| Summary: | The faunal dataset is comprised of 81,947 specimens, recovered from a variety of contexts within the Dolores Project area (Neusius 1985c; Petersen, Matthews et al. 1986). Nonhuman macrofaunal remains collected during site excavations are by far the most abundant in the DAP assemblage (n=76,224), followed by microfaunal specimens (n=5,723) collected by way of dry screening and flotation processing (Petersen, Matthews et al. 1986). A third set of miscellaneous remains include specimens recovered from coprolites, the skeletal elements of an extinct musk ox, and items collected from packrat middens (Petersen, Matthews et al. 1986). During one of the initial steps of analysis, provenience information for each observation was linked to a broad taxonomic category. As a result, catalog numbers also designate a single taxon. The level of confidence with which each taxonomic assignment was made is also specified. Bones exhibiting patterns of modification resulting from both nonhuman taphonomic processes and cultural use are indicated; specimens exhibiting cultural use were further examined by the Reductive Technologies Group (RTG). Specimens were identified to skeletal element type whenever possible, as well as the side of the body represented. Counts of items sharing these characteristics are given, and it should be emphasized that single line entries in the dataset may reflect several individual bone specimens. As most faunal remains were not complete, a series of attributes indicate the completeness of specimens and their position with respect to the whole bone element (proximality) and complete skeleton (axiality, laterality, and structure). Other observations are also provided, such as the presence or absence of cut marks, breakage patterns and their age, evidence of burning, and the age of an individual. The variables used to identify and describe items in the faunal database at each interval, from recovery to interpretation, are the most suitable observations for identifying the taphonomic processes resulting in the discard of animal remains within a cultural context. For the EAG, this would have been important for reconstructing the economy and adaptive strategies of the Dolores Anasazi with the highest level of accuracy possible. As a result, their contributions were considered especially foundational to efforts in explaining perceived patterns in the archaeological record of the DAP area over time (Lipe 1984; Petersen, Matthews et al. 1986: 199). Variables in the faunal dataset have already been described by Wilshusen et al. (1999). In most cases, their descriptions are suitable for use as metadata and have been repeated almost verbatim here. Selected resources from the collection of published and unpublished DAP reports may have been used for clarification in some cases and will be appropriately referenced.
|
|---|