Animal Bones,

Human Societies
Edited by
Peter Rowley-Conwy
Oxbow Books
Oxford and Oakville
':lobO
10 Boiling vs. baking and roasting: a taphonomic
approach to the recognition of cooking techniques in
small mammals
John D. Speth
lNTRODUCfION
Hunting has been a major focus of interest to both cultural
anthropologists and prehistorians for many generations,
and there is now a wealth of detailed ethnographic and
archaeological information on how animals are procured
and butchered, and the complex decision-making pro-
cesses that underlie and guide the hunters' selection of
body parts for transport back to a camp or village. Over
the past two decades, there has also been an explosion of
taphonomic research on the fate of animal bones once
they have been discarded at the home settlement. These
studies examine the hroad array of non-cultural processes
that can damage or destroy bones before they finally
become part of the archaeological record.
Curiously. however, aside from discussions of marrow
extraction (e.g., Binford 1978, 1981), there has been
surprisingly little attention given to what happens to bones
after they arrive in a settlement but before they get tossed
into the trash. Particularly conspicuous by its scarcity is
detailed information on how meat is actually prepared
and cooked, and the impact that mode of cooking exerts
on the nature and ultimate fate of the discarded bones. A
few recent ethnoarchaeological studies clearly demon-
strate the important role that cooking is likely to play in
the formation of an archaeological faunal assemblage.
For example, Yellen (1977) and Kent (1993) have shown
that the average size of bone fragments discarded in a
settlement can differ tremendously depending on whether
meat and bones were prepared for stewing in a pot or
roasting over an open fire. In a similar vein, Gifford-
Gonzalez (1989, 1993) has observed that both the
placement and incidence ofcutrnarks on bones are heavily
influenced by whether butchering took place before or
after the meat had been cooked. Likewise, observations
by Gifford-Gonzalez (1989), Kent (1993), and Jones
(1993) have shown that the incidence of burning on
"roasted" bones can vary from virtually nil if meat was
baked in a pit or earth oven, to values in excess of 50%
if the carcass was thoroughly dismembered and the cuts
of meat spitted directly over an open fire. These examples
make it abundantly clear that mode of cooking can exert
a significant influence on the nature and condition of
bones that ultimately make their way into the trash.
In this paper, I attempt to show that mode of cooking
can have a profound effect on the survival of bones even
after they have been discarded. In the process, I show that
two cooking techniques - boiling and baking/roasting-
can actually be identified in an archaeological assem-
blage of small mammal remains just on the basis ofelement
frequencies. While the case I describe here is inferred
from archaeological data rather than based on direct
ethnographic observation, and hence remains far from
conclusive, it nevertheless underscores the impact that
mode of cooking can have on the nature and composition
ofarchaeological faunal assemblages, and the importance
ofstudying meat preparation and cooking as integral parts
of taphonomic and zooarchaeological research agendas.
I begin with a brief discussion of the small mammal
remains from an archaeological site in New Mexico, and
show that the bones are a reasonably unbiased sample of
human food remains and not merely taphonomic "back-
ground noise." I then present taphonomic evjdence that
suggests that two species of rodent were habitually baked
or roasted, while two species of lagomorph were generally
boiled or stewed. I conclude with a brief discussion of the
broader implications and issues raised by these findings.
THE SITE AND ITS FAUNA
The Henderson Site is a small, late prehistoric pueblo
about 17 km southwest of Roswell in southeastern New
Mexico. The site, occupied between about A.D. 1275
and 1350, is situated on a low limestone ridge that forms
the western margin of the broad lowlands of the Pecos
River Valley (Rocek and Speth 1986; Speth n.d.). The
Hondo River, a major western tributary of the Pecos,
cuts through the ridge just north of the site and flows out
across the floor of the valley to join the Pecos a few
kilometers east of Roswell.
Henderson is an "En-shaped adobe structure, covering
90 John D. Spelh
+ +

lJ
+ +

+
".
+ + +
+
".
+
Henderson Site (LA-1549)
'i
Chaves Co., N.M.
+ + + + +
1981
..

5 0
'0
L....L.-J
+
+ +

+ +
meters
ConltllK InlfK"VaJ 25 em

Site Elevetion CA. 1185 m. (3890 ft.)

'65
.90 515 ..0 565 590
Fig. 10.1 Contour map of Henderson Site showing the "E"-shaped structure and location of major 1980-81 excavation
units in Center Bar. East Bar. and East Plaza
about one-third of a hectare, with an estimated 50 or
more large, single storey, rectangular rooms (Fig. 10. I).
The Bars of the "E" partly enclose the small East and
West Plazas. Eleven rooms, six in the Center Bar, five in
tbe East Bar, were sampled in two seasons of excavation
(1980-1981). Each room had a hearth near its center and
four upright roof-support beams located close to the
corners. Entry appears to have been by ladder through an
opening in the roof. Only Room C-5 in the Center Bar
had been deliberately filled with trash after its abandon-
ment; the others apparently filled gradually as their roofs
and walls collapsed and disintegrated. The only other
major trash deposit was near the south end of the East
Plaza. Here, excavation revealed a deep ashy midden,
the spoils from a huge earth oven, filled with masses of
fire-cracked rock and thousands of animal bones.
The excavations sampled approximately 160 m' or
roughly 6% of the site. This yielded nearly 12,000 well-
preserved animal bones among which were bison,
antelope, deer (probably mule deer), lagomorphs (both
jackrabbits and cottontails), prairie dogs, pocket gophers,
fish (especially catfish), and a variety of birds (Table
10.1). In the following, I focus on just four species: the
two lagomorphs, prairie dogs, and pocket gophers. For a
detailed study of the entire suite of faunal remains see
Speth (n.d.).
Lagomorphs, represented by more than 5,800 bones
(NISP), are by far the most common taxa at Henderson.
Of these, nearly 1,830 (31.5%), representing at least 55
animals, are from jackrabbits (Lepus califomicus), and
nearly 4,000 (68.5%), representing approximately 128
individuals, are from cottontails (Sylvilagus audubonii).
Among the jackrabbits, at least 12 individuals (21.8%)
are immature. The proportion of immature cottontails is
similar (30 individuals or 23.4%). Only about 2.5% of
the jackrabbit bones and 2.0% of the cottontail bones are
burned.
The rodent assemblage from Henderson is neither large
(total NISP=I,301) nor is it particularly diverse taxon-
omically. The majority of bones (66.3%; NISP=877),
representing at least 64 individuals, are from the black-
tailed prairie dog (Cyllomys ludovicianus). Of these, 18
animals or 28.1 %are immature. An additional 240 bones
(18.3%) are from the yellow-faced (or yellow-cheeked)
Boiling vs. baking and roasting
Table 10.1 Major/aunal taxa recovered/rom the Henderson Site.
91
Taxon
Bison (Bison bison)
Antelope (Antilocapra americana)
Deer (Odocoileus sp.)
Jackrabbit (Lepus cali/amicus)
Cottontail (Sylvilagus Qudubonii)
Prairie Dog (Cynomys ludovicianus)
Pocket Gopher (Pappogeomys castallops)
Birds (at least 31 taxa)
Fish (letalurids)
Fish (Non-Ietalurids)
TOTAL
NISP
2027
1095
66
1829
3975
877
240
316
1087
83
11595
%
17.5
9.4
0.6
15.8
34.3
7.6
2.1
2.7
9.4
0.7
MNI
34
21
3
55
128
64
25
61
60
18
469
%
7.2
4.5
0.6
II. 7
27.3
13.6
5.3
13.0
12.8
3.8
pocket gopher (Pappogeomys castanops). These remains
represent a minimum of 25 animals, of which six (24.0%)
are immature. Thirty-three specimens (2.5%) are from
muskrats (Ondatra zibethicus), representing a minimum
of four individuals, two of which are immature. The
remaining rodent bones (12.8%; NISP=167) are all from
relatively small-bodied animals (i.e., smaller than the
pocket gopher), and have not as yet been identified to
genus or species; these are treated here as a single group
("misc. small rodents").
Before we immerse Durse! yes in the details of the
analysis, afew comments on the statistical methods used
to evaluate the faunal remains are in order. Throughout
the following discussion, the significance of the difference
between pairs of percentages is evaluated using t
s
' a test
of the equality of two percentages based on the arcsine
transformation (see Sokal and Rohlf 1969: 607-610).
Correlations are examined using Spearman's rho (rJ In
all comparisons, a value of p:5.05 is considered significant.
RECOVERY BIAS
In any analysis of small mammals, three critical issues
have to be discussed before one can consider the role of
these animals in human diet and subsistence. The first is
hias against smaller taxa and smaller elements introduced
by the recovery practices (i.e., screening) during the
excavations. The second is whether the small mammal
hones are actually human food residues, or just the
remains of animals that died of natural causes, or were
killed by predators in burrows that had been dug into the
site after abandonment. Thirdly, we must address the
issue of taphonomic bias, especially the differenti.al loss
or destruction of particular elements, or entire taxa, due
to the scavenging activities of dogs. In the following I
consider each of these in some detail.
Before discussing tbe impact of recovery biases on
the Henderson small mammal remains, a few comments
are needed on the screening procedures. During both
seasons of excavation, all sediment not expressly saved
for flotation was passed through one-quarter-inch mesh
screens (ca. 6.4 mm). Crew members were instructed to
retrieve everything of an archaeological nature from the
screens, regardless of size (i.e., no arbitrary cut-off was
used). Tiny or fragile items, including bones, were put in
plastic vials. Items that were seen falling through the
screen were also retrieved. The sediments at Henderson
were generally dry, loose, and passed quickly and easily
through the screens. There were relatively few rocks in
the deposits that would cause fragmentation of small
bones in the screenS. The obvious exception was in the
East Plaza, where the deposits contained masses of fire-
cracked rock. However, these rocks were hand picked
from the sediment before the fill was screened.
Lagomorphs
All lagomorph remains caught in the screens were
collected. Nevertheless, the question remains whether
substantial numbers of bones, especially those from the
much smaller cottontail, passed undetected through the
quarter-inch mesh. Swter (1991: 49-55) examined the
effect of different mesh sizes and screening practices on
the recovery of lagomorph remains at a wide range of
sites in southern Arizona. She concluded that quarter-
inch screening recovered lagomorph remains consistently
and reliably. In particular, she found that quarter-inch
screens recovered the bones of cottontails about as con-
sistently as those ofjackrabbits despite their smaller size.
