Animal Bones,Human Societies

Edited by

Peter Rowley-Conwy

Oxbow BooksOxford and Oakville

':lobO

10 Boiling vs. baking and roasting: a taphonomicapproach to the recognition of cooking techniques insmall mammals

John D. Speth

lNTRODUCfION

Hunting has been a major focus of interest to both culturalanthropologists and prehistorians for many generations,and there is now a wealth of detailed ethnographic andarchaeological information on how animals are procuredand butchered, and the complex decision-making pro­cesses that underlie and guide the hunters' selection ofbody parts for transport back to a camp or village. Overthe past two decades, there has also been an explosion oftaphonomic research on the fate of animal bones oncethey have been discarded at the home settlement. Thesestudies examine the hroad array of non-cultural processesthat can damage or destroy bones before they finallybecome part of the archaeological record.

Curiously. however, aside from discussions ofmarrowextraction (e.g., Binford 1978, 1981), there has beensurprisingly little attention given to what happens to bonesafter they arrive in a settlement but before they get tossedinto the trash. Particularly conspicuous by its scarcity isdetailed information on how meat is actually preparedand cooked, and the impact that mode of cooking exertson the nature and ultimate fate of the discarded bones. Afew recent ethnoarchaeological studies clearly demon­strate the important role that cooking is likely to play inthe formation of an archaeological faunal assemblage.For example, Yellen (1977) and Kent (1993) have shownthat the average size of bone fragments discarded in asettlement can differ tremendously depending on whethermeat and bones were prepared for stewing in a pot orroasting over an open fire. In a similar vein, Gifford­Gonzalez (1989, 1993) has observed that both theplacement and incidence ofcutrnarks on bones are heavilyinfluenced by whether butchering took place before orafter the meat had been cooked. Likewise, observationsby 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 wasbaked in a pit or earth oven, to values in excess of 50%if the carcass was thoroughly dismembered and the cutsof meat spitted directly over an open fire. These examples

make it abundantly clear that mode of cooking can exerta significant influence on the nature and condition ofbones that ultimately make their way into the trash.

In this paper, I attempt to show that mode of cookingcan have a profound effect on the survival of bones evenafter they have been discarded. In the process, I show thattwo cooking techniques - boiling and baking/roasting­can actually be identified in an archaeological assem­blage of small mammal remains just on the basis ofelementfrequencies. While the case I describe here is inferredfrom archaeological data rather than based on directethnographic observation, and hence remains far fromconclusive, it nevertheless underscores the impact thatmode ofcooking can have on the nature and compositionofarchaeological faunal assemblages, and the importanceofstudying meat preparation and cooking as integral partsof taphonomic and zooarchaeological research agendas.

I begin with a brief discussion of the small mammalremains from an archaeological site in New Mexico, andshow that the bones are a reasonably unbiased sample ofhuman food remains and not merely taphonomic "back­ground noise." I then present taphonomic evjdence thatsuggests that two species of rodent were habitually bakedor roasted, while two species of lagomorph were generallyboiled or stewed. I conclude with a briefdiscussion of thebroader implications and issues raised by these findings.

THE SITE AND ITS FAUNA

The Henderson Site is a small, late prehistoric puebloabout 17 km southwest of Roswell in southeastern NewMexico. The site, occupied between about A.D. 1275and 1350, is situated on a low limestone ridge that formsthe western margin of the broad lowlands of the PecosRiver Valley (Rocek and Speth 1986; Speth n.d.). TheHondo River, a major western tributary of the Pecos,cuts through the ridge just north of the site and flows outacross the floor of the valley to join the Pecos a fewkilometers 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 '0L....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 excavationunits in Center Bar. East Bar. and East Plaza

about one-third of a hectare, with an estimated 50 ormore large, single storey, rectangular rooms (Fig. 10. I).The Bars of the "E" partly enclose the small East andWest Plazas. Eleven rooms, six in the Center Bar, five intbe East Bar, were sampled in two seasons of excavation(1980-1981). Each room had a hearth near its center andfour upright roof-support beams located close to thecorners. Entry appears to have been by ladder through anopening in the roof. Only Room C-5 in the Center Barhad been deliberately filled with trash after its abandon­ment; the others apparently filled gradually as their roofsand walls collapsed and disintegrated. The only othermajor trash deposit was near the south end of the EastPlaza. Here, excavation revealed a deep ashy midden,the spoils from a huge earth oven, filled with masses offire-cracked rock and thousands of animal bones.

The excavations sampled approximately 160 m' orroughly 6% of the site. This yielded nearly 12,000 well­preserved animal bones among which were bison,antelope, deer (probably mule deer), lagomorphs (bothjackrabbits 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: thetwo lagomorphs, prairie dogs, and pocket gophers. For adetailed study of the entire suite of faunal remains seeSpeth (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 55animals, are from jackrabbits (Lepus califomicus), andnearly 4,000 (68.5%), representing approximately 128individuals, are from cottontails (Sylvilagus audubonii).Among the jackrabbits, at least 12 individuals (21.8%)are immature. The proportion of immature cottontails issimilar (30 individuals or 23.4%). Only about 2.5% ofthe jackrabbit bones and 2.0% of the cottontail bones areburned.

The rodent assemblage from Henderson is neither large(total NISP=I,301) nor is it particularly diverse taxon­omically. The majority of bones (66.3%; NISP=877),representing at least 64 individuals, are from the black­tailed prairie dog (Cyllomys ludovicianus). Of these, 18animals 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

TaxonBison (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

NISP20271095

6618293975877240316

108783

11595

%17.59.40.6

15.834.3

7.62.12.79.40.7

MNI3421

355

1286425616018

469

%7.24.50.6

II.727.313.65.3

13.012.83.8

pocket gopher (Pappogeomys castanops). These remainsrepresent a minimum of 25 animals, of which six (24.0%)are immature. Thirty-three specimens (2.5%) are frommuskrats (Ondatra zibethicus), representing a minimumof four individuals, two of which are immature. Theremaining rodent bones (12.8%; NISP=167) are all fromrelatively small-bodied animals (i.e., smaller than thepocket gopher), and have not as yet been identified togenus or species; these are treated here as a single group("misc. small rodents").

Before we immerse Durse! yes in the details of theanalysis, a few comments on the statistical methods usedto evaluate the faunal remains are in order. Throughoutthe following discussion, the significance of the differencebetween pairs of percentages is evaluated using ts' a testof the equality of two percentages based on the arcsinetransformation (see Sokal and Rohlf 1969: 607-610).Correlations are examined using Spearman's rho (rJ Inall comparisons, a value of p:5.05 is considered significant.

RECOVERY BIAS

In any analysis of small mammals, three critical issueshave to be discussed before one can consider the role ofthese animals in human diet and subsistence. The first ishias against smaller taxa and smaller elements introducedby the recovery practices (i.e., screening) during theexcavations. The second is whether the small mammalhones are actually human food residues, or just theremains of animals that died of natural causes, or werekilled by predators in burrows that had been dug into thesite after abandonment. Thirdly, we must address theissue of taphonomic bias, especially the differenti.al lossor destruction of particular elements, or entire taxa, dueto the scavenging activities of dogs. In the following Iconsider each of these in some detail.

Before discussing tbe impact of recovery biases onthe Henderson small mammal remains, a few commentsare needed on the screening procedures. During bothseasons of excavation, all sediment not expressly savedfor flotation was passed through one-quarter-inch meshscreens (ca. 6.4 mm). Crew members were instructed toretrieve everything of an archaeological nature from the

screens, regardless of size (i.e., no arbitrary cut-off wasused). Tiny or fragile items, including bones, were put inplastic vials. Items that were seen falling through thescreen were also retrieved. The sediments at Hendersonwere generally dry, loose, and passed quickly and easilythrough the screens. There were relatively few rocks inthe deposits that would cause fragmentation of smallbones in the screenS. The obvious exception was in theEast Plaza, where the deposits contained masses of fire­cracked rock. However, these rocks were hand pickedfrom the sediment before the fill was screened.

LagomorphsAll lagomorph remains caught in the screens werecollected. Nevertheless, the question remains whethersubstantial numbers of bones, especially those from themuch smaller cottontail, passed undetected through thequarter-inch mesh. Swter (1991: 49-55) examined theeffect of different mesh sizes and screening practices onthe recovery of lagomorph remains at a wide range ·ofsites in southern Arizona. She concluded that quarter­inch screening recovered lagomorph remains consistentlyand reliably. In particular, she found that quarter-inchscreens recovered the bones of cottontails about as con­sistently as those ofjackrabbits despite their smaller size.

