Archaeological Correlates of Population

JASREP-00694; No of Pages 10
Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports xxx (2016) xxxxxx
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jasrep
Archaeological correlates of population management of the eastern wild turkey

(Meleagris gallopavo silvestris) with a case study from the American South
Tanya M. Peres , Kelly L. Ledford
a
Department of Anthropology, Florida State University, 1847 W. Tennessee Street, Tallahassee, FL 32306, USA
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history:
Received 1 September 2015
Received in revised form 7 November 2016
Accepted 7 November 2016
Available online xxxx
Keywords:
Eastern wild turkey
Population management
Flock demography
Zooarchaeology
Mississippian period
Southeastern United States
a b s t r a c t
The wild turkey (Meleagris gallopavo) was an important food resource to Precolumbian Native Americans; however, little attention has been given to the subject of turkey husbandry, or use in the American Southeast. We thus
present demographic turkey data from the Mississippian Period Fewkes site in Tennessee, ethnographic and ethnohistoric information on Southeastern Native Americans, and material culture data from Tennessee and Alabama to explore the use and potential management of eastern wild turkeys (M. gallopavo silvestris). The
osteometric data from the Fewkes site indicates that both male and female adult turkeys are represented in
the faunal assemblage, with males being present in equal or greater numbers than females. It appears that the
female specimens were not taken during the egg-laying period. The results can be interpreted as either the result
of humans managing local turkey populations as sources of both meat and feathers, or occasional selective hunting of large adult males.
2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
In North America the eastern wild turkey (Meleagris gallopavo
silvestris) was the largest non-migratory bird available to the indigenous
peoples of the Southeastern United States. It is known from the ethnographic and ethnohistoric records that turkeys were an integral part of
Native American life. Turkeys were used for both meat and feathers
and ethnographic accounts of the Cherokee discuss how turkeys were
hunted or how the poults were taken and raised with humans. The skeletal remains of turkey are ubiquitous in faunal assemblages from all archaeological periods, especially the Mississippian period (ca. 1000
1450 CE). Its use as a food resource is well established in the Mississippian period with the underlying assumption that wild turkeys were
hunted (Lapham, 2011; Clinton and Peres, 2011). Several researchers
have identied attention on turkey husbandry and domestication in
the American Southwest and Mesoamerica (Badenhorst et al., 2012;
Breitburg, 1988; Munro, 2011; Rawlings and Driver, 2010; Thornton et
al., 2012). However, there has been little attention given to this subject
in the American Southeast despite ethnographic and ethnohistoric evidence to suggest this was a real phenomenon. Our study is the rst to
address potential management of turkey populations by Mississippian
period peoples.
In this paper we outline demographic markers specic to the eastern
wild turkey that can be used to assess Southeastern US archaeological
turkey use and potential management. Our markers are based on the
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: Tanya.Peres@fsu.edu (T.M. Peres).
biological literature of the eastern wild turkey (M. gallopavo silvestris),

the archaeological literature on animal domestication and husbandry,
and the zooarchaeological literature on recent advances in our understanding of turkey domestication and husbandry from Mesoamerica
and the American Southwest. We present a morphometric analysis of
the turkeys identied in a Mississippian period faunal assemblage
from Middle Tennessee to highlight the utility of these markers for discerning human-animal relationships in the late prehistoric period of the
Southeastern United States.
2. Turkeys in Native American culture in the Southeastern United
States
We acknowledge that some scholars are opposed to the use of ethnographic analogy to interpret archaeological remains (Holtorf, 2000;
Tilley, 1999); however we follow Hodder's (1982: 9) assertion that
all archaeology is based on analogy. In the De Soto chronicles, it is
noted that in the Florida province of Chalaque, In that land were
many wild hens [turkeys]. In one town they performed a service for
him [the governor], presenting him seven hundred of them
(Clayton et al., 1993: 86). Ethnohistoric and ethnographic accounts
note that the Cherokee and other southeastern indigenous groups
baited turkeys to easily hunt them and raised turkey poults for reliable
and easy access to meat and feathers (White, 1980). More recent ethnographic work with the Cherokee suggests turkey continued to be an important food source throughout the historic period. One consultant
remembers his mother gathering turkey eggs and hatching them
under a chicken (Whitthoft, 1946: 377). Archaeological evidence
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jasrep.2016.11.014
2352-409X/ 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Please cite this article as: Peres, T.M., Ledford, K.L., Archaeological correlates of population management of the eastern wild turkey (Meleagris
gallopavo silvestris) with a case study from...Archaeological correlates of population management of the eastern wild turkey (Meleagris
T.M. Peres, K.L. Ledford / Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports xxx (2016) xxxxxx
supporting these ethnohistoric accounts is scarce, but excavations in the

