Appendix F Starch Analysis of Groundstone Artifacts

Home , Grinding slab, Ground stone, Starch analysis

APPENDIX F

STARCH ANALYSIS OF GROUNDSTONE ARTIFACTS

Starch Analysis of Groundstone Artifacts from the Siren Site (41WM1126), Williamson County, Texas

Prepared for

SWCA ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS 4407 Monterey Oaks Blvd. Building 1, Suite 110 Austin, Texas 78749

www.swca.com

Prepared by Timothy E. Riley, Masahiro Kamiya, and Laura Short Palynology Laboratory, Texas A&M University Department of Anthropology 4352 TAMU College Station, TX 77844

1 This report presents the results of a starch analysis performed on ten groundstone artifacts recovered during excavation of the Siren Site (41WM1126), Williamson County, Texas. Starch was recovered on six of the ten groundstone artifacts submitted for analysis. While the taxonomic associations of the recovered granules remains preliminary, the starch data point to a foraging population with broad diet breadth during the Transitional Archaic. From this component, four of the five groundstone artifacts indicate a dependence on low ranked resources such as grass and other small seeds. The remaining artifact has starch grains derived from a geophyte. The single groundstone artifact from the younger Austin Phase component also has large starch grains derived from an unknown geophyte. Starch in Archaeology Starch granules have been observed in archaeological contexts since the late 1970s (Anderson 1980; Ugent, et al. 1981, 1982, 1984) but this line of evidence has only recently become a major component of microbotanical research (Torrence and Barton 2006, Fullager et al. 2006, Loy et al. 1992). Starch analysis can provide evidence of the use of plants as food resources where macrobotanical remains are rare or uninformative. In some cases, starch granules have been found that predate other evidence of domestication (Perry et al. 2007). Piperno and Holst (1998) examined ground stones and found maize (Zea mays), Manihot esculenta, Dioscorea sp., and Maranta arundinacea starch grains from Central Panama, providing evidence for the use of tuber crops since 8000 B.P. Loy et al. (1992) studied lithic flakes from 28,000-year-old cave sediments on the Solomon Islands and recovered starch grains from them. Some of the granules were identified as Colocasia sp. To date, most starch research has focused on tools and soils recovered from the Tropics, with very little focus on the potential of this line of research in temperate climates (Fullagar and Field 1997; Fullagar, et al. 2006; Fullagar, et al. 1996; Fullagar, et al. 1998; Horrocks, et al. 2004; Horrocks, et al. 2002; Horrocks and Lawlor 2006; Horrocks and Nunn 2007; Horrocks and Weisler 2006; Irwin, et al. 2004; Lentfer, et al. 2002; Pearsall, et al. 2004; Perry 2004a-b, 2005; Perry, et al. 2007; Piperno 1998; Piperno and Holst 1998; Piperno, et al. 2004; Smith, et al. 2001). A handful of temperate Old World sites have been investigated. Shibutani (2008) studied anvil stones, grinding slab, and grinding stones from four archaeological sites in southern part of Japan, dating from Japanese Paleolithic to incipient Jomon period. She recovered intact and damaged starch grains from grinding surfaces of the tools. The recovered starch grains are not identified to taxa conclusively. Piperno et al. (2004) reported the earliest evidence of grass seed processing. They identified starch grains of barley and possibly wheat from an Upper Paleolithic ground stone found in Israel. While Loy had some early publications on starch recovered from North American artifacts, only two recently published studies examines starch recovered from North America (Boyd, et al. 2006; Zarrillo and Kooyman 2006). The Zarrillo and Kooyman (2006) article focuses on the recovery of maize and berry starch on late prehistoric groundstone from the northern Great Plains. In addition, there have been a handful of studies done for contract projects, mostly from the Southwest and Great Basin (Cummings 1992 a-c, 1993 a-b, 1997 a-b)). Only two studies evaluating starch from groundstone artifacts recovered in Texas has been encountered in the current literature review (Cummings 1993c; Perry 2008). The paucity of publications on the recovery of starch from North American groundstone highlights some of the potential for this line of research as well as a dearth of qualified researchers currently investigating starch with a

