Additional faunal material from earlier mound deposits at the Titus phase Shelby Mound site (41CP71) on Greasy Creek in Camp County, Texas, total 459 faunal specimens, weighing 339.8 grams. Sixty-one (13.3%) bone fragments are identifiable, and 201 specimens are burned (43.8%). Standard zooarchaeological identification techniques have been employed in this analysis, using comparative skeletal collections. Attributes that have been examined for each of the bone fragments include taxon, element, and portion of that element, symmetry, burning, and weight. This analysis focuses on identifying general preferences of animal exploitation at this site during the Late Caddo Titus phase. Table 1 summarizes the results of analysis

Perttula, Timothy K.

Schniebs, LeeAnna

English

SFA ScholarWorks

Index of Texas Archaeology: Open Access Gray Literature from the Lone Star State Volume 2014 Article 41 2014 Analysis of Faunal Remains from Selected Contexts at the Shelby Mound Site (41CP71): Results from Mound Excavations LeeAnna Schniebs Unknown Timothy K. Perttula Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.sfasu.edu/ita  Part of the American Material Culture Commons, Archaeological Anthropology Commons, Environmental Studies Commons, Other American Studies Commons, Other Arts and Humanities Commons, Other History of Art, Architecture, and Archaeology Commons, and the United States History Commons Tell us how this article helped you. Repository Citation Schniebs, LeeAnna and Perttula, Timothy K. (2014) "Analysis of Faunal Remains from Selected Contexts at the Shelby Mound Site (41CP71): Results from Mound Excavations," Index of Texas Archaeology: Open Access Gray Literature from the Lone Star State: Vol. 2014 , Article 41. https://doi.org/10.21112/.ita.2014.1.41 ISSN: 2475-9333 Available at: https://scholarworks.sfasu.edu/ita/vol2014/iss1/41 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by SFA ScholarWorks. It has been accepted for inclusion in Index of Texas Archaeology: Open Access Gray Literature from the Lone Star State by an authorized editor of SFA ScholarWorks. For more information, please contact cdsscholarworks@sfasu.edu. Analysis of Faunal Remains from Selected Contexts at the Shelby Mound Site (41CP71): Results from Mound Excavations Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License. This article is available in Index of Texas Archaeology: Open Access Gray Literature from the Lone Star State: https://scholarworks.sfasu.edu/ita/vol2014/iss1/41 Journal of Northeast Texas Archaeology, Volume 46, 2014Analysis of Faunal Remains from Selected Contexts at the Shelby Mound Site (41CP71): Results from Mound ExcavationsLeeAnna Schniebs and Timothy K. PerttulaINTRODUCTIONAdditional faunal material from earlier mound deposits at the Titus phase Shelby Mound site (41CP71) on Greasy Creek in Camp County, Texas (see Perttula, this volume), total 459 faunal specimens, weighing ??9?? grams? Sixty?one (1????) bone fragments are identi?able, and ??1 specimens are burned (4????)? Standard ?ooarchaeological identi?cation techni?ues have been employed in this analysis, using compara-tive skeletal collections. Attributes that have been examined for each of the bone fragments include taxon, element, and portion of that element, symmetry, burning, and weight. This analysis focuses on identifying general preferences of animal exploitation at this site during the Late Caddo Titus phase. Table 1 summarizes the results of analysis.Table 1. Summary of taxonomic recovery from the Shelby Mound site.Taxon NISP MNI Habitat* Percent No. BurnedVertebrata (indeterminate) 65 – – 14.2 21?steichthyes (?sh) 2 1 A ?.2 1Box turtle (Terrapine sp.) 3 1 W, B 0.7 1Indeterminate turtle (Testudinata) 9 – – 2.0 7Turkey (Meleagris gallopavo) 1 1 WE 0.2 –Cottontail (Sylvilagus sp.) 14 2 WE, B 3.1 2Squirrel (Sciuridae) 6 1 W, B 1.3 3Pocket gopher (Geomys sp.) 1 1 S 0.2 –White-tailed deer   (Odocoileus virginianus) 25 1 WE 5.4 1Mammal(size indeterminate) 174 – – 38 73Mammal (small Mammalia) 21 – – 4.6 15Mammal (large Mammalia) 138 – – 30.1 77Total 459 8 – 100 201*NISP?number of identi?ed specimens, MNI?minimum