The Wardell Buffalo Trap 48 SU 301: Communal Procurement in the Upper Green River Basin, Wyoming 9781951519223, 9781949098082

Citation preview

ANTHROPOLOGICAL PAPERS

MUSEUM OF ANTHROPOLOGY, UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN NO. 48

THE WARDELL BUFFALO TRAP 48 SU 301: COMMUNAL PROCUREMENT IN THE UPPER GREEN RIVER BASIN, WYOMING

BY GEORGE C. FRISON CONTRIBUTION BY CHARLES A. REHER

ANN ARBOR THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN, 1973

© 1973 by the Regents of the University of Michigan The Museum of Anthropology All rights reserved ISBN (print): 978-1-949098-08-2 ISBN (ebook): 978-1-951519-22-3 Browse all of our books at sites.lsa.umich.edu/archaeology-books. Order our books from the University of Michigan Press at www.press.umich.edu. For permissions, questions, or manuscript queries, contact Museum publications by email at [email protected] or visit the Museum website at lsa.umich.edu/ummaa.

TABLE OF CONTENTS iv v

List of Figures .. List of Tables .. List of Plates Acknowledgments

v

vi

Introduction The Site Environment Bison bison Procurement and its Effects on Plains Prehistory Postulated Use of the Wardell Buffalo Trap Some General Observations on Bison Butchering II

Ill

1 3 7

12

Archaeology of the Wardell Site Method of the Excavation The Kill Area Features ....... . The Artifact Assem b I age Butchering Interpretations from Bone Frequencies The Meat-Processing Area General Description and Considerations . . . . . . . Features of the Processing Area .· . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Artifact Assemblage from the Processing Area Pathological Bone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Identifiable Nonbison Bone Kill Area- Top Level Kill Area- Middle Level Kill Area- Bottom Level Meat-Processing Area Radiocarbon Dates Identifiable Botanical Materials Kill Area . . . . . . . . . . Meat-Processing Area

75

Conclusions

77

Appendix I

A Suggested Method for Comparison of Butchering Techniques

The Wardell Bison bison Sample: Population Dynamics and Archaeological Interpretation, by Charles A. Reher Acknowledgments Introduction . . . . . . Age Determ in at ion . Sex Determination Population Structure Life Tables and Survivorship Curves Discussions and Conclusions Methodology ....... . Comparisons of the Wardell and Glenrock Populations Aspects of Archaeological Interpretation . . . . .

19

20 25 34 50

52 53

57 70

72 72

73 73 73 74

85

Appendix II

89 89 90 94 96 98

100 102 102 107

References

iii

LIST OF FIGURES 1. 2.

3. 4.

5. 6. 7.

8. 9. 10. 11 .

12. 13.

14.

15. 16.

1 7.

18.

19.

20.

21. 22.

23. 24.

25. 26. 27.

28. 29.

Map of the kill area at the Wardell Site Profile of NW-SE trench in the kill area Profile of N E-SW trench in the kill area Map of the meat-processing area at the Wardell Site. Projectile points- kill area, bottom level Projectile points- kill area, middle level Projectile points- kill area, top level Tools from bottom level of kill area Tools from middle level of kill area .. Tools from top level of kill area Bison rib knapping tools and a rib tool from the middle level of the kill area ........... . Bone tools from the kill area and stone tool cuts on the diaphysis of a Bison bison metacarpal ... Bone tools from the kill area of the Wardell Site .. . Butchering marks on various Bison bison bones . . . . . Profile of N-S trench in the meat-processing area at the Wardell Site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Retouched-flake cutting tools and scraping tools from the meat-processing area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Shaft abraders, retouched-flake cutting tools and scraping tools from the meat-processing area .... Projectile points, bifaces, boring tool, beaked gravers and retouched-flake scraping tools from the meatprocessing area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Hafted boring tools, projectile point, projectile point blanks, beaked gravers, expanding-base drills, hafted scraping tools and a hafted knife from the meat-processing area. Projectile points, end scrapers, shell bead, bone bead, and stone bead from the meat-processing area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Knapping tools and bone awls from the meat-processing area Reconstruction of a pottery vessel from the meat-processing area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Suggested sequences for butchering Bison bison . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mandible and teeth measurements used in population dynamics study of bison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Height of M1 metaconid in the Wardell bison sample . . . . . . . . . . Bimodal distribution of mandible widths in the Wardell bison sample Age group distributions for generalized attritional mortality, generalized catastrophic mortality, and for the Wardell population . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Survivorship curves for the Glenrock and Wardell bison populations Mean annual wear on the M1 metaconid in the Wardell and Glenrock bison samples

iv

9 11

21 24

27 28 29 31

32

13 36

37 38 40

55 58 59

60

62 .

63

67

. . .

69 86 92

93 95

97 99

101

LIST OF TABLES

Projectile point measurements and materials Diagnostic bones for butchering interpretations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Flake materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Age groups and to·,th-wear measurements from the Wardell Bison bison population ................. . 5 Molar lengths and widths for Group VI ......... . 6 Life table for Bison bison from the Wardell site ....

2 3 4

LIST OF PLATES 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

Aerial photograph of the Wardell Site area Excavation trenches in the kill area b The Wardell Site location at the head of a box canyon Paired and single post holes Prehistoric butchering techniques using a steel axe a Excavations in the kill area b Bone and fire-fractured stone in a food-preparation pit Excavations in the kill area Bones and tools from the meat-processing and kill areas Butchering evidence on various Bison bison bones Pathological Bison bison bone and butchering evidence on various Bison bison bones Butchering evidence on various Bison bison bones Food-preparation pit in the meat-processing area Food-preparation pit and a fire pit excavated into an earlier food-preparation pit Pathological bone growth on a bison rib caused by a projectile point and a direct hit by a projectile point on a bison rib Pottery vessel from the Upper Green River Basin, Wyoming

a

v

26 42 65

94 96 99

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Investigation of the Wardell Site was made possible by a grant (GS-3014) from the National Science Foundation. The 1970 crew included Roger Garling, Kathy Mahan, Benjamin Duke, Eleanor Dougherty, Mark Babel, Gary Reher, Barbara Love, and Charles Reher as foreman. In 1971, Charles Reher was again foreman with a crew consisting of Kathy Mahan, Lee Tierney, Barbara Love, Ross Hilman, and Sandra Reher. The site was made known through efforts of members of the Sweetwater Chapter of the Wyoming Archaeological Society. Joe Bozovich and Jack Krmpotich and Mr. and Mrs. George Babel of Rock Springs, Wyoming, expended considerable effort in initial exploration of the site and bringing it to the attention of the author. Buffalo breeders throughout Wyoming have been especially helpful in providing skeletal material and animals for testing of butchering techniques. In addition, they have spent a good deal of time and effort in making observations of buffalo behavior under various conditions and passing this information on to me. Included in this group are Arthur Busskohl, manager of a commercial herd of over 2,000 for the Durham Meat Company near Gillette, Wyoming; Pete (Bison Pete) Gardner, owner and operator of a commercial buffalo herd of about 500 head east of Wheatland, Wyoming; and George Crouse who runs a herd of about 150 head near Centennial, Wyoming. There are other small herds but the ones mentioned are especially valu· able since they are being operated largely under open range conditions. The writer is especially indebted to Mr. and Mrs. Lance Hill and family who operate a ranch close to the site and provided food and lodging for the crew. Their tolerance of the entire operation and kindness toward the crew added much to the success of the entire venture. No complaints were ever voiced, although there were many disruptions of normal ranch routine. Sublette County as a whole was genuinely interested, helpful and especially kind to the crew. Mr. William lssacs of Pinedale, Wyoming, was instrumental in providing a chain link fence to protect the site, and Bureau of Land Management personnel have been especially helpful in protecting the site and easing the red tape necessary for working on federal lands. State agencies, including the Wyoming Recreation Commission which provides the research funds and the University of Wyoming which provides the necessary facilities, must also be acknowledged. Without their cooperation this kind of research would not be possible. This investigation is regarded as one in a related and continuing series dealing with a central topic in Plains prehistory. This one depended largely on the contributions of those mentioned. Any claim for its value as a contribution to knowledge remains to be proven, and only then can the writer's efforts be vindicated. vi

I INTRODUCTION THE SITE ENVIRONMENT

THE Wardell Site is a Late Prehistoric period buffalo trap and associated meatprocessing area located in the Upper Green River Basin in western Wyoming. Exact location is in theSE% of the NW% of Section 19, T 30 N, R 110 Win Sublette County, about five miles northeast of the small town of Big Piney, Wyoming, at the base of a scarp about 100 feet high and about one mile north of the Green River (Pl. 1, Pl. 2a). The latter is a major tributary of the Colorado River. This area of the Green River Basin in western Wyoming within a reasonable zone of prehistoric exploitation surrounding the Wardell buffalo trap presents a varied ecological situation. It is in a plains environment, though somewhat more marginal with respect to the number of Bison bison it could suport than the more typical Plains areas of eastern Wyoming and Montana. The Upper Green River Basin is wedged between the Wind River Mountains to the east, the Salt River Mountains to the west and the Gros Ventres to the north. The Green River drains the area, forming a basin with broad stretches of low sagebrush(Artemisia sp.J- and rabbitbrush (Chrysothamus sp. )- covered hills and flat areas of saline soil covered with greasewood (Sarcobatus vermiculatus). Various grasses, grass-like plants, forbs and shrubs form the subsistence base for grazing and browsing animals found in the area. Patches of stabilized sand dunes occur in the desert areas, while to the southeast at a distance of about fifty miles from the site along the western part of the Red Desert is one of the largest active sand dune areas of North America. The Green River is a large stream and has a wide floodplain covered with willow (Salix sp.) and cottonwood (Populus sp.). Many swampy areas are found in old meander scars. The low terraces of the Green River are irrigated today and produce native hay, which gives an erroneous impression of prehistoric conditions when, in fact, the sagebrush extended to the river banks except in the swampy areas. The Upper Green River Basin area is high, around 7,000 feet above sea level, and it is quite dry. Annual precipitation is about ten inches, but this figure increases rapidly toward the mountains forming the western, northern and eastern sides of the basin. The high-altitude sagebrush and rabbitbrush desert surrounding the site supports a fairly good grass cover, but it is also a cold country with slightly more than

2

THE WARDELL BUFFALO TRAP

Plate 1. Aerial photograph of the Wardell Site area.

