UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Analysis and interpretation of faunal remains from a complex site in the Fraser-Delta region of British.. 1974

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

Item Metadata

Download

Media
UBC_1974_A8 I43.pdf
UBC_1974_A8 I43.pdf [ 3.99MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 1.0058377.json
JSON-LD: 1.0058377+ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 1.0058377.xml
RDF/JSON: 1.0058377+rdf.json
Turtle: 1.0058377+rdf-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 1.0058377+rdf-ntriples.txt
Citation
1.0058377.ris

Full Text

ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF FAUNAL REMAINS FROM A COMPLEX SITE IN THE FRASER-DELTA REGION OF BRITISH COLUMBIA: GLENROSE CANNERY, DgRr 6 by SHIRLEY SUMIE IMAMOTO B.A., U n i v e r s i t y o f Hawaii, 1971 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS i n the Department of Anthropology and S o c i o l o g y We accept t h i s t h e s i s as conforming t o the requia^Ql standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA May, 1974 In presenting t h i s t h e s i s i n p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t of the requirements f o r an advanced degree at the U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree that the L i b r a r y s h a l l make i t f r e e l y a v a i l a b l e f o r reference and study. I f u r t h e r agree that permission f o r extensive copying of t h i s t h e s i s f o r s c h o l a r l y purposes may be granted by the Head of my Department or by h i s r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s . I t i s understood that copying or p u b l i c a t i o n of t h i s t h e s i s f o r f i n a n c i a l gain s h a l l not be allowed without my w r i t t e n permission. Department of Anthropology and S o c i o l o g y The U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia Vancouver 8, Canada Date 2Q A p r i l 1974 ABSTRACT The Glenrose Cannery S i t e , DgRr 6, i s a deep, m u l t i - component l o c a t e d i n the F r a s e r - D e l t a Region of B r i t i s h Columbia. This paper pres e n t s the a n a l y s i s o f the f a u n a l remains r e c o v e r e d by e x c a v a t i o n from the s i t e d u r i n g the 1972 and 1973 summer f i e l d seasons. Faunal a n a l y s i s has had l i t t l e p l a c e i n a r c h a e o l o g i c a l s i t e r e p o r t s o f the Northwest Coast and has c e r t a i n l y been underestimated as a source o f i n f o r m a t i o n on s u b s i s t e n c e and s u b s i s t e n c e - r e l a t e d a c t i v i t i e s . The f a u n a l remains from the Glenrose S i t e were ana l y s e d u s i n g d i f f e r e n t methods i n c l u d i n g d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f minimum number of i n d i v i d u a l s , l i v e weight, and amounts of u s a b l e meat. S e a s o n a l i t y o f occupation was determined and e n v i r o n - mental and c u l t u r a l r e c o n s t r u c t i o n s were attempted w i t h w i t h p a r t i c u l a r r e g a r d t o s u b s i s t e n c e and s u b s i s t e n c e - r e l a t e d a c t i v i t i e s . Changes i n s u b s i s t e n c e a c t i v i t i e s were d i s c e r n e d f o r the three major occupations r e p r e s e n t e d i n the s i t e . The problems i n f a u n a l a n a l y s i s were d i s c u s s e d . More work must be done w i t h f a u n a l remains i n order t h a t maximum amounts o f i n f o r m a t i o n can be obtained t o r e l a t e t o ot h e r analyses o f a s i t e ' s excavated m a t e r i a l s . ( i i ) TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES V LIST OF FIGURES VI ACKNOWLEDGEMENT . VII S e c t i o n Page I . INTRODUCTION 1 I I . METHODS OF RECOVERY, RECORDING AND ANALYSIS 5 S i t e D e s c r i p t i o n , Recovery, and Recording Methods 5 Labor a t o r y A n a l y s i s 9 I I I . PRESENTATION OF THE DATA 11 Component and S t r a t i g r a p h i c D i v i s i o n s R e s u l t a n t from A s s o c i a t e d Analyses . . . . 11 Minimum Number of I n d i v i d u a l s 15 R e l a t i v e Frequencies by Bone Weight and Minimum Number of I n d i v i d u a l s 20 L i v e Weight and C a l c u l a t e d Amounts of Usable Meat 28 A d d i t i o n a l Data 31 Determination o f Age of I n d i v i d u a l s 3 7 A s s o c i a t e d Faunal Remains Analyses 3 7 S e a s o n a l i t y o f Occupation 40 Environmental and C u l t u r a l R e c o n s t r u c t i o n 44 IV. CONCLUDING STATEMENTS AND COMPARISONS . . . . . 56 REFERENCES 66 ( i i i ) APPENDIX 1: Sample Faunal Remains Record Sheets. . . . 70 APPENDIX 2: Catalogue o f Faunal Remains from the Glenrose S i t e 72 APPENDIX 3: Weight and MNI of A l l Species from Glenrose 93 APPENDIX 4: Slump # 1 and Slump #2 Species L i s t . . . 95 (iv) LIST OF TABLES Table Page I Radiocarbon Dates From The Glenrose S i t e , DgRr 6 13 I I Glenrose L e v e l Component Assignments 14 I I I Faunal Remains from Glenrose by Species and C u l t u r a l Component w i t h minimum number o f I n d i v i d u a l s 21 IV L i v e Weights and Grams of Usable Meat f o r Species Found a t the Glenrose S i t e , DgRr 6 30 V Grams of Usable Meat by Component w i t h S i t e T o t a l s (Glenrose, DgRr 6) . . . . 32 VI V e g e t a t i o n Species P r e s e n t l y on the Glenrose Cannery S i t e , DgRr 6 46 VII Organic (Charcoal) Samples 48 V I I I Land Mammal Species and T h e i r H a b i t a t s . . . . 50 IX Raw Data f o r F i g u r e 7 55 (v) LIST OF FIGURES F i g u r e Page 1 Map o f the F r a s e r - D e l t a and G u l f I s l a n d s Showing the Glenrose Cannery S i t e , DgRr 6 2 2 P l a n Map of - DgRr 6, Showing the E x c a v a t i o n G r i d and Ex c a v a t i o n U n i t s 8 3a Minimum Number o f I n d i v i d u a l s (MNI) By Species and Component f o r the E n t i r e S i t e (Glenrose, DgRr 6) 19 3b T o t a l Minimum Number of I n d i v i d u a l s (MNI) f o r the E n t i r e S i t e (Glenrose, DgRr 6) 20 4a Percent of Each Species W i t h i n Each Component Based on Weight of Bone 2 3 4b Percent o f Each Species W i t h i n Each Component Based on Minimum Number of I n d i v i d u a l s F i g u r e s 24 5a Percent of Each Species W i t h i n Each Component and the S i t e Based on Weight o f Bone 26 5b Percent of Each Species W i t h i n Each Component and the S i t e Based on Minimum Number o f I n d i v i d u a l s F i g u r e s . . .27 6a Usable Meat by Species W i t h i n Component I I I 33 6b Usable Meat by Species W i t h i n Component I I 34 6c Usable Meat by Species W i t h i n Component I 35 6d Usable Meat by Species W i t h i n the S i t e 36 7 D i s t r i b u t i o n o f Faunal Remains by P i t 54 (vi) ACKNOWLEDGMENT I would l i k e to thank the members o f my t h e s i s committee, P r o f e s s o r s R i c h a r d Pearson, R.G. Matson, and Wilson Duff, f o r a l l t h e i r a s s i s t a n c e i n the p r e p a r a t i o n of my t h e s i s . I would a l s o l i k e t o thank Gay Boehm f o r her a s s i s t a n c e and f o r a l l o w i n g me the use o f her f a u n a l m a t e r i a l s . I am g r a t e f u l t o the s t a f f s o f the Archaeology D i v i s i o n o f the B.C. P r o v i n c i a l Museum, U.B.C. Osteology Museum, and the U.B.C. Archaeology Lab f o r t h e i r a s s i s t a n c e i n my a n a l y s i s and f o r the use of t h e i r comparative f a u n a l c o l l e c t i o n s . F i n a l l y , I am g r e a t l y indebted to a l l other persons d i r e c t l y and i n d i r e c t l y r e l a t e d to my t h e s i s work f o r t h e i r p a t i e n c e and understanding. ( v i i ) 1 I . INTRODUCTION This paper pres e n t s the a n a l y s i s o f the f a u n a l remains recovered a t the Glenrose Cannery S i t e (DgRr 6 i n the Borden s i t e d e s i g n a t i o n scheme), l o c a t e d i n the F r a s e r - D e l t a r e g i o n o f B r i t i s h Columbia (see F i g u r e 1 ) . I t i s hoped t h a t the r e s u l t s w i l l y i e l d i n f o r m a t i o n which, i n compunction w i t h other s t u d i e s o f excavated m a t e r i a l s from Glenrose can a i d i n c u l t u r a l and e n v i r o n - mental r e c o n s t r u c t i o n . Faunal a n a l y s i s has had l i t t l e p l a c e i n a r c h a e o l o g i c a l s i t e reports o f the Northwest Coast except f o r i n c i d e n t a l s p e c i e s l i s t s or bone counts and f r e q u e n c i e s (e.g., C a r l s o n 1960; M i t c h e l l 1971). Recently, however, there has been i n c r e a s i n g i n t e r e s t i n more syste m a t i c analyses of f a u n a l remains. Of p a r t i c u l a r i n t e r e s t i s the r e - search c a r r i e d out on the S t . Mungo Cannery S i t e , DgRr 2, approximately % m i l e down r i v e r from the Glenrose Cannery S i t e , and of c l o s e c u l t u r a l a f f i l i a t i o n i n some o f the l a y e r s (Boehm 1973; Matson 1973). In our area, the importance of f a u n a l remains has c e r t a i n l y been underestimated as a source o f i n f o r m a t i o n on s u b s i s t e n c e and s u b s i s t e n c e - r e l a t e d a c t i v i t i e s , a l - though there have been some major c o n t r i b u t i o n s t o the f i e l d . F l a n n e r y (1967) and Wheat (1972) have each 2 Figure 1» Map of the Fraser-Delta and Gulf Islands showing the Glenrose Cannery Site, DgRr 6a 3 produced s u b s t a n t i a l works centered around f a u n a l r e - mains, e x t r a c t i n g from t h e i r s t u d i e s i n f o r m a t i o n r e - gardi n g h u n t i n g p a t t e r n s , s e a s o n a l i t y o f occup a t i o n , c l i m a t i c trends, and even s o c i a l o r g a n i z a t i o n . Of cource, these s o r t s o f i n f o r m a t i o n are o b t a i n a b l e w i t h - out or w i t h very l i t t l e f a u n a l a n a l y s i s , as, f o r i n s t a n c e , through a r t i f a c t or se t t l e m e n t p a t t e r n s t u d i e s . However, with p a r t i c u l a r r e g a r d t o s u b s i s t e n c e or s u b s i s t e n c e - r e l a t e d a c t i v i t i e s , a r t i f a c t s alone a l l o w a r c h a e o l o g i s t s to t e s t hypotheses concerning p r e h i s t o r i c a c t i v i t i e s w i t h a very low l e v e l o f conf i d e n c e i n the absence o f r e l i a b l e ethnographic documentation ( C a s t e e l 1971). While expounding the c o n t r i b u t i o n s t h a t f a u n a l r e - mains may make, many a r c h a e o l o g i s t s have p o i n t e d out the problems most o f t e n encountered which might l e s s e n the accuracy o f the a n a l y s i s . Much has been w r i t t e n r e c e n t l y about " d i s t o r t i o n " or a " f a l s e p i c t u r e " p r e - sented by f a u n a l remains, caused by d i f f e r e n t i a l de- p o s i t i o n and by n a t u r a l and c u l t u r a l i n f l u e n c e s ( C a s t e e l 1971; Daly 1969; Lyon 1970; Payne 1972a, 1972b; Thomas 1971; White 1953). A n a t u r a l f a c t o r i n f l u e n c i n g d e p o s i - t i o n and r e p r e s e n t a t i o n might be the a c i d i t y or s a l i n i t y o f the s o i l which would f a c i l i t a t e or h i n d e r the d e t e r i o r - a t i o n o f bone elements. A l s o i t i s the case t h a t some 4 bone elements o f animals are more r e s i s t a n t t o d e t e r i o r - a t i o n than others because o f t h e i r composition and form. For i n s t a n c e , the l a r g e l o n g bones o f the e l k are more r e s i s t a n t t o d e t e r i o r a t i o n than the s m a l l e r r i b bones; the bones o f a l a r g e dog w i l l probably have b e t t e r p r e - s e r v a t i o n than those o f a s m a l l rodent. Cultural f a c t o r s i n f l u e n c i n g d e p o s i t i o n are more v a r i e d and l e s s p r e d i c t - a b l e , and, t h e r e f o r e , more d i f f i c u l t to c o n t r o l i n the a n a l y s i s o f f a u n a l remains. When a h u n t i n g p a r t y b r i n g s back a k i l l t o the s i t e , i t may be i n p a r t i a l form, as when a l a r g e animal i s butche r e d away from the s e t t l e - ment and p o r t i o n s are consumed b e f o r e the hunters r e t u r n t o the s i t e (Perkins and Daly 1968). There may be under- r e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f c e r t a i n animals by bone elements. It« i s p o s s i b l e t h a t animals used as a s u b s i s t e n c e r e s o u r c e might have no r e p r e s e n t a t i v e elements a t a s i t e because they are butchered elsewhere. Some animals may not have been used f o r food f o r one reason or another, b u t have r e p r e s e n t a t i v e elements p r e s e n t i n a s i t e . There i s , then, a d i s t o r t i o n i n h e r e n t i n the data c o l l e c t e d and the a r c h a e o l o g i s t must be aware of t h i s . With t h i s awareness, f a u n a l remains are a v a l u a b l e source o f i n f o r m a t i o n t o a r c h a e o l o g i s t s . 5 In t h i s study I have t r i e d t o a n t i c i p a t e p o s s i b l e d i s t o r t i o n s from c u l t u r a l and/or n a t u r a l f a c t o r s . I w i l l p r e s e n t an a n a l y s i s of minimum number of i n d i v i d u a l s of each s p e c i e s i d e n t i f i e d from the s i t e , l i v e weight and usable meat i n f o r m a t i o n , d i s c u s s v e r t i c a l and h o r i z o n t a l d i s t r i b u t i o n s o f the f a u n a l remains w i t h i n the s i t e , and attempt c u l t u r a l and environmental r e c o n s t r u c t i o n s . I have analysed the remains u s i n g d i f f e r e n t techniques — weight and frequency c a l c u l a t i o n s , minimum number o f i n d i v i d u a l s , l i v e weight, and usable meat — to see i f there i s a d i f f e r e n c e i n the r e s u l t s which might suggest d i f f e r e n t views about s u b s i s t e n c e and s u b s i s t e n c e - r e l a t e d a c t i v i t i e s . I t i s a l s o hoped t h a t t h i s study w i l l l e a d t o a g r e a t e r understanding o f the complex nature o f the maritime and r i v e r i n e c u l t u r a l a d a p t a t i o n s o f p r e h i s t o r i c p o p u l a t i o n s on the Northwest Coast. The primary concern, however, l i e s i n the a n a l y s i s of the f a u n a l remains and the e x p l i c a t i o n of the methods and r e s u l t s . I I . METHODS OF RECOVERY, RECORDING, AND ANALYSIS S i t e D e s c r i p t i o n , Recovery, and Recording Methods The Glenrose Cannery S i t e , DgRr 6, l i e s on the south bank of the south arm of the F r a s e r R i v e r o p p o s i t e Annacis I s l a n d (Figure 1 ). E t h n o g r a p h i c a l l y , the Glenrose S i t e 6 l i e s w i t h i n the t e r r i t o r y o f the Kwantlen group o f the Halkomelem speaking Coast S a l i s h Indians ( c f . Boehm 1973: 18; Duff 1952: 23). The Coast S a l i s h c u l t u r e i s c h a r a c t e r i z e d by complex maritime and r i v e r i n e adapt- a t i o n w i t h r e l i a n c e on h u n t i n g and g a t h e r i n g as w e l l , and an e q u a l l y complex s u b s i s t e n c e technology f o r h a r - v e s t i n g and p r e p a r i n g the v a r i e t y o f r e s o u r c e s a v a i l a b l e to them. A p a t t e r n o f annual t r a v e l s t o s e a s o n a l l y a v a i l a b l e r e s o u r c e s c h a r a c t e r i z e d many of the Coast S a l i s h t r i b e s w i t h a few exceptions o f sedentary s e t t l e - ments ( M i t c h e l l 1971: 49-50). There i s no p l a c e name from the S a l i s h f o r the Glenrose S i t e , and although there has been e x t e n s i v e ethnographic work done f o r the Coast S a l i s h (Duff 1952; B a r n e t t 1955; S u t t l e s 1951), the s i t e i t s e l f has no r e f e r e n c e s i n the l i t e r a t u r e . In the summer f i e l d seasons of 1972 and 1973, ex c a v a t i o n u n i t s o f 2m square were excavated i n 10cm a r b i t r a r y l e v e l s except when r e c o g n i z e d f e a t u r e s and/or l i v i n g f l o o r s were encountered (Figure 2 ) . The l e v e l s i n a l l of the p i t s were rec o r d e d from a s i n g l e s i t e datum. That i s , i f the s u r f a c e o f a p i t measured 2.6m below the s i t e datum, then the number o f the l e v e l was 26, and the l e v e l extended 10cm downward 7 to l e v e l 27 (2.70m below the s i t e datum). In p r i n c i p l e , i n an area of even t e r r a i n , l e v e l 25, f o r example, would de s i g n a t e the same 10cm i n t e r v a l i n each of the excava- t i o n u n i t s . D u r i n g both summer f i e l d seasons, f a u n a l remains were reco r d e d i n t h r e e ways: 1. I f t h e r e was a p a r t i c u l a r l y i n t e r e s t i n g c o n c e n t r a t i o n o f bone, or i f a r t i c u l a t e d bones were uncovered, they were de s i g n a t e d "Faunal Remains" and were g i v e n a s p e c i f i c number b e g i n n i n g w i t h "F", such as F-001, and were reco r d e d on a s p e c i a l "Faunal Remains Record Sheet". Three d i m e n s i o n a l provenience i n f o r m a t i o n was r e c o r d e d and any other p e r t i n e n t i n f o r m a t i o n (matrix, a s s o c i a t e d a r t i f a c t s , e t c . ) . The form from the 1972 e x c a v a t i o n s d i f f e r e d s l i g h t l y from the 1973 form; both are shown i n Appendix 1. 