number of individuals.Preferred Habitat (Davis 1978): A=aquatic (rivers, swamps, marshes); WE=wooded edges (open meadows, parkland), W=woodlands (deciduous or pine forests), B=bottomlands (riparian habitats), S=sandy soils (alluvium).A 10 x 10 foot unit was excavated in the mound and then divided into four 5 x 5 foot squares: A, B, C, and D. The faunal remains were recovered from four levels in two squares in a ca. A.D. 1430-1500 mound deposit, including post holes, pit wall fall, post molds, and a second house at the base of the mound (Level 11) in Square D. In Square A, Segments A and B each represent approximately half of the 5 x 5 foot square. Square A is treated as miscellaneous faunal remains that are most likely associated with earlier mound de-posits; only 37 fragments were recovered from Square A. The remaining 422 specimens came from Square 58 Journal of Northeast Texas Archaeology 46 (2014)D. Previous analyses of the fauna from the mound deposits focused on more than 3,300 pieces of bone re-covered from all four squares (see Schniebs 2004). Table 2 lists the distribution of the faunal remains from this recent collection by area.Table 2. Distribution of additional faunal remains by provenience from the Shelby Mound site.Provenience Taxon NISP Total NISPSquare A, Segment B unidenti?able 1 small mammal 3 large mammal 23 27Square A, Segment C unidenti?able 1 large mammal 9 10Square D, Level 7 unidenti?able 1 1Square D, Level 9 unidenti?able 11 box turtle 3 turtle 3 cottontail 2 squirrel 4 pocket gopher 1 deer 6 indeterminate mammal 22 small mammal 14 large mammal 69 135Square D, Level 10 turtle 6 cottontail 3 squirrel 2 deer 10 indeterminate mammal 147 small mammal 2 large mammal 7 177*Square D, Level 11 unidenti?able 42 turkey 1 cottontail 2 deer 3 small mammal 2 large mammal 24 74Square D, Level 11;Postholes A-D, ?-? unidenti?able 4 cottontail 6 10Square D, Level 11;West wall pit (?ne screen) unidenti?able 5 small ?sh 2Journal of Northeast Texas Archaeology 46 (2014) 59 In general, the sample is fairly well preserved, albeit fragmented. The high rate of fragmentation and the amount of unburned fragments suggests that the faunal material may have been boiled for bone grease. The bones are small, broken pieces from larger elements and boiled in water to extract the marrow. The ?oating fat is then skimmed from the top of the pot and used for frying and other culinary purposes. This method has been well documented over time and used by many different cultures (Leechman 1951:355).The bones recorded as indeterminate mammal (n=174) dominate the sample and are of mixed size, comprised of the fragmented remains of medium and small mammals. The large mammal (n=138) bone fragments are most likely deer, as deer was one of the main sources of protein in the Caddo diet. Deer (n=25) is the dominant identi?able animal, followed by cottontail (n=14), and indeterminate turtle (n=9); ?sh, box turtle, turkey, squirrel, and pocket gopher all have totals ranging from one to nine pieces each. Table 3 lists the elements from the identi?able faunal remains.Table 2. Distribution of additional faunal remains by provenience from the Shelby Mound site, cont.Provenience Taxon NISP Total NISP deer 4 indeterminate mammal 5 large mammal 6 22Square D, post mold,West wall cottontail 1 deer 2 3* Level 11 is associated with a house at the base of the mound.Table ?. Composition of identi?ed elements in the Shelby Mound faunal collection.Taxon  Element Nsmall ?sh vertebra 2box turtle shell fragment 3indeterminate turtle shell fragment 8 femur fragment 1turkey radius fragment 1cottontail cranial fragment 1 maxilla 1 teeth 4 clavicle 1 scapula fragment 3 pelvis fragment 1 ulna fragment 1 tibia fragment 1 cuboid 1squirrel mandible fragment 1 teeth 2 humerus fragment 1 tibia fragment 1 calcaneus 160 Journal of Northeast Texas Archaeology 46 (2014)Despite the high quantity of unidenti?able faunal remains and severe fragmentation, several conclusions can be made about this Shelby Mound faunal sample. The ?sh vertebrae indicate that the site is located near a water source (i.e., Greasy Creek), and that