NMCRIS No. 137025 Cultural Resource Data Recovery · NMCRIS No. 137065 Final Report of Testing and Data Recovery Investigations of a Portion of LA 151618, for 98th Street Improvements

NMCRIS No. 137025

Cultural Resource Data Recovery

Final Report for 98th Street Improvements ProjectTesting and Data Recovery Investigations

of a Portion of LA 151618

Volume IV: Faunal Analysis Albuquerque, Bernalillo County, New Mexico

Prepared byMarron and Associates

Prepared for WH Pacific, Inc.

November 2016

NMCRIS No. 137065

Final Report of Testing and Data Recovery Investigations of a Portion of LA 151618, for 98th Street Improvements Project,

Albuquerque, Bernalillo County, New Mexico

Volume III: Faunal Analysis

Edited By Christina Chavez

and Toni R. Goar

By

Christina Chavez Toni R. Goar R. Stanley Kerr Paul Knight

Linda Scott Cummings Marie E. Brown

Charles D. Frederick C. Dean Wilson Hannah Mattson

and Arlo McKee

Under

New Mexico State Permit NM‐SE‐340

Prepared for

WH Pacific, Inc. 6501 Americas Parkway NE #400

Albuquerque, NM 87110

Prepared by Marron and Associates 7511 4th Street NW

Albuquerque, New Mexico 87107

Marron Project No. 14048.09 November 2016

| iii

Contents

LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................................................................ v

LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................................................. vi

faunal analysis ............................................................................................................................................... 1

Research Orientation ................................................................................................................................ 1

Methods .................................................................................................................................................... 3

Natural History and Ethnographic Background ........................................................................................ 5

Ambystoma tigrinum (Tiger Salamander) (n=22) ................................................................................. 5

Bufo cf. woodhousei (?Woodhouse’s Toad) (n=4) ................................................................................ 6

Lacertilia (Lizards) (n=2) ........................................................................................................................ 6

Coluber constrictor (Racer) (n=58) ....................................................................................................... 7

Thamnophis sp. (Garter Snake) (n=6) ................................................................................................... 7

Crotalus sp. (Rattlesnake) (n=4) ............................................................................................................ 7

Branta canadensis (Canada Goose) (n=1) ............................................................................................. 9

Mealeagris gallopavo (Turkey) (n=161) ................................................................................................ 9

Callipepla sp. (Quail) (n=2) .................................................................................................................. 11

Grus sp. (Crane) (n=54) ....................................................................................................................... 12

Passeriformes (Perching Birds) (n=14) ................................................................................................ 13

Sylvilagus sp. (Cottontail) (n=150) ...................................................................................................... 15

Lepus californicus (Black‐tailed Jackrabbit) (n=275) ........................................................................... 16

Spermophilus spilosoma (Spotted Ground Squirrel) (n=6) ................................................................. 19

Cynomys sp. (Prairie Dog) (n=40) ........................................................................................................ 20

Thomomys bottae (Botta’s Pocket Gopher) (n=26) ............................................................................ 22

Perognathus sp. (Pocket Mouse) (n=20) ............................................................................................ 23

Dipodomys spectabilis (Banner‐tailed Kangaroo Rat) (n=1) ............................................................... 24

Peromyscus maniculatus (Deer Mouse) (n=2) .................................................................................... 24

Peromyscus sp. (White‐footed Mouse) (n=2) ..................................................................................... 24

Neotoma sp. (Woodrat) (n=4) ............................................................................................................ 25

Canis familiaris/C. latrans (Dog/Coyote) (n=5) ................................................................................... 27

Odocoileus sp. (Deer) (n=5) ................................................................................................................ 30

Antilocapra americana (Pronghorn) (n=22) ........................................................................................ 31

The Archaeofaunal Assemblage .............................................................................................................. 32

Feature 1, Pit Structure (storage?) ..................................................................................................... 32

Final Report, Testing and Data Recovery, LA 151618 Volume IV: Faunal Analysis

| iv

Feature 2, Amorphous Ash Stain ........................................................................................................ 34

Feature 9, Amorphous Stain ............................................................................................................... 34

Feature 14, Strat II, Pithouse .............................................................................................................. 35

Sub‐floor A, Strat II .............................................................................................................................. 41

Feature 14, Non‐Strat II, Pithouse ...................................................................................................... 41

Feature 15, Ash Stain .......................................................................................................................... 45

Feature 17, Thermal Feature .............................................................................................................. 45

Feature 19, Pithouse ........................................................................................................................... 46

Pithouse Fill ......................................................................................................................................... 47

Pithouse Floor ..................................................................................................................................... 56

Post Hole 4 .......................................................................................................................................... 56

Sub‐floor ............................................................................................................................................. 56

Feature 19A, Central Hearth ............................................................................................................... 57

Feature 19B, Hearth ............................................................................................................................ 57

Feature 20, Amorphous Stain ............................................................................................................. 57

Feature 21, Amorphous Stain ............................................................................................................. 58

Feature 22, Pit Structure ..................................................................................................................... 58

Feature 23, Midden/Pit Structure ...................................................................................................... 66



Feature 34, Storage Pit ....................................................................................................................... 74

Feature 35, Storage Pit ....................................................................................................................... 74

Non‐feature Vertebrate Faunal Assemblage .......................................................................................... 74

The Flotation Assemblage ....................................................................................................................... 76

Burning .................................................................................................................................................... 80

Gnawing .................................................................................................................................................. 81

Erosion .................................................................................................................................................... 82

Butchering ............................................................................................................................................... 82

Egg Shells ................................................................................................................................................. 83

Rabbit Hunting ........................................................................................................................................ 85

Garden Hunting ....................................................................................................................................... 87

Seasonality and Environment ................................................................................................................. 92

Modified Bone ......................................................................................................................................... 93

Awls ..................................................................................................................................................... 95

Ornaments ........................................................................................................................................ 101


| v

Musical Instruments ......................................................................................................................... 105

Miscellaneous ................................................................................................................................... 107

Summary and Conclusions .................................................................................................................... 108

Assemblage Comparisons ..................................................................................................................... 108

Assemblage Conclusions ....................................................................................................................... 110

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1 – Feature 14 Strat II illustration of white‐footed mouse skeletal elements ................................. 37

Figure 2 – Feature 14 Strat II, illustration of cottontail skeletal elements, LA 151618 .............................. 38

Figure 3 – Feature 14 Strat II, illustration of jackrabbit skeletal elements, LA 151618 .............................. 39

Figure 4 – Feature 14, non‐Strat II, illustration of cottontail skeletal elements, LA 151618 ...................... 44

Figure 5 – Feature 14, non‐Strat II, illustration of jackrabbit skeletal elements, LA 151618 ..................... 45

Figure 6 – Feature 19, illustration of crane skeletal elements, LA 151618 ................................................ 50

Figure 7 – Feature 19, illustration of cottontail skeletal elements, LA 151618 .......................................... 52

Figure 8 – Feature 19, illustration of jackrabbit skeletal elements, LA 151618 ......................................... 53

Figure 9 – Feature 19, illustration of kangaroo rat and mouse skeletal elements, LA 151618 .................. 54

Figure 11 – Feature 19, illustration of pronghorn skeletal elements, LA 151618 ...................................... 56

Figure 12 – Feature 22, illustration of turkey skeletal elements, LA 151618 ............................................. 61

Figure 13 – Feature 22, illustration of crane skeletal elements, LA 151618 .............................................. 62

Figure 14 – Feature 22, illustration of cottontail skeletal elements, LA 151618 ........................................ 64

Figure 15 – Feature 22, illustration of jackrabbit skeletal elements, LA 151618 ....................................... 65

Figure 16 – Feature 23, illustration of cottontail skeletal elements ........................................................... 71

Figure 17 – Feature 23, illustration of jackrabbit skeletal elements, LA 151618 ....................................... 72

Figure 18 – Gnawed Ball from Feature 19 .................................................................................................. 82

Figure 19 – Type C awl, FS 874, Feature 24, LA 151618 ............................................................................. 96

Figure 20 – Type C awl, FS 1371, Feature 19, LA 151618 ........................................................................... 97

Figure 21 – Type D awl, FS 1100, Feature 19, LA 151618 ........................................................................... 98

Figure 22 – Type D awl, FS 1264, Feature 19, LA 151618 ........................................................................... 98

Figure 23 – Type E awl, FS 758, Feature 19, LA 151618 .............................................................................. 99

Figure 24 – Type E awl, FS 1066, Feature 19, LA 151618 .......................................................................... 100

Figure 25 – Type AA ulna awl, FS 1114, Feature 19, LA 151618 ............................................................... 101

Figure 26 – Type M, FS 663, pendant, LA 151618 ..................................................................................... 102

Figure 27 – Type M, FS 663, pendant, LA 151618 ..................................................................................... 102

Figure 28 – Type N, FS 1109, Feature 19, grooved‐and‐snapped shaft, LA 151618 ................................. 103

Figure 29 – Type N, FS 1173, Feature 19, bone tube, LA 151618 ............................................................. 104

Figure 30 – Type N, FS 1495, Feature 19, bone tube, LA 151618 ............................................................. 104

Figure 31 – Type BB, worked vertebra centrum, FS 1839, Feature 14, LA 151618 .................................. 105

Figure 32 – Type P, Bitsitsi whistle, exterior, FS 1490, Feature 19, LA 151618 ........................................ 106


| vi

Figure 33 – Type P, Bitsitsi whistle, interior, FS 1490, Feature 19, LA 151618 ......................................... 106

Figure 34 – Type Z, bone shaft with transverse groove, LA 151618 ......................................................... 107

Figure 35 – Type HH, spatula‐like implement, FS 216, Feature 1, LA 151618 .......................................... 108

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 – Vertebrate Faunal Assemblage ..................................................................................................... 2

Table 2 – Features 1, 2, and 9 Faunal Assemblages .................................................................................... 33

Table 3 – Feature 1 Faunal Assemblage Condition ..................................................................................... 34

Table 4 – Feature 14, Strat II, Vertebrate Faunal Assemblage ................................................................... 35

Table 5 – Feature 14, Strat II, Faunal Assemblage Condition ..................................................................... 36

Table 6 – Feature 14, Strat II, Leporid Skeletal Elements ........................................................................... 38

Table 7 – Feature 14, Strat II, rodent skeletal elements, LA 151618 .......................................................... 40

Table 8 – Feature 14, Strat II, artiodactyl skeletal elements, LA 151618 ................................................... 40

Table 9 – Feature 14, non‐Strat II vertebrate faunal assemblage, LA 151618 ........................................... 41

Table 10 – Feature 14, non‐Strat II, faunal assemblage condition, LA 151618 .......................................... 42

Table 11 – Feature 14, non‐Strat II, rodent skeletal elements, LA 151618 ................................................ 43

Table 12 – Feature 14, non‐Strat II, leporid and pronghorn skeletal elements, LA 151618 ....................... 43

Table 13 – Feature 19 vertebrate faunal assemblage, LA 151618 ............................................................. 46

Table 14 – Feature 19 faunal assemblage condition, LA 151618 ............................................................... 48

Table 15 – Feature 19, rodent skeletal elements, LA 151618 .................................................................... 49

Table 16 – Feature 19, leporid skeletal elements, LA 151618 .................................................................... 51

Table 17 – Feature 19, artiodactyl skeletal elements, LA 151618 .............................................................. 55

Table 18 – Features 20 and 21 faunal assemblages, LA 151618................................................................. 57




Table 22 – Feature 22, leporid and artiodactyl skeletal elements, LA 151618 ........................................... 63





Table 27 – Feature 23, leporid and pronghorn skeletal elements, LA 151618 ........................................... 70

Table 28 – Features 24, 29, 34, and 35 faunal assemblages, LA 151618 .................................................... 73


Table 30 – Non‐feature vertebrate faunal assemblage, LA 151618 ........................................................... 75

Table 31 – Non‐feature faunal assemblage condition, LA 151618 ............................................................. 75

Table 32 – Non‐feature jackrabbit and artiodactyl skeletal elements, LA 151618 ..................................... 76

Table 33 – Identified faunal remains recovered from flotation, LA 151618 .............................................. 78

Table 34 – LA 151618 unidentifiable faunal remains recovered from flotation ......................................... 79

Table 35 – LA 151618 burned bone summaries by feature ........................................................................ 80


| vii

Table 36 – LA 151618 gnawing conditions .................................................................................................. 81

Table 37 – LA 151618 identified butchered bone summaries .................................................................... 83

Table 38 – LA 151618 egg shell summaries by provenience ...................................................................... 84

Table 39 – LA 151618 identified taxa and their preferred habitats ............................................................ 89

Table 40 – LA 151618 small mammal and leporid indices summaries ....................................................... 91

Table 41 – Modified bone summaries, LA 151618 ..................................................................................... 93

Table 42 – LA 151618 bone tool summaries ............................................................................................... 94

Table 43 – LA 151618 small mammal and lagomorph indices of comparable sites (NISP ....................... 110


| 1

FAUNAL ANALYSIS

By Marie E. Brown

Research Orientation

A total of 2,565 vertebrate faunal remains, consisting of 1,722 specimens—including flotation specimens

identified as specific taxa or elements—and 843 unidentifiable fragments from flotation, were recovered

from LA 151618 (Table 1). In addition, the archaeofaunal assemblage includes 939 egg shell fragments

and 2 freshwater mussel shell fragments. LA 151618 is a multicomponent site spanning the Late

Developmental to the Early Coalition periods that is radiocarbon dated (9 dates) to AD 1015 to 1260. The

entire archaeofaunal assemblage was examined. However, the unidentifiable flotation component, the

egg shell, and the mussel shell are discussed separately, after the main 1,722 specimen assemblage. The

present analysis forms the basis for addressing several research issues relating to the recovered

vertebrate faunal assemblage.

Research questions can be divided into site and regional issues.

● What animals were exploited by the site’s inhabitants and which were dietary staples?

● What was the relative importance of small game in the diet?

● What was the role of deer and pronghorn exploitation in subsistence at the site?

● Is bison present in the assemblage, and if so, what climatic and hunting implications does it reflect?

● What butchering patterns are discernible in the archaeofaunal assemblage?

● Is seasonal variation in the procurement of animal resources discernible?

● What do the leporid and artiodactyl indices reflect?

● Is there evidence for food stress in the faunal assemblage, such as fracturing long bones for marrow extraction and pulverizing small animals for complete consumption?

● Although the inhabitants were agriculturalists that depended primarily on crops, did wild taxa contribute significantly to the diet?

● Do the indigenous taxa indicate exploitation of aquatic, riparian, grassland/desert, and/or mountain resources?

● Were taxa procured nearby or is longer‐distance hunting indicated?

● What on‐site activities (e.g., food consumption, butchering, bone processing, tool and ornament manufacturing) are indicated by the archaeofaunal assemblage?

The following descriptions and discussions focus on the features and then on site assemblage as a whole.

The discussion begins with a description of the research methods used in this study. This is followed by a

presentation of the natural history and ethnographic background for the specifically identified taxa.


| 2

Table 1 – Vertebrate Faunal Assemblage

Taxon NISP Minimum MNI

Maximum MNI

Ambystoma tigrinum (Tiger Salamander) 22 2 2 Anura (Toads, Frogs) 1 Bufo cf. woodhousei (?Woodhouse’s Toad) 4 1 1 Bufo sp. (Toad) 55 5 7 Lacertilia (Lizards) 2 1 2 Serpentes (Snakes) 14 1

Colubridae (Colubrid Snakes) 13 2 5 Coluber constrictor (Racer) 58 1 1 Thamnophis sp. (Garter Snake) 6 1 1 Crotalus sp. (Rattlesnake) 4 1 3 Indeterminate very small amphibian/reptile 8 1 1 Branta Canadensis (Canada Goose) 1 1 1 Meleagris gallopavo (Turkey) 161 3 5 cf. Meleagris gallopavo (?Turkey) 1 Callipepla sp. (Quail) 2 1 1 Grus sp. (Crane) 54 3 6 Passeriformes (Perching Birds) 14 2 6 Indeterminate small bird (quail‐size) 4 3

Indeterminate medium bird (duck‐size) 5 1 4 Indeterminate large bird (turkey‐size) 14 1

Indeterminate size bird 1 Leporidae (Rabbits, Hares) 11 2

Sylvilagus sp. (Cottontail) 150 6 15 Lepus californicus (Black‐tailed Jackrabbit) 275 8 19 Rodentia (Rodents) ‐ small 7 Sciuridae (Squirrels) ‐ small 6 1

Spermophilus spilosoma (Spotted Ground Squirrel) 6 1 2 cf. Spermophilus spilosoma (?Spotted Ground Squirrel) 6 2

Cynomys sp. (Prairie Dog) 40 3 8 cf. Cynomys sp. (Prairie Dog) 2 1 Thomomys bottae (Botta’s Pocket Gopher) 26 4 5 Perognathus sp. (Pocket Mouse) 20 2 2 Dipodomys spectabilis (Banner‐tailed Kangaroo Rat) 1 1 1 Dipodomys sp. (Kangaroo Rat) 68 7 12 Peromyscus maniculatus (Deer Mouse) 2 2 2 Peromyscus sp. (White‐footed Mouse) 124 7 14 cf. Peromyscus sp. (?White‐footed Mouse) 2 1

Neotoma sp. (Woodrat) 4 1 4 cf. Neotoma sp. (Woodrat) 1 Canis familiaris./C. latrans (Dog/Coyote) 5 1 2 Artiodactyla (Even‐toed Ungulates) 1 Odocoileus sp. (Deer) 5 1 3 Antilocapra americana (Pronghorn) 22 2 9 cf. Antilocapra americana (?Pronghorn) 1 Odocoileus/A. americana (Deer/ Pronghorn) 15


| 3

Taxon NISP Minimum MNI

Maximum MNI

Indeterminate very small mammal (mouse‐size) 24 1

Indeterminate small mammal (rabbit‐size) 296 Indeterminate medium mammal (coyote‐size) 15 3

Indeterminate large mammal (pronghorn‐size) 85 1

Indeterminate medium bird/small mammal 1 Indeterminate large bird/small mammal 23 Indeterminate bird/mammal 32 Indeterminate class 2

Total 1722 73 160 NISP = number of identified specimens; MNI = minimum number of individuals; Minimum MNI = whole site; Maximum MNI = based on features and non-features

Methods

The faunal identifications were made by the author with the aid of comparative specimens in her

possession. Occasionally, published osteological references were consulted. No faunal sampling was

conducted. All of the vertebrate remains, including egg shell, recovered from LA 151618 were examined.

Refits were determined whenever possible to increase identifiable remains and maximize processing

information. In addition, all freshly broken fragments from the same bone in a single provenience (i.e., FS

No.) were counted as one specimen. This and the refits reduced the sample size. Basic information

recorded for each specimen—a complete bone or tooth or a fragment thereof—included the taxon,

element, laterality, fragment and portion, weathering, burning, gnawing, and evidence of butchering and

working. Weight was measured with an electronic Ohaus Model S200 digital scale 0.00 –200.00 g, and

length, width, and thickness measurements were recorded with an electronic Cen‐Tech digital caliper

0.00–150.00 mm. Measurements of modified bone were recorded.

Taxonomic identifications were made only to the lowest level of specificity (e.g., order, family, genus,

species) warranted by each specimen. As a result, 475 specimens (27.6%) were identified only to a size

category (e.g., small mammal, large mammal) and 35 (2.0%) were identifiable as to size. For birds, small

are quail‐size, medium are duck‐size, and large are turkey‐size. For mammals, very small mammals are

rat‐size or smaller (designated herein as mouse‐size), small are rabbit‐size, medium are coyote‐size, and

large are deer‐size. Placement of a specimen into an animal size category was somewhat subjective, based

primarily on the thickness of the compact bone, the size of the specimen, and the possible element

represented. In several instances, the specific taxonomic identification—genus or species—was uncertain

because of the presence of two or more osteologically similar species within the project area. If the

taxonomic assignment was less than certain, the modifier cf. (compares favorably) was used. In other

cases, only the listing of alternatives (e.g., deer/pronghorn) was possible.

The interpretation of any faunal assemblage is subject to several sources of probable bias. First, because

of preservation factors and excavation techniques, it is impossible to recover every bone originally

deposited at a site. An excavated assemblage, therefore, is by very nature a sample. In addition, it is a


| 4

sample of a sample because few sites, if any, are excavated in total. Depending on where excavations

occurred within a site—such as in structures, middens, refuse disposal areas, and activity areas—analysis

of the recovered faunal remains can produce varying or conflicting interpretations. Sample size is another

potential source of bias, particularly in small assemblages. As stated by Grayson (1984:117), “extremely

small samples probably do not provide an adequate base from which statistical inferences concerning

relative abundances within the target population can be made.” (The target population is the animal set

exploited by a group of people [Grayson 1984:116].) Sample size is also subject to other biases.

Relative taxonomic abundances may be significantly correlated with the size of the samples from which

they have been determined. Consequently, interpretations of relative abundances may prove to be

primarily interpretations of the size of the samples from which the abundances have been derived

(Grayson 1984:129). One measure of taxonomic abundance is richness. This refers to the number of taxa

(species) that have contributed to a faunal assemblage (Cruz‐Uribe 1988:180; Grayson 1984; Leonard

1989:23). Another measure sometimes used to ascertain taxonomic abundance is general diversity, which

takes into account both the number of taxa present (richness) and the relative frequency of each taxon

(Cruz‐Uribe 1988:179). Some researchers (e.g., Grayson 1984:138–149; Leonard 1989; Leonard and Jones

1989; Meltzer et al. 1992) have shown strong correlations between richness and sample size as measured

by the number of identified specimens (NISP).

In the present analysis, interpretations are based on the NISP, the minimum number of individuals (MNI),

and relative percentages. The MNI is the number of animals of an identified taxon necessary to account

for all the recovered bones of that taxon (Shotwell 1955:330). Although used by American paleontologists

as early as the 1920s (see Grayson 1973:433, 1984:27–28), the method for determining MNI was

introduced into American archaeology by White (1953). Improvements of White’s technique have

occurred over the years (Bokonyi 1970; Chaplin 1971; Grayson 1973, 1979, 1984). The different methods

utilized for determining MNI, however, can yield varying results for the same assemblage (see Casteel

1977a, 1977b; Grayson 1973, 1978, 1979, 1984; Horton 1984; Ringrose 1993:126–128). As a result, some

researchers see little value in the use of MNI (e.g., Casteel 1977b; Turner 1980). As suggested by Horton

(1984:255), “there is no single ‘best’ method, since the one that is chosen depends upon the result

desired, and on the particular features of the site and excavation.” With these drawbacks in mind, MNI

values are presented as a quantitative counterbalance to the NISP values. It is a means of standardizing

the data. In addition, MNI values are used herein because they are relatively unaffected by differential

fragmentation among species and samples and are, therefore, better for assuring comparability among

indices computed for different samples (Cruz‐Uribe 1988:180; Klein and Cruz‐Uribe 1984). In addition, not

all levels of aggregation to obtain MNI values are likely to be sensible according to site contexts and

research questions. The problem of aggregation, therefore, is probably not as great as Grayson (1984)

suggests (Ringrose 1993:128).

After the variables were recorded, the NISP was computed for each taxon and the minimum MNIs were

determined for each identified species or genus (Table 1). The calculation of minimum MNIs considers the

site assemblage as a whole and assumes that all specimens of a specific taxon could represent the same

individual, regardless of provenience. In addition, the maximum MNIs were calculated. This type of MNI


| 5

is based upon provenience or association with specific features. The calculation of each type of MNI

considered taxon, element, side, portion, and age, which was based on the degree of bone fusion, tooth

eruption and wear, and porosity (i.e., overall ossification) of bone specimens. The bones of very young

mammals are distinctly spongier—less ossified—than those of adults. The calculation of MNI values for

higher taxonomic levels and for animal size classes other than mammals (e.g., small bird, medium bird)

was determined by the composition of the assemblage. For example, if a specimen was identified to a

taxonomic level higher than genus (e.g., Rodentia [order]) and another specimen was recorded at a lower

taxonomic level within it (e.g., Neotoma sp.), the MNI was determined only for the lower taxonomic level.

Not all recovered vertebrate archaeofaunal remains from a site are cultural. Although some researchers

base intrusiveness on the presence of partial or nearly complete skeletons of animals such as small

rodents (Thomas 1971; Ziegler 1973), analysts also must consider the taphonomic factors affecting the

differential preservation of bones (Lyman 1984), as well as recovery techniques. Szuter (1989:209–219)

presents five pieces of evidence for interpreting rodent bones. Three of these criteria are used in varying

degrees in this analysis: (1) Southwestern ethnographic accounts, (2) ecological studies, and (3)

archaeological evidence (including context and condition of the bones).

As indicated by the research questions, elucidation of subsistence patterns is a major focus of this analysis.

Subsistence systems involve, at a minimum, the interaction of humans, technology, and floral and faunal

resources. The study of these interactions through time and across space provides a description and an

understanding of various lifeways (Lyman 1982:331). A subsistence study, therefore, requires

consideration of more than just the animals. It is intimately involved with the interaction of humans—

including their technology and adaptive exploitative strategies—and animals with the environment and

with each other. Several diverse but related fields of research are used, including ethnography,

environmental science, cultural ecology, and animal ecology.

Natural History and Ethnographic Background

The following are brief descriptions of the natural history of taxa identified to the level of genus or species

(Table 1). When available, ethnographic data are presented for these taxa. These data are derived from a

variety of North American Indian groups, not only those of the Southwest, and are not intended to suggest

exact usage by the Native American inhabitants of the project area. Rather, they are presented as

examples of why and how the identified taxa may have been exploited.

Ambystoma tigrinum (Tiger Salamander) (n=22)

The tiger salamander (Ambystoma tigrinum) occurs throughout New Mexico in a wide variety of habitats

ranging from desert scrub to spruce‐fir forests. Primarily a borrower, the adult seeks shelter during dry

periods in rodent burrows, in logs, or under rocks and surface debris. During wet weather, this salamander

can be found above ground in great numbers. Nonflowing water—ponds, lakes, stock tanks, rain

puddles—is necessary for breeding, which may begin in early spring and extend to late summer

(Deganhardt et al. 1996:20–3). The presence of salamander in LA 151618 is most likely intrusive.


| 6

Bufo cf. woodhousei (?Woodhouse’s Toad) (n=4)

Bufo sp. (n=55)

Probable Woodhouse’s toad (cf. Bufo woodhousei) occurs at lower elevations statewide where suitable

soils and moister conditions exist, such as in the Rio Grande Valley. It is usually confined to the vicinity of

stream and river valleys and to agricultural areas and river floodplains in more mesic habitats with

permanent water. This toad is an excellent burrower that prefers loose soil. As with most toad species,

Woodhouse’s toad is nocturnal, emerging from its burrow to feed at dusk and after dark. It breeds in

permanent water or in temporary pools after heavy summer rains. It breeds from March to September

(Degenhardt et al. 1996:61–63; Garrett and Barker 1987:15; Johnson 1977:76–78; Stebbins 1985:72, Map

33; Wheeler and Wheeler 1966:4, 44; Williamson et al. 1994:161–162). Because toads are fossorial and/or

seek shelter in burrows, their presence within the site is considered intrusive. In addition, it is doubtful

that true toads (i.e., Bufo spp.) were eaten because they produce a toxic skin secretion that is irritating to

the eyes and to mucous membranes and can cause skin inflammations (e.g., Brown 1985:560; Conant

1975:305; Johnson 1977:70; Stebbins 1985:68‐69; Williamson et al. 1994:153, 159, 161).

Lacertilia (Lizards) (n=2)

Several species of lizards are indigenous to the LA 151618 area. The few lizard elements (n=2) consist of

only a pelvis and a rib and are not identifiable to a lower taxonomic level. Lizards were consumed by many

peoples, such as the Hualapai and Yavapai (Gifford 1936:268; Spier 1928:117, 123), some Florida groups

(Swanton 1946:252, 281, 298), and Texas coastal groups (Krieger 1956:50, 53–54). Larger lizards (e.g.,

chuckwalla) that were worth catching and preparing due to their size, were eaten by some Basin‐Plateau

groups (Steward 1938:40), Death Valley groups (Wallace 1978), and the Yavapai (Gifford 1936:268). The

Hualapai used a hooked or barbed stick to pull chuckwallas from rock crevices (McGuire 1983:32). Similar

techniques were employed by the Yavapai (Gifford 1936:268) and Death Valley groups (Wallace 1978). A

probable lizard‐extracting hook recovered from a rockshelter in Death Valley consists of a hardwood

handle with an attached sharply pointed bone barb (Wallace 1978:110–112). After capturing a chuckwalla,

the Yavapai killed it by seizing it by the tail and striking it against a rock. Then, either gutted or ungutted,

it was cooked in hot ashes (Gifford 1936:268). The Miwok roasted lizards in hot ashes after gutting them

(Barrett and Gifford 1933:137, 139). Lizards caught by the Tarahumara are skinned and roasted on a spit.

The Tarahumara also use some lizard species for medicinal purposes such as remedies for toothaches,

headaches, and sterility in women. The open bodies of lizards were used as a poultice for fractured bones

(Bennett and Zingg 1935:127; Pennington 1963:134–135). The Yavapai occasionally fed lizards to captive

eagles and hawks (Gifford 1932:240).

The paucity (n=2), small size, and unburned condition of the recovered lizard remains from LA 151618

suggest that their presence is not the result of cultural factors. In addition, lizards seek refuge and/or

hibernate in burrows. Therefore, the lizard is considered intrusive. Although it is possible that lizards may

have been occasionally consumed by the occupants of LA 151618 during times of extreme food stress, the

quantity and type of recovered faunal remains indicate that this generally was not the case.


| 7

Coluber constrictor (Racer) (n=58)

The racer (Coluber constrictor) is found throughout New Mexico. Although primarily a grassland species,

it is a highly adaptable snake that occurs in a variety of ecological settings—grasslands, brushland,

woodland, mountain forests and in more xeric environments where water is usually available. Rocks,

deadfall, old foundations, lumber, and corrals are preferred habitats. The racer is basically a ground

dweller and is not a burrower. Small mammal burrows are used for shelter and hibernation. Hibernation

generally occurs in communal dens, such as crevices in rock accumulations and small mammal burrows,

from October to April. These dens may be shared with other snake species, including rattlesnakes. One or

two clutches of as many as 26 to 31 eggs are laid from May to July. The racer feeds opportunistically, and

its diet consists of a variety of small animals that include lizards, frogs, birds, and rodents. Prey is

swallowed “alive and kicking” (Degenhardt et al. 1996:264–266; Stebbins 1985:180–181, Map 136;

Williamson et al. 1994:26).