mid-1970s at the Mississippian period (10001350 CE) site of Mound
Bottom (40CH8), in Middle Tennessee yielded a rectangular post structure preliminarily interpreted as a turkey pen (TODA, n.d.). Further
analysis of this assemblage and additional eldwork at this site may reveal additional architectural evidence for turkey population
management.
Ethnohistoric accounts of the Cherokee record turkeys as being
raised for meat and feathers. Fradkin (1988) notes that in addition to
being hunted for food, turkey feathers were highly sought after by the
Cherokee. The feathers of an adult male turkey are iridescent red, purple, green, copper, bronze, and gold, while the female's feathers are a
dull brown and gray (Cornell Lab of Ornithology, 2015). These feathers
were used in clothing (women's short gowns, hair ornaments, mantles,
blankets), and attached to the base of arrows (Fradkin, 1988: 269270,
Table B-1). Textiles recovered at the archaeological site of Spiro (Oklahoma, USA) were crafted from yarn fashioned from numerous types of
animals, including turkey down (Power, 2004: 137). Turkey bones
were fashioned into tubular beads for women's necklaces. Men wore
the spur on the tarsometatarsus on their boots, and spurs also adorned
the moccasins of the Chickasaw high priest (Swanton, 1987: 251). The
spurs were used as arrow tips. Entire wings were used as fans and parts
of the wings and legs were made into turkey decoy calls for hunting
(Fradkin, 1988: 270, 410). Turkey femurs were used in the application
of medicine (Fradkin, 1988: 309). Splinters of turkey long bones were
set into the quill of a turkey feather for use in ballplayer scratching rituals (Fradkin, 1988: 311; Gulick, 1960: 117). Turkeys also feature prominently in Cherokee lore, beliefs about health and medicine, and rituals
such as the Turkey Dance that is performed during the Green Corn Ceremony (Fradkin, 1988: Tables C-1, C-3, C-4, C-7, C-8; Klinck and Talman,
1970: 70; Whitthoft, 1946).
The depiction of an animal on ancient Native American art is not by
accident, but rather a symbol laden with cultural meaning that would
have been obvious to the viewer. As such, these symbols were chosen
for their specic meanings and messages. In the art of the Southeastern
Indians few birds are represented, and those that are include: woodpeckers, hawks, ducks, and turkeys. These representations may be lifelike as in the case of some duck efgy ceramic bowls or highly stylized
like the forked eye motif that represents the hawk. It is notable that
out of all of the birds in the Native American world, turkey was one of
the few chosen for depiction on their art.
Turkeys are depicted in many of the ceremonial objects of the Mississippian period people. An efgy bowl recovered from Moundville, Alabama, is interpreted by Steponaitis and Knight (2004) as depicting a
turkey with some serpentine characteristics. Approximately seven marine shell gorgets with turkey cock motifs were recovered from
mound burials at the Mississippian period Hixon site near Chattanooga,
Tennessee (Sullivan, 2001); four turkey cock gorgets were recovered
from one burial at Etowah in Georgia (Muller, 2007); and one each
from two burials at the Tallassee site in east Tennessee (Kneberg,
1959). Lankford (2004) argues that this motif, in which two birds are
shown facing each other with their tails fanned (the male strut) divided
by a striped pole, shows all three worlds of Eastern US Native American
cosmology. The striped pole is the axis mundi, the birds are the Upper
World, the at surface the birds stand on is This World, and the blank
space beneath that is the Beneath World (King, 2011).
3. Living with animals: wild, domesticated, and the stages inbetween
When archaeologists and biologists discuss the domesticated status
of animals they use the classication scheme of wild, tame, domesticated, feral. Wild animals are the starting point in the continuum of wild to
domestic. A truly wild species lives in its natural environment, unconstrained by humans. Tame generally refers to a single animal that has
been captured in the wild, subdued and cared for by an individual
human, but does not result in a separate breeding population or in biological changes to the animal (Russell, 2012: 286287).
There are many denitions of what constitutes a domesticated animal; the one followed by any given researcher depends on their research agenda (Bknyi, 1989; Ducos, 1989; Russell, 2002). The classic
denition of domestication is from Bknyi (1989: 22) and describes
it as a sequence of actionable events, the capture and taming by
man of animals of a species with particular behavioral characteristics,
their removal from their natural living area and breeding community,
and their maintenance under controlled breeding conditions for mutual
benets. Bknyi (1989: 24) notes that this process impacts not only
the domesticated animals, but also the humans and society interacting
with them.
Russell (2002) discusses and compares denitions of domestication
from biology and anthropology. Her review points out that biologically,
domestication is a process that occurs during a long-term relationship
between humans and a population of animals (Russell, 2012: 286).
The end results are visible, and thus measurable, physical and behavioral changes to the animals. Socially, domestication is a set of human behaviors, ideas, and values about human-animal relationships, in which
animals are no longer apart from, and equal to, people, but is under
the control of people as property or objects to be owned. Russell
(2012: 292294) notes that a quantum shift in human-animal relationships takes place when the social denition of animals moves from a
shared community resource to objects owned by individuals or
households.
Domesticated animals can become feral, returning to a wild state if
they escape captivity or are intentionally let loose. They remain biologically and physically similar to their domesticated counterparts, but socially and behaviorally they behave like their wild cousins. The feral
hogs, which cause a nuisance in Florida and other parts of the Southeastern United States, are a perfect example of this phenomenon. It is believed Florida's feral hogs are descendants of domesticated pigs
brought to the Charlotte Harbor area in the 16th century (Guiliano,
2015).
While a domesticated animal is an end-product, the process of animal population management is a continuum with many possible outcomes, domestication being just one of them. Melinda Zeder (2015)
writes that humans manage animals by manipulating the animals' environment to create a more robust and sustainable resource, while at the
same time making it more time and energy efcient for humans to acquire the animal or secondary resources from it. In this denition of
management, humans may have unintentionally attracted turkeys to
their settlements by creating areas that were amenable to turkeys
such as cleared agricultural elds and adjacent forest-edge environments. The clearing of forests for agricultural elds, gardens, and villages created an edge-environment favored by turkeys for feeding,
roosting, and other social behavior (McRoberts et al., 2014). Many of
these animals would have been pests, attracted to elds of new growth
crops, but also potentially benecial by eating the insects that would
feed on gardens and elds. As Goff et al. (1981: 11) note, turkeys
have a voracious appetite for insects of all kinds and for grasshoppers
in particular. Flocks of turkeys in small eld situations may be quite
valuable in keeping these potential pests in check. People adapted by
hunting these species, and possibly purposefully attracting them to
such areas using corn, sunower seeds, and acorns. The process by
which humans modify the environment (clear elds for agriculture),
then adapt to these modications (purposefully hunt garden pests
attracted to the agricultural elds) is part of niche construction theory
(Bleed, 2006; Bleed and Matsui, 2010; Laland et al., 2001; Laland and
Brown, 2006; Laland and OBrien, 2010; Sterelny, 2005). The animals involved in this relationship are commensal domesticates (Zeder, 2012:
240242). The commensal pathway (Larson and Fuller, 2014: 117119)
assumes that the animals have signicant phenotypic differences from
their wild counterparts to warrant a different species designation.
While this is true in numerous cases of mammal domesticates, it is not
necessarily true for the eastern wild turkey. There is evidence that different species of turkey were being managed and/or domesticated in
Mesoamerica by ca. 300 BCE100 CE (Thornton et al., 2012) and the
American Southwest by ca. 200 BCE450 CE (Speller et al., 2010), however, this domestication trajectory, if it existed, was disrupted in the
Eastern United states by the arrival of the Europeans.
The archaeological correlates of domestication and animal husbandry have been well established for large mammals (Meadow, 1989; Reitz
and Wing, 2008; Zeder, 2012), but less is known about avian domesticates. Domestic chickens (Gallus gallus) serve as a potential comparison,
but their smaller body size, different social structure, and tendency to be
raised for both eggs and meat (e.g., Albarella, 1997) prevents them from
being directly comparable to domestic turkeys. Among domestic
chickens, the production of good quality meat would result in the killing of younger animals to create a larger breed (Albarella, 1997: 27).
This would not be necessary for turkeys being managed for a meat
and feathers economy as New World wild turkeys are on average 25
times larger than the wild Old World chicken. In an economy where
chicken eggs are an important food source, an ideal ratio of 5 females
to 1 male is used as a rule of thumb because of chickens' polygamous nature and social structure (Albarella, 1997: 27; Grillo, 2014). Chicken
ocks are comprised of a dominant rooster, more dominant female(s),
subordinate females and males, and chicks, with the dominant rooster
acting as protector of the ock (Grillo, 2014). Studies show that female
chickens do not only mate with the dominant male, but may mate with
subordinate males that provide them with food while the dominant
male is distracted (Evans and Evans, 1999; Stokes and Williams, 1971,
1972). This is a different social structure than that practiced by wild turkeys where the females and chicks live together in a dominance structured ock year-round, dominant males live in small groups with
subordinate males (typically siblings) year-round, and males and females only come together during the mating season. As described
below (Section 4), subordinate male turkeys assist the dominant male
turkey in mating with as many females as possible, with no evidence
to suggest the subordinates ever mate with females. This may be due
to the fact that the male turkeys are brothers and the mating of the
dominant turkey insures the siblings' genes are being passed on with
less physiological stress on the celibate subordinate males. In the case
of turkeys, culling the males from the population may result in unintended consequences to the social and physiological health of the population. If males are culled, one would expect subordinate males to be
killed, meaning they would have to be of an advanced enough age to
know they are males and subordinate, which may be 10 months or
older. Additionally, Badenhorst et al. (2012: 64) state that since turkeys
reach physical and sexual maturity in less than a year, it is unlikely that
ancient management practices can be documented by analysis of the
age structure of the death assemblage. While they do not elaborate
on this assertion, we operate under the assumption that sub-adult turkey bones are not matured enough to give positive sex identications,
and thus are not useful in male to female ratio estimations.
4. The eastern wild turkey