INTRODUCTION

3

a sixty-day frost-free summer season and long, cold winters. Snowfall is heavy in the mountains but tends to decrease toward the interior basin. Winds blow quite consistently from the west, and blizzard conditions are common in the winter months. For all of its apparently adverse conditions, the area supports a large faunal population. Cattle, horses, and sheep graze the area, and large numbers of mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus), elk (Cervus canadensis) and antelope (Antilocapra) americana) are hunted and killed annually. Elk actually live in parts of the area in what is similar to their natural badland habitat. Stream bottoms support moose (A Ices sp.), while the Wind River Mountains support significant numbers of mountain sheep (Ovis canadensis). Until recently a small herd of buffalo and large herds of wild horses lived in the rough and inaccessible Red Desert southeast of the site area. In addition to the large game, jackrabbits (Lepus sp.), cottontails (Sylvilagus sp.) and prairie dogs (Cynomys gunnisoni) abound in the desert area along with large numbers of sage grouse (Centrocerus urophasianus), which are large, easilyhunted birds. Coyote (Canis latrans), bobcat (Lynx rufus), and badger (Taxidea taxus) are common as were wolves (Canis lupus) until a few decades ago. Directly north of the site area is the divide between the Green and Snake River drainages and the high mountains surrounding Jackson Hole. The tops of the Wind River Mountains to the northeast of the site form the continental divide. South of the Wind River Mountains and about 75 miles east of the Wardell Site the continental divide is low, and unrestricted movement between the Green River Basin and the Plains proper is possible. Most of southern Wyoming between the middle and southern Rocky Mountains may be considered as an arid plains environment, although several isolated mountain ranges project upwards from the lower elevations to form oasis-like situations. It is only a short distance west from the Green River Basin to the Great Basin and south to the Colorado Plateau. As a result, this area has probably been important in past human population movements between the Plains, Great Basin and Colorado Plateau. BISON BISON PROCUREMENT AND ITS EFFECTS ON PLAINS PREHISTORY

Understanding past cultural systems on the Northwestern Plains requires detailed knowledge of all phases of bison procurement. Of these phases, communal procurement can best be studied because large samples of both cultural and biological materials can be recovered from interpretable contexts. This study of the Wardell Site, 48 SU 301, deals with communal bison procurement in an area marginal in terms of animal-carrying capacity. The Bison bison were probably the single most important source of food on

4

THE WARDELL BUFFALO TRAP

Plate 2 . a Excavation trenches in the kill area b The Wardell Site location at the head of a box canyon

INTRODUCTION

5

the Plains, although other fauna and the flora were intensively exploited as well. At this time the numerical fluctuations of prehistoric Bison sp. herds and consequent effects on human populations cannot be known. There is ample archaeological evidence over the entire Northwestern Plains for exploitation of nonbison food resources. Whether or not this is the result of changes in the number of bison present over periods of time cannot be known at this time. Much of the apparent shifting of emphasis toward non bison food items could have been the result of seasonal shifts in order to exploit food resources as they became available. This problem must be resolved before a complete understanding of Plains prehistory can be realized. With regard to procurement of bison, there were two separate and distinct ways in which they were obtained before the horse was introduced into the hunting pattern. One was through individual or small group hunting; the other was the large communal hunt. The latter situation caused the largest concentrations of prehistoric people and resulted in the most obvious archaeological manifestations on the Plains, excluding, of course, the agriculturally oriented groups along the Missouri River and its tributaries. Individual and small-group hunting of bison was probably a year-round occurrence wherever and whenever the animals were found and could be taken. This practice is suggested by the almost universal presence of some bison bones in most sites, although careful age determination of such material will be necessary to prove the point conclusively. Communal hunts, on the other hand, were restricted to a certain time of the year and had important social and religious as well as economic implications. These limitations on the time of year seem to have been imposed largely by circumstances of allimal behavior which made them more amenable to systematic driving during the fall of the year. This behavior allowed the human group to operate on a prearranged schedule whereby a number of small single- or multifamily groups consolidated annually during the fall into a group of a hundred or more persons for the communal hunt (cf. Frison, 1967). Both the archaeological (Frison, 1970b; 1971a)and the ethnological records (Schaeffer, 1962; Medicine Crow, 1962; Gilmore, 1924) suggest considerable religious activity at this time. Various other social activities undoubtedly also occurred. The nature of Bison bison behavior that limited successful communal procurement to the fall of the year in the prehorse period has been mentioned in other contexts (Frison, 1967). Briefly, the writer has proposed that the presence of either small calves or cows in rut would have been too disruptive for successful driving during the spring and summer months. The winter months might provide periods of suitable weather conditions but not at a time predictable from year to year. In the fall, however, the older bulls left the herd, the calves were old enough not to disrupt the drive, and all the animals were in prime condition. The weather was cooler, but the days were still warm enough for drying· meat, large

6

THE WARDELL BUFFALO TRAP

amounts of which were stored for use during the following winter months. These observations on bison behavior result not merely from conjecture but from long and close study of several present-day bison herds. Some of the large bison herds are still operated under conditions close to those of the open range, and the breeders corroborate these conclusions. The time of year of communal bison procurement and the nature of the herds involved are derived from population studies. The methodology requires careful aging of large samples of Bison bison mandibles from each site (see Appendix II). Successful communal bison procurement had to be based on the presence of a critical number of animals in an area. It does not appear possible, in terms of the methods used, that more than a negligible percentage of the total number of animals in a specific area could have been taken during any given year. The very nature of a buffalo drive without horses resulted in a high probability that any particular drive would fail. In the event of failure, the best procedure would have been either to gather another herd or to allow the first to quiet down before driving it again. Work with present day herds confirms that buffalo, once forced through a chute, are best left alone for several hours before attempting a repeat performance. Within the context of taking bison without horses, several methods of communal procurement were employed. The jump required a large herd, although in general, only part were actually forced over. The herd had to consist of considerable numbers, probably at least one hundred or more, so that the mass of animals moving at high speed was sufficient to force some of them over the jumpoff. More animals are required to force the jump than are ever trapped. The Upper Green River Basin lacks the animal carrying capacity of more favorable areas of the Plains, so the trapping method may have been forced upon the Indians by natural conditions at the Wardell Site rather than being a matter of choice. The lethal qualities of a jump resulted largely from the height of the drop, and drops of up to forty or fifty feet or even more were common. Another common method was to use a drop of about eight to twelve feet. In this method, a holding corral or pound was required at the base, and the drop actually served the function of a gate. There were many other variations of pounds, from complete corrals with long wings situated in open country to the use of natural traps requiring varied amounts of modification to form the pound. These holding structures were necessarily well-made. A buffalo can easily clear a fence six feet high but will not try to charge through a high fence it cannot see through. A high fence covered with hides so that there are no visible openings will usually hold buffalo. However, if the area is small, the fence must be quite strong in case the animals crowd into it. According to the archaeological evidence, prehistoric buffalo drivers were able to control a herd quite well. At Glenrock, for example (Frison, 1970b), the

INTRODUCTION

7

herd had to be driven as much as two or three miles and then turned at nearly a right angle and stampeded over a jump-off that was only about fifty feet in effective width. Any loss of control at any point along the way would have resulted in the entire herd going on its way unhurt. Other jumps are similar to Glenrock in this respect (cf. Frison, 1967; 1970a). Depending upon the location and use of natural features, there were many variations in bison traps or pounds so that each is unique. The general idea was to use long V-shaped wings to funnel the animals into a natural box canyon or a man-made corral. Although smaller numbers of animals were involved in traps compared with jumps, manpower requirements were essentially the same for both. Natural conditions largely determined the method of procurement, and there is ample evidence of the ingenuity of the people involved. Many intangibles were also connected with buffalo jumping and trapping. Certain geomorphological features appear upon observation to have been ideal but were never used. In the final analysis, the success or failure of any given jump or trap was determined by actual experiment. The same is true of livestock corrals. Modern experience confirms that animals will handle easily in one set of corrals while, for no apparent reason, they will handle poorly in others. Taken as a whole, the evidence does not suggest that bison were exploited very successfully on the Plains in prehorse times. The Plains village tribes along the Missouri River engaged in considerable buffalo-procurement activities, but horticulture formed the real basis for the large, more or less permanent villages. The horse was the innovation that set the buffalo up for final near-extermination, along with the consequent development of the Plains tribes. The real extent and magnitude of the bison herds is evident from the fact that between the introduction of the horse on the Northwestern Plains around the early part of the eighteenth century and the final disappearance of the buffalo around 1880, the bison herds supported a spectacular tribal development among several groups of Plains indians at the same time that large numbers of animals were killed by the whites for both meat and hides. It is tempting to suggest that with better procurement methods, the bison herds could have supported higher levels of cultural development in prehorse times.

POSTULATED USE OF THE WARDELL BUFFALO TRAP The site was exposed as the result of accelerated erosion during the past half century. Quantities of bone appeared in the banks at the confluence of two small, steep-sided arroyos. Little attention was at first given to the phenomenon; it was regarded as an old winter kill of cattle. The exact nature of the site, with regard to manner of bison procurement, was determined only upon excavation. Its location at the base of a steep talus slope leading up to a nearly perpendicular bluff

8

THE WARDELL BUFFALO TRAP

near the head of a box canyon-like location (Pl. 2b) would have made either jumping or trapping possible. The site did, however, lack the rock pile drive line markers common to jumps in an area where stones were abundant. Subsequent excavation demonstrated beyond any doubt that the site was a trap. Postholes and occasional parts of posts remaining in the holes formed the vague outlines of a corral, most of the details of which have been lost through erosion. The corral was placed in the partial box canyon (Fig. 1 ), but the latter did not serve as part of the trap. The nature of the box canyon did, however, provide a situation that helped to conceal the corral structure and to offer a superior location in terms of the movement of animals. The topography of the area may explain the site location in part. For several miles north and east of the site, the west side of the floodplain of the Green River is bordered by a steep scarp over 100 feet high which provides poor access to the river. This scarp ends as the river turns westward toward the site area and continues again as the river once more turns southward (see Pl. 1 ). This leaves an offset in the scarp that provides an area about two and one-half miles wide with both a gentle slope to the river and easy access to the open grazing country beyond. Since the desert country is dry and springs are not abundant, there seems little doubt that this was a natural access route for bison herds moving to and from the Green River for water. It would have been relatively easy to intercept animals moving back into the grazing areas and funnel them into the trap, since having drunk their fill of water they would be much more amenable to entering the trap. Thirsty animals can be extremely difficult to handle, especially if they know the location of water and are headed in that direction. Many of the detai Is of the trap are obscure due to recent erosion. There are a number of postholes that suggest more than one building stage. In addition, each use of the trap undoubtedly resulted in varying amounts of destruction to the structure with a comparable amount of subsequent rebuilding needed. Although there were nearly four feet of bone in parts of the trap, it was only in the bottom toward the lowest level that indubitable evidence of posts and postholes could be determined. In addition, preservation here was much better than in the upper levels, another important factor. Much of the corral, however, was placed well up the sides and the closed end of the box canyon. This placement allowed for a considerable buildup of bone in the center of the corral or pound before it reached the level of the bottom of the posts. The front of the corral has been eroded away completely by recent gullying destroying much of the detail with the result that the nature of the entrance to the trap cannot be determined. On the sides, the remains of the corral structure in some places consisted of clusters of three postholes or else paired holes (Pl. 3b) but a few inches apart. This configuration suggests that logs were placed lengthwise between the posts to form a fence. In other parts, the postholes are single (Pl. 3a, c, d) which suggests

~

301

AREA

su

POST HOLES

KILL

48

THE WARDELL BUFFALO

Fig. 1. Map of the kill area at the Wardell Site.