Shaffer (1992a) conducted a controlled experiment inwhich he repeatedly passed the unbroken bones of com­parativeS. audubonii and L. califamicus through a quarter­inch screen. He was able to determine the likelihood ofeach skeletal element passing through. Not unexpectedly,many of the elements which passed easily through thescreen are those which archaeologists seldom tabulate,such as tiny carpals, tarsals. phalanges, ribs, sesamoids,patellas, and caudal vertebrae. Most other elements, witha few notable exceptions, were caught on the screensmore than 70% of the time (precise figures were not given).

The important elements that Shaffer recovered lessthan 70% of the time included (for both species) themetacarpals and metatarsals, innominate, and tibia. Thisis somewhat surprising, since the unbroken metatarsals,innominate, and tibia are relatively long, even in thesmall-bodied cottontail, and would only pass through the

92 John D. Speth

screen if they were upright. This of course may happenwhen the screen is shaken, but as we will see shortly theHenderson lagomorph data suggest that these elementswere recovered relatively consistently. The loss ofcottontail metacarpals is not surprising, however, as theseelements are very small even when complete. Shaffer'sexperiment shows that the rate of recovery for mostelements, both cranial and postcranial, is relatively highin both lagomorph taxa. This encouraging result mirrorsthe conclusions drawn by Szuter (1991).

Turning now to the Henderson data, one way ofassessing the nature and extent of recovery bias is tocompare the composition of the screening assemblagewith that of the flotation assemblage. During the twoseasons of excavation at Henderson, over 300 flotationsamples (average 3.9 liters, totaling about 1.2 m' ofsediment) were processed. The flotation samples yieldeda total (NISP) of 118 lagomorph bones. Of these, 28(23.7%) are Lepus and 90 (76.3%) are Sylvilagus. In thesite-wide assemblage (which includes both screening andflotation), 1,829 (31.5%) are Lepus and 3,975 (68.5%)are Sylvilagus. As expected, cottontails are somewhatbetter represented than jackrabbits in the flotationsamples, perhaps indicating that some cottontail remainshave been lost in screening, but the difference is smalland not statistically significant (t,=1.88, p>.05).

A more reliable way to assess recovery is to compareflotation and screening samples from the same proveni­ences. Table 10.2 presents the proportions of the speciesin 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 arepresented). For each provenience, the proportion ofcottontails in the flotation samples is somewhat higherthan in the screened materials, pointing to the probableloss of bones of the smaller lagomorph. However, withthe exception of the East Bar, the differences are onlybetween 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 thescreened assemblage, the proportions of cottontails basedon MNI values are always slightly higher than theirproportions based on NISP values. Severe losses shouldlead to major differences between the MNI and NISPpercentages. The table clearly shows this is not the case.

Another way to assess the biases is to compare theproportional representation (%MNI) of various skeletalelements (Table 10.3). If screening biases are severe, thesmaller cottontail elements should have the lowest %MNlvalues. This is generally n"at the case. With the obviousexception of the tiny cottontail metacarpal and radius,the pattern does not suggest biases from screening. Quitethe contrary: the values for mandible, tibia, innominate,metatarsal, and even the tiny calcaneus are higher in thecottontail than in the jackrabbit; and the values forscapula, femur and humerus are very similar. Among thelimb elements, only the radius and metacarpal (both small,linear and delicate bones) are significantly under­represented in the cottontail. The overall similaritybetween the %MNI values in Table 10.3 is underscoredby the significant correlation between them (Spearman'srho, N=16, r, =.87, p<.OI).

Table 10.2 Frequency of Lepus and Sylvilagus remains by provenience in screened and flotation samples.

NISP MNI

ProvenienceJackrabbit

(Lepus)Cottontail

(Sylvi.)TotalLago.

% Sylvi.(Lago.Index I)

Jackrabbit(Lepus)

Cottontail(Sylvi.)

TotalLago.

% Sylvi.(Lago.Index1)

S d Screene amplesEast Bar 529 1609 2138 0.75 16 59 75 0.79Center Bar 553 1208 1761 0.69 20 50 70 0.71Combined Rooms 1082 2817 3899 0.72 36 109 145 0.75Room C-5 only 358 649 1007 0.64 12 31 43 0.72East Plaza 534 834 1368 0.61 17 32 49 0.65Entire Site 1829 3975 5804 0.68 55 128 183 0.70

I 2SFIOlahon amolesEast Bar (0.43 m3) 3 24 27 0.89 -- -- -- --Center Bar (0.46 m3) 16 42 58 0.72 -- -- -- --Combined Rooms (0.89 m3) 18 66 84 0.79 -- -- -- -Room C-5 only (0.37 m3) 14 31 45 0.69 -- -- -- --East Plaza (0.23 m3) 9 20 29 0.69 -- -- -- --Entire Site (1.17 m3) 28 90 i 18 0.76 -- -- -- --

ISee Szuter (1991 :174-175) for discussion ofLagomorph Index.2Volume of sediment processed by flotation in each provenience given in parentheses; total volume for "entiresite" includes 0.05 m3 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 CottontailSkeletal (Lepus californicl/s) (Svlvilaf!Us al/dl/banil)Element MNI %MNI MNI %MNISkull 39 70.91 100 78.12Mandible 33 60.00 125 97.66Atlas 4 7.27 3 2.34Axis 3 5.45 3 2.34Cervical I 1.82 I 0.78Thoracic 1 1.82 1 0.78Lumbar 5 9.09 II 8.59Scapula 55 100.00 128 100.00Dist. Humerus 54 98.18 111 86.72Prox. Radius 43 78.18 61 47.66Metacarpal 17 30.91 2 6 4.694Innominate 24 43.64 107 83.59Dist. Femur 32 58.18 69 53.91Tibial 26 47.27 118 92.19Calcaneus 23 41.82 93 72.66Metatarsal 20 36.363 58 45.31 5

JProx. Tibia in Lepus; Dist. Tibia in Sylvi/agus. 2Proximal Me. 4. 3proximal Mt. 2 and Mt. 3.4Prox imal Me. 3. 5Proximai Mt. 2.

Table 10.4 Density (NISPlmJ) 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 m3) Samples(34.85 m3) (16.99 m3) (excl. Rm. C-5) (8.77 m3) (1.17m3)

(51.90 m3)Total NISP 61.35 57.68 60.08 114.82 107.46 100.85Lagomorphs MNE 52.63 42.55 49.27 86.20 77.69 73.51

MNI 2.15 2.12 2.14 5.99 4.56 4.27NISP 15.18 15.60 15.30 40.82 41.95 23.93

Lepus MNE 12.80 12.12 12.56 30.22 28.99 17.95MNI 0.46 0.59 0.50 1.82 1.89 0.85NISP 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 55.56MNI 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 showsthat vertebrae of both species are very rare at Henderson.Shaffer (1992a) however found in his screening experi­ments that all cotlontail and jackrabbit vertebrae (exceptcaudals) were recovered more than 70% of the time.However, he used only complete elements in his experi­ments, whereas most of the Henderson specimens werefragmentary; it is very likely that the fragmented onespassed through the screens. Vertebrae, therefore, areprobably under-represented, due at least in part torecovery biases. Their under-representation undoubtedlyalso reflects the fact that many vertebral fragments couldnot be identified to taxon with confidence.

Another interesting way to examine the question is tocompare the density of lagomorphs in the floated andscreened samples. The density of total lagomorph

remains in the flotation samples is approximately 101specimens per m3• The flotation samples were takenpreferentially from deposits with a high potential forproducing botanical remains; many were thereforecollected from midden deposits. Screened assemblagesfrom areas dominated by midden deposits producedsimilar densities: the East Plaza earth oven complexyielded 1,368 lagomorph bones, an overall density ofabout 107 per m'; Center Bar Room C-5 produced 1,007,a density of liS per m'. These results (Table lOA) againshow that screening biases have not seriously affectedthe recovery of lagomorph remains.

Since we are particularly concerned with assessingrecovery biases between the two species, it is informativeto compare the density figures for just the smallerSylvi/agus. The density of cotlontail bones in the flotation

94 John D. Speth

Table /0.5 Density (NISPlmJ) ofSy/vilagus skeletal elemems in flotation samples. East Plow. and Room C-51.

