382 BUREAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGT [Bull. 1S2 



attributed to weathering or careless handling.^^ Seen, providentially, 

 after a series of skeletons showing progressively severe and extensive 

 markings, tliey seem, rather, to represent an advanced stage in the 

 development of this cultural practice. Examination of the bone itself 

 confirms tliis impression. A decayed or weathered bone is usually 

 crumbly and flaky throughout, with the cancellous bone of the epi- 

 physes so mushy when found that it rarely survives excavation. 

 Except for the denuded surfaces, which are rather fibrous, the shafts 

 and epiphyses of these bones are firm and hard, and the undenuded 

 surfaces show no tendency to flaking. Altliough removing the sur- 

 face of the bone may have left the miderlying bone more susceptible 

 to weathering than an undamaged bone, it is not likely that soil con- 

 ditions alone could have produced such a regular mosaic of surface 

 changes. Furthermore, it is most unlikely that almost exactly the 

 same sites would have been affected, to such similar degree, in so 

 many skeletons. Similarly, the more extensive damage cannot be 

 blamed on careless excavation, or disturbance by the bulldozing that 

 preceded archeological work. Mcl4-39 (USNM 380868) is a good 

 case in point. This female skeleton lay extended on its back. The 

 arm and leg bones are in poor condition, but the significant damage 

 is to the back. The first four pairs of ribs, covered in life by the 

 scapulae, are intact; but the fiftli through tenth pairs show surface 

 defects adjacent to the spine, and the eleventh and twelfth ribs are 

 missing. The spines of the first six thoracic vertebrae have been 

 cut off, as were the spines and transverse processes of the next four 

 thoracic vertebrae (cf. pi. 110). Of the remainder of the spine, the 

 last two thoracic vertebrae and the entire lumbar segment of the 

 spine are represented by only centra and neural arches, the posterior, 

 lateral, and anterior surfaces having been removed entirely. The 

 pattern of damage continues onto the posterior surfaces of the iliac 

 blades and the lower portion of the sacrum, continuing anteriorly 

 onto the ischia and lower pubic symphysis. The dorsum and sides 

 (but not the soles) of the feet and one of the hands show similar 

 damage. Only the proximal phalanges of the great toes remain, 

 suggesting that the distal parts of the feet had been removed. There 

 is no trace of the other 26 phalanges of the toes, or of the missing 

 parts of the vertebrae, as one would expect if the bone had simply 

 been damaged in excavation. Additional evidence that the damage 



"This Is undoubtedly why Stewart (1941) took no particular notice of the "punch-and- 

 gougc" surface damage which occurs on some of the long bones from the Peachtree site in 

 Cherokee County, North Carolina. A spot check of these bones, from an area formerly 

 occupied by the Cherokee, shows gouges on some of the long bones of USNM .309571. A 

 spot check of a collection from Glynn County, Georgia, on the coast, shows various of the 

 patterns on long bones from skeletons .37S961, 37896.3, and skulls .379026 and .379045. A 

 fuller examination of these and other East Coast collections would probably reveal other 

 skeletal remains with these markings. 