Shaffer (1992a) conducted a controlled experiment in
which he repeatedly passed the unbroken bones of com-
parativeS. audubonii and L. califamicus through a quarter-
inch screen. He was able to determine the likelihood of
each skeletal element passing through. Not unexpectedly,
many of the elements which passed easily through the
screen are those which archaeologists seldom tabulate,
such as tiny carpals, tarsals. phalanges, ribs, sesamoids,
patellas, and caudal vertebrae. Most other elements, with
a few notable exceptions, were caught on the screens
more than 70%of the time (precise figures were not given).
The important elements that Shaffer recovered less
than 70% of the time included (for both species) the
metacarpals and metatarsals, innominate, and tibia. This
is somewhat surprising, since the unbroken metatarsals,
innominate, and tibia are relatively long, even in the
small-bodied cottontail, and would only pass through the
92 John D. Speth
screen if they were upright. This of course may happen
when the screen is shaken, but as we will see shortly the
Henderson lagomorph data suggest that these elements
were recovered relatively consistently. The loss of
cottontail metacarpals is not surprising, however, as these
elements are very small even when complete. Shaffer's
experiment shows that the rate of recovery for most
elements, both cranial and postcranial, is relatively high
in both lagomorph taxa. This encouraging result mirrors
the conclusions drawn by Szuter (1991).
Turning now to the Henderson data, one way of
assessing the nature and extent of recovery bias is to
compare the composition of the screening assemblage
with that of the flotation assemblage. During the two
seasons of excavation at Henderson, over 300 flotation
samples (average 3.9 liters, totaling about 1.2 m' of
sediment) were processed. The flotation samples yielded
a total (NISP) of 118 lagomorph bones. Of these, 28
(23.7%) are Lepus and 90 (76.3%) are Sylvilagus. In the
site-wide assemblage (which includes both screening and
flotation), 1,829 (31.5%) are Lepus and 3,975 (68.5%)
are Sylvilagus. As expected, cottontails are somewhat
better represented than jackrabbits in the flotation
samples, perhaps indicating that some cottontail remains
have been lost in screening, but the difference is small
and not statistically significant (t,=1.88, p>.05).
A more reliable way to assess recovery is to compare
flotation and screening samples from the same proveni-
ences. Table 10.2 presents the proportions of the species
in the two types of sample for each major provenience
(sample sizes in the flotation samples are much too small
to warrant the use ofMNI values, so only NISP values are
presented). For each provenience, the proportion of
cottontails in the flotation samples is somewhat higher
than in the screened materials, pointing to the probable
loss of bones of the smaller lagomorph. However, with
the exception of the East Bar, the differences are only
between 3% and 8%. None are statistically significant.
Thus screening biases appear to be relatively minor.
Table 10.2 also reveals this in another way. For the
screened assemblage, the proportions of cottontails based
on MNI values are always slightly higher than their
proportions based on NISP values. Severe losses should
lead to major differences between the MNI and NISP
percentages. The table clearly shows this is not the case.
Another way to assess the biases is to compare the
proportional representation (%MNI) of various skeletal
elements (Table 10.3). If screening biases are severe, the
smaller cottontail elements should have the lowest %MNl
values. This is generally n"at the case. With the obvious
exception of the tiny cottontail metacarpal and radius,
the pattern does not suggest biases from screening. Quite
the contrary: the values for mandible, tibia, innominate,
metatarsal, and even the tiny calcaneus are higher in the
cottontail than in the jackrabbit; and the values for
scapula, femur and humerus are very similar. Among the
limb elements, only the radius and metacarpal (both small,
linear and delicate bones) are significantly under-
represented in the cottontail. The overall similarity
between the %MNI values in Table 10.3 is underscored
by the significant correlation between them (Spearman's
rho, N=16, r, =.87, p<.OI).
Table 10.2 Frequency of Lepus and Sylvilagus remains by provenience in screened and flotation samples.
NISP MNI
Provenience
Jackrabbit
(Lepus)
Cottontail
(Sylvi.)
Total
Lago.
% Sylvi.
(Lago.
Index I)
Jackrabbit
(Lepus)
Cottontail
(Sylvi.)
Total
Lago.
% Sylvi.
(Lago.
Index1)
S d S creene amples
East Bar 529 1609 2138 0.75 16 59 75 0.79
Center Bar 553 1208 1761 0.69 20 50 70 0.71
Combined Rooms 1082 2817 3899 0.72 36 109 145 0.75
Room C-5 only 358 649 1007 0.64 12 31 43 0.72
East Plaza 534 834 1368 0.61 17 32 49 0.65
Entire Site 1829 3975 5804 0.68 55 128 183 0.70
I 2
S FI Olahon amoles
East Bar (0.43 m
3
)
3 24 27 0.89 -- -- -- --
Center Bar (0.46 m
3
)
16 42 58 0.72
-- -- -- --
Combined Rooms (0.89 m
3
)
18 66 84 0.79 -- -- -- -
Room C-5 only (0.37 m
3
)
14 31 45 0.69 -- -- -- --
East Plaza (0.23 m
3
)
9 20 29 0.69 -- --
--
--
Entire Site (1.17 m
3
)
28 90 i 18 0.76
-- --
-- --
I See Szuter (1991 :174-175) for discussion ofLagomorph Index.
2Volume of sediment processed by flotation in each provenience given in parentheses; total volume for "entire
site" includes 0.05 m
3
of sediment processed by flotation from miscellaneous proveniences not listed in table.
Boiling vs. baking and roasting
Table 10.3 Proportion of major skeletal elements of Lepus and Sylvilagus in site-wide lagomorph assemblage.
Jackrabbit Cottontail
Skeletal (Lepus californicl/s) (Svlvilaf!Us al/dl/banil)
Element MNI %MNI MNI %MNI
Skull 39 70.91 100 78.12
Mandible 33 60.00 125 97.66
Atlas 4 7.27 3 2.34
Axis 3 5.45 3 2.34
Cervical I 1.82 I 0.78
Thoracic 1 1.82 1 0.78
Lumbar 5 9.09 II 8.59
Scapula 55 100.00 128 100.00
Dist. Humerus 54 98.18 111 86.72
Prox. Radius 43 78.18 61 47.66
Metacarpal 17
30.91
2
6
4.69
4
Innominate 24 43.64 107 83.59
Dist. Femur 32 58.18 69 53.91
Tibial
26 47.27 118 92.19
Calcaneus 23 41.82 93 72.66
Metatarsal 20
36.36
3
58
45.31
5
JProx. Tibia in Lepus; Dist. Tibia in Sylvi/agus. 2Proximal Me. 4. 3proximal Mt. 2 and Mt. 3.
4Proximal Me. 3. 5Proximai Mt. 2.
Table 10.4 Density (NISPlm
J
) of lagomorph bones by major provenience'
Provenience
Taxon East Bar Center Bar Combined Room C-5 East Plaza Flotation
(all rooms) (excl. Rm. C-5) Rooms only
(12.73 m
3
)
Samples
(34.85 m
3
) (16.99 m
3
)
(excl. Rm. C-5)
(8.77 m
3
) (1.17m
3
)
(51.90 m
3
)
Total NISP 61.35 57.68 60.08 114.82 107.46 100.85
Lagomorphs MNE 52.63 42.55 49.27 86.20 77.69 73.51
MNI 2.15 2.12 2.14 5.99 4.56 4.27
NISP 15.18 15.60 15.30 40.82 41.95 23.93
Lepus MNE 12.80 12.12 12.56 30.22 28.99 17.95
MNI 0.46 0.59 0.50 1.82 1.89 0.85
NISP 46.17 42.08 44.78 74.00 65.51 76.92
Sy/vi/aeus MNE 39.83 30.43 36.71 55.99 48.70 55.56
MNI 1.69 1.53 1.64 4.16 2.67 3.42
IVolume of excavated sediment for tabulated proveniences given in parentheses.
93
The vertebrae deserve comment. Table 10.3 shows
that vertebrae of both species are very rare at Henderson.
Shaffer (1992a) however found in his screening experi-
ments that all cotlontail and jackrabbit vertebrae (except
caudals) were recovered more than 70% of the time.
However, he used only complete elements in his experi-
ments, whereas most of the Henderson specimens were
fragmentary; it is very likely that the fragmented ones
passed through the screens. Vertebrae, therefore, are
probably under-represented, due at least in part to
recovery biases. Their under-representation undoubtedly
also reflects the fact that many vertebral fragments could
not be identified to taxon with confidence.
Another interesting way to examine the question is to
compare the density of lagomorphs in the floated and
screened samples. The density of total lagomorph
remains in the flotation samples is approximately 101
specimens per m
3
The flotation samples were taken
preferentially from deposits with a high potential for
producing botanical remains; many were therefore
collected from midden deposits. Screened assemblages
from areas dominated by midden deposits produced
similar densities: the East Plaza earth oven complex
yielded 1,368 lagomorph bones, an overall density of
about 107 per m'; Center Bar Room C-5 produced 1,007,
a density of liS per m'. These results (Table lOA) again
show that screening biases have not seriously affected
the recovery of lagomorph remains.
Since we are particularly concerned with assessing
recovery biases between the two species, it is informative
to compare the density figures for just the smaller
Sylvi/agus. The density of cotlontail bones in the flotation
94
John D. Speth
Table /0.5 Density (NISPlm
J
) of Sy/vilagus skeletal elemems in flotation samples. East Plow. and Room C-5
1
.
