Analysis of Leporid Remains from Prehistoric Sinagua Sites, Northern Arizona

Journal of Archaeological Science (1997) 24, 945–960

Analysis of Leporid Remains from Prehistoric Sinagua Sites, Northern Arizona Tina Quirt-Booth Museum of Northern Arizona, Harold C. Colton Research Center, 3101 North Fort Valley Road, Flagstaff, AZ 86001, U.S.A.

Kathryn Cruz-Uribe Department of Anthropology, Northern Arizona University, Box 15200, Flagstaff, AZ 86011, U.S.A. (Received 24 June 1996, revised manuscript accepted 20 September 1996) The Sinagua inhabited the San Francisco Peaks region of northern Arizona from  625–1400. Analysis of leporid remains from 14 Padre ( 1070–1150) and Elden ( 1150–1220) phase sites indicates that the prehistoric inhabitants of the region relied heavily on both jackrabbits and cottontails. The bones are well preserved, and tend to be relatively complete and unfragmented. Body part frequencies and bone damage in the Sinagua assemblages are very different from patterns observed in samples from sites in the Great Basin and the Hohokam area of central and southern Arizona. Both of these latter areas seem to have witnessed much more intensive processing of leporids. The less intensive processing of the bones suggests that the Sinagua did not suffer from the extreme dietary stress that has been proposed for the Hohokam. The leporid index, which measures the relative proportions of cottontails and jackrabbits, indicates that the Sinagua assemblages tend to be dominated by jackrabbits. This contrasts with findings from other sites excavated in the northern Arizona area. The predominance of jackrabbits does not seem to be solely a function of environmental factors, and may reflect a garden hunting strategy. ? 1997 Academic Press Limited Keywords: FAUNAL ANALYSIS, LEPORIDS, SINAGUA, AMERICAN SOUTHWEST.

Introduction

involved prehistoric agriculture as well as the hunting of wild animals. While there have been several studies of the modern fauna of the northern Sinagua area (Lincoln, 1961; Lowe, 1964; Bateman, 1976–1981; Hoffmeister, 1986), detailed examination of archaeological assemblages has been lacking. There remain numerous unanswered questions about how the Sinagua utilized economically valuable fauna, whether there were different patterns of use between different social groups, and what role meat played in Sinagua lifeways. In this paper we compare faunal samples from 14 large and small northern Sinagua sites, representing two post-eruptive phases, the Padre phase ( 1070– 1150) and the Elden phase ( 1150–1220). We focus on leporids, the most commonly recovered taxa. By far the largest sample comes from Wupatki Pueblo (NA405). We also analysed leporids from Nalakihu (NA358), the Big Hawk Valley sites (NA618, NA680, NA681, NA682), Winona Village (NA2131, NA2132, NA2133, NA2134, NA2135), and three Padre phase sites excavated for the I-40 Interstate project (NA8507, NA8527, NA8529). A total of 18,297 leporid bones were identified. All specimens are curated at the Museum of Northern Arizona in Flagstaff, Arizona.

T

he major prehistoric occupation of the Flagstaff, Arizona, area occurred between  500 and 1400, as evidenced by numerous archaeological sites throughout the region. Archaeologists refer to the prehistoric inhabitants of this region as ‘‘Sinagua’’, meaning ‘‘without water’’. The original Sinagua culture sequence was defined by Colton (1946) based on ceramic chronology, and has since been refined by Downum (1992). The eruption of Sunset Crater, a cinder cone volcano, around  1070 separates the Sinagua occupation into two main periods, which are themselves divided into separate phases. The pre-eruptive period includes the Cinder Park, Sunset, and Rio de Flag phases. The post-eruptive period includes the Padre, Elden, Turkey Hill, and Clear Creek phases. The Sunset Crater eruption marks the beginning of significant cultural changes in northern Sinagua prehistory, although a causal relationship between the eruption and these changes has not been conclusively demonstrated. Despite the wealth of archaeological research that has been done in the Sinagua area, relatively little is known about Sinagua subsistence, except that it 945 0305–4403/97/100945+16 r25.00/as960173

? 1997 Academic Press Limited

946 T. Quirt-Booth and K. Cruz-Uribe

Wupatki National Monument

Nalakihu

Big Hawk Valley sites Wupatki Pueblo Little Colorado River Sunset Crater

San Francisco Peaks

Winona Village and I-40 sites

Flagstaff Flagstaff Arizona

North

Figure 1. Map of the Flagstaff area showing the approximate location of sites mentioned in the text. Map redrawn after Bradley (1994).

The Sinagua Sites

Wupatki

All the sites considered in this paper are located east of the San Francisco Peaks in northern Arizona (Figure 1). The following descriptions give a general idea of the physical environment and character of the sites, and also describe the excavation methodology which recovered the faunal assemblages in question. Table 1 summarizes pertinent information regarding dates and screening methods. All the samples considered here were excavated at least 30 years ago, and detailed provenience information was not available in most cases. For this reason, we were not able to subdivide our samples and undertake detailed analyses either temporally or spatially (cf. Bertram & Draper, 1982; Akins, 1987).

Wupatki is a three-storey masonry pueblo with 102 architectural spaces, including a ball court and amphitheatre (Downum & Sullivan, 1990). For almost 150 years Wupatki Pueblo, its surrounding environs, and associated archaeological sites have been the centre of archaeological inquiry in northern Arizona and a focal point of some of the most important archaeological investigations in the Southwest (e.g. Sitgreaves, 1853; Fewkes, 1904; Colton, 1930, 1933, 1934, 1946, 1952, 1956, 1960; King, 1949; Smith, 1952; Stanislawski, 1963; Pilles, 1974, 1978, 1979, 1987; Hartman & Wolf, 1977; Cinnamon, 1988; Downum, 1988; Downum & Sullivan, 1990 and others). Wupatki National Monument, which includes Wupatki Pueblo and numerous

Table 1. Summary information for Sinagua sites analysed in this paper Site

Phase

Date

Dating method

Screening

Sources

Wupatki

Elden

 1073–1205

Tree-ring specimens; pottery

Probably; no screen size reported

Douglass, 1938; McGregor, 1938

Winona

Padre

 1070–1130

Tree-ring specimens; pottery

Yes; no screen size reported

McGregor, 1940

Big Hawk

Elden

 1070–1210

Pottery

‘‘Very little’’; no screen size reported

Smith, 1952

Nalakihu

Elden

 1130–1210

Tree-ring specimens; pottery

Yes; no screen size reported

King, 1949

I-40

Padre

 703–1009 (Red Bead)

Tree-ring specimens; pottery

Probably; no screen size reported

Museum of Northern Arizona site files

Analysis of Leporid Remains from Prehistoric Sinagua Sites 947

other archaeological sites, was established in 1924. The first excavations at the monument were conducted by Lyndon L. Hargrave in 1931; however excavations at the pueblo proper did not begin until 1936. These investigations were conducted by Erik K. Reed and James W. Brewer in Room 7 to collect materials for an interpretive display. Animal bones recovered from these excavations are used in this analysis. The mention of ‘‘screening’’ in the Wupatki equipments lists (Museum of Northern Arizona Site Files—NA405) suggests deposits were screened, although neither mesh size nor methods were recorded in the field notes or final reports. Wupatki is located within the cold desert shrub climatic zone. Water is provided by the Little Colorado River (11 km to the north-east), and nearby springs (Burchett, 1990: 12). Mammal remains from eight prehistoric sites at Wupatki National Monument were initially analysed by Lincoln (1961), who listed the minimum numbers of individuals. Lincoln found that the most common species was black-tailed jackrabbit (Lepus californicus, 401 individuals), followed by desert cottontail (Sylvilagus audubonii, 277 individuals), and pronghorn antelope (Antilocapra americana, 124 individuals). Additional species in these assemblages include prairie dog (Cynomys ludovicianus), a variety of small rodents, occasional carnivores, and small numbers of mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus) and mountain sheep (Ovis canadensis). Fortsas (1996) has analysed the Wupatki pronghorn and we focus here on the two leporids. Winona Winona Village is a group of approximately five masonry surface structures with associated outbuildings, trash mounds, and a ball court. The complex is located about 27 km north-east of Flagstaff, within the pinyon–juniper climatic zone. The nearest permanent water is at Turkey Tanks, which are small natural rock pools in the bottom of Walnut Canyon, 5 km north of Winona Village; although there is possible evidence for the existence of a prehistoric ‘‘lake’’ nearby (McGregor, 1940: 15). McGregor (1937) initiated a project in the fall of 1935 to excavate and restore the ball court, and to test other features at Winona Village. A fairly sophisticated excavation allowed for relatively detailed information regarding ceramic sequence to be recovered. Although excavated matrix was screened, mesh size and screening methods were not described. Dr E. Raymond Hall of Berkeley, California, identified the mammal remains, which came mainly from cottontail, jackrabbits, deer, antelope, and mountain sheep. Leporids were most common by nearly a factor of three (McGregor, 1940: 255–256). Nalakihu and Big Hawk Valley sites Nalakihu (‘‘the lone house’’) is a small, red sandstone, Elden Phase ruin on Wupatki National Monument. It

