science

one page summary

Deer use in good times and in bad: A Fort
Ancient case study from southwest Ohio
Jacob Deppen1, Robert A. Cook2

1Department of Anthropology, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA, 2Department of Anthropology,
The Ohio State University, Newark, OH, USA

White-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) utilisation before and during increased moisture variability and
pronounced drought conditions during the late prehistory of southwestern Ohio is examined to assess the
fit with the expectations of foraging efficiency models. The focus is on three Fort Ancient sites in the upper
portion of the Great Miami River, including SunWatch, a large village located in present-day Dayton, Ohio.
SunWatch was occupied during the Late Prehistoric era in the region. The earlier uses (AD 1150–1300)
occurred during optimal moisture conditions. The later uses (AD 1300–1450) occurred within the context
of increased droughts and extreme moisture variability. To address questions related to changing deer
utilisation in response to drought, deer remains are examined temporally for the SunWatch site and two
smaller Fort Ancient sites in the region (Wegerzyn and Wildcat). Results from this preliminary and
exploratory study indicate that through time, deer body size is stable or decreases, juvenile deer became
more abundant in the hunted assemblages, and human butchering strategies became less selective.
These support the conclusion that environmental stress on the deer population led to a change in the deer
population and influenced the way humans used deer.

Keywords: Archaeozoology, Drought, Climate Change, White-tailed deer, Fort Ancient, Ohio, USA

This study is a preliminary and exploratory examin-
ation of deer remains to assess whether environmental
stress, specifically drought, affected deer (Odocoileus
virginianus) hunting and utilisation strategies by
Native American communities in southwestern Ohio.
Our focus is on a case study derived from late prehis-
toric contexts in the upper portion of the Great
Miami River in southern Ohio, USA, but the impli-
cations are general in that they can be applied any-
where drought has been well documented and for
which exist faunal assemblages from dated contexts.
White-tailed deer utilisation before and during a

severe drought during the Late Prehistoric period in
southwestern Ohio is examined to assess the fit with
the expectations of foraging efficiency models.
White-tailed deer were chosen for analysis because
they are unquestionably the most abundant taxon in
these assemblages. The focus is on three Fort
Ancient sites in the upper portion of the Great
Miami River, including SunWatch, a large village
located in present-day Dayton, Ohio. SunWatch was
occupied at various times throughout much of the
Late Prehistoric era in the region (Cook 2007a,
2008). The earlier occupations (AD 1150–1300)

occurred during optimal moisture conditions and
mostly during the warm months, with colder months
presumably spent at smaller camps. The later occu-
pations (AD 1300–1450) occurred on a year-round
basis, during and after a prolonged drought. Dietary
analyses have not been temporally examined for
SunWatch or for smaller Fort Ancient sites in the
region. This study addresses this issue by examining
whether or not there are differences in the deer assem-
blages between pre-drought and post-drought con-
texts. Assemblages used to address this question are
from dated features at SunWatch and the only other
Fort Ancient sites in the region that have been exca-
vated, Wegerzyn and Wildcat.

Theoretical Expectations
Foraging theory forms the basis of our theoretical
expectations. Optimal foraging theory assumes that
human populations will try to maximise their strat-
egies with respect to a certain currency, usually
energy (Bettinger 1991; Smith and Winterhalder
1992; Kelly 1995; Winterhalder 2001). We draw
specifically on the prey-choice model within foraging
theory. The prey-choice model assumes that humans
hunt the highest-ranked animal resources whenever
they are encountered (Schoener 1971; Pulliam 1974;
Charnov 1976; Pyke et al. 1977; Stephens and Krebs

Correspondence to: Jacob Deppen, Department of Anthropology,
University of Washington, Denny Hall, Box 353100, Seattle, WA 98195,
USA. Email: jdeppen@uw.edu

© Association for Environmental Archaeology 2014
DOI 10.1179/1749631413Y.0000000002 Environmental Archaeology 2014 VOL. 19 NO. 172

mailto:jdeppen@uw.edu

mailto:jdeppen@uw.edu

1986; Winterhalder and Smith 2000). The presence of
lower-ranked animals in the hunted population
depends on the encounter rate with the highest-
ranked resources. Thus, if the encounter rate with
high-ranking resources declines, the presence of
lower-ranking resources would increase.
White-tailed deer are the highest-ranking resource in

much of the eastern United States, including southwest
Ohio. While other mammals like elk and bear provided
the opportunity for more total meat per animal, their
relative scarcity and/or the energy required to hunt
them means that they likely would have had a lower
net energy gain than white-tailed deer (Reidhead
1981). As the highest-ranked mammal resource, we
expect the zooarchaeological assemblages from the
study sites to reflect the abundance of high-ranked
deer on the landscape. More specifically, Wolverton’s
(2008: Fig. 2, 185) model gives us tools to examine
the twin effects of human harvest pressure and
changes in environmental carrying capacity on deer
populations. During a drought, we expect that agricul-
tural communities like those investigated here would
face shortages (or at least instability and uncertainty)
in the domesticated plant resources they had come to
rely on. To mitigate this shortage, we expect that they
would rely more heavily on wild resources, especially
highly ranked wild resources like deer. In the terms of
the model, this would be seen as an increase in
human harvest pressure on the deer population and
would be indicated by a steepening survivorship
profile of the population. Steepening survivorship
simply refers to a decrease in the number of adult
deer relative to young deer because more and more
adults are being removed from the population by preda-
tors, in this case, hunters.
The deer population itself would also have experi-

enced the effects of drought directly. A decrease in
the amount of forage available to the deer population
(i.e. a decrease in environmental carrying capacity)
would generally be expected to result in a decrease in
body size. However, increased harvest pressure, as pre-
dicted above, normally has the opposite effect: an
increase in body size. When these two phenomena
are paired together, it is reasonable to expect either a
modest reduction in body size or no change at all.
In sum, according to expectations derived from the

model, we expect a drought would have had the twin
effects of an increase in human harvest pressure and
a decrease in environmental carrying capacity. In the
zooarchaeological record, we should see an increase
in the number of younger deer relative to older deer
and a slight decrease or no change in deer body size
when comparing assemblages before and during the
drought.
Changes in either human harvest pressure or