Thamnophis sp. (Garter Snake) (n=6)

At least three species of garter snake (Thamnophis sp.)—T. sirtalis, T. elegans, and T. cyrtopsis—occur in

the Albuquerque area. Although primarily a grassland species, it is a highly adaptable snake that occurs in

a variety of ecological settings—deserts, prairies, brushland, woodland, and mountain forests. The garter

snake is basically a ground dweller capable of burrowing into loose dirt, but it is also a good climber. Small

mammal burrows are used for shelter. Hibernation generally occurs in communal dens, such as crevices

in rock accumulations and small mammal burrows, from October to April. These dens may be shared by

other snake species, including rattlesnakes. One or two clutches of as many as 28 eggs are laid from June

to August. The garter snake consumes fish and amphibians, small mammals, and invertebrates. Prey is

swallowed “alive and kicking” (Degenhardt et al. 1996:312–332; Stebbins 1985:198–211, Maps 154–164;

Williamson et al. 1994:46–51).

Crotalus sp. (Rattlesnake) (n=4)

Two species of rattlesnakes occur within the project area. All are live‐bearing. The western diamondback

(Crotalus atrox), the largest western rattlesnake and the most venomous snake in the project area, occurs

in most terrestrial habitats from sea level to 2,100 m where suitable prey, mainly small mammals, and

cover are available. This rattlesnake prefers rocky canyons, rocky foothills with sparse vegetation, brushy

deserts, desert‐grassland, and river bluffs. Rodent burrows, woodrat nests, rock outcrops, holes in arroyo

banks, and thickets are used for shelter and/or winter dens. Communal dens are often used in winter. It

is crepuscular and nocturnal. Births of 2 to 21 young occur in summer and fall. The diet consists of small

mammals, lizards, and birds (Degenhardt et al. 1996: 341–344; Lowe 1964:172; Stebbins 1985:226, Map

185; Tennant 1985:233–235).

LA 151618 is within the range of the western rattlesnake (C. viridis). This very aggressive rattlesnake is

found throughout the Southwest in a variety of habitats (e.g., prairies, desert‐edge, mountain forests)

from sea level to 3350 m. It prefers rocky canyons, talus slopes, rocky outcrops, and open prairies

containing prairie dog towns or numerous burrows of other small animals. Large numbers of this species

may winter in a common den. If rocky retreats are not available, individuals may winter in mammal

burrows. Births of 5 to 14 young occur from August to October. It subsists primarily on small mammals,


| 8

ground‐dwelling birds, lizards, snakes, and amphibians (Degenhardt et al. 1996: 351–353; Lowe 1964:172–

174; Stebbins 1985:231, Map 184; Tennant 1985:236–237).

Several historic groups, such as the Miwok (Barrett and Gifford 1933:137), Shoshonean groups (Steward

1938:40), and Texas coastal peoples (Krieger 1956:50, 53–54) ate snakes. Rattlesnake meat was

considered a delicacy by the Tonkawa (Sjoberg 1953:286). The Tepehuan also consume rattlesnake meat.

After the rattles, head, and skin are removed, the meat is cooked in an olla (Pennington 1969:144). The

Tarahumara remove the head before eating the rattlesnake. In addition, the fat is esteemed as sweat bath

ointment. Formerly, snakes were even kept as pets (Bennett and Zingg 1935:128; Pennington 1963:135).

Most peoples did not consider snakes as food items, although some groups, such as the Choctaw, did

consume them as famine foods. The Navajo had a taboo against the killing of snakes. To do so, was

believed to cause aches and pains in the spine (Hill 1938:176). The Western Apache generally did not

molest snakes. “When snakes were killed, accidentally or otherwise, they were buried to prevent contact

with snake blood or a dead snake, for if such occurred it was believed that the unfortunate person would

become crippled” (Buskirk 1986:142). The Sanpoil and Nespelem believed that eating snake flesh would

result in “gradual withering and death” (Ray 1932:90).

Snakes were more likely used for non‐subsistence purposes. The Gros Ventre sometimes decorated the

backs of bows with snakeskins (Kroeber 1908:151). The Wishram dipped their arrow points in rattlesnake

venom (Spier and Sapir 1930:199, 231). Some Southeastern groups used the teeth of venomous snakes

as arrow points. In addition, some Southeastern medicine men used snake teeth for scarification and wore

snakeskins, or even live snakes, on their heads (Swanton 1946:252). Among the Omaha, if someone

disregarded the authority of the chiefs or disturbed the social order, official punishment (i.e., death) was

administered with the poisoned end of ironwood staff tipped with rattlesnake fangs (Fletcher and La

Flesche 1911:213). The Southern Miwok used rattlesnake meat as medicine (Barrett and Gifford

1933:137). Snakes have a prominent and significant role in the Snake Dance of the Hopi (Fewkes 1897,

1900; Hough 1903).

Most, if not all, of these types of non‐subsistence functions, unfortunately, have a low probability for

preservation in the archaeological record. Therefore, in some situations, it is not possible to determine

whether the presence of snake remains is due to cultural factors. The general scarcity of snake remains

and their unburned condition suggest the specimens from LA 151618 are probably intrusive.


| 9

Branta canadensis (Canada Goose) (n=1)

The Canada goose (Branta canadensis) is a year‐round resident in the Albuquerque area. LA 151618 is

within the range of the intermountain population of this species. The habitat of this population consists

of marshes and stream channels. Breeding begins in early March. Nesting sites include marshes, the tops

of muskrat houses, islands, and cliffs. Nests are lined with down. Most clutches contain four to seven eggs.

Molting occurs about a month after the young hatch. The Canada goose is attracted to cultivated fields

where it feeds on grains such as maize. In addition, grasses and marsh plants are also consumed (Bellrose

1976:141–164; Peterson 1990:40, Map 35; Rue 1973:7–17).

Geese were important secondary food items for many peoples. Although not hunted extensively by the

Gros Ventre, goose eggs were a favorite food (Kroeber 1908:149). The Miwok employed fire at night to

attract geese. As the birds approached, they were killed with clubs (Barrett and Gifford 1933:187).

Whenever available, geese were eaten by the Pomo, who usually hunted them with bows and wood‐

pointed arrows, and slings. The Wintun and some Pomo groups even hunted geese with a type of bola.

After the birds were plucked, they were broiled (Barrett 1952:100, 140, 148).

Geese also had non‐subsistence‐related functions. Goose feathers are used ceremonially by various

Puebloan groups (Beidleman 1956:18). The Zuni use the feathers of this bird on prayer sticks. In addition,

ceremonial dance masks and ritual objects are decorated with goose feathers (Ladd 1963:81). The Pomo

used goose feathers in making some clothes. In addition, down was used for a head‐net. Whistles and ear

ornaments were manufactured from the wing bones (Barrett 1952:100).

Although the Canada goose is presently considered a choice game bird (Martin et al. 1951:51), the paucity

of goose remains (n=1) recovered from LA 151618 suggests geese were not generally the focus of

subsistence strategies. They were probably obtained opportunistically, possibly attracted to cultivated

fields.

Mealeagris gallopavo (Turkey) (n=161)

cf. Meleagris gallopavo (?Turkey) (n=1)

Archaeofaunal remains consisting of a turkey (Mealeagris gallopavo) burial and a few scattered elements,

in addition to egg shell fragments (n=939) tentatively identified as turkey (cf. M. gallopavo), were

recovered. Both domesticated and wild turkey were probably available to the inhabitants of LA 151618.

Marriam’s (M. g. marriami) occurs in Transition and Upper Sonoran zones of New Mexico Mountains. In

early historical times, the wild turkey was present throughout New Mexico, except for the treeless plains

(Bailey 1928:233). It has been extirpated, however, throughout much of its former range. The wild turkey

is the largest upland game bird in the country. Merriam’s wild turkey inhabits mountain forests and

woodlands of the Southwest. It primarily dwells at elevations between 6000 and 12,000 ft., rarely

occurring below 6000 ft. (Bailey 1928:231–233; Ligon 1946:1–3). “The yellow, or Ponderosa pine, a source

of mast, and its favorite roosting tree, is an essential component of its permanent habitat, while living


| 10

surface water is a range requirement” (Ligon 1946:2). Dense, brushy habitats are avoided. This bird is a

swift runner and often roosts in trees for protection. Although not technically a migratory bird, it has

distinct summer and winter ranges. Turkeys live in family groups during the summer and congregate into

larger flocks during the late fall, when the journey to the lower elevation (Upper Sonoran) winter range

commences. The formation of larger flocks is probably controlled, to a degree, by the availability of acorns

and other mast at this time. Nesting usually occurs in coniferous forests (Transition Zone), at elevations

between 7000 and 9500 ft. The nest often consists of a shallow leaf‐lined depression at the base of a tree

in an open or semi‐open area that affords the hen a clear view of the surrounding area. The egg‐laying

season begins in early May. Clutches usually consist of 9 to 12 eggs. Oak mast (acorns), piñon nuts, and

juniper berries are important components of its diet. Other nuts, seeds, wild fruits, and insects are also

consumed. Predators include coyotes, bobcats, eagles, horned owls, foxes, skunks, badgers, crows, and

ravens (Alsop 2001:197; Bailey 1928:231–237; Johnsgaard 1979:125; Ligon 1946, 1961:102–104; Martin

et al. 1951:107–108; Peterson 1990:158, Map 99; Schorger 1966).

The turkey was domesticated in the Southwest and Mexico. Although both domestic and wild turkeys

were eaten in these areas, they were (and still are) valued primarily for their production of feathers for

prayer sticks and other ceremonial purposes and for feather robes (Beidleman 1956:22–23; Ladd

1963:91–92; McKusick 1986:15–18; Olsen 1968:107). The turkey, however, was an important secondary

food resource, both prehistorically and historically. It was consumed by many peoples, such as the

Havasupai (Spier 1928), Zuni and other Puebloan groups (Beidleman 1956:22; Ladd 1963:92), Western

Apache (Buskirk 1986:137), Omaha (Fletcher and La Flesche 1911:105), Caddo and other Southeastern

groups (Solis 1931:43; Swanton 1942:135, 1946:251, 298), Plains Cree (Mandelbaum 1940:199), Tonkawa

(Sjoberg 1953:286), and Cheyenne (Grinnell 1923:[I]:115). At Isleta, although domestic turkeys were

raised for their feathers, wild turkeys were eaten (Parsons 1932:274–275). The Navajo approached the

turkeys stealthily and then shot them. They also ran them down in deep snow. Sometimes, a fire was built

under roosting turkeys, and because they reportedly would not fly away, they could all be killed. If the

birds were to be used for ceremonial purposes, they were caught in twitch‐up or deadfall traps (Hill

1938:174). The favored turkey hunting technique of the Western Apache “was to locate a roosting place

and return at night to kill the birds” (Buskirk 1986:138). They were shot with arrows. Some Western

Apache groups

hunted turkeys by the light of grass torches. Toward the desert the White Mountain at

times built fires under the roosts. The smoke was said to blind and stupefy them and they

would not fly away. Boys and girls went out together on such night hunts, the girls building

the fires while the boys shot the birds. Sometimes a pole might be leaned against a tree

before the birds went to roost. That night the hunter would return, climb into the tree,

and attempt to kill turkeys with a stick or grab them by the legs or neck [Buskirk

1986:138].

The Yavapai killed turkeys with arrows having either stone or hardwood points, or they ran down the

turkeys and killed them with sticks. They cooked the birds in an earth oven. The Yavapai procured turkeys

only for consumption and had no use for the feathers or bones (Gifford 1936:267). The Tepahuan caught

turkeys by several different methods. In one, they placed a few grains of maize in a small conical brush


| 11

trap, and when a turkey entered the trap, they clubbed it to death. Small turkeys were run down and shot

with arrows if treed. After the birds were defeathered and eviscerated, they were either boiled in an olla

or roasted on a spit (Pennington 1969:114). The Tarahumara use two types of traps to catch turkeys: one

is similar to the conical head decoys when hunting (Swanton 1942:135–136). Some southeastern groups

used fire or dogs to hunt turkeys, and the captured birds were either roasted or boiled (Swanton

1946:329–330, 369).

Turkeys were and still are procured or raised for their feathers. The Navajo (Hill 1938:174), Cheyenne

(Grinnell 1923:I:181) and Southeastern groups (Swanton 1946:251) used turkey feathers on arrows. Many

Pueblo groups still use turkey feathers for prayer sticks and other ceremonial purposes (Beidleman

1956:22–23; Ladd 1963:91). The Tarahumara (Pennington 1963:86), Zuni (Beidleman 1956:231), Miwok

(Barrett and Gifford 1933:228), and others made turkey feather blankets and/or cloaks. The Navajo made

a headdress, worn by the clown in the Night Way chant, with the tail feathers (Hill 1938:174). “The

feathers immediately above the tail on top, were used for decorating the ‘stick’ in the Squaw Dance, for

making feather wands in the several chants, and for decorating the swallowing arrows of the Mountain

Way chant. The remaining feathers were used as offerings in prayer sticks” (Hill 1938:174). The Caddo

used the feathers for headdresses, fans, feather mantles, and other decorative purposes (Swanton

1942:140, 146, 157). Some other Southeastern groups sometimes tipped their arrows with turkey‐cock

spurs (Swanton 1946:251). The Hopi used turkey egg albumen as a glaze for masks and other ceremonial

items (Beidleman 1956:22). The taste of the turkey’s flesh was affected by the type of food it consumed.

In the Southwest, turkeys that consume quantities of piñon nuts are said to have a delicate flavor

(Schorger 1966:372). All of the turkey remains recovered from LA 151618 are cultural.

Callipepla sp. (Quail) (n=2)

Two species of quail—Callipepla squamata (scaled quail) and C. gambelii (Gambel’s quail) occur in the LA

151618 area. Quail prefer to run rather than fly. The destruction of desert grasslands in historic times has

resulted in the extirpation of the scaled quail in portions of its range (Johnsgaard 1988:53; Rea 1973:327).

This ground‐dwelling game bird only inhabits arid grasslands and semi‐deserts. Areas with overhead cover

(e.g., shrubs) are preferred. Forbs and shrubs provide nesting cover. Fairly large coveys of four to 150

individuals (average of 31.2) occur during the non‐breeding period. Where surface water is available,

populations tend to be higher. Breeding extends from June to September or October and is associated

with summer and fall rainfall. A clutch of 9 to 20 eggs (usually 12 to 14) is laid in a nest scratched in the

ground under shrubs or other vegetation. This bird primarily consumes weed and grass seeds, including

those of cultivated plants (e.g., wheat, oats, sorghum). A significant portion of its diet, however, is

composed of insects (Johnsgaard 1979:120, 1988:18, 51–53; Martin et al. 1951:102–103; Peterson

1990:166, Map 102; Rue 1973:289–301; Udvardy 1977:534).

The Gambel’s quail prefers desert habitats dominated by mesquite and other desert shrubs. Fairly small

coveys of three to 40 individuals (average of 12.5) occur during the non‐breeding period and disperse in

pairs during the nesting season. Egg‐laying commences in late April. A clutch of usually 10 to 16 eggs is

laid in a nest scratched in the ground under vegetation cover. The nests are subject to high predation. This

bird primarily consumes seeds and is attracted to the produce of cultivated fields (e.g., corn) (Johnsgaard


| 12

1988:18, 54–56; Martin et al. 1951:104–105; Peterson 1990:166, Map 103; Rue 1973:302–307; Udvardy

1977:505–506).

Quail were eaten by a number of peoples, such as the Papago (Castetter and Underhill 1935:43), Pomo

(Barrett 1952:98), Tepehuan (Pennington 1969:116), Omaha (Fletcher and La Flesche 1911:105); Caddo

(Solis 1931:43; Swanton 1942:135), Havasupai (Spier 1928:113), Miwok (Barrett and Gifford 1933:183),

and Plains Cree (Mandelbaum 1940:199). The Havasupai ate quail eggs (Spier 1928:113). The Pomo

(Barrett 1952:98), and Miwok (Barrett and Gifford 1933:138) roasted quail eggs in hot ashes. The Yavapai

cooked quail eggs in ashes, but only old people at them. It was believed that young people would get

freckles or produce freckled children if they consumed the eggs (Gifford 1932:217, 1936:267). Quail eggs

are hunted and eaten raw by Tepehuan children (Pennington 1969:116).

The Papago trapped Gambel’s quail in a rough cage constructed of split giant cactus ribs. The birds were

plucked, but the skin was not removed. Then they were either roasted in the ashes or boiled in a jar set

directly over the fire (Castetter and Underhill 1935:43, 47). The Tepehuan flushed quail and killed them

with rocks or bows and arrows. After being plucked and drawn, they were either boiled in an olla or

roasted on a spit (Pennington 1969:116). The Omaha cooked birds by either boiling or roasting them. If it

was to be roasted, the bird was thrust on a stick and then stood up by the fire (Fletcher and La Flesche

1911:342). In the spring, the Miwok snared large numbers of quail that were dried for consumption during

the summer. After removing the feathers, the breasts were cut open so that they would dry properly. If

procured for immediate consumption, the birds were normally roasted whole in hot ashes. After cooking,

they were picked or skinned (Barrett and Gifford 1933:138, 140). “Sometimes they were opened first and

live coals placed within to facilitate the cooking” (Barrett and Gifford 1933:138). The Pomo had several

methods for hunting quail. Armed with wood‐pointed arrows, hunters shot the birds from blinds. Basketry

traps, nets, and snares were also employed. Cooking of the birds was simple (Barrett 1952:133–139).

“Quail were usually cooked by placing them directly on the hot coals. This singed off the feathers and

broiled the meat. When thoroughly cooked the skin and entrails were removed and the meat was ready

to eat” (Barrett 1952:98). The Yavapai hunted quail with wood‐pointed arrows that had several small cross

sticks tied near the point to help knock down the birds. The quail were cooked in ashes or boiled (Gifford

1932:205, 224, 1936:267, 286–287). The Tarahumara kill quail with stones. Then the birds are boiled or

roasted (Pennington 1963:91).

Although the scaled quail was not eaten by the Zuni, the feathers were occasionally utilized. Before

embarking on a raid, the Bow Priests offered the feathers of this bird (Ladd 1963:91). “This offering was

made so that the warriors would, like the quail, be able to avoid the enemy by hiding” (Ladd 1963:91).

The paucity of quail remains in the faunal assemblage suggests these birds were not a focus of subsistence

procurement strategies by the prehistoric inhabitants of the site. Quail were probably obtained

opportunistically as a minor component of the subsistence resource base.

Grus sp. (Crane) (n=54)

LA 151618 is within the winter range of the whooping crane (Grus americana), an endangered species,

and the sandhill crane (G. canadensis). The habitat of these marshbirds consists of marshes, prairies,


| 13

fields, and tundra. Their preferred habitat is comprised of shallow water and mud flats near grain fields.

During migration or winter, cranes often feed in grain fields. Spring migration usually begins in late March,

and the fall migration commences in mid‐September. Breeding occurs in northern marshes in April and

May. A clutch of usually two eggs is laid in a bulky nest constructed in an isolated, open wet area, such as

a small island or above water level. Whenever available, cranes consume cultivated grains such as maize,

wheat, oats, rice, and sorghum. In addition, its diet includes seeds of wild plants, stems, roots, tubers,

grasshoppers, beetles, caterpillars, snails, fish, frogs, lizards, snakes, and mice (Emslie 1981:318; Martin

et al. 1951:80‐81; Peterson 1990:116, Map 112; Rue 1973:395‐400; Udvardy 1977:425–426).

Cranes were consumed by several groups, such as the Omaha (Fletcher and La Flesche 1911:105),

Cheyenne (Grinnell 1923:I:51), Tarahumar (Pennington 1963:87), and Navajo (Hill 1938:175). Before the

cranes could fly away, they were clubbed by Navajo hunters hiding nearby (Hill 1938:175). The Tarahumar

kill cranes with stones (Pennington 1963:87). The Pomo used bows and arrows and the toggle or gorge

hook to kill cranes. The toggle hook consisted of a small, straight bone sharpened at both ends to which

a short line was attached. In addition, a tule float was usually attached to the toggle hook (Barrett

1952:101, 147). “It was baited with a fish and placed out in the tule. When the bird had swallowed the

bait, the float prevented it from diving or swimming freely and also from flying very far” (Barrett

1952:147).

Cranes were also procured for non‐subsistence purposes. The members of the Zuni Galaxy or Clown

Society use crane feathers as pendant feathers on their wands. Usually only members of this society hunt

cranes (Ladd 1963:92‐93). “They are never utilized as part of ceremonial dance masks or other religious

objects of other societies” (Ladd 1963:92). Among the Tewa, the remains of cranes and other game

animals “that are not otherwise utilized must be deposited at an earth navel so that they will continue to

be plentiful” (Ortiz 1969:112). Because they only come through the Tewa area in the fall, cranes symbolize

the change in seasons (Ortiz 1969:171). The Hopi also used crane feathers for ceremonial purposes

(Beidleman 1956:23). Among the Cheyenne, the sandhill crane was believed to possess strong protective

powers; therefore, the feathers and heads of this bird were often fastened to shields (Grinnell 1923:I:195).

Presence of crane remains at LA 151618 is cultural. The recovered specimens include a partial juvenile

skeleton and two modified wing bones (see below). In addition, one of the latter exhibits cuts marks.

Passeriformes (Perching Birds) (n=14)

Perching birds have feet well adapted for grasping. Passerines include, but are not limited to, flycatchers,

larks, pipts, swallows, crows, ravens, jays, titmice, verdin, bushtit, nuthatches, creepers, wrens, dippers,

gnatcatchers, thrushes, shrikes, starlings, waxwings, vireos, warblers, blackbirds, orioles, tanagers,

sparrows, towhees, juncos, grosbeaks, buntings, and finches (Peterson 1990:15). Passerine birds are born

in an almost naked condition with only traces of down on the feather tracts of the upperparts of the body.

As a general rule, perching birds have brown eyes and black or brownish bills, legs, and feet (Bailey

1928:413–414).

Among the Pueblo, the most important aspects of the cosmos are the sun, the sky, and then the earth.

Birds representing these major points of reference are the most important in myths, rituals, and

ceremonies. Birds specific for the theme of Rain include swallows and swifts, in addition to hummingbirds


| 14

and doves. Zuni Rain priests believe that certain birds must talk with them. Four of the eight feathers

offered by the Rain priests are from swallows. Cliff swallows are probably the most common ones in the

Pueblo area and they make mud houses that might be called pueblos. In addition, their nests are built

together in colonies. Barn swallows have a habit of building nests in human dwellings and are also very

common. Swallow feathers are a part of the rain offerings because they fly around before and after rains

(Tyler 1991:91–95). At Isleta, swallows are associated with speechlessness (Tyler 1991:97).

The most regular event in the cosmos, for Puebloan groups, is the changing of the seasons which provides

a great natural clock by which all ceremonial and other activities are regulated. Specific birds are

associated with the passage from winter to summer due to their migration patterns. Among these are the

horned lark and bluebirds, both of which descend to the lowlands during the winter. Two kinds of robins,

and possibly the rufous‐sided towhee, are mentioned in the Keresan Battle of the Seasons. Birds of

summer include flycatchers, orioles, tanagers, finches, wood warblers, vireos, and the meadowlark. Larks

were also hunted for food during times when other sources of meat were scarce (Tyler 1991:133). The

Keres and Zuni associate larks with the winter. The Hopi place the horned larks with the winter storm

bringers. The junco is also associated with winter and its feathers, as well as those of the lark, were used

for ceremonial masks (Tyler 1991:136).

The two bluebird species, the western and the mountain, have distinct ceremonial uses among the Zuni.

Bluebirds promote the forms of moisture characteristic of winter. The Isleta, however, see the summer‐

bringing potential of bluebirds. These birds are closely associated with female puberty rites among the

Hopi and Zuni. The Hopi also associate bluebirds with war (Tyler 1991:140–144).

Birds of summer are usually cheerful singers such as orioles, which also depict the sun and flower pollen

with their yellow and orange plumage. The yellow warbler, yellow‐breasted chat, and yellowthroat are all

important to Puebloan groups. Among the Zuni, oriole feathers are highly prized. The western tanager is

also associated with the summer (Tyler 1991:146–151).

Birds of balance between nature and man include crows and ravens, which are more closely associated

with man because they are active during the daylight hours and also share the same food as man. Witches

may take the form of crows which also have an association with war. A lot of interchangeability exists

between crows and ravens in the Pueblo mind (Tyler 1991:173–174). The Pueblos do most of their big‐

game hunting late in the year, during harvest time and after the crows have arrived (Tyler 1991:177).

Crows and ravens are associated with kachinas, bad luck, and war (Tyler 1991:182).

Passerine feathers associated with Zuni prayersticks include swallows, jays, raven, crow, nuthatch, robin,

bluebird, gnatcatcher, warbler, blackbird, oriole, tanagers, grosbeak, sparrow, finches, and towhees (Ladd

1963:21–23). Traditional Zuni hunting methods for birds include use of the sling shot for obtaining many

of the summer migratory birds. Hunting birds with snares required an intimate knowledge of their habitat

and feeding habits. Specific snares were designed for the various types of birds. The Zuni employed four

general types of snares: 1) snares for field birds (perching birds, passerines), 2) for brush feeding birds, 3)

for water feeding birds, and (4) for ground feeding birds. All snares used the same basic principle and

differed only in their method of construction and materials. After ritual treatment, the hunter or oldest


| 15

male member of the household plucked the feathers. The feathers were wrapped in bundles and stored

in a feather box (Ladd 1963:10–12).

It is unlikely that any of the passerines represented in the assemblage were acquired as food resources.

Most, if not all, however, probably represent birds obtained for their feathers.

Sylvilagus sp. (Cottontail) (n=150)

Although the cottontail (Sylvilagus sp.) specimens were not identified to the species level, two species—

the desert cottontail (S. audubonii) and eastern cottontail (S. floridanus)—of this small game mammal

may be represented within the faunal assemblage. The desert cottontail is the most widespread, occurring

throughout the state (Bailey 1931:54; Findley et al. 1975:89). The majority, if not all, of the cottontail

remains are probably of this species, which is found primarily at elevations below the coniferous forests,

in the Lower and Upper Sonoran zones (Bailey 1913:18, 33, 1931:54). It inhabits deserts, grasslands,

brushy areas, piñon‐juniper woodlands, and riparian zones. The desert cottontail also frequents cultivated

fields and the dense vegetation adjoining such fields. Brush or shrubs are necessary for resting and hiding

(Bailey 1931:54–60; Chapman and Willner 1978:2–3; Clark and Stromberg 1987:80; Findley 1987:57;

Zeveloff 1988:92). This cottontail subsists mainly on grasses, forbs, cacti, and shrubs (Bailey 1931:55–56;

Chapman et al. 1982:102; Chapman and Willner 1978:3). Cultivated plants, including maize, are also eaten

(Bailey 1931:55–56; Chapman et al. 1982:101). Much of the cottontail’s water requirements are provided

by its food (Bailey 1923:71–72; Chapman et al. 1982:102; Findley 1987:57; Zeveloff 1988:92).

The archaeofaunal assemblage may contain remains of the eastern cottontail, but it is not very likely. The

eastern cottontail, a Transition zone species (Bailey 1913:43, 1931:63), prefers open forests, forest edges,

and open brushy areas. It is also found in piñon‐juniper woodland (Hoffmeister 1986:131). In New Mexico,

however, it primarily inhabits montane forests (Findley 1987:57; Findley et al. 1975:83).

The cottontail has a restricted home range of usually 1 to 5 acres and is normally active early in the

morning and at night. Predation by a variety of animals—bobcats, coyotes, foxes, raccoons, skunks,

raptors, snakes—is the major cause of cottontail deaths and it is the primary regulator of cottontail

abundance (Chapman et al. 1982:106—107; Clark and Stromberg 1987:78–79; Ingles 1941:236; Zeveloff

1988:88, 92). The cottontail, however, is an r‐selected mammal. Its high mortality rate is offset by a high

reproductive rate. Breeding generally occurs from mid‐ or late winter through late summer. A single

female may have as many as six litters, of usually four to seven individuals, per year. The first and last

litters of the year tend to be smaller. Female desert cottontail born in the spring are capable of breeding

during their first summer, offsetting their low litter sizes. The young are born hairless and blind in a pear‐

shaped, fur‐lined nest dug 6 to 10 inches into the ground (Chapman et al. 1982:94; Clark and Stromberg

1987:78, 81; Findley 1987:57–58; Hoffmeister 1986:131, 137; Martin et al. 1951:241–242; Zeveloff

1988:93).

Cottontails were hunted for food and other uses by many historic peoples, such as the Navajo (Hill

1938:171), Hopi (Beaglehole 1936:11–15), Omaha (Fletcher and La Flesche 1911:104, 376, 451), and

Chippewa (Densmore 1929:44). Although cottontails were occasionally killed during communal hunts or

drives for jackrabbits, different hunting strategies were utilized to procure cottontails due to their


| 16

behavior. They do not usually venture far from cover and when alarmed, they seek shelter in burrows. In

addition, “cottontails often move along regular paths, wearing trails or runways in the vegetation, snow,

or under brush piles” (Schwartz and Schwartz 1981:104). Thus, they are easy to find. Finally, cottontails

do not run as fast as, nor do they run as far as, jackrabbits. All these factors make it easier to for cottontails

to be procured by individual hunters using simple techniques, such as snares and traps.

Basin‐Plateau groups hunted cottontails with snares and with bows and arrows (Steward 1938:39). The

Omaha used headless arrows with sharpened shafts for hunting rabbits (Fletcher and La Flesche

1911:451). The Sanpoil also killed rabbits with bows and arrows (Ray 1932:87). The Hopi used deadfalls

and snares to catch rabbits (Beaglehole 1936:17). Among the Northern Shoshone, cottontails were hunted

by boys with the aid of dogs (Lowie 1909:185). Some groups such as the Chiricahua Apache employed long

sticks to dislodge rabbits from burrows. An end was twisted into the fur and then the animal was pulled

out (Opler 1941:326). Before thrusting the stick into the hole, the Navajo worked one end down to a point

and abraded it so that it would catch in the fur easier. If the burrow had two openings, however, the

Navajo built a fire in one and smoked the animal out. Cottontails caught in the jackrabbit drives were

clubbed (Hill 1938:171).

After skinning rabbits and removing the internal organs, the Pomo pounded the carcasses to a pulp. This

reduced the bones to small fragments that could be easily consumed with the meat which was broiled

(Barrett 1952:63). After the cottontails were skinned and cleaned, the Shoshone cooked them in the hot

ashes (Lowie 1924:197). Although the Havasupai usually roasted rabbits in ashes, roasting pits may also

have been used (Spier 1928:117). The Chippewa prepared the carcasses two ways:

(a) The meat was removed from the bones, roasted, and pounded. The bones were than pounded with what meat remained on them. The pounded bones were boiled in a small kettle and the grease skimmed off and eaten with the pounded meat.