is located in the Great Basin Grassland zone at an elevation of 1643 m. Archaeological work at Nalakihu began in 1933 (King, 1949). Excavation methods included test pitting, trenching, and the excavation of structures, features, and burials. All excavated matrix was screened; however, no description of the mesh size was recorded. King (1949: 141) noted that the Nalakihu fauna was very different from that recovered at Winona by McGregor. King recorded bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis), pronghorn (Antilocapra americana), mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus), jack and cottontail rabbit (Lepus californicus and Sylvilagus audubonii), and a variety of small rodents and carnivores. The Big Hawk Valley is located on the south-western frontier of Wupatki National Monument, within the Great Basin Transitional Grassland. In 1948, Watson Smith supervised the excavation of four masonry pueblos in the valley (Smith, 1952). Individual rooms and test pits were excavated as discrete units. No grid system was used. Unfortunately, ‘‘very little of the debris was screened’’ (Smith, 1952: 181), and the screen mesh size was not recorded. NA618 (Three Courts Pueblo) consisted of three pithouses, a five-room masonry surface pueblo, and several firepits, storage cysts, and two burials. These features were surrounded by a low compound wall of black basalt rocks. NA680 consisted of a five-room masonry surface pueblo, a possible kiva structure, and several firepits and storage cysts. NA681 comprised a three-room masonry surface structure, a pithouse or possible kiva, and various storage and firepits. NA682 (The House of Tragedy) consisted of a four-room masonry surface structure, a pithouse or possible kiva, and various storage and firepits (Smith, 1952). The few animal bones recovered were identified by Milton Weatherill using comparative specimens housed at the Museum of Northern Arizona. The most common taxa represented were cottontail rabbit, prairie dog, and pronghorn antelope (Smith, 1952: 181). Because the samples are small, we combined the Nalakihu and Big Hawk Valley sites. They are all Elden phase sites, and are located close to each other in similar ecological zones. I-40 sites The I-40 project involved a cultural resources management survey and mitigation of sites within the right-ofway of the new Interstate 40 construction in the mid-1960s. The report is still in progress and has not yet been published. Our information is taken from field notes and the draft report (Museum of Northern Arizona Site Files). There are three sites, all located within the pinyon–juniper zone near the town of Winona, Arizona. NA8507 (Red Bead Pueblo) is a large site, consisting of two room blocks, a large trash mound, and a number of outside features. Investigators postulate that Red Bead Pueblo was probably occupied by three or four families for a period of one

948 T. Quirt-Booth and K. Cruz-Uribe

or two generations, but no longer than 50 or 75 years. NA8527 consists of a four-room pueblo positioned along a wash draining into Padre Canyon. The site was originally recorded and partially excavated as NA5519 by Robert C. Euler in 1953. NA8526 (the Burned Bone Site) consists of a two-room pueblo, two outside hearths, and four burials. It was originally recorded and partially excavated by Robert C. Euler in 1953 as NA5513. Based on the artefact assemblage, investigators believe that this site was occupied year-round by a small family group. Because of very small sample sizes, the data from all three I-40 sites are combined in the following analysis.

Leporid Ecology Black-tailed jackrabbits (Lepus californicus) usually live at elevations below 1829 m in deserts, short-grass prairies with scattered shrubs, and agricultural fields. They generally avoid heavy brush or wooded areas (Cockrum, 1982: 134–135; Dunn, Chapman & Marsh, 1982: 133; Hoffmeister, 1986: 140–141). An individual jackrabbit home range varies (depending on the ready availability of food, water, etc.) from 4 to 75 ha. Jackrabbits are nocturnal, feeding on grasses, mesquite, succulents, herbaceous plants, and their own soft droppings. Black-tailed jackrabbits breed from mid- or late winter into late summer, with a single female bearing up to seven litters per year. Jackrabbits are preyed upon by snakes, eagles, hawks, owls, coyotes, foxes, bobcats, skunks, and humans (Cockrum, 1982: 134; Dunn, Chapman & Marsh, 1982; Hoffmeister, 1986: 141–142). Desert cottontails (Sylvilagus audubonii) live primarily in elevations below the coniferous forest, inhabiting deserts, grasslands, bushy areas, and riparian zones (Chapman & Willner, 1978: 2; Cockrum, 1982: 132– 133; Hoffmeister, 1986: 134–136). The size of their home range is affected by a number of factors including individual age, habitat, and season, but averages approximately 3–4 ha (Chapman, Hockman & Edwards, 1982: 101). Cottontails are crepuscular, subsisting mainly on grasses, forbs, cacti, shrubs, and (when they are available) cultivated plants. Additionally, cottontails eat their own droppings which are a source of protein and vitamin B (Ingles, 1941: 229–230; Chapman, Hockman & Edwards, 1982: 101–103; Hoffmeister, 1986: 134). Breeding generally occurs from mid- or late winter until late summer, with females bearing as many as six litters per year (Chapman, Hockman & Edwards, 1982: 106–107). Principal predators of cottontails include bobcats, coyotes, foxes, raccoons, skunks, raptors, snakes, and humans.

Taphonomic Considerations As Hockett (1991, 1995) points out, it is usually assumed that leporid remains from archaeological sites

in the western U.S.A. were accumulated by people. This assumption, however, may not be valid. Assemblages of fossil leporid bones in the western U.S.A. may be accumulated by a variety of agents, including raptors, coyotes, and humans. Hockett (1991, 1995) has established that leporid assemblages may be created by raptors in two very different situations. The first is when raptor pellets are deposited. In this case, the assemblage may have the following characteristics: (a) more forelimb than rearlimb bones; (b) few complete bones; (c) more subadults than adults; and (d) abundant vertebrae. The second case occurs when unswallowed bones are deposited beneath raptor nests. These types of assemblages will be mirror images of the raptor pellet assemblages, and will include, for example: (a) more tibiae than forelimb bones; (b) few incomplete bones; (c) more adults than subadults; and (d) few vertebrae. In both cases, bones will exhibit beak and talon puncture marks, shearing damage, and distinctive damage to the long bones (Hockett, 1991, 1995). Hockett’s findings are similar to leporid skeletal patterns observed in eagle roost assemblages from South Africa (Cruz-Uribe & Klein, n.d.). Schmitt & Juell (1994; see also Schmitt & Lupo, 1995) have studied the characteristics of leporid assemblages created by coyotes in the Great Basin. They show that digestive attrition, including pitting, staining, and polishing, characterizes a coyote-collected leporid assemblage. Additionally, they have identified distinct breakage patterns caused by coyotes, particularly for jackrabbit long bones. For the forelimb, the proximal ulna will be jagged with complete removal/ extensive corrosion of the posterior margins of the olecronon process. The proximal radii and distal humeri will often be represented by only small fragments. The distal humeri will often be short (<10 mm) shaft cylinders with a narrow notch. The hind limbs are more variably modified, but some trends were still recognized. The proximal femur will occur as large portions of the greater and lesser trochanter, often with portions of the shaft, or as small femoral head fragments; while the distal femur generally appears as an array of small fragments, such as pieces of condyles or complete articular ends with a portion of the shaft remaining. Equal numbers of the proximal and distal tibiae were retrieved with both ends showing mechanical breakage and corrosive attrition. Axial skeletal elements tend to be abundant but highly fragmented. The innominates vary greatly in degree of fragmentation. Similar breakage patterns for canid (probably coyote) digested bones are also illustrated by Stiner (1994). Driver (1985) has also observed jackrabbit bones from wolf and coyote scats, and notes that the bone is usually highly comminuted. These observations can be used to assess whether the leporids from the Sinagua assemblages were accumulated by people. The Sinagua faunal samples show virtually no evidence of the acid etching/staining typical of carnivore damage, nor is there the pitting

