Hist Arch https://doi.org/10.1007/s41636-018-0112-0

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Foodways at a Colonial Military Frontier Outpost in Northern New Spain: The Faunal Assemblage from Presidio San Sabá, 1757–1772 Arlene Fradkin & Tamra L. Walter

Accepted: 18 September 2016 # Society for Historical Archaeology 2018

Abstract An 18th-century colonial settlement, Presidio San Sabá was the largest and, indeed, the most remote military frontier outpost within the Spanish Borderlands of northern New Spain in Texas. Garrisoned with 100 Spanish soldiers who resided there with their civilian families, the presidio numbered nearly 400 people. Historical records reveal that this resident population lived under adverse conditions, suffering from malnutrition, disease, and chronic shortages of food and other supplies. Analysis of the faunal assemblage recovered during archaeological excavations conducted at the presidio site indicates that the San Sabá people managed to survive by subsisting primarily upon the food products of their livestock herds. Moreover, they secured some additional animal protein for their diet by occasionally trading, fishing, hunting, and collecting locally available natural resources. Extracto El Presidio San Sabá, un asentamiento colonial del siglo XVIII, fue el destacamento fronterizo militar más numeroso y, sin duda, remoto dentro de las fronteras españolas del norte de Nueva España, en Texas. En total, con la guarnición de 100 soldados allí

A. Fradkin (*) Department of Anthropology, Florida Atlantic University, 777 Glades Road, SO 171, Boca Raton, FL 33431-0991, U.S.A. e-mail: [email protected] T. L. Walter Department of Sociology, Anthropology, and Social Work, Texas Tech University, PO Box 41012, Lubbock, TX 79409-1012, U.S.A.

destacados y sus respectivas familias, el presidio llegó a albergar a unas 400 personas. Los registros históricos muestran que la población residente vivía en condiciones lamentables: sufría malnutrición, enfermedades y escasez crónica de alimentos y otros suministros. Un análisis de los restos animales recuperados durante las excavaciones arqueológicas llevadas a cabo en el enclave del presidio indica que los residentes de San Sabá sobrevivían alimentándose casi principalmente de productos alimenticios obtenidos de sus rebaños de ganado. Asimismo, lograban incorporar a su dieta fuentes adicionales de proteínas de origen animal practicando, ocasionalmente, actividades como el comercio, la pesca, la caza y la explotación de los recursos naturales localmente disponibles. Résumé Le peuplement colonial Presidio Sans Sabà était, au 18e siècle, le poste militaire avancé le plus éloigné des régions frontalières espagnoles de la Nouvelle-Espagne au nord du Texas. Comptant une garnison de 100 soldats espagnols qui y vivaient avec leur famille, le Presidio abritait près de 400 personnes. Des dossiers historiques révèlent que ces résidents vivaient dans des conditions difficiles, souffrant de malnutrition, maladies et pénuries chroniques d’aliments et d’autres biens. L’analyse des spécimens recueillis lors d’un relevé faunique réalisé durant des fouilles archéologiques au site de Presidio démontre que la population de San Sabà a survécu en se nourrissant principalement des produits alimentaires de ses troupeaux de bétails. Qui plus est, elle obtenait d’autres

Hist Arch

protéines animales en faisant la traite et en recueillant les ressources naturelles à disposition, tout en pêchant et chassant à l’occasion. Keywords livestock raising . hunting/fishing . 18thcentury presidios . northern New Spain . Spanish colonial Texas

Introduction Defined as fortified settlements with an assigned military contingent, presidios played a significant role in the Spanish colonial system in North America (Bense 2004:1). Often located in frontier settings, the primary purpose of these military outposts was to protect civilian settlements and missions, transportation routes, and territorial borders, and, in some regions, suppress local Indian resistance. These presidios exhibited a wide range of variation, as each adapted to local needs, environments, and surrounding populations (Bense 2004). Although presidios were supposed to receive deliveries of food and other supplies, the transport of such provisions was often erratic and unreliable, and, so, these outposts needed to be largely self-sufficient communities. Indeed, soldiers were encouraged to resort to other means to feed their families, primarily by engaging in farming and ranching activities (Williams 2004:11). Although much research has been conducted on Spanish missions and towns, only during the past two decades have historical archaeologists begun to examine presidios closely as a distinctive type of colonial settlement; e.g., Bense (2004), Blind et al. (2004), Bruseth et al. (2004), Childers (2004), Gregory et al. (2004), Halbirt (2004), Ivey (2004), and Williams (2004). This study examines one such presidio settlement, Presidio San Sabá, located within the Spanish Borderlands of northern New Spain, with a particular focus on the meat-based portion of the fort residents’ diet. The analysis of the faunal assemblage recovered from this 18th-century presidio should shed light on how these people, subject to chronic shortages of food supplies, devised strategies to secure protein in their diets. Moreover, the examination of this collection, one of the largest of its kind from a Texas presidio, provides an opportunity to place San Sabá within the greater context of the colonial frontier. Through comparisons with other Spanish settlements in the borderlands region, we specifically address the following questions: How does San Sabá compare with other contemporary forts?

Is the San Sabá settlement archetypical of Spanish presidio life on the frontier in the 18th century? Were the problems and challenges faced by the residents of San Sabá similar to or different from those at other presidio settlements on the 18th-century Spanish colonial frontier? Does the San Sabá faunal assemblage indicate a diet that was typical for 18th-century military installations, or does it reflect differences that might be attributed to its isolation, its geographic location, or even the administration of the fort by its commanders, Colonel Ortiz Parrilla and, subsequently, Captain Rábago?

Historical Background Historical documents pertaining to Presidio San Sabá and its associated mission include a number of primary sources. Military correspondence, supply records, depositions, and personal accounts written by both soldiers and commanders provide firsthand descriptions of the conditions at the presidio. Moreover, additional documents written by missionaries and presidio residents describe the mission and presidio, and the interactions between the two groups. All these records, thus, provide a rich documentary history of San Sabá. Founded in 1757 along the north bank of the San Sabá River, Presidio San Luis de las Amarillas, named in honor of the reigning viceroy (Dunn 1914:397; Simpson 2000:xix), was strategically located within the region of the Lipan, an eastern branch of Apache Indians, but also within close proximity to their chief enemy, the Comanche (Simpson 2000:xix–xx; Wade 2003; La Vere 2004:142; Hämäläinen 2008:59). Renamed Real Presidio de San Sabá in 1761, the fort served as a military garrison until its official closing in 1772 (Moorhead 1975:53). Today, the site is just outside the town of Menard in west central Texas (Fig. 1). In 1972, the site was listed on the U.S. National Register of Historic Places and in 1981 was designated a State Antiquities Landmark. Presidio San Sabá was established primarily to support and protect the newly founded Mission Santa Cruz de San Sabá from hostile Indian raids and to maintain control over Lipan Apache Indian converts (Weddle 1964:42). The mission was built 1½ leagues (approximately 4 mi.) east of the presidio on the south side of the river (Dunn 1914:397; Bolton 1962:86; Hindes et al. 1995:11; Weddle 2000:x; Walter et al. 2003:2; Barr 2007:178). Both presidio and mission were constructed of wood, using local timber (Weddle 1964:43,54). As

Hist Arch

Fig. 1 Texas presidio locations. (Map adapted by Tamra Walter from Tunnell and Newcomb [1969].)

the largest and most remote military outpost on the northern New Spain frontier, the presidio also served as a buffer against Indian incursions on other interior Spanish colonial settlements and as a base for exploring unknown surrounding areas and, hence, for expanding Spanish-controlled territory (Weber 1979:vii). Mission Santa Cruz de San Sabá was built for the Lipan, who had requested a mission of their own in Apache country (Simpson 2000:xviii). A number of Christianized Tlascaltecan (Mexican) Indians were

initially brought to the mission to serve as instructors for the potential new converts (Bolton 1962:85; Hindes et al. 1995:6). But the Lipan, rather than permanently residing at the mission as they had originally promised, refused to enter and instead encamped nearby for short periods of time on the way to their seasonal buffalo hunts, thereby frustrating missionary efforts (Dunn 1914:398,402; Bolton 1962:86; Hindes et al. 1995:6). And, the few Texas Indians who did enter the mission typically fled or left, depending on the degree of Spanish

Hist Arch

control and/or adequacy of protection from neighboring warlike Indian groups. Most likely, one of the reasons the Lipan were reluctant to settle at the mission was that they were fearful of hostile attacks by the Comanche to the north (Dunn 1914:400,402; Bolton 1962:87; Castelo 2000:114; Simpson 2000:xx; Barr 2007:180; Hämäläinen 2008:59). On 16 March 1758, within less than a year of its founding, the mission was attacked, burned, and subsequently destroyed by Comanche and allied tribes, all known enemies of the Apache (Dunn 1914:408; Bolton 1962:87; Weber 1992:189; Hindes et al. 1995:6; Hadley et al. 1997:481,511–526; Flores 2000; Simpson 2000; Wade 2003:188–190, 2008:179; Weddle 2007:1; Hämäläinen 2008:59). Two resident priests, along with several soldiers stationed at the mission, were murdered, and livestock was killed (Dunn 1914:408; Flores 2000; Simpson 2000:xiii; Hämäläinen 2008:60). The mission was never rebuilt, but the presidio remained open for another 14 years. By 1762, the presidio was refortified and rebuilt with stone quarried from the nearby limestone hills (Ivey 1981:3; Walter et al. 2003). The original wooden stockade was replaced by a more permanent and sturdy stone construction (Weddle 1964:154–155; Weber 1992:191; Chipman and Joseph 1999:118–119; Barr 2007:191) after the original commander, Colonel Don Diego Ortiz Parrilla, was replaced by Captain Felipe de Rábago y Terán in 1760 (Chipman and Joseph 1999:117). Structures built within the presidio included two bastions, each housing several cannons; soldiers’ quarters and workshops along the north, east, and west walls; and a cluster of construction in the northwest section, consisting of the captain’s quarters, guardhouse, small plaza area, and chapel. A small corral for cattle was located along the west side and a corral for horses along the south side (Ivey 1981; Walter et al. 2003:4–5). Outside, but in close proximity to the presidio compound, were cultivated fields and pasture areas for livestock (Simpson 2000). Garrisoned with 100 Spanish soldiers who resided there with their civilian families, which included 237 women and children, the presidio population numbered nearly 400 people (Dunn 1914:403; Moorhead 1975:53; Weber 1992:189,210; Flores 2000:50; Ortiz Parrilla 2000b:136; Simpson 2000:xix–xx; Wade 2003:188; Hämäläinen 2008:59). From the onset and continuing throughout the duration of this settlement, the resident population lived under adverse conditions. They suffered from malnutrition and disease, particularly scurvy

