8/6/2019 Reitz 1986

1/13

Board of Trustees, Boston University

Vertebrate Fauna from Locus 39, Puerto Real, HaitiAuthor(s): Elizabeth J. ReitzSource: Journal of Field Archaeology, Vol. 13, No. 3 (Autumn, 1986), pp. 317-328Published by: Boston UniversityStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/530119 .

Accessed: 05/07/2011 21:54

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless

you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you

may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at .http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=boston. .

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed

page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Boston University andBoard of Trustees, Boston University are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preser

and extend access toJournal of Field Archaeology.

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=bostonhttp://www.jstor.org/stable/530119?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=bostonhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=bostonhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/530119?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=boston

8/6/2019 Reitz 1986

2/13

Vertebrateauna romLocus39, PuertoReal,Haiti

ElizabethJ. ReitzUniversity f GeorgiaAthens,Georgia

Puerto Real was a Spanish townfounded between 1502 and 1505 on theisland of Hispaniola, in what is now Haiti. Analysis of the vertebratefaunaexcavated in 1981 from one section of the town, Locus 39, indicates thatcattle were abundant and that use of other taxa was limited. Thefaunalcollection included 71,179 bones, weighing 207,703.92 g. The remains of atleast 60 individuals were identified, most of which were cattle. These wererepresentedprimarily by bones forming the radio-carpal and tibia-tarsaljoints. Analysis of these data suggests that cattle were an importantpart ofPuerto Real's economy and that Locus 39 was both a residential and aspecial-activity area where cattle were processed for commercial products.Introduction

In studyingvertebrateemains rom Locus39, PuertoReal, some aspectsof the collectionseemed to indicatea non-domestic unction for the site. Since the faunalcollection s froman islandwherecattlehides andtallowwereprocessed or commercial xport, t was importanttodeterminewhetherLocus39 wastheproduct f house-hold activities,of commercialones, or of both. Deter-mininghow animalscame to be partof Locus39, andwhat happened o them once they got there, requiresreviewing hehistoryof the islandand ts cattle ndustry,faunalremainsrecovered rom otherearly Spanishdo-mestic sites in the Caribbeanand in SpanishFlorida,andtheinfluenceof socioeconomicandtaphonomicac-torson faunalcollectionsas well as examininghe meth-ods used to processcattle for hides, beef, tallow, andotherby-products.PuertoReal and HispaniolanCattleThe site of PuertoReal is located on the northcoastof what is now Haiti (FIGS.1, 2). The town was estab-lishedbetween1502 and 1504. Its main valuelay in itsport, throughwhich were shippedslaves for work atmajormines as well as hides and tallow and perhapsfish.' Originally,abouta hundredEuropean ouseholds

were establishedat Puerto Real.2By 1514, however,there were 839 Indians but only 20 Spanishcitizensremaining.3The town, along with the restof the northcoast, was orderedabandoned etween 1578 and 1605because of illegal tradingwith Portugueseships andraidingby Frenchships.4 Althoughthe town was offi-ciallyclosed in 1578, somepeoplecontinuedivingthereuntil 1582.The site was identifiedby W. H. Hodges, using ac-countsof Columbus'voyageand artifacts romthe site.It is currentlybeing studied under the direction ofK. Deagan, FloridaState Museum.The knownextentof PuertoReal is about 17 ha. There are no standingstructures, lthoughrubble from two buildings(Build-ings A and B) form moundsnear the town's center.Excavationshavebeenconductedat thesemounds,at aresidentialarea on the east side of the town (Loci 33and 35, or Area 35), a residentialareaoccupiedby arelativelywealthyhouseholdon the NEside of the town(Locus 19), and at Locus 39 (Area 19) on the sw side

1. B. de LasCasas,TheSpanishColonie(ReadexMicroprint966);C. O. Sauer,TheEarlySpanishMain(University f California ress:Berkeley 1969) 153-154, 159; T. Floyd, The Columbus Dynasty inthe Caribbean1492-1526 (Universityof New Mexico Press:Albu-querque 1973) 63, 66; P. Hoffman, The Spanish Crown and theDefense of the Indies 1535-85 (Louisiana State University Press:BatonRouge 1980) 118-120.

2. C. H. Haring, The Spanish Empire in America (Harcourt andBrace:New York1947)207n.;Sauerop. cit. (in note 1) 198-202.3. Sauer,op. cit. (in note 1) 198-202.4. C. Hernandez-Tapia,Despoblacionese la islade SantoDomingoen el Siglo XVII," Anuario de Estudios Americanos 27 (1970) 281-320;E. Lyon,"PuertoReal:Research n a SpanishTown on Hispa-niola'sNorthCoast,"manuscriptn file, Departmentf Anthropology, FloridaStateMuseum,Gainesville1981.5. M. Williams,"Sub-surfaceatterningtPuertoReal: a 16thCen-turyTown on Haiti'sNorthCoast,"JFA 13 (1986)283-296.

8/6/2019 Reitz 1986

3/13

318 VertebrateFauna from Locus 39, Puerto Real, Haiti/Reitz

St Augustine

!ATLANTICCEAN

GULF OF MEXICO

HavanaM e x i c o

Cit Veracruz YUCATAN -'lc' PuertoReal

JAMAICA *Isabella PUERTOOf HISPANOLA-.> RICOGC Santo-CGUATEMALA EDomingoHONDURASANTILLESCARIBBEANEAPACIFICCEAN"0 to

N Cubagua. ,,rMargaritaN 0 0 1000 Kms.0 500 1000 Kms. f

Figure 1. CaribbeanBasin.