2 regional focus on North America. This is surprising in light of the fact that much of the continent has copious groundstone artifacts associated with both incipient horticulture and hunter-gatherer sites. As Piperno et al. (2004) state, the association of macroscopic remains from economically important plants with potential plant processing tools such as grinding slabs, mortars and pestles is rarely evident. Starch analysis of groundstone provides direct evidence of past human food processing. Stone tools, including both ground and flaked stone, provide an excellent opportunity for archaeological starch research for several reason. First, the artifact acts as a protected environment for the granules trapped on or near the surface of the tool. This leaves the granules less susceptible to decay. Second, the starch recovered from a tool can provide direct evidence on how the tool was used as well as aid in the reconstruction of past human subsistence patterns. These type of studies can be conducted independently or in conjunction with use-wear studies or chemical analyses. The current report presents information based solely on the recovered starch granules and does not include a traditional groundstone analysis. Ethnographic Use of Groundstone. Groundstone is a potentially excellent source of archaeological starch due to the dominant use of this type of artifact in plant processing, particularly grinding small starchy seeds and processing underground storage organs that may contain starch. This section presents information on the role of groundstone in the North American ethnographic record. Ethnographic accounts of grinding/pounding in and near Texas. The Wichitas, occupied the area from Arkansas to the north and Waco, Texas to the south, depended upon hunting and garden crops, including maize, beans, and squash. Women of the Wichita cut squash into long strips, pounded them flat, and dried to preserve. Dried corn was ground into meal in wooden mortars or on stone slabs. Wooden mortars and stone slabs were used to grind dried corn (Newcomb 2001). It is not certain what type of tool was used for pounding strips of squash, but reportedly stone metates and manos were used in the 1780’s (Bell et al. 1974). The Hasinais of the Caddo from the East Texas used mortars and pestles made of wood to pound and grind corn, other grains, nuts and roots (Bolton 1987; Griffith 1954; Rogers and Sabo 2004). The Lipan Apaches from Edwards Plateau south to South Texas reportedly pounded agave after being cooked for two days in earth oven (Opler 2001). It is not known if they used stone tools or wooden tools for pounding. The Karankawas of Texas Gulf Coast processed nuts and seeds with milling stones (Newcomb 2001). The Mariames, one of the Coahuiltecan groups who lived in Nuevo Leon, used wooden mortars to pulverize mesquite beans and pods into flour (Campbell 1983). There is no mention of the use of stone metate and mano, or mortar and pestle. The Comanches of Oklahoma in 1933 used pounding tools for various plant resources. They gathered hackberrys, pounded them fine, mixed with lard, and then rolled and roasted the mixture on a stick (Kavanagh 2008:139). Mesquite beans were pounded and the pods ground into meal. Mesquite beans were pounded on a rawhide mortar (a hide-lined hole on the ground). Wooden pestles made of mesquite or stone pestles made of schist were used to pound mesquite beans (Kavanagh 2008:139). Ethnographic accounts on the use of grinding stones from North America .

3 In the case of basketry hopping mortar used by the Pomo and Yuki, a flat slab is used as the base for mortar and basketry hopper is used as walls to hold food being processed (Barrett 1952; Kennedy 1955; Treganza and Smith 1950). The Hopi used coarse- and fine-grained metates to grind corn (Beaglehole and Beaglehole 1937; Dennis 1940). Dried corn was ground first on a coarse metate with a mano and then on a fine metate. The Pomo and Yokuts used anvils, or flattish stones to crack acorns (Barrett 1952; Gayton 1948; Kennedy 1955; Latta 1949). The Pomo used anvil to crack acorns, nuts, and to pound meat. For grinding and pounding acorns and grinding seeds the Pomo used mortar and pestle as well. The Western Apache used a long stone pestle with two hands to pound and grind mesquite beans (Buskirk 1986). They used bedrock mortars for this job. They also dug a hole in the ground and place rocks in it as a sheet to create a mortar. Manos are hand-held, movable stones for grinding and pounding. Mortars are bowl- shaped and used with pestles, which have round or flat bottoms. The Klamath used both metates and mortars for grinding seeds and mashing roots (Spier 1930). The Western Apache cached metates in winter grounds and women carried manos with them on trips. The Navajo used manos and metates to grind seeds and corn (Bailey 1940). The ethnographic and ethnohistoric record from Texas and, more generally, North America indicates that grinding and pounding tools were associated with a great variety of subsistence activities, including the processing of many different plant resources as well as meat and fat from hunted game. While the records do provide some broad parameters for understanding past subsistence in the region, the utility of this information is limited by a lack of specificity. The European observers fail to document what types of resources were being processed in any detail. Other than maize, mesquite, and hackberry, the record is composed of broad categories such as nuts, roots, and seeds. This limits the usefulness of the ethnographic record for developing a modern starch reference collection for Texas hunter-gatherers. Limitations of Reference Identification One of the major limitations in applying starch research to the North American archaeological record is the lack of a developed reference collection or identification key. This is complicated by the sheer number of potential starch sources available throughout the landscape, requiring each project to develop its own collection based on ethnographic accounts, other lines of archaeobotanical evidence and trial and error. To this end, a number of potential starchy food resources have been investigated from Texas, including geophytes, nuts, fruits, grass seeds, and other small seeds (See Figures 1-5). While many food resources have been investigated, there are more potential resources in an environment than are used by any foraging population in that environment. In addition, reference samples must be taxonomically identified as well as sampled for starch. This can be frustrating, as many of the structural features necessary for proper botanical identification occur at different times of the year than when the plants would be harvested for starch reserves. These difficulties highlight why so much of archaeological starch research to date has focused on the presence of starch granules associated with a limited suite of domesticates rather than the broader diet breadth common for hunter-gatherers.

Figure 1. Brightfield and cross‐polarized micrographs of starch from grasses (POACEAE). A ‐ Setaria lutescens. B‐ Panicum sonorum. C‐ Sporobolus asper. D‐ Achnatherum hymen.

Figure 2. Brightfield and cross‐polarized micrographs of starch from bulbs. A and B ‐ Claytonia virginica. C and D ‐ Nothoscordum bivalve.

Figure 3. Brightfield and cross‐polarized micrographs of starch from geophytes. A ‐ Hypoxis hirsuta. B ‐ Callirhoe digitata. C ‐ Smilax sp. D ‐ Cooperia sp.

