METHODS
During excavation, all intact cultural deposits were screened through 1/4-inch mesh; 10 liter flotation samples were also taken from all features. Material from the plowzone was not systematically sampled. As a result, plowzone and surface-collected material does not form a significant component of this analysis.
At sites, or areas of sites, where bone preservation was not as good, bone observed in situ was excavated using bamboo picks. All bone recovered was packed in aluminum foil for protection during transport. All faunal material was washed, using water pressure and a soft brush. The material was then allowed to slowly air dry before being numbered and repackaged, for analysis.
Once material was ready for identification, specimens were identified and coded according to the Vertebrate Faunal Analysis Coding System developed by Shaffer and Baker (1992). In addition to contextual information, the taxon, element, portion of element, side, age criteria, age, sex, degree of burning, and presence or absence of cutmarks were recorded. In regards to taxon identification, there were several levels of identification. A few fragments of poorly preserved, bone were only identifiable as vertebrate. Other fragmentary and nondiagnostic specimens were only identifiable as mammal, bird, fish, reptile, or amphibian. These specimens were placed within general size classes if possible. The remaining specimens were identified to a family, genus, or species level and are listed accordingly.
Status of completion
Two of the sites, 12 Jo 5 and 12 Jo 289, are completed. One site, 12 Mg 1, has been sampled; and work on this site is ongoing. A fair sample of the mammalian material from 12 Mg 1 has been completed and is presented below. Bird, amphibian/reptile, and fish remains analyzed thus far from this site probably do not provide a complete picture of subsistence.