AN INVESTIGATION OF ANASAZI TURKEY PRODUCTION
IN SOUTHWESTERN COLORADO
Natalie D. Munro
B .Sc., Southern Methodist University, 1991
THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL'FULFILLMENT OF
THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
MASTER OF ARTS
in the Department
of
Archaeology
63 Natalie D. Munro 1994
SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY
May 1 9 9 4
All rights reserved. This work may not be
reproduced in whole or in part, by photocopy
or other means, without permission of the author.
APPROVAL
Name:
Degree:
Title of thesis:
Natalie D. Munro
Master of Arts (Archaeology)
An Investigation of Anasazi Turkey Production in
Southwestern Colorado
Examining Committee:
Chair:
Dr. Roy Carlson
Jonathan C. Driver
ior Supervisor
Dr. Mark Skinner
Associate Professor
Department of Archaeology
~ r~ .T h a eBlake
l
External Examiner
Department of Anthropology and Sociology
University of British Colombia
Date Approved: May 18, 1994
PARTIAL COPYRIGHT LICENSE
I hereby grant to Simon Fraser University the right to lend my thesis or
dissertation (the title of which is shown below) to users of the Simon
Fraser University Library, and to make partial or single copies only for
such users or in response to a request from the library of any other
university, or other educational institution, on its own behalf or for one of
its users. I further agree that permission for multiple copying of this thesis
for scholarly purposes may be granted by me or the Dean of Graduate
Studies. It is understood that copying or publication of this thesis for
financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission.
Title of ThesisIDissertation:
I
AN INVESTIGATION OF ANASAZI TURKEY PRODUCTION
IN SOUTHWESTERN COLORADO
Author:
Signature
Name
May 18, 1994
Date
ABSTRACT
The current study is an investigation of turkey production and its potential
as an indicator of intensification, resource access and domestication in
southwestern Colorado during the latter part of the Anasazi occupation (ca. A.D.
500- 1300). The archaeological remains of turkeys are utilised to investigate four
primary questions. The first is whether the turkeys in the sample were
domesticated or wild. A reexamination of current divisions of southwestern
archaeological turkey species and breeds is performed to address this problem.
Second, the changing function of the turkey in Anasazi society is evaluated.
Third, intensification in turkey production and its relationship to human
population aggregation is examined by tracing temporal change in the proportion
of turkeys in Mesa Verde region faunal assemblages. Finally, spatial variation in
the intensity of turkey production is considered within the context of resource
access, land tenure and community organisation during Pueblo I11 in the Sand
Canyon Locality.
The osteological examination of turkey bone did not reveal whether the
turkeys in the Sand Canyon sample were domesticated or wild. Many questions
are raised as to the validity of current subdivisions of Meleagris gallopavo into
subspecies or distinct breeds. It is proposed that variation may instead be a result
of environmental factors, isolation or natural variation within a population.
However, numerous contextual indicators suggest that the turkeys in the sample
are domesticated.
The function of the turkey in Anasazi society was evaluated by searching
for indicators of its value as a ritual or utilitarian resource and evidence for food
or feather use in the archaeological record. The data support the utilisation of the
turkey for all of these purposes, though its primary function varied over time.
Both temporal and spatial variation in the intensity of turkey production
are recognised in the study area. Proportions of turkey in Mesa Verde region
faunal assemblages increased through time, most dramatically between Pueblo I1
and 111. This is correlated with the initiation of small-scale population aggregation
and the specific conditions present at the time. These include increased
population densities, restricted mobility and agricultural intensification, which led
to the reduction of 'big game' in the Mesa Verde region. As a result I propose that
the Anasazi intensified turkey production to ensure access to a reliable meat
source. In the Sand Canyon Locality during Pueblo III cliff/talus/bench sites
exhibited significantly higher proportions of turkey than other locations. It is
conjectured that this resulted from the presence of a land tenure system which
allowed differential access to land. The occupants of the canyon sites were
limited to marginal agricultural land and were thus required to increase domestic
turkey production to meet their requirements for animal protein.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to begin with a special thank you to my advisory committee. I
am most indebted to Jon Driver, my supervisor, for providing invaluable guidance,
support and financial assistance which ensured the completion of this project.
Mark Skinner read and commented on various drafts and provided many
insightful ideas. Thanks also go to Michael Blake for taking the time to serve on
my committee as my external advisor.
Secondly, I would like to extend a sincere thank you to the Crow Canyon
Archaeological Center, particularly for providing financial assistance and a
friendly and supportive atmosphere while I was undertaking the analysis for this
project. Special thanks go to Karen Adams, Mark Hovesak, Bill Lipe and Melita
Swain for their time and assistance with many technical aspects of this research,
including making the faunal collections available to me. Thanks also to Bruce
Bradley and Charmion McKusick for donating turkey skeletons for my
identifications. Most importantly I would like to thank Mark Varien for tirelessly
answering my many questions, and for his continual encouragement.
I am grateful for the stimulating discussion, suggestions and support of my
fellow graduate students. Thanks to John Darwent for sharing his first hand
experiences with raising turkeys. Rick Schulting's input was particularly
valuable, especially when it related to anything statistical. Otherwise his
discussion was thought provoking and enabled me to straighten out many of my
own ideas in my head. Finally, thanks to Hartley Odwak, for clearing up
seemingly endless glitches on the computer and being an unrelenting wall of
support throughout the duration of this project.
Not to be forgotten is my family: Neil, Jennifer, Shane, Camille, Kara, Krista,
Pauline, Evan, Grace and Mimi. Thank you for your infinite faith!
TABLE OF CONTENTS
APPROVAL.............................................................................................................................
n
...
ABSTRACT.............................................................................................................................m
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ......................................................................................................
v
LIST OF TABLES...................................................................................................................ix
LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................... ................................
CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION............................................................................................. 1
Introduction .................................................................................................................1
Objectives ..................................................................................................................... 1
Geographic Location ..................................................................................................
2
Environmental Setting ................................................................................................ 4
Cultural History - The Mesa Verde Region .............................................................5
Research History of The Crow Canyon Archaeological Center ..........................8
Sampling Design - The Sand Canyon Locality ......................................................11
Sand Canyon Pueblo .....................................................................................13
The Duckfoot Site ......................................................................................1 4
The Green Lizard Site .................................................................................... 15
The Site Testing Program.............................................................................. -15
Cougar Cub Alcove ................................................................................. 1 6
Sampling Design - The Mesa Verde Region ........................................................... 17
Methods...................................................................................................................1 7
Provenience....................................................................................................-19
Taxon ............................................................................................................... 19
Element, Part, Side, Breakage and Length .................................................. 19
Modifications ..................................................................................................20
Sexing .............................................................................................................. 20
Aging................................................................................................................22
Determination of Breed ................................................................................. 23
Detection of Temporal and Spatial Variation in Turkey Production
Quantitative Procedures....................................................................25
Organisation of Research .......................................................................................... 29
CHAPTER IT THE TURKEY: BACKGROUND AND UTILISATION ..........................31
Introduction ................................................................................................................31
Habitat, Subsistence and Reproduction .................................................................. 32
Origin of the Southwestern Turkey .........................................................................33
Entrance of the Turkey into Southwestern Lifeways...........................................36
Southwestern Species and Breeds........................................................................... 39
The Function of Southwestern Archaeological Turkeys......................................43
Historic Documentation.............;...................................................................
44
Ethnographic Documentation ......................................................................45
Archaeological Evidence ..............................................................................47
Previous Archaeological Interpretation ......................................................
52
CHAPTER III THEORETICAL BACKGROUND ............................................................54
Introduction ...............................................................................................................
.54
Domestication .............................................................................................................54
Intensification ............................................................................................................. 59
Population Aggregation ............................................................................................60
Southwestern Models of Aggregation........................................................61
Environmental Deterioration ............................................................61
Defense ................................................................................................ 62
Leadership........................................................................................... 63
Exchange............................................................................................ -64
Competition Reduction ..................................................................... 64
Population Pressure........................................................................... -65
The Aggregation Process on the Colorado Plateau ..................................65
The Processes Behind Aggregation in the Sand Canyon Locality .........68
Population Increases ..........................................................................
70
............................................................................
Restricted Mobility
70
Resource Scarcity.............................................................................. -71
Agricultural Intensification ...............................................................73
Aggregation Synthesis .....:............................................................................ 74
Aggregation in the Dolores Valley............................................................... 75
Resource Access and Land Tenure .........................................................................
76
Expectations for the Assemblage............................................................................ -78
Intensification ................................................................................................. 78
Intersite Variation in Turkey Production in the Sand Canyon
Locality ...................................................................................................... 8 3
CHAPTER IV RESULTS ......................................................................................................85
Introduction ................................................................................................................
. .
85
Evidence for turkey domeshcatlon.......................................................................... 85
Osteological data ............................................................................................ 86
Contextual Evidence..................................................................................... 93
The Turkey's Function in Anasazi Society .............................................................99
Evidence for Feather Utilisation...................................................................100
1) The Mesa Verde Region................................................................ 100
2) The Sand Canyon Locality .........................................................103
Evidence for Food Utilisation...................................................................... 105
1) The Mesa Verde Region............................................................... 106
2) The Sand Canyon Locality .......................................................... 108
Evidence for Bone Utilisation ...................................................................... 116
1) The Mesa Verde Region................................................................ 116
2) The Sand Canyon Locality ......................................................... 117
Intensity of Turkey Production: Temporal Change.................................122
Evidence from the Mesa Verde Region ......................................................124
Evidence from the Sand Canyon Locality .................................................127
Intersite Variation Within the Sand Canyon Locality........................................... 129
vii
136
CHAPTER V DISCUSSION A ND CONCLUSIONS .......................................................
Introduction ...............................................................................................................
136
Is There a Turkey in the House?...............................................................................136
Osteological Evidence ...................................................................................137
Conclusion of osteological research............................................................ 141
Conclusion of contextual evidence.............................................................142
The Role of the Turkey in Anasazi Society ............................................................143
Conclusion ...................................................................................................... 149
Temporal Change: Intensification in Turkey Production ........................150
Conclusion ...................................................................................................... 156
Intersite Variation in Turkey Production Within the Sand Canyon
Locality ........................................................................................................................ 157
Conclusion ...................................................................................................... 162
Problems Encountered............................................................................................... 163
Suggestions for Further Research............................................................................ 165
REFERENCES ....................................................................................................................... 167
APPENDIX A:
Elemental Distribution of Turkey by Site................................................................ 183
APPENDIX B:
Measurements of Tarsometatarsi ..............................................................................185
APPENDIX C:
Statistics Testing Spatial Variation in Turkey Production ....................................188
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1.1
Sampled sites from the Sand Canyon Locality and their dates
of occupation..............................................................................................1 1
Table 4.1 Ranges of means of greatest lengths of tarsometarsi by breed
and sex.......................................................................................................-92
Table 4.2 Means of Greatest Length of tarsi from sites in the Mesa Verde
Region........................................................................................................-93
Table 4.3 Ratio of eggshell to bone by site in the Sand Canyon
Locality....................................................................................................... 95
Table 4.4 Age structure of the turkey population in the Sand Canyon
Locality by site.......................................................................................... 98
Table 4.5 Indices of preservation, the ratio of the distal ends of Sylvilagus
sp. tibiae and humeri to their proximal ends at sites in the Sand
Canyon Locality...................................................................................... 105
Table 4.6 Distribution of cutrnarks by element and the percentage of
each element with cuts........................................................................... -109
Table 4.7 The location of cutmarks on turkey elements in the Sand
Canyon Locality...................................................................................... 1 1
Table 4.8 Part representation of humeri, tibiotarsi and radii from Pueblo
111contexts in the Sand Canyon Locality............................................112
Table 4.9 Sex structure of the turkey population by site in the Sand
Canyon Locality..................................................................................... 1 1 5
Table 4.10 Artifacts divided by type from Pueblo I11 contexts in the
Sand Canyon Locality... .........................................................................118
Table 4.11 Artifacts divided by element from Pueblo I11 contexts in the
Sand Canyon Locality.............................................................................
18
Table 4.12 Percentage of turkey per site in the regional sample from the
Mesa Verde region.................................................................................. -123
Table 4.13 Turkey proportions divided by time period from sites in the
Sand Canyon Locality........................................................................... -128
Table 4.14 Site Sample for Spatial analysis within the Sand Canyon
Locality.................................................................................................... -130
ix
Table 4.15 Percentage of turkey bone in Pueblo 111 sites in the Sand Canyon
Locality by topographic location..........................................................13 1
Table 4.16 Statistics comparing the cliff/talus/bench sites and the other
Pueblo I11 sampled sites in the Sand Canyon Locality
combined...................................................................................................134
LIST OF FIGURES
3
Figure 1.1 The Southwest United States.....................................................................
Figure 1.2 Sampled sites from the Sand Canyon Locality......................................12
Figure 1.3 Sampled sites from the Mesa Verde region.............................................18
Figure 1.4 Measurements taken from the turkey tarsometatarsus.........................24
Figure 4.1 Distribution of the breadth of the distal end of tarsometarsi
in the Sand Canyon Locality...................................................................89
Figure 4.2 Simple regression of tarsometatarsi measurements: distal
breadth versus greatest length................................................................. 90
Figure 4.3 Greatest length distribution of tarsometatarsi from the Sand
Canyon Locality.. ..................................................................................... .9 1
Figure 4.4 Skeletal depiction of Meleagris gallopavo indicating the
locations of common cutrnarks on turkey skeletons in the
Sand Canyon Locality sample...............................................................110
Figure 4.5 Bar graph representing the proportion of turkey versus .
lagomorphs and artiodactyls at Pueblo I11 sites grouped by
topographic location from the Sand Canyon Locality......................132
Figure 4.6 Average percent and ranges of turkey at Pueblo I11 sites in
the Sand Canyon Locality, grouped by topographic
location..................................................................................................... .I33
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
Introduction
In this study the remains of domestic animals are used as an alternative to
traditional data sets (i.e. architecture, agricultural productivity) to study changes
in the Anasazi community which occupied the Sand Canyon Locality, Colorado.
The study examines the shifting role of the turkey (Meleagris gallopavo) as the
community underwent population aggregation. This will provide insight into the
function the turkey played in Anasazi prehistory and will supplement current
research addressing broader questions concerning community organisation and
intensification in the Sand Canyon Locality. The temporal parameters under
investigation range from ca. A.D. 500, when the turkey first appeared as a
domesticate in the northern Southwest, to A.D. 1300 when regional
abandonment occurred. The primary spatial focus will be on the Sand Canyon
Locality, currently under investigation by the Crow Canyon Archaeological
Center. Data from the Mesa Verde region will also be considered to provide
greater temporal depth.
Objectives
This project is designed with the dual goals of clarifying the turkey's role
in Anasazi prehistory and addressing broader research problems related to
intensification and resource access. The study investigates Anasazi turkey
production since its inception in the Mesa Verde region, particularly within the
Sand Canyon Locality. Four primary questions will be addressed by utilising
archaeological turkey assemblages as a data base. The first two relate specifically
to the turkey and its role within pueblo society. They include: 1) reexamining
the assignment of distinct species and breeds to archaeological turkeys in the
Southwest, particularly the differentiation between domestic and wild birds; and
2) determining the function of the turkey within Anasazi society and how it
changed through time. The final two objectives have been designed to
investigate more general problems which have not traditionally been addressed
using faunal data sets. These are intended to fit within the broader research goals
of the Crow Canyon Archaeological Center. They involve: 1) examining
variation in the intensity of turkey production through time and its relationship to
large-scale aggregation in southwestern Colorado, and 2) investigating intersite
variation in turkey production within the context of resource access systems and
sociocultural organisation in the Sand Canyon Locality during Pueblo 111. It is
hoped that the results of this study will aid overall research by substantiating or
refuting current hypotheses not only in the study area, but in the greater
Southwest as well.
Geographic Location
The Sand Canyon Locality has been selected as the primary research
domain. It is situated 18 km from modem day Cortez in southwestern Colorado,
and in close proximity to other major Anasazi centres, including Mesa Verde
National Park, the Dolores Drainage and Hovenweep National Monument. Each
of these experienced similar culture histories, though temporal variation existed
(Breternitz et al. 1986, Rohn 1977, Varien et al. 1992). The locality occupies an
area of 225 sq. km in the McElmo Drainage which flows into the San Juan River.
Boundaries are designated by McElmo Creek to the south and Yellow Jacket
Creek to the north. The eastlwest borders are arbitrarily assigned by an arc of 7.5
kilometres which is drawn to the east of Goodman Point Ruin and to the west of
Sand Canyon Pueblo. These two sites are the largest within the locality and are
Figure 1.1: The Southwest United States.
surrounded by numerous small sites (Lipe 1992a). Between ca. A.D. 100 and
A.D. 1300, the study area was occupied by the Anasazi after which a large scale
rapid abandonment of the region occurred (Cordell 1984, Lipe 1992a).
A regional sample has also been selected to address aspects of the study
which require greater temporal depth (intensification and function). The area
known as the Mesa Verde region is defined as the territory bounded to the north
by the Dolores Valley, to the south by the New Mexico border, and ranges east to
west from Mesa Verde to the Utah border. This region has been chosen since it
surrounds the Sand Canyon Locality thus minimizing geographic and culture
variability (see Figure 1.3). In addition, some more specific comparisons will be
made with data collected by the Dolores Archaeological Program which
undertook research in the Dolores Valley 13 kilometres north of Cortez.
Environmental Setting
Topographically, the Sand Canyon Locality is situated on a circular,
structural uplift known as the McElmo Dome. The area is laced with a complex
network of mesas and canyons, created by the erosion of sandstone formations
(Kuckelman et al. 1991). Mesas occupy the flat land between the canyons and
are carpeted with arable soil. In contrast, canyon walls are steep and rocky,
hosting benches and talus slopes which were frequently used for Anasazi
habitation, though they accommodated less productive acreage. Elevations
range between 1,700-2,100m (5,600-7,000 feet) (Kuckelman et al. 1991). The
southern portion of the Sand Canyon Locality is dominated by the Lower
McElmo Drainage. This area exhibits a distinct microenvironment due to its lower
elevation and sparse vegetation. The climate is predominantly arid, though not
desert-like. Sufficient precipitation for dry farming falls in most seasons, though
the climate is well known for its dramatic and unpredictable fluctuations. Local
temperatures range from an average -3 degrees Celsius in January to 22 degrees
Celsius in July (Walker 1990a). This allows for approximately 120-130 frost free
days (depending on elevation), which is an adequate growing season for maize
cultivation.
The flora and fauna which inhabit the Sand Canyon Locality today are
much the same as they were during the Anasazi occupation. Vegetation on the
mesa tops is dominated by drought resistant species such as sage brush
(Artemisia tridentata), pinyon pine (Pinus edulis) and juniper (Juniperus
osteosperma). The latter two also thrive on the canyon rims and talus slopes.
The canyon bottoms supply enough moisture to support riparian species such as
cottonwood (Populus sp.) and willow (Salix sp.)(Adams 1992). The lower
McElmo provisions sparser vegetation including yucca and cactus (Varien et al.
1992). Common faunal species include mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus),
coyotes (Canis latrans), foxes (Vulpes sp.), cottontails (Sylvilagus sp.) and
jackrabbits (Lepus sp.). Several species of rodents are also abundant. Birds are
represented by eagles, hawks, turkey vultures, jays, flickers, swallows, swifts,
magpies, hummingbirds and numerous songbirds (Kuckelman et al. 1991).
-
Cultural History The Mesa Verde Region
The first human residents in southwestern Colorado were the Paleoindians.
Remains from their occupation are rare, and have been attributed to temporary,
seasonal habitation in the area (Cordell 1984, Lightfoot 1991). The Archaic
tradition replaced the Paleoindian Period ca. 5,000 B. C. and was characterised
by increased selectivity of habitation sites and the adoption of maize agriculture
at an equivocal date of approximately 1,000 B.C. (Vierra 1990) (see Wills 1988
and Minnis 1985 for alternative arguments).
By A.D. 100 the human population inhabiting the northern Southwest is
known as the Anasazi who can be recognised by a series of diagnostic traits.
Their chronology as formulated by Kidder in the late 1920s, commences with
Basketmaker I1 (100 B.C.-A.D. 500) (Cordell 1984). During this period local
population densities were low, though gradual population growth took place
throughout the occupation (Orcutt et a1. 1990). During Basketmaker I1 the
Anasazi inhabited shallow subterranean pithouse structures, associated with
storage cysts. Settlements appeared either as loose clusters or dispersed hamlets.
The local subsistence strategy focused on a mixed economy of hunting, gathering
and limited agriculture emphasising maize and squash production. Typical
artifacts include basketry, twined bags, atlatls, dart weapons, rabbit fur blankets
and two handed manos with troughed metates (Cordell 1984).
Basketmaker I11 commenced ca. A.D. 500 and persisted until A.D. 750.
Population densities remained low throughout Baskermaker 111, though they were
higher than preceding periods (Orcutt et al. 1990). The subterranean pithouse
continued as the primary habitation structure but boasted new architectural
features such as antechambers and sipapus. The subterranean depth of the
structures also increased (Cordell 1984). The appearance of small villages and the
occasional Great Kiva, are also noted, though hamlets remained popular for
habitation (Wills and Windes 1989). Fertile agricultural soil became the primary
determinant of site location and increasing emphasis was placed on agriculture,
particularly following the introduction of beans ca A.D. 400 (Ford 1981) which
are an excellent nutritional balance for maize and squash (Minnis 1985).
Innovations in material culture include the appearance of gray-ware ceramics and
the bow and arrow (Cordell 1984).
Pueblo I was initiated ca. A.D. 750 and terminated by A.D. 900. This
period was characterised by episodes of aggregation, increased sedentism and the
expansion of agriculture. Local populations were higher than ever and
settlements were less evenly distributed over the landscape as a result of localised
aggregations (Adler and Varien 1991). Architectural changes were manifested in
the pithouse which underwent structural transformations perhaps as the result of
a functional transition to a ritual entity (Varien and Lightfoot 1989, Wilshusen
1989). The resulting structures are known as kivas. Habitations evolved from the
above ground storage rooms, forming small contiguous units (Prudden 1903).
Great Kivas were more common during Pueblo I and are believed to have
functioned as integrative facilities for increasing populations. Innovations in
material culture include the introduction of cotton into the agricultural complex
for use as a textile and food source. Ceramics were more refined and
cradleboards which produce a distinctive flattening of infants skulls were
introduced (Fiedel 1987).
Pueblo I1 was initiated ca. A.D. 900 and endured until A.D. 1150. During
this period settlements remained small and consisted of a series of wattle and daub
or masonry surface rooms and kivas. By A.D. 1100 the Anasazi occupied their
maximum extent, leaving few environments uninhabited (Adler and Varien 1991).
Changes in ceramics are noted in the appearance of corrugated wares and an
increase in decorated pottery (Cordell 1984). Also, turkey feather blankets
largely replaced those previously manufactured from rabbit fur. It was during
Pueblo I1 that the development of a large-scale Anasazi community known as the
Chaco Phenomenon took place in the San Juan Basin in New Mexico. This
preplanned society was linked to an extended community throughout the Four
Comers region by a complex road system. Chaco Canyon was the centre of
influence in the region while at its cultural peak, as reflected by the appearance
of Great Houses referred to as Chacoan outliers in numerous locations outside of
the San Juan Basin. Several outliers occupied the Colorado Plateau though the
Chacoan community collapsed during the mid A.D. 1100's (Lekson 1991).
Pueblo I11 represents the culmination of the Anasazi occupation in the
Mesa Verde region. This period endured from ca. A.D. 1150 to 1300 and
terminated with the large-scale rapid abandonment of the region. Settlement
patterns were characterised by dispersed communities composed of small
scattered habitation sites and aggregated villages (Varien et al. 1994). Population
density reached its maximum, while habitation sites were located in closer
proximity to one another. Sites were also located in association with less arable
soil than earlier occupations, as the majority of productive soil was already under
cultivation (Adler 1990a). Changes in material culture include an increase in
decorated ceramics and the appearance of flat metates which were set in bins. By
the late A.D. 1200's, construction terminated in most areas of the Mesa Verde
region and abandonment followed soon after (by A.D. 1300) (Lightfoot 1991).
Many hypotheses have been developed to explain the mysterious
disappearance of the Anasazi. The most widely accepted proposes that the
Anasazi migrated south and became integrated into communities in these areas
(Lipe 1992b). This also explains the increase in population in the Mogollon
Highlands, Upper Rio Grande, Hopi Mesas, Acoma and Zuni. Several suggestions
have been advocated to explain why the Anasazi headed south. These include
environmental degradation, high population densities and intersite hostility which
may have driven the Anasazi away from the Mesa Verde region. The
attractiveness of religion and organisation in the south are suggested as
proponents which may have attracted the Anasazi to these communities. As yet
the exact cause of abandonment is unknown though it is probable that it resulted
from a combination of the above factors.
Research History of The Crow Canyon Archaeological Center
The Crow Canyon Archaeological Center is a not-for-profit research
facility located in Cortez, Colorado. It was established in 1983 with the dual
goals of combining research objectives with education (Lipe 1992a). The Sand
Canyon Locality was proposed as a useful region for study as an alternative to
the extensive research concentrated on the exceptional settlements at Mesa
Verde National Park. Little other research concerning the Pueblo I11 period has
been undertaken elsewhere in the Mesa Verde region, particularly on large
aggregated settlements and communities. In addition, the area houses a high
density of settlements, and was inhabited throughout Anasazi prehistory. The
locality includes Sand Canyon Pueblo, an aggregated Pueblo I11 site which sits at
the head of Sand Canyon and is ideal for the investigation of large Pueblo I11
aggregated sites and the processes of aggregation. The Sand Canyon Locality
was therefore selected as a domain with high potential for the examination of
Pueblo I11 community organisation (Lipe 1992a).
The Sand Canyon Locality covers an area of 225 sq. km. Dimensions of
the study locale were chosen to represent the areal extent researchers believe
would be required to support a Pueblo I11 Anasazi community in terms of
subsistence and habitation area (Lipe 1992a). The size determined was based on
Willey and Phillips definition of a locality, which states that it is larger than a
settlement, yet smaller than a region. The community is defined as "...themuxima1
group of people who reside close to one another and who interact regularly on
a face-to-face basis" (Lightfoot 1991: 1).
The Crow Canyon Archaeological Center has four primary research
objectives. The researchers wish to:
1) identify the sociocultural organisation and define the communities inhabiting
the Sand Canyon Locality during Pueblo 111;
2) examine cultural, social and environmental changes during this time;
3) compare their data on a larger scale to increase understanding of the changing
patterns within the greater Southwest;
4) build the foundations for the above problems by performing a number of
instrumental studies such as chronology building and the reconstruction of past
environments.
In an attempt to achieve the proposed objectives, several major projects
have been initiated over the past ten years. These include archaeological
excavations at Sand Canyon Pueblo, the Duckfoot Site, the Green Lizard Site and
the Site Testing Program which sampled thirteen sites (Lipe 1992a). The
completion of these projects will conclude the research planned for the 19831994 period. In addition, instrumental studies have been conducted by the
environmental archaeology program, research associates and students.
The current project has been undertaken with the dual objective of
complementing research currently underway at the Crow Canyon Archaeological
Center and increasing the body of knowledge regarding the turkey in
southwestern archaeology. To achieve these goals the applicable methods and
goals as defined by Crow Canyon have been incorporated into the research
design.
Prior analyses of fauna excavated by the Crow Canyon Archaeological
Center have been undertaken by various associated researchers. Neusius (1985)
performed a preliminary analysis of the Sand Canyon fauna and later analyses
were undertaken by Walker (1990a ) and Brand (1991). Walker also examined
the remains from the Duckfoot Site (1989) and the Green Lizard Site (1990b).
Fauna from four sites excavated during the small site testing program were
analysed in Brand (1991) and were synthesised with data from the remaining nine
sites by Driver et al. (1995). In addition, a study by Bullock (1992) concerning
the bone tools from selected sites from the Sand Canyon Locality has recently
been completed.
-
Sampling Design The Sand Canyon LocaIity
In this study, the sample was chosen to conform to research already
completed or in progress in the Sand Canyon Locality. The majority of fauna
recovered from past excavations is included in the sample. Four major projects
have produced animal remains from 17 sites. All turkey remains from each site
were examined with the exception of the assemblage from Sand Canyon Pueblo
which was subsampled.
1
5MT3868
Duckfoot Site
Kenzie Dawn Hamlet
A.D. 850-880
A.D. 600-650
A.D. 1060-1100
A.D. 1180-1240
A.D. 1050-1100
G and G Hamlet
A.D. 1180-1225
A.D. 600-650
Shorlene's Site
A.D. 1210-1250
A.D. 1050-1200
Cougar Cub Alcove
A.D. 1210-1250
Roy's Ruin
A.D. 1210-1250
Lillian's Site
Sand Canyon Pueblo A.D. 1250-1300
A.D. 1175-1300
Green Lizard Site
A.D. 1210-1300
Troy's Tower
A.D. 1210-1300
Mad Dog Tower
A.D. 1240-1300
Catherine's Site
A.D. 124-1300
Saddlehorn Hamlet
A.D. 1250-1300
Stanton's Site
A.D. 1250-1300
Castle Rock Pueblo
A.D. 1250-1300
Lookout House
A.D. 1260-1300
Lester's Site
Table 1.1: Sampled sites from the Sand Canyon Locality and their dates of
occupation.
(See Table 1.1 for a list of sampled sites from the Sand Canyon Locality and
Figure 1.2 for a map). Sampling procedures are therefore identical to those used
during each of the four projects. Faunal remains which were excavated by the
Crow Canyon Archaeological Center have been catalogued and stored using
standard laboratory procedures (Schwab et al. 1989). Materials were easily
accessed for this study, thanks to Crow Canyon's generous cooperation. The
sampling procedures for all sites in the current sample are discussed below.
Sand Canyon Pueblo
Sand Canyon Pueblo (5MT765) is a large Pueblo I11 site located at the
head of Sand Canyon. The site underwent a short, continuous occupation
between ca. A.D. 1250 and 1300 when abandonment occurred
(Bradley 1992). Excavations at the site have been directed by Bruce Bradley
since 1985. Prior to this, in the first year of excavation (1984) Charles Adams
shared the directorship. Due to the large size of the site only a small percentage is
examined each year. To date less than 10% of the site has been excavated. The
sampling strategy implemented for excavations at Sand Canyon Pueblo was
devised by Adams and Bradley (Bradley 1992). It is designed to sample diversity
in two types of structural groups referred to as kiva suites and architectural units.
Kiva suites consist of a kiva and all areas with which it is deemed to be in
association. Architectural units may incorporate one or more kiva suites and are
defined by structural continuity. Spaces between structures and other
architectural features designate their boundaries. Three types of architectural
units have been identified: the kiva dominated roomblock (less than 5 rooms per
kiva); the standard block (5-16 rooms per kiva); and room dominated blocks
(more than 16 rooms per kiva). Sand Canyon Pueblo is composed of a total of
fourteen architectural units (Bradley 1992). The sampling strategy was designed
to emphasise the variation in the types of architectural units therefore,
judgmental sampling was utilised to select architectural units within which kiva
suites were excavated in their entirety.
At the conclusion of the 1989 season a total of six kiva structural groups
had been excavated at Sand Canyon Pueblo. Due to the large quantity of faunal
remains recovered, it was necessary to subsample the material to create a
manageable data base for this project. The sample utilised here represents
approximately half of the total turkey bone available from the excavations
completed by the end of the 1989 season. An attempt was made to maintain the
original sampling goals of Bradley and Adarns in devising the subsample. Three
architectural blocks have thus been chosen, one from each group of roomblocks
previously mentioned. These include architectural block 100 (kiva dominated),
architectural block 1000 (standard) and architectural block 300 (room
dominated). In addition, the remains from non-structures 209,210 and structure
1204 were included in the sample. These units were chosen for potential
comparisons with studies performed by other researchers affiliated with the Crow
Canyon Archaeological Center (Hegmon 1991, Chao 1991). Fauna was collected
and catalogued uniformly for all Sand Canyon excavations and identifications
were performed by Walker (1990a) and Brand (1991). The latter was supervised
by Jon Driver at Simon Fraser University.
The Duckfoot Site
Between 1983 and 1987 Ricky Lightfoot directed excavations at the
Duckfoot Site (5MT3868). The site is a small Pueblo I habitation occupied
between A.D. 8501 860 and 880. Site layout is according to Prudden's (1903)
definition of the unit pueblo and consists of 19 rooms, 4 pithouses, a plaza and a
midden. The sampling design called for the excavation of the site in its entirety
and resulted in the excavation of all rooms and pithouses, the entire plaza and
90% of the midden. Walker (1989), in his faunal analysis of Duckfoot views the
sample as representative of the entire local fauna at the site. Duckfoot is the only
site excavated in the Sand Canyon Locality which lacks a Pueblo I11 component.
As such, it is ideal for comparative purposes and for the detection of temporal
change in the Sand Canyon Locality.
The Green Lizard Site
In 1987 excavation was initiated at The Green Lizard Site (5MT3901)
under the direction of Ed Huber (Huber and Lipe 1992). The site was chosen due
to its suitability for comparison with Sand Canyon Pueblo since although they
were contemporaneous, they differ greatly in overall size (Green Lizaid is much
smaller). The area chosen for excavation includes one kiva and all associated
rooms (a kiva suite) in the western portion of the site. This judgmental selection
allows comparisons with the kiva suites excavated at Sand Canyon Pueblo. One
test trench was also judgmentally excavated in the eastern half of the site to
search for a second kiva suite which was eventually located. In addition to these
excavations, a stratified random sample was instigated using lxlm test pits. The
random pits were designed to test six sampling strata identified in the midden and
the peripheral areas of the site (Huber and Lipe 1992). All faunal identifications
and analysis for Green Lizard were performed by Walker (1990b).
The Site Testing Program
In 1988 the Site Testing Program was initiated under the direction of Mark
Varien. Thirteen sites believed to be contemporaneous with Sand Canyon Pueblo
were selected for excavation in an attempt to examine organisation within the
Pueblo I11 community (Varien et al. 1992). The same excavation and recording
strategies were implemented at each tested site creating an excellent body of data
from which to draw comparisons.
Variation among Pueblo I11 sites is high in the Sand Canyon Locality. Site
selection was "designed to sample this diversity and to obtain data useful in
evaluating and more fully understanding the variation that is present" (Varien
et al. 1992: 49). Sources of variation include: a) geographic location: the upper
and lower Sand Canyon, b) physiographic setting: the lower canyon, the talus
slopes, canyon benches and mesa tops, c) site size: small and medium sites (no
large sites are available for study other than Sand Canyon Pueblo, currently
under investigation), d) site layouts, e) occupation dates within Pueblo 111: prior
to or contemporaneous with Sand Canyon Pueblo. An attempt was made to
choose at least one site from each of the categories within the five criteria. As a
result thirteen sites were selected and excavated.
Sites tested in the program were sampled using a stratified random
approach, although occasional judgmental samples were taken. One by one
metre test pits were used for both strategies. Strata were defined following the
mapping of each site. Sampling variability between sites was reduced due to the
similarity in site layouts and components which created like strata. Random
samples were excavated from all layers identified at each site, though the number
of sampling units varied between sites, according to size (Varien 1992). Finally,
the faunal assemblage was analyzed by students at Simon Fraser University using
standard procedures devised by Driver (1991).
Cougar Cub Alcove
Fauna from one additional site was included in the sample. Cougar Cub
Alcove is a small cliff face/talus slope habitation similar to those tested in the Site
Testing program (Kuckelman et al. 1991). It was sampled by the crew working on
the Site Testing Program in 1990. Only two test pits were excavated in an
attempt to obtain tree-ring samples for dating. The site had been extensively
damaged by looters, thus the samples were taken before further injury could
result. Once again, fauna was identified by students at Simon Fraser University
under the guidance of Jon Driver (1991).