7 .

Figure 4. Brightfield and cross‐polarized micrographs of starch granules from small seeds. A and B ‐ Amaranthus sp. C and D ‐ Chenopodium sp.

Figure 5. Brightfield and cross‐polarized micrographs of starch granules. A ‐ Prosopis sp. B ‐ Carex sp.

8 Current Study 41WM1126 is a multi-component site located on the the T1 terrace along the right bank of the South Fork of the San Gabriel River in Southern Williamson County. While a total of four analytical units were defined during testing of the site, only two intact cultural components were encountered within the Area of Potential Effects (APE) of this current project. Groundstone artifacts were recovered from both components. (Houk et al. 2006) The youngest component is a Late Prehistoric (Austin Phase) occupation. This component was only preserved in a small portion of the site, but yielded a number of intact features concentrated in one area of the excavation. The only groundstone (UI 86) recovered from the Late Prehistoric cultural component was a mano associated with Feature 16, a large slab-lined basin-shaped hearth (Figure 8). The remainder of the feature cluster consists of other hearths and fire-cracked rock concentrations in close spatial association. The six radiocarbon dates associated with this component cluster around 1000 B.P. with Feature 16 being directly dated to 1170 +- 40 (Beta- 215914; Charred material; δ13C = -25‰ ). (Houk et al. 2006) The other cultural component within the APE is a Transitional Archaic component encountered in every excavation block. This component dominates the assemblage, accounting for 38 of the 47 features, 50 of the 68 radiocarbon dates directly associated with cultural materials, and the overwhelming majority of artifactual material. A total of eighteen groundstone artifacts were recovered from this cultural component, only one of which was directly associated with a feature. A metate fragment (UI 274) was associated with Feature 44, a cluster of fire cracked rock (Figures 30 and 31). Eleven of the eighteen groundstone artifacts recovered from this component were given Unique Item (UI) identification numbers. Eight of these UI artifacts were selected for starch analysis along with one piece of groundstone not given an UI (Lot # 1023). This set of groundstone includes five manos, two metates, and two miscellaneous groundstone (See Table 1). (Houk et al. 2006)

Table 1. Groundstone artifacts submitted for starch analysis

9 Modern Vegetation 41WM 1126 is located near the ecotonal boundary between the northern Blackland Prairie (Ecoregion 32a) and the Balcones Canyonlands (Ecoregion 30c) and Limestone Cut Plain (Ecoregion 29e) to the west and northwest respectively (Griffiths et al. 2004). The Blackland Prairie is a tall grass prairie characterized by high plant community diversity, due in part to the variety in soil texture and pH associated with the different soil orders represented within this ecoregion (Diamond, Riskind, and Orzell 1987; Diamond and Smeins 1985). This diversity is further enhanced by microtopographic features such as gilgai and mima mounds, which create microhabitats due to differences in drainage (Diamond and Smeins 1993). Despite the diversity within this prairie, the region can be characterized by a general pattern of tallgrass prairie on the uplands with riverine woodlands and forest across much of the bottomland (Diamond and Smeins 1993). This ecoregion has a great number of potential food resources including grass seeds (Sorghastrum nutans, Sporobolus silveanus, Panicum virgatum) and other small seeds (Carex sp., Chenopodium sp., Amaranthus sp.) and geophytes from the uplands as well as nuts from the the bottomlands. This ecoregion is maintained by grazing and fire disturbance, which suggests that the ecotonal boundary between the Blackland Prairie and surrounding ecoregions would have been highly mutable and dependent on the history of disturbance. This is particularly relevant over the long temporal depth of the cultural occupation of 41WM1126 and associated paleoenvironmental trends. The Balcones Canyonlands form a physiographic barrier between the mesic prairie to the east and the xeric woodland to the west (Griffiths et al. 2004). This ecoregion is part of the larger Edwards Plateau ecoregion, which is primarily distinguished from the surrounding regions by a distinctive mollisol soil order. The vegetation of the region is characterized by oak-juniper savanna and mesquite-Acacia savanna. A number of known ethnographic food resources are available within this ecoregion, including mesquite (Prosopis sp.). (Griffiths et al. 2004) The Limestone Cut Plain is a subregion of the larger Cross Timbers ecoregion. This region is characterized by a mix of savanna, prairie and woodlands. The woodlands are dominated by oak associated with sandy soils and the grasslands are tall grass. The Limestone Cut Plain is a broad, southern continuation of the Grand Prairie, underlain by limestone rather than sandstone. This region is a physiographic and vegetational transition from the Edwards Plateau to the Cross Timbers and exhibits many similarities with the greater Edwards Plateau. The climax community of this ecoregion is a tall grass prairie most similar to the Grand Prairie. Riparian zones and other edaphic microhabitats are characterized by an oak scrubland associated with western hackberry (Celtis occidentalis) and greenbriar (Smilax sp.). (Griffiths et al. 2004) These three ecoregions provided a remarkably diverse habitat for foragers located at 41WM1126 during the late Holocene. While the riparian location of the site suggests that the immediate environment was woodland or forest, grassland and savanna food resources would have been readily accessible as well. The following table (Table 2) presents a partial list of plant resources available in the region. Only resources with known or potential starch reserves were included. This excludes many known resources such as sotol (Dasylirion sp.), camas (Camassia scilloides) and prickly pear (Opuntia sp.), which use fructans rather than starch for energy storage.

