Vertebrate Faunal Remains from Grasshopper Pueblo, Arizona 9781949098891, 9780915703210

Citation preview

Anthropological Papers Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan No. 83

Vertebrate Faunal Remains from Grasshopper Pueblo, Arizona

by John W. Olsen with a foreword by John D. Speth

Ann Arbor, Michigan 1990

© 1990 by the Regents of The University of Michigan The Museum of Anthropology All rights reserved Printed in the United States of America Cover design by Marty Somberg ISBN 978-0-915703-21-0 (paper) ISBN 978-1-949098-89-1 (ebook)

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Olsen, John W. Vertebrate fauna! remains from Grasshopper Pueblo, Arizona/ by John W. Olsen ; with a foreword by John D. Speth. p. cm. - (Anthropological papers/ Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan ; no. 83) Includes bibliographical references. ISBN 0-915703-21-1 1. Grasshopper Pueblo (Ariz.) 2. Pueblo Indians-Antiquities. 3. Mogollon culture. 4. Animal remains (Archaeology)-Arizona. I. Title. II. Series: Anthropological papers (University of Michigan. Museum of Anthropology) ; no. 83. GN2.M5 no. 83 [E99.P9] 306 s-dc20 [979.1 '35] 90-6183 CIP

For Mary Kay

Contents List of figures, vii List of tables, vii Foreword, ix Preface, xiii Acknowledgments, xv CHAPTER 1. GRASSHOPPER PUEBLO, 1 The Archaeology of Grasshopper Pueblo, The Site, 3 Physiography and Environment of Region, 6 Environment at Grasshopper: Past and Present, 9 CHAPTER 2. METHODOLOGY AND OVERVIEW OF THE GRASSHOPPER FAUNAL ANALYSIS, 13 Taxonomy Employed, 14 Methods of Recording Data, 14 Quantification of Faunal Remains, 15 Application of MNI Approach, 16 Nature of the Faunal Sample Analyzed, 17 An Overview of the Grasshopper Collection, 21 Patterns of Bone Disposal, 21 CHAPTER 3. THE BONY FISHES, THE AMPHIBIANS, THE REPTILES, 23 The Bony Fishes, 23 Seasonality and the Grasshopper Icthyofauna, 26 The Amphibians, 27 The Reptiles, 30 CHAPTER 4. THE BIRDS, 37 Order Ciconiiformes, 37 Order Anseriformes, 38 Order Falconiformes, 39 Order Galliformes, 45 Order Gruiformes, 53 Order Charadriiformes, 54 Order Columbiformes, 55 Order Psittaciformes, 56 Order Cuculiformes, 62 Order Strigiformes, 62 Order Piciformes, 66 Order Passeriformes, 67 CHAPTER 5. THE MAMMALS, 87 Order Lagomorpha, 88 Order Rodentia, 96 Order Carnivora, 109 Order Perissodactyla, 129 Order Artiodactyla, 130

v

Unclassifiable Mammalian Remains, 148 Conclusions, 149 CHAPTER

6.

AN INTERPRETIVE SYNTHESIS OF THE

151 Subsistence, 151 Procurement, 155 Animals versus Plants, 157 Technology, 158 Ceremonialism, 160 Domestic Animals, 166 Trade, 167 Paleoenvironment, 168 Environmental Stress and the Grasshopper Fauna, 169 Summary and Concluding Remarks, 169

GRASSHOPPER FAUNA,

Appendix. Quantitative Summary, 171 References, 183

Vl

List of Figures 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17.

Principal archaeological sites of the Southwest U.S. and northwest Mexico, 2 Map of Grasshopper Pueblo, 4 Major topographic areas in Arizona, 7 Vegetation map of the Grasshopper region, 11 Two views of the floor of Room 3, Room Block 4, 19 Mealing bins with deer scapula, Room 11, 20 Trepanned deer skull in large ceramic vessel, Room 9, 20 Macaw burial beneath floor of Room 23, 41 Hawk burial near Room 246, 42 Domestic dog burial in post-abandonment fill, adjacent to Great Kiva, 110 Wand and hairpin from grizzly bear femur, 120 Mammal bone implements, 160 Deer antler billets and cut antler flakers, 161 Deer metapodial hairpins, 162 Artiodactyl ulna awls, 162 Bone musical instruments, 163 Ring stock fashioned from deer femur, 163

List of Tables 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. A-1.

