Pronghorn Procurement on the Northern Plains: A Case for Small-Scale Hunting A Thesis Submitted to the College of Graduate Studies and Research In Partial Fulfillment ofthe Requirements for the Degree ofMaster ofArts in the Department of A~chaeology University of Saskatchewan Saskatoon By Alan James Youell © Copyright Alan James Youell, May 2005. All rights reserved. PERMISSION TO USE In presenting this thesis in partial fulfillment ofthe requirements for a Postgraduate degree from the University of Saskatchewan, I agree that the Libraries of this University may make it freely available for inspection. I further agree that permission for copying ofthis thesis in any manner, in whole or in part, for scholarly purposes may be granted by the professor or professors who supervised my thesis work or, in their absence, by the Head ofthe Department or the Dean ofthe College in which my thesis work was done. It is understood that any copying, publication, or use ofthis thesis or parts thereof for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission. It is also understood that due recognition shall be given to me and to the University ofSaskatchewan in any scholarly use which may be made ofany material in my thesis. Requests for permission to copy or to make other use ofmaterial in this thesis in whole or in part should be addressed to: Head ofthe Department ofArchaeology University ofSaskatchewan Saskatoon, Saskatchewan sm 5Bl Abstract In general, when an archaeologist addresses the issue offaunal procurement on the Plains, especially the northern Plains, the model used entails the communal hunting of bison. The·non-communal procurement ofa secondary prey species is frequently overlooked by Plains archaeologists. It is the intent ofthis thesis to present a pronghorn procurement strategy that aligns itselfwith the current archaeological evidence, gathered from across the northern Plains. Based on the abundance ofWyoming and Great Basin communal pronghorn procurement features, along with a single northern Plains trapping structure, the procurement ofpronghorn is often regarded as a communal undertaking. However, a review ofthe site literature reveals that archaeological pronghorn remains are present in small quantities in numerous habitation sites situated throughout their prehistork range. In addition, evidence for pronghorn kill sites on the northern Plains is minimal at present. This leaves one to ponder the question; why are small quantities ofpronghorn remains present in campsites across the northern Plains? The first part ofthis thesis addresses the above question through the examination of the unique behavioural and morphological characteristics ofthe pronghorn, as well as bow and arrow technology. This is undertaken in order to demonstrate the suitability of both the pronghorn and the aboriginal hunting technology to small-scale procurement. In addition ethnographic, historic and archaeological data concerning pronghorn procurement on the northern Plains are presented in a framework that allows for a revision ofprevailing models concerning this activity. In addition, small-scale and communal procurement is analyzed within the theoretical framework ofoptimal foraging theory. This provides evidence that the small-scale hunting ofpronghorn was an efficient hunting strategy and therefore it is reasonable to assume that it was practiced prehistorically. The remainder ofthis thesis addresses a secondary, yet relevant, question involving the lack ofvisibility ofpronghorn remains in the archaeological record. Ifpronghorn were an obtainable and useful secondary resource then why are such small quantities of bone present at archaeological sites situated within ideal pronghorn habitat? This question is explored within the context ofbone survivorship. With both cultural and non-cultural reasons for the differential preservation ofpronghorn remains being outlined. Specifically, carnivore attrition, weathering and trampling are explored as possible non-cultural agents that affect the archaeological visibility ofpronghorn assemblages. Cultural processes include primary/secondary butchering and processing strategies as well as carcass transportation decisions are also investigated. In addition, the pronghorn assemblages from EbPi-75 and DIOu-72 are statistically tested to determine ifbone density has any correlation to element frequency. Finally, the two recently excavated northern Plains pronghorn assemblages from EbPi-75 and DIOu-72 are analyzed and compared to the existing body ofarchaeological research from the northern Plains, High Plains, and the Wyoming Basin. From this comparison and the thesis research in general, a new model for pronghorn procurement is developed that better suits the northern Plains archaeological record to