environmental carrying capacity might also be

evident in the utility patterns. In most applications of
foraging theory, more selective utility patterns would
be interpreted as an increase in transportation distance
as a result of a decrease in the encounter rate (i.e. a
decrease in the prey population) (e.g. Broughton
2002; Nagaoka 2002, 2005). However, even in the
worst of times, Fort Ancient hunters in southwest
Ohio may not have had to travel so great a distance
as to change their butchering strategies because deer
populations would never have been so sparse as to
demand it. It has even been suggested that agricultural
settlements like those analyzed here would have been
ideal environments for deer, possibly even drawing
the deer to the hunters (Yerkes 2005; but see
Ketchum et al. 2009). Thus, if we assume that trans-
portation distance was not an important factor,
changes in utility pattern could be caused by a
change in the abundance of prime-aged deer. ‘Prime-
aged’ is used here as a relative marker for fully
mature deer that have reached their maximum body
size and thus, would result in the most meat reward
for a human hunter. The exact age at which deer
reach their maximum body size is highly dependent
on local conditions, but usually occurs around 4–5
years. As explained below, we proceed under the
likely assumption that maximum (i.e. optimal) body
size occurred sometime after the juvenile deer’s
bones have fused. In a drought context, we expect
the number of these prime-aged deer to decrease due
to harvest pressure. With fewer of the optimal prey
available, we expect to see a ‘take what you can get’
strategy where Fort Ancient hunters are less selective
in their hunting and butchering practices.
In sum, according to expectations derived from the

model, we expect a drought would have had the twin
effects of an increase in human harvest pressure and
a decrease in environmental carrying capacity. In the
zooarchaeological record, we should see an increase
in the number of younger deer relative to older deer
and a slight decrease or no change in deer body size
when comparing assemblages before and during the
drought. In addition, as the number of mature deer
decreased, we expect that Fort Ancient hunters
adopted butchering strategies to get the most out of
the less-than-optimal prey.

Study Sites
The study sites used to address the cultural response in
faunal utilisation after a severe drought belong to the
last prehistoric culture to inhabit the middle Ohio
River Valley. Archaeologists have named them ‘Fort
Ancient,’ and they have also generally described
them as ‘tribal’ societies (Henderson and Pollack
2001). The Fort Ancient culture area was initially
identified in reference to villages in southwestern
Ohio (Putnam 1886; Moorehead 1892), but was later

Deppen and Cook Deer use in good times and in bad

Environmental Archaeology 2014 VOL. 19 NO. 1 73

expanded to cover much of the Middle Ohio Valley
(Griffin 1943) (Fig. 1). (Detailed overviews can be
found in Cowan 1987, Drooker 1997, and
Henderson 1992.)
Fort Ancient sites date from approximately AD

1000 to AD 1650 (Drooker 1997). There was only

one major change in settlement patterning during
this 650-year period. At around AD 1400, there was
a marked abandonment of the neighboring region to
the west, which became the ‘Vacant Quarter’
(Williams 1990; Cobb and Butler 2002). In tandem
with this abandonment, Fort Ancient sites became

Figure 1 Locations of study sites within the Fort Ancient region and closest PDSI cell (#227).

Deppen and Cook Deer use in good times and in bad

Environmental Archaeology 2014 VOL. 19 NO. 174

http://www.maneyonline.com/action/showImage?doi=10.1179/1749631413Y.0000000002&iName=master.img-000 &w=443&h=599

more restricted in the distribution of their settlements.
They became more focused on the main rivers, and
particularly along the Ohio rather than many sites in
locales in the upper reaches of its tributaries
(Kennedy 2000). At the same time, there may have
been a slight increase in social complexity that hap-
pened alongside further reaching exchange networks
(Pollack and Henderson 1992, 2000; Drooker 1997;
Cook 2008). This shift seems to be partially related
to the end of the Medieval Warm Period and the
beginning of the ‘Little Ice Age’. This period of
global cooling was one of cool and dry conditions
that affected many world populations.
In this study, we focus on three excavated Fort

Ancient sites in the upper portion of the Great
Miami River (SunWatch, Wegerzyn, and Wildcat)
(see Fig. 1). This is an area known for its proximity
to a dense concentration of prairie openings (Wagner
1988), ideal habitat for white-tailed deer (Hesselton
and Hesselton 1982). Before briefly summarising
these sites, we first describe the locale used for recon-
structing the drought conditions in the area.

Palmer Drought Severity Index Locale
Environmental variability reconstructions created by
Cook et al. (1999, 2004) reveal a significant change
in the moisture regime in this region through time
(Fig. 2). These studies compared dendrochronology
samples from throughout North America with the
Palmer Drought Severity Index (PDSI) to examine
the occurrence and duration of drought over the last

2000 years. Relevant to this study, Cook et al. (1999,
2004) found that during much of the AD 1300s, south-
west Ohio was notably drier than previous centuries,
conditions that persist for much of the remainder of
the Fort Ancient period (ending ca. AD 1650). (It is
important to note that there were some good years
during this generally poor time – relative moisture
often continued to fluctuate greatly from year to
year. The extreme variability coupled with the cumu-
lative effect of bad years is the important pattern.)
These data form the temporal basis for our drought
consideration and are available for querying and
download on NOAA Paleoclimatology’s World Data
Center for Paleoclimatology and the Applied
Research Center for Paleoclimatology (www.ncdc
.noaa.gov/paleo/pdsi.html). For our study, we used
PDSI grid point #227, as it was closest in proximity
to the study sites (see Fig. 1).

