Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Prehistoric Anasazi diet : a synthesis of archaeological evidence 1994

You don't seem to have a PDF reader installed, try download the pdf

Item Metadata

Download

Media
ubc_1995-0003.pdf
ubc_1995-0003.pdf [ 6.67MB ]
ubc_1995-0003.pdf
ubc_1995-0003.pdf
Metadata
JSON: 1.0058372.json
JSON-LD: 1.0058372+ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 1.0058372.xml
RDF/JSON: 1.0058372+rdf.json
Turtle: 1.0058372+rdf-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 1.0058372+rdf-ntriples.txt
Citation
1.0058372.ris

Full Text

PREHISTORIC ANASAZI DIET: A SYNTHESIS OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE by M I C H A E L J A M E S B R A N D B.A. (Hon.), Simon Fraser University, 1991 A THESIS S U B M I T T E D IN P A R T I A L F U L F I L L M E N T O F T H E R E Q U I R E M E N T S F O R T H E D E G R E E O F M A S T E R O F A R T S in T H E F A C U L T Y O F G R A D U A T E STUDIES (Department of Anthropology and Sociology) We accept this thesis as conforming to the reauired standard- T H E U N I V E R S I T Y O F BRIT ISH C O L U M B I A November 1994 © Michael James Brand, 1994 In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make it freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of my department or by his or her representatives. It is understood that copying or publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission. Department of ///? fyrorfofo^Y -and Sac/'o/o< The University of British Columbia Vancouver, Canada Date hloy. w ; mn DE-6 (2788) ABSTRACT Prehistoric Anasazi diet from the Basketmaker II to Pueblo III periods is examined through a synthesis of four lines of archaeological data taken from the literature: faunal analysis, flotation and pollen analysis, coprolite analysis and stable carbon isotope analysis. This study examines the importance of com in Anasazi diet, the intensification of agricultural production and changes in diet which may be linked to the thirteenth century regional abandonments. The core resources, or dietary staples, in the Anasazi diet are identified for each period of the Anasazi tradition. The results indicate considerable similarity in the diets of the people from the four Anasazi branches discussed and throughout the time periods considered. The analysis demonstrates that corn was the primary resource in the Anasazi diet beginning in the Basketmaker II period. Squash and a number of wild plants also made substantial contributions to the diet. Evidence was found for stable agricultural production, with no indication of intensification aimed at the three commonly discussed cultigens: corn, squash and beans. The appearance of cotton in the later pueblo periods, however, may represent an attempt to increase food production through the adoption of a new cultigen. This study has found that the utilization of food resources remained stable throughout the Anasazi occupation of the Colorado Plateau, including the period immediately prior to the regional abandonments. TABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract Table of Contents List of Tables List of Figures Acknowledgment Introduction Environmental Background and the Anasazi Tradition Subsistence Systems and Diet Ethnographic Pueblo Subsistence and Diet Archaeological Remains of Anasazi Diet Introduction Fauna! Analysis Rotation and Pollen Analysis Coprolite Analysis Stable Carbon Isotope Analysis Summary and Conclusions References Cited Appendix 1 Ethnographic resource use Appendix 2 Faunal data Appendix 3 Stable carbon isotope data iii LIST OF TABLES Table 1 Occurrence of charred plant remains from flotation analyses of Chaco branch sites 44 Table 2 Occurrence of charred plant remains from flotation analyses of Kayenta branch sites 47 Table 3 Occurrence of charred plant remains from flotation analyses of San Juan - Mesa Verde branch sites 49 Table 4 Macrofossil ubiquity values for Anasazi coprolites 54 Table 5 Pollen type ubiquity values for Anasazi coprolites 56 iv LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Location of the Anasazi branches discussed in the text. 5 Figure 2 Relative taxonomic abundances (of taxa represented by at least 4% in any period) for the Basketmaker II period 22 Figure 3 Relative taxonomic abundances (of taxa represented by at least 4% in any period) for the Basketmaker III period 24 Figure 4 Relative taxonomic abundances (of taxa represented by at least 4% in any period) for the Basketmaker III - Pueblo I period 25 Figure 5 Relative taxonomic abundances (of taxa represented by at least 4% in any period) for the Pueblo I period 27 Figure 6 Relative taxonomic abundances (of taxa represented by at least 4% in any period) for the Pueblo I - Pueblo II period 28 Figure 7 Relative taxonomic abundances (of taxa represented by at least 4% in any period) for the Pueblo II period 29 Figure 8 Relative taxonomic abundances (of taxa represented by at least 4% in any period) for the Pueblo II - Pueblo III period 31 Figure 9 Relative taxonomic abundances (of taxa represented by at least 4% in any period) for the Pueblo III period 32 Figure 10 Relative taxonomic abundances (of taxa represented by at least 4% in any period) for the Kayenta branch 34 Figure 11 Relative taxonomic abundances (of taxa represented by at least 4% in any period) for the Chaco branch 35 Figure 12 Relative taxonomic abundances (of taxa represented by at least 4% in any period) for the San Juan - Mesa Verde branch 36 Figure 13 Stable carbon isotope values for prehistoric food resources 63 Figure 14 Stable carbon isotope values for Anasazi individuals (Decker and Tieszen 1989, Matson and Chisholm 1991, Chisholm and Matson in press) 65 v ACKNOWLEDGEMENT Only after one has written a thesis do they fully realize the importance of friends and colleagues around them. In the course of writing this thesis many people have generously offered assistance and advice. First, I must thank my advisor Professor R.G. Matson for many things, among them an opportunity to participate in fieldwork in the American Southwest, funding he was able to provide, assistance in working out this topic and his guidance during the writing. I thank Professor Michael Blake consistently providing good comments on my thesis drafts, both as an archaeologist and a reader, helping to make the thesis a more integrated document. I appreciate Professor E l v i Whittaker's thorough reading of my thesis and helpful comments she provided. I thank Dr. Brian Chisholm for his encouragement, good humour given the numerous times he was trapped while walking past my door, and the advice he provided regarding the stable isotope section of the thesis. Dr. Chisholm also read and commented on an early draft of the thesis. I would also like to thank my fellow graduate students, particularly A l l i son Young and Warren H i l l , for their discussions and advice. Joyce Johnson has been a good friend from the moment I landed at U B C . Professor Jon Driver and Natalie Munro from Simon Fraser University and Victoria Atkins of the Anasazi Heritage Center were very helpful in suggesting references and helping me obtain various reports. Professor Jane Kel ley of the University of Calgary kindly sent me a paper through a fellow graduate student when other methods had failed to produce it. The staff of the Interlibrary Loan Department at UBC ' s Main Library are also to be commended for their assistance and excellent average in finding publications I requested by the dozen. I thank Olga at Arts Computing for helping me out in a printing pinch. I am indebted to the numerous archaeologists listed in the reference section for their hard work in producing the data upon which my thesis is based. I especially want to thank Dori Bixler for her friendship. She has been a constant pillar of support, discussing numerous aspects of my work with me and reading numerous section drafts, as well as an entire early draft. Most of all I would like to thank my family. From the moment I first said I wanted to be an archaeologist, my parents Jim and Kathy Brand and my brother A lan have supported me completely. Without them I could have never come this far. vi INTRODUCTION For a period of at least 2400 years the Anasazi inhabited the northern American Southwest, mastering agriculture in this arid environment, founding large aggregated communities and developing extensive trading networks. Archaeologists have been tracing Anasazi culture history for the last one hundred years, and many of the questions and debates stemming from their research are linked to subsistence. The focus of this thesis is Anasazi diet between the Basketmaker II (beginning at approximately 500 B.C.) and Pueblo III (ending at approximately A .D . 1300) periods. Archaeological projects undertaken during previous decades have produced voluminous quantities of subsistence related data. This thesis synthesizes data from faunal, paleobotanical, coprolite and stable carbon isotope analyses, into a reconstruction of Anasazi diet throughout the duration of the tradition. This reconstruction is used to address three specific research questions: (1) when did cultigens, particularly corn, become the primary constituent of the Anasazi diet?, (2) is there evidence for the intensification of agricultural production during the Anasazi tradition?, and (3) are there changes in the Anasazi diet which may be linked to the regional abandonments of the 13th century A.D.? The time at which maize became the primary resource in the Anasazi diet and the use of intensification practices to increase agricultural yields are important elements in many studies of Anasazi population dynamics and settlement patterns. It is hoped that the results of this thesis wi l l contribute to a better understanding of these phenomena. This reconstruction wi l l also provide a better understanding of the variation which existed in diet throughout the tradition and between the different Anasazi branches. The period in which cultigens became the dominant constituent of the Anasazi diet remains a topic of debate. Matson and Chisholm (1991) argue that the Basketmaker II Anasazi on Cedar Mesa were dependent on corn agriculture. Their analysis indicated little change in the importance of corn in the Anasazi diet on Cedar Mesa between the Basketmaker and Pueblo periods. Furthermore, they argue that a comparison of the Cedar Mesa Basketmaker II with other contemporaneous occupations, such as the White Dog Cave and Los Pinos Basketmaker II, indicates that they too relied heavily on maize (Matson and Chisholm 1991:456). Reinhard 1 (1988:157) also argues, in a synthesis of coprolite data, that little difference existed in the relative contribution of corn to the Anasazi diet between the Basketmaker and Pueblo periods. The opposite side of the debate maintains that maize did not become a major part of the Anasazi diet until later in the tradition. Glassow (1972:296) believes that while farming was present during the Basketmaker II period, it did not achieve any importance until the Basketmaker III period. F. Plog (1979:111-112) has stated that both direct and indirect subsistence data indicate that cultigens were not an important constituent of the western Anasazi diet until after A .D . 800 (Pueblo I); two hundred years later the cultivation of domesticated plant foods was of paramount importance in many localities throughout the Anasazi area (F. Plog 1983:304). Similarly, S. Plog (1986:312) has stated that only after A .D . 850 (Pueblo I) were the Black Mesa Anasazi dependent on cultigens. These dates place the dominance of corn squarely in the Pueblo period. Powell (1983:16) has argued that simplistic interpretations which ignore the complexity of prehistoric subsistence systems have fostered the belief that the Anasazi were dependent on agricultural production. Powell's (1983:130) analysis of subsistence data from Black Mesa has lead her to conclude that the area's occupants were never fully dependent on cultivated foods. Sullivan (1987, 1992) has also argued that corn may not have played the all important role in Anasazi diet as traditional views of southwestern subsistence claim. Models which posit a transition from a modified hunting and gathering mode of subsistence to a subsistence system based on agricultural production often propose increasing agricultural intensification through time. Agents thought to have initiated agricultural intensification include: social organization, population growth and environmental change (Dean etal. 1985:549). F. Plog (1979:112) cites indirect evidence from water and soil conservation facilities as an indication that the Anasazi were intensifying their agricultural production by A . D . 1000. The existence of large aggregated settlements at approximately this time has been interpreted as evidence that a new form of socioeconomic organization had occurred, which included agricultural intensification (Upham 1982:111). The opposite development has also been suggested, that is, through time many Anasazi groups diversified their subsistence base as opposed to intensifying one part of it. The continued 2 presence of wi ld food resources in archaeological sites throughout the Anasazi tradition is often cited as evidence of subsistence diversification (Woosley 1980:321). The Pueblo III regional abandonments have been and continue to be an important area of research in Southwestern archaeology. The explanation of these events is undoubtedly complex, relating to subsistence, as well as a number of other factors. The subsistence data presented here wi l l be examined for changes in diet which may be linked with the area's depopulation. In any discussion of subsistence and diet it is important to have an understanding of the environment in which people had to make a living. Therefore, the second section of this thesis provides a brief introduction to the Anasazi area and its climate. This section also discusses the chronological periods and the different branches of the Anasazi referred to in this thesis. The third section takes a step away from the American Southwest and discusses human subsistence systems in general. This section briefly outlines the different cultural components which are affected by the subsistence system and in turn affect the subsistence system itself. Diet, reconstructed here for the Anasazi, is the end product of the subsistence system. The information presented in this section is important for understanding how the reconstruction of prehistoric diet can assist in addressing questions related to other components of culture. The fourth section of this thesis provides a brief discussion of historic and modern Pueblo subsistence. Although the Pueblo way of life underwent a number of changes during the historic period, these data provide information on components of the subsistence system which archaeology cannot address. Such information may also be useful in understanding the presence of some food resources in the prehistoric diet. The fifth section contains the subsistence data analyses. This section is organized into four parts, one for each type of evidence: faunal analysis, flotation and pollen analysis, coprolite analysis and stable carbon isotope analysis. Within these parts the data are brought together for each branch of the Anasazi, as well as synthesized as a whole. The summary discusses the major patterns observed in the Anasazi diet and discusses the research questions. Finally, recommendations are made regarding lacunae in the data and further avenues of research are discussed. 3 ENVIRONMENTAL BACKGROUND AND THE ANASAZI TRADITION Commonly referred to as the Northern Southwest, the Anasazi area (Figure 1) is primarily located in the Colorado Plateau physiographic province. The Anasazi occupation also extended, to a lesser degree, west into the Basin and Range province and east into the Southern Rocky Mountains and Great Plains provinces (Cordell 1984). The area is characterized by considerable geographic and climatic variability. The Colorado Plateau is an extensive highland area of uplifted sedimentary formations with a limited number of igneous protrusions (Lipe 1983:442). Considerable topographic variability exists within the plateau. The majority of it lies between 1500 m and 2100 m, while in the highest areas elevations extend above 3657 m (Cordell 1984:23). The Colorado River and its numerous tributaries constitute the primary drainage system for the Plateau. These rivers and numerous other drainages have become deeply entrenched, cutting vertical walled canyons into the sandstones comprising the Plateau. Only a limited number of these drainages flow all year round. Other drainages periodically carry rainfall or snow melt from higher areas (Lipe 1983:422). Although permanent drainages are absent in some areas, many of the local sandstones are excellent aquifers. Numerous springs and seeps exist in canyons at the interface between the porous sandstones and impervious layers of rock (Lipe 1983:422). The extensive topographic variation of the Plateau has a notable influence on floral and faunal communities (Plog 1979:110). The dominant plant communities include the Great Basin Conifer Woodland, characterized by juniper - pinyon forest primarily between 1500 and 2300 m and Plains and Great Basin Grasslands generally located above 1200 m elevation (Brown 1982a,b). Higher elevations are characterized by ponderosa pine and mixed coniferous forest. Drainages in all elevation zones are lined with riparian plant communities, including water - loving plants such as wil low and cottonwood. To the west and south of the Colorado Plateau, roughly parallel ranges of mountains separated by broad basins characterize the Basin and Range province (Hunt 1974, Cordell 1984). The province is quite arid as the large mountains to the west tend to trap most of the water 4 Figure 1. Location of the Anasazi branches discussed in the text. 5 carried from the Pacific by storms. On the eastern side of the Colorado Plateau are the Southern Rocky Mountains and Great Plains provinces. The Southern Rocky Mountains has considerably more moisture and with elevations ranging up to 4267 m the region is characterized by somewhat cooler temperatures (Cordell 1984, Lipe 1983). People concentrated in the lower regions of this province where the environment was similar to that of the Plateau. The Great Plains province is characterized by low topographic relief. Elevations generally range below 2133m (Cordell 1984:24). The climate of the American southwest is generally arid. Moisture in the Anasazi area is derived from two precipitation patterns (Lipe 1983, Cordell 1984). In the west, during the months of July and August, moisture comes from the Gulf of Mexico as heavy rains. There is a second peak in precipitation, brought by storms from the Pacific Ocean, between December and March. The eastern area, New Mexico and Colorado, has a single peak in precipitation, originating from the Gul f of Mexico, during the June, July and August monsoon. The amount of precipitation received is highly localized and variable from one year to the next. The regional diversity which existed among the Anasazi people and the area they inhabited, both in terms of material culture and local environment, has long been recognized by archaeologists. Cordell and Plog (1979) have argued against studies which ignore the diversity in Anasazi economic, cultural and organizational patterns, by making broad generalizations which are held to apply to the entire Anasazi area. In their contributions to the Handbook of North American Indians: The Southwest (Oritz 1979), Plog (1979) and Cordell (1979) have divided the area into the Western and the Eastern Anasazi respectively. Similarly, distinctions between the material culture in different regions of the Anasazi area have resulted in the definition of a number of branches of Anasazi people. In this thesis I intend to develop a synthesis of Anasazi diet by bringing together a number of lines of evidence from across the Anasazi area. To ignore the regional diversity which has been recognized throughout the area, however, would be to commit a serious mistake. I wi l l therefore incorporate this diversity into my synthesis of Anasazi diet. A number of different branches of the Anasazi have been identified throughout the Northern Southwest. 6 Many of these branches had shifting boundaries and a limited temporal existence. This thesis wi l l consider the regional diversity recognized in the Anasazi tradition in terms of the four major branches agreed upon in most of the literature: Kayenta, San Juan - Mesa Verde, Chaco, and the R io Grande. The Kayenta branch area used in this thesis consists of northeast Ar izona from the Little Colorado River to the Utah border and parts of southern Utah below the San Juan River. Gumerman and Dean (1989) note that a number of smaller cultural units, such as the Tusayan, have been defined within this area, however, enough similarity exists that they can be incorporated within the Kayenta branch. Centered around the Mesa Verde itself, the Mesa Verde branch of the Anasazi includes most of southwest Colorado and part of southeastern Utah. Rohn (1989) refers to this region as the Northern San Juan and states that Mesa Verde is only one subdivision within the region. In the following sections I refer to this branch as the San Juan - Mesa Verde. The Chaco branch is a unique occurrence in the Anasazi tradition. The name Chaco itself is taken from Chaco Canyon; however, the branch as concerned in this thesis covers a much greater area. Chaco Canyon was at the center of what has been referred to as the Chacoan Phenomenon and the Chacoan System (Judge 1989). The Chacoan Phenomenon was an extensive system of sites, sharing a similar architectural style and material culture, all connected with Chaco Canyon by a system of roads. Vivian (1990) traces Chacoan beginnings to the Archaic and Basketmaker periods. Development of the Chacoan system began in the early decades of the tenth century, and over the next two and a half centuries the great houses, Chacoan outliers and road system were constructed. The Cibola area to the south of Chaco Canyon, was under the influence of the Chacoan system (LeBlanc 1989:347). B y the middle of the twelfth century the Chacoan system had come to an end (Vivian 1990). However, there is evidence of a Mesa Verdian reoccupation of many Chacoan sites during the end of the twelfth and beginning of the thirteenth century (Vivian 1990). 7 The R io Grande branch of the Anasazi inhabited the area around the R io Grande Valley and surrounding areas to the east of the Chaco branch. Compared with the other branches of Anasazi the Rio Grande area is much better supplied with running water (Cordell 1989:297). SUBSISTENCE SYSTEMS AND DIET The constraints placed on the human body by its biological requirements for essential nutrients makes the subsistence system a critical component of human life. Steward (1955:37) regarded subsistence as the central element of the culture core. Dennell (1979:122) has defined subsistence as the procurement of resources needed to assure the survival of a community. Among most cultures subsistence - related activities consume the better part of each day (Roosevelt 1987, de Garine and Harrison 1988b). It is the complex interaction of environment, technology, sociopolitical organization and ideology which defines the subsistence system of all cultures. The environment places constraints on the types and frequency of food resources available to people and thus has a strong hand in determining the nature of the subsistence system. The seasonal availability of certain resources further complicates the food quest and may lead to periods of shortage (de Garine and Harrison 1988b:469). The technology used has the potential to dramatically increase the obtainable yield (de Garine and Harrison 1988a, Wing and Brown 1979). The adoption of agriculture, for example, wi l l allow people to produce quantities of food resources previously not available. New agricultural technologies, such as irrigation, allow a community to further increase the yield. The success of new technologies is of course still limited by the environment to some degree. If agriculture is to be successfully practiced, adequate soils, temperature regimes, and precipitation must first be present in the environment. Storage is perhaps one of the most important types of technology included in many subsistence systems. It is the primary means by which cultures are able to cope with seasonal fluctuations in resource availability. It is important to note that technology may lead to changes in the environment (Steward 1977:50). There are a number of different technologies which may have this effect. Some practices result in an increase in 8 potential resources, such as the increase in edible weeds which thrive in disturbed areas (Bye and Shuster 1984, Ford 1984), and rodents attracted by the production of cultigens (Seme 1984). A culture's socio-political organization influences subsistence systems through interactions with environment, technology and ideology. Socio - political organization refers to the size of groups in which people live, the organization of people within those groups and the relations these groups have with neighboring peoples. Both environment and technology place constraints on socio - political organization. To a degree technology influences the social organization; Steward (1955:171) has suggested that changes in technology resulting in increased food supply was one of the first steps in the change from lineage based societies to that of clans. There is a limit to the number of people who can make a l iving within any one location with a given technology. This limit has been termed the carrying capacity (Zubrow 1971). The adoption of agriculture or of technology which intensifies agricultural production are mechanisms for increasing the carrying capacity of the environment. In larger populations members of a group may be obligated to spend a set amount of time contributing to the subsistence of others as well as than their own. Among the Hopi , for example, a chiefs fields were cultivated by voluntary work parties (Forde 1931:376). Interaction between populations can have both positive and negative effects on their subsistence systems. Favorable trading relationships can provide populations with both a means of acquiring food during periods of resource stress and obtaining foods not locally available, thereby increasing the diversity in the diet. Just as favorable trading relationships are often built into a subsistence system, the same system may be required to include mechanisms to buffer against negative relations with neighboring groups. The loss of extracted subsistence resources to raiding parties from other populations is an example of a negative relationship. Another aspect of socio-political organization, which leads us to the discussion of the effects of cultural beliefs on subsistence systems, is the practice of food sharing. The distribution of food within a population, may provide food to people in the group who are unable to obtain their own or who are involved in other activities which preclude their involvement in the food quest. The nature of food distribution within a population may, however, deprive 9 certain groups of the population of specific resource types. Rarely are food resources distributed equally to all members of a population (Roosevelt 1987:574). Inequality may be variously oriented along the lines of gender, age or status. The embedded patterns of food distribution within a culture serve to proclaim and maintain the prevailing status and power structure (Ross 1987:19). Cultural beliefs have substantial influence on subsistence systems. The nature of the environment may define what resources are potentially available as food, but the resources which are actually used is largely decided by what the culture considers edible. Although food resources are not chosen solely on their nutritional qualities, food is recognized as critical to maintaining life. Cultural beliefs and ceremonies associated with the procurement of sustenance are often closely followed so the food supply is not endangered (Wing and Brown 1979:16). Such traditions may concern the procurement of resources from the environment, their treatment during preparation and their