245 Appendix III Anlsia o a l smblae Slivovitz Rockshelter and Avocado Rockshelter by Larry S. Kobori Department of Anthropology Arizona State University Tempe, AZ 85281 With the Assistance of Herbert C. Covert Department of Anthropology Arizona State University Tempe, AZ 85821 The faunal remains from Slivovitz Rockshelter (26-Ny-1272) and Avocado Rockshelter (26-Ny-1263) were excavated in July 1977 by a University of California field party under the direction of Colin I. Busby, Department of Anthropology, University of California, Berkeley. Of the 8 total excavated units at Slivovitz Shelter, only 4, primarily from the theorized central occupation area, were selected for a full faunal analysis. Only one unit from the badly vandalized Avocado Shelter was analyzed. The bones were analyzed at Arizona State University, Tempe and the University of California, Berkeley. The results of the analysis are presented below. The faunal assemblages for the two sites are in general: 1. Badly broken and fragmented; 2. indicative of the remains left by a small, social group-band (i.e., probably one-two nuclear families); and 3. support the conclusion that the rockshelters represent temporary occupation hunting/gathering sites. The fragmentary and often rodent chewed/gnawed bones made species identification very difficult. As well, many small mammal bones were undoubtedly lost due to the use of 1/4", mesh screen although diligent examination of the screened fillby the field crew members appeared to minimize this loss. Table 1 lists for Slivovitz Shelter the identified species or category (small, medium, large mammal); the number of bones per species/category; the percentage of 246 bone per species per species/category; minimum number of individuals per species only; lbs/kg usable meat per species; and the percentage of usable meat per species. This data is presented by pit and excavated level. Table 2 lists the same data for a single unit at Avocado Shelter. The percentage of usable meat per level and pit is presented in Fig. 1 - 4 for selected small and large mammal species. These calculations are based on the estimated minimum number of individuals multiplied by the lbs/kg usable meat per individual animal as determined previously by Kobori (In press). Interpretation of the upper levels (0 - 20 cm below surface) from Slivovitz is a difficult task. While identifiable large mammal species in pits N5E0 and N3E0 are zero (Fig. 1 and 2), the actual percentage of unidentified large mammal bones is high - 56% and 85% respectively. Decreased site utilization, rodent activity and subsequent human disturbance probably contribute to an apparent mix of the deposit. Data from the other levels clearly demonstrate the exploitation of Ovis canadensis (bighorn) as the main source of hunted food. The various small mammal species were secondary sources (Tables 1 and 2, Figs. 1-4). Interestingly, at both Slivovitz and Avocado Shelters, Lyn rufus (bobcat) apparently was a hunted food source. This has been recorded ethnograph- ically (Steward 1938, 1941; Stewart 1941, 1942) and inferred for the archaeological record (Kobori, In press). This particular region is well suited for bobcat (see Natural Setting chapter). The possibility that these animals used the rockshelters (at various times) for dens must also be considered. However, from 60-80 cm in N3E0 the left half of a Lynx rufus mandible was recovered. On the internal (lingual) surface of the mandible posterior to the symphysis are distinct butchering marks. This bone supports the supposition that the bobcat was indeed a hunted food source for this area. The