(b) The meat was cut in pieces and dried, the bones being dried also. The bones were pounded into a powder and mixed with the dry meat and any available grease. This was eaten dry, and not boiled at the time of using [Densmore 1929:44].

As stated earlier, cottontails also had non‐subsistence functions. Caddo women used rabbit skins dyed

red for tying their hair behind their heads (Espinosa 1927:177). The Sanpoil used rabbit fur for caps,

mittens, and blankets (Ray 1932:87). The Ute (Lowie 1924:216) and Plains Cree (Mandelbaum 1940:214)

also had rabbit skin blankets. These were worn as robes and/or they functioned as bedding. Although

rabbit skin robes were commonly made with only jackrabbit skins by many peoples, some groups, such as

the Havasupai (Spier 1928:188, 190) and Shoshone (Lowie 1924:216), also used cottontail skins. The cup‐

and‐pin game was played with either a cottontail or jackrabbit skull by the Havasupai (Spier 1928:340).

Lepus californicus (Black‐tailed Jackrabbit) (n=275)

Of the specifically identified taxa, the remains of black‐tailed jackrabbit (Lepus californicus) are the most

numerous (Table 1). This leporid usually occurs at elevations below 1800 m (6000 ft), in the Lower and

Upper Sonoran zones (Bailey 1913:18, 33, 1931:48). It inhabits deserts and open short‐grass prairies with

scattered shrubs. In addition, this jackrabbit is very adaptable to agricultural conditions. Areas of heavy

brush or woods are avoided (Cockrum 1982:134–135; Dunn et al. 1982:133; Findley 1987:54–55; Findley


| 17

et al. 1975:93–94; Hoffmeister 1986:140–141; Zeveloff 1988:98). “They are found in mesquite, sagebrush,

desertscrub, into open piñon‐juniper” (Hoffmeister 1986:141). The black‐tailed jackrabbit is most

common, however, in open, treeless habitats (Findley 1987:55).

The jackrabbit usually feeds at night on grasses, mesquite, and herbs. Cultivated crops are also consumed.

As with the cottontail, the jackrabbit obtains protein and certain B vitamins by consuming its soft

droppings. This leporid, like the cottontail, depends on succulent or green vegetation for water. Surface

water, however, is drunk when available. The size of the jackrabbit home range is dependent upon the

availability of food, cover, and water. The black‐tailed jackrabbit has a home range that varies from 4 to

75 hectares. Daylight hours are usually spent in an unlined hollow (a form) scratched into the ground.

Forms are found both in the open and in dense vegetation. The breeding season extends from mid or late

winter to late summer. As a result, a single female may have as many as seven litters, of usually two to

four individuals, per year. The young are born in shallow depressions or excavations that are sometimes

fur‐lined. Unlike cottontails, the newborns are precocial (more independent). They are fully furred, can

see, and are able to move about. Because the black‐tailed jackrabbit is an r‐selected species, the yearly

number and size of litters per breeding female help to offset the high mortality rates. The jackrabbit is

subject to predation by a wide variety of predators, such as snakes, eagles, hawks, owls, coyotes, foxes,

bobcats, skunks, and humans (Clark and Stromberg 1987:84–87); Cockrum 1982:134; Dunn et al. 1982;

Findley 1987:56; Hoffmeister 1986:141–142; Schwartz and Schwartz 1981:114–121; Zeveloff 1988:84, 98–

100).

Although some people consider jackrabbit flesh unpalatable or inferior to that of the cottontail (e.g.,

Buskirk 1986:134; Castetter and Opler 1936:25; Dunn et al. 1982:137; Opler 1941:325–326; TGFOC

1945:133–134), ethnographic data indicate jackrabbits were exploited as food resources and as raw

material sources by many peoples, such as the Navajo (Hill 1938:170–171), Havasupai (Spier 1928:108),

Omaha (Fletcher and La Flesche 1911:104), Cheyenne (Grinnell 1923:I:247, II:218, 269), Coahuiltecans

(Ruecking 1953:481), and Basin‐Plateau groups (Steward 1938:38–39). Jackrabbit behavior is ideal for

communal hunts and drives. When alarmed, the jackrabbit may remain motionless or run away slowly or

very rapidly. It can attain speeds of 30 to 35 mi (56 km) per hour over short distances. Normally, a jump

covers 5 to 10 ft (1.5 to 3 m) but the distance increases to 4.6 to 6 m (15 to 20 ft) when the animal is

speeding. It can also jump as high as 1.7 m (5.5 ft) (Dunn et al. 1982:134; Findley 1987:56; Schwartz and

Schwartz 1981:119). Therefore, hunting the jackrabbit with a bow and arrow is difficult. Communal efforts

are more efficient.

Although the Hopi held communal rabbit hunts at irregular intervals through the year, such hunts usually

occurred in early summer and fall when the crops had to be protected from the rabbits or when rabbits

were needed daily to feed captive eagles. The hunters formed a two‐winged circle and, as they walked

toward the center of it, they flushed the rabbits from the bushes and killed them with curved or straight,

pointed throwing sticks (Beaglehole 1936:11–17). The Navajo clubbed the jackrabbits as they tried to

escape an encircled area. Although nets and corrals were not used by the Navajo when hunting rabbits,

fire was occasionally employed. After the animals were encircled with fire, they were clubbed to death as

the fire closed in on them (Hill 1938:170–171). Basin‐Plateau groups also used fire surrounds but not very

often “because desert shrubs are usually too widely spaced for a fire to spread” (Steward 1938:39).


| 18

Instead, the jackrabbits were driven into a large semicircular arrangement of long, low nets where the

animals were killed with sticks or bows and arrows (Steward 1938:38–39). After driving them into huge

nets, as much as 100 yards long, the Paiutes shot the rabbits with arrows (Lowie 1924:196–197). The

Havasupai did not encircle the rabbits. Instead, they employed a straight formation to drive the animals

which were then shot, never clubbed (Spier 1928:112). Communal hunts could last for several days or as

much as a month (e.g., see Lowie 1924:196–198; Steward 1938:97). Western farmers used large rabbit

drives in the late 1800s to control jackrabbit populations (Dunn et al. 1982:138). Jackrabbits “tend to graze

forage more severely than cattle” (Findley 1987:56).

After the rabbits were skinned and dressed, the Hopi cooked the meat in a pot with maize and squash

(Beaglehole 1936:14). The Havasupai roasted rabbits in ashes and possibly in roasting pits (Spier

1928:117). Shoshonean groups employed several methods to cook rabbits: hot ashes and watertight

baskets in which hot stones were placed for heating the contents. In addition, some of the Shoshonean

groups pounded the bones very fine and consumed them with the meat (Lowie 1924:196–197, 233).

Most of the aforementioned groups made jackrabbit skin robes and/or blankets. The construction

techniques were basically similar. Therefore, only one, that of the Plains Cree, is presented.

A rabbit was flayed by breaking through the skin at the tendons of the hind legs and the

whole hide peeled back over the head. The hide was then cut in one continuous strip,

three to four inches wide, and hung to dry for two days. It soon curled so that the fur was

outermost on all sides. Four poles were lashed together to make a rectangular frame. A

strip of hide was laced to the top of the frame and a line of perforations punched along

its length. Similar strips were attached to the two vertical sides of the frame. The initial

strand of fur was passed in and out of the top holes and then through one hole on the

side strip where it was looped back on itself (Fig. 7). The “simple loop” netting technique

was used. When one strand ran out, another was knotted to it [Mandelbaum 1940:214].

Jackrabbits also had other non‐subsistence uses. Some Northern Shoshone men wore rabbit skin caps

with several rabbit tails attached (Lowie 1909:181). Sometimes, Havasupai women used tubes made from

jackrabbit leg bones as rattles on their belts (Spier 1928:188). The cup‐and‐pin game of the Havasupai

utilizes the jackrabbit.

The cup and pin game…consists of a cotton‐tail or jack‐rabbit skull fastened to a sharply

pointed twig, about 8 cm long, by a slightly longer cord (Fig. 60). The base of the skull is

cut away, the teeth drawn, and it is boiled free of meat. The cord is tied back of the

incisors. Holding the stick, the skull is swing toward the body and caught on the point.

Catching by any hole scores one; any tooth hole, six; ear hole (?), ten; incisor hole, forty;

and if the stick splits off in a foramen palatinum, the game is won…Three hundred or more

counters are made of soapweed leaves split into narrow pieces, 10 cm. long…The side

getting all the counters wins [Spier 1928:340–341].


| 19

Spermophilus spilosoma (Spotted Ground Squirrel) (n=6)

cf. Spermophilus spilosoma (?Spotted Ground Squirrel) (n=6)

Two ground squirrel species (Spermophilus sp.)—the spotted ground squirrel (S. spilosoma) and rock

squirrel (S. variegatus)—occur in the vicinity of LA 151618 (Bailey 1931:109–117; Findley et al. 1987:70–

73; Zeveloff 1988:131–142). The rock squirrel, however, is a large squirrel and the specimens are of a

small, mature individual, suggesting they are probably the former. The spotted ground squirrel is the most

common and widespread ground squirrel in New Mexico (Findley 1987:73). It dwells in a variety of

habitats, from sandy grasslands and deserts to mountain meadows. Although it occurs in grassy areas and

pine woods, habitats with dry, sandy soils and sparse, shrubby vegetation are preferred. Burrows extend

to a depth of 46 cm (18 inches). A round, grass‐lined chamber is constructed at the end of the burrow.

One litter (or possibly two—one in spring and one in summer) with four to 12 young (average seven) is

born yearly. Adult size is attained in 10 to 12 weeks. Hibernation begins in late August among males and

in late September among females and ends in late March. The diet of this ground squirrel includes green

vegetation, seeds, forbs, cacti, grasshoppers and other insects, kangaroo rats, and lizards (Clark and

Stromberg 1987:104–105; Cockrum 1982:76–77; Findley 1987:73; Findley et al. 1975:121–123;

Hoffmeister 1986:179–181; Zeveloff 1988:133–134). Predators include bullsnakes, carnivores, and raptors

such as red‐tailed hawks (Clark and Stromberg 1987:105; Zeveloff 1988:134). The spotted ground squirrel

has been reduced or extirpated in portions of its range. Because it inhabits the same areas as prairie dogs,

its numbers have decreased as the result of poisoning campaigns against prairie dogs (Hoffmeister

1986:181).

Several groups hunted ground squirrel for food and other uses. Even early Euroamericans ate these

animals and sometimes used the skins for clothing (Tomich 1982:202). Basin‐Plateau groups caught

ground squirrels by pouring water into the burrows and capturing the animals as they tried to escape.

Digging sticks or rodent skewers were used to remove them from their burrows. They were also smoked

out. Away from their burrows, they were killed with deadfalls or were run down and dispatched with

sticks and stones (Lowie 1924:199; Steward 1938:40). “The Tepehuan hunt five species of squirrels that

are killed either because they are edible or because they prey upon newly planted corn fields” (Pennington

1969:134). Two of these species are ground squirrels that are either killed with bows and arrows or caught

in a rock or basket trap (Pennington 1969:124). The Sanpoil flooded ground squirrels out of their burrows

and then killed them with clubs (Ray 1932:87). The Havasupai used deadfalls to kill squirrels. “Traps are

placed on the rodent trails in the fields and near storehouses to catch the squirrels and rats which root up

the corn, tear their way into the storehouses, etc.” (Spier 1928:113). The Yavapai caught ground squirrels

in stone deadfall traps. They also extracted them from their burrows with sticks (Gifford 1936:266–267).

The Miwok hunted squirrels mostly in the winter, when they were fat. They were shot with bows and

arrows or captured by dogs (Barrett and Gifford 1933:137, 183).

The Miwok (Barrett and Gifford 1933: 183) and Havasupai (Spier 1928:117) did not preserve squirrel meat

but rather, prepared it for immediate consumption. If the animal was to be boiled, the Havasupai first

eviscerated it and removed the skin, head, and tail. If it was to be roasted, it was only eviscerated (Spier

1928:117). The Yavapai cooked ground squirrels in an earth oven after they eviscerated and skinned them

(Gifford 1936:267). After the ground squirrels were skinned and drawn, the Tepehuan roasted them either


| 20

on spits or on coals (Pennington 1969:124). Great Basin peoples prepared ground squirrels for

consumption by first burning off their fur in an open fire. “They might then have been pit roasted whole,

sometimes eviscerated and stuffed with wild onions. Ground squirrels…were also boiled and pulverized

in a mortar or on a metate” (Fowler 1986:82). Preparation of these animals included processing the bones

and entrails (Fowler 1986:82).

In addition to eating the ground squirrel, the Yavapai used its skin for a tobacco bag:

Ground squirrels taken for food, normally skins not saved. August was the best time to

obtain squirrel skin for tobacco bag. Deadfall trap used, baited with prickly pear…To skin

squirrel, cuts were made on inside of both hind legs and carried to anal opening. No cut

made full length of abdomen. Cuts in legs later sewed, leaving opening 1½ inches in

diameter for insertion of tobacco. No brains used on squirrel skin, which was held in

worker’s lap or on his leg and rubbed with small stone [Gifford 1936:273].

Cynomys sp. (Prairie Dog) (n=40)

cf. Cynomys sp. (?Prairie Dog) (n=2)

Two prairie dog species—the black‐tailed prairie dog (Cynomys ludovicianus) and Gunnison’s prairie dog

(C. gunnisoni) are indigenous to the Upper Sonoran Zone (Bailey 1913:32; 1931:120, 123; Findley 1987:67;

Findley et al. 1975:130–131) and occur or formerly occurred within the vicinity of LA 151618. The black‐

tailed prairie dog is primarily an Upper Sonoran species (Bailey 1913:32, 1931:120, 123) that inhabits semi‐

arid shortgrass prairies with deep, well‐drained soils and avoids tall grass areas, sandy soil, rocky soil, and

heavy deposits of clay. It is a highly social animal that lives in very large colonies that can extend over large

expanses of plains. Family groups retain some cohesion and independence within the well‐organized

colonies. Communication among colony members is both vocal and visual. A dome‐ or doughnut‐shaped

mound—1 to 2 m in diameter—surrounds the burrow entrance, which may extend almost vertically to a

depth of 1 to 3 m before leveling off. The entrance mound prevents water from entering the burrow. The

burrow system is extensive and permanent, with the nest in the deeper portion. The black‐tailed prairie

dog does not hibernate. Breeding occurs in winter—from late January to March—and after a gestation

period of 28 to 32 days, a single litter of about four young is born. Growth lasts for about 1.5 years and

females begin breeding during their second year. The diet primarily consists of grasses—seeds, leaves,

awns, and stolons—but also includes plants such as prickly pear cactus, wild onion, saltbush, rabbitbrush,

mesquite, scarlet globemallow, ironweed, pigweed, and plantain. The plant material provides the main

water requirements. The black‐footed ferret (Mustela nigripes), a presently endangered species, was the

most specialized predator of the black‐tailed prairie dog. Formerly, both species had nearly identical

distributions. Other predators include eagles, hawks, owls, weasels, coyotes, foxes, bobcats, badgers, and

snakes (Findley 1987:67–68; Hoffmeister 1986:194–196; Long 2002; Zeveloff 1988:145, 147). The

burrowing activities of prairie dogs can severely impact buried cultural deposits if their colonies are

established in a buried site.

Gunnison’s prairie dog inhabits open plains, desert grassland, and desertscrub. It also occurs in parkland

and meadows in montane forests. Compact, well‐drained soil is preferred. The species lives in much small

colonies than the black‐tailed prairie dog. Colonies of Gunnison’s prairie dog are loosely organized and


| 21

may contain as few as two or three or as many as 50 to 100 individuals. Burrows of this species are shallow,

generally 1 to 2 m deep, and may interconnect with adjacent burrows. The burrow systems also contain

laterals that do not quite reach the surface (Findley 1987:67; Findley et al. 1975:133–134; Hoffmeister

1986:196–197; Zeveloff 1988:149–150). It is believed these provide air pockets when the rest of the

burrow is flooded (Foster 1924). Burrow entrances are placed on small knolls or slopes to prevent

flooding. Unlike the black‐tailed prairie dog mounds, those at the entrances of Gunnison’s prairie dog

burrows are not shaped or tamped. Rather than surrounding the burrow entrance, the mound is at the

side of the entrance. Breeding occurs in March and a single litter of usually four or five pups is born in a

grass nest in late April or early May. The diet of this prairie dog consists of grasses, forbs, shrubs, sedges,

and insects. Predators include badgers, coyotes, raptors, and rattlesnakes (Findley 1987:68; Findley et al.

1975:134; Hoffmeister 1986:196–198; Pizzimenti and Hoffman 1973; Zeveloff 1988:149–150).

Because prairie dogs consume grass and a variety of weeds, they are considered food competitors of

domestic livestock. Consequently, much effort has been devoted to eradicating them from rangeland.

Such programs have primarily used poisons. As a result, prairie dogs are extinct within many areas of their

former range (Findley 1987:68).

The Hopi used (and perhaps still use) deadfalls and snares to catch prairie dogs (Beaglehole 1936:17), and

the northern Shoshone boys used dogs to hunt prairie dogs (Lowie 1909:185). Prairie dogs were dug or

drowned out of their burrows or shot with bows and arrows by the Navajo.

Special arrows were used in hunting prairie dogs. These were unfeathered and the points

had only one barb. (Formerly when arrow points were found, one barb was broken off,

or bone points of this pattern were made. With the introduction of iron, points of the

same type were hammered out) [Hill 1938:171].

The Navajo used a piece of mica, placed in a split stick, to blind a prairie dog as it emerged

from its burrow. It was then shot and pulled out with a barbed arrow. After heavy rains

flood waters were directed into holes to drown out the prairie dogs. Water was also

carried to the holes for this purpose. The hole was first plugged with manure and grass,

and a basin built around it. When the basin was filled, the plug was removed, allowing a

large volume of water to descend into the hole at one time [Hill 1938:172].

If several frightened prairie dogs ran into the same hole, the Navajo dug them out with a digging stick.

The Navajo also trapped these animals by placing nooses attached to a rock or stake at burrow entrances

(Hill 1938:172). Basin‐Plateau groups used similar methods. “They were either dug [out] with a digging

stick, pulled from their burrows by means of a rodent skewer, smoked out, flooded out, or killed with

deadfall traps” (Steward 1938:40). The Yavapai caught prairie dogs in stone deadfall traps (Gifford

1936:266).

The Navajo generally used only one cooking method. After they cleaned the carcass, they placed the liver,

lungs and fat in the body cavity and salted it. They then pinned the opening closed with twigs. “Then the

hair was singed in an open fire and the animal buried in the ashes to roast” (Hill 1938:172). The Yavapai

cooked prairie dogs in hot ashes after first cleaning and skinning them (Gifford 1936:266).


| 22

Thomomys bottae (Botta’s Pocket Gopher) (n=26)

Botta’s pocket gopher (Thomomys bottae), the only pocket gopher species occurring in the vicinity of LA

151618, occurs in a variety of habitats, from dry deserts to mountain meadows and from loose sands and

silts to compact clays. It is widely distributed in the grassy areas of the desert and is found at elevations

ranging from sea level to 11,000 ft. Many vegetation zones are included within this elevation range

(Findley et al. 1975:144–145; Hoffmeister 1986:223; Zeveloff 1988:161, 165). Breeding occurs from

February through August. One or two litters, each averaging three to four individuals, are born in fur‐ or

grass‐lined nests deep within the burrow. The nest may be as much as 1.6 m deep. The pocket gopher

subsists on a wide variety of herbaceous plants, grasses, bulbs, tubers, roots, and cacti. In addition, it also

consumes crops. Owls, hawks, snakes, badgers, weasels, foxes, and coyotes are major predators (Chase

et al. 1982:247, 250; Findley 1987:75–76; Hoffmeister 1986:223–225; Zeveloff 1988:161, 165).

The pocket gopher is a highly fosserial rodent that lives a solitary life almost entirely underground. Each

pocket gopher lives alone in a burrow system which it has constructed. Depending upon soil conditions,

burrow systems can vary from less than 30 cm to more than 1 m in depth (Hoffmeister 1986:224). The

main tunnel has been measured to depths of 1.5 m below the surface (Felthauser and McInroy 1983:557).

Feeding tunnels parallel the surface and average between 10 and 30 cm in depth. During the winter,

pocket gophers also burrow through the snow, depositing soil excavated from their underground burrows

in the snow tunnels (Chase et al. 1982:246; Hoffmeister 1986:225; Zeveloff 1988:161).

Because the pocket gopher is highly fossorial, it mixes and deepens the soil. A single individual can displace

one to three tons or more of soil annually (Kennerly 1964:428; Richens 1966:533). Consequently, the

impact of faunalturbation, via this rodent, on the cultural deposits of archaeological sites yielding remains

of this burrower should be considered. Recent research has focused on the effects of pocket gopher

burrowing activities on the distribution of archaeological materials (e.g., Bocek 1986, 1992; Erlandson

1984; Johnson 1989).

Ethnographic data indicate several groups ate pocket gophers (e.g., Gosiute Shoshshone [Steward

1938:138–139], Navajo [Hill 1938:172], Tepehuan [Pennington 1969:124–125], Plains Cree [Mandelbaum

1940:199]). Small burrowing rodents, such as pocket gophers, were important sources of food in the

subsistence economy of Basin‐Plateau groups. In addition to using the hunting methods previously

mentioned for these groups in obtaining prairie dogs, pocket gophers were also run down and killed with

sticks and stones if they were observed away from their burrows (Steward 1938:40). The Plains Cree

caught gophers with snares. “A sinew noose was placed over a gopher’s hole. The other end of the line

was held by the snarer. When a gopher appeared the line was jerked” (Mandelbaum 1940:199). A similar

technique was used by the Gros Ventre (Kroeber 1908:149).

After the gophers were skinned and cleaned, the Gosiute Shoshone dried the meat without removing the

bones (Steward 1938:139). The Tepehuan skinned and cleaned the gophers before they were either

roasted on a spit or boiled with other meat (Pennington 1969:125). These rodents also had non‐food

functions. The Navajo drank a mixture consisting of water and gopher stomach and flesh as a remedy for

stomach aches (Hill 1938:172). Such a usage would not be visible in the archaeological record. The pocket

gopher remains from LA 151618 are considered cultural.


| 23

Perognathus sp. (Pocket Mouse) (n=20)

Although none of the pocket mice remains were specifically identified, LA 151618 is within the ranges of

four pocket mouse species. The silky pocket mouse (Perognathus flavus) inhabits plains and semi‐desert

ranges of grasslands. In addition, it is found in sagebrush‐cactus associations. Dry, sandy to loamy soils

are preferred for the shallow burrow system which consists of various tunnels and side chambers. One or

two litters, with an average of four individual each, are born yearly. Seeds compose almost its entire diet.

Predators include foxes, coyotes, weasels, owls, and snakes (Bee et al. 1981:113–114; Clark and

Stromberg 1987:131–132; Cockrum 1982:96–97; Findley et al. 1975:159–160; Hoffmeister 1986:271–

272).

The Plains pocket mouse (P. flavescens) occurs in sandy deserts and grasslands (Findley et al. 1975:164–

165; Zeveloff 1988:169). This species also occurs along the margins of grain fields. Burrows are shallow,

paralleling the surface at a depth of 15 to 20 cm, and contain nesting sites and seed caches. Entrances are

plugged when the burrow is occupied. Two litters, of two to five young each, are born in late spring and

summer. Although its diet consists primarily of seeds, insects and cultivated grains (e.g., wheat, oats) are

also eaten. Major predators include snakes, owls, weasels, foxes, coyotes, and skunks (Bee et al.

1981:111–112; Jones and Birney 1988:180; Zeveloff 1988:169–170).

The hispid pocket mouse (P. hispidus) inhabits grasslands and desert grasslands. It is usually associated

with areas having taller grasses and tall annual forbs. Its burrows are shallow, having two or three holes

that are usually plugged during the day. Grass nests are constructed in the burrows. Its diet consists almost

exclusively of seeds which are stored in the burrows (Cockrum and Petryszyn 1992:183; Findley et al.

1975:166–167; Hoffmeister 1986:295–297; Martin et al. 1951:257–258).

The rock pocket mouse (P. intermedius) “is strongly restricted to rocks and rocky habitats, mostly in the

creosote bush‐saltbush desertscrub” (Hoffmeister 1988:281). Its burrow provides insulation from the

desert heat. A litter of three to six young is born in May or June. Its diet consists primarily of seeds.

However, insects are also consumed. This mouse is preyed upon by owls, snakes, and carnivores

(Hoffmeister 1986:282–284; Zeveloff 1988:176–177).

All pocket mice are nocturnal. “They construct complex burrows with separate chambers for nesting,

sleeping, rearing of the young, and food storage. Frequently, the stored seeds are neatly sorted according

to species” (Zeveloff 1988:167). In addition, these rodents plug their burrows when they are occupied

(Zeveloff 1988:167).

Although not specifically identified, the Tepehuan trapped mice in the cultivated fields and in storage

houses. The mice were caught with an inverted, tilted earthenware bowl “supported by a figure‐four

release mechanism and baited with a few grains of corn or wheat” (Pennington 1969:125). These mice

were eaten after they were skinned, eviscerated, and roasted either on a spit or over coals (Pennington

1969:125). Although the Navajo did not consume or otherwise use mice, deadfall traps were used to rid

the cultivated fields of these pests (Hill 1938:173). Although the Papago did not normally eat pocket mice,

because they were considered too small, they did consume them during times of food stress (i.e., famine)


| 24

(Castetter and Underhill 1935:42). The pocket mouse remains recovered from LA 151618 are considered

intrusive.

Dipodomys spectabilis (Banner‐tailed Kangaroo Rat) (n=1)

Dipodomys sp. (Kangaroo Rat) (n=68)

LA 151618 is within the ranges of two kangaroo rat species—the Ord’s kangaroo rat (Dipodomys ordii) and

Merriam’s kangaroo rat (D. merriami) (Davis and Schmidly 1994:147–152; Findley et al. 1975:174–186).

Ord’s kangaroo rat, a nocturnal desert‐dwelling burrower, is common in the LA 151618 area. This solitary

rodent lives in a variety of habitats. In the northern part of the Southwest, it lives in open piñon‐juniper

areas and in areas just below the piñon‐juniper zone. Ord’s kangaroo rat can be found on alluvial fans, on

flats, and in shifting sands. It prefers friable soils, especially sand. Excess food is stored in shallow holes or

in deep, cool underground burrows that provide protection from heat and predators during the day when

the entrances are plugged. A female may have two litters a year. Litters of usually two to four young are

born from February through July. The diet of this nocturnal rodent consists mainly of seeds. However,

green leaves, buds, tubers, and insects are also eaten. Predators include owls, snakes, foxes, weasels,

badgers, and bobcats (Bee et al. 1981:117–118; Clark and Stromberg 1987:137–139; Cockrum 1982:100;

Findley et al. 1975:174–175; Hoffmeister 1986:298–299; Zeveloff 1988:180–182).

The Merriam’s kangaroo rat lives in sandy soil in desertscrub and is commonly found in low deserts with

scattered vegetation. Burrows are usually simple and shallow. One or two litters, of usually two to four

young each, are born in spring and fall. The main diet of this rat consists of a variety of seeds, but forbs

and shrubs are also eaten. Major predators include owls, snakes, coyotes, foxes, and badgers (Cockrum

1982:100–101; Davis 1974:185–186; Hoffmeister 1986:311–312; Zeveloff 1988:186–188).

Several types of deadfall traps were used by the Navajo to rid their agricultural fields of kangaroo rates

(Hill 1938:172–173). The Havasupai also used deadfall traps to eliminate rats from their fields and

storehouses (Spier 1928:113). The type of rats, however, is not specified. Kangaroo rats were eaten by at

least a few groups, such as the Hopi who caught them with deadfalls (Tyler 1975:3). The Hopi set these

traps around the edges of their fields (Beaglehole 1936:17). The Papago only consumed kangaroo rats as

a last resort (Castetter and Underhill 1935:42). The flesh of these rodents is described as white, tender,

and tasting like frogs’ legs or chicken (Davis 1974:188).

Peromyscus maniculatus (Deer Mouse) (n=2)

cf. Peromyscus maniculatus (?Deer Mouse) (n=124)

Peromyscus sp. (White‐footed Mouse) (n=2)

The most numerous rodent remains recovered from LA 151618 are those of white‐footed mice

(Peromyscus). LA 151618 is within or near the range of three Peromyscus species. The deer mouse (P.

maniculatus), the most common white‐footed mouse in New Mexico, lives in a variety of habitats—mixed

forests, grasslands, cultivated fields, and deserts. Although it may dig its own burrow, it often occupies

abandoned rodent burrows. Seeds, domestic grain (corn), nuts, fruits, and insects constitute the majority

of this rodent’s diet. Litters, averaging four young, are born throughout the year. Predators include owls,


| 25

hawks, snakes, grasshopper mice, skunks, weasels, coyotes, and foxes (Bee et al. 1981:129; Davis and

Schmidly 1994:173–175; Findley et al. 1975:204–205, 210; Hoffmeister 1986:350, 356; Zeveloff 1988:197–

199).

The white‐footed mouse (P. leucopus) is mainly a woodland dweller where it is mostly restricted to creek

and river bottoms. This rodent prefers soft earth and sandy areas along arroyos and in grasslands below

the woodland. It is commonly found living in burrows in arroyo sides or under shrubs in sandy places. It

rarely travels more than 50 m from its nest once it has established a home territory. The diet is varied, but

chief reliance is on seeds and mast. During spring and summer, it feeds on fruits, domestic grain (corn and

soybeans), insects, snails, and other invertebrates. When food is abundant, this rodent stores it in and

about its nests for winter use. Caches of several quarts have been reported. It reproduces all year, with

litter size varying from one to six and averaging four. A single female may produce as many as 10 litters

and 45 offspring in one year. This mouse seldom lives more than 18 months in the wild. Where numerous

in an area, it can become destructive of stored and shocked grains, but in most places, it is of little or no

economic significance if its natural predators, such as owls, snakes, and weasels, are not destroyed (Davis

and Schmidly 1994:171–173; Findley et al. 1975:210–214; Hoffmeister 1986:362).

The piñon mouse (P. truei) inhabits rocky slopes where it is associated with piñon and juniper trees

(Cockrum 1982:107; Findley et al. 1975:219–220; Hoffmeister 1986:369‐370; Zeveloff 1988:202–203). “No

other small rodent is as dependent on and abundant in piñon‐juniper communities” (Zeveloff 1988:203).