Final classification of rooms, 18 Age classification of macaws, 60 Summary of 0. hemionus bone weight by room abandonment class, 133 Frequency of body part utilization for principal subsistence taxa, 153 Grasshopper bone artifact typology, 159 Percent representation of rabbit species, 169 Quantitative summary, 172

vzz

Foreword by john D. Speth Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan There are few regions of North America that are as well known archaeologically as the Southwest. Thanks to superb conditions of preservation, a tree-ring chronology that allows many sites to be dated with unparalleled precision, a fine-grained paleoclimatic record, and massive infusions of federal and state money into cultural resource management projects, the basic outline of cultural development in most regions of the Southwest is now known in considerable detail. Hand-in-hand with the accelerating pace of fieldwork in the Southwest have come important changes in basic recovery and analytic techniques, as well as new explanatory and interpretive goals. For example, one of the most important and productive methodological changes in the Southwest over the past few decades has been the growing emphasis on large-scale, systematic regional surveys, employing carefully designed, often statistically based, sampling strategies. These studies provide invaluable insights into the spatial organization of settlements and communities, and how these organizational patterns changed through time. Other important methodological changes are the commonplace- if not universal- use in excavation of systematic screening and flotation, as well as piece-plotting of key artifacts on structure floors. These new techniques, aided by the computer, have generated immense quantities of new data relevant to a wide array of research problems (e.g., site formation processes, paleoenvironment, diet and subsistence, craft specialization). In addition, artifact studies often now employ highly sophisticated analytical techniques borrowed from the hard sciences to determine the presence and quantity of various trace elements in obsidian, turquoise, and ceramics. These techniques allow the archaeologist to identify the sources of raw materials and to delineate prehistoric patterns of inter-regional exchange and interaction. In addition, stylistic analyses of designs on ceramic vessels are providing increasingly powerful tools for examining the structure and underlying causes of these interaction patterns. Paleoethnobotanical research, augmented by isotopic, trace element, and paleopathological studies of human skeletal

zx

remains, have documented with increasing precision the spread of cultivated plants into the Southwest, the subsequent intensification of agricultural pursuits, and the importance of wild plant foods in the diet of the region's horticulturalists. These few examples are sufficient to illustrate the tremendous growth that Southwestern archaeology has experienced over the past few decades and the many new kinds of investigations that are coming to play an ever-increasing role there. Clearly, archaeological research in the Southwest, as elsewhere, has shifted noticeably away from the chronological and cultural historical focus that characterized the field not long ago, turning instead to more ecologically and systemically oriented examinations of cultural adaptation and change. Central to many of these newer studies is the view that the Southwest is a precarious environment in which to eke out a living, whether as a forager or as a small-scale horticulturalist. The biomass of edible wild plant and animal foods in most parts of the Southwest is comparatively low and unevenly distributed, and the extreme spatial and temporal unpredictability of the region's sparse rainfall makes both foraging and farming risky pursuits. Prehistoric Southwestern societies coped with resource stress arising from this unpredictability through technological means such as storage, new food-processing techniques, and water-control devices, and through social and political means such as sharing and community-wide redistribution, inter-village exchange, raiding and warfare, or increased political centralization and control. Explorations of these various strategies form the theoretical heart of most current archaeological research done in the region. Given these pervasive underlying themes in Southwestern archaeology, it is surprising that faunal remains, often the most abundant class of subsistence data recovered from archaeological sites in the region, have received so little attention by prehistorians. Faunal research in other areas of North America, and of course elsewhere, has amply demonstrated the tremendous range of questions and problems that can be addressed, either directly or indirectly, through studies of the animal remains. For example, the frequencies of various animal species in an archaeological faunal assemblage provide evidence not only for the seasonality of procurement activities and whether animals were taken singly or communally, but also provide a direct measure of the nature and underlying causes of selectivity exercised by the hunters in their choice of prey. In addition, the age and sex composition of the