Analysis of Leporid Remains from Prehistoric Sinagua Sites 949 Table 2. Number of identified specimens and minimum number of individuals (NISP:MNI) for jackrabbits identified from the four Sinagua site groups. Letters in parentheses are the skeletal part abbreviations used in Figure 4 Wupatki

Auditory bulla Maxilla Mandible (MD) Atlas (AT) Axis (AX) Cervical vertebrae 3–7 Thoracic vertebrae Lumbar vertebrae (LU) Sacrum (SA) Ribs (RI) Scapula (SC) Proximal humerus (pHU) Distal humerus (dHU) Proximal radius (pRA) Distal radius (dRA) Proximal ulna (pUL) Distal ulna (dUL) Proximal metacarpal (pMC) Distal metacarpal (dMC) First phalange Second phalange Third phalange Pelvis (IN) Proximal femur (pFE) Distal femur (dFE) Patella Proximal tibia (pTI) Distal tibia (dTI) Calcaneum (CA) Astragalus (AS) Navicular Cuboid Proximal metatarsal (pMT) Distal metatarsal (dMT) Totals for bones Totals for teeth Grand totals

Nalakihu/ Big Hawk

Winona

I-40

NISPs

MNIs

NISPs

MNIs

NISPs

MNIs

NISPs

MNIs

112 335 602 106 56 232 482 1077 171 1344 557 442 310 495 402 445 40 352 352 104 20 0 752 564 431 0 547 184 110 13 4 0 490 506

74 173 257 106 56 47 41 150 43 56 273 190 164 252 209 196 26 36 36 8 1 0 380 255 201 0 255 106 54 7 2 0 49 52

24 130 220 22 20 89 180 152 13 572 193 86 153 137 68 127 10 229 227 253 41 0 180 130 90 1 64 65 94 13 6 3 311 318

12 20 44 21 20 19 16 21 4 24 95 35 71 71 37 47 7 23 23 15 3 0 81 67 39 1 27 33 46 8 4 3 31 32

2 16 19 1 1 2 2 16 4 11 16 6 11 5 8 11 1 2 3 1 0 0 14 13 11 0 13 8 7 0 0 0 22 22

1 5 5 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 9 4 8 3 5 8 1 1 1 1 0 0 9 7 8 0 8 5 4 0 0 0 3 3

7 19 34 4 6 10 20 31 1 41 30 22 11 17 10 17 1 12 11 10 1 0 37 20 28 2 28 16 16 2 1 0 27 29

4 7 11 4 6 3 3 6 1 2 19 12 7 9 6 8 1 2 3 2 1 0 20 10 13 1 14 8 10 1 1 0 3 4

9554 937 10,491

380 257 380

3452 350 3802

95 44 95

185 35 220

9 5 9

427 53 480

20 11 20

and crushing characteristic of carnivore gnawing. Additionally, breakage patterns in the Sinagua samples (detailed below) do not resemble either coyote bone collections or raptor assemblages. In summary, both the context and the damage patterns of the Sinagua bones indicate that for the most part they represent human food remains. We cannot completely rule out the possibility that some of the bones were contributed by other collectors, but the assemblages appear to be primarily cultural.

Skeletal Part Representation and Bone Damage Relative frequencies of skeletal elements assess which bones occur in greater number than other bones, but they do not indicate the reasons why. Numbers may be affected by sample bias, recovery bias, bone density/ resistance to deterioration and preferential selection/ transportation of economically important elements. Element frequencies are often used to investigate the

perceived economic utility of specific anatomical parts. Binford’s (1978) model of general utility and subsequent modifications has proved very fruitful in investigating economic utility of larger animals (e.g. Grayson, 1988; Metcalfe & Jones, 1988; Klein & Cruz-Uribe, 1989). Small mammals have also been investigated (e.g. Grayson, 1989; Yellen, 1991a,b; Lyman, Houghton & Chambers, 1992; Stahl, 1996) but in general, have not received as much attention. Ethnographic evidence indicates that people do not generally field-butcher small animals such as leporids (Yellen, 1991a; Hudson, 1993), and thus transport considerations are usually considered to be relatively unimportant. However, jackrabbits may be at least partially processed in the field (e.g. Szuter, 1985), and for non-human bone collectors like raptors, transportation abilities may be critical (Hockett, 1991). Tables 2 & 3 present the skeletal part frequencies of both jackrabbits and cottontails from the four site groups considered in this paper. Both NISP (number of

950 T. Quirt-Booth and K. Cruz-Uribe Table 3. Number of identified specimens and minimum number of individuals (NISP:MNI) for cottontails identified from the four Sinagua site groups Wupatki

Auditory bulla Maxilla Mandible Atlas Axis Cervical vertebrae 3–7 Thoracic vertebrae Lumbar vertebrae Sacrum Ribs Scapula Proximal humerus Distal humerus Proximal radius Distal radius Proximal ulna Distal ulna Proximal metacarpal Distal metacarpal First phalange Second phalange Third phalange Pelvis Proximal femur Distal femur Patella Proximal tibia Distal tibia Calcaneum Astragalus Navicular Cuboid Proximal metatarsal Distal metatarsal Totals for bones Totals for teeth Grand totals

Nalakihu/ Big Hawk

Winona

I-40

NISPs

MNIs

NISPs

MNIs

NISPs

MNIs

NISPs

MNIs

6 104 149 13 4 18 35 239 29 44 150 88 76 113 101 129 89 20 20 63 6 0 308 231 176 0 281 183 12 2 0 0 137 142

5 64 63 13 4 4 4 35 7 3 90 42 38 67 52 62 47 2 2 4 1 0 150 108 86 0 135 99 8 2 0 0 14 15

0 6 34 3 3 4 24 22 5 12 21 16 18 10 7 13 2 14 13 26 1 0 41 33 22 0 30 11 5 0 0 0 33 28

0 4 16 3 3 2 3 4 2 1 12 7 7 7 6 8 2 2 3 2 1 0 20 16 11 0 14 6 3 0 0 0 4 4

0 14 30 0 0 2 1 29 3 2 13 16 14 10 9 9 7 0 0 0 0 0 44 39 25 0 44 29 1 1 0 0 18 17

0 6 11 0 0 1 1 5 1 1 10 10 8 5 5 5 4 0 0 0 0 0 22 23 16 0 26 16 1 1 0 0 2 3

1 3 9 0 2 3 3 9 2 0 8 6 6 5 5 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 14 12 6 0 14 10 0 0 0 0 10 9

1 2 4 0 2 2 2 2 2 0 4 3 3 4 4 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 10 8 3 0 9 6 0 0 0 0 1 1

2207 253 2460

150 64 150

368 40 408

20 16 20

272 44 316

26 11 26

106 12 118

10 4 10

identified specimens) and MNI (minimum number of individuals) are presented, along with the ratio of NISP:MNI for long bones. NISPs and MNIs were calculated using the assumptions and computer programs outlined in Klein & Cruz-Uribe (1984) and Cruz-Uribe & Klein (1986). This entails matching elements by bone portion, side and fusion (where relevant). The relative representation of major body parts, based on MNIs, is also presented graphically in Figures 2 & 3. The overall preservation of the bones from all the sites is excellent. Bones such as the pelvis and scapula tend to be complete and unfragmented. Long bones are also well preserved. When broken, they tend to be snapped in such a way that each epiphyseal end remains complete (see below). This is reflected in the NISP:MNI ratios for individual skeletal elements, which tend to be close to 2 for paired elements (Tables 2 & 3). (In a complete skeleton, the ratio of NISP:MNI for any paired element equals 2.) The Wupatki assemblage is the best preserved of the Sinagua assemblages

considered here, while the bones from the three other collections are slightly more fragmented and burned. In the Sinagua leporid assemblages, the best represented elements are the pelvis, scapula, mandibles, long bones and maxillae (Tables 2 & 3; Figures 2 & 3). Small bones such as phalanges, carpals and tarsals are extremely uncommon. Smaller skeletal elements are probably underrepresented as a result of recovery methodologies (cf. Payne, 1972; Shaffer, 1992; Shaffer & Sanchez, 1994). These smaller elements would include carpals, tarsals, and phalanges of both taxa, and probably even larger bones of cottontails. For this reason, our analysis concentrates on the pelvis, scapula, major long bones, skull parts, and vertebrae, all of which are well represented. The Kolmogorov–Smirnov test can be used to assess the extent to which the relative proportions of different parts are similar between samples. Table 4 presents the results for the body part frequencies illustrated in Figures 2 & 3. Overall, the pattern of skeletal part representation for cottontails in all the samples is