This mouse also occurs in chaparral. Although nests are usually constructed in hollow junipers, they are

also built in rock crevices. Several litters, of usually three or four young, are born from mid‐February

through mid‐November. Although it consumes primarily piñon and juniper seeds, mushrooms, leaves, and

insects are also eaten. Predators include raptors, snakes, and carnivores (Bailey 1931:151–154; Clark and

Stromberg 1987:153; Findley et al. 1975:219–220; Hoffmeister 1986:369–370; Zeveloff 1988:202–203).

Deadfall traps were used by the Hopi to catch unspecified mice. The traps were placed around edges of

the cultivated fields when these rodents were troublesome (Beaglehole 1936:17). The white‐footed

mouse remains recovered from LA 151618 are considered intrusive.

Neotoma sp. (Woodrat) (n=4)

cf. Neotoma sp. (?Woodrat) (n=1)

LA 151618 is within the range of two woodrat (Neotoma) species. Each tends to occupy different habitats.

The white‐throated woodrat (N. albigula), primarily an Upper Sonoran species (Bailey 1913:32, 1931:175),

occurs in a variety of habitats, usually below the conifer zone. It is frequently found in piñon‐juniper and

is common in extensive cholla and prickly pear cactus areas. Cacti provide food and water, protection for

the nest, and function as anchors for the houses. Rocky areas are also selected as house sites. Mesquite,

herbs, and shrubby vegetation are additional sources of food. Cactus joints, sticks, thorns, and other

available materials are used to construct the houses which average about 2.5 m in diameter and about 1

m high. The nest, which is partially dug into the ground below the house, is usually constructed of grasses

and is about 20 cm in diameter. It is used as a daytime retreat and to raise the young. A female may have

more than one litter, usually consisting of two to four young, per year. Major predators include owls,


| 26

snakes, ringtails, coyotes, badgers, bobcats, and weasels (Bailey 1931:175–180; Cockrum 1982:114–115;

Davis 1974:221; Findley 1987:97–100; Findley et al. 1975:241–242; Hoffmeister 1986:406–407; Zeveloff

1988:209–210).

The Southern Plains woodrat (N. micropus) prefers xeric or semi‐arid grasslands with thickets of cacti,

mesquite, or thornbush. It also inhabits crevices in rocky outcrops. Bulky, conspicuous houses are

commonly constructed of sticks, cactus joints, and thorns. These houses are built at the base of shrubs

and cacti on in rock outcrops. Protected within the house, the nest consists of dry grasses and fine plant

fibers. Within the structure, tunnels are used for food, resting chambers, and escape routes. In addition,

an underground burrow system may be present. Two or more litters, of usually two or three young, are

born from early spring until August. A variety of plant materials is consumed, including leaves, seeds,

roots, berries, and nuts. Prickly pear blades and various cacti fruits are favored foods. Major predators

include snakes, owls, hawks, coyotes, foxes, and bobcats (Bee et al. 1981:140–141; Davis 1974:218–219;

Findley 1987:97–100; Findley et al. 1975:238–240).

The woodrat is often called a “pack rat” from its habit of collecting all sorts of objects, both cultural and

non‐cultural, and incorporating them into the den or nest. This rodent can disturb the artifact distribution

patterns of a site and/or create pseudo‐features (Hester and Hill 1980; Hoffman and Hays 1987). Burned

woodrat houses, including contents, look suspiciously like prehistoric hearths (Hester and Hill 1980).

Therefore, woodrats are a potential agent of faunalturbation at sites in which their bones are found.

However, the presence of woodrat bones in a site’s faunal assemblage is not necessarily indicative of

intrusion. As suggested by ethnographic data, the woodrat was exploited by several groups.

Woodrats were eaten by the Jicarilla Apache (Opler 1936:207), the Navajo (Bailey 1931:185; Hill

1938:173), Walapai (McGuire 1983:32), Basin‐Plateau groups (Steward 1938:40, 83, 158), Kiliwa

(Michelsen 1967:74), Yavapai (Gifford 1932:205, 1936:266), and Chiricahua Apache (Opler 1941:325). This

rodent was a staple in the diet of peoples in southern Texas (Hester and Hill 1980:318). Ethnographic

literature also mentions unspecified rats (possibly woodrats) as having been consumed by groups such as

the Omaha (Fletcher and La Flesche 1911:104) and Tonkawa (Newcomb 1961:139). The flesh of this

rodent has been described as “tender, sweet, and delicious as young rabbit or quail” (Bailey 1931:180).

Basin‐Plateau groups used woodrat hunting techniques similar to those for ground squirrels and prairie

dogs (Steward 1938:40). The Navajo killed woodrats after digging them from their nests (Hill 1938:173).

The Chiricahua, working in pairs, procured woodrats with a different technique. While one hunter poked

a stick into a nest opening, the other hunter waited for the prey at the other opening. When it came out,

it was shot with a headless arrow that had a sharpened shaft. Sometimes the woodrats were hit with a

stick when they tried to escape from the nest (Opler 1941:325). The Hopi utilized deadfalls and snares to

catch rats (Beaglehole 1936:17). The Kiliwa poked a pole into the nest. When the frightened animal

attempted to flee, it was stomped by a hunting companion’s feet, killed with rocks, or shot with an arrow.

If the woodrat refused to emerge, the nest was burned (Michelsen 1967:75). A hooked stick was used by

the Walapai to remove woodrats from their nests (McGuire 1983:32). The Yavapai employed several

methods for procuring woodrats. Stone deadfall traps were used. Woodrat nests in cacti or bushes were

pulled apart with the curved end of 6‐ to 8‐ft sticks. The rats were killed as they tried to escape. In addition,


| 27

the hunters took the piñon nuts stored in the nests. Woodrats were also forced from their nests with the

straight end of long sticks. The woodrats were killed with bows and arrows or with sticks. If a hunter seized

one by its neck with his bare hands, it was killed by being struck against the rocks (Gifford 1932:217,

1936:266). The Tepehuan trapped woodrats with an inverted, tilted earthenware bowl “supported by a

figure‐four release mechanism and baited with a few grains corn or wheat (Pennington 1969:125).

Michelsen (1967:76) provides a detailed description of the preparation of a woodrat for consumption by

the Kiliwa:

Preparations for eating are quick and efficient. First, a fire is built of small branches. While

the flames are high, the whole animal is tossed into the fire. When the hair is well singed

the rat is removed with a pair of sticks, used as tongs, and placed on a branch of fresh

juniper or some similar evergreen. The skin, partially cooked, slips off cleanly and easily.

The entrails are removed, and the rat laid on the green boughs. After the flames of the

fire have died down sufficiently the carcass is placed on the coals to roast for 10 or 15

minutes.

The most remarkable part of the procedure takes place after the meat is cooked. The legs

are pulled off and nibbled in the classic manner. However, the rib cage, spine and pelvis

are placed on a flat rock, sometimes a metate, and thoroughly crushed with a

hammerstone. The carcass, well shredded, is then eaten, bones and all [Michelsen

1967:76].

After singing off the fur, Great Basin groups pit roasted wood rats whole or eviscerated them and stuffed

them with wild onions (Fowler 1986:82). The Yavapai prepared wood rats for consumption in several

ways. They either boiled them whole or after removal of the intestines. After skinning and eviscerating

the woodrats, the Yavapai placed the skin in the abdominal cavity and baked the carcass under ashes. The

skin was consumed as a delicacy. Woodrats also were preserved for short periods for later consumption.

In that case, they were slightly charred after skinning and were hung in the hut in bundles of 20 or 30.

They could be kept this way for a few days, and when they were to be eaten, they were boiled (Gifford

1936:266). After skinning and cleaning the woodrats, the Tepehuan roasted them either on a spit or over

coals (Pennington 1969:125).

Woodrats had other cultural uses. The Navajo sometimes used woodrat fur in incense (Hill 1938:173). A

subsistence strategy of the Pawnee indirectly exploited woodrats. In the fall, women collected part of

these rodents’ wild bean and potato hoards, leaving a portion for the woodrat’s consumption (Weltfish

1977:321, 415–416). The Yavapai also raided woodrat nests for piñon nuts. Woodrat brains were

preserved for skin dressing, and their skins, with the fur side in, were used as infant winter foot wrappings

(Gifford 1936:257, 266, 275). The woodrat remains recovered from LA 151618 are considered cultural.

Canis familiaris/C. latrans (Dog/Coyote) (n=5)

Dog/coyote (Canis familiaris/C. latrans) remains of a puppy were recovered from the site. The dog is

associated closely with humans. Based on a radiocarbon date of about 8400 BC, the earliest known

domestic dog remains in North America came from Jaguar Cave, Lemhi County, Idaho (Lawrence 1967:44;


| 28

1968:43). “Since dogs were domesticated from an Old World, not a New World stock, and since the

remains discussed are of a small animal with typical dog characters, domestication must have taken place

at a considerably earlier date” (Lawrence 1967:44). When humans entered North America, dogs

accompanied them. The domestic dog probably descended from the wolf (C. lupus). As Olsen believes:

The wolf has perfected hunting habits that would not have been lost on early human

hunters who observed their game‐getting practices. Both wolves and humans were pack,

or team, hunters early on, and it is likely that these similar tactics for obtaining prey were

influential in bringing about the initial stages of association between the two species. This

hunting association and the fact that both hominids and large canids have mutually

compatible social organizations eventually led to taming and, ultimately, to

domestication [1985:xi].

Pre‐Columbian dog remains in North America fall into at least four size categories: a large wolf‐like

northern form; the Plains Indian dog (known in the Southwest as the large Pueblo dog); the small short‐

faced Pueblo dog; and the small long‐faced Pueblo dog (Allen 1920:503; Olsen 1974:343, 1985:35). As

Solis (1931:61) records, the Caddo had hybrid dogs, called jubines, that were dog, coyote or wolf mixtures.

When Spanish explorers first entered the American Southwest, Spanish greyhounds, used to control local

populations, accompanied them. These dogs were larger than coyotes and large Pueblo dogs but smaller

than the local wolf (Olsen 1978:19; Winship 1990:34). On several occasions during the Coronado entrada

(AD 1540–1542) greyhounds were used in dog‐baiting episodes. In an effort to force Bigotes and Cacique

to reveal the whereabouts of a supposed golden bracelet, dogs were set on them, but the victims were

not injured seriously (Bolton 1990:200, 203). In an incident that occurred either during the siege or after

the fall of Moho in early AD 1541, some freed Indians were chased and bitten by a Spanish dog. As in the

previous incident, no one died (Bolton 1990:228). During De Soto’s expedition into what is now the

southeastern United States, Spanish dogs served similar functions. Bloodhounds were used in tracking

down Indians, retrieving those who tried to escape, and tearing apart guides who misled (Swanton

1939:92). As settlers moved into New Mexico, so did various domestic dog breeds.

Dogs were (and in some cases still are) used by many groups for hunting, as beasts of burden, and at least

occasionally, as food. Although not specifically trained for hunting, Hopi dogs were sometimes used to

run down game. Puppies or older dogs were also butchered and fed to captive eagles and hawks when

rabbit meat was unavailable (Beaglehole 1936:8, 21). The Havasupai sometimes used dogs for hunting

rabbits and deer (Spier 1928:113). The Navajo used dogs “for hunting when no ritual was involved. They

were trained to track and follow wounded animals. Some were castrated. They were never eaten” (Hill

1938:97). The Navajo still use dogs to guard their sheep. The Yavapai occasionally ate dogs. They were

either cooked in an earth oven or boiled. Dogs also were used for hunting fawns and wounded deer

(Gifford 1932:205, 217–218, 1936:264). A unique Yavapai custom involved dogs and teeth. To ensure

healthy permanent teeth, the first deciduous tooth lost by a child was either encased in food and fed to a

dog or thrown toward the east by the child’s father (Gifford 1936:300). Dogs occasionally were eaten by

the Miwok, who sometimes used them to hunt squirrels and deer. After Euro‐American, contact the

Miwok used dog skins for quivers (Barrett and Gifford 1933:219, 270). Among the Tepehuan, “dogs


| 29

constitute an important element in individual or communal hunting, and good hunting dogs are highly

prized” (Pennington 1969:119).

Among the Arikara the flesh of young dogs was served during a feast, such as that of the Buffalo Society

observed by Gilmore in 1926 (Gilmore 1934). Arikara methods of killing and butchering dogs on such

occasions were different from those of other groups. The host’s wife did the killing, dressing and cooking.

She seized the dog by its hind legs and whirled it several times in a vertical circle. Then she struck its head

and back on the ground with enough force to stun the animal. While in this condition, she placed a foot

on its neck, suffocating it. Supposedly, the swinging made the dog dizzy and lessened its pain when it hit

the ground. After the dog was dead, the host’s wife laid it on a fire and turned it until the hair was signed

off. Then she washed the carcass with water to remove the singed hair. She began the actual butchering

process by slitting the carcass from throat to tail. The viscera were removed and discarded along with the

head and tail. The dressed carcass, with its skin still on it, was divided into portions according to well‐

established traditions (Gilmore 1934:37–38). “These portions are the two forequarters, the two

hindquarters, the two sets of ribs, the cervical and dorsal vertebrae with adjacent bones and muscles

between the shoulders, and the lumbar vertebrae with the bones and muscles which form the pelvic

girdle” (Gilmore 1934:38). Then the portions were cut into small pieces and boiled.

Coyotes (C. latrans) occur throughout the Southwest, occupying a wide range of habitats. The coyote is

found throughout New Mexico, but it is most common in grassland. It subsists primarily on animal matter

(Cockrum 1982:24–25; Findley et al. 1975:281). “Broken country, interrupted by rocks, brush, clumps of

piñon‐juniper or other vegetation, makes excellent habitat for coyotes” (Hoffmeister 1986:462). Dens

usually are in the ground. Brush‐covered slopes, riverbanks, and rock ledges serve as den sites. Unlike

wolves, coyotes normally do not mate for life. A single litter, of usually five or six pups, is born in the

spring. Much of the coyote diet consists of rabbits, rodents and carrion, but birds, sheep, deer, juniper

berries, cactus fruit and insects also are eaten. To protect their livestock, ranchers have killed thousands

of coyotes, but programs to eradicate these canids generally have been ineffective. Coyotes also are

hunted for their valuable pelts. The coyote’s major nonhuman predators are cougars and wolves (Findley

et al. 1975:281–282; Bee et al. 1981:165; Cockrum 1982:24; Hoffmeister 1986:464; Zeveloff 1988:248–

249).

The Yavapai ate coyotes when deer were scarce, using large deadfall traps to catch them. After they

eviscerated and skinned the canid, they either cooked it in an earth oven or boiled it. They did not eat its

marrow (Gifford 1932:205, 216, 1936:266). Some Plains groups, such as the Cheyenne, also ate coyotes

(Grinnell 1923:I:256). Although the Tepehuan did not eat coyotes, they hunted them because coyotes kill

chickens and consume young cornstalks. Some hunting techniques made use of bows and arrows or pit

traps (Pennington 1969:127).

Although coyotes were occasional food resources, they were probably sought more for their pelts.

Currently, it is still a valuable furbearer (Carbyn 1987:372; Voigt and Berg 1987:352). Although the Hopi

did not eat coyotes, they caught them with deadfall traps and used their skins (Beaglehole 1936:17–18).

The Navajo used several types of deadfall traps to obtain coyote skins for the Coyote Way chant (Hill

1938:168–170). The Yavapai used coyote skins without the legs for capes, robes and blankets and also


| 30

made quivers from coyote hides (Gifford 1932:226, 1936:273, 286). The hides were dried inside out. “Then

moist earth was applied and the skin worked with the hands to soften it” (Gifford 1932:223). As a

variation, the hide was also softened by being rubbed with a stone. Then it was buried in damp ground

for less than a day. Brains were unnecessary for processing coyote hides. Four or five skins sewn together

made a robe (Gifford 1932:223, 226, 1936:273, 286). The Havasupai tracked coyotes in the snow to obtain

their pelts for robes and bedding (Spier 1928:111). The Tepehuan used coyote skins as sleeping mats

(Pennington 1969:127). Coyote pelts were used for robes and blankets by the Sanpoil (Ray 1932:86),

Northern Shoshone (Lowie 1909:179), and Havasupai (Spier 1928:111), among others. The Sanpoil made

quivers from coyote skins (Ray 1932:89). The dog/coyote remains recovered from LA 151618 are those of

a puppy and are considered cultural.

Odocoileus sp. (Deer) (n=5)

The archaeofaunal assemblage contains few definite deer specimens (n=5). Historically, two deer

species—mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus) and white‐tailed deer (O. virginianus)—occurred in or near

the project area (Findley et al. 1985:329, 331). The mule deer, a browser, is found at all elevations and in

a variety of habitats—brushy and wooded areas, broken country, and open plains. It inhabits the Upper

Sonoran, Transition, and Canadian zones (Bailey 1913:32, 43, 47). As a result, a varied diet is consumed.

It is a browser that feeds mainly on oak, juniper, piñon, cliffrose, bitterbrush, fir, ponderosa pine, and

aspen. When grazing, forbs are preferred over grasses. Cultivated crops are also consumed. The winter

diet primarily consists of juniper, piñon needles, sagebrush, saltbush, and Mormon tea. Formerly, major

predators included grizzly bears and wolves. Mountain lions, coyotes, bobcats and eagles also prey on

mule deer (Bee et al. 1981:220–221; Cockrum and Petryszyn 1992:164; Davis and Schmidly 1994:278–

281; Findley 1987:140–141; Findley et al. 1975:328–329; Hoffmeister 1986:542–543; Zeveloff 1988:326–

327).

The white‐tailed deer also inhabits the Upper Sonoran, Transition, and Canadian zones (Bailey 1913:32,

1931:35, 37). In areas where both species live close together, white‐tailed deer usually occur at higher

elevations and in more rugged terrain, “such as steep, rocky, canyon sides” (Findley et al. 1975:330).

During summer, white‐tailed deer may be found as high as 10,000 ft (Findley et al. 1975:332). This species

is “found primarily in woodland communities consisting of evergreen oaks or in mixtures of oak‐juniper‐

pinyon” (Hoffmeister 1986:545). White‐tailed deer also occur in desertscrub. Juniper, piñon, hackberry,

mesquite, and other bushes and shrubs supply much of their diet. They also eat crops such as corn.

Predators of adult white‐tailed deer and/or fawns include coyotes, wolves, bobcats, mountain lions, gray

foxes, and raptors (Hoffmeister 1986:545, 547–548; Zeveloff 1988:329–330).

Usually, only male deer have antlers, which are shed in early February, at the end of the breeding season.

New antlers begin growing in May and remain in velvet until sometime in September when they stop

growing. Breeding takes place from late fall to early winter, primarily from December 1 through January

15. Does usually mate for the first time when they are about 18 months old. Deer are K‐selected mammals.

As a result, the gestation period is almost seven months. In New Mexico, does usually give birth to one or

two fawns in June or July (Findley 1987:139–140; Hoffmeister 1986:542, 547).


| 31

In pre‐Columbian and early historical times, deer were important food resources and also provided raw

materials for clothing and tools. Deer were one of the principal animals hunted by the Jicarilla Apache.

“Whistles, designed to imitate the bleat of the fawn, were used to draw does to their death, and head

nooses were strung along trails” (Opler 1936:207). Individuals and small parties of Omaha hunted deer,

usually in winter when the deer were fat and in good condition (Fletcher and La Flesche 1911:270–271).

The Chippewa had several deer hunting techniques, such as using pitch torches and deer calls. The deer

were attracted to the light and a sound similar to that of a fawn (Densmore 1929:128–129, 149). Individual

Sanpoil hunters had a similar technique, using a leaf to imitate fawn sounds. Deer hunting by the Sanpoil

was mainly a group venture that often occurred during winter and consisted of driving deer to the head

of a canyon or valley or into a river where the animals were easily killed. They also drove deer over the

edge of a cliff (Ray 1932:77–81). Prior to the acquisition of the horse, the Hopi, working in pairs,

sometimes ran down individual deer on foot. More often, however, a group of hunters surrounded and

rounded up a number of deer. Although the hunters sometimes killed the exhausted animals with arrows,

they usually strangled them (Beaglehole 1936:3–7). Navajo hunters drove deer into an ambush, tracked

them down, waited in ambush for the animals to pass by, stalked deer, used animal disguises, occasionally

encircled deer with fire, used pit falls, and ran them down on foot (Hill 1938:96–133; Elmore 1953). Some

Basin‐Plateau groups killed deer with poisoned arrows (Steward 1938:36).

The importance of deer as a raw material source for clothing, tools, and other items is well‐known and

needs no discussion. Several cultural customs associated with deer, however, are presented. The Jicarilla

Apache gathered the waste and bones of deer and disposed of them far from camp to ensure continued

success in hunting (Opler 1936:207). When the Navajo obtained sufficient deer meat, they broke the

accumulated bones. “Not a single one was left whole, because it was believed that by breaking the bones,

deer hunted in the future would be unable to escape. These bones and the horns were deposited at the

base of a cliff rose” (Hill 1938:128). The Hopi did not break the bones for marrow or give them to their

dogs but rather, placed the bones (including the skulls) and unused antlers on a shrine (Beaglehole

1936:7–8). The Laguna cooked the head and bones in a large cooking jar (Goldfrank 1954:419), and the

Kiliwa ground deer bones to a fine paste in a mortar (Michelsen 1967:77). All of the deer remains

recovered from LA 151618 are cultural.

Antilocapra americana (Pronghorn) (n=22)

cf. Antilocapra americana (?Pronghorn) (n=1)

Pronghorn (Antilocapra americana), represented by 23 specimens, formerly occurred throughout the

Southwest, but intensive hunting greatly reduced their numbers by the early 1900s. Since that time,

however, they have been expanding within their former range. Pronghorn were once almost as numerous

as bison. They inhabit arid and semi‐arid grasslands, subsisting on browse such as sagebrush, buckbrush,

and rabbitbrush. Prickly pear cacti, forbs, grasses, and cultivated crops are also eaten. Most, or all, of the

necessary water is obtained from the plants consumed. Pronghorn congregate in large herds (e.g., 100

individuals) during the winter but disperse into smaller groups in the spring. Breeding occurs in the fall.

Does give birth, usually to twins, in mid‐June. The pronghorn uses its great speed (up to 60 miles per hour)


| 32

to elude predators such as bobcats and coyotes (Findley 1987:144–145; Findley et al. 1975:333–334;

Hoffmeister 1986:549, 551–552; Jones et al. 1985:318; Zeveloff 1988:334–336).

The pronghorn served as a food resource for many North American, pre‐Columbian, and historic peoples.

The Cheyenne dug pits and built enclosures on established trails. Large numbers of pronghorn were

enticed, drawn, led, or driven into these traps and killed with clubs (Grinnell 1923:I:277–290). Solitary

Chiricahua Apache hunters stalked pronghorn (Opler 1941:324). Pronghorn was the Navajo’s second most

important meat source. Many deer hunting techniques also served to bring down pronghorn. Animals

were stalked, tracked, flushed, driven into an ambush, run down, or driven into a corral by a pair or group

of Navajo hunters, but impounding was the most common method (Hill 1938:101–113, 117–131, 145–

156). The Hopi also relied on deer hunting methods to hunt pronghorn, and they treated the bones in a

similar manner (Beaglehole 1936:4–9). The Pima stalked pronghorn (Ebeling 1986:594). During the

summer and fall, the Sanpoil often found pronghorn near water holes, where usually one or two men

using bows and arrows hunted them together (Ray 1932:82). The Shoshone and Crow conducted

communal pronghorn drives into corrals (Lowie 1922:211; Steward 1938:34–35, 81–82). The Havasupai

occasionally wore a disguise when stalking pronghorn. “The stuffed headskin of an antelope is worn on

the head, while the body is painted pink and white to resemble that animal. Mimicking its actions, the

hunter approaches within ten or fifteen meters before he lets fly” (Spier 1928:110). The Yavapai hunted

pronghorn by stalking, driving, or surrounding them. In addition to eating the meat of this animal, they

also consumed the marrow (Gifford 1932:216, 1936:265).

Pronghorn also were a raw material resource for various material culture items of many groups. The

Yavapai used pronghorn skins for leggings, breechcloths and drumheads, but because pronghorn skin is

thin and easily torn, they did not use it for all the same purposes they used deer hides (Gifford 1936:273–

274, 288). The Yavapai also used the horns as flakers (Gifford 1936:287). The Havasupai made ropes from

pronghorn skin (Spier 1928:146), and the Hopi used the horn as an arrow wrench (Spier 1928:161). The

Navajo made clothes from pronghorn hides, but the hides were not sturdy enough for moccasins (Hill

1938:156). All of the pronghorn specimens recovered from LA 151618 are cultural.

The Archaeofaunal Assemblage

A total of 2,565 vertebrate faunal remains, consisting of 1,722 specimens—including flotation specimens

identified as specific taxa or elements—and 843 unidentifiable fragments from flotation (see Flotation

below), were recovered from LA 151618. In addition, the archaeofaunal assemblage includes 939 egg shell

fragments (see Egg Shell below) and 2 freshwater mussel shell fragments (see Mussel Shell below). A

variety of taxa was identified (see Table 1), some of which are considered intrusive. Due to its non‐bone

nature, the egg shell and mussel shell are examined separately, as are the 843 unidentifiable bone

fragments recovered from flotation (see Flotation below) which are not comparable in analysis with the

rest of the vertebrate assemblage. The following are summaries of the main (i.e., 1,722‐specimen)

assemblage recovered from features and non‐features.

Feature 1, Pit Structure (storage?)

The faunal assemblage from Feature 1, a pit structure (possibly storage), consists of 22 specimens, of

which 14 (63.6%) were identified as specific taxa (Table 2). The pocket mouse, kangaroo rat, white‐footed


| 33

mouse, and mouse‐size remains (n=11, 50.0%) are considered intrusive. All were recovered from flotation

(Table 3). Rodent burrows were noted in EU1, which contained Feature 1 (Goar 2015:9). The quail‐size

bird remains (n=2) consist of a femur fragment and a distal wing element. The former is a high meat value

element. The latter, a low meat value element, is charred. Although these remains are considered cultural,

it is unclear as to whether the quail‐size bird was procured strictly as a food resource. Although the wing

element may represent food refuse, it might be associated with a bird obtained for its feathers.

Table 2 – Features 1, 2, and 9 Faunal Assemblages

Taxon Feat. 1 Feat. 2 Feat. 9

NISP MNI NISP MNI NISP MNI

Indeterminate small bird (quail‐size) 2 1

Sylvilagus sp. (Cottontail) 2 1 1 1

Lepus californicus (Black‐tailed Jackrabbit) 4 1 1 1 1 1

Perognathus sp. (Pocket Mouse) 3 1

Dipodomys sp. (Kangaroo Rat) 1 1

Peromyscus sp. (White‐footed Mouse) 4 1

Indeterminate very small mammal (mouse‐size) 3

Indeterminate small mammal (rabbit‐size) 1

Indeterminate large mammal (pronghorn‐size) 2 1

Total 22 7 2 2 1 1 NISP = number of identified specimens; MNI = minimum number of individuals


| 34

Table 3 – Feature 1 Faunal Assemblage Condition

Taxon NISP Burned Rodent Gnawed Modif Flot

CH CAL Total Indeterminate small bird (quail-size) 2 1 1 1


Lepus californicus (Black-tailed Jackrabbit) 4 1 2 3 2



Peromyscus sp. (White-footed Mouse) 4 4

Indeterminate very small mammal (mouse-size) 3 3

Indeterminate small mammal (rabbit-size) 1 Indeterminate large mammal (pronghorn-size) 2 1 1

Total 22 2 3 5 1 1 15 NISP = number of identified specimens; CH = charred (black), CAL = calcined, Modif = modified, Flot = flotation, heavy fraction

The leporids (cottontail and jackrabbit) are definitely subsistence‐related animals. The cottontail

specimens (n=2) consist of the proximal shaft of a humerus and a calcined tibia mid‐shaft fragment. The

former is a high meat value element, suggestive of food refuse. The tibia, a low meat value element,

represents butchering debris. The jackrabbit bones (n=4) consist of only low meat value lower leg

elements—a radius, cuboid, tibia, and metapodial—which also represent butchering debris. The incidence

of burning is low (n=5, 22.7%) (Table 3), occurring on quail‐size bird (n=1), cottontail (n=1, calcined), and

jackrabbit (n=3, 2 calcined) remains. Absence of burning on the rodent remains is another indication that

these animals are intrusive. The pronghorn‐size specimen exhibits rodent gnawing. In addition, this

specimen, a long bone shaft fragment, displays polish along its lateral edges and on one end, suggesting

it may be an awl fragment (see Modified Bone below). Although the burned remains probably represent

hearth cleaning debris, butchering debris and food refuse were not commonly discarded in Feature 1. The

general paucity of non‐intrusive faunal remains from Feature 1 suggests butchering and food processing

did not generally occur in the vicinity of this feature.

Feature 2, Amorphous Ash Stain

The faunal component of Feature 2 (Table 2), an amorphous ash stain, consists of two subsistence‐related

taxa. The cottontail bone is a scorched first phalanx, a low‐meat‐value element indicative of butchering

debris, recovered from flotation. The jackrabbit specimen is a humerus fragment, a high meat value

element. Neither specimen exhibits gnawing nor butchering marks. The paucity of faunal remains suggests

Feature 2 was not associated with the processing of meat or the general discard of food refuse.

Feature 9, Amorphous Stain

Only one bone, the proximal shaft of a jackrabbit femur, was recovered from Feature 9 (Table 2), an

amorphous stain. This specimen, a high meat value element, does not exhibit burning, gnawing, or

butchering marks. The latter two, however, may be masked by the heavily eroded condition of the bone.

The near absence of bone precludes any meaningful conclusions other than Feature 9 was not associated

with the processing of meat or the general discard of food refuse.


| 35

Feature 14, Strat II, Pithouse

Strat II of Feature 14, a pithouse, yielded 6.6 percent (n=114) of the LA 151618 archaeofaunal assemblage

(Table 4). Although a variety of taxa are represented, much of the Feature 14, Strat II assemblage consists

of the remains of various indeterminate size mammals and birds (n=29, 25.4%), of which the majority are

pronghorn‐size (n=13, 44.8%) and rabbit‐size elements (n=10, 34.5%). The pronghorn‐size elements

include four gnawed by rodents and one vertebra that has been shaped into a “dog bone” form (see

Modified Bone below). The rabbit‐size elements (n=10) include a calcined specimen exhibiting a

transverse groove. Turkey‐/rabbit‐size elements consist of two specimens, of which one is scorched. The

unidentified avian elements include quail‐size (n=1), duck‐size (n=2) remains, both with rodent gnawing,

and an indeterminate‐size (n=1) fragment exhibiting rodent gnawing (Table 5).