FlOl3tion (Vol.=1.17 m
3
)
East Plaza (VoI.=II.90 m
3
) Room C5 (Vot-S.77 m
3
)
Skeletal
!kMi NISP Densi
Elanenl NISP Densi NISP
Cranial IS 15.4 \63 13.7 \52 17.3
Mand. only 5 4.3 90 7.\ 8\ 9.2
Scapula 6 5.\ 66 52 71 8.\
6.8 49 3.9 37 4.2
Humerus 8
31 2.4 35 4.0
Radius \ 0.9
3 2.6 33 2.6 37 4.2
Ulna
3 0.2 4 0.5
Metacarpal 0 -
Innominate 7 6.0 \2. 9.7 64 7.3
6 5.1 70 5.5 44 5.0
Femur
74 8.4
Tibia II 9.4 103 8.1
Metatarsal 10 8.6 64 5.0 SS 6.6
I Volume of excavated sediment for oornbined flotation samples (N"'J03), East Plaza, and Room C-5 gIven
in parentheses.
samples is 77 per m
3
Their density in Room C-5 (74 per
m
l
) is very similar, whereas in the East Plaza their density
(66 bones per m
l
) is somewhat lower (Table 10.4). While
it is tempting to attribute the lower value in the East
Plaza to screening bias, the fact that this provenience and
Room C-5 were screened in exactly the same way suggests
that other factors, perhaps taphonomic, perhaps cultural,
may be responsible.
if werepeat these comparisons for individual S)'lvilagus
elements, it becomes clear that biases are present in only
a few elements and are relatively minor(Table 10.5). The
element.by-elementdensi[y values for Ihe flotation, East
Plaza, and Room C-5 assemblages are all significantly
and positively correlated, despite the small sample sizes
(Spearman's rho, N=ll; Flotation and East Plaza, r,=.72,
p<.05; Flotation and Room C-5, r.=.67, p<.05; East Plaza
and Room C-5, r =.90, p<.OI). Interestingly, some of the
elements which ~ poorly represented in the screened
samples. such as the radius, ulna, and metacarpals, are
also rare in the flotation samples. Their absence, therefore.
may nOI be due to screening biases after all. It therefore
seems reasonable to conclude that, while somecottonlail
bones have been lost through screening, Iheextenl of loss
has nOI been great across most elements.
In sum, for jackrabbits there is very little evidence
that screening bias has altered the composition of the
assemblage. Given the large size of most upus elements
even when broken. this is not very surprising. For
cottontails. we cannot be quite as certain, but several
different analyses point toward the same general con-
clusion. While screening losses have almost certainly
deleted many of the s!Jlallest Sylvilagus elements. such
as the carpals, tarsals, sesamoids, and patella. most of
the larger elements appear to have been recovered at
Henderson with comparatively little bias.
Rodents
Very similar arguments can be used 10 assess the
composition of Ihe rodent assemblage, in terms of both
the proportions of the taxa present and the representation
of skeletal elements (Shaffer 1992a; Szuter 1991). As
already noted, recovery of bones of Sylvilagus is unlikely
to be biased (except for the tiny bones seldom tabulated
by zooarchaeologists, and the metacarpals). Since the
prairie dog (average body weight ca. 1.1 kg) is somewhat
larger than the desert cottontail (ca. 0.9 kg). recovery
biases for this rodent should be even less than for the
rabbit. Table 10.6 shows that the density of prairie dog
remains is higher in the screened midden deposits than in
the flotation samples, arguing against severe losses of
the bones of this relatively large rodent.
The picture is less clear for the much smaller pocket
gopher (average body weight ca. 270 g). The East Plaza
density is considerably lower than the flotation density,
perhaps a sign of recovery bias. On the other hand, the
Room C-5 deposits have a much higher density. Since
the screening techniques used in these two areas were
identical. it is unlikely that the low East Plaza value
reflects problems in recovery.
A more reliable way [0 assess bias against the pocket
gopher is to compare the density of just mandibles and
maxillae, two large and comparatively robust elements
that are unlikely to have passed through the screens (fable
10.6). Unfortunately the flotation sample of these
elements is very small. Nevertheless. the higher densities
in both the East Plaza and Room C-5 samples means that
gophers are unlikely to be severely under-represented.
Interestingly. screening biases do not even appear to
be particularly severe against the smallest rodent taxon,
"misc. small rodents," when comparisons are made using
JUSt mandibles and maxiIJae (Table 10.6). Again, their
density in the Room C-5 midden is similar to that in the
flotation samples.
Boiling vs. baking and roasting
Table 10.6 Density (N/SPlm
J
) offodent bones in flotation samples and by major provenience.
Number of Identifiable Specimens Density
(NISP)
rNISP/m
3
,
Prairie Pocket "Misc. Small Prairie Pocket "Misc. Small
Do" Gonher Rodents" Doo Gonher Rodents"
Total Man.! Total Man.! Total Man.! Total Man.! Total Man.! Total Man.!
Provenience NISP Max. NISP Max. NISP Max. NISP Max. NISP ~ NISP Max.
East Bar 226 64 8J J9 55 28 6.48 1.84 2.32 0.55 1.58 0.80
Center Bar 346 86 117 29 97 62 13.43 3.34 4.54 1.l3 3.77 2.41
Com. Roomblks. 572 150 198 48 152 90 9.44 2.47 3.27 0.79 2.5l 1.48
Room C-5 182 45 8J 2J 60 39 20.75 5.13 9.24 2.62 6.84 4.45
East Plaza 242 8J J5 18 10 6 20.34 6.81 2.94 1.51 0.84 0.50
Entire Site 863 243 238 68 167 99 10.85 3.05 2.99 0.85 2.10 1.24
Flotation I II 4 8 0 16 7 9AO 3A2 6.84 0.00 13.68 5.98
1A total of 303 sediment samples (1.17 m
3
) were processed by flotation.
Table ID.7 Frequency of bones of each rodent taxon recovered in screens and in flotation samples.
Screenimo: Samoles
l
Flotation Samoles
2
Rodent Taxon NISP % NISP %
Prairie Dog 852 98.73 II 1.27
Pocket Gopher 230 96.64 8 3.36
Muskrat JJ 100.00 0 0.00
"Misc. Smal1 Rodents" 151 90A2 16 9.58
IQuarter-inch screens (dry-screened). 2A total of 303 sediment samples (1.17 m
3
) were processed by flotation.
Table 10.8 Frequency of lagomorph and rodent demitions (mandibles amd maxillae).
95
Small Mammal Taxon
Jackrabbit (Lepus califamicus)
Cottontail (Sylvilagus audubonii)
Prairie Dog (Cynomys ludovicionus)
Muskrat (Ondorra ziberhicus)
Pocket Gopher (Pappogeomys castanops)
"Misc. Small Rodents"
Total NISP
[269
3094
863
33
238
167
Mandibles and Maxi11ae Onl
NISP %
321 25.30
931 30.09
143 28.16
10 30.30
68 28.57
99 59.28
Another way of examining recovery is simply to
compare, for each rodent taxon, the proportion of bones
(% total NISP) recovered in the screens with that found
in the flotation samples. Table 10.7 shows that the
proportion recovered in the flotation samples increases
steadily as body size decreases, a sign that more bones of
the smaller taxa are being lost through the screens. All
proportions in Table 10.7 are significantly different
(prairie dog vs. pocket gopher: t,=1.95, p=.05; prairie
dog vs. "misc. small rodents": t,=4.77, p<.OOI; pocket
gopher vs. "misc. small rodents"; t,=2.58, p<.OI; mus-
krats omitted because of small sample sizes). However,
even the "misc. small rodents" are quite well represented
in the screened samples, more than 90% being found
here. Recovery biases, while clearly present, have not
grossly distorted their proportional representation at
Henderson.
Screening biases against the smaller rodent elements
can be assessed through the proportion of dentitions in
the total NISP for each taxon. These data are summarized
in Table 10.8. The patterning is quite sttiking. After a
relatively small but statistically significant (t,=3.21,
p<.OOl) increase from about 25% in jackrabbits (average
body weight ca. 2.6 kg) to about 30% in cottontails
(average weight ca. 0.9 kg), the proportion remains more
or less constant across the rodent taxa down to the "misc.
small rodents" (average weight less than 150-200 g).
Among these tiny mammals, the proportion of dentitions
jumps dramatically to comprise nearly 60% of the
assemblage.
In sum, recovery biases have probably had little effect
on the prairie dog, muskrat, and pocket gopher assem-
blages, either in tenns of abundance or of proportional
representation of most skeletal elements. Only in the
smallest rodent category. the "misc. small rodents," does
the picture become more complex. So long as mandibles
96 John D. Speth
and maxillae are the focus of analysis, screening does
nol appear to have biased their taxonomic abundance to
any major degree. However, screening has almost
certainly severely biased the proportional representation
ofthe postcranial skeletal elements of these tiny animals.
CULTURAL YS. NATURAL ORIGIN
We now face the problem of determining whether the
cottontail and jackrabbit remains at the site were brought
there by the villagers, or instead represent animals that
died or were dragged into burrows after the village had
been abandoned.
Lagomorphs
The jackrabbit is the easiest with which to begin. Many
lines of evidence point to humans as the primary agent
responsible for introducing many, if not all, of the
jackrabbit remains into the village. First, the highest
densities of Lepus remains are found in trash deposits,
particularly in the East Plaza and in Room C-5. Since
this animal seldom uses burrows, we cannot attribute
their presence in these deposits to natural deaths (Bailey
1931; Dunn et al. 1982; Griffing and Davis 1976; Legler
1970; Orr 1940). Secondly, none of the Lepus remains
occurred as completely or partially articulated skeletons,
which might be expected if animals died naturally in
their burrows. While badgers, coyotes, and foxes are large
enough to drag the carcass of ajackrabbit into their dens
(Dunn et al. (982), this is hardly likely to account for the
many Lepus remains in the site. Moreover, the density of
lagomorphs in the East Plaza trash is virtually identical
to their density in the Room C-S midden. While the latter
deposits contained very little rock and therefore may have
been attractive to burrowing or denning animals, the East
Plaza midden was filled with fire-cracked rock, making
it virtually impenetrable to all but the smallest burrowing
rodents. Finally, about 2.5% of the jackrabbit bones are
burned, pointing to a cultural origin for at least some of
these remains. Taken together, it seems highly unlikely
that the majority of Lepus remains represent natural
deaths or the food remains of non-human predators.
The cottontail is somewhat more difficult. First, this
animal does use burrows, although it is not clear whether
Sylvilagus audubonii excavates its own or uses those
made by other animals such as prairie dogs (Bailey 1931;
Chapman et al. 1982; Chapman and Wi.1lner 1978; Orr
1940). Cottontails are much smaller than jackrabbits and
are more easily dragged into the dens of predators
(Chapman et al. 1982). Nevertheless, some of the
arguments for the cultural origin of the jackrabbit remains
apply also to those of Sylvilagus. Cottontail skeletons
were never found articulated or partially articulated. Some
of the cottontail bones are burned, although as in Lepus
the percentage is small (ca. 2.0%). The density of
cottontails is highest in trash deposits, including the rock-
filled East Plaza midden, where burrowing is virtually
precluded.
Thus while none of these arguments is wholly con-
vincing by itself, taken together it seems very likely thaI
most, if not all, of the remains of both Lepus and
Sylvilagus were brought into Henderson by the villagers
themselves.
