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.. Imamoto, Shirley Sumie 1974-01-22

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

Item Metadata


831-UBC_1974_A8 I43.pdf [ 3.99MB ]
JSON: 831-1.0058377.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0058377-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0058377-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0058377-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0058377-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0058377-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0058377-source.json
Full Text

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., University of Hawaii, 1971 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS in the Department of Anthropology and Sociology We accept this thesis as conforming to the requia^Ql standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA May, 1974 In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make it freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the Head of my Department or by his representatives. It is understood that copying or publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission. Department of Anthropology and Sociology The University of British Columbia Vancouver 8, Canada Date 2Q April 1974 ABSTRACT The Glenrose Cannery Site, DgRr 6, is a deep, multi-component located in the Fraser-Delta Region of British Columbia. This paper presents the analysis of the faunal remains recovered by excavation from the site during the 1972 and 1973 summer field seasons. Faunal analysis has had little place in archaeological site reports of the Northwest Coast and has certainly been underestimated as a source of information on subsistence and subsistence-related activities. The faunal remains from the Glenrose Site were analysed using different methods including determination of minimum number of individuals, live weight, and amounts of usable meat. Seasonality of occupation was determined and environ mental and cultural reconstructions were attempted with with particular regard to subsistence and subsistence-related activities. Changes in subsistence activities were discerned for the three major occupations represented in the site. The problems in faunal analysis were discussed. More work must be done with faunal remains in order that maximum amounts of information can be obtained to relate to other analyses of a site's excavated materials. (ii) TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES V LIST OF FIGURES VI ACKNOWLEDGEMENT . VISection Page I. INTRODUCTION 1 II. METHODS OF RECOVERY, RECORDING AND ANALYSIS 5 Site Description, Recovery, and Recording MethodsLaboratory Analysis 9 III. PRESENTATION OF THE DATA 11 Component and Stratigraphic Divisions Resultant from Associated Analyses .... 11 Minimum Number of Individuals 15 Relative Frequencies by Bone Weight and Minimum Number of Individuals 20 Live Weight and Calculated Amounts of Usable Meat 28 Additional Data 31 Determination of Age of Individuals 3 7 Associated Faunal Remains Analyses 3 7 Seasonality of Occupation 40 Environmental and Cultural Reconstruction 44 IV. CONCLUDING STATEMENTS AND COMPARISONS ..... 56 REFERENCES 6(iii) APPENDIX 1: Sample Faunal Remains Record Sheets. ... 70 APPENDIX 2: Catalogue of Faunal Remains from the Glenrose Site 72 APPENDIX 3: Weight and MNI of All Species from Glenrose 93 APPENDIX 4: Slump # 1 and Slump #2 Species List ... 95 (iv) LIST OF TABLES Table Page I Radiocarbon Dates From The Glenrose Site, DgRr 6 13 II Glenrose Level Component Assignments 14 III Faunal Remains from Glenrose by Species and Cultural Component with minimum number of Individuals 21 IV Live Weights and Grams of Usable Meat for Species Found at the Glenrose Site, DgRr 6 30 V Grams of Usable Meat by Component with Site Totals (Glenrose, DgRr 6) .... 32 VI Vegetation Species Presently on the Glenrose Cannery Site, DgRr 6 46 VII Organic (Charcoal) Samples 48 VIII Land Mammal Species and Their Habitats .... 50 IX Raw Data for Figure 7 55 (v) LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1 Map of the Fraser-Delta and Gulf Islands Showing the Glenrose Cannery Site, DgRr 6 2 2 Plan Map of - DgRr 6, Showing the Excavation Grid and Excavation Units 8 3a Minimum Number of Individuals (MNI) By Species and Component for the Entire Site (Glenrose, DgRr 6) 19 3b Total Minimum Number of Individuals (MNI) for the Entire Site (Glenrose, DgRr 6) 20 4a Percent of Each Species Within Each Component Based on Weight of Bone 2 3 4b Percent of Each Species Within Each Component Based on Minimum Number of Individuals Figures 24 5a Percent of Each Species Within Each Component and the Site Based on Weight of Bone 26 5b Percent of Each Species Within Each Component and the Site Based on Minimum Number of Individuals Figures . . .27 6a Usable Meat by Species Within Component III 33 6b Usable Meat by Species Within Component II 34 6c Usable Meat by Species Within Component I 35 6d Usable Meat by Species Within the Site 36 7 Distribution of Faunal Remains by Pit 54 (vi) ACKNOWLEDGMENT I would like to thank the members of my thesis committee, Professors Richard Pearson, R.G. Matson, and Wilson Duff, for all their assistance in the preparation of my thesis. I would also like to thank Gay Boehm for her assistance and for allowing me the use of her faunal materials. I am grateful to the staffs of the Archaeology Division of the B.C. Provincial Museum, U.B.C. Osteology Museum, and the U.B.C. Archaeology Lab for their assistance in my analysis and for the use of their comparative faunal collections. Finally, I am greatly indebted to all other persons directly and indirectly related to my thesis work for their patience and understanding. (vii) 1 I. INTRODUCTION This paper presents the analysis of the faunal remains recovered at the Glenrose Cannery Site (DgRr 6 in the Borden site designation scheme), located in the Fraser-Delta region of British Columbia (see Figure 1). It is hoped that the results will yield information which, in compunction with other studies of excavated materials from Glenrose can aid in cultural and environ mental reconstruction. Faunal analysis has had little place in archaeological site reports of the Northwest Coast except for incidental species lists or bone counts and frequencies (e.g., Carlson 1960; Mitchell 1971). Recently, however, there has been increasing interest in more systematic analyses of faunal remains. Of particular interest is the re search carried out on the St. Mungo Cannery Site, DgRr 2, approximately % mile down river from the Glenrose Cannery Site, and of close cultural affiliation in some of the layers (Boehm 1973; Matson 1973). In our area, the importance of faunal remains has certainly been underestimated as a source of information on subsistence and subsistence-related activities, al though there have been some major contributions to the field. Flannery (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 substantial works centered around faunal re mains, extracting from their studies information re garding hunting patterns, seasonality of occupation, climatic trends, and even social organization. Of cource, these sorts of information are obtainable with out or with very little faunal analysis, as, for instance, through artifact or settlement pattern studies. However, with particular regard to subsistence or subsistence-related activities, artifacts alone allow archaeologists to test hypotheses concerning prehistoric activities with a very low level of confidence in the absence of reliable ethnographic documentation (Casteel 1971). While expounding the contributions that faunal re mains may make, many archaeologists have pointed out the problems most often encountered which might lessen the accuracy of the analysis. Much has been written recently about "distortion" or a "false picture" pre sented by faunal remains, caused by differential de position and by natural and cultural influences (Casteel 1971; Daly 1969; Lyon 1970; Payne 1972a, 1972b; Thomas 1971; White 1953). A natural factor influencing deposi tion and representation might be the acidity or salinity of the soil which would facilitate or hinder the deterior ation of bone elements. Also it is the case that some 4 bone elements of animals are more resistant to deterior ation than others because of their composition and form. For instance, the large long bones of the elk are more resistant to deterioration than the smaller rib bones; the bones of a large dog will probably have better pre servation than those of a small rodent. Cultural factors influencing deposition are more varied and less predict able, and, therefore, more difficult to control in the analysis of faunal remains. When a hunting party brings back a kill to the site, it may be in partial form, as when a large animal is butchered away from the settle ment and portions are consumed before the hunters return to the site (Perkins and Daly 1968). There may be under-representation of certain animals by bone elements. It« is possible that animals used as a subsistence resource might have no representative elements at a site because they are butchered elsewhere. Some animals may not have been used for food for one reason or another, but have representative elements present in a site. There is, then, a distortion inherent in the data collected and the archaeologist must be aware of this. With this awareness, faunal remains are a valuable source of information to archaeologists. 5 In this study I have tried to anticipate possible distortions from cultural and/or natural factors. I will present an analysis of minimum number of individuals of each species identified from the site, live weight and usable meat information, discuss vertical and horizontal distributions of the faunal remains within the site, and attempt cultural and environmental reconstructions. I have analysed the remains using different techniques — weight and frequency calculations, minimum number of individuals, live weight, and usable meat — to see if there is a difference in the results which might suggest different views about subsistence and subsistence-related activities. It is also hoped that this study will lead to a greater understanding of the complex nature of the maritime and riverine cultural adaptations of prehistoric populations on the Northwest Coast. The primary concern, however, lies in the analysis of the faunal remains and the explication of the methods and results. II. METHODS OF RECOVERY, RECORDING, AND ANALYSIS Site Description, Recovery, and Recording Methods The Glenrose Cannery Site, DgRr 6, lies on the south bank of the south arm of the Fraser River opposite Annacis Island (Figure 1). Ethnographically, the Glenrose Site 6 lies within the territory of the Kwantlen group of the Halkomelem speaking Coast Salish Indians (cf. Boehm 1973: 18; Duff 1952: 23). The Coast Salish culture is characterized by complex maritime and riverine adapt ation with reliance on hunting and gathering as well, and an equally complex subsistence technology for har vesting and preparing the variety of resources available to them. A pattern of annual travels to seasonally available resources characterized many of the Coast Salish tribes with a few exceptions of sedentary settle ments (Mitchell 1971: 49-50). There is no place name from the Salish for the Glenrose Site, and although there has been extensive ethnographic work done for the Coast Salish (Duff 1952; Barnett 1955; Suttles 1951), the site itself has no references in the literature. In the summer field seasons of 1972 and 1973, excavation units of 2m square were excavated in 10cm arbitrary levels except when recognized features and/or living floors were encountered (Figure 2). The levels in all of the pits were recorded from a single site datum. That is, if the surface of a pit measured 2.6m below the site datum, then the number of the level was 26, and the level extended 10cm downward 7 to level 27 (2.70m below the site datum). In principle, in an area of even terrain, level 25, for example, would designate the same 10cm interval in each of the excava tion units. During both summer field seasons, faunal remains were recorded in three ways: 1. If there was a particularly interesting concentration of bone, or if articulated bones were uncovered, they were designated "Faunal Remains" and were given a specific number beginning with "F", such as F-001, and were recorded on a special "Faunal Remains Record Sheet". Three dimensional provenience information was recorded and any other pertinent information (matrix, associated artifacts, etc.). The form from the 1972 excavations differed slightly from the 1973 form; both are shown in Appendix 1. 