A Further Assessment of Paleoindian Site-Use at Bonfire Shelter Author(S): Ryan M
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Society for American Archaeology A Further Assessment of Paleoindian Site-Use at Bonfire Shelter Author(s): Ryan M. Byerly, Judith R. Cooper, David J. Meltzer, Matthew E. Hill, Jason M. LaBelle Reviewed work(s): Source: American Antiquity, Vol. 72, No. 2 (Apr., 2007), pp. 373-381 Published by: Society for American Archaeology Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40035821 . Accessed: 13/01/2012 10:15 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. Society for American Archaeology is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to American Antiquity. http://www.jstor.org A FURTHER ASSESSMENT OF PALEOINDIAN SITE-USE AT BONFIRE SHELTER Ryan M. Byerly, JudithR. Cooper,David J. Meltzer,Matthew E. Hill, and Jason M. LaBelle In Byerly et al. (2005) we explored the hypothesis that the Paleoindian component at Bonfire Shelter was the result of a jump kill. Our efforts involved extensive mapping and GIS analysis, a re-examination of the Paleoindian-age bison assem- blage, and consideration of the geomorphic history of the canyon in which the site is located. Weconcluded that the pre- ponderance of evidence indicated the Paleoindian-age bison remainsat Bonfire Shelter markeda processing site as Binford (1978) suggested, rather than a primary kill locality as originally interpreted(Dibble 1968). Bement (this issue) raises sev- eral concerns about our analysis and discussion, including that we omit pertinent informationrelevant to the interpreta- tion of the site. His comments,however, resultfrom a misreading of our discussion and a misconstrual of the data set, as we explain in this response. En Byerly et al. (2005) exploramosla hipotesis que el componentepaleoindio de BonfireShelter fuese el resultadode una matanzade salto. Nuestros esfuerzos incluyeronla preparacionde extensivosmapas y un andlisis SGI (GIS), una reexami- nacion de la asamblea bisontede fecha paloeoindia y la evaluacionde la historiageomorfologica del canon en que se encuen- tra el sitio. Concluimosque la mayorparte de la evidenciaindica que los restosbisontes de fecha paleoindia en BonfireShelter demuestranquefue un sitio de procesamientotal como sugirio Binford(1978), en vez de ser una localidad de una matanza primariatal como originalmentesepropuso (Dibble 1968). Bement(this issue) plantea variosproblemas sobre nuestroandli- sis, entre otras cosas que omitimosla informacionpertinente que tiene que ver con la interpretaciondel sitio. Sin embargo, su comentarioes el resultadode una mala interpretacionde nuestradiscusiony los datos, tal como explicamosen esta respuesta. et al. (2005) explored whether the how muchof the Late Glacialvalley fill was since Paleoindian-agebison bone assemblageat removed, a matter relevant to the question of BonfireShelter (41VV218) was the result whetherbison carcasssegments could have been of a jumpkill at thatspot, as originallyinterpreted hauledinto this shelter,now -18 m abovethe val- (Dibble and Lorrain1968), or alternativelywas a ley floor. localitywhere carcass parts of animalskilled else- Ourresults, in brief,indicated this would have where were transportedand processed (Binford been an ideal spot for jumping bison relativeto 1978:475).Our study involved three elements: (1) otherareas in the vicinity of the shelter.However, fieldmapping and Geographic Information System it maynot have been so used.Reanalysis of thebison (GIS) analysis of the terrain,in search of drive remainsindicated that skeletal parts present at the lanes or topographicfeatures that might indicate site were more suggestiveof a processinglocality. how animalswere driven toward the cliff edge, and Importantly,we expresslystated this did not speak the feasibilityof doing so; (2) a thoroughreanaly- to howthe bison were killed, only that these remains sis of thebison remains recovered in the 1963-1964 didnot indicate this was the probable kill locus.And excavations,to see if the skeletalelement patterns althoughwe were unable to securely determine indicateda primarykill or secondaryprocessing; where the valley floor was in Late Glacial times, and (3) a study of the geomorphichistory of the evidencesuggested it was perhapsjust a few verti- canyonin whichthe shelteris located,to determine cal metersbelow the shelterentrance, and hence Ryan M. Byerly, Judith R. Cooper, and David J. Meltzer Departmentof Anthropology,Southern Methodist University, Dallas, TX 75275 ([email protected]) Matthew E. Hill Departmentof Anthropology,University of