FlOl3tion (Vol.=1.17 m 3) East Plaza (VoI.=II.90 m3) Room C·5 (Vot-S.77 m3)

Skeletal!kMi NISP DensiElanenl 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 4.2Humerus 8

31 2.4 35 4.0Radius \ 0.93 2.6 33 2.6 37 4.2Ulna

3 0.2 4 0.5Metacarpal 0 -Innominate 7 6.0 \2. 9.7 64 7.3

6 5.1 70 5.5 44 5.0Femur74 8.4Tibia 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 m3• Their density in Room C-5 (74 perml ) is very similar, whereas in the East Plaza their density(66 bones per ml ) is somewhat lower (Table 10.4). Whileit is tempting to attribute the lower value in the EastPlaza to screening bias, the fact that this provenience andRoom C-5 were screened in exactly the same way suggeststhat other factors, perhaps taphonomic, perhaps cultural,may be responsible.

ifwerepeat these comparisons for individual S)'lvilaguselements, it becomes clear that biases are present in onlya few elements and are relatively minor(Table 10.5). Theelement.by-elementdensi[y values for Ihe flotation, EastPlaza, and Room C-5 assemblages are all significantlyand 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 Plazaand Room C-5, r =.90, p<.OI). Interestingly, some of theelements which ~re poorly represented in the screenedsamples. such as the radius, ulna, and metacarpals, arealso rare in the flotation samples. Their absence, therefore.may nOI be due to screening biases after all. It thereforeseems reasonable to conclude that, while somecottonlailbones have been lost through screening, Iheextenl of losshas nOI been great across most elements.

In sum, for jackrabbits there is very little evidencethat screening bias has altered the composition of theassemblage. Given the large size of most upus elementseven when broken. this is not very surprising. Forcottontails. we cannot be quite as certain, but severaldifferent analyses point toward the same general con­clusion. While screening losses have almost certainlydeleted many of the s!Jlallest Sylvilagus elements. suchas the carpals, tarsals, sesamoids, and patella. most ofthe larger elements appear to have been recovered atHenderson with comparatively little bias.

RodentsVery similar arguments can be used 10 assess thecomposition of Ihe rodent assemblage, in terms of boththe proportions of the taxa present and the representationof skeletal elements (Shaffer 1992a; Szuter 1991). Asalready noted, recovery of bones of Sylvilagus is unlikelyto be biased (except for the tiny bones seldom tabulatedby zooarchaeologists, and the metacarpals). Since theprairie dog (average body weight ca. 1.1 kg) is somewhatlarger than the desert cottontail (ca. 0.9 kg). recoverybiases for this rodent should be even less than for therabbit. Table 10.6 shows that the density of prairie dogremains is higher in the screened midden deposits than inthe flotation samples, arguing against severe losses ofthe bones of this relatively large rodent.

The picture is less clear for the much smaller pocketgopher (average body weight ca. 270 g). The East Plazadensity is considerably lower than the flotation density,perhaps a sign of recovery bias. On the other hand, theRoom C-5 deposits have a much higher density. Sincethe screening techniques used in these two areas wereidentical. it is unlikely that the low East Plaza valuereflects problems in recovery.

A more reliable way [0 assess bias against the pocketgopher is to compare the density of just mandibles andmaxillae, two large and comparatively robust elementsthat are unlikely to have passed through the screens (fable10.6). Unfortunately the flotation sample of theseelements is very small. Nevertheless. the higher densitiesin both the East Plaza and Room C-5 samples means thatgophers are unlikely to be severely under-represented.

Interestingly. screening biases do not even appear tobe particularly severe against the smallest rodent taxon,"misc. small rodents," when comparisons are made usingJUSt mandibles and maxiIJae (Table 10.6). Again, theirdensity in the Room C-5 midden is similar to that in theflotation samples.

Boiling vs. baking and roasting

Table 10.6 Density (N/SPlmJ) offodent bones in flotation samples and by major provenience.

Number of Identifiable Specimens Density(NISP) rNISP/m3,

Prairie Pocket "Misc. Small Prairie Pocket "Misc. SmallDo" 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 M~. NISP Max.East Bar 226 64 8J J9 55 28 6.48 1.84 2.32 0.55 1.58 0.80Center Bar 346 86 117 29 97 62 13.43 3.34 4.54 1.l3 3.77 2.41Com. Roomblks. 572 150 198 48 152 90 9.44 2.47 3.27 0.79 2.5l 1.48Room C-5 182 45 8J 2J 60 39 20.75 5.13 9.24 2.62 6.84 4.45East Plaza 242 8J J5 18 10 6 20.34 6.81 2.94 1.51 0.84 0.50Entire 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 m3) 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 Samoles2

Rodent Taxon NISP % NISP %Prairie Dog 852 98.73 II 1.27Pocket Gopher 230 96.64 8 3.36Muskrat 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 m3) 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

[2693094

86333

238167

Mandibles and Maxi11ae OnlNISP %321 25.30931 30.09143 28.16

10 30.3068 28.5799 59.28

Another way of examining recovery is simply tocompare, for each rodent taxon, the proportion of bones(% total NISP) recovered in the screens with that foundin the flotation samples. Table 10.7 shows that theproportion recovered in the flotation samples increasessteadily as body size decreases, a sign that more bones ofthe smaller taxa are being lost through the screens. Allproportions in Table 10.7 are significantly different(prairie dog vs. pocket gopher: t,=1.95, p=.05; prairiedog vs. "misc. small rodents": t,=4.77, p<.OOI; pocketgopher vs. "misc. small rodents"; t,=2.58, p<.OI; mus­krats omitted because of small sample sizes). However,even the "misc. small rodents" are quite well representedin the screened samples, more than 90% being foundhere. Recovery biases, while clearly present, have notgrossly distorted their proportional representation atHenderson.

Screening biases against the smaller rodent elements

can be assessed through the proportion of dentitions inthe total NISP for each taxon. These data are summarizedin Table 10.8. The patterning is quite sttiking. After arelatively small but statistically significant (t,=3.21,p<.OOl) increase from about 25% in jackrabbits (averagebody weight ca. 2.6 kg) to about 30% in cottontails(average weight ca. 0.9 kg), the proportion remains moreor 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 dentitionsjumps dramatically to comprise nearly 60% of theassemblage.

In sum, recovery biases have probably had little effecton the prairie dog, muskrat, and pocket gopher assem­blages, either in tenns of abundance or of proportionalrepresentation of most skeletal elements. Only in thesmallest rodent category. the "misc. small rodents," doesthe picture become more complex. So long as mandibles

96 John D. Speth

and maxillae are the focus of analysis, screening doesnol appear to have biased their taxonomic abundance toany major degree. However, screening has almostcertainly severely biased the proportional representationofthe postcranial skeletal elements of these tiny animals.

CULTURAL YS. NATURAL ORIGIN

We now face the problem of determining whether thecottontail and jackrabbit remains at the site were broughtthere by the villagers, or instead represent animals thatdied or were dragged into burrows after the village hadbeen abandoned.

LagomorphsThe jackrabbit is the easiest with which to begin. Manylines of evidence point to humans as the primary agentresponsible for introducing many, if not all, of thejackrabbit remains into the village. First, the highestdensities of Lepus remains are found in trash deposits,particularly in the East Plaza and in Room C-5. Sincethis animal seldom uses burrows, we cannot attributetheir presence in these deposits to natural deaths (Bailey1931; Dunn et al. 1982; Griffing and Davis 1976; Legler1970; Orr 1940). Secondly, none of the Lepus remainsoccurred as completely or partially articulated skeletons,which might be expected if animals died naturally intheir burrows. While badgers, coyotes, and foxes are largeenough to drag the carcass of ajackrabbit into their dens(Dunn et al. (982), this is hardly likely to account for themany Lepus remains in the site. Moreover, the density oflagomorphs in the East Plaza trash is virtually identicalto their density in the Room C-S midden. While the latterdeposits contained very little rock and therefore may havebeen attractive to burrowing or denning animals, the EastPlaza midden was filled with fire-cracked rock, makingit virtually impenetrable to all but the smallest burrowingrodents. Finally, about 2.5% of the jackrabbit bones areburned, pointing to a cultural origin for at least some ofthese remains. Taken together, it seems highly unlikelythat the majority of Lepus remains represent naturaldeaths or the food remains of non-human predators.

The cottontail is somewhat more difficult. First, thisanimal does use burrows, although it is not clear whetherSylvilagus audubonii excavates its own or uses thosemade by other animals such as prairie dogs (Bailey 1931;Chapman et al. 1982; Chapman and Wi.1lner 1978; Orr1940). Cottontails are much smaller than jackrabbits andare more easily dragged into the dens of predators(Chapman et al. 1982). Nevertheless, some of thearguments for the cultural origin of the jackrabbit remainsapply also to those of Sylvilagus. Cottontail skeletonswere never found articulated or partially articulated. Someof the cottontail bones are burned, although as in Lepusthe percentage is small (ca. 2.0%). The density ofcottontails is highest in trash deposits, including the rock-

filled East Plaza midden, where burrowing is virtuallyprecluded.

Thus while none of these arguments is wholly con­vincing by itself, taken together it seems very likely thaImost, if not all, of the remains of both Lepus andSylvilagus were brought into Henderson by the villagersthemselves.