2. When a complete bone or almost complete isolated bones were encountered, they were recorded on an "Artifact Record Sheet," which only required three dimen sional and matrix information where faunal remains were concerned. 3. All other fragments of bone were saved by level in bags, thus, preserving a single dimension of provenience. In addition, all the soil within a level was sifted through 1/4" or 1/8" mesh screens, and any bone fragments recovered were also saved in the level bags. Dry-screen ing and water-screening were both employed in the course of the two seasons. 8 Figure 2. Plan map of DgRr 6, showing the excavation grid and excavation units0 9 During the 1973 field season, field checks were made on the kinds of material which might fall through the 1/8" screens and still be retained in a 1/16" screen. Quantities of 4000cm3 (20cm X 20cm X 10cm blocks; 1% of the volume of a level which was 2m X 2m X .10m) of material from different levels and different pits were sifted through an 1/8" screen which was attached to a 1/16" screen. The 1/16" screen retained traces of shell and bone, but they were finely fragmented, and the bones in particular were too fragmented in most cases for visual separation of the bird bone from the mammal or fish bone. Laboratory Analysis The 1972 and 1973 bone level bags were analysed by others (Mayer n.d.; Harris n.d.) and specific results will be presented later in this paper. Basically, the methods they used were to separate the bones by general faunal classes — fish, land mammal, sea mammal, bird — and to develop relative frequencies by pit and level of the classes based on weight and bone counts. These remains were, for the most part, quite fragmentary and could not be identified to species. For this paper, over 350 fragments were sorted to the level of species or genus. These fragments came 10 from the level bags, separate bags when treated as arti facts, or were individually packed faunal remains (F-001, F-002, etc.). Level bags often contained fragments of bones which could be identified to species. All the level bags from pits 1-6, 8, and the baulk were inspected for identifiable bones. An intuitive decision was made as to which bones could be identified. I accomplished the bulk of identification myself and having no previous instruction, I often had to guess which bones were worth taking out of the level bags to try to identify. All bones were also identified by element where possible and weighed and counted. The piece by piece identification was accomplished with the use of the comparative collection at the University of British Columbia's Osteology Museum and the collection at the British Columbia Provincial Museum. In addition, I was able to use identified faunal remains from the Archaeology Lab at U.B.C, and fortunate to have the use of Gay Boehm's identified remains from the St. Mungo Site. I was not able to identify all the bones I had taken from the level bags; often key epiphyses were missing or the bone fragment was too small to show any distinctive characteristics. 11 III. PRESENTATION OF THE DATA Component and Stratigraphic Divisions Resultant from Associated Analyses The Glenrose Cannery Site is a deep, multi-component midden site with deposits of up to 6 meters (cf. Matson 1973). The site's stratigraphy represents three major occupations. The Marpole Component (Component I) is the most recent and uppermost occupation consisting generally of a dark sandy loam with some intermixture of shell ending in a tan silty clay loam layer. The component is so named because of Marpole affinites indicated by the presence of ground slate knives, slate disc beads, and celts. The St. Mungo Component (Component II) consists of shell lenses in places and apparent lenses of sterile, redeposited soil. This component bears great similarity to the oldest component from the St, Mungo Cannery Site, DgRr 2, down river from Glenrose (Boehm 1970, 1973). There are similarities in the presence of decorative objects, such as bone pendants and tooth pendants, a spindle-shaped incised bone object, and general similar ities in other artifact classes. The Old Cordilleran Component (Component III) in most cases is totally void of shell and is characterized, particularly in the 12 bottom half, by the presence of well-rounded cobbles and boulders. This component is characteristically similar to what is outlined as the Old Cordilleran Culture with the presence of leaf-shaped bifaces and an abundance of crude pebble tools (cf. Matson 1973). Table I outlines the radiocarbon dates received up to the time of this writing. These divisions have resulted primarily from artifact analysis and, at this point, are still under going further minor revisions. It is also important to mention that the stratigraphic divisions are de fined by an interval of levels for each pit. That is, in pit 1, the levels 37-59 represent the extent of Component II. In pit 5, Component II is represented by levels 34-56. The complete list of divisions for each of the pits appears in Table II. 13 TABLE I. Radiocarbon Dates From The Glenrose Site, DgRr 6. Code No. Stratigraphic Unit Sample Description Age GaK-4646 I #1, Charcoal from Pit 2, Level 33. 2310 ± 105 360 B.C. B.P. GaK-4647 I #3, Charcoal from Pit 4, Level 25. 2030 80 B. - 95 E C. i.P. GaK-4648 II #33, Charcoal and shells from Pit 4, Level 45. 4240 2290 i no B.C. B.P. GaK-4863 II #63, Charcoal from 1/5 Baulk, Level 37. 3280 1330 ± 105 B.C. B.P. GaK-4867 II #83, Charcoal from 1/5 Baulk, Level 55. 3570 1620 ± 95 B.P. B.C. GaK-4649 III #34, Charcoal from Pit 1, Level 63. 7430 5480 t 340 B.C. B.P. GaK-4650 III #39, Charcoal from Pit 1, Level 66. 5730 3780 ± 125 B.C. B.P. GaK-4864 ? #65, Charcoal from Pit 7, Level 36. 3700 1750 ± 120 B.C. B.P. GaK-4865 Illq #69, Charcoal from Pit 1, Level 73. 6780 4830 ± 135 B.C. B.P. GaK-4866 III #77, Charcoal from Pit 1, Level 75. 8150 6200 t 250 B.C. B.P. The calculation of ages is based on a Libby's half-life of C-14, 5570 years, and the indicated t errors are the years corresponding to the standard (one sigma) of beta rays count statistical errors. 14 TABLE II. Glenrose Level Component Assignments. These assignments were done by independently com paring artifactualbreaks and stratigraphic breaks. If disagreement occurred, generally the criterion that showed the sharpest break was used. In general there was good agree ment. Pit Marpole/St. Mungo St. Mungo/ Old Cordilleran Artifact Strat. Final Artifact Strat. Final 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 to 42/43 44 in p: 3 22/29 22/23. 22/23 33/34 32/34 33/34 4 28/29 28/29 28/29 45/46 west wall 8 2 7 31/32 34/38 30/31 or -27/28 31/32 34/35 27/28 43/35 south wall St. Mungo 44/49 east wall ? north wall 31/32 (No Cordilleran and little St. Mungo) 34/35 27/28 41/42 30/31 41/42 41/42 30/31 Done by Matson and Peacock March 16, 1974. Subject to revision anytime after March 18, 1974. 15 Minimum Number of Individuals Grayson (1973) has recently discussed the various approaches to grouping of faunal material for deter mining minimum number of individuals of animals from an archaeological site. Others have also discussed the concept of minimum number of individuals (Shotwell 1955; White 1953; Payne 1972a; Daly 1969);, but Grayson neatly summarizes the merits and drawbacks of the approaches. Although it is generally agreed that the minimum number of individuals should be calculated to account for all of the skeletal elements of a particular species in a site, the methods by which determinations of minimum number of individuals varies. One method discussed by Grayson is to determine the MNI (minimum number of individuals) by ignoring the stratigraphic breaks and the vertical excavation units. This would yfeld the most conservative estimation of MNI. In terms of the multi-component Glenrose Site, the MNI derived from the faunal remains with this method would be meaningless. One could not expect any inform ation on change in subsistence over the thousands of years of occupation, nor any information on the cultural or natural enviroment that one could infer from the presence or absence of certain species through the 16 occupations represented by the stratigraphic divisions. A second method of obtaining the MNI, which Grayson considers the best, is by working within the stratigraphic divisions and ignoring the vertical excavation units. This would yield more MNI than the previous method out lined. In my analysis, I have followed closely a third method which Grayson discusses. The method entails the use of the stratigraphic divisions and also the vertical excavation units. In using such a method one assumes that the remains of individual animals will not be distributed across the site and represented in several of the vertical units. I first divided all the faunal material on the basis of the stratigraphic divisions, then on the basis of the excavation units (pits). Within the stratigraphic divisions, the MNI were based on real and intuitive clusters of remains. If, for example, there were in a certain level of a pit, left and right humerus fragments found within centimeters of each other, they were considered to constitute a real and observable cluster, as would the ar ticulated remains of a radius and ulna. If, on the other hand, a humerus of a deer was found in one level and an ulna found in the next level and they were in different quandrants of the pit as well, these might be intuitively clustered together 17 and considered as one individual rather than two. It was all the more difficult to assess the MNI because the excavation by arbitrary levels precluded the determin ation of natural substrata and lenses of cultural material within the major stratigraphic divisions and often cut through two or more of these layers. I was unable to determine whether remains found in different areas of a pit and at different depths were in one substratum/lens or another, and, hence, representing one or two