0 5 CM 0 5 CO CM c o T— i n CM CO c o CM T— CM T“ 0 0 T“T" CM CM ^ — CMCM CM CM o o T“ i n i n C O C O h - LI-CDCQ c a c a c a m c a c a c a c a LL c a u . 2 2 2 L L LL LL O O o > G i 0 5 0 5 0 5 C D 0 5 0 5 0 5 0 5 i n i n i n T“T“ t — CO ■ *p i p ▼ p C O r y o o A. i . 0 0 0 0 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 a . 2 o O O 2 2 2 H i U J U J U l U J U J U J U l U J U J UJUJ CO U l on on on LUUJ U l 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 on _ i on 3 3 3 o O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ( 9 P z z Z Z z Z z z Z Z J- a C l a c a CD c a c a O o o o o o o O o o UJ < < < U l _ 1 - J - J - 1 _J _ J _ l -J-I on 2 on £ £ t E on on on on 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 on on on on on on or, or. or. UJ < < < < < < < < < UJUJ U l L U U l L U UJ U l U J UJ 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 U l U J U l U J U l L U UJ U l U J u _ i _ i _ i _ i - j - 1 — i _ i o u o u o a a Q u CM CMCM CMCM CMCM CM T“T— i n T— T” T- T“ T“ 1 i n ■ ■ ■ * " ■ T— ■ ■M - i i n 1 c o 0 0 0 0 c o c o o o o o c o CO 0 0 c o c o o o o o o o o o c o o o c o 0 0 T— T- T— T- Y“ T“ v r - t — on a : on on on on on on on on on on on on on on on on on on i l LL. L I - L i L L l l L i- L i- L i- l l LL u . LL LL LLLL u. n . i i . LL CO CO OO a s CO c o OOOOOO c o C O o o o o CO o o CO o o CO 0 0 CO T_ T“* T” i— ^— T— ^— T ™ T — T" T- T— T— T— 'T“ T-T-T— Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. without prohibited reproduction Further owner. copyright the of permission with Reproduced TABLE 26 3 T o 0) o c C 3 L . u LL. Z3 ) Z > : . a CO CL CO < J _ o O T“ UL 1 0 ( 1 03 MCO fM Oo CO 2 2 T— —T T— T“ T— o z 03 UJ U_ < 2 UJ 00 o c 1 CL i 2 tt - 1 - I o ) Z ft - 1 z 00 T™ . u rtr rr 1 l U l U . J CO in MCO CM J _ m ) _ 2 01 JUJ UJ UJ UJ - U Q u 01 01 MC ni in in in CM CM co co 2 CO in " T Z3 V ‘ Z T“ J - * T . u - U T— CO rr oo s j _ t T in t T > - £ H JU l U UJ UJ UJ UJ o 1 0 u 01 01 o c T“ T— CO nTt T in ' O N/A CO CO CO M TABLE 26 o V* T3 c C (1) o 3 ZZ CL oz m — T oz O C i _ 18M01 DEER RADI T— w iJ L 2 i. L - h V lO 18M01 SAME BONE 1 _ u 2 M C 1 — 18M01 22 DEER PELV PS-7 0 0 n i ZZ T*“ o n i 18M01 DEER TIBI OZ EM-26 “ T 3 0 “T“ T T“ i - I 18M01 22 DEER TIBI SPRL O C 2 2 O C < 2 l i t 18M01 BONE Td-3 1 T“* 18M01 22 DEER CALC FL o c M C M C OZ T— || 18M01 M C M C DEER ASTR TA-1 t D 2 O C — 18M01 22 DEER 1PHL EM-27 330 M C i. L D o U L 2 M C M C 18M01 ELK FEMR 1 D C M C 18M01 SAME BONE EM-19 ■ ZZ CD T— T"" o D “ T GO 2 O DEER METP SPRL OZ 2 o 18M01 M C M C DEER C4TR TNC-1 ZZ T— I _ O C L C OZ m t j _ 18M01 DEER TIBI — 18M01 SAME BONE EM-17 1 2 T ZOZ OZ i H 2 M C o c O C 18M01 45 BEAV TIBI — M C CL 2 n i O C J U 5 18M01 n i BEAV PS-7 D . a 18M01 LMAM LONG EM-17 M C O C D L L T— M C 2 o co LMAM LONG EM-17 D L 1 M C 18M01 LMAM LONG EM-17 ' Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. without prohibited reproduction Further owner. copyright the of permission with Reproduced TABLE 26 O —< U _C 3 T o c 3 2 - T -. h . u —I Z CD UJ O ■M- 2 2 2 2 T_ 00 2 o U 3 < 2 1 CO 2 tf ft ft ft ft CO to ft Om GO Barker, Alex W. 1992 Powhatan's Pursestrings: On the Meaning of Surplus in a Seventeenth Century Algonkian Chiefdom. In Lords of the Southeast: Social Inequality and the Native Elites of Southeastern North America. Alex W. Barker and Timothy R. Pauketat, editors, pp. 61-80. Archeological Papers of the American Anthropological Associates Number 3. Bastian, Tyler 1974 Preliminary notes on the Biggs Ford Site, Frederick County, Maryland. Maryland Geological Survey, File Report #16. Binford, Lewis R. 1968 Post-Pleistocene Adaptations. In New Perspectives in Archeology, edited by Sally R. and Lewis R. Binford, pp. 313-341. Aldine Publishing Company, Chicago. 1981 Bones: Ancient Men and Modern Myths. Academic Press, Inc., New York. Boserup, Ester 1965 The Conditions of Agricultural Growth. Aldine, Chicago. Boyce, Hettie L. and Lori A. Frye 1986 Radiocarbon Dating of Archeological Samples from Maryland. Maryland Geological Survey Archeological Studies No. 4. Braidwood, Robert J. 1960 The Agricultural Revolution. Scientific American 203:130-148. Broyles, Bettye J. 1971 Second Preliminary Report: The St. Alban's Site, Kanawha County, West Virginia. West Virginia Geological and Economic Survey, Report of Archaeological Investigations, No. 3, Morgantown. 