consumption. The preceding paragraphs have outlined the effects of four factors on the nature of human subsistence systems: environment, technology, sociopolitical organization and ideology. Dennell (1979:122) has defined diet as simply what is eaten. From this point of view diet can be considered the product of the subsistence system. Any given diet can be viewed as consisting of a core set of food resources which provide the bulk of the diet and meet the majority of the nutritional requirements, and a variety of other food items which are consumed only occasionally and in small quantities. Gasser (1982:8) has defined dietary staples as resources which were widely exploited and used consistently through time. Staple food items must be relatively easy to obtain on a regular basis and in substantial quantities. Secondary resources are l ikely to be those with restricted availability, both spatially and seasonally, limited in their quantity and with poor storage possibilities. Attempts to reconstruct prehistoric subsistence systems and diet by archaeologists have met with varying levels of success. There are numerous lines of archeological evidence which provide data on Anasazi subsistence. Dean et al. (1985), among others, have reconstructed the prehistoric environment. The remains of prehistoric technology are perhaps the most visible 10 indication of subsistence systems open to the archaeologist. Less information is available on the remaining factors influencing the Anasazi subsistence system. It has proven difficult to gather information on Anasazi socio-political organization and there is presently no way to archaeologically reconstruct the effects of Anasazi cultural beliefs on their subsistence system. One can, however, make analogies with historic Pueblo cultures. ETHNOGRAPHIC PUEBLO SUBSISTENCE AND DIET Ethnographic literature from historic and modern Pueblo peoples provides a range of information useful in the reconstruction and understanding of prehistoric subsistence systems. The ethnographic information collected by early ethnologists contains many references to wild resources, once part of the subsistence system, but have since fallen from the menu. These same volumes also contain a variety of other information regarding subsistence systems which may provide the archaeologist with possible explanations for observations made in the archaeological record which defy explanation in that context alone. This is not to say that we may simply take data from the present Pueblos and use it uncritically to explain what we observe in the archaeological record; only that it may offer ideas and hypotheses regarding that which did not preserve. The Puebloan peoples first came into contact with members of the European cultures in the middle of the sixteenth century A .D . During their occupation of the American Southwest the Spanish, the first Europeans to come into contact with the Puebloan peoples, introduced a variety of new food resources which initiated substantial changes to the traditional Pueblo subsistence system and diet. A number of domesticated plants were introduced, including wheat, oats, peaches, apples, chile, peas and several new varieties of beans (Robbins etal 1916:76). The Spanish also brought domesticated sheep into the Southwest. The initial use of these resources eventually led to the disuse of many wild plant and animal species. With the incorporation of the Southwest into the United States more changes in the Pueblo subsistence system and diet began to take place. Unlike the Spanish, the Americans did not introduce new food resources the Pueblo people could produce themselves. Instead the Americans brought to the Pueblos pre- 11 processed foods, such as sugar. Unable to produce these goods for themselves the Pueblo peoples were drawn into a cash economy, which induced further changes in their subsistence system. Considering the lengthy period of contact between Puebloan and European peoples, and the substantial changes associated with that contact, one may question the use of Pueblo ethnographic material in the study of prehistoric diet. Writing in 1939, Whiting (1966:11) has noted that although the Hopi were receptive to the introduction of new cultigens, the general substance of their agriculture remained relatively constant. Data from the ethnographic record are present for six aspects which may be important to our understanding of prehistoric Anasazi subsistence systems: (1) wi ld resource utilization and food preparation, (2) agricultural technology and schedule, (3) storage, (4) food redistribution and trade, (5) utilization of resources for purposes other than food and, (6) the inclusion of food items in ritual. The relationship of these aspects to the preceding discussion of human subsistence systems and to Anasazi diet wi l l be discussed in detail below. As noted in the introduction, archaeologists have a number of methods which wi l l indicate the resources, or at least many of the resources, which comprised the diet of prehistoric people. These methods generally do not indicate the ways in which the different resources were used. That is, we may know from the archaeological record that corn and beans were eaten, but we do not know how these foods were prepared and in which form they were eaten. This type of information is available to archaeologists in the ethnographic literature, and wi l l receive limited discussion here. The traditional subsistence system of the Pueblo Indians as it is represented in the ethnographic literature includes a wide array of plant and animal species, many of which were utilized by the Puebloans for purposes other than eating. Whiting (1966), lists one hundred and twenty-eight plants used by the Hopi, excluding introduced species; fifty-one of these plants were consumed as part of the diet. Robbins et al. (1916) list a total of seventy plants (excluding introduced species) used by the Tewa for a range of purposes; thirty-four of these plants were recorded as food items. Gnabasik (1981) has undertaken the task of sifting through much of the 12 Pueblo ethnographic literature for references to the use of animal species. Specific references were found for twenty-eight mammals, thirty-five birds and four reptiles and amphibians. Mention was also made of the use of certain insects or their products, and in the Rio Grande region, fish were noted. Gnabasik (1981) indicates twenty mammals, seven species of birds and two reptiles which were used as a source of food by the Pueblo peoples. Appendix 1 presents each of the species indicated in these sources and the various uses to which each was put. Substantial data are also available on the methods of preparation and consumption of many of these resources. Cushing (1920) notes six ways corn is prepared and eaten by the Zuni: fresh, corn-flour, parched, baked, roasted on hot coals and boiled. A number of these forms are then used as ingredients in other products or meals. One of the primary constituents of the Pueblo diet is a form of wafer-bread; among the Hopi it is called piki (Whiting 1966:15), the Zuni equivalent is he-we (Cushing 1920:564), and to the Tewa it is Mowa (Robbins etal. 1916:88). The purpose here is not to demonstrate the importance of corn in the diet of the historic Pueblo peoples, but to examine the effects of the different methods of preparation with respect to visibility in the archaeological record. If much of the corn consumed on a daily basis was used as flour in different types of bread we would perhaps expect complete digestion and thus little evidence of that corn in coprolites. Reinhard (1988), however, states that even when corn has been ground identifiable portions are still present. Com kernels eaten whole, either fresh, baked, parched or boiled, may be less susceptible to complete digestion, and thus there is l ikely to be more evidence of them in coprolites. The Zuni ground numerous other plant foods into meal to be used in bread-making, these include: cactus fruits, juniper berries, pinyon nuts, acorns and sunflower seeds (Cushing 1920). Other plant species used as food by the Puebloans were picked and eaten as greens (Whiting 1966). Among the Hopi, many of these greens were collected from specific plants in the spring when the new growth was present. Other plant species were used as herbs or seasonings. These include, purslane, beebalm, tansy mustard, wild onion, tomatillo and mint (Whiting 1966:19). These species may appear in limited amounts in the archaeological record. Beverages were made from different parts of a number of plants. The Hopi used both the berries 13 of sumac (or squawbush) and mistletoe for this purpose (Whiting 1966:20) and the Zuni often made warm drinks with corn-meal. Bradfield (1971:21) concluded that the Hopi required approximately two and a half acres of farm land per person to provide the required amounts of food. The primary constraints he found placed on the Hopi farmer were those of having to locate fields in adequately watered areas with decent soils and enough time between the spring and fall ki l l ing frosts for the crop to mature. In the western Pueblo area (including Zuni , Hopi, and Acoma) farmers had to rely on rainfall, run-off, and springs for their water and thus had to locate their fields to obtain the maximum benefit from these sources (Jorgensen 1983:687). Farmers from the eastern pueblos were able to locate their fields and gardens near the banks of the Rio Grande or one of its tributaries. Working with the Hopi, Hack (1942:8) found that a growing season of approximately 130 days, in an area with around twelve inches of rain annually, is required for successful dry - farming of corn. The Hopi (using dry - or floodwater farming at higher elevations) do not plant their main corn crop until the last weeks of May, along with the years bean and squash crops, to avoid the last frosts (Forde 1931:385). Spring is one of the driest periods of the year, requiring that the corn be planted deep enough to utilize winter moisture retained well below the ground surface, until the summer rains begin (Bradfield 1971:4). Early corn crops are planted by the Hopi during the month of Apr i l , this corn is planted for the nimankatcina ceremony, and is harvested green at the end of July. The main Hopi harvests begin in the early days of September. Beans and squash are harvested first and then the main corn crop is brought in through the rest of September and early October (Forde 1931:393). The Tewa along the Rio Grande (at a lower elevation and with the use of irrigation) plant their corn crops in Apr i l and begin the harvest near the end of September and continue on through the first weeks of October (Robbins et al. 1916:82-83). No major changes in the climate and environment of the American Southwest have occurred within the last two thousand years (Lipe 1983:421), thus it is probable the prehistoric Puebloans had to work within similar environmental constraints and likely had a 14 similar schedule as the historic Puebloans. Between planting and harvesting, the fields would have to be weeded and the young plants protected. Storage was an important part of the Pueblo subsistence system. Food was stored both for winter use and as insurance against crop failure. Bradfield (1971:21), Forde (1931:393) and Hough (1897:35) all state that the Hopi stored large quantities of com to support them in the following year should the crops of the present year fail. Hough has stated that a two year supply of com was put away; Bradfield notes only a single year supply of com in storage. Forde appears to suggest that as the Hopi people became more involved in the American cash economy, corn stored for the event of a crop failure became more of an ideal than a reality. Corn was stored either on or off the cob (Whiting 1966:15), generally in small rooms specifically for that purpose. A variety of other food resources were stored to add variety to the diet during the winter months. Cushing (1920) refers to jerked meat and the preparation of wi ld onions and cactus fruits for storage. Undoubtedly the list of foods which were put aside for winter from year to year was quite substantial. Interaction with kinfolk, neighbors from the same pueblo, nearby villages, and people from distant areas helped avoid periods of food shortage and in obtaining non-local resources (Ford 1983:722). During the historic period the Hopi maintained trading relationships with the Zuni , Havasupai and the Navajo (Kennard 1979:559). Similarly, the Plains tribes east of the Colorado Plateau would often undertake trading expeditions to the pueblos (Ford 1983:713). Both wi ld and cultivated foods were important items in these trading relationships. Social networks of exchange and food redistribution were important aspects of the relationships within each pueblo. Ford (1983:716) notes that borrowing and sharing food was a constant part of pueblo life. Some of the most important exchanges of food within a pueblo occurred in conjunction with ceremonies. Kinfolk would cooperate when arranging feasts and individuals who provided ceremonial services received food as payment, primarily corn-meal (Ford 1983; Kennard 1979). The Puebloan peoples depended on the resources in their environment for more than food alone. Many species which were eaten served two or more purposes, such as medicine, 15 construction material, raw material for tool manufacture or were ritually important. In her study of ethnographic pueblo faunal utilization, Gnabasik (1981) found reference to seven avian species which were eaten, and twenty-five species of birds which were important for ceremonial purposes. These birds were captured or killed for their feathers, which are required for many of the Pueblo ceremonies. Similarly, Whiting (1966) found that the number of plant species which were used as medicine by the Hopi equaled the number of different plants used as food. Use of both plant and animal species for purposes other than food are identified in Appendix 1 (Tables A and B). In summary this section has discussed six aspects of Puebloan subsistence with regards to data from the ethnographic literature: (1) wi ld resource utilization and food preparation, (2) agricultural technology and schedule, (3) storage, (4) food redistribution and trade, (5) utilization of resources for purposes other than food and, (6) the inclusion of food items in ritual. It is apparent that cultivated crops, particularly corn, were very important to the historic Puebloan people. Whiting (1966:5) has remarked that the Hopi have oriented all their ceremonies around the well - being of the pueblo, which would necessitate a successful harvest. He refers to corn as the "giver of life" (Whiting 1966:8), and notes that Hopi philosophy and religion were centered around it. Cushing (1920:18) has made this same statement for the importance of corn in the life of Zuni Pueblo. Many of the plants and animals within the Puebloan's environment, particularly those used for food play key roles in Pueblo ceremonial life. As noted above food was often used as payment for ceremonial services, however, the involvement of food in pueblo ceremony goes beyond this. Yucca suds are important for ritual cleansing, and a variety of plant species are involved in ceremonial smoking (Whiting 1966:41). Certain species are used as symbols for other things, for example, water may variously be symbolized by the likes of rushes, cattails or willows (Whiting 1966:43). 16 ARCHAEOLOGICAL REMAINS OF ANASAZI DIET I N T R O D U C T I O N In this section data from four independent lines of archaeological evidence, faunal, paleobotanical, coprolite and staple carbon isotope analyses, are examined to address the three research questions outlined above. A space-time framework which divides the Anasazi people into four branches and the Anasazi tradition into a series of occupation periods, is used to allow comparisons of diet between the different areas and through time. Spatially the Anasazi are considered in terms of the four branches discussed above: Chaco, Kayenta, San Juan - Mesa Verde and R io Grande. The environments in each of these areas differed and may have affected the diet of the inhabitants. Chronologically the analysis follows the periods outlined by the Pecos Classification (Kidder 1927), which divides the Anasazi tradition into three Basketmaker and five Pueblo periods. Here we are only concerned with the Anasazi occupation between the Basketmaker II and Pueblo III periods (Basketmaker II 500 B.C.-A.D. 500; Basketmaker III A . D . 500-A.D.750; Pueblo I A . D . 750-A.D. 900; Pueblo II A .D . 900- A .D . 1150; Pueblo III A . D . 1150-A.D.1300). Only sites reported with relatively precise chronological information were included in the analysis. Occupation episodes identified only as 'Pueblo' or 'Basketmaker' were avoided, as were reports which presented faunal remains as a single assemblage from sites with more than two occupations, or occupations which were not continuous. The original intention was to use only the five standard periods of the Pecos classification, however, due to problems with the availability of numerous reports and other requirements of the data discussed below, it was necessary to include some combined periods such as Pueblo II—III. to expand the number of sites in the analysis. Although these combined periods are referred to as periods in the text, they are not true periods in and of themselves in the sense of the Pecos Classification periods. The sites from which data are taken vary from one type of evidence to the next as does the number of sites used in each analysis. Criteria for the inclusion of sites into this study exist on two levels, the study as a whole and each individual analysis. The sites used in this thesis are not the total of Anasazi sites investigated by archaeologists, but are those which were obtainable 17 within the time-frame allowed for this study. Following this each site had to be placed in one of the time periods just discussed. The analysis of each line of archaeological evidence has different limitations and data requirements. These specific criteria are discussed in the relevant sections below. In the following subsections the analysis of each line of evidence examines the diet of each branch and time period as well as between branches and through time. Each subsection is divided into a brief note on methods, a discussion of the results of the analysis, a summary and short discussion on the implications of the findings to the research questions. F A U N A L A N A L Y S I S Assessing the relative importance of the animal taxa present in a faunal assemblage to the prehistoric inhabitants diet is a common practice in archaeology. Occasionally results from neighbouring sites are compared. Less common are studies which take a regional focus, such as Leonard's (1986, 1989) research on Black Mesa faunal assemblages and Neusius' (1986) analysis of faunal exploitation in the Dolores area of southwestern Colorado. The present analysis examines faunal assemblages from sites across the Anasazi area. Each of the four Anasazi branches discussed above are represented in the eighty-four assemblages included in this study (Appendix 2, Table A) . This section is aimed at identifying animals, or groups of animals which were staple resources in the Anasazi diet. Methods The majority of the data used in this analysis are derived from individual sites. The exception is the material recovered from the Dolores Archaeological program excavations which Neusius (1986) has heretofore synthesized. These data are used here in their synthesized form, allowing the inclusion of the substantial body of data from the Dolores area. However, as discussed below, use of the data in this form also creates an inconsistency. The measure of taxonomic abundance used in the following analysis is the number of identified specimens (NISP). The number of identified specimens has been chosen over the minimum number of individuals (MNI) due to a number of inherent problems, discussed by 18 Grayson (1984), with the latter measurement. Only faunal assemblages which were reported as full data sets, including mammals, birds and herpetofauna, were included in the analysis. Taxa such as 'Mammalia' or 'Aves', did not offer useful information to this analysis and have been excluded. Some general taxa, such as small, medium and large mammal and large bird, have been retained. These groups can be compared to more specific taxa based on general size, for instance low relative frequencies of taxa such as deer, antelope and Artiodactyla may be balanced by high relative proportions of large mammal elements. Medium mammal is the most problematic of these taxa, as analysts wi l l have different animal size cut-offs for the taxon, resulting in the possibility of some overlap. Faunal assemblages recovered from sites where screening was not part of the excavation procedures have been excluded from the analysis. The lack of screening produces an obvious bias against the recovery of small animal remains. However, the mesh size of screens used in excavations varies as wi l l their potential to recover small remains. Leonard (1989:18), citing evidence from Eckles (1978), notes the bias against small mammals, relative to large mammals with the use of 1/4 inch screens. Experiments by Thomas (1969:394) indicate that as much as 90% of small rodent bones may not be recovered using 1/4 inch screens. Very low NISP values for faunal assemblages can have an immense effect on relative taxonomic abundance (Grayson 1984). To account for this effect, assemblages which have an NISP of less than fifty have been excluded from this analysis. Admittedly this value was arrived at somewhat arbitrarily, however, attempts to use Grayson's (1984:122) methods for determining an appropriate cut-off did not produce useful results. The cut-off used for this analysis is viewed as a compromise between removing very small assemblages and maintaining as many sites as possible in the analysis. The mean relative frequencies used later in the analysis would be profoundly influenced by assemblages with only one or two identifiable specimens (where relative frequency could equal 100%). A master taxonomic list was initially compiled from the data given in each of the reports used. Many of the taxa reported occurred in very small numbers, yet the possibility remains that these taxa may not have been important on a species basis, but were part of a larger group which 19 was important. A n attempt was made to retain these specimens in the analysis by grouping taxa based on biological relationships (i.e., low frequency species were grouped into a similar taxon of the appropriate genus). This reduced the original faunal list to seventy-nine taxa, many of which were still represented by very low frequencies. Almost 60% of the taxa were represented by relative frequencies of 1% or less, and their occurrence throughout the assemblages examined was by no means consistent. Although each of these taxa contributed to the diet of a site's occupants, the goal here is to identify the animals used consistently by the Anasazi across time and space. Therefore, the analysis was confined to those taxa which have the potential to have been dietary staples. Taxa represented by at least 4% in either of these two calculations discussed below, were thus selected for further analysis (these taxa are shown in Figure 2). Leonard (1989:41) has suggested that prior to an analysis of changes in relative taxonomic abundance through time it is necessary to examine the variation which exists between sites within a single period. What appears to be changes in abundance from one period to the next may be the result of the varying assemblage sizes. The linear regression approach outlined by Leonard (1989) was used to examine the periods within each branch represented by an adequate number of sites for sample size effects. This test is limited to two taxa, cottontail rabbits and jackrabbits, as they appear to be the two most abundant taxa in the majority of assemblages. Leonard's (1989:45) regression approach is based on the assumption that the NISP of cottontail, for example, wi l l increase as the total assemblage NISP (or sample size) increases when sampling from a mixed population consisting of groups with varying frequencies. This assumption is based on the collectors curve which postulates an increase in the number of taxa recovered with an increase in sample size. The results of this test indicate that (in some periods) the variation in the relative abundances of cottontail and jackrabbit may result from sample size effect. However, in other periods the regression analysis shows an insignificant relationship between taxon N ISP and sample size. Results were also obtained indicating sample size was responsible for variation in one of the two taxa, but not the other. In sum the results were somewhat ambiguous, but do 20 indicate the potential for sample size effects between the assemblages used here. Plog and Hegmon (1993), however, have cautioned against simply accepting significant correlations as evidence that sample size effects are responsible for the observed variation between individual sites. Initially two methods were used to obtain a single value for the relative abundance of taxa in each period from each branch: (1) sum the NISP for each taxa from all sites in a period and divide by the sum of assemblage NISPs, and (2) the mean relative frequency for each taxon by period. Summing taxon NISP from each site and dividing by the sum of assemblage NISPs essentially produces a single assemblage, with greater influence given to the larger original assemblages. Mean relative frequencies, calculated by summing the relative frequency of each taxon from a number of sites and dividing by the total number of sites, were chosen for this comparison over relative frequencies based on summed taxa NISPs. Mean frequencies treat each assemblage separately and do not deny variation between assemblages. This method treats assemblages of varying sizes on a fairly equal basis, although it does increase the influence of smaller sites. Very small assemblages have the most potential to affect these values. The removal of these assemblages from the analysis (see above) decreases the effect of small assemblages on the mean relative frequencies used here. As noted above, data from the Dolores Archaeological Program are inconsistent with this procedure as the data'from numerous sites were already combined. The Dolores sites from each time period are thus essentially treated as one site. Discussion Basketmaker II Animal exploitation during the Basketmaker II period is only represented by sites from the Kayenta branch (Figure 2). The summed relative frequencies indicate the dominance of cottontails (Sylvilagus sp.), followed by jackrabbit (Lepus sp.). The relative frequency of small mammals is also moderately high. The majority of other taxa present have low relative frequencies. 21 Basketmaker II Kayenta Branch (11 sites) 0 10 20 30 40 50% I I I I I ' Cottontail »m^M«g^^ Jackrabbit mmmm Rodentia Squirrel Cynomys sp. Neotoma sp. Mice, Rats & Voles 1 Canis sp. Wolf Dog Artiodactyla Antelope Deer Large mammal 1 Medium mammal 1 Small mammal H Turkey Vulture Turkey Large Bird Reptile Figure 2. Relative taxonomic abundances (of taxa represented by at least 4% in any period) for the Basketmaker II period. 