Applied Zooarchaeology: The Relevance of Faunal Analysis to Wildlife Management

Author(s): R. Lee Lyman

Source: World Archaeology , Jun., 1996, Vol. 28, No. 1, Zooarchaeology: New Approaches
and Theory (Jun., 1996), pp. 110-125
Published by: Taylor & Francis, Ltd.

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/124977

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

Taylor & Francis, Ltd. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
World Archaeology

This content downloaded from

73.118.11.203 on Mon, 03 Apr 2023 01:40:02 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Applied zooarchaeology: the
relevance of faunal analysis to
wildlife management

R, Lee Lyman

Abstract

Zooarchaeology has the opportunity to expand its analytical horizons into the little explored realm
of modern wildlife management by applying the knowledge it gains from its unique perspective of
prehistory. Ways in which animal populations threatened with extinction might be protected in
perpetuity, identifying which forms or taxa should be reintroduced to which areas to recreate natural
biotas, identifying which forms or taxa are exotic and should be removed from an area to create a
natural biota, and helping to define the boundaries of biological preserves meant to preserve biota in
perpetuity are all subjects to which knowledge gained through zooarchaeological research might be
applied. The potential benefits include better informed wildlife management decisions, fewer
extinctions, less loss of biological diversity and increased job opportunities for zooarchaeologists.

Keywords

Biological reserves; exotic species; extinctions; native species; reintroductions; wildlife management.

Introduction

Zooarchaeologists have, in recent years, displayed a remarkably increasing sophisticati

in analytical techniques and are thus providing an ever-growing set of insights into p
human behaviours. Much of this sophistication has come from greater attention to
taphonomic issues (e.g. Fisher 1995; Gifford-Gonzalez 1991; Lyman 1994b) and from
more detailed ethnoarchaeological studies focused on faunal remains (e.g. Hudson 1993
Yet the questions we ask of the zooarchaeological record, and the problems we seek
solve with faunal data, have remained essentially constant virtually since the inception of
zooarchaeological analysis (Robison 1978). The determination of past subsistence syste
and paleoecological conditions remains at the forefront of modern zooarchaeology (e.
Brewer 1992), although chronological concerns have also benefited from zooarchaeolo
cal research throughout the history of archaeology as a discipline. From Edouard Larte
mid-nineteenth-century division of the French Palaeolithic into several mammal ages

World Archaeology Vol. 28(1): 110-125 Zooarchaeology

? Routledge 1996 0043-8243

This content downloaded from

73.118.11.203 on Mon, 03 Apr 2023 01:40:02 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 The relevance offaunal analysis to wildlife management 111

modern biostratigraphic analyses such as Cooke's (1976) study of suid remains prompting
redating of volcanic tuffs in Plio-Pleistocene hominid sites of Africa, zooarchaeology has
contributed much more to our understanding of the past than just our recreations of 'the
interaction sphere that included people and the fauna with which they were in contact'
(Olsen and Olsen 1981:193).
In this paper, I argue that zooarchaeologists are in a unique position to move beyond the
important anthropological and archaeological issues they seem to prefer and to broaden
the scope of their inquiries to include issues that are today, and will be in the future,
important to humanity. Specifically, I outline here what I perceive to be a little explored
avenue of zooarchaeological research - an avenue that could provide not only new sources
of funding for zooarchaeologists but new sources of jobs for them as well.
Archaeology is generally taught as a part of anthropology in North America. In North
America anthropological research seeks not only to increase our understanding of, but
also to better, the human condition. From the anthropology of the homeless, AIDS
(acquired immune deficiency syndrome) and domestic violence, to the anthropology of
criminal behaviour - wherein archaeological forensics or taphonomic research plays a
major role - anthropology can and does make a major contribution to making the world
what we hope will be a better place. Archaeology in general, and zooarchaeology in
particular, with the exception of forensic research, may appear to have little to offer in this
respect. But because so many modern potential ecological problems facing humanity
concern our impact on biological phenomena - destruction of the rain forest, decreasing
harvests of marine fishes and the like - zooarchaeology, as well as paleoethnobotany,
clearly has a major role to play in the resolution of those problems.
In the following, I describe several instances of the significance of zooarchaeological
(and paleontological) data for addressing and helping to resolve particular kinds of
modern problems faced by those concerned with wildlife management. Many nations have
one or more forms of national park and/or game preserve. Many of these spatial units are
managed in such a manner as to protect in perpetuity the biota included within their
boundaries. Sometimes attempts are made to enhance or modify the biotas of these parks
and preserves so that they reflect what are variously referred to as pristine ecosystems,
wilderness or native (pre-industrial) or natural biotas. Further, many nations have various
legal controls on hunting and trapping of animal species and legal controls over which
species can be harvested and which are to be unmolested. Managing wildlife sometimes
involves supplementing resident populations with individual organisms transplanted from
elsewhere or attempting to re-establish species in areas where native populations have
become extirpated. With its unique perspective on the time depth of ecosystems and
biotas, zooarchaeological research can be applied to ensure that wise wildlife management
decisions are made.
The kinds of wildlife management problems that zooarchaeological research might help
resolve are many. They are, however, often very specific to a particular geographical plac
and/or species. The examples that follow are those with which I am most familiar, and th
centre on North America. Examples from other continents and regions surely exist. None
the less, I have attempted to select examples that illustrate a broad diversity of wildlife
management concerns and how particular kinds of zooarchaeological research might help
resolve them.

