Anthropology 471/571: ZOOARCHAEOLOGY
Fall 2006 - Dr. Madonna L. Moss

Time & Place: 2:00-5:00 pm, Mon. & Wed., 264 Condon Hall. On discussion days, the class will last 2 hours, on lab days, the class will last 3 hours. Open Lab: 2:00-5:00 pm Fri. Professor Moss's Contact Information:

Required Texts and Supplies:
Reitz, Elizabeth J. and Elizabeth S. Wing (1999) Zooarchaeology. Cambridge Manuals in Archaeology, Cambridge University Press, New York. Available from UO Bookstore.

Moss, Madonna L. (2004) Archaeological Investigation of Cape Addington Rockshelter: Human Occupation of the Rugged Seacoast on the Outer Prince of Wales Archipelago, Alaska. University of Oregon Anthropological Paper No. 63. University of Oregon, Eugene. This book can be purchased from Stephanie Morton in the Department of Anthropology.

Course readings: 2 articles are available through E-reserve via the University of Oregon Library webpage; 9 articles are available as paper reserves in the Reserve Book Room of the Knight Library.

From the UO Bookstore Graphics Department, Basement Floor:

• one Pigma Micron pen (fine point), with permanent ink, size .01, in "writing tools" display,
• one forceps, in "cutting tools" display,

The assigned reading for this class is minimal because you will be expected to do a considerable amount of reading relevant to your laboratory projects.

Additional Required Text for Graduate Students:
Grayson, Donald K. (1984) Quantitative Zooarchaeology: Topics in the Analysis of Archaeological Faunas. Academic Press, Orlando, FL. Unfortunately, this classic book can be found at a minimum price of $100.00. I am placing the UO library copy on Reserve for graduate student use. It would be best if you can read this book by week 7. I expect that graduate students will have read this on their own, and use its principles as they develop the data analyses to be used in the final project papers.

Recommended (and available in the laboratory)
Cannon, Debi Yee (1987) Marine Fish Osteology: a Manual for Archaeologists. Simon Fraser University, Department of Archaeology, Burnaby.

Cohen, A. and D. Serjeantson (1996) A Manual for the Identification of Bird Bones from Archaeological Sites. Archetype Publications Ltd, London.

Hesse, B. and P. Wapnish (1985) Animal Bone Archaeology: from Objectives to Analysis. Manuals on Archaeology 5, Taraxacum, Washington, D.C.

Hillson, Simon (1996) Mammal Bones and Teeth: an Introductory Guide to Methods of Identification. Institute of Archaeology, University College of London.

Course Format - This class is designed for advanced undergraduates and graduate students, and is both seminar and laboratory. During approximately half the class meetings, we'll discuss the readings. I expect everyone to come to class well-prepared for discussion; bring the readings to class so we can refer to them, and come with questions and comments. The other class meetings will involve laboratory work. On Fridays, you will have the opportunity for additional lab time to work with the archaeofaunal assemblages assigned to you. Individuals will work as members of 2-4-person teams on the faunal remains from specific sites in Alaska, Oregon, and California. Work in the lab during additional hours may be necessary to complete your lab projects. If your schedule precludes your ability to work during lab hours, you should not take this class.

Zooarchaeology involves precision in record keeping and data management as well as quantitative skills. Some of the reading is technical. Since we will be working with actual specimens, zooarchaeology students must be able to closely follow instructions, handle materials carefully, work with numerical data, and have some elementary knowledge of algebra, mathematical problem-solving, and statistics. If you are looking for a minimal commitment course to merely satisfy your archaeology requirement, please don't enroll in this class. You will need a genuine interest in the topic to persevere with the required work.

Those of you who know me already know that I expect each student to attend every class. If you are sick with a contagious illness or have another legitimate excuse, please notify me in advance. As a rule in my courses, missed classes result in lower grades. Do not schedule appointments or make any other commitments during class time.

Course Description - The main goals of this class are to:

1. provide you with hands-on experience in the practical skills of working with comparative collections and zooarchaeological assemblages.
2. allow you to become informed consumers of archaeological literature involving the study, analysis, and interpretation of zooarchaeological assemblages.