CD

z

0

(')

_,

c

0

0

:JJ

z_,

10

THE WARDELL BUFFALO TRAP

Plate 3.

a, c, d Single postholes with bases of wooden posts b

Paired postholes

INTRODUCTION

11

a slightly different mode of construction. It is also quite possible that poles or trees were laid around the outside of the corral and that dirt obtained from the steep talus slopes above was piled behind them. In this manner, it would have been easily possible to obtain two feet or more of wall on the sides and back of the corral. Additionally, there was probably a considerable amount of dirt and debris that moved down against the outside of the fence. This movement resulted from erosion, accelerated by the human activity that undoubtedly destroyed the vegetation. The NW-SE profile (Fig. 2) suggests that the buildup of soil from the slope kept up with the buildup of deposits in the corral. Ultimately, a good deal of the actual nature of the trap has to be conjectural since much has been lost through erosional processes. The method of closing the trap is also unknown. One unlikely possibility would have been a ramp with a drop of several feet into the corral. It is more likely, however, that some sort of a gate of hides was dragged or dropped into place after the animals were inside. Many variations were used in corralling buffalo (cf. Frison, 1971a), but regardless of the methods employed, the existence of wings diverging from the opening of the trap for at least one-fourth to one-half mile or even more is certain. Much of this structure could have been constructed of brush, especially greasewood, sagebrush, and juniper, all of which are plentiful today. Such material would leave no evidence of its having been present. Since the front of the structure is missing, the exact dimensions of the area enclosed by the pound are not known. The width of the trap is known to have been just over thirty feet. The length was probably at least fifty feet, and if so, it would have covered an area of about 1500 square feet. This figure is similar to another recorded bison corral in the Powder River Basin of Wyoming, although the cultural affiliations were different (Frison, 1971a). The shape of the latter corral was suggested as vaguely oval, and the size as fifty feet by thirty feet. The Wardell pound could easily have been of similar dimensions.

0

~ g

KILL 0 0

AREA

PROFILE OF WALL AT NE00!5

~

lop level

0 t b:o:;;1

2

3

4 , •••

~I

g

il[f[~~~!tr~~mr~.~~?ifi@Jl!;WNiiJ;j;,;~,;,~;et,\w):\t\\\tii~?;~;~=·" Fig. 2. Profile of NW-SE trench in the kill area.

12

THE WARDELL BUFFALO TRAP

Once inside the pound, the animals were apparently killed with arrows rather than dart points. The excavations in the trap produced evidence of at least 200 animals and 436 projectile points. These figures fur:ther suggest a trapping situation, since these yield more projectile points than a jump. To a large extent, the height of a jump determined its lethal qualities and, consequently, the number of projectile points. A perpendicular drop of forty to fifty feet apparently killed most of the animals, and few projectile points are ordinarily recovered from such a site. The opposite is true of a pound where nearly all of the animals had to be killed, requiring, on the average, a much larger number of projectile points per animal. Once the animals were killed, they were butchered as soon as possible. From experiments on present-day Bison bison carcasses, one concludes that the butchering tool assemblage functions best on a warm carcass. Warm muscles separate from each other more easily, and the entire animal may be manipulated more easily. Skinning is also much easier when the animal is warm. Moreover, with a l;;~rge number of animals there is a need to prevent spoilage, since even in the fall of the year days can be hot enough to promote rapid deterioration. Apparently the animals were initially butchered in the corral, and then the meat, along with certain other parts, was removed to the nearby processing area where much of it was probably dried. There are also indications that less favored parts of the animals were intensively utilized for immediate consumption. SOME GENERAL OBSERVATIONS ON BISON BUTCHERING Butchering of bison with stone tools is a process that occurred in the New World for several thousand years with relatively few changes or innovations. It was only with the introduction of metal knives and axes by Europeans that butchering methods demonstrated changes every bit as drastic as the changes in procurement methods brought about by the introduction of guns and horses. Variations in the prehistoric butchering process resulted from varying conditions. One of these variables was the nature of the hunting involved. One person a long distance from camp employed methods different from those he used during a communal kill. An animal with a thin summer coat of hair killed on a warm summer day presented butchering problems different from those of the same animal with a heavy winter coat of hair killed on a cold winter day with deep snow on the ground. Butchering an animal that had fallen into a steep arroyo was a different proposition from butchering one that was killed on level ground. Butchering was especially difficult if it was raining or snowing. Scarcity of food was another consideration. No evidence suggests any prehistoric attempts at conservation of resources. Overkills resulted in less utilization of poorer parts of the carcasses, and this was reflected in the butchering

INTRODUCTION

13

process. Taking only choice parts of a carcass required less cutting and chopping than a situation where all edible parts were used. Another likely source of butchering variation is differences in tool assemblages from one group to another. A certain amount of cutting and chopping is necessary to butcher a bison, but the amount of each activity can vary. It is possible to butcher a bison completely with a tiny stone blade and not crush or break a bone. An equally creditable job of butchering can be accomplished by chopping and cutting up the animal with an axe. A compromise between the two processes, with a calculated amount of both cutting with a knife and chopping with an axe is yet a better way. Individual and cross-cultural preferences for one type of tool above another produced different tool assemblages, which in turn resulted in different butchering methods within a group and also between different groups. The Wardell Site produced both cutting and chopping tools. The former are rather small and delicate compared with those of another Late Prehistoric butchering site, the Glenrock Buffalo Jump (Frison, 1970b). Cutting with a large percussion-sharpened tool produces different butchering marks from those of a small pressure-flaked one. The chopping-tool assemblages from both sites, however, are similar, with the r~sult that slightly different marks appear on bones from the two sites. Similar bone chopping and crushing operations occurred at both sites, but there are observable differences in the cutting operations, probably due largely to the basic difference in tools. Age and sex of the animal offers another source of variation in butchering. Processing calves, yearlings, mature cows, or mature bulls each calls·for a different technique. Shortages of the younger animals in the populations of both the Wardell Site (see Appendix II) and the Glenrock Jump (Reher, 1970) may be theresult of different butchering methods applied to them. Individual preference is another possible source of variation. No two persons perform the same operations required in butchering identically either by method or by sequence. Cultural factors may also be of importance, although we will probably never fully know or understand the effects of beliefs and taboos on the handling of carcasses after death. Something of this nature is suggested by Giddings' (1967:77) claim that a taboo existed against opening the braincase of an animal by the Eskimo on Southhampton Island. In another context, other Eskimos removed the head or opened the brain pan to allow the escape of the animal's soul. The neglect of this operation could have been dangerous to the human group (Spencer, Jennings, et al., 1965:148). There may well have been many similar cultural ideas that affected bison butchering. Depending upon the degree of bone deterioration, the bones of butchered animals in archaeological contexts reflect something of the butchering process. Cutting, chopping and crushing marks are especially noticeable and provide clues regarding the actual process.

14

THE WARDELL BUFFALO TRAP

Hypothetical reconstructions of the butchering processes, however, require testing under actual conditions. To verify the hypothesis, buffalo carcasses killed during handling of the large herd of the Durham Meat Company near Gillette, Wyoming, were obtained. Tools from actual sites were used, and a butchering process like that hypothesized for the Glenrock Buffalo Jump (Frison, 1970b) was attempted. This test produced many of the same marks on the butchered animal bones as those found on bones from the Glenrock Buffalo Jump, although there are what may prove to be significant differences as well. The suggested sequence and resulting evidence on bones can be shown somewhat schematically for both sites. Using this as a basis for comparison, considerable difference can be shown in the butchering between the Wardell Site and the Glenrock Buffalo Jump (see Appendix 1). This will be discussed in greater detail in the section on butchering at the Wardell Site. Testing the proposed butchering hypothesis on actual animals reveals several significant facts. Some of the problems that arise in actual practice are those that cannot always be predicted from behind the desk. As already mentioned, butchering in any context is preferably a warm-animal process. Once the animal begins to cool, the hide becomes difficult to remove, the muscles stiffen and become difficult to separate, and manipulation of the joints is impaired. On the other hand, warm meat is especially difficult to transport and the cooled-out carcass is much more easily moved than a fresh one. If time is not an important factor cmd other conditions are favorable, the meat may be stripped and dried for even a day; a good share of the weight will be lost, thus making transport much easier. One of the most difficult aspects of butchering with stone tools is that blood, grease or any body liquid that comes in contact with a stone tool renders it almost impossible to hold, unlike a dry tool, which offers a good solid handhold. There are, however, ways to compensate for this difficulty. A handful of long neck or leg hair wrapped around the tool will counteract these effects, or the tool and the hands may be dried off by wiping them on the hide. The latter is time consuming and the effects are temporary, while the former is effective and will last during the entire operation. Another area where experience is a valuable teacher is in the use of stone tools. Most flaked stone tools recovered so far in communal butchering contexts have been percussion flakes, designed for use only in that particular operation so that the trouble of hafting was not taken. Consequently, the part of the tool held in the hand has to be dulled. Many instances of dulling on a stone edge have been interpreted as actual wear, while in reality there was deliberate dulling to prevent injury to the user. It also soon becomes apparent that a profound difference exists between steel and stone tools. A steel knife remains sharp longer, but it is primarily the flexibility and strength that create the major differences. A steel knife can be used to exert force in several directions. Not so a stone knife, where