This content downloaded from

73.118.11.203 on Mon, 03 Apr 2023 01:40:02 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
112 R. Lee Lyman

Populations threatened with extirpation

One of the major issues facing wildlife managers working in national parks and wildlife
preserves involves ensuring the wildlife species under their care survive in perpetuity.
Thus, wildlife managers attempt to identify measures that can be taken to ensure that
extirpation of species resident on park or preserve lands does not occur. One variable
presently being debated in North American wildlife management that weighs heavily on
this issue concerns what is known as SLOSS. Simply put, should a park or preserve consist
of Single Large Or Several Small pieces of landscape (see, for example, Quinn and
Harrison [1988] and references therein)? Thus far, the debate has employed data on the
modern distribution of taxa and has typically inferred that temporal processes have caused
these spatial patterns. Zooarchaeological data brought to bear on this debate can make the
temporal inference empirical.
Grayson (1991) reviewed the biogeographic history of small mammals in the Great
Basin physiographic province of western North America and then used zooarchaeological
and paleontological data to test the implications of a model first proposed by biogeogra-
pher J. H. Brown (1971, 1978). In simplest terms, Brown's model suggests that the modern
distribution of subalpine and alpine small mammals (e.g. pika [Ochotona princeps],
golden mantled ground squirrel [Spermophilus lateralis], ermine [Mustela erminea]) on
Great Basin mountaintops was the result of Pleistocene colonization of those mountains
followed by Holocene extinction of intermediate lowland populations and by differential
extinction of various mountaintop populations. Grayson (1991: 372) found that Brown's
model 'has impressive paleontological support' and I note that much of that support
derives from zooarchaeological research.
Grayson (1991: 373) noted that confirmation of Brown's model with the fossil record
'has clear implications for the management of high altitude environments in the Great
Basin'. He was referring to the fact that many populations of small mammals in this area
are today isolated on mountaintops. Basically following the theory of island biogeography
(MacArthur and Wilson 1967) as modified over the years (e.g. Brown 1986), Grayson's
study underscored - using zooarchaeological data - the fact that such small, genetically
isolated populations of species tend to be more prone to extinction than larger and/or
non-isolated populations (see also Korn 1994). Larger populations provide sufficient
genetic variation to ensure survival of a species, and larger areas allow migration between
population nodes because corridors between them are shorter. Either isolation of those
nodes from one another, or restriction of those nodes to small geographic areas - such as
mountaintops - or both, increases the probability that one or more of those nodes will
cease to exist. Thus the biogeographic histories of alpine small mammals of the Great
Basin indicate that neither alternative of SLOSS is workable here. We cannot enlarge the
insular alpine and subalpine habitats found on Great Basin mountaintops; boundaries of
those habitat patches are climatically dictated. And these habitat patches are not only
small, they are also multiple in number. Ensuring that these patches are not artificially
disrupted in the future would seem to be the only way to guarantee survival of their
included small mammals. Migration corridors between the habitat patches cannot be
artificially constructed or maintained. If such corridors could be built, where should they

This content downloaded from

73.118.11.203 on Mon, 03 Apr 2023 01:40:02 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 The relevance offaunal analysis to wildlife management 113

be located? The fossil record might help us determine where these corridors existed in the
past, as can be illustrated with another example.
The pygmy rabbit (Brachylagus idahoensis) is a diminutive leporid with a modern range
restricted to two areas of the western United States. One area is relatively large and
encompasses portions of four states: northern Nevada, western Utah, southern Idaho and
southeastern Oregon. The other historically documented area where this species occurs is
the central portion of eastern Washington state. Populations in the two areas are presently
isolated from one another. The wildlife management concern here is that the eastern
Washington population has, over the past forty years, shrunk to an alarmingly small size,
prompting the Washington Wildlife Commission to list this population as 'threatened' and
to suggest that it be listed as 'endangered' (McAllister and Allen 1993), and to develop a
management plan with the aim of ensuring survival of the population (McAllister and
Allen 1994). The zooarchaeological record of this species provides insight to why this
population is threatened with extirpation and how it might be preserved.
The zooarchaeological record for pygmy rabbits indicates this species probably
occupied a wider range in central Washington during the Holocene than it presently does.
Remains of this species have now been recovered from eleven archaeological and two
paleontological sites in the area (updated from Lyman 1991). Some of these are
extralimital records; that is, some remains have been recovered from geographic locations
where pygmy rabbits have not been historically documented to occur. In brief, the fossil
(botanical and faunal) record suggests that when big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata) was
more widespread in central Washington - during the middle Holocene climatic interval
known as the Altithermal - pygmy rabbits were also more widespread. When the
Altithermal ended about 4,500 years ago the range of sagebrush shrank, and so too did the
range of pygmy rabbits. Then, during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries,
land was cleared of sagebrush for agricultural purposes. This prompted a second
diminution of sagebrush and pygmy rabbit range.
Ecological studies of pygmy rabbits indicate that this leporid is dependent on big
sagebrush for food and for shelter from predation (Green and Flinders 1980a, 1980b). The
zooarchaeological record, in conjunction with paleobotanical data such as that from pollen
records, confirms this, as both species appear to have responded to climatic change in like
manner. Washington Department of Wildlife biologists have made use of both modern
and zooarchaeological data in their planning efforts (McAllister and Allen 1993, 1994).
The fossil record suggests that the prehistoric source of Washington's pygmy rabbits
resides in the area of the larger extant population to the south. Late Pleistocene fossils of
pygmy rabbits recovered from a paleontological site between the two areas (Rensberger
and Barnosky 1993) tend to confirm this suggestion. While it would probably be
impractical to develop a migration corridor between the two populations today, it would
also be impossible given the climatic history of the area. The probable corridor between
the two today is characterized by vegetation habitats that are not conducive to the survival
of pygmy rabbits. The zooarchaeological record does indicate, however, that the extant
population might be supplemented by individuals transplanted from southeastern Oregon
and that the maintenance of habitats dominated by big sagebrush is critical to the survival
of the species.

This content downloaded from

73.118.11.203 on Mon, 03 Apr 2023 01:40:02 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
114 R. Lee Lyman

When managing small isolated populations, we may not have many options other than
to preserve those populations as they presently exist. In some cases, management efforts
have failed and populations have been extirpated. When this occurs, one management
alternative is to transplant individuals from other populations to the vacated range in an
attempt to re-establish a population. Zooarchaeological research can also play an
important role in these situations.