individuals. Thus, I would say that my estimate of MNI for Glenrose is rather conservative since I proceeded cautiously and minimized groupings rather than vice versa (For a complete catalogue of the faunal remains from which all calculations were made, see Appendix 2). Table III outlines the faunal remains found at Glenrose. There is the initial division by species (family or sub family when species undeterminable), then by cultural com ponent. The total number of fragments within each component is indicated and the skeletal parts present are listed. The calculated MNI is also indicated. In some cases a precise count was not taken due to the extreme fragmentation of some of the remains, however, regardless of the fragmentation, all the remains were weighed. It should be mentioned here 18 that lumbar vertebrae of dolphin (genus Grampus; verification of genus by personal communication with T. Loy) were recovered at Glenrose. They were extensively modified and recorded as artifacts. Since there was no other evidence for the presence of dolphin at the site, they were not considered for my faunal analysis. The bone artifacts were also inspected and there was no evidence to suggest that species of fauna other than those already identified were represented in the site. From the table, it is often the case that the MNI calculated is considerably less than the number of individual fragments for each species. Although the number of individual fragments are presented they are not used elsewhere in the paper. One could compare the counts to obtain an idea of change through time. The changes certainly appear to be greater, in terms of decrease from component to component, but are often quite deceptive and of very little use. An increase in the bone count could be due to increased fragmentation of skeletal elements and certainly is the case'.'.for much of the Glenrose remains. Increasing counts do not neces sarily mean increasing animals. Figure 3a presents the MNI figures in a graphic form with the lowest and oldest component first and the youngest last as one views the figure from left to right. 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 SPECIES CULTURAL COMPONENT 3 -ii-/> < z jj o 2 z — u. DUO 5 005 z|5 2z? ANTLER SKULL FRAGMENTS MAXILLA MANDIBLE ATLAS/AXIS SCAPULA J 1 HUMERUS RADIUS 1 1 < z _j Ul < z 0 z FEMUR PATELLA TIBIA CARPAL TARSAL CALCANEUM ASTRAGALUS METAPOOIAL 1st PHALANX 2nd PHALANX 3rd PHALANX OTHER POST CRANIAL ELK 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 DEER 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 + BEAR 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 BEAVER CASTOR CANADENSIS 1 11 III 6 44 4 3 17 4 1 1 7 1 3 1 2 1 2 4 2 1 4 1 1 3 3 IS 1 RACCOON PROCYON LOT OR 1 II III 1 4 1 2 2 1 1 1 MINK MVS TEL LA VI SON 1 1 1 III 1 2 1 2 1 2 SMALL RODENT FAMILY PEROMYSCUS 1 II III 3 1 3 1 3 1 SEAL 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 GOOSE SUBFAMILY ANSERINAE 1 II III 6 22 S 16 1 1 6 20 DUCK SUBFAMILY ANA TINA £ 1 III 7 1 5 1 7 MERGANSER SUBFAMILY . UERGINAE 1 II III 3 5 3 SWAN SUB FAMILY CYGNINAE 1 II III 5 4 3 1 1 COMMON LOON GAVIA IMMER 1 II III 1 1 1 WESTERN GREBE AECHOMORPHUS OCCIDENTALS 1 III 1 1 1 BALD EAGLE 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 III. Faunal remains from Glenrose by species and cultural component with minimum number of individuals. X. = present, exact 2i , The greatest bulk of the fauna in terms of MNI, is in the middle component, II, with Component I having the next largest number. Figure 3b presents the site total for MNI. Although a comprehensive list of minimum number of individuals from Glenrose has been presented, the num bers should not be taken as directly comparable to the minimum number of individuals from other sites without caution because of the different approaches to deter mining them. This, however, does not make the inferences made from the MNI information any less valuable. Relative Frequencies by Bone Weight and Minimum Number of Individuals The relative frequency of species was graphed by bone weight and minimum number of individuals for com parison within each component and for comparison between the components within the site. Figure 4a presents the relative frequencies of species within a single component by percentage of the total bone weight in each component. Figure 4b presents the relative frequencies of MNI by percentage of total MNI within each component. There can be direct comparison of Component I from 4a with Component I from 4b, or Component II of 4a with Component II of 4b, and so on. Figure 4a. Percent of each species within each component based on 05 weight of bone. T = trace. SPECIES ELK DEER BEAR CANIS ? BE AVER RACCOON MINK SMALL RODENT SEAL GOOSE DUCK MERGANSER SWAN COMMON LOON 30 50 10 30 J I L 50 30 50 J_ 70 _L_ 90 J L WESTERN GREBE BALD EAGLE I 10 1—i r 30 50 10 30 50 30 50 70 i r 90 Figure 4b. Percent of each species within each component based on minimum number of individual figures* 25 However, there can be no valid comparisons made between Components I, II, and III because percentages were based on weight and MNI totals of each component. That is, the percentage of elk in Component III of Figure 4a was calculated by taking the total bone weight of elk in that component and dividing by the total bone weight of all species in Component III. The same procedure was followed for all species and components and for the MNI figures. As one can readily see, the ratios given by the percentages of bone weight are quite different than those given by the percentages of MNI. An interpreted dominance of elk in Component III of Figure 4a is not the case when looking at Figure 4b. In Figure 4b, deer, beaver, and elk could be interpreted as being equally dominant in representation. Figure 5a and 5b also present the relative fre quencies by the components, but the percentages were based on the site totals 6f> bone weights and MNI for all species, so that the percentage of elk in Component III in Figure 5a is obtained by calculating the total weight of all species in the entire site. Thus, for each figure (5a,5b) Components I, II, and III are com parable with each other. In addition, the right most graph of both figures show the relative frequencies of each species within the entire site. SPECIES 10 30 ELK DEER BEAR CANIS ? BEAVER III RACCOON 30 J I I L MINK SMALL RODENT SEAL GOOSE DUCK MERGANSER SWAN COMMON LOON WESTERN GREBE BALD EAGLE 10 1—r 30 i—r 10 30 10 i—r 30 10 n—i—i r 30 50 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 30 JT 30 _L_ io 30 30 50 III SITE MINK SMALL RODENT SEAL GOOSE DUCK MERGANSER SWAN COMMON LOON WESTERN GREBE BALD EAGLE 10 30 10 30 i—r 10 30 30 50 Figure 5b. Percent of each species within each component and the site based on minimum number of individual figures. ro 28 It is again apparent that the ratios for the bone weights are quite different than those for the MNI. Weight of species1 fragments then, gives a false picture of resource utilisation. For example, in Figure 5a, elk seems to dominate the species represented, but it is not necessarily the case according to Figure 5b. Individual elk bones will weigh more than individual bones of smaller•mammals. One elk humerus may weigh the equivalent of five or six humeri of seal, yet will only represent one individual to perhaps more than five of the other species. Thus, caution should be exercised when making inferences based on relative frequencies based on bone weight. Live Weight and Calculated Amounts of Usable Meat This section deals with the live weight of species found at Glenrose and the amount of usable meat which could conceivably be taken from them for human consumption. The live weights were calculated on the basis of the MNI information presented earlier in this paper. The weights of all the species were taken from The Mammals of British  Columbia (Cowan and Guiguet 1965), or found in T.E. White's article on calculating the dietary percentage of food animals utilised by aboriginal people (1953). I have also used White's figures for the percent of usable meat 29 extractable from different animals. For the most part, my figures for the live weights were conservative, taking the average rather than the maximum weight. I also converted the calculations into grams to be consistent with previously presented data and to be compatible with associated analysis of bone from the level bags. Grams rather than ounces or pounds were used to record all the other data from the site. The weights should not be taken as being absolutely correct for the species involved; they are only estimates. Also, it is assumed that the species involved have not changed greatly in size in the past thousands of years, so that weights given for today's animals are applicable to the prehistoric fauna. Table IV contains the live weights and grams of usable meat for species found at the Glenrose Site. Table V presents the calculated grams of usable meat for each of the species within the components. Figures 6 (a-d) presents the same data graphically. The graphs of the usable meat for the different components show more general similarity to the graphs of weight of bones than to the minimum number of individual graphs. This is because a large animal will usually yield more usable meat as well as have larger and hea\aer bones 30 TABLE IV. Live Weights and Grams of Usable Meat for Species Found at the Glenrose Site, DgRr 6. Species Live Weight Live Weight % of Grams of (pounds) (grams) Usable Meat Usable Meat Elk 645.0 Deer 143.0 Bear 300.0 Canis ? 25.0 Beaver 18.0 Raccoon 12.0 Mink * Small Rodent * Seal 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) * Figures Not Available than a smaller animal. One particular exception where the usable meat representation differs substantially a from the bone weight frequencies is in Component II for deer and seal. In Figure 5a the bone weight of seal is almost half that of the represented frequency for deer, yet in Figure 6b, in terms of usable meat, seal yields more than deer. Therefore, although bone weight frequencies may yield similar information to the usable meat frequencies, the latter seems more desirable in probably giving a more accurate picture of the relationships between species. The calculations for minimum number of individuals is a necessary step in order to obtain frequencies of usable meat. Additional Data During the course of the 1973 summer excavations, two slumps of cultural material occurred due to excess moisture in the ground. The first slump was from the east wall of the baulk (Figure 2), and the second occurred in the pits 1-5 baulk complex. Because of the very in definite provenience, the faunal material saved from these two slumps were not included in our analysis. However, a basic list of species present are included as Appendix 4. There were no species identified that we did not already encounter. 