X

hunted animals and the specific skeletal elements transported back to the village provide insights into situational factors, such as time constraints, task group size, distance from village, and other factors that influenced the hunters' procurement and processing decisions. These decisions can also illuminate the nutritional state of the hunters themselves, by revealing whether they chose particular animals and anatomical parts primarily on the basis of their meat, marrow, or grease yield. And finally, spatial patterning in the frequencies of skeletal elements of high and low utility, particularly elements from large mammals, can provide a sensitive indicator of the presence and degree of social inequality between households within a single community or between communities in a region. Faunal studies clearly have tremendous potential for investigating a wide range of interesting and important issues, only a few of which have been mentioned here. Given this potential, it is difficult to explain the striking paucity of monograph-length treatments of faunal remains in the Southwest. Today, as in the past, most faunal studies amount to little more than a brief data tabulation relegated to an appendix at the end of an archaeological report. The faunal information usually remains divorced from the fabric of the overall study, and thus plays a minimal role at best in the final data synthesis and site interpretation. There are a few notable exceptions to this pattern, however, and John Olsen's excellent report on the animal remains from Grasshopper Pueblo is just such a study. Unfortunately, Olsen's report, prepared nearly a decade ago ( 1980) as a doctoral dissertation at the University of California, has been buried in the unpublished "grey" literature of the Southwest, and as a consequence has remained largely untapped by regional scholars and totally unknown and inaccessible to the broader archaeological community. Olsen's study carefully examines the entire suite of animal remains from Grasshopper Pueblo, a large fourteenth-century community in the forested Mogollon highlands of central Arizona. Grasshopper is one of the most famous and important pueblo sites in the Southwest, and has been under excavation and analysis for more than twenty-five years by the University of Arizona. The site figured prominently in the early development of the New Archaeology, and it continues to be the focus of important research and debate today. While a great deal has already been published about Grasshopper, including discussions of the site's architectural layout and chronological development, its ceramics, and the

Xl

demographic and sociopolitical implications of its large, well-preserved human skeletal collection, the faunal remains, superbly documented by Olsen in his dissertation, have remained in comparative obscurity, despite the critical importance of this information for understanding the development and subsequent decline of Grasshopper and other communities like it in the Mogollon highlands during the late prehistoric period. The Museum of Anthropology of the University of Michigan, therefore, takes great pleasure in publishing Olsen's study, substantially revised and updated since its appearance as a dissertation, and for the first time making it broadly available to the archaeological community. We hope that publishing Olsen's study will accomplish at least three things. First, we believe that the data and insights in this study will contribute to a better overall understanding of the forces that shaped and ultimately destroyed Grasshopper Pueblo and other Southwestern communities like it. It is our feeling that faunal data provide one of the clearest and most direct windows on the nature and intensity of the resource stresses that may have underlain and fostered these profound events. Second, we want to make the Grasshopper faunal data available to the broadest possible archaeological community, not just to Southwestern specialists. This will allow archaeologists elsewhere to make use of the Grasshopper material as a well-documented case study in wide- ranging comparative studies of hunting by farmers. And third, we hope that publication of Olsen's study will encourage other archaeologists in the Southwest to more fully exploit their faunal material and to integrate this information more explicitly into their research efforts.

xzz

Preface This monograph represents the culmination of over a decade of research on the Grasshopper Pueblo faunal collection. Analysis of the remains began in june, 1969, under the direction of Thomas W. Mathews and Jerry L. Greene of the National Park Service's Arizona Archaeological Center located at Gila Pueblo in Globe, Arizona (see Longacre and Reid 1974:8; Mathews and Greene 1972). Over 9,000 fragments were processed by Mathews and Greene at the time of the final report on their findings in 1972. These researchers concentrated on mammalian remains, while a colleague, Charmion R. McKusick, undertook the analysis of avian remains and bone implements. McKusick's reports (1972, 1982) present a synthesis of these materials recovered during the first few seasons of ~xcavation at Grasshopper. Stanley J. Olsen has been involved in the analysis of Grasshopper fauna since 1965 when he began to visit the site each summer. His original interest in the Grasshopper vertebrates was restricted to the fish and herpetofauna (Olsen and Olsen 1970; S. J. Olsen 1982), but quickly expanded to include domestic animals recovered, particularly canids (S. J. Olsen 1967, 1968b). Sally J. Holbrook of the University of California, Santa Barbara, has undertaken the study of mammalian microfauna! remains recovered at Grasshopper in order to ascertain paleoclimatic conditions in the region (Holbrook 1982a, 1982b, 1983). My own involvement in faunal studies at Grasshopper is founded on having spent a portion of each summer at the site between 1965 and 1974, as well as the entire summer of 1975 as a student at the archaeological field school. As an undergraduate anthropology major at the University of Arizona during the early 1970s, it was impossible to ignore the impact that William Longacre's explicitly multidisciplinary research design was having, not only on the excavations at Grasshopper, but on the study of Southwestern prehistory in general. In particular, the full integration of artifactual and non-artifactual classes of remains in archaeological interpretation provided a unique perrspective on behavioral changes at Grasshopper Pueblo. It is this synthetic perspective that continues to characterize prehistoric investigations in the Grasshopper region today.