(Weddle 1964:178; Chipman 1992:178; Chipman and Joseph 1999:121, 2010:182), as well as from the continual threat of Indian attacks (Jauregui 1767; Weddle 1964; Chipman and Joseph 1999:121; Wade 2003). Despite the eventual refortification and renovations of the fort, the poor design and construction, and precarious positioning on the landscape proved strategically ineffective for defensive purposes (Weddle 1964:168–170; Moorhead 1975:169–171; Ivey 1981; Weber 1992:216–217; Hämäläinen 2008:59). Moreover, the presidio’s isolated location at the periphery of the Spanish colonial frontier intensified its vulnerability to Indian assaults (Weddle 1964) and also its inability to obtain supplies and provisions (Simpson 2000; Wade 2003). Supply convoys started at the Presidio de Santa Rosa del Sacramento, the Presidio de San Juan Bautista, and the town of San Fernando de Austria (Wade 2003:199). Many of the supply trains stopped and rested at San Antonio (Flores 2000:59; Ortiz Parrilla 2000b:136), more than 161 km (100 mi.) away (Walter et al. 2003:6), before heading north for San Sabá. The long distance, made more problematic by Indian raids on these trains (Jauregui 1766; Chipman 1992:178; Chipman and Joseph 1999:121, 2010:182), made it difficult to transport essential provisions to the fort. Delivery of goods was thus erratic and unreliable, and resulted in chronic shortages of supplies, especially food (Pignatelli 1995; Simpson 2000). Consequently, the presidio community resorted to other means to provide for the dietary and other needs of its residents and thus grew crops, such as corn, and raised livestock (Weddle 1964:47). Given the growing hostile environment surrounding the fort, however, the soldiers and their families opted to plant vegetable gardens inside the walls of the presidio (Chipman and Joseph 1999:121). In the spring of 1767, the presidio was under nearconstant attack by the Comanche and their allies, who also controlled the roads that the supply convoys traveled. Moreover, the Comanche also took most of the presidio cattle and burned presidio pastureland (Wade 2003:198). In 1768, the presidio’s commander ordered the garrison members to desert their posts and move with their families to another settlement. By 1770, the presidio was completely abandoned (Weddle 1964:179–181; Ivey 1981:3). Two years later, in 1772, the Spanish officially closed the presidio (Weddle 1964:183). As clearly exemplified at San Sabá, the Comanche and other local native populations were the dominant

Hist Arch

force, both politically and economically, in their respective territories in Texas during the 18th century, asserting complete control and dictating the terms of their interactions with the Spanish. These indigenous peoples manipulated, exploited, and targeted Spanish colonial settlements, such as the Texas presidios and missions in the frontier borderlands of northern New Spain, and wielded enormous power. The Spanish, in turn, held on to an attenuated defensive position and continually struggled to accommodate, resist, and persevere against Indian threats, raids, attacks, and outright violence (Barr 2007:2–8; Hämäläinen 2008). During the next 100 years, the fort continued to be used periodically by a number of groups, including Spanish military forces and Spanish residents, and later by Mexicans and Texans. In the 1860s, several families built homes within the walled compound of the presidio, and, in the 1870s, the presidio was used as a cattle pen (Weddle 1964:211–212). Over time, the presidio buildings deteriorated and fell into a state of disrepair. In the early 1900s, with the founding and development of the town of Menard, local residents removed stones from the presidio for reuse in the construction of new buildings, effectively removing the majority of the aboveground masonry (Weddle 1964:212). And, in the 1930s, the presidio grounds were leveled for a golf course built around the compound (Ivey 1981:7). The tide changed in 1937, when efforts were made to restore the presidio by the Texas Centennial Commission through a Works Progress Administration project (Ivey 1981). Although a section of the fort was reconstructed, these buildings were poorly constructed, and much of the reconstruction collapsed shortly after completion (Walter et al. 2003:6–7; Walter 2004:98). In 2010, the Texas Historical Commission received a $1 million appropriation of federal stimulus funds for the restoration of the presidio. As a result, the portion of the golf course that surrounds the site was moved, the 1930s reconstructed bastion was stabilized, the stone exterior walls were partially rebuilt, and new interpretive signage was added. The restorations were largely guided by the excavations, which helped to reveal most of the stone footprint of the fort. The only original structures still standing are sections of the entrance gate, but most of the original foundations are still intact (Walter et al. 2003:6). Whenever possible, these footings were exposed so that the newly reconstructed walls could be built on them.

Geographical and Environmental Setting The site of Presidio San Sabá lies at the northwestern edge of the Texas Hill Country within the Edwards Plateau region in central Texas. This upland region is characterized by relatively steep to rolling hillsides. A karst topography, the terrain consists of thin soils overlying limestone and granite bedrock, with caverns and sinkholes dotting the landscape. Vegetation consists predominantly of grasslands interspersed with clusters of trees and brush. Common tree species include several kinds of oak (Quercus spp.) at higher elevations, grading into juniper (Juniperus ashei) and mesquite (Prosopis glandulosa) on slopes, and eventually to yucca and cacti at the lowest altitudes. Several rivers and streams traverse the region. Within their floodplains are more mesic tree species, such as pecan (Carya illinoinensis), sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), elm (Ulmus americana), and box elder (Acer negundo) (Gould 1962; Riskind and Diamond 1988). The presidio location was specifically selected for its cultivable land, easy access to water, and grassy areas suitable as pasture for raising livestock. Also, there was an abundance of trees for timber and firewood. The nearby hills provided plenty of stone and lime for building materials (Walter 2004). The site is situated along the north bank of the San Sabá River, a typical Hill Country waterway, whose clear, slow-moving waters flow through a broad, relatively flat floodplain bordered by limestone hills (Hindes et al. 1995:22). As in the mid-18th century, woods with stands of pecan, oak, sycamore, and elm trees still grow along the river’s banks. The river is noted for supporting a number of freshwater fish species, particularly bass, catfish, sunfish, perch, and freshwater drum, as well as several kinds of turtles and birds. Local terrestrial animals, such as white-tailed deer, gray fox, jackrabbit, and cottontail, frequent the adjacent grasslands and wooded areas (Schmidly 2004; Thomas et al. 2007).

The Faunal Assemblage at Presidio San Sabá The faunal assemblage considered here was recovered during excavations conducted from 2003 to 2007 by Texas Tech University and the Texas Archeological Society summer field schools, under the general direction of Tamra L. Walter and Grant D. Hall of Texas Tech

Hist Arch

University. The excavations focused on several rooms located along the interior walls of the original presidio compound and on the plaza area (Fig. 2). Excavation test units measured 2 × 2 m and were dug in 10 cm arbitrary levels within natural strata. General matrix soils were screened through 6.4 mm (¼ in.) gauge hardware mesh. Faunal remains came from eight rooms along the inside perimeter of the presidio: four rooms along the west wall, three rooms along the north wall, and one room along the south wall. In addition, another large sample came from a trash pit in the northwest corner of the fort (Fig. 2). The faunal samples studied were all taken from contexts that were directly associated with the mid-1700s Spanish colonial occupation, when the site served as a presidio settlement. Areas with mixed or disturbed contexts were not selected for analysis. The rooms, in most cases, had wall fall in their interiors that effectively sealed the deposits and separated the colonial occupation from the post-presidio use of the site. Moreover, the deposits inside the rooms frequently yielded Spanish colonial ceramics from the upper excavation levels that crossmended with ceramics found in the lower room levels. The trash pit appeared to have been deposited and covered quickly and was also associated with 18th-century Spanish colonial material culture. More specifically, colonial ceramics with known dates of production were recovered from both the room excavations and the trash pit, and reflect a mid-18th-century occupation. Mean ceramic dates from the sampled areas range from 1729 to 1758, with the year 1748 as the average, consistent with the occupation of the presidio. An initial zooarchaeological study had been conducted on faunal remains recovered during previous excavations carried out at this site in 2000 and 2001 (Orr 2008). The present study will, thus, examine the more recently recovered faunal samples in light of the earlier findings with the objective of broadening the understanding of foodways among the people residing at Presidio San Sabá in the Spanish colonial period. Methods The study of the animal remains followed standard zooarchaeological procedures (Reitz and Wing 2008). Specimens were identified to the lowest taxon possible using the comparative reference collection housed at the Department of Anthropology, Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton. Bone element represented, portion of

element recovered, and bilateral symmetry––or side (right or left)––were recorded. One notable challenge in the identification process pertained to the potential representation of both cattle and bison in the zooarchaeological samples. These two closely related species are very difficult to distinguish based upon skeletal morphology alone, though bison are generally larger in size than cattle. Some specimens could be identified as cattle, but others were only identifiable to the subfamily Bovinae. Similarly, another challenge was differentiating between sheep and goat remains. Such distinctions were based upon modern comparative skeletons, along with several identification reference guides (Boessneck et al. 1964; Boessneck 1970; Prummel and Frisch 1986). For those archaeological specimens that could not be identified to the species level, that is, either sheep or goat, the subfamily Caprinae was used. One further observation in the process of identification was that a substantial proportion of the faunal assemblage consisted of very fragmented, unidentifiable mammalian remains. Wherever possible, these were distinguished according to size of mammal represented: “small mammals” were rat to cottontail rabbit in size, “medium mammals” ranged from jackrabbit to fox in size, “large mammals” were pig-/peccary-/deer-/sheepsized, and “very large mammals” were cattle- and horsesized. Quantification of the faunal materials included a count of the total number of fragments identified for each taxon (number of identified specimens, or NISP), calculated estimates of the minimum number of individual animals represented (MNI), weights of all identified specimens, and estimates of the minimum amount of usable meat provided by identified specimens. Each major grouping (e.g., South Wall Room 1, North Wall Room 3, Trash Pit) was treated as a discrete sample and quantified separately. These quantifications were subsequently combined to determine totals for the entire site assemblage. The MNI determinations were calculated for every lower-level taxon (genus, species) identified and were based upon the concept of paired elements, individual size, age, and sex. Specimens from higher-level taxon identifications (class, order, family) were not used in determining MNI unless it was certain that such specimens clearly represented additional individuals not included in the lower-level taxon identifications. This eliminated the possibility of counting individuals more than once. For example, a large number of remains were

Hist Arch Fig. 2 Presidio San Sabá excavation map (Walter 2014).

only identifiable to the subfamily level, Caprinae, but represented additional individuals to those identified to the species level as sheep (Ovis aries). Bone weights of all identified specimens were recorded. These bone weights, in turn, were converted into estimates of edible meat by using skeletal-mass allometric formulas generated from weights taken on a series of modern comparative specimens housed at the Environmental Archaeology Laboratory, Florida Museum of Natural History (Table 1). These calculations involved estimates of the amount of meat adhering only

to those bone remains of the animal actually recovered in the archaeological record, rather than to the entire animal (Reitz and Wing 2008:237,240). The amount of meat that may be provided by a complete individual carcass was not determined, as there was no direct evidence that the whole animal was consumed. Portions of the animal, for example, may have been disposed of elsewhere, away from the site, or may have been traded (Reitz and Wing 2008:237). Estimation of the relative abundance of each taxon was based upon both MNI figures and usable-meat weights.