TORTUGA ATLANTIC OCEANI s a b e l l a P u e r t oPuerto. 1

PataReal 4- , CC a H a i t i a nASIp

D a CI 4 0 9/ RP L A I N E G r a n d e ? Y I 1 O 1C E N T R A L R i v i e r e DOMINICAN REPUBLIC Samana Bay

GONAVEHAITII y4 CO R4ayWINDWARD/L L MONAPA S SA G

Ea ort-pC6ne CU _ , --PA S SAGE

oau-PrincemnoMASSIF DE LA HOTTE S/Ac',0/VR/,

Domingo* ...iA S S I F S E L L E u l L O

4o/"/0/UCo0N N0 50 10CARIBBEAN SEA O 0 100 Kms

Figure 2. Haiti.

8/6/2019 Reitz 1986

4/13

Journal of Field Archaeology/Vol. 13, 1986 319of the town.6 A sub-surface test of the town indicatedthat Loci 33 and 35 contain materials which reflect higheconomic status.7Locus 19, currentlyunder study by C.Ewen, appears to be similar to Loci 33/35 although itcontains more faunal remains. Both may be areas thathave primarilydomestic associations.8 Locus 39 containsmedium amounts of majolica (tin-glazed earthenwares)andunglazed coarse earthenwares, large amounts of ma-sonry constructionmaterial, the largest quantityof mar-avedis (coins), fewer European materials, a higherproportion of aboriginal wares, and larger quantities ofanimal bone than any other area of the town.9 It appearsto be an area of middle-range economic status.1?Cattledid well on Hispaniola,'"probablyhaving comeoriginally from herds in Spain or the Canary Islands.12There were claims that cows bred two or three times ayear.13 Many cattle owners had herds which containedmore than 1000 to 2000 head, and there were someherds with 3000 to 4000 head within a few years aftercolonization. An occasional herd might have numberedgreater than 8000.14 As many as 200,000 hides15were

exported from Hispaniola annually, but only a portionof the cattle trade is documented since much of it waswith French, Portuguese, and English ships and wasillegal.16 Illicit trade was much more extensive on thenorthcoast of Hispaniola than on the south coast, whichis one reason that Puerto Real was abandoned.17SubsistenceEvidence from Early Spanish Sites

While more research needs to be done, some archae-ological evidence is available for the use of vertebratesby 16th-century Spaniards. In Spanish Florida, domesticanimals, primarilycattle, hogs, and chickens, were sup-plemented extensively by wild fauna, primarily deer,turtles, and fishes.'8 In a sample from the Convento deSan Francisco, Santo Domingo, more than 50% of theindividuals were of domestic taxa, almost half of whichwere sheep or goats.19 The remaining 47% of the indi-viduals representedwild fauna, primarilyfishes, but alsosea turtles, manatee, and a cetacean. In a sample fromNueva Caidizon Cubagua Island, approximately 20% ofthe vertebrate individuals were domestic species, ofwhich pigs were the most extensively used.20 Heavy usewas made of marine species, 80% of which were fromthe inshore-estuarinearea. Sea turtles probably contri-buted 40% of the meat diet. In a collection from Loci33/35 at Puerto Real (Area 35), B. G. McEwan foundthat 42% of the individuals were domestic.21 The re-maining individuals were primarily freshwater terrapins(33% of the individuals) rather than fishes or birds.

MethodsIn 1981, 44 one-sq m contiguous units were excavatedin natural levels from Locus 39 by J. M. Hamilton,

6. J. Hamilton, "ProjectPuerto Real: a Study of Early Urban Designon Hispaniola," manuscript on file, Department of Anthropology,Florida State Museum, Gainesville 1981; C. H. Fairbanks and R.Marrinan, "The Puerto Real Project, Haiti," Journal of New WorldArchaeology 5:2 (1982) 67-72; B. McEwan, "Spanish Colonial Ad-aptation on Hispaniola: the Archaeology of Area 35, Puerto Real,Haiti," unpublished M.A. thesis, University of Florida (Gainesville1983); G. Shapiro, "A Soil Resistivity Survey of 16th-CenturyPuertoReal, Haiti," JFA 11 (1984) 101-110; R. Willis, "Empire and Ar-chitecture at 16th Century Puerto Real, Hispaniola-an Archaeolog-ical Perspective," unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University ofFlorida(Gainesville 1984); C. R. Ewen, "SpanishColonial Adaptationto the New World: Current Research at Puerto Real, Haiti," paperpresented at the 11th International Congress on Caribbean Archeol-ogy, San Juan, Puerto Rico (1985); B. McEwan, "Domestic Adap-tation at Puerto Real, Haiti," HistArch (1986) 44-49; K. Deagan,"Analysis of Archaeological Remains from Area 19, Puerto Real,Haiti," manuscripton file, Departmentof Anthropology, Florida StateMuseum, Gainesville n.d.).7. McEwan, 1983 loc. cit. (in note 6); Williams, loc. cit. (innote 5).8. Williams, loc. cit. (in note 5).9. Ibid.; Deagan, loc. cit. (in note 6).10. Williams loc. cit. (in note 5).11. G. F. de Oviedo, Natural History of the West Indies, translatedby S. A. Stoudemire (University of North Carolina Press: Chapel Hill1959) 11.12. J. E. Rouse, The Criollo (University of Oklahoma Press: Norman1977) 27-28.13. A. W. Crosby, The Columbian Exchange (Greenwood Press:Westport, Conn. 1972) 76.14. Oviedo, op. cit. (in note 11) 9.15. Hernandez-Tapia, op. cit. (in note 4) 285.