332 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 333 Burt, William Henry and Richard Philip Grossenheider 1980 A Field Guide to the Mammals of North America North of Mexico. The Peterson Field Guide Series, Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston. Butler, Mary 1939 Three Archaeological Sites in Somerset County, Pennsylvania. Bulletin No. 753, Pennsylvania Historical Commission, Harrisburg. Caldwell, Joseph R. 1958 Trend and Tradition in the Prehistory of the Eastern United States. American Anthropological Association Memoir #88. Catlin, Mark, Jay F. Custer, and R. Michael Stewart 1982 Late Archaic Culture Exchange in Virginia: A Reconsideration of Exchange, Population Growth, and Migrations. The Archaeological Society of Virginia Quarterly 37(3):123-140. Chase, Joan 1988 A Comparison of Signs of Nutritional Stress in Prehistoric Populations of the Potomac Piedmont and Coastal Plain. Ph.D. dissertation, The American University, Washington, D.C., University Microfilms, Ann Arbor. Childe, V. Gordon 1971 The Neolithic Revolution. In Prehistoric Agriculture, Stuart Streuver, editor, pp. 15-21. The Natural History Press, Garden City, NJ. Reprinted. Originally published 1951, In Man Makes Himself, pp. 67-72, C.A. Watts & Co., Ltd., London. Cissna, Paul 1986 The Piscataway Indians of Southern Maryland: An Ethnohistory from Pre-European Contact to the Present. PhD Dissertation, The American University. University Microfilms, Ann Arbor. Clark Wayne E. 1980 The Origins of the Piscataway and Related Indian Cultures. Maryland Historical Magazine 75:8-22. Clyde, Virginia 1959 The Shepard Barracks Site. Archaeological Society of Maryland Miscellaneous Papers No. 1:8-9. Cohen, Mark Nathan 1977 The Food Crisis in Prehistory: Overpopulation and the Origins of Agriculture. Yale University Press, New Haven. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 334 Conant, Roger, Joseph T. Collins 1991 A Field Guide to Reptiles an Amphibians of Eastern and Central North America. The Peterson Field Guide Series, Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston. Cowan, C. Wesley and Patty Jo Watson 1992 The Origins of Agriculture: An International Perspective. Smithsonian Series in Archaeological Inquiry. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC. Crane, H.R. and James B. Griffin 1963 University of Michigan Radiocarbon Dates VIII. Radiocarbon 5:228-253. Curry, Dennis C. and Maureen Kavanagh 1991 Field Procedures for the 22nd Annual Field Session in Maryland Archeology: The Rosenstock Village Site (18FR18). Manuscript on file, Maryland Historical Trust, Office of Archeology. 1992 Field Procedures for the 22nd Annual Field Session in Maryland Archeology: The Rosenstock Village Site (18FR18). Manuscript on file, Maryland Historical Trust, Office of Archeology. Custer, Jay F. 1986 Late Woodland Cultures of the Middle Atlantic Region. University of Delaware Press, Newark. Dent, Richard J. and Christine A. Jirikowic 1990 Preliminary Report of Archaeological Investigations at the Hughes Site (18M01). Manuscript on file, Department of Anthropology, The American University. Emerson, Thomas E. 1980 A Stable White-Tailed Deer Population Model and Its Implications for Interpreting Prehistoric Hunting Patterns. Mid-Continental Journal of Archaeology 5(1):117-132. Evans, Clifford 1955 A Ceramic Study of Virginia Archeology. Bureau of American Ethnology, Bulletin 160. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 335 Flannery, Kent V. 1969 Origins and Ecological Effects of Early Domestication in Iran and the Near East. In The Domestication and Exploitation of Plants and Animals, edited by PJ. Ucko and G. W. Dimbleby, pp. 73-100. Gerald Duckworth and Co., London. Flannery, Kent V. (editor) 1986 Guila Naquitz: Archaic Foraging and Early Agriculture in Oaxaca, Mexico. Academic Press, Inc., Orlando. Ford, Richard I. 1985 The Processes of Plant Food Production in Prehistoric North America. In Prehistoric Food Production in North America, Richard I. Ford, editor, pp. 1-18. Anthropological Papers of the Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, No. 75. University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Fritz, Gayle 1983 Appendix C, Analysis of Carbonized Plant Remains from the Moore Village Site. In C & O Canal: Moore Village Site, John F. Pousson. Report on file with the National Park Service. Gardner, William M. 1986 Lost Arrowheads and Broken Pottery: Traces of Indians in the Shenandoah Valley. True Tone Press, Manassas, VA. Gardner, William M. and Victor A. Carbone 1983 Man and Environment in the Middle Atlantic: A Fool's Journey down the Garden Path. Ms. of work in progress. George, Richard L. 1974 Monongahela Settlement Patterns and the Ryan Site. Pennsylvania Archaeologist 41:9-14. Gilbert, B. Miles 1980 Mammalian Osteology. Modern Printing Company, Laramie, WY. 1985 Avian Osteology. Modern Printing Company, Laramie, WY. Gilbert, F.F. 1966 Aging White-Tailed Deer by Annuli in Cementum of the First Incisor. Journal of Wildlife Management, Vol. 30, #1. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 336 Goodwin, R. Christopher 1980 An Archeological Inventory of the Keyser Wastewater Treatment Lagoon Site (46-Mi-41). Report submitted to the city of Keyser, West Virginia. Goss, Richard J. 1983 Deer Antlers: Regeneration Function and Evolution. Academic Press, New York. Gramly, Richard Michael 1977 Deerskins and Hunting Territories: Competition for a Scarce Resource of the Northeastern Woodlands. American Antiquity 42:601-604. 1979 Reply to Webster, and Turner and Santley. American Antiquity 44(4):820-821. 1988 Conflict and Defense in the Eastern Woodlands. In Occasional Papers in Anthropology Number 3, Richard W. Yerkes, editor, pp. 85-96. Department of Anthropology, Ohio State University Grau, Gerald A., Glen C. Sanderson, and John P. Rogers 1970 Age Determination of Raccoons. Journal of Wildlife Management 34(2): 364-382. Grayson, Donald K. 1984 Quantitative Zooarchaeology: Topics in the Analysis of Archaeological Faunas. Academic Press, Inc., Orlando. Griffin, James B. 1944 The Fort Ancient Aspect: Its Cultural and Chronological Position in Mississippi Valley Archaeology. University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor. 1952 Archaeology of Eastern North America. Chicago University Press, Chicago. 1978 Late Prehistory of the Ohio Valley. In Handbook of North American Indians, Volume 15, pp. 547-559. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. Hantman, Jeffery L. and Michael J. Klein 1992 Middle and Late Woodland Archaeology in Piedmont Virginia. In Middle and Late Woodland Research in Virginia: A Synthesis, Theodore R. Reinhart and Mary Ellen N. Hodges, editors, pp. 137-164. Dietz Press, Richmond, VA. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 337 Heisey, Henry W. and J. Paul Witmer 1964 The Shenk's Ferry People: A Site and Some Generalities. Pennsylvania Archaeologist 34(1):1-34. Hillson, Simon 1986 Teeth. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Kavanagh, Maureen 1982 Archaeological Resources of the Monocacy River Region. Maryland Geologic Survey, Division of Archaeology, File Report 164. 1983 Prehistoric Occupation of the Monocacy River Region. In Piedmont Archaeology, edited by Wittofsky, J. Mark and L. Browning, pp. 40-54. Archaeological Society of Virginia Special Publication No. 10. Keegan, William F. and Brian M. Butler 1987 The Microeconomic Logic of Horticultural Intensification in the Eastern Woodlands. In Emergent Horticultural Economies of the Eastern Woodlands, edited by William F. Keegan, pp. 109-128. Center for Archaeological Investigations Southern Illinois University at Carbondale Occasional Paper No. 7. Kent, Susan (editor) 1989 Farmers as Hunters: The Implications of Sedentism. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Kent, Barry C., Ira F. Smith, III, and Catherine McCann 1971 Foundations of Pennsylvania Prehistory. The Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission, Pennsylvania. Linares, Olga F. 1976 "Garden Hunting" in the American Tropics. Human Ecology 4(4):331- 349. Long, Austin and James E. Mielke 1967 Smithsonian Institution Radiocarbon Measurements IV. Radiocarbon 9:368-381. Lyman, R. Lee 1992 Quantitative Units and Terminology in Zooarchaeology. Manuscript submitted to American Antiquity. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 338 Lyman, R. Lee 1993 Density-Mediated Attrition of Bone Assemblages: New Insights. In From Bones to Behavior: Ethnoarchaeological and Experimental Contributions to the Interpretation of FaunaI Remains, edited by Jean Hudson. Center for Archaeological Investigations, Occasional Paper No. 21. MacCord, Howard A. 1964 The Bowman Site, Shenandoah County, Virginia. Quarterly Bulletin of the Archaeological Society of Virginia 19(2):43-49. 1973 The Quicksburg Site. Quarterly Bulletin of the Archaeological Society of Virginia 27(3):121-140. 1992 Appendix I: Recent Potomac Valley Archeological Work and Its Relationships to the Montgomery Focus. In The Montgomery Focus: A Late Woodland Potomac River Culture, Richard G. Slattery and Douglas R. Woodward. Bulletin Number 2 of The Archaeological Society of Maryland. MacCord, Howard A. and C. Lanier Rodgers 1966 The Miley Site, Shenandoah County, Virginia. Quarterly Bulletin of the Archaeological Society of Virginia 21(1):9-20. MacCord, Howard A., Karl Schmitt, and Richard G. Slattery 1957 The Shepard Site Study. Archaeological Society of Maryland, Bulletin #1. Manson, Carl, Howard MacCord and James B. Griffin 1944 The Culture of the Keyser Farm Site. In Papers of the Michigan Academy of Science, Arts and Letters, Vol. 29, Part 4. Pp. 375-418. Ann Arbor. Marshall, Fiona and Tom Pilgram 1993 NISP vs. MNI in Quantification of Body-Part Representation. American Antiquity 58(2):261-269. Mayer-Oakes, William T. 1954 Prehistory of the Upper Ohio Valley: An Introductory Archeological Study. Anthropological Series 2, Annals of the Carnegie Museum 34, Pittsburgh. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 339 McNett, Charles W. 1975 Potomac Valley Archeology. Manuscript on file, Department of Anthropology, The American University, Washington, D.C. Moore, Elizabeth A. 1993 An Examination of the Prehistoric Ceramics form the Shepard Barracks Site ( 18M04). Manuscript on file with author. Munson, Patrick J. 1991 Mortality Profiles of White-tailed Deer from Archaeological Sites in Eastern North America: Selective Hunting or Taphonomy. In Beamers, Bobwhites, and Blue-Points: Tributes to the Career of Paul W. Parmalee, edited by James R. Purdue, Walter E. Klippel, Bonnie W. Styles. Illinois State Museum Scientific Papers, Vol. XXIII, and the University of Tennessee, Department of Anthropology Report of Investigations No. 52. Neusius, Sarah W. 1990 Hunting Strategies and Horticulturalists: The Anasazi and Iroquoian Cases Paper presented at the Sixth International Conference of the International Congress of Archaeozoology, May, 1990, Washington, DC. Norusis, Marija J. 1989 dBASE Stats: the Power of Statistical Analysis for dBASE III Plus and dBASE IV Users. Tate Publishing, Torrance, CA. Olsen, Stanley J. 1979 Osteology for the Archaeologist. No. 3 The American Mastodon and the Woolly Mammoth, No. 4 North American Birds: Skulls and Mandibles, No. 5 North American Birds: Postcranial Skeletons. Reprinted. Harvard University Printing Office , Cambridge, Massachusetts. Originally published 1972 (Numbers 3 and 4) and 1979 (Number 5), Papers of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology Volume 56, Nos. 3, 4, and 5. 1980 Fish, Amphibian and Reptile Remains from Archaeological Sites, Part I, Southeastern and Southwestern United States. Reprinted. Harvard University Printing Office , Cambridge, Massachusetts. Originally published 1968, Papers of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology Volume 56, Number 2. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 340 Olsen, Stanley J. 1985 Mammal Remains from Archaeological Sites, Part I, Southeastern and Southwestern United States. Reprinted. Harvard University Printing Office , Cambridge, Massachusetts. Originally published 1964, Papers of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology Volume 56, Number 1. Otter, Edward 1989 Archaeological Analysis of the Faunal Material from Two Cabin Run Sites (44WR3 & 44WR300) Warren County, Virginia. MA Thesis, The Catholic University of America. Washington, D.C. Page, Lawrence M. and Brooks M. Burr 1991 A Field Guide to Freshwater Fishes of North American North of Mexico. The Peterson Field Guide Series, Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston. Pearsall, Deborah M. 1983 Evaluating the Stability of Subsistence Strategies by Use of Paleoethnobotanical Data. Journal of Efhnob/o/ogy 3(2): 121-137. Peck, Donald W. 1980 Test Excavations at the Nolands Ferry Site, Frederick County, Maryland. Maryland Archeology 12(2):1-10. Peck, Donald E. and Tyler Bastian 1977 Test Excavations at the Devilbiss Site, Frederick County, Maryland. Maryland Archeology 16(1):2-18. Peterson, Roger Tory 1980 A Field Guide to the Birds: A Completely New Guide to All the Birds of Eastern and Central North America. The Peterson Field Guide Series, Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston. Popper, Virginia S. 1988 Selecting Quantitative Measurements in Paleoethnobotany. In Current Paleoethnobotany: Analytical Methods and Cultural Interpretations of Archaeological Plant Remains,e dited by Christine A. Hastorf and Virginia S. Popper, pp. 53-71. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Potter, Stephen R. 1982 An Analysis of Chicacoan Settlement Patterns. PhD Dissertation, University of North Carolina. University Microfilms, Ann Arbor. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 341 Potter, Stephen R. 1993 Commoners, Tribute, and Chiefs: The Development of Algonquian Culture in the Potomac Valley. University of Virginia Press, Charlottesville. Pousson, John F. 1983 C & O Canal: Moore Village Site. Report on file with the National Park Service. Redding, Richard A. 1988 A General Explanation of Subsistence Change: From Hunting and Gathering to Food Production. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 7:56-97. Robins, C. Richard, G. Carleton Ray, and John Douglass 1986 A Field Guide to Atlantic Coast Fishes of North America. The Peterson Field Guide Series, Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston. Rue, II, Leonard Lee 1989 The Deer of North America. Outdoor Life Books, Grolier, CT Schmitt, Karl Jr. 1952 Archaeological Chronology of the Middle Atlantic States. In Archaeology of Eastern United States, edited by James B. Griffin, pp. 59-70. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Service, Elman R. 1971 Primitive Social Organizaiton: An Evolutionary Perspective. Random House, Inc., New York. Severinghaus, C. W. 1949 Tooth Development and Wear as Criteria of Age in White-Tailed Deer. Journal of Wildlife Management 13(2):195-216. Shennan, Stephen 1988 Quantifying Archaeology. Academic Press, Inc., Edinburgh. Sigalove, Joel G. and Austin Long 1964 Smithsonian Radiocarbon Measurements I. Radiocarbon 6:182-188. Slattery, Richard G. 1960a The Winslow Site: A Progress Report of Current Investigations. Archeological Society of Maryland Miscellaneous Papers 2:12-14. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 342 Slattery. Richard G. 1960b The Winslow Site Progress Report 2. Archaeological Society of Maryland Miscellaneous Papers 3:14-16. Slattery, Richard G. 1960c Summary of Current Archeological Investigations at the Winslow Site. Eastern States Archaeology Federation Bulletin 19:11-12. 1961 Progress Report on the Winslow Site. Eastern States Archaeology Federation Bulletin 20:12-13. 1966/1968 The Winslow Archeological Site Montgomery County, Maryland. Manuscript on file at the National Anthropological Archives, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC. Slattery, Richard G. and Douglas R. Woodward 1992 The Montgomery Focus: A Late Woodland Potomac River Culture. Bulletin Number 2 of The Archaeological Society of Maryland. Smith, Bruce D. 1975 Middle Mississippi Exploitation of Animal Populations. Anthropological Papers of the Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, No. 57. The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. 