Studies of vertebrate and invertebrate remains can inform a wide variety of archaeological topics. The bone and shell debris in archaeological sites are the remains of animals people used for food, and whose products were used to make clothing, shelter, and other artifacts. Faunal remains are valuable sources of information on past environments and the ways humans participated in their ecosystems. Certain species are sensitive environmental and/or seasonal indicators and can be used to draw inferences about past environments in the vicinity of a site during the periods or seasons it was occupied. Faunal studies can reveal significant differences in the distribution and abundance of different species in the past. Such studies can be of interest to fisheries and wildlife biologists and managers working to understand contemporary ecological relationships. Faunal remains from archaeological sites are a primary source of information on the structure of past economies, subsistence practices, and land and resource use. Types and distributions of faunal remains can be used to understand the relative economic importance of various animals, the organization of various activities at a site, the degree of sedentism or duration of an occupation, or the effects of human use on local animal populations. In comparative studies, archaeologists may discern differences in the composition, taxonomic diversity, and fragmentation of faunal assemblages resulting from both natural and cultural factors. Archaeologists also use faunal remains as a source of information to understand site formation processes. Higher order interpretations based on zooarchaeological studies have been key components of new insights on the nature of human-animal interactions, including new ideas about early hominid lifeways, the timing and evolution of hunting, the peopling of the Americas, Pleistocene extinctions, global climate change, and many other topics.

The two course goals listed above are interelated; you will understand the zooarchaeological studies you read much better after you have accumulated some experience doing zooarchaeological analysis yourselves. This course will give you hands-on, practical experience as an introduction to zooarchaeology. We study the fundamentals of how archaeologists proceed from recovered bones and shells to inferences about human behavior. We trace the stages from field excavation to laboratory processing, recovery and sampling decisions, identification, and various kinds of analyses, through quantification, analyzing, and reporting faunal data. Sometimes faunal studies are central to archaeological research topics, and sometimes they are not. However, zooarchaeological studies have significant potential to inform larger research issues, and this potential is not always realized. Sometimes the results of faunal analysis are not fully integrated into archaeological reports, and other times the results are mis-used or mis-interpreted. A large number of zooarchaeological publications focus on methodological issues; and understanding the limitations of various methods allows you to critically evaluate archaeological inferences based on zooarchaeological data.

Proficiency in faunal analysis is a long-term endeavor requiring years of effort, sustained practice, as well as comprehensive comparative material from your area of study. It can be tedious and frustrating work, and requires both patience and perseverance. It can also be fascinating and fun. By the end of the term, you should be able to distinguish bird, fish, and mammals bones, analyze marine shell, use comparative collections to make identifications, analyze and interpret numerical data to understand human use of animals as well as non-human factors which structure faunal assemblages. These skills should make it easier to appreciate the methodological literature, help you decipher faunal data in published sources, and allow you to evaluate interpretations of patterning in faunal data. The practical experience will also help you appreciate the many logistical and analytical problems involved in zooarchaeology.

An Unusual Requirement One somewhat unusual course requirement involves the preparation of skeletal specimens for the Department of Anthropology's comparative collection. Each student will be asked to clean and label one carcass outside of class. Procedures and precautions regarding this task will be described.

Grading of Undergraduate Students - Grades will be based on a percentage of 200 possible earned points.

No late assignments will be accepted.

Graduate Student Requirements and Grading - Graduate student grades will be based on a percentage of 250 possible earned points.

In additon to performing all tasks at the graduate level, graduate students have the following additional responsibilities:

1. critique of Reitz and Wing (chapter 4)
2. maintaining group laboratory notes
3. coordination of final project reports
4. additional reading
5. an additional oral presentation

1. Chapter 4 of Reitz and Wing outlines a variety of ecological topics, but does not clearly explain how this information pertains to zooarchaeology. This is why the undergraduates are using a reading guide in which I prompt them to extract the information that I view as most important. From your perspective, I would like you to critically evaluate this chapter. Some questions you might want to consider: What are the strengths and weaknesses of this chapter? How might this chapter have been presented more effectively? What ecological principles relevant to zooarchaeology have been omitted? Which ecological principles that are described are of minimal relevance to zooarchaeology? I encourage you to peruse other texts that might be more effective at conveying this information.

