second draft of favorite work: kingsley cave resource intensity

Grunder 0

Resource Intensification and Processing Intensity through

Time at Kingsley Cave, California

Uri A. Grunder

Department of Anthropology

Humboldt State University

April 1, 2013

Running Title: Resource Intensification: an experimental study of Kingsley Cave, California

Grunder 1

Abstract

This article explores food resource selection and processing intensification at the

prehistoric Kingsley Cave Site (CA-THE-01) within the Yana territory of Northern California.

The site is situated within the steep dominantly chaparral environment of Tehama county within

a rock shelter. Original evidence was provided by Baumhoff and supports occupation of the

Kingsley Cave site beginning approximately 4,000 year B.P. I hypothesize that post-contact

Yana groups were confined to smaller resource patches than their predecessors which abruptly

increased the diversity of faunal resources exploited by the occupants as well as a spike in faunal

resource processing intensity. Research was conducted through three methods. The first was an

analysis of the dominant taxon present within each level of one unit. The second was an analysis

of all fragments by dividing all fragments into arbitrary size classes (in centimeters) and

providing a score per fragment that signifies the extent to which it may have been utilized for

bone marrow or grease extraction (which is thought to correlate to processing intensity; Collins

2010 & Nagaoka 2005). The third method was conducted by taking the average weight value of

bone fragments per level with the intent of comparing mass by level. Trends in identifiable

faunal remains decreased through time however dominant resource selection remained constant

and did not appear to broaden. Rates of marrow and grease exploitation seemed to increase

through time however not in the abruptness displayed by the previous methods and bone size

classes ruled out the utilization of labor intensive grease extraction. Weight trends of

fragmentary bone supported similar conclusions as the second method. All of these methods

resulted in evidence supporting an increase in processing intensity of food resources through

time however rates of change suspiciously vary.

Grunder 2

Introduction

The introduction of Euro-American groups in this area and many others across North

America brought radical alterations and often violent cultural intolerance for Native groups. The

historical pattern of cultural interaction tended to follow Euro-American encroachment, the

disempowerment of indigenous people of their occupied territories, and the Euro-American

violent dismissal of indigenous cultural groups. These indigenous groups responded in a variety

of creative ways to survive these radical and often genocidal pressures. The area near Kingsley

Cave is a shallow cave shelter located within the tribal territory of the Yana, specifically a

subgroup called the Yahi who are thought to be composed of semi-sedentary hunter-gatherer

groups, near Red Bluff in Tehama County, California. The site has been found to have been

occupied for approximately 4,000 years prior to Euro-American contact. After which, territory

development and expansion beginning in the 1850’s led to a sharp decrease in the territorial

space and population size of the Yana people (Baumhoff 1957). A particular incident occurred

after several skirmishes between the Yana people and Euro-American settlers. A group of Euro-

American community members banded together in 1864 and massacred major Yana villages.

This series of massacres was thought to be so intense this ten years later it was thought to have

wiped out the entire cultural group and it’s subgroups. Contrary to belief however, the massacre

scattered the Yana into small pockets of survivors which continued to live over the next 60 years

hiding in sparse distributions amongst the rugged terrain of Tehama County (Baumhoff 1957).

While the history of Kingsley Cave is dark and violent it may provide an observable

example of longitudinal habitation and the effects of cultural intolerance leading to radical

changes in foraging behavior. With the site thought to be inhabited for 4,000 years B.P. in a

geographical location that remains stable enough to uncover faunal materials, I propose that this

Grunder 3

is a unique opportunity to examine the nature of foraging dynamics in this area over time from

initial habitation to after the encroachment of Euro-American cultural groups (Baumhoff 1957).

