On Bonfire Shelter (Texas) as a Paleoindian Bison Jump: An Assessment Using GIS and Zooarchaeology

Abstract

The Plainview/Folsom-aged bison Bonebed 2 at Bonfire Shelter, originally excavated in the 1960s, is argued to be the earliest North American bison jump (Dibble 1970; Dibble and Lorrain 1968). Yet, it is far older than all other known jumps, and well south of where the great majority of these sites are found. Dibble (1970) reasonably argued that its age and location was not compelling evidence against it being a bison jump. However, Binford (1978) observed that the skeletal composition of Bonebed 2 did not resemble a kill. To assess whether Bonfire Shelter could have been utilized as a jump and whether it was, we explore two lines of evidence bearing on the issue, a GIS analysis of the site and upland topography, and zooarchaeological analysis of the recovered bison remains. Although our GIS analysis indicates that Bonfire Shelter meets many of the criteria of a jump locality, our reanalysis of the faunal remains suggests this was not the primary kill locus, but instead a processing area to which high-utility portions of at least 24 bison were transported and butchered. Where the bison were killed, and how, is not known.

Of Buffalo and Butchers: Coupling Traditional Procurement Studies with Taphonomic Analyses to Explore Intensive Wild Animal Processing Patterns at Two Early Iron Age Sites in the Kruger National Park

“…In addition to the identification of the various processes that influence and shape an assemblage (e.g., Gifford-González 1993 ;Lyman 1994 ;Orton 2012 ) and even the differentiation of different site types-such as permanent settlements vs. acquisition and processing sites (e.g., Bamforth 2011 ;Byerly et al 2005Byerly et al , 2007Driver 1990 )-taphonomy can also clarify what was being "procured" beyond the meat, as in the traces of cut marks made during skinning (e.g., Binford 1981), breakage patterns indicative of marrow and bone grease extraction (e.g., Byers 2002 ;Karr et al 2014 ;Outram 2001 ), the variation in processing seen between different meat preservation methods (e.g., Friesen 2001 ;Friesen and Stewart 2013 ), and even the speed and skill of the butchers doing the processing (e.g., Seetah 2006bSeetah , 2008. All of these add detail to our understanding of faunal use habits that extend far beyond initial procurement choices.…”

“…In either or both cases, this type of situation might concentrate selection and utilization efforts on those elements or portions that proffered the best yield for time spent processing (e.g., Metcalfe and Jones 1988 ;Lupo 2006 , p. 30;Lupo et al 2013 ). Time-based selective use patterns would then be evident in the types of elements that were heavily and thoroughly exploited, as is seen at North American bison mass kill sites (e.g., Frison 1970 ;Widga 2004 ;Byerly et al 2005 ;Bamforth 2011 ) and here in the Le6 and Le7 material. Therefore, selective use could be one strategy for dealing with limited processing time.…”

“…It should be noted that these processing sites are not necessarily a highly ephemeral, once-off hunting camp. As seen in the North American bison studies (e.g., Frison 1970 ;Logan 1998 ;Widga 2004 ;Byerly et al 2005 ;Bamforth 2011 ), specialized kill and processing sites range from small sites where a handful of animals were processed once, to large-scale kill sites used again and again, and various combinations thereof. Therefore, this site type should not immediately be related to the small temporary hunting camps locally associated with Later Stone Age foragers (e.g., Huffman 2007 , p. 3).…”

“…Everything from the distinct focus on the hunting of large wild ungulates, highly selective and systematic butchery patterns that emphasize speed, to even the almost wholesale discard of skeletal parts at the processing site (which produces a distinct skeletal element profile) evident in the Le6 and Le7 assemblages, is mirrored in the bison processing site assemblages (e.g., Frison 1970 ;Widga 2004 ;Byerly et al 2005 ;Bamforth 2011 ). These are also not the only aspects Le6 and Le7 have in common with bison processing sites.…”

“…As not all meat is being procured for immediate local consumption, decisions must be made about how that meat will be carried, not to mention preserved, to its final destination. Thus, if Le6, Le7, or any phase therein, was a kill site, there may be certain characteristics in preparation one would expect (e.g., Frison 1970 ;Gifford-González 1993 ;Widga 2004 ;Byerly et al 2005 ;Bamforth 2011 ). For instance, there may be fewer signs of cooking, as not all meat procured was consumed on site (e.g., Gifford-González 1993 ).…”