22 Basketmaker III Basketmaker III sites from the Chaco and San Juan - Mesa Verde branches are present in this analysis. The mean relative taxonomic frequencies of these two branches are shown in Figure 3. The most striking difference between the two branches is the high relative frequencies of canids (Canis sp., wolf [Canis lupus] and dog [Canis farniliaris]) in the San Juan-Mesa Verde branch and their near absence from the Chaco branch. The high relative frequencies of dog, wolf and Canis sp. result from two sites, 5LP110 and 5LP111, excavated by the Durango South Project (Anderson 1980), at which excavations recovered dog burials and the remains of a limited number of wolves. In this case it is obvious that a small number of individuals contributed considerably to the assemblage. The presence of such large quantities of these taxa wi l l effect the abundance values for the other taxa present, relative to other sites, when the relative frequencies are calculated. Cottontails at sites 5LP110 and 5LP111 have relative frequencies of 9 % and 4.7% respectively, however, the relative frequency of cottontails in the one other assemblage for this period, Dolores Period 1, is almost double (17%) that of 5LP110. Removing the large numbers of Canis sp., wolf and dog bones from these sites results in a relative frequency of 28% for cottontails and 7% for jackrabbits. These values are very similar to the relative frequencies of these taxa in the Chaco branch. If all large animal taxa (Artiodactyla, antelope [Antilocarpa americana], deer [Odocoileus sp.] and large mammal) are grouped for comparison the resulting values from each branch are also very close to one another, differing by only a few percent. Removal of the canid elements from the San Juan - Mesa Verde sites, however, substantially increases the relative frequency of mice, rats and voles, in comparison to the low abundance of these animals in the Chaco branch. Basketmaker III - Pueblo I The Basketmaker III - Pueblo I period is represented in the Chaco and San Juan - Mesa Verde branches (Figure 4). Cottontail specimens have similar relative frequencies in both 23 Cottontail Jackrabbit Rodentia Squirrel Cynomys sp. Neotoma sp. Mice, Rats & Voles Canis sp. Wolf Dog Artiodactyla Antelope Deer| Large mammal Medium mammal Small mammal Turkey Vulture Turkey Large Bird Reptile Basketmaker III Chaco Branch San Juan-Mesa Verde (2 sites) Branch (3 sites) 0 10 20 30 40 50% 0 10 20 30 40 50% I I I Figure 3 . Relataive taxonomic abundances (of taxa represented by at least 4% in any period) for the Basketmaker III period. 24 Basketmaker III - Pueblo I Chaco Branch (2 sites) 0 10 20 30 40 50% Cottontail Jackrabbit Rodentia Squirrel] Cynomys sp. Neotoma sp. Mice, Rats & Voles Canis sp. Wolfj Dog Artiodactyla Antelope Deer Large mammal Medium mammal! Small mammal Turkey Vulture Turkey Large Bird Reptile San Juan- Mesa Verde Branch (1 site) 0 10 20 30 40 50% _ L J I I I Figure 4. Relative taxonomic abundances (of taxa represented by at least 4% in any period) for the Basketmaker III - Pueblo I period. 25 branches. However, both jackrabbits and turkey have greater relative frequencies in the Chaco branch. The abundances of large animals in the San Juan - Mesa Verde branch is almost twice that of the Chaco branch. The general small mammal taxon is also very high in the San Juan - Mesa Verde branch, and although the relative frequencies of mice etc. and prairie dog (Cynomys sp.) are slightly higher in the Chaco branch they do not equal the former. The meaning of these differences must be considered tentatively as only a single San Juan - Mesa Verde branch site is present. Pueblo I The relative taxonomic frequencies for the Chaco, Kayenta and San Juan - Mesa Verde Branches during the Pueblo I period are portrayed in Figure 5. Immediately observable is the dominance of cottontail and jackrabbit. The lowest frequency of cottontail is in the Chaco branch, which in turn shows slightly higher representation of jackrabbits and other small rodents. The relative frequencies of the large animal taxa appear slightly higher for the San Juan - Mesa Verde branch. Pueblo I - Pueblo II Sites dating to the combined Pueblo I - Pueblo II period are present from the Chaco and Kayenta branches (Figure 6). The Chaco branch is represented by a single site. With the exception of the small mammal taxon in the Chaco branch, cottontail and jackrabbit specimens are the most abundant. However, it is quite likely that cottontail elements are included in the small mammal taxon. The relative frequency of cottontail for the Kayenta branch is greater than 40%. The relative abundances of Artiodactyla and large mammal are very similar in the two branches. The Chaco site shows slightly higher relative frequencies of the rodent taxa, such as prairie dog and mice, etc. Pueblo II The Pueblo II period is well represented by sites in the Chaco, Kayenta and San Juan - Mesa Verde branches (Figure 7). Cottontail specimens have the highest relative frequencies in all branches. Jackrabbit has a high relative frequency in the Chaco branch, however, it is significantly lower in the two other branches, both of which show higher relative 26 LZ CQ C —i CD cn T J 30 c <P_ CD $D D" r*. T3 fl) CD X 3. o o 3 Q . O • 3 o a> cr c o> Z3 o CD CO 0) — ^ CD "O CD 0) CD #—* CD Q . c r •< 2. CD Q> CO 0) T J CD 5' o_ CD «T> "S CO CD 2 2 <D 7 C =T CD C O 3 co_ 3 ro 3 CD W CD Q . C 3 3 3 3 0) o CD c3 CD 3 0) 3 3 tt> > r-r CD O 5 13 > o Q . O) o r-r »< CO o o CQ o 7 3 ~> CD < r-r CD CO o a. o Co o_ to CO CD CO T J W T J O ! CO T J TO CO O - Q Q . C CD =5" 3 CD. a) o —\ 0) c r c r O o r+ r+ O '3 IWJ U.'.'J • o . O o zr n> r o r o o o CO o CO o ites CO —\ CO — 3 o ch cn O O —J. CO o r o o (4 si yent CO CD CD o CO CO -p.. o ran cn O ch CO .-» 3 o o o . CO 00 O 5? CD CO .Cn . O CO fl) 3 C CO 3 I CD CO ro < CD —5 Q _ CD T J C CD cr o z r CD Pueblo l-Pueblo II Cottontail Jackrabbit Rodentia Squirrel Cynomys sp. Neotoma sp. Mice, Rats & Voles Canis sp. Wolf Dog Artiodactyla|i Antelope Deer Large mammal Medium mammal Small mammal Turkey Vulture Turkey | Large Bird Reptile Chaco Branch (1 site) 0 10 20 3040 50' I 1 I 1 1 Kayenta Branch (4 sites) 0 10 20 30 40 50% I I I 1 I Figure 6. Relative taxonomic abundances (of taxa represented by at least 4% in any period) for the Pueblo l-ll period. 28 62 T l C O CD o <' — CD T 3 5T CD X Z3. O o 2 Q . O • I o 05 cr O . 03 o CD 0} X 03 CD T 3 CD CO CD CD Q . c r •< 03 CD 03 CO 3 03 <̂ X J CD ~ * o' Q . ^ 9, oT CO CD ^ 3 CD ^ 3 C Q — | _> 03 03 0 ) W ^ 03 0 ) Q) CD > > o' CD C L * < CD CD ^ o c? 03 C Q O w o 3 2. < 3 ^ Co o_ 03 Co 00 CD CO (/) " O W "D "D CD __ oT O i iL O) r-r = ; . ro O . OJ o " o .on O NO . CO o ' o . cn O NO . ro o . to O o . Cn O NO ON o CO O CD =3 O 7s 03 O CD Co3 CO w r-r CO >̂ ^ n C D C O —! 03 0 ) 3 CD 00 CO r T 03 CD < - —1 Q _ CD -a c CD cr CD frequencies of the small mammal taxon. The relative frequencies of Artiodactyla, Antelope, Deer, and Large mammal if taken together are fairly similar for the Chaco and San Juan - Mesa Verde branches. The relative abundance of these taxa in the Kayenta branch is slightly lower. The Chaco branch shows a high relative frequency of prairie dog, not observed in either of the other branches. Pueblo II - Pueblo III Pueblo II - Pueblo III is the only period in this analysis which contains sites from all four branches. Unfortunately the Rio Grande branch, making its first and only appearance, is represented by a single site. The first obvious difference between the branches, portrayed in Figure 8, is the extremely high relative frequency of turkey in the Rio Grande area. As no other comparable sites are included here there is no measure of just how representative these relative frequencies are for the Rio Grande area at this time. The relative frequencies of turkey (Meleagris gallopavo) remains are low in the other three branches. Cottontail and jackrabbit have the highest relative frequencies in the Chaco and San Juan - Mesa Verde branches. In the Kayenta Branch these taxa are rivaled by a fairly high relative frequency of woodrat (Neotoma sp.). The Chaco and San Juan - Mesa Verde branches share similar relative frequencies of large animal taxa, which are less abundant in the Kayenta branch. Pueblo III Pueblo III period sites included in this analysis are from the Chaco and San Juan - Mesa Verde branches (Figure 9). The comparison made here is at a disadvantage, as only a single site is present from the Chaco branch and Pueblo III Chaco is often considered to be a Mesa Verde reoccupation, thus this may be considered to represent a geographical distinction rather than a cultural one. This site is represented by very few taxa. It is interesting that cottontails are not present at al l . Jackrabbits, prairie dog and mice, etc. are the most abundant taxa. These taxa, on the other hand, are relatively poorly represented in the San Juan - Mesa Verde branch. Cottontail and turkey have the highest relative frequencies for this branch. Turkey would be the more abundant of the two if, following Driver et al. (n.d.:4), the turkey and large bird taxa are combined. It is very likely that many of the specimens identified as large bird are the least 30 CQ C CD 00 TJ 3 CD 03 ex =r. o cB !E 5T = x CD o o 3 Q. O 03 c r c 3 Q. 03 3 o CD 03 X 03 CD TJ CD CO CD 3 r—*• CD Q> cr << 0) CD 03 00 I—#- CP- S' o CD TJ CD I 0) a zr CD CO —I . _ CD ? 3 ~ 7C Q3 § CQ . < 3 3 3 T 3 3 3 o" 0> TO 03 > 3 co ^ 5 co o 2 &>' * " R 3 oo o 2 < 3 -Q Q- __. < tr," O 03 CO ?j CD CO CQ Z^T 3 ro p S o a- => cr £ TJ c CD cr o T~ TJ C CD cr Pueblo III Chaco Branch San Juan-Mesa Verde (1 site) Branch (17 sites) 0 10 20 30 40 50% 0 10 20 30 40 50% Cottontail Jackrabbit Rodentia Squirrel Cynomys sp. Neotoma sp. Mice, Rats & Voles Cam's sp. Wolf Dog Artiodactyla Antelope Deer Large mammal Medium mammal Small mammal Turkey Vulture Turkey Large Bird Reptile I I I I I mum i i i Figure 9. Relative taxonomic abundances (of taxa represented by at least 4% in any period) for the Pueblo III period. 32 diagnostic turkey elements. Large animal taxa have low relative frequencies in both branches, but are more abundant in the San Juan - Mesa Verde branch. Comparison of faunal use between branches Overall this comparison demonstrates that the relative frequencies of faunal remains from the different branches are quite similar over most time periods. The majority of the variation which exists between branches is found among the three general mammal taxa, differences in the relative frequencies of other taxa are generally insignificant. It is possible that some of this variation is the result of differences in the animal populations within a site's local environment. There are, however, a few notable differences between branches in some periods. The San Juan - Mesa Verde branch had unusually high relative frequencies of canids in the Basketmaker III period, resulting from the excavation of complete or nearly complete individuals. The relative frequency of woodrats is much higher during the Pueblo II - Pueblo III Kayenta than in other branches. The relative frequencies of jackrabbit appears to be consistently higher in the Chaco branch than in any of the other branches across all time periods, l ikely due to the environmental characteristics or the area. The majority of the other large differences occur in cases where one or more branches are represented by a single site. In these situations there is no way of knowing how that site represents other sites in the same area for a similar time period. During the Basketmaker III - Pueblo I period the Chaco branch shows a relatively high frequency of turkey, a similar situation exists in the R io Grande branch during the Pueblo II - Pueblo III period. The comparison of the Pueblo III period also suffers from a single site representing one of the two branches. Comparison of faunal use through time Before discussing which taxa can be considered dietary staples, variation in the relative frequencies of taxa through time must be addressed. In Figures 10 to 12 the relative frequency graphs for each period are placed in chronological order for each branch. Comparison of these figures shows that there is very little change in the relative frequencies of taxa through time in any of the three branches present. The majority of other obvious differences in Figures 10 to 12 occur in cases where a period is represented by one site, a situation considered insufficient for 33 (O C 73 ££. u r* <" CD r* &> X o 3 o 3 o' n> cr c D_ 0) O CD n> "O - i n> 01 n> =J rt Q_ cr •< ft) VC "O <T> —t o' Q . n> 3 CD 73 (Q (D fD "E " fD Q_ H c a> *< c c 5 - rt fD - i •< tD c/> Q. I I 3 3 u &> 3 3 3 3 ru cu > 5' E °- 0 5 2 g- (/> o • ' NJ *j _ o  3 <D -2 c< y ^ u i S" w m 2 £ ~ 03 CD —\ in ch  u re • —* n> r t <• re r t D> X o 3 O 3 o " OJ cr c 3 Q . 0) r> ro tn o —1» r t 0> X B> -1 CD "D —i (h lJ> ft 3 r t ro Q . cr vc n> r t ST Q> (/) r t 3" <U »< T J ro 3 . o Q. '—' O r t ro O 3" a> o o 2 ro o . I i = i , < 3 3 c — ^ ^ ro S.<5 3 s. fiL 0) ro ro o ro > 5' 2 °- ^ ro m IQ ->, 8 o o 2 rt O in in -r . aT P 33 O O C/> O £ - r t c ro o> § I § . 5 ff <L DJ r t = : O INJ DO 0) U> ; v fl> r t 3 O o ZT r> o O tar 9S ro TO tp_ <• fD —\ q> x o 3 o 3 o > cr c 3 q . q> 3 0 CD 01 0) x a> <D T3 (D 3 r+ CD Q_ cr CD tt> CD zr CD co 3 CD </> < CD - l Q . CD CO -t reliable conclusions. Although relative frequencies for the majority of taxa in al l branches are not identical, the variation that exists is best described as fluctuating rather than any recognizable pattern of change. Some of this fluctuation may be the effect of using percentages, creating a closed array in which change in one taxon results in an opposite change in other taxa (Grayson 1984:19). There are a few observable differences in relative taxonomic frequencies worthy of note. Although the relative abundances of the large game animals remains fairly low in most periods there does appear to collectively be lower relative abundances of these taxa in the later Pueblo periods (Pueblo II - Pueblo III and Pueblo III) in the Chaco, Kayenta and San Juan - Mesa Verde branches. The increase in the relative frequency of woodrats in the Kayenta late Pueblo periods is of interest. However, with only one site present more data are required to establish whether this increase is a site specific occurrence, or part of a larger trend within the branch. A sharp increase in the relative abundance of woodrats was not observed in any other branch. There does appear to be an increase in the relative abundance of prairie dog between the Basketmaker and Pueblo periods in the Chaco branch (Figure 11), but once again this trend is not present in other branches. A number of possible significant changes are observable in the San Juan - Mesa Verde branch (Figure 12). Jackrabbits and deer are represented by relatively low frequencies in most periods, however, there appears to be a slight peak in their abundances during Pueblo I relative to al l other periods. It is important to note that this peak is not much greater than the relative frequencies in other periods. The previously discussed dog burials from sites 5LP110 and 5LP111, make the canids stand out during the Basketmaker III period. The relative frequencies of these taxa remain low in subsequent periods. Finally, the only taxa which has any indication of increasing relative abundances over time is the turkey. The relative frequency of turkey specimens is low between the Basketmaker III and Pueblo I periods, a slight increase is notable in the Pueblo II period and by the Pueblo III period it is the second most abundant taxa. Turkey may even be the most abundant taxon if combined with large bird as discussed above. 37 Summary In summary, with a few exceptions there does not appear to be any significant difference in the relative taxonomic abundances between branches or throughout the Anasazi tradition. These findings are in accord with those of Leonard (1989:94), who found little change in the fauna represented in Black Mesa assemblages through time. The definition of a dietary staple required both consistent use through time and across a wide area. The twenty taxa which have been the subject of this analysis are the animals (and animal groups) with the greatest potential to be dietary staples. Not all of these taxa, however, meet the criteria just stated. Three taxa, wolf, turkey vulture {Cathartes aura) and reptile occur only rarely and when present it is usually in small numbers. Thus, these taxa do not qualify as staples. The remaining seventeen taxa qualify as dietary staples by Gasser's (1982) definition; they are present throughout the majority of the Anasazi tradition and in most sites from each branch. Of these taxa cottontail has the highest relative abundance by far. Fol lowing cottontail are the jackrabbits. It is also possible to note the increased importance of the turkey in the San Juan - Mesa Verde Pueblo III period. The most interesting of the observed differences is the increase in the relative abundance of turkey in the later Pueblo Periods in the San Juan - Mesa Verde branch. This increase takes the turkey from a consistent but low presence to one of primary importance by relative abundance. The actual use of turkeys as a source of meat has been questioned. A kins (1985:381) for example, states that an adult turkey would consume the equivalent to its potential protein value in corn in only twenty days. Aasen (1984:39,44) found corn remains and pollen in turkey coprolites from Turkey Pen Cave. Add the increased cost of caring for the birds, providing adequate water and protection for example, makes turkey meat a relatively expensive dietary item. The presence of these birds may have been more closely linked to feather production. Gnabasik (1981) records a number of uses for turkey feathers in the ethnographic literature. Akins (1985:369) suggests that in Chaco Canyon turkeys were not commonly used as a food resource until the later pueblo periods. The increase in the abundance of turkey remains 38 in San Juan - Mesa Verde sites may represent the increasing importance of the turkey in the diet, similar to Akins suggestion for the Chaco branch. Ranking the rest of the taxa is difficult considering the presence of the general taxa, small, medium and large mammal, and large bird. These general taxa likely contain specimens of a number of different taxa. For example, cottontail, jackrabbit, squirrel, prairie dog, and woodrats may be represented in the Rodentia taxon and they may all be included in the small mammal taxon. Similarly, deer and antelope likely make up many of the Artiodactyla specimens, and all three likely contributed to the large mammal taxon. These two general taxa lie on the extremes and although we cannot know the exact representation of each potentially contributing taxa, we can limit it to smaller groups such as rodents or Artiodactyla. This is not possible for the medium mammal taxon. It may include the larger rodents, some carnivores or smaller Artiodactyls, depending on where the analyst draws the size boundaries. The high relative frequencies of cottontail and jackrabbit elements indicate that these species may have been the most important animal resources in the Anasazi diet. Rabbits and other small rodents were likely readily available in the area immediately surrounding most sites. Akins (1985:335) notes that small animals generally occur in fairly high densities and reproduce relatively quickly. These characteristics are ideal for a stable supply of meat obtained with comparatively little labour and time input. Large mammals, on the other hand, are not as abundant and do not reproduce at the high rate of small mammals. These species were likely harder to obtain and have required more time and energy to capture. The relative abundances of large mammals in Anasazi sites are generally quite low, suggesting they were of lesser importance in the diet. However, as studies using meat weights are quick to point out, it takes a large number of rabbits to equal the meat available from a deer or an antelope. One must also consider the "schlepp effect" on large mammal procurement. Unlike small animals, large mammals captured at greater distances were likely not returned to a site complete. Instead only those parts which were economically important were transported (Wing and Brown 1979:150). Such actions would reduce the number of large mammal remains deposited in a site, hence these 39 animals would be underrepresented in recovered faunal assemblages. Testing for this bias is beyond the scope of this study, but the potential effects of such behaviour must be kept in mind. The relative contributions of rabbits and large mammals to the Anasazi diet are often considered in terms of the total amount of meat represented by the remains of these animals recovered in archaeological assemblages. Another means of viewing the importance of these animals in the diet is to consider the potential frequency of their occurrence in meals. The large quantities of rabbit and small animal remains in the assemblages from Anasazi sites, coupled with the higher densities of these animals around sites suggests that these animals could have been obtained on a regular basis. Large mammals on the other hand, with fairly low relative abundances in sites and lower population densities were probably not captured as regularly. Gnabasik (1981:44) notes references in the ethnographic literature which suggest that the majority of meat brought into a pueblo was consumed fresh. Akins (1985:356) notes that most of the meat from large animals was probably consumed fresh and any remaining prepared for storage. Depending on the number of inhabitants of a particular site most of an animal may have been consumed in a relatively short period of time and the remaining stored for winter use. No test has been conducted to explore the validity of this idea. It is simply suggested that small animals such as rabbits may have been more important elements of the Anasazi diet by contributing small amounts of meat on a regular basis, as opposed to a large amount of meat on an occasional basis. Wing and Brown (1979:149) suggest a similar situation in which small animals eaten in large quantities constitute a significant part of the diet. The occurrence of small mammals such as mice, rats, voles, prairie dogs and woodrats in prehistoric faunal assemblages is a point of concern for studies of ancient diet These species continue to inhabit the Anasazi area today and there is a good chance that their intrusive remains have contributed to faunal assemblages after human occupation. In some cases intrusive individuals can be identified by complete, or nearly complete skeletons (Shaffer 1992:686). Indications that these species were also used in the past is provided by modified and burned specimens. The following discussion of coprolite analysis also indicates that many of these 40 animals were eaten by the Anasazi. The remains of cottontails, mice, squirrel, prairie dog, small bird and turkey have been recovered for Anasazi coprolites. Finally, a note on the dog remains, which may also be present in the Canis sp. taxon. It is questionable whether these animals were actually used as a food resource. It is quite possible that they were occasionally eaten, however, the presence of burials containing complete individuals would suggest that they played a greater role in Anasazi society than simply a convenient source of food. Thus, cottontail, jackrabbit and turkey (for the Pueblo III period in southwestern Colorado) can be assigned primary positions in the list of staple animal resources. The remaining staple resources, squirrels, prairie dog, woodrats, mice, rats and voles, dogs, deer and antelope varied in their relative abundances but were utilized consistently throughout the Anasazi area. Implications for Research Questions If the increase in rabbits and other small rodents in association with agricultural fields postulated by Seme (1984) and others is accurate, the dominance of rabbit remains in most periods could suggest that substantial agricultural practices were present from the Basketmaker II period on. This analysis has indicated that there was little change in the primary animal resources used across the Colorado Plateau and through time, suggesting that Anasazi diet remained relatively stable. The exception being the increase in the abundance of turkey remains in the later Pueblo periods of the San Juan - Mesa Verde branch. Rabbit, particularly cottontail, appears to have remained relatively constant, however, the abundance of large mammal remains does appear to be lower during the Pueblo II - Pueblo III and Pueblo III periods. Whether the increase in the abundance of turkey simply represents increased turkey use or an attempt to cover for decreasing availability of large game is unknown. 41 F L O T A T I O N A N D P O L L E N A N A L Y S I S Methods This section discusses Anasazi plant utilization based on flotation and pollen analysis. These data are affected by a host of factors which can result in contamination of the record and biases in the representation of individual taxa (Gasser 1982:16-21). Plant remains may be transported into an archaeological site by various natural agents, including soil movement, wind, and rodent activity; this may occur at any time between the initial occupation of the site in the past and its excavation by archaeologists. One method commonly used to reduce the possible effects of contamination is the exclusion of all but charred plant remains from analysis (Minnis 1981, Gasser 1982, Matthews 1985). One drawback associated with this approach is the exclusion of resources not subjected to preparation methods which could result in charring. This procedure is followed for the most part in the present analysis, exceptions to this wi l l be noted when appropriate. Charred plant material is generally assumed to have resulted from human actions. Charring could also result, however, from forest fires (Kirkpatrick and Ford 1977:262), or the post-occupation burning of structures. The relative abundance of individual plant taxa in archaeological sites are the result of a combination of factors, some cultural and others natural. Unfortunately, it can be very difficult to separate the two. Plant characteristics determine to a large degree their relative representation in archaeological contexts. The physical characteristics of plant products, such as seeds with hard outer coats or shells, increase the chances of survival in the archaeological record (Gasser 1982:19). Similarly, there is a greater probability of high representation within sites of plants which produce large quantities of seeds (Minnis 1981:145) and easily dispersed pollen. Prehistoric food preparation practices also affect the survivability of various plant types (Gasser 1982). Preparatory techniques such as boiling and grinding often destroy protective seed coats reducing their defenses against the ravages of time. The end result is the possible over or under representation of the various plant types identified. Therefore, measures of abundance using seed counts, for example, or the weight of plant remains recovered, may be misleading. 42 Ubiquity is another way of obtaining information on the relative importance of plant types in the archaeological record (Gasser 1982:22). Ubiquity measures can be calculated using individual samples from a site or the presence of plant remains in a group of sites. The flotation data in this analysis are examined with ubiquity measures based on the frequency of occurrence in the sites of any given period. Flotation data are presented in the literature in a variety of ways. Ubiquity values using the site as the basal unit accommodate the greatest number of sites. The San Juan - Mesa Verde branch is an exception to this procedure, where the majority of data are from a synthetic report (Matthews 1986) providing summed counts of plant parts from all sites in each chronological period. It is not possible to derive ubiquity values from these data. Ubiquity is also used to examine evidence of plant exploitation from pollen data. It appears to be more common in reports of pollen analysis to present the results of individual samples. Therefore, the ubiquity values from pollen reports are calculated from individual samples as opposed to sites. Discussion Comparison of Floral Use Through Time in the Chaco Branch Table 1 presents the occurrence of plant taxa in forty Chaco branch sites. The Basketmaker III - Pueblo I and Pueblo I periods are represented by only three sites each and only a single Pueblo III period site is present. It is important to keep these poorly represented areas in mind in the following discussion, as it is not known how well these sites represent other sites of the same period. Corn, beans and squash are all present within the Chaco branch flotation data. Corn is one of the most ubiquitous plants recovered in all time periods. If we ignore the single Pueblo III site for the time being, corn appears to become less common through time. Corn remains, found in all sites dating to the two earlier periods, are found in approximately 8 0 % of the Pueblo I - Pueblo II and Pueblo II period sites, and drops again to a ubiquity value of 7 1 % for the Pueblo II - Pueblo III period. Gasser (1982:24) found evidence for a decrease in the use of corn based on abundance measurements from sites excavated by the Coronado Project. His ubiquity values for the same sites, however, did not support this trend. The decrease in the ubiquity of corn remains apparent in Table 1 is not great, and corn remained one of the most commonly occurring plant types in Chaco branch sites. The pollen evidence does not support a 43 "8 -< c 8 4 a s. TJ a 4 a. CD c I 3 1Tansy M ustard 8- S V a I i? 1 in i in J 1 i s V 3- • sc ft IT 3- TO <• cr> i TJ c i IPrieklyPaar 1 T J I 3 TJ 3 O a £ TJ at S S TJ •< of {Panic Grass 1 z | Z i i 3 1 1 t 3 T» -1 X s s s 3 X ft c (Ground Cherry I a i I' 1 5. 