Re-establishment of extirpated populations

Eighteenth- and nineteenth-century commercial exploitation of sea otters (Enhydra lutris)

along the western coast of North America ultimately led to the extirpation of this species
from much of its range (Kenyon 1969; Ogden 1993; Roest 1973). Attempts to re-establish
populations along the middle latitudes of that coast took place in the 1970s and thus far
have met with less than perfect success (Jameson et al. 1982, 1986; MacAskie 1987). The
typically expressed reason for the limited success of these efforts is that ecosystems to
which sea otters have been transplanted have been modified too extensively by modern
human industry to support them. I wonder if, however, part of the reason might reside in a
factor that only zooarchaeological research can measure.
Sea otter skulls collected from much of the once occupied eastern Pacific range of sea
otters display various character gradients from the Aleutian Islands to southern
California. Some of these characters have been used to argue for or against the existence of
multiple subspecies of sea otter (Davis and Lidicker 1975; Roest 1973, 1979; Scheffer and
Wilke 1950; Wilson etal. 1991). Final resolution of this debate will be critical to future
wildlife management activities, first because national legislation in the United States
concerns species, subspecies and populations (O'Brien and Mayr 1991) and also because
of conflict between one population (a possibly distinct subspecies) of sea otters and the
modern fisheries industry (Wendell et al. 1986). The significant aspect to all of this is the
transplanting of sea otters. Legally, only forms (ecotypes or subspecies) native to an area
should be introduced there during efforts to re-establish populations. This also makes
biological sense as it is likely that those native forms unique to an area are the product of
millennia of evolution.
The International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources - IUCN

(recently renamed the World Conservation Union) - has drafted guidelines for such
reintroductions. These read, in part,
An assessment should be made of the taxonomic status of individuals to be

re-introduced. They should be of the same taxonomic unit (and ideally c

genetically) as those which were extirpated. An investigation of historic
about the loss and fate of individuals from the re-introduction area, as well
genetic studies, should be undertaken in case of doubt. . . . Release stock
be closely-related genetically to the original native stock.
(Anonymous 1992: 2-3)

Clearly, a search of not only historic but also prehistoric information may be
The rapidly developing study of ancient DNA extracted from prehistoric sk

This content downloaded from

73.118.11.203 on Mon, 03 Apr 2023 01:40:02 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 The relevance offaunal analysis to wildlife management 115

(e.g. Richards et al. 1993, 1995, and references therein) seems to have great potential for
contending with IUCN guidelines. The technique is applicable to curated as well as newly
acquired archaeological specimens. It has, however, not yet been applied to Oregon coast
sea otter remains.

Given the lack of genetic material from eighteenth- and early nineteenth-century sea
otters on the Oregon coast, the problem becomes one of establishing the age of the
character gradients displayed by eastern Pacific rim sea otters (see Wilson et al. 1991 for a
recent summary) and determining if those gradients have shifted spatially through time. If
those gradients have a prehistoric distribution in time and/or space similar to that
documented using historic specimens, a potential problem is raised. If a particular form -
represented by a particular character state - of sea otter was present prehistorically in one
location within the range, and another form was present at another location, then
transplanting individuals from the former to the latter may be doomed from the start. In
such a case, failure to re-establish a population could result, on the one hand, because the
transplanted form is not well adapted to its new environment; the extirpated form, on the
other hand, is adapted to the environment of that location, hence its difference in form.
Several years ago I examined prehistoric sea otter remains recovered from archaeologi-
cal sites on the coast of the state of Oregon - the middle latitudes of the historically
documented range of sea otters (Lyman 1988b). The size of sea otter teeth recovered from
those sites are more or less intermediate to those from Alaska (large) and those from
southern California (small), but they also vary somewhat from this simple pattern.
Prehistoric Oregon sea otters match modern Alaskan sea otters in some characters; in
others, they match modern California sea otters. Precise details are unnecessary to the
point I wish to make here, which is: Were the sea otters captured in Alaska and
translocated to the Oregon coast in the 1970s of the proper phenotype (or genotype)?
Zooarchaeological evidence suggests they were not. If this is a correct interpretation, then
perhaps those transplanted sea otters were doomed from the moment they were captured.
Whether or not my suggestion proves to be true or false, and it is unclear which way the
cards might fall given that we still have much to learn about this species (VanBlaricom and
Estes 1988), the significance of zooarchaeological data should be clear.
Not only can zooarchaeological data inform us as to which form of a species might be the
most appropriate one to transplant to an area, such data have the potential to indicate the
potential success of such transplant efforts. Even if the appropriate form to transplant is
clear, this does not guarantee that the introduced form will survive in its new home. This is
precisely the argument offered by biologists working with sea otters on the Oregon coast.
The data substantiating their argument can be supplemented with zooarchaeological data.
An example of this is provided by the California condor (Gymnogyps californianus) of
western North America, a species presently near extinction (Emslie 1987). Zooarchaeo-
logical and paleontological data suggest this species enjoyed a wider range during the late
Pleistocene, but that range shrank considerably with the onset of the postglacial Holocene
epoch (Emslie 1987; Simons 1983). Those data also suggest that this species was a carrion
feeder, and that the terminal Pleistocene extinction of many genera of large mammals
probably contributed to the decline in frequency and range of the California condor
(Emslie 1987). Finally, paleoecological data indicate attempts to reintroduce this species
to portions of its prehistoric range would probably fail because of major differences

This content downloaded from

73.118.11.203 on Mon, 03 Apr 2023 01:40:02 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
116 R. Lee Lyman

between late Holocene floral and faunal communities and late Pleistocene communities
(Emslie 1987).
In the absence of historic data, or even with it (see below), zooarchaeological infor-
mation may be critical to ensuring that the correct forms of animals are transplanted. The
wrong forms may be ill suited to their new habitats, or they may be well adapted and pro-
liferate in their new homes. Of course, proliferation of artificially introduced species may,
on the one hand, be beneficial and what is desired. On the other hand, as I think many of us
are aware, it may not be desired. And the latter brings us to another kind of use that can be
made of zooarchaeological data when wildlife management is the issue.