2. Graduate students are required to coordinate the record-keeping of the laboratory work of their team. These lab notes will document the on-going progress of the laboratory research. These notes should be hand-written, but they should be easy to read (in other words, please write neatly and legibly). Laboratory notes should be kept up-to-date on a daily basis (i.e. for each day on which lab work is conducted). Lab notebooks should remain in Condon 264. These notes should document the actual work accomplished, problems encountered, and outside sources pursued to address issues related to laboratory projects.

3. Graduate students are expected to show leadership in helping manage the lab work. I am hoping that you will serve as mentors to the undergraduates in your group. On the other hand, I expect undergraduates to behave responsibly and fully contribute to the work. Grad students will coordinate the final laboratory project reports. Graduate student team leaders will work together with undergraduates to put together high-quality information, analyses, and interpretations.

4. Graduate students are also required to do some additional reading (it is not onerous).

5. There are three graduate student presentations scheduled for this course. Based on the number of grad students I expect, you will work in teams of two. For the assigned day, a team will present a 15-20 min. synopsis of the reading, assess its significance to zooarchaeology, and explain how it connects with other readings and the lab projects with which you are familiar. The presentation will be accompanied by a one-page handout to be distributed to other students. Illustrations from the reading itself can be presented on overheads, if useful. You are invited to meet with me the day before your presentation to discuss its content and review your handout.

Laboratory Projects - The laboratory project involves the actual analysis of a faunal assemblage from a specific archaeological site. Each team will be assigned an assemblage to work with by the second or third week of class. Team members will be collectively responsible for dividing up the labor equitably. The lab work will occur in stages, and each team's assemblage will be suited to specific kinds of analyses. I will be available on Friday afternoons in the laboratory, and you may arrange to work in the laboratory at other times. You are expected to do outside reading relevant to topics related to your assemblage, and here again, you may want to divide the labor. In this class, I want the emphasis to be on the analysis of the assemblage at hand, as opposed to an extensive literature review of a topic that may be tangentially related to your lab project. Your final project report will present the data, your analyses, and interpretations within the context of the field of zooarchaeology. A number of "milestones" to track your progress on the project are built into the class schedule. These include:

The project status report due on 11/15 shall include the following components:

• list of research questions
• list of data to be used to address questions
• assessment of how much has been accomplished to date (numbers of samples analyzed, etc.)
• description of how labor is allocated among individual team members
• brief description of any problems encountered
• list of key literature you are using and will cite in final paper (in References Cited format).

I expect this project status report to be 6-7 pages (not counting the references). I intend to provide specific feedback on this report as rapidly as I can, so as to insure the execution and completion of a solid final paper. The length of final papers will vary depending on the number of team members and the various components of the project. Final reports will include spreadsheets and tables presenting zooarchaeological data you have generated (paper and electronic copies).

Assemblages from the following sites will be analyzed:

49-PET-067, Coffman Cove, is a 4000 year old site in Wrangell Tlingit territory in southeast Alaska, excavated during the summer of 2006. The assemblage is rich in salmonid and deer, with Pacific cod, large rockfish, and beaver represented. Students will:

1. analyze 1/4 inch screened samples to identify elements and species. Amongst the large mammals, are deer more or less abundant than marine mammals? Which marine mammals were most heavily used? What might the bird taxa tell us about site seasonality? Among the small mammals, how does this assemblage compare with that recovered from Cape Addington? What does the abundance of salmon tell us? Can the fish help us identify season of occupation? Is there evidence of food storage? How big (or old) are the rockfish represented in the deposit? How do they compare to the size of rockfish today? What technologies can we infer were used to capture the animals represented in the site?
2. sort bulk samples to quantify shellfish remains and small fish (MNIs and weights of shell taxa). What do the shellfish taxa tell us about the local intertidal environments people used? What species of fish or types of fish elements are represented in the bulk samples that differ from those found in the 1/4 inch screen samples? Which is most important and why? Does preservation of bone vary among the bulk samples, and what might this tell us about how the respective stratigraphic layers formed?
    