8 C7> 8- 1 I ! fit <=» % IA I f 8 i o 3 5 % 0 c 1 0 1 o 3 ICom posliae 1 o 8 cr c 9 § 00 c 1 CD 3 i 8. CD 3 3 (Banana Yucca 1 CD 1 fir T 1 1 siu a X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X NA14.667 (1) CD z X X X X X X X X X X NAM.646 (1) X * X NA14,681 (1) T Li CO CT> cn o o o o o o o o cn -4 o Q CO co o o CJ u u to O u CO CO o o © o cn u u o o © CO CO cn -4 u CO o CO CO © o o o o o o CO o o cn •o CO CO CO CO o u u X (N-3) X X X X X X X NA14.674(1> X X X X X NA14,682 (1) -o c X X X X X NAI4.64S (1) S- U U O o o o o o o o o o o o O o o» -J o o O cn -j o o o o o o o o o o cn o o CO CO CO u o o o o o o o CO CO o o o o o CO CO o o X(N-3) X X X X X X X X X X x X X X NA14.6S4 0) TJ C X X X X X X X X NA14.662 (1) & X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 29SJ629 (2) X X X X X X X X x X X 29SJ627 (2.3) C 8- O o o o cn o K) cn o o o W Cn o o o o o o o cn ro cn ro cn cn o o ro cn o o © o © IS) cn cn o cn o o cn o cn o *. o © © © o -J cn ro Ol fO cn o ro cn in o o ro cn cn o X(N-4) ° X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X x X X NA14.650(1) X X X X X X X X X X X NA14.649 (1) X X X X X X NA14,633 (1) X X X X X X X X NA14.727 (1) X X X X X NA14.683 (1) X X X X X LA19414 (4) TJ C 8-X X X X LAI 9463 (4) X X X LAI 9464 (4) ~ X X X X X X X X X X X X X LA19S46 <4) X X X X X X LAI 9546 (4) X X X X X X X X X X Salmon Ruin (5) cn cn cn 09 o «D to o M OB o o o rO 1̂ to Co fs) cn (O o ro -«j « fO o o o o tO to Co u o> o o ro -4 o cn cn o o o to CD ro CO tO to to CO to ,o o « X(N-11) X X X X X X X X X X X X X X NA14,651 (1) X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X NA14.648 (1) X X X X X PM203 (6) X X X X X X x PM205 (6) X X X X PM240(6) X X X X X X X NA14.664 (1) X X X X X PM1S1 (6) TJ X X X X PM1S7(6) cr X X X PM160(6) X X PH196(6) TJ C X X X PM222(6) | — X X X X X X X X PM224(6) = X X X X x Guadalup* Ruin (7) X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X x X PuabloAlU (2) X X X X X X X X X LAI 9439 (4) X X X X X X X X X X LA19S16 (4) X X X X X X X X X X X X LAI 9553 (4) — o» cn to CO ro to o> on o M cn © o o M o A -vi cn CO cn OB 10 ro O cn cn o © cn cn o £ ro ro o © z o co cn o ro o o -4 IS) o o cn co ro o o ro to X(N-17) X X X X X X X X X X X X NA146S9(1) T J o o o o o O o o o i o o o o o o o o o o o o X ( N - l ) decrease in the use of corn through time. Although some fluctuation is observable, the ubiquity values for corn pollen remain high for all periods in the Coronado Project area (Gish 1982) and the Pueblo I and Pueblo II - Pueblo III periods in Chaco Canyon (Cully 1985). Bean and squash remains were found in relatively few time periods, and their ubiquity remained relatively low. Gasser (1982:20) notes that beans tend to degrade quickly relative to other plants. Preparing beans for consumption by boiling further reduces their chances of preservation in the archaeological record. There is little evidence for the use of beans in the pollen data. Squash remains were recovered in only Pueblo II (18%) and Pueblo II - Pueblo III (6%) period sites. This evidence does not indicate extensive or sustained use of this cultigen. The ubiquity of squash pollen in the Coronado Project sites (Gish 1982), however, presents a picture quite different from the flotation analysis. Squash pollen was identified in 7 5 % of the Basketmaker III - Pueblo I sites, decreasing to a low of 20% during Pueblo I - II times and increasing again through the Pueblo II and Pueblo II - III periods (57% and 80% respectively). Squash pollen was also found in the single Pueblo III period site present. During the Pueblo II - III period at Chaco Canyon squash pollen is moderately common, during the earlier periods, however, its ubiquity is quite low (Cully 1985). Goosefoot(Chenopodium sp.) is the most ubiquitous plant type found in Chaco branch sites. Charred remains of this plant were recovered from every site included in this analysis. Goosefoot is a common pioneer plant (Ford etal. 1983:464) attracted to areas of disturbed soils such as Anasazi corn fields. Its seeds are small, easily transported and produced in very large quantities. In comparison to plants with larger seeds, one can see how goosefoot seeds with their small size could easily become lost and with their abundance have better chances for survival in the archaeological record. Four other plant taxa, groundcherry (Physalis sp.), dropseed (Sporobolus sp.), Globemallow (Sphaeralcea sp.) and stickleaf (Mentzelia sp.) showed little change in ubiquity from one period to the next. Gish's (1982) pollen data suggest an increase in the ubiquity of Globemallow pollen during the Pueblo II and Pueblo II - Pueblo III periods. The ubiquity values for purslane (Portulaca sp.) suggest a weak increasing trend through time in the Chaco branch. During the Basketmaker III - Pueblo I period purslane is found in 3 3 % of the 45 sites present, it occurs in 75% and 64% of the Pueblo I - Pueblo II and Pueblo II period sites respectively. It is also common in sites of the PueblO II - Pueblo III period, although the ubiquity value of 53%, is slightly lower than the preceding periods. The ubiquity values given in Table 1 suggest a decrease in the use of amaranths, winged- pigweed (Cycloloma sp.), rice grass (Oryzopsis sp.), beeweed (Cleome), peppergrass (Lepidium sp.), banana yucca (Yucca baccata), wi ld buckwheat (Eroginum sp.), sunflower (Helianthus sp.) and Leguminoseae (pea family) through time. Caution must be used in this interpretation, however, in view of the low number of sites from the earlier periods. A variety of resources such as pinyon (Pinus edulis), juniper (Juniperus sp.), tansy mustard (Descurania sp.) and saltbush (Atriplex sp.) vary considerably from one period to the next. The pollen data from sites excavated by the Coronado Project show an interesting increase in the ubiquity of most non-cultigens during the Pueblo II period. For some taxa the rise in ubiquity is small. Goosefoot is an exception to this apparent trend. The ubiquity of goosefoot, 75% for Basketmaker III - Pueblo I sites and 60% for both Pueblo I and Pueblo I - II sites, drops to 4 3 % during the Pueblo II period. The ubiquity value for this plant returns to 60% in the succeeding Pueblo II - III period. Comparison of Floral Use Through Time in the Kayenta Branch The occurrence of plant taxa recovered from forty-nine Kayenta branch sites, all located on Black Mesa, is presented in Table 2. Accompanying pollen data are not presented here. The ubiquity of corn is high in all time periods for the Kayenta branch. The slight decrease through time in the ubiquity of corn remains observed for the Chaco branch is not reproduced in the Kayenta flotation data. Although beans and squash do not appear in Table 2, they were recovered from some Black Mesa sites. Beans were found at sites D:7:262 (French etal. 1982:300), D: 11:2068 (Ford etal. 1983:463) and D: 11:2030 (Ford et al. 1985:481). Squash remains were recovered from site D:7:2085 (Wagner etal. 1984:613). The majority of these sites had multiple occupations which did not fit the periods used in this analysis and are therefore absent from Table 2. 46 (1) Wagner et at. T c n n m CL. C3 e r» t A Q> ITansy Mustard ISunf lower CO n 7* A CO ISaltbush iRice Grass |Purslane IPrlcklyPear Ipinyon (Pincushion CactvJ IPeppergress 1 7? o n 3" 0> L'unlper a 3 3 A CO A [Grama Grass |Goosefoot ICorn ICompositae 1 n CD n CO rt A 0 A |Beeweed (Barrel Cactus J lAstralaqus 1 lAmaranth Site I Period CD X IA X X X X X 0:7:3141 (1) X X X X X X X X X D:t 1:2045 <1> ro X X X X X DEI 1:2063 <1> o X X X X X X 0:11:2126 (1) A X X X X 0:11:3133 (1) m X X X X X X X X D:7:254 (2) <o 00 X X X X X X X 0:7:3107 (2) 3, (3) F> X X X X 0:11:244 (2) 3, (3) F> X X D:11:3172 (2) o CL X X 0:11:2067(2) % A A X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X D: 11:449 (3> 3 X X D:11:1167(3> A to a> Ul X X X X X X X X X X X 0:11:1410 (3) — £ X X X X X X X 0:7:239 (4) •n X 0:7:151 (4) n X X 0:7:3013 (4) A X X X 0:7:3017(4) at X X X 0:7:3045 (4) CO 00 X X X X X X X X X X X Del 1:1161 (5) ro O cn cn cn n co ro C>) ro ro 1 —J -Ct. cn CO ro — cn Ct) ro O) cn 00 •h. 00 cn cn cn cn cn cn CO % (N-19) S)C X X D:7:3021 (4) o X X 0:7:3034 (4) 3 A X X X D:7:3194 (2) ~ CO X D:11:3061 (2) to O O O O o o ro cn o o ro cn O o o o o O -«J cn cn o o o O O o X (N-4) — J CO X X X X X X D:11:2023(1) X X X X X D:11:2025(1) X X X X D:11:2027(1) X X X X X X X X D:11:3038 (1) X X X X X X 0:11:2062(1) Pue X X 0:11:2064 (2) cr o X X X X X D:11:689 (3) " X X X X X X D:7:263 (4) X X X X X 0:7:3038 (4) o O O O o zl Ct) CO Cn CO ro ro cn o> o Zl ro ro ro ro o 00 CO o o o o O O O Cn oi %(N-9) X X X 0:11:1158 (5) X X D:7:2013 (4) A cr X X X X X X X X X X X X X 0:7:234 (2) o X D:7:2090 (1) TJ c A X X X X X 0:11:3017 (1) cr o ro o O O ro o o o o ro o ro o o o o o o o ro o o> o 00 o o o O O ro o ro o X(N-5) = X X 0:7:18 (5) X X X X X X 0:11:275(5) X X X X X 0:11:879 (5) X X X X X X X X X X 0:7:109(4) X 0:7:2020 (4) Puel X X X D:7:3055 (4) cr O X X X X 0:11:2001 (4) — X X X 0:7:2001 (4) X X X X X X 0:11:3119 <1> o o O Zl o Zl o> co Zl ro ro Zl o Ct) w - o —J 09 00 to o - o o o o> —J X(N-9) X X X X X X X X 0:11:316(2) X X X X X X 0:11:2042(2) X X X 0:11:2051 (1) o o o o o u> Ct) Ct) Ci) Ct) o o> -4 o o cn -4 Co —J o o a> -4 o o b> u> CO o o o CO CO X(N-3) The ubiquity of goosefoot remains is high in all periods represented by Kayenta branch sites. Five other plant taxa, amaranths, pinyon, juniper, purslane and rice grass, are commonly recovered in Kayenta periods with moderate to high ubiquity values. Taxa which appear in a significant number of periods, with low to moderate ubiquity values include: Graminae (grass family), Kochia, saltbush and prickly pear (Opuntia). Remains of plants identified only to the cactus family, Cactaceae, occur with low frequency in the Basketmaker II and Pueblo II period and have moderate ubiquity values in the Pueblo II - Pueblo III period. Prickly pear remains during these periods actually decrease from the moderate ubiquity values of the early Pueblo periods. Finally, there are four taxa which appear only in the Basketmaker II period sites: beeweed, stickleaf, tansy mustard and wild buckwheat. The ubiquity values of these plants are quite low. Stickleaf is the highest of the four with a ubiquity of 11%. The ubiquity values for the remaining three are all 5%. Among the Chaco branch sites the highest ubiquity value for beeweed is in the earliest period (Basketmaker III - Pueblo I). Although the ubiquity values decrease, beeweed is found in later sites from this branch. The highest ubiquity value for the remains of wi ld buckwheat are also in the Chaco Basketmaker III - Pueblo I period, however, the values continue to range from high to moderate in subsequent periods. Stickleaf and tansy mustard are not present in Chaco branch sites until the Pueblo I - Pueblo II period, after which they occur with moderate to high ubiquity values. Comparison of Floral Use Through Time in the San Juan - Mesa Verde branch As noted above the San Juan - Mesa Verde branch flotation data used for this analysis are presented as total presence by period as opposed to ubiquity values for each period (Table 3). The pollen data are primarily from the Hovenweep National Monument reported by Weir (1976). Scott (1976) and Short (1980) provide pollen data from Hoy House and two Basketmaker III sites excavated by the Durango South Project respectively. Corn and goosefoot are present in all periods of this branch as they are in both the Chaco and Kayenta branches. The ubiquity of corn pollen is 50% or greater for all periods, from Basketmaker II to Pueblo III (Weir 1976). Beans were identified in all six of the Dolores periods, but not in the Pueblo III period represented by 48 Table 3 . Occurrence of charred plant remains from flotation analysis from San Juan - Mesa Verde branch sites. Period BM III BM lll-P I PI p l-p II Pll p Il-P III Pill Area/Site Dolores (1 ) Dolores (1) Dolores (1) Dolores (1) Dolores (1) Dolores (1) Guadalupe Ruin (2) Salmon Ruin (3) Amaranthus X X X X X X Bannana Yucca X X X X X X X Barley X Bean X X X X X X Beardtongue X X Beeweed X X X Bird beak X Bottle Gourd X X X Bulrush X Che no-am X X X X X X X Compositae X X X X X Corn X X X X X X X X Cruciferae X X X X X X Cyperaceae X X X X X X X Dropseed X X Globemallow X X X X X Goosefoot X X X X X X X Gramineae X X X X X X X X Groundcherry X X X X X X X Hedge Cactus Jimsonweed X Juniper X X X X X X X Knotweed X X X X X Leguminosae X X X X X X Malvaceae X X X X X Mulberry X Nightshade X X X X X Oak X X X Panic Grass X Pinyon X X X X X X X Polygonaceae X X X Prickly Pear X X X X X Purslane X X X X X X X X Rice Grass X X X X X X Reed X Rosaceae X X X X Rush X Sage X Sedge X Service berry X X Solanaceae X X X X X Squash X X X X X Stickleaf X X X X X X X Sumac X X X X X X Summer Squash X X X Sunflower X X X X X X X Tabacco X X X X X X Tansy Mustard X X X X X X X Wild onion X Yucca X X X X X X X (1) Matthews 1986, (2) Pippin 1987, (3) Doebley 1981 49 the Mesa Verde occupations at Guadalupe Ruin (Pippin 1987) and Salmon Ruin (Doebley 1981). Bean pollen was not identified in the Hovenweep sites used in this analysis. Squash remains were found in sites dating to the Basketmaker III through Pueblo I - Pueblo II periods in the Dolores area. They were not identified in Pueblo II and Pueblo II - Pueblo III period sites at Dolores, but are present in Pueblo III period samples from Guadalupe Ruin (Pippin 1987). Squash pollen was only identified in sites from the Pueblo II - Pueblo III period. The ubiquity value for this pollen type was only 5%. Numerous other plant taxa were present in all time periods from the San Juan - Mesa Verde branch. These include: cheno - ams, yucca, pinyon, juniper, groundcherry, purslane, sunflower, Graminae and Cyperaceae (sedge family). The ubiquity values for pollen types support the common presence of cheno - ams, pinyon, juniper, Graminae and Cyperaceae (Weir 1976, Scott 1976, Short 1980). Stickleaf and tansy mustard are also present in all periods, in contrast to the Chaco branch where they do not occur until the Pueblo I - Pueblo II period, and the Kayenta branch in which they were not identified in sites after the Basketmaker II period. Beeweed occurred in only three time periods. As Table 3 indicates, other commonly recovered plant types from San Juan - Mesa Verde branch sites include: amaranth, Leguminosae (pea family), Rosaceae (rose family), sumac (Rhus trilobata), compositae, globemallow, knotweed (Polygonum sp.) and Malvaceae (mallow family). Rice grass, present in all Kayenta branch periods and all but Pueblo I in the Chaco branch, was absent from the San Juan - Mesa Verde branch Pueblo I - Pueblo II and Pueblo II periods. The remains of prickly pear cactus were not identified in the Basketmaker III or Pueblo II - III periods in the San Juan - Mesa Verde branch. Prickly pear was also absent from the Pueblo II - III period in the Kayenta branch. Among the Chaco branch periods the lowest ubiquity for prickly pear was during the Pueblo II - Pueblo III period (6%). The plant was not present in the single Pueblo III site included in this analysis. The ubiquity values for prickly pear pollen indicate a decrease through time (based on data from: Weir 1976, Scott 1976, Short 1980). 50 Lepofsky (1986) has examined seven flotation samples from Turkey Pen Ruin, a Basketmaker II site in Grand Gulch, Utah. Although the data include uncharred remains they do show high frequencies (in the analyzed samples) of corn and squash. Goosefoot and rice grass were present in all samples. Other common non-cultigens include: amaranth, compositae, sunflower, prickly pear, banana yucca (Yucca baccata), and pinyon nuts. Pollen types with relatively high ubiquity values in Weir's (1976) data which are not present in the flotation data discussed above include: greasewood (Sarcobatus), high and low spine composites, Liliaceae (lily family), cottonwood (Populus), cattail (Typha) and wi ld buckwheat. Comparison of Floral Use Through Time in the Rio Grande Branch Only two sites are present in this analysis for the Rio Grande branch of the Anasazi. Kirkpatrick and Ford (1977) report flotation results (not all remains are charred) for the sites M P 4 (Basketmaker II) and N P 1 E (Basketmaker III), in the Cimarron District of New Mexico. Corn and bean remains were identified at both sites. Non-cultigen plants recovered from both sites include: goosefoot, juniper, pinyon, chokecherry (Prunus), marsh elder (Iva) and banana yucca. There are no plant taxa present in the Basketmaker II site which are not represented in NP1E. Plants identified only in the Basketmaker III site include: amaranth, beeweed, sunflower, knotweed, sumac, dropseed and Grama (Bouteloua). The data presented here are too limited to assign any significance to the differences in plant remains from these two sites. Summary Corn remains were one of the most ubiquitous plant types recovered in each of the Anasazi branches discussed above. The slight decrease in the ubiquity of corn in the later periods of the Chaco branch suggested by the flotation data is not supported by the pollen data, nor does it appear in the Kayenta branch. The remains of beans and squash were not common occurrences in the flotation samples from Anasazi sites. Pollen evidence from the Chaco branch, on the other hand, does indicate a significant amount of squash pollen in all time periods. Cotton, a fourth cultigen which is present in coprolite samples, was not identified in any of the flotation data discussed above. 51 Plant taxa which maintained a relatively consistent presence through each time period in all branches (with the exception of the Rio Grande branch, where the data is insufficient) include: amaranth, goosefoot, rice grass, Graminae, juniper, purslane and prickly pear. Pinyon remains were present in all periods from the Kayenta and San Juan - Mesa Verde branches, but in only two periods from the Chaco branch which is lower in elevation with less pinyon - juniper woodland. The flotation data, supported by the pollen data, indicate that these plants occur commonly enough through time and across the Anasazi area to be viewed as primary contributors, or staples in the Anasazi diet. Table 3 shows a number of plants, such as groundcherry, stickleaf and tansy mustard, which were recovered in every time period in the San Juan - Mesa Verde branch, but occur in relatively few periods in other branches. Dropseed is common only in the Chaco branch and kochia only in the Kayenta branch. With the exception of these two taxa, all other plant types which occur commonly in sites from either of these branches are also common in the other branches. Implications for Research Questions This analysis indicates that corn was one of the most commonly occurring plant types in all the time periods from each branch. This suggests that corn was an important component of the Anasazi diet since the Basketmaker II period. There is no evident increase in the ubiquity of corn which would suggest agricultural intensification. It should be noted, however, that ubiquity based on sites may not be the most appropriate means of addressing this problem through flotation evidence. Ubiquity values calculated from individual samples , or some measure of relative abundance such as seed count or weight, may be a more accurate means of approaching this question. There is no substantial decrease in the ubiquity of plant resources which would indicate a failing subsistence system severe enough to lead to regional abandonment. C O P R O L I T E A N A L Y S I S The analysis of prehistoric feces, or coprolites, is one of the most direct means of assessing prehistoric diet available to archaeologists. The remains identified in coprolite samples represent food items which were actually consumed. However, many food items are completely 52 digested, hence coprolites rarely contain all that was eaten (Clary 1983:1). Furthermore, the abundance of resources which are present do not necessarily reflect the amount originally consumed (Fry 1977:9). The goal of the present analysis is to identify the resources the coprolite samples indicate were staples in the Anasazi diet. This analysis is not unique. Coprolite analysis is one of the few areas where archaeologists have attempted a synthesis of Anasazi diet. A t least four studies of this sort have been done to date, Stiger (1977), Gasser (1982), Minnis (1989) and Reinhard (1988). There exists a core group of easily accessible coprolite studies which are continuously used for comparison. This analysis does not differ as the data brought together here are similar to the four studies mentioned above. Methods Reinhard (1988:40-41) has suggested that at least fifteen coprolites per site are required to provide an accurate characterization of past diet. Originally, coprolite data from thirty-one sites had been gathered for this analysis. Using fifteen samples as a cut-off reduced the number of usable sites to six, or seven if Stiger's (1977) combined Glen Canyon Pueblo III sites are used. This number is far too small to undertake a comparison of the four Anasazi branches. Thus, the analysis wi l l focus on time periods for the Anasazi area as a whole. Ubiquity, or the number of samples in which a given taxa occurs, is the most commonly used measure in coprolite analysis. Reports routinely present the data in this form or in a manner which can easily be converted to ubiquity. Thus, the taxa identified in the coprolite samples used in this analysis are considered in terms of their ubiquity. Both macrofossil and pollen analyses are discussed below. Macrofossil data are present for. Turkey Pen Ruin in Grand Gulch, Utah; Step House and Hoy House, Mesa Verde, Colorado; Antelope House in Canyon de Chelly, Ar izona; Inscription House, Navajo National Monument, Arizona; and Salmon Ruin, New Mexico (Table 4). Coprolites samples from these sites are present for all but the Pueblo I period. In his analysis of Anasazi coprolites, Gasser (1982:43) considered resources which appeared in at least ten percent of the coprolites analyzed to have been important plants in the Anasazi diet. Reasoning that anything eaten one out of ten times constitutes a common meal item. This is a valid measure, however, it is important to remember that one coprolite does not equal one meal. Coprolites may 53 Table 4 . Macrofossil ubiquity values for Anasazi Coprolites. SITE/PERIOD Turkey Pen Ruin BM II Step House BMW Antelop House Pll Step House P III Hoy House P III Inscription House P III Antelope House P III REFERENCE Aasen 1984 Stigerl977 Fry & Hall 1986 Stlgerl977 Stiger 1977 Stiger 1977 Fry and Hall 1986 N-28 N.20 N.I 5 N.17 N.S6 N.16 N-68 TAXA % « « % % « « Amaranth . 5 13.3 11.8 8.9 - 11.8 Bean - 5 - 11.8 17.9 2S 1.5 Beeweed 3.6 10 20 5.9 5.4 - 14.7 Bugseed . - 5.9 - - - Bulrush - - - - - Buffaloberry - - 5.4 - Cactus - - - - 50 - Cactus epidermis 20 - - - 25 Cactus fiber - - - - . 1.5 Cactus spine 26.7 - - - 35.3 Cheno-am 7.1 - - - - . Chokecherry - • S - 5.9 3.6 - - Composite - - - - - - - Corn 89.3 65 100 88.2 100 68.8 89.7 Cotton 6.7 - - 31.8 22.1 Cryptantha - - - - - Cycloloma - - - - Dropseed - - - - 18.8 4.4 Franseria 10.7 - - - - - - Goosefoot 35.7 25 6.7 35.3 10.7 - 4.4 Grape . - 6.7 - - - 1.5 Grass 5 - 5.9 1.8 6.3 1.5 Groundcheny 20 46.7 23.5 26.8 12.5 7.4 Hackberry . - 18.8 - Horsebrush - - - - - 10.3 Indian Rice Grass 32.1 5 - 5.9 3.6 31.3 4.4 Juniper - 5.9 - - - Knotweed - - - - - - - Mormon Tea - - - - - Nightshade - - - - - - Onion - - - - 2.9 Panic Grass 6.7 - - 6.3 - Pataya Cactus - - - - - Peppergrass - - - S6.3 1.5 Pine Nut fragment - 66.7 - - - 23.5 Pinyon 46.4 35 - 17.7 12.5 - - Poaceae - - - - - - - Prickly Pear 7.1 40 26.7 64.7 25 - 10.3 Purslane 3.6 25 60 23.5 17.9 6.3 10.3 Sagebrush - S - - 1.8 - - Saltbush 3.6 . - 17.9 - 1.5 Skunkbush - - - 17.6 - 6.3 - Squash 10.7 40 66.7 24.9 19.6 - 20.6 Squawbush - - - - - 8.8 Sumac - - - - - - Sunflower - 6.7 5.9 1.8 18.8 4.4 Tansy Mustard - - - - - - Wild Buchwheat - - 1.8 - - Wild Rye - - - - 1.5 Yucca - 6.7 - - - - 54 contain between one and five days consumption (Clary 1983). Any food item found in one out of ten coprolites was consumed at least once within a minimum of probably twenty-four hours. It is not possible to arrive at the number or percentage of meals any one resource was a part of, as there is no way of identifying how many meals are represented in one coprolite. Discussion Basketmaker II Turkey Pen Ruin is the only Basketmaker II site which has the required number of samples; Aasen (1984) has analyzed twenty-eight human coprolites. Corn macrofossils are present in almost 90% of the coprolites. Other commonly consumed plant resources include: pinyon, goosefoot, Indian rice grass, Franseria, and squash. Prickly pear cactus and cheno-ams were found in slightly less than ten percent of the coprolites. Bone fragments were found in 14% of the coprolites. Weight analysis of these coprolites by Matson and Chisholm (1991:449) support the dominance of corn, and the importance of pinyon and rice grass. Reinhard (1988) has also examined coprolites from Turkey Pen Ruin (n=25), recovered during the clean up of pothunter's holes at the site (Powers 1984). Given the presence of post Basketmaker II occupations at the site and the recovery of these coprolites from disturbed contexts, the possibility exists that not all samples are from the Basketmaker II occupation. However, Reinhard's (1988:94) data support the high frequency of corn (96%); the common consumption of goosefoot and squash, and records the presence of beans in 4% of the coprolites. Macrofossil analysis of coprolites (n=3) from the Glen Canyon area (sites 42Sa681 and 42Sa693) also contained squash and prickly pear (Fry 1977:37). The analysis of pollen in prehistoric coprolites (Table 5) is not as straight forward as macrofossils. People may ingest pollen by a number of means, some of which are unintentional. Wind borne pollen may be inhaled and pollen may be taken into the digestive system through drinking water (Gasser 1982:46), or through adherence to other food products. Pollen may also be consumed intentionally for ceremonial purposes or by eating flowers (Scott 1979). The correlation between the macrofossil and pollen analysis of Turkey Pen Ruin coprolites (Aasen 1984) are minor. Ranking the pollen types by ubiquity places corn in the sixth position, yet is it 55 Table 5 . Pollen type ubiquity values for Anasazi coprolites. SITE/PERIOD Turkey Pen Ruin BMII Pueblo Alto Pll Antelope House Pll Antelope House Pill Hoy House Pill REFERENCE Aasen 1984 Clary 1983 Williams-Dean 1986 Williams-Dean 1986 Scott 1979 N=28 N=12 N=14 N=74 N=59 TAXA % % % % % Alder 7.1 - - - - Ball Cactus - - - - 9 Bean - - - 4.1 7 Beeweed 28.6 50 100 81.1 95 Buffaloberry - - ' - - 2 Bulrush - - - - 3 Cactaceae - 7.1 6.8 - Cattail - - 42.9 29.7 17 Cheno-am - 83 64.3 68.9 100 Composite - - - - 63 Corn 35.7 100 85.7 68.9 95 Cottonwood 3.6 - 21.4 55.4 2 Cruciferae 10.7 - - 6.8 - Currant - - - - 2 Globmallow 3.6 8 - - 7 Gooseberry - 25 - - - Goosefoot 89.3 - - - - Grasses 28.6 67 - - 10 Greasewood 7.1 - - - 17 Hackberry - 42 - - - High Spine Composite - 67 50 46 - Juniper 28.6 - 14.3 20.3 59 Labiatae - - - - 2 Low Spine Composite - 67 50 50 - Mormon Tea 25 25 - - 20 Mtn. Mahogany - - - - 56 Oak 10.7 - ' - - 56 Peppergrass - - - - 19 Phlox - - - - 2 Picea - - - - 2 Pinyon 60.7 75 - - 90 Plantin - - - - 2 Prickly Pear - - 7.1 12.2 14 Primulaceae 10.7 - - - - Purslane - 25 21.4 5.4 27 Ragweed 71.4 - - - 44 Ranunculaeceae - - 7.1 6.8 - Ricegrass - - - - 54 Sagebrush 60.7 - - - 81 Sedge - 8 - - - Squash 21.4 25 57.1 28.4 24 Storksbill - - - - 2 Striped Cushaw Squash - - - - 37 Tubuliflorae 42.9 - - - - Umbellifarae 10.7 - - - 46 Wild Buckwheat - - - - 5 Yucca 3.6 8 - - ' - 56 the most commonly occurring taxa in the macrofossil remains. The pollen analysis shows high percentages of chenopods. These plants produce large amounts of wind transported pollen dramatically increasing the chance of unintentional ingestion. However, Aasen (1984:34) found great quantities of this pollen in a number of individual coprolites, suggesting that the pollen was being ingested through some intentional means as well. Other commonly occurring pollen types include: Ambrosia type (e.g., ragweed), pine, sagebrush and composite. Basketmaker III The Basketmaker III period is represented by twenty-two coprolites from Step House (Stiger 1977). Once again the most ubiquitous plant type is corn, present in 6 5 % of the samples. Other commonly utilized plants at this site are similar to those discussed above: squash, prickly pear, pinyon, goosefoot, purslane, groundcherry and beeweed. Mouse bones were identified in one coprolite. Unidentifiable bone fragments were present in 30% of the coprolites. Pueblo II Fifteen Pueblo II period coprolites have been analyzed by Fry and Hal l (1986) from Antelope House, Canyon de Chelly, Arizona. Corn remains were identified in all of the coprolites analyzed. Squash, pinyon and purslane were present in the majority of the coprolites (between 60 and 67%). Other commonly eaten taxa include: groundcherry, prickly pear cactus, beeweed and amaranth. Cotton seeds make their appearance in one of the fifteen coprolites from the Pueblo II occupation of Antelope House. Adams (1991:181) notes that cotton on the Colorado Plateau was obtained form the Hohokam beginning around A . D . 