Identifying exotic animals

Recalling the IUCN's guidelines for reintroductions, if a particular form of organism

(ecotype, subspecies or species) is exotic to a park or wildlife preserve, it may be necessary
to remove it from the area in order to preserve the natural status of the ecosystem and the
biota of the area. Thus, we must have a solid definition of exotic species. The United States
National Park Service (NPS) defines an exotic species as one 'that occurs in a given place as
a result of direct or indirect, deliberate or accidental actions by humans (not including de-
liberate reintroductions)' (Hester 1991: 127). In contrast, native species 'are those which
presently occur, or once did occur prior to some human influence, in a given place, area, or
region as the result of ecological processes that operate and have operated without signifi-
cant direct or indirect, deliberate or accidental alteration by humans' (NPS documents
cited in Lyman 1988a: 21; see also Wagner et al. 1995). Clearly, then, if wildlife managers
are to manage native ecosystems - variously referred to as pristine ecosystems or wilder-
ness - by exclusion or removal of exotic species and reintroduction of artificially extirpated
native species, then they must have that baseline list of native species. In the United States,
that list is derived from the earliest historical documents for the area included within a
national park (e.g. Houston and Schreiner 1995; Leopold et al. 1963; see also Hoerr 1993).
The ethnocentricity of such a procedure is, as might be imagined, unavoidable from a prac-
tical standpoint. More importantly, historical documents are sometimes incomplete and
are sometimes simply inaccurate. Those written documents can, of course, be sup-
plemented with another kind of document - the zooarchaeological record. Here, I men-
tion two examples of such supplementation.
Bison (Bison bison) were artificially introduced to a portion of the state of Alaska that
was to subsequently become Wrangell-St. Elias National Park and Preserve (Peek et al.
1987). By definition, these introduced bison should be considered exotic and are so con-
sidered by the NPS (Houston and Schreiner 1995). However, zooarchaeological evidence
indicates that bison were present in the area until at least 500 years ago or slightly later
(reviewed in Peek et al. 1987). Historic records suggest bison were not present when the
first white men visited the area in the middle and late nineteenth century, but non-
fossilized bison skulls were collected from the area early in the twentieth century (Peek
et al. 1987). Given the paucity of late Holocene zooarchaeological data in the area, and the
unknown nature of the relevant fossilization processes, it is unclear if bison were present in
Alaska between about 450 years ago and the early twentieth century (McDonald 1981).

This content downloaded from

73.118.11.203 on Mon, 03 Apr 2023 01:40:02 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 The relevance offaunal analysis to wildlife management 117

The NPS considers the bison of Wrangell-St. Elias National Park to be exotic due to the
lack of evidence that bison were present when the first white explorers passed through the
area (Houston and Schreiner 1995). As well, NPS biologists note that the introduced form
of bison was of an incorrect - non-native - genetic stock (a distinct subspecies or ecotype),
given current beliefs about bison taxonomy. For this reason alone, perhaps the extant
bison of Wrangell-St. Elias should be removed. However, the zooarchaeological record is
so poorly known that one cannot conclusively demonstrate that 'native' bison were locally
extinct by the beginning of the twentieth century. This in turn raises the possibility that
extant bison are hybrids of native and introduced genetic stocks. Whether or not this
possibility is in fact reality is irrelevant. What is critical here is that only more
zooarchaeological and paleontological research will establish, first, the timing of local
extirpation of native Alaskan bison populations and, second, if all Alaskan populations
were extinct when transplanting occurred in the middle of the twentieth century. Once the
facts are determined, we will have strong bases for making a decision regarding the
ultimate fate of the bison presently living in Wrangell-St. Elias National Park and
Preserve.

I am much more familiar - and intimately involved - with a virtually identical situation
that exists in western Washington state. Here, mountain goats (Oreamnos amnerican
were introduced in the 1920s to the Olympic Mountains. A decade later, in 1938, the
mountains were designated Olympic National Park. The present position of the NPS
that the mountain goats are exotic, and plans are, in mid-1995, under way to eradica
them. The plan is controversial (Anunsen and Anunsen 1993; Scheffer 1993), as is t
evidence mustered to support it (compare Houston et al. [1994] with Lyman [1994a, 199
1995b]). This is not the place to review that evidence in detail (see references cited). I
relevant, however, to note the significance of zooarchaeological evidence for final
resolution of the controversy.
The historical evidence concerning the pre-1920s presence of mountain goats in the
Olympic Mountains is ambiguous. Some documents indicate goats were absent, while
others indicate goats were present (Lyman 1994a, 1995b). In fact, the only way to
demonstrate that mountain goats were present, or absent, from the Olympic Mountains
prior to their 1920s introduction requires paleontological and/or zooarchaeological data.
At present, there are no paleontological data of any kind for the area, and the
zooarchaeological record is woefully inadequate and thus cannot serve as a basis for a
management decision (Lyman 1995a). Park biologists note that the purpose of national
parks in the United States is not 'to attempt to recreate late-Pleistocene or early Holocene
biotas. [The NPS] is primarily concerned with historic, post-Columbian species distri-
butions' (Houston and Schreiner 1995: 207). The facts remain, however; the zooarchaeo-
logical record is poorly known and the historic record is internally contradictory.
From the perspective of dynamic biogeographic histories provided by zooarchaeology,
one thing is abundantly clear: the definitions of native and exotic species used by the NPS
to implement its policies are contradictory. Exotic species occur in a given place as a result
of actions by humans, whereas native species are those which presently occur, or once did
occur prior to some human influence, in a place as the result of natural ecological
processes. The italicized phrase is where the contradiction resides, because it indicates that
if, for example, mountain goats occurred at any time in the past in the Olympic Mountains

This content downloaded from

73.118.11.203 on Mon, 03 Apr 2023 01:40:02 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
118 R. Lee Lyman