RodentsDetermining whether the various rodent taxa representhuman food residues or "background noise" is moredifficult, but nevertheless the evidence again favors theformer. Only one partially articulated rodent skeletonwas found at Henderson, that of an as yet unidentified"misc. small rodent." It was encountered in a burrow inthe fill overlying one of the rooms in the East Bar. All theprairie dog, pocket gopher, muskrat, and other "misc.small rodent" bones were totally disarticulated and wid~ly

dispersed throughout the deposits. This at least tentativelyindicates their place among the human food remains.

Burning is another criterion that may be indicative ofa cultural origin (Driver 1985, 1991; Shaffer 1992b;Szuter 1991). The problem at Henderson, however, isthat only a small fraction of the bones of any taxon wereburned (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 thecultural status of the small mammals in doubt. Never­theless, the incidence of burning in prairie dogs, thelargest and most common rodent at Henderson, isidentical to that in the similar-sized Sylvilagus.

The density of prairie dog bones is highest in the twomajor trash deposits sampled, the East Plaza midden andthat in Center Bar Room C~5 (Table 10.6). One mightargue that their abundance in Room C~5 merely reflectsthe fact that they preferred to burrow (and hence also todie) in soft, organic-rich sediments. However, thisargument cannot account·for their high density in theEast Plaza midden, where closely-packed masses of fire­cracked rock would have all but precluded burrowing bythese relatively large-bodied rodents.

Unfortunately, interpretation of the density values forthe smaller rodents (pocket gophers and "misc. smallrodents") is less clear-cut. Density values are high in thesoft Room C-5 midden but low in the rocky East Plazadeposits. Thus for these taxa the high value in the C-Smidden could reflect either cultural or taphonomicprocesses.

Perhaps the most convincing evidence that many, ifnot all, of the prairie dogs were brought to the site by thevillagers is provided by the age structure of the animals.Age in black-tailed prairie dogs can be estimated withreasonable precision based on the degree of wear on thelower premolar or P

4(Cox and Franklin 1990; also

Hoogland and Hutter 1987; Stockrahm and Seabloom1990). The method, the "premolar gap" technique, is

Boiling liS. baking and roasting 97

based on the size of the gap between the highest crest onthe paraconid and protoconid cusps. In a sample of 292live, known-age prairie dogs, Cox and Franklin (1990)found that the breadth of the gap increased linearly withage up to about three years and then curvilinearly inolder animals. They found no significant differencesbetween males and females or among animals ofdifferentbody weighL

Premolar gaps were measured in 68 well-preservedblack·tailed prairie dog mandibles from the HendersonSite. Accurate measurement was difficult even under abinocular microscope, because the surfaces were oftenbroad 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 ofmagnification, could not be matched. I therefore used amethod that yielded consistent though less precise (0.1mm) values. This involved gently touching the premolarcusps on an inked stamp pad. They were then pressedonto paper, producing a pair of tiny points. The diameterof these points could be minimized by using very littleink, pressing lightly on the paper, and making a series ofimpressions to use up excess ink. The premolar gapbreadth was the center-to-centerdisrance in mm betweenthe two points. The measurements were made with atransparent base optical magnifier with a built·in"contact" reticle graduated to 0.1 mm.

1 then used the linear regression results provided byCox and Franklin (1990: 145) to convert these gap valuesinto approximate ages:

y = 1.541 + 0.013x,

where y is the premolar gap breadth in mm, and x is theknown age in weeks of the animals. This must be regardedwith caution since the relationship has not been validatedin other prairie dog samples.

Studies of prairie dog demography typically divideanimals into just two age classes, juveniles (under 1 year)and "adults" (yearlings and older). Grouped in thismanner, Henderson yielded 27 juveniles (39.7%) and 41"adults" (60.3%). In a living population of black-railedprairie dogs monitored over 14 years in Wind CaveNational 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 prairiedog colony in Kansas. These figures are strikingly similarto those at Henderson, and strongly suggest that theprebistoric villagers were taking animals in proportionsthat closely approximated those in a living population.

This becomes more compelling if one compares theHenderson figures with the proportion of juveniles thatdie each year in modem populations. Juvenile mortalityin black·tailed prairie dogs is extremely high. a substantialpart 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.roma population in the Black Hills. King (1955:48) foundthat, on average, about two·thirds of the animals thatdied each year w~re juveniles. Menkens and Anderson(199I)show that in whitNailed prairie dogs (c. l~ucurus)in Wyoming, approximately two-thirds of the animalsthat died in a given year were juveniles.

If the values provided by this small sample of studiesare in any way comparable to the 13tb century ADsituation in southeastern New Mexico, then a naturaldeath assemblage should be biased strongly towardanimals less than a year old. This is however not the caseat Henderson. Instead, the age structure suggests that theprairie dogs were deliberately bunted by the villagers.and that the techniques employed (e.g., traps or snares)captured juveniles and older animals in proportions verysimilar to their nalUral abundance in the living population.

In sum, we can conclude that the prairie dog bones atHenderson are almost certainly the food remains of thesite's human inhabirants. not background "noise." Thisis probably also true of the pocket gophers, and perhapseven of many of the smaller rodents. but unfortunatelythe data at band do not allow us to demonstrate this to asgretH a degree of certainty.

SMALL MAMMAL TAPHONOMY

The third and final issue that needs to be addressed is theelttent to which the small mammal assemblages, par·ticularly those of lagomorph and prairie dog, have beenallered by attritional processes such as weathering,ITIlmpling, or scavenging by predators. Of most concernis whether skeletal element frequencies have been biasedby differential loss of the less resistant elements. Severallines of evidence can be eltamined. These include thepresence of crack.ing, splintering, ex.foliation, or otbertell-tale signs of weathering (e.g., Behrensmeyer 1978);and evidence for gnawing or digestion by carnivores.Finally, a tendency for element frequencies to covarywith measures of bone density and utility may alsoprovide clues to the nature and extent of biases, thoughnon-human taphonomic processes cannot automaticallybe assumed to be responsible.

lAgomorphsLoss through weathering does not appear to have playedan important taphonomic role in the Henderson lago­morph assemblage. The bones are unweathered. Mostwere found in trash deposits, and their excellent state ofpreservation suggests that burial was quite rapid, aconclusion that is well supponed by the radiocarbon dates(Speth n.d.).

Attrition of the lagomorph assemblage by tramplingis unlikely, because most of the bones were recove~

from just two trash deposits, one that had been dumped

98 10hll D. Speth

Table 10.9 Degree ofbreakage of bones of Lepus and Sylvilagus.

Complete or Nearly

TotalComplete Specimens I Fragmentary Spccimens2

Taxon NISP NISP % Nl8P %Jackrabbit (Lepus califamicus) 1472 326 22.1 1146 77.9Cottontai', (svlviluKUS alldllbOl;ii) 2886 690 23.9 2196 76.1Total 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 ina natural depression in the East Plaza. These are placeswhere heavy foot traffic would be unlikely.

If trampling had a major effect, one possible indicationmight be more bone breakage in jackrabbit. the largerspecies. Some studies have shown that, under heavytrampling, smaller bones (e.g., cottontails) are more likelythan larger ones (e.g.,jackrabbits) to become buried undera 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 havecome up with contradictory results (e.g., Gifford­Gonzalez et al. 1985; Yellen 1991b). Thus, if there weredifferences between the two lagomorph taxa, it wouldnot be clear whether they reflected trampling. Table 10.9shows that bone breakage is in fact nearly identical in thetwo species. If vertical displacement of smaller bonesdoes in fact protect them from breakage, trampling hasprobably not been a major factor, and therefore is unlikelyto have led to major biases in the overall element orspecies composition of the assemblage.

If bones have been deleted from the Hendersonlagomorph assemblage, the single most likely agent isvillage dogs. In a village like Henderson, they are theonly predator/scavenger that would have had access tothe trash deposits (Kent 1981, 1993; Lyon 1970; Payneand Munson 1985; Walters 1984; Casteel 1971). Wildpredator/scavengers would have had much less access solong as the community remained occupied (Yellen 1991 a,1991b). Most lagomorph bones would have beendefleshed prior to disposal, and when exposed on thesurface for more than a few weeks are unlikely to haveremained attractive to predators (Binford et al. 1988;Blumenschine 1986; Yellen 1991a, 199b). If the villagershad cooked bones in pots to make stews or broth ratherthan roasting or baking them, the degreased bones wouldhave been of little interest to scavengers from the momentthey were discarded (e.g., Morey and Klippel 1991:17).