Analysis of Leporid Remains from Prehistoric Sinagua Sites 951 Wupatki Lepus MNI 100% = 380 fore : rear ratio = 0.72 (a) Maxilla Mandible Atlas Axis Cervical 3–7 Thoracic Lumbar Sacrum Ribs Scapula Proximal humerus Distal humerus Proximal radius Distal radius Proximal ulna Distal ulna Pelvis Proximal femur Distal femur Proximal tibia Distal tibia Calcaneum

0

Winona Lepus MNI 100% = 95 fore : rear ratio = 1.17

(b) % 20 40 60 80 100 0

(c) % 20 40 60 80 100 0

Nalakihu/ Big Hawk Lepus MNI 100% = 9 fore : rear ratio = 1.00 (d) % 20 40 60 80 100 0

I-40 Lepus MNI 100% = 20 fore : rear ratio = 0.95

% 20 40 60 80 100

Figure 2. Jackrabbit skeletal part representation in the four Sinagua site samples. To construct the figure, the MNI for each skeletal part was divided by the maximum MNI for the most abundant part.

similar. Only the Winona and Nalakihu/Big Hawk cottontail samples are significantly different. In general, the cottontail samples tend to be dominated by the rear part of the skeleton (e.g. pelvis, femur and tibia), as reflected in the fore:rear ratios presented in Figures 2 & 3. In the jackrabbit samples, the fore- and Wupatki Sylvilagus MNI 100% = 150 fore : rear ratio = 0.60 (a) Maxilla Mandible Atlas Axis Cervical 3–7 Thoracic Lumbar Sacrum Ribs Scapula Proximal humerus Distal humerus Proximal radius Distal radius Proximal ulna Distal ulna Pelvis Proximal femur Distal femur Proximal tibia Distal tibia Calcaneum

0

rear parts of the skeleton are more evenly represented, as reflected in more significant differences between cottontail and jackrabbit assemblages. Driver (1985) found a similar pattern of fore- and rear skeletal part representation in cottontail and jackrabbit samples from six prehistoric sites in New

Winona Sylvilagus MNI 100% = 20 fore : rear ratio = 0.60

(b) % 20 40 60 80 100 0

Nalakihu/ I-40 Sylvilagus Big Hawk Sylvilagus MNI 100% = 10 MNI 100% = 26 fore : rear ratio = 0.40 fore : rear ratio = 0.38 (c) (d) % % % 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100

Figure 3. Cottontail skeletal part representation in the four Sinagua site samples. To construct the figure, the MNI for each skeletal part was divided by the maximum MNI for the most abundant part.

952 T. Quirt-Booth and K. Cruz-Uribe Table 4. Kolmogorov–Smirnov values for comparisons between the jackrabbit and cottontail body part frequencies presented in Figures 2 & 3. Values greater than or equal to 1·36 (italics) are significant at the 0·05 level; values greater than or equal to 1·63 (boldface) are significant at the 0·01 level

Winona cottontail Big Hawk/Nalakihu cottontail I-40 cottontail Wupatki jackrabbit Winona jackrabbit Big Hawk/Nalakihu jackrabbit I-40 jackrabbit

Wupatki cottontail

Winona cottontail

Big Hawk/ Nalakihu cottontail

I-40 cottontail

Wupatki jackrabbit

Winona jackrabbit

Big Hawk/ Nalakihu jackrabbit

1·14 1·17 0·55 5·05 4·02 1·02 1·74

1·38 0·45 1·14 1·19 0·42 0·44

0·83 3·17 3·09 1·44 1·78

1·24 1·30 0·57 0·64

1·43 0·86 0·96

1·00 0·95

0·67

Mexico. Leporid rear limbs are meatier than forelimbs, and might therefore be favoured. However, as Driver notes, forelimb bones are smaller than rear limb bones and therefore may be more subject to recovery biases. Moreover, as Driver points out, jackrabbits have larger bones overall, so collection/recovery bias of jackrabbit bones may not operate to the same extent as with cottontails, resulting in a more even representation of fore- and rear limbs. In many archaeological faunal samples, bone density plays an important role in bone survival, which is ultimately reflected in differing body part frequencies (see, for example, Lyman, 1994). If bone density is important, we would expect hard, dense bones to be most common. Pavao (1996) provides density figures for leporids, including Lepus californicus and Sylvilagus floridanus (eastern cottontail). In order to investi-

gate the relationship between density and element frequency, we plotted Pavao’s density figures versus MNI for our larger Sinagua samples (Figure 4). We used her eastern cottontail figures as a proxy for desert cottontail. In all cases, there is a highly significant correlation between bone density and MNI, indicating that dense bones do tend to be most common. However, as the scatterplots show, there is substantial variation around the regression lines, and density is not the sole factor affecting skeletal element frequencies. In particular, the scapula and rear limb bones are consistently overrepresented relative to other skeletal elements. The Sinagua leporids exhibit a distinctive pattern of bone breakage and burning that appears to be attributable to human processing activities. Some typical examples are illustrated in Figure 5. Tables 5 & 6 also

Table 5. Numbers of proximal, distal, and complete portions of major jackrabbit long bones Humerus

Radius

Tibia

Femur

Wupatki jackrabbit NISP proximal NISP distal NISP complete Total NISP Percentage complete

431 299 11 741 1·48%

232 139 263 634 41·48%

477 114 70 661 10·59%

550 417 14 981 1·43%

Winona jackrabbit NISP proximal NISP distal NISP complete Total NISP Percentage complete

81 148 5 234 2·14%

121 52 16 189 8·47%

59 60 5 124 4·03%

126 86 4 216 1·85%

Nalakihu/Big Hawk jackrabbit NISP proximal NISP distal NISP complete Total NISP Percentage complete

6 11 0 17 0·00%

2 5 3 10 30·00%

11 6 2 19 10·53%

13 11 0 24 0·00%

I-40 jackrabbit NISP proximal NISP distal NISP complete Total NISP Percentage complete

21 10 1 32 3·13%

12 5 5 22 22·73%

24 12 4 40 10·00%

18 26 2 46 4·35%

Analysis of Leporid Remains from Prehistoric Sinagua Sites 953 Big Hawk/Nalakihu Cottontail

(a) 25 20

Metacarpals, phalanges, ribs patella

dFE

dTI

15 MNI

pTI

pFE

IN

SC

10

pHU

dHU

MD

dRA pRA pUL 5

MT

dUL

LU CA

AS

AT

0

SA

AX

0.125

0.375 Volume density Spearman's rs = 0.6180, P = 0.0000 Wupatki Cottontail IN

120

Metacarpals, phalanges, ribs patella SC

300

dRA MT

MD dHU

dUL

pHU

LU

200

AT

CA

AS

(d)

MNI

4

pRA pUL MT AT dUL

0 0.125

AX

CA

MD

80

Winona Jackrabbit Phalanges, ribs patella

pTI dFE dHU

dTI

AS

(e) 100

SC

12

dRA

dHU

0.375 Volume density Spearman's rs = 0.7103, P = 0.0000

IN pFE

dFE

0.125

Winona Cottontail Metacarpals, phalanges, ribs patella

pTI pHU

AT

dUL 0

SA

AX

MD

dRA

pUL

100

0.375 Volume density Spearman's rs = 0.7013, P = 0.0000

8

SC pFE

LU

0.125

16

IN

Metapodials, phalanges, ribs patella pRA

SA

0

20

Wupatki Jackrabbit

dFE

pRA pUL

60 30

pTI

pFE dTI

90 MNI

(c)

(b) 150

pHU

LU dTI CA AX SA AS

0.375 Volume density

Spearman's rs = 0.5299, P = 0.0001

SC IN dHU pFE

pRA

60 40 20 dUL 0

pUL dMT pMT

MD dRA dTI

LU AT MC AS 0.125

AX

CA dFE pHU pTI

SA 0.375 Volume density

Spearman's rs = 0.5992, P = 0.0008

Figure 4. The relationship between bone density and skeletal element frequency in the Sinagua hare samples. Leporid density data are from Pavao (1996). (Refer to Table 2 for skeletal part abbreviations used in this figure.)

present detailed information on the representation of proximal, distal and complete portions for major longbones. Some breakage could be post-depositional, but the bones are extremely well preserved, and relatively complete. Moreover, burning is very localized, tending

to occur at the broken ends of bone shafts. The breakage pattern is as follows. For the forelimb, the scapula is generally complete, the humeri tend to be broken mid-shaft with burning occurring on the broken ends of the shafts, and the radii are usually

954 T. Quirt-Booth and K. Cruz-Uribe

Proximal femora Distal femora

Proximal humeri

Radius

Ulna

Scapula

Pelvis

Proximal tibiae

Distal humeri Mandible

. .... . ...