aquatic habitats were exploited. The specimens are from a very small ?sh (minnow-size). The Caddo were known to use trotlines, a method almost identical to those cur-rently used today (Newcomb 1993). The box turtle suggests the exploitation of woodlands and bottomlands. The box turtle is a slow-moving animal and is easily caught when the occasion arises by passive hunting methods, often by women or children. The unidenti?able turtle shell fragments compare favorably in size to box turtle or musk?mud turtle, con?rming Caddo hunting activities in aquatic and?or woodland and bot-tomland habitats. The turkey bone as well as the deer remains suggests the hunting of wooded edges. One of the deer teeth is from an individual approximately seven months of age at time of death; this deer was killed in the late summer since fawns are born in the early spring. A second deer tooth has very slight wear and one femur is unfused, which is also evidence of an immature animal. Several other deer elements appear to be from an older individual based on their size and the fused epiphyses on the long bones. Deer disar-ticulation and butchering is suggested by cut marks on an astragalus, a small, dense bone in the lower leg. Most of the unidenti?able large mammal bone fragments are very likely from deer. There are a minimum of two cottontail rabbits in this faunal assemblage, based on the recovery of two right scapula fragments. The larger size of at least two elements suggests that at least one of these rabbits is a swamp rabbit (S. aquati-cus); swamp rabbits prefer bottomlands. The unidenti?able small mammal bones could be from cottontail, squirrel, pocket gopher, or any other small rodent as these are common in Caddo faunal assemblages. The indeterminate vertebrate remains could represent any taxonomic class. In summary, the faunal material in this collection is indicative of the Caddo exploitation of the rich habi-tats of the Pineywoods in East Texas in the 15th and early 16th centuries A.D.; the remains are dietary debris. Further investigations at the Shelby Mound site could provide additional information as to the subsistence preferences and animal hunting activities of Caddo peoples during the Titus phase.Table ?. Composition of identi?ed elements in the Shelby Mound faunal collection, cont.Taxon  Element Npocket gopher scapula fragment 1deer bulla 1 teeth 3 tooth fragment 2 rib fragment 6 vertebra fragment 2 pelvis fragment 1 humerus fragment 1 radius fragment 2 femur fragment 2 tibia fragment 2 metapodial fragment 1 phalanx 1 astragalus 1Total Identi?able Bone  61Journal of Northeast Texas Archaeology 46 (2014) 61 COMPARISON OF TITUS PHASE FAUNAL ASSEMBLAGESTimothy K. PerttulaAmong the more common vertebrate species identi?ed in post ca. A.D. 1430 Titus phase assemblages in the Big Cypress and Sabine River basins in East Texas are deer, turkey, cottontail rabbit, jackrabbit, squirrel, small rodents, and beaver, along with the domestic dog (see Fields and Gadus 2012; Nelson and Perttula 2003; Parsons 2011; Perttula et al. 1982; Perttula and Sherman 2009; Schniebs 2004, 2013). Two Titus phase sites in the Little Cypress Creek basin also have bison skeletal remains (Parsons 2011), indicat-ing some exploitation of prairie habitats to the northwest and west of Caddo settlements in the Pineywoods.Turtle and ?sh are also present in Titus phase sites, and they were obviously gathered and eaten, but they are apparently relatively uncommon compared to the mammals and birds in the diets of these Caddo peoples. The limited recovery of ?sh bones may be due in part to poor preservation of faunal remains in Pineywoods sites as well as the limited use of ?otation and ?ne-screening to recover the smaller animal bones.  