Rodents
Determining whether the various rodent taxa represent
human food residues or "background noise" is more
difficult, but nevertheless the evidence again favors the
former. Only one partially articulated rodent skeleton
was found at Henderson, that of an as yet unidentified
"misc. small rodent." It was encountered in a burrow in
the fill overlying one of the rooms in the East Bar. All the
prairie dog, pocket gopher, muskrat, and other "misc.
small rodent" bones were totally disarticulated and w i d ~ l y
dispersed throughout the deposits. This at least tentatively
indicates their place among the human food remains.
Burning is another criterion that may be indicative of
a cultural origin (Driver 1985, 1991; Shaffer 1992b;
Szuter 1991). The problem at Henderson, however, is
that only a small fraction of the bones of any taxon were
burned (e.g., bison, ca. 6.0%; jackrabbit, ca. 2.5%;
cottontail rabbit, ca. 2.0%; prairie dog, ca. 2.0%; gopher,
ca. 0.8%; "misc. small rodents," ca. 0.6%), leaving the
cultural status of the small mammals in doubt. Never-
theless, the incidence of burning in prairie dogs, the
largest and most common rodent at Henderson, is
identical to that in the similar-sized Sylvilagus.
The density of prairie dog bones is highest in the two
major trash deposits sampled, the East Plaza midden and
that in Center Bar Room ~ (Table 10.6). One might
argue that their abundance in Room ~ merely reflects
the fact that they preferred to burrow (and hence also to
die) in soft, organic-rich sediments. However, this
argument cannot accountfor their high density in the
East Plaza midden, where closely-packed masses of fire-
cracked rock would have all but precluded burrowing by
these relatively large-bodied rodents.
Unfortunately, interpretation of the density values for
the smaller rodents (pocket gophers and "misc. small
rodents") is less clear-cut. Density values are high in the
soft Room C-5 midden but low in the rocky East Plaza
deposits. Thus for these taxa the high value in the C-S
midden could reflect either cultural or taphonomic
processes.
Perhaps the most convincing evidence that many, if
not all, of the prairie dogs were brought to the site by the
villagers is provided by the age structure of the animals.
Age in black-tailed prairie dogs can be estimated with
reasonable precision based on the degree of wear on the
lower premolar or P
4
(Cox and Franklin 1990; also
Hoogland and Hutter 1987; Stockrahm and Seabloom
1990). The method, the "premolar gap" technique, is
Boiling liS. baking and roasting 97
based on the size of the gap between the highest crest on
the paraconid and protoconid cusps. In a sample of 292
live, known-age prairie dogs, Cox and Franklin (1990)
found that the breadth of the gap increased linearly with
age up to about three years and then curvilinearly in
older animals. They found no significant differences
between males and females or among animals of different
body weighL
Premolar gaps were measured in 68 well-preserved
blacktailed prairie dog mandibles from the Henderson
Site. Accurate measurement was difficult even under a
binocular microscope, because the surfaces were often
broad and only slightly convex. The level of precision
(0.02 mm) reported by Cox and Franklin (1990:144),
who measured live animals apparently without the aid of
magnification, could not be matched. I therefore used a
method that yielded consistent though less precise (0.1
mm) values. This involved gently touching the premolar
cusps on an inked stamp pad. They were then pressed
onto paper, producing a pair of tiny points. The diameter
of these points could be minimized by using very little
ink, pressing lightly on the paper, and making a series of
impressions to use up excess ink. The premolar gap
breadth was the center-to-centerdisrance in mm between
the two points. The measurements were made with a
transparent base optical magnifier with a builtin
"contact" reticle graduated to 0.1 mm.
1then used the linear regression results provided by
Cox and Franklin (1990: 145) to convert these gap values
into approximate ages:
y = 1.541 +0.013x,
where y is the premolar gap breadth in mm, and x is the
known age in weeks of the animals. This must be regarded
with caution since the relationship has not been validated
in other prairie dog samples.
Studies of prairie dog demography typically divide
animals into just two age classes, juveniles (under 1 year)
and "adults" (yearlings and older). Grouped in this
manner, Henderson yielded 27 juveniles (39.7%) and 41
"adults" (60.3%). In a living population of black-railed
prairie dogs monitored over 14 years in Wind Cave
National Park, South Dakota. Hoogland et al. (1987)
found that the average number of juveniles was 81
(37.9%) and that of "adults" was 133 (62.1%). Similarly,
Smith (1967:29) observed that there were about 33%
juveniles and 67% yearlings and older animals in a prairie
dog colony in Kansas. These figures are strikingly similar
to those at Henderson, and strongly suggest that the
prebistoric villagers were taking animals in proportions
that closely approximated those in a living population.
This becomes more compelling if one compares the
Henderson figures with the proportion of juveniles that
die each year in modem populations. Juvenile mortality
in blacktailed prairie dogs is extremely high. a substantial
part being due to infanticide (e.g., Hoogland 1985;
Hoogland et aJ. 1987; Stockrahm and Seabloom 1988).
High juvenile monality is clearly reflected in data f.rom
a population in the Black Hills. King (1955:48) found
that, on average, about twothirds of the animals that
died each year juveniles. Menkens and Anderson
(199I)show that in whitNailed prairie dogs (c.
in Wyoming, approximately two-thirds of the animals
that died in a given year were juveniles.
If the values provided by this small sample of studies
are in any way comparable to the 13tb century AD
situation in southeastern New Mexico, then a natural
death assemblage should be biased strongly toward
animals less than a year old. This is however not the case
at Henderson. Instead, the age structure suggests that the
prairie dogs were deliberately bunted by the villagers.
and that the techniques employed (e.g., traps or snares)
captured juveniles and older animals in proportions very
similar to their nalUral abundance in the living population.
In sum, we can conclude that the prairie dog bones at
Henderson are almost certainly the food remains of the
site's human inhabirants. not background "noise." This
is probably also true of the pocket gophers, and perhaps
even of many of the smaller rodents. but unfortunately
the data at band do not allow us to demonstrate this to as
gretH a degree of certainty.
SMALL MAMMAL TAPHONOMY
The third and final issue that needs to be addressed is the
elttent to which the small mammal assemblages, par
ticularly those of lagomorph and prairie dog, have been
allered by attritional processes such as weathering,
ITIlmpling, or scavenging by predators. Of most concern
is whether skeletal element frequencies have been biased
by differential loss of the less resistant elements. Several
lines of evidence can be eltamined. These include the
presence of crack.ing, splintering, ex.foliation, or otber
tell-tale signs of weathering (e.g., Behrensmeyer 1978);
and evidence for gnawing or digestion by carnivores.
Finally, a tendency for element frequencies to covary
with measures of bone density and utility may also
provide clues to the nature and extent of biases, though
non-human taphonomic processes cannot automatically
be assumed to be responsible.
lAgomorphs
Loss through weathering does not appear to have played
an important taphonomic role in the Henderson lago-
morph assemblage. The bones are unweathered. Most
were found in trash deposits, and their excellent state of
preservation suggests that burial was quite rapid, a
conclusion that is well supponed by the radiocarbon dates
(Speth n.d.).
Attrition of the lagomorph assemblage by trampling
is unlikely, because most of the bones were
from just two trash deposits, one that had been dumped
98 10hll D. Speth
Table 10.9 Degree of breakage of bones of Lepus and Sylvilagus.
Complete or Nearly
Total
Complete Specimens I Fragmentary Spccimens
2
Taxon NISP NISP % Nl8P %
Jackrabbit (Lepus califamicus) 1472 326 22.1 1146 77.9
Cottontai', (svlviluKUS alldllbOl;ii) 2886 690 23.9 2196 76.1
Total om
h, 4358 1016 23.3 '3342 76.7
I Includes all bones that were complete or more than ]/4 complete.
2lncludes all identifiable fragments that were less than or equal to 3/4 complete.
into an abandoned room and one that had accumulated in
a natural depression in the East Plaza. These are places
where heavy foot traffic would be unlikely.
If trampling had a major effect, one possible indication
might be more bone breakage in jackrabbit. the larger
species. Some studies have shown that, under heavy
trampling, smaller bones (e.g., cottontails) are more likely
than larger ones (e.g.,jackrabbits) to become buried under
a thin protective layer of sediment (see, for example,
Gifford 1980, 1981; Gifford and Behrensmeyer [977;
Nielsen 1991; Pintar 1987 [cited in Nielsen 1991];
Walters 1984; Yellen 1977). However, other studies have
come up with contradictory results (e.g., Gifford-
Gonzalez et al. 1985; Yellen 1991b). Thus, if there were
differences between the two lagomorph taxa, it would
not be clear whether they reflected trampling. Table 10.9
shows that bone breakage is in fact nearly identical in the
two species. If vertical displacement of smaller bones
does in fact protect them from breakage, trampling has
probably not been a major factor, and therefore is unlikely
to have led to major biases in the overall element or
species composition of the assemblage.
If bones have been deleted from the Henderson
lagomorph assemblage, the single most likely agent is
village dogs. In a village like Henderson, they are the
only predator/scavenger that would have had access to
the trash deposits (Kent 1981, 1993; Lyon 1970; Payne
and Munson 1985; Walters 1984; Casteel 1971). Wild
predator/scavengers would have had much less access so
long as the community remained occupied (Yellen 1991 a,
1991b). Most lagomorph bones would have been
defleshed prior to disposal, and when exposed on the
surface for more than a few weeks are unlikely to have
remained attractive to predators (Binford et al. 1988;
Blumenschine 1986; Yellen 1991a, 199b). If the villagers
had cooked bones in pots to make stews or broth rather
than roasting or baking them, the degreased bones would
have been of little interest to scavengers from the moment
they were discarded (e.g., Morey and Klippel 1991:17).
One of the clearest indications of scavenging by dogs
is the presence on the bones of gnaw-marks. pitting,
crenulated edges, punctures, or traces of acid-etching and
polishing on ingested specimens (Andrews and Evans
1983; Binford 1981; Blumenschine and Selvaggio 1991;
Hockett 1989; Horwitz 1990). At Henderson, however,
such evidence is exceedingly rare, not only on lagomorph
bones, but also on those of much larger species sucb as
antelope and bison. This of course does not mean that
village dogs played no role in the formation of the
lagomorph assemblage (see Kent 1981, 1993). GiveI'!. the
small size of the bones of both cottontails andjackrabbits,
access to marrow and cancellous tissue would not have
required gnawing. A dog could easily consume an entire
small element, or bite off part of a larger one, leaving
few or no recognizable signs on the remaining fragments.