Martin Baumhoff excavated at the Kingsley Cave site in 1953, a time where collection of faunal

remains and soil screening were not looked upon as necessary or significant. I propose to analyze

the Kingsley Cave data set provided by Baumhoff to explore changes in food selection and

intensification over time using three main methods. The first is to examine taxonomic evidence

for alterations in prey selection through the analysis of taxonomic composition. Statistical

analysis of overall depth of identification may prove useful to exposing trends about resource

selection and processing intensification through time as a decline in accessible resource patches

may increase resource element utilization and fragmentation (Lyman 1992; Nagaoka 2005). A

gauge of bone fragmentation will correlate with the second methodology as processing intensity

is explored and projected in this context. I assume that confined native groups processed

acquired resources more intensely when stressed from outside cultural pressure. Using methods

derived from Collins (2010) the remains will be classified by degree of fragmentation and then

statistically analyzed to project the degree of bone processing intensity by layer. The third

method involves weighing each fragmented specimen in grams and calculating and comparing

the relative abundance of fragment weight per level of unit D5 (the most stratigraphically

complete until of the excavation).

This work retains elements compiled by Nagaoka’s work with New Zealand populations

depressing Moa food resources which in turn decreased foraging efficiency and intensified

resource utilization will be assumed. Nagaoka suggested that as foraging efficiency decreased

(encounter rates lowered or distance traveled to obtain – in this case - Moa resources increased)

bone intensification increased (Yesner 1981). The expected effects were that a greater amount of

Grunder 4

time was spent processing bone for marrow and, if stresses continued, grease (a more labor

intensive method of nutrient extraction that often provided low caloric returns). In order to obtain

these resources, significant damage to the bones themselves must be done. In this project a

comparison will be drawn between the depth of identification of individual faunal elements

through time with an expectation that if older strata had a lower resource processing intensity

identification could frequently be made to lower taxonomic levels (the lowest being the species

level). Whereas in newer post-contact strata if resource processing demands intensified the

remains are expected to be greatly fragmentary/damaged and only broadly identifiable – to the

class or order level (Lyman 1992 & Nagaoka 2005). In other words increased processing

intensity should be reflected in the levels of taxonomic identifiability.

Other major contribution are by Collins who developed a bone fragmentation test that

was thought to numerically express the degree of processing intensity observed within any

individual or compilation of faunal remains. Though the actual parameters of the test is relatively

difficult to understand efforts will be made to adapt Collin’s methods to this project.

Through these major theoretical contributors to Optimal Foraging Thoery I hope to glean

longitudinal information about the resource selection and processing patterns of the occupants of

the Kingsley Cave site. While a pattern will hopefully be uncovered throughout the 4,000 years

of occupancy, the primary goal is to understand changes during the cultural overlap between the

indigenous groups responding to expanding Euro-American pressures.

Grunder 5

Materials and Methods

As stated above, the sample I will be analyzing is one unit excavated by Baumhoff. This

sample was provided to me by the Eagle Lake Field School and in particular Chico State

University. Unit D5 is selected because it retains the most stratigraphic integrity of all the

available units. It has a nearly complete stratigraphic consistency from 0 – 60 inches below

ground with only the 6-12 inch bag of archaeofaunal data missing. The unit was dug at arbitrary

levels of six inches and all extracted faunal material was bagged in small plastic bags and labeled

with sharpie marker. Unfortunately the sediment that were moved during Baumhoff’s excavation

was not screened.

The faunal data itself is composed of approximately 519 fragmented faunal remains that

retained various amounts of fragmentary damage. The majority of these remains were

overwhelmingly medium artiodactyl and more specifically, for those fragments that could be

identified to the species level, Odocoileus hemionus (Mule deer). This data was analyzed with

the following hypotheses in question. The reduction in available resource range patches forced

the Yahi to select lower return resources as the higher return resources within their immediate

area became exhausted over time and that higher resource return fauna obtained would be more

intensely processed for nutrients (i.e. marrow and grease extraction) (Nagaoka 2005).

The first method I employed was to identify all the bones in the assemblage as

specifically as possible. If a reduction in resource range had occurred than it would be expected

that a higher prominence of lower caloric return resources would be more abundantly present in

the recent archaeofaunal strata than in older strata. I would also expect to find a greater degree of

fragmentary damage to the bones within the more recent strata than in older strata. This would in

Grunder 6

turn affect the degree of identification I would be able to provide per specimen which may also

reflect a trend of increasing need to further intensively process food resources for marrow and

grease. To receive accurate determination of identification a comparative faunal collection

provided to the students of Eagle Lake Field School by Chico State University will be used and

cross referenced with literature relevant to faunal identification (Lyman 1992 & Lawrence 1951).