16. Hoffman, op. cit. (in note 1) 115-116.17. C. H. Haring, The Buccaneers in the West Indies in the XVIICentury (Anchor Books: Hamden, Conn. 1966) 66; Hernandez-Tapia,loc. cit. (in note 4); Lyon, loc. cit. (in note 4).18. Elizabeth J. Reitz and C. Margaret Scarry, Reconstructing His-toric Subsistence with an Example From Sixteenth-Century SpanishFlorida. Special Publication Series 3 (Society for Historical Archae-ology: Glassboro, NJ, 1985).19. J. M. Goggin, Spanish Majolica in the New World. Yale Univer-sity Publications in Anthropology 2 (Yale University Press: NewHaven 1968); S. L. Cumbaa, "Patterns of Resource Use and Cross-CulturalDietary Change in the Spanish Colonial Period," unpublishedPh.D. dissertation, University of Florida (Gainesville 1975) 61-66.20. E. S. Wing, "Animal Remains Excavated at the Spanish Site ofNueva Cadiz on Cubagua Island, Venezuela," Nieuwe West-IndischeGids 2 (1961) 162-165; I. Rouse and J. Cruxent, Venezuelan Ar-chaeology (Yale University Press: New Haven 1963) 134; Goggin,op. cit. (in note 19) 42.21. McEwan, 1983 op. cit. (in note 6) 84-85; idem, 1986 loc. cit.(in note 6).

8/6/2019 Reitz 1986

5/13

320 VertebrateFauna from Locus 39, Puerto Real, Haiti/Reitzusing a I-inch screen to recover artifacts.22Aboriginalceramics, majolicas such as Columbia Plain, maravedis,tiles, and griddle fragments were recovered. Otheritemsincluded a hawk's bell, a jew's harp, game pieces, abuckle, a thimble, two pins, a horse or ox shoe, scissors,lace, and dagger tips.The vertebratefaunal materials were studiedusing thecomparative collection of the Florida State Museum'sZooarchaeology Laboratory.Faunalremains from Levels3 and 4, and associated features and postholes, werestudied. Minimum numbers of individuals (MNI) weredetermined by paired elements and age. While therewere some temporal differences between the two levels,there had probably been a great deal of mixing of ma-terials within each level. For this reason, when deter-mining MNI, bones from the two levels were analyzedseparately. Within a level all bones were combined un-less from features or postholes. Age was determined bythe state of fusion of selected elements.23Biomass wasestimatedusing linearregressions of body weight againstbone weight.24Most of the bones were of large mammalswhich could not be identified to either species or order.These bones were divided into the categories "Mammal"and "Large Mammal." "Mammal" fragments were lessthan 5 cm in size, while "Large Mammal" fragmentswere larger than this. The smaller fragments could havebeen from either large or small mammals, although theyprobably were from large mammals.Ratios of observed to expected numbers of elementswere calculated to ascertain the degree of skeletal com-pleteness. The most abundant observed element wasused as a standardagainst which to predict the expectednumbers of other elements. The expected level was re-duced by half for non-paired elements such as an atlasand doubled for elements represented by two bones perlimb such as proximal phalanges and the fused distalradius/ulna. Hind and forequarterswere calculated sep-

arately to see if differences existed in the use of thesebody parts.Results

The results of identificationshow the Locus 39 faunato be composed predominantly of unidentifiedmammaland large mammal fragments (TABLE1). Most of theidentifiable individuals were cattle (71% of the non-human individuals). It is assumed that most of the un-identified mammal remains are also cattle bones sinceless than 30% of the individuals were of other species.Pigs are not abundant n the sample, and caprines (sheepor goats) are also rare. Less than 10% of the individualsrepresent wild species, primarily rodents and turtlesratherthan fish. Terrapins(Pseudemys spp.) are presentin small amounts. Of considerable interest is the iden-tification of an extinct rodent, Allen's hutia (Isolobodonportoricensis), in association with 16th-centurydeposits.The identification of the Allen's hutia tooth documentsthat the species survived into that period. These animalsmay have been commensal with human habitations,dragged in by dogs, or kept as pets, but given the quan-tities of hutias identified from other locations at PuertoReal, the one identified from Locus 39 probably waseaten. The manatee (Trichechus manatus) was repre-sented by a modified rib that may have been a tool.Human remains consisted of phalanges. The predomi-nance of cattle and the scarcity of all other taxa, espe-cially wild fauna, is a result which was not anticipatedon the basis of previous work with othercolonial Spanishdeposits.Few of the animals reached adulthood, although mostwere over 18 months of age at death. Only one individ-ual, a pig, died before 18 months. Of the cattle remains,54% were unfused elements. Among individuals, sixwere adults, eight were presumed adults, and 27 weresubadults. This may indicate that efforts were made toobtain young animals, perhaps in preference for theirunblemishedhides. Apparently the condition of the hide(as it correlates with age) was not the only consideration,however, since 34% of the individuals were adults orpresumed adults.Modifications were primarily of three types: cutmarks, bumrning,nd gnawing (TABLE2). Cut marks weredeep cleaver-cuts, and about 1% of the bones werebumed. Both dogs and rodents had gnawed some of thebones. (Other than dogs, there were no camivores onthe island prior to 1492.) Although dogs were clearly afactor in determining what survived in the assemblage,it seems unlikely that the unique characterof the Locus39 collection can be attributedsolely to their activities.If the rodent was not a hutia, rodent-gnawing may beindirect evidence of Old World rats or mice (Rattus

22. Hamilton, loc. cit. (in note 6).23. I. A. Silver, "The Ageing of Domestic Animals," in D. Brothwelland E. Higgs, eds., Science in Archaeology (Praeger:New York 1963)250-268; E. Schmid, Atlas of Animal Bones (Elsevier Publishing:Amsterdam 1972).24. G. G. Simpson, A. Roe, and R. C. Lewontin, QuantitativeZoology (Harcourt, Brace, & Co.: New York 1960) 397; E. S. Wingand A. Brown, Paleonutrition: Method and Theory in PrehistoricFoodways (Academic Press: New York 1979); E. J. Reitz and D.Cordier, "Use of Allometry in Zooarchaeological Analysis," in C.Grigson and J. Clutton-Brock, eds., Animals and Archaeology: 2.Shell Middens, Fishes, and Birds. BARInternational Series 183 (Lon-don 1983) 237-252; E. J. Reitz, I. R. Quitmyer, H. S. Hale, S. J.Scudder, and E. S. Wing, "Application of Allometry to Zooarchaeol-ogy," AmAnt (in press).