One of the clearest indications of scavenging by dogsis the presence on the bones of gnaw-marks. pitting,crenulated edges, punctures, or traces ofacid-etching andpolishing on ingested specimens (Andrews and Evans1983; Binford 1981; Blumenschine and Selvaggio 1991;

Hockett 1989; Horwitz 1990). At Henderson, however,such evidence is exceedingly rare, not only on lagomorphbones, but also on those of much larger species sucb asantelope and bison. This of course does not mean thatvillage dogs played no role in the formation of thelagomorph assemblage (see Kent 1981, 1993). GiveI'!. thesmall size of the bones of both cottontails andjackrabbits,access to marrow and cancellous tissue would not haverequired gnawing. A dog could easily consume an entiresmall element, or bite off part of a larger one, leavingfew or no recognizable signs on the remaining fragments.The approach must therefore be less direct.

Another approach is to examine the extent to whichelement frequencies covary with bone bulk or volumedensity. Numerous studies have explored the relationshipbetween bone survivorship and density (Behrensmeyer1975; Brain 1967, 1969, 1981; Binford 1981; Binfordand Bertram 1977; Grayson 1989; Kreutzer 1992; Lyman1984. 1985, 1991, 1992; Lyman et al. 1992; Marshalland Pilgram 1991). The basic assumption is that the lessdense an element or part of an element, the greater itssusceptibility to destruction by attritional processes. Thus,in an archaeological assemblage. a high correlationbetween element frequency and density may be strongevidence that the assemblage has suffered attrition.

However. several recent studies have shown that theinterpretation of element frequencylbone density plotsmay not be so straight-forward. Various indices of foodutility. such as Binford's (1978) MOUI and Metcalfeand 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 utilitybones most likely to be transported away from a kill byhuman hunters, are also ones with low densities whosescarcity at the kill might be due to attrition. In sum. whilea clear-cut correlation between element frequencies andbone density may be evidence of attrition, we cannotsimply assume this. Such patterning may instead reflecthuman food choices, or processing techniques such asbone-grease rendering that destroy soft, porous bonesrich in lipids.

A problem that must be raised is that (to my know­ledge) no one has systematically measured the density oflagomorph bones. The only element-by-element data that

Boiling vs. baking and roasting 99

are presently available for species other than ungulatesare 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 forcedto use as a proxy either the density values for one of theungulates, or those derived from the woodchuck andmannot.

The latter might seem the obvious choice, sincemarmots 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 densityvalues for marmot bones are greater than their homo­logues in deer, a pattern which they tentatively attributeto the marmot's fossorial habits. Since neither species oflagomorph of concern here is truly fossorial, the marmotvalues may not be appropriate. Thus, while obviously farfrom ideal, ungulate density values may be more usefulthan one might at first suppose. First, the density valuesfor deer and bison are highly correlated (Kreutzer 1992),indicating that gross body size differences alone may notcompletely vitiate the utility of one species as a proxy foranother. Second, the overall anatomical proportions oflagomorphs are broadly similar to those of ungulates,suggesting that the relative ranking ofdensity values maybe broadly similar. In the following, I use the averagedensity values for deer, sheep, and pronghorn antelope(see Lyman 1992: 10, Table I), rather than those of bisonbecause the former are based on much smaller animals. Ifully recognize that the conclusions I draw may need tobe substantially revised when density measures for theskeletal elements of cottontails and jackrabbits becomeavailable.

The %MNI values for the mandible and 22 postcranialelements of Lepu~' and Sylvilagus show a weak butsignificant positive correlation with medium ungulatebOl}e density in both species (Lepus, N=23, r,=.42, p<.05;Sylvilagus, N=23, r,=.45, p<.05). In contrast, they showno correlation with marmot bone density (Lepus, N=23,r,=.21, p>.05; Sylvilagus, N=23, r,=.16, p>.05; see Table10.10). Thus, the medium ungulate data suggest that theremay have been attritional loss at Henderson. However,some of the elements considered are very likely to beunder-represented because of screening losses. These arethe vertebrae of both species and perhaps also themetacarpals of Sylvilagus (see above). If we excludethese, the correlations with medium ungulate density allbut disappear_ (Lepus, N=18, r.=-.14, p>.05; Sylvilagus,N=16,. r,=.18, p>.05). Similar calculations using themarmot 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, thecorrelations become consistently negative when thevertebrae are excluded. This is the reverse of what onewould expect if density-mediated attrition was responsiblefor loss of lagomorph bones.

Two things seem fairly clear from this exercise. First,the medium ungulate density values appear to provide abetter proxy for lagomorph bones than do the marmotvalues. Second, a!uong those elements not likely to bebiased by recovery, there is no correlation between %MNIand bulk density. If the absence of clear-cut patterning isnot merely an artifact of using inappropriate densityvalues, this suggests that lagomorph element frequenciesat Henderson have not been heavily altered by attritionalprocesses. In other words, village dogs appear to havehad little detectable impact.

This may seem counter-intuitive since ethnographicstudies have documented the serious impact of dogs ondiscarded faunal remains (e.g., Kent 1981, 1993; Lyon1970; Payne and Munson 1985; Walters 1984). The mostlikely explanation for the Henderson situation is that thevast majority of remains considered came from contextswhere deposition was quite rapid (Room C-5 and theEast Plaza midden), and where dogs may have had limitedaccess to the bones. The situation in Room C-5 is themost clear-cut. Judging from the radiocarbon datesobtained from the floor and fill of this room (Speth n.d.),trash accumulated very soon after abandonment. Moreimportantly, the trash was dumped into the room whilethe walls were still standing at least one and a half to twometers high (it is not-clear whether the roof was still inplace or not). In addition, Room C-5 is surrounded on allfour sides by other rooms. Thus, it may have been verydifficult for dogs to gain access to discarded bones inthis structure.

The situation in the East Plaza is less certain. Again,trash accumulated rapidly, perhaps burying many of thelagomorph remains before dogs could get at them. Thehuge quantities of fire-cracked rock in the East Plazamay also have prevented dogs from digging into thesedeposits. And of course it is possible that the villagersactively discouraged dogs from freely roaming the village.

One other factor, alluded to earlier, may be especiallyrelevant here. If the bones had been defleshed but hadnot had their marrow and grease removed prior to discard,dogs should have deleted bones in a manner in proportionto their marrow utility and possibly also their greaseutility. In other words, the dogs should have left behindan assemblage with a clear negative correlation between%MNI and the marrow index (and perhaps also the greaseindex). As above, I am forced to use marrow and greaseindices for large ungulates (caribou and bison) as proxiesfor the lagomorphs and rodents, for which values havenot yet been determined. Again, what I hope justifies theuse ofthese proxies is the assumption that the anatomicalproportions of the small mammals are sufficiently similarto those of ungulates to preserve the relative ranking.

I use the standardized marrow index for cariboudeveloped by Binford (1978:27, Table 1.9, col. 8) withthe following modifications. Given the small size,compact nature, and extremely tiny marrow cavities inlagomorph 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 ofmedium ungulate alld mOffllOC bolles, marrow index and grease index.

Bulk Density 1 Indices %MN114Skeletal Medium MannolS

MalTOw12 Grease l3Jackrabbit Couomail Prairie Dog Pocket Gopt

Element Un2ulales (Marmo/a) (Leous) lSl/lvilaws) (eVI/Omvs) (PoDoo'ZeomMandible 0.57 0.59 5.74 - 60.00 91.66 100.00 100.00Alias 0.13 0.67 1.00 -- 7.27 2.34 - -Axis 0.16 0.45 1.00 - 5.45 2.34 - -Cervical 0.19 0.342 1.00 -- 1.82 0.78 - -Thoracic 0.24 0.342 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 8.00Prox. Humerus 0.24 0.37 29.69 241.48 23.64 21.88 7.81 4.00Dist. Humerus 0.39 0.62 28.33 64.12 98.18 86.72 54.69 48.00Prox. Radius 0.42 0.79 43.64 42.71 78.18 47.66 31.25 4.00Oist Radius 0.43 0.51 66.11 49.73 34.55 25.00 9.38 40.00Prox. Ulna 0.30 0.66 43.64 42.71 30.91 31.25 64.06 28.00Prox. Metacarpal 0.56 0.81 3 1.00 6.76 30.91 4 4.698 n -Dist. Metacarpal 0.49 0.853 1.00 14.58 21.825 3.91 9 - -Innominate 0.27 0.44 7.85 - 43.64 83.59 67.19 64.00Prox. Femur 0.36 0.73 33.51 112.41 47.27 35.94 '29.69 36.00Dist. Femur 0.28 0.48 49.41 186.30 58.18 53.91 9.38 32.00Prox. Tibia 0.30 0.45 43.78 96.82 47.27 42.19 3.13 12.00Dis!. Tibia 0.50 0.56 92.90 12.22 45.45 92.19 48.44 60.00AS£rllgalus 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 36.366 45.31 10 - -Disl. Metatarsal 0.46 0.85 1.00 20.07 16.367 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); valuesfor 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 forblack-tailed prairie dog and pocket gopher (i.e., vencbrac, metapodials, carpals, and tarsals).

assigned a marrow index value of 1.0 to each of theseelements. For the grease index, I have used the valuesderived for bison by Brink and Dawe (1989: 134, Table20). 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'smarrow index (N=23: Lepus, r.=.63, p<.OI; Sylvilagus,r.=.55, p<.OI). This is the reverse of what one wouldexpect if the assemblage had been ravaged by dogs. Ie is

possible that the inclusion of bones such as the vertebraeand larger tarsals, which have little or no useful marrow,may have created a spurious correlation by forming acluster of elements all with a marrow index of 1.0. Itherefore recomputed the correlation coefficients withthese elements omitted. This of course sharply reduces

the total N, but despite this the jackrabbit %MNI values

continue to display a significant positive relationship withthe marrow index (N=18: Lepus, r,=.40, p<.05). The resultis very similar when the mandible is also dropped, leavingonly limb elements (N:17: Lepus, r,=.44, p<.05). UsingBrink and Dawe's (1989) grease index, no significantcorrelation is obtained for either species of lagomorph.In other words, there is no evidence that bones wereravaged by dogs on the basis of their grease content.

