Although the inhabitants of the Wall and Fredricks sites exploited a wide variety of species, both relied most heavily on deer and catfish. Turtle and squirrel were important secondary resources at the two sites, as were rabbit and raccoon at the Wall site and passenger pigeon at the Fredricks site. Turkey and opossum were supplementary resources at both sites, as was raccoon at the Fredricks site. Bear and beaver were only occasionally used at the Wall site; bear, pig, and mountain lion were only occasionally utilized at the Fredricks site. European domesticated animals, although present at the Fredricks site, had not become important as subsistence items.
The lack of data on the age and sex of most of the animals utilized made it impossible to determine with any certainty how selective the inhabitants of the two sites were in their exploitation of particular species. Nor was it possible to determine whether or not the patterns of exploitation can be explained in terms of maximization of meat yield and minimization of energy expenditure. Neither of the two most reliable methods for determining seasonality was very useful in interpreting the assemblages from the two sites. The presence of migratory fowl, passenger pigeon and lesser scaup, indicates some exploitation by the Occaneechi of fall and winter species. The presence of juveniles of particular species (e.g., rabbit and squirrel) also provides evidence of seasonality. The fact that only adult rabbits were identified indicates that the inhabitants of the Wall site may have utilized this species in the spring.
It is possible that the reliance upon deer as a primary resource reflects an effort to minimize energy expenditure while maximizing meat yield. Deer congregate in relatively high densities during the fall and early winter in order to feed upon mast. They are thus easier to exploit at these times of year than at others (Smith 1975b:138). Ethnohistoric accounts and prehistoric evidence (Lefler 1967:215-216; Swanton 1946:256-257; Waselkov 1977:230) indicate that Southeastern Indians hunted deer primarily in the fall and winter. As it is not possible to determine the season during which the deer in the Wall and Fredricks site assemblages were killed, it is not possible to determine whether the inhabitants of the two sites utilized the same strategies as other Southeastern groups.
Knowledge of the age and sex of a few of the deer identified from the two sites, however, makes it possible to hypothesize about the methods used to hunt this species. At both sites, a nearly equal number of males and females was identified. Because such a low percentage of the total number of individuals could be sexed, though, these figures may not be an accurate reflection of the actual sex distribution of the animals utilized. In both assemblages, the majority of the individuals were neither very young nor very old. This indicates that it is likely that drives or surrounds, rather than stalking, were the methods used in hunting deer (Waselkov 1977:120).
Catfish was the second most important resource at both sites in terms of meat yield. The preferred water habitat of this species is small rivers with sluggish current (Smith 1975b:61), conditions which are met by the Eno River. Catfish are available in large numbers during the spring spawning season and also in the summer when the water level is low (Smith 1975b:60). The seasons during which the inhabitants of the Wall and Fredricks sites exploited this resource cannot be determined. However, Swanton (1946:257) proposes that many Southeastern Indian groups relied on fishing during the summer.
The secondary resources identified from the Wall and Fredricks sites differ from those reported for other sites which seem to represent minimized energy expenditure-maximized meat yield strategies. At the Middle Mississippi sites reported by Smith (1975a:137-138) and the late prehistoric Dan River sites reported by Waselkov (1977:101), raccoon and turkey were reported as important secondary resources. These species, like deer and catfish, exhibit high population densities during the fall and winter, when they were most likely to have been hunted. With the exception of passenger pigeon at the Fredricks site, the species identified at both sites as important secondary resources do not congregate in easily exploitable groups at any time of the year. Squirrel, turtle, and rabbit may have been abundant near the sites and fairly easy to capture. That these species were such important resources to the inhabitants of the Wall and Fredricks sites suggests that the exploitative strategy used by these people was not entirely dominated by a concern for maximization.
Calculations of diversity indicated that the Occaneechi at the Fredricks site used a greater diversity of species than the inhabitants of the Wall site. There is no indication, however, that this increased diversity through time was a general trend in the Piedmont. Nor is there any clear indication that it was necessarily a response to the disruption of the social and natural environments produced by Europeans.
From the data available thus far, contact (either direct or indirect) with Europeans seems to have had little effect on the basic pattern of faunal exploitation of the inhabitants of the Fredricks site. The presence of one horse molar and one fragment of pig bone indicates that animals introduced by Europeans probably were not important to the diet of these people. The increase in butchering marks found on deer bones from the Fredricks site, however, may be the result of different butchering practices following contact.
While the many European artifacts found at the Fredricks site indicate considerable participation in the deerskin trade by the Occaneechi, there is no direct evidence for this in the faunal assemblage, and there is no indication that species were being hunted primarily for their hides rather than for meat. Nor is there evidence that portions of the environment were being exploited either more or less heavily than in the past. Even though good evidence for the exact strategies used to hunt deer is lacking, there is an indication that procurement strategies used by the Occaneechi were not very different from those at the Wall site. Also, no increase in the number of tools or features associated with hide-working is evident at the Fredricks site. In fact, no hide-working tools have been found at the Fredricks site. There are three possible explanations for the discrepancy between the presence of a large number of European artifacts at the Fredricks site and a lack of evidence for participation in the deerskin trade in the faunal assemblage. The majority of the remains from the Fredricks site were recovered from burial pitfill and may reflect special ceremonial behavior that was not related to hunting activities associated with the deerskin trade. A second possibility is that activities associated with the deerskin trade, in general, were carried out at hunting camps away from the village. A third possibility is that in their role as trade "middlemen," the Occaneechis were not directly involved in the hunting activities associated with the deerskin trade.
Analysis of the ethnobotanical remains from the Wall and Fredricks sites (Gremillion 1984; also see analysis of plant remains) also shows surprisingly little evidence of differences in plant utilization between precontact and postcontact sites. With the exception of peach, no plant species introduced by Europeans were identified at the Fredricks site. Although acorn was not as plentiful at the Fredricks site as at the Wall site and hickory was more abundant at the former, corn, beans, and squash were important resources at both sites. The faunal remains from the Wall and Fredricks sites, when combined with this ethnobotanical evidence, support the contention that a basic late prehistoric subsistence pattern was maintained well into the Historic period of aboriginal occupation in the Carolina Piedmont.