8/6/2019 Reitz 1986

6/13

Journal of Field Archaeology/Vol. 13, 1986 321Table1. PuertoReal, Locus 39: specieslist.

Count MNI Weight BiomassTaxon no. % no. % g % kg %UnidentifiedMammal 59,874 84.1 - - 65,053.6 31.3 564.86 31.6UnidentifiedLargeMammal 10,228 14.4 - - 99,566.6 47.9 828.52 46.3Homosapiens(human) 2

8/6/2019 Reitz 1986

7/13

322 Vertebrate Fauna from Locus 39, Puerto Real, Haiti/ReitzFigure3. Elements dentifiedrom hecattle keleton.Dotted inesindicatehy-potheticalutcheringnits.

1 38

38

3328 177

48

Figure4. Bones of theradio-carpalndtibia-tarsaloints,Levels 3 and4.

ULNA 75 RADIUS 37 CALCANEUS37 CALCANEUSTIBIA21

CUNEIFORM 53 LUNARPISIFORM 22 69 67 SCAPHOID 26 FIBULAUNCIFORM 20 20 MAGNUMITRAPEZOID

ASTRAGALUS 45 37 CALCANEUS

2 METACARPAL31

ENTOCUNEIFORM 1331

CUBO-NAVICULAR

METATARSAL 4

CARPUS TARSUS

BLES3, 4) show that in order to account for the numberof lunars identified it would be necessary to have anadditional 65 atlas and 44 distal humeri. A similar un-equal distribution occurs in the hindquarters.The butch-eringunits most frequently missing arethose of the head,scapulae, humeri, metapodials, phalanges, ribs, and ver-tebrae, although those of the pelves, femora, and tibiaeare not common either.

PossibleFactors Affecting AssemblageCharacteristicsSocioeconomic Status of the Occupants

One possible explanation for the characteristicsof thebone assemblage is socioeconomic status. It has oftenbeen assumed that high-status households use more ex-

8/6/2019 Reitz 1986

8/13

Journal of Field Archaeology/Vol. 13, 1986 323Table3. PuertoReal, Locus 39: cattleforelimbs,observed/expectedskeletalelements.

Elements Observed Expected O/EAtlas 4 35 11.4Scapula 4 69 5.8Humerus,proximal 6 69 8.7Humerus,distal 25 69 36.2Radius/ulna, roximal 56 138 40.6Radius/ulna, istal 75 138 54.4Cuneiform 53 69 76.8Pisiform 22 69 31.9Lunar 69 69 100.0Scaphoid 67 69 97.1Unciform 20 69 29.0Magnum/trapezium 20 69 29.0Metacarpal, roximal 2 69 2.9Metapodial,distal(9/2) 4.5 138 3.31stPhalanx 12/2) 6 138 4.42nd Phalanx 18/2) 9 138 6.53rd Phalanx 4/2) 2 138 1.5

Table4. PuertoReal, Locus39: cattlehindlimbs,observed/expectedkeletalelements.Elements Observed Expected O/ESacrum - 22.5Innominate 14 45 31.1Femur,proximal 31 45 68.9Femur,distal 25 45 55.6Patella 3 45 6.7Tibia,proximal 10 45 22.2Tibia,distal 21 45 46.7Astragalus 45 45 100.0Calcaneus 37 45 82.2Fibula 26 45 57.8Cubo-navicular 31 45 68.9Entocuneiform 13 45 28.9Metatarsal, roximal 4 45 8.9Metapodial,distal(9/2) 4.5 90 5.01st Phalanx 12/2) 6 90 6.72ndPhalanx 18/2) 9 90 10.03rd Phalanx 4/2) 2 90 2.2

pensive cuts of meat than do low-status households.25Inexpensive cuts of meat are usually considered to bethose which contain less meat and more bone, such asthe lower legs. When elements recovered from 17th- and18th-century sites on the Atlantic Coastal Plain of theUnited States were compared, however, it was foundthat elements from all sites were similar regardless of

the statusof theiroccupants.26 Cranial elements comprisebetween 21% and 77% of the body parts identified inslave samples and between 21% and 45% of those inplanter collections. This does not mean that high-statusdeposits contained more elements from "meaty" cuts.The range for "meaty"bones in slave samples is between12% and 46%; in high-status collections it is between13% and 54% of the elements. The range for lower-legelements in samples from slave sites is between 8% and46%, and in planter samples between 25% and 50%.In the Locus 39 assemblage, 11% of the cattle ele-ments are from the head, 23.4% from the body, and65.6% from the lower leg. The high level of lower-legfragments is somewhat greater than that found in coastalplanter collections and well beyond the range of theseelements in samples from slave sites. Were it not fornon-faunal archaeological data to the contrary, this mightindicate that Locus 39 is a high-status deposit. The dis-tributionof elements from Locus 39 falls completely outof the range for the 10 sites reviewed for the abovecomparison, while the materials from nearby Loci 33/35(Area 35) fall well within these ranges (head = 39%,body = 22%, lower leg = 39%) and are fairly typicalof historical assemblages in terms of element distribu-tion, regardless of status or location. Some factor otherthan status might be involved, then, in the Locus 39assemblage.TaphonomicFactors

Another factor which might be responsible for theassemblage makeup is the preservation potential of theelements. The bones recovered were in good condition.The large number of unidentified mammal bones is dueto the fact that most of them were badly fragmented.Nonetheless, the high incidence of carpals and tarsalsand the general absence of other identifiable bones couldbe due to natural factors which encouraged the survivalof these bones while the missing elements were de-stroyed.The bulk density of the carpals and tarsals may havebeen important in preserving them against mechanicaland chemical agents of destruction. R. L. Lyman hasfound that density is an important taphonomic variableand correlates with survival in many cases.27 When hisbulk density values (VD) for the elements recoveredfrom Locus 39 are considered, however, it can be seen

25. J. S. Otto, "Status Differences and the Archaeological Record: aComparisonof Planter, Overseer, and Slave Sites from Cannon's PointPlantation (1794-1861), St. Simons Island, Georgia," unpublishedPh.D. dissertation, University of Florida (Gainesville 1975).