XUl

While several researchers have undertaken the study of selected portions of the faunal assemblage from Grasshopper, this study represents the first integration of data on all classes of vertebrate remains collected during all fifteen seasons of excavation at the main pueblo. The entire collection of bones has been extensively reworked for the present report, regardless of prior analysis. The interim reports on the Grasshopper fauna completed in 1972 (Mathews and Greene 1972; McKusick 1972, 1982) were formulated on the analysis of such a small sample of bone that many of the interpretations drawn within have required important revisions. This study has not exhausted the research potential of this extensive and varied collection of bone, but I hope it presents a cogent synthesis of current knowledge about faunal utilization at the pueblo. In addition, it presents a methodology for using animal remains to understand past environmental conditions in a region. The analysis of faunal remains from any archaeological context must not be regarded as a separate endeavor. Rather, to gain the maximum amount of data attainable from this resource, zooarchaeological information must be integrated with other artifactual and architectural data derived from the site. While significant steps have been made in the direction of the analysis of many materials from Grasshopper (e.g., Whittlesey 1978, 1984; Ciolek-Torrello 1978, 1984, 1985; Reid and Whittlesey 1982; Whittaker 1984; Hinkes 1983), many major classes of data have yet to be dealt with fully, including chipped stone, ceramics, and botanical remains. I expect that many significant contributions regarding animal bone at Grasshopper are yet to be made, particularly as other aspects of the site's material inventory receive the attention they deserve. John Olsen Tucson, 1990

XIV

Acknowledgments The Grasshopper archaeological field station is located on land leased from the White Mountain Apache Tribe and excavations are conducted under an agreement with the White Mountain Apache Tribal Council. I am grateful to the White Mountain Apache people for their continued interest in this program of scientific investigations, and I deeply appreciate their hospitality. Support for the Archaeological Field School from the Advanced Science Seminar Program, Division of Graduate Education, National Science Foundaation, began in 1964 and continued for eight years (GE-4601, GE-7781, GZ-22, GZ-397, GZ-745, GZ-1113, GZ-1493, GZ- 1924). In addition, research grants for the study of prehistory at Grasshopper were awarded to the University of Arizona by the National Science Foundation (GS-2566, GS-33436, SOC-72-05334, SOC-74-23724), the Wenner-Gren Foundation and the National Geographic Society. Other support was provided by Historic Preservation Survey and Planning Grants-in-Aid from the Arizona State Parks Boards through the State Historic Preservation Officer. It has been my pleasure to have received advice, criticism, and assistance from a great many colleagues during the course of this analysis. I am indebted to R. H. Thompson, W. A. Longacre, and J. J. Reid of the Arizona State Museum and Department of Anthropology, University of Arizona, for granting me access to the faunal collection from Grasshopper as well as excavation data pertinent to the assemblage. I wish to thank the U.S. Park Service Western Archeological and Conservation Center for allowing me to use their comparative osteological collection, and for the loan of previously compiled information on the Grasshopper fauna completed under National Park Service contract. The present report is based on my doctoral dissertation completed at Berkeley under the guidance of G. Ll. Isaac, W. A. Clemens, J. Deetz, and E. Wing. C. Gifford,J.J. Reid, andj. D. Speth all read previous drafts of this paper and their contributions are gratefully acknowledged. I have benefited greatly from discussions with my colleagues J. D. Speth, M. B. Schiffer, J. R. Welch, F. E. Bayham, A. E. Bogan,

XV

M. W. Graves, R. S. Ciolek-Torrello, S. J. Holbrook, and C. R. McKusick. All provided valuable criticism and advice on aspects of this research. S. L. Olsen (National Museum of Natural History), R. S. Van Gelder (American Museum of Natural History), and B. Lawrence (Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard University) all generously assisted in the identification of problematical specimens. Doris Sample deserves recognition for processing innumerable "final drafts" of this paper with nary a whimper, while Sally Horvath and the editorial staff at the University of Michigan Museum of Anthropology have my sincere thanks for their care and patience in the production of this text. Barbara Montgomery is responsible for the carefully drafted maps that appear in the text and the photographs are were produced with the able assistance of Kathy Hubenschmidt and Jorge Acero. I am especially grateful to Nils Hasselmo, former Provost of the University of Arizona, and the Regents of the University of Arizona for supporting the publication of this monograph through a subvention provided by the Provost's office. I reserve final acknowledgment for two individuals without whose influence, this publication would never have materialized. The succinct advice and fresh perspectives offered by Stanley J. Olsen and J.. Jefferson Reid pervade this work, and I am deeply grateful for their time, patience, and friendship.

