A total of 6,024 specimens were analyzed out of an estimated total count of 33,000 specimens of recovered bone. A total weight of 6,248 grams for the analyzed specimens compares to a total weight of bone from the site of 29,420 grams. The strategy employed to sample the faunal remains from the site was designed to include a large sample from the midden deposit (Feature 1) and to sample several smaller features that also contained significant botanical remains (features 8 and 13).
The summary data for the site is presented in Table 1, "Faunal Remains from 12 Mg 1," which lists material divided into major taxonomic groups and unidentified vertebrates, mammals, birds, reptiles/amphibians, and fish. Within the mammal, bird, and fish categories, material that was not identifiable to family, genus, or species level was placed within appropriate size classes of the taxon.
The data from each feature is presented within three columns. The first column is the number of identified specimens (NISP). The second column is the minimum number of individuals (MNI) based on age class as well as side and portion of element. The third column is the total weight of bone in grams. Bone was weighed on a scale with 1 gram increments, so if a specimen weighed out at <1 gram, the minimum weight recorded in the database was .5 grams. As a result, some of the fish remains, which probably weighed less than 0.5 gram, may be overestimated by weight.
GO TO: [Vertebrates] [Mammals] [Birds] [Reptiles and Amphibians] [Fish] [Deer Ages] [Summary]
Vertebrates. Two specimens, were only identifiable as vertebrates. This small number of unidentifiable specimens is inherently linked to the excellent preservation at 12 Mg 1. The superior preservation of bone permitted observations on the surface texture and appearance of bone that were critical in placing small fragments within appropriate taxonomic categories.
Mammals. Unidentified mammal bone comprised the majority of the assemblage. This category is principally composed of long bone shaft fragments, and also includes some epiphyseal ends which were too fragmentary to be identified to either element or species. The vast majority of fragments that fall into the classes of medium/large and large are undoubtedly long bone shaft fragments from deer. The fragments that fall into the large/very large and large classes are most likely elk or bear (the only species identified at the site that fall into these size classes). The remaining smaller categories of mammal bone may be assumed to proportionally represent the smaller mammals that were identified to genus and species.
Deer (Odocoileus virginianus) were the most common species at the site, with 1,179 identifiable specimens. Assuming that single deer were not disposed of in separate features, this gives an MNI of 12 deer for the sample of the site. The next most common specimens are raccoon (Procyon lotor) with 99 identifiable specimens and a composite MNI of 7. There were 41 specimens identified as muskrat (Ondontra zibethicus), for an MNI of 5. Grey squirrels (Sciurus carolinensis), were represented by 27 specimens for an MNI of 5. Beaver (Castor canadensis), had 26 identified specimens, an MNI of 4. Marmota monax, the groundhog, had 24 specimens for an MNI of 4. The remaining species all had less than 20 identified specimens and fairly low MNIs.
Of particular interest among the remaining specimens are porcupine (Erithizon dorsatum), canids (Canis sp.), and bear (Ursus americanus) There are a few historic records of porcupine from southern Indiana, but they are relatively rare at prehistoric sites (seven records), and their current range is well north of Indiana. The Canis sp. specimens are probably domestic dog; however, they could not be differentiated from wolf or coyote with certainty. The significant amount of carnivore-gnawed bone at the site strongly suggests that domestic dogs were around the site, snacking on the trash. The remains of bear are also interesting. Since bear is relatively uncommon at archaeological sites, yet occurs at all three study sites, bear is discussed in the conclusions.
Birds. The bird remains from Feature 1 Unit G, have not been analyzed yet; thus the only estimate we have of this resource utilization is from features 8 and 13. Turkey is present but in fairly small numbers. Based on observations in the field and during cataloging, the same would hold true for midden deposits, though this is a subjective rather than quantitative opinion. The only other bird identified is a single specimen of crane. There is, of course, a large amount of unidentified bird bone (119.9 g) from Feature 1, Unit G, which will undoubtedly produce a much longer species list for the site.
Reptiles/Amphibians. The reptile/amphibian remains from Feature 1, Unit G, have been sampled but are not yet complete (58.5 grams out of a total of 240 grams have been identified). All of the material from features 8 and 13 has been identified. Turtles are the most common, with an identification bias toward softshell turtles (Trionyx sp.), which are readily identified by the surface pattern of carapace fragments. Pond/painted turtles (Chrysemys sensu lato) are next in significance. Snapping turtle (Chelydra serpentina) and musk turtle (Sternotherus) were also present. Testudinata refers mostly to carapace or plastron fragments which were only identifiable as turtle. One specimen identifiable as a venomous snake (Viperidae) was recovered from Feature 1.
