Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-dfsvx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T23:21:10.342Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Explaining Toad Bones in Southern Appalachian Archaeological Deposits

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 February 2020

Thomas R. Whyte Open the ORCID record for Thomas R. Whyte [Opens in a new window]  and
J. Matthew Compton
Thomas R. Whyte*
Affiliation:
Department of Anthropology, Appalachian State University, 224 Joyce Lawrence Lane, Boone, NC28608, USA
J. Matthew Compton
Affiliation:
Department of Sociology and Anthropology, Georgia Southern University, PO Box 8051, Statesboro, GA30460, USA
*
(whytetr@appstate.edu, corresponding author)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Toad bones, sometimes occurring in great numbers in pit features and other contexts in Native American village and mound sites in the Appalachian Summit, have been interpreted as evidence that toads were consumed, used for their purportedly hallucinogenic toad venom, placed as ritual deposits, or naturally entrapped/intrusive. A paucity or lack of bones of the head in some contexts is suggestive of decapitation and consumption of toads. Alternatively, bones of the head may be less preservable, recoverable, or identifiable. This study examines toad remains on Appalachian Summit late precontact and contact period sites, reviews previous experimentation, and presents a new experimental study undertaken to identify agencies of accumulation. We propose that toads were regularly consumed and possibly as part of ritualized events associated with village and mound construction. The temporal and geographic restriction of this practice to the Pisgah and Qualla phases of the Appalachian Summit suggests subsistence ethnicity as alluded to in historical accounts.

Los huesos de sapos, a veces ocurriendo en grán número en pozos y otros contextos en pueblos nativos y túmulos en la Cumbre Appalachiana, han sido tradicionalmente interpretados como evidencia de que los sapos fueron consumidos, empleados por su pretendido veneno alucinógeno, colocados en yacimientos rituales, atrapados, o naturalmente intrusos. Una escasez o falta de huesos de la cabeza en algunas instancias sugiere decapitación y consumo de sapos. Alternativamente, huesos de la cabeza podrían ser menos conservables, recuperables, o identificables. Este estudio examina los restos de sapos en la Cumbre Appalachiana en sitios fechados de la época pre-contacto tardía y del contacto, revisa experimentaciones previas, y presenta un estudio nuevo establecido para identificar agencias de acumulación. Proponemos que sapos fueron consumidos regularmente, posiblemente como parte de rituales asociados con la construcción de pueblos y túmulos. La limitación de las restricciones temporales y geográficas de esta práctica sugiere subsistencia étnica como indicado en los documentos históricos.

Keywords

toad remainsAppalachian SummitNative Americanzooarchaeologydietritualrestos de saposCumbre Appalachianaindígena americanozooarqueologíadietaritual
Type
Articles
Information
American Antiquity , Volume 85 , Issue 2 , April 2020 , pp. 305 - 330
Copyright
Copyright © 2020 by the Society for American Archaeology

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

References Cited

Baden, William W. 1983 Tomotley: An Eighteenth Century Cherokee Village. Report of Investigations No. 36. Department of Anthropology, University of Tennessee, Knoxville.Google Scholar
Bailon, Salvador 1993 Quelques exemples de la consommation d'amphibiens à travers le temps. In Exploitation des animaux sauvages à travers le temps, edited by Desse, Jean and Audoin-Rouzeau, Frédérique, pp. 319–326. Actes des XIII Rencontres Internationales d'Archéologie et d'Historie d'Antibes. APDCA, Juan-les-Pins, France.Google Scholar
Bailon, Salvador 1997 La grenouille rousse (Rana temporaria): Une source de nourriture pour les habitants de Chalain 3. In Littoraux néolithiques de Clairvaux-les Lacs et de Chalain (Jura), Tome III, Chalain station 3, 3200–2900 av. J-C, Vol. 2, edited by Pétrequin, Pierre, pp. 711–716. Éditions de la Maison des Sciences de l'Homme, Paris.Google Scholar