2. When a complete bone or almost complete i s o l a t e d bones were encountered, they were reco r d e d on an " A r t i f a c t Record Sheet," which o n l y r e q u i r e d three dimen- s i o n a l and m a t r i x i n f o r m a t i o n where f a u n a l remains were concerned. 3. A l l other fragments o f bone were saved by l e v e l i n bags, thus, p r e s e r v i n g a s i n g l e dimension of provenience. In a d d i t i o n , a l l the s o i l w i t h i n a l e v e l was s i f t e d through 1/4" or 1/8" mesh screens, and any bone fragments r e c o v e r e d were a l s o saved i n the l e v e l bags. D r y - s c r e e n - i n g and w a t e r - s c r e e n i n g were both employed i n the course o f the two seasons. 8 Figure 2. Plan map of DgRr 6, showing the excavation grid and excavation units 0 9 During the 1973 f i e l d season, f i e l d checks were made on the kinds o f m a t e r i a l which might f a l l through the 1/8" screens and s t i l l be r e t a i n e d i n a 1/16" scr e e n . Q u a n t i t i e s of 4000cm 3 (20cm X 20cm X 10cm b l o c k s ; 1% o f the volume of a l e v e l which was 2m X 2m X .10m) of m a t e r i a l from d i f f e r e n t l e v e l s and d i f f e r e n t p i t s were s i f t e d through an 1/8" screen which was atta c h e d to a 1/16" s c r e e n . The 1/16" screen r e t a i n e d t r a c e s o f s h e l l and bone, b ut they were f i n e l y fragmented, and the bones i n p a r t i c u l a r were too fragmented i n most cases f o r v i s u a l s e p a r a t i o n o f the b i r d bone from the mammal or f i s h bone. Laboratory A n a l y s i s The 1972 and 1973 bone l e v e l bags were analysed by others (Mayer n.d.; H a r r i s n.d.) and s p e c i f i c r e s u l t s w i l l be presented l a t e r i n t h i s paper. B a s i c a l l y , the methods they used were to separate the bones by g e n e r a l f a u n a l c l a s s e s — f i s h , l a n d mammal, sea mammal, b i r d — and to develop r e l a t i v e f r e q u e n c i e s by p i t and l e v e l o f the c l a s s e s based on weight and bone counts. These remains were, f o r the most p a r t , q u i t e fragmentary and co u l d not be i d e n t i f i e d to s p e c i e s . For t h i s paper, over 350 fragments were s o r t e d to the l e v e l o f s p e c i e s or genus. These fragments came 10 from the l e v e l bags, separate bags when t r e a t e d as a r t i - f a c t s , or were i n d i v i d u a l l y packed f a u n a l remains (F-001, F-002, e t c . ) . L e v e l bags o f t e n c o n t a i n e d fragments o f bones which c o u l d be i d e n t i f i e d t o s p e c i e s . A l l the l e v e l bags from p i t s 1-6, 8, and the baulk were i n s p e c t e d f o r i d e n t i f i a b l e bones. An i n t u i t i v e d e c i s i o n was made as t o which bones c o u l d be i d e n t i f i e d . I accomplished the b u l k o f i d e n t i f i c a t i o n myself and ha v i n g no p r e v i o u s i n s t r u c t i o n , I o f t e n had to guess which bones were worth t a k i n g out of the l e v e l bags to t r y t o i d e n t i f y . A l l bones were a l s o i d e n t i f i e d by element where p o s s i b l e and weighed and counted. The piece by p i e c e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n was accomplished w i t h the use o f the comparative c o l l e c t i o n a t the U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia's Osteology Museum and the c o l l e c t i o n a t the B r i t i s h Columbia P r o v i n c i a l Museum. In a d d i t i o n , I was a b l e t o use i d e n t i f i e d f a u n a l remains from the Archaeology Lab a t U.B.C, and f o r t u n a t e t o have the use o f Gay Boehm's i d e n t i f i e d remains from the St. Mungo S i t e . I was not abl e t o i d e n t i f y a l l the bones I had taken from the l e v e l bags; o f t e n key epiphyses were m i s s i n g or the bone fragment was too s m a l l t o show any d i s t i n c t i v e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . 11 I I I . PRESENTATION OF THE DATA Component and S t r a t i g r a p h i c D i v i s i o n s R e s u l t a n t from A s s o c i a t e d Analyses The Glenrose Cannery S i t e i s a deep, m u l t i - component midden s i t e w i t h d e p o s i t s o f up t o 6 meters ( c f . Matson 1973). The s i t e ' s s t r a t i g r a p h y r e p r e s e n t s three major o c c u p a t i o n s . The Marpole Component (Component I) i s the most r e c e n t and uppermost o c c u p a t i o n c o n s i s t i n g g e n e r a l l y of a dark sandy loam w i t h some i n t e r m i x t u r e of s h e l l ending i n a t a n s i l t y c l a y loam l a y e r . The component i s so named because o f Marpole a f f i n i t e s i n d i c a t e d by the presence of ground s l a t e k n i v e s , s l a t e d i s c beads, and c e l t s . The S t . Mungo Component (Component II) c o n s i s t s o f s h e l l l e n s e s i n p l a c e s and apparent l e n s e s o f s t e r i l e , r e d e p o s i t e d s o i l . T h i s component bears g r e a t s i m i l a r i t y t o the o l d e s t component from the St, Mungo Cannery S i t e , DgRr 2, down r i v e r from Glenrose (Boehm 1970, 1973). There are s i m i l a r i t i e s i n the presence o f d e c o r a t i v e o b j e c t s , such as bone pendants and t o o t h pendants, a spindle-shaped i n c i s e d bone o b j e c t , and g e n e r a l s i m i l a r - i t i e s i n other a r t i f a c t c l a s s e s . The Old C o r d i l l e r a n Component (Component I I I ) i n most cases i s t o t a l l y v o i d of s h e l l and i s c h a r a c t e r i z e d , p a r t i c u l a r l y i n the 12 bottom h a l f , by the presence o f well-rounded cobbles and b o u l d e r s . T h i s component i s c h a r a c t e r i s t i c a l l y s i m i l a r t o what i s o u t l i n e d as the Old C o r d i l l e r a n C u l t u r e w i t h the presence of l e a f - s h a p e d b i f a c e s and an abundance of crude pebble t o o l s ( c f . Matson 1973). Table I o u t l i n e s the r a d i o c a r b o n dates r e c e i v e d up t o the time o f t h i s w r i t i n g . These d i v i s i o n s have r e s u l t e d p r i m a r i l y from a r t i f a c t a n a l y s i s and, a t t h i s p o i n t , are s t i l l under- going f u r t h e r minor r e v i s i o n s . I t i s a l s o important t o mention t h a t the s t r a t i g r a p h i c d i v i s i o n s are de- f i n e d by an i n t e r v a l of l e v e l s f o r each p i t . That i s , i n p i t 1, the l e v e l s 37-59 r e p r e s e n t the e x t e n t o f Component I I . In p i t 5, Component I I i s r e p r e s e n t e d by l e v e l s 34-56. The complete l i s t o f d i v i s i o n s f o r each o f the p i t s appears i n Table I I . 13 TABLE I . Radiocarbon Dates From The Glenrose S i t e , DgRr 6. Code No. S t r a t i g r a p h i c U n i t Sample D e s c r i p t i o n Age GaK-4646 I #1, C h a r c o a l from P i t 2, L e v e l 33. 2310 ± 105 360 B.C. B.P. GaK-4647 I #3, C h a r c o a l from P i t 4, L e v e l 25. 2030 80 B. - 95 E C. i.P. GaK-4648 I I #33, C h a r c o a l and s h e l l s from P i t 4, L e v e l 45. 4240 2290 i n o B.C. B.P. GaK-4863 I I #63, C h a r c o a l from 1/5 Baulk, L e v e l 37. 3280 1330 ± 105 B.C. B.P. GaK-4867 I I #83, C h a r c o a l from 1/5 Baulk, L e v e l 55. 3570 1620 ± 95 B.P. B.C. GaK-4649 I I I #34, C h a r c o a l from P i t 1, L e v e l 63. 7430 5480 t 340 B.C. B.P. GaK-4650 I I I #39, C h a r c o a l from P i t 1, L e v e l 66. 5730 3780 ± 125 B.C. B.P. GaK-4864 ? #65, C h a r c o a l from P i t 7, L e v e l 36. 3700 1750 ± 120 B.C. B.P. GaK-4865 I l l q #69, C h a r c o a l from P i t 1, L e v e l 73. 6780 4830 ± 135 B.C. B.P. GaK-4866 I I I #77, C h a r c o a l from P i t 1, L e v e l 75. 8150 6200 t 250 B.C. B.P. The calculation of ages i s based on a Libby's h a l f - l i f e of C-14, 5570 years, and the i n d i c a t e d t e r r o r s are the years corresponding to the standard (one sigma) of beta rays count s t a t i s t i c a l e r r o r s . 14 TABLE I I . Glenrose L e v e l Component Assignments. These assignments were done by independently com- p a r i n g a r t i f a c t u a l b r e a k s and s t r a t i g r a p h i c b r e a k s . I f disagreement occurred, g e n e r a l l y the c r i t e r i o n t h a t showed the sharpest break was used. In g e n e r a l t h e r e was good agree- ment. P i t Marpole/St. Mungo St. Mungo/ Old C o r d i l l e r a n A r t i f a c t S t r a t . F i n a l A r t i f a c t S t r a t . F i n a l 1 35/37 36/37 36/37 59/60 59/60 59/60 5 35/36 34/35 35/36 57/58 56/59 57/58 B 35/36 35 35/36 58/59 58/59 58/59 6 31/32 31/32 31/32 (St. 42/43 Mungo may 42/45 be up t o 42/43 44 i n p: 3 22/29 22/23. 22/23 33/34 32/34 33/34 4 28/29 28/29 28/29 45/46 west w a l l 8 2 7 31/32 34/38 30/31 or - 27/28 31/32 34/35 27/28 43/35 south w a l l S t . Mungo 44/49 e a s t w a l l ? n o r t h w a l l 31/32 (No C o r d i l l e r a n and l i t t l e S t . Mungo) 34/35 27/28 41/42 30/31 41/42 41/42 30/31 Done by Matson and Peacock March 16, 1974. Su b j e c t t o r e v i s i o n anytime a f t e r March 18, 1974. 15 Minimum Number o f I n d i v i d u a l s Grayson (1973) has r e c e n t l y d i s c u s s e d the v a r i o u s approaches to grouping of f a u n a l m a t e r i a l f o r d e t e r - mining minimum number of i n d i v i d u a l s o f animals from an a r c h a e o l o g i c a l s i t e . Others have a l s o d i s c u s s e d the concept o f minimum number o f i n d i v i d u a l s (Shotwell 1955; White 1953; Payne 1972a; Daly 1969);, b u t Grayson n e a t l y summarizes the m e r i t s and drawbacks o f the approaches. Although i t i s g e n e r a l l y agreed t h a t the minimum number of i n d i v i d u a l s should be c a l c u l a t e d to account f o r a l l of the s k e l e t a l elements of a p a r t i c u l a r s p e c i e s i n a s i t e , the methods by which d e t e r m i n a t i o n s o f minimum number of i n d i v i d u a l s v a r i e s . One method d i s c u s s e d by Grayson i s to determine the MNI (minimum number o f i n d i v i d u a l s ) by i g n o r i n g the s t r a t i g r a p h i c breaks and the v e r t i c a l e x c a v a t i o n u n i t s . This would yfeld the most c o n s e r v a t i v e e s t i m a t i o n o f MNI. In terms o f the multi-component Glenrose S i t e , the MNI d e r i v e d from the f a u n a l remains w i t h t h i s method would be meaningless. One c o u l d not expect any i n f o r m - a t i o n on change i n s u b s i s t e n c e over the thousands o f years of occupation, nor any i n f o r m a t i o n on the c u l t u r a l or n a t u r a l enviroment t h a t one c o u l d i n f e r from the presence or absence o f c e r t a i n s p e c i e s through the 16 occupations r e p r e s e n t e d by the s t r a t i g r a p h i c d i v i s i o n s . A second method o f o b t a i n i n g the MNI, which Grayson c o n s i d e r s the bes t , i s by working w i t h i n the s t r a t i g r a p h i c d i v i s i o n s and i g n o r i n g the v e r t i c a l e x c a v a t i o n u n i t s . This would y i e l d more MNI than the previous method out- l i n e d . In my a n a l y s i s , I have f o l l o w e d c l o s e l y a t h i r d method which Grayson d i s c u s s e s . The method e n t a i l s the use o f the s t r a t i g r a p h i c d i v i s i o n s and a l s o the v e r t i c a l e x c a v a t i o n u n i t s . In u s i n g such a method one assumes t h a t the remains o f i n d i v i d u a l animals w i l l not be d i s t r i b u t e d a cross the s i t e and r e p r e s e n t e d i n s e v e r a l o f the v e r t i c a l u n i t s . I f i r s t d i v i d e d a l l the f a u n a l m a t e r i a l on the b a s i s of the s t r a t i g r a p h i c d i v i s i o n s , then on the b a s i s o f the e x c a v a t i o n u n i t s ( p i t s ) . W i t h i n the s t r a t i g r a p h i c d i v i s i o n s , the MNI were based on r e a l and i n t u i t i v e c l u s t e r s o f remains. I f , f o r example, there were i n a c e r t a i n l e v e l o f a p i t , l e f t and r i g h t humerus fragments found w i t h i n c e n timeters o f each other, they were c o n s i d e r e d to c o n s t i t u t e a r e a l and observable c l u s t e r , as would the a r - t i c u l a t e d remains o f a r a d i u s and u l n a . I f , on the other hand, a humerus o f a deer was found i n one l e v e l and an u l n a found i n the next l e v e l and they were i n d i f f e r e n t quandrants of the p i t as w e l l , these might be i n t u i t i v e l y c l u s t e r e d together 17 and c o n s i d e r e d as one i n d i v i d u a l r a t h e r than two. I t was a l l the more d i f f i c u l t to assess the MNI because the e x c a v a t i o n by a r b i t r a r y l e v e l s p r e c l u d e d the determin- a t i o n o f n a t u r a l s u b s t r a t a and l e n s e s of c u l t u r a l m a t e r i a l w i t h i n the major s t r a t i g r a p h i c d i v i s i o n s and o f t e n c u t through two or more o f these l a y e r s . I was unable to determine whether remains found i n d i f f e r e n t areas o f a p i t and a t d i f f e r e n t depths were i n one substratum/lens or another, and, hence, r e p r e s e n t i n g one or two i n d i v i d u a l s . Thus, I would say t h a t my estimate of MNI f o r Glenrose i s r a t h e r c o n s e r v a t i v e s i n c e I proceeded c a u t i o u s l y and minimized groupings r a t h e r than v i c e v e r s a (For a complete catalogue o f the f a u n a l remains from which a l l c a l c u l a t i o n s were made, see Appendix 2 ) . Table I I I o u t l i n e s the f a u n a l remains found a t Glenrose. There i s the i n i t i a l d i v i s i o n by s p e c i e s ( f a m i l y or sub- f a m i l y when s p e c i e s undeterminable), then by c u l t u r a l com- ponent. The t o t a l number o f fragments w i t h i n each component i s i n d i c a t e d and the s k e l e t a l p a r t s p r e s e n t are l i s t e d . The c a l c u l a t e d MNI i s a l s o i n d i c a t e d . In some cases a p r e c i s e count was not taken due to the extreme fragmentation o f some of the remains, however, r e g a r d l e s s of the fragmentation, a l l the remains were weighed. I t should be mentioned here 18 t h a t lumbar vertebrae o f d o l p h i n (genus Grampus; v e r i f i c a t i o n o f genus by p e r s o n a l communication w i t h T. Loy) were recovered a t Glenrose. They were e x t e n s i v e l y m o d i f i e d and recorded as a r t i f a c t s . Since there was no other evidence f o r the presence o f d o l p h i n a t the s i t e , they were not c o n s i d e r e d f o r my f a u n a l a n a l y s i s . The bone a r t i f a c t s were a l s o i n s p e c t e d and there was no evidence t o suggest t h a t s p e c i e s o f fauna other than those a l r e a d y i d e n t i f i e d were r e p r e s e n t e d i n the s i t e . From the t a b l e , i t i s o f t e n the case t h a t the MNI c a l c u l a t e d i s c o n s i d e r a b l y l e s s than the number o f i n d i v i d u a l fragments f o r each s p e c i e s . Although the number o f i n d i v i d u a l fragments are presented they are not used elsewhere i n the paper. One c o u l d compare the counts t o o b t a i n an i d e a o f change through time. The changes c e r t a i n l y appear to be g r e a t e r , i n terms o f decrease from component t o component, but are o f t e n q u i t e d e c e p t i v e and of very l i t t l e use. An i n c r e a s e i n the bone count c o u l d be due to i n c r e a s e d fragmentation o f s k e l e t a l elements and c e r t a i n l y i s the case'.'.for much of the Glenrose remains. I n c r e a s i n g counts do not neces- s a r i l y mean i n c r e a s i n g animals. F i g u r e 3a presents the MNI f i g u r e s i n a g r a p h i c form w i t h the lowest and o l d e s t component f i r s t and the youngest l a s t as one views the f i g u r e from l e f t t o r i g h t . Figure 3a. Minimum number of individuals (MNI) by species and component for the entire site (Glenrose, DgRr 6) <, SPECIES ELK DEER BEAR CANIS ? BEAVER RACCOON MINK SMALL RODENT SEAL GOOSE DUCK MERGANSER SWAN COMMON LOON WESTERN GREBE BALD EAGLE Figure 3b. Total minimum number of individuals (MNI) for the entire site (Glenrose, DgRr 6). to o S P E C I E S C U L T U R A L  C O M P O N E N T  3 - i i - /> < z jj o 2 z — u . D U O 5 0 0 5 z | 5 2 z ? A N T L E R  S K U L L  F R A G M E N T S  M A X IL L A  M A N D IB L E  A T L A S / A X IS  S C A P U L A  J  1 H U M E R U S  R A D IU S  1 1 < z _j Ul < z 0 z F E M U R  P A T E L L A  T IB IA  C A R P A L  T A R S A L  C A L C A N E U M  A S T R A G A L U S  M E T A P O O IA L  1s t P H A L A N X  2n d P H A L A N X  3r d P H A L A N X  O T H E R  P O S T  C R A N IA L  E L K CERVUS CANADENSIS 1 1 1 III 5 57 + 12 2 14 3 6 2 2 2 2 1 1 I 2 1 1 1 3 3 1 3 3 4 1 6 2 4 5 2 10 • 3 D E E R ODOCOILEUS HEMIONUS 11 III 34 + 44+ II 8 13 4 2 1 1 2 2 2 1 3 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 4 9 6 3 4 5 3 2 2 1 9 + 10 + B E A R URSUS AMERICANUS 1 II III 4 5 4 2 2 1 1 1 3 CANIS ? 1 II III 19 + 36 + 2 7 17 2 X X 1 5 5+ 6+ 1 5 2 4 2 1 2 3 5 5 2 1 X X X 2 + 2+ 2 B E A V E R CASTOR CANADENSIS 1 11 III 6 4 4 4 3 17 4 1 1 7 1 3 1 2 1 2 4 2 1 4 1 1 3 3 IS 1 R A C C O O N PROCYON LOT OR 1 II III 1 4 1 2 2 1 1 1 M I N K MVS TEL LA VI SON 1 1 1 III 1 2 1 2 1 2 S M A L L R O D E N T F A M I L Y PEROMYSCUS 1 II III 3 1 3 1 3 1 S E A L PHOCA VITUL IN A 1 1 1 III 6 + 23 3+ 3 10 2 2 1 1 1 2 7 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 2 X X X 1 5 X G O O S E S U B F A M I L Y ANSERINAE 1 II III 6 22 S 16 1 1 6 2 0 D U C K S U B F A M I L Y ANA TINA £ 1 III 7 1 5 1 7 M E R G A N S E R S U B F A M I L Y . UERGINAE 1 II III 3 5 3 S W A N S U B F A M I L Y CYGNINAE 1 II III 5 4 3 1 1 C O M M O N L O O N GAVIA IMMER 1 II III 1 1 1 W E S T E R N G R E B E AECHOMORPHUS OCCIDENTALS 1 I I I 1 1 1 B A L D E A G L E HALIAEETUS LEUCOCEPHALUS 1 11 III X 2 V E R Y 1 1 1 F R 1 A C 1 M E 1 H T 1 E D 1 Table I I I . Faunal remains from Glenrose by species and cultural component with minimum number of individuals. X. = present, exact 2 i , The g r e a t e s t b u l k o f the fauna i n terms of MNI, i s i n the middle component, I I , w i t h Component I h a v i n g the next l a r g e s t number. F i g u r e 3b p r e s e n t s the s i t e t o t a l f o r MNI. Although a comprehensive l i s t o f minimum number o f i n d i v i d u a l s from Glenrose has been presented, the num- bers should not be taken as d i r e c t l y comparable t o the minimum number of i n d i v i d u a l s from other s i t e s without c a u t i o n because o f the d i f f e r e n t approaches to d e t e r - mining them. T h i s , however, does not make the i n f e r e n c e s made from the MNI i n f o r m a t i o n any l e s s v a l u a b l e . R e l a t i v e Frequencies by Bone Weight and Minimum Number of I n d i v i d u a l s The r e l a t i v e frequency o f s p e c i e s was graphed by bone weight and minimum number o f i n d i v i d u a l s f o r com- p a r i s o n w i t h i n each component and f o r comparison between the components w i t h i n the s i t e . F i g u r e 4a p r e s e n t s the r e l a t i v e f r e q u e n c i e s o f s p e c i e s w i t h i n a s i n g l e component by percentage of the t o t a l bone weight i n each component. F i g u r e 4b p r e s e n t s the r e l a t i v e f r e q u e n c i e s o f MNI by percentage of t o t a l MNI w i t h i n each component. There can be d i r e c t comparison of Component I from 4a w i t h Component I from 4b, or Component I I o f 4a w i t h Component I I o f 4b, and so on. Figure 4a. Percent of each species within each component based on 0 5 weight of bone. T = trace. SPECIES ELK DEER BEAR CANIS ? BE AVER RACCOON MINK SMALL RODENT SEAL GOOSE DUCK MERGANSER SWAN COMMON LOON 3 0 5 0 10 3 0 J I L 5 0 3 0 5 0 J _ 7 0 _L_ 9 0 J L WESTERN GREBE BALD EAGLE I 10 1 — i r 3 0 5 0 10 3 0 5 0 3 0 5 0 7 0 i r 9 0 Figure 4b. Percent of each species within each component based on minimum number of individual figures* 25 However, t h e r e can be no v a l i d comparisons made between Components I, II, and I I I because percentages were based on weight and MNI t o t a l s o f each component. That i s , the percentage o f e l k i n Component I I I o f F i g u r e 4a was c a l c u l a t e d by t a k i n g the t o t a l bone weight o f e l k i n t h a t component and d i v i d i n g by the t o t a l bone weight o f a l l s p e c i e s i n Component I I I . The same procedure was f o l l o w e d f o r a l l s p e c i e s and components and f o r the MNI f i g u r e s . As one can r e a d i l y see, the r a t i o s g i v e n by the percentages of bone weight are q u i t e d i f f e r e n t than those g i v e n by the percentages of MNI. An i n t e r p r e t e d dominance of e l k i n Component I I I o f F i g u r e 4a i s not the case when l o o k i n g a t F i g u r e 4b. In F i g u r e 4b, deer, beaver, and e l k c o u l d be i n t e r p r e t e d as b e i n g e q u a l l y dominant i n r e p r e s e n t a t i o n . F i g u r e 5a and 5b a l s o p r e s e n t the r e l a t i v e f r e - quencies by the components, but the percentages were based on the s i t e t o t a l s 6f> bone weights and MNI f o r a l l s p e c i e s , so t h a t the percentage o f e l k i n Component I I I i n F i g u r e 5a i s obtained by c a l c u l a t i n g the t o t a l weight of a l l s p e c i e s i n the e n t i r e s i t e . Thus, f o r each f i g u r e (5a,5b) Components I, I I , and I I I are com- par a b l e w i t h each o t h e r . In a d d i t i o n , the r i g h t - most graph o f both f i g u r e s show the r e l a t i v e f r e q u e n c i e s o f each s p e c i e s w i t h i n the e n t i r e s i t e . S P E C I E S 10 3 0 E L K D E E R B E A R C A N I S ? B E A V E R III R A C C O O N 3 0 J I I L MINK S M A L L RODENT S E A L GOOSE DUCK M E R G A N S E R SWAN COMMON LOON W E S T E R N GREBE B A L D E A G L E 10 1 — r 3 0 i—r 10 3 0 10 i — r 3 0 10 n — i — i r 3 0 5 0 ro Figure 5a. Percent of each species within each component and the site based on weight of bone. T = trace. 0 SPECIES ELK DEER BEAR CANIS? BEAVER RACCOON 10 3 0 J T 3 0 _L_ io 3 0 3 0 5 0 I I I SITE MINK SMALL RODENT SEAL GOOSE DUCK MERGANSER SWAN COMMON LOON WESTERN GREBE BALD EAGLE 10 3 0 10 3 0 i — r 10 3 0 3 0 5 0 Figure 5b. Percent of each species within each component and the site based on minimum number of individual figures. ro 28 I t i s a g a i n apparent t h a t the r a t i o s f o r the bone weights are q u i t e d i f f e r e n t than those f o r the MNI. Weight of s p e c i e s 1 fragments then, g i v e s a f a l s e p i c t u r e o f r e s o u r c e u t i l i s a t i o n . For example, i n F i g u r e 5a, e l k seems t o dominate the s p e c i e s r e p r e s e n t e d , but i t i s not n e c e s s a r i l y the case a c c o r d i n g to F i g u r e 5b. I n d i v i d u a l e l k bones w i l l weigh more than i n d i v i d u a l bones o f smaller•mammals. One e l k humerus may weigh the e q u i v a l e n t o f f i v e or s i x humeri of s e a l , y e t w i l l o n l y r e p r e s e n t one i n d i v i d u a l t o perhaps more than f i v e o f the other s p e c i e s . Thus, c a u t i o n should be e x e r c i s e d when making i n f e r e n c e s based on r e l a t i v e f r e q u e n c i e s based on bone weight. L i v e Weight and C a l c u l a t e d Amounts of Usable Meat Th i s s e c t i o n d e a l s w i t h the l i v e weight o f s p e c i e s found a t Glenrose and the amount of usable meat which c o u l d c o n c e i v a b l y be taken from them f o r human consumption. The l i v e weights were c a l c u l a t e d on the b a s i s o f the MNI i n f o r m a t i o n presented e a r l i e r i n t h i s paper. The weights of a l l the s p e c i e s were taken from The Mammals o f B r i t i s h Columbia (Cowan and Guiguet 1965), or found i n T.E. White's a r t i c l e on c a l c u l a t i n g the d i e t a r y percentage o f food animals u t i l i s e d by a b o r i g i n a l people (1953). I have a l s o used White's f i g u r e s f o r the p e r c e n t o f usable meat 29 e x t r a c t a b l e from d i f f e r e n t animals. For the most p a r t , my f i g u r e s f o r the l i v e weights were c o n s e r v a t i v e , t a k i n g the average r a t h e r than the maximum weight. I a l s o converted the c a l c u l a t i o n s i n t o grams t o be c o n s i s t e n t w i t h p r e v i o u s l y presented data and to be compatible w i t h a s s o c i a t e d a n a l y s i s of bone from the l e v e l bags. Grams r a t h e r than ounces or pounds were used t o r e c o r d a l l the other data from the s i t e . The weights should not be taken as b e i n g a b s o l u t e l y c o r r e c t f o r the s p e c i e s i n v o l v e d ; they are o n l y e s t i m a t e s . A l s o , i t i s assumed t h a t the s p e c i e s i n v o l v e d have not changed g r e a t l y i n s i z e i n the p a s t thousands o f y e a r s , so t h a t weights g i v e n f o r today's animals are a p p l i c a b l e to the p r e h i s t o r i c fauna. Table IV c o n t a i n s the l i v e weights and grams o f usable meat f o r s p e c i e s found a t the Glenrose S i t e . Table V p r e s e n t s the c a l c u l a t e d grams of usable meat f o r each o f the s p e c i e s w i t h i n the components. F i g u r e s 6 (a-d) p r e s e n t s the same data g r a p h i c a l l y . The graphs o f the u s a b l e meat f o r the d i f f e r e n t components show more g e n e r a l s i m i l a r i t y t o the graphs o f weight o f bones than to the minimum number of i n d i v i d u a l graphs. T h i s i s because a l a r g e animal w i l l u s u a l l y y i e l d more us a b l e meat as w e l l as have l a r g e r and hea\aer bones 30 TABLE IV. L i v e Weights and Grams o f Usable Meat f o r Species Found a t the Glenrose S i t e , DgRr 6. Species L i v e Weight L i v e Weight % o f Grams o f (pounds) (grams) Usable Meat Usable Meat E l k 645.0 Deer 143.0 Bear 300.0 Canis ? 25.0 Beaver 18.0 Raccoon 12.0 Mink * Small Rodent * S e a l 185.0 Goose 8.0 Duck 2.5 Merganser 3.0 Swan 15.0 Common Loon * Western Grebe * Bald Eagle * 292565.6 64863.4 136077.0 11339.0 8164.6 5443.1 83914.2 3628.7 1134.0 1360.8 6803.9 50 50 70 50 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 146282.8 32431.7 95253.9 5669.9 5715.2 3810.2 58740.0 2540.1 793.8 952.7 4762.7 (1 pound=453.59 grams; 1 kilogram=1000 grams) * F i g u r e s Not A v a i l a b l e than a s m a l l e r animal. One p a r t i c u l a r e x c e p t i o n where the usable meat r e p r e s e n t a t i o n d i f f e r s s u b s t a n t i a l l y a from the bone weight f r e q u e n c i e s i s i n Component I I f o r deer and s e a l . In F i g u r e 5a the bone weight o f s e a l i s almost h a l f t h a t o f the r e p r e s e n t e d frequency f o r deer, y e t i n F i g u r e 6b, i n terms of usable meat, s e a l yields more than deer. Therefore, although bone weight f r e q u e n c i e s may y i e l d s i m i l a r i n f o r m a t i o n t o the usable meat f r e q u e n c i e s , the l a t t e r seems more d e s i r a b l e i n probably g i v i n g a more ac c u r a t e p i c t u r e o f the r e l a t i o n s h i p s between s p e c i e s . The c a l c u l a t i o n s f o r minimum number o f i n d i v i d u a l s i s a necessary step i n order t o o b t a i n f r e q u e n c i e s o f usable meat. A d d i t i o n a l Data Duri n g the course o f the 1973 summer ex c a v a t i o n s , two slumps o f c u l t u r a l m a t e r i a l o c c u r r e d due to excess moisture i n the ground. The f i r s t slump was from the e a s t w a l l o f the b a u l k (Figure 2), and the second o c c u r r e d i n the p i t s 1-5 baulk complex. Because of the very i n - d e f i n i t e provenience, the f a u n a l m a t e r i a l saved from these two slumps were not i n c l u d e d i n our a n a l y s i s . However, a b a s i c l i s t o f s p e c i e s p r e s e n t are i n c l u d e d as Appendix 4. There were no s p e c i e s i d e n t i f i e d t h a t we d i d not a l r e a d y encounter. 32 TABLE V. Grams o f Usable Meat by Component w i t h S i t e T o t a l s (Glenrose, DgRr 6 ) . Species III II I i S i t e E l k Deer Bear Canis ? Beaver Raccoon Mink Small Rodent S e a l Goose Duck Merganser Swan Common Loon Western Grebe 438848.4 2047959.2 292565.6 129726.8 421612.1 259453.6 190507.8 381015.6 11339.8 96388.3 22860.8 97158.4 7620.4 40641.6 793.8 19050.8 39689.3 17145.6 3810.2 117480.0 587400.0 176220.0 12700.5 3969.0 4763.0 2779373.2 810792.5 571523.4 147417.4 137164.8 11430.6 881100.0 53342.1 4762.8 4763.0 19050.8 Bald Eagle % 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 1 1 1 1 | 1 1 | i 1 i i - i i 1 i 1 i i 1 i i' i i 1 i l I l 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 J. J — L ELK IHHHHHHfll 8.i DEER B ^ H 2 . 4 — BEAR CANIS? JO.2 BEAVER 1 0.4 RACCOON MINK SMALL RODENT SEAL GOOSE DUCK MERGANSER SWAN COMMON LOON WESTERN GREBE BALD EAGLE TOTAL 13.3 Figure 6a. Usable meat by species within component III (graphed by percent out of site t o t a l ) . Figure 6b. Usable meat by species within component II (graphed by percent out of site t o t a l ) . T * trace. % 5 10 15 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i • i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i E L K H H H H 5 .4 D E E R ^ ^ ^ ^ . 8 B E A R ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ H H H ? 0 C A N I S ? I 0 . 7 B E A V E R | 0 . 3 R A C C O O N 0.1 M I N K S M A L L RODENT S E A L P H ^ l 3 - 3 G O O S E 0 . 2 DUCK 0.1 M E R G A N S E R 0.1 SWAN C O M M O N L O O N W E S T E R N GREBE B A L D E A G L E T O T A L 2 2 . 0 Figure 6 c Usable meat by species within component I (graphed by percent of site total)« 10 15 20 25 30 35 i i i i i i i i i i i I I i i 40 45 I I I I I I I 1 2.? 50 1 i 1 1 L OB | ELK ^ 1 15.0 DEER | 10.5 BEAR CAMS? 2.5 BEAVER RACCOON MINK 1.0 16.3 SMALL RODENT SEAL GOOSE DUCK MERGANSER SWAN COMMON LOON WESTERN GREBE BALD EAGLE Figure 6d. Usable meat by species within the site (graphed by percent out of site t o t a l ) . U) 37 Determination o f Age o f I n d i v i d u a l s The aging of i n d i v i d u a l s was o n l y attempted when the proximal and/or d i s t a l epiphyses o f bones were pr e s e n t . The p a r t i a l d e t e r i o r a t i o n o f many o f the bones or the presence o f o n l y fragmented s e c t i o n s made i t a l l the more d i f f i c u l t f o r aging i n d i v i d u a l s . Three c a t e g o r i e s f o r aging (when p o s s i b l e ) were used — j u v e n i l e , young a d u l t , and a d u l t . The c r i t e r i a on which the aging was based were as f o l l o w s : 1. j u v e n i l e — epiphyses unfused, p r e s e n t or mi s s i n g ; 2. young a d u l t — epiphyses p a r t l y fused and p r e s e n t or broken o f f ; 3. a d u l t — epiphyses completely fused and present, although d e t e r i o r a t i o n had occ u r r e d a t the very ends o f many o f the bones. The ages of i n d i v i d u a l s are i n d i c a t e d and presented as p a r t o f Appendix 2. A s s o c i a t e d Faunal Remains Analyses C.E. Mayer (n.d.) and M. H a r r i s (n.d.) both analysed the contents o f the bone l e v e l bags from the Glenrose e x c a v a t i o n s . Mayer's a n a l y s i s d e a l t w i t h p i t 1-6 from the 1972 summer exc a v a t i o n s , where p i t s 1,4,5, and 6 were p a r t i a l l y dug. H a r r i s ' a n a l y s i s d e a l t w i t h a l l the l e v e l 38 bags from p i t 6, which was completed i n the summer of 1973, and a l l the bags from the ba u l k between p i t s 1 and 5. The c a t e g o r i e s they used were " f i s h " , "land mammal", " b i r d " , and "sea mammal". The p r e s e n t a t i o n o f the data was i n terms o f weight i n grams and percents based on the weights f o r the d i f f e r e n t c a t e g o r i e s . I c o n s o l i d a t e d some o f Mayer's f i g u r e s and c a t e g o r i e s (land mammal, sea mammal, b i r d ) and a r r i v e d a t the f o l l o w i n g : P i t s 1-6: I — 2463.0g./30.4% I I — 5160.1g./60.7% I I I — 475.5g./ 5.9% F i s h remains o c c u r r e d throughout the d e p o s i t s i n v a r y i n g q u a n t i t i e s . I t i s apparent t h a t the b u l k o f the f a u n a l remains occurs i n the middle component, I I . There i s i n d i c a t e d a f a i r l y sharp r i s e i n the remains from the lowest com- ponent to the middle component, then a drop i n the amount o f f a u n a l remains, though not as s h a r p l y , i n t o the l a t e s t component. H a r r i s noted a change i n the res o u r c e emphasis (on the b a s i s o f changes i n amounts from l e v e l bags) from f i s h i n the lowest component t o mammal and b i r d 39 i n the middle and upper components. There i s an i n c r e a s e i n t o t a l f a u n a l remains from the lowest component i n p i t 6 and the b a u l k to the middle component. In the baulk, there i s a c o n t i n u i n g i n c r e a s e up to the l a t e s t component where the f a u n a l remains decrease. However, i n p i t 6, the i n c r e a s e continues through the middle component i n t o the upper component. The r e s u l t s of both analyses are g e n e r a l l y com- p a t i b l e w i t h the r e s u l t s o b t ained i n t h i s study. From F i g u r e s 5a, 5b, and Appendix 3, i t i s e v i d e n t t h a t the g r e a t e s t number o f i d e n t i f i e d f a u n a l remains by weight and minimum number of i n d i v i d u a l s occur i n Component I I . There i s a marked i n c r e a s e from Component I I I and a decrease to Component I . The f i s h remains from Glenrose were analysed by R.W. C a s t e e l (n.d.) o f the Department of Anthropology a t the U n i v e r s i t y of Washington i n S e a t t l e . He s t u d i e d m a t e r i a l s from column samples from the west w a l l s of p i t s 1 and 4 and a l s o from hand-sorted remains from the l e v e l bags of p i t 1 from the 1972 e x c a v a t i o n s . Notable i n the remains i d e n t i f i e d were s p i n y d o g f i s h (Squalus a c a n t h i a s ) , sturgeon ( A c i p e n s e r i d a e ) , p a c i f i c h e r r i n g (Clupea harengus p a l l a s i i ) , salmon 40 (Oncorhynchus, spp., 0_. tshawytscha, 0_. gorbuscha, 0. nerka), and eulachon ( T h a l e i c h t h y s p a c i f i c u s ) . The weights ( i n grams) o f the f i s h from the i d e n t i f i e d remains were estimated u s i n g formulae developed by C a s t e e l h i m s e l f . Sturgeon and salmon occur c o n s i s t e n t l y i n the remains from each o f the samples, w i t h salmon c o n s t i t u t i n g from 65 t o 95 p e r c e n t o f the t o t a l i d e n t i f i e d o f each sample. In a d d i t i o n , from the a n a l y s i s o f p i t 1 l e v e l bags, salmon remains (Oncorhychus spp., e t a l ) occur, without ex c e p t i o n , i n every l e v e l from 34 to 64 i n c l u s i v e . S e a s o n a l i t y o f Occupation From the f a u n a l remains examined and d e a l t w i t h i n t h i s paper, seasons o f o c c u p a t i o n were determinable o n l y f o r the major components i n g e n e r a l . That i s , because of Glenrose's complex s t r a t i g r a p h y and the l a c k o f knowledge r e g a r d i n g the i n t e r l a y e r i n g and i n t e r l e n s i n g o f c u l t u r a l m a t e r i a l w i t h i n the components, i t was not p o s s i b l e t o determine a season or seasons of o c c u p a t i o n r e p r e s e n t e d by each l a y e r or l e n s encountered. Another d i f f i c u l t y was t h a t there were r e l a t i v e l y few s p e c i e s i d e n t i f i e d which c o u l d be c o n s i d e r e d l e g i t i m a t e i n d i c a t o r s o f seasons. 41 In Component I I I , t h e r e were no b i r d s p e c i e s i d e n t i f i e d although the presence o f some fowl were i n - d i c a t e d i n the r e s u l t s o f the l e v e l bag analyses o f Mayer and H a r r i s . B i r d s are o f t e n f a i r l y r e l i a b l e s e a s o n a l i n d i c a t o r s because of t h e i r m i g r a t i n g c y c l e s . There were p r e s e n t i n Component I I I , however, the s m a l l and l a r g e l a n d mammals and s e a l . The presence o f immature i n d i v i d u a l s has been s e t f o r t h by C l a r k (1952: 25-27) as c r i t e r i o n f o r assuming summer o c c u p a t i o n . Boehm (1973: 84) has a l s o used t h i s c r i t e r i o n f o r an i n d i c a t i o n o f summer o c c u p a t i o n . There- fore, some statements o f s e a s o n a l i t y can be made f o r Com- ponent I I I although there are no b i r d s p e c i e s i d e n t i f i e d . In Component I I I , there were j u v e n i l e deer and e l k i n d i c a t i n g summer o c c u p a t i o n . (In t h i s study immature i n d i v i d u a l s were c l a s s e d as j u v e n i l e s , based on m i s s i n g and/or unfused epiphyses o f bones.) There was a l s o the presence o f salmon v e r t e b r a i n the lower l e v e l s i n - d i c a t i n g summer and probably f a l l o c cupation, f o r major salmon runs occur i n the F r a s e r R i v e r d u r i n g the summer and f a l l . I n Component I I there was g r e a t e r specie's d i v e r s i t y , and g r e a t e r amounts o f f a u n a l remains r e c o v e r e d by weight and c a l c u l a t e d number of i n d i v i d u a l s . Salmon 42 bones were p r e s e n t throughout the component i n d i c a t i n g a summer/fall o c c u p a t i o n . A l s o p r e s e n t are j u v e n i l e deer, e l k , s e a l , and beaver i n d i c a t i n g a g a i n summer oc c u p a t i o n . Seals were probably caught ascending the Fr a s e r R i v e r t o r e s i d e i n H a r r i s o n Lake (Cowan and Guiguet 1965: 353). A common loon was i d e n t i f i e d from t h i s component; the loo n summers and w i n t e r s i n t h i s a r e a. A western grebe and b a l d eagle were a l s o i d e n t i f i e d . The grebe i s common alo n g the c o a s t l i n e s i n the w i n t e r , s p r i n g , and f a l l , and the eagle w i n t e r s i n t h i s a r e a . Thus, summer and f a l l o ccupations are i n d i c a t e d by the fauna f o r Component I I , w i t h summer, f a l l , and w i n t e r occupations probable. The swans were not i d e n t i f i e d t o s p e c i e s , b ut i f two s p e c i e s , Cygnus b u c c i n a t o r and Cygnus Columbianus, were p r e s e n t a t Glenrose as they were a t the S t . Mungo S i t e , then there i s a d d i t i o n a l evidence f o r w i n t e r occupation, f o r the two s p e c i e s w i n t e r i n t h i s a r e a . Component I i s much l i k e Component I I I , h a v i n g no p o s i t i v e a v i a n seasonal i n d i c a t o r s , j u s t j u v e n i l e deer and s e a l . Geese, ducks, and mergansers were present, b ut not i d e n t i f i e d t o s p e c i e s . Salmon remains were a l s o p r e s e n t throughout the d e p o s i t s o f t h i s component. Summer 43 and f a l l o c c u p a t i o n i s i n d i c a t e d by the data. There i s a p o s s i b i l i t y o f w i n t e r o c c u p a t i o n i n d i c a t e d by the presence of geese (Canada geese and b l a c k b r a n t both w i n t e r i n t h i s area and both were found i n the d e p o s i t s a t S t . Mungo). Summer and f a l l o c c u p a t i o n f o r the th r e e components i s most p o s i t i v e l y i n d i c a t e d by the f i s h remains and the presence o f j u v e n i l e animals. The a d d i t i o n a l w i n t e r o c c u p a t i o n i s l e s s p o s i t i v e l y i n d i c a t e d , b u t p o s s i b l e . A l a c k o f any p o s i t i v e i n d i c a t o r s f o r w i n t e r or s p r i n g o c c u p a t i o n , however, does not p r e c l u d e the pos- s i b i l i t y o f such o c c u p a t i o n i n any or a l l o f the three components, nor do any of the p r e v i o u s statements p r e - clude the p o s s i b i l i t y of year round or s i n g l e season o c c u p a t i o n a t any time d u r i n g the o c c u p a t i o n a l h i s t o r y o f the s i t e . • E t h n o g r a p h i e a l l y i t i s known t h a t most l a r g e game h u n t i n g was done i n the summer and f a l l because of the q u a l i t y and q u a n t i t y o f meat on the animals, but t h a t h u n t i n g was a l s o done when necessary, i . e . , a l s o s p o r a d i c a l l y d u r i n g the w i n t e r (Duff 1952; S u t t l e s 1951; Bar n e t t 1955). 44 Environmental and C u l t u r a l R e c o n s t r u c t i o n The Glenrose S i t e l i e s a t the base of a h i g h r i d g e , Panorama Ridge, c o n s i s t i n g o f g l a c i a l t i l l and f l u v i o - g l a c i a l d e p o s i t s (Johnston 1921). During the o c c u p a t i o n a t Glenrose r e p r e s e n t e d by Component I I I , the s i t e l a y very near or d i r e c t l y on the s a l t water. W i t h i n the past e i g h t thousand years or so, the d e l t a of the F r a s e r R i v e r has b u i l t up so t h a t the s i t e now l i e s approximately 13 to 14 m i l e s from the p r e s e n t mouth of the r i v e r (Johnston 1923; Mathews and Shepard 1962) . P r e s e n t l y t h e r e i s a l a r g e bog d i r e c t l y down r i v e r from the Glenrose S i t e which i s a l s o a t the base of Panorama Ridge. There are a l s o remnants o f bogs and bog v e g e t a t i o n s t i l l o b servable up r i v e r from Glenrose a l s o on the south bank near the P a t u l l o Bridge which c u r r e n t l y spans the r i v e r a t New Westminster. Two types o f bog f o r e s a s s o c i a t i o n s were observed: pine (Pinus c o n t o r t a ) , and b i r c h (Betula sp.) a s s o c i a t i o n s ; and r e d cedar (Thuja p l i c a t a ) and hemlock (Tsuga h e t e r o p h y l l a ) a s s o c i a t i o n s , w i t h b i r c h i n t e r s p e r s e d , and i n f r e q u e n t spruce ( P i c e a s i t c h e n s i s ) p r e s e n t . Other areas near the s i t e are f o r e s t e d by v a r i o u s c o n i f e r s and stands o f deciduous t r e e s : Thuja p l i c a t a , 45 Abies, sp., Pseudotsuga m e n z i e s i i , P i c e a s i t c h e n s i s , Tsuga sp., Populus t r i c h o c a r p a , B e t u l a sp., Alnus sp., and Acer sp. An i n s p e c t i o n o f the s i t e ' s p r e s e n t v e g e t a t i o n was made by Jim Poj a r , Ph.D. candidate, U.B.C, and a l i s t was made f o r the s i t e . The l i s t i s presented as Table VI, w i t h i n t r o d u c e d and n a t u r a l i z e d s p e c i e s omitted. Organic (charcoal) samples were c o l l e c t e d d u r i n g the 1973 summer ex c a v a t i o n s , and some s e l e c t e d samples were sent t o the F o r e s t Products Laboratory a t U.B.C. The r e s u l t s are shown i n Table V I I . Douglas f i r i s present throughout the oc c u p a t i o n o f the s i t e w i t h hem- l o c k and maple a s s o c i a t i o n s i n the lower component. The b i r c h , oak, and spruce occur i n the upper l e v e l s of the upper component i n r e c e n t l y d i s t u r b e d e a r t h . The h a b i t a t s f o r the land mammals i d e n t i f i e d from Glenrose are o u t l i n e d i n Table V I I I . Looking a t a l l t h r e e t a b l e s , VI, V I I , V I I I , the g e n e r a l p i c t u r e o f the area i s one t h a t corresponds to the suggested n a t u r a l climax v e g e t a t i o n f o r the area — dense c o n i f e r o u s f o r e s t s i n the h i g h e r r e g i o n s , w i t h d e c i d u o u s / c o n i f e r o u s f o r e s t s i n the lower areas (Cowman and Guiguet 1965). This statement i s a l s o made on the assumption t h a t the c u r r e n t v e g e t a t i o n o f the s i t e and the surrounding areas 46 TABLE V I . V e g e t a t i o n Species Cannery S i t e , DgRr P r e s e n t l y on the Glenrose 6. Common Name L a t i n D e s i g n a t i o n Trees Grand F i r Douglas F i r Red Cedar B i g - L e a f Maple Red A l d e r Paper B i r c h Western F l o w e r i n g Dogwood Black Cottonwood B i t t e r Cherry Shrubs Vine Maple Oregon Grape Red-Osier Dogwood Hazelnut Oceanspray Indian Plum W i l d Rose Evergreen B l a c k b e r r y Blackcap Thimbleberry Salmonberry Dewberry Willow Snowberry Red Huckleberry Abies g r a n d i s Pseudotsuga m e n z i e s i i Thuja p l i c a t a Acer macrophyllum Alnus r u b r a B e t u l a p a y r i f e r a Cornus n u t t a l l i i Populus t r i c h o c a r p a Prunus emarginata Acer c i r c i n a t u m B e r b e r i s nervosa Cornus s t o l o n i f e r a C o r y l u s cornuta H o l o d i s c u s d i s c o l o r Osmaronia c e r a s i f o r m i s Rose nutkana Rubus l a c i n i a t u s Rubus leucodermis Rubus p a r v i f l o r u s Rubus s p e c t a b i l i s Rubus u r s i n u s S a l i x s c o u l e r i a n a Symphoricarpos albus Vaccinium p a r v i f o l i u m 47 TABLE VI (Cont'd). Common Name Herbs Douglas 1 A s t e r Lady Fern Sedge Canada T h i s t l e T u f t e d H a i r g r a s s B l e e d i n g Heart Fairy. L a n t e r n S h i e l d Fern Ryegrass Fireweed Watson's Willowherb Common H o r s t a i l Bedstraw Jewel Weed, Touch-Me-Not Skunk Cabbage S i b e r i a n M i n e r 1 s L e t t u c e Water P a r s l e y Sweet-Cicely Bracken Fern Sow-Thistle C r i s p e d Starwort F r i n g e c u p C a t - t a i l S t i n g i n g N e t t l e American Brooklime L a t i n D e s i g n a t i o n A s t e r s u b s p i c a t u s Athyrium f i l i x - f e m i n a Carex l y n g b y e i ( B r a c k i s h , t i d a l mudflats) C i r s i u m arvense Deschampsia c e s p i t o s a D i c e n t r a formosa Disporum S m i t h i i D r v o p t e r i s a u s t r i a c a Elymus glaucus E p i l o b i u m a n g u s t i f o l i u m E p i l o b i u m w a t s o n i i Equisetum p a l u s t r e Galium t r i f o l i u m Impatiens e c a l c a r a t a L y s i c h i t u m americanum Montia s i b i r c a Oenanthe sarmentosa Osmorhiza c h i l e n s i s P t e r i d i u m a s q u i l i n u m Sonchus o l e r a c e u s S t e l l a r i a c r i s p a T e l l i m a g r a d i f l o r a Typha l a t i f o l i a U r t i c a d i o i c a (var. l y a l l i ) V e r o n i c a americana 48 TABLE V I I . Organic (Charcoal) Samples.