occurrence of L bones in cave/rockshelter deposits cannot be unilaterally dismissed as the result of 'natural' processes although it is true they may be involved. Slivovitz units N5E2 and N5E0 yielded isolated Castor canadensis bones. The stream which now flows in front of the shelter today has a small meadow surrounding it, but there is no trace of any recent or past beaver activity. Hall (1946: 482) indicates no known beaver distribution for this area and we have no way of determining any chronolo- gical age for the presence of beaver except to suggest that it was present when the shelter was occupied (ca. 1000 A. D. - 1850 A. D.). The faunal assemblages from both sites are characterized by species which can be most efficiently stalked and hunted by either a solitary hunter or a small number of hunters. Despite the relatively few identified species, the sites' fauna are clearly most similar to the deer-sheep-cottontail faunal complex (cf. Thomas 1969; Kobori 1976, In press). This particular faunal complex may represent the hunted food remains of a small socio-political group. The size of t1e sites support the conclusion that only 1-2 nuclear families were utilizing the shelters at any one time. Seasonality of the sites is difficult to determine. There are very few 247 immature bones present. The occurrence of pinyon nuts in the Slivovitz deposits points to an early fall occupation (cf. Thomas 1971). Very little can be said, based on the broken and often burned animal bones. Overall the bones are relatively few in number and appear concentrated only at Slivovitz in N5EO and N5E2. This concentration of bone leads to the conclusion that the site was utilized for short periods over an unknown tomporal span. In addition, the possibility must remain open that the same group utilized the site year after year. While the bones are centainly not in the best of condition, additional analysis has brought to light some interesting points. The bones (many of them burned) at Slivovitz and Avocado are heavily rodent chewed (Table 3). Large mammal bones were predominately gnawed but occasional small mammal (Sylvilagus sp. ) bones were also subjected to the chewing. Close examination of these chewed and highly fragmented bones has revealed that this rodent activity probably occurred when the bone was very fresh (still oily and moist). To verify this idea, fresh bone was placed within the cages of the common lab mouse (stored at ASU) Mus musculus. In addition, several rodent nests were examined (some currently occupied and some abandoned) in the desert region surrounding the Phoenix Metropolitan area. The skeletal materials recovered from the rodent nests was less fresh and drier. The few gnawed bones reveal more irregular incisor-produced grooves. This is probably due to the drier and flaked surface of the bone. In comparison, the fresh bone chewed by the lab mice exhibits regular, well formed grooves without jagged borders. The field and lab observations have ruled out mice as the most likely candidates for the gnawing present on the Slivovitz and Avocado bone. Mouse produced grooves on fresh bone and recently cooked bone are not wide enough, or deep enough. We postulate that Neotoma sp. and possibly Citellus spp. (larger species) were respon- sible for the extensive gnaw marks. Some of the faunal remains from Slivovitz and Avocado appear to have been gnawed and then burned. We inferred this conclusion from charred bone scratched and/ or cut by a surgical scapel, exposing a lighter brown color below the original bone surface. If the excavated skeletal material was burned and then