SunWatch
The SunWatch site (33MY57) is a relatively large
(1·4 ha), circular Fort Ancient habitation site located
in what is now Dayton, Ohio (Fig. 3). Excavations at
the site began in the 1960s by interested avocational
archaeologists (Allman 1968; Smith n.d.), and have
been conducted since then under the direction of the
Dayton Society of Natural History (Heilman et al.
1988; Cook 2008). Portions of the site have been recon-
structed and an interpretive center welcomes visitors to
the site. The site is often used as an example of the
classic Fort Ancient ‘doughnut-shaped’ village, with
rings of houses, burials, and storage pits surrounding
an open plaza (Henderson and Pollack 2001).
The site sits on the floodplain of the Great Miami

River on the Wea Silt Loam soil type (Davis 1976),
ideal for maize agriculture. Based on a recent analysis
of maize consumption (based on stable carbon
isotopes), we know that the inhabitants of SunWatch
consumed more maize than other sites in the region
(Cook and Schurr 2009). The results of over 30 years
of excavation and analyses have revealed details about
village structure during two distinct phases of use. In
the early phase (AD 1150–1300), the site was occupied
during the warm seasons, with winters likely spent away
at hunting camps (Shane 1988; Wagner 1996, 2008).
Corporate leadership also characterised this period,
with family groups holding influence over their small
sections in the village circle (Cook 2008). During the
later phase (AD 1300–1450), the site was occupied
year-round and leadership developed on a village-
wide scale, during a time of marked Mississippian pres-
ence in the village (Cook 2008).

Wegerzyn
The Wegerzyn site (33MY127) is a 0·3-ha habitation
located along the Stillwater River 10·5 km north

Figure 2 Relative moisture between AD 1000 and 1600 for
PDSI #227 (see Fig. 1 for location, and Cook et al. 1999, 2004).
Note: Data presented above are based on the 20-year low
pass interval for clarity of presentation. Shaded area denotes
onset of our interpretation of increased moisture variability
and drought conditions.

Deppen and Cook Deer use in good times and in bad

Environmental Archaeology 2014 VOL. 19 NO. 1 75

www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pdsi.html

www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pdsi.html

www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pdsi.html

www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pdsi.html

www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pdsi.html

http://www.maneyonline.com/action/showImage?doi=10.1179/1749631413Y.0000000002&iName=master.img-001 &w=215&h=234

of SunWatch (see Fig. 3). Professional excavations
under the direction of the Dayton Society of Natural
History began with a few test excavations and have
been ongoing most summers since the mid-1990s
(Simonelli and Kennedy 2003; Kennedy 2007). The
site is situated on the Ross Silt Loam soil type
(Davis 1976). While this soil is also excellent for
maize agriculture, stable carbon isotope analysis
reveals a lower level of maize consumption by people
there (Cook and Schurr 2009). Radiocarbon dates
place the main occupation of the site in the AD
1300s (Bill Kennedy, personal communication 2009).
The site appears to be similar in plan to other small
circular Fort Ancient villages like Horseshoe
Johnson (Hawkins 1998), although further fieldwork
is needed before this is confirmed.

Wildcat
The Wildcat site (33MY499) is located north of both
SunWatch (18 km) and Wegerzyn (8·5 km). While
SunWatch sits 0·25 km from the Great Miami River
and Wegerzyn sits 0·16 km from the Stillwater River,
Wildcat sits near a small intermittent stream, 1·7 km
from the Miami River. Professional excavations were

conducted by The Ohio State University Department
of Anthropology from 2007 to 2009. Extensive
shovel testing, magnetic gradiometry and suscepti-
bility survey, and excavations indicate that the site con-
sists of a small habitation covering 0·3 ha (Cook
2007b) (see Fig. 3). The site as a whole was likely occu-
pied between the mid-AD 1200s and late AD 1300s.
The site is situated on the Corwin silt loam soil type
(Davis 1976), which is not as productive as Ross or
Wea silt loam. No stable carbon isotope tests have
been conducted, but we do know based on a prelimi-
nary analysis of macrobotanical remains that maize
density is roughly four times lower than at SunWatch
(Martin 2009).

Faunal Samples
The soils in the study area range in pH from 7·0 to 8·0,
excellent conditions for faunal preservation (Davis
1976; Shane 1988; see Results section for more discus-
sion of taphonomy). All samples are derived from fea-
tures of the same type (storage/trash pits), sealed
contexts where animal scavenging does not appear to
have altered the assemblage (i.e. no extensive evidence
of gnaw marks).

Figure 3 Maps of the SunWatch, Wegerzyn and Wildcat sites, indicating sample locations. Note: Wegerzyn map based on
excavations through 2007. Wildcat map based on excavations through 2008.

Deppen and Cook Deer use in good times and in bad

Environmental Archaeology 2014 VOL. 19 NO. 176

http://www.maneyonline.com/action/showImage?doi=10.1179/1749631413Y.0000000002&iName=master.img-002 &w=444&h=361

The sample included all of the white-tailed deer
bones from a selection of trash pit features: Feature
2/05 and Pit Feature Group 2·1 at SunWatch,
Feature 2/00 at Wegerzyn, and Feature 3/07 at
Wildcat (see Fig. 3). Two of the contexts produced
early dates: SunWatch Feature 2/05 produced a
median calibrated AMS radiocarbon date of AD
1290 and Wildcat Feature 3/07 produced a median
calibrated AMS radiocarbon date of AD 1273. Two
others produced later dates: Wegerzyn Feature 2/00
produced a median calibrated AMS radiocarbon
date of AD 1413 and SunWatch Pit Feature Group
2·1 produced a median calibrated AMS radiocarbon
date of AD 1359. This latter date places it in the
later stage (ca. AD 1300–1450) of SunWatch’s occu-
pational sequence (Cook 2007a). These four samples
allow temporal comparison of sites from which to
assess whether utilisation practices changed from
pre-drought (SunWatch [Feature 2/05] and Wildcat
[Feature 3/07]) to drought conditions (and Wegerzyn
[Feature 2/00] and SunWatch [Pit Feature Group
2·1]) (Fig. 4).

Methodology
Shane (1988) identified deer bones from SunWatch Pit
Feature Group 2·1. This methodology was used for the
remainder of the samples (identified by Deppen). Deer
bones were identified to skeletal element, side, comple-
teness (proximal, medial, distal, complete), and epi-
physeal closure using osteological reference materials
(Olsen 1964; Gilbert 1980) and the comparative collec-
tion in the Department of Anthropology at The Ohio
State University.