0

1

2

cm 3

4

5

Figure 5. Typical leporid bone damage found in the Sinagua samples. The illustrations are of jackrabbit bones from Wupatki pueblo. The hare skeleton was redrawn after Kingdon (1974: 343). The dark lines on the hare skeleton illustrate where the major long bones tend to be broken.

complete, although some are broken mid-shaft. Therefore it appears that the forelimb was usually broken across the humerus, and sometimes also again across the radius. In the rearlimb, the pelvis is usually complete, but the femur is broken mid-shaft, so it appears that the femur was not disarticulated from the pelvis, but simply broken. A second very consistent spot for breakage is the distal tibia. Most tibiae are broken approximately three-quarters of the way down the shaft. Complete tibiae are very uncommon, and proximal ends are much more common than distal ones. Hockett (1994, 1995) has described patterns characteristic of leporid bone assemblages inferred to have been collected by hunter–gatherer groups in the Great Basin, and it is interesting that the Sinagua assemblages look very different. First, Great Basin assemblages tend to be characterized by large numbers of adult tibia diaphysis cylinders, which Hockett relates to the grinding of epiphyses for nutrients in the case of cottontail (1995) or to processing for marrow extraction in the case of jackrabbit (1991). In contrast, such cylinders were not present in the Sinagua assemblages. Second, Great Basin human assemblages tend to have

many burned and non-identifiable bone fragments. Burning, however, is relatively uncommon in the Sinagua assemblages (Table 7), and unidentifiable bone fragments are virtually non-existent. There is no reason to suppose this reflects recovery bias. Third, Great Basin assemblages tend to have few identifiable vertebrae or sacra, while vertebrae and sacra are well represented in the Sinagua assemblages. Hockett (1994) also notes that at least some Great Basin leporid assemblages tend to be dominated by mandibles, probably because the vertebrae and ends of long bones had been pulverized with milling stones, a practice documented ethnographically. In contrast, although mandibles are abundant in the Sinagua assemblages, the best represented elements are consistently the pelvis and the scapula. The Sinagua assemblages also differ dramatically from Hohokam body part frequencies reported by Huckell (1987) for the Corona de Tucson project area. Jackrabbit remains from these sites are characterized by a high degree of fragmentation. Large axial (crania, vertebrae, sacra) and post-cranial elements (scapulae, proximal tibiae, distal femora), which are typically recovered in other assemblages, are notably rare.

Analysis of Leporid Remains from Prehistoric Sinagua Sites 955 Table 6. Numbers of proximal, distal, and complete portions of major cottontail long bones Humerus

Radius

Tibia

Femur

Wupatki cottontail NISP proximal NISP distal NISP complete Total NISP Percentage complete

62 50 26 138 18·84%

27 15 86 128 67·19%

164 66 117 347 33·72%

183 128 48 359 13·37%

Winona cottontail NISP proximal NISP distal NISP complete Total NISP Percentage complete

13 15 3 31 9·68%

6 3 4 13 30·77%

27 8 3 38 7·89%

32 20 2 54 3·70%

Nalakihu/Big Hawk cottontail NISP proximal NISP distal NISP complete Total NISP Percentage complete

12 10 4 26 15·38%

2 1 8 11 72·73%

26 11 18 55 32·73%

31 17 8 56 14·29%

I-40 cottontail NISP proximal NISP distal NISP complete Total NISP Percentage complete

4 4 2 10 20·00%

3 3 2 8 25·00%

7 3 7 17 41·18%

9 3 3 15 20·00%

Huckell (1987) attributes this patterning to smashing for marrow. The distinctive leporid breakage patterns in the Sinagua assemblages suggest that the processing pattern at these sites was very different, and did not involve intensive pounding or processing for marrow. Ethnographic accounts of Hopi butchery and cooking techniques suggest that leporids were both stewed (Beaglehole, 1936) and cooked over open flame (Titiev, 1944). Grilling over an open flame could produce the burning patterns observed on the long bones. Broken distal and/or proximal shafts would stick out of the portions, exposed directly to the flames, while the shafts themselves would be protected from burning by the surrounding flesh. If most of the flesh was boiled in a stew, there would be no evidence of burning; the bones would be protected from the effects of boiling by the surrounding flesh.

Fusion and Leporid Age Table 8 presents bone fusion information for jackrabbit and cottontail from the Sinagua sites, as well as comparable information for the Bonnell site in New Mexico (Driver, 1985). Following Driver (1985) we Table 7. Percentage of burned leporid bones by taxon and site group

Wupatki Winona Big Hawk I-40

Jackrabbit

Cottontail

3% 11% 2% 5%

5% 10% 2% 1%

present data for the proximal humerus and proximal tibia. At all the Sinagua sites fused bones are relatively more common than unfused bones. Moreover, at Wupatki, where sample sizes of both taxa are large, there is also a clear difference between taxa; there are relatively more unfused bones of cottontail than of jackrabbit. The same pattern is also apparent with the leporids from the Bonnell site. A high percentage of adults is also characteristic of Great Basin archaeological sites (Hockett, 1991). However, leporid assemblages discarded by raptors at their nests (not derived from pellets) also have high percentages of adults (Hockett, 1991). Thus, a high percentage of adults cannot be used as a sole criterion to establish whether bones derive from a raptor nest (Hockett, 1991). In contrast, raptor pellet results are quite different. Leporid assemblages from the Two Ledges raptor roost in Nevada (Hockett, 1991) come overwhelmingly from juveniles (12·3% fused proximal humeri; 8·7% fused proximal tibiae). On this basis, it is apparent that the archaeological assemblages do not derive from raptor pellets. The fusion of leporid bones, particularly cottontails, can also potentially provide information about the seasonality of procurement (e.g. Smith, 1975; James, 1983). Downum & Sullivan (1990: 5–59) suggest that sites such as Wupatki were probably occupied year-round, and the leporid data may bear on this question. Cottontail litters are produced between April and July and all bones are thought to fuse by about 9 months (Thomson & Mortenson, 1946; Hale, 1949). Because of the length of the breeding season in cottontails, juvenile cottontails are available year-round

956 T. Quirt-Booth and K. Cruz-Uribe Table 8. Number of fused and unfused proximal humeri and proximal tibiae of jackrabbits and cottontails from the Sinagua sites Wupatki

Winona

Nalakihu/ Big Hawk

I-40

174 16 8·42%

30 5 14·29%

4 0 0·00%

10 2 16·67%

Hare proximal tibia Fused Unfused % Unfused

212 43 16·86%

21 6 22·22%

6 1 14·29%

11 3 21·43%

Cottontail proximal humerus Fused Unfused % Unfused

31 11 26·19%

6 1 14·29%

8 2 20·00%

1 2 66·67%

Cottontail proximal tibia Fused Unfused % Unfused

91 44 32·59%

10 4 28·57%

21 5 19·23%

5 4 44·44%

Hare proximal humerus Fused Unfused % Unfused

(James, 1983), and thus presence/absence data will not provide seasonality information. Similarly, jackrabbits with unfused epiphyses should also be available yearround (James, 1983), and are thus not useful for inferring seasonality. Smith (1975) attempted to infer seasonality at Middle Mississippian sites by comparing the percentages of fused and unfused cottontail epiphyses with adult/juvenile ratios in live populations. Even Smith, however, was only able to narrow down the season of cottontail exploitation to two possibilities— either late autumn–winter or spring. Thus, unfortunately the interpretation of leporid fusion in archaeological samples in relation to seasonality is ambiguous, and we cannot come to any conclusions regarding the Sinagua samples.

