Gretchen Perry: 14167367

Environmental Archaeology: 7200

Final Paper

Identifying Animal Hair from Cueva Santa Rita Archaeological Site Introduction: The Cueva Santa Rita archaeological site is located in Baja California Sur, Mexico, which is part of the Sonoma Desert. The site being excavated is a rock shelter that has artifacts from the Guaycura Native group, who lived in the area as long ago as 4000 BP (Figure 1; Henrickson 2013). The Guaycura was one of four Native groups (i.e. Peric, Guaycura, Southern Cochimi and Seri) living as small -scale, mobile foragers (Macfarlan & Henrickson, 2010, p. 52) in Baja California Sur. These cultural groups are interesting in part, because the peninsula they lived on resulted in greater isolation than other places. The groups in the more southern part of the peninsula maintained the use of atlatls, and they did not make pottery artifacts (Macfarlan & Henrickson, 2010, p. 51). Despite these comparatively limited technologies and unusual cultural practices they were able to survive in the harsh desert environment in which they lived. The Native groups living in Baja California Sur peninsula were known to have some unique cultural practices, for instance, the Shamans in three of the four Native groups, including the Guaycura had human hair capes, which indicates they were using hair fiber in unique ways (Macfarlan & Henrickson, 2010).

Figure 1: from Macfarlan & Henrickson 2010 Artifacts have been excavated from the site that resemble animal hair visually and by texture. Some of these artifacts appear to be cordage, because they are longitudinal twisted fibers. There are other suspected animal hair fiber artifacts that resemble tufts of the same fiber seen in the cordage, and other artifacts are likely rodent nests that might include animal fibers. Hair is
1

Gretchen Perry: 14167367

Environmental Archaeology: 7200

Final Paper

known to preserve well and maintain its original morphology, as long as it is not preserved in alcohol or exposed to sunlight for long periods of time (Mayer, 1952). According to Backwell et al. (2009), Permafrost, ice, elevated salinity, waterlogged anaerobic acid bogs and arid environments can all conserve hair keratin for thousands of years (p. 1269). As the Cueva Santa Rita site has been consistently dry, and the artifacts were within strata of the site and not exposed to light (or presumably any sources of alcohol), it is possible that hair would be well preserved in this environment. It is worthwhile to determine what species produced the hair found at the site, as this could confirm that these species were in the surrounding area at the time the artifacts were made. The presence of these species would also be indicative of the climate and the environmental parameters of the area, as this would have been their habitat (Reitz & Shackley, 2012). The more common species known to have lived in the Baja California Sur area over the past thousands of years include large mammals (e.g. desert mule deer, Odocoileus herionus; desert bighorn sheep, Ovis Canadensis, and peninsular pronghorn antelope, Antilocapra americana ), predators (e.g. coyote, Canis latrans; gray fox, Urocyon cinereoargenteus; bobcat, Lynx rufus; and mountain lion, Felis concolor), and smaller mammals (e.g. black -tailed jack rabbit, Lepus californicus; kit fox, Vulpes macrotus; ground squirrel, Ammospermophilus leucurus; kangaroo rat, Dipodomys merriami; desert mouse, Peromyscus eremicus, and many small mouse species; Lawlor, 1983; Hyland, 1997). Any of these species, including humans, could have produced the suspected hairs found in the artifacts. Beyond the physical and climatic environment that can be inferred from the presence of particular taxa, other cultural inferences can be made. For instance, if the suspected animal hair cordage is confirmed as such, then it implies that the Guaycura had the skills and technology to capture that type of animal, process the hair into cordage, and make artifacts from the cordage, or that they were trading for the raw materials or the finished products. This knowledge will add to our understanding of how the Guaycura survived in the archaeological past and how they compare to other groups in the area, in Mexico, and more broadly. To be able to identify the hair requires obtaining comparative samples first, so they can be compared with the artifacts. Enabling me to identify the fibers and put their meaningfulness in context involves achieving four goals. The four goals of this project include (1) developing a collection of comparative samples of mammal hair; (2) comparing gross and magnified features of the comparative sample and the artifacts (3) identifying the artifacts, and (4) reviewing the implications of the presence of the identified species for the physical, climatic, and cultural environment of the site when it was inhabited. Methods: When this project was initiated, there was a strong sense that the artifact fibers were likely of mammal hair origin, as they had been described as being texturally softer and finer than known plant fibers previously recovered from the Cueva Santa Rita site. Based on this, my initial efforts focused on creating a comparative collection of mammal hair. The hair samples I obtained exemplified a broad range of mammal groups that could have been in the Cueva Santa Rita area historically. In the more recent past, many of these animals would have been rare to extinct in this region, such as the bighorn sheep ( Ovis Canadensis; Lawlor, 1983). The range of some of these animals was just north of the archaeological site, so it was possible that if the artifacts had been mammal hair they could have come from animals brought into the area. Human hair was also included in this analysis, as it is known that human hair was used in Guaycura artifacts, such as shamans capes and netting (Massey & Osborne, 2009).
2

