Faunal Resources, Butchering Patterns, and Seasonality at the Eastman Rockshelter (40SL34): an Interpretation of Function

University of Tennessee, Knoxville TRACE: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange

Masters Theses Graduate School

12-1986

Faunal Resources, Butchering Patterns, and Seasonality at the Eastman Rockshelter (40SL34): An Interpretation of Function

Bruce Louis Manzano University of Tennessee, Knoxville

Follow this and additional works at: https://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_gradthes

Part of the Anthropology Commons

Recommended Citation Manzano, Bruce Louis, "Faunal Resources, Butchering Patterns, and Seasonality at the Eastman Rockshelter (40SL34): An Interpretation of Function. " Master's Thesis, University of Tennessee, 1986. https://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_gradthes/4931

This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at TRACE: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange. It has been accepted for inclusion in Masters Theses by an authorized administrator of TRACE: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange. For more information, please contact [email protected]. To the Graduate Council:

I am submitting herewith a thesis written by Bruce Louis Manzano entitled "Faunal Resources, Butchering Patterns, and Seasonality at the Eastman Rockshelter (40SL34): An Interpretation of Function." I have examined the final electronic copy of this thesis for form and content and recommend that it be accepted in partial fulfillment of the equirr ements for the degree of Master of Arts, with a major in Anthropology.

Paul W. Parmalee, Major Professor

We have read this thesis and recommend its acceptance:

Charles H. Faulkner, Walter E. Klippel

Accepted for the Council: Carolyn R. Hodges

Vice Provost and Dean of the Graduate School

(Original signatures are on file with official studentecor r ds.) To the Graduate Council: I am submitting herewith a thesis written by Bruce Louis Manzano entitled 11 Faunal Resources, Butchering Patterns, and Seasonality at the Eastman Rockshelter (40SL34): An Interpretation of Function." I have examined the final copy of this thesis for form and content and recommend that it be accepted in partial fulfillment of the require ments for the degree of Master of Arts, with a major in Anthropology.

Paul W. Parmalee, Major Professor

We have read this thesis and recommend its acceptance: eLlJ. d?.., � U�J� ,L,\� . Accepted for the Council:

Vice Provost ! and Dean of The Graduate School STATEMENT OF PERMISSION TO USE

In presenting t�is thesis in partial fulfillment of the require ments for a Master's degree at The University of Tennessee, Knoxville, I agree that the Liprary shall make it available to borrowers under rules of the Library. Brief quotations from this thesis are allowable without special permission, provided that accurate acknowledgment of the source is made. Permission for extensive quotation from or reproduction of this thesis may be granted by my major professor, or in his absence, by the Head of Interlibrary Services when, in the opinion of either, the proposed use of the material is for scholarly purposes. Any copying or use of the material in this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission. Signature�� L. � Date_j/� .) Lffl_ FAUNAL RESOURCES, BUTCHERING PATTERNS, AND SEASONALITY AT THE EASTMAN ROCKSHELTER (40SL34): AN INTERPRETATION OF FUNCTION

A Thesis Pre�ented for the Master of Arts Degree The University of Tennessee, Knoxville

Bruce L. Manzano December 1986 Dedicated to April Maria May you have the courage to· strive for your dreams and the wisdom to achieve them.

; ; ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I am very grateful to the members on my thesis committee: Ors. Paul W. Parmalee (Chairman), Charles H. Faulkner, and Walter E. Klip pel for their patience and guidance in various aspects of this study. Dr. Faulkner's successful efforts to gain financial support for the initial analysis of the Eastman Rockshelter faunal mateiial is grate fully recognized. Dr. Klippel 's insightful comments about this -study has more than once pulled it back on-track. Above all, I extend my deepest praise and admiration to Dr. Parmalee for his support through out my graduate period at The University of Tennessee. His help and genuine interest in the identification and interpretation of specimens from whichever faunal project I might have been working on is greatly appreciated. Besides my committee members, several other people deserve recog nition for their role in the this study. I am particularly indebted to Mr. S. D. Dean for his unrelentless effort in excavating deposits from the Eastman Rockshelter. His desire to understand the prehistory of northeastern Tennessee has enabled future generations to obtain a glimpse of the past that might never have been realized. Thanks are also extended to the Tennessee Eastman Company and Lynn D. Johnson, Manager of Goverment Relations at Tennessee Eastman for their finan cial support of this study. I extend my appreciation to Dr. William Bass for his constant support of my efforts in graduate school. Additionally, Dr. Jack L.

; ; ; Hofman was always willing to talk about various aspects of prehistoric human rockshelter use and butchering practices. His archaeological perspective never failed to flame my own efforts in the study of human prehistory. Thanks are made to Mary Ellen Fogarty, Lynn Snyder, and Thomas Whyte for their helpful insights on taphonomy, animal butcher ing, cervid use patterning, and wolf behavior. Darcy F. Morey is also praised for his understanding of canid behavior as well as his aid in preparing catfish specimens for thin se�tion�ng. Charlie L. Hall is appreciated for the many discussions we had on the functional role of rockshelters in prehistory as well as for drafting Figure 2.02 and those depicting the location of butchering and canid gnaw marks on the sampled cervid remains. Thanks are extended to Terry Faulkner for drafting Figure 2.01 and Miles W. Wright for producing the photographs used in this study. Mike Morris graciously preformed the soil analysis. Kim Johnson is greatly appreciated for her skill in typing the major tables used in this thesis. I am indebted to Rick Stoops for his patience in teach ing me the basics to word processing with a personal computer. His good humor has made typing this document considerably less difficult. Ann L. Lacava, thesis consultant for the University, deserves praise for her help and encouraging words. To Jeff W. Gardner I extend special thanks for his constant friendship throughout the good and bad times in Knoxville, Tennessee. Finally, I cannot thank the members of my family enough for their never ending support (both spiritally and financially) during the

iv pursuit of my degree. Most of all, however, my wife Cynthia deserves the greatest praise for her unyielding love and encouragement. Al though I owe her the world, I can only pay her back with my love.

V ABSTRACT

This study presents a model on the role the Eastman Rockshelter (40SL34) played in settlement-subsistence systems of prehistoric human groups who once occupied northeastern Tennessee. Expectations gen erated from the model are tested through the analysis of a faunal sample recovered from the shelter. These remains date from the Late Archaic to Mississippian time periods. The fauna i� well preserved and represents a variety of species including the first archaeological occurrence of an extinct fish, the harelip sucker. The model assumes a shift in shelter use from earlier residenti ally mobi,-e hunter/gatherer groups to its later use by task force hunting groups. It predicts that this shift resulted from an increase in human population through time, a greater dependence on agriculture, and a change to sedentary settlement. It was expected that a greater variety of faunal resources would be obtained in later time periods as compared to earlier periods. However, no major difference in taxa diversity was noticed for Mississippian and Woodland deposits. Common species that were identified include white-tailed deer, squirrel, turkey, turtle, and fish. Although Archaic deposits contained less taxa than later periods, this was attributed to the small faunal assemblage size for these deposits. Bone preservation and the diffi culty of separating natural from cultural bone, prevented assigning the identified faunal pattern between deposits soley to human beha vior.

vi Another expectation tested was that cervid butchering patterns especially in the number of filleting marks, would reflect a shift through time from immediate consumption toward one in which carcasses were processed for storage and transport back to more permanent vil lages. Unfortunately, the frequency of filleting marks on the cervid remains sampled was too low to refute or support this expectation. The frequency of Minimal Animal Units (MAU) (Binford 1981, 1984) for sampled cervid remains, however, could be grouped temporally into three categories (Archaic, Early/Middle Woodland, and Late Wood land/Mississippian). Although a shift in roles for the Eastman Rock shelter may be indicated, the presence of canid gnawed bone is dis cussed and an attempt is made to uncover whether the frequency of cervid bone may have resulted from domestic dog activity or scavenging wolves. A third expectation concerns an increase through time in seasonal occupation of the rockshelter. Evidence was generated from analyses of annuli growth measurements in freshwater catfish and bivalves, eruption and wear of white-tailed deer teeth, and the presence of migratory birds. Such data for the post-Archaic time periods suggests an occupation centering on late summer through fall. Although differ ences exist in the number of seasonal indicators recovered between deposits, the overall consistency in site seasonality offers insight into the role this rockshelter may have occupied during human prehis tory in northeastern Tennessee.

vii TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER PAGE I. INTRODUCTION ...... 1 Rockshelter Sites and Archaeology ...... 2 The Rocks he 1 ter Function Mode 1 ...... 5 Model Expectations and Testing ...... 13 II. THE EASTMAN ROCKSHELTER AND ITS ECOLOGICAL SETT!NG . • ...... 16 Location and Physical Description ...... ·...... 16 Physi ograpy ...... 19 Excavation Procedures ...... 20 Ch rono 1 ogy ...... 23 Sediments and Stratigraphy ...... 25 Past and Present Ecological Settings at the Eastman Rockshelter ...... 31 Paleoenvironmental Conditions ...... 31 Modern Environmental Conditions ...... 33 Flora and Fuana ...... 36 Ill. FAUNAL REMAINS AND SPECIES DIVERISTY ...... 41 Identification Method .;-;--...... 41 The Identified Faunal Remains ...... 46 Faunal Resource Diversity ...... 52 Faunal Diversity at the Eastman Rockshelter ...... 56 Alternative Reasons for Faunal Resource Diversity ...... 62 IV. CERVID REMAINS; BUTCHERING PATTERNS ...... 69 Cervid Remains and Patterns of Deposition ...... 73 Bulk Utility Versus Gourmet Utility ...... 74 Eastman Utility Curves ...... 1 •••••••• 79 Butchered Cervid Remains at the Eastman Rockshelter .... 86 Test for Transport Versus Destruction ...... 88 Identification and Description of Butchering Marks •.. 89 Butchering Patterns on Cervid Bones ...... 96 Interpretation of Butchering Patterns ...... 101 Further Research into Butchering Patterns ...... 119 V. CERVID REMAINS: CANID GNAWING PATTERNS ...... 123 Domestic Dog Gnaw Pattern ....- ...... 123 Wo 1 f Gnaw Pattern ...... 129 Canid Gnaw Patterns on Recovered Cervid Remains ...... 135 Sununary of the Canid Gnaw Patterns ...... 152 VI. EVIDENCE FOR SEASONALITY AT THE EASTMAN ROCKSHELTER ...... 154 Faunal Seasonality Indicators ...... 154

viii CHAPTER PAGE VI. (Continued} Assumptions of Analysis ...... 155 Analyses of Catfish Spines and Freshwater Bivalve Shells ...... 157 Catfish ...... 158 Freshwater Bivalves ...... 159 Analysis of Deer Mandibles ...... : ...... 159 Migratory Birds ...... 164 Summary of Seasona 1 i ty Evidence ...... 165 V11 . THESIS SUMMARY ...... 168 Summary of Study Results ...... 169 LISTS OF REFERENCES ...... 173 APPENDIXES ...... • ...... • ...... 190 APPENDIX A. ABBREVIATIONS AND FREQUENCY OF ELEMENTS FOR CERV ID SPEC I ES ...... 191 APPENDIX B. INVENTORY ef ADDITIONAL BUTCHERING MARKS NOT DESCRIBED IN BINFORD (1981, TABLE 4.04} ...... 193 APPENDIX C. DESCRIPTION OF BUTCHERED AND GANID GNAWED CERVID BONE FROM SAMPLED LEVELS AT THE EASTMAN ROCKSHEL TER ...... 195 VITA 217

1x LIST OF TABLES

TABLE PAGE 2.01. Excavated Unit Levels and Those Disturbed by Vandals at the Eastman Rockshelter ...... 21 2.02. Absolute Dates from Samples Obtained at the Eastman Rockshe lter ...... 24 2.03. Chronological Placement of Selected Levels at the Eastman Rocks helter ...... 26 2.04. Particle Size Percentages and pH Levels for Soil Samples from Unit F West Substrata ...... 30 3.01. Distribution of Faunal Elements Identified from Sampled Units at the Eastman Rockshelter ...... 42 3.02. Number of Freshwater Bivalve Shell Identified from Unit A2 at the Eastman Rockshelter ...... 49 3.03. Number of Complete Aquatic Gastropod Shells Identified from Unit A2 at 40SL34 ...... 51 3.04. Additional Species Identified for the Eastman Rockshelter from Scanned Excavation Units ...... 53 3.05. Taxa Diversity Generated for the Eastman Rockshelter .... 58 3.06. Prey Food Items of Raptors that May Have Contributed to the Vertebrate Assemblage Recovered from the Eastman Rocks helter ...... 66 4.01. Frequency of Cervid Remains from Sampled Eastman Rockshelter Deposits ...... 70 4.02. Values for Sheep and Caribou MGUI (Binford 1981:74, Table 3.9 and Caribou (Binford and Bertram 1977:109, Table 3.9) and White-tailed Deer Bone Density (Lyman 1985:Table 2) ...... 75 4.03. Summary of Meat Utility Indices for Sheep, Caribou, and White-tailed Deer ...... 76

X TABLE PAGE 4.04. Frequency of Deer (Odocoileous sp.) and Bighorn Sheep (Ovis canadensis) Remains from Two Rockshelters in North America ...... 87 4.05 Distribution of Cut Marks on Cervid Remains from Sampled Eastman Rockshelter Deposits ...... 99 4.06. Frequency of Elk Remains to all Cervid Bones Identified from Sampled Levels at 40SL34 ...... 120 5. 01. Frequency of Gnawed Bone from an Eskimo Village Dog Yard and Bone Recovered from a Wolf Den In Alaska ... 128 5. 02. Native North American Vertebrate Species Recorded as Food Items for Wolves and Identified from the Eastman Rockshelter ...... 133 5.03. Frequency of Canid Gnawed Bone from Sampled Deposits at 40SL34 ...... 137 6.01. Incremental Growth Measurements on Catfish Spines and Generated Week of Death for Specimens Recovered from the Eastman Rockshelter ...... 160 6. 02. Incremental Growth Measurements and generated Week of Death for C. tuberculata Specimens Recovered from40SL34 ...... 161 6.03. Seasons of Occupation for 40SL34 Generated from Select Faunal Remains ...... 166

xi LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE PAGE 1.01. Major Components of Human Cultural Evolution (Adapted from Earle 1980) ...... 7 1. 02. Potential Variation in Southeastern Prehistoric Human Settlement Subsistence Systems (G = Gathering, F= Fishing, H = Hunting, A= Agriculture) ...... 14 2.01. Location of the Eastman Rockshelter (40SL34) on the South Fork Holston River, Sullivan County, Tennessee 17 2.02. Location of Excavation Grid Units and Dripline at the Eastman Rockshelter ...... 18 2. 03. Schematic of the Substrata Recorded for Unit Profile F West at 40SL34 ...... 27 2. 04. Percent of Sand, Silt, and Clay Versus Datum Depth Caculated for Selected Substrata at 40SL34 ...... 29 2.05. Monthly Climatic and Flood Conditions for the Vicinity of the Eastman Rockshelter ...... 35 3.01. Fish Elements that Show Cut Marks Recovered from Various Levels at 40SL34 ...... 61 4.01. Utility Curves for Human Strategies of Artiodactyl Use (After Lyman 1985: 223) ...... 78 4. 02. Estimated Utility Curve for Level 1 Based on MAU Fre quencies for Cervid Remains and MGUI of Domestic Sheep ...... 80 4. 03. Estimated Utility Curve for Level 3 Based on MAU Frequencies for Cervid Remains and MGUI of Domestic Sheep ...... 81 4. 04. Estimated Utility Curve for Levels 5 and 6 Based on MAU Frequencies for Cervid Remains and MGU I of Domestic Sheep ...... 82 4. 05. Estimated Utility Curve for Levels 9, 10, and 11 Based on MAU Frequencies for Cervid Remains and MGUI of Domestic Sheep ...... 83

xii FIGURE PAGE 4.06. Estimated Utility Curve for Levels Below Levels 12 Based on MAU Frequencies for Cervid Remains and MGUI of Domestic Sheep ...... 84 4.07. Examples of White-tailed Deer Bone Fragments With Butchering Cuts from 40SL34 ...... 91 4.08. Examples of White-tailed Deer Bone Fragments With Butchering Cuts As Well As Evidence of Canid Gnawing from 40SL34 ...... 94 4.09. Location of Butchering Marks on Cervid Elements from 40SL34, Level 1 ...... 97 4.10. Location of Butchering Marks on Cervid Elements from 40SL34, Leve 1 3 ...... 97 4.11. Location of Butchering Marks on Cervid Elements from 40SL34, Levels 5 and 6 ...... 100 4.12. Location of Butchering Marks on Cervid Elements from 40SL34, Levels 9, 10, and 11 ...... 100 4.13. Seasonality of Methods Used in Preserving Cervid Meat Base on Monthly Ambient Temperature Changes for North eastern Tennessee and Cell Division Rates of Bacillus mycoides bacteria (Adapted from Binford 1978:92) ...... 108 1 4.14. Frequency of MAU s for Body Parts (The Swing Population) Consumed by Hunters Attempting to Procure as much Meat as Possible for Storage and Future Use ...... 110 4.15. Frequency of MAU's for Cervid Remains Identified in Level 1 ...... 111 4.16. Frequency of MAU's for Cervid Remains Identified in Leve 1 3 ...... 112 4.17. Frequency of MAU's for Cervid Remains Identified in Levels 5 and 6 ...... 113 4.18. Frequency of MAU's for Cervid Remains Identified in Levels 9, 10, and 11 ...... 114 4.19. Frequency of MAU's for Cervid Remains Identified in Levels Below Level 12 ...... 115

xiii FIGURE PAGE 5. 01. Examples of Canid Gnawed Deer Bone (Proximal Elements) from Various Levels at 40SL34 ...... 139 5.02. Examples of Canid Gnawed Deer Bone (Distal Elements) from Various Levels at 40SL34 ...... 141 5. 03. Location of Canid Gnawed Bone on White-tailed Deer Elements from 40SL34, Level 1 ...... 142 5.04. Location of Canid Gnawed Bone on White-tailed Deer Elements from 40SL34, Level 3 ...... 142 5.05. Location of Canid Gnawed Bone on White-tailed Deer Elements from 40SL34, Levels 5 and 6 ...... 143 5.06. Location of Canid Gnawed Bone on White-tailed Deer Elements from 40SL34, Levels 9, 10, and 11 ...... 143 5.07. Location of Canid Gnawed Bone on White-tailed Deer Elements from 40SL34, Levels Below Level 11 ...... 144 5.08. Test of Eastman Rockshelter Data for Evidence of Destruction of ·cervid Bone ...... 146 6.01. Frequency of White-tailed Deer Mandibles Recovered from 40SL34 Indicating the Season of Death for Deer Up to 20 Months Old ...... 163

xiv CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

This study pertains to the development and subsequent testing of a model on the role the Eastman Rockshelter (4OSL34) played in settle ment and subsistence organization among prehistoric human groups who once inhabited northeastern Tennessee. The site is located in Sulli van County, next to the South Fork Holston River, near Kingsport, Tennessee. The model focuses on the view discussed by Binford (1979:488-492, 1982) and recently tested by Hall (1985) that rockshel ter sites may have, in some areas, functioned as limited activity locations within prehistoric settlement systems. Furthermore, as groups shifted from mobile hunter/gatherers to sedentary horticultur alists, the nature of rockshelter occupations is believed to have become more specialized (Hall 1985:6) . Evaluation of whether or not such a specialization occurred at the Eastman Rockshelter is conducted through the analyses of faunal remains recovered from the site. Presented in this chapter are the ideological principles gov erning this research, the Rockshelter Function Model, and detailed expectations generated from the model involving the site's faunal assemblage. Three main areas of investigations concerning the ar chaeofaunal remains are examined: 1) species diversity, 2) cervid butchering patterns, and 3) site seasonality. These categories form

1 the basis against which the rockshelter model is tested in subsequent chapters.

Rockshelter Sites and Archaeology Traditionally, archaeologists have viewed rockshelter/cave sites as potential sources of information about prehistoric human chronology and lifeways (Binford 1978:489, Straus 1979:331). This position stems in part from the many rockshelter deposits which have contained evi dence of reoccurring prehistoric human occupation, plus datable arti facts in stratigraphic context and well preserved ecofactual remains much of which were recovered within the rock parameters of the shel ters (Straus 1979:332). Based on analyses of recovered artifacts, archaeologists have attempted to establish local and regional culture chronology, identify the shelter's place in prehistoric settlement subsistence systems, as well as identify past environmental changes and their relationships to local human behavioral adaptations (for example,. see Adovasio et al. 1978, DeJarnette et al. 1962, Fowler 1959, Griffin 1974, Klippel 1971, Thomas 1983, Wood and McMillian 1976). Interpretations on the role rockshelter sites may have played in prehistoric Amerindian settlement-subsistence strategies cover the possibilities from short term, transient occupations (Griffin 1974:113, Wood and McMillian 1976:224) to seasonal base camp habita tions (Fowler 1959:57, Wood and McMillian 1976:224) to year round permanent occupations (Cleland 1965). Within this range rockshelters

2 are commonly viewed to have functioned as readily available locations where human groups found protection from the elements specifically during hunting and other procurement excursions to and from more permanent open air habitation sites. Moreover, as a result of the spatial restrictions within most rockshelters, only a limited range of activities are believed to have been conducted at these sites (Hall 1985:1-2, Straus 1979:332-333). Unfortunately, very few archaeological interpretations about t�e functional use of rockshelters have actually been tested (Hall 1985, Vierra 1975). Previous views on rockshelter use originate from ethno graphic analogy about how humans once utilized or continue to use rockshelter/cave sites (Binford 1978, Gould 1977). Most, however, stem from researcher insight about basic human requirements and the physical characteristics of rockshelters themselves. As a simple example, shelters with large amounts of surface area for living space would more likely be occupied-for a greater range of activities than a shelter just big enough to crawl beneath. Similarly, shelters lacking a water source nearby may have been less desirable to prehistoric human groups than shelters with water supplied close at hand. Given the many geologic processes acting upon shelters, altera tions through time in certain physical characteristics of the site undoubtedly occurred (Lavi11e et al. 1980) . Affects from rockfalls and decades of sedimentation or changes in ground water flow, for example,

3 may have transformed the habitability of certain shelters, thus af fecting to some degree long term human utilization patterns at indivi dual site locations (Straus 1979:335). Regional and local environmen tal changes may also affect rockshelter use, particularly if the re sulting fluctuations in plant and animal communities directly impacted prehistoric food procurement and settlement patterns (Wood and Mc Millian 1976:229). In fact, it has been suggested that as seasonal conditions in the environment become more severe and resources become less evenly distributed, "specialized use of caves and rockshelters will increase in relation to residential use" (Binford 1978:492). Consequently, both a shelter's physical characteristics and the en vironment in which it is located may have affected the pattern of human use. In addition to the above factors, the complexity of evolving prehistoric human settlement and subsistence systems is seen as an other critical factor in determining how a particular rockshelter was used prehistorically. What follows is the Rockshelter Function Model which outlines several key points that are deemed relevant for inter preting how the Eastman Rockshelter may have been used by temporally different Southeastern prehistoric groups. Following Clarke (1972:2), a model is used here heuristically in order to present several concise ideas on rockshelter use and to make clear the logic behind the expec tations to be tested.

4 The Rockshelter Function Model As presented in Hall (1985), settlement systems are considered to be expressions of hierarchical arrangements of places which function together to satisfy the exploitative needs of sociopolitically related human groups. Within this hierarchy are a series of site types com monly termed as residential bases, field camps, locations, stations, and caches (Binford 1980:9-12). For the most part, diversity in activities conducted, the number of humans present, and the duration of occupation, are thought to decrease from residential bases to cache sites (Hall 1985:4). Additional variability can be expected, however, because these sites may not always be independently located. That is, in some situations a field camp site might later be used as a resi dential base, or a kill location may also be used as a cache site at which human groups camped later to take advantage of the stored meat (Binford 1980:12). Such potential variation between sites creates a greater range of intersite variability (Binford 1980:12). The greater variability between site occupation means a greater range of within site variabil ity. What may result is a composite assemblage that was "deposited on numerous occasions over a considerable number of years" (Binford 1980:17). Furthermore, the pattern of these deposits, particularly in the case of faunal remains, may not necessarily represent only cul� tural processes·but also a combination of natural processes acting

5 upon the remains. More specifically, the pattern of recovered archa eofaunal remains may be derived from "regularities in the history of site use" including natural processes in such a manner that, although the remains are archaeologically associated, they "may never have occurred together as an organized body of material during any given occupation" (Binford 1982:17-18). In this study, as in Hall's (1985), rockshelters are considered to have functioned toward the bottom of settlement hierarchy (e.g. , limited activity sites) . This means that a smaller number of activi ties are thought to have occurred at these sites. Conceivably, large shelters may mean less potential for constraints and, therefore, a greater range of activities. Nonetheless, the Eastman Rockshelter is considered to have been used overall as a "special purpose site" selected primarily because it is an optimal location for readily available shelter. That i�, when proper planning was employed, pre historic humans who occupied the site could have traveled during their hunting forays, for example, without the added bulk of, or concern for, portable shelter. Through time, dynamics in components of evolving human settlement and subsistence systems in the Southeast, specifically those thought to have influenced the shift from mobile hunter/gatherers to sedentary horticulturalists (Figure 1.01), are anticipated to have correlated with changes in the use of 40SL34 during the Archaic, Woodland, and Mississippian cultural periods. Throughout these cultural periods,

6 Environment Dynamic

Hwnan Population Increasing

// �� -.J Technological Sociopolitical Information Organization tood Foragers-->Food Producers Egalitarian-->Stratified

Figure 1.01. Major components of human cultural evolution (adapted from Earle 1980). settlement and subsistence organizations are believed to have become more complex (Chapman et al. 1982, Custer 1980, Faulkner and McCol lough 1973, Smith 1986, Stoltman 1978). One outcome of this complex ity was increased sedentism corresponding to the change from food foragers/collectors to food producers. This was especially the case as Woodland and Mississippian populations increased and a greater dependency for plant food production developed (Chapman et al. 1982, Cridlebaugh 1984, Smith 1986) . Consequently, it is believed that residential mobility grew less feasible as ·human groups became more "tied down" to specific locations where processing and storage of domestic cultigens took place (Binford 1968, 1980, Cohen 1977) .. Futhermore, as overall mobility decreased, it is believed that a .responsive increase in the degree of logistically organized procure ment strategies occurred. In particular there was a greater implemen tation of

specially constituted labor units - task groups - that would leave the residential locations, gen erally moving some distances away to specifically select locations judged most likely to result in the procurement of specific resources (Binford 1980:10).

For the most part these resources were either transported back to the residential sites or stored in cache sites to be used at a later date. This pattern of procurement stands in contrast to the method used by residentially mobile hunter/gatherer groups who were organized around a foraging mode of resource utilization. Procurement of animal

8 species, for example, was primarily for immediate consumption. As a result, the length of time a site was occupied could vary considerably depending upon the food available (Binford 1980:9). This mode of resource utilization also resulted in the establishment of specialized work parties, but these were generally thought to have left the resi dential site for only short time spans in search of game. Differences between this form of procurement strategy compared to those used in later time periods centered mainly on the time and distance groups spent away from the residential camps plus the general versus the specific choice of game procured. Both logistical and foraging subsistence/settlement systems, however, should be viewed as on a continuum from simple to complex. That is, "logistical organized systems have all the properties of a forager system and then some" (Binford 1980:12). Moreover, human groups at times may alternate between systems depending upon, for example, the season and group size of occupation, plus the animal resources targeted for procurement. Nevertheless, ·as residential mobility decreased in the Southeast, the relative economic potential of different sites is believed to have become more stabilized and the use of special purpose sites, such as rockshelters, became increas ingly repetitive (Binford 1982:20-21, Hall 1985:6). For example, initial occupation of 40SL34 during the Archaic period was by residentially mobile hunter/gatherers who obtained ani mal resources chiefly for immediate consumption. Emphasis was directed toward procuring a few faunal resources which were optimally

9 ----�------,----�-

favorable regarding the unit of time and/or energy expended for energy returned (e. g., white-tailed deer, elk). Activities for storage of meat caches were rarely practiced at the site. Within this period, group mobility, compared to later cultural periods, is believed to have been the least constricted. As a result, the greatest variability in the manner in which the Eastman Rockshel ter was used is thought to have occurred during this early time. Unfortunately, redundancy in site occupation may have been at its lowest. Given the low bulk input of bone in assemblages produced from highly mobile hunter/gatherers, it is conceivable that this would tend to make such human occupations at the shelter archaeologically hard to detect. As noted above, growth in human population and settlement/subsis tence complexity during the Woodland and Mississippian period are believed to have made residential moves to procure animal resources increasingly less feasible. Therefore, procurement strategies for faunal species, particularly those first line resources which were targeted for storage (e. g., white-tailed deer, elk, bear, fish) became more logistically organized. Most notable in regards to the occupa tion of 40SL34, were the hunting task groups which left their residen tial sites in pursuit of these specific animal resources. It is believed that these hunting parties periodically established temporary centers of operation or ''field camps" at the site, and that is where

10 the group ate, slept, and otherwise maintained themselves while away from the residential base. The animals targeted for procurement were processed at or near the shelter chiefly for later consumption. That is, select amounts of meat are believed to have been preserved by the hunting party in order to be cached at the site or transported back to the residential bases for later consumption. To meet the food requirements of aggregated groups at residential sites, hunting groups processed for storage as nearly much of the major animal resources as they procured. This amount was governed by the number and species of animals procured, season(s) they were taken, hunting group's size, and distance from residential sites. Because most of the first line resources were kept in reserve for use at a later time, it is expected that a certain number of animal species deemed unsuitable for storage were procured by the hunting parties for ·consumption at the site. Resources generally consumed in cluded species opportunistically encountered or trapped (e.g., small to-medium size mammals, turtles, mollusks) in a series of embedded procurement strategies (Binford 1979) while hunting targeted first line resources. Other resources that might have been eaten by these hunting groups included portions (e.g., various o:gans) of the tar geted animals considered too impractical for storage (see Binford 1978:110) .

11 Based on the assumption that use of the shelter became increas ingly specialized, particularly· toward a hunting task camp mode of occupation, it is expected that Mississippian groups are believed to have stayed at the rockshelter for shorter lengths of time than Wood land groups. Furthermore, it is assumed that for Mississippian hunt ers, animal protein was becoming a greater limiting factor than for any other prehistory cultural group (Reidhead 1980:174-177). As a result, these groups needed to return with their meat supplies more often than in earlier periods in order to meet the demands of their populated residential centers. For Woodland groups, such demands are believed to have been less apparent. This is because their population was lower than in the Mississippian period and, theoretically, animal protein was more easily attainable. Also, with a smaller overall population, a proportionately larger number of people comprised the hunting groups. Therefore, these groups may have stayed away from the residential bases for longer lengths of time. In a similar vein, because Mississippian groups are considered to have had the largest prehistoric population for East Tennessee (Chap man et al. 1982, Cridlebaugh 1984), the demand to acquire ample meat supplies may have made these hunting groups occupy the site more fre quently than Woodland groups. Unfortunately, determining the archaeo logical difference between the duration of occupation compared to the frequency of occupation may not be easily accomplished.

12 Before the expectations of the model are given, it is important to note that the model ·describes a "normative" view on changes in rockshelter use. That is, the model does not take into consideration the variability in subsistence/settlement systems that may have been expressed by prehistoric human groups who inhabited the vicinity of the Eastman Rockshelter. By viewing the major components of subsis tence systems ... gathering, fishing, hunting, and agriculture (Klinger 1978, Marquardt 1986) in order of their energy input to and utilization by prehistoric human groups, it becomes apparent that the variability in subsistence may have been greater than what was presented in the model (Figure 1.02). Not surprisingly, people living in the same time period usually do not all exist by the same methods. Factors believed to govern such variability include population levels, environmental constraints and access to subsistence informa tion (Earle 1980:22-24). As a result, certain human populations contemporaneous with and materially identical to Mississippian cul tures, for example, may have followed an existence very similar (ar chaeologically at least) to Woodland peoples. If so, this could mean that the pattern of rockshelter use between �hese time periods might be indistinguishable. Testing the model is one way to begin clari fying such potential discrepancies.

Model Expectations and Testing Expectations derived from the model presented above center on three major points. If the functional use of the Eastman Rockshelter

13 AGFH AFGH GAFH GHAF GHFA

AGFH GAFH GFHA GHFA FGHA

AFGH GFAH GHAF GHFA GHF

.....,:. GFHA GFHA GHF FHG FGH

GFHA GFH GHF FHG FGH

Space

Figure 1.02. Potential variation in southeastern prehistoric human settlement subsistence systems (G = gathering, F = fish ing, H = hunting, A= agriculture). became more specialized through time, it is expected that: 1) The diversity of identified taxa will increase reflecting the greater use of animals for immediate consumption by humans at the shelter, 2) Variation in cervid butchering patterns and frequency of elements recovered will reflect a shift in processing.from immediate consump tion to one in which these resources were largely processed for stor age and transport, 3) Seasonal occupation of the shelter will diver sify reflecting the possibility that Mississippian groups returned to the shelter more frequently in the year than earlier cultural groups. Given these expectations, if the analyzed faunal material follows the patterns predicted, then it will be concluded that the model has some explanatory value concerning how the rockshelter was used prehis torically. If, however, the results do not follow the predicted patterns or if no variations can be reliably detected, then the model will be suspected of not representing the role the Eastman Rockshelter played in settlement/subsistence systems of prehistoric human groups who once inhabited northeastern Tennessee.