700; production of cotton by Anasazi people began in a limited number of areas during the A . D . 1100s. Bone fragments were found in 60% of the coprolites. The single Pueblo I coprolite from Antelope House shows a high percentage of corn remains, followed by squash. No cotton seeds were identified in this sample. Clary (1983,1984) has analyzed twenty-two coprolites from Pueblo A l to for the Pueblo II period, and a smaller sample of thirteen coprolites from the same period at Pueblo Bonito. Ubiquity values for most plant taxa appear very low from Pueblo Alto. Corn is not listed in the occurrence tables in the 1983 thesis and no tables for macrofossil remains are given in the 1984 57 publication. Clary (1984:269) does note that corn, squash, purslane, pinyon, rice grass and dropseed were among the plant types recovered. Bone fragments were found in 74% of the coprolites from Pueblo Al to (Clary 1983). Four animals were identified, cottontail, prairie dog, mouse and small bird. A similar percentage (62%) of the coprolites from Pueblo Bonito also contained bone fragments. Will iams-Dean (1986) presents the most complete study of pollen from Antelope House coprolites. Only fourteen of the Pueblo II coprolites contained sufficient quantities of pollen for analysis. Beeweed is the most commonly occurring pollen type, followed by corn. Other well represented taxa include: cheno-ams, squash, high spine composite, low spine composite, C o t t o n w o o d , purslane and juniper. The most abundant pollen type in the Pueblo A l to coprolites (n=14) was corn. Many of the more common plant taxa are similar to those from Antelope House: cheno-ams, beeweed, squash, purslane, high spine composite and low spine composite. A l so common in the Pueblo Al to coprolites were pinyon, hackberry, grass and gooseberry pollen. The pollen content of Pueblo Bonito coprolites is quite similar. Pueblo III Coprolites dating to the Pueblo III period have been analyzed from Step House (Stiger 1977), Hoy House (Stiger 1977), Inscription House (Stiger 1977) and Antelope House (Fry and Hal l 1986). Corn is the most common plant found in the coprolite samples from each of these four sites. Commonly consumed taxa occurring in three out of four of these sites include: squash, bean, groundcherry, purslane, pinyon and prickly pear/cactus. Amaranth was represented by more than 10% in two sites. Cotton is well represented at both Inscription House and Antelope House, whereas it was not identified in coprolites from Step House and Hoy House. Stiger's (1977:36) presentation of the coprolite data from Glen Canyon also indicates that cotton was fairly common (29%) in the Pueblo III period. Of the four sites, coprolites from Step House and Hoy House are very similar. Inscription House stands out with the lowest frequency of corn (68%), and a high ubiquity of peppergrass, rice grass, dropseed, hackberry, and sunflower. 58 Mean relative frequencies for the macrofossil data from the Pueblo III sites discussed above shows corn (87%) as the most ubiquitous plant resource recovered from the coprolites examined. Prickly pear is the second most commonly occurring plant type, represented in 25% of the coprolites. Other common plant resources, in rank order by frequency, include: groundcherry, cactus, squash, purslane, peppergrass, bean, pinyon, cotton, goosefoot and rice grass. Three taxa which fall below but relatively close to 10% representation are Amaranth, sunflower and beeweed. The average frequency of bone fragments in the Pueblo III coprolites (Step House, Inscription House and Antelope House) is 25%. The animal taxa identified in the samples are turkey, mice, squirrel and small rodent. Stiger (1977:38) records the occurrence of bone and sinew in 50% of the Pueblo III coprolites from Glen Canyon. Williams-Dean's (1986) analysis of Antelope House coprolites is the only source of pollen data for the Pueblo III period. Beeweed is the most common pollen type, occurring in 8 1 % of the samples. Other well represented taxa include: corn, cheno-ams, cottontail, composite, cattail, squash, juniper and prickly pear. Purslane and bean pollen occur infrequently in the coprolites examined. Summary The taxa present in at least 10% of the coprolites of any given period show surprising consistency through time. Corn is the most common food item represented in coprolite macrofossils in all four periods examined (Basketmaker II, III, Pueblo II, III). A l so well represented in al l time periods are pinyon and squash. Purslane, prickly pear and groundcherry are common plant taxa in all but the Basketmaker II period. The frequency of prickly pear (7.1%) is close to the 10% cut-off, and though not found in many coprolites, purslane and groundcherry are present for this period. The occurrence of goosefoot is high in the Basketmaker II, Basketmaker III and the Pueblo III periods. The frequency of this taxon is relatively low in Pueblo II coprolites. Three taxa are common in two of the four periods: rice grass (Basketmaker II, Pueblo III), cactus (Pueblo II, Pueblo III) and beeweed (Basketmaker III, Pueblo II). Franseria is only represented in 10% of the Basketmaker II coprolites and amaranth 59 is common only in the Pueblo II period. Beans, cotton and peppergrass, were only common elements in the diet of Pueblo III Anasazi. The occurrence of bone fragments in the coprolite samples, indicating the consumption of meat, varies throughout the four periods discussed. Bone fragments are present in only 14% of the Basketmaker II coprolites (Aasenl984). The frequency of bone in the Basketmaker III (30%) and Pueblo III (25%) periods are similar. Pueblo II period coprolites show high frequencies of bone fragments. Clary (1983) reports that bone was found in 74% of the Pueblo A l to coprolites, and in 60% of the Antelope House Pueblo II coprolites contained bone (Fry and Hal l 1986). These figures suggest that during some periods meat was a common meal component. Cushing (1920:564), however, believed the Zuni custom of eating jerked meat frugally was a habit retained from the period prior to the introduction of domesticated animals. He suggests that when only wild meat was available it was eaten not as a regular food item but instead to add flavour to the rest of the meal. The pollen data indicate five taxa which are represented in the coprolites from the Basketmaker II, Pueblo II and Pueblo III periods (no pollen data for Basketmaker III): corn, squash, beeweed, juniper and cottonvvood. The first three of these taxa have high frequencies in macrofossil remains. The pollen data, however, indicates that juniper and cottonwood pollen may have been commonly ingested, although it is not possible to identify how. Will iams-Dean (1986:196) includes both of these taxa as economic pollen types. Plant resources which the pollen data identify as commonly occurring only during the Basketmaker II period include: sagebrush, oak, ragweed, Tubuliflorae, Primulaceae (primrose family) and Umbellifarae (carrot family). Taxa which are not common in the Pueblo II - Pueblo III macrofossil remains but are common pollen types include: cheno-am, composite (both high and low spine) and cattail. The results of the coprolite data indicate that corn was the most commonly consumed plant food in the Anasazi diet. Other plant resources which can be considered dietary staples include pinyon, squash, purslane, prickly pear, groundcherry and goosefoot. Beans, cotton and peppergrass become important food resources during the Pueblo III period. The pollen data suggest that juniper, cottonwood, cheno-ams, composite and cattail may have made significant 60 contributions to Anasazi diet. Meat appears to have been an important component of the Anasazi diet, as indicated by the common occurrence of bone fragments in coprolites. Implications for Research Questions The analysis of coprolite data indicates that corn was an important component of the diet throughout the Anasazi tradition, including the Basketmaker II period. The ubiquity values for corn, although showing some fluctuation, remain consistently high. No indications for the intensification of corn production were found. However, one could interpret the appearance of cotton, with substantial ubiquity values in coprolites from some sites, as an attempt to increase food production, as well as to provide material for cloth. S T A B L E C A R B O N ISOTOPE A N A L Y S I S The development of stable carbon isotope analysis has added a promising new dimension to the study of prehistoric diet, particularly in the American Southwest Although this type of analysis is not new to the region, relatively little research of this type has been carried out in the Anasazi area. This discussion wi l l be concerned primarily with the results presented in three publications. Decker and Tieszen (1989) examined populations from Mesa Verde and Mancos Canyon. Matson and Chisholm (1991) originally reported a series of carbon isotope values for Cedar Mesa Anasazi. Recently Chisholm and Matson (in press) have added new individuals to this data set as well as nitrogen isotope values. The two study areas covered in these reports are both within the Northern San Juan - Mesa Verde branch. Methods Discussions of this approach appear throughout the literature, thus it w i l l be covered only briefly here. Useful summaries are found in van der Merwe (1982) and Chisholm (1989). During photosynthesis plants take in carbon from carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Isotopic fractionation during photosynthesis alters the ratio of to ^C, which, with minor exceptions, exist in a relatively constant ratio within atmospheric carbon dioxide (Chisholm 1989:12). Plants use one of three different photosynthetic pathways, commonly referred to as C 3 , C 4 and C A M (Crassulacean Ac id Metabolism). Isotopic fractionation in the C 3 and C 4 61 pathways result in different ratios, denoted as S ^ C (%<,). S ^ C values produced by plants using the C A M pathway vary with the environment they inhabit. In arid environments, such as that inhabited by the Anasazi, C A M plants tend to have to have 6 1 3 C values similar to C 4 plants (Matson and Chisholm 1991:452). The 5 1 3 C values f o r C 3 plants generally average -26.5%o while C4plants average-12.5 %c (Matson and Chisholm 1991:452). Based on samples of C3 plants from Cedar Mesa, Matson and Chisholm (1991:453) have used a value of -24.0 %o for C3 plants. Using samples from the Mesa Verde area Decker and Tieszen (1989:38) produced a value of -27.0 %o for C 3 plants. Both studies used a value of -10.0 %o for C 4 plants based on samples of prehistoric maize. The difference between the S ^ C values for C 3 and C4 plants is maintained in consumers, however, further fractionation of the carbon isotopes (the collagen enrichment factor) (Chisholm 1989:13) results in a difference of 5 %o, or 4.5 %o for lipid free samples (Chisholm and Matson in press:4), between diet values and measured consumer bone collagen values. Based on Matson and Chisholm's (1991) values for C3 and C 4 plants and a 4.5 %o collagen enrichment factor, individuals consuming only C3 plants wi l l have a §X$C (diet) value of -19.5 %o, compared to a value of -5.5 %o for an individual consuming only C 4 plant species. Carbon isotope values for a variety of plant and animal resources that would have been available to the Anasazi are presented in Figure 13. These data indicate that there are three groups of resources which wi l l have affected the 6 ^ C values of Anasazi individuals: C 3 plants, C 4 plants and a group of herbivores which consumed a mixed diet of C3 and C 4 plants. Three animal species do not fit this pattern. The domestic dog has a very light carbon isotope value, which leads Katzenberg and Kelley (1991:212) to suggest that dogs shared a similar diet with their owners. The bison sampled obviously consumed a relatively large quantity of C 4 grasses, as did the jackrabbits, both likely due to habitat preferences (Katzenberg and Kel ley 1991:212). Although the measured jackrabbit values are lighter than the other herbivores, they are right at the beginning of this second dietary group. Unlike other regions in North America there are a number of C 4 plants in the American Southwest. These include: maize, the amaranths, chenopods and purslane. As earlier sections of 62 61 3C(°/oo) - 3 0 - 2 5 - 2 0 -15 - 1 0 - 5 0 , M M Z e a mays 1 Canis familiaris1 Zea mays2 ^ • ™ Z e a mays3 Zea mays1 • — B i s o n bison1 Amaranthus hybridus1 Portulaca retusa1 Amaranthus araecizansi Lepus sp1 — O v i s canadensis2 — — ^ — i Antilocarpa americanai • — — — ^ — Odocoileus sp 3 — — O d o c o i l e u s spl • — — S y l v i l a g u s spl Juniperus spl ^ — — • — — Pinus edulis1 • — ^ — — Q r v z o p s i s so 2 Juniperus deppean1 • Juglas major1 Phaseolus vulgaris! — C h e n o p o d i u m neomexicanum1 — — • Juniperus scopulrum1 ^ — i Physalis pubescensi Cleome serrulata1 ^ S a l v i a reflexai — — ^ — — — Juglans majori Polygonum ramosissimurm — • — — • — — Helianthus annuid — — — • Physalis fendleri -30 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 1 Katzenberg and Kelley 1991; 2 Matson and Chisholm 1991; 3 Decker and Tieszen 1989 Figure 13. Stable carbon isotope values for prehistoric food resources (note: Katzenberg and Kelley ran two samples of maize). 63 this thesis have demonstrated cacti were important resources in the prehistoric Anasazi diet, and in this environment they are likely to have S ^ C values similar to C 4 plants. The values given in this figure are intended only as a rough guide. A variety of factors such as geographical location, variation in climate and reservoir effects, can result in different values for a single species within a region (Chisholm and Matson in press:5). Discussion Carbon isotope values considered in this thesis are available for all time periods of the Pecos Classification, plus a group of samples from a combined Pueblo II - Pueblo III period (Figure 14, Appendix 3). Visual examination of Figure 14 demonstrates that, with the exception of a single Pueblo I individual and a single Pueblo II - Pueblo III individual, both from Mesa Verde, there is little variation in the 6 ^ C values for Anasazi individuals from the Basketmaker II period through to the Pueblo III period. This indicates that there was little change in the contribution of C4 plants and herbivores which consumed C 4 plants, to the human diet in the San Juan-Mesa Verde branch throughout the Anasazi tradition. Estimates of the percentage of C 4 plants in the diet of these individuals wi l l not be calculated here. There are a number of factors which can reduce the reliability of these estimates (B.S. Chisholm, personal communication 1994). As previously noted, a variety of C 4 plants other than maize were prehistorically available to the Anasazi people. Although Figure 13 presents the S ^ C values for a number of plant resources , the majority of the samples were taken from a location quite distant from the homes of the individuals presented in Figure 14. Thus, values for a greater quantity and variety of local plant resources are required, particularly C A M plants such as the prickly pear cactus. The presence of herbivore meat, a third dietary group in addition to C3 and C 4 plants, presents a second problem in the calculation of the percentage of C 4 plants in the diet. As shown in Figure 13, the majority of the herbivore values are located between the C 4 and C3 plants. Faunal analysis indicates which animals were exploited by Anasazi groups and the abundance of these species relative to one another. Unfortunately it cannot indicate the relative contributions of animals versus plants in the diet. Nitrogen isotope values can provide some measure of the 64 -26.5 -24.5 -22.5 -20.5 -18.5 -16.5 -14.5 -12.5 -10.5 Diet Value 613C(7oo) I | I I | I I | I I I I I | I I 1 I I | I I | I I | I 4 Human Value -22.0 -20.0 -18.0 -16.0 -14.0 -12.0 -10.0 -8.0 -6.0 2 Basketmaker II 1 1 III Basketmaker III I 2 Pueblo I 1 ll II 2 2 2 Pueblo II lllli 3 4 Pueblo ll/lll nh III ii i Pueblo III 111 I I Figure 14. Stable carbon isotope values for Anasazi Individuals (Decker and Tieszen 1989, Matson and Chisholm 1991, Chisholm and Matson in press) 65 amount of meat consumed by individuals (Katzenberg and Kel ley 1991, Chisholm and Matson in press), however, nitrogen values have only been done for one of the three studies discussed. Furthermore, even with this information much more data is required to identify which species consumed C 4 plants. The domestic turkey, for example, which was possibly fed corn, is one source of meat which must be tested (Chisholm and Matson in press: 12). Aasen's (1984) analysis of two turkey coprolites indicated the presence of corn in their diets. In the studies discussed two different approaches have been used to estimate the contribution of C 4 plants to the diet. Decker and Tieszen (1989:39-41) used a three component mixture with estimates of the amount of meat in the diet ranging from zero to fifty percent. They have calculated an average contribution of C 4 plants, for the entire sample, of 69% with 20% meat in the diet, or 80% with no meat consumed. Chisholm and Matson (in press:8-9) combined the herbivores and C 3 plants into a single dietary category based on the similarity of their 6 ^ c values. They estimate an average of 82% and 85% C 4 plants in the diet for the Basketmaker II and Pueblo II - Pueblo III periods on Cedar Mesa respectively. Summary If the outliers (the lowest and highest values) are excluded from Figure 14, all values across all time periods fall within a range of -13.5 %o to -11.0 %o diet value (-9.5 % o to -7 %o measured value). Based on Chisholm and Matson's (in press:8) range for C3 plants (-24.0 %o to -20.5 % o diet value) Figure 14 indicates that the Anasazi individuals on Mesa Verde and Cedar Mesa relied heavily on C4 plants in their diets. These results are similar to those presented by Katzenberg and Kelley (1991) for individuals from six sites in the Sierra Blanca region of New Mexico between A D 800 and A D 1400. Implications for Research Questions The stable carbon isotope analyses which have been undertaken on Anasazi individuals to date indicates that there is no appreciable difference in the dependence on C 4 plants between the Basketmaker II and Pueblo III periods. Corn appears to be the primary C 4 plant in the diet and one may conclude that the Basketmaker II people, like those Anasazi who would follow, were dependent on corn agriculture. 66 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS Two common trends in the Anasazi diet are evident from the data presented in this thesis. With few exceptions rabbits dominate the faunal data from each period in all branches. Based on the relative abundances discussed above, cottontail rabbits were the primary meat resource in the Anasazi diet, followed closely in many periods by jackrabbits. In all time periods the relative frequency of jackrabbits is highest in the Chaco branch. A n exception to the dominance of rabbits is the increasing relative abundance of turkey remains through time in the San Juan - Mesa Verde branch. Turkey remains in the Chaco and Kayenta branches generally have low relative abundances. A similar situation existed in the San Juan - Mesa Verde area until the Pueblo II period, when the relative frequency of turkey began to increase. During the Pueblo III period the relative abundance of turkey rivals that of cottontails. The single Pueblo II - Pueblo III period site from the Rio Grande area also shows a high relative frequency of turkey. As noted above turkey feathers are recorded in the ethnographic literature as important elements in Puebloan ceremonies. A trend toward increasing relative abundance is also evident for the remains of prairie dog in the Chaco branch. Unfortunately the Pueblo III period is represented by a single site. Although it contributes to the observed increase in prairie dog through time, no cottontail remains were reported for this site. There is no evidence for a corresponding decrease in the importance of cottontail in any other period. The relative abundance of cottontail remains are at their lowest during the Pueblo I and Pueblo I - Pueblo II periods, but still remained higher than prairie dog, and increase considerably in the following periods. The relationship between relative abundances of rabbits and large animals, such as deer and antelope, and their relative contributions to the Anasazi diet present zooarchaeologists with a complex problem. In spite of low relative frequencies, two arguments can be made for the importance of large mammals in the Anasazi diet. Deer, antelope and mountain sheep contribute far more usable meat per animal than any of the small rodents. Second, large animals, generally taken at distant locations are underrepresented as a result of the schlepp effect. On the other hand, it could be argued that some excavation methods have created a bias equal to the schlepp 67 effect by using screen sizes which, as discussed above, fail to recover a substantial percentage small mammal remains. Patterns of consumption in the past could also greatly effect the contribution of larger animals to the Anasazi diet. If the greater portion of captured large mammals were consumed fresh, they could be viewed as making only occasional contributions to the diet. Although this practice has been noted in the ethnographic literature, there is no way to assess its reliability in terms of Anasazi practices. It is suggested here that the high abundances of cottontail and jackrabbit remains reflect their position as the primary contributors of meat to the Anasazi diet. These animals are abundant, reproduce relatively quickly and were locally available, as opposed to the less abundant and widely spaced large mammals, and as such contributed on a regular basis to the Anasazi diet. The attraction of these rodents to agricultural fields would also increase their availability. The ease of rabbit procurement and their substantial contribution to the diet may be offset if quantities of large mammal meat were prepared for storage, and used on a regular basis. I am not presently aware of any evidence which would indicate this practice. The first research question asked above focused on when cultigens became the primary constituents of the Anasazi diet. The second common trend observed in the Anasazi diet is directly related to this question. The coprolite data indicate that corn was the most commonly consumed food item during all periods of the Anasazi tradition. This supports arguments which contend that the Anasazi were already relying on corn agriculture during the Basketmaker II period. No strong evidence was found for either a decrease or increase in the importance of com throughout the Anasazi tradition. The stable carbon isotope data indicates a dependence on C 4 plants since the Basketmaker II period, and from the relative abundances in other types of data corn was the primary C 4 plant. The relative importance of the other cultigens, based on these data deserves further consideration. It has been suggested that the commonly discussed triad of corn, beans and squash were the primary dietary components. Although the ubiquity values for the occurrence of squash in Anasazi coprolite samples is generally high enough to be counted as a dietary staple, it occurs no more frequently than a number of wi ld plants. Beans on the other hand, are poorly represented in both coprolite and flotation data, possibly as a result of low 68 survivability. Based on the coprolite data beans may only be considered staple foods in the Pueblo III period. Cotton constitutes a fourth cultigen used by the Anasazi. The data, however, suggest that its use was limited spatially and indicates that its occurrence in any quantity is largely limited to the Pueblo III period. The analysis of coprolite, flotation and pollen data have shown that there are a number of wi ld plant taxa which were staple resources in the Anasazi diet. Although few were consumed as often as corn (based on coprolite data) many were likely as abundant as squash, and on the basis of the data discussed here more common than beans. Plant types which are well represented in both the coprolite and flotation data include: goosefoot, purslane, pinyon, prickly pear, rice grass, amaranth, beeweed and groundcherry. Many of these plants are considered to be weedy pioneers that favored the cleared fields and disturbed soil areas around Anasazi settlements. Although there is evidence that numerous other plants were used as food resources, the above should be considered dietary staples. A number of these resources, like corn, were used during the historic period to make foods such as bread. Purslane was used as a herb or seasoning by the Hopi (Whiting 1966:19). The second research question stated in the introduction concerned the intensification of agricultural production through time. Evidence of intensification may not show up in coprolite data, as intensification of agricultural production is not necessarily connected with increased consumption of these products. Intensification procedures may be used, for example, to produce surplus for trade or to feed an increasing population (Lightfoot and Plog 1984). In the latter situation individual corn consumption may remain constant. However, i f by intensification, one means, increased per capita corn production and consumption, there is no indication of this in the coprolite data. Dietary evidence of increased agricultural production would l ikely show up best in the flotation and pollen sample data. As the amount of corn produced increased, one could expect the amount of corn remains and pollen contained within a site to increase. However, the analyses presented above do not support increased cultigen production. The changes which are observed between the different time periods generally do not show any directional change, but 69 instead slight fluctuations possibly due to the sample of sites used. The exception being the ubiquity of corn in the Chaco branch, which according to the flotation data decreases slightly through time. This decrease in the presence of corn is not supported by the pollen data from this branch. The discussion above has focused on corn as the primary object of agricultural intensification. The appearance of cotton in coprolites from a limited number of areas beginning slowly in the Pueblo II period may represent a second approach to increasing agricultural production. The coprolite data demonstrate that cotton was a dietary staple during the Pueblo III period at Antelope House, Inscription House and in the Glen Canyon area. During this period, the inhabitants of these sites may have attempted to meet increasing food requirements by adopting a new cultigen (i.e., cotton), which would also provide material for cloth. Adams (1991:179) notes that during the A .D . 