26. E.J. Reitz, "Vertebrate Fauna and Socio-economic Status," inS. Spencer-Wood, ed., Socio-economic Status and ConsumerChoices: Perspectives in Historical Archaeology (Plenum: New York,in press).27. R. L. Lyman, "Bone Density and Differential Survivorship ofFossil Classes," Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 3 (1984)

8/6/2019 Reitz 1986

9/13

324 VertebrateFauna from Locus 39, Puerto Real, Haiti/Reitzthatthe presence/absence f elementsin the collectiondoes notconsistently orrespondwithdensity.The ratioof proximal HU1, VD 0.24, N = 6) and distal(HU5,VD 0.39, N = 25) humeri (TABLE ) found in Locus 39suggeststhat in these cases the denserbones survived,as does the ratio of proximal TI1, VD 0.30, N = 10)to distal(TI5, VD 0.50, N = 21) tibiae.Densitycouldalsoexplain he lackof phalanges VD 0.25-0.57, N =37). In some cases, however,less denseelementshavebeen found n the collectionwhile more dense elementsaremissing.Forexample,the distal radius RA5, N =75) has a densityof 0.43 and the proximalmetacarpal(MC6,N = 4) has a densityof 0.51. Onewouldexpectthatproximalmetacarpalragmentswouldbe morecom-monthandistalradius ragmentsn the Locus39 assem-blage, but the reverseis observed.In an examplewithless contrast n bulk density,the distaltibia(TI5, N =21) has a densityof 0.50 while the proximalmetatarsal(MR1, N = 8) has a densityof 0.55. Lymandoes notincludedensity orcarpals;however,theastragalusVD0.47-0.61, N = 45), calcaneus (VD 0.41-0.64, N =37), and cubo-navicularVD 0.33-0.62, N = 31) aremore abundanthanmetatarsals r metacarpals espiteoverlapping r lowerdensityvalues(MC1,MC2, MT1,MT2, VD 0.55-0.69). These correlationsuggest thatthepattern f survivalobserved n the Locus 39 collec-tion cannotbe attributed xclusively to the ability ofsome bones to survive humanand non-humanmodifi-cationbetter hanothers.Theobservationsmadeby C. K. Brain28on goatboneswhichsurviveduse by Hottentot illagersandtheirdogsalso suggestthat the Locus 39 assemblagemay not re-flect whatnormallywouldsurvivedomesticuse. In theHottentot epositsthe astragalus ndcalcaneus urvivedin modestnumbers similar o the proximal emur),butothercarpalsandtarsalswere foundrarely.Theproximaltibia, distal femur, phalanges,and proximalhumerussurvived ess often thandidtheastragalus ndcalcaneuswhile the distal humerus,distal tibia, proximalradiusandulna,proximalanddistalmetapodials, ndtheprox-imalfemursurvivedmoreoften thandid these tarsals.Production of Hides, Beef, Tallow, and OtherBy-Products

It seems improbable that socioeconomic status or ta-

phonomy xplain herecoveredmaterials.An alternativexplanations that Locus 39 was a hide- andbeef-processing area. When a carcass is processedtoday thecarpalsand tarsals are left on the foreshankand hind-shank at the killing floor.29Metapodialsandphalangeare also removed at the killing floor and the valuablemetapodial hafts and hoofs salvaged.The waste bonethen goes to tallow and glue vats. The foreshanksaretrimmed n one of two places:5 cm above the radio-carpalointor 3 cm abovethe humero-radialoint.30Thehindshanks trimmedmidwayup the tibia shaft.31Thetrimmings reprocessed ortallow,glue, andbonemeal.Manyof the elementswhich aremissingfrom Locus39 could eitherhave left the site as a result of similaractivities or beendestroyedby them. Bones below thehumero-radialut on the foreshankand below the mid-tibia cut of the hindshank reabundantn the collectionfromLocus39. Bonesabove these andmarks rescarce,particularlyn the foreshank.Skinning

Locus 39 might have been a hide-processingarea.Skinningsometimesleaves archaeological vidence inthe form of cut markson metapodials,phalanges,andmandibles,depending ponwhere he incisionsaremadeto sever the skin fromthe carcass.The incision couldbe any place on the leg but probablywould be some-where betweenthe proximalmetapodialand the hoof.Today t is madeat the hoof.32Althoughhides may have been removed from thecarcasswithin he excavatedunitsof Locus 39 ornearbythisactivityalone does notexplainthe characteristicsfthe archaeological eposit.Skinningwould not requirremovingany bones from Locus 39, althoughthoseboneswhichmightbearskinningmarks mandibles,me-tapodialsand/orphalanges)are rarein the collection.Skinningalso does not explainthe large quantitiesofsmashedbonesfoundatArea19, or the unusualquantityof carpalsandtarsals.

Processing Dried and Salted MeatThe bonescrapcould havebeenproducedas a resultof making jerky, particularly if bones were left in the

259-299. The points of reference which follow are those used byLyman.28. C.K. Brain, The Hunters or the Hunted? An Introduction toAfrican Cave Taphonomy (The University of Chicago Press: Chicago1981) 18-23.

29. H. S. Eakin, Military Meat and Dairy Hygiene (Williams andWilkins: Baltimore 1924) 45.30. Ibid. 45, 129.31. Ibid. 129.32. P. I. Aldrich, The Packer's Encyclopedia (National Provisioner:Chicago 1922) 14.