To decipher more specic markers of avian management in the archaeological record, we turn to the biological literature on birds in general and turkey demographics and behavior specically. This
information is vital to our understanding of the avian-specic markers
of ancient turkey management. As Zeder (2012: 231) notes, a species'
behavior in the wild determines how successful it will be as a captive
animal. Basically, successfully managed and domesticated animals are
able to practice the same behaviors regardless of their status as wild
or captive, which has much to do with the conditions of captivity
(Bottema, 1989). With this in mind, we highlight points of modern eastern wild turkey behavior and demography that are critical to their successful rearing and management. We use these points to propose
species-specic markers as evidence of population management in the

past.
The eastern wild turkey (Meleagris gallopavo silvestris) is native to
the eastern part of North America (McRoberts et al., 2014). This species
exhibits sexual dimorphism in both body size and coloration. Adult
males (called toms or gobblers, which we use interchangeably) stand
approximately 40 in. tall and weigh between 17 and 21 lbs. (Pelham
and Dickson, 1992: 3435). Their female counterparts (hens) stand approximately 30 in. tall and weigh between 8 and 11 lbs. These ranges
show that there is no overlap in weight and very little in height. The
main male marker in turkeys is the presence of the tarsometatarsal
spur, which begins to grow shortly after birth, as a round, blunt, button-like protrusion. As the male ages, it becomes pointed, curved, and
sharp, reaching a maximum length of about 5 cm (2 in.) (Pelham and
Dickson, 1992: 36). Biologists use the shape and size of the spur to determine age (Pelham and Dickson, 1992). At a year old, the spur is approximately 6.4 mm (1/4 in.) in length; by three years old it is
25.4 mm (1 in.). An adult male four years of age or more will have the
biggest tarsometatarsus spur, up to 5 cm (2 in.).
In terms of outward morphology, dominant males have exaggerated
sexually attractive traits while subordinate males are less ornate
(Pelham and Dickson, 1992). These traits include colorful plumage
and snood length (the eshy mass that hangs over the beak). The
feathers of male eastern turkeys are iridescent in shades of copper,
bronze, red, green, and gold. Hens have dull brown feathers. Turkeys
undergo several molts in their lifetime (natal, juvenile, rst basic/postjuvenile, alternate/rst winter, basic/adult). Males (toms) also have
beards that grow throughout their lifetime, which females lack. Toms
with longer snoods win competitions with other males due to the positive correlation between a male's snood length and aggressiveness, age,
body mass, and health (Buchholz, 1995, 2004; Buchholz et al., 2004).
Research shows that males with longer snoods are not infected by the
coccidia parasite and thus have more iridescent and brighter breast
and tail feathers (Buchholz, 1995, 1997, 2004: Buchholz et al., 2004;
Hill et al., 2005). Dominant toms with longer snoods are healthier,
more aggressive, and have brighter plumage than their subordinate
counterparts, making them more likely to be chosen as mates. This is
likely how Native Americans identied dominant/subordinate male
turkeys.
There is a misconception that turkeys are territorial (Healy, 1992:
48). They do have home ranges, but because they are pecking-order
birds, they ght for dominance, not a piece of real estate (Healy,
1992: 48). In general, hens are gregarious and seek out the company
of other turkeys; however, once nesting begins, hens become secretive and anti-social (Healy, 1992: 50). A typical clutch is 417 eggs.
Hens brood on the nest for an average of 26 days, leaving only to
drink, eat, and defecate (Healy, 1992: 52). Once hatched, turkey poults
imprint, or recognize another animal or object as the parent, which
happens once and its effects are irreversible (Healy, 1992: 54). As
Healy (1992: 54) notes, turkeys imprint to the rst animal to provide
parental care, thus it is easy for poults to imprint to humans. These
human-imprinted poults will always behave like turkeys, but will direct
those turkey behaviors toward their human caretaker, making it easy
for humans to insert themselves in a dominant role.
The demographics of eastern wild turkey ocks are season-dependent. In a turkey's world there are two seasons: mating and non-mating.
During the non-mating season gobblers ock together, following a variable dominant male hierarchy (McRoberts et al., 2014). This all-gobbler
group is generally comprised of two to four male siblings (Krakauer,
2005, 2008). During the mating season, the dominant male sibling
breeds with as many females as possible, and subordinate siblings
help him in attracting females. They remain celibate and never breed
with any of the females. However, all males in the group benet because
dominant males assisted by their subordinate siblings mate with more
females and thus father more offspring than dominant males with no
subordinate support (Krakauer, 2005). The subordinate siblings receive
indirect tness benets by helping the dominant brother pass on the