-
Sampling Design The Mesa Verde Region
The Mesa Verde sample consists of the sites from the Sand Canyon
Locality sample as reviewed above, as well as numerous other sites from the
surrounding region. Sites ranging in time from Basketmaker I11 to Pueblo I11 were
examined. Sites were selected for inclusion in the Mesa Verde sample based on
the availability of site reports which contained quantified faunal data. Because
the sites were excavated and analyzed by a variety of researchers using
incommensurate strategies for recording and quantification there are serious
compatibility problems amongst the data. Limited analysis will be performed
keeping these factors in mind, thus the resulting trends in the faunal record
through time and across space should be interpreted with caution. Sites included
within the regional sample are depicted on the regional map in Figure 1.3.
Methods
All turkey and large bird bone recovered from units in the sample as
described above, were selected for analysis. Each bone was studied individually
and the following information was recorded: provenience, taxon, element, part of
element, side, breakage and length. When present, modifications were noted and
specimens were sexed, aged and/or measured when possible.
Provenience
Provenience information was recorded according to the system employed
by the Crow Canyon Archaeological Center (Schwab et al. 1989). Each bone
received both a provenience designation and field specimen number following
excavation. These numbers refer the bones to the specific context from which
they were removed. They also make it possible to determine the matrix in which
the specimen was found.
Taxon
Taxon for each specimen was recorded as either turkey or large bird.
Elements were assigned to the large bird category if they were larger than a
mallard duck, but could not be identified as turkey with certainty (Driver 1991).
This occurred when diagnostic features were missing or obscured or when
complete elements from large bird species exhibited no obvious morphological
differences. For example, distal phalanges are virtually identical in many large
bird species, therefore they cannot be assigned to a species with certainty. For
the purpose of the current analysis large bird is incorporated within the turkey
category since turkeys are by far the most ubiquitous large bird in the
assemblage. Other large birds were rare in the Sand Canyon Locality
assemblages, thus it is unlikely that the high quantity of large bird bone belonged
to a species which was not even identified in the assemblage.
Element, Part, Side, Breakage and Length
The element, part, side, breakage and length categories were recorded
according to Driver's manual (1991). This manual has guided all analyses of Crow
Canyon fauna since its implementation in 1991, and allows for easy comparison
between data sets. Element was recorded for all identifiable specimens before
they were assigned to taxon. If the element was not identifiable the taxon was
determined to be unidentifiable as well. Part refers to the portion of the element
which was preserved. Each part is defined in the manual and assigned a
particular numerical code. Paired elements were sided if sufficient diagnostic
features were preserved. Breakage refers to the condition of the articular ends of
an element and when applicable its anterior and posterior ends. Letter codes
were utilised to indicate intact, culturally or naturally modified ends and various
breakage patterns. Length was recorded by measuring maximum length to the
nearest millimetre using sliding calipers.
Modifications
Modifications were also recorded according to Driver (1991). The
presence of both natural and cultural modifications including cutmarks, tool
manufacture, polish, abrasion, rodent gnawing, carnivore chewing, pathologies
and burning were noted. In addition, cutmarks, artifacts and localised burning
were sketched on plates illustrated by Harvey et al. (1968). This enabled later
reference to the exact locations of cutmarks and burning and to the types of
artifacts so that frequencies could be compiled and grouped during analysis.
Sexing
Specimens were sexed when at least one of three criteria was present.
These include size, presence of spurs and presence of medullary bone.
a) Size. There is notable size sexual dimorphism within southwestern
turkey populations (Meleagris gallopavo). Schorger (1966) claims that the adult
turkey hen reaches only one half the weight of the male. It has also been argued
that the largest female and the smallest males exhibit no overlap in body size
regardless of breed or species, once they have reached adulthood (McKusick
1986). McKusick (1986) argues that the smallest turkey in the Southwest
prehistorically was the Small Indian Domestic (Meleagris gallopavo tularosa).
Therefore, individuals with elements smaller than the male SID should be female,
while those which are larger should be male. To supplement her work, McKusick
created illustrations of male Small Indian Domestic elements to use as aids during
sexing. The plates include sketches of the innominate, sternum, coracoid,
humerus, ulna, radius, carpometacarpus, femur, tibiotarsus and tarsometatarsus.
During the analysis for this project, adult bones with at least one complete end
were compared to McKusick's illustrations. Bones which were larger than the
sketches were designated male, while those which were smaller were designated
female. Increasing familiarity with the study assemblage made the distinction
more obvious.
b) Presence of Spurs. Discounting the rare exception spurs develop only
on the tarsometatarsi of male turkeys (Schorger 1966, McKusick 1986). In this
project a bone was identified as male if a spur was present. Conversely, the
absence of spurs on the tarsi was not used to indicate femaleness. The spur, is
easily susceptible to separation from the bone due to post-depositional processes
and does not form until the bird is approximately seven or eight months of age
(McKusick 1986), thus its absence does not exclude it from being a male
specimen.
c) Presence of Medullary Bone. Medullary bone develops in female
birds during periods of egg-laying. It serves as a temporary storage area for the
minerals necessary in eggshell formation and is most visible in the marrow cavity
of long bones starting a few weeks prior to laying (Driver 1982, Rick 1975).
Throughout the laying season medullary bone is depleted and eventually
disappears. It can be recognised as a light porous bone which outwardly
resembles sponge toffee. Elements in which it was found were recorded as
females, those specimens in which it was not exhibited were left unsexed if no
other sexing criteria were present. The absence of medullary bone does not
indicate that an element is male, as it can only be detected in females during part
of the year, otherwise male and female bone is similar.
Aging..
Elements were assigned to one of four growth stages if they displayed at
least one intact end. In this project the stages were defined by altering categories
devised by McKusick (1986) who had in turn, modified age stages created by
Hargrave (1965). Hargrave established the following four divisions: Juvenile
(hatching to 5 months); Immature ( 6-1 1 months); Young Adult (1-2 years) and
Adult (2 years and older). McKusick made modifications to these stages by
subdividing the juvenile stage into small (hatching to one month), medium (2-3
months) and large (3-5 months) classes. She also added an Old Adult category to
incorporate birds four years or older. The changes were based on her familiarity
with turkey remains and her resulting ability to distinguish between birds which
were relatively close in age. For the purpose of this research further changes
were made.
McKusick's small juvenile (SJ) stage was not altered and includes birds
between hatching and one month of age. The medium juvenile group is also left
intact representing birds between 2-3 months. The immature group however,
have been combined with the large juveniles and young adults to make up the
present immature category, which refers to birds between 3 months and two
years. It was necessary to condense these groups as size sexual dimorphism
becomes apparent at this age yet there are no criteria to distinguish between the
sexes prior to adulthood. This makes it extremely difficult to differentiate
between an immature male and a juvenile female, for example. The final age
group is the adult category and includes all buds over two years of age. Old
adults are not distinguished from adults in this research, as they are also difficult
to differentiate.
Bones were aged according to two criteria: size and degree of ossification.
Size was utilised to identify members of the first two categories, whereas
ossification was used to recognise the latter two. Ossification is a process which
bird bones undergo as they age. At hatching bones are composed of cartilage
and as the individual ages the cartilage is gradually replaced by bone (it ossifies).
When the process is completed the bird is considered an adult. Sub-adult birds
may be recognised by the texture of their bone which is not yet fully ossified and
appears more porous and spongy than adult bone. As birds approach adulthood
the spongy texture can only be recognised at the articular ends of long bones.
The size limits of the young age groups have been illustrated by McKusick (1986:
27-3 1). These plates are particularly useful for aging bones from the small and
medium juvenile categories. During these stages both males and females are
similar in size and sexual dimorphism is not yet a factor. Bones were assigned to
the immature category if they were larger than McKusick's plates for medium
juveniles, but were not yet fully ossified. Bones exhibiting complete ossification
were classified as adults.
Determination of Breed
Two osteological methods were used in an attempt to determine if the
turkeys in the sample were domestic or wild, and whether they could be assigned
to a specific breed or subspecies. These are described as follows.
1) Character identification. McKusick (1986) states that not only is it
possible to differentiate between wild and domestic turkeys on the basis of the
presence of diagnostic characteristics, but also to determine their breed. The
specific characteristics for three turkey groups (wild form of Meleagris gallopavo
merriami, domestic form of Meleagris gallopavo merriami and Meleagris
gallopavo tularosa) are described in detail by McKusick (1986: 35-53). In this
study applicable elements were grouped and laid out for examination. An
attempt was made to identify features which McKusick has attributed to the three
turkey groups mentioned above. The specimens were also compared with each
other and similarities and differences were noted.
Figure 1.4: Measurements taken from the turkey tarsometatarsus.
24
2) Measurements. Two measurements were selected from von den
Driesch (1976) with the intent of isolating the different turkey subspecies or
breeds by size. They are as follows (See Figure 1.4):
a) Greatest length (GL) of the tarsometatarsus. This measurement was only taken
from complete tarsi.
b) Greatest breadth (Bd) of the distal end of the tarsometatarsus. According to
von den Driesch (1976: 129) Bd is "measured in projection at right angles to the
longitudinal axis of the bone". This measurement was only taken if the distal
end of the tarsometatarsus was complete,
Measurements were subjected to statistical analysis in an attempt to
determine how many turkey populations were present and to which group they
belonged. Of particular interest was whether the population(s) were domestic or
wild.
Detection of Temporal and Spatial Variation in Turkey Production:
Quantitative Procedures
To detect temporal and spatial variation in turkey production within the
Mesa Verde region, the data from three faunal groups considered to have major
economic importance were selected for comparison. These include turkey (turkey
and large bird), artiodactyls (deer, elk, mountain sheep, etc.) and lagomorphs
(cottontails and jackrabbits). The three groups were selected as they are
frequently cited as the most valued sources of animal protein in the Anasazi diet
(Bertram 1991, Brand 1991, Neusius 1986, Nickens 1981, Shelley 1993, Walker
1990a). It is likely that rodents were also utilised however they are not
considered as important as the three other groups. Their exclusion also prevents
problems raised when attempting to determine which animals are remnants of
human activity and which are intrusive. Rodents are notorious for burrowing in
archaeological sites following abandonment and subsequently dying in situ
(Shaffer 1992).
By dividing the frequency of turkeys by the total frequency of the three
groups deemed to be of major economic importance [turkey/ (turkey +
artiodactyls + lagomorphs)] proportions were produced (these may also be
multiplied by 100% for easier comparison). These are useful for examining
variation in the importance of turkey in relation to the other major economic
species. It is hoped that the comparison of proportions will allow the detection of
change in the intensity of turkey consumption and production and the relative
importance of the above faunal groups in the diet of the local inhabitants.
Proportions have been chosen to explore the problem of turkey
intensification because they eliminate the need to utilise absolute numbers. They
are also useful for intersite comparisons which use different quantitative
strategies. Faunal reports with quantified data from sites in the study area are
relatively rare and unfortunately those that do exist are often incomparable due
to the use of incommensurate methods of quantification (MNI of NISP). MNI and
NISP cannot be directly compared, though MNI is in fact derived from NISP. By
reducing absolute data to proportions, comparisons are facilitated. This method
has its share of problems, largely relating to the differences between and within
the two methods of quantification (Grayson 1979, 1984). Proportions also
facilitate the comparison of assemblages with varying sample sizes.
Proportions, however, are not without their problems, particularly when
attempting to measure intensification. In this study intensification is defined as an
increase in the amount of energy invested into turkey production. Energy refers
to the amount of labour expended for production which is measured using
calories. Difficulties are created when attempting to utilise faunal remains to
estimate labour investment since accurate estimates require knowledge of the
exact amount of turkeys produced, the size of the human population and the
work required to construct and maintain pens. Herding and food production are
also two labour consuming activities which are necessary for turkey husbandry.
It is impossible to determine accurate estimates of such practices using
archaeological data. Instead, it is argued that increases in the amount of turkey
bone in faunal assemblages per unit capita, not only indicate an increase in
consumption, but also an increase in energy investment. This is based on the
assumption that the production of more turkeys requires the input of a larger
quantity of energy to perform the activities discussed above. As a result
increases in turkey production in this study are argued to be representative of
intensification. The problems with this argument lie primarily in identifying
increases in the quantity of turkeys produced by utilising proportions.
Proportions are a measure which depict the amount of a group in relation
to the total of the groups being compared. The total proportions of all groups
being evaluated must equal one. In this study the number of turkey bones in a
given faunal assemblage was divided by the total number of artiodactyl,
lagomorph and turkey bones to determine the proportion of turkey. This allows
for easy comparison of the intensity of turkey production between sites and over
time. Problems arose because proportions are relative measures. An increase in
the frequency of one component does not necessarily represent an absolute rise
in that component but may indicate a decrease in a different component.
Because the total proportions in each assemblage must add up to one, if one
component increases an associated decrease must occur in one or more of the
other components. As a result is may be difficult to determine what changes are
absolute increases and thus indicative of intensification and which are simply
changes in resource mix.
In defense of the use of proportions, there are few viable alternatives. An
alternate method advocates determining the absolute quantity of turkey
produced at a site. In most cases, however, this is impossible to quantify as the
type of data required is not available in the archaeological record. Faunal
assemblages should not be considered equivalent to the animal resources
originally utilised at a site as the death assemblage is highly distorted due to
taphonomic the effects of taphonornic processes. This method also requires site
occupation and population estimates in order to draw comparisons between
assemblages.
A second alternative is to use an external artifact class such as ceramic pot
sherds or debitage as a control against which to compare the data class under
examination (in this case turkey bone). This approach assumes that the external
data classes accumulate at a constant rate. Population and site occupation times
must be estimated to determine accumulation rates. When tested these estimates
have proven to be fairly reliable (i.e. Blinman 1986), however several new
variables are introduced into the analysis increasing the potential for error. These
are related to the reliability of population or site occupation length estimates, and
the assumption that individuals produce a standard quantity of pot sherds over a
certain length of time. In addition though this data is available from sites in the
Sand Canyon Locality, it is not recorded from most other Mesa Verde region sites.
In this study ceramic and lithic data from Pueblo I11 sites in the Sand Canyon
Locality were investigated to determine their reliability as a control to measure
changes in turkey production. Preliminary examination indicated that comparing
turkey bone to lithic (debitage) and ceramic data created inconsistent results in
the quantities of turkey produced. This suggests that additional variables
affected the lithic and ceramic assemb1ages;but not in the same way and thus this
method was not utilised for this research.
A final alternative involves determining the density of turkey bones per
square unit of excavation. This method is practical because it eliminates the need
to compare the frequencies of turkey bone against other species. However, once
again confounding variables come into play. These include variation in
sedimentation rates and the location of excavation units (i.e. in middens or
roomblocks etcetera). In addition, the data for the volume of units excavated
which are essential for this comparison, are available for the Sand Canyon
Locality, but not from the majority of sites in the Mesa Verde region, making this
type of analysis impossible. The above discussion of the problems associated
with the definition of intensification and the use of proportions should be taken
into account when considering the interpretation of the study results.
Organisation of Research
The four problems addressed in this research may be examined as separate
entities, however they are also contingent on one another to some degree.
Initially it is necessary to establish whether the turkey population in the sample is
domestic or wild. This will guide later interpretations concerning the turkey's
function. Likewise it is necessary to establish function before viable conclusions
explaining variation in the intensity of the turkey's use through time and across
space can be drawn.
To address the primary objectives in this study results obtained by
implementing the above methods are discussed in subsequent chapters. Chapter
I1 provides background on past research concerning southwestern archaeological
turkeys, particularly the debate surrounding its changing function in Anasazi
culture. In Chapter I11 the theoretical aspects of this research are introduced,
specifically domestication, aggregation and intensification theory. The chapter
concludes with the presentation of several hypotheses evoked by the theoretical
discussion. The data collected for this project and its analysis are presented in
Chapter IV which is divided into four sections each addressing a major objective
of this research. The data regarding the turkey's domestication is analysed,
followed by the presentation of contextual data indicating the role the turkey
played in the day to day operation of Anasazi society. The final two sections
trace the changing proportions of the turkey through time and across space in the
faunal assemblages from the Mesa Verde region. Chapter V, the concluding
chapter, is a forum for the discussion and synthesis of the data within the context
of the theoretical framework presented earlier. An attempt is made to resolve and
integrate the original problems addressed in this research and to provide
suggestions for further research.
CHAPTER I1
THE TURKEY: BACKGROUND AND UTILISATION
Introduction
The primary purpose of this study is to examine the dynamic role of the
turkey within the changing community in the Sand Canyon Locality, Colorado.
The intensification of components of the cultural system have been examined by
the Crow Canyon Archaeological Center by using several forms of data including
architecture, geographic information systems and agricultural productivity. The
faunal record has not yet been considered. Domestic animals have the potential
to yield valuable insight into intensification and the social and political systems
which operate within human society as they are directly controlled by human
groups. The turkey has been selected largely because it was the only domestic
animal present in the study locality, with the exception of occasional dog
specimens. Turkeys are also one of the most common species found in the faunal
assemblages from the study area and therefore are assumed to have played an
important role in the local economic sphere. Finally, the turkey allows for the
study of more specific problems currently under debate in southwestern
zooarchaeology. These include determining whether the turkeys in the study
area were wild or domestic, whether they may be assigned to specific breeds and
their function within Anasazi society.
The current chapter will set the stage for further discussion by reviewing
the literature on southwestern turkeys. It begins with an overview of turkey
habitat, subsistence and reproduction. This is followed by background on the
turkey's phylogeny which includes paleontological discussion and a review of
the hypotheses regarding archaeological races and species. The remainder of the
chapter includes a synthesis of material addressing the role that the turkey played
within Anasazi society. This discussion focuses on the debate over the turkey's
function as a food or feather source and how these arguments are substantiated
by the archaeological record.
Habitat, Subsistence and Reproduction
The turkey is the largest member of the Galliforme family and is native to
North America. Their habitat is located in intermontane regions with elevations
ranging between 6,000 - 10,000 feet. In the Southwest this area is forested by
ponderosa pine, pinyon pine and Garnbel's oak. The forest provides shelter and
roosting areas for the birds, while small shrubby plants on the forest floor create
an understory which offers protection and subsistence (Schorger 1966).
Water is the turkey's primary limiting resource. The quantity ingested in
food or temporarily pooled as a result of rainfall is insufficient to meet the turkey's
requirement of 500 rnl to 1 litre (112-1 quart) a day. Turkeys therefore require
year round access to a dependable water supply and rarely forage further than
one mile from a reliable source (Schorger 1966). The intermontane environment is
able to supply the turkey with abundant water and food. Turkeys forage from a
broad range of flora and fauna, acquiring the majority of their nutrients from plant
sources. Their diet shifts according to food availability in their habitat. In the
Southwest wild turkeys subsist mainly on acorns, pine nuts, bemes, buds and
insects. They have also been known to ingest small reptiles (Schorger 1966).
Turkeys generally feed twice a day, in the morning and afternoon by scratching
and overturning the undergrowth. The amount of food they consume depends
on age, sex, size and season, but the average adult has been estimated to eat 250g
(half a pound) of food per day (Schorger 1966).
On average, female wild turkeys nest once a year and lay two clutches of
eggs during each nesting period. Each clutch averages between 10-15 eggs.
Laying begins in April or May and lasts for three to three and a half months
(Schorger 1966). Eggs are generally incubated for 28 days and the hatching rate
is between four to eight poults per hen (Windes 1987). Modern domestic turkeys
have been selected to lay year round, but it is unlikely that prehistoric
southwestern species were manipulated to reproduce at this rate. Poults require
warm conditions to survive. They are fragile and susceptible to death by chilling
and wetting, predation or drought (Schorger 1966). Human protection could
potentially reduce these dangers, increasing the survival of young and thus alter a
flock's population profile.
Origin of the Southwestern Turkey
There has been much controversy over the origin and descent of
southwestern archaeological turkeys. To shed light on this problem an attempt
will be made to trace the evolution of the turkey from the appearance of its first
ancestors in North America to M.g. merriami, the species which inhabited the
Southwest prehistorically and today. Data concerning fossil remains and the
available literature will also be reviewed to interpret the turkey's phylogeny.
The fossil record provides the earliest evidence for the presence of turkeys
in the New World. Unfortunately most fossil remains are fragmentary and
represent few elements. As a result, determining the relationship of the identified
remains and differentiating between species is difficult. Steadman (1980)
hypothesised that the subfamily Meleagridinae, to which the turkey belongs,
evolved from a Phasianine origin. The two share several characteristics in
common on the furcula, scapula and tarsometatarsus. It is probable that the
Meleagridinae branched from the Phasianine after the latter migrated to the New
World via the Bering Strait land bridge. This hypothesis is supported by the lack
of Meleagridinae fossils in the Old World and the presence of Phasianine
characteristics in some fossils on the turkey lineage (Steadman 1980).
Steadman (1980) revised the taxonomy of the turkey subfamily
Meleagridinae by recognising only three genera though previously five had been
proposed. The additional two genera are now encompassed within Steadman's
three which include Rhegminoris, Proagriocharis and Meleagris. Rhegminoris
and Proagriocharis represent ancient forms found only in Miocene and Pliocene
contexts. Rhegminoris colobates is the earliest known fossil on the turkey
lineage and was recovered from a Miocene deposit in Florida. It expresses traits
from both the Meleagridinae and Phasianine. The earliest Meleagridinae
specimen was recovered from Upper Pliocene deposits in Nebraska and is
designated as Proagriocharis kimballensis. It is not known if this specimen is on
the direct lineage to Meleagris gallopavo (Steadman 1980). Fossils recovered
from later contexts belong only to the genus Meleagris to which several species
have been identified in a variety of geographic locations.
Confusion arises when attempting to create a phylogeny for the
Meleagridinae subfamily. The only specimens recovered from Pleistocene
deposits in the Southwest are the extinct Meleagris crassipes and M. gallopavo
(Rea 1980). M. crassipes went extinct between 3,300 and 6,600 B.P., before the
appearance of the first M. gallopavo remains in the area, thus ruling it out as a
possible progenitor. M. crassipes is also the most distant of all modem and
fossilised turkey species recovered from North America according to Breitburg's
(1988) shape analysis, which evaluated four measurements on turkey
tarsometatarsi. In light of this evidence M. crassipes is discounted as a possible
ancestor of M. gallopavo.
Breitburg (1988) emphasises that there is no evidence other than that
presented above for the presence of Pleistocene turkeys in the Southwest or
Mesoamerica. Some fossils, however have been recovered from eastern North
America (M. leopoldi and Meleagris spp.) and what is now California (M.
californica). The two eastern species were recovered from Irvingtonian deposits
in Florida. The progenitors of these specimens are unknown, thus their
relationship to M. g. merriami cannot be established. M. californica is thought
to have evolved from M. gallopavo populations which became isolated in
California due to arid conditions in Arizona and southeast California.
Alternatively, it is possible that the two species evolved convergently due to
selection by similar environmental conditions (Steadman 1980).
Breitburg (1988) also performed shape analysis on measurements of the
tarsometatarsi of M. g. merriami and M.g. silvestris. M.g.merriami is the
subspecies found in southwestern archaeological contexts and currently inhabits
highland forested areas in New Mexico. M. gallopavo silvestris is a modem
subspecies from eastern North America. The results of his analysis suggest that
the two subspecies evolved from the same parent population, though the
common ancestor is unknown.
Five subspecies of M.gallopavo have been identified in Mesoamerica
and/or the Southwest. These include the two subspecies which have been
recovered from southwestern archaeological contexts; M. g. merriami and M.g.
tularosa. All five subspecies continue to inhabit the region today with the
exception of M.g. tularosa which is extinct. It should be noted that the
identification of M.g. tularosa as an independent subspecies has been questioned
by some researchers (Breitburg 1988, Senior and Pierce 1989). The remaining
subspecies inhabit ranges at least partially within Mesoamerica. M.g. intermedia
(Rio Grande turkey) is a small bird which occupies the region between eastern
Kansas and central Mexico, including the Yucatan Peninsula (Lang and Harris
1984, Schorger 1966, Steadman 1980). This subspecies appeared in the record
following the termination of the Pleistocene. It may have been separated from M.
ocellata which occupied the coastal region of north Veracruz and Tarnaulapis, by
a wet barrier which arose following the Pleistocene (Steadman 1980). M.g.
mexicana (Gould's Wild Turkey) inhabits the southeast corner of New Mexico.
Its range also extends southward along the Sierra Madre Occidental to northern
Jalisco, Mexico. The final subspecies, M.g. gallopavo (Mexican turkey) inhabits
central Mexico south of the ranges of M.g. intermedia and M.g. mexicana and is
the species locally exploited by central Mesoamerican cultures (Lang and Hams
1984). The origins of the five subspecies of M . gallopavo have yet to be
determined. There is no osteological evidence to indicate that the latter three are
related to M . g. merriami or M.g. tularosa. McKusick (1980a) stresses that she
can find no characters which relate them to those found at southwestern
archaeological sites.
As illustrated by the data presented above the details of the turkey's
phylogeny are still unclear. In addition there is a lack of archaeological material
documenting the domestication process. It is necessary to recover additional
fossil evidence indicating the turkey's evolution if a comprehensive phylogeny is
to be created.
Entrance of the Turkey into Southwestern Lifeways
The motivation behind the domestication of animals has been a subject of
intense discussion in the archaeological literature. Numerous models have been
proposed to explain why it occurred and often focus on stressed populations. In
these models adoption of domesticates is seen as a buffer to prevent resource
stress. Numerous models citing driving factors such as population pressure,
climatic change, sedentism and fluke occurrences have also been advocated.
Recently, Hayden (1990, 1992) has proposed an alternate model arguing that
stressed conditions were not prime movers. Instead he claims that complex
hunterlgatherers with a stable resource base, social inequality, and competitive
individuals, domesticated animals as prestige items to be served up during
competitive feasts. He supports this model by arguing that many early domestic
plants and animals were not adopted as major dietary staples (i.e. bottle gourds
and dogs) and others did not become so until they had already been
domesticated for long periods.
Keeping the alternatives in mind, current models which seek to explain the
entrance of turkeys into Anasazi society are reviewed below. No attempt will be
made to explain why and where turkeys were adopted by the Anasazi in this
research. Still, this issue is directly applicable to the upcoming discussion
regarding the turkey's domestication. Presently two major hypotheses exist to
explain the pathway the turkey followed to become a domesticate in Anasazi
society, yet they differ significantly.
The first hypothesis suggests that the turkey was not indigenous to the
Southwest, but to Mesoamerica where it was domesticated. It is proposed that it
later diffused into the Southwest via various trade routes (Hargrave 1970,
McKusick 1980a, 1986). Recently, McKusick has argued that the domesticated
turkey (Meleagris gallopavo merriami) moved north as a component of the
Upper Sonoran Agricultural Complex (USAC). The USAC included beans,
squash, bottle gourd and maize and diffused in waves to the Southwest
beginning ca. A.D. 1 (Ford 1981). Trade began with the importation of turkey
feathers, which lead to the eventual movement of entire birds. This argument is
substantiated by evidence citing the appearance of domestic turkeys in the
Southwest ca. A.D. 300+ 150 years, at the same time that the USAC was
diffusing. The hypothesis, however is not supported by archaeological or
paleontological data in Mesoamerica as no remains of M. g. merriami's ancestors
have been recovered (Breitburg 1988). This, may be a result of the paucity of
archaeological data which has been retrieved from the region to date.
The alternate hypothesis proposes that M.g. merriami was indigenous to
the Southwest and was therefore domesticated locally. Turkeys are believed to
have been available prehistorically in the mountain ranges of Colorado, Arizona
and New Mexico (Breitburg 1988, Olsen 1968, Schorger 1966). Modern wild
populations of M.g. merriami inhabit the montane regions of New Mexico today
(Lang and Harris 1984) though this is partially due to human intervention.
Breitburg (1988) proposes that the turkey was domesticated by the
Anasazi, who initially hunted and eventually raised turkeys from local wild
populations. He argues that specimens recovered from Basketmaker I11 contexts
were not domesticated, but were wild buds obtained by hunting. It would be
interesting to test this hypothesis using stable isotope analysis. It is likely that
domestic turkeys were subsisting at least partially on maize, which has a C4
photosynthetic pathway, unlike their wild counterparts. Contributions to the diet
3~
ratios in
by Cq plants can be recognised by examining the 1 2 ~ : 1 isotopic
archaeological turkey bone (Van der Mewre 1982). Unfortunately this
hypothesis has not been tested in this research as no turkey bones from definite
Basketmaker I11 contexts were available in the sample. Breitburg (1988)
substantiates his argument by drawing on the negative evidence for
southwestern turkey ancestors in Mesoamerica and on the existence of ideal
environmental conditions for turkey habitation in the territory occupied by the
Anasazi. This claim can be proven no more than McKusick's argument for
domestication in Mesoamerica. In neither area does archaeological or
paleontological data provide evidence for an ancestor of M. gallopavo merriami.
The presence of modem populations of M.g. merriami in Anasazi territory lends
some support for Breitburg's argument, but it has been postulated that these may
be the descendants of domesticated birds which went feral in prehistoric times, or
following the abandonment of the Anasazi region ca. A.D. 1300 (McKusick
1980a, 1986).
In light of the data presented above, it is impossible to be sure of the
origins of turkey domestication in the Southwest. The recovery of evidence
indicating the presence of ancestral Meleagris gallopavo populations may aid in
solving the debate, but until then it remains unresolved.
Southwestern Species and Breeds
Turkeys recovered from southwestern archaeological contexts are
assigned to the subspecies Meleagris gallopavo merriami, which inhabits the
region today (Schorger 1966). In 1961 Schorger identified a second subspecies
following the examination of a mummified turkey from Tularosa Cave, New
Mexico (Schorger 1961). This specimen possessed several diagnostic features
which differentiated it from M.g. merriami. Unfortunately the majority of these
features are perishable (i.e. feather colouration and scales on the tarsometatarsus)
and thus only survive under unusual conditions. One major osteological
difference, however, was recognised: the length of the tarsometarsus was
noticeably shorter in the Tularosa specimen. Approximately six years later
Schorger located a second mummified turkey with identical characteristics at
Canyon del Muerto, in Northeastern Arizona (Schorger 1970). He approached
McKusick and Matthews, two researchers studying similar specimens at the
Southwest Archaeological Center who confirmed the presence of the diagnostic
features. After establishing the differences Schorger proposed a new extinct
subspecies, M.g . tularosa (Tularosa's turkey).
McKusick (1980a, 1986) expanded on Schorger's work by developing her
own classification for the southwestern turkey groups. She identified three
groups as follows: a) the Small Indian Domestic Turkey (M.g. tularosa.), b) the
Large Indian Domestic Turkey ( M . g . merriami ) and c) Merriarn's Wild Turkey
(also M.g. merriami). By examining osteological characteristics on numerous
turkey skeletons, from all regions in the Southwest, McKusick concluded that it is
possible to differentiate between the two subspecies mentioned above and also
between the wild and domestic forms of M.g. merriami. She claims that the three
groups may be identified by the recognition of specific characters on the
mandible, pelvis, coracoid, scapula, humerus, carpometacarpus, femur, tibiotarsus
and tarsometatarsus. A few metric measurements are also reported to substantiate
the osteological characters.
The following prehistory of the three turkey races is proposed by
McKusick (l980a, 1986), but is not agreed upon by all researchers (i.e. Breitburg
1988, Senior and Pierce 1989). The Small Indian Domestic (SID), the subspecies
which Schorger identified at Tularosa Cave, may be recognised by its 'small
stature and short tarsi. It fust appeared in the Southwest in west-central New
Mexico between 300 and 150 B.C. The establishment of the SID was concurrent
with the initiation of agriculture, thus it is believed that it may have diffused along
the same trade routes as the agricultural complex. The SID predominantly
occupied the peripheral areas of the Southwest until its extinction when the
Pueblos fell to the Spaniards ca. A.D. 1672. McKusick contends that it
functioned primarily as a ceremonial species, not as a dietary item as SIDs do not
appear as food refuse in the archaeological record (1980a).
The Large Indian Domestic (LID) is the most frequently recovered turkey
subspecies from southwestern archaeological sites, though it was adopted much
later than the SID. McKusick proposed that it first appeared in Anasazi
Basketmaker sites ca. A.D. 500. After its introduction it rapidly increased in
popularity and soon outnumbered the SID's, though the SID continued to be
raised in peripheral areas. McKusick suggests that LIDs required a lower energy
investment than LIDs and thus once introduced it was adopted by much of the
population. Still, the groups who had originally invested energy into the SID
continued to raise them. The LID served a predominantly economic function as a
dietary component, and as a raw material source for tools and jewelry. The last
record of LID flocks appeared in A.D. 1723, shortly before the population went
extinct.
Merriam's Wild Turkey (MWT) is the wild form of M.g. merriami. It is
believed to be a descendant of LID populations which went feral shortly after
their arrival in the Southwest (McKusick 1980a, 1986). The presence of the large,
robust MWT in the archaeological record has been interpreted as the result of
hunting, while the domestic forms SID and LID are believed to have been
maintained by human populations, hence the osteological differences. Other
researchers have explained the presence of MWT populations as the result of
turkeys returning to the wild at the time of the Spanish Conquest in the sixteenth
century (Hayes and Lancaster 1984, Rea 1980).
The majority of faunal reports which delved into the question of turkey
domestication following McKusick's reclassification of southwestern
archaeological turkeys cite her work, yet many analysts have had difficulty
recognising the three groups (Bertram 1991, Breitburg 1988, Senior and Pierce
1989). McKusick (1986) admits that not all researchers will be able to perceive
the characteristic morphological traits which differentiate the groups. As a result
the method is highly subjective. Often researchers prefer to rely on measurements
as they are less subjective, however few have been produced to distinguish the
three groups. In sum, though some researchers claim to have met with success
using McKusick's methods (Lang and Harris'1984), many are beginning to
question their validity ( Bertram 1991, Breitburg 1988, Senior and Pierce 1989).
Senior and Pierce (1989) have recently disputed McKusick's divisions
based on their analysis of the Homol'ovi I11 faunal assemblage. An attempt was
made to fit three adult turkey skeletons into McKusick's scheme by identifying
the differentiating characteristics, yet their examination met with mixed results.
The majority of their measurements fit into the ranges for the LID and most
elements in the skeletons exhibited LID characteristics, however certain elements
(i.e. coracoid and carpometacarpus) from the same skeletons shared traits with the
SID. As an alternative they postulate that the "variation in turkey morphology
may be due to phenotypic plasticity in response to the environment rather than
the result of genetic changes" (1989: 245). Thus, they recognise the presence of
patterned variation in many of the turkey's osteological characters, but they do
not attribute it to speciation. It must be taken into account that this research was
based upon a small sample size, and the environmental effects on turkey bone
have not yet been tested. Still the idea is an interesting one and should not be
discounted.
A similar view has been presented by Breitburg (1988) who performed
shape, size and principal component analysis on turkeys identified by McKusick
(LIDSfrom Casas Grandes and SIDs from Gran Quivira). His results indicate that
it is impossible to discriminate statistically between the SID, LID and MWT.
Instead he hypothesises that the size reduction in the Gran Quivira population
may have occurred as a result of isolation which prevented gene flow between
the sample and parent wild or domestic populations. Size reduction may have
been further emphasised due to environmental or nutritional pressures (Breitburg
1988). Perhaps the smaller turkeys were inhabiting areas with a limited water
supply and adopted a smaller body size accordingly. Alternately, they may have
been nutritionally stressed as a result of their captive lifestyle. Food supply
would have been controlled by their captors and may have been insufficient to
promote full growth. Like Senior and Pierce (1989), Breitburg does not attribute
osteological variation within the southwestern turkeys to different subspecies,
but to variation within a single species.
The Function of Southwestern Archaeological Turkeys
The function of the turkey in Pueblo society has long been debated by
archaeologists. Two sources of contention figure prominently in this debate. Did
the turkey play a primarily ritual or economic role and was it predominantly used
as a feather or food source? It has been argued that in some areas the turkey
served only a ceremonial function and was domesticated solely for the utility of
its feathers for ritual purposes and as a sacrificial animal (Akins 1986, Lange
1951). Alternatively, turkeys may have been raised to serve an economic
function, primarily as a meat source and secondarily for their bones and feathers.