The Leporid and Artiodactyl Indices Jackrabbits and cottontails are ubiquitous at archaeological sites in the Southwest, however, the behaviour and habitat preferences of these two animals are very different. While cottontails prefer areas of brushy vegetation, jackrabbits prefer barren fields or less densely vegetated areas (Legler, 1970; Madsen, 1974; Bayham & Hatch, 1985b; Szuter, 1991). Thus, the ratio of archaeologically recovered cottontails to jackrabbits may reflect different natural environments, as has been argued by Sanchez (1996) for sites in the prehistoric Mimbres area. Because of the importance placed on agriculture in the Southwest, cottontail and jackrabbit abundance variability is often used to suggest environmental modification through agriculture and, therefore, the practice of ‘‘garden hunting’’ (Fish, 1982; Anyon & LeBlanc, 1984; Ford, 1984; Szuter, 1991). As humans clear areas for agriculture, the relative proportions of jackrabbits may increase as the habitat becomes more suitable for this taxon. Moreover, since

jackrabbits are often hunted communally, sites occupied by larger groups may also have higher proportions of jackrabbits (e.g. Bertram & Draper, 1982; Szuter & Bayham, 1989; Szuter, 1991; Szuter & Gillespie, 1994). Thus, at sites throughout the Southwest, as populations grow larger and the environment becomes more disturbed, the relative proportion of jackrabbits tends to increase (Szuter & Gillespie, 1994). The leporid index (Bayham, 1982; Bayham & Hatch, 1985a,b), is a standardized ratio for examining proportions of cottontails and jackrabbits in archaeological assemblages. It is calculated by dividing the total cottontail NISP by the total leporid NISP. The resulting formula measures the relative frequencies of cottontails:jackrabbits within an assemblage. Values greater than 0·50 indicate more cottontails, while values less than 0·50 indicate more jackrabbits. Table 9 presents the leporid indices for the Sinagua sites. Wupatki, Winona, and the I-40 assemblages all have leporid index values less than 0·50, indicating a greater reliance on jackrabbits. Conversely, the Big Hawk/Nalakihu leporid index value is greater than 0·50, indicating more cottontails. The predominance of jackrabbit, except at the Big Hawk/Nalakihu sites, contradicts evidence from other sites in the northern Southwest. As Szuter & Gillespie (1994) point out, most sites on the Colorado Plateau and Mogollon Rim area are dominated by cottontails, not jackrabbits Table 9. Comparison of leporid index values by site group

Wupatki Winona Village Big Hawk Valley I-40 sites

Leporid index

Interpretation

0·190 0·096 0·589 0·197

More jackrabbit More jackrabbit More cottontail More jackrabbit

Analysis of Leporid Remains from Prehistoric Sinagua Sites 957 Table 10. Comparison of artiodactyl index values by site group Artiodactyl index Wupatki Winona Village Big Hawk Valley I-40 sites

0·081 0·029 0·096 0·138

Interpretation More More More More

leporids leporids leporids leporids

(e.g. Akins, 1985; Flint & Neusius, 1987). The opposite situation prevails at sites in the lowland areas of southern Arizona, which Szuter & Gillespie relate to greater vegetative cover in the northern Southwest. What explains the predominance of jackrabbits at Sinagua sites? Is it simply a reflection of the natural environment? Although all the sites considered here are relatively close to one another, they are not in identical ecological zones. Wupatki is in the Great Basin Desert Shrub community, the Big Hawk/Nalakihu sites are in the Transitional Grassland community, and Winona and the I-40 sites are in the Great Basin Conifer Woodland (pinyon–juniper) community. We could not find any information regarding the ‘‘natural’’ ratios of jackrabbits and cottontails in these different zones. Biologists consulted at Northern Arizona University and Arizona Game and Fish Department indicated that they knew of no dramatic differences between jackrabbit and cottontail populations across these ecological zones (Gary Bateman, pers. comm., 1996; Arizona Fish and Game, pers. comm., 1996). The Great Basin Desert Shrub community is the most ‘‘open’’ of the zones considered here, and would be considered to be the habitat preferred by jackrabbits. As might be expected, Wupatki has the lowest leporid index (indicating the highest proportion of jackrabbits) (Table 9). As we move into the brushier zones, however, the proportions of jackrabbits remain high, with the exception of the Big Hawk/Nalakihu sites. Even there, the proportion of jackrabbits to cottontails is about 50:50. Thus, while environment undoubtedly plays a role in the proportions of jackrabbits to cottontails, other factors are also relevant. Another possibility to be considered is the culturally modified environment, or the garden-hunting hypothesis. In her work on the Hohokam, Szuter (1991; Szuter & Gillespie, 1994) has hypothesized that a high leporid ratio (indicating relatively more jackrabbits) is characteristic of assemblages created through garden hunting. The Sinagua were agriculturalists, and thus the high ratio of jackrabbits may indicate a gardenhunting strategy at the Sinagua sites. This hypothesis is supported by the relatively low artiodactyl indices at the Sinagua sites (Table 10). Artiodactyls found at the Sinagua sites include mule deer, pronghorn antelope, and bighorn sheep. The artiodactyl index is used to compare changes in the relative proportions of artiodactyls to leporids. It is calculated by dividing the NISP (or MNI) of artio-

dactyls by the sum of the NISP (MNI) of artiodactyls plus the NISP (MNI) of leporids (Szuter & Bayham, 1989). Values less than 0·50 indicate more leporids, while values greater than 0·50 indicate more artiodactyls. The garden-hunting hypothesis is that horticulture disturbs primary vegetation, creating ‘‘edge zones’’ (new habitats) which support a higher local density of game, particularly small species. Thus, horticulturists will focus their hunting efforts on small mammals (i.e. leporids) easily taken in agricultural fields (Linares, 1976; Szuter, 1991). The low artiodactyl indices in all the Sinagua assemblages support the garden-hunting model. It is interesting, however, that the Big Hawk/Nalakihu samples have a relatively high number of cottontails, suggesting that other factors, perhaps site size, also need to be considered. Both Wupatki and Winona are large, central sites with ball courts, where communal jackrabbit hunts may have taken place. The Big Hawk/Nalakihu sites are all small habitation sites which would not have supported the large numbers of people necessary for a communal drive. If the ‘‘big site/small site’’ dichotomy is important, we would expect the I-40 samples to also have high proportions of cottontails, which they do not. However, they are all very small samples, and may not be representative.

Summary and Conclusions Analysis of Sinagua faunal assemblages indicates that both jackrabbits and cottontails were important resources for the prehistoric inhabitants of the area. Skeletal element representation and breakage is substantially different from that recorded in the Great Basin or in at least some assemblages from the Hohokam area of central and southern Arizona. Both of these latter areas seem to have witnessed much more intensive processing of leporids, as reflected in distinctive breakage patterns. In contrast, the Sinagua leporid assemblages tend to be relatively unfragmented and burning is not common. If intensive processing is presumed to reflect dietary stress, then we can argue that the leporid remains indicate the Sinagua were less stressed than other prehistoric Southwestern groups. It is also clear that overall, the Sinagua took more jackrabbits than cottontails. This contrasts with the situation elsewhere in northern Arizona, where cottontails are more abundant. It is possible that the predominance of jackrabbits indicates a garden-hunting strategy. This research has raised new questions concerning what factors (environmental, temporal, or cultural) would affect relative proportions of jackrabbits and cottontails within archaeological assemblages. Analysis of the Sinagua assemblages suggests that the site size/type may be an important factor. These preliminary results call into question the appropriateness of applying strictly environmentally deterministic hunting strategies to the interpretation of Sinagua faunal assemblages.

958 T. Quirt-Booth and K. Cruz-Uribe

We hypothesize that further research of this type (particularly on the regional level) will show that site size/type is the primary factor affecting leporid ratios. Smaller sites should have had less impact on the surrounding environment. The reduced size and population of small sites probably meant more individual than communal hunting, producing a larger number of cottontails. Large sites would alter the surrounding environment to a greater extent due to their larger, more aggregated populations, creating an environment more favourable to jackrabbits. Larger populations could more easily facilitate efficient communal drives (more effective for hunting jackrabbits than cottontails).

Acknowledgements We thank the Museum of Northern Arizona for access to the collections analysed here. Christian Downum and James Wilce provided helpful comments on the Masters thesis that formed the basis for this paper. Peter Pilles, Jr. provided information on the I-40 excavations. Graham Avery, Don Grayson, Richard Klein, Lee Lyman and Miranda Warburton kindly commented on earlier versions of this paper.