Table 4 – Feature 14, Strat II, Vertebrate Faunal Assemblage

Taxon NISP MNI Bufo sp. (Toad) 1 1 Lacertilia (Lizards) 1 1 Colubridae (Colubrid Snakes) 2 1 Meleagris gallopavo (Turkey) 2 1 cf. Meleagris gallopavo (?Turkey) 1 Grus sp. (Crane) 1 1 Passeriformes (Perching Birds) 2 1 Indeterminate small bird (quail‐size) 1 1 Indeterminate medium bird (duck‐size) 2 1 Indeterminate size bird 1 Sylvilagus sp. (Cottontail) 13 1 Lepus californicus (Black‐tailed Jackrabbit) 7 2 Spermophilus spilosoma (Spotted Ground Squirrel) 5 1 Cynomys sp. (Prairie Dog) 2 1 Thomomys bottae (Botta’s Pocket Gopher) 5 1 Peromyscus sp. (White‐footed Mouse) 34 3 Antilocapra americana (Pronghorn) 5 2 Odocoileus/A. americana (Deer/Pronghorn) 3 Indeterminate small mammal (rabbit‐size) 10 Indeterminate large mammal (pronghorn‐size) 13 Indeterminate large bird/small mammal 2

Total 113 19 Sub‐floor A, Strat II

Peromyscus sp. (White‐footed Mouse) 1 1 Total 1 1

Grand Total 114 20 NISP = number of identified specimens; MNI = minimum number of individuals


| 36

Table 5 – Feature 14, Strat II, Faunal Assemblage Condition

Taxon

NISP

Burned

Rodent Gnawed

Butchered

Modified

Flot

SC CH CAL Total

Bufo sp. (Toad) 1 1

Lacertilia (Lizards) 1 1

Colubridae (Colubrid Snakes) 2 2

Meleagris gallopavo (Turkey) 2 1 1 1 cf. Meleagris gallopavo (?Turkey) 1 1 Passeriformes (Perching Birds) 2 2

Indet. small bird (quail‐size) 1 1

Indet. medium bird (duck‐size) 2 2 1

Indet. size bird 1 1 Sylvilagus sp. (Cottontail) 13 3 1

Lepus californicus (Black‐tailed Jackrabbit) 7 3 Spermophilus spilosoma (Spotted Ground Squirrel) 5 1 Cynomys sp. (Prairie Dog) 2 2 1

Thomomys bottae (Botta’s Pocket Gopher) 5 1 Peromyscus sp. (White‐footed Mouse) 34 4

Antilocapra americana (Pronghorn) 5 1 1 2 1 Odocoileus/A. americana (Deer/ Pronghorn) 3 1 Indet. small mammal (rabbit‐size) 10 1 1 1 Indet. large mammal (pronghorn‐size) 13 4 1 1

Indet. large bird/small mammal 2 1 1 Total 70 2 1 1 4 20 2 3 15

NISP = number of identified specimens; SC = scorched, CH = charred (black), CAL = calcined, Flot = flotation, heavy fraction

Most of the identified taxa are potentially cultural, with the exception of toad (n=1), lizards (n=1), colubrid

snakes (n=2), and white‐footed mouse (n=34, MNI=3) (Table 4). Due to their habitat preference, general

unsuitability for consumption, and absence of evidence of butchering and burning, these taxa are most

likely non‐cultural. The toad (n=1) is represented by a sacrum, and the lizard (n=1) is represented by a

complete rib. The colubrid snakes are represented by nearly complete dorsal vertebrae. The white‐footed

mouse specimens (n=34) consist of mostly cranial elements, a radius, innominate, femur, and tibiae. None

of the elements exhibit cut marks or burning (Table 5 and Figure 1).


| 37

Figure 1 – Feature 14 Strat II illustration of white‐footed mouse skeletal elements

Fauna believed to be associated with cultural activities include turkey (n=2) and probable turkey (n=1).

Represented elements include the radius, scapula, and tarsometatarsus. The radius shaft fragment is a

tube bead that is scorched (see Modified Bone below). The scapula is a high meat value element, while

the tarsometatarsus and radius (wing) are low meat value elements. The crane is represented by a

carpometacarpus, a wing element, which has a low meat value. Passerine remains (n=2) consist of low

meat value distal wing elements. Perching birds are generally small and probably were not consumed, but

may have been acquired for their feathers or other body parts (e.g., wings for fans) for ceremonial or

other functions (Tables 4 and 5).

Cottontail (n=13) is represented by a maxilla with teeth, upper foreleg, upper hind leg, and feet elements

(Table 6 and Figure 2). The maxilla and feet elements are low meat value elements, while the upper foreleg

and upper hind leg are high meat value elements. Three of the specimens exhibit rodent gnawing.


| 38

Table 6 – Feature 14, Strat II, Leporid Skeletal Elements

Element Cottontail Jackrabbit Total Skull:

Premaxilla 1 1

Maxilla 1 1

Teeth – Complete 4 4

Foreleg: Scapula 1 2 3

Humerus 1 1

Radius 1 1

Hindleg: Innominate 2 1 3

Femur 1 2 3 Tibia 1 1

Feet: Metatarsals 1 1 2

Total 13 7 20

Figure 2 – Feature 14 Strat II, illustration of cottontail skeletal elements, LA 151618


| 39

Jackrabbit (n=7, MNI=2) is represented by a premaxilla, scapulae (n=2), innominate, femurs (n=2), and a

metatarsal (Table 6 and Figure 3). The premaxilla and metatarsal are low meat value elements, while the

scapulae, innominate, and femurs are high meat value elements. Three specimens exhibit rodent

gnawing.

Figure 3 – Feature 14 Strat II, illustration of jackrabbit skeletal elements, LA 151618

The spotted ground squirrel (n=5) remains consist of a mandible, teeth, and a scapula. The mandible

exhibits rodent gnawing. The mandible and teeth have little food value element. The scapula, however, is

a higher meat value element. Prairie dog (n=2) is represented by high (a scapula) and low (second phalanx)

meat value elements. Both specimens have been gnawed by rodents. Pocket gopher (n=5) remains consist

of a mandible with rodent gnawing and teeth. Pronghorn (n=5, MNI=2) is represented by a sacrum,

thoracic vertebra, innominates (n=2), and a calcaneum. One innominate is charred, and the other

innominate exhibits cut marks indicative of disarticulation. Two elements exhibit rodent gnawing.

Deer/pronghorn (n=3) is represented by thoracic vertebrae (n=2) and a rib, both high value meat

elements. The rib exhibits rodent gnawing (Tables 7 and 8).


| 40

Table 7 – Feature 14, Strat II, rodent skeletal elements, LA 151618

Element Ground Squirrel

Prairie Dog

Pocket Gopher

White‐footed Mouse

Total

Skull: Nasal 1 1

Frontal 3 3

Premaxilla 5 5

Maxilla 4 4

Mandible 2 1 3

Jugal 1 1

Squamosal 1 1

Cranial Fragment 9 9

Teeth – Complete 2 3 5 10

Teeth ‐ Fragments 1 1


Radius 1 1

Hindleg: Innominate 1 1

Femur 1 1

Tibia 2 2

Feet: 2nd Phalanx 1 1

Total 5 2 5 34 46

Table 8 – Feature 14, Strat II, artiodactyl skeletal elements, LA 151618

Element Pronghorn Deer/ Pronghorn

Total

Trunk:

Sacrum 1 1

Thoracic Vertebra 1 2 3

Rib 1 1

Hindleg:

Innominate 2 2

Feet:

Calcaneum 1 1

Total 5 3 8

Among the cultural taxa, the low meat value elements probably represent butchering debris, and the

higher value elements are probably indicative of consumption refuse. The pronghorn and deer/

pronghorn elements are suggestive of butchering in the field with only secondary butchered units

returned to the site. The innominates, rib, and vertebrae are high meat value units. The calcaneum, a low


| 41

meat value unit, may have remained attached to one of the butchered units. There is no indication that

the entire artiodactyl carcass was brought to the site. The overall low incidence of cultural faunal remains

suggests meat processing and meat consumption refuse were generally deposited elsewhere on the site.

Sub‐floor A, Strat II

The Sub‐floor A of Strat II produced an intrusive white‐footed mouse skull fragment (Table 7).

Feature 14, Non‐Strat II, Pithouse

Non‐Strat II of Feature 14 yielded 3.9 percent (n=68) of the LA 151618 archaeofaunal assemblage (Table

9). Although a variety of taxa are represented, much of the Feature 14 non‐Strat II assemblage consists of

the remains of various indeterminate size mammals and birds (n=23, 33.8%), of which the majority are

rabbit‐size (n=13, 56.5%). None of the rabbit‐size elements are burned or exhibit gnawing. The mouse‐

size elements (n=3) include one specimen that is gnawed and the pronghorn‐size elements (n=2) are

charred and calcined. The indeterminate‐large bird/small mammal‐size elements (n=4) include two that

are charred. One quail‐size element, an ulna indicative of food refuse, was recovered (Table 10).

Table 9 – Feature 14, non‐Strat II vertebrate faunal assemblage, LA 151618

Taxon NISP MNI Serpentes (Snakes) 2 Colubridae (Colubrid Snakes) 1 1 Meleagris gallopavo (Turkey) 2 1 Passeriformes (Perching Birds) 1 1 Indeterminate small bird (quail‐size) 1 1 Sylvilagus sp. (Cottontail) 9 1 Lepus californicus (Black‐tailed Jackrabbit) 12 1 Cynomys sp. (Prairie Dog) 13 1 Dipodomys sp. (Kangaroo Rat) 1 1 cf. Peromyscus sp. (?White‐footed Mouse) 2 1 Antilocapra americana (Pronghorn) 2 1 Indeterminate very small mammal (mouse‐size) 3 Indeterminate small mammal (rabbit‐size) 13 Indeterminate large mammal (pronghorn‐size) 2 Indeterminate large bird/small mammal 4

Total 68 10 NISP = number of identified specimens; MNI = minimum number of individuals


| 42

Table 10 – Feature 14, non‐Strat II, faunal assemblage condition, LA 151618

Taxon

NISP

Burned

Rodent Gnawed

Flot

CH CAL Total

Serpentes (Snakes) 2 2

Colubridae (Colubrid Snakes) 2 1 1 1


Lepus californicus (Black‐tailed Jackrabbit) 7 2 2 3

Cynomys sp. (Prairie Dog) 2 1 1 2 1 5 Dipodomys sp. (Kangaroo Rat) 1 1 1 1

Antilocapra americana (Pronghorn) 5 1 Indet. very small mammal (mouse‐size) 3 1 1 2

Indet. small mammal (rabbit‐size) 10 1

Indet. large mammal (pronghorn‐size) 13 1 1 2 Indet. large bird/small mammal 2 2 2

Total 60 6 6 12 2 19 NISP = number of identified specimens; CH = charred (black), CAL = calcined, Flot = flotation, heavy fraction

Most of the identified taxa are potentially cultural, with the exception of the colubrid snake (n=3), and

probable white‐footed mouse (n=2) (Table 9). Due to their habitat preference, general unsuitability for

consumption, and absence of evidence of butchering and burning, these taxa are most likely non‐cultural.

The snake specimens consist of dorsal vertebrae, of which one is charred, suggesting discard into a fire as

a possible pest. The probable white‐footed mouse remains are a mandible fragment and tooth (Table 11).


| 43

Table 11 – Feature 14, non‐Strat II, rodent skeletal elements, LA 151618

Element Prairie Dog

Kangaroo Rat


Total

Skull: Frontal 1 1

Mandible 1 1

Basisphenoid 1 1

Teeth – Complete 2 1 3


Trunk: Rib 1 1

Foreleg: Humerus 1 1

Radius 1 1

Ulna 2 2


Femur 1 1

Tibia 1 1 2

Total 13 1 2 16

Cultural remains include turkey (n=2), represented by tibiotarsals (i.e., the drumstick), which are high

meat value elements. Neither exhibits burning, butchering, or gnawing. The passerine specimen is an ulna,

a high meat value element (Table 9). The bird remains are indicative of consumption refuse.

Cottontail (n=9) is represented by a mandible, teeth, upper foreleg, upper hind leg, and foot elements

(Table 12 and Figure 4). The mandible, teeth, and foot elements are low meat value elements, indicative

of butchering refuse. The upper foreleg and hindleg elements are high meat value elements indicative of

food refuse. One specimen, a humerus is calcined.

Table 12 – Feature 14, non‐Strat II, leporid and pronghorn skeletal elements, LA 151618

Element Cottontail Jackrabbit Pronghorn Total Skull:

Premaxilla 1 1

Maxilla 1 1

Mandible 1 1 2




Foreleg: Scapula 1 1

Humerus 1 1

Ulna 1 1

Hindleg:


| 44

Element Cottontail Jackrabbit Pronghorn Total Femur 1 1 2

Feet: Calcaneum 1 1

Metatarsals 1 1 2

Metapodial Fragment 1 1

1st Phalanx 1 1 2

3rd Phalanx 1 1

Total 9 12 2 23

Figure 4 – Feature 14, non‐Strat II, illustration of cottontail skeletal elements, LA 151618

Jackrabbit (n=12) is represented by cranial elements (n=6), an ulna, a femur, a calcaneum, metatarsal, and

first phalanx. The cranial and foot elements have low meat value, while the ulna (upper foreleg) and femur

(upper hind leg) are high meat value elements. Two specimens are calcined (Table 12 and Figure 5). Both

carcass processing debris and consumption refuse are represented.


| 45

Figure 5 – Feature 14, non‐Strat II, illustration of jackrabbit skeletal elements, LA 151618

Prairie dog (n=13) is represented by cranial elements (n=5), a rib, upper foreleg and upper hind leg

elements. The cranial elements have low meat value, while the rib and leg elements have a higher meat

value. One specimen is charred. Another is calcined, and one exhibits rodent gnawing. The kangaroo rat

specimen is a calcined tibia; a low meat value element. Pronghorn (n=2) is represented by the first and

second phalanges (toe bones), indicative of butchering debris, of which one is rodent gnawed (Table 12).

As with Strat II, the non‐Strat II cultural faunal remains are indicative of meat processing and consumption

activities. The overall low incidence of these remains, however, suggests meat processing and meat

consumption refuse were generally deposited elsewhere on the site.

Feature 15, Ash Stain

A single faunal specimen from Feature 15, an ash stain, consists of a small rodent lower incisor fragment

found in flotation. It is considered intrusive.

Feature 17, Thermal Feature

The faunal component of Feature 17, a thermal feature, consists of three specimens, all from flotation.

The small rodent lower incisor is considered intrusive. The mouse‐size caudal vertebra is calcined,

suggesting the animal was discarded into the fire as a pest. The only cultural specimen is a pronghorn‐


| 46

size, rib shaft fragment. It does not exhibit burning, gnawing, or butchering marks and has not been

worked. The near absence of cultural faunal remains suggests Feature 17 was not associated with the

processing of meat or the general discard of food refuse. In addition, butchering and food processing did

not generally occur in the vicinity of this feature.

Feature 19, Pithouse

Feature 19, a pithouse, yielded 28.4 percent (n=489) of the LA 151618 archaeofaunal assemblage (Table

13). The following discussion separates the assemblage according to the pithouse fill (n=427), the pithouse

floor (n=2), Post Hole 4 (n=7), and Sub‐floor (n=53).

Table 13 – Feature 19 vertebrate faunal assemblage, LA 151618

Taxon NISP MNI Ambystoma tigrinum (Tiger Salamander) 21 1 Bufo sp. (Toad) 28 3 Lacertilia (Lizards) 1 1 Meleagris gallopavo (Turkey) 1 1 Callipepla sp. (Quail) 2 1 Grus sp. (Crane) 9 2 Passeriformes (Perching Birds) 2 1 Indeterminate medium bird (duck‐size) 1 1 Indeterminate large bird (turkey‐size) 6 Leporidae (Rabbits, Hares) 1 Sylvilagus sp. (Cottontail) 34 3 Lepus californicus (Black‐tailed Jackrabbit) 45 3 Rodentia (Rodents) ‐ small 1 Sciuridae (Squirrels) ‐ small 4 cf. Spermophilus spilosoma (?Spotted Ground Squirrel) 3 1 Cynomys sp. (Prairie Dog) 7 2 cf. Cynomys sp. (?Prairie Dog) 1 Thomomys bottae (Botta’s Pocket Gopher) 8 1 Perognathus sp. (Pocket Mouse) 17 1 Dipodomys sp. (Kangaroo Rat) 42 6 Peromyscus sp. (White‐footed Mouse) 77 5 Neotoma sp. (Woodrat) 2 2 cf. Neotoma sp. (?Woodrat) 1 Odocoileus sp. (Deer) 2 1 Antilocapra americana (Pronghorn) 8 1 cf. Antilocapra americana (?Pronghorn) 1 Odocoileus/A. americana (Deer/Pronghorn) 10 Indeterminate very small mammal (mouse‐size) 1 Indeterminate small mammal (rabbit‐size) 52 Indeterminate medium mammal (coyote‐size) 4 1 Indeterminate large mammal (pronghorn‐size) 27 Indeterminate large bird/small mammal 4 Indeterminate bird/mammal 2 Indeterminate class 2

Total 427 38


| 47

Taxon NISP MNI On Floor

Branta Canadensis (Canada Goose) 1 1 Grus sp. (Crane) 1 1

Total 2 2 Post Hole 4

Peromyscus sp. (White‐footed Mouse) 3 2 Indeterminate very small mammal (mouse‐size) 4 1

Total 7 3 Sub‐floor

Bufo sp. (Toad) 22 1 Indeterminate very small amphibian/reptile 8 1 Passeriformes (Perching Birds) 2 1 Indeterminate medium bird (duck‐size) 1 1 Leporidae (Rabbits, Hares) 1 1 Dipodomys sp. (Kangaroo Rat) 18 2 Indeterminate very small mammal (mouse‐size) 1

Total 53 7 Grand Total 489 50

NISP = number of identified specimens; MNI = minimum number of individuals

Pithouse Fill

Although a variety of taxa are represented, much of the Feature 19 pithouse fill assemblage consists of


rabbit‐size (n=52, 52.5%) and pronghorn‐size (n=27, 27.3%). Of the rabbit‐size elements, three are burned

and one exhibits rodent gnawing. Of the pronghorn‐size elements, three are burned and seven have

rodent gnawing. In addition, one exhibits cut marks; one has been modified into a bitsitsi whistle and one

is an awl tip (see Modified Bone below). The remainder of the indeterminate assemblage consists of

mouse‐size (n=1), coyote‐size (n=4), turkey‐size/rabbit‐size (n=4), bird/mammal (n=2), duck‐size bird

(n=1), turkey‐size (n=6), and indeterminate class (n=2) remains. One of the coyote‐size elements is charred

and one is calcined (Tables 13 and 14).


| 48

Table 14 – Feature 19 faunal assemblage condition, LA 151618

Taxon

NISP

Burned Gnawed

Butchering

Modified

Flot

SC CH CAL Total R C Total

Meleagris gallopavo (Turkey) 1 1 1 Callipepla sp. (Quail) 2 1 1 Grus sp. (Crane) 9 5 5 1 1 Indet. large bird (turkey‐size) 6 1 Sylvilagus sp. (Cottontail) 34 6 6 Lepus californicus (Black‐tailed Jackrabbit) 45 8 8 1

Thomomys bottae (Botta’s Pocket Gopher)

8 2 2

cf. Neotoma sp. (?Woodrat) 1 1 1 Antilocapra americana (Pronghorn) 8 2 1 3 1 Odocoileus/A. americana (Deer/Pronghorn)

10 5 1 6 5

Indet. very small mammal (mouse‐size) 1 1

Indet. small mammal (rabbit‐size) 52 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 2 Indet. medium mammal (coyote‐size) 4 1 1 2 Indet. large mammal (pronghorn‐size) 27 1 1 1 3 7 7 2

Total 208 2 3 3 8 38 3 41 2 12 2 NISP = number of identified specimens; SC = scorched, CH = charred (black), CAL = calcined, R = rodent, C = carnivore, Flot = flotation, heavy fraction

Most of the identified taxa are potentially cultural, with the exception of tiger salamander (n=21), toad

(n=28), lizards (n=1), small rodents (n=1), small squirrel (n=4), pocket mouse (n=17), and white‐footed

mouse (n=77) (Table 13). Due to their habitat preference, general unsuitability for consumption, and

absence of evidence of butchering and burning, these taxa are most likely non‐cultural. The tiger

salamander (n=21) is represented by cranial elements, vertebrae, upper foreleg, and hind leg elements.

Toad (n=28) is represented by cranial, axial, and limb elements and lizard (n=1) is represented by a pelvis.

Small rodent (n=1) and small squirrel (n=4) are represented by an upper incisor and a right maxilla with

teeth, respectively. Pocket mouse (n=17) remains include cranial elements and a scapula and tibia. White‐

footed mouse (n=77, MNI=5) specimens consist of cranial elements, vertebrae, upper forelimb and hind

limb, and foot elements. None exhibits burning or cut marks (Tables 14 and 15).


| 49

Table 15 – Feature 19, rodent skeletal elements, LA 151618

Element

Rodent ‐ Small

Squirrel ‐ small

Ground Squirrel

Prairie Dog

Pocket Gopher

Woodrat

Pocket Mouse

Kangaroo Rat


Total

Skull: Skull 1 3 4

Nasal 1 1

Frontal 2 2

Premaxilla 2 2 4

Maxilla 1 1 1 2 5

Mandible 1 2 2 8 13

Parietal 1 1

Petrous 1 1

Cranial Fragment 1 1 1 3

Teeth – Complete 1 2 3 10 11 29 56

Teeth ‐ Fragments 2 3 5

Trunk: Thoracic Vertebra 1 1

Lumbar Vertebra 1 1

Sacrum 1 1

Rib 1 1


Humerus 4 2 6

Radius 1 1 2

Hindleg: Innominate 1 1 1 1 3 8 15

Femur 2 6 7 15

Tibia 2 1 10 6 19

Feet: Metatarsals 5 5

Total 1 4 3 8 8 3 17 42 77 163

The probable cultural faunal remains include a variety of avian and mammalian taxa. The former includes

turkey (n=1) is represented by a humerus exhibiting evidence of carnivore gnawing. The humerus is a high


| 50

meat value wing element. Quail (n=2) is represented by an ulna and carpometacarpus, low meat value

wing elements. The ulna exhibits rodent gnawing. Crane (n=9, MNI=2) is represented by the scapula, high

and low meat value wing elements (humerus, radius, ulna, carpometacarpus, phalanx 1 of digit II) and a

femur. The scapula and femur are high meat value elements, indicative of food refuse (Figure 6). Five

specimens are rodent gnawed. The passerine specimens (n=2), an ulna and a distal wing element,

probably represent birds procured for their feathers and other body parts for use in ceremonies and other

functions (e.g., wings for fans) (Tables 13 and 14).

Figure 6 – Feature 19, illustration of crane skeletal elements, LA 151618

Mammalian cultural taxa include leporids—cottontail (n=34, MNI=3) and jackrabbit (n=45, MNI=3)—

which are represented by cranial elements (jackrabbit), teeth (cottontail), and upper and lower forelimb

and hind limb elements, indicative of both high and low meat value elements (Tables 13, 14, and 16; Figure

7 and Figure 8). Six cottontail and eight jackrabbit specimens exhibited rodent gnawing. The represented

leporid elements suggest the entire carcasses were processed at the site.


| 51

Table 16 – Feature 19, leporid skeletal elements, LA 151618

Element Leporidae Cottontail Jackrabbit Total Skull:

Maxilla 1 1

Mandible 1 1




Humerus 1 4 5

Radius 1 3 4

Ulna 3 3


Femur 1 5 6

Tibia 3 5 8

Feet: Metacarpals 2 2

Calcaneum 3 2 5

Astragalus 1 1

Navicular 1 1 2

Metatarsals 3 3 6

Metapodial Fragment 1 1 2

1st Phalanx 3 2 5

2nd Phalanx 1 4 5

Total 1 34 45 80


| 52

Figure 7 – Feature 19, illustration of cottontail skeletal elements, LA 151618


| 53

Figure 8 – Feature 19, illustration of jackrabbit skeletal elements, LA 151618

The probable spotted ground squirrel (n=3) is represented by a maxilla, petrous, and innominate. Prairie

dog (and probable prairie dog) (n=8, MNI=2) is represented by upper foreleg and hind leg elements that

have high meat value. Pocket gopher (n=8) remains include low meat value cranial elements and an

innominate, a high meat value element. Two specimens are rodent gnawed. Kangaroo rat (n=42, MNI=6)

is represented by almost all the main portions of the skeleton—skull, trunk, upper and lower hind limb,

and feet. Only the fore limb is missing (Figure 9). Woodrat and probable woodrat (n=3) is represented by

an innominate and two tibiae. One element is rodent gnawed (Tables 13, 14, and 15). Both high and low

meat value elements occur among these rodent remains. If these remains are indeed cultural, the rodents

were procured in or near the site and were processed and consumed at the site.


| 54

Figure 9 – Feature 19, illustration of kangaroo rat and mouse skeletal elements, LA 151618

Artiodactyls include deer (n=2), pronghorn (n=8), probable pronghorn (n=1), and deer/pronghorn (n=10).

The deer and deer/pronghorn remains include the base of an antler with a possible cut mark on the base

end, a humerus fragment, innominate fragment, tibia fragment, and metapodials (n=8), of which six are

metatarsal fragments. Five specimens exhibit rodent gnawing and one has carnivore gnawing. Of the

metapodials, five are modified metatarsals that include a complete awl, an awl fragment, an awl butt‐

end, a tool butt end, and one with striations on the shaft (see Modified Bone below) (Tables 13, 14, and

17; Figure 10). Pronghorn elements include the ulna (n=2), innominate, femur, and tibia. The innominate

and one ulna exhibit rodent gnawing and the other ulna is a complete awl (see Modified Bone below). In

addition, a hind foot butchering unit, consisting of an articulating calcaneum, naviculo‐cubloid, tarsal, and

metatarsal, was recovered. The bones are complete and only the astragalus and the phalanges are

missing. None of the bones exhibit butchering marks, but the calcaneum has been gnawed by a carnivore

(Tables 13, 14, and 17; Figure 11). The hind foot unit may represent a convenient handle for transporting

a butchered hind leg to the site or, given the number of worked metatarsals recovered from the pithouse

fill, the metatarsal may originally have been intended as raw material for another awl or a different tool.

In addition, the phalanges may have been left attached to the skin during initial butchering of the animal.


| 55

Table 17 – Feature 19, artiodactyl skeletal elements, LA 151618

Element Deer Pronghorn Deer/ Pronghorn Total Skull:

Antler 1 1


Ulna 2 2


Femur 1 1

Tibia 1 1 2

Feet: Calcaneum 1 1

Naviculo‐cuboid 1 1

Tarsal 1 1

Metatarsals 1 6 7

Metapodial Fragment 2 2

Total 2 9 10 21

Figure

10 – Feature 19, illustration of deer skeletal elements, LA 151618


| 56

Figure 11 – Feature 19, illustration of pronghorn skeletal elements, LA 151618

Pithouse Floor

The pithouse floor faunal assemblage (n=2) consists of a Canada goose carpometacarpus with

disarticulation cut marks, and a crane humerus mid‐shaft modified into a bone tube (see Modified Bone

below). The latter also exhibits cut marks. These specimens likely represent domestic refuse left on the

floor of the pithouse at the time of its abandonment (Table 13). The paucity of the remains, however,

suggests the pithouse floor was relatively clean at the time of abandonment.

Post Hole 4

The Post Hole 4 faunal remains (n=7) include those of the white‐footed mouse (n=3) and mouse‐size (n=4)

mammals. The white‐footed mouse (n=3) is represented by a femur and two tibiae. These taxa are

considered intrusive, inhabiting the pithouse during its use or after its abandonment (Table 13).

Sub‐floor

The pithouse sub‐floor faunal remains (n=53) are dominated by toad (n=22) and kangaroo rat (n=18,

MNI=2). The toad is represented by most of its skeleton, indicating it is intrusive. The kangaroo rat is

represented almost exclusively by cranial elements and is also considered non‐cultural. Other specimens

include those of perching birds (n=2), Leporidae (n=1), a very small amphibian/reptile (n=8), a duck‐size

bird (n=1), and mouse‐size mammal (n=1). All are considered non‐cultural (Table 13).


| 57

Feature 19A, Central Hearth

Feature 19A is the pithouse’s central hearth. No identifiable vertebrate fauna was recovered from the

central hearth, but five unidentified vertebrate faunal remains were recovered from flotation of the fill

(see Flotation below). Recovered vertebrate remains include one unburned and four calcined fragments.

Since Feature 19A is the central hearth, it is not unexpected that most (80%) of the recovered fauna is

calcined due to disposal into the hearth during use.

Feature 19B, Hearth

Feature 19B is another hearth. The vertebrate faunal assemblage consists of a calcined jackrabbit

metacarpal fragment and a complete pocket gopher astragalus. Although the astragalus is not burned,

both specimens are probably cultural.


The faunal component of Feature 20, an amorphous stain in the fill of Feature 19, consists of eight

specimens (Table 18). The colubrid snake (n=1) and the rattlesnake (n=1) are each represented by a

vertebra. The white‐footed mouse remains (n=2) consist of a lower incisor and a tibia. The mouse‐size

specimens (n=2) are a rib shaft fragment and a humerus. The snake, mouse, and mouse‐size remains are

considered intrusive. The leporid specimen (n=1) is a thoracic vertebra fragment, and the pronghorn

specimen (n=1) is a complete second phalanx exhibiting rodent gnawing. Both remains are cultural.

Neither exhibits burning nor butchering marks nor has been worked. Except for the pronghorn bone, all

of the specimens were recovered from flotation (n=7, 87.5%). The paucity of non‐intrusive faunal remains

from Feature 20 suggests butchering debris and food refuse were not normally discarded in this feature.