1992 Prehistoric Plant Husbandry in Eastern North America. In The Origins of Agriculture: An International Perspective. Smithsonian Series in Archaeological Inquiry. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC. Smithsonian Institution n.d. Department of Anthropology, notes accompanying collections, accession numbers 186144, 176236, 183968, 191329, 219120, 160002. Snyder, Kimberly A. and April M. Fehr 1984 Data Recovery Excavations at 44WR3, 44WR299, 44WR300 and 44WR301. Report Prepared for the Town of Front Royal Virginia. Speth, John D. and Susan L. Scott 1989 Horticulture and Large-Mammal Hunting: The Role of Resource Depletion and the Constraints of Time and Labor. In Farmers as Hunters: The Implications of Sedentism, edited by Susan Kent, pp. 71- 79. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 343 Stearns, Richard E. 1940 The Hughes Site. Proceedings of the Natural History Society of Maryland, No. 6, Baltimore. 1944 Some Indian Village Sites of Tidewater Maryland. Proceedings of the Natural History Society of Maryland, No. 9, Baltimore. Stuckenrath, Robert 1978 Letter on file, Maryland Geological Survey, Division of Archeology; re: 18FR38 1978 Letter on file, Maryland Geological Survey, Division of Archeology; re: 18FR17 1979 Letter on file, Maryland Geological Survey, Division of Archeology; re: 18FR14 1980 Letter on file, Maryland Geological Survey, Division of Archeology; re: 18FR18. Stuckenrath, Robert and James E. Mielke 1970 Smithsonian Institution Radiocarbon Measurements VI. Radiocarbon 12(1):193-204. Szuter, Christine R. and Frank E. Bayham 1989 Sedentism and Prehistoric Animal Procurement Among Desert Horticulturalists of the North American Southwest. In Farmers as Hunters: The Implications of Sedentism, edited by Susan Kent, pp. 80- 95. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Tidwell, William A. 1967 The Montgomery Focus. Archaeological Society of Maryland Miscellaneous Paper Number 6:11-16. Turner, E. Randolph and Robert S. Santley 1979 Deer Skins and Hunting Territories Reconsidered. American Antiquity 44:810-815. von den Dreisch, Angela 1976 A Guide to the Measurement of Animal Bones from Archaeological Sites. Peabody Museum Bulletin 1, Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 344 Wall, Robert D. 1981 An Archaeological Study of the Western Maryland Coal Region: The Prehistoric Resources. Report on file with the Maryland Bureau of Mines, Frostburg, Maryland. Waselkov, Gregory 1978 Evolution of Deer Hunting in the Eastern Woodlands. Mid-Continental Journal of Archaeology 3:15-34. Waselkov, Gregory 1982 Shellfish Gathering and Shell Midden Archaeology. PhD Dissertation, University of North Carolina, University Microfilms, Ann Arbor. 1983 Faunal Analysis: 1982 Moore Village Excavations. In C & O Canal: Moore Village Site., John Pousson, pp. 167-172. Report on file with the National Park Service. Webster, Gary S. 1979 Dear Hides and Tribal Confederacies: An Appraisal of Gramly's Hypothesis. American Antiquity 44(4):816-820. White, Christopher P. 1989 Chesapeake Bay, Nature of the Estuary: A Field Guide. Tidewater Publishers, Centreville, MD. Witthoft, John 1959 Ancestry of the Susquehannocks. In Susquehannock Miscellany, edited by John Witthoft and W. Fred Kinsey, III, pp. 19-60. The Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission, Harrisburg. Witthoft, John and S. S. Farver 1952 Two Shenk's Ferry Sites in Lebanon county, Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania Archaeologist 22(1):3-32. Witthoft, John and W. Fred Kinsey, III, editors 1959 Susquehannock Miscellany. The Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission, Harrisburg. Wright, Henry T. 1959 A Preliminary Sequence for the Upper Potomac River Valley. West Virginia Archaeologist 1:9-21. 1963 The Herman Barton Village Site (18AG3): A Stratified Late Ceramic Site in the Upper Potomac Valley. West Virginia Archaeologist 15:9-20. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.