- or bison in Wrangell-St. Elias - then by definition the extant individuals represent a

native species. But the introduced species are also, by definition, exotic; having been
transplanted from northwestern Canada and southeastern Alaska, Olympic National
Park's mountain goats are of a different genetic stock, and thus are a form distinct from
mountain goats that may have been in the Olympic Mountains 200 years ago. Recognizing
this contradiction some years ago, I argued that if the prehistoric remains of mountain
goats should be found in the Olympic Mountains, then the NPS 'should rethink policy
issues' (Lyman 1988a: 22). Some NPS biologists have only recently come to the same
conclusion (Houston and Schreiner 1995). And given the discussions above of appropriate
forms (ecotypes, subspecies, species) and the benefit of hindsight, I would argue that the
policies and definitions of key terms should also be reworded to reflect the reality of
wildlife management practice (Anonymous 1992; O'Brien and Mayr 1991). Thus, given
their perspective of time depth, zooarchaeologists not only can contribute significant
paleobiological information to wildlife management concerns, but perhaps they can also
help write workable policies (see Wagner et al. 1995 for other examples). Paleobiological
information provided by zooarchaelogical research may also help wildlife managers plan
for the future, as the final example demonstrates.

Biological preserves and planning for the future

Thus far the examples of zooarchaeology applied to wildlife management concerns have
focused on the use of information on prehistoric faunal dynamics to inform management
decisions. That same kind of information can also be used to make broad predictions about
the future effects of certain kinds of decisions. For instance, as alluded to in the first
example presented above, the spatial boundaries of parks and wildlife preserves may have
significant implications for the long-term survival of populations found within those
boundaries. In an important contribution to the role of planning for the future on the basis
of the past, Graham (1988) notes that the boundaries of many parks and preserves are
defined based on modern climatic and environmental conditions. However, those
conditions, as we all know, change, and the probability of significant change incre
the length of time considered increases. Graham underscores the fact that much plann
to preserve terrestrial biological diversity operates under the assumption that biotas or
communities of organisms tend to respond to environmental change as intact units. The
paleobiological record indicates, however, that 'individual species respond to environ-
mental changes by migrating in different directions, at different rates, during different
times' (Graham 1988: 392). Such individualistic responses to environmental change mean
that the biological preserves of today are artifacts of the time when they were identified
and created. Thus, Graham (1988: 393) argues that 'constructing future reserves as habitat
islands without avenues of migration [corridors] would probably result in [extirpation of
bounded populations of managed species]'.
Graham (1988) thus suggests that, as in the example of the Great Basin's mountaintop
mammals, migration corridors are critical to organism survival and that preserves must be
located on the landscape in such a manner as to be conducive to inter-areal migration. I
suggest, following my earlier discussion, that knowing where those corridors were located

This content downloaded from

73.118.11.203 on Mon, 03 Apr 2023 01:40:02 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 The relevance offaunal analysis to wildlife management 119

in the past surely will help in locating future preserves. And, as Graham and Graham
(1994) indicate, detailed knowledge of the historical and ecological biogeography of a
taxon could prove critical to reconstructing appropriate habitats for reintroduced
populations of the taxon. Such knowledge can often come only from the fossil record.
Extinction - of populations, of species, of lineages - is a natural fact of life (e.g. Raup
1984). But ignorance resulted in the loss of the passenger pigeon (Ectopistes migratorius)
from North America, the Great Auk (Pinguinus impennis) from the North Atlantic and
the dodo (Raphus cucullatus) from Mauritius in the Indian Ocean. Our often stumbling
attempts at wildlife management may, due to ignorance, ultimately lead to other such
losses (e.g. Graham 1988; Hess 1993; Kay 1994). The international move to maintain
biological diversity - not just the taxonomic richness of biotic communities, but the
particular structure of those communities - seems to be in the correct direction if we are to
maintain some quality of life and wilderness. Understanding the loss of diversity often
demands zooarchaeological and related data (e.g. Culotta 1995; Steadman 1995), and will
help us avoid future inadvertent and unintentional losses. Diamond's (1984) Rosetta
Stone of using knowledge of modern extinctions to understand prehistoric extinctions
could, and perhaps should, be turned on its head.

Discussion

Nearly eighty years ago, archaeologist W. J. Wintemberg (1919) noted how zooarch
logical research could contribute to zoological knowledge and, indirectly, wil
management. His comments were repeated and elaborated thirty years later by biol
R. M. Gilmore (1949). Their remarks have largely gone unheeded, perhaps because,
Legge (1978: 129, 130), many of us see our job as 'aiming to contribute to the sum o
archaeological knowledge' and that 'bone data are archaeological data'. I agree
Legge, but also with Wintemberg and Gilmore: we should be more than just consumers o
wildlife data (cf. Will 1982).
The potential topics under the broad umbrella of wildlife management to whic
zooarchaeological research might contribute are numerous. I have touched on only a
of the more readily identifiable ones above. There are, to be sure, others of
significance. For example, the modern fisheries industry of the eastern Pacific Ocea
been disrupted several times in the recent past by major changes in atmospheric circulat
patterns causing alteration of ocean currents. These events - variously referred to
Nifo or Southern Oscillation events - appear to have some periodicity (Rasmusson 1
but the historic record is of limited utility in plotting the precise nature of that periodic
These events clearly influence much of the oceanic biota (e.g. Arnold and Tissot
Trillmich and Limberger 1985). Given sufficient temporal resolution, the zooarchae
cal record thus may eventually provide the time depth necessary to clarify the periodic
and magnitude of El Nifio events and thus allow more accurate predictions of fu
events.

