23.02.2013 Views

Plains Indian Studies - Smithsonian Institution Libraries

Plains Indian Studies - Smithsonian Institution Libraries

Plains Indian Studies - Smithsonian Institution Libraries

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

162 SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY<br />

omic transformation of a consequences population<br />

composed of whole animals. Such an assumption<br />

is probably not warranted in many<br />

midden samples. For instance, Pitts (1979:37-38)<br />

has recently suggested that antler counts may be<br />

a poor estimator of the frequency of deer carcasses<br />

at Star Carr since antlers were scavenged for<br />

manufacture into tools. A general statement describing<br />

the nature of the problem is provided by<br />

Binford (1978:477-478):<br />

Faunal assemblages are commonly the consequences of<br />

multiple segmental strategies ultimately converging on locations<br />

where consumer or social utility concerns<br />

dominate.... Faunal assemblages are commonly compounded<br />

populations resulting from multiple decisions made<br />

about anatomical segments, not animals.<br />

These observations help to focus the conflicting<br />

interpretations of the Mowry Bluff sample.<br />

Clearly, the excavation concentrated on areas<br />

where "consumer activity" dominated—as Falk<br />

(1969) indicates, the bison and deer samples<br />

mostly contain tools or the raw material for tools.<br />

Kill and processing areas were not encountered.<br />

The animal segments represented are a selection<br />

drawn from whole carcasses. Gilbert's (1979)<br />

analysis of the effect of selection for tools on<br />

faunal assemblages indicates that these selected<br />

segments may be poor estimators of either diet or<br />

animal mortality. A positive conclusion that<br />

should be drawn is that the Mowry Bluff bone<br />

tools should not be used in frequency estimation<br />

(for a similar conclusion, see Hesse and Perkins,<br />

1974), and that other bone types would be better<br />

indicators. Second, the specialized nature of the<br />

Mowry Bluff samples indicates that only one part<br />

of a sequential animal use strategy spread over<br />

several site locations was recovered archeologically.<br />

Therefore, it is invalid to speak of a total<br />

number of animals, as is possible in many bison<br />

kill sites. The frequencies measured by bone<br />

counts of midden deposits are relative values. An<br />

unanswered question is whether the sequential<br />

animal use strategy of this part of the <strong>Plains</strong> was<br />

unilineal or radiating. Very different interpretations<br />

would have to be put on a sample if, instead<br />

of one kill site serving one processing site that<br />

serves one consuming site, the pattern was dendritic,<br />

with one kill site serving the needs of<br />

several consuming sites.<br />

A second measure often employed to estimate<br />

the frequency of a species in a deposit is the total<br />

number of bone fragments assigned to that species<br />

(E). An important trephic bias affects this estimator.<br />

If one species can be recognized from<br />

many bone elements, while another can only be<br />

recognized from a few, the likelihood that an<br />

individual animal of the first species will be<br />

counted is enhanced. The error associated with<br />

this kind of bias can be avoided by compiling a<br />

hierarchy of comparisons for the different taxonomic<br />

categories used. For example, if in a collection<br />

containing three taxa, taxon A can be distinguished<br />

from taxa B and C for every bone type,<br />

but B and C can only be distinguished on the<br />

basis of mandible morphology it is more accurate<br />

to use a pair of ratios A : B + C and B : C to<br />

express species frequency, than a single ratio A :<br />

B :C.<br />

Interdependence is another source of bias in<br />

total specimen counts (Grayson, 1973:432; Lyman,<br />

1979:536). Counting the different parts of<br />

the skeleton together creates the possibility that<br />

a single carcass will actually be counted more<br />

than once. Just how important a bias interdependence<br />

is depends on the kind of site that is<br />

excavated (how many of the end products of the<br />

total cultural inventory of multiple sequential<br />

strategies are represented in the sample) and the<br />

size of the sample with respect to the actual finds<br />

population. At one end of the spectrum are kill<br />

sites, where single short episodes of slaughter<br />

create the physical consequences population. Because<br />

sample size is large and geological observations<br />

indicate a majority of the original deposition<br />

was recovered, interdependence is extremely<br />

high. On the other hand, when the sample<br />

studied is small, and the site is large and was<br />

occupied for a long time, the probability of interdependence<br />

is related to the size of the area over<br />

which the bones of a typical carcass eventually<br />

come to rest—the degree of technological and<br />

perthotaxic disarticulation—and the kind of sam-

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!