INTRODUCTION

15

the pressure has to be exert~d directly toward the blade edge. Any prying or twisting usually results in a broken blade. Additionally, the life of a stone tool is less than a steel tool, since considerably more of the former is wasted in each sharpening process. Skinning with a stone knife is entirely different from skinning with a steel one. It is a simple matter to insert the sharp point of the latter under the hide, apply pressure, and slit it the desired distance in a single stroke. This is not possible with a stone knife; and in this case it is necessary to find a spot, preferably where the hide rests directly on the bone, and saw an opening into the hide. Once a hole large enough to insert a finger under the hide is made, a long cut in the hide is relatively easy except that a stone tool becomes dull quickly and must be sharpened before the cut in the hide can be continued. In brief, a relatively short cut in a buffalo hide with a stone blade dulls the blade to the extent that it simply will not cut and must be resharpened. A uniformly sharp edge (similar to that on a steel knife) capable of cutting a buffalo hide by pressure alone cannot be formed on a stone tool by means of a flaking process. In contrast to the edge of a steel knife, the edge of a stone knife is uneven, and the cutting is accomplished as the edge is moved back and forth over the tightly stretched hide along with application of pressure. The difference between a stone edge that will cut a buffalo hide effectively and one that will not is something difficult to determine, even with a good petrographic microscope. When a stone tool edge becomes so dull that the wear can be seen or otherwise easily detected, the tool is far beyond any use such as cutting a buffalo hide. At the Wardell Site, the common cutting tool used in butchering is a small, thin percussion flake with a fine, pressure-flaked edge as opposed to large percussion-flaked tools with percussion-flaked edges found at the Glenrock Buffalo Jump. Although the former type of tool may actually cut hide and ligaments more easily than the latter, it does not leave as easily determined marks on bones, given the same degree of preservation. The large hammerstones and choppers from both sites are quite similar and produced similar marks on bones. At the Wardell Site, however, there was a tendency to rely more on the heavy chopping tools and less on the cutting tools. Instead of separating joints by severing ligaments, the bone itself was broken or chopped in two on one side of a joint. Here also, in the context of comparing stone and metal tools, it is possible to observe some of the Early Historic butchering methods using a steel axe and compare these with methods utilizing a stone axe or chopper. Bison bison bones recovered from a dump at Fort Phil Kearny near Sheridan, Wyoming, (which was occupied in 1867-68) demonstrate many of the same kinds of cuts found in the prehistoric sites except they were made with steel axes (Pl. 4), which were much more effective than the stone ones.

THE WARDELL BUFFALO TRAP

16

Plate 4 . Prehistoric butchering techniques on Bison bison bones from Fort Phil Kearny (1867 -1868) using a steel axe .

Another consideration affecting butchering processes was the amount of cooperative effort. The average mature cow buffalo, for example, can be butchered much more easily with the help of a second person to move the dead animal and hold the different parts in proper position for cutting, chopping or other processes. Butchering is difficult, tiring work and, where there are large numbers of dead animals such as the communal jump or pound, two persons could accomplish more in a day by working as a team and exchanging tasks regularly than they could by both trying to work separately. A third person would not add to the speed and efficiency of the process, and if a number of animals needed butcher ing, teams of two could accomplish more than teams of three given the same total number of persons.

INTRODUCTION

17

There are a number of basic operations that comprise the butchering process. Some must follow a sequential pattern, while there is some choice in the order of others. Before any utilization of the meat is possible, the hide has to be removed. There are some choices here. The cut may be up the back, belly, or either side, and the hide may be removed in either a single or several pieces. Cuts must be made in the hide, and the easiest place to begin is on the metatarsals and metacarpals. The hide here is relatively thin and close to the bone; the hair is short and a hole can easily be made by sawing directly against the bone with a sharp stone tool. Another favorable spot for an opening in the hide is well forward on the ventral border of the mandibles just behind the symphysis. The animal may be skinned entirely before the muscles are stripped, or one side may be skinned and stripped and the animal turned over so that the other side can be given the same treatment. In terms of keeping the meat free of dirt, the latter process is the best. Although the prehistoric butcher may not have been too careful about sanitary precautions as compared with modern standards of cleanliness, he was very likely careful to keep actual dirt or sand away from the meat, since it renders meat inedible to anyone. There is no great difficulty in keeping a carcass clean during butchering. A person who butchers animals regularly in the field can accomplish this under most conditions without dirtying the meat. Prehistoric butchering was basically a muscle-stripping process and was accomplished by cutting either the origin or insertion of a muscle and pulling out its entire length. It is easier in many cases to chop off the part of the bone where origins and insertions occur and use these as handholds to strip the muscles. In the stripping process, it is easiest first to strip the front leg and remove it from the carcass entirely. Next the lateral muscles are stripped from the hind leg and pelve, followed by the longissimus muscles from along the dorsal spines and top of the ribs. Then the posterior and medial leg muscles are stripped. The neck muscles can now be removed and the skull separated from the rest of the carcass. The brisket and ribs are removed as separate cuts, followed by the desired internal organs. The butchering is then essentially complete for one side of the animal except for the parts associated with the skull. These include the tongue, soft gristle in the nasal cavities and, in some contexts, the brains. Choice marrow bones are also saved and broken open.

II

ARCHAEOLOGY OF THE WARDELL SITE METHOD OF EXCAVATION

IN

ORDER to determine the nature of the kill, it was decided to trench from the area of bone exposure toward the end of the box canyon. If the site were a jump, the greatest concentration of bone would be expected at the base of the perpendicular drop. If it were a trap, there would be some evidence of a structure to hold the animals. In this case there were two possibilities for a trap. One would have been to drive the animals into a corral from above, the other into a corral from below. In terms of buffalo behavior, driving from above appeared less likely, since these would most likely have been animals heading for water and harder to handle. Jumping would have required large herds, which, as already mentioned, is a condition that may not have been met in the area at that time due to lack of feed. Trenching at an angle of 450 west of north revealed the end of the bone concentration (Fig. 2; Pl. 5a) several feet from the end of the box canyon and settled the question of the site's nature. Further excavation revealed postholes and showed conclusively that this was a trap. Another trench was then dug at right angles to the first to determine the limits of the trap (Fig. 3). Three distinct levels of use in the trap were well defined with obvious sterile levels between. More than a foot of sterile deposits overlies most of the uppermost level as well (Fig. 2; P1.6b). The next part of the excavation concerned an assumed butchering or meatprocessing area. The discovery of the location and extent of this area was aided by rodents. The entire area at present is the site of a large prairie dog town. Badgers tunneling for prairie dogs brought up evidence of bone, charcoal, firecracked rock, stone-flaking debris and artifacts. In this way an extensive processing area was located, and excavations were made in three parts of the area during the summer of 1970 (Fig. 4). The material was analyzed during the winter of 1970-71, and it was decided that further excavation in the kill area would not be productive. Continued excavation in the processing area, however, was done in the summer of 1971 (Fig. 4) for the purpose of obtaining a larger and more diagnostic pottery sample; 19

20

THE WARDELL BUFFALO TRAP

the excavation was moderately successful. There are no present plans for further excavation, although the major portion of the meat-processing area of the site is still intact, along with a smaller portion of the kill area. THE KILL AREA Features The features of the kill area consisted of the badly deteriorated remains of a corral or pound structure placed in a favorable location where two small arroyos joined and cut a steep-sided, box canyon-like situation with a level approach into its mouth (Pl. 2b). During the period of use and for some time afterward there was a continual aggradation of slope wash. Later periods of arroyo downcutting and redeposition are indicated by cuts into the bone levels and later refilling (Fig. 3). At present, rapid downcutting is occurring, and if it continues at the present rate, the remainder of the kill area deposits will eventually be lost. The profile along the NW-SE wall of the trench through the kill area revealed three distinct periods of use separated by sterile layers of coarse slope wash, but the latter levels do not suggest long time lapses between periods of use. Much of the bottom level rests directly on a bedrock of sandstone so soft in places that postholes were easily dug into it. The average depth of the three levels of bone was about three feet with one small area having a maximum of almost four feet. Apparently the present west arroyo was at least four feet below the bottom level at the time of use. Bone filled this old arroyo to a depth of about two and one half feet outside the corral (Fig. 3; Pl. 6a). This situation could possibly have resulted from a partial cleaning of the pound at various times with bones being thrown outside the fence. It would have been logical to also to direct the flow of runoff around the sides of the corral rather than through it, although no evidence to support this idea was found. Lack of time prevented determination of whether or not the arroyo on the east side of the corral was of similar depth and also filled with bone. Although the drainage areas of both arroyos are small, they do flow considerable amounts of water during cloudbursts and spring runoff periods. Complete details of the shape and area of the corral will never be known, but it was apparently slightly more than thirty feet in width with some suggestion that it was vaguely rectangular with rounded corners. Some of the postholes are questionable, although the ones on the sides are definite, since the remains of the bottoms of posts are still in some holes. Several were indistinct, because they had been dug out by rodents. Some were single (Pl. 3a, c, d), others were paired (Pl. 3b) and others were in clusters of three. A number of large, flat stones remained along the fence line in places, and various items, including pieces of flat stone, long bones, scapulae and pelves, had been used to tighten the posts in the holes

ARCHAEOLOGY OF THE WARDELL SITE

e"' "'

s w z (/)

-~ u_

21

THE WARDELL BUFFALO TRAP

22

Plate 5.

a Excavations in the kill area b Bone and fine-fractured stone in a food-preparation pit

ARCHAEOLOGY OF THE WARDELL SITE

Plate 6 . Excavations in the kill area.

23

THE WARDELL BUFFALO TRAP

24

THE WARDELL BUFFALO TRAP 48 su 301 MEAT PROCESSING AREA ~

ROASTING

G:::::)

FIRE PITS

~

1971 EXCAVATIONS

PITS

Fig. 4. Map of the meat-processing area at the Wardell Site.

(Pl. 3a). The ends of the preserved posts are a species of juniper (Juniperus scopulorun) commonly known and referred to locally as red cedar. Its qualities for long life as fence posts are well known. Empty postholes suggest that other materials such as cottonwood (Populus sp.) were also undoubtedly used, since this material is known for its poor preservation qualities. Smaller fragments of juniper were found throughout all levels of the kill area. One juniper branch from the top level is nearly four feet in length, two and one-half inches in diameter, and quite well preserved; no evidence of cutting or chopping is present nor is there any suggestion as to its use. Another common feature throughout the three levels of the kill area was small to large fires. These were not in prepared fire pits, but instead were concentrations of charcoal from a few inches up to two and one-half feet in diameter with some scattering beyond the main concentrations. These were apparently not attempts to burn the bone deposits, as was common in many buffalo

ARCHAEOLOGY OF THE WARDELL SITE

25

kills, neither are they thought to be for getting rid of annual weed growth and debris from previously butchered carcasses. They may have been fires to prepare beds of coals for cooking meat for consumption during butchering. The largest fire in the bottom level contained charred fragments of a cedar log at least ten inches in diameter. Fires in the upper two levels contained mostly sagebrush (Artemisia sp.) while those in the bottom level contained mostly cedar (Juniperussp.).