Table 1 Allometric-formula values used in meat-weight estimations Taxon

Log a

Log b

Taxon

Log a

Log b

Actinopterygii (ray-finned fishes)

1.38

0.89

Aves (birds)

1.24

0.84

Testudines (turtles)

1.65

0.53

Mammalia (mammals)

1.41

0.81

Serpentes (snakes)

1.06

0.94

––

––

––

Note: General equation: log10 y=log10 a + b(log10 x) x=bone or shell weight (grams); y=meat weight (grams), a=y intercept; b=slope. Source: Formula values are from Quitmyer (1985:39) and the Environmental Archaeology Files, Florida Museum of Natural History, University of Florida, Gainesville.

Hist Arch

Bone modifications were recorded for the assemblage. Such modifications included specimens that were burned/calcined or exhibited butchering or skinning marks. The latter modifications typically resulted from carcass dismemberment or removal of meat. For the large and very large domesticated mammals identified, skeletal-element distribution patterns were examined, and age-at-death estimations recorded. The former information was used to ascertain whether animals were slaughtered and their carcasses processed at or far away from the site, as indicated by the relatively complete representation of skeletal parts vs. the presence of only select skeletal elements, respectively. Skeletal elements were grouped according to the following categories: cranial (skull/mandible/teeth/horn), axial (vertebrae/ribs), forequarter (humerus/radius/ulna/scapula), hindquarter (femur/tibia/fibula/patella/pelvis/sacrum), forefoot (metacarpus/carpals), hindfoot (metatarsus/tarsals), and foot (indeterminate metapodials/phalanges/sesamoids) (Reitz and Wing 2008:217). Estimates of age provided insight into husbandry practices. Anatomical indicators of age used included size, degree of long-bone epiphyseal fusion, tootheruption sequences, and tooth-wear patterns (Silver 1970; Schmid 1972; Reitz and Wing 2008). During the process of identification, whenever possible, the degree of fusion for each specimen was recorded as unfused, semi-fused, or completely fused. Although environmental factors may influence the actual age at which fusion is complete, among mammalian species skeletal elements fuse in a consistent temporal sequence. Moreover, the proximal and distal ends of a particular element usually fuse at different developmental stages. The sequence of fusion can be divided into three categories: early fusing, middle-fusing, and late-fusing elements. Unfused elements in the early fusing category are interpreted as juveniles, whereas unfused elements in the middle-fusing and late-fusing categories are evidence of subadults, though other characteristics of a specimen, such as size and texture, may instead suggest a juvenile. Fused specimens in the late-fusing category are clearly indicative of adults, whereas the developmental stages of fused specimens in the early and middle-fusing groups cannot be definitively determined. An early or middle-fusing specimen that is fused may be from an animal that died immediately after fusion was complete or many years later. The ambiguity inherent in age estimates may be somewhat reduced by recording each element under the oldest category possible. Tooth-

eruption data were also recorded during the process of identification (Silver 1970; Schmid 1972; Reitz and Wing 2008). Taxa Representation The San Sabá faunal assemblage is substantial, consisting of 9,828 bone and tooth remains representing 120 individuals. Nevertheless, a great majority of the specimens were too fragmentary to permit more precise identification but, however, appeared to represent mostly mammalian remains. Taxa representation is similar among the major groupings (e.g., West Wall Room 1, North Wall Room 2), though there is some variation due to differences in sample size. The faunal samples from Rooms 1, 2, and 3 along the west wall were significantly smaller (NISP ranging from 15 to 102) than all the other samples examined and, consequently, far fewer taxa were represented. Samples from the North Wall Rooms 1 and 2 and from the Trash Pit were substantially larger, with NISPs over 1,000. The largest sample came from West Wall Room 4, which had an NISP of 4,126. These much larger samples, in turn, all had a greater diversity of taxa represented. Each major sample of the assemblage was quantified separately and then combined for the site as a whole. Within the total assemblage, mammals predominate, with 43% of the total MNI and estimations of 94% usable-meat weight. Fish, birds, and reptiles are less abundant. Fish and birds each comprise 21% of the MNI, and reptiles 16% of the MNI. Each of these three groups contributes less than 3% of the total edible meat in the site’s overall faunal assemblage. Table 2 presents a list of the taxa represented and their quantification. Table 3 gives summary tabulations, comparing total NISP, MNI, and meat-weight calculations by vertebrate class for the entire site assemblage. Of particular significance is the relative proportion of domestic vs. wild animals in the diet. Domestic fauna include sheep, caprine (sheep/goat), cattle, and pig among mammals, and chicken and rock dove (pigeon) among birds. Horses were probably not consumed and, therefore, not included in the diet composition here. Interestingly, domesticated animals dominate the meatweight estimates (81%), but native wild fauna constitute a greater proportion of the MNI (67%). It is quite possible that the MNI figures for the larger mammalian domesticates, such as sheep and cattle, were

Hist Arch Table 2 Taxonomic list of animals identified at San Sabá with quantification Scientific Name

Common Name

NISP NISP %

MNI MNI %

Weight (g)

Weight (%)

Meat Wt. (g)

Meat Wt. (%)

Lepisosteus spp.

Gar

12

0.12%

4

3.33%

3.92

0.04%

93.24

0.09%

Lepisosteidae

Gars

2

0.02%

2

1.67%

0.22

0.00%

6.58

0.01%

Anguilla rostrata

American eel

1

0.01%

1

0.83%

0.06

0.00%

1.96

0.00%

Pylodictis olivaris

Flathead catfish

1

0.01%

1

0.83%

0.31

0.00%

8.46

0.01%

Ictaluridae

North American catfishes 203

2.07%

14

11.67%

73.15

0.72%

1559.39

1.43%

Micropterus spp.

Bass

5

0.05%

3

2.50%

1.30

0.01%

34.99

0.03%

Actinopterygii

Ray-finned fishes

41

0.42%

––

––

6.25

0.06%

162.03

0.15%

Ray-finned fishes

Reptiles Chelydra serpentina

Snapping turtle

2

0.02%

2

1.67%

4.76

0.05%

138.56

0.13%

Apalone spp.

Softshell turtle

19

0.19%

5

4.17%

8.37

0.08%

416.77

0.38%

Kinosternon sp.

Mud turtle

1

0.01%

1

0.83%

0.36

0.00%

25.99

0.02%

Sternotherus spp.

Musk turtle

2

0.02%

1

0.83%

0.55

0.01%

32.54

0.03%

Kinosternidae

Mud/musk turtles

6

0.06%

––

––

1.76

0.02%

93.07

0.09%

Graptemys spp.

Map turtle

2

0.02%

2

1.67%

4.35

0.04%

132.26

0.12%

Emydidae

Water turtles

4

0.04%

2

1.67%

6.44

0.06%

215.75

0.20%

Gopherus sp.

Tortoise

1

0.01%

1

0.83%

0.55

0.01%

32.54

0.03%

Testudines

Turtles

42

0.43%

2

1.67%

21.91

0.22%

872.23

0.80%

Colubridae

Colubrid snakes

1

0.01%

1

0.83%

0.28

0.00%

3.47

0.00%

Serpentes

Snakes

7

0.07%

2

1.67%

1.44

0.01%

17.46

0.02%

Cf. Ardea herodias

Great blue heron

1

0.01%

1

0.83%

1.19

0.01%

20.11

0.02%

Coragyps atratus

Black vulture

2

0.02%

1

0.83%

4.19

0.04%

57.90

0.05%

Anatinae

Ducks

1

0.01%

1

0.83%

0.09

0.00%

2.30

0.00%

Cf. Anatinae

Ducks

1

0.01%

––

––

0.08

0.00%

2.08

0.00%

Gallus gallus

Chicken

20

0.20%

6

5.00%

9.59

0.09%

170.79

0.16%

Meleagris gallopavo

Turkey

65

0.66%

10

8.33%

166.74

1.64%

2105.46

1.93%

Birds

Cf. Meleagris gallopavo

Turkey

1

0.01%

––

––

1.68

0.02%

26.87

0.02%

Gallliformes

Gallinaceous birds

1

0.01%

––

––

0.73

0.01%

13.34

0.01%

Columba livia

Rock dove

2

0.02%

1

0.83%

0.31

0.00%

6.50

0.01%

Bubo virginianus

Great horned owl

1

0.01%

1

0.83%

1.62

0.02%

26.06

0.02%

Large Aves

Large birds

8

0.08%

––

––

5.12

0.05%

74.32

0.07%

Aves

Birds

99

1.01%

4

3.33%

38.47

0.38%

609.71

0.56%

Didelphis virginiana

Opossum

1

0.01%

1

0.83%

0.75

0.01%

20.36

0.02%

Urocyon cinereoargenteus Mephitis mephitis

Gray fox

3

0.03%

2

1.67%

4.72

0.05%

109.48

0.10%

Striped skunk

2

0.02%

2

1.67%

2.29

0.02%

56.50

0.05%

Equus spp.

Horse/donkey/mule

1

0.01%

1

0.83%

13.90

0.14%

216.69

0.20%

Sus scrofa

Pig

6

0.06%

3

2.50%

9.35

0.09%

186.43

0.17%

Tayasu tajacu

Collared peccary

1

0.01%

1

0.83%

1.65

0.02%

38.56

0.04%

Odocoileus virginianus

White-tailed deer

3

0.03%

2

1.67%

39.19

0.39%

592.91

0.54%

Cervidae/Caprinae

Deer/caprines

210

2.14%

4

3.33%

502.42

4.94%

7759.96

7.11%

Cervidae/Bovidae

Deer/bovids

23

0.23%

––

––

23.79

0.23%

406.36

0.37%

Mammals

Hist Arch Table 2 (continued) Scientific Name

Common Name

NISP NISP %

MNI MNI %

Weight (g)

Weight (%)

Meat Wt. (g)

Meat Wt. (%)

Bos taurus

Cattle

23

0.23%

8

6.67%

487.97

4.80%

6064.25

5.56%

Bovinae

Bovines (cattle/bison)

12

0.12%

1

0.83%

411.35

4.04%

4419.51

4.05%

Ovis aries

Sheep

71

0.72%

8

6.67%

352.41

3.46%

5579.62

5.11%

Caprinae

Caprines (sheep/goats)

114

1.16%

4

3.33%

789.06

7.75%

10,865.23

9.95%

Bovidae

Bovids

17

0.17%

––

––

14.55

0.14%

269.19

0.25%

Artiodactyla

Artiodactyls

65

0.66%

1

0.83%

149.97

1.47%

2815.52

2.58%

Castor canadensis

Beaver

9

0.09%

1

0.83%

8.20

0.08%

141.32

0.13%

Sigmodon hispidus

Hispid cotton rat

1

0.01%

1

0.83%

0.11

0.00%

4.30

0.00%

Rodentia

Rodents

3

0.03%

––

––

0.52

0.01%

18.62

0.02%

Lepus californicus

Blacktail jackrabbit

5

0.05%

3

2.50%

11.03

0.11%

223.66

0.20%

Lepus sp.