The above arguments suggest that dogs have notseriously altered the composition of the lagomorph

assemblage. For both species, the element frequenciesappear to provide a reasonably unbiased record of theactual composition of the lagomorph assemblage dis­

carded by the humans. But the positive correlation issomewhat surprising. What I had expected to find waslittle 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 atthe kill on the basis of their marrow contenl. leavingbehind the lower utility bones. But it is hard to imaginethe villagers doing this with lagomorphs ~ most wereprobably brought to the village as whole carcasses. Oncein lhe village, aside from removing the skin, innards, andperhaps the head and feet. the carcasses were most likelybaked or roasted whole or cut up and added to the slewpot. The positive correlation between %MNI and themarrow index suggests that the inhabitants discarded thelowest utility parts, particularly the lower legs and feet,before cooking and consuming the rest. These would thenhave been destroyed by dogs, perhaps explaining whyelements of the lower forelimbs (radius, ulna. andmetacarpals) and hind feel (metatarsals) are under·represented in both the screened and floated samples (seeTable 10.5).

RodentsIn this section I examine rodent taphonomy,louching onthe same points as for the lagomorphs. Signs of severeweatbering are rare; most bones are well preserved andshow no evidence of extended exposure on the surface(Behrensmeyer 1978). The only exceptions are bonesexposed in the Center Bar by comparatively recentvandalism. The number of bones damaged in this way issmaU.

Trampling may have played a part (Gifford 1980.1981; Gifford and Behrensmeyer 1977; Gifford-Gonzalezet al. 1985), but it is unlikely to have been responsiblefor major biases in either taxonomic or skeletal elementcomposition. This is most clearly the case in the RoomC·5 midden, which accumulated inside the walls of thestructure. Trampling is more likely to have played a rolein the East Plaza, given its much more open and accessiblenature. Even here, though, trampling was probably not amajor taphonomic force, since the midden accumulatedlargely within a gully that was unlikely to have been thelocus of heavy foot traffic.

Attrition by dogs is again the most likely factor tohave altered the composition of the assemblage (Kent1981. 1993; Lyon 1970; Payne and Munson 1985;Walters 1984); and, as for the lagomorphs, an effectiveway of approaching Ihis is to determine whether %MNIis significantly correlated with bulk (volume) density.Unfortunately. density values are not available forrodents. and proxy values, based either on marmots ormedium ungulates, have to be used. The latter providedbetter proxies for the lagomorphs, despite the vostlydifferent body sizes of the taxa. For the more fossorialprairie dog and pocket gopher, however, the marmOlvalues are likely to provide better proxies. Obviously,regardless of which values are used, the results have tobe regarded with caution, given the risks inherent in usingvalues derived from unrelated species.

The medium ungulate and marmot bulk density values

are presented in Table 10.10. Also presented are the site­wide %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 werenot identified and coded for rodents. The category of"misc. small rodents" is nOt considered here. because theclement frequencies for these tiny animals have clearlybeen biased by recovery (see above).

Prairie dog and pocket gopher %MNIs show weak butpOSitive correlmions with medium ungulate and/ormarmot bulk density. None of the correlations is statistic·ally significant, but this is not surprising given the smallnumber ofelements (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; pocketgophervs. medium ungulate density. r.=.42, p>.05; pocketgopher vs. mannot density, r.=•.03, p>.05). Thus. despitethe lack ofstatistical significance, it is likely that density­mediated attrition, probably destruction by village dogs,has to some extent altered the composition of both theprairie dog and gopher assemblages.

As in the lagomorphs, another way to assess dogimpact is to examine the patterning between %MNl valuesand 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 hadbeen discarded defleshed, but had not had their marrowand grease removed, dogs should have deleted bonesfrom the assemblage in proportion to their marrow andpossibly also their grease utility. In other words, the dogsshould have left behind an assemblage negatively cor­related with the marrow index (and perhaps also thegrease index).

The caribou marrow index (Binford 1978:27, Table1.9, col. 8) and the bison grease index (Brink and Dawe1989:134, Table 20) are presented in Table 10.10. Thesample sizes arc obviously extremely small, especiallyfor the grease index, but the results are neverthelessintriguing. Looking first at prairie dogs, the %MN1 issignificantly and negatively correlated with the marrowindex (N=12. r.=-0.59, p<.05). It is also negativelycorrelated with the grease index, again significantly (N=9,r,=-O.66. p<.05). In gophers the results are less clear asneither of the correlations is significant, but in both casesthe direction of the correlation is the same as in the prairiedog (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 whygophers pattern less clearly with utility than prairie dogs.Perhaps the most obvious is that gopher bones are muchsmaller and are far more likely to be consumed by dogsin their entirety without regard to the utility of theproximal or distal end. Another factor is the greaterdifficulty I experienced in assigning fragmemary gopher­sized postcranial elements to taxon. This was not unifonnacross all elements, and is very likely to have introducedgreater inter-element variability into the gopher tallies.

102 John D. Speth

Finally, it is entirely possible that utility indices based onmedium or large ungulate bones are especially poorproxies for very smull mammah.

In sum, the correlation between prairie dog %MNland marrow utility is diametrically opposite to thoseobtained for cottontails and jackrabbits. If the positivecorrelation in the lagomorphs is indeed a sign of minimalattrition by village dogs. and if this in lurn is becausethese animals were usually boiled, then the prairie dogresults must point to comparatively heavy dog attrition,which in turn is very likely due to their being more oftenroasted or baked.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

That lagomorphs and prairie dogs were cooked bydifferent methods at Henderson is in accord with ethno­graphic sources for the American Southwest. Forexample, Hill 0938:172) notes that, among the Navajo,prairie dogs

"... were always cooked in the same W'iJy. They werecleaned; the liver, lungs and fat put back in !.he bodycavity; sah added. and the opening pinned up withtwigs. Then the hair was singed in an open fire and theanimal buried in the ashes to roast."

Elmore (1938: 152) makes similar observations con­cerning the Navajo method for preparing prairie dogs.

"After removing the entrails. the interior is sprinkledwith salt and closed. It is then thrown on the fire andcovered 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 cookingrabbits, but Elmore (ibid: 153) states that in the pre­modern era

..... rabbits were skinned, disemboweled. crushedbetween stones, bones and all, so that nothing mightbe lost. They were then pUl into earthen pots to boil ......

Rabbits were usually boiled by the Havasupai, while mostother animals, including rodents, were baked in eanhovens (Weber and Seaman 1985:62-64).

Among Pueblo groups, boiling appears to have been acommon. if not the preferred, method for cooking rabbit(e.g.• Beaglehole 1936:14. 1937:68; Smith 1969:16).Unfortunately, there are very few explicit statementsconcerning the methods of cooking prairie dogs. How­ever, Richard I. Ford (personal communication, 1993),based on ethnographic fieldwork at the Pueblos of Hopi,Zuni, and San Juan, believes thal roasting was lhetraditional method for cooking prairie dogs in at leastthese Southwestern communities.

The taphonomic analysis ofthe small mammals fromHenderson clearly had an unexpected dividend. one whicharchaeologists may find worthwhile pursuing in the future.In exploring the patterning between %MNI and indices

of utility (which I did initially to assess the taphonomicimpact of village dogs), I inadvertently found a methodthat may also allow one to determine whether smallmammals were most often boiled, or instead roasted orbaked. This may in turn provide archaeologists with auseful addition to the growing array of techniques forinvestigating the spatial organization of subsistenceactivities.

This approach may also offer a means for identifyingan activity that, in the ethnographic realm at least, appearsto be closely linked to gender, namely. boiling. The taskof 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 onthe social context in which the meat is being prepared.Men are much more likely to participate in cooking whenthe meat being prepared is for .... .Iarge-scale extra­domestic feasts or ceremonials..." (Friedl 1975:59). Moreroutine "domestic" food preparation, especially boLlipg,is generally done by women (see also Lowell 1991).