Fish. Again, the fish remains from Feature 1 have not been completely analyzed. There are 50 grams of fish bone from Feature 1, Unit G, compared to 32 grams that have been completely analyzed from features 8 and 13. Most fish fall into the medium size class, with comparatively few small or large fish. Identified specimens include Centrarchidae (sunfish, blackbass, and crappies); Catostomidae (suckers); Hure salmonoides (largemouth bass), Ictaluridae (catfish), and a specimen strongly resembling Lepisosteidae (gar). The specimen for gar was an excellent match, but was a cranial fragment. The ganoid scales, which provide a `body armor' for the gar, tend to be very resistant to soil weathering. Since the far more fragile cycloid and ctenoid scales from other species were present, it would be very unusual not to have found any ganoid scales if this species was being exploited.
All the ageable deer mandibles from 12 Mg 1 were pulled and analyzed. A total of 43 mandibles could be aged or averaged within a one-year period. These mandibles are shown graphically in Figure 3. Of these mandibles 22 fell in the 0-18 month range. These mandibles were ageable to a month or series of months. Since deer in this area are born in the last week of May, or the first week of June, these ages can be plotted by month.
The temporal distribution of 0-18 month mandibles was illustrated graphically by plotting each mandible on the month of occurrence (if single month) or on the midpoint of a range of months (if multiple months). The information provided by this calendrical plotting of ages is highly informative (see Figure 4). All of the deer mandibles fall during the period from June to January. Not only are the months of February to May not the midpoints of ranges, there are also no mandibles that have a range overlapping this period by more than one month on either edge. As seen in Figure 3, the peak of deer procurement occurred from September through December. This coincides with the time when deer are in their prime as a food resource, and when they are less wary of human hunters because they are in rut.
Thus, this data shows when deer are being hunted and suggests seasonality for site occupation. It is possible that the site was occupied and that deer were not being hunted from February to May, but it is more likely that the site was unoccupied for most of this time. There are several reasons for this interpretation: one is the seasonality of faunal remains mentioned above; the second, which has more weight, is that the site is located on the floodplain and frequently would be covered by floods during the spring; the third is that we failed to recover the deep storage pits that held food the occupants needed to sustain themselves during the lean months of February to May if they were not hunting during this time.
On the other hand, since corn agriculture was of some importance, the planting season should be taken into consideration. After the recession of spring floods, some planting would have taken place in the vicinity of the site. Thus, probably in May, the site may have been occupied for planting with no indication (save for one overlapping mandible) of deer hunting.
Figure 1 shows the weight in grams of taxa from a sample of Feature 1. The most notable component of this figure is the importance of aquatic resources at 12 Mg 1. Mussels, of course, have a lot of packaging for the amount of meat protein they provide, but they are nevertheless a significant component of the economy. Turtle bone outweighs that of birds two to one. Several of the mammals, notably beaver and muskrat, are also aquatic. Overall, the dietary contributions of aquatic and semi-aquatic animals indicate that they were a major focus of hunting and gathering activity at the site.
The calculations of meat weight, Figure 2 and Table 2, based on this same sample from Feature 1, only include mammalian species. Deer were by far the principle source of meat protein. Elk and bear are next by percentage meat weight, but this is probably an overrepresentation since these large animals are represented by very few bones. Single specimens leading to MNIs of one often overrepresent the meat weight of large animals in sites with comparatively small samples. Since this may be misleading, in Table 2 I have also included the total bone weights for each species in grams. This shifts the order of importance. Deer is still the most important, but it is followed by beaver, raccoon, elk, muskrat, bear, woodchuck, squirrel, and a number of minor species.
Total bone weight is presumably a more accurate representation of the importance that these animals would have had in the daily economy of the site. In this vein, the prominence of beaver as the second mammalian species, and muskrat as the 5th despite its small size, is highly significant in revealing the aquatic resource orientation at this site.
From an ecological point of view several taxa are of particular interest. Elk, which is present at the site, have a preference for grassland or open forest. Fox squirrel exhibits a similar preference for more open woodland. Grey squirrels tend to prefer denser forest with a more closed canopy, as do bear and porcupine. Thus, there is probably exploitation of several environments within the vicinity of the site. The riparian forest and adjacent floodplain probably contained the openings which were attractive to elk and fox squirrels. Uplands across the river provided the more densely forested area where grey squirrel, bear, and porcupine were hunted. Between the two lies the west fork of the White River, which supplied all the aquatic resources, including freshwater mussels that abound at the rock riffle abutting the site and providing an easy means of crossing the river.