The Artifact Assemblage Chipped Stone. The artifact assemblage in the kill area was apparently for the specialized killing and butchering that occurred there. A total of 436 projectile points were distributed among the three levels (see Table 1 ). They are generally side-notched; and although they display a considerable degree of variation with regard to length, width, quality of workmanship, placement of notches and style of base (Figs. 5, 6, 7). they comprise a homogeneous group. All are apparently arrow points. They are small compared with dart points recovered in buffalo traps of earlier dates (cf. Frison, 1968; 1970a). Nothing indicates any significant differences among the artifact assemblages of the three levels except for a marked increase in the use of obsidian in the top level. Sources for obsidian are present in the Yellowstone National Park-Jackson Hole area within one hundred fifty miles to the north of the Wardell Site. The projectile points, with two possible exceptions from the bottom level, are all side-notched. The exceptions (Fig. 5u, y) are corner-notched. but they are small and bear no resemblance to the common corner-notched dart points with older and different cultural affiliations. Several from all three levels have notches that project upward (e.g., Fig. 5j, n, q; Fig. 6i, s; Fig. 7b, e, i). but they are initiated from the sides and not the corners. Notches aJ.so vary in width, depth, shape, and symmetry of placement. Blade edges vary in all levels from nearly straight to convex and in outline from smooth to rough and, rarely, serrated. Greatest care was taken in forming the tip to assure penetration. Overall workmanship ranges from excellent to poor. Size and shape vary. A number of small points appear in all levels and may represent killing of carnivores among the bison remains after kills, but this suggestion is entirely conjectural. Projectile points may be long and narrow (e.g., Fig. 6f), long and broad (e.g., Fig. 5e). short and narrow (e.g., Fig. 6m), short and wide (Fig. 5/), or any combination between. Bases vary from one that could be considered convex (Fig. 5s) to some that appear slightly convex because of rounded base corners (e.g., Fig. 5e, p; Fig. 6t; Fig. 7v). but most are either straight or slightly concave. Lacking entirely is any suggestion of base notching, which seems to have been a late occurrence in the Late Prehistoric period in this part of the Plains but does appear at much earlier periods on an entirely different style of projectile point. None bears evidence of reworking or

THE WARDELL BUFFALO TRAP

26

TABLE 1 PROJECTILE POINT MEASUREMENTS AND MATERIALS

Kill Area Bottom

Top

Middle

Total

MeatProcessing Area

Length 1.0-1.5 em

0

2

3

5

3

9

24

11

1.5-2.0 em

10

5

2.0-2.5 em

14

11

18

43

2

2.5-3.0 em

3

19

13

35

2

3.0-3.5 em

5

10

6

21

2

3.5-4.0 em

0

4

7

11

0

4.0-4.5 em

0

2

3

5

--

0

32

53

59

144

20

0.6-0.8 em

0

0

0

0

1

0.8-1.0 em

1

0

1

2

0

Total

-

-

Width

1.0-1.2 em

7

4

4

15

8

1.2-1.4 em

27

22

28

77

11

1.4-1.6 em

35

40

40

115

9

1.6-1.8 em

12

15

15

42

1

1.8-2.0 em

0

0

6

6

82

81

94

257

1

0.3-0.5 em

1

1

0

2

1

0.5-0.7 em

3

1

1

5

3

Total

31

Between-Notch

width

0.7-0.9 em

12

16

15

43

13

0.9-1.1 em

55

47

50

152

21

1.1-1.3 em

13

25

29

67

7 0

1.3-1.5 em Total

6

9 --

85

92

101

278

45

1

-

2

-

Material 131

121

118

370

31

Obsidian

15

13

35

63

4

Quartzite

2

--

0

--

1

--

3

--

Total

148

134

154

436

0 35

Chert

27

ARCHAEOL OGY OF THE WARDELL SITE

e

d

a

k

g

n

m

. · A.

q

p

0

r

' 1 - ...

·.;'..

.

s

X

u

t

2

0

Inches

0

2

3

4

5

.

. ·.........~-;. . ': ...~.

Cm.

Fig. 5. Projectile points- Kill area, bottom level.

y

28

THE WARDELL BUFFALO TRAP

a

e

b

k

0

n I I

I

q

,...I I \

\

t

u

y

v

2

0

Inches

0

2

3

4

5

Cm.

Fig. 6. Projectile points- Kill area, middle level.

ARCHAEOLOGY OF THE WARDELL SITE ,,

:''

''

:

b

''

d

u

w

v

y

0

2 Inches

0

2

3

4

5

Cm.

Fig. 7. Projectile points- Kill area, top level.

29

30

THE WARDELL BUFFALO TRAP

reuse as a tool, as is common at other sites. Perhaps the presence of numbers of small, relatively delicate tools took precedence over the use of projectile points as tools. Considered as a group and from level to level, the projectile points form a homogeneous group with all variations demonstrating intergrades from one to another. Chipped-stone butchering tools appeared in all levels and, like the projectile points, all form a homogeneous group. Cutting tools were usually small flakes with a careful pressure retouch for form sharp cutting edges (Fig. Se-e, g, h; Fig. 9a-c, g; Fig. 10b, d, f-h). Others are bifaces (Fig. Sf; Fig. 9d-f; Fig. 10c, e) with carefully prepared, pressure-flaked edges. A common type of retouched flake knife was formed by driving thin flakes from the flat sides of selected quartzite and chert river cobbles and then applying a delicate pressure retouch to one side, utilizing the tough outside rind of the cobble as a cutting edge. Most of the cutting tools recovered are apparently completely worn out and discarded. Miscellaneous kill area tools consist of two small end scrapers from the middle level and one each from the top and bottom levels. Two small retouched flake tools from the bottom level were apparently hafted and are similar to one (Fig. 19p) from the meat-processing area. Large Stone Tools. Another group of tools includes large choppers and hammerstones. Much of tha area surrounding the site is covered by thick deposits of quartzite and chert river cobbles. It was a simple matter to select one of desired size and shape and with a few carefully directed percussion flakes, form a sharp, functional chopping edge. The flaking was always unilateral and the result was a working edge formed by the intersection of the flaked side with the flat, smooth side of the cobble. Our samples weigh from 2.5 to 4.2 pounds and are of sufficient mass to chop; break off or crush bone projections or the bones themselves (Pl. 7i, j). A total of twenty-nine of these were recovered from the kill area. One unusual specimen has lateral restrictions flaked into the sides and may have been hafted (Pl. 7h). At least nine other river cobbles of similar size but usually with blunt, pointed ends were presumably used as hammerstones for operations such as breaking temporal condyles. Fifteen other river cobbles show evidence of use as less specialized hammerstones.

Bone Tools. Bone knapping tools, usually made of pieces of bison ribs (Fig. Sa, b; Fig. 10a; Fig. 11 a) or less frequently a piece of heavy long bone (Fig. 11b), were found in all levels of the kill area. Large numbers of tiny pressure flakes were recovered by washing soil samples through a fine mesh screen. These, along with a lack of the percussion sharpening flakes commonly found in other sites, indicate a method of tool sharpening by pressure. Flaked stone but~hering tools from Wardell differ significantly from those found in other Late Prehistoric butchering contexts (cf. Frison 1967; 1970b) where large biface and uniface cutting tools were usually sharpened by soft hammer percussion.

ARCHAEOLOG Y OF THE WARDELL SITE

d

.~ l

'

f;j

i· ~ ), 'I I

31

1

,Ill('

11

''ll /''/

'/rr·rl( I .

e

'

~

f

a h

g

0

0

2 Inches 2

3

4

5

Cm.

Fig. 8. Tools from bottom level of kill area. a, b Bison rib knapping tools c-e, g, h Retouched-flake knives f Biface knife

THE WARDELL BUFFALO TRAP

32

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

0

0

2

3

4

2

Inches

5

Cm.

Fig. 9. Tools from middle level of kill area.

a-c, g Retouched-flake knives d-f

Biface knives

ARCHAEOLOGY OF THE WARDELL SITE

c d

e f

a

h

0

0

2 2

3

4

5

Inches Cm.

Fig. 10. Tools from top level of kill area. a Bison rib knapping tool c, e Biface knives b, d, f-h Retouched-flake knives

33

34

THE WARDELL BUFFALO TRAP

Large numbers of simple bone tools other than the knapping tools already mentioned were recovered from all levels of the kill area. Edges of fortuitous and probably also deliberate breaks on long bones were used with little or no preparation of the edges. These include about any bone with a desirable edge on one end and a proper handle on the other. Both proximal (Fig. 12c) and distal ends of metacarpals, metatarsals (Fig. 12a), tibiae (Fig. 12b, Fig. 13c). and radii (Fig. '12e) were utilized, along with distal humerii (Fig. 12f), distal ends of mandibles (Fig. 13d). sections of scapulae (Fig. 12d) and distal ends of ilii (Fig. 13e). Pieces of heavy long bone were also used (Fig. 13a, f). Both proximal and distal ends of various ribs were utilized (Fig. 13b, g; Fig. 11c). Many of these may be knapping tools, but the hypothesized uses for most of this group of bone tools are somewhat speculative. Experience proves them extremely useful in skinning once the initial cuts are made in the hides and, in addition, they are especially useful in removal of flesh from bone surfaces while muscles are being stripped during the butchering process. They also perform well in removing fat and other residue from hides. Working edge preparation by deliberate abrasion against rough surfaces with wear superimposed can be detected on some bone surfaces, while others manifest only wear patterns over breaks on the bone. Complete tabulation of these is impossible, because the wear patterns cannot always be detected except on well-preserved bone. Bone preservation in the kill area varied from complete deterioration in some areas to complete preservation in others. In some places, thousands of maggot cases were perfectly preserved while bone preservation itself was rather poor. Much of the deterioration was of a nature that caused bone to disintegrate to a fine powder, thus destroying both evidence of tool use and butchering marks on bones. For this reason, the total number of bone tools in the tool area is not known. If we can accept as a reliable indicator the numbers of tools from the parts of the site where bone preservation was good and unmistakable evidence of tool use was present, several hundred bone tools were present originally. The bone tool assemblage is also reminiscent of that from the Glenrock Site (Frison, 1970b) from which several hundred bone tools were recovered. The entire artifact assemblage in this area of the site is one specialized for killing and subsequent butchering of bison under conditions of communal procurement. The assemblage, aside from the projectile points, is largely crude and fortuitous and utilizes materials at hand, but it is still no less functional than a more carefully prepared assemblage. Butchering The first cuts for skinning were apparently the same at both sites. Both metacarpals and metatarsals bear marks of cutting tools. These are generally less easily seen on the Wardell examples, probably because of the use of smaller, more

ARCHAEOLOGY OF THE WARDELL SITE

Plate 7 .

a-f

Butchering evidence on Bison bison pelves Grooved maul from meat-processing area h-j Choppers from kill area k Chopper from meat-processing area

g

35

THE WAR DELL BUFF ALO TRAP

36

a

2

0 0 Fig. 11.