15 CHAPTER II

THE EASTMAN ROCKSHELTER AND ITS ECOLOGICAL SETTING

Location and Physical Description The Eastman Rockshelter is a deeply stratified archaeological site situated in the Ridge and Valley Province (Fenneman 1938) of northeastern Tennessee. The site is located approximately 0.3 km south of the city limits of Kingsport, Sullivan County, along the South Fork Holston River on land owned by the Tennessee Eastman Com pany (Figure 2.01). ° 1 ° Geographically, 40SL34 is 36 30 37.5" North by a2 32' 12.5" West and approximately 366.0 meters above sea level. It is formed along an inmense bluff of Knox dolomite, Orodivician in age, with a 0 facing aspect of North 85 West. The rock escarpment, locally called "Council Bluff" or "Big Rock Bluff" (S. D. Dean, personal conrnunica tion, 1982), is over 30 meters high and juts over a fault line with Sevier shale, also Ordovician in age (Hardeman 1966). �lthough the projection is slight, it is accentuated by the bluff's great height, which results in the formation of a sizable sheltered area below. Dimensions of this area, as outlined by the noticable dripline, measures 38.7 meters paralleling the bluff wall by 7.3 meters deep at the greatest outward extent of the dripline to the bluff wall. Total sheltered area is approximately 141.0 square meters (Figure 2. 02). Although few rock breakdowns larger than one meter in length were

16 KINGSPORT

I I I I I I I I I I - I -- I

T �· _ (NII U _ -5(-[ - m � _C__. �----c:::O ==== 62 .',: u; i

Figure 2.01. Location of the Eastman Rockshelter (40SL34) on the South Fork Holston, Sullivan County, Tennessee.

17 TER TER NETEft NETEft TENN. TENN. SHEL S S 0.3 0.3 IT 34 34 K K UN VAL VAL UNTY, UNTY, SL SL ROC

-41, -41, .o .o rr rr

INT[ft

c1 c1 e

40 40

N N

v .. ..

SAMPLED SAMPLED

/ " "

� ' the the MAN MAN

OUR OUR + + � �

o 111 111 ST

at at

0 ,- CO

SULLI

r '4

e e

,,,. ,,,. s

� t t

� .-s,,

pl � �

dri

N N . .

and and

. _.,, _.,,

· ·

,- v

ts ts

o s uni

d d ...... _ ...... _ gri on on . .

. .

- 1

. . : t

vat - el ca ex

ksh BLUFF BLUFF of of Roc on on i tman tman Locat Eas 2. 2. 2.0 e e

gur mlflf• mlflf• Fi 5 5

0 0 --... --... -- CX) CX) � � located on the shelter 's ground surface , rock spalls were abundant, particularly at the west end of the site. This end also has a greater slope than the site 's average which on an east-west line is 0. 11 meter in rise for every meter in length.

Physiography The Ridge and Valley Province in which the Eastman Rockshelter is located is part of the Great Valley of East Tennessee , an intermontane belt of parallel ridges and intervening valleys stretching in a northeast-southwest direction for . over 322 km (Amick and Rollins 1937). In Sullivan County, the Great Valley is approximately 64. 4 km wide. It is bordered by the Unaka Mountains on the southeast and the Cumberland Plateau on the northwest (Matzek et al. 1953 :4). Eleva tions of the rolling to hilly terrain surrounding the shelter vary between 488. 0 to 335.2 meters above sea level at ridges and valleys around the site and up to 658. 0 meters on Bays Mountain , located just south-southwest of Kingsport. The South Fork Holston River flows past the shelte� in a north westward direction to converge with the North ·Fork Holston River nearly 2. 41 river km west of Long Island. Long Island is approxi mately 6. 4 km in length. This island is onl y about 0.4 km downstream from the Eastman Rockshelter and comprises a sizable portion of arable land within the local vicinity of the site.

19 Excavation Procedures Excavations at Eastman were carried out by Mr. S. D. Dean , a conscientious amateur archaeologist from Kingsport , Tennessee. Mr. Dean completed his task in two consecutive seasons ; excavations took place from July 1979 through October 1980. During this time , he worked virtually alone to remove approximately 157.41 cubic meters of fill from the site. This sample was hand excavated with shovel and trowel in 15.2 meter square grid units by 15.2 centimeter (cm) arbi trary levels , most of which were dry screened through 0.635 cm hard ware mesh. In all, a total of 29 units was excavated by Mr. Dean . Most were dug during the first season of excavation and were taken to between 167.64 and 198.12 cm below the ground surface. The deepest units to reach bedrock (approximately 366.0 cm below the surface) contained up to 24 arbitrary levels. These deeper levels were dug in the second season of excavation . They were chosen so that Mr. Dean could reduce his scope of work in order to complete the dig before the rockshelter deposits were further vandalized by pothunters as occurred between excavation seasons {see Faulkner and Dean 1982:2). Fortunately, only minimal damage was inflicted on a few of the deeper unit-levels {Table 2.01). Some units contained levels that were well over one meter below the water level of the South Fork Holston River. Consequently , Mr . Dean was hampered by the saturated condition of the fill from these

20 Table 2.01. Excavated unit levels and those disturbed by vandals at the Eastman Rockshelter.

Unit Levels Disturbed Unit Levels Disturbed Al 1- 7 Levels 1-4 E2 1 - 11 A2 1-11 Levels 1-5 E3 1 -24 A3 1 -11 E4 1.:.22 Level 14 A4 1-12 F2 1-11 B2 1 -11 F3 1 -22 B3 1-13 F4 1-22 B4 1-11 Gl 1- 11 C2 1-11 G2 1 - 12 C3 1-12 G3 1-24 C4 1 -17 Level 12 G4 1 -20 D1 1 - 10 Hl 1- 12 02 1- 11 H2 1-13 03 1-24 Levels 13-15 H3 1-22 04 1 -21 H4 1-17 !3 1-20 Levels 1 -11

21 lower unit-levels and as a result, some of this fill was only trowel sorted instead of screened. Toward completion of the excavation, it became apparent that the bedrock surface sloped northward in the direction of the South Fork Holston River. As a result of Mr. Dean's labor, a great amount of archaeological material was recovered from 40SL34. This included a large number of stone tools and debitage, pot sherds, floral and faunal remains, and bone tools. Mr. Dean washed and divided all of it into their dif ferent categories, then bagged and labeled each group separately by provenience. Deposits from levels disturbed by vandals were washed, divi ded into major categories, then bagged separately by excavation unit and labeled as disturbed. In addition to the above, over 60 feature pits/hearths were recorded from 40SL34, the maj ority of which wer� identified in the Late Archaic and Early Woodland levels. The rockshelter excavation also revealed 11 human burials tentatively identified as representing 5 adults (2 males and 3 females} and 6 subadults, 2 of which were · infants. Most burials were in a flexed or semiflexed position. Based on their depth below the ground surface, they extended into Early and Middle Woodland deposits. Because so much material was recovered from the Eastman Rockshel ter, the site was quickly recognized as important to regional prehis toric research. Through the efforts generated by Dr. Charles H.

22 Faulkner, Departmen.t of Anthropology, Uni versity of Tennessee, Knox ville, the Tennessee Eastman Company graciously provided the ini tial funds to identify and analyze this material. Upon completion of the research on 40SL34, a comprehensive although non-technical site re port, edi ted by Dr. Faulkner, will be publi shed by the Tennessee Anthropological Association.

Chronology Lithic and ceramic arti facts, plus carbon-14 (C-14) and thermo lumi nescence (TL) dates indicate that stratified cultural deposits from Archaic, Woodland, and Mississippi an time peri ods are represented at the shelter. Recovered ceramic types were used as key cultural time markers for level s one through 11. Identification of these types was conducted by Or. Charles H. Faulkner. Chronological placement for Levels 12 through 24 was identified from diagnostic lithic artifacts and from C-14 and TL dates obtai ned from samples located in levels 16 and 19 (Table 2.02) . Although arti facts from at least the Early and Middle Archaic cultural time periods were recovered from the shelter, based on C-14 and TL dates these lower levels are now not thought to be as old as they were once reported (see Faulkner and Dean 1982). It is suggested that the earlier cultural remains were either in thin deposits possi bly easily disturbed by Late Archaic inhabi tants or that the earlier artifacts were secondarily desposited from higher, yet older sedi ments at the west end of the rockshelter (Or. C. H. Faulkner, personal

23 Table 2.02. Absolute dates from samples obtained at the Eastman Rockshelter.

Date (Years Before Present) Sigma Lab Number Provenience Material Carbon - 14 4495 55 SI-5359A Feature 49 Wood Charcoal Unit D4 Level 19 4795 60 SI-5359B Feature 49 Fine Charcoal Unit D4 in Soi l Matrix N � Level 19 4575 60 SI-5360 Feature 57 Wood Charcoal Unit G3 Level 16 Thermolumi nescence 3500 1000 H65 Feature 48 Hearth Rocks Unit F4 Level 16 communication, 1984). Consequently, to remove the ambiguity such "mixing" may have had on the temporal placement of the faunal remains examined from non-ceramic levels, they have all been assigned simply to the Archaic time period. Faunal material recovered from the cera mic levels have been kept separate by arbitrary excavation levels that were dated by diagnostic ceramic types (Table 2.03).

Sediments and Stratigraphy Based on Mr. Dean's field notes, profile drawings, and soil samples, the sediments and stratigraphy at the Eastman Rockshelter were evaluated . Overall, the deposits consist of four main strata. Beginning at the ground surface, stratum 1 is a dark humus layer not more than 23. 0 cm deep. It is underlaid by stratum 2, a lighter colored sandy, alluvium approximately 76.0 cm thick. Stratum 3, as noted by Mr, Dean, is a dark organic midden with an average depth of 83 .8 cm. This layer rests upon stratum 4 which is a yellowish-orange clay subsoil that is approximately 183. 0 cm thick. These strata were further differentiated into 18 substrata which were recognizable across most of the excavated deposits (Figure 2. 03). Soil samples from four substrata in Unit Profile F West were selected for particle size analysis. The procedure was performed by using a hydrometer as described by Cornwall (1958 : 128-129). The method dif fered only in that a mortar and pestle was used to break down soil aggregates so that samples would pass through a 2 mm geologic seive.

. .

ksh

Roc

n n

00 00

Present Present

300 300

00 00

the the

00 00

Before Before

000 000

1800 1800

at at

10,

s s

Years Years

ted ted

d d

of of

and and

nd nd

t t

an an

nd nd

c c

ppi

men

Woo

l l

hai

Wood

ace

Wood

e e

y y

e e

Arc

tura

al al

Lat

gic

Chr

. .

l l

11 11

Leve

6 6

& &

3 3

& &

1 1

9 9

12 12

le le

ow ow

5 5

Leve

10 10

Be Ta r

lte

she

)

e 8

il .4

1-----1

of 30

Scale

man

East

unit

Uni

for

14 orded

sub

t L34

40S

2.0

t-'

(1)

(/J

::,"

t-'

H\ x

�

t-'

�

tJj

....a

N The soil analysis revealed three main points about sediments at . 40SL34. First, a general continuity exists between the relative pro portions of particle grades identified throughout the soil samples (Figure 2. 04). The particle size portions support the view that sediments at the shelter are primarily flood loams deposited during periods when the South Fork Holston River overflowed its banks . Sec ond, the slightly greater percentage of clay in Soil Sample 4 from substrata 17 may have originated from the weathering of silts and sands. This can be attributed in part to the great length of time since these sediments were deposited (Thompson 1952:12) . The third point of interest derived from the particle size analy sis concerns the greater percentage of sand in Soil Sample 1 than in the rest of the samples taken. This is believed to reflect a period of renewed aggredation by the South Fork Holston River which followed an erosional episode when little or no alluvial sediment was deposited at the site . · During this episode the Eastman Rockshelter sediments particularly at the outer edge of the sheltered area, were heavily truncated. Eventually, however, river flood deposits along with some colluvial deposits continued to build up the sediments at the shelter. Soil samples from Unit Profile F West also were analyzed to determine the pH levels of the shelter substrata . Measurements were taken electronically as described by Cornwall (1958:168) for all 18 soil samples collected . Although some values may differ slightly from the true soil pH measurement (see Limbrey 1975:57), computed readings ranged from 7.3 to 7.9 for all samples (Table 2.04) . This indicates

28 •

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Stratum 1

60 Silt Stratum 2 \__..

120 ---- Clay e � lJ Stratum 3

+J 180 -- - - C - +J9 ·sand C .J 240

Stratum 4

300

360

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 \

Figure 2.04. Percent of sand , silt, and clay versus datum depth calculated for selected subtrata at 40SL34.

29 Table 2. 04. Particle size percentages and pH levels for soi l samples from Unit F West Substrata.

Unit F West pH Soi l Particle Size % Substrata Levels Sand Silt --Clay

1 7. 6 56.6 16. 2 27.1 2 7. 4 3 7.9 4 7.7 5 7. 7 6 7. 8 7 7. 9 8 7. 5 9 7.9 10 7. 8 46.3 21.3 32.3 11 7.6 12 7. 7 13 7. 7 14 7.9 49. 1 17. 4 33. 4 15 7.6 16 7. 3 17 7. 9 47 .3 16.4 35.9 18 7. 7

30 that sediments at the site are sl ightly alkal ine. Interestingly, pH levels of soil surrounding the shelter are moderately to strongly acidic (pH < 6.0) . Possibly, current pH read ings for the Eastman Rockshelter sediments are the result of calcium and other mineral s from cultural deposits leaching into lower level s. This idea is supported by the fact that local rainfal l favors intense leaching of both soluble and col loidal materials in soi ls of Sullivan County (Matzek et al . 1953:180) .

Past and Present Ecological Setti ngs at the Eastman Rockshelter

Paleoenvironmental conditions. Vertebrate and botanical evi dence for pal eoenvironments of the southern Ridge and Val ley Province re veals that considerable change has taken pl ace prior to the Holocene in the- area of 40SL34 . Remains of caribou (Rangi fer tarandus) reco vered from three caves in Sullivan County and those of muskox (0vibus moschatus) from a paleontological site in Saltv i lle, Virginia suggest extended boreal conditions during the Late Wisconsin glaciation for northeastern Tennessee and areas north wi thin the Ridge and Val ley (Guil day et al . 1975, McDonald 1984). Smal l mammal bone remains from deposits at Baker Bluff Cave in Sullivan County, about 12.5 km south east of Eastman , as wel l as Clark's Cave, Virginia and New Paris No . 4, Pennsylvania also indicate that Late Pleistocene conditi ons al ong this geographic range were boreal in character al though with a some what more equable climate than exists today (Guil day et al . 1978:63).

31 In general, Southeastern plant communities reflected the dynamic nature of the Late Quaternary (Delcourt and Delcourt 1983, Watts 1980) . For example, botanical evidence from Shady Valley in eastern Tennessee (Barclay 1957) and Hack Pond in the Shenandoah Valley (Graig 1969 ) suggest that by the Early Holocene (ca . 9,500 B.P.) climatic conditions were becoming increasingly temperate with mixed mesophytic forest dominating the ridges and valleys (Delcourt and Delcourt 1979: 97-100) . During the Middle Holocene, however, widespread warming and drying trends, classified as the Hypsithermal Interval (Deveey and Flint 1957, Wright 1976) lasted from 8, 500 to 5,000 B. P. for some portions of Tennessee (Delcourt 1979) . By 5, 000 P.B., or possibly somewhat earlier, these trends altered the . composition of southern Appalachian forests in that mesic deciduous stands became restricted to generally moist mountain coves, shaded slopes, terraces, and ra vines . Meanwhile, Oak and chestnut became dominate for much of the Ridge and Valley (Delcourt and Delcourt 1979: 101, Cridlebaugh 1984:87) . To the east in the nearby Blue Ridge Mountains above 1, 524 meters, the forest continued to harbor boreal species such as spruce (Picea sp .) and fir (Abies sp .) as remnants of pre-Holocene environ mental conditions within this geographic region (Delcourt and Delcourt 1979, Whittaker 1956) . With_ the Late Holocene, after 5, 000 B.P., a return to greater yearly precipitation and milder temperatures occurred . This is evi denced by .an increase Jn pitch pine (Pinus rigida) and scrub pine

32 (Pi nus virginiana) throughout much of the central Appalachi ans and where edaphic conditions persi sted in the Southeast. As time pro gressed, however, oak-chestnut forests continued to be dominate within the Ridge and Val ley until the beginning of the 20th century (Delcourt and Del court 1979 :101).

Modern envi ronmental conditions. The present cl imate of the study area is described as temperate and continential (Matzek et al . ° 1953:7). Monthly temperatures vary from a low mean of 3.o C in ° January to a high of 24 .2 in July (Fi gure 2.05a) . The growing sea son, or the period between killing frosts, ranges from 190 to 197 days. Annual mean precipitation is 107 .5 cm with monthly amounts greater than 10 .0 cm occurring in January, March, and July. Accumula tions of snow and ice over 2.54 cm can be expected during December through March . Prevai ling winds in winter and spring are from the west-southwest whi le winds during the summer and fall general ly come from the northeast (Ruffner 1975) (Fi gure 2.05b). In Sullivan County , the short periods and shallow depth at which the ground is frozen results in substantial weathering and translocation of soil materials through the years (Matzek et al . 1953:180). One hundred sixty five years of fl ood records for the South Fork Hol ston River show that major inundations of the Eastman Rockshelter occur during January, Feburary, and March . Prior to the closing of several dams upstream from the shelter (beginning with the Watagua dam in 1948), floods 1.82 meters or more above normal water level , based

33 Figure 2.05. Monthly cl imatic and fl ood conditions for the vicinity of the Eastman Rockshelter. (a) Monthly means of precipita tion and wi nd direction for upper East Tennessee from 1940 - 1970 (Ruffner 1975:916). {b) Seasonal record of floods above 182 .8 cm for the South Fork Hol ston River (Tennessee Val ley Authori ty 1957), (c) Mean monthly ambient temperatures for upper East Tennessee between 1941 - 1970 (Ruffner 1975:916) .

34 HE. a W1nda WSW w.i WSW 'ofSW NE WSW NE NE NE w WSW

13.75 ll,0 _ 12.2!1 � u.so

� 10.75 .,,� 10.0 9.25 ;u f a.so A, 7.75 7.0 6.2!1 s.so J F " A " J J A s 0 N 0 Month b 30

co 2!1 N ...co .. 20 .�ti -� l!i .2

,..0 10 .. .,C Cl /"\ u... s �Cl �\_ ---I 0 J r " A. " J J A s 0 ti o Month C 26 2 4 - //� 22- 20- 18- 0 • 16- •:, 14- � 12- • 10- /// '\ 8 I 6 I \ � . �

0 I I I I I I I I ' I I I J F " A. " J J A. s 0 N- D Month

Figure 2.05.

35 on the Kingsport recording gauge located next to the shelter, on average occurred once every two years. Floods over 4.26 meters had an average rate of one every 10 years. Based on current surface eleva tions at 40SL34 , a 1.82 meters fl ood would cover approximately 45 .0 % of the site whi le a flood over 4.0 meters would cover the enti re site (Fi gure 2.05c). This information supports the possibili ty that floods may have signifi cantly altered the material original ly deposited at the shelter as well as the desirability for humans to occupy the site.

Flora and Fauna. Environmentally. the Eastman Rockshelter is located in the temperate deciduous forest of the North American Caro linian Biotic Province (Dice 1943 :16) . This provincial forest has been categorized into a number of regi ons based mainly on the relative quantities of major plants species. Pre-20th century vegetation of the area. as for most of the Ridge and Valley, was included within what Braun (1950: 35-36 ) has described as the oak-chestnut forest region. Later, Shelford (1963: 36-40) labeled this same region as an oak-deer-chestnut faci ation , noting the role whi te-tailed deer (Odo coileus virgi nianus) had in developing the forest plant community. Before the chestnut bli ght in the 1930s, the oak-chestnut forest in Sullivan County� was dominated · by American chestnut (Castanea denta ta) , red oak (Quercus -fal cata), and white oak (.9..:. alba) on most ridge slopes. Hemlock (Tsuga sp. ), pine (Pinus sp .), and rhododendron (Rhododendron sp.) communities were found at higher elevations of shaded slopes, val leys , and ravines. Forests containing a combination

36 of beech (Fagus gradifolia) and white oak, plus occasionally buckeye (Aesculus sp. ), suggestive of mixed mesophytic communities , were re corded to have occupied slopes with southern exposures. Red cedar (Juniper virginiana) grew abundantl y among limestone outcrops while white oak forests were dominant in the broad val leys (Braun 1950:231- 241 , Matzek et al . 1953:173). These plant communities , like those throughout the Great Val ley, were largely products of soil type, topography, slope direction and climate (Martin 1971) . Biogeographical ly, they can be divided into the same "resource zones" that Mccol lough and Faulkner (1973 :7-12) recognized for the Great Val ley in Loudon County, Tennessee: flood plains, older alluvial terraces , and upl and ridges. Each zone con tained a host of plant species that would have provided native aborig inal groups with a variety of foods to eat. Given the seasonal pro ductivity of the oak-chestnut forest , the carrying capacity of these resource zones are believed to have fluctuated enough in the year to influence when and where prehistoric humans would have obtained cer tain plant foods . Prior to large scale Euro-American settlement of northeastern Tennessee (ca . 1780s) , the _territory around the Eastman Rockshelter contained a rich and varied fauna. It was simil ar to what Mccol l ough and Faulkner (19�3:13-21) listed for the Great Val ley in Loundon County except that possibly more northern species , especially mammals, inhabited the region around the shelter (Smith et al. 1974) and more

37 smaller species of aQuati c molluscs inhabited the South Fork Holston River (Stansberry and Clench 1974). An interesting account of this rich ani mal life was made by Lt. Henry Timberlake who traveled to the Overhill Cherokee villages along the Little Tennessee during the winter of 1761-1762. He began his journey from Fort Robi nson, which was located just east of Long Island less than 0.8 km north of the Eastman Rockshelter (Williams 1932), and went by canoe to the Little Tennessee by way of the Holston and Tennessee rivers. Timberlake recorded that the

.. . brooks were well stored with fish, otter, and beavers ...There are likewise an incred ible number of buffalos, bears, deer, panthers, wolves, foxes, racoons [si c], and opossums ... a vast number of lesser sort of game, such as rabbits, sQui rrels of several sorts, and many other ani mals besi des turkeys, geese, ducks of several kinds, partridges, pheasants, and an infinity of other birds ... . (Williams 1927:69-71)

Undoubtedly animal resources in the vicinity of the Eastman Rock shelter were abundant during prehistoric times. Fluctuations in their numbers, however, from migration of waterfowl, spawning of fish, move ments of some terrestrial species to different biogeographic zones, or the hibernaton of others, altered the abundance and availability of local fauna from season to season . Nevertheless, the shelter contains a host of characteristi cs that prehistori c human groups may have consi dered as favorable when choosing to occupy the site. Among these are the large and unobstructed sheltered area, easy access to water

38 from the South Fork Holston River, and a diverse habitat comprising riverine and upland environmental zones both of which contained numer ous exploitable plant and animal resources. Also, the topography of the area allowed for relatively easy northeast-southwest travel either on land or by river to various portions of eastern North America. This possible travel route is supported by the series of prehistoric Indian trails reported to have existed in the vicinity of the Eastman Rockshelter (Myers 1927). Finally, although there are many prehistoric sites located in the region surrounding the shelter (S. D. Dean, personal communication, 1984), those that have been reported, with few exceptions (e.g., the Camp Creek Site, Lewis and Kneberg 1957), lack the quantity of faunal remains that were present in the Eastman Rockshelter (Boyd 1986, Mccollough 1974, Lafferty 1978, Piper and Piper 1980, Robison 1978). Moreover, the shelter contains one of the best records of prehistoric human occupation so far excavated from a site in the northeastern Tennessee Valley (Faulkner and Dean 1982: 2). This fact is coupled with the knowledge that, except for a short discussion by Faulkner (1978 ) on the prehistoric human use of Baker Bluff Cave located 12.5 km southeast of the Eastman Rockshelter, no other work has been re ported on the native American use of sheltered sites in north eastern Tennessee. Consequently, the prehistoric remains recovered from 40SL34 represent the first opportunity to examine how rockshelters might have functioned within settlement and subsistence systems of

39 aboriginal human groups who once inhabited this portion of North America.

40 CHAPTER Ill

FAUNAL REMAINS ANO SPECIES DIVERSITY

Identification Method A total of 13,330 vertebrate faunal remains was identified from eight of the 29 units excavated at the Eastman Rockshelter. These eight units were selected to obtain an even spatial distribution of the excavation area as well as a sample of remains from all cultural periods recognized at the site. This sample was examined in order to document the variation of faunal resources represented· within the shelter deposits. It constitutes 32. 5 % of the estimated 41, 000 vertebrate remains recovered from 40SL34 (Faulkner and Dean 1982). The remains sampled were identified, for the most part by the author, to their lowest taxonomic level (i.e. family, genus, species) by means of comparison with modern specimens in the Zooarchaeological Faunal Collection, Department of Anthropology, University of Tennessee, Knox ville. Quantification of the remains is based on the Number of Identi fied Specimens (NI SP). These were tabulated by excavation levels for each unit sampled (Table 3.01). The NISP is used instead of Minimum Number of Individuals (MNI), another method to determine relative taxonomic abundance, because NISP is independent of the effects from differentially aggregated archaeological deposits (Grayson 1984:66- 68). With MNI, the analytical choices that researchers may have made

41 N "'- llllllill'W a1,u�111..1a1apu1 N....., 1-.!iL'.illawo(] 1JOJlS sns • Jl - I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

---111 I I I C , 1- I I IN IM I I I I CD n4da ta snAJa:) � N -'aaQ paLJt+a+l�e N.., •snu,�ui6.4" sna1io,opo CD

. lf�OQ I I I,_ I I I I I I I I I I I I •snJnJ iiir, I I I I I I I I I_ I I I I I I I 1___Jt6nOJ JOl0lUO:> snaJ

M 1- 1- I I I I I I I I I I I I ""' "",.,..,,..,,....,Ja,,..llO.., JaAUf •s-isuap,u,�, '"•" 1 _JU_rlJS�l-'lS I I I I I 1- 1 I I I I I I I I I ·� sITNaaw uo 1 "'ll •110 JO+Ol U x:>OJd

.,_I I I I I I 1- 1 I I I I I I I co -,,-----...,"',....!8... E!1i •snut:>iJ.wt snsJn

J I IM- I IM I I I I I I I I I I """"""..,.. "'""" ""=-'"",...... ,....,..x� .nsawoa I - I I I I I I I·- I I I I I I • s iJt�1iwtJ siu•J N -¥"' u llflUOllOJ UJi+StJ a:0 snutp�JOLJ snbttlA LAS SlUilpOH a+tupa.1a+apu1 I I I "' ____ auldn:>.1od I I I I I 1- 1 l,,rI I I I I I I "' •Ul+ts.1op uoz �4.a.13 JiAHQ l�-�-N� INN I I I I I I I s�suapeutJ JOlStJ __')!J � I ,,r ..,_ I I I ---- I I I I I I I - •nu0111 tlOIII.I� - 1aJ.1inb5 5u�lt� u.1a4+nos sui"[oi: skmo:>ntt9 __!U� ..,_ IM I I I I I I I I I I I I I •sn+tl-'lS s,�w,1 --...cc ....M�N ... , I I I I I la.lJlnbs ..,. • ·ds sunps ..-,N..,...-,N ..,. lfJ)!S"W .., e:,�4.aq�z tJlpeuo - llJPOOI'\ \D-M- I I I -- I - I I I - I I "' •euep�.101J ewo+oaN N .., "'C: lV..tU0H0j I I _.N I I f I I I I I I .., �"' •snp�ds �4 uopou6is � 0 _!ill I,_ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I • • ds sn+oJ:> -�C: iw ... asn .1aag I I.,...,.. I I I I I,., I I I I I ::J � ..Q • ·ds sn:>sw0.1ad "i: ·ds +ea a+eu�wa+apuy I I I I I ·= I I I I I I I I I I - _..l!i UM0.18 618 I I 1-N I I I I I .., • sn:,snJ sn:>isa+d3 wnssodo I I I I I I - I-· I I I I I I I "SHt�dns.1ew s�4d1ap�a ...... a, -> ...... C a, 0 :) _. I-

42 Ev � �c: co 0 ,. :::, N-0\000.._.0\UIAWN- < - � I I ,.-" "'Q. II ;- --- w :-0 N I ' I I ' I ' I--• I I I Podil,vmbus podiceps P;ed-b;l led Grebe II - 0

I I I I-· I I I I I " I ' I Indeterminate Grebe II ....:::,

- II ' I I I I I ' I I ' I - I columbianus, �in g Swan -

I ' ' I_, I I I I I I I I Branta canadensis, - Canada Goose

A I ' I I I I I ' I Al I ' I Aix sponsa . Wood Duck

N I ' I I I I I I I I I IN Indeterminate Duck

w I I I I I I WI I I I I I Cathartes aura, Turkey Vulture

I I I I I I I I I I I Bonasa umbel lus. - ' -· R"u1fil Grouse

u, I I-·_, ' I I--- · I Col inus virginianus. Bobwh 1te

0\ O'I I .._.0- .... A00\0,,.,.._.UINW Meleagris gal lopavo , Turkey

-00 I I WI _.._.WN I I IN cf. Turkey

N I I I ' ' I_, I-· ' I I Philohela minor. Woodcock

I I· I I I I I - I I I I I I cf. Strix varia, - Barricfowl-- I I I I I I I I I I I_, Centurus carol inus - I Red-bell ied Woodpecker

I I I I I I -1 ' I ' I ' I I ndetermi na te - Woodpecker c I I - I I I I ' I I I ' ' I cf. anocitta cristata , - Blue 3ay

I ' ' I I ' I I I I I I - I Corvus brachlrhlnchos, - Crow

I I I I I I I I I I - I I I cf. � migra tori us, - Robin

A I I I I I I I NI NI I Indeterminate Passerines .... 0 A00.._.0'l--000'IAUIAA 0\ _,,.,A-WWU'IU'I- O'IN- Indeterminate Bird

00 N U'I \0 00 O'I -W \0 .._. U'I 0\ ,,., U'I N _W...,.000A00U'IU'IU'IO'IO I Tota 1 Bird Table 3.01. (continued)

Reptiles and Amphibians GI a..,,

... "':::, .,,a. ....:, L , .... C7I , 0 GI L ., GI z LL. . , • ->, - "' .llC . a. "O C .... ,a a.a. "' ...... C "':::, ,a. 0 :, .... ., .� ..... V, C C C GI ...... _.,_ GI�o ...... ,0 II � "' a, .,...... >, Ill en GI :, :::, .... "'1- e :, a...... cc GI ::, ,- ..c :I: GI .... :0 ...... -c :, .., .... ,- .. cu .0 "' GI :, ,c t"' ::, ., 0 .... C ...... u..,� .M: uc ... "' C 0 ....� a. :! .... ,a C ...... en :c "' m- ... 0. .., GI I- 'U cum ... "C 0 llf GI "' C -.- "' :::, C GI L"O •0 :, .,, "O 0. .., 0 0. ... I,. C ., GI C JI< C � .... Vl a: .0 C a. �la, � ..., :I: ...... 0 a, .,, "'u.. a, "C .... .0...... 0 S..:> UL en....._ ... CCII , .... .a ...... a. O.llC .., a, .... ::, 0. - GI QI GI .., .., 0 ..... r- a. C ...... , ,- C "' C:::, "O GI ,a en "' ftl 0. ,:, .... a...., ...... C ....0 ::, GI... ,a ...."' C 0 00 0 L '; :::, 0 "' ... Unit S: C .., ::,, a. ux u -� � .... /El ...... uz .... {=. �.g- a:,_"'I - .... level i.,, � .em j� .J:a 6 .J:a 1 m 10 19 30 29 169 257 12 3 15 272 2 1 1 1 2 14 21 6 10 57 108 9 4 13 121 1 1 1 3 6 3 1 35 21 19 11 106 193 3 12 15 208 2 3 6 2 13 4 3 17 16 5 35 167 243 3 8 11 254 1 2 3 6 5 6 2 14 5 3 24 19 9 45 188 288 5 2 7 295178 1 6 1 19 15 11 7 124 177 1 1 2 4 2 1 10 7 3 10 14 21 11 117 176 4 2 6 182 3 8 4 16 8 1 12 1 20 101 141 1 11 12 153 1 3 2 6 137 9 1 15 9 4 10 95 134 1 2 ·3- 87 2 2 9 131 10 14 13 1 11 42 87 2 2 2 1 11 120 37 ' 10 3 48 218 1 219 2 2 37 3 44 12 4 1 112 1 182 300 300 13 1 1 4 6 6

Total 12 283 198 242 193 1400 2328 39 45 84 2412 15 14 27 73 12 141 ,., ..Cl0 ..0 a:, ..M .-C011110--NO\IONNro, INN co.-.--MN- a:, N.. Ja6nes/a a NMMM IM- IN_N_ I I I I ,( l1 ' " N ••ds UOiP•lSOZilS - -NIOO I IONM_II'_I I I t I · I

____!i!dUl I I -I t I I I t I - t I I I I I •·ds S�XOUl>d "J)

IOC0.--111,.._COIONMI t t I I I ---N

$51!8 'fJOij coco.... inNMNN t I - I I I I I s�Jlsadn.1 sal� ldo lqwy -

I I I I I I IN ,_ I I I I I I

C0111IOll1--N I - I I I I I I I C1'I 4S�Jl'I:) M '·dds snJnLlllJI - a:, ,...M

--1110\IO.-.-,-...-NO I I I I - asJ04paij ,-..IO,-..MNMN_N __ C1'I '·dds 'IWOlSOXOW ..C"l

N_,..._N I t - I -- I I t I I I 111 - Ja'fJnS 60H U�J•4lJON I -NNN I IN I I I I I I I I •sue� J6�u wn ila+uadXH

.1apnsd.1eJ I,_ I I ·-- I I I I I I 1,1 • · ds sapo�d.1eJ "0 QI :, ...... ,C Oltlfng - C • ·ds snqoi PI 0 -u IM I ______I_ I I I I I -0 M ., ..., QI .Cl .... > -NM.-111IO,.._C00\0-NM ll1IO� C Cl ...... � ..... ::, -J 45 concerning the aggregation of site deposits greatly effects the out come of this measurement. Because the Eastman Rockshelter deposits were excavated in arbitrary levels, calculation of MNI would no doubt be effected by the choi ces made in the aggregation of these levels. In such cases, the frequencies of taxa in assemblages based on NISP are more likely to represent the actual composition of species within a -site (Grayson 1984:90-92) . Therefore, to arrive at the most accur ate measurement of species composition for this study, the NISP method was used.