The approach must therefore be less direct.
Another approach is to examine the extent to which
element frequencies covary with bone bulk or volume
density. Numerous studies have explored the relationship
between bone survivorship and density (Behrensmeyer
1975; Brain 1967, 1969, 1981; Binford 1981; Binford
and Bertram 1977; Grayson 1989; Kreutzer 1992; Lyman
1984. 1985, 1991, 1992; Lyman et al. 1992; Marshall
and Pilgram 1991). The basic assumption is that the less
dense an element or part of an element, the greater its
susceptibility to destruction by attritional processes. Thus,
in an archaeological assemblage. a high correlation
between element frequency and density may be strong
evidence that the assemblage has suffered attrition.
However. several recent studies have shown that the
interpretation of element frequencylbone density plots
may not be so straight-forward. Various indices of food
utility. such as Binford's (1978) MOUI and Metcalfe
and Jones's (1988) PUI. also correlate with bone density
(e.g., Brink and Dawe 1989; Grayson 1989; Lyman 1985,
1992; Klein 1989; Speth 1991). Thus, many high utility
bones most likely to be transported away from a kill by
human hunters, are also ones with low densities whose
scarcity at the kill might be due to attrition. In sum. while
a clear-cut correlation between element frequencies and
bone density may be evidence of attrition, we cannot
simply assume this. Such patterning may instead reflect
human food choices, or processing techniques such as
bone-grease rendering that destroy soft, porous bones
rich in lipids.
A problem that must be raised is that (to my know-
ledge) no one has systematically measured the density of
lagomorph bones. The only element-by-element data that
Boiling vs. baking and roasting 99
are presently available for species other than ungulates
are for two closely related species of small mammal:
marmot and woodchuck (see Behrensmeyer 1975;
Binford and Bertram 1977; Brink and Dawe 1989;
Kreutzer 1992; Lyman 1984, 1992; Lyman et al. 1992).
Thus, to investigate the lagomorph material, I am forced
to use as a proxy either the density values for one of the
ungulates, or those derived from the woodchuck and
mannot.
The latter might seem the obvious choice, since
marmots are much closer to lagomorphs in body size
(average live weight ca. 2.7 kg; Lyman et a!. 1992:559).
However, as Lyman et al. (1992) point out, most density
values for marmot bones are greater than their homo-
logues in deer, a pattern which they tentatively attribute
to the marmot's fossorial habits. Since neither species of
lagomorph of concern here is truly fossorial, the marmot
values may not be appropriate. Thus, while obviously far
from ideal, ungulate density values may be more useful
than one might at first suppose. First, the density values
for deer and bison are highly correlated (Kreutzer 1992),
indicating that gross body size differences alone may not
completely vitiate the utility of one species as a proxy for
another. Second, the overall anatomical proportions of
lagomorphs are broadly similar to those of ungulates,
suggesting that the relative ranking ofdensity values may
be broadly similar. In the following, I use the average
density values for deer, sheep, and pronghorn antelope
(see Lyman 1992: 10, Table I), rather than those of bison
because the former are based on much smaller animals. I
fully recognize that the conclusions I draw may need to
be substantially revised when density measures for the
skeletal elements of cottontails and jackrabbits become
available.
The %MNI values for the mandible and 22 postcranial
elements of e p u ~ and Sylvilagus show a weak but
significant positive correlation with medium ungulate
bOl}e density in both species (Lepus, N=23, r,=.42, p<.05;
Sylvilagus, N=23, r,=.45, p<.05). In contrast, they show
no correlation with marmot bone density (Lepus, N=23,
r,=.21, p>.05; Sylvilagus, N=23, r,=.16, p>.05; see Table
10.10). Thus, the medium ungulate data suggest that there
may have been attritional loss at Henderson. However,
some of the elements considered are very likely to be
under-represented because of screening losses. These are
the vertebrae of both species and perhaps also the
metacarpals of Sylvilagus (see above). If we exclude
these, the correlations with medium ungulate density all
but disappear_ (Lepus, N=18, r.=-.14, p>.05; Sylvilagus,
N=16,. r,=.18, p>.05). Similar calculations using the
marmot data also reveal no significant relationship
(Lepus, N=18, r.=-.33, p>.05; Sylvilagus, N=16, r.=-.II,
p>.05). Interestingly, whichever values are used, the
correlations become consistently negative when the
vertebrae are excluded. This is the reverse of what one
would expect if density-mediated attrition was responsible
for loss of lagomorph bones.
Two things seem fairly clear from this exercise. First,
the medium ungulate density values appear to provide a
better proxy for lagomorph bones than do the marmot
values. Second, a!uong those elements not likely to be
biased by recovery, there is no correlation between %MNI
and bulk density. If the absence of clear-cut patterning is
not merely an artifact of using inappropriate density
values, this suggests that lagomorph element frequencies
at Henderson have not been heavily altered by attritional
processes. In other words, village dogs appear to have
had little detectable impact.
This may seem counter-intuitive since ethnographic
studies have documented the serious impact of dogs on
discarded faunal remains (e.g., Kent 1981, 1993; Lyon
1970; Payne and Munson 1985; Walters 1984). The most
likely explanation for the Henderson situation is that the
vast majority of remains considered came from contexts
where deposition was quite rapid (Room C-5 and the
East Plaza midden), and where dogs may have had limited
access to the bones. The situation in Room C-5 is the
most clear-cut. Judging from the radiocarbon dates
obtained from the floor and fill of this room (Speth n.d.),
trash accumulated very soon after abandonment. More
importantly, the trash was dumped into the room while
the walls were still standing at least one and a half to two
meters high (it is not-clear whether the roof was still in
place or not). In addition, Room C-5 is surrounded on all
four sides by other rooms. Thus, it may have been very
difficult for dogs to gain access to discarded bones in
this structure.
The situation in the East Plaza is less certain. Again,
trash accumulated rapidly, perhaps burying many of the
lagomorph remains before dogs could get at them. The
huge quantities of fire-cracked rock in the East Plaza
may also have prevented dogs from digging into these
deposits. And of course it is possible that the villagers
actively discouraged dogs from freely roaming the village.
One other factor, alluded to earlier, may be especially
relevant here. If the bones had been defleshed but had
not had their marrow and grease removed prior to discard,
dogs should have deleted bones in a manner in proportion
to their marrow utility and possibly also their grease
utility. In other words, the dogs should have left behind
an assemblage with a clear negative correlation between
%MNI and the marrow index (and perhaps also the grease
index). As above, I am forced to use marrow and grease
indices for large ungulates (caribou and bison) as proxies
for the lagomorphs and rodents, for which values have
not yet been determined. Again, what I hope justifies the
use ofthese proxies is the assumption that the anatomical
proportions of the small mammals are sufficiently similar
to those of ungulates to preserve the relative ranking.
I use the standardized marrow index for caribou
developed by Binford (1978:27, Table 1.9, col. 8) with
the following modifications. Given the small size,
compact nature, and extremely tiny marrow cavities in
lagomorph metapodials, astragali, and calcanei, I have
100 John D. Speth
Table 10. 10 Proportiollal representation ofLepus. Sy/vi/agus. black-tailed prairie dog muJpocket gopher skeletal elements.
bulk (volume) dellsiry of medium ungulate alld mOffllOC bolles, marrow index and grease index.
Bulk Density 1 Indices %MN114
Skeletal Medium MannolS
MalTOw
12
Grease
l3
Jackrabbit Couomail Prairie Dog Pocket Gopt
Element Un2ulales (Marmo/a) (Leous) lSl/lvilaws) (eVI/Omvs) (PoDoo'Zeom
Mandible 0.57 0.59 5.74
-
60.00 91.66 100.00 100.00
Alias 0.13 0.67 1.00
--
7.27 2.34 - -
Axis 0.16 0.45 1.00 -
5.45 2.34 - -
Cervical 0.19
0.34
2 1.00 -- 1.82 0.78 - -
Thoracic 0.24
0.34
2
1.00 -
1.82 0.78
- -
Lumbar 0.29 0.34 1.00
-
9.09 8.59 --
-
Scapula 0.36 0.58 6.40 - 100.00 100.00 53.13 8.00
Prox. Humerus 0.24 0.37 29.69 241.48 23.64 21.88 7.81 4.00
Dist. Humerus 0.39 0.62 28.33 64.12 98.18 86.72 54.69 48.00
Prox. Radius 0.42 0.79 43.64 42.71 78.18 47.66 31.25 4.00
Oist Radius 0.43 0.51 66.11 49.73 34.55 25.00 9.38 40.00
Prox. Ulna 0.30 0.66 43.64 42.71 30.91 31.25 64.06 28.00
Prox. Metacarpal 0.56
0.81
3 1.00 6.76
30.91
4
4.69
8 n
-
Dist. Metacarpal 0.49
0.85
3 1.00 14.58
21.82
5
3.91
9 -
-
Innominate 0.27 0.44 7.85 -
43.64 83.59 67.19 64.00
Prox. Femur 0.36 0.73 33.51 112.41 47.27 35.94 '29.69 36.00
Dist. Femur 0.28 0.48 49.41 186.30 58.18 53.91 9.38 32.00
Prox. Tibia 0.30 0.45 43.78 96.82 47.27 42.19 3.13 12.00
Dis!. Tibia 0.50 0.56 92.90 12.22 45.45 92.19 48.44 60.00
ASrllgalus 0.47 0.71 1.00
-
27.27 9.38 - -
Calcaneus 0.64 0.84 1.00
-
41.82 72.66
- -
Prox. Metatarsal 0.55 0.81 1.00 7.44
36.36
6
45.31
10 - -
Disl. Metatarsal 0.46 0.85 1.00 20.07
16.36
7
25.00
11
- -
I Medium ungulate bone density values are averages for Iwo species of North American deer (Odocoilells spp.), pronghorn antelope
(Anli/ocQprQ americana), and domestic sheep (Lyman 1992: 10, Table I); mannot densities are averages for two species (Mannota
montu and Mflavivemris; Lyman et a!. 1992:566, Table 2).
2Densities for mannot cervical and thoracic vertebrae arc not available; lumbar values have been used instead.
3Densities for mannot metacarpals are not available; metatarsal values have been used instead.
4%MNI value for Proll:. Me. 4. 5%MNI value for Dist. Me. 4. 6%MNI value for Prox. Mt. 2 or 3.
7%MNI value for Dist Mt. 2. 8%MNI value for Proll:. Me. 3. 9%MNI value for Dist. Me. 3.