Jackrabbit

1

0.01%

––

––

1.33

0.01%

32.38

0.03%

Cf. Lepus sp.

Jackrabbit

1

0.01%

––

––

0.40

0.00%

12.24

0.01%

Sylvilagus spp.

Rabbit

5

0.05%

2

1.67%

2.26

0.02%

58.89

0.05%

Leporidae

Hares/rabbits

3

0.03%

2

1.67%

1.51

0.01%

42.20

0.04%

Small Mammalia

Small mammals

6

0.06%

––

––

1.78

0.02%

55.02

0.05%

Medium Mammalia

Medium mammals

8

0.08%

1

0.83%

15.43

0.15%

310.05

0.28%

10

0.10%

––

––

21.10

0.21%

303.86

0.28%

Medium/large Mammalia Medium/large mammals Large Mammalia

Large mammals

749

7.62%

––

––

2113.91

20.77%

28,124.37

25.77%

Very large Mammalia

Very large mammals

136

1.38%

2

1.67%

1778.67

17.48%

20,796.27

19.05%

Mammalia

Mammals

1,177 11.98%

1

0.83%

1037.82

10.20%

12,662.07

11.60%

Tetrapoda

Four-footed vertebrates

1,111 11.30%

––

––

646.97

6.36%

––

––

Vertebrata

Vertebrates

5,497 55.93%

––

––

1365.58

13.42%

––

––

Miscellaneous

TOTALS

9,828 100.00% 120

underestimated here because the bones of these largerbodied animals were broken into many more fragments, thus hindering more precise identifications and also further deflating MNI calculations. On the other hand, smaller-bodied animals, such as the wild fauna represented in this site assemblage, may have been more easily identified as their remains were more likely to exhibit diagnostic features than similarly sized

100.00% 10,175.78 100.00% 109,148.55 100.00%

fragments of large animal skeletons. Table 4 compares domestic and wild animals consumed in terms of percentages of MNI and edible-meat weight. Only a small number of bones shows any evidence of modification. Of these, the most common modification consists of burned and calcined specimens. Welldefined cut marks were noted on only a few (n=7) of the remains of large and very large mammals. These

Table 3 Site totals by vertebrate class Class

NISP

NISP %

MNI

MNI %

Meat Weight (g)

Meat Weight %

Actinopterygii (ray-finned fishes)

265

8.23

25

20.83

1866.65

1.71

Reptilia (reptiles)

87

2.70

19

15.83

1980.64

1.81

Aves (birds)

202

6.27

25

20.83

3115.44

2.85

Mammalia (mammals)

2,666

82.80

51

42.50

102,185.82

93.62

TOTALS

3,220

100.00

120

100.00

109,148.55

100.00

Hist Arch Table 4 Domestic vs. wild animals consumed Major Animal Grouping

MNI %

Meat Weight %

Domestic animals

32.61%

81.48%

Wild animals

67.39%

18.52%

TOTALS

100.00%

100.00%

were either hack marks, made by a cleaver or ax, or saw marks, indicated by parallel striations on the bone. Given the very limited data on butchering cut marks, it is not possible to reconstruct the sequence involved in carcass dismemberment and processing. Nevertheless, the representation of most parts of the skeleton of sheep and caprines, including non-meatbearing elements (e.g., phalanges), indicates that these animals were slaughtered and their carcasses processed on site, at or in very close proximity to the presidio. This is also true of cattle, for which carpals, tarsals, and phalanges were predominantly identified (Table 5). Epiphyseal-fusion and tooth-eruption data for the larger domestic mammals identified are presented in Tables 6, 7, 8, and 9. The presence of juvenile, subadult, and adult individuals indicates that these animals were selected for slaughter at different ages, and that they served a number of other uses in addition to meat production. The following analysis describes the relative role of such animals in the diet in terms of domestic meats derived from presidio livestock vs. wild foods obtained from fishing, hunting, and gathering local natural resources. Livestock Raising The domestic portion of the resident diet was derived from the products of livestock raised at the presidio. Analysis of the zooarchaeological assemblage indicates a relatively high consumption of such foods. Of the domesticates, sheep (Ovis aries) and caprines, or sheep/goat (Caprinae), together contributed the greatest amount of meat to the diet. A total of 71 remains, representing 8 individuals, were definitively identified as sheep, with a substantial number of additional elements identified only as caprine (see below) because of the difficulty in differentiating between sheep and goat. Epiphyseal-fusion data indicate possibly three subadult individuals based upon the presence of several unfused, metapodial distal condyles and an unfused calcaneus. In sheep, the distal metapodials fuse

between 18 and 28 months, and the calcaneus between 30 and 36 months (Silver 1970:285–286; Schmid 1972:75; Reitz and Wing 2008:72) (Table 6). Based upon size, the remaining individuals may possibly be adults, though there are no late-fusing sheep elements represented in the assemblage to confirm this. The evidence from the faunal remains indicates that the presidio residents were consuming mutton portions from most parts of the animal carcass. A total of 114 caprine or sheep/goat (Caprinae) specimens were identified, though these were most likely sheep as well. All parts of the skeleton were well represented. Based upon tooth-eruption and -wear patterns and epiphyseal-fusion data, there are several subadults represented, though some of the defining specimens may actually belong to those individuals already identified as sheep. Among the caprine remains, it appears that there are at least two additional subadults and two additional adults represented beyond those already identified as sheep. The former is based on the occurrence of several very worn, deciduous premolar 3 teeth found in two separate contexts and, moreover, in association with several unfused middle- and late-fusing elements, including several distal radii and a proximal humerus. The deciduous premolar 3 teeth are not replaced by permanent ones until between 21 and 24 months of age (Silver 1970:297; Schmid 1972:77) (Table 7). The distal radius fuses at 36 months and the proximal humerus between 36 and 42 months of age. The identification of two additional adults is based upon several worn permanent teeth, as well as a number of fused latefusing elements (proximal humerus, proximal ulna, and distal ulna) (Silver 1970:285–286; Schmid 1972:75; Reitz and Wing 2008:72) (Table 8). Beef was a relatively important constituent of the domestic-meat portion of the diet. Nevertheless, although a number of very large mammal remains were recovered, only 23 bones could be precisely identified as cattle (Bos taurus), representing at least 8 individuals. Most of the specimens were carpals (forefoot), tarsals (hind foot), and phalanges (foot), probably indicating that butchering waste was discarded in the interior of the presidio. Other skeletal elements identified were lower fore- and hind-limb bones. Although the cattle skeletal elements identified were limited to the less meaty parts of the animal carcass, it is difficult to definitively assess the actual cuts of meat consumed, as there may be preservation and identification biases to consider. It is quite possible that there were meatier cattle bones within

Hist Arch Table 5 Skeletal-element distribution of large/very large domestic mammals (NISP) Skeletal Elements

Large/Very Large Domestic Mammals (NISP) Pig Sus scrofa

Cattle Bos taurus

Sheep Ovis aries

Sheep/goat Caprinae

Cranial

5

––

4

25

Axial

––

––

1

16

Forequarter

1

3

6

21

Hindquarter

––

3

––

15

Forefoot

––

2

6

15

Hind foot

––

8

9

14

Foot

––

5

45

8

TOTAL NISP

6

23

71

114

the faunal assemblage, but these had been butchered into smaller portions and, thus, were too fragmented, precluding species identification, and consequently relegated to the very large mammal category. Epiphysealfusion data provide evidence for at least three subadults. One subadult is indicated by the presence of a metacarpus, unfused at its distal end, for which the epiphysis typically attaches between 24 and 30 months. The other two subadults are based upon an unfused calcaneus and an ulna with both unfused proximal and distal epiphyses. The calcaneus fuses at 36 to 42 months, and the ulna at 42 to 48 months (Silver 1970:285–286; Schmid 1972:75; Reitz and Wing 2008:72) (Table 9). There are not enough data to confirm whether the other cattle individuals represented were adults. Pork appears to have been consumed in much lesser quantities, comparatively. Only six pig (Sus scrofa) elements, five teeth and a scapula, or shoulder bone, were identified, representing at least three individuals,

all juveniles. The scapula was from a young individual, most likely about a year old, based on its small size. Two additional juveniles were represented by a well-worn, upper deciduous premolar 4 and two upper permanent incisors with almost no wear, which appear to have just erupted. Based upon pig tooth-eruption charts (Silver 1970:298–299; Schmid 1972:77), these two individuals were also quite young, approximately 1–1½ years old. The only other domesticated mammal identified was horse/donkey/mule (Equus spp.), represented by one carpal bone. This specimen was recovered from Room 1 along the South Wall of the presidio. Interestingly, the corral for horses was also located in this section of the compound. Most likely the bone was from an animal that had died within the compound. It is highly questionable whether this animal was a food item. Several domestic birds also constituted part of the presidio diet, though they contributed substantially less meat than did domestic mammals. Chicken (Gallus

Table 6 Epiphyseal fusion (NISP) for sheep (Ovis aries) Skeletal Element

Unfused

Fused

Age at Fusion (Months)a

Early fusing Humerus, distal

––

1

10

Radius, proximal

––

4

10

1st & 2nd phalanx, distal

––

30

13–16

Middle fusing Calcaneus, proximal

1

1

30–36

Metacarpus, distal

––

2

18–24

Metapodial, distal

3

1

18–28

a

Based on Silver (1970:285–286), Schmid (1972:75), and Reitz and Wing (2008:72).

Hist Arch Table 7 Tooth eruption (NISP) for caprines (sheep/goat) (Caprinae)

Table 9 Epiphyseal fusion (NISP) for cattle (Bos taurus) Unfused

Fused

Age at Fusiona

Radius, proximal

––

1

12–18 months

1st & 2nd phalanx, distal

––

4

18 months

Skeletal Element Teeth

Age at Eruptiona

NISP

Early fusing Deciduous premolars Premolar 3

3

Birth–6 weeks

Permanent premolars

Middle fusing

Premolar 2

2

21–24 months

Calcaneus, proximal

1

––

36–42 months

Premolar 3

1

21–24 months

Metacarpus, distal

1

––

24–30 months

Premolar 4

2

21–24 months

Late fusing Radius/ulna, distal

1

––

42–48 months

Molar 1

2

3–5 months

Ulna, proximal

1

––

42–48 months

Molar 2

3

9–12 months

Molar 3

3

18–24 months

Permanent molars

a

Based on Silver (1970:297) and Schmid (1972:77).

gallus) was the most frequently eaten. The presidio community probably kept chickens for eggs as well as for meat. Rock dove, or pigeon (Columba livia), was only occasionally consumed. Although turkey (Meleagris gallopavo) was also represented, it cannot be determined whether it was domestic or wild. Both kinds were present in the region during the 18th century and still occur there today.