The Identified Faunal Remains Mammal remains represent the most numerous class of vertebrate fragments recovered from deposits at the Eastman Rockshelter. They consti tuted a total of 5112 pieces of bone or 38.3 % of the sampled faunal remains. The number of mammal specimens identified to genus or species was somewhat less than th is: 1391 or 27.2 % of the total mammal bones recovered. However, 25 taxa were represented by these identified bones. The most common species was the white-tailed deer (NISP = 832, 59.8 %), followed by squirrel, raccoon, and cottontail. Only 28 (2.0 %) of the identified mammal bones were elk. The remain ing identified mammal species were represented by relatively low frequencies of elements (Table 3.01). Fish bones comprise the next largest group of remains represented at the Eastman Rockshelter. They consi sted of 4843 elements, or 36.3 % of the total faunal assemblage sampled. The number of fish bones

46 identified to the fami ly level or lower was 1363 , 28 .1 % of the sampl ed fish remains. In al l, 13 fish gener� were recognized. The most common of these were Moxostoma , Apl odi notus, and Micropterus (Table 3.01). An interesting .fi sh species that was represented by remains found in the rockshelter faunal assemblage is the harel ip·sucker·, Lagochila lacera . Thi s species has been extinct since around the turn of the century and was only col l ected and described from a few regi ons in · eastern North America between 1859-1893. It is bel i eved that L. lacera preferred medium-to large-size, warm streams of moderate gra dient with relatively low turbiti y and silt levels. Most likel y it migrated and spawned in the spring (Jenkins et al . 1980:407). In al l, 15 wel l preserved harel ip sucker elements were identified from Early Woodland to Mississippian cul tural deposits sampled from the rockshelter (Table 3.01). Because onl y one Lagochila lacera skeleton is known to the scientific community, the recovery of these elements is seen as a significant find for North American icthylology (Wi lliam B. Dickenson , personal communicati on 1986) . A total of 2412 reptile bones (18.1 % of the sampled faunal assemblage) represents the thi rd most common ani mal class identified from the rockshelter. Fourty nine % of these remains were identified to seven taxa (NISP = 1012) . Most of these elements were those of turtl es . Ranked by order of their abundance , aquatic turtles (mud/musk , map/pond, softshel l, and snapping) were common in deposits

47 at the Eastman Rockshelter (total NISP = 730, 78.6 % of all identified turtle remains). Box turtle remains comprise a total of 198 fragments , 21.3 % of all identified turtle elements . Poisonous and non-poisonous snake remains were also identified from the faunal assemblage, however, they represent only 8.3 % (NISP = 84) of the identified reptile bones . Eight hundred twenty two bird bone fragments (6.1 % of the total bones sampled) were recovered from the rockshelter deposits. The NISP was 116 , 14.1 % of the total avid remains sampled. In this sample , turkey elements represented the most abundant species (NISP = 66) , comprising 56.8 % of the identified bird fragments . Thirteen addi tional species were also identified , but each was represented by five or less bone specimens (Table 3.01) . Amphibian remains comprised a total 141 fragments , only 1.1 % of all the vertebrate elements recovered from the eight sampled units at the rockshetler . Although remains from four amphibian taxa were identified , those of bullfrog (Rana catesbeiana : NISP = 27 , Table 3.01) were the most common . Both bivalve and gastropod shells from Unit A2, levels 1 through 11, were identified to establish the general types of mollusk species represented within Mississippian and Woodland deposits at the Eastman Rockshelter (Table 3.02 - 3.03). A substanially less number of bi valve and gastropod shells was recovered from various units-levels below the Early Woodland deposits . Although not quaintified for this

48 Table 3.02. Number of identified freshwater bivalve shel ls from Unit A2 at the Eastman Rockshel ter.

Level Species 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 TOTAL

Fusconaia barnesiana 1 - - - 1 1 3 1 5 3 4 19 Fuscona1a cf. cuneolus ------2 - - - 2 Fusconaia subrotundra 6 1 1 1 7 10 3 3 7 3 4 46 uadrula cyl indrica ------1 - - 1 uadrula intermed1a - - - - - 4 - - - 2 - 6 Ctclonaias tuberculata - - - - 1 1 - - - 1 - 3 Ell i£tio dil atata 2 - - 2 2 6 5 10 10 14 9 60 Lexinatonia dolabel loi des 2 4 1 5 - 7 4 4 3 4 2 36 Pleurobema ovi fonne - - 1 - - - 2 - - 1 - 4 Alasmidonta ma rgi anta - - 2 4 3 1 - - - - - 10 Al asmidonta calceo1us - - - - - 2 - - - - - 2 Pegias fabula 1 - - - - - 1 3 - - 5 10 Lasmi ngona costata 3 - 1 1 - 3 - 1 1 1 2 13 Actinonaias ectorosa 5 - 2 3 7 15 8 6 7 9 13 75 Act1nona1as tigament1na - - - - - 1 - - 1 1 - 3 Table 3.02. (continued)

Level Species 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 TOTAL

Epioblasma cf. capsaeformi s/ E. walker, 2 - - 5 2 20 2 12 9 16 15 83 tp ioblasma ha siana 1 - - 1 3 1 2 2 4 2 - 16 Eeioblasma toru osa - 1 - - 1 5 2 3 1 - - 13 Lampsilis fasciol a 12 1 1 - 4 2 - 5 5 10 - 40 Lamps1l1s ovata - - - 1 1 3 - - - - - 5 Lemiox rimosus - - - - - 1 2 3 3 1 - 10 g; Toxolasma lividus ------1 3 - 4 Medionidus conradicus 12 - - 2 3 9 6 8 13 22 16 91 cf. Proptera a 1 a ta ------1 - - - 1 Villosa cf. iris ------1 - - - - 1 Villosa cf. t"aerii ata - 1 ------1 V1llosa vanuxemens1s ------1 - - - 2 3 Ptychobranchus fasciolare 1 - 2 2 1 2 - 2 3 2 2 17 Ptlchobranchu s subtentum 13 3 1 8 4 32 11 17 22 24 18 153

Total 61 11 12 35 40 126 53 83 96 119 92 728 Table 3.03 . Number of complete aquatic gastropod shel ls identified from Unit A2 at 40SL34 .

Levels lo Camploma Leptoxis Plerocera Total

1 85 1 70 83 239 2 38 0 60 188 286 3 15 0 12 40 67 4 17 0 7 31 55 5 26 0 6 145 328 6 56 1 12 61 130 7 66 1 7 13 87 8 132 3 4 62 201 9 214 53 13 354 634 10 171 54 62 1099 1386 11 83 25 31 491 630 Total 903 138 284 2567 3892 study , the major genera identified include .!£, Actinonaias , Fus conaia. Finally , to insure that as many of the vertebrate species com prising the Eastman Rockshelter faunal assemblage were identified , skeletal material from excavated units not sampled for quantification in this study were scanned for additional species previously not re cognized . As a result , two additional species were added to the list of those already recorded for the shelter 's deposits (Table 3.04).

Faunal Resource Diversity In this part of the study , the assumption presented in the model that there was an increase through time ·in the use of faunal resources at the Eastman Rockshelter was tested. To accomplish this , the fre quencies of identified taxa from deposits that indicated the least amount of cultural mixing were selected as units of analysis . As pointed out in Chapter II, remains from the analytical unit-levels 1, 3, 5 and 6, 9, 10, and 11, and levels below level 12, appeared to be the most appropriate to evaluate this assumption in the model. The pattern that these remains express is given· below, following a brief discussion of the logic behind the measurement of diversity in faunal resources. Archaeologists have lon� recognized the fact that human subsis tence has changed through time. Reasons given include shifts in environments , extinction of key food resources , population changes , and social and technological innovations (Binford 1968, Cleland 1976,

52 m

fro

hel

Rocks

man

Leve

-3

-4

-5

East

G3-2

G3-4

G2-4

enti

Quan

spe

exca

onal

scanne

geon

mig

3. ter

ger

stes

topi

Passen

Spe

Sharp-

Acc

U1 Flannery 1968) . In recent years, socioecological approaches have been used to measure and explain the dietary variability of prehistoric human subsistence. In particular are the assumptions presented in Optimal Foreging Theory which concern relationships between energy procurement costs and ultimately, species survivability through natu ral selection (Pulliam 1974, Pyke , Pulliam, and Charnov 1977, Schoener 1971). Application of this approach for research on aboriginal sub sistence strategies has been helpful. This is especially. the case in matters concerning methods to operationalize variables, to test as sumptions about prehistoric human subsistence strategies, and in ap proaches that try to explain the variability recognized within the paleosubsistence record (Earle and Christenson 1980, Hardesty 1980, Perlman 1980, Winterhalder and Smith 1981) . Application of this body of theory to human behavior, however, indicates that at least three factors are incompatible compared to its use on the rest of the animal kingdom . These are the ability for humans to : 1) eliminate competetors, 2) increase their carrying capa city, and 3) increase their population density over long periods of time . All three factors enable human subsistence to be very flexible (Christenson 1980 :60-61) . As expressed in the Rockshelter Function Model, utilization of faunal resources at the Eastman Rockshelter is predicted to have increased through time. This trend is believed to be specifically connected with an increased specialization of human hunting activity at the site and how it affected the kinds and amounts of animal foods

54 used there. Measurement of this proposed trend was attempted through the calculation and comparison of animal resource diversities for each of the major cultural periods represented at the shelter . This mea surement is defined as the number of different taxa (species or groups of species, e.g., genera) believed to have been consumed at the site regardless of their proportional caloric contributions to the prehis toric diet (adapted from Christenson 1980: 34, 1981:225). In theory , diversity in the number of faunal resources utilized should increase along with increases in human demand until the differ ential procurement costs begin to exceed the maximum yields obtained from the resources (Christenson 1980). Despite the flexibility in food use by humans, continual faunal diversity is not possible due to the finite nature of faunal resources . Furthermore , the range of animal species used is also affected to some degree by 1) human over exploitation and disruption of resource habitats, 2) scheduling con flicts between agricultural work and procurement of wild resources , plus 3) the introduction of new low cost foods that tend to out compete more traditional higher cost items (Christenson 1980:36). Given the above information , it is noted that faunal use by prehistoric human groups for most of the cultural time periods identi fied in eastern North America has been described by some archaeolo gists as fairly diverse (Christenson 1981:226, Griffin 1974:107 , Robison 1981:1, Smith 1975 :9). It is argued here, however , that a trend of increased diversity may be more recognizable for individual

55 sites , especially those that through time have become specialized with respect to hunting. Th is is because at these sites the number of taxon identifi ed have a greater possibility of reflecting the prehis toric human need to expand food production in order to meet the food requirements of a growing human population. At the Eastman Rockshelter in particular , it is expected that through time a greater diversity of ani mal species was procured for immediate consumption in order to offset the increased need to process first line faunal resources for storage and transport back to perma nent settlements. The following section examines this possibility as it relates to the frequency of species identified in sampled deposits at the ·rockshelter.

Faunal Diversity at the Eastman Rockshelter Calculation of the diversi ty in faunal resources at 40SL34 was accomplished by counting the number of distinct species, genera , or families identifi ed from the analytical uni ts noted above regardless of the number of bone elements represented for each taxa. Faunal remains identified to the family level were counted only if no remains from a lower, although related taxonomic class were identified from that analytical unit. The diversity of faunal resources at the Eastman Rockshelter indicates that there was no major change in the number of taxa repre sented between the Woodland and Mississippian deposits. There was , however , a considerable less number of taxa identified for the Archaic

56 deposi ts compared to the taxa diversity recorded for later time per iods (Tabl e 3.05) . Given the smal l assemblage size from these early level s (N = 31) , it was not surprising that the diversity of identi fied taxa was rel ativel y low. This is because as with many archaeolo gical uses of diversity measures , they are prone to the effects from sample size (Grayson 1984 :158) . That is, large faunal assembl ages are expected to have a greater number of representative species than smal l faunal assemblages. Onl y with large faunal assembl ages can an accu rate measurement of diversity and relative proportions of taxa be made (Wol ff 1975: 202). Given the quantity of taxa from Woodland and Mis sissippian level s it is argued that the taxa divers ity from these assemblages are comparable whi le such is not the case for the diver sity of _taxa from the Archaic faunal assemblage. Viewing the Woodland and Mississippian deposits in this light, it is interesting to note the similarities and differences in the kinds of taxa identified. As bri efl y menti oned above , elements from whi te tai led deer , squirrel , raccoon, cottontail , turkey , and various spe cies of turtles and fish were the major kinds of vertebrate remains identified throughout the shel ter deposits. The high frequency of their occurrence is interpreted as refl ecting the importance these species were to the human inhabi tants of the rockshelter. Conversel y, the low occurrence of remains from some species (i.e. bobcat , cougar) suggests that these fauna played a rel atively insignificant role in the subsi stence of humans when they occupied the site.

57 Table 3.05. Taxa diversity generated for the Eastman Rockshelter. NISP Level Cultural Period Mammal Bird Reptile Amphibia Fish Mollusca Total Total 1 Mississippian 11 4 6 4 8 2 35 1828 3 Late Woodland 13 3 7 4 10 2 39 1369 5&6 Middle 11 7* 7 4 9 2 40 2316 Woodland 9 Early 14 4 7 4 10 2 41 2807 10&11 Woodland - - 13-24 Archaic 3 2 2 2 9 31

Including passenger pigeon and turkey vu l ture from scanned levels. Changes in the use of faunal resources is also suggested by the frequency of certain mammal remains. For example, a greater number of bear and elk remains were indentified from Mississippian levels then for other deposits. Perhaps this indicates , as predicted in the model , an increase in the procurement of first line storable meat resources. In contrast , more opossum and dog remains were identified in Early Woodland levels then from deposits attributed to later time periods. While the frequency of opossum remains is problematical (i .e. possibly related to cultural or natural factors) , the greater frequency of dog remains suggests that this animal was more common at the shelter during this time during other cultural periods. This assumption is supported by the pattern of gnawed cervid bones from Early Woodland levels (see Chapter V) , plus the recovery of an essen tially complete dog burial from unit-level Hl-10. Based on the number of unfused epiphyses , the lack of erupted permanent incisors , and the wear pattern of deciduous premolars (Silver 1970: 299) , the dog was between three to five months old at the time of death. Procupine remains were also identified from the Eastman Rockshel ter deposits although none were recovered from levels younger than the Early Woodland time period . This temporal placement is similar to that which was reported by Parmalee and Guilday (1965) for porcupine remains recovered from Late Archaic/Early Woodland sites located in the Nickajack Reservoir in southeastern Tennessee. A single long bone fragment from level 1, tentitively identified as domestic pig , was saw-cut similar to the bones found in center-cut

59 hams (Ziegler 1965:284) . This elements no doubt was recently depo sited. Al though no maj or increase in the number of species identified from post-Archaic level s was noticed, fish were represented by more remains in Late Woodland and Mississippian deposits than in earl ier Woodl and levels (Table 3.01:37). Given that prehi storic North Amer ican human groups utilized fish at least since the Early Archaic (Peterson et al . 1984), and that the methods used to obtain them may not have changed signifi cantly since then (Cleland 1982, Peterson 1984, Rostl und 1952) , it is possible that this increase in fish bones reflects an increase in ·the procurement of these resources. Addi tion ally, a few fish remains exhibited what appear t� be cut marks (Figure 3.01) . Although the quantity of these bones was too smal l for an analysis of fish butchering patterns, their occurrence may indicate that fish were specifi cal ly processed at the shelter possibly for drying and storage. It must be poi nted out that the diversity value for invertebrates was cal culated without regard for genus and species. As a result, they refl ect only the presence of aquatic mol l usks and not the quanti ties of identified taxa (Table 3.05). It is interesting, however, that mol l usks were recovered from each of the cultural deposits at 40SL34. Perhaps this suggests the common use of these aquatic species.

60 Figure 3.01. Fish elements that show cut marks recovered from various level s at 40SL34. (a) Cleithrum (83-1), approximately 4. 44 cm in length , (b ) Unidentified skul l bone (83-1), (c ) Maxil la (G3-6), (d) cf. Unidentified skull bone (G3-9). 61 As noted above, the diversity of faunal resources at the Eastman Rockshelter does not increase through time as predicted in the model but rather remains somewhat similar at least between the Woodland and Mississippian deposits. While it is conceviable that the range of recovered taxa was a product of cultural factors, alternative possi bilities that might have generated some of this diversity are pre sented below.

Alternative Reasons for Faunal Resource Diversity Not suprisingly, a host of factors may have resulted in the diversity of faunal resources recovered from the Eastman Rockshelter. These include dynamics in faunal preservation, biases in recovery, changes in local faunal resources, seasonal variation in human occupa tion and disposal patterns of faunal remains, in addition to the natural factors effecting the accumulation of bone at the site. This section briefly discusses only a few of these natural fac tors and how they may have contributed to the faunal diversity at the rockshelter. For example, the lack of faunal remains within Archaic deposits may be partly due to bone preservation and pH levels of the shelter sediments. Although it was reported in Chapter II that pH levels from Archaic levels were basic, it was also pointed out that the soils surrounding the Eastman Rockshelter were strongly acidic . It is quite possible that the Archaic sediments were initially acidic as well resulting in the destruction of most bones that had been deposited. This assumption is supported by the fact that most of the

62 bone from the Archaic deposits were somewhat chalky in texture. Only later after cultural deposits accumulated with substanial amounts of shell did the lower rockshelter sediments become alkaline enough (possibly from fluvial leaching of the soil), to preserve the remain ing bone fragments. This suggests another reason for the lack of bone in the Archaic deposits namely that during this time floods may have inundated the site more often then in later time periods. This assumption is sup ported by the height of floods that have occurred on the South Fork Holston River (see Chapter II) . Quite possibly, yearly flooding of the site by the river may have removed a substanital amount of bone remains originally deposited during Archaic habitations. Not until sediments accumulated to the height of Early Woodland levels did the potential effects from flooding diminish. A thi"rd factor potentially affecting the diversity of taxa at 40SL34 concerns the natural accumulation of bone at the rockshelter. As aptly pointed out by Guilday and Tanner (1962 :136) and later stressed by Parmalee et al. (1976:144), caves and rockshelters, unlike open village sites, often serve as den or hibernation sites for small animal species such as mice, shrews, snakes, and amphibians. Many of these animals inhabit zones along the rock bluffs of most sheltered sites. Consequently, it is not uncommon for a certain percentage of these species to die within the sheltered area and their bones become part of the archaeofaunal assemblage already accumulating there. Re cently , more archaeologists have recognized the fact that bones from a

63 vari ety of animals found in rockshelter and cave deposits may not be the sole result of human behavior but the product of other animal species such as carnivores (Bi nford 1981 , 1984 , Brain 1981, Haynes 1982) , porcupines (Bi nford 1981, Brain 1981, Dixon 1985) , wood rats (Hoffman and Hays 1985) , and raptors (Brain- 1981, Kl ippel and Parmal ee 1982) . Considered here now are only the bones that potentially may been deposi ted at the site as a result of birds of prey . Concievably, the huge rock bluff that forms the rockshelter may have contained roosting and nesting areas for many raptors species. If birds of prey periodi cally occupied locatons above the shelter area, then most likely a certain portion of the recovered bone may have been deposited by these animals. This i·s largely because remains from pell ets produced by these animals frequently contain undigested bone in various degrees of preservation and are known to accumulate in substantial amounts below roost and nesting sites . An appropri ate account by the French explorer Bossu on the con tent of a golden eagle's nest gives a little insight into the variety of remains that may have origi nated from some raptors.

During my trip up the Tombigbee [1759] , I ran out of provisions, but Providence suppl ied me amply. The Indians , who are real ferrets in the woods , came to inform me that they had discovered the nest of a golden eagle, which is a large species . They came for axes to chop down the tall tree in which the nest was found. They were wel l rewarded for their trouble. In the nest there was a great deal of game of all sorts , such

64 as fawns , rabbits turkeys , grouse , partriges , and· wood pegions . There were al so four young eagl es almost ful l grown which the Indians kept for themselves , much to the consternation of the parent birds , who were so furious that they woul d have torn the eyes from the heads of the Indians had they not been armed with rifles (Bossu 1962: 161) .

A list of food species common to ·most raptors reported to inhabit northeastern Tennessee reveals that a surprising number of the prey species were also represented in the Eastman Rockshelter faunal assem bl age (Tabl e 3.06). If raptors occupied areas above the rockshelter then they would have had the potential to add to the faunal assemblage al ready accumulated at the site. This may expl ain at least some of the diversity in faunal resources recognized from deposits at 40SL34. Possibly detail ed examinations of specific qone destruction patterns for certain species in faunal assemblages from shel tered sites wil l aid in the more precise recognition on whether raptors formed portions of these deposits (Dodson and Wexlar 1979 , Duke et al. 1975). The above examples testify to the potential complexity inherent with assessing faunal diversity at the Eastman Rockshelter. Unfortu nately, in the case of faunal deposits from rockshel ter/cave sites there are as yet few approaches besides the presence of butchering marks that conclusively link the origin of a particular animal to cul tural factors. Although the pattern of burnt bone has been noted by some (Gustafson 1972) as a means to identify the human use of faunal resources , intermittent occupation by humans may resul t in incidential burning of some faunal material (Hal l 1985: 174) . Al so, an

65 Table 3.06. Prey food items of raptors that may have contributed to the vertebrate assemblage recovered from the Eastman Rockshelter. Data based on Craighead and Craighead ( 1969) and May ( 1935).

-"' -"'111 3 ): ::, IQ Ill ,0 .... ·;: ::c 3::, ::, ::c ,a -"' Ill ,a L .... lt ::, 3 C: "C Ill ::c., ., LL -c !: -" 0Q> 0 C: Q> ,a Q.I ., ::, .... ,a ::, ::, LL ., .... 30 u L .... "C -c...., .... ,0 ::, C: Ill IQ Q.I IQ ., ., C: � I ...... IQ -�u "C., L Q.1111 ...... '° en..,. en ,a ::, Ill � E¥ .... C: C: ,a ,a .c .... ::, .c: E·.- >., Q.1�1 .CQ.I Ill .....:c ,0 ::, .... I.LI u en..,. .... o L L .,,::, Or- ,a i., .c Ill ....L .,,I•.... .-- ...... 11� ::c .,- ,a .... >, C: I.LI., >, o c!-;;; ,0 > ., 0 Q.I ,0 0. .:c�- Q.lr- ,a Q.l•.- f u ....:.c ,0 L.,-. 0.· IQ.I IQ.I 1,a �., "C •.- "C ,,- L"C .... u C: �� , L .... ,au L ,0 "C .... "C .... ::, Q. C: 111. L .... �-�, •. i ...... ::L ::, Q.I.C c ::, ,0 .cuu -; o .... 0 -"'I , g Q.I::, Q.I ::, �:0 �� ,0 ,0 Ill ,0 Q.I ,0 ,a �, u .... L::, o Ill t-U a:iu V'lcC U< a: a:i a: a:i a:ia:ie� (!) < CICX oa. �L&. "' , � cot- Prey Species .!= � � .:01 � 01 LI 01 � V'IOI (!)CIC� 01 ..J<

:� + + Shrew + + + Mole + Raccoon + + Weasel + + 0\ Woodchuck + 0\ Chipmunk + + + Squi rrel + + + + + + + + Meadow Mouse + + + + Whi te-footed Mouse + + + Woodrat + Bog Lellllling + + Muskrat + + + + + Cottontail + White-tailed Deer (Fawn) + + + + + + Small Manmal + American Bittern + + + Duck + Grouse Quail + Turkey + Rail + Screech Owl + + Crow + + Small Medium-size Birds + + + + + + + + + + + + Snake + + + + + Lizard + + + + Salamander + Frog + + Fish + + + + Carrion + + + + occasional forest fire may scorch remains exposed on the shelter surface and further preclude the identification potential of this approach (Hoffman and Hays 1986). Clearly, future research is needed on the properties of burnt bone from archaeological context before determinations on the depositional origin of such remains can be made. Another approach used to identify natural from culturally depo sited bone is the relative species completeness index (CSI) (Thomas 1971). This index relies on the fact that human consumption of ani mals tends to "destroy and disperse the bones" of prey species (Thomas 1971:367). It ignores the fact, however, that this is a characteris tic of other mammal (Binford 1981) and some bird predators as well (Dodson and Wexlar 1979). Furthermore, while the CSI of a species may be in part a function of depbsition, it may also be a product of taphonomic events that tend to disperse skeletons (Hill and Behrensme yer 1984) ; problems with sampling and recovery·at the archaeological site (Hall 1985:175) may also be involved. Finally, many small vertebrate species may have been more impor tant in the diet of prehistoric peoples than originally realized (Stahl 1982). Given the variation in methods of preparing these animals for consumpti on, such as eating some whole, bones and all (Binford 1984:143-146, Parmalee et al. 1976:144, Watso� 1969:55) or pulverizing the bones and consuming them with or without the meat attached (Stahl 1982:826), an unequivocal· assessment of the animal species consumed by humans who occupied the Eastman Rockshelter may be difficult to achieve. Furthermore, as will be discussed in Chapter V,

67 discrepancies in the frequencies of recovered animal species may al so result from savenging canids who can eat a large portion of the faunal remains (particularly those of small vertebrate species) already depo sited (e.g., Lyon 1970). Undoubtedly, if one cannot be sure of direct cultural deposition for the taxon counted, then the meaning behind the generated resource diversity index is unclear (Grayson 1984 :167). Therefore, althougn the diversity of faunal resources from the Eastman Rockshelter does not increase through time as predicted in the model , causal ity for the source of deposition for many of the identified taxa has not been estbl ished. With this in mind, attention is now turned to testing the other assumptions in the model .

68 CHAPTER IV

CERVID REMAINS: BUTCHERING PATTERNS

This chapter tests the assumption presented in the Rockshelter Function Model that cervid butchering practices at the Eastman Rock shelter changed through time from immediate consumption strategies to those in which major portions of the cervids procured were processed for storage and transport . To measure if such a shift occurred, a sample of cervid remains recovered from the same analyti cal units used in Chapter III for Archaic through Mississippian cultural deposits, was examined to identify the utilization strategies pr.ehi storic human inhabitants of the shelter may have employed for whi te-tailed deer and elk. Given what is known about such human behavior, the cervids used through time at the Eastman Rockshelter most likely were selected and processed, based on an array of circumstances , into specific anatomi cal segments . Consequently, not al l parts of the animals killed were necessarily brought back to the rockshelter. Emphasis to equate frequencies of recovered bones with the presence of complete animal s deposi ted at the site is beli eved to be an approach that does not reflect the potential variability in prehistoric human procurement and consumption strategies for cervids. Quantifications of remai ns centered on tabulating the Number of Identified Specimens (NISP) , Minimum Number of Elements (MNE), and Minimum Animal Uni ts (MAU) (Table 4.01) . The MAU is obtained through

69 Table 4.01. Frequency of Cerv td Relllil tns fro111 Sampled Eastman Rockshelter Depos tts.

Level 3 Level 5 A 6 Level 9 1 I 11 Level 1 1 � BelowLevel 11 NisP Mt £ MAO MAOi NISP MN£ AXu MAUI NISP MN£ MAU Anatomtcal MAO MAUI NISP AN 0 MADI NISP MN£ MAUI Part (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) ( 12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) (18) (19) (20)

ANT 0 0 0 0 4 - - 34 - 18 - - 0 0 0 0 SK 2 4 - - 13 - 27 - - 0 0 0 0 MAX z z 1.0 50.0 5 5 2.5 100.0 0 0 0 0 9 9 4.5 30.0 0 0 0 0 PREHAX 2 2 1.0 50 .0 1 1 0.5 20 .0 1 l 1.0 14.0 2 2 1.0 6.0 0 0 0 0 MAND 3 3 1.5 75.0 2 2 1.0 40.0 14 14 7.0 100.0 30 30 15.0 100.0 0 0 0 0 HYOID 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 1.5 21.0 1 l 0.5 3.0 0 0 0 0 AT 0 0 0 0 1 1 1.0 40.0 0 0 0 0 1 l 1.0 6.0 0 0 0 0 AX 0 0 0 0 1 1 1.0 40 .0 2 2 2.0 29.0 1 1 1.0 6.0 0 0 0 0 CERV 4 4 0.8 40.0 3 3 0,6 24 .0 11 11 2.2 31.0 9 9 1.8 12.0 0 0 0 0 THOR 17 17 1.3 65.0 7 7 0.5 21.0 10 10 0.7 11.0 13 13 1.0 6.0 0 0 0 0 LUM 2 2 0.3 16.5 7 7 1.2 48.0 7 7 1.2 17.0 25 25 4.2 28.0 0 0 0 0 PELV 3 3 1.5 75.0 2 2 1.0 40,0 11 11 5.5 79-.0 22 22 11.0 73.0 0 0 0 0 SAC 1 1 0.1 0.05 0 0 0 0 1 l 0,08 0.01 1 1 14.0 0.9 0 0 0 0 R 31 18 0.7 35.0 9 9 0.35 14.0 54 46 1.78 25.0 75 51 1.9 13.0 0 0 0 0 ST 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SC 2 2 1.0 50 .0 0 0 0 0 5 5 2.5 36.0 9 9 4.5 30.0 0 0 0 0 H 0 4 - - 3 - 11 - 0 0 0 0 PH 0 0 0 0 1 1 0.5 20.0 0 0 0 0 3 3 1.5 10.0 0 0 0 0 DH 4 4 2.0 100.0 1 1 0.5 20.0 4 4 2.0 29.0 4 4 2.0 13.0 0 0 0 0 11 18 -J RC 3 2 - - - 0 0 0 0 0 PRC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 5 1.2 18.0 19 19 9.5 63.0 0 0 0 0 DRC 2 2 0.5 25 .0 l 1 0.25 10.0 2 2 1.0 14.0 2 2 1.0 6.0 0 0 0 0 CARP 6 6 0.5 25.0 l 1 0.08 3.0 6 6 0.5 7.1 9 9 0.7 5.0 0 0 0 0 MC 12 8 - 27 49 - 2 - PMC 1 1 0.5 25.0 l 1 0.5 20.0 9 9 4,5 64 .2 23 22 11.0 73.0 3 3 1,5 75.0 DMC 1 1 0.5 25 .0 1 1 0.5 20.0 4 4 2.0 28.5 9 4 2.0 13.0 0 0 0 0 F 1 0 - 6 - 24 - 0 0 0 0 PF 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 4 2.0 28,5 8 8 4.0 26.0 0 0 0 0 OF 2 2 1.0 50 .0 2 2 1.0 40.0 2 2 1.0 14.0 7 7 3.5 23.0 0 0 0 0 PATE 0 0 0 0 1 l 0.5 20.0 0 0 0 0 1 1 o.5 3.3 0 0 0 0 T 0 7 - 7 26 - - 0 0 0 0 PT 1 l 0.5 25 .0 2 2 1.0 40.0 8 8 4.0 57.0 23 23 11.5 76.0 0 0 0 0 OT 0 0 0 0 2 2 1.0 40.0 4 4 2.0 28.0 9 9 4.5 30.0 0 0 0 0 TAR 1 l 0.1 5.0 2 2 1.2 8.0 7 7 0.7 10.0 7 7 0.7 46.0 0 0 0 0 AST 1 1 0.5 25.0 0 0 0 0 3 . 3 1.5 21.0 8 8 4.0 26 .0 0 0 0 0 CAL 1 1 0.5 25 .0 1 1 0.5 20.0 3 3 1.5 21.0 10 10 5.0 33.0 0 0 0 0 MT 10 18 - - 50 - 52 - - 3 - PHT 0 0 0 0 2 2 1.0 40.0 10 10 �.o 71.0 16 16 8.0 53.0 4 4 2.0 100.0 OHT 0 0 0 0 l l 0.5 20.0 6 6 3.0 . 42.8 1 1 0.5 3.0 0 0 0 0 PHAL-1 3 3 0.37 18.5 8 8 1.0 40.0 35 35 4.4 63,0 40 40 5.0 33.0 0 0 0 0 PHAL-2 l l 0.1-2 6.0 7 7 0.88 35.0 22 22 2.8 40,0 19 19 2.4 16,0 0 0 0 0 PHAL-3 5 5 0.61 31.0 3 3 0.38 15.0 18 18 2.3 33.0 25 25 3. l 21.0 0 0 0 0 AUX MP 0 0 0 0 2 2 0.25 10.0 4 4 0.5 7.0 4 4 0.5 3,0 0 0 0 0 AUX PHAL-1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 4 0.5 7.0 5 5 0.6 4.0 0 0 0 0 AUX PHAL-2 3 3 0.37 18.5 3 3 0.38 35.0 5 5 0.6 9,5 8, 8 1.0 6,0 0 0 0 0

Total 127 86 127 80 435 276 683 428 12 ------,------�-

dividing the MNE count by the number of that parti cular el�ment found in the skeleton of the animal identified. For example, the MNE for distal humeri in level 1 is four (Table 4.01). This number is divi ded by two which is the number of distal humeri represented in cervid skeletons (see Appendix A for the abbreviations and frequencies of cervid elements used in this study) . The number that results, 2.0 is the MAU val ue for that element from level 1 (Table 4.01). The MAU does not represent the number of animals that were killed to account for the assemblage studied, but rather it is used as a method to compare the number of body portions represented at the site (for more information see Binford 1978, 1981, 1984, plus an earl ier use of this approach by Vierra 1975). Final ly, both minimum number approaches are used here because they stress the "procurement, transport, processing, 11 and consumption tactics of prehi storic human groups who hunted big game animal s such as deer and elk (Bi nford 1984:50-51). Measuring such tacti cs is considered important in order to understand the human utilizati on of these ani mal s. Deer and el k specimens from the zooarchaeologi cal vertebrate col l ection, Department of Anthropology , the University of Tennessee , Knoxville were used to identify the sampled remains. Bone fragments were general ly identifiable if they contained some portion of an articulation or feature. Although identified shaft fragments were recorded for NISP , they were not included in MNE or MAU frequencies (Table 4.01). Uni dentifiabl e remains, mostly long bone fragments , were not recorded for this analysis.