Zooarchaeological research has also shown that humans have long had a
modifying ecosystems. Based on his extensive research on the prehistoric extin
Pacific Island bird populations and species, Steadman (1995: 1130) concludes tha

This content downloaded from

73.118.11.203 on Mon, 03 Apr 2023 01:40:02 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
120 R. Lee Lyman

may find 'it difficult to manage scarce resources in a sustainable way'. That humans
contributed to these extinctions seems clear (e.g. Weisler and Gargett 1993), and thus
Steadman's conclusion has the proper ominous tone. But zooarchaeological research can
also perhaps help us out of such situations. The wapiti (Cervus elaphus) of Yellowstone
National Park in the United States are an example. Here, nearly 60,000 wapiti are
managed and to a significant degree protected from human predation. However, historic
and zooarchaeological research indicates that this population is a function of modern
wildlife management; historic records virtually without exception fail to mention wapiti in
the area, and zooarchaeological data indicate this large ungulate was very rare there
during the last several thousand years (Kay 1994). Clearly, if the Yellowstone ecosystem is
to be managed and maintained as a pristine wilderness in perpetuity (a laudable but in
reality unattainable goal; see Wager et al. 1995), things must change before the ecosystem
is irreparably altered. A virtually identical situation exists in Rocky Mountain National
Park some 550 km southwest of Yellowstone (Hess 1993) where, again, zooarchaeological
and other data from prehistoric times might help resolve debates.
The few examples of how zooarchaeological research can be applied to modern
problems I have outlined are rather specific to a place and/or to a taxon. I do not perceive
that to be a weakness of an 'applied zooarchaeology' but rather as an intellectual
challenge. Broadening the scope of zooarchaeology in the manner in which I have
discussed will not be easy, but it will be beneficial to our future, not only from the
perspective of contributing to ensuring the preservation of biological diversity for future
generations, but also, as I conclude below, from the perspective of our discipline, which
might otherwise become increasingly perceived as the pursuit of esoteric knowledge of
little practical use.
One might argue that the discussion here could be expanded by suggesting that the
detection of animal residues such as blood and hair (e.g. Loy 1993) could also provide
information on the taxonomic identity of species native to the locale where the tools were
collected (e.g. Hyland etal. 1990). I doubt, however, that such a study would convince
wildlife managers or all zooarchaeologists that a species was native given that stone tools
were often transported significant distances by their makers (e.g. Meltzer 1995). I believe
multiple instances of such residues, from multiple sites, would be necessary to build a
strong argument. A partial skeleton or selected isolated bones and teeth of the species in
question, recovered from a single site, would probably be much more convincing (Lyman
1994b).

Conclusions

I have attempted here to describe the structure of an 'applied zooarchaeology'. This is

a plea to legitimize what some of us do for fun and/or a living. Rather, it is an attempt t
broaden the scope of zooarchaeological research. I am all for research for the sake
research if there is a problem in need of solving or a question in need of an answer. But I
also concerned with the future of zooarchaeology. Too many of our new doctoral students
are finding that the job market is closed, and too many of us are finding it increasin
difficult to secure funding for research. Perhaps a developed applied zooarchaeology

This content downloaded from

73.118.11.203 on Mon, 03 Apr 2023 01:40:02 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 The relevance offaunal analysis to wildlife management 121

provide a new job market and new sources of funding. It seems self-evident to me that if a
national park, for example, has a staff archaeologist who deals with the archaeological
resources on park lands, and has a staff biologist who deals with biological resources on
park lands, then a marriage of the two would benefit both. However, given the increasing
specialization of both archaeology and biology, a viable marriage may not be possible. The
obvious alternative is a park staff zooarchaeologist who has a deep knowledge and
understanding of both disciplines and has been trained to integrate the two.
New sources of funding may also become available if we can convince the wildlife
management community that, because its decisions and policies are typically aimed at the
future, knowing something of the past can result in wise decisions. That knowledge will, of
course, come with a price tag. The cost we may encounter is that members of the wildlife
management community - while they may well have a solid knowledge of the time depth of
evolutionary processes - often tend to view biotas as static, ever enduring entities. That is,
biotas have no past or at least their history is insignificant because they are being managed
for the future. While we certainly cannot predict exactly when the next ice age or glacial
period will begin, we can, I think, argue convincingly that climates and environments will
change and, knowing this, we can use the prehistoric record to test our predictions about
how certain kinds of changes may affect biotas of the future. And confirmed - or even
rejected or falsified - predictions would be the strong selling point. Federal land-managing
agencies whose charge includes wildlife management might well pay a zooarchaeologist to
help them make wise management decisions. The other selling point is that a less desirable
kind of price - ecosystem destruction and loss of biodiversity - might otherwise have to be
paid.

Acknowledgements

I thank Donald K. Grayson, Adrian Lister, Michael J. O'Brien and Ken Thomas for
comments on earlier versions of the manuscript.

Department of Anthropology
University of Missouri-Columbia

References

Anonymous, 1992. Draft guidelines for reintroductions. Newsletter of the IUCN Reintroduction
Specialist Group, 4: 2-3.
Anunsen, C. S. and Anunsen, R. 1993. Response to Scheffer. Conservation Biology, 7: 954-7.
Arnold, J. E. and Tissot, B. N. 1993. Measurement of significant marine paleotemperature variation
using black abalone shells from prehistoric middens. Quaternary Research, 39: 390-4.
Brewer, D. J. 1992. Zooarchaeology: method, theory, and goals. In Archaeological Method and
Theory Vol. 4 (ed. M. B. Schiffer). Tucson: University of Arizona Press, pp. 195-244.
Brown, J. H. 1971. Mammals on mountaintops: nonequilibrium insular biogeography. American
Naturalist, 105: 467-78.