References Akins, N. J. (1985). Prehistoric faunal utilization in Chaco Canyon: Basketmaker III through Pueblo III. In (F.J. Mathien, Ed.) Environment and Subsistence of Chaco Canyon. U.S. National Park Service Publications in Archaeology 18E. Santa Fe, New Mexico: Chaco Canyon Studies, pp. 305–446. Akins, N. J. (1987). Faunal remains from Pueblo Alto. In (F. J. Mathien & T. C. Windes, Eds) Investigations at the Pueblo Alto Complex, Chaco Canyon, New Mexico, 1975–1979. U.S. National Park Service Publications in Archaeology 18F. Santa Fe, New Mexico: Chaco Canyon Studies, pp. 445–649. Anyon, R. & LeBlanc, S. A. (1984). The Galez Ruin: A Prehistoric Mimbres Village in Southwestern New Mexico. Albuquerque: Maxwell Museum of Anthropology and the University of New Mexico Press. Bateman, C. G. (Ed.) (1976–1981). Natural Resource Survey and Analysis of Sunset Crater and Wupatki National Monument: Flora and Fauna of Wupatki and Sunset Crater National Monuments. Reports I–IV. Flagstaff, Arizona: Northern Arizona University, Department of Biological Sciences. Bayham, F. (1982). A Diachronic Analysis of Prehistoric Animal Exploitation at Ventana Cave. Ph.D. dissertation, Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona. Bayham, F. & Hatch, P. (1985a). Archaeofaunal remains from the New River area. In (D. Doyel & M. D. Elson, Eds) Hohokan Settlement and Economic System in the Central New River Drainage, Arizona. Soil Systems Publications in Archaeology 4. Phoenix, Arizona: Soil Systems, Inc., pp. 405–433. Bayham, F. & Hatch, P. (1985b). Hohokam and Salado animal utilization in the Tonto Basin. In (G. Rice, Ed.) Studies in the Hohokam and Salado Tonto Basin. Office of Cultural Resource Management. Tempe, Arizona: Arizona State University, pp. 191– 210. Beaglehole, E. (1936). Hopi Hunting and Hunting Rituals (E. Sapir & L. Spier, Eds). Yale University Publications in Anthropology, No. 4. New Haven, Connecticut: Yale University Press, pp. 3–26. Bertram, J. B. & Draper, N. (1982). The bones from the Bis sa’ani community: a Sociotechnic archaeofaunal analysis. In (C. D.

Breternitz, D. E. Doyel & M. P. Marshall, Eds) Bis sa’ani: A Late Bonito Phase Community on Escavada Wash, Northwest New Mexico, Vol. 3. Navajo Nation Papers in Anthropology No. 14. Navajo Nation Cultural Resource Management Program, pp. 1015–1065. Binford, L. R. (1978). Nunamiut Ethnoarchaeology. New York: Academic Press. Bradley, R. J. (1994). Before the Sky Fell: The Pre-Eruptive Sinagua of the Flagstaff Area, Across the Colorado Plateau: Anthropological Studies for the Transwestern Pipeline Expansion Project, Volume XII. Transwestern Pipeline Company, UNM Project No. 185– 461B. Albuquerque, New Mexico: University of New Mexico. Burchett, T. (1990). Household Organization at Wupatki Pueblo. Masters thesis, Department of Anthropology, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, Arizona. Chapman, J. A. & Willner, G. R. (1978). Sylvilagus audubonii. Mammalian Species 106, 1–4. Chapman, J. A., Hockman, J. G. & Edwards, W. R. (1982). Cottontails. In (J. A. Chapman & G. A. Feldhamer, Eds) Wild Mammals of North America. Baltimore, Maryland: Johns Hopkins Press, pp. 83–123. Cinnamon, S. K. (1988). The Vegetative Community of Cedar Canyon, Wupatki National Monument as Influenced by Prehistoric and Historic Environmental Change. Masters thesis, Department of Biology, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, Arizona. Cockrum, E. L. (1982). Mammals of the Southwest. Tucson: University of Arizona Press. Colton, H. S. (1930). A brief survey of the early expeditions into northern Arizona. Museum Notes 2(9), 1–4. Colton, H. S. (1933). Wupatki, the tall house. Museum Notes 5(11), 61–64. Colton, H. S. (1934). Wupatki. Southwestern Monuments Monthly Report, September, pp. 17–18. Colton, H. S. (1946). The Sinagua. Museum of Northern Arizona Bulletin, 22. Colton, H. S. (1952). Wupatki National Monument Collected Field Notes. Flagstaff, Arizona: Museum of Northern Arizona. Colton, H. S. (1956). Names at Wupatki. Plateau 29(1), 22–24. Colton, H. S. (1960). Black Sand. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press. Cruz-Uribe, K. & Klein, R. G. (1986). Pascal programs for computing taxonomic abundance in samples of fossil mammals. Journal of Archaeological Science 13, 171–187. Cruz-Uribe, K. & Klein, R. G. (n.d.). Hyrax and Harc Bones from modern South African eagle roosts and the detection of eagle involvement in fossil bone assemblages. Journal of Archaeological Science, in press. Douglass, A. E. (1938). Southwest dated ruins, V. Tree Ring Bulletin 5(2), 10. Downum, C. E. (1988). ‘‘One Grand History’’: A Critical Review of Flagstaff Archaeology, 1851 to 1988. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona. Downum, C. E. (1992). The Sinagua. Plateau 63(1), 1–32. Downum, C. E. & Sullivan, A. P., III. (1990). Description and analysis of prehistoric settlement patterns at Wupatki National Monument. In (B. A. Anderson, Ed.) The Wupatki Archeological Inventory Survey Project: Final Report. Professional Paper No. 35. Santa Fe, New Mexico: U.S. National Park Service, Southwest Cultural Resources Center. Driver, J. C. (1985). Zooarchaeology of six prehistoric sites in the Sierra Blanca region, New Mexico. Museum of Anthropology Technical Reports, No. 17. Ann Arbor, Michigan: University of Michigan Press. Dunn, J. P., Chapman, J. A. & Marsh, R. E. (1982). Jackrabbits. In (J. A. Chapman & G. A. Feldhamer, Eds) Wild Mammals of North America. Baltimore, Maryland: Johns Hopkins Press, pp. 124–145. Fewkes, J. W. (1904). Two Summers’ Work in Pueblo Ruins. Twenty Second Annual Report of the Bureau of American Ethnology, Part 1, pp. 3–196. Fish, S. (1982). Palynology of the modified vegetation of the Salt–Gila Hohokam sites. Paper presented at the 47th Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology.