Bailon, Salvador 2005 Les Amphibiens du Néolithique moyen du camp de Chassey: Un nouvel exemple de la consommation de grenouilles dans le Néolithique français. In Le camp de Chassey (Chassey-le-Camp, Saône-et-Loire): Les niveaux néolithiques du rempart de “la Redoute,” edited by Thevenot, Jean-Paul, pp. 423–428. Revue Archéologique de l'Est, Dijon, France.10.4000/books.artehis.16930CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bailon, Salvador, and Rage, Jean-Claude 1992 Amphibiens et reptiles du Quaternaire: Relations avec l'homme. Mémoires de la Société Géologique de France 160:95–100.Google Scholar
Beane, Jeffrey C., Braswell, Alvin L., Mitchell, Joseph C., Palmer, William M., and Harrison, Julian R. III 2010 Amphibians and Reptiles of the Carolinas and Virginia. 2nd ed. University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill.Google Scholar
Beisaw, April 2006 Deer, Toads, Dogs, and Frogs: A New Interpretation of the Faunal Remains from the Engelbert Site, Tioga County, New York. Northeast Anthropology 72:1–23.Google Scholar
Boessneck, J., Jéquier, J.-P., and Stampfli, H. R. 1963 Seeberg Burgäschisee-Süd, 3: Die Tierreste. Acta Bernensia: Beìträge zur prähistorischen, klassischen, und jüngeren Archäologie, Vol. 2. Stämpfli, Bern, Switzerland.Google Scholar
Bogan, Arthur E. 1983 Faunal Remains from the Historic Cherokee Occupation at Citico (40MR7), Monroe County, Tennessee. Tennessee Anthropologist 8:28–49.Google Scholar
Bogan, Arthur E., and Bogan, Cynthia M. 1985 Faunal Remains. In Archaeological Contexts and Assemblages at Martin Farm, edited by Schroedl, Gerald F., Stephen Davis, R. P. Jr., and Boyd, C. Clifford Jr., pp. 369–410. Report of Investigations No. 39. University of Tennessee, Knoxville.Google Scholar
Bogan, Arthur E., LaValley, Lori, and Schroedl, Gerald F. 1986 Faunal Remains. In Overhill Cherokee Archaeology at Chota-Tenasee, edited by Schroedl, Gerald F., pp. 469–514. Report of Investigations No. 42. University of Tennessee, Knoxville.Google Scholar
Bogan, Arthur E., and Polehemus, Richard R. 1987 Faunal Analysis: A Comparison of Dallas and Overhill Cherokee Subsistence Strategies. In The Toqua Site: A Late Mississippian Dallas Phase Town, Vol. II, by Polhemus, Richard R., pp. 971–1111. Report of Investigations No. 41. University of Tennessee, Knoxville.Google Scholar
Borschel-Dan, Amanda 2017 Afterlife Snack: Jar of Toads Popped Open in 4,000-Year-Old Canaanite Tomb Dig. The Times of Israel, September 25, 2017. Electronic document, https://www.timesofisrael.com/afterlife-snack-jar-of-toads-popped-open-in-4000-year-old-canaanite-tomb-dig/, accessed November 8, 2018.Google Scholar
Chen, K. K., and Kovaříková, Alena 1967 Pharmacology and Toxicology of Toad Venom. Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences 56:1535–1541.10.1002/jps.2600561202CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chiquet, Patricia Anne 2005 Des Mésolithiques Amateurs de Grenouilles? Une Étonnante Découverte sur le Site de la Baume d'Ogens (Vaud, Suisse). Revue de Paléobiologie 10:59–67.Google Scholar
Claassen, Cheryl 2014 Hunting Ritual, Trapping Meaning, Gathering Offerings. In Trends and Traditions in Southeastern Zooarchaeology, edited by Peres, Tanya M., pp. 125–160. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.10.5744/florida/9780813049274.003.0006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coe, Michael D. 1971 The Shadow of the Olmecs. Horizon 13(4):66–75.Google Scholar
Coe, Michael D., and Diehl, Richard A. 1980 In the Land of the Olmec, Volume 1: The Archaeology of San Lorenzo Tenochtitlán. University of Texas Press, Austin.Google Scholar
Compton, J. Matthew 2014 Archaeofaunal Remains from the Ravensford Site: A Regional and Ethnohistorical Perspective on Animal Use in the Appalachian Summit. Paper presented at the 71st Annual Meeting of the Southeastern Archaeological Conference, Greenville, South Carolina.Google Scholar
Cooke, Richard G. 1989 Anurans as Human Food in Tropical America: Ethnographic, Ethnohistoric, and Archaeological Evidence. Archaeozoologia 3:123–142.Google Scholar