100l&MNI value for PrOll:. Mt. 2. II%MNI value for Dis!. Mt. 2. 12From Binford (1978:27, Table 1.9, col. 8); values
for metapodials and large tarsals (astragalus and calcaneus) have been modified for lagomorphs (see text).
13From Brink and Dawe (1989: 134, Table 20). l4rable omits skeletal elements that were nol identified and coded for
black-tailed prairie dog and pocket gopher (i.e., vencbrac, metapodials, carpals, and tarsals).
assigned a marrow index value of 1.0 to each of these
elements. For the grease index, I have used the values
derived for bison by Brink and Dawe (1989: 134, Table
20). The %MNI and the marrow and grease index values
are given in Table 10.10.
For bolhjacktabbits and cottontails, the %MNI values
are significantly and positively correlated with Binford's
marrow index (N=23: Lepus, r.=.63, p<.OI; Sylvilagus,
r.=.55, p<.OI). This is the reverse of what one would
expect if the assemblage had been ravaged by dogs. Ie is
possible that the inclusion of bones such as the vertebrae
and larger tarsals, which have little or no useful marrow,
may have created a spurious correlation by forming a
cluster of elements all with a marrow index of 1.0. I
therefore recomputed the correlation coefficients with
these elements omitted. This of course sharply reduces
the total N, but despite this the jackrabbit %MNI values
continue to display a significant positive relationship with
the marrow index (N=18: Lepus, r,=.40, p<.05). The result
is very similar when the mandible is also dropped, leaving
only limb elements (N:17: Lepus, r,=.44, p<.05). Using
Brink and Dawe's (1989) grease index, no significant
correlation is obtained for either species of lagomorph.
In other words, there is no evidence that bones were
ravaged by dogs on the basis of their grease content.
The above arguments suggest that dogs have not
seriously altered the composition of the lagomorph
assemblage. For both species, the element frequencies
appear to provide a reasonably unbiased record of the
actual composition of the lagomorph assemblage dis-
carded by the humans. But the positive correlation is
somewhat surprising. What I had expected to find was
little or no correlation, either positive or negative. A
positive correlation in the antelope or bison assemblage
Boiling vs. baking and roasting 10\
might mean that the villagers had selected elements at
the kill on the basis of their marrow contenl. leaving
behind the lower utility bones. But it is hard to imagine
the villagers doing this with lagomorphs most were
probably brought to the village as whole carcasses. Once
in lhe village, aside from removing the skin, innards, and
perhaps the head and feet. the carcasses were most likely
baked or roasted whole or cut up and added to the slew
pot. The positive correlation between %MNI and the
marrow index suggests that the inhabitants discarded the
lowest utility parts, particularly the lower legs and feet,
before cooking and consuming the rest. These would then
have been destroyed by dogs, perhaps explaining why
elements of the lower forelimbs (radius, ulna. and
metacarpals) and hind feel (metatarsals) are under
represented in both the screened and floated samples (see
Table 10.5).
Rodents
In this section I examine rodent taphonomy,louching on
the same points as for the lagomorphs. Signs of severe
weatbering are rare; most bones are well preserved and
show no evidence of extended exposure on the surface
(Behrensmeyer 1978). The only exceptions are bones
exposed in the Center Bar by comparatively recent
vandalism. The number of bones damaged in this way is
smaU.
Trampling may have played a part (Gifford 1980.
1981; Gifford and Behrensmeyer 1977; Gifford-Gonzalez
et al. 1985), but it is unlikely to have been responsible
for major biases in either taxonomic or skeletal element
composition. This is most clearly the case in the Room
C5 midden, which accumulated inside the walls of the
structure. Trampling is more likely to have played a role
in the East Plaza, given its much more open and accessible
nature. Even here, though, trampling was probably not a
major taphonomic force, since the midden accumulated
largely within a gully that was unlikely to have been the
locus of heavy foot traffic.
Attrition by dogs is again the most likely factor to
have altered the composition of the assemblage (Kent
1981. 1993; Lyon 1970; Payne and Munson 1985;
Walters 1984); and, as for the lagomorphs, an effective
way of approaching Ihis is to determine whether %MNI
is significantly correlated with bulk (volume) density.
Unfortunately. density values are not available for
rodents. and proxy values, based either on marmots or
medium ungulates, have to be used. The latter provided
better proxies for the lagomorphs, despite the vostly
different body sizes of the taxa. For the more fossorial
prairie dog and pocket gopher, however, the marmOl
values are likely to provide better proxies. Obviously,
regardless of which values are used, the results have to
be regarded with caution, given the risks inherent in using
values derived from unrelated species.
The medium ungulate and marmot bulk density values
are presented in Table 10.10. Also presented are the site-
wide %MNI values for both prairie dog and gopher.
Values for only twelve clements are given in the table,
since the vertebrae, metapodials, carpals, and tarsals were
not identified and coded for rodents. The category of
"misc. small rodents" is nOt considered here. because the
clement frequencies for these tiny animals have clearly
been biased by recovery (see above).
Prairie dog and pocket gopher %MNIs show weak but
pOSitive correlmions with medium ungulate and/or
marmot bulk density. None of the correlations is statistic
ally significant, but this is not surprising given the small
number of elements (N::::12) involved in the comparisons
(prairie dog vs. medium ungulate density, r.=.31, p>.05;
prairie dog vs. marmot density, r.=.38, p>.05; pocket
gophervs. medium ungulate density. r.=.42, p>.05; pocket
gopher vs. mannot density, r.=.03, p>.05). Thus. despite
the lack of statistical significance, it is likely that density-
mediated attrition, probably destruction by village dogs,
has to some extent altered the composition of both the
prairie dog and gopher assemblages.
As in the lagomorphs, another way to assess dog
impact is to examine the patterning between %MNl values
and the standardized marrow and grease utility indices
(again using values from caribou and bison as proxies).
The logic of the argument is similar: if me bones had
been discarded defleshed, but had not had their marrow
and grease removed, dogs should have deleted bones
from the assemblage in proportion to their marrow and
possibly also their grease utility. In other words, the dogs
should have left behind an assemblage negatively cor-
related with the marrow index (and perhaps also the
grease index).
The caribou marrow index (Binford 1978:27, Table
1.9, col. 8) and the bison grease index (Brink and Dawe
1989:134, Table 20) are presented in Table 10.10. The
sample sizes arc obviously extremely small, especially
for the grease index, but the results are nevertheless
intriguing. Looking first at prairie dogs, the %MN1 is
significantly and negatively correlated with the marrow
index (N=12. r.=-0.59, p<.05). It is also negatively
correlated with the grease index, again significantly (N=9,
r,=-O.66. p<.05). In gophers the results are less clear as
neither of the correlations is significant, but in both cases
the direction of the correlation is the same as in the prairie
dog (marrow utility: N=9, r,=-0.13, p>.05; grease utility:
N=9. r.=-0.35. p>.05).
There are several factors that might explain why
gophers pattern less clearly with utility than prairie dogs.
Perhaps the most obvious is that gopher bones are much
smaller and are far more likely to be consumed by dogs
in their entirety without regard to the utility of the
proximal or distal end. Another factor is the greater
difficulty I experienced in assigning fragmemary gopher-
sized postcranial elements to taxon. This was not unifonn
across all elements, and is very likely to have introduced
greater inter-element variability into the gopher tallies.
102 John D. Speth
Finally, it is entirely possible that utility indices based on
medium or large ungulate bones are especially poor
proxies for very smull mammah.
In sum, the correlation between prairie dog %MNl
and marrow utility is diametrically opposite to those
obtained for cottontails and jackrabbits. If the positive
correlation in the lagomorphs is indeed a sign of minimal
attrition by village dogs. and if this in lurn is because
these animals were usually boiled, then the prairie dog
results must point to comparatively heavy dog attrition,
which in turn is very likely due to their being more often
roasted or baked.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
That lagomorphs and prairie dogs were cooked by
different methods at Henderson is in accord with ethno-
graphic sources for the American Southwest. For
example, Hill 0938:172) notes that, among the Navajo,
prairie dogs
"... were always cooked in the same W'iJy. They were
cleaned; the liver, lungs and fat put back in !.he body
cavity; sah added. and the opening pinned up with
twigs. Then the hair was singed in an open fire and the
animal buried in the ashes to roast."
Elmore (1938: 152) makes similar observations con-
cerning the Navajo method for preparing prairie dogs.
"After removing the entrails. the interior is sprinkled
with salt and closed. It is then thrown on the fire and
covered with embers. The hair is removed with a knife.
and the dog eaten. The flesh is very greasy."
Hill offers no comments on Navajo methods for cooking
rabbits, but Elmore (ibid: 153) states that in the pre-
modern era
..... rabbits were skinned, disemboweled. crushed
between stones, bones and all, so that nothing might
be lost. They were then pUl into earthen pots to boil ......
Rabbits were usually boiled by the Havasupai, while most
other animals, including rodents, were baked in eanh
ovens (Weber and Seaman 1985:62-64).
Among Pueblo groups, boiling appears to have been a
common. if not the preferred, method for cooking rabbit
(e.g. Beaglehole 1936:14. 1937:68; Smith 1969:16).
Unfortunately, there are very few explicit statements
concerning the methods of cooking prairie dogs. How-
ever, Richard I. Ford (personal communication, 1993),
based on ethnographic fieldwork at the Pueblos of Hopi,
Zuni, and San Juan, believes thal roasting was lhe
traditional method for cooking prairie dogs in at least
these Southwestern communities.
The taphonomic analysis ofthe small mammals from
Henderson clearly had an unexpected dividend. one which
archaeologists may find worthwhile pursuing in the future.
In exploring the patterning between %MNI and indices
of utility (which I did initially to assess the taphonomic
impact of village dogs), I inadvertently found a method
that may also allow one to determine whether small
mammals were most often boiled, or instead roasted or
baked. This may in turn provide archaeologists with a
useful addition to the growing array of techniques for
investigating the spatial organization of subsistence
activities.
This approach may also offer a means for identifying
an activity that, in the ethnographic realm at least, appears
to be closely linked to gender, namely. boiling. The task
of boiling meat is generally performed by women,
whereas roasting or baking may be done by either sex,
depending on the animal being cooked and especially on
the social context in which the meat is being prepared.