71 A few analyti cal problems were encountered when computing MNE val ues. For example, rib MNE frequencies had to be cal culated based on occurrences of arti cular ends to offset the number of recovered shaft fragments . A similar approach was taken by Thomas and Mayer {1983 :367 ) for ribs recovered from Gatecl iff Rockshelter in Nevada. Generation of MAU for these elements was then accompl ished, as it was for the rest of anatomical parts in this study , by dividing the MNE value by the number of that particular element present in cervids (see Appendix A). Estimating MNE and MAU values for skul ls was al so pro blematical , mai nly because of the tendency for these portions to be highly fragmented in archaeological context. To compensate for thi s, MAU and MNE val ues were cal culated for only the maxi lla and premax illa. Identified bones with the highest MAU values in each sampled assemblage were selected to represent the frequency of skulls for that particular assemblage. In al l, 1384 cervid fragments (NISP) were recorded from tempor al ly distinct samples at the Eastman Rockshelter . Both Mississippian and Late Woodland deposits contained 127 NISP; each is 9.1 %. of al l remains recorded. Middle Woodland deposits contained 435 NISP, 31.4 % of the cervid elements sampled, whi le Early Woodland deposits con tained 683 NISP or 49 .3 % of the identified remai ns . As for the Archaic deposits, only 12 cervid specimens were recorded, a NISP % of 0.86 for al l cervid bones sampled from the rockshelter.

72 Clearly, the frequencies of deer and elk remains are quite dif� ferent between cultural periods represented at the site. The number of cervid fragments from the Archaic levels are nearly inconsequenti al compared to the quantity of elements identified from later deposits. Remains from Middle and Early Woodland deposits, even when corrected for differences in area excavated, comprise over twi ce the number of remains from Mississippian and Late Woodl and assemblages. Interest ingly, this frequency pattern for cervid bones coincides with periods when human uses of the rockshelter are bel i eved to have shifted, as predicted in the model . Explanations for the variations in recovered bone as they relate to recognized butchering patterns are the focus of this chapter.

Cervid Remains and Patterns of Depositi on Fol lowing Binford (1978, 1981, 1984), Lyman (1985), Speth (1983), and Thomas and Mayer (1983), the sampled cervjd remains are presented in terms of the butchering, t�ansportation, and consumption strategies that may have been employed by prehistoric Amerindians at the shelter. To achi eve this, proportional MAU frequencies of cervid remains from sampled level s were compared to the general uti lity val ues for body portions of domestic sheep (Ovis aries) . These values, col l ectively termed the Modified General Utility Index or MGUI, provide a means of determining the rel ative economi c importance of elements by rank ordering them according to the weight proportion of their food compo nents : meat, marrow, and grease (Bi nford 1978:72-75, Thomas and Mayer

73 1983:367). MGUI is modified to account for elements of lower val ue (e.g., sesamoids, metapodal s, and phalanges) called "riders" which may be transported to a site, not as a function of their consumable poten tial but rather in relation to adjacent parts of higher value selected when body portions were removed from the animal s ki lled (Bi nford 1978 :74). Use of sheep MGUI val ues instead of those for caribou (Table 4.02) is based on recent investigations to develop utility indices for whi te-tailed deer by Forgarty (1986). Her initial results indi cate that the chest area of wh i te-tailed deer, as in domestic sheep, domi nates the meat utility scale. The same utility scale for cari bou is dominated by the hindquarters (Bi nford 1978:73-74). This discrepancy results in a higher MGUI· value for ribs in sheep than in caribou and a higher value for femora in caribou than in sheep. Given the simi lari ties in sheep and whi te-tailed deer meat indices (Table 4.03) , the appl i cation of sheep MGUI val ues in this study is bel i eved to be justified .

Bul k utility versus gourmet utility. Binford's approach to iden tify prehistoric human strategies for the utilization of artiodactyl species (1978, 1981, 1984) suggests that variabi lity in uses of cervid carcasses at the Eastman Rockshelter potentially ranged from maximi z ing food quantity (bul k utility) to maximizing food qual ity (gourmet uti lity) . Simply stated, upon killing a deer , a prehistoric occupant of Eastman theoretical ly had a choice that ranged from transporting

74 Table 4.02. Va lue s for sheep and ca ribou MGUI {Binford 1981:74, Table 3.9) and caribou (Binford and Bertram 1977:109, Table 3.9) and whi te-ta iled dee r bone density (Lyman 1985:Table 2).

Sheep Caribou Whi te-ta iled Deer Ca ribou MGUI% MGUI% Bone Bulk Density Bone Density Anatomical Pa rt ( 1 } (2) (3) (4)

a SK 12.8 8.7 .40 1.49 MANO 43.6b 30.3b .57 1. 55 AT 18.7 9.8 .13 1.45 AX 18.7 9.8 .16 1.38 CERV 55.3 35.7 .19 1.26 THOR 46.5 45.5 .24 1.28 LUM 38.9 32.1 .29 1.35 PELV 81. 5 47.9 .27 1.52 R 100.0 49.7 .40 1.07 ST 90.5 64 .1 .22 • 76 SC 45.0 43.5 .36 1.40 PH 37.3 43.5 .24 .87 OH 32.8 36.5 .39 1.41 24 .3 26.6 .36c 1.33 PRC .44 d ORC 20.0 22.2 e 1.36 CARP 13.4 15.5 .39 1.19 PMC 10.1 12.2 .56 1.25 OMC 8.4 10.5 .49 1.28 PF 80.6 100.0 .36 1.29 OF 80.6 100.0 .28 l'.14 PT 51.9 64 .7 .30 1.19 OT 37.7e 47.1 .30 1.46 TAR 23.l 31.6 .39 1.29 AST 23.1 31.6 .47 1.28 CAL 23.1 31.6 .64 1.28 PMT 15.7 29.9 .55 1.33 DMT 12.1 23.9 .46 1.20 PHAL-1 8.2 13.7 .42 .90 PHAL-2 8.2 13.7 .25 .Bl PHAL-3 8.2 13.7 .25 .76

:value not given in Lyman (1985); va lue here is estimated. Mandible with tongue . �Average of proximal radius and proximal ulna va lues. e a a a a a a e eAv r ge of distal r dius nd dist l uln v lu s. Same a s ta rsa l v a lues.

75 Table 4.03. Sunmary of meat utility indices for sheep , caribou, and whi te-tailed deer.

MUI MUI (Binford 1978:23, Tabl e 1.5) (Fogarty 1986) Anatomical Sheep Caribou White-tailed Deer Part (1) ( 2 ) ( 3)

a a SK 12.8b 9.0b 20.2 MAND 43.3 31.1 7.9 AT 18.6 10.1 10.8 AX 18.6 10.1 10.8 CERV 55.3 37.0 54.0 THOR 46 .5 47 .2 37.9 LUM 38.9 33.2 20. 1 PELV 81. 3 49.3 74.3 R 100 .0 51.6 100.0 ST 90.5 66.5 31.0 SC 44.9 44 .7 28.6 H 28.2 28.9 20 .0 RC 14.0 14.7 11.8 CARP 4.7 5.2 1.6 MC 4.7 5.2 1.6 F 78.2 100.0 61.3 T 20.8 25.5 11.7 TAR 6.4 11.2 1.6 MT 6.4 11.2 4.5 PHAL 3.4 1.7 1.6 aRealistic values for skull (Bi nford 1978:23). bMandi ble with tongue.

76 the whole ani mal for use back at camp (bulk utility) or removing only

1 the animal s most desirable meat portions (gourmet utility) and re turning them to camp . By comparing proportional cervid MAU frequencies to MGUI val ues, a plot of the remai ns recovered relative to their economic worth can be generated. The curves constructed from this plot may then be matched to graphic representations of five ideal behavioral strategies in the human use of artiodactyl species (Fi gure 4.01) . These utility curves, as they are cal led, denote the expected butchering and con sumption strategies that may have taken place at a site, given the frequencies of recovered remains and their calcul ated MGUI val ues (Bi nford 1978:81) . Bul k utility curves depict the selection of large quantiti es of high and moderate val ued parts whi le discarding those of low value. Conversely, gourmet utility curves depict only the selection of the highest val ued parts whi le al l others are abandoned. Between these choices is an unbiased utility strategy which reflects a linear rela tionship between MGUI ·val ues and MAU frequencies. With this strategy , body portions are treated in direct proportion to their economi c utility (Bi nford 1978:81) . Utility curves constructed from frequen cies of archaeofaunal remains can possibly indicate which body parts based on the recovered bone elements, were discarded as a result of butchering and which were transported for storage and later consump ti on (Thomas and Mayer 1983:369).

77 100 100

I I

75 75

. .

use

y y l l

I I

50 50

Utilit

MGUI MGUI

odacty

y y

arti

Gourmet Gourmet

lit

of of

Uti rse rse

l l

s s

25 25

lk lk

( (

rse rse

\ \

stra

0 0

......

an an

0 0

�l �l

� �

......

0 0

��

C C

hum

I I 100 100

I I

' ' for for

I I

y y

es es

Utilit

( (

y y

/ /

75 75

lit

ty ty

/ /

Gourmet Gourmet

\Uti

d d

Uti

iase

. .

j j

50 50

MGUI MGUI

4. 4.

ity ity

gure gure

Uti

I I

25 25

/ /

Bulk Bulk

/ / If;_/ If;_/

I I

V V

i i

0 0

� �

......

0 0

�-I �-I

�

��

C C

(X) (X) ....., ....., Eastman utility curves. Comparison of cervid MAU frequencies from sampled Eastman Rockshelter deposits to domestic sheep MGUI val ues reveal relationships that are termed, as in Lyman (1985), inverse bul k utility strategi es (Fi gure 4.02-4.06). Each cul tural deposit, including the Archaic, contained proportionately more bones of low utility value than those of high utili ty val ue . Consequently, the frequency of identified remains are suggestive of butchering strategies in which body parts and their corresponding bones- which are °judged to be of relatively low utility, were discarded at the site while those of relatively high utility were either transported else where or were , for the most part, consumed. Differential transport of selected meat and bone portions is expected in human patterns of artiodactyl utili zation (Bi nford 1978, 1981, 1984 )· . Information suggestive of such patterns for rockshel ters has been previously reported for North America (Thomas and Mayer 1983 , Wood 1968). Unfortunately, the frequencies of remains recovered from these sites and at Eastman may not be soley the result of human behavior but rather a mixture of both cultural and natural taphonomic factors . 1 For example, Thomas and Mayer (1983) have used Binford s approach to interpret the variability in bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis) reco vered from the Gatecl iff Rockshelter located in Nevada. Lyman (1985) poi nts out, however, that relati onships between MGUI and archaeologi cal MAU values should not be accepted as accurate reflections of human strategies in the use of artiodactyl species unless mul tiple lines of

79 100 .�

80 - ' �b 4 +"' 'Q,e� • I 70 0�

�(j � • � • - so . �� /"' 4 40 -<,, � ce �� , � A CJ -1.J 30 - 'Q,tv i,'l1� tS'• �C) &J;; C:Ji • CJ• · g 20 "t\.a.\. ... \. • i ?'t\1,v 10 \� -1..J -IJ ' ;• CJ tfl� it �4' � 0 - 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 MGUI Sheep

Figure 4.02. Estimated utility curve for level 1 based on MAU frequencies for cervid remains and MGUI of domestic sheep.

80 100

� -:1" so ,""y •v - ;, � 'b 'tr� ""' v�"r �'(,, + q, �� , I 40 • ,;, • , • • • •q;

. --l JO -<., :<.,- fl.I 0-(J �o c; J' c;;, � .q,� �• 20 • • • . r.� . � � •':{ C, • �-<.; � 10 - q,�,,, ,q • �,,, ,,,� �'(,, 0 f ��. � �o .q,� 0 0 10 20 JO 40 so 60 70 80 90 100 MGUI Sheep

Figure 4.03. Estimated utility curve for level 3 based on Mau frequencies for cervid remains and MGUI of domestic sheep .

81 100

60-

� , 50

40 �o

3 0 - •

10 • •

0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 MGUI Sheep

Figure 4.04. Estimated utility curve for levels 5 and 6 based on MAU frequencies for cervid remains and MGU I of domestic sheep.

82 100

80 • ,q,'

60- � � • C: 50 ·1�,,,,�

,"Y \ 40 . � � ,q,� , '

Figure 4.05. Estimated utility curve for levels 9, 10 and 11 based on MAU frequencies for cervid remains and MGUI of domestic sheep .

83 100

60-

� so

MGUI Sheep

Figure 4.06. Estimated utility curve for levels below level 12 based on the MAU frequencies for cervid remains and MGU I of domestic sheep .

84 evi dence have been employed to test whether the recovered bones were present at a site independently of their potential to survive destruc tive agents . In particular , whenever a bulk utility curve is derived from comparing MGUI to archaeological MAU frequencies , MAU values should be statistical ly correlated to bone density levels of the parts identified (Lyman 1985) . This is done because there is no straight forward and simple autocorrelation between MGUI and MAU val ues from archaeological assemblages affected by attritional processes. The assumption that bones are not transported in a manner closely related to their survivability may be misleading. One cannot know, therefore, whether generated utility curves are due to human behavior or in fact, the differential survivorship potential of the remains recovered (Ly man 1985:231) . Lyman (1985:234) suggests that the non-parametric Kendal l's tau correlations coeffecient between MAU values to bone bul k density be used to assess the possibili ty of whether generated utility curves are the result of differential destruction or transport of an animal 's skeleton. If the correlati on is significant, then there is a possi bility that the frequencies are the result of differential skeletal survivorship and not necessarily the product of human transport. Interestingly, cal culating Kendall's tau correlation coefficient between Lyman 's (1985) deer bone bulk densities (Table 4.02:75) to MAU frequencies for bighorn sheep remains from the Gatecl iff Rockshelter and those generated by the author for whi te-tai led deer remai ns from

85 Vista Rockshelter in Missouri (Table 4.04), reveal s that both assem blages are signifi cantly correlated to the survivorship potential of deer bones (P < 0.05):

Rockshelter tau p Vista 0.3717 0.0064 Gatecliff 0.2756 0.0385

Lyman 's test impl ies that the conclusi ons original ly given by the researchers who reported on these sites, mai nly that the faunal assem blage patterns were produced by hunting task groups , should be further investigated. Of major importance is the degree to which the bones displ ay marks from butchering (evidence of human transport) and carni vore gnawing (evidence of carnivore transport and destruction) (Lyman 1985:235) . Both are different methods in which ani mal carcasses may have been reduced through dismemberment. Once the animal is di sarti culated, the likel ihood that portions of it will be further dispersed is greatly increased (Hill and Behrensmeyer 1984) . Therefore, it is possible that the MAU patterns for the artiodacyl remains at Gatecl iff and Vista rockshelters may be more the product of canid activity, for example, than human behavior. Unfortunately, identifyi ng the origin of an assemblage pattern correlated to bone density values is not an easy task.

Butchered Cervid Remains at the Eastman Rockshelter Both butchering and canid gnawi ng marks were recognized on deer and elk remains from the Eastman Rockshelter . There is no doubt that

86 Table 4.04. Frequency of deer (Odocoilceus sp.) and bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis) remains from two rockshelters in t�orth America .

Bighorn Sheep Remains Deer Remains from from Gatecliff Rockshelter Vista Rockshelter (Thomas and Mayer 1983:368 , {Wood 1968:1752 Table 2} Table 69} Anatomical MNE MAU MAU% MAU% Part (1) (2) (3) (4)

SK 2a 1.0 13.3 26.7 MAND 5 2.5 33.3 71.1 AT 2 2.0 26.6 48 .9 AX 2 2.0 26.6 48 .9 CERV 1 0.2 2.6 9.8 THOR 1 0.07 0.9 3.3 LUM 1 0.16 2.1 11.4 PELV 0 0 0 100.0 R 0 0 13.3 ST ob0 0 0 3.8 SC 4 2.0· 26.6 3.6 PH 0 0 0 53.3 DH 9 4.5 60 .0 15.6 PRC 5c 1.3 16.6 64 .4c DRC 2d 0.5 6.6 47 .7d CARP 0 e 0 0 11 .1 PMC 5 2.5 33.3 48 .9 DMC 5 2.S 33.3 17.8 PF 2 1.0 13.3 26.7 DF 4 2.0 26.6 42.2 PT 1 0.5 6.6 44.4 OT 7 3.5 46.6 68.9 TAR oe 0 0 22.2 AST 15 7.S 100.0 66.7 CAL 11 5.5 73.3 62 .2 PMT 4 2.0 26.6 73.3 DMT 6 3.0 40.0 35.6 PHAL-1 18 2.3 30.0 50.0 PHAL-2 10 1.3 16.6 24 .4 PHAL-3 8 1.0 13.3 13.3 aValue for maxilla in Wood (1968). bNot recorded in Wood (1968), presumed none recovered. �Average MAU frequencies for proximal radius and proximal ulna. Average MAU frequencies for distal radius and distal ulna. eNot recorded in Wood (1968), presumed none recovered.

87 humans and canids in varying ways altered and partial ly destroyed some bone remains at the shelter. Before the bulk uti lity curves generated for select shelter deposits could be unequivocally attributed to human behavior, the extent to which cervid MAU frequencies at 40SL34 refl ect butchering techniques and canid gnawing ac�ivities had to be examined. This was especial ly difficult since both processes may 11 selectively remove the same skeletal parts from an assemblage" (Lyman 1985:226) . Additi onally, the generation of canid gnawing patterns, as wi ll be pointed out in thapter V, may not only be from domestic Indian dogs (Canis fami liaris) but al so from reoccurring occupation and scavenging of the shelter deposits by wolves (Canis lupus). Information concerning human butchering and canid gnawing acti vi ties is discussed in this and the fol lowi ng chapter along with tech niques that measure the composition of the recovered assemblage . These approaches shed some light on the degree to which human and canid taphonomic processes may have affected the frequencies of cervid remains identified from the site.

Test for transport versus destruction. Fol lowing Lyman (1985) , correlations between the Eastman Rockshelter MAU frequencies of cer vids and whi te-tailed deer bone bulk densities were also tested by calculating the non-parametric Kendal l 1 s tau statistic for each pai r set val ues (P < 0.005). Results of these cal culations show that only MAU val ues from Early Woodland deposits are signifi cantly correlated to deer bone densities (tau = 0.3147, P = 0.0194). This suggests that

88 frequencies of Early Woodland cervid remains may be as much a product of bone densities and the resulting differential preservation as they might be the products of human behavior (Lyman 1985: 231-235). Ken 1 dall s tau statistic cal culated for the remaining sampled deposits were not signifi cant. Possibly these MAU frequencies are directly linked to human patterns of cervid utilization. Whether such frequencies have cul tural or natural origins cannot be determined based on statistics between MAU frequencies and bone densities al one. As suggested in Lyman (1985), consideration is now directed toward the affects butchering activities may have had on producing MAU frequencies for cervid remains sampled from the Eastman Rockshelter.

Identification and description of butchering marks. Since the report by Guilday , Parmal ee, and Tanner (1962) on butchering tech niques empl oyed with vertebrate species at the Eschelman Site (36LA12) in Pennsylvania, numerous studies have dealt with how prehistoric groups processed animal s for consumption (Bi nford 1981, 1984, Frison 1970, Lyman 1978, Noe-Nygaard 1977, Parmalee and Kl ippel 1983, Shipman et al . 1984). The Eschelman study , however, remains important because it is one of the first to provide a clear definition of butchering marks and a method by which the locations of marks on bones can be illustrated (Bi nford 1981:96) . Of the cervid remains sampled from the Eastman Rockshelter , 118 (8.5 % ) contained some type of butchering mark (Figure 4.07). Some

89 Figure 4.07. Example of white-tailed deer bone fragments with butchering cuts from 40SL34 . (a) Proximal rib (A4-11) , approximately 5.84 cm in length , (b) Distal rib (C2-11) , (c) Hyoid (G4-6) , (d) Rib shaft (Gl-9) , (e) Proximal metatarsal (C2-9) , (f) Proximal and shaft metacarpal (C2-9) , (g) Distal tibia (04-11) , (h, i) Astraguli (03-10 , H2-9) , (j) Metacarpal shaft (G4-10) , (k) Distal 1st phalange (F4-3) ,.

90 Figure 4.07.

91 of these remains were also gnawed by canids {Fi gure 4.08). In this study , butchering marks are defined and located as those described in the Eschelman report. That is, marks were considered to have resulted from butchering by their repeated representation on bones at the same location and by some anatomical ly dictated reason why a mark should occur at any given spot (Guil day et al . 1962:63). Butchering marks were also identified in this study by their physical characteristics if resembling those examples presented in Binford (1981:105) and Walker and Long (1977). Butchering marks were further classified into dismemberment and filleting categories as discussed by Binford (1981: 107-134). Both categories reflect various episodes in the disarticulating and render ing of cervid carcasses. Dismemberment marks are usually associated with points of articulation and result from the express purpose of separating an animal carcass into specific body portions. Such marks frequently are located on occi pital condyles (removing the head), distal humeri and proximal radio-cubiti (di sarticulating the forelimb at the elbow), and proximal femora and acetabulum area (removing the hind leg). Filleting marks result from cutting meat off a bone in order to prepare it usually for drying and transport (Bi nford 1981). The bones affected are general ly those that exhi bit a high meat to bone weight ratio (e.g., scapulae, ribs, vertebra, pelves and femora). Skinning marks, identified by their position on elements where skin was in cl ose contact with bone (e.g., cannon bones, skulls, and mandibles), were quantified as dismemberment cuts. This was done

92 ,______

Figure 4.08 . Examples of white-tailed deer bone fragments with butchering cuts as we ll as evidence of canid gnawing from 40SL34. (a) Cannon bone with logitudinal cut marks (C4-5), approximate ly 8.9 cm in length , (b) Unidentified long bone (B4-10) , (c, d) Cal canei , both with cut marks and canid gnawed (02-9, C3-6).

93 Figure 4.08 .

94 because skinning marks may be similar in appearance to dismemberment cuts (Guilday et al . 1962: 63) and it is argued here that these marks represent early stages in the method of butchering elk and white tailed deer carcasses at the Eastman Rockshelter . Cut marks on bone may reveal not only how animals were butchered but they also provide some indication of the condition of carcasses when disarticulated. For example, more cuts will occur on bones if limbs and joints were stiff from rigor mortis or from being frozen than if the carcass was fresh and flexible . Stated more specifically

When butchering a supple carcass with tools, the joint may be manipulated to exert pressure on muscles and tendons, therefore rendering cutting a relatively easy task . But when a carcass is stiff , the joints are generally bound --the tis sue has shrunk and locked the articulation into a fixed position , making manipulation of the joint impossible . This means that the orientation of cuts relative to the shape of the bone will generally be in regular and determined places, rather than the more common situation in which the orientation of the cut shifts as the joint is flexed during dismemberment (Binford 1984:71).

Furthermore, when butchering stiff or frozen carcasses , disarti culation of the limbs may be accomplished more effectively and expe diently by chopping through the bone instead of cutting between joints of bone. Consequently , chop marks on bone tend to precede joints of articulation and on portions of limbs that do not contain great amounts of meat (Binford 1981: 69-70) . Chop marks on cervid remains from the Eastman Rockshelter also were quantified as dismemberment

95 cuts. Al though some of these marks may have resul ted from breaking bones for marrow, it is bel i eved that the majority represent efforts to disarticulate the elk and deer killed by human inhabi tants of the shelter.

Butchering patterns on cervid bones. Fifty nine % of bones wi th butchering marks from Mississippian and Late Woodland samples were classified as dismemberment cuts (Table 4.05). These cuts are found on cervical vertebrae , proximal and distal ends of radio-cubiti and metacarpals, proximal phalanges , acetabula margins, one patel la, pro ximal tibiae, and on both ends of ribs. Chop marks were noted on the shaft portion of a radius whi le skinni ng marks were recognized on metapodal shafts and proximal ends of first phalanges (Fi gures 4.09- 4.10). Approximately 45 .4 % of the butchered bone from these deposits were classified as filleting marks . In parti cular, dorsal spines of thorasic vertebrae and superior rib portions exhibit marks indicati ve of removing the tenderl oins. Fillet marks were also noted on lateral surfaces of ilia, suggesting efforts to remove the hindquarters. Simi l arly, fillet marks on proximal ends of radi i point to the removal of meat from the middle forel imbs (Fi gures 4.09-4.10). One deer cal caneum contains cuts between the tuber cal cis and articular surface of the ti bia. Marks such as these frequently occur when the ti bia tendons extending to the tuber cal cis are cut to facil itate inserting a rope or gambret for hanging either the rear legs or

96 Figure 4.09. Location of butchering marks on cervid elements from 40SL34, level 1. (Note: Definition of code number in Appendix B and Binford 1981 , Table 4.04).

Figure 4.10 . Location of butchering marks on cervid elements from 40SL34, level 3. (Note: Definition of code numbers in Appendix B and Binford 1981, Table 4.04).

97 the entire carcass (Bi nford 1981:119) . Hanging portions of the car cass in such a manner greatly aids in processing and drying the meat (Bi nford 1978: 94-97). Possibly these marks were produced on calcanei of deer hindquarters processed for dryi ng. Lastly, stri ated cuts were noted on a di stal metacarpal fragment from Mississippian contexts (Fi gure 4.09) . Binford notes that simi lar marks have been made on metapodal s by the Nunamiut in Alaska while removing the extranious tissue in preparation of cracking the bone to remove the marrow (1981:120). Possibly marks on cannon bone fragments from the Eastman Rockshelter indicate that these el ements were al so processed for their marrow. Turning now to Early and Middl e Woodland samples, approximately 68.0 % of the bone with butchering marks were cl assifi ed as dismember ment cuts (Table 4.05). Locations for most marks are similar to those recognized on Late Woodl and and Mississippian remains. Additional cuts were noted, however, on mandibular ascending rami and condyl es , lumbar vertebrae, portions of scapulae, distal humeri and proximal radio-cubiti , as wel l as on distal tibiae. Ski nning marks are located on metapodal s and phalanges in simi lar placement as specimens reco vered from Mi ssissippian and Late Woodl and levels while chop marks were noted on ventral surfaces of cervical vertebrae (Fi gures 4.11- 5.12). Approximately 32.0 % of the butchering cuts on cervid remains from these earl ier deposits were cl assified as fi lleting marks (Table

98 � • ••• �- Oe -�o N NO OO• • -�••S••••�:d0:=-��-:=S•i 0:§0 S2=0 � 0•000 •

...i � • o• eN � --· -· eOO • - I - -�--s-----�=-�=-·=·=s=-··=i•SiC•Noooo•

;1::.I..

• •• - NN 00 00 •OO O • 0 00� -�••=!••S•i�·�B••iS•�iC••i•e0 � 0 SN••00• -

··········--·�----··--······---�---··· =

• •O - N •• eo O. -� . �--·�i••S00�0•e•0 ZS••••••=••••••-•0000 -

0 0 0 00 0 0 -!:: oooooooooi•••=•••••••i••••8�•8••:•oooo j - - - - ? - �,: ooooooooo-ooo�ooooooo-0000--0-00-00000

0 00 0 0000000000000:••oooooooooog�oooo�ooooo

�� ti! ti! � � �- C? ! ········=··i·=···!···!··1·······�·····

! oooooooo--o�o�ooo-000-00-0000000-ooooo ::: . ... I� a ooooooooooo-oNooo-ooo-0000000000000000

•• 0 a O 0 ········i·-�-�--········!······-�·-···

oooooooo--o-0�0000000000-0000000-ooQoo

99 Figure 4.11. Location of butchering marks on cervid elements from 40SL34, level s 5 and 6. (Note : Defi nition of code numbers in Appendix B and Binford 1981, Table 4.04).

MC ·I °"'-. ( ct1evro1u ) (chevron } MCd • 4 / AP·2� Figure 4. 12. Location of butchering marks on cervid �lements from 40SL34, level s 9, 10 and 11. (Note : Definition of code number in Appendix B and Binford 1981, Table 4.04).

100 4.05). Most are found at similar locations as those noted for fillet ing marks from later cultural time periods. Additional locations for such marks {also suggestive of meat porti ons removed) were noted on dorsal sides of lumbar vertebrae {tenderloins), and the distal ends of humeri {foreshanks), femora {thighs) and tibiae. A number of metapo dal bones displayed stri ated marks similar to those on the metapodal fragment from· Mississippian context . Possibly this is also indicative of preparing these bones for cracking and marrow extraction. Unfortunately, no recognizable butchering marks were noted on cervid remains recovered from Archaic context at the Eastman Rockshel ter .

Interpretation of butchering patterns . Archaeologists are be coming increasingly aware of the complexity involved in interpreting butchering patterns from prehistoric faunal remains {Binford 1978, 1981, 1984, Haynes and Stanford 1984, Lyman 1984, 1985, Speth 1983). This complexity stems in part from a wide range of factors that may affect the generation of MAU frequencies for individual species under investigation . In this study, the pattern of cervid remains analyzed from the Eastman Rockshelter is presented as related to subsi stence requirements perceived by prehistoric humans who once occupied the site. Perception of these requi rements is ultimately derived from the parti cular subsi stence and settlement organizati ons to which human groups may have belonged . Consequently, changes in subsi stence ought to affect changes in human perceptions of food requirements and,

101 possibly, changes in percepti on of these requi rements may be fol l owed with changes in cervid utilization . Of interest here, however, is whether the patterns of recovered cervid remains coincide with subsi stence changes that prehi storic · human groups are believed to have experienced in the Southeast, namely the intensification of agriculture (e.g., Smi th 1986, Stoltman 1978). Furthermore , are the identified butchering strategies refl ective of these changes or are the frequencies of recovered remains too greatly affected by other factors, in parti cular, the destruction of bone from non-human agents such as domesti c dogs and wolves, to accurately make such a determination? Discussion of butchering strategi es centers on whether they fit within the aspects of the model . In particular, are the butchering patterns indicative of a shift through time toward a greater emphasis on processing cervid carcasses for storage and transport than for immediate consumption? Moreover, are fillet marks , which indicate the removal of meat from bone possibly for drying, proportionately more prevalent in agricul tural levels than in preagricultural levels? That is, are the butchering patterns from Early and Middle Woodland level s suggestive of on-site consumption of deer and elk carcasses and do they contrast with those recognized for Mississippian and Late Wood land level s which, fol lowing Wood (1968) , are predicted to reflect the selecti on of meat and bone portions for transport from the shelter back to permanent villages?