* P i t L e v e l Component D e s c r i p t i o n Baulk Baulk Baulk Baulk Baulk Baulk Baulk 30 47 52 53 61 63 79 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I M a i n l y Douglas F i r , 1 Oak, 1 B i r c h , 1 Spruce Douglas F i r Douglas F i r M a i n l y Douglas F i r , 1 Maple Maple 95% Douglas F i r , Hemlock Douglas F i r * Submitted to Bob Drake, F o r e s t Products Laboratory; i d e n t i f i c a t i o n by R.W. Meyer. 49 r e f l e c t , i n p a r t , the p a s t v e g e t a t i o n make-up under o v e r a l l s i m i l a r c l i m a t i c c o n d i t i o n s . I t i s q u i t e d i f f i c u l t even t o b e g i n t o d i s c u s s p o p u l a t i o n s i z e (and d i e t ) or se t t l e m e n t p a t t e r n s from the f a u n a l and environmental data, not n e c e s s a r i l y because o f the l a c k of an adequate sample, or the f a c t o r s o f d i f f e r e n t i a l d e p o s i t i o n and p r e s e r v a t i o n , b ut simply because o f the l a c k o f knowledge r e g a r d i n g the complex i n t e r l a y e r i n g and i n t e r l e n s i n g o f the c u l t u r a l m a t e r i a l . What l a y e r s from which p i t s were contiguous w i t h l a y e r s from other p i t s ? What were the r e l a t i o n s h i p s between the l a y e r s and le n s e s w i t h i n one p i t ? P i t p r o f i l e s do- not n e c e s s a r i l y r e f l e c t the s i t u a t i o n i n the middle of a p i t . Thus, the r e l a t i o n s h i p s between the f a u n a l remains are no l e s s obscured f o r t h e i r d i r e c t r e l a t i o n s h i p t o the l a y e r s and lenses o f the p i t s from which they came are v i r t u a l l y unknown. In t h i s study, I have not d e a l t w i t h f i s h nor s h e l l remains from Glenrose which are q u i t e important i n the d i e t of the i n h a b i t a n t s . In a study t h a t d e a l s o n l y w i t h a p o r t i o n o f a l l the m a t e r i a l s o b t a i n e d through e x c a v a t i o n s one should not expect d e f i n i t i v e statements r e g a r d i n g c u l t u r a l a c t i v i t i e s , b u t r a t h e r , •suggestive statements based on the data p r e s e n t which can be c o r r e l a t e d w i t h a s s o c i a t e d a n a l y s e s . 50 TABLE V I I I . Land Mammal Species and t h e i r H a b i t a t s . * Species H a b i t a t E l k P arkland country — clumps of c o n i f e r s (Cervus canadensis) f o r p r o t e c t i o n and groves.of deciduous t r e e s i n t e r s p e r s e d w i t h g r a s s l a n d t o p r o v i d e food. Deer (Odocoileus hemionus) Mountaintops and h i g h v a l l e y s d u r i n g the summer and back t o lower ranges i n the w i n t e r ; s h e l t e r o f c o n i f e r o u s t r e e s e s s e n t i a l f o r l a r g e - s c a l e w i n t e r i n g ; d i e t v a r i e s w i t h the h a b i t a t , b ut most p a l a t a b l e p l a n t s are Douglas F i r , western cedar, Oregon yew, t r a i l i n g b l a c k b e r r y , re d h u c k l e b e r r y , and s a l a l , supplemented i n summer by g r e a t v a r i e t y o f herbaceous p l a n t s . Bear (Ursus americanus) Wooded areas g e n e r a l l y , c o n c e n t r a t i n g on b e r r y patches and spawning-streams i n season. Beaver (Castor canadensis) V i c i n i t y o f fresh-water bodies i n f o r e s t e d country. Raccoon (Procyon l o t o r ) Found i n both deciduous and c o n i f e r o u s f o r e s t s and shrubbery, some what a r b o r e a l , Mink (Mustela vison) Semi-aquatic i n h a b i t ; u s u a l l y found a s s o c i a t e d w i t h water; dwells i n the woodlands and marshes surrounding sea- shores, banks o f r i v e r s , streams. * (Information r e g a r d i n g the s p e c i e s ' h a b i t a t s from Cowan and Guiguet 1965) Looking back at the figures for minimum number of indiv i d u a l s (Figure 3a), Component II has, by far, the greatest representation of fauna. The increase from Component III could be due to increased peopulation size requiring increased resource u t i l i s a t i o n , increased technological s o p h i s t i c a t i o n which increases a c c e s s i b i - l i t y , or increased a v a i l a b i l i t y of resources due to changing c l i m a t i c conditions and/or physical geography of the area. More than l i k e l y i t was a combination of a l l of the above with one or more factors being dominant at one time or another influencing the observed d i s - t r i b u t i o n s . The factor or factors which dominate might also change through time within a component as they change from component to component. Referring to the amounts of usable meat (Figures 6a- 6d), i t appears that there i s quite a marked increase i n elk, deer, and seal from III to I I . From the l e v e l bag analyses the figures for f i s h remains also show a cor- responding increase from III to I I . I would suggest that besides a population increase at the s i t e , the occupation became more intensive, perhaps year round rather than sporadic or seasonal. 52 The presence of l a r g e mammals c o u l d be i n d i c a t i v e o f a c e r t a i n l e v e l of t e c h n o l o g i c a l s o p h i s t i c a t i o n or o c u l t u r a l development. Group h u n t i n g c o u l d be i n f e r r e d ; s e v e r a l hunters c o u l d more e f f i c i e n t l y t r a p the l a r g e r game. E t h n o g r a p h i c a l l y , i t i s known t h a t deer and e l k were hunted by p a r t i e s d r i v i n g them i n t o nets (Duff 1952; S u t t l e s 1951; B a r n e t t 1955), w i t h e l k r e q u i r i n g more hunters because o f t h e i r g r e a t e r s i z e . The subsequent decrease o f fauna and usable meat from Component I I t o I was perhaps due i n l a r g e p a r t t o the b u i l d - u p o f the d e l t a , i n c r e a s i n g the d i s t a n c e to the s h e l l f i s h , making the s i t e d e s i r a b l e not f o r y e a r round occupation, but s e a s o n a l encampment t o take ad- vantage o f the a v a i l a b i l i t y and a c c e s s i b i l i t y o f the l a r g e l a n d game and f i s h r u n s k d u r i n g the spawning seasons. There i s a l s o much l e s s e l k by i n d i v i d u a l s i n Component I than deer, whereas, t h e r e i s a comparable amount o f e l k to deer i n Components I I and I I I . There was e i t h e r l e s s need f o r the r e s o u r c e the e l k might p r o v i d e or r e d u c t i o n i n a v a i l a b i l i t y and/or a c c e s s i b i l i t y o f the e l k . I t c o u l d , however, simply be due to a l a c k i n adequate sample s i z e f o r Component I coupled w i t h the f a c t t h a t Component I was s u b j e c t t o the most d i s - turbance . 53 In terms of the e n t i r e o c c u p a t i o n of the s i t e i t seems t h a t a comparable number of s m a l l e r mammals and b i r d s were taken t o the number o f l a r g e l a n d mammals and s e a l s ( Figure 3b). However, w i t h r e g a r d to the usuable meat gained by the human p o p u l a t i o n , e l k , deer and s e a l y i e l d e d c o n s i d e r a b l y more food, w i t h bear y i e l d i n g a s i z e a b l e amount when caught. Some of the s m a l l e r animals might not have been c o n s i d e r e d food f o r one reason or another, e . g . / dogs ( C a n i s ? ) . That there might have been d i f f e r e n t i a l o c c u p a t i o n areas over the s i t e through time i s r e f l e c t e d i n the d i s t r i b u t i o n o f f a u n a l remains i n each p i t (Figure 7, Table I X ) . The d i f f e r e n t i a l depths o f c u l t u r a l m a t e r i a l i n the d i f f e r e n t p i t s a l s o i n d i c a t e s a p a t t e r n of s i t e usage. The area surrounding p i t s 1, 4, 5, 6, and the baulk seems t o have been the most i n t e n s i v e l y used area o f the s i t e . The p i t 1-4-5-6-baulk area was the c e n t r e of the s i t e 1 s a c t i v i t i e s or much more towards the c e n t r e than p i t s 2, 3, and 8. P i t s 2, 3, and 8 were shallower, and a l s o y i e l d e d c o n s i d e r a b l y l e s s f a u n a l remains by weight o f bone and minimum number o f i n d i v i d u a l s . Figure 7. Distribution of faunal remains by pit (using # of total bone and total l i v e weight). 55 TABLE IX. Raw Data f o r F i g u r e 7, Page 54. P i t Weight o f % o f S i t e L i v e Weight % of S i t e Bone(grams) T o t a l i n Grams T o t a l 1 1180.0 16.6 652625.5 12.0 2 471.9 6.6 298485.1 5.5 3 182.6 2.6 362940.2 6.7 4 1790.4 25.-2 1081177.7 19.9 5 1224.0 17.2 830523.6 15.3 6 1444.4 20.3 1136288.9 21.0 8 75.5 1.1 131495.8 2.4 Baulk 733.0 10.3 927183.8 17.1 56 IV. CONCLUDING STATEMENTS AND COMPARISONS There i s a tremendous amount of i n f o r m a t i o n t o be gained about the p r e h i s t o r i c p o p u l a t i o n s on the North- west Coast from f a u n a l a n a l y s i s . The study o f sub- s i s t e n c e and s u b s i s t e n c e - r e l a t e d a c t i v i t i e s cannot be complete without i n c l u d i n g the f a u n a l remains which are the remnants o f these a c t i v i t i e s . Faunal remains are p r e s e n t i n v i r t u a l l y a l l a r c h a e o l o g i c a l s i t e s i n the area, e s p e c i a l l y c o a s t a l middens, y e t they are a l s o v i r t u a l l y i g n o r e d . Compari- sons w i t h many o f the ; s i t e s ' f a u n a l remains i s im- p o s s i b l e because i n f o r m a t i o n r e g a r d i n g them i s not p r e - sent i n the s i t e r e p o r t s . S t i l l there i s some i n f o r m a t i o n t h a t can be used i n comparison. The e f f e c t i v e s o f f a u n a l a n a l y s i s are heightened by comparisons w i t h a s s o c i a t e d analyses o f a r t i f a c t s , b u r i a l s , s o i l s , e t c . , from any g i v e n s i t e . Gressman's work a t the D a l l e s , Oregon (1960), un- covered an Old C o r d i l l e r a n component a t approximately the same time depth as Glenrose's Old C o r d i l l e r a n Compo- nent. Cressman d e f i n e s t h i s as h i s E a r l y P e r i o d o f c u l t u r a l development and f u r t h e r d i v i d e s i t i n t o the I n i t i a l , F u l l y Developed, and F i n a l . D uring the I n i t i a l t h e r e i s some bone m a t e r i a l b e g i n n i n g to appear i n the 57 upper l e v e l s . The F u l l y Developed P e r i o d i s c h a r a c t e r i z - ed b y a n "enormous number o f salmon v e r t e b r a e , b i r d bones, animal bones" (Cressman 1960: 59). B i r d , animal and f i s h remains disappear i n the F i n a l . Thus Cressman concludes t h a t "the s u b s i s t e n c e economy o f the E a r l y p e r i o d was c e r t a i n l y based on the use o f f i s h w i t h some s l i g h t a d d i t i o n o f s m a l l animals w i t h an o c c a s i o n a l deer, e l k , or bear thrown i n " (I960: 70). A s i m i l a r s i t u a t i o n seems t o have e x i s t e d a t Glenrose i n terms of the s u b s i s t e n c e w i t h r e l i a n c e on f i s h , some l a r g e and s m a l l game, and the a d d i t i o n o f s h e l l f i s h . In comparing Cressman's f a u n a l m a t e r i a l t o the Glenrose m a t e r i a l f o r the Old C o r d i l l e r a n Component, I would suggest t h a t , g e n e r a l l y , the o c c u p a t i o n a t Glenrose was o f a much more s p o r a d i c or se a s o n a l nature than a t the D a l l e s . There seems to have been much more r a p i d c u l t u r a l development a t the D a l l e s . Of course, Glenrose a t one time l a y on s a l t water so a s t a b l e environment f o r r e s o u r c e development might not have e x i s t e d d u r i n g the s i t e ' s i n i t i a l o c c u p a t i o n . The s h i f t i n g channels of the F r a s e r would have a f f e c t e d the a c c e s s i b i l i t y o f the f i s h d u r i n g t h e i r s e a s o n a l runs. These f a c t o r s would have l e s s e n e d the d e s i r a b i l i t y o f the area f o r a more permanent encampment. 58 C a r l s o n ' s study on the San Juan I s l a n d s (1960) has some i n f o r m a t i o n on f a u n a l remains and i s o f i n t e r e s t because h i s study d i s c u s s e s Marpole components and the l a t e r San Juan Phase components. F i s h remains were common i n a l l s t r a t a from the d i f f e r e n t s i t e s he mentions. The mammalian remains were presented by frequency o f bone count f o r the s i t e s . I t i s d i f f i c u l t t o compare h i s f i g u r e s w i t h those o f Glenrose because t h e r e i s very l i t t l e d i s c u s s i o n r e g a r d i n g the remains and s u b s i s t e n c e a c t i v i t i e s . However, from the counts presented i n h i s study, deer remains are most numerous w i t h dog or w o l f next i n r e p r e s e n t a t i o n . E l k and s e a l were r e p r e s e n t e d t o a l e s s e r degree. T h i s s i t u a t i o n a l s o occurs i n the Marpole Component from Glenrose, where deer i s predomin- ant over e l k , and s e a l remains are absent. C u l t u r a l development ends w i t h the Marpole Component a t Glenrose, but continues i n the San Juan I s l a n d s w i t h a change i n technology as evidenced by changing a r t i f a c t u a l elements. Another comparison t h a t can be made i s w i t h the r e c e n t work done by Kathryn Conover a t Namu (1972). She found evidence f o r seaso n a l , m u l t i - s i t e o c c u p a t i o n i n response t o the p u r s u i t o f s e a s o n a l l y a v a i l a b l e r e s o u r c e s . She was ab l e t o d e f i n e three d e p o s i t i o n a l morphologies. 