Age and Body Size
Ideally, to examine age in deer, an age profile of the
assemblage would be constructed using standards for
the wear on deer teeth. However, the sample sizes for
teeth in these assemblages make constructing accurate
profiles in this way impossible. Instead, we use an
admittedly less precise index based on epiphyseal fusion.
As with all mammals, white-tailed deer begin life

with the ends of many bones (epiphyses) not yet
‘fused’ with the shafts (diaphyses). As the animal
grows, the bones will steadily fuse to form complete

Figure 4 Calibrated radiocarbon dates showing two-sigma ranges (OxCal4; Bronk Ramsey 2009).

Deppen and Cook Deer use in good times and in bad

Environmental Archaeology 2014 VOL. 19 NO. 1 77

http://www.maneyonline.com/action/showImage?doi=10.1179/1749631413Y.0000000002&iName=master.img-003 &w=421&h=407

bones. The time of fusion differs for each bone and even
for the different ends (proximal, distal) of the same
bone. Most white-tailed deer bones, however, are
fused by the time the animal is around 24 months
old, and nearly all before 36 months (Purdue 1983).
After skeletal growth is complete though, deer continue
to add body mass and do not reach their full body size
(in other words, their full utility to hunters) until some-
where around 4–5 years (Rue 1997).
In the absence of better aging indices, unfused bones

are used here as a rough, relative measure of the
number of juveniles in each sample. We compare the
ratio of unfused to total bones for each assemblage.
Results are also presented specifically for early-fusing
bones. The values themselves should not be inter-
preted as ratio scale data on the proportion of juveniles
in the deer population. However, given relatively equal
preservation conditions, the measure can be used as an
ordinal scale measure with which to compare assem-
blages. As we are only interested in change through
time, not the exact amount of that change, an
ordinal scale will suit our goals.
Estimates of body size were made using measures of

the astragalus as this bone matures early, does not sig-
nificantly change in size during development, and has
been shown to be a strong indicator of size and sex
(Purdue 1986, 1989). It should not be sensitive to
any potential changes in the adult body size or the
abundance of juvenile deer. Specific measurements
used here are medial depth (ASMD) and lateral
length (ASLLEN) (see Purdue 1989: Fig. 1).

Utilisation
A food utility index was used to make intersite utility
comparisons. Food utility indices have been used to

evaluate the butchering practices of prehistoric
peoples (see Metcalfe and Jones 1988; Purdue et al.
1989; Yerkes 2005). An ideal butchering strategy,
usually derived from experimental or ethnoarchaeolo-
gical evidence, is compared to the observed archaeolo-
gical assemblage to examine whether and how the
prehistoric butchering practices diverged from the
ideal. Following these studies, bones were grouped
according their utility value (i.e. low, medium or
high) and the relative abundances (based on the
number of identified specimens (NISP)) were com-
pared. From this analysis, we can examine whether
there was any change in butchering practices through
time.

Results
At SunWatch, Feature 2/05 (early) contained 427
identifiable deer bones and Pit Feature Group 2·1
(late) contained 631 identifiable deer bones.
Wildcat’s Feature 3/07 (early) produced 202 identifi-
able specimens. Wegerzyn’s Feature 2/00 (late) pro-
duced 1052 identifiable specimens.

Age and Body Size
Epiphyseal fusion data support the expectation that
later contexts contain more young deer. The patterns
are best expressed by examining the number of
unfused bones relative to the total number of bones
in the sample (Fig. 5). Of the 427 bones in the
SunWatch sample (early), only 22 (5·2 percent) are
unfused. Wildcat (early) contains 202 identified deer
bones, 25 (12·4 percent) of which are unfused, more
than two times more than from SunWatch (early),
which is a significant difference (χ2 = 10·35, P =
0·001). Wegerzyn (late) contains the largest amount

Figure 5 Percentage of juvenile deer for each sample context.

Deppen and Cook Deer use in good times and in bad

Environmental Archaeology 2014 VOL. 19 NO. 178

http://www.maneyonline.com/action/showImage?doi=10.1179/1749631413Y.0000000002&iName=master.img-004 &w=361&h=233

of unfused bones (n = 247 [21·5 percent]), more than
four times the value for SunWatch (early) and over
one and a half times greater than even the Wildcat
sample, both of which are statistically significant
(χ2 = 58·84, P < 0·0001, and χ2 = 8·92, P = 0·003, respectively). SunWatch (late) also contains a large amount of unfused bones (n = 112 [17·8 percent]), sig- nificantly more than the early SunWatch feature (χ2 = 36·54, P < 0·0001). This trend is also observed when limiting the analy-

sis to early-fusing bones (Table 1). The proximal
radius, second phalanx, and first phalanx all begin to
fuse before the deer is 1 year old, and thus should cer-
tainly reflect deer that have not reached full maturity.
Although sample sizes are not large enough for statisti-
cal analysis, the ratio of unfused to fused occurrences

of these skeletal elements increases through time, as
would be expected if an increasing number of young
deer were being hunted.
Consideration of the astragalus as an indicator of

body size reveals changes in body, if any, were very
subtle (Fig. 6). The two early samples produced a
mean ASLLEN of 41·81 mm (n = 19), while the two
late samples produced a mean ASLLEN of 40·59
(n = 50). A two-tailed t test reveals these samples to
be statistically different (P = 0·02). The two early
samples produced a mean ASMD of 23·39 mm (n =
19), while the two late samples produced a mean
ASMD of 22·82 (n = 50). A two-tailed t test reveals
this to be of ambiguous statistical significance (P =
0·09). There was not a significant distinction for
either measurement with respect to site size.

Table 1 Ratios of unfused to fused for early-fusing skeletal elements

Wildcat SunWatch (early) SunWatch (late) Wegerzyn

Unfused Fused Unfused Fused Unfused Fused Unfused Fused

Radius, proximal 1 3 0 1 0 14 2 12
Humerus, distal 0 9 0 11 0 12 2 21
2nd phalanx 0 7 2 9 4 27 12 16
1st phalanx 2 8 1 4 7 33 5 25
Total 3 27 3 25 11 76 21 74
Ratio (unfused:fused) 0·11 0·12 0·14 0·28

Figure 6 Astragalus measurements for early and late sample contexts (ASMD = medial depth; ASLLEN = lateral length
[see Purdue 1989: Fig. 1]).