rodent chewed, we would have detected a lighter brown color below the original bone surface. If the excavated skeletal material was burned and then rodent chewed, we would have detected a lighter brown color where gnawed. The exception to this is when the bone is completely burned, both externally and internally. On incompletely burned bone from the Slivovitz and Avocado deposits, the pattern of fire induced blackening is not restricted to the original bone surface but extends down to the bottom of the rodent chewed grooves. Also burned and hence drier bone when chewed, should produce a more uneven groove which is not the case here. The picture that emerges is one of a group breaking up long bones for probable bone marrow extraction with the 'debitage' from this activity apparently attracting rodents. For unknown reasons, the rodents did not drag off the bone fragments but chewed them 'on the spot' so to speak. During and after this, some of the bone was gathered and burned by the people occupying the site. 248 The sites are not bighorn kill sites but the freshness of the bone would point to the possibility of a kill site or sites in the immediate vicinity of the two shelters. This concurs with the geography of the area which in the past must have been an ideal region for the observation and hunting of game. After initial dismemberment and field butchering, the kill was brought from a short distance to the shelter for further processing. We propose that the kill took place within the confines of the small canyon and surrounding mountain slopes. The high number of distal projectile point fragments found with the bone appears to suggest this conclusion. The initial butchering activity apparently did not entail the removal of projectile points and it is probable that portions of the animals were brought into the shelters with the distal point fragments still present within the carcass. In conclusion, the highly fragmented nature of the bones severely limited the determination of the number and variety of identifiable species. Despite this problem the results are consistent for each excavated pit. The faunal remains from both point to the refuse of a small socio-political unit concerned with the seasonal hunting of Ovis canadensis (bighorn) and other small mammals. Notes Mammal Size Determinations Unidentified small mammals - up to and including cottontail Unidentified medium mammals - jackrabbit to coyote Unidentified large mammals - larger than coyote and bobcat 249 Table 1 Slivovitz Shelter N5E0 Level 1 (O - 20 cm) Bone # % MNI lbs/kg Usable Meat % Citellus sp. Sylvilagus nuttalli Thomomys talpoides Small mammal Large mammal 1 5 2 40 15 62 _ 0.91 4.55 1.82 36.36 56.36 1 2 2 0.35/ .159* 1. 56/ .70 0.28/ . 128 110 2.19/ .987 Level 2 (20 - 40 cm) Citellus sp. Neotoma cinerea Sylvilagus nuttalli Lynx rufus Ovis canadensis Small mammal Large mammal 2 32 9 1 2 6320 120 1.00 1. 50 4.50 0.50 1.00 31.50 60.00 1 2 5 1 1 0.35/ .159* 1.54/ .698 3.90/ 1,75 15.0/ 6.804 100.0 /45.36 200 120. 79/54.771 Level 3 (40 - 60 cm) Neotoma cinerea Sylvilagus nuttalli Castor canadensis Ovis canadensis Small mammal Large mammal (Over 2/3 are burnt) 1 8 1 14 90 175 0.35 2.77 0.35 4.84 31.14 60. 55 1 2 1 1 0. 77/ .349 1. 56/ .70 38.5 /17.463 100. 00/45.36 289 140. 83/63. 872 Level 4 (60 - 80 cm) Citellus sp. Sylvilagus nuttalli Thomomys talpoides 2 8 1 0.41 1.66 0.21 1 2 1 0.35/ .159* 1.56/ .70 0.14/ .064 15.98 71/23 12.79 0.29 1.27 3.23 12.42 82.79 0.54 1.11 27.34 71.01 0.17 0.77 0.07 250 Bone # Ovis canadensis Large mammal 120 350 % MNI 24.95 72.77 2 lbs/kg 200 /90.72 481 202.05/91.643 N5EO Level 1 (O - 20 cm) Neotoma cinerea Ovis canadensis Sylvilagus idahoensis Sylvilagus nuttalli Thomomys talpoides Large mammal 4 39 1 5 29 60~ 3.60 35.14 0.90 4.50 1.80 54.06 2 1 1 1 2 1.54/ .698 100. 