xvz

1

Grasshopper Pueblo The Archaeology of Grasshopper Pueblo Grasshopper Pueblo, a prehistoric Mogollon-Pueblo site, was occupied around A.D. 1300-1400. A significant amount of controversy exists regarding the proper cultural affiliation of Grasshopper's inhabitants because influences from many regions have been detected in the site's artifactual inventory (Whittlesey 197 4, 1984; Olsen and Olsen 1974; Mayro, Whittlesey and Reid 1976; Sullivan 1980). It is known that the Grasshopper region experienced a demographic crash at the end of the fourteenth century. Archaeological evidence indicates that Grasshopper itself and contemporary pueblos were abandoned over a relatively short span of time. In addition, chronicles of the Spanish conquistadores, who passed through the area a little more than a century later, refer to it as "tierra despoblado." What happened to the Mogollon-Pueblo populations has been the subject of considerable debate with various authors, who have focused on particular ethnohistoric groups or geographic regions to solve the problem (see Reid 1978). This study of Grasshopper faunal remains does not seek to resolve the question of regional abandonment nor the issue of whether "Mogollon-Pueblo" is an appropriate label for the inhabitants of Grasshopper Pueblo (Speth 1988). Rather, it documents the overwhelming importance and multiple uses of animals to fourteenth-century village farmers of the Arizona mountains. Regarding the question of prehistoric mountain Pueblo parallels with modern Southwestern peoples, Haury (1985:406-7) stated: I hypothesize that the Tarahumara are in contention as descendants of a broad-based Mogollon cultural group, whose territory at one time far exceeded in extent the relic Sierra Madre area inhabited today. It may even

1

Figure 1.

w"'

,.

Cave•

Ventano

_j

\

0

20

60

!wew!

40

100 Moles

J,j

80

100 K •lometer'S

.~~~~

......

0

El Paso

NEW MEXICO

CHIHUAH UA

yI \··~;::. .

_( .. j__ \-

-~·

...

!_ .. _ .. ,.,

t

e 8~~ve

eGron Quiviro

Pecos

••

Arroyo Hondo

Principal archaeolo gical sites of the Southwe st U.S. and northwes t Mexico.

·--....

ARIZONA

r--·-

~

~

-.._.

;::\_

C)-

"'c;-

;p

"'...

~

~

"'"';::,-.

(') ~

;:l

~

"'

;:;·

"'

;:l

"'

::tl

~

~

C)-

"'

~

;;j

0.002

1

1

0.025

0.025

0.205 0.025

~

Lampropeltis cf. L. pyromelana Genus et sp. indet.

Colubridae Thamnophis cf. T elegans Masticophis flagellum Elaphe cf. E. triaspis

Squamata (suborder Serpentes or Ophidia)

?Sonora Mountain kingsnake colubrid snake

?Western garter snake coach whip ?green rat snake

?plateau whiptail ?Western whiptail

collared lizard Eastern fence lizard ?desert spiny lizard horned lizard

6 3

0.047 0.012 19 5

1 3

1 1 1

1 1

0.004 0.002

0.002 0.002 0.007

2 2 1 1

0.007 0.004 0.002 0.002

1

1

2

1

1

3 2

0.153 0.076

0.025 0.025 0.025

0.025 0.025

0.051 0.051 0.025 0.025

~

,_

>

~

'"ti-

1

4 2

1 1 2 2

1

2

2 1 6 1

1

Lagomorpha

0.081 0.042 0.014

0.007 0.004 0.044 0.007 0.014 0.019

0.007 0.007 0.002 0.402 0.002

"'"';::,-

33 17 6

3 2 18 3 6 8

3 9 1 162 1

MAMMALIA (MAMMALS)

Eastern cottontail ?Eastern cottontail desert cottontail ?desert cottontail cottontail black-tailed jack rabbit ?black-tailed jack rabbit ?antelope jack rabbit rabbit or hare

cardinal ?lazuli bunting Savannah sparrow black-throated sparrow junco grosbeak, finch, sparrow or bunting

Fringillidae Cardinalis cardinalis Passerina cf. P amoena Passerculus sandwichensis Amphispiza sp. indet. Junco sp. indet. Genus et sp. indet.