Deppen and Cook Deer use in good times and in bad

Environmental Archaeology 2014 VOL. 19 NO. 1 79

http://www.maneyonline.com/action/showImage?doi=10.1179/1749631413Y.0000000002&iName=master.img-005 &w=385&h=332

In addition to results from the statistical tests, visual
inspection of the data (Fig. 6) also suggests that there
is some difference between the early and late samples.
However, it is important to note that even if statisti-
cally significant, differences of just 1–2 mm could
also be misleading in this context (though see
Purdue 1989). While the largest astragali tend to be
among the early group and the smallest tend to be
among the late group, the amount of overlap suggests
that the populations were not substantially different in
body size.

Utilisation
The food utility index shows a pattern of decreasing
selectivity by Fort Ancient hunters through time.
Table 2 shows the proportion of each skeletal
element in the assemblage organised in order of
utility (after Yerkes 2005). The earlier assemblages,
Wildcat and SunWatch Feature 2/05, were selectively
avoiding elements with low utility while the later
samples reflect butchering practices that were
less selective. The two early samples are very similar
(r = 0·985) to each other as are the two later samples
(r = 0·969). There is not a strong correlation between
any of the early and late samples. It is also worth
noting that there is a strong correlation between each
of the late samples and the pattern that we would
expect in a complete deer skeleton (r = 0·987 for
Wegerzyn; r = 0·996 for late SunWatch), providing
solid evidence that the entire animal was utilised.
The strongest differences in utility are between early

and late contexts rather than between the larger
SunWatch site and the smaller Wildcat and
Wegerzyn sites. This seems to indicate that, again,
differences are not related to site size or function.
To ensure the differences observed above are not

simply an artifact of density-mediated destruction of

the bones, element abundances from each assemblage
were compared with three bone density values for
white-tailed deer presented in Lyman (1984). This
analysis helps us understand whether the pattern we

Table 2 Food utility values (modeled after Yerkes 2005)

Wildcat (%) SunWatch (early) (%) SunWatch (late) (%) Wegerzyn (%) Complete Deer (%)

Skull 2·20 0·00 1·75 1·34 9·80
Mandible 0·73 2·42 0·00 1·69 1·40
Atlas + axis 1·47 0·24 1·91 1·96 1·40
Metacarpal + carpals 6·41 7·73 11·48 11·73 11·20
Phalanges 13·55 14·25 24·88 18·73 16·80
Total low 24·36 24·64 40·03 35·46 40·60

Vertebrae 10·62 20·29 12·92 17·75 16·80
Pelvis + sacrum 2·20 2·90 1·91 1·96 2·10
Ribs 13·55 22·71 4·78 13·11 16·80
Scapula 3·66 3·62 3·99 1·34 1·40
Humerus 5·49 5·56 2·71 3·39 2·80
Radius/ulna 5·49 1·45 6·54 3·30 2·80
Metatarsal 12·27 6·52 8·61 6·65 2·80
Total medium 53·30 63·04 41·47 47·50 45·50

Femur 5·49 4·83 1·59 2·50 2·80
Tibia + tarsals 12·82 7·49 16·91 12·13 11·20
Total high 18·32 12·32 18·50 14·63 14·00

Table 3 Rank-order correlations between skeletal elements
and three bone density measures (after Lyman 1984)

Bone mineral
density

Linear
density

Volume
density

SunWatch (early)
Number of

pairs
62 62 62

Spearman’s
rho

0·0601 0·0995 0·0534

T 0·47 0·77 0·41
Df 60 60 60
One-tailed p 0·32003 0·222161 0·341633
Two-tailed p 0·640059 0·444321 0·683266

Wildcat
Number of

pairs
63 63 63

Spearman’s
rho

0·1485 0·2172 −0·0162

T 1·17 1·74 −0·13
Df 61 61 61
One-tailed p 0·123276 0·043451 0·0448497
Two-tailed p 0·246552 0·086902 0·896994

Wegerzyn
Number of

pairs
66 66 66

Spearman’s
rho

−0·0666 −0·0416 −0·0796

T −0·53 −0·33 −0·64
Df 64 64 64
One-tailed p 0·298973 0·371239 0·262229
Two-tailed p 0·597946 0·742478 0·524457

SunWatch (late)
Number of

pairs
62 62 62
Spearman’s
rho

−0·224 −0·082 0·1833

T −1·78 −0·64 1·44
Df 60 60 60
One-tailed p 0·04007 0·262305 0·077533
Two-tailed p 0·08014 0·524609 0·155065

Deppen and Cook Deer use in good times and in bad

Environmental Archaeology 2014 VOL. 19 NO. 180

see is a product of taphonomic forces or a seemingly
real pattern in past human behavior. Three different
density standards are used because the rank order of
the bone densities is slightly different when measured
in different ways and there is no way to predict
which is the proper standard to use. A Spearman’s
rank-order correlation coefficient was calculated and
the results are presented in Table 3. Of the 12 calcu-
lations, three showed a statistically significant relation-
ship between density and element abundance:
the linear density for the Wildcat assemblage
(Spearman’s rho = 0·2172; one-tailed P = 0·043) and
the bone mineral density for the late SunWatch
assemblage (Spearman’s rho = −0·224; one-tailed
P = 0·040). The other 10 do not show a significant
relationship between bone density and there abun-
dance in the archaeological record. These results,
though not conclusive, suggest that density did not
play an important role in the element abundances.