The second method I employed was suggested by Outram (2001) and Collins (2010) and

is designed to distinguish bone fragmented to harvest marrow and grease. The idea behind this

method is that bone and grease extraction from bones was done while the bones were still

relatively fresh and so resulted in particular looking green breaks. It is suggested that the criteria

used here will distinguish bone affected by human actions to obtain marrow and grease from

other post-depositional processes. All fragmentary bones were taken and, indiscriminant of

taxon, were divided into size classes ranging in increments of 10 millimeters. They were also

given a score of 0-2 based on three criteria (totaling to 6 possible awarded points): fracture angle,

surface texture, and fracture outline. As Collins describes the criterion more specifically:

“…for fracture outline, a score of 0 means that there were only helical (or spiral) breaks, a

score of 1 denotes a mixture of fracture outlines and a score of 2 means an absence of helical

outlines. For fracture angle, a score of 0 is assigned if no more than 10% of the fracture surface

was perpendicular to the cortical surface, a score of 1 is assigned of between 10-50% was

perpendicular to the cortical surface, and a score of 2 is assigned of the right angles encompass

more than half of the fracture surface. For fracture surface texture, a score of 0 is assigned if the

surface is completely smooth, a score of 1 is assigned id the surface has some roughness, but the

texture is mostly smooth and a score of 2 is assigned if the fragment has mostly rough edges on

the fracture surface.” (Collins 2010)

Grunder 7

In summary lower scores are indicative of higher rates of marrow or grease harvesting in

fragmented bone. I used the Collins and Outram’s criteria for the Kingsley Cave Site because if

resource intensification did occur and bone marrow and grease were being exploited for

nutritional return than it would be expected that the archaeofaunal remains would be

dramatically impacted. This should reflect a greater degree of fragmentation in the more recent

strata and a lesser degree of fragmentation in older strata. Size classes, denoted by bone length,

will be indicative of marrow and grease extraction. Long fragments tend to be associated with

marrow extraction whereas the more intensive grease extraction is associated with very small

fragments (Collins 2010)

All bone fragments will be weighted during size classification. This will yield

information on the changes in abundance of bone fragments within unit D5 through time. It is

expected that bone weight will increase through time as resource intensification increases. All

together these methods should help define the changes in patterns of resource selection and

intensification of the Yahi people as Euro-American contact impacted their lifestyle.

Grunder 8

Results

The number of identified specimen by level is for the Kingsley Cave assemblage is

provided in table 1 and appendix 1. It shows the number of identified Mule deer elements, the

dominantly exploited faunal resource, drastically change through time. It appears as though there

was an abrupt decline in Stratum 8 (48-54 inches below ground) that dropped approximately

50% (Table 1 & Figure 1). The decline continues until stratum 4 (24-30 inches below ground)

where a small incline is observed until stratum 1 (0-6 inches below ground) where a sudden drop

is observed. However, this is not reflective of a decrease in Mule deer encounter rates or in

declining use. As figure 2 points out, comparing elements identified to Mule deer and those

identified to the broader Medium Artiodactyl, as average Mule deer identifications decrease

Medium Artiodactyl identifications increase. This may be indicative of increasing resource

processing intensity as bones are damaged further and further into ambiguity.

The second approach involved categorizing each bone fragment into sizes by length in

increments of 10 millimeters and giving each fragment a score based on the methodologies of

Outram and Collins described above. A scatter graph of the average score values per level was

plotted (refer to Figure 3) which revealed a very subtle increase in the number of bone fragments

likely used for marrow and grease extraction. This graph compared positively to the average

weight of bone fragments per level (Figure 4) conducted during the third phase of this project. A

comparison showed that there was an increase in bone weight in concurrence with an increase in

bone fragmentation likely associated with marrow/grease extraction (see Figure 4).