Turkey bone is an excellent raw material for the manufacture of implements or
jewelry while feathers may be utilised in the creation of blankets and clothing.
The most probable is a combined approach, suggesting that the turkey was
exploited for both ritual and utilitarian purposes (Breitburg 1988, Hargrave 1965,
Lang and Harris 1984, McKusick 1980b).
McKusick (1980a, 1986) promotes a variation on this hypothesis by
suggesting that there were two breeds of domestic turkeys in the Southwest,
which served different functions. She proposes that the Small Indian Domestic
(SID) was a ritual bird whereas the Large Indian Domestic (LID) played a
utilitarian role. An attempt will be made to address the confusion surrounding
turkey utilisation by reviewing historic and ethnographic documentation, the
archaeological literature and the contextual data from the archaeological record
in the Mesa Verde region.
Historic Documentation
Documents recorded by members of the Spanish expeditions, provide
valuable insight into the turkey's role in prehistoric Pueblo culture. It should be
noted that the Anasazi were no longer a recognisable cultural group at the time of
the Conquest, but had abandoned the Colorado Plateau. It is generally accepted
that they were assimilated into the Pueblo cultures to the south (i.e. Hopi, Zuni,
Acoma) (Lipe l992b). The domestic turkey continued to play an important role
in Pueblo society following this merger, thus the examination of historic and
ethnographic records may provide suggestions about its earlier function in the
Mesa Verde region. Modern and historic data are not considered direct
analogues to what occurred in the prehistoric past. Instead they are viewed as
valuable tools for guiding the interpretation of archaeological information. It is
also essential to consider the biases of the chroniclers when drawing
interpretations from historic documents. It is possible that some researchers
selectively included particular details while others were excluded. The turkey
may have also served functions which were not recorded by the Spaniards.
Many Spanish documents from the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries
remark on the presence of turkeys at several pueblos such as Tiwa, Tanos, Zuni,
Acoma and the Keresan pueblos, though Hopi is noted as an exception (Reed
1951, Schroeder 1968, Winship 1896). There are references for the exclusive use
of the turkey for feathers to manufacture blankets and robes, while others
document utilisation for meat products and still others report that the birds were
kept for both purposes (Reed 1951, Schroeder 1968). The interpretation varies
according to the researcher and the cultural group.
In 1540 during the first Spanish expedition, de Coronado reported that the
'Indians' raised turkeys only for their feathers. He also mentions that the Tiwa
utilised the feathers in the manufacture of blankets and cloaks as a replacement
for cotton which they did not produce (as stated in Reed 1951). The use of
turkey as a dietary item is recorded in the chronicles of the second Spanish
expedition in the sixteenth century. Apparently, the Piros corralled hundreds of
birds for later consumption, though they also utilised their feathers to create
blankets (Reed 1951, Schroeder 1968). In 1626 Fray Geronimo de ZarateSalmeron discussed the multiple role of the wild turkey in Zuni society as a meat
and feather source. Feathers were utilised to manufacture cloaks and were
presented as offerings which were placed in anthills for good luck while traveling
(Reed 1951). Luxan the chronicler of the 1582-1583 Espejo expedition reported
that the Piros manufactured feather blankets, but made no reference to the
turkey's utilisation for food. This exemplifies the presence of incongruous
information within the Spanish documents.
In a 1598 document don Juan de Onate discussed prayer sticks, which he
described as small multi-coloured sticks attached to turkey feathers. He used the
word 'idols' to describe the sticks, implying that they had ritual value (Gnabasik
1981). The above evidence indicates that historically turkey feathers had ritual as
well as utilitarian significance. According to historic documentation the turkey
served multiple functions in both the utilitarian and spiritual spheres of Puebloan
life, though the type of utilisation varied extensively between cultural groups.
Ethnographic Documentation
As with historic data, ethnographic information should be used only to
provide suggestions for the interpretation of past behaviour, not as a direct
analogue. Ethnographic data are valued particularly for the insight they provide
into spiritual significance, a realm which may only be speculated upon when
interpreting archaeological information. Several modern Pueblo groups raise M.g.
merriami today as a source of food and/or feathers for the manufacture of
utilitarian artifacts and ritual objects.
The consumption of turkey meat by Pueblo groups has frequently been
cited in ethnographic literature from the twentieth century. Turkeys have been
listed as food items at several pueblos including Taos (Parsons 1970), Isleta,
Laguna, Santa Ana and Cochiti. In some cases wild birds are hunted, though
domesticated birds are also maintained at the pueblos (Gnabasik 1981). The Hopi
are an exception and do not eat turkeys due to a taboo forbidding their
consumption. The bird still figures prominently in numerous ritual events.
References to the ceremonial utilisation of turkeys, particularly their
feathers is extensive in the ethnographic literature (Gnabasik 1981, Hawley-Ellis
1968, Lange 1950, Parsons 1970, Reed 1951, Schroeder 1968). Turkey feathers
are frequently incorporated into katsina ceremonies. They may be attached to
masks, various body parts (i.e. nostrils, ears, hands) or props during dances.
Following the dances feathers are returned to their respective owners and caches
to be stored for future ceremonies (Gnabasik 1981).
Turkey feathers are also commonly used as prayerfeathers and as a
component of prayersticks. These are manufactured for a variety of occasions
and ceremonies and have been documented at Zia, San Felipe, Jemez, Hopi, Zuni
and Santo Dorningo (Gnabasik 1981). Prayersticks and prayerfeathers are
offerings which are commonly presented at shrines outside of the pueblos
(Parsons 1970). Their meaning varies according to occasion, cultural group and
location. Unfortunately prayersticks and prayerfeathers are rarely recovered from
the archaeological record as they are extremely fragile and are usually 'offered' in
exposed areas (Gnabasik 1981). Featherstrings may be fabricated from turkey
feathers and are utilised to bind prayersticks during manufacture. Ethnographic
sources also cite offerings of individual feathers. For example, Cochiti warriors
have been known to make offerings of turkey feathers and corn meal so that they
will be more courageous than Apache and Navajo warriors. At Taos Pueblo loose
feathers are deposited in irrigation ditches after cleaning to ensure the happiness
of the water spirits (Parsons 1970).
The spiritual importance of turkey feathers is further illustrated by their
inclusion in human graves at the time of burial. Individual turkey feathers or
prayersticks are often presented as offerings in graves at both Jemez and Taos
Pueblo (Gnabasik 198 1, Parsons 1970).
Archaeological Evidence
Faunal assemblages provide several lines of evidence which may clarify
why and how a species was exploited by humans. Indicators in the
archaeological record with potential to distinguish between faunal populations
utilised for economic purposes and those raised for their ritual value are discussed
below.
The following indicators provide evidence for the butchery and/or the
subsequent consumption of animals:
(1) Cutmarks. Cutmarks are distinctive parallel lacerations on bone
which frequently result from processing animals. Cutrnarks are not expected to
appear on all butchered bone, instead it has been suggested that they may be the
result of sloppy or inexperienced work (Lyman 1979). Therefore negative
evidence is not necessarily regarded as support for the argument against
butchery. Cutmarks in close proximity to the articular ends of long bones
suggest that tendons were severed to disarticulate an animal for cooking or
eating (Hayes and Lancaster 1984). Elements at important junctions in the
disarticulation process tend to receive cuts more frequently.
Lang and Harris (1984) include a thorough discussion of the locations on
Anasazi turkey skeletons which frequently display cutmarks and their probable
functions. These include: a) cuts on the proximal end of the ulna and the radius
which result from wing disarticulation, b) cuts on ulna shafts which result from
the removal of the secondary feathers, c) cuts on the cervical vertebra which
result from removal of the neck, d) cuts on the distal tibiotarsus and proximal
tarsometatarsus which result from the removal of the lower leg which does not
contain any flesh, e) cuts on the proximal tibiotarsus and distal femur which result
from the disarticulation of the drumstick, f) cuts on the proximal scapula and
proximal humerus which result from sectioning of the wing and g) cuts on the
distal radius which result from the removal of the wing tip which is attached to
the primary feathers.
(2) Burning. Bones have the potential to char if cooked, discarded in
hearths or deposited within structures which are later burned. Because numerous
methods may potentially result in burning, the assumption that burned bone
indicates food use, should not be made. Localised burning (when only portions
of the bone are charred), is a more accurate indicator of food use. This pattern
results from roasting articulated flesh over a flame. The ends of the bone are
exposed to the heat while the shaft is sheltered by the flesh, thus only the ends
become charred (Lyman 1979). Bones may also appear somewhat porous, similar
to immature bone, as a result of boiling (Bertram 1991). Accidental boiling is
unlikely so it is probable that bones with this appearance resulted from food
preparation.
(3) Breakage and cancellous bone extraction. Bird long bones may be
recovered with their ends broken or cut in an attempt to extract the cancellous
bone in their interior. The proximal and distal ends of long bones and the keel of
the sternum contain a high concentration of 'cancellous bone and are frequently
damaged in archaeological contexts. The exposed spongy bone was
undoubtedly valued as a raw fat and energy source or perhaps as a stock for
soup (Hargrave 1965).
(4) Population Structure. When domesticated animals are raised for
subsistence purposes they tend to be culled at a younger age than those utilised
for secondary products. It is most energy efficient to butcher an animal as it
reaches maximum size. When maintained beyond this point domestic animals
require additional energy input, yet gain no further weight (Greenfield 1991,
Hesse 1982, Higgs and Jarman 1972, Senior and Pierce 1989). Turkeys reach
maximum size just prior to adulthood, with the exception of breeding females and
are expected to be culled at this point. It is assumed that some females of
reproductive age will be maintained as they are necessary to propagate the flock.
Only one male turkey of at least two years of age is needed to ensure
reproduction in a flock of 15-20 hens, thus it is expected that there will be a lower
proportion of adult males.
(5) Disarticulation and dispersion of bone. The presence of mixed,
disarticulated bone representing individuals of a variety of sizes and ages is cited
for evidence of meat consumption. Animal skeletons are frequently disarticulated
to facilitate meat removal prior to preparation for eating (Hargrave 1965, Lang
and Harris 1984, Senior and Pierce 1989). Scattered configurations imply that
bones were discarded randomly as waste products after the meat was utilised.
This contrasts with the recovery of complete skeletons from deliberately buried
birds.
(6) Ossified tendons separated from limb bones. The tendons
associated with the tibiotarsus and tarsometatarsus in the turkey's lower leg
calcify as the bird ages, creating ossified splints (Schorger 1966: 92). These are
frequently recovered from the archaeological record. If meat is separated from the
lower leg prior to burial the tendons will be removed with it and they will not be
recovered in association with the leg bones.
Negative or contrary evidence for the features discussed above may imply
that birds were raised for feather utilisation. If this is the case evidence for
butchery, localised burning and cancellous bone extraction are not expected.
Instead the presence of the following features support arguments for feather
utilisation:
(1) Age and Sex Profiles. Archaeological assemblages which are
products of feather utilisation, should be structured with equal numbers of male
and female adults. Birds retained past adulthood will continue to produce
feathers until death, thus it is efficient to support them past adulthood (Greenfield
1991, Hesse 1982, Higgs and Jarman 1972, Senior and Pierce 1989). Feathers
from male and female turkeys are similar, with the exception of the tips of breast
feathers which are black in males and brown in females (McKusick 1986,
Schorger 1966). It is unknown whether there was a preference for brown or
black feathers, which would result in the preponderance of a particular sex in the
archaeological record, thus confounding potential interpretation. Later
discussion on this issue is based on the assumption that feathers from males and
females were utilised equally.
(2) Articulated Burials. It is anticipated that the majority of turkeys
which were raised as feather producers will be buried intact after death (Hargrave
1965). Still, the possibility that disarticulated turkey skeletons represent birds
exploited for their feathers should not be ignored. For example, it is likely that
taphonomic factors will affect complete skeletons and may potentially provoke
disarticulation. Some elements may be transported out of situ by agents such as
rodents or alluvial movement (Medlock 1975, Micozzi 1991, Nash and Petraglia
1987). Skeletons may be disarticulated and scattered prior to burial if they are
used for secondary products such as bone for tool and jewelry manufacture. It is
also possible that articulated sections of turkeys may be separated for ritual
purposes, for example, intact wings or tarsi and feet. The range of possibilities
mentioned above may potentially cloud interpretations of dispersal patterns, thus
caution should be exercised.
(3) Association of ossified tendons with limb bones. In keeping with
the assumption presented in the previous section, it is expected that ossified
tendons will be recovered in situ with tibiotarsi and tarsometatarsi. This is based
on the premise that an intact turkey carcass will decay in situ so the splints will
remain associated with the bone. Once again this may be confounded by
taphonornic processes.
(4) Feather Artifacts. Though feathers are extremely fragile and subject
to rapid disintegration, it is expected that feather artifacts will be recovered from
contexts with excellent preservation. For example, feather blankets, cloaks and
cordage may potentially withstand decay in desiccated locations. Fortunately
there are many sites which exhibit these conditions in the Southwest due to the
aridity.
The possibility that the Anasazi were utilising turkeys for meat and
feathers for both economic and ritual purposes should not be ignored. If this is
the case, indicators of both are expected to be recovered from the archaeological
record. The features discussed above have been cited by many researchers in an
attempt to determine the function of turkeys in a particular assemblage (Bertram
1991, Hargrave 1965, Lang and Harris 1984, Senior and Pierce 1988). The
prevailing views and interpretations of archaeological data relating to the
function of the turkey are presented below.
8
k
Previous Archaeological Interpretation
The majority of interpretations of the turkey's function in the
archaeological literature advocate that it was initially exploited as a feathers
source, though this evolved to incorporate food utilisation (Breitburg 1988,
Hargrave 1965, Lange 1950, McKusick 1980a, 1986, Reed 1951, Schorger 1961,
1966, 1970, Windes 1987). Evidence cited in support of this view includes the
paucity of bones recovered from Basketmaker I1 and I11 contexts, though feather
artifacts have frequently been recovered from early components (Hayes and
Lancaster 1975, McKusick 1986, Morris 1939, Rohn 1977). The transition to
food use is believed to have taken place ca. A.D. 900 when turkey bones appear
in the record in increasing abundance. The presence of cutmarks, burning and
disarticulation convinced many researchers that turkeys were being consumed by
this time, though their feathers continued to be a valuable raw material (Hargrave
1965, Lange and Harris 1984, McKusick 1980a, 1986, Schorger 1966).
Other research featuring southwestern archaeological turkeys has been
performed by Capone and Schoeninger (1991) to determine whether cooking can
be detected in turkey bone by utilising the amino acid racemization of aspartic
acid as an indicator. Racemization is the conversion of one structure of an amino
acid (L-enantiomers) into its mirror image (D-enantiomers), until there is a stable,
equal mixture of each. The racemization process is affected by temperature and
unfortunately also by post-depositional conditions. Capone and Shoeninger
propose that quantifying the proportion of D-enantiomers to L-enantiomers may
enable the researcher to determine whether a bone has been heated. Heating
bone results in higher proportions of D-enantiomers than unheated bone from the
same context. Control samples (non-turkey) and turkey samples from four sites in
the Southwest were tested to determine whether heating could be detected in
archaeological bone. It was concluded that the duration of cooking in prehistoric
times was probably too short to detect by using racernization, as one and a half
hours of boiling or baking were required to produce notable differences in amino
acid proportions. Unfortunately the length of time for which turkeys were
cooked in prehistory can not be determined but it is unlikely that they were
cooked for such long periods. Hopefully further exploration will be performed in
this area and lead to the discovery of a more effective method.
Data supporting or contradicting the presence of domestic turkeys and
their function at. Anasazi archaeological sites will be presented in Chapter IV. The
following Chapter will concentrate on the theoretical background of the other
three problems concerning domestication, intensification and resource access.
CHAFTER
m
THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
The theoretical background for domestication, aggregation, intensification
and resource access are presented in this chapter. These concepts provide the
theoretical framework for later interpretation of the data relating to domestication
and spatial and temporal change in turkey production. This chapter also serves as
a forum for the presentation of the expectations for the major problems addressed
in this study. It commences with a discussion on domestication and the
expectations for the study assemblage. Next is a review of recent explanatory
models of the aggregation process in the Southwest followed by an outline of
settlement change in the Mesa Verde region and a synthesis of the factors which
may have promoted aggregation. A final model explaining aggregation provides
a hypothesis for settlement change in the Sand Canyon Locality. The chapter
concludes with a series of expectations for the structure and changes in the
turkey assemblage in relation to this model. These expectations are evaluated
against the data from the Sand Canyon Project, Dolores Archaeological Program
and Mesa Verde region in the following chapter.
The turkey was chosen for study due to its widespread use as a prehistoric
domesticated animal in the Southwest. As mentioned previously domestic
animals have high utility for archaeological research as they provide a rare
opportunity to examine direct remnants of purposeful human behaviour. It is
essential to establish that the turkey is in fact'a domestic animal to guide
interpretations in this research, rather than making this assumption based on
previous studies.
Past research has been performed in an attempt to differentiate osseous
turkey remains into subspecies and to make wild and domestic divisions. It has
been argued that wild and domestic forms of a species may be separated
according to diagnostic osteological characters or by analyzing standard
measurements (Armitage 1986, Bokonyi 1969, Boessneck and von den Driesch
1978). Much debate has ensued over this claim and many questions require
clarification before it may be accepted. For example, what constitutes a domestic
animal? Can bones from wild and domestic animals really be differentiated
osteologically? If they can be, what processes have led to the changes and are
they caused by natural or cultural agents?
In order to tackle these questions it is necessary to establish a definition for
domestication. The much cited classic definition was created by Bokonyi (1969:
219) and states that "the essence of domestication (is): the capture and taming
by man of animals of a species with particular behavioural characteristics,
their removal from their natural living area and breeding community, and their
maintenance under controlled breeding conditions for profit". This definition
has been subject to frequent attack primarily due to its emphasis on the
dichotomy of an animal's wild or domestic state. Ducos (1978: 54) counters with
a definition of his own which states that "domestication can be said to exist
when living animals are integrated as objects into the socioeconomic
organization of the human group, in the sense that, while living, those animals
are objects for ownership, inheritance, exchange, trade etc., as are the other
objects (or persons) with which human groups have something to do." This can
be taken farther to a position that states that domestication should be viewed as a
continuum along which animals partake in a range of economic relationships with
55
humans (Higgs and Jarman 1972, Jarman and Wilkinson 1972, Meadow 1989,
Rindos 1984). According to this definition domestic animals may be virtually
indistinguishable from wild ones depending on where they fall along the
continuum. It should therefore be noted that though animals may have been
maintained and controlled by humans they may be identical to wild fauna
osteologically.
Osteological variation in bone has frequently been used to differentiate
species or domestic and wild forms of the same species. Bone preserves better
than most other animal byproducts which may be used to separate species (i.e.
feathers, fur or voice). Changes in bone are expected as a result of domestication
due to selective pressures from humans which are proposed to differ significantly
enough from natural selection to be detectable (Higgs and Jarman 1972).
Changes in bone resulting from domestication have also been attributed to living
conditions and isolation from the wild gene pool. Because bone is an adaptable
and flexible substance, changes in body form often leave their signature on the
skeleton.
Size diminution is frequently cited as a mark of domestication resulting
from poor nutrition and/or living conditions (Annitage 1986, Higgs and Jarman
1972, Meadow 1989). Small animals may be the product of domestication since
the diversity of food which is available to them decreases and they are often
forced to forage in overgrazed areas (Meadow 1989). Owning more animals with
smaller volumes also benefits the herder as the animals can disperse over a greater
foraging area to reduce overgrazing (Jarman and Wilkinson 1972). It should be
noted that size reduction may also occur as a result of natural causes such as
warming climates, thus diminution does not necessarily imply domestication
(Jarman and Wilkinson 1972, Meadow 1989; Olsen 1979).
Osteological change may also occur as a result of isolation which limits
56
gene flow within a small group. Populations become isolated when they are
prevented from coming into contact with wild members of their species due to
human intervention. The resulting reduction in gene flow will separate domestic
animals from wild ones since subsequent mutations and genetic change will not
be shared, causing the two groups to diverge (Breitburg 1988, Jarman and
Wilkinson 1972). Once again isolation may occur naturally so it should be
apparent that diminution can be seen neither as a definite nor necessary indicator
of domestication.
Osteology is not always a reliable indicator of domestication, therefore it is
necessary to examine other types of archaeological data to determine an animals'
wild or domestic state. In the case of the turkey, alternate sources of data include
eggshell and gizzard stones. Eggshell may have been introduced to prehistoric
sites through the collection of wild turkey eggs or if an adult population was
breeding in captivity. Gizzard stones are ingested by turkeys to facilitate food
digestion in the craw (Schorger 1966). They may be identified by their rounded
edges, high polish and small surface peck marks. Evidence for the ingestion of
debitage and ceramic sherds for use in turkey gizzards implies that turkeys were
inhabiting human sites (Bertram 1989, Breitburg 1988, Rohn 1971, Windes 1986).
Only by foraging at sites either while they were occupied or following
occupation by humans could the birds ingest these discarded cultural objects.
The population structure of a faunal assemblage may also indicate whether
an animal was domesticated by providing information about the ages and sexes
of the turkeys which were selected for culling (Greenfield 1991, Hesse 1982,
Higgs and Jarman 1972, Senior and Pierce 1986). The recovery of juvenile or
immature bones has similar implications as eggshell since it is unlikely that poults
were hunted in the wild for their economic value. It is probable instead that they
were hatched under confinement. Architectural evidence such as pens or other
57
retaining structures clearly indicate that turkeys were maintained at a site. Pens
are enclosures coated in layers of consolidated turkey droppings, and are often
located in abandoned rooms. It is unknown if turkeys were permanently
enclosed within the pens or if they were able to forage during the day and were
restrained at night to prevent their escape (Cattanach 1980, Rohn 1971, Schorger
1966). It cannot be determined archaeologically whether the Anasazi clipped
their turkeys wings to prevent flight. Clipping results in the removal of one or
more of the primary flight feathers which articulate with the ulna. There is no
need to cut the feathers during removal, but instead they can be pulled out
without maiming the skin or bone. If clipping was performed it would be difficult
if not impossible to recognize osteologically.
In this research it is hypothesised that the turkey sample in the Sand
Canyon Locality represents a domestic population, though this may not be
apparent by using osteological criteria. As discussed in Chapter 11, most previous
research concerning southwestern archaeological turkeys advocates that the
distinction between breeds and wild and domestic groups may be recognised by
identifying certain diagnostic characters on bones. This claim will be reexamined
in this study. The utility of measurements will also be examined to determine their
effectiveness for separating breeds. Guidelines for the separation of species were
drawn from McKusick's research (1980a, 1986) and measurements as defined in
Chapter I have been taken to test this method. In addition evidence for
alternative indicators of domesticity drawn from contextual data will be recorded
from sites in the Mesa Verde region and the Sand Canyon Locality. This
information will be provided in an attempt to identify domestic populations if
they cannot be recognised by using osteological data. The results will be
presented in the following chapter.
Once it has been determined whether the turkeys in the sample were
58
domestic or wild it will be possible to evaluate broader social and economic
problems. The remainder of this chapter is dedicated to the presentation of the
background which will be necessary to interpret temporal and spatial variation in
the intensity of turkey production within the faunal assemblages. This section
begins with a review of the concept of intensification and the aggregation
process in the Mesa Verde region.
The effect of settlement changes on the use of local turkey populations
will be examined within the context of intensity (or intensification). Intensity is
"...the amounts of population, material, information or energy use per unit
area or per capita" (Lipe 1992a: 5) as defined for the research performed at the
Crow Canyon Archaeological. Intensification is often used as a tool to measure
sociocultural development and cultural complexity (Adler 1990a). Generally, as
the intensity of the components within a sociocultural system increase the system
becomes more complex. This may create a greater demand for resources within
the socioeconomic system and lead to higher costs for their procurement. When
demands for additional resources are increased, human groups will adopt various
strategies as risk prevention mechanisms, such as diversifying the subsistence
base or intensifying modes of production already in use (Minnis 1985). These
strategies generally require greater inputs of labour for production and processing
and are often employed on less productive resources (Lipe et al. 1991).
As previously discussed, (see Chapter I) intensification in this project is
viewed as an increase in the energy invested into turkey production per capita.
Energy investment takes place in the form of labour. Maintaining domestic
animals requires a greater labour investment in exchange for a reliable food
source (Earle 1980). Documenting the changes in reliance on domestic animals is
59
therefore a means of estimating the degree of intensification throughout the
sociocultural system. In this research intensification of turkey production will be
determined by examining changes in the proportions of turkeys in the sampled
faunal assemblages. This is based on earlier discussions which indicate that
evidence for increased consumption reflects intensification.
Numerous changes in southwestern Colorado between A.D. 200 and 1300
influenced the turkey's role in Anasazi society. Among these, shifts in community
organisation may have had a prominent effect on the intensity of turkey
exploitation. Aggregation occurs when a settlement pattern undergoes a
transition from small dispersed sites to large, concentrated groups (Adler 1990a).
Increasing population, decreased mobility and intensification of production are
believed to have promoted aggregation (Kohler 1992). These factors'were also
affected by fluctuating local climatic conditions (Dean et al. 1985, Schlanger
1988).
In southwestern Colorado the Anasazi underwent gradual change from a
mobile hunter gatherer lifestyle to the habitation of dispersed sedentary
settlements to complex aggregated communities based on mixed agricultural
economies. The process commenced uniformly throughout the region, though
variation existed between localities as it progressed (Cordell 1984, Varien et al.
1994). Aggregation occurred twice, once in the late A.D. 800's and again in the
A.D. 1180 to 1280 period. Each episode was preceded by an interval of dispersal
and followed by a regional depopulation or abandonment (Varien et al. 1994).
The aggregation which characterised some areas in the Mesa Verde region in the
late A.D. 800's (e.g. the Dolores Valley) is absent in the Sand Canyon Locality.
This discussion will focus on the changes in settlements in the Mesa Verde region,
60
and will provide a local example of aggregation from each of the two episodes
described above. Before the impact of the aggregation process on turkey
production may be evaluated, background information on aggregation in the
Southwest and its causes will be reviewed.
Southwestern Models of Aggregation
A plethora of hypotheses have been offered as explanations for Anasazi
aggregation. These range from models which claim that aggregation results from
only one factor, to those that propose multivariate explanations. Unicausal
models include those which attribute the cause of aggregation to climatic stress,
defense or leadership. More integrative models argue that aggregation was the
product of environmental depletion due to high population densities and/or as a
result of competition reduction strategies. A brief summary of these models is
presented below.
Environmental Deterioration
Models citing climatic fluctuations as the impetus for aggregation suggest
that aggregation transpired as a result of subsistence stress due to environmental
deterioration. Poor climatic conditions caused periods of drought and forced
populations to amalgamate around the few remaining water sources and to
intensify production as a buffer against depleted conditions (Adler 1990a, Hill
and Trierweiler 1986). Dean et al. (1985) and Schlanger (1988) cite climatic shifts
as the trigger for human adaptive mechanisms which attempt to offset subsistence
stress. By shifting population locations and intensifying agriculture during times
of environmental stress the Anasazi compensated for decreases in productivity
caused by periods of low rainfall. Agricultural intensification was often
associated with aggregated communities as the concentrated population
61
provided a greater labour pool and allowed for the localised exploitation of
optimum land (Hill and Trierweiler 1986).
Defense
Arguments for aggregation as a mechanism for defense have long been
proposed in the Southwest. It was originally suggested that the Anasazi were
forced into aggregated communities for protection against enemy peoples (Kidder
1924 in Wilcox and Haas 1991). 'The enemy' were identified as Numic speaking
or Athabaskan hunter-gatherers who raided the more permanent Anasazi villages.
This view was later replaced by one which promoted conflict between
neighbouring Anasazi communities as the cause for warfare (Haas and Creamer
1990 and others). Recent research by Wilcox and Haas (1991) suggests that the
formation of aggregated villages in the northern Southwest was largely
influenced by the presence of warfare. Populations are believed to have
amalgamated as a defensive mechanism which operated by providing protection
through 'strength in numbers'. Environmental deterioration is cited as the primary
cause for warfare which was initiated as a result of competition over depleted
resources, due to environmental deterioration. The scarcity of food led Anasazi
villages to raid their neighbours to ensure adequate supplies, this in turn led to the
aggregation of populations for protection against raiding. Evidence cited as
indicative of warfare includes 1) architecture such as stockades, forts and towers,
2) artifacts, particularly shields, 3) osteological remains, for example mutilated or
crushed human bone or their direct association with artifacts such as projectile
points and axes and 4) rock art.
Leblanc (1978) has put forth a similar argument to explain settlement
change in the El Mono Valley in New Mexico. In approximately A.D. 1275 the
basic settlement pattern in the valley changed from one of tight groups of small
62
villages located in areas with high visibility to one with sites surrounded by high
unbroken outer walls, which Leblanc suggests were designed for defense. He
believes the change in settlement pattern stemmed from the presence of warfare in
the valley which developed following a population influx due to the paucity of
arable land in neighbouring areas. The resulting dense population led to conflict
over resources and raiding which forced the inhabitants into defensive sites ca.
A.D. 1275.
Kintigh (1985) furthered Leblanc's research by confirming the location of
some but not all sites in easily defensible locations. He suggests that local groups
may have responded differently to warfare, thus some chose new site locations in
defensible areas while others did not. Similarly sites in highly inaccessible
locations in the Kayenta region have been designated defensive and used as
evidence to promote arguments for warfare (Haas and Creamer 1990). An
alternative claim by Cordell et al. (1994) contends that the evidence for warfare
on the Colorado Plateau has been ambiguous at best, and it has been suggested
that the location of so-called 'defensive sites' may have been more of a hindrance
than a help during attacks (Rohn 1989).
Leadership
It has been argued that the existence of an elite was essential to the
maintenance of aggregated communities and the development of intensification
(Upham 1982, Lightfoot 1984). Advocates of this model suggest that elites were
necessary to control social systems which were essential for the operation of large
aggregates. Elites had preferential access to resources and directed redistribution
to the remaining population. The presence of elites is therefore expected to draw
the population into aggregated sites to facilitate their inclusion within the system
of redistribution. Difficulties arise when attempting to prove this argument
63
archaeologically. There has been much debate over the presence of an elite in
Anasazi society. Braun and Plog (1982) contend that societies in the northern
Southwest had an essentially 'non-hierarchical' social organisation whereas
Lightfoot and Upham (1989) and Johnson (1989) claim that Anasazi society was
stratified. The leadership model assumes that Anasazi society was stratified,
though this has not been established by the archaeological community.
Exchange
Increasingly complex exchange networks are closely linked to leadership
models of aggregation. Factors such as increasing population density,
agricultural intensification and reduced mobility are believed to trigger the
development of exchange networks as a buffer strategy. Trade alliances gave
local populations access to peripheral resources which were previously
unavailable (Plog 1986). The development of more complex trade networks is
hypothesised to be directly associated with aggregation and the presence of
elites (Braun and Plog 1982). Elites are considered responsible for the formation
and maintenance of exchange alliances which connected the aggregated centres
and the smaller settlements with larger villages. As a result the presence of elites
had the potential to attract the surrounding population to the aggregated centres.
Competition Reduction
Hunter-Anderson (1979) proposes that aggregation occurred in the
Cochiti Reservoir area, New Mexico to prevent competition over valuable
resources. She claims that aggregation was associated with climatic events,
though it was not necessarily caused by them. Population increases due to
migration from the north resulted in the intensification of agriculture and the
decreased availability of productive land. This created the potential for
competition over limited resources. Hunter-Anderson claims that it was more
economical for local inhabitants to withdraw from the area rather than engage in
warfare, as the expense of intensifying production was less than that of conflict.
As a result, this settlement strategy resulted in the development of buffer zones
which surrounded aggregated communities and could be used to obtain
resources without interfering with neighbouring groups.
Population Pressure
Kohler (1989, 1992) promotes a similar argument to Hunter-Anderson's by
claiming that population growth led to the risk of competition. Population
growth is cited as the instigator of agricultural intensification as it created a
scarcity of productive land. Agricultural intensification required a higher energy
investment and created greater risk in the case of crop failure, as energy was
predominantly invested in the production of fewer resources. subsistence risk
led to competition and, therefore, aggregation was necessary to control access to
limited resources. Like Hunter-Anderson's model, aggregation was a strategy to
eliminate competition as the community restricted the use of resources to its
members.
The Aggregation Process on the Colorado Plateau
Prior to A.D. 1 during the Archaic Period, the Colorado Plateau was
inhabited by mobile hunter-gatherers. Population densities were low and
dispersed over the productive regions of the landscape. The introduction of
maize agriculture at an equivocal date of 1,000 B.C (Vierra 1990) is argued to
have promoted the adoption of an increasingly sedentary lifestyle (see Minnis
1985 and Wills 1988 for alternate argument). Following A.D. 1 there was an
increase in pithouse structures which functioned as domiciles, though the
65
inhabitants probably continued to be seasonally mobile (Gilman 1987). Small,
dispersed pithouse settlements consisting of two or three structures developed
(Matson 1991) and campsites established to exploit seasonal resources were
frequently utilised. The pithouse dwellers emphasised agriculture as their primary
mode of subsistence though they maintained hunting and gathering as dietary
supplements (Decker and Tieszen 1989, Minnis 1989).
In the late A.D. 500's the Basketmaker I11 period commenced. The
settlement pattern changed as subterranean pithouses became more substantial
and non-contiguous surface structures appeared (Bullard 1966). In some areas in
the Mesa Verde region small-scale aggregation was initiated, creating a settlement
pattern of loose, dispersed clusters which were perhaps the first villages (Adler
1992a, Wills and Windes 1989). These villages contained greater numbers of
pithouses and larger populations than hamlets, which are small settlements
composed of a few households. Integrative features in the form of Great Kivas
also made their appearance, though they were not yet common. Rises in
population correlated with increasing sedentism which may have resulted from an
increasing dependence on agriculture. Because of the importance of agriculture
there is a strong relationship between deep, arable soils and the location of
habitation sites in the Mesa Verde region (Adler 1989). The best soils were
situated on the flat mesa tops where the majority of settlements were also located
(Adler l992a).
By A.D. 750 the Pueblo I period was initiated. During Pueblo I (ca. A.D.
750-900) an architectural transition occurred within the pithouses, which may be
related to function (Varien and Lightfoot 1989, Wilshusen 1989). Pithouses
underwent architectural transformations into structures known as kivas.
Simultaneously, the Anasazi adopted above .ground buildings for living areas and
storage. The surface rooms formed small contiguous roomblocks to the north of
66
each kiva, composing unit pueblos characteristic of this time period (Hayes and
Lancaster 1976, Prudden 1903). It was also common for two or more units to
coalesce and form small villages. The number of great kivas increased to integrate
the larger population. Villages were the predominant settlement type, though the
occupation of smaller hamlets continued. In the Sand Canyon Locality there was
a paucity of sites due to increasing aggregation to the north and east in the
Dolores area, which attracted much of the local population. As a result the
settlement pattern remained dispersed with small-scale clustering. Sites in the
Sand Canyon Locality at this time had the highest degree of association with
arable soil during the entire Anasazi occupation (Adler 1992a).
Pueblo I1 was initiated ca. A.D. 900 and persisted until A.D. 1150. The
Anasazi were at their widest geographical extent, occupying all habitable
topographic areas (Lekson 1992). Pueblo I1 may be subdivided into Early and
Late periods, with Early Pueblo I1 dating from A.D. 900 to 1050 and Late Pueblo
I1 continuing until A.D. 1150. Little is known about the 900s in the Mesa Verde
region. There was a massive depopulation of the area, though it is unclear what
happened to the inhabitants. In the early 1000's population was on the rise again
as evidenced by the appearance of sites such as Gnatsville and the sites in the
South Canal area (Kent 1991, Kuckelman and Morris 1988). Late Pueblo I1 (A.D.