Conclusion
White-tailed deer (O. virginianus) bones from dated
contexts at three Fort Ancient sites were examined to
assess the fit with foraging models in relation to
environmental stress. Cook et al. (1999, 2004) pro-
vided evidence that we interpreted as supporting sig-
nificant periods of drought in southwest Ohio, most
notably in the AD 1300s and persisting through
much of the remainder of the Fort Ancient period
(until AD 1650). It is often difficult to differentiate
between changes in the deer population that result
from human activity and those that result from
environmental factors. Wolverton (2008) provides a
framework to determine whether a given assemblage
is the result of changes in human harvest pressure or
changes in environmental carrying capacity. This
model suggests that a steepening of survivorship (a
shift toward more young individuals) and stable or
decreasing body size is indicative of a decrease in the
environmental carrying capacity (Wolverton 2008:
185). This is exactly the pattern we have described
for the assemblages presented here. More juvenile
deer were hunted during the drought period while
body size, as measured from the astragalus, was
either stable or decreased slightly.
Additionally, the utility patterns fit our expectations

outlined above. Pre-drought contexts indicate some
selectivity for higher utility elements, but drought con-
texts show a less selective pattern that closely matches
the pattern of a complete deer skeleton. If one allows
for our assumption that carcass transport distance
was not an important factor to Fort Ancient hunters,
these patterns may represent what we called the ‘take
what you can get’ strategy that resulted from a
decline in the abundance of prime-aged deer.

We conclude that the evidence presented here shows
that drought episodes in southwest Ohio, beginning in
the 14th century AD, caused a decline in the environ-
mental carrying capacity for deer in the area at the
same time that humans increased the harvest pressure
on the deer population. Further, Fort Ancient hunters
adapted their butchering strategies to make up for the
reduction in the number of prime-aged, large-bodied
deer. They shifted from a butchering strategy based
on some selection for food utility to a strategy based
on using the entire deer.
We have offered drought as a possible cause for the

observed changes in the 14th and 15th centuries for
three reasons: (1) a broadening of the hunted popu-
lation to include less-optimal animals has been
suggested for drought periods elsewhere (Bousman
2005); (2) the changes are independent of site size;
and (3) the chronological agreement between the
drought and the archaeological changes noted here.
This interpretation, of course, should not be construed
as definitive, but rather should be taken as a working
hypothesis. Further research needs to address the
scope of the drought as well as a variety of other
factors (environmental and cultural) that may have
contributed to the shift in strategies.
Additionally, we recognize in this preliminary study

that the sample sizes presented are far from ideal. The
feature contexts analyzed here were chosen because
they represent the only dated Late Prehistoric features
from sites in the area with adequately sized deer assem-
blages. Faunal analysis of other dated contexts in the
region will be vital to increase the sample size and to
examine whether the pattern also occurs in other
parts of the Fort Ancient world.
Based on data we have presented, deer utilization

strategies in the upper portion of the Great Miami
River drainage changed through time, possibly as a
result of variable moisture and frequent deficits begin-
ning in the 14th century AD These findings adhere
well to the tenets of the foraging efficiency models.
Only after examining more dated contexts, before,
during, and after the drought period, will we be
better able to examine its validity. We have presented
a series of methods that seem promising for assessing
changing hunting practices in Fort Ancient popu-
lations, and advancing general knowledge of the
impact of environmental change on faunal utilisation
strategies.

Acknowledgements
This study was made possible through several grants
from The Ohio State University: an Undergraduate
Research Scholarship (College of the Arts and
Sciences), an Undergraduate Research Award
(College of Social and Behavioral Sciences), a
Summer Research Internship (University Honors

Deppen and Cook Deer use in good times and in bad

Environmental Archaeology 2014 VOL. 19 NO. 1 81

and Scholars Department), and a Research and
Scholarly Activity Grant (Newark Campus). The
landowners of Wegerzyn (Five Rivers Metroparks)
and Wildcat (Cemex) deserve special thanks for allow-
ing archaeological excavations to be conducted there,
resulting in datasets examined here. Bill Kennedy,
Curator of Anthropology at the Dayton Society of
Natural History, provided essential access to the
Wegerzyn collections and helped move the project
along. Richard Yerkes provided invaluable comments
on various aspects of the study and generously allowed
open access to The Ohio State University Department
of Anthropology’s comparative collection. Donald
Grayson also provided many helpful comments to
improve early drafts of the manuscript. We also
thank the two anonymous reviews for their thoughtful
and immensely useful comments. Any errors or omis-
sions are the sole responsibility of the authors.

References
Allman, J. C. 1968. The incinerator village site. Ohio Archaeologist

18, 50–6.
Bettinger, R. L. 1991. Hunter–Gatherers, Archaeology, and

Evolutionary Theory. New York: Plenum Press.
Bousman, C. B. 2005. Coping with risk: later Stone Age technologi-

cal strategies at Blydefontein Rock Shelter, South Africa.
Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 24, 193–226.

Bronk Ramsey, C. 2009. Bayesian analysis of radiocarbon dates.
Radiocarbon 51, 337–60.

Broughton, J. M. 2002. Prey spatial structure and behaviour affect
archaeological tests of optimal foraging models: Examples
from the Emeryville Shellmound Vertebrate Fauna. World
Archaeology 34, 60–83.

Charnov, E. L. 1976. Optimal foraging: attack strategy of a Mantid.
American Naturalist 110, 141–51.

Cobb, C. R. and Butler, B. M. 2002. The vacant quarter revisited:
late Mississippian Abandonment of the lower Ohio Valley.
American Antiquity 67, 625–41.

Cook, E. R., Meko, D. M., Stahle, D. W. and Cleaveland, M. K.
1999. Drought reconstructions for the Continental United
States. Journal of Climate 12, 1145–62.

Cook, E. R., Woodhouse, C. A., Eakin, C. M., Meko, D. M. and
Stahle, D. W. 2004. Long-term aridity changes in the Western
United States. Science 306, 1015–8.

Cook, R. A. 2007a. Single component sites with long sequences of
radiocarbon dates: the SunWatch Site and Middle Fort
Ancient Village Growth. American Antiquity 72, 439–60.

Cook, R. A. 2007b. Ohio State University Field School at the
Wildcat Site. Paper presented at the Ohio Archaeological
Council Fall Membership Meeting, Newark.

Cook, R. A. 2008. SunWatch: Fort Ancient Development in the
Mississippian World. Tuscaloosa, Alabama: University of
Alabama Press.