date. ii Acknowledgements I would like to start by thanking the University of Saskatchewan, Department of Archaeology, specifically the members ofmy Graduate Committee; Dr. Margaret Kennedy, Dr. David Meyer, and my supervisor Dr. Ernest Walker. In addition, I would like to thank my external examiner Dr. Dick Neal. Also, I extend a special thank you to Debbie Croteau for her assistance in all matters administrative. I would like to acknowledge the University of Saskatchewan, Department of Archaeology and the Saskatchewan Archaeological Society and SaskLotteries Trust Fund for Sport, Culture and Recreation for their generous financial support. This thesis would have taken considerably longer to complete without it. The success ofthis thesis relied heavily on the previous work ofa number of professional archaeologists. My appreciation is extended to Alison Landals and the entire staffofFMA Heritage Resource Consultants Inc., especially those who worked on the Little Bow Reservoir Project Ltd. In addition, I extend my thanks to Dr. Shawn Goldsmith and the entire staff at Bison Historical Services, especially those who worked on the Bow Island Project. A number ofarchaeologists/friends are worthy ofspecial thanks. Each individual contributed significantly in the areas ofmentorship, technical support, constructive comments, proofing and research assistance, and most importantly encouragement. For the above contributions, I wish to thank Dr. David Blower, Dr. Jonathan Driver, Dr. David Ebert, Dr. Chris Foley, Dr. Len Hills, Dr. Trevor Peck and the entire staffat the Archeological Survey ofAlberta, Edmonton. I also wish to thank Barb Neal and my Fellow Graduate Students for their advise, support and friendship. In addition, I would also like to thank the many individuals who were not mentioned by name but assisted in this work or allowed me to pontificate about pronghorn during a conversation. Finally, I wish to express my sincere gratitude to my family and friends. Thank you Mom and Dad for introducing me to the outdoors, and for your support in all my endeavors both educational and otherwise. Thanks to my loving sister Shawna, you have always played an important role in my life. Lastly, a special thank you to Cheryl Forner, my friend and partner. I love spending my outdoor time with you and without you I never would have completed this thesis. iii Run, Don't Walk Every morning on the northern Plains, a pronghorn wakes up. It knows that it must run faster than the fastest coyote or it will be killed. Every morning on the northern Plains, a coyote wakes up. It knows that it must outrun the slowest pronghorn or it will starve to death. It doesn't matter whether you are a coyote or a pronghorn; when the sun comes up, you'd better be running! TABLE OF CONTENTS PERMISSION TO USE ABSTRACT ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS iii TABLE OF CONTENTS iv LIST OF TABLES viii LIST OF FIGURES ix CHAPTER ONE: Introduction 1.1 Introduction to the Problem 1 1.2 Statement ofObjectives 2 1.3 The Study Area: Natural and Cultural Setting 5 1.4 Chapter Summary 7 CHAPTER TWO: ·An Introduction to the Pronghorn 2.1 Chapter Introduction 11 2.2 Taxonomy and Evolution 12 2.2.1 Nomenclature 12 2.2.2 Evolutionary Perspective 14 2.2.3 Historical Perspective 17 2.3 Distribution: Past and Present 19 2.3.1 North American Distribution 19 2.3.2 Canadian Distribution 20 2.4 Physical Description 23 2.4.1 Skin and Pelage 23 2.4.2 Skull Morphology 25 2.4.3 Horns 27 2.4.4 Appendicular Skeleton 29 2.5 Physiology 30 2.5.1 Pronghorn Adaptations 30 2.5.2 Body Mass and Dimensions 31 2.5.3 Aerobic Capacity 33 2.6 Ecology 34 2.6.1 Habitat Characteristics 34 2.6.2 Nutrient Requirements 36 2.6.3 Home Range and Territory 39 2.6.4 Movements and Migration Routes 40 2.6.5 Wintering 43 2.7 Reproduction 46 2.7.1 Breeding Biology and Behaviour 46 iv 2.8 Mortality Factors 48 2.8.1 Pronghorn Survivorship 48 2.8.2 Predation 49 2.8.3 Anti-Predator Behaviour 50 2.9 Ethology 53 2.9.1 Introduction to Pronghorn Ethology 53 2.9.2 Jumping Ability 54 2.9.3 Activity Patterns 55 2.9.4 Migratory Behaviour 55 2.9.5 Group Behaviour 57 2.9.6 Curiosity 59 2.10 Conclusion 60 CHAPTER THREE: Archaeological Sites Pertinent to Northern Plains Pronghorn Research 3.1 Background 61 3.1.1 Overview ofRelevant Archaeological Sites 61 3.2 Significant Sites (United States ofAmerica) 64 3.2.1 Montana 64 3.2.1.1 Lost Terrace Site (24CH68) 64 3.2.1.2 Pictograph Cave (24YL1) 66 3.2.1.3 Sun River Site (24CA74) 67 3.2.2 South Dakota 69 3.2.2.1 Lighting Spring Site (39HN204) 69 3.2.2.239FA23 73 3.2.2.3 39FA83 75 3.2.3 Wyoming 76 3.2.3.1 Agate Basin, Sheaman Locality (48NA211) 76 and Agate Basin Site (48N0201) 3.2.3.2 Austin Wash Site (48UT390) 78 3.2.3.3 Boar's Tusk Site (48SW1373) 81 3.2.3.4 Bridger Antelope