Table 8 Epiphyseal fusion (NISP) for caprines (sheep/goat) (Caprinae) Skeletal Element

Unfused

Fused

Age at Fusiona

–– ––

3 2

10 months 13–16 months

–– –– 1 1

2 1 1 1

18–24 months 30–36 months 20–28 months 18–28 months

1 3 –– –– 1 1 2

2 –– 3 1 –– –– ––

36–42 months 36 months 30 months 30 months 30–36 months 36–42 months 36–42 months

Early fusing Humerus, distal 1st & 2nd phalanx, distal Middle fusing Tibia, distal Calcaneus, proximal Metatarsus, distal Metapodial, distal Late fusing Humerus, proximal Radius, distal Ulna, proximal Ulna, distal Femur, proximal Femur, distal Tibia, proximal a

Based on Silver (1970:285–286), Schmid (1972:75), and Reitz and Wing (2008:72).

a

Based on Silver (1970:285–286), Schmid (1972:75), and Reitz and Wing (2008:72).

Natural-Resource Supplements The faunal evidence indicates that the residents at Presidio San Sabá also did some fishing, hunting, and collecting of wild animal foods. They obtained such natural resources primarily from the San Sabá River and secondarily from the nearby terrestrial habitats. The river provided a number of freshwater fishes, turtles, and birds, whereas terrestrial mammals were captured in wooded areas adjacent to the river and in the surrounding grasslands. Fishes were dominated by freshwater species that are still common in the San Sabá River today. North American catfishes (Ictaluridae) were most abundant. Several kinds of ictalurids typically live in the San Sabá River, though only one specimen could be specifically identified as belonging to the giant flathead catfish (Pylodictis olivaris). Unlike other freshwater catfishes, which tend to be scavengers, the flathead is a voracious carnivore, typically preying on live fish (Thomas et al. 2007:100). Ictalurids are often found in slowmoving rivers and are bottom feeders. As adults, they are generally solitary and tend to lurk under rocks or in caves under riverbanks. They may be caught with hook and line or even grabbed with bare hands, the latter referred to as “noodling” (McClane 1978:102– 112; Lee et al. 1980; Thompson 1985:104–108; Thomas et al. 2007). Other important fish foods were gar and bass. Gar (Lepisosteus spp.) is a very primitive, highly predaceous fish, feeding primarily upon other fishes, and prefers the backwaters of medium to large rivers (McClane 1978:179; Thompson 1985:27–29; Page and Burr 1991:29,30; Thomas et al. 2007:21). Bass (Micropterus

Hist Arch

spp.) is a large fish typically found in small to large rivers, as well as other kinds of freshwater bodies where there is vegetation for protective cover (McClane 1978:136–138; Thompson 1985:159–160; Page and Burr 1991:263–264). Two species appear in the San Sabá River. Largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides) is highly prized as an important and popular game and food fish today (McClane 1978:136; Lee et al. 1980:608). Guadalupe bass (Micropterus treculi) is endemic to the Edwards Plateau region of central Texas and is the official state fish (Lee et al. 1980:609; Page and Burr 1991:264; Thomas et al. 2007:148). Archaeological specimens, however, could be identified only to the genus level. American eel (Anguilla rostrata) was occasionally caught. A catadromous fish, eels, particularly the females, live mostly in fresh water, but when full adults both males and females migrate out to sea to spawn and die. Eels tend to hide in undercut river banks during the day and venture out at night to feed (McClane 1978:189–190; Lee et al. 1980:59; Thompson 1985:32–33; Page and Burr 1991:32; Thomas et al. 2007:25). The presidio residents also collected several kinds of freshwater turtles. Softshell turtle (Apalone spp.) is a large, highly aquatic turtle. It can be seen basking in the sun on banks, logs, and floating vegetation, but will quickly retreat to water if disturbed or alarmed (Behler and King 1979:483–486; Conant and Collins 1998:194–199). Snapping turtle (Chelydra serpentina), also a large turtle, may be found in any permanent body of fresh water, preferably those having abundant vegetation and soft mud bottoms (Behler and King 1979:435–436; Conant and Collins 1998:146–147). Map turtles (Graptemys spp.) are generally medium sized and prefer larger freshwater bodies, such as rivers and lakes (Conant and Collins 1998:166). Mud (Kinosternon sp.) and musk (Sternotherus spp.) are very small turtles. Strongly aquatic, they are typically found crawling along the bottom and rarely leave the water (Behler and King 1979:438; Conant and Collins 1998:149). All the turtles identified may have been caught in fishing nets or traps, or were collected by hand. Beaver (Castor canadensis) was the only aquatic mammal captured. This large, robust rodent is nocturnal and lives in rivers and streams, as well as lakes and ponds, in well-wooded areas, where it makes burrows in banks or builds dams and lodges, respectively (Burt and

Grossenheider 1980:151–152; Whitaker 1980:457– 460; Schmidly 2004:377). Aquatic birds were hunted, though infrequently. Those captured included ducks (Anatinae) and a possible great blue heron (cf. Ardea herodias), both of which may have been found on the river (Bull and Farrand 1977; Robbins et al. 1983; R. Peterson and V. Peterson 2002). Within the adjacent wooded areas and surrounding open grasslands a number of terrestrially based animals could be found. White-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) was the largest game animal taken. Deer often shelter in wooded areas and thickets by day and enter more-open spaces at night to feed (Burt and Grossenheider 1980:218; Whitaker 1980:655; Schmidly 2004:276–277). Collared peccary (Tayassu tajacu), or javelina, is more active in the daytime and can be found in rocky canyons and brushy areas, where it thrives on mesquite and cacti fruits (Burt and Grossenheider 1980:213; Whitaker 1980:643–645; Schmidly 2004:260–261). Smaller game mammals included gray fox (Urocyon cinereoargenteus), opossum (Didelphis virginiana), striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis), blacktail jackrabbit (Lepus californicus), and cottontail (Sylvilagus spp.). Fox, opossum, and skunk are typically nocturnal creatures and live in open woods and brushy habitats (Burt and Grossenheider 1980; Whitaker 1980; Schmidly 2004). Blacktail jackrabbit prefers open grasslands and prairies (Burt and Grossenheider 1980:207; Whitaker 1980:360–361; Schmidly 2004:468–470), whereas cottontail typically inhabits heavy brush and thickets with open areas nearby (Burt and Grossenheider 1980:208–209; Whitaker 1980:349–351; Schmidly 2004:464). Many of these animals visit cultivated fields at certain times. Deer, collared peccary, fox, opossum, jackrabbit, and cottontail are attracted to cultivated plots, where they feed on ripening corn and other crops, and it may have been in this context that some of them were captured. Moreover, some deer meat, or venison, may have been obtained through trade with the local Lipan Apache. Peaceful trade with the Apache occurred as early as 1733 in San Antonio and continued well into the mid-18th century, and such trade may have occurred at San Sabá as well. Items commonly traded between the Apache and the Spanish included buffalo meat, deerskins, and salt, which were exchanged for tobacco (Minor 2009:72).

Hist Arch

Several native terrestrial birds may have been hunted occasionally, though they probably were not consumed. The great horned owl (Bubo virginianus) and black vulture (Coragyps atratus) are both birds of prey. The great horned owl frequents woods, as well as open areas (Bull and Farrand 1977:677; Robbins et al. 1983:174; R. Peterson and V. Peterson 2002:202). The black vulture may be seen perched in trees or on the ground or soaring overhead. A carrion eater and scavenger, this bird may invade human settlements to feed on garbage and small animals (Bull and Farrand 1977:642; Robbins et al. 1983:66; R. Peterson and V. Peterson 2002:92). Snakes were occasionally collected. At least one colubrid snake (Colubridae) was represented. This large family of snakes, all nonpoisonous and harmless, includes a great variety of species, ranging in habitats from arboreal to terrestrial and burrowing to aquatic (Behler and King 1979:589; Conant and Collins 1998:286). Snakes may have been captured in fishing nets or clubbed with sticks.

Archaeological Dietary Evidence and Historical Records The zooarchaeological assemblage clearly lends further support to the dietary pattern described by Orr (2008) for the faunal data analyzed earlier. In both studies, the archaeofaunal evidence indicates that most of the meat portion of the diet came from domestic livestock brought in and raised at the presidio. The presidio residents consumed mutton and beef and a little pork. Domestic poultry meats came from chicken. Occasionally, they supplemented their dietary protein needs with locally available fish and wild game. Historical documentary sources, however, provide very little information, albeit indirectly, pertaining to the diet of the San Sabá people. Indeed, the tending of livestock is frequently mentioned, but such accounts rarely discuss the use of these animals and their products as a source of meat and protein. Moreover, there are no references to the presidio residents ever engaging in any fishing or hunting subsistence activities. Nevertheless, the historical records do indicate that these people were living under dire circumstances, struggling to survive within an isolated and hostile environment, and coping with chronic shortages of supplies, as well as with malnutrition and disease. The

accounts often describe some of the challenges these people encountered throughout the life of the settlement. The delivery of provisions to the presidio was a perpetual problem. Because of the fort’s remote location, supplies had to be brought in from distant settlements. The transport of goods over such great distances, coupled with the slow movement of pack-mule trains, meant a long travel time was involved and, thus, an extended wait by presidio residents anxiously anticipating the arrival of much-needed essentials (Simpson 2000). Moreover, there was an even greater obstacle with which frontier supply trains had to contend. Historical records repeatedly mention Indians attacking, intercepting, and plundering supply trains en route (Jauregui 1767; Simpson 2000; Wade 2003). Of necessity, soldiers were typically assigned to serve as armed convoys to escort and protect these transports (Flores 2000; Ortiz Parrilla 2000b:136, 2000c:64). Nevertheless, some of these supply trains never reached their final destination or did arrive, but not intact (Simpson 2000). Interestingly, there are no records detailing the actual food provisions being transported to the presidio, except for the occasional mention of livestock. Of necessity, the presidio settlement was forced to, and, according to higher authorities, actually expected to become self-sufficient. As most troops at the presidio served only part time as soldiers, they were encouraged to produce their own food. Consequently, the San Sabá residents engaged in ranching and farming. Soldiers and their families kept a few sheep or cattle, and cultivated garden plots (Weddle 1964:47; Moorhead 1975:220; Williams 2004:11). Even more problematic was the distribution of supplies subsequent to their delivery to the presidio. The soldiers were not automatically given provisions, but, rather, they had to pay for all their food, clothing, livestock, military equipment, and other needed supplies. These men were grossly underpaid, receiving such low wages that they were rarely able to cover their costof-living expenses (Moorhead 1975:201; Faulk 1979:73). Furthermore, the presidio captains were responsible for provisioning the troops (Moorhead 1975:205), but practiced excessive profiteering by charging exorbitant prices and substituting commodities of inferior quality (Moorhead 1975:203–208; Faulk 1979:73). Thus, corruption was rampant within the presidio system, and the resident soldiers and their families suffered from severe deprivations (de Rábago y Terán