10 Table 2. Economic Plant List

11 Methodology Each groundstone artifact was evaluated for worked surfaces. The artifact was then held over a catchment in such a way that water sprayed on the surface being sampled would collect without running along the underside of the artifact. The surface was sprayed with a gentle stream of distilled water and washed with a sonicating toothbrush to help recover granules trapped in micro-cracks in the ground surface. This continued until the water entering the catchment ran clear. A corresponding sample was also processed in the same way from an unworked surface of the same artifact. These samples were then allowed to settle in a 1000 ml beaker for a minimum of 24 hours. The majority of the supernatant was then removed by suctioning. The remaining supernatant and sediment were washed into a 50 ml centrifuge tube. Each sample was centrifuged for three minutes and the supernatant was poured off. This process continued until the supernatant was clear. This step removes most of the very fine clay-size particles that can obscure a sample mounted on a slide. Following this step, each sample was centrifuged for six minutes and inverted to allow the sample to dry. Approximately 10 ml of a ZnBr heavy density liquid with a specific gravity of 1.7 was added to each sample. Each sample was stirred to ensure that lighter components were adequately suspended in the heavy density liquid. A thin layer of distilled water was then placed on top of the ZnBr liquid. The sample was centrifuged starting at very low speed for several minutes, with the speed being gradually increased to the maximum for more than 10 minutes. The top layer of the sample was pipetted off and placed in a separate centrifuge tube. The process was repeated if necessary. Each component of the sample was washed in distilled water at least three times to remove any remaining HCl from the ZnBr heavy density liquid. The light fraction was placed in dram vials and several slides from each vial were made. The heavy fraction was kept, but not examined. (Coil, et al. 2003; Horrocks 2005) Microscopic Identification of Starch. While starch has a variety of potential methods for identification, the most commonly used method in archaeological starch research is the presence of an extinction cross under cross-polarized light. This method is preferred over staining or digestion by amylase for a variety of reasons, the principal one being the ability to use this method without modifying or destroying the granule. Staining can obscure some of the features needed to identify a granule to a botanical source and enzymatic digestion, while the most reliable method, degrades the granule and does not allow for any re-evaluation of the granule at a later date. While many authors (Canti 1997, 1998, 1999; Haslam 2006; Loy 2006) claim the extinction cross as a unique feature of starch in cross-polarized light, in reality this pattern can be created by any semi-crystalline arrangement exhibiting uniaxial birefringence. This includes other polysaccharides such as cellulose as well as natural crystals such as fecal spherulites. With practice, these optical look-alikes are easy to distinguish from starch, based on size or morphological characteristics. In the current study, cellulose was encountered in one sample but was recognized as such immediately due to the large circular opening in the center of the object (See Figure 9). Results Starch was recovered from six of the ten groundstone artifacts submitted for analysis. Four manos, one metate and one miscellaneous groundstone yielded starch granules. An individual report for each artifact is presented below along with micrographs of the recovered starch. The identification of the starch and interpretation of tool function will be considered in the discussion.

12 Individual Artifact Report: UI 153 - Mano

Lot 1157 Bag 662 UI 153 Feature Area NE 2x2 Northing 1026.00 2x2 Easting 1012.00 Quad SE Level 3 Bottom Elevation 97.78 PP Northing 1026.74 PP Easting 1013.1 Weight (g) 679 Length (cm) 11.94 Width (cm) 7.24

Figure 6. UI 153, Side 1. Curved, well‐ground surface. No starch recovered.

Figure 7. UI 153, side 2. Flat, lightly ground surface. No starch recovered.

13 Individual Artifact Report: UI 86 - Mano

Lot 2143 Bag 285 UI 86 Feature 16 Area NW 2x2 Northing 1028 2x2 Easting 1004 Quad SE Level 2 Bottom Elevation 98.24 PP Northing 1028.05 PP Easting 1005.8 Weight (g) 512 Length (cm) 10.41 Width (cm) 8.06

Figure 8. UI 86, Side 1. Ground Surface with some pecking/weathering. Starch recovered.

Figure 9. UI 86, Side1. Starch granule and cellulose. 400x

Figure 10. UI 86, Side1. Starch granule. 400x

Figure 11. UI 86, Side 2. Ground surface with slight curvature. Starch recovered on surface.

Figure 12. UI 86, side 2. Probable ruptured Starch Granule. Brightfield and cross‐polarized with 1/4λ plate. 400x

15 Individual Artifact Report: UI 114 - Mano

Lot 1983 Bag 460 UI 114 Feature Area NW 2x2 Northing 1026 2x2 Easting 1004 Quad SE Level 4 Bottom Elevation 98.04 PP Northing 1026.89 PP Easting 1006 Weight (g) 416 Length (cm) 8.76 Width (cm) 8.00

Figure 13. UI 114, Side 1. Ground Surface. Starch Recovered.