Gretchen Perry: 14167367

Environmental Archaeology: 7200

Final Paper

Identifying hair samples requires an understanding of hair anatomy and visual features, because variation in these features can be used to identify the animal that produced it. Basic hair anatomy includes the cuticle, cortex, shaft, pigment and fusi (Figure 2). Features of hair that are important for identification include shaft diameter, scale size and shape, presence and pattern of the medulla, medulla width, and ratio of the medulla to cortex width (medulla index) to name just a few (Hausman, 1930; Katz, 2005; Backwell et al., 2009). Although hair tends to preserve and maintain its basic anatomy better than many other biological materials, it can deteriorate over time. Cross-contamination with other artifacts, discoloration (Dove & Peurach 2002), dehydration, cracking, and weathering of the cortex (Backwell et al., 2009) are all potential forms of deterioration and need to be taken into account when attempting to identify ancient hair. Important features of hair anatomy and structure for identify hair origin:

Figure 2: Hair shaft anatomy. (Brisbing, 2002 in Katz, 2005)

Figure 3: Hair structure relationships. (Hausman, 1930)

Determining the origin of the artifact hair fibers required that I assemble a comparative collection of possible hair samples. I collected comparative hair samples from animals that are known to occur at Cueva Santa Rita at the time it was inhabited. These hair samples were obtained by brushing live animals (rats and mice from local pet stores) with soft toothbrushes (no animals were harmed in this process) to retrieve any loose hair from the animals, and putting the sample and brush in a dedicated plastic zip lock bag. Additional samples were obtained from a local taxidermist, using the same method as for the live animals. These samples included coyote, bobcat, raccoon, cougar, badger, both white-tailed and mule deer and others. I used two methods to analyze the comparative samples and the artifact fibers. First, I looked at the gross features of comparative samples and artifacts and compared their fiber length, diameter, texture, and color. A summary of the artifact features is presented in Table 1.

Gretchen Perry: 14167367

Environmental Archaeology: 7200

Final Paper

Table 1: Summary of Gross Artifact Description: Sample Site Impression Color Location 1 Unit 4, Cordage Uniform color, Level 2 fuzzy with fibers texture. yellow to buff brown. 2 Unit 4, Cordage Uniform color Level 2 fuzzy with fibers buff texture. to mid-brown. 3 Unit 2, Rodent Uniform color Feature Nest light to dark 2 -8 coarse. brown.

Fiber Length Undetermined - at least 4 cm, with cordage 6 cm. Undetermined - at most 3 cm, due to cordage length. Undetermined 3 cm or less.

Fiber thickness Variable from fine down to thin.

Uniformly fine fibers. Variable texture with coarse fibers & fuzz.

Second I mounted small portions of the comparative hair samples and samples of 3 artifacts on slides and viewed them under magnification of 10, 25 and/or 40 X. A summary is presented in Table 2 of the scale size and shape, cortex width, medulla index, and medulla patterning of the magnified comparative samples. This methodology followed the protocols set out in the Forensic Science Guide (website 2013) and following the training of Dr. D. Pearsall. My comparative samples included 20 species (7 of which are in Table 2); and were augmented with published pictures of full scale and magnified pictures of additional taxa (Lawlor, 1983; Mayer, 1952; Morris, 1966). I used the same methodology to prepare and magnify the artifacts. Using both the gross and magnified methods of viewing the comparative sample and artifacts I compared the features of each to identify common features and features that would rule out potential taxonomic matches. Table 2: Summary description of magnified comparative fiber samples. Scale Position Scale Pattern Guard Hair Guard Width m Mosaic - not Transversal prominent 56 Under fur Medullary Medullary Width Index Shape 13 0.25 amorphous

Taxon

Coyote Whitetailed Jackrabbit Transversal Streaked 51 Pocket Mouse Transversal Broad Petal 35 Flat, no clear Human Transversal pattern 60-120 Thick & coarse. Wood-like under Agave None None magnification Cotton None None Fine ribbon-like Bird Pigmented Feather Nodes None Very fine