family genes. Gobblers do not participate in the rearing of chicks. Hens
ock with their chicks, and sometimes combine with another ock of
chicks and their hen. The hierarchy in the mother-offspring ocks is
more stable than that of the all-male ocks (McRoberts et al., 2014). Understanding turkey ock demographics is important because other
studies operate under the assumption that non-breeding males were
killed off to cull the ock of competition. This is unnecessary, and as
the information presented above shows, could lower the tness and
health of the overall ock.
Taking into account this review of turkey behaviors and ock demography, and traditional ideas of the archaeological correlates of animal domestication, we assess the demographic prole of a turkey
assemblage from the Fewkes site in Middle Tennessee. More studies
are needed, but our data serve as a useful comparison to demographic
proles of managed turkey ocks reported from Mesoamerica (Manin
et al., 2016) and the American Southwest (Badenhorst et al., 2012;
Speller and Yang, 2016). Through these comparisons, it is possible to
make preliminary assessments regarding turkey use (e.g., meat,
feathers), human selection, and potential ock management at the
Fewkes site. This research serves as a starting point for testing
ethnographic and ethnohistoric accounts of potential turkey management in the American Southeast.
5. Demography
In this section we outline expected demographic markers of turkey
use, selection and management in subsistence-related faunal assemblages from Mississippian period sites located in the Southeastern United States. Based on comparative data from contemporaneous sites we
know that turkey was an important food resource, thus a high quantity
of turkey relative to other taxa, especially in terms of minimum numbers of individuals (MNI) is expected in the assemblage. Within the
death assemblage, managed ocks could be expected to contain a
higher relative frequency of adult male turkeys than females if the preference is to kill surplus young adult males for meat shortly after
reaching adult size (Speller and Yang, 2016, this volume). Females,
however, may dominate the adult death assemblage of a managed
ock if males are culled from the ock before they reach adulthood.
Such a strategy, however prevents optimal use of the culled individuals
for meat or feathers since they will be of smaller size, and will lack the
desired color attributes of adult plumage (Latham, 1956; Leopold,
Fig. 1. Area of 1998 excavations projected onto a 1920 map of the Fewkes Mounds site (after Myer, 1928: Plate 124).
1943; Schorger, 1966). If a more even adult male to female ratio is identied in a managed ock death assemblage, it may suggest that both
sexes were kept for feathers, and females were also kept or managed
to produce eggs for food or for their fecundity (Speller and Yang,
2016, this volume). If females are present in a managed population,
then medullary bone is expected to be absent, either due to females
being killed after prime egg-laying/reproductive years or not being
killed during egg-laying seasons.
In wild, unmanaged turkey populations, higher numbers of adult
males to females could indicate preferential targeting of large males as
sources of meat and/or feathers. Conversely, higher numbers of adult females could indicate opportunistic hunting of large wild turkey ocks
composed primarily of adult females and their offspring during the
non-mating season. Balanced sex ratios could indicate the targeting of
both adult males and females without strong selection for either sex.
6. Case study - the Fewkes site
We explore our proposed demographic markers of turkey population use and management during the Mississippian period with a faunal
assemblage from the Fewkes site (40WM1) located in Middle Tennessee. General hallmarks of the Mississippian period (10001450 CE) in
Middle Tennessee include: the production of shell-tempered ceramics,
intensive cultivation of maize and other domesticated plants, large
densely-populated settlements often focused around earthen mound
centers, increased social stratication, and elaboration of mortuary
treatments and grave goods (Moore and Smith, 2009).
The Mississippian period agricultural system was centered on growing domesticated imported crops such as maize (and later, beans and
squash), as well as native cultigens (e.g., sumpweed, sunower, etc.).
To successfully harvest surplus yields of crops to feed the food producing and non-food producing segments of society, elds larger than
house gardens were necessary. This need for surplus required landscape
management and modication, which generally meant the clearing of
forested areas that were cycled through periods of cropping and
fallowing. As VanDerwarker (2006: 148149) points out, an increasing
focus on farming to meet basic subsistence needs likely involved the reorganization of the larger subsistence system, and scheduling other
subsistence activities like hunting and shing would have become
more difcult. Indeed, garden-hunting of deer, turkey, and other crop
pests was one such solution to the scheduling issue (Clinton and
Peres, 2011).
The Fewkes site is a multiple mound complex and town located
along the headwaters of the Little Harpeth River in Williamson County,
Tennessee (Fig. 1). Based on radiocarbon assays and diagnostic artifacts
from feature contexts, the site was most intensively occupied from
12501450 CE (Peres, 2010a). The faunal assemblage included in the
Fig. 3. Three distal tibiotarsi identied from Feature 184, Fewkes site.
present study was recovered from the portion of the site that is located
on the west side of modern SR-441, west of the main mound complex
(see Fig. 1) (Peres, 2010a: Fig. 2). In this area several houses and associated features were excavated in 1998 (Peres, 2010a: Fig. 3). The majority of the assemblage was recovered from these domestic contexts,
though several features associated with ritual activities were excavated
(Table 1).
7. Methods for estimating individual size and assemblage
demography
Standard zooarchaeological procedures were used in all stages of the
initial faunal analysis following Peres (2010b) and Reitz and Wing
(2008), and all identications were veried by Peres. Each identied element was examined for evidence of use-wear, cut marks, thermal alteration, sex, age, and morphological markers when present. Turkey
specimens were selected for the collection of standard osteometric
data based on the presence of one or more measureable reference
points (Steadman, 1980; von den Driesch, 1976). We excluded all juvenile elements (NISP = 6, MNI = 1, all from Feature 55) as the epiphyses
were underdeveloped and not suitable for measurement. To reduce
Table 1
Proveniences with identied wild turkey (Meleagris gallopavo) remains, Fewkes site
(40WM1), Tennessee.
Feature provenience
55
56
59
71
83
184
185
521
533
549
712
817
818
847
Block
A
Block
B
Block
C
Fig. 2. Three distal tibiotarsi identied from Feature 55, Fewkes site.
Date
Turkey
NISP
Large borrow pit outside of palisade lled with

domestic refuse
Context information not available
1150 CE
291
Unknown
Upper ll sequence associated with burial pit

Small hearth positioned over burial
12501450 CE
12501450 CE
Unknown
Possible hearth associated with structure 12