1050-1150) is characterised by the appearance of Great Houses, believed to be
Chacoan outliers, which were situated in areas previously occupied by dispersed
communities (Hallasi 1979, Varien et al. 1994). The Great Houses exerted
influence until ca A.D. 1150 when the Chacoan system declined. Peak
population attainment and subsequent abandonment of several communities
peripheral to the Sand Canyon Locality occurred during this period. Population
within the Sand Canyon Locality however, continued to increase and large-scale
aggregation began. In early Pueblo I1 (A.D. 900-1050), settlements were
67
dispersed, but a marked increase in population led to clustering, larger sites and an
increasingly aggregated population. Site groupings were evident in two
locations in the Sand Canyon Locality and became more apparent throughout
the period. These include the Goodman Point Community and the Sand Canyon
Community. The association of sites with the best arable soils declined somewhat
as aggregation progressed (Varien et al. 1994).
Pueblo 111, which commenced ca A.D. 1150, was the culmination of the
Anasazi habitation in the Mesa Verde region. It terminated with the
abandonment of the area by ca A.D. 1300. In the Sand Canyon Locality,
population increased, as did site size, while agriculture was further intensified.
The beginning of large-scale aggregation was reflected in the appearance of
multiroomblock sites, and the close proximity of sites to one another (Adler 1989).
Between approximately A.D. 1240-1250 a major shift in settlement location took
place. Several mesa top sites were abandoned and the population relocated to
the canyon rims, talus slopes and canyon benches. The movement correlated
with the founding of Sand Canyon Pueblo, a large aggregated site at the head of
Sand Canyon. The shift in population created a further decrease in the
association between site location and arable soil (Adler 1994). This may have
been an adaptation to land stress (the move freed up productive soils on the mesa
tops), or an attempt to access run-off water from the mesas (Schlanger 1988).
Abandonment of the Sand Canyon Locality occurred at the end of the thirteenth
century.
The Processes Behind Aggregation in the Sand Canyon Locality
An intensive study of the aggregation process in the Sand Canyon Locality
has been undertaken by Adler (1990a). He creates a comprehensive hypothesis
explaining why and how the process occurred by emphasising the role of the
68
community and the development of social control over access to valuable
resources (land tenure systems).
The community is the spatial unit within which aggregation is examined. It
encompasses the sites and clusters of sites which are integrated by public
architectural features such as great kivas or great houses (Adler and Varien 1991).
Using this definition, two communities have been identified within the Sand
Canyon Locality: the Goodman Point Community and the Sand Canyon
Community. These are recognised as independent entities due to the clustering
of sites surrounding integrative facilities and their separation by hinterlands with
low population density. The communities are named after the two large sites,
Sand Canyon Pueblo and Goodman Point Ruin, which were constructed at the
culmination of aggregation in the Sand Canyon Locality. The community
examined in this project is the Sand Canyon Community. Adler and Varien
(1991) argue that it existed prior to the development of Sand Canyon Pueblo in
the mid-thirteenth century. During its early stages (ca A.D. 1000) it was
composed of dispersed habitation sites, which later aggregated into large, densely
populated sites. Though households within the community were relatively
mobile, Adler and Varien (1991) argue that the community may be recognised
archaeologically by continuity in the location of public architectural integrative
features such as kivas and plazas, and the clustering of the settlements during the
A.D. 1000-1300 period.
Factors which played an influential role in promoting aggregation include
population increases, restricted mobility, resource scarcity and agricultural
intensification (Adler 1990a). Each of these will be discussed and supplemented
with additional research from the area.
Population Increases
Increasing populations require the procurement of additional resources to
ensure the survival of the group. A 1992 survey of the Upper Sand Canyon
provided ample evidence for local population increases. Adler (1992b)
developed population estimates by assessing room counts for each habitation site
and multiplying them by an expected number of inhabitants. Temporally, he
creates four sub-periods within Pueblo I1 and Pueblo I11 (A.D. 930-980,980-1060,
1060-1150, 1150-1300). The results, representing average, momentary
populations, illustrate definite increases in population density through time.
Studies undertaken by Dean et al. (1985) and Schlanger (1988)
corroborate Adler's reconstruction of population growth. By examining the issue
from a regional perspective both studies conclude that there is a general trend
toward increasing populations from A.D. 1 to 1100 in the Mesa Verde region.
Following A.D. 1150 it is more difficult to characterise population patterns as
there is much local variation. Growth persisted in some areas though population
began to decline in others leading to eventual abandonment. The Sand Canyon
Locality was one area which continued to prosper and grow until ca. A.D. 1300
when the area was rapidly abandoned (Adler 1992b).
Restricted Mobility
A viable solution to resource stress is movement to areas of higher
productivity. The utilisation of shifting agriculture in the Mesa Verde region
resulted in the depletion of plots of land of their nutrients, thus forcing the
inhabitants to move to new areas to give the worn land an opportunity to
replenish itself (Kohler and Matthews 1988, Lekson 1992, Schlanger 1988).
Mobility allows for the procurement of adequate resources without intensifying
production (Kohler and Matthews 1988). It may, however, have ceased to be an
70
option in the Mesa Verde region at some point (Dean et al. 1985). Mobility
restrictions result from factors such as environmental, geographical or social
circumscription, increases in population or a combination thereof. Environmental
circumscription may be caused by climatic shifts which decrease the productivity
of an area. For example, in the Mesa Verde Region climatic change had the
potential to reduce the growing season at high elevations, thus promoting
migration to lower elevations with longer growing seasons (Schlanger 1988).
Geographic circumscription occurs when surrounding lands are not suited for
agriculture. As well, decreases in rainfall have the potential to cause crop failure
(Adler 1990a). Lastly, social circumscription may result if land ownership is
recognised.
In the Sand Canyon Locality mobility became restricted due to increasing
populations and the farming of peripheral agricultural land. The constriction of
the farming belt between ca. A.D. 1100 and 1275, due to deteriorating climatic
conditions further limited the population from moving to adjacent areas
(Schlanger 1985). Restricted mobility therefore often forces solutions which will
increase yields from resources which are already being exploited, most notably by
agricultural intensification.
Resource Scarcity
It has been argued that aggregation is linked to the degree of resource
scarcity (Adler 1990b). Resources utilised by the Anasazi which were subject to
scarcity include arable land, wild flora and fauna and water. Constant population
growth in the Sand Canyon Locality required that additional resources be
extracted from the environment to support higher populations. As a result the
depletion of valuable resources such as land' occurred. Resources fluctuated in
response to the dramatic and unpredictable nature of the climate on the Colorado
71
plateau. (Dean et al. 1985, Schlanger 1988). It was necessary to adjust the
subsistence system to ensure sufficient animal and plant sources in the diet in
response to population pressure and environmental perturbations. Scarcity of
resources thus often led to the intensification of available food sources (Minnis
1985).
One of the primary resources available to the Anasazi was arable land. As
populations increased and agriculture was intensified, more productive land was
utilised and became increasingly limited. Farmers were therefore forced to
cultivate less arable soil. Resource depletion in the Sand Canyon Community is
evidenced by the decreasing association of habitations with desirable land. The
association of sites with the most productive soil peaked in Pueblo I and then
decreased through Pueblo I1 and I11 (Adler 1990a). This indicates that the
premium land was already under cultivation so people were forced to farm less
productive land.
Van West (1990) has performed a study which models climatic shifts and
soil productivity to determine whether the land was capable of meeting the
subsistence needs of estimated Anasazi populations by agriculture. She
concludes that the population did not surpass the carrying capacity of the land.
This assumes unrestricted mobility and an effective exchange system to send
products from high to low areas of productivity. Currently, there is insufficient
data to determine patterns of regional food exchange. It should be noted that
the amount of acreage per person was reduced as time progressed and this may
have led to stressful conditions. It is likely that stress resulted at times when
populations increased and mobility was restricted. While the stress was not
sufficient to wipe out Anasazi populations, it limited the range of mobility of the
inhabitants and created the potential for social tension concerning ownership of
valuable acreage.
The production of domestic animals is expected to intensify in response to
resource scarcity. The depletion of wild fauna can lead to an increased emphasis
on a local, reliable faunal source to ensure a continued supply of meat in the diet.
Agricultural Intensification
Agricultural intensification results when the amount of labour utilised to
boost productivity per unit area of arable land is increased. It has been suggested
that the process is initiated when mobility becomes restricted and groups are
unable to offset resource scarcity by relocating to lands of higher productivity
(Adler 1990a, Dean et al. 1985, Decker and Tieszen 1989, Schlanger 1988). As a
result the inhabitants are forced to further exploit the local environment to derive
required yields, thus intensifying production (Boserup 1965). This may be
performed by introducing water control features, irrigation, fallow cycles etc.
At first agriculture was practiced on the optimum available land in the Sand
Canyon Locality. As time progressed this association peaked as most of the best
agricultural soil continued to be used and it was necessary for newcomers to
occupy less desirable land. This is apparent by Pueblo I1 when the average plot
of land under cultivation was less fertile than in previous times indicating a
shortage of prime soil for cultivation (Adler 1992a). As a result more energy was
expended to derive a successful harvest. The association of agriculturally based
habitations with less arable land than the preceding periods can be viewed as
indicative of intensification (Adler 1990a). The shift in the location of habitation
sites from the mesa tops to the canyon rims in the late twelfth and early thirteenth
centuries has also been cited as a strategy to intensify production by exploiting
the irrigation potential of the canyons which were situated close to springs and
flood waters (Schlanger 1988).
Further evidence for intensification is indicated in the archaeological
73
record by the presence of certain features. These include water collection areas
(i.e. reservoirs and terraces), storage and habitation structures of greater
permanence and an increase in the diversity of land utilised for agricultural
activity (Kohler and Matthews 1988, Schlanger 1988). Adler (1992a) noted that
these features show up primarily post A.D. 1100 in the Sand Canyon Locality,
and cites them as evidence for agricultural intensification.
Dean et al. (1985) support Adler's view in their regional analyses of
agricultural intensification. They cite the appearance of reservoirs, irrigation
facilities and terraces by A.D. 1100 and suggest that they were widely distributed
across the Colorado Plateau by A.D. 1150.
The production of domestic animals is another means by which the
subsistence system can be intensified. An increase in reliance on faunal
domesticates has similar implications to agricultural intensification as production
of both may potentially be controlled.
Aggregation Synthesis
Adler (1990a) synthesises the factors discussed above to create a
comprehensive explanation for large-scale aggregation. As previously discussed
the model was developed for the Sand Canyon Community, during Pueblo I1 and
m.
In the Sand Canyon Locality, continuous growth raised populations to
sufficient levels to play a restricting role over the mobility of the inhabitants.
Between A.D. 1100-1275 the area of fertile land in the Mesa Verde region
decreased, further lowering mobility potential (Schlanger 1985). Rising
populations and the increasing utilisation of productive land resulted in the
scarcity of arable land. To ensure the procurement of an adequate food supply
the Anasazi intensified their food production. This is evidenced by a population
74
shift from sites on the mesa tops to sites occupying talus slopes and canyon
benches. The move placed new settlements in close proximity to essential,
reliable water supplies such as springs and the run-off from mesas (Adler 1990a,
Schlanger 1988). Smaller groups were attracted to localities with aggregated
populations partially due to their proximity to the few reliable water sources.
Archaeological evidence for the aggregation of the Sand Canyon
Community is abundant in the locality. The early stages of aggregation were
marked by the appearance of large, multi-roomblock pueblos with many more
architectural components than previous settlements. Site size also increased from
an average of 6 to 9 room roomblocks in Pueblo I1 to more than thirteen rooms
during Pueblo I11 (Adler and Varien 1991). Prior to A.D. 1100 only 20% of the
population lived in sites with three or more households, whereas 40% of the
population resided in sites with more than fifteen rooms by A.D. 1200 (Adler
1990a). Sites in late Pueblo I1 also tended to be associated with reliable water
sources. In addition, site density became higher as is expected in aggregated
situations. Ca. 1250 many small settlements amalgamated to form Sand Canyon
Pueblo which was also surrounded by cluster of small sites ( L i p 1992b).
Aggregation in the Dolores Valley
The Anasazi occupation of the Dolores River Valley was intensively
studied between 1978 and 1985 as part of a salvage effort prior to the damming
of the Dolores River. Human occupation in the Dolores Valley was rare before
A.D. 600, though there is evidence for a few temporary campsites which were
occupied seasonally (Kane 1986). By A.D. 600 groups were beginning to
migrate into the Dolores Valley and local populations slowly increased. At this
time settlements were small and dispersed and site location was selected
according to the presence of arable soil. By A.D. 840 population growth
75
exploded and large-scale aggregation took place. Much of the population
accumulated in large multi-roomblock villages. Shortly after the population
reached its peak the Dolores area was gradually depopulated and nearly entirely
abandoned (Kane 1986).
ource AccResource access is an additional factor which is closely tied to the
environmental, economic and social factors of population aggregation.
According to Adler (1990a: 18) an intensification in the utilisation of a resource is
generally associated with "an increase in the social definition of the means of
access to (the) resource". Access refers to who has the right to utilise a particular
resource. The primary resource available to the Anasazi was arable land, thus this
discussion will focus on the concept of land tenure systems.
Land tenure is defined as "the system or rights utilized against other
people with respect to resource access and use" (Adler 1992: 1). Land tenure
systems form to minimise potential conflict which results from increasing
competition over a resource. It has been argued that competition develops due to
the presence of the same factors which promote aggregation, that is increasing
population densities, reduced mobility and resource scarcity, particularly
agricultural land (Adler 1990a, 1992%Kohler 1992).
Land tenure acts to formalise access to land within the community to
reduce conflict and to protect it from competition from outsiders. By utilising
cross-cultural data Adler (1990a, 1992a) argues that the Sand Canyon community
had the authority to make decisions over and above the economic units from
which it was composed, in effect empowering the community to mediate conflicts
over its resources. Land tenure systems with access below the community level
may also be viewed as enablers for large-scale aggregation. The creation of a
76
'socially negotiated landscape' allows a community to aggregate without conflict
because economic units are guaranteed access to productive land. If there was
no guarantee it is likely that people would avoid amalgamating in large groups
and reside on their plots of land to protect their access.
The presence of high population densities in aggregated villages forced
agriculturists to travel greater distances between habitation sites and agricultural
fields. It was therefore necessary to indicate land ownership to ensure continued
access. Field houses are isolated masonry structures composed of one or two
rooms with a proposed seasonal occupation. It has been argued that field houses
functioned as symbols of land ownership (Kohler 1992). In the northern
Southwest their appearance is contemporaneous with the development of soil
and water control features which have been interpreted as indicators of
agricultural intensification.
The development of land tenure systems is viewed as a possible initiator of
"differential economic power" which may eventually lead to stratification. It has
been argued further that land tenure is a "systemof controlled passage of land
from one generation to the next" (Kohler 1992: 631). Adler (1990a) suggests
that this results from increasing energy investments into individual land plots. As
a result, those economic units with access to the most productive agricultural soils
may potentially become more wealthy over succeeding generations. In the
Dolores Valley, though it is believed that formalised land tenure systems were in
effect, it is argued that residential mobility and subsequent abandonment of the
area prevented economic stratification from occurring (Kohler 1992).
Adler (1990a, 1991, 1992a) proposes that there was a 'general trend'
toward a formalised land tenure system in the Sand Canyon Locality during
Anasazi prehistory. Using cross-cultural data he argues that agricultural
intensification within the locality was the initial impetus for the development of a
77
land tenure system in which multi-households were the primary access units. This
ensured the protection of the owner's energy investment and reduced conflict
over arable land. It is manifested in the archaeological record by the appearance
of larger habitations which housed more than one family and are believed to
represent primary access groups. Later, ca. A.D. 1100 multi-roomblock sites
blossomed on the Anasazi landscape, housing increasingly large numbers of
families and integrating the inhabitants from numerous smaller sites. Adler
(1992a) concludes that the Anasazi utilised a variety of agricultural strategies
which were most likely associated with distinct access systems. Thus, there is
potential for the existence of a variety of access strategies for a single resource.
The data utilised to support models of aggregation and investigate
intensity in past studies have been largely architectural, environmental or the
product of settlement studies and surveys. In this research an attempt will be
made to establish the relationship between the aggregation process in the Sand
Canyon Locality and domestic turkey production. This will be performed within
the terms of the model presented above and the context of intensification. As
previously mentioned domestic animals are of great utility for this type of study as
they are controlled by humans and thus have potential to provide insight into
past human behaviour. It follows that changes in turkey production may also
mirror changes within the broader sociocultural system.
Intensification
Restricted mobility, population increases and resource scarcity create the
need for intensified food production as populations no longer have the option of
migrating to neighbouring areas with more ubiquitous resources. An
78
intensification in domestic animal production often results when there are
insufficient quantities of local wild game to meet the animal protein requirements
of a given area. Though Van West and Lipe (1992) have argued that there was
sufficient arable land to meet the caloric demands of Anasazi populations during
all periods of their occupation in the Sand Canyon Locality, this assumes a system
of redistribution was in place to transfer resources from areas of high to low
productivity.
It is argued here that meat was also a valued resource for both nutritional
and social reasons. It is suggested that animal protein was an important dietary
component regardless of the productive capacity of agricultural land. Corn
dominates most archaeological botanical assemblages in the Southwest, yet it is
deficient in two amino acids (tryptophan and lysine) and niacin (Nickens 1981).
Though beans are able to compensate for these deficiencies by providing the
missing components, animal protein is a more complete source of protein than any
single plant resource, which must be combined to meet dietary requirements.
Several paleopathalogical studies have concluded that the presence of
porotic hyperostosis in prehistoric southwestern skeletons was caused by an
overdependence on maize and a low meat diet (El-Najaar 1976, Palkovich 1980).
Porotic hyperostosis is created by increased blood production promoted by
anaemia. It occurs mainly in thin bones and causes the expansion of the marrow
cavity. This results in the thinning of the outer layer of bone giving it a porous
appearance (Martin et al. 1985). Porotic hyperostosis is believed to be caused by
nutritional factors rather than hereditary conditions. These may be influenced by
diet, parasites or an unsanitary environment.
An overdependence on maize in the diet is suggested as a primary cause of
porotic hyperostosis in southwestern archaeological sites. Maize inhibits iron
absorption in the body which may potentially promote iron deficiency anaemia.
79
Supporters of this view substantiate their argument by linking the increase in
porotic hyperostosis with the simultaneous increase in maize dependency
between Basketmaker I11 and Pueblo I11 (El-Najaar 1976). Recent research
however has revealed that maize production was probably intensified to feed a
growing population not to contribute to a larger portion of the diet. The amount
of maize consumed per individual during Basketmaker I11 is believed to be similar
to quantities consumed in Pueblo 111. This has been supported by isotopic and
coprolite studies on the Mesa Verde and Black Mesa (Decker and Tieszen 1989,
Matson and Chisolm 1991, Minnis 1989, Stiger 1979).
Kent (1986) offers an alternative explanation for porotic hyperostosis by
arguing against maize overdependence and attributing poor iron absorption to
the conditions created by increasing aggregation and sedentism, which also
intensified between Basketmaker I11 and Pueblo 111. She maintains that meat was
an important contributor to the diet and should not be dismissed due to the
presence of porotic hyperostosis. Kent's argument is based on the premise that
aggregation and sedentism promoted unsanitary living conditions which
prompted the infestation of parasites and bacteria which also inhibit iron
absorption. Anaemia is still argued to be the cause of porotic hyperostosis but it
is believed to have been promoted by different conditions.
An additional argument can be made for the importance of meat in the
social sphere. Kent (1989: 9) asks why "meat and hunting (are) consistently
and ubiquitously valued more than plants and gathering o r farming" amongst
hunter-gatherer and horticultural groups. By performing a cross-cultural
examination of the perceptions surrounding the value placed on hunting and
animals Kent concludes that they are attributed greater importance due to the
presence of an 'intellect'. Wild animals are frequently grouped on a similar
intellectual level with humans whereas plants are not. As a result many societies
have come to believe that hunting is more dangerous and interesting and requires
more skill than gathering, thus attributing it with higher status. Though, Kent
suggests that domesticated animals have less value in many societies because
they can be controlled and are therefore more likely to be viewed as objects
(there are exceptions, especially in pastoralist societies), the value of meat is
apparent in many cultural groups today.
In light of the above discussion, the assumption is made that meat played
an integral role in Anasazi subsistence strategies, though it is unlikely that it
equaled plants in dietary importance. If there are demands for resource
intensification it is therefore expected that changes in the faunal procurement
strategy will result.
Speth and Scott (1985,1989) argue that the number of large to small
species of wild game often increases in archaeological faunal assemblages as sites
become 1) more stable as sedentary communities 2) larger and more aggregated
and 3) more dependent on horticulture. Agricultural intensification requires an
increased time and labour investment which imposes constraints upon the time
available for hunting activities. Agricultural activity is also expected to degrade
adjacent environments requiring hunters to travel further to procure meat.
Finally, hunts are proposed to occur less often during the growing season due to
agricultural commitments. The game sought is therefore expected to be larger and
of the highest quality protein. Population aggregation also benefits communal
big game hunts as a larger pool from which to draw hunters is available.
It has further been suggested that agricultural intensification may promote
a reduction in wild game resources due to increased harvesting in areas
surrounding habitation sites (Earle 1980, Minnis 1989, Shelley 1993). This takes
place when horticultural communities lower the productivity of their environment
due to prolonged agricultural activity causing the depletion of game surrounding
81
the site (Speth and Scott 1989). Local small game may be overexploited due to
high demands for animal protein in heavily populated areas. This often forces
hunters to travel greater distances to procure large animal resources.
Scott and Speth (1985, 1989) state that an emphasis on big game hunting
will occur only if large animals are plentiful in the buffer zones surrounding sites.
In this study it is proposed that increases in population density at the regional
level created a reduction in hinterland resources due to predation pressure in
much of the Mesa Verde Region during Pueblo 111. Hunting pressures from
numerous surrounding communities would undoubtedly reduce the availability of
big game, thus restricting its potential as a reliable meat source. The conditions
cited above (restricted mobility, agricultural intensification, resource scarcity and
population increases) which promoted aggregation in the Sand Canyon
community are also proposed to have caused a reduction in the availability of
large animals therefore reducing big game hunting and forcing reliance on an
alternate meat source. Domestic turkeys are suggested to be the ideal resource
for intensification in this scenario.
Increased input into raising domestic animals may be detected in the
archaeological record by examining architectural evidence, the exploitation of
secondary products and increased proportions of domestic animals in relation to
wild ones within faunal assemblages. Intensification in turkey production is
expected to appear architecturally in the form of pens which require a greater
energy investment to construct and maintain. It may also result in the
exploitation or intensification of secondary products. For example, if the turkey
is being exploited primarily as a meat source, intensification may lead to the
utilisation of its other economically valued components, such as feathers (Sherratt
1983). Finally, the frequency of turkeys in relation to other commonly exploited
wild fauna such as artiodactyls and lagomorphs is expected to rise in relation to
82
less intensified times. This is a result of the increased availability and convenience
of the domesticated food source and also because of its increase in numbers due
to intensification.
In sum, the fust expectation relating to temporal change is that the
proportion of turkey in the faunal assemblage will increase as the community
becomes more aggregated due to the presence of the conditions promoted in
Adler's model. Most importantly, regional population density must have reached
a high enough level to cause a reduction in hinterland faunal resources.
Change and how it was influenced by the prevailing conditions at the time
will be monitored by examining the relative proportion of turkey within faunal
assemblages throughout the Anasazi occupation in the Mesa Verde region. Two
major episodes of aggregation took place in southwestern Colorado during
prehistory. An example of each will be examined to determine the relationship
between resource intensification and aggregation. The fust occurred 'in the late
800's and is exemplified by settlements in the Dolores Valley, and the second took
place in the mid-thirteenth century as depicted by the Sand Canyon Locality.
Data from earlier time periods in each location are also considered to detect
change between periods of aggregated versus non-aggregated situations,
Results are presented in Chapter IV.
Intersite Variation in Turkey Production in the Sand Canyon Locality
The second expectation is related to resource access and intersite variation
in the intensity of turkey production within the Sand Canyon Locality. It is
proposed that increasingly defined systems of land tenure may result in
differential turkey production between sites. This is based on the premise that
though there was enough land for everybody in the Sand Canyon Locality (Van
West 1990), it was not equally productive. As a result some groups had access to
83
better agricultural land than others. It is expected that sites with access to
marginal lands will exhibit higher percentages of turkey as they require a dietary
supplement to meet the potential shortfall in agricultural production. This should
be reflected in the archaeological record in the form of differential proportions of
turkeys between site assemblages.
It is difficult to predict which sites will have preferred access to agricultural
land as there are no obvious indicators in the archaeological record. If differential
access does exist it is proposed that Sand Canyon Pueblo will have access to
superior agricultural land assuming that it was a major integrative center. Sites in
the Lower Sand Canyon are also expected to have access to high quality land
because they are located far enough from Sand Canyon Pueblo (6-7 krn) to be
out of the range of its agricultural territory.
In the following chapter faunal data will be divided by topographic
location in the Sand Canyon Locality to detect intersite variation in turkey
production. Data relating to the intensification of turkey production, the turkey's
role in Anasazi society and domestication will be reviewed in the following
chapter as well.
CHAPTER IV
RESULTS
Introduction
To address the hypotheses presented in Chapters I1 and 111, it is necessary
to evaluate the applicable data from the archaeological record. Data from the
Sand Canyon Locality were collected from the study sample according to the
methods reviewed in Chapter I. Information from sites in the surrounding Mesa
Verde region was drawn only from the archaeological literature, predominantly
site and faunal reports. This chapter opens with a review of measurement and
contextual data designed to determine whether the sample contains wild and/or
domestic turkeys. Second, the debate over the turkey's function in Anasazi
society is considered by examining age and sex profiles, artifacts and other
culturally modified bone (i.e. cutmarks, localised burning). Finally, variations in
faunal proportions through time and across space are examined to address the
questions regarding intensification and social access to resources.
Evidence for turkey domestication
Before proceeding, it is essential to establish whether turkeys were in fact
raised by the prehistoric inhabitants in the Sand Canyon Locality and the Mesa
Verde region. Several arguments presented here are based on the assumption that
the bones in the sample belonged to domestic animals. In this research
domestication has been defined to include all animals which were maintained by
humans at archaeological sites. If it can be established that turkeys were
inhabiting human sites it can be concluded that at least some of the turkeys
examined in this study were domesticated.
.
In an attempt to determine if the turkeys in the sample were wild or
domesticated, applicable elements were examined and measured to detect
osteological differences. Additional evidence was sought from the non-osseous
remains in the sampled sites. As well, methods utilised in previous research for
sexing and differentiating subspecies based on variation in osteological features
were reexamined.
Osteological data
As discussed in previous chapters, McKusick (1980a, 1986) has advocated
that the presence of certain features on the turkey skeleton are diagnostic of
particular subspecies or breeds. The three groups which can potentially be
identified in the study sample include the Small Indian Domestic (Meleagris
gallopavo tularosa ), the Large Indian Domestic (Meleagris gallopavo
merriami) and Merriam's Wild Turkey (also Meleagris gallopavo merriami). It
has been argued that Merriam's Wild Turkey is a large robust turkey, the Large
Indian Domestic is similar to Merriam's Wild Turkey though smaller and less
robust and the Small Indian Domestic can be distinguished by its short, scaly tarsi
and distinct feather colouration (Hargrave 1970, McKusick 1980a, 1986).
This study was initiated with an attempt to identify turkey subspecies in
the sample by searching for morphological differences between individuals.
Complete or near complete specimens of the same element were laid out and
intensively searched for variation. The examination did not result in the
recognition of any obvious differences. The only noted variation was minimal
and inconsistent between individuals. Subsequently, an attempt was made to
identify characteristics which were claimed to be diagnostic of a particular breed.
In this case, instead of simply searching for differences between specimens,
specific, defined characteristics were sought: McKusick's (1986: 35-53)
descriptions for the characteristic features were utilised. Upon examination I was
unable to recognise any of the characters identified as being diagnostic of a
specific breed by McKusick on any Sand Canyon Locality specimen.
These observations do not support the validity of McKusick's methods for
identifying subspecies and/or breeds, but neither do they dismiss them. It is
possible that only one breed is represented in the sample and thus no significant
differences could be noted. Variation in this case would be a result of natural
fluctuations within a population rather than the differences between two or more
populations. Mckusick (personal communication 1992) suggests that the breed
represented in the sample is the Large Indian Domestic turkey (the domestic
Meleagris gallopavo merriami), which she claims was the most common breed of
turkey in the study area prehistorically. I, however could not identify the
individuals in my sample as LIDS by using her descriptions of diagnostic
morphological characters. As an alternative, measurements were applied in an
attempt to determine if more than one subspecies or breed was represented.
The possibility that the sample is composed of only one turkey breed was
tested by examining measurements of the tarsometarsus. This element was
chosen for four reasons. 1) It is the only element which can be reliably sexed due
to the occasional presence of spurs on males (Schorger 1966). 2) It is flagged by
McKusick (1986) as being noticeably variable in length between breeds. 3) If
osteological changes occurred as a result of domestication, the tarsometatarsus
has high potential to be affected since domesticated turkeys are expected to
adapt to a terrestrial lifestyle, and increase the use of their legs and feet
(Breitburg 1988). 4) After performing principal components analysis, shape, size
and generalised distance coefficients and multivariate dicrirninant analysis,
Breitburg (1988) designated the greatest length measurement of the
tarsometatarus the most informative for detecting differences between wild and
domestic turkey populations.
Before attempting to differentiate turkey subspecies based on size it must
be determined if sexual dimorphism exists in the sampled population. This is
designed to prevent confusion when attempting to separate breeds on the basis
of size, as the different sexes of one breed could be mistaken for members of two
different breeds. When graphing a population with distinct sexual dimorphism a
bimodal shape should result, with each mode representing one sex.
Sex can be assigned using the following criteria. 1) Medullary bone. Its
presence definitely indicates that the specimen is female, whereas its absence
provides no information (Driver 1982, Rick 1975). 2) Spur on the
tarsometatarsus. Its presence definitely indicates that the specimen is male,
whereas its absence provides no information (Schorger 1966). 3) Size.
According to McKusick (1986) all female prehistoric Southwestern turkeys were
smaller than the male Small Indian Domestic turkey. It is therefore likely that any
Sand Canyon Locality turkey which was larger than the male SID illustrated by
McKusick (1986: 22-33) is male whereas smaller specimens could be male or
female.
If dimorphism exists in the sample it is expected to be apparent in bar
graphs depicting the distribution of measurement data for the tarsometatarsus.
The measurements recorded in this project include the greatest length and the
breadth of the distal end of the tarsometarsus for all specimens on which either or
both measurements could be taken. Most of the bones in the sample were
incomplete, therefore more measurements of distal breadth were taken than
greatest length (See figure 4.1 for the distribution of distal breadth
measurement.).
Greatest length measurements of tarsometatarsi are ideal for comparison
because most previous research concerning osteological differentiation in turkeys
Individuals sexed by size
Spurred males
Breadth of Distal End
Figure 4.1: Distribution of the breadth of the distal end of tarsometarsi in the
Sand Canyon Locality.
have emphasised this measurement as being the most important (Breitburg 1988,
McKusick 1986). Data for greatest length measurements of tarsometatarsi are
available to test and compare with the measurements in this research. Greatest
lengths are the most difficult measurements to take as the element must be
complete and intact specimens are rarely recovered from the archaeological
record. To compensate for this problem the breadths of the distal ends were used
to estimate the length of elements which were incomplete (see Appendix B). This
was performed by plotting a scatter graph of the eight specimens which had both
greatest length and distal breadth measurements (Figure 4.2).
A simple regression line with a high RA2 value of 0.839 was plotted on the
scatter graph. The resulting equation (y=-44.022+8.587x) was used to calculate
the greatest lengths of incomplete tarsometatarsi, where y=greatest length and
x=breadth of distal end. The actual and estimated greatest length data were
plotted on a bar graph for statistical examination (Figure 4.3).
200 -,
5 -
y = - 44.022 + 8.5827~ R Y = 0.839.
180
4 160C1
m
Q)
140
2
-
120100
16
I
I
I
I
I
18
20
22
24
26
Breadth of Distal End
Figure 4.2: Simple Regression of Tarsometatarsi Measurements: Distal breadth
versus Greatest Length
The sample was sexed according to the criteria previously reviewed. No
tarsometarsus in the sample exhibited evidence for medullary bone. The spurred
(male) tarsometatarsi are indicated in Figure 4.3. The specimens with a greatest
length exceeding 132 mm are also probably male following McKusick's data for
the male SID turkey (length of illustration). It can be seen from Figures 4.1 and
4.3 that the definite male specimens fall on the right side of the bimodal
distribution. It can also be seen that the smallest definite males in the sample are
larger than the minimum size proposed for male SIDs as illustrated by McKusick
(1986), since they are larger than 132 rnrn.
At this point it is concluded that the sample is composed of one population
of sexually dimorphic turkeys. It is possible that the odd individual representing
a different species is also present. This however, cannot be recognised by using
measurement data alone because if other breeds are represented in the sample
they fit well into the range of the dominant breed.
-
Individuals sexed by size
Greatest Length in mm
Figure 4.3: Greatest length distribution of tarsometatarsi from the Sand Canyon
Locality.
A second question may now be addressed. Can the breed of the
population in the sample be identified? In Table 4.1 ranges of the means of the
greatest length of tarsometatarsi in four prehistoric populations separated by sex
and identified by McKusick are presented. These data is problematic as
McKusick fails to include pertinent information about her sample. For example,
sample size and specific ranges of greatest length measurements (only means are
given) for each population are not provided. If absolute ranges were given for
each turkey group rather than their means we would undoubtedly be able to
detect overlap in the ranges between the different breeds. This point challenges
the validity of identifying subspecies by using measurement data alone. In order
to utilise McKusick's data for comparison it is necessary to divide the Sand
Canyon sample into male and female groups and average the greatest length
measures from each. These may then be fitted into her ranges of means to
determine the breed of the sample population. In addition, sample sizes for each
group were not provided, thus they have not been included here.
Breed
Small Indian Domestic
144.79
116.80
Large Indian Domestic
149.34-160.95 (152.29)
121.15-125.26 (123.04)
Merriam's Wild Turkey
160.90- 166.60 (162.88)
128.30-133.60 (131.02)
Gould's Turkey
170.75-174.00 (172.85)
134.50-138.50 (136.80)
Table 4.1: Ranges of means of greatest lengths of tarsometarsi by breed and
sex. Data adapted from McKusick (198654). Note only one figure is
provided for the Small Indian Domestic as only one population was
measured.
As previously mentioned a greatest length of 132mrn was selected as the
dividing line between the sexes as this is the length of the male SID in
McKusick's (1986) illustration. It was demonstrated above that the distribution
of measurements in the sample correlate well with this division. All definite males
(with spurs) fall on the right side of the graph, indicating that the male population
occupies the mode with greater lengths. The mean greatest length of the female
tarsometatarsus in the sample is 123 rnm while the mean for males is 156 rnrn.
Both fall well within the range of means presented by McKusick (1986) for the
Large Indian Domestic turkey, the breed which she argues was dominant in the
Mesa Verde region.
Additional measurement data from Breitburg (1988) were examined to
determine how other turkey populations fit irito McKusick's scheme. Breitburg
analysed data from three prehistoric Anasazi sites in the Mesa Verde Region;
Long House, Mug House and MVS820, Mesa Verde (See Table 4.2).
Mean of Greatest
Mean of Greatest
Site
Long House
151.57 (10)
123.66 (20)
Mug House
153.05 (5)
123.43 (13)
MVS8320, Mesa Verde
150.82 (2)
124.03 (8)
(n) = sample size
Table 4.2: Means of Greatest Length of tarsi from sites in the Mesa Verde
Region. Adapted from Breitburg (1988:120-121).
Breitburg's data from the six samples presented above also fits into
McKusick's range of means (Table 4.1) for the Large Indian Domestic turkey.