Figure 14. UI 114, Side 1. Starch Granule Cluster. 400x

Figure 15. UI 114, side 2. unground surface, possible pounding damage. Starch recovered

Figure 16. UI 114, side 2. Starch Granule. 400x

17 Individual Artifact Report: No UI- Mano fragment

Lot 1023 Bag 374 UI Feature Area NE 2x2 Northing 1026 2x2 Easting 1010 Quad NE Level 2 Bottom Elevation 98.007 PP Northing 1027.379 PP Easting 1011.9 Weight (g) 19.8 Length (cm) 6.35 Width (cm) 5.46

Figure 17. Lot 1023, side 1. Groundstone fragment. Possibly ground. Starch recovered.

Figure 18. Lot 1023, side 1. Starch granule. 400x.

Figure 19. Lot 1023, side 1. Starch granule. 400x.

Figure 20. Lot 1023, Side 2. Groundstone fragment. Surface is clearly ground. Starch recovered.

Figure 21. Lot 1023, side 2. Starch cluster. 400x

20 Individual Artifact Report: UI 100- miscellaneous Groundstone

Lot 1409 Bag 383 UI 100 Feature Area NW 2x2 Northing 1020 2x2 Easting 1006 Quad NE Level 5 Bottom Elevation 998.14 PP Northing 1021.21 PP Easting 1007.4 Weight (g) 152 Length (cm) 8.70 Width (cm) 2.72

Figure 22. UI 100, side 1. Ground surface. No starch recovered.

Figure 23. UI 100, side 2. Ground surface with red staining. No starch recovered.

21 Individual Artifact Report: UI 137 - Mano

Lot 1668 Bag 564 UI 137 Feature Area NW 2x2 Northing 1022 2x2 Easting 1006 Quad NW Level 6 Bottom Elevation 97.94 PP Northing 1023.06 PP Easting 1006.6 Weight (g) 1579 Length (cm) 15.24 Width (cm) 9.27

Figure 24. UI 137, side 1. Ground surface. Small relative to size of stone. No starch recovered.

Figure 25. UI 137, side 2. Weakly ground surface. No starch recovered.

22 Individual Artifact Report: UI 229- Mano

Lot 1271 Bag 969 UI 229 Feature Area NE 2x2 Northing 1026 2x2 Easting 1014 Quad SE Level 3 Bottom Elevation 97.65 PP Northing 1026.58 PP Easting 1015.6 Weight (g) 629 Length (cm) Width (cm)

Figure 26. UI 229, side 1. Pecked and battered surface. Very small starch similar to UI 141, Side 1 recovered. No micrograph.

Figure 27. UI 229, side 2. Ground and battered surface. Very small starch similar to UI 141, side 1 recovered. No micrograph.

23 Individual Artifact Report: UI 118 - Mano

Lot 1853 Bag 477 UI 118 Feature Area NW 2x2 Northing 1024 2x2 Easting 1004 Quad NW Level 4 Bottom Elevation 98.06 PP Northing 1025.06 PP Easting 1004.3 Weight (g) 336 Length (cm) 0.00 Width (cm) 0.00

Figure 28. UI 118, side 1. Ground surface with battering. Very small starch similar to UI 141, Side 1 recovered. No micrograph.

Figure 29. UI 118, side 2. Lightly ground surface with battering. Very small starch similar to UI 141, Side 1 recovered. No micrograph.

24 Individual Artifact Report: UI 274- Metate

Lot 675 Bag 1209 UI 274 Feature 44 Area East 2x2 Northing 1024 2x2 Easting 1024 Quad SE Level 8 Bottom Elevation 97.752 PP Northing 1024.098 PP Easting 1025.5 Weight (g) 1750 Length (cm) Width (cm)

Figure 30. UI 274, side 1. Ground surface. No starch recovered.

Figure 31. UI 274, side 2. Unground surface. No starch recovered.

25 Individual Artifact Report: UI 141 - Metate

Lot 743 Bag 586 UI 141 Feature Area NE 2x2 Northing 1024 2x2 Easting 1010 Quad SW Level 4 Bottom Elevation 97.96 PP Northing 1024.08 PP Easting 1010.5 Weight (g) 3912 Length (cm) Width (cm)

Figure 32. UI 141, side 1. Ground surface. Very small starch recovered.

Figure 33. UI 141, side 1. Very small starch granules(~2‐4 um). 400x.

Figure 34. UI 141, side 1. Very small starch granules(~2‐4 um). 400x.