This content downloaded from

73.118.11.203 on Mon, 03 Apr 2023 01:40:02 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
122 R. Lee Lyman

Brown, J. H. 1978. The theory of insular biogcography and the distribution of boreal mammals and
birds. In Intermountain Biogeography: A Symposium (eds K. T. Harper and J. L. Reveal), Great
Basin Natural Memoir 2, pp. 209-28.
Brown, J. H. 1986. Two decades of interaction between the MacArthur-Wilson model and the
complexities of mammalian distributions. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 28: 231-51.
Cooke, H. B. S. 1976. Suidae from Plio-Pleistocene strata of the Rudolf Basin. In Earliest Man and
Environments in the Lake Rudolf Basin: Stratigraphy, Paleoecology, and Evolution (eds Y.
Coppens, F. C. Howell, G. LI. Isaac and R. E. F. Leakey). Chicago: University of Chicago Press,
pp.251-63.
Culotta, E. 1995. Many suspects to blame in Madagascar extinctions. Science, 268: 1568-9.
Davis, J. and Lidicker, W. Z., Jr. 1975. The taxonomic status of the southern sea otter. Proceedings
of the California Academy of Sciences, 40(14): 429-37.
Diamond, J. M. 1984. Historic extinctions: a Rosetta Stone for understanding prehistoric
extinctions. In Quaternary Extinctions: A Prehistoric Revolution (eds P.S. Martin and R. G. Klein).
Tucson: University of Arizona Press, pp. 824-62.
Emslic, S. D. 1987. Age and diet of fossil California condors in Grand Canyon, Arizona. Science,
237: 768-70.

Fisher, J. W., Jr. 1995. Bone surface modifications in zooarchaeology. Journal of Archaeologic
Method and Theory, 2: 7-68.
Gifford-Gonzalez, D. 1991. Bones are not enough: analogues, knowledge, and interpreti
strategies in zooarchaeology. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology, 10: 215-54.
Gilmore, R. M. 1949. The identification and value of mammal bones from archeological
excavations. Journal of Mammalogy, 30: 163-9.
Graham, R. W. 1988. The role of climatic change in the design of biological reserves: the
paleoecological perspective for conservation biology. Conservation Biology, 2: 391-4.
Graham, R. W. and Graham, M. A. 1994. Late Quaternary distribution of Martes in North
America. In Martens, Sables, and Fishers: Biology and Conservation (eds S. W. Buskirk, A. S.
Harestad, M. G. Raphael and R. A. Powell). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, pp. 26-58.
Grayson, D. K. 1991. The biogeographic history of small mammals in the Great Basin: observations
on the last 20,000 years. Journal of Mammalogy, 68: 359-75.
Green, J. S. and Flinders, J. T. 1980a. Brachylagus idahoensis. Mammalian Species, 125: 1-4.
Green, J. S. and Flinders, J. T. 1980b. Habitat and dietary relationships of the pygmy rabbit. Journal
of Range Management, 33: 136-42.
Hess, K., Jr. 1993. Rocky Times in Rocky Mountain National Park. Niwot, Colo.: University Press
of Colorado.

Hester, F. E. 1991. The U. S. National Park Service experience with exotic species. Natural Ar
Journal, 11: 127-8.

Hoerr, W. 1993. The concept of naturalness in environmental discourse. Natural Areas Journ
13: 29-32.

Houston, D. B. and Schreiner, E. G. 1995. Alien species in national parks: drawing lines in space
and time. Conservation Biology, 9: 204-9.
Houston, D. B., Schreiner, E. G. and Moorhead, B. B. 1994. Mountain Goats in Olympic National
Park: Biology and Management of an Introduced Species. U. S. National Park Service Scientific
Monograph NPS/NROLYM/NRSM-94/25.
Hudson, J. (ed.) 1993. From Bones to Behavior: Ethnoarchaeological and Experimental Contri-
butions to the Interpretation of Faunal Remains. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Center for
Archaeological Investigations Occasional Paper No. 21.

This content downloaded from

73.118.11.203 on Mon, 03 Apr 2023 01:40:02 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 The relevance offaunal analysis to wildlife management 123

Hyland, D. C., Tersak, J. M., Adovasio, J. M. and Siegal, M. I. 1990. Identification of the species of
origin of residual blood on lithic material. American Antiquity, 55: 104-12.
Jameson, R. J., Kenyon, K. W., Johnson, A. M. and Wight, H. M. 1982. History and status of
translocated sea otter populations in North America. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 10: 100-7.
Jameson, R. J., Kenyon, K. W., Jeffries, S. and VanBlaricom, G. R. 1986. Status of a translocated
sea otter population and its habitat in Washington. The Murrelet, 67: 84-7.
Kay, C. E. 1994. Aboriginal overkill: the role of Native Americans in structuring western
ecosystems. Human Nature, 5: 359-98.
Kenyon, K. W. 1969. The sea otter in the eastern Pacific Ocean. North American Fauna, 68.
Korn, H. 1994. Genetic, demographic, spatial, environmental and catastrophic effects on the
survival probability of small populations of mammals. In Minimum Animal Populations (ed. H.
Remmert). Berlin: Springer-Verlag, pp. 33-49.
Legge, A. J. 1978. Archaeozoology - or zooarchaeology? In Research Problems in Zooarchaeology
(eds D. R. Brothwell, K. D. Thomas and J. Clutton-Brock). University of London Institute of
Archaeology Occasional Publications No. 3, pp. 129-32.
Leopold, A. S., Cain, S. A., Cottam, C. M., Gabrielson, I. N. and Kimball, T. L. 1963. Wildlife
management in the national parks. Transactions of the Twenty-Eighth North American Wildlife and
Natural Resources Conference, pp. 29-45.
Loy, T. H. 1993. The artifact as site: an example of the biomolecular analysis of organic residues on
prehistoric tools. World Archaeology, 25: 44-63.
Lyman, R. L. 1988a. Significance for wildlife management of the late Quaternary biogeography of
mountain goats (Oreamnos americanus) in the Pacific Northwest U.S.A. Arctic and Alpine
Research, 20: 13-23.

Lyman, R. L. 1988b. Zoogeography of Oregon coast marine mammals: the last 3000 years. Marine
Mammal Science, 4: 247-64.

Lyman, R. L. 1991. Late Quaternary biogeography of the pygmy rabbit (Brachylagus idahoensis) in
eastern Washington. Journal of Mammalogy, 72:110-17.
Lyman, R. L. 1994a. The Olympic Mountain goat controversy: a different perspective. Conservation
Biology, 8: 898-901.