Indeterminate Birds Buteo size/taxon indet. Corvus corax size/taxon indet. Indeterminate size/taxon indet.

meadowlark yellow-headed blackbird ?yellow-headed blackbird Brewer's blackbird meadowlark, blackbird or oriole

Icteridae Sturnella sp. indet. Xanthocephalus xanthocephalus ?Xanthocephalus xanthocephalus Euphagus cyanocephalus Genus et sp. indet.

?cliff chipmunk chipmunk rock squirrel rock squirrel prairie dog Abert's squirrel ?Abert's squirrel squirrel or prairie dog valley pocket gopher smooth-toothed pocket gopher ?Ord's kangaroo rat kangaroo rat Western harvest mouse ?Western harvest mouse cactus mouse ?cactus mouse deer mouse ?deer mouse white-footed mouse ?white-footed mouse brush mouse ?brush mouse pinyon mouse white-footed mouse northern grasshopper mouse grasshopper mouse

Sciuridae Eutamias cf. E. dorsalis Eutamias sp. indet. Spermophilus ( = Citellus) variegatus Spermophilus ( = Citellus) sp. indet. Cynomys sp. indet. Sciurus aberti Sciurus cf. S. aberti Genus et sp. indet.

Geomyidae Thomomys bottae Thomomys sp. indet.

Heteromyidae )Dipodomys ordii Dipodomys sp. indet.

Cricetidae Reithrodontomys megalotis Reithrodontomys cf. R. megalotis Peromyscus eremicus Peromyscus cf. P eremicus Peromyscus maniculatus Peromyscus cf. P maniculatus Peromyscus leucopus Peromyscus cf. P leucopus Peromyscus boylii Peromyscus cf. P boylii Peromyscus truei Peromyscus sp. indet. Onychomys leucogaster Oynchomys sp. indet.

Rodentia

22 9 137 29 2423 1365 116 22 207 13 33 6074 12 12

7 9

148 41

5 1 2490 8 7 243 7 9

0.054 0.022 0.340 0.072 6.020 3.390 0.288 0.054 0.514 0.032 0.081 15.090 0.029 0.029

0.017 0.047

0.367 0.101

0.012 0.002 6.180 0.019 0.017 0.603 0.017 0.022

8 3 17 7 62 55 13 4 10 3 9 273 3 4

2 3

6

11

2 1 140 2 2 47 3 2

0.205 0.076 0.435 0.179 1.580 1.410 0.333 0.102 0.256 0.076 0.230 7.000 0.076 0.102

0.051 0.076

0.282 0.153

0.051 0.025 3.580 0.051 0.051 1.200 0.076 0.051

~

.._

::::·

~

"';:;

:A

:g:

Bassariscus astutus Procyon lotor

ringtail raccoon

grizzly or brown bear

Ursus cf. U. horribilis ( = arctos)

Procyonidae

black bear grizzly or brown bear

domestic dog ?domestic dog grey wolf coyote ?coyote domestic dog, wolf or coyote ?domestic dog, ?wolf or ?coyote grey fox

?least cotton rat cotton rat white-throated wood rat ?white-throated wood rat Stephen's wood rat Mexican wood rat wood rat Mexican vole ?Mexican vole meadow vole cricetid rodent

Ursus ( = Euarctos) americanus Ursus horribilis ( = arctos)

Ursidae

Canis familiaris Canis cf. C. familiaris Canis lupus Canis latrans Canis cf. C. latrans Canis sp. indet. ?Canis sp. indet. Urocyon cinereoargenteus

Canidae

Carnivora

Genus et sp. indet.

Sigmodon cf. S. mznimus Sigmodon sp. indet. Neotoma albigula Neotoma cf. N. albigula Neotoma stephensi Neotoma mexicana Neotoma sp. indet. Microtus mexicanus Microtus cf. M. mexicanus Microtus sp. indet.

4 12

3

30 2

8 803 59 2 279 3 97 3 309

4 14 248 71 4 12 155 3 9 26 294

0.009 0.029

0.007

0.074 0.004

0.019 1.990 0.146 0.004 0.693 0.007 0.241 0.007 0.767

0.009 0.032 0.616 0.176 0.009 0.029 0.385 o·.oo7 0.022 0.064 0.730

2 3

1

4 1

2 57 19 1 23 1 23 1 68

1 2 15 17 1 3 21 1 2 5 12

0.051 0.076

0.025

0.051 0.025

0.051 1.460 0.487 0.025 0.589 0.025 0.589 0.025 1.470

0.025 0.051 0.384 0.435 0.025 0.076 0.538 0.025 0.051 0.128 0.307

Co

.._

"'