49-DIX-046, Kit'n'Kaboodle Cave, a 5000 year old site on Dall Island, one of the outer islands in the Prince of Wales Archipelago. Test excavations took place in 1994, 1996, and 1998. The site appears to contain faunal remains from both people and at least one non-human bone accumulator (probably land otter).

1. analyze bone from 1/8 inch screen samples and bulk samples. Many of the small fish bones from this site will require the microscope for identification. Which small fish taxa are the most abundant? Which taxa are most abundant when the two sample types are compared? Can the taxonomic composition of the specific samples be used to identify which represent human activity versus which were left by land otters? How does the assemblage compare to that of Cape Addington? How does it compare to studies of otter middens or paleontological sites in southeast Alaska? From the cultural samples, what can we learn about the subsistence of site residents? Are there any changes through time in taxonomic abundances?
    

CA-SMI-232, a large shell midden on the south coast of San Miguel Island, California, was first recorded in the 1960s as a "buried village site exposed in [a] gully." The site has since been radiocarbon dated to ca. 1200 cal BP. The midden is composed of two 60 cm thick lenses, a shell lens with a diverse array of intertidal shellfish and nearshore fish remains and a bone lens with thousands of interlocked sea mammal bones and fish remains. Test excavations on both lenses were conducted in 2003, 2004, and 2005 by Ph.D. student Todd Braje. Students will analyze the fish bone from the 1/8" screen residuals from a column sample excavated from the bone lens. The excellent preservation should allow the identification of a large proportion of the assemblage.This bones lens represents a critical time in the Channel Islands history where fishing and sea mammal hunting may have become more central to the economy of site residents.

1. What types of fish were locally available to the site inhabitants? What types of technologies would be required for their capture and processing? Did the taxonomic composition of the assemblage change through time? Did the size of prey species change over time? What might be fueling any economic shifts?
   

The Dunes Site, 35-CLT-27, is located adjacent to U.S. Highway 101 on the northern Oregon coast. The site was excavated during the early 1970s by crews from Clatsop Community College. Two radiocarbon dates indicate the site was occupied between 900-700 RYBP. Excavations yielded a large faunal assemblage, and a list of taxa present was reported in 1991 by Harrison and Longo. Not all bone was recovered during excavation, but the large scale of the excavation produced many large identifiable faunal specimens. Our work (in association with Dr. Guy Tasa) will hopefully result in a better understanding of the research potential of this assemblage.

1. sort bone into major categories: mammal, bird, and fish, and then analyze species focusing on fish, birds, and marine mammals. What might the fish bone tell us about the environment at the time this site was occupied? Located within the Clatsop Plains, was this site located adjacent to an estuarine or marine habitat at some time in the past? Which birds are represented? Are the cut marks present on the bones evidence of butchery, skin preparation, or bird bone tool production? Which marine mammals are present? Might this site yield evidence of precontact marine mammal distributions that differ from those of today? Three species of deer and one of elk have been identified at the site. Can the distinctions of deer species be maintained? What new information might derive from study of the cervids? Ideally our preliminary results will be used to develop a proposal to conduct further analyses of the materials.
    

If you have a documented disability and anticipate needing accommodation in this course, please contact me soon. Please also request that the Counselor for Students with Disabilities send a letter verifying your disability.
 

ANTH 471/571 Course Packet (listed alphabetically)

Bowdler, Sandra (2006) Mollusks and Other Shells. In Archaeology in Practice: a Student Guide to Archaeological Analyses, edited by Jane Balme and Alistair Peterson, pp. 316-337. Blackwell, Malden, MA.

Casteel, R.W (1976) Fish Remains in Archaeology. Academic Press, New York. pp. 7-16.

Dirrigl, Frank J. (1991) Health Issues Concerning Animal Preparation. In Guide to the Curation of Archaeozoological Collections, ed. by Erin Henry, pp. 44-47. Florida Museum of Natural History, Gainesville.

Driver, Jonathan C. (1992) Identification, Classification, and Zooarchaeology. Circaea 9(1)35-47.

O'Connor, Terry and Jame Barrett (2006) Animal Bones. In Archaeology in Practice: a Student Guide to Archaeological Analyses, edited by Jane Balme and Alistair Peterson, pp. 260-295. Blackwell, Malden, MA.