Hist Arch

1760; Moorhead 1975:201–221; Faulk 1979:73; Williams 2004:14). Historical accounts often mention the keeping and raising of livestock at the presidio. Domestic animals mentioned were horses, cattle, mules, and, at times, sheep. When the presidio was originally founded, its first commanding officer, Colonel Parrilla, gathered and transported “hundreds of horses and mules, fourteen hundred head of cattle, and seven hundred sheep” from San Antonio to San Sabá (Weddle 1964:50; Chipman and Joseph 1999:114, 2010:163). Subsequently, additional livestock was periodically supplied to the presidio, and herds replenished from time to time, though livestock shortages were also often noted (Simpson 2000). These shortages were often the result of livestock theft by the Comanche, their allies, and the Lipan Apache (Pignatelli 1995; John 1996; Wade 2003). Notably, after Colonel Ortiz Parrilla was relieved of his command, his replacement, Captain Rábago, upon his arrival, documented the poor conditions of the struggling presidio (de Rábago y Terán 1760). Rábago immediately petitioned José de Escandón, the colonizer of Nuevo Santander, for much-needed supplies, including new mounts, food, and military supplies. Receiving only a portion of what he requested, Rábago used his own finances to pay for additional provisions for the presidio and two new missions he would eventually establish to the south, San Lorenzo and Candelaria. Horses, cattle, and sheep were among the livestock purchased by the captain (de Rábago y Terán 1767a; Chipman and Joseph 1999:118,121) and shared with the presidio and both missions. In all, Rábago expended more than 12,000 pesos for which he was never reimbursed despite repeated attempts to recover his losses (Chipman and Joseph 1999:118,121; Chipman and Elizondo 2007:178). Several areas were set aside for tending livestock, both within and outside the presidio compound. As animal husbandry is time consuming and requires additional labor, a number of the men, in turn, were assigned as “shepherds,” or herders, to tend to the presidio livestock (Simpson 2000). In addition to the communal presidio herds, some families tended their own livestock (Moorhead 1975:220). The allocation of designated areas, that is, corrals, for animals within the presidio compound is further indicative of the need to protect and secure livestock from Indian raids and thefts. Of domesticates, horses are most frequently mentioned in historical accounts. These animals served as

the primary means of transportation, and much effort was expended in attending to their care and maintenance. Horses were typically kept in a corral along the south wall within the presidio (de Urrutia 1767; Ivey 1981; Walter et al. 2003:4–5). But, as straw and stubble were the only vegetation available there for them to feed on, horses were regularly let out of the compound to graze in grassy areas in close proximity to the presidio set aside as pastures (Flores 2000:55; Ortiz Parilla 2000c:65). There was also mention of a “horse corral” outside the presidio compound (de Urrutia 1767; Flores 2000:57). Because Indians would often steal presidio horses (John 1996; Flores 2000; Simpson 2000:154; Wade 2003; Chipman and Joseph 2010:166), the presidio constantly took precautionary measures to protect and ensure the safety of these animals (Simpson 2000:154). Cattle were kept in a small corral along the west wall within the presidio (de Urrutia 1767; Ivey 1981) and also let out to feed in nearby grassy pastures. Although cattle are discussed in several accounts, there is no mention of any dietary uses, such as providing dairy foods, e.g., milk, or of their being fattened and slaughtered for meat for presidio consumption. Nevertheless, one source does note that “livestock” from a ranch established “five leagues to the west,” presumably including cattle, provided provisions for the presidio (Flores 2000:52,57). Moreover, one account mentions the use of oxen for traction purposes, serving as draft animals to haul plows for working agricultural fields (Ortiz Parrilla 2000c:65). As indicated by the zooarchaeological record, however, beef was an important part of the presidio diet. Mules were used essentially as beasts of burden. A series of mules would be strung together to serve as a supply train for transporting goods over long distances (Flores 2000:59; Ortiz Parrilla 2000a:102, 2000b:136). On his punitive expedition following an attack on the mission, Colonel Parrilla took an Apache chief as his guide, and, on their way to the Red River, they found “horses and mules taken from the San Sabá presidio” (Robinson 2013:91). Sheep are mentioned in only a few historical records. Seven hundred were brought in at the time the presidio was founded (Weddle 1964:50; Chipman and Joseph 1999:114, 2010:163). Another account describing the destruction of the San Sabá mission mentions how the few surviving “rams and ewes” were brought to the presidio (Weddle 1964:88; Ortiz Parrilla 2000c:65). In

Hist Arch

April of 1767, Rábago reports that a large herd of sheep arrived safely at the presidio via supply train, despite fears of an attack on the escort (de Rábago y Terán 1767b). Sheep were probably raised for their wool, as well as for their meat, though there are no written accounts pertaining to either use. The faunal record indicates that mutton constituted a substantial proportion of the livestock meat consumed. Interestingly, there is no mention in the historical records of pigs or of chickens and domestic turkeys at the presidio. Besides dog, turkey was the only other indigenous domesticated animal in southwestern North America (Munro 2006), both dating as far back as preColumbian times. Nevertheless, both domestic and wild turkeys were found in the San Sabá area during the 18th century, and it remains uncertain which form was being taken and consumed by the presidio residents. Written accounts pertaining to the procurement of local wild fauna are also lacking. That the presidio residents did some fishing and hunting is evident in the archaeological faunal record. Despite the ongoing threat of Indian attacks, it seems there were times that the San Sabá residents felt secure enough to venture outside the confines of the presidio compound to fish and hunt, thereby adding variety, as well as more protein, to their diet. Nevertheless, native wild animals constituted only a supplementary portion of the meat content of the diet. Thus, only scant information regarding the meat component of the presidio diet can be gleaned from historical accounts. Although livestock raising is often mentioned, such accounts do not record the actual role of these animals and animal products in the everyday life of the San Sabá people, especially in regard to food consumption. Moreover, there is no mention of fishing and hunting local wild fauna to supplement their dietary needs. Consequently, the zooarchaeological record is essential and substantially supplements historical documentary sources by providing material evidence to shed further light on the diet of the San Sabá presidio residents.

Presidio Diets in Northern New Spain As the study of presidios is a fairly new area of research within historical archaeology (Bense 2004), thus far there has been a very small number of zooarchaeological analyses conducted for this distinctive type of

Spanish colonial frontier settlement. The present study, in turn, is one of the first comprehensive analyses done for presidios established within what is now the state of Texas. Faunal studies have been done for only a few other presidios in northern New Spain, e.g., Hewitt (1975), Diehl and Waters (2004), and PavaoZuckerman and Loren (2012); for several presidios in Spanish Florida, e.g., Parker (2001, 2003); and in Alta California, e.g., Lucido (2012). As previously noted, presidios varied greatly due to regional culture, demographic and environmental conditions, as well as Spanish colonial objectives and policies (Bense 2004). Geographical location was also another critical factor. The presidios in the Spanish Florida and Alta California regions of the Spanish Borderlands were typically in maritime settings, whereas the presidios in northern New Spain were primarily in the interior (Bense 2004). These two types of presidio, thus, served different functions. The maritime presidios served to protect harbors and shipping lanes, and defend against other European colonial powers. The interior presidios functioned to protect inland transportation routes and, in particular, respond to and quell hostile local Indian resistance (Bense 2004:2–3). Because of these major contrasts between the two presidio types, the zooarchaeological findings at San Sabá are here compared only to faunal assemblages recovered from other presidios also located in northern New Spain. Presidio San Sabá and the presidios selected for comparison shared several characteristics. All were located in fairly remote, isolated areas on the periphery of the frontier and, thus, encountered similar challenges and circumstances. They often lacked sufficient personnel and military equipment to defend themselves adequately. Although they all received supplies, including livestock, the delivery of these much-needed goods was inconsistent and unreliable. So, in order to survive, these presidios had to become economically self-sufficient, and, consequently, they engaged in agricultural and livestock-ranching pursuits. Three Spanish colonial presidio sites for which indepth faunal analyses have been conducted were selected for comparison. All these sites date to the 18th century; two were located in the western portion of northern New Spain and the third in the region’s eastern section. Presidio San Ignacio de Tubac was situated along the west bank of the Santa Cruz River in present-day southern Arizona and was inhabited by

Hist Arch

Spanish and, at times, Pima Indians during the early period (1752–1800) of its occupation (Shenk and Teague 1975). Presidio San Agustín del Tucson was 30 km (43 mi.) farther upriver (north) on the east side, in the present-day downtown section of the city of Tucson, and was occupied by the Spanish from 1775 to 1821 (Thiel 2004). Throughout their occupations, both presidios were continually subject to repeated attacks and raids by hostile local Apache Indians. Presidio Nuestra Señora del Pilar de los Adaes (1721–1773) was situated along the easternmost frontier of northern New Spain in present-day northwest Louisiana and was inhabited by Spanish and Caddo Indians. This presidio was established specifically to prevent French encroachment from the east and to maintain harmonious relations with the local Caddoan population. The Caddoans, in turn, were a strong military force, but also economically and politically savvy, and they allowed the Spanish and French to settle within their territory as long as both groups coexisted peacefully (Gregory et al. 2004). Although the situation at Los Adaes was atypical of presidios in that the settlement was able to maintain cooperative relations with local Indians and French, the residents still had to contend with the everyday challenges and constraints of frontier life (Pavao-Zuckerman and Loren 2012). The zooarchaeological assemblages at all three sites indicate that domestic animals dominated the faunal remains. Cattle provided the most meat, and beef, thus, formed the mainstay of the presidio diet (Hewitt 1975; Diehl and Waters 2004; Pavao-Zuckerman and Loren 2012). Indeed, the open grasslands surrounding these presidios were conducive for feeding and raising large herds of cattle. Sheep, goats, and caprines, on the other hand, were relatively less common. These animals do not thrive well at lower elevations, such as the areas in which these presidios were situated. Other domestic meats eaten, at times, were pork and chicken. The faunal data also show that native wild animals were consumed, though to a lesser extent. Nevertheless, the most significant difference among these presidio assemblages is in the relative contribution of such natural resources to the overall diet. At the Tucson presidio, there was a complete absence of wild taxa in the faunal assemblage. This may possibly be due to the small sample size, the limited extent of the excavations, and/or the nature of the archaeological contexts (i.e., two trash-pit features) (Diehl and Waters 2004:99). At Tubac, the residents subsisted on only a