27 Discussion

Starch granules were encountered in six of the ten samples. Five of these samples had starch recovered from more than one surface, suggesting that the grinding tools may have been used in a variety of functions, including both the grinding and pounding of plant resources. The starch recovered from artifacts designated UI 118, 141, and 229 was very small (see Figure 34). Chenopodium sp. and Amaranthus sp. are the only starch grains of that size known in the region (see Figure 4). It seems highly likely that the small granules recovered from artifacts are derived from these small, rich seed resources. The starch recovered from the sample designated as lot #1023 appear to be derived from a geophyte. This is based both on the size and shape of the granules as well as the shape of the extinction cross viewed under polarized light (see Figures 19 and 21). The small size of the artifact fragment makes any determination of tool function difficult, but the large number of intact starch grains in association with parenchymous cells suggest pounding fleshy geophytes. The botanical source of this starch remains unclear. The starch recovered from UI 114 may be derived from a grass seed source (Figure 14). The shape of both the faceted and round granules is consistent with grass seed starch, but the size of the granules (15+ um) is much bigger than the size of starch granules recovered from most wild grass references in the region (~5-10 um). However, there have been some individual specimens of Achnatherum hymenoides collected in the Great Basin that have starch granules as large as those encountered on specimen UI 114. Further research needs to be done on edible grass seeds in the region, but it is probable that the granules are derived from grass seed. The final specimen with starch recovery is UI 86, the solitary groundstone artifact from the Austin Phase component of the site. Both surfaces of this well ground artifact yielded starch granules consistent with geophyte exploitation. The ruptured granule (Figure 12) is too damaged to identify, but it is clear that the starch grain was originally large and globular in shape. The granule in Figure 9 is also large and resembles a pointed spheroid. The size and shape of this granule, along with the lack of symmetry of the extinction cross, is characteristic of a starch granule derived from a geophyte. Interestingly, the tool recovered from the younger component seems to be much more formal than most of the tools recovered in the Transitional Archaic, with UI 118 the exception. Many of the manos from the early component look to be expedient tools with little investment in reshaping the form, while UI 86 (and UI 118) have been shaped and ground considerably (see Figures 8, 11, 28, and 29).

While the starch data presented here are somewhat limited by the level of identification currently available, the data still yields some valuable information on both the organization of subsistence as well as the function of groundstone tools. It is clear, from the presence of starch derived from both small seed and geophyte resources, that the foragers who left this site had broad diet breadth. They incorporated low ranked, high input resources such as small seeds into their subsistence pattern. It is unclear of how this relates to the well-documented changes in the paleoenvironment during this time period, but it may be a new resource adoption as the previously abundant succulent resources disappeared from the local landscape, removing a relatively high yield, low input resource from the diet and necessitating an expansion in diet breadth. This remains unclear without starch data from the preceding Altithermal interval.

28 References Cited

Anderson, P. C. 1980 A Testimony of Prehistoric Tasks: Diagnostic Residues on Stone Tool Working Edges. World Archaeology 12(2):181-194. Bailey, F. L. 1940 Navaho foods and cooking methods. American Anthropologist, New Series, Vol. 42, No. 2, Part 1 (Apr. - Jun., 1940), pp. 270-290. Barrett, S. A. 1952 Material aspects of Pomo culture. Bulletin of Milwaukee Public Museum, Vol. 20, Parts II, Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Beaglehole, E.., and P. Beaglehole 1937 Notes on Hopi economic life. Pub. for the Section of Anthropology, Dept. of the Social Sciences, Yale University, by the Yale University Press; London, H. Milford, Oxford University Press. New Haven. Bell, R. E., E. B. Jelks, W. W. Newcomb. 1974 Wichita Indians: Wichita Indian Archaeology and Ethnology: A Pilot Study. Garland Publishing, New York & London. Bolton, H. E. 1987 The Hasinais: Southern Caddoans as Seen by the Earliest Europeans. Edited by Russell M. Magnaghi. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman. Boyd, M., C. Surette and B. A. Nicholson 2006 Archaeobotanical evidence of prehistoric maize (Zea mays) consumption at the northern edge of the Great Plains. Journal of Archaeological Science 33(8):1129-1140. Buskirk, W. 1986 The Western Apache: living with the land before 1950. University of Oklahoma Press. Norman, Oklahoma. Campbell, T. N. 1983 Coahuiltecans and Their Neighbors. In Handbook of North American Indians. Vol 10. Southwest. Pp. 343-358. Edited by Alfonso Ortiz. General editor., William C. Sturtevant. Smithsonian Institution, Washington. 1983 Karankawa. In Handbook of North American Indians. Vol 10. Southwest. Pp. 359-367. Edited by Alfonso Ortiz. General editor., William C. Sturtevant. Smithsonian Institution, Washington. Canti, M. G. 1997 An Investigation of Microscopic Calcerous Spherulites from Herbivore Dungs. Journal of Archaeological Science 24:219-231. 1998 The Production and Preservation of Faecal Spherulites: Animals, Environment, and Taphonomy. Journal of Archaeological Science 26:251-258.

29 1999 The Micromorphological Identification of Faecal Spherulites from Archaeological and Modern Materials. Journal of Archaeological Science 25:435-444. Coil, J., M. A. Korstanje, S. Archer and C. A. Hastorf 2003 Laboratory goals and considerations for multiple microfossil extraction in archaeology. Journal of Archaeological Science 30(8):991-1008. Cummings, L. S. 1992a Pollen and Starch Analysis of Stratigraphic and Housepit Samples from 48SU595, Wyoming. Ms. on file with Archaeological Services, Western Wyoming College, Rock Springs. 1992b Preliminary Examination of Five Pieces of Groundstone from Lander County, Central Nevada, for Pollen, Phytoliths, Starch Granules, and Blood Residue. Ms. on file with Dames and Moore, Las Vegas, Nevada. 1992c Pollen, Phytolith, Starch, Parasite, and Macrofloral Analyses on a Coprolite from Luster Cave, Utah. Ms. on file with Kae McDonald, Glenwood Springs, Colorado. 1993a Pollen and Starch Analysis of Features in a Pithouse at the Paquet Gulch Bridge Site (35WS125), Oregon. Ms. on file with State Museum of Anthropology, University of Oregon, Eugene. 1993b Exploratory Pollen and Starch Analysis of Three Samples from the Big M Site, Fort Rock Basin, Oregon. Ms. on file with the Department of Anthropology/State Museum of Anthropology, University of Oregon, Eugene. 1993c Phytolith, Starch, and Blood Residue Analysis of Artifacts from Site 41MU55, Texas. Ms. on file with Department of Anthropology, Texas A&M University, College Station. 1997a Pollen, Phytolith, and Starch Granule Analysis of a Piece of Ground Stone, 35JE355, Oregon. Ms. on file with Sisters Ranger District, U.S. Forest Service, Sisters, OR. PRI Technical Report 97-59. 1997b Stratigraphic Pollen Analysis at 48CK1409 and 48CK1416, and Pollen/Starch Analysis of Groundstone at 48CK1417, Wyoming. Ms. on file with TRC Mariah Associates, Inc., Laramie, WY. PRI Technical Report 97-18. Dennis, W. 1940 The Hopi child. D. Appleton-Century Co., for the Institute for Research in the Social Sciences, University of Virginia. New York, London,

