Report No.6 VERI'EBRATE REMAINS FROM THE RICHARDS AND PHIlO II SITES by James L. Murphy The Richards site represents a Late Prehistoric Fort Ancient settlement lying on the north lank of the Muskingum River, very near the Philo II site, a similar Fort Ancient riverlank settlement which has yielded a previously analyzed faunal sample (Shane and Barber, 1976. Murphy, 1976). At the time of occupation, circa A.D. 1260, the Richards site lay at the littoral-Beach Forest interface, with the upland Mixed Oak Forest nearby. Maize cultiva­ tion probably provided some forest edge biospace, and the composition of the fauna attests to the presence of some semi-open area, either natural or cre­ ated by the Indians. Shane and Barber (1976) have given a brief reconstruc­ tion of the paleoenvironment of the Philo II site, and little need be added here, except to mention the remarkable accuracy and detail with which David Zeisberger's notes on the Schoenbrunn area some fifty miles to the northeast can be used to describe the original ecology of this region (Mahr, 1949). Zeisberger's notes on the.aQariginal utilization of the primitive environ­ ment are e~ually helpful and applicable to the central Muskingum Valley. The bone sample availq.ble from the Richards site consists of nearly 13,000 items, slightly less than a third of which were identifiable to spe­ cies. Fre~uency data on identified and unidentified bones by class for this sample and for a compar&tive sample from the Philo II site (distinct from the sample analyzed by Shane and Barber) are given in Table I. Shane and Barber (1976) have commented upon the presence of sample bias caused by lack of screening and flotation techni~ues in collecting. While such sam­ pling error seems ~uite likely, and the somewhat smaller percentage of iden­ tified bone at Richards may be due to the institution of some screening in the excavations at that site, it should be noted that the Baum Phase Graham site in the Hocking Valley (McKenzie, 1967) yielded a sample that was nearly 40 %identifiable under circumstances that McKenzie felt precluded selection during excavation. The Richards faunal sample was distributed in 50 refuse pits. The fr~uency of identified vertebrate species is given in Table II, with per­ centage composition based upon number of bones, estimated minimum number of individuals, and total pounds of usable meat per species. Similar data for the the available Philo II sample p lased upon a sample of 8695 items dis­ tributed through 73 refuse pits, is presented in Table III. It is inter­ esting to note that bone preservation seemed to be generally poorer in the Philo II sample; this is reflected in the mean number of items recovered per refuse pit (119.1 at Philo II, compared with 119.8 for Shane and Barber's . Philo II sample and 259.9 for the Richards sample). Carskadden (pers. comm.) states that refuse pits were the same size at both sites. Percentage breakdown of the faunal remains by class shows only rela­ tively small, insignificant differences between the two Philo II samples, insignificant at the 5 %level p for mammals and birds. The statistically significant difference in amount of recovered fish bone in the two Philo II -100­ Frequency of Identified and Unidentified Bone by Class, Richards and Philo II Sites, Muskingum County, Ohio Richards Site Class Identified Bones Per Cent Unidentified Bones Per Cent Total Per Cent Mammal 2,819 21.69 7,372 56.72 10,191 78.41 Bird 553 4.25 1,651 12.70 2,204 16.96 Reptile 411 3.16 0 0 411 3.16 Amphibian 11 .08 0 0 11 .08 Fish 34 .26 146 1.12 180 1.38 Totals 3,828 29.24 9.169 70 0 54 12,997 99.99 Philo II Site Mammal 2,327 26.76 4,913 56.50 7,240 83.27 Bird 276 3.17 812 9.34 1,088 12.51 ... Reptile 299 ·3.44 0 0 299 3.44 Amphibian 1 .01 0 0 1 .01 Fish 18 .21 49 .56 67 .77 Totals 2,921 33.59 5,774 66.40 8695 99.99 samples may be due in part to the fact that Shane and Barber's sample came from an area of the site somewhat closer to the river than did the present sample. Comparison of the Richards sample by class shows a significantly greater amount of bird bone at Richards and a proportionately smaller per­ centage of deer bone. This is a direct reflection of the greater amount of turkey bone represAnted in the Richards sample. Otherwise, the class break­ down of the Richards sample agrees very closely with that of the two Philo II vertebrate samples. The same is true of species diversity, 41 species being identified