102 Overal l, these questions revolve around whether there was a measurable change in the methods used to process deer and elk car casses. A greater rel iance on the production of stored or processed meat is assumed to have taken place relative to the general increase in populati on and sedentism of human groups throughout prehi story in the Southeast (Smith 1986). If a shift occurred in the utilization of cervid carcasses , then it may be reflected in the butchering patterns recognized on cervid remains from the Eastman Rockshelter. Results of thi s study indicate that the relative frequency of recovered elements exhibiting dismemberment and filleting marks show proportional differences between sampled remains (Table 4.05) . The quantity of marks recorded, however, are too smal l, parti cularly in Mississippian and Late Woodland levels, to assign signifi cant meaning to their frequencies. Whether there is consistancy through time in butchering techniques noted for cervids utili zed at the Eastman Rock shelter can only be speculated. Interestingly, however, consistency through time in the butchering of animal carcasses has been previously suggested for a couple of animal species from North America (Wood 1968). Much of this simi larity has to do with the fact that

al l terrestrial mammals are built on the same general plan; that there are optimum ways in which to dismember them effi ciently; by the ne cessity for transporting, in the most economical fashion, the flesh of butchered ani mal s; and related factors (Wood 1968:177).

103 Consequently, simi larities between the inferred butchering pat terns at the Eastman Rockshelter in fact may be a true representation of the techniques actual ly employed. Fortunately, the frequency of identified elements from each sampled time period sheds some light on the manner in which deer and elk carcasses where utilized by humans at the shelter; particularly, how these resources may have been processed for transport, storage, and consumption. Given that prehistoric human inhabi tants of the Eastman Rockshel ter were hunting deer and elk for food, it follows that the processing of these animal resources was for both immedi ate and del ayed consump tion. That· is, certain animal parts were eaten by the hunting party at the shelter whi le other parts were prepared for storage and either cached or transported to another location for consumption at a later date . Storage of meat is favorable because it extends the period of time in whi ch consumption is possible past the point during which the resource is actual ly available through direct procurement (Bi nford 1978:91). Since the majority of cervids hunted are bel i eved to have been obtained in order to replenish the supply of stored meat, the inhabi tants of the rockshelter had to select which parts to store and which parts to consume. Undoubtedly, selection of parts depended upon specific circumstances such as the food requirements of the hunting group, the amount of game procured at any one time , distance to their villages, plus length of time spent at the rockshelter.

104 .----=------�--

In the Southeast, smoking and sun drying are two methods of preserving meat that is known to have been employed by aboriginal populations (Swanton 1946 :374-375). An account given by Jackson Lewis , one of Swanton 's Creek informants , offers some insight on the manner in which deer meat was preserved

They first made an incision down the middle of the deer 's belly and then stripped the body meat off of the bones from front to back. The result ing piece was large and flat. It was dried in the sun, and as others were dried they were made into a pile, which was carried back to the vil lage .... The thighs were treated in this way. First the long bones were removed, and then the meat was cut up into chunks somewhat larger than baseballs. Witches or sticks were passed through these and they were placed over a fire until nearly cooked, by which time the meat had shrunk to about the size of a baseball. It had also shrunk away from the stick leaving a large hole, and by means of these holes a great many such chunks of meat were strung together for transportation (Swanton 1946 :374-375).

Both techniques require low humidity and a set range of tempera tures, plus a certain amount of surface area exposed per unit weight

of meat in order to properly preserve it (Binford 1978: 91-101) . Using information on the reproductive rate of Bacillus mycoides shows that ° growth of this bacteria is slowed down at temperatures below 15 C 0 0 0 (60 F) and prevented at temperatures below 5 C (41 F). On the other end of the temperature scale, cell growth is also prevented 0 0 ° ° 0 0 above 37 C (95 F). Between 15 and 37 (60 and 95 F), however, growth of � mycoides is expected to be very rapid. As a result,

105 during times in the year when temperatures ranged within the level s for rapid cel l growth most preservation would be best accomplished by smoking. The temperature from the fire and smoke would be high enough so that h mycoides cel l growth would not occur. Sun drying, on the other hand, would have been best performed when temperatures were o 0 between 5 and 15 C. (Binford 1978: 91-914). Information obtai ned from Wilson (1981: 116) seems to support Binford's data in that most meat contaminati ng organisms wi ll multiple o ° very sl owly at temperatures between 3 and 10 . Low humidity al so functions to preserve meat by further reducing the activity of digestive enzymes natural ly found in meat as wel l as those produced from microrganisms infesting the meat surface . When the moi sture content of meat is rapidly reduced from drying, a glaze membrane is formed on the outside of the meat portion which is air tight and tends to protect the meat for months (Wentworth 1956:562- 563). This glaze keeps moi sture in and fl ies and maggots out. It is particularl y important to establ ish this layer during warm weather when fl ies and maggots remain a constant threat to drying meat sup pl ies (Binford 1978:94). During thi s time, fl ies tend to lay their eggs in moist folds and more fatty porti ons of meat soon after it is hung out to dry . Once the glaze is formed, however, fl ies may have a difficult time finding moist enough areas on whi ch to lay eggs . Any maggots that do appear will soon dry up . If maggots did manage to get into the meat, they would then have free access to consume the inner porti ons before their larva stage is compl eted . By smoking meat,

106 however, fl ies are kept away and thus infestati on by maggots is pre vented. To further insure that meat was preserved properly, (e.g., out of harm from putrefication, fl ies, and maggots ), most body portions had to be processed following parti cular guidel ines. That is, decisions had to be made about the body portion on "whether to remove or modify the bones or whether to place the part in storage as it was initial ly butchered" (Bi nford 1978:103) . This stems from the fact that certain portions of cervid carcasses (e.g., ribs) can be readi ly dryed without extensive processing whi le others would need to be altered (e.g., thighs). What principally governs this decision is the presence of high marrow yielding bones. These bones must be removed before the meat is stored because, with non-freezing storing techniques, the "marrow putrefies very quickly and serves as an internal reservior of potential spoilage" , not to mention the waste of marrow from these elements if it was not properly processed (Bi nford 1978:102) . Given only the monthly ambient temperature for the area around the Eastman Rockshelter, however, aboriginal human groups are expected to have sun dried most of their storable meat from October to Apri l and preserve meat by smoking it during the remai ning months of the year (Fi gure 4.13). Since Late Holocene cl imatic conditions are known to have fluctuated for the Northern Hemisphere (Williams and Wigley 1983), and in the Southeast, the humidity level most likely affect the techniques used in preserving meat as much as ambient temperature

107

Q) Q)

� �

RI RI

0 0

) )

0 0

41 41

RI RI

41 41

0 0

Ill Ill

u u

� �

C, C,

� �

rl rl

i3' i3'

al al

.a .a

1 1

1M 1M

rl rl

......

•.-i •.-i

0 0

8. 8.

'1. '1.

� �

Ul Ul

'1. '1.

'O 'O

Ul Ul

r-i r-i

'O 'O

•.-i •.-i

Month Month

Method Method

north

llus llus

meat meat

. .

I I

id id

for for

D D

cerv

of of

1978:92)

g g

drying drying

N N

changes changes

Sun Sun

rates rates

ord ord

0 0

n n

ure ure

preserv

s s

vis

in in

from from

A A

temperat

used used

cell cell

J J

ent ent

dapted dapted

Smoking Smoking

and and

J J

� �

amb

ia ia

methods methods

M M

of of

y y

A A

bacter

monthly monthly

Tennessee Tennessee

on on

es es

M M

drying drying

F F

based based

Seasonal

eastern eastern

myco

Sun Sun

J J

13. 13.

0 0

8 8

4 4

6 6

18 18

16 16

24� 24�

10 10

14 14

22 22

12 12

20 20

gure gure

8. 8.

41 41

� �

e e

� �

41 41

� �

u u

E-4 E-4

0 0

I I

CX) CX)

0 0 � � level s, the proposed seasonal patterni ng in preserving techni ques is presented as only a guide for further investigation. What should be obvious -from the above discussion is that carcas ses utilized by the Eastman Rockshelter inhabi tants would have gone through a series of cul lings beginning at the kill-butchering site where portions were prepared for transport, and continuing to loca tions where portions were processed for storage. Throughout this sequence , elements may have been cul led for use {Bi nford 1978:111). Processing deci sions, therefore, would have resulted in a pattern of bones deposited at the rockshelter relating to considerations about transport, storage, and consumption. Cervid parts most likely chosen for consumption at 40SL34 would be those portions col lectively termed the 11 swi ng population" or portions valuable enough not to waste or throw away at the kill-butchering sites but not valuable enough to warrant the labor investment to put up for storage {Fi gure 4.14) . Non-skeletal parts that are too difficult to store such as hearts, livers, and kidneys also would be consumed by the hunting party . In short, portions bel ieved to be most commonly consumed at the site would be parts that must be used early and expediently whi le insuring that a significant quantity of highly desirable meat is prepared for storage {e.g., Binford 1978:110) . Compari son between frequencies in the swi ng population to MAU percentages in sampled deposits from the Eastman Rockshelter reveals that no real cl ose association exists {Fi gures 4.14-4.19). Cervid MAU frequencies from Mississippian deposits do, however, show some overal l

109

I I

Ill Ill

0. 0.

.c: .c:

as as

I I

Ill Ill

• •

0. 0.

.c: .c:

......

N N

I I

.., ..,

.c: .c:

......

I I

oJ oJ

� �

---. ---.

procure procure

"' "'

e. e.

use. use.

Ill Ill

I I

u u

......

to to

ut ut

"" ""

-< -<

.., ..,

......

� �

swing swing

----

future future

u u

0 0

he he

I I

"" ""

0. 0.

and and

Q Q

......

attempting attempting

0. 0.

......

age age

parts parts

u u

'5 '5

stor

u u

ct ct

hunters hunters

' '

M M

.., ..,

a. a.

u u

body body

for for

' '

......

u u

by by

Q Q

le le

for for

......

u u

0. 0.

s s

Q Q

.c .c

sib

I I

0. 0.

.c .c

nsumed nsumed

pos

MAU

u u

UJ UJ

of of

as as

::ii: ::ii:

I' I'

0 0

> >

:.. :..

u u

3 3

..J ..J

ation) ation)

meat meat

I I

0 0

......

f-< f-<

.s= .s=

......

� �

u u

Frequency Frequency

much much

� �

. .

I I

"" ""

,< ,<

I I

C: C:

� �

UJ UJ

"" ""

�

0 0

50 50

10 10

40 40

9 80 60 60

30 30 20

70 70

100 100

Figure Figure

0 0

...... - (-tttttd - l-tt'ltd - l-l 'l>ltd

- '.lUJQ

<, - '.l Uld Q) > - l'l>:> Q)

- '.lS'tf C

- .l1:?J, � - �a

- '.ld � C Q) - }Q

- } d VJ C - ::,wa

- OUJd

- d.le;)

- :'.).lQ > -- s.. [�-- - O Q) ----·· ---� ----� .ld - tta s.. 0 - t{d VJ - ::,s ::::, ct: �

- wn'] u>, C - .l()'4,I, Q) ::, cr Q) s.. - X'tf LL - :w -- pUl?W

- }IS

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .... O'\ ex, \0 Ill M N .... LL MAU \

111 zn

,,-'• 'n'iW .... I-" tJ w • u, 0\ __, a> \0 0 C,Q 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 i::: � I (1) � Sk ...... °' Mand At

CD�-n � Ax < CD CD .0 �i::: Cerv -· CD w:::::s Thor Lum - 0 ..., Pelv - 3: R - - u, Sc Ph ...,0 � Oh - � Pre < -'• Dre 0. � Carp - CD Pmc _,_ :::::s Dmc u, -'• 0. Of

-'• Pt - ...,-'• Dt 0. Tar -'• :::::s Ast Cal - Pmt omt - Phal-1 Phal-2 Phal-3 - - (-11H,ld - t-reqa

- t-l'l'Qd

- "lWO

- "lllld

- .IVJ,

- lQ - l d - 10

- ld Cl) C: - ::>WQ ,0 E - ::>llld a, s.. ·------d.I'l':) � - ::>.IQ > s.. - (1) ::>.ld u - ttO s.. 0 � - ltd

::J c:( • . H � � �� 0 C: ,0 - WTl"J >, ULO - .lOlU, C: a, (/J ::, ,-- 0" (1) a, > s.. a, LL,--

- ){S

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 °' CID ,... \0 "' ... r, N .... LL MAU \

113 _ (-1 i»4d _ l: -1l'4d - l - t'24d - �wa - �Wd e:, - 1 . - � S\f •r-

- .ll:'J. - �a - �d . rn

- ld en C - OWQ

_ OWd

•r------� _ O.lG > s.. _ O.l d Cl)

- tta s.. 0 - 'ltd \f.- ;:: . - -c, os :::> C �co :E 0 \f.-0 .-f _ wn1 >, ... u O"I . .l() l�J. :::::s� ..-Vl _ JI. l o :) 0" Cl) Cl)> s.. Cl) - X'tf LL ..-

_ puew ...... · - �s

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 �0 (71 CIC r-- ID ""' M N LL MAU \

114 - (-t lHtd - t-retta

- t-tV\.ld

- �WQ

- :\Wd

- t e::> :\ - SV ·�C: - �'l'J. -0 - :ia ·�Q) '+- - .,- :ia .µ

Q) - JO -0 }d ·� en - O C Ul(l .,-

0Wd Q) - dl1?:) S- -0 - O.lQ .,- > S- - O.l d uQ) - '-1 0 S... N - lid � ...... en "; =>s > < a, - � ,::r- - hl od '+- � 0 0 ,-- - wn'l >,u..c c- Q) Q) > S- a, - X'fi LL.,- ,- �y (J'\ - pU'l'W ...... - q- �s Q.I I S- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ::, 0 0 0 0 O') 0 CJ'\ CD to. '° u, ... M N .-4 ·� MAU '

ll5 difference between the amounts of head , trunk, and front leg bones compared to bones from other body portions (Fi gure 4.15). This is somewhat simi lar to the swing population (Fi gure 4.14). The lack of ribs in the swi ng population is a maj or contrast to the MAU frequency recovered from Mississippian deposits. Interest ingly, all deposits sampled except those of the Archaic contain great er frequencies of ribs than noted in the swi ng population . Applica 1 tion of Binford s rib ratio (1978:152), which is the number of rib fragments over the number of recovered articular ends of ribs, sug gests that , if ribs were consumed, fresh portions were preferred over dried or frozen ribs. Cervid remains from Late Woodl and deposits in general lacked the high frequency of bones, except skull parts , that has been noted for the other deposits sampled (Fi gure 4.16). The restriction of MAU percentages to 40 % or below for most of the bones identified possibly indicates that these remains were heavily affected by taphonomic processes. Early and Middl e Woodland deposits contain proportionately great er hindquarter and lower limb frequencies than the swi ng population (Fi gure 4.17-4.18) . Thi s is taken to mean that these el ements , which were most likely cul led during the processing of cervid carcasses for storage were instead taken to the shelter habitation area for marrow extraction. High frequencies of elements rich in marrow are expected to be recovered from occupation level s in which cervid carcasses were

116 processed more completely. Conversely, levels in which procurment of as much cervid meat as possible for shipment elsewhere can be expected to contain limited evi dence of extensive carcass processing. Prime marrow bones for example, may have been transported, in conjuction with the procured meat supply, back to the villages. If cervid re sources were abundant, these marrow elements might even have been abandoned at the kill-butchering location. Such a trend could have occurred during the Mississippian period particularly if deer hunting tactics based on communal drives were used more frequently than the individual stal king of deer. Regularly scheduled communal dri ves would tend to result in the regular procure ment of mass quantities of meat (Smith 1975, Waselkov 1978). Butcher ing strategies possibly might have been less conservative, on the average, as a result of this form of hunting. Regardless of how deer and elk may have been procured by the prehi storic human inhabitants at the Eastman Rockshelter, based on the overall quantity and MAU frequencies of recovered cervid remains, the represented archaeological cultural peri ods can be grouped into three categories: Late Woodland/Mi ssissippian, Early/Mi ddl e Woodland, and Archaic. These groupings a:e bel i eved to reflect the intensity of subsistence changes that have occurred throughout this cultural time span. The most significant change concerns the increase use of maize (Zea mays) in East-Tennessee during . the Late Woodland and Mississip pian peri ods (Cridl ebaugh 1984:100 ) . This increase is bel ieved to have coi nci ded with an expanding population tending to aggregate cl ose

117 to or at least maintain connections with , locations where food sup plies are stored and distri buted (Chapman et al . 1982, Schroedl and Boyd 1985a, 1985b, Smith 1986). As previously noted, strategies in utilizing cervid carcasses during the Early/Middl e· Woodland peri ods appears to have involved greater efforts to obtain marrow at the shelter than during the Late Woodl and/Mi ssissippian periods. This may reflect a longer length of time in which Early and Middle Woodland inhabitants spent at the site. More time spent at the Eastman Rockshelter would have resulted in the need to consume more food there. Qui te possibly, perishable marrow complemented the diet of hunting groups occupying the rockshelter during these peri ods. Because extensive remains of high yielding marrow bones were not found in Late Woodland/Mississippian deposits at the Eastman Rockshelter, the inhabitants during these cultural periods possibly did not stay long at the site and may have transported these elements al ong with stored meat supplies back to their villages . Human occupation of the Eastman Rockshelter during the Archaic period is thought to have been by small groups of mobile hunter/ga therers who stayed at the site for various lengths of time . Utiliza tion of deer and elk carcasses is bel ieved to have depended largely upon circumstances of the groups immediate needs . Conceivably, these inhabi tants may have been the least restri cted by population con straints and demands for large supplies of meat resources as is bel i eved to have effected cul tural groups in later time periods .

118 Thus, a greater range of options were available to Archaic groups regarding the acti vities occurring at the rockshelter. As a result, the pattern of remains deposited during these peri ods may show a wide range of vari ation. The fact that metapodals were the only cervid remains encountered in the Archaic deposits at the rockshelter is difficult to explain. If humans deposited these remains at the shelter, did they deposit other cervid bones as wel l? Perhaps additi onal remains were not recovered because of the limited number of uni ts-levels excavated to these early deposits. Interestingly, three of 12 elements recovered were identified as elk (25 %). This is in contrast to the low frequenci es of elk ele ments identified from the later sampled deposits (4.06). The Archaic cervid metapodals were all longitudinally cracked in half, suggesting 11 that these bones might represent the remains of marrow 11 snacking by hunting groups who peri odically occupied the shelter (e.g., Binford 1978). Unfortunately, accurate assessment of whether the bones were cracked by humans could not be determined . This means as wel l that a cultural connection for the origin of these bones at the Eastman Rock shelter is also undetermined.

Further Research into Butchering Patterns If archaeologists are willing to learn more about the prehi storic human selection of cervids and other mammal resources at the Eastman Rockshelter or any other site with faunal remains, more research must

119 Table 4. 06 . Frequency of elk remains to all cervi d bones identi fied from sampled level s at 40SL34.

Level Level Level Level Bel ow Anatomical 1 3 5 & 6 9, 10, & 11 Leve 1 11 Part NISP % NISP % NISP % NISP % NISP %

SK 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 MAND 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3.3 0 0 AT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 AX 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CERV 2 50.0 0 0 0 0 1 11. 1 0 0 THOR 4 23. 5 0 0 0 0 1 7.6 0 0 LUM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PELV 1 33.3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 R 6 19.3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 H 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 9.0 0 0 PH 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 DH 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 RC 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 5.5 0 0 PRC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 DRC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CARP 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 11. 1 0 0 MC 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 6.1 1 50.0 PMC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 OMC 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0.2 0 0 F 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PF 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 OF 1 50.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 T 0 0 1 14. 2 0 0 3 11. 5 0 0 PT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 OT . 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 11.1 0 0 TAR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 AST 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CAL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 MT 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1.9 0 0 PMT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 50.0 OMT 0 0 0 0 1 16. 0 0 0 0 0 PHAL-1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 5.0 0 0 PHAL-2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 5.2 0 0 PHAL-3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 Total 14 11.0 1 0. 8 1 0.2 19 2.8 25.0

120 be directed towards understanding the nutritional value of mammals {e.g., meat, marrow , grease) particularly as it fluctuates throughout the year. This knowledge will aid in generating information and aligning ways to test assumptions on prehistoric human strategies for using animal resources. Fortunately, research has begun for the white-tailed deer (Forgarty 1986) and bison (Emerson 1986), but a great deal more information on game mammals (el k, black bear, cougar, beaver, raccoon) is needed. Even with comprehensive knowledge about the nutritional value for body portions of animals, information on the prehistoric aboriginal selection of these resources may still be inaccurate because of, for the most part, depositional biases that may potentially distort calcu lated MAU frequencies. That is, the amount of material recovered from a site may not necessarily equate with the amount deposited (Binford 1978:455, 1980:16). This is particularly _important for space limited sites such as rockshelters, where the sheltered area is generally the habitation zone. Here activities such as sleeping, cooking, and eating may have taken place . Quite possibly, the more frequently humans reoccupied and deposited remains of the animal s consumed within this zone it follows that the more often such debris would have been cl eaned out. This is especially the case if these remains smel led rancid and attracted flies (see Binford 1978: 461-462). It may even be that the lack of cervid remains in Mississippian and Late Woodland level s compared to those from Early and Middl e Woodland levels, may have resulted from human groups who in the later cultural periods

121 cleaned out the shelter more often than people from earl ier cultural time periods. Consequently, if research desi res are to investigate what cervid portions were brought to and possibly consumed at rockshelters, ef forts must be made to at least test excavate, whenever possible, outside the usual sheltered habitation zones. In locations where preservation is good, the area in front of a shelter may in fact contain most of the deposited remains prehistorical ly brought to the site (see Cowan 1980). Conceivably then, the cervid remains recovered in the areas excavated from the Eastman Rockshelter may · be only a smal l quantity of the original amount of bones that prehistor ic human occupants of the site, for what ever reason , did not throw out. Another potential bias affecting MAU frequencies is produced from canid gnawi ng acti vities on the deposited remai ns. Fortunately, these activities can be measured to some extent and further insight may be obtained concerning the origin of the pattern of cervid remains reco vered from the site. This information is presented in the fol lowing chapter .

122 ______, ______

CHAPTER V

CERVID REMAINS: CANID GNAWING PATTERNS

Evidence of canid gnawed deer and elk remains from the Eastman Rockshelter clearly indicates that additional factors besides prehis toric human butchering techniques and the survivorship potential of cervid bones, played a part in forming the pattern of bones recovered. In North America, domestic dogs and wolves are probably the most common animal species to have affected prehistoric human deposits of faunal remains . This section examines, therefore, the degree to which canids may have altered frequencies of bones, particularly the cervid remains recovered from the Eastman Rockshelter .

Domestic Dog Gnaw Pattern In general, canids are restricted in the manner in which they alter the physical characteristics of bone. For example, the physical properties of bone , especially density, have been shown to predictably govern the elements most likely destroyed by canids and which tend to remain rel atively intact (Binford and Bertram 1977, Binford 1978, 1981, 1984, Brain 1981, Haynes 1980a, 1980b, 1982, 1983). For tool using humans, on the other hand, no 11limitations seems operative" (Binford 1981:238). As a result, faunal deposits attributed to cul tural behavio� have greater overall variability in the pattern of bone elements deposited than assemblages produced from the activities of canids (Binford 1981:238).

123 Nevertheless, since domestic dogs have been compani ons to prehis toric southeastern Indian groups for at least 10, 000 years (Al len 1920, Haag 1948, Lawrence 1968), they no doubt at times accompanied their human owners to or lived with them in caves and rockshelters . For exampl e, one dog burial was recovered from the Eastman Rockshelter (unit-level Hl-10, feature 69). The degree to whi ch dogs may have been responsible for the fre quencies of recovered remains from 43SL40 probably varied with the number and hunger level of these canids and the amount of food pre sent, as wel l as the season, manner, and length of time they occupied the site with their human compani ons (Binford 1978). Studies have shown, however, that cani ds can significantly distort the number of bones original ly deposited at a site in favor of large animal remains and elements with high bone densities (Binford 1978, 1981, Binford and Bertram 1977, Brain 1976, Gui lday et al . 1962:65, Kent 1981, Lyman 1985, Lyon 1970) � For example, after observing modern bone accumula tions at Indian sites in South America, Lyon (1970) reported that any human midden deposits accessable to dogs probably had a considerable portion of the smal l animal remains destroyed by these animals. Sir John Lubbock reached a similar conclusion over 100 years ago when he questi oned why 97 % of the faunar material in Scandinavi an midden sites was made up of stag, roedeer, and wi ld boar (1872:233- 234) . To explain thi s, Lubbock mentions an experiment in which dogs were fed bone elements of various sizes . He noted that elements eaten

124 by dogs correspond to those which were absent from middens . Conver sely , bones that were recovered from these middens represented elements which "are hard and solid and do not contain much nourishment" (Lubbock 1872:235). Although limited accounts are known about the care and treatment of domestic dogs by southeastern Indian groups (Swanton 1984: 344-346), extensive modern ethnographic data concerning dogs among Eskimo , Nava jo (Binford and Bertram 1977, Binford 1978, 1981), and Hottentot (Brain 1976) human groups are most helpful in shedding light on the possible interactions between domestic dogs and prehistoric humans at the Eastman Rockshelter. In particular, if dogs were present at the shelter , it can be assumed that humans had to make some considera tions: namely , in the control and feeding of their canid companions . In return , dogs most likely functioned as possible beasts of burden , hunting dogs, guardians, and at times served as a readily available meat source . An account in 1913 by Buffalo Bird-Woman, a Hidatsa Indian born about 1840 in the Central Plains of North America , presents a little insight into the manner in which food was possibly provided for at least some prehistoric southeastern Indian dogs

As dogs became adult we fed them meat and also cooked corn for them , boiling it into a kind of mush . Anything that turned sour in the lodge , like boiled corn , we gave to the dogs . Any food that was spoiled or for some reason was rejected by the family , was set aside for them . If, on the hunt , an animal was killed that was lean and poor in flesh , it was given to the dogs . A man

125 who killed a buffalo, saved the parts that he did not want for himself and gave them to the dogs. Some-times he would gather up for his dogs the cast-away pieces of another man 's butchering. In times of scarcity the people cared for their dogs as best they could. They ate the bones that were crushed and broken in cooking and then thrown away. The dogs could chew and gnaw at them and get some food in this way (Wilson 1978: 201-202).

From Buffalo Bird-Woman 's acco unt, and the work by Binford (1978), it is surmised that when dogs were present at the Eastman Rockshelter, suggest they were fed a select amount of food. What was made available to them depended on what was avai lable to their human owners. That is, dogs were general ly fed what humans would not eat or the remains of meal s humans discarded. Possibly the amount of food for dogs fl uctuated with the quantities hunters brought back to the shelter. When complete cervid carcasses were introduced into the site, for example, more food was avai lable for the dogs than when hunters retirned with only certain body secti ons. Conceivably, the reponsibility to feed dogs at the Eastman Rockshelter may have been an addi tional motivation for hunters to bring back as much of their kill as possible, particularly when an animal was taken cl ose by the site (Bi nford 1978:204). General ly, this procurement strategy would make available to dogs more of the parts of low utility that might otherwise b� abandoned on kill-butchering locations. Of course, if dogs accompanied their own ers on hunts, as they are reported to have done during the early

126 historic period (Swanton 1984:345), then the parts cul led during field butchering of cervids taken would sti ll have been avai lable to these animals and, as a result, there would be less demand to feed them back at the shelter. Nevertheless, because dogs would probably eat at least once a day , the demand to feed them and their potential effect on the bones deposited would always be a factor whi le they occupied the shelter. It is possible that from these opposing methods of feeding dogs, the former would result _in a greater number of gnawed bones at the site than would result from the latter feeding pattern. If, however, human consumption demands for deer and elk resources were intense, then less cervid elements would be available for dogs. During these times, bones that became dog food most likely did· so only after humans extracted as much as they could from them . It is possible that during such scarcity, certain parts, particularly high marrow and grease yielding bones (low survival potential ), were never fed to the dogs. Whatever the status of human demands for cervid resources, only particular elements would be accessible to dogs at each feeding. Given that these animals were hungry when fed, the portions given to them by humans would tend to be extensively gnawed. This is mai nly because dogs are general ly limited in the amount of food given to them . As a result, they would try to extract from it as much nourish ment as possible causing extensive damage to the bone (Table 5.01, col umn 1). This behavior p.roduces what has been termed a "kennel " pattern of abundantly gnawed bone (Haynes 1982: 269). It has been

127 Table 5.01. Frequency of gnawed bone from an Esk1mo village dog yard and bone recovered from a wolf den in Alaska.

Anaktuauk Village Bent Creek Wol f D�n % Dog Gnawed Caribou Bones % Mau , Caribou Bones (Binford 1984 :168-169 , (Binford 1981:213, Table 4.31) Tab le 5.01) Anatomical Part (1) (2)

ANT 54.0 SK 50.0 86.U MAND 66.0 89.0 AT 75.0 66.0 AX 75.0 36.0 CERV 82 .0 6.0 THOR 71.0 2.1 LUM 0 12.U PELV 58.0 68.0 R 0 0 SC 73.0 57.0 PH 0 25.0 DH 70.0 lOU .U PRC 90.0 75.0 ORC 75.0 46.0 CARP 26.0 32 .0 PMC 61.0 71.0 DMC 82.0 68.0 PF 75.0 14.0 OF 75.0 21.U PT 84.0 14.U OT 64.0 61.0 TAR 21.0 36 .0 AST 46.0 32.0 CAL 53.0 36.0 PMT 65.0 50 .0 DMT 82.0 29.0 PHAL-1 13.0 23.0 PHAL-2 13.0 16.0 PHAL-3 13.0 7.0

128 recognized for Eskimo dogs (Binford 1981 ) as well as for captive wolves (Haynes 1982) .

--Wolf --Gnaw Pattern No doubt the canid gnawed cervid bone from the Eastman Rockshel ter indi cates that some prehistoric humans fed their dogs at the site. Conceivably, however, scavenging wolves al so may have altered and destroyed bone at the shelter thus producing a certain amount of the canid gnawed bone pattern. To aid in determining the extent to which wolves may have been responsible for thi s pattern, an exam i nation of wol f scavenging behavior is presented below. Interestingly, the behavior of wo lves to scavenge for food at kill and camp sites recently abandoned by hunters is not at al l un common (Young and Gol dman 1944 :215) . A number of insightful accounts from different parts of North America are avai lable on this subj ect: An early Virginia wri ter , Col onel Wi lliam Byrd, recorded being fol lowed by wol ves in North Carol ina, stating that

These beast of prey kept pretty much upon our tracks, being tempted by the garbage of the crea tures we ki lled every day ; for which we were serenaded with their shrill pipes almost every night (Bryd 1901:130 in Young and Gol dman 1944:215) .

Other accounts note a simi lar persistence

At periods these wolves would fol low us for days , evidently being hungry, and looking forward to the time when we left camp , when they would come

129 up and clean up anything left behind . They were our constant companions ... (Royal Northwest Mounted Police 1919:3, in Young and Goldman 1944: 127). I have often been surprised at the perseverance and tenacity with which these animals will some times follow the hunter for a whole day , to feed upon the carcass he may leave behind him . When an animal is killed , they seem to mark the opera tion , and stand still at a most respectful dis tance with drooping tail and ears , as though perfectly indifferent to the matter in progress . Thus they stand until the game is butchered , the meat placed upon the saddle , and the hunter is mounted and on his way ; then , if he glances behind him , he will see the wily forager stealth ily crawling and prowling along towards the smoking remains , and pouncing upon it , and tear ing it with tooth and nail , immediately after he gets out of reach. (Townsend 1838 in Young and Goldman 1944:125).

Further investigations into wolf behavior reveal that these ani mals are generally afraid of humans and avoid them if at all possible. Only when there is a conflict of interest , mainly in the area of food, wolves have become aggressive in ways that has been interpreted as attacks on humans , instead of the real underlying reason , the theft of something to eat (Young and Goldman 1944:121-123). An account by Henderson (1920 : 134 in Young and Goldman 1944:131) possibly depicts such an incident that occurred over 100 years ago only 48 .3 kms north of the Eastman Rockshelter

In the late autumn of 1761, Daniel Boone and Nathaniel Gist , the son of Washington 's famous guide , who were both surveying under Waddell , temporarily detached themselves from his command and 1 ed a sma 11 party on a 11 1 ong hunt II in the Valley of the Holston . While encamping near the

130 site of Black's Fort, subsequently built, they were viol ently assailed by a pack of fierce wol ves which they had considerable difficulty in beating off; and from this incident the local ity became known as Wol f Hills (now Abingdon , Vir ginia).