8/6/2019 Reitz 1986

10/13

Journal of Field Archaeology/Vol. 13, 1986 325jerkedor driedmeatas it is in Bahia, Brazil,today.33Ifbones were left in thejerkedmeat, bones discardedasLocus 39 should be primarily rom the head and feetsince these may not have been madeinto driedmeat.Footbonesprobablywould includethose below the hu-mero-radialoint on the foreshankandbelow the tibia-tarsal oint of the hindshank, he firstcourseof carpalsand the tarsalsremainingwith the carcass rather hanbeingremovedwiththe metapodial ndphalanges.34Onthe otherhand,accountsof 17th-centuryuccaneersug-gest that they removedmeat from the bones in stripswhichwere smokedover fires.35Deposits eft from thistype of activity would contain bones from the entirecarcass.SinceHaringalso describesbuccaneers reakingbones formarrow nce theday'sworkwasdone,36omeof the discardedbones mightbe brokenor cut with acleaveror largeknife. In sucha mannerargebonepileswould have accumulated.

Thecarcasscould havebeen cured n salt beforebeingsmoked. Brinecuringconsists of placingmeat in a so-lutionof saltandwater,perhapswithspices. Dry curingis accomplishedby rubbinga salt mixtureinto eachportionat frequentintervals. Both processes requireabout wo weeks, duringwhich timethe meatshouldbestored n a cool, dryplace. Afterwards hemeatmaybesmoked.If meatscontainingboneswere notsmoked hepresenceof bones would have encouraged poilage, ifonlybecause hepieceof meatwastoo thick oradequatepenetration f brine throughmuscle and bone. Com-plaintsof taintedmeat n earliercenturieswerefrequent,however, and indicate that bones were left in curedmeat.37In a studyof faunafrom a 17th-centuryDutchwhaling station located above the Arctic Circle, L.Wijngaarden-Bakkeround thatbonesfrommost of thecow skeletonwere present,in spite of the fact thattheonlysourceof thesebones wassaltedbeef.38Bones from

thehead,metapodials, ndphalangeswere notidentifiedfromthe Smeerenburgollection,however.Although erkyand saltedbeef mighthavebeenpro-cessed in thevicinityof Locus39, it seemsunlikely hatthis is the only activitythattookplace. Consideringhehigh year-roundemperaturest PuertoReal, it seemsdoubtfulthat brine-curedbeef was ever produced nabundance,althoughthere may have been some pro-cessing of jerky, particularly f shouldersand ribs. Ifthe jerkedor saltedbeef was sold with bone, the dis-cardedbones shouldbe primarilyhead fragments,me-tapodials, and phalanges, in additionto carpalsandtarsals.Yet, with the exceptionof carpalsand tarsalsthe Locus 39 assemblage s remarkablyree of theseelements. The absenceof vertebrae,ribs, skull frag-ments, scapulae,phalanges,metapodials, nnominatesandproximalhumeriat Locus 39 suggeststhatmakingjerky, with or withoutbones, does not completelyex-plain hedeposit.Furthermore,reservationf meatcon-tainingbones would not produce he large quantityoffragmented long bones. Although elements from"meaty"portionsarenot abundantn the Locus 39 as-semblage,theyare, nonetheless,present.Tallow,Glue, and GelatinProduction

Refuse from skinningand meat preservation ouldhave been brought o Locus 39 for furtherprocessingafterthe bones had been strippedof meat. One of theresultingproductsmay havebeen tallow, which is pro-ducedboth fromcarcass at andfrombones.39Thestruc-ture of beef fat is similar o that of hog fat fromwhichlard is made, but beef fat is more stabledue to a pre-ponderance f saturated atty acids.40 Its high meltingpoint meansthat tallow is desirablefor candleswhilelard is not. Inedibletallow is made from wind pipes,intestines and trimmingsas well as from sinews andbones beforethese arefurtherprocessed or glue andisused in candlesandsoaps.41Edibletallowis madefromtrimmedats.To maketallow,the carcass s skinnedandmeat strippedfrom the bones. The bones are thencrushedandboiled.42Theprocess nvolvesrenderingatandbonesat 820 C for overeighthours.Aftersettling,the tallowis drawnoff. This is a processsimilar o thatof theproductionf bonegrease.43Becauseof theirsmall

33. JulesJanick,personal ommunication982.34. Eakin, oc. cit. (in note 29).35. Haring,op. cit. (in note 17)66, 68.36. Ibid. 68.37. J. P. Wilson and L. Southwood, Fort George on the Niagara:an Archaeological Perspective. History and Archaeology 9 (NationalHistoricParksandSitesBranch,ParksCanada:Ottawa1976).38. L. H. van Wijngaarden-BakkerndJ. P. Pals, "Life andWorkin Smeerenburg:heBio-archaeological spects," n EarlyEuropeanExploitation of the Northern Atlantic 800-1700 (Arctic Centre, Uni-versity of Groningen:Netherlands1981) 133-151; L. H. vanWijngaarden-Bakker,FaunalAnalysisandHistoricalRecord:MeatPreservationndthe FaunalRemainsat Smeerenburg, pitsbergen,"in C. GrigsonandJ. Clutton-Brock, ds., AnimalsandArchaeology:4; Husbandry in Europe. BARInternational Series 227 (London 1984)195-204.

39. R. A. Clemen, By-products in the Packing Industry (Universityof ChicagoPress:Chicago1927) 137-138.40. Ibid. 131.41. Ibid. 138.42. Ibid. 287.43. D. Leechman, "Bone Grease," AmAnt 16 (1951) 355-356.

