Laying the Foundation for a Fremont Phytolith Typology Using Select Plant Species Native to Utah County Madison Natasha Pearce Brigham Young University
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Brigham Young University BYU ScholarsArchive All Theses and Dissertations 2017-12-01 Laying the Foundation for a Fremont Phytolith Typology Using Select Plant Species Native to Utah County Madison Natasha Pearce Brigham Young University Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/etd Part of the Anthropology Commons BYU ScholarsArchive Citation Pearce, Madison Natasha, "Laying the Foundation for a Fremont Phytolith Typology Using Select Plant Species Native to Utah County" (2017). All Theses and Dissertations. 6648. https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/etd/6648 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by BYU ScholarsArchive. It has been accepted for inclusion in All Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of BYU ScholarsArchive. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected]. Laying the Foundation for a Fremont Phytolith Typology Using Select Plant Species Native to Utah County Madison Natasha Mercer Pearce A thesis submitted to the faculty of Brigham Young University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts Michael T. Searcy, Chair James R. Allison Terry Briggs Ball Department of Anthropology Brigham Young University Copyright © 2017 Madison Natasha Mercer Pearce All Rights Reserved ABSTRACT Laying the Foundation for a Fremont Phytolith Typology Using Select Plant Species Native to Utah County Madison Natasha Mercer Pearce Department of Anthropology, BYU Master of Arts Archaeobotanical evidences for the presence of wild plants at Fremont archaeological sites are numerous. However, little can be positively argued for why those plants are present, if they were used by site inhabitants, and how they were used. Additionally, there are likely several wild plants that were used but that do not appear in the archaeobotanical record as pollen or macrobotanicals, the two most commonly identified plant remains. I argue that it is possible to provide better interpretations for how and why the Fremont used plants by researching how their historic counterparts, the Goshute, Shoshone, Ute, and Southern Paiute, used the same plants that are identified at prehistoric sites. I further argue that a phytolith typology for Fremont archaeology can provide more insight into prehistoric plant use. I demonstrate its utility through a phytolith analysis of ground stone tools from Wolf Village, a Fremont site in Utah County. Keywords: ethnobotany, Fremont, phytoliths, Utah County, Goshute, Shoshone, Ute, Paiute, Wolf Village, ground stone tools. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to acknowledge my committee, the botanists and gardeners who helped me identify plants, and my family and friends. I would like thank Michael Searcy who, when I approached him in August 2013 as a very stressed and vexed Master’s student in the Environmental Science program, cleared the way for my application and acceptance in an unprecedented manner into the Department of Anthropology. I’d also like to thank him for being my friend in Kanab in 2010. I’d like to thank James Allison for letting me pursue this project; his trust and sagacious apprehension. I would especially like to thank Terry B. Ball for being so welcoming when he first opened his office door to a student he had never met before. I am grateful for all his guidance and positive encouragement. I am grateful for funds received for this research from the Charles Redd Center and the Anthropology Department. Research funds came from the Summer Award for BYU Upper Division and Graduate Students and the Shallit Grant. I would like to thank Casey from Central Utah Garden, Robert Johnson from the BYU Herbarium, Heidi, Lindsey, Neal, and Fritz from Red Butte Gardens, Tony and Esther from Thanksgiving Point, and Kim and Gail from Sego Lily Gardens. I am grateful for Bradley Geary for allowing me to use his Nikon Optiphot 2 light microscope, and for Mike Standing in the McDonald microscopy lab. I would also like to thank Brooks B. Britt and Loreen Allphin for always believing in me. I am indebted to my husband for all his support, for listening to my crazy ideas, and for baking me cookies. I am grateful for my two children and the perspective they brought when times were tough. I am grateful for my mother for editing all my drafts. I am also grateful for all my babysitters: Tess, Lynn, Emily, Chloe, Jessica, Kara, Savannah, Britney, Aly, Izzy, Zoe, Kim, Chanae, Danielle, Miranda, April, and Kari. Finally, I am grateful for my God. I wouldn’t be in this program if He did not inspire me to be here. I would not have made it this far without His help. TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT .................................................................................................................................................. ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ......................................................................................................................... iii TABLE OF CONTENTS .............................................................................................................................. v LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................................................................ vii LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................................................. viii Introduction ................................................................................................................................................. 1 Wolf Village .............................................................................................................................................. 2 Phytoliths .................................................................................................................................................. 3 Thesis Organization .................................................................................................................................. 6 2. Background ............................................................................................................................................. 8 The Fremont .............................................................................................................................................. 8 Ethnographies of Historic Indigenous Occupation in Utah Valley ........................................................ 17 The Shoshone .......................................................................................................................................... 19 The Goshute ............................................................................................................................................ 20 The Utes .................................................................................................................................................. 22 The Southern Paiute ................................................................................................................................ 25 3. Methods .................................................................................................................................................. 28 Fremont Botanical Reports ..................................................................................................................... 28 Plant Species Native to Utah County and Documented Ethnographic Uses .......................................... 29 Plant Collection and Digestion ............................................................................................................... 31 Groundstone Slide Analysis .................................................................................................................... 36 4. Results of Typology ............................................................................................................................... 37 Calcium oxalates ..................................................................................................................................... 39 Forbs ....................................................................................................................................................... 44 Trees and Shrubs..................................................................................................................................... 52 Grasses .................................................................................................................................................... 62 Discussion and Conclusion ..................................................................................................................... 71 5. Results of Ground Stone Artifact Wash Analysis .............................................................................. 74 Ground Stone Artifact 219 ...................................................................................................................... 76 Ground Stone Artifact 2357 .................................................................................................................... 76 Ground Stone Artifact 11975 .................................................................................................................. 81 v Ground Stone Artifact 15814 .................................................................................................................. 81 Ground Stone Artifact 16494 .................................................................................................................