Texas Sea Grant title logo  
July 25, 2008
HOME | NOAA | NATIONAL SEA GRANT OFFICE | SEA GRANT ASSOCIATION | SEARCH
 
Texas Sea Grant Homepage

4. What Does the Archeological Record Tell Us about the Life of the Karankawa Indians?

Archeologist_______________________________ Archeological Team _______

     To learn about the Karankawan life and culture before the recorded observations of Europeans, our inquiry must look at the archeological record. Although archeological research cannot provide direct evidence and all the details of the culture, it can provide important information. Where the sites are located can provide information on the settlements of the Indians. The kinds of bones, tools, and other materials at each individual site can provide clues about the activities at each site. Growth patterns on shells and fish otoliths indicate when they died. This helps to determine when they were used and the season during which the site was occupied. The size of the site determines the number of people living there. Studies of the animal bones will tell what kind of animals provided food for the group. With this information an archeologist can reconstruct how the Karankawas lived in their environment. You and your archeological team will analyze data from various sites to see what you can learn about the Karankawa Indians.

Materials: calculator (optional)

Procedure:

Part I: Where did the Karankawa live and what resources did they use?
1.Archeologists have examined Karankawa sites in the Corpus Christi Bay and Copano Bay area. Use Figure 4.1 to determine the location of the sites that were examined. Where are all the sites identified as Group 1 located? Where are the sites identified as Group 2 located?
2. Based on the information in Table 1, how does the archeological evidence differ between the Group 1 and Group 2 sites?
3. Study Figure 4.1 and Table 1.
 
Figure 4.1. Krankawa camps in the Corpus Christi Bay and Copano Bay area. (Source: Ricklis: The Karankawa Indians of Texas)

Table 1: Archeological Evidence of Karankawan Occupation of Texas Coastal Zone

Group 1 Sites Group 2 Sites
Deposit Site Very thick, rich in debris, many layers Very thin, sparse in debris
Dominant animal remains found Fish and shellfish White-tailed deer, Bison
Artifacts Abundant Sparse
Types of artifacts Ceramics, pottery, conch adzes, conch perforators, whelk hammers, clam shell knives and scrapers Pottery fragments, pots, arrowpoints, adzes, clam shell tools
Source of Data: Ricklis, R.A., “The Karankawa Indians of Texas, An Ecological Study of Cultural Tradition and Change”

     What inferences can be made about the sites?
     a. Which site had more people? Explain.
     b. How did the diet of people from Group 1 differ from the diet of Group 2? Why would Group 1 sites have thicker deposits and more artifacts than the Group 2 sites? What is the relationship between the location of
         each site and the animal remains found?
4. One way to find out how important an animal was to the Karankawa is by examining the bones found at the site. The minimum number of individuals (MNI) used by the Indians could be estimated by bones found in the site.
     Another method is used for bony fishes. Each bony fish has two otoliths. Otoliths are tiny bone-like particles or stony plate-like structures found in the skull of fish. Each fish has a pair. They are different for each species. The otoliths that are found at each site are grouped and counted by species. The number of bony fish that the Indians used is estimated by dividing the number of otoliths (for each species) in half. The estimated usable meat for a given animal species is based on:
1. The total estimated live weight of the animal
2. The percentage of the total weight that is usable meat, and
3. The multiplying of usable meat weight per individual animal by the MNI for that species.
     Use the information provided in Table 2 to determine the estimated total meat from each species that was used by the Karankawa at this site. Multiply the MNI (Minimum Number of Individuals) by the estimated usable meat per individual. Record the amount in the estimated total meat. Complete this for the fish, mollusks, mammals, and birds.
5. Which fish provided the most meat for the camp?

Minimum number of individuals Estimated usable meat per individual (grams) Estimated total meat/species All meat weight by percentage
Fish
Blackdrum 103 1,950
Redfish 52 1,980
Sheepshead 103 800
Trout 53 495
Croaker 69 110
Marine catfish 22 220
Gar 1 4,400
TOTAL FISH
Mollusks
Scallop 291 10
Oyster 262 15
Lightning Whelk 44 30
Shark Eye 56 10
Quahog 21 20
C-barred Venus 44 5
Banded Tulip 20 10
Horse Conch 7 20
Pear Whelk 6 15
Ponderous Ark 5 10
TOTAL MOLLUSKS
Mammals
White-tailed deer
Adult 2 26,500
Juvenile 1 10,000
Bison .05* 295,000
Bobcat 1 6,000
Cottontail rabbit 1 800
TOTAL MAMMALS -1
Birds
Duck 1 700
Great Horned Owl 1 2,100
TOTAL BIRDS
TOTAL AMOUNT
*Based on percentage of Bison bones in the site area

Did the fish used by the Karankawa provide the most meat? Explain.

  • Which mollusk provided the most meat for the camp?

  • Which animal provided the most meat?

  • Add the total amount of estimated meat provided by each group (fish, mollusks, mammals, birds) of organisms in Table 2 to determine which provided the most meat for the site. Which provided the most meat? List the groups in the order (most to least) that they provided meat.

  • Add together the amount of meat each group provided. What was the total amount of meat used at this site?

  • To determine the percentage of fish, mollusks, mammals and birds used by the Indians at this site, divide the amount of meat for a group by the total amount of meat. Place the percentage for each group in the blank provided in the last column of Table 2. Which group of animals (fish, mollusks, mammals, birds) provided the most meat?

  • Based on this data was this a Group 1 or 2 site? (Refer to Figure 4.1 and Table 1 if needed). Explain.

  • Give reasons (at least two) to support your answer.

  • Examine the data in Table 3. Are sites A and B group one or two sites? Explain.

  • How do Sites A and B differ from the Site in Table 1?

  • Where were sites A and B located, inland along rivers or along a bay shoreline? Explain.

    • Table 3: Estimated Percentage of Meat Weight for Sites A and B

    Percentage of Meat Weight Animal Site A Site B
    Bison 84.7 90.9
    White-tailed deer 12.5 7.6
    Rangia Cuneata (freshwater clam) .5
    Sea trout .1 0
    Catfish .1 .1
    Black drum (fish) .2

    Lien: Investigating the Marine Environment in the 21st Century

    Part II: Was there a pattern to the life of the Karankawas?

    1. To determine the season that a resource was used, the fish otoliths and oyster shells are analyzed. The season that the fish or mollusk died is based on the growth patterns of the otoliths or shells. The growth is interrupted or stops during the cold water temperature in the winter. The season of death is determined by comparing the amount of growth since the winter growth interruption. Based on the data in Table 4, during which seasons were fish the main source of meat for the Indians?

    Table 4: Seasonal Categories Based on Fish Otoliths

    Percentage of Estimated Meat Weight of Fish Season Site C Site D Site E Site F
    Fall 19% 25% 13% 9%
    Winter 63% 60% 81% 82%
    Spring 5% 5% 0% 9%
    Summer 13% 10% 6% 0%
    1. During which seasons did the Indians rely on a source other than fish for food? What was the other source of food?

    2. Based on Figure 4.1, where would sites C-F (Table 4) have been located? Explain.

    3. It has been proposed that the Karankawa spent part of the year in large shoreline fishing camps and the remainder of the year in smaller hunting camps located in the inland prairies along streams or rivers. What data supports this theory?

    4. In March 1687, Enrique Barroto, who was sent to explore the coast, met a group of friendly Indians (near Aransas Pass on Corpus Christi Bay) who “came to the beach to play games around the gallery.” They also offered the Spaniards gifts of fish. Barroto noted that the Indians left their shoreline camp while his ship was anchored at that spot. He continued to sail north and reached Matagorda Bay in April. He indicated that during the six days of exploring the area, no Indians were sighted. This was the same area where LaSalle had found a camp of more than 400 people in February 1685.

    In 1689, the De Leon expedition was sent from Coahuila in Mexico to locate the site of La Salle’s Fort Saint Louis. They arrived in Matagorda Bay in late April and explored the entire southern shoreline of the Bay. No Indians were found along the Bay, however, they found several small camps of Indians inland along Garcitas Creek.

    French navigator Jean Beranger, who sailed from Louisiana in 1720 and reached Aransas Pass in late October described a large shoreline camp. “I was surprised, since I

    © 2002 Texas Sea Grant College Program

    least expected to see in a moment a large market town built of these kinds of houses (hidecovered huts) and five hundred persons, at least, well sheltered.”

    There was a major fish storage facility for fish with this large camp. Beranger stated: “Five leagues north of here, where I was anchored, they have a small permanent village of about a dozen large, quite round huts. That is where they put the supply for the winter that consists of fish that they dry without salt and where worms prevail in large numbers. They took my cook into this village, and after welcoming him and making him eat what they had they brought him back after five days.”

    Beranger’s observations are important in that they indicate a large shoreline camp occupied during the fall and fish and shellfish were the main source of food.

    Another source of information was from “Relation of Simars de Bellisle.”. Bellisle was marooned on the Texas coast and lived with the Karankawas for more than a year during 1719-1720. He first encountered them in the spring as they were gathering bird eggs along the beach. By summer he noted: “I passed the entire summer in this country with them going everywhere in search of food because they possess no cabins or fields. That is why they travel in this manner the entire summer. The men kill a few deer and a few buffaloes and the women search for wild potatoes.” Based on de Bellisle’s journal this changed as the season changed. He noted: “When the beginning of the winter came we all left to join a band of their people who were waiting for us at the end of the bay. We arrived there in seven or eight days.”

    He also noted that hunting was also carried out during the winter. He makes it clear that the hunting expedition used horses and they traveled two to three days inland to hunt buffaloes. Apparently, as early as 1720, coastal people in the Galveston Bay area had at least limited access to horses. These were probably from horses left behind by the De Leon expeditions of 1689-1690. He noted that during the summer season the group moved at a modest rate on foot and on the coast they traveled in the traditional dugout canoe.

    From these journal accounts, where were the Indians living in the fall and winter and what did they eat?

    1. Where did they live in the late spring and summer and what did they eat?

    2. Did the Indians getting horses from the Spaniards change this pattern? Explain.

    3. Summarize the relationship between the season, location of the site and the resources used.

    Lien: Investigating the Marine Environment in the 21st Century

    Texas Sea Grant College Program | 2700 Earl Rudder Freeway South, Suite 1800 | College Station, Texas 77845.
    phone: 979.845.3854 | fax: 979.845.7525 | Customer Service | Webmaster
    Last Modified: 09/14/06