59 The e a r l i e s t o c c u p a t i o n o c c u r r e d over 9000 years ago and occ u p a t i o n continued u n t i l about 480 years B.P. The f i g u r e s she presented f o r the majtimal s p e c i e s were i n terms o f number o f i d e n t i f i e d bones per l e v e l or stratum f o r the e x c a v a t i o n u n i t s a t Namu. A h y p o t h e s i s she pr e s e n t s r e g a r d i n g s u b s i s t e n c e i s th a t when th e r e i s a d e c l i n e i n the a v a i l a b i l i t y o f a reso u r c e , the p o p u l a t i o n exploits a d i f f e r e n t r e s o u r c e r a t h e r than e x p l o i t the d i m i n i s h i n g r e s o u r c e i n another area (Conover 1972: 281). She observed a c o n s i s t e n t t r e n d o f gr a d u a l i n c r e a s e i n predominance o f marine fauna over f o r e s t fauna a t Namu. Th i s s i t u a t i o n perhaps was p r e c i p i t a t e d by a decrease i n a v a i l a b i l i t y o f f o r e s t fauna or simple p r e - f e r e n t i a l r e s o u r c e u t i l i s a t i o n due t o more h i g h l y de- veloped maritime p r o f i c i e n c i e s . A t Glenrose, w i t h p a r t i c u l a r r e s p e c t t o the Marpole Component, the e x p l o i t a t i o n o f d i f f e r e n t resources might not have been enough t o compensate f o r a d i m i n i s h i n g r e s o u r c e , s h e l l f i s h , so t h a t s e a s o n a l o c c u p a t i o n was p r e - f e r r e d over year round o c c u p a t i o n . Although Conover's study focuses on a p o p u l a t i o n w i t h a d i f f e r e n t s u b s i s t e n c e o r i e n t a t i o n , she makes i n - t e r e s t i n g remarks r e g a r d i n g s i t e o c c u p a t i o n and res o u r c e u t i l i s a t i o n . 60 A f i n a l study which i s the most r e l e v a n t to the Glenrose S i t e was done r e c e n t l y by Gay Boehm (1973), on the St. Mungo Cannery S i t e , DgRr 2, which I have b r i e f l y mentioned e a r l i e r . The St. Mungo Component o f the Glenrose S i t e i s named a f t e r the S t . Mungo S i t e and i s comparable to i t s lowest component. Her study a l s o d i s c u s s e s the s e a s o n a l i t y o f occup- a t i o n o f the s i t e determined by the use o f seasonal f a u n a l i n d i c a t o r s and a l s o on the b a s i s o f changing amounts and types o f fauna (Boehm 1973). Besides b e i n g able to d i s c e r n changes o f p a t t e r n s from component to component she was a l s o a b l e t o d i s c e r n i n t e r n a l v a r i - a t i o n w i t h i n the components. There i s much g r e a t e r a v i a n s p e c i e s d i v e r s i t y a t St. Mungo than a t Glenrose, mostly i n the lowest com- ponent a t S t . Mungo. In Component I I a t Glenrose there are 6 s p e c i e s o f b i r d s present, whereas, Boehm l i s t s more than 2 5 f o r the comparable component a t St. Mungo. Having seen her a c t u a l f a u n a l c o l l e c t i o n I would suggest the d i s c r e p a n c i e s between the s i t e s ' a v i a n remains i s due, i n l a r g e p a r t , t o b e t t e r p r e s e r v a t i o n o f the i d e n t i f i a b l e elements a t S t . Mungo, f o r there was q u i t e a number of b i r d bone fragments i n the l e v e l bags f o r a l l the p i t s a t Glenrose none o f which were i d e n t i f i a b l e to s p e c i e s . 61 The v a r i e t y o f mammalian fauna i s s i m i l a r . A t both s i t e s deer, e l k , Canis?, beaver, and s e a l are w e l l r e p r e s e n t e d . At both s i t e s e l k g e n e r a l l y p r e - v a i l e d as an important r e s o u r c e y i e l d i n g more usable meat per i n d i v i d u a l than other animals. Boehm notes changes i n s u b s i s t e n c e p a t t e r n s w i t h i n the lowest component a t S t . Mungo and has d e f i n e d two sub-components, l a and l b . The g e n e r a l p i c t u r e p r e - sented f o r sub-component l a i s o f h u n t i n g , . f o w l i n g and f i s h i n g a c t i v i t i e s , w i t h h u n t i n g predominant. From decreases i n d i v e r s i f i c a t i o n o f a v i a n s p e c i e s i n sub- component l b and i n c r e a s e s i n salmon, which i s most e f f i c i e n t l y e x p l o i t e d s e a s o n a l l y , Boehm saw an i n t e n - s i f i c a t i o n o f the s e a s o n a l nature o f s u b s i s t e n c e a c t i - v i t i e s a t S t . Mungo (n.d.: 21). Although d e f i n i t i v e s u b s i s t e n c e p a t t e r n s cannot be drawn f o r the Glenrose s i t e a t t h i s time, some g e n e r a l p a t t e r n s can be d i s c e r n e d f o r the three components. These statements are made w i t h f u l l knowledge o f the l i m i t a t i o n s o f the data and are by no means f i n a l . S u b s i s t e n c e a c t i v i t i e s a t Glenrose i n d i c a t e d by the f a u n a l remains o f Component I I I are og g e n e r a l i z e d h u n t i n g and g a t h e r i n g w i t h no one p a r t i c u l a r r e s o u r c e e x p l o i t e d i n g r e a t q u a n t i t i e s , however, the l a r g e l a n d mammals were probably the most d e s i r a b l e r e s o u r c e i n 62 terms o f usable meat. F i s h i n g and f o w l i n g were a l s o accomplished. The presence of s e a l s does not n e c e s s a r i l y imply i n c i p i e n t maritime a d a p t a t i o n , f o r they c o u l d have been n e t t e d and clubbed as they stopped on t h e i r way up the F r a s e r R i v e r t o r e s i d e and breed i n H a r r i s o n and P i t t Lakes. A s p o r a d i c s e a s o n a l o c c u p a t i o n i s i n d i c a t e d i n Component I I I , so t h a t the i n h a b i t a n t s o f Glenrose probably d i d not e x p l o i t s e a s o n a l l y a v a i l a b l e r e s o u r c e s s y s t e m a t i c a l l y and d i d not employ a technology t o s t o r e g r e a t q u a n t i t i e s of food f o r very l e n g t h l y o c c u p a t i o n s . I would suggest t h a t the nature o f the o c c u p a t i o n r e - presented by Component I I I was s i m i l a r i n a d a p t a t i o n t o a v a i l a b l e r e s o u r c e s as a t The D a l l e s (Cressman 1960), but t h a t the socio-economic c o n s i d e r a t i o n s i n f l u e n c i n g l e n g t h and i n t e n s i t y o f o c c u p a t i o n were q u i t e d i f f e r e n t . Component I I , as mentioned b e f o r e , i s markedly d i f - f e r e n t i n types and q u a n t i t i e s o f f a u n a l remains. More i n t e n s i v e and r e g u l a r seasonal o c c u p a t i o n i s i n d i c a t e d , w i t h c o r r e s p o n d i n g development o f technology t o s y s t e m a t i c a l l y e x p l o i t the se a s o n a l r e s o u r c e s a v a i l a b l e and to s t o r e them i n q u a n t i t y f o r l a t e r use. There i s i n c r e a s e d emphasis on l a r g e l a n d and sea mammal h u n t i n g . Again, the presence and i n c r e a s e o f s e a l does not neces- s a r i l y i n d i c a t e maritime a d a p t a t i o n or the need f o r such 63 p u r s u i t s , f o r t h e r e i s a c o r r e s p o n d i n g i n c r e a s e i n the f i s h and s h e l l f i s h remains. C e r t a i n l y longer p e r i o d s o f continuous (multi-season) o c c u p a t i o n are i n d i c a t e d . The g e n e r a l s u b s i s t e n c e p a t t e r n i s q u i t e s i m i l a r t o t h a t o f Component I a t S t . Mungo (Boehm n.d.). o f h u n t i n g , f o w l i n g , f i s h i n g , and s h e l l c o l l e c t i n g a c t i v i t i e s w i t h probably i n t e n s i f i c a t i o n o f the s e a s o n a l nature o f the a c t i v i t i e s . T h i s i s supported i n p a r t by the i n c r e a s e i n f i s h remains i n Component I I (Mayer n.d.; H a r r i s n.d.). The data f o r Component I shows a decrease i n almost a l l f a u n a l remains, n o t a b l y e l k . There i s an absence o f s e a l a l t o g e t h e r and fewer a v i a n s p e c i e s as w e l l . The component has been d e f i n e d as M a r p o l e - l i k e by Matson (1973) on the b a s i s o f s i m i l a r a r t i f a c t t y p e s . Marpole c u l t u r e has been d e f i n e d as r e p r e s e n t a t i v e o f the North- west Coast C u l t u r a l T r a d i t i o n o f h i g h l y adapted maritime s u b s i s t e n c e a c t i v i t i e s (Borden 1970). There i s the p r e - sence of u n i l a t e r a l l y and b i l a t e r a l l y barbed harpoon t i p s and ground s l a t e p o i n t s , which are implements r e - l a t i n g d i r e c t l y t o maritime o r i e n t e d a c t i v i t i e s and u s u a l l y found i n s i t e s o f the Marpole Phase (Borden 1970: 99-107). Borden a l s o mentions t h a t s e v e r a l s i t e s o f the Marpole Phase once f r o n t e d the s a l t water and are now l a n d l o c k e d (1970: 102-103). The Glenrose S i t e was not f r o n t i n g the sea d u r i n g the o c c u p a t i o n r e p r e s e n t e d by 64 Component I . There i s no evidence from my a n a l y s i s o f the f a u n a l remains to i n d i c a t e a maritime o r i e n t e d c u l - t u r e from Component I a t Glenrose. However, I have found i n d i c a t i o n s f o r o c c u p a t i o n a t Glenrose to procure s e a s o n a l l y a v a i l a b l e r e s o u r c e s , perhaps p r i m a r i l y f i s h , thus, the decrease i n r e p r e s e n t a t i o n of l a r g e land mammals, e s p e c i a l l y e l k i s rea s o n a b l y accounted f o r . I would sug- gest t h a t a t t h i s time Glenrose was an i n l a n d seasonal encampment f o r a maritime o r i e n t e d p o p u l a t i o n , thus, the presence o f some implements r e l a t i n g to maritime p u r s u i t s and the absence o f marine fauna i s not an u n e x p l a i n a b l e s i t u a t i o n . S e a l , g r e a t amount o f s h e l l f i s h , and other marine fauna were probably,taken a t a s i t e on the c o a s t a t other times o f the ye a r . In summary, from the e a r l i e s t o c c u p a t i o n a t Glenrose there seems to be a change i n the nature of o c c u p a t i o n from s p o r a d i c a l l y s easonal t o f a i r l y continuous and i n - t e n s i v e o c c u p a t i o n t o perhaps a n n u a l l y s e a s o n a l . The s u b s i s t e n c e p a t t e r n s show a change from f a i r l y random procurement o f anything a v a i l a b l e a t any gi v e n time, t o i n t e n s i v e and f a i r l y continuous s y s t e m a t i c procurement t o s y s t e m a t i c seasonal procurement. Although the evidence suggests t h a t the i n h a b i t a n t s o f Glenrose were not a t any p o i n t p a r t i c u l a r l y maritime o r i e n t e d , maritime a c t i v i t i e s 65 may have been c a r r i e d on a t other l o c a t i o n s . The p o p u l - a t i o n i n v o l v e d c o u l d have moved a n n u a l l y from the c o a s t t o i n l a n d s i t e s i n p u r s u i t o f s e a s o n a l l y a v a i l a b l e r e s o u r c e s . There are problems i n f a u n a l a n a l y s i s and many o f these are encountered i n the a n a l y s i s o f the remains from the Glenrose S i t e . There were problems i n sampling and the unavoidable problems due to the c o n s t r a i n t s o f time, money, and l a c k o f knowledge about f a u n a l remains and t h e i r r e l a t i o n s h i p s t o other m a t e r i a l s i n the s i t e . More f a u n a l a n a l y s i s must be done i n order to understand s u b s i s t e n c e and s u b s i s t e n c e - r e l a t e d a c t i v i t i e s , and to produce s u i t a b l e techniques and approaches i n r e s e a r c h d e s i g n - t o o b t a i n the maximum amount o f i n f o r m a t i o n from a l l excavated m a t e r i a l from an a r c h a e o l o g i c a l s i t e . I n t e r - s i t e comparisons should be made very c a u t i o u s l y u n t i l the i n t r a - s i t e v a r i a t i o n s are more f u l l y s t u d i e s and understood. 66 REFERENCES Barnett, H.G. 1955 The Coast S a l i s h o f B r i t i s h Columbia. Univ. o f Oregon, Eugene. Boehm, S.G. 1970 The S t . Mungo Cannery S i t e : A P r e l i m i n a r y Report. I n Archaeology i n B r i t i s h Columbia, New D i s c o v e r i e s . R.L. C a r l s o n , ed. B.C. St u d i e s ( S p e c i a l I s s u e ) , No. 6-7: 54-76. 1973 C u l t u r a l and N o n - C u l t u r a l V a r i a t i o n i n the A r t i f a c t and Faunal Samples from the S t . Mungo Cannery S i t e , B.C., DgRr 2. M.A. T h e s i s . Univ. o f V i c t o r i a . Borden, C.E. 1952 A Uniform S i t e D e s i g n a t i o n Scheme f o r Canada. Anthropology i n B r i t i s h Columbia, No. 3: 44-48. 1970 C u l t u r e H i s t o r y o f the F r a s e r - D e l t a Region: An O u t l i n e . In Archaeology i n B r i t i s h Columbia, New D i s c o v e r i e s . R.L. C a r l s o n , ed. B.C. St u d i e s ( S p e c i a l I s s u e ) , No. 6-7: 95-112. C a r l s o n , R.L. 1960 Chronology and C u l t u r e Change i n the San Juan I s l a n d s , Washington. American A n t i q u i t y 25 (4): 562-586. C a s t e e l , R.W. 1971 D i f f e r e n t i a l Bone D e s t r u c t i o n : Some Comments. American A n t i q u i t y 36(4): 466-469. n.d. F i s h Remains from the Glenrose Cannery S i t e , B r i t i s h Columbia. MS. C l a r k , J.G.D. 1952 P r e h i s t o r i c Europe. Methuen and Co. L t d . , London. Conover, K.J. 1972 A r c h a e o l o g i c a l Sampling a t Namu: A Problem i n Settlement R e c o n s t r u c t i o n . Ph.D. D i s s e r t a t i o n . Univ. o f Colorado. 67 Cowan, I . McT., and C.J. Guiguet 1965 The Mammals of B r i t i s h Columbia. B.C. P r o v i n c i a l Museum, Handbook No. 11. Cressman, L.S. 1960 C u l t u r a l Sequences a t The D a l l e s , Oregon. Trans. Am. P h i l . Soc. 50, P a r t 10. Daly, P. 1969 Approaches to Faunal A n a l y s i s i n Archaeology. American A n t i q u i t y 34(2): 146-153. Duff, W. 1952 The Upper S t a l o Indians o f the F r a s e r V a l l e y , B.C. Anthropology i n B r i t i s h Columbia, Memoir No. 1. Flannery, K.V. 1967 V e r t e b r a t e Fauna and Hunting P a t t e r n s . In The P r e h i s t o r y o f the Tehuacan V a l l e y , Volume I : Environment and Su b s i s t e n c e . D.S. Byers, ed. Univ. o f Texas Pr e s s , A u s t i n . G i l b e r t , B.M. 1973 Mammalian Osteo-Archaeology: North America. M i s s o u r i A r c h a e o l o g i c a l S o c i e t y , Columbia. Grayson, D.K. 1973 On the Methodology o f Faunal A n a l y s i s . American A n t i q u i t y 39(4): 432-439. Guiguet, C.J. 1967 The B i r d s o f B r i t i s h Columbia (6) Waterfowl. B.C. P r o v i n c i a l Museum, Handbook No. 15. 1971 The B i r d s o f B r i t i s h Columbia (9) D i v i n g B i r d s and Tube-nosed Swimmers. B.C. P r o v i n c i a l Museum, Handbook No. 29. H a r r i s , M.E. n.d. A n a l y s i s o f Faunal Remain Fragments from DgRr 6, the Glenrose Cannery A r c h a e o l o g i c a l P r o j e c t , P i t s 55 and 6. MS. Johnston, W.A. 1921 Sedimentation o f the F r a s e r R i v e r D e l t a . G e o l . Survey o f Canada, Memoir No. 125. 