It is conceivable then, that wol ves may have scavenged the East man Rockshelter after it was abandoned by prehi storic human inhabi tants. Additional information on such wol f behavior suggests that these animals prefer fresh offal to purtrid or dried animal remains (D'Andrea and Gotthardt 1984 , Magoun 1979, Young and Gol dman 1944:214) . Wol ves also enjoy rol ling on the remai ning portions of animals they have killed before feeding on them for a second time. 11 Such behavior may be a sign of olfactory aesthetics ; wol ves, like 11 dogs, seem to enjoy 11wearing certain odors, especi al ly of carrion" (Fox 1980:80). Research by Haynes (1982:268) suggests that wolves in general will only sli ghtly gnaw bones of carcasses dead longer than six months. Furthermore, he notes that when food is scarce

...th e bones may be partly consumed and frag mented, and spiral , longitudinal , and transverce fractures will occur on long bone shafts. This linear fracturing is caused by drying cracks in the compact tissue and by increased brittleness. After the remains have been weathered over a ful l summer there is usual ly not enough marrow, grease, or periosteal connective tissue to pro voke more than brief mouthing of bones by wolves (Haynes 1982:268).

131 Given the above information, it is bel ieved that the most likely time for species of b_ lupus to have scavenged faunal elements depo sited at the Eastman Rockshelter would be when the site was repeatedly occupied by humans but for only short interval s of time , such as proposed in the model for Late Woodland and Mississi ppian periods . This human pattern of occupation would have given wolves the best opportunity to obtain freshly discarded remains. Furthermore, it is quite possible that local wolves woul d be cogni zant of when the shel ter was occupied by humans. If a pattern was establi shed in which fresh cervid elements were regularly accessable to these an imal s, then it is possibl e that they could have waited unti l humans vacated the 11 shelter, then moved in and "cleaned up • Such behavior is simi lar to that of feral dogs who regularly scavenge accumulating garbage depo� sits in cities today (see Beck 1975, for more data on modern feral dog behavior}. In additi on to disturbing the deposited remains by scavenging the site, wolves may have introduced some of the animal remains recovered from the Eastman Rockshelter (Table 5.02}. This is possible because wolves are known to prey on many of the animal species hunted by humans (Haynes 1980, Murie 1944:50-59, Piml ott et al . 1969 :35-44 , Stendl und 1955:21} and occasional ly deposit portions of thetr ki ll at denning sites frequently located in caves and rockshelters (Bi nford 1981:198-202, Haynes 1982:266). For example, when wolves whelp and raise their young during the spring and summer months, meat is fre quently brought to the denning location. In one instance , over 68 .0

132 Table 5.02. Native North American vertebrate species recorded as food items* for wolves and identified from the Eastman Rocks he 1 ter.

Species

Odocoileus virginianus White-tailed Deer Young and Goldman (1944:213) Cervus canadensis Elk Young and Goldman (1944:213) Marmota monax Groundhog Young and Gol dman (1944:213) Tamias striatus Eastern Chipmunk Young and Goldman (1944:213) Microtine sp. Voles Murie (1944: 53) Syl vilagus sp. Rabbit Murie (1944: 53) Canidae Fox Murie (1944:53) Erethizon dorsatum Porcupine Murie (1944:53) Castor canadensis Beaver Murie (1944: 53) Bonas a umbe 11 us Ruffed Grouse Young and Goldman (1944:213) Waterfowl Young and Goldman (1944:213 ) Fish, Frogs, and Reptiles Young and Goldman (1944:213)

*Based on analyses of wolf stomach contents.

133 kg of meat was found at an active den (Young and Goldman 1944:100). Such caches of meat, at least in the Rocky Mountains, have been known to contain whole carcasses of sheep, buried by wolves in spring snow banks near the den location (Young and Gol dman 1944:105). During denning periods, wolf hunting packs are considerably smal ler than in other seasons. Consequently, they tend to damage carcasses less at any one feeding session than during the rest of the year, particularly in winter 11when wolf packs prefer hunting fresh meat on the hoof to feeding long on frozen carrion" (Haynes 1982:268). General ly, however, denning wolves carry only portions of a kill back to a den for their young. Body portions transported from artio dactyl speci es incl ude neck vertebrae, scapulae, and leg elements (Table 5.01, column 2). Some bone elements found at dens are docu mented to have been carried from kill sites 4.8 to 6.4 km away (Bin ford 1981, Haynes 1980b, Young and Goldman 1944:101). The bone from dens are usually gnawed more than at ki ll sites . This is due in a large part to the fact that elements are played with by the pups and lei surely gnawed on by older wolves resulting in a high frequency of marked and pol i shed bone (Haynes 1982:268). Although Mr. Dean did not record any major burrowi ng disturbance that may be indicative of a wolf den in the units excavated at the Eastman Rockshelter, it is stressed that, based on surface area, ap proximately two-thi rds of the site remains unexplored. Furthermore, whi le wolves may not have used the site as a den , its use as a focal

134 point for certain socio-behavior of wolves must be strongly con sidered. Consequently, because humans, dogs, and wolves may have al l used the Eastman Rockshelter, the bone assembl age recovered from this site most likely reflects a complex set of human and canid behavior. Deci phering human from wol f behavior, and wolf from dog behavior based on the archaeologi cal record is not easily accompl i shed. The methods used here are considered prel iminary as an effort to ultimately under stand just how the Eastman Rockshelter functioned within various settl ement patterns among prehistoric humans groups from northeastern Tennessee.

Canid Gnaw Patterns on Recovered Cervid Remains Because the potential for canid destruction of bone is so great, any attempts to identify human patterns of animal use through the analyses of archaeofaunal material should first determine the degree to wh ich the bone assembl ages examined may have been altered by canids (Lyon 1970:215). In recent years, work by Binford and Bertram (1977) and Binford (1978 , 1981 , 1984 ) have begun to uncover the compl ications associated with the affects of canids on human deposits of big game animal remains. In these studies, the patterns of destruction of modern bone by domestic dogs have been compared to archaeologi cal faunal assemblages deposited by humans known to have kept dogs. Simi larities in elements missi ng and patterns of canid gnawed bone have

135 ------��

been used to infer a corresponding source of destruction. Such char acteristics have likewi se been used to measure the simi larities be tween bone assem�l ages associated with human deposits in caves and rockshelters to assemblages recovered from carnivore denning sites . These comparisons have largely been used to judge the extent to which both domestic dogs and other carnivores may have been responsible for creating or altering faunal patterns previously attributed solely to human behavior (Bi nford 1978, 1981, 1984) . At the Eastman Rockshelter, approximately 23 .0 % of al l sampled cervid elements showed signs of canid gnawing (Table 5.03). The bones exhibited various degrees of punctures and scored surfaces, step fractures, mashed and chipped edges , channeled shafts and some pol i sh ing (Fi gures 5.01-5.02). These terms are clearly explai ned in Binford (1981:51-79) and Haynes (1983). Al l types of elements were affected although not always in every deposit sampled. That is, a cal caneum or astragalus from one arbi trary level might be gnawed but the same ele ment from another level would show no evidence of canid gnawi ng . This is to be expected, however, given the fact that carnivores may disturb bone deposi_ts without necessarily strongly marking the bones (Bonni chesen 1973, Hayn�s 1982, Lyman 1985). Nearly twice as many of the elements from Early and Middl e Wood land time periods , when compared to elements from later deposits, displ ay evi dence of canid gnawing activity (Fi gures 5.03-5.06) . Al though few in number, over 40 % of the remains from the Archaic deposits are classified as having been gnawed by canids (Fi gure 5.07).

1 136 Table 5.03. Frequency of canid gnawed cervid bone from sampled deposits at 40SL34.

Level Level Level Level nelow 1 3 5 & 6 9, 10 & 11 Level 11 Anatomical No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % Part (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) ( 7 ) (8) (9) (10)

ANT 0 0 0 0 1 2.9 2 11.1 0 0 SK 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 11.1 0 0 MAX 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 33.3 0 0 PREMAX 2 100.0 0 0 0 0 1 50.0 0 0 MAND 0 0 0 0 2 14.0 4 13.3 0 0 AT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 AX 0 0 0 0 2 100.0 1 100.0 0 0 CERV 1 25.0 0 0 3 27.2 1 11.1 0 THOR 0 0 2 66.6 3 30.0 2 15.3 0 0 LUM 0 0 1 14.2 ,,2 28.5 5 20.0 0 0 PELV 1 33.3 .1 50.0 L 18.1 8 36.3 0 0 R 1 5.5 1 11.1 4 8.6 6 11. 7 0 0 ST 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SC 0 0 0 0 5 100.0 0 0 0 0 PH 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 33.3 0 0 DH 1 25.0 1 100 .0 1 25.0 2 50.0 0 0 PRC 0 0 0 0 2 40.U 10 52.6 0 0 DRC 0 0 0 0 1 50.0 2 100.0 0 0 CARP 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PMC 0 0 0 0 4 44.4 6 27 .2 1 33.3 DMC 1 100.0 0 0 2 50.0 2 50.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 50.0 2 25.0 0 0 PF 0 UF 1 50.0 1 50.0 0 0 2 28.5 0 0 PATE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PT 0 0 0 0 5 62.5 5 21. 7 0 0 DT 0 0 0 0 3 75.0 4· 44.4 0 0 TAR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 AST 1 100.0 0 0 0 0 5 62.5 0 0 CAL 0 0 0 0 2 66.6 7 70.0 0 0 PMT 0 0 0 0 9 90.0 6 37 .5 2 50.0 DMT 0 0 0 0 3 50.0 1 100.0 0 0 10 25.0 0 0 PHAL-1 0 0 1 12.5 65 14.2 0 0 PHAL-2 0 0 1 14.2 27.2 2 10.5 PHAL-3 0 0 0 0 1 5.5 4 16.0 0 0 Total 9 10.4 9 11.2 70 25.3 107 25.0 3 28.5

137 Figure 5. 01. Examples of gnawed deer bone (proximal elements) from various levels at 40SL34. (a, b, c) Proximal ulnas (F3-10, E2- 11, A4- 11), a, approximately 12. 7 cm in length, (d) Proximal humerus (G3-11), (e) Distal humerus (G3-9), (f) Thorasic vertebra (G3-6), (g) Cervical vertebra (E2-6), (h) Rib shaft (E2-6), (i, j) Scapulas (C4-9, E4-6).

138 Figure 5.01 .

139 Figure 5.02. Examples of canid gnawed cervid bone (distal ele ments) from various levels at 40SL34. (a) Ischium (E2-11) approxi mately 3.8 cm in length, (b) Proximal femur (C4-11) � (c) Unidentified bone (G3-11), (d) Calcaneum (H3-10), (e) Astragulus (C2-9) , (f ) Meta carpal shaft (F4-ll), (g, ·h) Distal 1st phalanges (C4-9, G4- 10), (i) Third phalange (C2-11), exhibiting osteoarthritis.

140 Figure 5.02.

141 EJ BON£S RECOVERED

·ti GNAWED BONES Figure 5.03. Location of canid gnawed bone on white-tailed deer elements from 40SL34, level 1.

D BONES PRESE�T Cl GNA�EO BONES Figure 5.04. Location of canid gnawed bone on white-tailed deer elements from 40SL34, level 3. 142 ION£ RECOVERED

6NAWED BONE

Figure 5.05. Location of canid gnawed bone on white-tailed deer elements from 40SL34, levels 5 and 6.

� BONE RECOVERED

GNAWED BON[

Figure 5.06. Location of canid gnawed bone on white-tailed deer elements from 40SL34, levels 9, 10, and 11. 143 t�i] BONE RECOVERED

• GNAWED BONE Figure 5.07. Location of canid gnawed bone on whi te-tailed deer elements from 40SL34, levels below level 12.

144 Determining the degree to which cervid remains might have been disturbed · by canids at the shelter was accomplished by plotting MAU percentages of proximal versus distal humeri and tibiae (Fi gure 5.08). The survival characteristics of these elements have been used to mea sure the general extent to which bone attrition and destruction by carnivores played in altering the frequency of elements in a deposit (Bi nford 1981:217-219 , Speth 1983:61). This measure is based on the examinations of humeri and tibiae proportions from disturbed deposits compared to their proportions from undisturbed deposits. For -the most part, elements from sites affected by carnivores plot out in a "zone 11 of destructi on whi le those from unaffected sites p 1 ot out in a "zone of no destruction" (Bi nford 1981:219). Judged by the frequencies of humeri , Mississippi an and Middle Woodland deposits appear to have been disturbed whi le Late Woodland 1 11 and Early Woodland deposits are seen as undisturbed or 1 pristine assemblages. Tibia MAU frequenci es , however, place al l but the Ar chaic sampled deposits as undisturbed. The cervid remains from the Archaic deposits constitute only metapodal elements and, therefore , they are not considered in this test. A number of interesting points come to light with the examina tions of humeri and tibiae frequencies. For example, although Early Woodland humeri/tibiae frequenci es plot out as pristine, these remains are from the only assemblage significantly correlated to whi te-tai led deer bone densities. As noted above, this significant correlation

145 n

81)

Wolf

Creek

inf

vel

vels

Bent

Leve

•

100

Tibia

Humerus

•

dence

evi

for

�

Zone

data

-----

ter

ion

bone

uct

shel

str

Rock

Distal

cer

� I

man

East

Zone

ucti

/ A

destr

Test

5.0

- I J:>1/

�--

0 C!-

gure

�

....

Fi ------�---·------=.-----

suggests that these bone frequencies may in fact be products of dif ferential bone preservation . If canids were the catalyst behind these frequencies, then why is this deposit in the "zone of no destruction"? Possibly, determining the preserved state of an assemblage by using frequencies of particular elements may not be as reliable an. indicator of disturbance as assemblage completeness as first suggested. More over, this method relies on the free accessability of these elements to canids . Given that cervid remains at the Eastman Rockshelter most likely constitute assemblages that have been differently transported , processed, and deposited by a host of cultural forces alone , equal accessability of these elements , at least to dogs , seems quite un realistic. Possi bly, free access to bones was not any more common for . prehistoric Indian dogs than it is for dogs among contemporary abori ginal human groups (Binford and Bertram 1977, Binford 1981, Brain 1976). Conceivably , cervid tibiae and humeri may have been made less available to dogs at the Eastman Rockshelter than other deer elements. Consequently , the frequency of their occurrence may not at all repre sent how much of the other bone deposits were affected by dogs. Wolves, on the other hand, are bel i eved to have had greater access to the elements discarded at the Eastman Rockshelter than dogs simply because no humans were present to directly control their selection of elements to gnaw. What would principally govern this selection is the edibleness of remains scavenging wolves opportunistically encountered across the site 's abandoned surface (e.g. , Binford 1981:175). Other factors , nearly of equal importance , include the length of time since

147 the remains were discarded, how many wol ves were present, the season of scavenging and the amount of remains encountered. Although measuring techniques were lacki ng, a number of reports have been publ ished that attempt to identify canid gnawed bone as the result of wol ves scavenging faunal remains deposi ted by humans at open sites (Kehoe 1983, Johnson 1983, Wi lson 1983) and within a rockshelter (Beebe 1983). Unfortunately, determinati on between h fami liaris and wi ld canids in these studies was not generated, only inferred . To date , Binford (1981, 1984) is one of a few researcher who have tried to determine between gnaw patterns produced by domestic dogs and patterns produced by wi ld carnivores . Information gleaned from his work on the relationship between scavenged and non-scavenged Middle Stone Age faunal material from the Klasies River Mouth Cave (Binford 1984) indicates that, if wol ves scavenged deposits at the Eastman Rockshelter, they most likely would have encounterd only remnant amounts of edi ble cervid remains. This _is suspected because meat was general ly the primary reason why humans who occupied the shelter hunted cervids. Furthermore, the elements remaining there would tend to have been stripped of most meat. Then, if domestic dogs were present, these ani mal s would likely consume the remaining edi ble porti ons. In any case, wol ves scavenging these remains would have general ly encountered considerably less amounts of food than would be avai lable from freshly ki lled prey. Scavenging abandoned habitation sites, therefore, is seen as an opportunistic form of food gathering

148 behavior for these animals . That is, wolves in a sense could have 11 11 monitored abandoned Indian sites for edible items but in no way were they dependent on human deposits of faunal remains for their survival. As previously suggested, wolves more than likely would scavenge the shelter deposits if it was repeatedly occupied by humans but for only short periods of time such as expected for temporary hunting camps. Not only would the cervid remains have been fresh, but the Indian dogs, if present , would have had less time to consume the discarded elements. Body parts believed to be subject to scavenging by wolves would tend to be those which were defleshed and abandoned at the shelter soon after procurement. Exactly which elements these may be, would vary with the circumstances regarding human occupation of the Eastman Rockshelter , plus the availability and abundance of cervid resources. Further determination of the degree to which canids might have disturbed the sampled cervid remains from 40SL34 is accomplished by calculating the Kendall's tau correlation coeffecient between frequen cies of canid gnawed caribou elements from Eskimo dog yards (Table 5.01, column 1) and gnawed cervid bones from the Eastman Rockshelter (Table 5.03:137). Only Early and Middle Woodland canid gnawed bone frequencies are significantly correlated with the Eskimo dog yard data (P > 0.005).

149 Cultural Period Tau p Middle Woodland 0.35314 0.0068 Early Woodland 0. 30336 0.018

These assemblages , exhibited a high frequency of gnaw�d elements . 11 This is exactly the 11 kennel pattern expected from domestic dogs who are restricted in what they are fed (Haynes 1982 :268) . Long term occupation or frequent reoccupation of a site by humans with dogs most likely would produce such a pattern (Binford 1978: 209). It is inter esting that the Early and Middle Woodland gnawed bone frequencies show this sort of pattern , particularly since human occupation of the of the site during these periods is predicted in the model to have been longer than for later periods . The various frequencies of gnawed bone between these remains suggests that possibly different circum stances were in operation regarding what elements were available to canids. These differences could have stemmed from a shorter length of time dogs were present at the site, the possibility that dogs were generally fed at kill site locations, or that they were fed close to the site but not within the sheltered area . Although a portion of the gnawed bones may have resul ted from scavenging wolves, information on wolf feeding behavior indicates that even when scavenging artiodactyl carcasses wolves generally do not consume distal metapodals and phalanges (D' Andrea and Gotthardt 1984 :278 , Haynes 1982 :270) . This pattern was also found to be the case for specific African carnivores scavenging various artiodactyl

150 .species in South Africa (Binford 1984:168-169, Table 4. 31, Richardson 1980). Presumably , this frequency of consumption results because the utility of the elements are too low for the majority of free roaming carnivores to exert the effort to exploit them. Generally , they would make the effort instead to procure another prey {Binford 1981, 1984) . It is interesting , that of the distal elements identified in deposits sampled from the Eastman Rockshelter , few were entirely free of canid gnawed marks {Table 5.03). Since domestic dogs were depen dent upon humans for food , they were generally limited in what they could eat. Through default , dogs may have exerted the effort to gain some nourishment from these low utility elements , while wolves would have passed them up . On the other hand , wolves scavenging abandoned human deposits of faunal remains at the Eastman Rockshelter would have direct access to already dismembered body parts. Consequently , the gnaw pattern pro duced from wolves encountering these remains may be different then when a complete carcass was fed upon {Binford 1984 :167 ). Conceivably , wolves still may have gnawed these low utility remains , particularly if nothing of greater food value was available at the Eastman Rockshelter when they came upon the site . Extensive wolf gnawing of these low utility elements most likely would have taken placed in the late autumn and early winter. At this time , prey animals are in prime condition and are less likely to be taken by carnivores {Haynes 1982:270, D'Andrea and Gotthardt 1984:276) . As a result, wolves may be hard pressed for something to eat so as not to

151 . pass up elements at the shelter that are easily available, although of low food value.

Summary of the Canid Gnaw Bone Patterns The gnaw patterns of bones produced by domestic dogs and wolves is undoubtably very similar . They may even be superimposed . Deter mination, therefore , as to which species of canid is responsible for the pattern is , at this time , speculative . Nonetheless , recognition of gnawed bone patterns must be attempted to help determine the extent to which assemblages were altered by canids. Based on differences in feeding characteristics and behavior of domestic dogs compared to wolves , it is believed that only the gnawed cervid elements from Early and Middle Woodland deposits can be identified as products of Indian dogs. Canid gnawed bone from Mississippian, Late Woodland , and Ar chaic deposits may be attributed to either wolf or domestic dog acti vities . Fortunately, researchers in North America are beginning to ex amine the kinds of patterns produced by carnivores scavenging deposits 1 of animal remains (Binford 1981, D Andrea and Gotthardt 1984, Haynes 1980, 1982, 1983, Magoun 1979). Much more information is needed , however , before the affects of canid behavior on archaeofaunal remains can be realized. Investigations must deal directly with patterns produced by carnivores scavenging animal remains from human use and deposition . Haynes (1982) notes that wolves scavenge elements dis carded at kill sites by deer hunters . Perhaps this is one area that

152 can lead to a better understanding about wolf scavenging behavior and its effect on cultural deposits of animal remains. Furthermore , differences between gnaw damage on herbivore limb bones has been recognized for specific carnivores (Haynes 1983). Such a difference may exists between bones gnawed by wolves and domesitc dogs, particu larly if the dogs were small. Finally , more research on bone gnawing behavior of other carni vore scavengers besides wolves such as bears, cougars, foxes, coyotes, wolverines and weasels who may disturb human deposits of bone remains (Haynes 1982, Magoun 1979) , must be conducted by archaeologists in order to delineate the affects these species may have had on archaeo faunal deposits. Through analysis of the gnawed cervid bone from the Eastman Rockshelter it is believed that the pattern of recovered faunal remains may be as much the result of canid behavior as it is the result of prehistoric human behavior. Reliability of interpreta tions about prehistoric human use of cervid resources and the function of the Eastman Rockshelter , based on the recovered remains , must be judged with the above conclusion in mind.

153 CHAPTER VI

EVIDENCE FOR SEASONALITY AT THE EASTMAN ROCKSHELTER

Faunal Seasonality Indicators As predicted in the Rockshelter Function Model, seasonal use of the Eastman Rockshelter is expected to have become more varied through time . This is believed to be in response to the increased demand for humans to procure first line, storable animal food resources and the subsequent greater utilization of the rockshelter by specialized hunt ing groups who had to ventured out more often away from their perma nent villages in search of these resources . In order to test the seasonal pattern of the model, a number of faunal remains recovered from the Eastman Rockshelter have been ex amined. Principally, annuli growth structures in catfish (Ictalurid ) spines (Morey 1983) and in freshwater bivalve shells of the purple warty-back (Cyclonaias tuberculata ) (Manzano 1985) were measured to arrive at the time of death information for these specimens . In addition, age at death information for white-tailed deer based on mandibular tooth eruption and wear patterns (Severinghaus 1949 ) and the presence of migratory birds (cf. Smith 1975) were analyzed to determine at what season(s) of the year humans from the various cul tural periods represented may have occupied the site . The vertebrate faunal remains used in assessing the seasonality of human occupation at 4OSL34 comprised those from sampled units plus those pulled from the remaining faunal assemblage in unsampled units.

154 The freshwater mussels examined were from unit A2 and those col l ected from various unit-level s due to their excel lent state of preservation. Unfortunately, the number of seasonal indicators varies between cultural periods . Nevertheless , significant information was generated to shed light on one of three possible concl usions concerning seasonal patterning in the human use of the Eastman Rockshelter : 1. The seasonality predictions of the model are supported by the analysis of seasonal faunal indicators. That is , through time a greater range in seasonal use of the shel ter is recognized . 2. No concl usions can be drawn about seasonal change in occupa tion of the shelter . A similar seasonal pattern of occupation is recorded for al l time periods . 3. The anal ysis of the seasonal faunal indicators do not support the model predictions on seasonality . Earl ier cul tural groups have a greater range of seasonal occupation than those recognized for later groups .

Assumptions of Analysis Anal ysis of seasonal patterning in the human use of the Eastman Rockshelter requires that a series of assumptions be made concerning the remains targeted for examination (cf . Morey 1982:120-122). First of al l, it must be assumed that the elements measured for seasonality are from animal species that were procured and deposited at the site by humans . As pointed out in Chapters III and V of this study , such an assumption may not be safely made for al l animal species identified

155 from the shel ter . Conceivably, some recovered catfish and migratory bird elements, for example, may have been the result of raptors depo siting these remains ·at the site . It is also possible that a certain number of the white-tailed deer mandibles were introduced into the site by wol ves or other large carnivores. Nonetheless, at the risk of 1 11 creating a 1 myth (cf. Binford 1981) about the origin of these ele ments at the Eastman Rockshelter , the assumption for human deposition of these seasonal indicators is made, although somewhat cautiously. A second assumption about the remains anal yzed concerns whether or not they were discarded soon after the animals they represent were obtained . This assumption is deemed acceptable because none of the elements examined show evidence of having been "curated" by human inhabitants at the Eastman Rockshelter . That is, al l specimens are from local resources and none contained marks that suggest they had been altered by humans. As a result, most elements can be considered as bi-products of human consumption of animals. Final ly, a third assumption that must be made concerns the simi larities and differences of climatic conditions through time at the Eastman Rockshelter . This centers on how cl imatic conditions may have affected the growth rates and/or migration patterns of species repre sented in the archaeological context compared to those of modern species. Given the expanse of time represented at the shelter , the climate is believed to have varied and periodical ly refl ected extremes possibly different from existing conditions. For example, there is

156 evidence that, at least on a broad scale throughout the Holocene , long term fluctuations in summer temperatures have occurred for regions within the Northern Hemisphere (Williams and Wigley 1983). The degree to which such climatic change may have affected seasonal indicators (species) used in this study is difficult to determine . Therefore , the potential that variation in seasonal growth and migration might have occurred is another reason to view with caution the seasonal data generated in this study.

Analyses of Catfish . Spines and Freshwater Bivalve Shells A reliable procedure based on the analysis of measurements of annuli growth structures to assess the season of death of freshwater catfish (Ictalurus .§J?..:_) (Morey 1983) and a similar procedure to assess the season of death of the purple warty-back, a freshwater bivalve species , (Manzano 1985) was used on specimens recovered from the Eastman Rockshelter . Catfish spines and shell valves were embedded in epoxy prior to making thin sections (ca . 400 - 200 microns thick) on a Buehler Isomet low speed wafering saw. For some specimens , thin sections were not made because the first cut through the embedded element proved to be adequate for viewing the growth annuli. This was especial ly the case for bivalve specimens whose annuli structures could be examined with out the need of thin sections . Cut sections of both catfish and bivalve specimens were briefly hand ground on 600 grit paper to remove saw striations, then viewed

157 with a Bausch and Lomb Zoom 7 stereoscope fitted with a 0.1 mm ocular micrometer to measure the growth arrest lines. With catfish spines, measurement of the most recent yearly growth increment is divided by the measure of the previous year 's growth . Thi s growth index is standarized by 100, then raised to the .363 power. The resulting transformed growth index is compared to similarly transformed val ues corresponding to a quantitative model on the growth rate of modern catfish anal yzed by Morey (1982, 1983) in order to determine the season in which a given specimen died. A simi lar approach was also used for bivalve specimens , except that the most recent year 's amount of growth is divided by the average of four years of annul i growth to arrive at growth index . The non transformed index is then compared to a quantitative model on the yearly growth rate of the purple warty-back (Manzano 1985). The predictive rel iability of both procedures is determined through a 1 11 series of 1 bl ind tests on modern specimens with known dates of death (cf . Morey 1983).

Catfish. In al l, 36 catfish spi nes were recovered from level s one through 12 at the Eastman Rockshelter. These were thin sectioned and examined under 40 X power magnification for measurable annul i growth structures. Onl y 18 (50.0 %) contained annul i sui table for measuring. The remaining speci mens were rejected because of simi lar

11 reasons as those noted in Morey and Kl i ppe 1 ( 1986: 8): lack of read i - ly definable annul i, suspected presence of false annul i, and confusion

158 over the identity of closely spaced annuli on some specimens. " Unfor tunately, the only specimen assigned to the Archaic cultural time period was one of the remaining 18 specimens which did not contain measurable annuli. Presented in Table 6.01 in order of their strati graphic occurrence are the series of measurements for the usable spines and the calculated seasons of death . Approximately 39 % were calculated as having died between June and August. The majority (61.1 %), however, were calculated as having a September through August date of death. This pattern remained the same for both the Woodland and Mississippian cultural deposits. Freshwater bivalves. Annuli growth structures of bivalve speci mens were viewed under 50 X power. Unfortunately, only four purple warty-back valves were available for examination. Two of these proved to have unreadible annuli while the other two showed clear and dis tinct annuli. These valves were recovered from levels one and five (Table 6.02) . Interestingly, the generated dates of death for the two shells, September and October , fit within the time of year identified from the analysis of measurable catfish spines (Table 6.01).

Analysis of Deer Mandibles A comparison of the conditions of deer mandibular dentition from the Eastman Rockshelter to the dental eruption and wear schedules of known aged modern white-tailed deer 20 months old or less (Severing haus 1949 ) is used here as a means to record the season of death for these animals . A total of 12 out ot 27 (44. 4 %) mandibles with teeth

159 Table 6.01. Incremental growth measurements on catfish spines and generated week of death for specimens recovered from the Eastman Rockshelter.

Annuli Width Recent Growth {0.1 rrm) Year's Growth .363 Predicted Level Specimen 1-2 2-3 3-4 Growth Index Index Week

1 C2-l-9 10 10 9 75.0 4.7934 Nov 12-18 2 C4-2-ll 6 6 6 3 50.0 4.1373 Aug 13-19 E4-2-19 5 5 6 4 80.0 4.9070 Oct 8-14 F3-2-21 10 11 7 70.0 4.6748 Sept 17-23 G3-2-24 11 11 4 36 .3 3.6833 Jul 16-22 3 82-3-4 10 10 9 9.00 5.1214 Nov 12-18 83-3-7 10 15 5 50.0 4.1373 Aug 13-19 D4-3-17 5 4 5 3 60.0 4.4204 Sept 3-9 G4-3-26 6 7 6 100.0 5.321 Nov-Dec 4 C4-4-12* 5 5 6 4 50.0 4.1373 Jun 25-Jul 1 E2-4-18* 13 14 9 69.2 4.6554 Sept 17-23 5 F4�5-36 12 10 10 83.3 4.9795 Oct 15-21 6 H2-6-30 15 19 12 80.0 4.9070 Oct 8-14 7 A3-7-3 21 6 28.5 3.3737 Jun 25-Jul 1 84-7-8 38 49 12 31.5 3.4985 Jul 2-8 8 C4-8-13 11 9 7 63.6 4.5149 Sept 10-16 9 F4-9-23 10 14 5 50.0 4.1373 Aug 13-19 H3-9-34 11 10 7 63.6 4.5149 Sept 10-16

*These specimens are flathead catfish (Pylodi ctis oli varis); all others are indeterminate species of catfish (Ictalurus sp.).

160 ted

for

17-23

22-28

Week

Pred

dea

Oct

wth

dex

week

83.

Gro

wth

40SL

nerated

Gro

from

Recent

and

Year

}

recovered

mens

3-4 35 50

measurements

dth

spe

2-3

grow

-2

Ann

tuberc

creme

men

-1

A2-5-3

Spe

Level

Table

t-6

°'

t-6 was judged acceptable for season of death estimations. Unfortunately, no mandibles from Mississippian, Late Woodland, or Archaic deposits were avail able for measurement. Mandibles with calculated season of death came from levels in or around the Early and Middle Woodland deposits. Based on Severinghaus (1949) , the seasons of their procure ment ranged from June through December (Figure 6. 01). Mandibles with fully erupted teeth were not used in this study because age determination for grazing or browsing animals , based on the wear patterns of their teeth, may vary from region to region (Morey 1982 :128) . Another point that must be made about seasonal determinations based on mandibles is that although deer may have been procured at one time in the year, their mandibles may not have been brought back and deposited at the site at that same time. Conceivably , then , season of occupation based only on the assessment of mandibular dentition pat terns of white-tailed deer may not be monitoring the time of year humans were at a site as much as the season(s) in which mandibles were selected for transport back to the place of occupation (see Binford 1978: 149-150). In the future, seasonal assessment based on the growth pattern of white-tailed deer bones and epiphysial fusion rates , for example , could be one way to control for the possible discrepancies caused by seasonal estimates from only mandibular dentition patterns (see Purdue 1983).

162 I

and

ment

iod

old.

40SL

replace

fro

nth

hin

ere

birt

cov

teet

-9a

-9

peak

ble

-8

-10

the

iduous

mandi

dec

-4

-6

-9

ath

dee

F2-7

194

B3-ll

May

imen

tai

led

ghaus

ason

Spec

dle

te-

-7

-t

rin

mid

the

ite

the

cat

equen

ming

terns

pat

Assu

bas

F2�6

gure

low

Leve

t-J

en Migratory Birds Because few migratory birds are represented in deposits at the Eastman Rockshelter , their presence as seasonal evidence for human occupation is used here with caution . Nonetheless , migratory birds , particularly waterfowl , are frequently considered as seasonal , first line foods {Styles 1981:95) and have long been extensively used to infer the season{s) of occupation for archaeological sites {see for example , Smith 1975:64-76). Of the migratory birds identified from 40SL34 wood duck and pied billed grebe were two of the more numerous birds represented . Both are ususally present in the area into the late fall , so that they are not considered the best of seasonal indicators . The common merganser and Canada goose may be found in East Tennessee throughout the year , although the merganser ususally migrates south in the fall . The swan , tentitively identified as a whistling swan, is considered by Ganier (1933:9) to be a very rare transient visitor , arriving in Tennessee during the spring and fall . Passenger pigeons occurred in maximum numbers only during their fall-winter migration through Tennessee . This appears to be the case even though they once existed in countless numbers throughout many parts of the eastern United States {Schorger 1955). Although nesting colonies were known to have occurred in Kentucky , none are reliably documented to have occurred in Tennessee {Ganier 1933 :44) . Evidently , because of their circular migration routes , passenger pigeons went southward in autumn and returned in the spring mainly through states

164 west of the Appalachian Mountains (Schorger 1955:268). Presence of these birds at the Eastman Rockshelter, therefore, most likely occurred during restricted periods in the fal l and winter.

Summary of Seasonal ity Evi dence Given the potential variability in the origin of faunal deposits at rockshelter sites, determining the seasonal patterns for human occupation may be cl ouded by a mixture of cultural and natural fac tors. Furthermore, as poi nted out in Chapter IV, there remains some difficulty as to how to be certain on how much faunal material was brought to the site and how much was removed as a result of subsequent cl eaning by later human inhabitants. This alone may have influenced the seasonality patterning recogni zed in this study . With the above in mind, the overall variability in the season ality patterning measured for the Eastman Rockshelter does not appear to fit the pattern predicted in the Rockshelter Function Model (Table 6.03). That is, based on the available evidence , Early and Middle Woodland deposits show a slightly greater range of seasonal variabil ity than Late Woodland and Mississippi an deposits. Thi s can be attri buted primarily to the occurrence of whi te-tailed deer mandibles in the earlier Woodland level s. For example, one mandible which has an age of death of 13 months (F2-6-1 ), suggests an occupation in June. Two other individuals are judged to have been 8 months (G2-9-1, G2-9- 2) of age at death , suggesting an occupation in January (Fi gure 6.01).

165 Table 6.03. Seasons of occupation for 40SL34 generated from select faunal remains.

Level Cultural Period Animal Seasons

1 Mississippian Catfish Aug 13-19, Oct 1-7 Bivalve Sept 17-23 Swan Late Fall , Winter 3 Late Woodland Catfish Aug 13-19, Sept 3-9 Nov 12-18, Nov-Dec .... 5 & 6 Middle Woodland Catfish Oct 8-14 , Oct 15-21 °' Bivalve Oct 22-28 White-tailed Deer June 9 Early Woodland Catfish Aug 13-19, Sept 10-16 10 & 11 White-tailed Deer Nov . Dec , Jan Canada Goose Fall , Winter , Spring Common Merganser Fall , Winter , Spring a·e 1 ow Archaic - No Seasonality Data Generated - Level 12 Given the assumption that the seasonal indicators identified the maj or season(s) humans inhabi ted the shelter, it is interesting that no signifi cant evi dence was generated for a late winter, early spring (February through April) period of occupation. This suggests that the frequent threat of floods, as pointed out in Chapter II, may have discouraged humans from utilizing the shelter during this season. Final ly, it must be stressed that because the amount of seasonal indicators used in this study vary across time and in their power of resolution, additional data should be gathered from other rockshelters to properly assess the seasonal ity aspects presented in the model .

167 CHAPTER VII

THESIS SUMMARY

This study has attempted to address the functional use of the Eastman Rockshelter (40SL34) , located in Sullivan County , Tennessee , through the identification and analysis of the recovered archaeologi cal faunal remains. Prehistoric cultural material recovered at the site span in age from the Late Archaic through the Mississippian time periods. A model was presented that advocates a general specialization through time , of activities at the site (cf . Hall 1985) as they relate to the procurement and use of animal resources . Although few faunal remains were recovered from Archaic deposits , those assigned to the Woodland and Mississippian periods contained substantial numbers of elements to test , at various degrees of effectiveness , three expecta tions presented in the model . In brief , it was expected that 1) the diversity of species util ized at the site will increase from earlier to later cultural periods , 2) procurement and butchering of cervids will reflect the greater need over time for humans to process these resources for storage and trans port to more permanent settlements elsewhere , and 3) the frequency of seasonal occupation by humans will increase , reflecting a greater demand for the procurement of animal resources to meet the food re quirements of a growing human population . Principal components that are believed to have governed these suspected changes in animal use at the rockshelter include the intensification of agriculture, a growing

168 human population , and the greater complexity of sociopol i tical organi zation focusing on sedentary settlements.

Summary of Study Results 1. A sample of over 13, 000 vertebrate elements was identified for thi s study from eight of 29 units excavated at 40SL34. Mammal and fish bones respectively constitute 38.3 % and 36.3 % of this sample. Repti le elements, of which the majority were turtle, comprise 18.1 % of the sampled assemblage, whi le 6.1 % were those of birds and only 1.1 % were those of amphibians. 2. Grouped by cultural peri ods, the Mississippian contained 33 vertebrate speci es, Late Woodland 37, Middle Woodland 38, and Early Woodland 39 speci es. For the Archaic deposits, however, only seven different vertebrate resources were identified. Each deposit also contained bivalve and gastropod species. 3. No major difference was noted in the diversity of taxa between the Woodland and Mississippian deposits. The limited range of identi fied taxa for the Archaic deposits is most likely related to the low number of recovered elements. 4. The lack of Archaic remains may be due to the once higher aci dic level for these early deposits and/or seasonal floods removing the deposited elements . 5. Natural accumulations of animal remains in rockshelter/cave sites by raptors and carnivores , for exampl e, makes the appl ication of

169 taxa diversity as a method to measure human behavior difficult to interpret. 6. Based on NISP alone , white-tailed deer, squirrel , turkey , fish, and turtles were the most numerous resources used. It can be concl uded then that the riverine envi ronment was heavily expl oited along with upl and areas more suitable for deer, squirrel , and turkey. 7. Fifteen elements of the extinct harelip sucker (Lagochila lacera) were identified from Woodland and Mississippian deposits at the rockshelter. This is one of the first known records of this spe cies from an archaeological site. It is a significant find because only one skel eton of this fish exists. · The number of elements recov ered, their excel lent preservation and time span involved wil l greatly contribute to what little information is known about this now extinct fish. 8. Anal ysis of 1384 cervid elements from a sample of the major cul tural deposits recognized at the shel ter reveal that bu�chering marks indicati ve of processing for storage and transport were too low in frequency to support or refute the model assumption about changing patterns .of cervid uti l ization and consumption. 9. The overal l butchering techniques for white-tailed deer, based on the location of cut marks, appear to be similar between the Woodland and Mississippian periods. Pr i mary locations of cut marks incl ude proximal portions of ribs, the distal humerus and proximal radius, around the acetabulum, and the distal femur and distal tibia as wel l as on the proximal end of cannon bones. The lack of cervid

170 remains from the Archaic deposit precl udes any interpretation of butchering for this time period at the rockshelter .

10 . A greater frequency of white-tailed deer elements, particu larly long bones, occurred in Early and Middle Woodland deposits than in the Mississippian and Late Woodland level s. Expl anations for this pattern may incl ude a shift in the locati�n and number of deer but chered, a shift in the use and location of processing marrow from long bones, a shift in the duration or frequency of occupation at the rock shelter, and the differential destruction of remains by canids . 11 . The frequencies of cervid elements from the Late Woodland deposits were the only sample statistically correlated to the bone bulk density of deer . This indicates that the pattern may be a pro duct of the survivability of bone and one not due to cul tural factors . 12 . Examination of canid gnaw patterns on sampled cervid bones from the different cultural deposits reveal that al l deposits could have been heavily disturbed by canids. Early and Middle Woodland cervid remains with canid gnaw marks appear most like those recorded for domestic dogs. This is expected, especial ly for the Early Wood land period since the frequency of these remains are known to refl ect the differential survivability of elements . For canid gnawed bone from the remaining deposits, it cannot be determined whether the gnaw pattern was produced by domestic dogs or scavenging wol ves .

171 13 . Seasonality evidence was generated from the measurements of annuli growth structures in catfish spines and bivalve shells , erup tion and wear of white-tailed deer mandibular teeth , and the presence of migratory birds . Although no seasonality evidence was available for the Archaic deposits , results computed from catfish and bivalve specimens for the Mississippian and Woodland periods indicated a late summer and fall (August - November) occupation . Recovered deer mandi bles from the Early and Middle Woodland deposits extend this occupa tion span from June through January. 14 . Because of the lack of deer mandibles from Late Woodland and Mississippian deposits and the variation in the reliability of the seasonal indicators used , it is not possible to assess which cultural group occupied the site the longest. Nevertheless , it was noted that there is some consistency in seasonal occupation over time at the Eastman Rockshelter . This long term simil�rity in occupation forms a crucial step towards understanding the role rockshelters possessed in the settlement-subsistence systems of prehistoric people from north eastern Tennessee .

172 LIST OF REFERENCES LIST OF REFERENCES

Adovasio, J. M., J. D. Gunn, J. Donahue, and R. Stuckenrath 1978 Meadowcraft Rockshelter 1977: An Overview. American Antiquity 43 :632-651. Allen, G. M. 1920 Dogs of the American Aborigines . Harvard University, Museum of Comparative Zool ogy , Bul letin 63, 431-517 . Amick, H. C., and L. H. Rol l ins 1937 The Geology of. Tennessee . Ginn Press, New York. Barclay, F. H. 1957 The Natural Vegetation of Johnson County, Tennessee, Past and Present. Unpublished Ph .D. dissertation, The Univer sity of Tennessee, Knoxville. Beck, B. F. 1 11 1975 The Ecology of 1 Feral and Free-roving Dogs in Bal timore. In The Wild Canids: Their Systematics7 Behavioral Ecology and Evolution . edited by M. W. Fox . pp . 380-390. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York. Beebe, B. F. 1983 Evidence of Carnivore Activity in a Late Pleistocene/Early Hol ocene Archaeological Site (Bluefish Cave I), Yukon Terri tory, Canada . In Carnivores, Human Scavenging and Preditors: � Question of Bone Technol ogy, edited by G. M. LeMoine and A. S. MacEachem, pp . 1-14. Proceedings of the 15th Annual Conference of the University of Cal gary Archaeological Association, Cal gary, Alberta, Canada . Binford, L. R. 1968 Post-Pl�istocene Adaptations . In New Persectives in Archaeology, edited by S. R. and LR. Binford, pp. 313-341. Aldine, Chicago . 1978 Nunamuit Ethnoarchaeol ogy . Academic Press, New York. 1979 Organization and Formation Processes : Looking at Curated . Technologies . Journal of Anthropol ogical Research 35: 255-273 . 1980 Wil low Smoke and Dogs ' Tails: Hunter-Gatherer Settl ement Systems and Archaeological Site Formation. American Antiquity 45 :4-20.

174 1981 Bones : Ancient Men and Modern Myths. Academic Press , New. York. 1982 The Archaeology of Place. Journal of Anthropological Archaeo ill.l 1:5-31. 1984 Faunal Remains from Klasies River Mouth . Academic Press , New York. Binford , L. R., and J. B. Bertram . 1977 Bone Frequencies and Attritional Processes. In For Theory Building in Archaeology , edited by L. R. Binford , pp 77-153. Academic Press , New York. Bonnichsen , R. 1973 Some Operational Aspects of Human and Bone Alteration. In Mammalian Osteoarchaeology : North America , edited by B. M. Gilbert, pp. 9-24, Missiouri Archaeological Society , Columbia , Missiouri. Bossu , J.- B. 1962 Travels in the Interior of North America, 1751- 1762. Trans lated and edited by Seymour Feiler. University of Oklahoma Press , Norman , Oklahoma. Boyd, C. C., Jr. 1986 An Evolutionary Approach to the Prehistory of Upper East Tennessee and Adjacent Areas. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation , Department of Anthropology , The University of Tennessee , Knox ville. Brain , C. K. 1976 Some Principles in the Interpretation of Bone Accumulations Associated with Man. In Human Origins, Louis Leakey and the East African Evidence , edited by G. Ll. Isaac and E. R. Mccown , pp. 97-116. Benjamin/Cummings , Menlo Park , California . 1981 The Hunters or the Hunted : An Introduction to African Cave Taphonomy The University of Chi cago Press , Chi cago Braun , E. L. 1950 Deciduous forests -of Eastern ---North America. Blakiston , New York. Chapman , J., P. A. Delcourt , P. Cridlebaugh, and H. Delcourt 1982 Man-Land Interaction : 10 ,000 Years of American Indian Impact on Native Ecosystems in the Lower Little Tennessee River Valley. Southeastern Archaeology 1:115-121.

175 Christenson , A. L. 1980 Change in the Human Food Niche in Response to Population Growth . In Modeling Change in Prehistoric Subsistence Econo mics , edited by T. K. Earle and A. L. Christenson , pp. 31-73. Academic Press , New York . 1981 The Evolution of Subsistence in the Prehistoric Midwestern United States . Unpublished Ph .D. dissertation , Department of Anthropology , University of California, Los Angeles . Clarke , D. L. 1972 Models and Paradigms in Contemporary Archaeology . In Models in Archaeology edited by D. L. Clarke , pp. 1-60. Methuen , Londo'n:- Cle 1 and , C. E. 1965 Faunal Remains from Bluff Shelters in Northwest Arkansas . Arkansas Archaeologists 6(2-3):39-63 . 1976 The Focal-Diffuse Model : An Evolutionary Perspective on the Eastern United States. Mid-Continental Journal -of --Ar- chaeology 1:59-75. 1982 The Inland Shore Fishery of the Northern Great Lakes: Its Development and Importance in Prehistory . American Antiquity 47 :761-784. Cohen , M. N. 1977 The Food Crisis in Prehistory, Overpopulation and the Origins of Agriculture . Yale University Press , New Haven . Cornwa 11 , I . W. 1958 Soils for the Archaeologists . Phoenix House , London. Cowan, C. W. 1980 Excavations at the Haystack Rockshelter , Powell County , Ken tucky . Mid-Continental Journal of Archaeol ogy 4:3-34. Craig, A. J. 1969 Vegetational .History of the Shenandoah Valley , Virginia. Geo logical Society of America, Special Paper 123 . Craighead, J. J., and F. C. Craighead, Jr. 1969 Hawks , Owls, and Wildlife. Dover Publications, New York .

176 Cridlebaugh , P. A. 1984 American Indian and Euro-American Impact Upon Holocene Vegeta tion in the Lower Little Tennessee River Valley , East Tennes see . Unpublished Ph .D. dissertation , Department of Anthroplo gy, University of Tennessee , Knoxville . Custer, J. F. 1980 Settlement-Subsistence in Augusta County , Virginia. Archeolo gical Society of Virginia, Quarterly Bulletin 35:1-27 . D'Andrea , A. C. , and R. M. Gotthardt 1984 Predator and Scavenger Modifications of Recent Equid Skeletal Assemblages. Arctic 37 : 276-283. _Delcourt, P., and R. H. Delcourt 1979 Late Pleistocene and Holocene Distributional History of the Deciduous Forest in the Southeastern United States . Veroffent lichugen des Geobotanischen Institutes der ETH, Stiftung Rubel (Zurich) 68. 1983 Late-Quaternary Vegetational Dynamics and Community Stability Reconsidered . Quaternary Research 19 : 265-27 1. Deevey , E. S., Jr., and R. F. Flint 1957 Postglacial Hypsi thermal Interval . Science 125: 182-184. DeJarnette , D. L., E. B. Kurjack , and J. W. Cambron . 1962 . Stanfield-Worley Bluff Shelter Excavations. Journal of Alabama Archaeology 8(1-2): 1-124. Dice, L. R. 1943 The Biotic Provinces -of ---North America. University of Michigan Press , Ann Arbor . Dixon , E. J. 1984 Context and Environment in Taphonomic Analysis: Examples from Alaska 's Porcupine River Caves .. Quaternary Research 22: 201- 215. Dodson , P., and D. Wexlar 1979 Taphonomic Investigations of Owl Pellets . Paleobiology 5:275- 284. Duke , G. E. , A. A. Jergers , G. Loff, and 0. A. Evanson 1975 Gastric Digestion in Some Raptors . Comparative Biochemi stry, and Physlogy 50A:649-656.

177 Earl e, T. K. 1980 A Model of Subsistence Change. In Model ing Change in Prehis toric Subsistence Economies, edited by T. K. Earle and A. L. Christenson, pp. 1-29. Academic Press, New York. Earl e, T. K. , and A. L. Christenson (editors) 1980 Modeling Change in Prehistoric Economics. Academic Press, New York. Emerson, A; M. 1986 Progress Towards .the Construction of Utility Indices for Bison bison. Paper presented at the 51th meeting of the Society of American Archaeology, New Orleans. Faul kner , C. H. , and S. D. Dean 1982 The Eastman Rockshel ter : A Deeply Stratified Site. In - Upper East Tennessee. Tennessee Anthropological Association Newsletter 7:2-7. Fenneman , N. M. 1938 Physiography of the Eastern United States. McGraw Hill, New York. Flannery , V. 1968 Archaeological Systems Theory and Early Mesoamerica. In An thropological Archaeol ogy in the Americas, edited by B. J. Meggers , pp. 67-87 , Washington , D.C. Fogarty, M. E. 1986 On the Generation of a Modified General Utility Index for the White-tailed Deer (Odocoileus virginianus). Ms. in possession of the author , Department of Anthropology, University of Ten nessee , Knoxvil le. Frison, G. 1970 The Glen Rock Buffalo Jump , 48C0304. Plains Anthropologist Memoir No. 7. Fowler , M. L. 1959 Summary Report of the Modoc Rockshel ter. Illinois State Museum Report of Investigation No. 8. Fox , M. W. 1980 The Soul of the Wolf. Little Brown , Boston. Ganier , A. F. 1933 A Distribution List of the Birds of Tennessee. Tennessee Department of Game and Fish, Nashvil le.

178 Gould, R. A. 1977 Puntutjarpa Rockshelter and the Australian Desert Culture. Anthropological Papers of the American Museum of Natural His tory 54(1) : 1-188. Grayson , D. K. 1984 Quantitative Zooarchaeology, Topics in the Analysis of Ar chaeological Faunas. Academic Press , New York. Griffin , J. W. 1974 Investigations in Russell Cave. Publications in Archaeology 13 , National Park Services !!.:_�Department of the Interior, Washington , D. C. Guilday , J. E. , and D. P. Tanner 1962 Animal Remains from the Quaker State Rockshelter (36VE27) , Venango County , Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania Archaeo logist 32:59-83. Guilday , J. E. , P. W. Parmalee , and D. P. Tanner 1962 Aboriginal Butchering Techniques at the Eschelman Site (36La12) , Lancaster County, Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania Ar chaeologist 32: 59-83. Guilday , J. E. , H. W, Hamilton , and P. W. Parmalee 1975 Caribou (Rangifer tarandus) from the Pleistocene of Tennessee. Journal of the Tennessee Academy of Science 50 : 109-112. Guilday , J. E. , H. W. Hamalton , E. Anderson , and P. W. Parmalee 1978 The Baker Bluff Cave Deposit , Tennessee and the Late Pleisto cene Faunal Gradient. Bulletin of the Carnegie Museum of Natural History No. 11, Pittsburgh-. - Gustafson , C. E. 1972 Faunal Remains from the Marmes Rockshelter and Related Ar chaeological Sites in the Columbia Basin. Ph. D. dissertation , Washington State University. University Microfilms , Ann Arbor. Haag, W. G. 1948 An 0steometric Analysis of Some Aboriginal Dogs. University of Kentucky Reports of Investigations 7:107-264 . Hall, C. L. 1985 The Role of Rockshelter Sites in Prehistoric Settlement Sys tems : An Example from Middle Tennessee. Unpublished Master 's Thesis , Department of Anthropology , University of Tennessee , Knoxville.

179 Hardeman, W. D. 1966 Geologic Map of Tennessee. Tennessee Department of Conseva tion , Division of Geology , Tennessee. Hardesty , D. L. 1980 The Use of General Ecology Principles in Archaeology. In Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory. Vol 3, edited by M. B. Schiffer , pp. 158-188. Academic Press , New York. Haynes , G. 1980a Evidence of Carnivore Gnawing on Pleistocene and Recent Mammalian Bones. Paleobiology 64 : 341-351. 1980b Prey Bone and Predators : Potential Ecological Information from Analysis of Bone Sites. Ossa 7:75-97. 1982 Utilization and Skeletal Disturbance of North American Prey Carcasses. Arctic 35 : 266-281. 1983 A Guide for Differentiating Mammalian Carnivore Taxa Respon sible for Gnaw Damage to Herbivore Limb Bones. Paleobiology 9:164-172. Haynes , G. , and D. Stanford 1984 On the Possible Utilization of Camelops by Early Man in North America. Quaternary Reasearch 22: 216-230. Hill , A. , and A. K. Behrensmeyer 1984 Disarticulation Patterns of Some Modern East African Mammals. Paleobiology 10 : 366-376. Hoffman, R. W. and C. Hays 1985 The Eastern· Wooodrat· ( Neotoma flori dana) as a Taphonomi c Factor in Archaeological Sites. Ms. on file , Department of Anthropology , University of Tennessee. Knoxville. Jenkins, D. K. 1980 Lagochila lacera (Jordan and Brayton) , harelip sucker. pp. 407. In Atlas of North American Freshwater Fishes, edited by D. S.Lee:-T. R. Gilbert , C. H. Hocitt , R. E. Jenkins , D. K. McAllister, and J. R. Strauffer. Jr., et seq. North Carolina Stated Museum of Natural History , Raleigh.

180 Johnson , E. 1983 A Framework for Interpretation in Bone Technology. In Carni -vores, Human Scavenging and Preditors : � Question of Bone Technology , edited by G. M. LeMoine and A. S. MacEachem, pp. 55-94. Proceedings of the 15th Annual Conference of the Uni versity of Calgary Archaeological Association , Calgary , Alberta , Canada. Kehoe, T. F. 1983 Carnivores or Humans? Gul l Lake Plains Hunters vs Schreckensee German Neol ithic Hunter-Farmers. In Carnivores, Human Scaveng JB.g_ and Preditors : � Question of Bone Technology , edited by G. M. LeMoine and A. S. MacEachem , pp. 157-170. Proceedings of the 15th Annual Conference of the University of Calgary Ar chaeol ogical Association , Calgary , Alberta , Canada. Kent, S. 1981 The Dog: An Archaeol ogist's Best Friend or Worst Enemy - the Spatial Distribution of Faunal Remains. Journal of Field Ar chaeol ogy 8:367-372. Klein, R. G. and K. Cruz-Urbie 1984 The Analysis of Animal Bones from Archaeological Sites . The University of Chicago Press , Chicago . Klinger , T. C. 1978 Lowland Environment Variability and Prehistoric Settlement Behavior in the· Lower Mississppi Val l ey.- Mid-Continental Jour nal of Archaeology 3:285-331. Klippel , W. E. 1971 Graham Cave Revisted, A Reeval uation of Its Cul tural Position During the Archaic. Missouri Archaological Society, Memoir 9. Klippel , W. E. , and P. W. Parmalee 1982 Diachronic Variation in Insectivores from Cheek Bend Cave and Environmental Change in the Midsouth. Paleobiology 8:447-458. Lafferty , R. H., III . 1978 The Early Woodland Chronological and Cultural Affinities at Phipps Bend on the Hol ston River , Northeast Tennessee. Journal of Alabama Archaeology 24 : 132-150. Lavil le, H., J. Rigand , and J, Sackett 1980 Rockshelters of the Perigord : Stratigraphy and Archaeological Succession. Academic Press , New York. Lawrence, B. 1968 Antiquity of Large Dogs in North America. Tebiwa 11: 43-49.

181 Lewis , T. M. N. , and M. Kneberg 1957 The Camp Creek Site. Tennessee Archaeologist 13(1): 1-48. Limbrey , S. 1975 Soil Science and Archaeology. Academic Press , New York. Lubbock , Sir J. B. 1872 Prehistoric Times: As Illustrated .Q_l Ancient Times and the Manners and Customs of Modern Savages D. Appleton , New York. Lyman, R. L. 1985 Bone Frequencies : Differential Transport, In Situ Destruction , and the MGUI. Journal of Archaeological Sciencel2 :221-236. Lyon. P. 1970 Differential Bone Destruction : An Ethnographic Example. Ameri can Antiquity 35: 213-215. Magoun , A. J. 1979 Summer Scavenging Activ;-ty · in Northeastern ·Alaska. In Proceed ; ngs of the First Conference on Sci enti fic Research·· in the National Parks. vol. 1, edited by Robert M. Linn. pp. 213-239 , National Park Service , Department of Interior , Wasnington, D. C. Manzano, B. L. 1985 An Empirical Approach for Determining Seasonality from Fresh water Bivalves. In Exploring Tennessee Prehistory : A Dedica tion to Alfred K. Guthe , edited by T. Whyte , C. C. Boyd , Jr. , and B. Riggs. University of Tennessee, Department of Anthropo logy Report of Investigations 42. Marquardt , W. H. 1986 Complexity and Scale in the Study of Fisher-Gatherer-Hunters : An Example from the Eastern un;-ted-- States. In Prehistoric Hunter-Gatherers The Emergence of Cultural Complexity edited by T. D. Price and J. A. Brown , pp. 59-98. Academic Press, New York. Martin, W. H. 1971 Forest Communities of the Great Valley of East Tennessee and Their Relationships to Soil and Topographic Properties. Un published Ph. D. dissertation , University of Tennessee, Knox vi 11e.

182 · Matzek, B. L., W. E. Cartwright, L. G. Yearick , F. R. Austin , C. B. Beadles, and S. R. Bacon 1953 Soil Survey of Sul l ivan County, Tennessee . United States Department of Agriculture , Series 1944, No. 2. May , J. R. 1935 The Hawks of North America . The National Association of Audubon Societies , New York . Mech , D. L. 1970 The Wolf: The Ecology and Behavior of an Endagered Species . Natural History Press , Garden City , New York . Morey , 0. F. 1982 � Study of Subsistence and Seasonality in the Central Plains . Technical Report No. 82-12 , Division of Archeological Re search , Department of Anthropology, University of Nebraska , Lincoln. 1983 . Archaeological Assesment of Seasonality from Freshwater Fish Remains : A Quantitative Procedure . Journal of Ethnobiol ogy 3:75-95. Morey , D. F., and W. E. Klippel 1986 Seasonality and Archaeol ogical Contexts in the Mid-South . Report Submitted to the National Science Foundation , Research Grant No. BNS-8314056. Murie , A. 1944 The Wolves of Mount McKinley. U.S. Goverment Printing Office , Washington, 0.C. Meyer , W. 1928 Indian Trails of the Southeast .Forty Second Annual Report of the Bureau of American Ethnology, Washington . McCol lough, M. C. R. 1974 Archaeological Survey of the Reedy Creek Channel Improvment Project Area , Kingsport, Tennessee . Report Conducted for the Tennessee Val ley Authority in Accordance with Contract TV-36493A. McCol lough, M. C. R. and C. H. Faul kner 1973 Excavations of the Higgs and Doughty Sites , I-75 Salvage Archaeology. Tennessee- Archaeol ogy Society Miscel l aneous Paper No. 12 .

183 McDonald, J. N. 1984 Paleoecology Investigations at Saltville ; Virginia. Current Research in Paleoenvironments, vol. 1. pp. 77-78. M11 ner , G. R. 1980 Epidemic Diseases in the Postcontact Southeast: A Reapprasial. Mid-Continenta 1 Journa 1 of Archaeo 1 ogy 5·: 39-56. Noe-Nygaard , N. 1977 Butchering and Marrow Fracturing as a Taphonomic Factor in Archaeological Deposits. Paleobiology 3:218-237. Parmalee , P. W. and J. E. Guilday 1965 A Recent Record of Porcupine from Tennessee. Journal of the Tennessee Academy · of- Science vol. 41 (3):81-82. Parmalee , P. W., R. B. McMillian, and F. B. King ·· . 1976 Changing Subsistence Patterns at Rodge.rs· Shelter. In Prehis toric Man and His Environment: � Case Study in the Ozark Highlands , edited by W. R. Wood , and R. B. McMillian, pp·. 141- 161. Academic Press , New York. Parmalee, P. W., and W. E. Klippel 1983 The Role of Native Animals in the Food Economy of the Historic Kickapoo in· Central Illinois. In Lulu Linear Punctated : Essays in Honor of George Irving Quimby, edited by R. C. Dunnell and D. K. Grayson , pp. 253-324. Anthropological Paper No. 72. Museum of Anthropology , University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Perlman·, S. M. 1980 An Optimal Diet Model , Coastal Variability , and Hunter/Gath erer Behavior. In Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory vol. 3, edited by M. B. Schiffer , pp. 257-310. Academic Press , New York. Peterson , J. S., N. D. Hamliton, J. M. Adovasio , and A. L. McPherson 1984 Netting Technology and the Antiquity of Fish Exploitation in Eastern North America. Mid-Continental Journal of Archaeology 9: 199-225. Pimlott, D. H. , J. A. Shannon, and G. B. Kolenosky 1969 The Ecology of the Timber Wolf in Algonquin Provincial Park. Department of Lands and Forest Resources Report No. 87. On tario , Canada. Piper. H. M. , and J. G. Piper 1980 40SL29 : Archaeological Data from a Shallow Disturbed Site in Sullivan County , Tennessee. Tennessee Anthropologist 5:95- 121.

184 Pu 11i am , H. R. 1974 On the Theory of Optimal Diets. American Naturalist 108: 59-74. Purdue , J. R. 1983 Epiphyseal Closure in White-tailed Deer. Journal of Wildlife Management 47:1207-1213 . Pyke , G. H. , H. R. Pulliam , and E. L. Charnov 1977 Optimal Foraging: A Selected View of Theory and Tests . Quar terly Review of Biology 52: 127-154. Reidhead, V. A. 1980 The Economics of Subsistenece: A Test of An Optimization Model . In Modeling Change in Prehistoric Economies, edited by T. K. Earle, and A. L. Christenson , pp . 141-186 . Academic Press , New York.· Richardson, P. R. K. 1980 Carnivore Damage to Antelope Bones and Its Archaeological Implications. Palaeontologia Africana 23:109-125. Robison , N. D. (editor) 1972 Archaeological Testing of Sites 40SL8 and 40SL9 for the Pro posed State Route 137 Bridge Over the Long Island of the Holston River . Tennessee Department of Transportation, State Project No. 82083-1218-64. 1981 A Critical Review of Mississippian Hunting Patterns and Their Antiquity . Paper presented at the 38th Annual Meeting of the Southeastern Archaeological Conference, Ashville , North Carolina. Rostlund, E. 1952 Freshwater Fish and Fishing in Native North America . Univer sity of California Publications in Geography vol . 9, Univer sity of California Press , Berkely . Ruffner, J. A. (editor) . 1975 Climates of the United States . vol.2, Gale Research, Detroit . Schroedl , G. F., and C. C. Boyd, Jr. 1985a Mississippian Origins in East Tennessee . Paper presented at the sixth Mid-South Archaeological Conference, Starkville, Mississippi. 1985b Explaining Mississippian Origins in East Tennessee . Paper presented at the 42nd Annual Meeting of the Southeastern Archaeological Conference , Birgingham, Alabama .

185 Schoener, T. W. 1971 Theory of Feeding Strategies. American Review of Ecological Systems 2:369-404. Schorger, A. W. 1955 The Passenger Pigeon, It's Natural History and Extinction . University of Wisconsin Press, Madison . Severinghaus, C. W. 1949 Tooth Development and Wear as Criteria of Age in White-tailed Deer . Journal of Wil dlife Managemant 13: 195-216 . Shel ford, V. E. 1964 The Ecol ogy of North America. University of Il l inois Press , Chicago . Shipman , P. , D. C. Fisher, and J. J. Rose 1984 Mastodon Butchery: Microscopic Evidence of Carcass Processing and Bone Tool Use . Pal eobiology 10 : 358-365 . Sil ver , I. A. 1970 The Ageing- of Domestic Animals. In Science in Archaeology , � Survey -of Progress and Research. edited by D. Brothwel l and E. Higgs, pp. 283-302. Praeger , New York. Smith , C. R., J. Gil es , M. E. Richmond, J. Nagel , and D. W. Yambert 1974 The Mammals of Northeastern Tennessee . Journal of the Tennes see Academy of Science vol . 49(3) :88-94 . Smith , B. 1975 Middle Mississippian Exploitation- of Animal Populations . Uni versity of Michigan Museum of Anthropology , Anthropologicar Papers 57 . 1985 Chenopodium berl andieri spp. jonesianum: Evidence for a Hope wel l ian Domesticate from Ash Cave , Ohio . Southeastern Archaeo � 4107-133. 1986 The Archaeology of the Southeastern United States: From Dal ton to de Soto , 10 ,500-500 B.P. In Advances in World Archaeology vol 5, edited by M. B. Schiffer pp. 1-92. Academic Press, New York. Speth , J. D. 1983 Bison Kil ls and Bone Counts, Decision Making � Ancient Hunters. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

186 Stahl , P. W. 1982 On Small Mammal Remains in Archaeological Context. American Antiquity 47 :822-829. Stansbery , D. H. , and W. J. Clench 1978 The Pleuroceridae and Unionidae of the Upper South Fork Hol ston River in Virginia. American Malacological Union Bulletin for 1977 pp. 75-78. Stenlund , M. H. 1955 A Field Study of the Timber Wolf (Canis lupus) on the Superior National Forest , Minnesota. Technical Bulletin No. 4. Minne sota D�partment of Conservation. Stoltman, J. B. 1978 Temporal Models in Prehistory: An Example from Eastern North ··America. Current Anthropology 19 : 703-746. Straus, L. G. 1978 Caves: A Paleoanthropological Resource. World Archaeology 10 : 331-339 Swanton , J. R. 1946 The Indians of the Southeastern -United States. Bureau of American Ethnology, Bulletin 137. Tennessee Valley Authority 1957 Floods on the South Fork Holston River. Division of Water ControlPlanning , Knoxville. Thomas, D. H. 1971 On Distinguishing Natural from Cultural Bone In Archaeological Sites. American Antiquity 36 : 366-371. Thomas , D. H. , and D. Mayer 1983 Behavioral Faunal Analysis of Selected Horizons. In Archaeo � of Moni tor Val ley .f...z.. Gatecl iff Shelter , edited by D. H. Thomas, pp. 353-391 Anthropological Papers of the American Museum of Natural History 59. Thompson, L. M. 1952 Soils and Soil Fertility. McGraw Hill, New York. Vierra, R. K. 1975 Structure and Function in the Archaeological Record. Un published Ph. D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology , University of New Mexico , Albuquerque.