32 TABLE V. Grams of Usable Meat by Component with Site Totals (Glenrose, DgRr 6). Species III II I i Site Elk Deer Bear Canis ? Beaver Raccoon Mink Small Rodent Seal 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^H2.4 — 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 total). Figure 6b. Usable meat by species within component II (graphed by percent out of site total). T * trace. % 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 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 ELK HHHH 5.4 DEER ^^^^.8 BEAR ^^^^^HHH ?0 CANIS? I 0.7 BEAVER |0.3 RACCOON 0.1 MINK SMALL RODENT SEAL PH^l 3-3 GOOSE 0.2 DUCK 0.1 MERGANSER 0.1 SWAN COMMON LOON WESTERN GREBE BALD EAGLE TOTAL 22.0 Figure 6c 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 total). U) 37 Determination of Age of Individuals The aging of individuals was only attempted when the proximal and/or distal epiphyses of bones were present. The partial deterioration of many of the bones or the presence of only fragmented sections made it all the more difficult for aging individuals. Three categories for aging (when possible) were used — juvenile, young adult, and adult. The criteria on which the aging was based were as follows: 1. juvenile — epiphyses unfused, present or missing; 2. young adult— epiphyses partly fused and present or broken off; 3. adult — epiphyses completely fused and present, although deterioration had occurred at the very ends of many of the bones. The ages of individuals are indicated and presented as part of Appendix 2. Associated Faunal Remains Analyses C.E. Mayer (n.d.) and M. Harris (n.d.) both analysed the contents of the bone level bags from the Glenrose excavations. Mayer's analysis dealt with pit 1-6 from the 1972 summer excavations, where pits 1,4,5, and 6 were partially dug. Harris' analysis dealt with all the level 38 bags from pit 6, which was completed in the summer of 1973, and all the bags from the baulk between pits 1 and 5. The categories they used were "fish", "land mammal", "bird", and "sea mammal". The presentation of the data was in terms of weight in grams and percents based on the weights for the different categories. I consolidated some of Mayer's figures and categories (land mammal, sea mammal, bird) and arrived at the following: Pits 1-6: I — 2463.0g./30.4% II — 5160.1g./60.7% III — 475.5g./ 5.9% Fish remains occurred throughout the deposits in varying quantities. It is apparent that the bulk of the faunal remains occurs in the middle component, II. There is indicated a fairly sharp rise in the remains from the lowest com ponent to the middle component, then a drop in the amount of faunal remains, though not as sharply, into the latest component. Harris noted a change in the resource emphasis (on the basis of changes in amounts from level bags) from fish in the lowest component to mammal and bird 39 in the middle and upper components. There is an increase in total faunal remains from the lowest component in pit 6 and the baulk to the middle component. In the baulk, there is a continuing increase up to the latest component where the faunal remains decrease. However, in pit 6, the increase continues through the middle component into the upper component. The results of both analyses are generally com patible with the results obtained in this study. From Figures 5a, 5b, and Appendix 3, it is evident that the greatest number of identified faunal remains by weight and minimum number of individuals occur in Component II. There is a marked increase from Component III and a decrease to Component I. The fish remains from Glenrose were analysed by R.W. Casteel (n.d.) of the Department of Anthropology at the University of Washington in Seattle. He studied materials from column samples from the west walls of pits 1 and 4 and also from hand-sorted remains from the level bags of pit 1 from the 1972 excavations. Notable in the remains identified were spiny dogfish (Squalus acanthias), sturgeon (Acipenseridae), pacific herring (Clupea harengus pallasii), salmon 40 (Oncorhynchus, spp., 0_. tshawytscha, 0_. gorbuscha, 0. nerka), and eulachon (Thaleichthys pacificus). The weights (in grams) of the fish from the identified remains were estimated using formulae developed by Casteel himself. Sturgeon and salmon occur consistently in the remains from each of the samples, with salmon constituting from 65 to 95 percent of the total identified of each sample. In addition, from the analysis of pit 1 level bags, salmon remains (Oncorhychus spp., et al) occur, without exception, in every level from 34 to 64 inclusive. Seasonality of Occupation From the faunal remains examined and dealt with in this paper, seasons of occupation were determinable only for the major components in general. That is, because of Glenrose's complex stratigraphy and the lack of knowledge regarding the interlayering and interlensing of cultural material within the components, it was not possible to determine a season or seasons of occupation represented by each layer or lens encountered. Another difficulty was that there were relatively few species identified which could be considered legitimate indicators of seasons. 41 In Component III, there were no bird species identified although the presence of some fowl were in dicated in the results of the level bag analyses of Mayer and Harris. Birds are often fairly reliable seasonal indicators because of their migrating cycles. There were present in Component III, however, the small and large land mammals and seal. The presence of immature individuals has been set forth by Clark (1952: 25-27) as criterion for assuming summer occupation. Boehm (1973: 84) has also used this criterion for an indication of summer occupation. There fore, some statements of seasonality can be made for Com ponent III although there are no bird species identified. In Component III, there were juvenile deer and elk indicating summer occupation. (In this study immature individuals were classed as juveniles, based on missing and/or unfused epiphyses of bones.) There was also the presence of salmon vertebra in the lower levels in dicating summer and probably fall occupation, for major salmon runs occur in the Fraser River during the summer and fall. In Component II there was greater specie's diversity, and greater amounts of faunal remains recovered by weight and calculated number of individuals. Salmon 42 bones were present throughout the component indicating a summer/fall occupation. Also present are juvenile deer, elk, seal, and beaver indicating again summer occupation. Seals were probably caught ascending the Fraser River to reside in Harrison Lake (Cowan and Guiguet 1965: 353). A common loon was identified from this component; the loon summers and winters in this area. A western grebe and bald eagle were also identified. The grebe is common along the coastlines in the winter, spring, and fall, and the eagle winters in this area. Thus, summer and fall occupations are indicated by the fauna for Component II, with summer, fall, and winter occupations probable. The swans were not identified to species, but if two species, Cygnus buccinator and Cygnus Columbianus, were present at Glenrose as they were at the St. Mungo Site, then there is additional evidence for winter occupation, for the two species winter in this area. Component I is much like Component III, having no positive avian seasonal indicators, just juvenile deer and seal. Geese, ducks, and mergansers were present, but not identified to species. Salmon remains were also present throughout the deposits of this component. Summer 43 and fall occupation is indicated by the data. There is a possibility of winter occupation indicated by the presence of geese (Canada geese and black brant both winter in this area and both were found in the deposits at St. Mungo). Summer and fall occupation for the three components is most positively indicated by the fish remains and the presence of juvenile animals. The additional winter occupation is less positively indicated, but possible. A lack of any positive indicators for winter or spring occupation, however, does not preclude the pos sibility of such occupation in any or all of the three components, nor do any of the previous statements pre clude the possibility of year round or single season occupation at any time during the occupational history of the site. • Ethnographieally it is known that most large game hunting was done in the summer and fall because of the quality and quantity of meat on the animals, but that hunting was also done when necessary, i.e., also sporadically during the winter (Duff 1952; Suttles 1951; Barnett 1955). 44 Environmental and Cultural Reconstruction The Glenrose Site lies at the base of a high ridge, Panorama Ridge, consisting of glacial till and fluvio-glacial deposits (Johnston 1921). During the occupation at Glenrose represented by Component III, the site lay very near or directly on the salt water. Within the past eight thousand years or so, the delta of the Fraser River has built up so that the site now lies approximately 13 to 14 miles from the present mouth of the river (Johnston 1923; Mathews and Shepard 1962) . Presently there is a large bog directly down river from the Glenrose Site which is also at the base of Panorama Ridge. There are also remnants of bogs and bog vegetation still observable up river from Glenrose also on the south bank near the Patullo Bridge which currently spans the river at New Westminster. Two types of bog fores associations were observed: pine (Pinus  contorta), and birch (Betula sp.) associations; and red cedar (Thuja plicata) and hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla) associations, with birch interspersed, and infrequent spruce (Picea sitchensis) present. Other areas near the site are forested by various conifers and stands of deciduous trees: Thuja plicata, 45 Abies, sp., Pseudotsuga menziesii, Picea sitchensis, Tsuga sp., Populus trichocarpa, Betula sp., Alnus sp., and Acer sp. An inspection of the site's present vegetation was made by Jim Pojar, Ph.D. candidate, U.B.C, and a list was made for the site. The list is presented as Table VI, with introduced and naturalized species omitted. Organic (charcoal) samples were collected during the 1973 summer excavations, and some selected samples were sent to the Forest Products Laboratory at U.B.C. The results are shown in Table VII. Douglas fir is present throughout the occupation of the site with hem lock and maple associations in the lower component. The birch, oak, and spruce occur in the upper levels of the upper component in recently disturbed earth. The habitats for the land mammals identified from Glenrose are outlined in Table VIII. Looking at all three tables, VI, VII, VIII, the general picture of the area is one that corresponds to the suggested natural climax vegetation for the area — dense coniferous forests in the higher regions, with deciduous/coniferous forests in the lower areas (Cowman and Guiguet 1965). This statement is also made on the assumption that the current vegetation of the site and the surrounding areas 46 TABLE VI. Vegetation Species Cannery Site, DgRr Presently on the Glenrose 6. Common Name Latin Designation Trees Grand Fir Douglas Fir Red Cedar Big-Leaf Maple Red Alder Paper Birch Western Flowering Dogwood Black Cottonwood Bitter Cherry Shrubs Vine Maple Oregon Grape Red-Osier Dogwood Hazelnut Oceanspray Indian Plum Wild Rose Evergreen Blackberry Blackcap Thimbleberry Salmonberry Dewberry Willow Snowberry Red Huckleberry Abies grandis  Pseudotsuga menziesii  Thuja plicata  Acer macrophyllum  Alnus rubra  Betula payrifera  Cornus nuttallii  Populus trichocarpa Prunus emarginata Acer circinatum Berberis nervosa  Cornus stolonifera  Corylus cornuta Holodiscus discolor  Osmaronia cerasiformis Rose nutkana Rubus laciniatus Rubus leucodermis Rubus parviflorus Rubus spectabilis Rubus ursinus Salix scouleriana Symphoricarpos albus Vaccinium parvifolium 47 TABLE VI (Cont'd). Common Name Herbs Douglas 1 Aster Lady Fern Sedge Canada Thistle Tufted Hairgrass Bleeding Heart Fairy. Lantern Shield Fern Ryegrass Fireweed Watson's Willowherb Common Horstail Bedstraw Jewel Weed, Touch-Me-Not Skunk Cabbage Siberian Miner1s Lettuce Water Parsley Sweet-Cicely Bracken Fern Sow-Thistle Crisped Starwort Fringecup Cat-tail Stinging Nettle American Brooklime Latin Designation Aster subspicatus Athyrium filix-femina Carex lyngbyei (Brackish, tidal mudflats) Cirsium arvense Deschampsia cespitosa  Dicentra formosa  Disporum Smithii  Drvopteris austriaca Elymus glaucus Epilobium angustifolium Epilobium watsonii Equisetum palustre  Galium trifolium Impatiens ecalcarata Lysichitum americanum Montia sibirca Oenanthe sarmentosa  Osmorhiza chilensis  Pteridium asquilinum  Sonchus oleraceus Stellaria crispa Tellima gradiflora  Typha latifolia  Urtica dioica (var. lyalli) Veronica americana 48 TABLE VII. Organic (Charcoal) Samples.