00/45.36 0.40/ .181 0.78/ .350 0.28/ .128 111 103.0 /46.717 Level 2 (20 - 40 cm) Castor canadensis Citellus townsendii Citellus sp. Lagurus curtatus Neotoma cinerea Neotoma lepida Ovis canadensis Sylvilagus nuttalli Thomomys talpoides Large mammal 1 1 1 2 9 1 51 8 27 136~ 0.47 0.47 0.47 0.94 4.25 0.47 24.06 3.77 0.94 64.15 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 4 2 38.5 /17.463 0.35/ .159 0.35/ .159* 0.40/ .018 2.31/ 1.05* 0.21/ .095 100.0 /45.36 4.78/ 1.40 0.28/ .128 212 146.82/65.832 N5E2 Level 3 (40 - 60cm) Lynx rufus Neotoma cinerea Neotoma lepida Ovis canadensis Sylvilagus nuttalli Thomomys talpoides 3 4 1 133 0.61 (imm) 0. 82 0.21 1 1 1 15.0 / 6.80 (imm) 0. 77/ .349 0.21/ .095 27.25 1 100.0 /45.36 5 1.03 3 0.61 1 I 0.78/ .35 0.14/ .064 Usable Meat % 98.99 1.49 97.09 0.39 o.76 0.27 26.22 0.24 0.24 0.027 1.57 0.143 68.11 3.26 0.19 12.83 0.66 0.18 85. 54 0.67 0.06 Bone # Large mammal 339 % MNI 69.47 - 448 116.9 /53.02 Level 4 (60 - 80 cm) Castor canadensis Lepus californicus Neotoma cinerea Neotoma lepida Odocoileus hemionus Ovis canadensis Sylvilagus idahoensis Sylvilagus nuttalli Thomomys Talpoides Large mammal 1 1 1 S 1 151 1 4 170 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.69 0.14 20.88 0.14 0.55 0.14 77.04 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 38.5 /17.463 2.26/ 1.03 0.77/ .349 0.63/ .285 100 /45.36 100 /45.36 0.40/ .J81 0.78/ .35 0.14/ .064 723 243.48/110.42 N3EO Level 1 (0 - 20 cm) Neotoma cinerea Neotoma lepida Neotoma sp. Sylvilagus nuttalli Medium mammal Large mammal 2 1 2 5 310 76 2.25 1.12 2.25 5.62 3.57 85.39 1 1 1 1 0.77/ .349 39.09 0.21/ .095 10.66 0.21/ .095* 10.66 0.78/ .35 39.59 89 1.97/ 0.889 Level 2 (20 - 40 cm) Lepus californicus Neotoma cinerea Ovis canadensis Thomomys talpoides Large mammal 1 1.06 1 2 (1mm) 2.13 1 2 (imm) 2.13 1 2 2.13 1 112 1.06 1 86 91.49 - 2.26/ 1.03 0.77/ .349 100.0 /45.36 0.58/ .35 0.14/ .064 103.95/47.153 251 lbs/kg Usable Meat % 15.81 0.93 0.32 0.26 41.07 41.07 0.16 0.32 0.06 2.17 0.74 46.20 0.75 0.14 94 252 Level 3 (40 - 60 cm) Citellus townsendii Citellus sp. Lynx rufus Neotoma sp. Ovis canadensis Sylvilagus nuttalli Large mammal 1 2 1 1 1 4 99 0.92 1.83 0.92 0.92 0.92 3.67 90.82 1 2 1 1 1 1 0.35/ .159 0.70/ .318* 15.0 / 6.804 0.21/ .095* 100.0 /45.36 0.78/ .35 109 117.04/53 036 Level 4 (60 - 80 cm) Lynx rufus Ovis canadensis Sylvilagus nuttali Large mammal 1 2- 3 67 1.37 2.74 .11 91.78 1 1 1 15.0 / 6.804 100.0 /45.36 0.78/ .35 73 1.55/ 0.699 Level 5 (80 - 100 cm) Neotoma sp. Sylvilagus nuttalli Large mammal 2 153 15 15_ 1.24 1.86 96.90 1 1 0.77/ .349 0.78/ .35 161 1.55/ 0.699 Level 6 (100 - 120 cm) Neotoma sp. Sylvilagus nuttalli Large mammal 2 265 76~ 80 0.99/ 0.445 N6W7 Level 1 (0 - 20 cm) Neotoma cinerea Neotoma sp. Sylrilagus nuttalli Large mammal 1 1 26 366 40 2.50 2.50 5.00 90.00 1 1 1 0. 77/ .349 0.21/ .095* 0.78/ .35 1.76/ .794 Bone # % MNI lbs/kg Usable Meat % 0.30 0.60 12.82 0.18 65.44 0.66 12.96 86.37 0.67 49.68 50.32 2.50 2.50 95.00 1 1 0.21/ 0.78/ .095* .35 21.21 78.79 43.75 11.93 44.32 253 Table 2 - Avocado Shelter - S3EO Level 1 (0 - 20 cm Bone # %0 MNI lbs/kg Usable Meat % Neotoma cinerea Sylvilagus nuttalli Odocoileus hemionus (?) Ovis canadensis Small mammal Large mammal 1 (im) 7 1 5 511 56_ 1.33 9.33 1.33 6.67 6.67 74.67 1 4 1 1 0.77/ .347 3.12/ 1.4 100. 00/45.36 100. 00/45.36 75 203. 89/92.469 Level 2 (20 - 40 cm) Neotoma cinerea Neotoma sp. Sylvilagus nuttalli Ovis canadensis Small mammal Large mammal 2(im) 1 6 5 1011 59_ 2.41 1.21 7.23 6.02 12.05 71.08 2 1 2 1 1.54/ .698 0.21/ .095* 1. 56/ .70 100.00/45.36 83 103.31/46.853 Level 3 (40 - 60 cm Citellus sp. Neotoma cinerea Neotoma sp. Sylvilagus nuttalli Lynx rufus Odocoileus hemionus (?) Ovis canadensis Small mammal Large mammal 1 l(im) 3 10 1 1 3 1517 185 0.54 0.54 1.62 5.31 0.54 0.54 1.62 8.11 81.08 1 1 3 3 1 1 1 0.35/ .159 0.77/ .159 0.63/ .285* 2.34/ 1.05 15.0 / 6.804 100. 00/45.36 100.00/45.36 219. 09/99.367 Level 4 (60 - 80 cm) Sylvilagus nuttalli Ovis canadensis Small mammal Large mammal 6 3.59 5(1 im) 2.99 7115 42.52 85 50.90 167 2 2 1.56/ .70 200.00/90.72 201. 56/91.42 0.37 1.53 49.05 49.05 1.49 0.20 1. 51 96.80 0.16 0.35 0.29 1.07 6.85 45.64 45.64 0.77 99.23 254 Table 3 Slivovitz Shelter - Rodent Chewed Bones Large Mammal N5EO # Chewed L-1 (0 - 20 cm L-2 (20'- 40 cm) L-3 (40 - 60 cm) L-4 (60 - 80 cm) L-5 (80 - 100 cm) N5E2 L-1 L-2 L-3 L-4 (O - 20 cm) (20 - 40 cm) (40 - 60 cm) (60 - 80 cm) N3EO L-1 ( 0 - 20 cm) L-2 (20 - 40 cm) L-3 (40 - 60 cm) L-4 (60 - 80 cm) L-5 (80 - 100 cm) L-6 (100 - 120 cm) 28 73 105 91 14 10 31 72 97 # Chewed & Burned 4 16 19 14 3 9 7 5 10 17 9 14 67 15 7 5 0 1 0 4 0 Small Mammal # Chewed 2 4 3 1 0 0 0 0 3 2 0 1 0 0 0 Avocado Shelter - Rodent Chewed Bones S3E0 L-1 (0 - 20 cm) L-2 (20 - 40 cm) L-3 (40 - 60 cm) L-4 (60 - 80 cm) 16 20 3 21 11 2 1 1 # Chewed & Burned 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 255 PERCENT USABLE MEAT BY LEVEL 2 3 l 2 4 N5/EO 5 5 ff23 1 o w C 0Ar- 0 C1 o 0L) 0 0a 4-D0 H1 ?l Figure 1 N5E2 0 co x to 0- 0 02d Hd - 4-) 0) ~ 0) 0 H- d~ 0 0) H - 0 ~~~~~~~~~~~~0 - 10 Figure 2 100 % 50 i 0 100 % 50 0 .. - - -------A I a . I a * . . I I 256 PERCENT USABLE MEAT BY LEVEL 100 % 50 0 6 3 6 5 Ca 0- 0 44 = H S1 o41 ,XI a , 4J' W I b 4-)' 0 0o F r 3 Figure 3 3 AVOCADO SHELTER - S3EO c a Io H t a) .,, z 0 C 0 q I' > 0 4 Figure 4~ N3EO 34 .11~~~~~~~~~~~~ 100 , 50 0 . . . . . . . . --A 3 I 257 Acknowledgements We wish to thank Colin I. Busby and the University of Califomia field crew for their hospitality and companionship in Nevada. Ms. Susan M. Seck's assistance while working at the University of California, Berkeley was much appareciated. Mr. Roy Barnes's (Physical Anthropology technician, Arizona State University, Tempe) cooperation and assistance is gratefully acknowledged. References Cited Hall, R.E. 1946 The Mammals of Nevada. Berkeley: University of California Press. Kobori, L.S. 1976 The Occurrence of Ovis canadensis from an Archaeological Deposit in the Carson Lake Region of Western Nevada. Nevada Archaeological Survey Reporter 9: 1-6. In press A Faunal Analysis of Ezra's Retreat. In: Ezra's Retreat: A Rockshelter/Cave Occupation Site in the North Central Great Basin, by J. C. Bard, C.I. Busby and L. S. Kobori. University of Calibmrnia, Berkeley, Archaeological Research Facility. Steward, J. H. 1938 Basin-Plateau Aboriginal Sociopolitical Groups. Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 120. 1941 Culture Element Distributions: XIII Nevada Shoshoni. University of California Anthropological Records 4(2). Stewart, O.C. 1941 Culture Element Distributions: XIV Northern Paiute. University of California Anthropological Records 4(3). 1942 Culture Element Distributions: XVIII Ute Southern Paiute. University of California Anthropological Records 6(4). Thomas, D.H. 1969 Great Basin Hunting Patterns: A Quantitative Method for Treating Faunal Remains. American Antiquity 34: 392-401. 1971 Prehistoric Subsistence-Settlement Patterns of the Reese River Valley, Central Nevada. Ph. D. dissertation, University of California, Davis.