Table 18 – Features 20 and 21 faunal assemblages, LA 151618

Taxon Feat. 20 Feat. 21

NISP MNI NISP MNI Serpentes (Snakes) 1 Colubridae (Colubrid Snakes) 1 1 1 1 Crotalus sp. (Rattlesnake) 1 1 1

Grus sp. (Crane) 3 Leporidae (Rabbits, Hares) 1 1 1 Lepus californicus (Black‐tailed Jackrabbit) 4 1

Cynomys sp. (Prairie Dog) 3 1

Peromyscus sp. (White‐footed Mouse) 2 1 Odocoileus sp. (Deer) 2 1

Antilocapra americana (Pronghorn) 1 1 Indeterminate very small mammal (mouse‐size) 2 Indeterminate small mammal (rabbit‐size) 4 Indeterminate large mammal (pronghorn‐size) 1

Total 8 5 20 5 NISP = number of identified specimens; MNI = minimum number of individuals


| 58


The faunal assemblage from Feature 21, an amorphous stain, is small (n=20, 1.2%) (Table 18). The colubrid

snake bone is a vertebra and that of the indeterminate snake is a rib. Both were recovered from flotation

(Table 19) and are intrusive. The prairie dog (n=3) is represented by a maxilla with two molars, recovered

from flotation. Ethnographic data presented above indicate prairie dogs were hunted for food and other

uses by several groups. Although the remains are low meat value elements suggestive of butchering

debris, the specimens may be intrusive. The rest of the assemblage is definitely cultural, consisting of

subsistence‐related animals. The crane specimens (n=3) consist of two pelvis fragments and a synsacrum

fragment, probably all from the same individual. These are low meat value elements, indicative of carcass

processing. The leporid remains (n=5) consist of a rabbit phalanx and a jackrabbit skull fragment, humerus,

ulna, and femur shaft fragment. Both low and high meat value bones, indicative of butchering debris and

food refuse. The deer is represented by a complete calcaneum and a complete first phalanx, both low

meat value foot elements indicative of butchering debris. The calcaneum exhibits rodent gnawing. The

indeterminate mammal (n=5) portion of the assemblage accounts for 25 percent of the Feature 21 faunal

remains (Table18). Given the paucity of rodent remains and the absence of mouse‐size remains, the

rabbit‐size specimens (n=4), a femoral head and three long bone shaft fragments, are probably leporid.

The pronghorn‐size element is a long bone shaft fragment. The incidence of burning (n=4, 20.0%) is

moderate and that of gnawing (n=1, 5.0%) is low (Table 19) for the assemblage as a whole. The presence

of crane indicates the exploitation of riverine resources by the site’s inhabitants. The paucity of non‐

intrusive faunal remains (n=18) from Feature 21 suggests carcass processing debris and consumption

refuse were not normally discarded in this feature.


Taxon NISP Burned Rodent

Gnawed Flot

CH CAL Total Serpentes (Snakes) 1 1


Grus sp. (Crane) 3 Leporidae (Rabbits, Hares) 1 Lepus californicus (Black‐tailed Jackrabbit) 4 1 1 1

Cynomys sp. (Prairie Dog) 3 3

Odocoileus sp. (Deer) 2 1 Indeterminate small mammal (rabbit‐size) 4 1 1 2 Indeterminate large mammal (pronghorn‐size) 1 1 1

Total 20 2 2 4 1 6 NISP = number of identified specimens; CH = charred (black), CAL = calcined, Flot = flotation, heavy fraction

Feature 22, Pit Structure

Feature 22, a pit structure, yielded 19.5 percent (n=335) of the LA 151618 archaeofaunal assemblage

(Table 20). Although a variety of taxa are present, much of the assemblage consists of various

indeterminate size mammal and bird (n=81, 24.2%) remains, of which the majority are rabbit‐size (n=38,

46.9%). Of the rabbit‐size specimens, one is charred and three are calcined, and one appears to have been

digested. Coyote‐size elements (n=7) include one specimen that is charred. Pronghorn‐size elements (n=4)


| 59

include a splinter awl (see Modified Bone below). Of the indeterminate large bird/mammal remains

(n=11), one exhibits rodent gnawing, one has probably been digested, and another has cut marks (Table

21).


Taxon NISP MNI Anura (Toads, Frogs) 1 Bufo cf. woodhousei (?Woodhouse’s Toad) 4 1 Meleagris gallopavo (Turkey) 156 2 Grus sp. (Crane) 38 1 Passeriformes (Perching Birds) 1 1 Indeterminate medium bird (duck‐size) 1 1 Indeterminate large bird (turkey‐size) 2 Sylvilagus sp. (Cottontail) 17 2 Lepus californicus (Black‐tailed Jackrabbit) 12 2 Rodentia (Rodents) ‐ small 1 Spermophilus spilosoma (Spotted Ground Squirrel) 1 1 Cynomys sp. (Prairie Dog) 4 1 Thomomys bottae (Botta’s Pocket Gopher) 1 1 Dipodomys sp. (Kangaroo Rat) 3 1 Peromyscus sp. (White‐footed Mouse) 1 1 Neotoma sp. (Woodrat) 1 1 Canis familiaris./C. latrans (Dog/Coyote) 4 1 Odocoileus sp. (Deer) 1 1 Antilocapra americana (Pronghorn) 1 1 Indeterminate very small mammal (mouse‐size) 3 Indeterminate small mammal (rabbit‐size) 38 Indeterminate medium mammal (coyote‐size) 7 Indeterminate large mammal (pronghorn‐size) 4 Indeterminate large bird/small mammal 11 Indeterminate bird/mammal 21

Total 334 19 Sub‐floor

Lepus californicus (Black‐tailed Jackrabbit) 1 1 Total 1 1

Grand Total 335 20 NISP = number of identified specimens; MNI = minimum number of individuals


| 60


Taxon

NISP

Burned Gnawed

Butchering

Modified

SC CH CAL Total R D Total

Meleagris gallopavo (Turkey) 156 1 1 1 Sylvilagus sp. (Cottontail) 17 1 2 3 1 1 2 Lepus californicus (Black‐tailed Jackrabbit) 12 3 3 3 3 Cynomys sp. (Prairie Dog) 4 1 1 Indet. small mammal (rabbit‐size) 38 1 3 4 1 1 Indet. medium mammal (coyote‐size) 7 1 1 Indet. large mammal (pronghorn‐size) 4 1

Indet. large bird/small mammal 11 1 1 2 1 Total 249 1 7 3 11 7 3 10 2 1

NISP = number of identified specimens; SC = scorched, CH = charred (black), CAL = calcined, R = rodent, D = digested, Flot = flotation, heavy fraction

Most of the identified taxa are potentially cultural, except for toads/frogs (n=1), the probable

Woodhouse’s toad (n=4), and white‐footed mouse (n=1), which consists of a tibia (Table 20). Due to their

habitat preference and general unsuitability for consumption, these taxa are most likely non‐cultural.

Turkey (n= 156, MNI=2) remains primarily consist of a nearly complete skeleton (missing distal phalanges)

which may represent an intentional burial (Table 21 and Figure 12). The remains of this individual do not

exhibit cut marks or gnawing. Turkeys were raised primarily for their feathers and were also occasionally

consumed. The right coracoid of another, smaller turkey has cut marks indicative of disarticulation and

the right scapula of the probable same small individual exhibits rodent gnawing. Although Feature 22

represents a storage pit, the presence of an essentially intact turkey skeleton, lacking butchering marks,

suggests the turkey was placed in the feature as an intentional burial rather than as disposal of food

refuse. The absence of the distal phalanges is probably due to loss during excavation and sifting of the

matrix.


| 61

Figure 12 – Feature 22, illustration of turkey skeletal elements, LA 151618

Crane remains (n=38) consist of cranial, wing, leg, and pelvic elements of a single juvenile individual (Table

20 and Figure 13). Although crane were likely consumed, none of the elements exhibit evidence of

butchering. High and low meat value elements are present and may represent food consumption and

butchering refuse.


| 62

Figure 13 – Feature 22, illustration of crane skeletal elements, LA 151618

Perching birds are represented by a right humerus fragment, a wing element. Although perching birds are

small, have low meat value, and were probably not consumed, their presence in the assemblage may be

associated with the use of their feathers or other body parts for ceremonial and other purposes.

The cottontail specimens (n=17) represent two individuals. Elements include those of the skull, trunk, legs,

and foot (Tables 20, 21, and 22; Figure 14). With the exception of the lumbar vertebra and possibly the

scapula, all of the remains have low meat value. Two distal tibia fragments exhibit charring. Otherwise,

most of the cottontail elements associated with Feature 22 are probably associated with initial butchering

rather than food refuse. A metacarpal exhibits rodent gnawing and a right calcaneum appears to have

been digested.


| 63

Table 22 – Feature 22, leporid and artiodactyl skeletal elements, LA 151618

Element Cottontail Jackrabbit Deer Pronghorn Total Skull:

Mandible 2 3 5

Zygomatic 1 1

Teeth – Complete 5 5


Trunk: Lumbar Vertebra 1 1


Humerus 2 1 3

Hindleg: Tibia 2 2

Feet: Metacarpals 1 2

Calcaneum 1 1 1

Astragalus 1 1

Metatarsals 1 1 2


1st Phalanx 1 1

Total 17 12 1 1 31


| 64

Figure 14 – Feature 22, illustration of cottontail skeletal elements, LA 151618

Similar to cottontail, jackrabbit (n=12, MNI=2) specimens include skull, upper foreleg, and foot elements

(Tables 20, 21, and 22; Figure 15). The shoulder, which has a high meat value, may represent food refuse,

while the other cranial and foot elements have low meat value and may represent initial butchering

refuse. Three mandibular fragments exhibit charring, which is usually associated with food consumption.

Normally, mandibles are not considered high meat value elements, but the exterior part of mandibles has

a small quantity of meat suitable for consumption.


| 65


Unidentified rodents are represented by a single specimen. The spotted ground squirrel specimen is a

complete right femur. Prairie dog remains (n=4) consist of rib fragments, an innominate, and a femur. One

specimen exhibits rodent gnawing. The pocket gopher specimen is an upper incisor, and the kangaroo rat

remains (n=3) consist of a premaxilla, an upper incisor, and a humerus. Woodrat specimen (n=1) is a nearly

complete innominate (Tables 20, 21, and 23).


| 66


Element

Rodent ‐ Small

Ground Squirrel

Prairie Dog

Pocket Gopher

Woodrat

Kangaroo Rat


Total

Skull: Premaxilla 1 1


Trunk: Rib 2 2



Femur 1 1 2

Tibia 1 1

Feet: Metapodial 1 1

Total 1 1 4 1 1 3 1 12

Dog/coyote remains (n=4) consist of a proximal ulna, proximal femur, and two teeth of a puppy. The single

deer element is the distal end and shaft of a humerus, and the pronghorn specimen is a left calcaneum

fragment. None of these remains exhibits any evidence of butchering or burning (Tables 20, 21, and 22).

Given the paucity of the deer and pronghorn remains of these major meat taxa, further interpretations

regarding the Feature 22 vertebrate faunal assemblage is tenuous.

Feature 23, Midden/Pit Structure

Nearly a third of the LA 151618 archaeofaunal assemblage was recovered from Feature 23 (n=564, 32.8%)

(Table 24). Although a variety of taxa are present, much of the assemblage consists of the remains of

various indeterminate size mammals and birds (n=174, 30.9%), of which the majority are rabbit‐size

(n=147, 84.5%). Of the rabbit‐size remains, five are scorched, six are charred, and 39 are calcined. In

addition, one specimen exhibits rodent gnawing and one modified specimen is striated and polished (see

Modified Bone below). Mouse‐size elements (n=6) include one specimen that is charred. Pronghorn‐size

elements (n=18) include two charred and four calcined. Modified specimens (n=3) consist of a pendant, a

bone with striations and polish, another with striations and polish and also with a biconical hole drilled at


| 67

one broken end, (see Modified Bone below). Turkey‐size elements (n=2) consist of two specimens (Table

25).


Taxon NISP MNI Ambystoma tigrinum (Tiger Salamander) 1 1 Bufo sp. (Toad) 4 2 Serpentes (Snakes) 10 Colubridae (Colubrid Snakes) 7 Coluber constrictor (Racer) 58 1 Thamnophis sp. (Garter Snake) 6 1 Crotalus sp. (Rattlesnake) 3 1 Passeriformes (Perching Birds) 6 1 Indeterminate large bird (turkey‐size) 2 1 Leporidae (Rabbits, Hares) 7 Sylvilagus sp. (Cottontail) 73 5 Lepus californicus (Black‐tailed Jackrabbit) 177 5 Rodentia (Rodents) ‐ small 3 Sciuridae (Squirrels) ‐ small 1 cf. Spermophilus spilosoma (?Spotted Ground Squirrel) 3 1 Cynomys sp. (Prairie Dog) 10 1 cf. Cynomys sp. (?Prairie Dog) 1 Thomomys bottae (Botta’s Pocket Gopher) 11 2 Dipodomys spectabilis (Banner‐tailed Kangaroo Rat) 1 1 Dipodomys sp. (Kangaroo Rat) 2 Peromyscus maniculatus (Deer Mouse) 2 2 Peromyscus sp. (White‐footed Mouse) 1 Neotoma sp. (Woodrat) 1 1 Antilocapra americana (Pronghorn) 2 1 Indeterminate very small mammal (mouse‐size) 6 Indeterminate small mammal (rabbit‐size) 147 Indeterminate large mammal (pronghorn‐size) 18 Indeterminate bird/mammal 1

Total 564 27 NISP = number of identified specimens; MNI = minimum number of individuals


| 68


Taxon

NISP

Burned

Rodent Gnawed

Butchering

Modified

Flot

SC CH CAL Total

Ambystoma tigrinum (Tiger Salamander) 1 1

Bufo sp. (Toad) 4 1

Serpentes (Snakes) 10 10


Coluber constrictor (Racer) 58 2

Crotalus sp. (Rattlesnake) 3 3

Passeriformes (Perching Birds) 6 2 1 3 4

Leporidae (Rabbits, Hares) 7 2 2 1

Sylvilagus sp. (Cottontail) 73 1 8 7 16 3 8

Lepus californicus (Black‐tailed Jackrabbit) 177 5 16 27 48 7 1 19

Rodentia (Rodents) ‐ small 3 3

cf. Spermophilus spilosoma (?Spotted Ground Squirrel) 3

3

Cynomys sp. (Prairie Dog) 10 2 1 3 4

cf. Cynomys sp. (?Prairie Dog) 1 1 1 Thomomys bottae (Botta’s Pocket Gopher) 11 9


Peromyscus sp. (White‐footed Mouse) 1 1 1 1

Neotoma sp. (Woodrat) 1 1

Antilocapra americana (Pronghorn) 2 1 1 Indet. very small mammal (mouse‐size) 6 1 1 6

Indet. small mammal (rabbit‐size) 147 5 6 39 50 1 1 9

Indet. large mammal (pronghorn‐size) 18 2 4 6 3 Total 551 14 36 82 132 11 1 4 89

NISP = number of identified specimens; SC = scorched, CH = charred (black), CAL = calcined, R = rodent, Flot = flotation, heavy fraction

Most of the identified taxa are potentially cultural, with the exception of the amphibians, reptiles, and a

few mammals. Amphibians are represented by a tiger salamander (n=1) vertebra and toad remains

(n=4)—an ethmoid, atlas vertebra, ilium, and tibio‐fibula. Snake remains consist of seven colubrid snake

vertebrae, three rattlesnake vertebrae, 57 racer vertebrae, as well as a right mandible, and six garter

snake vertebrae. Non‐cultural mammals include deer mice (n=2, MNI=2), represented by femurs, the


| 69

white‐footed mouse (n=1), which is represented by a scorched humerus, and a probable spotted ground

squirrel (n=3) represented by an auditory bulba, calcaneum, and an upper molar (Tables 24, 25, and 26).


Element

Rodent ‐

Small

Squirrel ‐

small

Ground

S quirrel

Prairie Dog

Pocket

Gopher

Woodrat

Kan

garoo

Rat

White‐

footed

Mouse

Total

Skull: Mandible 1 2 3

Auditory Bulla 1 1

Teeth – Complete 1 5 1 7


Trunk: Axis Vertebra 1 1

Sacrum 1 1

Rib 1 1



Femur 2 2

Tibia 1 1 2

Feet: Metacarpal 1 1

Calcaneum 1 1 1 3

Astragalus 1 1 2

Metapodial 1 1

1st phalanx 1 1

Total 3 1 3 11 11 1 3 3 36

The following taxa are most likely associated with the occupation of the site; however, some taxa may

actually be attributed to natural causes. As mentioned several times previously, Passeriformes are

generally small birds but their presence may be associated with the use of their feathers and other body

parts for ceremonial and other functions. Passerine (n=6) elements consist of a right and left

carpometacarpus, a premaxilla, two ulnae, and a radius. The radius and an ulna are charred, suggesting

cooking or disposal as refuse in a thermal feature. Rabbits/hares specimens (n=7) consist of a scapula,

three metapodials, of which two are charred, and three phalanges. Cottontail remains (n=73, 12.9%)

consist of cranial, trunk, foreleg, hind leg, and foot elements (Figure 16). Of the burned cottontail remains,

1 is scorched, 8 are charred, 7 are calcined, and 3 exhibit evidence of rodent gnawing (Tables 24, 25, and

27). The upper leg elements (scapula, humerus, innominate, femur,) and ribs are high meat value

elements that probably represent food refuse while the latter probably represent initial butchering and

meat processing refuse.


| 70

Table 27 – Feature 23, leporid and pronghorn skeletal elements, LA 151618

Element Leporidae Cottontail Jackrabbit Pronghorn Total Skull:

Frontal 1 2 3

Premaxilla 2 1 3

Maxilla 3 4 7

Mandible 2 3 5

Jugal 1 1 2

Squamosal 1 1

Presphenoid 1 1





Rib 7 27 34

Foreleg: Scapula 1 5 6 12

Humerus 1 9 10

Radius 2 10 12

Ulna 1 4 5


Femur 4 11 15

Tibia 12 17 29

Fibula 1 1

Feet: Carpal 1 1

Metacarpals 4 6 10

Calcaneum 3 6 9

Astragalus 1 2 1 4

Navicular 2 2

Cuboid 1 1

Metatarsals 5 5 10


1st Phalanx 2 2 4

2nd Phalanx 1 1 2

3rd Phalanx 1 4 1 6

Total 7 73 177 2 259


| 71

Figure 16 – Feature 23, illustration of cottontail skeletal elements

The Feature 23 jackrabbit remains (n=177, 31.4%) overshadow the lower incidence of jackrabbit remains

from the other features and LA 151618 in general. All major portions of the skeleton, both low and high

meat value elements, are represented (Figure 17). Of the 48 burned jackrabbit specimens, 5 are scorched,

16 charred, and 27 calcined. In addition, 7 specimens exhibit rodent gnawing and one has cut marks

(Tables 24, 25, and 27). Jackrabbits are, by far, the most dominant game animal associated with the

Feature 23 a midden.


| 72


Remains of other potential small game include prairie dog (n=10), represented by a mandible, teeth, a rib,

and foot elements. Except for the rib, the elements have a low meat value. Two are scorched and 1 is

calcined, suggesting prairie dogs were eaten by the site’s inhabitants. In addition, probable prairie dog is

represented by a complete left metacarpal, also a low meat value element. Pocket gopher may represent

a natural occurrence. The recovered specimens (n=11, MNI=2) include a mandible with teeth, a vertebra,

and an astragalus. All are low meat value elements, with the possible exception of the vertebra. The

pocket gopher remains are not burned and do not exhibit evidence of butchering. The banner‐tailed

kangaroo rat specimen is a right innominate fragment, and the other kangaroo rat remains consist of a

tibia and a calcaneum, neither of which exhibits burning or butchering. The woodrat is represented by a

nearly complete calcaneum that lacks evidence of burning or butchering (Tables 24, 25, and 26).

Pronghorn is represented by an astragalus and a third phalanx, both low meat value elements. The

astragulus is calcined, indicating discard into a fire for an extended period of time (Tables 24, 25, and 27).


The faunal assemblage from Feature 24, a pit structure, is small (n=15) (Table 28). A vertebra of a very

small colubrid snake was recovered from flotation (Table 29) and is considered intrusive. A very worn

lower molar of a small squirrel was also recovered from flotation. The kangaroo rat specimen consists of


| 73

a femur. The only jackrabbit specimen is a fibula shaft fragment. Although jackrabbits, as well as squirrels

and kangaroo rats, were hunted for food and other uses by various groups (see above), the paucity and

nature of these remains precludes definite determination as to whether or not they are cultural. The

dog/coyote specimen is a lower deciduous premolar fragment from a very young puppy. The root is open

and not completely formed, and the tooth does not exhibit any wear. The pronghorn specimens consist

of a calcined distal tibia fragment and a distal metatarsal fragment that has been modified into a complete

awl (see Modified Bone below) (Table 29). Most of the assemblage (n=8, 53.3%) consists of indeterminate

rabbit‐size (n=3) and pronghorn‐size (n=5) remains. The overall incidence of burning (n=4, 26.7%) among

the assemblage is moderate, with three burned specimens occurring among the pronghorn‐size remains

(Table 29). None of the remains has butchering marks. Except for the kangaroo rat femur, which may not

be cultural, all of the specifically identified mammalian elements are low meat value bones suggestive of

butchering debris. The paucity of these remains (n=5), as well as that of the rabbit‐ and pronghorn‐size

remains (n=8), suggest carcass processing debris and consumption refuse were usually discarded in a

different portion of the site. In addition, meat processing and consumption probably did not occur in the

vicinity of feature.

Table 28 – Features 24, 29, 34, and 35 faunal assemblages, LA 151618

Taxon Feat. 24 Feat. 29 Feat. 34 Feat. 35

NISP MNI NISP MNI NISP MNI NISP MNI Serpentes (Snakes) 1 1 Colubridae (Colubrid Snakes) 1 1 Sylvilagus sp. (Cottontail) 1 1

Lepus californicus (Black‐tailed Jackrabbit) 1 1 Sciuridae (Squirrels) – small 1 1 Dipodomys sp. (Kangaroo Rat) 1 1 Canis familiaris./C. latrans (Dog/Coyote) 1 1 Antilocapra americana (Pronghorn) 2 1 Indeterminate small mammal (rabbit‐size) 3 1 Indeterminate medium mammal (coyote‐size) 1 1 Indeterminate large mammal (pronghorn‐size) 5 Indeterminate bird/mammal 7 1

Total 15 6 8 2 1 1 2 1 NISP = number of identified specimens; MNI = minimum number of individuals


| 74


Taxon NISP Burned

Modif Flot CH CAL Total


Lepus californicus (Black‐tailed Jackrabbit) 1 Sciuridae (Squirrels) – small 1 1

Dipodomys sp. (Kangaroo Rat) 1 Canis familiaris./C. latrans (Dog/Coyote) 1 Antilocapra americana (Pronghorn) 2 1 1 1 Indeterminate small mammal (rabbit‐size) 3 Indeterminate large mammal (pronghorn‐size) 5 2 1 3

Total 15 2 2 4 1 2 NISP = number of identified specimens; CH = charred (black), CAL = calcined, Modif = modified, Flot = flotation, heavy fraction


The faunal assemblage (n=8) from Feature 29 (Table 28), a pit structure, consists of an intrusive snake

vertebra from flotation and seven indeterminate bird and/or mammal long bone shaft fragments. Due to

the paucity and nature of the remains, no meaningful conclusions are possible.

Feature 34, Storage Pit

A single bone, a calcined coyote‐size vertebra fragment was recovered from the flotation sample from

Feature 34 (Table 28), a storage pit. As with Feature 29, due to the paucity and nature of the remains, no

meaningful conclusions are possible.

Feature 35, Storage Pit

The faunal assemblage from Feature 35, a storage pit, consists of 2 specimens (Table 28), a cottontail

tooth fragments and a rabbit‐size rib. Both were found in flotation. None were burned, gnawed, worked

or exhibited butchering marks; which preclude definite determination as to whether or not they are

cultural. No meaningful conclusions, however, are possible.

Non‐feature Vertebrate Faunal Assemblage

Non‐feature contexts represent 3.9 percent (n=67) of the LA 151618 archaeofaunal assemblage (Table

30). Few identified taxa are represented. Nearly three‐fourths of the non‐feature assemblage consists of


rabbit‐size (n=27, 40.3%). Of the rabbit‐size remains, 1 is charred and 4 are calcined. Three specimens

have been rodent gnawed. Coyote‐size elements (n=3) include a scorched specimen. Of the pronghorn‐

size elements (n=12), 1 is scorched, 3 are charred, and 1 is calcined and 2 exhibit rodent gnawing (Tables

30, 31, and 32).


| 75

Table 30 – Non‐feature vertebrate faunal assemblage, LA 151618

Taxon NISP MNI Grus sp. (Crane) 2 1 Indeterminate large bird (turkey‐size) 4 Lepus californicus (Black‐tailed Jackrabbit) 9 1 Cynomys sp. (Prairie Dog) 1 1 Peromyscus sp. (White‐footed Mouse) 1 1 Artiodactyla (Even‐toed Ungulates) 1 Antilocapra americana (Pronghorn) 1 1 Odocoileus/A. americana (Deer/Pronghorn) 2 Indeterminate small mammal (rabbit‐size) 27 Indeterminate medium mammal (coyote‐size) 3 1 Indeterminate large mammal (pronghorn‐size) 12 Indeterminate medium bird/small mammal 1 Indeterminate large bird/small mammal 2 Indeterminate bird/mammal 1 Total 67 6 NISP = number of identified specimens; MNI = minimum number of individuals

Table 31 – Non‐feature faunal assemblage condition, LA 151618

Taxon

NISP

Burned

Rodent Gnawed

Modified

SC CH CAL Total

Grus sp. (Crane) 2 1 1

Indet. large bird (turkey‐size) 4 1 Lepus californicus (Black‐tailed Jackrabbit) 9 1 1 1 Cynomys sp. (Prairie Dog) 1 1 Indet. small mammal (rabbit‐size) 27 1 4 5 3 Indet. medium mammal (coyote‐size) 3 1 1 1 Indet. large mammal (pronghorn‐size) 12 1 3 1 5 2

Total 58 2 4 6 12 10 1 NISP = number of identified specimens; SC = scorched, CH = charred (black), CAL = calcined


| 76

Table 32 – Non‐feature jackrabbit and artiodactyl skeletal elements, LA 151618

Element Jackrabbit Artiodactyla Pronghorn Deer/ Pronghorn

Total

Skull: Mandible 1 1




Sacral Vertebra 1 1

Foreleg: Humerus 1 1 2

Ulna 1 1


Tibia 1 1

Feet: Metapodial Fragment 1 1

Total 9 1 1 2 13

Most of the identified taxa are potentially cultural, with the exception of the white‐footed mouse)

(NISP=1) which is represented by a nearly complete innominate (Tables 30, 31, and 32). The following taxa

are most likely associated with the occupation of the site; however, some taxa may actually be attributed

to natural causes. Crane is represented by two specimens (MNI=1), a right tibiotarsus and a left

tarsometatarsus. Both considered low meat value elements. Jackrabbit remains (n=9, 13.4%) consist of

cranial and mandible fragments, lumbar and sacral vertebrae, a humerus, an ulna, and 2 innominates.

Except for the ulna, the post‐cranial skeletal elements are higher meat value elements. The prevalence of

jackrabbit overshadows the lower percentages of jackrabbit recovered from the LA 151618 features.

Other potential small game include prairie dog, which is represented by a nearly complete metatarsal. A

low meat value element. The metatarsal is not burned, but it does exhibit evidence of rodent gnawing.

Artiodactyls are represented by a single fragment and pronghorn is represented by a tibia, a low meat

value element, which does not exhibit any burning or cut marks. Deer/pronghorn is represented by a

humerus and a metapodial fragment. The former is a high meat value element, and the latter is a low

meat value element. These specimens are not burned and do not exhibit evidence of butchering (Tables

30, 31, and 32).

The Flotation Assemblage

The flotation heavy fraction was coded separately from the excavated assemblage (see above) because

the recovery methods are different. Initially, the identifiable elements were culled from the bags

containing the remains recovered from flotation (Table 33). The identifiable elements are included in with

the main assemblage described above. The identified taxa (n=141) are from 15 features with most (n=103,

73%) are from Features 14 (pithouse) and 23 (midden/pit structure). The most identified taxa are snakes


| 77

(n=28), cottontail (n=18), jackrabbit (n=28), prairie dog (n=13), pocket gopher (n=10), and white‐footed

mouse (n=15).


| 78

Table 33 – Identified faunal remains recovered from flotation, LA 151618

Taxon Feature Total 1 2 9 14 15 17 19 19A 20 21 22 23 24 29 35

Ambystoma tigrinum (Tiger Salamander) 1 1 Bufo sp. (Toad) 1 1 2 Lacertilia (Lizards) 1 1 Serpentes (Snakes) 2 1 10 1 14 Colubridae (Colubrid Snakes) 3 1 1 2 1 8 Coluber constrictor (Racer) 2 2 Crotalus sp. (Rattlesnake) 1 3 4 Passeriformes (Perching Birds) 2 4 6 Leporidae (Rabbits, Hares) 1 1 2 Sylvilagus sp. (Cottontail) 1 1 5 2 8 1 18 Lepus californicus (Black-tailed Jackrabbit) 2 1 3 1 1 1 19 28 Rodentia (Rodents) - small 1 1 2 4 Sciuridae (Squirrels) - small 1 1 2 cf. Spermophilus spilosoma (?Spotted Ground Squirrel) 3 3 Cynomys sp. (Prairie Dog) 6 3 4 13 Thomomys bottae (Botta’s Pocket Gopher) 1 9 10 Perognathus sp. (Pocket Mouse) 3 3 Dipodomys sp. (Kangaroo Rat) 1 1 2 4 Peromyscus sp. (White-footed Mouse) 4 5 3 2 1 15 Neotoma sp. (Woodrat) 1 1

Totals 11 1 1 29 1 1 4 2 5 6 2 74 2 1 1 141


| 79

The unidentifiable faunal remains recovered from flotation were initially sorted and tabulated according

to their condition, i.e., unburned, charred, and calcined. Each category was tabulated and weighed to the

nearest 0.01 gram (Table 34).