* Pit Level Component Description Baulk Baulk Baulk Baulk Baulk Baulk Baulk 30 47 52 53 61 63 79 I II II II III III III Mainly Douglas Fir, 1 Oak, 1 Birch, 1 Spruce Douglas Fir Douglas Fir Mainly Douglas Fir, 1 Maple Maple 95% Douglas Fir, Hemlock Douglas Fir * Submitted to Bob Drake, Forest Products Laboratory; identification by R.W. Meyer. 49 reflect, in part, the past vegetation make-up under overall similar climatic conditions. It is quite difficult even to begin to discuss population size (and diet) or settlement patterns from the faunal and environmental data, not necessarily because of the lack of an adequate sample, or the factors of differential deposition and preservation, but simply because of the lack of knowledge regarding the complex interlayering and interlensing of the cultural material. What layers from which pits were contiguous with layers from other pits? What were the relationships between the layers and lenses within one pit? Pit profiles do-not necessarily reflect the situation in the middle of a pit. Thus, the relationships between the faunal remains are no less obscured for their direct relationship to the layers and lenses of the pits from which they came are virtually unknown. In this study, I have not dealt with fish nor shell remains from Glenrose which are quite important in the diet of the inhabitants. In a study that deals only with a portion of all the materials obtained through excavations one should not expect definitive statements regarding cultural activities, but rather, •suggestive statements based on the data present which can be correlated with associated analyses. 50 TABLE VIII. Land Mammal Species and their Habitats.* Species Habitat Elk Parkland country — clumps of conifers (Cervus canadensis) for protection and groves.of deciduous trees interspersed with grassland to provide food. Deer (Odocoileus hemionus) Mountaintops and high valleys during the summer and back to lower ranges in the winter; shelter of coniferous trees essential for large-scale wintering; diet varies with the habitat, but most palatable plants are Douglas Fir, western cedar, Oregon yew, trailing blackberry, red huckleberry, and salal, supplemented in summer by great variety of herbaceous plants. Bear (Ursus americanus) Wooded areas generally, concentrating on berry patches and spawning-streams in season. Beaver (Castor canadensis) Vicinity of fresh-water bodies in forested country. Raccoon (Procyon lotor) Found in both deciduous and coniferous forests and shrubbery, some what arboreal, Mink (Mustela vison) Semi-aquatic in habit; usually found associated with water; dwells in the woodlands and marshes surrounding sea shores, banks of rivers, streams. * (Information regarding the species' habitats from Cowan and Guiguet 1965) Looking back at the figures for minimum number of individuals (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 utilisation, increased technological sophistication which increases accessibi lity, or increased availability of resources due to changing climatic conditions and/or physical geography of the area. More than likely it was a combination of all of the above with one or more factors being dominant at one time or another influencing the observed dis tributions. 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), it appears that there is quite a marked increase in elk, deer, and seal from III to II. From the level bag analyses the figures for fish remains also show a cor responding increase from III to II. I would suggest that besides a population increase at the site, the occupation became more intensive, perhaps year round rather than sporadic or seasonal. 52 The presence of large mammals could be indicative of a certain level of technological sophistication or o cultural development. Group hunting could be inferred; several hunters could more efficiently trap the larger game. Ethnographically, it is known that deer and elk were hunted by parties driving them into nets (Duff 1952; Suttles 1951; Barnett 1955), with elk requiring more hunters because of their greater size. The subsequent decrease of fauna and usable meat from Component II to I was perhaps due in large part to the build-up of the delta, increasing the distance to the shellfish, making the site desirable not for year round occupation, but seasonal encampment to take ad vantage of the availability and accessibility of the large land game and fish runskduring the spawning seasons. There is also much less elk by individuals in Component I than deer, whereas, there is a comparable amount of elk to deer in Components II and III. There was either less need for the resource the elk might provide or reduction in availability and/or accessibility of the elk. It could, however, simply be due to a lack in adequate sample size for Component I coupled with the fact that Component I was subject to the most dis turbance . 53 In terms of the entire occupation of the site it seems that a comparable number of smaller mammals and birds were taken to the number of large land mammals and seals (Figure 3b). However, with regard to the usuable meat gained by the human population, elk, deer and seal yielded considerably more food, with bear yielding a sizeable amount when caught. Some of the smaller animals might not have been considered food for one reason or another, e.g./ dogs (Canis?). That there might have been differential occupation areas over the site through time is reflected in the distribution of faunal remains in each pit (Figure 7, Table IX). The differential depths of cultural material in the different pits also indicates a pattern of site usage. The area surrounding pits 1, 4, 5, 6, and the baulk seems to have been the most intensively used area of the site. The pit 1-4-5-6-baulk area was the centre of the site1s activities or much more towards the centre than pits 2, 3, and 8. Pits 2, 3, and 8 were shallower, and also yielded considerably less faunal remains by weight of bone and minimum number of individuals. Figure 7. Distribution of faunal remains by pit (using # of total bone and total live weight). 55 TABLE IX. Raw Data for Figure 7, Page 54. Pit Weight of % of Site Live Weight % of Site Bone(grams) Total in Grams Total 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 is a tremendous amount of information to be gained about the prehistoric populations on the North west Coast from faunal analysis. The study of sub sistence and subsistence-related activities cannot be complete without including the faunal remains which are the remnants of these activities. Faunal remains are present in virtually all archaeological sites in the area, especially coastal middens, yet they are also virtually ignored. Compari sons with many of the ;sites' faunal remains is im possible because information regarding them is not pre sent in the site reports. Still there is some information that can be used in comparison. The effectives of faunal analysis are heightened by comparisons with associated analyses of artifacts, burials, soils, etc., from any given site. Gressman's work at the Dalles, Oregon (1960), un covered an Old Cordilleran component at approximately the same time depth as Glenrose's Old Cordilleran Compo nent. Cressman defines this as his Early Period of cultural development and further divides it into the Initial, Fully Developed, and Final. During the Initial there is some bone material beginning to appear in the 57 upper levels. The Fully Developed Period is characteriz ed byan "enormous number of salmon vertebrae, bird bones, animal bones" (Cressman 1960: 59). Bird, animal and fish remains disappear in the Final. Thus Cressman concludes that "the subsistence economy of the Early period was certainly based on the use of fish with some slight addition of small animals with an occasional deer, elk, or bear thrown in" (I960: 70). A similar situation seems to have existed at Glenrose in terms of the subsistence with reliance on fish, some large and small game, and the addition of shellfish. In comparing Cressman's faunal material to the Glenrose material for the Old Cordilleran Component, I would suggest that, generally, the occupation at Glenrose was of a much more sporadic or seasonal nature than at the Dalles. There seems to have been much more rapid cultural development at the Dalles. Of course, Glenrose at one time lay on salt water so a stable environment for resource development might not have existed during the site's initial occupation. The shifting channels of the Fraser would have affected the accessibility of the fish during their seasonal runs. These factors would have lessened the desirability of the area for a more permanent encampment. 58 Carlson's study on the San Juan Islands (1960) has some information on faunal remains and is of interest because his study discusses Marpole components and the later San Juan Phase components. Fish remains were common in all strata from the different sites he mentions. The mammalian remains were presented by frequency of bone count for the sites. It is difficult to compare his figures with those of Glenrose because there is very little discussion regarding the remains and subsistence activities. However, from the counts presented in his study, deer remains are most numerous with dog or wolf next in representation. Elk and seal were represented to a lesser degree. This situation also occurs in the Marpole Component from Glenrose, where deer is predomin ant over elk, and seal remains are absent. Cultural development ends with the Marpole Component at Glenrose, but continues in the San Juan Islands with a change in technology as evidenced by changing artifactual elements. Another comparison that can be made is with the recent work done by Kathryn Conover at Namu (1972). She found evidence for seasonal, multi-site occupation in response to the pursuit of seasonally available resources. She was able to define three depositional morphologies. 