187 Wal ker , P. L. and J. C. Long 1977 An Experimental Study of the Morphological Charateri stics of Tool Marks . American Antiquity 42: 605-616 . Waselkov, G. A. 1978 Evolution of Deer Hunting in the Eastern Woodlands . Mid Continental Journal of Archaeology 3:15-34 . Watson, P. J. (editor) 1969 The Prehi story of Salts Cave, Kentucky. Reports of Investiga tions No. 16 , Illinois State Museum . Watts, W. A. 1980 Late-Pleistocene Vegetational Changes in Unglaciated Eastern North America. Quaternary Research 3:621-631. Wentworth , E. N. 1956 Dried Meat--Early Man's Travel Rati on. In Annual Report of the Smithsonian Institution--1955 pp. 557-571, U.S. Goverment Printing Office, Washington , D.C. Whi ttaker, R. H. 1956 Vegetati on of the Great Smoky Mountains. Ecologi cal Monographs 26:1-80. Wilson, G. L. 1978 The Horse and the Dog in Hidatsa Culture. Reprinted. J and L Reprint, Lincoln, Nebraska . Ori gnally publ i shed 1924 , The American Museum of Natural History , Ameri can Museum Press, New York. Wilson, M. C. 1983 Canid Scavenging and Butchering Patterns: Evidence from a 3600-Year-Old Bison Bone Bed In Alberta. In Carnivores, Human Scavenging and Preditors: � Question of Bone Technology , ed ited by G. M. LeMoine and A. S. MacEachem, pp. 95-140. Pro ceedings of the 15th Annual Conference of the University of. Calgary Archaeological Association , Cal gary, Alberta, Canada. Wilson , N. R. P. (editor) 1981 Meat and Meat Products, Factors affecting Qual ity Control Appl ied Sciences, Loundon. Williams , S. C. (editor) 1927 Lieutenant Henry Timberlake's Memoirs. Watauga Press, Johnson City, Tennessee. 1932 Fort Robinson on the Hol ston . East Tennessee Historical So ciety Publ i cations pp. 22-31, Knoxvi lle, Tennessee.

188 Wil liams , L. D., and T. M. L. Wigley 1983 A Comparison of Evidence for Late Holocene Summer Temperature Variation in the Northern Hemisphere. Quaternary Research 20: 286-307. Winterhalder , B. and E. R. Smith 1981 Hunter-Gatherer Foraging Strategies : Ehtnographic and Archaeo logical Analysis. The University of Chicago Press , Chicago. Wright, H. E., Jr. 1976 The Dynamic Nature of the Holocene Vegetation , A Problem in Paleo-Climatology, Biogeography , and Stratigraphic Nomencl a ture. Quaternary Research 6:581-596. Wol ff , R. G. 1975 Sampl ing and Sample Size in Ecological Analyses of Fossil Mammals. Paleobiology 1:195-204. Wood , W. R. 1968 Mississippian Hunting and Buthcering Patterns: Bone from the Vista Shelter 23SR20, · Missouri. American Antiquity 33: 170-179. Wood , W. R. and R. B. McMil lian (editors) 1976 Prehistoric Man and His Environment : � Case Study .!.n the Ozark Highl ands. Academic Press, New York. Young , S. P. and E. A. Goldman 1944 The Wolves of North America. American Wildlife Institute, Washington ,D.C. Ziegler, P. T. 1965 The Meat We Eat . The Instate, Danvil le, Illinois .

189 APPENDIXES APPENDIX A

ABBREVIATIONS AND FREQUENCY OF ELEMENTS FOR CERVID SPECIES

Abbreviation Element Frequency ANT Antler 2 SK Skull 2 a MAX Maxi 11a 2 PREMAX Premaxilla 2 MAND Mandib le 2 AT Atlas 1 AX Axis 1 CERV Cerv ical vertebrae 5 THOR Thoracic verteb rae 13 LUM Lumbar verteb rae 6 PELV Pelvis 2 SAC Sacrum 12b R Rib 26 SC Scapula 2 H Humerus PH Prox ima 1 Humerus 2 DH Distal Humerus 2 RC Radio-cub itus PRC Proxin@l Radio-cub itus 4 DRC Distal Radio-cub itus 4 CARP Carpals 12 MC Metacarpa 1 PM Proximal Metacarpal 2 OM Distal Metacarpal 2 F Femur PF Proxima 1 Femur 2 OF Distal Femur 2 PATE Patella 2 T Tib ia PT Prox ima 1 Tib i a 2 OT Distal Tib ia 2 TAR Tarsals 10 AST Astragalus 2 CAL Ca lcaneus 2 MT Metatarsal PMT Proximal Metatarsal 2 DMT Distal Metatarsal 2 PHAL Phalange PHAL-1 First Phalange 8 PHAL-2 Second Phal ange 8 PHAL-3 Third Phalange 8 191 Femur F-1 Cuts on femu r shaft Filleting? Pate 11 a PE-1 Cuts on distal , anterior portion Di smembering Tibia T-1 Cuts on shaft Filleting Td-5 Transverse cuts on distal shaft Dismembering Metatarsal MT-1 Chevron cuts on shaft Skinning Phalange s AP-1 Cuts on shaft of PHAL-1 Dismembering/ Skinning AP-2 Cuts on proximal end of PHAL-1 Dismembering/ Skinning PP-1 Cuts on posterior shaft of PHAL-2 Dismembering/ Skinning

192 APPENDIX B

INVENTORY OF ADDITIONAL BUTCHERING MARKS NOT DESCRIBED IN BINFORD (1981:36, Table 4.04)

Code Activity Producing Number Part and Description Mark Antler ANT-1 Cut at base Dismembering?/ Artifact Production? Skull S-8 Cuts just behind auditory meatus Dismembering yoid HY-1 � on shaft Dismembering , (Tongue removed) Mandible M-7 Cuts on medial side of ascending Dismembering ramus Radio-cubi tus RC-1 Cuts on shaft Filleting RC-2 Chops/cuts on shaft Dismembering RCd-5 Cuts just above distal joint Filleting Metacarpal MC-1 Cuts on shaft Skinning MC-2 Longitudinal cuts on shaft Marrow preparation? MCp-4 Short "chevron" cuts on lateral Filleting and medial side of shaft Cervi cal vertebrae CV-7 Transverse cuts on ventral side Dismembering Lumbar vertebrae LV-1 Transverse cuts on anterior process Dismembering LV-2 Cuts on ventral side of centrum Filleting? LV-3 Cuts on dorsal side at base of Filleting? spinal process Pelvis PS-11 Cuts on ilium crest Filleting PS-12 Cuts on ilium-ischium border Filleting 193 AUX MP Auxillary Metapodal 8 AUX PHAL-1 Auxillary Phal -1 8 AUX PHAL-2 Aux i 11ar y Pha 1-2 8 AUX PHAL-3 Auxi 11ar y Pha 1-3 8 a Frequency combines sacrum {5) and caudal {7) vertebrae. bFrequency compensates for right and left side of skull.

194 APPENDIX C

DESCRIPTION OF BUTCHERED AND CANID GNAWED CERVID BONE FROM SAMPLED LEVELS AT THE EASTMAN ROCKSHELETER

The following is a description of the cervid bcnes from sampled unit-levels with butchering or canid gnaw marks reccrded for this study . Definition of terms used , especially for gnc wed bones , can be 11 11 found in Binford (1981} and Haynes (1983) . The term gnawed is used for some bones that show a combination of pitted , scored , grooved , or crenulated characteristics . The definition for butc hering codes , such as RS-1 or MCp-1, can be found in Binford (1981 :136 , Table 4.04) and Appendix Bin this study .

195 --UNIT · ---LEVEL CUT GNAWED

Al-1 Metapodal shaft frags. , Metacarpal shaft frag. , cut on anterior tendon gnawed groove Metatarsal shaft frag., gnawed A2-1 Ri b, proximal and shaft frag., proximal end pitted and crushed B3-1 Pel vis, acetabulum frag., Thorasic vertebra, chop marks on socket punctured on centrum Ribs, 1 proximal frag., Metacarpal frags., with cut (RS-3), 1 shaft shal low pitted marks frag., with cut (RS-1) Femur , distal frag., Tibia , proximal frag. , scored and pitted ( ep iphys i-s unfused) cut (TP-1) Metatarsal frag., pitted on shaft Thorasic (el k) cut/ hacked on spinal process Ilium frag., (elk} gnawed on crest, epiphysis Pel vis (el k} vertical missing cuts on bl ade of ilium, lateral side Cervical vertebra (el k} epiphysis frag., cut/ hacked on ventral surface Rib (el k) proximal and shaft frag. , proximal end hacked off from dorsal surface Rib (el k) proximal frag., cut/ hacked on ventral surface (RS-3) Rib (el k) proximal frag., proximal end cut from dorsal surface (RS-1) Rib (elk) distal shaft frag. , cut/hacked on ventral surface

196 C2-1 Metatarsal posterior Cerv ical vertebra shaft frag. , cuts sp inal process , pitted (stri ations ) on shaft C3-1 Rib frag. , shaft and Metapodal shaft frag. , dorsal cuts (stri ations ) pitted on shaft Metacarpal , distal Rib, distal frag., cuts frag. , pitted on lateral side (RS-2) Metacarpal frag. , cuts (stri ations ) on shaft C4-1 Rib shaft frag. , cuts at distal end (RS-2) Metacarpal shaft frag. , cut on posterior side Radius shaft frag. , cut ------·---(RCp-6------) ------03-1 1st Phalange , cuts on shaft 04-1 Rib shaft frag. , pitted E2-1 Lumbar vertebra , epi physis unfused , cuts on transverse process E3-1 Metatarsal, distal con- Premaxilla, pitted , dyl e, cut (MTd-1 F3-1 Ulna shaft frag. , cut/ hacked on medial side Gl-1 Humerus , distal frag. , pitted , ingested?

--LEVEL -·3

Al-3 Metacarpal shaft frag. , Metacarpal frag ., transverse cuts pitted

197 84-3 Auxillary metapodal ingested? (AUX-MP.) C2-3 Cervical vertebra, epiphysis unfused , spinal process pitted C4-3 Radius shaft frag., 2nd Phal ange (immature) smal l cuts on shaft distal end pitted 02-3 Rib, proximal and shaft frag., cut (RS-1) and on ventral surface 03-3 Thorasic vertebra spinal process , pitted D4-3 Metatarsal shaft frag., Pelvis frag. , scored transverse cuts on an and pitted terior surface Navicul ar , cuts on lateral side and TNC-1 E2-3 Femur, distal frag. , scored and pitted, con dy l es gnawed away E3-3 Tibia shaft frag., pitted F3-3 Rib, distil frag. , Humerus shaft frag., cut (RS-2) pitted Metatarsal shaft frag., pitted F4-3 1st Phalange , distal and shaft frag. , cuts on side of shaft Gl-3 Thorasic vertebra, spinal process gnawed at base Cervi cal vertebra, articul ar gnawed 1st Phal ange , prox imal frag., gnawed

198 G2-3 Metacarpal , distal frag., cut on posterior surface {MCd-1) Patel la, cut on distal anterior surface G4-3 Me tapodal shaft frag., pitted Hl-3 Metapodal shaft frag. , cuts (striati ons) H2-3 Rib, proximal frag., Rib, proximal frag., cut (RS-1) pitted

--LEVEL ---5 & 6

Al-5 Metatarsal shaft frag. , pitted Al-6 Metatarsal , distal shaft Radius distal frag., frag., striations on pitted and punctured shaft (MTd-4) (epiphysis unfused ) Cervical vertebra, Metatarsal , shaft transverse cuts on frag., pitted and cren lateral side before ul ated along edge anterior processes Cervical vertebra, anterior processes pitted A2-6 Lumbar vertebra, anter ior processes pitted A3-5 Tibia shaft frag., Tibia,. proximal frag. , transverse cuts on pi tted (epiphysis un mid-shaft fused )

A3-6 Rib shaft frag. , Mandible, symphysis cuts on superior sur gnawed away face ( RS-1) A4-6 Cal caneum , pitted on the tuber ca leis

199 82-5 Femur , proximal frag. , cu1 ts on ante11 rior surface 1cheveron marks 82-6 Metacarpal , proximal frag., pitted and grooved Femur , diatal shaft frag . , pitted 83-6 Hyiod , cut on lateral side 84-5 Metacarpal , prox imal frag. , (burnt) scored and pitted after frag mentation 84-6 Metacarpal , proximal and shaft frag. , pitted at distal end (this end gnawed away) C2-5 Radius , proximal frag., pitted C2-6 Metacarpal , distal frag . , gnawed Metatarsal, distal and shaft frag. , pitted C3-5 Metapodal shaft frag. , pitted C3-6 Rib, distal frag. , cut Ti bia shaft frag. , (RS-2) scored and pitted Cal caneum , cuts on Cal caneum , scored and medial surface and TC-3 pitted C4-5 Pel vis, cut above aceta Femur , proximal frag., bul um (PS-7) head gnawed off, scored and pitted Metapodal , proximal and Radius , distal and shaft frag ., cuts (stri shaft , pitted (epiphy ations ) at proximal end sis unfused)

200 C4-5 Rib shaft frag. , cuts, Pelvis , ischium gnawed short on ventral surface Metatarsals (3) shaft Ilium frag. , cut (PS-7) frags. , pitted Rib , proximal shaft Metapodal , proximal frag. , cut on inferior frag. , gnawed on cut surface marks Navicul ar, (2} cut Ribs, (2) shaft frags. , (opposite to TNC-1) pitted Rib, proximal frag. , arti cul ation portion scored and pitted 1st Phal ange, proximal end gnawed away Axis , half frag. , scored and pitted 04-6 1st Phalange, dista l Rib , proximal and shaft and shaft, cuts on shaft frag. , pitted , proximal end gnawed off E2-5 Pelvis , ilium and Axis frag. , pitted ishcium edge, cuts on lateral side Radius shaft frag. , distal end gnawed off Radii , (2} shaft frags. , cuts on medial side 1st Phal ange , distal (slightly lower than frag. , scored and RCp-6) pitted E2-6 Cervical vertebra, Cervical vertebra, ven anterior process, cut/ tral portion gnawed off chopped? on ventral side Cervical vertebra, Tibia , distal frag., posterior process cuts higher than Td-3 frag. , pitted Tibia , distal frag., pitted 2nd Pha l ange (2) prox imal frags. , both pit ted (1 burnt , epiphysis gone) E3-5 Antl er , frag. , cut

201 E3-6 Mandibular symphysis, pi tted E4-6 Scapul a, scored and pitted F2-5 Metatarsal shaft frag., cuts in tendon groove on posterior surface F2-6 Scapu l a, (left) coracoid process cut on lateral side, burnt on medial surface Radius , proximal frag., cut on anterior surface (RCp-5) F3-5 Metacarpal shaft frag. , pitted F3-6 1st Phalange, distal and shaft frag., scored and pitted F4-5 Rib shaft frag., Thorasic vertebra, cut (RS-1) spinal ·process gnawed at base F4-6 Lumbar vertebra cut on Metatarsal , distal anterior process, frag., pitted lateral side Rib, distal frag., cut (RS-1) Rib, mid-shaft frag., cut (RS-2) Gl-5 Metatarsal, distal and Tibia, distal epi physis shaft frag., cut (MTd-4 ) frag., pitted G3-5 Rib, proximal and shaft Rib, proximal and shaft frag., cut (RS-1) frag., scored and pitted 2nd Phal ange, cut medi al ly and lateral ly on Metatarsal shaft frag., distal condyl e scored and pitted on

202 G3-5 medial and lateral surfaces Metapodal, distal condyle gnawed , burnt G3-6 Hyoid, cut on shaft Thorasic vertebra centrum pitted Rib. prox imal and shaft frag. , cuts (RS-1) on Rib, prox imal and shaft ventral surface frag. , proximal end pitted G4-5 Metatarsal shaft frag., 1st Phalange, distal cuts (striations ), burnt frag . , scored Rib shaft frag., cut 2nd Phalanges (2) 1 (RS-1) distal , 1 proximal , scored G4-6 . Mandible, coni al angle Mandible, coni al angle frag. , cut (M-2), burnt frag., pitted Hyoid, cut on shaft Tibiae (2) proximal frags., 1 gnawed , 1 Radius shaft frag. , pitted cuts , higher than RCd-3 Metatarsals, (2) 1 proximal end , 1 distal end , both scored and pitted Thorasic vertebra, spinal process gnawed off Pelvis, ischium frag .• gnawed along edge Hl-5 Mandible, ascending ram�s cut (M-2) Hl-6 Cranial frag ., cut marks 1st Phalange , distal from remov ing antler? and shaft , scored and pitted H2-5 Metacarpal, prox imal frag., cut (MCp-4)

203 H2-6 Scapula, proximal frag. , glenoid cavity, scored and pitted Scapula, axillary boar der, scored and pitted H3-5 Rib, proximal frag. , Tibia, proximal and cut (RS-1) but on shaft frag. , scored inferior surface pitted, and grooved Radius, shaft frag., one end pitted 2nd Phalange, proximal frag. , pitted Metacarpal, proximal frag. , pitted H3-6 Rib , proximal and shaft frag. , proximal end hacked off? H4-6 Tibia, distal shaft Metacarpal , (2) proxi frag. , transverse cuts mal frags. , gnawed on on lateral side one end Metacarpals (2) proximal frags., cuts (striations )

A2-9 Cranium , external audi Ulna , olecranon pro tory meatus, cut marked cess scored and pitted Radio-cubitus, proximal Pelvis , ilium frag. , frag ., cut (RCp-3 , 4, 5) scored and pitted A2-10 Radio-cub itus shaft Rib shaft frag. , frag. , cuts on mid pitted shaft dorsal side Rib shaft frag. , cuts Lumbar vertebra, (RS-1) superior side posterior process, pitted

204 A2-10 Femur , proximal sh11 aft 1st Phal ange , proximal frag., 11cheveron cuts frag. , pitted shaft A3-9 Patella, cut on anterior Antler tine base frag. , surface scored and pitted Metatarsal , proximal Radius, proximal and frag., cut sl ightly shaft frag., pitted lower than MTp-1 on joint surface Radius, proximal and shaft frag., cut (RCp-5) A3-ll Metacarpal shaft frag. , transverse cuts A4-11 Ribs� (2) proximal frag., Ti bia shaft frag., cut (RS-1 ) pitted Metarasal, prox imal Ulna, proximal frag., frag. , cut (MTp-2, 3) pitted Sesamoid, pitted (ingested?) 82-9 Lumbar vertebra, cuts Radius, distal epi phy (LV-2 and on anterior sis pitted surface) 1st Phalange , proximal end , pitted 82-11 Ribs (2) shaft frags. , Lumbar vertebra. cuts on superior su r pitted , epi physis gone face and RS-1 Tibia, proximal frag., Rib, proximal and shaft pitted , epi physis gone frag., cut (RS-1) Pel vis, acetabulum Metapodal shaft frags. , frag., pitted on arti cuts on lateral and cu lar surface medial sides Pel vis, pubis frag. , gnawed on acetabulum and edge of bone Ribs (2) shaft frags. , 1st or 2nd ribs? gnawed toward distal end

205 83-9 Mandibular condyle cut on lateral side 83-11 Thorasic vertebra, spi nal process gnawed Scapula (2) frags., blade area, pitted Metatarsal , proximal frag ., pitted Cal caneum , pitted on tuber cal cis B4-11 Calcaneum , cut on Tibia, proximal frag., tuber cal cis (TC-2) scored and pitted along head Thorasic, vertebra, spinal process pitted at bace Cal caneum , scored and pitted on tuber cal cis C2-9 Radius, proximal and Astragili (2), pitted shaft frag., cuts on medial side (RCp-6) Metatarsal shaft frag., pitted Metacarpals (2) proxi mal and shaft frags., cuts on posterior side, 1 just below articula tion, 1 at shaft mid section , results of groove and snap technique Metatarsals (2) shaft frags., 1 with marks in tendon groove of bone resulting from artifact manufacture? (MTd-4) C2-10 Occiptial condyle, pitte� Radius, proximal frag ., pitted at articulation

206 C2-ll Ribs (2) proximal frags., Rib (2) proximal frag., (1 elk?) cut (RS-1) (elk?) articulation gnawed away Tibia, distal epi physis pitted Calcaneum , 1 right and 1 left, scored and pit ted some marks over cut marks 3rd Phalange, pited on ·medial and lateral sides, bone disease present C3-9 Rib shaft frag.� cut on lateral side C3-10 Metacarpal shaft frag., p1tted Metapodal shaft frag., pitted C4-9 Tibia shaft frag., Scapula, scored and transverse cut marks pitted, glenoid cavity gnawed away 1st Phal ange, proximal end with short cuts on Tibia shaft frag. , articular surface pitted on outside surface 1st phalange, proximal end pitted C4-10 Rib shaft frag., cuts Antler, weather frag., (RS-1) on ventral side pitted and grooved Rib, proximal and shaft Metacarpal , proximal frag., articulation end frag., pitted, missing, cut (RS-1) weathered Lumbar vertebra, cut on ventral side of centrum C4-11 Metacarpal shaft frag. , Maxilla, left side , cut (MCd-4) (juvenile specimen with PM 1/ and 2/ pitted 207 C4-11 Lumbar vertebra, pitted Femur, proximal frag., scored and pitted on neck, not on femur head 01-9 Metacarpal , cut on shaft Rib shaft frag., cut (RS-1) on superior surface Metacarpal , distal frag., pitted Lumbar vertebra, pitted 01-10 Pelvis, ilium pitted at acetabul um and neck 3rd Phalange, pitted 02-9 Femur shaft frag., Sacrum 1st vertebra, hacked? marked anterior process scored and pitted Scapula, cut on aux illary, boarder just Scapul a, glenoid cavi ty below joint, cut/hacked? and crest pitted on ventral edge Metatarsals (2) prox Metacarpal , proximal imal frags., 1 gnawed and shaft frag., trans on proximal end, 1 verse cuts on shaft pitted on edge Calcaneum , cut on an Calcaneum, tuber cal cis terior portion (TC-1) gnawed 02-10 Rib shaft frag., cut Maxilla frag., pitted on superior surface (RS-1) Ti bia, proximal frag., crest and edge gnawed Metacarpal shaft frag. , cut on posterior side Metacarpal shaft frag. , pitted

03-10 Astragulus, cut (TA-1, Tibia, proximal epiphy TA-2) sis, pitted 03-11 Ti bia, proximal shaft frag., pitted 208 04-9 Radius (elk) shaft Axis, proximal frag., frag., cut (RCp-6) scored and pitted

04-10 Pelvis, ilium frag., Pelvis, ilium frag., cut (PS-7) pitted Ribs (2) shaft frag., cut (RS-1), 1 burnt Metatarsal , proximal and shaft frag., cut on posterior surface 04-11 Ti bia, distal and shaft Ulna shaft frag .• frag., cut (rd-4 ) distal end gnawed Metacarpals (2) frags., 2nd Phalange, pitted 1 distal frag., 1 shaft frag., both with cuts (striations) on outer surfaces Lumbar vertebra, trans verse process, cut on ventral side E2-9 Rib, proximal frag ., articulation pitted, most gnawed away E2-10 Ri b shaft frag., pitted E2-11 Ulna, proxiaml and shaft Ulna, proximal and frag., cut (RCp-4 and shaft frag., olecranon distal portion of semi scored and pitted, al lunar notch) most gnawed away Rib, proximal frag., articulation gnawed away Pel vis, ischium frag., scored and pitted at acetabulum Ti bia, distal frag., (burnt) scored and pitted

209 E2-11 Humerus shaft frag., proximal end shows head gnawed away E3-11 Rib shaft frag. , cut Scapula frag. , gnawed (RS-1) at posterior edge Metatarsal shaft frag. , cut on anterior side £4-9 Metatarsal, proximal frag. , pitted on proxi ma l end Astragul us, pitted £4-10 Rib, proximal end pitted 1st Phal ange, proximal end pitted F2-9 Metacarpals (2) shaft Occipital condyles frags. , 1 with trans frag. , pitted verse cuts on posterior side , 1 with striated Scapula, coracoid cuts on posterior tendon process pitted groove Rib shaft frag. , cut on superior surface (RS-1 ) Tibia, proxima l shaft frag. , pitted on dor sa l /medial crest , gnawed after fracture? Metacarpal proximal frag ., pitted Metatarsal shaft frag. , gnawed on one end F2-10 Pe l vis , cut near aceta Pe l vis, pubis and ace bul um (PS-7) tabulum pitted Carpal, intermediate Pe l vis , ilium and cut on anterior side ischium pitted Rib shaft frag., gnawed on distal portion

210 F2-10 Metatarsal shaft frag ., scored Astragulus, pitted (burnt) 3rd Phalange, scored and pitted F3-9 Rib (1st or 2nd?) proximal and shaft frag., scored and pit ted Tibia , proximal frag., epiphysis gnawed off F3-10 Ulna, proximal and shaft Ulna, proximal and frag ., cut (RCp-4) shaft frag ., olecranon area pitted F4-9 Cal caneum , scored and pitted Ulna, proximal frag ., scored and pitted F4- 10 Calcaneum , cut on Cal caneum , tuber calcis ventral edge of pitted tuber calcis F4- 11 Metatarsal, distal and shaft , frag. , pitted , distal condyles gnawed off Gl-9 Rib shaft frag ., Premaxilla, pitted many cuts on superior surface (RS-1) Ri b, frag., proximal end gnawed off Calcaneum , short cuts (TC-3) Cal caneum , distal end scored and pitted Phalange frag ., pitted

Gl-10 Scapul a frag ., cut on Metatarsal, distal ventral surface of frag . , blade (S-2)

211 Gl-10 Rib shaft frag., cut . (RS-1) Metatarsal shaft frag., cut marks (stri ations) Gl-11 Ulna, proximal frag ., Ulna, proximal frag., cut (RSp-2) gnawed on semi lunar notch 1st Phalanges (2) prox imal frags., pitted 3rd Phal anges (2) frags., 1 pitted , 1 ingested? G2-9 Radi i (2) proximal Cervical vertebra, frags ., cut (RCp-5) anterior process, pitted Rib shaft frags ., (2) cut on superior surface Pelvis, ilium and (RS-1) ischium boarder frags., pitted Mandible, left frag., cut (M-2) Rib shaft frag ., proximal end gnawed off Femur, distal frag ., pitted, epiphysis mi ssing G2-9 Tibia, distal frag., Cal caneum , pitted on cut (Td-1) tuber calcis Astragulj (2) both cut Metatarsal , shaft (TA-1) frag . , pitted Metacarpal shaft frag., 1st Phalanges (2) transverse cut marks distal shaft frags., scored and pitted Metatarsals (4) shaft frags. , ( 1 e 1 k) , 3 with longitudinal cut marks in anterior tendon groove , el k frag. , with groove and snap cut Ti bia (elk) distal shaft frag. , cut �Td-4)

212 G2-9 Tibia (elk) lower mid shaft frag., posteri11 or sur face with 11cheveron cuts G2-10 Femur , distal frag., cut Lumbar vertebra , spinal (Fd-4) but more hori process pitted zonta l Mandible, ascending Thorasic vertebra , ver ramus frag. , pitted tical cuts on spinal process Rib , proxima l and shaft Metacarpal , proximal frag., hack? marked on and shaft frag., pitted proximal inferior side on proximal end G2-ll Ulna, olecranon frag., Scapula, pitted on · cut on medial and glenoid cavity lateral sides Ulna, olecranon frag., pitted 1 11 G3-9 Metatarsal, 1 cheveron Humerus , distal and cuts on anterior sur shaft frag., distal end face away Femur , proximal frag. , head gnawed away G3-10 Mandible (elk) condyle Mandible (el k) condyle frag., cut below (M-2) frag., pitted , burnt burnt Pel vis, ilium frag., Pel vis. ilium frag., pitted on blade cut ( PS-7) Femur shaft frag., Rib shaft frag., cut on pitted on proximal end superior surface (RS-1) Tibia, distal frag., Metatarsal , proximal and scored and pitted , shaft frag., cut (MCp-1) (burnt) Metatarsal shaft frag. , Metacarpal, proximal transverse cuts on and shaft frag., pitted medial and lateral sides (burnt) Metapodal , distal frag., epi physis cut in tendon groove 213 G3-10 Tibia, distal11 shaft frag., 11 cheveron (Td-4) G3-11 Radius shaft frag. , cut Humerus, proximal (RCp-6) frag., scored and pitted Radi us shaft frag., proxi mal end gnawed G4-9 Radi us , distal and shaft frag., scored and pitted on articulation end Metatarsal shaft frag., pitted Rib shaft frag., pitted Rib, proxi mal frag., pitted on arti culation end G4-10 Rib shaft frag . , c·ut Metacarpal shaft frag., (RS-1) pitted Metacarpal shaft frag., Rib shaft frag., pitted hack marks on anterior surface 1st Phal ange, pitted, distal gnawed off

Hl-9 Astragulus, cut (TA-1) Tibia, shaft frag., pitted Ti bia, proximal frag., epi physis gnawed away {burnt) Hl-10 Metatarsal shaft frag., 3rd Phalange, pitted , cut marks (striations) ingested? Hl-11 Radius, distal frag., epiphysis missing , pitted (burnt) Rib shaft frag., edge pitted and crenulated

214 Hl-11 Metatarial , proximal and shaft , pitted H2-9 Humerus , distal frag ., Tibia (complete ) epi cuts on medial crest of physis unfused but shaft (Hd-6) present , pitted on proximal end and tibia Cal caneum , proximal crest frag ., cut (TC-3) Cal caneum , proximal frag ., cut/hacked? on sustentaculum tal i, and cut on proximal end Astragulus , cut (TA-2) H3-10 Cal caneum , tuber ca l cis scored and pitted 2nd Phal ange, distal frag ., pitted H4-9 Humerus , distal and shaft frag ., distal end scored and pitted , (shaft burnt ) H4-10 Rad ius shaft frag ., Radius shaft frag ., transverse cuts on pitted lateral side H4-ll Ulna, proximal and Ulna, proximal and shaft frag ., cut (RCp-4) shaft frag ., olecranon gnawed off, shaft Metatarsal shaft frag ., pitted longitudinal cut marks sides of element Metacarpal (el k) shaft frag . , pitted Metacarpal (elk) shaft frag. , transverse cuts , Metatarsal s (2) shaft "cheveron" like on prox frags., pitted end of element Metatarsal s (2) shaft frags ., 1 with cuts on poster ior surface , 1 with short "cheveron" cuts

215 BELOW LEVEL 12

H4-13 Metacarpal (elk) shaft frag. , pitted Metatarsals (elk), prox imal and shaft frags ., pitted D3-22 Metatarsals (2) shaft frags. , longi tudinal ly fractured (for marrow?) D3-23 Metacarpal shaft frag. , pitted Metacarpal (2) prox imal and shaft frags ., pitted Metatarsa ls - (2) shaft frags ., pitted Metatarsal , proximal and shaft frag .• pitted

216 VITA

Bruce L. Manzano was born in Mexico City, Mexico on· November 7, 1956. He grew up in Cuyahoga County, Ohio and was graduated from Brecksville High in June 1975. He attended The Ohio State University at Columbus and in December 1978, received a Bachelor of Arts degree with a major in Anthropology . While at Ohio State, he worked as a volunteer for the Ohio State Historical Society Museum where he gained an interest in archaeological faunal studies . In January 1979, he began graduate work at the University of Tennessee and received his Master of Arts degree with a major in Anthropology in December, 1986 . During this time, he conducted several faunal studies for various agencies in the Southeast and was the Zooarchaeological Teaching Assistant for Dr . Paul W. Parmalee at the Uni versity of Tennessee . He is married to Cynthia K. Duke and they have one daughter , April Maria.

217