Though the greatest lengths from the sample in this study and others.within the
Mesa Verde region (Breitburg 1988) fit within the range for the LID (McKusick
1986), the differentiation of the turkey population into the proposed subspecies is
questioned. Means of greatest length measurements of tarsometatarsi taken by
Breitburg from prehistoric turkey populations breeds, resulted in a range of
different lengths depending on the degree of mixing and the subspecies mixed.
Identification of potential breeds by using osteological measurements would be
virtually impossible in this case. Instead, following Breitburg (1988) and Senior
and Pierce (1989) it is suggested that variation may be the result of environmental
factors or isolation rather than genetic differentiation. See Chapter V for further
discussion and conclusions.
Contextual Evidence
The remaining evidence includes non-osseous data, which have the
potential to provide information regarding the wildness or domesticity of turkeys.
Applicable archaeological evidence was discussed in Chapter 111. Briefly this
includes the presence of a) eggshell, b) gizzard stones, c) accumulations of turkey
droppings, d) birds of all ages and e) turkey pens or retaining structures. The site
reports from the Mesa Verde region and the Sand Canyon Locality were
examined for the presence of these items and the findings are reported below.
1)Eggshell. Turkey eggshell has been reported from sites in the Mesa
Verde region as early as Pueblo I in Mancos Canyon (Emslie 1977). It was also
prolific in the Pueblo I1 excavations from the Hovenweep Laterals Project
(Bertram 1991, Moms 1991), the South Canal sites (Kuckelman and Morris 1988)
and Gnatsville (Kent 1991). Changes in the quantity of eggshell from the Laterals
Project is directly correlated with the frequency of turkey bone in the assemblage
(Bertram 1991). Reports of large quantities of shell also come from the Mesa
Verde Pueblo I11 sites of Long House (McKusick 1980b), Mug House (Rohn
1971), and others in Johnson Canyon (Nickens 1981). In sum, eggshell appears to
be a common item recovered at Pueblo period sites in the region, though it was
not found at all sites, such as those excavated by the Dolores Archaeological
Program (Neusius 1986) and others with early dates.
Large quantities of eggshell were recovered from all sites from the Sand
Canyon Locality sample with the exception of 5MT1690 which had a
particularly small bone assemblage. Even the earliest excavated site 5MT3868
(Duckfoot) exhibited notable quantities of eggshell, though its turkey assemblage
was substantially smaller than all others. The proportion of turkey eggshell to
turkey bone was determined for each site within the Sand Canyon Community
sample (Table 4.3). Interestingly, the Duckfoot Site (5MT3868), which dates to
Pueblo I exhibited the highest eggshell to bone ratio (1.6 fragments of eggshell
per bone) with the exception of Mad Dog Tower (5MT181), which had an
extremely small sample size (n=3). Perhaps this is due to the minute quantity of
turkey bone in an otherwise large faunal assemblage, and/or high fragmentation
of a few eggs. Twenty-nine eggshell pieces were recovered and each of these
had lengths of less than 2 cm. It is possible that together these fragments
represent only one egg. The other sites which date to Pueblo I1 and Pueblo 111
contexts had lower ratios with an average ratio of .84 eggshell fragments to
turkey bones.
-
Site
181
3936
3868
765
5152
1825
3918
262
11338
3967
3901
10246
3951
10459
10508
Total
Table 4.3: Ratio of eggshell to bone by site in the Sand Canyon Locality.
2) Gizzard Stones. At Pueblo I1 sites excavated during the Hovenweep
Laterals Project rounded, pock-marked debitage flakes were interpreted as turkey
gizzard stones (Bertram 1991). They were also noted in late Pueblo I1 and early
Pueblo I11 contexts at the Mustoe site (Gould 1982) and at Mug House (Rohn
1971). Gizzard stones from the latter site were mainly eroded debitage and were
found in concentrated numbers in Room 46A, which has been interpreted as a
turkey pen. They were also distributed in random scatters throughout the site
(Rohn 1971).
Gizzard stones recovered from the sites in the Sand Canyon Locality
exhibited a pattern similar to eggshell. They were present in every site in the
sample, with the exception of Cougar Cub Alcove (5MT1690) for which there
was no data available. They were also surprisingly abundant at the Pueblo I
period Duckfoot Site (5MT3868) in comparison to the low proportion of turkey
bone. Exact numbers of gizzard stones from each site were not recorded, though
the quantity of provenience designation and field specimen numbers listed
suggest that they were common (there is at least one stone for each provenience
number).
3) Droppings. Scattered droppings have been found at Pueblo I and
Pueblo I1 sites in Mancos Canyon, and in Pueblo 111deposits at Long House, Lion
House, Hoy House and Mug House (Emslie 1977, McKusick 1980b, Nickens
1981, Rohn 1977). The distribution of these coprolites indicate that the turkeys
were wandering about the site while foraging for food. This is also suggested by
the presence of insects in the feces at Site 1676 on Wetherill Mesa (Cattanach
1980). Insects are an important component in the diets of wild turkeys (Schorger
1966) and it follows that birds in captivity would consume a similar diet if given
the freedom to forage.
The sites in the Sand Canyon Locality do not provide clear evidence for
the presence of turkey droppings. This may be a result of poor preservation
conditions, caused partially by exposure as the site is located in a fairly open
environment. In Structure 1008 (the biwalled, D-shaped structure) at Sand
Canyon Pueblo (5MT765) "a thin layer of powdery, yellow-ochre-colored
deposit, perhaps the remains of decomposed organic materials" (Bradley 1992:
89) was identified. A fairly large quantity of turkey gizzard stones were
associated with this layer. This description is similar to those given for
accumulations of turkey dung in other reports (Breitburg 1988, Lang and Harris
1984). Bradley however, makes no further interpretation about the layer than to
suggest that it contains organic material. It is possible that this room may have
been inhabited by turkeys for a short time following its initial occupation by
humans prior to the abandonment of the site.
4) Population Structure. Sub-adult birds have been reported at three
sites dating to the Pueblo periods. In Mancos Canyon young juveniles less than
four weeks old were found at Pueblo I sites (Emslie 1977). As well, numerous
immature turkey bones were found in contexts which postdate AD 900, such as
the immature and juvenile turkeys recorded at Big Juniper House, a late Pueblo I1
and early Pueblo I11 habitation (Swannack 1969). Birds of all ages are reported
from the Pueblo 111Johnson Canyon sites (Nickens 1981). Unfortunately, the
demographics of turkey populations were not reported from other sites.
Elements within the Sand Canyon Locality sample which displayed intact
articular surfaces were aged according to the methods described in Chapter I. A
total of 67% of the elements were aged and the resulting population structure is
depicted in Table 4.4. The turkey assemblages from most sites in the Sand
Canyon Locality had adult populations which made up over 90% of their totals.
The percentages of adult elements ranged between 86 and 100% of the aged
specimens. Only sites with sample sizes less than 15 had 100% adult populations,
and may be attributed to inadequate sample size.
High adult populations are expected in flocks raised for either meat or
feathers, since optimal products of both are produced by adults birds. For
example, populations raised for meat are expected to be culled when the birds
reach maximum size to take full advantage of the highest yield of meat. A small
number of sub-adults are also expected in the death assemblage as a result of
natural deaths from disease or chills. This number is expected to be lower than in
natural populations, where mortality is high (Schorger 1966) since birds in
captivity are protected by humans. Subadult bones may also be
underrepresented as they are more subject to taphonomic processes due to their
fragility. The majority of the sites in the Sand Canyon Locality are 'open air' sites
increasing their susceptibility to destruction. Discounting preservation bias the
above distribution is suggestive of a domesticated population, though the
possibility of a hunted wild population can not be ignored. If turkeys were
hunted it can also be expected that adults would be selected for their large size
and therefore adult birds would also be chosen.
Site
5MT10246
5MT10459
5MT10508
5MT11338
5MT1690
5MT181
5MT1825
5MT262
5MT3868
5MT3901
5MT3918
5MT3930
5MT3936
5MT3951
5MT3967
5MT5152
5MT765
Total
Table 4.4: Age structure of the turkey population in the Sand Canyon
Locality by site.
5) Pens. Many Pueblo I11 sites on both Wetherill Mesa and in Johnson
98
Canyon on the Mesa Verde provide architectural evidence for turkey pens (Rohn
1971, Swannack 1969). A deposit of droppings .6 to 2 metres deep and 13 by 40
metres in length and width was excavated alongside the structures at Long
House (Schorger 1966). An accumulation of this magnitude could only be the
result of the long-term residence of a fairly large group of turkeys. Site
5MTUMR2614 in Johnson Canyon also provides clear evidence of a pen in the
form of an unroofed enclosure which contained a deep layer of turkey dung
(Nickens 1981). A third pen existed at Mug House in Room 46A, where a thick
layer of compressed dung was found to be mixed with turkey feathers and
gizzard stones (Rohn 1977).
No evidence, for turkey pens, other than the thin powdery layer of organic
material in Structure 1008 at Sand Canyon Pueblo (5MT765 ) as described earlier,
was apparent in the Sand Canyon Locality. It is possible that further excavation
at Sand Canyon Pueblo may reveal pens or retaining structures, but though a
variety of different areas and types of structures have been sampled less than
10% of the site had been excavated by the end of the 1989 field season (Bradley
1992).
The evidence provided above will be discussed in the following chapter.
The conclusions will affect subsequent interpretations regarding the turkey's
function and its potential for intensification. In the next section, data which may
potentially reveal how the turkey functioned in Anasazi society is presented.
The Turkey's Function in Anasazi Society
As reviewed in Chapter 11, there has been much discrepancy over the
turkey's role in Anasazi society. Many debates have been waged to determine
whether the birds were raised for food or feathers. Researchers advocating the
importance of feathers discount the use of meat at some sites and emphasise the
ritual and utilitarian role of feathers and/or eggs in ceremonies and as offerings
(Akins 1986, Lange 1950). The argument focusing on the importance of meat,
does not ignore the importance of feathers or other turkey byproducts but
suggests that they played a secondary role to subsistence. It also stresses that
turkeys were initially raised as a feather source, though this changed as
production intensified and meat became the primary resource (Breitburg 1988,
Hargrave 1965,1970, Lang and Harris 1984, McKusick 1980a, 1986, Windes
1987). Evidence for both feather and food utilisation will be presented from sites
in the Mesa Verde region and the Sand Canyon Locality.
Evidence for Feather Utilisation
The researchers who advocate that the domesticated turkey's role in
southwestern society was to provide a feather source, support a dual use for this
commodity. It is argued that feathers served both as a raw material for
manufacturing utilitarian objects and as a valued component in ritual and
ceremonial events. Its role as each is considered below.
1)The Mesa Verde Region
a) Utilitarian Function. Turkey feather utilisation had begun on the
Colorado Plateau by Basketmaker I1 when the turkey first appeared in the
regional archaeological record. Evidence for textiles manufactured from feathers
exist at sites dated as early as Basketmaker 11 near Durango, Colorado and
Basketmaker I11 at present day Mesa Verde National Park (Moms 1939, Rohn
1971). Due to excellent preservation conditions feather artifacts survived at the
Mesa Verde sites. There are no feathers reported from other sites in the study area
regardless of time period. This is probably attributable to poor preservation rather
than the absence of feather items in other regional sites. Reports from the Mustoe
site and Mancos Canyon refer to the lack of feather artifacts in their assemblages,
but both cite preservation as the cause (Emslie 1977, Gould 1982).
Though feather artifacts have been recovered from Basketmaker sites the
majority were retrieved from those dating to the Pueblo .periods. Feather artifacts
have been recorded at Long House, Mug House and Step House on the Mesa
Verde (McKusick 1980b, Rohn 1977), and at Lion House and Hoy House which
are located in Johnson Canyon to Mesa Verde's south (Nickens 1981).
Fortunately, these artifacts have retained their original form thanks to exceptional
preservation.
The Anasazi frequently utilised turkey feathers in the manufacture of
cordage, which was created by twisting vegetal fibres (i.e. yucca) with turkey
down or flight feathers (McKusick 1980b, 1986, Moms 1954, Rohn 1971).
Subsequently, it was woven into items such as blankets and robes. Feather socks
made from knotless netted cordage, interwoven with turkey down were
recovered from Long House (Cattanach 1980). Turkey feathers also served as
fletching for arrows. McKusick (l980b: 393) noted that an arrow from Long
House was "fletched with sections of turkey vane supported by the split rachis
which extended beyond the vane at each end so that they might be bound to the
shaft with sinew". The transition from the spear and atlatl to the bow and arrow
as the primary weapon occurred during Basketmaker I11 and corresponds to the
adoption of turkeys by the Anasazi (Cordell 1984). By keeping turkeys captive
the Anasazi would have had a reliable feather source available for fletching
arrows. Mug House and Long House have each yielded isolated finds of
corncobs which have turkey feathers inserted into their base (Cattanach 1980,
Rohn 1971). These have been interpreted as potential shuttlecocks as the Hopi
currently manufacture objects of a similar description which are used to play
games, though the method is not explained (Nickens 1981).
b) Ritual function. The presence of articulated turkey burials in the
archaeological record imply that the turkey had ritual significance and was not
eaten. Alternately, skeletons are expected to be dispersed in the archaeological
record following meat consumption as a result of processing methods (Hargrave
1965, Senior and Pierce 1989). In the Mesa Verde region turkey burials have
been recovered from contexts dating as early as Basketmaker I11 (Morris 1991,
Schorger 1966). Most were fully articulated and no evidence for food use was
reported.
Two turkey burials from the Knobby Knee site have been dated to the
Basketmaker I11 period, though this date was disputed by the principal
investigator of the site and the faunal analyst who advocated a Pueblo I11 date
(Moms 1991, Bertram 1991). The primary argument made against the early date,
was based on the premise that Basketmaker I11 turkey burials were highly
unusual (Bertram 1991). This, however is disputable as they have been recovered
from other parts of the region. A Basketmaker I11 burial was excavated from the
Twin Trees Site at Mesa Verde and dates to A.D. 800 (Schorger 1966). Turkey
burials were also mentioned in reports from the excavations at Badger House
(Hayes and Lancaster 1975). Considering the paucity of Basketmaker I11 sites
with available faunal data and the low frequencies of total turkey bone in the
study area at this time, turkey burials are relatively common in the region.
Turkey burials have also been reported at Pueblo I1 and I11 sites in the
region. These burials appear to have ritual significance due to the location of
their interment. Most skeletons were found in association with structures
assumed to have ritual significance (i.e. kivas) or human burials. In Mancos
Canyon, Emslie (1977) excavated the dismembered skeletons of two adult hens
which were scattered over the benches of a Late Pueblo I1 kiva. Other turkey
burials recovered from kivas include a young hen excavated from beneath the
floor of Kiva D at Mug House (Rohn 1971). In Mancos Canyon, a human burial
in the kiva fill was associated with a complete turkey egg and human Burial 14
was interred alongside a juvenile turkey less than four weeks old (Emslie 1977).
In addition, burial 30 at Long House was recovered in direct association with an
adult turkey hen though no other inclusions were recovered from the grave
(Cattanach 1980). The context of these data suggests that the turkeys were
purposely placed in these locations for ritual purposes, though the reasoning
behind these actions cannot be discerned. In addition, ethnographic evidence
exists for the ritual burial of intact turkey skeletons by the Zuni whose offerings
of turkey carcasses often result in burial (Gnabasik 1981).
Other data which suggest that turkeys were attributed ritual value
involves the utilisation of feathers in ceremonial events. Several human burials in
the Mesa Verde area were wrapped in turkey feather blankets prior to interment
(Nickens 1981, Rohn 1977). Data recording the use of turkey feathers in
ceremonies as isolated items, prayer sticks or in association with regalia is also
documented in both historical and ethnographic reports concerning the Anasazi
and their descendants (see Chapter 11). Cattanach (1980: 358) refers to the
presence of turkey feather 'aspergills' which he describes as a group of feathers
which are arranged in rows and sewn together with yucca or split feather vane
twine. Though he does not mention their function he includes them in a section
describing perishable ceremonial items. In addition twigs wrapped with feathers
have been interpreted to have ritual function as well, possibly as offerings.
Unfortunately, due to their fragility, few feather artifacts have been recovered
from archaeological contexts outside of Mesa Verde National Park.
2) The Sand Canyon Locality
Unfortunately the conditions of preservation at the sites in the Sand
Canyon Locality were not conducive for the protection of fragile remains such as
feathers. There is no evidence for feathers at any of the sites within the sample.
Negative evidence however, should not be considered proof of non-existence.
Preservation conditions at sites in the Sand Canyon Locality have been examined
by Driver et al. (1995) who analysed variation in the quality of preservation
between sites by examining aspects of the faunal assemblages. It was concluded
that the sites were not differentially affected by preservation following the
analysis of six indices which measured the degree of preservation in relative
terms.
One of these indices (proximal:distal ends of long bones) is also an
effective indicator of the severity of the affects of preservation conditions on the
faunal assemblages. Long bones often exhibit differential preservation between
their distal and proximal ends due to variation in shape and density (Brain 1967).
Driver et al. (1995) chose the combined distal ends versus the combined proximal
ends of both the humerus and tibia of Silvilagus sp. as an indicator of
preservation. Sylvilagus sp. was chosen as it is the most common mammal in the
majority of sampled sites. In a site with optimal preservation it is expected that
there will be an equal number of distal and proximal ends of humeri and tibiae.
Past studies, however have indicated that when affected by taphonomic
processes the distal ends of both elements exhibit the best preservation (Brain
1967). The ratio of distal to proximal ends is therefore expected to increase as the
quality of preservation decreases. Six of the largest sites in the Sand Canyon
Locality were selected for analysis as they have large enough sample sizes to
produce useful data. The results, reproduced below (Table 4.5) suggest that
preservation is much less than optimal. Distal ends of humeri and tibiae
outnumber the proximal ends substantially in each case. In light of this evidence
it may be concluded that it is unlikely that remains as fragile as feathers could
survive to the present time.
Proximal
site
Saddlehorn Hamlet (5MT262)
14:O
Castle Rock Pueblo (5MT1825)
8: 1
Lillian's Site (5MT3936)
Catherine's Site (5MT3967)
Kenzie Dawn Hamlet (5MT5152)
Stanton's Site (5MT10508)
1.8:1
6:l
2.5: 1
5: 1
Table 4.5: Indices of preservation, the ratio of the distal ends of Sylvilagus sp.
tibiae and humeri to their proximal ends at sites in the Sand Canyon
Locality. Adapted from Driver et al. (1995).
Evidence for turkey burials is equally scant in the Sand Canyon Locality.
Perhaps, no burials existed or the area sampled by excavation was unusually
sparse in articulated interments.
Evidence for Food Utilisation
The following discussion focuses on the recovery of evidence indicating
the utilisation of turkeys as a subsistence item. Bone artifacts are also discussed
as they are likely byproducts of food use, since bone becomes available as a raw
material after the flesh is removed.
As previously mentioned, indicators in the faunal record which imply
utilisation of turkeys for food include: a) cutmarks; b) bone mutilation for the
extraction of cancellous areas; c) disarticulated skeletons and dispersed bone; d)
localized burning; e) the dissociation of tibiotarsi and tarsometatarsi with ossified
tendons and f) age and sex profiles with predominantly young adult males and
adult females. Evidence from the Mesa Verde Region and Sand Canyon Locality
are presented below.
1) The Mesa Verde Region.
A limited number of Basketmaker sites were examined within the Mesa
Verde Region. Each produced small assemblages of turkey bones in relation to
other species in the sample. Because the sample is small it is not surprising that
evidence for food use was not detected in Basketmaker contexts in this study. It
is possible that turkeys were not being used as a food source at this time or that
the sample is too small to detect the expected evidence. In either case turkeys do
not appear to be an economically valuable meat source. The remaining discussion
focuses on the Pueblo periods.
a) Cutmarks. Strong evidence for food utilisation appears during Pueblo I
in the Mesa Verde Region. Cutmarks, though rare, are found on distal tibiotarsi at
sites in Mancos Canyon (Emslie 1977). It is probable that these resulted from
cutting the tendons at the junction of the tibiotarsus and tarsometatarsus which
enables the removal of the lower leg and foot which contain no meat (Lang and
Harris 1984). Cuts are found most frequently on bones during the Pueblo I11
period at Lion House, Hoy House (Nickens 1981), Long House (McKusick
1980b), Mug House (Rohn 1971) and other sites on Wetherill Mesa (Hargrave
1970). Once again, the distal tibiotarsus displays cutmarks the most frequently.
Unfortunately, details of butchery (i.e. location of cuts) are not recorded in most
reports.
b) Breakage and Cancellous bone extraction. The breakage of
cancellous areas of turkey bone was not mentioned in any of the reports
examined, with the exception of the Pueblo I11 sites on the Mesa Verde. It is
probable that either this data was not considered for most reports or the
exploitation of cancellous bone did not begin until Pueblo I11 when turkey
utilisation intensified. Elements which exhibited frequent cancellous damage
include the proximal tibiotarsus, the proximal and distal humerus and the anterior
sternum (McKusick 1980b, Rohn 1971, Hargrave 1970). These areas were
undoubtedly selected for their large quantities of spongy bone which could be
accessed for its high fat content and nutritional value.
c) Disarticulated and dispersed bone. The turkey bones at all sites, with
the exception of the articulated burials previously mentioned, were disarticulated
and dispersed. McKusick (l986b) notes that this pattern was not apparent at
Long House until after A.D. 900. Previously, a high proportion of the few turkey
bones recovered from sites in the Mesa Verde region belonged to articulated
burials. This date is therefore frequently cited as the initiation of meat use on
Wetherill Mesa (McKusick 1986). Turkey bones from the Dolores sites were also
disarticulated prior to burial, though other indicators of food use were scarce
(Neusius 1986).
d) Burned Bone. Charred bone is reported from the Pueblo I11 sites in
Johnson Canyon (Nickens 1981) and at Mug House (Rohn 1971). Data
regarding the specifics of the burning is not mentioned, so the intensity and
extent is not known. Because examined only superficially in the regional reports,
this data cannot be included in the present study. Bertram's (1991) analysis of the
Hovenweep Laterals fauna is an exception. He states that turkey bones which
were burned and "probably cooked" appeared in all contexts which contained
"richturkey assemblages" (1991: 1006).
e) Ossified Tendons. Reports from sites on Wetherill Mesa mention that
tibiotarsi and tarsometatarsi were not found in association with ossified tendons
during excavation (Hargrave 1977, Rohn 1971). This implies that the bones were
discarded following removal of the flesh when the bony tendons were still
imbedded in the leg muscles. If the legs decayed while encased in flesh, the
tendons which form in the turkey's lower leg, would remain in association with
the applicable leg bone, unless disturbed by taphonomic processes.
f)
Population Structure. Information relating to the population structure
in the regional reports was not examined due to insufficient reporting and lack of
compatibility between sites.
A final piece of evidence for the consumption of turkey in the Mesa Verde
region is the presence of a small turkey bone in a human coprolite found in
Johnson Canyon (Nickens 1981). It is probable that it was mistakenly consumed
in a meal containing turkey meat.
2) The Sand Canyon Locality
Much evidence for the utilisation of the turkey as a food source exists in
the Sand Canyon Locality. The earliest site, Duckfoot (5MT3868) which dates to
Pueblo I, has a small proportion of turkey bones. Of these only one is burned. No
other modifications were noted in the turkey assemblage. This may be a product
of the small quantity of turkey bones from this site or it may indicate that turkeys
were not used as a food source at this time. The remaining sites in the Sand
Canyon Locality date predominantly to the Pueblo I11 period and contain more
extensive evidence of food exploitation.
a) Cutmarks. Cutmarks were recorded during analysis regardless of their
association with other cultural modifications. All cutrnarks were illustrated for
future reference, to determine whether they were created as a result of processing
methods or tool making. In the following analysis all cutmarks which were
judged to be independent of artifact manufacture are considered. Artifacts which
were modified at one end and had cutmarks on the opposing end's articular
surface (i.e. tibiotarsi awls with proximal tips, often have independent cutmarks
on their distal condyles) are considered to have been created independently of
artifact manufacture for the purpose of this analysis as well. Turkey bones with
cutmarks were identified at all Pueblo I11 sites in the Sand Canyon Locality
sample with the exception of Mad Dog Tower (5MT181) and Cougar Cub
Alcove (5MT1690). These sites have turkey sample sizes of three and four
respectively and are dismissed on account of sample size.
-
Element
Cervical
Fibula
Foot Phalanx
Humerus
Patella
Terminal Foot Phalanx
Radius
Tarsometatarsus
Tibiotarsus
Ulna
Total
i
Number with % of Total Turkey
Cutmarks
Elements Cut
3%
4
1
2%
3
1%
8
5%
1
100%
2
3%
3
3%
10
3%
34
12%
3
3%
69
2%
Table 4.6: Distribution of cutmarks by element and the percentage of
each element with cuts.
Table 4.6 indicates the distribution of cutrnarks on turkey bone in the Sand
Canyon Locality by element and site. Of the total turkey bones in the sample 2%
displayed cutmarks. The elements which were cut the most frequently include
the tibiotarsus (12% of total tibiortarsi), the humerus (5% of total humeri) and the
tarsometatarsus (3% of total tarsi). Elements which were cut with less frequency
include the cervical vertebra, the foot phalanx the terminal foot phalanx, the ulna
and the radius. In addition, one fibula and one patella bore cutmarks.
A skeletal depiction of the turkey is presented in Figure 4.4 to indicate the
locations of commonly recorded cutmarks in the Sand Canyon Locality turkey
assemblage. The patterning in cutmark distribution may be interpreted by
-
Cervical Vertebrae
Humeral Shaft
4
Foot Phalanx jb
8at
DM Humerus
P-
'ce
DistalTamometatam~s
d e n u i n d Foot Phalanx
Figure 4.4: Skeletal depiction of Meleagris gallopavo indicating the locations
of common cutmarks on turkey elements in the Sand Canyon
Locality sample. Adapted with permission from Gilbert et al. (1985).
utilising the suggestions discussed in Chapter I1 from Lang and Harris (1984)
(also see Table 4.7 which depicts the regions on each element which were
frequently cut).
# of Turkey % of Total
Portion of Element
Cervical Vertebra
Proximal Humerus
Shaft of Humerus
Distal Humerus
Shaft of Ulna
Distal Ulnae
Shaft of Radius
Distal Radius
Shaft of Tibiotarsi
Distal Tibiotarsi
Shaft of Fibula
Patella
Proximal Tarsometatarsus
Shaft of Tarsometatarus
Distal Tarsometatarsus
Foot Phalanx
Terminal Foot Phalanx
Total
with Cuts Turkey Cuts
4
6%
1
1%
4
6%
3
4%
1
1%
2
3%
2
3%
1
1%
2
3%
32
46%
1
1%
1
1%
5
7%
2
3%
3
4%
3
4%
2
3%
69
100 %
Table 4.7: The location of cutmarks on turkey elements in the Sand
Canyon Locality.
The junction which exhibited the highest proportion of cuts falls between
the distal tibiotarsus and proximal tarsometatarus. Cuts in this area were probably
created when removing the turkey's lower leg which is covered in a scaly skin
and contains no meat. Cuts on proximal tibiotarsi, the patella which rests
between the femur and tibiotarsus and the fibula which articulates with the
proximal tibiotarsus are proposed to have resulted from the disarticulation of the
drumstick. Cutting the ligament at the junction of the femur and tibiotarsus could
potentially result in cutmarks on any of these elements. Cutmarks on the ulna
shaft may be produced during removal of the secondary feathers. This may be
indicative of both feather and meat utilisation. It is proposed that cutmarks on
the cervical vertebrae were created by the disarticulation of the neck from the
body. This hypothesis is supported by the presence of cuts on cervical vertebrae
and their absence on all other vertebrae. Cutmarks are discussed further in
Chapter V.
b) Breakage and cancellous bone extraction. During analysis each
specimen was assigned a code which indicates which portion of the element is
represented. Long bones, were given individual codes for complete bones,
fragments with complete or partial proximal ends, fragments with complete or
partial distal ends, articular ends and shaft fragments. The codes for the humerus
and tibiotarsus, which have large spongy areas on their proximal ends were
assessed to determine which parts were frequently destroyed. Data for the radius
was examined as a control because both ends possess little cancellous bone. The
proximal and distal ends are also similar in size, shape and density (See Table 4.8)
Part Represented
Complete
Proximal End Intact
Partial proximal end intact
Distal End Intact
Partial Distal End Intact
Shaft Fragment
Total
Humerus Tibiotarsus
F
%
F
%
5
3%
1 0%
11 7%
2
1%
22 15%
7
3%
11 7%
84 30%
11 7%
52 19%
91 61% 133 47%
150
281
I
Radius
F
%
5
4%
13 11%
5
4%
15 12%
7
6%
77 63%
122
Table 4.8: Part representation of humeri, tibiotarsi and radii from Pueblo I11
contexts in the Sand Canyon Locality.
These data must be interpreted with caution because although spongy
areas are frequently broken to access their interiors they are also more susceptible
to taphonomic processes. Spongy bone has more potential to be damaged
postdepositionally due to its delicate nature. Data for the control element (radius)
does not show differential preservation between the proximal and distal ends.
Approximately the same numbers of intact proximal (13) and distal (15) ends were
recovered. Interestingly, the same pattern was apparent for the humerus. There
were 11 of both intact proximal and distal ends. The tibiotarsus however, showed
dramatic differentiation in the representation of proximal and distal ends. Only
two proximal tibiotarsi were intact (1% of total), while 84 (30% of total) distal
ends were intact. This is the expected distribution for an element which had its
spongy area mutilated to extract additional nutrients. This distribution is also
expected for a bone which has one dense and one spongy end. Still, the high
preservation of the proximal humerus implies that the patterning can not be
attributed to preservation alone.
c) Skeletal disarticulation and dispersed elements. As previously
mentioned, there were no articulated turkey burials recovered from Pueblo I11
sites in the Sand Canyon Locality. All specimens in the sample were .
disarticulated and recovered from dispersed contexts. It is likely that taphonomic
forces played a role in creating this pattern of disposal, yet its pervasiveness
suggests that it can be attributed to the disarticulation of skeletons prior to
deposition. Disarticulation often results from the processing and consumption of
meat and dispersal is a common means for the disposal of refuse.
d) Burning. Though many bones in the Sand Canyon Locality
assemblage exhibit a form of burning, they are not considered indicative of food
use unless the burning is localised. The interpretation that bone which is entirely
burned results from cooking is avoided for fear that bones which were burned by
other means (i.e. disposal in hearths or rooms which were later burned) will distort
the assemblage. Localised burning provides the most reliable evidence for
cooking and is thus used as the minimum figure for burned bone resulting from
cooking. Undoubtedly, eliminating the majority of burned bones as indicators of
cooking would result in the under representation of cooked bone in the
assemblage. Therefore figures for the total burned bone are also presented. The
actual number of bones considered to be indicative of cooking is expected to fall
somewhere between these two figures. A total of 40 (1% of the total assemblage)
specimens in the Pueblo 111, Sand Canyon sample expressed localised burning,
whereas 269 (9%) exhibited burning of any type (burned black, brown, white or
localised). As a final note, it is probable that turkeys were also cooked by boiling
which may not leave any indicators on bone.
e) Ossified Tendons in Situ. The context of ossified tendons at the time
of excavation was impossible to assess since analysis took place a few years later
and this information was not recorded. As a result the contextual placement and
the associations of each specimen are unknown. A total of 59 ossified tendons
were identified in the faunal assemblage, indicating that preservation was
conducive to their survival.
f)
Age and Sex Profiles. In this study sub-adult birds (with the exception
of some immature males) were not sexed due to complications created by sexual
dimorphism, thus a comprehensive profile of the population structure could not
be presented. As an alternative, age and sex charts have been produced
separately to provide some insight into the structure of the local turkey
population. The age profile for Sand Canyon Locality turkeys was presented in
a previous section (Table 4.4). A brief overview is presented below.
A high proportion of specimens in the sample were aged during analysis
(67% of total sample). Of these, adults composed the majority of the individuals,
representing 94% of the aged sample, This average is also representative of the
sites on an individual basis. The percentage of adults ranged between 91 and
100% of the aged population when sites were examined as distinct entities. The
four sites which have 100% adult populations each have sample size of less than
15, thus the high proportions are probably a result of small sample size. Subadults were uncommon and increased in abundance with increasing age. Five
percent of the aged sample were immature, 0.6% were medium juveniles and 0.2%
were small juveniles. It should be noted that bones from subadults are more
susceptible to destruction by taphonomic processes due to their fragility.
Fragility decreases with age, and as a result young individuals may be
underrepresented in the sample.
Twenty-eight percent of the total specimens in the Sand Canyon Locality
sample were sexed (see Table 4.9). The resulting sexed population displayed a
relatively even distribution of male and female specimens. The females were
represented by 44% of the sexed adult population while 56% were male.
Site
5MT181
5MT262
5MT765
5MT1690
5MT1825
5MT3868
5MT3901
5MT3918
5MT3930
5MT3936
5MT3951
5MT3967
5MT5152
5MT10246
5MT10459
5MT10508
5MT11338
Total
Table 4.9: Sex structure of the turkey population by site in the Sand Canyon
Locality.
Evidence for Bone Utilisation
1) The Mesa Verde Region
Little evidence exists for the modification of turkey bone during
Basketmaker 111. Utilitarian artifacts were primarily constructed from the more
robust large mammal and lagomorph bones. The few turkey bone artifacts that
have been recorded are primarily hollow tubes, cut most frequently from the shaft
of the ulna and radius. It is probable that these served a decorative function as
evidence of light polishing has been found in the interior of some tubes. This may
be a result of stringing the tubes on a piece of rope as beads (Bertram 1991).
Turkey bone artifacts increased in frequency during the Pueblo periods.
Emslie (1977) reports that they were often recovered from Pueblo I and I1 sites in
Mancos Canyon. It appears that as turkeys became more common at
archaeological sites, associated increases in turkey artifacts resulted. This is
further illustrated by a shift in the species utilised for bone tool production. Prior
to Pueblo I1 the majority of utilitarian artifacts were manufactured from mammal
bone, predominantly lagomorphs and artiodactyls. By A.D. 900, however there
was a shift to the predominant use of turkey bone as a raw material for these
artifact types (Cattanach 1980, Swannack 1969). Prior to this only two turkey
bone tools were reported from Wetherill Mesa (McKusick 1980b).
This pattern can also be detected in the data collected from other sites in
the region. At the Escalante site which dates to early Pueblo I1 when the turkey
was beginning to gain importance in faunal assemblages, turkey bone tools were
only the third most important material for bone implement construction (Hallasi
1979). The Hovenweep Laterals sites had virtually no turkey bone tools during
Basketmaker 111and few by Pueblo 11, yet the Pueblo I11 assemblages were
"dominated overwhelmingly by (turkey) bone tools and beads" (Bertram 1991:
1104). At other sites with Pueblo I11 components such as Knobby Knee Stockade
(Kuckelman and Moms 1988), Lowry Ruin (Martin 1939) and Mug House (Rohn
197I), turkey artifacts also figured prominently. Artifact types frequently
represented by turkey bone in the regional sites included needles, awls, awls with
grooves, tubes, beads, scapula tools, scrapers and whistles (Rohn 1971, Martin
1939, Bertram 1991, Swannack 1969).
2) The Sand Canyon Locality
During analysis of the Sand Canyon Locality fauna, artifacts were
recorded and illustrated. The majority of artifacts were classified according to
Schwab and Bradley (1987), though a few additions and specifications have
been made to allow further distinction between types in this study. The type
categories utilised here include awls, awls with grooves, tubes, tubes with holes,
beads, scapula tools and other modified bone. Other modified bone refers to
miscellaneous specimens, including abraded or polished bone, discarded ends, and
tools of unknown function.
Only one artifact was recovered from Pueblo I deposits in the Sand
Canyon Locality. The artifact is a tibiotarsus classified as other modified bone.
The tibiotarsus has ground distal condyles but displays no evidence for function.
The proximal end of the specimen was broken during excavation, thus it is
possible that an awl tip may have been removed though it was not recovered.
The distal condyles and trochlea of awls from tibiotarsi and tarsometatarsi are
frequently cut or ground in the Pueblo I11 assemblage, increasing the likelihood of
this conjecture. If sample size is considered the lone artifact appears more
significant as it represents 6% of the turkey bone assemblage, which is
comparable to proportions of turkey artifacts in later assemblages. The turkey
artifact also represents 2% of the total artifact assemblage from Duckfoot, which
is notable but not as high as in other assemblages.
% of Total
Artifact Type
Awls
Awls with Grooves
Beads
Discarded Ends
Ground
Polished
Scapula Tools
Tubes
Tubes with Holes
Unknown Function
Total
Frequency Turkey Artifacts
132
56%
9
4%
1
0.4%
9
4%
7
3%
11
5%
14
6%
42
18%
1%
3
7
3%
238
Table 4.10: Artifacts divided by type from Pueblo I11 contexts in the Sand
Canyon Locality.
There is an abundance of turkey artifacts in Pueblo I11 assemblages from
the Sand Canyon Locality. A total of 238 were recovered from the 16 sites
combined, composing 8% of the total turkey assemblage. Their distribution by
type ( Table 4.10) and element (Table 4.11) are depicted here.
i
% of Element
% of Turkey Modified into
Element
Rib
Sternum
Scapula
Humerus
Ulna
Radius
Carpometacarpus
Femur
Tibiotarsus
Tarsometatarsus I
Total
I
Artifacts
1
238
Artifacts
6%
8%
Table 4.11: Artifacts divided by element from Pueblo I11 contexts in the Sand
Canyon Locality.
The primary tool type identified is the awl (56% of tools) which was
manufactured from a variety of long bones including the radius, ulna,
carpometacarpus, tibiotarsus and tarsometatarsus, though the latter two
dominated. In the turkey these elements generally have narrow shafts and more
robust cortical bone than other elements. This provides the necessary support for
the weaving and puncturing activities for which the awls were intended. Awls
with grooves have been grouped separately to emphasise the presence of the
groove which has been attributed to the friction of fibres during weaving
(Bullock 1992). There are nine awls with grooves in the assemblage (4% of total
artifacts), which when combined with the original awl category brings the awl
total to 59% of the total turkey artifacts.
Beads and tubes are separated arbitrarily in the Crow Canyon
Archaeological Center guidelines (Scwab and Bradley 1987). No quantitative
boundary was provided for the division but it has been estimated to fall at
approximately three centimetres (Bullock 1992). Beads are less than three
centimetres in length while tubes are larger. When the data were collected for
this study, the boundary between the two was set at a shorter length. Beads are
deemed to be less than approximately 1.5 centimetres in length while tubes are
longer. Both beads and tubes were manufactured from long bone shafts which
were cut at both ends, usually by the groove and snap method. They are
considered to have similar functions, predominantly as decorative objects such as
jewelry. Possibly they were strung and worn as necklaces. Most tubes had
brightly polished exteriors, though few revealed interior polish which would
indicate friction from stringing. Tubes compose 18% of the total turkey artifacts
and were manufactured largely from humerus, radius and ulna shafts, though the
odd tibiotarsus and tarsometatarsus were also utilised. Three tubes with holes
(1% of total artifacts) were also identified in the sample and once again were
grouped separately to emphasise the presence of their holes which serve an
unknown function. One source (Schorger 1966) postulates their function as
whistles which were used as wild turkey callers. Their inclusion in the bone tube
category brings its total to 19% of the total artifacts. The lone bead in the sample
(0.4% of total artifacts) was cut from a radius shaft.
Artifacts manufactured from scapulae compose 6% of the artifact
assemblage. The scapulae are predominantly intact proximally, but the distal
portion of the blade has been removed by an angled cut. The function of the
scapulae artifacts is unknown and a literature search revealed that their presence
was only referenced in two reports (Bertram 1991, Bullock 1992), one which
deals with much of the same material discussed here. It has been suggested that
these tools were utilised as scrapers for soft vegetal material or pottery (Bertram
1991), but the lack of any indication of usewear on the proposed scraping surface
has resulted in the rejection of this hypothesis (Bullock 1992). It is also possible
that the diagonal cuts may be a byproduct of butchering, possibly resulting from
the removal of the wing. Still, there is no evidence for cutmarks on any of these
artifacts, and because the scapula does not articulate with any bones at its distal
end, it is seemingly pointless to remove its lower end to aid in disarticulation.
Potentially residue analysis could reveal additional information which may clarify
the function of the scapulae tools. Bullock (1992) refers to their presence as
anomalous as they have rarely been found in prehistoric Anasazi sites outside of
the region or prior to Pueblo 111. She suggests that they may have utility as
markers of late prehistoric contexts. Possibly artifacts manufactured from
scapulae were created only in southwestern Colorado and did not diffuse
elsewhere.
The final artifact category is other modified bone. This group is most
frequently represented by polished elements which are not otherwise modified.
There are 11 polished bones in the sample which account for 5% of the total
artifacts. The category 'elements with ground condyles' refers exclusively to
tibiotarsi and tarsometatarsi which have heavy abrasion on at least one of their
distal condyles or trochlea. The function of this modification is unknown. It is
possible that the elements may be the remnants of broken awls as some awls in
the assemblage display the same alteration on their distal ends. There are 7
artifacts with ground condyles, representing 3% of the turkey artifact assemblage.
Artifacts which have been identified as discarded ends or blanks from tube
manufacture compose 4% of the total artifacts. These generally take the form of
distal or proximal ends of wing long bones, though the occasional tibiotarsus and
tarsometatarsus display similar alterations. Each specimen has a straight cut on
the shaft. These often appear to be formed by groove and snap and are not
believed to serve a function except as debitage of bone tube manufacture.
Seven tools (3% of turkey artifacts) of unknown function which do not fit into
any of the above categories were also identified. Each of these were
manufactured from tarsometatarsi or tibiotarsi and are similar to awls with the
exception of their tips. The modified edge tends to be gently rounded and
polished yet relatively flat rather than pointed like an awl. The tips therefore
cannot be used to pierce as an awl can. Possibly they were utilised for weaving
in cases where sharp tips were not required.
A morphological and functional analysis of artifacts from six sites in the
Sand Canyon Locality (also included within the sample in this project) has been
performed by Bullock (1992). Her research brings to light several noteworthy
observations which relate to this research. Avian bone was the dominant raw
material selected for bone tool manufacture in all of her sampled sites, though the
dominance was not as strong at Sand Canyon Pueblo. Of these, the elements
modified most frequently are the tibiotarsus and tarsometatarsus. Awls are noted
as the most abundant artifact type followed by bone tubes and beads.
Intensity of Turkey Production: Temporal Change
Faunal reports from Anasazi sites in the Mesa Verde region were consulted
to examine change through time in turkey proportions. Data from the faunal
assemblages from sites in the Sand Canyon Locality sample are also included in
this regional sample. The sites in the sample were divided into time periods
according to chronological information within the site reports. The data are
grouped by time period and presented in Table 4.12.
There are numerous problems with the regional analysis. These result from
incompatibility amongst the data due to variables such as taphonornic factors,
excavation strategies, sample size, identification criteria and quantification
methods. There is no standardised method for faunal analysis in the study region,
thus each researcher utilised hisher own strategies. This has resulted in the
creation of data that can not be directly compared without creating numerous
errors and generalisations. These problems are recognised in this research and the
reader is urged to consider them when interpreting the following analysis. The
regional analysis is included only to provide a general interpretation of the
change in turkey populations throughout time in the Mesa Verde region.
The sampling strategy for the Mesa Verde Region was reviewed in
Chapter I. Although an attempt was made to select data quantified using NISP, at
times this was not available and MNI figures are recorded as an alternative (the
quantification strategy is indicated on Table 4.12). It is believed that it is possible
to identify general trends in the data by using proportions though quantification
strategies are incompatible. These trends however must be interpreted with
caution.
Site
Basketmaker m
%
NISP M N T - 7
Reference
A.D. 500-750
I
A.D. 600-655
A.D. 600-720
A.D. 685
Basketmaker 111
Basketmaker EI Total
Knobby Knee (5MT2525)
Dolores Modeling Period I
Shallow House (5MT8822)
Dos B o b s Hamlet (5MT8837)
5% Bertram (1991)
1% Neusisus (1986)
33% Kuckelman & Moms (1988
2% Kuckelman & Morris (1988
2%
5
4
1
1
103
372
3
65
11
543
99
6
4556
118
75
15
1133
Pueblo I
A.D. 750-900
A.D. 720-880
A.D. 780
A.D. 800-975
A.D. 800-975
A.D. 850-880
Pueblo I Total NISP
Pueblo I Total MNI
Dolores Modeling Periods II-IV 2% Neusius (1986)
Little Cahone House (5MT8838) 5% Kuckelman & Morris (1988
5~~2347
25% Emslie (1977)
5MT2559
40% Emslie (1977)
Duckfoot Site (5MT3868)
0% Walker (1989)
A.D. 1020-1075
A.D. 1020-1075
A.D. 1020-1075
A.D. 1020-1075
A.D. 1043-1075
A.D. 1050-1124
A.D. 1050-1150
A.D. 1058-1100
A.D. 1075-1125
Pueblo 11
Pueblo 11
Pueblo II Total NISP
Pueblo II Total MNI
'~indweedHouse (5MT8834)'
Chameleon House (5MT8836)
Casa Bisecada 15MT8829)
Norton House ( 5 ~ 8 8 3 9 )
Dripping Springs (5MT2527)
Escalante (5MT2149)
Dominguez Ruin
'~oundtreePueblo (5MT2544)
Wallace Ruin (5MT6969)
Hanson Pueblo (5MT3879)
Gnatsville
-
~
~
- - -
19
6
18
2%
28%
I
'
1
123
5807
90
25
4%'~uckelman& Morris (1988'
1
1
13% Kuckelman & Morris (1988:
2
50% Kuckelman & Morris (1988'
1% Kuckelman & Morris (1988'
1
3
10% Bertram (1991)
206
8% Hallasi (1979)
19% Reed (1979)
25%'~ertr&(1991)
106
15% Shelley (1993)
1300
83
16% Rood (1991)
20% Kent (1986)
24
12%
-- . .
29%1
2332
--
27
8
4
89
30
2615
26
422'
8890
535
122
5
- -
19833
112
-
1
321
297
1771
1
- - -
Pueblo JII
A.D. 1150-1300
A.D.
A.D.
A.D.
A.D.
A.D.
A.D.
A.D.
A.D.
1130-1150.1200-1220 Hov House (5MT2150)
1130-1150; 1200-1220 / ~ i o~io u s (e5 ~ ~ 2 1 5 6 )
l Mustoe Site
I
1150-1200
1180-1225
]G and G Hamlet (5MTll338)
1180-1240
IKenzie Dawn Hamlet (5MT51521
'
1193-1220
' ~ n o b Knee
b ~ (5MT2525)
1200-1275
Roundtree Pueblo (5MT2544)
1200-1300
MU^ HOUW ( 5 ~ ~ 1 2 2 8 )
/
39% Nickens (1981)
26%j~ickensi1981j
39%IGould (1982)
42%/Driverkt al. (1995)
33%1Driver et al. (1995)
70%'~ertram(1991) .
81% Bertram (1991)
54% Rohn (1971)
1
1
1
1
151
1521
330
336
1074
631
1
754
682
161
36
461
469
416
1997
Table 4.12: Percentage of turkey per site in the regional sample from the Mesa
Verde region. The percentage sign in the third column refers to the
percentage of turkeys and the n in column sever indicates the total
NISP when NISP values are recorded and the total MNI when MNI
values are recorded.
Table 4.12 continued: Percentage of turkey per site in the regional sample from
the Mesa Verde region. The percentage sign in the third column
refers to the percentage of turkeys and the n in column sever
indicates the total NISP when NISP values are recorded and the
total MNI when MNI values are recorded.
The total percentages for each time period were calculated only with data
from sites using NISP. MNI figures are not included in totals due to the
incompatibility of the data as discussed above. The totals were calculated by
combining the frequencies of turkey, lagomorphs and artiodactyls from the sites
which utilised NISP and performing the calculation for proportions as described
in Chapter I. The averages are included in an attempt to balance the range of
sample sizes for the various sites and to provide a broader overview of change
throughout the region, by eliminating local variation. The problem of
intensification can also be addressed more comprehensively by examining general
trends.
Evidence from the Mesa Verde Region
Evidence for turkey utilisation is rare in the Mesa Verde Region prior to
Basketmaker 111. Most remains dating to early time periods which have been
identified as Meleagris gallopavo have been discounted in recent years as
misidentifications (McKusick 1986). Currently, the oldest turkey remains from
Southwestern Colorado were recovered from Basketmaker I1 sites near present
day Durango in the form of feather blankets (Morris 1939). These sites, however
are outside of the study area. This does not necessarily indicate that turkeys were
inhabiting the area at the time. It is possible that feathers were being traded from
other regions for their utility in the manufacture of warm clothing. Alternatively,
the absence of earlier remains may be influenced by the paucity of archaeological
data from Basketmaker I1 and the Archaic Period in the region. Faunal data was
not available for examination from sites occupied prior to Basketmaker I11 and the
following discussion begins ca. A.D. 500.
a) Basketmaker 111. Reports from three sites and the Dolores
Archaeological Program were consulted for faunal data from the Basketmaker I11
period (See Table 4.12). Following their initial documentation, turkey remains
appear in Basketmaker I11 contexts in low percentages indicating that they
played a limited role in economic activities. They compose only 2% of the
Basketmaker I11 assemblage of major economic species. Lagomorphs and
artiodactyls were the major sources of animal protein and secondary animal
products. In addition, very few turkey bone tools and no cutmarks were reported
from this time period.
b) Pueblo I. Average turkey percentages in the Mesa Verde Region
during Pueblo I are virtually indistinguishable from those in Basketmaker 111
deposits. Faunal data were drawn from four sites and the Dolores Archaeological
Program. Turkey percentages increased insignificantly and comprised only 2% of
the species deemed to be of high economic value. Individually the three sites
quantified by NISP correlate well with this figure. Alternatively, two Pueblo I
sites from Mancos Canyon (5MT2347 and 5MT2559) were quantified using
MNI, and therefore are not included in the regional average. The turkey
percentages from these sites with values of 25% and 40% respectively are
notably higher than the other Pueblo I sites. This may be a result of sample size,
the utilisation of MNI as a quantitative method rather than NISP or local
variability. Unfortunately there is little comparative data available from the
nearby Mesa Verde or Johnson Canyon sites during Pueblo I which could be
used to test the latter option.
c) Pueblo 11. A large sample of sites was examined from the Pueblo I1
period, including fourteen sites with data quantified using NISP and four that
utilised MNI. Turkey percentages increased notably at this time and comprised
12% of the economic species from sites quantified by NISP. A substantial range
of variability is apparent when the sites are examined independently, though the
anomalous values tend to be associated with smaller sample sizes. The Dolores
area has particularly low percentages as it was largely abandoned by this time,
explaining the associated decrease in turkey abundance. Turkey production was
never intensified during occupation of the Dolores area, regardless of time period.
Percentages calculated from the four sites quantified by MNI each have high
turkey values ranging from 19 to 33%. In addition to increasing percentages,
quantities of turkey bone tools and evidence for subsistence use (i.e. cutmarks
and burning) also increase during Pueblo I1 (Cattanach 1980, McKusick 1980b)
d) Pueblo 111. Turkey percentages increase dramatically in Pueblo I11
assemblages, and represent the most abundant fauna in the combined regional
assemblage. The compilation of data from 20 sites with a total sample size of
12,547 indicates that turkey compose 49% of major economic species in the
Pueblo I11 assemblages. Individual assemblages in the sample retain high turkey
percentages, the lowest value being 26%. Percentages at other sites range as
high as 81%, c o n f i n g the significant increase in this period. Only one site in
the Pueblo I11 sample was calculated using MNI. This site displayed a turkey
percentage of 39% which is consistent with the NISP quantified sites in the
sample. The abundance of turkey in the assemblage is accompanied by similar
increases in its use as a raw material for bone tools, and a proliferation of retaining
structures which have been interpreted as turkey pens at various sites (Cattanach
1980, Rohn 1970, 1977, Swannack 1969).
Evidence from the Sand Canyon Locality
The sample from the Sand Canyon Locality is not well suited for the
examination of temporal change due to the paucity of sites from early periods.
The Duckfoot Site (5MT3868) is the only site in the sample which was entirely
occupied prior to Pueblo 111. At some other sites both Basketmaker I11 and
Pueblo I and I1 components were excavated, but the sampled units were
dominated by Pueblo 111deposits, thus the data is attributed to this time period.
As a result the sample is composed of one Pueblo I site and thirteen Pueblo I11
sites.
Analysis of the fauna from the Sand Canyon Locality was performed by
Walker (1989, 1990a). Walker utilised different criteria for his identifications than
the analysts of the material from the Site Testing Program and the more recent
material from Sand Canyon Pueblo. He frequently identified specimens to taxon
when they could not be assigned to a specific element. Later identifications
(Brand 1991, Driver et al. 1995) under the direction of Driver (1991) required that
a specimen be designated as a specific element before it could be assigned to
taxon, otherwise the bone was considered unidentifiable. In order to eliminate
the discrepancy between the two methods, the data from Duckfoot was
requantified using Driver's criteria. This involved recounting the NISP's of
lagomorphs, artiodactyls and turkey/large bird from the raw data from the site
(Walker 1989, 1990b). Entries were not counted unless they were identified as
specific elements (i.e. femur or humerus, not long bone).
A comparison is drawn between the data from the Duckfoot site which
dates to Pueblo I and the accumulated data from Pueblo I11 in an attempt to detect
temporal change in turkey production in the Sand Canyon Locality. There is a
notable increase in the percentage of turkey bone in comparison to lagomorphs
and artiodactyls between the Pueblo I and I11 periods in the Sand Canyon
Locality (See table 4.13).
Pueblo III
Castle Rock Pueblo
Saddlehorn Hamlet
Shorlene's Site
Roy's Ruin
Lillian's Site
Troy's Tower
Kenzie Dawn Hamlet
G and G Hamlet
Catherine's Site
Lester's Site
Lookout House
Stanton's Site
Sand Canyon Pueblo
Total
Table 4.13: Turkey proportions divided by time period from sites in the Sand
Canyon Locality.
The percentage of turkey in the Duckfoot assemblage is 2%, whereas in
Pueblo I11 sites within the Sand Canyon Locality it averages 46% of the major
economic species. There is an extensive range in the percentages of turkeys in
the Pueblo I11 sites (between 32 and 70%)but it is clear even from the sites with
the lowest percentages that turkeys were far more important than they were in
Pueblo I. Though the temporal depth in the Sand Canyon Locality sample is less
than optimum, it matches the pattern described for the Mesa Verde region. These
results indicate that turkey production was intensified throughout the Sand
Canyon Locality, as was previously demonstrated by the regional sample.
Intersite Variation Within the Sand Canyon Locality
The sites examined within the Sand Canyon Locality were predominantly
contemporaneous. The majority contain a prominent Pueblo I11 component
occupied during the thirteenth century. These sites present an ideal opportunity
to examine variation across space within what is postulated to be one community
(Lipe 1992a). Not only are the sites largely contemporaneous but because they
were tested as part of a series of projects by the Crow Canyon Archaeological
Center, excavation and sampling strategies were similar allowing easy comparison
between sites.
The Sand Canyon Locality sample has been reduced for the following
spatial analysis. The sites selected include twelve of the thirteen sites sampled for
the Site Testing Program (Varien et al. 1992) and portions of the data from Sand
Canyon Pueblo. One site, Mad Dog Tower (5MT181) was tested as part of the
Site Testing Program but was excluded from this analysis due to its small sample
size (Driver et al. 1995). The other two sites which were eliminated are the
Duckfoot site, as it has a much earlier occupation date and the Green Lizard Site
due to the use of incompatible methods for recording the faunal data. The
assemblage from Sand Canyon Pueblo was subsampled to incorporate only the
fauna analysed according to the guidelines set up in Driver's (1991) manual to
retain compatibility within the sample. Walker's (1989) data from an earlier
analysis were therefore excluded.
To detect spatial variation in the faunal assemblage the sites in the sample
were grouped according to topographic location. The sites are located either on
the mesa tops, the cliff/talus/bench slopes or in the Lower McElmo drainage (see
Table 4.14) and were depicted earlier on a map of the Sand Canyon Locality
(Figure 1.2).
S
i
Number
5MT5 152
5MT11338
5MT395 1
5MT3918
5MT3930
5MT3936
5MT765
5MT10508
5MT10246
5MT10459
5MT3967
5MT262
5MT1825
t
e
p
Site Name
Kenzie Dawn Hamlet
G and G Hamlet
Troy's Tower
Shorlene's Site
Roy's Ruin
Lillian's Site
Sand Canyon Pueblo
Stanton's Site
Lester's Site
Lookout House
Catherine's Site
Saddlehorn Hamlet
Castle Rock Pueblo
h
with SCP
No
No
Nones
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Nones
Yes
Yes
i
c
Location
Mesa Top
Mesa Top
Mesa Top
Mesa Top
Mesa Top
Mesa Top
CliffITalus
Cliff/ralus
Cliff/ralus
Cliff/Talus
Canyon Bench
Lower Canyon
Lower Canyon
Table 4.14: Site Sample for Spatial analysis within the Sand Canyon Locality.
1) Mesa Top Sites. Mesas are steep-sided, flat plateaus which are
intersected by canyons. They are located on the raised land above Sand Canyon
Pueblo, in the Upper Canyon. This area is occupied by six sites in the sample
(Shorlene's Site, Roy's Ruin, Lillian's Site, G and G Hamlet, Troy's Tower and
Kenzie Dawn Hamlet )(See figure 1.2). The majority of these sites were occupied
prior to A.D. 1250, though a few are also partially contemporaneous with Sand
Canyon Pueblo. Each of the six sites are within 2 km of Sand Canyon Pueblo.
2) Cliff/ Talus1 Bench Sites. The mesa top where the above sites are
located is intersected by Sand Canyon, which boasts steep slopes and numerous
sites along its walls. Within the current sample their are four cliff/talus/bench sites
(Catherine's Site, Lester's Site, Lookout House and Stanton's Site). All are
located in the upper Sand Canyon and are contemporaneous with Sand Canyon
Pueblo (A.D. 1250-1300). These sites are also located within 2 krn of Sand
Canyon Pueblo.
3) The Lower McElmo Drainage. The lower McElmo drainage is
located at the southern end of Sand Canyon. Elevation in the lower canyon is at
least 300m lower than the upper end creating a distinct microenvironment. The
two sites (Saddlehorn Hamlet and Castle Rock Pueblo) in this area are the
furthest from Sand Canyon Pueblo averaging about 7 krn down canyon. They
are also contemporaneous with Sand Canyon Pueblo.
Location
Lower Canyon
Saddlehorn Hamlet
Castle Rock Pueblo
Average
44%
45 %
45 %
215
748
963
Mesa Tops
Shorlene's Site
Roy's Ruin
Lillian's Site
Troy's Tower
Kenzie Dawn Hamlet
G and G Hamlet
Average
32%
49%
41%
56%
33%
42%
36%
75
39
153
34
46 1
36
798
Cliff/Talus/Bench
Catherine's Site
Lester's Site
Lookout House
Stanton's Site
Average
67%
70%
66%
70%
69 %
284
89
128
757
1258
Sand Canyon Pueblo
37 %
2099
Table 4.15: Percentage of turkey bone in Pueblo I11 sites in the Sand Canyon
Locality by topographic locatian.
Lower Sand
Canyon
Mesa Tops
Cliff/TaluslBench
Figure 4.5: Bar graph representing the percentages of turkey versus lagomorphs
and artiodactyls at Pueblo I11 sites grouped by topographic location
from the Sand Canyon Locality.
4) Sand Canyon Pueblo. Sand Canyon Pueblo is considered a separate entity,
for the purposes of comparison. Though it is technically a cliff/talus/'bench
site due to its location on the canyon rim at the head of Sand Canyon, it is
assigned its own category because of its extreme size in relation to all other sites
in the sample.
I
I
I
Sand Canyon Pueblo
Mesa Top
Lower Canyon
Cliff/Bench/Talus
Site
Figure 4.6: Average percent and ranges of turkey at Pueblo I11 sites in
the Sand Canyon Locality, grouped by topographic location.
To detect variation between the Pueblo I11 sites, the percentage of turkey
at each site was calculated using the same methodology as described in the
previous section for the analysis of temporal change. The percentage of turkey
out of lagomorphs, artiodactyls and turkeys combined ranges between 32 and
70% at the individual Pueblo I11 sites in the Sand Canyon Locality. The majority
of the sites fall between 32 and 49%. Four sites however, have percentages
between 66 and 70%. Interestingly, when the sites are grouped by topographic
location as described above, all sites in the latter group are cliffftalusfbenchsites.
The turkey percentages and the ranges for the highest and lowest turkey
percentage for each topographic location are depicted in Figure 4.6. Grouping
the sites enabled a comparison between groups with larger sample sizes,
potentially reducing error associated with sample size. An interesting pattern
resulted. When the major economic faunal species were averaged the
cliff/talus/bench site assemblage exhibited a turkey percentage of 69%. The
averages of the other three groups are much lower, though they are similar to one
another (37% at Sand Canyon Pueblo, 36% on the mesa tops and 45% in the
lower canyon).
The difference between the cliffftalusfbench sites and the three other
groups combined has been tested to determine if it is statistically significant (see
Appendix C and Table 4.16). Ninety-five percent confidence intervals were
established for each of the two groups as follows: .385f
for the combined
group and .688f .022 for the cliff/talus/bench sites. The difference between the
two groups is statistically significant as it is apparent that there is no overlap at
two and even three standard errors (greater than 95% confidence interval). The
low variation within the cliff/talusfbench group is also noteworthy, though the
sample size is small.
- i 3 l i f f P T a l u s l B e n c h r
0.68759
Average Turkey Proportion
0.00049
Variance
0.022 19
Standard Deviation
0.01 110
Standard Error
0.022 19
95 % Confidence Interval
0.665,0.710
Range 95% Confidence Interval
Sampled Sites
0.38523
0.00321
0.05666
0.01 889
0.03777
0.348, 0.423
Table 4.16: Statistics comparing the cliff/talus/bench sites and the other
Pueblo I11 sampled sites in the Sand Canyon Locality combined.
134
The trend depicted above is particularly interesting considering the
proximity of the sites to one another. The sites on the mesa tops and on the
cliff/talus/bench areas are all within 2 lun of Sand Canyon Pueblo (See Figure
1.2). As a result the variation seems to be related to the topographic environment
of the site, which may in turn be associated with other factors (i.e. social or
economic). These possibilities will be discussed in the following chapter.
Discussion and conclusions integrating the results of the data relating to the four
problems reviewed above will also be provided in Chapter V.
CHAPTER V
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
Introduction
This research has been designed to increase our awareness of the utility of
biocultural data sets to substantiate studies which go beyond environmental
reconstruction and subsistence strategies (i.e. interpretations of social and
political structure). Faunal data from archaeological contexts in the Mesa Verde
region have been utilised to address questions relating specifically to domestic
animals and more generally to community and social organisation. In this final
chapter the data which were presented in Chapter IV will be consulted with
reference to the four problems addressed in previous chapters.
The chapter commences by addressing the question of domestication and
reexamining previous divisions of turkey breeds and subspecies. This is followed
by an interpretation of the turkey's function in Anasazi society. Next, discussion
centers on the final two problems which are concerned with temporal and spatial
variation in the intensity of turkey production in the study area. Models are
proposed to explain intensification in turkey production through time and across
space. Finally the chapter concludes with a review of problems encountered
during the study and some suggestions for future research.
Is There a Turkey in the House?
An attempt was made to determine if the turkey population in the sample
was wild or domestic by examining both osteological characters and supporting
evidence such as eggshell, gizzard stones, droppings, age structures and pens.
Methods used in previous research to separate prehistoric southwestern turkeys
into breeds were also examined to test their validity. The conclusions are as
follows.
Osteological Evidence
Previous research concerning southwestern turkeys has focused on the
identification of subspecies based partially on osteological variation (Lang and
Harris 1984, McKusick 1980a, 1986, Schorger 1961,1966). This was performed by
recognising diagnostic characteristics and analysing measurements. In this research
an effort has been made to reexamine the validity of these methodologies, while
attempting to identify the species composition of the sample.
Data presented in Chapter IV, reveal that characters on bone which have
been used to separate subspecies of turkeys in the past could not be identified in
this research. Based on this and evidence presented below the argument is made
that the existence of breeds and domestic populations cannot be established by
utilising osteological comparisons and measurements. McKusick (1986) herself
states that not all individuals will be able to recognise the differences between
breeds. She became aware of this after attempting to point out features to a
naturalist who was unable to identify similarities or differences.
The failure to recognise diagnostic characteristics in this research may have
occurred if only one breed is present in the sample. For example, if the
assemblage is composed exclusively of Large Indian Domestic turkeys, no
obvious differences should be detectable amongst the specimens, as was the case.
It was however, impossible to identify any of the specimens specifically as LIDS
based on the existing descriptive criteria of diagnostic features. These differences
should still be apparent regardless of whether there are one or more breeds
represented in the sample.
The failure to identify subspecies may have also been a product of the
experience of the researcher. The individuals involved in the pioneering research
concerning prehistoric southwestern turkeys (McKusick, Hargrave, Schorger)
were well seasoned in the field of avian zooarchaeology and have performed
hands-on research with a range of turkeys from all comers of the Southwest.
Certainly this has provided them with an eye for noting variation within turkey
populations. However, if only researchers with a specialisation in turkey
identifications are capable of recognising the distinctions, they are undoubtedly
subtle and subjective and should be interpreted as representing different
subspecies with extreme caution. Subtle differences may simply represent natural
variation within a population composed of one species. It is indisputable that
osteological variation exists within the species Meleagris gallopavo, but splitting
the population into distinct subspecies or breeds based on this variation may be
unwarranted.
As previously mentioned few researchers working on faunal assemblages
in various locations in the Southwest have met with success using McKusick's
methods. In fact, the majority of the specimens which have been assigned to
breed were identified by McKusick herself or with her consultation (Lang and
Harris 1984, McKusick 1974, 1980b, 1981,1982). Others have questioned the
validity of these identifications based on her failure to consider the effect of
environmental variability on osseous phenotype (Breitburg 1988, Senior and
Pierce 1989).
The results of multivariate statistical analysis by Breitburg (1988) also
failed to identify any significant differences between the proposed breeds. The
results of multivariate discriminant analysis, size, shape and generalised distance
coefficients and principal components analysis were unable to discriminate
between any of the southwestern turkeys included in Breitburg's study, though
members of each of the proposed groups were included in the sample. In addition
southwestern turkeys proved to be statistically indistinguishable from the
southeast and northeast breeds of Meleagris gallopavo silvestris, although they
could be discriminated from archaeological Mexican turkey specimens.
Breitburg did recognise a reduction in tarsi and humeral length in some
archaeological turkey samples (i.e. Gran Quivira) and attributes this to isolation
from wild parent populations. Environmental and nutritional effects are cited as
other possible contributing factors. Still, he also claims that "southwesternturkey
populations and potential parent populations cannot be distinguished with
confidence" (1988: 89). Unfortunately in the current study the sample was
derived from a fairly homogeneous environment, so environmental effects could
not be tested.
This research into turkey domestication has revealed some potentially
serious flaws in the methodology used to separate breeds and distinguish
domestic from wild turkeys based on osteological characteristics. Fuither
difficulties arose when attempting to determine the identity of the sample
population by using metric data. It has been proposed above that not only the
methodology is at fault but the division of the species Meleagris gallopavo
merriami into subspecies is as well.
A primary problem lies in the ambiguity of the definition of the proposed
breeds in the first place. There are no modem parameters which define the extent
of variation within each group since most of the breeds are extinct today. Instead
the parameters are defined by the metric data which McKusick provides for the
different groups (Table 4.1). These represent the ranges of means of populations
which McKusick herself has identified as belonging to the different breeds using
highly subjective criteria as previously discussed. It was shown above using
Breitburg's research, that individuals identified to these proposed breeds cannot
be distinguished statistically. Because the expected ranges of natural variability
for each breed are undefinable and the estimates that we do have are
indistinguishable statistically, it is impossible to accurately assign an unknown
individual to a subspecies based on metric data. Furthermore, individuals
potentially fit within the given parameters of more than one of the possible
breeds.
The problem discussed above is better illustrated when considering data
from the present study. The measurement data examined in this research exhibit a
range of 4.5 cm (up to 25% of the total length of the element) in the greatest
length of male tarsi. These differences are large enough to place individuals
within McKusick's ranges of sample means for each of the four different breeds,
though the mean of the tarsi in the current sample falls within the LID category.
For example, when attempting to assign a breed to one tarsus with an arbitrary
length of 160mm, the specimen appears to fit between the LID and MWT
categories in McKusick's scheme. However, it also fits in the SID or the Gould's
turkey range as a more extreme variant in the population. This distribution
depicts that though the mean of the group falls within one breed the ranges for
the different breeds are so close together that any given individual potentially fits
into several categories. As a result it is impossible to assign individuals to a single
group with certainty. This is a problem which corresponds only to the use of
measurements. It must be pointed out that McKusick does not strongly advocate
this method to differentiate various breeds, but suggests that character
identifications are better suited (1986).
Finally, by using means to identify the breeds represented within a single
faunal assemblage the presence of more than one turkey subspecies or breed may
be overlooked. If two groups were present in an assemblage averaging their
greatest lengths would make it appear that individuals which belong to the less
common breed belong to the more ubiquitous breed in the assemblage. Bimodal
distributions which often mark the presence of two populations only cause
further confusion in this case due to sexual dimorphism and the methodological
problems with sexing.
Perishable evidence such as feather colouration and short, scaly tarsi has
been used to distinguish SIDs from the other proposed breeds (McKusick 1986,
Schorger 1961, 1966). Unfortunately these types of data have only been
preserved under rare circumstances. Few mummified turkeys with these
characteristics (identified as SIDs) have been recovered and were identified as
SID's based on the anomalous feather colouration and tarsi. The osteological
characteristic; short tarsi, was therefore also assumed to be associated with the
SID. Short tarsi which are frequently recovered from the archaeological should
not be automatically associated with SIDs as the sample size of mummified SIDs is
too small to be reliable. Again, assigning subspecies based on this criteria is risky
at best.
Conclusion of osteological research
In this research, it could not be determined whether the turkeys were wild
or domestic based on osteology. This however, does not imply that they were
not domesticated. Osteological change often occurs as a result of alterations in
lifestyle particularly changes in diet, environment or activity. It is possible that
though turkeys were under the control of humans, they maintained the freedom
to forage for food and were only restricted to pens at night when they could not
be observed(Breitburg 1988, Cattanach 1980, Rohn 197 1, Schorger 1961). This
possibility has been supported by the presence of scattered droppings around
some sites in the regional sample, and the recovery of high quantities of pine
pollen and insects in the analysis of turkey feces. The presence of the latter two
suggests that the turkeys were not feeding entirely in confinement but also had
some freedom to forage. This would prevent any severe lifestyle changes which
may have resulted in genetic osteological change. A second possibility is that the
captive turkey population was interbred with wild populations, thus preventing
isolation from the wild gene pool (Schorger 1966). The presence of these factors
would make it difficult if not impossible to separate breeds based entirely on
osteological comparisons and measurements.
It is further concluded that the division of prehistoric southwestern
archaeological turkeys into three proposed breeds, the Large Indian Domestic
(Meleagris gallopavo merriami), the Small Indian Domestic (Meleagris
gallopavo tularosa) and Merriam's Wild Turkey (Meleagris gallopavo merriami)
is unreliable and can not be statistically proven. It is unquestionable that
patterned variation existed within the southwestern turkey population but the
assignment of distinct breeds and/or subspecies is as yet unfounded. Much
confusion has resulted from attempts to use proposed methods for recognising
turkey subspecies since the affinity of groups has not been proven statistically.