59 The earliest occupation occurred over 9000 years ago and occupation continued until about 480 years B.P. The figures she presented for the majtimal species were in terms of number of identified bones per level or stratum for the excavation units at Namu. A hypothesis she presents regarding subsistence is that when there is a decline in the availability of a resource, the population exploits a different resource rather than exploit the diminishing resource in another area (Conover 1972: 281). She observed a consistent trend of gradual increase in predominance of marine fauna over forest fauna at Namu. This situation perhaps was precipitated by a decrease in availability of forest fauna or simple pre ferential resource utilisation due to more highly de veloped maritime proficiencies. At Glenrose, with particular respect to the Marpole Component, the exploitation of different resources might not have been enough to compensate for a diminishing resource, shellfish, so that seasonal occupation was pre ferred over year round occupation. Although Conover's study focuses on a population with a different subsistence orientation, she makes in teresting remarks regarding site occupation and resource utilisation. 60 A final study which is the most relevant to the Glenrose Site was done recently by Gay Boehm (1973), on the St. Mungo Cannery Site, DgRr 2, which I have briefly mentioned earlier. The St. Mungo Component of the Glenrose Site is named after the St. Mungo Site and is comparable to its lowest component. Her study also discusses the seasonality of occup ation of the site determined by the use of seasonal faunal indicators and also on the basis of changing amounts and types of fauna (Boehm 1973). Besides being able to discern changes of patterns from component to component she was also able to discern internal vari ation within the components. There is much greater avian species diversity at St. Mungo than at Glenrose, mostly in the lowest com ponent at St. Mungo. In Component II at Glenrose there are 6 species of birds present, whereas, Boehm lists more than 2 5 for the comparable component at St. Mungo. Having seen her actual faunal collection I would suggest the discrepancies between the sites' avian remains is due, in large part, to better preservation of the identifiable elements at St. Mungo, for there was quite a number of bird bone fragments in the level bags for all the pits at Glenrose none of which were identifiable to species. 61 The variety of mammalian fauna is similar. At both sites deer, elk, Canis?, beaver, and seal are well represented. At both sites elk generally pre vailed as an important resource yielding more usable meat per individual than other animals. Boehm notes changes in subsistence patterns within the lowest component at St. Mungo and has defined two sub-components, la and lb. The general picture pre sented for sub-component la is of hunting,.fowling and fishing activities, with hunting predominant. From decreases in diversification of avian species in sub component lb and increases in salmon, which is most efficiently exploited seasonally, Boehm saw an inten sification of the seasonal nature of subsistence acti vities at St. Mungo (n.d.: 21). Although definitive subsistence patterns cannot be drawn for the Glenrose site at this time, some general patterns can be discerned for the three components. These statements are made with full knowledge of the limitations of the data and are by no means final. Subsistence activities at Glenrose indicated by the faunal remains of Component III are og generalized hunting and gathering with no one particular resource exploited in great quantities, however, the large land mammals were probably the most desirable resource in 62 terms of usable meat. Fishing and fowling were also accomplished. The presence of seals does not necessarily imply incipient maritime adaptation, for they could have been netted and clubbed as they stopped on their way up the Fraser River to reside and breed in Harrison and Pitt Lakes. A sporadic seasonal occupation is indicated in Component III, so that the inhabitants of Glenrose probably did not exploit seasonally available resources systematically and did not employ a technology to store great quantities of food for very lengthly occupations. I would suggest that the nature of the occupation re presented by Component III was similar in adaptation to available resources as at The Dalles (Cressman 1960), but that the socio-economic considerations influencing length and intensity of occupation were quite different. Component II, as mentioned before, is markedly dif ferent in types and quantities of faunal remains. More intensive and regular seasonal occupation is indicated, with corresponding development of technology to systematically exploit the seasonal resources available and to store them in quantity for later use. There is increased emphasis on large land and sea mammal hunting. Again, the presence and increase of seal does not neces sarily indicate maritime adaptation or the need for such 63 pursuits, for there is a corresponding increase in the fish and shellfish remains. Certainly longer periods of continuous (multi-season) occupation are indicated. The general subsistence pattern is quite similar to that of Component I at St. Mungo (Boehm n.d.). of hunting, fowling, fishing, and shell collecting activities with probably intensification of the seasonal nature of the activities. This is supported in part by the increase in fish remains in Component II (Mayer n.d.; Harris n.d.). The data for Component I shows a decrease in almost all faunal remains, notably elk. There is an absence of seal altogether and fewer avian species as well. The component has been defined as Marpole-like by Matson (1973) on the basis of similar artifact types. Marpole culture has been defined as representative of the North west Coast Cultural Tradition of highly adapted maritime subsistence activities (Borden 1970). There is the pre sence of unilaterally and bilaterally barbed harpoon tips and ground slate points, which are implements re lating directly to maritime oriented activities and usually found in sites of the Marpole Phase (Borden 1970: 99-107). Borden also mentions that several sites of the Marpole Phase once fronted the salt water and are now land locked (1970: 102-103). The Glenrose Site was not fronting the sea during the occupation represented by 64 Component I. There is no evidence from my analysis of the faunal remains to indicate a maritime oriented cul ture from Component I at Glenrose. However, I have found indications for occupation at Glenrose to procure seasonally available resources, perhaps primarily fish, thus, the decrease in representation of large land mammals, especially elk is reasonably accounted for. I would sug gest that at this time Glenrose was an inland seasonal encampment for a maritime oriented population, thus, the presence of some implements relating to maritime pursuits and the absence of marine fauna is not an unexplainable situation. Seal, great amount of shellfish, and other marine fauna were probably,taken at a site on the coast at other times of the year. In summary, from the earliest occupation at Glenrose there seems to be a change in the nature of occupation from sporadically seasonal to fairly continuous and in tensive occupation to perhaps annually seasonal. The subsistence patterns show a change from fairly random procurement of anything available at any given time, to intensive and fairly continuous systematic procurement to systematic seasonal procurement. Although the evidence suggests that the inhabitants of Glenrose were not at any point particularly maritime oriented, maritime activities 65 may have been carried on at other locations. The popul ation involved could have moved annually from the coast to inland sites in pursuit of seasonally available resources. There are problems in faunal analysis and many of these are encountered in the analysis of the remains from the Glenrose Site. There were problems in sampling and the unavoidable problems due to the constraints of time, money, and lack of knowledge about faunal remains and their relationships to other materials in the site. More faunal analysis must be done in order to understand subsistence and subsistence-related activities, and to produce suitable techniques and approaches in research design-to obtain the maximum amount of information from all excavated material from an archaeological site. Inter-site comparisons should be made very cautiously until the intra-site variations are more fully studies and understood. 66 REFERENCES Barnett, H.G. 1955 The Coast Salish of British Columbia. Univ. of Oregon, Eugene. Boehm, S.G. 1970 The St. Mungo Cannery Site: A Preliminary Report. In Archaeology in British Columbia, New Discoveries. R.L. Carlson, ed. B.C. Studies (Special Issue), No. 6-7: 54-76. 1973 Cultural and Non-Cultural Variation in the Artifact and Faunal Samples from the St. Mungo  Cannery Site, B.C., DgRr 2. M.A. Thesis. Univ. of Victoria. Borden, C.E. 1952 A Uniform Site Designation Scheme for Canada. Anthropology in British Columbia, No. 3: 44-48. 1970 Culture History of the Fraser-Delta Region: An Outline. In Archaeology in British Columbia, New Discoveries. R.L. Carlson, ed. B.C. Studies (Special Issue), No. 6-7: 95-112. Carlson, R.L. 1960 Chronology and Culture Change in the San Juan Islands, Washington. American Antiquity 25 (4): 562-586. Casteel, R.W. 1971 Differential Bone Destruction: Some Comments. American Antiquity 36(4): 466-469. n.d. Fish Remains from the Glenrose Cannery Site, British Columbia. MS. Clark, J.G.D. 1952 Prehistoric Europe. Methuen and Co. Ltd., London. Conover, K.J. 1972 Archaeological Sampling at Namu: A Problem in Settlement Reconstruction. Ph.D. Dissertation. Univ. of Colorado. 67 Cowan, I. McT., and C.J. Guiguet 1965 The Mammals of British Columbia. B.C. Provincial Museum, Handbook No. 11. Cressman, L.S. 1960 Cultural Sequences at The Dalles, Oregon. Trans. Am. Phil. Soc. 50, Part 10. Daly, P. 1969 Approaches to Faunal Analysis in Archaeology. American Antiquity 34(2): 146-153. Duff, W. 1952 The Upper Stalo Indians of the Fraser Valley, B.C. Anthropology in British Columbia, Memoir No. 1. Flannery, K.V. 1967 Vertebrate Fauna and Hunting Patterns. In The Prehistory of the Tehuacan Valley, Volume I: Environment and Subsistence. D.S. Byers, ed. Univ. of Texas Press, Austin. Gilbert, B.M. 1973 Mammalian Osteo-Archaeology: North America. Missouri Archaeological Society, Columbia. Grayson, D.K. 1973 On the Methodology of Faunal Analysis. American  Antiquity 39(4): 432-439. Guiguet, C.J. 1967 The Birds of British Columbia (6) Waterfowl. B.C. Provincial Museum, Handbook No. 15. 1971 The Birds of British Columbia (9) Diving Birds  and Tube-nosed Swimmers. B.C. Provincial Museum, Handbook No. 29. Harris, M.E. n.d. Analysis of Faunal Remain Fragments from DgRr 6, the Glenrose Cannery Archaeological  Project, Pits 55 and 6. MS. Johnston, W.A. 1921 Sedimentation of the Fraser River Delta. Geol. Survey of Canada, Memoir No. 125. 1923 Geology of the Fraser Delta Map Area. Geol. Survey of Canada, Memoir No. 135. 68 Loy, T.H. 1973 Glenrose Cannery Project: Final Report. MS. Lyon, P.J. 1970 Differential 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, British 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, Jr., and M.D. Wissler 1958 Ecological Interpretation in Archaeology: Part 1. American Antiquity 24(1): 1-23. Mitchell, D.H. 1971 Archaeology of the Gulf of Georgia Area, a Natural Region and its Cultural Types. Syesis Vol. • 4, Supplement 1. Payne, S. 1972a On the Interpretation of Bone Samples from Archaeological Sites. In Papers in Economic  Prehistory. E.S. Higgs, ed. University of Cambridge Press, Cambridge. 