Fullagar, R. and J. Field 1997 Pleistocene Seed Grinding Implements from the Australian Arid Zone. Antiquity 71:300-307.

30 Fullagar, R., J. Field, T. Denham and C. Lentfer 2006 Early and mid Holocene tool-use and processing of taro (Colocasia esculenta), yam (Dioscorea sp.) and other plants at Kuk Swamp in the highlands of Papua New Guinea. Journal of Archaeological Science 33(5):595-614. Fullagar, R., J. Furby and B. Hardy 1996 Residues on Stone Artefacts: State of a Scientific Art. Antiquity 70:740-745. Fullagar, R., T. Loy and S. Cox 1998 Starch Grains, Sediments and Stone Tool Function: Evidence from Bitokara, Papua New Guinea. In A Closer Look: Recent Australian Studies of Stone Tools, edited by R. Fullagar, pp. 49-60. vol. Series 6. Sydney University Archaeological Methods, Sydney. Gayton, A. H. 1948 Yokuts and western Mono ethnography: vol. 1, Tulare Lake, Southern Valley, and Central Foothill Yokuts. University of California Press, Berkeley. Griffith, G.E., Bryce, S.A., Omernik, J.M., Comstock, J.A., Rogers, A.C., Harrison, B., Hatch, S.L., and Bezanson, D. 2004 Ecoregions of Texas. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Corvallis, OR Griffith, W. J. 1954 The Hasinai Indians of East Texas as Seen by Europeans, 1687-1772. Philological and Documentary Studies, Vol. II., No. 3. pp41-167. Haslam, M. 2006 Potential misidentification of in situ archaeological tool-residues: starch and conidia. Journal of Archaeological Science 33(1):114-121. Horrocks, M. 2005 A combined procedure for recovering phytoliths and starch residues from soils, sedimentary deposits and similar materials. Journal of Archaeological Science 32(8):1169-1175. Horrocks, M., G. Irwin, M. Jones and D. Sutton 2004 Starch grains and xylem cells of sweet potato (Ipomoea batatas) and bracken (Pteridium esculentum) in archaeological deposits from northern New Zealand. Journal of Archaeological Science 31(3):251-258. Horrocks, M., M. D. Jones, R. E. Beever and D. G. Sutton 2002 Analysis of Plant Microfossils in Prehistoric Coprolites from Harataonga Bay, Great Barrier Island, New Zealand. Journal of the Royal Society of New Zealand 32(4):617- 628. Horrocks, M. and I. Lawlor 2006 Plant microfossil analysis of soils from Polynesian stonefields in South Auckland, New Zealand. Journal of Archaeological Science 33(2):200-217. Horrocks, M. and P. D. Nunn 2007 Evidence for introduced taro (Colocasia esculenta) and lesser yam (Dioscorea esculenta) in Lapita-era (c. 3050-2500 cal. yr BP) deposits from Bourewa, southwest Viti Levu Island, Fiji. Journal of Archaeological Science 34(5):739-748.

31 Horrocks, M. and M. I. Weisler 2006 A short note on starch and xylem of Colocasia esculenta (taro) in archaeological deposits from Pitcairn Island, southeast Polynesia. Journal of Archaeological Science 33(9):1189-1193. Houk, B. A., C. Frederick, L. I. Acuña, K. Kersey, and K. A. Miller 2006 Interim Report: Data Recovery at the Siren Site, 41WM1126, Williamson County, Texas. SWCA Environmental Consultants, Austin. Irwin, G. J., L. J. WIlliams, M. Horrocks, H. J. Hall, M. S. McGlone and S. L. Nichol 2004 Evidence for Diet, Parasites, Pollen, Phytoliths and Diatoms in Prehistoric Coprolites from Kohika. In Te Kohika: A Prehistoric Maori Lake Village, edited by Irwin, pp. 217- 239. Kavanagh, T. W. (ed) 2008 Comanche Ethnography: Field Notes of E. Adamson Hoebel, Waldo R. Wedel, Gustav G. Carlson, and Robert H. Lowie. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln. In cooperation with the American Indian Studies Research Institute, Indiana University, Bloomington. Kennedy, M. J. 1955 Culture contact and acculturation of the Southwestern Pomo. Unpublished master’s thesis, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley. Latta, F. F. 1949 Handbook of Yokuts Indians. Bear State Books. Oildale, California. Lentfer, C., M. Therin and R. Torrence 2002 Starch Grains and Environmental Reconstruction: a Modern Test Case from West New Britain, Papua New Guinea. Journal of Archaeological Science 29(7):687-698. Loy, T. H., M. Spriggs, S. Wickler 1992 Direct Evidence for Human Use of Plants 28,000 Years Ago: Starch Residues on Stone Artefacts from the Northern Solomon Islands. Antiquity 66: 898-912. Loy, T. 2006 Optical Properties of Potential Look-Alikes. In Ancient Starch Research, edited by R. Torrence and H. Barton. Left Coast Press, Walnut Creek, California. Moerman, D. E. 1998 Native American Ethnobotany. Timber Press. Portland. Newcomb, Jr., W. W. 2001 Wichita. In Handbook of North American Indians. Vol 13. Plains. Part 1. Pp. 548-566. Edited by Raymond J. DeMallie. General editor., William C. Sturtevant. Smithsonian Institution, Washington. Opler, M. E. 2001 Lipan Apache. In Handbook of North American Indians. Vol 13. Plains. Part 2. Pp. 941- 952. Edited by Raymond J. DeMallie. General editor., William C. Sturtevant. Smithsonian Institution, Washington.

32 Pearsall, D. M., K. Chandler-Ezell and J. A. Zeidler 2004 Maize in ancient Ecuador: results of residue analysis of stone tools from the Real Alto site. Journal of Archaeological Science 31(4):423-442. Perry, L. 2004a Starch analyses reveal the relationship between tool type and function: an example from the Orinoco valley of Venezuela. Journal of Archaeological Science 31(8):1069-1081. 2004b Starch analyses reveal the relationship between tool type and function: an example from the Orinoco valley of Venezuela. Journal of Archaeological Science 3 1(8):1069. 2005 Reassessing the traditional interpretation of "manioc" artifacts in the Orinoco valley of Venezuela. Latin American antiquity : a journal of the Society for American Archaeology 16(4):409-426. 2008 Appendix F, Starch Analyses from the BLM Landis Site: A Pilot Study. In Final I nterim Report: Phase I of the Data Recovery at Three Prehistoric Sites (41PT185, 41PT186, and 41PT245) Located within the Landis Property in Potter County, Texas, by: J. M. Quigg, C. D.Frederick and K. G. Luedecke, pp.174–192. TRC Environment Report 1508323, Austin Perry, L., R. Dickau, S. Zarrillo, I. Hotst, D. M. Pearsall, D. R. Piperno, M. J. Berman, R. G. Cooke, K. Rademaker, A. J. Ranere, J. S. Raymond, D. H. Sandweiss, F. Scaramelli, K. Tarble and J. A. Zeidler 2007 Starch Fossils and the Domestication and Dispersal of Chili Peppers (Capsicum spp. 1.) in the Americas. Science 315(5814):986. Piperno, D. R. 1998 The presence of starch grains on prehistoric stone tools from the humid neotropics: indications of early tuber use and agriculture in Panama. Journal of Archaeological Science 25(8):765-776. Piperno, D. R. and I. Holst 1998 The Presence of Starch Grains on Prehistoric Stone Tools from the Humid Neotropics: Indications of Early Tuber Use and Agriculture in Panama. Journal of Archaeological Science 25(8):765-776. Piperno, D. R., E. Weiss, I. Holst and D. Nadel 2004 Processing of wild cereal grains in the Upper Palaeolithic revealed by starch grain analysis. Nature 430(7000):670. Rogers, J. D., and G. Sabo III 2004 Caddo. In Handbook of North American Indians. Vol 14. Southeast. Pp. 616-631. Edited by Raymond D. Fogelson. General editor., William C. Sturtevant. Smithsonian Institution, Washington. Shibutani, A. 2008 Starch Residues on Stone Tools from the Tachikiri, Kakuriyama, Soujiyama and Okunonita Sites. Cultura Antiqua (Japanese). 60(1): 130-140.

33 Smith, C. S., W. Martin and K. A. Johansen 2001 Sego Lilies and Prehistoric Foragers: Return Rates, Pit Ovens, and Carbohydrates. Journal of Archaeological Science 28(2):169-183. Spier, L. 1930 Klamath ethnography. University of California Press. Berkeley, California. Torrence, R., and H. Barton 2006 Ancient Starch Research. Left Coast Press, Walnut Creek, California. Treganza, A. E., C. E. Smith, W. D. Weymouth 1950 An archaeological survey of the Yuki area. University of California Press. Berkeley. Ugent, D., S. Pozorski and T. Pozorski 1981 Prehistoric Remains of the Sweet Potato from the Casma Valley of Peru. Phytologia 49:401-415. 1982 Archaeological Potato Tuber Remains from the Casma Valley of Peru. Economic Botany 36(2):182-192. 1984 New Evidence for Ancient Cultivation of Canna edulis in Peru. Economic Botany 38:417-432. Zarrillo, S. and B. Kooyman 2006 Evidence for Berry and Maize Processing on the Canadian Plains from Starch Grain Analysis. American Antiquity 71(3):473-499.