The very close links between gender and food prepara­tion and distribution have been a topic of discussion byethnologists for years (e.g., Friedl 1975; Levi-Strauss1975; Dumont 1972). Since subsistence and food prepara­tion are among the most highly visible and accessibleactivities in the archaeological record, it is somewhatsurprising that archaeologists have devoted so littleattention to food preparation, and most especial\y tocooking. Fortunately this is now changing, with the recentexplosion of interest in finding ways to recognize andstudy gender systems in the past (e.g.• Gero and Conkey1991: Walde and Willows 1991; Claassen 1992: Bacuset al. 1993). The relationship between gender and food isonly one small part of this, but it is nonetheless a topicwhich is beginning to draw serious attention (e.g.,Brumfiel 1991; Haston 1991; Gifford-Gonzalez 1993;Sassaman 1992).

Clearly, however, before the approach presented herecan be used with any degree of confidence. we needfurther experimental and ethnoarchaeological studies ofthe differential fate of discarded roasted, baked, andboiled small mammal bones in the presence ofscavengingvillage dogs. We also urgently need utility indicesdesigned explicitly for small mammals such as lago­morphs and rodents. And we obviously need a muchcloser look al the relationship between method ofcookingand gender among ethnographically documented small­scale societies. in order to better understand how realand widespread this pattern actually is, and the circum­stances in which it occurs.

AcknowledgmeflfsMany people have contributed to the research on theHenderson small mammals. I would particularly like toacknowledge the help of Yun Kuen Lee and GudrunScholler in coding and analyzing the thousands oflagomorph and rodent bones. J am extremely grateful to

Boiling \IS. baking and roasting 103

Susan Kent and John E. Parkington for bringing to myattention the interesting link between gender and boilingversus roasting.

REFERENCES

Andrews, P" and E. M. N. Evans 1983. Small Mammal BoneAccumulations Produced by Mammalian Carnivores.Paleobiology 9(3): 289~307.

Bacus, E. A., el a1. (cds.) 1993. A Gelldered Past: A CriticalBibliography ofGender ill Archaeology. Technical Report25. Ann Arbor: Univcrsity of Michigan. Museum ofAnthropology.

Bailey, V. 1931. Mammals of New Mexico. North AmericanFauna 53. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Agri.culture, Bureau of Biological Survey.

Beaglehole, E. 1936. Hopi Hunting and Hunting Ritual. YaleUniversity Publications in Anthropology 4.

Beaglehole, E. 1937. Notes all Hopi Economic Life. YaleUniversity Publications in Anthropology 15.

Behrensmeyer, A.K. 1975. The Taphonomy and Paleoecologyof Plio-Pleistocene Vertebrale Assemblages East of LakeRudolf, Kenya. Harvartl University, Musell/Il of Com­parative Zoology Bulletin 146(10): 473-578.

Behrensmeyer, A.K. 1978. Taphonomic and Ecologic Informa­tion 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--andAttritional Processes. In For Theory Blliiding in Archae­ology, edited by L.R. Binford, pp. 77-153. New York:Academic Press.

Binford, L.R., M.G.L. Mills, and N.M. Stone 1988. HyenaScavenging Behavior and lis Implications for the Interpreta­tion of Faunal Assemblages from FLK 22 (the Zinj Floor)at Olduvai Gorge. Joumal ofAI/thropological Archaeology7(2): 99-135.

Blumenschine, R.1. 1986. Carcass Consumption Sequencesa·nd the Archaeological Distinction of Scavenging andHunting. JOllrnal of HlIman Evo/lltioll IS: 639-659.

Blumenschine, RJ., and M.M. Selvaggio 1991. On the Marksof Marrow Bone Processing by Hammerstones and Hyenas:Their Anatomical Panerning and Archaeological1mplica­lions. In Cultllral Beginnings: Approaches to Under·stal/dillg Early Hominid Life-Ways in tlie African Savallna,edited by lD. Clark. pp. 17-32. Romisch-GermanischesZentralmuseum, Forschungsin'stitut fur Vor- und Fruge­schichte, Monograph 19. Bonn: Dr. Rudolf Habelt GMBH.

Brain, C.K. 1967. Hottentot Food Remains and Their Meaningin the Interpretation of Fossil Bone Assemblages. NamibDesert Research Statloll Scientific Parlus 32: I-II.

Brain. C.K. 1969. The Contribution of Ihe Namib DesertHottentots to an Understanding of Australopithecine BoneAccumulations. Namib Desert Research Station ScientificPapers 39.

Brain, C.K. 1981. The Hufllers or the HlInted? An III/roducriollto African Cave Taphonomy. Chicago: University ofChicago Press.

Brink, J., and B. Dawe 1989. Final Report of rhe 1985 and

1986 Field SeaSOnS 01 Head·Smashed-"l Buffalo Jump,Alberra. Manuscript Series 16. Edmonton: Alberta Cultureand Multiculturalism, Historical Resources Division,Archaeological Survey of Alberta.

Brumfiel, E.M. 1991. Weaving and Cooking: Women'sProduction 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: SomeComments. Americall Antiquity 36(4): 466-469.

Chapman, J.A., J.G. Hockman, and W.R. Edwards 1982.Cottontails: SyllJilagus floridanlls and Allies. In WildMammals of North America: Bialog)', Managemenr andEconomics, 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 Archae­ology: Selected Papers from the. 1991 Boone Conference..Monographs in World Archaeology II. Madison: PrehistoryPress.

Cox. M.K.. and W,L, Franklin 1990. Premolar Gap Techniquefor Aging Live Black-Tailcd Prairie Dogs. Journal ofWildlife Manngemenl 54(1): 143-146.

Driver, J.C. 1985. Zooarchaeology of Six Prehistoric Sites inthe Sierra Blanca Region. New Mexico. Technical Report17. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, Museum ofAnthropology.

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 andResearch.

Dumont, J.-P. 1972. Under the Rainbow: A Structural Analysisofthe Conceptso/Narure, CII/tureand Supernature Amongthe Panare IndiallS. Unpublished PhD Dissertation, Depart­ment of Anthropology, University of Pittsburgh.

Dunn, J.P., lA. Chapman, and R.E. Marsh. 1982 Jackrabbits:Lepus califamicus and Allies. In Wild Mammals Of NorthAmerica: Biology, Management and Economics, edited byJ.A. Chapman and G.A. Feldhamer, pp. 124-145. Balti­more: John Hopkins University.

Elmore, F.H. 1938. Food Animals of the Navajo. El Palacio44(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. EngenderingArchaeology: WOlllen and Prehistory. Oxford: BasilBlackwell.

Gifford, D.P. 1980. Elhnoarchaeological Contributions to theTaphonomy 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: Univer­sity of Chicago Press.

Gifford, D.P. 1981. Taphonomy and Paleoecology: A CriticalReview of Archaeology's Sister Discipline. Advances inArclwe%gical Method and Theory 4: 365-438.

Gifford-Gonzalez, D.P. 1989. Ethnographic Analogues forInterpreting 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, Institutefor Quaternary Studies, University of Maine.

104 John D. Speth

Girford·Gonzalez, D.P. 1993. Gaps in ZooarchaeologicalAnalyses of BUlchery: Is Gender an Issue? In FrOn! BOIlu10 Beha"ior: Ethnoorchat!ological and ExperimentalContributions 10 ,hf! Inurprf!/Qtiafl of Faunal Remains,edited by J. Hudson, pp. 181-199. Occasional Paper 21.Carbondale: Southern Illinois University, Center forArchaeologicallnvesligalions.

Gifford, D.P., and A.K. Behrcnsmeyer 1977. ObservedFormalion nnd Burial of a Recent Human Occupation Sitein 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 SileStructure: An Experiment in Trampling and VerticalDisplacement. A,,,,uicoJl Anliquity 50(4): 803-818.

Grayson. O.K. 1989. Bone Transpon. Bone Destruction, andReverse Utility Curves. Journal ofArclweologictJl Science16; 643-6S2.

Griffing. J.P.. and C.A. Davis 1976. Blad-Tailed Jaclcrabbiuin Sou,heastern New Mexico: PopulatiOll Structun, R~pro­dUCliOll, Feeding, alld Use of FomlS. Agricultural Ell:peri­ment Station, Research Report 318, Las Cruccs: NewMCll:ico Statc Univc_rsity,

Hastorf, C.A. 1991. Gender, Space, and Food in Prehistory, In£ngellderin8 Archaeology: Women alld Prellis/ory, editedby J.M. Gero and M.W, Conkey, pp. 132-[59. Oxford:Basil Blackwell,

Hill. W,W, 1938. The AgricullUral and Hunting Methods oftile Navaho Indians. Yale University Publicalions inAnthropology 18.