1972b Partial Recovery and Sample Bias: The Result of Some Sieving Experiments. In. Papers in Economic  Prehistory. E.S. Higgs, ed. University of Cambridge Press, Cambridge. Perkins, D., Jr., and p. Daly 1968 The Potential of Faunal Analysis. An Investigation of the Faunal Remains from Suberde, Turkey. Scientific American 219(5): 96-106. Schmid, E. 1972 Atlas of Animal Bones for Prehistorians, Archaeologists, and Quaternary Geologists. Elsevier Publishing Company, Amsterdam. 69 Shotwell, J.A. 1955 An Approach to the Paleoecology of Mammals. Ecology 36: 327-337. Suttles, W.P. 1951 Economic Life of the Coast Salish of Haro and  Rosario Straits. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of Washington. 1960 Variation in Habitat and Culture on the Northwest Coast. Akten des 34. Internationalen  Amerikanistenkongresses. 1968 Coping with Abundance: Subsistence on the Northwest Coast. In Man the Hunter.„ Lee and DeVore, eds. Aldine Publishing Company, Chicago. Wheat, J.B. 1972 The Olsen-Chubbuck Site: A Paleo-Indian Bison Kill.. Memoirs of the Society of American  Archaeology, Number 26. White, T.E. 1953 A Method of Calculating the Dietary Percentage of Various Food Animals Utilized By Aboriginal Peoples. American Antiquity 18: 346-348. Ziegler, A.C. 1965 The Role of Faunal Remains in Archaeological Investigations. In Symposium on Central California Archaeology. F., Curtis, ed. Sacremento Anthropological Society Paper 3: 44-75. 70 APPENDIX 1 SAMPLE FAUNAL REMAINS RECORD SHEET (1972) F 0.1 Pit Level 1.0 Type of Animal: 1.1 Common name 1.2 Latin designation 1.3 Names of the bones represented/and/or portion of skeleton present: 2.0 Condition of Bone: 2.1 good fair poor preservation 2.2 Articulated scattered not articulated but concentrated 2.3 Remarks (i.e. is bone crushed, any sign of working, butchering, etc.) 3.0 Other Data: 3.1 Are there associated artifacts? If so, list type and number. 3.2 Are there associated features (i.e. stratigraphic, hearths, etc.) List. 3.3 Provenience: South East ED Below Unit Other data 3.4 Drawing # 3.5 Photo? Roll Frame 3.6 Found by DReeordedvbyed • - Packed by 3.7 Date found Date excavated 3.8 If processed further, note recording or analysis sheet number 3.9 Note number and type of associated samples (C14, ochre, etc.) 71 SAMPLE FAUNAL REMAINS RECORD SHEET (1973) F 0.1 Pit 0.2 Level 0.3 Date 1.0 Provenience information: (Measurement to the centre of the area containing the faunal remains) South East ED Below Unit Radius of area of remains 2.0 Type of Animal: 2.1 Common Name 2.2 Latin Designation 2.3 Names of the bones represented and/or portion of skeleton present: 3.0 Other Data: 3.1 Are there associated artifacts? If so, list type and number. __________ 3.2 Are there associated features (i.e., stratigraphic, hearths, etc.). List. 3.3 Are there associated samples taken (C-14, ochre, etc.). List. 3.4 Matrix - describe as per designation on artifact record sheet. 3.5 Drawing # 3.6 Photo? Camera Roll Frame 3.7 Found by Recorded by Packed by 3.8 Approximate Excavation time Excavated by 4.0 Condition of Bone: 4.1 Good Fair Poor preservation 4.2 Articulated Scattered Not articulated but concentrated 4.3 Remarks (i.e., is bone crushed; any sign of working, butchering, etc.) 5.0 Further Comments: (Regarding any information given above, etc.) 72 APPENDIX 2 Catalogue of Faunal Remains from the Glenrose Site. B = Baulk; S = South; E = East; dbd = depth below site datum; w = weight in grams. PIT LEVEL/UNIT DESCRIPTION Elk B 39/11 #4235; proximal end tibia fragment; S 0.59m; E o.48m; dbd 3.99m; w 7.8g. B 39/11 #4238; tooth; S 0.75m; E 0.38m; dbd 3.95m; w 4.lg. B 40/11 F-047; proximal end left femur, juvenile; S 1.05m; E 0.6m; E 0.64m; dbd 4.04m; w 94.4g. B 40/11 #4250; left astragalus; 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; vertebra; left and right set of 1st, 2nd, 3rd phalanges; S o.73m; E 1.02m; dbd 5.10m; w 138.2g. B 52/11 #4702; rib fragment; S 0.66m; E 0.69m; dbd 5.23m; w 0.6g. B 53/11 #4724; fragment right 3rd phalanx; S 0.67m; E 0.96m; dbd 5.34m; w 4.0g. B 53/11 #4720; foot bone; S 0.23m; E 1.23m; dbd 5.30m; w 4.4g. B 55/11 #4803; left fused central and 4th tarsal; S 0.93m; E 0.00m; dbd 5.52m; w 5.3g. B 56/11 #4812; right 1st phalanx; S 0.45m; E 0.89m; dbd 5.60m; w 5.2g. B 57/11 #4828; antler fragment; S 0.69m; E 0.26m; dbd 5.73m; w 8.4g. B 59/11 #4160; antler 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; thoracic vertebra, juvenile; S 0.34m; E 0.65m; dbd 3.77m; w 13.Og. metapodial, juvenile; w 3.3g. #4258; left 1st phalanx; S 0.22m; E 0.52m; dbd 4.03m; w 3.2g. #4521; antler fragment; S 0.66m; E 0.20m; dbd 4.77m; -w 49.Og. #4739; thoracic vertebra, juvenile; S 0.23m; E 0.96m; dbd 5.30m; w 11.lg. #472 7; vertebral disc; S 0.38m; E 0.54m; dbd 5.30m; w 3.2g. #4808; right 1st phalanx, juvenile; 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, right tibia, adult; S 0.81m; E 0.76m; dbd 3.33m; w 28.3g. #4327; right side mandible fragment, juvenile; S 0.59m; E 1.55m; dbd 4.38m; w 1.7 g. #4329; right scapula, distal portion; S 0.50m; E 1.57m; dbd 4.41m; w 2.1g. #4530; atlas; S 0.09m; E 1.30m; dbd 4.73m; w 7.5g. #4211; rgiht tibia, juvenile; S 0.30m; E 0.17m; dbd 3.60m; w 20.lg. 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; right side mandible fragment, adult; S 0.42m; E 0.37m; dbd 3.80m; w 31.4g. ver tebra; w 3 . lg. #4282; maxilla fragment; S 0.08m; E 0.59m; dbd 4.13m; w 16.lg. #4318; incisor fragment; S 0.10m; E 1.18m; dbd 4.26m; w 0.4g. #4307; left pelvis fragment; S 0.65m; E 1.05m; dbd 4.37m; w 7.6g. #4308; caudal vertebra, juvenile; 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.lg. F-062; five vertebrae; S 0.23m; E 1.29m; dbd 5.70-5.77m; w 25.lg. #4845; thoracic vertebra; S 0.55m; E 0.33m; dbd 5.83m; w 5.8g. #4233; right side mandible fragment, juvenile; S 0.45m; E 0.32m; dbd 3.73m; w l.lg. #4226; left side maxilla fragment; S 1.05m; E 1.08m; dbd 3.99m; w 1.3g. #4319; right side maxilla fragment; S 0.76m; E 1.42m; dbd 4.26m; w 1.3g. Small Rodent B 40/11 mandible fragment; w 0.2g. PIT LEVEL/UNIT DESCRIPTION Seal B 33/1 #4048; left pelvis, juvenile; S 0.25m; E 1.20m; dbd 3.38m; w 22.lg. B 35/1 F-042; maxilla fragment; S 0.06m; E 1.32m; dbd 3.50m; w 4.5g. B 39/11 #4227; left side maxilla fragment; S 0.32m; E 1.83m; dbd 3.99m; w 7.7g. B 42/11 #4304; mastoid process (burnt); S 0.60m; E 1.60m; dbd 4.21m; w 8.1g. B 46/11 #4510; right humerus, juvenile; S 0.25m; E 0.15m; dbd 4.67m; w 5.6g. B 50/11 #4613; right phalanx, juvenile; S 0.86m; E 0.99m; dbd 5.00m; w l.lg. B 57/11 left humerus, juvenile; S o.72m; E 0.29m; dbd 5.77m; w 11.4g. Goose B 43/11 #4311; left coracoid; S 0.83m; E 0.23m; dbd 4.38m; w 5.0g. B 47/11 #4534; right carpal phalanx; S 0.05m; E 0.97m; dbd 4.76m; w 1.4g. B 47/11 #4522; left carpometacarpus; S 0.90m; E 0.55m; dbd 4.75m; w l.lg. B 50/11 #4628; left carpometacarpus; S 0.28m; E 1.45m; dbd 5.07m; w 2.3g. Swan B 58/11 #4158; right carpal phalanx; S 0.38m; E 0.17m; dbd 5.86m; w 5.2g. B 57/11 #4825; right humerus, distal end; S 0.10m; E 1.16m; dbd 5.73m; w 7.4g. Common Loon B 47/11 right carpometacarpus; S 0.87m; E 0.70m; dbd 4.74m; w 4.0g. PIT 76 LEVEL/UNIT DESCRIPTION Elk 1 36/11 tooth; w 11.7g. 1 37/11 tooth; w 3.0g. 1 41/11 humerus fragment; w 111.6g. 1 48/11 F-016; thoracic vertebra; juvenile; S 0.25-2.58m; E 1.35-1.65m; dbd 4.68-4.75m; w 190.lg. 1 43/11 tarsal fragment; w 34.6g. 1 45/11 mandibular hinge; w 16.lg. 1 52/II 1st phalanx, 2nd phalanx fragment; w 29.4g. 1 54/11 F-030; cranial 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 metatarsal fragment; w 12.Og. 1 46/1I F-016; left 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; left tibia 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; right radius, ulna, misc foot/leg bones; S 0.55m; E 0.30m; dbd 5.20m; w 61.3g. 1 52/n radius fragment, ulna fragment; w 45.5g. Bear 1 38/1 right humerus, distal portion; S 1.45m; E 0.65m; dbd 3.86m; w 65.6g. 77 PIT LEVEL/UNIT DESCRIPTION Canis? 1 41/11 tooth, molar; w 1.3g. 1 43/11 tibia fragment, maxilla fragment; w 10.5g 1 45/11 tibia fragment; w 10.5g. 1 47/11 F-018; left maxilla; S 1.75m; E 0.01m; dbd 4.70m; w 15.4g. 1 52/11 metatarsal; w 2.2g. 1 53/11 F-028; cranial fragments, phalanges, vertebrae, long bones, scapulae, juvenile; S 1.55m; E 1.49m; dbd 5.30m; w 252.6g. 1 56/11 right maxilla fragment; w 2.2g. 1 60/11 humerus, tooth; w 3.3g. Beaver 1 37/1 three vertebrae; w 10.5g. 1 42/11 vertebra; w 4.3g. 1 49/11 right side mandible fragment, right 2nd metacarpal; w 26.7g. 1 51/11 left ulna fragment; w 5.0g. 1 52/11 right side mandible fragment; w 4.5g. 1 56/11 vertebra; w 3.3g. 1 36/1 right humerus, distal fragment; w 2.3g. Seal 1 35/1 left side mandible; w-.,87i7g. 1 37/1 pelvis fragment; w 14.5g. 1 52/11 mastoid process, pelvis fragment, juvenile; w 10.2g. PIT LEVEL/UNIT Goose 1 50/11 1 52/11 Elk 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 three carpal phalanges (1 pair + 1), proximal end of humerus; w 5.3g. two right coracoid, 1 carpal phalanx; w 3.6g. F-009; femur fragment; S 0.01m; E 0.01m; dbd 3.92m; w 67.2g. F-011; tooth; S 0.32m; E 1.53m; dbd 3.97m; w 1.7g. astragalus, tooth; w 61.7g. tooth; w 5.3g. vertebra; w 12.6g. metapodial vertebra, juvenile; w 14.lg. 3rd phalanx; w l.Og. metapodial, vertebra, juvenile; w 19.2g. #1603; right radius, distal portion, adult; S 0.24m; E 0.71m; dbd 4.09m; w 12.Og. right femur; w 17.4g. tooth; w 0.5g. teeth, mandible, fragments, cranial fragments; w 57.3g; F-007. maxilla fragment, radius fragment; w 4.5g. F-010; left side mandible, juvenile; 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 Seal 2 32/11 2 33/1 Goose 2 31/1 2 33/1 Duck 2 33/1 Elk 3 19/1 3 25/11 Deer 3 31/11 DESCRIPTION #1492; left humerus, distal portion, juvenile; S 0.18m; E 0.90m; dbd 4.01m; w 2.9g. tibia, teeth, juvenile; w 5.0g. humerus fragment, mandible fragment; w 12.4g. F-011; left femur; S 0.32m; E 1.53m; dbd 3.97m; w 31.6g. tooth; w 2.5g. mandible fragment; w 12.2g. skull; w 3.0g. F-002; sacral vertebrae, pelvis fragment; w 61.8g. BU-002; assorted phalanges; w 42.2g. carpal phalanx, carpometacarpus; w 4.6g. right carpometacarpus; w 1.2g. left carpometacarpus; w 1.3g. #1301; tooth, well-worn; S 0.75m; E 0.61m; dbd 1.90m; w 6.6g. scapula fragment; w 34.4g. vertebra; 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 Seal 34/111 Duck 3 21/1 Merganser 3 21/1 Elk 4 32/11 80 DESCRIPTION phalanx; w 3.0g. ver tebra; w 6.6g. distal end tibia, left; w 10.3g. F-001; w 49.5g; skull and mandible fragments. ulna fragment, vertebra; w 6.3g. 3rd metatarsal, left; w 3.5g. right humerus; w 8.4g. left tibia, juvenile; w 14.4g. right calcaneus; w 2.4g; F-012 right side mandible; w 1.6g. F-013;' right humerus, distal portion; w 24.lg. left carpometacarpus; w 1.2g. right carpometacarpus; w l.Og. #1580; antler fragment; S 1.38m; E 0.80m; dbd 3.23m; w 170.4g. 33/11 teeth fragments, end phalanx; w 15.3g. ox PIT LEVEL/UNIT Elk (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 left calcaneus, misc. long bone fragments; w 149.5g. tibia fragment, juvenile; w 115.4g. F-019; left scapula; S 0.65m; E 1.34-1.60m; dbd 3.70m; w 159.7g. F-026; left femur, vertebra, juvenile; w 181.3g. foot bone; w 13.Og. right 3rd phalanx; w 5.1g. #2605; metatarsus, yound adult; S 0.24m; E 0.02m; dbd 4.66m; w 45.6g. metapodia, phalanx; w 43.5g. long bone fragment, vertebral fragment; w 25.4g. left scapula fragment, phalanx, right ulna fragment; w 25.8g. F-005; left side mandible; w 39.7g. vertebra, patella, 2nd and 3rd phalanges; w 25.9g. F-006; vertebrae; w 80.3g. F-008; vertebra, right humerus, young adult; S 0.32m; E 0.46m; dbd 2.51m; w 131.7g. metapodial fragment; w 7.5g. right ulna; w 13.7g. metapodial, adult; w 8.2g. 82 PIT LEVEL/UNIT DESCRIPTION Deer (continued) 4 38/11 F-026; left astragalus; w 15.2g. 4 41/11 4 metapodia, vertebra; w 13.7g. 4 42/11 foot bone; w 2.3g. 4 43/11 metatarsus; w 9.4g. 4 44/11 foot 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, juvenile; S 0.30m; E 0.23m; dbd 4.92m; w 24.4g. 4 49/1II #2642; antler fragment; S 0.14m; E 1.12m; dbd 4.99m; w 7.8g. 4 50/111 left pelvis fragment; w 11.2g. 4 51/111 #3514; distal portion of metatarsus, young adult; S 1.54m; E 1.33m; dbd 5.10m; w 6.9g. Bear 4 38/111 F-026; left calcaneus; 2 phalanges, left astragalus; w 23.9g. Canis? 