Analysis of Leporid Remains from Prehistoric Sinagua Sites 959 Flint, P. R. & Neusius, S. W. (1987). Cottontail procurement among Dolores Anasazi. In (K. L. Petersen & J. D. Orcutt, compilers) Dolores Archaeological Program: Supporting Studies: Settlement and Environment. Denver: United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, pp.257–273. Ford, R. (1984). Ecological consequences of early agriculture in the southwest. In (S. Plog & S. Powell, Eds) Papers on the Archaeology of Black Mesa, Arizona, Vol. 2. Carbondale: Southern Illinois Press, pp. 127–138. Fortsas, K. N. (1996). Artiodactyl Procurement at Wupatki Pueblo: Emphasis on Antilocapra americana, The Pronghorn Antelope. Masters thesis, Department of Anthropology, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, Arizona. Grayson, D. K. (1988). Danger Cave, Last Supper Cave, and Hanging Rock Shelter: The Faunas. Anthropological Papers of the American Museum of Natural History 66(1), 1–130. Grayson, D. K. (1989). Bone transport, bone destruction, and reverse utility curves. Journal of Archaeological Science 16, 643– 652. Hale, J. R. (1949). Ageing cottontails by bone growth. Journal of Wildlife Management 13, 216–225. Hartmann, D. & Wolf, A. H. (1977). Archaeological Assessment of Wupatki National Monument. Santa Fe, New Mexico: U.S. National Park Service, Division of Cultural Resources. Hockett, B. (1991). Toward distinguishing human and raptor patterning on leporid bones. American Antiquity 56(4), 667–680. Hockett, B. (1994). A descriptive reanalysis of the leporid bones from Hogup Cave, Utah. Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 16, 106–117. Hockett, B. (1995). Comparison of leporid bones in raptor pellets, raptor nests, and archaeological sites in the Great Basin. North American Archaeologist 16(3), 223–238. Hoffmeister, D. F. (1986). Mammals of Arizona. Tucson: University of Arizona Press. Huckell, B. B. (1987). Faunal remains and bone implements. In (B. B. Huckell, M. D. Tagg & L. W. Huckell, Eds) The Corona de Tucson Project: Prehistoric Use of a Bajada Environment. Arizona State Museum Archaeological Series 174. Tucson: Arizona State Museum, pp. 205–220. Hudson, J. (1993). The impacts of domestic dogs on bone in forager camps. In (J. Hudson, Ed.) From Bones to Behaviour: Ethnoarchaelogical and Experimental Contributions to the Interpretation of Faunal Remains. Occasional Paper 21. Center for Archaeological Investigations, Carbondale: Southern Illinois University, pp. 301–323. Ingles, L. G. (1941). Natural history observations on the Audubon Cottontail. Journal of Mammology 22(3), 227–250. James, S. R. (1983). Surprise Valley settlement and subsistence: a critical review of the faunal evidence. Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 5, 156–175. King, D. S. (1949). Nalakihu: Excavations at a Pueblo III Site on Wupatki National Monument, Arizona. Museum of Northern Arizona Bulletin No. 23. Flagstaff, Arizona: Museum of Northern Arizona. Kingdon, J. (1974). East African Mammals: An Atlas of Evolution in Africa, Vol. IIB. London and New York: Academic Press. Klein, R. G. & Cruz-Uribe, K. (1984). The Analysis of Animal Bones from Archaeological Sites. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Klein, R. G. & Cruz-Uribe, K. (1989). Faunal evidence for prehistoric herder–forager activities at Kasteelberg, Vredenburg Peninsula, western Cape Province, South Africa. South African Archaeological Bulletin 44, 82–97. Legler, R. P. (1970). Habitat Preferences of the Desert Cottontail with Additional Notes on the Black-tailed Jackrabbit. Masters thesis, Department of Biology, New Mexico State University. Linares, O. (1976). ‘‘Garden Hunting’’ in the American Tropics. Human Ecology 4(4), 331–349. Lincoln, E. P. (1961). A Comparative Study of Present and Past Mammalian Fauna of the Sunset Crater and Wupatki Areas of Northern Arizona. Master’s thesis, Department of Zoology, University of Arizona, Tucson.

Lowe, C. H. (1964). Arizona’s Natural Environment: Landscapes and Habitats. Tucson: University of Arizona Press. Lyman, R. L. (1994). Vertebrate Taphonomy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lyman, R. L., Houghton, L. E. & Chambers, A. L. (1992). The effect of structural density on marmot skeletal part representation in archaeological sites. Journal of Archaeological Science 19, 557– 573. Madsen, R. L. (1974). The Influence of Rainfall on the Reproduction of Sonoran Desert Lagomorphs. Masters thesis, Department of Biological Sciences, University of Arizona, Tucson. McGregor, J. C. (1937). Winona Village: A XIIth Century Settlement with a Ball Court Near Flagstaff, Arizona. Museum of Northern Arizona Bulletin No. 12. Flagstaff, Arizona: Museum of Northern Arizona. McGregor, J. C. (1938). How Some Important Northern Arizona Pottery Types were Dated. Museum of Northern Arizona Bulletin No. 13. Flagstaff, Arizona: Museum of Northern Arizona. McGregor, J. C. (1940). Winona and Ridge Ruin Part I: Architecture and Material Culture. Museum of Northern Arizona Bulletin No. 18. Flagstaff, Arizona: Museum of Northern Arizona. Metcalfe, D. & Jones, K. T. (1988). A reconsideration of animal body-part indices. American Antiquity 53(3), 486–504. Pavao, B. (1996). Toward a Taphonomy of Leporid Skeletons: Photodensitometry Analysis. Senior Honors thesis, Department of Anthropology, State University of New York at Binghamton. Payne, S. (1972). Partial recovery and sample bias: the results of some sieving experiments. In (E. S. Higgs, Ed.) Papers in Economic Prehistory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 49–63. Pilles, P. J., Jr. (1974). Post Sunset Crater Eruption Developments in the Sinagua Culture: a Reevaluation. Paper presented at the 39th Annual Meeting of the Society of American Archaeology. Pilles, P. J., Jr. (1978). The field house and Sinagua demography. In (A. E. Ward, Ed.) Limited Activity and Occupational Sites: A Collection of Conference Papers. Contributions to Anthropological Studies No. 1. Albuquerque: Center for Anthropological Studies, pp. 119–133. Pilles, P. J., Jr. (1979). Sunset Crater and the Sinagua: a new interpretation. In (P. Sheets & D. K. Grayson, Eds) Volcanic Activity and Human Ecology. San Francisco: Academic Press, pp. 459–485. Pilles, P. J., Jr. (1987). The Sinagua: ancient people of the Flagstaff region. In (D. G. Nobel, Ed.) Wupatki and Walnut Canyon: New Perspectives on History, Prehistory, and Rock Art. Santa Fe: Annual Bulletin of the School of American Research, pp. 2–11. Sanchez, J. (1996). A re-evaluation of Mimbres faunal subsistence. Kiva 61(3), 295–307. Schmitt, D. N. & Lupo, K. D. (1995). On mammalian taphonomy, taxonomic diversity, and measuring subsistence data in zooarchaeology. American Antiquity 60(3), 496–514. Schmitt, D. N. & Juell, K. E. (1994). Toward the identification of carnivore scatological faunal accumulations in archaeological contexts. Journal of Archaeological Science 21, 249–262. Shaffer, B. S. (1992). Quarter-inch screening: understanding biases in recovery of vertebrate faunal remains. American Antiquity 57, 129–136. Shaffer, B. S. & Sanchez, J. (1994). Comparison of 1/8+ and 1/4+-mesh recovery of controlled samples of small-to-medium animals. American Antiquity 59(3), 525–530. Sitgreaves, L. (1853). Report of an Expedition Down the Zuni and Colorado Rivers. 32 Congress, 2nd Session. Senate Executive Documents, No. 59. Smith, B. D. (1975). Middle Mississippi Exploitation of Animal Populations. Anthropological Papers No. 57. Ann Arbor: Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan. Smith, W. (1952). Excavations in Big Hawk Valley. Museum of Northern Arizona Bulletin No. 24. Flagstaff: Museum of Northern Arizona.

960 T. Quirt-Booth and K. Cruz-Uribe Stahl, P. W. (1996). The recovery and interpretation of microvertebrate bone assemblages from archaeological contexts. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 3, 31–75. Stanislawski, M. B. (1963). Wupatki Pueblo: A Study in Cultural Fusion and Change in Sinagua and Hopi Prehistory. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Arizona, Tucson. Stiner, M. C. (1994). Honor Among Thieves: A Zooarchaeological Study of Neandertal Ecology. Princeton: Princeton University Press, pp. 80–95. Szuter, C. R. (1985). Faunal remains. In (W. H. Doelle, Ed.) Excavations at the Valencia Site: a Pre-Classic Hohokam Village in the Southern Tucson Basin. Institute for American Research Anthropological Papers 3. Tucson: pp. 249–264. Szuter, C. R. (1991). Hunting by Prehistoric Horticulturalists in the American Southwest. New York: Garland Publishing, Inc. Szuter, C. R. & Bayham, F. E. (1989). Sedentism and prehistoric animal procurement among desert horticulturalists of the North American southwest. In (Susan Kent, Ed.) Farmers as Hunters:

The Implications of Sedentism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 80–95. Szuter, C. R. & Gillespie, W. B. (1994). Interpreting use of animal resources at prehistoric American southwest communities. In (W. H. Wills & R. D. Leonard, Eds) The Ancient Southwestern Community: Models and Methods for the Study of Prehistoric Social Organization. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, pp. 67–76. Thomson, H. P. & Mortenson, O. A. (1946). Bone growth as an age criterion in the cottontail rabbit. Journal of Wildlife Management 10, 171–174. Titiev, M. (1944). Old Oraibi. Cambridge: Harvard University. Yellen, J. E. (1991a). Small mammals: !Kung San utilization and the production of faunal assemblages. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 10, 1–26. Yellen, J. E. (1991b). Small mammals: post-discard patterning of !Kung San faunal remains. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 10, 152–192.