Large, circular, shallow basin
Large, shallow pit
Large borrow pit outside of palisade lled with
domestic refuse
General excavation units and levels
Unknown
Unknown
12101280 CE
Unknown
12501450 CE
3
3
13
4
12
4
4
7
2
63
3
2
16
Unknown
1
5
10
Total
443
Element
Data source
Sex
Phalanx I
Fewkes
UTK comparative
Steadman
Scapula
Fewkes
UTK comparative
Steadman
Coracoid
Fewkes
UTK comparative
Steadman
Humerus
Fewkes
UTK comparative
Steadman
Ulna
Fewkes
UTK comparative
Steadman
Radius
Fewkes
UTK comparative
Steadman
Carpometacarpus
Fewkes
UTK comparative
Steadman
Femur
Fewkes
UTK comparative
Steadman
Tibiotarsus
Fewkes
UTK comparative
Steadman
Tarsometatarsus
Fewkes
UTK comparative
Steadman
f
m
f
f
m
f
f
m
f
f
m
f
f
m
f
f
m
f
f
m
f
f
m
f
f
m
f
f
m
f
GL
Dic
Dip
Bp
Range
Mean
Range
Mean
Range
Mean
Range
Mean
10
6
2
5
12
15
2
6
11
12
1
5
3
12
3
6
4
10
10
6
59
67
2
6
1
9
23.7130.96
21.1425.18
104.88, 116.74
81.9889.35
110118.5
86.196.1
122.25124.19
114.31125.36
147166
123133
147.42
110.74122.74
152157
116)127
110.34136.24
98.95111.29
136140
107117
63.7085.21
57.2566.40
7989.5
63.772.7
136.41, 137.74
106.93117.57
142
112.9122
26.55 2.91
23.17
110.81 8.39
84.85
115.19 2.97
92.11 2.29
123.22 1.37
119.31 4.84
157.1 5.3
127.7 3.4
147.42
116.54
152.33
122.50 3.37
126.58
104.69 6.16
138.25
111.60 3.20
76.63 8.07
63.18 3.73
82.80 2.13
67.68 1.82
137.08
112.28 4.53
142.00
117.27 3.17
7
4
5
3
21.5131.38
20.6723.68
26.929.2
22.123.0
28.39 3.89
22.15 1.51
28.34
22.43
3
5
1
6
20.9125.52
19.9322.58
41.48
27.9931.34
27.90
21.09 1.28
41.48
30.05
3
6
28
21
8
5
10
10
12
6
61
76
7
6
7
20
1
6
2
6
4
6
22
15
32.3443.40
29.3632.59
39.444.0
30.933.9
13.9520.56
12.8614.81
19.721.1
15.817.2
18.8425.67
16.8119.86
22.726.1
17.620.9
25.3333.92
24.6926.90
32.5
26.128.4
34.60
27.9931.34
25.5, 27.0
2022
18.4725.72
18.3820.59
22.926.8
1822.7
36.69 5.89
31.09 1.39
42.11 0.99
32.67 0.42
16.50 2.86
13.96- 0.86
20.18 0.45
16.39 0.38
22.46 2.27
18.59 1.32
24.36 0.71
19.50 0.58
29.79 4.11
25.91 0.92
36.9 35.37
27.42 0.57
34.60
30.05
26.25
20.92
22.77 3.72
19.57 0.97
24.72 0.91
19.91 0.99
Table 2
Summary of occurrence, range, and average of collected and comparative otseometric data.
Element
Phalanx I
Scapula
Coracoid
Humerus
Ulna
Radius
Carpometacarpus
Femur
Tibiotarsus
Tarsometatarsus
Dp
SC
Bd
Dd
Did
Range
Mean
Range
Mean
Range
Mean
Range
Mean
Range
Mean
2
6
11
24
14.89, 20.63
15.0416.55
12.113.5
9.511
17.76
15.77 0.66
12.91 0.40
10.14 0.41
4
6
107
115
1
5
45
52
13.0415.88
10.3813.07
14.818.3
11.314.2
9.24
6.597.81
910.7
78.2
14.41
11.91
16.63
13.26
9.24
7.10
9.62
7.75
6.068.23
7.08
9
6
31
29
13
6
13
16
3
6
3
4
13
6
22
28
3
5
13
15
24.6433.36
22.9126.88
32.0035.50
25.928.2
11.2315.16
8.9611.37
1415
11.412.9
22.9829.95
22.9424.08
29.731.6
2022.7
14.4521.63
14.9318.97
20.224.8
16.919
18.2723.52
16.2620.92
23.125.8
18.221.2
29.57 3.54
24.84 1.68
33.59 1.01
26.86 0.59
13.34 1.36
10.30 1.12
14.42 0.34
11.88 0.34
26.49
23.47 0.43
30.93
21.45
18.78 2.41
17.04 1.76
22.50 0.91
18.03 0.55
20.10
18 1.91
24.57 0.80
19.87 0.88
1
6
13
6
19.54
19.8620.96
14.4720.99
13.8917.38
19.54
20.48
17.48 2.33
15.79 1.56
7
6
16
17
14
6
15.12)20.26
13.53)16.79
16.3)18.8
13.1)14.5
11.9315.85
10.5912.92
17.49 2.35
15.27 1.37
17.26 0.68
13.86 0.37
14.30 1.32
11.93 0.95
1.50
1.20
0.79
0.55
0.42
0.30
Table 2 (continued)
inter-observer error, Ledford was responsible for recording all metrics

and measurements were taken multiple times to ensure accuracy. Osteological metrics were recorded in millimeters on both complete and
partial elements when possible to reduce bias against any taphonomic
pathways that favor broken bones such as butchering (following
Badenhorst et al., 2012: 65).
While multiple lines of evidence are ideal for making strong statements about the management status of past animal populations, not
all are always available for every case. Thus, we include here the demographic proles (sex) of the turkeys recovered from the Fewkes site.
Meadow (1989) discusses the limitations of using age and sex ratios
in determining between wild and domestic ungulate populations. He
asserts that it is necessary to understand the demography and behavior
of wild populations in order to determine when age and sex patterns
differ from the norm for the wild group (Meadow, 1989: 83). In contrast
to large herbivores, turkeys reach sexual and physical maturity within
their rst year, with little age-related osteological changes, and thus,
the age structure of a turkey death assemblage is not very likely to
give much insight into ancient population management (Badenhorst
et al., 2012). For this paper we focus our study on size differences and
sex ratios.
We realize that our sample size may not be ideal when compared to
the size of datasets available for large mammals (like deer or cattle).
However, we are dealing with an avian species that is well studied in
the wild, especially in terms of ock demography and individual and
group behavior. Thus, we compare our archaeological ndings to solid
modern data.
The eastern wild turkey (Meleagris gallopavo silvestris) is a highly
sexually dimorphic species; therefore, demographic proles of archaeological assemblages can be built by recording and plotting osteometrics
(Badenhorst et al., 2012: 69; Steadman, 1980). We employ this method
and plot selected metrics from Fewkes along with modern female turkeys in the Zooarchaeological Research Facilities at the University of
Tennessee (UTK) for a control (M. Dennison, personal communication).
We expect the metrics collected from larger males to be easily distinguished from those of smaller females. We then compare the Fewkes
turkeys to a second assemblage from the Buffalo site in Putnam County,
West Virginia (Steadman, 1980). Steadman notes that these turkeys
represent birds hunted by seventeenth century Native Americans and
are an unprecedented example of wild Meleagris gallopavo silvestris
(Steadman, 1980: 149). We use a student's t-test to determine if any observable differences in size between our turkeys and the comparatives
were statistically signicant.
The statistical analysis revealed that the observed robustness of the

Fewkes turkeys was signicant for some elements. The cranial diagonal
(Dic) of the scapulae from Fewkes were larger than all of the comparative females (UTK); this difference was statistically signicant (UTK,
p = 0.004; Buffalo site, p = 0.009). The distal diagonal of the ulnae
were also signicantly larger than females from the Buffalo site (p =
0.006). All measurements recorded for the carpometacarpus (GL, Bp,
Did) were signicantly larger than both sets of comparative females
(UTK and Buffalo, p 0.001). For all other recorded osteometrics, any
differences in size were not statistically signicant, thus the sex of
these specimens remain inconclusive.
The osteometric data thus indicate that both male and female adult
turkeys are represented in the Fewkes faunal assemblage, with males
being present in equal or greater numbers than females. This contrasts
with an osteometric study of domestic turkeys from Mesoamerica,
which reported much higher numbers of adult females (Manin et al.,
2016). The results also contrast with expectations of wild hunted assemblages from the non-mating season, which could be expected to
be composed primarily of females and their subadult offspring. Instead,
the Fewkes assemblage compares better to the demographic proles of
managed turkey populations in the American Southwest where more
balanced ratios of males and females have been observed (Badenhorst
et al., 2012, Speller and Yang, 2016, this volume). If the Fewkes turkey
assemblage represents a managed turkey population, it thus indicates
extensive use of turkeys for both feathers and meat since a signicant
number of males were allowed to reach sexual maturity and large
adult size. If on the other hand, the Fewkes assemblage represents a
wild, unmanaged population of turkeys obtained through hunting, the
relative abundance of large males could indicate more balanced hunting
of males and females, with some preferential selection of these adult
males based on their larger body size and desirable plumage. Some
human selection of these individuals may be related to their use in burial rituals as the turkeys recovered from burial-associated features are all
leg or wing elements that fall within the size range of males.
Although adult females were present in the Fewkes assemblage,
there were no occurrences of medullary bone. Seasonal hunting patterns and small sample sizes could reduce the chance of observing medullary bone in an avian assemblage, but the absence of this feature could
also indicate turkey management practices which avoided killing females during the egg-laying period and/or prime reproductive and
egg-laying years. This pattern is consistent with data from managed domestic geese populations in Japan (Eda et al., 2015). Our small sample
size, however, precludes us from drawing any denitive conclusions regarding this observation.
8. Results and discussion

While the faunal assemblage from Fewkes is moderately diverse,
overall, the data indicate a heavy reliance on a small suite of taxa
(Peres, 2010a). While large mammals, specically white-tailed deer
(Odocoileus virginianus) dominate the assemblage, a relatively small
number of taxa, including turkey, comprise the bulk of the remainder
of the assemblage, especially in terms of Minimum Number of Individuals (MNI). A total of 443 turkey specimens have been identied from
all contexts at Fewkes. Turkeys comprise 10% of the total MNI at the
site. This compares well to contemporaneous sites in Middle Tennessee
(Table 3).
Prior to collecting osteometric data, we determined that six specimens (MNI = 1, all from Feature 55) were unequivocally from juveniles. These were excluded from the current analysis. Of the adult
specimens, two left tarsometatarsii with spurs were identied as indisputably male. However, only one of the tarsometatarsii had
measureable reference points. As expected, larger presumably male
and smaller presumably female individuals are easily distinguished
from one another when the known modern females (UTK) are included
(Table 2; Figs. 24). The plotted osteometrics illustrate the variation and
range in size of the wild turkey specimens identied at Fewkes (Fig. 5).
Fig. 4. Carpometacarpi identied from Feature 55, Fewkes site.
GL of Phalanx I
Bd and Dd Tibiotarsus
25.00
35.00
30.00
20.00
25.00
15.00
20.00
Fewkes
15.00
UTK
Fewkes
UTK
10.00
10.00
5.00
5.00
0.00
0
10
0.00
0.00
12
5.00
10.00
Bd Radius
15.00
20.00
25.00
Did Carpometacarpus
16.00
18.00
14.00
16.00
12.00
14.00
12.00
10.00
Fewkes
8.00
UTK
10.00
Fewkes
8.00
UTK
6.00
6.00
4.00
4.00
2.00
2.00
0.00
0
10
12
0.00
14
10
12
14
16
Fig. 5. Scatterplot comparisons of selected morphometrics from Fewkes and UTK (mm). A = greatest length (GL) of phalanx I; B = distal breadth (Bd) and distal depth (Dd) of tibiotarsi;
C = distal breadth (Bd) values of radi; D = distal diagonal (Did) values of carpometacarpi.
9. Summary and recommendations

This is the rst study to apply established morphometric protocols to
determine ock demographics of an archaeological turkey assemblage
from the Southeastern US. The demographic prole discussed above
suggests a population with a considerable number of adult males and
some non-egg-laying adult females being killed. More comparative research is needed, but the results may be interpreted as either the result
of humans managing local turkey populations as sources of both meat
and feathers, or occasional selective hunting of large adult males. Interestingly, only adult male turkeys were identied in burial contexts. This
likely is tied to native cosmologies as seen in the turkey cock gorgets
from Eastern Tennessee and north Georgia.
Methods used by those studying turkey domestication and husbandry in Mesoamerica and the American Southwest have been successful in
aiding our overall understanding of ock management. The two main
avenues for research we are pursuing include stable isotope and ancient
DNA analysis of archaeological turkeys. Analyses of carbon and nitrogen
stable isotopes from archaeological specimens in the Southwest and
Mesoamerica revealed a turkey population that consumed a diet high
in C4 plants, most likely maize (Thornton et al., 2016 Rawlings and
Driver, 2010; McCaffery et al., 2014). Turkeys in the wild would have a
more diverse diet and thus a higher C3 signature (Thornton et al.,
2016). Genetic data will allow us to assign sex to those elements that
lack denitive markers and/or measurable landmarks, as well as sketch
out the relationship of the eastern wild turkey to wild and domesticated
Table 3
Occurrence of wild turkey identied from Mississippian Period sites in Middle Tennessee.
Site name
Site
number
Turkey Turkey % MNI of Citation

NISP
MNI
total site
Fewkes
Rutherford-Kizer
Castalian Springs
Mound Bottom
40WM1
40SU15
40SU14
40CH8
443
141
39
182
16
9
6
22
10%
7.96%
10%
9.80%
Peres, 2010a
Clinton and Peres, 2011
Peres, 2011
TODA, n.d.
populations in the Southwest US and Mesoamerica. All of the turkey