Grunder 9

After dividing the assemblage into arbitrary size classes of 10 millimeter increments

results showed that nearly all 9 levels within unit D5 retained the same dominant fragment size

class between 30 and 40 millimeters (see table 4) on average.

Grunder 10

Discussion

I have demonstrated that this analysis may have results that suggest a general rise in

faunal processing intensity through time. However it seems as though foraging efficiency did not

decline to the point of smaller and less caloric return faunal resources were sought out. The first

method of identifiable of faunal remains and calculating a percentage against the entire

assemblage was a great success. Plotting the results on a scatter graph revealed that older strata

retained higher species level identifiable bone fragments than did more recent strata. The graph

itself even revealed an abrupt drop of approximately 50% over the course of stratum 8 to stratum

7. Further revealed in figure 2 there is a direct relationship between Medium Artiodactyl and

Mule deer identified specimen. As the presence of Mule deer identification declines there is an

increase in the presence of Medium Artiodactyl identifications. This is not a reflection of lower

resource encounter rates but a reflection of an increase of resource bone intensification. Similar

to Nagaoka’s work mentioned in the introduction, the increases in resource processing intensity

result in increased damage to the bone which results in an identification of individual bone

specimen to drop to broader and more general taxonomic levels.

There were very few other represented fauna aside from Mule deer and no other tacon

came close to assemblage domination as Mule deer which suggests that groups of this area are

either not needing to or choosing not to exploit lower return fauna to sustain them. This may

suggest that over all encounter rates may not have changed dramatically through time and high

return rate resources remain the dominant represented fauna throughout this unit and others

(Baumhoff 1957). This scenario may be answered by the sharp decrease in the human population

exploiting these resources. If the Kingsley Cave site had an abrupt decrease in the human

population exploiting Mule deer resources and Euro-American populations hesitated to enter the

Grunder 11

rough and brushy territory of Tehema County then an increase in the resource population should

be observed and little overall change might occur in resource intensification by the remaining

indigenous population in hiding.

The second method of graphing the scores of bone utilization and average weights within

stratum were a little unexpected but supportive none the less. Although both the bone use graph

and the graphs of faunal identification are consistent with my hypothesis, the rate of change

seems rather inconsistent. The graphs of both Bone utilization and Average Weight per Level

show that as bone weight and processing intensity increase equally through time. With regards to

the marrow and grease extraction of fragmented bone score I question the validity of Outram’s

and Collin’s methodology. The criteria set in both of these authors reports seem a little too vague

for reproduction by other analysts and an substantial error margin seems may be prominent.

Dividing all bone fragments into size classes was very beneficial in understanding

whether bone marrow and/or grease extraction was being utilized. Analysis showed that almost

all 9 levels retained the same dominant size class of fragmentary bone, between 30-40mm. This

is indicative of bone marrow extraction which leaves behind fairly long fragments and is

relatively low in labor processing effort for caloric gain. Grease extraction on the other hand,

which is far more labor intensive would be indicated by smaller fragments than what was

observed suggesting that grease extraction was not generally utilized within this assemblage

(Collins 2010).

However, there are some critiques that I have for the hypothesis. My argument was

founded upon the idea that a reduction in resource patch range would directly influence

processing intensity and while the results did show a trend of increased bone processing

Grunder 12

intensity, it was not in at the scale I expected. A substantial problem regards the sense of time to

go with each level. Although there is the law of Superposition claims that the most recent

material is going to be nearest the top and the oldest nearest the bottom there are no radiocarbon

dates associated with any of the remains in unit D5. The decline in species identifiable bone

fragments at stratum 8 may correlate with the massacre of 1864 or it may be indicative of a much

earlier change; maybe an environmental shift that caused a need for resource intensification. In

such a case it may be the sharp drop observed at stratum 2 where Euro-American contact impacts

affected the Yahi people. My last critique concerns the rate of organic decomposition. If rate of

decomposition are high then smaller faunal remains may not have survived thus skewing an

accurate representation of foraging behavior. On that note remains determined to be significant

by the excavators may have leaned towards the collection of some faunal remains over others.

Overall this project remained insightful to a deeper understanding of the resource

processing intensification of the occupants of the Kingsley Cave site. With a few radio carbon

dates on the specimen within unit D5 a temporal framework could be matched with the strata and

an even greater understanding be experienced. This project provided evidence supporting a

hypothesis a sharp increase in resource processing intensity occurred though time. A greater

amount of individual high caloric return resources, Mule deer, were harvested for nutrients

leaving behind an increased amount of bone fragments that were not species identifiable as well

as an increased net weight of fragmentary bone and evidence for an increase in bone marrow

extraction.

Grunder 13

Acknowledgments

I would like to take this opportunity to express my thanks to all those who have helped

me along through this project. Thank you to Chico State University for providing me with the

sample that made all of my analysis possible and for providing a faunal comparative collection.

To Frank Bayham for pushing me to go above and beyond the small scope of work I had

reserved for myself. To Jordan Meyers for getting his work done so quickly and vigilantly. He

has been a power house to my study. To all the people around me who have jumped in to help

me with excel graphs. To all the lovely ladies wielding Mac computers who have put up with me

time after time to print and re-print rough drafts. Thank you to John and Tracy for providing us

the opportunities to study at the Eagle Lake Field School and cooking some of the best food I

have ever eaten three times a day every day! Thank you to Karuja, Loretta, and Janet for the

intellectual support to push through this project. Thank you to Nikki who has been the source of

my energy and encouragement to give my all into this class and who has been a second editor to

all of my work. And last but not least, a very special thanks to Professor Jack Broughton who

was instrumental in not only shaping my project but also aiding me in the full development of

this paper and all its results. Without him this project would have withered away.

Grunder 14

References

Baumhoff, M. A. (1957). An introduction to Yana archaeology. University of California

Archaeological Survey Report Number 40, 1-71.

Burger, O. et al (2005). The prey as patch model: optimal handling of resources with

diminishing returns. Journal of Archaeological Science, 32: 1147-1158.

Collins, G.E. (2010). Bone fragmentation as an indicator of subsistence stress in the north

coast ranges of California. Clairfornia State University, Chico.

Lawrence, B. (1951). Part II: post-cranial skeletal characters of deer, pronghorn, and

sheep-goat with notes on bos and bison. Papers of the Peabody Museum of American

Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University Report Number 4, Peabody Museum

press, Cambridge.

Lyman, R.L. (1992). Taxonomic identification of zooarchaeological remains. Journal of

Archaeological Science, 28: 377-386

Nagaoka, L. (2005). Declining foraging efficiency and moa carcass exploitation in

southern New Zealand. Journal of Archaeological Science, 32: 1328-1338

Outram, A. K. (2001). A new approach to identifying bone marrow and grease

exploitation: why the “indeterminate” fragments should not be ignored. Journal of

Archaeological Science, 28: 401-410.

Yesner, D.R. (1981). Archaeological applications of optimal foraging theory: harvest

strategies of Aleut hunter-gatherers.

Grunder 15

Figure Captions

Figure 1. NISP values for Odocoileus hemionus as a percent within the entire assemblage.

Figure 2. Percentage of Identification for Mule deer and Medium Artiodactyl fragments through

time.

Figure 3. The results of Outram’s and Collin’s methodology for measuring bone marrow and

grease extraction within bone fragments per level.

Figure 4. Average weight of bone fragments per level expressed in grams.

Grunder 16

Figure 1. NISP values for Odocoileus hemionus as a percent within the entire assemblage.

0.00%

0.05%

0.10%

0.15%

0.20%

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Ide

nti

fie

d S

pe

cim

en

to

en

tire

ass

em

ble

ge

Depth (Levels)

Grunder 17

Figure 2. Percentage of Identification for Mule deer and Medium Artiodactyl fragments through

time.

-0.20%

0.00%

0.20%

0.40%

0.60%

0.80%

1.00%

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Pe

rce

nta

ge o

f Id

en

tifi

cati

on

Depth (Level)

NISP for Odocoileushemionus as apercentage per Level

Med Artiodactyl

Linear (NISP forOdocoileus hemionusas a percentage perLevel)Linear (MedArtiodactyl)

Grunder 18

Figure 3. The results of Outram’s and Collin’s methodology for measuring bone marrow and

grease extraction within bone fragments per level.

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

0 2 4 6 8 10

Bo

ne

Uti

lizat

ion

Depth (Level)

Inverse Bone Utilization Score:

Grunder 19

Figure 4. Average weight of bone fragments per level expressed in grams.

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

0 2 4 6 8 10

We

igh

t in

Gra

ms

(Ave

rage

)

Depth (Level)

Average Weight per Level

Average Weight per Level

Grunder 20

Table 1. NISP values for all present taxa per level

Level

Taxon 0-6 12-18 18-24 24-30 30-36 36-42 42-48 48-54 54-60

Odocoileus hemionus 11 1 3 2 2 2 3 6 4

Otospermophilus beecheyi 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0

Cervus elaphus 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Medium Artiodactyl 18 2 8 16 5 6 7 2 2

Unidentifiable Fragments 96 19 71 96 43 27 24 23 14

Sciuridae 0 0 0 1 0 27 0 0 0

Lepus californicus 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0

Grunder 21

Table 2. NISP for Odocoileus hemionus (Mule deer) as a percentage against the entire

assemblage per level.

Level (Inches) NISP for Odocoileus hemionus as a percentage per Level

0-6 0.01%

12-18 0.04%

18-24 0.03%

24-30 0.02%

30-36 0.04%

36-42 0.05%

42-48 0.08%

48-54 0.19%

54-60 0.20%

Grunder 22

Table 3. Average Bone Utilization Scores per Level

Level (Inches) Average Bone Utilization Score per Level

0-6 2.54

12-18 1.36

18-24 2.54

24-30 2.02

30-36 2.19

36-42 1.66

42-48 2.24

48-54 2.85

54-60 2.42

Grunder 23

Table 4. Average Dominant Bone Size Class Per level

Level Average Dominant Bone Size per Level

0-6 40-50

12-18 30-40

18-24 30-40

24-30 30-40

30-36 30-40

36-42 40-50

42-48 30-40

48-54 30-40

54-60 30-40

Grunder 24

Table 5. Average weight of bone fragments per level

Level (Inches) Average Weight per Level (grams)

0-6 3.05

12-18 2.98

18-24 2.11

24-30 2.64

30-36 3.00

36-42 2.23

42-48 3.16

48-54 2.51

54-60 2.52

Grunder 25

Appendix A. Raw Data describing NISP values for all Fauna per level.

Kingsley Cave Project 1-133431 Unit: D5 0-6 inches

Depth of Identification

NISP Calcined Charred Butchering Marks Weight (in grams)

Odocoileus hemionus

11 0 1 2 84

Cervus Elaphus

1 0 0 0 7

Medium Artiodactyl

18 0 1 3 102.5

Unidentifiable Fragments

96 3 1 1 84

Sum

126 3 3 6 277.5




Odocoileus hemionus

1 0 0 1 15

Medium Artiodactyl

2 0 0 0 12.5


19 0 0 0 38

Sum

22 0 0 1 65.5

Grunder 26




Odocoileus hemionus

3 0 0 0 24.5

Otospermophilus

beecheyi

2 0 0 0 0.5

Medium Artiodactyl

8 0 0 2 44.5


71 5 3 3 112

Sum

84 5 3 5 181.5




Odocoileus hemionus

2 0 0 0 19

Medium Artiodactyl

16 1 1 4 113

Sciuridae

1 0 0 0 1


96 4 3 5 177

Sum

115 5 4 9 310

Grunder 27




Odocoileus hemionus

2 0 0 0 33.5

Medium Artiodactyl

5 0 0 2 15


43 5 4 2 79

Sum

50 5 4 4 127.5




Odocoileus hemionus

2 0 0 0 33.5

Lepus californicus

1 0 0 0 1.5

Medium Artiodactyl

6 0 0 2 23


27 4 0 0 57

Sum

36 4 0 2 115

Grunder 28




Odocoileus hemionus

3 0 0 0 13.6

Medium Artiodactyl

7 0 0 2 35.5


24 1 1 3 63

Sum

34 1 1 5 112.1




Odocoileus hemionus

6 0 0 1 37.5

Lepus californicus

1 0 0 0 1.5

Medium Artiodactyl

2 0 0 0 1


23 2 0 0 33.5

Sum

32 2 0 1 73.5

Grunder 29




Odocoileus hemionus

4 0 0 0 18

Medium Artiodactyl

2 0 0 1 5


14 0 0 1 25.5

Sum

20 0 0 2 48.5

Grunder 30

Appendix B. Raw average data for the second method of the project.

0-6 “ Depth

Size Class (mm) Average Total Value Frequency of Size Abundance Average Weight Count (grams)

0-10 6.00 1 3.05

10-20 4.20 15

20-30 3.48 21 Average Total Score by Level:

30-40 2.59 17 2.54

40-50 2.52 25

50-60 1.80 15 Dominant Bone Fragment Size (mm)

60-70 2.00 8 40-50

70-80 2.00 9

80-90 1.00 4

90-100 2.50 2

100-110 4.00 1

140-150 1.00 1

160-170 0.00 1

Grunder 31

12-18” Depth

Size Class(mm) Average Total Value Frequency of Size Abundance Average Weight Count (grams)

10-20 2.00 1 2.98

20-30 2.00 2


40-50 1.00 2 1.36

50-60 0.50 2

60-70 1.75 4

Dominant Bone Fragment Size

(mm)

70-80 1.50 2 30-40

80-90 0.00 1

18-24” Depth


10-20 4.00 7 2.11

20-30 3.10 10


40-50 2.50 12 2.54

50-60 1.53 17


70-80 1.00 1 30-40

80-90 5.00 1

Grunder 32

24-30” Depth


0-10 5.25 4 2.64

10-20 2.89 9


30-40 2.50 28 2.02

40-50 1.44 16


60-70 2.17 6 30-40

70-80 0.00 2

80-90 1.50 4

90-100 2.67 3

130-140 0.00 1

30-36” Depth

Size class (mm) Average Total Value Frequency of Size Abundance Average Weight Count (grams)

10-20 2.00 5 3.00

20-30 2.00 8


40-50 2.20 5 2.19

50-60 1.50 8


70-80 0.00 1 30-40

80-90 0.00 1

90-100 4.00 1

130-140 6.00 1

Grunder 33

36-42” Depth

Size Class (mm) Average Total Score Frequency of Size Abundance Average Weight Count (grams)

10-20 0.00 1 2.23

20-30 3.00 4


40-50 2.30 10 1.66

50-60 2.40 5


40-50

42-48” Depth

Size class (mm) Average Total Score Frequency of Size Abundance Average Weight Count (grams)

10-20 6.00 3 3.16

20-30 1.50 2


40-50 1.33 6 2.24

50-60 1.40 5


90-100 0.50 2 30-40

Grunder 34

48-54” Depth

Size Class (mm) Average Total Score Frequency of Size Abundance Average Weight Count (grams)

10-20 5.00 4 2.51

20-30 3.50 6


40-50 2.25 4 2.85

50-60 1.75 4


90-100 5.00 1 30-40

54-60” Depth

Size class (mm) Average Total Score Frequency of Size Abundance Average Weight Count (grams)

20-30 4.00 3 2.52

30-40 3.00 7


50-60 2.00 2 2.42

60-70 2.00 3


30-40

second draft of favorite work: kingsley cave resource intensity

Documents

american groups

resource intensification

processing intensification

yana people baumhoff

history of kingsley

euroamerican encroachment

food resource selection

euroamerican settlers