1300s the Homol'ovi people in the central Little Colorado River Valley were producing large quantities of cotton. At present data on cotton in the Anasazi area is too limited to expand on this possibility. It appears that the best evidence for the intensification of agriculture, remains the construction of water and soil features around A D 1000 (Plog 1979, Doyel 1981, Cordell 1982). The third research question asks i f there were any changes evident in the diet which could be linked to the regional abandonments of the thirteenth century. No evidence of failing resources was observed in either the faunal analysis or analyses related to the exploitation of plants resources. The relative abundance of the resources identified here as being of primary importance remained relatively stable. A number of researchers have reported increases in the number of different taxa utilized in the later periods of the Anasazi occupation. Although not examined in this thesis, Leonard (1986, 1989) has demonstrated that observed trends toward a diversification of the subsistence base may be largely the result of sample size effects. The wide area of comparison made in this thesis has necessitated the use of certain kinds of data, thus various information and problems have not been addressed. Finer scale variation may well exist that was not dealt with in this analysis. Numerous aspects of Anasazi diet remain to be examined. Among these are detailed comparisons of the dietary evidence from 70 sites within a branch or region for a single time period. The effect of local environmental differences on diet at sites within one branch offers an opportunity to further explore fine scale variation. Another important avenue of study is the comparison of dietary evidence between contemporary sites of varying size. The study of Anasazi diet stands to profit considerably from the continued use of coprolite and stable isotope analysis. One particular gap in the interpretation of stable isotope values is adequate knowledge of the range of values for local food resources, particularly the parts which were actually consumed. This information would contribute to our understanding of how these resources affect the values observed for prehistoric people. There are two important questions to be addressed regarding animals in Anasazi diet. The importance of meat in the diet is still an outstanding issue. The consumption of large mammal meat does not show up in coprolites, thus their contribution remains unknown. Although small mammal remains do appear in coprolites, we have no indication of how much meat was actually consumed during the period represented by a single coprolite. Nitrogen isotope analysis may offer some important data regarding this issue, however, very little of this analysis has been done. Secondly, the relative contributions of small versus large mammals in the diet remains unsettled. Further research into the relative abundances of these animals in faunal assemblages, their relation to the diet, as well as further consideration of the treatment of these animals by historic Pueblo people is required. In summary, Anasazi diet was very similar in the four branches discussed in this thesis. The data indicate that corn was the major component in the Anasazi diet since the Basketmaker II period, and continued through to the Pueblo III period. Stable carbon isotope results show a similar degree of reliance on C 4 plants across all time periods. The data do not support arguments by Glassow, F. Plog and S. Plog that corn did not become an important component of Anasazi diet until late Basketmaker III or the Pueblo I period. Cottontail remains have the highest relative abundance in the majority of periods in all branches, generally followed by jackrabbits, which appear to be more common in the Chaco branch than in any of the other branches. The faunal analysis presented above indicates that there is a core group of seventeen 71 animals which can be considered dietary staples. Coprolite analysis provides the best estimate of the amount of meat in the diet. The data examined here indicate that meat was a meal component in 14% of the Basketmaker II coprolites, and up to 74% in coprolites from the later Pueblo periods. Although the stable carbon isotope data appear to suggest low meat consumption, the actual amount of meat in the diet must remain largely unknown at this time, as we do not know how much meat is represented by the small mammal remains found in coprolites, or the amount of large mammal meat consumed. Following corn, there is a mixture of domesticated and wild plant species which were consumed often enough to be considered staple resources. The consistency of the Anasazi diet through time is a tribute to the ability of the Anasazi people to survive in this environment, relying on a single subsistence strategy, with maize agriculture being the basis, followed by a variety of other cultivated and wi ld food resources. 72 REFERENCES CITED Aasen, D.K. 1984 Pollen, macrofossil and charcoal analyses of Basketmaker coprolites from Turkey Pen Ruin, Cedar Mesa, Utah. M.A . thesis, Department of Anthropology, Washington State University. Adams, E . Charles 1991 The Origin and Development of the Katsina Cult. The University of Ar izona Press, Tucson. Akins, Nancy J . 1985 Prehistoric faunal utilization in Chaco Canyon: Basketmaker III through Pueblo III. In Environment and Subsistence of Chaco Canyon, ed. by F.J. Mathien, pp. 305-445. Publications in Archaeology 18-E. Chaco Canyon Studies, National Parks Service, Washington D.C. Anderson, Elaine 1980 Fauna. In The Durango South Project, Archaeological Salvage of Two Late Basketmaker HI Sites in the Durango District, ed. by J .D. Gooding, pp. 123-149. The University of Arizona Press, Tucson. Bearden, S.E. 1984 A Study of Basketmaker II Settlement on Black Mesa, Arizona: Excavations 1973 -1979. Southern Illinois University at Carbondale. Center for Archaeological Investigations, Research Paper No.4. Binford, Martha R. 1983 Faunal analysis. In Economy and Interaction Along the Lower Chaco River, ed. by P. Hogan and J .C. Winter, pp.367-374. Office of Contract Archaeology, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque. Binford, Martha R., W.H. Doleman, N. Draper and K .B . Ke l ly 1982 Anasazi and Navajo archaeofauna. In Anasazi and Navajo Land Use in the McKinley Mine Area, Near Gallup, New Mexico Volume 1, Archaeology Part One, ed. by C .G. A l len and B. Nelson. Office of Contract Archaeology, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque. Bradfield, Maitland 1971 The Changing Pattern of Hopi Agriculture. Royal Anthropological Institute Occasional Paper No. 30. Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland, London. Brand, Michael J . 1991 Zooarchaeology of Sand Canyon Pueblo (5MT765), Shorlene's Site (5MT3918), Roy's Ruin (5MT3930), Lill ian's Site (5MT3936) and Troy's Tower, Colorado. Honors Paper, Department of Archaeology, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, British Columbia. n.d. Preliminary report on the identification of faunal remains from twenty-two prehistoric sites on Cedar Mesa, Utah. Unpublished report in possession of author, Department of Anthropology and Sociology, University of Brit ish Columbia, Vancouver. 73 Brown, David E. 1982a Great Basin Conifer Woodland. In Biotic Communities of the American Southwest - United States and Mexico. Desert Plants 4(l-4):52-57. 1982b Plains and Great Basin Grasslands. In Biotic Communities of the American Southwest - United States and Mexico. Desert Plants 4(1-4): 115-121. Bye, Robert A . and Rita Shuster 1984 Developing and Integrated Model for Contemporary Agricultural Subsistence Systems. In Prehistoric Agricultural Strategies in the Southwest, ed. by S.K. Fish and P.R. Fish, pp. 125-145. Arizona State University Anthropological Papers No.33, Tempe. Chisholm, B.S. 1989 Variation in diet reconstructions based on stable carbon isotopic evidence. In The Chemistry of Prehistoric Human Bone, ed. by T .D. Price, pp. 10-37. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Chisholm, B.S. and R.G. Matson in press Carbon and nitrogen isotopic evidence on Basketmaker II diet at Cedar Mesa, UtehKiva 60(2). (1994). Christenson, A . L . and W.J. Parry (eds.) 1985 Excavations on Black Mesa, 1983, A Descriptive Report. Center for Archaeological Investigations, Research Paper no.46. Southern Illinois University, Carbondale. Clary, K . H . 1983 Prehistoric Coprolite Remains from Chaco Canyon, New Mexico: Inferences for Anasazi Diet and Subsistence. Master of Science thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of New Mexico. 1984 Anasazi diet and subsistence as revealed by coprolites from Chaco Canyon. In Recent Research on Chaco Prehistory, ed. by W.J. Judge and J .D. Schelberg, pp.265-279. Reports of the Chaco Center 8. Division of Cultural Research, National Parks Service, Albuquerque. Cordell, L inda S. Prehistory: Eastern Anasazi. In The Handbook of North American Indians, Volume 9, The Southwest, ed., by A . Oritz, pp. 131-151. Smithsonian Institution, Washington. A n overview of prehistory in the Mckinley Mine area. In Anasazi and Navajo Land Use of the Mckinley Mine Area Near Gallup, New Mexico, Volume One: Archaeology, Part One, ed. by C .G. A l len and B.A . Nelson, pp. 75-120. Office of Contract Archaeology, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque. Prehistory of the Southwest. Academic Press, New York. North and Central Rio Grande. In Dynamics of Southwest Prehistory, ed. by L.S. Cordell and G.J. Gumerman. pp. 293- 335. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington. Cordell, L inda S. and Fred Plog 1979 Escaping the Confines of Normative Thought: A Re-evaluation of Puebloan Prehistory. American Antiquity 44:405-429. 1979 1982 1984 1989 74 Cowan, C. Wesley, Josselyn F. Moore, Richard I. Ford and Michael T. Samuels 1978 A preliminary analysis of Paleoethnobotanical Remains from Black Mesa Arizona, 1977: Season. In Excavations on Black Mesa, 1977 A Preliminary Report, ed. by A .L . Klesert, pp. 137-156. Center for Archaeological Investigations, Research Paper No. 1, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale. Cul ly , Anne C. 1985 Pollen evidence of past subsistence and environment at Chaco Canyon, New Mexico. In Environment and Subsistence of Chaco Canyon, New Mexico, ed. by F. J . Mathien, pp. 135-245. Publications in Archaeology 18E. Chaco Canyon Studies. National Parks Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, Albuquerque. Cushing, Frank Hamilton 1920 Zuni Breadstuff. Indian Notes and Monographs vol.8. Museum of the American Indian Heye Foundation, New York. Czaplewski, Nicholas J . 1982 Faunal analysis. In The Coronado Project Archaeological Investigations. The specialists volume: Biocultural Analysis, compiled by R.E. Gasser, pp. 244-278. Coronado Series 4, Museum of Northern Arizona Research Paper 23, Flagstaff. Dean, Jeffrey S., Robert C. Euler, George J . Gumerman, Fred Plog, Richard H . Hevly and Thor N.V. Karlstrom 1985 Human Behavior, Demography, and Paleoenvironment on the Colorado Plateaus. American Antiquity 50(3):537 - 554. Decker, Kenneth W. and Larry, L. Tieszen 1989 Isotopic reconstruction of Mesa Verde diet from Basketmaker III to Pueblo III. Kiva 55(l):33-47. de Garine, I. and G.A. Harrison 1988a Preface. In Coping with Uncertainty in Food Supply, ed. by I. de Garine and G. A . Harrison, pp. v-vi i i . Clarendon Press, Oxford. 1988b Discussion and Conclusion. In Coping with Uncertainty in Food Supply, ed. by I. de Garine and G.A. Harrison, pp. 469-475. Clarendon Press, Oxford. Dennell, R.W. 1979 Prehistoric Diet and Nutrition: Some Food for Thought. World Archaeology 11(2): 121-135. Doebley, John F. 1981 Plant remains recovered from trash at Salmon Ruin, New Mexico. Kiva 46 (3): 169-187. Doyel, D.E. 1981 Prehistoric environment, subsistence, and land use in Dead Valley, east - central Arizona. Kiva 46(3): 143-153. Driver, J .C . , M .J . Brand, L. Lester and N. Munro in prep. Faunal studies. In Small Sites Testing Program, ed. by M . Varien. Crow Canyon Archaeological Center Occasional Paper. 75 Eckles, D. 1978 Sources of Bias in the Analysis of Faunal Remains from Black Mesa, Arizona. Master of Arts thesis, Department of Anthropology, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale. Emslie, S.D. 1981 Bird Remains, contribution to: B ig Westwater Ruin, by LaMar W.Lindsay, In Excavations of Two Anasazi Sites in Southern Utah 1979-1980. Cultural Resource Series No.9. pp. 162-171 Bureau of Land Management, Utah State Office. 1985 Faunal remains from the 1981 excavations on White Mesa, San Juan County, Utah. In Anasazi Subsistence and Settlement on White Mesa, San Juan County, Utah, ed. by Wil l iam E. Davis, pp. 537-546. Ford, Richard I. 1983 Inter-Indian exchange in the Southwest. In The Handbook of North American Indians, Volume 10, The Southwest, ed., by A. Oritz, pp. 711-722. Smithsonian Institution, Washington. 1984 Ecological consequences of early agriculture in the Southwest. In Papers on the Archaeology of Black Mesa, Arizona, Volume II, ed. by S. Plog and S. Powell, pp. 127 - 138. Southern Illinois University Press, Carbondale. Ford, Richard I., Jean French, Janet Stock, Tristine Smart, Grechen Hazen and David Jessup 1983 1981 Ethnobotanical recovery: Summary of analysis and frequency tables, In Excavations on Black Mesa, 1981, A Descriptive Report, ed. by F.E. Smiley, D.L. Nichols and P.P. Andrews, pp. 460 - 480. Center for Archaeological Investigations Research Report No.36. Southern Illinois University, Carbondale. I., Pamela Vander Werf, Carol Goland and Heather B. Trigg Paleoethnobotany of Anasazi sites. In Excavations on Black Mesa, A Descriptive Report, ed. by A .L . Christenson and W. J . Parry, pp. 470 - 529. Center for Archaeological Investigations Research Report No.46. Southern Illinois University, Carbondale. Forde, C. Daryll 1931 Hopi agriculture and land ownership. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute, vol.61:357-405. French, Jean, Richard I. Ford, David Swain, Jim Kent, Tristine Smart and Grechen Hazen 1982 Paleoethnobotanical research on Black Mesa: 1980. In Excavations on Black Mesa, 1980 A Descriptive Report, ed. by P.P. Andrews, R. Layhe, D. Nichols and S. Powell, pp. 296 - 314. Center for Archaeological Investigations Research Report No.24. Southern Illinois University, Carbondale. Fry, G.F. 1977 Analysis of Prehistoric coprolites from Utah. University of Utah Anthropology Papers No. 97. Fry, G. and H.J. Hal l 1986 Human coprolites. In Archaeological Investigations at Antelope House, ed. by D.P. Morris. National Parks Service, Washington D.C. pp. 165-188. Ford, Richard 1985 76 Gasser, Robert E. 1982 Anasazi diet. In The Coronado Project: Archaeological Investigations: The Specialists Volume: Biocultural Analysis, compiled by R.E. Gasser, pp.8-95. Coronado Series 4, Museum of Northern Arizona Research Paper 23, Flagstaff. G ish,J .W. 1982 Pollen results. In The Coronado Project: Archaeological Investigations: The Specialists Volume: Biocultural Analysis, Museum of Northern Arizona Coronado Series 4, Research Paper No.23. Flagstaff. Glassow, Michael A . 1972 Changes in the adaptations of Southwestern Basketmakers: A systems perspective. In Contemporary Archaeology: A Guide to Theory and Contributions, ed. by M.P. Leone. Southern Illinois University Press, Carbondale. Gnabasik, Virginia R. 1981 Faunal Utilization by the Pueblo Indians. M.A . thesis, Graduate Faculty of Anthropology, Eastern New Mexico University. Grayson, D.K. 1984 Quantitative Zooarchaeology. Academic Press, Orlando. Gumerman, George J . and Jeffrey S. Dean 1989 Prehistoric Cooperation and Competition in the Western Anasazi Area. In Dynamics of Southwest Prehistory, ed. by L.S. Cordell and G.J. Gumerman. pp. 99 - 148. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington. Hack, John T. 1942 The changing physical environment of the Hopi Indians of Arizona. Papers of the Peabody Museum of American Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University, vol.35(1) Reports of the Awatovi Expedition, Peabody Museum, Harvard University, Report 1. Harri l l , Bruce G. 1976 Faunal remains from the Johnson Canyon cliff dwellings. In The Johnson-Lion Canyon Project: Report of the Investigation III, assembled by Paul R. Nickens, pp.65-97. Bureau of Indian Affairs, Albuquerque. Hough, Walter 1897 The Hopi in relation to their plant environment. American Anthropologist 10(2):33-44. Hunt, Charles B . 1974 Natural Regions of the United States and Canada. W .H . Freeman and Company, San Francisco. Jorgensen, Joseph G. 1983 Comparative traditional economics and ecological adaptations. In The Handbook of North American Indians, Volume 10, The Southwest, ed., by A . Oritz, pp. 684- 710. Smithsonian Institution, Washington. Judge, W. James 1989 Chaco Canyon - San Juan Basin. In Dynamics of Southwest Prehistory, ed. by L.S. Cordell and G.J. Gumerman. pp. 209- 261. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington. 77 Katzenberg, M . A . and J .H . Kel ley 1991 Stable isotope analysis of prehistoric bone from the Sierra Blanca Region of New Mexico. In Mogollon V, ed. by R H . Beckett, pp. 207-219. C O A S Publishing, Las Cruces. Kennard, Edward A . 1979 Hopi economy and subsistence. In The Handbook of North American Indians, Volume 9, The Southwest, ed., by A . Oritz, pp.554-563. Smithsonian Institution, Washington. Kent, Susan 1991 Excavations at a small Mesa Verde Pueblo II Anasazi Site in Southwest Colorado. Kiva 57(l):55-75. Kidder, A . V . 1927 Southwestern archaeological conference. Science 66(1716):489-491. Kirkpatrick, David T. and Richard I. Ford 1977 Basketmaker food plants from the Cimarron District, Northeastern New Mexico. Kiva 42(3-4):257-299. LeBlanc, Steven A . 1989 Cibola: Shifting Cultural Boundaries. In Dynamics of Southwest Prehistory, ed. by L.S. Cordell and G.J. Gumerman. pp. 337- 369. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington. Leonard, R.D, 1986 Patterns of Anasazi Subsistence: Faunal Exploitation, Subsistence Diversification and Site Function in northeast Ar i zona Ph.D. dissertation, University of Washington, Seattle. 1989 Anasazi Faunal Exploitation: Prehistoric Subsistence on Northern Black Mesa, Arizona. Southern Illinois University, Center for Archaeological Investigations Occasional Paper No. 13, Carbondale. Lepofsky, D. 1986 Preliminary analysis of flotation samples from the Turkey Pen Ruin, Cedar Mesa. Manuscript on file, Laboratory of Archaeology, University of British Columbia. Lightfoot, K . G . and F. Plog 1984 Intensification along the north side of the Mogollon R im. In Prehistoric Agricultural Strategies in the Southwest, ed. by S.K. Fish and P.R. Fish. pp. 179- 195. Arizona State University Anthropological Research Papers No. 33. Tempe. Lipe, Wi l l iam D. 1983 The Southwest. In Ancient North Americans, ed. by J .D. Jennings, pp. 421-493. W.H. Freeman and Company, San Francisco. Matson, R.G. and Brian Chisholm 1991 Basketmaker II subsistence: Carbon isotopes and other dietary indicators from Cedar Mesa, Utah. American Antiquity 56(3): 444-459. Matthews, Meridth H . 1985 Agricultural Intensification and Multiple Cropping Practices: Testing Change in Exploitation of Pioneer Plant Resources. M .A . thesis, University of Colorado, Boulder. 78 Matthews, Meridth H . 1986 Section 2: The Dolores Archaeological Program macrobotanical data base: Resource mix and availability. Part of Chapter 4: Environmental Archaeology, by K .L . Petersen, M . H . Matthews and Sarah W. Neusius. In Dolores Archaeological Program: Final Synthetic Report, Compiled by D.A. Breternitz, C.K. Robinson and T .G . Gross, pp. 184-199. United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Engineering and Research Center, Denver. Mignonette, Ray 1981 Faunal remains, contribution to: B i g Westwater Ruin, by LaMar W. Lindsay, In Excavations of Two Anasazi Sites in Southern Utah 1979-1980. Cultural Resource Series No.9. pp. 157-162 Bureau of Land Management, Utah State Office. Minnis, Paul E. 1981 Seeds in archaeological sites: Sources and some interpretive problems. American Antiquity 46(1): 143 - 152. 1989 Prehistoric diet in the northern Southwest: Macroplant remains from four corners feces. American Antiquity 54:543 - 563. Neusius, Sarah W. 1986 Section 4. The Dolores Archaeological Program Fauna Data Base: Resource availability and resource mix. Part of Chapter 4: Environmental Archaeology, by K .L . Petersen, M . H . Matthews and Sarah W. Neusius. In Dolores Archaeological Program: Final Synthetic Report, Compiled by D.A. Breternitz, C .K . Robinson and T .G . Gross, pp. 199-303. United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Engineering and Research Center, Denver. Nichols, D.L. and E E . Smiley (eds.) 1984 Appendix M . In Excavations on Black Mesa, 1982 A Descriptive Report. Research Paper No. 39, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale. Oritz, A . (editor) 1979 The Handbook of North American Indians, Volume 9, The Southwest. Smithsonian Institution, Washington. Pippin, Lonnie C. 1987 Prehistory and Paleoecology of Guadalupe Ruin, New Mexico. University of Utah Anthropological Papers No. 112. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. Plog, Fred 1979 Prehistory: Western Anasazi. In The Handbook of North American Indians, Volume 9, The Southwest, ed., by A . Oritz, pp. 108-130. Smithsonian Institution, Washington. 1983 Political and economic alliances on the Colorado Plateaus, A . D . 400 - 1450. In Advances in World Archaeology Vol.2, ed. by F. Wendorf and A . E . Close, pp. 289-330. Academic Press, New York. Plog, Stephen 1986 Understanding cultural change in the northern Southwest. In Spatial Organization and Exchange, ed. by S. Plog, pp. 310-336. Southern Illinois University Press, Carbondale. 79 Plog, Stephen and Michelle Hegmon 1993 The sample size - richness relation: The relevance of research questions, sampling strategies and behavioral variation. American Antiquity 58(3):489-496. Powell, Shirley 1983 Mobility and Adaptation. Southern Illinois University Press, Carbondale. Powers, Margaret A . 1984 The Salvage of Archaeological Data from Turkey Pen Ruin, Grand Gulch Primitive Area, San Juan County, Utah. Division of Conservation Archaeology, Contributions to Anthropology Series, No.808. San Juan County Museum Association, Farmington, New Mexico. Reinhard, Kar l J . 1988 Diet, Parasitism, and Anemia in the Prehistoric Southwest. Ph.D. dissertation. Department of Anthropology, Texas A & M University, Collage Station. Robbins, Wilfred, W., John P. Harrington and Barbara Freire-Marreco 1916 Ethnobotany of the Tewa Indians. Bureau of American Ethnology, Bulletin 55. Smithsonian Institution, Washington. Rohn, Arthur H. 1989 Northern San Juan Prehistory. In Dynamics of Southwest Prehistory, ed. by L.S. Cordell and G.J. Gumerman. pp. 149- 177. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington. Rood, Ronald J . 1991 Identification of faunal remains and modified bone from 5MT3879. Report prepared for Woods Canyon Archaeological Consultants Inc., Ye l low Jacket, Colorado. Roosevelt, Anna 1987 The Evolution of Human Subsistence. In Food and Evolution: Toward a Theory of Human Food Habits, ed. by M . Harris and E.B. Ross, pp.565-578. Temple University Press, Philadelphia. Ross, Eric B. 1987 A n Overview of the trends in Dietary Variation from Hunter- Gatherer to Modern Capitalist Societies. In Food and Evolution. Toward a Theory of Human Food Habits, ed. by M . Harris and E.B. Ross. pp. 7-55. Temple University Press, Philadelphia. Scott, L inda J . 1976 Hoy House - a palynological study. In The Johnson - Lion Canyon Project. Report of the Investigations III, Assembled by Paul R. Nickens, pp. 8 - 49. Mesa Verde Research Center, University of Colorado, Boulder. 1979 Dietary inferences from Hoy House coprolites: A Palynological interpretations. Kiva 44(2-3):257-281. Seme, Michele 1980a Appendix 6: Faunal analysis of material from the 1979 field season. In Excavations on Black Mesa, 1979: A Descriptive Report, ed. by S. Powell, P. Layhe and A . L . Klesert, pp. 465-508. Center for Archaeological Investigations Research Paper No. 18. Southern Illinois University, Carbondale. 80 Seme, Michele 1980b Analysis of Faunal Remains from Prehistoric Sites on Black Mesa, Northeastern Arizona. Master of Science thesis, Department of Biological Sciences, University of Texas, E l Paso. 1984 The effects of agricultural fields on faunal assemblage variation. In Papers on the Archaeology of Black Mesa, Arizona, Volume II, ed. by S. Plog and S. Powell , pp. 139 - 157. Southern Illinois University Press, Carbondale. Seme, Michele and Arthur H . Harris 1982 Appendix IX, 1980 faunal analysis. In Excavations on Black Mesa, 1980 A Descriptive Report, ed. by P.P. Andrews, R. Layhe, D. Nichols and S. Powell , pp. 322-350. Center for Archaeological Investigations, Research Paper No.24. Southern Illinois University, Carbondale. Shaffer, B.S. 1992 Interpretation of gopher remains from Southwestern archaeological assemblages. American Antiquity 57(4):683-691. Short, Susan K. 1980 Pollen analysis. In The Durango South Project, Archaeological Salvage of Two Late Basketmaker 111 sites in the Durango District, ed. by J .D . Gooding, pp. 149 - 156. The University of Arizona Press, Tucson. Smiley, F.E., D.L. Nichols and P.P. Andrews (eds.) 1983 Excavations on Black Mesa, 1981, A Descriptive Report. Center for Archaeological Investigations, Research Paper No.36. Southern Illinois University, Carbondale. Steward, Julian H . 1955 Theory of Culture Change. The Methodology of Multilinear Evolution. University of Illinois Press, Urbana. 1977 The Concept and Method of Cultural Ecology. In Evolution and Ecology. Essays on Social Transformation. By Julian Steward. Ed. by Jane C. Steward and R.F. Murphy, pp.43-57. University of Illinois Press, Urbana. Stiger, M.A . 1977 Anasazi diet: The coprolite evidence. Master of Arts thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Colorado, Boulder. Struever, M . B . 1977 Relation of Pollen and Flotation Analysis to Archaeological Excavations, Chaco Canyon, New Mexico. Master of Arts thesis, Department of Biology, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque. Sull ivan, A lan P., I l l 1987 Seeds of discontent: Implications of a "Pompeii" archaeobotanical assemblage for Grand Canyon Anasazi subsistence models. Journal of Ethnobiology 7(2): 137- 153. 1992 Pinyon nuts and other wi ld resources in western Anasazi subsistence economies. In Research in Economic Anthropology, Supplement 6. Long-term Subsistence Change in Prehistoric North America, ed. by D.E. Croes, R.A. Hawkins and B .L . Issac, pp. 195-239 JAI Press Inc., London 81 Thomas, David H . 1969 Great Basin hunting patterns: A quantitative method for treating faunal remains. American Antiquity 34{4):392 - 401. To l l , Mol l i e S. . 1983 Taxonomic diversity in flotation and macrobotanical assemblages from Chaco Canyon, In Recent Research on Chacoan Prehistory, ed. by W.J. Judge and J .D. Schelberg, pp.241-250. Reports of the Chaco Center 8. Division of Cultural Research, National Parks Service, Albuquerque. 1985 A n overview of Chaco Canyon macrobotanical materials and analysis to date. In Environment and Subsistence of Chaco Canyon, ed. by F.J. Mathien, pp. 247-277. Publications in Archaeology 18-E. Chaco Canyon Studies, National Parks Service, Washington D.C. To l l , Mol l i e S. and Marcia Donaldson 1982 Rotation and macrobotanical analysis of archaeological sites on the McK in l ey Mine Lease: A regional study of plant manipulation and natural seed dispersal over time. In Anasazi and Navajo Land Use in the McKinley Mine Area Near Gallup, New Mexico Volume One: Archaeology. Part Two, ed. by C .G. A l l en and B.A. Nelson, pp. 712 - 786. Office of Contract Archaeology, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque. Upham, Steadman 1982 Polities and Power. Academic Press, New York. van der Merwe, N.J. 1982 Carbon isotopes, photosynthesis and archaeology. American Scientist 70:596-606. Viv ian, R. Gwinn 1990 The Chacoan Prehistory of the San Juan Basin. Academic Press, New York. Wagner, Ga i l , Tristine Smart, Richard I. Ford and Heather Trigg 1984 Ethnobotanical Recovery, 1982: Summary of analysis and frequency tables, In Excavations on Black Mesa, 1982 A Descriptive Report, ed. by D.L. Nichols and F.E. Smiley, pp. 612 - 632. Center for Archaeological Investigations Research Report No.39. Southern Illinois University, Carbondale. Walker, Danny N . 