Table 34 – LA 151618 unidentifiable faunal remains recovered from flotation

Feature Unburned Unburned g

Charred Charred g

Calcined Calcined g

Totals Totals g

1 44 0.81 6 0.13 11 0.52 61 1.46 2 2 0.03 2 0.05 4 0.08

4 1 0.02 1 0.02

5 1 0.33 1 0.33

9 2 0.05 2 0.02 4 0.07

13 1 0.02 2 0.01 3 0.03

14 76 1.32 8 0.29 18 0.48 102 2.09 17 8 0.55 5 0.49 13 0.60 26 1.64 19 8 0.12 1 0.01 4 0.03 13 0.16 19A 1 0.01 4 0.01 5 0.02

20 28 0.29 3 0.01 1 0.14 32 0.44 21 75 0.93 8 0.35 13 0.29 96 1.57 22 19 0.49 2 0.20 18 0.61 39 1.30 23 98 2.86 86 3.76 237 5.76 421 12.38 24 6 0.04 4 0.09 10 0.13

27 1 0.01 1 0.01

29 2 0.02 1 0.33 3 0.35

32 1 0.03 1 0.03

34 1 0.03 1 0.03

35 18 0.45 1 0.01 19 0.46

Totals 390 8.36 122 5.31 331 8.93 843 22.60

All of the unidentified specimens are of small birds and mammals (n=843) of which 681 (81%) were

recovered from features—Features 1 (pit structure), 14 (pithouse), 21 (amorphous stain), and 23

(midden/pit structure). These four features comprise 293 unburned (35%), 108 charred/black (13%), and

279 calcined (33%) of the entire flotation assemblage. The high incidence of small unidentified unburned

and burned small animal bones in these contexts strongly indicate these features were used for refuse

disposal upon the abandonment of the pit structure (Feature 1) and pithouse (Feature 14) while the

amorphous stain (Feature 21) and midden (Feature 23) likely represent primary refuse disposal loci.

Given the quantity and weight of the different condition categories, the unburned specimens have a mean

average weight of 0.0214 g each, the charred/black specimens have a mean average weight of 0.0435 g

each, and the calcined specimens have a mean average weight of 0.1120 g each. It is an interesting trend

that the larger specimens are associated with the greater degree of burning. It may be argued that burning

has a stabilization effect on the bone that reduces its tendency to be effected by natural weathering

processes and less susceptible to rodent gnawing.


| 80

Burning

A factor supporting the cultural nature of the faunal assemblage is the presence and degree of burning.

Although natural fires can carbonize bones, they rarely calcine bones (David 1990:75). As stated by Lyman

(1994:388–389), calcination requires “longer heating times, higher temperatures, or both, relative to

carbonization.” Calcination requires “temperatures of over 450°C to 500°C, or heating for over three to

four hours, or a combination of both” (David 1990:69). Natural conditions rarely calcine bones but can

blacken them (David 1990:75).

Researchers have ascertained several different bone burning stages including carbonized (black) and

calcined (white) bone. Johnson (1989:141) recognizes unburned, scorched (superficial burning), charred

(blackened), and calcined (blue‐white). Buikstra and Swegle (1989:250) recognize three stages of bone

burning that included unburned, smoked (carbonized, black), and calcined. David (1990:68, 71) recognizes

calcined bone as being gray, white, blue, bluish‐green. Caution “must be taken in categorizing bone into

different stages of burning. Bones may change color diagenetically and thus a specimen color may have

nothing to do with whether or not the bone was heated” (Lyman 1994:385; Shipman et al. 1984:314).

Because burned bone is more brittle than unburned bone, it tends to be more fragmented (e.g., Johnson

1989). The burned bone (n=232, 13.5% of N=1722) from LA 151618 is very fragmented (Table 35). Three

stages of burning were recorded—brown/gray, charred/black, and calcined. Burned bone in the LA

151618 assemblage consists of 23 brown/gray (10% of the burned bone), 63 black (27% of the burned

bone), and 110 calcined (47% of the burned bone) specimens. The calcined bones represent intentional

discard into fire. The charred/black bone may be associated with food preparation. Most of the burned

bone was recovered from three features, Features 14 (pithouse), 22 (pit structure), and 23 (midden) which

suggests these features were used for refuse disposal.

Table 35 – LA 151618 burned bone summaries by feature

Feature Charred/Black Brown/Gray Calcined Totals

1 2 1 2 5 2 1 1

14 7 2 7 16 17 1 1

19 3 2 3 8 19B 1 1

21 2 2 4

22 7 1 3 11 23 36 14 82 132 24 2 2 4

34 1 1

Excavated 4 2 6 12 Totals 63 23 110 232


| 81

Gnawing

The presence of gnawing is discernible on 98 specimens, or 6 percent of the excavated (n=1,722, non‐flot)

assemblage (Table 36). Gnawing consists of three types: 1) rodent; 2) carnivore; and 3) digested. Rodent

gnawing (n=92, 94% of gnawed assemblage) is characterized by small, parallel, grooved bone removal

usually near the edges of fractured specimens or on their articular ends. Carnivore gnawing (n=3, 3% of

gnawed assemblage) is characterized by paired, widely spaced, puncture marks resulting from the canines

with possible smaller incisor impressions between the more prominent canine punctures. Digested bone

(n=3, 3% of gnawed assemblage) is based on pitted and severely eroded surfaces, that appear to be the

result of stomach acids, that do not conform to usual natural weathering characteristics. Figure 18 (FS

1105, F. 19) illustrates an example of extreme gnawing. Gnawing can mask or destroy evidence of

butchering and modification of the bone for use as implements and ornaments. Nearly all of the bone

specimens (n=64 of n=98, or 65%) that exhibit evidence of gnawing were recovered from 2 features—

Features 14 (pithouse) and 19 (pithouse). It is suggestive that these 2 pithouses may have been used for

refuse disposal after their abandonment which attracted burrowing rodents.

Table 36 – LA 151618 gnawing conditions

Feature Rodent Carnivore Digested Totals

1 1 1

14 22 22

19 39 3 42

20 1 1

21 1 1

22 7 3 10

23 11 11

Excavated 10 10

Totals 92 3 3 98


| 82

Figure 18 – Gnawed Ball from Feature 19

Erosion

The presence of erosion is prevalent in the excavated assemblage (n=1722, non‐flotation), with 995

specimens, or 58 percent of the assemblage, exhibiting evidence of erosion due to exposure to the

weather, sun bleaching, and acidic soils. Erosion generally masks or destroys evidence of butchering and

modification of the bone for use as implements and ornaments.

Butchering

The presence of butchering is based on the presence of “V‐shaped” incisions or marks, usually near the

articular ends for dismembering and cutting muscles and tendons. Butchering was noted on 9 specimens

(Table 37). All of the identifiable taxa are food species, consisting of pronghorn (Antilocapra americana),

deer (Odocoiles sp.), jackrabbit (Lepus californicus), turkey (Meleagris gallopavo), Canada goose (Branta

canadensis), and crane (Grus sp.). All of the butchered specimens were recovered from four features—

Features 14 (pithouse), 19 (pithouse), 22 (pit structure), and 23 (midden)—which strongly suggests, in

conjunction with the burned bone (see above). These features were used for refuse disposal.


| 83

Table 37 – LA 151618 identified butchered bone summaries

FS # Feat Taxon Side Element Frag Butcher

Wt

(g) Count Comments

607 14

Antilocapra

americana right innominate frag cut marks 1 dismember

607 14

cf.

Meleagris

gallopavo right metatarsus

proximal

shaft cut marks 1

1153 19

Odocoileus

sp. antler

proximal

shaft cut mark 1

1494 19

Branta

canadensis right metacarpus compl cut marks 1 on floor

1495 19 Grus sp. right humerus mid shaft cut marks 6.85 1 on floor

685 19

Indet. small

mammal

Indet. flat

bone frag cut marks 0.14 1

957 22

Indet. large

bird/small

mammal

Indet. long

bone shaft cut mark 0.17 1

957 22

Meleagris

gallopavo right coracoid

proximal

end and

shaft cut marks 1

small

individual

1746 23

Lepus

californicus right radius

distal

shaft cut marks 1 flot

Egg Shells

A total of 917 (6.68 g) unburned and 22 (0.19 g) burned egg shell fragments (N=939, 6.87 g) were

recovered (Table 38). The egg shell fragments greater than 1 cm in maximum dimension had their

thicknesses measured with a Cen‐Tech electronic digital caliper to the nearest 0.01 mm. On the basis of

texture, thickness (0.29‐0.43 mm), coloring where present, size, and contour (McKusick 1981:51), all these

specimens are tentatively identified as turkey (Meleagris gallopavo).

The eggs of the wild turkey vary, much in coloring and somewhat in form, but in general

are so like those of the tame turkey that no one can select one from the other. The ground

color is white, over which are scattered reddish‐brown specks. These differ in shades of

color but much more in numbers. I have seen some on which scarcely any specks could


| 84

be detected, while others were profusely covered with specks,—all laid by the same hen

in the same nest [Schorger 1966:270].

Table 38 – LA 151618 egg shell summaries by provenience

Feature Unburned Burned

Mean

average

Thickness

(mm)

Unburned

weight

(g)

burned

weight

(g)

Total

Count

Total

weight (g)

1 312 2 0.35 2.82 0.01 314 2.83

14 121 3 0.39 0.33 0.01 124 0.34

17 13 0.35 0.05 13 0.05

19 20 0.41 0.07 20 0.07

19A 2 0.23 0.01 2 0.01

20 5 2 0.37 0.04 0.02 7 0.06

21 7 0.33 0.13 7 0.13

22 204 0.35 0.92 204 0.92

23 187 8 0.38 1.47 0.06 195 1.53

24 28 7 0.33 0.14 0.09 35 0.23

27 1 0.36 0.01 1 0.01

35 1 0.35 0.02 1 0.02

EU5‐M 2 0.41 0.12 2 0.12

EU5‐S 4 0.31 0.32 4 0.32

EU5‐O 1 0.40 0.02 1 0.02

EU5‐M 7 0.35 0.15 7 0.15

EU5‐P 2 0.42 0.06 2 0.06

Totals 917 22 0.37 6.68 0.19 939 6.87


| 85

Rio Grande Turkey (M. g. intermedia) eggs “have a cream ground‐color. On the set of twelve, the markings

are numerous and consist of light‐grown specks covering the whole surface, to which are added larger

spots of darker brown at intervals” (Schorger 1966:270). Merriam’s Turkey (M. g. merriami) eggs are,

“ovate in shape; their ground color is creamy white, and they are profusely dotted with fine spots of

reddish brown, pretty evenly distributed over the entire egg” (Schorger 1966:271).

Based on a sample of 196 eggs with a specific gravity of 1.075, shell thickness averaged 0.35 mm (Schorger

1966:274). Eggs with a specific gravity of 1.070 have a range in shell thickness range of 0.28–0.30 mm;

with a specific gravity of 1.080 have a range in shell thickness of 0.33–0.36 mm; and with a specific gravity

of 1.090 have a range in shell thickness of 0.38–0.41 mm (Schorger 1966:275).

The 939 egg shell assemblage consists of 917 unburned and 22 burned shell fragments (Table 38) and they

range from 0.23 to 0.44 mm thick with a mean average of 0.37 mm. Given the presence of a probable

turkey burial, consisting of nearly a complete individual, in addition to several scattered elements, turkey

was undoubtedly present at LA 151618 and the egg shell thickness is within the range of turkey.

The other large, avian identified taxa include sandhill crane (Grus canadensis) and Canada goose (Branta

canadensis). The most common identified large, avian fauna is the sandhill crane. The color of their eggs

vary from pale brownish buff to light olive and are irregularly marked with areas of darker brown, reddish

brown, or pale gray. White, un‐pigmented eggs have also been reported. They have a semi‐glossy, flat and

smooth, and irregularly grainy surface. Their thickness varies from 0.40 mm for Grus Canadensis pratensis

to 0.550 mm for G. c. Canadensis (Tacha et al. 2014). Based on a sample of 289 eggs laid by free‐living

Canada geese, the mean egg shell thickness on the blunt pole was 0.52±0.08 and 0.53±0.07 mm on the

long axis (Bönner et al. 2004). Eggs may have been procured from either wild or captive birds and may

have been eaten or used as a binder for paint. The raising of domestic turkeys requires active human

participation (Schorger 1966). Given the egg shell thickness for the sandhill crane and Canada goose, along

with the presence of a turkey burial, for the present analysis the author believes the egg shells from LA

151618 represents turkey. The presence of turkey egg shells indicate the raising of turkeys, consumption

of bird eggs, or the use of albumen as a binder for paint.

Rabbit Hunting

Beckett (1974) provides a detailed description of an annual Tiwa ceremony and rabbit hunt held by the

Tortugas Indians in southern Doña Ana County. The hunt is held so that the old ways are preserved, and

it also serves as a social get‐together. The hunts used to be held several times a year. The ceremony and

rabbit hunt usually takes place during a weekend in January. The ceremony “Tying of the Rabbits”

(Amarrada los Conejos) is performed on Saturday night by the war captains (capitanes de Guerra) along

with the humero (an important ceremonial position, responsible for lighting and maintaining the

ceremonial fire and smoke before the hunt), and in the past, the cacique (Beckett 1974:40–41).

According to the custom, the humero’s assistant is supposed to be the captain whose rank is equal to that

of the actual hunt of the year (e.g., second rabbit hunt equals 2nd captain). There used to be five hunts per

year, each with its own captain and assistant to the humero. However, in actual practice one of the

captains volunteers to be the assistant. The ceremony begins about 7 PM on Saturday in a small room in


| 86

the northwest corner of La Casa de Pueblo. Details regarding the ceremony are not discussed herein

(Beckett 1974:43).

The rabbit hunt takes place on Sunday, the morning after the ceremony. Just before sunrise, the humero

and his assistant arrive at a little sand dune near Old Fort Fillmore south of Las Cruces. The two men build

two fires that are oriented in a north‐south direction from each other and are separated by about 20 ft.

The northern fire is ceremonial in nature and is kept smoking throughout the early morning as a signal to

the Tiwa participants of the rabbit hunt. The smoke marks the gathering place and start of the hunt

(Beckett 1974:43).

The southern fire is ceremonial in that it serves as a fire from which to light the northern fire and is

functional for use in providing warmth and heating coffee. Each fire is about 12 to 18 inches in diameter.

A ceremony takes place between the two fires. The war captains are ceremonially switched once on each

arm by the humero. The first captain is switched first, the second captain second, etc. Red ochre is applied

to the participants’ faces. In order to be painted and eligible for getting a rabbit, female participants must

present the humero with a hand‐rolled cigarette made from cornshusks and pipe tobacco. Males and

females are painted by the 2nd captain. Three dots of red ochre are placed on the girls’ and women’s

faces, one on each cheek and one on the chin. The men have two lines of red ochre placed on the bridge

of their nose running diagonally across each cheek (Beckett 1974:45).

Participants then take a small clump of saltbush and make a ceremonial cross over the smoke from the

ceremonial fire. Males face south when doing this and females face north. After making the cross, they

place the saltbush into the ceremonial fire. The humero pushes down the saltbush into the fire with his

rabbit stick. Upon arriving at the gathering place it is customary to make a rabbit stick from a nearby living

mesquite or other bush with the aid of a steel axe or hatchet. The rabbit stick has a distinctive shape

similar to a very short hockey stick (Beckett 1974:45).

The distal end of the rabbit stick is usually left roughly cut since the rough cut serves as an indicator if a

rabbit is in a hole or “Cueva.” The stick is placed in the hole and twisted around. If a rabbit is in the hole,

a quantity of fur will be indicated on the rough distal end of the rabbit stick. When the hunt begins, the

first captain orders the participants to the hunt location. During this time, the humero is carefully covering

up the ceremonial fire by use of his rabbit stick as a scraper to move nearby dirt. One scraping movement

is made from each of the cardinal directions. This leaves the fire completely covered by a small mound of

dirt that is tamped by the humero with the rabbit stick (Beckett 1974:45).

The participants usually start moving in a westerly direction for about a quarter of a mile toward the Rio

Grande Valley. The direction is then changed to the south, creating a random movement of individuals

who cause the rabbits to begin running. Once a rabbit is spotted, everyone attempts to cutoff its escape

routes. This is the cause of much yelling and noise making to attempt to confuse the rabbit (Beckett

1974:45).

Rabbit capture usually comes about in one of three ways: (1) the rabbit is clubbed by a

rabbit stick which can either be swung or thrown; (2) the rabbit is grabbed by the hand;

(3) the rabbit runs into a rabbit hole or “cueva” which is then dug out by means of a shovel


| 87

and finished by reaching into the hole by hand and withdrawing the rabbit. The killing

takes place by striking it with the hand or the rabbit stick. The older and more experienced

members prefer the hand as many times the rabbit stick will decapitate the rabbit

[Beckett 1974:46].

After killing a rabbit the hunter yells “howe,” signaling that a rabbit has been taken. The first female

participant to reach the hunter and his rabbit is awarded the kill. After the hunt is over, the female must

present the hunter with two sweetbreads (empanadas) or four sopaipillas for the rabbit. At noontime, an

eating place is selected by the captains for the noon meal. The noon meal follows specific procedures that

are not discussed herein. After the noon meal, the rabbit hunt continues for a short time, ending at about

3:30 or 4:00 PM. About 50 to 75 persons participate in the hunt, and about 75 to 100 rabbits are obtained

(Beckett 1974:46).

Garden Hunting

The archaeofaunal remains from LA 151618 has the look of a garden hunting assemblage. The assemblage

is dominated by small mammals, particularly leporids, and may reflect the exploitation of animals

attracted to cultivated fields. The recovery of maize was high from the site. The presence of structures

and numerous processing and storage features confirms the horticultural association of the site. The

occurrence of a garden hunting assemblage highlights the importance of small‐game hunting during the

transition from strictly hunter‐gatherer lifeways to reliance on agriculture.

The desert cottontail (S. auduboni) inhabits grasslands, brushy areas, and deserts. The eastern cottontail

(S. floridanus) prefers open forests, forest edges, and open brushy areas. In the desert, the cottontail

subsists mainly on shrubs and cacti such as mesquite and prickly pear; however, grasses and herbs are

also eaten. Cottontails have a restricted home range of 1 to 5 acres and are normally active early in the

morning and at night (Cockrum 1982:129, 133; Findley et al. 1975:87, 89; Hall and Kelson 1959:267;

Schwartz and Schwartz 1981:103). The hunting strategy for cottontails usually includes the use of rabbit

sticks either by individual hunters or in community hunts (see Beckett 1974).

The black‐tailed jackrabbit (Lepus californicus) usually occurs at elevations below 1800 m (6000 ft) in the

Lower and Upper Sonoran zones (Bailey 1913:18, 33, 1931:48). It inhabits deserts and open short‐grass

prairies with scattered shrubs. In addition, this jackrabbit is very adaptable to agricultural conditions.

Areas of heavy brush or woods are avoided (Cockrum 1982:134–135; Dunn et al. 1982:133; Findley

1987:54–55; Findley et al. 1975:93–94; Hoffmeister 1986:140–141; Zeveloff 1988:98). “They are found in

mesquite, sagebrush, desert scrub, into open piñon‐juniper” (Hoffmeister 1986:141). The black‐tailed

jackrabbit is most common, however, in open, treeless habitats (Findley 1987:55). The jackrabbit usually

feeds at night on grasses, mesquite, and herbs. Cultivated crops are also consumed. The size of the

jackrabbit home range is dependent upon the availability of food, cover, and water. The black‐tailed

jackrabbit has a home range that varies from 4 to 75 ha. Daylight hours are usually spent in its form, an

unlined hollow scratched into the ground. Jackrabbits are more easily hunted with community drives using

nets and traps.


| 88

In general, as the commitment to agriculture and sedentism increased in the Southwest, the procurement

of small mammals, especially leporids, assumed more importance in subsistence strategies (Szuter and

Gillespie 1994). If this is the case, the archaeofaunal assemblages herein should reflect an increase in the

proportion of small mammals relative to large mammals during the prehistoric time span represented by

the assemblage. Because the assemblage is associated with intensive agricultural development and

reliance on crops, it should contain a much higher proportion of small mammals. The presence of

artiodactyls is very small (see Table 1 or Table 39).


| 89

Table 39 – LA 151618 identified taxa and their preferred habitats

Taxon NISP MNI Aquatic Riparian Grass‐land Piñon/ Juniper

Scrub Oak

Coniferous Forest

Aspen Parkland Agriculture/ Cultural

Ambystoma tigrinum (Tiger Salamander) 22 2 X X X X

Anura (Toads, Frogs) 1 X X X

Bufo cf. woodhousei (?Woodhouse’s Toad) 4 1 X X X

Bufo sp. (Toad) 55 5 X X X

Lacertilia (Lizards) 2 1 X X X X

Serpentes (Snakes) 14 X X X X X X X

Colubridae (Colubrid Snakes) 13 2 X X X X

Coluber constrictor (Racer) 58 1 X X X X

Thamnophis sp. (Garter Snake) 6 1 X X X X

Crotalus sp. (Rattlesnake) 4 1 X X X X X

Branta Canadensis (Canada Goose) 1 1 X X X

Meleagris gallopavo (Turkey) 161 2 X X X X X X

cf. Meleagris gallopavo (?Turkey) 1 X X X X X X

Callipepla sp. (Quail) 2 1 X X X

Grus sp. (Crane) 54 3 X X X X

Passeriformes (Perching Birds) 14 2 X X X X X X X X

Sylvilagus sp. (Cottontail) 150 6 X X X X X

Lepus californicus (Black‐tailed Jackrabbit) 275 8 X X X X X X X

Spermophilus spilosoma (Spotted Ground Squirrel) 6 1 X X

cf. Spermophilus spilosoma (?Spotted Ground Squirrel)

6 X X

Cynomys sp. (Prairie Dog) 40 3 X X X

cf. Cynomys sp. (Prairie Dog) 2 X X X

Thomomys bottae (Botta’s Pocket Gopher) 26 4 X X X X X X X


Dipodomys spectabilis (Banner‐tailed Kangaroo Rat) 1 1 X X

Dipodomys sp. (Kangaroo Rat) 68 6 X X

Peromyscus maniculatus (Deer Mouse) 2 1 X X X X

Peromyscus sp. (White‐footed Mouse) 124 8 X X X X

cf. Peromyscus sp. (?White‐footed Mouse) 2 X X X X

Neotoma sp. (Woodrat) 4 1 X X X X X X

cf. Neotoma sp. (Woodrat) 1 X X X X X X

Canis familiaris./C. latrans (Dog/Coyote) 5 1 X X X X

Odocoileus sp. (Deer) 5 1 X X X X X X

Antilocapra americana (Pronghorn) 22 2 X X X X

cf. Antilocapra americana (?Pronghorn) 1 X X X X

Odocoileus/A. americana (Deer/ Pronghorn) 15 X X X X X X

4 21 29 29 20 15 5 9 20


| 90

Two indices are used for inter‐site comparisons in this analysis. First, the small mammal index is calculated

for LA 151618. This index is a derivative of the leporid index (Bayham 1982). The small mammal index is a

standardized ratio for examining the proportion of small mammals, in this case leporids, in the

archaeofaunal assemblages. It is calculated by dividing the total number of leporid remains (i.e.,

Leporidae, Lepus californicus, Sylvilagus sp.) by the combined total of both leporids and artiodactyls

remains. Values greater than 0.5 indicate more leporids are represented (in a standardized ratio), while

values less than 0.5 indicate more artiodactyls (in a standardized ratio) are represented. The small

mammal index for LA 151618 is 0.91, which is an extremely high small mammal index. The garden hunting

hypothesis (Szuter 1988, 1989, 1991) may explain the high small mammal index value for the site. As

summarized by Quirt‐Booth and Cruz‐Uribe (1997:957), “horticulture disturbs primary vegetation,

creating ‘edge zones’ (new habitats) which support a higher local density of game, particularly small

species. Thus, horticulturalists will focus their hunting efforts on small mammals (i.e., leporids) easily

taken in agricultural fields.” The low incidence of large mammal remains is suggestive of longer distance

hunting, with the deer‐size animals introduced into the site in a field‐butchered form. The presence of

many leporid small bone fragments suggests the remains of large mammals were never common at the

site.

The leporid index (Bayham 1982) is a standardized ratio for examining the proportion of cottontails in an

archaeofaunal assemblage. It is calculated by dividing the total number of cottontail remains by the

combined total of both cottontail and jackrabbit remains. Values greater than 0.5 indicate more

cottontails. Those less than 0.5 indicate more jackrabbits. The lagomorph index for LA 151618 is 0.34,

which is indicative of a focal hunting strategy with emphasis on the procurement of leporids, specifically

jackrabbits.

Intra site comparison using the small mammal and leporid indices is done using four of the largest feature

assemblages that include Feature 14 Strat II (pithouse), Feature 14 non‐Strat II (pithouse), Feature 19

(pithouse), Feature 22 (pit structure), and Feature 23 (midden). Table 40 summarizes these four features

and the complete (n=1,722) assemblage. Not surprising, all of the features have high small mammal

indices indicating an emphasis upon small game animals, specifically lagomorphs. However, Feature 14

Strat II has the lowest small mammal index (0.71), indicating an emphasis upon artiodactyls, or larger

game.


| 91

Table 40 – LA 151618 small mammal and leporid indices summaries

Site/Feature Description Radiocarbon

Dates Lepus Leporidae Sylvilagus Artiodactyls

Odocoileus

Antilocapra

Small

Mammal

Index

Leporid

Index

LA 115168 Entire Site A.D. 1015–1260 275 11 150 43 0.91 0.34

F14 Strat II Pithouse A.D. 1020–1190 7 0 13 8 0.71 0.65

F14 non‐strat II Pithouse A.D. 1020–1190 12 0 9 2 0.91 0.43

F14 All Pithouse A.D. 1020–1190 19 0 22 10 0.80 0.54

F19 Pithouse A.D. 1025–1165 45 2 34 18 0.82 0.42

F22 Pit structure A.D. 1025–1190 12 0 17 2 0.94 0.59

F23 Midden/pit

structure 177 7 73 2 0.99 0.28

There are differences in the leporid indices (Table 40). Overall LA 151618 has an emphasis upon jackrabbit,

which prefers grassland, conifer forest, and aspen habitats which cottontail does not. In addition,

cottontail is attracted to agricultural fields. In contrast to the overall site leporid index, Feature 14 Strat II

has an index of 0.65 which is indicative of the prevalence of cottontail rather than jackrabbit in conjunction

with the greater emphasis upon larger game (see small mammal index above). Its Leporid index is the

highest among all of the features with larger faunal assemblages. Feature 14 (entire feature) has an index

of 0.54 that is indicative of nearly an equal proportion of jackrabbit and cottontail while the non‐Strat II

assemblage has an index of 0.43 indicative of a slight prevalence of jackrabbit, which is in contrast to the

Strat II assemblage index is 0.65, which is dominated by cottontail.

The Feature 22 pit structure has a leporid index of 0.59 which reflects a greater frequency of cottontail

(Table 40). Feature 19 has an index of 0.43 which is identical to the index of Feature 14 non‐Strat II, which

indicates greater emphasis upon jackrabbits. Feature 23, a midden, stands out in contrast from the other

individual features and reflects the overall site composition with an index of 0.28, representing the

greatest emphasis upon jackrabbit of any feature at the site. In addition, because of the large number of

lagomorph vertebrate specimens recovered from Feature 23, its prevalence of jackrabbit masks the nearly

equal frequencies of jackrabbits and cottontails in the other feature contexts. Thus, the overall LA 151618

site leporid index of 0.34 is nearly entirely a reflection of the high jackrabbit occurrence in Feature 23,

which dominates the other features.

Examination of the radiocarbon dates (Table 40) does not lend any insight into a possible temporal

explanation for Feature 23 (no associated radiocarbon date) being dominated by jackrabbit, possibly as a

reflection of seasonality or other environmental characteristics (e.g., change in the primary vegetation

cover, undercover). With the location of LA 151618 being approximately two miles west of the Rio Grande

Valley, it may reflect a temporal change, with climatic conditions becoming more xeric and producing


| 92

more grassland habitat and less undergrowth and tree foliage, the preferred habitat of cottontails. Rather

than reflecting a change in climate or habitat, the site’s inhabitants may have shifted an emphasis upon

procuring cottontails to jackrabbits as a result of cultural preferences. Alternatively, with jackrabbits being

the larger of the lagomorphs and Feature 23 representing a midden, small game such as cottontail may

have been prepared for consumption by pulverizing most of the post‐cranial skeletal elements in order to

procure the greatest food value while the larger jackrabbits were eviscerated in a manner that resulted in

skeletal elements being more likely to be discarded in a midden, such as Feature 23. Consequently, more

jackrabbit elements would be more prevalent in a disposal locus compared to that of smaller game such

as cottontail. Given the available evidence, the explanation for the greater prevalence of jackrabbit in

Feature 23 (midden) with respect to the other pithouses and storage pit may be due to either

climatic/environmental factors or cultural factors regarding game animal preferences or food preparation

and carcass disposal patterns.

Seasonality and Environment

The LA 151618 faunal assemblage is indicative of a focal hunting economy on small game, particularly

leporids. Leporids, prairie dogs, pocket gopher, and woodrats are r‐selected species. Although they

contain much less meat than deer or pronghorn, they are more reliable meat resources. They have high

reproductive rates and, during good weather, breed nearly all‐year in the Albuquerque area. The high

mortality rate for leporids is offset by a high reproductive rate. Breeding generally occurs from mid‐ or

late winter through late summer. A single female cottontail may have as many as six litters (Chapman et

al. 1982:94; Clark and Stromberg 1987:78, 81; Findley 1987:57–58; Hoffmeister 1986:131, 137; Zeveloff

1988:93). Because the black‐tailed jackrabbit is an r‐selected species, the yearly number and size of litters

per breeding female also help to offset the high mortality rates. The jackrabbit is subject to predation by

a wide variety of predators (Clark and Stromberg 1987:84–87; Cockrum 1982:134; Dunn et al. 1982;

Findley 1987:56; Hoffmeister 1986:141–142; Schwartz and Schwartz 1981:114–121; Zeveloff 1988:84, 98–

100). Because of the long breeding season of leporids in the Albuquerque area, trying to age individuals

on the basis of long bone epiphyseal fusion is not a reliable method for determining seasonality.

Table 39 lists the preferred habitats of the specific identified taxa. The presentation of preferred habitats

provides information on exploited resource areas, potential trade and economic networks, and

climatic/environmental conditions at the time. LA 151618 was occupied during the ninth and tenth

centuries. The identified taxa with the most common preferred habitats (totals 20+) are riparian,

grasslands, piñon/juniper, and scrub oak. The absence of fish and other aquatic taxa suggests the nearby

Rio Grande (about 2 miles east) was not a primary source for acquiring food resources. In contrast,

grassland (score of 29) and piñon/juniper (score of 29) dominate the preferred habitats, with riparian

(score of 21) and scrub oak (score of 20) also represented at lower frequency. It is surmised that the

inhabitants of LA 151618 were likely hunting larger game opportunistically in the vicinity of the site while

hunting small game attracted to their agricultural fields. In addition to large and small avian and

mammalian game animals attracted to the agricultural fields, a variety of smaller rodents would have also

been attracted in addition to inhabiting the disturbed and soft ground of the site area proper (e.g.,

pithouses, middens, storage pits) upon its abandonment.


| 93

Modified Bone

The typology used to organize the modified bone artifacts is similar to the one used by Beach and Causey

in Bone Artifacts From Arroyo Hondo Pueblo in the Faunal Remains from Arroyo Hondo Pueblo, New

Mexico (1984), based on that of A. V. Kidder’s in The Artifacts of Pecos (1932). Additional artifact types

are added to their typology to accommodate artifact forms found during the present project that were

not found at Arroyo Hondo. The artifact types defined by Beach and Causey (1984) are assigned their

letter designations with the additional artifact types assigned double letters (e.g., AA, HH).