small number of wild animals. These included rabbit; wild fowl, such as goose, cormorant, and crane; and several freshwater fish (Hewitt 1975). At Los Adaes, on the other hand, the residents consumed a much greater variety and fairly significant quantity of local wild-animal resources. Venison was by far the most important game meat consumed. Other wild mammals included bear, rabbit, and raccoon, and birds, such as ducks and geese. Also, they ate turtles and alligator, as well as several kinds of freshwater fish (PavaoZuckerman and Loren 2012). Presidio residents most likely obtained wild resources by hunting and fishing in the nearby woods and lakes, though some meats may have been acquired through trade with or purchase from local French and Caddoans. Of particular note is that the households of the Spanish elite and commoners alike had strikingly similar diets, suggesting that domestic food supplies may have been inadequate and, therefore, all had to rely on wild resources to a substantial degree to meet their subsistence needs. Indeed, the Los Adaes residents were all affected by the rigors of frontier life (Pavao-Zuckerman and Loren 2012). The zooarchaeological assemblage at Presidio San Sabá indicates several differences in dietary patterns when compared to the faunal remains recovered at the three other presidios, though such variation is more a matter of degree than kind. In all four colonial settlements, domestic animals dominate the faunal assemblages. At San Sabá, sheep and caprines are the most common domesticates, though cattle is also an important source of meat in the diet. At the other presidios, however, cattle predominate, and sheep, goats, and caprines are far more poorly represented. Such differences in relative representation of these domesticates are most likely due to differences in the settlements’ local environments. Whereas cattle can adapt to lower altitudes and higher temperatures, such as the areas in which the other presidio sites were located, sheep and goats typically cannot tolerate such conditions, but thrive at higher elevations and slightly cooler temperatures, such as those in the Texas Hill Country and Edwards Plateau region of Presidio San Sabá. The relative representation of wild animals is also a matter of degree. Such natural resources accounted for a fairly small proportion of the diet at San Sabá and at Tubac. Nevertheless, there was a far greater diversity and quantity of wild fauna represented at Los Adaes, which may indicate easier access to such resources in times of need.

Hist Arch

Conclusions San Sabá is a compelling case study of presidio life on the frontier in the 18th century and constitutes a significant chapter in the history of Texas pertaining to the Spanish period of occupation. Historical records, in conjunction with archaeological evidence, provide insight into the challenges continually encountered, as well as the strategies devised to endure the rigors of frontier life. Studies of other contemporary presidios in the northern New Spain region of the Spanish Borderlands clearly indicate that such settlements experienced similar extreme circumstances. Remotely situated at the periphery of the Spanish colonial frontier, Presidio San Sabá was forced to become self-sufficient, and, thus, its residents engaged in a mixedsubsistence strategy of animal husbandry, fishing and hunting, and farming. That livestock played a prominent role in daily life is apparent from both the historical record and the archaeological faunal evidence. Documentary sources frequently refer to the keeping and raising of domestic animals at the presidio. Indeed, areas were specifically designated within the presidio itself for particular animals, such as horses and cattle, and grasslands surrounding the compound were converted into pastures. A number of accounts also mention that livestock shortages were a perpetual problem and were attributed to frequent Indian thefts and to inadequacies in the delivery of such provisions to the presidio. The zooarchaeological record, in turn, demonstrates that the bulk of the meat portion of the presidio diet came from domestic animals. Fishing and hunting local wild game, on the other hand, appear to have constituted a much lesser role in the presidio economy. Interestingly, reference to such subsistence activities is completely absent from the historical records. Nevertheless, the archaeological faunal evidence clearly shows that the San Sabá residents consumed a fair amount of wild-animal meats. Apparently, at times the colonists ventured outside the presidio compound to fish and hunt in order to add variety to their diet, as well as secure more protein. In spite of their dire circumstances, the Spanish soldiers and their families residing at San Sabá somehow managed to adapt to and endure the harsh realities of frontier life and cope with the limited food resources available to them. Indeed, maintaining an adequate amount of meat and protein in their diets must have posed a continual challenge for the colonists throughout the duration of the settlement.

Acknowledgments: The authors would like to thank the Presidio Restoration Foundation of Menard, as well as the local community, for providing encouragement and logistical support for the archaeological investigation of the presidio. The Texas Archeological Society provided financial support for the faunal analysis. We are also indebted to former Texas Tech graduate student Lauren Whitman, who had the arduous task of organizing and shipping the faunal materials to Florida Atlantic University for further study. Also, we would like to thank former Florida Atlantic University graduate student Rose Gualtieri and former undergraduate students Bradley Stephens and Ryan Jackola for assisting in the zooarchaeological analysis by counting and weighing all the identified faunal materials. Constructive comments and suggestions provided by the three anonymous reviewers substantially strengthened the article and are much appreciated.

References Barr, Juliana 2007

Peace Came in the Form of a Woman: Indians and Spaniards in the Texas Borderlands. University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill. Behler, John L., and F. Wayne King 1979 The Audubon Society Field Guide to North American Reptiles and Amphibians. Alfred A. Knopf, New York, NY. Bense, Judith A. 2004 Introduction: Presidios of the North American Spanish Borderlands. Historical Archaeology 38(3):1–5. Blind, Eric Brandan, Barbara L. Voss, Sannie Kenton Osborn, and Leo R. Barker 2004 El Presidio de San Francisco: At the Edge of Empire. Historical Archaeology 38(3):135–149. Boessneck, Joachim 1970 Osteological Differences between Sheep (Ovis aries Linné) and Goat (Capra hircus Linné). In Science in Archaeology: A Survey of Progress and Research, revised and enlarged edition, Don Brothwell and Eric Higgs, editors, pp. 331–358. Praeger, New York, NY. Boessneck, Joachim, Hans-Hermann Müller, and Manfred Teichert 1964 Osteologische Unterscheidungsmerkmale zwischen Schaf (Ovis aries Linné) und Ziege (Capra hircus Linné) (Osteological differences between sheep [Ovis aries Linné] and goat [Capra hircus Linné]). Kühn-Archiv 78:1–129. Bolton, Herbert Eugene 1962 Texas in the Middle Eighteenth Century: Studies in Spanish Colonial History and Administration. Russell & Russell, New York, NY. Bruseth, James E., Jeffrey J. Durst, Tiffany Osburn, Kathleen Gilmore, Kay Hindes, Nancy Reese, Barbara Meissner, and Mike Davis 2004 A Clash of Two Cultures: Presidio La Bahía on the Texas Coast as a Deterrent to French Incursion. Historical Archaeology 38(3):78–93.

Hist Arch Bull, John, and John Farrand, Jr. 1977 The Audubon Society Field Guide to North American Birds: Eastern Region. Alfred A. Knopf, New York, NY. Burt, William H., and Richard P. Grossenheider 1980 A Field Guide to the Mammals, 3rd edition. Houghton Mifflin, Boston, MA. Castelo, Domingo 2000 Deposition of Sergeant Domingo Castelo, 27 March 1758. In The San Sabá Papers: A Documentary Account of the Founding and Destruction of San Sabá Mission, Lesley Byrd Simpson, editor, and Paul D. Nathan, translator, pp. 114–115. Southern Methodist University Press, Dallas, TX. Childers, Ronald Wayne 2004 The Presidio System in Spanish Florida 1565– 1763. Historical Archaeology 38(3):24–32. Chipman, Donald E. 1992 Spanish Texas 1519–1821. University of Texas Press, Austin. Chipman, Donald E., and Luis L. Elizondo 2007 New Light on Felipe de Rábago y Terán. Southwestern Historical Quarterly 111(2):160– 181. Chipman, Donald E., and Harriett Denise Joseph 1999 Notable Men and Women of Spanish Texas. University of Texas Press, Austin. Chipman, Donald E., and Harriett Denise Joseph 2010 Spanish Texas 1519–1821, revised edition. University of Texas Press, Austin. Conant, Roger, and Joseph T. Collins 1998 A Field Guide to Reptiles and Amphibians of Eastern and Central North America, 3rd edition. Houghton Mifflin, Boston, MA. de Rábago y Terán, Felipe 1760 Review of Presidio San Luis de las Amarillas, 12– 13 October. Microfilm, Dunn Transcripts, Barker Texas History Center, University of Texas at Austin, Austin. de Rábago y Terán, Felipe 1767a Letter to Marqués de Croix, 26 April. Microfilm, Historia, Vol. 94, Part 1, pp. 119–120, Archivo General de México, Dolph Briscoe Center for American History, University of Texas at Austin, Austin. de Rábago y Terán, Felipe 1767b Report, 20 April. Microfilm, Historia, Vol. 94, Part 1, pp. 104–105, Archivo General de México, Dolph Briscoe Center for American History, University of Texas at Austin, Austin. de Urrutia, Joseph 1767 Plano de el Presidio de Sn. Sabá (Plan of the presidio of San Sabá). Map, System Number 004987532, Department of Manuscripts, British Museum, London, UK. Texas Beyond History

. Accessed 7 May 2018. Diehl, Michael W., and Jennifer A. Waters 2004 Reconstructing the Diet of the Presidio Residents. In Uncovering Tucson’s Past: Test Excavations in Search of the Presidio Wall, J. Homer Thiel, editor, pp. 85–101. Manuscript, Technical Report No. 2002-05, Center for Desert Archaeology, Tucson, AZ. Dunn, William Edward 1914 The Apache Mission on the San Sabá River: Its Founding and Failure. Southwestern Historical Quarterly 17(4):379–414. Faulk, Odie B. 1979 The Presidio: Fortress or Farce? In New Spain’s Far Northern Frontier: Essays on Spain in the American West, 1540–1821, David J. Weber, editor, pp. 67–76. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque. Flores, Joseph Antonio 2000 Deposition of Sergeant Joseph Antonio Flores, of the Presidio of San Luis de las Amarillas, 21 March 1758. In The San Sabá Papers: A Documentary Account of the Founding and Destruction of San Sabá Mission, Lesley Byrd Simpson, editor, Paul D. Nathan, translator, pp. 46–60. Southern Methodist University Press, Dallas, TX. Gould, Frank W. 1962 Texas Plants––A Checklist and Ecological Summary. Agricultural and Mechanical College of Texas, Texas Agricultural Experiment Station, College Station. Gregory, Hiram F., George Avery, Aubra L. Lee, and Jay C. Blaine 2004 Presidio Los Adaes: Spanish, French, and Caddoan Interaction on the Northern Frontier. Historical Archaeology 38(3):65–77. Hadley, Diana, Thomas H. Naylor, and Mardith K. Schuetz-Miller (editors) 1997 The Presidio and Militia on the Northern Frontier of New Spain: A Documentary History, Vol. 2, Pt. 2: The Central Corridor and the Texas Corridor, 1700–1765. University of Arizona Press, Tucson. Halbirt, Carl D. 2004 La Ciudad de San Agustín: A European Fighting Presidio in Eighteenth-Century “La Florida.” Historical Archaeology 38(3):33–46. Hämäläinen, Pekka 2008 The Comanche Empire. Yale University Press, New Haven, CT. Hewitt, James M. 1975 The Faunal Assemblage of the Tubac Presidio. In Excavations at the Tubac Presidio, Lynette O. Shenk and George A. Teague, pp. 195–235.