1989 Faunal remains from the Green Lizard Site (5MT3901), Colorado. Report prepared for the Crow Canyon Archaeological Center, Cortez, Colorado. Whiting, Alfred F. 1966 Ethhobotany of the Hopi. Museum of Northern Arizona, Bulletin No. 15, Flagstaff. Weir, Glendon Hoge 1976 Palynology, Flora and Vegetation of Hovenweep Monument: Implications for Aboriginal Plant Use on Cajon Mesa, Colorado and Utah. Ph.D. dissertation, Texas A & M University. Will iams-Dean, G. 1986 Pollen analysis of human coprolites. In Archaeological Investigations at Antelope House, ed. by D.P. Morris, pp. 189-205. National Parks Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C. 82 Wing Elizabeth S. and Antoinette Brown 1979 Paleonutrition. Method and Theory in Prehistoric Foodways. Academic Press, New York. Woosley, Anne I. 1980 Agricultural diversity in the prehistoric Southwest. Kiva 45(4):317-335. Viv ian, R. Gwinn 1990 The Chacoan Prehistory of the San Juan Basin. Academic Press Inc., New York. Young, Gwen 1980 Analysis of faunal remains. In Tijeras Canyon: Analyses of the Past, by L.S. Cordell, pp.88-120. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque. Zubrow, E.B.W. 1971 Carrying capacity and dynamic equilibrium in the prehistoric Southwest American Antiquity 36(2): 127-138. 83 A P P E N D I X 1 Table A. Ethnobotanical resource use (Hopi: Whiting 1966; Tewa: Robbins et al. 1916); C=construction, D=decoration, F=fuel, H=household, M=medicine, R=ritual and T=tool. HOPI TEWA COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME FOOD OTHER FOOD OTHER White Fir Abies concolor R M,T Juniper Juniperus utahensis X D.F.M.T x F.M.T Pinyon pine Pinus edulis M,R,C X F,M West, yellow pine Pinus ponderosa C,R R Douglas fir Psudotsuga R R Mormon tea Ephedra torreyana M Narrow leaf cattail Typha angustifolia X R Giant reed A run do donax C.R.T Black grama Bouteloua eriopoda H Blue grama Bouteloua gracilis T Sand grass Calamovilfa gigantea R Galleta grass Hilaria jamesii R,T Purple hair grass Muhlenbergia pungens T Indian millet Oryzopsis hymenoides X Reed, Carrizo Phragmites communis C T Alkali sacaton Sporobolus airoides X Dropseed Sporobolus flexuosus X Giant Dropseed Sporobolus giganteus X R Maize, Corn lea Mays X R X R Sedges and Rushes J. balticus, S. lacustris R Wild Onion Allium sp. X X Mariposa lily Calochortus aureus X R Narrow leaf yucca Yucca angustissima H,M,R,T X H.R.T Banana yucca Yucca baccata x H,T X H.R.T Mescal Agave sp. x Rocky mtn. aspen P. aurea, P. tremuloides R M Cottonwood Populus sp. C.R.T T Willow Salix sp. C,R R,T Oak Quercus sp. T X T Mistletoe Phoradendron sp. M M Buckwheat Eriogonum sp. M Canaigre Rumex hymenosepalus D Fourwing saltbush Atriplex canescens x F Saltbush A triplex sp. x X Lambsquarters Chenopodium sp. x — Cycloloma atriplicifolium M Seep weed Dondia fruticosa x M 84 A P P E N D I X 1 Table A. Continued. HOPI TEWA COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME FOOD OTHER FOOD OTHER Greasewood Sarcobatus vermiculatus F.R.T — Acanthochiton wrightii X Pigweed Amaranthus blitoides X X Sand verbena Abronia elliptica M Umbrella-wort Allionia coccinea M Four o'clock Quamoclidion multiflorum R X M — Boerhaavia erecta T Purslane Portulaca oleracea X X Sandwort Arenaria eastwoodiae M Larkspur Delphinium scaposum R Buttercup Ranunculus cymbalaria T Holly grape Odostemon fremontii M,T Spectacle pod Dithyrea wislizeni M Tansy mustard Sophia pinnata X D X D Stanleya albescens X — Stanleya pinnata X Rocky mtn. beewei Cleome serrulata X D — Wislizenia melilotoides X D Wild current Ribes inebrians X T X T Mtn. Mahogany Cercocarpus eximius D,T T Cliff rose Cowania stansburiana M,R,T Apache plume Fallugia paradoxa T T Wild rose Rosa arizonica X D,M Serviceberry Amelanchier X T — Parryella filifolia T — Petalostemon oligophyllun ) M Tepary Phaseolus acutifolius X Lima (sieva) bean Phaseolus lunatus X Scarlet runner beat Phaseolus multiflorus X String bean Phaseolus vulgaris X — Chamaesyce flagelliformis M — Croton texensis M — Reverchonia arenaria H,M Sumac Rhus trilobata X R Hopi cotton Gossypium hopi H,R H,M Globmallow Sphaeralcea sp. M M 85 A P P E N D I X 1 Table A. Continued. HOPI TEWA COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME FOOD OTHER FOOD OTHER Blazing star Mentzelia multiflora X M X Hedgehog cactus Echinocereus fendleri X Prickley pear cactu Opuntia hystricina X X Cholla cactus Opuntia whipplei X Evening primrose Anogra pallida R Ironwood Forestiera neomexicana T Milkweed Asclepias galioides M X M,T Gilia Gilia sp. X M Borage (family) Cryptanthe crassisepala M Borage (family) Cryptanthe jamesii M Borage (family) Onosmodium thurberi R — Chamaesaracha coronoput X Jimson weed Datura meteloides M Tomatilla Lycium pallidum X X Wild tobacco Nicotiana attenuata R R Ground Cherry Physalis fendleri X X Beebalm Monarda menthaefolia X X M — Poliomintha incana X Sage Salvia carnosa M — Adenostegia wrightii M Painted cup Castilleja linariaefolia M — Pentstemon ambiguus D Common mullein Verbascum thapsus R Devil's claw Martynia louisiana D Plantain Plantago purshii M Wild gourd Cucurbita foetidissima T M Squash pumpkin Cucurbita moschata X X Gourd Lagenaria vulgaris T R Sunflower (family) Actinea acaulis X M — Aplopappus nuttallii M Wormwood Artemisia dracunculoides X Sand sagebrush Artemisia fHi folia M M Mountain sagebrus Artemisia frigida R Sagebrush Artemisia tridentata M M Blue aster Aster cichoriaceus M White aster Aster leucelene M 86 A P P E N D I X 1 Table A. Continued. HOPI TEWA COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME FOOD OTHER FOOD OTHER — Chrysopsis villosa M Rabbitbrush Chrysothamnus sp. D.F.T D,M,T Thistle Cirsium pulchellum M Blanket flower Gaillardia pinnatifida M Snakeweed Gutierrezia sp. M,R M Sunflower Helianthus annuus X R T Hopi sunflower Helianthus sp. X D,H — Hymenopappus lugens M,R — • Lygodesmia grandiflora X M — Ptiloria exigua M — Ptiloria pauci flora M Groundsel Senecio longilobus M — Solidago missouriensis X Golden rod Solidago petradoria M — Tetradymia canescens M — Thelesperma gracile X X — Townsendia arizonica M Crown beard Verbesina encelioides M — Wyethia scabra M Spleenwort Asplenium trichomanes R Lichen M M Corn smut Ustilago zeae X R M Alder Alnus tenuifolia D Hackberry Celtis reticulata X Chokecherry Padus melanocarpa X T — Robinia neomexicana T Skunkbush Schmaltzia bakeri X Mtn. Tewa fruit Serocotheca dumosa X Cocklebur Xanthium commune M Green sage Artemisia forwoodii M Crowfoot Halerpestes cymbaloria T Praire clover Pentalsoteum candidus X Rocky mtn. beeplan Peritama serrulatum X D Mustard species Stanlyella wrightii X D Cane cactus Opuntia arborescens X 87 A P P E N D I X 1 Table A. Continued. HOPI TEWA COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME FOOD OTHER FOOD OTHER Ball cactus Mamillaria sp. X Panic grass Panicum barbipulvinatum T Sage grass Schizachyrium scoparium T Mesquite grass Bouteloua curtipendula T Earth star Geaster sp. M Cloakferh Notholanea fendleri M Wild potato Saegobe sp. X X 88 A P P E N D I X 1 Table B. Ethnographic use of animal taxa (Gnabasik 1981); A=hunting assistant, D=dress, F=famine food, H=hide, M=medicine and R=ritual. COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME FOOD OTHER Bear Ursus sp. R Beaver Castor canadensis X Bison Bison bison X H,R Bobcat Lynx rufus R Coyote Canis latrans R Deer Odocoileus sp. X H,R Dog Canis familiaris X A Elk Cervus canadensis X H,R Four-lined Colo. Chipmunk Eutamias quadrivittatus X Fox U. cinereoargenteus, V. velox R Ground Squirrel C. lateralis, S. lateralis X Jackrabbit Lepus sp. X Mountain goat Oreamnos americanus X R Mountain lion Felis concolor H Mountain sheep Ovis canadensis X H,R Otter Lutra canadensis X H Prarie dog Cynomys sp. X Pronghorn Antilocapra americana X H,R Cottontail rabbit Sylvilagus sp. X R Skunk Mephitis sp. Spilogale sp. H Albert's Squirrel Sciurus alberti X Weasel Musrela sp. X M Wildcat (Mtn. lion ?) H Wolf Canis lupus H Woodrat/packrat Neotoma sp. X Bluebird R Bluejay Cyanocitta cristata R Bobwhite Colinus virginianus M Crow Corvus brachyrhynchos R Desert sparrow hawk Falco sparverius phalaena R Duck X R Dusky grouse Dendragapus obscurus X Eagle H. leucocephalus, A. chrysaetos R Goose R Hawk R Hummingbird R 89 A P P E N D I X 1 Table B. Continued. COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME FOOD OTHER Jay R Macaw Ara sp. R Magpie Pica pica R Mockingbird Mimus polyglottos R Mourning dove Zenaidura macroura x R Owl R Parrot Rhynchopsitta pachyrhyncha R Quail x Red tailed hawk Buteo jamaicensis R Red-winged blackbird Agelaius phoeniceus X Roadrunner Geococcyx californianus R Rockwren Salpinctes obsoletus R Sparrowhawk Falco sparverius R Steller's jay Cyanocitta stelleri diaademata R Turkey Meleagris gallopavo X R Turkey vulture Cathartes aura R Warbler R Woodpecker R Wren R Yellow Warbler Dendroica petechia R Yellow-headed blackbird Xanthocephalus xanthocephalus X Lizard X F Rattlesnake Crotalus sp. R Snake X F Turtle R American eel Anguilla rostrata D Fish X Ant M Bee X Bumblebee X Burrowing hornet X Cornworm M 90 A P P E N D I X 2 Table A. Sites included in the faunal analysis with publication references. C H A C O B R A N C H Basketmaker III Shabik'eshchee Village 29SJ423 Basketmaker IH-Pueblo I N A 14,674 29SJ628 Pueblo I N A 14,654 29SJ724 Pueblo I-Pueblo II 29SJ629 Pueblo II PM205 PM218 PM240 29SJ1360 N A 14,662 Pueblo II-Pueblo III PM240 LA19553 Pueblo Alto Una Vida 29SJ627 29SJ633 N A 14,650 Pueblo III N A 14,667 K A Y E N T A B R A N C H Basketmaker II D:7:152 D:7:236 D:ll:1161 D:7:3107 D: 11:244 D:ll:3131 D: 11:3133 D: 11:449 D:7:239 D : l 1:1410 D:7:3013 Pueblo I D: 11:2023 D: 11:2025 Akins 1985 Akins 1985 Czaplewski 1982 Akins 1985 Czaplewski 1982 Akins 1985 Akins 1985 Binford et al. 1982 Binford et al. 1982 Binford et al. 1982 Akins 1985 Czaplewski 1982 Binford et al. 1982 Binford 1983 Akins 1985 Akins 1985 Akins 1985 Akins 1985 Czaplewski 1982 Czaplewski 1982 Bearden 1984 Bearden 1984 Bearden 1984 Smiley, Nichols and Andrews 1983 Smiley, Nichols and Andrews 1983 Nichols and Smiley 1984 Nichols and Smiley 1984 Christenson and Parry 1985 Leonard 1986,1989 Leonard 1986,1989 Leonard 1986,1989 Nichols and Smiley 1984 Nichols and Smiley 1984 91 A P P E N D I X 2 Table A. Continued D: 11:2064 D: 11:2062 Pueblo I-Pueblo II D:7:234 D: 11:2030 D: 11:320 D:7:216 Pueblo II D:7:18 D:7:23 D:7:704 D: 11:73 D:7:725 D: 11:275 D:7:109 D: 11:2001 D: 11:2108 D:7:220 D: 11:215 D: 11:425 D: 11:2042 D: 11:426 D: l l :316 D:7:2085 D: 11:2051 D:7:719 D: 11:352 S A N J U A N - M E S A V E R D E B R A N C H Basketmaker III 5LP110 5LP111 Dolores Period 1 Basketmaker III- Pueblo I 42 Sa6757 Pueblo I Dolores Period 2 Dolores Period 3 Dolores Period 4 Pueblo II 5MT1786 Dolores Period 5 Dolores Period 6 UGG4x-3 Smiley, Nichols and Andrews 1983 Nichols and Smiley 1984 Smiley, Nichols and Andrews 1983 Christenson and Parry 1985 Seme 1980a Leonard 1986,1989 Seme 1980b Seme 1980b Seme 1980b Seme 1980b Seme 1980b Seme 1980b Seme and Harris 1982 Seme and Harris 1982 Nichols and Smiley 1984 Seme 1980a Seme 1980a Seme 1980a Smiley, Nichols and Andrews 1983 Seme 1980a Smiley, Nichols and Andrews 1983 Christenson and Parry 1985 Nichols and Smiley 1984 Leonard 1986, 1989 Leonard 1986, 1989 Anderson 1980 Anderson 1980 Neusius 1986 Emslie 1985 Neusius 1986 Neusius 1986 Neusius 1986 Kent 1991 Neusius 1986 Neusius 1986 Brand n.d. 92 A P P E N D I X 2 Table A . Continued Pueblo U-Pueblo III Dolores Period 7 B i g Westwater Ruin 42Sa6396 Pueblo III 5MT262 5MT1825 5MT3918 5MT3030 5MT3936 5MT3951 5MT3967 5MT5152 5MT10246 5MT10459 5MT10508 5MT11338 5MT765 5MT3876 5MT3901 5MTUR2156 5MTUR2150 R IO G R A N D E B R A N C H Pueblo U-Pueblo III San Antonio (early) Neusius 1986 Mignonette 1981, Emslie 1981 Emslie 1985 Driver et al. n.d. Driver et al. n.d. Driver et al. n.d. Driver et al. n.d. Driver et al. n.d. Driver et al. n.d. Driver et al. n.d. Driver et al. n.d. Driver et al. n.d. Driver et al. n.d. Driver et al. n.d. Driver et al. n.d. Brand 1991 Rood 1991 Walker 1989 Harril l 1976 Harril l 1976 Young 1980 93 A P P E N D I X 2 Table B. Chaco branch Basketmaker III faunal data. l 1 SITE SHABIK 'ESHCHEE 29SJ423 NISP SUM NISP FREQ. FREQ.SUM FS/#SITES T A X A NISP % NISP % Shrews Bats Lagamorpha Cottontail 103 30.6% 589 30.3% 692 30.4% 0.60893355 30.4% Jackrabbit 36 10.7% 97 5.0% 133 5.8% 0.15677343 7.8% Rodentia 6 0.3% 6 0.3% 0.0030896 0.2% Squirrels Chipmunks Marmot Cynomys sp. 4 1.2% 6 0 3 % 10 0.4% 0.01495903 0.7% Geomyidae sp. 16 4.7% 16 0.7% 0.04747774 2.4% Beaver Neotoma sp. 7 2.1% 7 0.4% 14 0.6% 0.02437604 1.2% Mice, Rats and Vole 2 0.6% 12 0.6% 14 0.6% 0.01211391 0.6% Muskrat Porcupine Carnivora Canidae Canis sp. 4 1.2% 9 0.5% 13 0.6% 0.01650383 0.8% Coyote 10 0.5% 10 0.4% 0.00514933 0.3% Wolf Dog 2 0.6% 2 0.1% 4 0.2% 0.00696458 0.3% Fox 2 0.1% 2 0.1% 0.00102987 0.1% Bear 1 0.3% 1 0.1% 2 0.1% 0.00348229 0.2% Raccoon Marten Mustelidae sp. Badger Skunk Felidae Mountain Lion Bobcat 4 1.2% 3 0.2% 7 0.3% 0.01341424 0.7% Artiodactyla 58 17.2% 30 1.5% 88 3.9% 0.18755482 9.4% Elk 2 0.1% 2 0.1% 0.00102987 0.1% Deer 5 1.5% 3 0.2% 8 0.4% 0.01638159 0.8% Antelope 29 8.6% II 0.6% 40 1.8% 0.09171768 4.6% Mountain Sheep 4 1.2% 4 0.2% 8 0.4% 0.01392917 0.7% Bison Large Mammal 20 5.9% 211 10.9% 231 10.1% 0.16799806 8.4% Medium Mammal 39 11.6% 931 47.9% 970 42.6% 0.59S12968 29.8% Small Mammal Water fowl Canada Goose Ducks 1 0.1% 1 0.0% 0.00051493 0.0% Blue-winged teal Merganser Falconiformes Turkey Vulture Eagle Hawk 2 0.1% 2 0.1% 0.00102987 0.1% Falco sp. 1 0.1% 1 0.0% 0.00051493 0.0% Grouse Turkey 1 0.3% 1 0.0% 0.00296736 0.1% Quail 1 0.1% 1 . 0.0% 0.00051493 0.0% Sandhill Crane Mourning Dove Owls American Coot Caprimulgidae Apodiformes Flicker Passeriformes Homed Lark 1 0.3% 1 0.0% 0.00296736 0.1% Meadowlark Dark-eyed Junco Towhee Swallows Corvidae 1 0.3% 1 0.0% 0.00296736 0.1% Wrens Turdidae Shrikes Blackbirds FringiUidae Macaw Large Bird Small/Medium Bird Amphibian/Reptile Amphibian Reptile 1 0.1% 1 0.0% 0.00051493 0.0% Fish Speotyto cunicularia Succinedae Total 337 1942 2279 94 A P P E N D I X 2 Table C. Chaco branch Basletmaker III - Pueblo I faunal data. i 1 SITE 29SJ628 NA 14.674 T A X A NISP % NISP % NISP SUM NISPFREQ. FREQ. SUM FS/#SITES Shrews Bats Lagamorpha Cottontail 2042 41.3% 144 12.5% 2186 35.8% 0.53761769 26.9% Jackrabbit 1717 34.7% 149 12.9% 1866 30.6% 0.47622374 23.8% Rodentia 15 0.3% 15 0.2% 0.00303337 0.2% Squirrels 4 0.1% 1 0.1% 5 0.1% 0.0016747 0.1% Chipmunks Marmot Cynomys sp. 175 3.5% 61 53% 236 3.9% 0.08820313 4.4% Geomyidae sp. 33 0.7% 12 1.0% 45 0.7% 0.01706302 0.9% Beaver Neotoma sp. 16 0.3% 11 1.0% 27 0.4% 0.0127594 0.6% Mice. Rats and Vole 20 0.4% 140 12.1% 160 2.6% 0.12525661 6 3 % Muskrat Porcupine Caraivora Canidae Cams sp. 60 1.2% 43 3.7% 103 1.7% 0.04936291 2.5% Coyote 35 0.7% 35 0.6% 0.00707786 0.4% Wolf Dog 15 0.3% 60 5.2% 75 1.2% 0.05498142 2.7% Fox 5 0.1% 5 0.1% 0.00101112 0.1% Bear I 0.0% 1 0.1% 2 0.0% 0.00106803 0.1% Raccoon Marten Mustelidae sp. 1 0.1% 1 0.0% 0.0008658 0.0% Badger 31 0.6% 1 0.1% 32 0.5% 0.00713476 0.4% Skunk Felidae Mountain Lion Bobcat 7 0.1% 7 0.1% 0.00141557 0.1% Artiodactyla 233 4.7% 191 16.5% 424 7.0% 0.21248627 10.6% Elk 1 0.0% 1 0.0% 0.00020222 0.0% Deer 16 0.3% 1 0.1% 17 0 3 % 0.00410139 0.2% Antelope 63 1.3% 2 0.2% 65 1.1% 0.01447174 0.7% Mountain Sheep 30 0.6% 30 0.5% 0.00606673 0.3% Bison 5 0.4% 5 0.1% 0.004329 0.2% Large Mammal 74 1.5% 74 1.2% 0.01496461 0.7% Medium Mammal 226 4.6% 226 3.7% 0.04570273 2.3% Small Mammal Waterfowl Canada Goose Ducks Blue-winged teal Merganser Falconiformes Turkey Vulture Eagle Hawk 97 2.0% 97 1.6% 0.01961577 1.0% Falco sp. Grouse Turkey 24 0.5% 328 28.4% 352 5.8% 0.28883607 14.4% Quail 1 0.1% 1 0.0% 0.0008658 0.0% Sandhill Crane 2 0.0% 2 0.0% 0.00040445 0.0% Mourning Dove Owls 1 0.1% 1 0.0% 0.0008658 0.0% American Coot Caprimulgidae Apodiformes Flicker Passeri formes Homed Lark Meadowlark Dark-eyed J unco Towhee Swallows Corvidae 3 0.1% 2 0.2% 5 0.1% 0.00233828 0.1% Wrens Turdidae Shrikes Blackbirds Fringillidae Macaw Large Bird Small/Medium Bird Amphibian/Repti le Amphibian Reptile Fish Speotyto cunicularia Succinedae Total 4945 1155 6100 100.0% 95 A P P E N D I X 2 Table D. Chaco branch Pueblo I faunal data. i 1 SITE 29SJ724 NA 14.654 T A X A NISP % NISP % NISP SUM NISPFREQ FREQ. SUM FS/#SITES Shrews Bats 1 0.2% 1 0.1% 0.002164S 0.1% Lagamorpha Cottontail 133 28.8% 133 16.9% 0.28787879 14.4% Jackrabbit 178 38.5% 88 27.2% 266 33.8% 0.65688632 32.8% Rodentia 5 1.1% 102 31.5% 107 13.6% 032563733 16.3% Squirrels 2 0.6% 2 0 3 % 0.00617284 03% Chipmunks Marmot Cynomys sp. 18 3.9% 38 11.7% 56 7.1% 0.15624499 7.8% Geomyidae sp. 4 0.9% 1 0.3% 5 0.6% 0.01174443 0.6% Beaver Keotoma sp. 3 0.6% 3 0.4% 0.00649351 0.3% Mice, Rats and Vo 9 1.9% 21 6.5% 30 3.8% 0.08429533 4.2% Muskrat Porcupine Camivora Canidae Canis sp. 1 0.2% 1 0.3% 2 0.3% 0.00525092 0.3% Coyote 4 0.9% 4 0.5% 0.00865801 0.4% Wolf Dog Fox 1 0.2% 1 0.3% 2 0.3% 0.00525092 0.3% Bear Raccoon Marten Mustelidae sp. Badger Skunk Felidae Mountain Lion Bobcat 1 0.2% 1 0.1% 0.0021645 0.1% Artiodacryla 34 10.5% 34 4.3% 0.10493827 5.2% Elk Deer 2 0.6% 2 0.3% 0.00617284 03% Antelope 2 0.4% 2 0.6% 4 0.5% 0.01050184 0.5% Mountain Sheep Bison Medium Mammal 64 13.9% 64 8.1% 0.13852814 6.9% Small Mammal Waterfowl 1 0.3% 1 0.1% 0.00308642 0.2% Canada Goose Ducks Blue-winged teal Merganser Falconiformes 1 0.2% 1 0.1% 0.0021645 0.1% Turkey Vulture 26 5.6% 26 3.3% 0.05627706 2.8% Eagle 3 0.6% 3 0.4% 0.00649351 03% Hawk 1 0.3% 1 0.1% 0.00308642 0.2% Falco sp. Grouse Turkey 1 0.2% 30 9.3% 31 3.9% 0.09475709 4.7% Quail Sandhill Crane Mourning Dove Owls American Coot Caprimulgidae Apodifonnes Flicker Passeriformes Homed Lark Meadowlark Dark-eyed J unco Towhee Swallows Corvidae Wrens Turdidae 1 . 0.2% 1 0.1% 0.0021645 Shrikes Blackbirds Fringillidae Macaw Large Bird Small/Medium Bird Amphibian/Reptile Amphibian Reptile Fish Speotyto cunicular la Succinedae Total 462 324 786 100.0% 96 A P P E N D I X 2 Table E Chaco branch Pueblo I - Pueblo II faunal data 1 SITE 29SJ629 T A X A NISP % Shrews Bats Lagamorpha Cottontail 381 15.2% Jackrabbit 395 15.8% Rodentia 96 3.8% Squirrels 16 0.6% Chipmunks Marmot Cynomyssp. 225 9.0% Geomyidae sp. 55 2.2% Beaver Neotoma sp. 16 0.6% Mice, Rats and Vole 134 5.4% Muskrat Porcupine 4 0.2% Camivora Camdae Canis sp. 32 1.3% Coyote 28 1.1% Wolf 2 0.1% Dog 67 2.7% Fox Bear Raccoon Marten Mustelidae sp. Badger 1 0.0% Skunk Felidae Mountain Lion 1 0.0% Bobcat 1 0.0% Attiodactyla 94 3.8% Elk 1 0.0% Deer 22 0.9% Antelope 8 0.3% Mountain Sheep 7 0.3% Bison Large Mammal 223 8.9% Medium Mammal 55 2.2% Small Mammal 542 21.7% Water fowl Canada Goose Ducks Blue-winged teat Merganser Falconif ormes Turkey Vulture Eagle 11 0.4% Hawk 14 0.6% Falco sp. Grouse Turkey 54 2.2% Quail Sandhill Crane 1 0.0% Mourning Dove Owls American Coot Caprimulgidae Apodiformes Flicker Passeriformes Homed Lark Meadowlark Dark-eyed Junco Towhoe Swallows Corvidae 1 0.0% Wrens Turdidae Shrikes Blackbirds Fringillidae Macaw Large Bird Small/Medium Bird Amphibian/Reptile Amphibian Reptile 12 0.5% Fish Spebtyto cunicularia Succinedae Total 2499 97 A P P E N D I X 2 Table F. Chaco branch Pueblo II faunal data. SITE PM205 PM218 PM240 29SJ1360 N A 14,662 NISP SUM NISP FREQ FREQ. SUM FS/#SITES T A X A NISP % NISP % NISP % NISP % NISP % Shrews Bats Lagamorpha Cottontail 313 34.1% 391 55.2% 30 39.5% 39 5.8% 773 32.6% 1.3459675S8 26.9% Jackrabbit 498 54.2% 198 28.0% 18 23.7% 145 21.7% 5 6.9% 864 36.4% 1.344906797 26.9% Rodentia Squirrels 1 0.1% 11 14.5% 12 0.5% 0.146149271 2.9% Chipmunks Mannot Cynomys sp. 9 1.0% 34 4.8% 6 7.9% 25 3.7% 44 61.1% 118 5.0% 0.785299482 15.7% Geomyidae sp. 3 0.4% 1 0.1% 4 0.2% 0.005734294 0.1% Beaver Neotoma sp. 38 4.1% 8 1.1% 46 1.9% 0.052648728 1.1% Mice. Rats and Vol« 2 0.2% 4 0.6% 1 1.3% 4 0.6% 13 18.1% 24 1.0% 0.20752747 4.2% Muskrat Porcupine 6 0.7% 6 0.3% 0.006528836 0.1% Camivora Canidae Canis sp. 1 1.3% 12 1.8% 13 0.5% 0.031121967 0.6% Coyote 1 0.1% 13 1.9% 14 0.6% 0.020873507 0.4% Wolf Dog 6 0.8% 60 9.0% 66 2.8% 0.098294936 2.0% Fox Bear Raccoon Marten Mustelidae sp. 2 0.2% 2 0.1% 0.002176279 0.0% Badger 1 0.1% 7 9.7% 8 0.3% 0.098719228 2.0% Skunk 1 0.1% 1 0.0% 0.001412429 0.0% Felidae Mountain Lion Bobcat 1 0.1% 9 1.3% 1 1.3% It 0.5% 0.026957898 0.5% Artiodactyla 1 1.3% 171 25.6% 1 1.4% 173 7.3% 0.283034808 5.7% Elk Deer 39 4.2% 10 1.4% 2 2.6% 14 2.1% 65 2.7% 0.103835599 2.1% Antelope 52 7.8% 52 2.2% 0.077844311 1.6% Mountain Sheep 6 0.9% 6 0.3% 0.008982036 0.2% Bison Large Mammal 2 0.3% 2 2.6% 56 8.4% 60 2.5% 0.112972984 2.3% Medium Mammal 41 6.1% 41 1.7% 0.061377246 1.2% Small Mammal Waterfowl Canada Goose Ducks Blue-winged teal Merganser Falconiformes Turkey Vulture Eagle Hawk 1 0.1% 1 0.1% 1 1.3% 3 0.4% 6 0.3% 0.020149481 0.4% Falco sp. 1 0.1% 1 0.0% 0.001497006 0.0% Grouse Turkey 10 1.1% 36 5.1% 1 1.3% 18 2.7% 2 2.8% 67 2.8% 0.129610631 2.6% Quail Sandhill Crane Mourning Dove 1 0.1% 1 0.0% 0.001412429 0.0% Owls 1 0.1% 1 0.0% 0.001412429 0.0% American Coot Caphmulgidae Apodiformes Flicker Passeriformes Homed Lark Mcadowlark Dark-eyed Junco Towhee Swallows Corvidae 1 0.1% 1 0.0% 0.001497006 0.0% Wrens Turdidae Shrikes Blackbirds Fringillidae Macaw 5 0.7% 5 0.2% 0.00748503 0.2% Large Bird Small/Medium Bird 1 0.1% 1 1.3% 2 0.1% 0.014570324 0.4% Amphibian/Reptile Amphibian Reptile Fish Speotyto cunicularia Succinedae Total 919 708 76 668 72 2371 98 A P P E N D I X 2 Table G. Chaco branch Pueb lo II - Pueb lo 111 fauns il data. 1 1 1 PM240 L A 19553 Pueblo Alto Una Vida 29SJ627 29SJ63 3 NA 14,650 NISPSUh NISP FREC FREQ. SU FSAfSITES NISP % NISP % NISP % NISP % NISP % NISP % NISP % Shrews Bats 4 0.0% 4 0.0% 0.000137 0.0% Lagamorpha 21 15.2% 21 0.0% 0.152174 2.2% Cottontail 43 49.4% 47 34.1% 5910 20.2% 629 19.1% 992 15.7% 1101 29.0% 260 18.2% 8982 20.3% 1.856712 26.5% Jackrabbit '< 35 40.2% 9 6.5% 4799 16.4% 543 16.5% 1345 21.3% 351 9.2% 339 23.7% 7421 16.8% 1.338992 19.1% Rodentia 5 3.6% 171 0.6% 62 1.9% 49 0.8% 36 0.9% 1 0.1% 324 0.7% 0.078829 1.1% Squirrels 4 4.6% 24 0.1% 13 0.4% 2 0.0% 1 0.0% 3 0.2% 47 0.1% 0.053419 0.8% Chipmunks Marmot Cynomys sp. 1 1.1% 3 2.2% 2616 9.0% 266 8.1% 355 5.6% 160 4.2% 519 36.3% 3920 8.9% 0.664735 9.5% Oeomyidae sp. 118 0.4% 33 1.0% 24 0.4% 9 0.2% 7 0.5% 191 0.4% 0.025114 0.4% Beaver Neotoma sp. 74 0.3% 9 0.3% 30 0.5% 36 0.9% 120 8.4% 269 0.6% 0.10341 1.5% Mice. Rats and Voles 912 3.1% 556 16.9% 72 1.1% 108 2.8% 26 1.8% 1674 3.8% 0.25787 .3.7% Muskrat Porcupine 1 0.0% 1 0.0% 3.42E-05 0.0% Camivora 1 0.1% 1 0.0% 0.000699 0.0% Canidae Canis sp. 37 0.1% 6 0.2% 33 0.5% 4 0.1% 5 0.3% 85 0.2% 0.012864 0.2% Coyote 16 0.1% 13 0.4% 53 0.8% 4 0.3% 86 0.2% 0.015684 0.2% Wolf 2 0.0% 3 0.0% 5 0.0% 0.000544 0.0% Dog 11 0.0% 89 1.4% 27 1.9% 127 0.3% 0.033358 0.5% Fox 1 0.0% 3 0.0% 4 0.0% 0.00051 0.0% Bear 1 0.0% 1 0.0% 3.42E-05 0.0% Raccoon Marten Mustetidae sp. Badger 8 0.0% 3 0.0% 2 0.1% 1 0.1% 14 0.0% 0.001975 0.0% Skunk Felidae Mountain Lion Bobcat 13 0.0% 9 0.3% 12 0.2% 2 0.1% 36 0.1% 0.005602 0.1% Aitiodactyla 2328 8.0% 161 4.9% 2 0.1% 19 1.3% 2510 5.7% 0.142306 2.0% Elk 1 0.0% 5 0.1% 6 0.0% 0.000826 0.0% Deer 1 1.1% 572 2.0% 22 0.7% 224 3.5% 1 0.0% 820 1.9% 0.073491 1.0% Antelope 167 0.6% 65 1.0% 4 0.1% 1 0.1% 237 0.5% 0.017765 0.3% Mountain Sheep 145 0.5% 34 1.0% 73 1.2% 1 0.0% 253 0.6% 0.027103 0.4% Bison Large Mammal 2 1.4% 2636 9.0% 287 8.7% 1561 24.7% 34 0.9% 4520 10.2% 0.448 6.4% Medium Mammal 18 13.0% 7165 24.5% 600 18.2% 1078 17.1% 11 0.3% 8872 20.0% 0.731276 10.4% Small Mammal 29 21.0% 1139 30.0% 1168 2.6% 0.51004 7.3% Water fowl 1 0.0% 1 0.0% 0.000263 0.0% Canada Goose Ducks 3 0.0% 3 0.0% 0.000103 0.0% Blue-winged teal Merganser Falconif ormes 1 0.0% 1 0.0% 3.42E-05 0.0% Turkey Vulture Eagle 82 0.3% 2 0.1% 6 0.1% 1 0.0% 91 0.2% 0.004626 0.1% Hawk 266 0.9% 8 0.1% 5 0.1% 279 0.6% 0.011686 0.2% Falco sp. 14 0.0% 14 0.0% 0.000479 0.0% Grouse Turkey 2 2.3% 1 0.7% 987 3.4% 17 0.5% 190 3.0% 766 20.2% 45 3.1% 2008 4.5% 0.33242 4.7% Quail 7 0.0% 12 0.3% 4 0.3% 23 0.1% 0.006196 0.1% Sandhill Crane 1 0.0% 1 0.0% 3.42E-05 0.0% Mourning Dove 4 0.0% 4 0.0% 0.000137 0.0% Owls 3 0.0% 2 0.0% 2 0.1% 7 0.0% 0.000946 0.0% American Coot Caprimulgidae Apodiformes 1 0.0% 1 0.0% 3.42E-05 0.0% Flicker 3 0.0% 2 0.1% 5 0.0% 0.001501 0.0% Passerifonnes 16 0.1% 6 0.2% 22 0.0% 0.002367 0.0% Homed Lark 17 0.1% 2 0.1% 1 0.0% 1 0.0% 2 0.1% 23 0.1% 0.003009 0.0% Meadowlark Dark-eyed Junco 1 0.0% 1 0.0% 3.42E-05 0.0% Towhee 2 0.0% 2 0.1% 4 0.0% 0.000595 0.0% Swallows 1 0.0% 1 0.0% 3.42E-05 0.0% Corvidae 31 0.1% 1 0.0% 1 0.0% 42 2.9% 75 0.2% 0.030853 0.4% Wrens Turdidae 3 0.0% 3 0.0% 0.000103 0.0% Shrikes 3 0.0% 3 0.0% 0.000103 0.0% Blackbirds 7 0.0% 2 0.1% 9 0.0% 0.000846 0.0% Fringillidae 7 0.0% 3 0.1% 10 0.0% 0.001149 0.0% Macaw Large Bird 2 1.4% 2 0.0% 0.014493 0.2% Small/Medium Bird 1 1.1% 1 0.7% 2 0.0% 0.018741 0.3% Amphibian/Reptile 1 0.0% 1 0.0% 3.42E-05 0.0% Amphibian 31 0.1% 31 0.1% 0.001061 0.0% Reptile 22 0.7% 33 0.5% 5 0.1% 60 0.1% 0.013217 0.2% Fish Speotyto cunicularia 2 0.1% 2 0.0% 0.001399 0.0% Succinedae Total 87 138 29224 3297 6312 3798 1430 44286 99 A P P E N D I X 2 Table H. Chaco branch Pueblo III faunal data. ! SITE NA 14,667 T A X A NISP % Shrews Bats Lagamorpha Cottontail Jackrabbit 35 37.2% Rodentia 5 5.3% Squirrels Chipmunks Marmot Cynomys sp. 27 28.7% Geomyidae sp. 3 3.2% Beaver Neotoma sp. Mice. Rats and Vole 20 21.3% Muskrat Porcupine Camivora Canidae Canis sp. 1 1.1% Coyote Wolf Dog Fox 1 1.1% Bear Raccoon Marten Mustelidae sp. Badger Skunk Felidae Mountain Lion Bobcat Artiodactyla 1 1.1% Elk Deer Antelope Mountain Sheep Bison Large Mammal Medium Mammal Small Mammal Water fowl Canada Goose Ducks Blue-winged teal Merganser Falconiformes Turkey Vulture Eagle Hawk Falco sp. Grouse Turkey 1 1.1% Quail Sandhill Crane Mourning Dove Owls American Coot Caprimulgidae Apodiformes Flicker Passeriformes Homed Lark Meadowlark Dark-eyed Junco Towhee Swallows Corvidae Wrens Turdidae Shrikes Blackbirds FringHlidae Macaw Large Bird Small/Medium Bird Amphibian/Reptile Amphibian Reptile Fish Speotyto cunicularia Succinedae Total 94 100 A P P E N D I X 2 T a b i c I. K a y e r t a b r i n c h 3 a s k e t m a k r r II f a u n a l d a t a . E f T F T 5 1 — •K.t?tmt G T F S I 5 T H J 3 T — 5 T L 7 33 B T T J t 9 D : l t : l 1 6 D : 7 J 6 3 MIL TAXA NISP % nist> % NISP NISP * WiSP * mr * wisp * MISP * NISP * NiSP * NISP * S h r e w j 3 9 a% 1 3 12* 1 0 . 1 * 3 05% 5 6 O S * O J 0 3 U / > 4 0 3 * C o a o n a i l 15*1 6 2 . 0 * ~tt 3 1 . 6 % 3 7 4 3 . 4 * 2 5 3 7 J * 4 « . o * 74 3 5 . 4 * 2 6 * 4 1 . 6 * 1 2 8 1 1 . 4 * 9 1 9 7 1 . 4 * 5 8 0 6 1 . 0 * 3 6 6 4 J * 3 7 2 3 52.0* 4 . 4 4 9 1 8 4 6 4 0 . 4 * J a c k n H * 4 , 8 1 * 7 % a 1 1 . 9 % 2 7 3 1 . 8 * 1 8 • « 4J6* 20 9 ^ * 2 0 7 4 2 . 2 * 1 1 1 9 . 9 * 2 4 1 1 8 . 7 * 1 4 1 1 4 . 8 * 4 7 . 1 * 1 2 6 6 1 7 . 7 * 1 . 8 8 6 1 8 1 4 1 7 . 1 * R o b e r t i a 2 0.1% I 6i% 1 0 5 * 1 2 1.1* 1 0 . 1 * 1 7 02% 0 0 2 2 5 2 9 2 0 2 * S q u i r r t b 1 1 0 4 % 5 16% I 1 2 * 1 05% 2 0 2 * 5 05% 2 5 0 3 * 0 0 5 3 7 8 2 8 0 5 * C t a p m u n l g 1 0.1* 1 0 0 * O 0 U U / / 6 4 0 0 % M a r m o t C y n o n r w i p 1 1 0 4 % 2 ro* 2 l i * 1 6 i * 4 6 4 3 * 6 0£% 1 I S * 7 1 I D * 0 . 08393 7 7 O S * G « o « n y » d a r g p 9 0 3 . 5 * 3 1 6 % i l i * 10 7̂* 2 l i ) * 2 4 2.1* 2 O i * 1 3 2 I K * 0 . 1 7 4 4 1 3 8 1 £ * B e a v e r N c o t c x n a i p , • « u% 5 l j S % 8 3 s * 5 1 4 * 1 9 1.7* 3 6 i * 1 3 IA% 2 3 - 6 * 9 B 1 . 4 * 0 . 1 1 4 5 2 9 1 0 * M i c c R j B i a d V d e a e.9% 10 52% i 1 O S * 1 O i * 2 6.4* 4 9 3 44 .1* 1 6.1* 2 62* 5 3 4 7 3 * 0 5 3 2 8 7 3 4 S * M u t f c r a t P o r c u p i n e C a r a i v a n 2 62* 2 0 J 0 * 0 . 0 0 1 7 8 8 9 0 . 0 * 1 6.1* 1 0 . 0 * O J 0 0 0 8 9 4 5 0 0 * C a o o i p . i c o * 1 6 J % 2 l i * J 65* 1 6.1* 6 0 . 1 * 0 . 0 2 6 3 9 8 7 0 2 * C o y o t e 2 0 2 * 2 0 0 * 0 0 0 1 5 5 2 8 0 0 * W d f P o T 1 5 0 . 6 % 1 6 J * 1 6.1* 1 7 0 2 * 0 . 0 1 1 5 1 5 7 0 . 1 * M a r t e n M t K t c l i d a e c p . B a d g e r 1 6 . 6 % 3 6 . 3 * 4 0 . 1 * 0 0 0 3 5 4 3 7 0 . 0 * g k u l * F e t i d * M o u o a m L i o n 1 0 5 * 2 6.4* 7 0 3 * 1 0 0.1* 0 . 0 1 4 3 0 1 1 0 . 1 * A r t i o r l a c t y l a 7 4 3 % 8 4 .1% 2 l i * 9 4 3 * 6 " 6i* 6 O i * 1 0 . 1 * 3 5 . 4 * 4 2 0 6 * 0 . 