Hockett, B.S. 1989. Arch~logical Signiricancc of Rabbil­RaplOr Inleractions in Southern California. NonhAmericanArchaeola,ist 10(2): 123-139,

Hoogland, J.L. 1985. Infanticide in Prairie Dogs: LactalingFemales Kill Offspring of Close Kin. Science 230; 1037­1040.

Hoogland. lL.. O.K. Angell, J.O. Daley. and M.e. Radcliffe1987. Demography and Population Dynamics of PrairieDogs. In Eighlh Great Plains Wildlife Damage ControlWorkshop Proceedings, Rapid CilY, SO/illi Dakota. GeneralTechnical Report RM·154. Fort Collins: U.S. Departmentof Agriculture, ForeslService. Rocky Mountain Foresl andRange Ell:periment Stalion.

Hoogland, J.L., and J.M. Hutter 1987. Using Molar AttritionLO Age Live Prairie Dogs. Journal ofWildlife M(U\Q.gement51(2): 393-394,

Horwitz, L.K. 1990. The Origin of Partially Digested DonC!Recovered from Archaeological Contexts in Israel.Pa/iori~nt 16: 97-106.

JonC!, K.T, 1993. The Arch:leOlogical Structure of a Short·Term camp. In From Bones /0 Bellavior: Etlmoarchaeo­logicalalld £.xperimelltal Contribll/ions to 'he Inurpretotionof Falll/al Remains, edited by J. Hudson, pp. 101-114.Occasional Pllper 21. Carbondnle: Southern IllinoisUniversity, Center for Archacologicallnvescigations.

Kent, S, 1981. The Dog: An Archaeologist's Best Fricnd orWorst Enemy - The Spatial Oislribution of Faunal Rcmains.Journal of Field Arcllaeology 8(3); 367-372.

Kent. S. 1993, Variability in Faunal Assemblages: TheInfluence of Hunting Skill, Shoring, Dogs, and Mode ofCooking on Faunal Remains al a Sedentary KalahariCommunity. Journal ofAmhropolo,ical Arclla~ology 12:323-385.

King, J.A. 1955. Social Behavior, Socio.1 OrgtJni<JUion, tJNlPopulation Dynamics in a Black-Toiled Prairiedog Townin lhe Black Hills ofSoulh Dalwla. Contributions from theLaboratory of Venebrate Biology 67. Ann Arbor: Universityof Michigan.

Klein, R.O. 1989. Why Does Skeletal Part RepresentationDiffer Between Smaller and Lorger Dovids at Klasies RiverMouth 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 ofArchaeological Faunas, Journal ofArchaeological Scienc,19: 271-294.

Legler. R.P., Jr. 1970. Habilat Prefuenu of the DesertCottonlail wilh Additional Notu 011 the Blad-Tailed JackRabbit. Unpublished MS Thesis. Department of WildlifeScience, 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 EthnographicData, In Tile Archaeology of Gender: Proceedings of 'II,2211d AlIlIlIal Chacmool Co"ference, edited by D. Waldeand N.D. Willows. pp. 452-461. Calgary: University ofCalgary. Archaeological Association.

Lyman, R. L. 1984. Bone Density and Differential Survivorshipof Fossil Classes. Journal ofAnthropological Archaeology3: 259-299.

Lyman, R.L, 1985. Bone Frequencies: Differential Trnnsport.In-Situ Destruction. and the MGUI. Journal of Archae­ological Science 12: 221-236.

Lyman. R.L. 1991. Taphonomic Problems with ArchaeologicalAnalyses of Animal Cnrcass Utilization and Transpon. InBeolllt:rs, Bobwhitu, and Blue-Points: Tributes '0 tileCareer of Paul W. Parma/ee, edited by l.R. Purdue, W.E.Klippel, and B.W, Styles. pp. 135-148. Scientific Papers23. Springfield: Illinois State Museum.

Lyman, R.L. 1992. Anatomical Considerations of UtilityCurves in Zooarchaeology, Journal of ArcllaeologicaJScience 19: 7-22.

Lyman. R.L., L.E. Houghton, and A.L. Chambers 1992. TheEffect of Structural Density on Marmot Skeletal PartRepresentation in Archaeological Sites. JournalofArchae­ological Science 19(5): 557-573.

Lyon, PJ. 1970, Differential Bone Destruction: An Ethno­graphic Example. American Antiquity 35(2): 213-215.

Marshall, F., and T. Pilgram 1991. Meat Versus Within-BoneNutrients: Another Look at the Meaning of Body PartRt'pfescntation in Archaeological Siles. JournalofArchae­ological Sciellce 18: 149-163,

Menkeos, a.E., and S.H. Anderson 199J_Population Dynamicsof White-Tailed Prairie Dogs During an Epizootic ofSylvatic Plague. Journal of MOllllllafogy 72(2): 328-331.

Metcalfe, D., and K.T. Jones 1988. A Reconsideration ofAnimal Body-Pan Utility Indices. American Antiquity 53;486-504.

Morey, D.F.. and W.E. Klippel 1991. Canid Scavenging andDeer Bone Survivorship at an Archaic Period Site inTennessee. Archaeozoologia 4(1): 11-28_

Nielsen, A.a 1991. Trampling the Archaeological Record: AnEll: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 Palaeo­biological Investigations: Research Design, Methods andData Analysis, edited by N.RJ. Fieller. D.O. Gilbertson.and N.G.A. Ralph, pp. 31-39. BAR International Series266. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports.

Pintar, E. 1987. Cantroles ExperimenlO.les de Desplazamientosy Alteraciones de Artefllctos Liticos en SedimentosArenosos: Applicaciones Arqueologicas. Unpublished Tesisde Licenciatura, Faculmd de Filosofia y Letras, UniversidadNacional 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 PecosValley. Technical Report 18. University of Michigan,Museum of Anthropology.

Sassaman, K.E. 1992. Gender and Technology at the Archaic­Woodland "Transition." 1n Exploring Gender ThroughArchaeology: Selected Papers from the 1991 BooneConference. edited by C. Claassen, pp. 71-79. Monographsin World Archaeology 11. Madison: Prehistory Press.

Shaffer, B.S. 1992a. Quarter-Inch Screening: UnderstandingBiases in Recovery of Vertebrate Faunal Remains.American Antiquity 57(1): 129-136.

Shaffer, B.S. 1992b. Interpretation of Gopher Remains fromSouthwestern Archaeological Sites. American Antiquity57(4): 683-691.

Smith, M.E. 1969. Governing at Taos Pueblo. Contributionsin Anthropology 2(1). Portales: Eastern New MexicoUniversity, Paleo-Indian Institute.

Smith, R.E. 1967. Natural History of tire Prairie Dog inKansas. Miscellaneous Publication 49. Lawrence: Univer­sity of Kansas, Museum of Natural History.

Sokal, R.R., and F.J. Rohlf 1969. Biometry: The Principlesand Practice of Statistics in Biological Re~·earch. SanFrancisco: W. H. Freeman and Company.

Speth, J.D. 1991. Taphonomy and Early Hominid Behavior:Problems in Distinguishing Cultural and Non-CulturalAgents. In Human Predators and Prey Mortality, edited byM.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. ComparativeReproductive Performance of Black-Tailed Prairie DogPopulations in North Dakota. Journal ofMammalogy 69(1):160--164.

Stockrahm, D.M.B., and R.W. Seabloom 1990. Tooth Eruptionin Black-Tailed Prairie Dogs from North Dakota. Journalof Mammalogy 71(1): 105-108.

Szuter, C.R. 1991. Hunting by Prehistoric Hortieulturalists inthe American Southwest. New York: Garland Publishing.

Walde, D., and N.D. Willows (eds.) 1991. The Archaeology ofGender: Proceedings of the 22nd Annual ChacmoolConference. Calgary: University of Calgary, ArchaeologicalAssociation.

Walters. I. 1984. Gone to the Dogs: A Study of Bone Attritionat 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 IndianCulture. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.

Yellen, J.E. 1977. Cultural Patterning in Faunal Remains:Evidence from the !Kung Bushmen. In ExperimentalArchaeology, edited by D.W. Ingersoll, 1.E. Yellen, andW. Macdonald, pp. 271-331. New York: Columbia Univer­sity Press.

Yellen, J.E. 1991a. Small Mammals: !Kung San Utilizationand the Production of Faunal Assemblages. Journal ofAnthropological Archaeology 10(1): 1-26.

Yellen,J.E. 1991b. Small Mammals: Post-Discard Patterningof !Kung San Faunal Remains. Journal ofAnthropologicalArchaeology 10(2): 152-192.