Cook, R. A. and Schurr, M. R. 2009. Eating between the lines:
Mississippian Migration and Stable Carbon Isotope Variation
in Fort Ancient Populations. American Anthropologist 111,
344–59.

Cowan, C. W. 1987. First Farmers of the Middle Ohio Valley: Fort
Ancient Societies, A.D. 1000–1670. Cincinnati, Ohio:
Cincinnati Museum of Natural History.

Davis, P. E. 1976. Soil Survey of Montgomery County, Ohio.
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Drooker, P. B. 1997. The View from Madisonville: Protohistoric
Western Fort Ancient Interaction Patterns. Museum of
Anthropology, Memoirs No. 31, Ann Arbor, Michigan:
University of Michigan.

Gilbert, B. M. 1980. Mammalian Osteology. Columbia, Missouri:
Missouri Archaeological Society.

Griffin, J. B. 1943. The Fort Ancient Aspect. Ann Arbor, Michigan:
University of Michigan.

Hawkins, R. A. 1998. Coming full circle: Plowzone assemblages and
the interpretation of Fort Ancient settlement structure, pp.
91–109 in Sullivan, A. P. (ed.), Surface Archaeology.
Albuquerque, New Mexico: University of New Mexico Press.

Heilman, J. M., Lileas, M. and Turnbow, C. (eds.) 1988. A History of
17 Years of Excavation and Reconstruction: A Chronicle of 12th
Century Human Values and the Built Environment: Volume I.
Dayton, Ohio: Dayton Society of Natural History.

Henderson, A. G. (ed.) 1992. Fort Ancient Cultural Dynamics in the
Middle Ohio Valley. Madison, Wisconsin: Prehistory Press.

Henderson, A. G. and Pollack, D. 2001. Fort ancient, pp. 174–94 in
Peregrine, P. and Ember, M. (eds.), Encyclopedia of Prehistory,
vol. 6. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Press.

Hesselton, W. T. and Hesselton, R. A. M. 1982. White-tailed Deer,
inChapman, J. A. and Feldhammer, G. A. (eds.). Wild
Mammals of North America. Baltimore, Maryland: The Johns
Hopkins University Press.

Kelly, R. L. 1995. The Foraging Spectrum. Washington, DC:
Smithsonian Institution Press.

Kennedy, W. E. 2000. Interpreting Fort Ancient Settlement
Variability. M.A. thesis, Department of Anthropology, Kent
State University, Kent, Ohio. University Microfilms, Ann
Arbor, Michigan.

Kennedy, W. E. 2007. Boonshoft Museum of Discovery Field
School at the Wegerzyn Site. Paper presented at the
Fall Meeting of the Ohio Archaeological Council, Newark,
Ohio.

Ketchum, S. A., Schurr, M. R. and Garniewicz, R. C. 2009. A test
for maize consumption by Fauna in Late Prehistoric Eastern
North America. North American Archaeologist 30, 87–101.

Lyman, R. L. 1984. Bone density and differential Survivorship of
Fossil Classes. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 3,
259–99.

Martin, K. R. 2009. Eastern Agricultural Complex Traditions in
Small Fort Ancient Communities – The Wildcat Example.
M.A. thesis, Department of Anthropology, The Ohio State
University, Columbus.

Metcalfe, D. and Jones, K. T. 1988. A reconsideration of animal
body-part utility Indices. American Antiquity 53, 486–504.

Moorehead, W. K. 1892. Primitive Man in Ohio. New York:
G. P. Putnam’s Sons.

Nagaoka, L. 2002. Explaining subsistence change in Southern New
Zealand using foraging theory models. World Archaeology 34,
84–102.

Nagaoka, L. 2005. Declining foraging efficiency and Moa Carcass
Exploitation in Southern New Zealand. Journal of
Archaeological Science 32: 1328–38.

Olsen, S. J. 1964. Mammal remains from archaeological sites. Papers
of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology,
Harvard University vol. 56, No. 1. Cambridge,
Massachusetts: Harvard University.

Pollack, D. and Henderson, A. G. 1992. Toward a model of Fort
Ancient Society, pp. 281–94 in Henderson, A. G. (ed.), Fort
Ancient Cultural Dynamics in the Middle Ohio Valley.
Madison, Wisconsin: Prehistory Press.

Pollack, D. and Henderson, A. G. 2000. Insights into fort ancient
culture change: a view from South of the Ohio River, pp.
194–215 in Genheimer, R. A., Cultures Before Contact: The
Late Prehistory of Ohio and Surrounding Regions. Columbus,
Ohio: Ohio Archaeological Council.

Pulliam, H. R. 1974. On the theory of optimal diets. American
Naturalist 108, 59–75.

Purdue, J. R. 1983. Epiphyseal closure in white-tailed Deer. The
Journal of Wildlife Management 47, 1207–13.

Purdue, J. R. 1986. The size of white-tailed Deer (Odocoileus virgi-
nianus) during the Archaic Period in Central Illinois,
pp. 65–95 in Neusius, S. W. (ed.), Foraging, Collecting, and
Harvesting: Archaic Period Subsistence in the Eastern
Woodlands. Occasional Paper 6. Center for Archaeological
Investigations, Southern Illinois University-Carbondale.

Purdue, J. R. 1989. Changes during the Holocene in the Size of
White-tailed Deer (Odocoileus virginianus) from Central
Illinois. Quaternary Research 32, 307–16.

Purdue, J. R., Styles, B. W. and Masulis, M. C. 1989. Faunal
remains and white-tail deer exploitation from a Late
Woodland Upland Encampment: The Boschert Site
(23SC609), St. Charles County, Missouri. Midcontinental
Journal of Archaeology 14, 146–63.

Putnam, F. W. 1886. Report of the curator. Peabody Museum Annual
Report 18, 401–19, 477–502.

Deppen and Cook Deer use in good times and in bad

Environmental Archaeology 2014 VOL. 19 NO. 182

http://www.maneyonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.2307%2F281213&isi=A1988Q221000005

http://www.maneyonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1080%2F00438240220134269&isi=000176564200005

http://www.maneyonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1080%2F00438240220134269&isi=000176564200005

http://www.maneyonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.2307%2F3808195

http://www.maneyonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.2307%2F3808195

http://www.maneyonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.2190%2FNA.30.1.d&isi=000270080400004

http://www.maneyonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1126%2Fscience.1102586&isi=000225001100038

http://www.maneyonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1086%2F283054&isi=A1976BH04200010

http://www.maneyonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1111%2Fj.1548-1433.2009.01137.x&isi=000269490800007

http://www.maneyonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2F0278-4165%2884%2990004-7&isi=A1984AFE7200001

http://www.maneyonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1080%2F00438240220134278&isi=000176564200006

http://www.maneyonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2Fj.jaa.2005.05.001&isi=000231834400001

http://www.maneyonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.2307%2F40035855&isi=000248500600003

http://www.maneyonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2F0033-5894%2889%2990097-5&isi=A1989AY92700006

http://www.maneyonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.2307%2F1593795&isi=000178557200004

http://www.maneyonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2Fj.jas.2005.04.004&isi=000230572500003

http://www.maneyonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2Fj.jas.2005.04.004&isi=000230572500003

http://www.maneyonline.com/action/showLinks?isi=000266642900019

http://www.maneyonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1086%2F282885&isi=A1974R891500005

http://www.maneyonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1086%2F282885&isi=A1974R891500005

http://www.maneyonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1175%2F1520-0442%281999%29012%3C1145%3ADRFTCU%3E2.0.CO%3B2&isi=000079500200016

Pyke, G. H., Pulliam, H. R. and Charnov, E. L. 1977. Optimal fora-
ging: a selective review of theory and tests. Quarterly Review of
Biology 52, 137–54.

Reidhead, V. A. 1981. A Linear Programming Model of Prehistoric
Subsistence Optimization: A Southeastern Indiana Example.
Prehistory Research Series Vol. 6, No. 1. Indianapolis,
Indiana: Indiana Historical Society.

Rue, L. L., III 1997. The Deer of North America. Guilford,
Connecticut: The Lyons Press.

Schoener, T. W. 1971. Theory of feeding strategies. Annual Review of
Ecology and Systematics 2, 369–404.

Shane, O. C. 1988. An interim summary report of the vertebrate
faunal remains from the Incinerator Site, pp. 157–213 in
Heilman, J. M., Lileas, M. and Turnbow, C. (eds.), A History
of 17 Years of Excavation and Reconstruction: A Chronicle of
12th Century Human Values and the Built Environment.
Dayton, Ohio: Dayton Museum of Natural History.

Simonelli, L. M. and Kennedy, W. E. 2003. “My other site is a
National Historic Landmark”: current research at the Late
Prehistoric Wegerzyn Garden Center Site (33My127). Paper
presented at the annual meeting of the Society for American
Archaeology.

Smith, C. n.d. Field notes on file, Anthropology Department,
Dayton Society of Natural History, Dayton, Ohio.

Smith, E. A. and Winterhalder, B. 1992. Evolutionary Ecology.
New York: Aldine de Gruyter.

Stephens, D. W. and Krebs, J. R. 1986. Foraging Theory. Princeton,
New Jersey: Princeton University Press.

Wagner, G. E. 1988. Local environment, inHeilman, J. M., Lileas,
M. and Turnbow, C. (eds.). A History of 17 Years of

Excavation and Reconstruction: A Chronicle of 12th Century
Human Values and the Built Environment. Dayton, Ohio:
Dayton Museum of Natural History.

Wagner, G. E. 1996. Feast or famine? Seasonal diet at a fort ancient
community, pp. 319–37 in Reitz, E. J., Newsom, L. A. and
Scudder, S. J. (eds.) Case Studies in Environmental
Archaeology. New York: Plenum Press.

Wagner, G. E. 2008. What seasonal diet at a fort ancient community
reveals about coping mechanisms, pp. 277–96 in Reitz, E. J.,
Scudder, S. J. and Scarry, C. M. (eds.). Case Studies in
Environmental Archaeology (second edition). New York:
Springer.

Williams, S. 1990. The vacant quarter and other late events in the
lower Valley, pp. 170–80 in Dye, D. H. and Cox, C. A. (eds.).
Towns and Temples along the Mississippi. Tuscaloosa,
Alabama: University of Alabama Press.

Winterhalder, B. 2001. The behavioral ecology of hunter–gatherers,
pp. 12–38 in Panter-Brick, C., Layton, R. H. and Rowley-
Conwy, P. (eds.). Hunter–Gatherers: An Interdisciplinary
Perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Winterhalder, B. and Smith, E. A. 2000. Analyzing adaptive strat-
egies: human behavioral ecology at twenty-five. Evolutionary
Anthropology 9, 51–72.

Wolverton, S. 2008. Harvest pressure and environmental carrying
capacity: an ordinal- scale model of effects on Ungulate Prey.
American Antiquity 73, 179–99.

Yerkes, R. W. 2005. Bone chemistry, body parts, and growth marks:
Evaluating Ohio Hopewell and Cahokia Mississippian
Seasonality, Subsistence, Ritual, and Feasting. American
Antiquity 70, 241–65.

Deppen and Cook Deer use in good times and in bad

Environmental Archaeology 2014 VOL. 19 NO. 1 83

http://www.maneyonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1002%2F%28SICI%291520-6505%282000%299%3A2%3C51%3A%3AAID-EVAN1%3E3.0.CO%3B2-7&isi=000086885300001

http://www.maneyonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1002%2F%28SICI%291520-6505%282000%299%3A2%3C51%3A%3AAID-EVAN1%3E3.0.CO%3B2-7&isi=000086885300001

http://www.maneyonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1146%2Fannurev.es.02.110171.002101

http://www.maneyonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1146%2Fannurev.es.02.110171.002101

http://www.maneyonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1086%2F409852&isi=A1977DP29600001

http://www.maneyonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1086%2F409852&isi=A1977DP29600001

http://www.maneyonline.com/action/showLinks?isi=000255425600001

http://www.maneyonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.2307%2F40035703&isi=000228909400002

http://www.maneyonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.2307%2F40035703&isi=000228909400002