Wheeler, Alwyne and Andrew K.G. Jones (1989) Fishes. Cambridge Manuals in Archaeology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. pp. 61-78.

ANTH 571 Course Packet

Lyman, R. Lee (1996) Applied Zooarchaeology: the Relevance of Faunal Analysis to Wildlife Management. World Archaeology 28(1):110-125.

The following articles form part of a group:
Mason, R.D., M. L. Peterson, and J.A. Tiffany (1998) Weighing vs. Counting: Measurement Reliability and the California School of Midden Analysis. American Antiquity 63:303-324.

Glassow, Michael A. (2000) Weighing vs. Counting Shellfish Remains: A Comment on Mason, Peterson and Tiffany. American Antiquity 65(2):407-414.

Claassen, Cheryl (2000) Quantifying Shell: Comments on Mason, Peterson and Tiffany. American Antiquity 65(2):415-418.

Mason, R.D., M. L. Peterson, and J.A. Tiffany (2000) Weighing and Counting Shell: a Response to Glassow and Claassen. American Antiquity 65(4)757-761.

Schedule of Topics and Readings

Date	Topic	Readings
9/25 - M	Introduction & requirements
9/27 - W	Laboratory protocols, working with comparative collections, introductions to lab projects	Reitz & Wing, Appendix 3 (pp. 361-377); Dirrigl 1991; Zooarchaeology Laboratory Protocols
10/2 - M	Zooarcheology History & Theory	Reitz & Wing, Ch. 1-2 (pp. 1-31); Driver 1992
10/4 - W	Basic Taxonomy, Systematics, Anatomy - Lab #1 - Mammals, Birds	Reitz & Wing, Ch. 3 (pp. 32-84)
10/9 - M	Lab #2 - Fish	Reitz & Wing Ch. 3 review; Casteel 1976; Wheeler & Jones 1989
10/11 W	Field to Lab	O'Connor & Barrett (2006); Bowdler (2006); see Moss (2004); Reitz & Wing Ch. 4 reading guide/ worksheet distributed.
10/16 - M	Lab #3 - Bulk samples - for analyzing shell, fish, and small birds & mammals	Grad Student Presentation: weighing vs. counting shell (Mason et al., Glassow, Claassen); Undergrads: chapter 4 worksheet due.
10/18 - W	Disposal and recovery	Reitz & Wing, Ch. 5 (pp. 110-141)
10/23 - M	Lab #4 - Project Work	Grads: chapter 4 critique due; start using lab notebooks in today's class
10/25 - W	Gathering Primary Data	Reitz & Wing, Ch. 6 (pp. 142-170); see Moss (2004); groups submit data worksheets
10/30 - M	Lab #5 - Project Work	Skeletal Specimen Due
11/1 - W	Gathering Secondary Data	Reitz & Wing, Ch. 7 (pp. 171-238) undergrads: pp. 191-213, 221-238; see Moss (2004)
11/6 - M	Lab #6 - Project Work	Groups submit table outlines and what secondary data they will generate.
11/8 - W	Humans as Predators	Reitz & Wing, Ch.8 (pp. 239-278) Grad Student Presentation
11/13 - M	Lab #7 - Project Work	Review Moss (2004) research questions (ch. 1, 9, 10, 11); Lab notebook review.
11/15 - W	Lab #8 - Project Work	Groups submit report on lab project status.
11/20 - M	Lab #9 - Project Work
11/22 - W	Past Environments	Reitz & Wing, Ch. 10 (pp. 306-319) Grad Student Presentation
11/27 - M	Lab #10 - Project Work
11/29 - W	Course Wrap-up	Reitz & Wing, Ch. 11 (pp. 320-334); Lyman 1996
12/6 -M	Final Papers, Peer Evaluations Due 5:00 pm

Email - You may email me, although I'd prefer that you talk to me in person. If you choose to email me, please put ANTH 471 or ANTH 571 in the subject line, since I receive a large volume of email. Write me a concise message with a specific question or comment. If your question requires more than a single sentence response or a more extended exchange, please talk to me in person. Since I do not do email every day, in case of emergency, it is better to telephone me. For this class, I will not accept written assignments by email. I may email you as a member of the class with an occasional announcement or reference to a reading or URL.