The breeds have also been defined by data which is ambiguous at best. As
suggested by Senior and Pierce (1989) additional research into the effects of
environmental factors on phenotypic plasticity is required to address the variation
within the turkey population.
Conclusion of contextual evidence
Abundant evidence for the maintenance of turkeys at Anasazi sites was
drawn from both the Sand Canyon Locality and the Mesa Verde region (see
Chapter IV). Data which indicates that domesticated turkeys were present at
archaeological sites includes eggshell, gizzard stones, juvenile turkey bones,
turkey droppings and retaining structures such as pens. This evidence suggests
that turkeys were born, raised and killed at human sites and thus were under
human control. In Chapter I11 it was determined that domestication refers to a
relationship between humans and animals which may take a variety of forms
along a continuum leading from limited to complex human control. The removal
of animals from their natural environment and the control, maintenance and
breeding of these animals therefore constitutes domestication. As a result, the
turkeys within the sample in this project are assumed to be domestic animals. This
does not exclude the possibility that turkeys were occasionally introduced into
the archaeological record as a result of hunting or capture from the wild for
interbreeding with the domestic population.
The assumption that turkeys were domesticated is essential to the
remainder of this research as patterning in the turkey assemblages is viewed as a
reflection of human behaviour since the turkeys were under their control. This
leads us to ask for what purpose were the Anasazi raising their turkeys?
The Role of the Turkey in Anasazi Society
The debate over the turkey's function in Anasazi society may be addressed
by asking two primary questions: did the turkey play a predominantly ritual or
economic role, and was it exploited primarily as a source of food or feathers? The
responses to these questions are interrelated and by integrating them a
comprehensive interpretation may be developed.
Evidence from the Mesa Verde region provides a strong argument for the
utility of turkey feathers as both ritual and economic objects. Feathers were not
only an important resource at the time of the turkey's adoption by the Anasazi,
but continued to be so throughout the occupation of the Colorado Plateau. A
review of the feather artifacts recovered from several sites in the Mesa Verde
region, predominantly those which now occupy Mesa Verde National Park, was
presented in Chapter IV. The artifacts reflect both utilitarian and ceremonial
function. Feather robes, blankets and arrow fletching are believed to represent
the latter, whereas prayer sticks, turkey burials and feather aspergills are believed
to have spiritual value. Unfortunately, reports from sites outside of Mesa Verde
National Park including those for the Sand Canyon Locality, failed to present
evidence for the presence of feathers at their sites, largely because none existed.
The abundance of feather artifacts at some sites and their nonexistence at
others probably results from differential preservation. The presence of feather
artifacts at Mesa Verde National Park is attributed to excellent preservation due
to the arid climate and the protection of many sites from exposure as they are
located in cliff overhangs. The quality of preservation at these sites is apparent
due to the presence of other fragile remains such as vegetal fibres (basketry and
sandals), leather, wood and archaeobotanical remains (Cattanach 1980, Hayes
and Lancaster 1975, Rohn 1971, 1977, Swannack 1969). It is postulated that
feather artifacts at sites outside of what is now Mesa Verde National Park were
utilised during the site's occupation, but have since been lost due to their fragile
nature. This is supported by the low representation of other types of fragile
remains at these sites. It is proposed that feather artifacts were utilised at sites in
the study region which were external to present day Mesa Verde National Park
based on the material recovered from sites with optimal preservation, the
conditions of preservation at the sites and the fragile nature of the remains. In
light of the inventory of feather artifacts at the Mesa Verde sites it is argued that
they were utilised for both ritual and utilitarian purposes.
Evidence for ritual in the archaeological record is often ambiguous at best.
Though artifacts may appear to have ceremonial function it is extremely difficult
to evaluate the ideology with which they were treated. In this case, ethnographic
and historic data have been utilised speculatively as analogy to aid in the
reconstruction of the past. Information provided by burials (human and turkey)
and artifacts are also considered valuable tools for interpreting ritual function.
Numerous ethnographic and historic references citing the importance of
turkeys in Pueblo rituals were reviewed in Chapter 11. Feathers figured
prominently in dances and katsina rituals and various turkey components were
presented as offerings and were occasionally interred with human burials.
Additional artifacts such as prayer sticks, prayer feathers, masks and costumes,
which played roles in Pueblo ceremony were also often partially constructed from
turkey components. Archaeological evidence which implies the ritual utilisation
of turkeys is also available. This appears mainly in the form of articulated turkey
burials and their frequent association with human graves and architecture argued
to have ritual significance (i.e. kivas). Burials and artifacts (i.e. feather aspergills,
prayer sticks, feather wrapped twigs) with potential ritual significance have also
been recovered from all time periods after and including Basketmaker I11 in the
Mesa Verde region, though they were not retrieved from sites in the Sand
Canyon Locality. In light of the evidence, it is surmised that turkeys were an
important source of raw material which played multiple roles in the Anasazi
ceremonial sphere.
Criteria proposed to be indicative of food utilisation are present in a
variety of forms in the turkey assemblages from the Sand Canyon Locality and
the Mesa Verde region. Applicable data in the form of cutmarks, breakage
patterns, burning, ossified tendons, dispersion of bone and age and sex profiles
was reviewed in the previous chapter and will now be discussed.
Cutmarks are mentioned in the majority of reports from the Mesa Verde
region and are found predominantly on the distal condyles of tibiotarsi. In the
Sand Canyon Locality cutmark locations cotrespond well with those proposed
by Lang and Harris (1984) to be the result of skinning and disarticulation
activities. It has also been suggested that an experienced individual would rarely
leave evidence of butchering on the skeleton, but cutmarks may instead be the
product of a sloppy job (Lyman 1979). If this is the case we would expect that a
much greater proportion of the bones were butchered than the cutmarks suggest.
Evidence for burning is inconclusive in terms of food utilisation. It is
difficult to determine whether bones were burned during cooking or as a result of
disposal in hearths or structures which were later burned. It is also possible that
distinctive patterns which were created by roasting were later obscured by
additional burning following disposal. Localised burning is present but is not
ubiquitous enough to provide substantial evidence for cooking. Though it is
probable that some of the burning in the assemblage resulted from cooking, this
can not be stated with certainty. In addition, it is likely that methods other than
roasting were utilised for cooking meat, therefore cooked bone need not be
burned. Boiling is a likely cooking alternative which leaves no visible effects on
bone. Capone and Shoeninger's (1991) study attempted to detect boiling by
measuring amino acid racemization in turkey bones. Unfortunately, this method
was proven ineffective unless bones were boiled for longer than 1.5 hours and
were unaffected taphonomic processes. It is therefore concluded that localised
burning is the only reliable evidence of cooking in the assemblage. It was
identified in the Sand Canyon Locality assemblages but in low frequencies.
Breakage patterns on the humerus, tibiotarsus and radius were examined
to provide insight into the use of cancellous bone as a dietary supplement. It was
demonstrated that the spongy proximal end of the tibiotarsus was virtually absent
in the assemblage though the more compact distal end was frequently
represented. The humerus which was expected to express a similar pattern, was
instead more similar to the control sample, the radii. The radius has minimal
cancellous bone and articulated ends of approximately equal size. Both the
humerus and radius in the Sand Canyon Locality assemblages had approximately
50% representation of both proximal and distal ends. The proximal end of the
humerus however was expected to be preserved less frequently as a result of
cancellous bone extraction. It is possible that the distal end of the humerus was
also large enough to warrant utilisation for cancellous bone extraction unlike the
distal tibitotarsus and proximal and distal radius which are dense and smaller in
volume. The primary limitation for this interpretation involves the effects of
taphonomic factors which are more likely to be destructive to bones with large
spongy sections because they have larger surface areas and are less dense than
cortical bone. The humerus, however was not affected to the same degree as the
tibiotarsus as would be expected if both were altered by taphonornic factors.
Articulated burials were occasionally recovered from sites in the Mesa
Verde region (Bertram 1989, Cattanach 1980, Rohn 1971, Schorger 1966),
however all turkey assemblages were dominated by dispersed, disarticulated
bone. All bones in the Sand Canyon assemblage were also disarticulated and
recovered from dispersed contexts. In addition, turkey lower leg bones were not
found in situ with ossified tendons, which implies that the bones were discarded
after the flesh was removed. Because the Sand Canyon Locality fauna was not
examined in situ during excavation, contextual information regarding ossified
tendons is sketchy at best. Still, the contextual information that is available
suggests that turkeys were taken apart and defleshed intentionally, presumably
for consumption.
Finally the age and sex profiles from the Sand Canyon Locality were
evaluated. Data from other locations in the Mesa Verde Region were not
examined due to the of lack of information and incompatibility between the
different data bases. The distribution of the sexes in the Sand Canyon Locality is
virtually equal which suggests that one sex was not preferred over the other. In
terms of age the population is dominated by adult individuals (94%). This
scenario is most supportive of a population raised for feathers since both sexes
are equally able to produce them. Feathers from male and female turkeys are
similar except for some variation in colouration. High proportions of adults are
also expected to represent a population raised for feather utilisation because
feathers are continually produced throughout a birds lifetime, thus, it is beneficial
to keep birds until they die naturally as feathers can be harvested multiple times.
It is expected that a profile of a turkey assemblage raised for meat would indicate
high proportions of young adult males as they would be culled when they reach
their maximum size to minimise energy expenditure. Females are expected to
survive longer as they are required not only for reproduction, but potentially also
as egg producers which may have served other functions as well (i.e. food, glaze
on painted masks [McKusick 19821). In this study, young adults were not
distinguished from old adults making it impossible to discern such a pattern.
Interpretations of the population structure are made with caution as it is
necessary to assign value to the different turkey resources to draw conclusions.
It is difficult to determine, for example, if the colouration of male feathers was
preferred over female feathers, or whether female birds were valued as a more
delectable meat source. Preferences of past peoples are ambiguous at best but
had the potential to greatly influence the age and sex structure of the population.
The high proportion of turkey artifacts in the faunal assemblage indicates
the value of turkey bone as a source of raw material. It is probable that it became
more popular due to its increased availability, which may have led to the
recognition of its attractive properties for tool manufacture. As frequencies in
raw turkey bone rose so did the number of artifacts which were created from it.
This may explain why turkey bone artifacts are rare at early sites from
Basketmaker I11 and Pueblo I, as turkey bone was low in availability as a raw
material. As a result, it appears that as a resource bone was secondary to meat.
Conclusion
In light of the data presented in Chapter IV and the interpretation
presented above it is concluded that the turkey was a multi-purpose resource
which played an important role in both the ritual and economic spheres of
Anasazi society. It is suggested that its function was both utilitarian and
ceremonial and that it served as a source for feathers, meat, bone and eggs. It is
further proposed that the turkey served multiple functions since its inception in
Anasazi culture.
The utilisation of feathers predominated during the Basketmaker periods
and Early Pueblo I, as reflected by the paucity of turkey bone and indicators of
food utilisation during these early periods. It is unclear whether the turkeys were
being raised at Anasazi sites at this point. Before this can be determined it is
essential to establish with certainty, the prehistoric range of Meleagris gallopavo
merriami. If the turkey was not present in the Mesa Verde region prehistorically
it would not be possible to obtain specimens by local hunting. There is evidence
for eggshell and gizzard stones at sites at this time, however no pens or turkey
droppings have been identified. It is possible that low intensity turkey
production which left a light archaeological signature in comparison to the more
intensified production of later times was taking place. Alternatively, wild turkeys
may have been available to the Anasazi prehistorically though they were not
domesticated until Pueblo I. At this time (Pueblo I) more turkey bone appears in
the archaeological record and pens and turkey dung make their appearance at
numerous sites in the Mesa Verde region. Increased availability also led to the
increased utilisation of turkey bone as a raw material for tool manufacture.
Temporal Change: Intensification in Turkey Production
In previous discussion regarding quantification (see Chapter I) it was
determined that increases in turkey proportions potentially indicate
intensification, though the possibility that they may also represent shifts in the
faunal mix can not be ignored. The argument for an increasing emphasis on
turkey production in the Mesa Verde region during the Anasazi occupation, is
supported not only by higher proportions of turkey in assemblages, but by
increasing frequencies of turkey elements in faunal assemblages. In early
assemblages (Basketmaker I11 and Pueblo I) turkeys were represented by very
few elements regardless of sample size. This results in lower turkey proportions
and also suggests that turkey utilisation was minimal regardless of the proportions
of other species. In most later assemblages the frequencies of turkeys is much
higher than earlier times regardless of sample size, therefore indicating that the
trend toward increased production of turkeys is real and not simply a reflection of
changes in the use of other species. Artiodactyls do appear to be decreasing in
some assemblages by Pueblo 111, however this still does not fully account for the
dramatic increases in turkey proportions. In addition, the number of turkey pens
excavated in Mesa Verde sites increases as Pueblo I11 approaches, further
reflecting an increase in energy investment.
In light of the above discussion, it is concluded that the dramatic increases
in the proportion of turkeys in regional faunal assemblages between Basketmaker
I11 and Pueblo 111(See Chapter IV) is indicative of the intensification of domestic
turkey production in the Mesa Verde region. The increase is also apparent on a
local level in the turkey population in the Sand Canyon Locality between Pueblo
I and 111. Initially it appears that intensification and aggregation are correlated as
they both arose during Pueblo 111. Instead the specific conditions surrounding
aggregation and intensification must be considered. In this research two episodes
of aggregation from differing time periods were compared to detect whether
aggregation was the causal factor behind the intensification of domestic turkey
production.
Two notable episodes of aggregation took place in the Mesa Verde region
during Anasazi prehistory. The first occurred during Pueblo I in the late A.D.
800's and was exemplified by changes in settlement patterns in the Dolores
region (Varien et al. 1992). The second episode took place on a large-scale
during Pueblo 111, as illustrated by changes in the Sand Canyon Community
(Adler 1990a, 1990b).
An examination of the faunal data from the Dolores Archaeological
Program indicates that the proportion of turkey in the faunal assemblage was
relatively constant throughout the process of aggregation, exhibiting only
nominal increases (Neusius 1986). Turkey proportions ranged from 1% in
Modeling Period 1 (A.D. 600-720) to 6% in Modeling period 5 (A.D. 880-920).
Thus, it cannot be convincingly argued that large scale intensification in turkey
production took place during this episode of aggregation. Data presented in
Chapter IV however, indicate large increases in the proportion of turkey in the
Pueblo 111 faunal assemblages in the Sand Canyon Locality. This pattern is also
apparent in the larger regional sample.
What conditions were present during the second aggregation episode but
not the first, to induce intensification? On closer examination it appears that the
intensification of turkey production in the Sand Canyon Locality took place prior
to large-scale aggregation into Sand Canyon Pueblo (ca. A.D. 1250). Data from
mesa top sites which were occupied in the early thirteenth century indicate that
turkey production was already intensified in relation to previous times. On
average 36% of the mesa top faunal assemblages were composed of turkey,
whereas Pueblo I assemblages contained only 2% turkey. By this time
aggregation had begun on a small-scale, population density in the Sand Canyon
Locality was on the rise, mobility was more restricted and agricultural strategies
were being intensified. These factors, however, did not trigger large-scale
aggregation until ca. A.D. 1250.
If intensification in turkey production was not induced by pressures
created by large aggregated villages as originally expected, what was the cause?
It is maintained that aggregation and intensification are correlated due to
causation by similar conditions. It is suggested, however, that the two are
triggered when the causal factors reach differing levels. By examining
aggregated situations in both the Dolores Valley and the Sand Canyon Locality it
appears that population density was a crucial differentiating factor, when acting
under conditions of restricted mobility, reduced resources and agricultural
intensification.
It appears that regional population density at the time of aggregation in
the two communities differed. Local population densities prior to both
aggregations were high as a result of increases over the preceding periods due to
migration and natural growth. Density across the region however was lower
during the former event (Varien et al. 1994). The settlement pattern in the Mesa
Verde region during Pueblo I (A.D. 750-900) when the Dolores aggregation took
place was marked by clustering. In some areas site densities were high (i.e. the
Dolores Valley), however these were separated by sparsely populated hinterlands
(Varien et al. 1994). It has been argued that the sequence of rapid population
aggregation, short-use life and subsequent abandonment characteristic of the
Dolores region reflects a strategy of high mobility. Groups migrated in and by
way of low intensity agriculture depleted the environment then moved on in
search of more productive areas (Kohler and Matthews 1988, Kohler 1989). This
was a viable strategy during Pueblo I when mobility was a reasonable option and
regional population densities were still low.
The inhabitants of the Dolores Valley were able to offset higher demands
for resources created by increasing populations by relocation and mobility. It is
argued that when agricultural intensification did begin it was due to restrictions
by climatic and geographic circumscription rather than population
circumscription from surrounding communities (Schlanger 1988). During the late
800's the territory surrounding the area was not heavily utilised thus it could be
exploited for hunting with little competition from other communities. As a result
it is argued that wild game reduction did not occur and big game hunting
remained a viable option to obtain animal protein. This is supported by the high
quantities of artiodactyl remains in the Dolores faunal assemblage. Artiodactyls
represent between 21 and 57% of the major economic faunal groups over the
seven periods of occupation in the Dolores Valley (Neusius 1986). At the time of
aggregation artiodactyls were well represented with proportions ranging
between 41 and 47% of the assemblage. Overall, this pattern indicates that large
game was available for procurement throughout Pueblo I at least in the Dolores
River Valley.
The Pueblo I11 inhabitants of the Sand Canyon Locality were also exposed
to increasing pressure from climatic and geographic circumscription as the
farmbelt narrowed due to climatic effects (Schlanger 1988). Regional populations
on the Colorado Plateau also rose dramatically during this period (Varien et al.
1994). By Pueblo 111, sudden regional population increases and restricted
mobility on the Colorado Plateau potentially led to wild game scarcity in the Sand
Canyon Locality, largely due to the increased numbers of people hunting in a
limited area. In addition, pressure from populations in neighbouring localities may
have led to hunting from several directions, thus further reducing the large game
population and lowering its potential as a reliable meat source. Increased
utilisation of land for agricultural activity has also been known to drive large
animals from an area and may have contributed to the reduction.
A reduction in the hunting of big game is reflected in the faunal
assemblages in the Sand Canyon Locality (Brand 1991, Driver 1993, Driver et al.
1995). Artiodactyls are represented in extremely low frequencies in the smaller
sites in the Sand Canyon Locality (total approximately 2%). Instead highly
valued large game resources are concentrated at Sand Canyon Pueblo (15%)
which is interpreted as the major integrative and ceremonial center in the
community. This implies that big game was being conserved, possibly for ritual
events or social feasting. It seems likely that only under conditions of scarcity
would the inhabitants of the smaller villages stop consuming artiodactyls since
they were highly valued. Overall big game represent a minimal proportion of the
faunal assemblages in the Sand Canyon Locality in comparison to their
proportions in the Dolores assemblages (Neusius 1986).
Recent isotopic and coprolite studies have concluded that the Anasazi
depended primarily on plant resources and exploited animal protein as a
secondary resource (Decker and Tieszen 1989, Minnis 1989, Stiger 1979). It has
also been argued convincingly that all of the Anasazi's nutritional requirements
could have potentially been met by cultigens alone in the Sand Canyon Locality
(Van West and Lipe 1992). The diet of domestic animal populations was
probably largely composed of cultigens as well. This is depicted in the Sand
Canyon Locality where isotopic analysis of turkey bones from Pueblo I11
components had delta 1 3 values
~
of -10.8, -9.5 and -9.9 respectively. This
indicates a diet high in C4 plants, notably maize in the study area (M.A.
Katzenberg personal communication to J. Driver 1993). Despite the emphasis on
plants, evidence for the use of animals as a secondary subsistence source is
abundant in the archaeological record. It is argued here that meat was a valued
resource, and an important dietary component even if it was not nutritionally
essential. Animals provide a more complete protein than plants (Nickens 198l),
and their procurement is often associated with status (Kent 1989). Meat and fat
are also highly desired resources in virtually all ethnographic societies (Abrarns
1987, Hayden 1981, Speth and Spielmann 1983). In addition, animals were not
only valued as a food source but for secondary products as well. Fur, leather and
feathers are essential for the manufacture of warm clothing to enable survival
during cold winters. Animal products also figure prominently in the ceremonial
sphere of past and present societies. Finally, bone is a strong but pliable
substance which is well suited for the manufacture of tools of various functions.
In sum, animal resources were undoubtedly highly valued for both utilitarian and
ceremonial functions. It is therefore expected that if an important animal source is
reduced, it will be compensated for by exploiting a more available fauna.
Population increases are expected to have a similar effect on animals as
they do on plants. If wild resources are unable to meet the needs of a growing
population and mobility is not an option the intensification of domesticates is
expected to result. Because wild resources can not be intensified in response to
increasing demands, increases in population density are expected to promote
mobility, reduce wild resource availability and/or lead to the intensification of
domestic resources. Domestic resources have the potential to be controlled and
manipulated by human groups to achieve greater yields (to a point) and thus
support higher populations. In the case of animals, turkeys were the primary
domestic animal in the region (though dogs were also important), thus turkey
production is expected to intensify if wild game was unable to meet the needs of
the existing population. Domestic animals aquire a higher investment of energy
since they require regular maintenance and must be fed (Earle 1980), it is
therefore likely that the intensification of turkeys took place at a time when wild
game was in low supply.
Conclusion
As proposed above, it is unlikely that wild game was scarce during the
Dolores aggregation thus the intensification of turkey production was
unnecessary to meet demands for animal protein and did not occur. Alternatively,
the later aggregation in the Sand Canyon Locality took place when regional
populations were higher, mobility was restricted and more land was under
cultivation. Wild game populations were therefore reduced as a result of
overhunting and infringement by humans on their territory. It is suggested that
the intensification in domestic turkey production was undertaken as a suitable
alternative.
It is further proposed that aggregation did not encourage the
intensification of domestic animals in the study area, but the two were promoted
by similar conditions. Adler's model (1990a) of aggregation for the Sand Canyon
Locality argues that decreased mobility, increased population densities,
agricultural intensification and resource scarcity were causal factors. These are in
effect the same causal factors which appear to have led to the intensification of
turkeys in the Sand Canyon Locality. Though aggregation and intensification
are caused by similar circumstances their thresholds differ. The intensification of
turkey production took place during early Pueblo 111, as reflected in the mesa top
site assemblages (A.D. 1180-1250) when aggregation had begun on a small scale
(average site size doubled from 6 to 13 rooms) but prior to the coalescence of
Sand Canyon Pueblo. It is argued that big game populations were reduced by
this time, though conditions had not yet reached the point where large-scale
aggregation was a necessary strategy.
The difference between the Dolores and Sand Canyon Locality situations
seems to be a matter of degree, namely in population density. A higher regional
population density in the Mesa Verde region during Pueblo I11 led to restrictions
in mobility which prevented movement to exploit neighbouring resources.
Higher populations also created increased demands on wild fauna and flora and
agricultural production. These factors induced the intensification of domestic
plants and animals to ensure sustenance of the population. Alternatively, in the
Dolores area, mobility was prevented by climatic and geographic but not by
population circumscription. Arable land was limited by climatic and geographic
factors which led to the intensification of agriculture but not animals. In the
surrounding hinterlands low human population densities persisted as most people
were accumulating in proximity to arable land. Population density in surrounding
areas were also lower than they were in Pueblo I11 allowing populations of large
animals to thrive and avoid overexploitation. Big game remained accessible as is
reflected by the high quantities of large mammal bones in Dolores faunal
assemblages (Neusius 1986).
Intersite Variation in Turkey Production Within the Sand Canyon Locality
A distinct pattern in the proportion of turkey in Sand Canyon Locality
faunal assemblages emerges when the Pueblo I11 sites are divided by topographic
location. Between A.D. 1180-1250, prior to the aggregation of Sand Canyon
Pueblo, a dispersed settlement pattern of small mesa top sites was characteristic of
the Sand Canyon Locality. Ca. A.D. 1250 these were abandoned and the
community aggregated into Sand Canyon Pueblo, a large multi-component site
located on the canyon rim at the head of Sand Canyon. Several small settlements
occupying the cliffs, taluses and benches along the canyon walls were also
founded at this time. All of these sites are located within 2 krn of Sand Canyon
Pueblo and are believed to be integrated within the same community (Adler and
Varien 1991, Varien et al. 1994). The lower canyon (McElmo drainage) was also
occupied by numerous small settlements during Pueblo 111. Castle Rock Pueblo is
the largest site in this area, though it is not of the same magnitude as Sand
Canyon Pueblo.
In Chapter IV it was demonstrated that cliff/talus/bench sites located in
Sand Canyon had significantly greater proportions of turkey (69%) in
comparison to lagomorphs and artiodactyls than the other topographic areas.
The mesa tops, lower canyon and Sand Canyon Pueblo had percentages of 36%,
45% and 37% respectively. It was also proven that the difference between the
cliff/talus/bench sites and the remaining sites in the Pueblo I11 sample combined is
statistically significant.
Driver et al. (1995, Driver 1993) consider both environmental/economic
and social models to explain the spatial patterning of turkey production within
the Sand Canyon Locality faunal assemblages. Environmental/econornic models
have largely been discounted as ineffective explanations. For example, one
environmental model proposes that the faunal assemblages differ as they are
products of their topographic location. Differentiation between faunal
assemblages is proposed to result from hunting animals which inhabit the
environment surrounding the site. Deer, for example are not expected to be
numerous in the canyon sites as they inhabit open environments such as mesa
tops. This model may be discounted as each of the canyon sites are located
within several hundred metres of the mesa top sites and are therefore expected to
have overlapping catchment areas and access to similar species. Sand Canyon
Pueblo also occupies a canyon location, yet its assemblage expresses distinctively
different faunal proportions.
Driver et al. (1995, Driver 1993) also consider social models as alternate
explanations for the patterning in the faunal assemblages. In these, inhabitants of
sites which were contemporaneous with Sand Canyon Pueblo are considered to
be either a) integrated within the community or b) excluded from and intimidated
by the larger community. The first two hypotheses operate under the premise
that the cliff/talus/bench sites were united as one community which was
integrated by Sand Canyon Pueblo.
The first model suggests that Sand Canyon Pueblo served primarily as a
ceremonial center, and a focal point for feasting. Its faunal assemblage is
therefore expected to be dominated by species which were ritually valued.
Ethnographically, artiodactyls are credited with high prestige due to the ritual
importance of hunting. To the contrary, the acquisition of turkey meat is
attributed no significant ritual importance, though turkey feathers were valued
(Gnabasik 1981). At Sand Canyon Pueblo there is evidence for higher
percentages of turkeys in room dominated architectural blocks, whereas
artiodactyls and lagomorphs appear in greater frequencies in kiva dominated
blocks. Kivas are commonly believed to be associated with ritual and ceremonial
activity, thus the faunal distribution supports the model. Alternatively, the
distribution of fauna in the canyon sites (higher proportions of turkey, lower
proportions of artiodactyls and lagomorphs) is viewed as representative of
domestic activity. It is proposed that families raised and maintained turkeys near
their homes and lagomorphs were hunted in the canyons. Artiodactyls are
uncommon in these assemblages as they were publicly hunted for ritual activities
which centered around Sand Canyon Pueblo. A more intensive examination of
the Sand Canyon fauna must be undertaken before this hypothesis can be more
fully evaluated.
The second social model suggests that the cliff/talus/bench sites were
production centers for the community centered at Sand Canyon Pueblo. It is
proposed that the inhabitants of the cliff/talus/bench sites were producing
turkeys to trade with Sand Canyon Pueblo, though it has not been determined
what benefits or products they received in exchange. This model seems
improbable as it is unlikely that the cliff/talus/bench residents would be willing to
give up the important activity of big game hunting to focus entirely on domestic
animal production (Gnabasik 1981). Until evidence for trade between the sites is
recovered this model remains highly speculative.
A third hypothesis operates under the condition that the canyon sites were
not integrated within the community centered at Sand Canyon Pueblo but were
in competition with it. The inhabitants of the cliff/talus/bench sites are viewed as
'socially/politically disadvantaged' due to the presence of differential access to
hunting grounds. Using intimidation and sheer numbers Sand Canyon Pueblo
was able to dominate access to big game hunting on the mesa tops, restricting the
cliff/talus/bench groups to hunting in the canyon. The large percentages of
turkey in the canyon site assemblages are viewed as attempts to compensate for
the minimal returns from hunted meat. As an alternate meat source turkeys are
ideal as they could be raised at the sites to ensure access to adequate animal
resources.
In this research an additional hypothesis is proposed to explain intersite
variation in turkey proportions in the Sand Canyon Locality. This model includes
components of the social hypotheses reviewed above. The following discussion
is presented within the framework of resource access as discussed in Chapter 111.
Following Adler and Varien (1991) it is maintained that the sites in the Upper
Sand Canyon are incorporated within one community (the Sand Canyon
Community). The Lower Canyon sites may be an exception, alternatively
belonging to a separate, smaller community for which Castle Rock Pueblo was
the integrative center. In this case ties with the Sand Canyon Community would
have existed primarily through trade (Gleichman and Gleichman 1992). The sites
in the Upper Sand Canyon are believed to be integrated by Sand Canyon Pueblo,
rather than in competition with it as described in the previous model.
It is argued that a land tenure system providing access to multi-household
groups was in effect in the Sand Canyon Community during Pueblo 111. The rules
governing access to land were mediated by the community. The land tenure
system enabled the resolution of conflict brought on by competition over valued
resources and ensured that the energy investment of the primary economic group
was protected. It should also be noted that land tenure systems which operate
below the communal level potentially result in differential access to quality soil.
During Pueblo I11 the presence of numerous field houses within the Sand
Canyon Locality and the contemporaneity of their development with intensified
agricultural practices, suggests that formalised land tenure systems below the
communal level were in existence. Primary access groups for some agricultural
activities were smaller than the community, probably at the multi-household level
(Adler 1992b). Field houses are believed to be indicators which demarcate land
ownership (Kohler 1992). It is therefore suggested that ownership of land plots
was recognised by the community and passed on to future generations, even after
aggregation into Sand Canyon Pueblo.
It has been demonstrated that the association between habitations and
optimum arable land was at its lowest during Pueblo I11 (Adler 1992b). This is
largely the result of the shift in site location to the canyon walls where soil was
patchier. In addition the best arable land was probably already under cultivation.
Migrants to the Sand Canyon Locality during Pueblo I11 when populations
rapidly increased, would have no choice but to farm less arable land as nothing
else was available. As a result, some multi-household groups are believed to have
had access to more marginal land than others, creating the potential for
differential wealth accumulation. The community is believed to have collapsed
before economic differentiation became marked.
Though Van West (1990) has demonstrated that there was sufficient arable
land to adequately maintain the Sand Canyon Community, this assumes that there
was movement of agricultural products from areas of high to areas of low
productivity. Productivity in the Sand Canyon Locality was not necessarily
evenly distributed. It is proposed that some landowners had access to land
capable of producing a surplus whereas others may have had to supplement their
diet using alternative resources. The most viable alternative under the latter
conditions was to intensify the production of domestic animals.
Conclusion
It is concluded that the individuals who inhabited the mesa top sites
during the early thirteenth century later coalesced to form Sand Canyon Pueblo.
By demarcating their land with symbols of ownership such as field houses they
were able to retain access to their land and therefore obtained sufficient
agricultural yields for their sustenance. Formalised tenure systems were in place
to provide the community with the jurisdiction to ensure that the rules of
ownership were upheld and to resolve conflict. The occupants of the
cliff/talus/bench sites are proposed to have migrated into the Sand Canyon
Locality at a later date and therefore received marginal land, as the optimum
arable land was already claimed by the original inhabitants. Turkey production is
argued to have intensified to serve as a dietary supplement. This is reflected in
the high percentage of turkey bone in the cliff/talus/bench sites during late
Pueblo 111.
Problems Encountered
The primary problem encountered during this research concerns the
incompatibility of faunal data within the regional sample. An attempt was made
to elucidate regional trends in domestic turkey production, however
zooarchaeological information was rarely reported consistently. Variation existed
in several aspects of the faunal reports including quantitative strategies,
identification procedures and excavation and sampling methods. Inconsistencies
between quantification methods were particularly problematic. Though NISP
was the most common strategy used, MNI was a popular alternative. The two
methods were rarely presented together which created difficulties, as absolute
values quantified using NISP cannot be directly compared with those using MNI.
Many researchers also neglected to explain the methods they used to calculate
MNI, though alternate methods may result in significantly different results (1979).
In this study, proportions were used in an attempt to eliminate quantitative units,
however this introduced additional confounding variables (see below).
The use of dissimilar criteria to guide identifications also creates
discrepancies within the data. An example was provided earlier (see Chapter IV)
when attempting to compare fauna analysed by Walker with that identified
according to Driver (1991) in the Sand Canyon Locality. It was necessary to
requantify Walker's data using Driver's criteria to enable comparison with the
other sites in the sample. Fortunately this was possible as Walker provided an
appendix of his raw data which included clear descriptions of each element and
species. Driver (1992) makes a call for the standardisation of faunal
identifications, though unfortunately standard criteria has not yet been adopted
and probably will not be in the near future. The methods currently in use are
diverse as are the arguments of support advocated by the researchers who use
them. To establish a system on which we all agree will be a laborious if not
impossible task.
A second problem concerns the use of proportions and/or percentages to
indicate spatial and temporal variation. Proportions are a measure which depict
the amount of a group in relation to the total of the groups being compared. The
total proportions of all groups being evaluated must equal one. In this study the
number of turkey bones in a given faunal assemblage was divided by the total
number of artiodactyl, lagomorph and turkey bones to determine the proportion
of turkey. This allows for easy comparison of the intensity of turkey production
between sites and over time. Problems arose because proportions are relative
measures. An increase in the frequency of one component does not necessarily
represent an absolute rise in that component but may indicate a decrease in a
different component. Because the total proportions in each assemblage must add
up to one, if one component increases an associated decrease must occur in one
or more of the other components. As a result is extremely difficult to determine
what changes are absolute changes and which are simply responding to other
change.
In defense of this method there are few viable alternatives. The use of
absolute values in faunal analysis introduces an infinite number of confounding
variables making their utilisation unworthwhile for this research. A second
alternative is to use an external artifact class such as ceramic cooking pot sherds
or debitage as a control against which to compare the data class under
examination (in this case turkey bone). This approach assumes that the external
data classes accumulate at a constant rate. Population and site occupation times
have been estimated to determine accumulation rates. When tested these
estimates have proven to be fairly reliable (i.e. Blinman 1986), however several
new variables are introduced into the analysis increasing the potential for error.
These are related to the reliability of population or site occupation length
estimates, and the assumption that individuals produce a standard quantity of pot
sherds over a certain length of time. The potential of this method is recognised
and it is recommended as a possible venue for further research. It is essential to
consider the problems discussed above when attempting to identify regional
trends such as the one depicting turkey intensification in this study.
Suggestions for Further Research
Additional research which would benefit the current study involves the
examination of environment and its effect on bone remodeling in turkeys. This
type of research has potential to clarify the confusion surrounding the presence
of turkey breeds and subspecies. Several researchers have questioned the reality
of the races claimed to be present in southwestern archaeological assemblages
and have proposed that osteological variation may instead have been created by
environmental and/or nutritional factors. These may have induced osseous
change in the turkey skeleton but do not necessarily predicate the naming of new
subspecies. Studies which examine the bone of modem turkeys living under
controlled environmental and/or nutritional conditions would be useful for
determining their effects on the shaping of turkey bone. To date no research of
this nature has been performed.
Nitrogen isotope analysis of human bone is also suggested as a promising
venue for further research. Nitrogen isotopic ratios (15~:14N)preserve in bone
collagen and may be used to estimate the importance of plant and animal
products in the human diet (Ambrose and DeNiro 1986). The 1 5 isotope
~
concentration in bone increases concurrently with trophic level. In this research
the technique would be useful for comparing the diet of individuals who
inhabited the cliff/talus/bench sites versus the inhabitants of the remaining Sand
Canyon Locality sites during Pueblo 111. The model presented in this study
proposes that the inhabitants of the cliff/talus/bench sites were supplementing
their diet with meat to compensate for lower agricultural yields as they were
~
farming marginal soils. As a result they are expected to exhibit higher 1 5 values
than the other groups, which would indicate that they were consuming a larger
proportion of meat. Some isotopic studies on Sand Canyon Locality human bone
are currently being undertaken by Annie Katzenberg at the University of
Calgary.
In this study an attempt was made to promote the utilisation of alternate
data sets such as faunal or archaeobotanical remains to address problems dealing
with social and community organisation. Traditionally this type of research has
been performed using architectural remains, settlement data or 'high status' artifact
classes. Future archaeological research will be greatly benefited if it is recognised
that ecological data sets traditionally associated with economic and
environmental research have high potential to substantiate research outside of
these arenas as well. Overall, hypotheses which can be corroborated with
multiple data sets provide much stronger arguments than those based on one type
of data. Therefore, it is hoped that the results of this study can be used to support
research performed by the Crow Canyon Archaeological Center and within the
greater Southwest.
REFERENCES
Abrams, H. L. Jr.
1987 The Preference for Animal Protein and Fat: A Cross-Cultural Survey, in
Food and Evolution Toward a Theory of Human Food Habits, pp. 207223. Temple University Press, Philadelphia, PA.
Adams, K.R.
1992 The Environmental Archaeology Program, in The Sand Canyon
Archaeological Project A Progress Report, edited by W.D. Lipe, pp. 99105, Occasional Paper No. 2, Crow Canyon Archaeological Center, Cortez,
CO.
Adler, M.
1990a Communities of Soil and Stone: An Archaeological Investigation of
Population Aggregation Among the Mesa Verde Region Anasazi; A.D.
900-1300. Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of
Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI.
1990b Community, Aggregation and Land Tenure: The Search for Common
Ground. Paper presented at the Annual Meetings for the Society of
American Archaeology, Las Vegas, NV.
1992a Land Tenure Systems and Prehistoric Land Use: Perspectives from
the American Southwest. Paper presented at the 57th Annual Meetings of
the Society for American Archaeology, Philadelphia, PA.
1992b The Upland Survey. In The Sand Canyon Archaeological Project A
Progress Report, edited by W . D. Lipe, pp. 11-23. Crow Canyon
Archaeological Center Occasional Paper No. 2. Crow Canyon
Archaeological Center, Cortez, CO.
1994 Population Aggregation and the Anasazi Social Landscape: The View
from the Four Comers, in The Ancient Southwestern Community: Models
and Methods for the Study of Prehistoric Social Organization, edited by
W. H. Wills and R.D.Leonard, pp. 85-102, University of New Mexico Press,
Albuquerque, NM.
Adler, M., and M. Varien
1991 The Changing Face of the Community in the Mesa Verde Region A.D.
1000-1300; Paper presented at the Second Anasazi Symposium, Mesa Verde
National Park, CO.
N. J.
- Akins,
1985 Prehistoric Faunal Utilization in Chaco Canyon Basketmaker I11 through
Pueblo 111. In Environment and Subsistence of Chaco Canyon, New
Mexico, edited by F . J. Mathien. National Parks Service, Albuquerque, NM.
Ambrose, S.H. and M.J. DeNiro
1986 Reconstruction of African human diet using bone collagen carbon and
nitrogen isotope ratios, in Nature 319: 321-324.
Armitage, P.
1986 Domestication of Animals. In Bioindustrial Ecosystems, edited by D. J.
A. Cole and G. C. Brander, pp. 5-30, Elsevier Science Publishers, Amsterdam,
Netherlands.
Bertram, J. B.
1991 An Analysis of Archaeological Assemblages, Nonhuman Burials and
Worked Bone Items: Hovenweep Laterals Project Appendix F. In
Archaeological Excavation on the Hovenweep Laterals, edited by J. N.
Moms, pp. 991-1104, Complete Archaeological Service Associates, Cortez,
CO.
Blinman, E.
1986 Technology: Ceramic Containers, in Dolores Archaeological Program:
Final Synthetic Report, edited by D.A. Breternitz, C.K. Robinson and G.T.
Gross, pp. 595-609. United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of
Reclamation, Denver, CO.
Boessneck, J., and A. von den Driesch
1978 The Significance of Measuring Animal Bones from Archaeological Sites.
In Approaches to Faunal Analysis in the Middle East, edited by R. H.
Meadow and M. A. Zeder, pp. 25-39, Peabody Museum Bulletin 2.
Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Cambridge, MA.
Bokonyi, S.
1969 Archaeological Problems and Methods of Recognizing Animal
Domestication. In The Domestication and Exploitation of Plants and
Animals, edited by P. J. Ucko and G. W. Dimbleby, pp. 219-229. London.
Boserup, E.
1965 The Conditions of Agricultural Growth. Aldine Publishing Co., Chicago,
IL.
Bradley, B. A.
1992 Excavations at Sand Canyon Pueblo. In The Sand Canyon
Archaeological Project: A Progress Report, edited by W. D. Lipe, pp. 7998. Occasional Paper No. 2. Crow Canyon Archaeological Center, Cortez,
CO.
Brand, M. J.
1991 Zooarchaeology of Sand Canyon Pueblo, Shorlene's Site, Roy's Ruin,
Lillian's Site and Troy's Tower, Colorado. Honours Thesis, Department of
Archaeology, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, BC.
Braun, D. P., and S. Plog
168
1982 Evolution of "Tribal" Social Networks: Theory and Prehistoric North
American Evidence. American Antiquity 47(3):504-525.
Breitburg, E.
1988 Prehistoric New World Turkey Domestication: Origins, Developments
and Consequences. Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Anthropology,
Southern Illinois University, Carbondale IL.
Bullard, W.
1962 The Cerro Colorado Site and Pithouse Architecture in the
Southwestern United States Prior to A.D. 900. Peabody Museum of
Archaeology and Ethnology Papers vol44(2). Peabody Museum, Harvard
University, Cambridge, MA.
Bullock, M. E.
1992 Morphological and Functional Analysis of a Pueblo III Anasazi bone
Tool Assemblage from Southwestern Colorado. M.A. Thesis, Department
of Anthropology, Washington State University.
Capone, P. H., and M. J. Schoeninger
1991 Food or Feathers: Amino Acid Racernization Analysis of Turkey Bone.
Paper presented at the 56th Annual Meeting of the Society for American
Archaeology, New Orleans, LA.
Cattanach, G. S. J.
1980 Long House Mesa Verde National Park, Colorado. National Park
Service Publications in Archaeology No. 7H. United States Department of
the Interior, National Parks Service, Washington, DC.
Chao, V. S.
1991 Stylistic and Functional Variability Within Sand Canyon Pueblo. Ms.
on file, Crow Canyon Archaeological Center, Cortez, CO.
Cordell, L. S.
1984 Prehistory of the Southwest. Academic Press Inc., San Diego, CA.
.- Cordell, L. S., D. E. Doyel, and K. W. Kintigh
,
d
1994 The Process of Aggregation in the Southwest. In The Origin and
Evolution of Prehistoric Southwest Society, edited by G. Gumerman and M.
Gell-Mann. School for American Research Press, Santa Fe, NM.
Dean, J. S., R. C. Euler, G. J. Gumerman, F. Plog, R. H. Hevly, and T. N. V.
Karlstrom
1985 Human Behaviour, Demography, and Paleoenvironment on the
Colorado Plateaus. American Antiquity 50537-554.
Decker, K. W., and L. L. Tieszen
i'
/' 1989
Isotopic Reconstruction of Mesa Verde Diet from Basketmaker I11 to
Pueblo 111. Kiva 55(1):33-47.
Driver, J. C.
1982 Medullary Bone as an Indicator of Sex in Bird Remains from
Archaeological Sites. In Ageing and Sexing Animal Bones from
Archaeological Sites, edited by Bob Wilson, C. Grigson and S. Payne, pp.
25 1-254, BAR British Series 109. Oxford, England.
1991 Crow Canyon Archaeological Center Manual for Description of
Vertebrate Remains. Ms. on file, Crow Canyon Archaeological Center,
Cortez, CO.
1992 Identification, Classification and Zooarchaeology. Circaea 9(1):35-47.
1993 Social Complexity and Hunting Systems in Southwestern Colorado.
Paper presented at the Chacmool Conference "Debating Complexity",
Calgary, AB.
Driver, J. C., M. J. Brand, L. Lester, and N. MUNO
1995 Faunal Studies. In The Site Testing Program, edited by M . D. Varien,
Crow Canyon Archaeological Center Occasional Paper, in press.
Ducos, P.
1978 "Domestication" Defined and Methodological Approaches to its
Recognition in Faunal Assemblages. In Approaches to Faunal Analysis
in the Middle East, edited by R.H. Meadow and M. A. Zeder, pp. 53-62.
Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Cambridge, MA.
1989 Defining Domestication: A Clarification. In The Walking h r d e r , edited
by J. Clutton-Brock, pp. 28-30, Unwin Hyman, London, England.
Earle, T. K.
1980 A Model of Subsistence Change. In Modeling Prehistoric Subsistence
Economies, edited by T . K. Earle and A. L. Christenson, pp. 1-29. Studies in
Archaeology. Academic Press, New York, NY.
El-Najaar, M.
1976 The Etiology of Porotic Hyperostosis among the Prehistoric and Historic
Anasazi Indians of Southwestern United States. American Journal of
Physical Anthropology 44477-88.
Emslie, S. D.
1977 Interpretation of Faunal Remains from Archaeological Sites in
Mancos Canyon, Southwestern Colorado. M.A. Thesis, Department of
Anthropology, University of Colorado.
1987 Prehistory of the Americas. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,
England.
\-
Ford, R. I.
198 1 Gardening and Farming before A.D. 1000: Patterns of Prehistoric
Cultivation North of Mexico. Journal of Ethnobiology 1(1):6-27.
Gilbert, B. M., L. D. Martin, and H. G. Savage
1985 Avian Osteology. Modern Printing Co., Lararnie, WY.
Gilman, P. A.
1987 Architecture as Artifact: Pit Structures and Pueblos in the American
Southwest. American Antiquity 52538-564.
Gleichman, P. J., and C. L. Gleichman
1992 The Lower Canyon Survey. In The Sand Canyon Archaeological
Project A Progress Report, edited by W. D. Lipe, pp. 25-31. Crow
Canyon Archaeological Center Occasional Paper No. 2. Crow Canyon
Archaeological Center, Cortez, CO.
Gnabasik, V. R.
1981 Faunal Utilization by The Pueblo Indians. M.A. Thesis, Department of
Anthropology, Eastern New Mexico University.
Gould, R. R.
1982 The Mustoe Site: The Application of Neutron Activation Analysis in
the Interpretation of a Multi-component Archaeological Site. Ph.D.
Thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Texas at Austin.
Grayson, D. K.
1979 On the Quantification of Vertebrate Archaeofaunas. In Advances in
Archaeological Method and Theory, edited by M . B. Schiffer, pp. 199-237.
Academic Press, San Diego, CA.
1984 Quantitative Zooarchaeology. Academic Press, New York, NY.
Greenfield, H. J.
1988 The Origins of Milk and Wool Production in the Old World: A
Zooarchaeological Perspective from the Centrid Balkans. Current
Anthropology 29573-593.
1991 Fauna From the Late Neolithic of the Central Balkans: Issues in
Subsistence and Land Use. Journal of Field Archaeology 18:161-186.
Haas, J., and W. Creamer
1990 The Irritating Role of Warfare in the Pueblo I11 Period. Paper presented
at the Conference for Pueblo Cultures in Transition: A.D. 1150-1350 in the
American Southwest, Crow Canyon Archaeological Center, Cortez, CO.
Hallasi, J. A.
1979 Archaeological Excavations at the Escalante Site, Dolores, Colorado,
1975 and 1976. Cultural Resource Series No. 7(2) Bureau of Land
Management, Colorado State Office, Colorado.
Hargrave, L. L.
1965 Turkey Bones from Wetherill Mesa. American Antiquity 3 1:161- 166.
1970 Feathers From Sand Dune Cave: A Basketmaker Cave Near Navajo
Mountain, Utah. Technical Series. Museum of Northern Arizona, Flagstaff,
Arizona.
Harvey, E. B., H. E. Kaiser, and L. E. Rosenburg
1968 An Atlas of the Domestic Turkey. U.S. Atomic Energy Commission,
Division of Biology and Medicine, Washington, DC.
Hawley Ellis, F.
1968 An Interpretation of Prehistoric Death Customs in Terms of Modem
Southwestern Parallels. In Collected Papers in Honor of Lyndon Lane
Hargrave, edited by A. H. Schroeder, pp. 57-76 Museum of New Mexico
Press, Santa Fe, NM.
Hayden, B.
1981 Subsistence and Ecological Adaptations of Modem HunterIGatherers.
In Omnivorous Primates: Gathering and Hunting in Human Evolution,
edited by G . Teleki and R. Harding, pp. 344-422. Columbia University Press,
New York, NY.
1990 Nimrods, Piscators, Pluckers, and Planters: The Emergence of Food
Production. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 9:3 1-69.
1992 Models of Domestication. In Transitions to Agriculture in Prehistory,
edited by A. B. Gebauer and T. D. Price, pp. 11-19. Prehistory Press,
Madison, WI.
Hayes, A. C., and J. A. Lancaster
1975 The Badger House Community: Mesa Verde National Park. National
Park Service Publications in Archaeology No. 7E. United States Department
of the Interior, National Parks Service, Washington, DC.
Hegmon, M.
1991 Six Easy Steps to Dating Pueblo III Ceramic Assemblages: Working
Draft. Ms. on file, Crow Canyon Archaeological Center, Cortez, CO.
Hesse, B.
1982 Slaughter Patterns and Domestication: The Beginnings of Pastoralism in
Western Iran. Man 17:403-417.
Hesse, B., and P. Wapnish
1985 Animal Bone Archaeology, From Objectives to Analysis. Taraxacum,
Washington, DC.
Higgs, E. S., and M. R. J m a n
1972 The Origins of Animal and Plant Husbandry. In Papers in Economic
Prehistory, edited by E. S. Higgs, pp. 3-13 Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, England.
Hill, J. N., and W. N. Trierweiler
1986 Prehistoric Response to Food Stress on the Pajarito Plateau, New
Mexico: Technical Report and Results of the Pajarito Archaeological
Research Project, 1977-1985. Final Report to the National Science
Foundation for Grant #BNS-78-08118.
Huber, E. K., and W. D. Lipe
1992 Excavations at the Green Lizard Site. In The Sand Canyon
Archaeological Project A Progress Report, edited by W. D. Lipe, pp. 69-78.
Crow Canyon Archaeological Center Occasional Paper No. 2. Crow
Canyon Archaeological Center, Cortez, CO.
Hunter-Anderson, R.
1979 Explaining Residential Aggregation in the Northern Rio Grande: A
Competition Reduction Model. In Adaptive Change in the Northern Rio
Grande Valley, edited by J. V. Biella and R. C. Chapman, pp. 169-175.
Archaeological Investigations in Cochiti Resevoir, New Mexico Volume 4.
Office of Contract Archeology, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque,
NM.
Jarman, M. R., and P. F. Wilkinson
1972 Criteria of Animal Domestication. In Papers in Economic Prehistory,
edited by E. S. Higgs, pp. 83-96, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,
England.
\
Johnson, G. A.
1989 Dynamics of Southwestern Prehistory: Far Outside-Looking in. In
Dynamics of Southwestern Prehistory, edited by L. S. Cordell and G. J.
Gumerman, pp. 371-389. Srnithsonian Institute, Washington, D.C.
Kane, A. E.
1986 Prehistory of the Dolores River Valley, in Dolores Archaeological
Program: Final Synthetic Report, edited by D.A. Breternitz, C.K. Robinson
and G.T. Gross, pp. 353-435. United States Department of the Interior,
Bureau of Reclamation Engineering and Recreation Center, Denver, CO.
Kent, S.
1986 The Influence of Sedentism and Aggregation on Porotic Hyperostosis
and Anaemia: A Case Study. Man 21.:605-36.
1989 Cross-cultural Perceptions of Farmers as Hunters and the Value of Meat.
In Farmers as Hunters, edited by S. Kent, pp. 1-17, Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge, England.
1991 Excavations at a Small Mesa Verde Pueblo I1 Anasazi Site in
Southwestern Colorado. Kiva 57(1):55-75.
Kintigh, K.
1985 Settlement, Subsistence and Society in Late Zuni Prehistory.
Anthropological Papers No. 44. University of Arizona Press, Tucson, AZ.
Kohler, T. A.
1989 Introduction. In Bandelier Archaeological Excavation Project:
Research Design and Summer I988 Sampling, edited by T . A. Kohler, pp. 112. Reports of Investigations 6 1. Washington State University, Pullman,
WA.
1992 Field Houses, Villages, and the Tragedy of the Commons in the Early
Northern Anasazi Southwest. American Antiquity 57:6 17-635.
Kohler, T. A., and M. H. Matthews
1988 Long-Term Anasazi Land Use and Forest Reduction: A Case Study
@ from Southwestern Colorado. American Antiquity 53537-564.
Kuckelman, K. A., J. Kleidon, M. D. Varien, and R. R. Lightfoot
1991 1990 Sand Canyon Project Site Testing Program: Preliminary Report on
the Excavations at Saddlehorn (5MT262), Mad Dog Tower (5MT181),
Castle Rock Pueblo (5MT1825), Lester's Site (5MT10246), Lookout House
(5MT10459) and Cougar Cub Alcove (5MT1690). Ms. on file, Crow
Canyon Archaeological Center, Cortez, CO.
Kuckelrnan, K. A., and J. N. Monis
1988 Archaeological Investigations on South Canal, vol. 2. Bureau of Land
Management, Salt Lake City, UT.
Lang, R. W., and A. H. Harris
1984 The Faunal Remains from Arroyo Hondo Pueblo. School of American
Research Press, Santa Fe, NM.
Lange, C. H.
1950 Notes on the Use of Turkeys by Pueblo Indians. El Palacio 57:204209.
LeBlanc, S. A.
1978 Settlement Patterns in the El Morro Valley, New Mexico. In
Investigations of the Southwestern Anthropological Research Group,
edited by R. C. Euler and G. J. Gumerman, pp. 45-5 1, Museum of Northern
Arizona, Flagstaff, AZ.
Lekson, S. H.
1991 Settlement Pattern and the Chaco Region. In Chaco and Hohokam
Prehistoric Systems in the American Southwest, edited by P . L. Crown and
J. W. Judge, pp. 3 1-55. School of American Research Press, Santa Fe, NM.
1992 Scale and Process in the Southwest. Paper presented at the Third
Southwest Symposium, Tucson, AZ.
Lightfoot, K. G.
1989 Prehistoric Political Dynamics: A Case Study from the American
Southwest. DeKalb, IL, Northern Illinois University Press.
Lightfoot, K. G., and S. Upham
1989 Complex Societies in the Prehistoric American Southwest: A
Consideration of the Controversy. In The Sociopolitical Structure of
Southwestern Prehistoric Societies, edited by S. Upham, K. G. Kent and R.
A. Jewett, pp. 3-30. Westview Press, Boulder, CO.
Lightfoot, R. R.
1991 Sand Canyon Locality Context: Research Design and Preliminary
Results. Ms. on file, Crow Canyon Archaeological Center, Cortez CO.
Linares, 0.F.
1976 Garden Hunting in the American Tropics. Human Ecology 4:33 1349.
Lipe, W., D.
1992a Introduction. In The Sand Canyon Archaeological Project A
Progress Report, edited by W. D. Lipe, pp. 1-10. Occasional Paper No. 2.
Crow Canyon Archaeological Center, Cortez, CO.
1992b Summary and Concluding Remarks. In The Sand Canyon
Archaeological Project A Progress Report, edited by W. D. Lipe, pp. 121133. Occasional Paper No. 2. Crow Canyon Archaeological Center, Cortez,
CO.
Lyman, R. L.
1979 Faunal Analysis: An Outline of Method and Theory with Some
Suggestions. Northwest Anthropological Research Notes 13:22-35.
Martin, D. L., A. H. Goodman, and G. J. Armelagos
1985 Skeletal Pathologies as Indicators of Diet. In The Analysis of
Prehistoric Diets, edited by R. I. Gilbert and J. H. Mielke, pp. 227-279.
Academic Press, Inc., Orlando, FL.
Matson, R. G.
1991 The Origins of Southwestern Agriculture. University of Arizona Press,
Tucson, AZ.
.
Matson, R. G., and B. Chisolrn
, 1 9 9 1 Basketmaker I1 Subsistence: Carbon Isotopes and Other Dietary
Indicators from Cedar Mesa, Utah. American Antiquity 56:444-459.
McKusick, C. R.
1974 The Casas Grandes Avian Report. In Casas Grandes, A Fallen Trading
Center of the Gran Chichimeca, edited by C. C. DiPeso, J. B. Rinaldo and
G. J. Fenner, pp. 273-307, Amerind Foundation, Inc., Dragoon.
1980a Three Groups of Turkeys from Southwestern Archaeological Sites.
Contributions to Science 330:225-235.
1980b Avian Remains. In Long House Mesa Verde National Park, Colorado,
edited by G. J. Cattanach, pp. 391-398. Publications in Archaeology 7H.
National Park Service, United States Department of the Interior, Washington,
DC.
1981 The Faunal Remains of La Humanas. In Contributions to Gran Quivira
Archeology, edited by A. C. Hayes, pp. 39-56. National Park Service,
United States Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C.
1982 Avifauna from Grasshopper Pueblo. In Multidisciplinary Research at
Grasshopper Pueblo, Arizona, edited by W. A. Longacre, S. J. Holbrook
and M. W. Graves, pp. 87-96. University of Arizona Press, Tucson, AZ.
1986 Southwest Indian Turkeys, Prehistory and Comparative Osteology.
Southwest Bird Laboratory, Globe, AZ.
Meadow, R. H.
1989 Osteological Evidence for the Process of Animal Domestication. In The
Walking Larder, edited by J . Clutton-Brock, pp. 80-90, Unwin Hyman,
London, England.
Medlock, R. C.
1975 Faunal Analysis. In The Cache River Archaeological Project: An
Experiment in Contract Archaeology, edited by M. B. Schiffer and J. H.
House, pp. 223-242. Arkansas Research Series No. 8. Arkansas
Archaeological Survey, Fayetteville, AK.
Micozzi, M. A.
1991 Postmortem Change in Human and Animal Remains: A Systematic
Approach. Charles Thomas, Springfield, IL.
Minnis, P. E.
1985 Social Adaptations to Food Stress: A Prehistoric Southwestern
,
Example. Prehistoric Archaeology and Ecology Series. University of
&
Chicago, Chicago, IL.
%
1989 Prehistoric Diet in the Northern Southwest: Macroplant Remains from
Four Comers Feces. American Antiquity 54543-563.
Moms, E. H.
1939 Archaeological Studies in the La Plata District, Southwestern
Colorado and Northwestern New Mexico. Carnegie Institution of
Washington, Publication No. 19, Washington, DC.
'
1954 Basketmaker III Sites Near Durango, Colorado. Carnegie Institute of
Washington, Publication 604, Washington, DC.
Moms, J. N.
1991 Archaeological Excavations on the Hovenweep Laterals. Four Corners
Archaeological Project Report No. 16. Complete Archaeological Service
Associates, Cortez, CO.
Nash, D. T., and M. D. Petraglia
1987 Natural Formation Processes in the Archaeological Record: Present
Problems and Future Requisites. In Natural Formation Processes and the
Archaeological Record, edited by D. T. Nash and M. D. Petraglia, pp. 186203. BAR International Series 352, Oxford, England.
Neusius, S. W.
1985 Faunal Analysis from the 1984 Excavation at 5MT765: A Preliminary
Report. Ms. on file, Crow Canyon Archaeological Center, Cortez, CO.
1986 The Dolores Archaeological Program Faunal Data Base: Resource
Availability and Resource Mix. In Dolores Archaeological Program:
Final Synthetic Report, edited by D. A. Breternitz, C. K. Robinson and G. T.
Gross, pp. 199-302, United States Department of the Interior, Denver,
Colorado.
Nickens, P. R.
1981 Pueblo III Communities in Transition: Environment and Adaptation in
Johnson Canyon. The Colorado Archaeological Society in cooperation with
the University of Colorado at Boulder, Boulder, CO.
Olsen, S. J.
1968 The Osteology of the Wild Turkey, Appendix. In Peabody Museum
Papers v. 56 #2. Peabody Museum Papers. Peabody Museum of
Archaeology and Ethnology, Boston, MA.
1979 Archaeologically What Constitutes an Early Domestic Animal? In
Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory, edited by M. B. Schiffer,
pp. 175-179. Academic Press, San Diego, CA.
Orcutt, J. P., E. Blinman, and T. A. Kohler
.
1990 Explanation of Population Aggregation in the Mesa Verde Region Prior
to A.D. 900. In Perspectives on Southwestern Prehistory, edited by P. E.
Minnis and C. L. Redman, pp. 196-212. Westview Press, Boulder, CO.
Palkovich, A. M.
1980 Arroyo Hondo Skeletal and Mortuary Remains. Arroyo Hondo
Archaeological series. School of American Research Press, Santa Fe, NM.
Parsons, E. C.
1970 Taos Pueblo. General Series in Anthropology No. 2., Johnson Reprint
Corporation, New York, NY.
Pinkley, J. M.
1965 The Pueblos and the Turkey: Who Domesticated Whom? American
Antiquity 3 1:70-72.
Plog, F., G. J. Gurnerrnan, R. C. Euler, J. S. Dean, R. H. Hevly, and T. N. V.
Karlstrom
1988 Anasazi Adaptive Strategies: The Model, Predictions and Results. In
The Anasazi in a Changing Environment, edited by G. Gumerman, pp. 230276. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England.
0.
Plog, S.
1986 Spatial Organization and Exchange: Archaeological Survey on
Northern Black Mesa. Southern Illinois University Press, Carbondale, IL.
Prudden, T. M.
1903 The Prehistoric Ruins of the San Juan Watershed in Utah, Arizona,
Colorado and New Mexico. American Anthropologist 5(2):244-288.
Rea, A. M.
1980 Late Pleistocene and Holocene Turkeys in the Southwest. In Papers in
Avian Paleontology Honoring Hildegarde Howard, edited by K . E.
Campbell Jr., pp. 209-224. Natural History Museum of Los Angeles
County, Los Angeles, CA.
Reed, A. D.
1977 The Dominquez Ruin: A McElmo Phase Pueblo in Southwestern
Colorado. M.A. Thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of
Colorado.
Reed, E. K.
1951 Turkeys in Southwestern Archaeology. El Palacio 58: 195-205.
Rick, A. M.
1975 Bird Medullary Bone: A Seasonal Dating Technique for Faunal
Analysts. Bulletin of the Canadian Archaeological Association 7:183190.
Rindos, D.
1984 The Origins of Agriculture. The Academic Press, London, England.
Rohn, A. H.
1971 Mug House, Mesa Verde National Park, Colorado. National Park
Service Archaeological Research Series 7D. United States Department of the
Interior, National Parks Service, Washington, D.C.
1977 Cultural Change and Continuity on Chapin Mesa. The Regents Press
of Kansas, Lawrence, KS.
1989 Northern San Juan Prehistory. In Dynamics of Southwestern
Prehistory, edited by L. S. Cordell and G. J. Gumerman, pp. 149-177. School
of American Research Advanced Seminar Series. Smithsonian Institution
Press, Washington, DC.
Schlanger, S. H.
1985 Population Change in the Dolores Area. Paper presented at the 50th
Annual Meeting, Society for American Archaeology, Denver, CO.
1988 Patterns of Population Movement and Long-term Population Growth in
Southwestern Colorado. American Antiquity 53:773-793.
Schorger, A. W.
1961 An Ancient Pueblo Turkey. Auk 78: 138-144.
1966 The Wild Turkey. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman, Oklahoma.
1970 A New Subspecies of Meleagris gallopavo. Auk 87:168-170.
Schroeder, A. H.
1968 Birds and Feathers in Documents Relation to Indians of the Southwest.
In Collected Papers in Honor of Lyndon Lane Hargrave, edited by A. H.
Schroeder, pp. 95- 114. Museum of New Mexico Press, Santa Fe, NM.
Schwab, A. L., B. A. Bradley, and R. L. Lightfoot
1989 Laboratory Manual Crow Canyon Archaeological Center. Ms. on file,
Crow Canyon Archaeological Center, Cortez, CO.
.-,.
& '/,
Senior, L. M., and L. J. Pierce
1989 Turkeys and Domestication in the Southwest: Implications from
Homol'ovi 111. Kiva 54:245-259.
Shaffer, B.S.
Interpretation of Gopher Remains from Southwestern Archaeological
6- 1992Assemblages.
American Antiquity 57:683-691.
Sherratt, A. G.
179
1983 The Secondary Exploitation of Animals in the Old World. World
Archaeology l5(1):9O- 104.
Speth, J. D., and S. L. Scott
1985 The Role of Large Mammals in Late Prehistoric Horticultural
Adaptations: The View from Southeastern New Mexico. In Contributions
to Plains Prehistory, edited by D. Burley, pp. 233-258. Occasional Paper
#26. Alberta Culture Historical Resources Division, Alberta.
1989 Horticulture and Large-mammal Hunting: The Role of Resource
Depletion and the Constraints of Time and Labor. In Farmers as Hunters,
edited by S. Kent, pp. 71-79. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,
England.
Speth, J.D. and K.A. Spielmann
1983 Energy Source, Protein Metabolism, and Hunter-Gatherer Subsistence
Strategies. In Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 2: 1-31.
Steadman, D. W.
1980 A Review of the Osteology and Paleontology of Turkeys (Aves:
Meleagridinae). In Papers in Avian Paleontology Honoring Hildegarde
Howard, edited by K. E. Campbell Jr., pp. 131-207. Natural History
Museum of Los Angeles County, Los Angeles, CA.
Stiger, M. A.
1979 Mesa Verde Subsistence Patterns from Basketmaker to Pueblo 111. The
Kiva 44:133-144.
Swannack, J. D.
1969 Big Juniper House, Mesa Verde. National Park Service Archaeological
Research Series 7C. United States Department of the Interior, National Parks
Service, Washington, D.C.
Upham, S.
1982 Politics and Power: An Economic and Political History of the Western
Pueblo. Academic Press, New York.
Van der Merwe, N.J.
1982 Carbon Isotopes, Photosynthesis, and Archaeology. American Scientist
70: 596-606.
Van West, C.
1990 Modeling Prehistoric Climatic Variability and Agricultural
Production in Southwestern Colorado: A G.I.S.Approach. Ph.D.
dissertation Thesis, Department of Anthropology, Washington State
University, Pullman, WA.
Van West, C. R., and W. D. Lipe
1992 Modeling Prehistoric Climate and Agriculture in Southwestern
Colorado. In The Sand Canyon Archaeological Project A Progress Report,
edited by W. D. Lipe, pp. 105-119. Occasional Paper No. 2. Crow Canyon
Archaeological Center, Cortez, CO.
Varien, M. D., K. A. Kuckelrnan, and J. H. Kleidon
1992 The Site Testing Program. In The Sand Canyon Archaeological
Program A Progress Report, edited by W . D. Lipe, pp. 45-67. Occasional
Paper No. 2. Crow Canyon Archaeological Center, Cortez, CO.
Varien, M. D., and R. L. Lightfoot
1989 Ritual and Nonritual Activities in Mesa Verde Region Pit Structures. In
The Architecture of Social Integration in Prehistoric Pueblos, edited by
W. D. Lipe and M. Hegmon, pp. 73-87. Occasional Paper No. 1. Crow
Canyon Archaeological Center, Cortez, CO.
Varien, M. D., W. D. Lipe, B. A. Bradley, M. A. Adler, and I. Thompson
1994 Southwest Colorado and Southeast Utah Mesa Verde Region
Settlement A.D. 1100 to 1300. In Pueblo Cultures in Transition A.D. 11001350, edited by M. A. Adler. In press.
Vierra, B. J.
1990 Archaic Hunter-Gatherer Archaeology in Northwestern New Mexico. In
Perspectives on Southwestern Prehistory, edited by P. E. Minnis and C. L.
Redman, pp. 57-67. Westview Press, United States.
von den Driesch, A.
1976 A Guide to the Measurement of Animal Bones from Archaeological
Sites. Peabody Museum Bulletins. Peabody Museum of Archaeology and
Ethnology, Boston, MA.
Walker, D. N.
1989 Duckfoot Site (5MT765) Zooarchaeology. Ms. on file at Crow Canyon
Archaeological Center, Cortez, CO.
1990a Preliminary Report of Faunal Remains from Sand Canyon Pueblo
(5MT765), Colorado. Ms. on file, Crow Canyon Archaeological Center,
Cortez, CO.
1990b Zooarchaeology of the Green Lizard Site (5MT3901), Colorado. Ms.
on file, Crow Canyon Archaeological Center, Cortez, CO.
Wilcox, D. R., and J. Haas
1991 The Reality of Competition and Conflict in the Prehistoric Southwest.
Unpublished Ms. on file, Crow Canyon Archaeological Center, Cortez, CO.
W i s , W. H.
1988 Early Agriculture and Sedentism in the Prehistoric Southwest. In
Journal of World Prehistory 2: 445-488.
Wills, W. H., and T. C. Windes
1989 Evidence for Population Aggregation and Dispersal during the
Basketmaker I11 Period in Chaco Canyon, New Mexico. American
"
Antiquity 54:347-369.
c,
Wilshusen, R. H.
1989 Unstuffing the Estufa: Ritual Floor Features in Anasazi Pit Structures
and Pueblo Kivas. In The Architecture of Social Integration in Prehistoric
Pueblos, edited by W . D. Lipe and M. Hegmon, pp. 89-111. Occasional
Paper No. 1. Crow Canyon Archaeological Center, Cortez, CO.
Windes, T. C.
1987 The Use of Turkeys at Pueblo Alto Based on the Eggshell and Faunal
Remains. In Investigations at the Pueblo Alto Complex, Chaco Canyon,
" ' I
edited by F. J. Mathien and T. C. Windes, pp. 679-690. National Parks
Service, Santa Fe, NM.
Winship, G.
1896 The Coronado Expedition. 14th Annual Report, 1892-1893. Bureau of
American Ethnology, Washington, DC.
Appendix A: Elemental Distribution of Turkey by Site
I
Appendix A: Frequency of turkey elements in Sand Canyon Locality sites.
-
lSite Number
I
I
Appendix B: Measurements of Tarsometatarsi
18.6
18.6
18.9
18.5
19.3
19.4
19.4
18
19.5
19.5
19.9
19.9
20
20.1
19.4
20.3
20.5
20.5
20.6
19.5
No value
21
20.7
No Value
21.9
22.9
22
22
22
22.3
22.5
22.7
22.7
22.8
22.9
23
23
23.3
No value
Appendix B: Table of distal breadth and greatest length measurements of tarsi in
the Sand Canyon Locality sample. Bold type denotes estimated
values. An asterisk indicates a spurred male.
186
Appendix B continued: Table of distal breadth and greatest length
measurements of tarsi in the Sand Canyon Locality sample. Bold
type denotes estimated values. An asterisk indicates a spurred male.
Appendix C: Statistics Testing Spatial Variation in Turkey Production
Turkey Total
Other SCL Sites
Xj
Mj
M j [Xj-p(c)Mj]z
Sand Canyon Pueblo
767 2099 0.3654
1730.9264
Castle ~ o c Pueblo
k
Saddlehorn Hamlet
G and G Hamlet
Shorlene's Site
Roy's Ruin
Lillian's Site
Troy's Tower
Kenzie Dawn
Total
Average
Cliff/Bench/Talus
Catherine's Site
Stanton's Site
Lester's Site
Lookout House
Total
Average
Variance
SD
SE
95% CI
-
-Other
0.0032
-
Talus
0.0005
0.0566 0.0222
0.0189 0.01 11
0.0378 0.0222
Appendix C: Average variance and standard deviations for turkey proportions
in cliff/talus/bench sites versus all other sites in the Sand Canyon
Locality sample.