Fish and turtle are relatively abundant at the Shelby site (41CP71) on Greasy Creek (ca. 3% of the identi?ed specimens) and the ?nderwood site (41CP230) on Big Cypress Creek, including gar, freshwater drum, and medium-sized bony ?sh (Nelson and Perttula 2003; Schniebs 2004).The largest and perhaps most representative faunal assemblage (ca. 10,000 specimens) from Titus phase contexts is from the Rookery Ridge site (41UR133) in the Little Cypress Creek basin (Parsons 2011). Among the faunal remains are four species of birds—including migratory waterfowl and turkey—as well as rodents, lizards, alligator, much turtle (emydids and box turtle), 12 mammal species, and dog/coyote. Deer were apparently intensively used at the site, and the bone is apparently the product of the processing and consumption of deer on the site. Other resources that were exploited by this Titus phase group includes gar and cat?sh. Despite ?otation and ?ne-screening, ?sh remains comprise less than 3% of the identi?able remains from the site.Only about 2% of the identi?ed fauna from the Pine Tree Mound site (41HS15), another substantial Titus phase faunal assemblage (n=10,326 specimens), is ?sh (Fields and Gadus 2012:Table 8.3) Deer and probable deer bones account for almost 78% of the identi?ed faunal remains in the faunal assemblage, fol-lowed by small mammals (11.3%, including squirrel, rabbit, opossum, raccoon, beaver, etc.), turtles (9.4%), and birds (0.2%).At the Shelby site, including the present samples discussed above, the same range of faunal remains have been found in its large collection (+4000 specimens) from midden deposits and mound contexts. They include several kinds of ?sh and reptiles (especially turtle), turkey, and a range of other birds of various sizes, and seven mammal species, among them deer, rabbit, and squirrels (Schniebs 2004:Tables 3 and 4); deer and large mammal remains comprise about 70% of the identi?ed specimens. These remains are consistent with a diet that relied on large game animals for meat and protein, supplemented by ?sh (less than 1% of the identi?ed specimens), turkey, rabbit, and other small mammals.In general, deer and turkey appear to have been the dominant exploitable animal species for these Caddo peoples. However, a wide range of animals were actually exploited and consumed by Titus phase peoples for meat, as well as sources for tools and other accoutrements (i.e., sinew, hides).REFERENCES CITEDDavis, W. B.1978  The Mammals of Texas. Bulletin No. 41, revised. Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, Austin.62 Journal of Northeast Texas Archaeology 46 (2014)Fields, R. C. and E. F. Gadus (editors)2012 Archeology of the Nadaco Caddo: The View from the Pine Tree Mound Site (41HS15), Harrison County, Texas. 2 Vols. Reports of Investigations No. 164. Prewitt and Associates, Inc., Austin.Leechman, D.1951 Bone Grease. American Antiquity 16(4):355-356.Nelson, B. and T. K. Perttula2003 Archeological Investigations of the Underwood Site (41CP230): A Titus Phase Settlement along Big Cypress Creek in Camp County, Texas. Journal of Northeast Texas Archaeology 17:1-61.Newcomb, W. W., Jr.1993 The Indians of Texas. 2nd Edition. University of Texas Press, Austin.Parsons, M.2011 Mitigation Phase Archeological Investigations at Lake Gilmer, Upshur County, Texas. MS on ?le, Ar-cheology Division, Texas Historical Commission, Austin.Perttula, T. K., C. J. Crane, and J. E. Bruseth1982 A Consideration of Caddoan Subsistence. Southeastern Archaeology 1(2):89-102.Perttula, T. K. and D. L. Sherman2009 Data Recovery Investigations at the Ear Spool Site (41TT653), Titus County, Texas. Document No. 070205. PBS&J, Austin.Schniebs, L.2004 Animal Bones Recovered from 41CP71, Shelby Mound and Village Areas. In Archeological Investiga-tions at the Shelby Site (41CP71) on Greasy Creek, Camp County, Texas, by T. K. Perttula and B. Nelson, pp. 65-133. Special Publication No. 5. Friends of Northeast Texas Archaeology, Pittsburg and Austin.2013 Analysis of Faunal Remains from the Sam D. Carpenter Bottom Site (41CP495). Journal of Northeast Texas Archaeology 42:18-20.

Analysis of Faunal Remains from Selected Contexts at the Shelby Mound Site (41CP71): Results from Mound Excavations

https://scholarworks.sfasu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1992&amp;context=ita

Analysis of Faunal Remains from Selected Contexts at the Shelby Mound Site (41CP71): Results from Mound Excavations

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

SFA ScholarWorks