Men are much more likely to participate in cooking when
the meat being prepared is for .... .Iarge-scale extra-
domestic feasts or ceremonials..." (Friedl 1975:59). More
routine "domestic" food preparation, especially boLlipg,
is generally done by women (see also Lowell 1991).
The very close links between gender and food prepara-
tion and distribution have been a topic of discussion by
ethnologists for years (e.g., Friedl 1975; Levi-Strauss
1975; Dumont 1972). Since subsistence and food prepara-
tion are among the most highly visible and accessible
activities in the archaeological record, it is somewhat
surprising that archaeologists have devoted so little
attention to food preparation, and most especial\y to
cooking. Fortunately this is nowchanging, with the recent
explosion of interest in finding ways to recognize and
study gender systems in the past (e.g. Gero and Conkey
1991: Walde and Willows 1991; Claassen 1992: Bacus
et al. 1993). The relationship between gender and food is
only one small part of this, but it is nonetheless a topic
which is beginning to draw serious attention (e.g.,
Brumfiel 1991; Haston 1991; Gifford-Gonzalez 1993;
Sassaman 1992).
Clearly, however, before the approach presented here
can be used with any degree of confidence. we need
further experimental and ethnoarchaeological studies of
the differential fate of discarded roasted, baked, and
boiled small mammal bones in the presence of scavenging
village dogs. We also urgently need utility indices
designed explicitly for small mammals such as lago-
morphs and rodents. And we obviously need a much
closer look al the relationship between method of cooking
and gender among ethnographically documented small-
scale societies. in order to better understand how real
and widespread this pattern actually is, and the circum-
stances in which it occurs.
Acknowledgmeflfs
Many people have contributed to the research on the
Henderson small mammals. I would particularly like to
acknowledge the help of Yun Kuen Lee and Gudrun
Scholler in coding and analyzing the thousands of
lagomorph and rodent bones. J am extremely grateful to
Boiling \IS. baking and roasting
103
Susan Kent and John E. Parkington for bringing to my
attention the interesting link between gender and boiling
versus roasting.
REFERENCES
Andrews, P" and E. M. N. Evans 1983. Small Mammal Bone
Accumulations Produced by Mammalian Carnivores.
Paleobiology 9(3): 2 8 9 ~ 3 7
Bacus, E. A., el a1. (cds.) 1993. A Gelldered Past: A Critical
Bibliography of Gender ill Archaeology. Technical Report
25. Ann Arbor: Univcrsity of Michigan. Museum of
Anthropology.
Bailey, V. 1931. Mammals of New Mexico. North American
Fauna 53. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Agri.
culture, Bureau of Biological Survey.
Beaglehole, E. 1936. Hopi Hunting and Hunting Ritual. Yale
University Publications in Anthropology 4.
Beaglehole, E. 1937. Notes all Hopi Economic Life. Yale
University Publications in Anthropology 15.
Behrensmeyer, A.K. 1975. The Taphonomy and Paleoecology
of Plio-Pleistocene Vertebrale Assemblages East of Lake
Rudolf, Kenya. Harvartl University, Musell/Il of Com-
parative Zoology Bulletin 146(10): 473-578.
Behrensmeyer, A.K. 1978. Taphonomic and Ecologic Informa-
tion from Bone Weathering. Paleobiology 4:150-162.
Binford, L.R. 1978. NUllamiw EtllT1oarchaeology. New York:
Academic Press.
Binford, L.R. 1981. Bones: Ancient Men and Modem Myrhs.
New York: Academic Press.
Binford, L.R., nnd lB. Bertram 1977. Bone Frequencies--and
Attritional Processes. In For Theory Blliiding in Archae-
ology, edited by L.R. Binford, pp. 77-153. New York:
Academic Press.
Binford, L.R., M.G.L. Mills, and N.M. Stone 1988. Hyena
Scavenging Behavior and lis Implications for the Interpreta-
tion of Faunal Assemblages from FLK 22 (the Zinj Floor)
at Olduvai Gorge. Joumal ofAI/thropological Archaeology
7(2): 99-135.
Blumenschine, R.1. 1986. Carcass Consumption Sequences
and the Archaeological Distinction of Scavenging and
Hunting. JOllrnal of HlIman Evo/lltioll IS: 639-659.
Blumenschine, RJ., and M.M. Selvaggio 1991. On the Marks
of Marrow Bone Processing by Hammerstones and Hyenas:
Their Anatomical Panerning and Archaeological1mplica-
lions. In Cultllral Beginnings: Approaches to Under
stal/dillg Early Hominid Life- Ways in tlie African Savallna,
edited by lD. Clark. pp. 17-32. Romisch-Germanisches
Zentralmuseum, Forschungsin'stitut fur Vor- und Fruge-
schichte, Monograph 19. Bonn: Dr. Rudolf Habelt GMBH.
Brain, C.K. 1967. Hottentot Food Remains and Their Meaning
in the Interpretation of Fossil Bone Assemblages. Namib
Desert Research Statloll Scientific Parlus 32: I-II.
Brain. C.K. 1969. The Contribution of Ihe Namib Desert
Hottentots to an Understanding of Australopithecine Bone
Accumulations. Namib Desert Research Station Scientific
Papers 39.
Brain, C.K. 1981. The Hufllers or the HlInted? An III/roducrioll
to African Cave Taphonomy. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Brink, J., and B. Dawe 1989. Final Report of rhe 1985 and
1986 Field SeaSOnS 01 HeadSmashed-"l Buffalo Jump,
Alberra. Manuscript Series 16. Edmonton: Alberta Culture
and Multiculturalism, Historical Resources Division,
Archaeological Survey of Alberta.
Brumfiel, E.M. 1991. Weaving and Cooking: Women's
Production in Aztec Mexico. In Engellder;ng Archaeology:
Women WId Prehistory, edited by J.M. Cero and M.W.
Conkey, pp. 224-251. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Casteel, R. W. 1971. Differential Bone Destruction: Some
Comments. Americall Antiquity 36(4): 466-469.
Chapman, J.A., J.G. Hockman, and W.R. Edwards 1982.
Cottontails: SyllJilagus floridanlls and Allies. In Wild
Mammals of North America: Bialog)', Managemenr and
Economics, edited by lA. Chapman and G.A. Feldhamer,
pp. 83---123. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press.
Chapman, J.A.. and G.R. Willner 1978. Syivilagu$ audubon;i.
Mammalit/n Species 106: 1-4.
Claassen, C. (ed.). 1992. Exploring Gender Through Archae-
ology: Selected Papers from the. 1991 Boone Conference..
Monographs in World Archaeology II. Madison: Prehistory
Press.
Cox. M.K.. and W,L, Franklin 1990. Premolar Gap Technique
for Aging Live Black-Tailcd Prairie Dogs. Journal of
Wildlife Manngemenl 54(1): 143-146.
Driver, J.C. 1985. Zooarchaeology of Six Prehistoric Sites in
the Sierra Blanca Region. New Mexico. Technical Report
17. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, Museum of
Anthropology.
Driver, J.C. 1991. Assemblage Formation al the Robinson Site
(LA46326). In Mogollon V, edited by P.H. Beckett, pp.
197-206. Las Cruces, New Mexico: COAS Publishing and
Research.
Dumont, J.-P. 1972. Under the Rainbow: A Structural Analysis
ofthe Conceptso/Narure, CII/tureand Supernature Among
the Panare IndiallS. Unpublished PhD Dissertation, Depart-
ment of Anthropology, University of Pittsburgh.
Dunn, J.P., lA. Chapman, and R.E. Marsh. 1982 Jackrabbits:
Lepus califamicus and Allies. In Wild Mammals Of North
America: Biology, Management and Economics, edited by
J.A. Chapman and G.A. Feldhamer, pp. 124-145. Balti-
more: John Hopkins University.
Elmore, F.H. 1938. Food Animals of the Navajo. El Palacio
44(22-24): 149-154.
Friedl, E. 1975. Women and Men: An Anthropologist's View.
New York: Hoil. Rinehart and Winston.
Gero, J.M., and M.W. Conkey (cds.) 1991. Engendering
Archaeology: WOlllen and Prehistory. Oxford: Basil
Blackwell.
Gifford, D.P. 1980. Elhnoarchaeological Contributions to the
Taphonomy of Human Sites. In Fossils in the Making:
Vertebrate Taphonomy and Paleoecology, edited by A.K.
Behrensmeyer and A.P. Hill, pp. 93---106. Chicago: Univer-
sity of Chicago Press.
Gifford, D.P. 1981. Taphonomy and Paleoecology: A Critical
Review of Archaeology's Sister Discipline. Advances in
Arclwe%gical Method and Theory 4: 365-438.
Gifford-Gonzalez, D.P. 1989. Ethnographic Analogues for
Interpreting Modified Bones: Some Cases from East Africa.
In Balle Modifica/ion, edited by R. Bonnichsen and M.H.
Sorg. pp. 179-246. Peopling of the Americas Publications.
Orono: Center for the Study of the First Americans, Institute
for Quaternary Studies, University of Maine.
104 John D. Speth
GirfordGonzalez, D.P. 1993. Gaps in Zooarchaeological
Analyses of BUlchery: Is Gender an Issue? In FrOn! BOIlu
10 Beha"ior: Ethnoorchat!ological and Experimental
Contributions 10 ,hf! Inurprf!/Qtiafl of Faunal Remains,
edited by J. Hudson, pp. 181-199. Occasional Paper 21.
Carbondale: Southern Illinois University, Center for
Archaeologicallnvesligalions.
Gifford, D.P., and A.K. Behrcnsmeyer 1977. Observed
Formalion nnd Burial of a Recent Human Occupation Site
in Kenya. Qllo/emary Reseorch 8(3): 245-266.
Giffotd-Gonu.lez. D.P., 0.8. Damrosch. D,R. Oamrosch. J.
Pryor, and R.L. Thunen 1985. The Third Dimension in Sile
Structure: An Experiment in Trampling and Vertical
Displacement. A,,,,uicoJl Anliquity 50(4): 803-818.
Grayson. O.K. 1989. Bone Transpon. Bone Destruction, and
Reverse Utility Curves. Journal ofArclweologictJl Science
16; 643-6S2.