1 1 3 5 8 0 5 1 0 * E i k ' r>« r 9 0.4* 1 0J% 1 6.1* I I S * 12 0 2 * 0 . 0 0 9 4 5 9 7 0 . 1 * 2 0.1% 1 0.5% 1 i i % 2 ( i * 1 I S * 7 0 . 1 * 0 0 3 2 9 9 1 4 0 3 * M o u a a j r j S h e e p 2 1 6 % 1 O S * 3 0 2 * 7 1 2 - 5 * 1 3 0 2 * 0 0 2 0 3 2 5 5 0 2 * L a r g e M a m m a l SI 2 4 % 4 -5:1% t ( i * 33 2 5 . 2 * 4 1.9* 6 7 6 " 0 * 3*5 2 s * K i.7* 1 I S * 2 2 3 3 . 1 * 0 . 4 3 5 1 3 6 5 4 . 0 * M e d i u m M a m m a l 2 2 0 . 9 % 1 1 03% 6 7.1* t o 14.9* 1 O S * 2 6 9&% 2 5 5 . 1 * 24 2 3 * 1 6 l i * 7 9 B i * 2 6 6 " 2 . 9 * 0 3 0 6 6 8 46% S m a l l M a m m a l 98 3 4 * SI 2 4 4 * 1 2 1 4 . 1 * 1 6 1 4 . 9 * 6 4.6* £ 4 3 6 . £ * 4 3 « A * I d ) 1 4 . 3 * 4 1 32* 1 6 1 10.6* 5 8 6 8 2 * 1 3 1 3 7 3 6 9 1 1 . 9 * W a t e r f o w l C a n a d a G o c c e D u c k s B l u e - w i n c e d l e a l M e r j t a r c e r F a k o o i f o r m e s T u r k e y V u l t u r e E a g l e H a w k 6 02% 1 6.1* 7 0 . 1 * 0 0 0 3 1 1 1 0 0 * F a l c o i p GTOUK T u r k e y 4 2 . 1 % I 6 2 * 1 6.1* 6 0 . 1 * 0 0 2 3 5 4 2 6 0 2 * Q u a i l M o o r a i n j D o v e O w b A m e r i c a n C o d C a r j r i r o u t c i a a e P u c k e r 5 02% 5 0 . 1 * 0 0 0 1 9 4 5 5 0 . 0 * P a n e r i f o n i M a 1 oa% 1 0 2 * 2 0 0 * 0 0 0 2 4 2 9 9 0 0 * H o m e d L a r k 1 6.1* 1 0 X > * 0 0 0 0 7 7 6 4 0 0 * M e a d o w l a r k D a r k - e y e d J u n c o T o w h e e S w a U o w i C o r v i d a e 3 5 u% 1 6 i * 1 0 1* 1 6.1* 3 8 0 3 * 0 0 2 0 0 7 4 2 0 2 * W r e n T u r d i d a e 8 0.1% 2 O O * 0 0 0 0 7 7 8 2 0 0 * B l a c k b i i t t i F t t r m l u d a e raS • LneBird IS 0 6 % 2 0 2 * 1 8 0 3 * 0 0 0 7 7 7 8 5 0 . 1 * S r r i l V M ^ u m B i r d 2 0.1% 2 3.6* 1 6.1* 5 0 . 1 * 0 0 3 1 4 0 5 4 0 3 * A m p h i b i a r t / R e pi i f c A m p h i b i a n R t p t i k 4 6 . 2 % 12 i2% 4 6.4* 20 0 3 * 0 0 6 7 3 1 0 4 0 6 * F e b S p r O y l o c u n i c u l a r i a S u c c i n c d a e T o t t l 2 5 7 0 193 8 5 6 7 t i l 2 0 9 4 * ) I l l s 1 2 8 8 9 S 1 5 6 " 7 1 5 8 101 A P P E N D I X 2 Table J. Kayenta branch Pueblo I faunal data. I 1 I SITE D:7:2064 D.I 1:2062 D: 11:2023 D: 11:2025 NISP SUM NISPFREQ FREQ. S U M FS/#SITES T A X A NISP % NISP % NISP % NISP % Shrews Bats Lagamorpha 11 8.7% 11 1.0% 0.08661417 2.2% Cottontail 74 58.3% 304 66.5% 224 83.0% 45 20.1% 647 60.0% 2.27840753 57.0% Jackrabbit 36 28.3% 48 10.5% 4 1.5% 5 2.2% 93 8.6% 0.42563363 10.6% Rodentia Squirrels 2 0.4% 1 0.4% 2 0.9% 5 0.5% 0.01700864 0.4% Chipmunks Marmot Cynomys sp. 16 7.1% 16 1.5% 0.07142857 1.8% Geomyidae sp. 29 6.3% 3 1.3% 32 3.0% 0.07685019 1.9% Beaver Neotoma sp. 1 0.8% 4 0.9% 5 0.5% 0.01662675 0.4% Mice, Rats and Voles 8 1.8% 5 1.9% 4 1.8% 17 1.6% 0 05388113 1.3% Muskrat Porcupine Carnivora Canidae Canis sp. 3 1.3% 3 0.3% 0.01339286 0.3% Coyote Wolf Dog Fox Bear Raccoon Marten Mu5telidae sp. Badger Skunk Felidae Mountain Lion Bobcat 5 2.2% 5 0.5% 0.02232143 0.6% Artiodactyla 12 2.6% 3 1.1% 24 10.7% 39 3.6% 0.14451217 3.6% Elk Deer 1 0.2% 1 0.1% 0.00218818 0.1% Antelope 1 0.4% 1 0.1% 0.00446429 0.1% Mountain Sheep 1 0.8% 14 6.3% 15 1.4% 0.07037402 1.8% Bison Large Mammal 2 1.6% 15 3.3% 5 1.9% 66 29.5% 88 8.2% 0.36173216 9.0% Medium Mammal 2 1.6% 6 1.3% 17 6.3% 25 2.3% 0.0918401 2.3% Small Mammal 17 3.7% 11 4.1% 35 15.6% 63 5.8% 0.23418987 5.9% Water fowl Canada Goose Ducks Blue-winged teal Merganser Falconif ormes Turkey Vulture Eagle Hawk Falco sp. 1 0.2% 1 0.1% 0.00218818 0.1% Grouse Turkey Quail Sandhill Crane Mourning Dove 1 0.4% 1 0.1% 0.00446429 0.1% Owls American Coot Caprimulgidae Apodiformes Flicker Passeri formes Homed Lark Meadowlark Dark-eyed Junco Towhee Swallows Corvidae Wrens Turdidae Shrikes Blackbirds Fringiliidae Macaw Large Bird 2 0.4% 2 0.2% 0.00437637 0.1% Small/Medium Bird 1 0.2% 1 0.1% 0.00218818 0.1% Amphibian/Reptile Amphibian Reptile fish Speoryto cunicularia Succinedae 7 1.5% 7 0.6% 0.01531729 0.4% Total 127 457 270 224 1078 102 A P P E N D I X 2 Table K. Kayenta branch Pueblo I - Pueblo II faunal data. l 1 1 1 SITE D:7:234 D: 11:2030 D: 11:320 D:7:216 NISP SUM NISPFREQ FREQ. SUM FS/#SITES T A X A NISP % NISP % NISP % NISP % Shrews Bats Lagamorpha 16 0.6% 16 0.4% 0.00563579 0.1% Cottontail 277 51.1% 1490 52.5% 16 32.0% 117 46.1% 1900 51.6% 1.81653272 45.4% Jackrabbit 107 19.7% 17S 6.2% 13 26.0% 14 5.5% 309 8.4% 0.57417651 14.4% Rodentia 32 1.1% 32 0.9% 0.01127157 0.3% Squirrels 4 0.7% 21 0.7% 2 4.0% 17 6.7% 44 1.2% 0.12170618 3.0% Chipmunks Marmot Cynomys sp. 17 0.6% 17 0.5% 0.00598802 0.1% Oeomyidae sp. 7 1.3% 29 1.0% I 0.4% 37 1.0% 0.027067 0.7% Beaver Neotoma sp. 14 2.6% 69 2.4% 13 5.1% 96 2.6% 0.10131569 2.5% Mice, Rats and Vole 13 2.4% 27 1.0% 2 0.8% 42 1.1% 0.04136965 1.0% Muskrat Porcupine . 1 0.0% 1 0.0% 0.00035224 0.0% Carnivora 1 0.2% 22 0.8% 23 0.6% 0.00959423 0.2% Canidae 1 0.0% 1 0.0% 0.00035224 0.0% Canis sp. 8 1.5% 32 1.1% 1 0.4% 41 1.1% 0.02996873 0.7% Coyote Wolf Dog Fox 4 0.1% 1 0.4% 5 0.1% 0.00534595 0.1% Bear Raccoon Marten Mustelidae sp. 5 0.9% 5 0.1% 0.00922509 0.2% Badger 12 2.2% 1 0.0% 13 0.4% 0.02249246 0.6% Skunk 3 0.1% 3 0.1% 0.00105671 0.0% Felidae Mountain Lion Bobcat 1 0.2% 54 1.9% 55 1.5% 0.0208658 0.5% Artiodactyla 7 1.3% 66 2.3% 1 2.0% 39 15.4% 113 3.1% 0.20970606 5.2% Elk Deer 8 0.3% 8 0.2% 0.00281789 0.1% Antelope 2 0.4% 14 0.5% 1 2.0% 1 0.4% 18 0.5% 0.03255836 0.8% Mountain Sheep 4 0.7% 37 1.3% 3 6.0% 6 2.4% 50 1.4% 0.10403488 2.6% Bison Large Mammal 40 7.4% 230 8.1% 10 20.0% 280 7.6% 0.35481518 8.9% Medium Mammal 8 1.5% 122 4.3% 4 8.0% 13 5.1% 147 4.0% 0.18891413 4.7% Small Mammal 15 2.8% 315 11.1% 24 9.4% 354 9.6% 0.23311803 5.8% Waterfowl Canada Goose Ducks Blue-winged teal Merganser Falconif ormes Turkey Vulture Eagle 1 0.0% 1 0.0% 0.00035224 0.0% Hawk 7 0.2% 7 0.2% 0.00246566 0.1% Falcosp. Grouse Turkey 2 0.1% 4 1.6% 6 0.2% 0.0164525 0.4% Quail 5 0.2% 5 0.1% 0.00176118 0.0% Sandhill Crane Mourning Dove Owls 3 0.1% 3 0.1% 0.00105671 0.0% American Coot Caprimulgidae Apodiformes Ricker Passeri formes 4 0.1% 4 0.1% 0.00140895 0.0% Homed Lark Meadowlark Dark-eyed Junco Towhee Swallows Corvidae Wrens Turdidae Shrikes Blackbirds FringiUidae Macaw Large Bird 11 2.0% 11 0.4% 22 0.6% 0.02416981 0.6% Small/Medium Bird 6 1.1% 8 0.3% 14 0.4% 0.013888 0.3% Amphibian/Reptile Amphibian 9 0.3% 9 0.2% 0.00317013 0.1% Reptile 3 0.1% 1 0.4% 4 0.1% 0.00499372 0.1% Fish Speotyto cunicularia Succinedae Total 542 2839 50 254 3685 103 A P P E N D I X 2 3 2 & s s s £ b £ O 3 a s o t. o £ o S s £ d a o t b « £ S o | O £ o I 3 1 3 o 3 § o o o 9 s 5 R o S o ? P § 8 ? o i o 3 i 5 3 i 8 o 5 o « o 1 3 3 1 5 o 5 C g» ft g £ o 6 O o * o 5 e o g 1 s o | o •« Q < b a; 3 6 g o g g £ o 1 I z 9 s — a a P 2 St 6 s K 3 A 5 s S 2 a E s s o k £ o * O o E •o a i? | 5 * i «• O s a S o El E - - * 1 o £ K if o o» o «• o a o s ft S - * s •* a £ a * * s a s s 5 o 5 g s = 8 2 * & o * p < o o O is •* s •1 g * £. s R s f. 1 5 s * * a g o a * a Q £ i — s p 9 <• u ; S ft 2 ~ S S (» fi £ l« £ £ £ * o K £ » £ £ z R « 3 2 8 o b s fi o £ 2 e J 1 5 S s 1 | s S § K n a J* It O E a g £ t s * a «; ; • 2 I s a Rl 2 * s i £ i s 1 £ 2 s s iT ab le  L . Ka ye nt a br an ch  P ue blo  II  fa un al  d ata . 1 £ B £ £ « O o iT ab le  L . Ka ye nt a br an ch  P ue blo  II  fa un al  d ata . 1 » 5 2 ? 3, p iT ab le  L . Ka ye nt a br an ch  P ue blo  II  fa un al  d ata . 1 s s o i s C * « o g t fi o a o iT ab le  L . Ka ye nt a br an ch  P ue blo  II  fa un al  d ata . 1 S a 2 n O > ° s iT ab le  L . Ka ye nt a br an ch  P ue blo  II  fa un al  d ata . 1 t g a s g 6 g s • s o 5 £ £ iT ab le  L . Ka ye nt a br an ch  P ue blo  II  fa un al  d ata . 1 Si - — IN ° n s s iT ab le  L . Ka ye nt a br an ch  P ue blo  II  fa un al  d ata . 1 £ s 5 5 5 * S a iT ab le  L . Ka ye nt a br an ch  P ue blo  II  fa un al  d ata . 1 =» 2 ° si 8 iT ab le  L . Ka ye nt a br an ch  P ue blo  II  fa un al  d ata . 1 S s i • • ! I id i s J? t i i 13 i 1 e 3 i i e a 1 ! E 3 I 3 ! 3 S 1 1 s 1 3 » 1 i 1 1 1 s E 5 i 5 I i a i I a I i t s K 1 ! 3 3 i i I ! i > I I I e 8 2 I 1 1 J I I < ] s 1 1 1 & 3 1 ! I * i i | I i s 1 1 J J! t I 1 B I I 1 i ! 1 II 104 A P P E N D I X 2 Table M Kayenta branch Pueblo II - Pueblo III faunal data. 1 SITE C H A C O R.S. T A X A NISP % Shrews Bats Lagamorpha I 0.8% Cottontail 30 25.0% Jackrabbit 15 12.5% Rodentia 7 5.8% Squirrels 7 5.8% Chipmunks Marmot Cynomys sp. 1 0.8% Geomyidae sp. 2 1.7% Beaver Neotoma sp. 42 35.0% Mice. Rats and Vo 2 1.7% Muskrat Porcupine Camivora Canidae Canis sp. 1 0.8% Coyote Wolf Dog Fox 1 0.8% Bear Raccoon Marten Mustelidae sp. Badger Skunk Felidae Mountain Uon Bobcat 1 0.8% Artiodactyla 3 2.5% Elk Deer 1 0.8% Antelope Mountain Sheep Bison Large Mammal Medium Mammal Small Mammal Waterfowl Canada Goose Ducks Blue-winged teal Merganser Falconifoimes Turkey Vulture I 0.8% Eagle Hawk Falco sp. Grouse Turkey Quail Sandhill Crane Mourning Dove Owls American Coot Caprimulgidae Apodifonnes Flicker Passeriformes Homed Lark Meadowlark Dark-eyed Junco Towhee Swallows Corvidae Wrens Turdidae Shrikes Blackbirds Fringillidae Macaw Large Bird Small/Medium Bird Amphibian/Repnle Amphibian 1 0.8% Reptile 1 0.8% Fish 3 2.5% Speotyto cunicularia- Succinedae Total 120 105 A P P E N D I X 2 Table N. San Juan - Mesa Verde branch Basketmaker HI faunal data. 1 1 1 SITE 5LP110 SLP111 DOLORES Per NISP SUM NISP FREQ FREQ. SUV FS/#SITES T A X A NISP % NISP % NISP % Shrews Bats Lagamorpha 8 1.1% 7 0.9% 15 0.7% 0.01980041 0.7% Cottontail 67 9.0% 30 4.7% 133 17.3% 230 10.7% 0.30929437 103% Jackrabbit 12 1.6% 5 0.8% 67 8.7% 84 3.9% 0.11088974 3.7% Rodentia 1 0.2% 11 1.4% 12 0.6% 0.01584821 0.5% Squirrels 1 0.1% 2 0.3% 26 3.4% 29 1.3% 0.03822992 1.3% Chipmunks Marmot 2 0.3% 8 1.3% 13 1.7% 23 1.1% 0.03206049 1.1% Cynomys sp. 1 0.1% 95 12.3% 96 4.5% 0.12471531 4.2% Geomyidae sp. 5 0.7% 16 2.1% 21 1.0% 0.02747266 0.9% Beaver 9 1.2% 9 0.4% 0.01168831 0.4% Neotoma sp. 5 0.8% 2 0.3% 7 0.3% 0.0104099 03% Mice. Rats and Vole 85 11.4% 3 0.5% 1 0.1% 89 4.1% 0.11977469 4.0% Muskrat Porcupine 6 0.8% 6 0.3% 0.00779221 0.3% Camivora 8 1.0% 8 0.4% 0.01038961 0.3% Canidae 2 0.3% 2 0.1% 0.0025974 0.1% Canis sp. 420 56.2% 5 0.6% 425 19.7% 0.5687425 19.0% Coyote 1 0.2% 5 0.6% 6 0.3% 0.00805601 0 3 % Wolf 110 14.7% 2 0.3% 112 5.2% 0.14985309 5.0% Dog 3 0.4% 557 87.0% 20 2.6% 580 26.9% O.9O030259 30.0% Fox 2 0.3% 23 3.0% 25 1.2% 0.03299513 1.1% Bear 2 0.3% 3 0.4% 5 0.2% 0.0070211 0.2% Raccoon Marten Mustelidae sp. Badger Skunk Felidae Mountain Lion Bobcat 8 1.0% 8 0.4% 0.01038961 0.3% Artiodactyla 104 13.5% 104 4.8% 0.13506494 4.5% Elk 9 1.2% 1 0.1% 10 0.5% 0.01334689 0.4% Deer 15 2.0% 18 2.8% 151 19.6% 184 8.5% 0.24430922 8.1% Antelope 15 1.9% 15 0.7% 0.01948052 0.6% Mountain Sheep 14 1.8% 14 0.6% 0.01818182 0.6% Bison Large Mammal Medium Mammal Small Mammal Waterfowl • Canada Goose 1 0.1% 1 0.0% 0.0012987 0.0% Ducks Blue-winged teal Merganser Falconiformes Turkey Vulture Eagle 2 0.3% 2 0.1% 0.0025974 0.1% Hawk Falco sp. Grouse 11 1.4% 11 0.5% 0.01428571 0.5% Turkey 9 1.2% 6 0.9% 4 0.5% 19 0.9% 0.026618 0.9% Quail Sandhill Crane Mourning Dove Owls American Coot Caprimulgidae Apodifonnes Flicker 2 0.3% 2 0.1% 0.0025974 0.1% Passeriformes 1 0.1% 1 0.0% 0.0012987 0.0% Homed Lark Meadowlark Dark-eyed Junco Towhee 1 0.1% . 1 0.0% 0.0012987 0.0% Swallows Corvidae 1 0.1% 1 0.0% 0.0012987 0.0% Wrens Turdidae Shrikes Blackbirds Fringillidae Macaw Large Bird Small/Medium Bird Amphibian/Reptile Amphibian Reptile Fish Speotyto cunicularia Succinedae Total 747 640 770 2157 106 A P P E N D I X 2 Table O. San Juan - Mesa Verde branch Basketmaker III - Pueblo I faunal data SITE 42SA6757 T A X A NISP % Shrews Bats Lagamorpha Cottontail 98 30.7% Jackrabbit IS 4.7% Rodentia 1 0 3 % Squirrels 1 0.3% Chipmunks Marmot Cynomys sp. 5 1.6% Oeomyidae sp. 2 0.6% Beaver Neotoma sp. 1 0 3 % Mice. Rats and Voles 7 2.2% Muskrat Porcupine Camivora Canidae Canis sp. Coyote Wolf Dog 3 0.9% Fox Bear Raccoon Marten Mustelidae sp. Badger 3 0.9% Skunk Felidae Mountain Lion Bobcat Artiodactyla 14 4.4% Elk Deer 1 0 3 % Antelope Mountain Sheep 9 '"2.8% Bison Large Mammal 57 17.9% Medium Mammal Small Mammal 102 32.0% Waterfowl Canada Goose Ducks Blue-winged teal Merganser Falconiformes Turkey Vulture Eagle Hawk Falco sp. Grouse Turkey Quail Sandhill Crane Mourning Dove Owls American Coot Caprimulgidae Apodiformes Flicker Passeriformes Homed Lark Meadowlark Dark-eyed Junco Towhee Swallows Corvidae Wrens Turdidae Shrikes Blackbirds FringiUidae Macaw Large Bird Small/Medium Bird Amphibian/Reptile Amphibian Reptile Fish Speotyto cunicularia Succinedae Total 319 107 A P P E N D I X 2 Table P. San Juan - Mesa Verde branch Pueblo I faunal data. 1 1 1 SITE DOLORES Per; DOLORES Per: DOLORES Pep NISP SUM NISP FREQ FREQ. SUM FS/fSITES T A X A NISP % NISP % NISP % Shrews 8 0.3% 8 0.1% 0.00292398 0.1% Bats Lagamorpha 25 0.9% 19 0.8% 28 1.9% 72 1.1% 0.03539191 1.2% Cottontail 1039 38.0% 605 23.9% 301 20.1% 1945 28.8% 0.82044901 27.3% Jackrabbit 398 14.5% 319 12.6% 189 12.7% ,906 13.4% 0.39811067 13.3% Rodentia 39 1.4% 54 2.1% 20 1.3% 113 1.7% 0.04899358 1.6% Squirrels 156 5.7% 89 3.5% 57 3.8% 302 4.5% 0.13036193 4.3% Chipmunks Marmot 103 3.8% 104 4.1% 38 2.5% 245 3.6% 0.10420425 3.5% Cynomys sp. 145 5.3% 46 1.8% 60 4.0% 251 3.7% 0.11134673 3.7% Oeomyidae sp. 31 1.1% U l 4.4% 33 2.2% 175 2.6% 0.07730963 2.6% Beaver 11 0.4% 16 0.6% 20 1.3% 47 0.7% 0.02373396 0.8% Neotoma sp. 32 1.2% 131 5.2% 28 1.9% 191 2.8% 0.08223667 2.7% Mice. Rats and Vole: 92 3.4% 97 3.8% 54 3.6% 243 3.6% 0.10812539 3.6% Muskrat I 0.0% 2 0.1% 3 0.0% 0.0017341 0.1% Porcupine 20 0.7% 55 2.2% 21 1.4% 96 1.4% 0.04311389 1.4% Carnivora 3 0.1% 11 0.4% 15 1.0% 29 0.4% 0.0154862 0.5% Canidae 5 0.2% 4 0.2% 2 0.1% 11 0.2% 0.00474783 0.2% Canis sp. 11 0.4% 25 1.0% 32 2.1% 68 1.0% 0.03S32481 1.2% Coyote 7 0.3% 4 0.2% 11 0.2% 0.00414013 0.1% Wolf 1 0.1% 1 0.0% 0.00066934 0.0% Dog 65 2.4% . 184 7.3% 29 1.9% 278 4.1% 0.11592432 3.9% Fox 12 0.4% 3 0.1% 15 0.2% 0.0055722 0.2% Bear 2 0.1% 10 0.7% 12 0.2% 0.00748427 0.2% Raccoon Marten 1 0.0% 1 0.0% 0.00039541 0.0% Mustelidae sp. 2 0.1% 2 0.1% 2 0.1% 6 0.1% 0.00286051 0.1% Badger 7 0.3% 1 0.0% 1 0.1% 9 0.1% 0.00362324 0.1% Skunk 1 0.0% 1 0.1% 2 0.0% 0.00106476 0.0% Felidae Mountain Uon Bobcat 5 0.2% 6 0.2% 6 0.4% 17 0.3% 0.00821603 0.3% Artiodactyla 82 3.0% 197 7.8% 245 16.4% 524 7.8% 0.27185645 9.1% Elk 3 0.1% 4 0.2% 9 0.6% 16 0.2% 0.00870224 0.3% Deer 298 10.9% 322 12.7% 222 14.9% 842 12.5% 0.38483556 12.8% Antelope 9 0.3% 7 0.3% 6 0.4% 22 0.3% 0.01007343 0.3% Mountain Sheep 7 0.3% 7 0.3% 7 0.5% 21 0.3% 0.01001178 0.3% Bison Large Mammal Medium Mammal Small Mammal Waterfowl 2 0.1% 1 0.1% 3 0.0% 0.00146017 0.0% Canada Goose 2 0.1% 1 0.0% 1 0.1% 4 0.1% 0.00179575 0.1% Ducks 6 0.2% 6 0.1% 0.00237248 0.1% Blue-winged teal Merganser Falconifonnes 2 0.1% 1 0.0% 5 0.3% 8 0.1% 0.00447313 0.1% Turkey Vulture 1 0.0% 1 0.0% 0.0003655 0.0% Eagle 2 0.1% 1 0.1% 3 0.0% 0.00146017 0.0% Hawk 1 0.0% 1 0.1% 2 0.0% 0.00106476 0.0% Falco sp. 12 0.4% 2 0.1% 14 0.2% 0.00517679 0.2% Grouse 28 1.0% 43 1.7% 24 1.6% 95 1.4% 0.04330094 1.4% Turkey 39 1.4% 17 0.7% 16 1.1% 72 1.1% 0.03168592 1.1% Quail 4 0.2% 4 0.1% 0.00158165 0.1% Sandhill Crane 16 0.6% 16 0.2% 0.00584795 0.2% Mourning Dove 1 0.0% 1 0.0% 0.00039541 0.0% Owls 1 0.0% 1 0.0% 0.00039541 0.0% American Coot Caprimulgidae Apodifonnes Flicker 3 0.1% 1 0.0% 4 0.1% 0.0014919 0.0% Passeriformes 12 0.4% 2 0.1% 2 0.1% 16 0.2% 0.00651548 . 0.2% Homed Lark Meadowlark 1 0.0% 1 0.0% 0.0003655 0.0% Dark-eyed Junco Towhee 2 0.1% 8 0.3% 10 0.1% 0.0038943 0.1% Swallows Corvidae 2 0.1% 5 0.2% 2 0.1% 9 0.1% 0.00404675 0.1% Wrens Turdidae Shrikes Blackbirds Fringillidae 1 0.0% 1 0.0% 0.0003655 0.0% Macaw Large Bird Small/Medium Bird Amphibian/Reptile Amphibian 4 0.2% 4 0.1% 0.00158165 0.1% Reptile 2 0.1% 2 0.0% 0.00133869 0.0% Fish Speotyto cunicularia Succinedae Total 2736 2529 1494 6759 108 A P P E N D I X 2 Table Q. San Juan - Mesa Verde branch Pueblo II faunal data. 1 1 1 1 SITE 5MT1786 DOLORES Per DOLORES Pen C M UOG4X-3 NISP SUM NISP FREQ FREQ. SUM FS/#SITES T A X A NISP % NISP % NISP % NISP % Shrews 1 0.0% 1 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Bats Lagamorpha 14 8.0% 73 1.9% 2 0.1% 2 2.2% 91 1.4% 0.12096273 2.4% Cottontail 55 31.3% 633 16.2% 724 28.7% 33 36.3% 1445 21.6% 1.12389694 22.5% Jackrabbit 9 5.1% 836 21.4% 265 10.5% 3 3 3 % 1113 16.6% 0.40271641 8.1% Rodentia 56 1.4% 39 1.5% 5 5.5% 100 1.5% 0.08471293 1.7% Squirrels 1 0.6% 123 3.1% 167 6.6% ' 1 1.1% 292 4.4% 0.11430574 2 3 % Chipmunks 1 0.0% 1 0.0% 0.00025543 0.0% Marmot 5S 1.4% 24 1.0% 79 1.2% 0.02356479 0.5% Cynomys sp. 2 1.1% 120 3.1% 124 4.9% 246 3.7% 0.0911823 1.8% Geomyidae sp. 1 0.6% 82 2.1% 29 1.1% 112 1.7% 0.03812571 0.8% Beaver 38 1.0% 26 1.0% 64 1.0% 0.02001554 0.4% Neotoma sp. 2 1.1% 34 0.9% 25 1.0% 61 0.9% 0.02996095 0.6% Mice, Rats and Voles 40 22.7% 102 2.6% 25 1.0% 4 4.4% 171 2.6% 0.30719518 6.1% Muskrat 1 0.0% 1 0.0% 0.00039651 0.0% Porcupine 38 1.0% 64 2.5% 102 1.5% 0.03S08294 0.7% Camivora 31 0.8% 7 0 3 % 1 1.1% 39 0.6% 0.02168285 0.4% Canidae 24 0.6% 18 0.7% 42 0.6% 0.01326746 0.3% Canis sp. 4 2.3% 123 3.1% 18 0.7% 145 2.2% 0.06128209 1.2% Coyote Wolf 1 0.0% 2 0.1% 3 0.0% 0.00104845 0.0% Dog 67 1.7% 25 1.0% 92 1.4% 0.02702643 0.5% Fox 2 0.1% 28 1.1% 30 0.4% 0.01161316 0.2% Bear 3 0.1% 3 0.1% 6 0.1% 0.00195582 0.0% Raccoon Marten 1 0.0% 1 0.0% 0.00039651 0.0% Mustelidae sp. 1 0.0% 16 0.6% 17 0.3% 0.0065996 0.1% Badger 3 0.1% 3 0.1% 6 0.1% 0.00195582 0.0% Skunk 1 0.0% 1 0.0% 0.0003965! 0.0% Felidae Mountain Lion 1 0.0% 1 0.0% 0.00025543 0.0% Bobcat 9 0.2% 24 1.0% 33 0.5% 0.01181511 0.2% Artiodactyla 515 13.2% 215 8.5% 4 4.4% 734 10.9% 0.26075118 5.2% Elk 24 0.6% 101 4.0% 125 1.9% 0.04617785 0.9% Deer 611 15.6% 330 13.1% 941 14.0% 0.28691494 5.7% Antelope 21 0.5% 30 1.2% 51 0.8% 0.01725931 0 3 % Mountain Sheep 18 0.5% 40 1.6% 2 2.2% 60 0.9% 0.04243615 0.8% Bison Large Mamma! 20 11.4% 3 3.3% 23 0 3 % 0.1466034 2.9% Medium Mammal 1 0.6% 1 0.0% 0.00568182 0.1% Small Mammal 3 1.7% 31 34.1% 34 0.5% 0.3577048 7.2% Water fowl 5 0.1% 4 0.2% 9 0.1% 0.00286318 0.1% Canada Goose 3 0.1% 2 0.1% 5 0.1% 0.0015593 0.0% Ducks 3 0.1% 3 0.1% 6 0.1% 0.00195582 0.0% Blue-winged teal Merganser Falconiformes 1 0.0% 1 0.0% 0.00025543 0.0% Turkey Vulture Eagle 1 0.0% 9 0.4% 10 0.1% 0.00382402 0.1% Hawk 13 0.3% 7 0.3% 20 0.3% 0.00609614 0.1% Falco sp. 2 0.1% 2 0.0% 0.00079302 0.0% Grouse S 4.5% 44 1.1% 52 2.1% 104 1.6% 0.07731193 1.5% Turkey 16 9.1% 178 4.5% 49 1.9% 243 3.6% 0.15580427 3.1% Quail Sandhill Crane 2 0.1% 1 0.0% 3 0.0% 0.00090737 0.0% Mourning Dove 1 0.0% 1 0.0% 2 0.0% 0.00065194 0.0% Owls 5 0.1% 6 0.2% 11 0.2% 0 0036562 0.1% American Coot Caprimulgidae Apodiformes Bicker Passeriformes 1 0.0% 2 0.1% 3 0.0% 0.00104845 0.0% Horned Lark Meadowlark Dark-eyed Junco Towhee Swallows Corvidae 9 0.2% . 7 0.3% 16 0.2% 0.00507443 0.1% Wrens Turdidae Shrikes Blackbirds Fringillidae Macaw Large Bird Small/Medium Bird 1 1.1% 1 0.0% 0.01098901 0.2% Amphibian/Reptile Amphibian 2 0.1% 2 0.0% 0.00051086 0.0% Reptile 1 0.0% 1 1.1% 2 0.0% 0.01124444 0.2% Fish Speotyto cunicularia Succinedae Total 176 3915 2522 91 6704 109 A P P E N D I X 2 Table R. San Juan - Mesa Verde branch Pueblo II - Pueblo III faunal data. i 1 1 SITE DOLORES Per" Big Westwater Ruin 42SA6396 NISP SUM NISP FREQ FREQ. SUM FS/#SiTES T A X A NISP % NISP % NISP % Shrews Bats Lagamorpha 42 5.2% 1 0.1% 43 1.6% 0.0526718 1.8% Cottontail 251 31.0% 243 47.5% 260 19.7% 754 28.5% 0.98139201 32.7% Jackrabbit 47 5.8% 41 8.0% 95 7.2% 183 6.9% 0.20998104 7.0% Rodentia 56 6.9% 2 0.4% 2 0.2% 60 2.3% 0.07463923 2.5% Squirrels 28 3.5% 36 2.7% 64 2.4% 0.06182151 2.1% Chipmunks Marmot 2 0.2% 2 0.1% 0.00247219 0.1% Cynomyssp. 60 7.4% 10 2.0% 7 0.5% 77 2.9% 0.09898789 3.3% Oeomyidae sp. 20 2.5% 13 2.5% 44 3.3% 77 2.9% 0.08337025 2.8% Beaver 17 2.1% 17 0.6% 0.0210136 0.7% Neotoma sp. 32 4.0% 47 9.2% 8 0.6% 87 3.3% 0.13739874 4.6% Mice. Rats and Vole 49 6.1% 56 4.2% 105 4.0% 0.10289665 3.4% Muskrat 2 0.2% 2 0.1% 0.00247219 0.1% Porcupine 2 0.2% 2 0.1% 0.00247219 0.1% Carnivora 3 0.4% 3 0.1% 0.00370828 0.1% Canidae 2 0.2% 1 0.1% 3 0.1% 0.00322805 0.1% Canis sp. 1 0.1% 1 0.2% 2 0.1% 0.00318922 0.1% Coyote 4 0.5% 8 1.6% 1 0.1% 13 0.5% 0.02132523 0.7% Wolf Dog 38 2.9% 38 1.4% 0.0287226 1.0% Fox 9 1.1% 11 2.1% 20 0.8% 0.03260922 1.1% Bear Raccoon Marten Mustelidae sp. 1 0.1% 1 0.0% 0.00123609 0.0% Badger 3 0.4% 5 0.4% 8 0.3% 0.00748757 0.2% Skunk 1 0.2% 1 0.0% 0.00195313 0.1% Felidae Mountain Lion Bobcat 5 0.6% 5 0.2% 0.00618047 0.2% Artiodactyla 41 5.1% 12 0.9% 53 2.0% 0.05975015 2.0% Elk 6 0.7% 1 0.1% 7 0.3% 0.00817242 0.3% Deer 66 8.2% 26 5.1% 2 0.2% 94 3.6% 0.13387517 4.5% Antelope 3 0.4% 3 0.1% 0.00370828 0.1% Mountain Sheep 7 0.9% 8 0.6% 15 0.6% 0.01469952 0.5% Bison Large Mammal 4 0.8% 143 10.8% 147 5.6% 0.11590018 3.9% Medium Mammal Small Mammal 21 4.1% 348 26.3% 369 14.0% 0.30405417 10.1% Water fowl Canada Goose Ducks 1 0.1% 1 0.2% 2 0.1% 0.00318922 0.1% Blue-winged teal Merganser Falconif ormes Turkey Vulture Eagle Hawk 7 0.9% 7 0.3% 0.00865266 0.3% Falco sp. Grouse 15 1.9% 15 0.6% 0.01854141 0.6% Turkey 10 1.2% 42 8.2% 59 4.5% 111 4.2% 0.13898781 4.6% Quail 1 0.1% 1 0.0% 0.00075586 0.0% Sandhill Crane 1 0.1% 2 0.2% 3 0.1% 0.00274781 0.1% Mourning Dove Owls 2 0.4% 2 0.1% 0.00390625 0.1% American Coot 3 0.6% 3 0.1% 0.00585938 0.2% Caprimulgidae Apodiformes Flicker Passeriformes 4 0.5% 1 0.1% 5 0.2% 0.00570023 0.2% Homed Lark Meadowlark 1 0.2% 1 0.0% 0.00195313 0.1% Dark-eyed Junco Towhee Swallows Corvidae 10 1.2% 10 0.4% 0.01236094 0.4% Wrens Turdidae 2 0.2% 2 0.1% 0.00151172 0.1% Shrikes Blackbirds FringiUidae Macaw Large Bird Small/Medium Bird Amphibian/Reptile Amphibian Reptile 2 0.2% 35 6.8% 190 14.4% 227 8.6% 0.21444456 7.1% Fish Speotyto cunicularia Succinedae Total 809 512 1323 2644 110 A P P E N D I X 2 b 1 1 ft 1 vt Bt tft «! o Bt o Bt 0« 1 It *) * Q O st Bt a o «< Bt £ »t 1 £ Bt 1 « »t Bt st Bt * 0« d Bt a i« i 8 It O 5 X X X X X vt jt X n ft J e 8 o i 3 ! g I 1 J I 3 | o i 1 o 5 s o 1 s I j | | | 1 n \ 1 3 o 3 i \ 3 1 o a ! J \ j | I a 1 j 8 j J 1 1 5 q i o ! j i J ! J 3 S 3 3 s 1 i e z s a* o «* # ? B* «* o £ 8 Bt n «t t o st 1 S * st © Bt d o B* Q O 8 o Bt 8 B» n o st st o St Bt * It 8 s Bt d a «t § st o Bt Bt Bt Q O 8 o 8 8 © st 8 i vt o 8 © st i z s S S S s R R § * ~ 2 s ? s A « 1 5 1 si 1* «* <1 | Bt «t Bt Bt S It n st 2 Bt st st st i st st st st 2 X vt st S ft z s S *° * ' T " J •A i ft Bt o *t •** Bt *t T vt Q Bt 1 *• st st P vt •* £ Bt st st •n a »» jt X ft Si ft z £ - 2 5 s * K S vt £ 8 i t * at 1 «t Bt «t Bt Bt d st st d Bt a ft s> s» vt 0 5 st i ft z s ft n T, " a V 3 # 8 5 5 «t «n o Bt Bt * st st n £ It st Bt »t X vt d vt g R « ? T R | * 1 x vt ft * * rt Bt «t Bt st Q st •9 * Bt st st st n st Bt Bt st 2 It It 8 Bt Bt vt vt vt Q X st R ft © ft z ? ? ? 9 a s R - $ R s 3 3 £ £ •* Bt Bt St < st •p st st st vt «t i z «> B I* * «t Bt Bt Bt Bt It st st It Bt st £ s vt i & z °~ ? S "" s S ? V £ 8 * Bt »t st a Bt st st n It 8 K vt vt v) i ft z n ™ " s B * 1 8 a* It S> Bt Bt Bt it st It n Bt © i s *~ " R S * * £ Bt 2 It «t It Q «t Bt Bt It It st Bt s Bt n vt st g Bt •n «t £ fc z n s a - " "* R s " a Fl 3 vt ft £ g «t 2 £ It n Bt O B* n o Bt 2 Bt n o It 2 vt Q ft © 8 It n vt » Bt 3 •a 1 a z X m ™ " " ™ *" ** u ~3 c It It Q * £ It It Bt It R Bt •6 It vt ft 3 1 fe z - "* 3 o vt 6* R it i t Bt £ (ft £ £ st Bt St Bt s st Bt Bt »t ft ft .O O ft z 2 a fi P- •S at i« 8 Bt Bt •t Bt Bt n Bt st I* Bt vt 1 & z 2 2 M Z -Xi I* «* c | It It i« st jn Bt Bt Bt Bt It * it •n $ vt > i ft z n « - s fj a * at £ * Bt st st B* n It 1* g Bt Bt C I< 8 st *t g ft 4 K ft « £ | z - 8 R - 2 * Si s & i § 3 vt vt |n it i* Bt st *t 8 £ Bt X | ft z >o - = s U .O Cl E- X < f 1 1 J I i I 1 a | 1 s i s 1 I D S 1 t > I ft .5 1 s 1 I } J i a i 1 i i \ i ! X i ] 1 1 ! < C 1 i 1 j 1 2 j \ 1 | \ \ i 1 i 4 1 1 I •a > ! I t S D i I t & i 1 j 1 1 < 1 1 i | 1 i i f2 c j 4 i 4 = 3 i i 1 •k t 1 1 4 i •s 111 A P P E N D I X 2 Table T. Rio Grande branch Pueblo II - Pueblo III faunal data. I I SITE San Antonio Eariy T A X A NISP % Shrews Bats Lagamorpha Cottontail 62 13.4% Jackrabbit 9 1.9% Rodentia Squirrels 3 0.6% Chipmunks Marmot Cynomys sp. 18 3.9% Oeomyidae sp. 3 0.6% Beaver Neotoma sp. Mice, Rats and Vole 35 7.6% Muskrat Porcupine 3 0.6% Carnivora Canidae Canis sp. Coyote Wolf Dog Fox Bear Raccoon Marten Mustelidae sp. Badger Skunk Felidae Mountain Lion Bobcat 1 0.2% Artiodactyla Elk Deer 2 0.4% Antelope 6 13% Mountain Sheep Bison Large Mammal Medium Mammal Small Mammal Water fowl Canada Goose Ducks Blue-winged teal Merganser Falconif ormes Turkey Vulture Eagle Hawk Falco sp. Grouse Turkey 283 61.3% Quail Sandhill Crane Mourning Dove Owls American Coot Caprimulgidae Apodiformes Flicker Passeriformes Homed Lark Meadowlark Dark-eyed Junco Towhee Swallows Corvidae Wrens Turdidae Shrikes Blackbirds Fringillidae Macaw Large Bird Small/Medium Bird Amphibian/Reptile Amphibian Reptile 37 8.0% Fish Speotyto cunicularia Succinedae Total 462 112 A P P E N D I X 3 Table A . Stable carbon isotope values for Anasazi individuals. S I T E / S A M P L E N O . L O C A T I O N P E R I O D d l 3 C R R E F E R E N C E B u 9 - 6 Cedar Mesa Basketmaker II -7.9 Matson and Chisholm 1991 B C 3 5 - 2 Cedar Mesa Basketmaker II -7.5 Matson and Chisholm 1991 NRC19 .1#18 Cedar Mesa Basketmaker II -7.5 Matson and Chisholm 1991 N R C 1 9 . 1 #17 Cedar Mesa Basketmaker II -7.7 Matson and Chisholm 1991 Oldman Cave Fea. 3 Comb Wash Basketmaker II -13.1 Chisholm and Matson inpress Oldman Cave Fea. 14 Comb Wash Basketmaker II -14.1 Chisholm and Matson inpress Nonsite Mesa Verde Basketmaker II] -8.27 Decker and Tieszen 1989 Badger House (1676) #1 Mesa Verde Pueblo I -8.91 Decker and Tieszen 1989 Badger House (1676) #2 Mesa Verde Pueblo I -8.71 Decker and Tieszen 1989 Badger House (1676) #5 Mesa Verde Pueblo I -8.05 Decker and Tieszen 1989 Badger House (1676) #6 Mesa Verde Pueblo I -8.73 Decker and Tieszen 1989 Badger House (1676) #8 Mesa Verde Pueblo I -8.24 Decker and Tieszen 1989 Badger House (1676) #9 Mesa Verde Pueblo I -10.81 Decker and Tieszen 1989 Two Raven House (1645) #1 Mesa Verde Pueblo II -9.33 Decker and Tieszen 1989 Two Raven House (1645) #2 Mesa Verde Pueblo II -8.75 Decker and Tieszen 1989 Two Raven House (1645) #3 Mesa Verde Pueblo II -8.76 Decker and Tieszen 1989 Two Raven House (1645) #5 Mesa Verde Pueblo II -8.72 Decker and Tieszen 1989 Two Raven House (1645) #7 Mesa Verde Pueblo II -8.68 Decker and Tieszen 1989 Two Raven House (1645) #8 Mesa Verde Pueblo II -8.59 Decker and Tieszen 1989 Two Raven House (1645) #9 Mesa Verde Pueblo II -8.34 Decker and Tieszen 1989 Two Raven House (1645) #10 Mesa Verde Pueblo II -8.27 Decker and Tieszen 1989 Two Raven House (1645) #12 Mesa Verde Pueblo II -8.39 Decker and Tieszen 1989 820 #12 Mesa Verde Pueblo II/III -8.82 Decker and Tieszen 1989 820 #13 Mesa Verde Pueblo II/III -8.33 Decker and Tieszen 1989 820 #14 Mesa Verde Pueblo II/III -8.28 Decker and Tieszen 1989 820 #17 Mesa Verde Pueblo II/III -8.81 Decker and Tieszen 1989 820 #20 Mesa Verde Pueblo II/III -9.39 Decker and Tieszen 1989 Badger House (1452) #2 Mesa Verde Pueblo II/III -8.28 Decker and Tieszen 1989 Badger House (1452) #4 Mesa Verde Pueblo II/III -6.37 Decker and Tieszen 1989 Badger House (1452) #7 Mesa Verde Pueblo II/III -8.61 Decker and Tieszen 1989 Badger House (1452) #11 Mesa Verde Pueblo II/III -8.36 Decker and Tieszen 1989 Badger House (1452) #12 Mesa Verde Pueblo II/III -8.26 Decker and Tieszen 1989 Badger House (1452) #15 Mesa Verde Pueblo II/III -7.79 Decker and Tieszen 1989 Badger House (1452) #18 Mesa Verde Pueblo n/III -8.02 Decker and Tieszen 1989 Badger House (1452) #25 Mesa Verde Pueblo II/III -8.76 Decker and Tieszen 1989 Badger House (1452) #27 Mesa Verde Pueblo II/III -9.06 Decker and Tieszen 1989 Badger House (1452) #29 Mesa Verde Pueblo II/III -8.72 Decker and Tieszen 1989 G G C 12 Cedar Mesa Pueblo II/III -7.4 Matson and Chisholm 1991 HS C3-1 #26 Cedar Mesa Pueblo II/III -7.1 Matson and Chisholm 1991 2559 #7 Mancos Canyo Pueblo III -8.12 Decker and Tieszen 1989 2741 #3 Mancos Canyo Pueblo III -8.47 Decker and Tieszen 1989 2785 #6 Mancos Canyo Pueblo III -8.65 Decker and Tieszen 1989 2785#14 Mancos Canyo Pueblo III -7.86 Decker and Tieszen 1989 Bu3x-10a Cedar Mesa Pueblo III -7.3 Matson and Chisholm 1991 113

Cite

Citation Scheme:

    

Usage Statistics

Country Views Downloads
United States 15 1
Japan 2 0
Romania 2 0
Canada 1 4
China 1 3
Tanzania 1 0
City Views Downloads
Colorado Springs 8 0
Unknown 4 25
Everett 2 0
Tokyo 2 0
Atlanta 1 0
Lewes 1 0
Hemet 1 0
Kirkland 1 0
Beijing 1 1
Ashburn 1 0

{[{ mDataHeader[type] }]} {[{ month[type] }]} {[{ tData[type] }]}

Share

Share to:

Comment

Related Items