Models of faunal processing and economy in Early Holocene interior Alaska

Transcription

1 Models of faunal processing and economy in Early Holocene interior Alaska Ben A. Potter This study represents the first detailed published analysis of a relatively large archaeologically derived faunal assemblage in eastern Beringia for the Late Pleistocene/Early Holocene. The faunal remains, dated to 10,100 cal. BP, are well preserved and have highly resolved spatial association with lithics and hearth features. Factors in the formation of the assemblage are assessed through analyses of weathering, presence/absence of carnivore damage, fragmentation patterns, bone density, and economic utility. Taphonomic analyses indicate that human transport and processing decisions were the major agents responsible for assemblage formation. A spatial model of wapiti and bison carcass processing at this site is proposed detailing faunal trajectories from the kill sites, introduction on site in a central staging area to peripheral marrow extraction areas associated with hearths and lithic items. Data from mortality profiles, spatial analysis, and economic analysis are used to interpret general economy and site function within this period in Interior Alaska. These data and intersite comparisons demonstrate that considerable economic variability existed during the Early Holocene, from broad spectrum foraging to efficient, specialized terrestrial large mammal hunting. Keywords: faunal analysis, Early Holocene, Alaska, spatial analysis, economic utility Introduction Information about economy and subsistence strategies are needed for an understanding of the postglacial adaptations of high latitude foragers. This paper provides primary data on these subjects in the form of a multidimensional faunal analysis from an Early Holocene archaeological component at Gerstle River, located in the Tanana Basin in central Alaska. The Gerstle River site is located on a southern knob of a bedrock hill rising 137 m above the surrounding outwash plain one mile east of the large, braided Gerstle River (Fig. 1). Component 3 at the site is situated within stratified loess deposits (over 4 m thick), and consists of over 7000 lithic artefacts, dominated by microblade technology, burins, with unifacial and bifacial tools and by-products (Potter 2005). This material is directly associated with ten unlined hearth firepits and numerous faunal material Ben A. Potter, Department of Anthropology, University of Alaska Fairbanks, 310 Eielson Building, Fairbanks, Alaska, 99775, USA; ffbap3@uaf.edu Received January 2006; revised manuscript accepted April 2006 in a living floor that forms a spatially integrated depositional set (see Potter 2005, ). All cultural materials lay generally horizontally within a vertical span of 10 cm. No significant taphonomic disturbances such as cryoturbation were observed. Radiocarbon dated hearth samples (n 5 10) range from BP (Beta ) to BP (Beta ) and all are contemporary at 2 s (i.e. 95% confidence limits) when calibrated, averaging BP, or cal. BP (Potter 2005, ). Sediment accumulation rates show rapid loess deposition during and after Component 3 was deposited (averaging 4 cm/100 years), helping to preserve the faunal remains. The presence of numerous well preserved faunal remains in close association with cultural features and lithic artefacts is extraordinarily rare in Alaska, especially for the Late Pleistocene/Early Holocene. The following analysis is the first detailed published analysis of a well preserved archaeological faunal assemblage in eastern Beringia (Alaska and Yukon Territory) for this period, and therefore comparisons must be drawn from other areas such as Paleoindian ß 2007 Association for Environmental Archaeology Published by Maney DOI / x Environmental Archaeology 2007 VOL 12 NO 1 3

2 Figure 1 Gerstle River overview, view north-east and Late Prehistoric sites from Lower North America. The faunal remains from Gerstle River can be treated as a single assemblage given the clear spatial association with lithic concentrations and hearth features that are contemporaneous (Potter 2005, ). Given the high resolution in spatial patterning within Component 3, there are a number of issues related to site structure, activity organization, and site function problems that can be addressed through faunal analyses. These problems are complicated and interrelated but can be presented within three general research questions regarding, (1) taphonomy, (2) models of faunal processing, and (3) models of general economy and site function. These problems are addressed through analysis of spatial patterning, weathering, carnivore damage, fragmentation, bone density, economic utility, and mortality profiles. A spatially integrated model of faunal processing and inferences about economy and site function are developed on these bases. Methods During excavation, all sediments associated with Component 3 were screened through 3?2 mm screens. All faunal fragments.3 cm in maximum dimension were mapped in place. Faunal identifications were made through comparative collections of bison (Bison bison L.), wapiti (Cervus elaphus Erxleben), moose (Alces alces L.), and caribou (Rangifer tarandus L.) obtained from the University of Alaska Mammalogy Laboratory and the Department of Anthropology, and with the aid of various comparative guides (especially Brown and Gustafson 1979; Gilbert 1993; Hillson 1992; Schmidt 1972). Sorting, identification, sexing, ageing, and measurement methods generally follow Klein and Cruz-Uribe (1984) except where noted below. Each fragment was also examined for possible human, carnivore, or rodent modification such as cut marks, impact or puncture marks, or gnawing damage. Each faunal specimen was examined for a number of coded variables, including taxonomic class, element portion (following Gifford and Crader 1977), side, degree of epiphyseal fusion, evidence of burning, weathering type (e.g., longitudinal cracking, erosion, root etching), completeness (complete, distal or proximal end and estimated per cent of diaphysis), faunal shape (long bone, flat bone, short/irregular bone, tooth/enamel), and weight. Various terms are used in this analysis, and following calls for clarity and specificity (Casteel 4 Environmental Archaeology 2007 VOL 12 NO 1

3 and Grayson 1977; Lyman 1994b, 51 2), they are defined here. These terms include analytical units, such as MAU, %MAU, and MNI, and observational units, such as fragment, NISP, and element portion. Fragment refers to each individual piece of faunal material (bone, teeth, horn, hoof, etc.), ideally at the time of recovery in the excavation. MNE (minimum number of elements) refers to the minimum number of elements per element portion responsible for forming the faunal assemblage under investigation. Various means for estimating MNE based on long bone shafts have been discussed in the literature (Marean and Kim 1998; Marean et al. 2001), however given the relative few identifiable long bone shafts without epiphyses, a fraction summation approach modified from Klein and Cruz-Uribe (1984) was used (note: no adjustment for size, sex, or age was made). MNI (minimum number of individuals) represents the number of individuals necessary to account for the MNE within each species sample, taking into account element and side. MAU (minimal animal unit) is defined as anatomical frequency counts, and is calculated (per taxon) as MNE/maximum number of element within one skeleton, and does not take into account size, sex, or age (see Binford 1984). Specific spatial and economic utility analytical methods are described below. Results Assemblage description and composition Gerstle River Component 3 faunal remains consisted of 4,224 fragments and a total weight of 12?067 kg, with 192 identifiable specimens (71% of total by weight). Three taxa were identified, Cervus elaphus (wapiti) (NISP 5 73), Bison sp. (NISP 5 33), and Mammuthus sp. (mammoth) (NISP 5 1, worked ivory rod or point). The remaining 85 specimens were identified as large to very large mammals and/or Artiodactyla, representing bison, wapiti, or moose, and most likely representing bison or wapiti. Two bison specimens from Gerstle River (from disturbed contexts) were dated to about 9400 BP, and based on mtdna analysis were interpreted to be Bison priscus Bojanus (steppe bison) (Shapiro et al. 2004); similarities in size with Component 3 specimens suggested that the latter were also Bison priscus. No medium sized mammals, avian, or fish remains of any kind were found within Component 3. While this could be the result of preservation conditions, the presence of trabecular bone in Component 3, a few small mammal bones found between Components 2 and 3, bear specimens found in Component 5, and avian remains from Component 1 suggests that these taxa were simply not present in the Component 3 assemblage. Furthermore, flotation analyses done on four hearth samples did not recover any bird or small mammal remains. All of the indeterminate Artiodactyla specimens were vertebra fragments (axial), and are probably bison or wapiti, but due to their highly fragmented nature, could not be distinguished from other large mammals such as moose. For analytical purposes, these specimens are lumped with the artiodactyl taxonomic category given the assemblage taxonomic composition and general size and morphology. Given the relatively high percentage of identified remains (71% by weight), it is suggested that most of the bones present within the excavated area were in fact identified, and form a suitable data set for further analysis. Table 1 lists NISP, MNE, and derivative MAU and %MAU values for the assemblage. It is important to note that MNE and MNI calculations are based on both long bone epiphyses and shaft fragments with diagnostic landmarks; however, it is possible that MNE based on these shafts will underestimate MNE relative to epiphyses, given that epiphyses are more readily identifiable to element portion and taxon (see Marean and Frey 1997). The most common elements besides maxillae are metacarpals and metatarsals. MNI represented in Component 3 includes five wapiti and three bison, based on right maxillae/upper tooth rows (wapiti) and right distal metacarpals (bison). The unidentified artiodactyl element portions are generally different from those identified to species, with relatively high numbers of isolated teeth and enamel fragments, rib, scapula, and tibia fragments. When all artiodactyl specimens are analyzed, none of the MNE values indicate more than eight total large artiodactyls present within the component. The %MAU values for wapiti and bison are significantly correlated (r s 5 0?312, p 5 0?044), indicating that element portion abundance are similar and suggesting that bison and wapiti carcasses and anatomical portions underwent similar processes within the site. Given this correlation between taxa, and in order to more fully explore the Component 3 faunal analysis, three sub-assemblages are considered in the following analyses: (1) wapiti, (2) bison, (3) combined bison, wapiti, and unidentified large artiodactyls. Fig. 2 illustrates the %MAU for combined artiodactyls on a wapiti skeleton. For clarity, taphonomy is described next, followed by spatial, skeletal part frequency, and mortality profile analyses. Environmental Archaeology 2007 VOL 12 NO 1 5

4 Taphonomy: weathering and carnivore damage The bones, with the exception of compact bones like phalanges, carpals, and tarsals, are extremely fragile, and are generally falling apart in situ. Post-depositional breakage was quite common, and was noted. Weathering stages for each bone were not systematically recorded, as they are generally poorly preserved, ranging from Stages 4 to 5 (Behrensmeyer 1978). Weathering patterns in Component 3 fauna are consistent throughout the collection, with little difference relating to spatial position within the component, and consist of extensive root/acid etching leading to surface deterioration, rootlet penetration, surface flaking, and some longitudinal cracking of some of the larger long bone fragments. Due to this weathering, most of the cortical surfaces are deeply deteriorated or absent. Also, features such as cut marks are difficult to discern. Until more detailed microscopic examination is attempted, this possible data set cannot be further explored. Fig. 3 illustrates typical bone conditions and in situ material in faunal cluster F6a (see below). The absence of well-defined cutmarks, though perhaps due to cortical bone deterioration, is not a necessary criterion for human butchery, as Table 1 Faunal summary data per taxon Cervus elaphus Bison priscus Combined Artiodactyla Skeletal Element portion NISP MNE MAU %MAU NISP MNE MAU %MAU NISP MNE MAU %MAU Cranium 1 1 1?00 28? ?00 28?57 Maxilla 9 7 3?50 100? ?50 100?00 Mandible 7 5 2?50 71? ?50 71?43 Teeth (isolated) 2 2 NA NA NA NA Enamel fragments 43 NA NA NA Atlas Vertebra 1 1 1?00 28?57 Axis vertebra Cervical ?20 5?71 Thoracic 1 14 Lumbar 1 5/ ?00 28? ?00 50? ?00 85?71 Vertebra, unknown 5 3 NA NA Sacrum 1 1 1?00 28? ?00 50? ?00 57?14 Caudal vertebra Sternebra Costal cartilage Rib 3 2 0?07 2?04 Scapula 2 2 1?00 50? ?00 57?14 Humerus, prox. Humerus, deltoid tuberosity 1 1 0?50 14?29 Humerus, dist ?00 28? ?50 25? ?50 42?86 Radius, prox ?00 57? ?00 57?14 Radius, dist ?00 28? ?00 28?57 Ulna 2 2 1?00 28? ?00 28?57 Carpals 8 8 0?67 19? ?17 8? ?00 28?57 Metacarpal, prox ?50 42? ?50 42?86 Metacarpal, dist ?50 14? ?00 100? ?50 71?43 5th metacarpal Innominate 3 2 1?00 28? ?50 25? ?00 57?14 Femur, prox ?50 25? ?50 14?29 Femur, dist ?50 14? ?00 28?57 Tibia, prox. Tibia, tibial crest 1 1 0?50 14? ?00 57?14 Tibia, dist ?00 28? ?50 42?86 Patella Astragalus 1 1 0?50 14? ?50 25? ?00 28?57 Calcaneus 2 2 1?00 28? ?00 50? ?00 57?14 Other Tarsals 3 3 0?75 21? ?00 28?57 Metatarsal, prox ?50 42? ?00 50? ?50 71?43 Metatarsal, dist ?00 57? ?00 50? ?00 85?71 Metapodial, unk. 1 1 NA NA 1st phalanx 3 3 0?38 10? ?25 12? ?75 21?43 2nd phalanx 1 1 0?13 3? ?25 12? ?38 10?71 3rd phalanx 1 1 0?13 3? ?25 12? ?38 10?71 Proximal sesamoid Distal sesamoid 6 Environmental Archaeology 2007 VOL 12 NO 1

5 Figure 2 Combined artiodactyl %MAU values illustrated on a wapiti skeleton (note rib and cervical portions are arbitrary; skeleton adapted from Bubenik 1982) Figure 3 Overview of in situ faunal remains (part of faunal cluster F6a), note fragmentation (scale arrow 5 10 cm). Inset: bone condition of bison (Bison priscus) metatarsal exhibiting extensive root etching and coarsely fibrous appearance (left), and wapiti (Cervus elaphus) radius exhibiting limited root etching and longitudinal cracking (right) Environmental Archaeology 2007 VOL 12 NO 1 7

6 it is quite possible to butcher an animal of any size without leaving a single mark on any bone. (Guilday et al. 1962, 64; see also Lyman 1987, ) However, extensive gnawing, pitting, or scoring was not observed on the Component 3 fauna, suggesting that carnivore or rodent modification was not a major factor in the formation of this assemblage. Morphological characteristics defined by Binford (1981) indicative of carnivore damage, including crenellated, scalloped, and jagged lateral edges, gnawed epiphyses, channeling, etc., were not observed on the specimens. Carnivore scavengers generally destroy spongy, greasy bones, such as vertebrae, innominates, and scapulae (Brain 1981; Blumenschine 1988; Marean and Spencer 1991; Marean and Frey 1997). The Gerstle River assemblage do not show depressed MAU or %MAU values for these element portions, except for ribs (see Table 1). This pattern suggests that carnivore scavenging did not play an important role in element deletion or destruction at Gerstle River. Taphonomy: fragmentation All of the processes involved in breakage of faunal assemblages may not be known, but documentation of the fragmentation patterns is a necessary first step in evaluating taphonomic processes within a site (Todd and Rapson 1988). Because 30?7% by weight of the Gerstle River assemblage is made up of faunal remains unidentifiable to element, it becomes critical to assess fragmentation as it may relate to taphonomy, butchery and processing practices, and other bone-altering agencies. For reasons stated above, small mammal, avian, and/or fetal material were probably not present in Component 3. A number of variables were used to characterize fragmentation in the Gerstle River assemblage, including (1) ratios of number of fragments/nisp ratio, NISP/MNE, and NISP/MNI, (2) ratio of complete to incomplete element portions, (3) percentage difference in articular ends (proximal and distal), (4) amount of shaft remaining on humeri, and (5) percentage of shaft weight to all long bone weight. In order to compare how bison and wapiti differ in fragmentation patterning and element representation, the number of fragments/nisp, NISP/MNE and NISP/MNI ratios for each taxon were compared. Number of fragments/nisp and NISP/MNE ratios are 4?9 and 1?1 for wapiti, 3?2 and 1?1 for bison, and 3?9 and 1?4 for combined artiodactyls respectively, suggesting that the fragmentation of identifiable specimens was relatively similar for wapiti and bison. NISP/MNI ratios are 14?6 for wapiti, 11?0 for bison, and 23?9 for combined artiodactyls, indicating that bison remains are less well represented by the recovered identified specimens. Given the similarities in identifiable elements between wapiti and bison, it is suggested that bison remains were not more fragmented and less identifiable. The hypotheses that more bison element portions were removed from the site or fewer were introduced cannot be refuted at this stage. Only 28 specimens (excluding teeth) are complete or nearly complete (24% of all artiodactyl NISP), including carpals, tarsals, phalanges, and one metatarsal. Bison and wapiti had similar percentages of complete specimens across all elements. In addition, several vertebrae could also be considered complete, though only the centra and some articular processes are generally intact, the spinous, transverse, and many articular processes are generally broken, poorly preserved, or absent. This pattern is similar to that discovered by archaeologists in Paleoindian contexts (Todd and Rapson 1988; Frison 1974; Stanford 1984), though the Gerstle River assemblage should be considered more fragmented than those discussed in Todd and Rapson (1988), as there was only one long complete long bone element present. However, percentage difference in articular ends must be assessed in order to identify differential destruction or removal of certain element portions. Generally more proximal element portions were removed or destroyed, whereas more distal element portions are better represented in the Gerstle River assemblage (Table 1). For all artiodactyls, most long bones exhibited this tendency within each element, only the radius showed an opposite trend. These data show that proximal element portions of appendicular long bones were differentially destroyed and/or removed from the Gerstle River assemblage. Long bone fragmentation data from several Paleoindian and Late Prehistoric bone-bed assemblages (presented in Todd and Rapson 1988; Brink 2001), wolf kill data from Binford (1981, Table 4.07), and Gerstle River assemblage of all artiodactyls are presented in Fig. 4. Olsen-Chubbuck is most dissimilar in having both distal and proximal ends of each bone represented, which may reflect limited carnivore destruction at that locality (Frison 1974). Of these assemblages, Gerstle River data are most similar to Bugas-Holding (bison sample), with relatively high per cent differences in humeri, metacarpals and femora, distinct from the lower per cent differences of the bison bone-beds. The 8 Environmental Archaeology 2007 VOL 12 NO 1

7 Figure 4 Percent differences in articular end survival in several faunal assemblages; data from Todd and Rapson (1988: Table 2), original data from Todd 1987; McCartney 1984; Frison 1974; Wheat 1972; and Binford 1981 latter site is interpreted to be a processing camp where long bones were fragmented for marrow extraction using cut-marks and impact point data (Todd and Rapson 1988). Todd and Rapson (1988, 314 9) further note that breakage of humeri near the thick-walled distal epiphysis could denote human-caused destruction rather than carnivorecaused destruction, which led to more of the shaft remaining with the distal epiphysis. This pattern is observed in the Gerstle River assemblage, where the distal humeri (n 5 3) were fractured near the distal epiphysis. Spatial analysis Spatial aggregation for Component 3 is based on two hierarchical spatial groupings, provenience unit and faunal cluster. Provenience unit is defined as the material associated with a specific three-dimensional location. Faunal clusters (F1-F9) are defined as faunal concentrations separated by areas devoid of faunal remains, and are based on 20 g/0?25 m 2 isopleths and distance between large bone fragments (Fig. 5). Given differences in bone modification and co-presence of lithic concentrations and features, cluster F6 was further subdivided into F6a and F6b (see below). Two types of spatial analyses were conducted. The first uses spatial clustering of fauna to demarcate faunal clusters; these were analyzed using hierarchical clustering for heuristic purposes to assess differences among clusters. Hierarchical clustering was performed on all faunal clusters (except F8, see below) using Ward s method (inner squared distance) and squared Euclidean distance measures, with raw values transformed to z-scores. The overall sample size (in terms of NISP) is relatively small, however, hierarchical clustering analysis is an exploratory method, with few data limitations (essentially all relevant variables should be included and distance measures should be appropriate for the data). For the purposes of analysis, the faunal clusters are assumed to be complete and the excavated materials to be representative for each cluster (though portions of several faunal concentrations are truncated by the bluff edge). However, most faunal concentrations are spatially distinct and completely excavated, with density decreasing towards the excavation limits (with the sole exception of cluster F6a). Clustering results are presented in Fig. 6 and are discussed below. The second analysis is based on overall spatial 3-point distributions across the site both within the context of the faunal clusters and of the entire component. Pertinent distributions are illustrated in Fig. 7. The faunal remains within Component 3 exhibit clear spatial patterning. Nine faunal clusters were visually identified based on the criteria listed above (see Fig. 5). Clusters F1, F3, F4, and F9 are directly associated with hearth areas and lithic concentrations. Clusters F2, F5, F7, F8, and to a lesser extent F6, are located in areas with little or no lithic concentrations and no cultural features. Interpreting the functional relationships among these faunal clusters and the features/lithics requires evaluation of various datasets. Table 2 lists summary faunal data within each faunal cluster, ordered by copresence or absence of lithics and features. Cluster F8 is excluded given the small excavated area and relatively limited interpretive value. Faunal clusters exhibited significant patterning based on association with lithic concentrations and features. For faunal clusters directly associated with lithic concentrations and features, average weight is relatively low, long bones are generally prominent Environmental Archaeology 2007 VOL 12 NO 1 9

8 Figure 5 Horizontal distribution of faunal remains (54 72% of total weight), burn weights are relatively high (3 41%), skeletal unit type is dominated by limb bones. Interestingly, in areas where faunal remains co-occur with lithics and features, fragmentation levels are generally high, with nearly complete elements and smaller fragments interspersed. However, in areas where only faunal remains occur, the fragmentation values are generally low, suggesting Figure 6 Hierarchical cluster results for combined variables (co-occurrence with lithic concentrations, average weight, weight density, %shaft weight, %bone shape, %burned, %skeletal unit type, %articulated NISP weight) that these areas may have been used in such a way as to result in homogeneous fragmentation patterns. Both areas with high levels of articulation (Cluster F5 and F8) are in areas without lithics and features. Clusters F2 and F7 have no articulated specimens, whereas those clusters associated with lithics and features have moderate articulation levels (except F3 and F6b that have high and low articulation levels respectively). This patterning could indicate different processing activities in F1, F3, F4, and F9 vs. F2 and F7. The trimodal articulation %NISP wt. values (0, 12 17, 40 41) suggests that different processing modes occurred within spatially segregated portions of the site. In areas devoid of lithic concentrations and features, %NISP wt. is considerably lower, though cluster F5 had by far the highest value. This pattern supports a demarcation between F5, which is characterized by articulated, non-fragmented, diagnostic faunal remains and F2 and F7, which are characterized by unarticulated, fragmented, unidentified faunal remains. This pattern also suggests that faunal clusters found associated with lithics were typically more fragmented. %lower limb and %upper limb weight differences show similarities in clusters F3, F4, and F9 with a predominance of lower limb 10 Environmental Archaeology 2007 VOL 12 NO 1

9 Figure 7 Spatial distribution of (A) long bone shafts and ends, (B) burned and unburned bone, and (C) taxa bones, where F2, F6b, and F5 show a predominance of upper limb bones. Clusters F1 and F7 show an even representation of upper and lower limb bones. In general, %lower limb weights were relatively higher in areas associated with lithic concentrations and features (51 19 vs ) and %upper limb weights were relatively higher in clusters devoid of lithics and features, suggestive of different processing in these areas. Long bone ends generally seem to be spatially disassociated from shaft fragments, the latter found at the periphery of the faunal clusters. This pattern may result from breaking long bones for marrow and tossing ends away from the processing area. Shaft weight (as a percentage of all long bones) varies among faunal clusters (26 82%). Three groups are apparent: one with values between 23 34% (F1, F3, F4, F9, F5), one with values of 58 63% (F2, F7), and one with values of 82% (F6). Faunal clusters F2 and F7 are interpreted as disposal areas based on a variety of data sets (see above), and the relatively high shaft weight percentages supports the greater fragmentation of long bones within these areas. The faunal clusters associated with hearths and lithic concentrations have generally low shaft weight percentages, suggesting activities resulting in lesser Environmental Archaeology 2007 VOL 12 NO 1 11

10 degrees of fragmentation, like cracking long bones for marrow extraction. While only a relatively small per cent of the total faunal remains in Component 3 were burned (14% by weight), almost all burned bones (black, brown charred are more common than calcined) are clustered directly in association with hearth features. Nearly half of the hearths do not contain burned bone, and wood charcoal was abundant in each hearth, suggesting that the bones were not systematically used as fuel. Wapiti and bison show considerable spatial intermixture. Skeletal unit types exhibited clustered distributions, with teeth fragments found at some distance from other skeletal unit types, generally in areas between hearths. Axial portions are mostly limited to cluster F5 and the immediate vicinity. Cluster F5 stands apart from the other groups in its relative lack of fragmentation and high levels of articulation. Interestingly, two of the three other clusters not associated with lithics have no articulations (F2 and F7), suggesting that these may represent bone dumps or discard areas. The results of this spatial analysis show that considerable spatial patterning is evident within Gerstle River. In order to assess overall variability between the faunal clusters, hierarchical clustering was conducted, using co-occurrence with lithic concentrations, average weight, weight density, %shaft weight, %faunal shape, %burned, %skeletal unit type, %articulated total weight variables (transformed to z-scores) (Fig. 6). Three groups were formed: (A) F1, F4, F6b, F7, F9, (B) F2, F3, F6a, and (C) F5. Within Group A, bone marrow extraction from long bones is hypothesized for F1, F4, F6b, and F9, as all are directly associated with features and lithic concentrations, with high fragmentation, low average weights, low articulation, high %burned weights, and high frequencies of long bones. F7 may represent a disposal area given lack of fragmentation, lack of articulation, and lack of associated features or lithics. Within Group B, two of the three clusters are not associated with lithics or features (F2, F6a) and may represent discard or disposal areas. The inclusion of F3 within this group is likely due to the presence of teeth and articulated lumbar vertebrae, Table 2 Faunal cluster data summary. Note: for variables from Area to %Burn wt., data include all faunal fragments except for 13 not identifiable to cluster (n fragments), for variables from %NISP wt. to Skeletal Unit Type, data include all NISP (n 5 192). Fragmentation summary is based on average weight per fragment for each cluster (above or below the mean for all groups) Associated with features and lithics Not associated with features and lithics Faunal Cluster F1 F3 F4 F9 F6b F2 F7 F5 F6a Area (m 2 ) 8?0 8?0 10?0 11?3 8?0 16?0 7?5 12?0 10?0 N fragments Total wt (g) 2200?8 640?2 1297?9 1763?6 550?1 373?4 900?2 2847?0 1204?0 Avg. wt. (g) 4?5 1?5 1?9 1?9 1?1 13?3 3?4 5?7 2?9 Wt. Density (g/m 2 ) 275?1 80?0 129?8 156?1 68?8 23?3 120?0 237?3 120?4 Shaft wt. (% of all long bones) Bone type zlong zlong zlong zlong zlong 2long zlong 2long 2long %Unid. wt %Long wt %Flat wt %Teeth wt %Irreg. wt %Burn wt %NISP wt NISP wapiti/bison MNI bison MNI wapiti Skeletal Unit Type Long bones Axial, teeth Long bones Long bones Long bones Axial, teeth Long bones Mixed Axial, teeth %Axial wt %Teeth wt %U. limb wt %L. limb wt Skeletal Unit Type 2 App. Axial App. App. App. Axial App. Mixed Axial %Axial wt %Append. wt Articulated %NISP wt Fragmentation Low High High High High Low Low Low High Interpretation Processing areas, marrow extraction Disposal areas Staging? 12 Environmental Archaeology 2007 VOL 12 NO 1

11 Figure 8 %survivorship of combined artiodactyl skeletal parts against bone mineral density for bison (Kreutzer 1992) which elevates %axial and %teeth. The differences between F2 and F7 may relate to different sources of processing areas for these dumps, as these differences are shared by adjacent processing areas (F3 and F2, and F4 and F7). Cluster F5 is clearly the most divergent from all of the other clusters in many ways. Cluster F5 is characterized by high abundance of large, mostly articulated specimens (high average weight and weight density), low %shaft weight, high %irregular bones, high %NISP weight, and is the most mixed in terms of skeletal unit type. Further interpretations of these clusters are provided below after density-mediated attrition and economic utility are addressed. Skeletal part frequency analysis: bone density and %survivorship Relationships among the skeletal parts actually found at Gerstle River, those expected to be found assuming whole carcasses were brought to the site, and those expected given MNE and MNI calculation are important in understanding processing decisions made by site occupants. The absence or low frequencies of various skeletal elements from the assemblage (notably cervical and thoracic vertebrae, ribs, and upper limb bones) could result from a number of reasons, including differential removal from the site and density-mediated attrition, a common problem of equifinality. In order to identify the relative weight of density-mediated attrition (such as in situ deterioration) and processing decisions by humans, bone density and economic utility (see further) are assessed. A number of archaeologists (Grayson 1989; Lyman 1985; 1992; Marean and Frey 1997; Marean and Cleghorn 2003) noted that reverse utility curves could result not just from differential bone transport, but from density-mediated destruction, which could be due to carnivore destruction, in situ weathering, or other taphonomic agent. To evaluate the potential for density-mediated attrition, the %survivorship against bone mineral densities (g/cm 3 ) for all available skeletal parts derived from Kreutzer (1992) was plotted. %survivorship is calculated by summing all of the present element portions for each bone density scan site and dividing by the expected numbers of surviving element portions for each scan site given 100% survivorship based on MNI per taxon (see Lyman 1994a, 239). The results are illustrated as scatterplots (Fig. 8). The Spearman s rho correlation coefficient of rank order (r s ) between density and bison %survivorship is weakly positive and not significant (r s 5 0?11, p 5 0?292). Wapiti %survivorship has a slightly stronger (but still weak) positive relationship with density (r s 5 0?32, p 5 0?001). Combined artiodactyl %survivorship has a weak positive relationship with density (r s 5 0?29, p 5 0?004). These results indicate that density-mediated attritional/taphonomic processes may not have been major factors in the formation of the Component 3 faunal assemblages. The weak positive correlation of wapiti %survivorship and bone density may be the result of disintegration of cancellous (or trabecular) bone through surface and in situ weathering or the weight of overlying sediments. Bones with low mineral density, such as lumbar vertebrae, distal femora, and scapulae have %MAU values of 85?71, 28?57, and 57?14 respectively (comb. artiodactyls). The presence of low density bone portions suggests that the expected element portions based on MNI but not found at the site were not likely removed due to disintegration through in situ weathering or other density-mediated attrition. Environmental Archaeology 2007 VOL 12 NO 1 13

12 Figure 9 Combined artiodactyls %MAU against standardized food utility index ((S)FUI) (Metcalfe and Jones 1988) and bone density (Kreutzer 1992) Bone density measures were also used to test between density-mediated attrition and humanrelated differential transport or destruction of faunal elements. Grayson (1988, 70-1) suggested that assemblages exhibiting density-mediated attrition would show a significant positive correlation between %MAU and bone density, whereas assemblages exhibiting differential transport would show a significant positive correlation between %MAU and a utility measure (%MGUI or (S)FUI) and an insignificant correlation between %MAU and bone density (see also Lyman 1994a, ). A third category can be posited, that of an assemblage from which elements were differentially transported to another location, showing a significant negative correlation between %MAU and %MGUI and an insignificant correlation between %MAU and bone density. Following Rapson (1990) and Lyman (1994a), the maximum density values for each MAU skeletal category were used to allow for correlation analysis, as defined in Lyman (1994a, Table 7. 10). Using Metcalfe and Jones (1988) food utility index ((S)FUI) for caribou and Kreutzer s (1992) bone density estimates for bison, Fig. 9 compares %MAU with bone density and (S)FUI. A negative correlation between %MAU and (S)FUI is apparent (r s 520?35, p 5 0?087), whereas there is no correlation between %MAU and bone density (r s 5 0?09, p 5 0?691). Other food-related indices suggest a negative correlation between element abundance and food utility (see Table 3), especially with the relative lack of cervical vertebrae, thoracic vertebrae, ribs, femora, humeri, and proximal tibiae. This patterning places the Gerstle River assemblage within Lyman s Class 2 (reverse utility, not winnowed or lagged/ravaged) (Lyman 1994a, ). Therefore, Gerstle River assemblage is a good example where human differential transport or destruction of certain high yield elements (with respect to food utility) played a major taphonomic role in the formation of the faunal assemblage but density-mediated destruction did not. Specific food resources are considered next. Skeletal part frequency analysis: utility indices After considering the relative importance of various density-mediated attrition processes, we are in a better position to evaluate economic utilization of the carcasses brought to the site. The purpose of this analysis is to assess which food-related resources may have affected element abundance holding other resources constant. Desired food products may be related to specific skeletal elements (Binford 1978). Various models of economic utility have been proposed for ungulates; the ones considered here include caribou (Binford 1978; Metcalfe and Jones 1988) and bison (Emerson 1990; Brink and Dawe 1989; Brink 1997; 2001). No published economic utility models have been constructed for wapiti. As Ringrose (1993, 151) and others have noted, the relationships between economic indices and element abundance are generally not precise enough to enable detailed statistical manipulation and hypothesis testing. Therefore, Spearman s rho correlation coefficients are used in a heuristic, exploratory fashion, and alpha levels are set at 0?08 and 0?05. Following Brink (2001), patterns among positive and negative correlations among %MAU values and various utility indices are assessed for all elements and appendicular elements, as the latter are more 14 Environmental Archaeology 2007 VOL 12 NO 1

13 Table 3 Correlation (r s ) of %MAU with various utility indices. * significant at alpha level (2-tailed) ** significant at alpha level (2-tailed) Utility Index Combined artiodactyls %MAU Wapiti %MAU Bison %MAU Bison (Emerson 1990) (S)MAVGTP (total products) (S)AVGMUI (utility) * (S)MAVGPRO (protein) (S)MAVGMAR (marrow) z0. 08 z0. 19 z0. 10 (S)MAVGWG (white grease) * (S)MAVGYG (yellow grease) z0. 44 z0. 62* z0. 62* (S)MAVGTF (total food) (S)MAVGGRE (total grease) z0. 14 z0. 23 z0. 11 (S)MAVGSKF (skeletal fat) z0. 15 z0. 21 z0. 09 (S)AVGFUI (food utility) Caribou (Metcalfe and Jones 1988) (S)FUI (food utility) * * Caribou (Binford 1978a) Meat Index Marrow Index z0. 40** z0. 51** z0. 22 White Grease Index z0. 08 z0. 28 z0. 07 MGUI Bison bone density (Kreutzer 1992) z0. 09 z closely linked with specific resources, namely marrow and grease (Brink 2001; see also Ringrose 1993, 147 9). Table 3 list the results of the correlations among utility indices and bison, wapiti, and combined artiodactyl %MAU. Significant correlations are presented as scatterplots in Fig. 10. In general, wapiti and combined artiodactyl %MAU, and to a lesser extent, bison %MAU are negatively related to meat and white grease related utility indices (such as total products, protein, total food, and food utility), and positively related to marrow indices for all elements (n 5 26), though significance varies. These results are generally replicated for various caribou indices (Binford 1978; Metcalfe and Jones 1988), where (S)FUI, meat and modified general utility (MGUI) are negatively correlated with artiodactyl abundance. Overall, the patterning supports the argument that marrow was extracted from bison and wapiti carcasses or carcass portions, and that bone grease rendering was limited or not practiced at all. The most consistently demonstrated relationship between economic resource type and element abundance at the site is a reverse utility curve, with relatively high Table 4 Correlation (r s ) of appendicular units (%MAU) with various utility indices. * significant at alpha level (2- tailed) ** significant at alpha level (2-tailed) Utility Index Combined artiodactyls %MAU Wapiti %MAU Bison %MAU Appendicular Units (n 5 16) Bison (Emerson 1990) (S)MAVGTP (total products) * (S)AVGMUI (utility) * (S)MAVGPRO (protein) * (S)MAVGMAR (marrow) * * (S)MAVGWG (white grease) * (S)MAVGTF (total food) (S)MAVGGRE (total grease) * (S)MAVGSKF (skeletal fat) ** * (S)AVGFUI (food utility) Caribou (Metcalfe and Jones 1988) (S)FUI (food utility) * Caribou (Binford 1978a) Meat Index Marrow Index z0. 46* z0. 50* (White) Grease Index MGUI (general utility) Bison bone density (Kreutzer 1992) z0. 48* z0. 42 z0. 28 Limb elements (n 5 6) Marrow (Brink 2001) Limb element portions (n 5 12) Grease (Brink 2001) ** ** Environmental Archaeology 2007 VOL 12 NO 1 15

14 Figure 10 Combined artiodactyls %MAU against bison and caribou utility indices: standardized average food utility index ((S)AVGFUI), modified average utility index ((S)MAVGFUI), marrow index ((S)MAVGMAR), white grease index ((S)MAVGWG) from Emerson (1990) and modified general utility index (MGUI) from Binford (1978) abundance of elements with high marrow yields and low abundance of elements with high meat and white grease yields. Furthermore, the fragments are not comminuted in a manner reflective of grease extraction by boiling. Given Marean and Frey s (1997) critique of aggregating long bones with non-long bones in assessing utility indices, long bone were analyzed separately, and the results are listed in Table 4. Bison total products, utility, protein, marrow, white grease, total grease, and skeletal fat are all moderately negatively correlated with artiodactyl abundance. Marrow Index is the only positive correlation. These results generally complement those obtained from examination of all elements; however the differences in marrow between Binford (1978) and Emerson (1990) suggests that further examination of their construction may be required. The overall patterning in carcass economic utility suggests that for meat resources, the Gerstle River assemblage exhibits a reverse (bulk) utility strategy for bison, wapiti, and combined artiodactyls. For marrow resources, the available indices yield conflicting correlations, and perhaps could be best 16 Environmental Archaeology 2007 VOL 12 NO 1

15 described as an unbiased strategy. Given that elements were likely not differentially destroyed based on density-mediated attritional processes, the resulting archaeological faunal assemblage has likely been transformed by differential transport of skeletal elements and associated food resources. Elements with high associated meat-values must have been brought to the site along with low-yield elements. While on-site, high-yield portions were likely processed for the meat, which was consumed and/or dried. If the Gerstle River represents a short-term camp, the high-yield anatomical portions could have been prepared for transport to a main residential camp. The elements associated with these high yield anatomical portions were not present at the site (fragmented or otherwise) after abandonment (e.g. ribs, thoracic vertebrae, and cervical vertebrae). While on-site, the occupants cracked elements with high marrow yields, e.g., tibiae, femora, humeri, radii, metacarpals, and metatarsals, while discarding elements with low marrow yields intact, e.g., tarsals, carpals, scapulae, and phalanges. No grease rendering or further processing of skeletal elements likely occurred at the site (see above). Mortality profiles Mortality profiles based on age are important for understanding general subsistence economies. Three techniques were used to estimate age of artiodactyls in Component 3: epiphyseal fusion of long bones, tooth eruption, and tooth wear. Given the limitations on epiphyseal fusion expressed above, and the generally fragmented nature of the Gerstle River assemblage, the presence of only two age classes was evaluated: mature (complete epiphyseal union) and immature (incomplete epiphyseal union). Twentyeight proximal and distal ends were complete/fused, two specimens had broken or unfused distal condyles, and five specimens consisted of broken epiphyses only. These data suggest that most if not all of the available wapiti long bones were from mature individuals, whereas the bison long bones represent mature and immature individuals (see Potter 2005, 307 8). A total of 63 artiodactyl teeth were recovered from Component 3, including two left mandibles, three right mandibles, two left maxillae, five right maxillae, and an additional ten isolated teeth (Table 5). All tooth rows were identified as cervids on the basis of their morphology. Deciduous and permanent mandibular tooth eruption in Cervus elaphus have been documented by Lowe (1967), Hillson (1986), and Jensen (1999). Based on morphological comparison of tooth wear, Gerstle River mandibular specimens fall within the 3?5-year-old class and 4?5 8?5-year-old classes (the oldest age classes in Jensen 1999). Using Klein and Cruz-Uribe s (1984, 44 57) formulae for wapiti (red deer) crown height and age estimation age at death was estimated for 17 mandibular and maxillary M1 and M2 from nine tooth rows. The results indicate that three age groupings are present, all adults: 1?8 3?7 years (n 5 6 tooth rows and one isolated tooth), 5?2 6?3 years (n 5 3 tooth rows and one isolated tooth), and 8?2 years (n 5 1 tooth row). Minimum numbers of individuals for each age class given sided maxillae and mandibles are three for Table 5 Crown height and age estimation. * minima due to tooth deterioration Provenience Units Tooth L. (mm) Crown height (mm) Age at death (months) using AGEpel Age at death (months) using AGEpel 5 168, 210, and 215 Age estimation (years) Tooth Rows UA L maxilla M1 26?1 14?6* ?5 M2 29?1* 21? UA R mandible M1 21?9 21? ?1 M2 30?1 29? M3 37?2 31? UA R maxilla M2 13? ?3 UA L maxilla M2 28?3 14? ?6 UA L mandible M1 22?7* 6? ?2 UA z49 R maxilla M1 28?5 18? ?7 M2 30?1 18? UA R maxilla M2 28?7 15? ?2 UA L maxilla M2 29?8 24? ?9 UA R mandible M1 24?4 8? ?4 M2 30?2 19? UA R mandible M3 39?8 25? ?0 Isolated teeth UA L maxilla M3 28?6 15? ?2 UA R mandible M3 39?8 28? ?6 Environmental Archaeology 2007 VOL 12 NO 1 17

16 year class, two for year class, and one for 8. 2-year class. This may suggest that total wapiti MNI for Component 3 is six rather than five, though the greater variability in tooth wear in older animals may diminish the separation between the latter two age classes. The wear exhibited in the Gerstle River specimens was generally intermediate between the 3?5 year-old class and 4?5 8?5 year-old class (Jensen 1999), suggesting a close agreement between crown height formulae and tooth eruption/wear stages. Given its small sample size, only tentative mortality profiles and subsequent interpretations can be constructed with the Gerstle River faunal assemblage. Nevertheless, these may have heuristic value given the dearth of published mortality profiles for any assemblage dating to the Late Pleistocene or Early Holocene in Alaska. In both catastrophic and attritional models, juveniles are expected to be abundant (Klein 1982; Stiner 1990). The Gerstle River wapiti mortality profile is consistent with a prime-dominated mortality profile (Stiner 1990; 1994), which may reflect selective ambush hunting of prey. Enloe (1993) suggested that efficient weaponry able to kill at a long range could be inferred from prime-dominated mortality profiles. Stiner (1994, 307) notes that this type of pattern may also reflect planned use of space, and co-operative labour. At the very least, the age structure strongly argues for efficient human hunting practices, and offers further evidence against a carnivore-derived faunal assemblage. This pattern appears to be supported by prime wapiti and sheep represented at Dry Creek Components 1 and 2 (Guthrie 1983, 218, 220, 243, 252). While the sample size is small, the pattern does seem to suggest hunting preferences for prime adult ungulates during this period. Discussion Taphonomy From these analyses, is clear that the faunal assemblage did not form by means of carnivore accumulation. Patterns in weathering, fragmentation, and articulation indicate that carnivore modification and post-depositional taphonomic destruction was not a major factor in the formation of this assemblage. Various datasets indicate that no largescale natural taphonomic agent disturbed the spatial patterning at Gerstle River. The spatial integrity of the faunal remains is thus highly resolved. With this high resolution and control on density-mediated attrition, inferences can be made about human processing patterns at the site and hunting strategies of the population that occupied this site. Faunal processing model In order to reduce and modify a carcass into anatomical units for transport, consumption, storage, and/or further processing (drying, etc.), various processing steps are needed. Lyman (1987; 1994a, ) details various general processing activities and constraints on these activities. In the analyses below, the process of carcass reduction is modeled using Lyman s framework, through the use of a spatial processing model and the inferred trajectories of anatomical units through a chain of processing events. Based on the spatial and economic analyses described above, the following model is proposed to explain the patterning observed in the Gerstle River faunal assemblage (see Fig. 11). The model incorporates three stages of butchering activities, (1) carcass portions brought to the site and placed in a central staging area, (2) element groups removed from carcass, taken to ancillary processing areas, where marrow was extracted, and (3) some specimens were discarded within areas that functioned as disposal areas, which were spaced at some distance from the areas of occupancy (denoted by hearth features and lithic items). Three types of faunal clusters were identified in the course of this analysis: (1) staging area, (2) processing areas, and (3) dumps or refuse areas. One staging area (F5) was defined on the basis of articulated lowyield elements, relatively little fragmentation, and relative absence of long bones. Five processing areas (F1, F3, F4, F6b and F9) were defined on the basis of association with lithics and hearth features, low average weights (per fragment), high percentages of long bone ends and associated shafts, dominance of long bones, high percentages of burned bones, and generally higher levels of fragmentation. Additionally, the clusters are centered on hearths that have extensive amounts of burned and calcined bone directly within their matrix. Two dumps or refuse areas (F2 and F7) were defined on the basis of lack of association with lithics and features, high degree of fragmentation, and high percentages of long bone shafts, and lack of burned bone. The classification of F6a as an activity area is discussed later in the text. After the bison and wapiti were killed off-site, several carcass portions (limbs, axial portions, etc.) were brought to the site and situated within faunal cluster F5, which functioned as a temporary storage/ staging area. Meat was removed in usable portions and dried or consumed, and/or taken from the site. From this initial area, element portions and element 18 Environmental Archaeology 2007 VOL 12 NO 1