23 17 N/A

0.8 0.7 0

continuous continuous discontinuous if present

N/A N/A N/A

N/A N/A N/A

N/A N/A N/A

4

Gretchen Perry: 14167367

Environmental Archaeology: 7200

Final Paper

It was at this point that I determined that none of the artifacts showed the basic mammal hair morphology of scaled cortex, cuticle and medulla. Artifacts #1 and #2 were quite similar, both with a ribbon-like shape, clear shaft with no noticeable scaling, cortex, medulla or color (Table 3). In artifact #3, most of the fibers were clearly small unidentified plant fibers, with one unusual fiber that was extremely fine compared to the fibers around it, with a slender shaft with somewhat spiked nodes that were pigmented only at the node, and the terminal end tapered (Table 3). Table 3: Summary description of magnified artifacts. Sample 1 2 3 Impression Ribbon-like Ribbon-like Series of somewhat barbed nodes Color Clear Clear Pigment at node only Thickness Fine Fine Very fine tapered end Scale None None None Medulla None None None

Photographs of artifacts, #1, #2, and #3, all at 25 X magnification:

Artifact #1 Artifact #2 Artifact #3 The gross texture of the artifacts and their magnified appearance showed that they had some minor effects of dehydration, but were otherwise well preserved with no visible cracking, splitting or fraying that would be expected in deteriorated hair that had been preserved in an arid environment (Backwell et al., 2009). In light of the minor degree of deterioration of the artifact fibers and their lack of mammalian hair morphology, I had to reconsider the origin of the fibers. Based on known fibers used for creating fiber artifacts in Baja California Sur (Massey & Osborne, 1961; Macfarlan & Henrickson, 2010), I determined that artifact #1 and #2 fibers (which look like cordage as noted above) were likely plant based. The ethnographic record indicates that the agave fiber or wild cotton were the two most common plant fibers used to make cordage. I used online pictures as my comparative sample for the raw agave and cotton fibers (Sapp, 2013), and their summary descriptions are provided in Table 2. Artifact #3 was more difficult to attempt to obtain a comparative sample for. Dove & Peurach (2002) had done a microscopic analysis of feather and hair fragments in mummified remains. Pictures of magnified feathers and diagrams of feather anatomy (Figure 4) clearly showed the same pattern of very thin fiber with pigmented nodes and tapered terminus. I used their pictures as my comparative sample for artifact #3. A summary of this information is in Table 2.
5

Gretchen Perry: 14167367

Environmental Archaeology: 7200

Final Paper

Figure 4: Anatomy of a feather and barbule. (Dove & Peurach, 2002)

Results: The artifact fibers were assessed both grossly and under magnification. If both of these methods had not been used, the identification process would have been impaired. When the artifacts are only grossly compared to the mammal hair comparators, only very limited analyses can be made and logically considered but likely incorrect conclusions can result. I have considered the results of the analyses by gross assessment first and then with the information from the magnified comparisons. By looking at the artifacts with the naked eye, I was able to see significant differences, with the first two being more uniform, finer textured, and longer in fiber length than the third. The latter is coarser, with shorter fiber length, and darker. Due to the strong similarities between artifacts #1 and #2, I suspect they are the same substance, whereas artifact #3 has a different composition. When I compared the artifacts to the comparative collection, none of the three matched all the gross descriptors of any one comparative sample. It is possible that the gross coloration was modified through a bleaching or dying process during manufacture, or through natural degradation over time. Maximum fiber length and thickness could not be determined, due to the small size of the artifacts and potential effects of dehydration, but their minimum size could be estimated. The gross comparisons between the artifacts and comparative collection became an exercise in elimination. All of the summarized guard mammal hair comparators could be eliminated as being too short or thick. Pocket mouse, deer and human hair under fur could also be eliminated because the fiber length is too short in the first two and absent in the latter. The remaining hair samples were sheep, coyote, skunk, rabbit and squirrel, of which the sheep under fur was unlikely as bighorn sheep were present only in more northern regions of Baja California and it would have been difficult to transport such a large animal from their range back to the archaeological site. This leaves coyote, skunk, rabbit and squirrel under fur as more likely potential candidates. The fuzzy texture of artifacts #1 and #2 seemed grossly like fine sheep wool or rabbit under fur. The wool and rabbit hair width, texture and possible fiber length could be matches to the comparative samples #1 and #2. Further analyses were required to identify these artifacts more specifically, but using only gross assessment techniques artifacts #1 and #2 could have been mammal hair. Based on the gross description of artifact #3, it did not match any of the comparative sample descriptions and I suspected that it was not mammal hair, but plant fiber. Gross examination provided good evidence that it was likely of agave quid origin, or some
6