2 a, b

c

3

4

5

Inche s

Cm.

Bison rib knapp ing tools and Rib tool from middle level of the kill area

ARCHAEOLOGY OF THE WARDELL SITE

0

Fig. 12.

0

a-f Bone tools from the kill area c (left) Stone tool cuts on the diaphysis of a Bison bison

metacarpal

37

38

THE WARDELL BUFFALO TRAP

N

on

0

0

Fig. 13. Bone tools from the kill area of the Wardell Site.

ARCHAEOLOGY OF THE WARDELL SITE

39

delicate tools and the generally poorer bone preservation. The marks suggest saw· ing directly against the bone to make a hole in the hide (Fig. 12c, left). Similar marks appear forward on the ventral edges of significant numbers of mandibles, evidently in order that the hide could be slit to gain access to the tongue and to skin out the necessary part of the skull (Fig. 14e). Some variations in skinning may have occurred. At least two tibiae demonstrate encircling cut marks close to the distal end. These marks strongly suggest cutting the hide for skinning rather than cutting muscles or ligaments (Fig. 14b). Legs broken during the trapping activities may have made it easier to cut the hide on the rear leg this high rather than at the metatarsal, so this may not represent a normal procedure. At both sites, the hide was most likely cut down the belly unless it was taken in two pieces, in which case it was slit down both belly and back. The butchering procedure suggests the animal was lying on its side, and unless there were reasons for keeping the belly hide intact, it was easiest to slit the hide there rather than down the back. Variation is also evident in the handling of the tail. With about equal fre· quency at Wardell the fifth sacral vertebra was broken off (Pl. 8b, d) or the sep· a ration was effected between the last sacral and first caudal (Pl. Sa, c). Less frequently, the tail was cut off between the first and second caudals, as suggested by a significant number of number one caudals in relation to the insignificant number of remaining caudals. At Glenrock, the procedure was similar except that the fourth and fifth or only the fifth sacral vertebra was broken off. Differences between Glenrock and Wardell occur in the disposition of the front leg. At Wardell, most scapula were chopped off at the neck just behind the articulation with the humerus. Presumably the main bulk of the scapula from the neck upward with associated muscles intact was then taken to the processing area, since these parts were lacking at the kill area. Three specimens suggest an alternate method. One scapula bears deep cut marks and two others indistinct marks that encircle the glenoid cavity between the latter and the tuber scapulae. This suggests cutting muscles and ligaments to separate humerus and scapula rather than chopping across the neck of the latter, but the number of specimens demon· strating these marks is small. At Glenrock, both lateral and medial tuberosities of the humerus were chopped off to strip the muscles on both sides of the scapula. The latter was usually left complete except for a regularly broken off small amount of the coracoid process, which presumably occurred during removal of the flesh. With regard to the ulna, at Wardell the end of the olecranon was un· touched while at Glenrock it was usually chopped off. This feature may reflect differences either in utilization or removal of the triceps muscle. At both sites the ulna itself was usually broken with a sideways hammerstone blow that broke off both the olecranon and the distal end. This left only the articular surfaces and a small amount of surrounding bone (Pl. 9i) and also disarticulated the radius, ulna and humerus. The front foot was removed by chopping the radius in two at

40

THE WARDELL BUFFALO TRAP

.

"u

..c

E

..!:

u

N

ltl

or

..,

~

.... 0

0

Fig. 14. Butchering marks on various Bison bison bones.

ARCHAEOLOGY OF THE WARDELL SITE

Plate 8 . Butchering evidence on various Bison bison bones .

41

THE WARDELL BUFFALO TRAP

42

Wardell, usually toward the distal end. At Glenrock, the front foot was removed by cutting the medial and lateral ligaments holding the radius-ulna and metacarpal together and then snapping off the front foot. This method resulted in sawing marks that appear on both radial and ulnar carpals. The front leg was apparently entirely freed from the carcass at both sites before butchering of any remaining parts was attempted. At both sites, the ventral branches of the sixth cervical (and less frequently the same on the third, fourth and fifth cervicals) were usually chopped loose, presumably to aid in stripping the ventral neck muscles (Pl. 10f, g). This was done before the skull was removed from the vertebral column. There was some variation in treatment of the rear leg. It was common at Wardell, but not as universally so as at Glenrock, to chop into the trochlea to loosen the patella (Pl. 8h). Several patellae were recovered from the kill area (see Table 2), but many of these bear chopping marks presumably from the tool used to destroy the trochlea (Fig. 14c, d). Beyond this difference, the process was similar at both sites, and almost always either all or a part of the major trochanter was chopped loose (Pl. 8g). Either the tuber coxae or the entire distal

TABLE 2 DIAGNOSTIC BONES FOR BUTCHERING INTERPRETATIONS

Bone

Number or Part

Cervical

2 6 7 Thoracic

Lumbar

Rib (art. end)

Scapula

2 5 6 13 14 1 4 5 1 2 5 6 14 complete distal

Kill Area Top Bottom

67 53 57 64 59 52 39 40 38 30 50 35 26 163 147 103 75 66 26 121

22 35 18 26 20 17 12 21 19 15 16 8 10 111 81 46 46 32 39 36

MeatProcessing Area

0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 2

0 0 4

43

ARCHAEOLOGY OF THE WARDELL SITE TABLE 2 (continued) Metacarpal

Metatarsal

Humerus

Radius

Femur

Tibia

Pelve

complete proximal distal complete proximal distal complete proximal distal complete proximal distal complete proximal distal complete proximal distal Ilium-Ischium PUbis distal Ilium distal Ischium Acetabulum

Occipital part of Skull Manubrium Phalanx Hyoid Sacrum Calcaneus Astragalus Fused Centrum Mandible Caudal Patella Temporal Condyles

3 process end tongue end

distal end Coronoid 1

53 12 12 49 17 15 13 4 39 13 28 26 10 36 33 30 26 25 47 51 26 30 29 35 12 198 197 70 6 33 60 55 56 42 37 15 47 26

27 5 9 27 7 11 1 7 17 7 16 12 4 11 11 11 7 13 15 18 14 11 17 20 8 119 98 34 7 17 29 34 34 21 19 11 16 17

0 30 27 0 18 20 0 0 14 0 4 11 0 1 2 0 14 0 0 0 0 2 4 5 71 33 0 8 2 24 46 18 0 0 0 0

end of the ilium was chopped loose (Pl. 7a-d) and then the transverse processes of the lumbars. The latter often bear evidence of the blows accomplishing this (Pl. 9j). Cutting-tool marks appear along the sides of the dorsal spines, occasionally from the seventh cervical to the third or fourth lumbar, but usually only on the thoracics (Pl. 10d; Pl. Sf). This sequence, beginning with the patella, allowed stripping of the lateral muscles of the leg, the muscles lying on the pelvis, the

THE WARDELL BUFFALO TRAP

44

Plate 9.

a, b Pathological Bison bison bone c-j Butchering evidence on various Bison bison bones

ARCHAEOLOGY OF THE WARDELL SITE

Plate 10. Butchering evidence on various Bison bison bones.

45

46

THE WARDELL BUFFALO TRAP

sublumbar muscles, and the longissimus muscles or the loins between the dorsal spines and the ribs and all the way to the base of the skull if desired. On a cow buffalo of average size, this resulted in a strip of meat about seven feet in length and comprised a good share of the best meat on one side of the carcass. The tuber ischii or else the entire distal end of the ischum was then cut loose (Pl. 7a-d) and the large posterior and medial muscles of the hind leg stripped. The pubis was often chopped off from the pelve at Wardell (Pl. 7e, f). a method which was rarely used at Glenrock. The reason is unclear, although it may have been done to break the connection between the pelves at the pubic symphysis. Once this separation was made, the pelves could be collapsed inward, making the separation between the latter and the sacrum quite simple. Chopping tool marks usually appear on the-tuber sacrale and the wings of the sacrum. These cuts probably helped loosen the latter from the illium. At both Wardell and Glenrock, the dorsal spines of vertebrae were chopped loose at varying distances from their bases and tool marks are often visible (Pl. 9h). The butchers commonly chopped directly into the body of the vertebra (Pl. 1Oa-c). while with about equal frequency they chopped further away toward the ends of the spines (Pl. Sf). presumably to remove the hump meat. Usually, but not always, on the smaller females the spines were chopped close while on the larger animals they were chopped off more distally. Nearly always the spines of the seventh cervical and often those of the sixth and fifth were removed, and occasionally the spines of the first and second lumbars were also broken or chopped off along with those on the thoracics. Dorsal spines belonging to the smaller calves were usually not broken, probably because of the lack of development of the hump until later in maturity. The rear foot at Wardell, unlike the Glenrock Site, was almost always removed by chopping off the distal end of the tibia. At Glenrock, the usual method was to cut the ligaments around the posterior and medial sides of the astragalus and over the calcaneus just below the lateral maleolus. This method appeared only twice at Wardell (Fig. 14a). It was common to chop off the tuber calcis at Glenrock, but this did not occur at all at Wardell. This may reflect differences in the removal or utilization of the gastrocnemius muscle. At both sites, the skull was removed, although at exactly what stage of the butchering process is uncertain. It may have been done at different stages by individual butchers, but it probably occurred after the meat was stripped from one side of the animal. This sequence would have made the animal easier to flip over. There were apparently several methods of removal. One was to chop off the wings of the atlas and make the separation between axis and atlas. This was the most common method at Glenrock though rare at Wardell. An alternate method was to chop off the large dorsal spine of the axis vertebra (Pl. 10e), although this was rarely done at either site. Cutting and sawing marks, which may represent cutting of ligaments, can occasionally be found on both ventral and dorsal surfaces of the atlas at both sites. The skull is easily removed by giving it a sharp

ARCHAEOLOGY OF THE WARDELL SITE

47

twist after cutting the ligaments. The most common methods at Wardell, however, were either to break off the paramastoid processes, which were common in the kill area, and make the separation between the atlas and occipital, or else break or chop out the occipital bone. The former requires some cutting, particularly of the lateral ligaments of the atlanta-occipital joint, which was detected on some occipital condyles. Few complete skulls were recovered in the kill area, and none of these bore evidence of opening of the brain cavity, although chopping out the occipital bone would automatically have achieved this. One skull from the meat-processing area clearly demonstrates chopping of the occipital bone loose from the rest of the skull, and several occipital condyles from the kill area are broken and chopped away from the rest of the occipital and suggest this as an established method. Nearly all the skulls of smaller animals at Glenrock were broken open to gain access to the brain cavity, usually by means of a hole chopped into the frontal bones. One significant difference between Glenrock and Wardell is the lack of skulls with large, centrally-spaced holes in the frontal bones for brain removal at Wardell. Skulls were split by chopping directly into the palate while the skull was face down. This was done presumably to gain access to the soft gristle in the nasal cavities. Aside from the different methods of opening brain cavities, treatment of skulls at Wardell was similar to that at Glenrock. Mandibles at both sites bear distinct cutting marks along the medial sides adjacent to the ventral borders, suggesting that the butchers were cutting the mylo-hyoideus muscle to gain access to the tongue (Fig. 14f). The end of nearly all hyoid bones were also cut off, suggesting tongue removal. Mandibles at both sites were removed from the skull by smashing the temporal condyles. This technique usually broke off part of the coronoid process on the mandible as is evidenced by the broken coronoid processes (Pl. 9e, f) and temporal condyles (Pl. 9c, d) commonly found in the kill area. In addition, mandibles were often broken in two just forward of the premolars (Fig. 14e, f). About half of the mandibles at both sites have the ventral borders chopped off, apparently to gain access to the pulp cavities located at the base of the molar teeth. Sternal elements were generally absent from the kill area deposits of both sites, and the first two to four ribs usually lack the extreme distal ends (Pl. 9g), while the remaining ribs except for the last two or three were usually broken or chopped both distally and proximally. The butchers were apparently taking out the brisket as a separate cut of the carcass. Considerable variation occurred in removing the ribs. They were sometimes removed close to the vertebral column (Pl. 10a, b), and sometimes several inches away. Some suggest removal with a sharp-edged chopper, while others suggest breakage with a heavy object such as a wooden club or a bison foot. The heads of the ribs and the vertebral column were apparently very little used, since significant numbers of these remain in the kill area and the same elements are noticeably lacking in the processing area.

48

THE WARDELL BUFFALO TRAP

Considerable variation was noted in separation of the vertebral column. At Wardell, the separation can be anywhere from the seventh cervical to the second lumbar, although it was observed more frequently between the first five or six thoracics and again at the last three thoracics and first lumbar. It was also common practice at Wardell to separate the sacrum from the lumbars. This operation was accomplished by chopping into the top of the fifth lumbar and the first sacral vertebra (Pl. Sa, b). The reason for this separation is not clear, but it seems somehow to have aided in butchering the hind quarters. At Glenrock, the separation was usually between the seventh cervical and second thoracic, from the seventh to the eleventh thoracic, again at the thirteenth and fourteenth thoracics, and finally at the third and fourth lumbars. Separation of the vertebral column at both sites was accomplished in two ways. One was from the dorsal direction by chopping into the transverse process dorsally from both sides (Pl. Se), and the other was from a ventral direction by chopping directly into the body of the vertebra (Pl. 1Cfa)., Both methods were observed with about equal frequency. The separations from dorsal and ventral directions were done after removal of longissimus muscles and ribs respectively, which suggests both operations occurred after much of the meat was stripped from the carcass. Reasons for these vertebral separations are not entirely clear, although there is evidence in the meat-processing area for preparation of some vertebral column segments for food (Pl. 5b; Pl. 11). Marrow bones, especially the femur, tibia, humerus and radius, were removed from the kill areas of both sites. It was common at Wardell, however, first to remove the proximal and distal ends of these, with the exception of the proximal humerus, and leave them at the kill site. The proximal end of the humerus is a prime locus of marrow, and finding some of these in the kill areas at both sites suggests that this bone was opened and the marrow contents consumed while butchering went on. The humerus was opened by chopping and crushing only the extreme proximal articular surface just enough to expose the large marrow cavity. In the case of the other long bones, there is a suggestion at Wardell that some of the prime marrow bones were carried for a distance. The ends were apparently chopped off after the flesh was removed, which would have reduced the load considerably. It does not seem likely, for example, that they would have chopped off the proximal end of the femur at or below the major trochanter just to remove it from the pelve, since this purpose is much easier to accomplish by breaking it just below the head. It appears instead to be a deliberate attempt to reduce the bulk of the bones; other long bones demonstrate similar treatment. From these butchering observations at the sites mentioned above and from actual experiments on buffalo as well as other animal carcasses, there are some suggestions that butchering techniques and tool assemblages may eventually provide help in indicating cultural affiliations of kill and butchering sites. Obviously many more butchering assemblages must be analyzed before this hypothesis can

ARCHAEOLOGY OF THE WARDELL SITE

Plate 11. Food-preparation pit in the meat-processing area .

49

50

THE WARDELL BUFFALO TRAP

be sufficiently tested. A somewhat schematic comparison of butchering techniques may be of value in emphasizing site differences (see Appendix 1). Interpretations from Bone Frequencies A problem at the present time is to develop means for valid sampling of . bone deposits in bison kill sites. The quantities of bone involved in this type of excavation are so great as to rapidly exhaust the available space in most research facilities. It must be remembered that in most butchering contexts the bone distributions are not random. The butchers tended to stack certain bones in piles as they were cleaned and to arrange skeletal parts such as skulls in rows, circles, and other configurations. As a result, it is possible to sink two random excavation units in a kill area and develop entirely different ideas regarding butchering techniques and population structures of the herd. Large samples of bone from these sites are thereby necessary. Also, in a stratified site there is the possibility of changes from level to level. A trap, pound or jump used from year to year tended to have some bone distributions changed as a result of animals disarticulating and scattering the remains of a previous operation. For example, the last operation at Wardell was largely undisturbed. Vertebral columns were articulated and even the rib heads remained articulated in some instances. In contrast, the bones from the deeper levels were scattered. Evidence from at least two other Wyoming kill sites suggests that bones from previous operations were removed from the enclosure, since the buildup over a period of years would soon have required heightening the walls. Burning is evident in at least one other pound structure, but whether it was deliberate or accidental cannot be determined. Burning would have eliminated much of the deposits but would also have endangered the pound itself since a fire in material of this nature is difficult to controL All of the above factors affect the sample of bone. The total area excavated at the kill area at the Wardell Site is 875 square feet, of which only about 275 square feet were actually inside the pound. The estimated size of the pound is about 1500 square feet, so probably twenty percent of the pound area was excavated. This produced about three and one-half tons of bone which is regarded as a valid sample. In Table 2, page 42, what are regarded as key bones for butchering interpretations are presented for the top and bottom levels. These can be compared to the numbers from the meat-processing area and some observations made. Vertebrae were not highly regarded, especially the cervicals and the first three to five thoracics. Larger numbers of these appear in the kill area in relation to the remaining thoracics and lumbars, which were occasionally removed and cooked as observed in one roasting pit (Pl. 5b; Pl. 11 ). There was also little use of the first four to six ribs, which have insignificant amounts of meat attached, and more of these than the other ribs remain in the kill area. The distal parts of most

ARCHAEOLOGY OF THE WARDELL SITE

51

ribs were usually taken, and these·, along with the relatively few sternebrae in the kill area and relatively large numbers in the meat-processing area, suggest the brisket was a desired cut of the carcass and was being prepared for consumption at the site. The quantity of broken long bone in the butchering area indicates intensive marrow recovery. Also the presence of significant numbers of broken metatarsals, metacarpals, distal tibiae and radii along with phalanges suggests that sometimes the butchers were recovering marrow from some of the more marginal marrowproducing bones. Large numbers of distal tibiae and radii, along with the more distal foot bones, indicate they were also taking considerable numbers of choppedoff front and rear legs to the meat-processing area. Tongues were eaten. Hyoid bones were usually broken or cut toward the anterior end with the latter part missing. Large numbers of the posterior part of the great cornu were found in the kill area. The easiest way to remove the tongue is simply to cut or break th~ anterior end of the great cornu. A relatively large number of these ends appeared in the processing area, suggesting taking of tongues probably for immediate consumption and possibly also for drying. Both articular ends and complete scapulae were generally disregarded, although a few of the former appeared in the processing area. Failure to locate proximal ends of scapula in the processing area may be accidental or perhaps, as is more likely, the meat on the scapula was dried and the units were taken elsewhere for stripping. Also absent in the processing area were significant concentrations of parts of the bones such as the patellae, major trochanters, tuber coxae, tuber ischii and transverse processes of lumbars which were chopped off to strip muscles. This fact suggests that the location of the meat-drying activities has not been found and may still be somewhere in the processing area. Another strong possibility is that this activity may have been carried out on higher ground to take better advantage of drying winds, in which case the evidence would since have disappeared. A less likely possibility is that these bones may have been chopped and crushed enough to have eroded away, since bone preservation in the kill and processing areas was extremely poor. Mandibles were largely ignored, although several were in the meat-processing area with ventral borders removed to gain access to the pulp cavity at the base of the lower molar teeth. Maxillaries appeared only rarely in the processing area, suggesting they were regarded as poor sources of food once the soft gristle of the nose was removed. The pelvis was apparently of little value once the meat was stripped away, since it appeared rarely in the meat-processing area. The sacrum was also little valued, and apparently the butchering marks here were to get it separated from the pelvis. No caudals were found in the processing area. Assuming the tails were taken in skinning, it is likely that there was an area where hides were processed . though there is little chance of finding the evidence for this activity. This, of

