I am not sure, but I do not believe that pre-contact (pre-1500) Native
Americans had any domesticated cats, and the smallest cats available in
North America before contact would have been bobcats or lynx--not
domesticated by any human society I have heard of.  I recall some
reference to Southeastern Native Americans, Cherokees, Creeks, Choctaws,
Chickasaws or Seminoles keeping cats for rodent control, but this was
after both the animals, and the idea of using them to protect stored
food, had come from Europe.

In the European tradition, cats are liminal, much more so than
dogs--appreciated for what they do for us, but despised or feared for
the fact that they do not, exactly, fit into our division between
domesticated and wild animals.  Wild cats, of course, are greatly
respected as apex predators--lions, tigers, leopards, etc.  But, house
cats are betwixt and between, and so are not trusted, especially when
people insist that the world conform to a Straussian program of nature
vs. culture.  Why Hitler, as the most destructive exemplar of such a
program, hated cats, in all probability.  So we have cat burials, on
occasion, and cat massacres--wasn't one reported from a privy in
Cincinnati, a few years ago?--in the archaeological record.

D. Babson.
 

-----Original Message-----
From: HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Joe
Dent
Sent: Monday, June 06, 2005 5:01 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Felines

on 6/5/05 2:39 PM, Matthew Sterner at [log in to unmask] wrote:

> Dog burials are actually not uncommon on prehistoric sites here in the
> Southwest. Not sure about cats though. Will have to ask a couple of
> colleagues and get back to the list on that one!
>
> mas
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Robert L. Schuyler" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Sunday, June 05, 2005 2:30 PM
> Subject: Re: Felines
>
>
>> WHAT!  Did you open the bag to see if there were any "grave goods" or
>> perhaps, if you were very lucky, an identifying "Dog Tag"
>> (woops, I meat a "Cat Tag."). Of course, I assume you saved the
plastic
>> bag, labeled and inventoried it.
>>
>> Did people consider cats to be pets in the colonial period or just
tools
>> (rodent killers)?  I know there is some evidence of people
>> eating cats (e.g. 19th century Cannon Point Plantation). Any cat or
dog
>> remains from early sites like Jamestown or Quebec
>> or St Mary's City?
>>
>> RLS
>>
>> At 05:12 PM 6/5/2005, you wrote:
>>> Robert L. Schuyler wrote:
>>>> We seem to drifting away from the subject of HISTARCH, so to get it
>>>> back on
>>>> topic: Has anyone ever found a modern historic period
>>>> (i.e. !400-present) cat burial? Also when did the first Pet
Cemeteries
>>>> appear in the US and elsewhere?
>>>
>>> Yes! I found a cat burial on a farm site in Michigan. It was buried
not
>>> very deep in the landscaping along the back of the house (or, at any
>>> rate, what was left of it). The 'body' was in a plastic bag, and was
>>> relatively recent since it was still a little -- well -- greasy. I
>>> refused to collect it as an 'artifact' and we gave it a nice
reburial
>>> without touching or moving it.
>>>
>>> Carol
>>>
>>> --
>>> Carol A. Nickolai
>>>
>>> Anthropology                            Anthropology and Geography
>>> University of Pennsylvania              Community College of
Philadelphia
>>> email: [log in to unmask]           email: [log in to unmask]
>>
>> Robert L. Schuyler
>> University of Pennsylvania Museum
>> 3260 South Street
>> Philadelphia, PA l9l04-6324
>>
>> Tel: (215) 898-6965
>> Fax: (215) 898-0657
>> [log in to unmask]
>>
>>
List Folks -  Just some additions to rapidly growing cat and dog burial
data
base (plus one observation)....

    I wonder if cats won't always be under-represented in the
archaeological
record.  Around my own small farm there are three known cat burials.
Two
were with "full honors," and both were in life mostly inside fully
domesticated creatures.  To the best of my knowledge they were interred
with
collars and tags and at least one has grave goods (a can of tuna and
formal
marker).  The third burial was of a transient feral cat that happened to
succumb near the house one winter. Nonetheless I believe a small
graveside
service was held even for him. All of these cats are buried in the door
yard
or near the side of the farm house in carefully selected locations.
Still,
however, there have been dozens of other what I call working cats that
have
come and stayed on the farm for various lengths of time. They know a
free
meal when they see it, and there is also the attraction of the mice and
other small creatures that are drawn to the out buildings.  My point is,
however, that the larger cat population just seems at some point to melt
into the landscape never to be seen again, thus escaping formal burial.
I
would therefore think that even a single cat burial would be significant
and
of special meaning, but not representative of the whole population that
once
prowled the premises.  I've never been able to convince myself that cats
are
totally sure the domestication thing is for them.

    As for dogs, I believe they are better represented.  They seem to
buy
more into us.... They also often become closer to humans while serving
an
alarm function and many have hunting duties and other chores.  A
farmstead
(circa 1780 to about 1830) has been excavated along the Potomac and a
dog
burial complete with leather collar was uncovered from that period.  On
the
late prehistoric site (Winslow site, C14 to AD 1400) in the same
location
six dog burials (terrier-size) were also uncovered.  All save one were
decapitated before intentional burial?  The one prehistoric dog with
head
intact was interred just outside a structure and very near the burial of
one
of the village's human inhabitants, a young woman who apparently died
giving
birth or shortly after. At any rate, there seems to be at this one
multi-component site an interesting continuity of intentional dog burial
from prehistory to history.

    There's a book in all this....

Joe Dent
American University