Griffing. J.P.. and C.A. Davis 1976. Blad-Tailed Jaclcrabbiu
in Sou,heastern New Mexico: PopulatiOll Structun,
dUCliOll, Feeding, alld Use of FomlS. Agricultural Ell:peri-
ment Station, Research Report 318, Las Cruccs: New
MCll:ico Statc Univc_rsity,
Hastorf, C.A. 1991. Gender, Space, and Food in Prehistory, In
ngellderin8 Archaeology: Women alld Prellis/ory, edited
by J.M. Gero and M.W, Conkey, pp. 132-[59. Oxford:
Basil Blackwell,
Hill. W,W, 1938. The AgricullUral and Hunting Methods of
tile Navaho Indians. Yale University Publicalions in
Anthropology 18.
Hockett, B.S. 1989. Signiricancc of Rabbil-
RaplOr Inleractions in Southern California. NonhAmerican
Archaeola,ist 10(2): 123-139,
Hoogland, J.L. 1985. Infanticide in Prairie Dogs: Lactaling
Females Kill Offspring of Close Kin. Science 230; 1037-
1040.
Hoogland. lL.. O.K. Angell, J.O. Daley. and M.e. Radcliffe
1987. Demography and Population Dynamics of Prairie
Dogs. In Eighlh Great Plains Wildlife Damage Control
Workshop Proceedings, Rapid CilY, SO/illi Dakota. General
Technical Report RM154. Fort Collins: U.S. Department
of Agriculture, ForeslService. Rocky Mountain Foresl and
Range Ell:periment Stalion.
Hoogland, J.L., and J.M. Hutter 1987. Using Molar Attrition
LO Age Live Prairie Dogs. Journal of Wildlife M(U\Q.gement
51(2): 393-394,
Horwitz, L.K. 1990. The Origin of Partially Digested DonC!
Recovered from Archaeological Contexts in Israel.
16: 97-106.
JonC!, K.T, 1993. The Arch:leOlogical Structure of a Short
Term camp. In From Bones /0 Bellavior: Etlmoarchaeo-
logical alld.xperimelltal Contribll/ions to 'he Inurpretotion
of Falll/al Remains, edited by J. Hudson, pp. 101-114.
Occasional Pllper 21. Carbondnle: Southern Illinois
University, Center for Archacologicallnvescigations.
Kent, S, 1981. The Dog: An Archaeologist's Best Fricnd or
Worst Enemy - The Spatial Oislribution of Faunal Rcmains.
Journal of Field Arcllaeology 8(3); 367-372.
Kent. S. 1993, Variability in Faunal Assemblages: The
Influence of Hunting Skill, Shoring, Dogs, and Mode of
Cooking on Faunal Remains al a Sedentary Kalahari
Community. Journal of Amhropolo,ical 12:
323-385.
King, J.A. 1955. Social Behavior, Socio.1 OrgtJni<JUion, tJNl
Population Dynamics in a Black-Toiled Prairiedog Town
in lhe Black Hills ofSoulh Dalwla. Contributions from the
Laboratory of Venebrate Biology 67. Ann Arbor: University
of Michigan.
Klein, R.O. 1989. Why Does Skeletal Part Representation
Differ Between Smaller and Lorger Dovids at Klasies River
Mouth and Other ArChaeological Sites? Journal ofArcho.e
ological Science 16: 363-381.
KreulZer, L.A. 1992, Bison and Deer Bone Mineral Densities:
Comparisons and Implications for the Interpretation of
Archaeological Faunas, Journal ofArchaeological Scienc,
19: 271-294.
Legler. R.P., Jr. 1970. Habilat Prefuenu of the Desert
Cottonlail wilh Additional Notu 011 the Blad-Tailed Jack
Rabbit. Unpublished MS Thesis. Department of Wildlife
Science, New Mexico State University, Las Cruces.
Levi-Strauss, C. 1975, nle Rowand the Cooked. New York:
Harper Colophon Books.
Lowell. J,C, 1991. Reflections of Sell: Roles in the Archae
ological Record: Insights from Hopi and Zuni Ethnographic
Data, In Tile Archaeology of Gender: Proceedings of 'II,
2211d AlIlIlIal Chacmool Co"ference, edited by D. Walde
and N.D. Willows. pp. 452-461. Calgary: University of
Calgary. Archaeological Association.
Lyman, R. L. 1984. Bone Density and Differential Survivorship
of Fossil Classes. Journal ofAnthropological Archaeology
3: 259-299.
Lyman, R.L, 1985. Bone Frequencies: Differential Trnnsport.
In-Situ Destruction. and the MGUI. Journal of Archae-
ological Science 12: 221-236.
Lyman. R.L. 1991. Taphonomic Problems with Archaeological
Analyses of Animal Cnrcass Utilization and Transpon. In
Beolllt:rs, Bobwhitu, and Blue-Points: Tributes '0 tile
Career of Paul W. Parma/ee, edited by l.R. Purdue, W.E.
Klippel, and B.W, Styles. pp. 135-148. Scientific Papers
23. Springfield: Illinois State Museum.
Lyman, R.L. 1992. Anatomical Considerations of Utility
Curves in Zooarchaeology, Journal of ArcllaeologicaJ
Science 19: 7-22.
Lyman. R.L., L.E. Houghton, and A.L. Chambers 1992. The
Effect of Structural Density on Marmot Skeletal Part
Representation in Archaeological Sites. JournalofArchae-
ological Science 19(5): 557-573.
Lyon, PJ. 1970, Differential Bone Destruction: An Ethno-
graphic Example. American Antiquity 35(2): 213-215.
Marshall, F., and T. Pilgram 1991. Meat Versus Within-Bone
Nutrients: Another Look at the Meaning of Body Part
Rt'pfescntation in Archaeological Siles. JournalofArchae-
ological Sciellce 18: 149-163,
Menkeos, a.E., and S.H. Anderson 199J_Population Dynamics
of White-Tailed Prairie Dogs During an Epizootic of
Sylvatic Plague. Journal of MOllllllafogy 72(2): 328-331.
Metcalfe, D., and K.T. Jones 1988. A Reconsideration of
Animal Body-Pan Utility Indices. American Antiquity 53;
486-504.
Morey, D.F.. and W.E. Klippel 1991. Canid Scavenging and
Deer Bone Survivorship at an Archaic Period Site in
Tennessee. Archaeozoologia 4(1): 11-28_
Nielsen, A.a 1991. Trampling the Archaeological Record: An
Ell:perimental Study. American Antiquity 56(3): 483-503.
Orr. R.T. 1940. The Rabbifs of Cali/ornia. Occasional Paper
Boiling vs. baking and roasring 105
19. San Francisco: California Academy of Sciences.
Payne, S., and PJ. Munson 1985. Ruby and How Many
Squirrels? The Destruction of Bones By Dogs. In Palaeo-
biological Investigations: Research Design, Methods and
Data Analysis, edited by N.RJ. Fieller. D.O. Gilbertson.
and N.G.A. Ralph, pp. 31-39. BAR International Series
266. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports.
Pintar, E. 1987. Cant roles ExperimenlO.les de Desplazamientos
y Alteraciones de Artefllctos Liticos en Sedimentos
Arenosos: Applicaciones Arqueologicas. Unpublished Tesis
de Licenciatura, Faculmd de Filosofia y Letras, Universidad
Nacional de Buenos Aires, Buenos Aires.
Rocek, T.R., and J.D. Speth 1986. The Henderson Site Burials:
Glimpses of a Late Prehistoric Population in the Pecos
Valley. Technical Report 18. University of Michigan,
Museum of Anthropology.
Sassaman, K.E. 1992. Gender and Technology at the Archaic-
Woodland "Transition." 1n Exploring Gender Through
Archaeology: Selected Papers from the 1991 Boone
Conference. edited by C. Claassen, pp. 71-79. Monographs
in World Archaeology 11. Madison: Prehistory Press.
Shaffer, B.S. 1992a. Quarter-Inch Screening: Understanding
Biases in Recovery of Vertebrate Faunal Remains.
American Antiquity 57(1): 129-136.
Shaffer, B.S. 1992b. Interpretation of Gopher Remains from
Southwestern Archaeological Sites. American Antiquity
57(4): 683-691.
Smith, M.E. 1969. Governing at Taos Pueblo. Contributions
in Anthropology 2(1). Portales: Eastern New Mexico
University, Paleo-Indian Institute.
Smith, R.E. 1967. Natural History of tire Prairie Dog in
Kansas. Miscellaneous Publication 49. Lawrence: Univer-
sity of Kansas, Museum of Natural History.
Sokal, R.R., and F.J. Rohlf 1969. Biometry: The Principles
and Practice of Statistics in Biological San
Francisco: W. H. Freeman and Company.
Speth, J.D. 1991. Taphonomy and Early Hominid Behavior:
Problems in Distinguishing Cultural and Non-Cultural
Agents. In Human Predators and Prey Mortality, edited by
M.e. Stiner, pp. 31--40. Boulder: Westview Press.
Speth, J.D. (ed.). n.d. Farmers as Humers in the Pecos Valley:
A Case Study. Manuscript in preparation.
Stockrahm, D.M.B., and R.W. Seabloom 1988. Comparative
Reproductive Performance of Black-Tailed Prairie Dog
Populations in North Dakota. Journal ofMammalogy 69(1):
160--164.
Stockrahm, D.M.B., and R.W. Seabloom 1990. Tooth Eruption
in Black-Tailed Prairie Dogs from North Dakota. Journal
of Mammalogy 71(1): 105-108.
Szuter, C.R. 1991. Hunting by Prehistoric Hortieulturalists in
the American Southwest. New York: Garland Publishing.
Walde, D., and N.D. Willows (eds.) 1991. The Archaeology of
Gender: Proceedings of the 22nd Annual Chacmool
Conference. Calgary: University of Calgary, Archaeological
Association.
Walters. I. 1984. Gone to the Dogs: A Study of Bone Attrition
at a Central Australian Campsite. Mankind 4(5): 389--400.
Weber, S.A., and P.O. Seaman (cds.) 1985. Havasupai Habitat:
A. F. Whiting's Ethnography of a Traditional Indian
Culture. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.
Yellen, J.E. 1977. Cultural Patterning in Faunal Remains:
Evidence from the !Kung Bushmen. In Experimental
Archaeology, edited by D.W. Ingersoll, 1.E. Yellen, and
W. Macdonald, pp. 271-331. New York: Columbia Univer-
sity Press.
Yellen, J.E. 1991a. Small Mammals: !Kung San Utilization
and the Production of Faunal Assemblages. Journal of
Anthropological Archaeology 10(1): 1-26.
Yellen,J.E. 1991b. Small Mammals: Post-Discard Patterning
of !Kung San Faunal Remains. Journal ofAnthropological
Archaeology 10(2): 152-192.