The typology, at the most inclusive level, has four functional categories: awls, ornaments, musical

instruments, and hide‐processing tools. Beach and Causey (1984:187) have 26 types in their typology, of

which seven were recognized in the present study and an additional three types (i.e., AA, BB, and HH)

recovered during this project that are not represented at Arroyo Hondo. Although only seven of Beach

and Causey’s 26 types are recognized in the present study, their typology is used for comparison purposes

with other bone tools studies in the Southwest (Brown and Brown 1993, 1997:438–448, 2010).

The typology is based upon four criteria: function, faunal source, skeletal part, and manufactured form

(Tables 41 and 42). For some artifact types (e.g., awls and whistles) the function was assumed and the

specimen was then classified according to the other three criteria. In other cases (e.g., bone tubes and

beads) the specimens were first classified according to form or raw material, and its function was inferred

after a search of the ethnographic and archaeological literature (Beach and Causey 1984:190–191). In

addition to literature searches, use‐wear (e.g., polishing, abrasion, striations) provide information on how

specimens were used.

Table 41 – Modified bone summaries, LA 151618

FS # Feature Taxon Side Element Fragment Modification Type Wt (g) Count

216 1 Indet. large mammal Indet. long

bone shaft polish HH 3.30 1

1839 14 Indet. large mammal axial vertebra fragment shaped bone BB 3.32 1

713 14 Indet. small mammal Indet. long

bone shaft transverse

groove Z 0.06 1

607 14 Meleagris gallopavo right radius proximal shaft

tube bead N 0.59 1

1114 19 Antilocapra americana left ulna proximal end and shaft

awl ‐ complete AA 23.31 1

1495 19 Grus sp. right humerus mid shaft bone tube N 6.85 1

1173 19 Grus sp. left ulna proximal shaft

tube bead ‐ com N 3.09 1

1109 19 Indet. large bird Indet. long

bone shaft ring‐and‐snap N 1.28 1


bone shaft awl: tip E 2.82 1


| 94

FS # Feature Taxon Side Element Fragment Modification Type Wt (g) Count


bone shaft awl: tip frag E 0.46 1

689 19 Indet. small mammal Indet. flat bone fragment awl: tip E 0.04 1


bone shaft bitsitsi

whistle? P 0.39 1

1371 19 Odocoileus/Antilocapra metatarsal distal end and shaft awl ‐ complete C 12.48 1

758 19 Odocoileus/Antilocapra metatarsal shaft awl frag B 7.98 1

1264 19 Odocoileus/Antilocapra metatarsal proximal end and shaft

awl: butt end D 6.90 1

741 19 Odocoileus/Antilocapra right metatarsal proximal end and shaft

striated Z 7.96 1

1100 19 Odocoileus/Antilocapra metatarsal proximal end and shaft

tool butt end D 7.65 1


bone Shaft splinter awl E 1.33 1

663 23 Indet. large mammal Indet. flat bone

Fragment pendant ‐ comp

M 3.24 1

661 23 Indet. large mammal Indet. Fragment striated, polish Z 0.33 1

661 23 Indet. large mammal Indet. Fragment striated, polish,

biconical hole Z 1.00 1


bone Shaft striated, polish Z 2.25 1

874 24 Antilocapra americana left metatarsal distal end and shaft

awl ‐ complete C 6.05 1

818 Grus sp. right tibiotarsus distal end and shaft

part ring groove N 1.92 1

Table 42 – LA 151618 bone tool summaries

FS Feature Item Description

Item

Type

Length

(mm)

width

(mm)

thick

(mm)

weight

(g)

216 1 worked shaft HH 76.24 7.48 4.92 3.32

607 14 tubular bead N 38.94 5.79 4.56 0.59

1839 14 shaped centrum BB 32.02 19.69 11.88 3.33


| 95

FS Feature Item Description

Item

Type

Length

(mm)

width

(mm)

thick

(mm)

weight

(g)

689 19 awl tip I 10.32 4.4 0.93 0.04

758 19 splinter awl handle E 93.92 11.59 7.41 7.98

934 19 splinter awl E 29.45 5.21 3.7 0.44

1066 19 splinter awl E 68.87 8.24 5.46 2.84

1100 19 tool butt end D 38.11 21.74 19.28 7.65

1114 19 awl AA 102.29 36.39 23.17 23.28

1109 19 grooved‐snapped N 38.89 13.17 8.43 1.28

1173 19 tubular bead N 48.7 10.08 8.6 3.09

1264 19 awl handle? D 63.83 16.1 10.01 6.86

1495 19 tubular bead N 98.68 15.91 11.19 6.85

1490 19 Bitsitsi whistle P 19.33 6.48 2.63 0.39

1371 19 awl C 84.84 24.02 15.3 12.48

883 22 splinter awl E 49.19 8.47 4.16 1.33

663 23 pendant M 41.77 28.33 3.07 3.28

874 24 awl C 69.84 18.98 13.11 6.07

The following section defines the artifact types within the bone tool typology. The definitions for Types A

to Z are modified definitions from Beach and Causey (1984) and Types AA, BB, and HH are additional

artifact types that have been added to the typology to accommodate specimen types not represented at

Arroyo Hondo.

Awls

Kidder (1932:203) defines awls as tools with points that are sharp enough to have been used for

perforating hides or for the manufacture of coiled basketry. Morris (1919:39) states that shorter awls

were used for the manufacture of baskets in addition to piercing hides or tough fabrics. Awls vary

considerably in design through time. It is generally accepted that most of the tools classified as awls were

used in sewing hides or leather and in the manufacture of baskets (Beach and Causey 1984:192).


| 96

Large‐Mammal Awls

Beach and Causey (1984:194–196) provide a good description of the manufacturing process of awls from

large mammal metapodials, long bones, and smaller mammal and bird bones.

Type C—Split long bone, distal end retained, altered

These specimens are similar to Type B awls except the distal articular end is heavily abraded and is

eliminated from the shaft. Grinding resulted in a rounded or squared butt with only the shoulder bulge of

the joint retained. Metapodials were used to make these awls (FS 874 Feature 24; FS 1371 Feature 19;

Figures 19 and 20).

Figure 19 – Type C awl, FS 874, Feature 24, LA 151618


| 97

Figure 20 – Type C awl, FS 1371, Feature 19, LA 151618

Type D—Split long bone, proximal end retained, altered or unaltered

The proximal joint was retained as the butt with partial grinding of the joint. The heaviest abrasion was

done on the rough surfaces resulting from splitting. Metapodials were used to make these awls (FS 1264

Feature 19; FS 1100 Feature 19; Figures 21 and 22).


| 98

Figure 21 – Type D awl, FS 1100, Feature 19, LA 151618

Figure 22 – Type D awl, FS 1264, Feature 19, LA 151618


| 99

Type E—Splinter awls

These specimens were manufactured from pieces of splintered long bones. They are irregular in shape,

and the butts are either unmodified or are lightly ground. Several specimens have been sharpened at both

ends, resulting in a double pointed awl. The shafts usually exhibit little grinding. These are similar to what

have been defined as splinter awls by other researchers (Morris 1986:503–504) (FS 758 Feature 19; FS

1066 Feature 19; FS 934 Feature 19; FS 883 Feature 22; Figures 23 and 24).

Figure 23 – Type E awl, FS 758, Feature 19, LA 151618


| 100

Figure 24 – Type E awl, FS 1066, Feature 19, LA 151618

Type AA—Ulna awl

One complete awl (FS 1114, Figure 25), manufactured from the proximal end of a left ulna of a pronghorn

(Antilocapra americana), was recovered from Feature 19. The proximal end is the handle and is slightly

ground and polished, and the proximal shaft has been ground to a point. This awl would have been ideally

suited for working thicker leather materials.


| 101

Figure 25 – Type AA ulna awl, FS 1114, Feature 19, LA 151618

Ornaments

Type M—Pendants

One pendant was recovered from Feature 23 (FS 663; Figures 26 and 27). Pendants are believed to have

been used as parts of necklaces and bracelets and in other decorative ways. They were made from a

variety of skeletal elements from diverse taxa. Pendants are characterized as having at least one hole

drilled through them for suspension or attachment purposes. These are similar to what have been defined

as pendants by other researchers (Di Peso et al. 1974:50 vol. 8; Kidder 1932:270–271; Wheeler 1978:63).

In this study, only one pendant was recovered. The pendant is made from a large animal flat bone. It is

oval shaped and is 41.77 mm long, 28.33 mm wide, 3.07 mm thick, and weighs 3.28 gr. One face has five

incised “X”’s (Figure 26) and the other face has a couple of incised lines. The entire border is notched

(Figure 27). A small biconically‐drilled hole is near one side of the pendant.


| 102

Figure 26 – Type M, FS 663, pendant, LA 151618

Figure 27 – Type M, FS 663, pendant, LA 151618


| 103

Type N—Bone Tubes

Bone tubes are included with the ornaments even though some may have served other purposes rather

than decoration. Nordenskiold (1893:99) reported a necklace of eight bone tubes strung on a hide thong

from Sprucetree House at Mesa Verde. Hodge (1920:134) reports finding hundreds of bone tubes in refuse

heaps as well as in graves; those associated with graves formed “necklaces for the dead.” Morris (1919:41)

recovered more than 400 bone tubes at Aztec Ruin in association with child burials. Bone tubes are also

reported to have been used as gaming pieces (Culin 1907:267). Another interpretation of the function of

bone tubes is their use as bow or wrist guards (Morris 1919:41–42; Hodge 1920:126; Jeancon 1923:26).

Bourke (1892:451–603) reports bone tubes were used as sucking implements in healing ceremonies. They

were also used to help extract toxic substances (e.g., snake venom; Maddox 1923:130, 225). Other

interpretations for the use of bone tubes include use as ceremonial objects and handles (Beach and

Causey 1984:205).

Bone tubes are sections of the hollow shafts of long bones of birds and small mammals. The most common

method employed to cut the sections was to saw a groove around the shaft of the bone with a flake knife

and then snap the bone apart at the groove. Sometimes the shaft was sawn through completely. These

specimens are similar to what have been defined as bone tubes by other researchers (Anyon et al.

1983:297; Di Peso et al. 1974:52 vol. 8; Kidder 1932:256; Morris 1986:509; Stanislawski 1963:293;

Wheeler 1978:63; Wilshusen 1988:46). Examples of grooved‐and‐snapped bone shafts are included in this

category (Figures 28, 29, and 30).

Figure 28 – Type N, FS 1109, Feature 19, grooved‐and‐snapped shaft, LA 151618


| 104

Figure 29 – Type N, FS 1173, Feature 19, bone tube, LA 151618

Figure 30 – Type N, FS 1495, Feature 19, bone tube, LA 151618


| 105

Type BB—Vertebra centrum

This specimen consists of a large mammal vertebra centrum that has been ground in the middle to form

a “dog bone‐shaped” object (FS 1839, Figure 31). It is unlike any modified bone described in the literature.

Its function or purpose is speculative, but it may be an ornament or a gaming piece.

Figure 31 – Type BB, worked vertebra centrum, FS 1839, Feature 14, LA 151618

Musical Instruments

Type P—Bitsitsi Whistles

These whistles are so named because they resemble a certain kind of whistle used in ceremonies at Zuni

Pueblo (Hodge 1920:128):

Such a whistle is in use at Zuni today by the Bitsitsi, a personage associated with the

Molawia ceremony of the Shalako rites, excepting that it is made of “vegetable matter”

instead of bone [Hodge 1920:130–131].

Some researchers have identified similar artifacts as gaming pieces or dice rather than whistles (Brisbin et

al. 1988:328, 724–725, 734–735; Kidder 1932:244; Lambert 1954; Morris 1986:509; Stanislawski

1963:291; Wheeler 1978:64). If specimens are flat, lacking the concave surfaces characteristic of Bitsitsi

whistles like the specimen in this study, then their interpretation as gaming pieces or dice is probably

appropriate. Figures 32 and 33 show both the exterior and interior of the whistle.


| 106

Figure 32 – Type P, Bitsitsi whistle, exterior, FS 1490, Feature 19, LA 151618

Figure 33 – Type P, Bitsitsi whistle, interior, FS 1490, Feature 19, LA 151618


| 107

Miscellaneous

Type Z—Unclassified Worked Bone Fragments

These specimens consist of fragments of worked bone that are too small or undiagnostic to be assigned

to a more specific tool type. Many of them exhibit striations and/or ground surfaces or polish. Specimens

include a deer/pronghorn right metatarsal proximal end and shaft with striations (FS 741, Feature 19);

two large mammal bones, one with striations and polish (FS 883, Feature 22) and the other with striations,

polish, and a biconical hole drilled at one broken end (FS 661, Feature 22); a small mammal long bone

shaft with striations and polish (FS 661, Feature 23); and a calcined small mammal long bone shaft with a

transverse groove (FS 713, Feature 14). Figure 34 shows a bone shaft with a transverse groove (FS 713,

Feature 14).

Figure 34 – Type Z, bone shaft with transverse groove, LA 151618

Type HH—Spatula‐like Implements

One spatula‐like implement (FS 216, Feature 1, Figure 35) was recovered from Feature 1. It is similar to

awls but it has very blunted ends. It may have been used for weaving tasks or stone tool knapping. It is

identical to specimens reported by Brown and Brown (1993:462, Type HH) from Ancestral Puebloan sites

in northwestern New Mexico and northeastern Arizona. It is also similar to spatula artifacts described by

other researchers in the Southwest (Kidder 1932:222; Morris 1986:509; Roberts 1929:128; Stanislawski

1963:284; Wheeler 1978:53, 56–57).


| 108

Figure 35 – Type HH, spatula‐like implement, FS 216, Feature 1, LA 151618

Summary and Conclusions

The types of activities exhibited by the modified bone assemblage indicates awls are among the most

frequently occurring implements and are indicative of extensive leather working and/or basketry. The

high frequency of bone tubes, grooved‐and‐snapped specimens (bone tube preforms), a pendant, and a

Bitsitsi whistle indicate the manufacture of ornaments and musical instruments was an important activity

at LA 151618. Some of the ornaments may be associated with the human burial, having been dispersed

and separated from the burial by extensive post‐occupation rodent burrowing as evidenced during

excavations and the frequency of non‐cultural small mammal remains (see Table 1).

Assemblage Comparisons

Faunal assemblages from 8 sites of similar age situated in similar environments to LA 151618 in Bernalillo

County are examined with regard to the frequency of leporids and artiodactyls (Table 43). Bravo Pueblo,

LA 88334, is a small pueblo with roomblocks, pithouses, jacals, and numerous features that is near the

base of the West Mesa at the west edge of the Rio Grande floodplain in Bernalillo County. Based upon 2

archaeomagnetic dates, 2 radiocarbon dates, and associated temporally diagnostic artifacts the site dates

to the late Socorro phase of the early AD 1100s. The vertebrate faunal assemblage (n=976) has 389

jackrabbit, 124 cottontail, and 3 artiodactyls (Brown and Brown 1994; Marshall and Marshall 1994).

The Meade Avenue site, LA 57214, is a small Socorro phase hamlet at the base of the West Mesa near the

west edge of the Rio Grande floodplain in Bernalillo County. It dates to AD 1100–1150 based upon 2

archaeomagnetic dates and temporally diagnostic ceramics. The vertebrate faunal assemblage (n=79) has

9 jackrabbit, 18 cottontail, and 2 artiodactyls (Brown and Brown 1994; Marshall and Marshall 1994).


| 109

The Coors Road site, LA 15260, is a small Pueblo residential area that is on the West Mesa in the South

Valley in Bernalillo County. The sites dates to AD 1125–1250 based upon 3 radiocarbon dates and

associated temporally diagnostic ceramics. The vertebrate faunal assemblage (n=556) has 135 jackrabbit,

59 cottontail, and 10 artiodactyls (Sullivan and Akins 1994).

The Prieta Vista site is a small Pueblo III occupation at Cuervo Arroyo along the middle reaches of the Rio

Puerco at the base of Mesa Prieta. The site consists of a 15‐room Ancestral Pueblo ruin that dates to AD

1200–1250 based upon temporally diagnostic ceramics. The vertebrate faunal assemblage (n=331) has 42

jackrabbit, 115 cottontail, and 5 artiodactyls (Bice and Sundt 1972).

The Dennison site consists of a Basketmaker III–Pueblo II occupation represented by 4 pithouses on the

West Mesa north of Isleta Pueblo. Its affiliation is based upon temporally diagnostic ceramics. Its

vertebrate faunal assemblage (n=55) has 25 jackrabbit, 5 cottontail, and 9 artiodactyls (Vivian and

Clendenen 1965).

The Volcano Vista High School Site (LA 134636) is a Pueblo IV period fieldhouse located on the West Mesa

in Bernalillo County. It dates to AD 1300–1515 based upon temporally diagnostic ceramics. Its vertebrate

faunal assemblage (n=35) has 3 jackrabbit, 2 cottontail, and no artiodactyls (Kurota 2006:46).

For all 7 sites (including LA 151618 of the present study) the taxonomic richness corresponds with the

total number of specimens recovered from the sites (Table 43). All 7 sites have very high small mammal

indices that span 0.91 to 1.00 which is indicative of an emphasis of hunting small game, particularly

lagomorphs which were likely attracted to the agricultural fields. The vertebrate faunal assemblage

recovered from LA 151618 corresponds with other nearly contemporaneous Ancestral Puebloan

residential sites on the West Mesa in Bernalillo County.

Examination of Table 43 shows the lagomorph indices for LA 151618 compared to the above six sites.

Lagomorph indices less than 0.50 indicate jackrabbit is more prevalent than the cottontail. Two of the 7

sites—Prieta Vista and Meade Avenue (LA 57214)—have high (i.e., 0.73 and 0.67) lagomorph indices

indicative of greater emphasis upon hunting cottontails versus jackrabbits in contrast to the other 5 sites

which all have low indices (0.17 to 0.40) indicative of greater emphasis upon hunting jackrabbits. Both

Prieta Vista and Meade Avenue (LA 57214) are near major drainage flood plains which may explain the

higher lagomorph indices. However, the Bravo Pueblo site (LA 88334) is very close to the Meade Avenue

site (LA 57214), and it has a low index (i.e., 0.24) even though its topographic and vegetation location is

identical to the Mead Avenue site. Therefore, vegetation and topographic setting do not explain the

differences in their lagomorph indices, rather the differences must be attributed to cultural behaviors

associated with preferred game animals or different opportunistically available small animal game.

There is an absence of lagomorph indices between 0.41 and 0.67 and greater than 0.73 (Table 43). The

general bimodal distribution of sites, those with lagomorph indices below 0.41 and those with indices

between 0.67 and 0.73, represent differences in subsistence patterns. The indices also not only show

differences on their emphasis of two different lagomorph species for subsistence, but they also likely

represent different hunting strategies. In addition, jackrabbits would have been more abundant on the


| 110

upland mesa grasslands and desert scrub while cottontails would have been more prevalent in brushy and

forested areas closer to the Rio Grande. Both species would have been attracted to gardens.

Table 43 – LA 151618 small mammal and lagomorph indices of comparable sites (NISP)

Site

Total

Lepus NISP

Sylvilagus NISP

Artiodactyls NISP

Small m

ammal

index

Lago

morph index

Taxonomic

Richness

LA 115168 (present study) 1722 275 150 44 0.91 0.35 23

LA 88334 (Brown and Brown 1994) 976 389 124 3 0.99 0.24 18

LA 15260 (Sullivan and Akins 1994) 556 135 59 10 0.95 0.30 12

Prieta Vista (Bice and Sundt 1972) 331 42 115 5 0.97 0.73 14

LA 57214 (Brown and Brown 1994) 79 9 18 2 0.93 0.67 8

Dennison (Vivian and Clendenen

1965)

55 25 5 9 0.77 0.17 7

LA 134636 (Kurota 2006) 35 3 2 0 1.00 0.40 2

Assemblage Conclusions

In the beginning of the faunal chapter, a series of research questions were posed to be addressed by the

faunal analysis. The following paragraphs addresses those questions, with the research questions divided

into site and regional issues.

● What animals were exploited by the site’s inhabitants and which were dietary staples?

Although the vertebrate faunal assemblage consists of a wide array of taxa, those most likely exploited by

the site’s inhabitants include: Canada goose, turkey, quail, crane, perching birds, cottontail, jackrabbit,

prairie dog, pocket gopher, woodrat, dog/coyote, deer, and pronghorn. The dietary staples include turkey,

cottontail, jackrabbit, prairie dog, and pronghorn. Deer, dog/coyote, kangaroo rat, Canada goose, crane,

and possibly snakes were likely procured opportunistically when they were encountered within the area

of the site.

● What was the relative importance of small game in the diet?

Small game, particularly cottontail and jackrabbit, were likely a dietary staple that were procured

relatively easily by all age groups within the immediate area of the site and agricultural fields.


| 111

● What was the role of deer and pronghorn exploitation in subsistence at the site?

Although deer is present, pronghorn appears to be the primary large game, a grassland adapted species.

Relatively large expanses of grassland occur immediately west of the site and would have been a prime

area for hunting pronghorn. Deer was most likely procured opportunistically within the vicinity of the site.

● Is bison present in the assemblage, and if so, what climatic and hunting implications does it reflect?

No evidence of bison was noted in the assemblage. This suggests the site’s inhabitants did not participate

regularly in bison hunting, which would have probably required extended forays from the site.

● What butchering patterns are discernible in the archaeofaunal assemblage?

Evidence of butchering is rather limited in the assemblage, with only 9 of 1722 specimens exhibiting

evidence of cut marks associated with animal butchering and dismembering. Noted occurrences are found

on pronghorn (innominate), turkey (tarsometatarsus, coracoid), Canada goose (carpometacarpus),

jackrabbit (radius), deer (antler), crane (humerus), and two small indeterminate large bird or small

mammals. Evidence of butchering in all cases consists of simple V‐shaped incisions on bone indicating the

use of a sharp stone cutting implement.

● Is seasonal variation in the procurement of animal resources discernible?

Due to the long seasonal breeding habits of the small game animals, particularly cottontail and jackrabbit,

and absence and paucity of seasonally sensitive faunal remains, seasonality of site occupation cannot be

garnered from the available assemblage. However, the absence of fish and other aquatic taxa suggests

the nearby Rio Grande (about 2 miles east) was not a primary source for acquiring food resources. In

contrast, grassland and piñon/juniper dominate the preferred species habitats, with riparian and scrub

oak also represented at lower frequency. It is surmised that the inhabitants of LA 151618 were likely

hunting larger game opportunistically in the vicinity of the site while hunting small game attracted to their

agricultural fields. In addition to large and small avian and mammalian game animals attracted to the

agricultural fields, a variety of smaller rodents would have also been attracted in addition to inhabiting

the disturbed and soft ground of the site area proper.

● What do the leporid and artiodactyl indices reflect?

Interestingly, all the major features (pithouses, storage pits, midden) indicate a strong emphasis upon

small game animals; with the artiodactyl indices varying from 0.71 for Feature 14 Strat II (greatest

emphasis upon large game) to 0.82 for Feature 19 and 0.91 for Feature 14 non‐Strat II and the whole site

assemblage, to 0.94 for Feature 22 and 0.99 for Feature 23 (greatest emphasis upon small game).

The leporid index varies from 0.28 for Feature 23 and 0.34 for the entire site, to 0.42 and 0.43 for Features

19 and 14 non‐Strat II, and 0.54, 0.59, and 0.65 for Feature 14 (total pithouse), Feature 22, and Feature

14 Strat II. Thus, Feature 23, a midden, is heavily laden with jackrabbit remains as is the overall site in

general. Then Features 19 and 14 (pithouses) reflect slightly more emphasis on jackrabbits while Features

14 (total pithouse), 14 Strat II, and 22 have slight to strong preference of cottontail. There doesn’t appear

to be a temporal component to these differences in the leporid indices. The differences may reflect


| 112

individual residential preferences for cottontail versus jackrabbit, or it may reflect short‐term climatic or

vegetation changes.

● Is there evidence for food stress in the faunal assemblage, such as fracturing long bones for marrow extraction and pulverizing small animals for complete consumption?

Although flotation recovered 390 unburned, 122 charred, and 331 calcined (n=843) large bird/small

mammal skeletal elements that were fractured beyond being able to identify them to taxon and element,

their condition combined with that of the excavated assemblage (n=1,722) indicates the processing of

bones for marrow extraction and pulverizing small game animals were not done, at least on a large‐scale

basis to leave an archaeological presence in the assemblage. Therefore, there is no clear evidence for

fracturing long bones or food stress among the site’s inhabitants.

● Although the inhabitants were agriculturalists that depended primarily on crops, did wild taxa contribute significantly to the diet?

Garden hunting of small game, particularly cottontail and jackrabbit, in addition to other less frequently

occurring potential small game, e.g., prairie dog, pocket gopher, kangaroo rat, and woodrat, played a

major part in providing meat in their diet. In addition, the prevalence of pronghorn as a large game

procured on a regular basis would have provided substantial quantities of meat in the diet. Other animals

such as deer, Canada goose, crane, and turkey probably contributed less to the diet.

● Do the indigenous taxa indicate exploitation of aquatic, riparian, grassland/desert, and/or mountain resources?

The identified taxa indicate aquatic resources were not exploited, but riparian habitats along the Rio

Grande were likely used occasionally. The dominant habitats exploited for game animals are the grassland,

desert scrub, and piñon/juniper will conifer forest to a lesser degree.

● Were taxa procured nearby or is longer‐distance hunting indicated?

Small game such as cottontail, jackrabbit, prairie dog, pocket gopher, woodrat, and kangaroo rat were

undoubtedly procured within the immediate vicinity of the site and agricultural fields. It is suspected that

deer was procured opportunistically when they came close to the site or agricultural fields. Pronghorn, on

the other hand, were likely procured some distance from the site, probably to the west within the Rio

Puerco Valley and beyond. Although a very curious animal, pronghorn are easily scared and would not

likely to have wandered near the residential area or agricultural fields.

● What on‐site activities (e.g., food consumption, butchering, bone processing, tool and ornament manufacturing) are indicated by the archaeofaunal assemblage?

A wide array of faunal‐related activities were conducted at LA 151618. In addition to the usual

procurement and butchering of small and large game, specific elements were selected for modification

into awls for use in sewing and basketry, manufacturing ornaments (bone beads, tubes, and pendants)

and gaming pieces, and musical instruments (i.e., Bitsitsi whistle). Fauna provided the site’s inhabitants


| 113

with not only a meat diet, but raw material (bones, hides, brains for tanning, etc.) for conducting other

tasks necessary for survival and recreation.

In general, the LA 151618 archaeofaunal assemblage represents disposal of faunal remains associated

with food processing and consumption. The leporid remains represent both low and high‐meat‐value

elements indicative of butchering debris and food refuse. Leporids, prairie dogs, kangaroo rats, and

woodrats are r‐selected species. Although they contain much less meat than deer or pronghorn, they are

more reliable meat resources. Leporids and rodents are not as adversely affected by hunting pressures as

are ungulates. In addition, the rabbits and other small mammals could have been easily procured by

women and children as part of a garden hunting strategy. Major hunting parties such as those used to

procure deer and pronghorn were not required to obtain the small game, which could be have been

caught by using a variety of simple techniques.

The presence of a few low‐meat‐value (e.g., horn, teeth, lower leg, and foot elements) artiodactyls

remains indicates they were probably procured locally on an opportunistically level. The paucity of

artiodactyl specimens suggests these animals were probably processed in a portion of the site where the

butchering of large game animals, such as deer and pronghorn, did not interfere with other activities.

Domestic turkeys were available in the middle Rio Grande area during the occupation of LA 151618 as

evidenced by the presence of a probable turkey burial and a few scattered elements. The egg shell

fragments from LA 151618 are most likely turkey based on texture, color, and thickness. The raising of

domestic turkeys requires active human participation (Schorger 1966). The presence of a probable turkey

burial and associated egg shells suggests the site may have been occupied on a year‐round basis.

Although rodents and canids were present at the site, the paucity of carnivore gnawing and fairly low

occurrence of rodent gnawing is surprising at first glance. Much of the assemblage, however, exhibits

erosion, which has obscured any tooth marks on the bone surface and also accounts for the paucity of

butchering marks. Erosion is indicative of burial in highly acidic soils, of root etching, and/or the presence

of organic acids (e.g., urine) (Andrews 1990:19).

Noteworthy is the presence of worked bone for use as implements and ornaments. Generally, in addition

to serving as meat resources, animals functioned as raw material sources for ornaments, tools, and

clothing. The presence of identifiable implements and ornaments is congruent with Puebloan

assemblages contemporaneous with LA 151618 in the Albuquerque area.

A case can be made for the occupants of LA 151618 experiencing nutritional stress based on the paucity

of leporid and small mammal vertebrae and ribs. For example, after skinning rabbits and removing the

internal organs, the Pomo pounded the carcasses to a pulp. This reduced the bones to small fragments

that could be easily consumed with the meat which was broiled (Barrett 1952:63). After the cottontails

were skinned and cleaned, the Shoshone cooked them in the hot ashes (Lowie 1924:197). Although the

Havasupai usually roasted rabbits in ashes, roasting pits may also have been used (Spier 1928:117).

The Chippewa prepared leporid carcasses one of two ways. First, the meat was removed from the bones,

roasted, and pounded. The bones were then pounded with what meat remained on them. The pounded


| 114

bones were boiled in a small kettle and the grease skimmed off and eaten with the pounded meat. Second,

the meat was cut in pieces and dried with the bones being dried also. The bones were pounded into a

powder and mixed with the dry meat and any available grease. This was eaten dry, and not boiled at the

time of using (Densmore 1929:44).

Removal of high meat yielding elements from leporid carcasses (forelimbs and hindlimbs) for roasting or

other method of preparation then pulverizing the remainder of the carcass (e.g., vertebrae and ribs) with

the remaining meat) would more thoroughly use the grease and fat resources of the carcasses. This

method of leporid preparation would account for the elements represented and absent in the

assemblage.

Documents

NMCRIS No. 137025 Cultural Resource Data Recovery · NMCRIS No. 137065 Final Report of Testing and Data Recovery Investigations of a Portion of LA 151618, for 98th Street Improvements