52

THE WARDELL BUFFALO TRAP

course, assumes there was no use of the tail other than as an aid in removing and transporting the hide. Some evidence suggests the use of the tail as a trophy (Tixier, 1940:193), but it is doubtful that this explains the lack of caudal verte· brae at the Wardell Site. One item that was prominent in the processing area and lacking in the kill area was fetal bone, a fact which indicates a desire for this delicacy. There were also several thoracic dorsal spines in the processing area and in one roasting pit, which suggests the hump was being consumed during the activity at the site. Three skulls with the maxillaries gone were found in the meat-processing area. One (Pl. 5b; Pl. 11) appeared in an undisturbed cooking pit suggesting utilization of less favored parts of the carcasses for immediate consumption. Butchering at the Wardell Site, considering what is known of butchering in general, might best be described by comparison with butchering processes hypothesized for the Glenrock Buffalo Jump (Frison, 1970b). It may be possible in the future to help define cultural groups through butchering techniques. The Glenrock Jump is to date the only other site where I have attempted this kind of butchering analysis. Overall butchering procedures at both sites appear similar, but some noticeable differences may eventually prove to be diagnostic crossculturally (see Appendix 1). THE MEAT-PROCESSING AREA General Description and Considerations Contiguous to the bison trap itself is an extensive area that demonstrates a wide and varied usage, most of which is connected with the utilization of the animals killed in the trap. The exact dimensions and the total area used are not definitely known, but certainly only a small fraction has been excavated (Fig. 4). Slope wash covers the area to a depth of two to four feet, and, as in the kill area, recent acceleration of erosion is resulting in a small arroyo-cutting into the cultural deposits. Some estimates of the size of this area were made by noting the extent of badger-made mounds of dirt which contain bone, charcoal, fire-cracked stone, and artifacts. Estimates from this evidence suggest a processing area of more than 100,000 square feet or nearly two and one-half acres. The actual location of the processing area is in some ways obviously the logical location, but in other ways its location appears contrary to generally accepted ideas regarding handling of buffalo. First, the prevailing wind is from the west which, on almost any day, would bring the scent of humans and the butchering activities directly in the path of any bison herd being brought into the trap. The writer has argued (Frison, 1967) that human or any other scent has little effect on a bison herd once the herd has actually been started moving. The smell of humans can alert animals to their presence, but most animals react only after the

ARCHAEOLOGY OF THE WARDELL SITE

53

human in question is sighted. If human scent were disruptive to driving buffalo, the Wardell trap would never have worked or at least would have worked only on certain rare days. Some of the legendary precautions against human scent may have been overemphasized or, more likely, may have been associated with the magic and shamanism surrounding communal bison procurement. Failure to corral a herd could have been conveniently explained away as the result of human scent, especially in a society where success or failure in hunting was explained as the success or failure in controlling the spirits of the animals through various magical processes. The butchering area was also in plain sight of the corral, which would also have created problems unless there was some attempt to hide it from the bison. We can assume better-constructed drive lines close to the trap entrance rather than farther away. Wissler ( 191 0:48) describes wings as gradually breaking into an open line of sticks at a distance of about 100 meters. The drive lines at Wardell must have been of sufficient height and density to hide the processing area from view, otherwise it would have increased the probability of a disrupted drive. There were alternate locations for the processing area. Apparently the choice was made so as to be as close as possible to the butchering area, and this proximity did not disrupt the trapping of the animals. The processing area was the location of varied cultural activities. Although in the area excavated there are no structures such as stone circles to indicate lodges, the artifact assemblage suggests the group was camping there during the season of bison trapping. Temporary structures, for which there is no evidence remaining, were probably used. Extensive excavation might also uncover evidence of living structures since only about 2,100 square feet of the processing area or about two percent of the total were excavated. There were also undoubtedly a number of separate bison drives during any given year that the location was used, which would require the human group to remain for a period of time, possibly a month or more. From this, some evidence of living structures is expected, unless the bison hunters were camped in another area. So far the evidence for habitation has not been found and may no longer exist due to erosion. Features of the Processing Area One of the advantages of communal bison procurement was to be able to get more meat than was needed for everyday use and preserve some for the future. Dried meat is easy to prepare and will keep with minimal storage facilities in an arid climate such as that of the Green River Basin. It is also portable, and a man can easily carry enough for several days' rations. Preparqtion is relatively simple: the muscles need only be cut into long strips and hung on a rack in the sun for a few days. Even one hot day in the fall will result in a loss of much of the weight of water in the meat. Once the meat starts to dry on the outside, it forms a layer impervious to flies.

54

THE WARDELL BUFFALO TRAP

The processing area at Wardell suggests a utilization of the buffalo carcasses beyond the stripping of the muscles for curing and the eating of the choice parts. After the main muscles were stripped, many of the bones, with remaining meat attached, were apparently taken to be prepared in some sort of roasting pit for immediate consumption. In some communal procurement contexts, there is evidence suggesting more meat was obtained than was utilized. At Wardell, however, there is little evidence to suggest the waste of any edible portions, especially those parts that were often disregarded in situations where overkills occurred. Even during the communal kill of buffalo, there was apparently little in the way of surplus food in the more marginal areas of the Plains. The cultural deposits in the processing area are generally confined to a single level that occasionally divided into a poorly defined second level separated from the other by coarse slope wash (Fig. 15). One small test (S 025-030; E 085-095) evidently in the direct path of a small arroyo, reveals three distinct levels, but this is unusual for the site. The most prominent features for the meat-processing area are basin-shaped fi rep its for heating stones (Pl. 12b) and vaguely conical-shaped cooking or roasting pits utilizing hot stones (Pl. 12a). The firepits range in diameter from fourteen inches to twenty-six inches and in depth from six inches to nine inches. They contain large amounts of charcoal and varying amounts of fire-cracked river cobbles; the bottoms are rounded to form a basin shape, and occasionally they may contain small amounts of charred bone. The cooking pits vary in diameter by about the same amount as the firepits but are usually shaped like an inverted cone, with straight sides sloping to a nearly pointed bottom. They usually contain bison bone, fire-fractured rocks, and in rare cases insignificant amounts of antelope, jackrabbit, cottontail and sagegrouse bone. Flat slabs of sandstone were used to help cover the pits during use. It seems likely that the food being prepared was contained in something, possibly a buffalo paunch or hide container. The method was apparently to place a number of hot stones in with the food to be cooked and then cover the entire pit with dirt and flat stones. One firepit was dug into a roasting pit (Pl. 12b), and in one instance a firepit in the top level was directly over one in the bottom level. Firepits often contained from 50 to 150 pounds of fire-cracked stone, and the roasting pits contained smaller amounts. One cooking pit was of special interest. For some unexplained reason it had never been opened. Four flat sandstone slabs were over the top, which was mounded up for a distance of about four inches above the top of the pit. Under this and in the confines of a conical-shaped pit were a number of bison bones, including a skull with maxillaries removed; a section of a vertebral column containing number 2 through number 11 thoracics with the proximal ends articulated and rib and dorsal spines chopped off close to the bases; a scapula with the proximal parts chopped off; a right maxillary; the proximal end of a radius; ribs, including the distal ends of numbers 10, 11, 12, and 13, that were apparently part of a

Fig. 15. Profile of N-S trench in the meat-processing area at the Wardell Site.

EA 2

(J1 (J1

m

-i

(/)

r r

m

)> :!J 0

~

m

I

-i

""Tl

0

-


I

()

)> :!J

THE WARDELL BUFFALO TRAP

56

Plate 12.

a Food-preparation pit b Fire pit excavated into an earlier food-preparation pit

ARCHAEOLOGY OF THE WARDELL SITE

57

butchered rib unit; several fragments of the medial section of a humerus and the dorsal spines of numbers 6, 7, 8 and 9 thoracics. In the pit were several large firefractured stones. This was apparently a quantity of some marginal and possibly also some more-preferred units of butchered bison that were placed in a roasting pit for cooking but never consumed (Pl. 5b; Pl. 11 ). Butchering units such as these, even with the muscles stripped, would have still provided a good deal of edible meat when prepared in this manner. The Artifact Assemblage from the Processing Area

Chipped Stone. The processing area produced an artifact assemblage entirely different from that of the kill area, a fact which reflects the different kinds of activities performed. Actual handling of the meat from the kill area comprised only a part of the total activities. It is suggested that the human group was living at or close to the site during the entire period of communal procurement. There are 235 retouched flakes in the largest category of tools, and in this are comprised a wide variety of functional types. Indicated uses include the more common cutting, scraping, graving or grooving, and boring, and some more specialized work such as combing (possibly vegetable fibers or sinew) and polishing or smoothing (possibly hides or wood). A wide variety of percussion flakes forms the raw material for this tool assemblage. The distinctions between cutting and scraping edges in Late Prehistoric sites have been discussed before (cf. Frison, 1970b:36-38). Most retouched flakes demonstrate the slight modification of a single side, end or point for the particular purpose intended, but some are composite. The modification is always a pressure or a use retouch. For use in cutting, the retouch is usually bilateral while for scraping, boring and graving it is on one side only. Typical of this large tool category are cutting tools (Fig. 16a-g) which are thin with usually one and sometimes two extremely sharp cutting edges. One composite tool (Fig. 16d) has a sharp, convex cutting edge on one side and a nearly straight, steep scraping edge on another side. One common cutting tool (Fig. 16c) in both butchering and kill areas is a small percussion flake driven from a flat surface which forms a long sharp edge that can easily be resharpened several times before discarding. Related to this are the thin flake tools formed by driving a percussion flake from the side of a flattened river cobble (Fig. 17c, e, g). which were also common cutting tools from the kill area. Scraping tools are quite similar to the cutting tools (Fig. 16h-i; Fig. 17d, f; Fig. 18i, k, m),except for the retouch being steep and unilateral, and they demonstrate a variety of edge shapes. One has one convex and two concave scraping edges (Fig. 18k) and another (Fig. 18i) a single deep, concave scraping edge. Another group of scraping tools includes long, thick percussion flakes, triangular in cross section (Fig. 17d, f; Fig. 18m), with pressure flaking sequences added as the

THE WARDELL BUFFALO TRAP

58

c

d

h

0

0

Fig. 16. a-e f-i

2 Inches

2

3

4

5 Cm.

Retouched-flake cutting tools and Scraping tools from the meat-processing area

ARCHAEOLOGY OF THE WARDELL SITE

59

c b

a

d

g

0 0

Fig. 17. a, b

2 Inches 2

3

4

5 Cm.

Shaft abraders,

c, e, g Retouched-flake cutting tools, and d, f

Scraping tools from meat-processing area

60

THE WARDELL BUFFALO TRAP

d a

~: