No. 2 – October 1990

More documents

Recommendations

Info

50 BULLETIN OF THE MASSACHUSETTS ARCHAEOLOGICAL SOCIETY Table 1. Species Found in Woodland Sites at Nantucket (adapted from Little 1985). Squam Hughes HerrcThomp Ram Marshall Quaise Quidnet caterson Pasture White-tailed Deer x x x x x x x Gray Seal x x Harbor Seal x Pilot whale x x Humpback whale x x Raccoon x Indian Dog x x x Vole x x x <strong>No</strong>rway Rat x Loon x x Gull x Eider Duck x x Duck x Cormorant x Brant x Canada Goose x Eskimo Curlew x Teal x Sturgeon x x x x x x Sculpin x Sand Shark x Sea Catfish x Sea Robin x Striped Bass x Bluefish x Spiny dogfish x x Cod x x White perch x Winter flounder x Turtle x x x x Blue Crab x Marine Snails x x Land Snails x x x Oyster x x x x x x x Quahog x x x x x x x x Soft Shell Clam x x x x x x Scallop x x x x x x x Surf Clam x x x x Whelk x x x x x x x Boat Shell x x x x x x Mussel x x x x Moonsnail x Walnuts x Hickory x Acorns x x x Beach Plum x Cherry x
VOLUME 51. NUMBER 2 SELECTION OF DIETARY SAMPLES (from Table 1). The table of species provenienced from Nantucket Woodland period sites provides the raw data by which some conclusions about the subsistence strategies of the island inhabitants may be drawn. More importantly, the sites provide a body of material from which to cull a sample set for isotopic analysis. It appears from the faunal remains that island people enjoyed a diverse array of resources in their diet. The terrestrial staple is clearly the white-tailed deer, which appeared in the inventories of nearly all of the examined sites. Some marine mammal remains are also present, chiefly seals and whales. Given the large size of most marine mammals, and the relatively low numbers of bones found at three out of the five sites, it is difficult to assess their use in diet. Fish do not seem well represented in the inventories of the sites examined. While sturgeon and other fish are present in some inventories, their numbers are not great. This is surprising considering the diverse array of fish described by such explorers as Samuel de Champlain (1606) or when compared with the diverse array of fish available in the waters off Nantucket today (see also Andrews 1986). This phenomena could be a sampling error resulting from the use of large mesh screens or from the poor preservation of remains (bones) of fish compared to bones of deer or shells from shellfish. If we are to accept that fish were used in greater quantities than is being preserved in shell middens, then we must either simply estimate from what remains or use historical records of Indian fishing as a model for pre-historic fishing. Neither solution is ideal. The shells of shellfish do, however, preserve extremely well. <strong>No</strong>t only do we know the species utilized at a given site, but sometimes have ratios of use by weight (Ritchie 1969). These measurements may be useful in building models of prehistoric diets. Unfortunately, not all researchers report the exact proportions of shellfish remains at all their sites. However, it is clear that the shellfish that consistently occur in the highest proportions are oysters, quahogs, clams and scallops (Ritchie 1969; Little 1986). On the basis of the data above, we included a wide selection of faunal samples in our study. We collected at Nantucket samples of ocean and harbor fish, crustaceans, shellfish and deer. Deer provided the chief terrestrial sample; we have not yet studied water fowl. With the exception of nut shells, floral materials do not preserve well in situ and we must seek other methods when attempting to establish the faunal record. These methods include soil analysis for degraded plant materials and pollen, and flotation for small fragments of carbonized floral materials. We strongly encourage future researchers to use such methods in their excavations. Our selection of plants relied upon the ethnographic record. We also collected samples of plants that form the base of many of the island's food chains. When complete, our sample set comprised both archaeological and modern materials. Included were bone samples from three Late Woodland period humans, one archaeological and two modern deer, and a wide range of modern fish, shellfish, and plant specimens. The human remains all come from single-burial sites located on private property and excavated as salvage sites. There is no evidence of malnutrition. Dental analysis reveals shovel-shaped incisors, moderate to high attrition and little or no caries. The three 51
Page 1 and 2: BULLETIN OF THE MASSACHUSETTS ARCHA
Page 3: BULLETIN OF THE MASSACHUSETTS ARCHA
Page 8 and 9: 52 BULLETIN OF THE MASSACHUSETTS AR
Page 11: VQLUME 51. NUMBER 2 55 15 o o "0 z
Page 17 and 18: This journal and its contents may b
Page 19 and 20: VOLUME 51. NUMBER 2 63 gouges, hamm
Page 21 and 22: VOLUME 51, NUMBER 2 a large slate t
Page 26: 70 BULLETIN OF THE MASSACHUSETTS AR
Page 29 and 30: VOLUME 51. NUMBER 2 73 The Interior
Page 31 and 32: VOLUME 51. NUMBER 2 75 RI# CHIP PTS
Page 33 and 34: VOLUME 51. NUMBER 2 TABLE 3. Number
Page 35 and 36: VOLUME 51. NUMBER 2 79 increased em
Page 37 and 38: VOLUME 51. NUMBER 2 81 Cox, D. C.,
Page 45 and 46: VOLUME 51. NUMBER 2 89 their roots
Page 47 and 48: VOLUME 51. NUMBER 2 91 preserve and

No. 2 – October 1990

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?