1923 Geology of the F r a s e r D e l t a Map Area. Geo l . Survey o f Canada, Memoir No. 135. 68 Loy, T.H. 1973 Glenrose Cannery Project: F i n a l Report. MS. Lyon, P.J. 1970 D i f f e r e n t i a l Bone Destruction: An Ethnographic Example. American Antiquity 35(2): 213-215. Mathews, W.H., and F.P. Shepard 1962 Sedimentation of the Fraser River Delta, B r i t i s h Columbia. American Association of Petroleum Geologists 46(8): 1416-1443. Matson, R.G. 1973 Progress Report on the Glenrose Cannery Site (DgRr - 6). MS. Mayer, C.E. n.d. Preliminary Analysis of Faunal Material from the Glenrose Site (DgRr 6). MS. Meighan, C.W., D.M. Pendergast, B.K. Swartz, J r . , and M.D. Wissler 1958 Ecol o g i c a l Interpretation i n Archaeology: Part 1. American Antiquity 24(1): 1-23. M i t c h e l l , D.H. 1971 Archaeology of the Gulf of Georgia Area, a Natural Region and i t s C u l t u r a l Types. Syesis V o l . • 4, Supplement 1. Payne, S. 1972a On the Interpretation of Bone Samples from Archaeological S i t e s . In Papers i n Economic Prehistory. E.S. Higgs, ed. University of Cambridge Press, Cambridge. 1972b P a r t i a l Recovery and Sample Bias: The Result of Some Sieving Experiments. In. Papers i n Economic Prehistory. E.S. Higgs, ed. University of Cambridge Press, Cambridge. Perkins, D., J r . , and p. Daly 1968 The Potential of Faunal Analysis. An Investigation of the Faunal Remains from Suberde, Turkey. S c i e n t i f i c American 219(5): 96-106. Schmid, E. 1972 Atlas of Animal Bones for Prehistorians, Archaeologists, and Quaternary Geologists. E l s e v i e r Publishing Company, Amsterdam. 69 Sh o t w e l l , J.A. 1955 An Approach t o the Paleoecology o f Mammals. Ecology 36: 327-337. S u t t l e s , W.P. 1951 Economic L i f e o f the Coast S a l i s h o f Haro and R o s a r i o S t r a i t s . Ph.D. D i s s e r t a t i o n . U n i v e r s i t y o f Washington. 1960 V a r i a t i o n i n H a b i t a t and C u l t u r e on the Northwest Coast. Akten des 34. I n t e r n a t i o n a l e n Amerikanistenkongresses. 1968 Coping w i t h Abundance: Subsistence on the Northwest Coast. In Man the Hunter.„ Lee and DeVore, eds. A l d i n e P u b l i s h i n g Company, Chicago. Wheat, J.B. 1972 The Olsen-Chubbuck S i t e : A P a l e o - I n d i a n B i s o n K i l l . . Memoirs o f the S o c i e t y o f American Archaeology, Number 26. White, T.E. 1953 A Method o f C a l c u l a t i n g the D i e t a r y Percentage o f V a r i o u s Food Animals U t i l i z e d By A b o r i g i n a l Peoples. American A n t i q u i t y 18: 346-348. Z i e g l e r , A.C. 1965 The Role o f Faunal Remains i n A r c h a e o l o g i c a l I n v e s t i g a t i o n s . In Symposium on C e n t r a l C a l i f o r n i a Archaeology. F., C u r t i s , ed. Sacremento A n t h r o p o l o g i c a l S o c i e t y Paper 3: 44-75. 70 APPENDIX 1 SAMPLE FAUNAL REMAINS RECORD SHEET (1972) F 0.1 P i t L e v e l 1.0 Type of Animal: 1.1 Common name 1.2 L a t i n d e s i g n a t i o n 1.3 Names of the bones represented/and/or p o r t i o n o f s k e l e t o n p r e s e n t : 2.0 C o n d i t i o n o f Bone: 2.1 good f a i r poor p r e s e r v a t i o n 2.2 A r t i c u l a t e d s c a t t e r e d not a r t i c u l a t e d but c o n c e n t r a t e d 2.3 Remarks ( i . e . i s bone crushed, any s i g n o f working, b u t c h e r i n g , etc.) 3.0 Other Data: 3.1 Are t h e r e a s s o c i a t e d a r t i f a c t s ? I f so, l i s t type and number. 3.2 Are there a s s o c i a t e d f e a t u r e s ( i . e . s t r a t i g r a p h i c , h e a r t h s , etc.) L i s t . 3.3 Provenience: South East ED Below U n i t Other data 3.4 Drawing # 3.5 Photo? R o l l Frame 3.6 Found by DReeordedvbyed • - Packed by 3.7 Date found Date excavated 3.8 I f processed f u r t h e r , note r e c o r d i n g or a n a l y s i s sheet number 3.9 Note number and type of a s s o c i a t e d samples (C14, ochre, etc.) 71 SAMPLE FAUNAL REMAINS RECORD SHEET (1973) F 0.1 P i t 0.2 L e v e l 0.3 Date 1.0 Provenience i n f o r m a t i o n : (Measurement t o the c e n t r e o f the area c o n t a i n i n g the f a u n a l remains) South E a s t ED Below U n i t Radius of area of remains 2.0 Type of Animal: 2.1 Common Name 2.2 L a t i n D e s i g n a t i o n 2.3 Names of the bones r e p r e s e n t e d and/or p o r t i o n of s k e l e t o n p r e s e n t : 3.0 Other Data: 3.1 Are there a s s o c i a t e d a r t i f a c t s ? I f so, l i s t type and number. __________ 3.2 Are there a s s o c i a t e d f e a t u r e s ( i . e . , s t r a t i g r a p h i c , h e arths, e t c . ) . L i s t . 3.3 Are t h e r e a s s o c i a t e d samples taken (C-14, ochre, e t c . ) . L i s t . 3.4 M a t r i x - d e s c r i b e as per d e s i g n a t i o n on a r t i f a c t r e c o r d sheet. 3.5 Drawing # 3.6 Photo? Camera R o l l Frame 3.7 Found by Recorded by Packed by 3.8 Approximate E x c a v a t i o n time Excavated by 4.0 C o n d i t i o n o f Bone: 4.1 Good F a i r Poor p r e s e r v a t i o n 4.2 A r t i c u l a t e d S c a t t e r e d Not a r t i c u l a t e d but c o n c e n t r a t e d 4.3 Remarks ( i . e . , i s bone crushed; any s i g n o f working, b u t c h e r i n g , etc.) 5.0 F u r t h e r Comments: (Regarding any i n f o r m a t i o n g i v e n above, etc.) 72 APPENDIX 2 Catalogue o f Faunal Remains from the Glenrose S i t e . B = Baulk; S = South; E = Eas t ; dbd = depth below s i t e datum; w = weight i n grams. PIT LEVEL/UNIT DESCRIPTION E l k B 39/11 #4235; proximal end t i b i a fragment; S 0.59m; E o.48m; dbd 3.99m; w 7.8g. B 39/11 #4238; to o t h ; S 0.75m; E 0.38m; dbd 3.95m; w 4 . l g . B 40/11 F-047; proximal end l e f t femur, j u v e n i l e ; S 1.05m; E 0.6m; E 0.64m; dbd 4.04m; w 94.4g. B 40/11 #4250; l e f t a s t r a g a l u s ; S 1.02m; E 0.19m; dbd 4.00m; w 54.6g. B 50/11 #4630; premolar; S 0.49m; E 1.30m; dbd 5.09m; w 3.8 g. B 51/11 F-056; v e r t e b r a ; l e f t and r i g h t s e t of 1st, 2nd, 3rd phalanges; S o.73m; E 1.02m; dbd 5.10m; w 138.2g. B 52/11 #4702; r i b fragment; S 0.66m; E 0.69m; dbd 5.23m; w 0.6g. B 53/11 #4724; fragment r i g h t 3rd phalanx; S 0.67m; E 0.96m; dbd 5.34m; w 4.0g. B 53/11 #4720; f o o t bone; S 0.23m; E 1.23m; dbd 5.30m; w 4.4g. B 55/11 #4803; l e f t f used c e n t r a l and 4th t a r s a l ; S 0.93m; E 0.00m; dbd 5.52m; w 5.3g. B 56/11 #4812; r i g h t 1st phalanx; S 0.45m; E 0.89m; dbd 5.60m; w 5.2g. B 57/11 #4828; a n t l e r fragment; S 0.69m; E 0.26m; dbd 5.73m; w 8.4g. B 59/11 #4160; a n t l e r fragment; S 0.89m; E 0.39m; dbd 5.91m; w 49.2g. PIT LEVEL/UNIT DESCRIPTION Deer B 27/1 B B B B B B B 37/11 39(E-24)II 40/11 47/11 53/11 53/11 56/11 Bear B 53/11 Canis B 33/1 B B B 43/11 44/11 47/11 Beaver B 36/11 #4005; metapodial; S 0.71m; E 0.64m; dbd 2.78m; w 7.7g. #4217; t h o r a c i c v e r t e b r a , j u v e n i l e ; S 0.34m; E 0.65m; dbd 3.77m; w 13.Og. metapodial, j u v e n i l e ; w 3.3g. #4258; l e f t 1st phalanx; S 0.22m; E 0.52m; dbd 4.03m; w 3.2g. #4521; a n t l e r fragment; S 0.66m; E 0.20m; dbd 4.77m; -w 49.Og. #4739; t h o r a c i c v e r t e b r a , j u v e n i l e ; S 0.23m; E 0.96m; dbd 5.30m; w 1 1 . l g . #472 7; v e r t e b r a l d i s c ; S 0.38m; E 0.54m; dbd 5.30m; w 3.2g. #4808; r i g h t 1st phalanx, j u v e n i l e ; S 0.45m; E 0.89m; dbd 5.60m; w 5.2g. #4738; footbone; S 0.31m; E 1.21m; dbd 5.34m; w 5.7g. #4045, r i g h t t i b i a , a d u l t ; S 0.81m; E 0.76m; dbd 3.33m; w 28.3g. #4327; r i g h t s i d e mandible fragment, j u v e n i l e ; S 0.59m; E 1.55m; dbd 4.38m; w 1.7 g. #4329; r i g h t s c a p u l a , d i s t a l p o r t i o n ; S 0.50m; E 1.57m; dbd 4.41m; w 2.1g. #4530; a t l a s ; S 0.09m; E 1.30m; dbd 4.73m; w 7.5g. #4211; r g i h t t i b i a , j u v e n i l e ; S 0.30m; E 0.17m; dbd 3.60m; w 2 0 . l g . 74 PIT LEVEL/UNIT DESCRIPTION Beaver (continued) B 38(E-24)II B 39(E-24)II B 41/11 B 42/II B 43/11 B 43/11 B 44/1I B 50/11 B 51/11 B 57/11 B 58/11 Raccoon B 37/11 B B 39/11 42/11 F-044; r i g h t s i d e mandible fragment, a d u l t ; S 0.42m; E 0.37m; dbd 3.80m; w 31.4g. ver t e b r a ; w 3 . l g . #4282; m a x i l l a fragment; S 0.08m; E 0.59m; dbd 4.13m; w 16.l g . #4318; i n c i s o r fragment; S 0.10m; E 1.18m; dbd 4.26m; w 0.4g. #4307; l e f t p e l v i s fragment; S 0.65m; E 1.05m; dbd 4.37m; w 7.6g. #4308; cau d a l v e r t e b r a , j u v e n i l e ; S 0.54m; E 0.23m; dbd 4.30m; w 5.9g. #4314; molar; S 0.56m; E 0.37m; dbd 4.44m; w 1.5g. #4621; premolar; w 0.7g. premolar; w 3 . l g . F-062; f i v e v e r t e b r a e ; S 0.23m; E 1.29m; dbd 5.70-5.77m; w 2 5 . l g . #4845; t h o r a c i c v e r t e b r a ; S 0.55m; E 0.33m; dbd 5.83m; w 5.8g. #4233; r i g h t s i d e mandible fragment, j u v e n i l e ; S 0.45m; E 0.32m; dbd 3.73m; w l . l g . #4226; l e f t s i d e m a x i l l a fragment; S 1.05m; E 1.08m; dbd 3.99m; w 1.3g. #4319; r i g h t s i d e m a x i l l a fragment; S 0.76m; E 1.42m; dbd 4.26m; w 1.3g. Small Rodent B 40/11 mandible fragment; w 0.2g. P I T L E V E L / U N I T D E S C R I P T I O N S e a l B 33/1 #4048; l e f t p e l v i s , j u v e n i l e ; S 0.25m; E 1.20m; dbd 3.38m; w 22 . l g . B 35/1 F-042; m a x i l l a fragment; S 0.06m; E 1.32m; dbd 3.50m; w 4.5g. B 39/11 #4227; l e f t s i d e m a x i l l a fragment; S 0.32m; E 1.83m; dbd 3.99m; w 7.7g. B 42/11 #4304; mastoid process (b u r n t ) ; S 0.60m; E 1.60m; dbd 4.21m; w 8.1g. B 46/11 #4510; r i g h t humerus, j u v e n i l e ; S 0.25m; E 0.15m; dbd 4.67m; w 5.6g. B 50/11 #4613; r i g h t phalanx, j u v e n i l e ; S 0.86m; E 0.99m; dbd 5.00m; w l . l g . B 57/11 l e f t humerus, j u v e n i l e ; S o.72m; E 0.29m; dbd 5.77m; w 11.4g. Goose B 43/11 #4311; l e f t c o r a c o i d ; S 0.83m; E 0.23m; dbd 4.38m; w 5.0g. B 47/11 #4534; r i g h t c a r p a l phalanx; S 0.05m; E 0.97m; dbd 4.76m; w 1.4g. B 47/11 #4522; l e f t carpometacarpus; S 0.90m; E 0.55m; dbd 4.75m; w l . l g . B 50/11 #4628; l e f t carpometacarpus; S 0.28m; E 1.45m; dbd 5.07m; w 2.3g. Swan B 58/11 #4158; r i g h t c a r p a l phalanx; S 0.38m; E 0.17m; dbd 5.86m; w 5.2g. B 57/11 #4825; r i g h t humerus, d i s t a l end; S 0.10m; E 1.16m; dbd 5.73m; w 7.4g. Common Loon B 47/11 r i g h t carpometacarpus; S 0.87m; E 0.70m; dbd 4.74m; w 4.0g. PIT 7 6 LEVEL/UNIT DESCRIPTION E l k 1 36/11 to o t h ; w 11.7g. 1 37/11 t o o t h ; w 3.0g. 1 41/11 humerus fragment; w 111.6g. 1 48/11 F-016; t h o r a c i c v e r t e b r a ; j u v e n i l e ; S 0.25-2.58m; E 1.35-1.65m; dbd 4.68-4.75m; w 190.lg. 1 43/11 t a r s a l fragment; w 34.6g. 1 45/11 mandibular hinge; w 16. l g . 1 52/II 1 s t phalanx, 2nd phalanx fragment; w 29.4g. 1 54/11 F-030; c r a n i a l fragments showing antler base; S 1.18m; E 0.32m; dbd 5.45m; w 115.6g. 1 55/11 1st phalanx; w 31.2g. Deer 1 36/1 metapodial fragment; w 2.5g. 1 45/11 m e t a t a r s a l fragment; w 12.Og. 1 46/1I F-016; l e f t metacarpus; S 0.2 5-0.5 8m; E 1.35-1.65m; dbd 4.68-4.75m; w 10.3g. 1 47/11 #1670; l e f t t i b i a fragment; S 0.40m; E 1.60m; dbd 4.74m; w 24.Og. 1 48/11 #1672; metatarsus fragment; S 1.14m; E 0.08m; dbd 4.80m; w 18.6g. 1 52/II F-025; r i g h t r a d i u s , u l n a , misc f o o t / l e g bones; S 0.55m; E 0.30m; dbd 5.20m; w 61.3g. 1 5 2 / n r a d i u s fragment, u l n a fragment; w 45.5g. Bear 1 38/1 r i g h t humerus, d i s t a l p o r t i o n ; S 1.45m; E 0.65m; dbd 3.86m; w 65.6g. 77 PIT LEVEL/UNIT DESCRIPTION Canis? 1 41/11 t o o t h , molar; w 1.3g. 1 43/11 t i b i a fragment, m a x i l l a fragment; w 10.5g 1 45/11 t i b i a fragment; w 10.5g. 1 47/11 F-018; l e f t m a x i l l a ; S 1.75m; E 0.01m; dbd 4.70m; w 15.4g. 1 52/11 m e t a t a r s a l ; w 2.2g. 1 53/11 F-028; c r a n i a l fragments, phalanges, v e r t e b r a e , long bones, scapulae, j u v e n i l e ; S 1.55m; E 1.49m; dbd 5.30m; w 252.6g. 1 56/11 r i g h t m a x i l l a fragment; w 2.2g. 1 60/11 humerus, to o t h ; w 3.3g. Beaver 1 37/1 thr e e v e r t e b r a e ; w 10.5g. 1 42/11 v e r t e b r a ; w 4.3g. 1 49/11 r i g h t s i d e mandible fragment, r i g h t 2nd metacarpal; w 26.7g. 1 51/11 l e f t u l n a fragment; w 5.0g. 1 52/11 r i g h t s i d e mandible fragment; w 4.5g. 1 56/11 v e r t e b r a ; w 3.3g. 1 36/1 r i g h t humerus, d i s t a l fragment; w 2.3g. S e a l 1 35/1 l e f t s i d e mandible; w-.,87i7g. 1 37/1 p e l v i s fragment; w 14.5g. 1 52/11 mastoid process, p e l v i s fragment, j u v e n i l e ; w 10.2g. PIT LEVEL/UNIT Goose 1 50/11 1 52/11 E l k 2 39/11 2 39/II, 2 2 Deer 2 2 2 2 2 Canis? 2 2 39/11 40/11 31/1 32/1 33/1 35/1 40/11 2 2. 33/1 37/11 37/11 38/11 39/11 78 DESCRIPTION thr e e c a r p a l phalanges (1 p a i r + 1), proximal end of humerus; w 5.3g. two r i g h t c o r a c o i d , 1 c a r p a l phalanx; w 3.6g. F-009; femur fragment; S 0.01m; E 0.01m; dbd 3.92m; w 67.2g. F-011; t o o t h ; S 0.32m; E 1.53m; dbd 3.97m; w 1.7g. a s t r a g a l u s , t o o t h ; w 61.7g. t o o t h ; w 5.3g. v e r t e b r a ; w 12.6g. metapodial v e r t e b r a , j u v e n i l e ; w 1 4 . l g . 3rd phalanx; w l.Og. metapodial, v e r t e b r a , j u v e n i l e ; w 19.2g. #1603; r i g h t r a d i u s , d i s t a l p o r t i o n , a d u l t ; S 0.24m; E 0.71m; dbd 4.09m; w 12.Og. r i g h t femur; w 17.4g. t o o t h ; w 0.5g. t e e t h , mandible, fragments, c r a n i a l fragments; w 57.3g; F-007. m a x i l l a fragment, r a d i u s fragment; w 4.5g. F-010; l e f t s i d e mandible, j u v e n i l e ; S 0.16m; E 0.30m; dbd 3.92m; w 13.7g. PIT LEVEL/UNIT Canis? (continued) 2 40/11 2 40/11 2 41/11 Beaver 2 39/11 2 40/11 2 41/ Mink 2 35/11 S e a l 2 32/11 2 33/1 Goose 2 31/1 2 33/1 Duck 2 33/1 E l k 3 19/1 3 25/11 Deer 3 31/11 DESCRIPTION #1492; l e f t humerus, d i s t a l p o r t i o n , j u v e n i l e ; S 0.18m; E 0.90m; dbd 4.01m; w 2.9g. t i b i a , t e e t h , j u v e n i l e ; w 5.0g. humerus fragment, mandible fragment; w 12.4g. F-011; l e f t femur; S 0.32m; E 1.53m; dbd 3.97m; w 31.6g. t o o t h ; w 2.5g. mandible fragment; w 12.2g. s k u l l ; w 3.0g. F-002; s a c r a l v e r t e b r a e , p e l v i s fragment; w 61.8g. BU-002; a s s o r t e d phalanges; w 42.2g. c a r p a l phalanx, carpometacarpus; w 4.6g. r i g h t carpometacarpus; w 1.2g. l e f t carpometacarpus; w 1.3g. #1301; to o t h , well-worn; S 0.75m; E 0.61m; dbd 1.90m; w 6.6g. scap u l a fragment; w 34.4g. v e r t e b r a ; w 9.3g. PIT LEVEL/UNIT Bear 3 3 20/1 19/1 Canis? 3 20/1 3 20/1 3 3 Beaver 3 3 3 22/1 29/11 24/11 29/11 32/11 Mink 3 32/111 S e a l 34/111 Duck 3 21/1 Merganser 3 21/1 E l k 4 32/11 80 DESCRIPTION phalanx; w 3.0g. ver t e b r a ; w 6.6g. d i s t a l end t i b i a , l e f t ; w 10.3g. F-001; w 49.5g; s k u l l and mandible fragments. u l n a fragment, v e r t e b r a ; w 6.3g. 3rd m e t a t a r s a l , l e f t ; w 3.5g. r i g h t humerus; w 8.4g. l e f t t i b i a , j u v e n i l e ; w 14.4g. r i g h t calcaneus; w 2.4g; F-012 r i g h t s i d e mandible; w 1.6g. F-013;' r i g h t humerus, d i s t a l p o r t i o n ; w 2 4 . l g . l e f t carpometacarpus; w 1.2g. r i g h t carpometacarpus; w l.Og. #1580; a n t l e r fragment; S 1.38m; E 0.80m; dbd 3.23m; w 170.4g. 33/11 t e e t h fragments, end phalanx; w 15.3g. ox PIT LEVEL/UNIT E l k (continued) 4 34/11 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 Deer 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 36/11 37/11 38/11 43/11 45/11 46/11 46/11 48/11 22/1 22/1 23/1 23/1 25/1 29/1 36/11 38/11 DESCRIPTION l e f t c a l caneus, misc. l o n g bone fragments; w 149.5g. t i b i a fragment, j u v e n i l e ; w 115.4g. F-019; l e f t s c a p u l a ; S 0.65m; E 1.34- 1.60m; dbd 3.70m; w 159.7g. F-026; l e f t femur, v e r t e b r a , j u v e n i l e ; w 181.3g. f o o t bone; w 13.Og. r i g h t 3rd phalanx; w 5.1g. #2605; metatarsus, yound a d u l t ; S 0.24m; E 0.02m; dbd 4.66m; w 45.6g. metapodia, phalanx; w 43.5g. long bone fragment, v e r t e b r a l fragment; w 25.4g. l e f t s c a p u l a fragment, phalanx, r i g h t u l n a fragment; w 25.8g. F-005; l e f t s i d e mandible; w 39.7g. v e r t e b r a , p a t e l l a , 2nd and 3rd phalanges; w 25.9g. F-006; v e r t e b r a e ; w 80.3g. F-008; v e r t e b r a , r i g h t humerus, young a d u l t ; S 0.32m; E 0.46m; dbd 2.51m; w 131.7g. metapodial fragment; w 7.5g. r i g h t u l n a ; w 13.7g. metapodial, a d u l t ; w 8.2g. 82 PIT LEVEL/UNIT DESCRIPTION Deer (continued) 4 38/11 F-026; l e f t a s t r a g a l u s ; w 15.2g. 4 41/11 4 metapodia, v e r t e b r a ; w 13.7g. 4 42/11 f o o t bone; w 2.3g. 4 43/11 metatarsus; w 9.4g. 4 44/11 f o o t bones, 2; w 5.2g. 4 48/111 6 metapodia; w 6.2g. 4 49/111 metacarpus fragment; w 22.Og. 4 49/111 F-036; long bone, j u v e n i l e ; S 0.30m; E 0.23m; dbd 4.92m; w 24.4g. 4 49/1II #2642; a n t l e r fragment; S 0.14m; E 1.12m; dbd 4.99m; w 7.8g. 4 50/111 l e f t p e l v i s fragment; w 11.2g. 4 51/111 #3514; d i s t a l p o r t i o n o f metatarsus, young a d u l t ; S 1.54m; E 1.33m; dbd 5.10m; w 6.9g. Bear 4 38/111 F-026; l e f t c a lcaneus; 2 phalanges, l e f t a s t r a g a l u s ; w 23.9g. Canis? 4 29/1 mandible fragment, r i g h t s i d e ; w 8.3g. 4 30/11 r i g h t s i d e mandible fragments (2); w 19.4g. 4 33/11 F-015; 2 r i g h t scapulae; S 1.12m,1.30m; E 1.45m; 1.93m; dbd 3.32m, 3.34m; w 9.5g. 4 34/11 r i g h t u l n a , 2 t e e t h ; w 9.9g. 4 35/11 m a x i l l a fragment; w 4.9g. 4 36/II r i g h t r a d i u s , r i g h t _ l n a ; w 14.3g. 83 PIT LEVEL/UNIT DESCRIPTION Canis? (continued) 4 38/11 F-026; l e f t t i b i a , d i s t a l portion; w 4.0g. 4 38/11 tooth fragment, vertebral fragment; w 2.9g. 4 39/11 teeth; w 1.6g. 4 39/11 F-027; maxilla fragments, mandible fragments, c r a n i a l fragments; w 60.8g. 4 45/11 r i g h t humerus, juvenile; w 6.7g. 4 49/111 epistropheus; w 2.7g. Beaver 4 29/1 r i g h t metatarsus; w 4.6g. 4 34/11 vertebra; w 3.4g. 4 36/11 tooth; w 1.3g. 4 37/11 F-020; l e f t side mandible fragment; S 1.38m; E 0.73m; dbd 3.74m; w 10.5g. 4 37/11 t i b i a , l e f t , vertebra, juvenile; w 9.1g. 4 38/11 l e f t p e l v i s fragment; w 9.4g. 4 38/11 F-026; l e f t t i b i a fragment; w 8.2g. 4 39/11 vertebra; w 3.1g. 4 41/11 tooth; w 2.6g. 4 42/11 tooth; w 1.7g. 4 43/11 l e f t humerus, tooth, l e f t scapula fragment, r i g h t calcansus; w 31.4g. 4 47/111 r i g h t humerus, d i s t a l fragment; w 2.1 q. 4 48/111 vertebra; w 2.2g. 4 49/111 F-037; r i g h t side mandible; S 0.44m; E 0.85m; dbd 4.99m; w 12.Og. b4 PIT LEVEL/UNIT DESCRIPTION Beaver (continued) 4 49/1II r i g h t femur fragment; w 7.4g. Se a l 4 33/11 humerus fragment, m e t a t a r s a l fragment; w 20.3g. 4 35/11 t e e t h (4); w 1.7g. 4 36/II I; r i g h t s i d e mandible; w 22.7g. 4 36/11 humerus, j u v e n i l e , m e t a t a r s a l , a d u l t ; w 7.3g. 4 37/11 phalanx; w l.Og. 4 40/11 F-033; r i g h t humerus; j u v e n i l e ; w 31.Og. 4 43/11 l e f t humerus, l e f t r a d i u s , j u v e n i l e ; w 2 1 . l g . 4 48/11 u l n a fragment, j u v e n i l e ; w 3.2g. 4 49/111 F-038; S 0.08m; E 0.16m; dbd 4.93m; w 4.5g. 4 49/111 t i b i a fragment; w 2.4g. Goose 4 2 2 / l l e f t c a r p a l phalanx; w 0.5g. 4 31/1I l e f t c a r p a l phalanx; w 0.5g. 4 37/11 r i g h t carpometacarpus fragment; w l.Og. 4 38/II l e f t carpometacarpus, r i g h t c o r a c o i d ; w 6.2g. 4 41/II 2 c a r p a l phalanges; w 1.2g. 4 44/1I c a r p a l phalanx; w l.Og. 4 44/11 r i g h t carpometacarpus; w 2.3g. i 44/1I PIT LEVEL/UNIT Duck 4 22/1 85 DESCRIPTION 4 El k 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 Deer 5 5 5 5 5 43/11 37/11 39/11 40/11 41/11 42/11 49/11 49/11 47/11 53/11 62/111 26/1 2 7/1 28/1 29/1 30/1 l e f t carpometacarpus, l e f t c a r p a l phalanx; w l.Og. r i g h t humerus fragment; w 0.7g. 1st phalanx; w 4.5g. cal c a n s u s , t o o t h ; w 69.2g. F-021; r i g h t calcaneus, r i g h t a s t r a g a l u s , t i b i a and other phalanges; S 1.67m; E 1.40m; dbd 4.04m; w 292.4g. F-023; l e f t mandibular hinge, r i g h t u l n a ; S 1.51m; E 0.99m; dbd 4.11m; w 211.9g. f o o t bone; w 10.3g. r i b fragment; S 1.51m; E 0.45m; dbd 4.99m; w 7.1g. v e r t e b r a l fragment, f o o t bone; w 33.6g. #2371; r a d i u s , proximal end, l e f t ; S 0.35m; E 0.63m; dbd 4.70m; w 0.5g. #2584; s a c r a l v e r t e b r a e ; S 0.59m; E 0.86m; dbd 5.33m; w 107.6g. F-055; 1st phalanx; l e f t , young a d u l t ; S 0.67m; E 1.41m; dbd 6.27m; w 2 0 . l g . v e r t e b r a ; w 11.5g. 2nd phalanx; w 6.6g. 2nd phalanx; w 5.4g. 2nd phalanx; w 6.4g. v e r t e b r a ; w 10.5g. PIT LEVEL/UNIT Deer (continued) 5 36/11 5 5 5 5 5 Canis? 5 5 5 5 5 5 36/11 40/11 46/11 47/11 49/11 28/1 34/11 36/11 38/11 40/11 42/11 5 44/11 5 46/11 5 59/111 Small Rodent 5 49/11 86 DESCRIPTION a n t l e r fragment; S 1.27m; E 0.47m; dbd 3.61m; w 33.4g. v e r t e b r a ; 39.3g. 2 metapodia (2 i n d i v i d u a l s ) , 1 - 3rd phalanx; w 9.2g. 1st, 2nd phalanges; w 10.5g. 1st phalanx; w 5.4g. v e r t e b r a ; w 2 2 . l g . m a x i l l a fragment, humerus fragment; w 3.2g. l a r g e molar; w 3.1g. mandible fragment, o—caneus; w 10.4g. to o t h ; w 2.3g. t o o t h fragment; w 1.5g. F-024; l e f t s i d e mandible; S 0.54m; E 1.40m; dbd 4.20m; w 38.3g. mandible fragment, r i g h t s i d e ; w 3.6g. t i b i a , t e e t h ; w 8.2g. #4406; v e r t e b r a ; S 0.07m; E 1.17m; dbd 5.95m; w 7.0g. l e f t s i d e mandible fragment, 3 i n c i s o r s ; w O.lg. S e a l 5 49/11 phalanx; w 3.1g. 87 PIT LEVEL/UNIT DESCRIPTION Beaver 5 36/11 5 40/11 42/11 44/11 49/11 5 5 5 Goose ;,5 38/11 5 41/11 5 56/11 Swan 5 37/11 5 54/11 Bald Eagle 5 39/11 5 40/11 5 40/11 E l k 6 21/1 6 23/1 6 25/1 l e f t femur; w 11.Og. #1733; l e f t u l n a ; S 0.25m; E 0.20m; dbd 4.09m; w 8.0g. l e f t calcaneus; w 5.6"g. v e r t e b r a ; w 3.1g. to o t h ; w 3.3g. c a r p a l phalanx; w 0.6g. #2082; l e f t c o r a c o i d ; S 0.12m; E 1.27m; dbd 4.16m; w 3.1g. #2666; t i b i a , d i s t a l p o r t i o n ; S 0.58m; E 1.12m; dbd 5.63m; w 3.0g. l e f t humerus, d i s t a l p o r t i o n , 2 fragments; w 12.4g. #2593; c a r p a l ; S 0.25m; E 1.60m; dbd 5.44m; w 7.6g. F-017; c a r n i a l fragments, v e r t e b r a e , a d u l t ; S 1.70m; E 1.45m- dbd 3.90m; w 12.9g. F-022;(A, B); incomplete s k e l e t o n , a d u l t ; almost complete s k e l e t o n , j u v e n i l e ; S 1.01m> 1.34m; E 0.12m; 0.02m; dbd 4.05m; W 38.5g, 131.2g. c o r a c o i d fragment, j u n v e n i l e (belong t o F-022B); w 3.8g. p a t e l l a ; w 46.5g. l e g bone; w 22.0g. 1st phalanx, r i g h t ; t o o t h ; w 20.5g. 88 PIT LEVEL/UNIT DESCRIPTION E l k (continued) 6 28/1 F-034; v e r t e b r a ; S 1.07m; E 0.25m; dbd 2.80m; w 113.3g. 6 28/1 #1928; metatarsus, a d u l t ; S 1.07m; E 0.25m; dbd 2.80m; w 55.4g. 6 33/11 #2422; a n t l e r fragment; S 0.98m; E 1.88m; dbd 3.39m; w 6.5g. 6 34/11 #2427; a n t l e r fragment; S 0.11m; E 0.45m; dbd 3.43m; w 7.0g. 6 36/11 F-039; p a t e l l a ; S 1.27m; E 0.94m; dbd 3.61m; w 38.4g. 6 36/11 r i g h t a s t r a g a l u s , l e f t 3rd phalanx; w 89.5g. 6 37/11 F-049; a n t l e r fragments; S 1.76m; E 1.62m; dbd 3.78m; w 30.6g. 6 44/111 #4554; l e f t t i b i a , p r oximal end, a d u l t ; S 1.48m; E 1.84m; dbd 4.44m; w 76.2g. 6 45/111 #4566; v e r t e b r a , a d u l t ; S 1.37m; E 1.75m; dbd 4.55m; w 11.Iq. 6 45/111 #4568; a n t l e r fragment; S 0.23m; E 0.70m; dbd 4.53m; w 33.5g. 6 47/111 ve r t e b r a e , 2; F-063; S 1.62m; E 2.00m; dbd 4.77m; w 68.7g. 6 47/111 F-060; l e f t femur, proximal end and a s s o c i a t e d bone; S 1.91m; E 0.65m; dbd 4.74m; w 113.Og. 6 48/111 a n t l e r fragment; #4909; S 0.74m; E 0.06m; dbd 4.83m; w 1.8g. 6 48/111 #4917; p a t e l l a , r i g h t ; S 0.75m; E 1.35m; dbd 4.85m; w 50.6g. 6 48/111 #4910; 1st phalanx, l e f t , d i s t a l fragment; dbd 4.84m; w 9.6g. 6 48/111 t i b i a fragment; #4916; S 0.36m; E 1.15m; dbd 4.86m; w 9.7g. PIT LEVEL/UNIT E l k (continued) 6 49/111 Deer 6 22/1 6 22/1 6 23/1 6 24/1 6 25/1 6 34/11 6 35/11 6 37/11 6 38/11 6 39/11 6 46/111 Bear 6 26/1 Canis? 6 26/1 6 26/1 89 DESCRIPTION #4939; l e f t t i b i a , proximal p o r t i o n , j u v e n i l e ; S 0.68m; E 0.96m; dbd 4.93m; w 21.7g. 1st phalanx, r i g h t ; 2nd phalanx, l e f t ; w 11.3g. 1st phalanx, r i g h t ; w 4.1g. scap u l a fragment, l e f t , r a d i u s , fragment, l e f t , a s t r a g a l u s , l e f t ; w 52.5g. F-029; l e f t s i d e mandible; S 0.62m; E 0.92m; dbd 2.45m; w 23.5g. m i s c e l l a n e o u s f o o t and l e g bones; w 18.2g. #2424; metatarsus, proximal end; S 0.62m; E 1.73m; dbd 3.40m; w 3.1g. metapodia, 2; w 6.2g. r i g h t 3rd phalanx; #4051; w 2.9g. #4072; r i g h t p e l v i s ; S 0.72m; E 1.92m; dbd 3.82m; w 4 7 . l g . #4358; r i g h t and l e f t 2nd phalanx, j u v e n i l e ; S 0.16m; E 1.30m; dbd 3.99m; w 4.5g. #4587; l e f t 3rd phalanx; S 0.99m; E 0.54m; dbd 4.67m; w 1.5g. F-031; l e f t humerus; S 0.36m; E 0.20m; dbd 2.60m; w 155.6g. t i b i a ; w 11.7g. t e e t h ; t i b i a fragment; femur fragment; w 7.6g. 90 PIT LEVEL/UNIT DESCRIPTION Canis? (continued) 6 27/1 6 27/1 6 36/11 Beaver 6 25/1 6 42/11 6 41/11 6 48/1II 6 48/1II 6 48/1II 6 48/111 6 48/111 6 48/1II 6 58/111 Raccoon 6 39/11 Mink v e r t e b r a e , t i b i a , femur, humerus; w 42.2g. F-032; l e f t and r i g h t s i d e mandible; Rt: S 0.45m; E 0.56m; dbd 2.72m; L f t : S 0.65m; E 0.47m; dbd 2.72m; w 44.5g. F-039; c e r v i c a l v e r t e b r a ; S 1.27m; E- 0.94m; dbd 3.61m; w 7.6g. m a x i l l a fragment; w 1.5g. #4391; molar; S 0.48m; E 1.14m; dbd 4.22m; w 2.2g. scapu l a fragment; 3.0g. #4194; molar; w 3.4g. #4907; r i g h t p e l v i s , a d u l t ; S 1.40m; E 1.90m; dbd 4.80m; w 4.7g. #492 7; r i g h t s i d e mandible; S 0.20m; E 0.0m; dbd -4.88m; w 19.5g. #4923; S 0.57m; E 0.76m; dbd 4.88m; w 4.6g. r i g h t s c a p u l a fragment. #4948; r i g h t p e l v i s , a d u l t , S 2.00m; E 0.0m; dbd 4.48m; w 9.3g. #4926; v e r t e b r a ; S 0.40m; E 0.05m; dbd 4.85m; w 2.8g. #4850; l e f t s i d e mandible fragment; S 0.77m; E 0.51m; dbd 5.87m; w 4.2g. F-050; ve r t e b r a e ; S 0.11m; E 0.73m; dbd 3.93m; w 2.4g. 6 43/111 #4398; mandible; S 0.35m; E 0.83m; dbd 4.35m; w 3.3g. PIT LEVEL/UNIT Small Rodent 6 37/11 6 44/1II S e a l 6 34/11 6 34/11 6 37/11 6 38/11 6 36/11 6 40/11 Goose 6 21/1 6 27/1 6 38/11 Duck 6 24/1 6 26/1 Merganser 6 21/1 6 22/1 6 24/1 91 DESCRIPTION l e f t s i d e mandible; S 1.78m; E 1.25m; dbd 3.75m; w 0.2g. femur; w 0 . l g . #2431; l e f t humerus, j u v e n i l e ; S 1.25m; E 1.81m; dbd 3.46m; w 13.4g. #6366; femur fragment; w 4.6g. #4055; bone fragment; S 1.48m; E 1.50m; dbd 3.77m; w 2.7g. #4071; t i b i a ; S 0.06m; E 1.21m; dbd 3.86m; w 0.7g. F-039; l e f t s i d e mandible; S 1.27m; E 0.94m; dbd 3.61m; w 11.Og. #4366; bone fragment; S 0.40m; E 0.42mj. c a r p a l phalanx; w 0.5g. c a r p a l phalanx; w 0.2g. r i g h t humerus; #4063; w 2.4g. carpometacarpus; w 0.6g. l e f t and r i g h t carpometacarpus; w 2.4g. l e f t carpometacarpus; w 0.5g. 2 l e f t carpometacarpus; w l.Og. carpometacarpus; w 0.7g. 92 PIT LEVEL/UNIT DESCRIPTION Western Grebe 6 39/1 #4088; r i g h t tarsometatarsus; S 1.00m; E 1.89m; dbd 3.94m; w 2.0g. Deer 8 27/1 Bu-B(3); c r a n i a l fragment; S 1.85m; E 0.10m; dbd 2.74m; w 1.3g. 8 27/1 r i b fragment; S 1.33m; E 1.02m; dbd 2.77m; w 1.3g. 8 28/1 B u - B ( l ) ; r i g h t humerus, d i s t a l p o r t i o n ; S 1.90m; E 0.58m; dbd 2.86m; w 2 5 . l g . 8 28/1 Bu-B(4); 1st phalanx; S 1.10m; E 0.64m; dbd 2.81m; w 6.1g. Bear 8 27/1 D; a t l a s ; S 1.15m; E 1.60m; dbd 2.74m; w 33.2g. Raccoon 8 28/1 A; r i g h t humerus; S 0.64m; E 0.47m; w 8.5g. 93 APPENDIX 3 SPECIES I I I E l k 482.6 Deer 80.0 Bear Canis? 9.7 Beaver 72.8 Raccoon Mink 4.9 Small Rodent 0.1 S e a l 35.2 Goose Duck Merganser Swan Common Loon Western Grebe Ba l d Eagle TOTALS 685.3 Weight of bone, i n grams, I I I TOTALS 2936.9 237.7 3677.2 532.4 551.8 1164.2 29.6 257.4 287.0 682.4 163.2 855.3 353.0 18.9 444.7 6.1 3.8.5 14.6 3.0 . 7.9 0.5 0.6 188.9 153.8 377.9 40.0 7.0 47.0 0.7 6.5 7.2 3.2 3.2 32.6 32.6 4.0 4.0 2.0 2.0 176.4 176.4 4985.5 1431.0 7101.8 of a l l s p e c i e s from Glenrose. 94 SPECIES I I I I I E l k 3 14 Deer 4 13 Bear 2 Cards? 2 17 Beaver 4 17 Raccoon 2 Mink 2 Small Rodent 1 3 S e a l 2 10 Goose 16 Duck 1 Merganser — Swan 4 Common Loon 1 Western Brebe 1 Bal d Eagle 2 TOTALS 18 103 Minimum Number of I n d i v i d u a l s (MNI) Glenrose. I_ TOTALS 2 19 8 25 4 6 7 26 3 24 1 3 1 3 4 3 15 5 21 5 6 5 5 4 1 — 1 2 44 165 of a l l s p e c i e s from 95 APPENDIX 4 Slump #1 Peromyscus; r i g h t s i d e mandible, O.lg. Goose; r i g h t carpometacarpus, 0.5g. Beaver; t o o t h , 1.7g. Beaver; t o o t h , 0.5g. Beaver; t o o t h , 1.4g. Western Grebe; r i g h t tarsometatarsus, 0.5g. Beaver; c e r v i c a l v e r t e b r a , 4.3g. Canis; metacarpus fragment, d i s t a l , L2g. Beaver; d i s t a l end o f 2nd l e f t m e t a r c a r p a l , j u v e n i l e , 4.4g. Beaver; d i s t a l end of 2nd r i g h t metacarpal, j u v e n i l e , 4.4g. Deer; d i s t a l end 1st phalanx, 2.0g. Sea mammal; 14.4g. Canis; t o o t h , 0.6g. Ca n i s ; t a r s a l , 0.4g. Ca n i s ; t a r s a l , 1.8g. 96 Slump #2 Deer; r i g h t femur, proximal p o r t i o n , j u v e n i l e , 18.6g. E l k ; r i g h t a s t r a g a l u s , b u r n t d i s t a l l y , 88.8g. E l k ; v e r t e b r a , caudal, 52.2g. E l k ; antfer, base i n t a c t , 166.3g. S e a l ; l e f t u l n a , j u v e n i l e , 8.3g. E l k ; l e f t r a d i u s fragment, 2 8 . l g . E l k ; r i g h t 2nd phalanx, 23.6g. Elk, 1 l e f t calcaneus, 51.Og* Can i s ; r i g h t t i b i a , j u v e n i l e , 10.8g. Can i s ; l e f t p e l v i s , 18.4g. Canis; l e f t s i d e m a x i l l a fragment, a d u l t , 12.5g. Canis; r i g h t s i d e m a x i l l a fragment, j u v e n i l e , 7.0g. Deer; l e f t 2nd phalanx, 5.0g. Deer; l e f t r a d i u s fragment, proximal, 10.Og. S e a l ; phalanx, 4.0g. E l k ; a n t l e r fragments, 46.2g. E l k ; r i g h t -radius fragment, 19.2g. E l k ; l e f t l a t e r a l m a l l e o l u s , 8.4g. Can i s ; c e r v i c a l v e r t e b r a , 4.5g. Deer; metacarpus fragment, 5.0g. Deer; l e f t femur fragment, 18.7g. Swan; l e f t t i b i a , 4.5g. Eagle; l e f t femur, 7.2g. Goose; proximal end humerus, 4.1g. Swan; r i g h t c a r p a l phalanx, 2.1g.

Cite

Citation Scheme:

    

Usage Statistics

Country Views Downloads
United States 20 0
China 8 0
Saudi Arabia 4 0
Russia 2 0
Japan 2 0
Pakistan 1 0
City Views Downloads
Somers 6 0
Beijing 5 0
Jeddah 4 0
Pullman 4 0
Shenzhen 3 0
Missoula 3 0
Eugene 2 0
Unknown 2 0
Tokyo 2 0
Mountain View 1 0
Fort Collins 1 0
Islamabad 1 0
Redmond 1 0

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

Share

Share to:

Comment

Related Items