8/6/2019 Reitz 1986

11/13

326 Vertebrate Fauna from Locus 39, Puerto Real, Haiti/Reitzsize,carpalsand arsalsmightretain heir dentitynsteadof beingcrushed.Glue andgelatinareby-productswhichare oftenpro-duced n combinationwith tallow. Gelatin s made fromcleanmaterialsodayandgluefromcontaminatedefuse,but they are similarproducts.In order of importance,thefollowingrawmaterialsare used to makeglue:skinor hide scraps,connectivetissue, cartilage,and bonesof cattle.44Connective issueand bones includesinews,such as are found along metapodials,as well as horncores,mammary lands,lips, eartubes, heads,knuckles(distalmetapodials), eet, andotherbones. Horncores,jaw bones, knuckles,and ribs are best for makinggel-atin,45 since these materialscontain collagen whichbreaksdown in boilingwaterto formglue or gelatin.46Muscle andkeratinizedpidermis rom hornsandhoofscontainno gelatin,butbonesfrom which the tallow hasbeen removed do. To make glue today, bones arecrushed,degreasedby a preliminary oiling (extractingthe tallow), and then boiled morethoroughly o breakup the collagen. After the stock is boiled the extract sdried.47f the bones wereboiledlong enoughto extractglue, bonecollagenwould be brokendown. Such bonesmight not survive long in the archaeologicalrecord.Thoserecoveredrom sucha tallow/glueprocessingareacouldrepresentmashedbutas yet unboiledbones.Production f OtherBy-Products

Bone may also be used as raw material or the man-ufactureof ornaments, ools, or novelties. Femora,ti-biae, metapodials,and the keratinized pidermisof thehornand hoof are the mostvalued or theseuses. Today,bones are degreasedand the metapodialshafts (shinbones)sawedout. The distalmetapodialsknuckles)goto theglue vat, but the shafts aremade ntoa varietyofitems. The keratinized pidermis s removedfrom theunderlyingphalangesand horn core by steaming,theunderlying onesbeingsentback to thetallow andgluevats andthe epidermisbeing used to makesuchthingsas buttonsandcombs.Steps Followedin ProcessingCattle at Locus 39

A combination f theseprocessesmightexplainmuchof the Locus39 assemblage.The cow was slaughteredandskinned.Meatwas strippedrommostof the bones.Perhapsheshoulder ndribswere retainedor salt beef.

The entire lower leg and the skull might have beenremovedat the killing floor, the metapodial hafts cutout, and the epidermisof the hornsandhoofs steamedoff theunderlying orncore andphalanges.Metapodiashafts and the epidermisof the hornsand hoofs mayhave beenretained or further rocessingor export.Theskulls,proximal nd distalmetapodialemnants, nd thephalangesmighthavebeen sent to Locus 39 forboilingand were smashedalong with bones left frommakingjerky.All of theboneswere thenboiledto extract allow.Continued oilingwouldbreakup thecollagen,produc-ing glue anddestroyinghe bone.Theabsenceof skullfragments,metapodials, ndpha-langessuggeststhat thesebones were notsent to Locus39 forprocessing fter hepartsof themuseful nmakingtools and ornamentswere removed.Since manyrem-nantsof phalangesand teethprobablywouldhave beenas identifiableaftercrushingas carpalsand tarsals,itseems likely that few were ever presentat Locus 39.Since the horncores,distalmetapodialsknuckles),awbones, andribscan be used as sourcesof gelatin,theirabsenceat Locus 39 suggests that they were used forthispurpose.Becausegelatinis edible, heads andfeet,as well as ribs,mayhave beentreatedwith specialcarein a place not withinthe excavated ocus. Since therewas apparentlyome use fordistalmetapodials ndpha-langes as buildingor sidewalkornaments,48t is alsopossiblethatthe entire ower legs andhornswere sentback to Europeas a unit.

ComparisonWith Other SitesSome archaeological vidence is availablefor beef-processing acilities n otherareas. Oneof theseis froman 18th-century panishmissionin California.49 idesandtallow,but notbeef, wereexported.Approximately1000 animals were slaughteredduring each annualround-up.A total of 1100 bones from two excavatedpits were identifiedas cattle. Carpalsand tarsalscon-tributedover 15%of the elements. Skull fragmentsteeth, vertebrae,andribscomprisedmore than30%ofthe elementsandphalangesmore han 10%.Unidentifiedmammalbones were not tabulated,but fragmentatio

44. Clemen, op. cit. (in note 39) 281.45. Ibid. 295.46. Ibid. 281.47. Ibid. 280.

48. P. L. Armitage, "Some Examples from Post-Medieval Britain ofthe Use of Horse, Cattle, and Sheep Bones as Building Material,"paper presented at the Fourth InternationalCouncil for Archaeozool-ogy, London (1982).49. R. L. Wessel, "Beef as a By-Product of the Hide and TallowIndustry of Late Colonial New Spain from Faunal Remains," inV. G. Bente, ed., Test Excavation of LAn-1016aH: the OntiverosAdobe, Santa Fe Springs, California, report submitted to the Rede-velopment Agency, City of Santa Fe Springs, by Greenwood andAssociates (1980) 79-92.