specimens identied in the Fewkes faunal assemblage have been sent
to Erin Thornton, Washington State University, for stable isotope and
ancient DNA analysis. These data will be presented in future publications. Finally, a primary goal of our continued research program is to
create a database of osteometrics for the eastern wild turkey (Meleagris
gallopavo silvestris) from archaeological sites in the Southeastern United
States that spans the Archaic through Contact periods. This database will
be shared with other researchers interested in studying the question of
turkey management in the Southeastern US. Overall, this avenue of research allows us to illuminate the complexity of human-animal relationships that existed in the Precolumbian American South.
Acknowledgments
Our appreciation to Erin Thornton, Kitty Emery, and Eduardo Corona
for inviting us to submit a paper to this special issue. We appreciate the
efforts of staff of the Tennessee Division of Archaeology, especially
Aaron Deter-Wolf, and the Tennessee Department of Transportation
for continued access to materials for this project. The helpful comments
of Rochelle Marrinan, Erin Thornton, and two anonymous reviewers
greatly improved the presentation of our ideas; however, any omissions
or errors are ours completely.
References
Albarella, U., 1997. Size, power, wool and veal: zooarchaeological evidence for late medieval innovations. In: De Bow, G., Verhaeghe, F. (Eds.), Environment and Subsistence
in Medieval Europe. Instituut voor het Archeologisch Patrimonium, pp. 1930.
Badenhorst, S., Lyle, R., Merewether, J., Driver, J., Ryan, S., 2012. The potential of
osteometric data for comprehensive studies of turkey (Meleagris gallopavo) husbandry in the American Southwest. Kiva 78 (1), 6178.
Bleed, P., 2006. Living in the human niche. Evol. Anthropol. 15, 810.
Bleed, P., Matsui, A., 2010. Why didn't agriculture develop in Japan? A consideration of
Jomon ecological style, niche construction, and the origins of domestication.
J. Archaeol. Method Theory 17 (4), 356370.
Bknyi, S., 1989. Denitions of animal domestication. In: Clutton-Brock, J. (Ed.), The
Walking Larder. Unwin-Hyman, Winchester, pp. 2227.
10
Bottema, S., 1989. Some observations on modern domestication processes. In: CluttonBrock, J. (Ed.), The Walking Larder. Unwin-Hyman, Winchester, pp. 3145.
Breitburg, E., 1988. Prehistoric New World Turkey Domestication: Origins, Developments,
and Consequences. (PhD Dissertation). Southern Illinois University, Carbondale .
Buchholz, R., 1995. Female choice, parasite load and male ornamentation in wild turkeys.
Anim. Behav. 50:929943. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/00033472(95)80,0956.
Buchholz, R., 1997. Male dominance and variation in eshy head ornamentation in wild
turkeys. J. Avian Biol. 28, 223230.
Buchholz, R., 2004. Effects of parasitic infection on mate sampling by female wild turkeys
(Meleagris gallopavo): should infected females be more or less choosy? Behav. Ecol.
15:687694. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/beheco/arh066.
Buchholz, R., Jones Dukes, M.D., Hecht, S., Findley, A.M., 2004. Investigating the Turkey's
Snood as a morphological marker of heritable disease resistance. J. Anim. Breed.
Genet. 121:176185. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.14390388.2004.00449.x.
Clayton, L.A., Knight, V.J., Moore, E.C., 1993. The De Soto Chronicles. vol. 1. University of
Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.
Clinton, J.M., Peres, T.M., 2011. Pests in the garden: testing the garden-hunting model at
the Rutherford-Kizer site, Sumner County, Tennessee. Tenn. Archaeol. 5 (2), 131141.
Cornell Lab of Ornithology, 2015. All About Birds: Wild Turkey. http://www.allaboutbirds.
org/guide/wild_turkey/id (ed.). vol. 2015. Cornell University, Ithaca, New York.
Ducos, P., 1989. Dening domestication: a clarication. In: Clutton-Brock, J. (Ed.), The
Walking Larder. Unwin-Hyman, Winchester, pp. 2830.
Eda, M., Yashima, S., Inou, T., 2015. Medullary bone in goose remains: a reliable indicator
of domestic individual in non-breeding regions. Int. J. Osteoarchaeol. 25, 849854.
Evans, C.S., Evans, L., 1999. Chicken food calls are functionally referential. Anim. Behav. 58,
307319.
Fradkin, A., 1988. Cherokee Folk Zoology: The Animal World of a Native American People.
Garland Pub, New York, pp. 17001838.
Goff, G.R., Decker, D.J., Kelley, J.W., Howard Jr., R.A., 1981. Eastern wild turkey (Meleagris
gallopavo). New York's Wildlife Resources. Department of Natural Resources, Cornell
University, New York.
Grillo, R., 2014. Chicken Behavior: An Overview of Recent Science. (Electronic document,
http://freefromharm.org/chicken-behavior-an-overview-of-recent-science/, accessed
July 9, 2016).
Guiliano, W.M., 2015. Wild Hogs in Florida: Ecology and Management. Publication
#WEC277IFAS Extension, University of Florida, Gainesville.
Gulick, J., 1960. Cherokees at the crossroads. Institute for Research in Social Science. University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.
Healy, W.H., 1992. Behavior. In: Dickson, J.G. (Ed.), The Wild Turkey: Biology and Management. Stackpole Books, Mechanicsburg, PA, pp. 4665.
Hill, G.E., Doucet, S.M., Buchholz, R., 2005. The effect of coccidial infection on iridescent
plumage coloration in wild turkeys. Anim. Behav. 69:387394. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1016/j.anbehav.2004.03.013.
Hodder, I., 1982. The Present Past. Batsford, London.
Holtorf, C., 2000. Making sense of the past beyond analogies. In: Gramsch, A. (Ed.),
Vergleichen als archologische Methode. Analogien in den ArchologienBAR International Series 825. Archaeopress, Oxford, pp. 165175.
King, A., 2011. Iconography of the Hightower region of eastern Tennessee and northern
Georgia. In: Lankford, G.E., Reilly III, F.K., Garber, J.F. (Eds.), Visualizing the Sacred:
Cosmic Visions, Regionalism, and the Art of the Mississippian World. University of
Texas Press, Austin (pp).
Klinck, C.F., Talman, J.J., 1970. The Journal of Major John Norton, 1816. Champlain Society,
Toronto.
Kneberg, M.D., 1959. Engraved shell gorgets and their associations. Tennessee Archaeologist 15 (1), 139.
Krakauer, A., 2005. Kin selection and cooperative courtship in wild turkeys. Nature 434:
6972. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature03325.
Krakauer, A., 2008. Sexual selection and the genetic mating system of wild turkeys. Condor 110:112. http://dx.doi.org/10.1525/cond.2008.110.1.1.
Laland, K.N., Brown, G., 2006. Niche construction, human behavior, and the adaptive-lag
hypothesis. Evol. Anthropol. 75 (3), 95104.
Laland, K., OBrien, M., 2010. Niche construction theory and archaeology. J. Archaeol.
Method Theory 17 (4), 303322.
Laland, K.N., Odling-Smee, F.J., Feldman, M., 2001. Cultural niche construction and human
evolution. J. Evol. Biol. 14, 22.
Lankford, G.E., 2004. World on a string: some cosmological components of the Southeastern Ceremonial Complex. In: Townsend, R.F., Sharp, R.V. (Eds.), Hero, Hawk, and
Open Hand: American Indian Art of the Ancient Midwest and South. Yale University
Press, New Haven, pp. 206217.
Lapham, H., 2011. Animals in southeastern Native American subsistence economies. In:
Smith, B.D. (Ed.), The Subsistence Economies of Indigenous North American Societies:
A Handbook. Smithsonian Institution Scholarly Press, Washington, D.C., pp. 401429.
Larson, G., Fuller, D.Q., 2014. The evolution of animal domestication. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol.
Syst. 66, 115136.
Latham, R.M., 1956. Complete Book of the Wild Turkey. The Stackpole Company, Harrisburg .
Leopold, A.S., 1943. The molts of young wild and domestic turkey. Condor 45, 133145.
Manin, A., Cornette, R., Lefevre, C., 2016. Sexual dimorphism among Mesoamerican turkeys: a key for understanding past husbandry. J. Archaeol. Sci. Rep. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1016/j.jasrep.2016.05.066.
McCaffery, H., Tykot, R.H., Gore, K.D., DeBoer, B.R., 2014. Stable isotope analysis of turkey
(Meleagris gallopavo) diet from Pueblo II and Pueblo III sites, middle San Juan region,
Northwest New Mexico. Am. Antiq. 79 (2), 337352.
McRoberts, J.T., Wallace, M.C., Eaton, S.W., 2014. Wild turkey (Meleagris gallopavo). In:
Poole, A. (Ed.), The Birds of North America Online Online document. http://bna.
birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/022 (accessed February 26, 2016).
Meadow, R.H., 1989. Osteological evidence for the process of animal domestication. In:
Clutton-Brock, J. (Ed.), The Walking Larder. Unwin-Hyman, Winchester, pp. 8090.
Moore, M.C., Smith, K.E., 2009. Archaeological Expeditions of the Peabody Museum in
Middle Tennessee, 18771884. rst ed. vol. 16. Tennessee Division of Archaeology,
Nashville, Tennessee.
Muller, J., 2007. Prolegomena for the analysis of the Southeastern Ceremonial Complex.
In: King, A. (Ed.), Southeastern Ceremonial Complex: Chronology, Content, Context.
University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa, pp. 1537.
Munro, N.D., 2011. Domestication of the turkey in the American Southwest. In: Smith,
B.D. (Ed.), The Subsistence Economies of Indigenous north American Societies.
Smithsonian Institution Scholarly Press, Washington, D. C, pp. 543555.
Myer, W.E., 1928. Two Prehistoric Villages in Middle Tennessee. Annual Report. Bureau of
American Ethnology, Smithsonian Institution, Washington DC.
Pelham, P.H., Dickson, J.G., 1992. Physical characteristics. In: Dickson, J.G. (Ed.), The Wild
Turkey: Biology and Management. Stackpole Books, Mechanicsburg, PA, pp. 3245.
Peres, T.M., 2010a. Zooarchaeological remains from the 1998 Fewkes site excavations,
Williamson County, Tennessee. Tenn. Archaeol. 5 (1), 100125.
Peres, T.M., 2010b. Methodological issues in zooarchaeology. In: VanDerwarker, A.M.,
Peres, T.M. (Eds.), Integrating Zooarchaeology and Paleoethnobotany: A Consideration of Methods, Issues, and Cases. Springer, New York, pp. 1536.
Peres, T.M., 2011. Zooarchaeological Data from the 20052011 Excavations at Castalian
Springs (40SU14), Sumner County, Tennessee. (Manuscript on le). Department of
Anthropology, Florida State University, Tallahassee.
Power, S.C., 2004. Early Art of the Southeastern Indians: Feathered Serpents & Winged Beings. University of Georgia Press, Athens.
Rawlings, T.A., Driver, J.C., 2010. Paleodiet of domestic turkey, Shields Pueblo (5MT3807),
Colorado: isotopic analysis and its implications for care of a household domesticate.
J. Archaeol. Sci. 37, 24332441.
Reitz, E.J., Wing, E.S., 2008. Zooarchaeology. second ed. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge.
Russell, N., 2012. Social Zooarchaeology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge .
Russell, N., 2002. The wild side of domestication. Soc. Anim. 10 (3), 285302.
Schorger, A.W., 1966. The Wild Turkey: Its History and Domestication. The University of
Oklahoma Press, Oklahoma.
Speller, C., Kemp, B., Wyatt, S., Monroe, C., Lipe, W., Arndt, U., Yang, D., 2010. Ancient mitochondrial DNA analysis reveals complexity of indigenous North American turkey
domestication. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 107, 28072812.
Speller, C., Yang, D., 2016. Identifying the sex of archaeological turkey remains using ancient DNA techniques. J. Archaeol. Sci. Rep.
Steadman, D.W., 1980. A review of the osteology and paleontology of turkeys (Aves:
Meleagridinae). Contributions in Science 330. Natural History Museum of Los Angeles
County, pp. 131207.
Steponaitis, V.P., Knight, V.J., 2004. Moundville art in historical and social context. In:
Townsend, R.F., Sharp, R.V. (Eds.), Hero, Hawk, and Open Hand: American Indian
Art of the Ancient Midwest and South. Yale University Press, New Haven, Connecticut, pp. 167181.
Sterelny, K., 2005. Made by each other: organisms and their environment. Biol. Philos. 20,
2136.
Stokes, A.W., Williams, H.W., 1971. Courtship feeding in gallinaceous birds. Auk 88,
521527.
Stokes, A.W., Williams, H.W., 1972. Courtship feeding in gallinaceous birds. Auk 89,
177180.
Swanton, J.R., 1987. The Indians of the Southeastern United States. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.
Sullivan, L.P., 2001. Dates for Shell Gorgets and the Southeastern Ceremonial Complex in
the Chickamauga Basin of Southeastern Tennessee. McClung Museum, Knoxville,
Tennessee (Electronic document, http://mcclungmuseum.utk.edu/shell-gorgets/,
accessed August 25, 2015).
Thornton, E.K., Emery, K.F., Speller, C., 2016. Ancient Maya turkey husbandry: testing theories through stable isotope analysis. J. Archaeol. Sci. Rep. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
jasrep.2016.05.011.
Thornton, E.K., Emery, K.F., Steadman, D.W., Speller, C., Matheny, R., Yang, D., 2012. Earliest Mexican turkeys (Meleagris gallopavo) in the Maya region: implications for preHispanic animal trade and the timing of turkey domestication. PLoS One 7 (8),
e42630. http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0042630.
Tilley, C., 1999. Metaphor and Material Culture. Blackwell, Oxford.
TODA, n.d. "Mound Bottom, 1974-1975 excavations." Manuscript on le, Tennessee Division of Archaeology, Nashville.
VanDerwarker, A.M., 2006. Farming, Hunting, and Fishing in the Olmec World. University
of Texas Press, Austin.
von den Driesch, A., 1976. A Guide to the Measurement of Animal Bones from Archaeological Sites. Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University,
Cambridge.
White, M.E., 1980. An Ethnoarchaeological Approach to Cherokee Subsistence and Settlement Patterns. (PhD Dissertation). Department of Anthropology, Indiana University,
Bloomington.
Whitthoft, J., 1946. Bird lore of the Eastern Cherokee. J. Wash. Acad. Sci. 36 (11), 372384.
Zeder, M.A., 2015. Core questions in domestication research. PNAS 112 (11), 31913198.
Zeder, M.A., 2012. Pathways to Animal Domestication. In: Gepts, P., Famula, T.R.,
Bettinger, R.L., Brush, S.B., Damania, A.B., McGuire, P.E., Qualset, C.O. (Eds.), Biodiversity in Agriculture: Domestication, Evolution, and Sustainability. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 227259.

Archaeological Correlates of Population

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Archaeological Correlates of Population

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

JASREP-00694; No of Pages 10

Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports xxx (2016) xxxxxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports

Archaeological correlates of population management of the eastern wild turkey

biological literature of the eastern wild turkey (M. gallopavo silvestris),

supporting these ethnohistoric accounts is scarce, but excavations in the

4. The eastern wild turkey

species-specic markers as evidence of population management in the

indirect tness benets by helping the dominant brother pass on the

Large borrow pit outside of palisade lled with

Upper ll sequence associated with burial pit

Possible hearth associated with structure 12

inter-observer error, Ledford was responsible for recording all metrics

The statistical analysis revealed that the observed robustness of the

8. Results and discussion

Fig. 4. Carpometacarpi identied from Feature 55, Fewkes site.

9. Summary and recommendations

Turkey Turkey % MNI of Citation

populations in the Southwest US and Mesoamerica. All of the turkey

You might also like