Arizona,Tucson, AZ 85721 Jason M. LaBelle Departmentof Anthropology,Colorado State University,Fort Collins, CO 80523 AmericanAntiquity, 72(2), 2007, pp. 373-381 Copyright©2007 by the Society for AmericanArchaeology 373 374 AMERICAN ANTIQUITY [Vol. 72, No. 2, 2007] hunters who had made a kill nearby were not case? Second, if the facts are as they appear(i.e., impededby the currentlysteep slope. BB2 resultedfrom a jump kill), why does such an Bementcriticized portions of ourstudy, leading anomalouspattern exist in thearchaeological record, with the suggestionwe omitted "pertinentinfor- and how might it be explained (Byerly et al. mationthat is directlyrelevant to the interpretation 2005:626; see also Forbis 1969; Frison 1991)? of the site and to an evaluationof [our] conclu- Some obvious hypothesesexplain the latter.For sions."As we had explicitly called for more evi- example,repeated jump kills on theNorthern Plains dence to resolve the use of this site in Paleoindian (e.g., Frison1991) were probably the result of inten- times (Byerlyet al. 2005), Bement'scomments, as sificationstrategies geared towards the relief of sea- a participantin the work at BonfireShelter in the sonallyconstrained resource limitations, such that early 1980s, are welcome. That said, they do not long-termnutrient storage in the form pemmican significantlyadvance the issue, sincethey are based productionwas implementedto subsidizelean win- on a misinterpretationof our argumentsand avail- ter months (e.g., Reeves 1990; Todd 1987). The able data.Although we arecontent to let ourpaper absenceof such sites on the SouthernPlains indi- standon its merits,we takethis opportunityto clar- catesthat hunter-gatherers in theregion were never ify the natureof the argumentand evidence, and faced with the same limitations,and thereforedid expandon our results. not need to use similaracquisition strategies. Bement(this issue) assertswe committeda log- But, of course,one must resolve the firstques- ical fallacy by reasoningthat the Paleoindian-age tionbefore turning analytical attention to thesecond. bonebedat Bonfire Shelter(BB2) "didnot result Thatis whywe analyzedthe BB2 faunalassemblage, froma jump because no otherPaleoindian jump site the surfacetopography, and the geomorphichistory has everbeen found."Had we actuallyreasoned in of thecanyon, and maintained a firewallbetween the thatmanner, he wouldhave been rightto makethat issue of the largerpatterning in the archaeological claim. However,we did not do so. To be sure,we record,and the empiricalevidence for/against BB2 illustratedthe distributionof bison jump kills in being the resultof a jumpkill. time and space (Byerly et al. 2005:Figures1, 13). Inregard to thatempirical evidence, we deemed Yet,this merely reinforces the point, made long ago it usefulto reanalyzethe bison from the 1963-1964 by Dibble(Bonfire Shelter's original investigator), excavations ratherthan rely on published data, that Paleoindianbison jumps are scarce on the which would do little more than replicateother SouthernPlains (Dibble 1970:252;see also Forbis studies(e.g., Binford1978:475). We realized these 1969:91).We then went on to agree with Dibble dataare biased, most notablythat they come from thatjust becausea phenomenonis rare,that is not a relativelylimited area of the site (Byerly et al. evidence againstany particularlocality, say BB2 2005:605).Those biases, of course,equally hinder at BonfireShelter, being an expressionof thatphe- originalinterpretations of the site. We also did not nomenon (i.e., a bison jump; Byerly et al. reanalyzethe bison from the 1980s excavations 2005:597). Bement's commentabout our reason- but,as explained,that should not materiallyimpact ing is thereforeincorrect and irrelevant. our conclusions,since thatlater sample was small Moreover,if usingthe lack of Paleoindianbison (Numberof IndividualSpecimens [NISP] = 51; jumps as evidenceagainst BB2 being a jump is a Bement 1986:26)and represents a minorpercent- fallacy,then why is it logical for Bementto use the age (< 2.5 percent)of the total remainsfrom BB2 Late Archaicbison bonebed at Bonfire (BB3) as (Byerly etal. 2005:605). evidence/or a Paleoindianjump? (e.g., "Byerlyet Based on that analysis,we calculateda Mimi- al. fail to explorethe implicationsof BB3 which is mum Numberof Individuals (MNI) of 24 to 27 undeniablythe result of LateArchaic bison jumps" Bison antiquus(Byerly et al. 2005:625).Nowhere [Bementthis issue]). The logic cuts both ways, so do we suggestthis is the "totalor ultimate" (Bement too does thefallacy. For that reason, we also explic- this issue) numberof animalsin BB2. The origi- itly