Cyphers, Ann, Zúñiga, Belem, and Di Castro, Anna 2005 Another Look at Bufo marinus and the San Lorenzo Olmec. Current Anthropology 46:S129–S133.10.1086/497668CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, E. Wade 1988 Passage of Darkness: The Ethnobiology of the Haitian Zombie. University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill.Google Scholar
Dickens, Roy S. Jr. 1976 Cherokee Prehistory: The Pisgah Phase in the Appalachian Summit Region. University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville.Google Scholar
Dickens, Roy S. Jr. 1985 The Form, Function, and Formation of Garbage-Filled Pits on Southeastern Aboriginal Sites: An Archaeobotanical Analysis. In Structure and Process in Southeastern Archaeology, edited by Dickens, Roy S. Jr. and Ward, H. Trawick, pp. 82–101. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.Google Scholar
Dorcas, Mike, and Gibbons, Whit 2008 Frogs and Toads of the Southeast. University of Georgia Press, Athens.Google Scholar
Gehasse, E. F. 2001 Archaeoherpetological Remains from the Noordoostpolder in the Netherlands. In Animals and Man in the Past: Essays in Honour of Dr. A. T. Clason Emeritus Professor of Archaeozoology Rijksuniversiteit Groningen, the Netherlands, edited by Buitenhuis, H. and Premmell, W., pp. 227–235. ARC-Publicatie 41. Archeological Research and Consultancy, Groningen, Netherlands.Google Scholar
Glastra, Rob 1983 Some Archaeoherpetological Remains from the Netherlands. Journal of Archaeological Science 10:213–222.10.1016/0305-4403(83)90004-3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hollenbach, Kandace D., Sichler, Judith A., and Vavrasek, Jessica L. 2012 Cherokee Foodways in Tuckaleechee Cove. In The Cherokees of Tuckaleechee Cove, by Marcoux, Jon, pp. 179–200. Museum of Anthropology Memoirs No. 52. University of Michigan Museum, Ann Arbor.Google Scholar
Holm, Mary Ann 1987 Faunal Remains from the Wall and Fredricks Sites. In The Siouan Project: Seasons I and II, edited by Dickens, Roy S. Jr., Ward, H. Trawick, and Stephen Davis, R. P. Jr., pp. 237–258. Monograph Series No. 1. Research Laboratories of Anthropology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.Google Scholar
Hüster Plogmann, Heide 2004 Fischfang und Kleintierbeute: Ergebnisse der Untersuchung von Tierresten aus den Schlämmproben. In Die jungsteinzeitliche Seeufersiedlung Arbon-Bleiche 3: Umwelt und Wirtschaft, edited by Jacoment, Stefanie, Leuzinger, Urs, and Schibler, Jörg, pp. 253–276. Departement für Erziehung und Kultur des Kantons Thurgau, Frauenfeld, Switzerland.Google Scholar
Jensen, John B., Camp, Carlos D., Gibbons, Whit, and Elliott, Matt J. (editors) 2008 Amphibians and Reptiles of Georgia. University of Georgia Press, Athens.Google Scholar
Kaenel, Gilbert 1985 Boire et manger à la fin de La Tène en Suisse occidentale. Archäologie der Schweiz 8(3):150–159.Google Scholar
Keel, Bennie C. 1976 Cherokee Archaeology: A Study of the Appalachian Summit. University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville.Google Scholar
Kimball, Larry R., Whyte, Thomas R., and Crites, Gary D. 2010 The Biltmore Mound and Hopewellian Mound Use in the Southern Appalachians. Southeastern Archaeology 29:44–58.10.1179/sea.2010.29.1.004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kyselý, René 2008 Frogs as a Part of the Eneolithic Diet: Archaeozoological Records from the Czech Republic (Kutná Hora-Denemark site, Řivnáč Culture). Journal of Archaeological Science 35:143–157.10.1016/j.jas.2007.02.016CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lawson, John 1709 A New Voyage to Carolina. Electronic document, https://docsouth.unc.edu/nc/lawson/menu.html, accessed March 27, 2019.Google Scholar
Lyttle, Thomas, Goldstein, David, and Gartz, Jochen 1996 Bufo Toads and Bufotenine: Fact and Fiction Surrounding an Alleged Psychedelic. Journal of Psychoactive Drugs 28:267–290.10.1080/02791072.1996.10472488CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mooney, James 1902 Myths of the Cherokee. Annual Report of the Bureau of American Ethnology Vol. 19. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Needs-Howarth, Suzanne 1995 Quantifying Animal Food Diet: A Comparison of Four Approaches Using Bones from a Prehistoric Iroquoian Village. Ontario Archaeology 60:92–101.Google Scholar
Partlow, Megan A. 2006 Sampling Fish Bones: A Consideration of the Importance of Screen Size and Disposal Context in the North Pacific. Arctic Anthropology 43(1):67–79.10.1353/arc.2011.0064CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Payne, Ted M. 2009 Piper Airport Site 1: A Stewart Complex Settlement in Lock Haven, Pennsylvania. Archaeology of Eastern North America 37:35–46.Google Scholar
Peres, Tanya M., VanDerwarker, Amber M., and Pool, Christopher A. 2013 The Zooarchaeology of Olmec and Epi-Olmec Foodways along Mexico's Gulf Coast. In The Archaeology of Mesoamerican Animals, edited by Götz, Christopher M. and Emery, Kitty F., pp. 95–128. Lockwood Press, Atlanta, Georgia.10.2307/j.ctvvnd8m.10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pinto Llona, Ana C. P., and Andrews, Peter J. 1999 Amphibian Taphonomy and Its Application to the Fossil Record of Dolina (Middle Pleistocene, Atapuerca, Spain). Paleogeography, Paleoclimatology, Paleoecology 149:411–429.10.1016/S0031-0182(98)00215-6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Piper, P. J., and O'Connor, T. P. 2001 Urban Small Vertebrate Taphonomy: A Case Study from Anglo-Scandinavian York. International Journal of Osteoarchaeology 11:336–344.10.1002/oa.571CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pokines, James T., and Baker, Joan E. 2013 Effects of Burial Environment on Osseus Remains. In Manual of Forensic Taphonomy, edited by Pokines, James T. and Symes, Stephen A., pp. 73–114. CRC Press, New York.10.1201/b15424CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Porcasi, Judith F. 2010 Archeological Evidence for Dietary Use of Bigfoot Leopard Frog (Lithobates megapoda) in Postclassic and Colonial Central Mexico. Culture and Agriculture 32:42–48.10.1111/j.1556-486X.2010.01034.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quitmyer, Irvy R. 2004 What Kind of Data Are in the Back Dirt? An Experiment on the Influence of Screen Size on Optimal Data Recovery. Tropical Zooarchaeology 13:109–129.Google Scholar
Rage, Jean-Claude 1989 Les batraciens du niveau V. In Les sites littoraux néolithiques de Clairvaux-les-Lacs (Jura), Tome II: Le Néolithique moyen, edited by Pétrequin, Pierre, p. 405. Archéologie et culture matérielle. Fondation de la Maison des Sciences de l'Homme, Paris.Google Scholar
Ranworthy, C. J., Byf-Biddle, B. Kiøi, and Biddle, M. 1990 An Archaeological Study of Frogs and Toads from the Eighth to Sixteenth Century at Repton, Derbyshire. Herpetological Journal 1:504–509.Google Scholar
Rey, J. M., and Sanchiz, B. 2005 Differential Anuran Bone Preservation in a Taphocenotic Sample of Barn Owl Pellets. Munibe (Anthropologia-Arkeologia) 57:505–509.Google Scholar
Rodning, Christopher B. 2008 Temporal Variation in Qualla Pottery at Coweeta Creek. North Carolina Archaeology 57:1–49.Google Scholar
Runquist, Jeannette 1979 Analysis of the Flora and Faunal Remains from Proto-Historic North Carolina Cherokee Indian Sites. PhD dissertation, Department of Zoology, North Carolina State University, Raleigh.Google Scholar
Russ, Kurt C., and Chapman, Jefferson 1983 Archaeological Investigations at the Eighteenth Century Overhill Cherokee Town of Mialoquo (40MR3). Report of Investigations No. 37. Department of Anthropology, University of Tennessee, Knoxville.Google Scholar
Sampson, C. Garth 2003 Amphibians from the Acheulean Site at Duinfontein 2 (Western Cape, South Africa). Journal of Archaeological Science 30:547–557.10.1016/S0305-4403(02)00201-7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schubert, Ashley 2017 Mississippianization in Late Pisgah Communities in the Appalachian Summit of North Carolina. Paper presented at the 82nd Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, Vancouver, BC.Google Scholar
Schwarze, Edmund 1923 History of the Moravian Missions among Southern Indian Tribes of the United States. Special Series No. 1. Transactions of the Moravian Historical Society, Times Publishing Company, Bethlehem, Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Shaffer, Brian S., and Baker, Barry W. 1999 Comments on James’ Methodological Issues Concerning Analysis of Archaeofaunal Recovery and Screen Size Correction Factors. Journal of Archaeological Science 26:1181–1182.10.1006/jasc.1998.0352CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shaffer, Brian S., and Neely, James A. 1992 Intrusive Anuran Remains in Pit House Features: A Test of Methods. Kiva 57:343–351.10.1080/00231940.1992.11758197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Slater, Fred 2002 Progressive Skinning of Toads (Bufo bufo) by the Eurasian Otter (Lutra lutra). IUCN Otter Specialist Group Bulletin 19(1):1–4.Google Scholar
Stahl, Peter W. 2000 Archaeofaunal Accumulation, Fragmented Forests, and Anthropogenic Landscape Mosaics in the Tropical Lowlands of Prehispanic Ecuador. Latin American Antiquity 11:241–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stoetzel, E., Denys, C., Bailon, S., el Hajraoui, M. A., and Nespoulet, R. 2012 Taphonomic Analysis of Amphibian and Squamate Remains from El Harhoura 2 (Rabat-Témara, Morocco): Contributions to Paleoecological and Archaeological Interpretations. International Journal of Osteoarchaeology 22:616–635.10.1002/oa.1275CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ulmer, Mary, and Beck, Samuel E. (editors) 1951 Cherokee Cooklore: Preparing Cherokee Foods. Mary and Goingback Chiltoskey, Stephens Press, Cherokee, North Carolina.Google Scholar
VanDerwarker, Amber M. 2006 Farming, Hunting, and Fishing in the Olmec World. University of Texas Press, Austin.Google Scholar
VanDerwarker, Amber M., and Detwiler, Kandace R. 2000 Plant and Animal Subsistence at the Coweeta Creek Site (31MA34), Macon County, North Carolina. North Carolina Archaeology 49:59–77.Google Scholar
Vavrasek, Jessica L. 2012 Faunal Analysis. In Archaeological Investigations at Site 31SW393, Smokemont, Swain County, North Carolina, by Angst, Michael G., pp. 121–132. Submitted to Great Smoky Mountains National Park, Gatlinburg, Tennessee.Google Scholar
Ward, H. Trawick 1985 Social Implications of Storage and Disposal Patterns. In Structure and Process in Southeastern Archaeology, edited by Dickens, Roy S. Jr. and Ward, H. Trawick, pp. 82–101. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.Google Scholar
Ward, H. Trawick, and Stephen Davis, R. P. Jr. 1999 Time Before History: The Archaeology of North Carolina. University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill.Google Scholar
Weil, Andrew T., and Davis, Wade 1994 Bufo alvarius: A Potent Hallucinogen of Animal Origin. Journal of Ethnopharmacology 41:1–8.10.1016/0378-8741(94)90051-5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weisbrod, Lior, and Bar-Oz, Guy 2004 Caprines and Toads: Taphonomic Patterning of Animal Offering Practices in a Late Bronze Age Burial Assemblage. In Behaviour behind Bones: The Zooarchaeology of Ritual, Religion, Status, and Identity, edited by O'Day, Sharyn Jones, Neer, Wim Van, and Ervynck, Anton, pp. 20–24. Proceedings of the 9th Conference of the International Council of Archaeozoology, Durham, England.Google Scholar
Whyte, Thomas R. 1988 An Experimental Study of Small Animal Remains in Archaeological Pit Features. PhD dissertation. Department of Anthropology, University of Tennessee, Knoxville.Google Scholar
Whyte, Thomas R. 1991 Small-Animal Remains in Archaeological Pit Features. In Beamers, Bobwhites, and Blue-Points: Tributes to the Career of Paul W. Parmalee, edited by Purdue, James R., Klippel, Walter E., and Styles, Bonnie W., pp. 163–176. Scientific Papers 23. Illinois State Museum, Springfield.Google Scholar
Whyte, Thomas R. 2011 Archaeofaunal Remains from Garden Creek Mound No. 2 (31HW2) in Haywood County, North Carolina. North Carolina Archaeology 60:53–64.Google Scholar
Whyte, Thomas R. 2017 Big Meat Feasting in the Pisgah Phase of Western North Carolina. Paper presented at the 82nd Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, Vancouver, BC.Google Scholar
Wing, Elizabeth S. 1980 Faunal Remains from San Lorenzo. In In the Land of the Olmec, Volume 1: The Archaeology of San Lorenzo Tenochtitlán, edited by Coe, Michael D. and Diehl, Richard A., pp. 375–386. University of Texas Press, Austin.Google Scholar
Witthoft, John 1946 Bird Lore of the Eastern Cherokee. Journal of the Washington Academy of Sciences 36:372–384.Google Scholar