Hist Arch Arizona State Museum Archaeological Series No. 85. Tucson. Hindes, V. Kay, Mark R. Wolf, Grant D. Hall, and Kathleen Kirk Gilmore 1995 The Rediscovery of Santa Cruz de San Sabá: A Mission for the Apache in Spanish Texas. Texas Historical Foundation and Texas Tech University, Archaeology Laboratory, San Sabá Regional Survey Report 1. Lubbock. Ivey, James E. 1981 A Reexamination of the Site of Presidio San Sabá. La Tierra 8(4):2–11. Ivey, James E. 2004 The Presidio of San Antonio de Béxar: Historical and Archaeological Research. Historical Archaeology 38(3):106–120. Jauregui, Jacinto B. 1766 Letter to Cruillas, 9 April. Microfilm, Provincias Internas, Vol. 25, fr. 339, Archivo General de México, Dolph Briscoe Center for American History, University of Texas at Austin, Austin. Jauregui, Jacinto B. 1767 Letter to Marqués de Croix, 3 May. Microfilm, Provincias Internas, Vol. 25, fr. 386, Archivo General de México, Dolph Briscoe Center for American History, University of Texas at Austin, Austin. John, Elizabeth A. H. 1996 Storms Brewed in other Men’s Worlds: The Confrontation of Indians, Spanish, and French in the Southwest, 1540–1795, 2nd edition. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman. La Vere, David 2004 The Texas Indians. Texas A&M University Press, College Station. Lee, David, Carter R. Gilbert, Charles H. Hocutt, Robert E. Jenkins, Don E. McAllister, and Jay R. Stauffer, Jr. 1980 Atlas of North American Freshwater Fishes. North Carolina State Museum of Natural History, Raleigh. Lucido, Jennifer A. 2012 The Royal Presidio of Monterey: A Socio-Cultural Analysis Based on Zooarchaeological Remains. Senior Capstone Seminar Paper, Department of Social and Behavioral Sciences, California State University, Monterey Bay. Capstone Projects and Master’s Theses, Digital Commons at CSUMB, California State University at Monterey Bay . Accessed 16 January 2018. McClane, Albert J. 1978 McClane's Field Guide to Freshwater Fishes of North America. Holt, Rinehart & Winston, New York, NY. Minor, Nancy M. 2009 The Light Gray People: An Ethno-History of the Lipan Apaches of Texas and Northern Mexico. University Press of America, Lanham, MD. Moorhead, Max L. 1975 The Presidio: Bastion of the Spanish Borderlands. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman.

Munro, Natalie D. 2006 The Role of the Turkey in the Southwest. In Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 3: Environment, Origins, and Population, Douglas Ubelaker, editor, pp. 463–470. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC. Orr, Kelly L. 2008 Eighteenth-Century Spanish Military Foodways in Northern New Spain: Vertebrate Faunal Remains from Presidio San Sabá (41MN1), Menard County, Texas. Report to Texas Archeological Society, Austin, from University of Georgia, Georgia Museum of Natural History, Zooarchaeology Laboratory, Athens. Ortiz Parrilla, Diego 2000a Colonel Parrilla Records the Arrival of Father Aparicio, on an Inspection Tour from San Antonio, 2 April 1758. In The San Sabá Papers: A Documentary Account of the Founding and Destruction of San Sabá Mission, Lesley Byrd Simpson, editor, Paul D. Nathan, translator, pp. 101–102. Southern Methodist University Press, Dallas, TX. Ortiz Parrilla, Diego 2000b Colonel Parrilla to His Excellency the Marqués de las Amarillas, San Luis de las Amarillas, 8 April 1758. In The San Sabá Papers: A Documentary Account of the Founding and Destruction of San Sabá Mission, Lesley Byrd Simpson, editor, Paul D. Nathan, translator, pp. 131–140. Southern Methodist University Press, Dallas, TX. Ortiz Parrilla, Diego 2000c Minutes of Colonel Parrilla’s Interrogation of L i e u t e n a n t J u a n G a l v á n a n d Va r i o u s Noncommissioned Officers and Soldiers, 22 March 1758. In The San Sabá Papers: A Documentary Account of the Founding and Destruction of San Sabá Mission, Lesley Byrd Simpson, editor, Paul D. Nathan, translator, pp. 63–67. Southern Methodist University Press, Dallas, TX. Page, Lawrence M., and Brooks M. Burr 1991 A Field Guide to Freshwater Fishes: North America North of Mexico. Houghton Mifflin, Boston, MA. Parker, Catherine B. 2001 Foodways and Faunal Remains at Presidio Santa María de Galve, 1698–1719: Between the Devil and the Deep Blue Sea. Master’s thesis, Department of History, University of West Florida, Pensacola. Parker, Catherine B. 2003 Development of Spanish-American Foodways and Zooarchaeological Remains. In Presidio Santa María de Galve: A Struggle for Survival in Colonial Spanish Pensacola, Judith A. Bense, editor, pp. 210–218. University Press of Florida, Gainesville. Pavao-Zuckerman, Barnet, and Diana DiPaolo Loren 2012 Presentation is Everything: Foodways, Tablewares, and Colonial Identity at Presidio Los Adaes.

Hist Arch International Journal of Historical Archaeology 16(1):199–226. Peterson, Roger Tory, and Virginia Marie Peterson 2002 A Field Guide to the Birds of Eastern and Central North America, 5th edition. Houghton Mifflin, Boston, MA. Pignatelli, Cayetano [Marqués de Rubí] 1995 Itinerary of Señor Marqués de Rubí, Field Marshal of His Majesty’s Armies, in the Inspection of the Interior Presidios that by Royal Order He Conducted in this New Spain, 1766–1768, David McDonald, translator. In Imaginary Kingdom: Texas as Seen by the Rivera and Rubí Military Expeditions, 1727 and 1767, Jack Jackson, editor. Texas State Historical Association, Austin. Prummel, Wietske, and Hans-Jörg Frisch 1986 A Guide for the Distinction of Species, Sex and Body Side in Bones of Sheep and Goat. Journal of Archaeological Science 13(6):567–577. Quitmyer, Irvy R. 1985 Zooarchaeological Methods for the Analysis of Shell Middens at Kings Bay. In Aboriginal Subsistence and Settlement Archaeology of the Kings Bay Locality, Vol. 4, Zooarchaeology, William H. Adams, editor, pp. 33–48. University of Florida, Department of Anthropology, Reports of Investigations, No. 2. Gainesville. Reitz, Elizabeth J., and Elizabeth S. Wing 2008 Zooarchaeology, 2nd edition. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. Riskind, David H., and David D. Diamond 1988 An Introduction to Environments and Vegetation. In Edwards Plateau Vegetation: Plant Ecological Studies in Central Texas, Bonnie B. Amos and Frederick R. Gehlbach, editors, pp. 1–15. Baylor University Press, Waco, TX. Robbins, Chandler S., Bertel Bruun, and Herbert S. Zim 1983 Birds of North America: A Guide to Field Identification, revised edition. Golden Press, New York, NY. Robinson, Sherry 2013 I Fought a Good Fight: A History of the Lipan Apaches. University of North Texas Press, Denton. Schmid, Elisabeth 1972 Atlas of Animal Bones for Prehistorians, Archaeologists and Quaternary Geologists. Elsevier, Amsterdam, the Netherlands. Schmidly, David J. 2004 The Mammals of Texas, revised edition. University of Texas Press, Austin. Shenk, Lynette O., and George A. Teague 1975 Excavations at the Tubac Presidio. Arizona State Museum Archaeological Series No. 85. Tucson. Silver, Ian A. 1970 The Ageing of Domestic Animals. In Science in Archaeology: A Survey of Progress and Research, revised and enlarged edition, Don Brothwell and Eric Higgs, editors, pp. 283–302. Praeger, New York, NY.

Simpson, Lesley Byrd (editor) The San Sabá Papers: A Documentary Account of 2000 the Founding and Destruction of San Sabá Mission, Paul D. Nathan, translator. Southern Methodist University Press, Dallas, TX. Thiel, J. Homer (editor) 2004 Uncovering Tucson’s Past: Test Excavations in Search of the Presidio Wall. Center for Desert Archaeology, Technical Report No. 2002-05. Tucson, AZ. Thomas, Chad, Timothy H. Bonner, and Bobby G. Whiteside 2007 Freshwater Fishes of Texas: A Field Guide. Texas A&M University Press, College Station. Thompson, Peter 1985 Thompson’s Guide to Freshwater Fishes. Houghton Mifflin, Boston, MA. Tunnell, Curtis E., and William W. Newcomb 1969 A Lipan Apache Mission: San Lorenzo de la Santa Cruz, 1762–1771. Texas Memorial Museum, Austin. Wade, Maria F. 2003 The Native Americans of the Texas Edwards Plateau, 1582–1799. University of Texas Press, Austin. Wade, Maria F. 2008 Missions, Missionaries, and Native Americans: Long-Term Processes and Daily Practices. University Press of Florida, Gainesville. Walter, Tamra L. 2004 The Archaeology of Presidio San Sabá: A Preliminary Report. Historical Archaeology 38(3):94–105. Walter, Tamra L. 2014 Archaeological Investigations at Presidio de San Sabá, 41MN1, Menard County, Texas. Texas Tech University, Occasional Papers in Archaeology, No. 6. Lubbock. Walter, Tamra L., Elizabeth A. Cooper, Nancy Zayatz, and Grant D. Hall 2003 Ruin of Ruins: Archaeological Excavations at Presidio San Sabá, 41MN1, Menard County, Texas, 2000–2002 Field Seasons. Manuscript, Texas Tech University, Texas Tech Archaeology Laboratory, San Sabá Regional Survey Report 2. Lubbock. Weber, David J. (editor) 1979 New Spain’s Far Northern Frontier: Essays on Spain in the American West, 1540–1821. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque. Weber, David J. 1992 The Spanish Frontier in North America. Yale University Press, New Haven, CT. Weddle, Robert S. 1964 The San Sabá Mission: Spanish Pivot in Texas. University of Texas Press, Austin. Weddle, Robert S. 2000 Foreword. In The San Sabá Papers: A Documentary Account of the Founding and Destruction of San Sabá Mission, Lesley

Hist Arch Byrd Simpson, editor, Paul D. Nathan, translator, pp. vii–xi. Southern Methodist University Press, Dallas, TX. Weddle, Robert S. 2007 After the Massacre: The Violent Legacy of the San Sabá Mission. Texas Tech University Press, Lubbock.

Whitaker, John O., Jr. 1980 The Audubon Society Field Guide to North American Mammals. Alfred A. Knopf, New York, NY. Williams, Jack S. 2004 The Evolution of the Presidio in Northern New Spain. Historical Archaeology 38(3):6–23.