8/6/2019 Reitz 1986

12/13

Journal of Field Archaeology/Vol. 13, 1986 327wasobserved.Although allowwas one of the twomainproducts, t was extractedby boilingonly the fatty por-tions of the animals.Since bones were apparently otused for this purpose,Wessel attributedhe bone frag-ments o marrow-extractionor localconsumption.Clus-ters of articulatedphalanges,metapodials,and distaltarsals,minus he calcaneum ndastragalus,were foundin the two pits. Wesselconcluded hat the uppercourseof tarsalswas retainedwith the carcass n order o usetheAchillestendon o suspend he carcasswhile remov-ing the hide. Everythingbelow this firstrow of tarsalswas discarded.Wessel also found articulated ertebralcolumns,whichhe interpreteds evidencethat the loinwas removedas a unitfor local use.Data arealso available romtwo sitesassociatedwithbeef productson the Atlantic coast. One of these is a17th-century eef marketin Charleston,South Caro-lina.50Althoughslaughterand processingof carcassesprobablyoccurredelsewhere,cattlecomprised21% ofthe individuals.Pigs anddeer,however,werealmostascommon. Teethand other cranialfragments omprised51%of theelements;elementsfrom thebody28%;andcarpals, arsals,metapodials,andphalanges21%. At a19th-centuryannery ocatedin New Leeds, in what isnow Savannah,Georgia,5 cattle bones were the majorcomponent.Cranial lementscomprised86%of the cat-tleremains,bodyelements9%,andfeet4%. This wouldbe consistentwith whatmightbe expectedfrom a pro-cessing site where the hide and the less desirable eetand head were removed and the meaty portionssoldelsewhere.Carpalsand tarsals,however,were not un-usuallycommon.Fewer(47%)of the materials ecoveredby McEwanfromLoci 33/35 at PuertoRealareunidentifiablemam-mal and large-mammal ragmentscompared o Locus39, andcattle bones are a smallerpartof the total as-semblage.52Also less of the entirecattlecarcass s rep-resented.Althoughthe most abundant lement in thesample s theastragalusthefifthmost abundant lementat Locus 39), the observed/expectedatio for proximalmetacarpals nd phalanges s muchgreater n the Loci33/35 sample han n thatfrom Locus 39. While11%ofthe cattle elementsare from the head, atlas, and axisgroup n the Locus 39 collection,teethalone constitute

39% of the Loci 33/35 collection. Elementsfrom thebody contributed 2% of the elementsand those fromthelowerleg 39%.This, in addition o the morediversespecieslist at Loci 33/35, indicates hat differentactiv-ities arerepresentedt the two areas.Summaryand ConclusionLocus 39 may have been both a residentialand acommercialareawhererefuse from skinningand meatpreservationwas used to make tallowor otherby-prod-ucts.Residential ctivityproducedmostof thenon-cattleremainsandsome of thecattledebris,although he exactamount s unknown.While the manateerib may havebeena tool, the terrapin, ea turtle,andparrotfishwereundoubtedlyonsumed.Griddle ragmentsn additionoa thimble,pins, and scissors also suggestdomestic ac-tivity. Archaeologicalevidence from plantations ndi-cates thatthe high incidencesof carpalsandtarsalsdonot necessarily ndicatea low statusdeposit, and bonedensitysuggeststhat the high incidenceof these bonesis notjust a functionof differentialpreservation.The distributionof cattle elements and the largeamount f bonescrap s evidenceof non-domestic ctiv-ity. Thelarge quantity f bonescrap ndicates hat erkywas the majormeatproduct,although ome salted beefmayhave been madeof shoulders,usingmeatabovethehumero-radialut. Evidencefor tallow is found bothinthe documentaryecordandin the piles of scrapbone.Evidence for the extractionof bones to be made intotools, buttons,orornaments, r to be usedin themakingof glue/gelatin, s providedby the absenceof metapo-dials, horncores, andphalanges romLocus 39. Thesebones could have been sent to Europeas a packageordiscardedoutsideof Locus 39 once removed from thedesired raw materials;returned to Locus 39 to besmashed,boiled downfor glue, anddestroyed;or usedin making gelatin outside of Locus 39 and also de-stroyed.It is notnecessary o suggestthattheseactivities ookplace all over Puerto Real. Locus 39 could be just acornerof a general slaughter/processingreain whichall of theseactivities ookplaceclose to thekillingfloor,or it may represent artof the work flooras well as partof the areawheresmashedbonesweredriedbeforebeingboiled. If Locus 39 was partof a slaughter/processinarea, t is interestingo note its locationdownwind rommost of the town.AcknowledgmentsThe authorwouldlike to acknowledge he supportofthe late CharlesH. Fairbanks,as well as to thankRo-chelle A. Marrinan nd JenniferM. Hamiltonfor the

50. J. A. Calhoun, E. J. Reitz, M. B. Trinkley, and M. A. Zierden,Meat in Due Season: Preliminary Investigations of Marketing Prac-tices in Colonial Charleston. Archaeological Contributions 9 (TheCharleston Museum: Charleston 1984).51. K. G. Wood, Life in New Leeds: Archeological and HistoricalInvestigations at the Fahm Street Extension Site 9 CH 703 (FS),Savannah, Georgia, report submitted to the City of Savannah, Geor-gia, by SoutheasternArcheological Services, Athens, Georgia (1985).52. McEwan, 1983 loc. cit. (in note 6).

8/6/2019 Reitz 1986

13/13

328 Vertebrate Fauna from Locus 39, Puerto Real, Haiti/Reitzopportunityo examine the Locus 39 fauna. I also ap-preciatehehelpof KathleenA. Deagan,R. LeeLyman,Bonnie G. McEwan,CharlesEwen, MauriceW. Wil-liams,andMargaret angworthy.ulesJanick,Professorof Horticulture,urdueUniversity,providednformationonjerky-makingtBahia,Brazil. Dr. ElizabethS. Wingpermitted ccess to the comparative keletalcollectionat the ZooarchaeologyLaboratory,Florida State Mu-seum,duringdentification ndanalysis.Funds oranal-ysis wereprovidedby theFloridaStateMuseumandfortravelto PuertoReal by the Universityof GeorgiaRe-searchFoundation.The materials onsideredn this ar-ticle are curatedat the FloridaState Museum.

ElizabethJ. Reitz is Assistant Professor ofAnthropology at the University of Georgia, Athens,and AdjunctAssistant Professor at the Florida StateMuseum, University of Florida, Gainesville. She hasstudiedfaunal remainsfrom prehispanic and historicsites from the SE United States as well as from sites inthe Caribbean and Peru. Mailing address: Departmentof Anthropology, Baldwin Hall, University of Georgia,Athens, GA 30602.