Gretchen Perry: 14167367

Environmental Archaeology: 7200

Final Paper

form of cotton, both of which were common materials in use by the Native peoples in Baja California Sur (Massey & Osborne, 1961; Macfarlan & Henrickson, 2010). Assessing the artifacts at the gross level only provided some helpful information, but more refined analysis was required to be more accurate and avoid incorrect identification. All three artifacts were also analyzed under magnification. None of the artifacts showed any scale pattern, cuticle, cortex or medulla. The site conditions could have resulted in some degradation of the artifacts due to dehydration, but this is unlikely to have resulted in all of the anatomical features of hair fiber being damaged beyond recognition. If the hair fibers were durable enough to maintain their external shape without cracking, splitting or fraying, as they indeed had done, it would be highly unlikely that their internal anatomy would have been eradicated; therefore it is very unlikely that the artifacts are of mammal hair origin (Backwell et al., 2009). When artifacts #1 and #2 are compared to the agave and cotton (the two most likely alternatives for cordage materials), they distinctly resembled the fine ribbon -like and transparent features of cotton. They did not match the more wood-like, striated and thicker shape of agave (Smole et al., 2013). Under magnification, one fiber in artifact #3 was quite different from the others, being very fine with pigmented and notched nodes along its length. This distinctive pattern corresponds consistently to a feather barbule (Dove & Peurach, 2002), and I suspect this is what it is (Figure 4). Without larger feather samples within the artifact I am unable to determine its origin more specifically. The methods I have used in these analyses provide insights into the structure of the artifact fibers, and allow me to compare them to likely matches within the comparative collection, although this has not provided a definitive answer to the artifacts origins. By using two methods of analysis I was able to make more accurate assessments of the artifacts and rule out many more potential but unlikely matches. Additional methods of analysis might provide definitive information on the fiber origin, such as DNA testing. This is not a method of analysis that was available to me, and has not been considered here. Discussion: The comparisons between the modern comparative collections and the artifacts were based on the fibers size, shape, anatomy, color and texture, and the known geographical range of the comparative samples. It cannot be definitively determined what the origins of the artifacts were; however, based on the morphological differences between the artifact fibers and the comparative collection, my tentative conclusion is that the fibers are not of mammal hair origin. There is reason to suspect they are cotton fibers and a feather barbule. Further analyses are required to confirm these suspicions. It is possible that the two cordage artifacts (artifacts #1 and #2) are made of cotton. This would fit with the archaeological record for Mexico, as other Mexican cave sites have found cotton cordage (Massey & Osbourne, 1961) and fabric as old as 4000 BP (Wild cotton 2013). Wild cotton (Gossypium mexicanum) was known to grow in Mexico at the time Cueva Santa Rita was inhabited (Kuester & Nason, 2012; Wild cotton 2013). If artifacts #1 and #2 are indeed made of cotton, that would provide some evidence that the Guaycura were harvesting cotton and processing it for making into cordage and other materials. This provides useful information about the cultural practices, skills and technology the Guaycura utilized when they inhabited Cueva Santa Rita. It is also possible that the Guaycura had trading networks that enabled them to obtain either the raw cotton or the finished cotton products that they used. To determine whether they harvested and manufactured their own cotton cordage or
7