Lyman, R. L. 1994b. Vertebrate Taphonomy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Lyman, R. L. 1995a. Determining when rare (zoo)archaeological phenomena are truly absent.
Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, 2: 369-424.
Lyman, R. L. 1995b. Inaccurate data and the Olympic National Park mountain goat controversy.
Northwest Science, 69: 234-8.

McAllister, K. and Allen, H. 1993. Status of the Pygmy Rabbit (Brachylagus idahoensis) in
Washington. Olympia: Washington Department of Wildlife, Wildlife Management Division.
McAllister, K. and Allen, H. 1994. Washington State Draft Recovery Plan for the Pygmy Rabbit
(Brachylagus idahoensis). Olympia: Washington Department of Wildlife, Wildlife Management
Division.

MacArthur, R. H. and Wilson, E. 0. 1967. The Theory of Island Biogeography. Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press.
MacAskie, I. 1987. Updated status of the sea otter, Enhydra lutris, in Canada. Canadian
Field-Naturalist, 101: 279-83.

McDonald, J. N. 1981. North American Bison: Their Classification and Evolution. Berkeley:
University of California Press.
Meltzer, D. J. 1995. Clocking the first Americans. Annual Review of Anthropology, 24: 21-45.

This content downloaded from

73.118.11.203 on Mon, 03 Apr 2023 01:40:02 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
124 R. Lee Lyman

O'Brien, S. J. and Mayr, E. 1991. Bureaucratic mischief: recognizing endangered species and
subspecies. Science, 251: 1187-8.
Ogden, A. 1933. Russian sea otter and seal hunting on the California coast. California Historica
Quarterly, 12: 29-51.
Olsen, S. L. and Olsen, J. W. 1981. A comment on nomenclature in faunal studies. American
Antiquity, 46: 192-4.
Peek, J. M., Miquelle, D. G. and Wright, R. G. 1987. Are bison exotic in the Wrangell-St. Elias
National Park and Preserve? Environmental Management, 11: 149-53.

Quinn, J. F. and Harrison, S. P. 1988. Effects of habitat fragmentation and isolation on species
richness: evidence from biogcographic patterns. Oecologia, 75: 132-40.
Rasmusson, E. M. 1985. El Nino and variations in climate. American Scientist, 73: 168-77.

Raup, D. M. 1984. Death of species. In Extinctions (ed. M. H. Nitecki). Chicago: University of

Chicago Press, pp. 1-19.
Rensberger, J. M. and Barnosky, A. D. 1993. Short-term fluctuations in small mammals of the late
Pleistocene from eastern Washington. In Morphological Change in Qutaternary Mammals of North
America (eds R. A. Martin and A. D. Barnosky). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
pp.299-342.
Richards, M., Smalley, K., Sykes, B. and lHedges, R. 1993. Archaeology and genetics: analysing
DNA from skeletal remains. World Archaeology, 25: 18-28.

Richards, M. B., Sykes, B. C. and Hedges, R. E. M. 1995. Authenticating DNA extracted from
ancient skeletal remains. Journal of Archaeological Science, 22: 291-9.
Robison, N. D. 1978. Zooarchaeology: its history and development. Tennessee Anthropological
Association Miscellaneous Paper, 2: 1-22.

Roest, A. I. 1973. Subspecies of the sea otter, Enhydra lutris. Los Angeles County Natural History
Museum Contributions in Science, 252.

Roest, A. I. 1979. A re-evaluation of sea otter taxonomy. Paper presented at the Sea Otter
Workshop, Santa Barbara, California.
Scheffer, V. B. 1993. The Olympic Mountain goat controversy: a perspective. Conservation
Biology, 7:916-19.
Scheffer, V. B. and Wilke, F. 1950. Validity of the subspecies Enhydra lutris nereis, the southern sea
otter. Journal of the Washington Academy of Sciences, 40: 269-72.
Simons, D. R. 1983. Interactions between California condors and humans in prehistoric far western
North America. In Vulture Biology and Management (eds S. R. Wilbur and J. A. Jackson).
Berkeley: University of California Press, pp. 470-94.
Steadman, D. W. 1995. Prehistoric extinctions of Pacific island birds: biodiversity meets
zooarchaeology. Science, 267: 1123-31.
Trillmich, F. and Limberger, D. 1985. Drastic effects of El Nifo on Galapagos pinnipeds.
Oecologia, 67:19-22.
VanBlaricom, G. R. and Estes, J. A. (eds). 1988. The Community Ecology of Sea Otters. Berlin:
Springer-Verlag.
Wagner, F. H., Forest, R., Gill, R. B., McCullough, D. R., Pelton, M. R., Porter, W. F. and
Salwasser, H. 1995. Wildlife Policies in the U.S. National Parks. Washington, DC: Island Press.
Weisler, M. I. and Gargett, R. H. 1993. Pacific island avian extinctions: the taphonomy of human
predation. Archaeology in Oceania, 28: 85-93.
Wendell, F. E., Hardy, R. A., Ames, J. A. and Burge, R. T. 1986. Temporal and spatial patterns in

This content downloaded from

73.118.11.203 on Mon, 03 Apr 2023 01:40:02 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 The relevance offaunal analysis to wildlife management 125

sea otter, Enhydra lutris, range expansion and in the loss of pismo clam fisheries. California Fish and
Game, 72:197-212.

Will, R. T. 1982. The use of wildlife data in archaeological faunal analysis. Canadian Journal of
Anthropology, 2: 189-94.
Wilson, D. E., Bogan, M. A., Brownell, R. L., Jr., Burdin, A. M. and Maminov, M. K. 1991.
Geographic variation in sea otters, Enhydra lutris. Journal of Mammalogy, 72: 22-36.
Wintemberg, W. J. 1919. Archaeology as an aid to zoology. The Canadian Field-Naturalist,
33: 63-72.

This content downloaded from

73.118.11.203 on Mon, 03 Apr 2023 01:40:02 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms