1 WHAT SHALL I EAT? EXAMINING THE ROLE OF LARGE GAME HUNTING DURING THE PROMONTORY PERIOD Abstract: After initial excavations at the Promontory Caves in 1930 and 1931, Steward characterized the Promontory culture as large game hunters based on the high number of bison bones recovered. Excavations at other Promontory Phase sites along the Wasatch Front continue today and faunal assemblages from these sites differ significantly from those in the caves, showing that people living during the Promontory Phase relied more heavily on small game, waterfowl, and aquatic resources than large game. These differences have been mostly attributed to Steward’s sampling strategy and lack of screening, but faunal material recovered during 2011 excavations at the caves support Steward’s initial assessment: the people living in the caves were hunting large game and little else. This paper uses several sites throughout the Salt Lake and Utah valleys to discuss potential explanations for differences in subsistence strategies practiced by people with similar material culture. Lindsay D. Johansson Graduate Student, Department of Anthropology Brigham Young University Provo, Utah 84602 PLEASE DO NOT CITE IN ANY CONTEXT WITHOUT AUTHOR PERMISSION To be read at the 33 rd Great Basin Anthropological Association Conference Stateline, NV 20 October 2012
Transcript
1
WHAT SHALL I EAT? EXAMINING THE ROLE OF LARGE GAME HUNTING DURING
THE PROMONTORY PERIOD
Abstract: After initial excavations at the Promontory Caves in 1930 and 1931, Steward
characterized the Promontory culture as large game hunters based on the high number of bison
bones recovered. Excavations at other Promontory Phase sites along the Wasatch Front continue
today and faunal assemblages from these sites differ significantly from those in the caves,
showing that people living during the Promontory Phase relied more heavily on small game,
waterfowl, and aquatic resources than large game. These differences have been mostly attributed
to Steward’s sampling strategy and lack of screening, but faunal material recovered during 2011
excavations at the caves support Steward’s initial assessment: the people living in the caves were
hunting large game and little else. This paper uses several sites throughout the Salt Lake and
Utah valleys to discuss potential explanations for differences in subsistence strategies practiced
by people with similar material culture.
Lindsay D. Johansson
Graduate Student, Department of Anthropology
Brigham Young University
Provo, Utah 84602
PLEASE DO NOT CITE IN ANY CONTEXT WITHOUT AUTHOR PERMISSION
To be read at the
33rd Great Basin Anthropological Association Conference
Stateline, NV
20 October 2012
2
Introduction
(SLIDE 1) When Julian Steward excavated in the Promontory Caves, he believed he
uncovered a previously unknown culture. He based this determination on the presence of a
unique artifact assemblage and originally believed that the Promontory people were large game
hunters who “represented an intrusive cultural group that entered the northern Utah area while
sedentary [Fremont] groups still occupied the region” (Steward 1940:472-473). Over the years
since Steward’s 1930 and 1931 excavations, other sites dating to the Promontory phase have
been excavated and subsistence strategies at these sites have been documented that differ from
those used in the Caves. This paper concentrates on analysis of the archaeofaunal material
recovered from Cave 1 during excavations in April and November 2011 and based on this faunal
assemblage, I evaluate Steward’s conclusions about Promontory culture and hunting practices
and their role in Promontory life. (SLIDE 2) Because of opposing theories concerning the
Promontory, I will begin with a brief summary of Promontory research and present my definition
of the Promontory. I will then begin discussing the Promontory faunal assemblage recovered by
Steward and present my analysis of the fauna recovered from Cave 1 in 2011. Next, I will
compare the fauna recovered from Cave 1 with fauna recovered from other Promontory sites,
and will conclude with a discussion of the role of large game hunting in daily Promontory life.
Defining the Promontory
(SLIDE 3) Steward (1940) believed that the Promontory people were large game hunters
and culturally distinct from the earlier Fremont and later Shoshone. Over the years, the exact
temporal and cultural placement of the Promontory has been debated, with James Gunnerson
(1956) arguing that the Promontory are Athapaskan and C. Melvin Aikens (1966) arguing that
they are a variant of the Fremont. Among archaeologists, views of the Promontory have differed
3
significantly since Steward’s original definition. (SLIDE 4) When using the term Promontory in
this paper, I am referring to a group of people who may or may not be ethnically or culturally
related to one another and occupied areas in the eastern Great Basin between approximately AD
1100 and 1600. These people were hunter gatherers and are culturally distinguished from
Fremont farmers and other Great Basin hunter gatherers on the basis of artifact assemblages.
Within Promontory sites, stylistically distinctive ceramics, stone tools, basketry, and moccasins
are found at some, but not all sites.
Promontory Faunal Use
(SLIDE 5) Since Steward’s (1937) original definition of the Promontory culture within
the Caves, other sites dating to the Promontory phase have been found and the subsistence
strategies used by prehistoric people at these sites differ dramatically from that defined by
Steward. Janetski and Smith (2007) show that the faunal use at three Promontory sites in the
Utah Valley emphasized small game and aquatic resources as opposed to large game. Lupo and
Schmitt (1997) discuss faunal data from Orbit Inn which is similarly dominated by waterfowl
and fish. Allison et al. (2000) and Allison (2002) infer the subsistence strategies at two sites with
Promontory occupations in the Salt Lake Valley. Here, emphasis is also placed on small game,
waterfowl, and fish.
(SLIDE 6) In 2009, I performed an analysis of the fauna recovered by Steward at the
Promontory Caves to assess his conclusions (Johansson 2010a, 2010b). Based on the his
assemblage, the Promontory living in the caves relied heavily on large game, particularly
pronghorn antelope, which made up 44.3 percent of the identified specimens (NISP) and was the
most common animal recovered. Although the fauna excavated by Steward supported his
conclusions, I believed then that the bias towards large game may have been caused by sampling
4
strategy and that, although they were originally present in the caves, fish, bird, and small game
were underrepresented due to the lack of screening (Allison 2002:337). When we performed
small test excavations in the caves in 2011, we collected “bulk samples” from every layer which
we then screened in the lab through 1/16 inch mesh while saving sediments for flotation; in
theory collecting a 100% sample of artifacts. My hypothesis was that, although Steward neither
noted nor collected small game and bird bones, they were collected and eaten by the Promontory
living in the caves and would be present in the faunal assemblage collected in 2011. (SLIDE 7)
As you can see from this slide, showing one FS lot from Cave 1, that was not the case.
2011 Promontory Fauna
In winter of 2012, I performed an analysis of the faunal material collected during 2011
test excavations. A total of 8871 bones were analyzed from Cave 1, including 9 recovered from
the cave surface and the remainder from a 1 x 2 m test trench. (SLIDE 8) Sediments within the
test trench were divided into several distinct strata, with thick bands of fibrous material separated
by thinner bands of windblown sediment. These strata likely represent various, possibly
seasonal, occupation of the cave by humans; similar to other cave sites in the Great Basin, the
fiber was brought in by humans, possibly to make the cave more habitable. To further support
this theory, in many cases artifacts were found lying within the thin sediment layers and directly
upon the thick fibrous layers (ie: moccasin and mat within F17). Promontory artifacts,
moccasins, ceramics, basketry, and projectile points, were recovered from all layers excavated in
2011. Based on this fact, I will discuss the material together as one single unit characterizing
how the cave was used by the Promontory.
(SLIDE 9) Bison (Bison bison) is the most common species found within Cave 1,
making up 67.66 percent of the specimens (NISP). Other artiodactyls are also present but none
5
comprise more than 7 percent of the total assemblage. While many of the bones recovered were
complete, and sometimes remained articulated, there was a high degree of fragmentation present
among the bones in the cave as well. The majority of the sample, 6323 bone fragments, could not
be identified beyond the class artiodactyla. Among these, small artiodactyls (deer, mountain
sheep, and pronghorn antelope) was the largest, making up 57.59 percent of the total. Large
artiodactyls (elk, bison) occurred half as often, making up 28.88 percent. On the basis of my
analysis, Steward (1937:83) was correct in saying that the Promontory living in Cave 1 were
“primarily hunters” who were “strongly oriented toward exploitation of large mammals,
particularly bison.”
Was Large Game Hunting Part of Everyday Life?
(SLIDE 10) With the exception of the Rock Creek site (10OA275), a bison kill site in
Idaho excavated by Weber State University, and Fire Guard Hearth (42WB54), a small mule
deer hunting site in northern Utah, all other Promontory sites excavated show that muskrat, fish,
and waterfowl played a larger role in Promontory subsistence than large game (Arkush 2010:5,
Simms and Heath 1990, Stuart 1993, Allison 2002, Allison et al 2000, Janetski and Smith 2007).
Diet breadth modeling can be used to partially explain faunal differences between sites.
Bison “would have been one of the highest ranked animal preys in the area” and although other
resources such as birds, small game, and plants may have been available to the people living in
Promontory Cave 1, they may have focused their efforts on bison as part of an economic choice
(Lupo and Schmitt 1997: 50; Kelley 1995: 78). I believe this explanation is too simplistic
however. People would have hunted or collected animals that they encountered regardless of
their original intent. Promontory point has many different species of bird and small game living
there today and likely almost the same amount lived there when the Promontory did. Despite
6
this, only 1.10 percent of the assemblage from Cave 1 was not large game. Several explanations
have been proposed to explain the difference in faunal use including site function and
environment.
Site Function:
(SLIDE 11) Site function has been proposed as an explanation for the differences
between faunal use at the caves and open sites because there are usually significant differences
between the faunal refuse at habitation sites and logistical sites. Habitation sites such as seasonal
camps, which contain long term stable occupations, usually contain high faunal species diversity
(Reitz and Wing 2007). These sites are also characterized by a thin scatter of debris which, over
time, accumulates into a midden. On the other hand, logistical sites, such as kill or processing
sites, represent a single activity by select individuals from the group. The full array of behaviors
related to a habitation site does not occur because all members of a family unit are not present at
logistical sites. The key to differentiating between residential and logistical sites lies in both the
function and length of occupation.
Based on Steward’s (1937) excavations, Promontory Cave 1 appears to have been used as
a habitation site because a number of child moccasins were recovered. Based on the fauna, Cave
1 was likely used seasonally, with at least one occupation during the early spring calving season
and another during winter after mule deer have shed their antlers (Johansson 2010a). If this
conclusion is correct, the faunal assemblage would be expected to be highly diverse. (SLIDE 12)
This is not the case within Cave 1 although it is true for the majority of Promontory phase sites
in the region, such as Hot Spring Lake, where the faunal collection is made up of specimens
from all of the taxonomic classes. Despite these differences in faunal use, because all the
7
Promontory sites included in my study were used similarly as seasonal residential camp sites,
site function alone is an unlikely explanation for differences in faunal use.
Environment:
(SLIDE 13) In addition to site function, environment is often used as an explanation for
differences in subsistence strategy (see Kuehn 1998, Reff 1993, and Tuross et al 1994).
Promontory Cave 1 is located at the base of a badly faulted and folded cliff of limestone
(Steward 1937:8). This is in contrast to Promontory sites such as Orbit Inn, Hot Spring Lake,
Goshen Island, and Heron Springs which correspond with the shores of Utah Lake and the Great
Salt Lake where wetlands would have been located during the Late Prehistoric (Janetski
1994:166-167). Although people living at these sites would have much greater access to fish than
those living in the Cave, they would not have had much greater access to waterfowl or small
game which are plentiful along the shore of the Great Salt Lake, the ridges of the Promontory
mountains, and the small valleys. (SLIDE 14) Although environment and the affect environment
has on species availability may have played a role in subsistence differences among Promontory
sites, I do not believe it can account for all differences, and especially for differences to the
degree that has been documented. At Orbit Inn (42BO120) the five artiodactyl species (CLICK)
(Bison bison, Cervus elaphus, Odocoileus hemionus, Ovis canadensis, and Antiliocapra
americana) combined represent only 1.4 percent of the overall fauna. At Hot Spring Lake
artiodactyls are even less present and make up 0.2 percent of the assemblage. This is in contrast
to Cave 1 where they represent over 90 percent of the fauna recovered. I believe that alternative
explanations for the differences in fauna are necessary.
Discussion:
8
(SLIDE 15) It is a fact that the Promontory living in Cave 1 were large game hunters,
although the Promontory living in other areas of the Great Salt Lake and Utah Valleys were not.
Small game, specifically rabbits and muskrat, played a much more significant role in subsistence
at other Promontory sites in the region. Conventional explanations of environmental and site
function cannot entirely account for this difference. I believe that other explanations focusing on
choices influenced by Promontory culture must be considered. One cultural explanation for the
large number of bison within Cave 1 is leather manufacture. During the 2011 excavations over
one hundred fragmented pieces of leather and hide and 13 moccasins were recovered. Ten of the
moccasins were found within the test trench from which only 1.05 cubic meters was excavated.
While this artifact density may not hold consistent throughout the entire cave, Steward recovered
250 moccasins from his larger test trenches, and one possible reason for the high number of
bison bones and lack of faunal diversity in a residential camp site such as Cave 1 is preferential
collection of bison for products such as hide. While there is no direct evidence, I believe
possibilities such as this provide a much better explanation for the high number of bison bones
within Cave 1.
Conclusion
(SLIDE 16) Although it has been the primary focus of this paper, faunal bone is not the
only way that the Caves are different from other Promontory sites. In his thesis, Grant Smith
(2004) documented differences in ceramic sherd thickness and temper, and the Caves, possibly
because of the dry conditions within, are the only confirmed sites with Promontory moccasins. In
addition, the Caves pre-date other Promontory sites by between 100 and 500 years (Ives in
press). When these differences are viewed together, it is apparent that the Promontory living in
the Caves are different from the Promontory living along the lake shores. While I can document
9
these differences, I cannot, at present, fully explain why they exist, and will be further exploring
these issues in my MA thesis.
10
Works Cited:
Aikens, C. Melvin
1966 Fremont-Promontory-Plains Relationships, Including a Report of Excavations at
the Injun Creek and Bear River No. 1 Sites, Northern Utah. University of Utah
Anthropological Papers No. 82. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press.
Allison, James R. (editor)
2002 Archaeological Excavations at the Salt Lake Airport. Research Report No. 02-23.
Baseline Data, Inc, Orem, Utah.
Allison, James R., Judi L. Cameron, Arlene Colman, Quint Colman
2000 Test Excavations at 42DV2, A Late Prehistoric and Archaic Site in the Jordan
River Delta, Davis County, Utah. Research Report No. U97-20. Ms on file,
Baseline Data, Inc, Orem, Utah.
Arkush, Brooke S.
2010 “Recent Excavations at 10OA275: A Big-Game Processing Camp on the Curlew
National Grassland, Southeastern Idaho.” Paper presented at the 2010 Great Basin
Anthropological Conference.
Forsyth, Donald W.
1986 Post-Formative Ceramics in the Eastern Great Basin: A Reappraisal of the
Promontory Problem. Journal of California and Great Basin Archaeology 8(2):
180-203.
Gilbert, B. Miles
1980 Mammalian Osteology. Modern Printing Company, Laramie.
Gilbert, B. Miles, Larry D. Martin, and Howard G. Savage
1981 Avian Osteology. Modern Printing Company, Laramie.
Gunnerson, James H.
1956 Plains Promontory Relationships. American Antiquity 22(1): 69-72.
Ives, John
In press Resolving the Promontory Culture Enigma. In Archaeology for All Times:
Papers in Honor of Don D. Fowler, edited by Joel C. Janetski and Nancy Parezo.
University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.
Janetski, Joel C.
1994 Recent Transitions in the Eastern Great Basin. In Across the West: Human
Population Movement and the Expansion of the Numa, edited by David Rhode
and David B. Madsen, pp. 157-178. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.
2009 Forward. In Steward, Julian H. Ancient Caves of the Salt Lake Region.
Smithsonian Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin No. 116. Washington D.C.
11
Janetski, Joel C., and Grant C. Smith
2007 Hunter-Gatherer Archaeology in Utah Valley. Occasional Paper No. 12.
Museum of Peoples and Cultures, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah.
Johansson, Lindsay D.
2010a “Promontory Caves Revisited: Analysis of Faunal Material from 42BO1 and
42BO2.” Paper presented at the 2010 Utah Professional Archaeological Council
Annual Meeting, Salt Lake City, Utah.
2010b “Artiodactyl Hunting and Promontory Caves: Evidence of Foraging Strategies
during the Late Prehistoric.” Paper presented at the Great Basin Anthropology
Conference, Layton, Utah.
Kuehn, Steven R.
1998 New Evidence for Late Paleoindian-Early Archaic Subsistence Behavior in the
Western Great Lakes. American Antiquity 63(3): 457-476.
Lupo, Karen and David Schmitt
1997 On Late Holocene Variability in Bison Populations in the North Eastern Great
Basin. Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology. 19(1): 50-69.
Madsen, David B.
1979 Great Salt Lake Fremont Ceramics. In: The Levee Site and the Knoll Site, Gary
Fry and Gardiner Dalley, p 79-100. University of Utah Anthropological Papers
No. 100.
Madsen, Rex E.
1977 “Prehistoric Ceramics of the Fremont.” Museum of Northern Arizona, Ceramic
Series No. 6.
Reff, Daniel T.
1993 An Alternative Explanation of Subsistence Change during the Early Historic
Period at Pecos Pueblo. American Antiquity 58(3): 563-564.
Reitz, Elizabeth, and Wing, Elizabeth
2007 Zooarchaeology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Simms, Steven R., and Kathleen M. Heath
1990 Site Structure of the Orbit Inn: An Application of Ethnoarchaeology. American
Antiquity 55(4): 797-813.
Simms, Steven R., A. Ugan, and J. Bright
1997 Plain-Ware Ceramics and Residential Mobility: A Case Study from the Great
Basin. Journal of Archaeological Science 24: 779-92.
Smith, Grant C.
12
2004 Promontory Ware or Promontory Gray? Revisiting the Classification Problems of
Eastern Great Basin Ceramics. Unpublished Master’s Thesis, Brigham Young
University.
Steward, Julian H.
1937 Ancient Caves of the Salt Lake Region. Smithsonian Bureau of American
Ethnology Bulletin No. 116. Washington D.C.
1940 Native Cultures of the Intermontane (Great Basin) Area. Essays in Historical
Anthropology of North America. Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collection, Vol. 100:
445-498.
Tuross, Noreen, Marilyn L. Fogel, Lee Newsom, and Glen H. Doran
1994 Subsistence in the Florida Archaic: The Stable-Isotope and Archaeobotanical
Evidence from the Windover Site. American Antiquity 59(2): 288-303.