4 29/1 mandible fragment, right side; w 8.3g. 4 30/11 right side mandible fragments (2); w 19.4g. 4 33/11 F-015; 2 right scapulae; S 1.12m,1.30m; E 1.45m; 1.93m; dbd 3.32m, 3.34m; w 9.5g. 4 34/11 right ulna, 2 teeth; w 9.9g. 4 35/11 maxilla fragment; w 4.9g. 4 36/II right radius, right _lna; w 14.3g. 83 PIT LEVEL/UNIT DESCRIPTION Canis? (continued) 4 38/11 F-026; left tibia, distal 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, cranial fragments; w 60.8g. 4 45/11 right humerus, juvenile; w 6.7g. 4 49/111 epistropheus; w 2.7g. Beaver 4 29/1 right metatarsus; w 4.6g. 4 34/11 vertebra; w 3.4g. 4 36/11 tooth; w 1.3g. 4 37/11 F-020; left side mandible fragment; S 1.38m; E 0.73m; dbd 3.74m; w 10.5g. 4 37/11 tibia, left, vertebra, juvenile; w 9.1g. 4 38/11 left pelvis fragment; w 9.4g. 4 38/11 F-026; left tibia 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 left humerus, tooth, left scapula fragment, right calcansus; w 31.4g. 4 47/111 right humerus, distal fragment; w 2.1 q. 4 48/111 vertebra; w 2.2g. 4 49/111 F-037; right side mandible; S 0.44m; E 0.85m; dbd 4.99m; w 12.Og. b4 PIT LEVEL/UNIT DESCRIPTION Beaver (continued) 4 49/1II right femur fragment; w 7.4g. Seal 4 33/11 humerus fragment, metatarsal fragment; w 20.3g. 4 35/11 teeth (4); w 1.7g. 4 36/II I; right side mandible; w 22.7g. 4 36/11 humerus, juvenile, metatarsal, adult; w 7.3g. 4 37/11 phalanx; w l.Og. 4 40/11 F-033; right humerus; juvenile; w 31.Og. 4 43/11 left humerus, left radius, juvenile; w 21.lg. 4 48/11 ulna fragment, juvenile; w 3.2g. 4 49/111 F-038; S 0.08m; E 0.16m; dbd 4.93m; w 4.5g. 4 49/111 tibia fragment; w 2.4g. Goose 4 22/l left carpal phalanx; w 0.5g. 4 31/1I left carpal phalanx; w 0.5g. 4 37/11 right carpometacarpus fragment; w l.Og. 4 38/II left carpometacarpus, right coracoid; w 6.2g. 4 41/II 2 carpal phalanges; w 1.2g. 4 44/1I carpal phalanx; w l.Og. 4 44/11 right carpometacarpus; w 2.3g. i 44/1I PIT LEVEL/UNIT Duck 4 22/1 85 DESCRIPTION 4 Elk 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 left carpometacarpus, left carpal phalanx; w l.Og. right humerus fragment; w 0.7g. 1st phalanx; w 4.5g. calcansus, tooth; w 69.2g. F-021; right calcaneus, right astragalus, tibia and other phalanges; S 1.67m; E 1.40m; dbd 4.04m; w 292.4g. F-023; left mandibular hinge, right ulna; S 1.51m; E 0.99m; dbd 4.11m; w 211.9g. foot bone; w 10.3g. rib fragment; S 1.51m; E 0.45m; dbd 4.99m; w 7.1g. vertebral fragment, foot bone; w 33.6g. #2371; radius, proximal end, left; S 0.35m; E 0.63m; dbd 4.70m; w 0.5g. #2584; sacral vertebrae; S 0.59m; E 0.86m; dbd 5.33m; w 107.6g. F-055; 1st phalanx; left, young adult; S 0.67m; E 1.41m; dbd 6.27m; w 20.lg. vertebra; w 11.5g. 2nd phalanx; w 6.6g. 2nd phalanx; w 5.4g. 2nd phalanx; w 6.4g. vertebra; 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 antler fragment; S 1.27m; E 0.47m; dbd 3.61m; w 33.4g. vertebra; 39.3g. 2 metapodia (2 individuals), 1 - 3rd phalanx; w 9.2g. 1st, 2nd phalanges; w 10.5g. 1st phalanx; w 5.4g. vertebra; w 22.lg. maxilla fragment, humerus fragment; w 3.2g. large molar; w 3.1g. mandible fragment, o—caneus; w 10.4g. tooth; w 2.3g. tooth fragment; w 1.5g. F-024; left side mandible; S 0.54m; E 1.40m; dbd 4.20m; w 38.3g. mandible fragment, right side; w 3.6g. tibia, teeth; w 8.2g. #4406; vertebra; S 0.07m; E 1.17m; dbd 5.95m; w 7.0g. left side mandible fragment, 3 incisors; w O.lg. Seal 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 Elk 6 21/1 6 23/1 6 25/1 left femur; w 11.Og. #1733; left ulna; S 0.25m; E 0.20m; dbd 4.09m; w 8.0g. left calcaneus; w 5.6"g. vertebra; w 3.1g. tooth; w 3.3g. carpal phalanx; w 0.6g. #2082; left coracoid; S 0.12m; E 1.27m; dbd 4.16m; w 3.1g. #2666; tibia, distal portion; S 0.58m; E 1.12m; dbd 5.63m; w 3.0g. left humerus, distal portion, 2 fragments; w 12.4g. #2593; carpal; S 0.25m; E 1.60m; dbd 5.44m; w 7.6g. F-017; carnial fragments, vertebrae, adult; S 1.70m; E 1.45m- dbd 3.90m; w 12.9g. F-022;(A, B); incomplete skeleton, adult; almost complete skeleton, juvenile; S 1.01m> 1.34m; E 0.12m; 0.02m; dbd 4.05m; W 38.5g, 131.2g. coracoid fragment, junvenile (belong to F-022B); w 3.8g. patella; w 46.5g. leg bone; w 22.0g. 1st phalanx, right; tooth; w 20.5g. 88 PIT LEVEL/UNIT DESCRIPTION Elk (continued) 6 28/1 F-034; vertebra; S 1.07m; E 0.25m; dbd 2.80m; w 113.3g. 6 28/1 #1928; metatarsus, adult; S 1.07m; E 0.25m; dbd 2.80m; w 55.4g. 6 33/11 #2422; antler fragment; S 0.98m; E 1.88m; dbd 3.39m; w 6.5g. 6 34/11 #2427; antler fragment; S 0.11m; E 0.45m; dbd 3.43m; w 7.0g. 6 36/11 F-039; patella; S 1.27m; E 0.94m; dbd 3.61m; w 38.4g. 6 36/11 right astragalus, left 3rd phalanx; w 89.5g. 6 37/11 F-049; antler fragments; S 1.76m; E 1.62m; dbd 3.78m; w 30.6g. 6 44/111 #4554; left tibia, proximal end, adult; S 1.48m; E 1.84m; dbd 4.44m; w 76.2g. 6 45/111 #4566; vertebra, adult; S 1.37m; E 1.75m; dbd 4.55m; w 11.Iq. 6 45/111 #4568; antler fragment; S 0.23m; E 0.70m; dbd 4.53m; w 33.5g. 6 47/111 vertebrae, 2; F-063; S 1.62m; E 2.00m; dbd 4.77m; w 68.7g. 6 47/111 F-060; left femur, proximal end and associated bone; S 1.91m; E 0.65m; dbd 4.74m; w 113.Og. 6 48/111 antler fragment; #4909; S 0.74m; E 0.06m; dbd 4.83m; w 1.8g. 6 48/111 #4917; patella, right; S 0.75m; E 1.35m; dbd 4.85m; w 50.6g. 6 48/111 #4910; 1st phalanx, left, distal fragment; dbd 4.84m; w 9.6g. 6 48/111 tibia fragment; #4916; S 0.36m; E 1.15m; dbd 4.86m; w 9.7g. PIT LEVEL/UNIT Elk (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; left tibia, proximal portion, juvenile; S 0.68m; E 0.96m; dbd 4.93m; w 21.7g. 1st phalanx, right; 2nd phalanx, left; w 11.3g. 1st phalanx, right; w 4.1g. scapula fragment, left, radius, fragment, left, astragalus, left; w 52.5g. F-029; left side mandible; S 0.62m; E 0.92m; dbd 2.45m; w 23.5g. miscellaneous foot and leg 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. right 3rd phalanx; #4051; w 2.9g. #4072; right pelvis; S 0.72m; E 1.92m; dbd 3.82m; w 47.lg. #4358; right and left 2nd phalanx, juvenile; S 0.16m; E 1.30m; dbd 3.99m; w 4.5g. #4587; left 3rd phalanx; S 0.99m; E 0.54m; dbd 4.67m; w 1.5g. F-031; left humerus; S 0.36m; E 0.20m; dbd 2.60m; w 155.6g. tibia; w 11.7g. teeth; tibia 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 vertebrae, tibia, femur, humerus; w 42.2g. F-032; left and right side mandible; Rt: S 0.45m; E 0.56m; dbd 2.72m; Lft: S 0.65m; E 0.47m; dbd 2.72m; w 44.5g. F-039; cervical vertebra; S 1.27m; E- 0.94m; dbd 3.61m; w 7.6g. maxilla fragment; w 1.5g. #4391; molar; S 0.48m; E 1.14m; dbd 4.22m; w 2.2g. scapula fragment; 3.0g. #4194; molar; w 3.4g. #4907; right pelvis, adult; S 1.40m; E 1.90m; dbd 4.80m; w 4.7g. #492 7; right side 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. right scapula fragment. #4948; right pelvis, adult, S 2.00m; E 0.0m; dbd 4.48m; w 9.3g. #4926; vertebra; S 0.40m; E 0.05m; dbd 4.85m; w 2.8g. #4850; left side mandible fragment; S 0.77m; E 0.51m; dbd 5.87m; w 4.2g. F-050; vertebrae; 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 Seal 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 left side mandible; S 1.78m; E 1.25m; dbd 3.75m; w 0.2g. femur; w 0.lg. #2431; left humerus, juvenile; 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; tibia; S 0.06m; E 1.21m; dbd 3.86m; w 0.7g. F-039; left side mandible; S 1.27m; E 0.94m; dbd 3.61m; w 11.Og. #4366; bone fragment; S 0.40m; E 0.42mj. carpal phalanx; w 0.5g. carpal phalanx; w 0.2g. right humerus; #4063; w 2.4g. carpometacarpus; w 0.6g. left and right carpometacarpus; w 2.4g. left carpometacarpus; w 0.5g. 2 left carpometacarpus; w l.Og. carpometacarpus; w 0.7g. 92 PIT LEVEL/UNIT DESCRIPTION Western Grebe 6 39/1 #4088; right tarsometatarsus; S 1.00m; E 1.89m; dbd 3.94m; w 2.0g. Deer 8 27/1 Bu-B(3); cranial fragment; S 1.85m; E 0.10m; dbd 2.74m; w 1.3g. 8 27/1 rib fragment; S 1.33m; E 1.02m; dbd 2.77m; w 1.3g. 8 28/1 Bu-B(l); right humerus, distal portion; S 1.90m; E 0.58m; dbd 2.86m; w 25.lg. 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; atlas; S 1.15m; E 1.60m; dbd 2.74m; w 33.2g. Raccoon 8 28/1 A; right humerus; S 0.64m; E 0.47m; w 8.5g. 93 APPENDIX 3 SPECIES III Elk 482.6 Deer 80.0 Bear Canis? 9.7 Beaver 72.8 Raccoon Mink 4.9 Small Rodent 0.1 Seal 35.2 Goose Duck Merganser Swan Common Loon Western Grebe Bald Eagle TOTALS 685.3 Weight of bone, in grams, II 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 all species from Glenrose. 94 SPECIES III II Elk 3 14 Deer 4 13 Bear 2 Cards? 2 17 Beaver 4 17 Raccoon 2 Mink 2 Small Rodent 1 3 Seal 2 10 Goose 16 Duck 1 Merganser — Swan 4 Common Loon 1 Western Brebe 1 Bald Eagle 2 TOTALS 18 103 Minimum Number of Individuals (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 all species from 95 APPENDIX 4 Slump #1 Peromyscus; right side mandible, O.lg. Goose; right carpometacarpus, 0.5g. Beaver; tooth, 1.7g. Beaver; tooth, 0.5g. Beaver; tooth, 1.4g. Western Grebe; right tarsometatarsus, 0.5g. Beaver; cervical vertebra, 4.3g. Canis; metacarpus fragment, distal, L2g. Beaver; distal end of 2nd left metarcarpal, juvenile, 4.4g. Beaver; distal end of 2nd right metacarpal, juvenile, 4.4g. Deer; distal end 1st phalanx, 2.0g. Sea mammal; 14.4g. Canis; tooth, 0.6g. Canis; tarsal, 0.4g. Canis; tarsal, 1.8g. 96 Slump #2 Deer; right femur, proximal portion, juvenile, 18.6g. Elk; right astragalus, burnt distally, 88.8g. Elk; vertebra, caudal, 52.2g. Elk; antfer, base intact, 166.3g. Seal; left ulna, juvenile, 8.3g. Elk; left radius fragment, 28.lg. Elk; right 2nd phalanx, 23.6g. Elk,1 left calcaneus, 51.Og* Canis; right tibia, juvenile, 10.8g. Canis; left pelvis, 18.4g. Canis; left side maxilla fragment, adult, 12.5g. Canis; right side maxilla fragment, juvenile, 7.0g. Deer; left 2nd phalanx, 5.0g. Deer; left radius fragment, proximal, 10.Og. Seal; phalanx, 4.0g. Elk; antler fragments, 46.2g. Elk; right -radius fragment, 19.2g. Elk; left lateral malleolus, 8.4g. Canis; cervical vertebra, 4.5g. Deer; metacarpus fragment, 5.0g. Deer; left femur fragment, 18.7g. Swan; left tibia, 4.5g. Eagle; left femur, 7.2g. Goose; proximal end humerus, 4.1g. Swan; right carpal phalanx, 2.1g. 


Citation Scheme:


Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics



Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            async >
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:


Related Items