Gretchen Perry: 14167367

Environmental Archaeology: 7200

Final Paper

traded for it requires additional information. If there are specialized tools required for harvesting or processing cotton into cordage (e.g. drop spindles), then there would be support for the Guaycura harvesting and processing cotton themselves. This would not preclude trading in cotton with other peoples, and additional evidence would be required to support or refute this possibility. Clarifying whether the Guaycura were making or trading for cotton products, or both, could provide useful information about the cultural environment the Guaycura were living in. The presence of cotton suggests that this site was arid and sunny, which are the required conditions for wild cotton. As the site was inhabited within this environment, it confirms that the Guaycura were surviving under these harsh conditions (Massey & Osborne, 1961; Reitz & Shackley 2012). The stratum that the cordage artifacts were located in could provide information on when the cordage was made. This ballpark dating method would provide an indication of when the Guaycura had the skills to make or trade for cotton artifacts. It also provides a potential time when the environment fitted the climatic requirements for growing cotton. Artifact #3 looks grossly like a rodent nest. Under magnification it does not show identifiable mammal hair, but is made up of what looks like unknown plant material. There is one distinct fiber within the clump of plant matter which under magnification resembles a feather barbule. I am unable to determine the species of bird that it comes from because of the limited comparative collection that is currently available to me, the small artifact size, and my limited experience with identifying feathers. It is undetermined when the rodent nest was created, as the animal may have burrowed into a stratum older than the one it lived in. The presence of a feather in a rodent nest does not indicate the Guaycura were using fowl for food or for cultural artifacts (although it does not rule this out), and without an idea of the type of bird; it provides little additional information about the climate. It was, however, exciting to find and possibly identify this fiber. These three small artifacts have provided a surprising amount of information about the Guaycura and the environment that they lived within. Most of the information can only be considered tentative; but it has provided a clearer direction for further analyses which might confirm the origins of the artifact fibers and the related cultural and physical environment of Cueva Santa Rita. Acknowledgements: There are five acknowledgements; (1) Debbie Pearsall for using her lab and providing basic technical microscope use training, (2) Woodland Wonders for collecting comparative samples; (3) , & (4) PetSmart and PetCo. for letting me get hair samples from their live animals; & (5) Celeste Henrickson for providing the artifacts & other support.

Gretchen Perry: 14167367

Environmental Archaeology: 7200

Final Paper

References: Backwell, S., Pickering, R., Brothwell, D., Berger, L., Witcomb, M., Martill, D., Penkman, K., & Wilson, A. (2009) Probable human hair found in a fossil hyaena coprolite from Gladysvale Cave, South Africa. Journal of Archaeological Science, 36, 1269-1276. Brisbing, R. in Saferstein, Ed. Forensic Science Handbook V1, 2 nd Ed. Prentice Hall, 2002. Dove, C., & Peurach, S. (2002) Microscopic analysis of feather and hair fragments associated with human mummified remains from Kagamil Island, Alaska. Ethnographical Series, 20, 51-62. Forensic Science Guide (2013) Animal and Human Hair Evidence, Forensic Science Guide, http://www.forensicscience.org/resources/animal -and-human-hair -evidence/ viewed: September 11, 2013. Hausman, L. (1930) Recent studies of hair structure relationships. The Scientific Monthly, 30, 258-280. Henrickson, C. (In Production) Regional Landscape Geology, Raw Materials, and Site Stratigraphy at Cueva Santa Rita in South-Central Baja California, Sur, Mexico, Ph.D. Dissertation. Hyland, J. (1997) Image, Land, and Lineage: Hunter -Gatherer Archaeology in Central Baja California, Mexico, Ph.D. Dissertation. UMI , Ann Arbor, Michigan. Katz, D. (2005) Hair Analysis. Website: http://www.chymist.com/HAIR%20ANALYSIS.pdf viewed: September 11, 2013. Kuester, A. & Nason, J. (2012) Microsatellite loci for Gossypium davidsonii (Malvaceae) and other D -genome, Sonoran Desert endemic cotton species. American Journal of Botany , e91e93. Lawlor, T. (1983) The peninsular effect on mammalian species diversity in Baja California. The American Naturalist, 121:3, 432-439. Mayer, W. (1952) the hair of California mammals with keys to the dorsal guard hairs of California mammals. The American Midland Naturalist, 48, 480- 512. Massey, W., & Osborne, C. (1961) A burial cave in Baja California: The Palmer Collection, 1887. Anthropological Records, 16, 339-364. Smole, M., Hribernik, S., Kleinschek, S., & Kree, T. (2013) Plant fibres for textiles and technical applications, Ch 15. Advances in Agrophysical Research , CC BY 3.0 license. Web address: http://www.intechopen.com/books/advances -in-agrophysical -research/plant -fibresfor -textile-and- technical -applications#article-front viewed: November 2, 2013. Reitz, E.J. & Shackley, M. (2012) Environmental Archaeology, Chapter 10 Manuals in Archaeological Method, Theory and Technique. Springer. Sapp, B. (2013) Hair & Fiber: Unit 5. Website: http://www.flickr.com/photos/11333635@N02/sets/72157601561279161/ viewed September 11, 2013. Wild Cotton (2013) Wild cotton. Website: http://www.fs.fed.us/global/iitf/pdf/shrubs/Gossypium%20hirsutum.pdf viewed: November 15, 2013.
9