in the Richards collection, 35 in the available Philo II sample, and 39 in Shane and Barber's sample from Philo II. The most abundant species among the mammals and birds at the Richards site, in terms of minimum number of individuals are deer, turkey, raccoon, gray squirrel, and Indian dog. In the Philo II sample available to me, deer, turkey, and passenger pigeon are the three most numerous species, fol­ lowed by equal numbers of dog, gray fox, raccoon, and gray squirrel. Com­ bining the two Philo II samples gives the following order of abundance: deer, turkeyp raccoon, passenger pigeon, and gray fox. The striking com­ parative scarcity of raccoon in my Philo II sample (1.64 %minimum number of individuals compared to Shane and Barber's 3.68 %) cannot be readily explained. If emphasis is placed upon species contribution to total pounds of usable meat, the line-u~ changes substantially. At Richards, deer remains dominant, followed by elk, turkey, black bear, and raccoon. The order at Philo II is deer, elk, black bear, turkey, and raccoon, according to my data; according to Shane hnd Barber's, the order is deer, elk, turkey, rac­ coon, and bear. The value of thus juggling positions may well be question­ ed, particularly in dealing with pounds of usable meat, if one notes that-­ to take black bear as an example--we are dealing with a single individual in each sample. Furthermore, considerable bias must remain in any compu­ tation of pounds of usable meat per species. Shane and Barber, for example, assign the standard, albeit arbitrary, 100 pounds per individual deer to their 68 deer. If age composition of their deer population is considered, however, based upon their own estimates of tooth wear and using Smith's (1975) estimates of the dressed weight of deer by age class, the Philo II deer sample drops from an estimated 6800 pounds to 4707 pounds, from 76 to 69 %of the total meat • Although I have presented data on the estimated total pounds of usable meat, following Shane and Barber in this respect, it is believed that the estimated minimum number of individuals and percent­ ages derived therefrom provide a more suitable standard for intersite com­ parison of the species composition of faunal remains. In any case, it is clear that the most common species of mammal uti­ lized at these two sites are deer, raccoon, squirrel, dog, and gray fox. Bear and elk, though rare at both sites, are important because of the large amount of meat supplied by even a single individual. By no stretch of the imagination (or data) can they be considered major contributors to the abo­ riginal larder. The mammalian fauna considered as a whole indicates that the Indians utilized all of the ecological zones near the site--riverine, Beech Forest, Mixed Oak Forest, and semi-open forest, a conclusion reached by Shane and Barber for the Philo II site. Mammalian species not reported by them (otter from Philo II and fisher, mink, otter, and muskrat from Richards) would suggest a greater emphasis upon the littoral niche. It may also be emphasized that the bulk of the mammalian species present were at -102­ TABLE II Frequency of Identified Vertebrate Species from the Richards Site, Muskingum County, Ohio .. Scientific Na.me Common Name No. of Per Min. No. Per Total Lbs. Per Bones Cent Individ. Cent Usable Meat Cent Canis lupus gray wolf 6 .16 1 .45 30 .36 Canis famiUaris dog 29 .76 5 2.26 65 .78 Urocyon cinereoargenteus gray fox 31 .81 4 1.81 20 .24 Ursus americanus black bear 7 .18 1 .45 210 2.53 Procyon lotor raccoon 67 1.75 11 4.98 192.5 2.32 Martes pennanti fisher 2 .05 1 .45 14 .17 Mustela vison mink 2 .05 2 .90 1 .01 Mustela vixosa allegheniana least weasel 1 .03 1 .45 Lutra canadensis otter 2 .05 1 .45 10 .12 Lynx rufus oobcat 15 .39 2 .90 2 .02 Marmota monax woodchuck 13 .34 3 1.)6 16.8 .20 Tamias striatus chipmunk 3 .08 1 .45 0.4 .. Sciurus carolinensis gray squirrel 50 1.30 9 4.07 9 .11 Sciurus niger fox squirrel 3 .08 1 .45 1.5 .02 Peromyscus sp. deer mouse 1 .03 1 .45 Ondatra zibethecus muskrat 1 .03 1 .45 2 .02 Castor canadensis beaver 12 .31 2 .90 40 .48 Sylvilagus floridanus cottontail rabbit 27 .71 2 .90 5 .06 Cervus canadensis elk 63 1.64 3 1.)6 1,050 12.65 Odocoileus virginianus white tailed deer 2,484 64.89 62 28 .05 6,200 74.67 To tal Manunal 2,819 73.64 114 51.58 7,897.2 9.5.11 Gavia immer loon 1 .03 1 .45 010r buccinator trumpeter swan 1 .03 1 .45 17 .20 Branta canadensis Canada goose 1 .03 1 .45 6 .07 Anas sp.